Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1986-12-15 City Council Summary MinutesCITY COUNCIL MINUTES PALO ALTOCITYCOUMCILMEETINGSAF#E BROADCAST LIVE VIA KZSU FREDUENCY9O.1 ON FM DIAL Regular Meeting December 15,1986 ITEM 1. Contract with Summit Uniforms to Provide Uniforms, Professional Equipment and Tailoring Services for the Police Department 2. Resolution re Accepting a Grant From the California Arts Council for the Palo Alto Cultural Center's Master Class Program 3. Finance & Public Works Committee re 1987.88 Budget Guidelines 4. Policy and Procedures Committee re Sequencing of Council Meetings 5. Appeal of David and Tamara Hooper re Property Located at 627 Webster Street 6. Evergreen Park Traffic Management Project Request for Additional Design Funds 7. Request of Palo Alto Housing Corporation/ Peninsula Conservation Center re City -Owned Property on Park Boulevard Adjournment at 9:55 p.m. p A G E 7 9 2 2 7 9 2 3 7 9 2 3 7 9 2 5 7 9 2 6 7 9 2 7 7 9 2 9 7 9 4 3 7 9 2 1 12/r5/86 Regular Meeting Monday? December 15, 1986 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers, 250 Hamilton Avenue, at 7:30 p.m. PRESENT: Bechtel (arrived at 7:32 p.m.), Cobb, Fletcher, Klein (arrived at 7:35 p.m.) Levy, Patitucci, Menzel, Sutorius, Woolley VAnuf COMMUNICATIONS 1. Ben Bailey, 455 Forest Avenue, spoke regarding complaints to the Palo Alto Police Department (PAPD). The .monthly complaint summary report posted in the PAPD showed for 1986, 95 percent of the complaints were not sustained; in 1985; 93.5 percent of the complaints were not sustained; and in 1984, 82 percent were not sustained. Although the compliants were not serious, he did not believe the figures were credible, and that 95 percent of the people who complained to the PAPD were either mistaken or lying. Palo Alto needed an independent Police Review Board to handle citizen complaints. 2. Susan Ivy, 1983 'San Luis, 16, said the Arestra Stable committee submitted its proposal at 8:30 a.m. that morning. Each Councilmember had a copy and four copies were submitted to staff. She thanked Council for thy^ opportunity. CONSENT CALENDAR MOTION: Vice Mayor Woolley moved, seconded by xlein, approval of the Consent Calendar. 1. CONTRACT WITH SUMMIT UNIFORMS TO PROVIDE UNIFORMS PROFES- SIONAL E UIPMENT AND TAILORING SERVICES FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT (CMR:587:6) (603) Staff recommends Council authorize the Mayor to execute the agree- ment with Summit Uniforms, contingent upon approval of funds, to provide complete uniforms and professional equipment during the period of December 1, 1986, to November 30, 1989. Funding will be included in Police Department's annual budget during each year of the contract. 7 9 2 2 12/15/86 CONSENT CALENDAR (Cont'd) 2. RESOLUTION 6578 entitled "RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE OF PALO ALTO ACCEPTING A GRANT FROM THE CALIFORNIA ARTS COUNCIL FOR THE PALO ALTO CULTURAL CENTER'S MASTER CLASS PROGRAM" (CMR:576:6) (412/412-01) ORDINANCE 3727 entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1986-87 TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION FOR THE ARTS AND SCIENCES DIVISION AND TO PROVIDE FOR THE RECEIPT OF GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA ARTS COUNCIL ARTISTIC AND ADMINIS- TRATION DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM" CITY MOTION PASSE! unanimously. 3. FINANCE AND PUBIC WORKS COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE 1987-88 BUDGET GUIDELINES (CMR:577:6) (208-03 ) M€TIONs Councilmember Sutorius for the Finance and Public Works Committee moved that Council approve the 1987-88 Sudgst Guide- lines, and that the additional wording be added to Item Noe 3 as follows: "and the associated funding sources, that is, cost recovery, external funding sources, internal. cost reduction off- sets" Further, add an additional Item No. 6 that the Manager in preparing the budget would identify what he would take out of the budget if they had to reduce costs by 5 percent and prioritise the•. list. Finance and Public Works (F&PW) Committee Chairman Sutorius said the guidelines were: 1. The budget for 1987-88 should maintain service and program levels within the constraints of Proposition 4 and revenue expectations. 2. The Capital Improvement Program for 1987-92 should focus on: a) current City priorities; and b) funding 1987-88 at approximately the same level as in 1986.87. 3. Any increases in staffing levels should be clearly identified and justified by new or expanded service levels, programs mandated 1)1, other levels of government, and the associated funding sources: 7 9 2 3 12/15/86 a) cost recovery b) Internal cost reduction offsets c) external funding sources. 4. If the cost of providing services in 1987-88 exceeds available revenue and/or the Proposition 4 expenditure limitation, the City Manager will submit a priority list of program reductions or revenue increases. 5. The budget should target and implement long-term savings and productivity improvements through more efficient use of City staff and resources. 6. List and identify the impacts of possible cuts within the General Fund to reduce the 1987-88 budget by 5% percent. Chairman Sutorius said the guidelines evolve-: from observations, comments, and direction provided to staff during the entire calendar year. Staff made recommendations with which the F&PW Committee was in general agreement, including the amendments and changes underlined in staff report CMR:577:6. He believed the progress and change in direction was healthy. The recommendation was unanimous. Councilmember Levy commended the F&PW Committee' and staff for the guidelines which were crisper and easier for Council to follow. He was concerned about the effect on the budget of the actions taken at the December 80 1986, workshop where Council prioritized a number of items to highlight for the coming year and beyond. Actions of that kind sometimes began a cos, < escalation not envisioned by Council, and he wondered how staff saw fitting the priorities into the 1987-88 budget. City Manager Bill Zaner did not believe there would be difficulty accommodating the priority items. The four major areas settled upon by Council were schools, infrastructure, service levels, and parks management, which were consistent with other instructions given by Council. The items would appear in the budget and staff would point out i.n the budget message any recommended changes with regard to those four items in particular. MOTION PASS4P unanimously. 7 9 2 4 12/15/86 4. POLICY AND PROCEDURES COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION RE SEQUENCING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS (CMR:551:6) (701) Councilmember Fletcher said the suggestion was made during Council's Retreat at Foothill Park to set aside one meeting a month for work sessions, and the Policy and Procedures (P&P) Committee recommended the first Monday of each month be scheduled for a work session with the understanding that a work session would not have to be held if one was not needed. The second and fourth Mondays should be for general Council agenda items, and the third Monday for Planning Commission items. Further, the P&P Committee recommended that when there was a unanimous vote at Committee, the item automatically be put on the Consent Calendar unless the Committee decided otherwise. MOTION: Councilmember Fletcher for the Policy and Procedures Committee moved to endorse the staff recommendations vn a six-month trial basis as follows: 1. First Monday -- Council work session; 2. Second Monday - General Council agenda items (including referral from Committees): 3. Third Monday - Planning Commission items; and 4. General Council agenda items (including referral from Committees). John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, objected to devoting the first Monday to a Council work session unless provisions were made for citizens to speak on a regular basis. He understood official decisions were not supposed to be made during such a process, but minds tended to be made up and he wanted the people to have a direct influence. Councilmember Patitucci asked whether the broadcast of the Council work session was considered to be successful and would continue. City Manager Sill Zaner said yes. Councilmember Bechtel understood the policy regarding work sessions was that decisions were not made and votes were not taken; referrals to staff could be made which would return to Council at a later date for a formal motion. 7 9 2 5 12/15/86 Mr. Zaner said that was correct. There was no formal process in terms of a place on the agenda for citizen participation, but a work session was an open forum and members of the public with comments to make were generally urged to do so regardless of whether it was a work session of the whole Council or Committees. Councilmember Fletcher believed setting aside an entire evening for a work session provided More opportunity for public input than when Council tried to squeeze the work session in one hour before the Council meetings. She assumed the public input was part of the work session process. Councilmember Renzel said previous Council work sessions were generally staff presentations and questions from Council. With the expanded work sessions, Council should offer the public an oportunity to participate, because the items studied would be different than before and it was important to have public input prior to when Council actually got down to decision -making. NOTION PASSED unanimously.. 5. APPEAL OF DAVID AND TAMARA HOOPER FROM THE DECISION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD AND THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING & COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT RE 627 WEBSTER STREET (300) (CMR:579:6) Mayor Cobb noted a letter from David and Tamara Hooper requesting the matter be continued until after January 15, 1987. Councilmember Bechtel was concerned the Hoopers did not understand the staff report, and she asked whether any staff member explained that while Council needed to act that evening in some way, the matter could have been referred to the Planning Commission. Zoning Administrator Bob Brown received the letter that morning, but had not called the troopers to clarify the staff report. Councilmember Patitucci asked if them: was any reason not to act on the matter that evening. City Attorney Diane Northway said legally Council did not have to grant a continuance and could proceed with consideration. Mayor Cobb detected confusion and miscommunication from the material in terms of the City and the applicant. Normally, Council granted an extension when requested, and if Council granted the extension to the Hoopers, explanations were in order so env Hoopers understood what was happening. 7 9 2 6 12/15/86 r 1 Councilmember Patitucci opined Council should uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) because the process was more than accommodating to the Hoopers. Even though there might have been some confusion, he believed City staff and various Commissions went out of their way to accommodate a process which was somewhat different from the norm. He believed it was the appropriate time to act and Council should not send the wrong message to the Hoopers or staff by granting a delay. Ms. Northway cautioned Council to hear from the applicants before discussing the merits of the issue too heavily. Council could act on the matter, but the normal procedure was to give the public an opportunity to speak. If the applicant sensed Council would not grant the continuance, the applicant was given the oportunity to speak to the continuance. Councilmember Bechtel believed Council always granted a continu- ance when requested. - NOTIONS Councilmember. Bechtel moved, seconded by Klein, to continue the matter to January 19, 1987. Councilmember Renzel shared Councilmembers Patitucci and Bechtel's perception of confusion that would not be aided by a continuance, but as Councilmember Bechtel pointed out, a continuance had never been denied since she had been on the Council. She supported the motion. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 8-1, Patitucci voting °no. ° 6. EVERGREEN PARK TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROJECT - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL DESIGN FUNDS (104.1.01-©1) (CMR:5 78 i 6 ) Councilmember Klein asked for a guarantee that no more money would be requested. Chief Transportation Official Marvin Overway believed it was the last request and the consultant agreed. Hard core engineering design work was still outstanding but should be more controllable. Beyond that, he had no guarantees. Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken Schreiber said the public review process was completed. Councilmember Patitucci opposed the barrier on Park Boulevard and any additional dollars towards its design, but supported the other barriers. 7 9 2 7 12/15/86 Mr. Schreiber said after the consultant went through a difficult public process with the neighborhood committee, Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviews, and alternative designs proposed by members of the public, they submitted the additional expenses. The list before Council was negotiated and less than what the consultant wanted, but they were items staff believed to be legitimate. If Council did not approve all or a portion of the list, the consultant would not receive payment. Staff believed the items were legitimate in terms of the expanded public review process. Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford Avenue, spoke on behalf of Corinne Powell, president of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association. The Neighborhood Association was in favor of completing the consultant's compensation for the services rendered. The sum was meager considering the lengthy and heartfelt struggle to ensure the quality of the present neighborhood. The neighborhood deserved the best quality of design that Palo Alto had come to expect and support. Councilmember Patitucci asked if any costs were directly assessed back to the neighborhood. Mr. Schreiber said the funding of the project did not involve an assessment district but transportation mitigation monies from California Central Housing Project were available, had b.sen used Ain the past, and would continue to be used towards parts of the project. Part of the cost would be General Funds Councilmember Patitucci understood the items could not be broken apart for separate votes. Mr. Schreiber believed it was Council's discretion to break the items apart, but staff recommended the items not be broken apart and that they all be approved. MOTION; Councilmember Levy moved, seconded by Reuel, to adopt staff recommendation teat Council inec*ase staff's change order authority for contrast ISO -4$73 with Barrett Consulting Group, Inc., by $4,201, from the present $2,471 to $40942, with CIF 13-23 as the source of additional fends, Councilmember Levy had not supported the project over the years, and he shared Councilmember Patitucci's frustration but did not believe the project should be reevaluated at present. Council owed the community and residents of Evergreen Park the hetist job possible. The amount involved was small. It wasunfortunate the additional amount was needed, but the consulting engineers should be reimbursed for their work. 7 9 2 8 12/15/86 Vice Mayor Woolley concurred with Councilmember Levy's comments. She never believed the traffic circle option was a wise expendi- ture of City funds, but the ARB requested a new design, and there- fore Council should approve the $569 for that purpose. She would support the. motion. Councilmember Klein supported the program and would support the motion, but he believed enough was enough and would not support another change. Councilmember Sutorius understood the frustration identified by Councilmember Klein, and even better understood the expressions by Councilmember Levy and Vice Mayor Woolley because he had not sup- ported the program, including the barrier process. He had raised serious questions and concerns about the level and source of spending, and intended to oppose the motion. Councilmember Patitucci believed some of the decisions should be reconsidered in a committee. He concurred with Councilmember Sutorius and would oppose the motion. Mayor Cobb associated with Councilmember Klein's comments. He believed the project had been studied too much, but to stop and redo the project would waste more money. MOTION PASSED by a vote of 7-2, Sutorius, Patititucci voting 7. REQUEST OF PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPORATION/PENINSULA CONSERVATION CENTER RE CITY -OWNED PROPERTY ON PARK BOULEVARD (CMRa590a ) (906) Mr. Zaner said letters from the Peninsula. Conservation Center (PCC) and Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) (on file in the City Clerk's office) gave their respective positions. . The staff report (.CMRz590s6) reflected discussions held with both organiza- tions and had been reviewed by them. The issue before Council was to make a determination es to the disposition of the City's prop- erty adjacent to the Bell Savings property, the Bell Savings prop- erty being already committed to housing purposes. The two basic options before Council were: 1) to approve the PAHC request, in which case both properties would move toward housing, and 2) to approve the PCC request, in which case staff asked for instruc- tions from Council in regard to conditions to be placed upon any acquisition by PCC. Mayor Cobb understood one of the conditions with regard to the second alternative was a purchase as against a long-term lease. Mr. Zaner said that was correct. Staff report (CMR:590:6) recom- mended that Council consider a long-term lease instead of an 7 9 2 9 12/15/86 outright purchase. It was clear the PCC would much prefer an acquisition over the lease; however, he recommended Council con- sider the lease in order to retain the property in the City's inventory for flexibility. Councilmember Renzel asked if Council also be requiring a long- term lease or selling it outright if the property were provided to the PAHC. Mr. Zaner said the property would be disposed of permanently to housing. Councilmember Renzel clarified if, the City was willing to sell the property to the PAHC, and the PAHC parceled the land and sold it to a number of other owners, there was no potential for the City to recoup the land. In that context, she asked what was different about selling the land to the PCC. Mr. Zaner said there was a difference in the nature of the use. If housing was built on the property the use could be expected to be there for 40-50 years, contrasted to the more office/commercial use the PCC might put to the property. There was no guarantee the PCC would remain on the site for an extended period of time. Some kind of reversionary clause could be required as protection if the property was sold to the PCC, whereby the City would have the right of repurchase, in effect buying back its own property ►,t the then -existing property value. Councilmember Renzel said the PAHC had a process of right of first refusal on Below -•Market -Rate (BMR) units which had a formula for computing the appreciation of the property, and asked if there was anything to prevent the City using such a formula if it sold the property to the PCC, so the City would not be in a position of buying back at a higher price. Mr. Zaner did not see any impediment to that kind of arrangement. He said the Webster Wood arrangement had a reversionary clause after 59 years. Councilmember Patitucci said the assumption the property would be sold to the PAHC assumed the housing would be developed as an ownership condominium project. He asked if it would be necessary to consider the land sold and if the same approach could be used if the housing were developed as a rental project. Mr. Zaner said it would not be necessary to consider the land sold, and the same arrangement could be used as in Webster Wood. Councilmember Patitucci clarified if there was a long-term lease on both parcels, future City Council would be able to reevaluate what to do with the _- land. 7 9 3 4 12/15/86 i 0 Mr. Zaner said that was true, but was not familiar enough with the detailed economics of the housing development and effect a lease arrangement might have. Theoretically there was nothing wrong with following the Webster Wood model and doing as Councilmember Patitucci suggested. Councilmember Sutorius clarified the source of the funds to acquire the Bell property were exclusivelythe housing mitigation monies accumulated by the City and dedicated to the housing pur- pose. If it was in anyone's mind that the Bell property should stay with the City, Council had a moral obligation to find another source of funding the acquisition of that property. Councilmember Levy asked what the underlying zoning of each piece of property was. Mr. Schreiber replied the Bell site was zoned RM-4, although there was a previously -approved development proposal that could go ahead with only receipt of a building permit. The PCC was zoned RM-3T, the "T" being a transitional combining district. Councilmember Levy clarified any sale of conveyance of the prop- erty to PCC would necessitate rezoning. City Attorney Diane Northway said the transfer per se would not result in a need to rezone. The PCC would be grandfathered as a noncenforming use. The problem would be if the PCC wanted to expand when they would have to apply for rezoning or a PC. Mayor Cobb noted Council received an enormous amount of corres- pondence on the issue. Be said Mrs. Edward Ginzton, 28014 Natoma Road, Los ,altos Hills, left early but filled in a card in support of dual use. Jacquelyn Brown, 2253 Park Boulevard, Executive Director of the PCC, said the PCC appreciated the opportunity of leasing the site from the. City over the past six years. That lease expired in February 1988, and the organization explored alternatives for a future home, including leasing and purchasing sites in Palo alto and elsewhere. After nearly 17 years of serving the community in four different locations, the PCC believed it was time to estab- lish in a permanent location free from the specter of escalating rents and short-term leases. Their research convinced them that their present site was uniquely appropriate. They would like to purchase a portion of their present site from the City of Palo Alto. They believed the purchase would serve the community's best interests as well as the PCC's. The City recently purchased a property -Adjacent to the PCC for use as an affordable housing site. In recognition of the need for affordable housing. the PCC tailored its plane to aupport the project. By adding a portion of the present site to the parcel next door, the _ PCC would enhance 7 9 3 1 12/15/86 the usability of that site for housing. They suggested their pay- ment to the City for the remainder of the site be dedicated to the project next door to enhance the affordability of the housing units built there and, by preserving a significant portion of their present low -profile building and grounds, they could help maintain the character of the neighborhood. Their, bid to stay At 2253 Park Boulevard attracted enthusiastic support. Council - members saw evidence of that support in the hundreds of letters received. The PCC already received considerable support in the form of pledges . for the capital campaign to buy the fire house should the sale to the PCC become a reality. The letters written on the PCC's behalf enumerated the services provided to Palo Alto. A brief review of the seven resident organizations and their pro- grams was contained in Council's packet. She hoped Council would support the PCC's request to purchase the site. Bob Brown, 2747 Park Boulevard, a building contractor, had been a member of several of the organizations in the PCC for the last 20 years, and for the last two years volunteered as a consultant to the PCC in their search for permanent headquarters. The site. fronting on Park Boulevard was about 200 feet wide by 150 feet deep. The existing building was 3,680 square feet and would be the first thing to be torn down if the site was dedicated for housing. The building was adequate for the PCC's needs during the last five years; however, they would like to remodel it if ,the money could be raised. In order to serve future needs, they pro- jected two additions to provide .library space, core -space, office space, and meeting rooms. The spaces at the rear of the property would be sufficient to accommodate• the present building and the additions. The existing redwood trees and landscaped areas were important to the PCC's image as a conservation organization and were equally important to the residents in the surrounding:,. neigh- borhood. An area on the south side of the property from 50 to 75 feet wide would be made available to the housing corporation for addition to the Bell Savings site, and the precise amount would depend upon the hearings held by the ARB and the Planning Commission. If granted the option to buy the property, the PCC intended to apply for Planned Community (PC) zoning. The PCC would much prefer to_purchase ,the property for the following reasons: 1) to avoid the insecurity and -Uncertainty; 2) to avoid monthly payments. All the member organizations depended upon dues from their members which were hard to come by. Capital contribu- tions seemed to be. easier, particularly for a one-time only capital acquisition; and 3) The PCC needed clear title to the property in order to facilitate mortgage financing should that be necessary to complete the acquisition, for remodeling, and -.for future additions. The PCC understood the City's needs to control the future .use of the building and would be agreeable to the City's retaining the right of first refusal to repurchase the property or any other such deed restriction deemed desirable to protect the use of the property. Councilmember Klein asked why mortgage financing would be dif- ferent on a long-term lease from the properties in the Stanford Industrial Park which were on 50 -year leases. Mr. Brown said that was true, and if the terms of the lease were such that the PCC could obtain long-term financing, that would not be an impediment. He understood a long-term lease with a lump -sum payment made at the beginning of the lease was almost equivalent to a purchase, and it would be possible to obtain financing. If the PCC was burdened with annual lease payments, it might be dif- ficult to obtain financing. Vice Mayor Woolley assumed the PCC would prefer to have an up- front lump sum payment for the lease rather, than monthly pay- ments. Mr. Brown said that would more desirable. The PCC believed there was enough support in the community to., raise capital funds and perhaps some foundation support for the acquisition of the prop- erty. Vice Mayor Woolley asked if such an agreement would`. take care of the "uncertainty" problem. Mr. Brown replied it would for the next 50 years. Councilmember Sutorius understood if the PCC had an option to purchase, they intended to apply for approval of a PC zone to permit expansion. Mr. Brown said that was correct, the PCC would not want to commit to buying the property unless they had a PC zoning which guaranteed the right to be there and build on the additions needed during the next few years. ,Councilmember Sutorius recalled two to three months to be expended on preparing the plans from the time an option was granted. Mr. Brown said the Planning Department advised it would take over six months to obtain the PC zoning with the necessary hearings. Before applying for the PC zoning, an architect needed, to do site planning and prepare the plans necessary for the application. He assumed the timing would be between one and three months. Councilmomber Sutorius clarified the. PCC would need a 9 to 12 month option. Mr. Brown said the PCC oricinally suggested one year which would coincide with the end of the lease. The City Manager suggested nine montna which was,. reasonable. 7 9 3 3 12/15/86 Councilmember Levy asked PCC's judgment of the value of the prop- erty. Mr. Brown said PCC expected to pay the fair value based upon the sale price of similar parcels. They hoped the appraisals would not be much over $300,000. Councilmember Levy asked what size property the PCC wanted to end up with. Mr. Brown said the parcel was about 30:000 square feet, and PCC wanted to buy between two-thirds and three-quarters of the site. Councilmember Levy asked if the value took into consideration the value of the building as well as the land. Mr. Brown assumed the building had no value to another owner -- which was generally the case where a property was appropriate for a use other than what was presently intended --but cettainly had a value to the PCC. Councilmember Levy clarified the PCC would not want to pay for that value. Mr. Brown said not if they did not have to. Councilmember Levy asked if the planned additions were all that were necessary for the 50 -year horizon. Mr. Brown could not see that far ahead, but there was a limited amount of space the site would hold. It was reasonable to assume the planned additions would serve the member organizations for the next 10 to 20 years. Councilmember Levy asked what hours of operation were contem- plated. Mr. Brown believed the office hours were approximately 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 or 6:00 p.m., with Sunday closing, and possibly some Saturday opening, Meetings were held in the evenings by member organizations and community groups. E. Goitein, 2253 Park Boulevard, a .member of the PCC Board of Directors, emphasized the special character of the PCC site .which suited the PCC so well. It was on the ground floor, close to pub- lic transport, close to Stanford for volunteers and as a resource, near a commercial area which helped the store, there were expan- sion possibilities, and the grounds were compatible with an environmental organization. The PCC looked at -approximately .12` 7 9 3 4 12/15/86.. sites and concluded no suitable rental was available. He urged Council to consider the PCC's buying the site. The PCC supported the concept of subsidized moderate -income housing, and the purchase would not only retain the presentcharacter of the site butwould provide a significant subsidy to trot housing. Lucile Spurlock, 2253 Park Boulevard, president of the Board of Directors of the PCC Foundation, said the combined membership of the PCC's seven environmental organizations was 30,000. The ser- vices provided by the seven organizations extended far beyond their members to the community in general. Although there was no denying the need for affordable housing in the community, the number of families in Palo Alto who benefited from the services of the PCC was far larger than the number of families who could be housed on the site. The PCC provided many worthwhile services to Palo Alto citizens, and the community would be a loser if the PCC had to look elsewhere for space. She hoped Council would consider the value the organization added to the character of Palo Alto. Peter Steinhart, 717 Addison Avenue, said polls continued to show that 60 to 80 percent of the people favored environmental values in most; disputes. Environmental concern was quiet because environmental questions were technical, and environmentalists were trying to make old laws work. Places like the PCC came into being where people with knowledge, responsible understanding, experi- ence, and judgment could work on those kinds of issues. The bene- fits from having the PCC in Palo Alto were considerable. R. Richard Roe, 720_ Kendall Avenue, was a 26 -year resident of Palo Alto, Executive Di:actor of Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair Housing, and a member of the Human Relations Commission. The issue was difficult because he supported all organizations who proposed the sale of the property to the PCC, but the issue was not one of conservation but vf real estate. He was among many who believed the community was changing dramatically because of the cost of real estate. For several years, the Human Relations Coudisaion asked Council to consider the need for more affordable housing. Midpeninsula Citizens for Fair. Housing pointed out how the absence of affordable housing, in effect, discriminated against the people who had been the objects of other kinds of dis- crimination over the years. When Council chose not to use the Gamble property for housing, it committed to developing more housing, and the subject site was identified as being one of the places in the City where that could happen. He asked Council to commit the PCC and Bell properties to housing, and to commit . to helping the conservation groups with their capital funds drive to find a solution to their office space. He believed Council could find a way to develop more housing and to meet the needs of the nonprofit conservation groups. 7 g 3 5 12/15/86 Anne Ercolani, 2040 Ash Street, favored a long-term lease or sale to the PCC. The idea of a reversionary clause was important because the PCC was compatib-e with the neighborhood and other commercial uses might not be. In general, the neighbors preferred lesser density and the,option for some housing at the Bell site, The PCC should be left status quo._ Marilyn Mayo, 404 Oxford Avenue, spoke on behalf of Corinne Powell, president of the Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association, who supported the PCC. The PCC was adjacent property to a family -oriented neighborhood.. The PCC building was a natural blend for the community, and stood as a buffer zone between commercial and residential. Housing was important, but the PCC was a rare resource. She urged Council to retain a portion of the property for the much -appreciated institution. John Mock, 736 Barron Avenue, supported the PCC and its bid to retain its current facility. He used the PCC's retail facilities, was a member of several of the organizations, and appreciated the convenience of the current location. He particularly appreciated the work of the PAHC but hoped Council would accept the 75 -foot lot -split proposal including;, the shared driveway.; He did not suggest a mixed -use corcept4 The rental costs of the building would be too high for the organizations that currently occupied the SPCC. He hoped the PCC would be allowed to purchase the nrop- erty and not have yearly lease payments. He urged negotiation of a reversionary clause to protect the City's and the public's interests. Tom Espersen, 784 Danforth Terrace, Sunnyvale, spoke as a member of a tenant greep of the PCC. He was a member of the executive committee of the Loma Prieta Chapter of the Sierra Club and con- servation chairperson. The PCC was a plus to the community. Alan Henderson, 565 Arastradero Roads spoke as president of .the PAHC. The PAHC was not an adversary of the PCC. They, all sup- ported the PCC and several on the PAHC were active physically and/or fiscally with the PCC. He was once a member of the PCC board of directors and supported all. its .activities. Development of affordable housing was not included in the recent listing of Council priorities. Early projects such as Colorado. Park, Web8ter Wood, and Arastradero Park faced strong opposition. In', each case, Counci1membera stood up to strong political threats, including one recall threat, and the projects were all successful. Following. the decision. against any housing on the Gamble property, Council directed staff to submit a list of possibl''e sites on City -owned land. The list was short, and the current PCC site and the Community Gardens_. property near the Cultural Center were at the top. It might be argued that the availability of the Bell property more than offset the loss of the PCC site; however: both 7 9 3 6 12/15/96 the PCC and Bell sites were small, and there was virtually no possibility of receiving approval to develop the Community Gardens site. Current zoning on the Bell and PCC sites would permit 54 housing units, but the PAHC recommended a density not over 25 units per acre for family housing and spoke of a maximum of 44 units on thetwoproperties. Leaving the PCC facility on ite cur- rent site and transferring 75 feet of the property to the Bell site would reduce the housing development by at least 12 units to a maximum of 32. Furthermore, the PCC sought an access driveway within the 75 feet which toot away another two units. The com- bined properties gave the PAHC a rare opportunity to build up to 44 units of larger -sized family rental units. If the development was reduced to a maximum of 30 units, there would be increased construction costs per unit and in per unit maintenance costs, i.e., the rents would have to be higher. As Council's adviser on low- to moderate --income housing in Palo Alto, PAHC took its responsibilities seriously. The board and staff members worked hard to find and provide units under- any federal, state, county, or city programs. Seldom did PAHC have an opprtunity to provide a significant number of units. They knew of no other such possi- bilities and believed anyone in their advisory position would recommend housing develoment on the combined properties. The reasons for creating the PAHC 18 years ago were still present and were probably more serious; ever -escalating home prices and rentals, loss . of young families with the resulting demographic changes and school closings, and a shirt from income diversity` to a strictly upper -income and upper/middle-income`.._ population. If Council wanted to actively support development of low/moderate- income housing in Palo Alto, it must take advantage of the Bell/ PCC combination. Councilmember Renzel asked if the economics of the rental housing depended on whether the City offered the site as a land bank site, or whether PAHC figured cost of land in the project. Mr. Henderson said the PAHC was figuring very little for cost of land. Councilmember Renzel clarified the PAHC intended a buy -down on the land. PAHC assumed the housing mitigation funds would essentially pay for the land. Mr. Henderson said that was right. Councilmember Patitucci said even 44 units did not hit the economy of scale desired for on -site manager, etc. Mr. Henderson said preliminary figures appeared to be workable. -7.'9 3 7 12/15/86 Councilmember Patitucci understood significant savings were reached at 100 units or more. The difference between 44 and 32 unite was not a quantum one. Mr. Henderson said the economy of scale would not be the same as with 100 to 200 units. Councilmember Sutorius asked what the PAHC would do during the time the PCC had a lease or purchase option and were pursuing a PC process, if that scenario occurred. Mr. Henderson said if Council's action that evening could result in potential housing units on the Bell and/or part of the PCC. sites, PAHC would go to work in the interim with some preliminary figures and plans without committing too far dollarwise. Vice Mayor Weulley clarified the possibility of sharing the drive- way meant a further reduction of two units, losing a total of 14 units over the PAHC ideal for the two properties together. Mayor Cobb asked the difference ie affoidable rentals between the 44 -unit development and the 30 -unit development, i.e.. how many a iZ sdeie c eeetal units were there in each case. Sylvia Semen said the PAHC was in the preliminary stages of doing the economics of the project and did not have those figures. There were some economies of scale between 32 and 44 units, but she could not give the breakdown. Councilmember Bechtel referenced the Council's priority -setting process, and said they did not talk about priorities of issues that were being taken care of by other groups, but attempted to take care of issues that were not handled very well. Council believed the housing issue was being addressed because it had a very good housing corporation. The housin issue was a priority and was one Council supported on the Terman and other properties. The particular issue was difficult because of two "goods." She knew the vote was not unanimous to recommend housing only by the members of the PAHC, but it believed its mission and purpose was to push for housing. She believed there was value in splitting the parcel. There would still be possibilities for building at least. 30 units and possibly 32, and she believed the PCC was willing to work closely and cooperatively with the PAHC. In addition, a split would provide an open -space usage. 7 9 .3 8 12/15/86 NOTIONs Councilmember Bechtel moved, seconded by Renzel, to approve the PCC request ands 1. Instruct the staff to provide the PCC with a nine -month lease option 'which would enable the PCC to obtain a 50 -year lease on the City property, or an outright purchase with a reversionary elapse; 2. The annual lease payments should be based on present and future market value of the City property; 3. The lease/purchase option should accommodate the '75 -foot/ joint driveway' solution discukkamid by PCC and PARC. 4. The lease/purchase option should make explicit that any future improvement of the property by PCC will be subject to all applicable City land use regulations and procedures, including Planned Community coning for an expanded structure. 5. The lease/purchase option should not provide for extension beyond the nine month initial period; and 6. Any other specific items Council wishes to include as condi- tions of acquiring use of the property. Councilmember Renzel supported Councilmember Bechtel's remarks and said the motion provided a geed solution for all parties. The PCC a provided a tremendous service and was relied upon heavily by the community. At the same time, some of the land could be added to the Bell site to provide additional units. If the issue was looked,.at as an overall PC between t'e two sites, one possible solution was to consider some small units in addition to the family housing to utilize the full density potentially available and still provide the maximum number of family housing units. The transfer of land from, the PCC site added to the ability to calcu- late density on the adjoining site. Even if the driveway would not developed as houses, it would permit the overall density to be somewhat greater. The. PCC provided an important buffer from the neighborhood's point of view. She supported a reversionary clause with a condition that mimicked the PAHC's own B1R reversionary clauses which did not permit significant profits on tranefcrred units. She urged her colleagues to support the motion. Councilor tuber Klein agreed with Councilmember Bechtel in terms of the competition between two existing "goods." He first started in political matters through the conservation movement, had been a board member of one of the constituent organizations of the PCC, and regretted to see a conflict between people concerned about the conservation movement and people concerned about housing for the community. He regretted being forced to choose. He opposed the 7 9 3 9 12/15/86 the motion and urged both sites be entirely used for housing. Council had a hard time fulfilling its commitment to housing, and he heard concern all around town that there were not enough families in Palo Alto. The school district population declined from 16,000 children to under 8,000 at present. Whenever the City tried to find a site for affordable housing, someone suggested it be built somewhere else as if one project would solve the problem. There were few places in the City where any housing could be built. To be successful, a community should provide an oppor- tunity for young people to reside, and Palo Alto needed places for people who made less money, who were younger and just starting out. The PCC provided valuable services to the community, but he believed the PCC could find another location. He agreed a new site might not be as desirable, but the City had no other choices available for housing, and the site was unique because it was already owned by the City. The City did not have the funds to buy other sites and was not in the business of trading sites. Council should devote the available resources and do housing on the site to the maximum extent. Councilor +giber Fletcher said it was a difficult decision because she favored the activities of the PCC and yet considered herself a strong housing advocate. She believed Palo Alto had slid into an adult, affluent community which was . unhealthy. She was - uneasy about the concept presented by the PCC because it was unhappy with a lease arrangement, did not know the cost of the land, and was dissatisfied with the size of the building. The PCC did not know the cost of the needed improvements versus the costs of acquiring a now site. a She leaned toward voting "no's on the motion. Councilmember Sutorius initially investigated acquisition of the Bell property in August, 1985, in order to do something about the housing need and possibly offer some write -down of the housing costs through the limited commercial opportunity available through t„hs existing PC -typo project. The shared site concept referred to by ouncilmember_ Renzel was essentially what he hoped to accom- plish. He was concerned about the motion and the time necessary to work the concept through the process with no assurances, It was important for .the PAHC to dove as rapidly as possible. He could not understand identifying a nonprofit, quasi -commercial operation with a variety of hours and traffic situations as acting as a buffer from what would otherwise be young family housing. He opposed the motion. Councilmember Levy had the same conflicts . as his colleagues because both purposes were worthwhile. He had also been a member, and financial supporter of the PCC, which represented a conflict of emotion because housing was a specific objective of the Council. The available sites for moderate- and lower -income housing were extremely limited, and he concurred they were far 7 9 4 0 12/15/86 more limited than the sites available for the kind of use which the PCC represented. The sites were zoned for housing, and would have to be rezoned from housing back to a different use, which was something Council rarely did. The conservation use was not com- pletely compatible with having housing on both sides of it because there would be a fair amount of PCC use at night for meetings, which created problems when close to a residential use. He shared some of the problems mentioned. by Councilmember Fletcher. In terms of the market value of the property, he agreed it was not merely the land, but the structure also had a significant value, which < he suspected was at least equal to that of the land. He leaned toward a housing use as intended in the zoning. The appro- priate City purpose was more for moderate -cost housing. The PCC uses were important, but the City needed to develop some kind of housing to broaden the diversity of residents in Palo Alto, and the environmental office and retailing uses represented by the PCC could be developed or, many other sites in the community. Vice Mayor Woolley did not understood why the PCC site was as advantageous as the proponents of the PCC said it was. She did not believe the PCC site was as good a location as California Avenue might be for a retail store. In terms of zoning, a PC zone required all changes to be made before the option was executed and it was a 50 -year. option, which meant the PCC could not make any- more changes over the next 50 years. She queried whether she was missing whAt made the PCC site so advantageous to the PCC. Mr. Zaner said the PCC had searched for other sites and could not find a site which offered the same cost advantages. The value of a commercial building or land with the square footage necessary for the PCC store plug office space so far exceeded the value of the present PCC site, the PCC could not afford to either rent or purchase a piece of property and construct. Vice Mayor Woolley said if the City leased the property to the PCC, it would be providing a kind of subsidy at the expense of housing. If Council looked at the issue as family rental housing versus retail office space and did not think about who the occu- pant might be, it would be an easy decision for. her, She agreed with Councilmember Klein the housing opportunity was special because there were so few in the City. Councilmember Patitucci asked how long it would take for the housing to .begin on the combined site if the resolution failed. Mr. Zaner said the PCC ° a lease went for another 13 months. The PAHC could do planning, but could notbegin construction on the portion of the combined site now occupied by the fire house until the PCC was gone. 7 9 4 1 12/15/86 Councilmember Pati tucci asked whether the City could assist the PCC in finding an alternate site. Mr. Zaner said there was nothing to prohibit the City from assisting the PCC in attempting to find another location. Mayor Cobb associated himself with the comments o.f Councilmember Klein. He believed the PCC site was the most ideal location for housing. He agreed there had to be other alternatives for the PCC because of its quasi -commercial use. He hoped the City and the PAHC could help the PCC find an appropriate location. Councilmember Renzel favored using housing mitigation funds and not charging .the PAHC for their use which essentially meant no land costs associated with the units on the Bell property. Regardless of whether 32 or 44 units were built, the only economies of scale would be if -an elevator, .driveway or other com- mon costs were spread over all the units. The rest of the costs would be straight square footage on a per unit basis. She did not believe the price of the units or the rental of the Bell units would be severely impacted by a change in density if Council was prepared to allow the housing mitiation funds to be used for the purchaseof the site without reimbursement. from the PAHC. She preferred rental housing rather than condominiums which was what it would have to be if the City sold the site to the PAHC. The PCC site would have to be sold to the PAHC at the same price offered to the PCC, which cost would have to be averaged over the units in the project. She did not believe there would be a huge change in economics over the units assuming the City was prepared to use the housing mitigation funds without reimbursement. The PCC's lease expired in February, 1988, so . if the PAHC wanted to build a project on bcth sites, it could not proceed until the option was resolved. Offering an option to the PCC did not impact planning even if the PCC failed to exercise the option in the end.` if the PCC was granted an option, the PAHC could pursue the planning for the amount of Bite the City contemplated providing and could follow a parallel track with the City's work with the PCC and hopefully come up with a mutually acceptable solution. She urged those leaning towards a "no" vote to reconsider some of the options which might provide a win -win situation. Councilmember Fletcher said if the PAHC started immediately, it. would take about a year to get all the plans, approvals and funding. Councilmember Renzel clarified she referred to the 44 units proposed by the PAHC. MOTION fl1L .. by a vote of 2-7, Moose l# _**Otto' voting sayo.)! 7 9 4 2 12/15/86 MOTION: Councflnember Patitucci moved, seconded by Woolley, to approve the Palo Alto Housing Corporation request to provide family bossing as rental units, allow Palo Alto Sousing Corporation to lease the land on a "no cost" basis and direct the staff to work with the Peninsula Conservation Center to find an appropriate alternative location. Councilmember Patitucci believed the City could provide the land at no cost, and a long-term lease arrangement gave the City the right to retain the value of the property. He did not want to see a subdivision turn into condominiums and providing and controlling rental housing as discussed in the minutes of the PAHC was the best way over a long period of time of providing and managing affordable housing. Councilmember Klein supported the motion. Councilmember Renzel supported the rental housing but believed the City.. would be shocked in terms of the costs to rent the new units. It was sad to trade off_ 12 units for an institution as valuable to the community as the PCC. She could not support the motion. MOTION PASSED by s vote of 5-1, Renzel voting "no.* ADJOURNMENT Council adjourned at 9:55 p.m. ATTEST g APPROVED: Mayor 7 9 4 3 12/15/86