Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2004-06-07 City Council (9)
TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report H O~O’i~-g L-E -CTT~C-OUN~-i-E "~ CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: SUBJECT: JUNE 7, 2004 CMR: 308:04 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION AND PALO ALTO HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL TO RENAME THE ARASTRADEROPRESERVE AS ENID PEARSON-ARASTRADERO PRESERVE RECOMMENDATION The Parks and Recreation Commission, the Palo Alto Historical Association and staff recommend that the City Council rename the Arastradero Preserve, the Enid Pearson- Arastradero Preserve. If City Council approves the Commission recommendation, staff recommends that Council: 1.Adopt the resolution renaming the Arastradero Preserve as the Enid Pearson- Arastradero Preserve (Attachment A); 2. Introduce the ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 22.08.330 to formally rename the dedicated park land called the Arastradero Preserve as the Enid Pearson-Arastradero Preserve (Attachment B); and 3.Direct staff to include the costs of implementing the recommendation (approximately $10,000) in the 2004-05 Community Services Department budget. BACKGROUND On December 1, 2003, a Council Colleagues memo from then-Vice Mayor Beecham and Council Members Kishimoto, Kleinberg and Ojakian requested Council support in initiating the process of renaming the Arastradero Preserve (Attachment D). A summary of Ms. Pearson’s accomplishments relating to Palo Alto parks and open space was included with the memo. City Council rnembers unanimously approved a motion to refer the request to the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA), asking that it consider the appropriateness of renaming the Arastradero Preserve after Enid Pearson. On February 2, 2004, staff returned to Council with the recommendation to rename the Arastradero Preserve as the Enid Pearson-Arastradero Preserve (CMR: 135:04 Attachment E), Council deferred the matter until the City’s park and facility naming policy could be revised to include a role for the Parks and Recreation Commission (or other appropriate commission), clari~ the criteria for naming parks and facilities, and create new criteria and procedures for the renaming of parks and facilities. Staff CMR:XXX:04 Page 1 of 4 subsequently reviewed the policies of 42 city, county, special park district and state agencies to determine alternatives for a comprehensive naming policy. On April 12, 2004, after review by the Policy and Services Committee, Council adopted the revised park and facility naming policy and directed staff to implement the new policy in the review of names for both the new SOFA/Homer Street Park and the renaming of the Arastradero Preserve. COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS At its May 5, 2004 regular meeting, the Board of Directors of the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) reaffirmed the recommendation previously made January 7, 2004, to rename the Arastradero Preserve as the Enid Pearson-Arastradero Preserve. In compliance with the City’s revised Policy and Procedure 1-15, Naming and Renaming City-owned Parks and Facilities, PAHA completed the required Name Suggestion Form and has provided additional documentation on the major overriding contributions Enid Pearson made to the community (Attachment C). The Board approved a motion that the name Enid Pearson-Arastradero Preserve be recommended to the City Council, and noted that Ms. Pearson’s role as a City Council member in the implementation of the open space zoning designation of the land, that eventually became the Arastradero Preserve, provided a legitimate naming nexus between her and the Preserve. The PAHA report includes as an attachment a recommendation from the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District (Attachment H) that Enid Pearson be recognized for her contributions to the establishment of the Open Space District as well as to the preservation of park land in Palo Alto. The District’s resolution does not specifically recommend renaming the Arastradero Preserve or any particular park. At its May 25, 2004 regular meeting, the Parks and Recreation Commission (Commission) conducted a public hearing on the renaming of the park and heard comments from two speakers. The Commission reviewed the recommendation forwarded by PAHA and the historical rational that was used to support its recommendation. The Commission took the following action: ¯Voted unanimously to endorse the name Enid Pearson-Arastradero Preserve as recommended by PAHA, and supported the historical rational for this recommendation; Voted unanimously to endorse the conclusion that Ms. Pearson’s "monumental impact on green space, her role as the author of the park dedication charter initiative, and her significant contributions to the community in the preservation of the Arastradero Preserve that heretofore have not been recognized," qualifies as a ’compelling reason’ to rename the Preserve; and ¯Voted unanimously to endorse the conclusion that the name Enid Pearson- Arastradero Preserve is compatible with the intended use of the Preserve. CMR:XXX:04 Page 2 of 4 In discussing the City’s Policy that the name of parks and facilities should not be changed, especially in the case of parks or facilities names that have a regional significance, the Commission concluded that because the recommended name still retains Arastradero Preserve as part of the name, it would not be likely that the public would be confused by the slightly altered name. RESOURCE IMPACT The Arastradero Preserve has two entry signs and 124 directional signs within the park that include the name of the preserve. There are also maps and brochures that reflect the current name. Staff’s recommendation is to only purchase new entry signs and replace the other signs, brochures, and maps at a later date on a replacement basis. The estimated cost for two entry signs similar to those currently in place is $10,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS These recommendations are consistent with existing City policy. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Attachment G: Attachment H: Resolution renaming the "Arastradero Preserve" as the "Enid Person- Arastradero Preserve" Ordinance amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 22.08.330 to formally rename the dedicated park land called the "Arastradero Preserve" as the "Enid Pearson-Arastradero Preserve" Recommendation from the Palo Alto Historical Association Board regarding renaming Arastradero Preserve City Council Colleagues Memo regarding renaming Arastradero Preserve to honor Enid Pearson, dated December 1, 2003 CMR: 135:04, February 2, 2004, Staff report on renaming the Arastradero Preserve Name Suggestion Form and supporting information on the nomination Memo from Greg Betts to the PAHA on the original naming of the Arastradero Preserve in 1985 Resolution from the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District CMR:XXX:04 Page 3 of 4 PREPARED BY: ,,-’ GREG BETTS (~ Superintendent, Open Space & Science DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: CHARD JAME5 Director, Commun~ty.,~Services "~ City Manager CMR:XXX:04 Page 4 of 4 ***NOT YET APPROVED**Attachment A RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO RENAMING THE ARASTRADERO PRESERVE AS THE ENID PEARSON ARASTRADERO PRESERVE WHEREAS, Enid Pearson, elected to the City Council of the City of Palo Alto in 1965, served with distinction as a council member for ten years, during which time she forcefully advocated for the creation of additional parks and open space; and WHEREAS, Enid Pearson, prior to her election to the Council, chaired the Palo Altans for Recreation and Conservation of Open Sites, a citizens committee formed to adopt by initiative [that was passed by an overwhelming majority vote of the electorate] a Charter amendment that required all parks be dedicated and an election be required for the abandonment of any parks or portions thereof; and WHEREAS, during Enid Pearson’s tenure and leadership, more than 510 acres of park land were added in the Foothills and over 46 acres of land was dedicated as park land; and WHEREAS, in August 1969, in response to Arastra Ltd.’s application for a Planned Community zone change to permit the construction of 1776 homes on what is now Arastradero Preserve, Enid Pearson led the effort to amend the Comprehensive Plan to include much of the foothills in the "Open-Space-Controlled Deve!opment" land use category; and WHEREAS, Enid Pearson continued to serve her community as a staunch advocate for parks and open space after her service as a council member, and as the Executive Director of the Peninsula Conservation Center; and WHEREAS, on December !, 2003, the Council unanimously endorsed a proposal to rename the Arastradero Preserve to honor Enid Pearson and, on January 14, 2004, the Palo Alto Historical Association’s board of directors voted to recommended approval of the proposal as both appropriate and consistent with the principles applicable to the renaming of a park in honor of an individual. 040123 cl 0072358 Attachment B ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ~-MENDING PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 22 . 08 . 330 TO FOR~L~LLY REN.~-ME THE DE DI CATED PARKLAND CALLED THE "ARASTP~hDERO PRESERVE"AS THE "ENID PEARSON AP~hST~hDERO PRESERVE" The Counci! of :he City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: The City Council (a)In ~".9~6, the City_ of ~-~=._o Alto acauired. :he property known as :he Arastra Land; (b! On October 5, 1981, by Ordinance No. 3305, the Council dedicared approximately 431 acres of the Arastra Land and approximately 1.7 acres of o:her adjacent City property for park, recreation and!or conservation purposes, known thereafter as the Arastra Property; (c) The City of Palo Alto retained approx._m=~e_.y 77 acres of :he Aras.~ra ==n~ for mossib!e future~’=-e~opm~,. ~ =~*~, :he density or development capacizy of :he entire Aras:ra Land ro the approximare!y 77 acre parcel; {dl, On Augus< !2, 198x_., zhe Council vo:ed to rename <he Aras~ra }roper:y as the Arastradero Preserve. The Council never ~oow anv ac<ion :o formalize the name; be.~_w~e_ 8, 1992, bv Ordznance No 4104, the Council exmanded the ~<Pres.=_=_cradero erve by dedi .... ~_~..:.~=~:!v__~:~-~--7: acres of __..~:~d=mi- ’:acen< zo the A_=~.=~-~- Property. :iv renamed bo~h ..... ~< ~.f parkland as the Aras=radero Preserve. ~OEO 0~{ ""(a)~e ~=~o =.Eist ca±Association~C~.~,~_~rename~=~H=~ <ha:Ci~v ~’~:~he~l,.~:.~Ene _.Aras:radero Preserve Pearson Aras:,=~_~-~=~ Prese~v="_ ~ _..~ view of Enid Pearson’s conzribuzions in <=cu~4~c Pa!o Alto marklands and omen smace. 040!2~ sdl 0091425 EXHIBIT A-21.9 ENID PE.~_D~SON .z-~JkSTR~_DERO PRESERVE Parcel i. A portion of that certain real property sho%~ on that certain Record of Survey, recorded in Book 262 of Maps at pages 2, 3, and 5, Sa~.ta Clara County Records, lying within the City of Palo Alto, County cf Santa Clara, State of California, and being more parzicu!ar!y described as fol!ows: Be[im,ning at a found 8" x 8" granite monument F-52 located on the City Limits Line of Said City of Pa!o Alto, at the most northerly corner of Sheet 2 of said Record of Survey; thence a!ong the common line of said Record of Survey and said City Limits Line S. 12° 05’ 22" W, 1668.31 feet to a found 3" x 4" post as shown on said Record of Survey; thence leaving said common !ine along said City Limits Line, S. !i° 59’ 52" W, 51.89 feet to a point on the southerly line of ~_~astradero Road (50 feet wide) said point being the t_~e point of begin_nine; thence continuing S. !!° 59’ 52" W. along said City Limits Line 2188.35 feet to a general southerly line of said Record of Survey; thence leaving said City Limits Line a!ong said southerly line, N. 71° 41’ 29" W, 148.43 feet; thence contin’din~ a!on~c the boundaz-y !ine of said Record of Su_~vey, N. 28° 58’ 17" W, 649.04 feet; thence N. 67° 22’ 14" W, 318.96 feet; thence S. 49° 27’ !6" W, 382.41 feet; thence S. 27° 4!’ !0" W, 653.36 feet; thence S. 38° 48’ 58" W, 1486.60 feet; thence N. 53° 44’ 34" W, 128.38 feet; thence S. 34° 28’ 08" W, 99.25 feet; thence S. 2i° !0’ 22" W, !99.71 feet; thence S. 38° i!’ 17" W, 3!5.03 .-’==~; thence S 8° zt’ 56" v 62 04 feet; thence S 52° 7a, 04" W, 94.38 feet; thence S. 51° !4’ 04" W, 31.68 feet; thence S. 43° 44’ 04" W, 64.68 feet; thence S. 55° 44’ 04" W, !58.40 feet; thence S. 58° ~’_-_ 0~"_ W, _700 .... 32 feet; thence S 28° zz, 04" W, 64.02 feet; thence S. 52° 14’ 04" W, 58.08 feet; thence S. 60° 44’ 04" W, 91.08 _~_t,~== ¯ thence S. ~° ~=9’ 04" W, 92.40 =eel;-" ~ thence S. 80° 14’ 04" W, 114.84 feet; thence S. 54° 14’ 04" W, 93.72 feet; thence S. 41° 14’ 04" W, 121 ~-z ~==t; thence S <=o aa, 04" W, ~0 82 ,===.-. thence S 24°__~z’ 0a"_ W, 43.56 feet-, thence S. 25° 15’ 56" ~,= 62.70 feet; thence S. 12° 44’ 04" W, !45.20 feet; thence S. 39° 14’ 04" W, 76.60 feet; thence S. 39° zq, 27" W, 62.88 feet; uhenc~ S 40° __ __~" W, z,.___.92 thence S. 39° 54’ 09" W, -_.o~ 93 feet; thence S. 67° 28’ 20" W, 254.56 feet; thence S. 72° 23’ 48" W, 438.62 feet; thence S. 87° 32’ 46" W, 190.74 feet; thence N. 84° I!’ 05" 183.00 feeZ; thence N. 78° I0’ 07" W, 194.5! feet; thence N. 75° 37’ i3" W, 363.80 feet; thence N. 87° 19’ 39" W, 102.83 feet to Doinn "~"(for ~-~the~c= N.88° 06’~" W,_ ._=~uer reference) ; .....,-_2~ :==:, ~=n~e._~ N. 84° 05’ 50" W, 80.63 feet; thence N. 67° 27’ 23" W, 1148.53 feet; thence N. 65° 35’ 53" W, 192.01 feet;thence N. 24° 30’ 30" E, 712.!4 feet; thence N. i5° 45’ 35" E,791.64 feet; thence N. ......... ~6° 00’ 48" E, 919 ~= {==t; thence N 3ao ~_.~, 38" E, 245.85 feet; thence S. 80° 07’ 54" E, 439.53 feet; thence leaving 040125 sd] 0091425 3 tangent curve to the right having a radius of 6U5.00 feet, through a centra! angle of 24° 43’ 25", a length of 291.27 feet; thence N. $5° 41’ 53" E, 9.20 feet (9.06 feet, Record of Survey Map); thence along the arc of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 425.00 feet, through a central angle of 13° 32’ 50", a length of 100.49 feet; thence N. 42° 09’ 03" E, 335.84 feet; thence a!ong the arc of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 300.00 feet, through a centra! angle of !8° 12’ 50", a length of 95.36 feet; thence along a tangent cu_~ve to the right having a radius of 200.00 feet, through___ ~ a central angle of 18° 23’ 40", a length of 64.21 feet; thence N. 78° 44’ 34" E, 82.53 feet to a point on the we~t=rTv- ~___ line of the lands of Bress!er; thence along a non-tangent curce to the left having a radius of 550.00 feet, through a central --~_7 90 77 ..~=_c,e of __’ 20", a length of 88 20 feet; thence S 57° !6’ 53" E, 198.00 feet; thence S. 76° 13’ 35" E, 395.00 feet; thence S. 49° 17’ 57’’_ E, 146.04 feet-, thence S. 87° 36’ ~5"_ E, S. 55° =~.84 feet;~h ~= .42".~=_e ....N 66° 43’E, 165.00 feet; thence S 68° 32’ 00" E, 241.00 feet; thence N. 23° 44~ 16" E, 239.96 feet to a point on the southerly !ine of 9~astradero Road; thence S. 68° 39’ 48" E, 363.79 feet; thence along a curve to the right having a radius of 975.00 -~centra! ~n~le of 6° 09’ 54",feet, ~:,ough a _a length of 104.91 feet; thence S. 62° 29’ 54" E, 185.06 feet to the true point of be[ipr_ing, containing 432.79! acres more or less. Parce! 2. Bemi.7_~_ing at said found 8" x 8" granite monument F-52 described in Parcel !; thence - ~=,ong the common line of said Record of Su!-vey and said city limit line, S. 12° 05’ 22" W, 1668.31 feet to a found 3" x 4" post as showr_ on said Record of Survey, said point being a point on the northerly line of Arastradero Road; thence leaving said common line N. 62° 29’ 54" W0 along said northerly line 171.19 fee:; thence continuing along said northerly line and along the arc of =t___g:~ e~..~ curve to the ......... 72~ ~a-¢~g a radius of 1025.00 feet, ~hr.~u=~~o ~ ~.. a central an~!e~ of 6° 09’ 54" , a length of _710 . 29 feet-, :hence N. 68°~9’ zS,,_ W, 751.69 ,_ee~,-~ -. thence a!ong the arc of a cu~’e to the left having a radius of 525.00 feet, through a central angle of !2° 49’ 05", a length of 117.45 feet; thence N. .... n ~- ~-7 7 ~ =feet ¯a7 ong87o 28’ ~n" W along said _o.the_~y,,n~ 587.45 , thence _ the arc of a tangent curve to the !eft having a radius of 525.00 feet, through a central angle of 17° 42’ 17", a length of 162.23 fee~; thence S. 80° 48’ 50" W, along said northerly line of .n_rastradero Road ,! 70 feet; ~ne_.ce along the arc of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 4025.00 throu[h a central angle of 02° 04’ 16" a 7e~t~ cf 7~5 50 feet- thence S 78° 44’ 34" W, 303.45 feet; thence along the arc of a tangent -_o the !ef: having a radius of 250.00 feet, tb_rough a central angle of !S° 2~’ 40", a :eng._h of 80.26 feet; thence leaving said ~.~=~TV_.~_~__~__. !Ane of Arastradero Road N. 3"~= i5’ 32" W, 981.5i feet-, thence N. 77° 55’ ~" ~ ?495 u7 feet; thence S 70° a2’ z5"~_~a 77 feet- thence N 83~ 27’ 13" m 449 97 = =~..... e~u to the point of meg,n/ ....g, containing 77 2!9 acres more or lesS. 0<~0128 sdl 0091425 ATTACHMENT C Palo Alto Historical Association P.O. Box !93 .~ Palo Alto, California 943021650) 326-3355 JanuaD" 14, 2004 TO: MEMBERS OF THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RE: RENAMING ARASTRADERO PRESERVE Honorable Council Members: Oaa December I, Members of the City Council unanimously endorsed the suggestion that the proposal to rename the Arastradero Preserve to honor Enid Pearson be forwarded to the Palo Alto Historical Association for consideration of its appropriateness. The Association’s board referred the proposal to its Landmarks and Street Names Committee. ,Mier review, file committee advised the board on January. 7~ that: In view of Enid Pearson’s many contributions in securing Palo Alto parklands and open space, it is recommended that tile Arastradero Preserve be renanaed to honor her. Our first preference is "Emd Pearson Arastradero Preserve" thereby keeping "Arastradero" in the name. The Preserve has been lmown by that name for 14 years, and that name appears on maps and lists. The Committee’s second preference would be "Enid Pearson Preserve." Board members discussed the committee’s recommendation an& in reco~maition of Enid Pearson’s long history of involvement with park issues and her key rote in the adoption &the Cib"s park dedication initiative, voted to recommend to the Palo Alto City Council that the Avastradero Preserve be renamed "’Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve." This recommendation is appropriate and consistent with the pNlciple that when it is proposed a park be named after an individual, that person should have made some si~maificant contribufon or performed some smdce which is deemed to have been of major significance to the community. Please let us lmow if you require additional reformation. Sincerely yours, Tom Wyman, President ATTACHMENT C Palo Alto Historical Association P.O. Box 193 ~’~ Palo Alto, California 94302 (650) 326-3355 May 5, 2004 TO: MEMBERS OF THE PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL RE: RENAMING ARASTRADERO PRESERVE Honorable Council Members: On December 1, 2003 Members of the City Council unanimously endorsed the suggestion that the proposal to rename the Arastradero Preserve to honor Enid Pearson be forwarded to the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) for consideration of its appropriateness. The Association’s board referred the proposal to its Landmarks and Street Names Committee. After review, the committee advised the board on January 7’~ that: In view of Enid Pearson’s many contributions in securing Palo Alto parklands and open space, it is recommended that the Arastradero Preserve be renamed to honor her. Our first preference is "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve" thereby keeping "Arastradero" in the name. The Preserve has been known by that name for 14 years, and that name appears on maps and lists. The Committee’s second preference would be "Enid Pearson Preserve." By letter dated January 14~, PAHA’s board advised the City Council that it agreed with its Committee’s recommendation. In recognition of Enid Pearson’s key role in the formulation of the City’s park dedication initiative which was adopted with the support of over 85% of the electorate as well as her long record of involvement with park-related issues, PAHA recommended to the Council that the Arastradero Preserve be renamed "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve. On April 12, 2004, Council adopted a revised policy, "Naming City-owned Land and Facilities." Although PAHA’s recommendation was made prior to the adoption of the revised policy, it is entirely consistent with the expressed ATTACHMENT C purpose of the new policy ". .... to ensure that City-owned land and facilities, when named for individuals, are named for persons who have made significant contributions or performed services deemed to have been of major importance to the community." The submission by Ms. Betsy Allen dated April 29, 2004, provides detailed information on Ms. Pearson’s central role in the development and adoption of the Palo Alto’s Parks Dedication Ordinance as well as her other park-related activities and community services. The submission also reflects the breadth of support for adopting the name "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve." By way of background, on October 17, 1984 the Palo Alto Historical Association advised the City that it concurred with GeofPaulsen’s proposal to name the Arastra property "Arastradero Preserve" since the name reflects the geographic features of the area, namely Arastradero Creek and Arastradero Road, as well as representing the Spanish heritage of the region. In the 1830s, a draying road that followed trails made by wild animals was opened for hauling logs. Arastradero means a dragger or hauler such those who used oxen and skid roads to drag logs from where they were cut to mills and markets in the valley. The Association also agreed that referring to the area as a "preserve" rather than a "park" was more appropriate since the land was not meant to be developed. Council adopted the name Arastradero Preserve on July 3, 1985. Additional information on Arastradero Preserve taken from PAHA’s booklet, Parks of Palo Alto, is attached. Please let us know if you require additional information. Sincerely yours, Tom Wyman, President .< NAME SUGGESTION FORM ATTACHMENT C Criteria for renaming existing facilities of parks: Each application for renaming a city park or facility must meet the criteria listed above, but meeting all criteria does not ensure renaming. Existing place names are deemed to have historic recognition. City policy is not to change the name of any existing facilities or City-owned land, particularly one whose name has City or regional significance, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Further, the City will consider renaming to commemorate a person or persons only when the person or persons have made major, overriding contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet unrecognized. City-owned lands and facilities may be renamed for an individual(s) under the following conditions. Where the individual: 1. Has made lasting and significant contributions to the protection of natural or cultural resources of the City of Palo Alto, or 2. Has made substantial contributions to the betterment of a specific facility or park, consistent with the established standards for the facility, or 3. Has made substantial contributions to the advancement of commensurate types of recreational opportunities within the City of Palo Alto. Suggestions for naming or renaming City-owned lands or facilities shall be evaluated on the basis of the above criteria and upon appropriate documentation. Person making the name suggestion (required): Tom Wyman for the Palo Alto Historical Association Address (required): 546 Washington Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Contact phone number (required): 325 9483 E-mail (not required): tomandellen@sbcglobal.net Location of site or facility to be named: Arastradero Preserve Suggested name (required): Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve Bio~aphical information: (Explain) See Attachment A of the submission to the City Clerk by Betsy Allyn dated April 29, 2004. ATTACHMENT C NAME SUGGESTION FORM Civic involvement: (Explain) See Attachment B Connection to the facility: (Please explain in depth) See Attachment C Reason for Nomination (required): In recognition of Enid Pearson’s key role in formulating and promoting the City’s park dedication initiative which was adopted with the support of over 85% of the electorate as well as her long record of involvement with park-related issues, PAHA recommends that the "Arastradero Preserve" be renamed "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve." This would be an appropriate recognition of her long service and significant contributions to our community. It would also be entirely consistent with the criteria governing renaming of parks. For additional comments see Attachment D of the Ms. Allyn’s submission. Additional Comments (additional information may be attached): Please refer to the letters supporting this recommendation including those received from Committee for Green Foothills, Acterra and the Midpeninsula Regional Park District. Date Received by the City Clerk: Submitted to Palo Alto Historical Association: Date scheduled for review by" commission: ATTACHMENT D Office of the City Council MEMORANDUM 8 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 1, 2003 City Council Colleagues Vice Mayor Beecham and Council Members Kishimoto, Kleinberg, and Ojakian Renaming Arastradero Preserve to Honor Enid Pearson Enid Pearson has played a pivotal role in creating many of our neighborhood and district parks and open space. She is the "mother" of some of Palo Alto’s most cherished jewels. We would like to ask you for your support in initiating the process to re-name Arastradero Preserve park to honor Enid Pearson and her role in Palo Alto’s history. There is a council policy for naming new City-owned land and facilities. The intent of the policy was to ensure that suggestions for names reflect the City’s rich heritage; the policy thus requires that suggestions for park or facilities names have the scrutiny of the Palo Alto Historical Association (PAHA) prior to coming to Council for approval. In this case, we have an existing park that we are suggesting be re-named after an individual who has had a significant impact on the City’s history. We welcome the review of the Historical Association, and would recommend that this nomination be forwarded to them directly, to consider whether, in fact, re-naming the Arastradero Preserve after Enid Pearson is appropriate. The PAHA recommendation would then come back to the full Council for consideration. In 1965, Enid chaired Palo Altans for Recreation and Conservation of Open Sites (PARCS), a committee formed to adopt by Initiative a Charter Amendment requiring that all parks be dedicated and that an election would be required for abandonment of any parks or portion thereof. The initiative passed by an overwhelming majority of the electorate. The same year, Enid was elected to the city council, where she continued to be a forceful advocate for parks and open space. During her tenure, more than 510 acres of Park were added in the Foothills and over 46 acres of park were added and dedicated in developed Palo Alto. These include the Esther Clark Park, Eugenie .Johnson Park, Monroe Park, Boulware Park, and Greet Park. Also, there were additions made to Foothill Park, Elinor Cogswell Park, Hoover Park, Mitchell Park, Scott Street Park, Greet Park, and Rinconada Park. Finally, Enid Pearson played an instrumental part in the process, which led to the rezoning of the foothills and city purchase of Arastradero Preserve in the early 1970s. ]:n August 1969 Arastra Ltd., the owners of what is now Arastradero Preserve, applied for a Planned Community zone change to allow 1776 homes to be built. ]:n 3une 1971 the City Council, with leadership by Enid Pearson, amended the Comprehensive Plan to include most of the foothills in Open Space Controlled Development land use category. A long process including litigation led to the City’s purchase of the 510 acres for $7,475,000 and subsequent dedication as permanent open space used. For her vision and leadership in securing Palo Alto open space and parkland for al! generations to come, we would like to honor Enid Pearson by dedicating one of our most beloved parks in her name. Palo Alto’s Parks and Open Space Accomplishments in which Enid Pearson played a vital role. In 1965 Enid Pearson chaired Palo ~4_ltans for Recreation and Conservation of open Sites (PARCS), a committee formed to adopt by Initiative a Charter Amendment requiring that all parks be dedicated and that an election be required for abandonment of arty parks or portion thereof. The initiative was needed because erosion of city parks had been rampant including a) building a fire station on Rinconada Park in 1951, b) Shrinking Cogswell Park by 1/2 acre to create a parking lot in 1953, c) allowing a shopping center where a park had been proposed at Edgewood and Embarcadero in 1955, d) using part of Bowdoin Park for an underpass in 1960, e) losing Sherman Park to the Court House in 1961, f) plans to build high rise buildings on E1 Camino Park in 1964, and using 5 acres of Eleanor Park for a city nurseD,. The initiative passed by an 7- 1 vote of the electorate. Enid Pearson was elected to the City Council in May 1965 and served for 10 years during which time she was a forceful advocate for parks and open space. During Enid’s tenure on the Palo Alto City Council, well more than 510 acres (more than 13% of current acreage) of park were added in the Foothills and over 46 acres (27% of current acreage) of park were added in developed Palo Alto. This represented an investment of approximately $10,000,000 or less than $18,000 per acre. Without Enid’s foresight and forceful advocacy at that critical juncture in Palo Alto’s history, these opportunities would have been lost. This scale of park additions would be impossible today. A chronology follows: 1965 Esther Clark Park 22 acres $177,000 Feb. 1966 Lee addition to Foothills Park 140 acres !~eb. 1966 Lee addition to Foothills Park 5.60 acres June 1966 Knolte addition to Mitchell Park 1.93 acres In the 1960’s Enid Pearson, recognizing that parks were not well distributed throughout the city proposed that the Cit), establish mini-parks in various neighborhoods. June 1966 Boulware Park 1.5 acres 1968 Edith Eugenie Johnson Park 2.5 acres $507,800 A-ng=-. ! 968 Rinconada Park-ad dition dedi:catior~ Sept.1970 May 1971 Rinconada tennis courts at the Hopkins comer Hoover Park addition dedication 1972 Pardee Park agreement with the heirs of Emily Pardee allowing a park plan to proceed for the full 10 acre park. April 1973 Scott Park Mini-Park 0.4 acre dedicated ’78 1974 Monroe Mini-Park purchase 0.55 acres $41,500. May 1974 Cogswell Park addition 0.103 acre In the late 1960’s it was Enid Pearson who brought to the attention of the Coundl that Utah Construction and Mining was posting signs in our baylands, laying claim to them. As a result the City Attorney took action to protect the city’s interest. In the early 1970’s the city commissioned the Livingston -Blayney Foothills Environmental Design Study. The study recommended a low density zoning of 20 acre minimum lots in the upper foothills and 10 acre minimum lots in the lower foothills. In 1971 Enid Pearson brought to the Council’s attention the fact that the 12.4 acre Timothy Hopkins park, though deeded to the city in the early 1900’s had not been properly dedicated. The ordinance dedicating Timothy Hopkins Creel<side Park was passed on May 20, 1971. Also in 1971 due to Enid’s diligence, the 0.5 acre E1 Palo Alto Park, which also had been donated to the city bY Timothy Hopkins was dedicated May 20, 1971. June 1974 Greer Park The City Council acquired an approximately 15 acre abandoned drive-in movie site to merge with Amarillo Park to create a district park. This cost $1,181,500. This now provides critical playing fields for the city. In August 1969 Arastra Ltd., the o~ners of what is now Arastradero Preserve applied for a Planned Community zone change to allow 1776 homes to be built. In June 1971 the City Council, ~dth a lot of leadership by Enid Pearson, amended the Comprehensive Plan to include most of the foothills in "Open Space- Controlled Development" land use category. In 1972 the city added an Open Space element to the General Plan and adopted open space zoning restrictions limiting development to an average of 10 acres per dwelling. ~a_rastra sued the city for $15..6 million in damages plus interest, attorney’s fees, and court costs. After three years of litigation, the U.S. District Court ruled that the City had to purchase this 510 acres with a 5965 square foot house, a smaller house, and a large barn for $7,475,000. Enid Pearson provided strong leadership in the city of Palo Alto during the formation of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in 1972. .After Enid Pearson left the Council in 1975, she became Executive Director of the Peninsula Conservation Center. She later served as Legislative Advocate for Committee for Green Foothills in Santa Clara County. She also worked as an aide to Supervisor Rod Diridon. Enid Pearson, now in her 70’s remains a staunch advocate for parks & open space. The above information was compiled from P.A.M.C., PAHA’s Park~ of Palo Alt0, City of Palo Alto Parks Map, and 1965 PARCS Initiative literature (November 2003). ATTACHMENT E TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 8 CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES DATE: SUBJECT: FEBRUARY 2, 2004 CMR: 135:04 PALO ALTO HISTORICAL ASSOCIATION RECOMMENDATION TO RENAME "ARASTRADERO PRESERVE" AS THE "ENID PEARSON ARASTRADERO PRESERVE" RECOMMENDATION The Palo Alto Historica! Association (PAHA) Board recommends that the City Council rename the Arastradero Preserve the "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve". If the City Council approves the PAHA recommendation, staff recommends that Council: 1.Adopt the resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto renaming the "Arastradero Preserve" as the "Enid Person Arastradero Preserve" (Attachment A); 2. Introduce the ordinance of the Council of the Ci~~ of Palo Alto amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 2..08..~_~0 to formally rename the dedicated parkland called the "Arastradero Presetwe" as the "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserwe" (Attachment B): and 3.Direct staff to include the costs of implementing the recommendation (approximately $20.000) in the 2004-05 Community Selwices Department budget. BACKGROUND On December 1 ,,00.~. a City Council Colleagues Memo from then-Vice Mayor Beecham and Council Members Kishimoto, Kleinberg and Ojakian requested that the City Council support initiating the process to rename the Arastradero Presera, e (Attachment C). A summary of Ms. Pearson’s accomplishments relating to Palo Alto parks and open space was included with the memo. Members of the City Council unanimously approved a motion to refer the request to the Palo Alto Historical Association, asking that it consider the appropriateness of renaming the Arastradero Preserve after Enid Pearson. DISCUSSION Upon receiving the request from the City Council to consider renaming of the Arastradero Preserve in honor of Enid Pearson, the Palo Alto Historical Association Board referred the proposal to its Landmarks and Street Names Committee. The committee reviewed the request and on January 7, 2004 made the following recommendation to the Board: CMR:135:04 Page 1 of 3 "In view of Enid Pearson’s many contributions in securing Palo Alto parklands and open space, it is recommended that the Arastradero Presetwe be renamed to honor her. The preference is ’Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve’, thereby, keeping ’Arastradero’ in the name. The Preserve has been knov,,n by that name for 14 years, and that name appears on maps and lists. The Committee:s second preference would be ’Enid Pearson Preserve’." The Board discussed the committee’s recommendation and voted to recommend to the City Council that that the Arastradero Preserve be renamed "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve" (Attachment D). Board members expressed the feeling that Enid Pearson’s long history, of involvement with park issues and her key, role in the adoption of the City’s park dedication initiative were consistent with the principal that when it is proposed that a park be named after an individual, that person should have made some significant contribution or performed some service which is deemed to have been of major significance to the community. RESOURCE IMPACT The Arastradero Preserve has two entry signs and 124 directional signs within the park that include the name of the preserve. There are also maps and brochures that reflect the current name. One option to consider is to only purchase new entu signs and replace the other signs, brochures, and maps at a later date on a replacement basis. The estimated cost for two entry signs similar to those currently in place is $10,000. The cost to replace all signs, maps brochures, etc. is estimated to be approximately $20,000. POLICY IMPLICATIONS These recommendations are consistent with existing City, policy and furthers Policy and Procedure 1-15. ALTERNATIVES In the alternative, the City Council may refer this matter to the Policy, and Services Committee for recommendation or reject the proposed name change. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C Attachment D: Resolution of the Council of the City: of Palo Alto renaming the "Arastradero Preserve" as the "Enid Person Arastradero Presem, e" Ordinance of the Council of the City, of Palo Alto amending Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 22.08.330 to formally rename the dedicated parkland called the "Arastradero Preserve" as the "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve" City Council Colleagues Memo regarding renaming Arastradero Preserve to honor Enid Pearson, dated December 1, 2003 Recommendation from the Palo Alto Historical Association Board regarding renaming Arastradero Preserve CMR:I35:04 Page.: ~ of 3 PREPARED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: DANIEL B. Director of Recreation, Open Space and Sciences Director Of community’ Services EMI’L~HAR~ISON Assistant City Manager CMR:135:04 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTF RECEIVED APR 3 0 200~ Ap~29,2~4 Ms. Donna Rogers, Cit7 Clerk Cit3, of Palo Alto Palo Alto, California Dear Ms. Rogers: Please find attached the application and attachments required to request the naming of the Arastradero Preserve to become the "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve". Should you have questions or need additional information please do not hesitate to call me at an}, time. Thank you. Betsy ,adlyn \ "-’--’-’--’~" 4186 Willrnar Drive Palo Alto, 94306 650, 493 - 8859 Criteria for renaming existing facilities of parks: Each application for renaming a city park or facility must meet the criteria listed above, but meeting all criteria does not ensure renaming. Existing place names are deemed to have historic recognition. City policy is not to change the name of any existing facilities or City-owned land, particularly one whose name has City or regional significance, unless there are compelling reasons to do so. Further, the City will consider renaming to commemorate a person or persons only when the person or persons have made major, overriding contributions to the City and whose distinctions are as yet unrecognized. City-owned lands and facilities may be renamed for an individual(s) under the following conditions. Where the individual: l. Has made lasting and significant contributions to the protection of natural or cultural resources of the City. of Palo Alto, or 2. Has made substantial contributions to the betterment of a specific facility or park, consistent with the established standards for the facility, or 3. Has made substantial contributions to the advancement of commensurate types of recreational opportunities within the City of Palo Alto. Suggestions for naming or renaming City-owned lands or facilities shall be evaluated on the basis of the above criteria and upon appropriate documentation. Person making the name suggestion (required): Address(required): Contact phone number (required): E-mail (not required):, Location of site or facility to be named: S~,ggested name (required): Biographical information: (Explain) Civic involvement: (Explain) Page 2 Co’nnection to the facility: (Please explain in depth) -~tg~_,. ~,’t’r ~I:~_.H ~ ~I~IT ~ Reason for Nomination (required): Additional Comments (additional information may be attached): UDI~ _~/gt~. O~’.~T T’b~.Y. "T’~J@ ~l;~.a ~ ~. Date Received by the City Clerk: Submitted to Palo Alto Historical Association: Date scheduled for review by commission: Page 3 ATTAINT A- BIOGRAPHICAL INFORMATION Ms. Pearson was born in Venice, California, but grew up in Butte, Montana. She attended Montana State University graduating with a B~S. ih chemistry. While in graduate school at U. C. Berkeley, she met her husband, Paul Pearson, who was completing his Ph. D. in electronic engineering at Stanford University. They moved to Palo Alto in 1952 and resided at 1200 Bryant Street. They had three daughters and a son all of whom attended Palo Alto schools. Ms. Pearson ran for city council in 1965 receiving the largest number of votes of any candidate. She survived the recall of the total council in 1967 when there were 22 candidates on the ballot, and served until 1975. From 1981 to-2003, she headed her own business as a financial planner, stock broker, and tax preparer. She specialized in Socially Responsible investments, the first firm in the Bay Area to offer such services. She retired from business in 2003. She continues to be a staunch advocate of parks and open space in the Bay Area. ATTACHMENT B - CIVIC INVOLVEMENT In the early ’60’s, Palo Alto was experiencing huge change. There was a great deal of pressure to make Palo Alto into a financial center with extraordinary development projects being proposed..Such as, - rezoning the foothills for high-rise buildings -resoning the baylands into 30,000 sq. ft. lots and leasing the lots thus creating the Palo Alto Industrial Park - proposals for high-rise apartments along Middlefield Road - building three 21-story high-rise apartments on E1 Camino Ballpark - moving the Palo Alto Police Station and firing range on to Rinconada Park - a major San Francisco department store alongside E1 Camino Ballpark Ms. Pearson first became involved in Palo Alto politics when Bryant Street and Waverley Street, where she lived, were to be converted to one-way streets, and the residential area from dowr~towm Palo Alto to Embarcadero Road was to be rezoned commercial. Ms. Pearson formed a ctizen’s coalition to draft a city ordinance requiring the Palo Alto City Council to adopt a General Plan. The coalition presented the petition to the city council and, on the advice of the city attorney the council ignored it. The coalition brought suit against the city. This action stopped all development in the city for two years. In May 1962, Judge Mathew Tobriner (California Supreme Court Justice sitting by special appointment of the Chief Justice) issued a 15 - page decision (Fletcher vs Porter) requiring the city of Palo Alto to grant the petitioners request. The city appealed his decision, but the appeal was denied. Thus the city of Palo Alto was required to develop and adopt a General Plan. (See Attachment I for his opinion). In 1964 Palo Alto parks were unprotected and, as vacant land, especially vulnerable to development. Proposals such as: - Santa Clara County Courthouse to be located on Mitchell Park - Cogswell Park was reduced to accommodate a parking lot - Rinconada Park threatened with placement of Palo Alto Police Station and firing range - Bowden Park was reduced to accommodate the Oregon Expressway - Possible development in Foothill Park. So, Enid Pearson gathered a group together called PARC (Palo Altans for Recreation and Conservation). She assiduously researched the legal and constitional ramiifications and possibilities of a park protection plan including a survey of 36 cities and counties. She then wrote a tight and easily interpreted Charter Provision requiring that all Palo Alto parks be dedicated in perpetuity, and that an election of the people must be held for the abandonment of a park or any disposal of a portion thereof..(A copy of the Parks Dedication Ordinance is attached as Attachment II). Simultaneously, PARC drafted and circulated an initiative for (1) the reduction in the size of the council from 15 to 9 members and (2) the reduction of their terms from 6 to 4 years. These fl~ree petitions were carried city-wide by PARC., and they were placed on the May, 1965 election ballot. All three passed with a 7 to I vote of the electorate. In 1965 Ms. Pearson was elected to the Palo A!to city council. In 1967 Ms. Pearson had to go through the recall election along with the rest of the council but she was re-elected. In 1971 she ran for reelection and was again the top vote getter. This was the year she persuaded the dty council to pass a resolution to purchase all the lower foothills and to instruct the city staff to seek federal funding to do so. In 1975 Ms. Pearson ran for reelection and lost. OTHER CMC CO~UTIONS 1. Ms. Pearson served on a regional committe whose focus was to protect the scenic view from Skyline Blvd. She visited contiguous ciries to urge for protective zoning along the entire route. This comprehensive effort led to the eventual designation of the Skyline Blvd. as a State Scenic Highway with all attendant protections. 2. She served as conservation director of the Peninsula Conservation Center. The PCC eventually supported the purchase and the subsequent dedication of the Arastra land. 3. As a long-time member of the Committe for Green Foothills, she served as president for two years, and as legislative advocate in Santa Clara County for two years, 4. She was an advisor to the formation of the Mid -Peninsula Open Space District. 5. ~rhen the Greenbelt Alliance (formerly People for Open Space) reorganized, she served as president for one year. 6. In 1976 she was appointed to the California State Water Commission whose responsibilities included reviewing all dam proposals and waterways such as the Peripheral Canal and the San Felipe pipeline into Santa Clara Count),. She served for four years. It was the only water commission to vote down a dam. 7. She worked as a health and criminal justice aide for Santa Clara county supervisor Ron Diridon for two years. 8. She worked as an aide to Santa Clara supervisor Gerry Steinberg for a short period of time. 9. Ms. Pearson has served for years as a volunteer for the Stevens Creek Trail Committee.. 10. She is a member of the Palo Alto Women’s Club and has served on the Board as vice - president and treasurer. ATI"ACHMENT C - CONNECTION TO THE FACILITY Enid Pearson has a substantial direct connection to the creation of Arastradero Preserve, as w4_ll be explained below, but we must emphasize that this application to add her name to the existing name of the Arasradero Preserve is bas~ mainly on her major over-riding contribution as a whole to the .city as set forth in the "civic involvement" section above." The newly adopted city policy on naming city-owned land and facilities provides for recognition of persons who "have made major, overriding contributions to the city" of the 23 Palo Alto parks named for individuals (out of a total of 32 city parks) only Bol Park and the Eleanor Park have a dose connection between the facility and the namesake of the park, and two more, Briones and Cogswell, have a small connection between the facility and the namesake. All of the remaining 19 parks named for individuals, according to the Palo Alto Historic~ Association book parks of palo Alt~ (1996), recognized the person named without there being any dose connection to the specific park. An example would be Mitchell Park, named in 1957 for J. Pearce Mitchell, long time city council member who died in 1973.. Turning now to the history of the Arastradero Preserve, all of the facts leading to the purchase of the park by Palo Alto took place between 1966 and December, 1972, as set forth in detail on pages I to 13 of Judge Schnacke’s 9/15/75 decision (Attachment HI. That decision held that the 1972 rezonmg of the Palo Alto Foothills to 10 acres minimum lot size was an appropriation by the city of "a valuable propert-y right of the plaintiff" (Arastra Limited Parnership, owner of the 515 acres which are now in the park) for which the plaintiff could receive money damages. The case was settled in June, 1976 with the city paying Arastra Limited Partnership $7,500,000 to drop the lawsuit and convey title to the 515 acres to the city. Attachment W is a 6/10/76 article from the ~an lose Mercu~’ News reporting the settlement. You can see from the above insert newspaper article that there was some strong criticism of the settlement from citizens, among them Alan Henderson (who was on the 1972 council) and Larry Klein (not then on the council). Man), experienced land use attorneys at the time thought that Judge Schnacke had decided v,"rongly and that his opinion would be reversed on appeal. This feeling that Judge Schnacke’s decision would be overturned on appeal was well grounded because (a) of the seven foothill land owners who sued the city after the 1972 rezoning to 10 acre minimum lots all lost or withdrew except for Arastra (this is based on our best recollection) and (b) the appellate decisions of the time and after have uniformally upheld large lot size zoning by cities: A_o_.ns vs Tiburon (US Supreme Court 1980 upholding 4 acre zoning in Tiburon) Barancik vs Matin Coun _ty (9th Circuit Court of Appeals 1988 upheld 60 acre minimuan lot zoning in west Marin County) Devit~ vs I’¢apa County (California Supreme Court 1995 upheld 40 acre minimum lot zoning in Napa County, which zoning had been Napa Count), policy since the 1970’s and had previously been challenged and upheld). Judge Schnacke did not give any weight to the thorough Livingston - Blayney Economic Study of the Palo Alto Foothils, which the 1972 council had obtained prior to passing the 10 acre minimum rezoning, which study concluded that it would be cheaper for the city to purchase the foothills than to bear the municipal expense (utilities, roads, fire, schools, parks) of Arastra’s proposed development. This study laid the solid basis for the city council’s 1972 rezoning and was directly comparable to economic studies done by Tiburon, Matin County, and Napa County. The involvement of Enid Pearson in this history of Arastradero Preserve was as follows: - Elected to city council May, 1965 and took office 7/1/65 for a six year term (the last of the 6 year terms after the success of the 1965 initiatives described under "civic involvement"). - She was on the 1966 council which rezoned the Arastra 515 acres from one acre mmirnum to Planned Cornmunib, at much higher densit-y. She voted against the rezoning, which rezonmg greatly increased the price the city paid in 1976. - Ms. Pearson survived the 1967 full council recall and resumed her term due to expire in 1971. Without exception, Ms. Pearson advocated at every council vote from 1966 through 1972 that the 515 acres and other foothills land should not be intensely developed and, if possible, acquired as a park. She strongly supported (a) the council’s obtaining the Livingston-Blayney Report on the foothills (see Judge Schnacke’s summar),," of the facts pages 1 - 13, attachment III), and (b) the expansion of the scope of the report to include a cost/benefit to the city analysis, (c) the council’s acceptance of the report and (d) the council°s 1972 rezoning of the foothills to a 10 acre mimmum based on the report. It is clear that the 1966 - 1972 period was the decisive time for council action. After December 1972 when Arastra fried its lawsuit the matter was in the hands of the la~,ers and the court and beyond any effective action by the council or the citizens. .After the 9/15/75 court decision the only significant decisions were (a) appeal or settle and, as you can see, there was strong reason to appeal and (b) whether to make the 515 acres a park and the direction to do so had been set by the 1972 coundl, building on the actions since the Livingston - Blayney Report started by the preceeding councils. It is also clear that on council actions requiring a majority of at least five, no one council person can ever claim credit for a coundl action. Other names have been mentioned as significant in the full process - council members Berwald, Henderson, Norton, Carey, and Fazzino, and as citizens Nonette Hanko and Larry Klein. All played their parts, but the only council person who was there from 1966 to 1972 was Enid Pearson (for example, Scott Carey did not even come on the council until 1975, and Gary Fazzino after that), and she never wavered in her advocacy or vote to protect this land from intensive development and, ff possible make it a park. Her prior work in the foothills and baylands and her political strength (.receiving the most votes of all candidates in the 1965 and 1971 elections) obviously made her voice on the council that of a leader. There is no council member or citizen from 1966 to 1981 who had a larger role in making Arastradero Preserve a park than Enid Pearson. ATTACHMENT D - REASONS FOR NOMINATION Enid Pearson is an unsung hero of land conservation and protection in this city. In 1965 she did something truly amazing for the City of Palo Alto. She inspired a phenomenal 87% of the voting public to pass an initiative permanently.dedicating all Palo Alto parks and open space land in perpetuity thereby protecting all such property from disposition except by a vote of the people for the benefit of all future generations of Palo Altans. Her contribution to the city of Palo Alto is as unique as it is significant. To fully appreciate Ms. Pearson’s contribution it is important to understand that in the 1960’s, open spaces were in danger of being _used as land banks for dvic, municipal and development purposes. But for Ms. Pearson’s broad visions and her tireless efforts to protect the green spaces of the City, the dtizens might easily have lost their valued assets and heritage. Instead, all of these green assets have been permanently preserved due directly to the commitment of Enid Pearson and her leadership in enjoining people to help. The City of Palo Alto currently has 162 acres of urban park property. The Baylands adds 1,940 acres of open space and 15 miles of multi-use trails. The Arastradero Preserve adds another 609 acres of open-space preserve. The Foothills Park adds another 1,400 acres of natural preserves. All of this green space totals approximately 4, 111 acres of open space and park lands protected by Article \rliI of the City Charter passed into law by Enid Pearson’s initiative. Through her efforts, and those like her, filLing-in of the bay was enjoined and the city of Palo Alto is now the proud trustee of the spectacular Baylands Nature Preserve which constitutes the largest tract of undisturbed baylands in the San Francisco Bay. The tidal and freshwater habitats are considered some of the best on the West Coast for bird watching. Her contributions to conservation in the city of Palo Alto are unmatched and unsurpassed in the city’s history. Renaming the Arastradero Preserve for Enid Pearson would be a symbolic gesture equal to the scope of her contribution. The Preserve owes its existence to the work of many. However, the city, parks and open spaces owe their existence to one woman - Enid Pearson. California Courts of Appeal Reports FLETCHER> v. PORTER, 203 Ca!.App.2d 313 (1962) 2] Cal.Rp~r. 452 L.S.5FLETCHERy et al., Plaintiffs and Respondents, v. NOEL E. PORTER as City Councilman, etc., et al., Defendants and Appellants. Docker No. 20194. Cour~ of Appea! of California, First District, Division One. May 8, 1962. Page 314 [EDITORS’ NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINEE HEADNOTES AND HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE !.tOT DISPLAYED.] Page 315 APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of Santa Clara Coun=y. John D. Foley, Judge. Affirmed. Proceeding in mandamus to compei a city clerk to examine sicnatures on an initiative petition for sufficiency and to compel a city council either to enact the ordinance or 1o submit it tc the electorate at a special election. Judgment granting writ, affirmed. ?.:bert : ..... v{~==s:._,-~-, ~’: ~=:y .... :..torney, and Stanley R. Norton, Assistant .~.~y Attorney, for Dezendants and Appellants. Page 316 and Resmcr.een:s. aq:em:t cf the City Counci cf Paio Aito. to retain powers vested in i: by the c~t~ c~arter, by prevent~n~ the fro:: vc,:in~ or, an ordinance proposed through the :r~_zc~r=, must fail. The ordinance would clarify the the Eianninc commission with res<.ec~ to the adoption cf =fan. We fLnc no: merit in the oounci!’s mu!timle t: the srdinance: ~[l[ :hat <he ordinance, if vaiic, initiated by the electorate; [2] that the ordinance iesislative rezuiremen:s and due ~rocess of law; ant 3 -~= =actua~ b:-~-s~d of the ~on~=d ieois!ation does not appear -c De in d-~=_~. ..... .......... in =~’-==s cf ~,00C persons, .... ~=<~_ ..... ..... ~ne City c: Pale Alto ,~_~z~=d~ ...... ~ ..._~4~=~ petition which resuestes the city counoi! to enact or submit the proposal tc e_ectcra~= =~ = sz, esial eiecti~- The D=,:-~ soucht tc amend the exlstinc city ordinance, section 2£I.E of the Acministratlve hrtp:,’ xv~v~v.loislaw.com!pns,,docvie~.htp. Query= ~G_8 Vo,Sfletcher, Vo~CAND Vo.~E+Palo+... 4/26"2004 203 t, al.App.2cl .513 ~, 1’902) Code of the City of .!Palo> <Alto:i. The city attorney advised the council that the ordinance was invalid. Pursuant to that opinion, the city clerk did not check the signatures on the petition; the council did not act on the initiative. Respondents, taxpayers, residents and electors of -Palo. ~A!to., thereupon filed a petition for a writ of mandate with the superior court asking the court to issue a writ of mandate commanding the city clerk to examine the signatures for sufficiency and ordering the city counci! either to enact the ordinance or submit it to the electorate at a special election. The alternative writ issued; appellants appea! from the order grantinG the peremptory writ of mandate. We initially analyze the terms of the proposed ordinance, construing them if possible, as we must, so as not re conflict w=:h other legislative enactments. (Ci[y of Los 9_~geies v. Barre[[ {!957) 153 Cal.App.2d 776] 782 [315 E.ld 503]; Glass v.City of Fresno (1936) i7 Cai.App.ld 555, 560 i4i E.ld 765].) An examination of the separate subdivisions discloses no confiic: on their face or in the language with other provisions cf the charter. $=~di’.’=sicn (a) of the proposed ordinance reposes in the :ianninc com~mission "the primary duty to prepare, acom< and recs:mend <c the City Council" master plans; i: dele:es from :he Page 317 snail he advisory only." While appellants wouic conve in÷ --~:~s:or. -h= mower to bind the council tt its ~--.~ mean ~ ~-ind. We may, [herefore, read zhe ~rozssal --:.scnsnce wltn :he char:er Erovision :hat "[a’ll . . . sLa- " z,e advAsc, rv only anm shall exercise no ~ow=-~ a::_:.As<rative E©wers." Moreover, in cozs:ruins :he cr~inan:e we ~.~. .,__~ :he arguments ~r~ed Eo suDuor< the Lni:ia:Lve measure ......... :ate <no surmose cf :De ordinance :c be :he :r.~ ÷:.larsemen< o= :no CO~.ISSIOR’S cowers, an~ cerqaLniv ES7 ERe £umdivisions ,::, {d and ie" likewise speak in re:s.~.endazion: [c) ~o=-:des :ha-_ the ~iannin~ hrtp: <i\vww.loislaw.com,pns!docview.htp?Quer.v=%28%28fletcher+%3CAND%3 E+Pato+... 4/26/2004 t’Lt: J t..l-ihK v. PORIER, 203 Cal.App.2d 313 (1962)Page 3 ot 10 annually review the general plan and recontmend changes to the council; (d) stipulates that the genera! plan "shal! be the guide for the Capita! improvement Program" insofar as it "affects the physical deve!opment of the city." Subdivision (e) provides that al! matters "affecting the physical development of the City shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for a report to the City Counci! as to conformity to the Master Plan"; since the co~mission’s function is recommendatory only, subdivision (e) carries no binding consequences. With the exception of coverage within the 1955 interim general plan, subdivision (f) precludes zoning or rezoning for Page 318 industrial or manufacturing uses until the commission submits to the council "its comprehensive general plan. The provision does not, as appellants contend, incorporate a zoning ordinance but constitu:es an interim measure which protects ~he performance of the remaining provisions of the o~dinance. Finally, subdivision (g), which delegates to the commission "such other duties as may be prescribed by the ordinances of the City or resolutions and motions of the Council" does not conflict with article iii, section 20, of the charter, which gives the council the power to assign additional duties to commissions. We turn to a consideration of the specific arguments of appellants attacking the validity of the ordinance. -. The ordinance, if valid, may be ini[ia~ed by [he elec:cra[e. We examine apnellan:s’ atzemn= to d_~_=~ the use of ~he ininlan~ve umon :he crounas =hat it may not be applied to this -.n.e__ cf crd~nance; that tne electorate may not exercise "vestec solely in the Ci~v ~oun~=: ; that the {n~at{v= only tc iegAs’a=ave, nor acur~nistrative, acts, and that zonlnm crzLnances are no= subject ~o the initiative process. [i] Yirst, wn~ie appellants strongly rely upon the that Alexander v. Mi[chell (1953) ii~ CaI.A~z.2a ’, =.£a " s<, forbids :he use of <he initiative :c abroga=e a rower ~eleca=ec =c =he municipality by <he Lecisla[ure, which arrests ma==ers of s=a=ewide concern, the ordinance here does -n-.-slve such a sus~ec= maq:er. Aiexan~er held <hal the in~laa~ive so’aid no= oe usec =o negate the municipality’s power -s ~eqermAne whether or nc= :c use eminent domain for off-s=ree< zarklns facilities. That eeclsion cf this division wri==en by usqice :ray s:a:es: ~’~n__e the ini:ia<ive ate referendum deal ..i:.< <he reserved Dowers of :he peozie and should be iiberaiil.- 2snsqrues qz EDnG_~ q~e ~ower wherever :ha: reascnamlv san De ac::zaqea bv :he meo=ie of a muni:imaliqv. A city has no inherent :~wer cf eminent Somain. [Cita:icns.] it exercises it only mesause authorized sv :he s:a:e -.=:~<:-u~= " (?. ~2! The ~rooosed ordinance, however, does not involve, !ike Alexander, a "matter of statewide~=~:r~ ........ but a local subject matter. [?. ~21.i 7o the extent that the ordinance relates to the ~O 09 0 9 0~0 ~ _~hnp:,Tx~v.loislaw.congpnsidocview.h~p. Queo= z5,8 ~/o~8~etcher+’A~CAND ’/o~E ~ Palo+... 4/26/2004 1- L~. 1 (.H~.R v. P!3K 1ER, 203 Cal.App.2(l 313 (1962)Page 4 oi l o duties of the planning commission, certainly it Page 319 is local in nature. To the extent that it attempts to adopt by reference sections 65460-65516 Gov’t of the Government Code relating to the procedure for adopting a master plan, it is !ocal in nature; the adoption of a master plan effects no statewide consequences. To the extent that the ordinance would suspend the council’s power relating to matters which affect the physica! deve!opment of the city or the counci!’s power to rezone property pending action by the planning commission, the ordinance would not invade statewide areas. To show that the subject matter of the Alexander case involved a municipa! and not a storewide affair appellants apparently rely upon the statement in the opinion that "while off-street parking projects are matters of ci[ywide concern in the same sense that anything done by a municipality is, essentially they are primarily of local interest. ." {Pp. 826-827; emphasis added.) The court there contrasts matters of citywide concern with those of-a !oca! interest in a "given area" in which the "property owners . desire to form an assessment district .... " (P. 827.) The court does not contrast sta=ewide matters with local matters as we have used the terms s upra. [2] Second, appellants contend that the ordinance would enable the electorate to exercise powers vested solely in the city council. Yet the cases to which appellants refer iAlexander v. Mi~che!i, supra, 119 Cai.App.2d 816; Mervynne v. Acker [1961) 189 Cai.App.td 558 [l! Cai.Rp:r. 340~ , , involve situations in which the Legislature has specifically delegated certain powers of storewide concern to a governing municipal body. Alexander does not support appellants’ contention in this respect. This court held in that case that the electorate could not d=~v=_. ........ t~= ~t~ council ~. the richt of eminent domain, saving_ ~ "Section ~=~°~ ~v~.., Code of Civil Procedure, v=~r< .........~= .Dower make :he determination o; convenience and n=cess~ i~ the members of "the iecisiative body of a city.’ Those members ~suid not do away wi:h the power of eminent domain; neither car: -~= D=~,= cf a ~=~,’~-~ community." (P 821.1; The court, ~..o~=..=_, ~=~=_~ .... ~ealt with a power of the city council m:~=--iv~ ..... ~ranted by the Leoisiature. As we have pointed ou: <us~:, -ha- z:wer :sn:erned a matter of storewide concern. ~’.ni_e appe_~ants rely heavily uoon the ~u~m~nt in Ale:.:an~er tna7 Sesi~nat{~ ...... ~= the "~-~:-’:=~:=~attve body" tc .merforz certain acts :anno: inc!u~e action by the eiectorat=, the ’^<:7 whi:h we a:zlied in that case derived from the Consti:uticn Page 320 an: from sta:ute. We ruled, in effect, that :f the state ~ave ~ertain m ...... ...... to the .............. :~:=:=~:~= bocv," the people could =’~’=~-~== :he deiesated Dowers. We surely did not mean to <=~ that in ever3- case in which a charter ~ave the council the power enact certain ordinances, o~ to D=~< ordinances generally, -~x:-:_-== would not be -h= D~OD=~ szbJ=cr o: the initiative ~-~-=d~= ~mDe:.ants a~t~mnt_c construction would a!l aDsi/sh the in/tiaqive =~d ~=9=<=~du~ D~oc=~ses We discuss at =his moint, cf course, the mat:er of the desicnation cf the "-:~g:=:=t~ve:-:- " ~o~,-’’~ ~ wn~cn ....2s tc c.erfcrm :he http:, :~,vw.loislaw.com/pnsidocview.htp. Query=’/o,8 Vo,.Sfletcher, ~o.~CAND ~/o~E+Palo+... 4/26"2004 specified acts, and not, as appellants contend, the matter of the general power of amendment of charters by initiative procedures. We have analyzed supra appellants’ reference to the language in Alexander stating that an initiative provision cannot properly conflict with the charter. We have explained that the proposa! here does not conflict with the charter: it does not take away from the council the right to make final determinations as to the subject matter since the planning commission’s function is recommendatory only. in Alexander the proposa! sought to "take away from the counci! the right to make such determination. ." (F. 822.) We L_li_se~= = ~ the same criticism applies to appellants’ -;~--~ ~ of..Me~vvnn=_ . ~ ~,.. Acker, supra, 189_ Ca!.Ams.ld._ 558, which states at page 564: "When the legislative body is specifically designated in a statute to perform an act, that designation is generally deemed exclusive unless the wording of <he Act is reasonably susceptible of a contrary intention." (Emphasis a8ded.) in a situation which involves a sta<ewide rather than local interest, the state Legislature may indeed choose to grant a s~=-~÷~- function to the counci! itse!; the council then acts as an aa=~e__ .... of the state if, however, a char:or provides that certain ordinances may be enacted by the council and that the electorate may enact "any ordinance" by initia:ive or referendum, -h= use of the :=~m "legislative body" or "c~un-=~’’ :~......... =~ ±,. the charter obviously does not prohibit the people from acting by =_,~.=. <See also: Geiger v. Board of Sumervisors~ ~o:n],.~ 4+ 7ai.i~ ~32 ~313 = 2d 545], cited by appellants, ’~ ~ .... "’*=~ celezation my the Legislature of the Dower to immose a sales tax, a .-=[:er of statewide concern.) .... ::-, t.._ =eais±a:ure could ~- properiy interfere with a =bartered :itv’~ recuiation of ~,~=~v :boa, aiialrs Even if the Legislature ....=r’mmD~md~..- tO enact ~eneral laws on such Page 321 suz~ec:, :he City of Paio ¯ ~’-~ r.=.~ , because it is a charter wcula not De bound by the iecislation. For this reason the !:t=r~ne of Huts: v Ci=y of ~"~:inmame "i~ <’-’:: that~-:-. ....;,a zoninc act, enacted by the <=c==== .... ma’. =2ntrol over the use of the initiative by residents cf a si:5~, Coos not apply here. Since Burlingame was not a charter re~ulaqltn cf municiz.al affairs. [3] 7n1-~_~, aDE.ellants state that on!y__.=c:<-:-~,~=~_._ ant ~ are suhiect rc -h= iniqia:ive. crn£nanse, however, is clearly iecislaqive. A iesisia<i:e er:aszmen< zses not beccme "adr.inis:ra:ive" mecause i: ~esrri[- .: 5no manner b5 which a sodv shali :cn~us- :~= acministrat:.+ crdinan:e, mecomes adminis:rative. [4] As :he court :’-Jar:in v. Smi:h [lq6c’ ~4 :ai.Am<.iz 5-1 575 [- : "Arts whith are :o be deemed as acts ~f adminisqraz-sn, ant tiasse! amcn~ those governmen<ai powers Eromeriv :he e’xecuz:ve department, are those which are necessar’." ache :o carry out ion!slat!re policies and purposes alreaz~,- Seciared b3~ :he__.~=m~<~aq~ve .... bodv,_ or such at_ are Oevcived u:cn h5 :he crnanic law of its exit:once. ’" ’’’"x 0 ,0 ~T O,’’~hrtp:..’,~wv.lmslaw.corr~,pns/docv~ew.htp?Query=%28 Yo28fletcher~-~io~CAND~o_~E=-Palo-... 4:’26’2004 I~L, higH}mR v. PORTER, 203 Cal.App.2d 313 (1962)rage o o~ ~u Appellants’ discussion of the changes in the structure of .:Palo> ¯ .]Alto.£’s municipa! government which occurred in 1950 does not affect this conclusion. Prior to 1950 the city utilized a city council-board type of government composed of a council and three boards, extensive power being vested in the individual boards. The boards, as the commissions, advised the council. In 1950 the city adopted a counci!-city manager type of government whereby the council exercised al! powers not delegated to the city manager. The charter provided that all boards, commissions, and committees "shal! be advisory only and shal! exercise no governmental or administrative powers." Appellants contend that the proposed ordinance attempts to amend the charter and give to :he planning commission governmental and administrative powers. While the charter does state that the commission may not exercise a~minis:rative or governmental functions, it provides that the ~o~n~ shall fix ~he duties of the commission. Virtually any duty which might be delegated to the commission could be dubbed "a~ministrative" if zhe term were-to be used in its broadest sense. The proper inquiry must be whether or not the ordinance endows ~he ~ ~ ~= ~ wit~~omm_s_~o ....powers which Page 322 will bind the council. As we have seen, the commission wil! receive no such authority. [5] Finally, appellants state chat zoning ordinances are not subj.ec: zo the initiative process. Even assuming the ins:ant initiative encompasses a zoning ordinance, the council would no< be subject to a state statute in enacting such an ordinance. :;~nd=~ Co. v. Board 3!0-31! [144 ?.2d 4].) Hence the electors in so doing canno: be <u~i.=-~ ~ statute Of course, we do not deal h=~= with the ~. as ~ whether or ~ the ordinance ac:ua±±v involves a zoning ordinance and meets " - -=~ _cn=r~_ recuirements; these are issues which we discuss infra. Clearly, as to :he presen: mrob!em, if <he council may enact local zoning !egisla:ion, the eles<ora:e mav also enac: it. Lwver v. 22:v 2cuncil 292- 22~ crslnances are su~ze:: :c :he in!:iaqlv~ an~ referenoum. The 5er:telev :harEer Erovldec :ha=’An,." proposeG orQinance ma\’ De sunr.iqqed :c :he Csun:il b\, a oeqiqion sLcnec sv recis:erec :i=__ors cf :he rat\ esual An numDer :c :he oercenqage nerei..a__er resulted. ’" ?. 509. This Ercvlslon is iden:ifical >.iqy se=qLsr _, at=isle -.-i cf :he }a!o AI:c charter, in Dwver, :n÷ court_=-a:ed_ , ""~-.~ ....only have :he =i:iz=~<,_ of 5erkele’" it. Eneir snorter :ai_e2 :2 exEressiv exsi~e 2Y.e initiative ant referen@um srdlnances of :he kinc in s’des:isy., suz :nev nave chrases :he sections pertaining to these ochers in susn sroas, .ser.eral, and u:a~liG~cus _ansua@e as 2[ immel :he rcnclusion :ha: 17 was in:ended :ha: _emAs anion on eyerv :unisisai sur-es: shcuic, unless e:<sress!v or by clear anc xesessar;" imsllsa:ion excluded, De su~<ec: :e__l~ :st assrcval cr re-co:ion, in tsnDernin: :he i:i:ia:lVe :he DeoEI~ reservec rish2 -s enos:a~. ErcL~sed crdi=a~ce ~\" Erssee~L~cs."Z.512; e~DRasis car:v addec. Aizhsusn sumsecuenz decislcns have ~ls:lnsuished :ne Dwver http: :w~,v.loislaw.con-~/pnsidocview.htp?Query:%28%28fletcher÷%3 CAND%3E+Palo+... 4/26/2004 statement to be correct. It is true that Hurst v. City of Bur!ingame, supra, 207 Cal. 134 explains that Dwyer involved only a referendum and not an initiative measure, and that, since it ruled upon the power of a "city operating under a freeholders’ charter," (p. 142) it did not apply to a city not under such a charter. Alexander, too, remarks upon the distinction of Dwyer drawn by Huts[, and notes that Page 323 Hurs~ held that in DQyer "the question of the operation of the initiative law to proceedings affected by the zoning act was not considered therein." (P. 825.) Thus appellants’ citations succumb to the distinguishing factor that they involved general law cities which attempted the enactment of zoning ordinances conflicting with the state zoning legislation. Hurst falls into that classification. So, too, does Laguna Beach Taxpayers’ Assn. v. City Council (1960) ~97 Ca!.App.ld 412, 415 [9 Ca!.Rprr. 775], which states: "[T]he statute which confers upon the legislative body of the city the power to enact zoning laws prescribes the method by which they =-- to be adopted or amended: that the method of enactment is the measure of the Dower to enacts: and the initiative D~o~e~ as used in this case does not conform to ~his method." 2. The ordinance does no[ violate [he legislative requirements and due process of law. We cannot accept appellants’ arguments (i) that subdivision of the ordinance is invalid because it "deprives the City Counci~ of the power to zone or rezone certain property . until the completion of a comprehensive plan by the Piannin~ Conur~ission," ’2. tna: :he provision in effect "rezones" property which had neon zoned subsecuent to the adoption of the 1955 interim ~-=~, 131, that since subdivision (f) constitutes an amendment to the :cnin~ ordinance, "the same procedure used in adopting [thel ordinance must be followed in making changes," and (4} the "~o~,~c ordinance remuires a hearinm b=fo~= the adoption of any amendment thereto." [6] As to the first contention, we do nor believe the -e:islation fai~s on appeiianrs’ theory that, pending the format:on of a master plan, the council, and not the electorate, ms~- exslusive’y exercise the power to freeze zoning. The cases :~-~ ==-~b~:~ that the ~oun-~ may =x=~= ~u-h ~,ower. ]tiller v. Soard of Public Works (i925} !95 tal. 4"7, 4~ [2!4 }. !~l, 3~ A.L.F.. !479] ; Lima v. Woodruff (193~i l:-?s_.ALy. l~i, 25:6 [290 ~. 4~[:]; Hun:or v. Adams 196{!. -= ?ai..RZ~.lc fll, 5!9-5!9 [4 Cal.Rp:r. 7<6].) The eiet<c-a-=, -hrcush the initiative, possesses nc iess power. So ions as :he :r.ar:er i:self nm== not nreciuae such ........ ~, the eles:crate may =,’=--:<= :-~ iesi=~a~ive prerogative to m-~=~r a srooosed master c!an from interim destruction during its period cf Page 324 [7] The second con:enrich, tha= the subdivision attempts a "retching" of property previously zoned, finds no support in :he language of the ordinance. Ammeiiants argue that subdivision (f) prohibits "’indusqriai and manufacturing uses not embraced within the _9-~z interim General Plan’" and, :herefore, provides that any ¯,"-"-/ /," -9 .--0 9 o D ,0~o" ,h~p,, ~\~ .lo~sla~ .corn pns, docx ~e~ .h~p. QueO- ~_8 ~_Sfletcher~ ~oCAND ~ E~Palo ....4/26/2004 rL.h l.t.H, hR v. POKIER, 203 Cal.App.2c[. 313 (1962)rage ~ ol lu land zoned to industrial or manufacturing uses since 1955 must be rezoned to "’non-industria! or non-manufacturing’" uses. Not only would such a requirement as to retroactive application probably be invalid, but also neither the language nor the manifested intent of the ordinance indicates any such application. [8] Appellants’ third contention that subdivision (f) constitutes an amendment to a zoning ordinance and therefore may only be effective if "made in the same mode as the original enactment (Johnston v. City of Claremon[ (1958 49 Cal.id 826, 835 [3_2_3 P:2~ 7!])," collapses because the provision does not amend a zoning ordinance. In order to render the whole of the ordinance effective it temporarily forestalls the legislative ~o~v from piecemeal action on a portion of its provisions. Unlike the situation in Laguna Beach Taxpayers’ Assn. v. City Council, supra, 1~7. ~_=:~-~ .Am~.id.. ~,~,. in which ~he "initiative architectural policy ordinance . propose[d] a policy that all furure buildings in the city ~hould conform to a type of architecture to be adopted" (p. 415; emphasis added), the ordinance here does not provide for future permanen~ zoning but establishes a temporary protection against interim changes in zoninc. It preserves the status quo until the planning commission can perform its functions. But even if we dealt with a zoning ordinance here, we must still observe that zoning is a "municipal affair" over which a charter city has supreme contro! and which ies bevond the scope of l~cl--~ati~ action (Lindeli Co. v. 5card of Permi[ Appeals, supra, 2-= Cai.id 303, 310-311.) [9] Appellants’ fourth contention, that a city ordinance wT.~cn amend~ zoninc i=~a~o~ ~no~ be subJec~ to the ......-:-:=_~..~, because such a me:nod violates due orocess,, assumes tna: the ordinance is a zoninc ordinance. Yet the ordinance freezes the property durin~ the nezessary in:erim period; it does 7.=: :nance the u~= of lane or :d~=~=~v affect :he rights of :~-m=~-~. _~. ___: holders. Am~.e!ian:s’.. cases [Hurs[ v. C{<y__ of 5urlincame, supra, 207 Cal. 1~4; Chase v. Kaiber =+7sI.AzF. 561 [i~2 ?. 297] } concerned at=empts which had been zases hoiainm that a zroperty owner must be Page 325 s=rsraed nctice and hearinc as to the zoning of property S:icer: v. Stock:on Per: District {!936]~ : Cal.id 394, 391 [~] ; Kissincer v. City of Los Angeles [. ~ 5~si.Apz.iz 454, 464 [22- m.kc l[..]), fail to be pertinent for the [i0] .’-.m:eiiants’ final arsuzent urses :h=~ ~h= } :-:~:-_sal :culd nc: ~roperi[,~ constitute "an "in<eric res<ri::ion :=-Aitc shatter. These sections cf <he Government Code zeneral law c:-~== ~, =<d ~c nc: reguia:e c~-=~ -:~:es referendum, no: :he initiative. Appeiianzs’ claim cf aiieges vLzlaqion of due process and s<atuqory or charter procedure finds confirmation in aiiecazion of fact or citation of ammlicab!e ~,O 0 9 0 9 .~_0~’~0 "~4;.6, .004hrtp:, iwww.]ois]aw.com!pns/docview.htp. Queo’= ~g,8 Vo~.8fletcher ~ 7o~CAND Y~_~E+Palo+... "’~ ") [Ii] Appellants object to an apparent inconsistency between Government Code sections 65460 Gov’t and 65500 Gov’t. The first sac<ion provides that the commission "shall" prepare and adopt a master plan; the second, that the commission "may" prepare and adopt a master plan "for al! or any part of the city .... " Clearly the former section applies to adoptioh of the master plan; the latter, to the area to be covered by such a plan. These sections are not inconsistent. [12] Appellants’ other arguments relate to an alleged failure to define terms. Words such as "’Capita! improvement Program,’" "’industrial and manufacturing,’ .... "embraced’" and the like may be interpreted as the need arises and are not vague per se. Appe!iants’ final arguments, that an initiative ordinance invalid in par: is invalid in its entirety and that mandamus may not be used to compel a void act, may state sound principle, but they are irrelevant under the above analysis. in final analysis of the council’s main complaint that under the proposal it "can neither adopt or amend a Master Plan until the Fianning Co.m~.ission has acted," and that delay and inaction may "thwart all action," we believe that the counci! assumes, contrary to the normal and legal presumption, that the conunission will not perform its duties. Moreover, the very purpose of the planning co~mission must be the preparation by that body of recommended plans for urban Page 326 planninG; if the council can intercede before the expiration of :he ai!oted time for the com~ission’s task, the co~mission’s work may De truncated. The preparation of master plans becomes a waste cf energy if the tree which the co~mission plans to trim or espalier is subJec~ to the council’s severance at the roots. The rezuiremen: tha: the council await the completion of the ccm~Lssion’s recommendation does no: improperly restrict the coup-:< ’~ ........ : ..... ~ ........ -~; ~h= ordinance facili~at=~ ~h= merf~_m=~ --~= .... cf :he council’s duties by insuring that it acts upon comDieted ra<ner than aborted plans cf the com~.ission. Nor does the Zr:ztsal impair :he council’s prerogatlves; the council retains :no :twer cf re~ecticn cr adoD:ion. To allow the cook su~:{cien: :~:e :< prepare the meal is not 1o sa-/ -hat the diner mus~ :=_ We f~nz neither legal ~=~<o< nor sooia! ~u<~:-:-{o< for :he ::u:.:~i’s emzha=is assertion of an alleged power to act before ~:.e ziann~nq com~,ission compie:es its preparation of a mas:er :_an. 7he :uslic ~nterest in the enactment of over-a!l rather :nan :iecemeal munisi:e! ~!annins cannot be denied. On <he other ..... ;- neec for swift and uncocrdlnated council action b=~-.~= susmission cf the master mian is a~ bes: nebulous. We cannot hut :sn:iuee that the council’s ~csi:ion does no: accord with orderly ant successful a~minis<ration. We see no reason why the proposed ordinance should not be =lacel before the electorate for adoption or rejection. As the Supreme Court s:ated in McFadden v. Jordan ~!948) $2 Cal.ld 33[., 5i1 11[~6 [.2~ -~-], "The rich= cf initiative is precious tc :he oeo<ie and is one which the courts are zealous tc creserve. ....-x" ¯0 ,--0/9 0 ~0~0 ~ ,,tmp:/.~.lo~slau .com/pns/doc~ ~eu .htp. Que~ - ~o,8 ~28fletcher ~ zo~CAND ~g~Palo~... 4,"26/2004 I-’LE]o~_’~ER v. PORTER, 203 Cal.App.2d 313 (1962)l-’age lu oI Iu We affirm the order for issuance of a peremptory writ of mandate. Bray, P.J., and Sullivan, J., concurred. A petition for a rehearing was denied June 7, 1962, and appellants’ petition for a hearing by the Supreme Court was denied July 3, 1962. ~ ~" ~ .., i~~ob_Ine~, J pro <em ¯ -did not participate therein. [fn~] Assigned by Chairman of Judicial Council. Page 327 Copyright ~ 2004 Loislaw.com. lnc All Rights Reserved hrtp:/i~-ww.loislaw.com/pns/docview.htp?Query=%28%28fletcher+%3CAND%3 E+Palo+... 4~26’2004 Article VIII.1 Parks2 (This Article amended by Stats. 1969, Oh. 223, 6-26-69) All lands owned or controlled by the city which are or will be used for park, playground, recreation or conservation purposes shall be dedicated for such purposes by ordinance.3 No land heretofore or hereafter dedicated for such purposes shall be sold or otherwise disposed of, nor shall its use be abandoned or discontinued except pursuant to majority vote of the electorate. Any election and related procedures under Article VIII shall conform to the provisions set forth in general law as it existed January 1, ! 965, except that the council may call such election by majority vote. No substantial building, construction, reconstruction or development upon or with respect to any lands so dedicated shall be made except pursuant to ordinance subject to referendum. Palo Alto Municipal Code r,,,~~o =.&~,-~uv, l ~ ~-w r~r~, =~.~r~tr’ v. CITY OF PALO ALTO, ... nRp://www.lolslaw.com/pns/doclink.htp?&alias=FDCR~Cite--401 = LOIS Federal District Court Opinions ARASTRA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ALTO, (1975) 40I F. Supp. 962 AKASTRA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, a limited partnership, Plaintiff, v. CITY OF PALO ALTO, a Municipal Corporation, Defendant. No. C-72-2305 RHS. United States District Court, N.D. California. September 15, 1975. West Page 963 Marvin G. Burns, Fulop, Ro!ston, Burns & McKittrick, John Petrasich, Beverly Hills, Ca!. RoDert S. Webber, Bur!ingame, Cal., for plaintiff. Robert K. Booth, Jr., .City Atty., City of Palo Alto, PaloAlto, Ca!., Fred Caploe, Atkinson, Farasyn, Smith & Caploe, Mountain View, Cal., William J. Turner, Jackson, Turner & -Mulcare, Ronald Mulcare, Bur!ingame, Cal., for defendant. DECISION SCHNACKE, District Judge. THE NATURE OF THE CASE This is an action by Arastra Limited Partnership, a California limited partnership ("Plaintiff") against the City of Pa!o Alto ( ......, for conde.~unation efDe_endan~ )inverse Plaintiff’s real property by Defendant’s actions over a period of time, culminating in Defendant’s passage of Municipal Ordinances Nos. 2654 and 2671. ?laintiff, in its First .~mended Complaint for inverse Condemnation, alleges that Defendant’s Ordinance No. 2671 app!ying zhe City’s Open Space Zoning District Regulations tc its property, was the final act in bad faith of DefenOant City and constitutes an acquisition, confiscation and taking of }iaintiff’s real property located in the City of Paio Alto. FINDINGS OF FACTS Defendant is a municipal corporation, located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, which possesses powers cf eminent domain. Plaintiff is a limited partnership presently having Sunradero," inc., a corporation, as its general parlner, and PLT, inc., a corporation, as its limited partner. Sunradero, Inc. acquired its partnership interest in the Plaintiff partnership in December of 1967, having purchased the same from Sunset international Petroleum Company. PLT, Inc. acquired its interest in the Plaintiff partnership, on cr about March 27, 1969, having purchased West Page 964 the same from Trine!i, a general partnership. The land which is the subject of dispute herein ("Plaintiff’s land" and/or "the subject property") lies within Defendant’s poii~ical boundaries and consists of 515.3 acres of essentially 1 of 24 9/!0/2003 8:42 PM AIQkSTRA,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ALTO, ... http://www.loislaw.com/pns/doclink.htp?&alias=FDClL&Cite=401 +. unimproved land. The subject property is located in an area commonly known as "the Foothills" and more specifically in that portion of the Foothills known as "the lands below ~he park" and/or "the lower Foothills". The Events Leading up to Defendant’s Open Space Zoning: The current partners of Plaintiff acquired their respective interests in the partnership (which they carry at a book cost of $7,461,610.00) after the subject property was rezoned from REA (I acre residential lots) to P-C (Planned Community) and a development plan (the "1966 Plan") was approved for the development thereof (as well as for the~deveiopment of certain adjacent parcels). The 1966 Plan contemplated a 10-acre commercia! area and 597 residential lots, of varying sizes, on a total of 659 acres (covering Plain~iff’s land and certain adjoining land). In addition, ~he 659 acres included a 40-acre piece of the subject property which had been set aside, as a part of the aforesaid plan, to be separately sold ~o the Palo Alto Unified School District and/or independently developed at a later date. As applied to Plaintiff’s land, the 1966 Plan called for 553 residential units on approximately 460 residential acres. After approval of the 1966 Plan and on February 27, 1967, Defendant approved and thereafter constructed an "outlook" in its Foothills Park which created a public vista over and across ~ s land. Sometime in early 1968, Plaintiff began working on the fcrmu!ation of a new and different aeve!opmenr plan for :he subject property, involving more extensive development than that contemplated in the 1966 Plan and, from the time the new p!an was first conceived until the date it was formally summitted, discussions were held concerning the same with representatives of Defendant. in or about December of 1968, Defendant advised Plaintiff that it intended tc undertake a study as to the manner in which ~= entire -....roo~_._ should be developed but that it would not create any moratorium upon deveiopmen[ during the study. On. May i5, 1969, when Plaintiff’s new development plan for the property was in its final stages of preparation, the right to commence construction under the 1966 ?!an expired and, =~~omMay 15, i969 to September 14, 1962, ?!aintiff’s property remained zoned P-C without a specific deve!opment plan having been approved. Uncer the provisions of Defendant’s Planned tomx~unity District Regulations, land may De developed for any ane all uses and to any density or intensity, subject to =ww_~== my Defendant’s City Counc~i. Prior to November 9, 1970, it was Defendant’s policy and intent that the Foothills {exclusive of Foothills Park) be developed. Particularly, at al!......~ times .m=~=_~=_mrior to November 9, 1970, it was Defendant’s pc!icy and intent that the subject property be -=~.:ope~ in=~c~_~=.~_~-~ -~--:= with Defendant’s Planned Community District Regulations. On June 2, 1969, Defendant entered into a contract with Livings%on & Blayney, for the purpose of conducting a study of the manner and extent to which the Foothills area should be developed. On June 16, 1969, Defendant’s City Council approved a Trails and Paths Plan for the Foothills area that contemplated the acquisition of public easements for hiking and riding trails <hrough portions of Plaintiff’s land. .~’~ of 24 911012003 8:42 PM A .~ASTKA~IMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ALTO ....http://www.loislaw.corrdpns/doclink.htp?&alias=FDCP,&Cite=401. On August !, 1969, Plaintiff filed an application for approval of a development plan for the subject property (the "1776 Plan") contemplating a residentia! density of approximately 3.57 housing units per acre (1,776 housing units on 243 acres, a 150,000 square foot commercia! West Page 965 site, a 200,000 square foot office-professional complex, an elementary school site and other related public facilities on 24 acres and approximately 250 acres of open space). The 1776 Plan was developed by Plaintiff at a cost in excess of S200, O00.O0. On October 29, 1969, Livingston & Biayney delivered the first in a series of reports, pursuant to its aforesaid contract of June 2, 1969. The first Livingston & Blayney report indicated that lands within the Focthii!s area having average s!opes of 15 percent or less were "eminently suitable for residential development"; that lands with average s!opes of 16-30 percent were "generally appropriate for residentia! development, including both single-family and multi~fami!y dwelling types"; that Plaintiff’s land, and the lands of Stanford University, were the most suitable for development and that there were no seismic or other physica! problems that would inhibit residential deve!opment. On November 14, 1969, Livingston & Blayney rendered a special report to Defendant relating specifically to Plaintiff’s 1776 Plan. In substance, Livingston & B!ayney’s evaluation was that Plaintiff’s plan was not as aesthetically pleasing as it could have been but was, in general, a reasonable development proposal for the subject property. On December 12, 1969, Livingston & Blayney rendered its second report which, again, spoke in encouraging terms for the ~evelopment of Plaintiff’s land. On January 22, 1970, Plaintiff wrote a letter to Defendant’s Planning Co~mission requesting a fina! determination on the 1776 ?!an and objecting to any further delay in its consideration by Defendant. On January 26, 1970, Defendant’s City Council passed a motion to ~he effect that the Livingston & Blayney study should include study of "permanent open space on lands that should be acquired ~o protect the outlook from Foothills Park." On February 4, 1970, Defendant’s Planning Co~mission held a hearing relating to Plaintiff’s 1776 Plan. At the hearing, Defendant’s Planning Commission passed a motion requesting, in substance, Plaintiff’s comments on the economics and design features that might be involved if the density of its plan were reduced from 1,776 dwelling units "to approximately 1,250 dwelling units or other density the applicant feels appropriate." On February 18, 1970, Plaintiff responded to the aforesaid Planning Co~mission request by submittfng a letter discussing development at a density of 1500-1550 units on the subject property. On March 16, 1970, Defendant’s City Council passed a motion to the effect that consideration of Plaintiff’s 1776 Plan be continued until a date fol!owing the receipt of Livingston & B!ayney’s Third Report. in June of 1970, Livingston & Blayney rendered its Third 3 of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 AI~ASTR.A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PAI’.O ALTO ....http://www.loislaw.com/pns/doclink.htp?&alias--’FDCR&Cite=401+.. Report which, at pages 57-60, recommended: (a) That the lands below the Park, including Plaintiff’s land, be purchased by Defendant. (b) That the City deny approval of all development proposals as to such lands, including Plaintiff’s land; (c) That the City be prepared to purchase the said lands, including Plaintiff’s !and, when necessary to prevent development; (d) That the said lands, .including Plaintiff’s land, be rezoned so as to prohibit more than !-dwel!ing unit per 5 acres in order to prevent development prior to acquisition by the City; and (e) That further study be made on alternative means of acquiring said land and the cost thereof to the City. Regarding the upper Foothills, Livingston & B!ayney recommended that Defendant initiate the creation of a regional park district to acquire such lands for park purposes. On October 27, 1970, Llvingston& Blayney wrote a letter to Defendant West Page 966 suggesting that the aforesaid recommendations at pages 57-60 of its Third Report be accepted by Defendant and that a further study be conducted_in the ~_=o~..~g~ ,~ areas: the results of public acquis%tion on City finances; the effects of alternative methods of acquisition on the City tax rates; alternative means of acqulring the area suggested for park expansion; alternative means cf acquiring the area suggested for land banking purposes; the refinement of acquisit£on cost estimates; estimates for maintenance costs upon acquisition; the timing of acquisition necessary to prevent development; and recommendations for zoning and other interim land use regulation. On Noven~Der 9, 1970, Defendant’s City Council, at open public meeting, vored to accept the aforesaid recom~endations of L~v~ngs<on & Biayney at pages 57-60 of its Third Report and ~o perform the fur:her studies suggested by Livingston & Biayney, at No. 4 on page 2 of their aforesaid letter of October 27, 19~$. Said motion was publicized in local news media, without objection from Defendant, as a decision to purchase the subject p~operty. O.q ~:!." Council ’ -~ ....~’~_,n=n_~___y voted to deny approval of P!ain<iff m!an. and, ar the same meeting, directed -_-~< staff ..... v!~c_ton reflec: the Council s de-{ ~cn of November 9, !~Tu. Said mot=ons were mubiicized in local news media, withou: objection from Defendant, as beinc in furtherance of the decision on the " ,_nd=.._ ~o purchase the subject property and thepart denial of Plaintiff’s 1776 Plan was Dublicized as an act made necessary due zo conflict with :he intended purchase. Plaintiff in fact believed that Defendant had decided to purchase its property, in fact believed that the 1776 Plan was aen~ec cue to co~_l~ with the intended purchase and, in reliance thereon, Plaintiff made no further attempt to develop its property although repeated attempts were thereafter made by Plaintiff to induce Defendant to reverse its decision to purchase the subject property. 4 of"~’~.~.-,9/10/2003. 8:42 PM AKASTRA.LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ALTO, ... lattp:/Iwww.lo*staw.com/pns~ooclln~.ntp:,galms=ru~r~-~te=-’~u~ On January 13, 1971, the contract between Livingston &. Biayney and Defendant was amended so as to include the studies ~suggested by Livingston & Blayney at No. 4 of page 2 of their aforesaid letter of October 27, 1970. On February i0, 1971, Livingston & Blayney rendered its Fourth Report, continuing the ~aforesa.id studies suggested in its letter of October 27, 1970, pursuant to the aforesaid contract amendment of January 13, 1971. On February 22, 1971, Defendant’s City Council passed a motion announcing, in substance, that it had made a firm policy decision to acquire the lands below the Park for open space, park addition and land banking purposes. Said action was publicized in local news media as reflecting a firm decision on the part of Defendant to purchase the subject property. Defendant made no oblection to such publicity nor to any other publicity given to its actions. On March 2, 1971, Defendant’s City Staff held a meeting to organize their efforts towards assembling an acquisition plan relating to the lower Foothills. Commencing on March 3, 1971, various members of Defendant’s City Staff began actively exploring the possibilities of obtaining financial assistance for the proposed Foothills purchase from the State of California and from various federal agencies. On March ~, 1971, at an open public meeting, Defendant’s City Council unanimously passed a motion to the effect that Defendant’s Gen_==~ Plan be amenced "to reflect Counci! policy of intent to acquire lands below Foothills Park as expansion to the ?ark and for open space." On April 2, 1971, Defendant’s City Manager rendered a report to Defendant’s City Council, enti:led "Preliminary Report on Federal Funding for West Page 967 Foothills Land Acquisition." Among other things, the said report recommended the filing of a letter of intent with HUD for a financia! grant to asslsz in the contemplated lower ?octhiiis’ acquisition. The said repor: further reflected tha< :he City Staff was then proceeding with development of appraisals for the properties comprising the lower Foothills anc that the staff was investigating all alternative methods by wh=oh the applicable property interests could be acquired. On April £, !971, Defendant’s City Council, at open public meeting, authorized Defendant’s staff to file a Letter of intent with HUD for the purpose of requesting financial assistance in acquiring the lands below the Park for open space purposes. ~-~., April 12 _~7~., Defen@ant’~ Ci-v Manamer presented a preliminary budget to Defendant’s City Council for the fiscal year 1971-1972, noting therein, under the heading of "Foothills Land Acquisition", that :he costs and methods of financing the proposed Foothills accuisition had yet to be determined. Also on April 12, 1971, Defendant’s ~y Manager advised Defendant’s City Counci! of the need to obtain accurate descriptions of the Dar~=i~ intended to be acquired On AD~{] 28, 1~,~, Defendant’s Planninc Commission passed Resolution 117, recommending a revision to the City’s General 5 of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 P~ AR:ASTRA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ALTO ....ht’tp://www.loislaw.corn/pns/doclink-htp?&alias=FDCR-&Cite=401+-. - Plan to reflect the Council’s policy of intent to acquire such lands for open space, conservation and park uses. Also on April 28, 1971, Defendant’s Planning Commission determined that the portions of the lower Foothills that were then zoned as P-C (being Plaintiff’s land and one other parcel) should be rezoned to some more restrictive classification and the staff was directed to report back to the Commission with a recommendation of an appropriate zoning consistent with the aforesaid Resolution 117. On May 3, 197i, Defendant’s Director of Planning submitted a Notice of Intent to file application with HUD for a federal open space grant, estimating the acquisition costs at $12,000,000 and reciting the City’s intent to construct permanent public riding and hiking trails through the property to De acquired. Also on May 3, 1971, Defendant’s City Council unanimously passed a motion authorizing Defendant’s Mayor to write the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission requesting that steps be taken at the earliest date to amend the Santa Clara County General Plan to show lands below Foothills Park with an appropriate open space designation to conform to the Pa!o Alto City Counci!’s adopted policy. Said letter was in fact written on May 5, 1971. On July 28, 1971, and pursuant to said request of Defendant’s Mayor, the County of Santa Clara’s gene.~ Plan was amended to show Plaintiff’s land as "Open Space - Public Facilities" and the County resolution elf coting said change recites that the same was pursuant to a "declared intention" on the part of Defendant "to acquire said lands for park purposes." On May 12, 1971, Defendant’s Director of Planning and Community Development requested real property appraisals and preliminary title reports for each-parcel in the lower Foothills which the Counci! had earmarked for acquisition. On May 14, 1971, Defendant received a written report from independent legal counsel on the time schedule for au:horization and issuance of general obligation bonds of the City for the purpose of acquiring lower Foothills lands for park purposes. On May 24, i971, Defendant’s City Council passed a motion to include two asditional parcels, including a parcel known as "Sountry Club West Unit #2", within the boundaries cf the lands below Foothills Park whics had been designated for acquisition. P!aintlff’s West Page 96? land was one of the parcels designated for acquisition by Defendant City. On May 24, !971, Defendant’s City Manager advised Defendant’s City Council that a moratorium might be necessary on Foothills’ eeve!opment if the staff were forced to act before the monies required for acquisition became available. On May 26 ~7~ Defendant’~ City Manager submitted a formal DUh~C report ~o Defendant’s Citv Council, statinc that "the City Council made a major policy decision to acquire a portion of the Foothills" and attaching a report concerning the av==_=b .... y of City funds for Foothills land purchase. On June 7, 1971, Defendant’s City Council, at open public meeting, amended the City General Plan to designate the Foothills area, inciudinc Piainti==’s land, =~ open space, 6 of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 P~ A .P,.ASTP, A;LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CIT~’ OF PALO ALTO, ... http://www.lois|aw.com/pns/doclink.htp?&alias=l-19~,v,,v~tte=~v i-, conservation and park uses. Defendant’s General Plan was so amended pursuant to the aforesaid direction of Defendant’s City Counci! that the’same be-amended "to reflect Council policy of intent to acquire .as expansion to the Park and for open space. " On or about June ii, i971, Defendant obtained preliminary title reports on the various parcels comprising the lower Foothills area, including Plaintiff’s parcel, each such report being referenced to "Project 71-98 - Lower Foothills Acquisition". On June 21, 1971, Defendant’s City Council unanimously adopted a budget for the fiscal year 1971-1972 which included the sum of S3,334,100 as an appropriation of City funds for "Foothills Land Acquisition". On June 30, 1971, Defendant executed contracts with Desmond Johnson, ~AI, and with Floyd C!evenger, MAI, for appraisals of certain parcels in the lower Foothills, including Plaintiff’s land. On July 15, !971, Defendant’s City Manager delivered a report to the City Council referenced: "Moratorium, Area Southerly of Junipero Serra Freeway," attaching copies of a large display map entitled "Foothills Acquisitions" and bearing the legend: "Areas Proposed For Acquisition". The said report recites that such lands were the parcels which the staff recon~mended for acquisition. On July 19, 1971, Defendant acopted Ordinance 2612, establishing a six-month moratorium on deve!opment for certain lands below the Park, including Plaintiff’s land. The Minutes of said meeting reflect no discussion whatsoever and the on!y reference to information before the Council at that time is contained in the Agenda heading which refers to the aforesaid City Manager’s report by which the aforesaid display map ("Parcels Proposed For Acquisition") had been transmitted to the Council. On August 4, i971, Defendant was advised of the aforesaid change in the Santa Clara County General Plan showing Plaintiff’s !and as "Open Space - Public Facilities" pursuant ~.~ Defendant’s_ aforesaid _~=au~st. ~ and, at al! times following said change to the present date, Plaintiff’s land has been shown on the County General Plan as a proposed regional park, w~thout objection from Defendant. ~ 7On Auaust 5, ~9 i Defendant’s ~{-.... .-y Manager delivered a report to Defendant’s City Council recommending that additional City monies be allocated for Foothills land acquisition. On August 6, 197i, Defendant’s City Manager rendered a report tc Defendant’s City Council entitled "Foothills Financing Plan" three alternative financino~ .D!ans w___=r= suggested: On August 9, 1971, Defendant’s Property Agent delivered a memorandum to Defendant’s City Manager concerning "Project 7!-98 - Foothills Land Acquisition". Said memo sets forEh estimates of values of the parcels proposed to be acquired, including ?!aintiff’s parcel. On August 23, 1971, Defendant’s City Council passed Ordinance 2619, increasing its City budget appropriations for West Page 969 "Eoothilis Land Acquisition" by the sum of $665,900 (from $3,334,100 to S4,000,000). 7 of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 P ARASTP,.A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ALTO ....http://www.loislaw.com/pns/doclink.htp?&a|ias=FDCR&Cite=40 I+... On August 30, 1971, Defendant’s staff concluded that the .receipt of federa! funds to aid in the purchase of the lower Foothills would be unlikely. On August 31, 1971, Defendant’s staff completed a report which concluded, in part, that, aside from the possibility of using the regulatory powers in bad faith to delay deve!opment, zoning could not be used as a means of preventing development in the lower Foothills. In late August and the first week of September of 1971, Defendant received letters frbm severa! of its major taxpayers expressing concern as to the possibility of an increase in the City tax rate resulting from tAe intended Foothills land purchase. On September !0, 1971, Defendant.’s staff completed a report illustrating the varying costs to one of its major taxpayers resulting from different means that might be used to finance the acquisition of the lower Foothills. In late September, 1971, appraisals for the parcels comprising the !ower Foothills area were in their final stages of completion, but Defendant elected to have the same delivered in oral, rather than written, form so as to avoid their public disclosure and D ~ ~h~=by ~.o_s.~_ use property owners in ensuinc negotiations or litigation. On September 27, 1971, Defendant’s staff prepared a map of the !ower Foothills entitled, "Project 71-98 - Foothills Land Acquisitions," setting forth the property lines of each parcel in the lower Foothills and giving each such parcel a numerical Ceszgnat=on. Plaintiff’s land was designated as Parcel No. I. On October 4, 1971, Defendant’s City Council held a closed executive session re Foothills land acquisition, whereat estimated fee values cf each parcel in the designated area were discussed, a decision was made not to further seek federal rutting, and a decision was made to engage professional assistance to guide the Council in negotiations with the property owners. in late October cf 1971, Defencant engaged Robert C. Moore investment Company and Arthur Andersen & Co. tc gather information from the . ~_=~., ow, ....D.~D~-~\ ~=~ in the lower Focthi!is in =~ a::em~t to formulate a m~a~ whereDy, throuch a coms~natlon of c~fts and purchases, the City could acquire the land for the "=~=- DC___£±~ cash out!av acceDtaD!e to the D~OD=~-V O~.~--_ Durlng the period from NovemDer, 197! through January, ~972, Defendant’s City. Council ~on=~u=~. tc meet in private sessions of which nc Dubiic record was keot, acc~lsltion of -h= lower On November 8, 1971, Defendant’s Director cf Plannlng and Com,.unity Development, Louis Fourcroy, wrote a letter stating that :he City was endeavoring tc preserve the Foothills "in an undeveloped condition"; :hat, pursuant to Livingston & Biayney’s recommendation that DefenGant acquire the lower ?oothi!is parcels and cause a regional park district to acquire the upper Foothills, both Defendant and the County of Santa Clara had amended their respective general plans, that Defendant had made $4,000,000.00 of City funds "available immediately for acquisition purposes", that Defendant was actively pursuing the formation of a regional park district for acquisition of the upper Foothills and that one could "describe ~ of 24 9/10,~003 8:42 PI the ’fate of the foothills property’ as being signed, but not yet sealed and delivered." In December of 1971, Defendant had a scale model prepared to show parcels in the !ower Foothills covered by its "Project 71-98 - Lower Foothills Acquisition." The said mode! was thereafter placed on public display in the foyer of Defendant’s City Hal!. On December 13, 1971, Defendant’s property agent delivered a status report to Defendant’s City Manager concerning "Project 7i-9S, Foothills Land Acquisition", wherein it was reported, in part, West Page 970 that acquisition of the Mutual Benefit parcel was to be postponed until after acquisition of Plaintiff’s land, that Mutual Benefit held the deed of trust covering Plaintiff’s land and that Mutual Benefit was then resigned to the apparent situation that their parcel is now worth one unit per acre." in January of 1972, Defendant’s staff began exploring the possibility of forming a non-proflt corporation to acquire the lower Foothills parcels and Fred Cap!co, outside counse!, was engaged to assist in the preparation of ordinances to rezone ~he Foothills to open space. On February 22, 1972, Defendant’s City Council passed a motion adopting the Santa Clara Count3, Local Agency Formation Com.mission ("LAFCO") Urban Development Definitions, including LAFCO’s definition of "permanent open space" which was, in substance: ". lands upon which development is to be permanently prohibited for reasons of¯mubiic ..~=a~th~ ~, we~_are~; ane safety." On February 28, 1972, Defendant passed Ordinance 2647, ccntlnuinc its moratorium on development in the Foothills area for a second six-month period. On April 7, 1972, Defendant’s Director cf Planning and Cow.unity Development issued a report to the Planning ~O~T.!ssion on "Regulation to D~= =~-=. ".._s_.u_ Foothills Open Space , which report contained a suggested draft of what ultimately Oecame Ordinance 2654.~a~d_ reoort, was the first w_=~n~--= ~nd~at~on of any staff effort DroDcsinc the use of regulation -- creserve open space as ODDOSeO tG ~’~ON to preserve oven space. ~{~-- 17, i~72,~ D={enda~t’~_. . ~. _ City Council adopted an ~n_ra= m]a~ whi~ contained the statement that "the City hasa~.o~=~e~~" ~-- ~ ~.~cni~_=~ for the purchase open space", under the section ~=~_a=.ng with the lower F~cthiiis area. ?iaintiff’s land was desicnated as oDen sma-=" in ~h= said Open Space Eiemenr A!so on Apri! 17, 1972, Defendant’s City Council passed a motion authorizing_ _ ~= .... Mayor ~o Dur~ha~=. ........ o~= of ~h=.~ o=. -~=~ ..... in the lower Foothii~ area, to wit: P~un~\, Club West Unit #2 On ~a~ch 3, 1972, Defendant .... :ved information from its appraisers to the effect that Plaintiff’s land might be valued at $7,885,000.00 ~= based on deve!opment of 3 units per acre and $5,2i5,000.00 if based on =v=~ = ~o_ ~.opm_n~ at 1 unit per acre. On May ~= 1972, Defendant’~ Citv Council aDDroved Ordinance 2654 for first reading (the O-S Dist. Regs.) and, at the same time, passed a motion which provided: 9 of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 ARA.STILA LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ALTO ....http:llwww.loislaw.comlpnsldoclink.htp?&alias=FDCKn, C~te=401~-... "A. The City Council recon~mends that all private land zoned for open space . . . be eiicible to receive the benefits of the Williamson’Act at the discretion of the property owners; "B. The City Council direct the Staff reorder its priorities and begin acquisition of the land for, and approve the trails and paths system in the Foothills, in connection with the policies adQpted in 1969; "C. The City Council direct the Staff to indicate a reassessment of the water, gas and sewer assessments that have been levied on the Foothills properties The open space District Regulations were approved by Defendant’s City Council without debate and in precisely the same form as presented to the Council by Defendant’s Staff. A!so on May 15, 1972, Defendant’s City Council rejected a proposed amendment to the motion quoted above that would have provided that the Staff render a report to the Council giving its assessment of the financial impact of the rezoning on representatlve property owners in the Foothills and advising the Council of possible ways in which the City might ameliorate the financial impact on property owners resulting from the proposed O-S zoning. On May i9, 1972, Defendant’s City Attorney submitted a report to Defendant’s City Counci! dealing with ways in West Page 971 whlch to acquire scenic easements. The said report suggests the passing of a resolution containing certain findings which, in substance, are the findings recited in Ordinance 2671 (the open space zoning ordinance). ~:,~- May 22, 1972, a meetinc, was held between representatives. ~:~. =~aintiff and Defendant wh.r_in= ~D ....~--.~=~n~_~ advised Defendant :_=_.,,!~ was prepared to se!l its land to Defendant or to deveicD its land in a manner acceptable to Defendant or to agree to some combination of deve!opment and sale but that, unless Defencant acted promptly ~- -{=, .==in~.~ would be forced to brlng an action in inverse condemnation. On May 24, 1972, Defendant purchased one of the parcels in the lower Foothills, to wit: Country Club West Unit No. 2. Said ~urchase was made by Defendant upon the belief that development- would occur in the absence of purchase and that several of the houses.o~cmos=~_ . ~- to be developed would be visible from the "’-=’-’=~’~ in De ’.... :~.- .....fendant s Foothills Park. On 5u.-:e_,= i~2~ Ordinance 2~{z was ~o~r~=l~v adopted. ~- aided "C.-S Open Space Dis=riot Regulations" to tb.e Palo Alto Muni~-iDal Code. The mumbo~= of ~h= reeuiations was recited to be: "(a) to protect the public health, safety and welfare; (b) to protect and preserve open space land as a limited and valuable resource; (c} to permit the reasonable use of open space land, while at the same time preserving and protecting its inherent open space characteristics to assure its continued availability for the following: as agricultural land, scenic land, recreation land, conservation or natura! resource land; for the I0 of’24 9/} 0/2003 8:42 P~ con%ainmen~ of urban sprawl and the structuring of urban deve!opment, and for the retention of land in its natural or near natural state to protect life and property in the community from the hazards of fire, fleo~ and seismic activity; and (d) to coordinate with and carry out federal, state, regional, county, and city open space plans." "Open Space Use" was ~eflneC as meaning: "the use of land :2 ?ubi~c recreation Enjoyment of scenic Oeauty Conservation o~ use cf natural resources Production of food cr fiber Protection cf man anc his artlfacts 4ouilcln~s, Drope .... etc.) Containment an~ structurlnc of urban development" The regulations permit, sut:ect tc approval of any development, ccnstru_-t~on or ~mprovements, use only for aGrlcui:ure, Dotanisal conservatcr!es, outdoor nature iaSoratorles, na[~ve wi!~ilfe sanctuaries and one family cwe!iin~s; ~n add~t~~ ~f a use permit w=~= omtained, and ~b7=-- tO a.~-on %no number of employees or residents <=~u’<~ "== for com~,unzca:-o~ and utility facilities; e~ucat~onai, char=table, research and philanthropic l:]St-~- .... ~- ~ ~,.s~ ,- m,~==. ~-_[ ranches ; and ~=c~==~ ...... ional uses including rLdinc academies, c!u~s, s:aZies, country clubs and golf csu’s== .... .[£y an am_n_m~n:= ~ = made after t~,e fliing of this action, ~.m_~=--.,_~ use was ado=-, ....... tu< i~m-~=c to undermround, burials, and :,[: June i~, ......-~ =, ~_:en_=..t’=~=- ~-- _ Sen~or Planne~_ wro:e a letter r~c~m:gencaticns as :o the pUrChaSe of the lower FocthLiis and ........:::~::~~; that Defendant hac :bus far only -"~-n-~= ’~__ =__g _thou~_ 40 Lefensant ~-; : ~ had ov=~ 54 200, ~’ 00.....-- ,~u~. remalninc in ins ~.ge:~,’~ for future purchases. On June 15, 1972, Defendant’s City Manager rendered a written report =c Defendant’s counsel referring tc the Foothills, :nc!ucznc ?ia~ntiff’s land, as "permanent open space", which term was again deflneC, in substance, as: " lands upon wn=ch developmen~ is to be permanently prohibited for reasons "= ~ub!ic Sealth w~l~=_~ ~ safezy. On June 26, 1972, ^=- ~ ~’_ ~.D=_=n~an~ = P~ty Council adopted a Budget for fiscal v=~-~ ]~-~:: wh~ included an additional !I of 2,~9/10/2003 8:42 P AR, ASTP, A,L, IMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ,~LTO ....http://www.loislaw.com/pns/doclink.htp?&alias=FDCR&C,te=401+.. appropriation of City money in the sum of $754,000.00 for the "Foothills Lane Acquisition Fund", raising the total appropriations for such funds to $4,754,000.00 (minus $557,975.00 which had been previously expended). On July 24, 1972, Defendant passed Ordinance No. 2663 adopting W!l!lamson Act regulations for Foothills properties. !t was Defendant’s intention that the Williamson Act benefits wouio De automatically available to any property owner who wouln consen~ to the restrictions on his land contained in Ordinance No. 2654. On Ju~\, 31, 1972 Ordinance 2671 (the open space zonina ordinance) was approved for =~-readl the ~#¯_~__~rig. At time ~ the Council meetinc reiatlnq th=r=-~ th=~= wer= remuests from the _n_ City hire an appraiser ~o assess the impactcf <he proposed zoning on land use and values prier to adoptin@ the same. Defendan[ did not hlre such an appraiser as sugges[ed. On August 14, ~o~= -~!V~,,2, Ordinance 2671 was _orm=_ . adopted. On August 17, 1972, Defendant revised certain of the LAFCO p~=n~’ng def~...... nl~ .....which it had previously adopted; among theLAF~O ~r~.,~ and cetln~tlons considered for rev!sion but n~[ revised was the term "Permanent Open Space", defined as ianns upon which all ~eve!opment would be pronID~teC. Sa~ term and sa=d defininlon continued to be amD~ed =o Piaintiff’s land and the term, definition and the application thereof :o ~aln<~_~ s land were each in effect readomted on August ~,: October i0, i972, Defendan:s C=:~.-Cs=nsil adopted vat=duo re,atone. 5o utility assessments ?~r_<i~=- -,=:’:’- paid ny the Defencan= in =_x.~F,-=-_is recoonition .......... of the fact that D===~d=~t’s rezcnznq had sionifzcanti\- diminished the use tc which the retched ~ancs ceuzd be put. ~.:~o on O ...... i0, 1972, Defenaant passed Orzlnance No. 26~7 ~’aS’~<~,~o a 200-foot setback=~on~-~ ~ Pane w~ and Arastra~ero roads fun through and next =o Fialntzff’s land. On ruc[zber il, !972, the owners of the Mullen marcel and -~= sc<<z<= ~ursnase of saic parcel bv Defendant i:~ Xanacer advised ~nose present acre was unrea!is:ic in iig~: of :ne recent change in zonLRc. T~e olaf, bv wnzcn m-c{nan~=< 2671 and 2654 w=~= ac~D~=C =psi.Gee :he condemnat=on of pcr:=ons of ?ia=ntiff’s land for :he purpose cf crear~nc Du~)~ en:rv :nroucn =~<’~ff’s land ~=<’~a"m~ as "Dmr~azeni open space" on .._~_ ~ _~_ by LAFCO. A~=~:-:~ ~{~=~ ....... from .... ~=~’-- ’u=,}. z’2, 1972, unzii at=dr- the present lawsuit had been fi!eC, Defendant’s aefznition of permanent open space was "lands upon whirr development is to DePermanently.z’~-~h~-=~_ .................for ~==<o~s of public heal~, welfare and safety." On October 17, 19r2, Piain:iff filed a written verified claim with Defendant’s City Clerk in the amoun[ of $i5,600,000.00 p!us interest thereon at seven percent (7{) per annum from September i4, !972 until paid. Saic claim has been denied. West Page 973 12 of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 P ARASTR.A"LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY UP t’AL.U AL ~ M ........~, .......................r ................,- - On November 7, 1972, a regional park district was created for the purpose of acquiring land in the upper Foothills and the district has since commenced to acquire parcels in the upper Foothills. Following the enactment of Ordinance 2671, Defendant has never initiated any lawsuit in eminent domain tc condemn Plaintiff’s land, has made no offer to purchase the same from Plaintiff, and now refuses to dc either. This action was commenced on DecemDer 20, 1972. Defe:’,aant’s AcEs and Their Effect on the Subject Property: P!azntiff intended to develop its land in accordance with its ?-C zonlng. After months of preparation and Oiscuss:on wlth representatives of Defendant, Plaintiff submitted a forma! application for the development of its property on August i, 1969. !n the ordinary course of evenns, P!atntiff’s plan would have Dean accepted or rejected by OctoDer of 1969. Instead, DefenDant submitted the plan for review to Livingston & B!ayney who were then studying development in the Foothills generally. Thereafter, Livingston & Blayney were directed tc consider whether Defendant should acquire portions of the land to protect the view from Foothills Park and Defendant postponed cons!aeration of " ~ ~==’P±a-nt~.~ s p!an until after Phase I!i of The Livingston & 5!ayney Report. Dur~nc the entire period from August !, 1969 te November i6, 1970, the provisions of Defendant’s P-C regulations and Defensant’s decision to forestal! action on Plaintiff’s D!an, e_fectiveiy prevented Plaintiff from aeveloplng its land, due ~:~ the neec for approval from Defendant an~ the futility of proposing ai:ernative plans while the !776 Plan was pending and Defendant was still awaiting Livingston & Biayney’s recommenmations as nc possible purchase of the subject ~roperty. :~_timatel.v, Livincston .... & Blavnev recommended ourchase of the =~= Da~:=~ Defendant accented the recom.mendation and din{=~ approvai of Plaintiff’s plan. Defendant’~ actions of N~v=mb=- 2, ~~v=~ =< ~...... ~ .....a._ ~ a~d November i{, 975 and ?actuary 22, 1971 were in suDstance and effect a ~ecislon ~}’ Defendant tc acquire Pia~nt,~: s ian~, were =~ =.~ by De- ’.-~ .....= =~ :~ intent to:r.te.,a__ . :enaant as a public = ....o~ ....m_nt o .... acqu=re Pia=ntlff’s land, were so understood by Defendant’s ~’==f, were =~==-=~_- _r_~.~ .....} so pub!!cited in iota! news media, were ....=--=~=d~.~ as such Dy Plaintiff, by. other .orooertv. . own~._=~< in the lower }octhi!is and by the County of Santa Clara. At no t~me :r~or Zo the commencement of this lawsuit ~{d Defendant ever tc purchase P!aintJ~~’= land, nor ~:~ Defendant =::=~ act to di=D=] the oublic : ~=<=~_m~..___i~ which it Defendant for open space purposes. in the belief that Defendant intended to purchase its property, Plaintiff made no furrner attempt tc develop the same after NovemDer of !97%, nor any attempt to sell the property to anyone else and due to the specter of pub!i~ acquisition created by Defendant, the subject property was unmarke<ahie ~n that no other person would have been willing to purchase ~he property for development at any time following Defendant’s puDiicized actions of November of 1970. in June of_.,~ael, Defendant amended it ~=o_n~=~=~-< ._anal to reflect 13 o~’24 9/10/2003 8:42 AR~STI~,A LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY’ OF PALO ALTO ....http:llwww.loislaw.comlpnsldoclink.htp?&alias=FDCP~&Cite=40 I-... its decision to purchase Plaintiff’s property for park expansion and open space and, in July of 1971, the County of Santa Clara was induced by Defendant to amend its General Plan in accordance with Defendant’s decision to acquire. On July 19, 197i, following its decision tO purchase the property for open space purposes, Defendant imposed a moratorium preventing development so as to al!ow itself time to consum.mate the intended acquisltion. !n February of !972, Defendant imposed a second moratorium on development in the Foothzi!s for an additional West Page 974 six-month period. Although the second moratorium ordinance suggests in its recitals :ha: it may have been passed to preserve the status quo during a study as to possible rezoning, the activities of Defenaant before, during and after the enactment of the secena moratorium make it plain that ways In which to accomplish the desired acquisitlon were the only subject of any stud}, by Defendant. in sum~.ary, Pia~ntiff intenaed [o develop its land; the land was capable cf being ~eveloped and fr~e of any hazard that wo~id prevent ~eve!opmen%; Defendant adopted a public policy :hat Piaznt:ff’s !and be and remain open space, park addition and/or conservation !and; and, pursuant to the adopted policy, Defendant preven:ec development of the land, decided to purchase the !and and in fact took ai! steps necessary to complete the purchase short of actual commencement of eminent domain proceedings. On Amri! 7, !~-,~- = Defendant s City Council publicly received information to the effete :ha[ zoninm mimht be a mo~s{b~= means of =._ni_v,ng its "open space objective" and, a!%noueh Defendant thereafter muuiic!,. ...... =<-=~ -he zoning change throuch the enactment of ~- { --,<,_e,n=nce Nos. 2£54 and 26/i, Defendant s tity Count-=! continue.a :o address itself to the "open space ~n terms of accuisitzon. = ex~cutzv~ sessions". The only study of the necessity for and consequences of zoning to achieve the open space objective t~a= preceded the enactment of Defendant’s open space ordinances was a study Sirec%ed %c ascerta!nlng the language employed by other :ur!sCio%ions in imposing similar res<rictions on lane use and :ha% study was made without any reference to, or comparison of, :no Kin~s of lane so restricted. Nor was that study before the City Council at the time it voted to adopt the open space ore!canoes. Although !t was known to Defendant in advance that its open space zoning wouic result in substantial diminution cf proper=y values ann woui~ have a substantial financial impact upon the proper:}, owners affectec, would sumstantia!!y reduce tne ability <o pu: thOSe properties :o any economic use, ann was all su< cer:a!n [o resui< !n [!<igatlon from the affecte~ iansowners, :here was no prior attempt whatsoever to assess :no impact of those ordinances on the properties to De affected an< no study or investigation was conducted Dy anyone associate~ wi:h Defendant to determine whether or to what extent the open space zoning would leave the landowner wirn an}’ viable and/or reasonable economic uses for his !and. ~]~hOUCh %he ~d~nances suooest on their face a basi~ their enactment in the way of "carrying ou’t°’ State open space policy, the S~ate ~efinitions of "open space land" cannot fairly be said to describe ?iaintiff’s land and were not con~d=r=~ as applicable to Dialntiff’s land by the of the ord!nance. o, _,~9,’10/2003 8:42 P,~ ARAS’~K~ LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ALTO ....http://www.loislaw.comipns/doclink.htp?&allas=~- U~v,~:~.l~e=,~u ~- Although the ordinances suggest on their face a basis for enactment in the way of assuring the continued avai!ability of "agricultural land", the only information before Defendant’s City Council at the time it a~opted said ordinances was Defendant’s own staff analysis showing that Plaintiff’s land was not valuable for any agricultural purpose based ugon its soil and slope characteristics. A!tnough the ordinances suggest on their face a basis for their enactment in the way of promoting the use and conservation of valuable natural resources, Defendant readily con:does that Plaintiff’s land contains no such resources. Although tne oroinances suggest on their face a basls for their enactment in ~ne way of guarding against possible flre hazards, the only information before Defendant’s City Council at the time of their enactment was [hat [he existing fire nazarc woulo be reduce~ in the event ~eveioomenz were pe~m~t%ec. Although the ordinances on their race suggest a basis for their enactment in West Page 975 [he way of protecting occupants cf the land from harm resulting from seismic activity, the on!y information before Defendant’s City Council at the time the same were enacted was that no se~smolog!cal basis existed for restr~ctlng Ceve!opment of ?iaintiff’s land. was Flaintlff’s ianc ccnslcereo by Defendan[ to be val..’aZ!e as wa=ershed ianc, as crcunC water recharge land, as ne-_’ced .-.c malnta[n riced control ands/or as land valuable tr.e.-~=<~’~’=--on zr enhan_-.m_n--= = of wildi ._~= resources in fact, there was no Oasis at all for t~e passage of Ordinance Nos. 2654 and 2671 in the way cf promoting public health and/or public safety. Defendant’s Ci<y Council did not nave before !t any factual Oas!s for the enactment cf either :he Open Space Dis:rlct Re~ulat=sns cr the Open Space Zonlng miain ann acm!:ted sh?ect ~; tne :Den=s=-=. _. _~_ ~.-_~-~nances was tc achieve the same result, tc the full =-o-~=~ co~=:~’= as wculs nave been achleveC thrcu{n purchase of the land itself. -~= =n=clflc boundaries sf one lane zone[ open soace te:ermi~,=~ .... ~\’. the !ecai~ ~__cr~t!ons=< contained in the Frellm!narv Title Reports which Defendant receaved for each parcel. ~-~=:~;=_ _ :s nc property which !=_ martially within an~ partially w!zhout the open space area in the _ower hn= there is no; rational ~asLs for Defen~an<’s choice ~.arcels to be inc’ueez and pa:cels <c he exclude: ether One :riot decision., tc _~,~,,-~= ................... -~o~= oar-=~ .One :f -~: parcels =~’~ F!aintlff’s tans, nav~nc terrain ~=-=raii?’ ~. ~:aint~:: s !ant, stlll retains the D-C zonin~ alnti:: land Defendant has never formally acre: to rescind its pc!icy decisions to acquire the lane of November 9, 1970 and Yehruary 22, i971; after Ordinance 2654 had been approved for first reading, Defendant in fact purchase[ one of the parcels in the subject area; after Ordinance 2654 had been approved by Defendant’s City Council, Defencant was still studying ways in which to acquire scenic easements in the Foot~i!!s area) after Ordinance 2654 ~ad been enaclec, Defensant added an additional ¯ _ o~ :-9/10’2003 8:42 AR’AST~RA~LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ALTO ....http://www.loislaw.com/pns/doclink.htp?&alias=FDCP,&Cite=401--... $754,000.00 to the "Foothills Acquisition Fund" in its City Budget; after the enactment of Ordinance 267i, applying the open space distr!ct regulations to Plalntiff’s property, Defendant re-adopted its aeflni~ion of "permanent open space" as applied to Plaintiff’s land which remained, in substance, "lands upon which development is to be permanently prohibited for reasons of public health, welfare and safety" and, in Octomer of 1972, Defendant met with the owners of one parcel in the Foothills area to discuss the possibility of purchase by Defendant, suggestlng that the price previously discussed was nc longer realistic in iignt of the new zoning. Contemporaneously with the enactment of the zoning ordinances themselves, Defendant acted to create ut!lity reassessments and to provide Williamson Act benefits to those of the affected landowners who would consent to the open space restrictions contained in Ordinance.Nos. 2654 and 267! - both of the latter actions hav=ng been specifically recontmended by Livingston & Blayney as part of :no recom.~ended plan of acquisition which Defendant’s City Couno:i voted to accept on November 9, 1970. Although Ordinance Nos. 2654 and 267! purport to permit a ~=-:-~v land us=~ the same a~= substant~aily fewer and more restricted than those avaiiaD!e unoer the prlor zoning, and none of the uses remaining has any substantial viability and/or econcmlc reasonabl~ " ~ . .±l,y when appl~ed to the subject property. Plaintiff produced, by expert testimony, subs~ntia! evidence as te the lack of viability and/or economic reasonability of all uses os:ensiblv =~. p ....~_1 when ape!ted <e its land. Defendan< suggested on!y tha: three of the !isteC uses were eccnom~ca!~v moss!ble ~res~oenzia! ....~nev=_-_ and -~ f courses ). West Page z~,< ~ n__=~, Defendant’ ~ ~roDosed u~e for ~=~d=nc=< o cslf_ courses reculreC a variance, a strained l~-=~D~=~--~_=~_en, an ~x~_:~.. , a c~n:emt and/or an = -=?-~ -~!y Ci:y Council wi!l=ng ic cvert zne clear meaning of an ordinance which i~ za£ itself --=:r=~ On= exDert’~ :~lv~= recuire~ ~=_em_,.,_ over fees :G create land usage, lot .....c-v=< ciear!y contrary, to <he exci~ci=, ordinance an~ specifications suostandarc to the {~ ~< = " = bym_..~.u~._ r~culr~c .theCity for subdivision developme::. The apvralsai of another assumed a Cevelopmen: for which there ~s no precedent in the ............. =.:~_ was mace withou: any data supportLnz his -one=D- sf marke=asii~ty anti~- a~scrDt~on ~=~= and local subdivisicR__~,~m~,,~=-=-"~= =.-~ and the a~:encant costs of installing ~=cu~=~ o improvements, it would De im~osslble io =~_v_=~m the land for resceentlal use in a manner consistent wi~n <he O-S .... ~"- n-,~<-’nc cos:s ’ would ’res=rlst~ons ~_~:~__ i ....... . that exceed stso at which the land so ~-"=~- = ’ exuected t~ so" i; nor wou!J anyone =,t=~--=~.~h deveiomment The gc!f co~rse appraiser asssmed an income stream derived from an:Jolt.died fees and rounds of play far =n excess of an’! -~=~v= course ~ but ~= land 1o any economic use as a ~]f course, f~.<=isn =o~ < ~ would have to be imported, =~,~ irrigating and craLnace D_o:i_m_ would nave 1o be overcome, and the course would have to achieve the unimue ability to draw .matrons .~_=~ a _~mi-~riva~_~= ~= course in numbers comparable to these acn~eve,S Dy <no most modular public (municipal) courses a< prices which far exceed <hose charged by any existinc public ~mun~c=pal] source and ~n excess of :he prices charged Dy any ~=~ -~ ~,a~= course = ~=. Hal :-MOOn -- ’ Wn~ ~h t6 of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 P exceptionally expensively Oeve!oped and malnta:ned and which aces not enioy an income equal Go its expenses. The vineyard expert based his opinion on income estimates contemplating the most expensive grapes in the market place with nc history of successful, or even attempted, growth in this location, at yields reflecting the highest yields in choice wine areas, based on an investment at the lowest possiole price, even risking a clear hazard of Clsease so as to plant at the least cost. Only small portions of the subject property are physically capable of being put to any commercial vineyard use due to soil and slope characteristics of the land, and no portion is reasonaDiy adaptable to any economic vineyarC use. ~=m=~=~v. use, .Dermit~=d--- bv~ a later addition to the open space regulations, is not economically reasonable, largely by reason of the exclusion of use for overground burial ann crematoria purposes, from w~ich neighboring cemeterles cerlve a substantial part of their ~ncome. In adCit!on, such use would vlo!ate the provisions limiting impervious cover. -- must De made plain at t.~:e curse~. that tnls Zour~ has ne intention of making any Gefin~tive ruiinc w:tz respect to the propr:ety or scope of zoning regu!atzons insofar as they prpperiy seek to preserve the rapidly disappearing open spaces. lnoeea, ~he SuDreme Court made it plain in V~!iage of Belie ~=’~= v. Bcrmas ~!6 :~ c ~ = 94 S.Ct 1536 ~ ~ E~.2~ 797 ’.’97g>, that that Court will not limit the concept of pubiic welfare that may be enhanced by zoning regular:ins. ue plans of zonznc reculat:o~ reasonable basis of concern for the public welfare have been v=~ as appropriate =..v=- .... since EucllC v. ~m~_ er Co. , U.S. 365, 47 S.Ct. !14, 7i L.Ec. 303 (1926) . The Court there solo "Req~iatlons ~e wlsccm, n=~=~s{~v and vaildiqv of wn_cn as applied :o exis<ing conditions, are sc apparent that they are now uniformly sdstained, a v aac er even half a -=n~’~v amo, mroba~iy wou!c have neon__..~_.~_r=a=~=~ as arbitrary and oppressive." The same can be -h= ’ "., . Justice Sutherlandsaac loony, =not.._r nail century after ~r .~’ev~- _cus:v thougZ<=~D.~--=.-~. { -~=. mh~ ........... = was ~=.-=~-~v. confirmed by the ~n:r. Sircuit in ~;,s,.u~,~on incus:ry Association cf 5onoma County v. The City of ~=~-~ , 522 F.2ci -ag- {" 975) Tnere the Tour: sus<alnec an crcinance cf <~e ~itv of Peta!uma which !im/tec new development tc not more than 500;._w~=" dweii~nc. x/_=__ purpsse of insurinc <nat development =ake ~lace in a reasonaz_e, or~erl,:’ anc az:ractlve manner :c pro:oct the smal! town character of the co~m.unLly ant s=~=a~ that reauiations, otherwise a~Drozriate are not made invalid merely because [hey cause even a very suDszanzia! loss of value to :he proper[}, affected. Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 195 C,~i. 497, 234 .... 4, 7i L.Ed. ~02a (1927);affirmed, 274 U.<. 325, 47 S.Ct qa _ Consc!Idased Rock Producgs Co. v. City of Los Angeles, [7 Ca!.2d 515, 20 Ca!.Rptr. 638, ~70 P.2o 342 (1962] ; Eucii~ v. Am-Diet Co., 272 U ..... c ~’-<:~_., ~7. S.._~-,. i!4, 7! L.Ed. 303 (!926) . in Ha~acheck v. Sebaszian, 229 U.S. 394, 405, 36 S.Ct. 143, 60 L.Ed. 348 {19!5), zoning was approved even though it caused a !’~ of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 P ARASTRA,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO A-CTO ....http:llwww.loislaw.comlpnsldoclink.htp?~a.as=ruu...~’~c--~u, .... reduction in value of over 90 percent. Care must be taken, however, ~.o distinguish between the power of the community to zone and the power to condemn. Both Dowers have --heir source in the authority of ",he cor~munity to act in the public interest, but the nature of the public interest is considered differently depending upon which of the two powers the public authority is purporting to exercise. Clearly, schools and parks are a matter of public concern and estaZilsning them zs in the public in=erect, but one’s property may not De taken for either purpose wi=hou~ compensat’~on. I~ a parcel of properEy were zoned exclusively for pirk purposes cr exclusively as a school playground, the purported regulation would, in fact, be an exercise "_n eminent domain. Similarly, ’_f one out of i0,00C acres was taken as a park site, -_he effect on the value of .-_he remainina property would be infinltesimal when compared with the impac: of Hacacneck, supra, ~ nonetheless, t.~e taking would be compensable, even :hough the Hadacheck loss of value was not. DistinguisZlng between the exercise of the two Dowers is not always easy InDeed even the Supreme ~ ~..,,..OU _ _ can be confused. See " -’’V~_,age of 5ei~e Terrev. Bo~aas, supra, 416 :J.S at c. ~ 94 $ c~ :~ -~-.a .-here M~ "r. ,.~=.... u ......Douclas, in speaking of Sermon: :,. Parker, 745 U.S. 16, ?5 S.C:. 9~, 99 L.EC. 27 (!954}, cons~Ceree ".:-,at that case "refused to i~mlt the concept of publ!c welfarb <nat may be ennance,q ~y zoning recu~at,_ons." But Barman was no: a zoning case, it was a condemnation case, and when the Cour-_ there said (pp. 32-33, n: ~- p !02] "it ~_’~ w’_.th~n the .Dower of~.h~= -~.---<=o’~la=ure to aeterm~P.e that the com_mun~ty should De beautiful as well as nea!tny, spazious as we!! as clean, we!i-ba!ance~ as we!l as ~=__~u.:y patrolled", it was referring to the power of the co~T,u~ity tc c.onciem, n for those ~,~ ~=<.~,~po___ rat~er than to .,~c~__a appear from :he form in whirr, t~e CO~T, Un!ty.._~D"-~ its act!on. Indeed, ............ ....=..-e- fromclrzumsqancesin whlcR harsh reculaiicn unduly in~=~s"-~= D-~va-= reasons for deaiinc differently wi-~ the two y sta:ed. The California "The re!avon: ptiicy’ sas~s sf article Z, sac:ion 4, was ~ema:ic~: Board ,=w~: ?5 3a..2c 62~, 642, 12£ ::.22 w~=-h=< :h= owner of the damacec z~-~=~-v if snare tc pu=iic unaertaklnc. -n oiher wor~s, ~ne unZer!>’ing pu~:~= o< our c~ns:ituzlenal zrovisicn in l~verse - as we!l as orclnary - co~demna5!o~ s to d!stribute throughout the come, unity :he !oss !nflic[ed upon the indzv=cual my making of public ~= (Bacicn v. =Dare of fon:rol (1943] 23 Cai.kd 343, 350, 144 [.Zd tl~, 823~: zc soclai~ze the burden . - :o afford relief :o the landowner in cases in which it is unfair to ask him to bear him a burden <hat should be assumed by society.’ (Mande~’=~K__, Inverse Condemnation: The o,.=. Limits of Public Responsibility, !966 Wis. L.Rev. !8 of 2a 9/I0/2003 8:42 The Supreme Court .!n Armstrong v. United S~ates, 364 U.S. 40, 49, H0 S.Ct. 1563, 1569, 4 LoEd.2d 1554 (i960), said "The Fifth Amendment’s guarantee that private properly shall not be taken for a public use without just compensation was designed to bar Government from forcing some people alone to Dear public Durdens which, in a!l fairness and justlce, shou!~ be Dome by the public as a whole." And, again, in United States v. Willow ~aver Power Co., 3Z4 [;.S. 49~, 502, 65 S.Ct. 76!, 764, $9 L.Ed. Ii01 i1945), the Court said "The Fifth Amendment undertakes to redistrlbu~e certain economic losses inflicted by public ~ ~~-~’-m~-oveme .... so that they will fall upon the public rather than wholly upon those who happen to i~e in the path of the project." Granted, these concepts are not automat!cally app!icaDie in any specific case. One whcse property is affec<ec by an appropriate regulation may well feel tna[ he ~s bearing an unfa!r burden. Some courts have held tna~ a regulation wnlch zepr~ves a land of the greater pot:ion of its utility or most of its value, ~s val!d only if compensation is allotted. See,. for example, Dooley v. Town Plan an~ Zcn=ng gommissios. !5! Conn. 304, 197 A.2~: ~(} (!964]; Pennsylvania Coal Co. v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393, 43 S.CL. 158, 67 L.Ed. 322 {i922~ . The fundamental distinction Detween eminent domain and regulation was conclsely stated in SacKman "The impact of Zoning and Eminent Domain Upon Each Ocher" i971 insti[ute on Piannlng, Zoning anc Eminent Domain, !07, l!0-111. "The clstinquishing characteristic Oetween eminent zoma:n and the police power is chat :no former involves the taking of property because of the need cf :he property for the public use, wn~!e the lacier involves :he regulation of :n~ proper:<, :o prevent t~e use thereof in a manner that as aetrlmenzal to the public interest. ".:or :~e sake of accurate tnlnking ~% :sweil to Keep in the mind this fundamental distinction me:~’een :he two powers in their aDol!cat!on co ¯ ~rlvate .~roDe~v. Tn the =x~,~__-- =-~ ~= of eminent comalL, DroDer:v. . or at, ==--m_,.~’-== =~" therein ~s taken fr-sm -no owner and azmlie~ <o public doe because :Re Joe o~ en~ovmen< of 3uzn ~-o~= :he ~zres%riczed "~= o" =n~ovme~- sf h~ ~ ~rooertv iT. the interest of the susi&c welfare. Uncer ~silce power, rhe property ~s net, as a ceneral .... n~=_ %no power emLnen% aomain I1 is :ransferrec to the s<a~e We need not consider the numerous cases which attempt tc craw -n= line of -=~ <=~ ’....p .......} where regu!a=~on ceases ant an eminent comaln caking b=~4n~, nor So we cons~=- :he or@inance co be ......=~=nd~,~ alone Tm -he s-=~=n< case, %no facts ~=o~’~ ~= tie conclusion ihat the open space ordinance was no: a Dcnafiee attempt <o impose !imi<ations of :he use of :no property of the ~=~r~ff mu: raiher :he~n=:=~ -~ st=~ in a orogram d=~icned~_ to ~-u~ <= richzs over the mromerty for the en~ovmen: and use of the public in general. The C!ty would have ,as look nc fur<her than the language ~_ :he orclinance in decermining its va!ici<y. Ord~nari!y, a court !O of 24 9/I0/2003 8.,+_ P~ AR, AST~A~LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO KLTO ....I~tp://www.loislaw.com~pns, oocnn~.n[p:o:a.~r L)~,~ ....~--,~, .... may not inquire into the moziva~ion of a legislative body in passing Lhe legis!a~ion under consideration. Soon Hind v. Crowiey, 113 U.S. 703, 5 S.Ct. 730, 28 L.Ed. 1145 (1885); County of Los Angeles v. Superior Court, 13 Cal.3d 72i, !i~ Cai.Rptr. 631, 532 P.ld 49[:, (!975}; McCarthy v. City of Ma~’,na[caP. Beach, 4! Cal.lJ ~79, 264 }.2d 932 (1953}. And generally, if t~,ere is any reasonable 3ustification for the legislative actlon, the court may not substitute its judgment for that of the legislative body. if the facts are fairly debatable, a court may not disturb the _egls±=~!ve determination, Job;is[on v. City of Claremon~’, 4!~ U~:..~d_ 3:£5 ?.21 "i (1956~; ~ock~-ro v. City of Los Angeles, ~?; Ca!.lci 453 ~{:~ .~.iz .~ ’.1949}. Courts may, however, appraise the nature and scope of governmen[ai behavior, the prior history, [he basts upon which the ieg’_siative determination was made, an~ any other re!even[ facts, in determining whether the legisla[!on is unreasonable, oppressive or confiscatory. K~ss:.nser v. C__y of Los Angeles, <i CaI.ADD.2¢i >;0 P.2~ :d {1958~; iock=_rc~ v. City of Los Angeles, i{3 20~ ?.ld_.,.’~’~ (1949;.: Wilki:;s v. City 0~- San Bernardino, =~ .... .....=_ .2c ~,., i75 ?.2C 542 {1946); Beynolc~s v. Barrett, 12 Cai.lc 2~4, .~[.~-_2_.L_?-_9 (!938); Hurst v. Bur!ingame, 207 Ca!. 2~- 9. 3:]~ (1929"~; Hagenburger v. CiEy cf Los Angeles, 5’ ¯ --~_! :__=!.q__~4__[[ {1942); Bank of America v. TowP~ of A,.hercon, ~[~ Za:.A~.ld i£’~, ]4:, ?.ld 675 (1943). When ~e on:ire act~v~:y of the aefendant City is considered, i: DecDmes obv!ous t~at the enactment of this ord!nanse was bu: the f~nai step in a long series of municipal acts. ----- ooth_~,s areaAf-=~ annexing the very substantial ~ ~to the C’_~\, of Pa!c Aitc, the mild-port,on of the new area was acquired ;= a [,ark to b= used one,, ~\, ?alo Alto residents. below the sara,, the claintiff owns by far the i=-~=~t acreage They and .their preaecesscrs have a!wavs s]anned for the ~-evelopment of tr~e land _,nto a combination of residential and do_. ~__s, and i 9 in de’.’!sinc an acceptable development p!an. During i969 and !}70 the ~onc=~ of m<=<ervlnc t.-,e lands below the Dark in omen. _.--D=~-=___ became increas!n~!y~ attractive and in November cf !970, the defendant City unequ!vocaiiy adopted a policy of ~{~,~ <hi.._.’~----~’"~-~.---~: for the benefit of the =~-~ ..... re cor~mup.itv_. do?=-tl,~__=< cf ~.-,e acqu,_~-~on were to prevent development sf t.-.e property h.eiow the par.<, to preserve the open space, and .-..1 .~rsvide a !end bank of cltv land which could afford sites fc= suDl~__- purposes an-£ for csntrciied private uses. UntL! ~= adczt~cn of the open space ordinance here in dispute there was no ccu~t on the Dart of the City’s staff, the property owners or the public, that tne land was c~inc tc De a-~u<-=d bv the City for =he PurPoses be accomplished. Over 54,-@0,79C was buc~e=ec for acsu~s~tion, solicited, vaiualfons of the iand were made, title reports were oc:alnec, and Federal funds were sOUght. ~y 1972, it began Lc appear tsar the coors of acquisition were going :c be suDstantiaiiy nigher than had crigina!!y been hoped. Federal funds were not avai!aD!e, no gifts of land had been generated, the lanes values, in the light of the P-C {?fanned Community] zoning, would have required expenditures of substantial public funds and some of <he larger taxpayers were expressing cDlections. the costs "=~=~_,~ hish, t~e City remained anxious to 20 of 24 0/2003 8..~_ P~ prevent development West Page 980 and to preserve the open space. Al! development had been foreclosed during the period, but the time was running out within whlch it could continue Eo be prevented without some defznitlve actlon. The City had adopted a trails and paths program by which they inzenoed Zo lay out paths through the lower Foothi!!s. The view from Foothills Park could have been intruded upon by development. One of the few acquisitions actuaiiy made was efa parcel on which development plans could nc longer be aeiayec and which, hac it been ~eve!oped, would have been vlsible from the viewpoint in Foothills Park. Development might also have been visible from the existing road throuah the Foothills. Wni!e acquisition now seemed less attractive, the intent to preserve the open space continued. Indeed, [he Intent to acquire for purposes of preserving open space continues to this day, for no official action has been taken to rescind the purpose to acquire that was announced Pack in 1970. When the open space ordinance is examined in this context, compels the conc!usion that the City had the purpose, by way of zoning regu!atlon, to accomp!is£ without expense [o taxpayers all of the benefits i1 could have recelved from the acquisition. The City Council purpor~ea to find a series of health and safety factors, that were recite~ as little more than a ~,m~i~y, in order ~o 3us[zfy ~he open space ordinance. They had no adequate information before them to support any su~h findzogs. The}, found, for example, that <he open space crzznance was compel!ca s::’ %he fire hazards of the Foothills. The o~~ ....¯.-% ....~ ....=Zion -~=,: had Delete them was information from their__ own f:re _-h==; .... to the effect that a .~re hazard =_x-<~=d in the Foo:h-ils only ~f the Foothills were to remain in their natural condition and tha[ an%.. hazard from fire would be m=t=ri=]iy ~=C"-=C ~y d=v=~oDm=~r Their other findings w~__ equally cef,~i=~t. While ~.....o.di~=_,~}, the factual determinatlon made ty a c=-y counc=i tc justify passage of an ordinance .....=’n:~ and no[ SUDJm~-. -~. tO judicial review , the recitatlon of imac~nar\,. . or non-exlstent hazards can De .ether evidence to determLne the purpose and effect of the enactment. fateful scrutiny of the open space distrizt regulations make =< clear tna[ they were sesigne~ not to control development cf the iower Foe<hi!is, but rather to prevent it. While the regulations purport to permit residential development on =on-acre s~tes an analysis of the limitation makes it plain that no such development could ever have taken place. Minimum development costs wouic have required to be marketed for st least 3!00,000 each and to ~e econom~cal!y feasible they would nave <c ~e sclc wlt~in about four years. Defendant’s ex~er:s conceeed ~na: :no? had never <nown of any SUCh ceve!opmen: even mezn{ attempted ie: alone successfully marketed. it seems obvious that the purchaser of a building site =~ = cost of S1O0,000 mlght plan to construct some rather elaborate s:ructures on his ten-acres, but <he ordinance would prohibit that. Only 3 i/2 percent of t~e size could be covered with impervious construction, so roads, tennis courts, barns, outhouses, swi~.ing pools, etc., would be subject to severe !zmztations. Nor would the prospective purchaser be allowed <o select the most attractive location for his property. The regulations require both clustering of struc<ures, as well as a minimum ten-acre lot size, so even though parcels of lane are very large, the houses wouic De required to be grouped together 2i of 24 9/I0/2003 8:42 P AP~AST..RA, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALe ,~LTO ....http://www.loislaw.com/pns/doclink.htp?&al,as=l’t.)~-.K~’ute=’~u ~ .... in sight of one another. Nor could a desirable knoll be used as a building site, because, to protect the view from the park and .. the roaos, sites were required tc be unobtrusive, it was certalniy totally unrealistic to expect any purchaser to spend such an amount of money to acquire so little .freedom to use his property, it m~_~-,~ be concluded that the framers of ~h=~ .~ ordinance had ~ust tha~ in mine. They designec a purportee perm~<~eC use but surrounded it w~th so many !imltations in order to make it, as West Page 981 far as they were ab!e, a use that could never be made of the pr~per<y. The facts as found inO~cate <nat [he o<hor uses, purportedly perm~ttec, were equally unrealistic. !t ~s plaln that the or]octave and the effect of the open space re~uia¢~ons was not to control development, but to preven~ Wni_e the City’s me[ho~ of proceedlnc may De open to question :r~ere can be no doubt of the ~es~rab~!~ty of tneir purposes. Open spaces are rapidly disappearing, a sad fact in this al! too crowded world. But, however iaadab!e the mot<re to preserve scenic beauties, the City must act, not by subterfuge, but by California law permits Pale A!<o tc exersrse its right of pus!~c domazn for all public uses au:horizec oy the state ieglslature. Californza Code of Civil Procecure, §§ 123813}, 1238:2:. The acquisition of open spaces anc other areas for puSlLc use and enjoyment is speclfically au<horizeo by ~cvernmen: Code § 6950. California Government Code § 65912, reiat~n~ to the enactment of open space zoning ordinances, prcvlaes as follows: "The Lec~slature hereby fines and declares that tnls art~c!e is not ln~ende~, anc shall not oe construed, as authorizlnm t~e c~tv ~ ~oun~,, Ec exercise its Dew=~ tc adoot, amenc or reoeal an open-space orc:nance in a manner welsh wit[ ta~e :r zamage or:rate property for pu:ii: use witnou: -no paymen: cf :ust compensa:ion therefor." T~e basic z~=<-~ cf law then ~< -~{s- T= a r"tV wire COW=~ beauty, open sLace ant the view from a mublLs park ant CLt"k’roacs takes sutstantia!iv a!l <~=z< towarc C-n.~ sc ~o-- cf payment, ~eacs :he public and property owners tt De!Leve t~,a< the ac~l=’qlon ls l~evltaDie ~=~a\’s all ~=v=~--en: of in÷ property wn!ie vrepar~ng for acqu!s~tlon, ana then, when :: has netermlneo that the cost is zither than nspec, on the sretense cf prstectlnc aoains< non-existent nazarzs fount L~ exist reallsqic, with nc ~nquiry as ts the economic feas~mlilty cf -~= -~~D~’=o :’==s ~ the resultinc loss of value tc the p-oD=~tv affected commensaD!e~ The answer must De "\,=s" Nc case has been founc which deals with this precise c~D!zatio~ Of ~,,~=~"-~:~-: actions, but in =_v=r==-= ....~ cases act!o~s, which fal! shot< of rh= <otai~’, ~= the acts here have found su~zlclen~ .... to recuire, compensation. . W’=~=n~.~ the use of ±ant" is <e=r~t=d by=~ a~ unreasonab~’ lonc Defied o~ tl~e Dv threat of condemnation, the loss ~s compensable. Dra~es Bay Lanc Co. v. Un~i=e~ Stares, 424 ?.2d 574, 19i Ct.Ci. 389 =_[ne same effect, ,o~Eer v ., 32 of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 PM affirmed, 405 F.ta !3a [6th Cir. 1968~. A refusal for a long period of time to connect Sewer lines sc that property may be utilized is confiscatory, Charles Diamond, 47 A.D.tZ 426, 366 N.Y.S.2d 921 (1975). Restrictions on construction designed to eliminate interference with planes fiyinc to and from a nearby airport constitutes a taking, Peacock v. County of Sacramento, 271 CaI.ADD.td ~45, 77 Cal. Rptr. 391 i!969); Steed v. County of Riverside, 32 Cai.Rptr. 318 (1963). Deliberately using a restrictive znning in order tc~epress the valuation of property intended to De acqulree, may in itself require compensation. People v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 33 Cal.A~.i{c q6C, 966, 109 Cai.Rptr. 525 Reference is also made to Washington Marke[ En[erpr=ses v. --=:.~ c.: Tren:o;’:, .14_~ A. ~d 40~ {N." Sup. C:. ~975, Dec’d July 28, 1975i, in which the circumstances were remarkably close to the prese.~:t :ase. it !s somewhat ~rcnic for the defendant to contend that there is an absoiute Oar to inverse condemnation becau.~e there has been no pnysicai invas=cn of piainti=~’= property. Of course, West ?age 982 i~vaslcn cf the proper:> =s precisely what the Cit>’ is ~rqemptl~g lc prevent. T~:eir whole ~=~-c~ ....ve is zc have the property remain unused, unzis:urbed, and in natural state so that the o~en spaca and scenic ~uali[ies may be preserve_ 5eiby Reai[y Co. v. C=[y of San Buenaven[ura, 1,9 [L{i.]d !16, 109 Cai.Rptr. 799, 9~14 ?.2C i!l {1973), is cited for [he ¯ mroDosit~o~. -... thal the =D_~nc~" == = of physical invasion mrec!udes. comuensat!on The nsi~=ng =n Colby ’IC ~: 3C ~ "’~ in9 Col ~ lit was ~n fact as ÷-~[ow<- "!n order to state ~ cause cf action for inverse zcncemnation, there must be an invasion or an appropriation of stme valuable prcper=y r!ght which the landowner possesses and the ~nvasion or apprcprlatlcn mus: directly and spec=f=caily affect the landowner to h!s in]ury." (Empnas~s ac~eZ.) Tn=-= has clearly C==~ 2he =~-~oD~{ation of a valuable property right of tZe zialnt!ff in tze mresent circumstances, whet~er the 2aklnc De ~__m_z a scenic easement an ~p=[ space easement, 2r scmetntnc dtfferent. next mu=~tcn =s wna: falter shall be afforoec. tons=cared narrowly, ~ne damages here m=qnt be computed s~_e!7 upon :he mas~s 3f <he easements construct~ve!y acquzred ~,’ <no City and :no 13sses resulting. ?hzs, however, wou!C _cave the part!es Ln Lntclerazie posltzons. The St<?’ would nave pa~o ou: amoun:s w[,ich wel! could approach the full value cf fee title but woula have no tisle. The plaintiff, on <no other hand, wcui~ have tztle ~ut little more. Rei=ef in such a ma~=- should be framea as equitably as ~=~:~= .. Thep.~__:,~_, cons~der!ng the position of both parties ~’cinai plan of th= City was to accui~= the fee; it has n=v=~ ahaneoned it¢ ~urDose to do so. Recuiring it to car~, out that purpose woui~ serve the interest of both parmies. The Ci=v with fee title could deal with the entire property in any fashion .. .= " =~ including its orio~na] conceptthat cub!it Durooses r_cu!r ...._. _ of land banking some portion of the land for future controlled ~eve!opment. ?!ainti== on the otter hand would be fully 23 of 24 9/10/2003 8:42 P? AR..-~ST, W..~,LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. CITY OF PALO ~LTO ....http://www.loislaw.com/pns/doclink.htp?&ahas=FDL;K~L.ite=4u 1-... compensated for its property without beinG !eft with a naked fee that could wel! be a liability rather than an asset. Accordingly,-.~ wil~_ be held that the measure of p~=_nt~.~’-~ ~=’s damages shall be the fair market value of the fee %~tle on the effective date of ~he Open Space Ordinance, and it will be further ordered tha~, concurrently with paymen~ therefor, plaintzff shall convey such fee tzLie to the Ci~yo The sole remaining question is whether, at ~ne trial to determine fair market value, the Court may decld~ as a matter of law the density to which the property miqht prcDaD!y nave bee~ permltted to be develope~, had not the ta~lng intervened, or whether that is a question of facz to be decided by the Jury. i~ would appear tha~ this ~e~e~minat~cn, ~us= as all other facts affecting compensation, mus< De ief: 1o t~e jury, PetRie v. Stevenson, ~90 Cai.A~:~.2~ !~.:.~, ii Cai.Rptr. 675 (1949]. The Court has, however, already heard wna< may well be all of the evidence which wil! beer upon this Lssue. On the present record, the Court would be constralnee :o fino <Rat there is no evidence which would support a jury finding that development would proDably have been permitted to an intensity in excess of 1,250 residentlal units, plus office and ccm~,ercial structures, el! subject to <he then requirements of the P-C [Planned Community) zoning requirements. A ~retrial conference will De ne!d a:~ 1!:30 a.m. on Fr=day, October 31, !975, ar which time a date for further trial will be f=xec. Wes: ?age ~; ot~24 9/I0~2003 8:42 .ion fliat nearly w|ped imously to use $4.5 mil- unanimously to take $4.5.Judge" Robert ~Schnacke ti0ns of how t~)replenish rtiled,.that Palo Mto.had city-coffers:after~themas-. .in effect-confiscated the-:sire payment td"Arasfra ,Aras .t~a "t~.~ i~:~n- or ~hat to-d6~ith ~th~ mg power-and ~o~e~ the. ~nd. ~ -.. ,-- ¯ :’~ . cRytobuy:thel~d.". ~ ...... .-M~st:C~~mb~r~~ " ~"~.~,.~ ~’--.".-’~ ..~ agreed ~with-a .,request fold the council the_~ttl~ .. nt of the-Palo:’Alt0 m~t Would not e~tabl~b"~ae . _. : .... a precedent ~or the.six ~~d~t~’ , other l~ui~.~a~e the m~ Ci~z~ ~a~ici~atio~" out-of-court :settlement; ..- . ~ ~. will -rmit ~ ’" -’~:in meo~mon on wna~.~" ~ualo AltO tO ." ask ...., ~do ~th the land.. :. .~:Alan."Henderson, a members ’.who votedemir of the 1972Co~- 1972 ~ z~ne the land for cil -~ho failed to win r~ o~n spa~.~o longe~ hold election, criticiz~ the Council seats and the ha- current Council for failing sic majority 6f the Coun-cil has shilt~ from beingto ~ppeal .the lederal st~ngly anti~evelopment - cou~ d~ision." ~oa more middle-of-the"In 1972 the ’Council road sta~d..-" was ac~ng in respen~ to ~ _his report to -th~ "the citizens," Henderson Council, ~Sipe~. recom- sai~. "Open~space zoning mended applying h6 per was done in go~ faith by .cent utility tax on elec- -’the"Councfl ~th no intent tricity an~ t~leph0n6 us~ to confiscate the land." "Another s~aker, Lar~ to help increase ~venue. L~al 715 ~f the Se~iceKlein, critie~ the Coun- Employes International cil’for conducting the n~ Udion that represents gotiations in se.cret.. He most city .employes, al- said the public had diffi- ready has served notice culty in deciding whether ’th~t it is ~nhap~y abodt" ¯ the Council followed ¯p~oposa~ to cut ex~nsessound practices, such as byeliminating jo~..cal~ng man out,de ieg~l Ken :Margole~, field:¯ consultant for advice on ~presentative fo~ the un-~e huge c~e..ion, said proposals to re-After a heated ex-duce the city work forcechange with Councilman by 30 more positions iS at-,John Beahrs, Klein was ~tin~ mor~e.told that other attorneys " ~ ......"¯"The ,~orkers feelhad been consulted in: they’re being askSto put cluding tbe firm that ham .up a larger share than ev-J~ dl~ the landmark Pe~lu- e~on~ else toward~t- ma land ~e case. ing the expenses ’ he The Council did not complain~. ~eL..c-,~t.~!s capi.ta! _’._m~: T..:.!i0n in funds :~Iready.ap-. !ve~,_~nt budget 1or the prb~ri~it’ed ~or ~apital im- .~t: Ti~c~l :year;._.P.alo ;p~0vement :~br"oj~dtS i:~nd 0’,s City Councilhas ap- another $3 million from ~ed ~ ~$7...5 million rut-- the-uhappro~i-i~tdd dapi~ ~ourt.settlement with "tal h*n~rovement fund - u~tra%t~i. "’~- .: " ’:?" Mu~h" ofth~ $3 miilion )etails of the ~ettle- in unan~ronriated lands is nt"ha.d been discussed " invest’e’d. ~n short-term open m~eting but the -ventures~;:.: .~ ..... - !.u~il .a.pproval c.ame-" The.Coancil Voted unan- ,ing. ~ brief executi.ve -imously" to permit.the city :sion: iThe agreement ~to: sell -revenue anticipa- ,es Palo Alto title to -tion¯notes which Treasur- } acreso.f land in the -er James Hudak said thills near. Arastradero would permit Palo Alto to ii exchange, Arastra. a d developme~ compa- -that :sued Palo Alto ~r years .ago after the :y ~ouncil voted to fe- te the land .as open ~c.e. agreed to .drop two Vsuits against Palo ~O. the $7.5 million pay- :nt will come from city pital impr0v.ement ~ds. . realize a profit on the in- vestments. " Mayor Start Norton esti- mated the city would re- alize more than $50J}00 by letting the investments mature and then reclaim- ing the notes. Hudak said terms are not final but the notes probably will be sold to Bank of America for 3.75 per c~nt interest. I f . million needed.for’the set-,. fl~ment~ " " ¯ : . " .’-,Thd act’ion ivirtuaIly wipes out the current~cap- :ital improvement budget: De~ails on which projects -will be continu~ have not been decided.-and the question will go ~o the-Fi-. .nance and Public Works Co~nmittee. ’ ¯ - Inresponse toquestions from Councilman Byron Sher, City. Mgr. George Si- pel said beprobably would recommend that an automated circulatio~ system for the city’s li- braries go ahead, along With several changes in city-facilities required for safety ¯reasons. "Needless to say, there will be no park improve- ments included in the list," Sipel said. Sipel said he would not consider recommending park improvements entil the city’s operating re- serve is "built up substan- tially," to about $2 mil- "lion out of an operating budget of $20 million. The Arastra suit is the largest of seven suits filed by landowners after a 1972 Council decision to. zone the Palo Alto foot- hills for open space. The action was taken after a report by planning consul- tants recommended it would be cheaper for Palo Alto to keep the land open than to provide necessary urban services if it were de,~eloped for homes¯ The settlement with Ar- first full term in Tuesday’s voting. Their sweep -- all were members of the Palo Alto ’75 slate -- was narrow but decisive. They unseated three in- cumbents, Enid Pearson, Alan Hender- son and Dick Rosenbaum, in one of the larger upheavals of recent council his- tory. For challengers, especially,, that takes effective campaigning. Citizens alarmed by cries that defeat of the residentialists lets down the bars against big development in the city can calm their fears. The new members all give high’ priority to preserving residen- tial quality. Although PA "75 and PA ’73 endorsees now will hold seven of the nine council seats, none is an avowed advocate of intensive growth. "Palo Alto is not going to be a high- rise city," Scott ,Carey remarked on election night. If the council does not see to that, the residentialist forces -- armed with referendum power and able mobilizers -- surely will. On the other hand, the voters who prevailed can.expect the new council to step lively in its work, avoid side trips far off the track of city business, and stay well .inside the extremes of forced compliance with and lavish endowment of socialistic programs. Also awaiting fulfillment are the winners’ promises to be moderate, independent and open- minded -- and to mute divisiveness. The ousted council members have been ve~" hard workers and strong voices for their views. They can be proud of their records; surely it is no disgrace if a voting plurality preferred rivals with more traditional, less activist views. In the first bitterness of defeat, sever- al candi~iates credited the Times with more influence in bringing the drug abuse program issue to the fore than we .Cbllective"s i~. _rsonne1~insi.s.ted -;bn ~horn2 ing into dit~::p~litics ~’.d~!li~ig :.citizens - iit >will" tal~~ i ~d ar~t~~l: ~forr~ ~o ;gr~manyire~id~n~ find~int6~able. ,..". Correcting ~.drriidistration d~!the-.anti- drug-abus~ pr~am-shoiild -be:~an ~early.- item on the new council agenda.. ¯ .The time~ ,Cl~ng~ opinions dh~nge, and undoubtedly, they will :_chan~e again, The ~31% .turnout evidences, the vital, ongoinginterest of:Palo Altans in their municipal government, Represent- ing such a turned-on electorate is an honor. It also is. a resl~onsibility calling for assiduous pre-meeting preparation~ attentive listening-and well-considered judgments. -! ALAN CRANSTON SACRAMENTO May l4, 1965 Mrs. Eni~ Pearson 1200 Bryant Street Palo Alto, California Dear Mrs. Pearson: Congratulations on your recent election tot he PaloAlto city council. I am pleasedto add mygoodwishes ~othose you have received. As S~ate Controller, I frequently work with local government officials on problems of m~tual~interest and I look forward to seeing you in the days ahead. Meanwhile, best wishes to you for challenging and te in office. Sin~ DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH STANFORD UNIVERSITY STANFORD. CALIFORNIA ~y 19, 1965 Dear Mrs. Pearson: I cantt tell you how your election to the Palo Alto City Council gratified those of us who have been Involved in the Battle of the Foothills--- or rather, the Battle of the Enviromnent. We have not had in the past a Palo Alto City Council whose majorlty seemed to understand the dangers of hasty or excessive development or were prepared to question the often cancerous growth that passes for progress. The recent announcement of the plans of Sunset Petroleum for a massive foothill development in excess of the density restrictions of the Palo Alto M~ster Plan and the Los Altos Hills zoning ordinances emphasizes how acute and immediate the problems are. I thi~k I speak for the whole Co~nlttee for Green Foothills when I say that whatever your decisions on individual cases, we know we can talk to you and we have confidence that you understand the need for restraint, for careful planning, and for cooperation with neighboring communities in Euidlng the areals growth. An aroused and enlightened citizenry can do little if City Hall isnlt responsive to the publlc will. Your election gives us the most heartening sort of assurance that from here on, the City Hall of Palo Alto will be far more responsive than in the past. Please know that we will do every- thing in our power to cooperate for the beautification and intelligent development of the foothills. Sincerely yours, Wallace SteEner WS:dk Bern Beecham Mayor Cits, of Palo Alto 25(~ Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Arastradero Preserve Name Change February 17, 2004 Dear Mayor Beecham, As you may recall, at the Ciw Coundl’s February 2, 2004 meeting, I encouraged the Council to explore its options before voting to change the name of the Arastradero Preserve. Now, after further consideration, I am happy to report that Acterra: Action for a Sustainable Earth is in favor of altering the Preserve’s name to the one recommended by the Palo Alto Historical Association: the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve. Acterra, under contract with the CiU, of Palo Alto, has been the steward of the Arastradero Preserve for seven years. During this time our staff has undertaken numerous projects to restore the Preserve’s natural habitat and, in the process, we have developed a veo, close connection with that spedal place. Initially, we were uneasy about changing the Preserve’s name because we are very fond of the historically sigTdficant name "Arastradero." However, the proposed change retains Arastradero in the name while also honoring an individual, Enid Pearson, who played a sig-nificant leadership role in creating Palo Alto parkland and, in particular, this invaluable open space presem, e. In addition to encouraging you and your colleag-ues on the City Council to approve the Preserve’s name change, we also request that youappropriate the modest funds necessary to accomplish the accompmu4ng alterations of signage etc. It would indeed be unfortunate if funds from other park projects needed to be diverted to this purpose. Thank vou for vour consideration of this request. If you or any of your colleagues would ~ike to discuss this matter with me, please do not hesitate to contact me. _Sincerely, ~-. MiChael Closson E.x~utive Director 2 C~ouncil, Cit~ From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Committee for Green Foothills [dbender@stanford.edu] Thursday, March 18, 2004 12:57 AM Council, City kgkidwell@yahoo.com; petelatl @stanford.edu Arastradero Preserve Name Change March 18, 2004 Bern Beecham, Mayor City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Bern: The Executive Committee of the Committee for Green Foothills unanimously endorses the proposed name change of the Arastradero Preserve to the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve acknowledging Enid’s significant leadership role in developing Palo AIto’s City Charter Amendment to protect and conserve Palo AIto’s parks and open space. Thank you for honoring Enid Pearson’s contribution to the community. Dorothy Bender, Board Member on behalf of the Committee for Green Foothills http://www.greenfoothills.org/ 453 Tennessee Lane Palo Alto CA 94306 March 5, 2004 2 Palo Alto City Council City Hall 250 Hamilton Palo Alto CA 94301 Dear Mayor Beecham and Members of the Council, We applaud the recommendation to place Enid Pearson’s name on the Arastradero Preserve, to be known as the "Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve". In the decades that we have worked toward the protection of Palo Alto’s precious wild areas, we have had no finer colleague than Enid. In fact, she has led efforts to preserve valuable lands in all parts of the city, long before environmentalism entered the language. Her effectiveness is based on knowledge, perseverance and innovative ideas, all carried out with g-reat good humor. We think that placing her name on the Preserve is just the right honor to bestow on her! Yours sincerely, Florence M. LaRivi"v’~e, Sub j: Date: From: To: Arastradero name change Friday, March 5, 2004 10:04:02 AM ACR1 765 bern_beecham@city.palo-alto.ca.us Dear Mayor Beecham, I doubt whether you need another letter regarding the name change to "Enid Pearson Astradero Preserve" However Enid is an old friend going back to the 1950s when we worked together in the Addison Elementary School. To be brief, I consider her to be one of the reasons we now live in such a desirable city and nothing would make me happier than to see her honored in this manner by you and your City Council members. Sincerely, Agnes C. Robinson, 1765 Fulton street, Palo Alto 3/5/04 America Online : ACR1765 Pagi~ 1 Ellen Fletcher : 777-108 San ,Ag._t~0ioJ~a~i b.: ?.9 Palo Alto, CA g~’~’~-4826. fletchere@~lldo~~ ..... March 4, 2004 Mayor and Members of the City Council Art: Policy and Services Committee 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Renaming Arastradero Preserve Mayor Beecham and Members of the Council, I remember well the days the City was developing at an ever more rapid pace and the taking of our City parks was threatened. Enid Pearson made sure that would not happen by developing and working for passage of the amendment to the City Charter initiative petition to preserve our parks. It required much research and work on Enid’s part. Enid played a leading role in getting the Council to agree to have the site studied when a large development of that land was proposed. The result of that study showed that it would cost the City more (in services) than the development would bring in, leading to the City purchase of the land for what is now the preserve. Enid deserves to be honored for her valuable contribution regarding preservation of open space in the City. I urge you to rename the Arastradero Preserve in her honor. Sincerely~- ... ’\ Ellen Fietcher Council, Ci~ From: Sent: To: Subject: Edfrei@aot.com Friday, March 05, 2004 8:42 PM Council, City Arastradero Preserve Name Change Attention: Members of the Policy and Services Committee regarding the consideration of a name change of the Arastradero Preserve. Friends and fellow citizens of Enid Pearson believe it would be fitting to honor this exceptional civic leader by renaming Arastradero Preserve "Enid Pearson Arastradero Presserve" as recommended by the Palo Alto Historical Society, and endorsed by innumerable residents of Palo Alto. Celia and Edward J. Freiberg 726 East Charleston Road Palo Alto, CA 94303 fill March 6, 2004 990 blair court - palo alto, ca 94303-3447 e-mail cotr@ix.netcom.com Palo Alto Citty Council Policy and Services Committee City Hall 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Friends, We wholeheartedly support renaming the Arastradero Preserve as the Enid Pearson Arastradero Preserve. As residents of Palo Alto for over forty years, we are well aware of Ms. Pearson’s ex~aordinary efforts to preserve open space and parks for the community. Her dedication should be rewarded. Ematl to Policy and Services Committee meeting, March 9, 2004. From: Barbara Silberling Policy and Services Committee: I urge you to enhance the name of the Arastradero Preserve to include Enid Pearson’s name. She deserves this recognition because of her diligence and perseverance in bringing a City Charter Park Dedication Amendment which Palo Altans enthusiastically endorsed in the 1965 Initiative. And she was instrumental in seeing that the "Open Space Controlled Development" zoning category preserved much of our foothills as permanent open space. Without the park dedication and foothills protection I’m sure we would now have dense housing in the foothills, buildings encroached on neighborhood parks, hotels on the flood basin, and probably many very severe flooding problems. (I recall it was Palo Alto’s first City Manager who saw our "unused" flood basin in the Palo Alto Baylands as a wonderful area to develop!!) Please vote "YES" for the "ENID PEARSON ARASTRADERO PRESERVE." We should honor city leaders have worked hard to make Palo Alto a really good place to live. Thank you, Barbara Silberling 316 E1 Verano Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 (Resident since 1959) ATTACHMENT G Community Services Department MEMORANDUM To: From: Date: Subject: Dan Williams Tom Wyman, President, Palo Alto Historical Association Greg Betts, Superintendent, Open Space & Science December 2, 2003 Renaming of the Arastradero Preserve At last night’s City Council meeting, staff was directed to refer the matter of renaming the Arastradero Preserve in honor of Enid Pearson to the Palo Alto Historical Association for review and comment. While I think it is a splendid idea to recognize Mrs. Pearson’s important achievements in park dedication and protection, I have reservations about renaming the Arastradero Preserve. My two chief concerns are: ¯the popularity of this preserve as a regional park enjoyed by equestrians, mountain bikers and hikers from around the Bay. Changing the name will cause confusion to visitors who have heard of the Arastradero Preserve from various outdoor recreation websites and referrals. ¯the costs associated with changing nearly 120 trail marker signs, preserve entrance signs, maps and directional signs on the Preserve would cost nearly $20,000. Attached for your reference are documents from our records on the naming of the Preserve that may be valuable to the Palo Alto Historical Association. In November 1984, Council received a recommendation from the Historical Association’s Street Names Committee that the property be named the Arastradero Preserve. Arrastradero is the Spanish word for "timber slide," reflecting the property’s importance as a site for the transfer of timber sawn in the foothills and dragged through chutes. Although the Historical Association at the time considered the names of Virginia Bothwell and Frances Brenner, who were very instrumental in the preservation of the Arastra LTD property, the naming committee felt that "additional persons were involved and selecting Mrs. Brenner would not be appropriate." The committee concurred with Park Ranger Geof Paulsen that Arastradero "reflects current geographic features (Arastradero Creek and Arastradero Road) as ~vell as the history of the area..." The Council, however, directed staff to work with the Historical Association "to develop an altemative recommendation or recommendations which would provide recognition to a significant event, person, or persons in Palo Alto history, or which is appropriate to the area’s location and/or environment" and a name not used in a prominent public facility, street or landmark. The matter was referred to the Council’s Finance and Public Works Committee in March 1985, and five alternative names were suggested, together with the name Arastradero Preserve. The minutes from that meeting reflect a lively discussion on the selection of a name other than "Arastradero Preserve." Further explanation of the names was requested from the Historical Association. Attached are copies of the staff reports to Council communicating the background and significance of each suggested name. On July 3, 1985, the City Council voted to retain the name of"Arastradero Preserve." I hope this reference material will be of assistance in your research. Please call me directly if I can provide any additional information from our archives. My office telephone number is 617- 3112. October 10, 1985 THE HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California Naming of Features on the Arastradero Preserve Members of the Council: This is an informational report. No Council action is required. Discussion Following Council’s directive of August 12, 1985, staff has selected these names for use on the Arastradero Preserve: Main House - Casa Maximo Martinez Stable Complex - Arastradero Stable (includes ring, barn and paddocks) Large Lake - Arastradero Lake Small Lake - This feature is to remain unnamed. Staff will recommend draining the lake in the future to eliminate flooding of the utility easement road to Foothills Park. Consideration was given to names previously recommended for the Preserve as a whole. Respectfully submitted, LAWRENCE C, WHITE Director of Parks & Open Space DAVID G. ADAMS ~LEMI~ .. ( July 3, 1985 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California NAMING OF THE ARASTRA PARK PROPERTY Attention: Finance and Public Works Committee Members of the Council: At its meeting of March 4, 1985, the City Council referred consideration of appropriate names for the City owned Arastra park land to the Finance and Public Works Committee (see attached minutes). The purpose of the referral was to solicit additional input on six suggested park names from the Palo Alto Historical Association (see attached CMR:196:5). A follow-up letter is attached from the Historical Association, dated June 16, 1985, responding to the Council request. The Council has also suggested naming of significant features on the property in addition to the park name. Major physical features include the large lake on the site plus a smaller lake/pond identified by signage as "Lake John Sobey." No information on John Sobey is available. Major structures on the property include the large equestrian barn and the large residence proposed for use as a youth hostel. The Historical Association suggests that these features may be given any of the six suggested names not selected as the park name. Re commen da ti on Staff recommends that the Finance and Public Works Committee select a name from the Palo Alto Historical Association list for the park. After the park name has been decided, names from the list may be selected for any significant property features or structures. CMR:427:5 -Arastradero Preserve -Maximo Martinez Preserve -Rancho Conte Madera Preserve -Rockland ~reserve -Anson Parsons Hotaling Preserve -Russell V. A. Lee Preserve Respective ly submitted, ROBERT M. BROWN Zoning Administrator J~N~ FLEMING £ Assistant City Manager KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CMR:427:5 7/3/85 2 P.O. BOX 193 PALO ALTO. CALIFORNIA 94302 June 16, 1985 Robert M. Brown Zoning Administrator Dept. of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Dear Mr. Brown: I am sorry we have delayed supplying additional information about naming the Arastra property. Unfortunately, either the members of the Street Naming Committee have been out of town or I have, and we have had a difficult time getting together. The name Corte de Madero means "timber choppings." In the 1830’s a new draying road (Arrastradero) was opened to get lumber to the southern markets. Following a trail made by. wild animals through the hills to the southeast~ it crossed Los Trancos Creek at the Arastradero Bridge. Arastradero was also considered a convenient road between two ranchos. There is also an Arastradero Creek which runs through the property. Recen%ly i had a call from Elena Vialo, a Spanish teacher~ who objected to the spelling of our Arastradero Road. She felt it should be changed to the Spanish spelling--Arrastradero. If this name is chosen, it might be wise to recognize there may be some objection to the present day spe}ling. The Rockland Lime and Lumber Co. owned by Henry Cowell (1820-1903) moved his company to his own ranch in Santa Cruz where he and his brother developed the limestone deposits on his property and operated ¯ lime kilns. His ranch eventually became the Santa Cruz Campus of the University of California. Russel V. Lee’s property was adjacent to this area, but he had no c<.nnection with the property. We hope this information will be helpful to the committee responsible for naming tl,is park. As for the other" ~buildings on the prop,qrty~ it ~.’ould seem appropriate after the park name has been selected that some of the other names suggested could be used. there is any other way in which our committee could be of assist- ance, please let us know. My telephone number is 325-9579. RU~-I, Wilson . Cha~:-,:~an~Street Names Committee Department of Planning and Con~nunity Environment (415) 329-2441 anfi l’ton Av4nue P.O BOX ~0250 PALO AL]’O. CALIFORNIA 94303 March 6, 1985 Mrs. Ruth Wilson Palo Alto Historical Association Street Naming Committee 743 Moreno Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mrs. Wilson, At its meeting of March 4, 1985, the City Council referred discussion of an appropriate name for the Arastra parkland to the Finance and Public Works Committee, a subcommittee of the Council. The Council requested that the Palo Alto Historical Association provide the Committee with additional historical background information on the various park names suggested. The Council indicated that they would appreciate additional biographical infor- mation on the name of individuals suggested and additional historical information on the suggestions of Rockland and Arastradero. The Council also asked for any information you might have on the historic roots of the name "Arastra", other than its being the name of the firm which previously owned the property. Apparently Arastra refers in Spanish to a quarry grinding wheel or something along these lines. I appreciate your perseverance in these requests. I can assure you that, based on ;the length and depth of the Council’s review of a suitable park name, the Council takes the park naming process very seriously and appreciates your input. The Council also requested that consideration be given to the naming of significant landmarks on the property, 1 can think of two features of the land which would warrant naming - the major lake on the property and a smaller pond which has historically been known as "Lake John Sobey". Both bodies of water are along Arastradero Creek. Other landmarks which might be worthy of naming would include the barn which will become an equestrian center and the large residence which is approved as a youth hostel. Sincerely, Zoning Administrator RMB/dlm February 28, 1985 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL PaloAlto, California NAMING OF THE ARASTRA PARK PROPERTY Members of the Council: Background At its meeting of November 5, 1984, the City Council approved a master park plan for the City-owned Arastra property. Included with the master plan proposal was a suggested park name of Arastradero Preserve, which was submitted by the Palo Alto Historical Association. The Council directed staff "in cooperation with the Historical Association, to develop an alternate recommendation or recommendations (on a park name) which would provide recognition to a significant event, person, or porsons in Palo Alto history, or which is appropriate to the area’s location and/or environment and which name is not currently used in a prominent public facility, street or landmark." The Palo Alto Historical Association has responded to the Council request in the attached letter. The Association points out that it is their policy to honor persons or events having some association with the area or property, as far as possible. The Association has recommended five possible park names: Maximo Martinez Preserve, after the holder of the original land grant which included the Arastra property; Rancho Corte Madera Preserve, after the name of the original land grant; Rockland P#eserve, after the lime and lumber company which operated on the park site; Anson Parsons Hotaling Preserve, after a well known whisky distiller who formerly .owned the property; and the Russel V. A. Lee Preserve, after the well known physician who owned land adjacent to the park property. The previously suggested name, Arastradero Preserve, is also an alternate suggestion. Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council select one of the six suggested park names for the Arastra property, or provide a name not considered by the Palo Alto Historical Association. CMR:196:5 Respectfully submitted, ROBERT M. BROWN Zoning Administratol \ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment INE FLEMING Assistant City Man~ Attachment cc: Ruth Wilson, Chairman of Palo Alto Historical Association Street Names Committee (Post Office Box 193, Palo Alto, CA, 94302) CMR:196:5 2/28/85 2 P.O. BOX 193 PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA 94302 February 6, 1985 Robert M. Brown Zoning Administrator Dept. of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto, Ca. 94303 Dear Mr. Brown: The policy of the Palo Alto Historical Association regarding naming streets and parks of Palo Alto is to honor persons or events associated directly with the area as far as possible. Our committee is grateful to Mrs. Dorothy Regnery for many of the recommended names. The prospective park encompasses part of the Rancho del Corte de Madera which was granted to Maximo Martinez in 1833. -~e feel the name of the grantee and the name of the rancho are of equal importance. Since the park will not be developed, it also seems appropriate to use the term Preserve. Following are listed two recommended names and an additional three which have been suggested: Maximo Martinez Preserve Martinez was born in 1791 at el Presidio San Francisco. After serving twenty-five years in the Spanish and Mexican armies, he was granted the Rancho del Corte de Madera in 1833. In con- trast to many Caltfornios, Martinez retained his rancho aftec the Mexican-American War, selling some and keepin~ the prime portions for his heirs. The Martinez adobe continued to be used as a family residence until 1901. Rancho Corte Madera Preserve We believe this name is very appropriate or a shortened version-- Corte Madera Preserve. Another cnqice could be related to the first lime kiln in Calif- ornia which existed on the park property. It was operated Dy the Rockland Lime and Lumber Co. Anson Parsons Hotalinq a well known California Whisky distiller and distributor acquired the land in the 19th century. He estab- lished an elaborate country place here on the San Francisco Peninsula. Russel V.A. Lee This well known Palo Alto physician was the founder of the Pa!o Alto Clinic and one of those most responsiblo for the Palo Alto Hospital built in 1931. His land was adjacent to the park property. .Si~cer e -. . Rdth Wilson Chairman, Street Names Committee ITEN #iZr lAMING OF ARASTRA PROPERTY (PLA ~) (CMR:tq6:S) Councilmember Klein asked for more input from the Historic Society on some of the individuals who were suggested for the naming of J;he property. MOTION: Counctlmember Klein moved, mccoy, deal by Woolley, to refer the subject of the naming of the ~rastra property to theFinance and Public Works (FIPW) Committee for further study and to consider ail five other names from the Htstortc Resources Board at thl s time. ~ouncllmember Fletcher asked what kind of information was hoped to be gained by the referral and what type of discussion was env I sl oned. 5543 3/04/B 5 CITY COUNCIL DEF;d~’hV, ZN1 OF P~.~NNING CiTY OF PALO ~I. TO Councilmember Klein said he knew nothing other than the brief description given and wanted to know more about Dr. Lee. He knew some of the things accompllshed by Dr. Lee and knew he was a per- son of some controversy. He preferred to name the property after Dr. Lee, but wanted to hear from some of the people who knew Dr. Lee when he was very active in Palo Alto. Councilmember Wltherspoon belleved in honoring hi’storlc persons and that the Lee family contributed much to the City, but there were other Lee properties for which would sooner or later be mere appropriate to ~$e his name. Her experience with pieces of prop- erty, such as the Arastra Property, that were in the public eye for a long time, was that it was hard to get the public to change the name. It could be named anything, but would always be called "The Arastra Land" or the "Arastra Preserve." She preferred the property be called the "Arastra Preserve." She would not support the referral motion. Councilae~ber Woolley said if the matter was to be referred, they should consider the other names at the same time. Some time ago, staff was asked to consider any other names on the present prop- erty that would conceivably be candidates for change. It seemed that since there were five names from the Historlc Association, Council might consider all names of the property at once. MAKER A#D SECOND IECLUDEO COESIDERATION OF FIVE EA~ES IN MOTION Counc ilmember Renzel generally concurred wl th Co unc llmember Wltherspoon’.s analysis. She believed that while some of the his- torical associations with the property were of some Interest, there was a fairly well defined identity of the property asso- ciated with the name Arastradero. It told people where it was and she believed Arastradero defined the nature of the land. The road and the Creek were named in relationship to that character. She was inclined to vote against the referral and support a motion to name the property the "Arastradero Preserve" that evening. Councilmember Fletcher said the name of "Arastradero Preserve" was originally recommended by the HRB. At the time, the Councll voted to look at other names.She was still satisfied with the name "Arastradero Preserve." Mayor Levy believed names gave the Counci! an opportunity to enrich the community in terms of making more evident to residents of the community people who made historical contributions to the community whose names otherwise might be lost with the passage of time. He favored using the names of individuals who were promi- nent in Palo Alto’s history or other types of events that were prominent or important in Palo Alto’s history. He disagreed that areas could not be changed. When he lived in New York, he remem- bered using the. Idlewild Airport quite a bit, and it was now "Kennedy Airport." He believed it was important to not lose the opportunity of enriching Pal o Alto’s hi story by the careful choice of names. Since Arastradero was already a name on the land, he saw the opportunity to add a new name. Councilme~ber Fletcher said when the Wilkle Way Bicycle/Pedestrian Bridge was being planned, Jim Hawkinson, a City employee, was killed riding a bicycle, and the bridge was named in his honor. She had never heard the Wllkie k~ay bridge referred to by any other name. Councilmember K1eln said sometimes name changes worked and some- times they did not. The Green Gables School was now the Duvenek School and everyone referred to it as the Duvenek School. He associated himself with the remarks of )~ayor Levy, and believed the City should not pass up an opportunity to use the naming of a major facility to honor a leading citizen from the City’s past, 5544 3/04/85 Councilmember Sutorius said he went into the discussion comfort- able with the name "Arastradero Preserve" because he bel ieve,d geographic identification was not inappropriate and there was substantial identification that al ready existed in the puhl ic’ s mind, He was al so comfortabl e with the recommendation to con- sider Dr,Lee’ s name being associated with the preserve. If it. went t~} a vote, he would vote to refer the ,hatter in the anticil~a- tion that "Arastradero Preserve"would still be among the names l)e considered. !f there was a vote for "Arastrader.o Preserve" that evening, he was will ~ng to settle on that name. Cmuncilmember Woo.lley asked about the difference between Arastra and Arastradero. Mr. Brown bel ieved "Arastradero" referred in Spanish to the sleds that were hi storically used i;o bring down logs from the hil I s. Arastra was associated with the firm who owned the prop~_rt.y before the Ci ty acqui $i tion. Councilmember Woolley said she had heard further explanations that iL had something to do with the slaughter of cattle and sn,nething to do with a mining operation. There was a wheel that h~d thing to do with breaking down the ore. M~)TION TO REFER PASSED by a vote of 6-3, Fletcher, Renznl Wi thersl)oon voting "no." Mayor Levy clarified that part of the referral was to also look at o Lher 1 andmarks in the Arastra property and discuss the bil ity ()f names for those landmarks as appropriate. ATTACHMENT H RESOLUTION NO. 04-09 RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SUPPORTING THE HONORING OF ENID PEARSON WHEREAS, in 1965, Enid Pearson chaired Palo Altans for Recreation and Conservation of Open Sites (PARCS), a committee formed to adopt by initiative a Charter Amendment requiring that all parks in the city be dedicated and that an election be required for abandonment of any parks or portion thereof; and WHEREAS, through this initiative process, the citizens of Palo Alto became aware that not only parks in the baylands and foothills areas, but also throughout the city were threatened by future potential development. The initiative passed by an overwhelming majority of the electorate; and WHEREAS, in the same year, Enid was elected to the city council, where she continued to be a forceful advocate for parks and open space. During her ten year tenure on the council, more that 185 acres of parks were added and later dedicated; and WHEREAS, through her votes while on the Palo Alto City Council she supported the formation of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District in 1972 and to this day she remains a passionate advocate for parks and open space; and WHEREAS, Enid’s vision and leadership were instrumental in securing Palo Alto’s open spaces and park lands for all generations to come. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Directors of the Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District proudly supports the recognition and honoring of Enid Pearson by the City Council of Palo Alto by their dedication in her name to one of the city’s most beloved parks. Adopted by the Board March 24, 2004