Why is the City of Menlo impeding the efforts of the Fire District?

Posted by Curious
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Aug 28, 2016 at 9:33 am

@Peter

You should bring these issues to the attention of Facebook, Menlo Gateway, and the new apartment complex owners on Haven. Menlo Park may choose to ignore the fire district, but they can't ignore their largest taxpayers.

These owners are paying their fair share of taxes for fire service. They won't be happy they are putting their property and occupant safety at greater risk.

Posted by Peter Carpenter
a resident of Atherton: Lindenwood
on Aug 28, 2016 at 1:07 pm
Peter Carpenter is a registered user.

Some readers are understandably reluctant to open web links posted on the Forum so here is the Staff Report that was provided to the Fire Board:


To: From:
Item:
MENLO PARK FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT STAFF REPORT
Fire Board Special Board Meeting Harold Schapelhouman, Fire Chief Date: August 25, 2016
CONSIDER, DISCUSS AND PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF REGARDING UPDATING THE LAND LEASE AND EFFORTS TO PURCHASE LAND FROM THE CITY OF MENLO PARK FOR FIRE STATION 77 LOCATED AT 1467 CHILCO STREETINBELLEHAVEN* * * * * * * * * *
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
1. That the Board accepts the report as presented.
2. That the Board provide staff with direction from the suggested options
DISCUSSION:
The current land lease agreement is dated December 12, 1995 and the Term is for 55 years at $1.00 per year. It states "The City and the District have been interested in building a Fire Station in the Belle Haven neighborhood. The reasons for locating a station in this area include, providing expanded medical service in the highest demand area of the District (East of Highway 101), providing expanded service capacity in the event of a catastrophic disaster, such as an earthquake, that could prevent access across Highway 101 and reducing sound impacts from responding vehicles on Willow Road". It should be noted that the Fire District paid for all of the construction and improvement costs for the existing facility. The land lease expires in December 2050 or in 34 years.
The Fire District’s Legal Counsel has recently identified that the original land lease agreement may have not been properly executed. The Fire Chief has identified that the District has attempted to purchase the property three times in 2013, 2014 and 2015, with no success and has attempted to extend the lease agreement since January of 2013.
The District’s started this process in June of 2011, when the City first approached the District about acquiring more land behind the current Fire Station and that conversation transitioned into the potential to purchase the land, similar to what the City was proposing for privately owned Beechwood School.
In 2009, the Bohannon Development Company proposed that the City create a mixed use Commercial Business Park on Constitution and Independence Drive in Menlo Park. The project proposed modifying the General Plan and Zoning Amendments to allow for structures to be built up to 140 feet in height, previously capped at three stories and to increase the floor area ratio (FAR), or density, to 137.5%.
Why this is important to the Fire District is that by making these changes, the City essentially opened the door for larger, higher and denser development in M2. Unfortunately, Fire Station 77 on Chilco Street was not built to accommodate more personnel or additional apparatus based upon these new changes that have only become more evident as proposed in the Cities new and updated draft General Plan.
Board Meetings – 8/25/2016 FS#77 Lease/Purchase Decision Options
1 of 5
OPTIONS:
Based upon the totality of the circumstances, the Board President and Vice President have requested that this issue be reviewed by the full Board and that the Board be presented with options. Options available are:
1. Continue to have legal counsel pursue a new, fully executed, land lease extension with the City
2. Stop all efforts to pursue a new land lease
3. Simultaneously, attempt to negotiate a new lease while meeting all pre-requisites to acquire the property
through a voluntary acquisition or eminent domain.
4. Stop all efforts to purchase the property
5. Take the issue to the community (Belle Haven) and voters of the District
6. Continue to oppose the draft General Plan language that states impacts are “less than significant” as it
applies to growth and the size, capability and number of fire personnel at the Station
7. Do not expand the Fire Station beyond its current capability to house one Engine and three personnel
8. Other recommendations?
BACKGROUND:
In 2011, after a decade of discussion and effort, Habitat for Humanity abandoned plans to build 22 affordable homes on the City owned parcel, or lot, behind the Fire Station 77 property due to reported financial difficulties and community opposition.
On June 11, 2011, Menlo Park City Manager Glen Rojas wrote in an e-mail to Fire Chief Schapelhouman "We are in the process of appraising the Terminal property we own between the Fire Station and Onetta Harris Community Center. The Council has determined to consider selling the site to Beechwood School. Before we go any further, I wanted to check with you to see if you had any interest/need for additional property for the Fire Station. The area in question for sale will include the current site that Beechwood sits on along with vacant property up to the Fire Station. You had mentioned an interest a while back for additional space for the Station but I believe it was when you were looking for a longer engine. I don't know yet how much property we would be willing to expand for the Fire Station but want to know your needs first".
In subsequent e-mails, the Fire Chief, after conferring with the Fire Board and his staff, asked for 150 feet of additional land behind the Fire Station property and a vacant home off of Terminal (Parcel 297) that could be used to create a circular drive through and secondary access to the Fire Station.
On October 31, 2011, City Manager Rojas sent the Fire Chief another e-mail that clarified the school’s intent "Beechwood School has indicated they need a majority of the Terminal property including the home on Terminal (Parcel 297) in order to expand their School as planned. They indicated that they could provide the Fire District with approximately 15 feet of property between parcel number 301 and 297. Let me know if the 15 feet +- is of interest to you".
The Fire District wasn't all that interested in only acquiring 15 feet of additional land but the discussion evolved into purchasing all of property from the City similar to what the School was proposing and the Fire Chief continued to work with the City Manager until his departure in December 2011.
Board Meetings – 8/25/2016 FS#77 Lease/Purchase Decision Options
2 of 5
The land was eventually sold to Beechwood School in April of 1012, after 11 years of discussion. The school property and lot were acquired by the private School for $1.25 million and the School finalized the purchase in 2013 and building of the new campus in 2014.
Alex McIntyre became the new City Manager in 2012. On August 16, 2012, the Fire Chief in an e-mail to McIntyre wrote "I have been reviewing my notes in preparation for tomorrow's meeting, here would be our items: 1. Station 77 Land Acquisition - a. Former City Manager Rojas quoted an average price of 125k per 50 foot lot. The Station area is equal to about 9 lots so roughly (non-market analysis) $1.125 million dollars for discussion purposes".
The Fire Chief continued to work with the City on both the purchase and modification of the lease agreement to add the additional 15 feet. In a January 9, 2013 e-mail to McIntyre in preparation for a face to face meeting he wrote "3. Station 77 - Appraiser retained (Nothing more from Bill)" referring to the City Attorney.
On March 13, 2013 the Fire Chief wrote in an e-mail to McIntyre in preparation for their meeting "Proposed Agenda Topics - Station 77 Land Purchase Proposal:
- Formal request letter sent to Alex - Completed
- Board Authorization given to Fire Chief - Completed
- Appraisal - Completed (Kaeuper & Company) Concluded value $490,000 - Negotiators - Fire Chief and attorney Tim Cremin (Meyers Nave)
On April 22, 2013 City Manager McIntyre wrote the Fire Chief in an e-mail "Best approach to the land acquisition is to submit a letter of interest addressed to me to purchase the land". The Fire Chief did that on April 24th and McIntyre acknowledged the receipt of the request and appraisal on April 29, 2013 and by early May the focus shifted to the appraisal price.
On May 11, 2013 Fire Chief Schapelhouman was severely injured and was unable to return to work until January of 2014. In a follow-up e-mail to McIntyre on February 13, 2014, after his return the Fire Chief wrote "2. The purchase of land at Fire Station 77 from the City is a priority for the District, when we last met and per the attached agenda, I gave you a letter of intent, the appraisal and we requested to meet if needed to negotiate the sale - Where are we with this issue?"
City Manager McIntyre replied that same day "Last time we met with the Board members, we were told that it is no longer a priority. We do need to get into place a re-stated lease and that should be on our agenda sometime in March.
In March 2014 the Fire Chief approached the Fire Board for authority to purchase the property and was given that authority. The appraisal was updated and on March 27, 2014 the Fire Chief wrote in an e-mail to McIntyre "The Fire Board has authorized me to enter into negotiations with the City to purchase the land at Station 77. You already have the appraisal, how would you like to proceed?"
On May 5, 2014, McIntyre wrote in an e-mail to the Fire Chief "The Council decided that they are not interested in selling the Station 77 property at this time. I can explain more to you later as to their reasoning".
In subsequent conversations with the City Manager, the Fire Chief learned that only four Council members had been present and both the letter of intent and appraisal had not be given to the Council members.
Board Meetings – 8/25/2016 FS#77 Lease/Purchase Decision Options
3 of 5
In a subsequent joint meeting with Mayor Mueller, Manager McIntyre, Director Ianson and the Fire Chief the mayor told the Fire District that the City should never sell land. When asked about the Beechwood School parcel sale, he advised he was not on the Council but would not have been in favor of it. Board liaison Ianson countered for an updated lease agreement for up to 100 years.
On September 14, 2014, in an e-mail to McIntyre the Fire Chief wrote "3. Fire Station 77 - Finalize updated lease agreement" The extension of the lease agreement continued to be a topic of discussion that was in the hands of the City attorney.
Fire Board members had been discussing the potential sale of the property with various Council members again in 2015. Since only four Council members had been present and the letter of intent along with the appraisal had not been presented to the Council, the Fire District Board authorized the Fire Chief in June of 2015 to try one more time to purchase the land.
The Fire Chief updated the letter of intent to include a "first right of refusal" sell back to the City and changed the language to include an appraisal only if the City chose to move forward rather than to bear the expense up front. The Chief also requested the offer be presented only if all five Council members were present.
The item was presented to the Council in closed session and no formal action was taken which essentially formally closed the door on the sale of the property under this Council. The Fire Chief refocused his efforts on securing an updated and extended lease agreement.
On January 19, 2016, in an e-mail to City Manager McIntyre the Fire Chief wrote "Happy New Year - At our Board meeting this evening we will be discussing Station 77. Is there any update on the requested extension of the lease?" McIntyre responded back that same day "Let me find out from our City Attorney the status of the lease extension".
On March 10, 2016, in an e-mail to City Manager McIntyre the Fire Chief wrote "2. Any update on the lease agreement for Fire Station 77? Would it be better if our attorneys contacted Bill directly?" To which he responded "Yes, have your legal counsel talk to Bill".
On April 13, 2016, Lauren Quint with Meyers Nave representing the Fire District spoke with the City Attorney and they agreed Meyers Nave would take the lead on the land lease rewrite.
On May 17, 2016 Meyers Nave, representing the District, sent the City Attorney a revised and updated land lease agreement. It was also noted that the original agreement may not have been fully executed and the Fire Chief and Board were appraised of this development.
On June 22, 2016 the City Attorney wrote in an e-mail response "I will try to get back to you next week on this - with plans to put it on our council’s agenda for the next CC in mid-July".
On July 13, 2016, after multiple attempts to contact the City Attorney by Lauren Quint, the Districts legal Counsel, they finally spoke by phone and the City Attorney said the item would not make the July agenda and he would return comments in one or two weeks and put the item on the Councils August agenda.
Board Meetings – 8/25/2016 FS#77 Lease/Purchase Decision Options
4 of 5
On August 21, 2016, after multiple attempts to contact the City Attorney, he wrote in an e-mail “I have now completed my review and was surprised at the number of significant/material changes to the lease”. He listed nine areas of concern and that he felt that “we were only restating the lease agreement”.
On August 23, 2016, the City Attorney, in response to the District’s legal counsel wrote by e-mail asking if they were on the same page, when they could get back to him with a revised draft for review and that to get the item on the August agenda he needed a revised draft soon or the item would needto be moved to September.
On August 25, 2016, the District’s legal counsel responded to the City attorney. That correspondence is attached to this report.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Original land lease agreement
Attachment B – Proposed land lease agreement (June 3, 2016) Attachment C – Purchase request 2013
Attachment D – Purchase request 2014
Attachment E – Purchase request 2015
Attachment F – Correspondence with the City
2700375.1
5 of 5