Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-28 City Council Summary Minutes Adjourned Meeting of March 27, 2000, to March 28, 2000 1. Adoption of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, Phase I.................................................... 34 FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 p.m............ 40 03/28/00 90-33 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:45 p.m. PRESENT: Beecham, Burch, Fazzino, Kleinberg, Kniss, Mossar ABSENT: Eakins, Lytle, Ojakian UNFINISHED BUSINESS 14. Adoption of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan, Phase I (Public Testimony Closed) Mayor Kniss announced that Council Member Ojakian would not be participating due to a conflict of interest. City Manager June Fleming said the meeting the previous evening was adjourned due to concerns about the item expressed by the Council. In response to the Council’s issues, staff recommended that the Council move to reconsider its actions introducing the ordinances adopting the Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) and Development Agreement. Following the motion, staff recommended that the Council modify its action deferring a final decision on acquiring the Roth Building so staff could present the feasibility analysis on or before April 10, 2000, rather than in six months. With regard to the Roth building, staff agreed with the Council’s concerns, there were both practical and economic reasons why the Council should reconsider the Roth Building. Staff would be prepared to return to the Council on April 10, 2000. Staff saw the Roth Building as a valuable asset with great potential. The building could be used organizationally or as a community resource, and should be preserved if possible. It was economically and structurally feasible. She understood the decision staff was asking the Council to make was not easy, specifically the size of the investment, but was a once in a lifetime opportunity. The City always had a budget stabilization reserve which had almost doubled since 1982 and was a significant statement of what the Council did with respect to policymaking, management, and the way prudent control was taken over the City’s monies. She wanted the Council to feel secure that staff would not ask that a $10 million investment be made without the resources with which decisions could be made. She asked the Council to support the project on which staff had worked so hard. She assured the Council there would not be a tight budget, but a leveling off of revenue. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ed Gawf said in the motion made the previous evening, there were two areas that exhibited the most concern. First, the action on Block A that lowered the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the test project condominium from 1.8 to 1.5. Staff discussed that with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and the SummerHill Homes that were in agreement. Second, there was the feasibility of restoring the Roth Building and the financial impact on the City. John Northway was hired to do a feasibility study, both for seismic upgrade and the cost for 03/28/00 90-34 restoring the building. That study would return to the Council in written form on April 10, 2000. Mr. Northway’s conclusion was the cost of the seismic upgrade and restoring the exterior of the building was significantly less than what was estimated. The original estimate was $3 million, and the new estimate was $1.5 million. He concluded that it was feasible for the City to acquire and restore the Roth Building. Staff respectfully requested that the Council modify its motion on the Roth Building to reflect the draft motion from staff. City Attorney Ariel Calonne laid out the procedural issues. The prior evening, Council asked staff to return only if there were concerns about any part of the question called by Council Member Fazzino. There was one small piece that needed action, which was the Council’s concern over the Roth Building feasibility study taking six months. Staff felt that between any information the Council might ask of Mr. Northway that evening and the written report that would be received on April 10, 2000, those feasibility questions could be answered before a second reading was given to the package. With regard to Block A, there was no Council action required since PAMF and SummerHill Homes had accepted the Council’s request. Procedurally, staff was asking the Council to move to reconsider the actions introducing the Development Agreement Ordinance and the Coordinated Area Plan, and that the Council modify its action so the feasibility analysis could be presented on or before April 10, 2000, rather than in six months. MOTION TO RECONSIDER: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Burch, to reconsider actions at the prior night’s meeting introducing the ordinances adopting the Coordinated Area Plan and Development Agreement. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Ojakian “not participating,” Eakins, Lytle absent. Council Member Kleinberg asked for clarification on the change in the FAR for Block A regarding the matrix received the prior evening on the Phase I Area Plan project. She asked whether staff had a corrected number for the total of residential units. Mr. Gawf understood that the number of residential units would be kept close or the same even though the units might be smaller. Council Member Kleinberg asked for an estimate of the total cost. Mr. Gawf said there were three major components: 1) the seismic upgrade and restoration of the exterior of the Roth Building at $1.5 million and land acquisition at $2 million; 2) demolition of the wings of the Roth Building and restoration of the ground to a building site including the Block C research building with an estimated budget of $250,000 to $500,000; and 3) the tenant finish which would depend on the type of use estimated at $1 million. Staff would have that information ready for the Council prior to 03/28/00 90-35 the second reading. The fourth component, which staff was still working on, was parking. Some of the parking was dependent upon the building use, and staff was looking into several options. The parking component was estimated at $1 million for additional parking. The total was approximately $6 to $6.5 million. The land acquisition cost for the park was estimated at $5 million, and the park improvement at $1 million for a total of $6 million. Staff’s estimates were at the high end. Staff felt the Roth Building was a good business decision and had the potential to save the City money in various ways. Council Member Fazzino did not understand all the concern over the Roth Building and why the issues had to be resolved. Mr. Gawf replied said staff felt it was important to share the feasibility study with the Council to make it aware of the work to be done. The question was whether it could be done in six months or at the present time. Staff felt it should be done as soon as possible. The staff’s recommendation was that the public facility in proximity to the park looked good and was a feasibility combination. Mr. Calonne said in answer to Council Member Fazzino’s question about the Roth Building, the concern was parking. If PAMF were going to keep the building, it would have to park it, and the property involved some dealings with SummerHill Homes. He felt the flexibility on the Roth Building was probably greater a few months prior. Council Member Mossar believed the reason the Council asked for time was to ensure there was adequate data to make a choice. Staff gave good reasons why the Roth Building was an outstanding choice. She asked whether the Council agreed to move to April 10, 2000, and was it possible for staff to provide the Council with a clear and concise definition of the different pieces including those in the $10 million figure referred to by the City Manager. For example, the parking for the Roth Building was an unknown. The Council needed to clearly understand what was being asked to fund, at what level, and what was still left to fund, with a range of expenses for those unfunded pieces. She asked by April 10, 2000, could staff give the Council an educational list of options available to the City to pay back the Budget Stabilization Reserves, allowing the City to get on with the infrastructure plans. She would like the Council to know the schedule for review by both the Finance Committee and the Council of the Long-Range Infrastructure Funding Plan. There was no consensus until the public was surveyed as to what would be in that package. Ms. Fleming was confident staff could make that commitment. Council Member Mossar said it would also be good to include in that information to give the Council a sense of the situation as seen by staff with the Internet. 03/28/00 90-36 Ms. Fleming cautioned that staff could give the Council good information, but she did not want the decision put in the wrong context. Staff could provide a certain comfort level. Council Member Mossar said she was asking for trends and information that was shared with the Finance Committee that would help the Council put the project in context. She was not arguing against the expenditure of the funds, but rather to give the Council the ability to make an educated decision. Director of Administrative Services Carl Yeats shared Council Member Mossar’s concerns. Staff intended to return to the Council with the final chapters of the Long-Range Financial Plan on June 6, 2000, including everything for the next ten years. It would also show the funding of the different programs and priorities the Council currently had established. The plan was far-reaching and looked into the future with some bold projections. Currently, the future looked good for Palo Alto which had healthy reserves. With regard to financing all the City’s other needs, there were several mechanisms. Staff was looking at using a ballot measure to pay for the Storm Drain Assessment which would return to the Council. There would be an election in the September time frame based upon the requirements of Proposition 218. Other needs were more general in nature and would be financed through General Obligation Debt that needed two-thirds voter approval and could be used for any purpose. There were approximately $70 million worth of new projects staff wanted to fund, and the infrastructure program was funded on an ongoing basis. Staff had analyzed the future options the Roth Building could give the City, and staff felt it was a sound decision. Mayor Kniss thought Council Member Mossar was looking for more details at a later date. Council Member Beecham asked what would happen to the Roth Building if the City did not buy it. He would like to hear most likely and worst-case scenarios. Mr. Gawf said it might be one in the same, but thought the building would be used for some type of office use. It could be medical or residential office space. Council Member Beecham asked whether the wings were to be demolished if the building was not purchased. Mr. Gawf replied yes, in either case. Council Member Beecham asked whether the building would need to be restored historically. Mr. Gawf replied yes. 03/28/00 90-37 Council Member Kleinberg referred to Exhibit D-5 regarding an increase to parcel size by 2,000 square feet, asking for an explanation. Mr. Calonne said the Council’s action did not preclude parcel size. It amounted to a 2,000-square-foot increase in the lot size, allowed 3,000 square feet to return, and was consistent with a 1.5 FAR. Mr. Gawf said there were three parcels in Block A and an adjustment of the lot lines to reflect that. Council Member Beecham asked what that meant in terms of square footage in the building. Mr. Calonne said 3,000 square feet. Mr. Gawf said 9,000 square feet was reduced to 3,000 square feet for a loss of 6,000 square feet. Council Member Mossar asked whether someone could show the Council a picture of the block with the lots, explaining what was done. Richard Wurzelbacher, 777 California Avenue, representing SummerHill Homes, said the corner measured 2,000 square feet in total. Based on the previous method of averaging FAR’s, he felt the yard area was more beneficial to the historic home/office with a potential use as a flexible parking area. Under the current scenario, it was advantageous to configure the lot so the yard area would benefit the condominium on the lot including the benefit of the 2,000 square feet to 3,000 square feet based on 1.5 FAR. Council Member Beecham asked whether the configuration of the lot line was strongly supported by staff, and whether staff believed there were valid reasons for going ahead with the project. Mr. Gawf replied yes. It was an open space or yard area that could be assigned either way and was a legitimate division of the lot lines. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Kleinberg, to introduce the ordinances adopting the Coordinated Area Plan and Development Agreement. 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” Ordinance 1st Reading entitled “Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Approving a Development Agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation” Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the 03/28/00 90-38 Palo Alto Medical Foundation to provide for Entitlements and Conveyance of Properties MOTION PASSED 6-0, Ojakian “not participating,” Eakins, Lytle absent. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, that Council modify its action deferring a final decision on acquiring the Roth Building so staff can present the feasibility analysis on or before April 10, 2000, rather than in six months. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Ojakian “not participating,” Eakins, Lytle absent. MOTION: Council Member Beecham moved, seconded by Mossar, to support changes on Exhibit D-5 as follows: A. Parcel Size: Two parcels will be merged along with an area from an adjacent parcel to form a new parcel of 33,565 35,565 sq. ft. D. Development Standards: Zoning standards and design guidelines pertaining to AMF development shall apply. The allowable FAR shall be 1.5. The allowed floor area for this parcel shall be 62,739 sq. ft. calculated as follows: (1) 67,539 square feet which is 1.5 x 45,026 the total area of this parcel and the parcel known as 737 Bryant; less (2) the 4,800 sq. ft. of proposed building area at 737 Bryant (exclusive of basement and attic). Buildings may be four stories with fully subterranean. MOTION PASSED 6-0, Ojakian “not participating,” Eakins, Lytle absent. Council Member Beecham was uneasy about the parcel change but understood the reduction and FAR of 6,000 square feet was extremely difficult for the applicant, which was the sole reason he would modify the parcel lines which otherwise he would not consider appropriate. Council Member Fazzino shared some of the uneasiness. He assumed when the item returned to the Council on April 10, 2000, the Council had a right to change its mind. In practical terms, there was not a significant difference in parcel size and he felt the item should move ahead. As a decision-maker representing the interest of a large constituency, he was concerned. Mr. Calonne said the Council needed five votes to complete the second reading. Mayor Kniss said the project was in the making for a long time and incorporated into it was a substantial piece of affordable housing, which was a topic of enormous concern on the Peninsula if not the 03/28/00 90-39 entire Bay Area. In the current economic times, the challenge was remarkable. She was shocked at what was happening to the housing prices. Council Member Mossar was uncomfortable also but felt the project should move forward. She thought what was done in the area was extraordinary. She acknowledged there were concerns in the community about the project; but in the end, it would be much better than what had been in that location for a long time. It would make the neighborhood a nicer place to live. Council Member Burch wished the project, as large as it was, did not end up with 3,000 square feet of difference but went one way or another. Affordable housing was a moving target, and he hoped with Phase II what was really affordable housing could be built there. Staff needed to look for ways to build smaller, lower cost units more efficiently. Mayor Kniss asked what was the real definition of affordable housing was currently in Palo Alto. Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), 725 Alma Street, said affordable housing meant a range of things. It meant serving people who might earn up to $82,000 for a family of four. That range was 35 percent of the median income up to 80 percent. There was a real range and it was exciting to be able to do something in the Palo Alto area. Extra parking spaces and actual units were good things. Mayor Kniss said she did not think there was any term in the Bay Area to define affordable housing, and each community and individual would have to define that for themselves. FINAL ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:45 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. 03/28/00 90-40