Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-05-29 City Council Summary MinutesAdjourned Meetingof May 28, 1985 Wednesday, May 79, 1985 ITEM Item #6, Peninsula Mass Transit Study (SCR 74) Recommendations Item #9, Request of Mayor Levy re Referral to Policy and Procedures Committee of the Animal Services Advisory Committee Report Item #10, Request of Councilmembers Sutorius and Cobb re Community Ice Skating Initiative Process Proposal PAGE 5 8 1 4 5 8 2 1 5 8 2 1 Final Adjournment: 10:35 p.m. 5 8 3 3 5 8 1 3 5/29/85 Adjourned Meeting of May 2F{, 1 9R5 Wednesday, May 29, 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 7:34 p.m.), Cobb (arrived at 8:00 p.m.) , Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel (arrived at 7:42 p.m.), Sutorius, Witherspoon, Woolley ITEM #6, PENINSULA MASS TRANSIT STUDY (SCR 74) RECOMMENDATIONS : 1- Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the PENTAP Com- mittee would meet on Friday, May 31, in Redwood City, to arrive; at some recommendations, which would be forwarded to the Work Program Committee of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), and from there to the MTC. The MTC's recommendations would be for- warded to the state legislature in response to the original legis- lation, which called for the study referredto as SCR 74. Peter Taskovich, 751 Gallen Avenue, supported the staff recommen- dation. He agreed that a mode recommendation should be made by the Committee and that BART Alternative No. 3 was the best. He was surprised the BART alternative did not include a direct BART line via the Brisbane/Bayshore corridor, which he believed was essential for any system, including BART, to compete with cars. If BART was to compete with cars, it should be a direct line just like the present Southern Pacific (SP) services. The report did not explore expanding the tail end of the transit. In order for Palo Alto to benefit, whichever mode should split, preferably. south of Mountain View using the 85 highway corridor because there were many commuters coming in from Cupertino and West San Jose. Right now it only researched the area through the SP line which seemed to be the most convenient for the City, but they should explore other options using whatever mode was recommended, be it light rail, BART, or electrified rail. Room should also be set aside for a rail system through the new extension of the West Valley freeway. Dr. Nancy Jewell Cross, 301 Vine Street, Menlo Park, spoke on behalf of Clean Air Transport Systems, and said MTC's proposals and alternatives were limited before public input was sought. The public's role wasto support what was adopted in nchambers" by the MTC. The idea of the Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) was to put the public's signature on a blank check so MTC, through its similar processes, could decide among the nine options. The premise of the staff report, and the report from MTC on which it was based, was that somehow the public was inert. It could also be said the public did not buy it because they were not offered a satisfactory product. In its recent newsletter, the MTC said transportation was considered the number one priority of the Bay Area residents and air quality or pollution was number two. r The public was anxious for a solution, but none were proposed by MTC. She attended MTC's Work Program Committee meeting on May 10 where they ranked various projects for transportation. In order for a proj- ect to be ranked, it had to be on the five-year plan and a prior- ity of an existing agency, such as SamTrans or San Mateo County Board of Supervisors, or BART. MTC made no environmental compar- isons and never considered the nine proposals in terms of their environmental impact or impact on reducing .congestion. A new process was needed. There was talk about a change in MTC--the same . as that made in: BART. The BART board was O'eviously ap- pointed by boards and supervisors and City Council members as was MTC, BART members were now elected by district, and she believed that route should be considered for MTC--not a Joint Powers Agree- ment, 5 8 1 4 5/29/85 As Ca7/22/86 Councilmember Ren el arrived at 7:42 .m. Councilmember Bechtel commended staff for synthesizing the lengthy reports. There was no question that something needed to be done in the 101 corridor, that the Southern Pacific right-of-way must be preserved, and the transportation system there must be up- graded. The report included the realization that one must connect and have good trap sporati on systems between the SP and the 101 Corridor because people did not just arrive at the SP.' Those interconnects were crucial. She concurred with the staff recom- mendations, but was concerned about the formation of a joint exer- cise of powers agreement or an equivalent institutional arrange- ment. She was concerned that the role and composition of that group must be defined clearly. Council must first agree it needed some mechanism to push for it. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Fletcher, to adopt the staff recommendation supporting the following ten points. 1. A strong statement of interest and support for a major improvement to mass transit service in the Route 101 Corridor is needed if we are to move away from the status quo; 2. A Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement, or an equivalent insti- tutional arrangement, is needed to provide a mechanism to move forward with the implementation of macs transit improvements in the Route 101 Corridor; 3.. The Southern Pacific right-of-way represents a vital public transportation resource that should be preserved through p lic acquisition; 4k Farther major investment in the existing diesel service should be limited until such tine that a specific mode decision is made; 5. Transit service improvements and lnvestient decisions that are needed to continue and improve existing service, and do not conflict with, or preempt further options, should continue; 6. Efforts to renegotiate a more economic contractural arrange- ment for the provision of existing service should be pursued; 7. .Renegotiation of the cooperative funding agreement among existing agencies which provide financial support to Caltrain tb reflect the carreat eaderstandi ng of major transit improve- ments for the Route 101 Corridor is warranted; B. The existing momentum should continue, building -upon the pres- ent information base to develop a long-range pl ae for imple- mentation of major transit improvements in the Route 101 Cor- ridor; 9. The PENTAP Committee should be strongly encouraged to develop specific modal recommendation(s) to serve as a guide for fn - terse transportation investment and service decisions and as a foundation for subsequent efforts; and 10. A BART -type of system for the Route 101 Corridor best meets the most important ridership performance end public investment ceneideratii►ss and is Palo Alt* City staff's and City Coun- cil's rscaseaeeaded alternative for . the Route 101 Corridor. Further, these recommendations to be communicated to writing. to PENTAP, $TC, anal SCC Board of Supervisors. Councilmember Fletcher agreed with staff's, conclusions. Whatever Council chose had to be able to deal with the demand for many. years into the future. She believed the BART alternative was the one to decide on and- would nave_ the highest capacity of any of the 5 8 1 5 5/29/85. systems. Upgrading the cur're►it SP, either diesel or electrifying, had its limitations. it was difficult for older people to board and would be inaccessible to the handicapped for many years. The study revealed recommendations for extensive grade separations along the way, i.e., to. have the railroad sunk or raised over the roadway. Many wanted grade separations and questioned whether it was fair to use transit money to do so. It was likely BART would be. all grade separated along the line beyond pillars, which would alleviate the controversy. BART along the SP right-of-way all the way into San Francisco was not one of the alternatives studied. There was either the connection with BART at the airport, which would then go over to Daly City, or a light rail extension from San Francisco to the airport to meet BART which would terminate at the airport. AMENDMENT: Council aember Fletcher moved, seconded by Renzel, to add No. 11) Support continuation of station improvement projects, including parking and construction of new stations at San Francisco Airport and San Antonio Road. Councilmember Renzel said if the choice was to build a BART, it might be another 20 years before it was completed. In the mean- time, those improvements could be made and used by whatever mode was decided upon. Councilmember Witherspoon said they might be years away from get- ting BART and in the meantime, people had to start riding SP or it would be dropped by the State legislature. She was concerned that what motivated people to take public transit was the convenience of interchange. As people started living in the East Bay and working in Silicon Valley or vice versa, they had to be moved across the Bay and back again quickly. The main complaint about public transit was that no one could not get there. She wanted the focus to be on the interim process of continuing not only to upgrade the stations but to continue to integrate other modes of transportation. The problem with handicapped access was easily solved in the east with higher platforms in order to be flush with the car's floor. She supported the amendment. Councilmember Sutorius supported the amendment. He was a veteran commuter of SP in both directions and found it to be an effective form of commutation. Item No. 4 said that further major invest-. ment in existing diesel service should be limited until such time that a specific mode decision was made. He did not find the amendment contrary to Item No. 4 and commented that there were expenditures being made currently to treat the problem of safety access to the train. In some ways it seerMed to be motivated only by a liability question. He hoped the investment decisions made for the interim, and what could be a long-term interim, continued use of the SP/CalTrain operation would do everything feasible to improve the. ridership. In order to improve ridership, the access to the two stations must be improved, and the amendment was criti- cal to that improvement. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously, Cobb absent. Councilmember Renzel supported the main motion. She was concerned that Item No. 3 said the Southern Pacific right-of-way represented a vital transportation resource that should be preserved through public acquisition. Because it was known as SP, it wasthought of as a transit resource in some form, but because the idea was pro- posed of making it a bus -way at one point, it raised concerns in her mind that it not be contemplated as a freeway or some .express- way or some other automotive route in the future. She asked about changing the word "transportation" to "transit" and, to indicate it was regarded as a transit route and a way for public transporation and not private transportation. Mr. Overway suggested one way to amend it would be _ to add "public transportation." 5 8 1 6 5/29/85 asru Wru •4 .- -__._ AM�:NMENT; Counc #Ile#Der Renzei moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to insert the word."public° before the word "transportation° in No. 3. BAKER AND SECOND AGREED TO INCORPORATE THE WORD "PUBLIC' BEFORE THE WORD "TRANSPORTATION° IN ITEM NO. 3. Councilmember Woolley supported the main motion. She was particu- larly interested in part 1, and believed Council needed to make a strong statement that it wanted to move away from the status quo and toward a major improvement in public transportation service in the 101 Corridor. She asked for clarification that Councilmember Fletcher perceived the advantage of BART was that it would be an elevated system all the way through the entire corridor. Councilmember Fletcher said later there would be an alternatives analysis process that would be a public process with the environ- mental impact report and various levels of hearings. It was true one of the arguments made at the public hearing was that BART would take longer than the current ,SP train because it had to go over to Daly City to get to San Francisco, which was not the most ideal route. Councilmember Wool l ey was concerned about an el evated system paralleling Alma over the SP tracks through Palo Alto because Palo Al to and several other communities were primarily residential com- munities. It was one thing to have an at -grade system going through a residential community, but It was another to have an elevated train going through a residential community. Counc ilmember Fletcher said it would either have to be elevated or sunk because it had to be totally separated from public access. There could not be crossings because of the electrified third rail. It had . to be fenced off Its entire route if it was at- grade level. She personally did not find the structure they had for BART in the East Say objectionable, and believed it was better than a freeway. Vice Mayor Cobb arrived at 8:00 p.m. Vice Mayor Cobb said he lived fairly close to the SP right-of-way and asked if staffhad any idea about the potential impact if that right-of-way were to become a BART line. .:,Be remembered when it occurred in Berkeley and Albany, where many 6ouses were ripped out to make room for BART. Mr. Overway opined it should. not happen with the provision of BART partially. It would be grade separated because of the third rail situation. There was an existing right-of-way of more than suffi- cient width for that type of facility, and a lot would probably depend on what Palo Alto wanted or did not want to happen in the vicinity of the stations. Each station along a system like BART had the potential , because of increased accessibility, of becoming a point.. of potential development and he observed in using BART. on a limited basis that some pl aces chose to capitalize on . it and others chose not to. It really .depended upon what the City, in conjunction with the system and the operators of the system, wanted or allowed to happen in the. vicinity of the stations. The system itself was not dependent upon every station being a high. intensity use. Vice Mayor Cobb asked if i t was fair to conclude that the govern- mental bodies of Palo. Al to would have some control over a system. cutting a swatch through town and ripping houses out, etc. Mr. Overway opined that would be the case, Vice Mayor Cobb asked if the proposal precluded that there might be better alternatives that were, less disruptive to existing cities. Mr. uverway said at that point, future work would probably focus on further evaluation of mode alternatives within the SP right- of-way corridor and certainly within the 101 Corridor. There might be variations at either end, but variations ranging from 280 to Highway 101 were probably not where the thinking was. Gener- ally, the availability of the right-of-way in combination with the proximity to where the people were, favored the SP right-of-way. Councilmember Renzel said BART had another alternative which was to tunnel dawn and she could see there might be potential to put BART underground in the current SP right-of-way, and make a real park and trail system all the way through the communities. She asked if that was an appropriate idea. Mr. Overway said at that point in the study process, the ideas should be communicated. To wait until more concrete and firm decisions were made, the flexibility was limited. He believed- it was also recognized that in the final analysis, which was probably a long way in the future, there might be portions of the right- of-way that did not work as well as some other locations. In fact, alternatives might exist which raised the possible reuse of the SP right-of-way, or that particular portion, for some other uses such as that suggested by Councilmember Renzel. Councilmember Renzel said it was one long continuous way that would be a great connection for pedestrians, bicycl ists, etc. through the communities. It would also eliminate the visual and noise effects of BART and would eliminate the hazard of the third Pail. It was something that had some spin-offs. ANNENDNENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fletcher, that Palo Alto urge consideration of mndergrounding BAT on the Southern Pacific (SP) right-of-way, if BART becomes mode of choice for transit on the SP right-of-way and consider establishing a trail system for bicycles and pedestians for the current SP right- of-way. Councilmember Klein said undergrounding was a groat idea, but totally unrealistic. It was a difficult project to get off the ground politically, and Council was wasting its limited political ammunition by discussing an undergrounding system five to ten years away from being approved. Coucil should use its political infl uence to see that the JPA was establ ished and that the board' s composition was reasonable. Councilmember Bechtel was surprised when Mr. Overwey said it was better to get Council's two cents in now when discussing a prof ect perhaps 20 'years away. PENTAP and MTC had not begun to decide what type of system they wanted and could not agree on whether to spend any money on the Corridor, much less whether it should be specifically BART. There were light rail, arguers, BART propo- nents, highway proponents, bus proponents, and the people who believed there should . be a bus way. The biggest criticism about BART was its expense, and it was even- more expensive to put it underground. She would love to have BART underground, but did not know if she would like : it as a passelger. She would rather not vote on the amendment because she did not want to be against bicycles and trails, but could not support- the amendment. Counc ilkiember_ Witherspoon . asked if it was true. that the new sales tax was going to -provide the City with untold riches, and she asked how it would affect the undergrounding. Mr. Overwrey_ said existing sources of revenue projected into the future indicated approximately -40 to 50 percent of the funds could. be supplied by existing local funds- for something as expensive as a BART systems -If a cheaper system were implemented, the -,possible. funding_ by 10cel seurces: could be much higher. He- believed there was. some debate_ about the projections Of those funds, but . he did not think they differed significantly in their, order of magnitude. r-"----w— Cquncit +e ber Woolley agreed with Councilmembers Bechtel and Klein who believed undergrounding was so far off in the future it was not something Council should consider that evening. Item IC said a BART -type of system was Palo Alto City staff's recommended alternative, which to her made it clear that if the City was going to agree on the report and send it along, it. was also. Council's recommended alternative. If it was true that BART either had to be undergrounded at great expense or be an elevated system, then she could not say it was her recommended alternative for Palo Alto because she could not envision an elevated system through Palo. Alto.. She suggested Council might need to drop Item 10 and not go on record as recommending BART for Palo Alto. Councilmember Renzel said Council needed to start dreaming early if it wanted, to _see a reality. She realized BART was expensive to construct in its current right -_of -way, but much of the expense was tunneling under the Bay, under office buildings in San Francisco and going' through an existing highly developed urban area. The SP right-of-way had almost nothing under At except some utility and sewer lines at various street crossings, but the numbers of places where there were obstacles to go around was different than build- ing in downtown San Francisco or Oakland. Further, BART had to acquire huge amounts or right-of-way in order to_ construct, and then sold them off before they appreciated in value, and many of the new office buildings that went up. in San Francisco on the BART right-of-way could have. paid for the entire project. Council could not compare the cost of constructing BART in the urban areas of Oakland and San_ Francisco to the costs of possibly doing it in an area that was practically virgin land underneath and with fair- ly good access all along the way for construction purposes. She was not, sure it was necessarily as expensive an alternative as Council might believe. Council was requesting consideration because it had many positive spin-offs. Councilmember Fletcher was concerned about Council saying it wanted BART underground, and believed it should be left as an open question. The amendment was sufficiently nonspecific, and to sug- gest there be a linear park along the right-of-way at ground level would preclude the building of a roadway which was something that went through her mind. She would support the amendment. Councilmember Klein did not believe it was sufficiently vague to. say that Council was only requesting. consideration. The people to which the question was; addressed were political pros who knew that when Council requested consideration of undergrounding -for its community, it was really saying it wanted . it undergreunded. He.: believed it was a -meaningless difference in semantics and he would not support the amendment. AMKNDWENT PASSED 1,1 a vote of- 5-4, 'Bechtel, Klein, Levy, Ssteri us- sotf a8 "no. AISLNQ$EKT: Casncilme be.r.. Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel , to . add' Ms. ll) "We rece dl ie that`:. the deei siaa-makime-- authority will. have to give 'sisalMeet.' consideration ,to the economics of the choices involved ire" emd•rgreseding verses raised levels.. . Councilmember Klein was concerned that Council not look like it engaged in blue-sky thinking that had nothing to do with the. real, wield, and, was tryi ng to get Council back in the real - world .by an expl ici t • recognition that the _ dec i si on- maki ng body on the BART- ;type system had to give significant weight -td the economics -of the situation, -which .-bits recognized, by the Palo Alto City Council. Aesthetics counted, but Pal o Al to would not get. a system._ if it Was not cost effective. Counc imember .Rensel supported thiv amendment. She believed it Was unnecessary sinee: all Connell " requested was consideration -of -the: possibility ;of ndetgroinding, -end PENTAP and - ,the NTC.. should- con- er si,d ell aspects.--- AllOiMar 5 8 Ig 5/29/85 1 Mayor Levy said BART was presently both underground and above- ground and he believed consideration would obviously be given to both methods. He recalled BART was underground in Berkeley :secause that community contributed additional funding in order for it to be done. There were many alternatives. which acted as prece- dents and he was sure all would be considered as BART was ex- panded. Economics were the point, and to suggest that ecomomics be considered was redundant. Councilmember Bechtel agreed with Mayor Levy, but concurred with Counc it member Klein' s desire to offset potential damage that could be done by the previous amendment. She supported the amendment. Regardless of whether the amendment passed, she hoped someone who supported the previous amendment would consider a vote of recon- sideration. Palo Alto had a reputation for being elitists, etc., which she believed was untrue. If Council made the undergrounding. statement prematurely , i t sounded "elitist, " "blue-sky" and unrealistic . Councilmember Renzel suggested it would be more consistent to make the amendment a second part of the previous amendment. MAKER AND SECOND OF AMENDMENT AGREED TO INCLUDE AMENDMENT AS PART OF ITEM 11 AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Witherspoon, Woolley voting 'no." Councilmember 5utori us believed Palo Alto worked conscientiously with several other cities on the solid waste management problem which was potentially more serious than the transportation sub- ject. From time to time Palo Alto looked critically toward arbi- trary action by one member of one city and was concerned about the authority processes. He believed the Palo Alto City Counc it was demonstrating that the transportation subj ect was going to be a frightful one if other cities conducted themselves as Palo Alto did that evening. Mayor Levy reinforced the request of Councilmember Bechtel. It was an important issue and the most important element was to get something in terms of public transit. Once the effort toward actually implementing a decent public transit system on the penin- sula started, it was obvious to him the next step would be the question. of whether to run BART above or below ground. At that point, Council could consider, the costs in detail. He did not speak to Councilmember Renzel' s discussion of costs, but believed the costs were substantially different. He was personally willing to pay the costs as a resident of Palo Alto because he believed having the system underground was preferable to having it above ground, but he did not want to see the City's efforts area -wide ruined early on because some peple said Palo Alto would only have the most costly system or no system at all . MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, ;to reconsider the previous , w aee:edmeats. Councilmember Fletcher . said there was going to be so much oppor- tunity to discuss the matters if the BART alternative was chosen that Palo Alto did not need to pointout its preference now. It would be hard enough to arrive at an agreement among the communi- ties to bring BART down the peninsula, but she believed that was where Council should direct its emphasis. NOTION TO RECOESIPEP PASSED by a vote of : R=1 ;teazel voting e so .'` Vice Mayor Cobb. did, .not see the. -:problem stated by .:.Councf.lm ber Klein and others, but wars peersuaded : by their arguments. He was worried about an elevated BART system through Palo Alto, and when the _timecame', he :intended' to say :a .lot-. Mayor Levy clarified the amendments before the Council included urging consideration of the undergrounding of BART i f that was the chosen mode, and the recognition of the economics involved with the decision. UPON RECONSIDERATION PREVIOUS TWO AMENDMENTS FAILED by a vote of 2,►7,. Wi therspovn, Renzel voting 'aye.. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. ITEM #9, REQUEST OF MAYOR LEVY. RE RE`'ERRAL TO POLICY MID P OCEOUR'ES COMMITTEE OF THE ANIMAL SERVICES ADVISORY. COi4MITTEE i 'nirr isAV S -2 ) } Mayor Levy said Council received a report, dated May 7, 1985; from the Animal Services Advisory Committee, and he bel ieved the report was best considered by the Pol icy and Procedures (P&P) Committee.. MOTION TO REFER: Mayer Levy moved, seconded by Moo? ley, _ to refer the report of the Animal Services Advisory Committee to the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee, with staff to provide a report and comment and City Attorney to comment in relation to the personnel matters. on the P&P Committee's latitude to discuss these personnel matters; and P&P Committee to take up thisreport after submittal of the report of the Task Force, which is to examine Animal Services in Palo Alto. Councilmember Fletcher asked about the status of the outside task force. City Manager Bill Zaner said the task force was in process, and he intended to allow them the latitude they wanted. 1 Councilmember Fl etcher asked about an estimate of how long it would take to comp! etc . Mr. Zaner hoped . the evaluation would be completed in a matter of weeks. He did not see it dragging on for months. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved that the P&P Committee would consider the item after submittal of the Task Farce report. Mayor Levy and Councilmember Woolley incorporated language of -. amendment into main motion. Mayor Levy clarified the report would return to the Council in a reasonable period of time and would net unduly delay the P&P Committee's hearings.': MO"t ION PASSED emanimonsly. ITEM #10, REOEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS SUTORIUS AND COBB RE COMMUNITY T E KATIhG INITIATIVE PRCICESS PROPOSAL. [ELI 24) Councilmember Sutori us said the purpose of the agenda item and the associated proposed ordinance was an effort to avoid the specter of one issue being the subject of multiple initiatives, multiple amending measures, multiple arguments, and multiple rebuttals on the November ballot. The proposed ordinance of the people was worded to be compatible with the basic thrust of initiatives one and two as sponsored by the' Trust for Community , Skating. The ordinance attempted to present the issues in a manner that allowed fair evaluation by the voters, andi if passed, pointed the Council. toward the desired outcome, but with appropriate latitudes. Counciimeobor Sutorius said one correction was `a typographical error in paragraph No. 4, of Section ..1 , first line, :..sixth word., should be by*byw rather ` than <be.' 'Me also del .ted the following. words in the heading of the proposed ordinance *ant Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Club.' In the first "whereas he deleted �cby calling for a ,special election on ` this, ordinance, the Council. acknowledges that there is substantial public support for submit- ting _ the 4i .. __ ting to the electorate , and substituted, "it is desired that- the electorate vote on..." MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Cobb, to place ordinance on- the floor incorporating revisions given to City Attorney and direct the City Attorney and City Clerk to include the question of adopting the ordinance in the call for the ge'neral and special elections of Mevemoer 5, 1985. Councilmember Sutorius hoped the motivation for discussion was aimed at the purpose of the effort as opposed to making a judgment one way or another regarding the acquisition and the means of acqui si tion. Mayor Levy said he requested that Chuck Thompson` s be deleted from the heading so the focus was on the Winter Lodge ice skating facility.. The property describes! would still be the property which included both the Winter Lodge and the Chuck Thompson club. Counc ilmember Klein was concerned about the l anguage in paragraph 6, which said "nothing in this ordinance shall be interpreted to legally obligate the City to acquire the Middlefield Road site for any consideration other than all or a portion of the Geng Road site wi thout the consent of the City Council ." He was worried about the negative inference. He'. perceived that the ordinance would obligate the City to move fora ard to effect the exchange regardl ess of the terms.. Senior Assistant City Attorney Anthony Bennetti said the point was well taken. He bel ieved the inference could be dispelled by adding at the end of the second line a after the word "acquire" the words: "or negotiate to acquire." Councilmember Klein was not persuaded. The negative inference stemmed from the words "for any consideration other than all or a portion of the Geng Road site." It was unclear to him why they needed the last line of paragraph 6 "without the consent of the City Council" because it seemed that any of the transactions would require the approval of the City Council. He worried about using the words because it seemed to imply there were situations where the City Council s consent could be done without. Mr. Bennetti said the sense of paragraph 6 was that if reasonable terms coul d be negotiated for an exchange of the Geng Road parcel and there were other considerations of the Council they wished to consider that woul farther reduce the size of the Geng Road par- ; cel beyond what was necessary to achieve a value for val ue exc- hange. For instance, in considering the size of a building that might be constructed on the Geng Road parcel , Council decided it would like to see, for reasons other then the exchange, a smallsmaller building or a smaller footprint of a building, they would have the option of negotiating some "cash" consideration. Councilmember Klein was concerned with the words. He did not understand why the last seven words were included ° For exampl e, paragraph 4 said, "in,any exchange agreed to by the City..." which was fine. He interpreted the City to mean City Council , and he worried about why they specifically referred to the City Council in paragraph 6 when they were not referred to in anyof the other paragraphs. Mr. Bennetti said there was no particular reason for inclusion. Councilmember Renzel said when the . Council voted to initiate removal from park dedication, it was contingent on the voters approving the Geng Road exchange. Since the ordinance offered the alternative _ possibility of direct acqui si ti ant she asked whether the park undedicetioh would nevertheless take pl ace because of the technical languages: i Mr. Bennetti said the way the proposal for the discontinuance of park use was worded, the discontinuance would take place, however, any portion of the Geng Road parcel the Council did not exchange for the Middlefield Road parcel, the Council was obliged, under the present language, to rededicate the property. Although the property would become undedicated and would be available for pur- poses of negotiation, to the extent to which any. portion of the Geng Road parcel was not used for an exchange, the Council would be under a legal obligation to rededicate the property under the present language of the measure. Councilmember Renzel said since the ordinance specified two ways of acquiring the• property --either by exchange or purchase --Item 6 seeded to suggest that it really only meant exchange. She asked for clarification. Councilmember Witherspoon asked about the _ intentions of the authors in connection with paragraph 4. It was the first she heard that the City was proposing something other than an exchange to acquire the property. Councilmember Sutorius said the purposes behind the changes were to increase the latitude and'flexibiiity of the City in the event the measure were voted upon favorably by the electorate. As mat- ters presently stood, stripped of their essentials, initiative number one said here is what we want you to accomplish now and forever, no matter how it is done or how much it costs. Initia- tive number two said here is what we wantyou to accomplish and here is how we want you to do it. Initiative number two purely ordained a property exchange. Other than what was actually being ordained, it cited that one of the provisos of the offer was the rezoning to allow a 49,000 square foot building and in. another "whereas° it cited the fact that the City could retain ice skating and devote the remaining property to other recreational purposes. He and Vice Mayor Cobb were trying to offer a substitute that said if the voters passed the measures, here is what we want accom- pl ished, if a sound means to accomplish it could be found without indenturing the City in case things did not work out. The flexi- bility and latitude introduced by the paragraphs being discussed would permit flexibility in the negotiation process, for reasons that might have to do with jobs/ housing imbalance, traffic cir- cumstances, aesthetics, where the City might see it was appropri- ate to negotiate an acquisition where the Geng Road property was only part of the compensation. For instance, a smaller portion than otherwise would cover the full acquisition and, therefore, to get to value for the Middlefield site, the negotiation would be supplemented with something else of» value, which was primarily money. Jack Morton, Trust for Community Skating, said the Trust had 3,500 signatures for initiative one, which, if passed, would make com- munity ice skating a permanent part of the recreation program. As of last weekend, the Trust had 3,100 signatures for initiative two, which, if passed, would provide the program a permanent facility. Mr. Peery offered to either sell the land for $2.5 million or exchange his Middlefield Road property ' for the Geng Road lot. The Trust agreed to continue to operate the program and maintain the existing facility. Subject to the outcome of the June 24, 1985 public hearings, the elements of the complete l ong- term solution could be presented to the voters in November. Over the two years during : which the Trust struggled to ensure continu- ation of one of the peninsula's most popular recreation programs, there were no opponents. Any resi stence was from Council' s under- standable fiscal apprehensions. With the adoption of the measure presented by Councilm bers Sutorius and Cobb, Council for the first time would take an active role. in. the effort to ensure con- tinuance ofcommunity ice skating. The Trustwelcomed the City's participation and requested that Cotanc11. formalize an agreement with Mr. Peery subsequent. to the resul is of the public hearing and to the completion of the M.I.A. appraisal which would provide the information to the voters on the nature of the agreement. With some minor changes in emphasis which would more faithfully express the intent of the Trust's initiative one and two, the Trust could provide full support. Many residents, not connected wi th the Trust, were asked for their reactions to the ordinance proposed by Councilmembers Cobb and Sutorius. Mention of the years 1991 and 1992 was confusing. If those dates had significance for Council perhaps the motive for their inclusion should be more clearly reflected. Otherwi se, the words shoul d be del eted. Co arch's concern that the program be operationally sei f- sufficient was clearly expressed., by the remainder of the phrase. He thanked those who worked wi th him and Councilnrembers for listening. Al though the Shell Station portion of the Middlefield Road proper- ty was a vacant lot, their efforts were not to exchange one vacant lot for another, but to ensure the continuance of the ice skating program - and to do so in the Midtown area. In refraining from filing their initiatives, the Trust. ,would transfer fully to the Council, its commitment to the community and Midtown residents for a recreation complex which, to paraphrase Vice Mayor Cobb' s words, would preserve a Pei Al to heirloom. Hal Utah Van Tuyl 4017 Middlefield Road, said 3,500 Palo Alto voters signed initiative one and 3,100 Palo Alto voters signed initiative two. - The Palo Alto Weekly stated that Councilmeobers were elected with approximately 5,000 votes, so the 3,500 figure was significant in the short time the Trust for Community Skating obtained the signatures. The Trust would decide whether to file its two initiatives on Friday, May 31, 1985. The land swap idea was first publicly put forward by Jack Morton on August 10, 1983 before the Planning Commission. The history of the issue was important as they looked at what it meant in terms of dedicated citizens looking for a solution. The .Trust pursued the idea des- pite initial Council opinion to the contrary because the swap idea was fi scal ly responsible --a way of trading an unused City asset for an asset in centrally located Midtown. The acqui si tion of the land would ultimately give citizens, rather than a private devel- oper, control over the best use for the City of that site. It was clear it was the Winter Lodge rink and the success of 29 years that made people want to sign as well as the question of develop- ment in Midtown. The Trust had a responsibility to the petition signers and to all Palo Al tans that would vote in Wov ember and who would think of the Council ordinance as the "ice skating measure." The Trust could not hold back from filing eh itiative one and two unless those voters were given a chance to make a statement about community ice skating --a vote they were confident'. would be a cl ear guide for any future decisions on the use of the Middlefield Road site. The Trust believed Council should make some changes in its ordinance to reflect the public testimony over the years in the Planning Commission, . Council Chambers, the , newspapers, and the endorsements from groups, and from 3,500 constituents. The changes pproposed were: ( 1) in the first "whereas," to keep the phrase ..the Cosinc it acknowledges there is substantial public support; for community ice skating," Since it was to be the "ice sketing measure" it needed to acknoweldye the history of the pub- lic support; (a) in the second "whereas," point (2) spoke to the future adequate planning for the whole site, but. -the -_Trust : sug- gested the :addition in. (l) Whereas, the purposes of said .exchange, or acquisition ':would ,;be CO to acquire the Middlefield Road prop- erty' es .a site for ice skating; and _.(2 )...For the record, the Trust, must . comment about the six-year limitation and further recommended in; the same *whereas', under Item (3) "allow the continued use ;:of the Winter . Lodge Ice Skating facility- :provided: that said facility was not subsidized by City funds or the use of City staff other than using the pity's Site. It mould be:, unneces- sary to nave `anything-: in (4), aind strike at least through the. x991-92 season. The .Trust believed . ;the ;rink would stay after a positive vote in November and the City Could go on to plan the total use of the .si to She thanked ; Counc i_a. bers . Suto rids. and Cobbs both of liMea put_ long hours, into the draft ng of the `ordi- nance, and he other` Counc ilmeabers for' their cooperation and.. attention in the ongoing search for a solution. The points she mentioned were points that would be assessed by the Trust in deciding whether to file initiative one or two. That evening was the time for dialogue on the changes. If the Council ordinance was acceptable to members of the Trust, the Trust would issue a public statement of its intention; and, if it chose not to file based upon the wording accepted by the Council , it would then be incumbent upon the Council to act in good faith in all respects to carry the ordinance to the voters without al terations. They bel ieved the constituents of Pal o Al to expected the same since the Trust's deadline was June 3 and Council's was July 1. Councilmember Witherspoon clarified that the Trust had two peti- tions that more than qualified, and she asked why not submit them. She saw no substantial difference between them and the intent of the Council ordinance. Ms. Van Tuyl responded that in working with Councilmembers Sutorius and Cobb, the Trust believed it would be of public bene- fit if a mutual ordinance could be drafted that addressed the issue comprehensively and gave the City some leeway in doing things in the City's best interests. The Trust was willing to cooperate and work in that way. Marilyn Eaton, 690 Hermosa, said there were necessary refurbishing and upgrading work to be done on the rink, but no expenditures were worthwhile if there was a ceiling of six years. It seemed the Winter Lodge always had a cell ing, and if they were sel f- sup- porting, the Lodge wanted to know it could maintain the operation rather than be shut down six years later because of an arbitrary date. Abby Grossman, 1121 Harriet, said 15 years ago her family moved to Pal o Al to and at that time Pal o Al to was one of the most expensive cities on the peninsula in which to live mainly because of the community services and neighborhood schools. . The neighborhood school concept was now a thing of the past, and with that also ended much of the after school recreation programs at those schools. As more famil ies were two income famil ies, the neighbor- hood facilities were reduced to creating problems for working mothers wi th children. When she grew up in Palo Alto, the Winter Club, along with the neighborhood recreation programs, was one of the many good facil sties avail able. The programs were structured for after school so that her mother had a job to help with family expenses and saving money for college that came later. Hoover School was now gone so the Winter Lodge and Chuck Thompson' s facility were pretty much the only recreational facilities in that part of Palo Alto. The Winter Lodge was an important facility, centrally located and accessible by bicycle to most of Pal o Al to. In considering whether to help the Trust place the matter on the ballot, she urged consideration to preserving: the community ser- vices spirit that made Pale Alto the most desirable place on the peninsula to live. John. Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, was concerned about the addition of more office space, both -in terms of the jobs/housing imbalance and. aggravating a serious and deteriorating traffic problem in the €mbarcadero/10l area. He .. suggested putting affordable senior housing on a portion of`the site. It was only about about a block from. the supermarket, two blocks from a drug : store and small department store, and had decent bus access to the Palo Alto Medical Cl inic, downtown, and Cal ifornia Avenue shopping centers. If the City was to have devel opment in the area, a senior housing development would have a lower traffic impact and would be somewhat separated from the R-1 housing by the nearby creek. During the Garden Club meeting, there was mention of available funds for that purpos and about -the scarcity of suitable sites. He suggested consider- ation be given to purchasing the entire site and somehow utilizing a portion for affordable senior housing. He strongly supported Councilmembers. Cobb's and Sutorius' changes to the initiative._. Wi11lam Rosenberg, 820 Bruce Drive, was not d member of the Trust for Community Skating, but supported its goals. The Trust had what was bel levee; to be enough signatures to qual ify both initia- tives for the November ballot. He bel ieved it was Council's in- tention, i f the Trust filed both initiatives, to add amendments to each which would seriously complicate the ballot. It would make it more difficult for the initiativesto pass but would allow for de al possibility of the City being forced to with a difficult instruction by the voters if only parts of the ballot passed. As he was a proponent of ice skating, he • assumed the Trust would be able to win at the ballot box. As an ice skating proponent, it was in everyone' s best interests to simplify the process as much as possible, and to make the subsequent negotiation process as simple as possible. He bel ieved the City -sponsored ballot propo- sition, such as that proposed by Councilmembers Cobb and Sutorius, possibly with the modifications suggested by the Trust, was the best step in that direction. He believed they could do a better job together than could be done separately. Everyone could find exceptions with respect to portions of the proposal, but on the whole, he found it satisfactory and urged Council to adopt it. As in the case of the Evergreen Park barriers, whi 1 e the sol ution was not perfect, it was satisfactory and it was time for a decision rather than more trials. He suggested the land swap solution to the Winter Lodge problem might not be perfect, but it was the best they were able to propose, the best they were able to find in several years of examining it carefully. He believed it was the time for everyone who supported skating in Palo Alto to place the issue before the voters in a form acceptable to the City and to the Trust. Mayor Levy asked Mr. Bennetti for comment on Counciimember Klein' s concerns wi th paragraph 6 of Section 1. Mr. Bennetti said the intent of paragraph 6 might be clarified by inserting the following introductory clause, "If the terms of the exchange are not agreed upon," and changing the subsequent language to read, "nothing in this ordinance shall be interpreted to legally obligate the City of Palo Alto to acquire the Middlefield Road si to for any consideration other than an exchange..." Mayor Levy said when he first read it, he thought its purpose was clarification and, in fact; it did not contribute anything new to the other five sections. Mr. Bennetti said the difficulty was in Section 1, the concept was introduced that the City Council could attempt to secure either a negotiated exchange or a negotiated acqui si tion. He bel ieved Section 6 was a'ded to dispel theconcept that the either/or meant that if an exchange was not possibl e, the City was nevertheless obligated to proceed - to negotiate the acquisition on, some other terms and conditions. Councilmember Sutorius said Mr. Bennetti carefully and accurately - reflected his purpose in looking for wording, and he was pleased that Councilmember- Klein raised the question and the way the response was proposed by Mr. Bennett;. It was exactly what he was looking fo r MAKER . AND SECOND OF MOTION AGREED TO ACCEPT LANGUAGE AS PROPOSED SY CITY ATTORNEY AS INTRODUCTORY TO SECTION 6: ' IF THE TERMS OF THE EXCHANGE ARE NOT AGREED UPON, NOTHING IN THIS ORDINANCE SHALL OE INTERPRETED TO LEGALLY ©RLIGATE THE CITY OF PALO ALTO TO ACQUIRE THE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD SITE FOR ANY CONSIDERATION OTHER THAN AN EXCHANGE. Counoilmember` Renzel ;'asked if negotiating to acquire also included condemnation. Council member Sutorius understood that nothing prod uded condemna- tion in the language of the ordinance, but in any of his conversa- tions he had with anyone, he tried to avoid the concept. He was not enamored with the concept and believed the use of the term, when there was the potential of a negotiation to be carried out, flew in the face of the effort made by the property owner in cooperating for the past two years to keep the facil ity avail able, and the effort he indicated through the Trust to negotiate some kind of an arrangement to allow the facility to continue. He pre- ferred to not contemplate the concept. Councilmember Renzel asked the City Attorney if it was correct that eminent domain was not precluded by the language. Mr. Bennetti said eminent domain was not precl uded by the l anguage, but it was a concept that was entirely inconsi stent with the ordinance. It was a legal avenue of the City Council which could not be mandated by initiative and had no place in a rela- tionship between parties where they were trying to negotiate an acquisition or exchange. Councilmember Renzel said she personally favored direct acquisi- tion, but if Mr. Peery refused to sell the property and only wished to exchange it, she asked if the initiative only meant an exchange. Mr. Bennetti said yes. Councilmember Sutorius said the Trust suggested some changes in the ordinance, and as it was read to the Council , the second "whereas," the purpose o f said exchange or acquisition woul d be...Item (1) to acquire the Middlefield Road property as a site for ice skating" was what he heard read, but the written language was sl ightly different, but it was an important difference. He asked if what was read to the Council was what the Trust was com- municating as acceptable language. Ms. Van Tuyl said the . Trust felt fine about going al ong with either. It was an oversight in community facilities, and whether to put it in or leave.. it out was somewhat contingent upon some Councilmembers concern that the issue involved whether to keep Chuck Thompson` s tennis courts, gym and pool. The Trust did not want to confuse the voters if it became an issue about whether the City would acquire and use all of it. The Trust felt fine about either "community facilities including ice skating in Midtown" or "as a site for ice skating" and leading into (2) letting the rests of the site be pl anned . Councilmember Sutorius said he would not have considered incor- porating the proposed Trust language if it was exactly as con- tained in the written proposal. because he believed it restricted latitude and was counter to the planning concepts he believed to be important. He said l#r. Rosenberg did an excellent job out - 1 ining the motivation for the ordinance, and ;Mr. Mock's comments were not facetious.. Mr. Mock identified one 'nof the motivations for the language of the proposed ordinance that the property was available for adequate planning and ultimate uses should not be frozen- by the initiative process. For example, at some time, there might well be a mixed use involving ice skating and afford- able housing for seniors. It was also a factor in the.. language because it permitted exploration of additional resources if it became appropriate to have a mixed means of acquiring the site; that is, utilizing a portion of the Geng Road site plus additional consideration. Ultimately, the acquisition costs might be repaid to the General Fund from the Housing Land. Bank. He clarified he was not making any predictions as to outcome, but rather was citing the importance of flexibility and latitude as to what Iran spi red 5 _8 2 7 5/29/85 Mayor Levy said he could live with the proposed language of the ordinance, but wanted to delete the Chuck Thompson Swim and Tennis Cl ub . The headline was to focus on ice skating. AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Sutorius under second WHEREAS, and 1) to read ato acquire the Middlefield Road property as a site for community ice skating " Councilmember Witherspoon asked how the proposed wording affected No. 3 and No . 4 in the same WHEREAS clause . Mayor Levy intended to leave 3) as recommended by the Trust delet- ing the words "at least the 1991-92 ice skating season." He also intended to delete the language under 4) as recommended by. the Trust. Councilmember Wi therspoon clarified the underlined portion under item 4) would be deleted. Mayor Levy said yes, but it was not part of the proposed amend- ment. Councilmember Sutorius suggested the wording of the amendment be "to acquire the Middlefield Road property as a site for community ice skating" in order to convey the Trust' s preferred language. Mayor Levy agreed. AMENDMENT RESTATED: TO ACQUIRE THE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD PROPERTY AS A SITE FOR COMMUNITY ICE SKATING Vice Mayor Cobb said the purpose of the Council ordinance was to try and eliminate confusion at the polls in November. Unless the ordinance was simple and straightforward, there was risk of it being defeated. If measures were presented to the voters, the Council was obliged to make certain amendments and there was a risk that it might begin to take on a "political Christmas tree's aspect. It was important, as Council went through the various amendments and language changes, to try and find a way to bring the Trust and the Council together in order to find common ground and keep the ordinance simple. He pointed out the delicate balance on the Council with one vote plus or minus to get the mat- ter on the ballot, and it was important to find something the majority could agree with in order to serve the ultimate purpose of the Trust. Councilmember Klein. worried about the language being discussed because it said "to acquire the Middlefield Road property as a site for community ice skating" and he asked if that meant nothing else could be done with the property. He knew that was not the intent. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Sutorius, to add words °'and other appropriate public . usesb to I), Mayor Levy asked what would happen if the City wanted to sell part of the property or in other ways make part of the property avail- able to private use. Councilmember Klein agreed to drop the word "publ ic." Mayor Levy and Councilmember Sutorius agreed to incorporate word- ing into original amendment. AMENDMENT RESTATED: TO ACQUIRE THE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD 'HOPE lTY AS A. SITE FOR COMMUNITY ICE SKATING AND OTHER APPROPRIATE USES Vice Mayor Cobb believed the operative word of the amendment was the word "and" . not "or," which meant it was inclusive of ice skating,, which distinction was important. 5 82 8_ 5/29/85 AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, under second "WHEREAS 3) delete words through at least the 1991-92 ice skating season." Mayor Levy did not bel leve the words "at least" provided substan- tive meaning and it would be more cl ear if the l anguage was deleted as suggested by the Trust. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Mayor Levy moved, seconded by Cobb, under second WHEREAS, to delete language of 4). Mayor Levy asked Mr. Bennetti to take a special 1 ook at the 1 anguage to determine whether there was any 1 egal reason why it should not be deleted. Councilmember Witherspoon assumed there was a reason for inci uding the language in the first pl ace. She believed it spelled out what Council was trying to accomplish; otherwise, she had no objection to deleting it. Councilmember Sutorius asked whether any amendments were proposed for the ORDAINING section because items 1) through 4) in the ordi- nance presented by Council were for ballot purposes as to a full disclosure but also 4) was inserted to give recognition to the motivating factor and, therefore, it offered some offset to the concerns raised about the 1991.92 time frame. He could live with removing it as a WHEREAS item, but was not prepared to support it being a removal if there were companion changes in the enabling sections. Mayor Levy said it was the last amendment he would propose . Mr. Bennetti said there were no legal requirements for the WHEREAS clause . AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Mayor Levy said it was important that Council use the language negotiate to acquire." The City intended to negotiate in utmost good faith, but to actually be bound to acquire might be unwise. Given the division of the Council , for Council to prejudge by say- ing it acknowledged was unwise, and in the course of an election was unneeded. To state that Council desired there be a vote was i ansuage he was comfortable presenting to the voters. Councilmember Klein... preferred language to acquire the property by exchange. He understood the motivation of Councilrembers Sutorius and Cobb to inci ude the language and knew they : were tal king about perhaps using a small portion of money if that was appropriate during the negotiations, but there was no language to that effect. The average voter who might know nothing about the issue might well think it meant if the Ci ty-s.coul d not do a proper exchange, it would buy the property.. He Was troubled by that because he believed the language was.. unnecessary because the City had the power to buy the property or pay a portion in addition to the exchange if necessary. ° The idea of buying the entire property. might be desirable, but was fiscally unwise for the City because there were many other competing demands for its limited resources. He. could not personally support the possible inference to it. The. City was not legally bound to buy the property, but morally he believed it would bind the City which bothered .him. He intended to respect the will of - the people if they voted to approve the acqui si tion, but the Ci ty' s bargaining position woul d be undercut if its hands were tied.. He was concerned with 'the City' s ability to negotiate with Mr. Peery. He respected Mr. Peery' s public spirited nature, but also respected his need and legal ; requirement to get the possible deal for his family, The Council had an obi i- gation to gat the best possible deal for the City which meant it did not give away the family store. The City wanted to acquire the property, but wanted to do it in a fiscally responsible way, and he was concerned that by adding the language, the City was retreating from that position. He continued to favor the exchange and could support the proposed ordinance if the various references to acqui si tion by means other than an exchange were del eted. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Fletcher, to delete various references to acquiring the Middlefield Road prop- erty by means other than exchange.' Councilmember Renzel bel ieved it was unwi se for the Ci ty to exchange the Geng Road site and essentially become a developer of an office building .. in order to acquire something it wanted. She preferred to see the City acquire the property directly, but sup- ported the amendment because as she saw i t, all the wording with respect to negotiating to acquire was meaningless because if Mr. Peery did not wish to negotiate to sell, the City's only oppor- tunity was to exchange. As Councilmember Sutori us described his concept of exchanging a portion of the Geng Road site and some cash for the property in exchange for not such a big office build- ing on the Geng Road site, it began to sound like contract zoning to her, which was different than any other developer who came in with a piece of land was required to provide whenever City requirements needed to be met, which bothered her. She would sup- port the amendment so the voters would have a clear measure before them that they were talking about an exchange of property. Councilmember Bechtel also preferred to acquire to Winter Lodge facility as opposed to an exchange. She believed Council member Klein' s -amendment was a good one to make it clear to the voters what was being done. Councilmember Sutori us asked the record to reflect there was no inference to contract zoning contemplated. He bel ieved his exam - pie was clear, and clarified that it could be, in negotiating, that for val id reasons important to the City and the community as a whole, that rather than looking at a 3.74 acre portion or some slightly smaller slice of it, to treat the whole acquisition of the Middlefield Road site, that perhaps a two acre portion would be the amount of property at Geng and Embarcadero the City would have wanted to put into the exchange for the purposes of being sure that under the zoning less development would occur and less traffic generation and fewer jobs were created which was the only reason for inclusion in the process. He had no problem with the amendment, and if it passed, he hoped the Council had not encount- ered a process where support was engendered for the amendment as a way of changing the balance of the proposal and then being able to vote against it. Counc ilmember Renzel cl ari fled she did not intend to question Councilmember Sutori us' motivation in proposing the idea of a par- tial exchange, but nevertheless, it seemed to her that Council was told in the staff report there were numerous regulations and con- cerns the City ` had that would undoubtedly need to be addressed with respect to the Geng Road site, which were things the City would legitimately require of a private owner of the site. She was concerned the City would take those concerns and coMpensate by a cash addition to the pot, which sounded to her like contract zoning. If the initiative passed, she asked if the City could ignore the discussion of an exchange and proceed to acquire the sfte Mr. Bennetti said yes.. would remain unchanged then Council was free to As he understood the Council., section -b If an exchange could not be agreed to, proceed to acquire the property. Councilmember Renzel ^aid if the City wanted to acquire by pur- chase and the matter before the electors was an exchange, was the City mandated to exchange the Genge Road property. Mr. Bennetti said not as the Council currently contemplated. Councilmember Renzel clarified the City could proceed to acquire the site if it desired. Mr. Bennetti said yes. Mayor Levy said two petitions were circulated in the community and both received more than enough signatures to qual ify, He met wi th members of the Trust and the City Cl erk, and was satisfied the petitions would qualify for the ballot. His purpose was to try and put a measure on the ballot which reflected the two petitions but was simpler, clearer and more consistent. He believed the 1 anguage "acqui si tion" did that more faithfully than deleting the 1 anguage rel ated to acqui si tion. The language rel ated to acqui si- tion specifically said "negotiate to acquire" which provided a lot of flexibility. If the terms were outlandish, the City did not have to acquire. It had to negotiate in good faith. If it appeared to the Council that it was better to acquire a smaller parcel of land wi th the ice skating facility rather than the total parcel of land' the City was free to do so. He believed that 1 anguage more faithful l; refl ected the two peti tions signed by over 3,000 residents, He opposed the amendment and preferred to 1 eave' the greater flexibility in the proposal presented to the electorate. Vice Mayor Cobb associated himsel f wi th the comments of Mayor Levy because he suspected if the amendment passed, Council would wind up with two initiatives on the ballot -- the original one and Coun- cil' s. If the amendment were unsuccessful , Council had the oppor- tunity to have only its initiative on the ballot. Councilmember Sutorius said initiative one was circulated ahead of initiative two. In the process, the sponsors found a second pro- posal that seemed to have more merit, and which he believed they would acknowledge remedied some of the "blank check" and "in per- petuity* aspects of initiative number one. As Councilmember K1 ein indicated and which he bel ieved staff confirmed, if the initiative passed, the absence of the word "acqui si tion" did not precl udethe City conducting negotiations that might have some other item 'in- cl uded. He did not believe it was a bone of contention for the Trust. Councilmember Klein bel ieved his proposal was closer in intent to what the sponsors proposed. He did not recall any mention in either initiative to acqui si tion of the property. Initiative num- ber two talked about an exchange. To leave the *acqui si tion, pur- chase, cash" language in muddied the waters. He believed the 3,000 people signed up for an exchange, which was what should be included. Councilmember Renzel understood Councilmember Sutorius to say staff agreed it might also be able' to negotiate an exchange plus cash. Councilmember Sutorius said Council would always have authority to exercise a variety of means to acquire property. The one au- thority it did not have was to swap a piece of dedicated parkland in acquiring another piece of property. All it had there was the authority and responsibility, if it bel ieved it should be done, to conduct a public hearing on unded,ication and take it to a vote of the people. The processes by which a Council could act or direct staff to negotiate were broad. He asked if his understanding was correct.. Mr. Bennetti said yes. 5 8 3 1 5/29/85 AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Cobb, Levy voting "no." Mr. Bennetti said he believed with the striking of clause 4) in the second WHEREAS, in subsection (2) of Section 1, the phrase in the first part of the sentence after the Winter Lodge facility "or some al ternate site" had no defined meaning . If acceptable to the maker of the motion, he suggested the phrase be dropped . There was still the possibility of securing and making available an alternate site in the later language of the clause, but "or some alternate site" hanging there in the first sentence no longer had meaning because it was defined i'i subsection 4). He suggested it read, "The Winter Lodge facility shall continue to be used for community ice skating..." Mayor Levy clarified the ordinance would return to Council for final action so that the language would be cl eaned up accordingly in relation to the amendment just passed to delete al 1 language which related to acquiring the property. Mr. Ben.netti said the City Attorney's Office would make the appro- priate deletions and ensure that it was in accordance with Coun- ci1's sense. Councilmember Witherspoon said since everything would take place in the future and no one knew who would be on the Council nego- tiating, she wanted it doubly clear that the thrust of the now amended ordinance was that the emphasis was on exchange. She assumed that meant, especially given paragraph 5 under Section 1, the negotiations for an exchange would continue until May 1 , 1987. If at that time, no negotiated exchange was possible, then acqui - sition was a possibility. She was concerned it seemed to say that in spite of the taking out the acquisition language, acquisition or compensation for something other than an exchange of land was possible during the negotiations leading up to May 1 , 1987. Mr. Bennetti believed acquisition on terms other than an exchange was possible at any time if Council so agreed. The significance of the May 1 date was that under the other measure to be submitted to the voters, the undedication of the Geng Road site would self- destruct if the exchange was not completed by May 1 , 1987 such that there would be no unparkl and avail able for exchange. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed it was necessary to put a cap on the length of the negotiations, but was concerned that if a straight exchange coul d not be negotiated for one reason or another, there coul d be some other bargaining going on. She believed the purpose of Councilmember Klein's amendment was to concentrate only on an exchange so that the City received a clear mandate from the voters that that was what they wanted. Mr. Zaner said staff would not enter into any negotiations to acquire a piece of. property for cash without instructions from the Council. That was not done on any piece of property. Council had the authority to order staff to enter into negotiations for any piece of property at anytime for cash irrespective of the ordi- nance. Staff would work on the exchange pursuant to. the ordinance and no other systemuntil so instructed by Council . Councilmember Witherspoon was cone °ned about future Councils interpreting Council's action that evening. .It was the voters who would ultimately vote on the matter and it would later be inter- preted what was meant. If Council was going to all the trouble of writing the ordinance asopposed to passing the one submitted by the petitioners, it should be clear what was being done. Vice Mayor Cobb cl ari fled that the ordinance was cl ear and straightforward and coald easily be the one ordinance on the ballot the public could understand and support. He urged the Trust - to take advantage of the opportunity as the best way to succeed. Likewise, he urged his colleagues to cl early indicate its intentions with respect to the cleanly drafted ordinance so the meeting of the Trust tomorrow evening could be done without any cloud of doubt. If there were five or more sure votes on the Counc it to put the matter on the ballot, the Trust should be told so they could do their thoughtful actions the next evening and Council would have accomplished something to aid the voters im- measurably. For the record, he intended to support the ordinance in the present form all of the way through the process. Councilmember Renzel confirmed language such as that contained in 4) under Section 1, which said "compensation can consi st of all or any portion pl us cash or anything of val ue" would be made consi s- tent with the motion al ready passed about an exchange and anywhere el se the 1 anguage appeared. Mr. $eonetti confirmed the I anguage would be del eted under Coun- cilmember Kl ein' s amendment. 1 e Councilmember Renzel continued to oppose Council's involvement in exchanging the Geng Road site for the reasons already cited. She bel ieved Council was putting itself in the role of a developer creating problems it attempted to correct City-wide. She did not object to acquiring the Middlefield site and it would be more clear to put before the voters a simple acquisition and let them set the priorities. She was happy to hear the voters priorities for spending the City's money, but spending the City's land was something else. It was incredible to her to hear people talk of exchanging land as if the Ci ty was not giving away a valuable City resource. The City tried hard to correct the jobs/housing im- bal ance and Council was turning around and not only giving a double whammy to the jobs/housing imbalance, but was doing it in a 1 ocation where it was known there was al ready a gridlock and whe.re it could result in probl ems of cars backing out onto the Bayshore Freeway. She could not support the motion. Mayor Levy supported the motion out of respect for the democratic and initiative process. The initiative process was sometimes abused, but it was the basic repository of democracy. In the sub- ject case, the signatures were collected properly, and the item had a right to be on the ballot and fully discussed and voted on in November. Council's action that evening gave the public the opportunity to vote on something as free from confusion as pos- sible which was all to the good. He supported the motion as amended and affirmed his continued support through the process in order for the matter to be on the November ballot. Councilmember Witherspoon agreed with Councilmember Renzel and did not bel ieve it was the role of the City Council to put the matter on the ballot. She agreed :the measure was appropriate and well thought out for those who agreed with its philosophy, but she did not. The voters signed two initiatives and she saw no reason why theirs should not be on the bal lot as opposed to Council's. MOTION AS MENDED PASSED by a vote of 5-4, Bechtel, Fletcher, W1 therspeon,-,llenzel voting •ne.° Mayor Levy thanked the Trust for its dil igent and cooperative work. Although it was an intricate maze, Council was grateful for the help in the process. FINAL ADJOURNMENT. Final adjournment of adjourned meeting of May 28, 1985 was at 10:35 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: As 5 8 3 3 5/29/85 Corrected 7/22/85