HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-02-14 City Council (11)City
City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:FEBRUARY 14, 2000 CMR:147:00
SUBJECT:REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION ON THE SOUTH OF
FOREST AREA (SOFA) COORDINATED AREA PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that:
1. That the Council support the South of Forest Consolidated Area Plan ( SOFA CAP) land
use designations for the main block of the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF)
properties, known as Block B (Attachment A), as follows:
a. A 2.0-acre park along the Homer Avenue alignment;
b. ~ Use of the Roth Building as a public facility;
c. Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) on approximately one acre on the
southeast quadrant of the block (10 single family homes with carriage units);
d. Attached Multiple Family (AMF) on approximately one acre on the southwest
quadrant oftheblock (36 units with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not to exceed 1.5).
Council support a mixed-use overlay in the AMF Zone on approximately 0.70 acres on
the northern portion of Block C.
Council support the Attached Multiple Family (AMF) Zone with a 1.5 FAR, and where
two development lots are contiguous they may be combined for the purpose of
calculating the overall FAR.
4.Council direct staffto continue to pursue participation in the implementation of the SOFA
CAP by:
a.Acquisition of 1.41 acres of land for the creation of a 2.41 acre park and public
facility, including the Roth Building;
CMR:147:00 Page 1 of 16
b. Acquisition of 0.63 acres of land for the creation of a 1.23 acre affordable housing
site;
c. Provision of a 0.29 acre site for a child care center;
-d. Pursuing an under-crossing of the CalTrain tracks at Homer Avenue.
5. Council direct staffto prepare a Final SOFA CAP (Phase I) for City Council adoption.
6.Council direct staff to develop a specific financing package for land acquisition in SOFA,
including:
a. The sale of Scott Park; and
b Establishment of park fees in the SOFA CAP area.
Council direct staffto prepare a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto
(City) and Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), incorporating the SummerHill Homes
proposal and dedication of 1.6 acres of land for public use, and taking actions necessary
to implement the financing package.
o Council direct staff to prepare a Resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact
Report and making the necessary environmental findings, as required by California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
BACKGROUND
This report summarizes the status of the issues with regard to the adoption of the Final SOFA
Plan and the implementation of Phase I on the properties owned by PAMF (optioned by
SummerHill Homes), and discusses issuesas they relate to the implementation of the SOFA
CAP. This report also includes a discussion of the direction adopted by the City Council at
its meeting ofDecember 14, 1999 (copy of the approved motion is Attachment F).
The revised CAP includes the City Council direction as well as the planning concepts
proposed by the SOFA Working Group (WG) and various boards and commissions. The
CAP includes a wide range of policies and programs that will be applicable to the area and
will guide the future development and re-development of properties in SOFA.
A major impetus behind development of the Plan was the relocation of the Palo Alto Medical
Foundation from SOFA to its new facilities on El Camino Real. In concert with the
development of the SOFA CAP, the City staff has been working with PAMF and
SummerHill Homes for the re-development of the PAMF-owned and leased properties,
consisting of approximately 9.4 acres.
On December 6 and 7, 1999, the City Council held a public hearing to provide for public
testimony regarding the proposed SOFA CAP and development of the PAMF properties. At
CMR: 147:00 Page 2 of 16
its meeting of December 14, 1999, the City Council provided the City staff with direction
regarding the two issues described above.
Based on the input provided from commissions and boards, public testimony at the City
Council, meetings with the community by staff and developers, and the direction given by
the City Council, staff has prepared an analysis of the key final elements for the adoption of
a SOFA.CAP.~0o Furthermore, ~staff~Js continuing,to negotiate a development agreement
between the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) for
implementation of Phitse I of the CAP.
DISCUSSION
Council directed in December that staff should coordinate with SummerHill and include
neighborhood outreach and participation in reviewing the proposed land use on Block B. The
staff from both Planning and Community Services Departments, with representatives from
PAMF and SummerHill, met with members of the community in January and February.
In all, staff, PAMF and SummerHill have met four times with the community, including two
outreach group meetings in January, a meeting with the general membership of the
University South Neighborhood Group on January 27, a meeting with the SOFA Working
Group on February 8th, and several meetings with individual members of the community.
A representative of the working Group will be present at the Council meeting to present their
comments and recommendations.
In addition, the Planning Commission held a public meeting on January 26th to receive a
status report from staff as well as public testimony, and on February 9th to discuss the key
issues as a Commission. Attachment G is a staff summary of the Commission discussion. A
Planning Commissioner will present at the Council meeting to present their comments and
recommendations.
Staff is also working .with consultants to analyze the elements of the community
development of the PAMF properties. The analysis of those elements include the following:
Working with the architectural firm of Stoecker and Northway, Architects, and structural
engineers Rinne & Perteson to prepare a feasibility analysis of the structural retrofit and
rehabilitation of the Roth Building
Working with the Dahlin Group, Architects, and Michael Garavaglia, Architect, who are
analyzing the affordable housing project, including two historic houses that are at that
location.
Working with the Department of Community Services and Dillingham & Associates,
Landscape Architects, in preparing an analysis of the two-acre park altematives; (1) along
Homer Avenue, and (2) along Waverley Street.
CMR: 147:00 Page 3 of 16
The development of a Final SOFA CAP for Phase 1, and resulting DA for the PAMF
properties, has made considerable progress since the December City Council meetings. City
staff and SummerHill have maintained a dialogue with the neighborhood, SummerHill has
responded to City Council direction and neighborhood concerns, and the City staff is
continuing to develop the community elements of the plan.
DISCUSSION .....................
South of Forest Consolidated Area Plan
The main issues that staff is asking direction from the Council consist of the following:
¯ The type of housing and densities that shall be developed in the SOFA CAP and PAMF
redevelopment sites within the SOFA CAP Phase I.
¯ The provision for mixed-use development on specific sites in the AMF zone.
- The direction for "community development projects" within the SOFA CAP, including
a two-acre neighborhood park, the Roth Building, affordable housing, and a child care
centers.
Afinancing package and payment of up-front costs.
Insofar as the redevelopment of the PAMF properties represent the largest implementation
element for the SOFA CAP Phase I, the issues above are directly related to the DA between
the City and PAMF. Therefore, the direction that is necessary from the City Council on
these issues involves the development proposal by SummerHill for the PAMF properties.
Specifically, the PAMF Blocks of A, B and C should be the main focus by the City Council,
as discussed below. Where all of the blocks are inter-related as development; and thus
action on one can affect another, staff will frame those connections in the discussion.
Block A:
The SOFA CAP recommends a land use of Attached Multi-Family Housing (AMF) at 30-50
units per acre. Policies within the, SOFA CAP further provide for increased residential
densities, minimum and maximum densities for new development, and that housing types
in the plan area should include a range of densities.
In December, City Council directed staff that the AMF designation shall not exceed a FAR
of 1.5. Staff supports this density ratio for all AMF zones, which includes the development
proposal by SummerHill Homes on Block A (see attached Attachment B).
SummerHill is proposing development on Block A that will consist of the preservation of
the Victorian structure at 737 Bryant Street and rehabilitation and its continued use as
office. As an existing office use, this rehabilitation would be permitted as a non-
conforming use in the AMF designation.
CMR:147:00 Page 4 of 16
The proposal for the remaining two parcels on Block A involves the demolition of the
existing structures and development of residential condominiums for approximately 30 units
on approximately 0.77acres, with three- and four-story structures stepping back from the
street. The proposal includes 4 four-story units and a FAR of approximatelY 1.8 which
would be above the AMF. requirement. SummerHill has proposed the four-story units in
response to the housing changes being recommended for Block B. Essentially, the
developer is ,seeking~to,.recover some.o£.the total.dwelling~units it.fcels_,are necessary to
make the DA work for dedication of land.
At their meeting of February 9th , the Planning Commission discussed the issue of the
FAR exceeding the 1.5 requirement. In support of the proposal tO maintain the dwelling
proposed by SummerHill, the Commission recommended that staff analyze the concept of
combining the lot for the Victorian office with the new contiguous lot created for the
housing and calculating an overall FAR that may achieve the 1.5 maximum. Staffand the
developer have calculated that an overall FAR 1.5 can be achieved with this method. This
will reduce the density from 1.8 on one of the parcels to 1.5 on two contiguous parcels.
Staff is recommending that an amendment to the AMF designation be added to the SOFA
CAP to provide for FAR’s not to exceed 1.5 on two contiguous lots when part of a single
development proposal. Staff can then support the SummerHill proposal on Block A with
this amendment.
Staff is recommending that the development for this Block A comply with the 1.5 FAR,
using ~the contiguous parcels for. determination. Staff remains concerned that the added
fourth story units may overintensify the development: Sensitivity to the interface with the
American Heritage Museum, Homer Avenue and Bryant Street support this position. The
project would be’subject to ARB/HRB design review.
Block B
The June 1999 Working Group SOFA Plan proposed that Block B be designated for two
land uses: (1) AMF designation on approximately 2.59 acres, including the Roth building
for office use, and (2) Public Facilities PF designation for a public park along the Waverley
Street alignment (Attachments C and D).
The Block B land use has been the subject of extensive analysis, discussion, and meetings
with the community and commissions.. The staff from both Planning Department and
Community Services Department have worked with SummerHill Homes and the
neighborhood to achieve the best land use scenario for the block and follow the direction
of the City Council.
CMR:147:00 Page 5 of 16
The Council directed staff to coordinate with SummerHill, and through neighborhood
outreach to: (1) assess the options for reducing the size and mass of the Block B AMF
buildings; (2) ensure that the new development is compatible with the neighborhood;
(3) ensure that the 1.5 FAR is not exceeded, (4) provide a two-acre park, either along
Homer Avenue or Waverley Street, and (4) designate the Roth Building for a public facility.
SummerHill Homes has produced.several~altemative.development coocepts, including site
plan alternatives, design and elevation alternatives and models in order to address the
Council, community and staff concerns about massing and housing types that will be
introduced into this area. The proposals included a new design for an AMF development
along Channing Street, significantly reducing the scale on the Waverley Street frontage.
Attachment C demonstrates the transition of the Block B land pattern to the
recommendation contained in this report.
o The June, 1999 Working Group Draft plan (Base Plan)," introduced the AMF, (attached
multi-family), land use designation and density to Block B. This initiated the transition
of higher density and new housing types east of Bryant Street. The park alignment was
along Waverley Street. The Roth Building was considered to be part of a private
development.
The December 1999 Draft Plan was the result of staff discussions with PAMF and
SummerHill to consider the City’s acquisition of the Roth Building for City and public
use. The reorientation of the park along Homer Avenue to align with the Roth Building
was a result of this new approach for the Roth Building. The AMF designation resulting
from this also created a better site opportunity for design of attached unit development.
At this juncture the City Council responded with their direction in December to address
.FAR, mass, scale, and architecture and neighborhood compatibility. The developer
responded with a reduction in scale along Waverley Street and more architectural
compatibility with the area. However, it was still felt that a block long massing of
condominiums was too much of an intrusion into this block and adjacent single family
neighborhood. A midblock "mews" from Channing Street to the Homer Avenue park
was also introduced, creating a new linkage to neighborhoods that the Waverley Street
alignment did not have.
The February, 2000 Recommended Draft Plan represents the result of all of the
discussions regarding the massing transition from single family along Waverley and
Channing Streets west to Alma Street, (SOFA II). The analysis of the park along Homer
Avenue was also determined to be the stronger alternative. It opened axes to the
neighborhoods surrounding the block.
All of these development scenarios affected, through different combinations, the interface
with the existing community, the dedication/acquisition formula for park and City Below
Market Rate (BMR) housing development, and the goals to provide more housing through
CMR: 147:00 Page 6 of 16
the SOFA CAP. To meet the goals of the City. Council and Planning Commission, the
recommendation is to change the SOFA Plan designation for Block B to approximately one
acre of DHS and one acre of AMF (Attachment B). This results in a SummerHill proposal
of approximately 56 units consisting of 10 single family residences with 10 carriage units
on the DHS designation and approximately 36 condominium units, with 4 four-story units,
on the AMF designation. The DHS development will meet the City’s Compatibility
Guidelines..The .AMF,,.proposal will meet,.~the, FAK 1,.5and-the.~underground parking
structure will have the podium (daylight) reduced from five to three feet and screened from
the street (City Council direction).
In concert with the SummerHill alternatives, staff is also continuing to work with two
architectural firms to analyze the park alignment and Roth Building. The park analysis
being done by Dillingham & Associates and the Community Services Department looks at
the two park alignments. With the recommended land use for residential on the block and
potential interface with the Roth Building as a public facility, the staff recommendation is
to align the park along Homer Avenue. Staff is also working with Stoecker and Northway,
Architects to develop a feasibility analysis for the structural retrofit and reuse of the Roth
Building for a public facility. Since the analysis of these areas is in progress, staff will
provide an update at the City Council meeting.
Staff is recommending the new residential designations on Block B of DHS/AMF because
it represents the optimum solution to the goals of SOFA CAP, the community and the City
Council direction in December. Those are as follows:
The introduction of the DHS designation mitigates the introduction of the new
housing mass and scale at the westerly portion of the block with the existing single
family residences. The transition of DHS to AMF achieves the goal for
neighborhood compatibility, appropriate massing and creation of distinctive
architectural styles.
The AMF further transitions the housing type toward Alma Street and is
compatible with the proposed multi-family affordable housing development
proposed for Block C.
The two acre park remains on the block and creates stronger linkages to all of the
surrounding neighborhoods and the Roth Building. The introduction of a public
mews between the AMF and DHS adds to this dimension.
The total residential unit counts for the goals of SOFA CAP Phase I can still be
achieved and the units for the SummerHill proposal (combined with the other
PAMF development sites) remains within the range needed to secure a 1.6-acre
dedication from SHH for the park and BMR site.
CMR: 147:00 Page 7 of 16
¯ At its meeting of February 8, 2000, the Working Group discussed its final recommendation
for the SOFA CAP Phase I Land Use Plan, and by consensus, supports the changes to the
plan as described in this report and shown on Attachment E.
Block C
The current-SOFA.~CAP,,~,calls, for,,the,..Block C land,~use,,designation to be AMF, with a
development scenario for a mixed-use development of office and residential on
approximately 0.77 acres and a affordable housing development on approximately 1.23 acres
(Attachment B).
Staff is recommending ~that the SOFA CAP be amended so that the land use designation
would remain AMF with the new addition of a mixed use overlay on the 0.77 acre
development site (Attachment B). This will allow for the deletion of the mixed-use as
conditional use in the AMF, and disencumber the mixed-use ~om all of the AMF properties,
except where it is proposed as part of the development agreement.
The mixed-use overlay is a distinct element of the SummerHill development and proposed
DA with the City and PAMF. The development scenario involves three historic structures.
The two Victorian residential structures at 802/804 and 806 Bryant Street would be relocated
to new single family site on Bryant Street at Channing Street, (Block D), and rehabilitated
for single family residences. The remaining historic structures, the French Laundry and AME
Zion Church would remain and be rehabilitated for adaptive reuse as part of the mixed-use
development, with a total of approximately 30,000 square feet of office and three residential
units. All mo,difications to the historic buildings shall be in substantial compliance with the
Secretary of the Interior Standards for Rehabilitation and which will be used as a guide for
the developer and design review process. The proposal presented by the developer may
require modifications to meet the standards.
The project would not exceed the 1.5 FAR and would have a review process involving both
the HRB and ARB to ensure neighborhood compatibility, appropriate massing and
architecture, while maintaining the historic resources at National Register quality. The
proposal would meet the required parking standards with two levels of underground parking.
The developer has also committed to making the parking available to the public on evenings
and weekends.
The PAMF-owned properties on the remaining portion of Block C provide an opportunity
for the development of an affordable housing project. The SOFA CAP housing policies call
for increased residential densities, including additional lower cost rental housing; and that
housing types in the plan area that include a range of densities suitable for various ages,
household sizes, lifestyles and incomes. The expansion of affordable housing is a goal of the
SOFA CAP as well as citywide.
CMR:147:00 Page 8 of 16
Council direction was to provide, through dedication and acquisition, for a 1.23acre
affordable housing site. The DA with PAMF will be the implementation tool for the SOFA
CAP hous~g policies as well as meeting the Council direction. The site on Block C proposed
for affordable housing is in the AMF designation. The site contains four existing structures;
a former PAMF medical building, a duplex of no historic significance, and two historic
houses
Staff has been working with two consulting architects and the Palo Alto Housing Corporation
(PAHC) to explore the potential housing development. Based on this analysis, staff has
developed a conceptual development scenario for affordable housing that could achieve the
objectives of the SOFA CAP, Planning Commission and City Council direction.
As part of the DA, the existing medical building and duplex would be demolished,, leaving
the two historic houses. The houses were historically multi-family boarding houses. The
preservation of the structures is a goal of the development scenario. However, their location
on the site creates an inherent conflict for an efficient housing development that can deliver
th~ optimum number of affordable housing units.
Through design analysis of the historic houses and the site, the conceptual plan would
provide for the SummerHill Homes to move, with the cost bome by the City, the 846 Bryant
Street house to Block D, along with the other two houses from the mixed-use development,
and development of a single family use. The other historic house on the site, 840 Bryant
Street, would also be relocated on Block C, adjacent to the AME Zion Church. This affords
two opportunities: (1) the creation of a much more efficient site for multi-family housing
development, and (2) a better interface for the relocated house, adjacent to the AME Zion
Church and across Ramona Street from two recently renovated houses; in effect, creating a
small historic enclave.
The resulting vacant site, a square parcel, creates a stronger development opportunityl It
would provide for underground parking with preservation of the protected oak tree on-site.
The underground parking structure affords the construction of a multi-unit family affordable
housing project. The conceptual analysis has determined that the site can support
approximately 44 family units, with 40 of them having two and three bedrooms. The project
conforms to the AMF designation, meets the parking requirements (with 3-foot "daylight"
podium, parking, two and three stories at a FAR of 1.06. Finally, it also provides flexibility
for using the historic house on-site as part of the overall development of the block.
CMR:147:00 Page 9 of 16
BLOCKS D,E, and F
These blocks consist of the development of single family structures under the DHS
designation. The existing surface parking lots and structures will be removed and new
construction as well as the relocation of the historic structures will be developed. Two
existing residential structures will remain on Block D as part of the development. The houses
will be developed in. con~forrpapce ~with,t.~e~.City,~s Co~pa~tibili,ty Gu!.de~ !ines.. .....
SummerHill Homes is proposing to develop these sites for single family homes, some with
carriage units, in conformance with the DHS requirements. The houses would have detached
garages and some would have common driveways, with easements for access. Three historic
houses; 802/804, 806, and 846 Bryant Street would be relocated to new sites on Bryant Street
in Block D.
The result of these three new blocks.is further strengthened by the proposed AMF/DHS
designations on Block B. In effect, the new DHS (single family) on Blocks D, E and F would
be anchored by the easterly quadrant of new DHS on Block B, creating an "arc" that
transitions to the residential neighborhood to the east and south. Diametrically, and in
concert, the AMF quadrant on Block B anchors a similar "arc" of higher density to the west
and north towards Alma Street and the Downtown. The Homer Avenue Park and mid-block
mews establish the open space axes connecting the mix of new and existing residential
elements (Attachment E).
Block G
Block G is approximately 0.28 acres, will be developed for a childcare center. Staff is
currently working with a potential developer and operator for Block G.
Summary
The SOFA CAP calls for the provision of up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout
the Plan Area, with residential use as the predominant land use for the former PAMF
properties, and as much as One third of the 300 housing units developed in the SOFA Phase
I area. A preliminary analysis shows the potential for the SOFA Phase II to provide between
180 to 220 new housing units. However, the time frame for the buildout of SOFA Phase II
will be much longer than the implementation of SOFA Phase I through the City/PAMF
Development Agreement.
The potential housing unit yield through the recommended revised SOFA Phase I Land Use
Plan, and implementation through the City/PAMF DA is approximately 134 housing units,
with the potential for an additional 22 carriage units. This achieves the one-third of the total
housing goal of the entire SOFA CAP. The housing goals for increased housing densities,
CMR: 147:00 Page 10 of 16
mix of housing types, expanding affordable housing, ownership and rental and preservation
of historic houses can also be met.
Through SOFA Phase I, the housing units have the potential to provide approximately 27
single family units (17 percent); 64 attached multi-family units (41 percent); 22 carriage units
(14 percent); and 43 affordable units (27 percent).
The adoption ......." ........" ..........................¯’ ’and ~mplementat~on of the SOFA Plan~Phase I representff’~i ~ignificant public
investment to the community. While much of the discussion to date has been of the private
development of the PAMF properties within SOFA, it is important to identify the community
development that can be achieved through the implementation of the Development
Agreement in the SOFA CAP.
Of the total PAMF "project area" currently under discussion, 40 percent of the land would
be development for community benefit. Considering the location and market value of the
properties, this represents a significant investment by the City to develop a public/private
partnership including the following:
two-acre neighborhood park.
The development of 40-45 family affordable housing units.
Preservation of the historic Roth Building and rehabilitation for public accessibility.
Development of a child care center.
Preservation, through adaptive reuse, of vacant historic structures; five historic houses,
the French Laundry Building, the AME Zion Church, and preservation of significant
Oaks trees.
The introduction of a developer with a Specific development plan during the course of
preparing a Final SOFA CAP presents both opportunities and obstacles. The ability to "test"
the implementation of a land use plan, at this early stage, will ultimately lead to a better plan.
Market conditions, development costs, and community input on a specific development
proposal provides for both the staff and City Council to make decisions, and weigh priorities
within the formation phase of the plan.
The obstacles presented are the inherent problems of coordination in applying a draft plan
to a specific development proposal and navigating community, developer, commission, and
board and council responses to both, almost simultaneously. Delivering a successful final
plan and negotiating a development agreement based on that plan is the challenge for the
SOFA CAP and CityiPAMF agreement.
CMR:147:00 Page 11 of 16
RESOURCE IMPACT
Within Phase I of the SOFA CAP, the staff is recommending three acquisitions for public
purpose. Each of the three has different purposes and fmancial implications for the City. In
addition to the land acquisitions by the City, SummerHill Homes (SHH) has agreed to
dedicate 1.6 acres of land for public purposes, with 0.5 acre assigned to meeting its BMR
requirement and 1.114 acres (1 acre dedicated fee simple and .114 acre on a 66-year lease)
for a neighborhood park. The acquisition and dedication would result ir~ a 2.0-acre park, a
0.41-acre public facility (Roth Building), and a 1.23-acre affordable housing site (40-45
units). The following table graphically shows this breakdown and its fmancial implications.
The costs are for land acquisition only and do not include the cost of park improvements,
building restoration, or preparing the site for affordable housing.
Size (acres)Approximate
Cost to CPA
mo Block C -- Affordable Housing
a. SHH Dedicated
b. City of Pal¯ Alto (CPA) Acquire
Subtotal
B. Block B -- Park
a. SHH Dedication
- Fee Simple
- Lease
b. CPA Purchase
.5O 0
.73 $3,486,400
1.23 $3,486,400
1.0 0
¯ 114’$324,000
¯ 886 $4,231,500
Subtotal 2.0 $4,555,500
Block B -- Roth Building
a. SHH Dedication 0 0
b. CPA Purchase .41 ~$1,958,100
Subtotal .41 $1,958,100
3.64 $10,000,000TOTAL
SHH is assigning the lease to the City of Pal¯ Alto at no cost. Lease is for 66 years
at approximately $12,000 a year plus cost of living increases. If the City were to
purchase the property, the present buyout is estimated to be approximately $324,362.
CMR:147:00 Page 12 of 16
The staff is proposing that the land acquisition be paid for by both the General Fund and the
Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund and CDBG. The following chart illustrates this with
some potential long-term funding sources.
¯ ,~Geneml;Fund, Site ......
Up front Long-Term
Cost to Return to Cost to
GEneral.. .......General .....Housing
Fund Fund Fund
Block C -- Affordable Housing $3,486,400
Block B -- Park
Park Impact Fee of $15,000/unit with SOFA
Phase II (200+ units)
Sale of Scott Park (.41 acres subject to voter
approval)
$4,555,000
$3,000,000
$2,000,O00
Block B -- Roth $1,958,100
TOTAL $6,513,6500 $5,000,000 $3,486,400
In addition to the land cost, there will be additional cost to develop the properties. Staff is
preparing a more detailed funding plan, but the cost to improve a two-acre park is$700,000
to $1 million; the Roth Building is estimated to cost $3 to $6 million for the building
restoration, only; and the parking for the building would be placed underground and,
depending on the number of stalls, could be another $1.5 million. Stoecker and Northway,
Architects is preparing a more detailed cost estimate for both the building restoration and
underground parking. The staff is also exploring other’options to providing on-site parking.
To prepare the affordable housing site for development will cost $200,000 for demolition of
the Research Building and $250,000 for SummerHill Homes to move one of the housing
units. The move of the second housing unit will be included as part of the cost of the
affordable housing project.
A variety of other options are available to fund the acquisition and irfiprovement costs.
These alternatives include:
General obligation bonds. The City can approach its citizens for approval of new taxes
for new facilities. With future projects in mind, staff suggests viewing the acquisition
and development of PAMF land within the wider context of other new projects, such as
the Library Master Plan and Public Safety Building.
CMR: 147:00 Page 13 of 16
One-time Real Property Transfer Tax. The CAP Ordinance requires Council to consider
fiscal impacts. Staff notes that the General Fund will be positively impacted by the real
property transfer tax generated by the sale from PAMF to SummerHill Homes and from
SummerHill Homes to future homeowners. Staff estimates this one-time amount to be
about $500,000.
Tax revenue. ~Staff, has-had.the.SOFA CAP.fiscal analysis .updated.°, It now shows the
project will result in an after-expense, positive annual income to the City of about
$50,000 per year.
¯Transfer of Development Rights ~DR). Staff is analyzing the potential to develop TDR’s
for implementation within the SOFA CAP and the ability for use in the downtown.
State bonds or grants. From time to time, state bonds and grant funding may be available
for the acquisition and improvement of parkland, but these sources are in short supply.
Recent legislative approvals include the passage of Assembly Bill 18 (Clean Water,
Clean Air, Coastal Protection and Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond Act), that places a $2.1
billion bond measure on the March 2000 ballot to finance state ’and local park and
resource improvement. This bill could grant Palo Alto approximately $200,000.
Special tax district (Mello Roos). The City Council may want to consider the feasibility
of a special tax to provide the balance of funding necessary to reimburse the General
Fund for acquisition of the 2.0-acre park. The staff looked at several potential areas for
this assessment district, including a radius of one-eighth, one-quarter and one-half mile
from the SOFA area boundaries. The number of existing residential units in these areas
is 826, 1,464 and 4,705 resPectively. The amount paid by these residents would vary
depending on the negotiated sales price of land acquired, revenue from other funding
sources, and the chosen assessment district boundaries. Further study is needed before
specific staff recommendations can be made. A special tax requires two-thirds approval
of the voters. ’
Staffwould return to Council with a detailed funding plan at a iater date which; unless other
direction was given by City Council, would only include park fees and sale of Scott Park as
the major source of funding for the Park land acquisition.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The SOFA Coordinated Area Plan was prepared as required by Program L-22 of the
Comprehensive Plan, but also relates to many other Comprehensive Plan policies and
programs. Throughout the chapters of the CAP, the relevant sections of the Comprehensive
Plan are referenced in the margins and a complete listing of all the related Comprehensive
Plan policies and programs is contained in Appendix E (volume 2) of the Working Group
Draft Plan.
CMR:147:00 Page 14 of 16
TIMELINE
Following City Council review and direction, the first reading of the SOFA Coordinated
Area Plan is scheduled for March 20, 2000.
If the City Council directs staff to prepare a development agreement, the Planning
Commission.will review the draft in early.March. ~Following Planning Commission review,
the City Council would hold the first reading on the implementation ordinance and the
development agreement on March 20, 2000, with the second reading tentatively scheduled
for April 2000.
Following City Council adoption, the following next steps would take place:
1. Within a month of final Council action
¯File Notice of Determination on the FEIR.
¯Set up EIR mitigation measures included in final Plan and monitoring program.
o Phase II commences.
°Development agreement between City, PAMF and Summerhill Homes completed.
2.Within 6 months of Council Action
¯Enabling ordinance for fee schedule and application forms for Coordinated
Development Permit created.
°Report to City Council on a financing package for land acquisitions in SOFA.
°RFP for Affordable Housing Development prepared.
°RFP for park design and improvements prepared.
°Phase II completed and public hearings conducted.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the Draft Plan, and
distributed in December 1998. A public hearing on the DEIR was held and closed on March
10, 1999 by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission recommended that the
DEIR be certified as adequate, having analyzed all potential impacts in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The public comment period on the DEIR
ended on March 26, 1999. A Final EIR was prepared and distributed to City Council
members and other interested parties on November 17, 1999. It included responses to
comments received on the DEIR. The Final EIR will be ~eviewed and certified by the City
Council prior to adoption of the CAP and approval of a Development Agreement.
The DEIR identified two unavoidable impacts - school overcrowding and park funding -
resulting from the CAP. With regard to the impact relating to school overcrowding, recent
CMR:147:00 Page 15 of 16
State legislation has stipulated that school impact fees are full and complete mitigation for
school overcrowding generated by new development. Therefore, the Final EIR has been
amended to delete the unavoidable impact on school overcrowding. The DEIR also
incorrectly identified an unavoidable impact on park funding. This impact should have been
identified as a potential impact on the provision of open space, as the analysis related to the
potential lack of fimding for acquisition of a park. The potential new population in the area
could generate a need.for ~1~93 ~acres.ofgark._. ~The DEIR_identified~ .~ una¥oJdable.irnpact if
this acreage of park was not acquired due to a lack of available funding. However, if the City
Council adopts a plan that would result in a 2.0 acre park, as recommended by staff, no open
space unavoidable impact will result.
PREPARED BY: John Lusardi, Acting Assistant Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~~~
G. EDWARD GAWF [\
Director of Planning andC~mmunity Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B: "
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
SOFA Key Map
Blocks A, B and C; SOFA Plan Land Use Plans
Block B Alternatives
SOFA CAP Existing Draft Plan
SOFA CAP Recommended Revised Draft Plan
City Council December 14, 1999 SOFA direction
Planning commission February 9, 2000 Draft minutes.
CC.SOFA Working Group
SOFA Interested Parties
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
Public Arts Commission
CMR:147:00 Page 16 of 16
’--4
|
Kiplinq St H
Wavedey St
Sco~ St
Emerson St
High St ~
Alma St
SOFA Key
North
Blocks and Parcels Included in the Proposed Development Agreement
D \Gloda D\Sofa\Wb021400StaffRptExhibltSofaKeyMap ai February 14, 2000
Proposed Specific Land Use / Zoning Designations
Waverley St
RNIo40 ~F
Wavedey St
Bryant St
DHS
This building to
remain an office
use
Roth building to
be public facility
Bryant St
SOFA Key
Affordable
Housing Project
Ramona St
Description of Proposed Specific Land Use / Zoning Designations
~D etached Single Family Housing on Small Lots (8-20 units/acre)
Attached Multiple-Family Housing (30-50 units/acre)
~Mixed-Use Overlay on top of Attached Multiple-Family Housing
Public Facilities
D:\Gloda D\Sofa\Wb021400St affRptExhlbltRevisedDra ftPlan BlocksABC,al February 14, 2000
Proposed Specific Land Use / Zoning Designations
..]]1 ........... II II I!,’_]L_JL__JLJ~
SOFA Key
Waverley St Waverley St Waverley St
Bryant St Bryant St Bryant St
DHS
June 1999
Working Group
Draft Plan
December 1999
Existing
Draft Plan
February 2000
Recommended
Revised
Draft Plan
Description of Proposed Specific Land Use / Zoning Designations
~-~ Detached Single Family Housing on Small Lots(8-20 units/acre)
Attached Multiple-Family Housing (30-50 units/acre)
Public Facilities
D \Glona D\Sofa\Wb021400StaffRptExhlb~RevisedDraftPianB~ocksABC al February 14, 2000
Proposed Specific Land Use / Zoning Designations
Phase 1
Phase 2
Waverley St
SOFA Key
North
Description of Proposed Specific Land Use / Zoning Designations
~-~ Detached Single Family Housing on Small Lots (8-20units/acre)
Attached Multiple-Family Housing (30-50 units/acre)
Public Facilities
D.\Gloda D\Sofa\Wb021400StaffRptExhlbltExisl~ngDraflPlan ai February 14, 2000
H
H
|
|
H
|
|
H
H
H
H
H
H
Phase 1
Phase 2
Proposed Specific Land Use / Zoning Designations
DHS
Waverley St
SOFA Key
North
Description of Proposed Specific Land Use/Zoning Designations
~-~-~Detached Single Family Housing on Small Lots (8-20 units/acre)
Attached Multiple-Family Housing (30-50 units/acre)
Mixed-Use Overlay on top of Attached Multiple-Family Housing
Public Facilities
D:\Glorla D\Sofa\WbLayoutCouncllPkgSofaCapPhasel al February 14, 2000
ATTACHMENT F City Manager’s Report SOFA CAP
ADOPTED DIRECTION BY CITY COUNCIL, DECEMBER 14, 1999
1.Direct staff to continue working with SummerHill Homes on their proposed
implementation of the SOFA CAP in order to address the following concems:
Assess the options for reducing the size and mass of the Block B AMF buildings,
and improving their design to be complementary to the Professorville
neighborhood.
Request that SummerHill Homes, subject to independent review by staff, prepare
graphics and models describing Block B structures and DHS prototypes to be
included in the CAP, including massing models for proposed and existing
structures.
-The FAR 1 ~5:1 shall not be exceeded.
-Staff to explore financial feasibility of full underground p~king, not podium
parking.
2.Staff’s coordination with SummerHill should include neighborhood outreach and
participation.
Direct staff to prepare a draft implementation ordinance for future consideration by
Council. The ordinance should adopt the staff-recommended SOFA Coordinated Area
Plan (CAP) which would include the following:
A. Policies and Programs of the Plan as identified in Chapter III for Phase I.
B. Land use designations including:
A 2.0-acre neighborhood park located either along Homer Avenue between
Bryant and .Waverley Street, or along Waverley between Homer and
Channing Avenues.
Acquisition of the 0.41-acre Roth Building and site as a public facility.
-Provision of up to a 1.23-acre site for affordable housing.
-0.29 acre-site for a child care center; and
-Land use designations, development standards and design guidelines for
Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS).
C.Maintain the current circulation pattern on Homer and Channing Avenues and
continue to explore solutions to calm traffic that could include conversion to two-
way, narrowing of the traffic lanes, bulb outs, or other measures.
City of Palo Alto
D. Pursue an under-crossing of the CalTrain tracks at Homer Avenue.
E. Maintain the historic resources in SOFA by requiring design review for all new
development to ensure neighborhood compatibility, appropriate massing and
creation of distinctive architectural styles. These processes also include an
exception and amendment procedure.
F._ Separate all CAP Phase II items for later review and study.
G. SOFA review processes detailed in the CAP requiring design review for all new
development to ensure neighborhood compatibility, appropriate massing and
creation of distinctive architectural styles. These processes also include and
exception and amendment procedure.
H. Have working group/neighborhood to consider and advise on how to develop
Scott Park, if sold.
o Continue to pursue City participation in the implementation of the SOFA CAP by:
Acquisition of 1.41 acres of land for the creation of a 2.41-acre park and public
facility, including the Roth Building.
Acquisition of 0.63 acres of land for the creation of a 1.23-acre affordable
housing site. ~
Direct staff to develop a specific financing package, including the sale of Scott Park,
for land acquisition in SOFA, including a Budget Amendment Ordinance for up-front
costs, which would include the acquisition, development and maintenance costs of the
park and Roth Building.
1 Direct staff to prepare a draft Development Agreement incorporating the SummerHill
Homes proposal and dedication of 1.6 acres of land for public use, andtaking the
actions necessary to implement the financing package.
°Prepare a draft Resolution certifying the Final EIR and making environmental
findings. Because we intend to address park needs, there is no need for a statement of
overriding considerations.
City of Palo Alto 2
ATTACHMENT G: City Manager’s Report - SOFA CAP
Draft
Planning Commission Meeting
Excerpt Minutes
February 9, 2000
5:00 P.M.
City Council Chambers
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
Commissioners: ,J
Kathy Schmidt, Chairman
Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair,
Owen Byrd
Patrick Burt
Phyllis Cassel
Staff:
Ed Gawf, Director
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
John Lusardi, Acting Asst. Planning Official
Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attomey
Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary
The Commission separated their discussion between the SOFA Plan and the SummerHill
Proposal
SOFA PLAN REVIEW
The Planning Commission was provided with maps of the proposed SOFA Plan that the
SOFA Working Group endorsed on February 8, 2000. The proposed SOFA Plan that was
agreed upon by the SOFA Working group is Attachment E of the Council Report (2/14/00)
- the park alignment is along Homer Avenue, the DHS land use designation is at the comer
of Waverley and Channing, the AMF land use designation is at the comer of Bryant and
Channing; with new mixed use overlay on
Block C.
Park:
Commission Consensus:
The Commission strongly supported the development of a two-acre park, as well as the
design and orientation along Homer Avenue. Furthermore, the Mews between DHS and
AMF adds a good axis to the neighborhood. The park should be an active area for the
residents. The SOFA residents should be giventhe opportunity to be involved in developing
the function of the park, (as did the residents of north Palo Alto for Lincoln Park).
Commissioner Comments-Individual:
Addressing the sale of Scott Park, the individual Commissioners had different positions.
Those in favor of the sale of Scott Park commented that it would aid in the finance of the
new two-acre park on Block B. Considering that the usage of Scott Park is low, the sale
Planning Commission Meeting, February 9, 2000 1
would be beneficial to provide funds for a park with greater use capabilities due to its size.
The Commissioners in opposition to the sale of Scott Park stated that it provides a transition
zone and is valued by its neighbors. Also, the sale may not be necessary consideringthe
high residential density of Phase 2 that could offset the need to sell Scott Park through Park
Fees.
Also, there is a concern that the Roth Building should not subtract from the two-acres
dedicated to park space.
Ho lis ~B g :
Commission Consensus:
The Commission was in strong support of the mix of housing in the SOFA Plan. The
Commission supports the plan regarding relocation of historic houses, which in turn
provides a strong site for the affordable housing. Incorporating affordable housing into the
Plan is great opportunity for the area. The Commission’s support of the DHS land use
designation on Block B, was increased with the inclusion of the carriage units. The
Commission supported an incentive or requirement to ensure the inclusion of carriage units.
Commissioner Comments-Individual:
In relation to the land use designations of the SOFA Plan, a Commissioner mentioned that
keeping all AMF land use designations on Block B would have been preferable.
Furthermore, one Commissioner stated that all AMF on Block B may work with a reduced
FAR to 1.0.
Mixed-use Overlay:
Commission Consensus:
The Commission supported the mixed-use overlay because its function is favorable to the
area. The developer’s two levels of below-ground parking supports the project’s proposal to
make parking available to the public and other offices in the area. In addition, the
Commission was in favor of the relocation of two houses to single family use, and creating a
better development site.
Roth Building and Historic Buildings:
Commission Consensus:
There was strong support for the public redevelopment of the Roth Building with the park
and for the rehabilitation of the AME Zion Church for an adaptive reuse.
SUMMERHILL PLAN REVIEW
Block A:
Commission Consensus:
The Commission supported the SummerHill AMF development and the rehabilitation of the
Victorian structure for office use.
Planning Commission Meeting, February 9, 2000 2
Commissioner Comments-Individual:
In general, the comments regarding Block A referred to the size of the site. There was
concern that the FAR is too high with the addition of the four 4th story units; the FAR is
1.85 and the AMF maximum of 1.5. The additional 10,000 sq. ft from the four 4th story units
creates the increased FAR. One Commissiorier suggested reducing the FAR to at least 1.75,
while another stated that the unit sizes of 2,500 sq. it could be reduced to increase unit yield.
In response to the concern about FAR, a Commissioner confirmed with SummerHill that the
fourth story units would be located at the rear and interior of the site so that the massing
appearance would be reduced and there would also not be a visual impact on American
Heritage Museum. The four 4th story units are added by SummerHill due to the decreased
number of units on Block B; the total number of units on Block A is thirty.
To reduce the FAR of 1.85, Commissioners suggested combining the FAR. of the
Condominium development with the Victorian office; this may result in an overall FAR
below the 1.85.
Block B
Commission Consensus:
The Commission agreed that carriage units should be either required or included as an
incentive on DHS.
Commissioner Comments-Individual:
There was concern about parking availability for DHS single family homes. It should not be
below 3 cars, when carriage units are included.
Blocks C
Commission Consensus:
There is support in moving residential structures to create a strong affordable housing
development site and mixed-use development. The Commission supported the mixed-use
development, although there was some preference for increasing the number of residential
units.
Blocks D, E, F
Commission Consensus:
The Commission was in favor of the DHS on the blocks; it is appropriate for the
neighborhood.
Block G:
Commission Consensus:
The Commission was in favor of the Child Care Center. The center is a needed addition to
the area and city.
Planning Commission Meeting, February 9, 2000 3