HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-27 City Council Summary Minutes
Special Meeting March 27, 2000
1. Interviews for Human Relations Commission................... 3
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.................. 3
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS............................................. 4
APPROVAL OF MINUTES............................................. 4
1. Resolution 7944 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Money Purchase Plan”......... 4
2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining Properties Electing to Pay Cost over a Period of Years, Determining and Classifying Unpaid Assessments, and Funding Loans to Property Owners from the Electric Reserve for Underground Connections – Underground Utilities Conversion – Underground Utility Assessment District 37................. 5
3. Resolution 7946 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Police Chief to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding for the Regional Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (S.A.F.E.) Team of Santa Clara County”.. 5
4. Resolution 7947 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Police Chief to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding for the Santa Clara County Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (R.E.A.C.T.)”............. 5
5. Request for Council Authorization to Apply for Transportation for Livable Communities Grant to Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility and Safety in Downtown Palo Alto....... 5
6. Resolution 7948 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City of Palo Alto to Apply for One or More Sixth Cycle 2000/2003 Used Oil Recycling Block Grants from the State of California”....................... 5
7. Second Amendment to Agreement with Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration for
03/27/00 90-1
the Palo Alto Shuttle Project.............................. 5
8. Resolution 7949 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for Funds from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air 40% Program Manager Fund for the Palo Alto/Stanford Shuttle Integration Project”....................................... 5
9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Energy Masters International in the Amount of $300,000 for Comprehensive Energy Project Management Services......................... 5
10. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Contract No. C0120306 with JAT Computer Consulting Inc. for the Lawson Human Resources and Payroll System to Extend Contract Term and Increase Contract Amount by $146,016......................................... 5
11. Conference with City Attorney – Existing Litigation........ 6
12. Conference with City Attorney – Existing Litigation........ 6
13. Ordinance 4622 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $43,000 for Additional Adult Crossing Guard Services".................. 6
14A. (Old Agenda Item No. 15) Approval of Assignment of Development Rights for Stanford’s Sand Hill Road Senior Housing Project from Stanford University to CC-Palo Alto, Inc., a Subsidiary of Classic Residence by Hyatt Including Release of Hyatt from Stanford Obligation........................................ 6
14. Adoption of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, Phase I.................................................... 7
16. Audit of Accounts Payable.................................. 32
17. Council Members Beecham, Kleinberg, and Mossar re Peninsula Creamery Project........................................... 32
18. Council Members Burch, Beecham, and Fazzino re Requesting Staff Assistance on the Possible Preservation of the Sea Scout Building................................................... 32
19. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements............. 32
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. to discuss Agenda Item No. 14....... 32
03/27/00 90-2
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Conference Room at 5:45 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Eakins, Kleinberg, Kniss, Mossar, Ojakian ABSENT: Fazzino, Lytle SPECIAL MEETING 1. Interviews for Human Relations Commission No action required. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
03/27/00 90-3
Regular Meeting March 27, 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 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Ed Power, 2254 Dartmouth Street, spoke regarding politics. Herb Borock, P.O. Box 632, spoke regarding the application and appointment process for boards and commissions. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, spoke regarding historic preservation. Ron Iverson, 4168 Verdosa Drive, spoke regarding zoning. John E. Mitchell, 4145 Verdosa Drive, spoke regarding housing. City Manager June Fleming said staff would return with an agenda item in response to issues raised by members of the public under Oral Communications to ensure the issue of zoning was presented to the Council in an expeditious manner. APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Eakins, to approve the Minutes of February 14, 2000, and February 15, 2000, as submitted. MOTION PASSED 9-0. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve Consent Calendar Item Nos. 1 and 3–8, and 10, with Item Nos. 2 and 9 removed at the request of staff. 1. Resolution 7944 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Money Purchase Plan” Resolution 7945 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Compensation Plan for Management and Confidential Personnel and Council Appointed Officers Adopted by Resolution No. 7890 and Amended by Resolution Nos. 7897, 7902, 7907 and 7914 to Amend the Salary of the City Manager; and Fixing the Amount of the City Manager’s Faithful Performance Bond”
03/27/00 90-4
Ordinance 4621 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $58,700 Compensation and Benefits Related to the New City Manager” 2. Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Determining Properties Electing to Pay Cost over a Period of Years, Determining and Classifying Unpaid Assessments, and Funding Loans to Property Owners from the Electric Reserve for Underground Connections – Underground Utilities Conversion – Underground Utility Assessment District 37 3. Resolution 7946 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Police Chief to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding for the Regional Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (S.A.F.E.) Team of Santa Clara County” 4. Resolution 7947 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Police Chief to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding for the Santa Clara County Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (R.E.A.C.T.)” 5. Request for Council Authorization to Apply for Transportation for Livable Communities Grant to Enhance Bicycle and Pedestrian Mobility and Safety in Downtown Palo Alto 6. Resolution 7948 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the City of Palo Alto to Apply for One or More Sixth Cycle 2000/2003 Used Oil Recycling Block Grants from the State of California” 7. Second Amendment to Agreement with Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board for Rail Shuttle Bus Service Administration for the Palo Alto Shuttle Project 8. Resolution 7949 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Authorizing the Submittal of an Application to the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) for Funds from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air 40% Program Manager Fund for the Palo Alto/Stanford Shuttle Integration Project” 9. Contract Between the City of Palo Alto and Energy Masters International in the Amount of $300,000 for Comprehensive Energy Project Management Services 10. Amendment No. 1 to Consultant Contract No. C0120306 with JAT Computer Consulting Inc. for the Lawson Human Resources and Payroll System to Extend Contract Term and Increase Contract Amount by $146,016 MOTION PASSED 8-0 for Item Nos. 1 and 3-8 and 10, Fazzino absent.
03/27/00 90-5
CLOSED SESSION
This item may occur during the recess or after the Regular Meeting. 11. Conference with City Attorney – Existing Litigation Subject: City of Palo Alto v. Service Employees International Union, Local 715 (re: Danton Camm), SCC#CV773215 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) 12. Conference with City Attorney – Existing Litigation Subject: Karolyn Zeng v. City of Palo Alto, SCC#CV777838 Authority: Government Code Section 54956.9(a) ORDINANCES 13. Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $43,000 for Additional Adult Crossing Guard Services Amendment No. 1 to Contract No. C0117140 in the Amount of $43,000 with All City Management Services, Inc. for Adult Crossing Guard Services MOTION: Council Member Burch moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $43,000 and the amendment to Contract No. C0117140 with All City Management Services, Inc., for a total contract amount of $176,000, for adult crossing services. Ordinance 4622 entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto to Amend the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1999-00 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $43,000 for Additional Adult Crossing Guard Services” MOTION PASSED 9-0. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to move Item No. 15 forward to become Item No. 14A. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian “not participating.” 14A. (Old Agenda Item No. 15) Approval of Assignment of Development Rights for Stanford’s Sand Hill Road Senior Housing Project from Stanford University to CC-Palo Alto, Inc., a Subsidiary of Classic Residence by Hyatt Including Release of Hyatt from Stanford Obligation
03/27/00 90-6
Council Member Ojakian said he had a conflict of interest and would not be participating in voting on the item because he lived within the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) area and his wife was employed by PAMF. Council Member Mossar stated her prior conflict of interest was resolved on March 17, 2000, freeing her to participate in the item; however, she was still unable to participate on SOFA II. She watched the tapes of the meetings and read the materials, so she felt she was well informed. City Manager June Fleming said the item was merely an agreement the City needed to put in place to make Stanford University responsible for unrelated things that would impact the development of the Senior Housing project Hyatt would be putting forth. MOTION: Council Member Kleinberg moved, seconded by Fazzino, to consent to the assignment of the development rights for the Sand Hill Road Senior Housing project from Stanford University to CC-Palo Alto, Inc., a subsidiary of Classic Residences by Hyatt. MOTION PASSED: 8-0, Ojakian “not participating.” 14. Adoption of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, Phase I Mayor Kniss said work on the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) started in 1992 and approved in 1998, and many of the issues were finally coming to a conclusion. The SOFA CAP was unusual, incorporating items such as childcare, special housing, park, historic homes, historic buildings, and focused particularly on staying within transit corridors in the Downtown area. Director of Planning & Community Ed Gawf said staff followed up on the Council’s direction of February 15, 2000, with the SOFA CAP. Both the SOFA CAP and the SummerHill Homes (SHH) proposed development Phase I were addressed. The Council’s direction was included in the staff report (CMR:192:00). Staff asked the Council to: 1) approve the SOFA CAP Phase I; 2) amend the Comprehensive Plan to include the designation of the SOFA CAP map to go with the SOFA document itself; 3) approve the Development Agreement (DA) between the City and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF); and 4) adopt a resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report (EIR). SHH was directed by staff to follow the concepts of the Working Group (WG), to provide for a 2-acre park, to provide 1.5 acres of affordable housing, and to preserve historic resources within the area. SHH’s initial approach was to retain the park along Waverley as proposed by the WG. Staff’s participation included the direction to acquire the Roth Building as a public facility, combined with the park, to plan for the next 10 to 20 years. Three documents were compared; the first was the concept
03/27/00 90-7
plan, used by the EIR to analyze or evaluate the plan, which was substantially the same as the staff document generated in December 1998. The second, the WG plan, was endorsed by the WG in June 1999. The third, the current proposal, was also endorsed by the WG in February 2000. The number of residential units in the concept plan was 150 units between detached, single-family, and attached multiple-family units. The WG’s Plan contained 122 units, and the current proposal had 160 units. Another issue of concern was the amount of Attached Multiple-Family (AMF) units. The concept plan started with four acres, increased to a little over five acres in the WG plan, and the current proposal was for 4.8 acres of AMF. The focus and development of Block “B” was explained. The concept plan had a 1.6-acre park on Block “B,” with the Roth Building for commercial use, and 1.6 acres of detached single-family units. The WG plan increased the park to 2.5 acres, the Roth Building for use as commercial, and 1.5 acres of AMF. The current plan designated a 1-acre single-family area, 1-acre AMF, the Roth Building as a public facility, and a 2-acre park. The concept plan for Block “C” for below-market rate (BMR) housing units was 1-acre of 30 units, the WG plan had 1.5 acres of BMR at 45 units, and the current plan was for 44 dwelling units on 1.23 acres. The second issue on Block “C” was one of commercial. The concept plan for commercial and retail uses was allowed throughout the AMF zone with a conditional use permit, the WG plan retained the concept. It was changed in the current plan, which restricted personal service uses and retail to neighborhood serving only and identified a mixed-use overlay on the .7-acre parcel along Homer Street between Ramona and Bryant. The Council was concerned about the potential for office use in the AMF zone, so it was restricted. The other question was whether the 30,000 square feet of additional commercial was appropriate for the location. In order to answer the question, it was important to see the anticipated commercial use in the concept plan. An analysis of the Block “C” mixed use indicated that just taking MU-1, 18,000 square feet with an FAR of 1.66, allowed up to 29,800 square feet of commercial and residential use. The WG plan made no change to the concept plan but anticipated a mixed-use area. Of concern was the high FAR and the emphasis on no residential in the area west of Ramona, which was replaced with the MU-0 AMF mixed-use overlay zone. The total 34,550 square feet of commercial/office use was in recognition of the entire area as a plan rather than parcel by parcel. The total square footage of commercial in Phase 1 for the concept plan for Block “A” was a Victorian structure of 4,000 square feet, 10,000 square feet from the Roth Building in Block “B,” 29,000 on Block “C” previously mentioned, and Block “H” across from the Zion Church with 10,000 square feet. The EIR analyzed approximately 54,000 square feet of non-residential use in the Phase I area. The WG plan was similar to the concept plan. The current plan for Block “A” had 4,000 square feet Victorian as office use, Block “C” with 34,350 square feet for the French Laundry building and Zion Church, and Block “H” with the 6,000 square feet, for a total of 44,550 square feet. The current plan was consistent with the Council’s direction and the WG plan
03/27/00 90-8
evolution over the past year and a half. Two major documents for Council consideration at the current meeting were the SOFA CAP and the DA. The question about whether the office use proposed on Block “C” contributed to the jobs/housing imbalance in Palo Alto was addressed. Using the Association of Bay Area Government’s (ABAG) calculations, the 30,000 square feet of non-residential office use on Block “C” was estimated to generate 3.3 employees per 1,000 square feet and the parking requirement of 4 per 1,000, that is, everyone with a parking space worked there, or 120 employees from the development. ABAG estimated 1.5 employees per housing unit, so 160 housing units equaled 280. He used a different ratio since some units were smaller and some were larger. One could also use the labor participation rate (LPL) per household, that is, .65 workers per household, which was a national or regional number. Even at that, more housing units were generated than employees in the area. The Planning Commission’s comments were the most telling, that the issue of housing balance or imbalance was not a block issue or neighborhood issue, but a city-wide and regional issue on which the City was working with other jurisdictions. In Phase II, less emphasis was on commercial use and more on residential, which was very important. Assistant Planning Official John Lusardi spoke regarding the implementation of the SOFA CAP. The issues raised were subject to the unique situation: a plan and development agreement (DA) run concurrently. The specifics of the DA were raised at the same time as the CAP. The DA provided for PAMF to assign its obligations and responsibilities to SHH. For Block “A,” the DA provided for three main structures, two of which would be removed and the third, 737 Bryant Street, retained for office use. The other two buildings would be removed and developed to provide a condominium project of approximately 30 units. On Block “B,” the DA provided for the City to acquire two acres for a public park, as well as .41 acres of the Roth Building. The additional wing on the Roth Building would be removed and the historic building retained for commercial purposes. The City would acquire some of the property and the developer would dedicate approximately one acre of the property for the development. The rest of the block was for private development and was one of the changes made to the CAP. The eastern quadrant was changed to DHS and the developer would build 10 DHS units with 10 accessory units. On the AMF quadrant, the developer would provide condominium development at the FAR standard of 1.5, within the development standards of the AMF district, including the height requirement of 45 feet. On Block “C,” the DA provided for three different activities. The northern end of the block was AMF with a mixed-use overlay. The mixed-use overlay would provide for the developer to build approximately 30,000 square feet on what would become the French Laundry site, resulting in two parcels; one of which faced Homer Street, the other contained the AME Zion Church. The DA allowed the developer to build up to 30,000 square feet of commercial and approximately 7,000 square feet of residential under two conditions. The first condition was that the French Laundry
03/27/00 90-9
building be rehabilitated to substantially conform to Secretary of the Interior Standards. The second condition was that the developer maintain the height requirements of 30 feet for the commercial portion and a maximum of 45 feet for the total structure. It also required the developer to address the development in such a way that not a single block face was on the development parcel. The AME Zion Church was also part of the DA. Through a handicap and historic density allotment, the developer would add a rear structure to the church site, converting it to office use. The DA required the developer to ensure the addition conformed to Secretary of the Interior Standards and that the church be rehabilitated in that condition. A portion of the area not included in the SOFA CAP was 828 Bryant Street. The Council received a letter from the property owners regarding the site. Although currently used as a professional office space, the owners asked that the site be included in the mixed-use overlay district. Given the late timing of the request and sensitivity to the office development generated in the CAP, staff was not in favor of adding the mixed-use overlay currently. Staff wanted to examine the proposal in Phase II, work with the property owner, have the WG examine the mixed-use overlay, and then return to the Council. The second option was for the applicant to apply for a mixed-use overlay after adoption of the SOFA CAP, requiring the Council’s approval. The rest of the block was a 1.23-acre affordable housing site. The Victorian structure on the site would be relocated with two other structures on the rest of Block “C,” the mixed-use overlay to Block “D,” and retained in the current location by the developer for historic preservation. The historic structure at 840 Bryant Street would be retained on the site. The DA only provided for the dedication and acquisition of 1.23 acres of the property. The DA did not require or mandate relocation of the structure at 840 Bryant Street and, although not included in the DA currently, would be addressed with the future development of the affordable housing site. The DA was consistent in providing for single-family structures on Blocks “D,” “E,” and “F.” Two of the existing historic structures on Block “D” would be retained and three more historic structures relocated from the 800 block to the 900 block. Block “H” was addressed in the DA to remain as it was currently zoned, a CD zoning district. Mr. Gawf summarized the areas within the SOFA CAP area including the private developments, existing public areas, anticipated public spaces, childcare sites, etc. The result was 3.9 acres of public use, 5.86 acres of private development, a 2-acre park, retention of Scott Park, and the privately owned and operated mews with an easement linking Scott Park. Planning Commissioner Kathy Schmidt said the Planning Commission was pleased to see more housing in the final plan and a good variety of housing. The Planning Commission was also pleased with the 3.93 acres of public space including the park, the Roth Building, the mews access, Scott Park, and affordable housing which
03/27/00 90-10
created a wonderful walkable neighborhood. The SOFA CAP also included childcare, historic preservation, and, although filled with compromises, was a good solution. The three final issues included: 1) recommendations regarding the draft CAP Phase I; 2) the Comprehensive Plan land use map change for the area SOFA CAP Phase I and a small portion of Block “C” in the existing Downtown square footage cap analysis so the commercial area would be counted as part of a monitoring area; and 3) the development agreement. The staff report (CMR:192:00) summarized the Planning Commission’s final comments that: 1) it was appropriate to have some 4-story space in the AMF zone in Block “B”; 2) the 840 Bryant Street home should be relocated to make sure the best possible affordable housing site resulted on Block “C”; 3) staff’s decision that nothing be done with the 828 Bryant Street building at the current time was appropriate; and 4) the jobs/housing balance was addressed with regard to the commercial development on Block “C.” The Planning Commission also hoped to see more housing in Phase II of the SOFA CAP. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether 840 Bryant Street was in limbo. Mr. Gawf said no. Once the City had a specific development plan for the affordable housing parcel and the location for the unit’s relocation, a separate environmental clearance was necessary. The environmental plans would not cover the potential of moving the structure from Bryant Street. Vice Mayor Eakins asked whether the pre-war building on Block “H” was studied. Mr. Gawf said yes. The issue was the question of safety. No restriction existed on removing the building, but nothing special was given the property, which would remain within existing zoning. Vice Mayor Eakins asked about the existing zoning. Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said the area was currently zoned Commercial Downtown Service (CDS) or service-oriented commercial use with a .4 FAR for commercial only. With a mixed use including residential, the FAR could be increased to 1 with .4 as commercial. Vice Mayor Eakins clarified Ms. Grote was referring to existing zoning. Ms. Grote said yes. Vice Mayor Eakins asked why the SOFA CAP had not changed the zoning for the area on Block “H.” Mr. Gawf said staff planned to stop at Ramona Street between Phase I and Phase II. PAMF owned the one parcel, so without knowing what the MU-1 or MU-2 would be, staff realized it could not deal with
03/27/00 90-11
the lot from a CAP standpoint but PAMF had the right to build with existing zoning. The zoning might change in Phase II but the intensity would not be layered over the CDS proposal. Vice Mayor Eakins asked about the total housing goal for the area. Mr. Gawf said the goal was for 390 units. Any of the plans would meet the goal because at least 180 units would result from Phase II. Even with the 120 units in the WG plan, the total was 300 units. With the plan directed by the Council of 160 units with the 180, clearly the number increased. The goal was to see more than 180 in Phase II by reducing the non-residential use in the section. Council Member Mossar asked for clarification on the Bryant Street block. The SOFA CAP recommended an overlay for the commercial development along Homer Street. She asked whether commercial was eliminated as a potential use in the AMF district. Mr. Gawf said no. In the original staff draft or the draft EIR concept plan, non-residential uses were included with retail and person service outlets as conditional use permits throughout the AMF zone. When staff approached the Council in December 1999, it changed office use to a conditional use permit. The Council had not wanted to broaden office use to all of AMF; therefore, staff came up with an overlay specifically for the proposed use and would not apply anywhere else unless the Council, through formal action, made a change. Council Member Mossar asked whether over time the parcels zoned AMF could convert from housing to retail or neighborhood serving. Mr. Gawf said no. The AMF would still be retained in the SOFA CAP. The conditional use permit was serving retail and personal service outlets, so a request could be presented on AMF as a use permit. Council Member Mossar asked about the change in Block “H” from 10,000 square feet in the concept and WG plans to 6,000 square feet in the current plan. Mr. Gawf said the main focus on the concept plan was the result of the EIR analysis for 10,000 square feet of non-residential use on Block “H.” The assumption was if the development was maximized, the amount was carried forward but could be less with the additional requirements of parking, etc. Council Member Mossar asked whether the amount carried forward would result in closer to 10,000 square feet than 6,000 square feet if the block was developed as a mixed use and the density was brought up to 1 FAR. Mr. Gawf stated that he would provide a better answer later in the meeting.
03/27/00 90-12
Council Member Mossar asked for clarification about commercial entitlements in the area verses the commercial development as proposed in the SOFA CAP. Mr. Gawf thought Council Member Mossar referred to discussions around the transfer of development rights (TDR), which he thought was not possible. Nothing in the SOFA CAP implemented TDRs. The concept was discussed as something to explore, but nothing was being implemented in Phase I. The evolution of the square footage was the best indicator of size. Some bonuses were possible for historic preservation or seismic upgrades, but that was a different concept from TDRs. The concept of TDRs in Phase II might be implemented as a means of preserving some of the commercial buildings along Homer Avenue where economic forces would push for two stories, changing the street. When the City considered acquiring the Roth Building, staff realized the potential for TDRs and would need to more closely examine the potential. In order to do so, changes would be required to the City codes that met the standards Downtown for TDRs, such as historic building restoration and seismic upgrades. Council Member Mossar asked upon what basis the FAR extended. Mr. Gawf said the defeated Historic Preservation Ordinance included a bonus FAR for restoration of historic buildings outside the Downtown area. The Downtown zone allowed a bonus of up to 2500 square feet or 10 percent, whichever was more, for restoration of historic buildings and allowed a bonus for seismic upgrades. Council Member Mossar clarified the Downtown cap always applied to the Downtown area and the commercial zone in SOFA but was not applied to the properties around the PAMF. Mr. Gawf said the Downtown cap went to Ramona Street or a little further. Staff was going to include the mixed use within the Downtown cap primarily to subtract the additional square footage from the numbers. Council Member Mossar understood that to decrease the total commercial development around Downtown, the concept of extra entitlements was raised at the same time. Council Member Kleinberg asked about the commercial development on Block “C” as to how the use was characterized and how it could be built out. Mr. Gawf said 30,000 square feet was on the French Laundry parcel. Council Member Kleinberg understood the figure was not really entitlement because a provision in the agreement indicated it must be done in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards; therefore, it was not entitlement but an upward limit.
03/27/00 90-13
Mr. Gawf said Council Member Kleinberg was correct. The developer had 30,000 square feet on the French Laundry site; however, the restoration had to be consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards. If not, the square footage would be decreased. The Secretary of the Interior Standards “trumped” the 30,000 square feet. Council Member Kleinberg clarified the developer might not build to the 30,000 square feet, but it would be worked out when it reached the ARB and HRB. Mr. Gawf said yes. The square footage of the uses and the individual storefronts also involved standards. He assumed all the standards would be met and built out to the 30,000 square feet. The developer tried to meet all the standards. The French Laundry building had to be restored in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior Standards, even if it meant less square footage. Council Member Kleinberg asked about 840 Bryant Street and the Planning Commission discussion about relocating the building and how it might impact the EIR. She asked whether the EIR should be recirculated to determine whether members of the public had comments to make on the change in the condition of the building. Mr. Gawf said the building was not being moved and was not an issue before the Council. In the future, the building would be moved and a decision would be made after environmental and proper circulation of public review, etc., of the project. Consideration would be given not only to moving the house, but also to any other impacts that the affordable housing project might have. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether the Council should approve a plan that did not move the building. Mr. Gawf said the Council was approving a plan and leaving in abeyance the question of when, where, and how the building would be moved. Council Member Kleinberg understood nothing would be done with the building until after recirculating the EIR. Mr. Gawf said the issue was not as much the recirculation of the EIR as it was the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements, including public review and comment. Council Member Kleinberg asked whether staff knew the condition of the Roth Building, whether the City was taking on a building it could not afford to refurbish, whether the building was suitable or appropriate for City use, and whether such questions were considered.
03/27/00 90-14
Mr. Gawf said yes. John Northway was hired to study the issue and provide the City with recommendations and preliminary information included in the staff report (CMR:192:00). The cost of the seismic upgrade and restoring the exterior was $1.5 million, less than what staff anticipated in February 2000. After examining the interior, fewer load-bearing walls than anticipated were found, increasing the flexibility. The final report should be completed on April 10, 2000. With regard to the Roth Building, staff identified the parcel as one that could be resold if the City found the building did not work. Land was so important for Palo Alto that being able to acquire an historic building, close to Downtown, with good potential, combined with a park, was a real asset. Mayor Kniss opened the public hearing on the SOFA CAP and the Comprehensive Plan amendment, both of which were being addressed simultaneously. Mayor Kniss announced that speaker cards would not be accepted after 9:00 p.m. Richard Wurzelbacher, 777 California Avenue, representing SummerHill Homes, spoke about the commitments SHH made to bring about affordable housing, parkland, and historic preservation. SHH steadily worked to enhance the public benefits that would result from the dedications in the DA. Historic preservation commitments were not based on the historic ordinance outcome, but on sound promises to restore the structures and revitalize alternative uses in combination with limited commercial development. At the December 1999 Council meeting, SHH asked to borrow density from the parkland dedications on Block “B” resulting in an FAR of 1.7, but SHH was asked to stay within an FAR of 1.5 and work with neighbors to transition density. The University South Neighborhood Group (USNG) board asked SHH to reduce the Block “B” FAR to somewhere between 1.0 and 1.25 to which SHH responded by suggesting half the block be DHS thus reducing overall FAR to 1.1. SHH was then asked to substantially improve the affordable housing site by accepting the relocation of one historic home, to which SHH agreed. Staff asked to effectively increase parkland dedication through funding the proposed land lease encumbrance, to which SHH agreed. At the February Council meeting, SHH was asked to work with staff during the design review process to further reduce proposed fourth floor impacts on the Block “B” housing, and SHH voluntarily revised its proposal to substantially eliminate the impacts and bring the project into full conformance with AMF design guidelines. The USNG Board was happy with SHH’s response to the fourth-floor unit issues which eliminated large fourth floor units from locations that would have been the most valuable in the project. SHH was also asked to build more small units on Block “A,” and the average unit size was reduced substantially to no more than 1,050 square feet. The change allowed SHH to increase the unit count from 26 to 34 within the same overall FAR. The change necessitated an additional parking level in the underground garage. The Block “A” buildings had a 35-foot eve and 45-feet to the ridge line on Block “B.” SHH clearly demonstrated ongoing and consistent efforts to reduce the perceived
03/27/00 90-15
impacts and construct to address community objections on a proactive basis. SHH asked that the Council recognize the effort and continue to support the project. The commitments SHH made were not contingent on the financial performance of the projects. As such, the current economic climate allowed SHH to make the large package of voluntary exemptions and public benefits. The Council was encouraged to approve the SOFA CAP and DA, as recommended by staff. Jean McCown, representing Jim Baer [Premier Properties], spoke about the 30,000 square foot mixed-use commercial project on Homer Avenue that would wrap around the French Laundry building. The commercial component was comparatively modest but made a significant economic contribution to the success of the whole project. The numbers were lower than the amount of commercial development the WG contemplated as possible. The effect of the DA was to fix the amount not to exceed 30,000 square feet, which would be counted against the Downtown commercial cap. The amount of square footage, if constructed, would house an estimated 90 employees, based on a very similar rate of 3.2 per 1,000. The commercial proposal on Homer Avenue also consolidated the commercial area in the block, a desirable feature. The plan preserved three key buildings because of the commercial component. As a result of observations made by Council Members at the February 2000 meeting, Jim Baer considered how the French Laundry could be featured as a central element of the block, working with architects to determine how that could be accomplished. Parking problems that might otherwise exist in other commercial developments were entirely addressed with two layers of underground parking with 120 spaces, 60 of which would be made available to the general public on weekends. No single block face would exist. The square footage would be broken up to appear like three small buildings. In response to a question Council Member Beecham raised with Mr. Baer, an element was added to the project to address the jobs/housing concern. A defined amount of square footage, at least 2,000 of the 30,000 square feet, would be used for employee-amenity uses, such as break rooms, work rooms, and showers. Mr. Baer was prepared to pursue a specific Traffic Demand Management (TDM) program for employees of the building, setting as a benchmark a set of numbers for peak hour trips. Assuming 96 employees for the building, an annual reporting mechanism would be established with a financial penalty mechanism if the peak hour trips were exceeded. Lastly, with respect to the housing aspect of the SOFA CAP, Mr. Baer proposed the parking garage include an additional 20 spaces, increasing the number from 120 to 140 spaces. The spaces would be designated reserved for .4 of the affordable housing complex on the other side of the block to allow for the housing corporation project to add more units with the benefit of the additional parking.
03/27/00 90-16
Wayne Swan, 240 Kellogg Avenue, spoke regarding the development agreement with regard to planned communities. Council was asked to not set a precedent and to give the process more time. Neil O’Sullivan, 362 Channing Avenue, spoke in opposition to the SOFA CAP and its affect on the SOFA community, which was being “killed” by PAMF and other developers. Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, questioned the calculations of the FARs in the SOFA CAP. The Council was asked to be sure to indicate to the ARB and HRB the calculations in the policy document issued as part of the deliberations so that the maximum FAR of 1.5 be observed for every building. Margaret Cooley, 830 University Avenue, representing the University South Neighborhood Group, thanked the Council for exploring the fourth-floor issue and SHH for responding to the concern and coming up with a compromise. The concerns were reduced to two key issues: 1) the impact of the mass of the building; and 2) the commercial development in Block “C.” The Council was asked to allow the ARB and HRB to reduce the FAR and to make sure the SOFA CAP complied with the Comprehensive Plan’s goals. The WG should fully evaluate the impact of all mixed-use overlay areas within the context of the Comprehensive Plan, by moving all mixed-use overlays to Phase II. Council Member Mossar clarified for the speakers that 820 Ramona Street would remain in its current zoning until Phase II. David Bubenik, 420 Homer Avenue, spoke in favor of a park aligned along Waverley Avenue, particularly for security reasons. The mixed-use overlay linked with an office building was acceptable in certain areas, but he questioned the need for expanding commercial space into residential space, particularly the displacement of the two Victorians. The corner of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue should be retained in its current state. Norm Dishotsky, 828 Bryant Street, spoke on behalf of the property owners and supported the SOFA CAP and the opportunities it presented the community. The Council was asked to extend the overlay approximately 50 feet to include his parcel. As a result, it would be possible to upgrade the existing structure with an appropriate use consistent with the neighborhood’s goals. A small number of residential units above the first floor of offices would help the City reach its goal. Any rights for additional office uses would be foregone. An overlay would ensure the property was properly integrated in a beneficial way. Ron Gordon, 873 Northampton Drive, agreed with Mr. Dishotsky’s comments. Joette Farrand, 724 Bryant Street, was opposed to the high density and massiveness of the SOFA CAP. The process was too political and
03/27/00 90-17
did not meet the goals of a walkable, compatible project with the neighborhood. The neighborhood should not be destroyed with dense, massive condominiums. Rick Ferguson, 1037 Harker Avenue, President of the Community Center Neighbors Association (CCNA), supported the articulated message brought by Ms. Cooley. CCNA voted in support of the proposal. Paul Kelleher, 426 Homer Avenue, opposed the residential and commercial structures that could overwhelm the existing neighborhood and supported continuing efforts of USNG to do whatever it could to reduce the impacts. The FAR of 1.5 was probably double what could be supported in the SOFA neighborhood. Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, asked for clarification about the 820 Ramona Street property. The developer for the site proposed a 3-story building, which was inappropriate for the area. Mr. Gawf indicated the development pressures would be great on that street face to add a second story. The issue was confusing. Council Member Mossar thought the zoning at 820 Ramona Street would remain in its current zoning until Phase II. Mr. Gawf said Council Member Mossar was correct. The owner of the property, Premier Properties, was proposing to develop the property soon under the existing CDS zoning, where no extra entitlements or rights were being granted in Phase I. The property would go through the normal HRB and ARB reviews to ensure the impacts were taken care of. Ms. Holman said the City would still do “spot zoning.” Council Member Mossar said the existing zoning would remain. Ms. Holman said SHH’s first conversation indicated the houses at the corner of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue would remain in place. The City should explore the negative impact of moving the houses on the historic corridor. The Planning Commission and the WG were shocked at the mixed-use definition in support of the commercial use in Phase I, which was inconsistent to support commercial development in Phase I. Flexibility for HRB and ARB review was encouraged for Block “B.” Companies in the Downtown area were contacted to determine the amount of square feet versus the number of stations. Council Member Burch asked whether “stations” meant employees. Ms. Holman replied yes. The Council was asked to consider the historic nature of the area for which the commercial development was too large and caused an imbalance between housing and office.
03/27/00 90-18
Linda Cohen, 935 Scott Street, representative of the “Save the Scott Park Committee,” was appreciative of the retention of Scott Park. The Council was encouraged to include a recommendation to ask the SOFA developers to combine the parks into one large park, so any inappropriate elements of Scott Park could be reconfigured. RECESS: 9:40 P.M. to 10:00 P.M. MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Lytle, to approve the staff recommendation to: 1. Adopt a resolution certifying that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the South of Forest Avenue (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) was complete and making certain findings in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Resolution 7950 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Certifying the Adequacy of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Final EIR and Making Findings Thereon Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act” MOTION PASSED 8-0, Ojakian “not participating.” MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to approve the staff recommendation to: 2. Adopt the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan – Phase 1. Council Member Mossar commended the many people involved for their hard work in developing the SOFA CAP, which was a landmark in land use. City Attorney Ariel Calonne preferred the Council to consider the resolution and the Comprehensive Plan before adopting the CAP to determine whether the CAP was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, which required amendment. MOTION HELD until the Council discussed Item 3. Council Member Beecham said a number of suggestions were made by members of the public. The offer of SummerHill Homes to delete the 4th floor on Block “B” condos should be accepted and incorporated into the motion, with the height a maximum of 45 feet at the ridge, 35 feet at the eve, with gable windows and minor dormers in what would otherwise have been the fourth floor. Mr. Calonne said the changes would be included in the Development Agreement on Exhibit “D.” He preferred having the flexibility to amend various documents so the final document was consistent when
03/27/00 90-19
returned to the Council. Second readings would occur on both the Development Agreement and Coordinated Area Plan. Council Member Beecham suggested the Council include in the motion deletion of the 4th floor on the Block “B” condos, with the height a maximum of 45 feet at the ridge and 35 feet at the eve, with gable windows and minor dormers. Also, that the commercial structure on Homer Street add 20 more parking spaces which would be made available to the affordable housing project if useful in adding units. If not, the spaces could be made available for other public use. Also, that the City work with the Applicant to determine whether it was technically feasible to combine the two ramps on Block “C,” into one ramp, and whether it was feasible and desirable for the two ramps to be located not on Bryant Street but on Ramona Street south of the church; and whether the cost of the ramp could be provided by the commercial structure, freeing up more surface space for use by the affordable housing site. The City should also evaluate the possibility of relocating the 840 Bryant Street structure to the parcel on which the ramp was located for affordable housing. The employment ratio should be capped the employment cap for the site at the equivalent of 3.2 per 1,000 times 30,000 square feet, minus six employees, that is, 3.42 stations per 1,000 square feet. Council Member Mossar suggested the developer consider purchasing Eco passes for the employees in the building, thus letting the City know the number of employees and be of benefit to the community. Council Member Beecham thought it was appropriate to require a TDM plan for the site and to require a 15 percent reduction. The developer had experience in other areas where the City negotiated a financial penalty, should the 15 TDM percent reduction not be achieved. Council Member Mossar said the Downtown Commute Coordinator was the appropriate staff member to work with the businesses to develop an appropriate plan. Council Member Beecham asked whether Council Member Mossar thought a 15 percent reduction was achievable. Council Member Mossar thought 15 percent was high. Council Member Beecham asked whether Council Member Mossar thought “high” as in difficult or easy. Council Member Mossar said difficult. The best thing to do was to require Eco passes, but she was willing to have the motion ask staff to explore or develop an appropriate TDM project that might include Eco passes, with specified goals and financial penalties if goals were not met. She did not want to specifically designate at
03/27/00 90-20
the current meeting, particularly since the City had a staff employee whose particular business was TDMs. Council Member Beecham said the City should work with the applicant to establish a TDM program with specified goals and financial penalties if the goals were not met. The term of the DA was ten years, but the term of the TDM should be 20 years. Council Member Fazzino asked why Council Member Beecham suggested 20 years. Council Member Beecham wanted to see the TDM continue. The life of the project was small. The applicant expressed a willingness to make 2,000 feet out of the 30,000 square feet into non-employee areas, which should be included in the DA. Mr. Calonne said the wording would be changed from “not to exceed” to find a range of discretion, for instance “financial penalties would be negotiated not to exceed” would be the style used to incorporate the Council’s “explore” and “consider” suggestions. Council Member Beecham said the only explore and consider suggestions were with regard to the ramp, 840 Bryant Street, and the TDM. Mr. Calonne said the 840 Bryant Street relocation might become problematic environmentally. Mayor Kniss thought each was approached as something the Council would like to see happen, therefore, words like “explore” were acceptable. The City Attorney could come up with better language to express the Council’s wishes. Council Member Mossar said the TDM program was not only something to be explored, but specific action could be taken. Mr. Calonne said although Mr. Baer was speaking on behalf of the work on Block “C,” the contract was with PAMF. Until someone from PAMF agreed, he was unsure who was speaking for whom. Nothing in the contract mentioned Mr. Baer or Menlo Equities. SHH was recognized in the contract, but the Block “C” arrangement would require PAMF support. Council Member Beecham clarified his 2,000 square foot suggestion. Ms. McCown mentioned the applicant’s willingness to ensure that 2,000 square feet of the 30,000 square feet would not be used for people stations or conference rooms showers, cafeterias, etc., which he wanted included in the DA. Vice Mayor Eakins thought the concept was acceptable but preferred to describe the 2,000 square feet as “non-work employee amenities.”
03/27/00 90-21
She asked whether the footage was to encourage bicycle commuting, etc. Council Member Beecham thought the inclusion in the DA was an effort to ensure what the Council heard from the applicant about the small number of employees at the site was what actually occurred. Showers would encourage bicycling to work. The applicant also mentioned that the French Laundry would be a significant façade. Vice Mayor Eakins thought the DA already stipulated that the historic portion of the French Laundry building be preserved according to the Secretary of the Interior Standards. Mr. Gawf said Vice Mayor Eakins was correct. According to the Secretary of the Interior Standards, a significant portion of the façade had to be preserved, as covered in the DA. Council Member Beecham said the City had a continuing concern about live/work apartments that eventually became work-only apartments. The City should verify on an annual basis that the dwelling units above the commercial area were retained as such. Presently, the City had no process by which to check, but he wanted the City to make a special effort to confirm the areas were used as designated. Mayor Kniss agreed. Vice Mayor Eakins and Council Member Kleinberg accepted the change. Council Member Burch asked how the City could keep areas from becoming workspace instead of residential space. Ms. Fleming said converting a residential space into office space was a use violation. Council Member Beecham seemed to indicate he wanted a process in place by which the City could enforce the violation. Council Member Beecham agreed. The property owners at 828 Bryant Street requested the application of MUO zoning, but he agreed with the staff recommendation to exclude the property at the current time but include it in Phase 2. Council Member Fazzino asked whether the wording was “on” or “in” Phase 2. He thought staff suggested that as the City got started with Phase 2, the owner would be free to step forward with a proposal, which would then be considered by staff and the Council. He would not want to send a message to the owners that they had to wait until the City was well into Phase 2 before it would consider a request. Mr. Gawf said staff had indicated 828 Bryant Street, the existing doctor’s office, would be included within Phase 2 studies. A
03/27/00 90-22
different motion would be required if staff was to do what Council Member Fazzino suggested. Mayor Kniss clarified the current agenda item was the last to be heard at the current meeting, with all other items postponed to a date uncertain. Council Member Fazzino thought it was entirely appropriate to consider 828 Bryant Street as the City was moving into Phase 2 rather than waiting until the City was well into Phase 2. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION BY THE MAKER AND SECONDER to: Include Summerhill Homes offer to delete the fourth floor condominiums in Block B, 45-foot peak, 35-foot eave. Add 20 parking spaces for affordable housing and Homer Avenue Commercial in Block C. In Block C, to combine the two parking ramps into one off Ramona Street and not Bryant Street, with the cost born by the commercial structure if technically and economically feasible. Consider moving 840 Bryant, if feasible. Put a Cap on Block C with 96 employees expressed as stations. Develop Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan, look for goals of 15 percent trip reduction, purchase ECO passes for employees, and develop financial penalties if trip reduction goals are not attained. Development Agreement is for 10 years, but the conditions for Block C are to last 20 years. 2,000 of 30,000 square feet in Block C to be employee area showers, changing rooms, conference rooms. French Laundry to retain a significant portion of the historic façade which staff understands to be part of the action. Verify annually Block C residential units are actually residential and establish an inspection program to enforce. Give staff the flexibility to talk to the owners of 828 Bryant Avenue to deal with the property after completion of Phase 1 prior to Phase 2. All designs will go to the Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board with three-dimensional renderings.
03/27/00 90-23
Mr. Calonne said the area plan for 828 Bryant Street proposed the AMF designation as multi-family, so it was already non-conforming. He had some apprehension about changing the zoning twice; so his instinctive preference was to leave the property as R-30 until the City did whatever it was going to do in Phase 2. He wanted the flexibility to discuss both with the owners of the property and planning staff to determine whether or not to leave the property as it was or apply the area plan proposal. Council Member Fazzino understood but wanted the property owner to be heard and to have staff conduct the necessary analysis to bring a recommendation to the Council. Mr. Calonne said his comments were in no way inconsistent with Council Member Fazzino’s motion, but he was concerned about whether or not the property would be R-30 or AMF. Council Member Fazzino simply wanted the property owner to have a hearing. Council Member Beecham said the recommendation was that when the designs were submitted to the ARB and HRB that they included three-dimensional renderings for the ease of seeing what was being proposed. Council Member Burch said the public had expressed the desire to examine the building and AMF from the view of the park to be sure it would not mass at the corner. Council Member Beecham thought Council Member Burch’s comments were the intent of the recommendation. The Council approved the FAR for the apartment building next to the American Heritage Museum be based on the parcel size of more than one parcel, a policy with which he disagreed. The City was limiting Block “B” to 1.5 FAR, but he wanted to see the apartment building limited to 1.5 FAR based on its own parcel. The detriment was the possible loss of three or four apartment units. Mayor Kniss said if the City did not bring the other parcels into the calculations, she thought the FAR was 1.83 on the building. Council Member Beecham suggested the building be reduced from 1.83 to 1.5 FAR without averaging the parcels. If the averaging of the parcels was eliminated, the only building affected was the new building on the parcel. AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Lytle, to reduce Block A from 1.83 FAR to 1.5 FAR without combining lots. AMENDMENT PASSED 8-0, Ojakian “not participating.” Council Member Beecham expressed concern with regard to the financing of the SOFA project with respect to the City’s purchase
03/27/00 90-24
of the Roth Building. On a square-foot basis, given the cost of the purchase and renovation of the building, etc., he was unconvinced it was the proper direction for the City to take. AMENDMENT: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to request in the Development Agreement that the City have a six-month option to purchase the Roth Building at the existing purchase price without any financial implications. Council Member Beecham said if the City did not purchase the Roth Building, potentially the wings would not be knocked down and the building as a whole could be used commercially. The City should explore both possibilities thoroughly. Mayor Kniss asked whether six months was sufficient time for the staff to make an assessment of the Roth Building. Mr. Gawf said six months was sufficient time for such an assessment since that was the time span normally given to staff. A report could be received from John Northway by early April 2000. Council Member Mossar said over the past two years while sitting in the Finance Committee, she carefully watched the setting of financial policies for the City. The staff report (CMR:192:00) suggested the City pay for its obligation at about $20 million by using the Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR). The process that was set in place was that the BSR took first priority and was funded to a certain level, at which level it was currently. All extra monies were going into the City’s Infrastructure Reserve (IR). The IR was to fund the City’s infrastructure plan to which the City had made a commitment. The 10-year infrastructure plan was funded by the IR and calculated to grow according to the extra money the City happened to have at the end of a particular year. If the BSR was drawn down, the reserves had first-call on any extra money and the IR fund would not get the extra money. The City did not have a lot of money and committed the monies it had for programs the community as a whole wanted, needed, expected, and clamored for. Parks in south Palo Alto were not fully developed; there were problems with the infrastructure throughout the community. Funding the infrastructure was already short by about $21 million. For some period of time, money would not be placed into the infrastructure plan, so the Council would be putting at risk the promise it had made to the community to make good on the infrastructure plan. She was nervous, as well, about purchasing the Roth Building. The whole project might be bigger than the City could handle. Staff presented alternative ways of funding, such as bond issue and $250,000 from California’s Park Bond, but by going down that road because of the compelling reasons to take advantage of a one-time opportunity to preserve historic structures and develop a park area, etc., there was a financial downside. In the future, budget cuts might be necessary in order for the City to deliver. Up to the current time, the Council had not discussed the finances and
03/27/00 90-25
the issue was never before the Finance Committee for informal conversation. She welcomed a respite for the financing piece to be thoroughly discussed to ensure the neighborhood was given the best possible without short-changing the rest of the community. Council Member Fazzino endorsed Council Member Mossar’s comments and the kind of careful financial analysis and evaluation in the broader context was precisely what was needed before moving ahead with the opportunity. The entire infrastructure plan, including the possibility of using the Roth Building, should be considered by the Finance Committee and by the Council. Notwithstanding the importance of finances, space was as much a part of the equation as dollars were. People would probably prefer to see the building used for a public purpose rather than venture capitalists or attorneys. He preferred to keep the option of public purchase of the property open, but he was willing to be convinced otherwise for financial and space reasons. Vice Mayor Eakins reaffirmed her belief that the City policy was sound, that is, to find new dollars for new projects. As much as she loved the Roth building, it was not an ongoing infrastructure or regular project of the City, so it would have to see new dollars. As a member of the League of California Cities (LCC) Revenue & Taxation Committee, she received an education about what was happening to Sales Taxes statewide. There was a temptation to believe that since the country was in boom times, the public bodies had access to the money, but that was not the case. The whole structure of revenue and taxation had to be changed to accommodate rising expectations. She would not want to use reserves to do something sizeable, temporarily “borrowing” from reserves for bridge financing. Palo Alto had taken a long time to build up the level of reserves it had, which still failed to match other cities of similar proportion. Early during the six months, not only the Finance Committee but also the Council needed to understand the financing mechanisms and a real review of the issue with a study session to review the financial mechanisms, suggesting that that be incorporated into the motion. Ms. Fleming said the Council’s fiscal concerns were well put. In the final analysis, the issue was one of policy about which the Council would have to decide after the staff put the issue forward. If staff could not complete the work within six months, it would have no qualms about returning to the Council to ask for an extended amount of time to work on the issue until completed. The City’s reserves were extremely healthy, but not flush. The reserves were built up from four or five years before and were on an equal footing with other cities the size of Palo Alto. The reserves were appropriate for the services the City provided and were solid. However, the reserves were not overflowing, allowing for endless choices. Council Member Mossar was correct, staff had plans for further discussion with the Finance Committee on plans. Revenues were increasing but had leveled off. She suggested debating the
03/27/00 90-26
costs, etc., after the staff returned with a report about what was possible,. Any report staff returned to the Council would contain financial options. Council Member Lytle expressed concern about the motion because of the justification for the purchase of the Roth Building and the park configuration. Residents in the area might be very concerned to hear the council back-pedaling. Escalating leasing costs in the Downtown area over which the City had no control was also of concern. The Roth Building would most probably be economically feasible, particularly since it had already gained in value, and was a good investment for the City. She was concerned about the breach in faith in discussions with residents in the community. She appreciated the conservative fiscal perspective and the need to study the issue but was concerned about the mixed message it sent to people involved in the process. Mayor Kniss would vote “no” on the amendment to the motion. She understood the value of a building in the Downtown area and knew the potential of the Roth Building. The Roth Building would be an incredible asset to the entire area as it was developed. Council Member Fazzino asked for a point of clarification since he believed that until the Council’s minds were changed, the Council would continue to support the concept of the Roth Building for public use. The motion simply allowed for the possibility of a change if it was demonstrated for financial or other reasons that it was inappropriate. Currently, he supported and was committed to the Roth Building for public use. Mayor Kniss thought there was no question about the Roth Building and the public use aspect, but she wanted to express her commitment to it. She was reasonably certain the City could make it work. Council Member Burch agreed with Council Member Lytle and believed that the Council was taking a step backwards, so he would not support the motion. The City was a long way into the process and suddenly was saying it could not afford to purchase the Roth Building. The money was available and should be spent. The City had gone too far in the process. Council Member Kleinberg said there was a plan, and no matter what got in the way, the plan would be fulfilled. If unsure of the financial burden on the community, she hoped the Council would give itself time to be sure and would, therefore, support the motion. AMENDMENT PASSED 5-3, Burch, Kniss, Lytle, “no,” Ojakian “not participating” City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the six-month time period would require some negotiation. As the Development Agreement was structured, the closing date was a very important term for both
03/27/00 90-27
PAMF and SHH in terms of real estate transactions. At the end of the process, the Council needed to evaluate whether the City was ready for a first reading or whether two weeks should be taken to work out the details with PAMF and SHH. He was uncomfortable asking PAMF and SHH to simply stand up and agree to a list of 13 changes. Discussion with the other parties in the transaction would be necessary. Council Member Burch asked whether consideration would be given to moving the park back onto Waverley Street if the City decided it could not afford to purchase the Roth Building, and it would be a commercial property. Mayor Kniss was unsure. At that point, the DA would be very far along and difficult to alter. Council Member Burch said the idea was to make the park and Roth Building one unit. Mayor Kniss said if the Council wanted to alter something about the DA, then a motion should be made. Mayor Kniss said the Council vote should allow everyone involved to move forward with the process. She believed at the end of six months, the Council would still support purchasing the Roth Building, even considering Council Member Mossar’s comments regarding the financial aspect. Regardless, the Roth Building would substantially add something to the City. Council Member Burch agreed. Mayor Kniss asked Mr. Calonne if the SOFA CAP and DA returned to the Council in two weeks, whether it would once again be opened to the public for comment. Mr. Calonne said if the DA was substantially changed, probably. Mayor Kniss said the elected officials were often accused by members of the public of stalling and, at some point, the Council needed to vote and move the item on. Mr. Calonne said his notes from the summer of 1991 when the issue was discussed indicated Planning Commissioner Beecham revised the project rather dramatically and positively at the end of the process. He preferred dealing with the issue immediately rather than in two weeks. He had a real sense that it would be better to conclude the item sooner than later and suggested a meeting the following evening. Mayor Kniss asked whether it could happen by the following night.
03/27/00 90-28
Ms. Fleming thought Mr. Calonne was saying that the Council adjourn the current meeting and continue the following evening. Mayor Kniss questioned what such an action would gain the Council. Mr. Calonne suggested conditional approval be given by the Council. He wanted to think about how the Council could take action in a way that was conditional to allow returning to the applicants to hold a discussion about the possible changes upon which all could agree. Ms. Fleming said although it was the Council’s prerogative to make changes, staff had a difficult time knowing how to accommodate the significant altering of the project. RECESS: 11:15 P.M. to 11:30 P.M. Mr. Calonne said a number of the issues that were raised by the Council were legitimate but significant and required time during which the applicant and staff could respond. He suggested continuing the meeting until the following evening. Mayor Kniss said there were some problems with holding a meeting the following evening and asked her colleagues to indicate who could be available the following evening at 5:30 p.m. Six Council Members responded positively. She asked her colleagues to indicate who could be available at 7:30 p.m., and concluded that more were available at 5:30 p.m. A commitment was made that if the meeting was not concluded by 7:30 p.m. the item would be postponed for an indefinite period of time. Ms. Fleming said staff would do all it could to keep the meeting the following evening to one hour. Mayor Kniss asked whether the item would have to be postponed for two weeks if the Council was not able to resolve the issue the following evening. Mr. Calonne was unsure. Mayor Kniss said every attempt would be made to have the item completed by the following evening. The Council was making every good faith effort to bring the item to a close, respecting all the parties involved. Mr. Calonne wanted clarification from the Council that all the amendments were made and that nothing new would be presented the following evening. Mayor Kniss closed the Public Hearing at 11:35 p.m. Council Member Fazzino wanted to vote on the motion on the floor along with the amendments; Council Member Lytle agreed.
03/27/00 90-29
Mayor Kniss said in order to vote on the motion, the Council would not need to meet the following evening and know whether the amendments would work. Council Member Fazzino said a motion was on the floor along with a number of amendments, several of which were incorporated into the motion, without any discussion or debate, on which he wanted to vote. Then staff could return for final action. If SHH or PAMF disagreed, the Council could then address the issues. He was concerned about stopping in mid-sentence and allowing staff to negotiate with the developer before the Council had the chance to formally indicate its policies with respect to the item. Mr. Fleming said the motion could be made to incorporate everything the Council discussed. There was some concern about what was and was not incorporated. Council Member Fazzino wanted to vote on the do-able portion. Mayor Kniss said the item not voted on by the Council was Item 2, the Development Agreement, along with all the incorporated suggestions. Council Member Burch thought the following evening was designed to determine whether or not SHH and PAMF could live with what the Council was moving on at the current meeting. If SHH and PAMF could live with the DA, as amended by the Council, then the City would live with that. Mr. Calonne reviewed the ordinance adopting the SOFA CAP and the changes suggested by the Council. Mayor Kniss clarified the Council was voting on everything other than the actual DA. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adopting the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, Phase I” MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED 7-0-1, Lytle “abstaining,” Ojakian “not participating.” MOTION: Vice Mayor Eakins moved, seconded by Mossar, that the City Council: 3. Amend the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the Land Use Map designation for the SOFA Plan area to “South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan,” and including mixed use portion in the downtown and city wide caps. Resolution 7951 entitled “Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Land use Map of the
03/27/00 90-30
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan for the Area Generally Bounded by Waverley Street, Homer Avenue, Ramona Street, and Channing Avenue (South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase I) and Revising the Non-Residential Development and Downtown Development CAP Areas to Include the Mixed Use District of SOFA Phase I” Council Member Lytle stated she would have opposed the modifications but would abstain from voting on the item due to the lack of time to review the materials. The lowering of the most egregious problems was a big concession she appreciated. Also, changing the commercial building from two to three buildings was a big concession as well and would go a long way toward meeting some of the Comprehensive Plan policies to which she had previously objected. The democratic process only worked when one accepted the leadership of the majority decision of the elected officials. She was concerned that the Palo Alto public was using referendum as a means of accomplishing community planning, which usually lead to a less-desirable outcome. Because she was withdrawing her opposition did not mean she thought the neighbors who testified were unjustified in their perspective but actually agreed that the City missed an opportunity for a desirable park space. If the City had obtained better financial and economic information, it might have gotten further concessions. The project did not do a lot for the jobs/housing imbalance. Three years before, when she left the City as a staff member, the City had no coordinated area plan process. There was no means of saving the AME Zion church, the Roth building, or any other historic buildings in the area. There was no feasible plan for affordable housing in that area of the community, and she was told that Palo Alto would never dedicate another acre of park space. The City overcame all the psychological and regulatory problems that were in the way and had achieved a lot. The plan was not perfect, but was accomplished within the deadline which the City had committed with the property owner, which was very important. Government needed to meet deadlines and make commitments in order to be credible and effective, otherwise people lost confidence. The vote was taken, and it was time to move on. That was the way democracy worked effectively. She hoped others would join her in accepting the outcome. MOTION PASSED 7-0-1, Lytle “abstaining,” Ojakian “not participating.” MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to: 4. Approve the Development Agreement (DA) between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Development Agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation”
03/27/00 90-31
Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to provide for Entitlements and Conveyance of Properties MOTION PASSED 7-0-1 Lytle “abstaining,” Ojakian “not participating.” Mayor Kniss stated that the only reason for a meeting the following night would be if staff and the developer had concerns regarding the action taken at the action taken at the present meeting. REPORTS OF OFFICIALS AGENDA ITEM NOS. 16 THROUGH 18 CONTINUED BY CONSENSUS OF THE COUNCIL to a date uncertain. 16. Audit of Accounts Payable COUNCIL MATTERS 17. Council Members Beecham, Kleinberg, and Mossar re Peninsula Creamery Project 18. Council Members Burch, Beecham, and Fazzino re Requesting Staff Assistance on the Possible Preservation of the Sea Scout Building 19. Council Comments, Questions, and Announcements ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. to Tuesday, March 28, 2000, at 5:30 p.m. to discuss Agenda Item No. 14.
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.
03/27/00 90-32