Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2000-03-27 City Council (15)City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report 14 TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE:MARCH 27, 2000 CMR:192:00 SUBJECT:(1)SOUTH OF FOREST COORDINATED AREA PLAN - Phase I (2)RESOLUTION AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (3)RESOLUTION MAKING CEQA FINDINGS (4)DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AND THE PALO ALTO MEDICAL FOUNDATION REPORT IN BRIEF This report addresses the final elements and modifications to the South of Forest Consolidated Area Plan (SOFA CAP) for Phase I, the area east of Ramona Street. The SOFA CAP is intended to include policies, development standards and design guidelines that will guide public and private development as part of.the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. This report also addresses the review of the proposed Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. The agreement provides for entitlements, obligations, and conveyance of certain properties for private and public development in conformance with the adopted SOFA CAP phase I. The term of the Development Agreement is ten years. RECOMMENDATION Staffrecommends that the City Council: m Adopt a Resolution certifying that the Final Environmental Impact Report for the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) is complete and making certain findings in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); Adopt the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan - Phase I; CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 1 of 15 Amend the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the Land Use Map designation for the SOFA Plan area to "South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan", and including mixed use portion in the downtown and citywide caps. Approve the Development Agreement (DA) between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). BACKGROUND: The purpose of this report is to forward the recommendations for the final SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Phase I, a Development Agreement for the public and private development of the properties owned by PAMF, and discuss issues as they relate to the implementation of the SOFA CAP and Development Agreement. The staff-recommended CAP includes the SOFA Working Group draft incorporating the City Council direction of February 15, 2000, and various boards and commissions. The CAP includes a wide range of policies and programs that will be applicable to the area and guide the future development and re-development of properties in SOFA. A major impetus behind development of the Plan was the relocation of the PAMF from the SOFA area to its new facilities on E1 Camino Real. In concert with the development of the SOFA CAP, the City staff has been working with PAMF and SummerHill Homes and Premier Properties Limited on the re-development of the PAMF-owned and leased properties, consisting of approximately 10 acres. This has included meetings and input with the Working Group and community. SummerHill Homes has developed a proposal for residential and commercial development on approximately 6 acres: 4.9 for residential and 1.1 for mixed-use commercial/residential. The City, through dedication and purchase, is proposing the development of a community park, public facilities and affordable housing on approximately 4 acres. On February 14 and 15, 2000, the Council held a public hearing to provide for public testimony regarding the proposed SOFA CAP and development of the PAMF properties. At the meeting of February 15, 2000, the Council provided staff with direction regarding the two areas described above. A summary of the direction follows: 1.Council supported the SOFA CAP land use designations for the main block of the 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); CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 2 of 15 d.Attached Multiple Family (AMF) on approximately one acre on the southwest quadrant of the block (36 units with a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not to exceed 1.5). e. Explore the options of removing or reducing 4th floor units on Block B AMF. Council supported a mixed-use overlay in the AMF Zone on approximately 0.70 acres on the northern portion of Block C. The Homer Avenue office development should include designs to create articulation and eliminate the massing in order to appear as one building. o Council supported 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. Council directed staff to continue to pursue participation in the implementation of the SOFA CAP by: a. Acquisition of 1.41 acres of land for the creation of a 2.41 acre park and public facility, including the Roth Building; b. Acquisition of 0.63 acres of land for the creation of a 1.23 acre affordable housing site; c. Provision of a 0.29 acre site for a child care center; d. Pursuit of an under-crossing of the CalTrain tracks at Homer Avenue. ~ 5. Council directed staff to prepare a Final SOFA CAP (Phase I) for City Council adoption. 6.Council directed staff to develop a specific financing package for land acquisition in SOFA, including: a. Remove sale of Scott Park from SOFA CAP and financing package. b. Establish park fees in the SOFA CAP area. o Council directed staff to prepare a Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto (City) and Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), incorporating the SummerHill Homes proposal and dedication of 1.6 acres of land for public use, and taking actions necessary to implement the financing package. 8.Council directed staff to report and make the necessary environmental findings, as required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). 1 The estimated cost of the undercrossing is $3.2 million. Staff has secured a grant for $2.3 million and the mitigation funds from PAMF and Sheraton projects total $350,00. This leaves an approximate shortfall of $550,000. CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 3 of 15 DISCUSSION Based on the input provided from commissions and boards, public testimony at the City Council, meetings with the community by the staff and developers, and the direction given by the City Council, the staff is prepared to recommend the final elements for the adoption of a South of Forest Consolidated Area Plan Phase I, (CAP). Furthermore, staff is prepared to recommend a Development Agreement (DA) between the City of Palo Alto (City) and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). At its meeting of March 22, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the Draft SOFA CAP and the Development Agreement. The Commission’s comments are summarized in Attachment C. The Commission recommended that the Council adopt the SOFA CAP Phase I and amend the Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan changing the area to South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan, including the mixed use in the Development CAPs. Furthermore, the Commission recommended that the Council approve the Development Agreement between the City and PAMF. The Commission also included in their motion that the historic structure at 840 Bryant Street (affordable housing site) needs to be addressed by the future development for affordable housing so as not to conflict with creating an efficient development site. This report summarizes the issues with regard to the adoption of the Final SOFA Plan and provides staff recommendations regarding those items. This report also describes the elements provided through the Development Agreement between the City and PAMF that will provide for redevelopment of those properties. Attachment B identifies those PAMF-owned and leased properties that are the subject of both the CAP and DA. SOUTH OF FOREST CONSOLIDATED AREA PLAN- Phase I The Phase I area of the SOFA CAP (SOFA I) is shown on the Attachment A and is generally bounded by Forest Avenue, Kipling Street, Addision Avenue and Ramona Street. SOFA CAP has two phases, with the geographical division being approximately Ramona Street. The SOFA I addresses the land use and development for approximately 24 acres. Phase II would include land uses from Ramona Street to Alma Street. Ultimately, the SOFA CAP would provide planning policies, development standards and design guidelines for the entire area. The CAP also specifies the appropriate land use pattern and intensity in the area. CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 4 of 15 Staff is proposing to modify the SOFA I document and land use map to include the specific changes included in the Cciuncils direction from February 15, 2000. The following changes to the SOFA I are proposed: No In Block B (bounded by Homer Avenue to the west, Channing Avenue to the east, Bryant Street to the south, and Waverley Street to the north), amend the land use changes to show: o D Two acre park along the Homer Avenue alignment; Use of the Roth Building as a public facility within the Public Facilities (PF) designation; Detached Houses on Small Lots (DHS) on approximately one acre on the southeast quadrant of the block; Attached Multiple Family (AMF) on approximately one acre on the southwest quadrant of the block. In the AMF Zone, limit development to 1.5 FAR, and where two development parcels are contiguous, they may be combined for calculating the overall FAR. Provision of a mixed-use overlay on an approximately 0.70 acre site fronting on Homer Avenue between Bryant and Ramona Streets. The 0.70 acre site includes two sites, one containing the French laundry building and the other containing the AME Zion Church. Do Replace Figure lll-1 in SOFA I with the Land Use Diagram attached to this report (Attachment A). In addition to the revisions to the SOFA I, the Revised SOFA CAP also contains text revisions necessary to update the document with the City Council direction. Essentially, the changes to SOFA I reflect what was discussed at the Planning Commission meeting of February 9th and Council meeting of February 15, 2000. The most significant change is the final orientation for a two acre park and addition of Detached Single Family (DHS) designation on a portion of Block B. The new mixed-use overlay on Block C basically affirms the same land uses shown in the December SOFA Plan, and removes the possibility of non-residential development through a CUP from the rest of the Attached Multiple Family (AMF) designation. Another revision, reflected in text amendments, is the Council direction to remove the sale of Scott Park as an option for funding the new park space.. Concurrent with the adoption of the SOFA CAP, the City Council will need to amend the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the area to "South of CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 5 of 15 Forest Coordinated Area Plan". Staff is recommending that the Council amend the Comprehensive Plan, with the adoption of the South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan: Phase I. Staff further recommends inclusion of the mixed-use area in the Downtown and Citywide Development CAPs. Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation In concert with the preparation of SOFA I, City staff have been negotiating a development agreement with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF), and its assignees, SummerHill Homes (SHH) and Premier Properties Management (PPM). The Development Agreemem is intended to provide for the redevelopment of the PAMF-owned and leased properties, in conformance with the SOFA CAP. This area represents approximately 10 acres of the 24- acre area plan, and serves as the implementation of the SOFA CAP (Attachment B). The approval of the Development Agreement would represent the culmination of significant efforts on the part of the community, City, PAMF and developers to redevelop the properties to provide for new single family and multi-family housing, professional office with public parking, a neighborhood park and community building, affordable family housing and a child care center. The goal of the Development Agreement has been to construct a private/public partnership that results in 40 percent of the PAMF properties being acquired for community development and eventual dedication. The remaining PAMF properties will be for private development without public funding. All of the City funding would be for future projects that will serve the neighborhood and community. The term of the Development Agreement is ten years. The Development Agreement would provide for PAMF to assign its rights and obligations to SHH and PPM. The implementation of the Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation would provide the following: Block A: ¯The demolition of all structures, except 737 Bryant Street. o The development of approximately 30-34 AMF condominium units on the corner of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue. The development will have four 4th floor units. The development will comply with the AMF development standards and design review by an ARB/HRB process. The FAR for Block A will be 1.5 within the combined two development parcels, including 737 Bryant Street. The Victorian structure at 737 Bryant Street will remain as a nonconforming office use. The annex structure will be removed, and an addition for handicap access will be CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv~cmr\sofa da Page 6 of 15 provided. All development on this site will be in substantial conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, and will go through Architectural Review Board and Historic Resources Board design review (ARB/HRB). Block B The demolition of the Main Clinic Building, including the wing additions to the Roth Building, and the surface parking lot. Preservation of three significant Oak trees. The provision for a two-acre park site along Homer Avenue. SHH would dedicate 1 acre and the City would purchase 1 acre.2 City purchases of the historic Roth Building and site (0.41 acres) for potential development as a public facility or alternative use if a public facility is not feasible. The development of 10 DHS single family homes with 10 carriage units. The development of approximately 36 AMF condominium units, with a FAR of 1.5, in conformance with the AMF designation. Both of the AMF and DHS designations will go through ARB/HRB design review. Block C The demolition of the Research Building, and preservation of the significant oak and fig trees. The demolition of 268 Homer Avenue, and the duplex structure on 830 Bryant Street. The provision of a 1.23 acre site for an affordable housing development. SHH would dedicate .60 acres and the City would purchase .63acres. The Victorian structure at 846 Bryant Street would be relocated by SHH, with funding by the City, to a new site on the 900 block of Bryant Street (Block D) and rehabilitated for single family use. The Victorian structure at 840 Bryant Street will remain for future development with affordable housing. The relocation of two Victorian structures at 804 and 806 Bryant Street and their rehabilitation for single family use on sites on the 900 block of Bryant Street (Block D). With these relocations: 804,806 and 846 will placed adjacent to each other in situ with their current alignment. The rehabilitation of the AME Zion Church for professional office use, with an addition to back of the church. The rehabilitation and addition will be in substantial conformance with the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. This project will be developed in conformance with the development standards in the Mixed Use Overlay in the AMF Zone (MUO/AMF), and will go through ARB/HRB design review. The rehabilitation of the French Laundry Building and through alterations and additions, the development of up to 30,000 square feet of office space and three residential units. 2 The park and open space for SOFA I would total 2.60 acres: 2 acre neighborhood park; 0.43 acre Scott Park; and 0.17 acre public open space/mews. CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 7 of 15 The rehabilitation and addition will be in substantial conformance with the Secretary of Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and would go through ARBiHRB design review. The French Laundry Building development will include an underground parking structure for 120 parking spaces. Sixty parking spaces will be provided for general public parking on weekends and for non-residential use on weekday nights. Blocks D, E and F and H ¯Demolition of the Urgent Care Clinic and all surface parking. ¯The relocation of the three Victorian structures from 804, 806 and 846 Bryant Street (Block C) to the 900 block of Bryant Street on Block D. The structures will be rehabilitated using the Secretary of Interior Standards for Rehabilitation. The rehabilitation of two existing Victorian structures on Channing Street in situ, on Block D, for single family use and using the Secretary of Interior standards. The development of four new additional DHS single family lots on Block D, and seven new DHS lots on Blocks E and F. With the DHS lots, there will also be eight carriage units on Block D and four carriage units on Block E. The DHS development on these blocks will subject to the DHS Development Standards and the City’s Compatibility Guidelines. The development of Block H would be a mixed use project with one single family unit and would be consistent with the existing CD-S zoning. This development will go through the ARB/HRB design review. The Development Agreement further provides for the dedication and purchase, schedules for relocation and properties, and staging for construction. transfer of properties through demolition, temporary use of At its meeting of February 15, 2000, the City Council was explicit in amending the recommendations from staff with three additional directions as follows: Delete the sale of Scott Park as future consideration for funding the development of the new two-acre park. Staff has removed all discussion of this as consideration in the SOFA CAP and financing package. The Homer Avenue MUO/AMF proposal should include design development to create articulation and eliminate massing appearance as one building. The developer, PPM, has committed to achieving this direction. The historic architectural firm of Page and Turnbull has been engaged to provide development review for both the rehabilitation of the French Laundry Building and The AME Zion Church. Also, it is advising the developer on design review for the articulation of the Homer Avenue block face. The developer will create a development consistent with the rhythm of CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 8 of 15 Homer Avenue, proposing three distinct building faces, including the Laundry, and an open courtyard. o This development proposal, as specified in the SOFA CAP and DA, would be subject to design review. Staff and ARB/HRB would continue to address the Council direction for the new building impact’s on the Homer Avenue corridor and area in the design review process. Explore the options of removing or reducing 4th floor units on the Block B AMF development. SHH has analyzed options to achieve this direction. The current proposal would remove all 4th floor units, i.e., units that have direct access on a fourth level. This would also remove 4th floor balconies, walkways, and bridges between buildings. Furthermore, the developer has committed to a development that would meet all of the AMF development standards that have been presented to date, including maximum height, eave height, and daylight plane. This approach would provide architecture consistent with that which has been presented to Commission and Council. This approach would also, through the articulation of peaked roofs within the design, create some 4th floor dormer space that could be used by 3rd floor units. The proposed development, as specified in the SOFA CAP and DA, would be subject to design review by the staff and ARB/HRB. The direction of the Council with respect to the 4th floor element would be addressed at that time. It is the position of the staff that any 4th floor elements would meet the AMF standards, as well as be justified for compatibility, design and architectural standing. The concurrent progression of both the SOFA I and DA has provided the opportunity to develop site specific details that, while contemplated through the policies of the of the Area Plan, are not normally addressed to the level of specificity that a project proposal delivers. RESOURCE IMPACT Within Phase I of the SOFA CAP, the staff is recommending three acquisitions for public purpose. Each has different purposes and financial 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 0.6 acres assigned to meet its BMR requirement and 1.114 (1 acre dedicated fee simple and .114 acre on a 66-year lease) for a neighborhood park. The following is a break down of the dedication and acquisitions for each propose public development: CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 9 of 15 PAMF Blocks Size - Acres Total Value No Block C - Affordable Housing 1. SHH Dedication 2. CPA Purchase Block B - Park 1.SHH Dedication Fee Simple Lease 2. CPA purchase Block B - Roth Building 1. SHH Dedication 2. CPA Purchase 0.600 0 0.630 $3,008,845 1.230 $3,008,845 0.900 0 0.114 $ 324,000 0.986 $ 4,709,055 2.000 $5,033,055 0.000 0 0.410 $1,958,100 0.410 $1,958,100 TOTAL 3.640 $10,000,000 In addition to the site acquisitions described above, the Development Agreement would also include costs to the City in order to deliver the site unencumbered with structures that would be removed for future development. SHH will, in the initial stages of its development, demolish four medical structures on its development parcels and move two Victorian structures. Staff has included these costs in order to facilitate an opportunity to complete the demolition and relocation in one phase and minimize these impacts. 1.Demolition of the Research Building (Block C) by SHH - CPA shall pay SHH an amount not to exceed $250,000 of the demolition, costs. 2.Relocation of 846 Bryant Street (offthe BMR site, Block C) by SHH - CPA shall pay $225,000 to SHH upon relocation of structure. Demolition of Roth Building Wings - CPA, at the City’s option, may pay to SHH for the cost of demolition of the wings in conjunction with the demolition of the Lee Building, on Block B. Costs for demolition are still being developed. CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 10 of 15 The acquisition and dedication would result in a 2.0 acre park, 0.41 acre public facility (Roth building), and 1.23 acre affordable housing site. These costs are for land acquisition only and limited site delivery and do not include the cost of park development, building restoration, and site improvements. In addition to the land cost, there will be additional costs to develop properties. Staff is continuing to analyze these costs. The development costs for a two-acre neighborhood park has been estimated by Dillingham & Associates to be approximately $942, 973 3 for design and construction. The firm of Stoecker and Northway has analyzed the potential costs for structural retrofit of the historic portion of the Roth Building. The estimated cost for structural and architectural retrofit of the building shell is $1,500,000 4. A final report detailing the costs for retrofit will available by April 10, 2000. Staff is proposing that the Affordable Housing, Park and Roth Building land acquisition, demolition and relocation cost be funded from the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve (BSR), the Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund and from Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Acquisition Cost Amount General Fund B SR Commercial Housing In-Lieu Fund $ 6,991,155 $ 3,008,845 $10,000,000 Demolition and Relocation Cost Demolition (General Fund BSR) Relocation (Commercial Housing In-Lieu Funds) Current Requirement $ 250,000 $ 225,000 $ 475,000 $ 10,475,000 3 The cost estimate includes landscaping around the Roth Building, park construction and furniture, demolition of the Parking lot and contingency. It does not include demolition of the Roth Building wings or underground parking. 4 This cost estimate only includes the structural retrofit of the building shell to bring it within current code requirements and architectural finish for exterior walls, windows, etc. It does not include demolition of the wings or tenant improvements for a specific use. CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 11 of 15 General Fund BSR Housing In-Lieu Fund $ 7,241,155 $ 3,233,845 $ 10,475,000 The Housing In-Lieu Fund has sufficient reserves to fund their portion of the acquisition and relocation cost. The General Fund BSR current balance is approximately $20.5 million and is at the Council approved maximum level. Withdrawing $7,241,155 from the BSR will have an impact on the City’s ability to continue funding the General Fund Infrastructure Reserve as well as impacting interest income revenues, by approximately $ 500,000 per year. When the General Fund BSR is below the required level, Council Policy requires that any General Fund surplus first flow into the General Fund BSR. Once the BSR reaches the recommended level the surpluses then fund the Infrastructure Reserve. The Long Range Financial Plan projects a General Fund surplus of approximately $1,000,000 per year. Based upon that projection it will take 7.25 years to once again begin funding the Infrastructure Reserve. Staff has also projected that future revenues in the amount of: Revenues Park Development Fees for SOFA Area (180 units) Transfer of Development Rights Property Transfer Tax $2,700,000 1,500,000 500,000 Total Future Revenues $4,700,000 These future revenues could be utilized to reimburse the General Fund BSR and potentially decrease the time required to bring the BSR to the Council approved level. Staff would return to the Council with a Budget Amendment Ordinance for the second reading on the Ordinance for the Development Agreement. 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 of the related Comprehensive Plan policies and programs is contained in Appendix E (volume 2) of the Draft SOFA Plan. CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 12 of 15 TIMELINE With the Council review and adoption of the SOFA CAP Phase I and Development Agreement, this March 26, 2000 constitutes the first reading of the Ordinances, and certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report. At the second reading, staff will present the Budget Amendment Ordinance for Council approval and the Notice of Determination on the Final EIR. With the completion of Phase I for the SOFA CAP, staff will initiate the development of Phase II, essentially consisting of the area of South of Forest Avenue from Ramona Street to Alma Avenue. The process for the development of Phase II will commence in mid-April, and the following schedule would take place. II. Within one month of Council adoption of Phase I: .Staff will prepare a status report for review by the Working Group. ¯Meet with the Working Group, and develop a work program. ¯Establish a technical committee of Working Group and community members. Schedule a public scoping meeting to provide for community input on Phase I! (early May). . Technical committee, with staff, will prepare a working paper(s) for review by the Working Group. Within six months of SOFA I: Schedule a second "mid-program" community meeting for public review and comment (early June). Technical committee, with staff, prepares Draft SOFA CAP Phase II for review by the Working Group and status report to City Council o Prepare revisions and final analysis for the Area Plan. o Schedule a third community meeting on the Draft Plan (late June). o Prepare Final Draft Plan for City Commission(s) and Committee(s) review and comment. ¯Planning Commission review of Final Draft Plan in July 2000. ¯City Council adoption of SOFA CAP II in July 2000. With the adoption of Phase II, staff will combine the two phases of the area plan and prepare the South of Forest Consolidated Area Plan. CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 13 of 15 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) was prepared for the Draft plan, and distributed in December 1998. A punic hearing on the DEIR was held by the Plarming Commission in March, 1999. 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). A Final EIR, with an addendum, was prepared and distributed to the City Council and other interested parties in November, 1999. It included responses to comments received on the DEIR. Copies of the Final EIR are available in the Department of-Planning and Community Environment. The Final EIR will be reviewed and certified by the City Council prior to adoption of the SOFA CAP Phase I, and the Development Agreement. An amendment to the Final Impact Report has been prepared and is included with this CMR Report. The First Amendment to the FEIR was prepared to address the potential impacts of the adoption of the revised SOFA I and implementation through the Development Agreement between the City and PAMF. It is the conclusion in this amendment that the proposed Development Agreement is consistent with the analysis and findings discussed in the 1999 EIR. Furthermore, the SOFA I and Development Agreement contain mitigation measures that would reduce impacts to important historic resources to a less than significant level; and that the Development Agreement would reduce the potential significant impact on open space and recreation to a less than significant level. With the Council’s certification of the Final EIR, in conformance with the California Environmental Quality Act, and adoption of the SOFA CAP I and DA, a Notice of Determination will be prepared for the project. The Notice of Determination will be filed with the County Clerk’s Office, after the second reading of the Ordinance. PREPARED BY: John Lusardi, Assistant Planning Official DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: G. EDWARD GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Manager CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmr\sofa da Page 14 of 15 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: SOFA CAP Phase I Land Use Maps Attachment B: Blocks and Parcels included in the proposed Development Agreement Attachment C: Planning and Transportation Excerpt Minutes, March 22, 2000 Attachment D: Letter addressing 828 Bryant Attachment E: South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan - Phase I Attachment F: City Council Resolution Certifying the SOFA CAP Final EIR Attachment G: Ordinance adopting the SOFA CAP - Phase I Attachment H: Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Attachment I: Development Agreement between the City of Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation ,>re’re, e!opmeht A~gre~t Attachment K: First Amendment to the SOFA CAP Final Environmental Impact Report SOFA Working Group SOFA Interested Parties CMR Report only: Architectural Review Board Historic review Board Planning Commission Public Arts Commission CMR: 192:00 s:\plan\pladiv\cmflsofa da Page 15 of 15 Phase 1 | | | | | It H H | | l I I | | | l l | l | | I | | | ! | Waverley St Scott St Bryant St [ Emerson St Hi,qh St Alma St ~Blocks and Parcels Included in the Proposed Development Agreement ill D:\Gloda D\~fa\Wb032700CmrA~chSofaKeyMap.a| |iIi SOFA Key March 27, 2000 Phase 1 Phase 2 l | | I I l l l l I | ! I I I ! | RM-: DHS !1 II St Description of Proposed Specific Land Use/Zoning Designations [-~ Detached Single Family Housing on Small Lots (8-20 units/acre) ~Attached Multiple-Family Housihg (30-50 units/acre) ~Mixed-Use Overlay on top of Attached Multiple-Family Housing ~Public Facilities Proposed Specific Land Use / Zoning Designations SOFA Key Fio. IIl-l.a DHS __ This building.to remain an office use (nonconforming) Roth building to be public facility Ramona St Affordable Housing Project sedDra[tPlan,a] 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 SOFA Key Proposed Specific Land Use / Zoning Designations D.\GIon a D\Sofa\WbO32?OOCmtAttachRevlsedDraftPIanBlocksABC.ai.al Fig. lll-l.b March 27, 2000 ATTACHMENT C: City Manager’s Report - Draft SOFA CAP Draft Planning and Transportation Commission Meeting Excerpt Minutes March 22, 2000 7:00 P.M. City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Commissioners: Kathy Schmidt, Chairman Annette Bialson, Vice-Chair Owen Byrd Patrick Burt Phyllis Cassel Staff: Ed Gawf, Director Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official John Lusardi, Assistant Planning Official Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney Zariah Betten, Executive Secretary The Commission separated their discussion between the Draft SOFA CAP, the Draft Development Agreement, the SummerHill Proposal, and 828 Bryant Street. Eight members of the public spoke in response to the Draft SOFA in the public hearing portion of the Planning and Transportation Commission meeting. Mr. Dishotsky, a property owner of 828 Bryant Street, presented a request to have the MUO/AMF extended to their property. DRAFT SOFA PLAN REVIEW The Planning and Transportation Commission was provided with the Draft SOFA CAP which contains all of the recommendations and revision requested by Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council from the previous meetings. The discussion at the March 22, 2000 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting was centered on the SummerHill Homes development in the AMF zone of Block B, the Draft Development Agreement, the medical office at 828 Bryant, and the commercial development at comer of Bryant Street and Homer Avenue. Attachment C AMF zone of Block B: Commission Consensus: The Commission supported SummerHill Homes’ proposed development revisions onthe AMF zone of Block B. The developer removed the fourth story units and created a dormer on the fourth floor which is only accessible internally from the third story units and meeting the maximum peak height of 45 feet. The Commission also appreciated the reduction in height of the development from previous concepts that were presented. Commissioner Comments-Individual: The developer achieved the neighborhood goals of mass and the addition of more residential units with smaller square footage is also positive, however a three story development would reduce the massing further. Furthermore, Council should only allow the four-story development if the four stories are necessary for architectural integrity. Draft Development Agreement: Commission Consensus: The Commission approved the Draft Development Agreement but recommended Staff to forward their comments on the relocation of 840 Bryant. The Commission does not want the development of the BMR housing site on Block C to be affected by 840 Bryant remaining in its current location. Commission Comments-Individual: To ensure a good site for the BMR housing, 840 Bryant should be relocated to a site that would keep its historical integrity as in its existing location. Also, the square footage of the BMR site should not change due to 840 Bryant remaining in its original location. 828 Bryant: Commission Consensus: The Commissioners would like Staff and the Working Group to review this request and it may be appropriate to do this in Phase II. However, if the property owner develops a proposal sooner they may submit it as a separate application prior to the completion of Phase II. Commission Comments-Individual: Due to time constraints for Phase I, the incorporation of 828 Bryant into the MUO/AMF zone should be incorporated into Phase II of the SOFA CAP in order not to delay the other developments of the Plan. However, if 828 Bryant is not incorporated into the MUO/AMF zone in Phase I, then the commercial development already in the MUO/AMF zone will advance and not create an opportunity for 828 Bryant to work with the current proposed development. In order to include 828 Bryant into the MUO/AMF zone, the property owners could submit a rezoning application and/or request to amend the Comprehensive Plan. Also, it does not appear that the property owners are looking into a full integration with the current proposed commercial development on Block C. Regardless of the decision, the Working Group and Staff should be a part of the decision on 828 Bryant. Furthermore, a decision on 828 Bryant should not be made until the plans for the development are not present. Commercial Development on Block C: Commission Consensus: The Commission supported the proposed commercial development on Block C. Commission Comments-Individual: The jobs-to-housing ratio needs not to be examined on a neighborhood or city level; it needs to be a regional issue. There has been analyses done on the jobs in the downtown area and since the jgbs-to-square footage ratio varies in each business, it would be inappropriate to assume that from the thirty thousand square feet commercial development will come one hundred and twenty jobs (using a jobs to square foot ratio of4:1000 ratio). Because Staff has committed to create more residential use in Phase II, the commercial development on Block C is appropriate. Norm Dishotsky, M.D. Frank L. Altick, D.D:S. Ronald A.. Gordon, D.D.S.. ¯ 828 Bryant Street Falo Alto, CA 94301 Maich 17, 2000 Hon. Liz K_niss, Mayor ’ Hon. Members of the City Council City of Palo Alto ’ 250 Hamii~on Avenue ¯ Palo Alt0~ CA 94301. SOFA Coordinated Area Plan 824-8 Bryant Street Dear M.ayor Kniss and Members of theCity Coundih We axe Writing to the Cotmcil because of our concern that the SOFA plarming process, has not yet adequately addressed the future of our small parcel of property at 824-8 Bryant Street. The building on this property was built in 1950 and has always beenused for professional offices, We have owned the building since 1980 and have.been the sole occupants of the’ building since that time, Norm has practiced on the property for 28 years and has been a Palo Alto resident for 26 years, Ron has resided in Palo Alto for.22 years, We are not developers or speculators and this is a very small parcel (50 by i30 feet), We have been citizens and good neighbors on this property for 20 years and our intention has always.been to continue our professional practiges on the property. The Background We recognize that the structure on this property is functionally obsolete and that it is not an asset to the neighborhood, We wish to continue to continue to own and occupy thi.’s parcel and fully expect tobe allowed to do so in an upgraded and modernized building or a replacement building that is appropriate both’for our professions and for the neighborhood, Attachment D Many years ago, we were in negot{ktions to sell our property to PAM_F and to mow. to office space in the same general area, but those .negotiations ended abruptly when PAMF focused on the E1 Camino location. Sincethat time and since.the initiation of the SOFA planning effort, .we have written several letters to the City, expressing our concerns and our position with regard to this property and requesting that the City work with us in finalizing its plans. Except for one meeting with Jim Baer severn weeks ago, not one person from the City, PAMF, or 8ummerhi!l has been in contact with us during the last four years..In hindsight, we wish we had been fai more assertive.in following up on our letters. Based on our inquiries during this last .week, we now realize that there has not been any ¯ focus on this propertyin this planning process, FOr example: 737 Bryant recei~res several express mentions in policysecti.ons of the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan, but there was no mention of this. property. The fact that 737 Bryant Street.is an historic propertyand is ownedby PAMF focused attention on that property, but, on the other hand, 737 Bryant and our.property are the only two nonconforming.uses within Phase 1.. Draft pqlicj~ L-5, as presently worded’, would prohibit us from continuing to practice our professions on this property, even in the present building. Clearly, this result was not .intended’, but it did pass right by Staff, Planning Commission .and Council because there was no focus on our prop.erty (yet our property was the only property to Which this language could have applied). Our thanks to Staff for discoveidng the ’errant language this week and immediately suggesting !ts deletion. -. Some of the maps and visual aids of the planning area show this parcel, as a white rectangle with. no zoning designation. As a result of our inquiries this week, we learned that, Under the present state of the draft plan, our property Would be zoned AMi~ and our structure and businesses would be deemed a "nonconforming" us~. We hope that the extensive discussion pr.esented in this letter allows the City, Sum.merhil!, JimBaer and us to get a jump start on res’olving the future use of this property.. The Problem There is a very serious problem with the "nonconforming" label. ’ The designation of this parcel as a nonconforming use would have unintended and very nggati’Oe impacts on the neighborhood and on our property. ¯That is, the "nonconforming" designation would prohibit us from replac~g the structure or even upgrading the stnicture in .any substantial manner. The inadvertent effect of hanging the "nonconforming" label on this property is that the .City will h~ve assu~ed the’ Community that this structure will remain, creating a permanent anomaly in the new neighborhood. O~ property lies within a block of land that, except for this parcel, is going t.o be completely redesigned and rcdevcloped. With the completion of this development, our present structure will be .an even greater eyesore and anomaly on the block and in the neighborhood, The Solution We. are confident we can all agree that th~ community i~ noi best served by a zoning . designation that has the unintended consequenc.’e of assuring that the present structure remains, Fortunately, there is a }elatively simple solution to the problem. The problem would be avoided if the MU Overlay designation is extended approximately 50 feet to .include ou~ parcel, This small exl. ension of the overlay has’certain advantages: Extending th~ overlay wouid allow us to upgrade, modernize or replace the existing structure w!th a structtire more appropriate for our use and more consistent with the neighborhood in which we have practiced for so many years. Extending the overlay would allow us to add a small number of residential units above the first floor.of offices This h~lps the community to move closer in some smallway to the City’s goals of"300 or more" dwelling unit.s, as discussed in the attachment to this letter. In consideration for the extension of the overlay and as described below, we could fo.rego any right to obtain approval for additional office uses. Extending th~ ’overlay. and allowing the, residential improvement of our small property is the only opportunity the City. has to break up the massing along Bry .ant Street that will result from the BMR project and the Jim Baer building, The Pianning Director and City have sufficient discretionon standards to assure that our property develops in an integrated and beneficial way with the rest of the block. Extending the overlay allows the City tomake further strides toward achievement of the policies set forth in the SOFA Coordinat’ed Area Plari. We have attached a list of specific pol.icies that will be favorably impacted by approval of extension of the overlay. We would like to emphasize that we do not wish to expand office uses on our parcel and block and that we intend to limit the officeuse on our property to three medical practices. However, we would like to expand to some small degree the first floo~ square footage -- there have been enormous changes in dental te~hnolog~ since 19~0, the present.floor space is inadequate, and we wo~d like the upgraded or replacement building to include thethe first floo~ expansion .that is necessary to accommodate three medical offices (this Would not involve new suites -- this is just to accommodate medical practice.s in the 21st century)i Please note that parking and setback requirements provide a natural limit to the. degree to which thefirst floor can be expanded. Staff has told us that the Planning C0mm{s.sion and City Council could be concerned that extension of the MU Overlay might have the effect of increasing office uses in ti~e neighborhood above the 30,000 square feet already a!located to the Bier building. As we stated earlier,, we have no intention and no .desire to have approval for more office space than is necessary for three medical practices or to have approval for o.~ce uses above.the firstfloor. We areperfebfly "¢Alling to allay these fears of additional office uses by committing to the City (in a deed restriction, development agreement, or whatever mechanism the City desire’s) thai we would not. request in the future any office uses above the fnrst floor.. ’ ’ We have discussed the P0ssible extension of the overlay with representatives’of Summerhill. (Pd’ck Wurzlbacher)land Menlo Equities (Jim Baer). Jim Baer has told Us that he will attic/ely support this solution. Rick Wurzlbacher has told us that he is concerned that this solution not delay’the present approval process, but that he had no specific.0bjection to the proposed solution. .. ’ ’ We have discussed this proposed solutionwith John Lusardi. John told us that staff is .concerned that it may be too late in the process to inject new issues.. We do understand that it may bet6o late for City Staffto include treatment of this issue in its report for the upcoming Planning Commission heating. We may be quite late, but it is als6 true that: (a) we are l.ong term business and residential citizens wh6 have written letters but wtio hay.e not recei~;ed direct’attention from eithe~ the City or the dev~lop.ers; (b) ,(c) the present draft of the plan has yet to deal directly with- our property; this ’is the appropriate time to avoid the Unexpected consequence of a ’.’nonconforming" designation; (d) the extension of the. overlay by 50 feet is a minor adjustment~ (e)we can best integrate development on our property Mth the new neighborhood if we immediately begin negotiations with our two proposed neighbors on matters Such as design, architecture, parking, setbacks, and other issues. 4 Conclusion Wc ask that the Planning Commission and City C6uncilrccognize that this structure should not bc made, .inadvertently or not, a pcimancnt part of the neighborhood" and approve the extension Of the MU Overlay. Please direct all communication with us through our counsel, Geoffrey C. Etnire, who may be contacted as follows: 635 Emerson Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 650.327.2255 650:328.9327 geoff@~tnfl’e.com As Oeoffwill be out of town during the week of March 20, we would appreciate receiving copies of any. and all correspondence at the address of our properti!. You may also reach us individually by telephoning the listed numbers for our practices. ¯ Thank you very much for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Norm Dishotsky, M.D. Ronald A. Gordon, D.D.S. GCE: ~ns .Hon. M~mbers.ofth~ Planning Commission Kathy Schmidt, Chair Annette Bialson, ¥ice Chair , Patri.ck Butt Owen Byrd Phyllis Cassell /on Schink Ariel Calonne, Esq, Ed Gawf ¯ ~¯7ohn Lusardi . Rick Wurzlbacher lira Baer Geoffrey C, Etnire 8662000317four(b) ATTACHMenT, Extension of the Mixed Use. Overlay across the parcel at 824-8 Bryant Street allows the City the opportunity to make further strides in achieving many of the goals set forth in the December 1, 1999 SOFA Coordinated At. ca Plan. Such an extension does not violate any of the stated goals. Additions to the housing stock Extension of the MUO is the only solution that allows the: doctors to provide additional housing units above the first floor while not adding additional office uses. ,The present Phase 1 plan provides approximately 140 residential units toward the goal.of 300or more units in the Plan Area. Policy L-1 Policy H-1 Provide 300 or more ran_its of new housing. Provide. 300 or more units of new housing. policy .I-I-2 Policy H-~ :Provide a gener.al transition in housing density from the Southeast corner of’the Plan Area toward.Down, town and Alma Street. Housing. types in the plan area should include a range of densities and should be suitable.for v~ous ages, household sizes, lifestyles. and incomes. Architecture~ Design and Historic Structures The improvement of the building on t~s small parcel is the only opportunity thai the City has on Bryant Street to break up the massing of the BMR complex and the Baer building. In addition to bringing variety and scale to this block, coordination of this property with its neighbors on issues such as parking and setbacks could be ve.ry productive. Should architectural considerations on design of the addition to the AME Zion Church require adjustment of standards on issues such as setbacks and daylight planes, the doctors may be able to assist. .. Policy D C-17 Discourage the relocation of the AME Zion Church. Policy DC 19 ’Promote quality design as defined by style, detail, massing, materials, etc. Policy DC 20 Build on existing lot patterns such as the small lot pattern and lots ’with two or more detached units to create variety and ~cale with new development. Parking The doctors recognize ~ adverse visual.impacts of their present parking lot. They would bc interested in ~oordinating underground parking with either of their neighbors. Because their use has a daytime peak, they can provide parking for the small number of residential units that may bc allowed- on th~ site, The doctors would also bc open to the possibility of opening their off-street spaces after normal business hours for public use, Policy T-4 Policy T-6 " Policy T-7 Provide incentives for mixed use projects with shared parking. Encourage shared parking for’ all uses wit~ different peak demands, Encourage agreements by parldng lo.t owners to provide p.arking access for special events and community facilities, Decrease th~ adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street . level parking garages by encouraging parking for mixed use and mul.ti-family residential parking to be either undergro.und or otherwise not visible. City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment March 21, 2000 Planning Division Mr. Norm Dishotsky, M.D. Mr. Frank L. Altick, D.D.S. Mr. Ronald A Gordon, D.D.S 828 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: SOFA Coordinated Area Plan Dear Gentlemen: I am responding to your letter of March 17, 2000 (copy attached). As I understand the main point of your letter, your concern is that the proposed Attached Multiple Family (AMF) Zone in the SOFA CAP would create a nonconforming use for your existing offices and property. Furthermore, you believe that extending the proposed mixed-use overlay to your property would resolve your issues. As I have stated in discussions with your attorney, Mr. Geoffrey Etnire, this request for mixed-use overlay on your property was only first brought to the Planning Department’s attention when Mr. Etnire met with me less than two weeks ago. The only issues raised by your office prior to that was to have the city ensure that your existing use was protected by future development on both sides of your property. I have attached a copy of the letter that was sent to the Planning Commission at their meeting of January 26, 2000. This letter only cites concerns about the impacts on your existing use, and even went to the extent to seek assurance that the existing building on your property would be protected. To my knowledge, there has not been, at any time during the SOFA review process, the issue of you wanting to redevelop your property and replace the building. As I have indicated to Mr. Entire when he first introduced the issue this month, the position of the planning staff has been to minimize the amount of changes made to the area plan from the direction of the City Council in February. I also believe that we have addressed all your concerns made at that time about protecting your property. Therefore, the planning staff is not in support of your request at this time. The SOFA CAP does provide for the City Council to add the MUG to other sites within the AMF. I would recommend that should you develop a concept for a new building on the property, and it can meet the development standards (including parking) of the MUO/AMF, then that may be the appropriate time to request a change to MUO/AMF. Page 1 of 2 250 Hamilton Avenue P,O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax On a final point that is mentioned in yqur correspondence was the frustration that no one from the city had contacted you about your letter of January 25, 2000. I sincerely apologize for that oversight on my part. However, I had the understanding that as long as your issues in your letter were being addressed, that you had no further concerns. The staff did ask Mr. Baer to meet with you to insure that his development did address those issues, and I understood that this had happened. Also, since your first letter there were additional public meetings where it was appropriate to address the addition of a mixed use overlay on your property. The Planning Commission and City Council will receive a copy of your letter and this response. The City Council will meet regarding the SOFA CAP Phase I on March 27, 2000 at 7:00 P. M. If you wish to discuss this matter further, please do not hesitate to contact me at 329-2679. Thank you. Sincerely, Assistant Planning Official Page 2 of 2 Ronald A. Gordon 826 Bryant Street Palo Alto, CA. 94301 January 25, 2000 Dear Planning Commission: As the owner of the property at 826 Bryant Street, I have several concerns that need to be become part of the permanent record of the SOFA project and addressed with me in writing before the start of the project. These concerns can be divided into three phases, the design phase, the construction phase, and the completion phase. The design phase concern involves the use of proper set back boundaries next to existing property. The AMF regulations require at least a fifteen foot set back to existing property lines. Another concern is the height regulations and daylight planes since our building is only one story and it is likely that a multi-story structure will be built on either side of our building. Since our building is remaining on its present site, the neighboring structures should be compatible in size and scale. The construction phase presents additional concerns. I am concerned that patients will be blocked from getting to my office. It is possible that utility service could be interrupted during business hours. If an interruption occurred during a denta! procedure, serious detrimental consequences could result to the patient’s health. We need concrete assurances that no utility interruptions will occur or if such interruptions occur, I will be reimbursed for loss of income and indemnified and held harmless for any damages that occur as a result of such interruption. After the building is completed, I am concerned about the effect of the noise of some of our equipment in the new residential neighborhood. Our biailding uses air conditioning and air filtration and vacumn equipment all day. The current acceptability of the noise level should be grand fathered and new residents notifed of the noise levels. After the appropriate individual has reviewed this letter, please call me to arrange a meeting to discuss these concerns and their resolution. Very truly yours, Ronald A. Gordon, D.D.S.