Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-20 City Council Summary Minutes5 7 5 4 5 7 6 6 5 7 5 9 5 7 6 3. 5 7 6 7 CITY COUNCIL MMES. Regul ar meeting May 20, 1985 CITY C) Mt() ALTO ITEM PAGE Oral Communications •5 7 4 6 Item #1, Presentation by Stanford University 5 7 4 6 ©fficlal s Consent Calendar 5 7 5 3 Referral 5 7 5 3 5 7 5 3. Item #1-A, 1985-86 Budget Referral to Finance and Pubi ic. Works Committee Action Item #2, San Antonio Area Moratorium Extension item #3, Public Works Inspection Services Item #4, Re:inforced Fabric Pavement Item # 5 , Second Lease Amendment - Palo Alto Go l f. Course Coffee Shop - Hazards, Inc. 5 7 5 3 5 7 5 3 5 7 5 4 5 7 5 4 5 7 5 4 Item #6, Foothill s Park Erosion Control Project 5 7 5 4 Phase II - Authorization for Change Order Item #7, PUBLIC HEARING.: Park Soul evard Underground Utilltie.s Assessment District No, 28 Item #8, PUBLIC HEARING: Manning Commission Recommendation re Appl ication of Sandis and Associates, Inc. for Tentative Subdivision Map at 3120 Stockton Place (Former Oe An za School Site) Item #9, Smoking OrdinanceAmendments RECESS Item #10, Ico Skating Resolution Undedicating Part of Golf Course and Embarcadero Road and Proposed Ballot Measure for Exchange of Land ADJOURNMENT: 12,50 a.m.. Regular Meeting May 20, 1985 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:36 p.m.), Cobb (arrived at 7:48 p.m.) , .Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Alison Cherry Marer, 910 Matadero Avenue, was concerned about the ultimate use of the Gunn High School property. She under- stood the Council and School District would consider the fu- ture use of the property and she presented a petition signed by 227 Barron Park residents (which is on file in the City Clerk's office). The petition stated opposition to any use of the property substantially different in its impact on the. signers' neighborhoods than its current use as a public secondary school. The campus, combined with Bol Park and the regional bike path, formed a naturalized open space system of incalculable value to the City and the surrounding neighbor- hoods. Current use of the area created a buffer for neighbor- hoods already threatened by air, noise, creek and ground water pollution from the Stanford Industrial Park. Extension play- ing fields, tennis court, pool, and other outdoor recreational facilities must remain in public hands. ITEM #1, PRESENTATION BY STANFORD UNIVERSITY OFFICIALS (PLA 10) Mayor Levy said from time to time during the year members of the Stanford University community addressed the City Council to keep the apprised of the goings on at . Stanford and how they might affect and interact with the City. Mayor Levy .welcomed Phil Williams, Director of Planning at Stanford University and Andy Doty, Director of Community Relations at Stanford University. Phil Williams, Director of Planning, said in 1981, Stanford made a presentation of its 1980 Land Use Plan and subsequently Council received packet materials describing plans for the 86• -acre parcel along Sand Hill Road, formerly Willow Road. Stanford also worked with staff on updating the County 19E2 use permit to bring it into conformance with Stanford's 1980 Land Use Plan, Palo Alto's Com- prehensive Plan, and the County General Plan. That evening he would discuss the joint planning being done with the City for the Willow Corridor in response to some of the. conditions placed on the approval of Sand Hill Road; report on the status of Stanford's application for their revised use permit with the County; and dis- cuss some new "planning Stanford was doing for its "Near West Campus Area." He . presented slides as background. A joint group of Stanford staff and Palo Alto staff met regularly to pursue the joint planning of the Willow Corridor. One of the first things they were dealing with on campus was. the 86 -acre parcel they referred to as "West. Campus." Since the General Plan -was present- ed and became part of the Council's packet material, Stanford pur- sued a more detailed refinement of the study. The basic concept was that it was of such size it could be developed like Stanford's quadrangle with some significant open space. A diagram showed how various academic areas might be clustered around a ` significant open' space. Stanford also pursued Litt i na rastructure of the area ih tens of utility systems, drainage structures, and roads • In the support service area itself', Stanford hoped to make an improvement over the motley collection of storage facilities for some of their scienc_ a areas= : and some temporary storage for; con- struction projects. Stanford.. developed a more detailed plan- for that area which laid out the area into a more public. And visitor oriented area for office space in the support sorv.icos and for warehousing, shops, and support activities of that kind when they became necessary. Stanford was pursuing in more conventional de- tail a land use plan for the 86 -acre parcel . . Stanford was also involved in the medical center area and was carefully analyzing the specific uses of each of the building components of that area and the future ones to come up with a rational zoning diagram as a guide for Stanford's future development. The general zoning study resulted in seeking recommendations for. various facilities, in- cluding a new medical center office building, the center for the study of molecular and genetic sciences, the Hospital Moderniza- tion Program, and the relocation of Children's Hospital. Stanford developed a parking plan which accompanied each potential building project with a specific plan fo.r accommodating the parking gener- ated by the program. As the specific nature of the program for each project became apparent, the parking plan was done such that it could be modified to maintain the balance between the demand and supply of parking spaces. In the remainder of the Willow Cor- ridor were the land uses within the City of Palo Alto like Welch Road, the Shopping Center, etc., over which the City currently had control. Stanford and City staff were working together to come up with more definitive idea about the nature of Stanford's plans and how the City's response to those plans would be affected. Regard- ing the revised County use permit which dealt with the area of Stanford lands in unincorporated Santa Clara County, some of which were in the Willow Corridor, Stanfordhad intended to get the per- mit through the Environmental Impact Report process, public re- views, and approval process by June, 1985, but the schedule was delayed because when Stanford got into the nitty gritty of pro- jecting its population growth over the period to the year 2000, it struggled with how to do the best guessing on that growth. Although the numbers only ranged in the neighborhood of 500 or 600 people, Stanford wanted to ensure a consistent base for projection into the future upon which to base the EIR. Stanford completed those projections and submitted the information to its environ- mental impact consultant. In round numbers, starting with a base daytime population of 25,800 counting all students, faculty, employees, hospital patients, and visitors, the growth to the year 2000 was on the order of 2,000 people, or less than eight percent total growth in that period from the 1982-83 base to the year 2000. Considering all the other visitors at the campus, the base grew from 27,800 to around 30,000 or by 2,700 people. They were not talking about a large population growth en: the campus, al- though they were talking about a considerable amount of building development to improve the quality of the space for -their. scien- tists, academicians and to relieve overcrowding. Another factor being considered in the use permit was the density of building development. For that purpose, Stanford prepared a table which tabulated the densities of each district outlined on the campus and dozens of districts were outlined, which provided an indica- tion of the present densities for different areas of land use des- ignations such as instruction, research, medium density, high den- sity, low density, student housing, support services, physical education, athletics, etc. Stanford projected densities for those areas so there was now a quantified description: of what was intended by a land use designation, as well as a verbal descrip- tion, which information was also furnished to Stanford's EIR con- sultant for his use in studying the impacts of potential develop- ment. `there would be an ability to balance the impacts of build- ing development in certain areas and traffic it might draw end, the impacts of population growth in those areas and housing require, plaints it might incur,, although there ; was . not the kind of direct correlation between building development and population growth normally' expected in development on a lot by lot basis in a city environment. It was a case of studying the specific effects in certain areas. The changes #_ n the specific areas' compared to- the cumulative impacts over the entire campus as some of the new development: was new growth` and most was the transfer„ of people from one area to another. Regarding the concerns :expressed during the Willow Road hearings about Palo Alto's interest in having a voice in the development on the west side of the campus or along the Willow Corridor, Stanford included in the use permit the con- cept of a threshold agreement. Stanford described thresholds of population growth and building development for each of the areas designated in the plan and requested that as a condition of the use permit, it accommodate only growth up to those thresholds as a permitted use so that if the growth in any of those areas crossed the threshold of either population growth or building density, it would require an additional use permit which gave the City an additional voice it how those things were done. As a part of the process, Stanford was preparing _ an updated agreement which attempted to consolidate the ten -year -old City services zone agreement plus the various agreed procedures to process project approvals, etc. since then into one easily understandable package in order to have a fresh starting point in that regard and the conditions of the consolidated agreement would become part of the use permit. Stanford virtually completed an improved method of. handling traffic mitigations generated by projects by arriving at an agreement with City staff and the County to implement mitiga- tions described for certain impacts when those impacts were measured and actually occurred rather than going through a cumber- some project building by building and guessing what those impacts might be and building mitigations ahead of when actually needed. Stanford believed it would streamline the process. The use permit would be a thorough document on which toform the basis of under- standing of what the other was doing. All data for the EIR was furnished to the consultant, and the administrative draft was scheduled to be in Stanford's and City staff's hands by the end of May. The draft EIR should be completed by the beginning of July or the beginning of the public review process which would go through the middle of August: and the final EIR was scheduled for completion by the end of September so that County action could take place during the first half of October. The density studies for Stanford essentially began at the high density for medium and high • density instruction at the same floor area ratio as the City's public facilities zone. Stanford seemed to be relatively compatible for the same types of uses and the other uses wert down in density to .2 floor area ratio for a low den ty academic use and .5 for support service. He believed Stanford's projections were in the ball park. Stanford planned an "Urban Renewal Proj- ect," on the west side of the quadrangle in the area of high science and engineering uses. The science and engineering area of the quadrangle was rapidly developed after World War II in small increments largely in temporary buildings as .the research :and electronics fields grew. In that area, Stanford; spoke about a region it called the "near west campus,* which divided into the south and north sides of Serra Street. The area was heavy duty research, but Stanford was not proud of that environment because of the way it was developed. It was generally of a low density, there was some heavy duty equipment requirements, a storage yard, service area, the buildings were low and covered much of the ground, and the circulation was inadequate. Rather than spread out beyond the area and create new •facilities, i t was important to Stanford to do an urban redevelopment within the area so that the scientists might remain in close contact with each other and did not lose contact with the humanists on the quad. In order that academic relations might be. maximized, Stanford wanted to improve both the quantity and quality of space in the area, be flexible for future growth, and _ create a humane and attractive environment and sake a significant architectural statement abou. t the way science and engineering Was and should be at Stanford. It wanted to provide effective and safe services; and wanted to consider it as an urban '`renewal or redevelopment project where it began the plan with - the idea ` that as much ground as possible might be cleared of obsolete structures in order to allow maximum flexibil- ity to provide well for the future. Stanford had . about 350,000 square feet that would either be demolished and replaced, or _ in the case of an old , hea1stry building, renovated. About 300,000 square feet would be replaced. .*Stanforad needed. about 420,000. Hold As Corrected 7/01/85 f 1 square feet to replace the obsolete and overcrowded science facil- ities and make the space decent for people to work in. From a base of about 780,000 square feet, Stanford needed to grow to about 1,200,000 square feet over a 10 to 15 -year period dependent upon the success of fund raising. The fund raising was in the neighborhood of $250 million so it was not likely to come all at once. By thinking of the site as a redevelopment or urban renewal area, Stanford could think more boldly about revising circulation systems, linking buildings to each other on the second or third level so that service circulation could occir on the street, and in terms of how facilities needed to relate to one another. Stanford was beginning to investigate alternative arrangements of open space and building space in order to meet various academic affinities and service requirements and to provide places of com- mon activity where faculty could go together and think outside on the land and to accomplish any number of academic objectives. Stanford planned for about a year just to get to a point where it knew i t. had a project to launch. It had a central team of a dozen people who met weekly to try and develop the academic program and the physical objectives, and a group of a dozen faculty who con- sulted on a brainstorming basis as well as seeking academic pro- gram information from department chairmen and faculty in the nor- mal fashion. Stanford knew it was a 41 -acre project, and it was bold in scope but necessary. The architects were hi red to hel p develop some three dimensional alternatives for the area. The redevelopment project did not directly affect the City of Palo Alto, but was an i n kfi 11 project which offered advantages in aca- demic relations and land conservation. Councilmember Bechtel asked if the slides presented by Stanford were available to the City. Mr. Williams said yes. Councilmember Bechtel asked about the mound of dirt opposite Saks Fifth Avenue. Mr. Williams said it was about 25,000 cubic yards of dirt which. would become the basement of the Hospital Modernization Program. Only enough would be stored there that needed to go back into the project to backfill against the basement and to provide the top- soil for landscaping. It would only be there for the duration of the project --a year to 14 months. . Councilmember Bechtel asked if a permit was necessary from the County. Mr. Williams said, yes and it was obtained. The idea was to essen- tially extend the berm that now screened the parking, lot at one end of .the area and pile the dirt behind it so that during the period of the project it would not seem so different from the rest of the berm screening around the parking lot except there would be naturally grown weeds around it and carefully planted trees. Councilmember Renzel said Mr. Williams talked about what Stanford intended to do about the 86 acres in terms of the County use Per- mit, but she understood the City would_ be involved in devl si ng a process and would essentially have some planning input for the 86 acres. It did not seund to her as if Stanford's process allowed for that. Mr..Williams said .Stanford was developing the draft report which dealt with its --academic needs in the aria:and and the -infrastructure. City staff was reviewing_ an early copy of that draft and. making suggestions. That -would continue to .be part of the joint planning process L1 kewi se," the thre shol ds proposed for level op*ent in : the area would be reviewed with City staff` -and their comments would be carried, forward.,to the. County' He believed the --City was very involved. There might be an area where Planning Commission or Council involvement was desired which was not yet dealt with, but in terms of staff to staff involvement, it wCIS gloving along. Councilmember Renzel understood the City Council would be involved at some point and asked at what point the City Council would have some input with respect to the application to revise the use per- mit. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said Councilmember Renzel's recollection was correct and staff antici- pated the planning for .the 86 acres, which was part of the use permit process, would go before the Planning Commission and City Council prior to formal action by the County. Councilmember Renzel did not understand how so many new projects appeared all of a suCden after the Willow Road approval. Some were part of the general growth projections, like the environment- al management facility, but the molecular and genetic medicine center building was much larger than originally contemplated in that EIR and the new road which appeared after the Willow Road approval, the proposed convention center i n Menlo Park, and a med- ical school office building were much larger than anything previ- ously known. The City found out about the footage at the Shopping Center after the fact and she we ,:: cerned about all the changes that were on top of what were already marginal levels of service "C" and "F" in the intersections in that corridor. Mr. Williams said while there were a fair number of projects, it was safe to say all the projects proposed by Stanford were in con- formance both with Stanford's Land Use Plan and the City's Com- prehensive Plan. The rate at which they appeared was more rapid than some previously guessed, but in actuality, almost all proj- ects were mentioned or listed in some detail in the 1980 Land Use Plan. The exception was in the medical center where things ger- minated shortly after the publication of Stanford's 1980 Land Use Plan. While they were in conformance with the plan, they were not specially listed. The Center for molecular and. Genetic Medicine started out as a center for an interdisciplinary program. It became apparent it would be judicious to put the Biochemistry Department with it because it was a related discipline and over- crowded in the medical center, so the project grew from a 120,000 square foot project to 160,000 in round numbers over its period of planning. The other thing not specifically referred to in the Land Use Plan was the relocation of the Children's Hospital. Sub- sequently, that relocation, which made a good deal of medical sense, brought with it ideas about recombining the facilities within the hospital so that mothers could be near their newborn, and so that neonatal care could be adjacent to Children's Hospi- tal. That accelerated the planning for the third phase of the Hospital. Modernization Program so that a sizable game of musical chairs could take place within the hospital complex to get all things related to new mothers and children's care relocated close together, which was a departure both in scope;. and in timing from what was anticipated five years ago. Councilmember Menzel asked if the City could have a complete accounting of what new construction was covered in the Elks for Willow Rued and the Hospital and what was now known to be differ- ent ` and what new proposals were made beyond the scope of the existin4 LIRs Mr. Schreiber said staff would assemble the information fnd pro- vide it to the Council. Councilmember Renzei said she was dismayed by the number of new announcements, part cul erly since the Willow Road approval. counci rnernber Fletcher asked when Stanford West would rti.uirl to Council and whether it would be a similar project to that previ- ously proposed; what . plans there were for the Children's Hospital; and the strip along El Camino Real including the Mayfield School. Mr. Williams said Stanford discussed re -energizing the Stanford West project-., Each of the respective staffs were presently over- loaded and unable to deal with it in detail. Meanwhile, Stanford was proceeding with the plans for 1100 Welch which might be a pro- totype for the character of the Stanford Weet project when it returned. It was safe to say Stanford was interested in returning with a Stanford West Project, but it might be a lower density and more like what they learned from the 1100 Welch process. Stanford did not have a specific plan for the use of the Children's Hospi- tal site. It was investigating alternative uses related to health care and housing such as a life care center type of activity. Likewise, Stanford did not have a specific proposal on the May- field property. Councilrember Fletcher was confused about Stanford's making pro- jections of traffic in the Willow Corridor, and not guessing at future development but to wait and see what development occurred. Mr. Williams said each EIR dealt with the traffic impacts of spe- cific projects, but sometimes the sequencing of actual project development varied from assumptions given in an EIR and conditions might not turn out exactly as predicted. Stanford drafted an agreement where it listed the impacts identified for various proj- ects and the recommended mitigations for those impacts and agreed, independently of the timing of projects, that when those impacts recurred, Stanford would implement those mitigations so that it did not have to go into such a detailed hassle on each project that dealt with those same impacts and same mitigations. The City was assured that when those impacts occurred, the mitigations would also occur. He provided a list of about 14 EIRs and envi- ronmental assessments done over the past seven years and the proj- ects covered by those EIRs to Mr. Schreiber. Vice Mayor Cobb understood the document would return through the City's Planning Commission process up to the City Council with the idea that the target, over the longer period, was something common to both the City's and Stanford's planning documents approved by. both governing bodies with common language attached thereto. Mr. Williams said that was correct. The joint group was working on pieces of the plan --the shopping center area, Children's Hospi- tal, the west campus area, etc. He was sure all those pieces would be put together i n one document which staff would bring for- ward for Council review. Some of the regulatory measures involved in implementing those plans would find their way .into the use per- mit. Stanford was planning for that area to be put in the best form possibleand be accompanied by regulations that would become part of the use permit. Vice Mayor Cobb said many people were speculating on what might happen with the Mayfield site, and he heard talk with regard to the possibility of some kind of affordable housing on the site. Mr. Williams said affordable housing and housing of one kind or. another, potentially even mixed use to help support the afford- ability of the housing, were all ideas being discussed. CouncIimember Sutorius asked whether the joint planning, vis-a-vis the 86 acre Willow/Sand Hill corridor, and the revised use permit, subjects which Stanford treated separately in the presentation, were linked in terms of how they moved forward 1I that linkage was there, he asked if he could conclude that Stahford' s October, 1985, estimate of when the use permit would be through ,the process and a at the County level meant the joi nt . pl annl ng document would have been thrashed out :prior to that October date. Mr Williams said that was correct. Stanford intended to have the joint planning finished ahead of the use permit because it was incorporated in. Counciimember Sutor'ius asked for an update on the status of the suspended Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) application and how that tied into the process. As a comaker of the motion, that was one of the items he identified as a rationale for having things march forward ieether. Mr. Williams said he lost track of the date that the LAFCO hearing - was scheduled, but he believed it was mid -June. The new consoli- dated agreement which incorporated the old CS zone agreement and cther things was in a last draft form being reviewed by City and County staff. Stanford hoped to have that piece of the- process in place as the basis for the LAFCO hearing. He could not say for sure whether Stanford intended to get that done in time for the June 15 date or whether it would ask for a small delay in the LAFCO hearing. Andy Doty, Stanford Director of Community Relations, understood there was a LAFCO meeting in .June, acid Stanford might not be ready. Presently, the so called "Stanford Treaty" language was agreed upon by County, City, and . Uni versi ty staff so it could go forward. He believed Stanford would be close for the June hear- ing, but did not want to commit'itself tp be absolutely on the dot. Progress was being made and Stanford was hopeful. Councilmember Sutorius asked about the City's position and par- ticipation in the LAFCO process. He saw the logic of those things marching together and Palo Alto was a party in suggesting the LAFCO process be obeyed. He did not want to preempt anything ap- propriate from happening, but by the same token, he questioned and challenged anything unwise happening from a sequence standpoint. Mr. Doty said Stanford was well aware of that consideration and was grateful tne City held off its action on the LAFCO proposal pending the agreement. Stanford would not go to LAFCO with -some- thing in advance of the City's having dealt with it. Mayor Levy asked about the 28,000 figure in the growth statistics and what it represented. Mr. Williams said the base in the year 1982-83 was 25,800 daytime population which included students, faculty, the remaining employ- ees, the hospital employees, patients, and visitors at the hospi- tal. That was not the exact number of student enrollment and fac- ulty et ployment, but was factored for the normal amount of people on and off campus at a given time and was intended to be the day- time population. Mayor Levy clarified that Stanford projected to grow by 2,000 by. the end of the century. Mr. Williams said that was correct. Mayor Levy asked . if that included the new uses to which Hoover Pavilion and the Children's Hospital would be put. Mr. Williams said it included those uses if they were occupied by Stanford students and faculty.: It would not include them if they became used by others. There would be a backfi l l potential in those areas which) for the purpose of the E1R, were assumed as the equivalent of what was there now. Mayor Levy said the 2)000 figure assumed those uses would not be University peoples but would have o itsi de populations. Mr. Williams said it was the case assumption for computing traffic impacts) : etc. 5 7 5 2 5/20/85 1. Counci lmei ber Refuel said as she understood Councilmember Sutori us' questions with regard to the use permit or the LAFCO proceedings, there were only two City Council meetings before mid -June, and she did not understand; how the Council would have any input on that hearing prior to mid -June. Mr. Schreiber said in spite of staff's best intentions, he doubted ,they would . be ready for the June LAFCO meeting. He and Mr. Freeland spent part of that afternoon going over the latest draft exchanged between City and University staff and still had a few suggestions. He believed they were in for one more' round of drafting at which point staff would be ready to go forward. He sensed it was more likely to be a little later at LAFCO than mid -June. Councilmember Renzel clarifies that City staff intended to bring the matter to the Council before it went to LAFCO. Mr. Schreiber said that was his intention. Councilmember Renzel said while the populations was relevant for how many people were on campus at any one time, if there were two part time employees instead of one full time employee, it was four trips to campus instead of two. The number of part time employees was relevant to the traffic projections the City was trying to deal with and she asked if City staff was provided with the infor- mation as to how much trip generation was occurring. Mr. Williams .said the information was furnished to Stanford's EIR consultant who was working on the use permit EIR. A lot of detailed information was furnished about employment, both full time and part time, and the work characteristics of people, etc. The consultant was putting all that information together in the context of the different kinds of impacts and when all of the con- text was developed and Stanford had a draft EIR to review, there would be answers to almost every question, but if not, additional questions could be asked and additional answers could be obtained. Mayor Levy thanked the Stanford representatives and said he appre- ciated their comments and intention to continue working closely with City staff and to keep the City Council informed of what was going on at the campus that would affect .the residents of Palo Alto. Mayor Levy re Settlement of -Litigation re City Hall , 250 Hamilton Avenue Mayor Levy announced that one element of litigation• was completed and that Palo Alto. would receive $1 00,0Q0 : i n .settlement of its case against the general contractor, structural engineer and the architects 1 relation -to construction and design defects at .City Hall. -The case; was filed by the City. in 1980 and was scheduled to go to a jury trier in March, 1985. • CONSENT CALENDAR NOTION: ',ice Mayer -Cobb 60ed, seceedei by . Fletcher , approval -of the Consent -Calendar. Co€ nci l iesber k.l ei n -advi sod -that. ,he aou1 d not par'ti cl pate on Item #5, Palo Alto Golf Course - Coffet Shop Lease Amendment, .due toa oonfiict.of_-interest. staff recommends that the City Council adopt the ordinance, including the environmental findings, to extend the moratorium on office development over 5,000 square feet in the GM zone district for an additional six months (to January 9, 1986.) ORDI ANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE .`NCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO EXTENDING THE EXISTING MORATORIUM ON THE PROCESSING OF APPLICATIONS FOR NEW OFFICE USES OF 5►,000 SQUARE FEET OR MORE IN THE GM ZONE" ITEM #3, PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SERVICES (PWK 2)(•CMR:301:5) Staff recommends that Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement with Barrett, Harris & Associates, Inc. for inspection services in the amount of $25,500. AGREEMENT - PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTION SERVICES Barrett, Harris i Associates ITEM #4, REINFORCED FABRIC PAVEMENT. (PWK 2) (CMR:303:5 Staff recommends that Council: 1. Authorize ehe Mayor to execute the contract wi t.hh Raisch Construction Company in the amount of $233,827.39 for the Base Bid work and Add Alternates No. .1 and 2; and 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $35,000. AWARD OF CONTRACT Raisch Construction Company ITEM #5 SECOND LEASE AMENDMENT PALO ALTO GOLF COURSE COFFEE Staff recommends that Council auth:;r= ze the Mayor to sign the Second Lease Amendment - Golf Course Coffee Shop. ITEM 0 FOOTHILLS PARK EROSION CONTROL PROJECT PHASE II - R—( ,Il 2-1-S1 TtMR :31B:5, Staff recommends that Council authorize the change order to the contract with George Bianchi Construction., Incorporated in the amount of $5,457.61, to complete the Phase II`.contract. AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT NO. 4458' George Bianchi Construction, Inc. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Cooki l.e`sber_ patine on Item 15, Setoal Lease Amendment - C4i'ffe Shop, ITEM 17 PUBLIC HEARING: PARK BOULEVARD ASSESSMi�r D I STRICT N6. 28 (UT' R : Mayor Levy declared the public hearing open. Receiving . no requests fro the public to speak, he declared the public bearing closed. Klein "not particl- Paio Alto Golf Cour=se UNDERGROUND UTILITIES Courc1 lmember Su tors gas .clarified that the proposed ordinance would create Underground Utilities Assessient District No. 28 in two resolutions, one of which indicated the City Council overruled any protests. Since no input was received, he asked if the second resolution still applied. Director of Utivl ttles, Richard Young believed t would apply. i MOTIGU Coueel lmember Suteries moved, seconded by Witherspoon, t'riat Cvusci l enact the resolutions and ordinance creating Under- ground Utilities District No. 28. RESOLUTION 6385 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF O ALTO DETERMINING CONVENIENCE AND NECES- SITY, ADOPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE ASSESS- MENT AND ORDERING THE WORK AND ACQUISITIONS, DIRECTING RECORDING AND FILING OF ASSESSMENT, ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM AND NOTICE OF ASSESSMENT, APPOINTING COLLECTION OFFICER, AND PRUNING FOR NOTICE TO PAY ASSESSMENTS - PARK BOULEYADD UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 28" RESOLUTION 6386 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE 'CITY OF PALO ALTO OVERRULING PROTESTS - PARK BOULEVARD UNDERGROUND UTILITIES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT MO. 28" ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE ALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 12.16.020 OF CHAPTER 12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 28" MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #8 PU L C NEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE I -p- fA �e C e yI-011 k TS.. FITA= SUBDIVISION MAP AT 3120 ST0Ckl'ON. PLACE ORhlFR OeANzA SC0oL SITE Planning Commissioner Joe Hirsch said that while the excerpts of the minutes appeared incomplete . and certain preliminary comments were not yet transcribed, they adequately reflected the Commis- sion's position regarding the proposed subdivision. The Commis- sion was opposed to creating flag lots ab i ni ti o in net subdivi- sions. One Commissioner said flag lots were ugly and. another was concerned about the loss of privacy for adjacent neighbors and expressed concern that if the subdivision was approved, it would be without the benefit of the full public process employed in arriving at the original subdivision. In respnse to comments made by Commissioner McCown, the majority of five Commissioners gave their reasons for denyi ng the applicant's request. The reasons included the site was. not physically .suitable for the increased subdivision of 20 lots as proposed; the subdivision did not•main- tain the character of the surrounding neighborhood; and the flag lots made the subdivision detrimental and injurious to the nearby properties. Regarding point 6 of the School District's May 16, 1985 letter (which is on file in the City Clerk's office), while the District's statement might - be true, six lots versus one in the original plan had . to be reduced to the 6,000 square foot minimum in order to get two more lots in the subdivision which seemed to be -too much crowding with little or no overall benefit to the City of Palo Alto. With regard to port 7, although the District's letter indicated that the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) might have requested. Lot 10 of the approved subdivision for their below market rate unit, Lot 15 . was the presently designated lot and had 7,900 sqt re feet as opposed to the , 6,400 square feet in Lot 10. The analysis relevant to . Lot 10 seemed to - be irrelevant. The Commission was generally opposed to creating new flag... lots as part of new subdivisions when other alternatives were clearly awai l abl a and relied upon in the public processwhich created the original subdivsioirs Counci 1*ember Woolley assumed:' there was nothing in the City's.; ordinances which spoke _:use of flag lots in designij a new subdivision, but asked about past experience Zorii rrg Administrator Bob drown said the City's subdivision ordi- nance allowed the creation of flag lots, but it must be 20 percent 1 arger than the size of a standard street fronting lot and there must be at least a 15 -foot wide access from the street to the flag lot under the ownership of the flag lot. Regarding recent sub- divisions, he referred to the Ortega School site subdivision which contained one flag lot •which bordered the park. Flag lots were not atypical in subdivisions. Councilnember Woolley said a flag lot was usually found when a single lot was being divided into two: lots, but she referred more to a large_ new subdivision. Mr. Brown believed the Ross Road School site subdivision also con- tained either one or two flag lots. Mayor Levy declare the public hearing .open. Rosemarie Bednar, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Board Office, said the PAUSD requested that Council consider as a rebut- tal to the Planning Commission denial for approval of the 20 -lot subdivision the following: In the proposed subdivision, two of the three flag lots pulled frontage for those lots away from the cul-de-sac and increased the frontage for the remaining lots on the average of nine feet per lot. Parking for flag lots would be off-street and would ease parking congestion around the bulb. The amount of paved area did not change with the 20 -lot subdivision as proposed and the approved subdivision of 18 lots. The average lot size of the proposed subdivision was 6,875 square feet and was consistent with, or larger than, the standard lot sizes sur- rounding the property. The average lot size for the approved sub- division was 7,111 square feet which was less consistent as the surrounding properties were larger. With access to, and alignment of, the flag lots off the bulb to lots on either side, the DeAnza flag lots did not have the perceived negative characteristic of flag lots of a house behind a house. The proposed subdivision required fewer exceptions than the approved subdivision --eight versus ten. Each of the proposed flag lots substantially exceeded the required lot area of 7,200 square feet which was 20 percent larger than that normally required for street fronting lots. Designating a flag lot as a below -market -rate (BMR) lot would add- ress concerns voiced at the public hearing of the Planning Commis- sion. Last January the PANIC requested the Board of Education change the designation in the approved subdivision for the BMR lot --from lot 15 to lot 10. Their request was presented to the Board of Education on the grounds that a more rectangular lot would more readily accept the basic design for the 8MR unit. Lot 10 on the approved map was only 6,400 square feet in size as com- pared to the 7,900 square feet of lot 15 on the approved map, and as compared to 8,300 square feet of the suggested BMR lot on the proposed map. She understood the minimum lot size for an R-2 lot was 7,200 square feet. City staff found nothing inherently wrong with the flag lot design. She showed transparencies to hi g1 i ght the proximity of the flag lots to the DeAnza subdivision as well as the proximity of flag lots to the Ortega subdivision and the Ross Road subdivision. The Ortega subdivision had one flag lot; the Ross Road subdivision was approved with two flag lots. The Ross Road subdivision had tentative map approval for 20 lots with two approved flag lots, and within 800 feet of center of site, there were six pre-existing flag lots. The Ortega subdivision was approved with one flag lot, and within 1,200 feet of center of site there were 12 pre-existing flag lots. Within 1,300 feet of center of site for the DeAnza subdivision, there were six pre- existing flag lots two of which were identical 1h. configuration to those being proposed. City staff reported no significant traffic impact from the project and there was no net Wilkes compared to use of the. elementary school or as it wotld be used a$ a 20 -lot subdivision. Pater Ki ttei , 3132 Morris Drive, urged Council to vote against the change. The new plan received no public input, and contained flag lots the previous plan did not. The flag lots were on the other side of the Matadero Creek which acted as a barrier and separated the neighborhoods. The new plan required the cutting of more trees including one large one, and it would adversely impact park- ing on Stockton by increasing the number of cars parked there by residents and visitors. While the flag lots might provide parking for those who lived there, visitors would still have to park on the street. The project removed a parking lot which was now part of the school and which was extensively used by visitors to the park. All that parking would end up on the street. A better BMk lot could be provided by slightly rearranging the plans on the approved plan rather than redrawing the whole plan and having two additional lots. He found the gently "curving street of the previ- ous plan was far more pleasing than the straight street of the new plan. Helene Smith, 3142 Greer, said her neighborhood was saturated with new housing and the on -street parking got worse with each develop- ment. She hoped the Council would deny the proposed change for 21 lots at the ueAnza school site. Roger Smith, 3113 Genevieve Court, also owned property on Morris Drive, which was one street over from the former DeAnza school site. He opposed the increase in the number of lots from 18 to 20 because the redesign had multiple flag lots, which were inconsis- tent with the design of the surrounding area and gave the appear- ance of a more crowded community. The Planning Commission denied Sandis and Associates' request for the 20 lots. The 18 -lot sub- division plan was approved by the City Council and was consistent with the development of homes on the school sites in different parts of town. The PAUSD informed residents at a neighborhood meeting of its intentions to build the 18 -lot subdivision, but no neighborhood meeting was held to inform residents of their inten- tions to increase the lots to 20. The Midtown area recently ex- perienced a substantial increase in hones at the intersection of Middlefield Road and Loma Verde, the Piers Dairy site, the old Hoover school site at Midtown and Colorado, and the former Carpenter's Hall. He believed two lots would make a difference in traffic. Joseph Simitiara, 532 Rhodes, represented the Palo Alto School Board, and said there was no loss of process, but rather a doub- ling of the process. Not only were there neighborhood meetings with respect to the area, but they went through the City's process twice as a result of the second request, and there was the process at the Board level in terns of the public discussion twice. Coun-- cilmembers could feel comfortable that the. issue saw plenty of sunshine in terms of the neighborhood. Regarding the neighborhood character, the size of the lots were entirely consistent with, if not greater than, surrounding lots. The flag lots were consistent with lots in the neighborhood and with other Palo Alto areas already discussed. The flag lots were tucked away from Stockton Place and were at the end of the cul-de-sac so it was not as if those flag lots were frontage area flag lots that affected the immediate vicinity of the other area. Regarding privacy, he underscored thestaff comments with respect to the larger flag lot requirement in terms of size which provided an additional element of privacy, and that the particular flag lots were not designed to be the house -behind -a -house -kind of flag lot. There was a double edge assist in tees of privacy with both the larger size and the particularconfiguration of the flag lots. While it might only be two .ugi is it was two more units in ,a community that suffered from e Jabs -housing imbalance. Mayor- Levy declared the public hearing Closed. Councilmember Renzel` said for any years Planning Commissions wrestled with the flag lot concept and it was sort of: a stepchild of the Zoning ordinance because Council used it in places where the lot ownerships left large lots and the only way to do it was with 4 flag lot, but it was not a desired way to create.subdivi- siorns albeit some of the School District subdivisions had flag lots. The need for parking was particularly acute where the bulb of a cul-de-sac was required for a turning radius and where there would be five drivewaysi off that bulb. Most people would not drive into a flag lot to visit their friends, but would park on what eemai tied of the street. She agreed with the Planning Commi s- sion that the City should stick with the earlier subdivision which had extensive public -input and strong public process to devise the plan. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Cobb, to uphold the Planning Comimitsion recommendation to deny the application of Sardis and Associates, Inc. -for a tentative subdivision soap diri- ding one parcel into 20, and a zone change for one of these lots from R-1 to &-2, for property located at 3120 - Stockton Puce (former 0eAaiza School site) . Vice Mayor Cobb lived at the end of a cul-de-sac where there was a flag lot, and Councilmember Renzel's comments with regard to the parking were correct. No one ever parked inside the flag lot -- they always parked on the street and it generally created conges- tion and confusion particularly when there were guests. The argu- ment that the jobs-housln'g inbalance was an excuse to squeeze in a few more units in any given development troubled him because the units being squeezed in were market priced units and did nothing for the affordable housing issue which was the problem. He sup- ported the Planning Commission recommendation. While the proposal went through a second process, he did not believe anyone from the public was happy with the second result.. Councilmember Bechtel concurred with the two previous speakers. Councilmember Sutorius supported the. motion. He did not support the provision of a BMR lot in the R-1 school district _surplus site subdivisions and opposed it in Crescent Park. He favoredthe con- cept proposed by staff and supported by the school districts of a mitigation payment or an in -lieu housing payment. As the City proceeded through the subdivision of the various surplus sites, it would have accrued a sizable sum of money to be applied to hous- ing. He agreed the proposed flag lots were not of the traditional kind that Vice Mayor Cobb and Councilmember Renzel had in mind or that he had in mind because he also lived on a street with several flag lots of the character that were a concern. If the Planning Co mission decision was upheld, the existing approved subdivision had eight lots which had 135 percent of the required square foot- age and qualified for a cottage to be located .on the property under proper application and process. There was the potential, under the subdivision already approved, for more living units ultimately on the site because i n the proposal before the Council only .one lot qualified for consideration for cottage treatment. He did not believe the City was working an economic hardship on the districtby removing the potential in terms of .the prime lots in their total number, because so. :any of .them remained as lots with additional economic value because of the cottage capability. Mayor Levy/ did not believe two more lots would be a hardship on the City particularly when the square footage of the lots on the subdivision as proposed were approximately 15 percent larger than the average. They averaged about 6,900 "square ' feet and the aver- age age in the area was 6,000. Even with 20 units, the size of- the lots was larger. The size of the three flag lots were much lar- ger. They were 20 percent larger than the requirement for flag lots and parking would not be a hardship because the residents of the flag lots would clearly park on the .lots while often the .resin dents of regular lots parked to some degree on ,the = street. The new division had a better configuration for the BMR units and he had difficulty with the argument that flag lots were .less desirable than regular lots. There were many flag lots in Palo Alto and he believed tine occupancy of those lots in terms of the length of the occupancy and the desirability of those lots to their occupants was as high as for street lots. Some people pre- ferred flag lots over street lots. Two of the three flag lots backe onto the park and were, therefore, more open than tradi- tional flag lots that were surrounded entirely by other residen- tial • areas. The PAUSD had every -right to ask for 20 units which were of acceptable size,. and as a. member of the School District and the City of Palo Alto, he felt compassion for the position in which the PAUSD found itself and believed if there was a doubt as to whether the Planning Commission recommendation should be fol- lowed, the benefit of the doubt should go with the PAUSD, which was struggling, and trying to find a way to maintain the services to the City's students and the community as a result. Because there was a doubt, he supported, the PAUSD. MOTION PASSED by a vote of S-1, Levy voting "no." ITEM #9, SMOKING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS (LEG 5-2) MOTION: Councilarember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, approval of the ordinance for first reading, with a change on page 2 that in Section 2, paragraph 9, the 80 percent non-smoking area be changed to "not less tern two-thirds of the floor area. p ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE ALTO AMENDING CHAPTER 9.14 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE TO INCREASE THE REQUIRED Ma SMOKING AREA IN RESTAURANTS AND TO PRONIRIT SMOKING IN THE OFFICE WORKPLACE CAFETERIAS, LUNCHROOMS, AND EMPLOYEE LOUNGES WHICH ARE LESS THAN 650 SQUARE FEET IM SIZE" Vice Mayor Cobb asked about ordinance enforcement particularly when a specific percentage was cited. City Manager Bill laver said the ordinance was enforced on a com- plaint basis. An inspection team did not.. go out, but if com- plaints were received on an establishment and the ordinance re- quired enforcement, staff spoke with the proprietor of the estab- lishment and dealt with it in that manner. Vice Mayor Cobb asked what authority was brought to bear if there were repeated complaints. City Attorney Diane Lee` .ai d as with all City ordinances, the nor- mal authority was criminal enforcement. She believed the smoking ordinance contained infraction penalties which were fines only. Vice Mayor Cobb asked, about a restaurant. with only a big room where someone complained that the restaurant was not quite at the magic number. In that instance, he asked about the determination for whether the restaurant met the requirement. Ms. Lee did not know what the enforcing police officer would do, but she guessed the restaurant would be asked to show how they segregated the smoking and nom-sa oking area, it would be ,measured with a tape measure, the seats would be counted and an apportion- ment would be made accordingly. Tucker Barrett, : 3398 El CaMi roc, represented several restaurants and groups listed on the sheets he submitted (which are on file in the City Clerk's office). They requested that Council consider whether the City needed to go to the two-thirds figure. The hos- pitel>'ty industry was under an absolute need to be able to totally satisfy : its clientele; and of the customers -surveyed, there was a range in preference .floc the people in thenon smoking areas, from as low as 25 percent to a maximum of just less than 50 percent of /t0%e1 the clientele that walked into the restaurants and requested the non smoking area. On the smoking side, there were as few as 20 percent in a particular restaurant who requested a smoking area to 70 percent in another establishment that requested a smoking area. As a group, they provided far more space than the existing ordi- nance requireu. Most of the restaurants on the sheet provided 50 percent, or in that area, of smoking and nonsmoking for their patrons. It was clear from the pall of customers that there were far more who preferred smoking versus. nonsmoking. They were not questioning the merit of having more nonsmoking areas --many went far and above the existing ordinance--butrather to have the abil- ity to run their businesses and take care of their clientele as they walked in the door. Currently, the clientele clearly showed the proposed ordinance did not have merit. Even the two-thirds requirement would ''pose difficulties in operating the restaurants on a daily basis. They requested that any decision modifying the ordinance be based upon the reality and the conditions under which they operated on a daily basis. If was clearly not the 80/20 per- cent as the ordinance initially proposed, and it was not two- thirds/ one-third. Councilmember Fletcher said the first listing on the sheet was the Sundance Mining Company, and she asked what the "requests" column meant. Mr. Barrett said the requests from the Sundance .Mining Company were those clientele who would accept either smoking or non- smok- ing in order to have a specific table or be waited on by a certain person. Vice Mayor Cobb asked whether the restaurants could live with a 50/50 percentage. Mr. Barrett suggested that with the existing ordinance, most res- taurants in Palo Alto were more than 50. percent. His restaurant was 60 percent nonsmoking. Vice Mayor Cobb asked. for some feeling about some of the natural divisions in one big room. Mr. Barrett said in most of the restaurants, it was easy to define a smoking or nonsmoking section either by a. wall, or some existing perti ti on. Many of the restaurants had one large room where a decision had to be made. He was not sure how he would determine an 80/20 or a two-thieds/one-third and be able to satisfy the clientele as they walked in the door because that percentage was clearly not being requested. ' Robert Quigley, 2158 Laurel Drive, San; Carlos, represented the Santa Clara unit of the American Cancer Society, and said i t was interesting the previous speaker stated that approximately 60 per- cent of his clientele requested nonsmoking facilities. It was also interesting that the California poll flied last year indi- cated that 76 percent of adult Californians were nonsmokers artd 24 percent were smokers. California was way ahead of the nation. The Yale School of Medicine completed a five-year study last year and found that the percentage of smokers had declined to where 35 percent of the smokers were scale, and 29 percent were female for, an average of 32 percent. The federal studies showed that since 964, the number of smokers declined from 42 percent to 33 per - cleat. He suggested Counci 1mer ber:Fletcher' s rationale of reducing from 80 to 20 percent to two-thirds or sixty-six percent/thirty- feur percent touched on reality. The Cancer -Society's goal was to have a smoke -free society by the year 20004 : They were faced with the smal ler� restaurants of : SO percent or less which were examated underthelaw, beat` other communities„ by :ordinance, required those restaurants to post on the door whether they aCCossedsted smokers, nonsmokers, or both, which he believed. would he . a good addendum to consider. He supported tan increased allocation for nonsmokers. Jobst Brandt; 351 Mirid1efield Road, supported the proposed ordi- nance. A survey was recently taken of smokers in his division at Hewlett-Packard, and it was found to be down around five percent. It was interesting because subsequent to the smoking ordinance, it was more pleasant to eat in the cafeteria. He was always amazed at how they bent over backwards to make it easy on the smoker who was the guy invading the fresh air. It was unfair for the non- smokers to be subjected to other people's smoke. He supported the two-thirds nonsmoking ,rule. Grace Allen, 440 Moffett Boulevard, encouraged Council to enact the two-thirds nonsmoking rule. She could not tolerate one cigar- ette near her, and in her assoc cation with the Environmental Heal th Committee wi thin the American Lung Association, their facts agreed with. Mr. Quigley' s. She bel ieved some day, the world would be smoke free. It would be interesting if one restaurant picked one day during the week and pubs ici zed that it would be completely smoke free on that to see what happened . Frank Riddle, 310 University Avenue, cl ari-fied there was no intent to change the percentages in the workpl ace . itsel f --only in the workplace cafeterias. He believed that would make a big differ- ence in the way the smoking ordinance was administered in the industries. Councilmemmber Fl etcher said the proposal only changed the allow- able space in the workplace lunchrooms, cafeterias .and lounges, but nothing el se . Mr. Riddle commented that if the marketplace indicated an in- creased number of nonsmokers and even if one restauranteur experi- mented with having a no smoking day, it was up to the initiative of the restauranteur to best serve their clients. Most restau- ranteurs he spoke with were not smokers, and were looking at their businesses to see how they could accommodate all kinds of com- merce. If overt egisl ated, they 1 ost the f1 exibil ity to best serve their cl lentele. He urged Council consideration. Charlie Savage, 1.104 Hol1enbeck Avenue, Sunnyvale, frequently ate `n Pal o Al to because Sunnyvale did not have a no smoking ordinance that affected restaurants. There were several Palo Al to restau- rants he frequented and some had large nonsmoking sections and some had small nonsmoking sections where he had to. wait. He urged that Council pass an ordinance to increase the sls,ze of the non- smoking sections so that he and others did not have to,, wait. Paul Hentzel, 441 Nevada Avenue, urged Council to pass the ordi� fiance change. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, urged Council to pass the ordinance change. It was annoying to him that nonsmokers were sometimes forced by time constraints to sit in a smoking section. There were different needs for different restaurants and one that served a lot of alcohol and not a lot of food would probably want a lar- ger smoking section. Ideally, smoking and nonsmoking should be set aside according to the preferences of the clientele, and if Council could work something out to that effect, it might be the best solution. In . that case, if there was any err, it should be on. the side of the nonsmoker, David Peter Sacks, 14.D., 3618 Laguna Avenue, was a physician who specialized in the diagnosis and treatment of lung diseases and was actively involved in the research involving: the health effects of `Smoking. He applauded those restaurants in Palo Alto who took to spirit the previous ordinance of 80/20 percent for nonsmokers. Some restaurants mil..ocated substantially greater than 20 percent, and other restaurants where he enjoyed the cuisine had an incredi- bly small nonsmoking section, and consequently he did not frequent them. It was appropriate for .Council to pass an ordinance of the typeoriginally proposedof 80 percent nonsmokers and 20 percent smokers in view of the national and regional statl stics on the percentage of smoking. An editorial that week in the Palo Alto Weekly irnpl led that airl Ines voluntarily establish nonsmoT trig sections and voluntarily estabi ish the roughly two-thirds, 80 percent nonsmoking sections in aircraft. Initially, it was not ✓ oluntary, and air carriers expressed similar concerns that they would lose business. Now air carriers realized the majority of their clientele were nonsmokers and there did not appear to be much of a problem. The General Counsel for the United States Pub- lic Health Service, after reviewing legal precedent that deter- mined smoking was not a right but a privilege, established the 1 basis in the J. S. Publ is Heal th Sery ice hospi cal s and smok- ing was banned entirely in those heal th care facilities, including private offices. Before the first hospital banned it, they re- quested the opinion from the General Counsel because they were concerned about infringing on the so-called "rights of smokers." He urged the City Counc 1l to pass Counc ilrember F1 etc her' s solu- tion. Lisa Van Dusen, 636 Waverley, said ultimately in restaurants, the question was the quality of air being breathed by the eater. Neal Williams, 950 Buckeye Drive, Sunnyvale, was an attorney who practiced law in Palo Alto. He spoke as an individual who worked in a Palo Al to workpl ace and who often dined in Palo Alto restau- rants. He closely followed the discussions regarding the proposed smoking ordinance amendments and encouraged the Council to pass those amendments as proposed and modified by Council member Fl etcher. He fi rimy bel ieved the amendment concerning empl oyee 1 oranges woul d make small lounges avail abl e and accessibl e to those who otherwi se would be unabl e to use them because of the presence o f unavoidable smoke. He also bel ieved the amendment concerning restaurant seating would hel p the restaurant operators better meet the needs of their cl ientel a and reflected a growing trend in the desires of nonsmoker;; to avoid evoke in restaurants. He commended the Council in its endeavors to make a good ordinance even bet- ter Norman Lewiston, 1849 Newell, was an allergist who specialized in chronic lung disease, and supported the ordinance.,. A recent sur- vey showed that Americans spent 42 cents out of every food dollar on food not prepared in the . home. He spoke for a constituency who used to be invisible--those who ate in restaurants with oxygen tubes, in their noses. There was a substantivenumber of individ- ual s who underwent pulmonary rehabilitation who were struggling to have full and active 1 iv es. Those people were extremely sensitive to cigarette smoke and could become violently ill if they were • in small proportions. Those people spent more than 42 cents out of their food dollar because they ate out. He commended the progress o f the City of Pal o Al to in bringing the matter forward. Ed O'Dwyer, 5992 Cahalan Avenue, San Jose, Vice President of the American Lung Association of Santa Clara County. He referred to the Gallop Poll published in January, 1984, which stated that one o f the top five reasons people did not eat out was because they did not 1 ike to be exposed to srsoke. They heard that evening that many restaurants exceeded the current ordinance to 'greet the market level. He was a business traveler and when he got to another area, he looked for nonsmoking restaurants.. The choice was not always offered, but rnrire and more people asked for it. The American Lung Assoc iat on.. urged adoption of Councilmember Fl etc her' s proposal . Jim Oinkey, 3380 Cork Oak Way, was an al l ergenic and went to extreme efforts to het away from smokers. Being an allergenic he used to hat* .airpl nines, but air tr~airel was less painful now that smokers wore in the back. His division in Sunnyvale recently we`t nonsmoking throughout the entire 1700 people and eight buildings It was impressive to see and experience . the difference The problem was that even in a two-thirds situation, there were the poorly designed restaurants which permitted the same air from the smokers to get over to the side of the nonsmokers. He wi shed there would be 100 percent nonsmoking everywhere. He saw no reason for any public area to have smokers or polluters. COUNC.L RECESSED FROM 9:40 p.m. 0 9:55 p m. Councilmember Fletcher said the restaurant survey was done with the intent of proving a point, and any survey could come up with statistics to prove the point. A lot depended on how the question was asked. Often people had the choide of sitting in the non- smoking section only if they wanted to wait and it was difficult for her to believe in one instance that 70 percent of the patrons chose to sit in the smoking area because it did not match with the smokers in the popul ation. That most restaurants provided 50 per- cent of the floor area for nonsmokers was not quite accurate. There might be a few in Pal o Al to, but there were over 200 restau- rants in town, and she experienced that most did not provide 50 percent. When she was in the Sundance, the smoking section was small. She was even in a restaurant with two-thirds nonsmoking and had to wait. She did not consider 50 percent to be adequate. Since she was known to be interested in the topic, she received calls from people who told her they were not accommodated in restaurants who provided 50 percent nonsmoking space. In one case, a person called ahead of time to make a lunch reservation in the no smoking section and was unable to obtain it. In another case, the reservation was requested the night before, and even then there was not enough space in the no smoking section. Even if the survey were accurate, which she doubted, it night be sel f - set ecting which meant the majority of people who preferred not to sit in the smoking atmosphere when eating did not have the right to use all the restaurants which they would otherwise do. While the restauants could experiment with larger nonsmoking sections or ban smoking, usually businesses were timid. When the City pro- posed 25 percent for nonsmokers in the restaurants in 1975, the restaurant people were aghast that no one would go to their res- taurants. They said the sage thing about theatres, but she bel ieved if the City went ahead and had a large nonsmoking section ordinance in Palo Alto and people could be assured of eating in a smoke free environment, it would draw people l ike a magnet to eat in Palo Alto restaurants. She did not bel ieve they needed to fear loss of business. She referred to a motel in Texas that .opened with completely no smoking and there were predictions from all other businesses around that it would not last six months. There was not one vacant room since it opened. The same thing would happen if Palo Alto went to an 80 or 9© percent no smoking law in restaurants. Regarding the argument thet if one person in the party smoked, the whol e party needed to sit in the smoking sec- tion if most of the restaurant was nonsmoking and there was not a emoking table available, she believed the person would probably not smoke for that short period of time. She pointed out there were smokers who did not sit in the smoking section in cross coun- try airplane trips because they preferred,, the clean air. It was possible to sit through lunch or dinner \without smoking. She referred to a Counc it member who spooked and who ate with his fellow Councilmembers and refrained from smoking It was possible` that most smokers would do the same if it was plain that most people preferred to eat in a nonsmoking atiosphere. She believed the majority of the population -should be given the opportunity. The City had the two-thirds nonsmoking requirement in the workplace lunchrooms and cafeterias for over a year and did not have one complaint from a smoker that the one-third smoking section was inadequate.: There was an even stricter, poi icy at Stanford University although they had the same two-thirds nonsmoking in their eating , areas, for the rest of the campus, all indoor areas were completely non okirg. There was an escape clause where deans and vice presidentswere permitted to ask for. exemptions if a problem arose. On May 10, Stanford management had an eval uatlon meeting and realized that since the en4ctment of the policy on 0 January I, there was not one request for an exemption. Because of the smoke free environment, the smokers were quitting, and there was helpfulness on the part of all the employees to help people overcome their smoking habits. Stanford got many out- of- towners, and it still had the two- thirds no smoking area. Vice Mayor Cobb recalled when Councilmember Fletcher first brought up the idea of enacting a greater nonsmoking ordinance, he be- lieved she did a great service for everyone. His first reaction to the proposal before the Council was equal enthusiasm. He was allergic to cigarette smoke and went out of his way to avoid smokers, but he was concerned about the in fl exibil ity of the pro- posal. A lot of restaurants could probably live with the two- thi rd s/ one- third rule, but others could not. Unless one respected the natural physical divisions in a restaurant, there was not much accomplished. He wanted to be in another room away from the smokers because he found it so offensive and to simply draw an arbitrary line in the middle of a restaurant did not solve the problem. If Council passed a law that probably could not be en- forced, did not respect the natural divisions of restaurants, or which imposed economic hardship on people, he had difficul ty. As an entrepreneur, he would be hard put to know how to deal wi th a situation where peopl e told him how to serve hi s clients, par- ticularly if they told him to serve them in ways they did not want to be served. . It was hard enough to make a living without having those extra kinds of restrictions. If the City was going to move up to something as strong as two- thirds, he wanted to see it get there, but wanted to get there in increments to see the economic consequences before taking the bigger step. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayer Cobb moved, seconded by Wool Iey, to change the percentage to a minimum of approximately 50 percent or the largest discrete area or room, whichever was larger. Councilmember Woolley understood that if the nonsmokers got to have the larger room, it would by definition be more than 50 per- cent. Vice Mayor Cobb c1arifled that his intent was a minimum of 50 per- cent or the largest discrete room or area, whi c hev coq was larger. The important ,thing to him was to get a separate area for non- smokers so they did not have to be bothered by the secondhand smoke. Councilmember Woolley seconded the amendment because even though she much preferred an area without smokers, there needed to be differentiations between the types of areas being discussed. Restaurants had more of an optional quality and it was not nec- essary to go to a restaurant if you did not like their smoking/ nonsmoking policy. Further, Councilmember Fletcher mentioned that if there was one member of a group who was a smoker and there were three other people who were nonsmokers that the person could re- frain from smoking It might be the group of four were already in the restaurant when there was plenty of space in the smoking sec- tion and because one member of the grasup wanted to shioke, all four ended up in the smoking section. In that situation, it was possi- ble to end up with some nonsmokers in the- smoking section and therefore it was not realistic to use the national percentages to determine the number of socket's and nonsmokers for a restaurant. Stati stir s showed there were different patterns of smokers and nonsmokers for the various restaurants and particul arly those associated with motels or hotels seemed to have a higher percent- age of smokers. _ She believed it was a good idea to provide f1 exi- bil ity for those estebl ishiver' ts. She agreed. with Vice Mayor Cobb and hoped that the City would move to two-thirds rule, but she believed it should be done more slowly than taking action that evening, Council -member Kl ein desi red a strict ordinance and whi l e he favored Counc ilmember Fl etcher' s motion, he asked if the amendment intended that if there were two rooms and one had 90 percent of the seats, that restaurant would end up with 90 percent non- smoking. Vice Mayor Cobb suspected a cap would be needed. His objective was that most restaurants divided up into a 50-50. break dependent upon how the bar area was included, but there was the possibility of a restaurant with one huge room and one small room which res- taurant would get 'burned" by the ordinance. Since that case was probably the exception, he believed L two-thirds cap could be. enacted. Councilmember Klein opposed the amendment because it missed the point. Councilmember Fletcher deserved much credit for her lead- ershi p on the issue. His problem with the critique of a strict standard was that it seemed to be bottomed on the idea that smokers and nonsmokers had eqdal rights. He disagreed. Non- smokers did not inflict bad air on smokers whereas smokers in- fl lcted bad air on nonsmokers. It was a simpl e moral and health i ssue that those who in fl is ted something on everyone el se were the ones who should have tocarry the burden. If a smoker was uncom- fortable with the idea that there might only be one-third of the seats available in a restaurant and that the smoker might either have to forego smoking for two hours or wait a little longer in. line, he believed it was fair and appropriate. It was a trade off -- If someone wanted to indulge in a habit which in fl icted pain, suffering, and minimum discomfort on everyone else, that person should have to be the one to be inconvenienced --not those people just sitting there. He did not worry about the business argument because it was an argument businesses advanced everytime Palo Alto tried to enact a smoking ordinance. Pal o Alto 1 ead the way in many cases and other communities adopted similar laws and the result was everyone was better off and businesses were - not hurt. The numerical .test was important. Flexibility and the idea of different rooms missed the point. The main thing was to send a clean, clear message that Palo Al to favored clean air in its res- taurants and restaurants were recognized as publ is places. Palo Alto wanted the public as a whole to recognize that smoking was the exception --the smoker had to establ ish why he or she should be able to in fl ict the habit on everyone el se. It was an appropriate message for government to send and Palo Alto was a leader in the past . He urged Council to adopt the moral position and support the motion as set forth by Councilmember Fletcher. Councilmen ber Renzel concurred with \Councilmembers Fletcher and Klein and opposed the amendment. She did not feel there was any legitimacy to the argument that there might be physical barriers to . making it two- thirds nonsmoking, one-third smoking, because that was precisely the formula now operating. If the restaurants were able to divide up two- thirds/one- third for smoking/nonsmok- ing, they could do it in the reverse order. At a minimum, the City of Palo Alto should have a smoking ordinance which reflected, the general smoking characteristics of the popul ation and nation- wide there were two- thirds nonsmokers which was the direction the ordinance should take. Coarse ilme ber Bechtel . bel ieved Palo Alto should be proud of being a leader° in the area of smoking ordinances, and Councllerember . F1 etcher should -be applauded for her efforts in *wide theatres', publ is meeting pl aces, etc. Palo Al tans were not smoking much, but there were many visitors to -the community who sar_oked. She°' was - concerned about j `tamping from just the o ppo si to o f. one- th i rd , no n- smoking, chi was inadequate, to • two- thirds nonsmoking which - might be a ‘prrobl en for those br si-nesses. AMENIMENT TO AMENDMENT: Connell -ember Bechtel " ; • ve ei to Mind the amendment to a straight 60 percent nonsmokleg, 40 paredett smoking section. AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Councilmember Fletcher said out of towners did not smoke that much more because the l ast poll done in 1984 showed 29 percent of the adul is throughout the United States smoked. The poll s al so showed nonsmokers were top heavy at the higher socio-economic bracket. Most smokers statistically were at the lower end and it was the higher end of business p{.apl a and professional people who traveled to Palo Alto and ate in Palo Alto restaurants. It was not fair to penalize the nonsmokers who. could not go to the restaurant of their' choice because they could not be accommodated. She bel ieved the majority. of the popul ation deserved the right to eat at the restaurant of their choice and to eat in a clean atmosphere. Vice Mayor Cobb said in response to Councilrnember ill ein' s ques- tions, that any restaurant set up with that large a room would then be forced to put up some partitioning which was a good thing. He urged support of his amendment. Mayor Levy was boggled by the statistics and did not know how to relate to them. He almost preferred not to relate to the statis- tics because it seemed there was a sufficient number of restau- rants in Palo Al to where if an individual wanted to have a restau- rant with almost any kind of environment, it was avail able. There were restaurants that were 100 percent nonsmoking and there were restaurants that were very smoky. He preferred not to patronize those restaurants and a basi s for c hoo'si ng the restaurant he liked was whether the atmosphere was smoke free. He had not found all of the obstacles that others mentioned and was surprised and hard- ened by the fact that even when he sat in smoking sections, they were often smoke free because the incidence of smoking was so .i ow. Since that was , the case , he believed it was an exercise in non- acc om oil i shm en t for the Council to go through the motions of pass- ing all sorts of ordinances when clean air was available to those who wanted it. On the other hand, the City did the right thing by insisting that every restaurant have a no smoking section and a 50/50 rel ationshi p was fair. He endorsed Vice Mayor Cobb' s com- ments. The 50/50 relationship seemed fair to him and it ensured those whowanted a smoke free atmosphere would, have it. It al so continued to put Palo Al to in the forefront. Counc ilmember Fletcher pointed out that if Council . passed the amendment, Palo Al to would not be in the forefront because Mountain View already had 50 percent set aside. She wanted to remain ahead in order to attract all those healthy nonsmokers to Palo Alto. She asked Mayor Levy about the restaurant with 100 percent no smoking. Mayor Levy said he might have spoken out of 1 ine, but was thinking about the Good Earth. There was at least one restaurant in town with an 80 percent nonsmoking section and he found many restau- rants with smoke free environments, and he was not bothered by where the nonsmoking sections were. Council aeimtber e Sutori us said he smoked_ , and if he supported the amendment, it Would appear he was looking for a way to protect his special interests. He opined that one of the strategies the advocates for no smoking situations or restrictions on smoking failed to capitalize on was that while it might be typified as :a nonsmoker's: right type of legislation, he preferred to think of it as a smoker's support > system. Any process by which those who smoked and most particularly those who had cardiac arrests and triple bypasses and continued -to be so unintelligent . as to smoke deserved whatever was available as .a support system. One of the nicest support systems he found was being on the Council where any subject could be talked to death- and while it was being done, he could not -smoke. He promise] his fami• ly that if he were ever in the position .where he was acting on the subject, he would never vote "no" agaia+st something that was restrictive, of the smoker' s 1 tense. He would support every motion made that evening. AMENDMENT RFSTATEf! TO RFPLACE THE TWO-THIRDS NONSMOKING AREA TO 'A MINIMUM OF 5O PERCENT FOR THE LARGEST DISCRETE ROOM OR SEPARATE AREA, WHICHEVER WAS LARGEST 1 1 AMENDMENT PASSED by a rote of i-3, Fletcher, Klein, Renzel vot- ing "no.' Vice Mayor Cobb said if experience over the next year showed the economic hardships which concerned him were not present, Council might want to look at a stiffer ordinance. AMENDMENT: Cosecil.ember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to change 80 percent to a minimum •f 60 percent nsnsnloking, 40 per- cent smoking. Mayor Levy clarified that the amendment would change the figure to 60 percent and would strike the language related to the largest discrete room or separate area whichever was larger. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Cobb, Levy, Witherspoon, Woolley voting `no .' MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED .unanimously. IT, f e10, ICE SKATING RESOLUTION UNDEDICATING PART OF GOLF COURSE rak AND PROPOSED BALLOT METRE FOR- IRCliAlOr OF tL; toi K : i : City Manager Sill Zaner acknowledged the contribution made by mem- bers of the staff on the report. The report was signed by him, but in the short time available to prepare . it, there were many staff members who substantially contributed to it. He ran through a list earlier that evening and found there were no less than seven departments involved. Mayor Levy said staff had a short time to prepare the report and it was well done. Councilmember- Witherspoon said on page 3 of CMR:325:b, , it said that "if the ballot measures are approved, the Winter Lodge will continue to be operated, at least through 1991-92 without City funde..." She asked if there was a particular reason for picking 'l the six -year period. Councilmember Sutorius said he arrived at the 1991.92 skating season because the amortization of the ARCO property in the midst of the Peery parcels was November, 1991. The purposes, as. cor- rectly enunciated by staff, were' to effect an acquisition of the 1property and allow for an appropriate planning interval for the. ong-term uses of the property, .which most effectively correlated with the amortization period associated with the ARCO property. Councilmember Witherspoon said some of the assumptions using the six -year period were if someone had ,to put considerable capital expense in rehabilitating : the building to bring it up to City code. She asked if the assumption was that the amortization peri- od justifying those expenses would only be six years or whether it was to find a. solution for the next six years in order to ''decide whether to go on for the next 30. She was confused as ;to how far out the City was :looking at the matter. Counciimember Sutorius said he locked as far as six years as a in;iea period If the ,voters were,, given the opportunity to .make an intelligent decision equipped with all the facts, and approved a swap arrangement or an acquisition of the Middlefield sites, it recognized the : impetus = for a swap ,or acquisition was as a result of thepepr l arity and stung interest in continued.- opportunity :for community • ice, skating to be available. If Council assured the opportunity for that ;period of "time, it allowed the City to do an appropriate planning job, taking into account other devei opilent that might occur el sewhere in the cor iuui ty and mast particul arty as it affected school sites and other recreational opportunities in the City. If the community skating program appropriately con- tinued at the site, but in a different configuration, it could be accommodated through a planning process.: at a future time: He did not want to commit to the existing facility as a City responsibil- ity in perpetuity. Council member Renzel asked about the sewer line that ran down the middle of the Geng Road site If the voters voted to swap the 1 and and Mr. Peery devel oped it and wanted to move the sewer line, what about the cost who would be responsible, and how restrictive would the current location be on development, particularly of a smaller site as indicated by the values. Mr. Zaner did not have the cost figures for moving the sewer 1 ine, but staff looked at the possibility of the sewer line being relo- cated and City engineers advised it would be extremely difficul t. The grade on : the property was. -shallow and the sewer ran by grav- ity. It would be difficult to do, but it would not be the City' s responsibility. The sewer easement was critical and the City could not allow a structure to be pl aced on top of it. Counc ilmember Renzel asked given the location of the sewer line, i f a smaller property was indicated by the rel ative vat ues of the two properties, was the si to devel opabl e. Mr. Zaner said it became more difficult as the site was restr icted because the normal way the City would deal with an easement of that type was to let it go to parking or landscaping or some kind of use that made it easy for the City to get to the sewer. As the site became tighter, it was more difficult to deal with the newer 1 ine, and at some point became impossible. Counc ilmember Kl ein said in the first staff recommendation, the language was to "adopt the attached resolution indicating the intent to remove parkl and from dedication and calling for a publ is hearing..." and he asked if it was necessary to do the first part of the recommendation in order to call a publ is hearing, or whether the City could call a publ is hearing. City Attorney Diane Lee said the City Charter was specific in terms of the procedure for removal from dedication. The language in that recommendation was paraphrased from the resolution, which was verbatim of what the Charter required. Both. needed to be done. Councilmember Renzel said the staff report indicated the cost of operating a private facility to be a little different than. if it were a publ is facil ity because of the standards to which the City would be held, but if the City was to park dedicate the land and franchise out the operation of the Minter Club, she asked about the standard to which the City would be held in terms of its lease to a franchisee or an operator. Mr. Zaner said the standards .were essentially the same, but when the City operated a facii ity of its own .it was under the City's direct control and the City was more stringent with itself than it might be wi th a 1 essee. A l essee was apt to be given a little more of a grace period occasionally and the City would work with them because they were involved in a business or attempting to put a nonprofit service together. Counc ilmember Renzel said it was hard to think in, tries of swap- ping parkland for .a particular purpose On another piece of land when _ it- was almost cOnte placed at the oUtaet that the purpose alight in fact end in six years. If the City was going to dedicate the property as parklands she asked how staff saw the City using the site if the Winter Club was not self-sustaining. 5. 7 6 8 5/20/85 As Corrected' 7/01/85 Mr. Zaner said not ouch thought was given to a Midtown Middlefield Park in the absence of an ice skating facility. If it was dedi- cated land, there was no other use to which it could be put It would be parkl and, and there might be room on the site for other facilities i f some future Council wished to use it for that pur- pose. Presently and given the kinds of constraints in the Capi tal Improvement Program for existing parks --parks the Council was com- mitted to --he believed the property would probably remain much as i.t was without improvements for some time. There were many parks ahead of it. Counc ilanember Woolley said page 10 of the staff report l isted .some rehabil station and repair needs, and page 12 listed some mitiga- tions as a resul t of the new project next door to the property. She asked for cl arification that the mitigations on page 12 should be required if the problems were still there whether it was City owned or contracted out by the City. She asked if that was not also true of the items listed on page 10, or whether they were things that were a good idea, but were not necessarily required if the property were contracted out. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the noise, light and glare improvements would have to be made regardless of who operated the facility. In terms of the items on page 10 which related primarily to building and fire codes, pres- ently staff would have no reason to do a formal inspection of the site . If work needed to be done there, it needed to be done under City building code permits. The granting of permits would at least trigger consideration of the handicapped modifications, and any type of structural modification. If it was a private facil- ity, if work was going on and City inspectors identified other related problems of a significant nature, those would be brought to the attention of the property owners In terms of what had to be done, it was not simple if it was a private facility, but if it was undertaken and permits applied for, it would trigger handi- capped, etc. Counciimember Fletcher asked if the City acquired the site and 1 eased a contract for another operator, and an injury occurred due to a structural defect, would the City be liable. Ms. Lee said normally when the City leaned to a private contractor to operate., it required the provision of insurance which would cover the City' s l lab it ity. If the City was at one of those sit- uations where there was a gap in the insurance for some reason, then the City would ultimately be liable, and, was ultimately lia- bl e. The City shifted its 1 iabil sty by requiring the contractor to provide insurance. As long as the insurance was enforced, the City would essentially be protected providing the coverage was adequate. Mayor Levy said in the resol action of intention to undedicate, at the top of page 2, the language said "the City Council also in- tends to pl ace the measure on the November ballot." He understood that intention was the subject of the ordinance that was also a separate item. He asked if Council should first deal with the ordinance dealing with the swap, and if Council approved the ordi- nance, - it gee on to approve the resol uti on as it stood. If Council did not apprdve the ordinance and wanted to deal with the resol u - ti on, it would have to change the language somewhat so that the undedication would only take effect if a swap ordinance appeared on the ballot. Ms. Lee believed that .when the motion passed a few weeks ago, the resolution and ordinance were extricably bound. She believed Council Could bethe best judge. since it was not a legal issue as to how to proceed. ti Mayor Levy suggested Council first deal with the ordinanr,e'call for the swap and then deal with the question of undedication. Cauncilmember Renzel said previously when Council considered Winter Lodge Issues, it was unwilling to look at direct City financing of the purchase of the. Winter Lodge. It was clear with the consideration of a land swap, that the City was devoting con- siderabl a resources to the acquisition of the Winter Lodge site. Given that situation and the many complications associated with the swap, she believed it would be cleaner for Council to directly acquire the Winter Lodge. She asked whether there were any finan- cial mechanisms whereby the City could acquire it -and whether it would require an election to get under the Gann limits, etc., and the constraints on a direct acquisition even if it required instruction from the voters. Mr. Zaner said the simplest and most direct method for acquisition would be a si m pl e cash purc ha se. The Ci ty wo ul d proceed normal 1 y, have an appraisal done to determine the value of the property, meet with the property owner and make an offer. In all 1 ikel i- hood, that would drive the City's expenditures beyond its Gann 1 imitation. The City was within about $1.5 mill ion of that 1 imit- ation now, and rather than a straight cash purchase, the City should probably string the payments out over some period of time in order to not go . past the Gann limitation. It was done in the Civic Center with certi€icate s.of participation. It could be done by the . use of a nonprofit corporation. The City could go to the voters with a revenue bond pledging the revenues from the ice skating rink and any other facilities that might present rent money as _security for the revenue bonds. Some Ci ty moneys wo ul d probably also have to be pledged since he did not know whether bond holders would purchase the bonds strictly on the strength of the revenues from the ice skating rink and the rent from the ten- nis courts for exampl e. Councilmember Renzel said given the estimated value of the land at $2.5 mill ion, she asked about the level of annual costs if the City worked the normal five or ten year payment. Mr. Zaner said if $2.5 mill ion were amorti zed at 10 percent at the bank for 20 years, it would cost S252,000 per year. Counc ilmember Sutori us said with respect to how to proceed on the issue, the issues were intertwined, but a rain purpose behind the matter being on the agenda was to respect the time intervals involved. Time was of the essence if Council was going to make provision for a publ it hearing on the undedication issue. Vice Mayor Cobb said . as the order of business was outl fined, could Council still get_ to deal ing with just the question of call ing for a public hearing. Ns. Lee believed Council could order the public hearing in anyway i t served Council's convenience. With respect to the issue of 'the financing on the parklands, she had discussions wi th bond counsel recently and essentially, it was not a rubber stamp process by the corporation and the fiscal agent. `.s independent entities and even more so with the fi scal agent, they had their own considera- tions in mind when they looked at issues about impairment of the obligations under the bonds or financing mechanisms. It was not clear as to what they `would do if the City asked them to look at the arrangement. Jack Morton, 2343 Webster Street, Trust for Community Skating, expressed appreciation to staff for all , the work that went into the report. Generally, the Trust concurred with staff's conclu- sion. There was an error on page one which was symbolic of . the struggle over the. past two years. Hecorrected: that it was Marvin Lee --not the Trust--who,'_requested the $175,00-0 from the City The Trust only requested a matching, working capital grant of $25,000. At the close of the season, the _Trust would still have the bulk_ of its .original $50,000 working capital and it would be in interest beading accounts. Co unity ._ ice skating was operationally, sal f- suf f is iers t and reasonabl e long- term maintenance could be funded. Staff faulted the Winter Lodge in the lack of long• -term maintenance, but the Trust was unwilling to throw City and commu- nity money before the bulldozer. When its future was secure, it would be glad to expend money on a maintenance program. The main- tenance demolition was not the only double bind the Winter Lodge found itself in. As pointed out by staff on page 8, when talking to the bank about the Geng Road lot, it was suggested it had a rel atively 1 ow market value as security for the golf course finan- cing. As pointed out by Councllmember Renzel , the site would be difficult, but not impossible, to devel op. As Ms. Van Tyle's let- ter (which is on file in the City Clerk' s office) indicated, what gave the land its market value was the cormunity' s willingness to undedicate the parcel. If the land was actually worth $3,5 mil- lion, the Trust was not insi sting that it surrender a more val u- abl e 1 of for a less val uabl a one. Mr . Peery offered the Middlefield lot to the community for $2.5 million. If an open market liquidation resulted in more dollars to the Cl ty, the ex- cess funds could be used for the long-term development of the par- cel. The proper forum for consideration of those and other issues raised by the staff report was the public hearing The Trust urged the Council to set the public hearing for June 24, 1985 as proposed by staff. Carole Kral ss, a36 Clara Drive, was _a member of the Trust for Com- munity Skating, and said Palo Alto voters clearly wanted the ex- change on the November ballot. Many petitions were still being circulated by not only ice skating enthusiasts, but by nonskaters who believed in helping to maintain the Ci ty' s quality of life. Additionally, other petition circulators were overwhelmed by the increase of the high density in the Midtown area. Whether the intentions be disc ike of high densi ty housing, enjoyment of skat- ing , or love of their City, the voters of Palo Al to clearly wanted the issue on the ballot. She requested that Council start the undedication proceedings which would give the Palo Alto voters compl ete information on the issue. Sheryl kel1 er, 642 Georgia, Trust for Community Skating, read por- tions of a letter to the City Council from Marilyn Bauriedel , a ✓ ice president of the Committee for Green Foathills. Ms. Bauriedel was a long time supporter of the Winter Lodge because of its supportive rote as a healthy gathering place for famil ies and youth, and requested that Council carefully consider the proposal of the Trust for Community Skating to have the Council place on the ballot the matter of trading the Geng Road parcel for the Middlefield Road site. While it was a dilemma to undedicate park- land, particularly in the Bayl ands area, it was important as Palo Alto became increasingly commercial ized, to preserve institutions that promoted and nurtured family life. The Winter Lodge was one o f the few such institutions in, Palo Alto which served . a large n umber of citizens. She lived in Palo Alto for 16 years, and favored letting the voters decide whether to undedicate the Geng Ro adi Em barc ad ero parcel for the prospect . that the City mould own the Middlefield Road land and .make it available for skating. Al an Bell , 2125 Emerson Street, appl and ed City staff for providing the report in such little time. For the last three seasons, a reinimum amount of maintenance was performed on the facie ity. Each year, there were no assurances of, continued ice skating and it was pointl ess to spend any money that was not essential Before tak- ing over the facility, they did various tests to understand whether there would be any major problems later; for example, they examined the cooling pipes in the rink to make sure they were okay. They cut open a pipe and found out it was as good as new. Likewise, the YMCA had a structural engineer look at the roof of the building who concluded that it was not an -imminent concern although it would require some work in the future. The repairs were limited to items that were of immediate concern. He believed they were successful in doing so. The, facility was completely functional and they lost no ice time due to problems with repairs. The report said $250,000 was needed to upgrade the facilities to a point where the City could operate. He believed that number was based on upgrades that might not be required. For example, the report included costs for replacing ice making equipment because it was "essentially obsol ete." Over the past two years the facil- ity operated, they fixed probl ems many times, and each time, parts were readily available and the service people were familiar with the equip=ment. Even though it might have many years on it, the equipment was still adequate and serviceable. In fact, Jim Mercer wanted to buy the refrigeration equipment for his food processing business if the Winter Lodge went under. To replace the refriger- ation equipment would be expensive. He wanted to see a breakdown of the $250,000 because the necessities were not totally clear. Likewise, the number did not consider that much of the Winter Lodge 1 abor was vol unteer in nature and cost much less than if it were done by professional contractors. Regarding noise, the report tended to indicate that the Winter Lodge was in constant violation of the noise ordinance and he. dieagrecd. The descrip- tion in the report did not consider there were different noise levels all owed during the day than there were during the evening . The Winter Lodge expected to use the mitigation money to reduce the level of noise. The facil ity could provide' ice skating in the future with reasonable maintenance and they could see expending more money to go into the repair issues. Lynn Winkle, 3347 St. Michael Court, said it was apparent that the l and swap issue could be put on the November ballot and she urged Council to commence the hearings that were part of the undedica- tion process. The issues surrounding the land swap were compli- cated and needed the public airing the hearings would provide to give the voters a chance to make an informed choice in November. All questions surrounding the land swap involved weighing public benefit. Council expressed repeated concern over increased traf- fic the land swap might bring to the East Embarcadero inter- sec- tion. No doubt, another building in the area would increase traf- fic at that intersection, but as Council expressed in its . 1983 amendment to the Palo M to Comprehensive Pl an, "In eval uating proposals for devel opment on Ci ty-owned lands east of the Bayshore Freeway, a determination should be made as to whether publ is bene- fit and need outweighed potential traffic increases generated by the development." The pubs is benefit in the proposed swap involved recognition of what was happening to traffic density in the Midtown area and who it affected. Swap or no swap, traffic was increasing and ..the question was where --not whether. There was a definite qualitative difference between increased traffic at Geng and: Embarcadero versus increased, traffic in Midtown. In the first instance, they were talking about adults in cars waiting a I ittle longer at an inter.secti n; but in the Midtown case, it was increased traffic where there were many pedestrians, young :>,.and old, cycl fists of all ages children particularly biking to Wilbur to elementary schools, to . Midtown stores, as well as the motor-_ fists. As the City Engineer pointed out in his 1983 traffic reports four .existing condominium projects --99 at Hoover, 62 an Loma Verde and possibly 25 at the Chinese Community Center --could be expected to produce a net traffic increase of 385 vehicles per day in both directions on Middlefield near Colorado. Without the swap, they could add another 80 condominiums worth of traffic im- pact to the area. The qualitative difference was clear Valid` concern was expressed about the Erabarcadero intersection being -at a level of service 0, but the City traffic engineer's 1983 report pointed out that the level of service at the Middlefield/Oregon intersection was already at level F. The figures in that report were compiled before measuring the impact of the recent office projects in the California Avenue area. Those projects continued to increase traffic vol e on Oregon passing through Middlefield. The banefi t to the el ready congested Midtoad area ar1si eg from the recreational use in the Midtown parcel involved in the land swap far outweighed the benefits of moving the traffic faster through the East Embarcadero intersection, but, she believed the public should decide in an informed way which way tb go on the issue Halimah Van Tuyl, 4017 Middlefield Road, said the land swap pro- posal would create another office building in Palo Al to bet a great pubs is payoff would come from the building. Recently, many offices were completed in the downtown area and presently several new ones were going in around California Avenue. Decisions to okay those offices involved the Architectural Review Board GARB), Planning Commission and the City Council. She doubted that any project was part of a plan to preserve a quality program such as the Winter Lodge --a program supported by the Board of Education, the Palo Alto Unified School, District, the Palo Alto PTA, the AFL/CIO Local 715, the Standing Committee of Arts and Sciences in Palo Alto, the Lawn Bowl ing Club and the El Camino Youth Symphony. In 1983, those groups together with many church groups, scout, social clubs and sports groups passed resolutions of support for the Winter Lodge. In their words, "to encourage the community to continue the valuable community resource for future Generations." Regarding housing, there was a legitimate concern that adequate housing be built for residents of the peninsul a. The present Council's efforts were largely aired at doing something to help that housing situation Four recent -projects would add 196 condo- minium units in Midtown, a corridor along Middlefield that al ready had a large number of multiple family units. Acknowledging the need for housing on the peninsula, she believed Midtown did its part. In November, the ultimate answers would come from the Palo Alto voters. Council's responsibil ity was to facilitate hearings so that the pros and cons of the ..undedication and land swap ques- tion could be discussed publ icly. The Palo Alto Weekly and the Peninsula Times/Tribune publicly urged p Council to start the hearings. The Trust requested that Council act that evening. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gallen Avenue, was concerned about staff's statement of increased traffic congestion on. the Embarcadero/East Bayshore intersection and that the intersection could not be econ- omically improved and that traffic congestion would worsen. He disagreed. One major deficiency of the intersection now was that there .was no publ is transit serving those workers. While the swap might aggravate the traffic congestion at the intersection, there should be mitigations specifically involving transit services and carpooling. It would be unfair to deny the voters the opportunity to swap the 1 and Rebecca Sparck, 4099 Laguna Avenue, skated at the Winter Lodge. She requested that Council consider the l and swap. She provided photographs of Palo Al to s May Fete: parade. Marilyn Eaton, 690 Hermosa Way, Menlo Park, pointed out that Ms. Sparck's pictures were of the children in the May Day parade. The discussion at thie May 1 Council meeting was known to be at a late hour , so the children were asked to show their support by marching in the parade on their float rather than attending the meeting. She hoped ice skating would continue in Palo Alto. Ralph Brown, 541 Bryson, said the City Council had a fiduciary responsibil ity to the residents of Pal o Al to. They had at their disposal many assets including real -estate. As Council made its decision, .it attempted to determine how .best to use those assets and if the exchange, of those assets would . better the human condi- tion in Palo Alto. The Middlefield Road site was emerging as a strategic real estate asset and if the Council received a proposal to exchange one asset for another, it must seriously consider those proposals He believed the proposal was definitely credible. and in Coupe ilmpmberse capacity : as fiduciaries, they should con - cider whether the site on Middlefield Road was a trade up of real estate assets. He bel ieved it was because it was a strategic piece of real estate. It was on pubi ic transit, and offered many opportunities for City pl tinning. All opportunities included re- tention of -the existing recreational resources, and the site could be pl armed wi th those resources maintained on ; the site in some configuration. He urged Council to immediately set up the hear- ings and to pl ace the: ondedicatlon on :the ballot. Michael Hahn, 719 Colorado, lived in the Midtown area, and spoke of the impact of building high density housing on his family and neighbors. Hoover Park was overwhelmed by a massive three story struc ture near ing compl etion to house 99. apartments, The baseball field area wa s permanently lost to the high density apartment com- plex . As he watched a little .league game last. Saturday. he heard comments that the buildings seemed to confine and literally over shadow the remaining park. From his . second floor office window, he looked out and saw the huge roofs blocking his former view of the mountains. He al so saw an extremely congested intersection of Middlefield and Colorado, He saw cars speeding along Middlefield or impatiently waiting to make turns as children and seniors scrambled across the street. He saw several accidents at the intersection making " it dangerous for the many cycl ists and pedes- trians, and the corner was a crossroad for children travel ing to at least five schools. He saw cars parked all day on Colorado Avenue from Middlefield to Cowper and wondered what the traffic and parking situation would be like when the 99 Hoover apartments were finished. He attended the last Council meeting and was en- couraged by some of the Councilmembers not having forgotten their pledge to preserve neighborhoods and keep Palo Alto a pleasant place to live. He 1 istened to the concerns for providing housing for the increased number of empl oyees of the City, heard the con- cerns for congestion on Geng Road, and heard some Counc ilmemberRs acknowledge that Midtown already suffered more than its share of the burden to provide for the housing needs for the community at 1arge.. Unless the Winter Lodge and the surrounding area could be saved for the recreational use of the entire City, the Midtown area would continue its march to be irreparably al tered. The Mid- town area needed not only the cessation of building more high den- sity housing, i t needed a return of the park area al ready lost in the Ho o v er si to . • All re si den ts o f Pal o Al to needed the precious , one of a kind ice skating rink for the benefit of the children and famil le s of the City. The proposal to exchange park property from an area relatively remote and putting it in the heart of where a majority of peopl e could enj oy it, seemed reasonabl e and wi se . The added benefit of saving a community asset that enhanced the heal th, w.el fare and pl easure of all age groups for years made the proposal a stroke of genius. He urged the Council to do every- thing it could to preserve . the Winter Lodge and surrounding recreation area so that the residents of Midtown and Palo Al to would be proud of Council' s wisdom in .preserving the quality of 11fe for everyone. Sam Sparck, 4099 Laguna, associated himself with the comments of the prey sous speakers. He compl invented staff for their report and believed it well Iaid out the irapl ications and conditions of the I and swap and potential problems of the continued operations of the Winter Lodge. He requested Council give the Trust for Commu- nity Skating a chance to give Mr. Peery and the gol f course cor- poration the opportunity to react to the land swap's conditions. It was a matter on which reasonable argument could be held, on which friends bould disagree. For that reason he believed the issue should be referred to the voters. between then and November, the matter and all its pros and cons would have a chance to be thoroughly debated, explored and editorialized. He wanted Council to put 6 balance to a well -considered resolution on the November ballot. He believed the question should get as wide a hearing as possible and that the final decision should be made by the pubs lc at large. Mayor Levy said the 1 anguage in the undedication resolution stated that the City Council intended to pl ace a measure on the November 5 ballot, and he believed Council, should first take that action. Having taken action, the. 1angua9e would hold If Council did not. take the action, it could still change the language to read that the City Counc11 assumed there . would be a measure on ` the ballot pl aced there by a public petition and coul d continue wi th the undedication. It was a question of looking at the -`language as it. now read Vice Mayor Cobb was struggling with the order because it seemed that the call for a public hearing would serve the purpose of bringing to the forefront_ all the issues associated with the land swap and for Council debate and decide that now absent a pubs is hearing, seemed to be backwards. MOTION: Vice Mayors Cobb roved, seconded by Sutorius, approval of the resolution of intent. RESOLUTION 5387 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF fff£ MY OF PALO ALTO STATING ITS INTENTION TO DIS- CONTINUE THE PARK USE OF A PORTION OF THE MUNICIPAL GOLF COURSE AND TO SUBMIT THE QUESTION TO THE ELECTORATE" Vice Mayor Cobb did not want to suggest that Council's decision that evening committed a Councilrnember to support the ul timate resol ution, but rather to call for the publ is hearing and go through the formalities the City Attorney indicated must be done, and let the publ lc debate and comments at the pubs is hearing guide the Council's decision with regard to- the resol ution. Counc llmember Renzel asked Mr . Peery to comment with respect to the staff report and what appeared to be differences between that report and his requests. Mr. Peery offered to swap the land, and specifically spoke about a certain number of square feet of build- ing, and she asked for his comments with regard to the report. Richard T. Peery said the size of the proposal was 3.74 for 3.74 acres, and the si ze was non-negotiabl e. Councilmermber Renzel clarified that Mr. Peery was not accepting the equal value basis. Mr. Peery said value was an open question. Their proposal was equal size because they were 1 invited by the uses that could go on the property, landscaping, etc. Councilmember Renzel believed some Counciimembers might be con- cerned about swapping land of equal value. Councilmember Witherspoon disagreed with the concept of trading the two parcels and had problems with Council putting a measure to that effect on the ballot. If Council put the question on the ballot, it seemed 1 ike a Council .endorsercent.. There was .no other way for it to be interpreted. Further, Counc11 was inextricably confusing the issue of whether the City would maintain an ice skating facility in Palo Al to with a referendum oq land Use poi i- cies and zoning densities in the Midtown area. She believed that was a major mistake because as she saw it, the City might end up with a large stite elephant in the for of a fac i1 i ty that it did not know how to support in six years. She had no quarrel with looking at the zoning densities in the Midtown area because it was a valid concern, but it had nothing to do with whether to try and find a way to continue ice skating in Palo Alto. She doubted ,here would be the momentum to save the Winter lodge if the City was discussing a land swap in the Urban .Lane area and not in the Midtown area. There-. were two issues involved that should not be together on the ballot. She did not know howel se to -express her Corte erns except that- she would not vote to put either measure on the ballot. Cottle ilmember Klein bet leised- the 1 and swap proposal had merl.ts and alight work, but would not -'cOmitiit, himsel_:f to doing it at any cost, and the way the 1 ahguage r s --Worded l t • seemed to be e suppor°tabl e. . Strategically, Council '-ieust, recognize that something would be on the 'bill oty.ated the 1 ang,uage before the Counc 11 , in- the form ' of . the proposed. ordinance ,and resa1 ution, was far _better publ it po1 i- cy than: the 1 anguage -that eoul-d atherwi se be on the ballot. - It was Coreac 11' s responsib1l ity , to the citi zen$ of the Community to. put the best possible wording on the ballot. Therefore, even though a Counc ilieteeiber eight tieel it was not the best publ tc poi i- cy, that person should support the public hearing and putting the matters on the ballot so the publ is , when faced with the choice, would have the best possible language and public poi icy statements to vote on. He believed Council did a disservice to its constitu- ents by not giving them that opportunity. He supporter the mo- tion, but believed the two actions were inextricably intertwined and that when they got down to things, he did not see how they could put one thing on the ballot without the other. Councilmemb€r Fletcher said the agreement to. swap was contingent on a_ 49,000 square foot building guaranteed ahead of time before any of the City review processes. The staff report clearly indi- cated a swap of equal value would prohibit a 49,000 square ' foot building, and those Counc ilmembers who supported putting the mat- ter on the ballot should _discuss whether they supported making a gift of publ is land for the benefit of an office building. Councilrember Bechtel said one of the speakers who argued in favor of putting the matter on the ballot said Council needed to put a well -reasoned, well -thought out item before the voters. She did not believe the proposal before the Council was it. Staff pointed out many problems with the Geng Road site and incl uee:, was a gas line easement in the middle of the property, numerous go.f balls, the low lying nature of the property that would require extensive fill , not to mention the traffic problems. She sensed that even if the item were placed on the ballot and approved by the voters, Mr. Peery would pull out because he would not want to risk the approximately one year staff described as the time it would take to get the matter through the City` s land use processes and the environmental impact report that would need. to be done. She heard one speaker say the City was commercializing Palo Alto. If Palo Alto did not want to be commercialized, she asked why the City was pursuing a 1 and swap that would build even more office space in the community and house approximately 200 more employees. If the goal was to preserve the Winter Lodge, it should be put in with all the priorities of the City of Palo alto. Let the voters de- cide whether that was their highest priority over preserving the Jordan playing fields or the Cubberley playing fields. She did not want to`. mix the issue of how much housing there was in the Midtown area,. and she would not support the motion. Councilmember Sutorius said the prioritization concept was inter- esting, he believed staff did an excellent job preparing the report, the resolution for unded ic. ti on and proposed ballot state- ment. They responded to bringing to the voters of Palo Alto issues on which they could mace an informed decision. As pointed out by Counc ilmember Klein , the ine` i tabil ity of an initiative on the ballot was cl ear. Initiative No. 1 al ready gathered more than the minimum number of signatures in order to qualify for the ballot, and Initiative No. 2 was practically at that stage and there was plenty of time left to catch the necessary additional signatures. If Council failed to take positive action in support of at least schedul ing a publ is hearing on the question of unde►d-. 'cation, and that evening was a proper time to take a sense of the Council action in tens of: the swap ballot measure, there would be a minimum of two initiatives on the ballot, either one of`wfiich was 1 ess than sat' sfactory and less than fair for the voters to make a decision. Coun01 would then need to initiate amendments on the ballot in order to control the desired outcome if Initiative No. 1 passed, and if No. 2 passed in its limited wording. Council had ample reason to act in : the . public interest to schedule the public hearing, and the input from that hearing was appropriate and make a decision as to whether to put the matter on the ballot. Fur- ther, having a sense that everting that the ballot measure for the swap contained the provisos and wherewithal s appropriate as a :COM-- panion piece to the undeditatlon measure, if :..the tandtAilation measure survived the public hearing, was sensible and appropriate- ly communicated Council':s :thinking on the issue, e; i Councilmember Renzel thanked staff for the excellent report. She concurred wrt.h'Councilmernber Wi therepoon with respect to the need to separate the land use issue from the Winter Lodge issue per se. She believed Council needed to discuss the swap issue because it determined whether the Winter Lodge would submit their petitions. Even though Council must set a hearing on undedication, if Council did not decide to put it on the ballot after the hearing, the Winter Lodge needed to know whether to submit its petitions. She agreed with those who bel levied ;land use in the Midtown was out of control , but Council -needed to deal with that separately. If it was the will of the Council or .the public to save the Winter. Lodge, a measure should be on the ballot to speak to purchasing it outright and not complicate it by mucking up land use in some other part of town which also had problems. She realized the Midtown area land use issues had to be dealt with soon. While a traffic level of service "F" was al ready at Oregon and Middlefield, they were also at level of service "F" at Geng Road and Embarcadero. At Embarcadero and the freeway, level of service "F" meant unacceptable delays, and cars were backed up onto the freeway and were unable to enter the offramp. Those cars were then subject to bad accidents. It was different than a City street where people traveled at slower speeds and were not accus- tomed to moving freely. There was a serious difference between. a level of service "F" on Oregon and Middlefield and at the Embarcadero offrarap. She agreed with the remarks regarding the properties of equal value and bel ieved it was unrealistic for Palo Al to on one hand to be trawl l l ing to commit the fi nanc Jai. resources and on the other hand be will ing to provide .a land resource of the City which was of greater value in . a swap. The City' s resources ircl uded both its moneys and its land and it ought to do the job directly. If it was the will of the people to keep the Winter Lodge open, it should be purchased . It was not a bad idea to pur- chase it, it was a well located site in the heart of town, and if the Winter Lodge was unable to continue to operate, the City could develop some sort of park Cecil #ties that would get good use. Vice Mayor Cobb did not believe it was realistic to expect to resolve points of negotiation with Mr. Peery that evening. His presence that evening indicated hi s interest. He believed Mr. Peery knew conditions would be applied to make the property acceptable in the way it was developed. The basic principle needed to be established and it would be worked out as negotia- tions were properly done. Over the past two years, Council scratched its heads and talked about buying the site outright, and now that the sand in the hourglass was down to the last few grains, the issue was raised. He recalled some staff reports -which indicated the difficulties of the outright purchase which problems were compounded wi th issues like Jordan, etc. He did not see a lost of alternatives, and if the matter was going to be put on the ballot, i t should be done properly with a public heaving. He urged hi s colleagues to support that posi tion. Counc it member Wool l ey praised staff for its report, and believed it was Coun;ilmember Sutorius` well thought out motion that allowed staff to create the report. He used the word "inevitably" and she agreed. The petitions were all but ready to submit and while Counc ll might have ideas on how it could be done differently or better, it could not ignore that if Cognc11 die nothing', the petitions would be submitted. Whether it Was the Trust' s measure or a Council measure, I t was reasonable and responsible' to put the undedication `on the ballot, along with .whatever, measure :was put on the ballot, so the voters could fully understand what '`.hey were voting for. If some Counc ilme*bers had other ideas they wanted to see pursued, .i t was fine, but she agreed with Vice Mayor. Cobb that time was short and she did not see how Council was going . to come up with a workable proposal_ within the few weeks remaining. The Winter Lodge could not wait in, line with all other City capital projects, i t had a ._definite deadline. She bel ieved Council should vote to have the public hearing. Councilmember Wi therspoon saw many initiatives go on the ballot in Palo Al tv arid had great faith in the city's voters who were dis- cerning when it came to issues especially in an election year when there was full publ is debate all during the election process, She had no qualms with letting those who collected the signatures on their initiative put it on the ballot. She never heard of _a city council "bailing auk" an initiative that needed amendments or which they bel ieved they could word better than the publ is . She would not support it. Mayor Levy was satisfied that Council should not put the swap on the ballot, but believed the measure to undedicate the 1 and, if the Trust itself put the swap on the ballot, should accompany that measure on the ballot. He did not believe Council should make the electorate wait six or nine months and then vote again and go through the expense both to the City and those who supported and opposed the measure for the undedication. He was prepared to sup- port the resolution of intent assuming a swap was put on the bal- lot, but was not prepared to put the swap on the ballot. APIENDNEIT: Mayer Levy moved , seconded by Cobb , that the language on the top of page 2 of the Resolution, second . sentence, that "The City Council also intends to place a measure on the November 5, 1985 bal a ot..." be changed to The City Council recog- nizes that there might be a measure on the November 5, 1985 ballot... ° Mayor Levy cl ari fled the change did not al ter Council's ability to move forward with the hearings ors undedication. Ms. Lee was concerned about the word "negotiations" in the eleventh line. The measure drafted by her responded to Council direction and used the word "negotiations." She did not believe the Tr-ust's measure for signature referred to "negotiations." Mayor Levy clarified that the swap proposal being circulated by the Trust called for an exchange of equal acreage --not equal v a1 ue . Ms. Lee said yes, but it also called for an actual exchange as opposed to the measure that Council authorized her to prepare which used the term "negotiations for an exchange," which were different concepts. Vice Mayor Cobb asked if the Trust was successful in getting the measure put on the ballot and Council held the suggested public hearing, the City could then make amendments which would restore the language "negotiations." Ms. Lee said the document before the Council was the official one. Council would be voting "aye" or "nay" for placing the measure on the ballot. The wording of the measure might be before the Coun- cil , but it would not have en ordiee ee' or resol ution. Mr. Zaner understood that question to, be tat once the Trust sub- mitted its measure and Council had an oppor.unity to consider it, could Council amend the measure. Ms. .Lee _ said Council could not amend the Trust' s. measure. Council could place separate amendments on the ballot which would separ- ately be voted up or down by the el ec torate Mayor Levy asked if, Council could amend the undedication resolu- tion after the hearings. Ns. Lee said it was important .for Council to state what it wanted to state in the resolution at that time because theresolution was what would be noticed and what Council would base its decision on. There would . not be much of an opportunity at the hearing since it would be to hear protests on whether the City should rtndedicate. Mayor L vy ci drilled that if the undedication resol ution was dif- ferent in 1 anguage from the swap ordinance which appeared on the ballot, the incarpatibil ity would render one or the other moot. Ms. Lee said it would cause some difficulties for those who had to deal with the interpretation after it was over, which was why she suggested the wording should reflect what Council wanted te do. Mayor Levy cl ari fled that in order to do that, the other language which needed to be changed was the word '"negotiation." Ms. Lee said the basis for the resolution was a measure which authorized an equivalent value exchange. All the conditions in the measure did not parallel the measure being circulated by the Trust. Many of the conditions were not contained, but she was concerned about the equivalent value exchange and the use of the term "negotiations," Councilr ember Renzel said since it was Council's sole prerogative to determine to put undedication on the ballot and if it chose to do so based on the idea that the exchange would be negotiated and would be an equal value exchange, would it not be control l ing with respect to the undedication so that if there was any desire to have a different kind of undedication based on an equivalent land exchange, that would then have to be the subject of a separate el ection. Ms. Lee said yes. Councilmember Bechtel pointed out that the beginning of the reso- lution was al so inextricably tied to the ordinance. She particu- larly referred to the second "whereas" that "Council intended to p1 ace on the November 5, 1985 ballot the question of exchanging a portion not exceeding...Council intended to negotiate said ex- change if authorized only for that portion...which was equivalent in its market value." She bel ieved Council had a problem and that Mayor Levy should vote "no" and solve the problem. Councilmereber Sutorius saw two options. Council could try and modify the wording to put it in a more "iffy" condition or could find the exact wording in the Charter with respect to the subject. The sense was to try and recognize the reality Which was that the resolution was to establ i sir a hearing and give the public an op- portunity to participate in the decision as to whether the undedi- cation item should be on the ballot. He firmly bel loved by acting that evening no Councilmember gave up, their right or obl igation to listen ju,diciously at the public hearings to participate by questions and offering observations, and to make up his or her mind at th,t point on the issue. The fact that one voted to pass the resolution setting, the hearing date in no way committed that person to vote in a given way after that hearing. One way was to fuss around with the words, but it did not change the action. He asked to hear the wording which seeieed to he at the crux of the concern. Ms. Lee quoted "Initiation on .proceedings Resolution. Proceed- ings are initiated why) the legislative body adopts a resolution declaring- the pub -1 .lc interest or convenience requires the discon- tinuance of the use of such land as pub1 is park and that the l eg-�. islative body intends to call a -special election to submit the question of the discontinuance to the city el`ec-tors. Resolution Contents. The resolution, shall_ contain an accurate description of the lands, state the common name df the ` parks, state the disposi- tion which the legislative body proposes to make of the park, fix the time not -less than 30 nor more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution, in a place at which ,time: the public or persons particularly Interested may protest. Protests. At any time before the hour set for the hearing, any person or persons, interested may protest in writing against the proposed abandonment or discontinuance or to the extent thereof. The protest shall be delivered to the City Cl ere. Protest Nearing. At the time set forth for the hearing or to which it is postponed, the legislative body shall hear and pass upon all the protests. Protest Rul ings - Call a Special Election. Protests are sustained unless over- ruled." She said the partlnular section read two-thirds. There was a supervening section which said "majority vote of the legis- lative body. The legfsl ative body may sustain protests as to one portion and overrule them as to any other portion of parkland. If protests are overruled, the legislative body may adopt an ordi- nance calling and fixing the date of a special election to submit to the electors of the City the question of discontinuance and abandonment Of the use of parkland. on which protests are over- ruled..." Councilmember Sutorius cl arified the resolution prepared for Coun- cil consideration acted in accordance with the Charter. Council action that evening was an initial step in the process and he had no difficulty voting on the resol ution because it was cl early on the record that Council was facilitating having the hearing in time so that if it were the decision of the Council, it could be placed on the ballot. He opined it would be much simpler to have the hearing in an appropriate time fra,ie and if it turned out that Initiative 1 and 2 ended up on the ballot, he was confident there would be Council amendments as described ty the City Attorney that would try and bring back into the process the conditions contained in the ballot measure proposed. At that juncture, nothing was out of sync and nothing was lost as far as the opportunity at any step in the way for individual Councilmembers and the public to parti- cipate in the decision. Councilmember Klein did not agree with the amendment and believed it left Council in an awkward position. On the other hand, Coun- cil must move forward and the City Attorney's reading gave no choice but to try and get the fifth vote in order to get on the public hearing process and hopefully on the ballot. The only solution he had was to go along with the amendment, but when Ini- tiative No. 2 prepared by the Trust was before the Council, he intended to offer a series of amendments to be placed on the bal- lot by the Council that would get the City to the same result as that evening in the staff proposal before Council. He did not like that process because it would present a confusing ballot to the people, and instead of having two things on the ballots they would end up with raybe six. He urged the amendment not be in- flicted on the Council and that Council understand it could change its mind and vote differently when the matter was presented in June. If something was to be on the ballot, it should be as clean as possible and not more confusing. Mayor Levy understood Councilmember Klein and desired that the Trust get the number of necessary signatures and that the initia- tive for the item being on the ballot be in their hands. He rec- ognized the resolution before the Council was probably a superior set of policies fo4, the negotiation than the measure he understood was being circulated by the Trust. It might be necessary that the. amendment process was the way to go. The amendment before the Council was minorand it did not change the substance of what the hearing would be about. Council could change the substance of the undedicatlon motion after the hearing took pi ace. Ms. Lee said Council cold change the ba.l l +ot eeeure she was directed to p1 ace on the ball of at that thee. Counc ilmeeber ,'1 e1n asked if the City :Attorney could be directed to make the rest ,of the language 0.f the resolution Ccnsi stent with the intent. E4s. Lee. said... the eresolUtien --needed 'to be _pubeished in the news- paper` right r1a.y in=- order-. to- meet the., time l ine Ste ffiehad publi- cation and posting dead' Ines. AMENQOlF$T W!THfRAWN Mayor Levy said he would support going forward with the undedica- tion process. He would not support the swap. Counc ilmember Renzel believed there would be five votes for the resolution of undedication, but there would not be five votes for the ordinance authorizing negotiation of the exchange. If the 1 anguage in the undedication was conditional , i t would .control the undedication. Ms. Lee said the l aneuage as pl aced on the ballot in whatever form it was approved by the voters, controlled the Council s actions. Counc ilrnember Renzel said since Council was publ ishirg a notice of intention to discontinue, and if the language was left as sub- mitted, what would be the legal effect of the language. Ms. Lee said at the publ is hearing, Council could change the word- ing of the ballot measure. Counc ilmesrber Renzel cl aritied that at the publ is hearing, any and all provisions of the notice of intene could be modified. Ms. Lee said just the ballot measure. The resolution of intent said what Council was going to do now. If at the time of the pub- lic hearing, Council decided to draft a ball of measure somewhat different but which accompl fished the same thing --to withdraw land from dedication but with different conditions depending upon the pro tests-- then Council could put a measure on the ballot which did that. In terms of the resolution of intent, it said what Council was doing now. Counc ilnember Renzel said even though: they were talking ..about equival en t val ue exchange in the notice of intent to discontinue, the ordinance might not say that, = depending upon what Council decided. Ms. -Lee said the ballot measure might have different language. Coyne iirember Klein .cl ari fled that Mayor Levy was going to vote "no" on the -exchange part. - That ,being the. case, he bel ieved Coun- cil needed to .doe something, otherwise, it was left- with language which was not true. Mayor Levy said the City Attorney advised that after the hearings, Council could use whatever language'\was appropriate in the ballot measure. Councilmember Klein understood that,° but did not like passing any- thing that was not true. He did not see how the Council could pass something that said it al so intended to p1 ace a measure on the November 5, 1985 ballot when there were not the five votes to do it. AEIE*DNEWT: Councilrseeber Klein caved, seconded by Cobb, amid the resolution as follows: 1. Second 'whereas" ea the first paste to read `likereas, there is likely to be should be substituted ter "Whereas, the Commit intends to place; In the fifth `whereas" , oa page 1, aad last : paragraph of Section 1 ea page Z, the ,date Ray 1, 1987 should be sebsti- toted for ` December 1, .l dpi and MOTION. CONTINUED 3. Section I, page 2, second sentence should read, "The City Council also reco nines there ma be a measure on the November 5, 1985 bal o regaes ng e e ector to authorize the exchange of a portion... instead of 'The City Council anti intends ti- lace a measure on the November 5, 1985 ballot requesting e e ectors to authorize 1122112Aions to exchange a portion.." Ms. Lee clarified that she would make the resolution consistent with the changes throughout. AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Witherspoon voting "no."' MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Bechtel, Fletcher, Renzel, Witherspoon voting "no.' MOTION: Couacilmeaber Klein moved, -seconded by Cobb, that the City Clerk and City Attorney be directed to include the question of adapting the ordinance of the people and the call for the general and special election of November 5, 1985. NOTION FAILED by a vote of 4-5, Klein, Cobb, Sutorius, Woolley voting sage." Counc ilmember Renzel remained concerned that if Council was going to commit the City resources of land, Council look again at the potential of buying the site outright. MOTION Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, that staff return at the earliest possible date with report re funding mechanisms for outright purchase of Middlefield site and Winter Club site, including all aspects, legal restraints, and possibili- ties with respect to purchase. Counc il member Klein would support the notion because it was always appropriate on a major issue to have as much information as pos- sible. He said he would be surprised if there was any information about which Council was unaware that would change his mind, i.e., that the City could not afford to buy for cash the site and that it would not be a wise expenditure of public funds given the tremendous number of other demands on the City' s available cash Counc 11 member Sutorius supported the motion. He was aware that if an outright purchase of the entire 3.7 acre site were feasible, clearly i t would be the preferred method of disposal as far as the property owner was concerned. It was unfortunate the nature of dialogue, questions, and protocols of the pubs is process left Mr. Peery in a situation of challenge and question when he would be more than happy to sell the thing outright. He assured the Council there was no intent on Mr. Peery' s part to authorize or recommend to the Peery Trust that a portion of the property be sold separately. As a citizen of Palo Alto, a user of the Winter Club facility, and .a resident who accessed the Midtown area regu- larly, Mr. Peery was not about to see something happen where the Peery Trust was a party to a bad development on Middlefield which selling off piece of the property would result in. He.. hoped the information could be utilized in a creative and useful fashion to the end resul t that the advocates for the Winter Lodge were- inter- ested. He shared Counc ilmeaber Klein's concerns about how deep the, bank account was, what commitments already existed, and what reservations needed to be made in terms of expenditures of caps tat fonds. On the other hand, he would not rule out the possibility o f some time related purchase being a feasible si tuation in terms o f the current owner of the property. vice Mayor Cobb associated himsel f Councilmembers'Klein and Sutorius. wi th the comments 5/20/85 1 MOTION PASSES► unanimously. Councilnember Renzel cl arified that her motion lncl uded any legal restraints like whether an election would be needed, etc. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 12:50 a .m. ATTEST: APPROVED: