News

Developer sues Palo Alto over failure to build downtown garage

Lawsuit claims city should provide refunds of in-lieu fees after abandoning project

The City Council voted in 2019 not to move ahead at this time with a proposed garage on the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Waverley Street, a decision that has prompted a lawsuit from a downtown property owner. Rendering by Watry Design, Inc.

After exploring and then rejecting the idea of constructing a new downtown garage, Palo Alto is now embroiled in litigation with a downtown property owner who believes the city has been misusing the fees that it collects from developers.

At the heart of the dispute between the city and developer Charles "Chop" Keenan is the question: Is the city actually required to build parking with the "parking in-lieu fees" that it collects from commercial developers when it approves projects that otherwise don't meet the city's parking regulations? Keenan's new development at 135 Hamilton Ave., near High Street, is one such project. In 2013, as part of the project's approval, the developer paid $906,900 in in-lieu parking fees.

Now, he wants his money back. A lawsuit that was filed in May on behalf of his company, Hamilton and High LLC, maintains that the city has not been spending the in-lieu funds in accordance with law.

The six-story structure that was planned for the city-owned lot at 375 Hamilton Ave., across from the downtown post office, was one of two garages that the City Council had included on its list of infrastructure priorities. The other garage, a 636-space structure at 350 Sherman Ave., was completed last year.

While the council had spent years exploring sites for a new garage and proceeding with design work on a new 325-space parking garage facility, council members unanimously agreed in February 2019 not to move ahead with the project, which at the time had a price tag of about $30 million. Instead, council members generally agreed that downtown's parking landscape has changed since the project was conceived — most notably, with the creation of a Residential Preferential Parking program — and that the city should forgo the new garage and instead consider a more comprehensive strategy for dealing with parking.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Palo Alto Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

Today, the downtown garage remains very much in limbo. Though it's still officially listed in the city's budget documents, the council has removed all funding from the garage except for the in-lieu fees. The budget notes that the funding has been moved based on the council's direction to "postpone the project until downtown parking initiative are determined."

The council has already encountered some pushback for its decision to indefinitely postpone — if not formally cancel — the downtown garage from property owners and business leaders, including the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, which argued in 2019 that by aborting the project the city is reneging on a promise it had made to the business community. Keenan's lawsuit, which the City Council is scheduled to discuss in a closed session on Monday night, makes a similar case and suggests that by not constructing the garage, the city is failing using the parking in-lieu fees in a way for which they are intended.

"The City repeatedly represented to the public that the fees would be timely used to construct a new downtown parking garage," the lawsuit states. "However, the city has failed for the past seven years to actually use the funds to construct such new parking."

So far, the argument has found little traction. Last month, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge handed the city a victory when she rejected Hamilton & High's complaint. Keenan's attorney, David Lanferman, subsequently filed a notice indicating that he will be appealing the ruling.

The city, for its part, has maintained that the funds are being collected and spent precisely in the manner for which they were intended. This includes the roughly $1.3 million that the city had already spent on design work relating to the downtown garage. And even though the council balked on moving ahead with construction, the project isn't entirely dead. In 2020, the council approved a resolution that further underscored its intent to use the parking fees "for the purpose of constructing public parking spaces within the University Avenue parking assessment district to serve the parking needs of the district created by the developments that paid the fees."

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

And even despite its change of direction the prior year, the 2020 resolution states that the city plans to spend the roughly $6.1 million that remain in the In-Lieu Fee fund to construct a garage on Hamilton Avenue, even though those funds have not been expended "pending further discussion by the City Council regarding downtown parking management."

Attorney Rick Jarvis, who is representing the city in the court dispute, maintained in his filed response that the city has "properly expended proceeds of the Parking In-Lieu Fee on engineering, design and environmental costs for the development of a new parking garage, and the record clearly supports the continued need for additional parking Downtown." Moreover, the city argued that its parking in-lieu fees are not bound by the Mitigation Fee Act, which applies to other types of fees. Unlike other fees, Jarvis argued, the parking fee is voluntary and developers can avoid it altogether if they opt to construct more parking.

To bolster its argument that Keenan and other contributors are not entitled to a refund, the city notes that it does not currently have a funding plan in place for a new downtown garage. The city's existing regulations have a provision for refunds, though these only kick in after "sufficient funds had been collected" to enable the project. These provisions, Jarvis argued, allow the city to "finance large public facilities that may take years or even decades to finance through public facility impact fees without the risk of forfeiting unexpended funds due to a minor defect in its resolutions and findings."

Judge Cynthia Lie largely concurred with the city's arguments and rejected Keenan's request for a refund. In a Sept. 7 order, Lie concluded that the in-lieu fees are not governed by the Mitigation Fee Act, which requires the city to adopt formal findings every five years to account for the money it has collected. She also found that the claim for a refund failed to comply with the one-year statute of limitations (Landferman claimed that the statute of limitations should be four years, though Lie rejected his argument to that effect).

The ruling also leaves open, however, the possibility that the city will be ordered to issue a refund at some point in the future if it fails to move ahead with a new parking structure — given the strict limitations on how in-lieu parking fees can legally be used. The court agrees, Lie wrote, "that there may come a time when the duration of the City's inaction on the parking garage — short of express abandonment — would warrant restitution on in-lieu parking fees."

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Your support is vital to us continuing to bring you city government news. Become a member today.

Developer sues Palo Alto over failure to build downtown garage

Lawsuit claims city should provide refunds of in-lieu fees after abandoning project

by / Palo Alto Weekly

Uploaded: Tue, Oct 12, 2021, 4:00 pm

After exploring and then rejecting the idea of constructing a new downtown garage, Palo Alto is now embroiled in litigation with a downtown property owner who believes the city has been misusing the fees that it collects from developers.

At the heart of the dispute between the city and developer Charles "Chop" Keenan is the question: Is the city actually required to build parking with the "parking in-lieu fees" that it collects from commercial developers when it approves projects that otherwise don't meet the city's parking regulations? Keenan's new development at 135 Hamilton Ave., near High Street, is one such project. In 2013, as part of the project's approval, the developer paid $906,900 in in-lieu parking fees.

Now, he wants his money back. A lawsuit that was filed in May on behalf of his company, Hamilton and High LLC, maintains that the city has not been spending the in-lieu funds in accordance with law.

The six-story structure that was planned for the city-owned lot at 375 Hamilton Ave., across from the downtown post office, was one of two garages that the City Council had included on its list of infrastructure priorities. The other garage, a 636-space structure at 350 Sherman Ave., was completed last year.

While the council had spent years exploring sites for a new garage and proceeding with design work on a new 325-space parking garage facility, council members unanimously agreed in February 2019 not to move ahead with the project, which at the time had a price tag of about $30 million. Instead, council members generally agreed that downtown's parking landscape has changed since the project was conceived — most notably, with the creation of a Residential Preferential Parking program — and that the city should forgo the new garage and instead consider a more comprehensive strategy for dealing with parking.

Today, the downtown garage remains very much in limbo. Though it's still officially listed in the city's budget documents, the council has removed all funding from the garage except for the in-lieu fees. The budget notes that the funding has been moved based on the council's direction to "postpone the project until downtown parking initiative are determined."

The council has already encountered some pushback for its decision to indefinitely postpone — if not formally cancel — the downtown garage from property owners and business leaders, including the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, which argued in 2019 that by aborting the project the city is reneging on a promise it had made to the business community. Keenan's lawsuit, which the City Council is scheduled to discuss in a closed session on Monday night, makes a similar case and suggests that by not constructing the garage, the city is failing using the parking in-lieu fees in a way for which they are intended.

"The City repeatedly represented to the public that the fees would be timely used to construct a new downtown parking garage," the lawsuit states. "However, the city has failed for the past seven years to actually use the funds to construct such new parking."

So far, the argument has found little traction. Last month, a Santa Clara County Superior Court judge handed the city a victory when she rejected Hamilton & High's complaint. Keenan's attorney, David Lanferman, subsequently filed a notice indicating that he will be appealing the ruling.

The city, for its part, has maintained that the funds are being collected and spent precisely in the manner for which they were intended. This includes the roughly $1.3 million that the city had already spent on design work relating to the downtown garage. And even though the council balked on moving ahead with construction, the project isn't entirely dead. In 2020, the council approved a resolution that further underscored its intent to use the parking fees "for the purpose of constructing public parking spaces within the University Avenue parking assessment district to serve the parking needs of the district created by the developments that paid the fees."

And even despite its change of direction the prior year, the 2020 resolution states that the city plans to spend the roughly $6.1 million that remain in the In-Lieu Fee fund to construct a garage on Hamilton Avenue, even though those funds have not been expended "pending further discussion by the City Council regarding downtown parking management."

Attorney Rick Jarvis, who is representing the city in the court dispute, maintained in his filed response that the city has "properly expended proceeds of the Parking In-Lieu Fee on engineering, design and environmental costs for the development of a new parking garage, and the record clearly supports the continued need for additional parking Downtown." Moreover, the city argued that its parking in-lieu fees are not bound by the Mitigation Fee Act, which applies to other types of fees. Unlike other fees, Jarvis argued, the parking fee is voluntary and developers can avoid it altogether if they opt to construct more parking.

To bolster its argument that Keenan and other contributors are not entitled to a refund, the city notes that it does not currently have a funding plan in place for a new downtown garage. The city's existing regulations have a provision for refunds, though these only kick in after "sufficient funds had been collected" to enable the project. These provisions, Jarvis argued, allow the city to "finance large public facilities that may take years or even decades to finance through public facility impact fees without the risk of forfeiting unexpended funds due to a minor defect in its resolutions and findings."

Judge Cynthia Lie largely concurred with the city's arguments and rejected Keenan's request for a refund. In a Sept. 7 order, Lie concluded that the in-lieu fees are not governed by the Mitigation Fee Act, which requires the city to adopt formal findings every five years to account for the money it has collected. She also found that the claim for a refund failed to comply with the one-year statute of limitations (Landferman claimed that the statute of limitations should be four years, though Lie rejected his argument to that effect).

The ruling also leaves open, however, the possibility that the city will be ordered to issue a refund at some point in the future if it fails to move ahead with a new parking structure — given the strict limitations on how in-lieu parking fees can legally be used. The court agrees, Lie wrote, "that there may come a time when the duration of the City's inaction on the parking garage — short of express abandonment — would warrant restitution on in-lieu parking fees."

Comments

Leland J.
Registered user
Professorville
on Oct 12, 2021 at 6:51 pm
Leland J. , Professorville
Registered user
on Oct 12, 2021 at 6:51 pm

First the city is ordered to refund $12M in "utility gas taxes" that it used for other purposes. Now comes the "parking garage fees" (fancy word for tax) that weren't actually used to pay for parking garages.

Anyone else notice a pattern of deception here?


Bystander
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Oct 13, 2021 at 11:38 am
Bystander, Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Oct 13, 2021 at 11:38 am

It is about time someone made sure that collected taxes were used for the purpose they were collected.


Curmudgeon
Registered user
Downtown North
on Oct 13, 2021 at 12:49 pm
Curmudgeon, Downtown North
Registered user
on Oct 13, 2021 at 12:49 pm

What an ugly architectural abomination! The city got this one right. Pay Keenan off and move on


mjh
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 13, 2021 at 2:26 pm
mjh, College Terrace
Registered user
on Oct 13, 2021 at 2:26 pm

Will Mr Keenan be required to build the parking for the occupants of his development himself if the city refunds the money he paid to get out of doing so?


Citizen
Registered user
College Terrace
on Oct 13, 2021 at 3:32 pm
Citizen , College Terrace
Registered user
on Oct 13, 2021 at 3:32 pm

City -

Stop ripping us off.


tmp
Registered user
Downtown North
on Oct 14, 2021 at 12:00 am
tmp, Downtown North
Registered user
on Oct 14, 2021 at 12:00 am

Chop Keenan builds ugly monstrosities down town and overcharges tenants and complains that he should be able to rent at higher rates to tech companies. He is a blight to the community, doesn't build his own parking, [portion removed.] He cares about making as much money as he can for himself, not about the community or how his buildings and tenants benefit the community. He didn't build the parking so he had to pay for not building it. End of story, stop being such a big cry-baby.

If he wants his money back make him buy some land and put in his own parking spots!


ccb in midtown
Registered user
Midtown
on Oct 19, 2021 at 10:06 am
ccb in midtown, Midtown
Registered user
on Oct 19, 2021 at 10:06 am

Wake up.

So Cheap Shot Keenan wants his $$$ back from a generous city that "mistakenly" shafted their residents proximal to his building their quality of life for the past 8 years. First, Cheap Shot Keenan. How much profit has he realized from 135 Hamilton Ave since it's 2013 build? What % of that profit was realized PRECISELY b/c his $906,900 bought him out of having his building be fully parked? How about he give that $$$ back to the city? B/c if he's so determined to cut off the generous hand that feeds him, how about he at least refund to the city an amount commensurate with the benefit he's received AND IS STILL receiving? After all, he purchased a product. Used it. But now he's changed his mind and wants to return it even though the 365 day "return" period expired years ago.

Next, the city. How about council use this lawsuit to trigger a re-examination (and cancellation) of our city's ridiculously generous in-lieu parking program? And return to requiring buildings to be fully parked. That'd be an effective message to the developer community that Palo Alto no longer is interested in subsidizing their wealth streams and is willing to rebalance resident quality of life interests above city income. Knowing that Keenan's greed killed the program might also create some rich conversation within the developer community, especially for other developers considering suing similarly.

While we're at it, how about making the take-your-buildings-elsewhere message even more clear and come up with some way to charge developers who choose to sue the city some fee commensurate with the amount of time 7 council members plus city attorney staff have to spend considering their suit? After all, as of 2019, we city residents basically constitute a non-profit organization of 66,573 people managed by a council of 7 funded by (2022) budget of $209.2 M. I can think of plenty of things I'd prefer council to spend their attention on and none include Cheap Shot Keenan's greed grab


ccb in midtown
Registered user
Midtown
on Oct 19, 2021 at 10:17 am
ccb in midtown, Midtown
Registered user
on Oct 19, 2021 at 10:17 am

Further, if anyone is curious, Cheap Shot Chop Keenan has history colored with controversy going back decades, much of it local and much of it even reported by Palo Alto Weekly. If anyone is curious to see his patterns, just spend 5 min. and read up on his proclivities.

Last, has anyone actually even looked up 135 Hamilton? Unsurprisingly, one street view glance makes clear it's a greedy building, built right out to the sidewalk; it appears to push or exceed almost every city guideline/regulation limit.


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.