Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-02-24 City Council Summary Minutes1 e ITEM CITY COUNCIL Minutes CITY O� PALO ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, February 24, 1986 PAGE Oral Communications 6 9 0 1 Minutes of January 13, 1986 6 9 0 2 Consent Calendar 6 9 0 2 Referral 6 9 0 2 Action Item #1, Sidewalk Replacement Praject 6 9 0 2 Item #2, Rinconada Clubhouse Renovation 6 9 0 3 Item #3, Rinconada Children's Pool Renovation 6 9 0 3 Item #4, Annual Revisions to Conflict of Interest Code 6 9 0 3 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Item #5, Public Hearing: California Avenue Parking Assessment District 86-1 Recess from 9:20 p.m. to 9:35 p.m. Continue Item #8, Child Care Item #5-A, Request of Councilmernbers Woolley and Renzel re Boarding Houses in R-1 Zones Item f6, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation re Modification to Planned Community ty District 3182 for Property Located at 745 Emerson Street and Revoking Previous Approvals for Property at 744 Ramona Item #7, Report from Council Legislative Committee Item f8 -A, Request of Councilmepoer Klein re Opposition to County Gift Deed Regulation 6 9 0 3 6 9 0 3 6 9 1 5 6 9 1 5 6 9 2 0 6 9 2 7 =6 9 2 9 6 9 2 9 Adjournment at 11:15 p.m. . 6 9 2 9 6 9 0 0 2/24/86 Regular Meeting February 24, 1986 The City Council: of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:35 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Pati tucci , Renzel, Sutori us, Woolley Mayor Cobb announced that a special study session re CATV Government Channel was held in the Council Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Mayor Cobb announced that two Councilmembers indicated they would agendize the construction at 1001 Ramona Street as an emergency item. Persons wishing to speak on the item could still speak under Oral Communications, but he believed it would behoove them to wait until the item was before the Council as a regular agenda item. He would only call upon speakers once whether it was during Oral Communications or when the item was discussed. 1. Tig Tarlton, 250 Cambridge Avenue, spoke regarding the vandalism and trashing at City -owned parking lot No. 2 on Cambridge Avenue next to his property. After almost every performance night at the Keystone, lot No. 2 and the front of his office building were littered with beer cans, broken beer bottles, trash, garbage, vomit, etc. Occasionally, plants were torn up in front of his building. Overnight campers sometimes parked in the lot and allowed their dogs and kids to litter the flower beds and worse. Property owners on Cambridge Avenue, including himself, had enough. He urged Council rid the area of the public nuisance or at least post a sign and enforce the ordinance regarding no alcoholic beverages in City -owned parking lots and get the City cleanup crews to take over the task from private citizens. 2. Jonathan King, 1570 Walnut Drive, spoke regarding discussions to place housing at the Community Gardens site.. It was important to take a comprehensive view, and none of the major problems would be solved by looking at one little site at a time. Regarding the number of units, he read 40 housing units were discussed for the area, and gathered the figures were arrived at by looking at the entire area of the parcel including the Library and Community Center. He did not believe anyone was seriously considering replacing the Library or Community Center with housing so it made no sense to con- sider the number of houses based on the density which included those facilities. He urged Council consideration. 3. Charles Moore, 4845 Felter Road, Milpitas, spoke regarding transportation and submitted information (on file in the City Clerk °s office) which was submitted a year ago to the Los Gatos City Council and to the Sunnyvale City Council. The information pointed out how little progress was made. CalTrans seemed to do nothing except what they always aid only now under a new name. Some elected officials gave out typical political rhetoric about what should or could be done, all with horrendous price tags. His proposal was to upgrade the Southern Pacific right-of-way between San Jose and south and San Francisco including to the Ferry Building as a major transportation corridor for rail rapid transit. He proposed BART be extended to Milpitas, with a fight rail system in the Highway 237 and Highway 85 corridor. He suggested Council request an update from its County Supervisor. It 4as not yet practical to put BART into Santa Clara County, but something needed to be done in the interim. 6 9 0 1 2/24/86 4. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, spoke as Chairman of the Barron Park Association Creek Committee, and expressed thanks to staff and volunteers for their efforts during the February 12 through February 21 rain storms. Many people were unaware of the serious flood hazard in Barron Creek, which came within a fraction of an inch from going over its bank and flooding the neighborhood. On Friday, February 14, the first City dump truck dropped off five tons of sand and 1,000 sand bags in front of Bol Park. The Telephone Alert Tree was operating and by 3:00 p.m. neighbors were at the sand pile filling sand bags to protect their property. The creek crested at slightly under six feet almost completely filling the culvert before it dropped. On Tuesday evening, the Creek ran at more than 6.5 feet from about 10:00 p.m. to almost midnight. He commended Mike Miller and his people in the Public Works Department for an outstanding job of helping with sand and sandbags. Public Works personnel patrolled the creek for debris which might have been caught In the trash rack or otherwise impeded the water flow. The police were there all night and as many as four police cars patrolled the area ready to block off streets and alert people with their loudspeakers if flooding occurred. The Red Cross was also there. He expressed appreciation to the City Clerk and her staff. He hoped there was not another scare, but it was good to know the City was on the ball and there were capable, alert staff willing to help out to the extent possible. 5. Brian Carlisle, 1013 Ramona Street, asked members of the pub- lic interested in the construction at 1001 Ramona Street to stand and be recognized. Councilmember Levy asked whether it was proper to ask the City Manager for a report, on litter resulting from concerts at Keystone. City Manager Bill Laner said staff weul d need to prepare a report. MINUTES OF JANUARY 13, 1986 MOTION: Councilmember Sutorius moved, seconded by Woolley, approval of the Minutes of January 13, 1986 as submitted. NOTION PASSED unanimously. CONSENT CALENDAR NOTION: Council member Sutori ws moved, seconded approval of t►ie Consent Calendar. Referral None by Bechtel, Action ITEM #1.p SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT' PROJECT (PWK 2-4) (CMR:169:6) Staff recommends Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute a contract with Sanchez Construction Company in the amount of $203,330 for the base work and add alternates 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders of up to $30,500. AWARD OF CONTRACT Sanchez"Constrrction Company 6 9 0 2 2/24/86 ITEM #2, RINCONADA CLUBHOUSE RENOVATION (P Staff recommends Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to execute th Associates, Inc., in the amount of 2. Authorize staff to execute change to $24,000. AR 4-4i (CMR:163:6) e contract with Fowler & $160,251. orders to the contract of up AWARD OF CONTRACT Fowler & Associates, Inc. ITEM #3, RINCONADA CHILDREN'S POOL RENOVATION (PAR 4-4) (CMR:16 Staff recommends Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to e Associates, Inc., in the a 2. Authorize staff to execu to $7,000. Aw Fowler ITEM #4, ANNUAL REVISI £LE-CIC-II RESOLUTION 6492 ice-- o CODE FOR DESIG 2.09.010 OF TH RESOLUTION NO. MOTION PASSED •unan AGENDA CHANGES, A Vice Mayor Woo zone,. Cou,rc i l member Board of Supe Mayor Cobb s #5. Councilmem on the ag for othe NOTION: the it MOTIO absen xecute the contract with Fowler & mount of $45,954. to change orders to the contract of up ARD OF CONTRACT & Associates, Inc. DNS TO THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF ALTO ADOPTING THE. CONFLICT OF INTEREST ATED POSITIONS AS REQUIRED BY SECTION' E PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING 6346' imously. DDITIONS AND DELETIONS l l ey added Item 5-A, re Boarding Houses in R-1. Klein added Item 8-A, re consideration of the County rvisors proposed Gift Deed Regulation. aid 1001 Ramona Street would follow discussion of Item ber Fletcher did not believe it was fair to move items enda out of order because people who timed their arrival r items on the agenda might be inconvenienced. Comnc i 1 areaher Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to hear ear OR 1001 Ramona Street after Item #5. N PASSED by a vote of 7-1, Fletcher voting °no, Pati tmcc t. -TEM #5 PUBLIC HEARING: CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING ASSESSMENT '��: - -TemR:174:6) ayor Cobb announced it was the time and place for a Public earing regarding Council's proceedings for the California Avenue Parking Assessment District 86-1. There might be questions about the project:, and any interested persons might express their views in opposition to and in favor of any phase of the project. For the purpose of having an orderly hearing, Council would proceed as follows: First, a summary of the project by Marvin Overway, the 6 9 0 3 2/24/86 1 Project Manager, who would introduce the consultants. There would then be air expldndtion of the project, the assessments, the finan-. cing, end the bond sale by the team of consultants. Council would then accept questions from the public to be addressed to the proj- ect manager or the consultants, and such questions should be asked to obtain information and not to express the speaker's views on the project. Next, written protests would be read, followed by oral protests or objections, and finally, proponents would be heard. Mayor Cobb declared the Public Hearing open. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway said the project was the first phase of a two-phase process to provide additional parking in the California Avenue District. The project under con- sideration included the acquisition of the Keystone Lot for the purpose of public parking; the implementation of certain improve- ments to bring the parking lot up to City standards; the hiring of a consultant to prepare a Parking Structure Plan to address the feasibility of building parking structures on the combined Keystone/Lot 3 site and the Lote7 site; and the formation of the Assessment District. The need for the additional parking and alternatives were documented in previous reports, and staff had supplemental information. He introduced the consultants, Steve Casaleggio of Jones, Hall, Hill & White, who served as Bond Counsel, and Ri chard Clark with Security Pacific Capital Markets Group. Mr. Casaleggio said the financing program was a special "G -bond" assessment proceeding using a formula styled under the City Charter. If confirmed, the future assessment district would be capable of issuing assessment -type bonds payable over a term of years to finance the acquisition of the Keystone lot, improvements to it, and to fund the parking study. Typically, bond terms would be approximately 15 to 20 years under,present market conditions, which varied dependent upon when the bolds were issued. Leonard Bloom of the law firm of Kennedy, Bloom & Fletcher, er, San Francisco, asked whether the intent was to ultimately issue tax- exempt bonds as distinguished from taxable bonds. Mr, Casaleggio said yes. Brian Bol i tho, 2502 Birch Court, referred to letters from resi- dents of Birch Court Condominiums (on file in the City Clerk's office) regarding the zoning of Building 3. He asked if Council was prepared to take the •parcel out of the tax assessment dis- trict Mayor Cobb said Building 3 would be .part of Council discussion. City Clerk Gloria Young said the City Council had copies of all written protests received by the City Clerk's office as of that afternoon. She had since received five additional pieces of cor- respondence (on file in the City Clerk's office), all of which indicated, "I protest the new special assessment financing pro- posal which will be used to purchase the Keystone parking lot on Cambridge Avenue. I find this assessment proposal unnecessary and inflationary. 1 ask the Council to direct the City. staff to dis- continue .their activity on City Council Resolution Nos. 6485 and 6486." The correspondence was signed by Stephanie Dumas, 411 California Avenue, $8; Kevin James Heyeck, 411 California Avenue, $8; Florian T Frank, 407 California Avenue; Phillip G. Howard, 407 California Avenue; and Hallie Adler, 407 California Avenue, Suite #5g Mayor Cobb was advised by the City Attorney he .could take the cards from the public i n the order they were before Counc1 l , both opponents and proponents of the proposed action. 6 9 0p4 2/24/86 Brian Bolitho, 2502 Birch Court, lived in the Birch Court Condominiums, and understood the land was previously zoned commer- cial, and since then their residential complex was built. He served on the Board of Directors for 21 months and knew the condo- miniums had enough parking for the owners and ample parking for visitors. He did not believe the co,iominiums should be assessed a tax to pay for commercial development and asked the City Council to exempt Building 3, on the previously zoned commercial parcel, from the tax assessment. Leonard Bloom of the law firm of Kennedy, Bloom & Fletcher, Opera Plaza, San Francisco, represented the owners of the Keystone Lot and the California Avenue Keystone Theater property. At one time the property was owned by his aunt and uncle, who also owned the adjoining public parking lot, which was condemned by the City of Palo Alto. His clients received four meeting notices, two of which were revised regarding the assessment levied. The parking assessment was increased from about $2,200 to $7,500 on the California Avenue property. He suggested the notices were inadvertently defective because they called for written protests in the first instance and an assessment based only on the acquisi- tion of the Cambridge Avenue property. The. notices said nothing about the integral parts of the project and the expenditure of many millions of dollars over and above the t1,350,000 to which the notice was directed. If the property owners, the small busi- nessmen in the area, knew the program would end up in an assess- ment three or four times more than the notices stated, Council would have to bar the doors to keep the property owners from pro- testing the acquisition: He opined the acquisition of the prop- erty and its development involved an expense of millions of dol- lars before it could be meaningful and defied the fundamental con- cept of public necessity. The expenditure of $1,350,000 to acquire 49 additional parking spaces did not make sense. Michael Goddard, 1140 Hamilton Avenue, owned no property in the subject area, but shopped on California .Avenue. He supported additional parking because it was difficult to find a place to park. He r : ved in Palo Alto for 43 years and watched a town, which was once single-family dwellings and small businesses such as grocery stores, hardware stores, small and large appliance stores, gas stations, and automotive repair shops, change into condominium developments and office b'ui l di ngs in the Downtown and California Avenue areas. Past City Councils took a quiet, nice Downtown area full of essential services and turned it into an overcrowded, noisy, often crime -ridden, giant ice cream parlor, eliminating most of the services the public used to enjoy. The Councils probably reasoned the services were no longer needed because there was so much traffic congestion with new developments nobody could get Downtown anyway. Developers had such control over past Councils that there was a recent development less than two blocks from City Hall with 21 living spaces and i9 parking places. What little parking was available Downtown, which should have been essential services for the citizens of Palo Alto, the City rented to commuters who worked in the office buildings. Most of the overcrowding problems were caused by past City Councils, and the present Council had an opportunity to complete the ruina- tion of the California Avenue shopping area, Without parking, most shoppers would go to Menlo Pars; and Stanford Shopping Center, and eventually the business would go away. He queried the impor- tance of Palo Alto developers making a few more million as .com- pared to t"'e citizens being able to carry on their business with- out constantly driving around trying to find parking spaces. The decision would show whether the City Council had the =nterests of the citizens in .mind or remained in the pockets of local developers. The more effort a local developer put into a project, the more the City had to pay when it bought the parking. If a person cared about the neighbors, or the people of Palo Alto, he would not purchase the property and would leave the way clear_ for the City to buy it and build the parking lot. 6 9 0 5 2/24/86 Saskia Boissevain, 410 Cambridge Avenue, spoke on behalf of the California Avenue Area Development Assoc,/ ati on (CAADA), a non- profit organization composed of professionals, property owners and tenants. Parking in the California Avenue business district was important to all factions of the Association. Their parking com- mittee, the_City staff, and Angus McDonald & Associates spent two years developing an assessment formula to bC\, equitable to the majority of people in the district. The three groups studied several alternatives to determine where parking was needed the most, and the results were based on need, economical feasibility, and location. In concurrence with the City staff, CAADA wanted to purchase the Keystone Lot, double -deck the Keystone Lot and adjacent Lot 3, and double-deck,Lot 7 on Sherman Avenue. CAADA believed those actions served the area best for the present and long-term needs. CAADA wanted to create parking to benefit the entire district. Technical questions should be directed to the staff and members of the parking committee. Terry Shuchat, 290 California Avenue, owned a retail store and property in the California Avenue area, and saw the need for parking. ----During peak traffic periods when parking was difficult to find, he received complaints from customers. Steps needed to be taken to provide additional parking. Without adequate:parking, customers would take their business elsewhere. Once a retail area lost its customer base, property veiues dropped and rents decreased. - A good example of an area parking pro:' lem occurred during the 1970s when the California State Department of Unemployment Office was located on Sherman Avenue. During that period, parking lots were always full which resulted in vacant office space and below -market rent. It was the last opportunity to give the California Avenue area adequate parking. The California Avenue area should remain a retail shopping area with adequate parking for customers and not become another Downtown office center with inadequate parking. Bob Kavinoky, 2091 Cornell Street, spoke as a director of CAADA- In the recent study, the bio'ck which included the Keystone lot turned out to be the most deficient in parking. When the Social Security office was closed, and on Mondays when tip:- beauty and barber sloops were closed, there were no parking problems. but there were problems during the rest of the week. Keystone was right in the middle of the worst areas and represented 49 spaces. If those spaces were lost to development, another 32 deficiencies would be. added. When people could not find a place to park in the area, theywent over to Evergreen Park, which was the California Avenue auxiliary parking lot. The new assessment formula required a couple of years of work. Even before the need was seen, CAADA petitioned City staff for guidance on how to acquire the Keystone Lot, CAADA solicited. Council support. Counci ..lmerwber Sutorius queried whether CAADA considered the con- cerns and had comments regarding the Birch Court Condominiums, which had on -site parking, but whose residents asked for relief fro/ assessment, and the theater whose patronage did not occur when there was any parking deficiency. Mir. Kavinoky said both issues w e raised during the joint study session with CAADA, other Cali. nia Avenue people, and outside -consultants. The consensus wee those included should be as indi- cated in the present report and the formula remain as it was. The Committee did not consider the consequencee of eliminating one or more of the ecategories, but the elimination would obviously increase the amount of assessment on others. He was concerned tampering with the assessment district formula would delay the process. CAADA wanted to do what was equitable and had addressed the gUesti ons. . 9 0 6 2/24/86 24/86 Lino Guslani, owned property at 425 Sherman and 2456 Ash. He referred to written protests for exemption from assessments, and said for two years City staff, CAADA, and property owners met with Angus Mcbonalde & Associates to develop an assessment formula, which was accomplished after written notifications for public hearings and many discussions. A poll was taken and signed peti- tions from over 50 percent of the property owners favored the established assessment formula which was to become part of the proposed bond issue. To exempt the theater from the assessment formula would create a constant demand on City staff to change the assessment formula. To deviate and change the formula would create havoc, cause considerable problems with the entire bond issue, and create` .many inequities in the long run. The present requests for exemptions were from approximately ten percent of the property owners. The change in assessments to the various prop- erty owners would seriously erode the credibility of both CAADA and City staff who gave out figures of the proposed assessments. It was unfair to those who were nonexempt to pick up the costs for those exempted and have the assessment increased from 10 to 12 percent. He urged no exemptions be allowed. Counci l member Fletcher asked whether Mr. Guslani was involved in the group which originally formed the assessment formula. Mr. Guslani said yes. Councilmernber Fletcher was concerned whether the residential prop- erty owners were involved. Mr. Guslani said the residential people were invited and were vociferous with the McDonald group. Ted Thompson represented 410 Cambridge Avenue, and said the peti- tions given to Council were based on all three projects: the Keystone purchase, Keystone/Lot 3 decking, and Lot 7 on.. Sherman Avenue decking. The petitions were also based on staff figures fore i nd vi dual assessments and the formula developed. The City parking lots and County Courthouse were exempt from any type cf assessment. Most favored all three projects,' but if costs exceeded $4 million, he requested Lot 7 be held in abeyance for double -decking. Most agreed to the purchase of Keystone but not to the total program. In answer to Mr. Bloom's statement regarding the businesses not realizing the extent of the total project, CAADA went out of its way to make everyone aware of the total project. He said owners of 352,620 square feet of area, 49.64 percent of the votes, supported all three projects, and 4.26 percent were interested in the Keystone developments with reserva- tions. A total of 53.9 percent favored Phase I and 49.6 percent favored Phase II. He thanked staff for their hard work, the Council for its support, and the property owners and other people why supported the petition. Virgil Carter, 941 Emerson Street and 4135 Briarwood Way, was an architect for the proposed Cambridge Avenue project. He supported the need for additional parking in the area. Since the last acquisition, costs were approximately $1,000,000. He requested Council posteone final actions pending the opportunity to look at three Alternatives to provide more parking at significantly lower costs. He gave a slide presentation of the alternatives. The first option was to use Lots 6 and 7 on Sherman Avenue which con- tained approximately 300 spaces. If both lots were considered for double -decking, a level above grade, there would be no land acquisition costs whatsoever, a savinga of about $1,000,PJ0. The configuration of the lots lent itself not only to increased spaces, but a more, efficient layout than the smaller Keystone property, thereby reducing the cost per space. Sherman Avenue was some . :f stance from California Avenue, but the location of the two lots,from California -:;Avenue was approximately the same distance as being in one end of the Civic Center garage and walking to the elevators. If it was too far to walk in order to save $1,000,000, 6 9 0 7 2/24/86 Lino Guslani, owned property at 425 Sherman and 2456 Ash. He referred to written protests for exemption from assessments, and said for two years City staff, CAADA, and property owners met with Angus McDonald & Associates to develop an assessment formula, which was accomplished after written notifications for public hearings and many discussions. A poll was taken and signed peti- tions from over 50 percent of the property owners favored .the established assessment formula which was to become part of the proposed bond issue. To exempt the theater from the assessment formula would create a constant demand on City staff to change the assessment formula. To deviate and change the formula would create havoc, cause considerable problems with the entire bond issue, ane create many inequities in the long run. The present requests for exemptions were from approximately ten percent of the property owners.. The change in assessments to the various prop= erty owners would seriously erode the credibility of both ;AADA and City staff who gave out figures of the proposed assessments. It was unfair to those who were nonexempt to pick up the costs for those exempted and have the assessment increased from 10 to 12 percent. He urged no exemptions be allowed. Councilmember Fletcher asked whether Mr. Guslani was involved in the group which originally formed the assessment formula. Mr. Guslani said yes. Councilmember Fletcher wasconcernedwhether the residential prop- erty owners were involved. Mr. Guslani said the residential people were invited and were vociferous with the McDonald group. Ted Thompson represented 410 Cambridge Avenue, and said the peti- tions given to Council were based on all three projects: the Keystone purchase, Keystone/Lot 3 decking, and Lot 7 on Sherman Avenue decking. The petitions were also based on staff figures for individual assessments and the formula developed. The City parking lots and County Courthouse were exempt from any type of assessment. Most favored all three projects, but if costs exceeded $4 million, he requested Lot 7 be held in abeyance for double -decking. Most agreed to the purchase of Keystone but not to the total program. In answer to Mr. Bloom's statement regarding the businesses not realizing the extent of the total project, CAADA went out of its way to make everyone aware of the total project. He said owners of 352,620 square feet of area, 49.64 percent of the votes, supported all three projects, and 4.26 percent were interested in the Keystone developments with reserva- tions. A total of 53.9 percent favored Phase I and 49.6 percent favored Phase II. He thanked staff for their hard work, the Council for its support, and the property owners and other people who supported the petition. Virgil Carter, 941 Emerson Street and 4135 Briarwood Way, was an architect for the prcpo'`ed Cambridge Avenue project. He supported the need for additional perking in the area. Since the last acquisition, costs were approximately $1,000,000. He requested Council postpone final actions pending the opportunity to look at three alternatives to provide more parking at significantly lower costs. He gave a slide presentation of the alternatives. The first option was to use Lots C end 7 on Sherman Avenue which con- tained approximately 300 spaces- If both lots were considered for double -decking, a level above grade, there would be no land acquisition costs whatsoever, a savings of about $1,000,000. The configuration of the lots lent itself not only to increased spaces, but 4 more efficient layout than the smaller Keystone property, thereby reducing the cost per space. Sherman Avenue was some distance from California Avenue, but the vocation of the two lots from California Avenue was approximately the same 'distance as being in one end of the Civic Center garage and walking to the elevators. If it was too far to walk in order to save $1,000,000, 6 9 0 7 2/24/86 he suyyesxed option No. 2, which combined the City -owned lots on Cambridge Avenue. Currently one building, which provided sub- stantially increased spaces, separated four lots. The acquisition of a parcei less than half the size,of the Keystone property was necessary, and it was reasonable to assume the acquisition costs would be at least half as much, about $500,000. The geometry of the lot also lent itself to a greater and more efficient car count, thereby reducing the cost per space. If it was determined there had to be parking in the vicinity of the Keystone property, there was a third alteenative.. The alternatives consisted of two properties, 325 Cambridge Avenue and the City -owned parking lot adjacent to the post office, and a proposal for a project on the Keystone property. He suggested combining the two levels of underground parking proposed for the Keystone property which contained 90 spaces, all the spaces required for the project, with the project on the City -owned property which would consist of surface parking, one level above grade, and two levels below grade. The approach involved no land acquisition costs whatsoever. He estimated it was possible to obtain approximately 125 to 130 spaces on the City lot, which was a substantial increase in the proposed spaces in the project before Council. In addition, there would be the spaces required for the project, and should the City decide in its zoning ordinance changes to abandon the requirement for a loading zone in -the alley, six more spaces could be added. There was a great need for parking, but the real question was how much Council wanted to pay, and how it would be translated in terms of bonded indebtedness and in property assessments for many of the businesses in the area. The three schemes represented alternatives for adding substantially to the number of spaces at a significantly lower price, and in two of the three alternatives, no land acquisition Costs were required --a savings of $1,090,000. He believed the three alternatives were worth additional consideration: Councilmember Klein said Council studied parking in California Avenue for more than two years. Mr. McDonald did yeoman work, in which Mr. Carter participated or had knowledge. Given the study and effort, he asked why Mr. Carter's client had not submitted the proposal before, and whether the proposal was considered at great length by the McDonald report. Mr. Carter deferred to Mr. McDonald for the late r question.. The project at the Cambridge Avenue site was not a specific project at the time the Citizens Committee, the rezoning, etc., took place. He was well aware it was the eleventh hour and Council, the com- munity members, and CAADA spent a lot of time on the issue, but he believed there were some alternatives which deserved further con- sideration. Counci lmenber Klein asked if Mr. Carter looked at the McDonald report to determine whether the alternatives were considered. Mr. Carter said he scanned the report, but did not find the alter- natives. Some were completely studied, some in part, but he did not find anything which looked at the three alternatives in total. Cosncilmember Klein did not understand. The meeting was noticed for at least a month. Council had another meeting on the subject 'n January, and the development proposal was before it then. He asked why the alternative was not submitted in writing before. Mr. Carter said there were informal discussions, but he could not respond why there was no formal proposal.. Councilraember Klein asked staff whether the proposals were con- sidered in the McDonald report and the studies 6 9 0 8 2/24/86 Mr. Overway said he was not on board when the McDonald report was prepared and could not speak to having looked at the specific alternatives. In reviewing the documentation, he found no spe- cific reference, but in an October staff report, Lot 7 was sug- gested as one of the alternative sites. Staff looked at Lot 4, possibly combining the two portions for Lot 4; a triple deck on the Cambridge Avenue lot, and other alternatives. Out of the par- ticular process there seemed to be a consensus in support of part of Phase II, which was the purchase of the Keystone Lot, combining it with Lot 3, and going ahead with Lot 7. Location of parking relative to the deficiency was an important consideration. Councilmember Levy said Mr. Carter referred to land acquisition costs, but not to the overall costs. He clarified the overall costs for supplying parking using one of his three alternatives was better than the overall costs for supplying an equal amount of parking using the Keystone Lot acquisition: Mr. Carter said yes. More specifically, in the third scheme, the combination of the City -owned parcel and the private development on the Keystone property, would provide significantly more spaces, and instead of costing $18,000 per space for land acquisition and improvements, he believed the costs would be between $8,000 and $10,000 per space for substantially more spaces. Vice Mayor Woolley knew Mr. Carter's Plan B was in the staff report from last fall', and asked why it was rejected. Mr. Overway said Mr. Carter's Plan B was a little different. Staff looked at combining the two portions of Lot 4. The concept was somewhat similar, ,but the size was a 1itt.e different. Both involved intermediate properties which either needed to be built over_or acquired and removed. Staff considered building over the air rights of the existing building between the, two lots. He could not remember the costs, but because there wire circulation problems in going over the building, the number of available spaces wag ri ti„rnr{; and therefore, the costs were not attractive. in the case of the alternative presented with the structure between Lot 4 and Lot 9, the cost of the structure also had to be considered in evaluating costs. Sylvia Srni tham, 2514 Birch Street, lived in the Birch Court Condominiums. She disagreed with ter. (iusl ani , and said the resi- dents were never informed about the project until Mr. Knablin examined the property tax assessment fre California Avenue parking. Because it was a purely residential area with no parking deficiencies in the complex, they requested exemption from paying the assessment for purely commercial buildings. The parking deficiency in the Downtown and California Avenue areas concerned commercial property and had nothing to do with residential prop- erty which had ra parking deficiency. Albert Joshua, 14250 Miranda Road, Los Altos Mills, represented the partnership proposing the development on Cambridge Avenue. Since the inception of the project, ,it was felt there was a need for parking in the area. During their initial meeting with City staff, the partnership proposed a joint attempt to build a parking structure on City lot #3, hut it never materialized. The joint project was still an option the partnership would like to pursue, and it offered a solutlon from which the whole district eould benefit at a lower cost to the owners and tenants. Mayor Cobb asked why the plans were coming to Council so late in the process. 6 9 0 9 2/24/86 Mr. Joshua was. frustrated about the procedure. He approached City staff, the Real Estate Departments and CAADA, and did not know how to initiate the joint project at the later stage. The project was discessed with David Fairchild and Bruce Freeland in May, 1985. 1 1 1 Robert Corona, 260 California Avenue, spoke as Vice President of Keystone Family Incorporated, which operated the business known as Keystone Pali, Alto. The property was leased approximately eight years ago with a long-term lease. They were being penalized since their company and customers used the lot from 7:00 p.m. on; they had no daytime operation. For the past eight years they availed the lot, at no cost, to any customers of the California Avenue shopping district, specifically to people like Mr. Shuchat who built their buildings from property line to property line and did 4 :t provide one parking space. If the property was condemned, they were to be assessed from $2,500 to $7,500 because the parking spaces they leased were being taken away by the City. The first notice given by the City suggested the assessment would be approximately $2,500. Now _.the City realized they were taking all the Keystone parking spaces away and were going to assess for the loss of the parking spaces. He would have to pay $7,500 if $1,350,000 was the correct figure. If the figure doubled, he would pay $14,000; and if the figure tripled, he would pay $20,000. When he first went into business on the street, there were few businesses. Costs increased and they were faced with a situation where their rates went up 600 percent for liability insurance in one year. With the added burden of the assessment, it would be difficult for any of them to operate. Most of the businesses were not noticed. The owners were, but the people who leased the properties were the ones who would suffer, and the customer consequently would suffer because the increases would be passed on. He believed there were many business people on the street unaware of how the assessment affected them. If the Keystone property was condemned, he requested the Keystone Family Incorporated be exempted from paying for what were their parking spaces. Vice Mayor Woolley said the City made a valiant endeavor to ensure everybody was notified. She asked what effort was made to notify the merchants as opposed to the owners. Mr. 0verway said he personally delivered notices to half the merchants of California Avenue, and Dave Fairchild delivered the others. In each instance they went inside each building, and if the merchants were present, they were given a notice of the par- ticular procedure and process. If no one was there, a notice was left in the mail slot or door of every structure in the district. Councilmember Pati tucci asked about the trade-off with regard to the last speaker. A development was presently proposed on the site, and if the development went ahead, he asked what would happen to the Keystone lease. Mr. Corona said Keystone made a contingency agreement when the property was first taken because there were four parcels involved. If any of the parcels were condemned or put up for development at anytime, their lease reflected it. Co_unci l member Pa ti tucc i ..clarified the lease would be decreased. Mr. Corona said yes. Councilmember Patitucci said the private developer as well as the public action could eliminate the spaces. fir. Corona said yes, but ':heir business did not use the spaces from the peak hours of 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. They used spaces from 8:00 p.m. on. 6 9 1 0 2/24/86 Councilmember Patitucci asked if they would use the underground parking; Mr. Corona said probably. Councilmember Patitucci asked what the Keystone lease cost rela- tive to the assessment. If the property was taken away, the Keystone would not have a lease. Mr. Corona said Keystone would not have a lease for the condemned parcel but would have one for the other parcels. The lease reduc- tion would not offset the assessment by 50 percent. Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash Street, lived about three and one-half blocks north of California Avenue and participated in the California Avenue study generated by CAADA. In the last year, the parking in Evergreen Park moved up at least one more block. The proposal eliminated some of the parking in residential areas, which was one of the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. She urged Council to accept the staff report and take advantage of the opportunity to keep California Avenue a shopping area. In terms of Mr. Carter's suggestions, she believed they would be more bene- ficial than the specific proposal. Her concern was the possi- bility of some option being precluded because of waiting and looking at other studies. Assuming the other options were not available and would take too long to study, she urged Council adopt the staff recommendation. Richard Knablin, 2508 Birch Street, reiterated the desire of he homeowners in Building 3 of Birch Court Condominiums to be exempted from past and future parking district assessments. If Council chose to retain building 3 in the district, the square footage figures should be examined. His parcel size was listed at 1,013 square feet, but when he bought it two years ago, it was 666 square feet. Philip Lehot, 411 California Avenue, represented the owners and tenants a*, 403, 405, 407,, 409 and 411 California Avenue. He spoke to each of his tenants and no one, especially the two stores on the ground floor, favored the acquisition of the Keystone Lot. He also opposed the acquisition because the seismic ordinance already put a $12,000 deficit in their', budget. New construction should provide all necessary parking plus more since a deficiency existed. He did not like Angus McDonald & Associates' formula because it distributed the responsibility for new parking. It took him one and one-half years to convince Mr. Zimmerman an error existed in their .square footage, and he was convinced City staff and everyone else involved could do a better job of trying to cut down on costs. The people could not afford all the expenses the City was running up. David Schrom, 302 College Avenue, spoke about the litter in Evergreen Park as a result of the parking deficiencies in the California Avenue area. The cost to the people in Evergreen Park could be measured by the cost of the proposed parking structure in the district. In effect, any homeowner, and there were about 50 or 60, who lived where someone parked a car to do business in the business district subsidized the district in an amount roughly equal to the price of the spaces in the proposal. The time was right to act, and he was glad Council finally had an opportunity to do so. The last minute pleas for other proposals -were out of order. When the California Avenue Study was done, the objective was to keep the district more or less the same as i t was. To that end, 100,000. square feet proposed growth over the next ten years was set as an objective. The failure of the study and the zoning limitations were presently before the Council as the alternative proposal. About a third of the total space to be allowed in the 6 9 1 1 2/24/86 district over the next decade was proposed for. the lot. He urged Council to go back over the proceedings with respect to the down - zoning. The 100,000 square feet were to be eaten up with minor remodelings and handicap access, not 35,000 square foot office buildings. The Angus McDonald & Associates' Consultant Report indicated if the full cost of even parking were laid on the respective developer of any site in the district, development would halt. He queried how the people coul i suggest they could provide net parking to the district while building a 35,000 square foot office building at a time when tens of thousands of square feet of office space were unoccupied and cars lined neighborhood streets. He hoped Council would proceed to do something for the community. William C. Wonsch, 351 California, San Francisco, represented the owners of the Fine Arts Theatre whose concern was over the par- ticular assessment formula proposed for the district. He was sur- prised to hear representatives of, the Parking Committee say they were opposed to a modification to make the formula more equitable. Insofar as the special problem of the theater, no consideration was given in the development of the present formula. In 1983, representatives of the theater pointed out to the Committee and the City that the assessment formula was inequitable because the theater was charged with a deficiency of 110 spaces even though no operation occurred during the day except for a few hours on Saturday and Sunday afternoons t!ius having no substantial impact on the off-street parking. The Wilbur Smith survey did not go into the theater operations, and the McDonald formula simply adopted the requirement under the present City ordinance of 110 spaces without any consideration to the hours of operation of the theater and the impact on the off-street parking. The financial burden was not that heavy under the old bonds, but under the present proposal, assessment on the same basis meant the theater would have to cease to function as such. It was not fair to assess the theater it a ranner which did not give consideration to its benefits and forced the closing of a business which contributed to the community for more than 50 years. Councilmernber Bechtel asked when the first show began, including those on Friday evenings. Mr. Wonsch believed the show began around 7:00 p.m. Councilmember Bechtel clarified there were no 5:30 or 6:00 p.m. shows. Mr. Wonsch was not positive there would not be a 6:00 p.m. show during the week but was sure it did not begin as early as 5:30 p.m. Cou;acllmember Bechtel clarified Mr. Won:,ch was also affected by the seismic ordinance since his building was unreinforced masonry. Mr. Wonsch said yes. Mayor Cobb said on the advice of the City Attorney he would return the matter to the Council but leave the public hearing open. He asked the City Attorney to elaborate. City Attorney Diane Lee said depending on what .changes Council proposed, it mi:.oht be necessary to continue the matter until the following week. If the public hearing was closed, everyone would have to be renoticed. She would not know what to advise Council until the substance of any changes were known. Councilraeaber Klein asked how the percentage of property owners in the district who opposed the acquisition of. the Keystone lot was computed. 6 9 1 R 2/24/86 Mr. Overway said the percentage of protestors was determined haled upon the assessed lard area withie the district taking each property owner and equating his particular square footage of land area. His records, presently reflected it was equal to 21 percent of the total assessed land area in the district. Councilmember Klein asked if the other 79 percent included publicly owned property. Mr. Overway said no. Councilmember Levy generally favored the proposal. He referred to page 3 of the staff ,report (CMR:174:6) related to the necessity for the acquisition. Under item 2, it stated the 1983-84 California Avenue Study identified an existing deficit of 117 spaces. The next paragraph said previous checks on occupancy of parking spaces in the district indicated about 83 percent occupancy in the peak period overall. It went on to say during January, 1986, there was a 90 percent occupancy in the peak period. He read the data as indicating the deficit was not true, but there was in fact a 17 percent surplus, or there was in 1983, in the peak period. Even in January, 1986, there was still a 10 percent surplus in the peak period throughout the district. He understood in one small area or another the lots were 100 percent occupied although even in 1983, the Cambridge Avenue lot averaged 95 percent. He needed the two. paragraphs to be reconciled. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the parking deficit was based on parking calculations which were general standards. Particular activities might be somewhat different than the standards, but the major response was not all the cars generated by activities within the district parked within the parking lots. There was parking in residential areas on both sides of the California Avenue district, and if all those cars were added together, they would probably more than fill the spaces in the district if they parted within the commercial area. Councilmember Levy clarified the 10 percent surplus of parking spaces was caused by people parking in Evergreen Park., Mr. Schreiber clarified some employees did not want to purchase permits which allowed them to park in the existing parking lots and preferred to use on -street parking. The most available all - day on -street parking was outside the district in areas which were generally residential. Councilmember Levy did not believe it would make any difference to add more parking because employees old not want to pay the fees to use available parking. Mr. Overway said part of the reason for adding additional parking was because development since 1983 did not provide all its own parking. People might park in neighborhoods because of convenieece. By providing spaces in the area where the deficiency relative to the supply was the least favorable, he expected some people would take advantage of additional parking. Councilmember Levy asked if the second floor of the two-story parking lot on Cambridge Avenue was available for all -day parking and whether it was fully utilized. Mr. Overway said it was available for all -day parking and was not presently being fully utilized. Councilmember Levy said Mr. Carter's concepts of supplying parking at ,half: the cost of the concepts ,efore the Council deserved close scrutiny. He asked for comment. 6 9 1 -3 2/24/86 Mr. Overway was unfamiliar with the basis upon which the figures were developed so it was difficult for him to provide advice: Based on his past experience, the cost of providing underground parking was considerably more than providing above -ground parking on average due to excavation costs. Issues like utility reloca- tion, ventilation, daytime illumination and ground water added significantly to projects when providing underground parking. Therefore, without knowing the impact of those costs, it was dif- ficult for him to comment further. Councilmember Levy asked staff whether it made sense for CounRcil to table the matter for a week or two in order for staff to more thoroughlk review the alternative concepts. Mr. Schreiber said it was Jnot staff's desire although it was the prerogative of the Council. The costs cited by Mr. Carter did not include a land purchase. If the land purchase was factored in as part of the cost of providing parking, the per space calculations changed. Mr. Overway said there were many issues besides costs to be con- sidered, One was the actual number of spaces recovered. Without seeing the specific proposal, if both lots were combined into a single parking structure, the size of the lot increased signifi- cantly, the internal circulation became more efficient, and the aisles became less significant in terms of their space.require- ments. In figuring beforehand the different sizes of available area, he calculated the net- total area of putting four levels on the Lot C site had less space available than if two levels were put on the combination as proposed. The quality or nature in terns of parking supply in the area also needed to be considered. From staff's experience, the double deck at Cambridge was less desirable than the ground level. Subterranean parking would be even less desirable and probably not as fully utilized. He believed those considerations needed to be made. Ms. Lee referred to the question of how the City's costs to acquire the Keystone lot might increase, and said any delay in going forward -could increase the City's costs to acquire the property. As the clock ticked, the prices went up. If the City got involved in any kind of court proceeding, delays could be used against the City to increase the price it had to pay. Councilmember Levy said the comments regardsne aesthetics were significant. He asked if the peak period for parking was roughly 11:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. Mr. Overway said y.es. Councilmember Levy clarified the commercial recreational uses only contributed to the parking deficit on Saturdays and Sundays when they had matinees. Mr. Overway said yes. Councilmember Sutorius said the concept proposed the potential of Joint development recognizing House of Representatives ( HR) bill 3838 was still confusing to the municipal world and to all bond counselors. The effective date bounced back and forth as to whether it would remain January 1, 1986. Given the present status, he asked bond counsel's position if a joint development were proposed for financing. He asked how the bond issuance would be treated. Mr casal eggs o assumed *joint development° meant a private/city joint veeture. Councilmember Sutorius said yes. 6 9 1 4 2/24/86 Mr. Casaleggio said bond counsel would question whether the City could issue purely tax-exempt paper. The City could issue tax- exempt obligations for a parking lot or structure. It was called an "essential function bond" under HR 3838. When any privatiza- tion was infused, an allocation would have to be sought under the confusing state allocation system. Mr. Unruh was not presently providing any allocations. COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:20 p.m. TO 9:35 p.m. COUNCILMEMBER FLETCHER RE CONTINUE ITEM #8, CHILO CARE MOTION TO CONTINUE; Couf'cilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Cobb, to continue the item to the March 3, 1986, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously. RETURN TO ITEM #5, CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING ASSESSMENTS Councilmember Patitucci asked whether Council could look in depth at the alternatives presented under the current noticing and pro- posed actions or whether Council would have to start the entire process over by examining the alternatives and adopting one. Ms. Lee said yes, Council would have to start again with the notices, a new engineer's report would have to be prepared, Council would have to adopt a preliminary resolution of intention, give 30 days, and have the hearing again, Counc i lmernber Pati tucci asked whether eliminating a parcel or modifying its assessment was within the context of what was being considered. Ms. Lee said given the small percentage of change involved if Council removed the residential assessments, she believed Council could adopt the first resolution, which was the resolution of necessity but defer the adoption of the other two resolutions until March 3. In that case Council would not have to renotice or begin the proceeding again. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if there was any rule of thumb for a per- centage margin of error when setting the amount of the bond. Mr. Casaleggio said bond counsel endeavored not only to make estimates %efficient to acquire the property, make the improve- ments and do a further study, but also provided a lot of cushion. At the informal meeting, property owners were told there was a good-sized cushion, but all the costs were not yet known. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified the figures given to the property owners were the maximum. Mr. Casaleggio said the figures were the best maximums they could give predicated on certain' assumptions. They used a bond issue of 15 years, figured about a 10 percent amortization factor, and gave the property owners numbers based on their projected assessments. They tried to give a pessimistic idea. Vice Mayor Woolley clarified if Council made some adjustments, e.g., left the residential' assessment out, the actual assessment in the long run might not be as different as the figures presently indicated. Mr. Casaleggio said that was a fair characterization. Vice Mayor Woolley, refereed to the improvements breakdown for the costs of various improvements on page 14 of the engineer's report, paving, $1,000; signage, $4,000; striping $4,000; landscaping,. $11,000; bicycle facilities, $1,000; lighting, $5,000; and.miscel- laneous, $3,000; for a total Of $30,000. If Council went ahead with the motions, she asked about how long it would be before 6 9 1 5 2/24/86 Council had some idea of what would ultimately, be the Keystone Lot, i.e., whether to leave it "as -is" or build a garage. Mr. Overway said the decision required staff to retain a consul- tant to prepare a parking structure plan to look at the feasi- bility of parking structures and provide information needed to make the decision. It could be done fairly soon if there were funds available. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if it would take about two years before staff returned with a decision. Mr. Overway.believed it would more within a year,\ Vice Mayor Woolley said the City had used the Keystone Lot "as -is" for a long time, and most people did not realize it was not a City lot. It was not a good use of assessment district money to invest so much for such a short period. She realized the signs for parking regulations were essential, but signing seemed to be the only essential item. Mr. Overway said all the estimates were high. Staff included what would be required if the decision was to leave the lot permanently the way it was, in which event the City was required to.b ri ng the lot up to certain standards. In proceeding, staff would try to minimize the investment as long as the decision to leave the lot in a status quo condition was not made. Once the decision was made, or if it became indefinite, some additional improvements might be necessary, but not all $30,000 would be expended. The landscaping was an example of what staff would try to delay until there was a more definitive decision on the structure itself. Some things, such as portions of lighting and striping, were nec- essary for safe and satisfactory operation even in a temporary situation. Vice Mayor Woolley felt better. She was under the impression all the improvements would be made immediately. Councilnember Fletcher asked if stiff remembered whether the Birch Court development was actually built at the time of the McDonald study, Mr. Schreiber believed the Birch Court development was under con- struction during the latter part of the McDonald process. Councilmember Fletcher clarified the residents at Birch Court were not in on the process, and the property was still zoned commercial and considered a commercial property for purposes of the study. Mr. Schreiber said that was correct. Mayor Cobb asked how Council should proceed. Ms. Lee believed, because of the technical nature of the pro- ceedings, the first thing was to determine which properties Council would assess, whether Council would remove certain prop- erties from the application of the district, and things of that nature. Then, Council could get to the resolutions. A11 related motions should be taken care of before voting so staff could determine whether Council did more than it could do in order to pass the resolutions that evening. Counctlmember Bechtel said several Councilmembers were concerned about all residential properties, i.e., the Birch Court Condominiums and a single, residence at 2454 Ash Street, whose,. property owner did not proeest the assessment. The residence was only a quarter of a block from California Avenue so she presumed it was zoned commercial 6 9 1 6 2/24/86 Mr. Schreiber confirmed the property was zoned commercial. Councilmember Bechtel was concerned if Council excluded the prop- erty because its use was residential at the time of the report, what would happen if the property's use changed. Ms. Lee said Council would exclude residential uses; therefore, for the time the property had a residential use, it would not be assessed. Councilmember Bechtel said Palo Alto Central was a mixed use, and she did not believe they should be excluded. MOTION: Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, that all of the properties be included with the exception of the properties exclusively residential, as long as the residential parcels meet the City's parking requirements. Councilmember Bechtel said'the total annual assessment for the ten property owners was in the range of $900. Councilmember Levy said theassessments for residential uses weee modest, in the range of perhaps $60 a year, but if he was asked as a homeowner to pay an extra $5 a month for parking when he fully met all the City's applicable requirements, he would be perturbed. It was appropriate to exclude those residentially exclusive used lots which conformed to the City's parking requirements and which were carefully structured since the assessment for them amounted to a small change. MAKER AND SECOND AGREE' TO INCORPORATE •AS LONG AS THOSE RESIDEN- TIAL PARCELS MEET THE CITY'S PARKING REQUIREMENTS" IN THE MOTION. Councilmember Sutorius did not understand why the motion did not apply to the 24 residential condominiums at Palo Altc Central. The motion restated said residentially exclusive and to provide parking on site, which was the case with the individual condo- minium residence units. In fairness, if the decision was made relative to other residences which met the same requirement, ;he did not see why it should not apply to the Palo Alto Central residential condominiums. -Ms. Lee interpreted the motion exactly as Councilmember Sutorius stated. If there was another intention, she believed there might be a problem treating residential uses differently from other residential uses. Councilmember Sutorius agreed. If the motion was voted on the way it was interpreted, he would support it; but if the intent was to exclude the legitimate residences, he would oppose the motion. Councilmember Fletcher endorsed Councilmember Sutorius' comments. If a property was residential and provided its own parking, it should be exempt from the assessment. Councilmember Bechtel initially intended to exempt those prop- erties which were exclusively residential, and Pal o: Alto Central was a mixed -use project. She asked whether adding the 24 parcels involved rescheduling. Ms Lee said no. MAKER AND SECOND OF NOTION AGREED THE INTENT . AAS TO INCLINE THE 24 PARCELS AT PALO ALTO CENTRAL. Councilmember Levy asked whether . the Palo Alto Central residential units shared parking with the commercial portion of Palo Alto Central. 6 9 1 7_. 2/24/86 Mr. Schreiber said the Palo Alto Central residential unit: had both exclusive reserved parking as well as access to a larger pool of parking available to the commercial activities. Councilmember Levy asked if those units met the City's applicable residential parking requirements. Mr. Schreiber said yes. Councilmember levy cl ari t ,ed Palo Alto Central met the City's applicable residential parking requirements even though the residential units shared parking with commercial properties. If the spaces used for commercial purposes were taken away from the residential units. he asked if Palo Alto Central would still meet the City's residential parking requirements. Mr. Schreiber said the project started out providing all the resi- dential parking required. Later, additional parking was required and credited towards the commercial requirement. In the assessment district, commercial projects did not have to provide any parking, but the initial project as submitted had all the required residential parking. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Councilmember Bechtel asked. what Council should do next. She believed it was appropriate for Council to purchase the Keystone Lot. She heard comments made by the public about whether it was cost-effective but believed a street level parking lot had greater value than one underground or above -ground in terms of actual usage. Ms. Lee said presuming there were no other amendments, the motion to adopt the resolution of convenience and necessity should be the next order of business after the Mayor closed the public hearing, which he should do if there were no additional amendments. Councilalember Levy asked whether Council could consider commercial recreational uses the same way it just considered the residential uses and what effect would be made on the hearing if Council wanted to modify the assessment on commercial recreational uses. Ms. Lee said those- changes resuleed in a more substantial adjustment to the individual assessments; therefore, if Council went that route, rather than adopting any resolutions or closing the hearing, the hearing should be continued to March 3, 1986, in order for staff to prepare the necessary documents. Councilmember Leery clarified Council would be able to take final action on March 3, 1986. Ms. Lee said yes. Councilmember Levy said the question of commercial recreational uses was a more controversial area. MOTION: Councilmember Levy moved to modify the assessment for -cemMeirctal recreational uies to ore -half the level set by the assessment formula with the proviso that owners who wanted such coasi derkati oh gust apply for an -d cowply with the conditional use permit that limits their hours of operati cn i n such a. way that at least 80 percent of their operating time coincides With. the periods Of significant parking availability in the district. MOTION DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed, 6 9 18 2/24/86 MOTION: Counci 1 member Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Resolution of convenience and necessity. RESOLUTION 6493 entitled "RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETTIKINING—Trar THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE PROPOSED ACQUISITIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS" California Avenue Parking Assessment District WO. 86-1 Councilnember Levy spoke with many people during the break regarding whether it might be cheaper to do something other than acquire the Keystone Lots and he doubted it would be the case. He believed the Keystone Lot should be acquired by the City since it was more aesthetically satisfying to the public to have parking lots at ground level or no more than two stories. He supported the motion. Councflmember Sutorius was not sure his point of view was 100 per- cent coterminouswith some of the points'made that evening. With respect to underground versus grade and above -grade parking, the aesthetics of underground parking were not so compelling, but the underground level could be assigned to permit parking, and the ground level or half -depressed level or half above -grade level could be made available for public parking. The same concept was applicable relative to the existing Cambridge Avenue lot, where he looked forward to the first ground level there being restricted from permit parking in order to push the parking up to the second l evel . He was intrigued by the concept of a joint development. It was important to look for innovative ways for the public and private sectors to cooperate and produce something which in a well -designed situation would cost less. His concern with the concept before Council was there was not enough information to judge whether avoiding certain land acquisition costs would not be absorbed by additional construction costs. Staff identified cost factors of going underground, i.e., the circulation and safety factors, lighting, the water pump arrangements, etc. He had no doubt there were opportunities for private development to do some things less expensively. and a private developer looking at Plan A and Plan B might reach a different conclusion in terms of dollars. The time elements involved and uncertainties of realizable dollar savings were two important factors. With respect to HR 3838, no bonding could be pursued at that time on a joint development basis which involvedtax exemption. Council kept believing those uncer- tainties would be cleared up, yet more time passed. Regardless of whether the effective date was deferred, the final tax reform legislation would look carefully and stringently at joint develop- ment situations. He believed parking situations would be included in those with which snrne penalties were associated from the tradi- tional financing standpoint. He supported the motion. Council member Fletcher supported the motion but with less than 100 percent enthusiasm. Some smaller merchants and tenant -merchants were concerned with the financial burden. The assessment world raise the cost of running the types of services to which the City was accustomed, but it was hoped those businesses would not be driven out as others were by the high cost of doing business on University Avenue. On balance, she believed the motion was the right wa;i to go. Mayor Cobb noted the motion required a four -fifths, or eight votes, from the Council to pass. MOTION PASSED uni:4imous1y.' Ms_ Lee said the Overruling Protests Resolution could be passed that evening and only required a simple majority. Council would have to continue the remainder until March 3, 1986. 6 9 1 9 2/24/86 MOTION: Council ember Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the Resolution Overruling Protests. RESOLUTION 6494 entitled "RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS" California Avenue Parking Assessment District No. 86-1 MOTION PASSED unanimously. Ms. Lee said on March 3, 1986, in addition to Items C and D listed on page 6 of the staff report (CMR:174:6), there would also be a Resolution for Change end Modification which incorporated the change in the formula Council voted on that evening. MOTION: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Klein, to continue item to the March 3, 1986, City Council meeting. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #5-A REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBERS WOOLLEY AND RENZEL RE BOARDING HOUSES IN R-1 ZONES (PLA 7-8) Vice Mayor Woolley believed Counci l members -were surprised, when contacted by neighbors in the Professorville area, to discover it was possible under City ordinances to rent out for compensation as many as ten rooms in one house in a single-family zone. Rrian Carlisle, 1013 Ramona Street, lived in part of the historic area designated as Professorville. The previous Thursday he learned the house next door, 1001 Ramona Street, was bought by a developer who was gutting the house without a building permit. The house was the former residence of St.rford Law Professor Arthur Cathcart, which until a few days ago retained most of the original interior and woodwork. The living room was now gone, and a one -room residential unit complete with bathroom was framed without aepernit. While no permit was issued, a plan with former dining room and other common areas removed was shown to the Building Department. In an R-1 area, the developer proposed to install ten units each consisting of a studio room, bathroom, and a wetbar. The proposal was clearly a commercial business, a boarding house, not a single-family or dual -family unit. The City codes clearly defined., a lodging unit which the neighbors believed would preclude the proposed boarding house. The neighbors reviewed the matter with the Building Department, and he believed the consensus was while installing ten bedrooms and ten bathrooms was not the intended use for R-1 zoning, under Palo Alto's inter- pretation of the current Code, it was difficult, if not impos- sible, to refuse issuing a permit. It was a case in which developers and real estate interests showed a complete lack of. respect for the neighborhood and community i n which they worked by over -intensifying R-1 property. destroying a fine historic building, and downgrading the value and livability of other homes. He submitted a petition circulated by the nei gnoors over the last two days which had over 200. signatures (on file in the City Clerk's office). The petition requested immediate Council action on the issue. The petition urged a moratorium on abuse of existing- Codes and substantial damage to the neighborhood and for the Planning Department to define a "boarding house" and prohibit such use in R-1 zones. In an R-1 neighborhood, such as Professorville where there were many large homes, there was sub- stantial economic incentive for developers to increase the effec- tive rest cInti al density of the homes to produce sufficient income for resale.zt a profit. Such use or purpose was not intended under R-1 zoning and would substantially increase parking pressure in an: area which already suffered from such pressure from the Palo Alto Medical Clinic. The neighborhood objected strenuously to such use of R-1 property. Joe Huber spoke on behalf of the University Park Association. Prior to 1969, Professorville had :marry small apartments and big houses broken up into small units. The situation ceased when the i ni t1ati ve stopped the hospital proposal by the Palo Alto Medical Clinic, and the City Council returned the -area to an R-1 dwelling status.- Since then, present and past City Councils -did much to ensure the continued status. He served on the Downtown Study Committee, and one concern was the intrusion of traffic, parking, etc., into the neighborhood, and specifically the impact of the Palo Alto Medical Clinic in the area. The boarding house, with the possibility_of 10 or 20 people and 20 cars, was a big impact. The community wanted to stop growth in Downtown. He understood from staff there was no way to control the problem and that a moratorium was needed while something to allow the area to be kept single family was drafted. Maureen Eppstein, 1037 Ramona Street, was one of the neighbors who brought her house back from a deteriorated condition. She was concerned about the quality of life, not only for the homeowners, -but also for the renters who might move i rttu the lodging house. The subject house was big, and on a small lot with practically no yard. Under present City ordinances, the safety of the building could not be controlled. She queried what happened in the event of a fire. There was no way the City would require the owner to put in a sprinkler system or fire escapes. The neighbors were not opposed to rental properties in Professorville. Unless Council stopped the proposed project immediately and came up with regula- tions instant slums would be created. Linda Ludden, 1048 Ramona Street, lived about one-half block from the subject property for about 12 years and saw the ongoing struggle tQ bring the neighborhood back from a degraded condition. She was concerned about proposed use being acceptable to resi- dents, safe for renters, and compatible with the R-1 neighborhood. A precedent was potentially being set, and it behooved everybody to be careful. It appeered the development intensification in the old neighborhoods surrounding Downtown would increase due to the new Downtown ordinance direction. With a proposed floor area ratio (FAR) of 1:1 Downtown, and 0.4:1 in the service commercial areas surrounding Downtown, there would be a lot of pressure on the outside areas. Once developers could not take the same development potential of Oownto+rn, they would look for other ways to develop Palo Alto and the neighborhoods were next. . If the ten -bedroom, ten -bath development was an apartment or a rooming house by some kind of new definition, it would be required to have parking for the ten units plus guests, additional exits for the safety of the residents, fire alarms, and perhaps a fire sprinkler. system, etc. In order for the use to be developed in certain areas under the appropriate circumstances, it was necessary for rooming house uses to be codified. She suggested rooming houses provide adequate parking and not cause traffic problems and impact; adequate fire protection and exits; adequate landscaping to buffer the neighbors; and that review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the Historic Resources Board (HRB) in the nlsterlc neighborhoods be required. It was important to ensure adequately publicized public hearings for projects. The neighbors were concerned the older homes were being lost to use by families by being separated into smaller units. She hoped , some action could be taken that evening. Ken Al sman, 1 057 Ramona Street, lived on the block for :about a' year, and much of the time was spent restoring the 1901 house. It was important there be emergency action so the project could be looked at. His wife Linda was a designer, and he was a City-' Planner for the City of Mountain View and member of the HRB. The subject house was sound structurally, and the interior was in immaculate condition He distributed a description from the inventory which accurately described the, house as being well fenestrated and having a lot of detail (on file in the City Clerk's office) Over the past 75 years, the average stay per e 1 M43a family was about 20 years. There were no alterations except for the addition of a kitchen, which was done sensitively, in one of the bedrooms on the second floor. The house was fairly large, with an FAR of .65 on an approximately 5,000 square foot piece of ground. The house was used well in the past as a single-family residence. The house needed some care and not the kind of abuse taking place. The proposed use clearly exceeded what normally was thought of as R-1 use and was a commercial throwback to the 1960s. He contacted the cities of Mountain View, Cupertino, San Mateo, Gilroy, Fremont, Milpitas, Santa Clara, Los Altos, and Redwood City and none of those cities, except perhaps Gilroy, permitted the kind of conversion being proposed. For the most part the work was done without permits, although he believed there was an elec- trical permit for the main service. He suggested no plans be reviewed or permits issued until all the work already done was removed. Peter Valcan owned the property at 1001 Ramona Street. He did not intend to cause a problem in the neighborhood but rather to remodel the house which had not been remodeled for at least 60 years. A kitchen was added in 1940 which made the house a legal duplex. The house had six bedrooms, three and one-half baths and two kitchens. He queried people's expectations of a house that size, with 3,000 square feet and virtually no lot or yard. He proposed having no more than 10 people live there. He believed the house was beautiful, and he liked the neighborhood. He did not want to be considered an outsider. He was a homeowner there and favored the other projects in the neighborhood, such as getting the car repair places out. The people interested in buying the house when he bought it in December were ell investors. Those familiar with the Alsman's house on the opposite corner knew how much it took to put an old house into modern condition. His house was structurally fine, but the plumbing was antiquated and needed to be replaced. He did not rip out paneling that was there for a long time and only removed small things. He would be happy \ to show neighbors the inside of the house and wished they spoke with him instead of having meetings without him. He lived in Palo Alto for 12 years and was there to stay. He wanted to work with his neighbors and Council to do something to make everyone tappy. The project was his way of be F ng able to own the house; he could not do it any other way. When he went into the Building Department with his plans, he was told it was already a legal duplex. Retaining it as a duplex would not pay his expenses an the house. He was not destroying the house because he intended to return it to a single-family house in about eight years and live there. He was a builder who planned to improve not wreck. The exterior of the house would remain unchanged, and the interior would be preserved and improved. Councilmember Patitucci asked if Mr. Valcan was going to live in the house himself. Mr. Valcan said not right away; he rented in College Terrace. Councilmember. Patitucci clarified Mr. Valcan intended to rent the house to ten unrelated people. Mr. Valcan said not necessarily unrelated. Ctuncilmomber Patitucci clarified ten different people. Mr. Valcan said yes. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the ten people would all be adults and have vehicles of some kind. Mr. Valcan said he co -owned another property at the end of Ramona Street which had rooms, and many of the people who rented the roomsdid not have cars. 6 9 2 2 2/24/86 Councilmember Patitucci ask:A for the address of the property. Mr. Valcan said 219 Ramona Street. His thought was to look for people without cars. As he discussed with two Counciimembers, people could not be forced not to have a car, but generally peo'll e who rented a room with a bath were not high livers and would ,tot have a car although some did. The main parking problem in the area was during the day when people parked to do business Downtown. At night there was a lot of room to park. Mayor Cobb asked if Mr. Valcan proceeded with construction work without a building permit. Mr. Valcan said yes. His plans and intentions wereacceptable to the Building Department and he was told to apply for the permit. In such an old house, it was difficult to know exa':tly what to do until the walls were opened and the main sewer lip s were found, etc. He could not submit plans until he knew exactly what he would do. He did a lot of demolition and framed up some walls and everything was open for inspection. The Building Department was mainly interested in looking to see the work was done properly. Mayor Cobb clarified Mr. Valcan might convert the house back to a single-family residence and was also putting in ten bathrooms. Mr. Valcan said yes. Mayor Cobb asked whether the bathrooms would be converted back. Mr. Valcan said yes; he was doing the work himself, so it was much easier than most people imagined. Sandy Peters, 1021 Ramona Street, lived two houses from the one in question. She waited for Council's support. MAYOR COBB RE COMPLETION OF AGENDA Mayor Cobb proposed Council finish the agenda. RETURN TO ITEM #5-A, BOARDING HOUSES IN R-1. ZONES Councilmember Klein asked staff what the process was when aemebody started work without a building permit. Chief Building Official Fred Herman said a stop work order was posted on the job site, and the owner advised if he continued to work before he had plans approved and a permit issued, he would be cited. Councilmember Klein clarified the owner did that. Mr. Herman said yes. Councilmember Klein asked what happened next. Mr. Herman said the owner stopped work other than el a errical work for which he had a permit for a service change. The plans were not yet in plan check and were not accepted for permit processing. He believed the plans were rejected twice, Councilmember Klein asked the City Attorney what Council could de to alleviate the problemso"it did not come up again. City Attorney Diane Lee said Council could limit the number of rooms rented within .a dwelling and call it a boirding house after a certain number. In terms of a permanent solution, she believed it was one in keeping with the Adamson case. The more difficult problem was ghat staff would return to Council with as a mora- torium ordinance. It was more difficult because of the breadth:: of language suggested. 1 1 i Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the memo received from Councilmembers Renzei and Woolley contained a proposed motion which referred to a moratorium being drafted to prohibit boarding houses and a definition of boarding house which related to providing two or more rooms for compensation. The "for compensation" factor was virtually impossible to determine at the time of building permit processing and issuance. Staff might not deal with the property owner, or the ultimate property owner, and could not determine compensation with certainty. If somebody said it was not for compensation, staff had no grounds to challenge it. In past moratoria, a geographic area, usually zoning districts, needed to be established, but the present case of including all R-1 zoned districts did not seem appropriate. Staff first believed the Professorville Historic District provided the geo- graphic base, but the house was located outside the Professorville Historic District. The geographic area would be worked out during the week and returned to Council. Orienting a moratorium towards a geographic area was a critical factor. Staff needed guidance in terms of Council's comfort level with a moratorium which applied to a single-family residential area, whether it was the Professorville Historic District, a similar area. Vice Mayor Woolley asked whether Mr. Schreiber meant Council would make the ordinance be a moratorium on construction or remodeling of boarding house facilities, but would limit the zone to a specific smaller area. Mr. Schreiber .said no. He believed the ordinarce had to be a moratorium on certain types of construction. It could be a mora- torium on building permits for all homes larger than a certain size, e.g., 2,000 square feet; or on certain types of building permits, e.g., increasing the number of habitable rooms or bath- rooms. The moratorium had to be based on _ some physical, geo- graphic, size and type of change element, Vice Mayor Woolley believed Councilmembers would be reluctant to impose a moratorium which affected many single-family home remodelines, e.g., all those over 2,000 square feet. There was a lot of remodeling in the City for honest -to -goodness tingle -family use. MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by Renzel, 1) to direct staff to prepare an emergency ordinance for six months to establish a moratorium on the issuance of building permits for boarding house uses in the R-1 Zone with direction to staff to develop the language; and 2) refer the issue of boarding houses in Rw1 zones to the Planning Commission. Vice Mayor Woolley believed the supply and demand situation in Palo Alto was such the trend to convert a home to boarding house use would probably increase rather than decrease. She was sur- prised to l eern there was no ordinance on the City books to pro- hibit boarding houses. Even though the problem was complex and difficult, Council needed to address it. Councilmember Patitucci asked for comment on the Adamson decision. Ms. Lee said the Adamson case was decided in 1980 or 1981 by the California Supremi—raurt. The City of Santa Barbara had an ordi- nance similar to the City of Palo Alto's wAch defined family as those related living together, and for those unrelated the limit was four or =fire. The Court concluded one could not make a dis- tinction between related and unrelated people living together when they °constituted a bona fide family unit, which meant they did certain things and shared certain activities. In terms of some of the proposals made in respect to the property in -question, staff determined there should at least be some common living area and a semblance of coming together as a family_a Staff would start looking at anything received more critically in that perspective, Essentially, the Adamson case said one could not distinguish between what was or was not a bona fide family_ unit without invading people's privacy. Councilmember Patitucci asked if the fact people were charged individual rents was also part of the definition. Ms. Lee said the current definitions did not address the issue of using residential property for compensation. Many people in the community leased one or two rooms and the questions were when leasing became a business and a dwelling was no longer considered in a traditional residential use. Councilmember Patitucci was dismayed to hear any house which approached 3,000 square feet needed to be converted to a rental property in order to pay for itself. Living across the street from the Crescent Park School site and noticing the average size of the developments there were 3,000 to 4,000 square feet, he was concerned Council develop some way of determining the total housing mix in those kinds of units. It seemed some of the places were being built for 10 or 12 families. Councilmember Renzel concurred with Councilmember Patitucci's observations. Just a few weeks ago Council expressed support for encouraging families in the community. To the extent Council was unable to regulate the boarding house type of . use, more competition was added for families in the housing market. It was essential to do something to address the problem. It was clear Council regulated boarding houses and lodging houses in multi -family zones, and it was absurd the single-family home districts in every community in the State were unable to regulate boarding houses. There had to be a way to regulate them and Council must work in that direction. She supported the motion and hoped for resolution of the problem. Councilmember Levy concurred with Councilmember Renzel and the direction of the motion. He was aghast at what the developer .of the project said. He called himself a sensitive developer and proceeded not only to build without a building permit, but con- tinued to build after a stop order was placed against him. A second stop order was required. The motion .was to put a mora- torium on construction which was likely to kresul t in the rental of rooms for compensation. It would be fine to have the moratorium fine-tuned to allow one or two rooms which might be used as rental rooms. It was first necessary to get the moratorium on the books and then proceed to find a way to continue what he believed to be the backbone of Palo Alto --the single-family residential area used by what all understood to be a single family. Unfortunately, the Court- defined «single family''. so broadly, the character of the community was completely changed if the definition was allowed to be used in the extreme. If Council cared about the character of the community, it was necessary to find a way to get back to what Council called "single family," or something close to the single family given the changes in society, but not going to the extreme the Courts defined. Requiring a parking space for every resident over 21 for example, was one way of doing so. The elements Ms. Ludden mentioned about ensuring adequate fire protection, or ARS approval, in the largest homes which clearly had rooms likely to be rented was another way to go. It was necessary for Council to be creative during the period of moratorium to find the answers. He believed the motion needed a time ,limit for the moratorium. Ms. Lee suggested six months -which he found satisfactory. The motion should be phrased to indicate Council's intention. He asked if the direction was clear to staff so Council did not have to be precise Ms. Lee said staff had a sense of where Council wanted to go and would return the following Monday. Staff intended to return something concrete for Council to adopt, and if Council wanted more fine tuning, it could be done then. 6 9 2 6 2/24/86 Councilmember Levy preferred to be tough during the period of moratorium so Council could ensure the particular project was stopped. 1 1 1 Councilmember Bechtel said Mr. Alsman mentioned he checked with various other cities in the surrounding area and only Gilroy appeared to allow something similar. She asked if staff knew what the surrounding communities required. Ms. Lee contacted other cities and was told requirements depended on how the problem was defined. With respect to how a family was defined for the purposes of the zoning ordinances, which was the problem Palo Alto was dealing with, other communities were no less. liberal than. Palo Alto because they were constrained by the Adamson case. She spoke with City Attorneys in Santa Barbara, unnyvale -San Mateo, Novato, and several other cities, and essen- tially all cities dealt with the is -sue of family the same way as Palo Alto. If people were unrelated, conditional use permits were not required to prove relationship or lack oe"-i t and there were no other .kinds of controls. Other cities treated the issue of boarding houses differently, and staff would review them. Councilmember Klein agreed with everything his colleagues said. The neighborhood deserved credit for the excellent presentation, the thoughtful positions advanced to help solve a difficult prob- lem, and the energy shown in getting themselves organized on such short notice. There was a problem which Council would try to solve. He regretted the builder created a problem, and he was aghast a professional builder would say he did not get a permit because he did not believe it was the right thing to do. The owner's behavior was outrageous and could not be condoned or excused in any way. To the extent he spoke as a City Councilmember, his personal position was the permit meant what it said. He did not expect to give special treatment to somebody who believed he had to scratch around a little bit before getting a permit and then did not obey a stop order. He hoped Council would pass the motion, and pass whatever staff recommended with appro- priate modifications on March 3, and move to a solution to the problem. Councilmember Fletcher also favored acting to prevent the boarding house activity, but she would be concerned if geographic limita- tions were imposed. She did not want such activity repeated in. any district. She_ suggested the matter might be dealt with on the issue of how many bathrooms would be added, etc. She asked about the limit on kitchens in en t-1 zone. - Zoning Administrator. Bob Brown said the limit was one kitchen unless a cottage unit was approved through a use permit, then two kitchens were allowed. - Councilmember 'F1 etthe .' believed there were other methods of dealing with the problem -rather than defining it in terms of geographicarea. Councilmember Sutorius supported the motion. Mayor Cobb associated himself with the comments of his colleagues, and most particularly those of Councilmember Klein. There were rules in Palo Alto and most people followed them. The area was left somewhat 1n the air, and he .asked if staff needed particular guidance in terms of area or would the action be City-wide. 'Mr. Schreiber sail staff needed guidance. An action city-wide was a much different matter than one for the Professorviil a area, an historic district or something similar. - 6 9 2 6 2/24/86 Mayor Cobb suggested for the purpose of dealing with the immediate problem since a generic solution would fall, the area be defined as the area bounded by Middlefield Road, Embarcadero Road, Alma Street and Addison Street. Councilmember Levy suggested the north boundary be taken all the way to the creek. Councilmember Sutorius had no difficulty with the parameters but believed the sense of the motion needed to include, for staff consideration, a recogn tion there could, and would, be legal duplex units within whatever territory was bounded because the subject property was a legal duplex. Whatever language was adopted needed to recognize ther=e were single-family residences, legal duplexes and legal cottage situations within the single- family residence areas. AMENDMENT: Mayor Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, to define the moratorium area as the creek to the north, Middlefield Road on the east, Embarcadero Road on the south, Alma Street on the west. Councilmember Fletcher had problems limiting the area. There were some beautiful old, large homes in College Terrace, and she queried why it was acceptable to build a boarding house i n College Terrace and not in the defined area. She saw no' distinction. Councilmember Klein believed Councilmember Fletcher's point was well taken. He was not sure why Counci i needed a geographic des- criptions and asked why the moratorium could not be functionally described. He believed Vice Mayor Woolley had an approach when she glade her motion. Mr. Schreiber said an alternative was to have the ordinance be a moratoriums on the issuance of building permits for boarding house uses in the R-1 zones City-wide. He cautioned no matter how staff trued to draft the restrictions, undoubtedly the City would end up with a situation during the next six months where people had legitimate remodeling and got caught up in the ordinance. Councilmember Klein assumed staff would come up with a functional definition which would include the problem being discussed but allow legitimate single-family home remodeling. Mr. Schreiber said it was all part of one spectrum with no clear delineation in terms of break point between legitimate single- family renovations. Councilmember Klein said staff heard the sense of the Council, and he recognized there were always problems at the edge. He saw the problem as being city-wide. AMENDMENT WITHDRAWN BY MAKER AND SECOND Mayor Cobb clarified the time limit would be six months for the ordinance. MOTION PASSED una imomsly. Mayor Cobb thanked the members of the neighborhood for bringing the matter to Council's attention. ITEM #6, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE LOCATED AT t 'DVS APPROVALS FOli PROPERTY AT 744 RAMOAA LA—T1T" R:Tb8: b ) Planning Commission Chairperson Pat Cullen said the issue regarding the property had been before the Council, Architectural Review Board (ARB), and Planning Commission many times over the past six years. At the last request for art extension of the 6 9 2 7 2/24/86 1 1 i approved development schedule, the Planning Commission believed the extension was unjustified because of the continuation of design plans over the six years and because the applicant's state- menes regarding the significant alterations on the approved plans he was contemplating would start the cycle over again. The Planning Commission recommended Council not approve the request. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing open. Earl Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, was surrounded by the subject project. He commended Zoning Administrator Bob Brown and the Planning Commission for, finally initiating action to stop the. project. The City of Palo Alto built into the Planned Community (PC) zone process a nest of spiders. When one looked at Palo Alto's problems in terms of growth a' d development and then looked at how much was related to the misuses of PC's, the project was almost a landmark case. It was used to make a PC ordinance for public convenience and public purpose. At the time, Mr. Schreiber testified 35 parking spaces would be required to meet the purposes of the commercial use in a garage being converted to offices, and if the division was forced, there would be 18 nonconforming parking spaces for the commercial property. Therefore, 17 spaces were the minimum to be provided. He clarified his information was contained in the Planning Commission minutes of October 24, 1979. The proposed ordinance said the parking lot was still of public benefit to create 12 parking spaces, which was five fewer than before. He disagreed the request consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in terms of reducing employee parking in neigh- borhood residential. Mayor Cobb declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Levy, to approve the recommendation adopting ordinance modifying PC District 3182, eliminating all references to previous residential approvals, and requiring the following: 1. Allowable Uses - Allowable uses for the property known as 744 Ramona Street shall be limited to twelve (12) commercial parking spaces serving the office uses at 745 Emerson Street; and 2. Property Maintenance - The property known as :744 Ramona Street shall be maintained in a manner so that safety and health hazards do not exist on the site. Existing reinforcing bar protruding from the concrete structure and access to the incomplete second story shall be modified in a manner deemed suitable by the Chief Building Official so as to substantially eliminate an existing safety hazard. These safety modifications shall be completed within six . weeks of the City Council action modifying the PC District ordinance. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled *ORDINANCE OF THE mull. OF THE CZTT F-- ALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 10.00.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO MODIFY. PROVISIONS OF PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) DISTRICT 3102 FOR PROPERTIES xNOWN AS 7!4 RAMONA STREET AND 745 EMERSON STREET* Councilmessber Renzel believed the history of the particular PC might have been predicted when the PC was permitted to straddle a' street and took up two properties and later involved a third property. She hoped Council . learned from it and recognized ownership was not a criterion for making zoning decisions. She hoped the project approved for .the corner of Homer and Ramona Streets would be re-evaluated following the change because she believed 1 t was poorly designed. PASSED una*i usly ITEM #7 REPORT FROM COUNCIL LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE (LEG 4-2) Councilmember Fletcher said. Senator Connolly introduced a bill to modify the Brown Act which controlled the manner in which the City Council conducted its meetings and the rights of anyone to bring legal action against a Council action. The bill would prevent Council from putting emergency items on the agenda and would allow any citizen to place actions on any agenda. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Woolley, to adopt Council Legislative. Committee recommendation to oppose AB 2674 and direct that the Mayor convey that opposition to the appropriate legislators. Councilmember Fletcher underlined the fact the matter would be heard in committee the following morning, and she trusted staff would convey the message by telephone. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mayor Cobb said he met with Assemblyman Vasconcel l os earlier that day and in anticipation of Council's vote did some vigorous lobbying. ITEM #8-A,. REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER KLEIN RE OPPOSITION TO COUNTY GIFT DEED REGULATION (PRE 3) MOTION: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Levy, to inform the Board of Supervisors that Council is opposed to the.,,proposed interim zoning ordinance and that the County should come' up with the tightest possible regulations consistent with the State ►ub division Map Act with respect to gifts. Councflmember Klein said an article appeared in the San Jose Mercer ; that day entitled, "County Wants to Halt Use Land Gifts, citing the opposition of tae City of San Jose to the pro- posed ordinance stiffened the backbone of the Board of Supervisors to be more strict than they might have otherwise wanted to be. He wanted the Palo Alto City Council to go on record and associate itself with the City of San Jose in trying to get a tougher ordi- nance. A casual reading of the ordinance indicated many loopholes and it would not accomplish its stated intent. It would be unfor- tunate if the ordinance went into effect without substantial amendments. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:15 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED: 1 1