Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1981-06-08 City Council Summary Minutes1 1 ITEM CITY COUIICIL MINUTES CITY OF PALO ALTO Regular Meeting Monday, June 8, 1981 - 7:30 p.m. PAGE Roll Call Oral Communications Approval of Minutes Consent Calendar Resolution re Results ofPalo Alto Resource Rally Ordinance Authorizing the Northern California Power Agency to Issue Revenue Bonds Public Employees' Retirement System Contract Amendment Transfer of Applications for Certain Licenses from the City Treasurer to the Chief of Police Playground Equipment for College Terrace Mini -Park T ree,Trimming - Award of Contract Anchoring of KZSU Broadcasts of Council Meetings Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Final Subdivision Map - 334 Cowper Public Hearing: Oak Creek Associates for a Tentative Subdivision Map for Property Located at 1300-1850 Willow Road Policy & Procedures Committee Recommendations re Increasing Speed Limit on Alma Street Public Hearing: University Avenue Area Civic Center Offstreet Parking Project No. 66-8 and 75-63 Resolution re SB 215 (Foran) - Transportation Financing Stop Sign Evaluation 7'p;' Referral to Policy and Procedures Committee Request of Councilmcmber Renzel re, Support of Draft Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Policy Adjournment 8 6 4 8 6 4 8 6 4 8 6 5 8 6 5 8 6 5 865 866 8 6 6 8 6 6 8 6 6 866 8 6 6 884 8 8 5 8 8 7 8 8 8 888 Regular. Meeting Monday, June 8, 1981 The City Council of the City o',f Palo Alto met nn this date in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:40 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Henderson, Klein, Levy, Renzel, Witherspoon Mayor Henderson announced the need for an executive session regarding personnel, to be held at the end of the meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS 1. Herb Borock, 3401 Ross Road, Palo Alto, spoke regarding closed session of 6/1/81. He reminded the Council of the requirements of the Brown Act, and voiced specific concerns. Mayor Henderson clarified that under the Brown Act, on June 1st, i t was not necessary that there be a public announcement following the executive session, since it involved a request for resignation and not a termination. Requirements of the Brown Act had been adhered to. MINUTES OF MARCH: 223, 1981 Councilmernber Fazzino had a correction on page 753, fifth para- graph from top, middle of paragraph, where the sentence should read, "If the total cost were reduced, and if he felt comfortable .," .Next sentence should have added at beginning, "Given his lack of support for housing on this site, he did not ...." Councilmember Klein said on page 743, for roll call, his name should be added as present. Counciimember Renzel had a correction on page 761, fourth para- graph, next to last line, "...Palo Alto was very well organized and our Erogram should be incorporated in their .campaign. She felt staff real iy deserved a tremendous thanks for their hard work." Councilmember Witherspoon, page 761, last paragraph, commencing with fourth Line, ".,.basically for insect -control research and she noted in the staff report that each year there had been an increase in the number of diseased trees rather than in pest related problems. She asked what covered the diseased trees because it was not covered in the contract, and was this an`. increase over the cost of the .contract last year." MOTION: Counci lmember Fletcher moved, seconded ;:by Fazzino, :_ to approve minutes Of March 23, 1981, as corrected. MOT1Q.Y PASSED unanimously. MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 1981 MOTION: Councilmeraber Witherspoon moved, approve minutes of April 6, 1981. MOTION P/SSED unanimously. 8 6/8/81 seconded by Levy, to CONSENT CALENDAR Mayor Henderson removed Item 1, Stop Sign Evaluation - Referral to Policy and. Procedures Committee from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Levy advised that he would "abstain from Item 4, Ordinance Authorizing the Northern •California Power Agency to Issue Revenue Bonds. Councijmernber Rer,zel removed Item 3, Resolution re SB 215 (Foran) Transportation Financing. MOTION: `ouncilmember Fletcher mrved, seconded by Klein, to approve the Consent Calendar as amended. Referral Items None Action .Items RESOLUTION RE RESULTS or PALO ALTO RESOURCE RALLY (CMR:302:1) Staff recommends that: Council approve a resolution as apprecia- tion to the community groups who vo t unteered to make the Great California Resource Rally and Palo Alto's "Litter Lift -Off" day a great success. RESOLUTION 5918 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO aTO STATING ITS APPRECIATION TO PARTICIPANTS OF THE GREAT CALIFORNIA RESOURCE RALLY" ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY TO 4: Staff recommends that Council approve an ordinance to give NCPA the ability to issue revenue bonds for its Geothermal Generating Unit Project No. 1. ORDINANCE FOR FIRST,. READING entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING THE NORTHERN CALIFORNIA POWER AGENCY TO ISSUE REVENUE BONDS (NCPA PROJECT NO. 1 - DEVELOPMENT FUND BONDS)" PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRACT AMENDMENT: ONE-YEAR 10 ORDINANCE; 3285 entitled "ORDINANCE. OF THE COUNCIL . OF THE U1v Or PALO ALTO AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN .THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFC.RNIA .: PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT "SYSTEM" (1st reading 5/18/81) TRANSFER_ . OF ; APPLICATIONS FOR CERTAIN LICENSES FROM THE CITY TR t li1 R To -qua € Staff recommends that Council approve the ordinance to transft`r applications for certain>.1icenses to the Chief of Police. 0 DINAt CE FOR FIRST. READING .}entitled :NORDINANCE OF THE UNCIL 6F THE CITY OF PALO ALTO'' ADDING CERTAIN SECTIONS TO CHAPTSR 4.10 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE AND REPEALING CHAPTER 4.1.4 p 8_ b 5 6/8/81 PLAYGROUND E UIPMENT FOR COLLEGE TERRACE MINI -PARK 'AWARD OF '"O1 t3RTRACT T CMR :306 : 1 T Staff recommends that Council award the Werry and Cameron Park play equipment installations contract to David F. .O'Keefe for $11,016 and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract. AWARD OF CONTRACT - David F. O'Keefe Company. TREE TRIMMING - Award of Contract (CMR:291:1) Staff recommends that the Mayor be authorized to execute a con - 'tract in the amount of $74,028 for 1,990 crew hours of work to the Davey Tree Expert Company. AWARD OF CONTRACT - Davey Tree Expert Company ANCHORING OF KZSU BROADCASTS OF COUNCIL MEETINGS (CMR:309:1) Staff recommends .amending the current contract with KZSU, to include responsibility for providing anchoring services. MOTION PASSED to approve consent calendar by a vote of 9-0, Levy "abstaining" on Item 4, Ordinance Authorizing NCPA to Issue Revenue Bonds. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS City Manager Zaner advised that Item 1, Stop Sign Evaluation, would become Item 14,B; Item 3, Resolution re SB 215 - Transpor- tation Financing, would' become 14-A. FINAL SUBDIVISION MAP FOR 334 COWPER 'Continued from May 11 Staff recommends that Council approve the final map. MOTION: Councilmernber Witherspoon moved, seconded by Bechtel, to approve the final map. MOTION PASSED unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY RECOMMENDS 111-"T V At OF T' MOTION: Cou-Rcilmember Eyerly moved, seconded by Witherspoon, to bring Item 14, Public Hearing on Tentative Subdivision Map. ofOak Creek Associates forward ahead of Item 11, Policy and Procedure. Committee reco nendatidn on speed limits on Alma Street. MOTION PASSED unanimously. Mayor- Henderson declared. the Public Hearing Open, Ted Noguchi, Director of Transportation, said that staff, had reassessed the `frontage road" inside the Oak Creek Apartment complex. The 1978 Sand Hill Road supplemental EIR reflected that a protected left turn into the Oak Creek Apartments was needed. In reassessing the problem, staff came": up with a concept to pro- vide the left turn protection fb'r- the Oak Creek tenants from the 1-280 direction by using what is :called the "jug handle design" at ,both driveways. Staff felt that ttisi .concept provided the left turn protection and kept the signals at the current two '8 5b 6/8/81 separate traffic movements necessary in reducing the congestion on Willow Road. Mr. Noguchi said, there ore, staff wished to pursue the second alternative rather than the original alterna- tive considered by the Planning Commission. The net effect of the plan was that the left hand turn lanes which currently come from the I-280 direction at the westerly driveway and at the cen- tral driveway could be ' removed and be replaced with the "jug. handle" turns. The concept would provide for straight entrance into the complex. Although there was a slight conflict with left turn movement out of the Willow Road complex during- the .p.m. peak hours, staff estimated these - -conflicts were relatively light. The net effect would be to provide the left turn protected move- ment and provide only two movements at the intersection. Mr. Noguchi said that if a third movement was interjected at the intersection, it would further delay the Willow Road traffic movement as well as- the traffic coming out of the Oak Creek Apartment complex. Ken Schreiber, Director of _Planning and Com_unity Environment, said that if the concept of the "jug handle" design was desired by the Council, one- of the problems would be that it would require an easement on property now owned by Stanford. Mr. Schreiber did not believe Stanford would be in a position to make any type of formal and binding :'commitment on the -part of the University to the solution. To that end, he said that staff had prepared some suggested modifications to condition 8, of the Planning Commission's recommendations which would add to the beginning of that condition..."That the applicant obtain a public roadway easement to construct modifications to the west of the central driveway intersections with Willow Road as described in Exhibit 14, (diagram for the intersection). If it is not pos- sible to construct the intersection improvements as described in Exhibit 14, then the applicant shall construct a -new..." Mr. Schreiber said that: the effect of the condition would make the alternative solution (the "jug handle" approach) -the pre- fer -red, desired alternative, vet give the City protection because staff'felt that given the r ,i prehensive Plan program's emphasis on reducing traffic congestion on Willow Road, and given the expl_anation..of the program. which referrec 'to making intersection improvements, some type -of improvement to those driveway inter- sections should be accomplished as part of the project- if Stanford failed to grant an easement add if it was not possible to pursue the design outlined by Mr. Noguchi, then staff would have a W lback position. Mayor Henderson _ asked about -- the '. time limit. He asked Mr. Schreiber to clarify if this meant that if Stanford could not, grant the easement immediately, then this road would be required. He ealso'eelonderedwhat if in a couple .o.f years, Stanford was doing some' development;on that side and suddenlye the easement would become feasible? Mr. Schreiber responded that the roadway would be .required to be constructed prior to the time of granting the use and occupancy permit for the project which would be the last, step. in the City process prior to the sale of any of the units, which could be as soon as early 1982 or several years after that. If the tentative map was approved and . the final map was then approved, it would be the .applicant, or converter's timing that would govern the pro-- cess. If, at some time in the future, Willow Read was redesigned or development occurred on the opposite side of the road, and there was a needfor a full intersection, it would be a matter of redesigning. The City would not be tied in to that type of solu- tion if another'- one could be worked out, but it would provide relief until there was some type of full intersection with a street on the other side. 867 6/8/81 Mayor Henderson asked what staff response would be to setting a time period on approval of the subdivision, for example,, that the road be built any time within four years following approval by Council.. Mayor Henderson felt that with more studies on Willow Road . there rust. be various alternatives besides the internal road, aid he didn't like having it locked in that if Stanford did not okay the road, the City would have to require the converter to put in the internal road before the conversion could occur. He would prefer it to be something the City could require eventually and asked if that would be difficult fur staff. Bob Brown, Associate Planner, said no, that staff was recom- mending a three-year time limit on completing the conversion pro- cess, including all -mprovements required, which would include the roadways. Councilmember f,enzel asked what alternatives would be available, if the City allowed the use and occupancy permit to be issued and approved the final map, to compel performance if it was not received prior to approval. Mr. Schreiber said that the alternative at that point would be the posting of some type of bond or guarantee that the project would be completed upon some type of triggering action. In terms of imposing conditions on subdivisions and other projects, as a matter of policy staff preferred having those conditions carried out prior to thz issuance of the use and occupancy permit, since that would be the last permit step before the project moved ahead. Councilmember Renzel asked if a bond were posted and if the applicant failed to meet the requirements in order- to get their bond back, what would be the City's- rel ief--would the City then be able to compel the construction of the road with that money. Mr. Schreiber said if the City had obtained. the easement then the City -could go ahead, If the easement had not been granted, then the City would have .the responsibility to obtain the easement from Stanford to make the improvement. In response to a question from Councilrnember Renzel, Mr. Schreiber responded that the easement for the connecting road was part of the --project and would not require the grant of a new easement from Stanford. Councilmember Rentel asked if the "jug handles' became too cum- bersome to get from Stanford, what would the City have to compel the connecting road. Mr. Schreiber responded that that was... what lead staff to require the condition that the actual construction work take place prior to the occupancy permit. Further, if the Fire Chief required modification and the;'Chief Building Official required certain corrections be carried out, that _ work must also be completed prior to issuance of the occupancy permit, because subsequently it would be more _difficult to obtain :compliance. Councilmember• Eyerly suggested that Planning Commission recom- mendations 8, 9, and 10 be made . conditions of the map with the Council retaining jurisdiction over those condition's for a period of three years. That would ena5le Council to bring those back for discussion and implementation. at any time if necessary. 8, 6.8 6/8/81 Counci1member Witherspoon asked Mr. Noguchi for the size of the "jay handle." the map, showed that the City alre'aly had a 90 - foot easement for Willow Road of which only the middle 60 feet was being used. Mr. Noguchi: responded t1iat the road had , not been designed, but staff estimated that about eight cars would be accommodated in each "jug handle," which would be about 200 feet in length. In response to Councilmember Witherspoon, Mr. Noguchi said„that by removal of the existing left turn lanes presently on Willow Road, and by adding about 20 feet to the South from where the existing shoulder line was, the "jug handle" could be accom- pl fished. Councilmember Witherspoon felt that an easement might not be required if there already was a 90 -foot easement for Willow Road. Mr. Noguchi said it was his recollection that the 90 -foot right of way was based on the earlier Sand Hill Road project and involved some dedication from Stanford on the south side of Willow Roads Mr. Schreiber said that in Connection with Counci1Member Wi therspoon' s comment on Stanford's abi 1 i ty to act on that matter given their restriction, on what they could do with the land in terms of sale, staff proposed an easement rather than requiring the land in fee title as part of the right-of-way. Although it -was a` relatively minor difference, from Stanford's standp-Oint it might be a significant difference, because it would not require a fee. title change. Counci1member Klein said that if they were. talking about a bond, for the "juy handle," they would first need some idea of the cost of that improvement. He asked if etaff had any estimate. Mr. Noguchi replied staff estimated about 540,000 to $50,000 for both "jug handles." aouncilmember Klein asked if that included any payment to Stanford for purchase of the easement. Mr. Noguchi said no. it was for Construction costs handle" only. Counci1 member Fletcher asked if the cost estimate included required signalization modifications. Mr. No{, uchi _ responded that the si gnal ization improvements were already scheduled for that location anti - the $50,000 did not i nc i ude si giial i zati on changes. u9 Ccunc i lmember Ren`zel asked staff ' to explain. the. RMR contribution. It seemed to her that a co9mitment had been made : to build 55 units, or about one acre's worth of building, and; al so to pay any rental deficits for a period, of time with a total amount not to exceed about $3.4 mil lion. She wondered . i f the units were not built, oe if for some reasoni the City did not produce a place, or if the revenue boed -measure did not pass, why was the alter-. nate-contribution so low. I69 - 6/8/81 Mr. Schreiber said that the alternate contribution was $100,000 per year foe twenty years. Staff started the BMR negotiation process -with Mr, Carey in late January and concluded in late April. A. certain equivalency for the lifetime lease units was desired, and then staff started to work on how to satisfy the remainder of ,the BMR requirements. He added that periodically Mr. Carey objected strenuously to some of the conclusions arrived at by staff. In the negotiation process, it was costed out to two multiple family rental projects of 55 units. One used rela- tively low construction costs and low financing assumptions and yielded an initial negative cash flow of approximately $55,000 per year. A second project, using higher construction costs and high financing assumptions was costed out, and that project came out with an initial negative cash flow on the order of $150,000 per year. -- If the project did not go ahead, 'the number was basically a splitting of the range. Mr. Schreiber felt it was important to note that in the BMR process, in dealing with a more - typical project, the objective was not to make the developer pay a great deal out-of-pocket, but to require 10% of the units at the developer's cost. If that cost was so high that the units were outside of the BMR program, then there were options of taking fewer units at a -deeper discount, or in -lieu. payments. In the current situation, Mr. Carey was committing himself to act as the developer with- no profit to himself using revenue bonds, or City provided funds. Mr. Carey was providing the developer func- tion, which was what the City would normally get- -from the BMR process. However, in the current situation, because of recent federal actions and the high cost of development, there was a negative cash flow with the rental project. If, by Mr. Carey acting as the developer, hiring the architect and engineer, and supervising the construction, the City could not cover the nega-, hive cash flow, there would be no way to come up with a project. That was why they continued discussions of how to make the pro- ject work. Mr. Schreiber felt .that although Mr. Carey, objected to the overall BMR concept as applied to a condorniniurn conver- sion, his agreement to go ahead with it if the Council desired, indicated to Mr. Schreiber t-;1at Mr. Carey was going beyond what would normally be expected 'in the satisfaction of as below - market -rate obligation. If the project ,was built, Mr., Schreiber said it was foreseeable that perhaps somewhere down the road there would be no . negative trash flow. Again, the BMR obligation was to acquire units and not necessarily- to get something out of the developer on an ongoing basis. However, Mr. Schreiber felt. that in the situation where there was a stream of money which could _be capped on an Ongoing basis, most likely the effort would be to holy: down the rents and continue: to use the stream, of income in: helping to finance the project. Basically, the $100,000 was a middle number using high and low assumptions. Mayor .Henderson asked for clarification. He _thought that the •$3,4OO,000 was based or:_Aak Creek Associates having to: contribute the: -entire $151,000_ each year. They .might only have to con- tribute a small, amount or perhaps nothing in later years so that the City would not know what :the contribution would be if the project was 'huilt. 1f -there Was -no project, then. they had taken, -the .$2 million :i gure. Councilmember Renzel asked if the. obligation to build the 55 unitswas triggered only i-1both a piece of land was a available cind the revenue bond measure_ passed or did it only have to be scheduled. Jean Diaz, Real Property Administrator, said that in essence-, there were two components. One, the Oak Creek project wouldhave to go forward; and two, when the City identified a site or multiple sites for Oak Creek Associates to fulfill the construc- tion obligation and when the City was in a position to finance the project through the bond measure. Mr. Diaz indicated that it 1 1 870 6/8/81 was not a revenue bond that required a vote of the public because it was secured by revenues from the project. The bonds would be multiple -family residential mortgage bonds, which as of this time' were available for this type of project. Councilmember Renzel asked if it was staff's opinion that there would be a net. loss of approximately 200 rental units to the City given the various assumptions such as 30% of new condominium pro- jects would be rental and that it could be a smaller deficit assuming that 30% of all new condominiums built would be rental. Mr. Brown replied yes, but that could charge dependent upon when the conversion actually occur;red. Staff was basing the figures as of the end of 1981. If the conversion occurred in 1982, it could be a different situation dependent upon construction in the City at that point, and dependent upon construction within Stanford. He thought that Stanford's 800 -bed dormitory would be built in 1982 and that would be included. Mr. Schreiber said- that the Comprehensive Plan defined the housing market as the planning area, which included the University. Thus, in preparing the dwelling unit totals,` staff had added in as a separate item, Stanford houseing, Using the zoning ordinance definition of the equivalency of bearding house units to actual units for parking calculations, for dormitory beds, staff equated four dormitory beds with one unit. Councilmember Fletcher regarding whether a vote was needed, thought there was a State regulation for any subsidized housing similar to the vote that was taken on Webster Wood. Mr. Oiaz responded that Article 34 of the State Constitution would require a vote if Oak Creek was a public housing .project and that was through the legislation and through the statute itself. That would be a case where there was more than 50% of low and moderate income housing. In the Anstant case, Oak Creek. would be "moderate income housing" and only 20%, of the units would be- considered low income, so it would_ not approach the level of where Article 34 -would need to be considered. Councilmemher Fletcher inquired, assuming there was a possibility that . the City could not find a site large enough, would the pro- ject still be feasible if it were split into two or more loca- tions. Mr. Oiaz said ,yes. He felt that one of the nice things about the proposal was that the obligation could be spread over more than one site. For example, he said that if the City had developers come in for industrial expansion and it might be possible that. they provide some of their site for new housing, part of this required housing could be provided on that site and part could be locateu somewhere else. Councilmember Klein asked, assuming that the money advanced`�by .: Mr. Carey'.s organization was ._not sufficient to cover the negative cash flow of the below -market -rate units during the . first few gears, where would the deficit funds come from. Mr. Diaz said there would be the housing funds that could only be used for . housini- purposes. Further, he said that at any given time, it was likely that there would be some amount in that kitty. If those funds were not available, the City treasury could also be used. The deficit amount was rolled over 'into 87] 6/8/81 future obligations with interest based on the City's return on its portfolio. In effect, there would be no loss to the City even if the City advanced .the funds in that manner. Councilmember Klein asked if it would be possible to borrow more initially to provide for the reserve to be used against possible cash flow deficit. Mr. Diaz said that for most bond were required as part of the bond the City would be required to set end, and that was accounted for in City anticipated setting aside some that eventuality. issues, significant reserves package. It was likely that aside reserves in the front the $3.5 million figure. The significant reserves to cover Councilmember Levy asked Mr. Diaz if mortgage revenue bonds had been used in the State for moderate income housing where, at least initially, a negative cash flow was anticipated. Mr. Diaz said he did not know. He knew there were problems with single-family revenue mortage be ds and that with new legislation at the state and federal level, it was impossible to apply those bonds. However, Mr. Diaz said the City had been fortunate in that ,multiple -family revenue mortgage bonds were still available. Staff had met with bond counsel, and the way this package was structured, it was staff's opinion that there world be no problem obtaining that type of financing for the project. Councilmember Levy asked if the owner of the project would be the City of Palo Alto and would the City ultimately be responsible for any deficits beyond those anticipated. Mr. Diaz responded that the City would be the owner or the entity in control. The City could, through some arrangement, lease or sell, with an option to repurchase, similar to Webster Wood, involve the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The City would not be responsible for any deficit. The way the project had been struc- tured, the City was, in. effect, guaranteed deficit coverage by Oak Creek Associates who would be responsible for any deficit. This arrangement would have to he guaranteed i.n some way via deeds of trust or letter of credit or something that would back up this obligation. Councilmember Levy asked if an RMR bond was not; possible, were there alternative ways to finance the project. Mr. Diaz said he thought there was. He said that one of the techinques currently being explored was a variation of a munici- pal financing technique whereby lease options have been used for purchase of equipment bypublic agencies. This technique was now being expanded into the field of capital improvements and might be applicable in this area, offering benefits which could exceed those offered by multiple -family revenue mortgage bonding. Councilmember Levy asked if, as far, as sites were concerned,, the school sites were appropriate. For` example, would the Term_ an site fit into -what had been discussed. Mr. Diaz said- it could to the extent that the obligation could be applied to any site designated by the City where the City had through some arrangement obtained control. Timing, of course. was -a factor. Councilmember Fletcher noted that a letter from the Housing Corporation, stated the bond issuance was tied into the obtaining ,of Section 8 funding. She wondered if bonds could still be issued if Section 8 was cut off. 8 7 2 6/8/81 i 1 1 Mr. Diaz said no. That was a firm condition of existing multiple -family revenue mortgage bond statutes that in order to use that method of financing, the project must have at least 20% Section 8, eligible tenants. Councilmember Fletcher asked if there was a contingency plan in the wings in case it occurred. Mr. Diaz said staff was looking into the alternate form of finan- cing and that staff also had the guarantee of an entity to cover the deficits. This meant that the deficit had to be covered because of the subsidy in the rental for Section 8 units. Scott Carey for Oak Creek Associates, 180 University Avenue, Palo Alto, said that the road had triggered ari out -pouring of feeling at Oak Creek. He noted that while it took Oak Creek Associates about 90 days to get 1,063 signatures on the consent forms, it took Oak Creek only four days to get over S00 signatures on a petition opposing the internal read system. Mr. Carey said that the City Attorney's office recornme ;led, and it has been agreed, that in order to insure that .the economic provisions of the lifetime lease could not be modified by a sub- sequent homeowner's association, those provisions be superior to the CC&R's. Also, it was agreed in concept to extend the rights of lifetime tenants with respect to construction. All lifetime lease owners would be required to carry 100 percent of replace- ment value, all risk iesurance; and therefore, that termination was tied to that provision The conditions dealing with certain economic promises of the applicant to the tenants would be incor- porated into the map conditions. Even though they were written promises and the people at flak Creek who received the promises had other courses of action available to hold Oak Creek Associates to their promises, both the City Attorney's office and staff felt that as an additional insurance policy that those promises would be fulfilled they should be made a part of the map conditions. Mr. Carey continued, saying that the conditions contained in the June 4 staff report were not entirely in accord with the written promises to the tenants. He said he had given the written corre- spondence with respect to those conditions to the City Attorney's uffice and he felt the the City Attorney's office would say that the rewrite conformed to the promises made to the tenants. Regarding BMR, Mr. Carey said, for the record, the process was started publicly in March of 1980,, and he had appeared before the Council in the summer of 1980, and again in fall of 1980, with respect to the conversion of Oak Creek. The Council took action with respect to City-wide conversions, and Oak Creek Associates. proceeded based on that action. It was not until January of 1981, after the consent process was completed, and after Oak Creek Associates had been locked into ceetain economics with respect to the project that the City amended the Comprehensive Plan, deleting the word "new' from the BMR provisions which, prior to that time, required a AMR contribution only with respect to new -.development .or new construction. He said it was Oak Creek Associates' position that the only conversion in_'the pipeline and being processed at the time that deletion occurred was Oak Creek. Therefore, since not only the conversion ordinances., but also the 8MR provi siont, were about to be amended with respect te,. future conversions, that modification affected= -only Oak Creek which was the only conversion in process. Oak Creek Associates were unable to react to that change by including it in as a known cost to conversion and accounting for it. They have struggled since January, with City staff and with the Housing Corporation, to try and accommodate andcompromise this problem, even' though it meant retroactively analyzing their cost analysis on the conversion. The recommendations of staff and the Planning Commission were 8 ► 3 6/8/81 .agreed to and would be performed by Oak Creek Associates. He said the City was getting 55 units at cost, and that was the basis upon which .City had negotiated below -market contributions, namely, construction Costs. In addition, the City would receive a dollar amount each year for twenty years, which amounted to some $3 million. Oak Creek Associates felt that this was not - only something the City could look to for the creation of pro- duct, but they also felt this was a better way to attack the housing problem for moderate income people; better than simply collecting dollars .from developers. This would give the .City product and -flexibility. He added that the $150,000 per year estimated deficit included a number of contingencies. He felt the. deficit_could well he less dependent on when it was built, but felt it was a very'safe number and included extraordinary cost overruns, contingencies, start-up reserves, etc. Mr. Carey said he hoped and estimated that the net deficit would. be .more irr the neighborhood of $100,000 per year. Regarding the road, Mr. Carey commented that he felt if the Council took the staff recommendation now and .simply added language that, prior to the effect of condition re termination and the reversion to acreage clause, if. at any time prior to reversion of acreage, at the written request of -the City, the applicant would comply and fulfill conditions 8, 9, 10 and/or the "jug handle" system, and prior to the issuance of the use and occupancy permit, the estimated cost shall be bonded, in hisopinion the City would have insured the completion of such improvements and at the same: time would have more time to study the impact, for example, of Stanford's application, and be better able- to analyze the access problems at Oak Creek by relating those problems to the proposed development further east. The City would_ still retain the jurisdiction to get the improvements but would have sufficient time to get an even better resolution of the problems. Mr. Carey said that in the last two weeks, there had been two proposed solutions, and he ,thought that In another two months there could be a better one. Joe Lewis, resident of Oak Creek, said that tenants ultimately had agreed to the conversion of Oak Creek in an es -is condition. The tenants had had public meetings with the owner, and converter and representatives of more than one owner. He said the tenants were told that Oak Creek would be preserved as -is and maintained up to the quality that had existed. Destroying the park area and destroying the aesthetics of the center of the pro- ject was not discussed. There was a substantial amount of people present who did not support' the frontage road. Mr. Lewis said he was told by staff that they would not urge the internal road and as a result, the tenants lost having 200-300 more people present at the meeting and another 500 signatures on the petition., He urged Council to not put in the. alternative, If Council desired "jug handles" across the road fine,. but the conversion was not consented to with ",lug handles." David 81 omenthaa`, 1166 Willow Road, #216, Palo Alto, en behalf of the lifetime lease tenants, said thank; you to the City Council and the Planning Commission for their sincere concern and coop- eration regarding the lifetime' lease. When. the damages and repairs clause was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission, the lifetime lease tenants requested the necessary adjustments be effected so that it would be satisfactory : to all parties concerned. The, City Attorney had assured him that the rephrasing coveringthis- would be in order -and equitable. Mrs Carey had concurred as well. Therefore, in an effort to cooper- ate. he ; had submitted a suggested revision to be considered as a part of that clause. In the final analysis. he felt they must all learn to live together whether they owned or rent. 87 4_ 6/8/81 1 1 Louis Fein, 1540 Oak Creek Drive, Palo Alto, felt it was in the best interests of the City and of Oak Creek tenants to deny the application for- a tentative subdivision. In his opinion, the conversion was extraordinarily inflationary and if the Council held a special executive session to hear the testimony of tenants who would not publicly admit harassment .and .coercion, ' he was con- vinced they would find a large number who would testify that they had been harassed and coerced. He said Mr. Carey -urged owners and lessees of Oak Creek to read and understand the CC&R's when they were subnitied to Council, but that they had not as yet been submittea to the tenants. Before the planning commission meeting one copy was available at City Hall for the -`-759 apartments having more than 1,000 tenants. -He did not feel it appropriate to add new:' sections to the lease, without making provisions for the tenants to be able to examine --them. Mr. Fein felt Council should condition their approval on Mr. Carey's arranging for. an '11-3/4% mortgage to potential owners before the conversion was approved. Milton Wirth, 1736 Oak Creek Drive, agreed with some of Mr. Fein's statements. The CC&R's reflected that Oak Creek Associ- ates would have control of the Homeowner's Association.. Until they had less than 190 units, they would maintain three votes for every unit they owned or controlled, and eery other tenant got one vote. Further, the budgeting was based on historical cost accounting and it would probably be better to use replacement cost accounting and trying to figure out what the budget would be. Se thought that the figures of what the cost would -be to a homeowner were underestimated. He hoped that the Council would impose a reserve fund large enough to cover underestimated oper ating costs and that a reserve fund of approximately five percent of market value would be required. Regarding fire protection at Oak Creek, at the very least there should he sprinkler systems -installed.,in common areas. He felt that the "suicide nozzels" should be eliminated from Palo Alto. In addition, the garage spaces had small portable fire extinguishers which said, "0nlyeto •be used on Class A fires," i.e. wood, paper, combustibles. The alarm system should be integrated with the Palo Altoa1 Fire Department and smoke detectors should be installed. Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, spoke regarding the BMR conditions. He felt the City should allow itself four years to acquire a site which would also take into account funding for,te BMR acreage. He did not feel it was appropriate to rely on school sites, cr federal funding. He was also concerned about the Section 8 financing that the City could have a cash flow problem. There should be adequate provisions to insure that the City suffered no cash flow problem. He liked the road improvements and "jug handle" con- cept. He also felt the health and safety conditions should be made in advance of the conversion and that the Council should look at the CC&R's and assure themselves th :t the developer would not retain control of the management beyond six months from the initial conversion. The tenants should .also have the right to discharge the management firm after six months. William Resnick, 1618 Willow Road, speaking for residents of Oak Creek, did not feel that Mr. Fein spoke for the majority of tenants. In `hi s opinion, the tenants were not coerce into signing the consent forms. He felt the Council was faced with a problem of reality and ' suggested that they proceed along that line. Al Roo-fley-, 152C Willow Road, .was in_favor of the conversion, but was opposed to the road construction. He did not think the road benefited anyone at Oak Creek and did not solve the problem along Willow Road. Further, he rejected everything that Mr." Fein said as not being representative` of anything he had heard from any resident of Oak Creek, particularlythe coercion remarks. Frank .Lindstrom, 1812 Willow Road, was opposed to the internal roadway. 875 6/8/81 Robert Krebs, 1700 Willow Road, was opposed. to the rood. He urged that Council deny the internal roadway, but felt the "jug handle" approach was alright Upon receiving no further requests to speak, Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing closed. Recess from 9:30 p.m. to 9:40 p.m. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Eyerly, the Planning Commission recommendation to approve the application of Oak Creek Associates for teetative subdivision map for property located at 1300-1850 Willow Road, Oak Creek Apartments subject to conditions as follows: 1. That a Certificate of Use and Occupancy be obtained prior to sale, lease, use or occupancy of any building or structure as community housing subject to the provision of Chapter 16.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; e. That each of the tenants of the proposed condominium project at the time of issuance of the subdivision public report and for a period of 90 days thereafter be given notice of an exclusive right to contract for the purchase of their respec- tive units; those tenants in possession of units prior to March 6, 1981 shall be offered their units at the prices originally quoted in Exhibit "A" of the Planning Commission recommendation and at terms set forth in Exhibit 15 or terms more favorable. 3. That those tenants occupying the project upon issuance of the subdivision public report who do not wish to purchase their respective unit be offered the lifetime lease attached as Exhibit 6 (as modified by atteched revisions), the base rent of which will be equal to the rental amount charged on the date of tentative, map application (March 6, 1981) for each unit; 4. That individual condominium units be separately metered for electric service at the discretion of the Chief Building Official; 5. That the southwesterly ingress -egress easement be corrected on the final map to conform to the existing roadway correction to Willow Road; . 6. That all requirements of the Fire Department be met prior to issuance of use and occupancy permit; 7. That the BMR agreement as outlined in Exhibit 9 be finalized prior to submission of the final subdivision map applica- tion; 8.: That the applicant construct a new: internal roadway .con- necting the two existing parking lots as outlined '1n the 1918 Sand Hill Road Supplemental EIR (pages 4 & 5) prior to obtaining a use and occupancy permit -- this roadway should be curved as close to Willow Road as possible , to maximize the amount of open space ond, should 'include extensive screen planting; 9. .That the applicant redesign the Willow Road center barrier in front of the easterly access point as required by the Director of Transportaton to eliminate left -turning' vehicular movements; 8 7 6 6/8/81 10. That the easterly intersection with Willow Road be eliminated upon completion of a frontage road connecting to Pasteur. Drive by eventual removal of paving and abandonment of that portion of the existing ingress -egress easement between the potential frontage road and Willow Road; 11. That the existing creekside trail be maintained by. the:Oak Creek Homeowner's Association; 12. That the applicant eliminate irrigation within 6-8 feet of the existing mature oak trees by redesigning the irrigation system, by removal of rock and ]awn encircling the trees, and by replacing the removed materials surrounding the trees at a radius of 6-8 feet with dirt; 13. That the applicant reimburse the City for costs of printing and distribution of staff reports and public hearing notices to all tenants (as provided for in the Subdivision Map Act), payment shall be within thirty days (30 days) of receipt of an itemized bi l l ing. Councismember Witherspoon asked if the existing creekside trail was being maintained currently. Scott Carey said it was being maintained by Oak Creek, but was not a public trail in that it had not been dedicated nor condemned nor made public, but that there had not been severe restrictions to public use other than the position that it was private. He said that the Planning Commission discussed the issue and it was decided to put it in status quo. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Witherspoon moved, seconded by Fazzino, to eliminate Item 8, the new internal roadway, and that applicant obtain a public roadway easement and construct modifications to the western and central driveway intersections with Willow Road as described in Exhibit 16, or such other alternative intersection plan as may be acceptable to Council at the time final map is approved. Construction shall take place prior to obtaining a Use and Occupancy Permit. Counci lrhember Eyerly was concerned that Stanford would move ahead with their housing on Willow Road and that there were other traf- fic problems on Willow. Road which must be solved and said he wanted to make sure a mandatory improvement would work in with the entire roadway. He favored the updated staff recommendation with the jug handle plus the internal road added to the map as a condi- tion of fulfillment, and having the Council, if they desired, able to activate that within the. next three years, which would be_ ahead of the occupancy permit. It would be mandatory now for the developer to start on it. Mr. Schreiber said that the condition would go with the final map. Normally, the actual construction would not occur until the pro- ject was moving toward occupancy or , an occupancy permit. He did not believe 'there would be any necessity for the ` applicant to start intersection improvements now. He did not think the, devel- oper would want�: o start the intersection improvements until they knew they would 4j!) for the final map' and actually proceed with the project. --This would tie construction into the occupancy permit rather than the final map and would = make a decision on the alter- native tied into the final map: Coun-cili eMber Eyerly understood and said he ,• was concerned that if staff went to work on what would be right for Oak Creek it would not necessarily be the right answer, : it . could be premature, and a decisi ►i: may be reached; and there may be other;solutions for the roadway.- He did not think Council would want'to activate the start of intersection improvements until staff had had ample time 877 6/8/81 to study where Willow Road was going and what else would be hap- pening, and then come back with a recommendation that might acti- vate the condition for Willow Road at ,Oak Creek-. Councilmember Renzel said she would support the amendment. Mr. Carey said it was common in subdivisions to bond for perform- ance subsequent to the map being issued. He did not think there would be any problem with adding that if construction did not take place prior to the use and occupancy permit that the costs would be bonded. He felt it would. be extremel, difficult to commence construction of the roadway improvements at the time the Use end Occupancy Permit was issued. The road would have to be designed, bid, discussed with Stanford, and easements drawn. He felt a severe -time limit would be imposed by requiring that the construc- tion be completed prior to the use and occupancy permit. If that could not be done, the use and occupancy permit would have to be delayed. Also, he felt the wording tied it directly to intersec- tion improvements, and he thought Council would want to broaden the language to say, " any other road improvement alternatives acceptable to Council." Councilmember ,Witherspoon, with agreement of Fazzino, included that in the amendment. Councilmember Renzel said she would opposed the addition of alter- native road improvements rather than intersection plan. She felt that the purpose of dealing with the intersections in conjunction with the project was because the Willow Road EIR showed that the intersections were the major problem along Willow Road and that if some of the uses of "green time on Willow Road for left turn move- ment" could be cleared up, traffic could be expedited along Willow Road without necessitating major improve= -rents. She felt that to Correct- add in "any other road improvements alternatives" suggested that a ion major project was being brought back, as opposed to dealing with See pg. the intersection problem. Further, she felt to require that an 1130 easement be obtained prior to the use and occupancy permit and 8/10/81 that a bond be posted would give the City its full powers to implement the jug handle intersection without necessarily having to be constructed immediately. Councilmember Klein felt it was inappropriate to use a bond at this time. He thought that the messsage to be delivered to Oak Creek Associates by Council should be to complete the road improvements as soon as possible. He thought by posting a bond now would be an invitation to delay and he wanted to see the road improvement completed as soon as possible. C,ouncilmember Fletcher responded to Councilmember Renzel's concern regarding "road improvements" and suggested- it be called ".traffic flow improvements." Sher; thought that would get . to the heart of the Council's concern. AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT:. Councilmember Bechtel moved,e seconded by Renzel to delete the phrase, "or such other alternative inter- section plan as may be acceptable to Council at the time final map is approved." Cquncikkember Levy was concerned that 'Council had no alternative to Exhibit 16. He thought it should come back to Council no, mat- ter what . was done and that Council should not be limited. to Exhibit 16. He preferred to see the, original language. Councilmember Bechtel said that, reason for_.' eliminating the phrase was that it put more emphasis on finding a solution as proposed with the jug handle. Councilmember Eyerly asked staff for its understanding original motion. 878 6/8/81 the .. 1 1 1 Mr. Schreiber responded that the applicant was to pursue jug handle solution and if that was not; acceptable or feasible then an. alternative world come back to Council for the specific traffic ,problem. He did not interpret the motion as a staff assignment to activate some type of investigation other than working with the applicant. Counc lmember Eyerly was concerned that when the matter came back to Council that the overall conditions on Willow Road would_ have been looked at, and staff would come back with the best alterna- tive, not just that they could do the "jug handle." AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT FAILED to eliminate "any other roadway improvements acceptable to Council" by a vote of 5-4 as follows: AYES: Renzel, Klein, Fletcher, Bechtel NOES: Eyerly, Henderson, Fazzino, Levy, Witherspoon AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by i" Bechtel, that language read instead of "traffic flow or roadway improvements" "such other alternative intersection plan acceptable to the City Council." AMENDMENT TO AMENDMENT PASSED by a vote of 5-4 as follows: AYES: Renzel, Klein, Fletcher, Bechtel, Levy NOES: Eyerly, Henderson, Fazzino, Witherspoon AMENDMENT AS AMENDED PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Bechtel moved, that Planning Corrrmissior1 recommendation #11, creekside hiking trail, be amended to read: "That the existing creekside hiking trail which has been available for public use be maintained by the Oak Creek Homeowner's Association and that no restrictions to public use of the trail be imposed at any time." Mayor. Henderson asked Mr. Brown if the "no restrictions" part had been taken out for some reason other than anything to do with public usage. Assistant .City Attorney Margaret Sloan responded that staff was asking for something similar to. a dedication, but it was not actually in the sense that staff was asking that the trial not be restricted and yet staff was also saying they did not think the City would want to be. -responsible for maintenance and liability. This troubled some members of the Planning Commission so it was decided that they would rather have the maintenance and be able to count .9n i t remaining status qu9. She thought that as currently written the trail could only ..be closed for maintenance purposes. Councilmember Fazzino was in support of the intent of the original approach, but was concerned that the City not be legally liable for mai nten'ence or other problems which might arise.. He . asked Mrs. Sloan' if she was concerned about potential liabilities and asked if Councilmember Bechtel's recommendation should- be approved. Mrs. Sloan responded that staff . was concerned about potential liabilities, but that if .it were open to public use at all times, there would be a good argument that essentially it had become an implied dedication Councilmember .Fazzino asked if a less, strong statement about non- restriction of access could be made and avoid potential liability problems. 8 7 9 6/8/81 Mr. Carey said that the current Planning Commission recommendation was such that if it were not altered, the public would be allowed to use the trail. If it were changed and something about the public added, Oak Creek Associates must have the right to post and close it periodically to maintain its private nature and avoid liability problems. Councilmember Witherspoon said, she would not support the amend- ment. Councilmember- Eyerly felt that the `wording recommended by the Planning Commission was the best. He said that the public was using the trail and would be permitted to continue to use it by 'the Planning Commission recommendation. Mayor Henderson agreed with Councilmember Eyerly. He did not think government should change something that was working fine. SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT: Councilmember Fletcher moved, seconded by Levy, to go with the Planning Commission recommendation for condition #11 and add at the end '...and that present use should not be changed." SUBSTITUTE AMENDMENT. PASSED by vote of 7-2, ,Eyerly and Witherspoon voting 'no Councilmember Klein said that regarding the BMR proposals, he was concerned that Council was not .being consistent with what was being done with other developers. He realized the instant situa- tion was unusual, but felt that if Council started with the idea that in -lieu payments were adopted in this situation, they might have run approximately $5,000 per unit, it would be seen that the City should have received something in the neighborhood of $3.5 to $4 million. He. said he had tried to calculate the benefits from various proposals made and felt that the proposal to provide con- struction of 55 units. at -no cost an4. no profit to the developer comes out at a value of approximately $750,000. He felt that the total value was considerably less than what the City might ask for from a developer that did not have the unique circumstances that Oak Creek Associates does. He : was troubled by the .part of- the package that talked about the $150,000 per year and particularly, he was bothered that that money was not guaranteed and that if the project '.turned positive in six to eight years, ;hat Mr. Carey would be the one that benefited and the City would not. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein moved, seconded by Bechtel, to .amend the BMA agreement as outlined in -Exhibit 9 to provide that in all-,aevents the $151,3.00 per year payments be' made for 15 years no. mattor- what the circumstances of the profitability of the pro= ject .may be:. Ir. Carey said he would: have no problems with the amendments so long as he had the 'force majeure" escape clauses included, lnciuded therein would be City inability to respond. He felt Oak 'Creek Associates should have some extension by reason -of ., City delay, Councilmembor Witherspoon asked Councilmember:. Klein $151,300 would be earmarked for anything particular. Cauncilrerber. Klein sale he .assumed wi sh to use it for housing. Mr. Schreiber -said that staff understood that the money would be used for _.:.City housing,. programs as needed -, rather than straight general fund.: if the 1 future Councils would Councilmember Renzel asked Councilmember Klein for clarification if the amendment was intended to be a firm agreement regardless of whether the units were constructed. 1 1 Councilmember Klein said his motion governed that if the project did not have a deficit, then for whateeer remaining years from that point and year 15, Oak Creek Associates would still have to make the payment of $151,300 per year, which the City would most likely use for housing. Councilmember Levy asked staff what monetary value would be appro- priate in this case and who would pay for the land. Mr. Diaz responded that the BMR program was intended to arrive at units not money. The program was geared toward providing new units. He thought that the issue of how much money Mr. Carey was to pay was secondary to the fact that the City would be receiving 55 units at no cost to the City. Mr. Diaz said that the land could be provided by the City or some other entity that may be involved in terms of some housing obligation. Councilmember Levy felt that one of the -beauties of the BMR pro- gram was not building separate housing projects, but taking a nor - anal housing development acid interspersing in th.e.t development in a random fashion ten percent of the units, .that would be different in their amenities and construction and size, but to all intents and purposes would not appear different. He felt that that con- cept was being violated in this case and he felt that concept was important. Further, even though the developer was providing his overhead and development expertise as a contribution, and was al so going beyond that to provide money, he was not providing the land and Councilmember Levy thought it would be preferable, although he realiaed it was impossible, that a certain number of units in Oak Creek be set aside on a random basis. He understood that it had been discussed and analyzed and determined that it would not be practical, but he thought they should still be able -to say that a certain "present -value -amount- of -money„ worth of units should be provided. Mayor Henderson responded to Councilmember Levy's comments that the 10% 8MR program was not the City's major No. 1 program. He said that the City was better off getting moderate income -prices at 04k Creek, and then having 55 more units available at low - moderate income. Councilmember Klein felt that the intent was to provide units of housing and that what he' suggested was appropriate because if the City or the. Housing Corporation were able to operate the units so that they would be in a positive cash flow early. the City's housing stock should be beneficiaries of that. Mr. Carey's obli- gation should go forward for a reasonable number of years there- after and that the City could use that money to build more units. Councilmember Eyerly agreed " with the Mayor's statement, and he also felt the City was obtaining lifetime leases on the rental factor in Oak Creek. He said he would rather see the item left as, it had been negotiated and did not want that endangered. Mr. Carey, said that Oak Creek Associates wdsprepared at the end of the meeting if Mr. Klein's motion was approved to accept it and waive any argument about .not being required to produce BMR pro- duct, but would prefer to wait until the end of the meeting. AMENDMENT PASSED to change BMR requirement that in al1. events the $151,300 per year payment would .be made for at least 15 years, by. a vote of 6-3 as follows: AYES: Bechtel, Fletcher, Henderson, Klein, Levy, Renzel NOES: Eyerly, Fazzino, Witherspoon AMENDMENT: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Bechtel, that. the amount for the mitigation for the alte"native be equivalent at a minimum to the total amount of $2,269,500. AMENDMENT FAILED by a vote of 5-4 as follows: AYES: Renzel, Fletcher, Bechtel, Levy NOES: Eyerly, Klein, Henderson, Fazzino, Witherspoon AMENDMENT: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, that con- dition #2 be rewritten to state that "After December 31, 1981, prices to be offered to such tenants shall not exceed the maximum price quoted in the applicant's proposal letter to such tenants dated September 10, 1980. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Witherspoon,.thet condition #3 read as follows: "That those tenants occupying the project, upon the issuance of the subdivision public report, who do not wish to purchase their respective unit, be offered a life- time lease attached as Exhibit 6, the base rent of which will be equal to the rental amount charged for the month preceding the commencement date of the lifetime lease; and further provided that if any tenant received a rent increase after January 1, 1981 and such increase exceeds the amount that would have been allowable under paragraph 3(b), (c) or (d) of the lifetime lease, the amount of such excess shall not be included in the base rent." 1. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. AMENDMENT: Councilmember Klein mc',ed, seconded by Levy, to add a sentence to the end of Paragraph I to Exhibit 9 to read, "Oak Creek Associates shall promptly commence. the work necessary to gain approval of the project and unless prevented from doing so by some action or _failure to act by the City shall begin construction of the project Within one year of the date the City designates the site or sites for said construction." Counci member Witherspoon asked staff if the amendment was realis- tic. Mr. Diaz said that this type of agreement typically would include the "for=ce majeure" clause whereby Mr. Carey would not be held. liable for the time del'ays caused by no fault of his own so that if problems were ericpiintered that he had no control of, that co!Jld be a consideration in the time limit. AMENDMENT PASSED unanimously. Counci 7member Renzel asked the City Attorney if there were current condominium guidelines which required that . control of the home- owner's association gent to t e tenarts at the time that 51% of the units were sold Assistant City Attorney Sloan said no. 'Councilmember Renzel asked why Oak,'Creek Associates maintained control until there were less than 128 units, or why the devel oper- had three .votes and- the tenant had only one.. Mr. Carey responded that, first, the the Council was not the appropriate forum for discussion._ of those issues, but rather the Department of Real Estate. He explained that, traditionally, the developer In the subdivision would start with more votes than early buyers to insure the continuity of the de.vel opment. Further, he said it was "boiler plate" language which was gener- ally inserted by the Department of Real Estate. If the Department of Re 1 Estate, did not feel the language was necessary, it would be eliminated by them, and it would be one person, one vote, but Oak Creek Associates had no control over that, it was up to the State. City Attorney Maynor said t+ t was correct. Vice Mayor Fletcher was concerned that the lifetime lease was predicated on the limitation of the rents that could be charged. She felt that was tenuous with .what was happening in Washington where there were suggestions to cut off all federal funding to any - cities which had any form of rent control. She felt that could come to pass and thought the City would then be in a difficult position of having to make a choice .and the lifetime leases would be less than effective. Further, she was concerned that in essence the City was providing rent protection for a sizable number of select people, and that there were other- renters in the City in far more financial need with no protection whatsoever. She was concerned that the Council .would be creating two classes of renters. She was furthe.r concerned that the Comprehensive Plan required maintaining at least the present number of multi -family units, and that by this action Council would he withdrawing a sub- stantial number of rental units over a period of time and she did not. think that was consistent, with the intent of. the Comprehensive Plan. At the time a large number of rental units were withdrawn, it would put added pressure on the rents of those left because there would be fewer units available. She pointed out that a news item recently said that the National average purchase price of a hohie was .$84,000, and that that type .of price made home buying out of the reach of 93% of first time home owners. Palo Alto's average price was much higher than that. At the time when Palo Alto was reducing the number of rentals the . pool of people who have no other option than to rent was growing because of the inanciai' situation in home finance. There were many advantages of the proposal, including the prospect of having 55 units of low or below -market rental units which would be a great asset to the City. She was vote for the project although in principle she had a lot of problems with it which she would: discuss again when the condominium conversion ' ordinance was discussed. Counci-lmembere Renzel suggested that -the:lifetime lease provisions and the vote on whether to allow . the application to be made related to 'Whether the..appl,cation' could be masse.. However, she. felt there was an ,overwhelming,. City: policy and concern regarding rental housing that would be drastically; affected by the conver- sion. She felt,: that. _.concern about the preservation „of rental housing must take precedence over the many good things that' could be perceived in this :part1 elar appl'ication.- She thought the ;staff report was very conservative; in its assumptions, and thought that, it was very 'optimistic an{i she 'would not support -. the condo- minikill conversion. Councilmember Klein felt that the various least; provisions- pointed up the- difficulty. Council would encounter : When they got into the: condominium .kco,nyersion ordinance. ,.: He dig! not lice-, to tee -,,,the Council in the business of -writing lease's for -people and. being their protector. He ,thought "that -the City had probably gone too far with the .:.leases, and felt Council should limit themselves. They, had helpedproduce a le.asli and,',- if _the lease complied with what they:had' done, tItt=was the end of - the Council s obligation. Further, if any dispute arose from it, Council should' stay out of it. Ae hoped that when Council passed the new condominium conver- sion ordinance, they try would to extricate themselves from that position. He would support the conversion. Councilmember Fazzino commented that he could not think of any proposal which had come before the Council which was so carefully constructed or more sensitive to -resident concerns. He reminded Council that when they developed the first condominium conversion ordinance, the primary intent was tenant protection. It was clear to him that the developer had responded to all of the Council's concerns. Further, he thought that the development of the life- time lease provision provided the basis for. the new ordinance recently adopted by Council. Further,. in addition to protection of, tenants, they had good provisions with respect to significant BNitt units both on the site and elsewhere in • the City. He also felt strongly that the proposal met the spirit and letter of the `condominium conversion law, and the goals set forth in the Compre- -hensive Plan. He thought that for many people this represented their only opportunity to purchase a home at an affordable - price. He encouraged support of the motion. Mayor Henderson agreed with Councilmember Fazzino. He felt there were no displacements and that the biggest advantage was that there would be new homeowners and those who wanted to stay on as renters would be protected. Councilmember Levy commended staff on the work they had done. He felt that the outgoing owner of oak Creek deserved some commenda- tion at having developed not only an outstanding prcject, but having maintained it over the years in excellent fashion. He said he took special note of the fact that out of the 750 units, 119 of the units at Oak Creek now were being rented at below -market -rate rentals. He agreed with many of the comments regarding the quality of the transition taking place and the opportunity pro- vided for many people to own their units at a reasonable amount. As Stanford would be taking over a number of the Oak Creek units, Stanford was also building dormitories for 800 beds on their cam- pus and according to staff, that was called 200 units, but actually` it was worth more than 200 units, since the average occu- pancy in Palo Alto was much less than 4 people per unit; Those dormitories would, therefore, take a fair pressure off of the. Palo Alto community which would otherwise have to .provide most. of those rentals for those students who could not otherwise be housed on colnpus. He felt the City was making reasonable gains in rental units, and at least . were holding their own, overall. He would support the conversion. Mayor Henderson asked Mr. Carey for -the record if he approved the conditions before Council and would waive any legal objections to those conditions. Mr. Carey said forthe record, Oak Creek Associates would agree to the conditions as ,included in the motion and would waive any legal claim with respect to the below -market -rate issue. Mayor Henderson also complimented ,the staff. David Blumenthal, 1766 Willow. Road, Palo Alto, with respect to Councilmember Klein's statement that the City Council should not have anything to do with a lifetime_ lease, wanted to go on record as saying that he -thought that that was a responsibility that should be.. part of any lifetime lease that was gi ven out in a: con- dominium conversion. MOTION AS AMENDED ,PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Renzel votin "no," POLICY AND PROCEDURES CMIMITTEE UNANIMOUSLY 'RECOMMENDS INCREASING Mayor Henderson said that there had: been a concern expressed that regardless of whether radar was used, that the Police Department thought that the speed limit would increase. He asked Captain Elliott to explain. the significance of the request ; to use radar and if the speed limit would go up Anyway. g: 6 1 1 1 1 1 Captain Elliott responded that he could not guarantee that the speed limit would not go up. The Transportation Department had surveyed some of the streets that had lost radar a few years back and Captain Elliott said he had expected to see the rate that speed went up.. on those streets, but that did not occur. Actually the speed -limit had only increased two mph. He said that with the engineering changes on Alma, the Police Department expected the speed limit to increase maybe one or two mph. If radar was lost on Alma and pacing had to be used as enforcement, the Police Department would have a difficult time keeping the :peed at its current rate. R. J. Debs, 3145 Flowers Lane, Falo Alto, said that the speed limit should not be increased on Alma because once the speed limit was increased, they would be prohibited by another State law from lowering it.' If the speed limit on Alma was raised, there was a probability that there would be pressure building to' make Alma Street into an extension of the Central Expressway. He felt faster speed limits encouraged faster speeds. Councilmember Fazz.ino agreed with Mr. Debs. He thought the more effective approach, Would be a lower posted speed limit. He did not want to increase the speed limit on Alma. MOTION: Vice Mayor Fletcher, on- behalf of the Policy and Procedures Committee moved, that the speed. limit on Alma Street be increased from 35 mph to 40 mph, to allow the continued use of radar and from Oregon to Kingsley the speed limit be maintained at 35 Mph. Councilmember Fletcher said she had decided that she drove within five miles of the posted speed limit and she would vote against the motion. MOTION FAILED by a vote of 6-3, Klein, Henderson, Witherspoon voting "aye." MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Klein, to consider Item 12, University Avenue Area Civic Center Off street Parking Project 66-8, and Item 13, California Avenue Area 0tfstreet Parking Project No. 55-9 together. MOTION PASSED unanimously. PUBLIC HEARING: UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA. CIVIC CENTER OFFSTREET AREAPARKTRd PROJECT Rbg'. 66.9, 71- • • 1FORNfA AVER Councilmember Eyerly asked that when it was titre: to vote that the projects be voted on separately.. He asked that the City Clerk record that he would not_ participate in the University Avenue Pro- jects and also that when it was time for questions, he did have a question as a member of the Assessment District regarding. his assessment. Mayor Henderson, "declared that ' tai 1 s was the time.. and place- set for -. the Public Nearing on the Parking Assessment.., Rolls for the fol- lowing projects "UNIVERSIT-Y AVENUE CIVIC CENTER PARKING- PROJECT NO. 66-08 RESOLUTION {1F,= INTENTION ,NO. 3896 ADOPTED JUNE 13, 1966 _UNIVERSITY AVENUE AREA--.OFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO..,5-63 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 5242 ADOPTED. AUGUST 9, 1976 CALIFORNIA . :AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET - PARKING- MAINTENANCE DISTRICT - RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 5343 ADOPTED FEBRUARY 14, 1977 CALIFORNIA AVENUE CAMBRIDGE GARAGE PROJECT NO. 65-09 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 3950 ADOPTED JANUARY 3, 1967. CALIFORNIA AVENUE AREA OFFSTREET PARKING PROJECT NO. 71-63 RESOLUTION OF INTENTION NO. 4993 ADOPTED SEPTEMBER 10, 1974 The City Engineer has caused to be prepared and filed with the City Clerk a report providing for the levying of special assessments within the parking assessment districts created and established -for the projects and under the resolutions of intention just expressed. The report sets forth the amounts of assessments proposed to be levied for the fiscal year 1981-82. The assessments will be used to pay principal and interest on the bonds issued in various projects. The report is and has been open for public inspection The purpose of this hearing is to allow this Council ,to hear all persons have an interest any real property_ within these parking assessment districts, to hear all objections, protests, or other written communictions from any such interested person, to take and receive oral and documentary evidence pertaining to matters contained in the filed report, to remedy and correct any error or Informality in the report, and to amend, alter, modify and correct end confirm the report and each of the assessments therein. If you desire to speak, please come forward .to the microphone, give your full name and address, and identify which assessment parcel or parcels in which project or projects in which you are interested. In the interest of time, please be as brief as possible consistent with the full presentation of your views." Mayor Henderson declared the public hearing open and said that due to the unique noticing requirements, the City Attorney, had advised that this public hearing would be continued until the meeting of Monday, June 22, 1981 at 7:30 p.m. for further testimony. Edward Arbuckle, 431. Florence Street, Assessment District 66-8. He said he was . assessed for 22 parking spaces at his address. He said the zoning ordinance contained intensive and extensive retail usages, he thought the ordinances were vague in their definitions, but that it_. could be: determined if it was a busy grocery store or a slew appliance store to get the two relative uses. The differ- ence in the parking .was 350 square feet for an extensive use and 150 square feet of floor space for intensive use. His building was about 3200 plus square feet and called for 22 parking spaces. He had six private parking: spaces. . He had three employees, a' UPS driverdetveri, a freight driver, and '-`he postman that he knew would come every day. He did not ,think` he was in the intense area of Palo Alto for retail, but was being assessed on the intensive side. 'He wanted csnsiderati on given 'to it, felt he., was overassessed and did not think it' w"1' a correct assessment. He requested clarifica- tions Fred Eyerly, 550 -Waverley, Assessment... District 66.-08 and Assess- ment District 75-63, Parcel No. 120-15-084. He . said he had not been allowed any credit for parking provided as per the informa- tion he had. He thought he was entitled to credit for one space and asked staff to check on _ it. Dave Adams, Director of Public _,Works, read some corrections into, the record. 886 6/0/81 1 1 Corrections for: UNIVERSITY AVENUE CIVIC CENTER PARKING PROJECT NO. 66-08 Parcel No. 120-15-046, 431 Florence: "Six parking provisions, and 2391 square feet, with $109.50 as assessment. UNIVERSITY AVENUE CIVIC CENTER PARKING PROJECT NO. 66-08 Parcel No. 120-26-085, 167 Hamilton Avenue: One parking space provided, 3954.5 square feet, with $181.10 as assessment. UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT NO. 75-63 Parcel No. -120-15-046, 431 Florence: "Six spaces, 2391 square -feet, $128.72 as assessment. UNIVERSITY AVENUE PROJECT NO. 75-63 Parcel No. 120-26-085, 167 Hamilton Avenue: One parking space provided, 3964.5 square feet, with $212.90 as assessment." MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Klein, to continue the Public Hearing to June 22, 1981. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSED unanimously. RESOLUTION RE SB 215 FORAM - TRANSPORTATION FINANCING • Staff recommends that Council adopt a resolution supporting SB 215. 1 Councilmember Renzel questioned if Council should support this bill. She realized it would bring_ additional gas tax to Palo Alto, but she felt that the bill spoke in terms of prioritizing the expenditures with the priorities being 1) maintenance of existing highways; 2) new construction of state highways; 3) con- struction of sound barriers along state freeways, 4) beautifica- tion projects along state highways; 5) control of litter along state highways, and 6) construction of intermodel transfer facili- ties) She was, concerned about reactivating a high priority : of state highways as opposed to supporting transit facilities. City Manager Zaner said that staff was most concerned with the local government portion of the bill which would increase the gas tax flowing to the City of Palo Alto by close to $300,000 and put the City in a position cf being able to do some of the maintenance word; as explained previously by. Mr. Adams and Mr. Bagdon. The legislation had been hammered out_ in Sacramento by a number of interests and staff felt this was the best arrangement local government' would get for additional vas taxmoneys in the foresee- able future, and, therefore, it was recommended that Council endorse the bill. Vice Mayor Fletcher said she_ was not. :.ecstatic about the bill because she did not like some of the . priorities, but realized that the highway lobby was stronger than any other, and that this bill was the result of extensive negotiating. She said there was a tremendousdeficit in store for Cal trans in the amount of funds available. Councilmember Fazzino-said he would support the resolution. 887 6/8/81 APPROVED: Councilmember Witherspoon said she would not support the resolution. MOTION: Councilmember Eyerly introduced the following resolution and moved, seconded by Fazzino, its approval. RESOLUTION 5919 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO AIJO REGARDING SB 215 (FORAM) RE TRANSPORTATION FINANCING" MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Witherspoon voting "no." STOP SIGN EVALUATION FOR REFERRAL TO POLICY AND PROCEDURES • 7 Bob Moss, 4010 Orme, wanted the referral to be made with the recommendation that the stop sign of Los`Rob1es at La Donna be removed. MOTION: Mayor Henderson moved, seconded by Fazzino, that the Stop Sign Evluation be referred to the Policy and Procedures Committee. MOTION PASSED unanimously. RE UEST OF COUNCILMEMBER RENZEL RE SUPPORT OF DRAFT LOCAL AGENCY MOTION: Councilmember Renzel moved, seconded by Fazzino, to send concurrence of draft policy to LAFCO. MOTION PASSED unanimously. ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned to Executive Session re Personnel at 11:55 p.rn. Final adjournment at 12:35 a.m. ATTEST: 888 6/8/81