HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-14 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting February 14, 2000
1. Interviews for Planning and Transportation Commission... 369
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m............... 369
1. Presentation and Year-End Review by Art Foundation re Project Look.................................................... 370
1A. Presentation by Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Stream Keeper Jim Johnson re El Palo Alto............... 370
2. Appointments to Parks and Recreation Commission......... 370
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.......................................... 374
APPROVAL OF MINUTES.......................................... 374
3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Standard Insurance in the Amount of $750,000 for One Year for the City of Palo
Alto=s Group Life, Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D), and Long-Term Disability (LTD)Plans..................... 375
4. Ordinance 4613 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the 1999-00 Municipal Fee Schedule and the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Reflect the Addition of State Mandated Fees for Owners of Unaltered Dogs and Cats and Associated Increased Revenue of $1,750”............. 375
5. Resolution 7933 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code”. 375
6. Public Employee Appointment............................. 376
7. Conference with Labor Negotiator........................ 376
8. PUBLIC HEARING: Review of the Development of the South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP) and discussion of public and private development proposals for the lands owned and leased by Palo Alto Medical Foundation. The Draft plan provides land use designations, policies, program development standards and design guidelines for the Phase 1 area generally
02/14/00 89- 367
defined by Forest and Addison Avenues and Ramona and Kipling Streets................................................. 376
CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 8........................... 381
9. Mayor Kniss and Council Members Kleinberg and Mossar re Potential Purchase of the Bressler Property............. 387
10. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 2000........ 387
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m.............. 387
02/14/00 89- 368
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 6:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Planning and Transportation Commission No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:50 p.m.
02/14/00 89- 369
Regular Meeting February 14, 2000 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 7:10 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY 1. Presentation and Year-End Review by Art Foundation re Project Look President of Palo Alto Art Center Foundation (PAACF) Richard Yankwich spoke about the accomplishments of the PAACF during the year through the public/private partnership with the City, particularly Project Look. Gwen Weisner, 722 San Jude Avenue, volunteer with PAACF, presented a check to Palo Alto and thanked the City for its assistance in the past. No action required. 1A. Presentation by Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Stream Keeper Jim Johnson re El Palo Alto Jim Johnson, 275 Sequoia Avenue, Redwood City, Stream Keeper for the San Francisquito Creek, presented a video on the San Francisquito Creek and the work done by the Friends of the Creek No action required. 2. Appointments to Parks and Recreation Commission MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kniss, to postpone appointing a Parks and Recreation Commission and re-advertise with an emphasis on finding people with an interest and background in the activities of the Parks and Recreation Department. Mayor Kniss clarified the current field would be kept, while adding the emphasis on background. Council Member Fazzino said a number of excellent candidates were present and he wanted to move ahead. If, after a second or third ballot, it was clear there was a delineation between individuals who received a majority of votes and a number of individuals receiving just a few, he might be open to the suggestion to postpone on a vote. 02/14/00 89- 370
MOTION FAILED: 4-5, Lytle, Beecham, Kniss, Kleinberg “yes.” Mayor Kniss said because Council Member Mossar conducted the interviews, she was asked to oversee the voting. Council Member Mossar said the names in bold were the applicants who were interviewed, including Richard Beckwith, Ann Briggs, Edith Eddy, William Garvey, Ellie Gioumousis, Bruce Grimes, Jennifer Hagan, Edie Keating, Don Mayo, Helen Proctor, Judith Steiner, and Lynn Torin. The applicants who were not interviewed but could also receive votes were Mary Burnstein, William Burton, Bob Carlson, Robert Carlstead, Joel Davidson, David Houston, Craig Laughton, Jean Olmstead, Cecilia Person, Robert Ross, Jim Sullivan, and Paul Vadopalas. Mayor Kniss asked the Council to indicate individuals they would be voting for, while refraining from making speeches. Council Member Mossar would vote for Richard Beckwith, Edith Eddy, William Garvey, Ellie Gioumousis, Edie Keating, Judith Steiner, and Lynn Torin. Vice Mayor Eakins would be vote for Richard Beckwith, Ann Briggs, William Garvey, Ellie Gioumousis, Edie Keating, and Lynn Torin. Council Member Kleinberg would vote for or against one of the candidates due to a conflict of interest. Edith Eddy was the head of an organization that was the recipient of funds from the organization she headed. Council Member Ojakian would vote for Richard Beckwith because of his involvement in youth sports in Palo Alto, his science interests, and his interest in the Junior Museum. Jennifer Hagan and William Garvey presented themselves well at the interview. Lynn Torin, given her background in Palo Alto, particularly with regard to educational issues and organizational skills would be a valuable participant. Judith Steiner, given her background at Hidden Villa and in the schools, and her interest in flatland park issues would be beneficial. He would be vote for Edith Eddy and Edie Keating. Council Member Burch would vote for Richard Beckwith, Edith Eddy, William Garvey, Jennifer Hagan, Edie Keating, Judith Steiner, and Lynn Torin. Council Member Beecham would vote for Ann Briggs, Edith Eddy, William Garvey, Ellie Gioumousis, Bruce Grimes, Judith Steiner, and Lynn Torin. FIRST ROUND OF VOTING FOR PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
02/14/00 89- 371
VOTING FOR RICHARD BECKWITH: Burch, Lytle, Eakins, Kniss, Kleinberg, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR MARY BERNSTEIN: VOTING FOR ANN BRIGGS: Beecham, Eakins, Kniss, Kleinberg VOTING FOR WILLIAM BURTON: VOTING FOR BOB CARLSON: VOTING FOR ROBERT CARLSTEAD: VOTING FOR JOEL DAVIDSON: VOTING FOR EDITH EDDY: Burch, Beecham, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR WILLIAM GARVEY: Burch, Lytle, Beecham, Eakins, Kleinberg, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR ELLIE GIOUMOUSIS: Lytle, Beecham, Eakins, Kniss, Fazzino, Mossar VOTING FOR BRUCE GRIMES: Beecham, Fazzino VOTING FOR JENNIFER HAGAN: Burch, Lytle, Kleinberg, Fazzino, Ojakian VOTING FOR DAVID HOUSTON: VOTING FOR EDIE KEATING: Burch, Lytle, Eakins, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR CRAIG LAUGHTON: VOTING FOR DONALD MAYALL: VOTING FOR JEAN OLMSTEAD: VOTING FOR CECILIA PERSON: VOTING FOR HELEN PROCTOR: VOTING FOR ROBERT ROTH VOTING FOR JUDITH STEINER: Burch, Lytle, Beecham, Kniss, Kleinberg, Fazzino, Mossar, Ojakian VOTING FOR JIM SULLIVAN:
02/14/00 89- 372
VOTING FOR LYNN TORIN: Burch, Lytle, Beecham, Eakins, Kniss, Kleinberg, Fazzino, Mossar, Torin VOTING FOR PAUL VADOPALAS: Council Member Fazzino said Jennifer Hagan should be included in the Parks & Recreation Commission because of her youth. SECOND ROUND OF VOTING FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION VOTING FOR RICHARD BECKWITH: VOTING FOR MARY BERNSTEIN: VOTING FOR ANN BRIGGS: VOTING FOR WILLIAM BURTON: VOTING FOR BOB CARLSON: VOTING FOR ROBERT CARLSTEAD: VOTING FOR JOEL DAVIDSON: VOTING FOR EDITH EDDY: Beecham, Eakins, Fazzino VOTING FOR WILLIAM GARVEY: VOTING FOR ELLIE GIOUMOUSIS: VOTING FOR BRUCE GRIMES: VOTING FOR JENNIFER HAGAN: Burch, Lytle, Kniss, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Ojakian, Mossar VOTING FOR DAVID HOUSTON: VOTING FOR EDIE KEATING: Burch, Lytle, Beecham, Eakins, Ojakian, Mossar VOTING FOR CRAIG LAUGHTON: VOTING FOR DONALD MAYALL: VOTING FOR JEAN OLMSTEAD: VOTING FOR CECILIA PERSON: VOTING FOR HELEN PROCTOR:
02/14/00 89- 373
VOTING FOR ROBERT ROTH: VOTING FOR JUDITH STEINER: VOTING FOR JIM SULLIVAN: VOTING FOR LYNN TORIN: VOTING FOR PAUL VADOPALAS: City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the Council would need to determine which members would serve the four 3-year terms and which would serve the three 2-year terms. Mayor Kniss suggested the four highest vote receivers be given the longer terms. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Burch, to appoint Beckwith, Garvey, Steiner, and Torin to the four, three-year terms and Gioumousis, Hagan, and Keating to the three, two-year terms. MOTION PASSED 9-0. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ben Bailey, 600 Homer Avenue, spoke regarding equal justice and its absence. Barbara Dawson, 2365 Emerson Street, spoke regarding re-evaluation of water fluoridation. Cindy Russell, 112 Foxwood Road, Portola Valley, spoke regarding re-evaluation of water fluoridation. David Houston, Palo Alto, spoke regarding re-evaluation of water fluoridation. Suzanne Keehn, 4076 Orme Street, spoke regarding re-evaluation of water fluoridation. John K. Abraham, 736 Ellsworth Place, spoke regarding the leaf blower ban. Kathleen Coakley, P.O. Box 598, spoke regarding ballot issues. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, spoke regarding the Cubberley gym. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
02/14/00 89- 374
MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Mossar, to approve the Minutes of January 10, 2000, and January 18, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0 for the January 10, 2000, minutes. MOTION PASSED 8-0-1 for the January 18, 2000, minutes, Beecham “abstaining.” CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve Consent Calendar Items No. 3 - 5. 3. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Standard Insurance in the Amount of $750,000 for One Year for the City of Palo Altos Group Life, Accidental Death and Dismemberment (AD&D), and Long-Term Disability (LTD) Plans
4. Ordinance 4613 entitled ΑOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the 1999-00 Municipal Fee Schedule and the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Reflect the Addition of State Mandated Fees for Owners of Unaltered Dogs and Cats and Associated Increased Revenue of $1,750” 5. Resolution 7933 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Administrative Penalty Schedule for Certain Violations of the Palo Alto Municipal Code” First Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 5.20.290 of Chapter 5.20 of Title 5 (Health and Sanitation) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Providing for Penalties for Violation of Regulations Governing the Collection, Removal, and Disposal of Solid Waste and Recyclable Materials” MOTION PASSED 9-0. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS, AND DELETIONS Mayor Kniss announced that a Special Meeting of the City Council was noticed for 6 p.m. on February 15, 2000, to discuss Closed Session Item Nos. 6 and 7 and to continue the deliberations on Item No. 8. Mayor Kniss announced that meeting would be adjourned to 7 p.m. on February 15, 2000, to resume discussion on Item Nos. 8 and 9. CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting.
02/14/00 89- 375
6. Public Employee Appointment (continued to 2/15/00) Title: City Manager Authority: Government Code section 54957 7. Conference with Labor Negotiator (continued to 2/15/00) Agency Negotiator: City Manager and Jay Rounds Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 PUBLIC HEARINGS 8. PUBLIC HEARING: Review of the Development of the South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA CAP) and discussion of public and private development proposals for the lands owned and leased by Palo Alto Medical Foundation. The Draft plan provides land use designations, policies, program development standards and design guidelines for the Phase 1 area generally defined by Forest and Addison Avenues and Ramona and Kipling Streets (continued to 2/15/00) Council Member Mossar stated she would not participate due to a conflict of interest; she received her last paycheck from the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) in March of 1999. Council Member Ojakian stated he would not participate due to a conflict of interest; he lived in the study area, and his wife was an employee of the PAMF. Mayor Kniss said a number of items would be raised during the evening’s meeting, including the history of the prior six years with regard to the Comprehensive Plan and the SOFA CAP. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said staff sought Council direction on two issues. The first was the SOFA CAP, representing Phase 1 and the PAMF property. Although other owners were involved, the primary owner was PAMF. The second issue was the proposed implementation of the SOFA Phase 1 plan by SummerHill Homes. The recommendation was based on input from prior Council direction and the SOFA Working Group (WG). In 1997, the Council appointed the WG and directed adoption of a policy framework to guide the effort. The WG was comprised of individuals with a wide range of interests and perspectives. The WG direction was important to staff in developing its response to the draft SOFA CAP. The WG draft document expressed the need for a neighborhood park, affordable housing, and preservation of historic resources. In addition to the WG, staff received direction from the Council
02/14/00 89- 376
when the issue was presented in December 1999 for input. At that time, the Council indicated the desire for a 2-acre neighborhood park, acquisition of the Roth Building as a public facility, creation of a 1.23-acre corridor for affordable housing, a mixed-use overlay zone on Homer Avenue, and expressed concern about the main block between Homer Avenue, Channing Avenue, Bryant Street, and Waverley Street. The proposal to Council at the time included a 2-acre park, the Roth Building as a public facility, and half of the parcel for attached multiple-family housing with 66 dwelling units. The Council indicated staff should examine the issue, work with neighbors and the WG, conduct an outreach effort with SummerHill Homes, and examine whether or not the use was appropriate and how it could be designed to fit the neighborhood. Since December, staff followed through on the Council’s direction, met with the outreach group, and focused on Block B. The buildings proposed by SummerHill on Block B were examined during development and found to be well designed and a good addition to the community. At the second outreach meeting; however, the final elevations of the four sides were considered, and all in attendance came to the conclusion that while the buildings were beautiful and well designed, represented too much along the Channing Avenue facade. One of the comments from the outreach group was that monolithic buildings along Channing Avenue were a problem and should be reexamined. At that point, the plan began to evolve. The proposed plan recommended at the current meeting maintained half the block as 36 units of condominiums and the half closest to Waverley Street changed to single-family detached. In addition to the two outreach groups, staff was invited and attended a University South Neighborhood general meeting from which feedback and comments were obtained. The main concern at the meeting was about density, even with the cutback to single-family detached on one of the quadrants. Concern was voiced about the sale of Scott Park and whether the City should give up open space, since it was such an important relief from higher density. The third comment was about the use of the park along Homer Street, lapping around the Roth Building. In addition to the outreach group and neighborhood meeting, staff reconvened the WG one more time since the plan changed. Staff presented the plan and asked for reaction and recommendation. The WG thought the proposal was a good balance of all the issues with which they had wrestled for over two years. While not perfect, the proposal was supportable and a good implementation of the vision. City Manager June Fleming introduced John Lusardi, a new member of the Planning Department, who managed the project. Acting Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi said the staff report (CMR:147:00) laid out the blocks referenced to the PAMF properties with the natural nexus between the PAMF properties and the SOFA CAP. In 1997, the Council established goals and objectives upon which a community and plan could be built. The highlights of the goals and objectives that addressed the SOFA CAP Phase 1 included the design character of scale and community, the
02/14/00 89- 377
promotion of high quality of design and preservation of the existing character of the area, mixed-use character and compatibility, economic feasibility and desirability, walkable neighborhoods, a significant quantity of new housing with residential uses as predominant for the former PAMF properties, especially affordable housing, historic preservation, community facilities, heritage and street tree landscaping, and clarification of the relationship between Downtown Palo Alto and the SOFA mixed-use area. When staff presented the status or milestones to the Council in December 1999, two plans were on the table. The essence of the difference was in Block B. The plan proposed by the WG in June 1999 established Attached Multiple-Family (AMF), multiple-density housing on a portion of Block B and a park on another portion. When staff proposed using the Roth Building as a public facility, the pattern changed. Staff took steps to analyze the public and community facilities with respect to the plan. The plan was explained block by block. Block A represented an AMF land-use designation at the corner of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue directly across from the proposed park site and Roth Building. The issues in relation to the implementation plan was that the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) called for an AMF designation of 1.5 but the developer proposed an FAR of what amounted to 1.8 because the developer was trying to recover several units that were lost on Block B when the density was reduced. The Planning Commission recommended an amendment to the SOFA CAP to allow a combination of two contiguous sites to calculate or average the FAR over the two parcels. The FAR would then be reduced on Block A to 1.5, allowing it to conform to the AMF standards, which staff supported and recommended as an amendment to the SOFA CAP. Other issues spoke to the design and amassing of the interface of the AMF development on Block A, specifically in relation to the museum, adjoining development, and the street frontage of the park across the street. Onsite parking for the office was an issue staff was working out with the developer. The other issue involved the rehabilitation standards for the office development, the historic Victorian structure. Block B represented the biggest challenge to the community, the WG, the City and the developer. The addition of Detached Single-Family Housing (DHS) while maintaining the AMF designation and the addition of the mews had become integral with respect to the park alignment, which staff recommended be maintained. On Block B, the developer was recommending approximately 36 AMF units with three 4-story height, ten DHS units with ten carriage/garage units, for a total of 20 DHS units, a mid-block public/private use from the park to Channing Avenue. The mews would be owned by the condominium association for the AMF development, but would be maintained publicly accessible as a mews between Channing Avenue, Scott Park, and the proposed park on Homer Avenue. The Roth Building rehabilitation was a proposal by City staff to be rehabilitated and used as a public facility. Staff and John Northway Architecture were currently analyzing the seismic upgrade of the structure and what was involved in programming the building as a public facility. Staff would update the Council as
02/14/00 89- 378
progress was made. The last issue with respect to Block B involved public parking for the Roth Building and the park. Staff would continue to consider different alternatives, and work with the developer to provide for public parking. With respect to private development, the original proposal for AMF in December was to maintain or achieve the FAR of 1.5. At the same time, the density of condominium development was proposed, hence the change from AMF to DSH. The FAR for the DHS quadrant was .65 and the FAR for the AMF quadrant was 1.5. The overall FAR for that half of the block was approximately 1.1. The current PAMF properties were 1.6 FAR. The transition to Block B was dynamic. The 2-acre park a goal and objective of the City and developer. The proposal was to remove the additional wings of the Roth Building while retaining the historic structure of 10,000 to 13,000 square feet. Parcel H was an existing commercial building with zoning that allowed commercial use. As part of the proposal, the building would be removed and a new commercial building with one residential structure above would be added. The SOFA CAP currently proposed Block C for mixed-use under the AMF designation as a conditional use and was the only area proposed for mixed use in the AMF district. Making the rest of the AMF district provide for conditional uses for mixed use was not prudent. To disencumber the rest of the AMH, staff proposed adding to the SOFA CAP a mixed use overlay specifically on the parcels to allow for the mixed-use development. Two historic Victorian houses would be relocated to Block D by the developer and rehabilitated as single-family structures as part of the DHS development. The French laundry building historic structure and the AME Zion Church historic structure would be retained on the site and rehabilitated for office use and residential. The French Laundry was proposed for 20,000 square feet of office space with three dwelling units. The Church would result in approximately 42,000 square feet of office space. Combining the French laundry parcel with the church parcel would achieve an FAR of 1.33. The design development amassing for the development specifically along Homer Street in relation to the Roth Building was an issue that would need to be addressed in the future. Part of staff’s recommendation was to provide for a combined review committee of Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Historic Review Board (HRB) members to provide for a review of the implementation of the AMF district within the plan. The second half of the block presented a new opportunity for affordable housing. The site contained four structures: a medical building, a duplex of no historic value, and two Victorian historic structures. Staff proposed relocating the two historic structures. One historic structure would be relocated to Block D to be part of the two Victorian structures brought from Block C and rehabilitated as a single-family residence. The remaining historic structure would move down to a portion of the affordable housing site. A square development site would then result for affordable housing, providing greater opportunity for affordable housing developers to develop the site. The goal was to create a multiple-family development on the site of approximately 40 to 44 dwelling units, providing for 11, 3-bedroom and 29, 2-
02/14/00 89- 379
bedroom units, well over 50 percent of the element family units. The concept was to create a stronger development site with respect to relocating the structures. Moving one of the Victorian structures adjacent to the church structure would help soften the edge of the new development next to the church and put it in relation to two other houses being rehabilitated across the street, creating an enclave of historic structures. The structure could be developed to provide three or four apartment dwelling units. The second aspect of moving the structure was disencumbering it from the development site to provide for more flexibility. Proponents for affordable housing made the point that a return for the dollar was needed when an historic structure was rehabilitated. Sometimes getting only three units out of an historic house was not a good return on affordable housing dollars. The plan was conceptual in nature to demonstrate to staff and the Council that an affordable housing site could be developed in a way that was compatible with the neighborhood. The emphasis on the need for private ownership for quality development was placed on the development, which would go through the same process as a private developer. The significant oak tree would be preserved, creating a courtyard effect. Below-ground parking would be provided, allowing for more units. The developer proposed that Blocks D, E, and F be used for single-family homes to bring the development into DHS designation. Within the DHS designation, the developer proposed approximately 17 units with ten carriage units on garage units. The relocation of three historic structures from Block C would be relocated down the block on Bryant Street. Part of staff’s analysis with the consultants would examine the Secretary of Interior Standards for rehabilitation of the structures including relocation to ensure compliance with the guidelines. Rehabilitation of two existing structures would take place on the block. The issues were relocation of the three historic structures with respect to conformance to the Secretary of Interior Standards, the City’s compatibility guidelines with respect to development of the blocks, and the relationship of Block B to the community, the neighborhood, and the surrounding blocks. The Block B development then became DHS AMF, introducing an interesting dynamic with respect to attached condominiums and single-family residential units. The public discussed the sensitivity of that particular interface. An interesting relationship resulted if the DHS and AMF designations on Block B were applied to the total plan and Blocks D, E, and F. The DHS units interfaced and created an arc of single-family residences into the single-family community. The AMF designation introduced the transition of AMF development into and toward Alma Street and Downtown, achieving a significant objective of the plan to not only provide for mixes of uses of housing types as well as densities, but to provide for the sensitivity and compatibility with the neighborhood. The last element was the interaction of the mews, providing for the walkability corridor between the neighborhoods and the park to make the connection. The direct interface or relationship of the attached development and the single-family development were put on the new development rather
02/14/00 89- 380
than the existing development. Block G was designated for childcare development and would be part of the plan staff would continue to explore. Reed Dellingham, landscape architect and park planner, was asked to examine the alternate ways of dealing with a park on Block B. Two alternatives faced the City. One was a long park along Homer Street and the other was a park fronting Waverley Street. After examining both alternatives, he realized that although a park on Waverley Street would be decent, the park on Homer Avenue offered a number of advantages. There was nothing wrong with a Waverley Street park, but a park on Homer Avenue had a number of benefits. First, with the connection through the Mews and the circulation running horizontally across, the park configuration provided a better connection to other parts of the neighborhood, including the connection to affordable housing. Second, the park made better use of the two large heritage oak trees. Third, the park incorporated the Roth Building into the scheme, with the park wrapping around the Roth Building. The activity at the Roth Building would help animate the park in a way that might not occur otherwise. The park also offered the potential for underground parking to serve the Roth Building. With the other configuration, the parking and the park would be separate from the building. The smaller area behind the Roth Building was a valuable area offering the potential for outdoor use activities to relate to the interior of the building. The area would provide a linear space that provided circulation connecting the affordable housing, opening up all sides of the building so the architecture would be better appreciated, and giving the illusion that the park was larger than it really was. The acreage was identical in both proposals. The question of size and usability was not an important point. The issue was one of having a neighborhood park that was open for sitting, picnics, etc. RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION 9:10 p.m. - 9:45 p.m. regarding Item No. 6. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding Closed Session Item No. 6 and the issue of property negotiations. The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Public Employee Appointment as described in Item No. 6. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 6. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF ITEM NO. 8 Rick Denton, SummerHill Homes (SHH), said many constituents were involved in the SOFA CAP process. SHH’s main goal was to put together a plan that created the most benefits for the most constituents. In order for the plan to move forward, not every 02/14/00 89- 381
constituent would be 100 percent satisfied. Between the efforts of the people who worked before SHH came into the picture and SHH, a plan could be delivered to the community, City, and neighbors that allowed for the creation of benefits both to the town and neighbors. In particular, the proposed plan had the following major items: 1) the acquisition and funding mechanism for a 2-acre park as well as the Roth Building and .41 acres of additional public lands; 2) land for affordable housing and a funding mechanism for affordable housing; 3) opportunities for preservation of the Roth Building and a number of historic structures including the church, French Laundry, and other ancillary buildings; 4) a variety of housing types; 5) daycare opportunities; and 6) a weaving of the new into the existing fabric of the community. One of the big issues was what happened on Block B. A large part of the plan was settled in December with the exception of Block B, primarily having to do with the interface between existing single- family and multi-family housing. The compromise was the conversion of multi-family units to single-family units as a way of addressing some of the concerns. The other major change since December, was the aspect of the affordable housing component, working with some of the housing people. The program staff came up with allowed SHH to create a parcel that made the affordable housing more efficient to build. At the same time, it created an opportunity for an historic enclave by relocating some of the historic homes adjoining some of the existing historic structures. Though a host of constituents were involved in the process prior to SHH’s involvement, the recommendation was the best way of balancing a host of needs. Larry Hasset, Working Group member, read a prepared letter by the WG. After over two years of working with some of the finest people he had ever known, a good (CAP) was brought before the Council. The WG endorsed the CAP in its entirety. The WG listened to extensive input and believed the current recommendations of the CAP and development proposal were balanced and could be supported. On February 8, 2000, the WG met with City staff and SHH to review and discuss proposed changes of the SOFA CAP and the development proposal by SHH on the PAMF properties. Following the Council meeting in December 1999, staff and members of the community held several meetings and discussions to address the final elements. Enthusiasm and appreciation was voiced by the WG for the revised design and efforts to address the mass and scale, particularly at the corner of Waverley Street and Channing Avenue. The current proposal for single-family units on one acre and attached multi-family housing on the other was a compromise the WG could support, particularly since it created a good transition and achieved both DHS and AMF housing types in an amount which members felt could be successfully absorbed in the area. An important element of the discussion was the commitment and quality of architecture of design demonstrated by SHH. The WG felt strongly that the commitment must be maintained and therefore supported the Planning Department’s recommendation for a combined ARB and HRB review process. The WG
02/14/00 89- 382
endorsed the proposed SOFA CAP with the following elements: 1) Block B should have a 2-acre park along Homer Avenue and the mid-block used for public access proposed by SHH; 2) the Block B development should be one acre of DHS and one acre of AMF along Channing Avenue, as proposed in scale, massing, and design by SHH; 3) the FAR for development of the AMF on Blocks A and B should not exceed 1.5; 4) the Roth Building should be purchased for public use; and 5) the mixed use on Block C along Homer Avenue was supported. The WG was pleased the current proposal included public parking that could be utilized by nearby facilities. Although the process took longer and was more complex than imagined, the process was good. The WG was pleased with the final plan. The implementation would yield an exciting community design and urged the Council to support the plan. The main area of difference was with regard to Block A. The amendment to the WG plan would allow inclusion of the psychiatry building with the other parcels to reach the 1.5 FAR as recommended by the WG. The proposal came out during the Planning Commission hearings by SHH. The WG had not had an opportunity to address the issue. Any changes would be up to the Council, but the WG had not supposed the structures on Block A would conform to the 1.5 FAR. Staff’s support was fabulous, particularly the direction from both the Planning Commission and the Council. The product reflected an outstanding achievement. Mayor Kniss thanked the WG for the amount of time, energy, and effort that went into the process. Planning Commissioner Pat Burke said the Planning Commission voiced unanimous support for the proposed SOFA CAP. The CAP was a quality plan that achieved the goals and objectives set forth by the Council in September 1997. The CAP also reflected a balanced conjunction of the various stakeholders designed to represent the different interests of the community. The Planning Commission believed the CAP achieved a remarkable set of public benefits, including affordable housing, childcare, park, and historic preservation, all in a pedestrian-oriented fashion. The Planning Commission also made three specific recommendations to supplement the plan: 1) that the housing on Block A currently recommended for 2,500 square feet units be reconsidered and smaller units built to allow for a larger number of units to increase the housing supply without increasing density; 2) Block A viewed as one parcel for purposes of calculating the FAR at 1.5; and 3) retention of Scott Park as a public park if possible. The Planning Commission also felt that the concept of a joint ARB and HRB review of the developments would help ensure the development was in the context of the neighborhood and very high-quality design. The efforts of staff and the WG were commended. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the PAMF agreement included a contingency that after its move to Urban Lane, the City would have 33 months to wrap up the planning process. The time period would come to fruition at the end of March 2000. Therefore, the Council
02/14/00 89- 383
had significant time constraints. With the prospect of a negotiated resolution connected to the CAP, the staff had not developed what he would characterize as regulatory mechanisms, particularly for park exactions. If the City needed to move in that direction due to dissatisfaction with the SHH proposal, staff needed to know soon since it would take some extraordinary intellectual gymnastics to get it in defensible shape within the allotted time. Mayor Kniss asked staff to provide the Council with a timeframe for voting for the next few weeks. Mr. Gawf said Council direction would be given to staff during the current week. On March 20, 2000, staff was prepared to return for a first reading with all the necessary ordinances. Staff would then return for the second reading in April. Staff would work with PAMF for a time extension. Mayor Kniss asked about the number of votes required. Mr. Gawf said when the item returned to the Council a majority of full Council (five votes) was required for an ordinance. Mr. Calonne said four votes were adequate for the current evening, but ultimate actions would require five votes. One exception was the $10 million for funding for improvements mentioned in the staff report (CMR:147:00) as well as the substantial amount of public commitment, an issue not being asked as a commitment from the Council but something that was possible. Mid-year budget changes required six votes. Mayor Kniss opened the public hearing. Fran Laurence, Channing House, 850 Webster Street, #1000, favored of the SOFA CAP and SHH project as a viable compromise of a complex situation. Channing House residents were primarily interested in maintaining the one-way traffic on Homer and Channing Streets. Monty Anderson, former member of the Historic Resources Board, 941 Emerson Street, said the CAP was a good effort to find ways to make viable use of and preserve historic structures, particularly the AME Zion Church structure. Elaine Meyer, President of University South Neighborhood Group (USNG), 609 Kingsley, said the lack of USNG representation in the WG concerned her. The City was cautioned about substantially changing the character of the neighborhood with the CAP, encouraged to purchase the land for the park, which should be oriented horizontally, and not sell Scott Park. The USNG was not concerned about the number of units on Block A, but was concerned about the mass and the large office development.
02/14/00 89- 384
Mayor Kniss announced that additional speaker cards would not be accepted for the public hearing the following evening and that public testimony would be closed. Russell C. Phillips, 850 Webster Street, #620, spoke in favor of maintaining the one-way street configuration since Channing House would be negatively affected by the change. The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) clearly set forth the safety advantages of one-way streets, especially for the elderly. Craig Noke, member of St. Thomas Aquinas, 215 Heather Lane, said favored the CAP, especially the multiple-occupancy overlay which addressed a tremendous need of the church, such as off-street parking. Jane Glauz, representing Unitarian Church affiliated with Peninsula Interfaith Action (PIA), 152 Ely Place, expressed the church’s great concern about the lack of affordable housing. The community was less hospitable to people of moderate income. The SOFA CAP policy stated housing types should include a range of densities. The City was encouraged to provide more BMR housing. The church supported the range of housing proposed for the PAMF site and sought an inclusive community committed to economic diversity and more affordable housing. Mary Elizabeth Van Patten, 905 Van Auken Circle, representing the Unitarian Church and PIA, supported the February 2000 SOFA CAP, which proposed to build 40 or more units of affordable housing. Teachers should be able to live in the community in which they taught. Many Bay Area communities were losing teachers because of the cost of housing. Jon Goldman, 535 Channing Avenue, spoke on behalf of Guy Blaze, an owner of a small business on the corner of 400 Channing Avenue, supported all aspects of the SOFA CAP as proposed by SHH and recommended by the Planning Commission. Don Fitton, 821 Waverley Street, expressed concern with the SOFA CAP and asked the Council to consider the possibility of taking another look at the land. Although the work completed by the WG seemed tremendous and should not be disregarded, some issues were serious. Block B, the very critical entry into Professorville, truly needed an architectural and neighborhood “fit.” The bulk of the building, as beautifully designed as it was, should be reduced. Virginia Fitton, 821 Waverley Street, requested the Council reconsider using Block B as a 2.5-acre park, with as much housing as possible, and not to exceed three stories. Kurt Borgwardt, 807 Waverley Street, supported lower density on Block B and preferred lower height on the buildings. The
02/14/00 89- 385
orientation of the park along Waverley was preferred as being more spacious and an oasis. Litsie Indergand, member of PIA and the Human Relations Commission, 336 Ely Place, supported the largest possible number of affordable housing units, which would benefit teachers, police, and fire personnel. S. Rubinfien, 501 Kingsley Avenue, said the AMF condos on the corner of Bryant Street and Channing Avenue violated an earlier basic premise that new housing be added in a gradation of density starting with DHS and moving up in density, height, and mass across Bryant Street. The premise was designed to reflect a plausible transition from the old neighborhoods into the new. The design was the undoing of the neighborhood character. She suggested the City sell portions of the park in exchange for plaques. Bill Stewart, Walter Hays Drive, supported the process, and the quality of the SOFA CAP, development. Jeffrey Rensch, member of PIA, 741 Chimalus Drive, supported affordable housing and maintaining income diversity in Palo Alto. Joette Farrand, 724 Bryant Street, opposed a process that allowed the presentation of both the SOFA CAP and the SHH proposal at the same time. The primary issues involved density, mass, and commercial space versus housing needs, and raised questions about the rights of the Council, the developer, or the people wanting to live in SOFA, or the current neighbors. As a strong advocate of the park, the most important issue was a walkable, viable neighborhood that preserved the historic character of the neighborhood. Sally Probst, President of the League of Women Voters, 735 Coastland Drive, supported the SOFA CAP, particularly the affordable housing. The use of the BMR requirement for the land was good, however, concern was voiced that some of the BMR requirement was going for the park instead of housing. Mayor Kniss said the public hearing would be continued the following evening. COUNCIL MATTERS Mayor Kniss stated the agenda on Tuesday, February 15,2000, would begin with a Closed Session on Item No. 9. The Council was asked to provide written questions for staff to expedite the process the following evening. City Attorney Ariel Calonne suggested Council consider the continuation of SOFA CAP at 6 p.m. Tuesday, February 15, 2000, followed by Item No. 9.
02/14/00 89- 386
Mayor Kniss agreed. 9. Mayor Kniss and Council Members Kleinberg and Mossar re Potential Purchase of the Bressler Property (continued to 2/15/00) 10. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 2000 (continued to 2/15/00) ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:10 p.m. ATTEST: APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours.
02/14/00 89- 387