Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-15 City Council Summary Minutes Special Meeting February 15, 2000 1. Public Employee Appointment............................. 390 RECESSED TO THE ADJOURNED MEETING at 7:25 p.m. to discuss Agenda Item Nos. 9 and 10...................................... 390 9. Mayor Kniss and Council Members Kleinberg and Mossar re Potential Purchase of the Bressler Property............. 390 10. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 2000........ 395 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m............... 395 2. 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................................................. 396 CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.................... 402 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 p.m.............. 412 02/15/00 89-389 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 6:05 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (participated via telephone from Washington, D.C. commencing at 7:25 p.m.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian UNFINISHED BUSINESS 1. Public Employee Appointment (continued from 2/14/00) Title: City Manager Authority: Government Code section 54957 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Public Employee Appointment as described in Agenda Item No. 1. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 1. RECESSED TO THE ADJOURNED MEETING at 7:25 p.m. to discuss Agenda Item Nos. 9 and 10 Adjourned Meeting of February 14, 2000, to February 15, 2000, The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers 7:25 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Fazzino (participated via telephone from Washington, D.C.), Kleinberg, Kniss, Lytle, Mossar, Ojakian UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9. Mayor Kniss and Council Members Kleinberg and Mossar re Potential Purchase of the Bressler Property Mayor Kniss said the Council’s goal on the item was to vote on doing an appraisal on the Bressler property. Council Member Mossar said the Colleagues memo was a request to ask City staff to prepare a current appraisal on a 13-acre parcel of land (the Bressler property) which sat nestled in and amongst the City-owned open space property (the Arastra Preserve). The Council had expressed interest in purchasing the property in the past, which had a long and difficult history. The Council was being asked to move forward in the decision-making process and to evaluate how best to proceed in dealing with the property. There 02/15/00 89-390 was a pending auction at the end of February that might or might not happen. Without having a current appraisal and a good understanding of the financial commitment, the Council would have difficulty making a decision about how it wanted to proceed with the property. Council Member Kleinberg hoped the Council would support the Colleagues request because the property was the last piece of the puzzle and would be a tremendous community asset. The Council struggled over many opportunities to maintain the greenbelt and enhance the urban setting of Palo Alto. Moving forward with the item would be an exciting step and would put the City in a position of completing the Arastra Preserve. Mayor Kniss agreed that moving ahead with the item was an exciting step and asked that people envision looking from the top of the mountains, down through the park and the Arastra Preserve to the bay, creating an uninterrupted view and pathway to follow if such a pathway existed. She asked City Attorney Ariel Calonne about acquisition of the property and other ways that the property might be acquired if the Council was so inclined. City Attorney Calonne said the City could: 1) bid at the foreclosure sale, which was not always the safest way to acquire property; 2) negotiate outright with the owners when the title was cleared and the foreclosure process was completed; or 3) take the property through condemnation proceedings for park purposes which would take a two-thirds vote as would action to amend the budget. The Council needed to exercise some caution in separating the decisions to get an appraisal completed from the decision of whether and how the Council might want to acquire the property. Mayor Kniss clarified that the Council’s first step that evening would be to acquire the appraisal before pursuing the other avenues. Mr. Calonne said yes. He understood that the type of appraisal the Council would be looking for was one that would support any of the three options he described. Jerry Hearn, 144 El Nido Road, Portola Valley, said there seemed to be some confusion about the property for some time. What was known for certain was the property was: 1) a beautiful piece of property; 2) a private end holding in a public area; and 3) would change hands in the future. He had several scenarios in mind with regard to the property that: 1) perhaps Mrs. Bressler could be encouraged to donate the land to Palo Alto in exchange for the property being named after her; 2) a suddenly rich Silicon Valley magnate in need of a tax write off might buy the property and donate it to the City of Palo Alto; and 3) some entity, perhaps a school, might purchase the property and build a facility for educational purposes and also might share the facilities with the City; 4) a Silicon Valley magnate looking to put an ego stamp on the world might buy the 02/15/00 89-391 property, put a 6,000-square-foot house, essentially a palatial estate, which defacto would become the entrance facility to the Arastra Preserve; and 5) the City recognize the golden opportunity to complete the Preserve and come forth with a reasonable offer when the property became available. He encouraged the Council to take the step that evening to okay the appraisal as part of his fifth scenario. He realized it seemed costly, but urged the Council to remember that preserving open space was always expensive except in retrospect. Kathleen Coakley, P.O. Box 598, said the item was old City business, and should have been a measure on the ballot. She felt that Los Altos Hills and Portola Valley should pay for the property and that the Gateway project was unnecessary. Most open space advocates want open space, not buildings. There should be more libraries and parks closer to the Downtown. The cost for a Gateway facility and the property would always have a problem associated with it such as maintenance. The City should have purchased the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) facility and made it into a park. The quality of living is not condo living, and she could not stand what was being done to Palo Alto with regard to demolition, including the Bressler house. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, displayed a map of the area showing the Bressler property and the 77-acre Stanford property. He urged the Council to initiate a rezoning of the 77-acre parcel to the appropriate Open Space zone instead of its obsolete Planned Community zone prior to the time Stanford submitted an application. If an appraisal was to be done, it should be one that met professional standards. Eight of the nine appraisals previously done on the property that were public record were not good. For that reason, the Council should not take advantage of its right under the Brown Act to keep the City appraisal a secret until a purchase was made. Some Palo Alto officials appeared ready to decide in Closed Session to purchase the Bressler property for more money than it was worth. The appraisal should be included in the Council packet so the public could evaluate and critique it. Otherwise, the decision would be made in a Closed Session probably based on past performance over the past ten years on an inadequate appraisal. Another issue was there might be a nexus between those Council Members who had a conflict of interest with the South of Forest Area (SOFA). In the case of Council Member Mossar, that conflict would run out in the next month. At Council places that evening, was information on the Bressler property. The current status of a temporary restraining order was that it continued to the end of March; however, a payment of $500,000 was due on February 28, 2000. If that payment were not made, the property would go into foreclosure on February 29, 2000. Otherwise, in mid-March there would be a court hearing to determine how to pay the remainder of the money. If the payment were made, $720,000 would have been paid on a total agreed upon settlement price with interest of $1,800,000. If the City was going to buy the property based on past experience with the current owner, there would probably be litigation costs. The best defense against a law suit 02/15/00 89-392 from the current owner would be to permit development under current open space district regulations which included one house with only 3.5 percent impervious coverage, leaving 96.5 percent of the site free. Additional costs would be extensive habitat restoration due to it being a swampy area. Additionally, a budget amendment ordinance (BAO) would be needed in open session to purchase the property, which would require six votes. David Smernoff, Project Director for the Arastradero Preserve Stewardship Project of Bay Area Action, 112 Foxwood Road, Portola Valley, said he supported the Bressler Property acquisition and extended Nonette Hanko’s support who was ill. Incorporating that parcel into the existing preserve had been a goal of many Palo Altans for about ten years, and that evening was an opportunity to take that vision one step closer to fruition. To achieve that goal, there were four issues the Council might want to consider: 1) approve the request in the Colleagues memo to seek the updated appraisal for the property which should be professional; 2) publicly clarify the zoning and planning constraints for the site; 3) act quickly to commit sufficient funds to put in a reasonable bid for the property; and 4) that the cost of adding the parcel to public open space did not all have to be borne by the City. In his letter of February 9, 2000, he outlined several possible sources of funding that could be used to offset the direct cost to the City. He believed the ecological and recreational value of the regional important piece of open space would enable the writing of competitive proposals for those types of grant funds. He was willing to work with the City staff to develop those proposals and to bring in funding to offset the cost and achieve what needed to be done. He thanked former Mayor Fazzino, current Mayor Kniss, and Council Member Mossar for voting in November to acquire the parcel and encouraged the remainder of the Council to join in that evening in taking that important step. Mr. Calonne said the last thing the City Council should do was to try and get into the business of telling someone what he/she might do with the property. His staff looked at the issue many times which was just slightly less complex than filling out a corporate tax return and something he was concerned about because the Council did not want to influence what happened at a foreclosure sale. It was not an appropriate thing for the City to do. Someone could infer improperly that the City had some desire to affect the price, and the City was not in a position to do that. He strongly suggested not getting involved in the use questions at the present stage. MOTION: Council Member Mossar moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to direct staff to secure a current appraisal of the Bressler property so that further acquisition steps, such as bidding at auction can be considered in a timely manner, and to return to the Council as soon as possible to seek negotiating instructions with respect to the possible acquisition of the property. 02/15/00 89-393 Council Member Ojakian clarified that the Council was only agreeing to an appraisal and not committing to anything else. Mr. Calonne said that was correct. Council Member Ojakian said previously, there were some questions regarding a search on the title and making sure there were not any encumbrances or liens on the property. He asked if that was done. City Manager June Fleming said that was done, and she would forward the information to the Council along with the appraisal. Council Member Ojakian said if the Council reached the stage where buying the property would be considered, he would like to know the exact source the funds would come from. Council Member Lytle supported the motion. She had a desire for the property to become public ownership. She was concerned with the timing in that the Council had not really had a chance to look at its priorities regarding reserves and financing infrastructure improvements over the upcoming years. The decision would probably happen quickly, probably prior to the Council’s having the ability to set priorities. There was great interest in the community for finding those improvements to libraries and parks, which was clearly a strong message during the election. Council Member Fazzino said he had supported every chance the City had to purchase open space in the foothill since 1977, starting with the Arastra Preserve which took four different occasions to make the 77-acre site a reality. It was the third time he voted on the current property. He felt from the beginning that the City should purchase the property. There were few opportunities available to the City to purchase foothills open space; and if the property were purchased, it would ensure that the valuable open space would remain open to future generations. He did not dispute Council Member Lytle’s comments, which were valid. He was surprised an infrastructure measure had not yet been put on the ballot since it had been discussed for five years. A rational planning process would need to be put aside to seize the opportunity to purchase the open space. The action that evening was not to purchase the property. There were several financing alternatives available, and he supported the motion to move ahead with the financial evaluation of the assessment of the property. Council Member Kleinberg echoed Council Member Lytle’s concern about the pace with which the Council was moving. It was not appropriate to ask the public’s forbearance while the new Council Members got up to speed when opportunities presented themselves, but that was the nature of the situation. She agreed it would be nice to have the privilege of planning carefully and matching the City’s budget with the Council’s desires. The City obtaining the Bressler property was a dream of hers not yet completed. Sometimes opportunities came at the wrong time. The timing was not perfect because it did not fit into the Council’s planning and 02/15/00 89-394 prioritizing. Because the trustee sale was happening within a week, the Council needed to position itself by getting an appraisal and acting quickly in order not to lose the opportunity. She felt the Council’s responsibility was to complete the dream that so many people for so long worked towards. Council Member Burch supported the motion. He would not like the City to miss the opportunity. He thanked David Smernoff and the stewards of the Arastra Preserve for doing a magnificent job. Council Member Beecham supported the motion, agreeing with his colleague’s comments. Mayor Kniss said one of the reasons she ran for Council in 1989 was because the Council was discussing selling and developing the 77-acres of Arastra property at that time. Palo Alto was fortunate enough to get five votes to dedicate that piece of property which was a long time in coming, as was the previous acreage from the Arastra Preserve that came about through Council action in the 1970s. The Council was seeing the end of what started as a vision in the early 1970s and could end in the year 2000 when that final piece of property could be added. While the Council was only voting on the appraisal of the property, and she wanted to make it clear that she would go to the well for that valuable property which started from the top of the foothills down to the Bay. MOTION PASSED 9-0. Ms. Fleming said staff took the motion seriously and would do everything in its power to bring back all the information needed including that not called out in the motion. Because of the short deadline, she wanted to apprise the Council of the fact that it might be necessary to call a special meeting. Since the motion was unanimous, she wanted the Council’s permission to move forward with that. Mayor Kniss said the Council agreed. 10. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Scheduling the City Council Vacation for Calendar Year 2000 MOTION: Mayor Kniss moved, seconded by Eakins, to continue the item to the Regular City Council Meeting of February 22, 2000. MOTION PASSED 7-0, Mossar, Ojakian absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 8:00 p.m. RECONVENED THE SPECIAL MEETING at 8:00 p.m. 2. 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 02/15/00 89-395 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 from 2/14/00) Council Members Mossar and Ojakian announced they would not participate in the Special Meeting due to a conflict of interest. Dan Cunningham, 845 Waverley Street, across the street from Block B and adjacent to Block E, spoke to Blocks A, B, and C. Block B was his primary concern, which was a large condominium (condo) structure. He was appreciative through the City’s and SummerHill’s efforts that the structure was reduced significantly, but he wished it could be reduced even further. Many people in the neighborhood had gathered and discussed what they thought was the perfect solution and would reflect what was currently there. The neighbors’ solution was a mixture of varying density buildings such as duplexes, single-family homes, granny units, quads, etc, which they considered perfect. They were not against density, but mass. He understood there were trade-offs. Displacing housing from the site created an issue, and as he looked at Block C there was additional commercial entering the plan. No one he had talked to felt strongly that there was a commercial space deficit in that area of Palo Alto. He suggested that in order to maintain some of the units, to increase some of the units involved there that were used for housing from three to something more significant. Block A was a four-story condo structure which was placed there to accommodate the removal of mass from Block B, specifically where there were attached houses on small lots with granny units. He felt that was done in a sensitive way placed in the eves of the existing roofline, which he agreed to. However, that brought the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) up to 1.8; and in order that it conform to the 1.5 FAR, staff was suggesting the adjacent psychiatry building be included to bring the overall FAR of the two adjacent properties down. He agreed with the concept of combining the psychiatry building to conform with the 1.5 FAR but was opposed to a general rule that would leave openings for developments that could result in large buildings next to smaller buildings which existed in order to increase the FAR and might not be as sensitively done. With regard to the park and its alignment to Homer Avenue rather than Waverley Avenue, he did not feel strongly about the alignment but was concerned with the association of the park to the Roth building which might impact the quality of the park. His primary concern was parking. On one or two of the drawings, there was an entrance to the parking garage that went through an area of the park. He saw that as a negative impact on the park. The Roth Building was expensive in comparison to the purchase price of the park. Natalie Wells, 3259 Alma Street, read a letter on behalf of Pria Graves, President of PAST Heritage. The letter stated that previously, PAST Heritage requested a supplement to the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be prepared for the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan which was necessitated by the alterations to the plan required to fit the SummerHill Homes 02/15/00 89-396 proposal. In particular, the concern was in Section 2.13, Cultural Resources in the final EIR which called for protection of the 12 Resource List properties under the Historic Preservation Ordinance. However, the ordinance stated that “Demolition includes the relocation of a building from one parcel of land to another.” Since the SummerHill Homes proposal involved relocation of four of the historic structures, the mitigation failed to apply; and if demolition by relocation was allowed in spite of the law, PAST Heritage believed that additional analysis of alternatives and mitigation measures was needed. Another concern was that the SummerHill Homes plan specifically proposed the demolition of all the buildings along the south side of the block which would include the French Laundry because a building which had more than 50 percent changed constituted demolition. Additional evaluation of alternatives and litigation measures was required when that happened. Suitable litigation must consider that the setting or environment or historic features was crucial to value. The Secretary of Interior’s Guidelines for Rehabilitated Historic Buildings specifically recommended against removing or relocating historic buildings or landscape features. PAST Heritage did not believe the consequences of that aspect of the plan were adequately evaluated or mitigated. Finally for those reasons, PAST Heritage believed the final EIR was inadequate and a supplementary EIR was needed, and University South Neighbors Neighborhood Groups joined PAST Heritage in making the request. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, thanked the staff and Working Group (WG) for the priority given to having a sizeable park in the plan. He urged the Council to realize the one-time opportunity for the park and, in particular, to follow the plan of the WG from the past June. He asked that consideration of the Roth building be removed except to the extent that if money was available in the capital budget to acquire the Roth building, could that money be applied to the park. He was concerned with Block C which was a unique block and thought of as the soul of Palo Alto. There were six historic structures on that block, and four of the old Victorian’s on Bryant Street were targeted for removal. He showed how the SummerHill building swallowed the block. He hoped the building would not be approved. Overall, the plan had the park as a good element and other technical aspects, but what was lacking was the soul of Palo Alto. Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), 725 Alma Street, spoke on behalf of David Ensign, Board President. She was also a stakeholder for local housing interests with the WG. The project was a reasonable balance of many issues, the resulting plan good, and the PAHC took the Council’s policy objectives seriously. Being involved with groups that valued affordable housing as a community was a good experience. As a general advocate and an advisor to the City, she worked for two years with the idea of obtaining land because, like the park, it was a one-time opportunity. A land contribution was more meaningful than a percentage of units in a market rate development because the community received more units, 02/15/00 89-397 affordability, and control. The PAHC applauded the negotiations that brought a contribution of land closer to reality and urged the Council not to reduce density of the plan or the SummerHill proposal further. The City needed more housing of all types, and there was a direct correlation between the square footage of housing that could be built and the benefits that a developer could afford to provide the community, especially the dedication of land. If chipping away of parts continued, the entire proposal could crumble. Regarding the dedication land, the Below–Market-Rate (BMR) contribution was in the Comprehensive Plan and a requirement. The PAHC wanted to keep the BMR as separate as possible so no additional City housing would be spent on land acquisition than was necessary. She was concerned with recommendation 4b on page 2 of the staff report (CMR:147:00) regarding 0.64 acres for dedication, while in the first paragraph, 4th line, on page 12, 0.5 acres was listed. As a nonprofit housing developer, she studied site options in the PAMF area to provide the City with good advice on feasibility for the housing project. The essentials for the housing site came down to three concepts that: 1) it be a rectangular parcel to optimize the design potential and number of units; 2) it was located such that parking was efficient because parking drove the number of units; and 3) the relocation of the two historic structures that in place created an unworkable L-shaped parcel. The PAHC was pleased that the SummerHill Homes organization agreed to provide a receiver site for one of those historical structures. The City’s consulting architect’s work seemed to be consistent with the PAHC. The site could accommodate between 40 and 44 family units with the required parking underground. Nancy Katz, 936 Scott Street, member of the Committee to Save Scott Park, submitted a petition consisting of 80 signatures from neighbors interested in keeping up the park and removing Scott Park from the financing plan. She was impressed by the response of the WG, SummerHill Homes, and City Planning staff. Scott Park was a unique small property. She reviewed the drawings that depicted a link to the neighborhood into the new park and development. On behalf of her neighbors, she asked the Council to save Scott Park. She did not think Palo Alto wanted to be known for removing a park. Neil O=Sullivan, 362 Channing Avenue, said as a neighbor of Scott Park and the enjoyment it brought to the neighborhood, he was opposed to the sale of the park. He found it difficult to believe that his City government would consider selling a park or moving parkland from one block to another for the sole purpose of making it appear there would be more park space than there actually was. Residents of Palo Alto needed to know that when property was purchased, the nearby park would not be replaced by housing and the land moved up the block. Moving the old Victorians on Bryant Street off to another block preserved the buildings but not the neighborhood. The introduction of new commercial space on Homer Avenue between Bryant and Ramona Streets was unwelcome in the neighborhood. The neighbors should not have to accept three- and four-story buildings where two-story buildings predominated. What 02/15/00 89-398 was being suggested was a redefinition of the neighborhood and not preservation. As a resident of Channing Avenue, he was also concerned with making it into a two-way street. The SOFA neighborhood was not well served by proposals for high-density housing. The primary goals should be to preserve the character of the neighborhood and not create a condo community to pump up the tax base at the expense of those who lived there. Patricia Saffir, 2719 Bryant Street, felt bad about the PAMF building being destroyed but agreed that the proposed low- moderate income housing for the site was well worth it. With regard to the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) and its goals, the Comp Plan stated that 1,142 new housing units needed to be built by 2002 to provide Palo Alto’s fair share of housing for the growing local economy, with 63 percent for people with low to moderate incomes. State law and the goals and policies of the Comp Plan obligated Palo Alto to best fulfill those goals. It would not be easy, but the City’s experience with the SOFA over prior years had shown how difficult it was and how many decisions might have to be made to approach meeting those goals. There was currently a plan most of the stakeholders thought would be a benefit to the City and to the neighborhood. She urged the Council to move forward with staff proposals that would make it necessary in order to make the site viable for low-moderate income housing, namely sacrificing a tree and moving two historic houses. She also urged the Council to make sure not to chip away too much of the BMR obligation in order to substitute and pay for other amenities. The housing funds were precious, and there would be opportunities in the future to make the best use of the plan in order to meet the housing goals of the Comprehensive Plan. Richard C. Brand, 281 Addison Avenue, lived in Block D of the affected area, and he appreciated the work done, encouraging the program to move forward. He wanted to address a couple of issues that were salient relative to effects on the City from the program. He was concerned about the Bryant Street Bicycle Path, making the underground parking access from Block C onto Bryant Street a mistake. He felt there would be an encroachment of egress with cars coming from underground with bicycles and pedestrians on the roadway. He suggested looking at leaving the entranceway to Channing or Ramona Avenues. Another concern was the underground parking which was a financial issue for the City. The storm drains in that area were stressed at best and insufficient which would require upgrading based on a lot of underground parking that would end up in open water. He encouraged the Council to look into the issue. Further, the condominiums at 53-feet in Block B along Bryant Street and Channing Avenues were high, and he suggested 45-feet. He believed Channing and Homer Avenues should remain one-way; changing to two-way streets would cut down lane availability and might force the widening of Alma Street. The idea of neighborhoods and neighbor compliance was important. Paul Kelleher, 426 Homer Avenue, said what was good in the SummerHill plan was compatible housing, Detached Housing on Small 02/15/00 89-399 Lots (DHS) as implemented off the main block, affordable BMR housing, a park which was not large but appreciated, and historic preservation. What was bad in the plan was that the BMR housing was too large and incompatible in the neighborhood, DHS housing on the main block looked like tract housing and would benefit from some diversity, a parking deficiency on the main block of the DHS housing where it did not appear to be the mandated three off-street parking spaces, and the AMF and office parcels were in excess of the FAR ratio resulting in enormous buildings which were out of character. When the project was planned, the FAR of.45 that surrounded two sides of the property was forgotten. The other side was surrounded by RM-30 at .75 FAR and RM-40 at 1.0 FAR. When the number decreased by half, it could not be hidden. He hoped there was still time to fix the problem; an FAR of 1.5 did not make for walkable, street-friendly neighborhoods, but an FAR of .75 and 1.0 worked for the entire Downtown area. It would give the next developer or the clinic a blueprint for how things could proceed quickly, and the fact that SummerHill cut a deal prior to the finalization of the SOFA plan did not necessitate that the City accommodate a zoning to meet its financial needs. Freda Katwan, 908 Colonial Lane, supported the project. Everyone who worked on the plan did a great job. She worked at a school nearby, and the park was wonderful for the children. She supported the City for the affordable housing units. Stephanie Munoz, 101 Alma Street, #107, said two years ago, she approached various City staff members suggesting that the rebuilding be used for senior housing. She found out that was impossible because the standards for earthquake safety were doubled whenever the occupation use changed; for instance, if the use changed from office to residential, the standards doubled; if the use changed from residential to office, the standards doubled. It appeared to her to be a convenient excuse for not considering whether the building was a worthwhile resource asset to the city. If the use was the same (office), there was no increase in the safety requirements. The City had to buy land for the city offices that needed more room. She suggested the Council consider whether the existing building would be a good investment to the City. Diana Steeples, 3198 Ramona Street, member of the League of Women Voters of Palo Alto, supported the Council’s realization of the affordable housing element of the current plan. She understood the concerns and reservations of the neighbors, she said it was important to bear in mind what the various elements of the plan would provide for the total community. She was impressed by the ability to achieve an appropriate transition from downtown business/office/retail area and areas of multi-story housing that existed between University Avenue and Homer Avenue. She was concerned that the possibility of further reduction in the number of units might cause a financial situation that would mean the present proposed developers might find it difficult to provide BMR financing or land for affordable housing. 02/15/00 89-400 Patrick Siegman, 260 Palo Alto Avenue, member of the Working Group (WG), said, as a transportation planner, he was confident that Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue could be changed to two-way streets, add the appropriate traffic calming devices, and make the streets safer. Without turning Homer Street to two ways, there was not much of a use to put a bicycle underpass on Homer Street to the clinic. Some people said there were too many housing units in the plan. Other buildings in the area were denser than what was proposed. Outreach to the homeowners was wonderful, but the WG did not work hard by scheduling daytime meetings or going to the schools to reach out to the 40 percent of renters in Palo Alto. He was a renter and did not want to be forced out of Palo Alto. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, did not hear people say they wanted fewer units; they wanted the mass reduced. Staff had a large charge to fulfill. The plan tried to accomplish too much in too small an area and tried to pay for everything including amenities such as parks and affordable housing. It was not realistic to get off scott free without paying for some of the amenities. She reminded Council Member Lytle that she said during her campaign that if Palo Alto could not figure out how to pay for its amenities, what other city could. Too much pressure was put on the small area. Addressing FARs by averaging, on the main block, and by adding the Psychiatry building to the northeast corner of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue was a numbers game and did not minimize the mass of development or lessen the impact. Neighbors of the community did not experience their environment as numbers on paper; they experienced it as built and natural environment. One of the early mandates of the WG was that there would not be lot combining in order to prohibit massive development. One of the difficulties of the process was due to the large staff turnover that resulted in a lack of long term memory of issues. Regarding historic structures, moving the houses on Bryant seemed ironic since South Park had 30 units to the acre. It was more ironic to move the houses at the corner of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue to make way for office use. Because the plan said the houses could be moved, it was assumed they should be moved. She saw no evidence that there was a sufficient look at creative ways of using the houses to their fullest potential. That should be done before making a determination to move them. She suggested looking at restoring the houses as multi-family units. She questioned the need for offices and said the ultimate result would be 160 tenants using up the new housing with no net gain. The project could end up with a parking deficit that would create a worse parking situation in the area. Homer Avenue should be a two-way street. The Council did not have presentations from the Architectural Review Board (ARB) or the Historic Resources Board (HRB) on the SummerHill plan that she felt was a flaw in the process. Elsbeth Newfield, 1119 Byron Street, said the Council heard much comment in the SOFA plan and the SummerHill proposal. Much of the comments were critical. The Council might not have heard the enthusiasm of the SOFA plan from the many people who had not spoken. To many of her neighbors and friends, the park was just a dream, and it might become a reality. More costly homes seemed 02/15/00 89-401 inevitable, but currently there were potential for affordable housing for teachers, city workers, and others that commuted long distances in order to work in Palo Alto. Many people were pleased with the plan, thankful for the proposals, and optimistic about the future of the area. She hoped that the Council, during its deliberations, imagined the voices of the people who had not appeared before the Council. Richard Rathburn, member of the Working Group, said the current plan was a wonderful outcome. The plan was worked over with many compromises. The developers were responsive, listened, and incorporated many of the comments that they heard. The new City staff was supportive. Many people would like Palo Alto not to change, but accepting density, mass, and housing was necessary. He wanted to look at ways to maximize the park potential. RECESSED TO A CLOSED SESSION 9:10 p.m. - 9:50 p.m. to discuss Agenda Item No. 3. 3. Conference with Labor Negotiator (continued from 2/14/00) Agency Negotiator: City Manager and Jay Rounds Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Local 1319 Authority: Government Code section 54957.6 The City Council met in Closed Session to discuss matters involving Labor Negotiations as described in Agenda Item No. 3. Mayor Kniss announced that no reportable action was taken on Agenda Item No. 3. CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said one question asked was what was the front setback for AMF properties and do they follow the defined standards in the draft plan. The answer was yes. The front setback for AMF was 15 feet for the building. Both Block A and B met the 15-foot setback. The only setback that might be an exception to the normal rule was that along the park on Block B, the condominiums were set back 10 feet rather than 15 feet. The street setbacks met the standard requirements. The second question asked was the size of the AMF, which was about 2,500 square feet. He did not see any units in Block A that were over 2,500 square feet, and there were four units in Block 4 over 2,500 square feet. He received a question from a Council Member regarding the size of the park between the Roth Building and Waverley Street along Homer Street. The size of the park was 1.75 acres. Council Member Lytle said a letter from Pria Graves asked for a supplemental EIR to be prepared. She asked if staff would respond. 02/15/00 89-402 Mr. Gawf said staff looked at an addendum rather than a supplemental EIR. The impacts did not change as a result of the SummerHill proposal. Staff thought the addendum was appropriate and that was what staff anticipated doing. Mr. Calonne said the draft historical ordinance was subject to the referendum. That was the standard used in the letter. The ordinance defined relocation as demolition and allowed relocation when it was necessary to accomplish some other important comprehensive plan goal. The ordinance expected some type of policy balancing on the relocation issue. Mr. Gawf said from the start of the project, the Council anticipated there might be some historic resources that were either lost or moved. The original objectives and goals included the historic preservation section that said, “in order to achieve other plan objectives, not all historic structures may be able to be preserved. Examine alternatives including preservation, alteration, demolition, or relocation.” The plan addressed that. An issue raised during public testimony that needed clarification. The staff recommendation in the staff report (CMR:147:00) addressed acquiring 63 acres of land for affordable housing. The chart on page 12 of the staff report (CMR:147:00) used .5. The reason for the split between how much land should be allocated for affordable housing and parks was the subject of Council discussion in December 1999. His understanding was the split was 1 acre for a park and .5 acre for affordable housing. After review, he found that .6 of an acre was intended, by Council direction, to be allocated toward affordable housing and .9 acres was intended to be applied to the park. Mr. Calonne said that was a specific Council direction in December. Mayor Kniss asked how “affordable housing” would be defined. Mr. Gawf said staff wanted to look at low-income housing, that is 50 percent of the median income. The other range was to go higher to an 80 percent or 100 percent of income. In terms of affordable housing, the City Manager asked staff to consider the possibility of housing for emergency workers. Council Member Burch said original discussions included a slope from Waverley Street toward Alma Street with density higher near Alma Street. He clarified the building on Lot B, the AMF, was three stories scaled down from four. Mr. Gawf said the diagrams showed the location of the fourth floor. Some of the fourth floor was on Channing Avenue and some on the park. Council Member Burch asked whether the project would be unprofitable to SummerHill if two stories were scaled back to three. 02/15/00 89-403 Mr. Gawf said the quality and detail of the design (FAR) would settle the issue of floor area ratio. Staff looked at a different type of review system that included combining members of the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) to review the plan. The mews and ground open space were important. SummerHill had to answer the question as to whether or not they could financially do the project. Mr. Calonne said the economic question was an unusual feature of the CAP as a planning tool. The Council had and would engage in zoning that was independent of the current market and allowed the market to come to the zoning. The CAP ordinance was designed to be a development stimulator and was designed to give incentive for lower case redevelopment of an area. The Council had to make the specific finding that the plan was feasible from an economic and fiscal standpoint. Council Member Lytle asked if the Council saw a pro forma on the economic feasibility study that was being analyzed. Mr. Calonne said the Council had an opportunity to discuss the real estate components in closed session, and information was received from SummerHill. The reconstituted Council might like to have that type of opportunity also. The Council could legally go into closed session to give instructions to the City Manager and her staff, as real estate negotiators, with respect to the acquisitions, specifically the pieces of lands or buildings the City would buy under the plan. There was no pro forma in the public record. Mayor Kniss suggested the Council hold discussions in the principle and the basic goals prior to beginning a block-by-block discussion. Council Member Burch was excited about the possibility of doing something worthwhile in the area. He loved the idea of a park. SummerHill did an excellent job of listening to people. The plan was good. Council Member Lytle said the community, WG, Planning Commission, and staff worked hard to get the current planning development agreement. She did not believe the project was designed as an economic stimulator process, but it was to be a proactive tool to get in front of the market. There were no complaints about the process, which was a sign of success. The Mayor asked the Council to consider the Comprehensive Plan (Comp Plan) as a test for the proposal. That was how she looked at the product. She would not make any motions that affected the affordable housing component; there was strong support in the community and the Comprehensive Plan. She did not want high expectations about the historic preservation issue. She looked at the Comp Plan for guidance and found Policy L55 that indicated relocation could be considered as a preservation strategy when consistent with state and national standards regarding the relocation of historic structures. She was concerned with the parks, noting that the Comp Plan Policy C26 indicated the City should maintain and enhance the existing City 02/15/00 89-404 parks facilities. She could not support a financing package that would use the sale of Scott Park. She believed that Policy C28 was clear about the new parks that were needed which must be at least two acres in size, and the park in the plan was less than the two acres. She supported a different configuration of the park. Another area of concern was the market rate housing proposal. She found some of the product not consistent with the Comp Plan policies, in particular Policy L6 which indicated abrupt boundaries between residential areas of different densities should be avoided and zoning boundaries needed to be placed behind the block and should be consistent with what was across the street in order to promote compatibility and gradual transition between land uses. She found the concept of a four-story high building, 53 feet in the area, to be an abrupt transition in the community abrupt boundaries. Council Member Beecham said there was much negotiation during the prior year about the project. The City had to rely on a private market to say they would take the risk and reward if there were a reward. The City tried to get the optimum package from what the developer proposed. The situation was confusing, but he believed the package was good for the City. Modifications could be made to improve the plan. He believed if the package did not work, other developers in the area would not be interested. The PAMF would be in the situation of selling off individual parcels. Should that happen, the City would lose much control and the ability to gain a significant amount of land and contributions toward affordable housing. There were lacks of control in terms of the City’s ability to do design review. The City had no process for controlling how single-family homes looked. His consideration was what was the alternative. He would rather find the best package rather than leave it to an uncontrolled development and one which offered few benefits to the City. Based on discussions with other people, the number one issue was a substantial sized park; the second issue was affordable housing; and the third issue was a softening of a long block of condominiums. His preference was to have no condominiums and make the project DHS housing. Vice Mayor Eakins said one of the aspects of the draft plan that captured her support was 40 percent of the ground would go into a type of community benefit such as public use or access. The Roth building was a gem. A childcare center and affordable housing were important to her. There were tradeoffs. She did not want the historic houses moved. The overall package that included moving the historic houses was worth the tradeoff. She liked the additional housing and the fact that the plan respected the historic grid of the neighborhood. She liked the principle that the WG adopted about the gradual density change. Council Member Kleinberg concurred with comments she heard. She was in favor of virtually everything that was said. Council Member Fazzino thanked Ed Gawf for stepping in when the work of the WG was being compromised and seeing that the WG got 02/15/00 89-405 back on track. The WG was a great model for other broad planning efforts of that nature in the future. Mayor Kniss said the Council would discuss Block B which was the block with the park, detached single-family and higher density usage. Council Member Lytle said there were two staff recommendations affecting Block B that she wanted to propose revisions to: (1) “1.a. A 2.0-acre park along the Homer Avenue Waverley Street alignment” or the way the original CAP had it oriented, but revised in size to the minimum that the Comp Plan required. The second revision would be a designation called Village Residential be applied to the remainder of Block B. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Beecham, to approve the staff recommendation as follows (Item Nos. 1-8 on CMR:147:00): 1. That the Council support the South of Forest Consolidated Area Plan (SOFA CAP) land use designations for the main block of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) properties, known as Block B as follows: a. A 2.0-acre park along the Homer Avenue alignment; b. Use of the Roth Building as a public facility; c. Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) on approximately one acre on the southeast quadrant of the block (10 single-family homes with carriage units); d. Attached Multiple Family (AMF) on approximately one acre on the southwest quadrant of the block (36 units with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not to exceed 1.5). 2. Council support a mixed-use overlay in the AMF Zone on approximately 0.70 acres on the northern portion of Block C. 3. Council support the Attached Multiple Family (AMF) Zone with a 1.5 FAR, and where two development lots are contiguous they may be combined for the purpose of calculating the overall FAR. 4. Council direct staff to continue to pursue participation in the implementation of the SOFA CAP by: a. Acquisition of 1.41 acres of land for the creation of a 2.41 acre park and public facility, including the Roth Building; b. Acquisition of 0.63 acres of land for the creation of a 1.23 acre affordable housing site; c. Provision of a 0.29 acre site for a child care center; 02/15/00 89-406 d. Pursuing an under-crossing of the Caltrain tracks at Homer Avenue. 5. Council direct staff to prepare a Final SOFA CAP (Phase I) for City Council adoption. 6. Council direct staff to develop a specific financing package for land acquisition in SOFA, including: a. The sale of Scott Park; and b. Establishment of park fees in the SOFA CAP area. 7. Council direct staff to prepare a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto (CITY) and Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), incorporating the SummerHill Homes proposal and dedication of 1.6 acres of land for public use, and taking actions necessary to implement the financing package. 8. Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report and making the necessary environmental findings, as required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the items in the staff report were severable, and the Council could discuss each item by Block. AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to revise Recommendation 1.a.: Minimum 2.0-acre park along the Waverley alignment, according to the original CAP, sized according to Comprehensive Plan Policy C-26. Council Member Lytle said the Comp Plan was clear that the park should be 2 acres. The neighborhood expected to have the equivalent to what was provided in other neighborhoods, for instance, Johnson Park in Downtown North. The park layout under consideration did not come close to Johnson Park for several reasons: Johnson Park was surrounded by public right-of-way, was buffered, and was accessible to the public from four directions. The plan before the Council was required buffering between the private use and public space along the entire alignment, and there would be potential conflicts that made the parkland less desirable. The space between the Roth Building and the large project would be shaded and duplicative of the street system in terms of circulation. The size of the park, based on encumbrances, would be privatized, and the equivalent space was 1.75 acres. The Waverley Street alignment had more public accessibility on three sides and privatized less of the park acreage and required less buffering between the parking and private uses. Council Member Beecham opposed the motion. He said what was laid out in Block B was laid out as a relatively cohesive whole. If he believed the City could get a larger park or reconfigure the park 02/15/00 89-407 and still gain the objectives, he would support the motion. He did not believe that was possible. Council Member Burch supported the motion and said the Roth Building did not have to be included in the park. He agreed that three street accesses to the park made more sense. Mayor Kniss said she counted how many houses had access to the project and found that the City park would become a neighborhood-gathering place. Given the size and shape, the park would be accessible to many people. Council Member Kleinberg said the park should be oriented along Waverley Street. The project gave greater accessibility to housing at the other end of the park as well as potential enhancement to neighborhood uses of the Roth Building although the uses were unknown at the present time. She could foresee the indoor/outdoor connection and linkage as a great opportunity for the neighborhood to maximize the use of the property and extend it to the Roth Building. The problem with changing the project piecemeal was that it was configured in a certain way, and she was hesitant to pick the project apart without seeing how the whole project was balanced and fit together. Council Member Fazzino concurred with Council Member Kleinberg. AMENDMENT FAILED 2-5, Burch, Lytle, Αyes,≅ Mossar, Ojakian Αnot participating.≅ AMENDMENT: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Lytle, to delete Recommendation 6.a., The sale of Scott Park, in the financing package. AMENDMENT PASSED 7-0, Mossar, Ojakian Αnot participating.≅ AMENDMENT: Council Member Lytle moved, seconded by Burch, to amend Recommendations 1.c. and 1.d. of the staff report (CMR:147:00) to apply a village residential designation along Channing Avenue orientation. Council Member Lytle said in addition to the Comp Plan Policy L6 regarding avoiding abrupt boundaries between uses, Policy L9 said the scale and character of the city should be maintained and avoid land uses that were overwhelming and unacceptable due to the size and scale. The description of the area in the Comp Plan said “residential/pedestrian pattern of narrow, tree lined streets, buildings typically one to three stories.” She found the proposed project to be a monolithic building that created gaps in the sidewalk where the underground structure had to be entered, the podium parking was a pedestrian-hostile feature, and the entire neighborhood would be overwhelmed. The units were large and not affordable for many people. The project was large scale but not dense with housing units. The units could be transitioned toward 02/15/00 89-408 Alma Street. The village residential, which was a medium-density transition, was a more appropriate prototype in the location and would allow for the cottage, single-family, small lot described by SummerHill. The City Council had not seen a pro forma from SummerHill about how the project pencilled out. She suspected there was plenty of room in the profitability of the project under current market conditions to work out something in the development agreement. Mayor Kniss clarified the number of units that would be cut. Council Member Lytle said the project units went from a 30∀ per acre to potentially 20 per acre. Mayor Kniss asked for a calculation of units that would be in the project. Vice Mayor Eakins was concerned about the height of the multi-family unit, specifically the fourth story. Further fine tuning was needed, but she would rely on the review process and additional public oversight. She wanted to see the units reduced in size in order to allow more units in a smaller mass. The building with the courtyard and limited driveway curb cuts were not too obtrusive. She did not support the amendment but shared some of Council Member Lytle’s concerns. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the option of village residential was brought to the attention of the WG. Mr. Gawf said he spoke to two members of the WG; one did not remember the discussion and the other briefly remembered the discussion early on in the process. Taking 30 units per acre, given the size of the parcel, the end product would be 36 units; 20 units per acre would result in 24 units. Council Member Kleinberg said prior discussion on the podium parking included a design which addressed plantings to screen the parking. Mr. Gawf said when SummerHill appeared before the Council in December 1999, the grade difference between the ground and the first floor was approximately 5 feet; that was lowered to approximately 3 feet above grade with a wall and landscaping. The design intent and goal were to not see the parking lot from the street. Council Member Kleinberg clarified the calculation of the number of units did not specifically address height. Mr. Gawf said the height was not addressed. MOTION FAILED 2-5, Burch, Lytle Αyes,≅ Mossar, Ojakian “not participating.” 02/15/00 89-409 AMENDMENT: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to amend Recommendation 1.d. to explore lowering the height of the Attached Multiple Family (AMF) on Block B by one level during the design review. Council Member Kleinberg said the process was piecemeal, and she was uncomfortable with making changes that others worked on for years. She asked how many units would be provided if the project was lowered by one floor. The goal she heard last fall was to increase the amount of housing given the balance, respecting the neighborhood, and putting it in places where it could be absorbed near public transit where people could walk to work. She liked the amendment but did not like the process. Council Member Fazzino preferred providing flexibility in the motion. He would support the motion if it read “explore the possibility of reducing the housing by one story.” Mayor Kniss said her understanding of two, three, and four stories on the project was the ability to design. If the project did not go up to the fourth story, the result would be a block building that was similar to the currently existing block building. Council Member Burch said the project would be across the street from three single-family homes that took the place of the parking lot next to the convalescent home. He wanted something that lowered the height. Mayor Kniss said the project could not be redesigned with the same number of units. Mr. Gawf said the number of units was a project of many things, including the size of the units. The decision would be the result of the design process rather than an automatic yes or no on the number of floors. AMENDMENT PASSED 7-0, Mossar, Ojakian Αnot participating.≅ Vice Mayor Eakins said Recommendation 2 placed the mixed-use overlay on Attached Multi-Family (AMF) zone on Block C, approximately .7 acres on the Homer Street site. She said the French Laundry building should be preserved in its entirety. Mr. Calonne said the Block C-Homer frontage needed to meet the Secretary of Interior Standards which controlled square footage and height. AMENDMENT: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Lytle, to amend Recommendation 2, that the commercial strip along Homer Avenue be treated architecturally as more than one building. Council Member Beecham presumed direction was given to the architect that they needed a non-uniform face which was consistent with the drawings seen by the Council. 02/15/00 89-410 Council Member Lytle said the commercial project portion of the proposal was of concern. The scale was approximately the same as Plaza Ramona which was on a most important and significant corner of Downtown. She was uncomfortable with the scale of the development in the proposed location. AMENDMENT PASSED 7-0, Mossar, Ojakian Αnot participating.≅ Council Member Beecham said he did support the Roth Building. Mayor Kniss asked for an explanation of Recommendation 6. b. Mr. Gawf said the concept would require development impact fees in the SOFA area. In effect, the PAMF and SummerHill were doing a development impact fee through dedication of land. Staff proposed in the remainder of SOFA Phase II, all new units would pay a development impact fee or park fee which staff figured an amount between $10,000 and $20,000 per unit could be defended. The numbers for calculation of estimating purposes was $15,000 per unit. That would be one way to pay back the cost of acquiring the park. Mr. Calonne said the staff recommendation on pages 15 and 16 clearly indicated that the detailed financing plan would trail the CAP. Council Member Fazzino said the plan before the Council was a good compromise. The process of this project should be used for other major planning efforts in the future. Council Member Kleinberg thanked the staff and neighbors for their efforts during the process. She appreciated the way the process was brought to the Council. She was pleased that there was a new park as well as maintaining the old park and that they were linked in a way that made uses more enhanced. The project offered more affordable housing which was a real need in the community. She wanted to see the height of the AMF reduced in order to blend into the community. The childcare in the neighborhood was an important enhancement to the community. The City was lucky to have a high quality developer do the work. The design of the project would meet and enhance the character of the neighborhood. Mayor Kniss said to be able to put a new park in place, to add affordable housing, to keep historic buildings, to add childcare in a relatively small area downtown was remarkable. She agreed with lowering the mass, but noted it was difficult to get the same amount of units when height and massing were reduced. MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 6-1, Lytle Αno,≅ Mossar, Ojakian Αnot participating.≅ 02/15/00 89-411 Mayor Kniss commended Children=s Theatre staff on the Children=s Theatre Staffing Study informational report. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:30 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. 02/15/00 89-412