The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0580.093" . NDve~~r 10, 199~ HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Pale Alto, California 77-ACRE ARASTRADERO PRESERyE MAP CHANGE ANP ZONE C'dANCE Members of the Ccuncil: RE=rJN BRIEF " "- This report forwards to Council an application for a Compreheneive Plan land use designation change and a Zone Map Amendment for the 77-acre parcel of land on the north side of Arastradero Road opposite the ~ain portion of the Arastrad~ro Preserve. The land use designation is proposed to be changed from Open Space Controlled Development to Publicly-OWned Conservation Lands. The zone district is proposed to be changed from OS (Open Space} to PF(D} (~~lic Facilities with Site and Design Combining District) . Project information, hi8~ory and environmental assessment are contained in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated September 24. ~993. Planning Commission Action On September 29, 1993, th~ planning Commission. ~n a S to 1 vote, reco~~nded 3pproval of the change in land use des1gnation and the zone change. Commissioner Cassel opposed the change. She noted that the property is dedicated park land and, as such, can be used only for park purposes regardless of the zoning. Since sbe prefers less intrusive uses fer the property, CommiS6ioner Cassel reasoned that the OS zoning is less permissive than PF ~oning ~~d would~ therefore, limit uses to those more appropriate to open space. The majority of the commission supported the PF desigr~tion, since it affords flexibility tc the City and is the same deSignation used on all other dedicated parkland, Minutes of the Plarffiing Commission meeting are attached. CMR,580,93 b' , ,-, ," ~ " .. : "111 RECQMMENpATION Based on the findings and environmental assessment ·..,ith a finding of no significant impact that are contained in the September 24; 1993 Plan.."ling Commission staff report. staff and the Planning COfmnission recommend that the City Council adopt the attached resolution and ordinance. Respectfully submitted~ '1;, ,> M 'I.~/ Y'~~ 2. /~ ii%Jut/ :A~ J:-h?kf' /' AMES E. GILLILAND ~ anager Planning Projects ~11\,~ BERl".ARD .M. STROU"""'NY Assistant City Manager Attachments! Resolution Ordinance KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of PlamJ.ing and eom.on,mity Er:nriromr.ent Planning Commission Staff Repoz't dated September 24, 1993 Excerpt minutes cf September 2.9, 1993 Planning COmtl'.ission meeting cc: Herb Borock~ 2731 Byron Street; Palo Alto, CA 94306 CMR, 580,93 11/1.0/93 Page 2 ( RESOLUTION NO.~-=~~ RESOLUTION OF THE cowelL OF 7HE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE LA.'"ID CSE MAP OF 'THE PAL-O ALTO COMPREHENSIVE PIAN FOR CERTAIN PROPERTY KNOWN AS THE 77 ACRE ARASTRADERO fARCEL WHEREAS.. the Planning Commission after duly noticed public hearing held on Septerrber 29 1 ~993. has recommended that the City Council amend tne Palo AltO Comp~ehensivs Plan; and ~~. upon consideration of said recommendation after d.uly noticed public hearing, and 1.lpon review of the Negative DeclaratioL prepared for the project and all other relevant information. including statf reports, and all testimony, ~ritten and oral~ presented on the matter ~ che City Council desires to amecd said plan as hereinafter Bet forthj NOW, THSREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does RBSOL~~ as follows! SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare require amendments to the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2 hereof. SECTlQN 2. The City Council hereby amends the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by changing the land use desi.gna.tion of the 77 acre parcel at land all the north side of Ara.stradero :Road opposite tee main portioc of the Arastradero Preser~e from ~Open Space.~Controlled Developmp-nt· to -Publicly owned Conse~tion Land-, as shown on Exhibit -A-, attached hereto and incorporated her~in by reference. SBCUON 3. The City council hereby finds that this project will have DO significant environmental effect. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: 1 City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst~ City Attorney 2 APPRO"JED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment " r --... -~**,--.,..--- SITE lOCATION 77 AaesiArastradero Presen"E' PPOJECT;PROPCS[O CHANGE TO: . COM. PLA.N. DESIC;NATlON FROM OPEN SFlAC.e CO~TROLLED DEVELOPMENT 70 PUBLICLY OWNED CONSERVATIDN lA-NOS 2. ZONING FROM OS TO I'F(D) \ tIOP.TH op~rNANCE NO. ________ __ CRDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PAW ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18. as. 040 OF THE PALO A.LTO M"JN'IC· IPAL ceDB (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY mOim AS THE 77 ACRE ARASTRADERO PARCEL FRCM OS TO PP(D) WHE..Q.EAS, the Planning Commi9Bion~ after duly noticed public hearing held Sept.ember 29, 1993. has recommended that section 18.08.040 {the zoning Map 1 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and WHEREAS, the City C01..lIlcil, after due consideration of the reccmm'2ndations. f.inds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows, SECTION 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the ·ZOoing Map·, is hereby amended by chang-ing the zoning of certain property located on the north side of Arastradero Road opposite the main portion of the Arastradero Preserve .. known as the 77 Acre Parcel, from "OS iOpen Space)· to ·PF'DJ Public Facilities, Site and Design ComlJining.· Tbe subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit ·A· .. attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The Council finds that this project will not have a significant environmeDtal effect. SECTION 3-. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoptioD_ INTROI>U= , PASSED, AYES, NOES, ABSENT, ABSTENTIONS, 1 ATTEST, Cit:y Clerk: APPROVED 1'.5 TO FO!l)j, Senior Asst. City Attorney 2 APPRDVEJ) , Mayor City Manager Director of planni~g and Community Bnvironment , , .. SITE lOCATION 77 Acres/N2stradero Pr.re.serve PP.OJECT:PROPCS£D CHANGE TQ: ,. COM. Pl. ... N. DES;GNA.TION FROM OPEN SPACE COr-tTROi..LEO DEVELOPMENT TO ~UBUCI..Y OWNED CONSERVATION LANOS ZOMNG F"RCM OS TO PFCOJ • '. / b' r , I ~ . t t PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT DATE: September 24, 1993 TO: PALO ALTO PLANNING COMML'>SION PREPP..RED BY: James E. Gilliland REPORT IN BRIEF: 77-ACRE ARASIRADERO PRESERVE: Application for a Comprehensive Plan land use map change and • Zone Map amendmeru for the 77 -acre parcel of land on the north side of ArastHdero Road opposite the main portion of the Arastradero Pre<ierve, For this report the land will be referred to as the 77-acres. Tbe land use designation will be changed from Open Space Controlled Development to Publicly-owned Conservation Lands, Tbe zone distrkl wlU be changed from OS (Open Space) 10 PF(O) (Public Facililies with Sile and Design Combining DistricI). Enyjronmental Asses!i!!!e m ' No Signitkant impacts were detertnined 10 rerull from the project and a negative declaration has been prepared. Environmental Assessment 93- ElA-30 is an.rhM 10 this report. Any future proposals for physical changes or added uses on the site will require additional environmental assesm>l'DI at that time, Zone Djs!rict: OS (Open Space) File Nos.: 93-EL"-30, 93-CPA-4, 93-ZC-16 APPLICATIgN INFORMATION Applicant: Type of Application: City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A veDue Palo Alto, CA 943()1 (4iS) 329-2679 Comprebensive Plan Land Use Map Change Zone Map Amendment 09-24-93 I .... c-.,-_____ " ________ --.-- l I SITE INfORMATION Comprehensive Plan Designation: Existing Land Use: Surrounding Land U,.: Existing Zoning: Parcel Size: PROlF&T INFORMATION '" :-... ~c-,~, ... ;~~;..: ~. =-~----... -~~ ...• ~~.--.;...;.--' .. : -_ ............... City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, C A 9430 I Open Space Controlled Development Open Space North: Stanford University Open Space East: Single Family bomes South: Open space West: Open space OS (Open Space) 77-3cres Project Hlstoty: After discussion on July 27. 1992, the City Council on August 3. 1992 amended Chapter 22_08 of lhe Palo Alto Municipal Code and dedicaled as park lands the 77-acres_ On August 10, 1992, lhe City Council in • fotlow-up action refernd 10 !be Planning Ccmmission lhe following items: 1_ The initiation of a zone change for lhe 77 -&C re addition to lhe Araslradero Preserve from OS (Open Space Controlled Development) to PI'(D) (Public Facilities with S!te and Design Control) as well as related Land Use Map ch3nges: 2. The formulation of recommendations for appropriate types of uses for the 77- acre parcel within the context of existing City policy wi!lt respect to the low intensity ch:l.raeter of the park.; and 3 A description of the facilities or amenities. if any. that such uses would require. • 09-24-93 2 r , .!-. ~ ~ ~ . t "1 ANAL YSISI1SSYES ~ This report addresses only the change in land use designation and the zone change. For the foreseeable future the use of the land is anticipated to remain as is, i.e. open , space with minlmal casual use by hikers. No designated trails currenu), e,jst. Future Use of the 77-aeres will be evaluated as part of the Comprehensive Plan update. COMPREHENSNE PLAN COMPLIANCE The project is in compliance with Polic)' 4 of the Schools and Parks Element of the Comprehensive Pian. Policy 4 states: "Provide park sites of different sizes and types 10 respond to Ille needs of. diverse population, including park-like natural areas, linear trails, and creekside sysrem.> .• RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the Council adoption of the attar.hed environmeoW impact assessmenl with • finding of 00 significant impact and adoption of the resolution and ordinance. FINDINGS The Canprehensive Pian Land Use designation and Zone Map amendment are in the public imerest in order to retain the property as open space available 10 the citizens of the surrounding area and to ensure use of the property that is consistent with public ownership. The project will not have a signifiC3llt Impact on the environment in that any physical changes or added uses on the sile will be subject to further environmental assessment. Attachments: CoJ>i.,. Se", To: Environmental Impact Assessment R:esehtbSB eal" apee 1.9eaQ8& ).f.ap Bill Felhruln. Real Estate Division 09-24-93 3 t t , 1 / / t ENV[RONMENTAl AS5ESS~,[NT location/Address: 1500 block on north S1 de of Arastraderg RQad Sponsor; ng Agency / ","p 1 i cant: "C.c1 t",v,--"oo.f-,P'-",-!l"o-,A:c',-" t"o'-_____ _ Mdress and Tel eph",e of ","p 1 i cant: Pl anni no Depa rtment 250 Ham,lto" Ayenue Palo Alto CA 943QI [415\ 329-2679 Apphcation for: r h n ;ve Pl n I an is M 0 Mlen n nd Zan hen e (e.g .. zoning change. su division of property. architecti.Jral review. use permit) Zoning at Project Location: --'0$""-__ _ Fee Reeei pt No.: NOTICE OF PETERMlflATlON Based upcn review of the project files. the undersigned member of the Planning Dep. rtment has cOIlc1 uded: [I Negative DeclaratiM: The project has no significant er.viroonental i"l'act. No EnvirQf11l€{lt.l Impact Repert is reQuired. The reasons for a Negative DeclaratiOi'1 are: contained in the attached Init1 al ~t'iO'f A record pf the prolect acti~ ;5 availabie for review at the Palo Alto Department of Planning 2nd\¢omr~nity fnv1ronrnent between the hours of 8'00 AM to 17:00 noon and 1:00 PH to 5:00 PM Monday through Friday lQCated on the 5th f19Qr Civic~e~ter Byi1ginc at 250 HamlJton Av~nue, Palo Alto. F;i~ Nos 93-CPA-4 93-EIA-3Q 3-ZC-16. An Planning Department Official: Pl anni ng Di rector: ,:,-xo/..21&~~'1f.~",:;;:~:c,,!d~_ The project has been approved. The project has been denied. Date: ,,!tIff Date: Date: File No ; -.2il",[ A",,-3",-0 __ # s· 9.3-£1..\-)0 .... ' "' ... The change in 1and use des gnatio:"1 and lOrfi ng wi 1 i :'lOt have a phY5i cal irTI.pact on the property. nor w111 t result in ar.y -change H1 t~le CJrrent :.:se of thE property. This site has h stcricdlly been used as open space end as an adjunct to the Arastradero Preserve. The change in the cOrJ1prehen~'lve plan designation and Zone change ~1 n ensure the corltl n:.Jea' use of the property for such open space purposes, The Arastradero Preserve and the 77-acr-e slte are ifi tne high afid moderate SeiS"'C ris< lOfies of Palo Alto ano wDelle be subject to very strong ground shaking in the e .... ent of a major earthquake on tne San Andreas Fault. At this time no i~rm'€ir.ents to the site are contem.ploted. My .such changes in the future wil, requlie further environmental assessment. 9]·EIJt·3Q ,.,., , ,- -- 0:-::·;,~i~,.c-· ~,-? EXCERPT minutes of the Palo Alto Plann1na Commission meeti~9 ~f Septembe~ 29, 1993 AGENDA ITEM 3 ARASTRAPERO PR£SERV' 71-ACRE PARCEL: Applic.tion for {lJ a Comprehensive Pl," Map AloenOient to change the correspo"df~9 land use d!s,;nation from Open Space Controlled Dev~lopment to Publ1cly OWnEd Conservation lands, and (2) a zone change frOG OS (Open Space) to PF,DJ (Public Facilities with Sit~ and Design Review Combining [1;strtc:t). Environmental Assessment: A n2gative declaration has been prepared. File NOS4 93-CPA-4, 93-ZC-16, 93-E1A-30_ Cnjjrner~2n Schmidt: Are there any staff comments 00 this ~tern? Ms. lytle: This is iP application for a Compr&hensive Plan amendment and zone change to the Open Space (OS) distri.t and a PF(D) Public facilities Sjte and DeSign Combining d;strict~ Which was directed by the CounciT when t~ey park~dedicated this piece of property. Staff is now~ one YEa~ 1at~r. werking toward thelr dir!ct;ve. Chairperson Schmidt: Are there qu!stions from the commission? Commissfcn!T Carrasc?: What ~as the i"t~nt here. in the analysis on Page 3, that -Future use of the 77 acres will be evaluated as part of the CGFprenensive Plan update"? Would we have to changp. our zonir.g if something happens in the Comprehensive Plan update from what you are recommendin9 ~ere? Ms. lytle: All uses within the city will be reevaluated as ~art of the (~rehensive Plan update. Should the community d~cide that this land use designation is inapprapriate~ they can mate that recommendation to the 09/Z9/93 -]4- lV Council. Th~re is a park dedicati~n on this piece of property. SO it dQ~s llmit it!5 pot.ential options to a vote of two-thirds of the cOlilmunity, (orrrr.issioner Ojakian: ISr!"t really what you arE saying there is, the Council directive is back to us ~ith thre~ different pOints th~y want us to loak at. In fact, what ~e ~re dOing is just looking at Point #l~ and Points land 3, which talk ab~ut the iJSeS, and maybe the facilities and am~nities for those uses. Yow ere saying we should wait a~d let the Comprehensive Plan update look at those. Isn't that what that sentence really means? M.$. lytie: Ves, that is correct. You can cantin!..:e to C!)(plore ""hat types of parx ~se wou1d be appropriate for those 77 acres, as we do our a~alysis of park uses in the community through the Comprehensive Plan process. Cmjssion2r Ojakian: r have another questiQn. What parks do 'lie ha .... e in PalG Alto that do not have this PF zone? 1n ~tr.er ~ords, because now this piece of property is dedicated to ce a park, isn't Tt sort of a natural precess to make it a PF zone, that it cannCit be designated something else? M~_ lytle: Off the top of my head, I cannot answer your question, but believe there are portions of the ~aylands that ~re considered as parks that are not PF·designated. I could get the zone map and answar tnat if yo~ want to hold the public hearing and have an answer later. tommifsloner Ojikia~: [will (hange the question a little. has a re~dy dedicated this as pa~k la~ds. The COl.Jn( 11 ~s. lytle: Correct. Commissioner Ojakian: cannot stay as it is. only change is to make ~s. Lytle: Correct. ~at that "~ans to me is that the It ha. to be changed. The li'ely it PF. ls that correct? current Zonl1"l9 change and al~st M$. Ca~e: It is not totally correct, because there is no absolute requirement that there be a specific zone for a park, but it certainly woyld be cor.siste~t with virtually everyt~ing. if not everything, that nas gone on previously. ~ommissiDner Ojakian: As r said to someone eise before~ this strikes me as a fun~y process we are going through. It is almost a foregone conclUSion that we have to make it PF. So why is the Planning C~mG;ssion even getting iI project like tMs? Why is tr,e law deslgnated ~uch that we would even look at this? Hs~ Case; It requires a legislative act to rezone property. You are a part of tha.t proce~s. Commissioner 01akian: But ~e really do n~t have too many other options? do we? Ms. Case: If you want to make a statement that you think it should be something else tn the long term, certainly that is within your purview. 09/29/93 -15- .... o· , ~. , r f. • " .. : " .' Commi~sioner Beecham: It is pap~rwork. 1 believe . COmmissioner Oiakian: Maybe that is what I a~ trying to get at, Bern, !.tre-aml1ning some of His. Thank you. '~,; COmmissioner Cassel: I was ~~rious along the ~ame line. The same thing hit me that i5 I'1itting Vic. This is ope!; space hnd, and it is dedicated as & park, and you can have a par~ in open space land, and that act~a11y would restr~ct the city's use of it more severfly than jf it were changed tc Public Facility. Sa we are just doing a perfunctory thing~ just automatically changing these parks to P~blic Facility, because the combining district p~rt of it is automatically in the OS district anyway. Ms. lytle: It is being viewed i5 a perfunctory action. £ommissjoner Carrasco: The reason why J brought this up is, just looking It the issue of a park in tnat location~ it ~~ems t~ me that it ;s a b(Jffer between Los Altos HJJls and the rntensive development that they nave on Arastradero Road and Foothill Expressway. It seems to me that from a 1ocatiof'. p~int of view, it benefits thE!: cOrrrTIunity of Los Altos Hills, which really does not USE that area as a park. While our city parks need a tremendous amount of capital improvement, and we could even use additional city parks, it might be advisahle for the Comprehensive Plan comAittee to look at what kind of revenue we ~ight be ab1e to get from that piece of property if it were sold~ witt", that re'~eMue going to ca.pital improvements in our existing parks that really despuately need cap1tal impro~eaents. J am not talking only about mlintenance. So I would sL1ggest that we leave this qUEstior, sOrflewhat open, not deSignating it from a zoning aspect) but study it Dr refer to tPAC, Dr tell the City Council tnat we are gOing to refer it to (PAC to leol at this iss~e where we Cl~ use s~~e ~ney for parks inside ou~ ,ommunity ~icn would be used more intenSively. There are hundreds of people using parks in more appropriate 10catjclMs witMn our III_ore popu1ated areas., rather th3!n this open space benefitt1ng los Altos Hil15~ Tnat is where I a~ coming from, but I do not know the mechani(s of how we would do t~at. I talked with Sue Cas€ a little bit, and she suggested that I make a statement a~ut tilis or make lt .a motioM, iSking HIe tHy Councn to stlJdy this issue a little furth~r before we zone it in the direction we are zoning it. So after listening to my cGllea9u~s, J wou1d ~k.e a motion to do that if you think that might be a gooo direction in whic~1 to go.. Chairpers~n Schmidt: Is there a staff comment on this statement? M$, lyt1e: Yes. J think if you loo~ at the difference between the OS distrlct and the PF district. the PF dlstrict is going t~ give the city 1 lot more flexioil it,)' in t~e futllre wah what they do with that 1 and. 'fCiU could have a park-dedi(at~ piece of property that is zoned Open Space, as it 1S now, but you wiil have much less flexibilit,)' Qr. the intensity of use there, because the Open Space district illows for recreational uses, but 1t rloes not allow for much more tnan that~ in terms of park u~e. The PF would give you a wide range of uses on that property. So that is what J feel the fundamentil zoning issue is. What I belfeve Tony is getting at is, leaving your options more flexible. PF may actually give you more fl!x;bjlity in the long run than OS does. as is more of a c.onservation zone. rf you were gOing to have it developed for park use under OS, it 09/29/93 -16- ,,_ n ____ -. "'--' _____ _ , would ha\le to ~lmost be passive park use, as we define "'passive use." You· wou1~ not have a 10t of PQSsibjltties for facility de~e'opment. With PF, you CQu1d h3ye mQre facility de~elo?ment. Ms. Ca5e~ The one thing that PF does is to designate t~e property ciear1,)' as a publ" 1and. If ycu~ intent i~ that you don't thin~ it should b~ pubiidy owned land at some pOint. then that liouid be the reason you wou1d not vote for PF. "Publ ie" denotes that it is a public bod ...... typica1i,)'. ~j'itslgner ScMn ... : f\s Sel"rl !!',entioned, ! think. this. ~s pilpH~cri:.. It .. s. not approprilte for us to go bi(k and revisit the iss~e. The decisionmak2rs have clearly enunciat!d their desire to se~ this is park 1and, and ~e just n~ed to c1ear this up, so 1 p~ef~~ that we get D~ with it and take an action. C~~irpersQ~ Schmidt: let us cantinu~ ~ith Questions for staff, and ho1d the dlscussion until later. C~mmf!sioner Beecham; I think this is w"at has been said, but 1 want to cial"ify for myse1f that the existing zoning of Open Space contY"Q)led development is i~consj5tent with the park designation. Is that c~rrect? Ms. k2se; It is not n!eessarily inconsistent. It suggests that all of the properties that are owned by the city have g~n~ril1y been zcned PF. T~at in~ludes p~rks. I would not say that 0$ is incompatible with parks. Commissioner Beecham: For a park de~i9nat1on ~ersus open space contro11ed development which would allow controlled deve]op:r.ent and' sale af tne property -- Ms. (ait: In this Clse, because there is ~ (harter req~irement that somewhat Dyer-controls, the 10ning ii not as much of a controlling element as the park undedication require~nt. COr:tl'iissioner Beecham; So the c.urrent designation as iii: park prohibits the city frOD any kind of dfvelopment there, unless ve change it. Ms. Case: Any that is i~consistent with park use, corr~ct. CQ~nissioner 8~echam: Thank you. Chairperson Schmidt: 1 wi.ll now open t~e publ1.: hearing. Herb Sorock. 273] Byron Street .. Palo Alto: ) would first like to offer ~y congratulations to ~athy Schmidt lnd Vic Ojakian on thelr elect,cn as Chair and Vice-Cniir of tee commissior.. J was at first gaing to wish you that all issues would be as simple as this one, and I am surprised ~bout how ~,h d15cussion there has been on it already. let .e first say that r supp~rt the staff reco~ndation to rfzone the parcel to Public Facility ~ith i Site and Design suffix. The reason that the site: and design is needed is so that there is carried forward on the parcel tne same site and design review that is required on all parcels that are zoned OS. 1t is currently zoned OS and requires site and design re.'ew, and tnat i. why it is PF(D), rather than just PF. 09/29/93 -11- .c' ____ ....... - ! J / ,.,.-.' As staff noted, t~is (omes to you a year after the CouncTI djrected staff to bTirl this bef('lTt the P1a"nin~ ComiSsiLln. As more than ME cC!m'Iissioner has mentioned. there were two other item:s In Ue tit), COt:1'!cil dirEctive. I am disappointed that there is an indication t··t t~is is go~n9 to be delayed unUl the Compret,ensi .... e Plan revision r ~e.~s is completed. I thought that tne dlscus510n {In the US2S, basec upon past Council ~o1icy on the A1"'ast:-adero Preserve for a lO .... 4int!nsity. 10"'-C05t use of the preserve, would be simp1y making a decision 0,1 what Jj:inds of trails there should be for what t~nds of USES, e.g., should the 77 acres be for nikers lind/or bicycl ists end/or equestrians'? That would be a 'Iery simple thtn9 to do. r think it is important to act on tnat expeditiously so tnat if, is a result of the Comprehe~sive Plan review process, proposa1s come before the city to Change th~ use of t~ls property. for example l to s:ell it or Tease tt for some purpose. the public. ltiill have had ~~ opportunity to use the property. Then there ~i'l be ~ level playing fieTd to deci~e ~hether or not it ;s an appropriate thing to undedlcate it a~d sell it for s'Ome Dtner purpose. So 1 hope that when thls item comes before the Council, they will t~ke note of the fact that those other twc items have not been acted upon, and clarify how soon they want ~taff and the Planning Commission to act on those other tw~ items. Secondly, I ~uld Tike to bring tD y~ur attention the issue of the adjOining parcel, the Sta,.,fc;rd-owned parc.el to the wesL which h Pl anned Community Zone 194J, the former Powers lab site. The Pl~nn~d Community zone designation hiS essentially lapsed at that site, as has the former use permit for tnat site. r w~te a letter to the Council list DQnth~ fndicating that it fs appropriate at this time to bring fo~~ard i lone change for t~at parcel to OS, Open Space Contrelled Oevelopment~ which is conSistent .itn t~e other properties in the area, is well as past positions taken by the Committee for Gr~en Foothills, and also staff memos in the past on that parcel. r wo~ld hope that the (Guneil or the c~ission or staff, since any Dne of you can initiate that process, will do that expeditiously. Once that parcel is zoned OS. r would be less concerned a~ut how rapidly staff moves on the use of the 77 acres~ although I still think it would be i good idea to imp1ement those two directives from staff ind the 77 acres, as well. Sa 1 am glad that thfs ha~ fin~lly come before jOU .nd is coming before the City Council so that this final part of th-e pro_ce'iS Dn the 77 acres will be completed. That is why I supp~rt the staff r€cnmmendation. As for the questlons that have bEen raised on the cOlm'lissicn. the (ity Council has spent years discussing t~ose verj issues prior to the ti~~ they made tl'H! deCision to park-dedicate this paree1. IrIhile it is true that the C.omprehensive Plarl process opens LIP everything, as yotl heard in your djsc~ssion with t~e City C~uncil earlier this evening in the next room, some people hope that there is some sort of stability so that it is not necessary for the public to keep coming back on every issue. I jU5t hDpe thit when a decision is made, the comm~nity a~cepts that decision and mOves on to other ;ssue~. Thank you. Chairperson Schmidt: Seeing no other speakers, I will cTose the public portion of the hearing and bri n9 it back. to the comrni s.s ion, Who ~ould like to pro(eed with the discussion? .... ". "- 09/29/93 -J 8- -'-----~-- .. !!Q..Ililli: Conmio:signer Ojakian; J would like to make a moti.on that ... e accept the staff recorrmendations and flndir1gs as ,provided to i,:S in the staff rfJport'. ~: By Commissioner Schink_ k.halroerspn Schmidt: :5 then~ a~i' di"Scussion? COlTlTlissioner (asseT: 1 suspe-::t this will go Yer,Y fast? but I arc going to 'o'Ot'!! against it. The reasOjj si'1'lply ~s that this is park.-dedicated land. so either '-ay the zoning -ga~s. ""hether it remains or changes. it is going to stay as a park, I would iike to see the l!ss intensive uses. unle~s Some-Me e1se proposes other liStS and .... e see th'!m before t:S. I think the OS zoning, as 1 read the zoning ordinanc.e today. indicate~ thit it i'Jould keep it as a less intensive use at tnis time. Co~~issfoner BeeLham: I wondered if staff could clarify the puinl rais~d by Commissioner Cassel. Ms. lvtle: i have b~en able to confirm that it is true that our paTks all appear to be consistently dedic.ated ir, tne PF zone. Those that ar~ in er.vironlller',tall), sEns-it1ve areas have ttJe 0 overl ay adjar:eilt to them. That includes areas that life have maintained in passive re-:re.ation. Foothills Fark, the Baylands Presene, ali aTe in PF{O}, so it would be consistent ~ith your actions to go with the PF d!signation. There are maps fro~ both o~r co~puter-generated GJF land use map, as welT as a manual map. of all the park fac;lities in tne community on the side wall, Commjssigner Q1a~ian: I want to comment on this whole questiDn of usage. I ippreci.ate ~~t Mr. Borack said as tne sole speaker on this issue. In the sense tnat we ope~ up everything 1n thp. Comprehensf~e Plan process, ] t'ould not interpret that to mean that we are necessarily tearing dowr, everything that we did before. In fact, I think there is an opportunity, in that process, for ws to take a look, and determine the types of uses we want to have for this park. So r see it a little more positlveTy and proactivsly, and I nope that ~r. Borock and anyone else who is out there listening and fs interested in t~1s issue does do that. Use the opp~rtun1ty that is in front of them. Oth€r than that, whet~er this is paperwork or not, I thtnk that ma~;ng it PF and moving ahead a~d trying to determine what sort cf park we do ~ave there is an important thing to de. So 1 am supportive of what the prior decisionmakers ha .... e done in thh situatl0n~ MOTION PASS[S: Chairperson Sc~mi41: Is there an), further discussion on t~is motion? ~eeing none~ the motion is to accept the staff recommendati~n that the Planning CommiSSion recommend t~ the City CounCil adoption of the attached environmental impact assessment with ~ finding of no signiflcant impact a~d adoption of the rfsoTution and ordinance. All tnose Tn favor, s;y AYe? A1l opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-1, with Commissjoner Cass~l voting no and Commissioner Glazler absent. Ms. Lytle: This will g~ forward to the Council on October 1Bth. --,----