Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-01-10 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY OE PALO ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, January 10, 1983 ITEM PAGE Oral Communications 2.8 .2 3 Minutes of October 25, 1982 2 8 2.3 Minutes of November 1, 1982 2 8 2 3 Item #1, Election of Mayor and Vice Mayor 2 8 2 3 Item #2, Fiscal 1983-84 Transportation 2 8 2 5 Development Act Funding for Pedestrian/Bikeway Projects - Bryant Street Bicycle Bridge Item #3, Golf Course Building 2 8 2 5 Item #4, Additional Authorization for Baylands Boardwalk Renovation Item #5, Ordinance re Property Located at 3163-- 3197 Middlefield Road (2nd Reading) Item #6, Ordinance re Permit Parking Area in Southgate and Evergreen Park Neighborhoods (2nd Reading) Item #7, Final Subdivision Map 4250 El Camino Real Agend Changes, Additions and Deletions. ProposedAmendment of the Subdivision Ordinance to Provide a Process for Amending Tentative Condominium.Conversion Parcel Maps Item #8, Public Hearing: ° Weed Abatement Item 09, Public Hearing: Adopting 1983-84 Community Development Block Grant Program Item 110, Public District No, 24 Hearing: Underground Utility Item 111, Public Hearing: Planning Commission Recommendation .re Application:. of D&H„Midunczik, and A&C Nodopaka.for a Preliminary Parcel Map_ for Lot.DivisYon at 668 Arastradero Road Item 112, Finance and _Public- Works: Comi ttee Recommendation r Financial ` Reserves Item =413, Planning Commission Recommendation re>>New Air Rights Conceptual Development Plans for Parking: Lot Q 2 8 2 5 2 8 2 5 2 8 2 5 2 8 2 5 2 8 2 6 2 8 2 6 2 8 2 7 2 8 2 7 2 8 2 8 2.8 3 '9 2 8.3.2 8. 3`'2: 2 $8-_ 2, `1: 1/10/83 Recommendation re ate Commi ssi on Re omm Use Study land ICollege aItEY Item #Y4' Conversion P A G, 2 8 4 3 8 5 1 2 8 2 2 8 5:3 Regular. Meeting Monday, January 10, 1983 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. 1 PRESENT: Bechtel, Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Dan Gernand, Palo Alto, spoke regarding buses in Palo Alto. MINUTES OF OCTOBER 25, 1982 Counciimember Renzel had the following correction: Page 2615, third paragraph, last line, word "for"' should rom. MOTION: Counci lmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, approval of the minutes of October 25, 1982 as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 1. 1982 Councilmember Renzel had the following correction: Page 2633, third paragraph, second line, word "on" should be deleted,` MOTION: Councilmeaber Fletcher moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the minutes of November 1, 1982 as corrected. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM 01, ELECTION OF MAYOR SAND VICE MAYOR Mayor Eyerly announced that the City Charter stated that the Mayor and Vice Mayor shall be elected by the Council at the first. meeting in January to serve for one ,year or until their successors are appointed. Tonight's procedure would be as before —they would use paper ballots which would be opened by the City Clerk, who would announce the votes received for each ballot. The first Councilnember to receive a majority of five votes would be elected Mayor. He asked .Counci lrnembers to proceed with the first ballot for the office of Mayor. ELECTION OF MAYOR City Clerk Ann Tannerannounced the results' of the first round of voting: VOTING FOR EYERLY Witherspoon, Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino VOTING FOR BECHTEL: Klein 'Fletcher Bechtel, Levy, Renzel Councilmember_ Bechtel received five votes and was elected Mayor. Mayor Eyerly. ' congratulated - newly elected Mayor Bechtel. He said he appreciated the time and helpreceived from staff over the past year. Further, he congratulated the Council_ on their diligence in facing the issues, and' said he. appreciated the ',way in which the Councilmembers-voted as individuals, Mayor Bechtel thanked her colleagues for her victory, and thanked Councilmember Eyerly for an excellent past year. She planned to emulate Councilmember Eyerly's ability to be fair in appointments, and the recognition he afforded Councilmembers. ELECTION OF VICE MAYOR City Clerk Ann Tanner announced the results of the first round of voting as follows VOTING FOR FAllINO: Klein, Cobb, Bechtel, Levy, Fazzino VOTING FOR WITHERSPOON: Witherspoon, Eyerly, Renzel VOTING FOR EYERLY: Fletcher Ms. Tanner said that Councilmember Fazzino received five votes and was elected Vice Mayor. Mayor Bechtel congratulated Vice Mayor Fazzino. Vice Mayor Fazzino thanked his colleagues, and -Councilmernber Eyerly for a- wonderful year as Mayor. Mayor Eyerly set a long and prosperous period of bipartisanship in place, and he looked for- ward to working under that same tradition with Mayor Bechtel. He said that when he was doing City Council broadcasts for KZSD ten years ago, he did not expect that one day he would be Vice Mayor. He thanked City Clerk Ann Tanner who worked with him then and brought him into City Hall where he worked for two years before running for election to the City Council. She was a valued employee of the City of Palo Alto, and a close friend. He thanked Ms: Tanner for her contributions to his Council career. Councilmember Klein said he was concerned about the Council's following the "silent auction" method in selecting a Mayor and Vice Mayor. He asked the City Attorney if there was anything to preclude the Council from discussing potential Mayor and Vice Mayor candidates. City Attorney Diane Lee said there was nothing to preclude those discussions. Councilmember Klein said that next time the Council needed to make an appointment or have an election, he intended to make some type of statement as to who he would support and why. He encouraged his colleagues to do the same. CONSENT CALENDAR Councilmember Renzel acknowledged the City Attorney'.s report that provided a correction for. Item #5, Ordinance re Property Located at 3163.3197 Middlefield Road. POTION: Coenci lresber Cobb moved, seconded by Levy, approval ,of the Consent Calendar as amended. Councilme+r ers Witherspoon and Renzel asked to be recorded as voting "no," on Item #5, Ordinance re Property Located at 3163-3157. Middlefield Road. Councilme€abers Witherspoon Fletcher, Eyerly and Levy asked to -be recorded as voting "no." on Item #6, Ordinance re Permit Parking_ Area in Southgate and Evergreen Park Nei.ghbonceods. Referral Action ITEM #2, FISCAL 1983-84 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING_ FOR 1 Staff recommends that Council adopt the resolution authorizing the City Manager to file a claim for allocation of $35,000 in TDA Article 3 funds for the Bryant Street Bridge Pri.ject:. RESOLUTION 6084 entitled 'RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE FILING OF A CLAIM WITH THE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR ALLOCATION OF TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR 1983-84" ITEM #3, GOLF COURSE BUILDING (CMR:103:3) Staff recommends -that Council: 1. Authorize the Mayor to award the construction contract for Phase I Improvements for the Palo Alto Golf Course Maintenance Building, Project 81-32, to New West Construction for $62,780.00; and 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the construction contract up to 15 percent of the construction contract amount $9,000). AWARD OF CONTRACT New West Construction ITEM #4, ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION FOR Staff recommends that Council authorize staff to execute change orders of $9,993 to the contract with Jack & Cohen Builders. AGREEMENT Jackand Cohen Builders HAYLANDS BOARDWALK ITEM #5, ORDINANCE RE PROPERTY- LOCATED AT 3163 - 3197 MIDDLEFIELD ORDINANCE 3405 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF fHF l:3TT Ot PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.04(# OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL 'ODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE : THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 3163 3197 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD > FROM "*M -2(!t) TO PC (lst Reading 12/20/82, PASSED 7-2, Renzel, Witherspoon "no.") ITEM #6, ORDINANCE RE PERMIT PARKING AREA IN SOUTHGATE AND .... - ORDINANCE 3406 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF Tl -CTTT: ©F PALO ALTO ADDING. CHAPTER 10.46 TO THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING A RESIDENTIAL PERMIT PARKING AREA IN CERTAIN = PORTIONS OF THE SOUTHGATE AND EVERGREEN PARK NEIGHBORHOODS° (lst Reading 12/13/82x, PASSED 5-4, Levy: Eer y, .Pletcher,; Witherspoon voting ITEM #7,_ FINAL SUBDIVISION; MAP - 4250 EL .CAMINO;`REAL (CMR: 119:3) Staff recommends- that the City Council appr=ove the final map. NOTION PASSED with Cor nci In m berx _ Witherspoon; and Renzel voting °no,.: , of-_ Item P5, Ordinance re Property .: Located at 3163-3197 Middlefield Read, and Covacllme.eers Witherspoon* Fletcher, Eyerly and LevyVrtlsg "no,* rn Item 16, I#rdiniiace Permit Parking Area in Southgate and Evergreen Park Neighborhoods. 2 8 2,`5: 1/10/83, AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS Councilmember Eyerly said that at the last Council meeting, there was a motion to table a Planning Commission ,recommendation for an amendment to the City's ordinance allowing that tentative Condominium Conversion maps be amended. He desired that the mat- ter be taken from the table. City Manager Hill Zaner said Councilmember Eyerly's item would become Item 14-A. Councilmember Renzel asked the City Attorney if a tabled item required a majority- vote to be taken off the table, and whether that was necessary before it couldbe agendized. City Attorney Diane Lee said yes, but that the matter did not have to be voted on now. Councilmember Renzel said the packet contained an announcement of an all day January 19, 1983. Joint Powers Agreement Solid Waste Tour. She urged all Councilmembers to attend. Mayor Bechtel suggested that the Councilmembers vote now as to whether to remove the item from the table. If there were suffi- cient votes to discuss the natter, it would be discussed following Item #14, Planning Commission recommendation re College Terrace Multiple Family Land Use Study. If a majority of the Council - members did not vote in favor of discussion, the matter would remain tabled. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE A um FAR en- iTA177 e m _ a e ""' MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Levy, to remove from the table the Planning Commission recommendation for an amendment to the City's ordinance allowing that tentative maps be amended. Councilmember Eyerly said he was requesting _removal 'of the item from the table and to have it continued, because the Council received a letter in the packet from Scott Carey regarding the Planning Commission recommendation. When the item was addressed at the last Council meeting, -.he believed it did no,t receive proper discussion, in . part because of the lateness of the hour, and because it was a long process with a lot of material to read and the Council might not have been well read enough to know the exact substance- of the' matter. He did not believe it -should be dis- cussed in depth tonight because those interested persons were not advised that it would be discussed tonight, and might not be in attendance. :He believed ,'the Council should move to continue the item if removed from the. table. Councilmember . Witherspoon said she did not want to debate the pros and cons of the proposed, ordinance tonight, ,but wanted it con- tinued to a time when that would be possible. Councilmember Cobb said he was .:concerned about removing the : "tar baby" from the table, and believed it was only appropriate to bring : the, _matter off the table after the _Council ;had a clear sense about where _ to go with it, ,and what to do with it. He. did. not believe ..the Council was currently in that position. _ _If members of the Council wanted to deal with the subject, they should do their homework, decide how to _handle it, and get _`it out of its current stateof confusion. Councilmember Levy believed the matter was tabled because the agenda wat full and because : it was' a complicated item and diffi- cult to grasp, ..but" that 'did -.hot :mean it should be avoided. He said it, was =discussed in the Planning CommisSion and ,represented a 1 1 1 significant concern, given the number of units in Palo Alto that would be affected by it. He believed it should be dealt with and rejected directly or approved, but not rejected indirectly. Councilmember Eyerly clarified that once a motion VeDS made to table, the item remained tabled for that period of time which encompassed the meeting when the motion was made until the end of the next meeting, and then would become dead. Mayor Bechtel said she concurred with Councilmember Cobb who believed that the issue was one in which the Council had no clear direction, nor a solution. She would not support the motion. MOTION TO TAKE FROM TABLE FAILED BY A VOTE of 5-4, Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon, Levy voting "aye." ITEM 18, PUBLIC HEARING: WEED ABATEMENT (CMR:102:3) Mayor Bechtel said that this was the time and place set for a pub- lic hearing on Resolution 6080 declaring weeds to be a nuisance. Let the record show that notice of the hearing was given in the time, manner and form provided for in Chapter 8.08 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. She asked City Clerk Ann Tanner if she had received any written objections. City Clerk Ann Tanner said she had not. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests to speak, she declared the public hearing closed. She asked that the record show that no persons appeared or filed writ- ten objections against the weed abatement proceedings, and that. any resolution passed by the Council on the item would reflect that finding. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzlno moved, seconded by Fletcher, approval of weed abatement resolution. RESOLUTION 6085 entitled "!RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF PALO ✓ALTO. ORDERING WEED NUISANCE ABATEMENT' MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM #9, PUBLIC HEARING: ADOPTING 1983-84 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Councilmember Witherspoon, Chairperson of th. ;Finance and Public. Works Committee said that the Committee held a hearing on the Community Development Block Grant Program, and adopted the staff's recommendations "with few minor modifications. LOTION: Councilmember Witherspoon for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved regarding the Community. Development Block Grant Program that Coewcil adopt the staff recommendations as follows: 1. That: the proposed. 1983-84 COB program will not have significant environmental impact; 2 That the fifteen (15) ` p ,opasals recommended by staff, in CNR:100.3. be included in : the 10.83-84 CDBG program, and 3. That staff be authorized to submit „an '`application` .to HUD to include the Pale Alto 1,33-44 program, certified to be Cons l stem with the ,C1 ty's :- approved Community Development Block Grant Plan; and ..l That any... additional MUD funding` (e.g., higher 1983.84 allocation) ° be allocated 100 percent to the Rental Rousing Acgrlsltion Program. MOTION CONTINUED RESOLUTION 6086 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF LO ALTO APPROVING THE USE OF 1983-84 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDS" Councilmember Witherspoon, on behalf of the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee and City Council, thanked the Citizens' Advisory Committee, and Chairman Hugh Burroughs, for screening all of the proposals from the community. Councilmember Cobb said that the bottom of Table I, Note #4, stated that Project #1;;; Respite House, must acquire a. suitable property by July 1, 1984, and he asked how that would impact the way in which moneys were spent. City Planner Glenn Miller responded that it was a period in time where the Miralnonte organization had to find an appropriate prop- erty to purchase. The funds were not in the City's possession until the property was actually found and the _moneys were requested. If the funds were not spent by that particular time, they would have to be reprogrammed into another program. First, the funds would go into "contingency" and then be reprogrammed. Councilmember Cobb asked if another social organization would be deprived of the funds if suitable properties were not found for iii ramonte. Mr. Miller said if the period of time were indefinite, moneys would be deprived from other organizations, but the organization needed a certain amount of time to raise the seed money, and that policy was consistent with other purchases made. He said a cor- rection should be made to the Resolution, Section 1, No. #I3, should be "YWCA" not "YMCA." Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the public hearing closed, MOTION PASSED enanlraously. Mayor Bechtel commended the members of the. Citizens' Advisory Committee, and said she realized how much work it was with $1.2 million worth of requests, and about half that amount of money to allocate. ITEM #10, PUBLIC HEARING:.. UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 24 Mayor Bechtel said that on November 22, 1982, the City Council adopted Resolution Nev. 6077, Resolution of Intention to Amend Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by Establishing Underground Utility District. No. 24. By that resolution, January 10, 1983, at the regular time and place of meeting of this City Council, City Hall, Palo Alto, California were established as the time . and place for the Council to hear all protests and receive evidence for and against the formation ' of this underground' utility district and where. and when this Council shall consider and finally determine ..whether the. public necessity, health ' and safety require the establishment of; the district and the removal= of . Poles, overhead wires' and asso- ciated, overhead structures and the underground installa;tiron of wires and facilities for ;supplying electric, communication - or similar asscitidted 'services,`in "the district. For purposes -of Conducting the. hearing,.. the. Council would' first receive' a report on the project from City staff." The report would cover the scope and . extent of the district, tneo work to be done, and how it .would be financed. 1 I 1 1 1 Next, the Council would hear from any interested person who wished to speak for or against the - noject and/or ask questions about it. If someone wished to speak on the issue and had not already done so, she asked that person to fill out a card identifying the item and give it to the City Clerk. Also, any written protests against the project that were not yet filed should now he filed with the City Clerk. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing. open. Assistant Director of Utilities Mark Harr -4s said that the Down- town Palo Alto I Underground District' was composed of approxi mately eleven (11) City blocks including 132 parcels. The City would remove approximately sixty-one (61)_utility poles and over- head wiring and would replace an existing .four KV system with a 12 KV-"distribution system, ..to provide increased reliability and to meetany potential load growth in the downtown area. In addition, underground telephone and .communication. cables would also be installed. The project was presented in the Utilities Department Five Year Capital Improvement Program and was included in the 1982-83 operating budget. Affected property owners had been notified of the project on three separate occasions, and the City had received 62 favorable responses to its straw poll, which represented almost half of. the property owners in the district, and a favorable response to the project by about 52-53 percent. He turned the presentation over to Jack Taylor, the City's Chief Electrical Engineer. Mr. Taylor said that the major trenching of the project would occur largely in the alleys, and pointed out that no trenching would occur on lini versi ty Avenue because that was done several years ago during the Downtown Beautification Project. The purpose of the project was to replace deteriorated poles, and because of some poles which were installed several years ago without the benefit of easement, that were interfering with property rights. He said that the far pole behind the Fox Stanford Theatre was landlocked and hard to get at, and was deteriorated. A hole ,would have to be dug by hand in order to replace it, and a large 'crane or helicopter wcpld be required to set the pole because ,the fire escape stairs would preclude its being dollied in and ti ped up. He showed many slides •which indicated services going over buildings of property to which they did not belong, as well as the old distribution system. A number- of the poles had transformers on them, and one restriction was that when the need for power /as such that the transformers were heavier,;than the pole would carry, a two -pole rack was required. If they were heavier than what could be carried on a two -pole rack, then a three -pole rack was required. He said the appearances could be improved somewhat by painting them. When poles were hit consistently, they could be protected by a boiler plate, but it did not help the object that hit them. He said poles were not only dangerous when hit, but heavy' winds created a dangerous situation also. Undergrounding provided, on aesthetic , improvement and he showed illustrations which reflected some grotesque Cort tractions when, havi,rg to allow for new construction. He said that the City had deteriorated poles which needed to be replaced, and rather than replacing them the hard way, staff proposed to improve things on property rights, allow for controlled development without grotesque construction, "improve the aesthetics, and improve safety., Counci lmemer Eyer1y asked if the _ und ergroundii , on University Avenue between Cowper and Webster would be carried along the side - ,walks and . with a brick fill as was done in the " Beautification. Project. Mr. Taylor said that Cowper- and Webster was not part of -ject project. Cduncilme* er Eyerly said his 'map indicated a section between _Websterand Cowper, University and Hamilton. Mr. Taylor clarified that Councilmember Eyerly was talking about the alley because University Avenue had no poles on it. Mayor Bechtel asked if staff had received any written objections to the undergrounding. City Clerk Ann Tanner said no written •objections had been received. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing open. Receiving no requests from the public to speak, she declared the public hearing closed. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Klein, approval of the staff recommendation and introduced the ordinance amending Section 12.16.020 of Chapter 12.16 of Title 12 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code by establishing Underground Utility District No. 24 for first reading. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST READING entitled °'ORDINANCE OF THE ALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 12.16.020 OF CHAPTER 12.16 OF TITLE 12 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY _ ESTABLISHING UNDERGROUND UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 24" MOTION PASSED unanimously. ITEM X11, PUBLIC HEARING: PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE Planning Commissioner Eiden Christensen said that the Commission believed that the exception was justified because of the unusual configuration of the parcel, that the subdivision would not result in substandard lots except in one measurement on one parcel both lots created were larger than the size required by the Comprehensive Plan by about 15 percent, both lots were comparable to the neighborhood lot sizes, and did not believe that a traffic safety problem would be created by the addition of one more house, but asked the Transportation Department to look at the subdivision again. The Commission believed that the addition of one house was an offsetting benefit for the small exception created. Mayor Bechtel asked the record to reflect a petition which was hand delivered to the City Council in opposition to the lot split. Mayor Bechtel .declared the public hearing open. John Wood, 4156 icing Arthur Court, said he opposed the application, because of the traffic situation .on- that particular; corner which ran into Arastradero Road. Regarding the 'fact that the Transportation Department was requested to look at the subdivision again, he doubted whether that i-ndividuai witnessed the Aaeak traffic times.. He said that: the people who lived on the Court, had to turn right on Arastradero Road, and- anymore traffic backed up on that right side when building those ,.homes_ would increase :=the number of cars being parked there in addition_ to the-- cars already across- the street. Two cars`_ parked :on :both -Sides would preclude enough room for. incoming :and,, Outgoing cars; He said ; he. -l1 ed at the end of King Arthur ;Court,-- -and a rear -lot split occurred:: in back of\'that,locat.ion Some One :'ago. At - Oat time, thespeculator -was eloquent to- the :;P1ann-lnq Cam*lss.ion on how = and what was, planPed, and -'the" Planning Com fsslop' placed- restrictions -oh ,what could :gibe done and: approved= the -`rear: lot split : subject-: to "those restri,c:t" :ons. Virtually none: of. `the conditions were met: and he. was. concerned: that- the same, thing :would...happen . in hoped- the Council. had More consideration for the 'res dent;. 1 1 Michael J, Conklin, 4188 King Arthur Court, said he signed the petition in opposition. Approving the Planning Commission recom- mendation would not only approve a lot se `•t with a substandard one lot line, but would place the existing dwelling out of code by three different factors. The lot would not meet the setbacks for Arastradero Road or King Arthur Court, and the Planning Commission only required a condition to provide a garage on the property as it now stood. He submitted that if the Council approved the sub- division, Lot 1-A should immediately be brought, into conformance with the zoning requirements with the precise exception that they would be unable to meet the 100 foot lot depth. He said his comments were in addition to the comments made by Mr. Woods, as well as the comments provided in the petition. Mayor Bechtel declared the public hearing closed. Counci l.member Witherspoon said the previous speaker had mentioned the fact that the subdivision would not conform to the setbacks on Arastradero, but that according to her plan, the existing house -- even if it remained --had a 22 foot setback from Arastradero, and was only nonconforming in that it did not provide a garage at this time. Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said that as to the structures, the garage was a condition of approval. Mayor Bechtel asked if all of the setbacks were in conformance except for the garage. Mr. Freeland said that was correct. Counci 1niei ber Fletcher asked Mr, Noguchi to address the driveway and traffic. Director of Transportation Ted Noguchi said his staff looked at the site distance factor at King Arthur Court and found no significant problem. Regarding the driveway, his staff agreed that the driveway should be designed as far away from the corner as possible;. Mayor Bechtel asked what time of day the inspections_ were made by the Transportation Department, Mr. Noguchi said, the inspections were made during the evening peak hour, which was typically the wort period of the day. 'PIM! Counci.ioeob er Fletcher moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to adopt Planning Commission recommendations that the project will not have a significant impact on the environment; that the project, including the design or improvement, is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, and complies with the Subdivision Nap Act and Title 21 of the PARC; that the site is physically suitable for the type and density or the proposed development, that the snbdivisioa- is not likely to result In serious public health problems; that :there are not conflicts with public easements, and .finding that; 1 • There are special `circumstances or :.conditions ;affecting the; property,` in that, the substandard depth<ef prOpesed. parcel.; 144:. is date to an irregular cOnf1guration _and does not reedit in a' parcel of substandard area (parcel 2=A i s 6,935 square feet, 15% larger and the required minimuM of 6,000- square _feet); The exceptions are necessary., feri the preservation-- and enjoyment of, a pubstant it _property'.right of the petitioner; The granting of the exceptions will net be detrimental to the public welfare or -injurious to ether property in the territory in which the property it siteat d inthat,-"the propesed` parcelt. are consistent in size and ;configuration withthe neighborhood landhand use , pattern l, MOTION CONTINUED 4. The granting of these exceptions will not violate the require- ments, goals, policies or spirit of the law in that the pro- posed subdivision results in parcels which exceed the 6,000 square foot minimum, will result in two single family lots typical of others in the neighborhood, and will facilitate the development of an additional single family residence.;: 6. Recommending approval with exceptions from the requirement for a 100 foot depth on parcel 1-A with the condition that one covered and one uncovered parking space be provided on parcel 1-A; and 6. The future driveway on proposed Lot lA be located along the west koperty line of Lot 1A, and that a study be conducted by the Transportation Division to determine the safety of this driveway location. Councilmember Fletcher said that having seen the, lot, it was evi- dent that the lot was far larger than all of the surrounding lots. The current structures were not of such attractiveness that anyone might argue that everything should remain as -is for the overall aesthetic quality of the neighborhood. If there was a lot split and development occurred, she believed . it could do nothing but improve the aesthetics in that particular area. The neighborhood was nice, and would be brought LID to its standards by approving the motion. Mayor Bechtel said she lived in a neighborhood where there had been lot splits of larger sized lots, and she shared the concerns: of those who spoke from the neighborhood when the houses were initially under construction. In the long run, the large lot splits had enhanced the neighborhood where they occurred .with sensitivity. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Cobb voting "no." ITEM #12, FINANCE AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE Chairman Witherspoon of the Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee said that the quadruple transfer of money was very com- plicated, but the net result was to transfer $415,742 from the General Fund back to the Utilities Reserve. Essentially, the Utilities Budget did not expend as much money as was anticipated, and the fonds were transferred to the General Fund. However, since the City was ,:facing a utilities increase this Spring, it made more sense to retain that money in the Utilities Fund to help offset that rate increase. NOTION: `Cquncilmewber Witherspoon for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved that $416.742 be transferred to the: Utility Reserves. - MOTION PASSED Unaoisously`- ITEM :# 13 Pi:AMNING ' COMMISSIO-N RECOMMENDATION RE =NEW AIR RIGHTS. Planning Commfssioner: Ellen Christensen said ,the- Commi`ss#on was pleased to endorse -the new air rights :.conceptual development plan, for Parking dot Q, which included a -:new_ design,, an =increa.se in density, an additional BMA-- Dolt, and the- greater affardab-llity of all' the. units. The Commission "particularly' liked the ._addition of a "commercial -area on- the.., ground -floor - on both "ens as it- allowed for .the continuation:. of a pedestrian :,shopping.,-zon Ira .that area. Parking_. continued to. be -,a question- yin :-that :the -:developer was coming in _With a one parking- place= per- unit for the. residential, and the Commission requested that the developer look_ at various ideas for increasing, the parking availability for residents who might live there either through some sort of permit system or a shuffling of the one- and two -bedroom .mix, but on the whole, was strongly in favor of the idea. Chuck Kinney, applicant, 124 University Avenue, said Planning Commissioner Christensen did a good job summarizing the meeting of December 8. The current process involved concept approval and the next step would be to obtain a concurrence on the concept in order to begin the PC application route. He had applied for the County Bond, Second Issue of the Tax Free Revenue Bond for housing, which would make the project attractive and feasible. They were looking at r=oughly 10.5 percent, 30 -year fixed rate financing for first time buyers in 90 percent of the units. There were ten developers in the County, and the County hoped to sell the bonds early during the second quarter of the year for $21,000,000. He requested funding for $4,750,000. He presented a slide of an isometric drawing, which showed how the different levels stepped up away from the street, The roof of the. first floor unit became a ter- race of the second floor unit conversely all the way up to the roof. There were actually five levels of parking although they were half levels. There was one .main level for private parking, and a series of four half levels for public parking, the lowest level being about 17.5 feet below grade. The first floor plan had access from Alma Street for the private parking--44 .spaces or one per unit, and a small commercial space along High Street and Alma Street. The podium level design showed two building groupings. One group of buildings had six units per level, and one had five units per level with a large landscaped courtyard dividing the two buildings. There was an entrance off of High Street and a smaller one o'ff of Alma`, with access provided to both streets from the interior. The upper levels had bridges connecting one grouping with another. It was an urban site, and they were concerned about daylight and had placed commercial domes on either side such as the step back or terraced effect in order to get maximum sun 'level. They wanted to seek individuality of design and were con- cerned about through ventilation. .Some of the condominiums they visited were like " rabbit hutches when one was talking about smaller units, but the idea here was. that a unit would have visi- bility to the street on one side and to the garden on the other, and it would be the same for all units. They tried to maximize the use .-.of glass especially in the smaller units. They were going for nine'; foot ceilings trying to get as much glass as possible in order to get a feeling of space beyond. When the option was extended in August, 1982, he was told to come back with something resembling the first proposal. The first proposal contained 44 units, and the proposal tonight contained 44 units There were five BMR's both then and now, and the residential square footage was reduced --they were smaller units,: but the density increased because the square footage of site had decreased. The floor area ratio, not including parking, was about the same as before. They had 190 parking spaces before, and now had 182. Before, prices were' at the $100,000 to $170,000 range, and now were between $112,500 to $165,000. Further, he refined the costing discussed at the Planning Commission meeting, which averaged about $130,000 for the 44 units, and the price was currently $55,000 for the BMR units, and the remainder of the units were in the low $130,000's to mid $145,000's. The Planning Commission encouraged him to look at possibilities of.desigoing the project for max1m m afford- ability . in terms of the County program, where F1 -a percent of the County average sales prices were taken --that average was now pegged at $135,000. Approximately 22 of the units quallfied::for the County plan, and a redesign of of the project slightly -increased affordability. He, was not .presenting a change in 'design, but sal d that the unit sale had decreased slightly: For example , he reduced - the square ; footage" of the:`` overall project about 16.7 percent ::and increased, the open space;-- parking stayed the same, one -bedroom: units' increased from two to five. and the original presentation contained no tiro-be'droomm one _f bath units, and now had 1 1 16. The original presentation contained 42, two -bedroom, two -bath units, and now hid 23. The five BMR units were the :same. He reduced the size of the BMR units and made them all one -bedrooms whereas before he had three two -bedrooms, and two one -bedrooms. The 8MR's were still located on the third and fourth floors -not over elevator shafts or next to freeways. In order to reduce the scale, before, 50 percent of the units qualified for the County bond issue and tonight 100 percent of the units qualified for the County bond issue. The unit sizes ranged from 490 square feet up to 920 square feet as _opposed to 750 square feet up to 1,100 square feet. Councilmerrter Cobb said that 44 parking spaces were devoted to 44 units, with a net gain of 62. spaces to be multiplexed with commer- cial usages, the theory being that all the second car units would use those spaces at night when they were not being used for com- mercial purposes. That rationale concerned him because the area was already impacted with parking problems,- and if the City did not realize its desires that people use fewer cars, he was con- cerned about where the extra cars would go. Mr. Kinney said he was a downtown occupant of cc.mmerci al space for the past twelve years close to Lot Q, and differed with Council- meinber Cobb. Lot Q was underutilized and only about five or six cars parked in it at night, and was used by current tenants of the Palo Alto Hotel. Counci1member Cobb asked if the units, other than those with one bedroom, were were likely to have more than two cars per unit. Mr. Kinney said that originally all the units were two -bedroom/ two -bath, and now he had five one -bedrooms, 16 two-bedroom/one oaths with a study -type of one-bedroom/one bath. It looked to the Planning Commission as if the project would have two people and two cars per two-bedroom/two-bath unity and he agreed that it might be the case with the rem 3i nder of the two -bedroom units. If the total 182 spaces were counted, the ratio would be approxi- mately 4.13 to 1. of parking spaces to residences, and his objec- tive was the multiple use of spice. Members of the downtown told the Planning Commission that to set aside and reserve a certain amount ` of spaces for private usage during the day would defeat the whole idea of urban planning and maximizing the multiple use of space. Counci 1member Cobb said he was not opposed to the concept, but was worried about some of the practicalities. He perceived the period from 5:00 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. as overlapping where people were. coming home from work and some people were still working or shop- ping late. He thought a problem might be created in the over- 1apping time period strictly as stores were open in the evening for several hours a night. Mr. Kinney pointed out to Counci1member Cobb that another 76 spaces were being repl`aced . A lot of professional, people con- tinually came and went around the building site, and one would be surprised at how- empty the lot was around 5: 00 p.m. He agreed that there could be some problems,, but believed the opportunity was such that the Counc i lmemb erse should concern themselves about how best to make it work. Vice Mayor Fazz.ino asked, Mr. Kinney to clarify the price differ- ence he expected between the two-bedroom/two-bath units, and the two-bedroom/one-bath units. Mr. Kinney ._responded that,; normally:: one would take the shigher'`- priced unit and put it at the ::top of the project', but this project would have the smallest unit at the -top, which would be the,.. most ex. pensive ":unit per square foot. ' ',The selling square footage was the final bottom line. Usually a smaller unit would .cost More to. build because the utilities and appliances 'were the :same as those 2 3 4 1/1;x/83 in a larger unit, but not as much space. The higher priced smaller units would be at the top and the cost thereby looked smaller. 1 1 Councilmember Levy asked if the unit prices were firm, and whether the Counci 1 was to approve them. Mr. Kinney said that the prices were included on the County appli- cation and were currently firm. For 100 percent of the units to qualify, the upper limit was $134,8U0 rounded off to $135,000. He made a presentation about how the project could be conceived, built, and priced out in order to balance. He presented a cost estimate sheet prepared by he and Jean Diaz which showed the proj- ect income and how much could be expected to offset - the cost of the projece. He used a cost equals income equation and said that the more income that came in, the higher the costs, or the higher the public benefit --the .less income, the less the cost to support. Regarding whether the prices were fixed, he said the fair market value units' total ranged from $5,026,000 to $5,276,000, because he did not have the final bids or the final interest rate on his construction costs. The County had suggested that its program might upgrade the top limit of the selling units --not that all the units could be upgraded, but they might go from $135,000 up to $140,000 or $145,000 for the more expensive unit, which provided some flexibility for more income. The direct costs were straight- forward, and his figures were substantiated by reams of paper which detailed the construction for the residences, garage, archi- tectural engineering, and interim parking. The indirect costs included the points on the construction loan, County mortgage points of four and one-half, and the construction interest would be somewhere around one and one-half points over prime. The current prime was 11.5 percent, and there was talk that within the second quarter, it could be down to 10 percent. Currently, his interest rate was 13 percent, and his construction schedule was somewhere between 15 to 18 months. The further they got into the project, the better defined the construction schedule would be. The projected construction interest was somewhere between $295,000 to $400,000, legal accounting, etc.; sales were at five percent; and his contract with the City provided for a profit of 17 percent on the construction cost. If he was close enough in the project, he was willing to go down to 15 percent. The bottom line was that given his low and high income projections, the low and high inter- est and profit, the project looked as if he could give the City a check for between $21,000 and $76,000. If his income was low and his costs were high, he would be out about $85,000. On the other nand, if his income was high and his projected costs were low, there could be a check to the City of $182,000. Councilmember Levy clarified that at this point noneof the fore- going was definite, and the prices could fluctuate. Mr. Kinney said that 'was correct. He wanted affordable housing in Palo Alto, -and agreed with the Planning Commission in wanting to maximize the amount, of units to qualify for it. His :application to the County, along with a nonrefundable deposit of $25,000, was based on 100 percent of the units qualifying. However, in the process over the` next six months, some ch`a.nges could occur and some units mighthave to be sold outside the County program, and et this point, he could ;dot say whether it-. ;would: be 10 ,or 15 percent. Councilmember Levy said he Calculated that it would take an income of Gout $50,000 to,$60.000 per Year to . afford a $130.000 units. Per.;; Kinney :;, said the $135,000 units.. 1 Counciimember Levy clarified that the County definition of affordable was that the. two -bedroom units would be affordable to people in the $50,000 to $60,000 per year income bracket. Mr. Kinney said that was correct and could include two or three members of .a family, and would most likely be at least two members. Councilmemoer Eyerly said he understood that the. Planning Commission approves; the conceptual development and basically fol- lowed the staff recommendations that there be at least 50 addi- tional public parking spaces --or approximately 1.5 spaces per each housing unit=. Mr. Kinney said he understood that the Planning Commission desired that he strive to get 50 additional, new public parking spaces and go towards establishment of a 1.5 to 1 spaces per unit or have access for the private to establish a 1.5 to 1. Councilmember Fletcher said she assumed that the granting of the mortgage revenue funds for the project was not automatic, and asked about the alternative if for some reason the project was turned down. Mr. Kinney said he would continue to look for financing if the County turned down his application. He and Mr. Diaz were motivated to get the plan under way so that if the market turned and moved as it was beginning to _ and a County bond program became a.vailable, they would be in the planning process and could qualify and go for it. If they sat and waited for the market to turn around, it would take six to nine months to go through the process, and by then the market could have gone -away. Counci lmember Fletcher said she was confused about which section of the residential parking would be opened up to public parking during the day. Mr. Kinney said there would be one separate parking area of 44 spaces, and the remainder of the garage --or 138 spaces --would, by adding a section to the Code, tagging, \,or the current City regulations of two-hour parking, or permit parking only available in downtown lots from 8:00 _ a.m. to 5:00 p.m. be available ..to the public. Counci lmemlber Fletcher- confirmed that the - 44 -spate area would be locked and not be accessible to the .public. Mr. Kinney said there would be one secured parking space for each resident, 18 _bicycle spaces ; in the public area, and 44 in the private area: rounci lmer,ter Witherspoon -clarified that the smallest unit would contain 490 square feet, and was concerned about how it would be designed. . She opined that it . would virtually have to be one room with an enclosed bathroom. Mr. Kinney said there would be a ' .separate bedroom, a, separate 1ivi_ng and dining a,ea and kitchen,., and separate bath. Models cif 4.50 square feet ,were reviewed in Hayward, _ apd it, looked as if the developer took took a big- knife and cut -.. a, regular unlit in half,; then jammed a lot _of big` and bulky furnitur ,_ in - it, and ..it `felt as f you were in a Mouse trap. The ceilings it that; development, were eight .:feet "and his development proposed nine- f.00t -ceilings., .with, as much glass as possible.. Counc1lmen er Witherspdon asked if terraces were proposed. Mr. Kinney; said --yes; -21 3 -6 1/10/83 1 Chief Planning Official Bruce Freeland said the smaller units were new since the plan was before the Planning Commission, and that the one bedroom, 490 square feet units were now the ones proposed to be BMR's. When the Commission reviewed the plans, the BMR component consisted of much larger units --over 700 square feet, and consisted of both three two -bedroom units, and two one -bedroom units. The BMR's .and, the very small one -bedroom units- being proposed to the Council tonight, represented a significant change over what was, presented to the Planning Commission, and one which staff would not favor._ Staff was much happier with the BMR pro- posal as presented to the Commission. Councilmember Levy said that as he looked at the plans, the pri- vate garage was at street level, and the public garage was one and two levels below the street. Mr. Kinney said that was correct. Councilmember Levy asked if there was any reason why the public. parking could not be closer to street level, and the private parking down in the depths. Mr. Kinney said that only half a level would be at street level regardless of whether it was public or private. He felt the need to have the private close to the units above for elevators and access. Mr. Freeland said that the proposals provided a separate access from the Alma side of the project, and in order to keep the separate access for the residential units, it had to ramp into an accessible part of the. building. If the residential units were at the bottom, it would foil that design concept which was important to the Transportation Department in order to maintain the residen- tial use on the Alma Street side. Councilmember Klein said there appeared to be several changes from the proposal which was reviewed by the Planning Commission. He asked for clarification that the five BMR units considered by the Planning Commission were all two -bedroom. Mr. Kinney said there were two one -bedrooms,: and three two- bedrooms. Councilmember Klein asked what the BMR` prices would .have been under the original proposal. Mr. Kinney said ..all of the BMR units in the original proposal were pegged at $55,000 as were the current BMR units. Councilmember Klein asked why there was no price difference. Mr. Kinney said .the price was to be negotiated, but the numbers being .exchanged with staff and) the -Palo Alto Housing Corporation were $52,000.to $58,000. Councilmember Klein asked if it was fair- to say ;that the City was getting less of a subsidy now. Mr. Kinney' said that the City was gef' ing less square footage --or about_ three bedrooms less.. Conversely, the project qualified .100, Percent, under the County's definition, ' as affordable housing in Santa Clara County. The remainder of his units were 96 percent to 110 percent of the County average. Council member Klein ° asked if three _: two -bedroom . and .two one -bedroom 814R units would qualify the project for the County's. program._ .14r: - Kinney said ,that qualifying all the units, was al trade-off, In` tens _, of reduti ng units and .the amount of subsidies by the amount. - of _square footage bid i t;. Councilmember Klein clarified that in order to get the economics down low enough to qualify for the County financing program, he had to reduce the amount of money to be put into the BMR units. Mr. Kinney said that was correct for the 100 percent qualifica- tion, There was flexibility in the event that staff would feel better if he reinstituted several of the BMR units to two -bedroom units. Councilmember Klein asked how the economics of the proposal would change if the City insisted that there be three two -bedrooms and two one -bedroom BMR's. Mr. Kinney said the project would cost about $100,000 more. Councilmember Klein asked what the City was getting in exchange for the $100,000 other than all the units being at a price which qualified as "affordable" under the County's program. Mr. Kinney said .he believed that -having 100 percent of the units qualify as affordable under the County program was a significant exc. ange. The old proposal had units ranging from $130,000 to $145,000 and the newest proposal ranged in prices from $119,000 to $135,000 with the BMR's having a price of $55,000. Councilmember Klein asked if it was correct that some of the money was not being made up by having a reduced interest rate from the County program, Mr. Kinney responded that any reduced interest rate was in terms of financing --not construction. It helped with the construction and offered a fantastic program for first-time home buyers because 90 percent of the units must be sold to first-time buyers. Councilmember Klein asked how much the total sales price of non- BMR units were being reduced. Mr. Kinney said he had a projected income of $5.7 million with the Planning Commission presentation, and now it was $5.3 million. The subsidy on the BMR's went from roughly $375,000. The BMR units as presented to the Planning Commission could have sold on the marketplace for $375,000 more, where the project had to make up $375,000. Those units, using $150 or $155 a selling foot would sell for approximately $75,000 as opposed to $55,000, so it was like $100,000 in subsidy%" The BMR's presented to the Planning Commission could all sell for $125,000 or $130,000, but they were priced at $55,000, which was a $70,000 per unit subsidy. The new plans proposed five units .. at $55,000, and the market could substantiate about $20,000 subsidy per unit. The difference was $259,000. Councilmember Klein said that the subsidy on the BMR units had been reduced.by about $250,000. Mr. Kinney said that was correct, and the trade-off was that:, the other 22 units could now bepart of the County Bond Program. Councilmember Klein asked for the average price on the other units. Mr% Kinney . responded that the average unit price presented to the Planning Commissions was -$130,000 per unit, and the latest proposal was $123,000 per unit, Mr, :: Freeland said that to complete the comparison, '• the other.- stir fferences in the physical aspects would - be that .. the Overall volume of space; --for residential „uses rags less. The - new -pr'Oposal was 35,.730 square_ -feet, and- the Planning Commission proposal was .92_.870 square` feet .or 7_bet,we'en - 1;5 and 17, -percent less. 1n the resi dential units everaf 1 .and a- corresponding -increase `In =open space. 1 1 He said that open space increased from 50 percent to 57 percent on the site, and the number of units with one bath went from zero to sixteen, which responded to the Planning Commission concern that the units not be` structured to .encourage two adult households with a lot of cars. The proposal would save money since bathrooms were expensive. Mr. Kinney said that was correct. 1 i Counci lmember Klein asked when staff first had the opportunity to review the alternative proposal. Principal Planner George Zimmerman responded that he had a working session with the developer, Mr. Sutorius, Mr. Carraseo, Mr. Smith. and Mr. and Mrs. Kinney last Friday, which was the first time he saw the proposal. Councilmember Klein asked staff if the new proposal was such a significant departure from the one presented to the Planning Commission that they would prefer that the matter be continued for reconsideration before any further discussion. Mr. Zimmerman said, not necessarily. The major concerns were the. reduction in bedroom and floor area size of the BMR's; and to a lesser degree, the overall reduction in floor area of the other non•-BMR units. On the other hand, if the developer was to qualify for a Mortgage Revenue Bond Funding, he was running a tight schedule with the PC process, and if the matter were continued, it could lessen the chance of ultimately qualifying for Mortgage Revenue Bond funding. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville, represented Downtown Palo Alto, Inc. (DTPA), and said that DTPA continuously supported the project and. believed that the refinements presented during the past three years resulted in the best possible use of the space in downtown Palo Alto. He commended the responsiveness of the developer to everyone who had made suggestions and recommendations, and said that tonight's product was excellent for the situation in downtow+i Palo Alto. With respect to the concerns about parking, DTPA believed that the project should be flexible. While there were prescribed ratios of parking spaces to living units in the zoning regulations, the proposed, development, with its particular characteristics, , lent itself to a flexibility where the parking spaces would be maximized during the daytime and the night. - With respect to Counci lmemb er Cobb's concern _ about the hours between 5:00 p.m. and'7:00 p.m., he believed there could be a problem, but suggested that it be addressed as realized and monitored. Rather than set solid rules that would- follow the project forever, he recommended that any problems be approached with flexibility. So many parking spaces were provided that there was enough space to provide those needed for the living units. He suggested they start with what they had and move into a direction as -needed. g. Corporation' Micki Zatz, Palo Alto- Housing' for orationt (PAHC), said _; that .. although the PAHC was not involved in the latest proposals, the was concerned about~ the: marketability of the very small units. Two -bedroom units were the most in .. demand for households with one child and a divorced mother or "father, Counci lmember Cobb asked if the development in Fremont with the 'micro -units"' had been measured in tents': of- marketability. Further, if all. the BMR units 'were -the eery small ones,,' he suggested that there could be .,some' negative social implications.; Mr. Freeland': said, he:;`was only' 'famiaia� : with the development- in Fremont„ and that articles in' the raper --about a'_.month or so ago i ndi ated -- market' resistance. Prices _were - very different In Freaont, -and._-the choices ,-for': a given dollar, Were nuch = greater. -He--sa.id that_ -staff did not-really'hava good _-information.- - Mr. Kinney said that there were 14 units for sale in Fremont, and 10 sold ein the first week on the market. Further, he believed his project was better with the smaller units, and he was attempting to make the project economically work. If necessary, he had no problem with making a certain portion of the BMR units two - bedroom. He requested Council approval of the -Planning Commission recommendation in order to get 100 percent qualification for the County Affordable Bonding Program, and with a condition that two-- bedroom BMR units .were also needed. Councilmember Eyerly asked for clarification of the Planning Commission recommendation. He asked if the Planning Commission accepted Vice Chairman Cullen's recommendation in terms of, afford- ability, and the 50 additional public parking spaces in an approach to the 1.5 spaces per housing unit. Ms.. Christensen believed that the 50 additional public parking spaces plus the words "an amount or combination of public and private residential parking net approaches" were accepted. Councilmember Eyerly asked Mr. Kinney if he understood the Planning Commission expectations. Mr. Kinney said he heard the Council saying to "go .towards" the direction of 1.5 spaces per unit. If he took the. 62 net gain and reduced it to 50 and put. the 12 over on the private sector, he was at 1.27 spaces per unit. He asked for clarification. Mr. Freeland clarified that to provide at least 50 additional pub- lic parking spaces was understood to mean net gain to the City -- not 50 more than were proposed. The extra wording, "the combina- tion of public and private approaching 1.5 spaces per unit" was intended to accept the notion of counting some of the public spaces for the overlap as proposed by Mr. Kinney. Counci lmeMber Eyerly said he was concerned that parking seemed to be a little worse in downtown Palo Alto every day. The Council of two years ago believed that the development of air rights and housing was top priority, and he was concerned about whether that had changed since the parking modes were not totally accepted by the public and the City was still inundated with cars. The assessment district concurred with the project, but he could not help but wonder if the assessment district would accept housing as priority. on some of their other lots since it was not currently known whether there would be enough parking for the development. He believed that the trade-offs for the City were feasible. The project provided some housing although he was concerned that only high income persons could qualify, and he was not sure what good was being, done for the real need. Since the lot was on Alma Streeton the outskirts of the assessment district, he could sup- port the project. M0JfON; Counciloeober Eyerly mowed, seconded by lF3tzzino, to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations .with respect to con- cept, as changed by Kinney proposal of January 1O, 1983, with understanding re 50 perking spaces and approach to 1.5 spaces per unit as ,worked •at at Janaary lOs 1983 City Council meeting, for endorsement of the New Conceptual Air Rights Plan for Lot Q based on the :assumption that the:, City's highest priority for air rights development,on thit site continues to be housing, and that the second priority is additional public: -parking. The endorsement is subject to the following conditions: To maximum extent possible, the market rate units be priced at levels affordable to middle income- households„ The project.iacur no cost to the City or Assessment: District; MOTION CONTINUED 3. When a Planned Community development plan is submitted, the plan provide at least 50 additional public parking spaces plus a combination of private residential parking and access to public parking that approaches the previous Planning Commission recommendation of 1.5 spaces for each housing unit; 1 1 4. Access. and egress off of Alma for the private residential parking be limited to right turn only; 5. That subsequent PC development plan include provision for sub- stantial amounts of landscaping. Counci lmember Levy believed that in analyzing the project, the Council should use the same criteri-a as would be the case for any other project whether it was on a City parking lot or brought by Stanford University. He had trouble with the project in using those criteria. He was bothered most by the density because it would be at twice the number of units than the maximum .allowed under normal CC zoning. The density was far more than he was pre- pared to allow to any kind of development anywhere in Palo. Alto. Further, 1.5 spaces per unit would be the norm, and the proposed project called for one per unit, .and the .revisions were an improvement. The project's affordability required people with ircome in the $50,000 to $60,000 per _year range, and it was clear that if lower income buyers were to live in the units, there would have to be several adults in each unit which meant more cars rather than fewer cars. If it were a normal private development, the City-, would be giving up attractive parking to the public and replacing it with unattractive parking to the public: The Council has discussed the fact that the City Hall parking lot was not satisfactorily utilized by the public because it was below ground. The proposal took one attractive open air ground level parking lot and replaced it with two levels of parking below ground. He was concerned that the commercial parking was not sufficient, and said it had been concluded that where there were new projects, it was absolutely necessary for those commercial projects to have their own parking and a satisfactory amount. Further, the project requested an unusual parking ratio, which he would not be prepared to grant a normal development. The._ spaces totalled out because the ratio was 53 percent compact and 47 percent standard. Although there were more compact cars, the latest figures from the Transportation Department indicated discomfort with going beyond a 50-50 figure. There were a nurter of bases about the project which troubled him because he did not believe the City was: going to gain convenient parking which would be satisfactorily used, and -\he did not believe the City was gaining much by way of truly affordable housing. At the same time, the City was gaining an extremely dense development. . Councilmember Klein said that with one modification, he was in. favor of the proposal submitted by Mr. Kinney tonight although he wished the Planning Commission had the opportunity to review it.' regarding density, it was a tricky concept, and he diced .not believe they could lock at the raw number of unt"s on the half acre. There were some projects with a density far greater, than- the pro- posal --like Lytton Gardens. He believed the Council had to look at the particular site, the nuiaber of bedrooms, who would occupy the development, and where it was located. Given those factors, he believed the proposed muter of units for the particular site made ;sense., It was an Urban area, and the nunt er of the units would not .particularly impact a residential neighborhood .since It was not that close to -any 'residential neighborhood. The project Would work economically in his opinion, and the City ° needed it. He believed it provided _ an: interesting opportunity for people to move into Palo Alta, and the prices proposed by. Mr. Kinney- were significantly under those offered by arty other new construction in Palo Alto. Combining the foregoing with the innovation of building over one of the City's parking lots presented an interesting opportunity to see what could be done with a particular space which was very urban and "downtrodden in his opinion, and he believed it would be a substantial, improvement. However, he was disappointed about assigning all of the one - b edrooin units to the BMR program. AMENDMENT: Councilmen er Klein moved, seconded by Cobb, that the BMR units be three two -bedroom one -bath units, and two one -bedroom units. COUNCILMIENRERS EYERLY AND FAZZINO INCORPORATED THE AMENDMENT INTO THE MAIN MOTION. Councilmemb er Fletcher asked how the density compared with Lytton Gardens. Mr. Zimmerman said he believed that Lytton Gardens was about 100 dwelling units per acre, but when talking about density, one must realize that the floor area per unit in Lytton Gardens --since it was senior housing --was substantially smaller than Mr. Kinney's proposal or any other kind of market housing in Palo Alto. Councilmember Fletcher said that -on the other -hand, if an office building were to be constructed at the location, the density would be considerably snore. Further-, she urged that the Council not lean too heavily on supplying additional parking because the experiment was very worthwhile to see how the trade-off worked. She was not worried about the parking overlap because offices would be closed by 5:00 p.m., and most of the stores closed about 5:30 p.m. When additional parking was required in housing developments, it added considerably to the cost of the housing. Mayor Bechtel reminded the Council that Mr. Kinney's current proposal was the first to have cone in for market priced units that would qualify under the Mortgage Revenue Bond Act. Previously, the only other projects in Palo Alto were the BMR units. Many developers felt that it was impossible to build market priced units that would be as relatively inexpensive as the proposed units, which were in the $113,000 to $120,000 range. It Was previously believed that it was only possible to do that in San Jose or the Santa Clara area. She believed that the recommendations, as modified with the BMR changes, were good, and she would support the motion. Councilmemb er Cobb believed that Counciiment er Levy :raised some legitimate concerns which the Council should keep in mind. He would support the concept, even though he was still concerned .about parking. He believed the Council should recognize that there- were two experiments happening- -the. one ab out parking and whether or not the -multiplexing of parking spaces would .really work, and the one about units under 500 square feet. He .submitted that while the experiment was noble,. the Council:: -should proceed and see how it worked in Palo Alto-, but should be cautious about any Simi l.ar kinds of protects . until the results ci° this one were seer:. Council!nember. Levy said he was concerned about the comparison the project to Lytton Gardens. The only legitimate comparison in his opinion was that the size was not all that different. Lytton Gardens had virtually no automobiles, and he did not believe there, was any parking there- at all because. - the residents of ' Lytton; Gardens' did not drive'. Virtually every unit -in Lytton Gardens was occupied by one person, and it was : the hope of everyone invol v'ed When talking about so -called' -"affordable housing" that the .units be occupied by several people in order to benefit;: from "lower, cost housing." The project;' with' 80 units to' the acre,; was almost; the same= density as. Lytton Gardens, would - throw far more automobiles. with. all .. their problems onto the street, and he, was sure there would be more actual people living there than at Lytton' Gardens. He favored the Lytton Gardens kind of project and hoped for more of them, but did not favor having regular housing projects being 80 units to the acre. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Levy voting "no." 1 COUNCIL RECESSED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION 9:30 . TO 9:50 p.m. ITEM #14 _PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION RE COLLEGE TERRACE Planning Commissioner Christensen said that the Planning Commission was divided about the need for the proposal to be effective, but on balance, the majority decided it was important to go forward with the RMD and the combining. district for, several reasons. It was concluded that some action was justified, par- ticularly to maintain the scale of the neighborhood and existing affordable units in the area, and that the rezoning to RMD would work to preserve affordable units which were threatened under both RMD and the straight RM-3 zoning. The loss of 13 units was out- weighed by the benefit of the flexible design standards which allowed one to preserve the neighborhood scale and protect the current housing stock, which was concluded to be more affordable than new condominium developments. An added consideration was that the area was small, geographically well defined, and the RMD might work there, where it might not work in other parts of the City. The proposal was well received by staff, and endorsed b y the Historic Resources Board. Zoning, Administrator Bob Brown pointed out an inconsistency between the staff report dated December 23, 1982 and the Report from City Attorney which contained two ordinances. The first paragraph, last sentence, of the staff report referred to an expiration date of the moratorium of March 6, 1983. The he date should be March 14, 1983, which was consistent with the material received from the City Attorney. Jon Zweig, 2321 Oberlin, requested that the demolition moratorium be extended for practical as well as -.aesthetic purposes. He was a Stanford student with two small children, and had lived in College Terrace for four years. During that time, he dealt with the expensive rentals in the area, and given the. last Council discus- sion, he would be renting for a long time to come. His research revealed that theemewer condominium units'cost substantially more than the older houses and tended to provide less copoious space in his opinion. The practical net effect of allowing demolition would be to make less affordable housing available for people at the grad student, post -op, intern, and resident level, and would raise the existing prices and make a difficult housing situation almost impossible. Aesthetically, after having moved to Palo Alto from a suburban area in the east, he fell in love with College Terrace. The houses were older, all different from each other, and had a lot cf charm.-- It would be sad to allow it to gradually erode such that it looked like Showers Drive. He urged the Council to preserve_ the neighborhood as it stood. John Schaefer, 1487 College, said that the preceding discussion about the level of income one needed to live in low income housing in Palo Alto distressed him. Fifty-five thousand dollars ($55,000) seemed like a lot of money, and he echoed Jon Zweig's observation that the older -homes were much less expensive. The current zoning encouraged Victorian "slumlordism," in his opinion, a phenomenon whereby : the landlord took the view that his house could be sold several years down the road and, therefore mainten- ance was not necessarye His' home was ;that way when he -ought, it, and he. fixed it `,upbecause he liked the in_eighborhood. Others who: preferred more economic reasons probably looked to something like the NMI) zoning ..proposal as a_ n incentive to maintain those . older homes' in' livable Condition. He urged Council support of the DMD. zoning proposal. Jim Culpepper, 2121 Amherst Street, responded to some of the argu- ments he had heard against adopting the staff proposals. Four demolitions had occurred in the general area of the neighborhood and one of the demolitions was in the CS zone, one-half block from the RM-3 zone. He became concerned last May because there was one demolition in 1974, and nothing happened for a long time. There was another demolition in 1980 followed by another one in 1981 in the CS, followed by yet another in 1982, in the RM-3 zone. At the same time,, there was an application pending for the demolition of 610-624 California Avenue. He said that 610 California Avenue was 100 feet from the historic Key House on Yale Street, and there was an application to extend the RM-3 zone to allow the demolition of four cottages and the construction of an eight -unit condominium: complex on Wellesley Street. The demolition and the applications to demolish were beginning to accelerate, and the Council acted with good reason, and imposed the moratorium and requested a staff study. Since then, it was learned that many owners of the single family housing in the RM-3 area were elderly, property was begin- ning to change hands, and the new owners no longer lived in the neighborhood. He believed there was a -growing problem which justified taking the modest steps outlined in''the staff's pro- posals. He said he heard the argument that since most of the RM-3 zone was multi -family anyway, the whole thing might as well be developed with multi -family structures. That, was a little like arguing that since water covered most of the surface of the earth, it might as well cover the entire surface. He replied that the part of the earth which was not wet was very important to those who happened to be standing on it. Demolition and redevelopment of single family housing in the area meant replacing lower cost rental stock with condominiums which would be unaffordable to those who lived in the rental stock. It meant, for example, tearing down an old house which might rent for $500 to $600 per month, and building condominiums which would sell from $200,000 to $300,000 each. That was a drastic change from the type of multi- family development which existed previously. Most of the multi- family zone . consisted of small scale, moderate income apartments which could not be converted into condominiums. He said one should ask themself who lived in the older housing --rho were they trying to protect. He spoke of }people --teachers, legal secretaries, graphic designer.., assembly line workers, waitresses, and other people who worked at some of the lower paying jobs in the community, and said that the demolition of the older housing would destroy the tiny nitch which made it possible for those people to live in Palo Alto. In addition, he argued that the area contained six structures which the Historic Resources Board cited as being of historic interest. He said he would not overstate his case by arguing that the preservation of that link to the old town of Mayfield should take precedence over every other City objec- tive, but when combining the historic interests of the structures with the desire to preserve affordable housing for families, there were two powerful reasons to support the staff proposals. He had also heard that by rezoning the College Terrace multi -family area, the City was setting a .bad ., precedent for the treatment of other multi -family areas. He paraphrased Councilmeniber Klein's answer to that argument by saying. 'precedent setting is a classic argument used by a minority, but that's why the Council is there. Just because one zone change was granted, does not mean the next has to be -granted.* He commented that the staff report was of. extremely high quality in dealing with the issue. Bob Brown spent months studying the area, and his conclusions were clearly stated and well supported by his research. The Planning Commission' very properly raised every objection it could think of to the staff proposals. The proposals were modified somewhat totake into con- sideration the concerns of the property owners and the Commissioners.- The proposal was significant and no one else had come up with anything better. He, favored trying the staff. 'approach as an experiment in a small' part Of the City. The only.: way to know-, for ;certain whether the staff proposals would work was. to give them a chance. 1 Mary Ellen Manock, 2350 Harvard Street, said she was very inter- ested in the history of College Terrace, which was once the City of Mayfield, and low cost housing as well. She believed that the older houses in her neighborhood displayed the character of the neighborhood and demolishing the older houses would change that character. She supported the RMD concept. 8 1 1 Peter S. Stern, 2274 Princeton Street, said he had lived in College Terrace since 1955. At that time, areas of Yale Street had many small rental units which were available to graduate stu- dents and other persons without substantial incomes.. Those were replaced by parking garages, office buildings, and condominiums. The nice thing about College Terrace was that it was a geo- graphically well defined area. It was a community, and one of the things that made it such was the existence of low and middle income rental housing, affordable to people who had been there for a long time and who had a vested interest in keeping the nature of the Terrace as it stood. That was seep by block parties and pic- nics. The community had gathered and r,onti need to have its coher- ency. If the .RMD zone was adopted, he believed that sense' of com- munity would be preserved, If the demolitions took place, and if more condominiums were put in, the community wouldbe lost. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, congratulated the new Mayor and Vice Mayor. He said he agreed with the previous speakers that the RMD zone was an intelligent and imaginative approach to the problem in College Terrace, and one which could be applied in other areas. He did not oppose the RMD zone in concept, but was concerned that it did not yet exist, and could not be applied until it was legally adopted. He proposed going to an R-1 zone, and, presented a map which showed the existing R-1 structure and zone directly abutting the RM-3. The area along Yale contained only two lots, 610-624 California Street and 2110 Yale, which if zoned R-1 would allow fewer structures than an RMD zone. In every other respect, the density achieved by zoning the area R-1 was the same as zoning it. RMD. Further, it would preserve four of the. six historic buildings, the fifth one at 591 Stanford was on such a small lot that it was s& a anyway. In terms of conformance, there were four lots which could be left RM-3 and would have no bearing on demoli- tions or any increase or loss in density. That was the one on the corner of College and Yale. In terms of the existing district, there were 14 lets which were currently nonconforming—i.e., R'-1 uses in. an RM-3 zone. By going to R-1, the City would end up with only nine nonconforming uses --nine that were multi -family structures in an R-1 zone. The R-1 zone, which would directly abut the existing R-1, would extend the existing R-1 along Stanford and Williams, wrap it along Yale, and continue it on to California. lt.would retain the existing RM-3 along Williams, with the possible exception of the four lots which were to the south of the passage way. He believed that, was d rational, way to go, and he liked it because there were no new zones, and because. it could be -applied immediately, and did not create a lot of non - conformances. dilly Davis, 344 Tennessee, Supported the Planning Commission recommendation of a- change of zone to a new RMD zone in the RM+3 zone of College Terrace as a move ,to preserve older, habitable homes' -in Palo Alto, which furnished needed_ low cost rentals. Many young families with children were being,`forced to leave Palo Alto because of the lack of truly affordable rental s. Further, ` `she urged the Council to require that the two units allowed_ in . RMD zone sites .be under the same` ownership ,;In order to max-imize :the, number of rentals provided by the new zone. Even: if the bad .,eoo- ho c canditlons today might slow the addition of the _second units: on the RMD sites somewhat, it was -roost., likely that the economy would-- itprov,e making .construction of the second units possible She belei ved it was wise to plan: now_"fob the future_development of the iaXimum number of low to moderate, cost rentals, and creation of an RMD zone, with the requirement that both the' original and the =second: -uni ts be under the same :. ownership. That was the best:, way to maximize the number of .low to Moderate cost rentals built. Paul Murphy, 1540 College, said it was 12 years since he and his wife were fortunate enough to move into a simple adobe house on College Avenue. They intended to stay at that: location and for their children to graduate from Palo Alto High School. In 12 years he had seen a lot of older people, older structures and renters in jeopardy because of the high rents. He urged the Council to consider the people who were being affected by the RMD proposal. Helen Roach, 2285 Williams, said there were enough condominiums in Palo Alto, and by looking around, one would see how many were sitting there vacant. One gentlemen rented two of his condominiums with five people in each one in order to raise the $1,000 per month rent. She had lived in the area for 20 years, and wanted to see her adopted daughter go to Palo Alto High School, and did not feel like being pushed out. She asked if she should be required to give up her little ° house after 20 years because someone wanted to put in condominiums with five people in each. C. W. Gillard, 2120 Amherst, said he supported the Planning Commissions recommendations. He believed it would help to clarify the existing zoning which was presently a crazy quilt network of exceptions, nonconformities and variances by their accommodation into a new zone. He believed that properly developed, the multi- family district would provide a logical transition between the El Camino businesses and the College Terrace R,-1 residential area, which because of its small size needed whatever help could be provided to encourage preservation and upgrading. The recommended new zone would tend to give an element of permanence to that which was provisional for so many years. He believed it was a step in the right eirection. Chuck Robertson, 643 College Avenue, said he had owned his prop- erty for over 20 years, and wasborn and raised in Palo Alto. He was sick and tired of people talking about what they wanted, and believed that a property owner should have what he wanted. He believed that the adopted zoning ,in Palo Alto should remain th'llt way and that the City Council could take the property owners' rights into consideration. He owned his property for a long time, had not done any development. He had low rent housing and did not want any changes. Mark Chandler, 2333 Williams Street, said he was surprised that he was one of -only two people who lived in the affected area who testified tonight. He believed there was a real danger to the scale of that part of College Terrace when .there was zoning that permitted the level of density of RM-3.and a 35 foot height limit. There were several elements of the RMD which met that concern, and. among them were the reduction of density, and the requirement of going to the Architectural Review Board, which was unique for a duplex zone in Palo Alto. The RMD zone addressed style and design issues to some degree. He was particularly concerned because. within the last year he built a substantial addition, to` a single-family home and turned: it into a: duplex. He lived in one unit and rented out the other. He was able to build because he put in a substantial amount of his Own time at about two-thirds the normal building costs of $75 per square foot : for _ additions.. Even at ,that break and reduced price, and with a mortgage he assumed at 11 percent with take out financing., at the same level, he had a negative cash flow of about $1,000 per month, which included renting part of the unit he hived in as well: He proposed that since they were talking about very constrained lot sizes in the area, ,and the fact that they had addressed the issue of older apartments which.:might be torn . down : by, putti g in requireinents that lots could not be combined- and merged and, then' have' older dwellings °torn down to build new ones-, and given the ARS component, the Council was making it unfeasible under even vastly improved economic circumstances to adda rental. Further, the =requirement of bringing two additional parking' spaces onto the 1 site when going to two units, in most cases. If th.e RMD zone was adopted, he suggested that it be changed to allow the second unit. to be an ownership unit as well. He believed that the goals of the City could be met without taking that extra step in that it imposed an extra loss on people who owned property with no real gain to the City. Mayor Bechtel said a question had been raised about whether all of the property owners in the area were notified about the proposals, and she asked what the process would be if the zone change pro- posal were accepted by the Council. City Attorney Diane Lee said the only legal steps the Council would take tonight would be to either extend or repeal the mora- torium ordinance. Neither of those processes required the exten- sive notification required under the zoning ordinance. If the properties were ultimately considered for rezoning, the property owners would be notified. Mayor Bechtel asked staff to comment on Mr. Moss' proposal. Mr. Brown said he would respond without benefit of having gone over Mr. Moss' proposal in advance. He believed that virtually all of the lots on Yale with the pattern, had the potential of adding an additional unit under the RMD. zoning. He did not believe that the R-1 versus RMD would be at the same density. Mayor Bechtel asked if the R-1 properties would qualify for the Cottage Zone or whether they were too small. Mr_. Brown said that virtually all the lots were far too small. Under the cottage provision of the R-1 zone they would need 8,300 square feet, and most of the lots ranged from 5,000 to 6,000 square feet. Counci imember Witherspoon said it seemed more logical to modify the cottage zone rather than create a new zone. She asked if there were any other differences aside from the required square footage between that zone and the proposed RMD zone. Mr. Freeland said that in order to have cottages on lots as small as the lots that would be eligible for a second unit in the RMD zone, the eligible lot size for the cottage would have to be reduced to,something like 6,000, square feet. That could be done through a cobining district, but the other major difference would be that under the cottage provisions of R-1, districts were sub- ject to a use permit, and _under the RMD, the second unit would be a matter of right. He was not sure what the basic lot,_ size would be if they<>tried to bring the conditional" use permit process down to 6,000 square foot lot. Mr. Brown added that the basic philosophy of .the cottagee\provision in R-1 was that on those lots which were larger than, -the` standard norm, a cottagemight be placed on it without having., an impact on the neighborhood. In that 'case, there would be cottages on lots which were below the current .lot. _ standard of 6,000 square feet down to something around 5,000 square feet. He believed the con- cepts were substantially different.: Mr Freeland said that the cottage provision did require the site coverage and other development standards of the basic d°'strict to be met. With' the 35 percent. Site coverage, it might= bevery dif- ficult for those very .small- lots in the district. Th '4 proposed concept was for a combining district, to go along with the RMD to allow additional flexibility which ,implied exceeding ,the 35 per -- cent :an' some 'instances, rather than the additional rigidity which the cottage use permit` would imply. 2 .8 _4-7_. 1/10/03 Counciimember Witherspoon said she assumed that the neighborhood preservation combining district would not apply --once it was on the books --just to College Terrace. Mr. Brown said that was correct. Councilmen er Witherspoon said she supported the moratorium for the opportunity of going ahead to explore the new zones. Some of the speakers seemed to feel that the new zone would preserve low cost housing in Palo Alto, but she did not .believe that was necessarily. so. No matter what the density, she believed that every time those older units, which had been under one ownership for a long period of time, changed hands, it was no longer low cost housing. There was nothing much to be done about that because it probably would not even be rental housing. She thought it was important that where there were neighborhoods with character such as. College Terrace --both from an historic interest and plain City-scape _interest --that everything possible should be done to retain those. She was interested in seeing the proposal succeed in College Terrace because it was a City-scape as much as a planning tool. Mayor Bechtel asked staff to comment regarding separate ownership. Mr. Brown said that one of the great advantages seen in the RMD proposal was common ownership apd '. the possibility of acquiring some rental units. Mr. Chandler said it was unlikely, given the current economic situation and the cost of land, that rental units could be ..provided. He believed that Mr. Chandler's situation might be somewhat atypical. Mr. Chandler bought his property a relatively short time ago, and the majority of the properties in the study area which were developed with single family homes were under the same ownership for a good many years --long before the recent inflationary spiral in land costs. If one was taking out financing primarily for the construction costs alone, staff believed it was possible to construct a rental unit and be able to rent it at current market rents without a negative cash flow. Councilmen er Cobb said he was pleased with the proposed RMD zone, and complemented the Planning Commission, staff and everyone else who had contributed for a very good compromise solution. MOTION; Cauncilmeaber Cobb roved, seconded by Eazzino, to adopt the planning Commission recommendations to draft an appropriate environmental review which would: 1. Create a new RM-D zone district permitting two dwelling units under the ` same ownership on parcels 5,000 square feet or. larger; Create a new Neighborhood Preservation CoMbining District which would include design guidelines for new Construction in established neighborhoods were existing design character is to be maintained and would establish a procedure to provide for flexible zoning regulations for second dwelling units where existing single family dwellings dire retained; Modify the Architectural .Review Board ordinance to extend Archltectbral Review .Board review to second dwelling units on a single parcel in the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District- and find that this -moratorium extension will not have a significant impact on the environment.. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST :< READING entitled 4ORDIJIANCE OF, THE wbmtit OF ffIE tOT 110 Pith ALTO EXTE*RIMG THE EXISTING MORATORIUM ON ISSUANCE 201 DEMOLITION PERMITS _10* ALL RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES IN. THE *M-.3 ZONE Of COLLEGE TERRACE BETWEEN _=CALIFORNIA ATENDE STANFORD AVENUE, EL CANINO READ AND: WELLESLEY: STREET. Councilmember Cobb believed that the proposal did nothing in terms of precedent, but rather was a solution that would work in a unique neighborhood. If it turned out that it did work, perhaps it would give the City a tool to use in other neighborhoods with similar kinds of problems. He believed that Mr. Chandler's ques- tion with regard to .ownership was interesting, and he preferred to see the Council look at it as a separate matter, and to have staff look at the economics of it to see what the results. would likely be while the matter proceeded through the rezoning pocess. Councilmember Klein asked for clarification about what was before the Council. He was concerned because he thought the Council was approving in concept the Planning Commission recommendations. Mr. Brown said that was correct. Staff hoped to gain some direc- tion from the Council to go forward and write ordinance amendments to implement the new zones. Councilmember Klein suggested that perhaps there should be two separate motions --one to approve the Planning Commission recommendations, and a second to extend the moratorium. Councilmember Cobb said that if the motion were done in two parts, he assumed that the second part of the motion would be to approve the Planning Commission recommendation which appeared to be an instruction to staff to proceed with the preparation of the appro- priate zoning changes, ordinances, etc. Ms. Lee said that was correct. Mayor Bechtel said the motion would be voted on in two parts. First to approve the Planning Commission recommendations, and second to extend the moratorium. Councilmember Eyerly said that Councilmember Witherspoon`s.com- ments in terms of what might happen in an RM-D zone were well taken, and he believed that the people who testified from the R-1 areas were not necessarily being realistic that lower priced housing would be preserved. The Planning Commission wrestled with the question and did not come up with a unanimous decision, but rather a weak recommendation. He was concerned that the Council was handling the situation because of the pressures from persons in an R-i area, who initially presented their fears of a demoli- tion on possible historic buildings. Wrapped into that assignment was the concern about too many condominiums, and that there should be an effort to try and preserve some of the older housing. He did not have any problem with the thrust of all that, but ,did not believe that Council's approach was correct. He thought the same problem would occur in other residential areas, and possibly there were too many condominiums in view of the housing prices. Maybe the zoning should be reanalyzed to look at the densities, height, etc., all over the City and not approach the situation from a piecemeal operation. He believed that the staff proposal about an RM-D zone.. was fine and ..worth_ exploring, but suggested that. the Council should perhaps ask the Planning :-Commission to look, at some of the City zoning,- He would support the motion in order for staff to Move along ,,with ;the zone,.. but believed that someone should agendi ze a much'b i gger assignment,, Vice .Mayor.Fazzino said that he was a cosponsor of the motion which brought about; the :_Pla,nni ng ° Omission recommendation. As a resident of College Terrace and a College Avenue homeowner, he was very disturbed over the : past few years with the increased scale in the area which was . clearly a logical . and natural part .of :=the 'entire Col lege Terrace .neighborhood; If one " looked at the ugly new =structure at thecorner of till iamsa and Cal iforni& -the one. next to Mr. Chandler s" property --he berieved it typified What the area _.could become if", the planning Commission' recommendation was not adopted.. He was concerned about the lass . of : rental —housing and the loss of character of the entire neighborhood. It was unfortunate that more care was not applied four or five years ago to the area during the Comprehensive Plan process, and he believed Mr. Moss alluded to that issue during his comments before the Planning Commission -a few weeks ago. He believed the City could now begin to accomplish what was not done at that time. He believed the RM-D zoning and the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District were design and zoning approaches which would encourage the addition of rental units, discourage demolitions, but at the same time retain the economic- advantage of owning a home and property in College Terrace, while preserving the char- acter of the entire neighborhood. He was intrigued by the idea proposed by Mr. Chandler with regard to the ownership because he was not interested in taking away the economic advantage to those owners in the area who wanted that issue explored by the staff over the next few months. He believed there were a number of issues which needed to be: analyzed with respect to that item, and before the Council moved ahead with a permanent zone, that issue needed to be resolved. He supported moving ahead with the pro- posal before the Council. He realized that staff had described in detail the design process for the Neighborhood Preservation Com- bining District, and asked how that would play out if someone had a design proposal for a second unit in that area. Mr. Brown said the proposal would go before the ARB, and that ARB review would be extended to second units on a single piece of property. A proposal might also go before the Zoning Adminis- trator if it was felt that the only way to preserve the single family home on the street frontage would be through a relaxation of some of the zoning standards for the second unit in behind. That would be a Zoning Administrator process with ultimate appeal power to the City Council. The Neighborhood Preservation District would also contain some design guidelines both for furture developers in the area, for the ARB, and staff. Counci1memb er Levy believed that the central issue was one of scale of a neighborhood. Because he believed the RM-D zone was designed to keep a more human: scale, he supported it. There were several other issues raised which were secondary in his opinion, and caused him some problems. One area related to the concept of ARB review. He was concerned about extending ARB review to small scale developments because it was an imposition on the small scale developer. - Further, it extended the work of the ARB, which might turn out to be a problem because the ARB might continue to be increasingly overworked. He did not believe detailed ARB review was required because the nature of the zone would be to _maintain the scale. Further, he was concerned about the comments regarding architectural character because that part of College Terrace did. not have a unified architectural character. He suggested that the ARB review be made optional rather than mandatory. If an indi- vidual developer wanted ARB review, or if the design was going to.. involve certain variances where ARB review was almost mandatory, then it could be done. he did not believe there was any reason - at this point, and no benefit, to making ARB review mandatory. AMENDMENT Coonci lmeeb er Levy moved to amend the cot i wi rig zone concept to extend A RD review: to all new or modified residential structures on an optional basis. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR Counci lmember Levy said the question: about whether two or more units on a single lot had to be under the same ownership was raised, and he wanted to , see the data .,which _indicated that people would build renta1.,. units'on those properties,-: and --that those rental units would result in\ a °positive cash flow. It .was' false economics to take prices that individuals. paid: `20 years; ago and then add today's values On in : order, to come up ::with -a; non -negative: cash flow. That was doubly false betause a ..property owner built:. an additional drat with the expectation of being: able to .;sell 'it 1 1 i 1 for a profit. He was not going to be able to sell it for a profit if the potential buyer was going to have a negative cash flow and in turn. no potential to sell it. He reminded his ;col leagues that 16 years ago when he moved to Palo Alto, he decided to buy rather than rent because rentals were too expensive. At that time, to rent a three-bedroom/two-bath house cost about 70 percent more than buying the house. Times had changed, but today's relation- ships were not Permanent, and the rapid rise of rents taking place currently as opposed to the leveling off which was taking place in home ownership costs made him feel that Councils 15 years from now would once again have the reverse problem. Palo Alto was already 45 percent rental and 55 percent home ownership, and he did not believe that forcing a situation of requiring rentals was wise because the net result would not be the construction of new units the City would like to see. AMENDMENT: CouncilmeMber Levy moved to amend the qualifications for the new RM-D zoning district to delete the requirement that units on a single lot be under the same ownership. AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Councilmember Renzel said that as she understood Co unci lmember Cobb's motion, he intended to ask for staff information on the rental versus home ownership at a subsequent date. Councilmember Cobb said his intention was to make a motion, and that the report would be ready and could be incorporated later if appropriate. Councilmember Renzel said she concurred with most of her col- leagues who supported the moratorium and the conceptual zoning. was a former resident of Williams and had seen the changes which had taken place in that particular vicinity over the past. few years. She believed it was imperative that something be done to preserve the scale of the neighborhood, rental units and his- toric homes. Mayor Bechtel believed that Councilmember Levy's amendment did not receive a second heeause it was felt that the issue should be studied before taking an action to delete the separate ownership issue. Mayor Bechtel asked if it was still necessary to vote on the motion in two parts, and receiving no objections, said that the motion would be voted on in its entirety. MOTION PASSED unanimously. MOTION: Councilmember Cobb moved, seconded by . Fazzino, that staff prepare a report' on the ownership question related to the RM-0 zone, to deal with' the economic issues to the extent that changing the ownership equas#on would impact the preservation of rental - units, with the results to be available before Council's taking final action on the Natter. Mr, Freeland'sald that the question of ARB review should be looked at because the Planning Commission was split on that issue. MOTION PASSEDunanimously. _ COUt4CILMEM ER RENZEE LEFT AT 10:'50. p.m« ITEM #15, NORTHERN CALIFORNIA : POWER AGENCY GEOTFERMAL PROJECT_:N Anthony Bennett, Senior Assistant City Attorney said ,that in return` for Palo Alto's support of NCPA's proceeding _ to get. `tempo_ nary financing for Protect 3 in -"the geothermal gelsers area of Sonoma - County, it received a gnap,iraous resolution of .the tiCPA 2 $_$ 1 1/10/83 Commission that Palo Alto be brought in at the time of the permanent financing and the time when ownership of the project was divided--i.e., the third phase agreement for a level of participation that would give the City five megawatts, which was exactly what was requested. The exact terms of the City's parti- cipation remained to be negotiated, but given the fact that the City was only approving the temporary financing, this was the best that could be done at the time. He would °continue to move ahead to negotiate the City's entry :into the third phase. The Council needed to approve and ratify a letter from the ty to the banks who were to issue a letter of credit to secure the temporary financing, stating that whatever the City's interest, and whether it came in as a result of a negotiated agreement or whether the City had a right of entitlement to participate in the project, the City would not attack the validity of any financing arranged to bring the project on line. Councilmember Eyerly advised the Council that Mr. Bennetti was a tough lawyer and that Council should be proud: of the assimilation Mr. Bennetti had gained of the utilities and particularly of the electric utility, and with what he had accomplished. The financing assured Palo Alto's entry .into the third phase agreement of the Geothermal Project No. 3 for five megawatts. MOTION: Councflmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Cobb, approval of the following resolution, RESOL')TION 6087 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF O ALTO AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ISSUE A LETTER AGREEING TO SUBOPDIIIATE ANY INTEREST IN THE NM EAST BLOCK SHELL PROJECT TO A LETTER OF CREDIT I11 THE AMOUNT OF THIRTY (30) MILLION DOLLARS" Councilmemb er Eyerly congratulated Mr. Bennetti on his work, and urged the Council to support the Resolution. MOTION PASSED unanimously, Renzel absent. ITEM f15, REQUEST OF COUNCILMEMBER LEVY RE CONDOMINIUM CONVERSION Counci lmember Levy was concerned about the staff '`report on condo- minium conversion's tabulation of apartment vacancy -rate because the data the Council received when reporting on the tabulation should be accurate, and there were .a couple of areas which caused him concern. First, the comparison of staff's data to the news- paper tabulations of vacancies. He believed that staff properly responded to it. Staff suggested that Council not change its method of reporting until the reported vacancy rate exceeded 2.5 percent, and was found to, be `approaching ;the three percent threshold prescribed in the condominium conversion ordinance, and he concurred. Further, `he said that the 1980 census data indi- cated that in 1980 the vacant housing units totaled 700, which was a substantial number --three or four percent of the total housing units. He had a conversation with Mr. Zimmerman regarding .that, and was advised that at least some of that . tat'ge muter - could be explained by the fact that the census data appeared to count housing units which were in construction, and obviously not occu- pied. In addition, the.vacant housing units included both rental and ownership housing. ,NOTION: Counci lse ber Levy, moved, seconded by Klein, to adopt the staff recommendation- that the current Method of -.determining recital apartment 'aacascles.be coattneed until Stich tip as the" r:ratal apatment racaac r. rate •exceees 2.5 percent ::and is fosad to --'be am:.re/Whlag the= .348 Percent threshold preserlbed in the Condominium Conversios 0tdinance, and staff to report _ oa . census data as it affects rental waits. NOTION ° PASSIA onssfsously, 1 2 8 5 2 '.,/10/83 ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 11:05 p..m. ATTEST: 1 APPROVED: