The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2003-12-09 City CouncilTO: City Manager’s Rep r HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL ATTENTION:POLICY & SERVICES COMMIMTTEE FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT :ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DATE: SUBJECT: DECEMBER 9, 2003 CMR: 308:03 ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF MINOR PORTIONS OF PARK LAND FOR CONTIGUOUS LANDS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT ARTICLE VIII OF THE PALO ALTO CITY CHARTER AND PROPOSAL FOR WALTER HAYS SCHOOL/RINCONADA PARK - PROPERTY EXCHANGE WITH PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND AMENDMENT TO PARK BOUNDARY LINES REPORT IN BRIEF Several years ago, Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) mistakenly placed two portable classrooms and constructed playpound structures within the boundaries of Rinconada Park. At the request of the PAUSD, the City has panted the PAUSD permission to continue the encroachment several times, the most recent being in order to consider a PAUSD proposal of an exchange of land whereby the City pants it the land necessary to accommodate the structures currently on City parkland, and in exchange, the PAUSD pants the City an equal portion of its land. On June 23, 2003, the City Council referred to the Parks and Recreation Commission an "enabling" ordinance to authorize the exchange of minor portions of parkland for contiguous lands of an equal or peater area or value. On November 13, 2003, the Parks and Recreation Commission voted against the staff recommendation and recommended that Council refer the exchange of minor portions of parkland to the voters as an amendment to the City of Palo Alto Charter. The enabling ordinance will authorize the Council to adopt an ordinance to effect exchanges of minor portions of parkland for conti~ous lands of equal or peater size or value. The ordinance defines "minor" as no more than 4% of the total park area or 1 acre of land, which ever is less. CMR:308:03 Page 1 of 5 The 0.193 acre (8,405 square feet) exchange proposed by the PAUSD is "minor" as it represents a very small portion of the 11.2 acres (491,742 square feet or 1.7%) overall park site. To accomplish the proposed exchange, the enabling ordinance and an individual park exchange ordinance need to be adopted. Staff is also recommending that a portion of the park boundary near the Junior Museum and Girl Scout House be better defined than it is in the current Rinconada Park Ordinance. This more precise definition of the boundary could be accomplished in connection with the parkland exchange or on its own when staff returns with a park ordinance. CMR:308:03 Page 2 of 5 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Policy and Services Commission: Recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance authorizing the exchange minor portions of parkland for contignous lands of an equal or geater area or value in order to implement Article VII of the Palo Alto City Charter. ~°Minor" is defined as no more than 4 percent of the total park area or 1 acre of land, which ever is less. o Recommend that the City Council, pursuant to the enabling ordinance referenced above, adopt an ordinance authorizing the exchange of a 0.193- acre portion of Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) Walter Hays property for a 0.193-acre portion of City-owned Riconada Park property and define a portion of the park boundary. Recommend that the City Council adopt an ordinance clarifying the Rinconada Park boundary line near the Junior Museum and Girl Scout House. BACKGROUND At its June 23, 2003 meeting, the City Council considered an ordinance to authorize the exchange of minor portions of parkland for contiguous lands of an equal or geater area or value. The ordinance would implement the provisions of state law governing "election and procedures" for park dedication and abandonment that is incorporated into Article VII of the City Charter. The City Council moved to refer to the Parks and Recreation Commission review of the definition of ;°minor" as used in the proposed ordinance. If adopted, this "enabling ordinance" would allow the City Council to subsequently authorize exchange of minor portions of parkland by ordinance (Attachment A). On November 13, 2003, at a special meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission, the enabling ordinance was reviewed. The Con~’nission voted of 6-0 against the staff recommendation. Many commissioners stated that the proposed enabling ordinance would dilute the original intent of park dedication charter provisions. The Commission recommended, instead, that the Council seek voter approval of such a power in the form of an amendment to the City of Pato Alto Charter (Attachment C). Commissioners and citizens who spoke against the ordinance referred to a letter written by former Council member Enid Pearson (Attachment F). Enid Pearson, prior to being elected to the Council, chaired the Palo Altans for Recreation and Consetalation of Open Sites (PARCS). PARCS successfully spearheaded the initiative measure that amended the charter to include park dedication and abandonment provisions. CMR:308:03 Page 3 of 5 Several years ago, the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) mistakenly placed two portable classrooms and constructed playwound structures within the boundaries of Rinconada Park. When the City brought this matter to the attention of PAUSD, it was just starting its "Building for Excellence" prowam and requested that the City give it two years to rectif), the encroachment. The then-City Manager aweed to the request and wanted PAUSD permission to continue the encroachment until September 1, 2002. In 2002 PAUSD requested a one-year extension, and the City Manager extended the encroachment to September 1, 2003. The encroachment has again been extended, to allow Council time to consider this PAUSD proposal of an exchange of land whereby the City wants it the land necessary to accommodate the structures currently on City parkland, and in exchange, the PAUSD wants the City an equal portion of its land (refer to Attachment D). DISCUSSION The Proposed Enablina Ordinance The proposed ordinance authorizes the Council to adopt an ordinance to effect exchanges of minor portions of parkland for conti~m~ous lands of equal or weater size and value (Attachment A). The ordinance defines "minor" as no more than 4% of the total park area or 1 acre of land, which ever is less. Walter Havs/Rinconada Exchanae PAUSD has requested that the City exchange the portion of parkland on which the schools facilities encroach for an equal sized portion of contiguous school land. Staff believes that 0.193 acre (8,405 square feet) exchange proposed is "minor" as it represents a very small portion of the 1 ! .2 acres (491,742 square feet or 1.7%) overall park site. In order to accomplish the proposed exchange, staff is recommending that Council adopt the enabling ordinance. Staff would return for Council adoption of an individual park exchange ordinance. Staff is also recommending that a portion of the park boundary near the Junior Museum and Girl Scout House be better defined. This portion of the boundary was not precisely defined in the current Rinconada Park Ordinance. Clarification of the park boundary could be accomplished in connection with the parkland exchange or on its own by ordinance to amend the existing description in the Municipal Code. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATION Instead of approving the staff recommendation, the Policy and Services Committee could 1) endorse the Parks and Recreation Commission recommendation that the Council obtain voter approval for an amendment to the City of Palo Alto Charter to allow "minor" exchanges of land; 2) obtain voter approval to only amend the R~nconada Park boundary as proposed by PAUSD and, 3) recommend that PAUSD be required to remove the Rinconada Park encroachment. CMR:308:03 Page 4 of 5 RESOURCE IMPACT The property exchange involves equivalent areas of land in terms of size and value, Neither the property exchange nor the correction to the undefined park boundary would impact current park use or associated costs. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed enabling ordinance amending Title 22.08 of the Municipal Code, if approved, will permit conveyance of a minor portion of a park in exchange for an equal or geater area or value of privately owned land contiguous to the park. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed enabling ordinance, property exchange and park boundary definition are categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305; therefore, no environmental assessment is necessary. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Attachment E: Attachment F: Draft Enabling Ordinance authorizing the exchange of minor portions of park land ~" 2003 Council MinutesJune _.~, November 13, 2003 Park and Recreation Commission Minutes Site map showing proposed areas to be exchanged, new park boundaries and lot lines. City Attorney Report of June 19 Letter from former Council Member Enid Pearson PREPARED BY: BILL FELLMAN Manager, Real Property DEPARTMENT HEAD APPROVAL: Dire~Services CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: cc: Palo Alto Unified School District EMILY HARRISON Assistant City Manager CMR:308:03 Page 5 of 5 NOT YET APPROVED ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE EXCHANGE OF MINOR PORTIONS OF P~_RK LAND FOR CONTIGUOUS LANDS IN ORDER TO IMPLEMENT ARTICLE VIII OF THE PALO ALTO CITY CHARTER The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. Title 22 [Parks], Chapter 22.08 [Parks Dedication], Section 22.08.003 [Lease, abandonment, disposition of parks - State law to govern.] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: (a)Lands owned or controlled by the city which are used or intended to be used for park purposes shall be sold, leased or otherwise disposed of, or their use abandoned or discontinued only in accordance with the provisions of this chapter. Except as otherwise provided in the Charter, the genera! laws of the state of California as they existed January i, 1965, authorizing municipal corporations to abandon or discontinue the use of lands dedicated or placed in use for park purposes, authorizing the sale or other disposition of such lands, and providing procedures therefor and for matters relating thereto (designated as Government Code Article 2, Chapter 9, Part 2, Division 3, Title 4, commencing at Section 38440) shal! be applicable to the city of Palo Alto and to al! lands owned, used or held by it for park purposes, and said laws shall govern and contro! exclusively in respect thereto. b)The City Council may by ordinance exchange a minor portion of lands owned or controlled by the City which are used on intended to be used for park purposes for an equal or greater area and value of land contiguous to the park pursuant to the procedures specified in the general laws of the State of California as they existed January I, 1965 (Government Code, §§ 35440, et seq.) Any such ordinance shall be subject to referendum. A "minor portion of lands" shall be no more than the lesser of one acre or four percent of the area of the dedicated park affected by the change. SECTION 2. The Council finds that this is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no environmental impact assessment is necessary. // 031203 sm 0053285 1 ATTACHMENT A NOT YET APPROVED SECTION 3. This ordinance shall be effective thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: on City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mayor APPROVED: City Attorney City Manager Director of Community Services Director of Administrative Services the 031203 sm 0053285 2 Jane 23, 2003 Council Minutes Adoption of a Resolution Recommendina that ~-~,.,= California Building -"~= international Building: Re~l~=~,,.~s,b:andards Commission .~.mo~ ~,,~ ’ -" ~= -2004 "the ~"= -- - B~il~inn Ca,4=ano rlre ~ as the Edition of ,_:!, o,:,~ .....= ~__ ADM!K!STP~AT]VE -’-"--:---^~ Between the Cloy ~f Alto .Athens Amount or _~:/~,500 rOE One ~ear rot Workers’ comDensamon Contract Between the City of Polo Alto and Seiect Benefit Administrators~ inc in the Amount of $70,000 for One Year for Claims Administration Sen, ices for the City of Polo A!to’s Self-Funded Denta! Plan Aareemen: Between the City of Pa!o Alto =,,~ =Ky~,=W,K= SDO~"- Contract m=~w=-~n the City of m~io Alto and A~<uss - -- -’~ ~’ lnc., DBA Can-Am Construction in the Amount of S520,045 for No.hampton!Southampton System Rebuild Project (C]P 0:02) and the Contract Between the City. of Pain Alto and :~o4:.=,’~.’~- ~ = .n. Soil Filter Project for the Water Ouaiity Control,u’--~=,, (Wastewmter Tremcment inc, in the Amount of $300:000 for the Preparation of a Water Recycling Facility Plan for the Southern Region (Mountain View- i,qoffe~) of the Regional Water Quality Control P~nt Sewice Area - A Project 50% Funded by the State of C~lifomia View, Los .Altos, and the i own or ~o< Altos Hills =x:enoing for Animal Contro! ann ~nel~enng Sen, ices from ;ulv., Contract Between the City of ’~’.--.to.~i~o.,. _.~.nd .~,m..~-,,= Znternational Securit~s Company, in the Amount of ~, _~n,.-~00 for the First Year ~nd to Set the ~.~ .... nt for :=~ =,,h=~n, =~e Year of :no .~,~_~,,_~,. to an Ps~king ~er,,.~e,,-== C/W, O, ~, and SI~ Controls Between the Ci~’ of Palm Alto and A\;enidas in the Amount of S434,708, Pain Alto Communi~’ Child Care in the Amount of $435,5i2, Polo A!to Hediation Program in the Amount of $65;64!, and Adolescent Counseling q’---"-~-" ~’ ’_._,v)~=_- in :no .~.mo,_,,,~ of $89,782 for Resource Allocation Process Fiscal Year 2003-05 for ,~:em No 9, Freeman "no " Enid Pearson, i0!9 Forest CouP, said an agreementu.~..-=!,~=~w=~n the ~I~,~"ev of P-i~’= ~ Alto and the Paid Alto Unified School District (PAUSD) five years prior allowed the,~"~’SD~ temaora~ use of a potion of Rinconada Park, a park, foe schmol purposes, , ne Pm~k Dedication Ordinance ~ ¯ allow that type of use without adoption of an ordinance, ~-~ -~ar.,.,_n~.~ by the . u~=,., and ptaceo on the ballot for the vote of the reslmen~=. Herb Borock, ~, .O. ~^~~" 632, spoke in regard to marK’ o~ul~._aon’~’~" and removaJ of dedicated ~arkland. ne ~,.o~eo cooies of ~.=--~ne= beew~n the s~.a,-r and the PAUSD ~-~ ~-P;~-w_,-_ a of public record ~oun~ 1 Member Kishimoto said the Park Orainance.nlu~,.,T "~’-;~v=< .........were by the citizens to protect the quality of life for all residents. ~OT~ON:,.~.~,,r’~’,-~ Member Kishimoto,:.~,,m,~,’=a,...~, seconded_,by Kieinberg, to refer the item to the Parks and Recreation Commission for review. ~.~uncii Member Kishimoto commentedu l_~ ever ore acTe wBs too ~ ~u~.h, Council Member Kieinberg said preservation of the open space and honoring the cha~er was impo~ant. She stated the Park and Recreation Commission (PARC) would be the place for an open discussion to determine the terminology for current needs. Council Member ,....}.,.te said it was clarification of =~ was in State law as it ~ e~,.eu to ,.n= ,~,~y ~ Charter. .~A~orney Calonne said the City was looking for the Council’s interpretation of the Cha"~- ", Council s~oroved .-H:-- ~ .....~ ’- ’-- park exchanae policy needed to be made. Council Member Lvtle. said the’ Council could ~...mD3~,_’ ~ "~<., ~’un=~ ~ex: ’ of the ordinsnce with the K~nd= ot r.~ ~ue~ ~.~ heard from concerned m,awidua!s. City.~,.,.~,^ ~.~-~=’, ,_~ Calonne confirmed. Council Member Lytie queried the maker ~nd seconder of the motion. She said Jna~waua~s recommenoeu the review oT tne PARC and Planning and Council t~i"mh-~r ’x " ’......... r. einberg sa),s she was concerned about the timing and Council Member Kishimoto said there were a couple of former Planning Commissioners on the Council, Council Member Lytle said she understood the PARC would look at the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Pian) criteria as they did the review, ¯.’,~"~.On=loe, =,.ion theCouncil hemb=~ Freeman said the PARC would take into language that indicated the park acreage per thousands of residents, The approved housing eiement would :ncrease the population size, REPORTS OF O, F_TC,A~b Council "-, ,~’-- ~ ~-’"--~, ,M~m~_, K!..~nb~,u~ stated she would not panic!mate in the item due to a potential conflict of interest because her husband’s -" -- ~~o, m~r i~w firm , ~D,, .~.n~.~ Stanford in land use ,,,a~=,~ ~--~. Mayor Mossar ~z=,.eo she would not~a,- ~’~’~Ju~a._~= in the item due to a conflict of interest == her ’ -" ’~~:~n,o~ o University. ±~. Recommendation from ~,~=n,ord Liaison Commi~ee for Council aJthodze the Ci~ .Manager and City Attorney to negoti.e.te a development ~ur__m_n.~ with ~=~,~oro University based upon o~.,er letter reoaroing Mavfieid Site Vice Mayor Beecham s:ar.eo ~.~an,o,u o~ereo the Mayfieid site on ]une ,n 2003 to the City for 51y.~,’--~-~ for ~. ~ ~a year. in =..~,~"~-.~,~-,=.~= rot" ~’~n=~ rights to build commercia[ s~a~_. City Manager frank Sanest_,~,.~,~,~-= abou,, rn=., _ ~,..-~" major orovisions:. S~anford would lease the -" .....~ years for S~ a year~-a~, = site ~o ~h= Ci~, for for an athletic fietd complex~ 2) Stanford would build a complex, jointly ~_~n.~ by the ~:an~ord Athletics Depa~men: and the ~i~zs CommuniW Services bepa~ment, which wouid include two liahted soccer fields ptus one practice soccer field, ~ restroom storage faciii~,, p~Eking and landscaping. Once built, the facility would be turned back ove~ right to build_~ 00,O00. square, feet of commercial development’, ~., Stanford would build 250 housing units including 50 below market r~te units once the ~=~O~u .............the ~ht to ~H._~ui’Hl~ ~- .~:~00~ square Tee:,,,=~mum of 2uu~O~,u square feet out of a royal 06/23/03 SPECZ4L EDiT D~4FF RECREATION COMT~’~SSiON SPECL4L B~EETING November *" ~"’~1~ ~UOD Palo _Mto Ci~ Ha~ CiU~ Council Chambers 250 HamPton Avenue Commissioners Present: Commissioners Absent: Others Present: Staff Present: Ann Cribbs, William Oarvey, E!tie Gioumousis, Jennifer Hagan, Edie Keam~ and Lyrm Torin Judi~ Steiner Wyrme Furt~, Acting CiD; Attorney and William FelLrnan, Real Estate Manager, Vic Oj aldan, Ci~’ Council Liaison Dan Williams, Paul Thiltgen, Richard James, Ka~e Rooney, Da~a Calvert, Virginia Gibbons CA~LL TO OR_DER: ROLL CALL:Conducted by Virginia Gibbons AGENDA CI~-~NGES, REQUESTS, and DELETIONS: BUSENESS Meeting cNled to order by Bill Garvey at 7:05 pm None Oral Communications Tom Jordan. 474 Churchill Avenue: I am_ against staff recommendation to move this ordinance (minor exchange of dedicated parkland) on to City Council for enactmem because it violates the CiD~ Charter. In !965, this was passed when people voted on the Charter. It was explici~ that nothing can be done regarding the parks without a vote of’dae people. Ordinance cannot change the Charter. The appendb: attached to the Charter is not part of the Charter. It is for reference and details the sequence that must be foliowed to make changes to an?, park. There are procedures is ~e section that ~e CiD; A~o~ey’s o~ce refers to as fl~s ~or exch~e. ~ey ~e using a section ~a* does no~ ~ply. As enacted and in the mind of eve~one in 1965, is that the City Council. carmot do anything with parks (disposing of, etc.) except by vote of the people. Approving this ordinance would permit the City Council to dispose (exchange) of parkland contrary to the Charter. There is a way to do this., but if you do it this way, k will be messy and make a lot of people ahoy. There are better ways. Number one would be for the school district to move its property.- off the parkland. The second way, Council should put this ordinance in front of the voters to add to the Charter. If it;s drawn tightly enough, I’m not sure there v,~l be much opposition. I’m not opposed to efficiency, but I am opposed to wronf procedures and fl:Lis is the w-tong procedure and not the way to go. Emily RenzeL !056 Forest: I agree ~dth Tom Jordan’s remarks. I’d iil:e to read from a extemporaneous statement made by Enid Pearson ia~ !965 when this matter was going before the voters. "Palo ;Mto parks must be protected by Charter amendment, not by ordinances that can be amended by the Counckt alone ..... Changes must be made by the eiectorate." I’d Iike to reiterate that Tom Jordan’s remarks be heeded and par;: procedures be followed. Herb Borock. PO Box 632: I a~ee ~th Tom Jordan. The !965 Charter contained a 1o~ of words, the !969 amendment condensed the Char~er and changed the number of votes required to have the Council place removing something from park dedication on the ballot. State law of 2,,’3 votes that was included in the 1965 Charter, was amended in the 1969 Charter revision making that a majoriD" vote. The reference to state law is or3y on how ~o hold the election. .Ariel Calonne’s prior statements impeach his statements in the staff report for the ~ a.ks and Recreation Commission. Both statements relate to the i3 acre Bressler prope@’, Ci%; Council minutes of November 15, 1990, the bottom of page 65-28 and the top of 65- 29, Mayor Cobb asked if Council didn’t dedicate the 77 acres across the road from the Bressler propervy, could Council do a property exchange if land weren’t already dedicated. Mr. Calonne said he believed that once the propert3f was dedicated, that the effect of the 1969 amendinents to the Charter were to requh-e a vote o,_ ~ electorate for any process, which would undedicate the dedicated park property. Again on March 25, 1991, Council minutes page 66-18, Councilmember Kniss asked for clarification regarding a swap issue. Mr. Calorme stated that the Cib~ Char~er contained a re~%rence to a California government code provision pm~orted to aliow a minor exchange of parldand for contiguous propert3~. He opined those provisions in state law were not part of the Cib~ Charter and therefore, not applicable. Once dedicated, he did not belie~,e Council had the authorivy to undedicate without a vote of the people. Councilmember Kniss ciarified that any swap proposal would still require a vote of the people? Mr. Caionne stated that was co~ect. The language of the Charter is clear. SPECL~L ED;T DR.4FT Minor exchan~_es of Dedicated Parkland and Walter Haves/Rinconada Park Encroachment. Wi]Jiam Fellmma (Real Estate M~ager) expl~ed to the Co~ssion ~at ~o items were comb~ed ~o~e~er ~ hem ~~ ~.~. ~e ~Si p~ OI ~e issue is to clM~’ ~e code section to implement .~icle V~ of ~e CiU Cheer ~d ~e second p~ of ~e issue is m rect~ a problem created by ~e school dis~ct when ~ey encroached ~to CiD’ p~d. T~s ~ncroac~m ~o~s ~o g~05 squ~ m abom I/5 acre. Commissioner Gar~ey asked Wyrme Furth (Acting Ci7 Attorney) for the Ci~T Attorney’s viewpoint on the issue. Ms. Furth stated that we do believe the Ci7 Council can elect to adopt this procedure and then implement it. It is important to keep in mind that the issue is not whether or not the voters should be allowed to approve such a swap; the issue is how would you get it to the voters. If council elects not to adopt an ordinance like this, then our recommendation would be that when they want to do such a minor swap, they go directly ~o the voters. The alternative is to do what we do to most alterations of parkland, and that is to prepare an ordinance. The reason we have an ordinance for park improvements is that all ordinances can be subj ect to referendum, so in that case there are concerned citizens who wish to have this presented to ~e voters, we can do so. State taw that set this up was desig-ned to protect parkland. They distinguish between procedures for disposing!abandoning parks and essentially minor adjuswnents. The State did not defme minor. What Ci~, Council is see~’Ang, is g-uidance from you on; if you think it’ s a good idea to have a provision regarding land swaps, do you think minor shou!d be more specifically defmed? Second, whatever the process the CiD~ Counci! believes is approprime here, do you ttSnk this is an appropriate occasion for land swap? k’s always complicated when there’s a disa~eement on legal powers. The CiD~ Cound! picks its counsel (City A~orney) and you, as Commissioners for the CiD~, are emi~ed ~o reiy on their (Cit7 A~torney) advice. So you are entitled to say that assuming this is correct, what would we (the Commission) recommend? Commissioner Oarvey asked if Counci! decided to amend the CiD~ Cha~ter to allow the Ci7 Council the discretion to swap parkland, what would be the process, timing, etc.? Ms. Furth explained that they would place a Cha"ter amendment on the ballot and k would be scheduled for an election, probably at the next election. Vic 0jaldan (Cib~ Counci! Liaison) commented that he concurred with the Ci~~ Attorney’s statement and went on to say that it is kis hope that the Parks and Recreation Commission (as why not the Council should have the abiliU~ to swap minor potions of parkland. Commissioner Hagan asked if she understood the City Attorney to say that the Commission has the option of ignoring the Charter because there is an oppommib~ for rex%rendum ordinances? Ms. Furth stated no, that the Commission is entitled to an understanding of the Attorney’s advice, and that if the Commission disa~ees with the advice, they are entitled to do so. It could not be the advice of the Attorney to ignore the Charter and that the Cib~ Attorney’s advice is consistent with the Charter. Commissioner Oiommousis remarked that an)~&ing going to be permanently changed could "open a big can of worms" and went on to say that she would like to see the Charter siricfly held to, that it had been a hard fought battle for the parks ordinance and a valuable ordinance to have. She continued that she would be in favor of postponing the issue and having the amendment ordinance along with the regular election. Commissioner Garvey stated that he believed in streamlining the process and Wing Counci! the ability to swap minor portions of parkland and that it made enormous sense. However, with eve~,-thing depending on legal issues, it appears that park and recreation land is Pal0 Alto are so scarce that they need to be thoughtfully well protected. He recommended ~at the Con:m~ission recommend to the Cib’ Counci! that an amendment to the Ci~, Charter be put in front of the voters, which a!lows Council to make minor parkland decisions. This issue is so hnportant, despite legal advice the voters ought to weigh in. Ms. Furth stated that the Attorney’s Office has no recommendation on whether the Commission should be for or aga~st the issue. The advice is only about whether or not the City- Council should have the choice to make. The Attorney’s Of~ice does not have an opinion or x~nether or not this is desirable. Commissioner Hagan had previously passed om Vwo documents from Enid Pearson that were delivered to the P,~RC’s July 2003 meeting. Commissioner Hagan expiained that the ier~er reflects Ms. Pearson’s understanding of the initiative when it was orig-inally passed and what the legislative histo~ was behind the passage of the ordinance. The second document comaining two pages, noted that it cane from the minutes of the regular meeting of Council dated March 25, 1991, page !4. It is the discussion referenced by Mr. Borock between Council_member Kniss and Ci)- Attorney Ariel Caiorme. Commissioner Hagan suggested that the Commission take the advise of counsel ha i99! when the City Attorney stated to Cib’ Council that land swaps were not provided for by the Charter. Commissioner Hagan read into the record, "Councilmember Kniss asked for clarLfication regarding the swap issue, Cib, Attorney A_rid Calorme said the Cib~ Char~er contained a reference to .the California government provision wNch purported to allow an exchange of minor portions ofucu~cat~u ~- ~: .... ~ pm~---’-~uu’-- ~ forcunuguuub: ............ p~up=,~ ucb.:-- He opined *ureas-* the provision of state law were not part of the CiD~ Charter and therefore, not applicable. Once dedicated, he did not believe the Counci! had the authoriD~ to undedica~ed through a~y means v~dthout the vote of the people.." and went on to say that the ordinance now being proposed is 100% contrary to _Mr. Calonne’s 1991 interpretation. Con~missioner Hagan went on to say that we have le~slative history before us and that since we have the interpretation the Cib~ Attorney made to Cib~ Council in 1991.. we should not approve this ordinance as proposed today. Commissioner Keating asked Commissioner Hagan ff she felt tha there should not be an abili~, by Council to do land swaps and if she thought it would be against the interest of the Cib7 to change this? Commissioner Hagm~ responded that the Ci~7 Council does not have the authority and that it can only be done by the majorib; vote. Commissioner Hagan went on to state that she is not m~g any statement about whefl~er or not it would be in the interest of the Cib.’, only that the Club; is asking for the wrong procedure the Cib; at the ctu-rent time. Con~nissioner Cribbs remarked that it is her feeling is that a Charter amendment is the way to go. Commissioner Torin felt that the public comments were most persuasive, but stated that she is not persuaded by the question of the size of the land swap. In her mind is the question of the precedent set by such a land swap. The Commissioner stated that they (P:M~.C) had been clearly instructed by the Council and that it is not the Commission’s prerogative to make any decisions regarding the legalities or illegalities of the issue. This is a serious matter regardless of the size and that the Council should take a look at this again and look at the precedence this sets. 3lOTION: Commissioner Garvey made a motion to recommend that Council do not adopt the ordinance in front of us this evening. If Council deems it appropriate for them (Council) to have the abiliO, to make minor land swaps of dedicated parMand, that Council put it in front of the vo¢ers as a revision to the CiO; Charter. Commissioner Hagan requested that the motion be broken into two recommendations, w~ch was seconded by Commissioner Torin. .~c,~z~,: Commissioner Garvey made a ngotion tO recommend ,hat "~ .... :r not adopt the ordinancb ht front of us this evenh~g. Motion seconded by Commissioner Hagan.FOR: 6 (Cribbs, Garve)3 Gioumousis, Hagan, Keatinb ToritO; A GA~rNST: 0 deems it appropriate for" Counci! to have the abitiO, ~o make minor land swaps of dedicated parMand, that Council pursue it by putting the issue it in front of the voters as a revision to the CiO’ Charter. Commissioner Gioumousis commented by reading from Enid Pearson’s statement, "~,~at we the authors of the park dedication had in mind was to make very sure that it would be ve~’ hard to eiiminate, exchange or change partdand without a vote of the people. Commissioner Gioumousis then stated that the ordinances are veo~ clear, no changes of use, no swaps of land, no matter how small without a vote of the people. Commissioner Gioumousis stated that she ag-reed w4th the ordinance that she would vote against this recommendation. Commissioner Torin stated that she does not recommend that counci~ go ahead with this ordinance as proposed. The commission con~nued with a discussion of their views of the issue including the defmition of minor swaps and giving Council this authorib~. Commissioner Torin asked Ms. ~ ",nOW°,,Fur~da, "did I understand you to state ~at Co~c~ has ~at power Ms. Furth responded yes. That the Commission has adopted a motion saying essentially tha whether Council has the power or not, this issue is so important that it shouid be done by a Charter amendment if Council is going to do it. The Attorney’s Office does not disagee on that point. If the voters of this ciD- want to authorize Council to do minor land swaps, the voters can do that. _Mr. Ojakian was asking for the Commission’s view on having the properly defmed land exchange power. The alternative to that is to decide on a case-by-case basis. Either alternative would go on the baltot. Commissioner Keating offered a substitute motion at which, Commissioner Garvey withdre~ his prior motion. MOTION: Commissioner Keating made a motion to reeomtnend that Cio~ Council pursue a Charter amendment that enables them to have the abiliO~ to swap minor amounts of parldand with minor to be defined either as eurrent!y proposed or more strictly. 3Iotion seconded by Commissioner Garvo,’. FOR: 6 (Garvey, [tagan, Keating, Torin); A G~_ENST: 2 (Cribbs and Gioumousis) A brief discussion by the Commission concurred that the Parks and Recreation Commission is generally in support of the Rinconada 1and swap when done approp~ately. AGENDA FOR J_~N~L~RY 27~ 2004 ~EETING i. Public ~-~earm~s on ~-reer rarK ~v~as~r r~an ATTORNEY TKE HONOPS_BLE C!TY Palo A!to, Ordinance of the Co,4_n_ci! of :he City of Pa!o Alto the o f ~:{i n o r P o r: i on s o f ....ma~~ L=_nd f or L~nds in Order ~- Ar:icle Vii! of :he Pa!o Alto Cizv A:~ached o!ease find an law :he "elections and mrocedmres" for s=~{cations.~ -~__which Ra= been....=p:~:fical!v, :~e state !aw ._ =~:~c~=d as an appendix to zhe CharZer since !965, a,~mc,~{zes :he Council, wiZhout an election, portions of park s~,d for ~e~d lmnds of or ~’==~=~~ .... area or value. (See =~ac<~ed ~---~:~ter, Arc. l be!ieve .these feasures were intended to ~o~:~:~=~.However l believe i: :s imoorLan% ~he Co~_nci_ ~o indica:={:s {:-=~-:,re~azion cf :he Charzer by enacting this crdinmnce befcre moving ahead mark exchange. oark land :o facili:ate correcci or: of :he z,~ S =m Attacb~m_ent Jm,.-,e ~o 20r3 cremZed when :he School Dis:rict un!-awful!v of -=ands ......4~ order =o avoid =he burden pcr=able c!~ssrooms./ City AZ :orne’v- AP8 : sm AZ ~_ a cb_men t s cc:Bo:_rd of Education - PAUSD Bob Go~ -- ...., Business SeL~ri~es, PAUSD A~acb_m~nt F Com~cii Member Enid P~arson June 23, 2003 Members of the City, Council, The invasion of Rinconada is one of the items t referred to in my letter to you r~-.,entty. i am glad that the city atl~orney is addressing this situation and attempting to make an illegal From what I have been able to find out, about five years ago an agreement was brokered between the city and tl~,,~ school district. This agreement was to allow the school district to temporarily use part of Rin~nada Park, a dedicated park, for school purposes. According to the Park Dedication ordinances, of which ! was one of the a~hors, such a use is not allowedwithout the adoption of an ordinance which can be referended by the voters and placed on the ballot. This was not done and I wonder if any member of the Council was even aware of this agreement. ¯ n~ ordinance before you is an attempt to make this illegal an conform with the ordinan~. The proposed ordinance has several problems, What this counci! should do is refer this proposed ordinance back to the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Planning Commission. inst.~n~, there are noThere are problems that need to be addressed by the public. For’ -~ " definitions of what is a "minor" portion of land. ts it 1/4 of an acre, is it one acre? could it ~ a percentage of the total area of a dedicated park? Do differe~ circumstanc, es warrant different answers? How do we define the value of park land vs private land? And when is contiguous not contiguous? If we look at all our dedi~zat~ parks, there are innumerable instants where swaps of land couid be envisioned. RiQht now, we have Rinconada and Terman. The Baylands park is being eyed by the SCV~tCD to complete one of its more e~regious projects - Matadero Creek. in the recent past, an exchange of an acre of Esthe~’Otark Park.was proposed to allow a private residenQ~. Imagine!!! And who knows what the final result will be with ~e proposal for a reservoir under El Cam!no Park, or Esther Clark Park, or Arastradero Park. Some parks are in the paths of proposed highways. Where does one find contiguous land for ~ huge ~,ars,e, ~f~iuiq ,eu~ndy p, opo~=u ~,, the B~.yiands: Where w~,, land be found adja~nt to any of these affronts that I have listed? And finally, how big does a project have to be before it falls under the California Environ- mental Quality Act? It might be a project, so onerous that even 1/4 acre or 10% of a park might quality for an EIR. Who knows, and what is the criteria as defined by PA City Council? Currently, we have no standards whereby the Council can make sound decisions or justify and the Planning ~ommission. Page 2 Finally, the very least that ought to done is,,~ apprise the School distri~ of t~s illegal act andnot~ the SchSof [D}striot that the Cib, expects the SD to take a~on .to ~rre~,t this situation on Rinconada Park. Thank you for your atte~tion. Enid Pearson