The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0174.092-, '. ":'"" ?~' '~ ::. ',,,:, .. :~ ,'''','. ~.rch 5, J 992 HQNOR~BLE C IT)' COUNCIL Palo Alto, California llO_EVERETT AVEIIUE -LYTTON IV Sf .... LOR HOUSJtl~ ~mben of the Caunei T: REPORT IN BRI EF This report transmits to tne City Councll a request by Community HOt.:sing, Inc. for an Extension t~ th~ Council-adopted time limit on the securing of outside funding for the proposed senior housing project at 330 Everett Street to be known as lytton Gardens I~. The applicant is also requ~sting a waiver of bul1ding per~it and City processing fees. On July n, 1991, the Council appn ..... ed a Planned Comunity (PC) zone for the prGperty at 324-340 Everett A\lenue (see attached CMR:320:91, CMR 367:9], and ex,erpts of the june 17 and July 22, 1991 City Council minutes). The PC zone wDuld allow the construction of 51 units of housing for lO'W-lncome seniors. Because funding for the project had not been obtai ned, tr,e Council speci fled that the effective date af the rezoning ordinance be delayed until project fur,ding was obtained. At the July 22, 1991 meeting, the Council denied CHI's request for City fu~ds to assist in fir.ancing and construction of the project. The applicant had requested approximat:;Ty S3DO,OOO in City funds for construction costs and over $600,000 for financing CDstS.. Oef1ial of participation in the f\lnd~rI9 of this project ."as. prlmarily due to the natur~ of CHI's lease/purchase agreement with the current prope;-ty OllWner. Or. Septemb.er n, 1991, the Council adopted re· ... ised Ordif1ance 40Sl (see attacned CMR:422:9I, CMR:4lS:91 and excerpts of the September 16 and 23, 1991 City Council minutes). The revised Ordinance tncluded Sectio~ 5 stating that the Ordina~ce would not become effective unless the app1ica~t had received financing from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) or other financin'J s.at~sfa.ctory to the City Council, prior to Marcn 30? 1992. APPliCANT' 5 PROPOSAL ,G.ttached is a request by Community Housin9~ Inc. to extend the Council-i<nposed <leadline to allow addiUonal tim€ to obtain HUO funding or funding fram other CHR:174;92 ---- i \- i .. > .-. " , , 1 i I j I I I sources. The applic'lnt, with the assistance of Mid-Peninsula HOl.!sing Coalition. is pursu; ng n.ot only HtJD 202 funds but ~1 se Low !:'1:::ome Haws ing Ta:< Cre~; t Al1ocations and funds frum the State of California Re~tal Housing Constructlon Progra.m. 1\"1 ordel'" to allow sufficierlt time to pursue thes'2 alternate fundirog sources and allow for comp:etion of the federa1 revielli of the original HUD Section 202 funding request. the appTicant ;s reQuesting that the effective date clause of the Ordinance be exter.d~-j to at least July I. 1992. The applicant has also requestc-d a waiver in building penTiit and p~'Jcessing fees. The applicant is requesting the waiver in ~rder to show City participation in order to be able to add a rallk.ing point for the 'Various competitive funding revie-ws for "loca.1 financial assistance". Since the condition imposing a delayed effective date of the Ordinance .. as added by Council and is not a. part of the Planned COrMIunity Development schedul2. Planning Corrmission reI/lew is not required. As a courtesy. staff placed a pub1ic hearing notic~ in th! ne",spaper, mailed postcard notices to utllity customers and property owners within 300 feet of the property. and sent cupies of this staff report to those copied on pre\,lious reports and speakers at tn.: prey; oUS Ci ty Counc;1 meetings considering this item. STAFF REVIEW Staff 15 supportive {If efforts to increase the SUPPlY of lOifl/· .and moderate·income hClu~ir.g. as well as seni{lr housing. Ttlis project will increase the housing 'SiJpply fot~ Palo Alto and is located near senilee50 and transportation. Staff supports the e:<tension of time which will allow the appl icar.t to pursue additional financing options. Staff reconvnends that the date bp. extended to September 30. 1992 tn insure s~fficient time for t~e app1icant to s!arch for alternate funding sources and to al10w for delays, The Development schedule dates, which re~uire that the b~ildlng permits be obtained by September l. 1993 and construction completed by September 1, 1994. wouid not change. Building permit ard plan check fees fnr t~is project ~ill be o~ th~ order of $22,500 plus wate~-sewer~9as. electrical. fire and fire sprinkler fees. The City Attorney has ad'olised that fees ca"'1 be wah'ed only by ordinance of the City Council; and staff does not support $ouch actinn. The City Council. by budget amendment ordinance, did wai'Ve some fees with re~pect to the Children'S Theatre construction project. However, in takir,g such actio", the Council determined that the fee waiver was justified or. th~ basis that it was iI City-owned facility, aithough funded bj a nonprofit organization. The Council also made it clear that its action was not intended to estab1ish a precedent far fee wai'Vers~ Although the applicant is net at this time requesting City financial assistance other than the fee waiver, an important long term issue is the need by the applicant to show "local financial assistance" for the project and to c.ompTete their financial package. Information submitted by the applic.ant far 1992-93 Cnmmunit~ Qe~elopment 81acK Grant (C08G) funding ~f S151,530 indicates that eve~ with those CDBG funds and the 51.894,921 in HUD 202 funds, the project will still CMR,174:92 II: \~r\llO~".'ere 3/05/92 Page 2 ----,--------.,-~...,. - • i' •. <" ., •.... < .... it .... ';". , "....,1.;;....; , .. ~<:~~ .\ . 1.-:. ~ . -.,.. ~~ . -1.'. .,' -. ::'" .:-~:;: - """".;:- need a financial ir.fuSiOI'l of 1,038,162. Staff antici'p-ite~ tha.t at the time outside funding is secured. the applica~t will return to the City with a request fer additional City fund:;. To date staff has not recehed any revised financial information cr further jnformati~n on the lease/purchase agreeme-nt th.at wou1d permit staff to revise our pr€ .... iclJs negatf'olp. recoim1endation on possible City funding (see attached CMR:422:91 and excerpt Council minut~s of September 15. 1991) . ReC CllljI'ND!\JJ.QM Staff recommends that the Citi Council adopt the revised Ordinance extendi~g the effecth"e date for project funding from March 30, 1992 to September 30, 1992. Respectfully submitted, U~u.1>U.v/ ~,~ '-i/" , i /. • /l£/i)"t[.ti! If Jc;:·.£d~ ES E. GrflllAND "-KeNNETH R. SCHRflPER • , anager Planning Projects ~1I;HS\~ 'ur:::G Director of Planning ard Community Environment Asslstant City Manager Attachme!"lts: Febr~ary 13. 1992 letter from James A. Koch February 14. 1992 letter from Fran Wagstaff to Arjel Colonne february 29, 1992 letter from Jim Baer to James Koch Ordinance 4053 CMR:435:91 dated September 19, 1991 Exce,"pt City Council minutes of September CMR:422:9! dated September IZ, 1991 Excerpt City Council minutes of September CMR:3b7:91 dated July 18, 1991 Excerpt City CouncIl minutes of July CMR:320:91 dated June 13, 1991 Excerpt CIty Council minutes of June Ct: Planning Commission Architectural Review Board 22, 17, 13, 1991 12, 1991 1991 1991 Carrasco & Associates, 120 ~ami1ton Avenue~ Palo Alto, CA 94301 The Martin Aevocable Li~ing Trust, 2345 Yale Street, Paio Alto. CA 94305 James A. Koch, 2656 East Bayshore Road, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, fran Wagstaff, Executive Director, 430 Sherman Avenue, Suite 203, Palo Alto, CA 94306 PaTo Alto Housing Corporation, SylVia Seman, Executive Director, 540 Cowper street, Suite _, P.lo Alto, CA 94301 Jim Bier, Ware S Friedric~, 400 Hamilton Avenu~, Palo Alto, (A 94301 Nancy Pleibe1, 301 Bryant Court, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto. CA 94301 loretta and Jim Cesari, 238 Bryant Street, Pile AHo, CA 94301 CMR:174:92 3/05/92 Page l , , 'j I I I - Joe Heyers, 301 Bryant Str.et, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ralph Cressman. 360 Everett Avenu~. Palo A1to~ CA 94301 Andr,,' Gottlieb, 309 Bryant Street, Palo Alt'J, CA 94301 Lora Smith, 161 Bryant Str •• t, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Kathl.en Craig, 101 Waverley Street., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Marv;!'! H. Feinstein. 1>. O. 80)(' 1461, Pa10 Alto, CA 94302 Jim Horley, 160 ~.verley Str,.t, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Irv Br!nner, 250 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 D~r~thy Merriam. 36~ £~erett A¥enue, Pale Alto, CA 94301 Melissa Biggs, 301 Bryant Str •• t, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Patricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CHR,174:91 p: \cmr\3:!:0e'lere .~---~ do ..... " 3/05/92 Page 4 LlZ4 - ":~~ ''::''~ ..... ;. . .;:~ ;..:; • • -- Comm'.Jnity Housing, Ir!c lOA-to OF DIrECTors S'af< W, Sl{j.,.~rt, Jr ?re:Jdl:'n: J 5c,,'o~ 8Jown, M D \.'iee Pretsidenl Geolge R CO. €H ~reil'!!Jrer :>, ChOl~ fio!<"Jen ;""cre',Ol'f BO"'RD MrMa~r.; ~'\.OId ;:, Bog"e "mmy Dov1~ 'H,lIiam S, FJoy-:l COI'IrGO F, GuUllCson ..;,Jo<j~ J(Ei'''~~ jome~ .... Koch :>au<'n& 'iC lidQ'G!le 'MIb<Jr E. Matti:$on . .)t .• ~'I.D ~, ~cnoel Mi::GrOYQI r<ot>ert W ~ec."eorl$ G~oa ,t, PyUxa Diona 5 Steeples LeOr'lOlO 110',', £~ Dflec;tor Emerttus :seldon fi, Marfin ':r-.oirman E.me~ "'" Stepnen St"pJe, Cr.,af E .. eo .. ·.v .. OH,cer ~O'" E., Her,,: Ch~t Flnar><;ial Officer ~~ lytiC)(> ,o,ver>ua "'o",=,Ano Cci.rom,o 04:>01 :4IS)J1e·~JOO FlU l4·,~)Jj4·~M~ flAND DELl VERED Fehruary 13, i992 Mr. Ariel Cahmne City Attorney 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: LyttD!:l IV Dear-Mr. Calonne: As you are aware the PC zoning on our prcp"osed Lytton LV project slates that the PC shall expire on March 3D, ]992 unless. we nave rec-~ived: nDtific,Hion of selection for HUn 202 fll'1ds or have arranged other fir=afl.cing ac,ceptahle to the Ci.ty C,\l!.nci.L Wblle we believe that we still have a good chance of receiv;ng these HUD 202 funds we find it prudent to pursue all other fir.ancing alternatives for low and very low income se:lior houliLng. Since la~t S<!ptember we have been speaking with Fran Wagstaff of Mid-PeninS'lla Housing CCJalition (MPHC) and have benefitted fr()m their advice on OLll' proj.ecL We have now formally engaged them to assist us [n the pursuit of alternate appropriate funding sources and other re-Iated developmel>: issues. Earlier today we spok.e with lim Gilli[and reganDng the PC Zoning eltpitation and some timing i.ssues which relate 00 project financing. AI. a result of that conversatlon MPHC is submitting a letter to you outlining those issues and requesting an e~tens[oD of the PC We appreciate your prompt review and cooperation Both MPHC .and J will continue to work closely (In tr.t:se issues. Should q"Je.:;tions arise, feel free to centaet me ·or Fran. Sincer~G\ Q::, Koch, Cb.i, Program Development Committee Community Hou~Lng 111L'. cc: Bill Zaner Jim Gil ii laod Ken Schreiber Nancy Lytle Fran Wagstaff --... --'''':'!'''_._'---_ .. _-_. ~'~' ",,1 :~q~.--~~%~\ ~ .• 1-_';' - 3 --.. j I - MID·PENINSULA !lOUSING COALITION Mr. Ariel Calonne City Attorney 250 H~ilton Ave~ue Palo Alto, CA 943Dl HAND DEI..r .. 'E.R Dear Mr Calonne: 430 Sherm<Jn A .... enue Suite 203 Folo Alto, Califmoia 9430G Telephone (4;5) 688-8300 Februa!J/ 14, 1992 I am. writing co you in our capacity as ad';isor to Community Housing Inc. regarding the propos.ed development at 330 Everett Avenue, Palo Alt.o. kno' ... '!) as "Lyttl:>:1 1\'''. The spe-cifi-c purpcs.e of this letter is to request an ex~ension of the expiration of the PC ~oning for that project. The current language of Lhe PC provides that i~ shall expire unless t.he p.r-oject has received notification of a I"€sen'ation of f\L~ds from HUD Cr has secured alternate financing acceptable to the City Council by t·.Larch 30. 1992. While as of this date H',J'"J has nQt yet. announced their selections for the Section 202 f~nds, it is important to seek financing from all of the suitable sources for a "low income" project. A.s you may be aware the funding ~~cles are dictated by the agency awarding the monies and the various applicants must tailor thei::.' projec~s accordingly. We have recently received the Notices of F'l;nding Availability for both the Lew Income Housing Tax C[-edit Allocation ar::·:j the State of California R811t.al Bousi~'3' Constr"'''.l·cti(',u progra',\\; bo~b are 5uit.a:t--le financing alternatives for law and very 10· ... ' income 11,:msing and sho..rld be pt,rsued for the Lytton IV project. Applicat:ions: to these agencies are G\.,;.E March 13th and 20th respectively. Both age:ncies include as a tr.reshold requirement evidence trIat zoning approval is in place as of the date of the application and is of a duration suffici€l1t to allow construction of the project. Therefore in order for the Lytton IV project to pu~sue these financing opportunities the PC must be ax~ended €uch that the time pe~iod allo ... ;ed for receipt of notification of fund reservation is nc sooner than July l, 1992. The PC r s existing langua,:;e requiring comnencement". of constt"l.lction prior to September 1993 should be adeqt.late. As -we al'e not allowed to submit any supple..-nental information following the above referenced applicat.ion deadline, this extension of the PC must receive approval by the March 9, 1992 City Council meeting to have any i:npact. > • 1~~]f~11 ~-f Additionally~ in order to maximize the project '6 ranking :i,n this extremely com;>etitive fund.ing en .... ir-onr:lent ...... e 'WolJld also lik.e to request a waiver of bLlilding permit and proc€ssi'-l9 fees. Such a waiver indicates to the reviewing agencies the City's Sood fai.th cc:mmitrnent to assisting the Llevelcpmen,: of affordable housing and allows the assignment of ranking points to the application for -local financial assistance~~ I recogn:ize ~hat this request ordinarily would not. be processed through the City Attorney's office. but in discussion with the Planning Staff it 'llf'Ias recommended that we in~lude such req~est in this le~ter in light of the time con5traints~ A copy of this letter has been delive::,ed to Ken Schreiber and Jim Gilliland. Please contact me or Jim Koch if, after your request~ you have any questions or comments. meet 'With ~'OU at your earliest convenience. ~iD -r~Yr V{/'1f;1-2 lJ.-- ran Wagstao/ /1 Executive D~rector ~d-peninsula Rousing Coalition copy: Ken Schreiber Jim Gilliland Bill Zanerr Nancy Lytle Jim Koch review cf this We are available to PROI'E RT1ES James A. Kocn, Cnair Program Development Committee Community Housing, Inc. 656 Lytton .~venue PaiD Mo. CA 94301 Re: ROQUeSt for E:densioo Dear Jim: February 29, 1992 Ken Schreibe.l' has provi"ed me copies of correspondence conceming your request for an extension of time beyond Marcn 30, 1992. for Lytton IV This cwespondence from Ken Schreiber is tile nrst I ha,e heard about your financing and dead:ine problems From ttle outset of OlIr diScl1ssion~ in March 1991, my offer to grant driveway easemertts across my property provided deadlines for Lytton IV. In communications with my investors and witt1 our lender. i indicated ttlat ttle City's March 30, 1892. deadline applied to OUf oNer. I cannot extend my March 30, 1992, deadline witt10ut their consent. Giver. tl1e current difficurt commercral real estate economy. and the strair.ed re!atic,.,,~ a:: office ~ulid:ng m'mt::rs ha"e W:U1 lenders, I am nat ~opef .. 1 that o.wr offer CJn te extgr.,jsd. As tJas been the situation t~roughout t'1iS project J wish com'11Uriicatfons ber.Nserr Ly1ton !Ii and r.1e wete betl:er. I fee! as if r am put in a "no wm" SituatIOn of appeartng to be a bad guy If I cannot move heaven and earth Gnv€stors and lenders) to accommodate the moving target or Lytton rJ. Your project fills an Imponant housrng rleed by pro·,ic'ing affordable hou$rng tor senlors wllich should be supported by ttle City. However, In order to keep your project on track, I suggest you appl, I", 405l-C • ~, [., ' •. ':. -~~ t,;. _~ - '. joe A. Koch, C~alr february 29, 1992 Page 2 modi1icatJons to the PC ordJnance to move !t1e driveway to Everett so tflat II ~ am unable tC, extend ti1e term of my offer, your project can conM"e to move forward w'tl1 artemaVve dl1veway p'ans c c Ken Sen reibei Bill Zaner 4a~4 ·'~I Jim Gilliland Susan W. Case Ariel CaloMe fran Wagstaffe Sincerely lOurs. . "'--._-_._--_ ........ ..-< . ORC-INANCE NQ.-----.i:....QiL_ ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CI"I''l of PALO ALT'J AMENDING SECTION lS~OS.D40 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNIC IPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO C1Vo....NGE THl:: CLASSIFI CATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN .AS 324~ 328, 330, 332, 334 .A..N"D 340 EVEPETT AVENUE FROM R/tof-JO TO PC The Cour.cil of the City of Palo Al to does ORDAIN as .folloW's: SECTIOi./' J... section IS. 08.040 ot the Palo Al to M:l.nicipal Code, the ftZoning Map~, is hereby amended to change the zoning of certain property known as 324, 328, 330~ 332, 3.34 and 340 Everett Avenue (the "subject property") froM the ItRM-3D Medium Density Multiple-family Residence District-zone classificat10n to the npC Planned Community District-zone classitication. Said property is shown. on a map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby fi~ds ~ith respect to the sUbject property that: , - (a.) The use or t:.ses proposed f·~r the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts -will not provide sUfficient flexibility to allow the proposed devel opment, ~hich ~ill provide housing for low and v~ry low i.ncorne se:1iors. The increas"=,d der'.si ty and decreased parking requirements _ill allow a greater number of smaller units suitable to older persons, thus serving a larger number of persons needing this type of housing, and will reduce the cost per u~it, thus making the units affordable to persons vith 10\1 and very low incomes. (b) Develo~ment of the subject property under the provis~ons of the Planned Community District .. ill result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations ot general districts or combining districts, in that hou.sing for low and very low income seniors is a public need, considering Palo Alto's aging population, and that this type of small, afforda~le units is not being provided in the community by other projects. (c) The use permitted and the site development ~egulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprebensive Plan, and existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or .. ithin the general vicinity, in that the permitted use (i.e., housing for low and very lo~ income seniors) will have minimal traffic or noise impacts cn the surroundir,g neignborhood, and that the development project propo~ed to be constructed on the sub] ect property 1 ~.l"· "'~~.:::-" . - -',,,, -"-! , " "",ill further the policies and progrdms of the Housing Element by increasing the supply of rental housing, providing smaller, affordable units, pro .. ~iding housing ~hich meets the special needs of senior citizens and by taking advantage of fir:ancing available from ather levels of government (Programs '9 and 15, Policies 8 and 11) • .s.t.£'I'.I..Q!:L].. Those certain plans, entitled "Lytton IV senior HOllsinq--330 Everett, Palo Alto. Calitornia~ prepared by Carrasco , Associates, given Architectural Revie"tl Board approval on April 18, 1991, a copy of wh:ch is on file in the Planning Department, and. to which copy referenca is hereby made concerning the f\:11 particulars thereof, are hereby collectively approved as the Development Plan for the subject property pursuant to Section 18.68.1204 Said Development Plan is approved for the fcllo'Wing uses, and subject to the following conditions: (a) pe:t;1l1itted Uses. The permitted only use shall be housing for low and very low income seniors, and accessory uses incidental thereto. (b) Conditional Uses~ No uses shall be permitted in this z~ne other than that use spe~ified in pa~agraph (a). (c) site pevelopment ~_~ati~ The site development regulations governing the subject property shall be in accordance with the Development Plan. (d) Parking and Leading Requirements. The parking and loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in accordance with the Development Plan. ee} Special Requirement __ ?~ The fcllo'Wing conditions are made special requirements conditioning the approval g:-anted by th'is ordinance: (1) If the owner of the property known as 325 Lytton transfers ten feet ot property located at the common property line bet'Ween the two properties, 'Which is to the rear of the subj ect property, the trash facility shall be relocated tc that rear ten foot area. The PASco access to the trash facility in such case shall be from Lytton Avenue 4 If the property line remains unChanged, the trash shall be located in the basement. (2) pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to the parking lot shall be provided at the commcn property line located at the rear of the subject property~ 2 ~~~!' - . ~-," -' " -. "'-.. :t: -, " '::: - (J} n!e o'.ner of the subject property shall obtain from the City of Palo Alto an easement for vehicular access through the city parking lot known as Lot J t to provide access to the garage ramp. (4) The owner of the sUbject property shall obtain from the owner of the property known as 325 Lytton art easement for vE::hicular access across the 325 Lytton property to the garage ramp and far emergency access to the rear of the subject property. (5) The owner of the subject property shall obtain from the o"'''ne:r of the property known as 325 Lytton an easement for vehicular access and egress from the subject property and across and from the 325 Lytton property onto Lytton Avenue. If the redevelopment of the 325 Lytton property provides an oppcrtunity for a coordinated cirCUlation system 'With the subj ect ;>roperty, the location of the ~ccess easement required by this paragraph may be changed in accordance ~ith such plans as may be approved by the City council for such redevei.opment. (6) A security gat~ shall pe provided at the botto~ of the ga~age ramp. (7) T'w'o Class 2 or Class 3 bicycle y~rking spaces shall be provided near the entrance of the building for visitors and short term parking~ Some Class 1 bicycle parking shall be provided for residen~s, with the nQ~er, design and location to be determined by the Transportation Division in conSUltation with the c)'lI{ner of the subject property. (8) If, after the permitted use on the subject property is in operation, it is determined by the o...-ner of the subject property that all of the tandem parking spaces provided pursuant to the Development Plan are not actually needed, the owner may request Architectural Review Board approval to reconfiqure the garage so as to provide two way circulation, replacing approxi mately eight tandem parking spa~es. (9) The owner of the subject property shall provide ...... ith the. final landscape plan an arborist's report detailing protection measures for trees on neighboring parcels which will be impacted by the construction on the subject property, and a lettE':r evidencing that a c-ertified arboris't. .'ill 1 • - ......... _-----_.--_ ... (f) be responsibloe for p~otection measurp.s. imple-reentation cf the {lOJ The sewer line on Everett street shall be tested for flow capacity, and the owner of the subject property shall be responsible for any required uP9rade~ in accordance with the applicable Utility Rate Schedule. (l:l The O"Jrler of the subject property shall en-f:er into a recordable agreement -with the City to ensure that 311 W"lits in the proj ect to be constructed in this zone shall remain affoz-dab1e to low and very low seniors. {12) The owner I 5 representative shall prepare a constr~ction plan, to be approved by the Transportation Division and the Public Works DepartmE.:lt, to identify and :c.itigate the demoli tion and construction impacts listed below. This plan shall be coordinated ~ith the proposed construction plans G! projects located at 325 Lytton and 325 Everett: (i) ( ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) Demolition Construction of temporary barricades and fences Te~pcrary closure of sidewalr.s and streets Site for the storage of construction equipment and supplies Identi£ication of the proposed construction access poir..t a:;ld truck routes Restoration of City stree~s i~pacted by t~e construction activities R~placement of entire city sidewalk in trent of the property in accordance with ci ty standards Puolic relations plan directed at rE-sol vinq the concerns of adj acent merchant businesses pevelopment obtained by completed by Schedule. BUilding September 1, 1993, September 1, 1994. permits must be and construction SECTION 4. The City COUncil hereby finds that this project vill have no signific~~t effect on the environment. SECTION 5. This ordinance shall not become effective unless l on or before March 30, 1992, the applicant for rezoning has received from the Department of Housing anc Urban vevelopment CRUD) a notice of selection for development and operation of the project hereby approved or~ ~n the alternative, the appli7ant has ob: ~ined financing satisfactory to the City Council~ If the applicant makes 11._ -'--'---'~--""---".I> such a st.o .... ing ,,:m or-bet"ore Mi'.l"ch 30, 1992, this ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after March 3D, 1992. INTRO~JCED: July 22, 1991 PASSED: September 23, 1991 AYES: ANDERSEJ'..", LEVY, MCCOh"N, S't'TORIUS, WOOLLEY NOES: COBB, KNISS, HENZEL ABSE~~: FAZZINO ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: ___ ~/~~ City Clerk I (/ APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. city Attorney 5 APPROVED: City Manager L}~(. I ' I M-~~g Sc~~ __ Director of Planning and Community Environment -----...---------_. ------ - I t GRAPH!C ATTACHI!£NT DATE: 211.'" I SCALE: I" • >.0" lO STAFF R£PORT FlLE NO.SIIO~ZC-17 ,.O-ARB-115 J 1I0~EU.-55 I I PROJECT: PROPOSE!:) ZONE C.i-/AHGE FAO" RM'-,H TO' Pc:.... FOq, 324. 121, '11l. 33,.!.....J. __ 34 •.. ,,40 EVERE"TT "liE' _ __ NORTH I I L ",-, /~--: " ~ L " ' '·1 -j I 1 - ~sta September 19, ~991 Honorable City council Palo Alto, California t 330 Everett Avenu. -Zone cq~ Members of the Cowncil: 8 We mat with the applicants of the 330 Eve~ett Avenue p~oject in an effort to I:ssist them in o:btaininq HUD approval for their project~ No City funds are involved at this time~ MUD regulations require, among other things, that the zoning be "ccmuitted.-at the time of project approval. Given RUD's schedule, this can be accomplished by aoopting the proposed Zoning ordinance with the follo~inq changes~ Section s. Tl'"ds ordinance shall not become effective unless, on or before March 30 1992, the applicant for rezoning has received from the Oepartment of Housinq and Orban Development (KUO) a notice of selection for development and operation of the project :hereby approved or, in the ~ernativer the applicant has obtai~ed financing ~m some othe~ source in an amo~atisfactory to the Ci ty Coul'lett;----I-f----tM----~}-· nt makes such a showing on or before March 30, 1992, this ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after March 30 .. 1992~ HOD regulations also dictate the timelines for construction. consequently, a change in section J(t) Development SChedule needs to be made as follOWS: (£) pevelop;;,ent Schedulg, Building permits must be obtained by September 1, 1993 and construction completed by september 1, 1994. These changes will allow Community Health, Incorporated to pursue HUD funding under the project revie~~d and approved by Council. CHR:C35:91 ) '1 I ) I I ! Paqe No It 1. raeo~end&d that Council adopt the pro~osed PC Ordinance with the ehanges note4 above~ Respectfully 8ubmitte4, AtU.cMent =, Ariel c .. lonne CI!l\' U5. 91 ORDINANCE NO. ______ _ ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CIT, OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18. os. 04 0 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNIC IPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAPJ TO C~~GE THE cLASSIFI CATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS )24, 328, 330, ~32, 3.3.c AND :) 4 0 EVERETT .11. VENUE FROM RM -J 0 TD ,pc The council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 1. Section 1e.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map~, is h€reby amended to change the zoning of c~rtain property known as 224, 328 1 330, 332, 334 and 340 Everett Avenue (the "'subj*=t propertyn) from the "RM-JO M~diUln Density Multiple-family Residence District" zone classification to the "PC :Planned Co-:tUitunity District" zone classificati'.Jn. saie. property is shown or:. a m3p attache.d. heret.o as Exhibit nAn and incorporated herein by reference~ SECTION~. The City Council hera-by finds ""ith respect to the subject property that: (aJ (bJ (c) ,tOO]] w.: 0c0029.! The use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or cor:lbining districts .. 'ill not provide SUfficient flexibility to allo~ the proposed devel opr.'lent, ""hich -will provide housing for 10 ..... and very 10... incoI!le seniors. The increasee density and decreased parking requirements will al1o~ a greater number of smaller ul"lits suitable to older pers::.ns, thus serving a larger number of persons needing this type of housing, ane 1t.'~ll reduce the cost per unit, thus making the units affordable to persons with low and very low i~co~es~ Development of the s~bject property under the provl.s~ons of the Planned Cor..::.unity District ... rill resul t irJ public benefits not otherwise attainable by applicatio;1 of t.he regulations of general districts or combining districts, in that housing for lo~ and very 10"" income seniors is a public: need~ conSidering Palo Alto's aging popula~ion, and that this type of small, affordable uni~~ is not being provided in the community by other projects. The use permittee and the site aevelop.ment regulations .!IIpplicable wi~in the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the qeneral vicinity, in that the permitted 'Use {i. e., hOl.lsinq for low and very ~o .... income seniors) 'Will have minimal traffic or noise impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and that the development project proposed to be constructed on the subj ect property 1 - ~il1 further the policies and progra~s of the Housing Element by increasing the supply of rental housing, providing sL'l~ller, affordable units, providing housi~g ... ·hiC'h meea,ts the special needs cf senior citizens and by taking advantege of financing available fro~ other levels of 90vernment (Progra~s 9 and 15, Policies 8 ana ll). SECTiON;). Those certain plans, entitleo nLytton IV Senior Housinq--330 Everett, Palo Alto, Californian prepare~ by Carrasco « Associates, given Architectural Review Board approval on April 18, 1991, B copy of \l"tdch is on file in the Planninq Department, and to which copy reference is hereby rr.ade concerning the fllll particulars thereof, are hereby collectively approved as the Develop!!Ient Plan for the subject property pursuant to Section .18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the follo""'ing uses, and subject to ~he follo .... ing conditions: (a) Permitted Uses. The perl!l.itted only housing for low and very 10,,", income acc~ssory uses incioental thereto. IJse sball seniors, be and (b) ~.91'1ditiona) Uses. No uses shall be perlnitted: in this zone other than that use specified in paragraph (a). (e) Site Peve] opment RecrlJl~t ions. The site development regulations governing the subject property shall be in acco:-dance ld th the Development Plan. (d) P¢rking ana Lo.ading P:eD"uire!"lents. The parking and loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in accordance 'io.:"ith the Development Plan. ce) $.]2ecial BeguirE'':'T1ents..1. The fol101.rinq conditions are Ir,ade speciel requiremen'ts conditionin9 the approval granted by this ordinance: (1) If the ot,mer of the prop-ert:)' kna'.tin as 3~S Lytto~ transfers tEn feet o! property located at the co~cn property Ilne bet~een the two properties, .... hich is to the rear of the sul:lject property, the trash facility shall :be reI o~ated to that rear ten foot area. The PASCO ac::ess t.o the trash facility in such case shall be from Lytton Avenue. If the property line remains unchange~, the trash shall be located in the basement. {2} Pedestrian and e~ergency vehicle a~cess to the parking lot shall be provided at the C01!mlon property line located at the rear of the SUbject property. 2 " ".C·'··L·· . ',.;.~ >.'C'C"" (3} The o.mer of the subject property shall obtain from the city of Palo Al to an easement fo: vehiculC3.:r access through the city parking lot known as Lot ~, to ~roviGe ~ccess to the garage ramp. (4) The o.,"ner of the sW::'ject propert}' shall obtain from the c'wms:r of the propert}' known as .325 Lytton an easement for vehicular acc~ss across the 3~5 Lytton property to the garage ramp and for emergency access to the rear of the subject property. (5) The o· .. 'ner of the subject property sh;511 obtain from the owner of the property knowm as 325 Lytton an easement for vehicular acc~ss and egress from the subject property and across and from the-325 Lytton property onto Lytton Avenue~ I f the redevelopment of the 325 Lytton property provides an opportunity for a coordinated circ'llation system \,lith 'the SUbject property, the location of the access ease~ent required by this paragraph r.ay be changed in accordance ... ith such plans as :Er,al' be approved by the city Council for such redevelopment. (6) A security gate st.all be provided at the bottom of the garage ramp. (7} Two Class 2 or Class J bicycle parking spaces shall be provided near the entrance ot the building tor visitors and short term parking. Some Class 1 t:icycle parking shall be provided for residents, ~ith the nUmber, design and location to b~ determined by the Transportation Divisior. in consultation 1ot'ith the owner of the subject property. (8) If, after the penitted use on the subject property is in operation, it is determined: by the owner o,! the subject property that all of the tandem parking spaces provided pursuant to the Development Plan are not actually needed, the owner may request Architectural Review Board approval to reconfigure the garage so as to provide two way circulation, replaCing approxi mately eight tandem parking spaces~ (9) . The ovner of the subject property shall provide "With the final landscape plan an arbcrist's report detailing protection measures for trees on neighburing parcels ~hich ~ill he impacted by the construction on the subject propErty, and a letter evidencing that a certified arborist "Will 3 c"·- -:;;)t ;> (tl . . -.~,' .--_ .. _-._-...... ---- be responsible-for protection ~easures. implementation of the (10) The sewer line on Everett Street shall be t~sted for tlo .. c:.:.pacity, a:"ld the owner cf the subject propel'ty shall be responsible fer any required upgrade, in accordance .... ith the applicable Utility Rate Schedule. (11) The owner of the subject property shall en'ter into a record.able agree::r.:=:nt 'With the City to ensure that all units in the proj ect to :be constructed in this zone shall remain affordable to low and very 10\0' seniors. (12) The o .... ·ner's representative s~all prepare a construction pl~n, to be approved by the Transportat~on Division and the Public Works Department, to identify an:::! nd tigate the demoli tion and construction iJr.pacts 1 isted: below. This Dla.n shall be coordinated "oI,'ith the proposed construction plans of projects located at 325 Lytton and 325 Everett: (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi I (vii) (viii) Demolition Construction of temporary barricades and fences. Temporary closure of sidelolalks and streets Site !~r the storage of constr~ction equipment and supplies Identific~tion of the proposed construction access pOint a.nd. truck routes Restoration of city streets impacted. by the construction activities Replac~ment of en~ire City sid~walk in front of the prope=ty in accordance vith City standards Publ:c relations plan directed at resolving the concerns of adjacent merchant busine~ses peyelopment Schedu~~ obtained by October completed by October 1, BuilcHnq 1, 1992, 1.993. permits ~ust be end construction S;CIION 4. rhe city Council hereby finds that this project will havQ no significant effect on the enviro~ent. 9J0911 We: OCOOZ95 .' .' SECTI9t~ 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first dey after the day of its adoption: provided~ how6ver. that the zone chang'£': approved by this ordinance sh"ll not be effective until the applicant f'Or tl;,e rez':)ning has demonstrated that it has obtaine~ adequate fundin9 for development and operation ot the projee-t hereby approved from the ll.S~ Department ot Housing and urban Development CUWJD") or from another source~ INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVE 0 AS TO FOl'.M: Senior Asst~ City Attorney ", ~'" 5 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment I E'XHISTT :.. .. i ---I -I " I NORTH I SKAi .-.• C ATTACHMENT DATE: ""10' I SCALE: , •••••• TO STAFF REPORT fILE NO.U-ZC-17 I fD-Ar48-11S IIO-EI.-5S PROJECT: ;'NO~OSED ZQHE CHAHaE FfltO.Y IIUf-U TO' p-c... FOR ~U" UI, :1311 . ..,U,)34 .340 E"VEfltIETT "VI'I \ , f -.. ! L "..----~-, " \<:' l , COUNCIL AATTEPS 8. Mayor sutor ius and Council Me~er Kniss re Reconsideration of ordinance (300) (CMR:43S:91) MOTION '1'0 TAKE FROK THE TABLE': Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by sutoriU5, to take the item from the tab~e_ HO'l'XOK '1'0 TAn FROM THE 'rULE PJ..BBEI) 7-0, Levy "not participating," Fazzino absent. Council Member Kniss said staff had met "With the. applicant and reviewed the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) deadlines and requirements. In order for the applicant to move forward ",ith the proposal t council's appro ..... al ·· .. "as nee'led. 9/23/9l CiTi COUM..:1L ML'IUl'E~ ajrZ::;'YCHt-i-! /Y<7 / 67-219 • L -. - Ci ty Attorney Ariel Calonne said the dates propose·d in Section 5 in staff report (~:435:91) were driven by the request of the applicant. A notice of sE::lecti-:on ..... 01110 be available by February 2a, 1992. The rest of section 5 r.irrored the alte~native language proposed to Council earlier~ Tony Badger, 381 Ha>tlthorn-e, said the community s'nould have a voice in the development of the Downto"ffi North neigl".borhoods. He supported the c·.)ncept of senior housing, but the process by .... hich the proj (:ct had: moved ahead ... ·as flawed. The nei-ghborhood had not been notified the item would be on the agend~ tonig~t. Blair stewart, 1580 Walnut, President of th~ Board of Lyttcn Gardens and Community Housing, Inc. (CHI), said the timing of the ordinance reflected the HUD timetable4 Council Kember Ccbb queried .-hether the applicant would return to Council for City funding. Mr. stewart said there was a possibility that fundi::1g 'Would be requested from the city at a later time. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron street, reminded the Council the Planning commission's approval of the project .. 'as predicated u:?on CHI's lease of the property. He had observed vaguene.es, chdnges in directions, and contradictions presented by the developer. The project should not be a forced iit on an inapprop:::-iate site. The issue was the project, not the senior housing. 'Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 EVerett Avenue, .. as frustrat~d with the project because of the process. The proj ect sho~ld not be forced onto a site because of senior housing. The proj ect had not resolved the issues of benefits, fit, and impact to the neighborhood. The proj ect would not help the seni::·!:"s of the City because of the HOD financing4 There ~as a lack of concern for the Downtown North neighborhood. Herb !:lorock, 2731 Byron street J believed the motion should be defeated. He suggested the applicant be required bjt september '30, 1991, to shoW' o;""l;ership of all the parcels~ have a signed access agreement \w'ith 325 Lytton, retain the original development schedule, delete the language permitting an alternate source of funding, and include language that no City funds would be expended on the project. He cited possible potential E:-o\om Act and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) violations . .Joe Meyers, 301 Bryant street, sait! CHI had spent over five rears on the project. The project 'Was only considered by the Planning Commission because it, was a lease property. rt was i:rnpossible to track and evaluate the pI'oject because there 'Was sO little documentation available. To date, CHI had not submitted the ten k~y documents requested by staff. If Council approved the amended toning change, CHI ~ould be back for city funding. It was the right kind of project but in the 'Wrong location and run by a foundering corporation in technical default on its debts. 9/23/91 67-220 Sylvia S2:man, president, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), 3380 "Kiddlefield Road, said the second re"lding of the ordinance was critical to enabl-= CHI to send its application into hlJD by Septemhe~ 30, 1991~ If HUD's approval was rec~ived. there ~dS a good chance that 51 units of very low-~ncome housing would be built in Palo Alto~ It loOas her understanding th,at a preference ..... as given within a 10-mile area. council Member Woolley queried \o'hether Palo Al to seniors 'Would not be helped because of the RUO funding. Ms. Seman said in other HUD projects, Hun had permitted preferenc~ to people who lived or ~orked in Palo Alto. Fran Wagstaff, 2601 Cowper street, urged Council to move forward with the zoning approval to give CHI an opportunity to apply for the financing. From her experience as Executive Director of Mid Peninsula Housing Coalition, it ~os not possible right now to know exactly how the project would move forward and be financed. CHI had been offered technical a~sistan~e to move the project forward& Melissa Biggs, 301 Bryant street., said project contingencies, i&e. f sewage lines and large-scale construction int~rruptions, had not peen included in CHI I s planning. Approval of the zoning change could open the door to a more intense development. Council Member McCOirrll refer-red to staff report (CY-R: 435: 91) and queried whether additional language should be added to Section 5 to limit the satisfaction of another source of funding only to the amount and to make sure no other conditions existed separate from the amount so there 'Would be an appropriate level of right ot approval on funding other than HUD flinding. Mr. Calonne said the words ftfrom some other source in an amount" could be deleted. council Member McCown clarified the seccnd reading of the ordinance proposed was t:"e ordir.a!1ce attached to the staff report (CMR:435:91) ~ith the new Section 5 and Section J(f) which changed the dates in the Development Schedule. Mr. Calonne said that ~as correct~ XOTrON: Council Me~er McCown move~, seconded by Woolley, to adopt the ~oning ordinance far second reading vith the change in section 3(f) Development Schedule as follows: {f) Development Sch~gJ,11e .. Building permits must be obtained by September 1, 1993, and construction completed by september 1, 1994. Further. the ieldditional proviso to delete from the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 5 wording IT .... fror!! some other source in an amount ..• n' ORDINANCE .. 4053 entitled TrORDrNAl'~CE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18. DB. 040 OF THE PAW ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING 1".APj TO CHANGE 'l'HE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 324, 328, 330, 332. 334, AND 340 EVERETT 9/23/91 67-221 -.. , ...... -~:"'!----.. ~ ....... '-' " .. - L ':;:;-~.;i ~-~ • 'r·_' .:~ ' .. '" ,- -;""'; , AVENUE fROM RM 30 TO PC" (1st Reading 7/22/91, Passed 6-2, Cobb, Renzel nno," Wool~ey a~sent) POOl council. Kember McCown said council had an exter,sive review of the proposal in July 1991, and the secopd reading of the ordinance was c~nsistent with the action taken then~ council Member Renze! queried the time toll for a referendum on the proposal. Mr. Calo~ne said the ordinance ~as effective on the thirty-fi~st day after March 30, 1992. The referendum period would run through the thirty-first day after March ~O, 1992. Council Member Renzel strQngly sl.!pported low-incot:1e rental housing, but she believed that low-and moderate-income housing projects in Palo Alto should be compatible with th~ neighborhood and follow the existing zoning. A great deal of work vas put into the comprehensive planlling for the neighborhood, and the project called into question how the Council would view the Comprehensive Plan land use ~ap and the loning~ If the zoning continued to be eroded, the issue of lo~-and moderate-income housing would become volati12 in the co~unity. Council Memher Kniss was concerned aoo'U.t the applicant's ability to go fo:r-ward 'Without returning to Council for financing. She 'Was troubled that the applicant had not moved forward j n other areas since July 1991. It 'Was the right kind of project but the wrong kind of. proposal, and she ... ,ould not support the motion. Council Memher Cobb associated \,:ith Council Me'l!l.Ders Kniss and Renz;el and was cc'ncerned about the financing issue and zoning changes driven by the nature of the application~ He believed the applicant would return to Council for City fundi~g to allow the project go forwar~ after the zoning change. Mayor sutorius hopeQ the comments heard from the pUblic would be considered by the applicant. He was also concerned about a possible request: for funding from the Cit .... ~ for the project but that should not influence the Cour.cil's deci~.~n. Council Member Andersen was conc~rned about the process of the project -which had too many loose ends~ There \oIere legitimate concerns by the neighbors which needed to be addressed. kOTIOR PASSED 5-3, Cobb, Kniss, Renzel, "no,~ Fazzino absent. The ~eeting adjourned to a Closed session re Per sonnel at 11:0~ p~m. rlt-IAI .. ADJ'OURt~'1.'E.: 'I'he meeting adjourned at 12:10 a.lr.~ 9/23/91 67-222 --·--'L-----'--- - \ '. ' .• V , --, ,!It __ ... ..-. ...s 1/ .>(C'L-, - September 12, 1991 HONORA2LE CI'!'Y COUNCIL Palo Alto l California 33 0 EVE~ETT .AVENUE PROPOSJ:JLnKANCI~G RESUEMITTAL Members of the C~uncil: 2 This report relays Community Housing Inc. (CHI}'s second request for use of city Housing in Lieu funds for the lease and development of a 51-unit senior housing project at 330 Everett Ave. The Federal Departrr.ent of Ilousi:lg and urban Development (HUD} has extendej the deadline for sub~itting Section 202 funding applica tions to September 30, 1991. On July 22, 1991 Council approved t~e P.C. zone change request but denied CHI's proposed financing request for 330 Everett Avenue, as presented in staff reports CHR:320~91 and C!1R:367~91. As outlined in CMR:320:91, CHI proposed using HUD section 202 funds and city Housing in Lieu funds for the construction of the project and Community Development Block Gra.nt (CLJBG), state and/or private funds for acquisition of the property_ specifically CHI ",as requesting Counci 1 approval for 11011Si ng in Lieu funds in the form of a $6~5/000 modified loan to be paid back on an "as available" basis, and a $315,000 grant. The grant I:lonies 'Were to be used to provide City-required amenities that cannot be funded by section 202 or CDBG funds. The use of the City funds would be conditioned upon the approval of Section 202 funding. Cl"".R: 4 22: 91 L • ~ . ,. , . .~ ~~==;:..;;...~~-.,,-----.-,-.-.. Staff reccmpended co~~cil Jeny the re~uest for t~o reasons. First, HOGsin3 in Lieu Co~~ercial accou~t funds would have to be USQd since there are n<:l Residentia:l aCCOll:Jt fl,lnds av,:!,ilable. By Council policy. cor.:mercial account funds 1'l1USt be L:sea to construct .r;e'iI w.:JrKe[" housin9" .... hich .'ould preclude use for se:"1ior hOUSIng. council had pt"eviously waived the policy and allowed a loan from the commercial account to the Res identia 1 accc:unt. for the purchase of an existing family co~plex ~t 630 Los Robles. That loan of $1 ~illion from the Commercial to the Resid~ntial account was ~ade ""ith the understanding t:hat it ""8uld be paid back from the Residential accou~t. If approved, the grant !ro~ the Residential account '[.!Quld p\,;t the account $1.3 millic'n "in debt .. to the Commercial account. ,"econd, the $665, DOC loa:l is based on a lea.se of the subject property. Staff repo::-ted thzt to date, loans and grants from Housing in Lie:l funds ha ..... e been used only for the outright purchase or land. As proposed, the lease option and ground lease provide a mechanism ".,r.ere.by the existing comrr.ercial loans on the property would be paid off (by the $665, IJjJIJ) , thereby creating a 10· .... - interest loan that is extre~ely be~eficia1 to the property owner. On the day of the Ccu.'''lcil :::leetin9 CHI subnitted an ar.;ended request that Council approve only the grant of $315,000. The applicant explained that H~~'s Section 202 funding process had two levelS of funding appro".,;al~ The first phase reqlJ_ired CHI to sho"w proof cf funds for the City-required amenities~ If Council approved the grant, CHI ""culd have more time to resal ve the ground lease financing issue. Staff recommended Council deny that request for the follo~ing three reasons: 1) Staff cOllld not reCOF..mend Council approve the $315, ODD grant without a total understar.dir.g of the:: entire financial arrange ments. 2) conu71itrnent at the initial $315, ODD gr.3nt r.tay obliga"':e th.a Council to co~rnit~en~ cf f~tu=e f~nds. :!) The. grant of the $315, 000 '."Ol.llj require a l::;an to the Residen tial acc,cunt from the Cor:--.. '7lcrcial account which .... ould take sev~ral years to be repaid by the Residential acco~nt. HUD subseguently extended the Section 202 funding request deadline and CHI has returned to council again reqllesting the grant of the $313,000 for the City-r~quired amenities. Amended ~e~ On August 9, staff met ~ith the representative from CHI to discuss HUD's section 202 guidelines and how they might be interpreted to r-esclve st:aff's concerns. Staff ",'as infortl'.ed that CHI ., ... as nOIll CMR:422:91 2 --------- '., - aware that the structure of the previously proposed ground leas~ would net be acceptable to H~~. CHI again requested the $315,000 grant, t,o'Wever. stating th.:!t this ... ·culd en;S'J.:re thei(" continued eligibility fer Section 202 financing, a~d that as the HUD review process progr~ss€d, they hoped to work out some ~lternative lease or "cquisitioJl process 'w'it.h the property C-"'T.er. The grant '\.louIe! be contingent on CHI's obtaining HtJD 2.pproval. City staff is concerned by CHI's appar~nt reca~",:,.en1ation that the city transfer its respons ibili ty for t.:Tlderste;nc.ing the c01l'.plete financial arrange~ent5 to H~D staff, i.e., if RCD approves the Sectien 202 funding, City staff ~ould have abrogated its revie~ responsibilities to HUD. Of equal or greater concern to staff is the state.ment included in the HL:"D requirel':';ents that "seccndary financing IDust be by a public body." ~UD's cequirem£nt &trongly in~reases the IH:elihood CHI \liill return to City coullcil to ask fc,r the additional $665,000 needed to co~p~ete the project. At this writing, s~aff has no TIore infor~atian abo~~ the proposed financial arrange~ent than it had at tte original application. Consequently, staff ~ould like to have. such in!or~ation provided for Lytton IV prior to dedication of city 17,o(;ies to the. proj ect. Fi~al1y, staff continues to be concerned about the questionabie financial health of tr.€ Lytton III project. In an inforr.atior. report (CMR:387:91) dated August 15, 1991 staff jr,fo::-~ed COL:i1cil that Lytton Gardens, Inc. (LGI), establisr.ed by CHI in 1980, had failed to make full payments in Dece!:1ber 1989, June 1990, Decel",oer 1990, and June 1991 on debt service for bonds issued under the City of Palo Alto's na",e fer the Lyttcn III Health Care Center. Tr.e reserve account for the bonds has been reduced from $1.2 million to $400,000. In addition, City st.aff has been u:1able to obtain audited financial state~ents for Lytton III since fiscal year 1988- 89. Unaudited statements pt"epared by LGI staff do not provide staff with confidence tha't :"he Lytton III project ..... ill attai., SUfficient profitability to replenish the debt service re.ser.,te or to initiate required pt"incipal repayme~ts co=ing due beginning in 19505. Staff believes that. if adeauate finan'.::izl infan'i',ation ha~ been supplied by ChI and ra~ie~ed ~rior to issuance of debt undEr the Ci1:Y's name, the potential proble;ns with Lj/tton III night haVe become appaz:-ent. In a letter dated August 28, lS91 staff informed the applica~t that staff -would again recorr.wend Council dEmy crn's application for the '$315,000 grant unless the applica!"~t could furnish inform.ation 'Which had bee.n previo"L.lsly req' .... ested in June 1990, in anticipation of CHI's request for a loan frO!':l the Housing in Lieu Fund. The information requested includes: CMR:422:91 3 :-, . r • r' - 1) 2 ) i ~ An u.pdated Lytton IV pro forr!'.a including the costs associated with CHIls gaining *'c\?r.trol of the prcperty." Revised accurate relocati·:::·n costs. 3) Breakdown of design, engineering ilnd cc-hstruction costs~ including any doc~:r.1entation. Resolution of the easement. through 325 Lytton and City-owned land. 4) Develop!i.'lent costs includir,gl but not li:nited to: a. Demolition b. Sewer/off-site impro',enents c. Fire ~ydrants d. E!ectrical services 5) Cons-:ruction costs that. are in accor.jar.,::e ",.ith Federal competitive bidding, non-discrirnir:ation and Davis-Bacon Laber Stand3rds r~quircments. 6) A sCjund management pla.n t?-.at includes: a. A descr iptio!"l of the proposed manag.ement team for the new facility (e~perience, etc.) b. Revised cash flel",!' analysis based on above costs, pro jected rents and HVOFS Section 20< guidelines. 7) Title reports for each of the properties showing current o\ornership. s; Copie~ of loan dOCL,:~er.ts fer-each propE'rty. 9) An appraisal establishing the current value of the property. 10) A copy of the c~rrent property o· .... ner's family trust. This information is vital for evalUation of any loan application for city monies. CHI has informed staff that they are compiling infor~ation at the date this report is being ~ritten, but ~ill not be able to provide it by the September 15 council meeting. CMR:-422=91 4 • \ \ • I Recommend a t _~ __ t:l--,'} Based on the information submitted i~ this report and without the detailed infornation requested by staff and the ti~e to a~alyze th~t information, staff cannot provide Cou~cil ~ith the assurance that the J3G Everett project is financially viable a:Ld there:ore recomnends denial of CHI's request. Respectfully sub::.itted, J./ (~-~< '-~. -r:~,-~'.~~ ___ WILL!Al1 W. FELlJ-'.J..N Real Property Manager -(; it.~,-, . '[J EMILY HARRI~ Director of Lin~nce C ' kd?hC ! ,. -) WILLI ZA..NER- City ~anager CC: COIruiluni t.t Housing Inc. CMR:422:91 5 • --.~ i , . I i , i i. -. I '" REPORT.S Of OFFICIALS 2. Proposed Financing Resutlmittal for 330 E\iere.tt .~venue Mayor Sutorius said communicatiDn had been received that evening from the applicant I s representatives 'Which changed the circumstance regarding the item. Mr~ Zaner said it ~as his understanding rrom the letter that the applicant ""'ished to withdraw the application at that time. M~ION: Vice Mayor Fazzino moved, seconded by Renzel, to accept withdrawal of the application from the applicant. MOTlOS PASSeD 9-0. • , " . " - July 18, 1991 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, California 330 EVERETT AVENUE PROPOSED FlNANCIN~ Members of the council: aeoort ill Brie:f 18 This report is related to the financing proposal presented by Community Housing Inc~ ,CHI) 'for use of City and COInlIlunity Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the lease and oevelopmel1t of property co:rr.mon.ly known as 3JD E.verett. This report is presented in conjunction 'With CMR.:J2C: 91, 'Which relates to the Planned community (Pc.) zone change and the development of )30 Everett. staf.f is not reconunending that Council approve the financing proposal. On July 1, 1991 Council received Q. report on 330 Everett Avenue (CMR.320:91) pertaining to the .Planning commission's recommendation for the "development of a 51-unit belOW-marKet-rate senior residence project. The repDrt also contained CHI·s proposal for financing of the project and their requ~st for City participation. As outlined in CHR: 320: 91, CHI is proposin-3" to obtain financing for acquisition and developlllent of 330 Everett frorn several sources, includinq 1) the Feaer~l Department of Housing and U~ban Develop ment's section 202 support Housing for the Elderly program (Federal 202 rands); 2} City CDaG funds; 3) city Housing In Lieu funds; and 4) state and/or private funding~ CHI is proposing to use Federal 202 funds and the city Housing In Lieu funds for the construction of the project and CDBG funds for acquisition of the property. CMR: 367: 91 The site cuntrol arrange~ent is a complex transaction t~ot creates a 50-year ground lease ~ith CHI as the Lessee and the current owner as the LessoI'". J...ddit.ionallY. a ne"" 'mort.gage is created with CHI as the Lander holding a first deed of trust on the ne~ly ~erged single parcel. Housing and Urban Development {HUD} has determined that the proposed funding for the new ~ortgage is no~ a CDBG-eligible activity. since CDSG funds canno' ...;.E used for the project as it is currently envisioned. alternativE runds l.1ould have to be ta):;.en from the H':msing in Lieu fund. The amount of Housing in Lieu fU:'lds regu~sted is $665,OCO ir. the form of a modified loan, and $300,000 in the form of a grant. ';he grant from the Housing in Lieu fUnd would be used to provide amel".ities that ""'ould not be allowed with the use of FederC!"'_ 202 or COBe; funds. The use of City funds -""ould be conditioned... :1 the approval of Federal 202 funding. CHI 'will apply to the. federal goverrutlent as an applicant in cornp~tition \IIith other applicants tor a portion of a specifi-c amount of Federal 202 funds. CHI's application for Fedet"'al 202 funds 'Will require nsite control" (pre·of of land acquisition financing), and therefore City council approval of this request for funds. currently, there are no funds in the in ttJe Xousing In L:i eu Residential account and $2.9 million in the Ca~r.e~cial account. Ci,ty Staff Reviell city staff revie'lt.'ed the financing proposal and recommends that even thcugh there is a great demand for this tYP2 of housing, the financing as proposed should not be approved by Council. Staff recot'Mt.ends de.nial of the. CHI's requ.est for three reasons. First, if Housing in Lieu funds are used, the funds ~ould have to come from the Commercial account. By Council policy~ Corrtr.;ercial account funds may not be use~ for senior hOUe ~g. To date, city Council has ap; ::-oved only one loan to the F .,iciential account from the COll\1!'.ercl.al accour,t, fer the purchase 0.1 the Existing complex at 630 Los Robles. TrJat lean ... ·'1S made ~ith the understanding that it would be paid back from the Residential acco~nt in a relatively short peri~d of time.. CHI's proposal .... ould request a grant of $300,000 and a loan of $66~.OOO that ~ould be paid back on an ~as available" basis. Second, the $665,000 loan is based on a lease of tne subject property. To date. loans and grants from Housing in Lieu funds have been used only for the outright purchase of land. Finally, the leas.e option and ground lease provide a It\ec~anism whereby the eXisting coJnJtlercial loans on the property ""'ould be paid off (by the $665,OOO}, thereby creating a lo~-interest loan that is extremely beneficial to the property owner. Under this arrange ment, CHI, as lessee, \IIould pay monthly ground rental to the property owner and the property owner would repay the debt on the property, in monthly ins~al1ments, to CXI, under a deed of t~ust. CMF;:367:91 2 -----~~------.-.. :-.. '-"...--.. -.---.-"._-"., 'L . . ~c Raviev The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (FAIle) re\."ie'Wed the financing proposal at their July 10 meet.ing. Their mim.l'tes are includ-:d as part of t.."",is report. PAMe strongly supports the Lytton IV proj ect, based on the reed for more senior housing. The PAHC also supports the CHI request for a qrant of $300,000 from tne Housing in Lieu commercial account for the 330 Everett desired. amenities. They feel that the qrant should be :made ..,ith the understanding that Commercial ~ccount funds would be replaced from Residential account funds as they become availa.ble~ However'", while P}l.HC 'Would support the loan of $66S~OOO if CHI restructures its agreement to acquire the subject property and CDBG fU!'lds are used to purchase the property, the PARe does not recommend use of Housing in Lieu Commercial account funds for the $665 s roO loan, in any forw~ Rec;:ommendatiop Staff reco'mmends denial of the Com.munity Housing Inc. proposed finanCing request for 330 Everett Avenue, as presented. ~esp~ctfully submitted_ {!dlEjfftrf!~~~ Real Property Manager CKR:361:91 3 -.... ,,; ... ----------,"---'- . NE'(T !-!EETING: July 24, 19917:30 AM COUI".ciJ Ccnference Room Civic Center, 250 Hamilton PALO ALTO HOUSING CORPOR",nON 540 Co .. ".,r Street, Suite G Palo Alto, CA 94301-1806 (41~)321-9709 MINUTES OF THE ~"<G OF JL'LY )0, 1991 DIRECTORS PRESENT: MIke Anderson Lou Golds!!,jth Joe MarJ.gnetti Jes5 Wilson DIRECTORS ABSEl\"T: Tony Ca.:-rasco Jacqueline Stewart STAFF PRESENT: Ken Brundage STAFF ABSE:"."T: Sylvia Seman OTHERS PRESENT: Susan Anstead Ron Hall Norman Okner Marilyn Zatz Marlene Prendergast Bob Woods VaJerie Glassford Jean Dawes Alan Hend~rson Janet Owens Steve Stephens Laurel ~facDermot: Bill Fellman, Manager, Real EsL4te Sen-ices, Cily of Palo Alta Jim Gilliland. Manager, Planning Projects, City of Palo Alto Jim Koch, Community Housing Inc. President Martignetti called the meeting to ordeT at 7:40 A.11. 1. Opening Business Martignetti welcomed Janet Owens back from her leave of absence, -'" j i [ I I i , I I I I ! - A. Roview toe Mine'" oflune 19, 1!I91 Manignetti presented the minutel of th:: meeting ollJoe 19. 1991. M2lli!r,: (Manigoetri, Goldsmith) to 'pprove the Minute, of June 19,1991, p>SSed unanimously. B, Clty ContraCt Martign ettl reported thal tile items delegated to staff for n egoliatian were included in the City cor.tract. The i,demnrfication covers the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, PAHC Apartments, Loo., and PAHC c.Jjfomia P.r. Corporation to a. maximum amount per OCCI.lrrcnce of S200,OOO, n. Item, for Policy! Action A. Consider Recommendations of the Nominating Committee Zatz reported that the l':lominating Committee recommends appointment to the Board of Susan Anstead. Susan has a strong backgroun;3 in property management, real estate marketing, and real estate business management. MOlion: (Zatz, Dawes) to appoint Stuan Amtead to the PaTo Alto Housing Corporation Board, passed unanimously. B. New Accounts -Corporate Resolutlcns Motion: (Henderson, O<oer) to authorize ,"veraJ new Cenificale of Deposit accounts atld to make the foIJo~ring resolutions: Resolved: That this org",nization establish one or more deposit accounts with Sumitomo Ban.~ of Califomi.a pUTS'J3J'lt to the terms L"1d cond.itions. of the attached signatJIe card. Joseph Martig netti, President; Michael Anderson, Vice President; Jean Dawes, Vice PIesiden' .. -Ouis Goldsmith, Vice Presiden~ Jess Wilson, Vice President; Alati. Henderson, Treasurer~ Marlene PIendergast, Secretary; are duly c::lected and acting offi.-. .. ..:r.s of thi s organization a.-'ld are authorized to ts1ab!lsh each a;COlJnl.. Further resolved: that the above officers of this organization a .... e authorized to draw checks on each account, signed, as provided on the attached signature card .. The bank is authorized to hand1e and pay all checks so signed, including tho~~ dra\lw'fi to the order of any officer or other person authorized to sign then .. . Resolved, that a thrift aerount be established in the name of thls corporation 'With Fireside Thrift Co. aIld that checks, drafts and orders for , 1 \ l 1 , - -----------" - payment of funds may be endorsed and signed by any tv.'o of the fo]m .. "ing: Jo~ph Martignetti, President; Michael Anderson, Vice President; Jean Dawe.s, Vice President; Lou.is Goldsmith, Vk..e President~ Jess WLlson, Vice President; Alan Henderson, Treasurer; Marlene Prendergast, Secretary. Resolved, further, that the authority hereby conferred shali remain in force and ~ffect until wrinen notice of revocation thereof by the Secret.ary of t:'1is org;:s. .. nization shall have been received ~y Fireside Thrift Co. at fr.e offlce at which the account is kept. Resolved that any tv.'o together of the follov.ing: Joseph ]"brtignet~~, President; Michael Anderson, Vice President; Jean Dawes, V.ice President; Louis Go1dsrr..i.th, Vke President; Jess """ilson, Vice Pre3ide:1!; .AJ3Jl Henderson, Treasurer; Marlene Prendergast, Secretary of this organization are authorized to sign for the account., as provided herein, ..... ,ith sign3rures cenifled to us by t.~e Secretary of the organiution. Any written [lotice of revocation to mai:1:..ain accoun: must be presentee at the offlce of account. Passed unanimously. TIL Reports A. Lytton Gardens IV }'Jartignet:i introduced Jim Koch of Community Housing, Inc. MaJt.ignetti S2.id that the issues befo.::e the Board as the Lytton Gardens TV Committee saw them. a:e: 1) Is it Pianned Community-zoned development of 50 afford'iible units for seniors a desirable addition 10 tl-te housing stock of Palo Alto? 2) Because HtJD does not offer financil1g for certain am-::1ities {s:.2ch 25 baIconies) that the City of Palo Alto requires, is it ap~rop:iate for the Cty of Palo Alto to provide fund~ for Lie const.r1JCtion of t.l-jos.e amc:-:.ities? 3) 1s the proposed project structllred in a flI1anciaIly feasible manner? Jlm Ko:h spoke to the Board. Community Housing, Inc. bas a waiting list of 600 IJames. In a recent ex.amination of the lis:., it was discovered that at least 160 people on that list would qUalify for affordable hou.sing and are currently -wi..lling and able to move to a new residence imme:Eate1y. Only aboLl! 100 names leave the list per year. This indicates a need for alere senior hou.sing, The plans for Lytton IV indude using the existing management of other Lytton developrT'.ents in order to save money. The site is one block from the Senior Center a.'"ld a park. It is four blocks from the other Lytton bui!dings. Since senior health is often dependent u.POI1 activiry and socialization, the site is ideal. Funhermore,!.he buildings adjacer:! to the site are 3 I .:j.~;~:j.c. ~ ·~C""j?~_~. .. - architecturally similirr to the plans for the new building which .. ill make the project more .ttrac~ve to neighbors and Ci'Y planning oificiaJs. Funding for senior housing is practically limited to iUD's new Section 202 pr'::lgram. The lT1aX3mum construction funding poss_ble through Section 202 is approximately $2,900 ,000. which is not enough money to build in Palo Alto. The project will cost appro:umately 3.2 million dollars to buil~ exclusive of land acquisition coots. S315,OOO of the difference is for con3truction of amenities that the City requires and HUD regards as lu,(uries and will not fund. The current owner of the land w'.ll offer a 50 year lease of the property if Community Housing, Inc. paiS 5665,000 for the refinancing of the several lots on the site into one mortgage. Th~ plan is al:tractive ~.cause the cost of purchasing the land is proltibitive. Prerequisites to making a Section 202 application are: land cont:ol (purchase or lease contract), zoning approval, and derailed explanations of fundi."1g sources for costs over what Section 202 "",ill provide. Tne Section 202 application is due August 12. The Board cbOSt'! 10 discuss the issues one at a time. I. The Board strongly supports the addition of 50 affordable housing units for seniors in Palo Alto. 2. The Board supports Cit), <Jnding of an estimated $315,000 for construction of amenities the City requires and HUD v..ill not fund. The fund~ng could bt-_btained from a loan f;;om the Commercial Housing Reserve to tt,e Residential Housing Reser.'e until further in-lieu payments to the Residential Housrng Reserve arc gr:nerat.::d for repaymenL City staff anticipates that approrima~ly $300, DO:) of in-lieu payments to the Reslden~ Housing Reserve will be generated in the near future. 3. The Board !tad mixed feelings regarding the feasibility of the project specifically in regard to the land acquisition proposal. Members agreed that the ground lease as currently negotiated did not appear highly desir"ble. The Board felt that purchase of the property would be more desirable than the existing ground lease structure. Th e Board would support utilization of CDBG funds jf an outright purc~.ase of the property could be negotiated with the owner. 4 t I , . -~ \ , - B. Council Action Re Middlefield W~ll Site Goldsmith reported that at the City Council meeting of Monday, Jul)' 15, the Council decided the dispositio,1 of Li~ surpJus well sites. Counci.l decided in general to sell the sites at a minimum vf $300,000 -each. The Pale Alto Housing Corpo;arion has a5ked lila! some portion of the proceeds fran'. the sales of the surplus well sites be placed in the Housing Rese~ fund. In response to a need for l\,mds to purchase Oak Manor Townhouses, the Council decided to place 50% ofth~ proceeds from the sale of til e Seale site in the fund. The Council d&ided not to commit funds from the sale of surplus well sites (including the MiddlefIeld she) to the Housing Reserve fund. C. Compre.'1ensive Housing Affordability Str.ltegy (CRAS) Activities Glassford reported that staff has been working c1o~ly .... 'ith City staff to compile statistics to complete the CHA.S. On July II, Glassford v.ill be attendirlg 2. workshop \Vith Sarah Cheney from the City to be!rer understand the CRAS a.od relate<! legislation. D. Lot R Development Goldsmith reported that the Development Committee has met to di.s..:uss Lot R. He suggested that if the CHAS gives.a sense of what kind of housing Palo Alto needs, we: might address that need in our plans for Lot R. Carrasco's sketches indicate that the site ca., support units .and parklr.g spaces in the order of 96 Single R'Xlm Occupancy lin:ts at abou.t 175 square feet each, 50 se~or housing units aL about 350 ~uare feet each, a..'1d surface .and underground parking spaces for the housing pIus perhaps 50 more public par1dng spaces t~an now exists. Gold.srnitlj noted that if Lytton IV is built, we might want to plan to serve a different population than seniors. The new huilding might provide offIce space for the Corporation and some street-level commercial space. The next meeting of the Development Committee is Iues.day, July 23, ]991 al4:00 PM in the Palo Alto Housing Corporation oiii.ce. 5 E. Oak Momr Townhou ... Rehal:>ilitation G1a.ssford reported that tl-.e Oak Manor TOYlmhuuse~ rehabilitation is in full swing. Residents have b= coo~vc and axrJcabk. Five unilS have been wmpletel)' rehabilitated (mc1uding t\tio ceiling repla:.ements). It appears as jf the Iohabilitation costs will !>e "ithin the propose<l budget. Kim Baukol, our new full-time mainte,.",~ person, has b«n invaluable. Ging" """ der Linden, me oo-site man.ger, has also b«n very helpful in the change of cwn""hip and changes in !ler duties. There are currently seven low or very low income residen.t families at Qa..'f( Manor. Thi. meets the mjuirernenlS for the .ubsidiU<! nmnc;ng applications we arc pursuing. IV. Adjournment Manigoe"; close<l me meetL,g at 9:03 AM. Respectfully submitted, Marilyn Zalz for Marlene PrendergiS!, 5=wy - lS. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning Commission recomrner:.dation r-e Planned Community Zone Change and Variance Request for property Located at 3:24-340 Everett (300) (CMR:320:91) Real Property Manager-Bill .Fellman referred to the information regarding Item 18 which was at coun=il's places as a result of a conversation between community Housing, Inc., the applicant, and himself. The applicant requested that staff recommend to Cou~cil the grant for City-required amenities at 330 Everett Avenue in the amount of $)~5,OUC. Staff could not recOInJnend approval of the grant without a total understanding of the financial arrangements. staff believed a commitment of funds would obligate the Council to commit future funas, and the grant of $315,000 fro~ the Commercial Account would take several years to r-eplenish. Staff recommended denial of the applicant's request. council Member Cobb clarified staff recommended against the original financing proposal and ~anted an opportunity to analyze the proposal and return to Council with a recommend~tion on the financing. He queried whether staff would consider the recc!!Ur1.enda tion further with ~~e modified proposal. Mr~ Fellman said yes, based upon the ne~ information. Council Member Cobb said the original proposal was a ·sweetheart deaP' for the property cwner, and he queried the status of the modified proposal. Mr. Fellman said the modified proposal indicated the owner would sell the property, but there ~as no information regarding the sales price or funding arrangements. 07!22191 67-40 c::7 . ? - council Member Andersen clarified without the $315,000, it 'Would be impossible to get F~deral Department of Housing and Urban Develop ~ent (HOD) appLoval of the total project. Mr. Fellman said that was correct. Council M::~mber Andersen clarified the approval of the recommenda tion would prevent the 'Whole deal~ Mr~ Fellman said that ""as correct. Council Member Andersen clarified the land acquisition 'Was different from the lease in that it could be funded through other sources. Mr~ Fellman said that ",'as correct, but the purchase price waS unknown. council Member"A.."'!.derse,} queried '.whether a conditional approach .. ith an option of 90 days for resubmittal to the Council would work. Mr. Fellman understood the application had to be submitted to HUD hy August 12, 19~1, which would not allow time for a return to Council. council Member Andersen queried whether an Cipproval could be rescinded if $315,,000 ..... as approved 'With a conditional approach to HUn on the basis of a negotiated land sale. Mr. Fellman said the applicant indicated HUD would ~ot accept any condition other than a condition the City's grant would be approved based upon a 202 lean approvaL Hr. Zaner said while h'5!: recognized the project had required a substantial amount of 'Work, staff 'Was ~eing asked to make recom mendations on $1 million of public funds based upon no information. He .... as uncomfortable rrlaking a recommendation to allocate the funds. Council should not be put in a position of resolving the problem without appropriate data. He understood the timing problem and hoped an e)(t~n5ion could be -worked out with HUD so the project. could go forward. It might be a situation ",'here the project could not be put together regardless of the benefit to the community because the timing 'Would not work. He urged Council not t.o 'resolve the problem without enough information. He recommended no action be taken an the project so staff could try to -work 'With HOD to obtain the information needed and return to Co~ncil. Mayor Sutor ius said the next Council meeting -would not be until AU9'lst 19, 1991. Mr. Zaner did not know whether HUD would allow an extension. Council ~ember McCo'WTI queried 'Whether the zoning project would be affected if council decided not to move forward or whether the 07/22/91 67-41 ,",," , t • I project needed to be acted upon independent of th~ financing question. zoning J1;d.ministrator Nancy Lytle said if there was no funding other than HOD and the City propo531, she would recommend the project be denied or withdra .. ,.,n. If there was an opportunity for other financing, the proposal for & Zone change should go forward ~hich would leave the condition flexible for other financing alterna tives. Mr. Calonne said unless the applica.nt vithdrer.;, Council should consider 'the proposal on its merits. Vice Mayor Fazzino queried whether the process .... ·ould have to be repeated later if the project ~ent forward based on its merits and whether the financing qu~stion vould have to be considered at a future meeting. Mr. Calonne said .... 'hile the project development :might be linked to the financing, the land use decision was not. The original package could not be supported by staff. The proposed revision did not contain enough information for a staff recom:mendation. If Council ~ent forward ~ith the land use action l there might be opportunities for an extension from HUD or for other financing mechanisms. vice Mayor Fazzino queried \o,'hether the proposal could be postponed for a month. Mr. Calcnne said the land l.lse issue did not ha~.e a mandatory action deadline. council Member Renzel queried if the zoning was approved with conditions and those conditions were not met, would the zarling take effect or would the property have to be rezoned to get it back to where it 'Was. Ms. Case said the zoning 'w.'Quld take effect but notl"'.ing CQuld go on the la~d so it 'Would have to be rezoned to its o~iginal status. council Member Ren,el clarified there could be a non-zone in place tor a period of tice. Ms. Case said th~re \o.'ould :,e a PC in place, and the only pr~ject allowed: on it 'Would be IOI,{-inco1!le senior housing. So::neone else could approach the city ~ith the Sdrne type of project. council Member Renzel queried which account the ~oneys would come from. Mr. Fellman said there !Jere funds in the Com.01ercial In-Lieu account. 07/22/91 67-42 -.1 .. ·· ..... >~ .... :>r. - Council Member Re.1"lzel clarified the Conuaercial In-Lieu account could not be used for a low-income senior housing project because the moneys were earJ:lar}l:.~d for emp] oyee housing. Mr. Fellman said use of the tnoney for such a project .. ·ould :Lequire a policy action by Council. Council Me!nber Woolley clarified a Certificate of Site control would be necessary to satisfy HUD and :move fon.:ard with the applicatior.. She queried whether it would help if Cauncil took action on the request for the $315,0004 Mr. Fellman said the applicant requested the amenities portion be funded in the a~ount of $315,000. council Member Woolley clarified there ""'as enough information to take action on thE ~J15,000. If a financing mechanis~ did not come ~~rough, the project wo~ld nat move forward, and the coneys would not :be needed" Planning Administrator Jim Gilliland said the concern was there was not enough ans~ers in the financing package previously submitted, and it was not appropriate to put public funds into the project in its original form. Staff needed more infcr~ation and a proposal that dealt ~ith a fee-title purchase~ Council Member Woolley clarified Council 'Would have to cOlDJIlit to the '$315,000 to get the project started \rr.'ith HUD. Council Member Andersen queried whether staff ~as concerned about the source or the amenities described. Mr. Gilliland said the concern was the appropriateness of the over-all financing package proposed for the project and not the amenities. When the applicant asJced for public fund,o; for the project, staff's responsibility was to review the total financing package. Council Member Andersen clarified the J..rchitectural Review Board (ARS) and Planning Commi8sion app~oved the project at the outset, and +--he concern .... 'as the additional funds over $~OO,OCO. He queriec wheth~r there .... as any reason why the project could not proceed with the $315,000 and ~hether the city could stop the proceedings if the deal with the owner was not acceptable~ Mr~ Zaner said if the own~r decided to sell to another party, the $315,000 was obligated. The City would have used public funds to approve a project on behalf of a private party 'Without the knowledge of what would occur. When dealing with public funds. there was an obligation to know where the funds were going and ~hy they were being used. Council Member Cobb queried whether the applicant would consider a continuation of thE". item until some of the issues .'ere resolved. 07/22/91 67-43 '>L b r , Cou:ocil Member :Kniss queried if the BUD deadline: pas.sed l .... as the opportunity lost forever or could it be put off for a period of time until funds '.jere available. Mr. Fellman said the applicant I 5 purchase agreement on the propert:r~ had a ~ime limit. Council Member Kniss clarified the project needeo to ~ove for~ard immedia~ely or not at all. Mr. Fellman said that ~as correct. Jim Koch, community Housing, Inc., said the issues needed to be considered separately, and the o'W'!)er of the property had indicated today that there would be a bette~ opportu~ity for staff approval of the $315,000 if there .... as a purchase of the propert:t opposed to a lease. The arrangement had not been finalized, and there was no specific purchase arrangement. There ~as an option to lease the land 'Which ",'as a reasonable financing arrangeme_nt. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (FARe) shared stafffs concern regarding the ground lease and benef its g::dned br the landO'oolner. The rr.ore critical issue ~as the determinat.ion the Co!:UOunity Development Bleck Grant (CDBG} moneys could not be applied to the refinancing of the lots. Until that time, he believed staff was su~portive of the project and the amenit:es funding. HUD ~ol,,;,ld not consider any additional time and ~as concern~d about the relationsh~o ~ith Palo Alto. The application needed to be submitted by }.1J.gust 12, 1991, in ceder for the project to proceed. The option on the ground expired october 1991. Unless there .·as a renegotiation of the optior., there ~ould I".ot be. an opportunity to reapply next year. To make the application ana qualify fer t~chnical processing for HUD, he needed the zoning approval and the funding of the amenities~ HUD required adequate funding for all of the develop~ent costs and refused to f\,;nd things outside. of their cost ·::ontainment, Le, balconies, do~ers, landscaping which the JL~ and staff requested. If the City did not fund the amenities, he could still make the application assurr;ing an alternat,= f'L!nding source could be. found ~hich was unlikely eue to the late date. With the PC approval, there ~culd be an opportunity from no. until August 12, 1991, to seek an alternative~ He was told by the staff through the meetings that it was possible for the Commercial Accoun~ to lend the money to the Residenti3.1 .Account, therebr providing the funds in the fonn of a grant. The ability to proceed ~ith the project ... ·as enhanced if the City funded the $315,000, although it was not absolutely defeated if the city did not fund. Due to recent information that the COBG moneys could not be applied for the refinancing, they had tried to rearrange the acquisition_ The current option of lease of the proper-ty ~as adequate to sho'lal site control for the initial technical review of the HUD application. The current option did not require them to refinance the property for the property owner but to arrange for financing and did Clot need to show in the initial accounting of the application to HUD the $665~ODO was paid. He had withdrawn the request for-the $665,OuO and would proceed ..... ith the application based on the existing grcurod lease and ..... ould 07/22/91 67-44 ·''''',,",1103 LLIII"' ....... "!i" .. "-· .. ·---"'-"-'-~ - . , , I. ,. \: - -.. -':'-", . ...-:7-. r--. , l ~'i;.: ", .'''''-, .. - renegotiate the land acquisition to be suitable tor the City to in,\rest public funds~ If that -was not possible, the city could help the lando'Wner arrange alternat.e refinancing of the property so the ~and lease coulrj be do!"!e~ He requested Council approve in concept the application cf CDBG money for the acquisition of the p~operty conditioned up~n the arrangement of a contract for the acquisition of the property ~ .. hich conformed 'Iii th the rules of tp.e CDBG ancl Section 202. Council Member L~vy queried the City's obligation if the PC zone and the commitment of ~315,ODO were approved. Mr. Koch said if the 202 funds ~~re received and the project ~as built, the City ~Duld be obligated to grant the $315.000 to the project. Council XeItllJer Levy querie:1 'What would happen if tbe funding '-"as not received. Mr. Koch 6~id the grant would be conditioned upon approval of the 202 which was one condition allowed by Hlm for approval of their funds. Council Member Levy queried staf£'s concerns about the co~itment of $315,000 -which would only happen if the project reCl!:ived other financing. Mr. Zaner urgeo the Council to consider a further condition that the $315,000 be conditioned on an arranqe~ent that involved a sale of the property, Which the owner said he would do. He did ~ot know what else to reco:rnmend in the way of conditions. He was concerned there might be other conditions ~hich should be in there, but he did not know what they were because he did not know the rest of the de.al. Council Member Levy querieQ if staff "Would still have a problem if the deal did not meet staff's approval but was good enough to get HUO' s approv~ 1. Y.:r. Zaner said he .... o'J.ld be more comfortable if he could tell Council exactly which things yere ina?propriate. While staff had supported the project, it did not have the data to advise Counc~l 'Whether it was maJt::ing a mistake. Council Member Levy clarified if the $315,000 vas committ~d, tbe City WOuld make a grant to the project 'Which 'Would require HUn funding to be able to construct the project. Council Member Renzel clarified the only condition HUD would accept 'Was a condition to funding, and she que-.ried whether it .... as permissible to put a condition of sale on the project. Mr. Zaner said Council could ccndition the money any 'Way it wan~ed. 07/22{91 ~7-45 "" I " , ' • -- Mayor sutorius said at t~e: present time a lease opt.ian "'ould be satisfactori~ for the applicant to be considered f')r the first ~ound, and the condition of sale could complicate the project. Tha detenDin~tion needed W"as whethe::-tc proceed t.ri t;1. the PC rE;view I based on that review and its outcome, and ~hether to prQceed with any further discussion. Council Member Renzel said if the project .... ·as not a lo",-income project, she 'Wculd not consider it. She .. ras conce:-ned about proceeding .. "ith the PC zone request since the process .,.3.5 inextri cably tied to the financial situation. Staf! ,,,ras uncornfortn'..Jle with the financial arrangements with respect to co~~itment of City funds, and she believed there 'Was some ri:sk in lending the commercial Account Funds ...... hich were supposed to be used fer enployee housing. She recognized there were sever"al levels of housing problems which included the seniors. Council Membe"t" Kniss ",'as concerned that if the PC we."t through~ nothing could be done about financing. Vice Mayor Fazzino said the issue had been discusseci for seven months. He was not ready to proceed with the project tr.at evening, and was troubled that the financing issue ",;as tied to the iss'.l.i: of the PC. He ,.'as concerned council would go through the PC zcne question and still have to revisit tt>.s issue in a month be..:::ause the financing question had not been resolved. "h"'!lile a policy decision could be made to override staffts concerns, council needed to be cautious whenever staff indicated they did not have a proper analysis of a possible expenditure of public funds. He ""ould be willing to shorten the COuncil vacation to handle the issue prior to mid-August. council Me"~er Andersen said it vas inappropriate for the council not to move ahead because the applicant haa gon'!! through seven months of deliberations with staff, and the project ~oulj be killed because the Council 'Would not allow it to Ireet the deadlif"',e. He quer-ied whether a condition regarding sale could be b' .. lilt ir.to the pc pJ:'ocess rather t!lan into the financing. Mr. Calonne believed if an application to HUD proposed a purchase transaction~ tl"len the condition was not beyond the availability of the 202 funds. council Member Cobb believed there was a chance that if the PC was approved, the applicant would find other financing. Both ...,.ere linked together. He was concerned about the possibility of the PC zone being approved, the MUD application not · .. ·orking, and the project returning to Council for other ...,.ays to finance the PC. If the financing problem could not be solved, then the PC ~one should not be dealt with either. Council Member Levy said if the applicant \o:a.nted to proceed .... ith the PC zone, the Council should consider it. The financing should be dealt ~ith first, th~~ the PC. 07/22/91 67-45 I ...... -... -.. -,~.,:. :~"'. ;, -~-,:>,-" . . ," ." - Council Member McCown agreed with Council Member Levy and was willing to move ah'ead and deal .... ith the issue of the PC zone provided the. applicant. 't,.lnderstood he might. only t~ave -a decision on th~ PC approval and no approval of (;Iny financing. If cDuncil follow~d the staff recommendation, it would not ~pprove the granting of $315,DOO. She queried how the applicant ~ould proceed it the only thing achieved from the ccuncil was the PC approval. Mr. Koch asked Council to consider the PC approval prior tc August 12, 1991. Items to consider after 11:00 p.m. Mayor Sutorius said Council must hear Item No. 15 and possibly ~8, 16, 17, 17A, 22, 23, and 25. Items No, 19, 20, 21, and 24 would be continued to a future city Council meeting. RetUrn to Ite~ lS Ma:;{or sutoriu$ declared the Public Hearing open. Tricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 Everett Avenue, said the proposal for senior housing was the first project to exceed the allowable zo~ing. It could set a precedent and encourage other high-density proposals in the neighborhood. The houses in the neighborhood could have historical merit, and the City :tlad not co~plied wi th the requirements of Section 106 of the Federal Historical Preservation Lav. She proposed the developer find a site that did not destroy 16 units of ~edium cost housing. Paul Ward-Dol}cas, 412 Everett Avenue I said .... ·hils the Planning Commissi or. expressed reservations about the proj ect becalJse of the need for senior hou5ing, it supported the project. He did not believe one type of housing shculd be destroyed to create another, an~ alternate 5i~es should he considered. ~arvin stuart. X.D., 850 Wetster Street, said over 30 residents of Lytton I and II attended tn~ ~eeting to snow ~heir support of the facility. There. ~ ... a5 al'oiays a n~cd for .3.ifordable housing fer seniors. Anne Robinson, Byron Street, was alanned at the increased popula tion and parking in the Dowutown North ea. cQuncil should listen to the advice of staff on how fund~ should be considered e.nd decisions made. The Council should be concerned about the conse quences to the community. Lynn Silton l 418 £Verett Avenue, did not object to senior housing, but, as a resicent one block from the facility, she ~as nervous about the project and what wotild be there in five or ten years. Tony Carrasco, 120 Hamilton Avenue, architect, said the project was designed ~ith the criteria requested by the City ~hich HUn would not pay for. He was surprised staff recomroended against the 07{22{91 (;7-47 ~L i I 1"-.•.. I," I '-. Ii p n .' <' - $315,000 since it was e!J.couraged through the process~ The overall design met vith approval tro~ the AF~. Geoff Ball f 31.5 Bryant Street, vas cor.cerned about having a four story b':.lilding 4':0 to JO feet behind his house, bt:.t Mr. Carrasco Gaid there was no other ·",ay because HUt> require:d 50 u!1i ts. He urged council to include the condition on the PC that or.li' a senior housing p,'("oject could go in and to consider tbe rest of the neighbor:bood . Melissa Biggs, 301 Bryant Street. queried why policies and overall urban design plan for senior housing to inte9rate seniors into th~ cOIIU!lunity 'Were not in place. Many of the neighbors did not "'-ant the project in their bac"kyard. Five of the seven senior housing projects 'Which received City funding were in the Dm .. r.town QIea. Do~.town had no grocery stores available or other &mall businesses and was not suited for the development. She did not believe the site 'lJas large enough to accorunodate the proposed building and queried ~hy the City parking lot directly acro~s fro~ the senior C~nter ~~s not th~ site of choice. Na:1cy Pleibel~ 301 Bryant. Court, said w~ile the city was being asked to support the plan Py providing public funas, Council should not permit the desire to p:rovide affordable housing over-ride fiscal com:.raon sense. Jim Baer, 532 Channing Avenue, offered 25 /000 square feet of property at 325 Lytton Avenue and t.rusted the staff, Planning commission, ARB, and Council ...... ould be able to ",'ork out the public benefit i§s~es on it later~ Sac Giovannotto, 3G~O Alexis Drive, said while senior housing was needed, the site 'Was ...... cong4 The ow-ner ~hould solve the problems first and then return to council. Irv Brenner, 250 Byron street~ said the proj e::t 'Would remove important rental housing in close proximity to ... ;o~x and stanford University from over 20 tenants. The zoning ... ·as drafted to prohibit such large-scale development in the Downto .... n North neighborhood. The project .... ·dS not being driven by City require ments or the developer but by HUD. All res: idences ,",'ere affected when a zoning change occurs, and there ..... ould be no ""ay to mitigate the impact on the neighborhood a Tony Baeger, 381 Haw.rthorne Street, 'Was excited about the possi bility of having seniors in the neighborhood. He understood the fear o.f residents about upgrading the zoning and the piggybacking of the Jim Baer project and a precedent being set for futUre developments. While he was initially concerned the project W'as on leased land, it now appeared the land could be purchased. He ~a$ disturbed about the attitude of financing on the project. Catherine Ne .... ton, 139 Ha· ... thorne street, supported the project. 071'2/91 67-48 Pan Lucas, 144 Byron Street, believed the Downtown North nei~hbor hood had shoulderel'i 1I10re than its share of the hO!Jsi.-.g burden in the city. ~s goo1 ~s the project was j an alte~native site ~dS needed. Phyllis Cassel, 621 Wellsbury Way, League of ~omen Voters, supported t~e zoning request for a low-income housing project for independent seniors. It also supported granting financial assistance fer the development either in the fOl"'lll of grants or loans. The 1990 Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan stated the City should encourage am! foster diversity of affordable housing opportunities for senior citizens ..... :rd.ch included h~using. The proposed housing of the project would :be located close to transportation, shopping, and social ameniti~s. Steve Frankel, :3 51 Eryant Court, opposed the ironing changE: and believed nothing had changed in the area to warrant an extra ordinary change. If the st,atf still had a "stions about the project after seven months, Council should follow their recommen dation. Susan Mead O~Konski, 222 Byron Street, 'W'"as familiar with the traffic patterns through the ~"t..lyi..~i..\..J.t.'~vod. Hawthorne. Street. was used by a1t1.bulances day and night, and a senior housing development would mean more traffic and ambulances. She opposed the project. aerb Boroci::., 2131 Byron Street, said the applic2i\': needed a zone. change approval for the MUD application, and the Council could not provide that because of the ordirance process. A zone change was not viable -witnout the finan..:ing and \lias a bad precedent w-hich could require th~ Councilor future Council to char.ge thE zoning back~ Tbe owner of the land had not agreed to a purchas.e price. He believed Council should follow staff's advice. Joe Meyers, 301 Bryant street, lamented over the partial "gag order It on the important issue. The situation was serious, and Council ~as being askea to support a zoning change that enhanced the value of propl:=rty. The property ..... as chosen because. of the lease agreement. He did not oppose lov-income or senior housing, but too much housing was being put on the site. Stephen Shipley, 93 lrving, Athertcn, Chief Executive Director, Lytton Gardens and community Housing, Inc., expressed the importance that the project move fOn.'ard due to the great need in the com;nunity~ Blair ste~art, 1580 Walnut Avenue, President of the Board of Lytton Gardens and community Housing, Inc., said the opportunity had been pursuea for over tour years4 He urged Council to approve the PC zone change a.nd the $315,000 to fund the alll.enitie.s subject on.ly to Section 202 HUn approval. They would vork: on additional fir,ancing and, if City finanCing was requested, vould return to Council at a later time. 'Without the $315,000 cO!nl"tlitment( t.he project.. .. as 07/"/91 67-49 L --1 ... finished. The need for senior housing ~as too great to let the opportunity pass. Mary cooper, 4147 Byron street, said the Council .... a.s ¥o'ise to have reservation on the con:mitme::-:t~ communit z" Housing, Inc., had over a year to sec~re financing. A fundraiser ~as hired to survey the cotlJllunity 'When the project first began and came back ..... ith negative feedback ~hich was presen~ed to the Board. She urged Council to examine the financial -::ondition of the applicant t,€forS! appro"Jal cf funding. com.'1l.llnity Housing, Inc., needed to better manage ..... hat it had before it expanded. 1"ancy Rogers, 565 Everett Avenue, said the Council had approved a zoning change for 19 low-income housing units next to her home. She urged Council to consider the long-term residents and seek another location since EVerett Avenue already had its sha:--e of increased density. Nancy Rogers-zegarra l 4801 Hillsboro Circle, Santa Rosa, opposed the PC zone change because of the increa-sed der:sity. The traffic 'a'as already cOl'lgested on Everett Avenue, and Council should r&consider the application for zoning. Since it ~as a BUD project, there "'as no guarantee all Palo Al to senior reside!".-ts ":auld be able to get in. Dr. Stuart said there ... ras an obliga~_ion to the senior citizens to provide an opportunity for thelll to clos.: their lives in dignity. Mayor Sutorius declared the Public Hearing closed. Planning Commission Chai~an Pa~ Marsh conveyed the ~essagc that although the Planning commission vote ~as unani~ous; it should not be interpreted as an unequivocal endDrsement of ~he project. The project posed a difficult decision, and the report was filled with ambivalence, but the need for the project oi..lt....,.eighed tbe physical and visual impact on the neighbochood. She urged the council to give the project a tborough review. The design features, e.g., the porches, balconioes, dormers, a!ld rear access to the underground parking garage; were integral to the Planning ccmr.tission I s approval of the project. The physical a:1.d architectural ele:-.ents helped mitigate the traffic impact on the neighborhood 'a'hich reflected the character of adjacent buildings. Without those features, the approval of the Planning Commission .. auld have been in jeopardy. The approval of the project should not be vie .... ed as setting a precedent for fut'W.re developnent.s "Within the neighborhood. The Planning Commission was told that other sites ~ould not be possible because of the lease arrangen;e.nt of the parcel .... hich made the project financially fea'!;7,ible. If it had been known that fu.nds .... ould be available for the purchase of the land, the land use issue might have been viewed diffei:ently. Julia Maser, Architectural Revielol' Board Member, was favorably inclined to the design of the building as presented and believed the massing "Was an excellent tr~nsition from Everett H·:;-use to the 07/22/91 67-50 - ".< -" house on the c'.Jrne-r of Bryant Street and Everett Avenu"'. There was concern regarding parking ~hich tne architects ~oul\ reconsider as .. ell as ttl~ porch design, and t~e dor1lte,rs would give scale and relate to the neighborbood. Mayor Sutor ius ~as reluctant to suggest the PC language be incor porated. If the application was denied at the next step, there would be an opportunity for the application to looK: for other sources of financing. The minimum number of 50 units would not longer be required if there '.,:as a source of financing other than the HL~ financing. The action on the PC zoning would only prDvide the applicant with an opportunity to pursue the application at KUD. There should be no indication that financing was being considered by the city. council Member Cobb s"id there would al'lJ'ays be need for senior housing4 The Planning Commission said it was a marginal project except for the need which changed it. He agreed W'ith council Member Renzelis ccmments that if the project was fer anything other than that kind of extraordinary social good, the project 'Would not be considered. The net gain of approximately 30 units should be kept if' perspective sinC'~ sotle moderate-income housing 'Would be lost for non-se~iors. Th project ~as linked to the financing, and it Council apprn'cd the PC and not the financing, the project 'Would return to council. He could not support the financing as proposed. MOTION: Council Member McCo ... ·n moved J seconded by Andersen, to adopt the ordinance approving the proposed Planned Community zone change amendment and variance for front setback and daylight plane for property lo~ated at 324-340 Everett Avenue. g.;:ginance 1st Reaging 'E!ntitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.0S.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING x;.P) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFI CATION OF PPOPERTY KNOWN AS 324, 328# 330. 332, 334, AND 340 EVERETT A VEh"UE FROM RH 30 TO PC· Council Y.-"wer McCc\O'n favored the concept of the PC bu.t not the financing. The PC should be looked at as a project proposed to go to HUn for-202 funding4 There loIIere no low-income housing for ser.iors that could be built in the communit.y at any of the normal zoning densities. The way those proj~cts h.ave to be pursued was by pursuant of PC zones \l'hich al:: """,ed the special tool of designing a unique project for a unique situation to permit the number of units proposed.. There -was no land :z:.C'·ned to pe~it that kind of project at economically realistic l~vels. There were few sites that would acco~odate projects of that type in the community. and the City ","ould have to depend on :Clotivated non-profit organizations to identify those sites. The project ~as in a neighborhood conducive to residents ""ho do not use their cars. The Lytton projects demonstrated increased density could be successful. The PC as proposed was appropriate. 07/22/91 67-51 L - council Member Andersen agreed ~ith council Membe~ McCo~nls comments but 'Was concerned about the parking ~nd available food service. There 'W2.S no to'ay to have lo·,.;-inco::1e ~,ousing 'I ... ithout providing $315,000 to get the 202 HUD funding approval. If the 202 funding 'Was not approved, there 'Would be no lm,l-income housing. He supported the motion. council Member Le· ... y· said the project should be dealt ~ .. ith in two parts l the PC zoning and the financing. He as~ociated with trlE comments made. by council Member McCow:n. It ..... as difficult to have low-income housing in Palo Alto even though it was needed, but it 'Jas also difficult to have se.,ior hcusing. The lc,cation .'as excellent in terms of its proximity to many of the services the seniors:. used and was zoned RM-30. Althcugh the senicr housing would lead to a dense.r building, it \oIould not lead to intrus ions in terms of traffic and noi~e that other kinds of housing created. He referred to the letter d.ated July 19, 1991, fron! ¥..r. Baer t!lat indicated his ·contribution of a property right valued ~t $250,000 and requested the ackno''''ledgment that the cOi1tribution and its value to the project was a significant public benefit. Council Member Kniss echoed Chairman Marsh's COrrLlle.nts that the report was filled I,a.·ith ambivalence. She supported the seniors and the location .... as ideal. Even though the opportuni t:,' ~as imperfect, it was still an opportunity, and she -",'ould support the PC. Sne ;,;as troubled that Council 1o.',as looking at financing that ...... as still uncertain. Council Member .1mder:sen queried whether council .... ould be making any commitments to futUre projects or ""hether tl"1.ere was any 1 inkage to future projects of Mr. Baer. Mr. Calonne said Mr. Baer's application was not in front of Council tonight. The question was whether or not the Council could reach back in time at some future date to acknowledge a public benefit required of the PC ..... hich would be sought for 325 Everett ft.venue. Conceptually, there .. as no obstacle. There ..... ·as no c:o::-w~it.r:<ent to Mr. Baer in connection .. ith the application. council Member Andersen queried if a person had a home in Palo Alto anQ the property was sold in order for them to go into the project, 'Mould they qualify for low inco:me. Mr. CiLliland said section 202 funds had specific requirements on ~hat woul~ be allowed. Sylvia Seman, Di~~ctor, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHe), said a family of one ~ould have a maximun income requirement of $IB,OOO or equivalent to 50 percent of the median inco~e in P~10 Alto. Council Member Andersen queried ... he.ther other housing ... ould be released to other families through the creation of the project. 07/22/91 67-52 -'-' I ! I I - Ms. Seman ~aid there ~as a maximum asset limitation, and most of the people .... ho move into sUbsidized low-incoce:. housing did not come from privat~ horoes. Council Member Andersen C'1.rified there ""er~ few grocery stores in the. area and queried t,.,'hc -ler the traffic impact considered that aspect and whether there would be parking available as esti.mates ~hich Were based on Lytton Garde~ figures ~hich ~dd a dining hall~ Ms. Lytle said the traffic figures 'Were counted at a normal m~ltiple family rate, and the trip generation rate was n~t adjusted to the life-style of the s~niors. There ~ould be a shuttle service available to residences shared in common "'ith the other Lytton projects. The parXing figures ass~~ed a higher ratio than seen in other senior projects and accounted for the fact that they lived i.ndependently. Council Member Andersen queried whether the dining facilities ~ould be capable of-handling more resioents. Ms. Lytle said each unit came complete ~ith their own kitchen and dinirlg so there ,,'ould not be a need to use the common facility as the other projects. Council Metnber Andersen queried .... [lether the residents had been invited to participate at the dining facility. steven Shipley~ Chief Executiv~ Officer, said the dining facilities at Lytton I could handle more residents. Lytton IV's kitchen was larger, and the resid~nts ~ould be in close proximity to the senior center and a shuttle available to Lrtton I. council Member Renzel had always ~een concerned about protecting the northside neigh~orhood and referred to the Uroan Design Plan .... hich recommended the revision of zoning to prevent widespread demolition of single-family houses and construction of large apartment buildinqs in the area north of Do~ntown to preserve the exiting scale of the neighbc·rhood. She would. not ha'\'e as l1luc}-~ of a problem it it ",'-as the vascant land across the street and \o{cs. not comfortable sanctioning the demolition of s~all bungalows on the northside whe:-e there had been a resurgenc:! of young families whiCh .... as equally illlpO.1'tant to the community. The homes had not been reviewed for historic preservation for houses OVer 50 years old and should be done before a sanction of demolition4 She ~as concerned about the site ssl( ~tion even though there were aspects of the site that suggested it vould be appropriate tor seniors~ but at the same time to double the zone density vas contrary to the Comprehensive Plan ~ith respect to the neighborhood. It was unclear ~hether the project could proceed without a million de·llars of City tUnds4 She. was not interested in using the commercial In-Lieu account for senior housing. She would not support the PC charlge. Vice Mayor Fazzino said the issue of financing and the lease situation "Was a long way from resolution. The neighbors were 07/22/91 6,-53 .1 ,.,.- L , I \ ;"? - concerned about t"he traffic and der:sity and associated with Mayor sutorius' COl!llOents. If the pt'oject did not qualify fo'! HUD funding, the iss'..1e should be reopened to look at fewer u1"lits for the site. There ... ·as concern about ""hat had happened in the Downtown area over the last ~O ye:ar-s. It the project had occurr-ed by itself without the Tan and Baer projeC'ts~ it ..... ould not have b!'cught about the kind of oppositiof': from the neighborhood~ The traffic issue needed to be looked at and the possibility of closing Alma s'treet at the north end. £enior housing ..... as a significant need in the cOil\.1rurdty. Lytton Gardens ¥.las successful, and the Downtown area was the ideal locatio~ for that type of housing, but other parts of the co~unity needed to be looked at. The financing issue needed to be e.valuated in more detail l and it was diffic'.llt to react to information received at the elevE!"'th hour. He would support the. PC. Mayor Sutor ius refe~red to the alternate parking situation to the 57-spaCe parki.ng garage, with 10 tandem spaces, ""hich removed 4 standard spac.es and 0\ ta:1deJ'll spaces and left 49 parking spaces remaining, and he queried ~ .. ·hether the parking ..... ould have access or would be conditional. Ms. Lytle said prior to subJ'llitting a buil,:ling permit, a condition included a restudy of garage and visitor and bicycle parking plan. Mayor sutorius clarifie':l the action allowed for roo circulation and 57 parking spaces including the 10 tandem. Ms. Lytle said there vas the :fle:.libility that the plan could be restudied and modified. Vice Mayor Fazzino queried ..",hether tbe Historic Resources Board (HRB) had heen looking at the possibil i ty that state regulation 1t\ight exist 'Which 'Would require the city to evaluate tr.e properties on the site for their historic preservation value before a cemolition permit could be iss·..led~ Concrn.uni ty 'J)cve lopc.ent Richards said t~e U5~ CDBG ..... ould re~uire environmental revie~. Block Grant (CDBG) Contract Monitor SuZanne of any federal funds whether section 202 or a revie~ of tbat area as well as an Council Member McCown queried the condition that the applicant should enter into a recorded agreement ~ith the City that all units in the project yould De guaranteed to be affordable to lo"T.'-and very loW'-incoml! seniDrs and ",'hether the project m\;st obtain HUD funding and ..... h~ther t.here .... 'ere any other alternatives to fund the. project and ~~arantee it to be affordable to low~income seniors. Ms. RicharQs said it did not tie the~ to HUD funding. Council Member McCown clarified the 51 units .. 'as that nu;nber b~cause of HUD funding. 01/22/91 67-54 L L Ms. Richards said that vas a HUD funding requirement. council Me:n.ber MCCC'Wfl queried ",·hether it was I=,ossibl~ t_:'l add a con&ition ~r modify the condition in the PC to make it conditicned upon cbtainin9 HUD f~nding. ~~. Calonne said the Council could not give the crdinance a second reading if Council found out in August 1991~ that the HUD fundi~g had not been app:ied for or to make conditional tbe effective date provision of the ordinance to extend b~yond 31 days. Council Member McCown said if the HUD funding was not pursued or feasible tor the project, she believed the project s]-J.ould go bac): to the heginning. Mr. Calonne said that could be conditional language on ~hich the effectiveness of the: ordinance depended. The effective date provision ~ould give some reasonable pe~iod of time for the action to happen, and if it did not, the ordinance 'Would not become effecti ..... e. Council Member McCown clarified a conditior.~l approval of the PC ordinance would be subject to obtaining HUD funding. 1O.J;m<. ANll SECONDER )'GREED TO DrilECT S·n.F~ TO PROVIllE LJ.IIGC),GE REGARDING THE COh~ENT AND SCOPE OF THE ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE EFFECTIVE DATE CLAUSE Council Member ~enzel queried if the effective date 'Was put in the future, would th~ period be subject to referendum or was it still a 30-day period. Mr. Calonne said the state law requirement said 30 days vas a SUfficient period, and he did net believe there 'Was any requirement to qive more time, but whether affirmative action vas needed to prevent more time from being available, he did not know the answer. council MeeDer Kniss clarified the lease had influence over the d~cision of the Planning Co~ission. Chairman Marsh said a general understanding from the applicant ~as that the property ~as uni1ue b~cause there ~as a lease arrangement that afforded the financing. ano due to that, the Planning Commission was not inspired tc pur$U~ any alternative locations. council Meml:ler Kniss queried whet:i.1er Ms. Harsh .. as sur-p!:ised the property was for sale. chairman Marsh said yes, and the possibility that funds ~ight be made available. Mr. Ca.lonne suggested Council introduce the ordinance and give direction as to the scope and intent of the conditional language. The Palo A.lto Municipal Code (PAMC) stated the language could be 07/22/91 57-55 I 1 I added as long as it 'Was consistent with the council direction between the first and second reading. The specifi-:-clause would b8: brought back for the effective date provision at the time of second readinq. Mayor Sutor ius said the direction could alloW' the applicant to pursue the Hl.lD approval ~.nd be conditioned upon proceeding 'With the HOO process. Council Member McCo~n would not ~ant it only to be possible if it could be done by the August cycle. ThE premise of the PC approval with the number of units ~ould be that it ~~uld be a WJD-funded project producing lO'w-income units, and if it .... 'dS not that, then the premise of the PC approval 'Would not be present. '!'he ordinance 'Would revert back to council to have an opportunity to consider it again. Mr. Calonne suggested the conditional language ~ould have to do 'With the nature of the financing. There ,",'as a prelimi;'lC!ry willingness on the part of the property owner to enter into a sale transaction, and it vas appropriate to include conditional language relating to the acceptability of tnat transaction. The concern was to assure that there was not some disproportionate benefit going from one party to -the other. council Member MCCOWd clarified conditional language would be added in the PC which conditioned the PC on there being a sale of the prop~rty to the applicant~ Mr. Calonne would need direction to ... ork ",'ith statf and return vith additional language in the effective date clause. The idea ~as to allow the council to have an understanding of the sale transaction before the FC became effective. Mayor Sutor ius clarified the lease option satisfied the HOD process, and the language suggested refe~red to a sale. Council Member McCo ... rn clarified the PC should include a condition that precluded tha. leas€ option approach conditioned upon the Council· s reviewing a sale approach~ She queried 'Whether the language needed to be in the PC or whether the action taken on Item No. 18 was SUfficient. Mr. Calonn~ wanted the staff to have the flexibility to return with appropriate language at the second reading. Council Member McCown clarified a direction to statf to consider appropriate language tle added bet ... een the f'ir&t and second reading as a condition requiring the 53.1e approach opposed to a lease option. JI.AltER It.ND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPOP.AT~ INTO THE MOTION TO DIRECT STAFY ~O PORSOE ANY ISSUES CONNECTED TO THE SALE~ 07/22/91 67-56 -------.-_.-.-'L L ---~. L .~" . "0"l'108 PXSSEO 6-2, Cobb, RenzE" "'no/" Wo~lley absent. 18. 330 Eve=-ett Avenue proposed 'financing {3<JC) (CXR;367:91) MOTION: council Me!:lber Andersen ~oved, se:~onded :by I.Jevy, to provide a gra:lt of $3.15,00 from the ResidentLil Land Acq'..1isition account fo::, the project subject to receiving HUD 202 funding; llowever, if 5u:(ficient funds were not available at the time required, funds could be drawn frem the Commercial account to be repaid as funds come into the Fesidential account, and the land acquisition negotiations shculd be review~d ~ithin 90 days by the Council. council Member Andersen said the project could not procead without an indication to HUD that tne amenities required by the city would be funded t which ~ould clear t~2 ~ay for the project to proceed and allow for the opportunity to receive HUn funding. If the HUD funding fell through or the negotiations ~ith the owner of property aid not work out, it would be ea~y to say no. He encouraged the council to !i1ake it possible for the project to proceed since vithout the support there would not be low-i~cG~e property rentals available. Council Me:r,ber _,evy concurred .... ith Council Me:nber Andersen, and for the project to succeed, i: needed the $315,0004 !t did no~ commit the city to any further-financin9, }:Jut if the $315,ODO .... as net committed as part of the total HUD package, the project ~Quld not move foriolard~ ~r-he Comprehensive Plan spoke to the need for senior and lo~",,-income housing~ Tbe project would be of substantia.l benefit tc ~(.he cO!:'L.'1lunity and deserved every chanCe_ Council could give it without obligation beyond the specific cor.~itme.nt 'Which would apply only if federal funding ~as secured. Council Member Co~b said the fi~ancing co~ld not be decoupled from the ::"oject. He: supported the staff reco:c:tr!iendation and believed it woula be irresponsible on the part of the Council to move forward. Council Me.mber KCC'O'fO-n CQuld MOt. support the >:;.otion. She 'Was concerned the City was being asked to co~it $315 1 000 of public funds into something that could not be explained. It was not a respon$i~le decision to make based on the information available. She agreed ~ith staff that the information in the letters was net complete enough statements about the alternative proposals. ' .. ce Mayor Faz2ino concurred ~ith Council Member McCo.~. Council Member Kniss concurred with Vice Mayor Fazzino. Mayor Sut.or ius said the City should not enter into financial commitments vithout all of the information necessary to make the oecision. He would not support the motion~ 07/22/91 67-57 L council MeDber Andersen clc.rified the project would not proceed 'Without the funding, and he queried why time Ioi"as spent 011 the item if the financing 'Would n'.Jt be appr-oved. HOT"ION PAlLED 2-6, }.nd~rsent Le,,"Y "aye," Wocl1el' absent~ PUBLIC HEARINGS 16. PUBLIC HEARING: Planning COI!'.mission an:i Architectural Revie'W Beard recomn.er:.dation of an application for a Planned Community zone chconge. for property located at S::.O Webster Street (Channing HOuse) (300) (<:'HR, J71: 91) Mayor Sutor ius deClared the Public Hearing open. Fred H. Seal, 630 Lake .... iew Way, Redwood City, introduced the architect and structural engineer on the project, and he indicated the project had been through two revisions. MOTION: Council Member Fa7.zino moved, seconded by Ccbb, ~o adopt the ordinance approving the proposed Planned Community Zone amendment and the requested variance to allo'W the service elevator to exceed. the height limit, subject to the follo· .... ing findings and conditions: Findings far PC Zone CJ:;aJ)g'~: 1~ The existing senior housing development, because it was originally developed under a Planned community zone, is of such characteristics that the ~pplication of gEneral district or combining district 'Will not provide suffi cient flexibility to allow the seismic uP'3'radinq and service elevator addition. 2. 3. 07/22/91 The proposed seismic upgrading and service eleva.tor ad-dition 'Will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, in that the senior housing development will be voluntari ly upgraded to reduce potential harm to life and property-as a result of seismic activity. The service elevator .... il1 provide additional bracing at the south end of the building and 'Will 3.110w staff and other personnel to avoid the disruptive use of the. front elevator lobby for emergency and ather service use. The proposed seisnic upgrading and service elevator addition are consistent with the ~alo Alt~ Co~prehensive :Plan and are compatible with existirlg ar,,j potenti3.1 uses on adjoining sites and within the general vicinity, in that the project will increase the seismic safety of both the residents of the senior facility and adjacent residential development, and ... ill generally remain 'Within 67-58 ---"""l"',-~--_O_-----0 - I the parameters of the existing Planned community zone anG site cevelopment regulations~ Findings for Height variance 1. There arn exc~ptional or extraordinary circu~stances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to propert.y in the same district" in that the eXisting building exceeds t..l-:te current height limit, which ""'as not in effect ""hen the building 'Was originally constructed. It ""ould not be possible to construct an exterior emergency and service use elevator · .... ithout ex-ceeding the ClIrrent h~ight limit. 2. The granting of the e:.pplication is necessClry for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship, in that the elevator is need~d for e~Ergency personnel, health care, and other service Use" and would only provide service to those floors located belo~ 50 feet if required to comply ~ith the current height limit. Additionally, construct ing an interior elevator would present a hardship due to the need to eliminate existing residential l.ivinq space. 3~ The granting of the application ""'ill not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvement in the vicinity, in that height of the elevator addition ~il1 be less than the overall height of the existing building, a setback at least as great as that required by the adjacent Dlultiple family zone district will be maintained, and existing mature trees ~,..il1 help to scre~n the new addition. Ordinance 1st Reading entitled "ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ~LTO AMENDING SECTION 18.0S.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) BY ~_~ENDING TEE EXISTING PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DESIGNATION OF THE PROPERTY KNO~~ AS 850 WEBSTER STREET TO PROVIDE FOR SEISMIC UPGRADING AAD A SERVICE ELEVATOR (C~~ING HOVSE)~ Mayor Sutor ius commended the applicant on the plan. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Woolley absent. ---.... "'!'----,,_ .. _ .... L ~-.. ' - . ~" •. - .. ----,,---, ~'.'.' ..... . , , . o < '. . June 13, 1991 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Palo Alto, Califo-rnia 130 EVERETT AVENUE Members of the Council: BE PORT IN BS r [F At ttle Mal 29, 1991 Plar.ni~g Corrmission nearing, the Commissior; unanimously recolTll'lended (6-0, with Commissioner Cu1len absent) that the City Council ap(lro'lle the Platmed Community zone change and aD prove the pr.Jposed .... ariance to front setback and daYlight plane for ill residential development at 33C E~erett. The P1annin.g Conm5ssian staff report is attached, iind minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are in your packet. PLANNING COI'JoIrSSION CHANGES TO STAff RECQMMENDATJOII The Commission recommended changes to two of the condltions of approval in the ,tt.ched staff report: Condition 2d, wnlch required the applicants tn pay an in-lleu fee for displaced parking spaces, was eliminated. Condition 2e ~as changed to read: If Hie 325 lHteP'l P ejeet is Ret E:BFlst\<'de:ted al'1e m -the ~t;JeliE ~arl.iP'l§ let {west s!'>EtieR ef---+rtHJ l"e~aiFl5 itS is, tliefl tREfE sRall ee P'l8--ih--""'-dEst1";aP'l ilieee55 pl"s.i!:iee (,'e", HE' I"euf'-&.f--Ue 3:9 bel E'tt !JfiT;.te€-t, SiP'lEE this WOt4d I'et.ltlil"'e AalltiP'l!j HH'ebl~1; the ~afkiPig let---wi'I-l-€R is Flat a safe foot-e fa~ se"iel eitize~s;" An entry gate sl1all be provided in ttlE' fence along the rea~ prop~rty line to provide acctS$ for visitors to the site from the adjacent public and private parKlng lots. A gate for emergency access to the rear of the site shall be provided. Staff does not hawe a concern regarding incorpora!jng the Commission changes. FINANCjAL INFORMATION Attached to this report is the applicant's proposal for financing of the project .and their request for tity participation. "This information has not been comp1etely reviewed by staff 1\nd is being prov-ided as information to He Council . CMR:320:91 I r' I t '. > The p~oposed financing af the project and the reGue~t for use of City funds will appear is i separate item on tne Council agenda following the proposed P1anned C~mm~nlty Zone change. rn brief? the aplll;cant is proposing to L'st federa1 fundirl~ tinder the Section 2Q2 pr~9ramJ stat! ~undin9 under the Rental Housing Constructio~ Program, private funds and titJ funds. ~ropos.d City fundin9 ~ou1d include $665,000 of eOnG llndb~nk funds to serve as a land acquisition lQa~ to payoff the prese~t owner's bank loan. These funds ~ould be r~~iid to the City and would become part of COBG Program Income funds and would be aViilable for reuse in the futu-re. Approximatel~ S3aC~OOO of City of P~lo Alto Housing Reserve Funds are being requested in th~ f~rm of a grant to be used to pay for amenities to the project. Troese amen)ties :are items that are T'lot allowed i1'l the-CO$\ cantainment requirements of the proposed HUD funding. These items ~nc1ude the balconies and dormer windows which make the project flt better into the neighborhood. Additional information and staff recommendations will be made prior to tne July I, 1991 City Ccuncil m •• tin9. Q£OUESl fOR CONTI NU~N\'E T~ date, six req~ests for continuance of this item have been r2ceived from the itl'tllediate neighborhood. Additionally. staff has. not comphted its revlew of the itt!~htd infQnmitio~ from the app1icant re9ardin~ fi~incin9 of the project~ including a rgQuest for city funds. For these reasons, staff is re~orrrnending continuanc! of tne item to the meetin~ of Ju1y I. 199], Totally unrelated to these requests, staff notes that the public hearing notice for the meettng $tates that the Council ~ill ~cont\nue considerition.~ The C1erk 's Off,ce nas reported tnat the ~ording of the ad was ir. error and coincidental, unrelated to the public requests. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the City Council continue t~is item to the meeting of July}, i9S1, betau$e the adv~rtis~ment for the item d~scribes tne hearing is "c-ont'm(ed.· This. will i.1SQ satisfy the reqlJes.ts of slJrrol.mdir'1g rroperty owners and will allow staff thne to further review the firlancial summary information. Respectfully submitted, " ' ~ 7 (~y~)-!~_~ /--cJ' VIRGINIA WARHEIT S!nior Pl anner CMR:320 :91 p:\CMR\Everett Manager KENNETH R. SCHREiBER Director of Planning and Community En~ironment 6/13/91 Page 2 ---~-.. , .. ,----~'~~~--..... ' .. " L - ' ......... Attachments: Environmental Assessment C',"'di;,ance cc: Planning Commissicn staff report dated May 24. 1991 ..... ith the following attac~ments; 1. Development Prograr:: Statement frDm the Appl i cant 2. Develapment ScheduTe 3. Variance Request 4. letter from Jim 8aer~ April 4. 1991 S. letter from Jim Baer, ~a:y 21, 1991 6. ljtton IV Auto Projections 7. Surrrnary of Auto Use .;:t lyttor. G.ardens S. Minutes of ARB meeting. April 18, 199} 9. Minutes of Planning Comissi:;.n rr.ee~ing. February 27, i991 10. Planning Commission Staff Report, February 22, 1991 II. Minutes of ARB Prelim~~,ary Revie'w', Ma) J, ]99! 12. Supplemental Information about Lytton Gardens lytton IV· Everett A ... enue Senior Housing Financ1al Proposal letter from Melissa 8iggs, May 3D, 1991, reqUEsting continua~ce LettEr frem Josepn MeyeJ"S, May 30, ]991, requesting continuance Letter from Irv Srenner, May 31. 199], requesting continuance letter from Nancy Pleibel, June 3, 1991, requesting cortinuanc~ letter from Leretti Cesari, June S, 1991. requesting continuance letter from Patricia Ward"Ooikas, June 7, 1991, requesting continuance Plans (Council Members only) Architectural Review Board Carrasco & Associates, 120 ~amjlton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA The Martin Revocable Living Trust, 2345 Yal~ Street. Palo Nancy Ph!ibel. 301 Bryant Court. Pilo Alto, C.A 94301 Tony Badger, 381 ~wth~rne Avenue~ Palo ~1to, CA 94301 Jim Cesari, 238 Bryant Street. Palo Alto, CA 943'01 Joe Meyers, 301 Bryant Street, Palo Al"~o, CA 9430] Ralph Cressman, 360 Everett A',enue, Palo ATto, C~ 94301 Andre. Gottlieb, 309 Bryant Street, P.lo Alto, CA 943Dl lor. SmitM, 1&2 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, C~ 94301 Kathleen traig, 101 .Iaverley Street, Paio Alto. CA 94301 Marvin H. Feinstein, P. O. Box 1461, Palo Alto. CA 94302 Jim MorTey. ]60 i.laverley Street, PaT a Alto, CA. 94301 Jr~ Brenner. 250 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dorothy Merriam, 365 Everett Avenue, Palo ATta, CA 94301 Melissa Biggs, 301 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 loretta Cesari~ 238 Bryant Street. Pile AltQ, CA 9430] Patricia Ward-Oclkas, 412 Everett Avenue, Pilo Alto, CA 94301 Alto, CA 94306 94301 CMR:320:91 &/13/91 Page 3 p: \CMR\Everetl • ." \ "\ ~; I '-- A!1:ACHMEN'I 1 E",jr.nmentll Oocvments -City of Polo Alto ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Project De5crfption/Title: Request t~ rezone three par,eTs from AM-30 to PC Pl.n"~ coomunjt~ to ,I' .. aeyelopment of 51 Below Market Rate Senfol"' resldenthl units. T l!' proposed re-s~,jent1il bUllding 15 I thre! storf wood fr~ stru't~re with 17 000 squa~e fe!t of living sp~ce and one 1eve of undergrou!\d parking proviJinq 53 parking spacEs with an additi~r,11 three quest parking spaces on grad!. location/Address: 324-340 Everett A~enue. Pa1c Alto CA Sponsoriflog Agency/Appli::ant: me. Carrasco ! Assoc,ates; Community Housing. Address and Telephone of Applicant: 120 Hamill., Avenue, Palo Alto. CA 94301 (~15) 322-2286 Application for: ~~~Z~oSn~e7.7C~hTan~9~e~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ __ ___ (e.g_, zoning change, subdivision of property. architectural reviEw, use pe",H) ZD~ing at Project location: RI1-30 Fee Receipt No.: 90-705 NOT Ie, OF DET,RMINATJON Based upon review of the pTDject fi1es, the undersigned member of the ?lanr.ing Department has =~nclyded: I!I u ~ega.tl\le Declaration: The PTOj!C-t ha.s no signfflcant en .... ironmental impact. he Environmental Impact Report is req~irEd. ihe reasons for a Negat,ve Declaration ir~: documented in t~e attached Environmenta1 Impa~t ASS~5smant (90-EIA-55~ A record of proj!ct actior; is iVinable for re'r'ifw at the Palo ATto Planning Department located at 250 hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto] CA, An The project may have a significant environment!l impact. Environmental Impact Report will be prepared. ~ Planning o..partment O~1'l; _~ 14~r Planning 01rector: ~~£ ~ D.te: feb. 4, 1991 The project has been a rove. Date: ,j The project has ~een denied. Rovise1 8/1/79 E1AFRM Date: file No,: 90·EI~·SS 90-EIA-~~ I \ i I ~ " , - EnYironmenta' Doc~nt. -City of Pal. Alto INITIAL ST1JOyl,2 I. II. Ill. IV. Projoct Ti t, e/Addr ... : 330 [,,"'-'."-r ...... t t"-'A"y-"."nu"'o'-____________ _ FrDjeet Oe.erlptiDn: R. "e.t to r.zone thr.. arc.', 324-340 EYerett Street fl"'Of!l t~ an" OlllTlunit to I ow deye OplM!i1t o e ow Ma~ et ate .nlor rts1 entia unfts. e propose re.ldential buldi. i. a three .tor wood frome .tructure with 37 000 sUire eet 0 vin 5 ace In one eve 0 unde round arkin prov ding 5) parkl; soates wit an a itionl three 9ue~t parking spaces on grade. Environmental Setting: The propert{ across th~ street to the north and adjacent to the east is loned for mu ti~le family residences. and the sites are cur)'entl occu led b two to iv, star ,artmeflt bulld;" s or vacant ots. A ,cent to t e west is I two ami reSidence fie; hborhood pre.servat; on zone with thy!!'e sing e ami y homes and ~H1e t ..... o stort a artM!~t bul1din. to the $outn is a commercial site and a publiC piir 1n9 ot. EnVironmental Jmpact Ct\ecklist (Exph"ation of all "yes" answers are in Seetion Y): 1. ll!1!!. 11111 the proposal resuH 10: a. Unstable e.~th conditions D~ changes in geologic substructures! b. Disr~ptions, displacements, compaction or oY~rtoyerl~g of the soil: t. Change in topography Dr ground surfice reol ief features? d. The destruction, covering .;Ir modification of I.ny unique geo1ogit or phy$~ca.l features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of scils, either on ~r off the sit!? L L _X_ IAdipted from Appendix I, California Guid.lines for Impl.mentation of CEQA, Deeember 14, 1976. 2Updated Kay 19BZ; Jun. 1ge3 EIAFRM 90-ElA-55' Z I t I I I I , I I • ElMRH f. Exposure.f pe~pl. or property to geo1ogit hazards such as eirthQua~fs. landslides, mudslides, ground fiilur~. Dr simil~r hizards? g. Cnanges in siltat'cn, depcsit,on, Dr erosion which may modify the channel of • rIver or the bed of • bay or io1.tl 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: I. Substantial air emissions or deteriora· tl0" of amb'~nt a'r qua1ity? b~ The creation of objectional odors? c. A1terltion. of afr rn.ol{e,'nent~ mo'is.ture t!mperature. or any change in Climate, either locally or regional? 3. Waier. Will the propoSiitl result in; I. Changes in absorption Tat~s. drainage patter~$. or the rite and amount of surface water runoff? ...!.... b. Alterations to the Course or flow of f100d waters? c. Discharge into surface waters, or in any a1teration of surface water quality, inc1uding but not limited to temperature, dissolved otygen or turbidity? d. Alteration of tne direction of rate of f10\llo' of ground waters? e. lxp~sure of people or property to water relited h6zards such as flooding or tidal Wives? f. Change in the Quantity of ground waters, e-ither through dire-ct additions or with drawals, or through int~rceptions of an aQu;fer by cuts or exca~ations? _x_ 90·ErA·55 3 • x , i I- t I ! I ElAFRH 4. 5. Pl.nt life. Will the prop",.l result In: a. Chinge fn tt'1e diversity of spl!'cies, or number of any species of plants (includ ing trees. shrubs, grass, crops, micro flora and iQuatfc plants)? b. Redcct1an of the numbers of ar,y uniQue. rlre Dr endangered species of p1ants? c. IntroJuctior. of new spectl!'s of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the norma' repienishment of existing specfes? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? Animal life. Will tne prcpos..ll result in: i. Change in tne diversity of species, or of any species of animals (b!rds, land animals including reptiles. fish and she'lfls~. bent~ic organisms. insects or microfauna)? b. Reduction of tne numbel"'S of any urti(jue, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Intr'odlJction of new spec:jes of animals int~ .n irea, or result in a barrier to the migration or ~vement of animalS? d. DeteriDratiofl in existing fish or Wildlife habitat? 6. NOise. Wi1l the proposal result i~: a. Increases in existing nOlse levels? b. Exposure of people to severe notse , evels? 1. Light and slaTe. Will the proposal produce new light gi~re1 8. Land Jse. Will the proposa1 resu7t in a substantia' alteration of the prespnt or planned land use of an area? 3. Energy/Natural J(esources. 'Will the pl'"!lposa' reslilt in: i. Use of sub5ti~tial amou~ts of fuel or ene-rgy? ~~~\-J. ~:i:_~: ··!a~~' "~>-"~f: -" _x_ [IAFRM - b. Silbstlnti.' increiSlI! in demao,d llpan eXl$tir't9 SOUl"ces of energy: (lr re~l.Iirl'l; the dev~lopmtnt of new sources or eneT'9'Y? c. Increase in the rate of us, of any natural resources? d" SUbstantial ~epletiDn of any nonrene~ able natura' resource? 10. Ri sic. of Ups.eL Does the proposal involve a risk of an expTos;on or the release of hazardous substinces (in~ludlng. but not limited to, 011. Destic;des, chemicals or radiation) in the· event of an accident or upset? 11. Popu1ation/Housing. i. Wil' the proposal alter the lo~ation, distribution? density, or growth rate of the human popu1ation of an area? b. Wiil the proposal effect existi~g ho~sing, or cre;te a demand for addi tional housing? ll. Transportation/Circulation. Wi1l the proposal result in: i. Ge~eration of substantial additiona1 vehicular movement1 b. £ffects o~ !xlsting parking facilities, or demand for ne~ parking? t. Alt~ritions to present patterns of circulation or movement of pecp1e and/ or goods? d. lncrease in traffic hazards to motor "'ehitles, bicyclists or pedestri2ns? 13. Public SerYi~es. Will the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for ne~ or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? b. Po' ice protection? c _ Schools? d. Parks Dr otner recreational facilities'? L 90-EIA-55 5 _x_ _1_ x -~- x _x_ • ---- • :; .':~{ , j , U. IS. 16. 17. e. M.'ntenance of pu~llc flcilitl.,_ frtclUd'inQ rOids? f. Other gove~mentl' ser\l1ces~ Utllltl ... win tn. propos I 1 re~ult in i need for' r!!~W systems. or substantiil .. , teritions to tn. fQl10wing utilities: I. Power ~r natural gas? b. Cotmm.!n i COlt ~ ons systems? c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tant? e. Storm water drainage? f. So, i d 'IrI'aste illjd disposal? Human Health. ~ i l' the pro~osa' res!.!l t in: I. Creation of any healtM hazard or pottntil1 health hazard (excluding menta 1 health)? b. Exposure of peeple tc pot~ntial ~ .. 1th hazards? Aesthetics. Will the proposal re.sli1t in the Destruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or wil' tne proposal result in the creat~on of an aestnetical1y offensive site open to p~blic view? Rec~eation. ~iJl th~ p~oposa1 result in an impact upon the Q~ility or Quantity cf exist ing recreationa1 opportunities? 18_ (u1tural Resources. EIAFRM ,'~~t~; ":),:-',~-- i. Will the proposal result i~ the altera tion of/or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b. Will the proposal result in adverse p~.ysica' or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or nistoric burlding. structure. or object? -------_.- YES _X_ MAYBE 90-EIA·55 5 NO l _X_ ...! _1- _X_ _1_ _X_ _1- _X_ x -. ,. /. c.. Does the 'proposal have the Dote-nth' to C<lll'SiI! I physi<:ll change which: w()uld affect unfque c:ultU'r .. ' ulues? d. \iill the proposal rer-trfct exist1ng religious or s· "red lIs.es withiJ"J: the potential fmpi~: area? 19. Mandatory findings of Significance. •. Doe. the proje<t have the potenti.l to degrade the quality of the environment. substlnthlly reduce tile habitat of. fish or wildlife sp!cies, cause I fish O~ wildlife popylation to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to el1minate I plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of I rare or endangrred plant or animal or eliminate important exa~ples of the major peri Dds of Cal;for~ia history or prehistory? b+ Does tne project ha~e the potentia' to lchieve short~term~ to the disadvantage of long~terrn. en~ironm!ntal goals? {A short~t!rm impact o~ th~ environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, def1nit;\le period of tiM .... hne long~term impacts will endur~ ~ell into the future.} c. Ooes the project have impacts which are individually limlted, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on t .... o or more separate resourceS where the impact on each rEsource is relative1y small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environme~t is s ;gnifi cant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? YES v. Explanation of ·yes· answers in environmental checklist. S •• attached. t1AFRM x _x_ !O-£IA-SS 7 ."',- L l~ Ea~tn tb,f.l Construttion oft~eprojett wi11 cisrupt site seils and result in r.inor c':;.nges-tOo site topog'-aphy. Since ill parking .... 11' be lit grade, i minim .. -m UtOLlnt c· grading will be required. A d~tai1f!'d grading and drainage plln shill be required for re~ie~ and approval of the City engin~er priar to issuance of any 9rading lnd/or buildin9 permits. 2. Air (a) Demol1t1o~ of the !~istin9 structures and ccnstruction of the ne~ buil~f~gs will temporarily result in in fn~reise in dust emissions ever exist~ng 1mbient lir conditipns. To red~~e dust le~els durinq demolition and construction it shall be required tMit exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently during the late morning and It the end of the day, with frequency of watering increasin9 on ~i~dy days. All streets ind haul routes sh.'l b! c'tined dai1y. Spillage resu1ting from hauling oper~tiQns ,long or across any public or private property $hali be removed irrrnedhteTy lind paid for by t.~e contractor. Dust nuisances origlnateing from the contractor's operations either inside or outside the right-of-way sha1l be contro1led at the contractor'.s experlse. 3. Water (1' The development of tne site will resuTt in minor alterations tc existing drainage patt'trns. A detailed dn:fr..=:ge plan sha11 be required to be ilpprove by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Building Pennit. 4. Plant Life <.1 The proposed new de~elQpment plan will result in an increased numoer of trees on t~e site. Host of the site beyond the front yard fs presently payed~ and tne only trees on the site are bo cedar trees a~proximately 14 ;n~h.s in diameter. which will be remo~ed. The proposed ne~ blJild{tl9 and' Ue u~dei9'rQtJnd garage J,re set blck from the property 1 ir,e l minimum of 20 feet on three Sides of the property. providing adequate p7anting space for medi~m and large size trE!5. Twenty-eight new trees are proposed in the set·back are.s. Tne appl,cant shou1d provide and implement • prot~ction plan ~re~lred by & certified arh~rist for protecting durin9 construction the two Magnolia street trees in front of the property and the existlng trees an adjacent properties to the north and to the south of the proj"t site. 5. Nohe la) Ctlnstruction ilc:t~ ... itles wi11 resu1t in temporary increases in local u"b,ent !'IO'S! 1evei s. All cOl'\.str'Jc.t'i~n activities shal1 be subjec.t to the ~ro~isiens of ~he City's NQise Ore -,an'i~ Chapter 9.l0 PAMC. 6. Light and Glare The project wil1 resu1t in a slight increas! in light and glare generated from the site. It 1S ~ecommended that ill exterior lightlng be shielded and direction~l in Qrde~ to minim\ze light and g1are impacts on adjacent resident;al uses. A fina1 lighting plan shall reQuire revie~ and lp,pTovaT of the ARB as part of the final landscape pla;, Drior to the issuance of a building permit, 7. Population/Housing (c) There is currently a long wait~ app~ox~mately two years~ for below-market-rate ho~sin9 units for independent Seniors it lytton Gardens I. The$e proposed new housing units ~ill serye the same pop~lation and help to add'ess the unmet need for this type of housing. The need for 'n increased numbe~ pr iffordable ho~sin9 units is ident,fi!1 in the Housing Element of the Comprehe:nsive Phn. Pol "fey 8. Program 19. of the Housing Element calls for 5'-1pport of agencies that pro~·jde housii'"!g which mets the needs of 10 __ and moderate income senior citizens. EIAfRM L 90-fIA·55 B t \ i , t I 1 -- 8. Trlnsp~rtlt1on/Circulltfan (b) The prgposed three visitor parking spaces ind t6e drop-off irea shown on tn! proposed plans ire not adequate. The ~~er of visitor parking spaees should be increased and a drop-off area provided wh1,h does not 1!11p~de other trtffic: en.tering ~nd exiting the site. T~e propcsed S3 underqrour.d par~1ng spares are expected to be ad~quate for the pr~posed 51 units. A Survey conducted in June, 1989. by the lytton Gardens staff of auto use at Lytton Glrdens (see attached) found that on1y about Dne-fourth of t~e rEsidents had cars, and that the lverage frequency ~f residents using t~ejr cars was abcut IS':, per day. T~me-Sa'Ver Standards For Res1dential Oeye'op~nt by De Chiar. recommends the n~mber of parking spaces 1Dr ~1d~rlY ~ou$;ng should be IS-SOl of t~e number of units, more if the housfng is fir from: public. transit and amenities and 1 ess if the hcusi n; is conveniently located to transIt and services, as fs the ca~e with this proposed Site which is near the Senior Cent~r, Johnson Park, lytton ;ard~ns and Oowntown. Tne Transportation Division ~as determined that the expected ;ncr~ase in the numher of daily trlps will be considerably less that lOa trips per day, a~d tnat this .. ill not amount to a signif;c;:;nt increase in the amount of daily traffic on Everett Strut nor in s1grdficant p.m. peak. hour trips. 9. Util Hies {d) Measurements taken by t}-,(!o Util iUes Department in December, 1983. snowed the 6 inch sanitary sewer on (verett Avenue pear.ing to over 8~ of fUll pipe. ~ e inch sewer is conSidered to be at tapacity whe" it reaches 75~ of full pipe. An up~rade of the Everett A¥!nu! sewer to ~cccmodate the increased capacity required by the proposed project will be the responsib~lity of the project devel~per. ElAFR.~ 90-fIA-55 9 • --~- ~ I •. - ORDINANCE NO. ___ _ ORDINANCE of THE COUNcIL OF THE CITY OF .F~.LO ALTO AMENDING SECT!ON 18.08~040 OF TaE PALO ~LTO ~JNIC IPM CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFI CATION OF PROPERTY KNOw~ AS 324, 328, 330, 332, 334 AND 340 EVEP..ETT AVENUE FROM RM-:)O TO PC The Cou!lcil of the city of Palo Alto doe9 ORD.~IN as fo1101l/'5: SEctION 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the ~zoning Map~, is hereby amended to change the zoni~g of certl'lin property known as 324, 328, 330 1 332, 334 and 34Q EVerett .J.venue (the "subject prope:i.""ty") trom the "RM-30 Mediu~ Density Multiple-family Residence District n zone classification to the "PC Planned Community District n zane classification. Said property is shown on a map attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by ref~rence. SECTIon 2. The city council hereby finds -with respect to the subject property that: (a) The l:se or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics t:r.at the appl ication of ge!1e!:"al districts or combining districts · ... ill not prcv:.ae sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed devE! op1!lent, which will provide housing for 10 ... and very 10..., income seniors. The increased density and decreased parking re~~irements ~ill alloW a greater nwnber of smaller units suitable to older persons, thus serving a larger number of pe=~ons needing this t:rpe of housing r ant:! will reduce the cost per l.l.r,it, thus making the unit,s affordable to persons "",ith 10' ... · and very low incoDes. (b) Developmen't of the subject propert:{ un::er the provision~ of the Planned COr:l.munity District '.;ill res:Jlt in public benefits no't othen,rise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts~ in that housing for loW' and very lov income seniors is a public need, considering Palo Alto's aging population, and that this type of small, affordable units is not being provided in the co~~unity by othe~ projects. (c) The use permitted a!":id the site develc.pmer:t regl.llaticrts applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan~ and existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or ~ithin the general vicinity, in that the permitted use (i.e .• housing for 10"" and veri 10 .... ' income seniors} ".,i11 have minimal traffic or noi~e impacts on t~e surrounding neighborhood r and that t.he development project proposed to be constructed on the 5ubj ect property 1 ~j ; .. ~ - will further the policies and proqra~s of the Housing Element by incr~asin9 the supply of rental housing, provic1ing sl':Ialler, afrordat units, providing housing which meets the special ne'.-=.s of s':.nior citizer.s and by taking advantage of financing availab~e from other levels of qovernment {Progr~ms 9 and 15~ Policies B and ll}~ SECTION 3. Those certain plans, entitled ItLytton IV Senior Housing--330 Everett, Palo Alto, california" p"':epared by Carras:;o &: Associates, given Architectural Rcviel,.,· Board approval on April 18, 1991, a copy of 'Which is on file in the Planning Departl:lent, and to 'Which copy raference is hereby made concerning the full p~rticulars thereof, are hereby collectively approved as the Development Plan for the subj ect property pursuant to Section l~. 68 .120. Said Development Plan is approved for the follow'ing uses, and subject to the following conditions: .c-:c···.···.··.L·· .. ','., :-:\ " .. ~ , (aJ E..su::mi tted Uses. The permitted onl y use shall be housing for low and very Ie ...... income seniors, and accessory uses incidental thereto. (b) congi -::ional Uses. No uses shall be permitted in this :z:ons othe.r than that use specified in paragraph (a). (c) Site Development Regulations. The site develoF'l'l1ent regulations governing the subject prope:-ty shall be in accordance with the Development Plan. (d) parking and Loading Bequire'r.lent.?....... The parking arld loadi~q requirements governing the subject property shall be in Ciiccordance .... ·ith the Development Plan. (e) Special Bequirements. The follo ...... ing conditions are made special require.ments cOfldi tioning the approval gra" d by this ordinance: (1) If the Owner of the property kno1".'n as 325 Lytt.on transfers ten feet of propert.y located at the c~mmon property line between the two properties, which is to the rear of the subject prcp-erty. the trash facility shall be relocated to that rear ten foot area. The PASCO access to the trash facility in such case shall be froIll Lytton Avenue. If the property line re~ains unchanged I the trash shall be located in trle bdSEnent. (2) Pedest~ian and emergenci~ Vehicle access to the parkinq lot shall be provided at the common property line located at the rear of the subject property. 'It! N! _____ - , , {3) The owner of the subject ~rcperty shall obtain from the City of Palo Al to an easement for vehicular access through the city parking lot kno~n as Lot J. to provide access t? the 9a~age ramp. (4) The OW"ller of the subj ect property shall ol::~ain trom: the owner of t1":e property known as 325 Lytton an easement for vehicular access across the :3 25 Lytton prcperty to the garage ran:p and for e~ergency access to the rear of the subject property. (5) The owner of the subject property shall obtain from the o...-ner of the property knc .... tn as 325 Lytton an easement for vehicular aCCE-f;S and egress from the subj ect property 3r.d across an:] from the 325 Lytton property onto Lytton AvenuE'. If the redevelopment of the 325 Lytton propert}' provides an opportunity for a coordinated circ""llation system with the s':.lbject prcpertYi the location of the access easement required by this paragraph may he changed in accordance with such plans as may be a~proved by the City council for such redevelopment. (6) A security gate shall be provided at the batto::', of the gardge ramp. (7) Ttwo Class 2 or Class ) bicycle parking s~aces shall be provieed near the entrance of the building for visitors and short term parking. Some Class 1 bicycle parking 51".all be provided for residents, .r"ith the number, design and location to be dete~ined by the Transpcrtation Divisi~n in co~sultation ~it~ the cwne= cf the subject property. {8} If, after the permitted use on the subject prope!'ty is in operation, it is detennined by th-e o ... ner of the subject propert:t that all of the tandem parking spaces provided pursuant to the Development Plan are not actually needed, the o;.mer may req',Jest Architectural Review Beard approval to reconfigure the garage so as to provide two way circulation, replacing app~cxi mately eight tandem parking spaces. (9) The owner of the subject property shall provide 'With the final landscape plan an arborist's report detailing protection measures for trees on neighboring parcels .... ·hich .... ·ill be i:rnpacted by the cO::1struction on the su.bject property, and a letter evidencing that a certified arborist will 3 • .' ". '. r ! / (f) be responsible for protectic measures. iJ':lplementation of the (10) The sewer line on Everett Street shall be tested ror flow cap~city, and the own2r of the subject property shall be responsible for any required upgrade, in acco=dance with the applicable utility Rate Schedule. '11) The owner of the subject property shall enter into a recor-dal:lle agreement with the City tc· ensure that all units in the proj eet to be constructed in this zone shall remain affordable to low and very lo~ seniors. (12) The owner's representatiYe shall prepare c:. construction plan, to be approved by the Transportation Division and the Public Works Department, to identify and ::r.itigate the del:lolitior. and construction impacts listed below, This plan sha.ll be coordinated " ... ith the proposed construction plans of projects located at 325 Lytton and 325 Everett: (i) (ii) ( iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) Demolition Construction of tempo::.-ary barr~cades and fences Temporary closure of sidewalks and streets Site for the storage of construction equipment and supplies Identification of the proposed construction access point and truck routes Restoration of City streets impacted by the construction activities Repla.cement of entire City side~alk in front of the property in accordance ~ith City standards Public relations plan directed at resolving the conce~ns of adjacent merchant businesses oevelopment Schedule. obtained by October completed by OCtober 1, Building 1, 199.2, 1993. pennits I:'.ust be and construction :ECTION 4. Tha City Council hereby finds that this project ~il1 have no significant effect on the environ~ent. 4 910611 M; OOJO~Q~ SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the day of its adoption. INTRODUCED AND PASSEO: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Af:!.STEN'TIONS: city Clerk: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst.. City Attorney 5 APPROVED: Mayor City Manager Director ot Planning and Community Environm~nt "., , , , , , , ! ' , ' i -:"": i;:'""" .'" ~ ~ t ;; L J=- ~ ~ ~ ," * ~ ~ So <J ,,-. <"' ... ... ~,., 4W !~ ~ ~" '" ~ ~~ ~ -=1"" ~ ~ ~ .. ~ IflLlNG JOHNSON PARK GRAPH1C ATTACHl'lENT ~D~AT~E:~"~"'~.' __ -L;;.; LSC;;;:;Al.:;;.E: __ ~'·..;-'~"r-' ---t TO STAFF R:PORT FlU NO.IO-ZC-17 I SUI-~qB-'15 J IQ-EIA-55 L PROJECT: I'FlOPOSli.D ZONE C)1ANG'E FAOM RM-30 TO ,"c ---I FOR 3:4 321 330 332 334 .. '40 EVEA.ETT AVE I NOR::-H -"1: I I , ~ -~'"/' I i'~ ) . -'" i, , I I 1 .. ,-', TO: PALO ALTO PLANNING COMMISSION PREPARED BY: Virginia Warheit FILE NO.: 9C-EIA-55, 90-lC-17, SO-ARB-IIS, DATt: May N, 1991 SI-Y-j3 PROJECT INFORMATION locat jon: Applicant: Property Owners: ReQuested Action: PROJECT StJllMARY 324-340 Ev.rett Avenoe Palo Alto, CA 94306 C~mmunity Housing, Inc. by Carrasco l Associate~, Architects 120 Hamilton Ayenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 The Martin Revocable Lrving Trust Thomas J. Martin, Partner 2345 Vale Street Palo Alto, CA 94305 Zone Change from RM-30 Multiple-Far.:j1y Distr",ct to PC Planned Community District; ~ariances to required front yard setback and to side yard dayl ight plane The appllcant proposes to change the zoning for t~e three parcels at 324-340 Ever!tt Avenu& from RM-30 to PC Planned Communit~ in ord~r to accommodate tne development of a 51-unit below-marK!t-rate s!nior residence project. Tne proposed structure is i three-story wood frame bu; ldi ng wi tn 57 under'3round parking spaces and an additional S spaces at grade. There are 45 studio ljnits and 6 one-bedroom units. The houting will be for independent seniors Wlth lQw-and very low-incomes who are not in need of assisted 1 iving ser..-ices, The on-site staff will be Timited to one day-time office staff person and one resident manager. The residential project will be affiliated with the existing ~tt~n Ga~dens facilities~ and the residents of the proposed project ma~ take advantage of the existing recreation and social services be~ng pro~ided there. Tne project ~il] replace twelve residentia1 units in six dwellings pres!ntly on the site. RECOKH£HDEO ACTION Staff recommends tnat tne Planning Commission recommend that City Cvuncil adopt the negatlve dEclaration and approve tne proposed Planned Cammunity Zone Change, and ippr~ve the reQuested variance to allow the front porch to e~tend no more than 10 feet into the required front yard setback and to allow dormers and .aves to extend 5 f.et into t.'e side yard dayl igOt plane as snown on tne development plan, based on ffndings and conditions listed later in this report. PC330E2 VW - 5/14/91 D;>"::> 1 :-.':'.? < .. , -- 'l SITE IHFORMATIOH Porcel Size: Assessorls Parcel Number: Existing Zoning: Compre~.nslv. Pl.n Deslgnltlon, Deosity: EXisting land Use: Surrounding land Use: Hlsto t '."': J-'tandatory Action DaUs: <nvironmental Impact Assessment: PC330E2 YW - 120-14-046,047,048 R/i-30 ~edium Density M"ltiple-Family Residential Multiple-family Residential Maxim~ 30 units per Jere 12 resi~ent ill rental unfts The block face directly across Everett Street is zoned R/i-30 Mult'p1.-Family and is currentl} occup;e~ by five two-story apartment buildings t and three ~aca"t parcels. A proposal to construct 12 t~wn~ouses on the vacant partels was recently appruved by the Archttectural Review Board. Adjacent to the east ; s a fi ve-story apartment·b~iTding. On the west the site borders .n RMO(HP) dis'-!ct wlt~ three single-family h~s ;nd one small two-story apartment building. 10 th. sDuth at the rtar of the property ;s a commercill Site and i public parking lot. Preliminar~ review b~ the Arc~itectural Review Board on May 3, 1990 Preliminary revlew by Planning Commission on february 27, 1991 Final revl,w by Archite~tura' Review Board en April IB, 1991 The a~plicatjon was file~ on December lE, 1990. A Not;ce of Incomplete Application was issued on January 17, l' • and the application was deemed cDmplete on J, _ary ZB, 1991. Th. Planning CommiSSion held I public hearing within 90 days of t.hat date, as required by ordinance. The Planning Commission acted favorQbly in ltS initi.l revie. of the PC Planned Community application, and referred the development plan to the Architectural Review Board for review. The development plant as ap~roved' by the Arcntitectural Review Board, will be returned to the Planning tommission for final review and reco~ndation b~fcre submittal to the City Council for ffna' action. An tnv;ronmental Assessment and a Negative 5/Z~/9I AHALYSIS Project Description Declaration of no sfgn1f'ea,lt !nvironmental impact has been prfpared and is attached to this report . The applicant is proposing to const~uct 51 units of b~1ow-market-rate housing for independent lh'ing for seniors with low-and very-101_-incomes. In order to iccolllJ1odate UriS d&ve1opment. they are requesting tt,e rezonijl9 of the property from its present designation of RM-30 to PC, Planned Community. The applicant, Community Housing, Inc" is the nonprofft corporation which overates. the existing lYtton Gardens 5&n10r residentfal complex it Middlefield Road and University Ave~ue. There is currently a wait of ap~rc~imately two years for the subsidized, independent liVing units at lytton Gardens 1. The new project is being proposed in order to help address this unmet housing need. In order to keep the rents is low as possible, the appl icant ir.tends to apply for Housing and Urban Development (HUD) financing for the projoct. The relevent HUD housing finance programs are only available to projects of 50 or more units. hence tn! proposed size of the projecto T~e applicant considers the proposed site particul~r1y deslrab1e for this project because the management, mafntenance and resident s~rvices of the nearby Lytton Ga:dens program could be shared by the new project~ thus achieving economies of scale. In addition, the site is near Downtown, Johnson Park and good transportation services. The applicant ~as a lease optlon on the land which would make the land a\lililable it an affardable annual rate for SO Yf!ars. at whic~1 time the title passes to ColMtunity Housing. Inc. In the following cnart, the site dev&lopment standards being proposed are compared wlth standards for the current RM~30 zone designatiDn and also ~ith RM·40 standard's. This chart has been revised since the preHminarji Planning Commiss1on rev;ew to reflect a modtfication to the roof design that eliminated all fourth floor equivalent space, and an increase in the total number of parking space, provided. PROJECT COMPARISON VITH CURRBNT ORDI~CE REQUIREMENTS F'100T Area ptaxi mum (Sg. ft.) fAA Hol!lht Den"t~ Proposed 36,000 1.12 34 51 R/'I·30 Allowed/ 211 Required 18, 000 .6 3; R/'I-40 Allowed/ Requ; red 30,000 1.0 3S 30 l Includes 15 pertent density bonus for below-market-rate units. PC330[Z VV ~,i~'li .' "" ; .' 2:-:" - ParKing 623 B21 B12 I ! l 2 I3h"eetor of rll.nr,1ng ~s permttt~d te reduct. by 5C >,err:.!nt fo!'" eld.e'!"ly nouslng • .3 }nc'l.ldes 10 tandem parkH'19 spates in the 9ui.ge and S surfact pal"'kir,g spaces . The proposed building is I two-a~d three-story yood frame structure f~rming I.n l s~a.pe around a.n outdoor patio, The buildi['l,g ma.ssing is arranged 50 that th! t:"lree-stor,Y portion is .along the prope!'ty lines shared by a fjYe-stol'Y .parbaent building and by comerci.] property, with the t •• -story port'on .nd the open patio area ficing the st~eEt and .djicent to the RMD zone. The Irchitectural chara,tir borrows from the surrounding si~g1e·family neighborhood, with such detai1s as shingle sidfng, divided l~Slht 'MI'ir.dows, balconies, a front porch and a landscaped front garden. In response to Planning Commissio~ direction. the applica~t his .orked together with tne Ohmer of 325 lytton to arrange for access t~ the und~rground g_rag< through t"~ 325 Lytton p"operty. Consequently, the site plan and design of tne underground and surface parking areas have been redesigned Since the P1anning Commission saw the project for preliminary review. The prinCiple cnanges are that the g.rage ramp is at the re.r of the site and the surfa,e parking area en Everett Street has been e~panded and has been moved beyond the front yard setback. A disc~ssio~ of tne integration of t~is project with the adjacent site and with a potential proj!ct being proposed fer that site is included in the ~ssue$ section below. Badcground A. Previous Planning Commission Action At the preliminary Plann1ng CommissiDn review on February 27~ 1991, most Commissioners expre~sed ambivalence toward the proposed ~roj~ct. acknow1edging the pressing need for more nousi~g for low income seni~rs in the comm~nity and the value of this proposal in addressing that need, and the high quality Df tne architectur.l desi9n, and on the other hand expressing concern about potentia1 lmpacts the project may have on the neighborhood. Most of these concerns ~ere relat~d to the slze cf the project being approximateiy tw~ce the floor are. and density zs tnat ill owed ; n the undeT"yi ng R.".·30 zoroe. Comi ss i Qni!r Ct\ri s tenser. and' others referred to the care which was 9iven in the past to determining that RM-30 was the highest density zoning appropriate for this neighborhood. They felt that putting S~ much dens1ty on this Site resulted in design prob1ems, such as a large building mass, inadequate access and surface parking for visitors and emergency ~ehicles, and a nonresidential feeling caused by locating parking and the entrance to the underground garage ramp io the front yard. The Planning Commission discussed coordinating the cirCUlation of the proposed project with tnat of the project proposed for 3Z, Lytton, thus freeing "p the front of the proposed senior project and he' pi ng to resohe SO"" of the design problems identified by Comissioners. The Conrnission voted, 6-0, with Commissioner Hirsch absent, to conceptual1y appro~e the project, urging the deve10peT to initiat€ ~inc!re Q\scYssions with Jim Baer, the applic.nt of the 3Z, lytton project, witn the expectation th.t reso1ution to the actess and parking issues could be achieved (refer to ittachfd minutes). PC330E2 ,~ -----~::---.. ----........ .,.,.. .. ...".-_'- 5/14/91 'L , :c, L F • , B. Architettural P.eview Board Recommendation At the Arch1tectur.l R.'iew Bo.rd (ARB) meeting on April J8, J99!, the Board reco~nded approval of tnt project 9 SaC. The Board was generally very suppo~t1ve of the architect~ral design, partfcularly thp design references to residential Irr.h1tect~re in the neighborhocd, the 20 feet wide sfde yard setba~ks, and the maSSing of the building so that bulK fs pulled a~ay from adjacent $ingle-family homes. There was a consensus among Soard members to support 9~antin9 a v.riance to the daylight p13ne to i11nw the dormers to be construtt~d as shown, and to support granting a rarianc.e for tne front porch to into the front yare, p:",ovided that it 15 redesigned to ~ a more useable space. Several members of the Board ~xpressed cont~nuin9 concern that e~erything possible should be done to reduce potential traffic impacts on the n~ighborhood. It was suggested Hit vTsitors could be en,ouraged to use the adjacent public parking at 32S lytton Ave~oe. ihe conditions ~f approval included the rtqo~$t that tnt appl ;cant restudy the surface parking and the laYOLlt :Jf the-garage fol" maximum parkin~ and ~irculation efficiency ,T!feT to attached minutes). ISSUES Proje,t Design Integrated ~ith Adjacent Site 1h. o.ner of 325 lytton, Mr. Jim 8 •• r, has stated that h •• ill gr.nt acce's rights to the applicant to prov,de fOT tonstructiDn of the garage ramp and access to the underground garage itrOSS ~is property (letter frem Mr. BaEr attached). This would .110w the project to b. redesigned so that the undergroun~ garage is accessed at the rear Df the site, rather tha~ off Everett Street-lngress to the garage wi 11 be from Bryant Street through the e~i$tfng publ1c parKing lct [west section of tot K) and across tne rear c~rner of the adjacent 325 lytton site. Egress from ~he site will ~ aCT~SS the 325 Lytton site to lytton Avenue, or to another egress scheme whic~ co~Td be late~ approved as part of a PC z~ne change application for 325 tytton. A proposed agreement for granting these atcess rigl'lts has been received by the: City, but cannot be apprQved by the City Attorney in its present farm. Mr. Saer is also pTopcsing to deed 10 feet of land along their shared propel"ty line to the s~nior project if hi$ project is appro~~d. While this is not enough increase in tne site area to a1low the building to be reconfigured so that mass ca~ be moved to the rear of the site, it does increase tn! rear yard from 10 to 20 feet. This wi1l allow for larger trees and for greater privacy fer the rear units. If the red!velopment project proposed fcr 325 lytton Avenue is not approved 9 this lot line adjustment will not be made in order not to displa,e eXlsting parking 1oc~ted at the real" of the 325 lytton site. If both projects were to b€ approved, tne design of toe two projects would be integrated i" such a way that the access to the residential project ~ould occur on the tn~ercial prDject site, and the second lnd third underground levels of the parKing gaTage for the commercial project would be directly under the entry ramp to the residential project. If ono of the projects is not approved, or if for some Dther reason they cannot be constructed sim~ltaneously, access and constr~ct;on logistical difficulties WOuld occur. Actions required by both parties and by the City th.t would reduce these difficulties and that would allow either project to proceed without the other PC330E2 VI< ~~"!""""---.-~-'-" ... L L 5/14/9J '" -. ~ are recommended in Cooditions 1 lnd 2 b!low, and in t~e conditions to be reco~nded in th! proposed 325 lytton project. If thi project! are developed together, entering and exiting the garage ramp to t~e residential project is c~r~ently proPQsed in a separate PC Lone chdnge appHcition for 32.5 Lytt.on Avenue to be vii Bryant Street through the City parking lot. whtch will be co~verted for two-way traffic. Parking spaces lost by t~fs conversfon would ~ replaced fn tne underground g.r.g< of the commercial pr~ject. Access to the commercill project cou1d llso be through this same route, or some or .11 of fts .ccess may ~ vi. lytton Avenue. Options for access to the cQmmerci~l site, and the related issue of p~ssibly closing Bry,nt Street, will be discussed in the review of the 325 lytton project. If the residential project is developed before the commercial project, the garage ramp to tne resident111 project is proposed to be constructed in tne same location and access would continu~ to be from Bryant Street, but exiting would be through the 3Z5 lytton site onto lytton Avenue. This wou1d iv~id displacing existing parking in the city lot off Bryant Street) which would occur if tne lot were modified to provide two·way aCCiSS to Bryant Street. Pedestrian link to Downtown The proposed design inc1udes a secured gate at the rear of the property to allow residents a stJorter peffestrill"l (cmnecticn t~ ~vwntown -wia. florence Street and to tne Senior Center on Bryant Street. This pedestrian gate cannot be install ed if tne 325 l)'tton site remains undeveloped. since ther(l. i So presently no Sidewalk through the existing public and private parking lots behind the 330 Eyer~tt project t~ provide seniors witn a safe route to Bryant .and F"lorence Streets. The proposed redeve1opm~nt of 325 Lytttln inCludes a pedestri.n walkway from the re.r of the 330 Everett site to Bryant Street. Anotner pedestrian connection which has been consid!red in relation to tnis project is a public path through the 330 Everett site from Everett Strtet to Lytton AvenlJe ,and Bryant Street. Tt'lh publ ic patn hiS been rejected by the applicants due to concerns about compromising security and privacy in the projects;s private and common outdoor areas. Parking and Trafftc The parking garlge has bee I' rede:S;igne1 to accomodate entry from ttle rear {If the site. T~e redesign has resulted in an increase in the total number of spaces in tne garage from 53 to 57 spaces. Storage areas were also increased by 330 square feet. lhe revised design in,ludes 10 tandem parking space~. compared ttl S tandem spaces in the originil p1an. Movi~g the entrlnce to the und~r9round garage allowed several improvements to the parking and cirtulation and the design of the fro~t yard on Everett Street. All of the park-irIS has been mo'led out of the front yard setback. The number of visitor and drop off spaces hiS been increased from 3 to S spaces. The entrance to the underground garage no longer passes through the viSitor parking area, thus eliminating potential circulation problems and improving accessibility ta the surface parkin; area. 10 addition to Ue f·i .... e-surface parking splces, quest parking could be supplemented by unused spaces {n the underground garage, as described below. and by encouraging visitors to use the public parking pre.ided at 3ZS lyt·.on A.enue. pe330r! V" 5/24/91 t'. --" • .. - _ T W.--.s ~-~o,-:.-. ... ~_'.'--'" ' L i - .~.~~ .... There is spaca in th~ proposed parking ire~ for i medic van to pull in and park orl tha .sitf without block.ing t~e sid[!-lifalk.. Emergency Senices persOl'lr.ei nave told stiff that when ~aking I medic~' tmergency cal1 they do not parK th€ Yin i~ a par~ing space but pull into tn~ s'te and sto~ in the dr;~e~ay. Eased on dati from Emergency S!Tvices, these visits wo~ld be expec~Ed t~ be very infrequent, about one yjsit to the sih per month. Tile da~a sh,IoJS that all calls t~ lytt~~ 1. i e~m?araCli independ~nt ltving rtstdenct with ZlS units, received 213 medical emergency visits and 27 other visrts fo~ a total of 140 visits over a period of 32 months. This is I frequency of ~jsfts equal to 2 percent of the nl.:m!>tr cf units per l'Ior.th, or atxlut cne ~isit per month for 50 Ilnits. Staff bel ieves that the propos~d parKing will be adEiQrJate to meoet the need! of the project. The applicants hav~ conducted I s~~vey of car ownership at the 218 independent 1 iying units .t lytton r and tn. 50 independent 1 iving units at lytton II, collectively referred te as 'lyttoo j' in tne report (s •• attached). Tney found that the residents of these units had. tot,l of B. cars, Dr Tess tnan one-third th~ numb~r of units. Jf the ratio of car owners~ip at the proposed lytton rv is com~arable. we wo~lc expect 11 residents to own cars. Fifty-seven park.~n9 spaces are being provided in the underground garage. Ten of the 57 proposed garage spaces are tandem spaces. which can be used for storing the cars of residents who maj use them infreQuently. The expected unused spaces in the garage co~ld be made a¥aihble for guests ",no vistt frequently arid ten<:t to stay for an exten.ded perj~d of time, since tn~y would become familfar with the 9arage and ho~ to ;!,pter it. Variance R!guired This project is TeQu~red by tne PC, Planned tcmmunity regulations to comp1y .,itn the setback and dayl {qht plane requirem<!nts of the adj.cent R11-3C and RMO zones~ Portions of the dormers ~xtend approximately five feet into tn~ sideyard daylight plane and would require a varia.nce. When the project ¥I·as ~vie~ed by the ARS~ ARB member$ u~animous1y recommended support for 1 variance to allow the dormers to be c~nstucted as s~o~, on the basis t~at only one d~rmer is adjacent to an RMD site and the other three in Question are adjacent to the ntighbo~ing fiv~ story apartme~t building. so the impatt on idjacent properties would be mlnimal. The proposed des;gn shows tn! front porch extending 7 feet into the reQuired lO-foot front yard setback~ which .il1 requ~re a variance. At their review. tn. ARB reco"",.nded tn.! a variance be granted to .llow the front poren to extend up to ]0 feet into tile front yard, provided tl1.t tn. front PO'C" be ~"e-designed to be a TIlere \.lseab1e spac.e. A condition Clf their recOl'llTlenoation for appr~val was that the porch be redesigned and return to the ARB for approval. They supported the variance because it will allow tnt porch to be close enough to the sjde\Jro'aH: fer conversation \!'ith passers-by, if reSidents ire so inclined. and it provides for I more generously sized porch. ~h.n tne building exteDded PC~30£2 W Plannlng Commission saw this project for pre1iminary review, the exceeded the l5-foot hei9ht limit b1 appro~imattly I-foot and ea~es slightly into the daylight plane. Subsequent modifications to the 5/24/91 '"'. .. -L -' . L roof design ha,e brou;ht the building height and the design of the e.ves Into compliance with the loning ordinance, and , vari&~ce is "0 longer reQuired. T~e abJect1Yt of this proposed project is to p~ov;de rental housi~9 to sen10rs with low-and very low-incomes, The .ppllcant Is pursuing. finanCing str.teg] which will provide units that .re affordable to this target group. Th. HUG funding which the applicant is proposing to use will assure, and indeed requires, thlt all units will be rented for an amount .ffordable by low-and very-low-Income residents. The project developers h~v. Indicated thkt shou1d this or comparable funding not be ~vlilable) the~ are not Interested in pror..eding with the project If the cost of the project made It unavailable. to l~-income s@l'Tiors. since ~ervit'\g that group is thf'ir missio!'\+ To insure that Iny project resulting from this approval would conti~ue to be lffordabl. to the target group, and thus meet the requirement for public benefit, the (1ty Attorney Is requ1ring is a conQiton of appro,al a recorded 19reement that t~e project will remain low-ind yery-low-lntum~ ~enior housing. financing Financing for the project is proposed to ~ a combination of federal ana/or state, city and private funds_ The proposed financ1ng includes primarily Sectfon 202 fynds from the Department of Housing a~d Urban Development. Requlations regarding Section 202 funds we-re recent1y changed by federal legislation adopted in 1990. Th!se revised regu1.tions are expected to be issued by ~UD within the next few weeks. Because of the c"a.ges in the l'e9"latlons, t"e specifics of the funding proposal are not known &t this time. However, as • Planned Community Zone chonge, I condition of the PC zone and part of the public benefit for t", project. is I: requlrelDent that tne project serve cmly 10w-and ... ·ery low-; ncome residents. The staff and Palo A1to Housing Corporation are reviewing the financing proposal and the changes in legislation to ensure that the project will serve only lo .. ~ and very lOkl·income residents. Depending on ttle-amount and type of federal fl.ln'ls. tnt'! applicant will a1so be seeting to use Clty funds from eithe~ the COSG lar.dba~k funds or the Hous1ng Reserve Funds. The amount requested .ill be approximately $~SO,OOO, At '.ast a portion of this will be used to payoff the existing 5650,000 loans on tn. property. The applicant anticipates that t"e City funds will be in the form of • lo.n and 3;11 b. replid, The requ.st for City funding ~ill be scheduled on the-same City Council igenda as the zone change. Comprehensive P1an Complianc~ The ~5es and site development regu1ations within the propos~d PC Planned Community district must be determined to be consistent with the Comprehensive Phn. The objectives of the Comprehensivf! Plan considered most ~rt1nent to this proposal are the following policies and programs of the Housing Element, o PCl30E2 VII ".-t" , Policy 6: Maintain at least Ue present number of mu'tip'e~family rentll units while workir.g to increase the overall supply of rental housing. --.------" ., Froqr-am 9: fGr illY residentiil develop!TIent in mulUple-famiTy zones which ca~$es the loss of rent.' housing units, s~bdivision approva1 I1i1:Y be 9ri11nted if any two of the fo11owing thre~ circumstlnces are met: p~ov;de lOa percent more units; repTace tfte existing number of rental units; provide r,ot lfS~ tf1an 20 percent below-market-rate units. Program 15: Provide zoning fiexlbllfty to encourage the development of smaller units affardab'! to low-and -aderate-income persons. a P:lT1cy 8: EnCOUl"'I9'e and foster a diversity of affordable ~ol.j$ing oppgrtunities fer senior citizens includ;"9 no~sing which may provide a vartety of services for special he~~th, social and transit needs. o Policy ll~ Encourage and participate in low-and moderate-income housfng proqr~~s fina~ced by local and other levels of government. It is staff's opinion tfiJit the proposed project furthers these housing objective$. It exceeds all t~ree conditions of Program 9 by increasing the number of ~nits on tne sfte from 11 to Sl units, all of which are rentals, and by providing 10C percent Qf the unit$ affordable to low-and moderate-incorr~ persons. The units are smal' studios and ~ne-bedroom ~nits (420.694 sQuare (eet) su!tlble for sentors with limited incomes. lhe location of tne project, n~ar Downtown, the Senior Center, Lytten Gardens, Johnson Park and transit facil~tfes, will provide ~ouslng which ~eets the special needs of seniors. The project Is designed to take advantage of Feder,l and State funding programs, with application being made for a HUD Sect;on 202 construction loan and Section 8 rent subs1dles, or a1ternatively, application for i State Rental Housing Construction Program loan a~d syndicated funds. RECOIIIIENIlATION Staff recommends that tne P)anning Cornrnissi~n recommend that the City Council ado~t the negative declaration and approve the project, and approve-the variances to allow the front porch to .,t.nd 10 feet into the front yard setback and to allow the dormers to extend 5 feet i,to the daylight plane, subject to the following findings and conditions: FINDINGS FOR PC ZONE CHANGE J _ n~e use or IJses proposed for the sih are of sue'" ct'laracterist ics that tne .pplication of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient fl~xibility to alio~ the proposeci development whi'~ is to provide housing for low· and very-law-income senior citizens. The increased density and decreased parking requirements ~ill .llow i greater number of smaller units suitable to older persons, thus servi.ng a larger number of persons needing this type of housing. and will reduce t~e cost per unit, thus making the units affordable to persons with low and ~ery-1ow-incomes. 2. Oevelopment Qf the site under the provisions of the PC dlstri ct wi 11 re,ult In p"blic benefits not otherwise attain,ble by application of the regulations of general districts or comhinlng districts in that housing for low-and yery-low-income senior citizens is a pub~jc neE"d, considering Pil0 Alto's ,ging popu1ation, and that thlS type of small, PC330E2 VW _._ ... ., __ ~ ___ -.. ..... --'--'0_-- L ,"" .. - SjZ4/9J p _, r" .--' 3. affordable units is not being pro~ided in the cnmmun~ty b~ other proje<ts. The use or uses permitted and the site deve1Dpment regulations appli,.bl. within the district sh.ll be consistent with the Pilo Alto Compre~ensive Pl,n, I,d shall bf compatible wit' existing and potenti" uses on adjoining .s~tu or within the generil vicfrdty, in thit ttle project w111 have .}mi~l trlffic or nois! implcts on the surrounding neighborhood. lnd that the project furthers tho policies .nd progrlms of the Housing El..ent by fncreasing the supply of rontal housfng. providing s~ller •• fford,bl. units. providing housing whic, meets the special needs of senior citizens and by tlking advintage of flnanc;~g Ivall.bl. frem ether lev,l. of goye~ment (Programs 9 and 15. ?olici.s 8 and II). FINDINGS FOR VARIANCES 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or condition5 applioable to the property involved t~at do not apply generally to property in the same district. in that this project is adjacent to • five·$tcr~ building ind t~ , commercia' lone on the east lnd sout~ sides of ttle property, respectively, ,and Ule project is being developed u.nder the constriints of federal housing finance programs, as described below. which slgn1flc.ntly restrict design options available to the app1icant. 2. Tn~ granting of the application is necessary fo~ the prese~ation and enjoyment of a substantial prope~ty right cf the .pplioant. and to pre~ent ~nreasDnable property loss or unnecessary hardship. in that the ~roj.ct is being deve10ped unQ~~ the constraints of fed~ri1 financing prDgr~s whicn require at least SO units to be constructed and also limit the ~nit1es which can ~ incl~ded in the design, and yet these constraints .ust be oye~come so that the scale and cha~acter of thf structure are appropriate to th~ syrrounding residentia1 nei~nborhocd. The addition of dormer, will have the effeot of reducing the s,.le and visually lowering t~e roof of this thre~-stcry bvilding, and the add;ti~n of the frunt porcn will p~oYide a more ~esidentia' scale ar.d feeling to the facade of the building and to the front yard •• nd ~ill provide-all. oPP'JrtlJn"tty for it!.niar reSidents to illteract with the neighborhood activity along the street. 3. 1ne granting of the appl'cat1on vi11 not be detrimenta1 ~r injuT10us to property or improvements in the vicinity, in that f,ve of the six dormers in question are fac';ng the adjacent five story apartment ~uilding and commercill property~ the JO foot setbaCK proposed for the front porch is Ipproximate', the s~mt as the setb~ck ~f the adjacent single·family residence on [ver~tt Street, and the proposed dormers and porch will make the 5trutture more architecturally compatible with the residential structures in the neig~borhood_ COHDIlIOIIS I. If the 330 Everett project and t,e lZS lytton project are both appro"d by City touncil and ex.cuted. the following two conditions sh.l1 apply: a. The property line between the t~o parcels sh.l1 be .djusted 10 feet to tile ... t. with the o,,"er of 325 lytton transferring 10 feet Pt330E2 ~!Z4/~! w \ . . • .. -' ., I ·1 . .. cc; t-.~;.· •• . ---I 't I I \ I, 2. .10n9 the length of lhe property line by deed to the owners of the 330 Everett project. b. The applicant shoiil1 obt.a1n. from thoe CHy of Palo Alto a vl!'hiculn access easement through tne cfty parking lot (west sec~ion of Lot K) to the 330 Ev!rett project to provide 2ccess to tne garage ramp. If only the 330 Everett project is approved by the City Council and the 32S lytton project is not approved and constructed, the following five conditions sh.11 apply: a. The shared property line betw.en tne t.o parcels shall not be adjusted ]0 feet but will remain as it is in order not to displace appr~ximatel1 10 existing parking spaces located along this property line on the 325 lytton property. b. The applicant shall obtain from the City of Pi10 Alto a 'IIehitu1ir easement through tne city parking lot (west secti{Ui of ltlt K) to provide 3ccess to the garage ~~p. c. The applicant shall obtain from the owner of the 315 Lytton property an ~asement for vehicular access across the 32S lytton property to the to the 9arage ramp and for emErg~ncy access to the rear of the 330 tv.rett project. c. The applicants shall pay an in-1feu fee of 515,000 per space for loss of seven park.ing spaces which will be displaCEd by tMe gr.2',.-;t of the vehic~lar access easement, in accordance with condition 2.c. above. Tn. total fe. shall b. 1175,000. e. If the 325 lytton project is nat constructed and the publ ic parking lot (west section of lot K) remains as Is, then there shall be no pedestrian access pro¥ided from the r~ir of the 330 Everett project, since this wo~ld reQuire walking t~r~u9h the parking lot which is not a safe route for senior citizens. A gate for emergency access to the rear of the sit~ may be ~rovided. 3. The appl icant shail ente-r into iI recorded agreement with the City that all units in the project ~ill be guaranteed t~ be affD~jable to low and very low income senior citilens. 4. Prior to submitting for a building permit. the follG~'ing w111 return to tne ARB for approva1: arc~itectural details. including balconies, trellises, sc>ffits. buildifl9 materials and colors; a rfdesign of the porch; restudy of the garage and visitor parking and bicycle parking ,see condition 'S below}; fl~a1 landscape plan~ 11ghting plan, li9ht fixtures and pavlng materfals. S. Two Class 2 or Class 3 bicycle parking spaces shall provided near the entrance of the building for visitors and short term parking. Some C1ass J bicycle park~ng shall be provided for residents, with the n~mber, design and locatio~ to be determined by t~e Transportation D1vis;~n in consultation witn the applicant. 6. A security gate shall be prov;de~ at the bottom of the garage ramp. PC.l30f2 YW 5/24/91 tl ~.., ~_ 1 ~ ~ . I 7. If. after the ,?rDject is in opention , 1t 15 determined by the app11cants that all of the tandem park1ng spaces being provided .re not reQ~1red, the garag~ may be reconfigured so that two way circulition is provided. replacing approxf~atelj eight t~nde~ parking spaces. These changes .h.11 be approved by the Architect"r.1 Reyi •• Board. 8. If the rear yard is increased to 20 feet .ide (.ith the approval of the 325 Lytton project), then the trish facility sh.11 be relocated to the rear yard, to be accessed from lytton Avenue. ff th~ rear yard remains ""changed ( .. lthout the approv.l of 325 Lytton), the trash shall be relocated to the basement. 9. The applicant .s~all pro'wide with the final hnd$ca~e plan an arborist's rl!'port detailing protect.:on meul"res for trees on lIEdghboring parcels which will be impacted by the construction, and I letter evidencing that a certified arborist 1S responsible for-impltmentation of the protection measures. 10. The applicant sh.l1 test the se~er line on Everett Street for flow capacity and st'lall be responsib1e for iny required upgrade of the sewer lif)~. II. Tne applicant shall prepare a constructio" plan, to be approved by the Transportation Division and the Public ~ork~ D~partment, to identify and lIitigate demo' Ition a"d construction impa'Cts listed be1o\lrl'. This phn shall be coordinated wit" the ,onstructi~r. plans of the t~o proposed adjacent development projects it 325 LYtton and 325 Everett. ). Demolition 2. Construction of temporny barricades and fences 3. Tempor~ry closure of sidewalks and streets 4. Site for the storage of construction equipment and supplles 5. Identification of the propD:~d construct1on access pOlnt and truck routes E. Restoration of City Streets impacted by the-construction activities 7. Rfplac.elTlent of entire City sidewalk in front of the pr-operty in accordance with City standards. 8. Public relations plan dlrected at r~sohing the Concerns of adjacent merchant businesses. ATT ACHIIEHTS Attacnment I; Att.ch ... nt 2: Attachment 3: Attach""nt 4: Attachment S: Attachment 6: Attachment 1; Attachment B: Attach""nt 9; Attachment 10; Attachment 11: Att"h""nt 12; - ~¥i-'F9M1eAtal-As5eS5MeP;t-See C~S:~2U~91 ~F9lRaAte See CM?:320:91 Development Program Statement from the Applicant Deyelopment Schod.1e Variance Request Letter from Jim B •• r, April 4, 1991 Letter f~ Jim aaer, M'l 21, 1991 Lytton IV Auto Projections S~mmary of Auto Use at Lytton Gardens Minutes of AAB meeting, Apri liB, 1991 Minutes of Planning Co"",i •• io. meeting, February 27. 1991 Planning Co"",i"ion Stoff Roport, February 22, 1991 5/24/91 D ~,,:: • "1 '.'. .-: Attachment 13; Minutes of ARB Pre-l1minary A,l{eview. May ~. ] i5l0 Attatruzent 14: S~pp1ernenta1 l~formation ~bout lytton Gar6ens P'r;;ject Pl ar'!.S COPIES $00 TO Architectur.' Review Board Carrasco I Associates, 120 Hamilto" Avenue. Palo Alto, CA 94301 ,no Martin Revocabl. Living Trust, 234; Yal. Street, Pilo Alto, CA 9430& Hanc~ Pl.ibol, 301 Bryant Court, Pa'. Alto, CA T~ny a&dger, 381 Hawthorne Av~nue! Palo Alto, CA Jim Cesari, 238 Bryant 5treet, Palo Alto, CA joe Meyers, 301 Bryant Street, ~ilo A1to, t~ Rllph Cressman. l6Q £~erett A~enuE, Palo Alto, CA Andrew Gott11eb, 309 Bryant Street, Palo ATto. CA lora Smith. 162 Bryant Street, Pilo A1to, CA Anne Rob~nson. Byron Street. P.10 Alt~, C~ Kathleen Cra.ig, 101 Wa..,'erley Street. Pal c Alto. CA Marvin H. Feinstein, P. O. eox J461. Palo Alto, (A Jim Morley, 160 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA l,..". Brenner, 250 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA Dorothy Merriam, 365 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA PC33D[2 w 5/24/91 ,,~~o ''':I LY'rtON IV SENIOR HOUSING Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, California THE NEED FOR AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING i 0". ~ i:"~ b~, ,~_ I ~~FTA~]~:i:: U'. :',~"" ":l-O f .... j " '" • r " . , ,,~ 9' -7-<:-/7 7'0 -."'~6' -I'f~ 9~-~I.P,.-S"5 communit:y Housing Inc., A California Non-Profit C':>rpcnltion, was founded in 1973 to create a quality, caring living enviror~ent for Palo Alto area seniors of lirnite·j mear.s. '!'1.olo yea!"s later Lytton Gardens (Lytton I) opened, 220 studio and one bedroom apartment units a~ the corner of Lytton }.venue and Midd!efield Road, on a school site provided by the City of Palo Alto with construction funds from H.U.D. This facility has successfully operated for th-e past 15 years iJnder tne H. U.D. Section B rent: subsidy program. Under this prC'grarr. qualifying seniors pay a maximum of 1/3 of their income for their housin,; cost. The balance of the rent is made up by 3 co-payment from r..U.D. up to the established Mmarket rate". The demand for this affordaLle hous:'ng has been Dverwhelrr,ing. Every year the increases in the costs of rental housing in Palo Alto far '.:''..itpaces inflation. Every year the purchasing power of fixed income seniors is severely diminished. The effect: is to force ctherv.'ise active members of our co~~unity into virtual poverty. Finally most resign themselves to the fact that they can no longer affor-d to live ,a,nd participate in our community and move to CIt':: outlying area, isolat.ed from their family and friends, and often facing serious security risks. L::r'tton Gardens has been one of only ate!"" scl'l.:";:io:-Js to their p:::-oblem. The waiting list for a unit at Lytton I otten is as long as 600 names, ... ·ith an expected wait of two to three yec?rs. In an effo:.-t to better accommodate this need C.S.I. has :,een seckins a site tc' expand its facilities. It was felt that this site should be close to the existing facility for management and services, as well as the benefit to the residents of being wi thin walk.ing distance of t.he services of downt:o'..rn (many residents don't drivel. C.H.I. has obtained an option to en"ter into a lDng term ground lease with the owner of three contiguous parcels ~n Evezett Avenue. Located between Bryant and Waverly, the property lS just one and one-half blocks from the senior center, one block from a city park and only four blocks from Lytton Gardens. The term of the lease is for 5D years. Additionally, C.H.I. will have the option to either renew the lease or purchase the property at the end of that term. de .' "--I I , i ~ "- Design Narrative Page .2 DESIGN NAP~TI\~ FOR CONCEPT DESIGN communi~y Housir.q Inc, is endeavoring to provide affordable housing for seniors in downtown Palo Alto~ Pursuant to this goal, three contigucus sites at 330 Everett Avenue have been obtained tor development of a new apartment building. In crdsr to provide the maximum n~~er of small one-bedroom and efficiency units~ it will be necessary to pursue a PC Zone designation for this propert~'. Present zoning on the s~te is P"."'-30. Surrounding properties are zoned RM-30, RM-D and PF. Across the street is an RM-40 zone. To mainta.in neign=>orhood scale and transition to surro',.mding uses, it appears generally feasible to work within RM-40 zoning regulal;ions fer site development, utilizing the PC Zone process to ob~ain a higher der,~ity of units and higher F.A.P.. than would be allowed in either the RM-)O or RM-40 zone. In order to make the project feasible. the unit cou~t needs to bp. a~ least 50~ ParKing must be provlded ih an underground garage~ which will dictate an in~erior paved courtyard with plantings res~ricted to containers and raised planter beds. A $ummary of the prcject ih terms of area, unit count. density and heigh~ is incluced on the drawings. The design approach for the site is to mass the building towards the northeast p=operty line, stepping dcwn towards everett Avenue and the P~I-~ Zone facin9 Eryant Street. Entry to the project from Everett will allow for views into the in~erio= courtyard ~hile maintaining security for residents. Efficiency apartments comprise the majority of the units. with or.ly 6 being one-bedroom~ to maintain affordability tor single occupancs. The first floor will have a lOD~y/reception room. administrative office and multi-use library space for gro1J.p act.ivities~ Each floor will a.lso have a laundry room and small sittinqlsoc~al space. ~ll living units have either a patio or balcony for outdoor living. The balcony forms are curved, ~o add i~terest to the exterior as well as interior ambiance. The architectural expression will reflect details and ro~f ~rnall bungalows scattered throughout this neighborhood. lapped siding and decorative gables will help to reduce this t~o-and three-story huilding~ forms of the Horizontal the scale of Perimeter planting will be 5ubstant~al as the first floor will be set back further than the typical 1D foot requirement. Twenty-foot side It!' ~!' .... -.--•.••• L - Design N"arrative Page :3 yards ""ill buffer the RM-D district and will provide shade and 'texture to the :project. If possible, a pa~h",,'ay connecting to d·::> ..... rJtc,.,,;'n Palo Alto through the par~ing area to the southeast could be developed to enccurage seniors to walk downtown. This will also serve to create an .axis within the urbCiln fabric and tie this neighborhood to the activity centers along University Avenue. Th~ landscape plantin9 materials remir.iscent Emphasis will be put on conc!=.!pt will focus on the :.lse of "traditional" of t}~ical established Pal~ Alto gardens. color I drougbt tolerance and st:ructural rorl7l. The fror.tyard (west side) will consist of a new orderly street tree planting, lawn and hedgero· .... s. Tall open trees ~dl1 also be used cleser to ~~e building fo~ sca~e and to soften the front elevation. The sou~h sideyard .... ill t"~a.ve small to mediUIn siz.e trees for screer-.ing and flo ...... ers as well as hedgerows, vines and smaller accent plantings. The rearyard (east) will have vines on the fence and a=cei1~ olanti;)os ~'here possible. The nQrth si~eyard will consist of small open r.anopy trees to allow light and create scale with irregula= groupLngs o~ small accent plants. Another feature of th~ complex will be sitting porches and decks for joint use by all t'esidents. "A. raised seating area in the courtya.rd will provide for social interaction of residents. At the third floOI, open deCKS are connected across a seating area at the main co:-ridor. The entrance to the complex ""il1 provide a scene of ai;ti~ .. ity a:-;d fr iendliness to t.tl'.! neighborhood ~ 'The goals o!: this project will be realized bl'~ no-: or.':y p:r-ovid':ng a pleasant interactive at.mosp!"l.ere for ser.io!" CitiZens "tlt,;.':. by also :>eir-:g sensitive to the neighborhood ~haracter in the siting and design of the bl,;.ilding~ By p:oviding a warm, residential feeling for the residents, the neighborhood ~'ill be enhanced. The interaction of active seniors with the neighborhood an~ dcwnto~ Pa)o Alto ~ill build c setse of community and will be beneficial to all. 12/14/90 '- - Co .RRASCD &ASSCXJJ\J1 __ riC I 5 • I" : '-", "" I I: ~ O[V£LOPM(NT PROGRAM STATEMENT ,YTTDN IV 5 ,N liJR HQUS mG 330 £\fHlI!'tt Aven'-le 1. Neces5;ty f~r PC lone District by: date: Ca.r~asco lZ/14/90 .:..... --"(;----~-'-:':':'~ ,~-~v-/ 7, <)c-/'t)Il-/ The lytton I,. !el'lior apartment project is being proposed as a PC 70 °C/I].S--S- Zone projeoct due to s.e .... eral factors: al1o,,",ab1e density. Floor . Area Ratic and site coyerage based upon uisting zo~in; would net allow for an apprcpriately-sized project to te feasit1e; parting cour.t as reQuired by off-street parki~g o~dinance is not rEQuired due to tne nature of the senior residents' aut~ ~sa~e. Existing zoning on the three sites wn1C~ will be combined to form 330 Everett Av~nue is RM-30, wnien aliows for 18 uni:s + 3M.:<' increas!! of 15' for a total of 20 units of ~,ousin9, 'Site cDverage c f 4cn. and fAR of .6 to 1. Units pe:"" acre could be 30, but the 20 ur.it count would g~verr.. ihese reQuirements Ire apprapriate f"r 2 and 3 bedroom "market-rite"' rE:partments, but do n'Jt llPply \u!ry .... e1l to Sma"I}, efficiency senior apartments. By uti1 izi!,; smal fe" un; ts, 5l apartments can be created and :nus can be rno"e .fforcable. If the a:;lrovisions of the ~M-40 zone are g!ne~all)' app~ied, 26 units .... 6r'1~ increase of 15~ for a tctal of 3D units .... Ol/1d ~e allowed. site covera;e coul~ be ~S~ and an FAP. of 1.0 to 1 wo~ld be acceDtable. Urlits per acre could be 40, but tne 30 unit count l'l'OLdd govern. Hlere is an RM-40 lone across the street. and at one time the City was consldering lDnin; these three properties ~M-40; trH.:s, RM--40 is apt:roK+mated ir"l the project. Due to tne exact conflguration and progrdm of :~e project, t~e numbers exceed pure RM-40. Since the number of units allowed under t~e RM-JO 7cnin9 wou1e ~e so limitin;. it is necessary to secvre i ~C zone to ohain 51 units of housing. Senior housing requires m ... ch less parkin; tMar'l typical ml.llti-family hcusing, as usage of cars is mUCh lower. (See the 5Ut!'111ary of automobi1e usage at Lytton Gardens for reference.) Not only a~e fewer parkin; spaces reQuired. th~re will be fewer ver-dele trips p~r day. Seniors .... '11 be encouragec, by the locatiDn of the project. to waH to shc:·,:lS, parM":, ser":,,:,r center and lytton Gardens for activities_ lytton Garden~ wl11 alsD be pro~iding a s~uttle bus for group a'ti~lties and tr~ps. Public benefits whicn wtll result from the PC Zone for this 51te incluce increasing tne affordable ~ousin; stDck in ~a10 Alto and prDyidi~g mucn-needed senior h~u$ing for ~al0 Alto's growing senior ~opulltion. rhe spe~ific need for sucn senior housing is outlined in the Design Narrative document. Residents will have to Clualify for lytton I~ tly age and income 1e'ii!1. It is being Eh!ve'oped by I non-profit corporation. COlmluni~i Housing, Jnc. which operiotu the Lytton Gardens compTe;){ in ~oiI'o Alta. The • i I·· I I· i I I I i,. I I .--'"--_.----- lytton JV Pr-ojt,t Oev~lopmf'nt Shtement 12114/90 motives fer developm~nt .re to prov~de a be~eficlal living envi!"Dr'\I:')E'nt for independent sel'liors, ratner thar. i! profit-making venture. An. additional ~ublic benefit will b~ d1\'ersifying the cemo9rap~jcs: of the neighborhood. Act've sen~o~s w'll contrlbut@ ! richness to the fabric-of this area of Oow!'1to";o{n Park Nort~. The design of tl"1~ proje~t allows to~ lnter-action amon~ neighbors as well as i socially interactive living situation for se~ior5. Consistency ~itn the Comprehensive P;a~ goals of mu1tiple-family housing for this site and malntai~ing the existin; nei9hbornooc cnaracter nave been aSSLIre-d in the design of trle Lytton IV project. Fifty-o.,e urdt! of hOlJsing ""ill be Jlrovided where 12 prenntly exist. ArchitecturaJ detailing of the bt/iJdinQ to reflect the character of surrouncin; carpenter and b!.irlga!ow-styie ;,ouses blel1~s tMe project Wit" tl1e neighborr,ood. Massing arld textvre present a ;l1easant feel ing for bot . ., indoor and outdoor aetivit;es en-site. Due to prDximit~ to Lytton Ga~dens and the senior ctnter and downtown shopping, seniors advantage Qf many !ervices and activities travel by car. TMis is consistent with ~h~ 01 the neignbornood. 2. Uses prODOstd wit~in the PC Distr~ct: neighborhood park, will be abTe to ta~e without ~~edi~g to pedestrian charact!~ Senior apartments unitS. Parking for Sop.c.es en gradE". consisting 53 cars iM of 45 efficiency and 6 l-becr~o~ undergro~nd ~ar~ge and 3 visitOr 3. Nature of uses Jlropcsed: Tne nature of this project has bee~ described in the Desig~ NarratiVE and t~e Nec~ssity statemtMt above. Compatibility of this project witn otner ,zol"ling districts 'withil"l t1'le '~itjl would not be easily Jtta;~able. Jt is most ap~ropriate that senior apartments be located in a r.ixed residential area, with ~roximitjl ta sh<lpping il"ld senior ser-vlc!'s as wtl1 a.s tr~nsiL n.is siU is idea.ll} suited to such a use. 4. Schedule of hous.ing uT1its: See Ittacnec' liru sUlMIary. UMiu will rerlt fer aPDroximateTy .$550 p!'r month. No for-sale ~nit5 are proposed. --~.c;~L----·· ri;!')';,]' - -. I .. lmCN IV SENIOR HOUSING. PROJECT DATA OCCUPA.~CY: R-I CONSTRUCTION TYP(: V-I HR SPRINKLERED. PARKING: GARAGE Standard (5) \:ompact (C) Handicap (He) 29 17 2 Tandom (T/S) "7B 5 53 TOTAL VISITOR Standard 3 AREA CALCULATIONS (gross SQ.ft.) THIRD flOOR SECOND FLOOR FIRST FLOOR TOTAL 10,973 S.F. 12,155 S.r. 13,580 Lf.:. 36,/Oa S.F. ALLO~ABLEAREA «(hapt. 5 USC) O~~ ~tory = 10,500 ~.f. x 2 {spr'n~1er) = 21,000 s.f. ~u'ti-story = 21,000 s.f. x 2 = 42,000 s.,. GARAGE 110 I 170 = \5,700 S.F. SITE AxEA = 150 X 200 = 30,000 S.F. COVERAGE = 13.580 • .453 30,000 F.A.R. = 36,708 = 1.22 30,000 .. • ··--·------"4·'·nr._, .. I I l rTION j\' UNIT COUNT' AREI Hot!: All units Ire Effj~lencl un1ess note~ as 1 SR. FIRST flOOR Unit Type Ne, of IJnits A 4 B 4 61 I B2 I C 2 Cl I 0 I BR I HC I 6R I £ I 16 Corridors, Stairs, Elevitor La~ndry. Jan .. Trash library t co~unity room Un i't Area (s. f.) 574 450 420 560 574 525 694 663 514 lobby. reception, offices, mail~oxes SECOND FLOOR Unit Type No. of Ur'tits A 4 6 1 81 I 63 I C 2 CI 1 01 1 Sq I f I BR G I -~ Corridors. !tairs, elevltor laundry. Tnsh Tot~l First Floer Unit ,c,:-ea (s . f. ) 5i4 450 420 577 574 525 641 615 438 Total S~co~d Floor Total Area (s.f. ) 2Z96 1600 420 560 1146 525 694 663 5H 8620 2.105 sf 225 sf 1525 sf 1095 sf 13,580 sf iotal ;"rea (s.f.) 2296 3150 420 577 1146 525 641 6]5 438 9sTO 2223 sf 122 sf 12,155 sf • UNIT COUNT • A~EA (cont ) '.;01' .'? Unit Type N •. of Units A 4 6 7 C 2 Cl 1 OJ 1 BR 1 H 1 BR 1 )6 Cortidors~ stairs. elevator lau~dry, hash. Sating Areas S--.RY (J~'dt iype- A 8 81 82 83 ~ Cl D D1 E F G H ~C Total Area fi~st Second TI'I.;1"6 No. 12 lB 2 1 ! 5 3 , SR 1 • 1 8R 2 1 1 a~ 1 1 1 S~ 1 1 8R I -n- ',', . ::. ..• Un;t Area (s. f.J 514 HO 574 525 641 598 T~tal r~ird F100r 13,580 12,155 10,973 :>6,708 sf • rot., Areo (s. f. ) 2295 3150 IHS 525 5~1 598 8358 sf 2021 sf 126 sf 468 sf 10,973 sf 19~O 1991 1992 3/28/9! Dec 14 De' 28 Jan ~ Feb 27 March 1 .tIp:--; 1 IS May 29 June 24 June :; .' .. Attachment 2 LYTTON IV SENIOR HOUSWG DEVELoe,~[NT SCHEO()LE St..:brriit for Planning Commis::;~Cll'1 (to staff) '·Camp 1 e t.ed App' i cat i em I> Appl ication due to State for fundiT1~ Plannlr,S' CO!m1iss~on Hearirlg -Inftial St~t~ awar~5 f~ndir.g Final ARB Hearir.g F~Mal PTa~nl"g Commission Hearing City Council Hearing Hun Fundi~g Deadline Aug I -Sept 30 Design Development Oct De, 3) Jar. 2 reb 1 Feb I -15 Feb 15 Feb 15 -Oct 30 Nov 1 -15 Nov 15 Construction Docu~ents Biddi~gn;egotiation and Plan C.h~ck Contract Negotiatior1 Bu~lding Permit Construction Furl"ds~inss Occupy REVISED i~; ~-,~-~"~-::il' ~-~ ,,:' .? ::, '=>!I \')! ,[':l .: q , i;,;j:.=o \.v;..:, u V L=:.~:.;J i MAR 2 9 1991 ;e:;) ~F .'AD AliOt 'lc-~c-n, Q'-/fRB-I7S .J q.-t:1i't-55 -------- ,',' f I f . r .. - - May 6. 19$11 Atta,:i1.Jll(>Dt j r ,~ ~~' (r:J [ 'L~'~ L6 l0 City of Palo Alto I MAY061991 ! r·~p"'~PAif;1 O~ PLANNiNG De~t. of' Planning and Comm' .. mity En~tironment 5th Floor. City Hell 250 Hamilton ~yenue C~TY Of PALO ALTO Pa'o Alto. CA 94301 8~tn: Nancy lytle 9/-v-13 re: 330 Everett -lytton IV Senior Housing ReQuest for Variance from PC Zone requirements Dear Nancy: The applicant for this project. Com~unity HOUSin9. Inc .• is ap~lyin9 for Variance for two elements of the bui1ding: front poreh within the 20' front. }I'ard .!Ind encroachment of roof dormers into the reQuired daylight 01ane. It is our understanding that the i'1anning Commission and City Council would officially act on the V8riance request in co~junction with the PC Zone application. We are hereby reQuesting a Var'iance from the front yard setback for ~he covered porch only. allowing the oorch to encroach 'O'-O~ into the required 20'-O~ front yard. Also we are .. reQuesting a Variance to a110w the roof dor-mers at various locations to encroach 5'-O~ into the required daylight plane. Beth of these reQuests were encouraged by the Ar'ch~tectural Review Board when they recommended aoo~oval of the pr-oject on April 18. 1991. Following are the reQuired findings statements: "no justification ... "There are except,onal 01'" extraord1 nary circumst8Mces or conditions applicabie to the property involved that do not apply generally to property iM the same district." This project is applying ~or e PC Zone to allow const .... uction of hi ghe.... density. 10 ... - income senior housing in an RM 30 district. Due to the site size constraints and aesthetics of blending the project into the existing ne;ghbo~hood. it is not feasible to push trle bui lding back to keep the front porch ~rom encroaching i~to the front yard. Dormers encroaching into the daylight pla~& is a'io~ed in R-1 neighborhoods and it seems reasonable that this should ~e allowed within mu1ti family or PC ~ith residential use. V.ridlnce Request 5-6-91 Page 2 b. c. -The gra~ting of the application is necessary ~o~ the preservat~on and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. and ~o prevent un;~asonable property loss or unnecessary hardship.M Most other properties ~ithi~ this neighborhood have less than 20-f~ot front setbacks to the Dorch; thus the character will aonear slm,1ar. Allowing for dormer encroachment 9~ves this prODerty the same rights given to R-1 properties in the neighborhood. MThe granting of the 80pl ;cat'ion wi 1 1 not be detrimental or'" 1njur'"iolJs to propert)' or improvements i~ the vici~;t)'. and wi" not be cietriments 1 to the pub 1; c nee 1 th. saf't!ty ~ general welfar~ Or'" convenience.~ The front porCh and dormers have been significant deSign featur'"es which City reviewing bodies and the neighborhood have encour'"aged. and even insisted upon, for th~s p~oJect. The~e are no edverse effects upon the public. Actually~ the front porch ~~ll encourage 'i"t'!!r"lSction 13 lI'Ion 9 senior'"S and the neighbors. Dormers at the roof wi11 add exterior interest which enhances the building's appearance within the neighborhood, as well as bring additional light -into t.he 3r-d floor studio apartments. Thank you for consideration PC Zone ap.ol ication. If please contact me. of this Varia~ce as oart of the further information ~s reQuired, very truly yours, L~j!!!~- PrincipaL co· J im K~;ch - Ms. Nancy Lytle Zoning Administrator City oi Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Fifth Floor Palo Alto, Califomia 94301 April 4, 1991 Re: Grant of Easement With Respect to Lytton Gardeos IV Driveway Ramp Dear Nancy: !\t t.achmen:= 4 ~~, .... ,~., .... , The purpose of this letter is to provide you with v.Tiuen jndication of C1ur intention to provide to Lytton Gardens rv legal rights to obtain access for a ramp (rom the ncrthwestem edge of our pTOpeny commonTy knO\A.'IJ as 325 Lytton A\'enue enabling Lytton Gardens IV to develop a driveway ramp into the underground. parking to be located under irs project which fronts OntO Everett Street. \\i'e do not yet know \I\.'hether it is preferable to pro .... ide l~gal access by gran!fng to L)1:wn Gardens for an easement or by providing them fee title inter~st through a lot line adjustment. The imponant message, however, is that we y.ill grant them legal r~ghts provtd~u they are able to go forward v.r:ith their project in a reasonably timeiy rnarmeL JEB:cak t:<:: James Ko;;h - Ms. Susa.~ Case City Attorney's Office City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Seventh floor Palo Alto, California 94301 Ms. Nancy Lytle Planning Dq.irtment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Fifth Floor Palo Alto, CalifDrnia 94301 May 21, 1991 Re: Irrevoc:able Gnmt of RighlS for Driveway Acc= for the 4'tton IV Project from 325 Lytton Dear Susan and Nancy: ,.~.--~ ~., ........ , B0507 ·903-100 Enclosed is a draft Agreement be:vo'een S29 Bryant Street Panners, a Cahlornia limited partnership, the entity which ones 325 Lytton Avenue, and Lytton Gardens IV with respect 10 the ramp ac{'-tss to underground parking for the project proposed by Lytton IV. I am sending a copy of this Agreement 10 Jim Koch so thai a final document can be available for the Planning Commission and ('jt'lj Coundl hearings with respect to Lytton IV. ··.IIII .... IiiI!I--·--....... ,----··-" -.,;.~ . , .' . AGREE.MEl'<' wrrn RESPECT TO DRIVEW AX A@ RAMP Acx;FSS THIS AGREEMENT is made Ibis ___ day of . 1991 by and ~twee" 529 BRYANT STREET PARTNERS, • California I..imjted Partnership rs29 BSP) a!IO _____ ~. ("X"). A X has an option to lease with an option to buy 3 parcels ("Parcels AI, A2 and A30 ) of real property !he legal description of which is set in &. A X plans to merge the 3 parct:ls as a singie parcel and to develop 51 Ul'Jts of rental howing for Iow-and-moderate income senior citizens (the "PROJECl"), wore particularly de>CIlbed in !hat certain application for a Planned Cvmmunity Zone Ordinance attached as ExhIbit B. B. 529 ESP is the owner of that real property ("Parcel B") the legal description of which is attached as Exhtbit C Parcel B is directly adjacent to the south of Parcels AI, A2, and A3. C X desires to obtain from 529 SSP and 529 BSP desires 10 gram to X :Wo ,alu.able property rights consisting of: (i) fe< ownership to that certain portion (the "DRNEWAY FEE") of Parcel B approximately shown in the drawing a"ached as Exlubit D for a driveway and ramp to underground parki.~g to ~ deveJoped on Parcel> A·l,A-2, and A-3 in coDjunctlon with !he PROJECT; and (il) general access ("ACCESS EASEMENT') of ingress and egress ft" vehicles and pedestrians as necessary to preserve some convenient a= to the DRIVEWAY FEE for vehicles and to the PROJECT for pedestrians. NOW, ~ORE, X and 529 BSP agree as folio"" 1. 529 BSP shaD grant to X the ACCESS EASEME1'>"T and fee title O·w'!H~TSb.ip to the DRIVE\VAY FEE upon satisfaction of the foIlo\l,1ng conditions by X: A X shall have merg~d parcels A-I, A-2 and A-3 into a single legal parcel. B. X shall, at its expc:rue, prepare civil engineering drawings and legal documents necessary to enable 529 SSP to grant to X the DRlVEWA Y FEE and the ACCESS EASE!l.fEl>l. C X shaD pay to 529 SSP SIOO for the grant of the DRIVEWAY FEE and the ACCESS EASEME1'>l. ~" -,'--', '-, :-': D. X sMlJ pay all title inslll'BllCe, reco,ding, filing and e,o,-O'.' fees necas&ry for gnmts by 529 BSP of the DRIVEWAY FEE and ACCESS EASEME.1'(f to X. E. X sball have received an neceS$l\l)' approvals for the CITY OF PALO ALTO fa: the PROJECT, including all variances, and adoption of • required Pl.anm<I CommWlity Zoning Ordinance on or before _____ ' F. X ,ball have received sufficient debt and equity financing to develop the PROJECf on or before ____ _ G. X .ba11 have received building permits from the City of Palo Alto for cootnbulion of the PRO:ECf on or before ____ _ 2 529 BSP make no representations or "Warranties witb respect to the condition. of the DRIVEWAY FEE; in pa.-ucuJar, 529 BSP makes no representations with r,-spcct to the soil or water conditions, or the existence or degree of Hazardous Mater~a..is, underground storage tanb or any other representation and "'3rT3ntics. 529 SSP is providing ~~ DRIVEWAY FEE on an 'AS-IS" basi<, without any express or implied reprcsentatlons or warrants. Executed Ibis __ day of ___ --'. 1991. 529 BRYANT STREET PARTNERS A Califarnia Limited Partnership By: 'X" By: , , , : ~ \ ,- I I ~. , ~j ,I 1 I • -1. May 17, 1931 Ms. virg1Dia Warheit City of palo Alto Pla=.ing Depart;.<t,eIlt 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo ~to, CA 94301 A~~achIllent 6 ~'U MAY I: 1,I1:l:li. I.IU DfPj . C J T r' .... Of PwtN1Nu , Df,l"UDALlO -". Subject: Lytton IV . Resident/Employee Projections Dear Virginia: According to your request; I ha¥e assembled same infOrmation on Lytton I, II. and ~II which we can use to project a profile for ~~tOD IV (330 Everett). Lytton I. defined as the independ~t living portion of L~ton Gardens. ccnsists of 268 units. As Lytton .IV will also be an i:cdepenae:at living facility I have used the ratios encOUDtered a-e Lytton I as the model for the projections below. Lytton II consists of SO u.~its reserved for Residential care (a.k.a. ~Cammunity Care~) tenants. Commucity care proviOes a higher d.egree of supervision and assistance with ~ily actiVities and direct involvement with the Tenant's nutrition. L~ton III, which is operated by a seperate corporation (Lytton Gardens, Inc.); is a ~28 bed Bki~leo Dursing facility. This operation bears no similarity or c~~~ection (beyond being pan. of the "Lytton Gardens famil::,.-·" l to the proposed development. Foll~g is a chart using the Lytton I ratios as described above to project the level of Lytton IV's i:c.t.ensity of use: 'tJnit.s -1 Br T,ntOP I 268 -Studio Residents Autos Usage: 71 197 325 84 5+ trips/week 3.9 0-4 tr~ps/week 45 Employees 60 (~)lpical ) I y-tO;? n r 51 5 46 56 15 7 S 2 Services Demographics see attachments We anticipate having two full time employees at Lytton IV; one live-in resideat manager and one aaministrator. Because of the common management of all the Lytton Gardens operations all diDing ...... -,--~ ! I !. I I , , I . , ~ r: .~ ;'.1 ,i 1 I " "I I i 1 i I j I i I I I , roan food service. &CCOWlting; and. most a~niEltra.tive tWlctions will ])e handled off Ei't.e !.t the Lyttoo. Avenue campus. The ODly other employee generated traffic at Lytton rv will be frOll\ part tilDe &Cd occaaiODZll service visits for maiD.tanenee a.c.O =epairs, social aarvie.sO' and lnallagement supervision. I have attached some more descriptive information which I received fran the Lytton Gardens suff al>out Lytton I. II. an<! III which may be helpful in fully underseancticg the nature of OUr operation. Please dOn't hesitate to call if I can provide you anything further. f\ ames A. Koch Board Mesnber community Housing. Inc. " , • · . Attac.h.lll~nt 7 qO-~-~1 ~C-Re~/~~; ~"-£"'-S~ __ S~I'MA~Y OF AliTil'!08JLE USAGE AT l YnO~ GARDENS i J ll:; lW I ~; E Cit i99[) I '-'-'--_ .. Lytton Gardens has lOO parking spaces for its 32-0 J.HlitS. 65 spaces are reserved, 33 arE non-reserved and availabl£ for visitor use and there are 2 (10 minute) loading spaces. Lytton Gardens has 3D employees, most of w.'lOm park en ~h~ street. Parking and auto usage survey resuHs are surl'l'I'larized below: (Su"vey condu-i:tec ;n June 1989 by lytton Gardens staff). L 84 residents af Lytton Gardens ~ave cars. 59 of those residents responded to the survey. 20 peopl E: drive their car 6-) times per week. 19 peDple drive their car 4-5 t;m~s per week. 20 peooTe drive their car 1-4 times per week.. z. 3. Ayerage-mile,;:ge per week: varied from a low of 34 miles to a hign of 83 rnnes per-weel<.. 4. Average mileage driven per year varied from 2,810 miles to 5,690 miles per year. 5. Average trip distance: Under 5 mi 1 es 5-10 mil es 10-20 miles ever 20 mi les 9 peopl e 22 people 20 people "] people 6. ....hen asked if they drive on major trips 36 peDple said no, 20 peQple said in-state oniy. 1 person said out-of-state oMly and 1 said both in-and olJt-of-state. 7. ....hen asked what otl'1er forms of tr-.wsportation t~ey used. answers were: No othei method Public transit Taxi Eicycle 34 12 5 1 At.caclment 8 ~i~ .. · .... j , ~~:I!~,~flJl'n' ~,~.tanl , -----COIy '" -------------------------------i'\ililites I A. RDLL CAll Board II'll!lbers Present: Board Members Absent: Staff M.mOers Present: Mami Barnes Aino daRosa MiCh,ael Lyzwa Julfa Maser S"irley Wilson None Bob Haley Haney Lytle Virginia Warheit Jim Gilliland Lori Topley Marvin Overway As flak Aggarwal Carl Stoffel T'wr,day. April 18, 1991 S:OO A.i'!. Countil Cenferfnce Reom 250 Hamilton Ay!~ue Pilo Alto, California B. APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF KARCH 7, KARCH 21 AND APRIL 4. 1991 Corrections to the minutes of Ma~ch 7. 1991: Item 3, 2500 Embarcidero Road. was corrected in that the first condition was changed to read -Raised elevation and/or relocation restdd) of the picnic area.- Also, Ms Barnes changed the wor~ing of her comments to T!ad, -Ms Barnes is very mueh in support of the hasing·off facility and feels this "ould be a wonderful opportunity for the City to ~ pipe .0 th,t ~ reclaimed water can be used at this facility in the future.- Ms Maser made three typographic corrections: lJ on of Richard -Myer's-name ;s -Meier-i l) on page 14, comments. the -Alpha-building correct!d ta -A1za-; same paragraph -site W corrected to -signt-. p:\.rb\min0418 page l, the spelling under Ms Maser's and 3) hter 1n the 4/1e/~1 P'ge 1 '-_." .--~ .. 1 i APPEALS: All ~4jor Jnd minor proj~ct appr~y~1s are subject to an Jppeal period. which allows for t~e applic,.t or members of the public to fil_ an appeal f~ the decision of t~e Director on the project. The appeal period for maJDr projects (de~i9nated with an ~sterisk •• -) is t'even [11) working day. f.llowing the date of the ARB's recommendation or. the projoct. The lppeal period for .,inor proje"t, Is seven (7) workir.g d.ys following the date of the ARB's recommendatIon on the project. Appe.ls cf m':'Ior site and de:1gn and' m'r'lor zone changes ITe subject to Chapter 18.93 of the P,10 Alto Huniclp.l Code. Plonnlng staff sho,16 b. ccntacted for furtner i"farmation regarding appea1s and appeal proudures. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: All .ajor project; not identified by ElA in parenthesis (ErA) followil",g the project address haw~ been determined to be Cote90rlcally Exempt from CEOA review. All minor projects th.t h.,. been determined to be Categorically E,-ept from CEQA review. TIME LIHIT: Pro."ct approval i. valid for one (l) y.ar from the origiP"Ja' date Df approval e.xcept for phased projects. for' whid1 a specific deyelop~nt schedule, not to exceed five (5) years from the original date (If approviill t may be appr{lved. The time period for a project includiT1g" i phased project may. upon application, be extended once by the Director for an additional year. EXPIRATION: In tne event the building permit for a project i. not secured wit~in the above specified time limits, the approval of the project will expire and be of no further force or effect. STARTING AT 8,00 A_K. I. CONSOO CALENllAR I I I. 7here were no consent items on this agenda. REGULAR AGENll~ 1. 330 EYERm ~WiUE • (EIA) Carrasco l Associate$ 90-ARB·l95 90-ErA-55 gO-Ze-l7 lone Change from RM·30 to a PC to allow construction of a 51-unit senior hous;n9 project. Prior to the applicant's presentation, Nancy ljtle, Zoning Administrator, explained thf PC process c$ it re1ates to this project; that iS t that this project was seen by the ARB for prel iilllinary reYiew, and was a1 so seen for prel iminary review by the Planning COCITI1sslon. At the Planning COlTll1ission hearing. Coamiss;oners recommended that the lpplicant meet with Jim Baer. owne-r of tne adja.:~nt property, to see how ac:cess to the project thro"gh hi. property at 325 lytton might be accomplished in ,,\arb\,.!n0418 4(l8(9l Page 3 - \ \ 1 .. ~ ~ ~ I i I • tJ - conjunction with a project which he is considerin9 an his site. 1n r~spor.$e to that recommendation, the applicant is submitting a revised Ipplic~tion in c~njunct~on with Jim Bae~. The revised application does show aCCESS across the 325 LYtton s1t~. The 325 lyttol't project is being reviewed today i5 i very prel irr,inar), concept only. It was actually agendized in order that 1t cculd be discussed is it relates to the 330 Everett pr{)ject. The two projects ... ·i11 proceed together to P1annlng Commission on the May 29, 1991, where t~! 330 E~erett project will be reviawed by the Planning Commission and the 325 lytto!1 projl!'ct win receive its preliminary review by the Planning Commission. The 330 Eve~ett project will proceed to City C~uncil in June fGt fina1 revie~ by the Council. Tne ARB will a.lmost certainly want to see further l:rchitectura:l development of the 330 Everett project. If they do, they should condition the project tnat the additional architectural development return to the ARB for review, should the project receive approval by the City Council. The ARB mtmbers t~en posed Q~estions to the staff about comparisons between the proposed deve-lopment and that iill10wed under curn:-nt RM- 30 regulations and also under RM-40 zoning. Stitf explained that comparison. Staff ~as asked to explain why they were supporting. this project, ~h1ch is signif~cantTy larger than what is allowed under the current RM-30 zenin;. Nancy lytle responded tnat t first. the maSSing of the building forms a transition: from a very large fiYe-story apartment building e~isti119 adjacent ta the north of the site ar.d tne: single-filmi 1y home that is adjacent t~ the south of the project. It serves as ill transition in an area whe,.e you hi'ole quHe ill mix of densities and sizes of resider.tial buildings. Secondly, staff is supporting the project because of the housing benefit to be gafned with the addition of 51 subsidized units far low income seniors. This housing benefit meets s!veral policies and programs of tMe (omprehensive Plin. Planning Commissior.er Pat Cuner. was present and responded to He same Questior., saying t~at she and ather members of the Planning COlTlllisslon slJpported the project because senior housing is such oil special need in the city and because affordable senior housing every place ;n town ;s generilly nigh density. ine applicants then made th!ir presentation, ~xplaining that the project was being presented IS it stands alone without depending on approval of the 325 lytton project. The only co"noction with the 3Z5 lytton project the locot ion of the drive.ay on 325 lytton and access to it across 325 lytton property and a 10-faot adjustment of the east property line of 325 lytton. If 330 Everett is not built, that adjustment would revert back to the original owner. The presentatiDn was made by Jim Cooke, of (ammunity Housing, Inc., followed by a brief prese-ntatiGn by the project architect and the landscape architect. p:\arb\mln04IB 4/18/91 Pige 4 -----~ 1 I t i I • '. L ~.' •. ' , . f .. ~,-. The Board asked questions of th~ presenters. They asked what would be tne e)':pected ilverage age of residents in the project, and the appltc¥t1on respo~ded that the iverage age at lytton Glrd~ns is presently 85 years old, but they assumed that people initially ~c,upying this project wo~ld be yo~nger than that, possib1y i5 young IS 56. They 'Were lskl!d' what kind of w.tndor,ts were propos.ed for the project. The response was cletT glass. The a~cnitect stat!d he preferred casement windows, but th"t the actual ~indow type and framing had not yet been determfned. Questions were asked about whether th~ tandem parking arrangement as shown was t~~ only one t~at ~ad been c~"s;dered. Board members were not entfrely confident about how that would .ork. Th •• pplit.nt responded th~t they h,d looked It ••• riety of layouts for parking in the garage. They expect to need about on~-third as ma~J parking spaces as they have units, based en expedence at lytton I, which is iii comparable 1ndependent 'i~i~g project. But due to the current parking shortage on fverett Aven~e, they determined to build iii full underground garage, even though it would provide mOTE parking than they expected to need. ~onseQuently the~ were ~ot concerned that some cf the parking they were providing was tandem. They had found that at lytton (. many residents store their cars because they ire Tel~'tant to give them up is a symbol of their independence, eve~ though they rarely use the., so they thought they would have a need for these tandem spaces to store seldom-used cars. Because tneJ will hive a resident manager on site, there will a1ways be someone available to sove a car ~ich would be used infrequ~ntly, approximately once a week Qr less often. A variety of questions of a more technital nature were asked about building code lssues. The architect responded that solutions that ~ad bee~ worked cut with the Building Oi~ision. Questions were asked iDOyt bicycle parking, whether it was adequate. Tne response was tnlt there is presently only one hike o .... ner at lytton I, but that they did expect to provide fcr both visitor and resident bicycle parking. Staff noted that providjng more bicycle parking was one of the conditions of approvai. The appl icant Wis .sked if they were providing stcrage. They painted out that store rooms are beiM9 provided in three corners of tne 9arag!, whith they believed would be adequate to serve the needs of the residents. Thty a1.,;o pOinted out that given that tn'is is subsidized hous,~g, amenities are limited both by HUe r~quirements and also the realities of budget concerns. It was asked if there was room in tbe viSitor parking area for a shuttle van to pu11 In and p,rk while people entered the van and disembarked for trips to the grDcery store and other off-site p; \.rb\lllin0418 V1S/91 Page 5 L ... tsUs. The applicantS responded that there was room for the \Ian to p~ll in and be clear of the public s1d~al(~ liso tnat ~ne of the parking spaces ~ight be wlden!d to allow the van to park near the door. In addition, the applicant stated they ~ill b~ req~esting i wtlfte Z~H'!e fn froMt of the building .at the-curb. which seems the most logical phce for the va, to stop briefly fer picU'g up "d dropping off. The appli:ant discussed the issue of the storm sewer and storm drain systems on Everett Street and thefr discussions with the P~blic Works Department .bout how both of those would be handled to accorrmod3.te this project. The sewer wil] be upgraded w~en ttl! project is built. probably ~n c~nj~nction with l i2-unit condominium project planned across the street. Tne City is planning to upgrade tne storm drainage system in 1993, and the applicant's project will tie into the new syst!m w~en it is constructed. Tnere was discussion about ttle design of the porch and the sequence of indoor and outdoor spaces from the front yard, to the porch, to th! l1brary~ the meeting room and tne central courtyard. Questions were asked ibout the am~unt of pirking which would be lest at 325 lytton in the event that Ipices ire given up to provide • Ic(es$ to 330 Everett, but tnt proposed 325 lytton project and 1ts new addition.l parking Is not built. Stiff .nd the applicant respDnded that the Iccess to 330 Everett would result in the loss of seven spices. and that it would be the respcmslbility of the owner of 325 lytton to mitigate the loss of those spaces through an in· lieu fee or replac!ment of tne parkin9 in some other 1ocation. The appl1~Qnt responded to quest~ons about handicap access to the ~nits. saying that HUD required all the units to b2 designed to 1991 handicap access standards. The board isked Questions about the $~11 size of the ba1conies, with the applicant responding tnat HUO wouldr.'t pay for any balconies at Ill, but th!y felt it was absclute1y essential that at least some access to the out-of-do~rs be provided. The proposed balconies were not sized for gatheri~9 on the balcony. but to provlde visual acceSs to the outside~ I place to locate plants. and to just step out for a breath of air. The applicant was aske~ if amenities such as the balconies a~d t~e dormers and other aspects of the project which wou1d ~ot be paid for by HUD could be expected to c~ntjnwE to be part of the project, Dr did we need to worry that those things oignt disappear. The applIcant st.ted that they were very "UCn committed to keeping these amenities as part of the project, even thoug~ tney would haVE to fInd funding other th" HUe to p,y for them. The applicant .lso st.ted that HUe guid.lines h,ve recently bee, adjusted so th.t it doesn't caunt Igainst ; project when it is considered for funding p:\arb\"in041S ~/1B/91 Page 6 ----... c-, .. ---..-- - __ ,-.ht" t. , - '. -",,-. thlt the Ipplfclnt is go1"g te provide extrA a~nitits ~nd pay for thea in same other way. four me!llb@rs of tnt pllblic spoke at public tes;.imony. Tony BadgEr. aSl Hawthorne Street. Stated tnat he thou9ht that i good job had ~ •• n don. on the .rchitect"r.. H. al.o expressed concern that the ARB meetings Ire scheduled in the daytime, thus precluding some people fraa participating. He st,ted that he was very eoncerned thlt a number of different projects wit' impacts on Downtown North are in the offing, Including Sand Hill Road, development of the Tower Well site, the Palo Alto Medical Foundation expansion. and other llrge projects downtown, but no comprehensive traffic stlJdies have been done to snolll what might be the cumuiat h'e I~.cts on Downtown North. Hawthorne Street, he observed, has become very noisy, so that it is f1ard to sleep if you l1ve on tnis street. He w.s concerned that this project might be 'he'~ host.ge' to JI. Baer's 325 lytton project, and be apprQved without adequate attentIon being g;v.n to wn.t the tr.ffic impacts might be. H. stated that Oowntoom hi. m.ny need., including a grocery store ,nd ather things of c.onJ!lLmity value that cannOt be ,provided. the reison being given that the land is too expensive. He said it was ~ery ;~ortant that t~is proj~ct ,ontinue to be far seniors. He expressed Ii concern that theT! was. nl!'ed for bi ~f! st~rage. Many people 1n their l.te flftle. lnd older still ride bicycles and need a place to store them. He reiterated tnat ~i5 primary concern was the need for a comprehensive traffic study to determine the cumulative impicts of traffic on the Ouwntowr. North neighborhood. Heli ••• Myers, 301 Bryant Street, asked staff if emergency vehicle access was being adequately provided fDr, and how this would be accommodated. Also, if visitor parking was going tc be adeqwate and how and WneT! that would be proyided. Stiff responded t~at Emerqenc:y Senices have in.formed staff t~iot cil 1 5 made to tn';;s address wo~ld be responde~ to ooth from Eyerett Street and from the surface parkin~ lot It the rea~ of t~e ~~oject. depending on where tne unit needing serYl ce was located. The dati provided by Emergency Services for emerE:ncy service visits to Lytton I indicate that the freQ~ency of calls ~ou'd be about 2 percent of th! number of units per ~onth. or about on! visit per month for tne Sl prc~csed units. The viSitor parking area is sufficiently s1zed that a medi~al van could pull into the d~iYewiY and sit there ~ithDut impeding the public sidewali durin9 an emergency. Visitor parking has b@en expanded from three to five surface spaces on EYerett Street since the previous ARB preliminary review. It has been f.rt~er faci1itated by moving the entrance to the underground garage to the rear Df the site so there is no conflict between cars coming in Ind out of t~e garage and Visitors e~ter;ng and leav;~g t~e site. In addition, the applicant h.s said t~ey expect to be able to ~~eommodate some regular frequent visitors who t!nd to stay fer an extended period of time b1 Iccommodating them in the garage. since p:\arb\,,;n04IB I .. --.. - they.xpect to have more spices t~ere than they need for residents. People who ~islt freQuent1y will learn ~ow to get in and out of the gara9P, and ,. re.sident manager will be present. to pr\Jvlde acceu for them to the garage. Staff believes that the combinat~on of the garage and the s~rhce p.ad:fn9 will be adequate for visitors. The applicant and me~rs of the Board mentioned thit some tonsiceratian I. beiog giveo to •• iog the •• rface par,log let .t 3Z5 lytton for evening visitors. Jim Baer stated that all tho surface parking proposed in the 325 Lytton project would be public par,fng, and Ashok Aggarwal ~1;burit~u t~.t this surface parking was iTl expe:ted to be 2-hour daytfme parking and ~nl1mited evening parkfng, and it ~u'd be available to all members of the p~blic, inCluding visitors to t~. 330 Everett project. Anastasias karras~ 483 Hawtnorne AvenUe, spoke to the 8oa~d about the need of Old p!ople for a grocery store downtown. Sh~ said there used to be many st~res downtown. She, in fact, had moved to Downtown North from Channing Strc-et precisely sc tnat .she cnuld ha't'€ access to the sh,ps as she grew older, but now that .she is in ner eigfities and lives in Downt"wn North., there ir! not HIE stores downtown that s.he needs. The variety is no longer there. She believes that the stores have been d;~placed by too much large develop~r.t. She expressed a concern t~at individual old people~ prefer to stay in thefr own homes. and the City should be doing thiog. t~ help people stay in tneir own homes. People should be helped by the City to help them.elves to build and st.y in tneir own places rather t~an providing senior housing for them. Mr. Joe ~ers~ 30I Bryant Street, spoke to the Board asking about whit planting was proposed along the west side of the project between the site and the houses which face ontQ Bryant Street. The applicant poioted out that the buildiog is 50 feet from those houses, with open space being provided on that side of the slte. She f.rther pOioted cut tn.t tnere is • ZO·foot landscape setback with no garage under it, ~hich will allow for substantial tree plaoting in tnat setback. Mr. Miers aske, staff .h.t _uthority one wo.uld have to go to in order to change the C.ompiehensive Plan. Nancy lytle responded that a change to the Comprehensive Plan ,",ould need to reviewed by the Planning C.omi ssicn and the City (ounc; 1. That ended the public testimony. Memb~rs of the Soard tnen discussed the project. Karnl Barnes stated that she basically likes everything about the project. S~e especially appreciates the porch having been added in response to Board comments. S~e likes the landscape design) but is concerned aboLlt tne adeQua:.y of park-ing. She bel ieves that the residents will drive because they need to use their cars to buy groceries. It is • shame there is no reasonably priced grocery store downtown. She believes tne City should subsidize such a grocery story to ~elp re~uce I~tom~bile driving and the neEd for p:\arb\mio041B 4/18/91 Page B ;'::~-':> .. ,.\ "l .. ,~, ' . parkfng. A second point she was ccncerned about ~as the presence of two glrage r~ps iccessing ~ery .near one.another onto tne.~ame surface parking l~t. She WiS afra,d that mlght produce trafr1c ,onfHc:ts t pa~·tfcu1i1rii' with elderly people using one of the rarr,ps. Sne was also concerned about the design of the porch. She said it felt moro 11k. a patIo n ... t~.n a porch. It didn't seom to haYe the feeling of enc'os~re and safeness that one would f~el on a porch, since therr is no change of elevation between the porch and the p~bltc sidewalk, Ind no other design eiements in the porch to .itlgoto th.t. She believes that It Is important for the porch to t. large enough to Jccomm~dat! several chairs, so that people can sft t~ere, but nct have to necessarily talk to each other, so t~at more t~an one person could be 0" the porch at one time without fee-ling that tney composed a group that had to interact. She believes thit it is important that the ~orcn should feel saf~ and enclQsed, but at the same time be ~1sib1e from the street and ha~e easy access from inside tMe building and to t~e other outdoor spaces. She-5tJpports iI varian,e allOWing the front porth to encroach into tht front yard 50 tnat it will be nearer t~ the sidewalk tD encourage interaction betllleen re5idents and people passing on t~e sidewalk. Sh~ supports that encroachment if the porch i$ redesigned so tMat it is more usabie space. She does not see it being a usable spaet the way it is desi9ned now. Julia Maser's comments were as follOWS: She also was concerned .about the design of thf! porth. She felt the por-err r,eeded to be extended acrcss the front of the buil~ing; that the library, meeting rooms and internal meeting spaces needed to be mo~ed to the frent of the bUllding, nearer to the porch, so that the conn~ct;on of spaces that now occurs Dn the side of the building sh~uld b€ moved to the front. Ms Maser asked the applicant if tney had considered other designs for t~e porch. The applicant responded th.t they had considered a varlety of desigtls for the por-ch, and ~ow they affected the program, particuiarl.)' the need for a kind of circulati{ln tl'1at will allow casual observation: of the residents, so that tney can be ~ure that peop1e are ~ell and atcounted for. Tne app1i,ant said that they w\luld ,ont inlJe to study how the pordi miS-M be expand.ad and some other alternative designs. ~s Maser w~s con'erned about the dead· end tirculation in the garage and about tandem parking. She felt the current arrangement is a diffic~it and cumbersome one, and might not worK well for elderly reside~ts. She was questioning whe-ther there was enougt'1 parking, and wtH!tr.er or not tt1e handicap access to the elevator in the unjer9round garage was adequately arranged. SMe said she would support i variance to allow the do~rs to extend into the daylight plane. so that they could continue to be desi;ned as shown. She said that she liked the architecture a lot, thought the massing of the building was wonderfully handled. She suggested that she might prefer a stror,ger contrast in materials. perhaps stucco and wood rather than the shingles and wood siding as proposed. 4/18/91 Page 9 r- t , I j 1 • I I , ~ - • \ , • Hs Wilson's comments were as follows. Responding to Ms Maser's co~ents !bQut t~e materi~ls~ Hs ~i]son said that she preferred th~ choicf of materi.ls shown by the a?pli~'nt, that they ~ere i much ~rt subtle contrl$t than an ~ttua' change in materii1s from stucco to wood. She thought this subt'e use of the mate~i11s was si~i1ar to t~at f~und in the ~eighborhood. She ilso was comfortable with the massing of the building in celation to the nei~hborhQod. She pointed out that the house at the cacner of tverett Street and Bryant, while it is the last singlo-fa",ny ","se on the Everett Stre!t b1ock, is i very important part of a primatily-single familY b1o,k on Bryant Street, and she would not eyer want to see that hous~ replaced w'th a larger structure or i Mult,ple-family .structure. She was concerned about the design of the porch. and felt that the porch and the outdoor spaces and the one· story elements Df the building shou1d be moved around to Everett Street. She was concerned that the porch won't be used as presently designed. The two-story massing of the bailding could be moved closer to Bryant Street; into what is now the courtyard and the veranda concept of the porch and relited outdoor ,paces moved to Everett Street. recognizing that the internal functions, the library, the meeting rooms, need to be kept together. She was concerned ibout the sma11 size of the balconies. and fe1t that since they are prjmari1y for visua1 access to t~e outside, it would b~ important for ~indows to go a11 the way to the floor so tnat the outdoor area and plants on the ba'c~ny could b~ seen from tne In.ide. She also supports a variante to the daylight plane for the donne-r5, and a150 supports rear accesS out of the site tOl:'/ard l.ytton Avenue and University Avenue. She urged the applicant t~ giv~ specia1 consideration to the landscaping in the narrow side yards, believing that those yards Cin be very Jttractive and uS~lble s?~c~s If properly handl.d. She bell •• ed that the p.rking .s propo.ed is probably adequate considering Ule 01 der age expected of the residents. Ms daRos.a's comr,ents were as fo11o""s. She b~"9a" by statil"lg that she had spoken with the ;rchitect ind with Mrs. KaYras and her d~u9hter. Jots daRosa s:.!pported trle project. She felt that the materials and their placement on the b~11ding was appropriate. She stated t~at she thought the wood shingle reef ~as I very important el~me~t~ Because of the way the roof slopes, it is very ~isible, !nd it would be important to retain wood shingles. She thinks that the rear entrance to the site is a maryelous part of the design. She said thit parking in the gar4ge is ~7 ~paces. and if yo~ subtract the five that are tandem, you are still left ~ith 52. which is still ~ne per unlt plus one tandem space. She fee1s comfortable with the parkinq number even tnollgh she flnds that some spaces are difficult to get in and out of. She thinks that the posslbility of having 1argt mature trees in the setbacks, which is going to be possible slnce the garage does not extend into the setbacks, is much more important than expanding the undecground gacage Into the setb." .re~ in order to provide more parking. Ms daR~sa also was concerned p:\acb\min041S 4/18/91 Poge 10 L \ f I i , \ \ , ", " • l \ \ 1 \ '. ;,. . abo LIt the des"lgn of t~e porc.h, (pel1ng tt1lt it ',ias not usab1 e the way tt was proposed~ She felt that the site plan with the new entranc.e fr~ the batk is muc~ improved. but that the porch has been sort of lost in th. site plan. She thinks that the cont.ct with t~< n.ighbo~ood is • benefit Doth to the neighbors and the re,ld.cts, and the porch now i, just an ontryway, j,ol.tod from the rest of the prGject, and doesn't functIon as In important part of the overall actiYity are.s of the sit.. She acknowledged that a tradeoff will be made jf the porch ls connected .ore to public space r.ther than to the pri.ate space. She would r.commend general approv.l of the project with the porch .nd other arcnitectural development ind details to return for ARB review. Mr. lyzwa's comment~ w~re is fo11ows. He concurs with comments ma~e by other members of the Board. particular with Ms Maser's co~ent5 about the porch and the entry. Also with Mr. Badger's concerns about the impacts of development projects on parKing and traffic in the Downtown North neighborhood. Mr. lyzw, ,.id he ~ould like for the applic.r.t to ta.e steps to assure noise control in the project, such is using dauble .. panec' 911$.$, eVEn if this lM!ans 'Jsing il~mjnum windows instead of ~ooo, using lightW!ight concrete between the f1aop"s, and staggered studs wit'" 'fns:u1ation to cut down on noiSE transmission wit~'n th! stru,ture. He is assuming that because.of cest, the ap?'icant ~il\ not be abl~ to u.s~ C\!iT waod siding? an6 ~;1l probably be usIng knotty wood siding. If that is the CiS., would urge the appl;,ant to consider the possibility ~f using masonite sidin9 instead of waoe. which he wouid support. He does not belieye that the fiye proposed viSitor parKing spaces w;11 be adequate. and ~rges tne ap~1iclnt to work out an arrangement with Hr. Baer for ac~ommodating visitor parking on the adjacent site, at 325 lytton. He ilso u"P"9'es thRi to reo-examine tin" arrangement of parking on tne site. When the project returns for Board review, he wou"ld like to see how tne downwate-r luders are hand1ed. H:e would reco~nd a freight elevator, if that is possible. He wculd like to see the ba1conies increased in SiZE and reconfig~red so that they are more useable. He would lik.e to see thE interior floor piar.5 blown up to i larger sCile so it is clear how the units ~ill function. and the relationship to the exterior design of the project. rn regard to the underground parking garage. he reiterates Julie Maser's concerns about the diffir.:u1ty in '-ISing the tarodem spaces 'iu',d scme of the ether spates, and. gene-no1 <:irc'Jlatiot'l, and urqes the applicant to proy;de more ston;!e. Mr. lyzwa .also supports variances f~r the por~h to extend into the-front yard setbaCK, perhaps would support it exten~ing Even further into the front jard setback, and supports a variance to the daylight plane to .11ow the dormers to be d.signed as proposed. The "OlIOH was made .no seconded that the Architect"r.l Revi.~ Beard recommend to the Planning Commission that they recommend to City Council that the pr<lject be APPROVED. 5-0, with the findings and ~onditions in the staff report and with the .d~ition.l condition p:\arb\min04IB ~/18!91 Pag. II ------~----~-.. ----L '-"'~ .' L .• ~ I I I I t.hat befo~ the applicints submit for I building permit, the project wilT return t~ the Ar~hitectu~al ~eview Board with the fo11owing: flNplNGS 1. The use or uses proposed for tMP. site are of su~h characteriStics that the appl iCitien "f general dist,icts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to ~ll.w tne propos~ deyelopment which is to proyide housing for low and v~ry low income senior citizens. The increased density and decreased parking requirements will ai1cw i greater nu~ber of smaller units suHable to older persons, thus servir'!g ;; larger number of persons needing this type of housir.g. anci .... ill redut! the cost per unit. thus making units affordable to persons with low ind ~ery lo~ incomes. 2. Deve10pMnt of the site under the pro"visions of the PC district will result in publ tc benefits not other-wis, attainab1e by application of the r!9ulations of general districts or combining dist"icts in that housing fer low and very low income senior citizens is a pub1ic need, considering Palo Alto's aging population, and that this type of small, affordabTe units is not being provided in the commur.ity by other projects. 3. The use or uses permitted and the site devel~pment regulations applicable within the district sha11 be consistent with the PaTe Alto Comprehensive Plan. and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjolning zites or within the general vicinity, ,n that the projett will have minimal traffic or noise impacts on the surroundlng neighbornood t and that the project furthers the policies and programs of the Housing Element by increaSing the supply of rental housing, providing sma1ler. affordable units, providing housing which meets the special needs of s!nior citizens and by taking advantage of financing available from ether l2~els of government (Programs 9 and 15, Policies Band 11). CONDlTIONS 1. If the 330 EYerett project and the 325 Lytton project are bath approved by City Council, the foll~wing two conditions shall apply: a. b. The property line beLweer. the tWD parcels shall be adjusted 10 feet to the east, with the owner of 325 lytto~ transferring 10 fe~t along the length Qf the property line by deed to the owners of the 330 Everett p~oject. The City of Palo Alto shall grant a vehicular access easement through the city parking lot (west section of Lot p:\arb\min041B 4/l8/91 Page 12 _. «) to t~e 330 [verett project to provide-access to the glrlge rutp. 2~ !f orrl.Y the 330 [v'!re-tt project is approved by t"e City COl-'neil an4 the 325 Lytton pr'OJect 15 rIot approved, the following four <oodftfon. s~.ll opply: •. Th •• hored property lfne between the two parcel. ,h.ll not be adju,ted 10 feet but will remain as ft i, in order not to dfsplace approximately 10 eXisting parking spaces )ocated ,long tnis ~roperty line on the 325 lytton property. b. The City of Palo Alto sh,l1 grant a v.hicular easement through tn. city par~in9 lot (west section of lot K) to the 330 Everett projrct to provide access to the garage r~mp. c. The owner of 3ZS l.Ytton Avenue sh.ll reconfigure tne parking lot on his property to provide for acce,s to t~e garage ramp for the 330 Everett project. The lot sh.l1 be configured so that fire and emerge~cy access is p~ovided to the r.,r of the 330 Everett property. d. The applicants sh.l1 pay an in·lieu fee for the seven p,rkiog spaces which will be displaced .hen the p.rking lot on the 325 ~tton site is reconfigured as described in con~ition 16. a,c. e. If tile 3ZS lytton project is not eonstructed and the pebl ic parking lot (west sectio~ of lot K) remains is is, then there snall be no pedestrian access provided from the rear of the 3JO Everett project. since th,s wouid require walking through the parking Tot which is not a safe route for senior citizens. A gate for emerg!ncy :ie-cess to the rear of the site may be prov;de~. 3. The applicant shall enter into a recorded agreempnt with th~ City tnat all units in the project will be guaranteed to be affordable to low and very low inco~e s~nior citizens. 4. 5. p ;\arb\min04IS Prior to submitting for. building permit. the follo.ing will return to ~he ARB for approval: architectural details, inclUding balconies, trellises, soffits, bu;ldi~9 material! and colors; a redesign of the porch; restudy of the garage and visitor parking; final landscape phn, 1 j9hti~.:; plan, light fixtures and paving materials. Two Cliss l or Cliss 3 bicycle parking spaces s~al1 be provided :nUT the entrance of the building for visitors and short t!rtl1 p.rking. Some Class I bicycle parking shall be ~rovide~ for 4/18/91 Page I) j ~ ~ i I i - rts1d~~ts, ~1th the nu~btr, design and location to be detencfned by t,",e Transportation D1\11sion in con5u1tati~m with the applicant. 6. A stcurfty gate shall be provided at the bottom of t~e garage ramp. 7. If, .after tne projec.t 13 in operation, it is detel'1l1ined by the applicants that all of the tandem parking spaces being pro~ided a~e nat r!Quired, the garage may be reconfigured so that two way circulation is provided, resuiting in the lns5 of appro~imately eight tandem parking spaces. S. If the reaT" yard is increased to 20 feet wide (rl'ith the approval of the 325 Lytton project). then the trasr, facn ity stial' be relocated to the rear ,)'ard, to be acc.essed fr-om Lytton ."v~nue. rf the ri!ar yard remains uncnanged (.ithout the ip~rova' of 325 lytton), the trash snall be r~located to the base-ment~ 9. The applicant shall provide with the final landscape plan an arborist's report detailing protection measures for trees on neighboring parcels whlc~ will be impacted by tMe construction, and a letter evidencing that a certified arbcrist is responsible for implementatioh of the protectio~ measures. )0. A variance is required to locate the front porch 7 feet into the required 20-foot front yard. This variance can be processed simultar.!ous wit,; the remainder of the PC zone change ap~]ication. OD~ers and e-aves shall be modified so that they do not extend i~to the daylight p1ane, or a variance will be required for these as well. 11. If tne project ;s approved by City Co:.mci1, at that time the applicant sh~ll test th€ sewer line on Everett ~treet for flow capacity, and the proj2ct developer shall be responsible for iny required upgrade of the sewer in conjunction and in an equitable manner with other proposed devETopments in the immediate vicinity. T~e ARE supports the app1icant's being granted a variance for dormers with reference "to ths fact that such exce~tions would be made in R-l 20njng to allow for architectural enhancements such is the dormers to extend into the daYlight p1an~; and suppert for a variance for the p~rch to extend into the front yard, if the porch is redesigned so that it is a more usable spaCE. At this point the Board had. IO-minute break. 2. 325 Lytton Avenue p;\arb\min04!B 91-ARB-40 4/18/91 Page 14 , I \ \ \ EXCER~T rr.RUARY 27, 1991 ~~~NING CO~M!SSION MINUTES 330 EVERETT AVENUE: Application for a Planned Community lone change on th~ee parcels it 324-340 Everett Avenu. from RIt-30 Medium D.nsity Multiple-Family to PC (Plarmed Corm11Jnity) to allow for c.onstructior: of a 37,0£)0 square-foot, three story buildin9 wit~ 51 below-market-rate sen lor independent living, residential units with undi!rground parking. E:nv~rcnmental Assessment: No Significant Impact. A negative der.1aration !'las been prepared. Fl1e Nos. 90-ErA-55. 90-ZC- 17, 90-A.~B-lg5_ lone District: RIt-30_ Chairman Har;;~: This is an application for a Planned Cm71munH,y zene change. however. the actual Planned Cammunity is not in fro~t of us ~ith the specifics that we would othe~ise see in such an ap;:-1 ication. Instead, tonight the planning commlssion is dir€cted to address the po1icy Questtons and other issues that ire! raised in the report, conceptually approving the proposed Planned Community zune cnange. Then upon taking that actf~n, we .... auld' forward tilis apphcat;on to the ArchitecturaT Review Board for further work.. It .... ould later return to us. witn the specifics of tne PC incorpo""ated into the appTication. Ms. Warheit: I have a cDrrec:t"iDn to the staff report. It is Dn Page 7, the first paragraph, second sentence says. "Even though the project will not in .... o1 ... e a subdivision and is therefore not subject to the conditions of Program 9 ..• • it will involve .. s.ubdivision in or-del'" to merge the three lots. Therefore. it does nave to comply wiUl Progra~ 9. It does comp1y with Program 9, ~n fact, it meets al1 three of the requirements, and only two ire requi~ed to be met. 1n aqditfon. there were three items put at your places that were not in the packet. The env1ronmental assessment is before you, although you will not be acting on tnat tonight. It is there for your information. There is a 1etter from i member of the publ ic which """as received after the packet ... 'as sent out. There fs SOrT!{! informal;,ion .r-ram Emerg~r:cy Services about responses at Lytton One and I¥e:hster Kou~e, which iilre comparilb1e. incepender,t li .... ing residences for seniors downtown. Chairma~ Marsh had asked for that material pre~iously. rnat is found Qn Line 5 ~nder eac~ of those four houstng typ~s that responds to the question you were asking about emergency services. The ethers a~e for fire ~nd alarm boxes-and other types of .... isits. It is for a period of two year's and eight months, ind it is for lytton One, which is tne first ~ousing shown, and ir-Jebster House at tnt ~ttom, which are independent living residences, and are really the only ccmparab'?e ones to this project being proposed. In doing some rough numbers. I see that iilt Lytton One, the number of visits over tlle 32~month period is about half tne number of units. At Webster House, it is slightly o .... er one times the number of units. I have no idea wr,y tr,ere is tnat discrepancy. ---"----- - 2/27/91 -1 - - p'uirman Marsh: Wllen there is a 1I1s;t by the.sf emergency .... ehicles. do we know how many vehicles respond? H$. ~'rhtjt~ No, 1 do not. Chairman Harsh; But~! could assume t~at with a fire trcck response, there is at min1m~ .. plr.medic van and probably a police car accompanY1ng it. Ms. lytle: Tnit is my u~~er5tanding. Mr, Gilliland; We just r!ceived these data and we ,an figure out for you the average nu~er of visits per week. Comiuipner e~echam: Aho, where do the emergency vehiel es come from? presume it is from the faci1ity on Alma Street? Mr. Gilljland; Genera11y, they wouid if they ar~ available from that facility. Our emergency vehicles respond from ql.iite a few areas, depending on what ones are available. . Comml$$ioner tv11en: 1 called Ms. Warheit today to find out a couple of things. I noticed jn the minutes of the hearing that there were several neighbors w~o talked about the sewage facility being inadequate. ] knew that we hid recent1y redone the water. not the sewage, ir. that area. I wondered if the s~wage ~as indeed inadequ.te. Ms. ~arhe1t: We have in the file a letter from Wastewat~r ColTection, stating that back in ]983, a trst ~as made of the six existing six-ir.ch sanitary sewer on £·verett Street. 1he results showed that the waste .ater was peaking to I),'er 80 percent of full capacily. When it re.ches over 7S percent of fu" cap.city, they consider it full. So that was the situation the 1a~~ time it was checked. They.go on to say that it will be the respc,n.s.ibility of tr,e developer to upgrade the s.ystem itS needed to accommodate new developme:nt on that street. The applicant i.s awari: of that~ and' we also have a letter in the file from the applicant stating that as soon as th!y get some indication that this pTal"ll,ed Corrrr.unity 1Il~.gnt be appr'oved, they will pro,e~d .. lth t1a .... ing an engineer reassess the line ,no' determine how much bigger the lir:e wCJlJlr have ttl be. They understand they would be responsible for the c~sts of upgrading it. Commissicner Christensen: Are thos.e (.osts figured into the financing pl anS that are being presented t~ us? Ms. Wir~ejt: We wi11 have to ask th! appTicant about that. J will also state that there is a 12-unit housing project being proposed across the street, which is certainly ahead of this application. in processlng. at least. They also It.'o:;ld be responsible for meeting the same obligation. The two would most likely be coordinated, to $a'.le tearin~ up the street twice. ne impacts of both wouTd need to be calc~l.ted, should this go forward, sc that the line could accommodate both developments. -,~' "L ---.. ~-.-- . , 0"' .p .;,. .eo,: , _. I ;0.;0, (orrm;ssio~~r Cylhn: One other QuestiDn I u.ked stiff this afternoon was that the amenities built into this project ire not consistent with the HUD glJidelines. As we .1l recall. on Terman, wh;t 2 problem that was to get either disposals or dishwashers (l forget which) fn ~hi!re with HUP approva1. 1 see thilt th;.;-reom ~ s what -we Yiou'd' all consider as 11'1 ~·;..pensi"e room. with the o ... erhangs. Altho'.!gh I admit t~at we wan! tnat in prjer to fit into the neighborhood~ I am concerned about the financing , since I am sure HUD will not approve that kind of expensive a~enity. S~ what ire the fal10ack positions on that? .ML Warheit: The appl ieant nas t<lid us that they are aware of that t and they ~aye shown uS HUD guideline$ t~at, in fact, e~empt lots of the niceties that we expect from the projects in Palo A"lto. Pr.<;lbi!:b1y when they mak.e th~ir remarks, they will address that for yol.< as to how they intend to pay for; t. Ccrrrnissioner HlIbgr: The staff report says that the reie'iant HUD finance programs are on1) available for 50 or more lJr.its. Are there HlJO monies ilvai1able f{lr projects less tnan that? ~r. Gilliland: I defer to th! applicant to address that, but my answer wo~ld be that I d':l not bel ieve the-yare readily available. Commissigner Christensen: I want t~ as~ about the extent to ~nich approval of a conc~pt PC comits us to approval of the second stage. Vou may answer that after the public hearin9 is cl{lsed. Chairman Marsh: applicant? will now open the public hearing. I¥ho represents the Jim KodL Cpr,Jmun:itv Housing. Inc.: I would like to explain that we a:"e a nonprofit c{)rporation that oper.tes lytton Gardens, Lytton One and 'Two. Lytton is iiln indapendent senior housing convnunlty for low-income seniorL it was $ect\Dn B rent s~bsidjes supporting the rents. lytton Two is half independent living and ha1f residential care, including certai~ ether support Sfrvices for seniors that need non·medical assi~tance with daily actiVities. To comment on the emergency vel=;;c1e assessment, Webster House is a contlnuing care facility whi,h goes even further in the amaunt of care that is pro~ided to residents. They go into some degree of light nursing care th€r~. I received a telephone call yesterday from a lady living on Ash Street, who had contacted Virginia Warheit after reading a notice of this meeting. She described her situation whe:"'f her landlord had raised her rent to OYer SaVD pe1'"" manth. and being on a fixed income, it was taking all of her money. She asked if she could rent an apartment when our projict was built. 1 asked her to attend this me~ting tonight to speak to that. She said she would be u~able to do that because she does not drive~ and was ifraid of getting on the bus at night, so ~enerally she stays at home. At lytton Gardens, we currently house about 350 peop1e .. ith stories like this one. As you are probably a~are, we nave a waiting 1ist of several hundred more people needing such a plac~ to iive. In the staff report - 2/27/91 -3- ," for this hearing t!'tere is I page tntHled -The Ni!'2d for Affordable HaL.:sing.· wnich ] prepared for i discussion wit~ the Pa10 AltQ Housing Corporitia~ sever4l mon:~S ago. It descrlbes the disturbing process 1n whicn a large body of our population, long-time actrve ~mbers cf and contributors to our community, now on lf~1ted i"co~s ind ~ith,ut the good fortune of havinQ bough ~nd p~id for a house. ar~ force~ into isolation, finaneill despair, and all too often~ intJ dangerous lind substandard living environments. It;s our opinion at CHI that this is crime Qf tnt 'Very .. arst k.in.d. for it is a crlme of neq1igoer.c.e aga;;!",st ourselves. The so1ution to this. as to llIost of our social ills, is not easy .. land and co~struction costs in pur Irel are astronomiCi;. The only way we can acquire a parc!l, build ~t Qut and be able ta rent this product to 'o~·in,=ome l peopl! is to have an extreme effici!ncy fJf design and to procuTf special funding. : Due to the efforts of a number of dedicated people, we are tantalizingly close i to atcompi ishiflg this dght here. We have actively ~earchea for iI site that could' potentfa1ly accommodate suet':: I project for more than five yeJ.rs. Whe~ tTlis property on herett was presented to us, we were <luite eXCited about the possibil,ties. Fir~t. it was clos~ enou;h to lytton Gardens that we n~ed not recreate expensive Il",anagement anc! infrutructure. Secondiy, tMf! property is ideally located two blocks from the ~enior cente~, one block from a w~nderful parle. where tenants can truly be a part of the community, and immediately access.,ble to public transportation and the services and ..-itality of downto\lir:. ~ina'l1. knowing the kind of density that wnu1d be required ta make a pT~ject feasible, the property seemed well suited to acc~mmodate this. It is a reasonable dimension, in a transition area for m~re intensf use, but still able to provide the kind of N!sidential character importan: to the Quality of life for Dur tenants. 1t berders on i Six-story structure and a commercial parking lot. If we want to hav! affordablE housing in the: down~own are. I cannot imagi~e a better location. We engaqed the excellent design team of CarrUCQ a.nd Ass.ocia.tes to bring th~ idea. into reality. ] believe they will discuss some of the plinning issues to~ig~t_ But fjrst. I would like to encourage .vau? cormli:ssioilers, to le~d your support t~ this rare opportunity to prl1 .... ide sorely needed, affordc:ble housing_ Commissioner G1azier: Wny the 51 'I.!~its,? 1 'Understand that 50 units is a rl'JD r~quirement, but wouldn't perhaps a project in the 30-40 unit range that ~as perhaps funded by state ar 10(a1 monies be a litt1e mor2 attra:tive and fit in a little better in terms of size? Mr. Koch: lhere are a number of factors that to i~to that. First of all, tMe land cost is simply di ..... ide by the number of units. Oh'idin~ it by mere units? rather thIn less, keeps tne cost per unit loW"er. Sec-ont: is. He sources for funds. Over the hst two years since \lie ide .. tified t'-is property as being pote~tial1y suitable, ] have done an extensive investigation into 41'1 of the potential sources for funds. We applied to HUD last June and were denied, due to some plan details and c~st containm~nt items. Upo~ receiving tMe denial. we iggressively 10Dked for alternative funding sourc~s. There are none that deai with the construction and land cc<sts that we are faCing, even w'th. Sl units, muc.h l!ss fewer, that deal with those tosts and get rents down to a level that we are .,.; .. - 1/17/91 -4- I· I , I t comfortable with IS being truly sel"'vit:illg His group of people in need. A little side CODte1'lt on thlt is Ua'.:. th~ S~rlie!' Coordinating Coundl did a study a. coup1e of years Igo IS to what are the housing needs of Pie senior members of our 1 Deal population. They found that about half of the iDeal seniors own their C~ h~mes free and clear, ilnd they have lI'1onth1.)1. fixed housing costs of just the property ta.xes. There is certa;nl! no need amongst that grou;:l. Tne other half, hO'""e'!er, are facing rents of 5750 to Sl,5CO a month, and when you look at their income levels,. they are prilTiarily the lo;.te'!" income group. The ones that have tho!! l'1igher inc~ .re also the ones who had it earlier and bought houses. So to be abie to service t"'ese peop' e you eannDt nave ·a.ffordabi e· ur.its that are rent i ng fer 5550 a month. That is still beyond their price range. So the financing programs that allo~ rents suitable for lower-income peopie are basically the HUD 202 program with Sectfon B 5ubs~dy, Dr the California Rental Housing Construction Program. lhe rental housing CO!lstruction program wOlJld allow fewer t~ar! SO units. T~e problelll wHr. that is that the rental housinS construction program is geareci toward family housing. They have a point ranking system, and something like 20 percent cf the .vailable point~ ar! awarded to projects with three-bedroom or more units. We have nane, {)f CDU'rse, fer senior housing. 'So .. itn that lnteT'ltioflal bin awa.y from senior hc.lIsiT'l9, it ~s probably ali unlike1y source of funding. Secondly, even if we were to qualify for those funds. to apply more: tha.n 5.0 percent of the projec.t costs. with st.~te funds T'€QIJires, due to Arti(1~ 34 of the Cal ifornia Constitution, a referendum appro'v'al c-f the p,.-oject. COmrTllssioner Gralier: If you do get HIJD funding, ho'll' much additional local fundin.g will Y'JU be see.king? Mr. Kpc~: All the rest of it~ It would be in tne neighborhood of S600,OOO to 5800,'00. Commissioner Be-echam: On a percentage basis, what is the federil a.nd state subsidy of tMe project? If you get tne funding from HUO and other state funds, wi 1 1 .. they pay for 50 percent or 60 percent or how much'? Mr. Koch~ Due to the fact that ifr(e have It'ased land, that saves us a large, initial expenditure. The HUO limita.tions come to somewr.ere around 95 percent of tne project cost. I rece' .... ed a phone cil' yesterday froJTl S)'lvia Seman of the Palo Alto Housing Corpcratio~, altnou9~ r diti not have a cha~ce to talk to h~r. She has recei .... ed notificaticn that HUO is exper'di'lg the guidel1fles for 1992, which in the high-c.ost-rated' art:!as, of which Pa10 AHo is :me, they will be raiSing that ttilins, so t~at cDuld b~ a gccd si9~· Ccmmission~r Be~c~am: So the federal and state fu~ds wo~ld cover approx,mately 95 percent ~f the capital cost of the program? Hr. Koch: ihere are no state funds if we get HlID. TIle] are independent programs. Commissioner Christensen: Has the cost of replacing the sewer line been computed into thi s financiflg prograrr. that we have been presented .... ; n? - 1/17/9! -5· \ J ! ~~-'.,.-- i,-.t'~-."-, . ~,,-, .:1~t· Mr. !)pcb: We i;re ilWIT"i! of it. We are not oil for-profH dneloper. W'e do r,e>t nilve reserves of cl$n on hand. All of ~ur pre-development cests hlve been d~ne by donlt'ons Dr tne bOird' members. We .ire ,jIIware of the s.ituation and 'W~11 Ceill wft~ Itt pro~~b'y through donilti~ns. Commissioner Chrjstenstn: So it has been inc1uded in Jour financing pac~age? Mr. Koch: y~s but not from HUe. Fro. other sources. Cgmm;ssloner Huber: I am sti11 • lft!1, puzzled .Jout HUO. Ar. you saying that etonomically, h~re in Pa10 A1to, it does not make sense f~r you to go 1ess than 50 unit.s.? Otherwise you can1'l0t hOld the rents down? Or is the Fed saying, f~rget it, you must have 50? M~. Koch: T~e HUO requirement is that it be for a project of 50 or more units. COlTD'llj:u1on@t Huber: So regardless of the (:ost Or where you are bui lding, they state 50 or ~re? H~ Koch: Yes, nationwide. Commissioner Huber: Is the waiting list that exists for housing fer seniors made up ~( I>e~ple f~ Palo ArtC', or is it open te anyone? If 11 ts the Jatter, what are the perC"entages of local versus elsewhere? B1Jir Stewart, Community H~using! In~: I am P~es ident of the CHI Board. AS far is the waiting list is concerned, there a~e severa.l hundred on it. I do not ~ave the figures iI5 to proportio1'ls of Pa10 AHarl's and non·Pa10 Altans. However. under HlIO guidelines, We t'li'olE' te> be nondi.strimi:'!!.tory. As a practical matter~ most of the-people have efther liv,d if:' Pile Alto, near Palo Alto. or h,ne family members sucn as children .... ho it!'"e curre-nt1y '71 Palo Alto. Comrnjssicner Cu11en: This question of Palo A1to residents has come up ~n the past an I know that HIJD has said categorical1,y that you cannot gi'olE pro:!:fererj-:e, but we ha~e been able to manage the stream of applicants in a ~ay that Paio Alto re~idents who ha~e been on the waiting list for i long time have, in fact, been ib1e to be placl!d it lytton Gardens. So l wanted to ask. if you are goin9 to mandge this in mucn the same way that you have been managing lytton Gardens? Mr. St~wart: ! s~ppose so. C.ommissioner (\lnen: We got into this "UD n, :-'9 witI', Terman, and HUD was ve~y categorical, sayll"!9. no, you cannot do tI1at ltnd of thing. but it didn't actually work. Qut that way. I suppose the letter of t"-e law and the spirit of the Jaw a~e two dtfferent tni~gs. ~r. Kgch: 1 wo~1d certainly had to go on record saying w~ would take 01'l1y Pa10 AHo residents. --.... -----.-.-~---.--.. 'L - 2/17/91 -6· '--;. I I , .. ' .. \ 0' j - Cpmmi5';pncr Cullen: We Ire not asking you t~ do so. Comissiofler Hliber: ,(ou t'lent';ontcf that Hun was t:han9ing its guldelines. What d"e:s that _,in? Mr. Kp&h: I had I rather extenSTve phone me~sage from Salvi., and that is the edent of my information, although I have not talked witli her myself. Apparent1y the 1992 guidelines allow for regional Dr 10CIt adjustments, according to the standards of the area. The gUldelines whith WE presented. whidl Ms. Warheit has reviewed, describe iI pr~je:t which wou1d leok lik.e a HUD project in Philadelphia. COmmissioner Huber: 1n ether words, the potential exists for high rriced areas to get more money fro:n HUD to build something. fs that what you are ieijing into that? Mr. Koch; To some extent. HUe als~ has a point ranking system~ with 90 points maximum. Twenty-five of the 90 are cost containment. So to the extent that you com.o1y with their cost containmt!nt measl.!res. e ... en l.Inder the modified regulations, nDW rather than kicking you out, they ..,.,11 ran'( you. Before this, t1l!~Y would kiCK you out for not conforming to cost containm€nt. Chairman Marsh: My understanding is that the population anticipated for t~is facility is comparable to those now living in lytton One. Is that correct? (Yes) Would you describe that popu1a.tion for us. A lot of the projects that we have her~. inclUding parking, etc .• have been dependent upon the profile 0 the peCiple whom you expect to be living in this facility, but in no place in here does it tell us anyt,,;n; about the characteristics of that population. Mr. Koch: ] cannot be .~ighly specific because J not cleat on the age limitations, but it is !:lade up of senior titizens who are capable of independent living, not in need of assistance ~ith daily activities or medication or nursing care. They are active seniors who do not exceed the HUD-established maximum income limjtations~ Ct1ainnan Marsh: What services are available to tnose people at He lytton Gard~n$ facility? Mr. Kod: lytto~ One-is actually the description of the first 218 units tnat were bunt at lytton and MiddlEfield in 1974-75. Lytton Two cor.sists another 100 units, enly half of which are res-idential care, So the independent living facilities consist of 268 units. so it is technically not just lytton One. The ser'ilces that are prolfided for independent 1 iVlng are the same z.s in aflY apartment, utilities, At lytton Garde~s there is a co:r.mon dlf1ing room, and each of tne urlits nas a small kitchenette. WE have a reQuirement that tne reSidents of lytton One purchase one meal a day at the dining room. Chairm;n Marsh; My understanding is that this proposed development would not provide food services on site. I s that correct? {Yes) I s thEre any provls ion for those people to get meals at lytt 0 1'1, One1 Would it mean taking a bus? Are 1/27/9l -7 - • oo~_o. I , I , you ant~cipati"9 a shuttlt back and forth? Or ire these people really on th~ir DWTI ; n te=nn.s of food? Mr. Koch: GenerllTy. they are on their own. These u~it.s have a more complete kitc:::hen des~£Ine:d int~ th~ftI than we currently ha .... e at lytton One. We 'Would certainly allow them access to the dlning room at lytton Gardens, where we se1l ~1'S. but they would have to get there somehow. Steven Ship1ey is the person who ittUilly runs it every day. He could COlllTlel1t on tllat. ~en Shipley. Chief ErecutiYe Officer: You asked ibout the types of services prcvided. We have social services, activity programs. transportation programs --I lot of the fo1ks present tonight came over in <!ne of our two vans, one of which has a lift gat!' --we would offe,' transportation services between lytton Four that we Ire talking about and lytton One, T\oIIO ind ThreE. An of the deoartment managers and the structures that are in pace ar! in a line, and it wo~ld be .simpl. to utilize some of tI'le department directors that we ha .... e and share tne services. Chairman Marsn: That is a fine thing tc ~ffer. but that sounds (ontradictory to the assertion t~at there would be on1y two employees ~t this site. Mr. Shipley: How is that a contradi~tion? Chairman Marsh: ]f you ha.ve more people who are going back. and forth and IHho lIlay be working at certain times at the lytton Four facility, if you are provi~ing sE~vices there on site. Mr. Koch: No, we are not providing them on Site. Chairman Mar~h; The SOCial and recreational serwices you have described 'Would not be provided It lytton Fo~r? Mr. Koch: Right. They wou1d be ava.ilable to the residents of lytton Four blJt not provided the-re. There would tte trc:nspo!"tation available to them to come. to lytton One and Two. Chairman Marsn: My final Question is in regard t~ thE parking figure.5 in the staff report. There is a SU!'mlary of automobile usage at Lytton Gardens. It appears to incorporate a1l of lyttorl Gardens. including some of the residential units, in this survey. ! am trying to get i reasonable percentage of cars per healthy. independert living resident at tI'le lytton facility. Mr. Koch: There are 268 units of in independent livi~g. and I would guess t~at few. if any, ~f the cars belong to the people ir. the residential care portion. Chairman Ma.rsh: So we can presume that the 84 residents Iorfho have cars are included in the 268 units. - l/27/91 -8-· I [ , I I j j w111 nOW open tf'le public hearing. :J..Q..!ul Haima"". 235 EmbaTca6,re Read. P!10 AHo: My "ffic2 is at 304 Bryant Str~et wnere I practice reil estate law~ Tne building that ;s designed is no~ gain; to be \'; sible from mJ window. This is a very good ~rQject, in terms of j ts finlnting compo~ent and in terms of m~etin9 tr~e needs of senio"'s for this target income level. I am ver1 res?ectftJl of the magn; fieent job lytton Ga.rdens has done. 1 am .a merr.ber of one cf the groups tnat founded lytton Gardens many years ago, and they have an outstanding program which is r!cognized nationally. J do have i concern that this type of project is being pushed into this north Palo Alto ne1ghbornood, which has t1ad a difficult time survi\ling. Economically. it is prcbably one of the most integrat~d neighborhoods. in terms of fami ly co~posit;l)n. and they type of people who 1ive 1n the urits. There are a lot of single people, a lot of young families, a lot of students and a lot of seniors. TIle parK h.as revitalized ttle neighbodlood. and has become a focal point f~r the nei9hbo)~hood. The emphasis is on families and younger people. There-is VHy low senior use Qf that parK. This project is approprlite, but for i differe~t area, and on a slightly smaller scale. Thirty to 40 lJntts 'lIIou1d be more appropriate Adding this buH., especially when right across the street there is another citadel-lik.e complex about to rist!~ which has not yet been dE't€rmined, but it 1S als\! a very massive str'ucture, and also, it has not yet beer. decided although it has been presented to the Architectural Re~iew Boord. The structures across the street aTe eviscerating the lots from 367 down to behind the RM·30 are a are going to be three--story buildings and quite massive. St:: tl1e character of that neighborhood is cnanging quite a bit. r thinK it would be wise to try a~d keep t~is neighborhood more of a h~terogeneous neighborhood with more emphasis on people of III ag~s. Thl! project is r~illy too large for this neighborhood, but other than that, it is a good project, but should not go on this site. The neighbors ire gOln9 to suffer from the argum~nt th~t since something massive is next door, 1 can build sometning massive next to it, and because somettljng massive is there, I can build something more massive nelCt to it, eactl time exceeding what the city has previously decided as the guidel;nes foT' the area. Blair Stewart. Community H~using, Inc.: I real1)' dQ not ha~e too mud to add beyond ~b3t Jim K.oen has said, e.xr:ept that we see this as an outstandln,;: opportunity to add to the senior housing stock in Palo Alto. As Jtm alluded to, the number of avai1able s~tes is exceed~ng'Y sma". ~e searched in the downt~wn P~lD Alto area for better th~n five years, and this is the site that is available to ~s. ~e ire fortunate that it is available on a Tease basjs. Economically, it does not worK it is downSized. because the HUn financing is the only viable .. 1tern~tive that we see. We feel tha.t the concerns about traffic, emergency calls. etc .. art re-,a,11y nQt extraordinary, particularly the traffic usage by the residents. As you have seen, only about one-Quart~r of tne residents at lytton One have caTS. I say that because although ther~ are 268 'Units. Here are a number of thQse that are occup1ed by couples, so the actual occupancy of Lytton One is closer to 3000+ when counting the independent iiving units. Wlth 84 cars. we are taking about i small number of automobiles, and 'Wt! are talking about people wh~ are using them for very ow usage, as cnmpared to most peop1e who have cars that they use for commuting to work. So the position that we have 'lIIith our L - "'4> ". 2/17/91 -9- ! I / , I ':. . - ability to use t~at site, the financing that we have iVii1ablt, the length of ti~ ~ have put into fi~ding t~fngs to converge that ~ould allow us to build this, ar,d t"'e two to two-and-I-half yt'!irwaiting list Ire compelling reasons why this prDject ~ke~ senst at t~1~ 1oCItfon at th's time. ComissiRner Chrhtenl,,"': I ha",,!! a Question regarding financing. The il!!pressiori I had was dlff.rent fro. two different parts of the report. One;. that at the end of sa yelr$. you own t~e p~operty. and the second was that It the end of SO years, you hive to eome ~p with money to purchase the property. Mr. Ko;;h: 'do.'t thlni< either of tho.e quite state it. The term is for 50 years; we f'lave the first right of refusal in tMe event the hssor chooses to sell it. We ilso hive something along the lines of a charitable remainder trust. We receive title to the property as ill donation from hls est~te at some time during the SO-y •• r p.rio~. Chairman Marsh: Are you siying that that is in effect? Or is it a poss1bi1ity? 1 don't think we quite undtrstand that. Mr. Kgch; Our option includes that specifically. Commissiop!!'r C~r; stensen: 1 do not see ~ow H (an be both waYL How can it be right of of first refusal? Mr. Koch: If he sells it before we are protected on anything ~hat happ€ns prior to hh estate becoming an estate. In ottler words, if he deCides he wants. to se11 it wnile he ;s still alivt, then we have a right of first rffusa1. If it passes by ~Il of hfs estate, tnen it is i donation to us. Chairman Harsn: Can we clarify that? The lease is for SO years. Can he sell it du~ing the period of the lease? Mr. Koch: Yes. he can, but we ~;ave a right of first refus~l to buy it. (n2;rman Mar?h: What you would be buying is the la~d that it is situated on? t!r. Koch: Yes. torrrnissioner Hyber~ The sale would not effect your lease. It is still i SO-y€ar ltuE'. $(1 whoever bought the property is stuck with the lease for the Jength (Jf tne term. (Yes) Is there something in that leiSe that. would have any major escalations in rental cost in it. should :hat foreseeability occur? MrJtewart: There is I fixed rental schedule for the entire SO years that is not ilHerable upon transhr of title. CQ1!l!!issioner Huber: rf 1 understind correctly, should the owner die before $ellins, the property goes to the Ccrmunity Housing Development. . , 2/27/91 ·10· 1 14,., kgeh: Yes~ he and hi 5 SpOUS,!. CQf,lTIiulantr Christgflsen: But .:lthenl1se. if he sells it. then at the end of the SO-year perlod, there is no opt,on to buy. Mr. Ko,~: Assuming he and his spouse are still alf~E? COmmissioner Chrfstensen: He, if he sell the property while he is still alive? Mr~ ~Qch; The obligation of whoever t1e sells it to wjll rercaiT1~ CO~;SSi9ner Chrfstrnsen: Yau will stil1 naVE the 1ease. but at the end of the 50 yeaTs, if you are not able to -- Mr. I(lJch~ .As will tne trust. Th~t is iI condition. 'omissi?n!!'" Christensen: I still de not understand. Mr. Stewart; ls the Questiofl. On of whc:t happens if he sells the property but we do .10t exercise the right of first refusal? (Yes) As I undErstaf'ld it, the lease would continue to tne end of t"e SO years. At the end of Uat time, 'WTloever owned the land would own the bunding. Mr. kpch: I don't know . .Mr. Stewart; We need clarificition. ~E fee' that we have writtEn the 1eas'!: adequatel] to protect CHI's interest in (ontro11ing the property. COlTaTlfss1pfl,r Cullrn: I guess yo.u shouid .'ave had your attorney present t~night. because I have one more Jpgal question~ You say, "fi~ed rental for SO y~ars.· Does that fixed rental contain iI renegotiable lease price at f;~ed intervals? .Mr. Koch: No. it has a scnedule of increases throughout the 50 years, minimum and maximum increases. ComrnisSinner Cu11en: So you are sayin9 t~at it does contain increases. Mr. koch: Yu, it contains increases but it does not contain any r--enegotiation. (~mmi$sion!r CuJlen: Have the increases been figured into )our budget, as well? ( Yes) ~..Ql!!!ll.lsioner Glii.Z1er: 15 'there any balloon payment due at the end of the 50 years in crder to nave this iand do~ated to you? Or at the end of the 50 years, with no additional payment~ ;s the land yours? Mr. Koch: The charitab1e remainder trust is a rather comple)( mechanism im'oTving a life insurance poiicy for t~e benefit of the trustor, which does give tne proceeds of that policy to him or his estate. It is not funds Uat 'We actually ·&~lf0' ,,(:' -- 2/27/91 -11 - 'J 'I' " I ~ come LIP with out cf pock.et. TMe life insurance pays him a sum. I am not sure exactly "'ow detailed on 'W'an~s to get with somE of the legal i.o.sue:s. and the financial implcts to another person. en.irma" ""aI"'5"'~ Perhaps I can try to summarize what 1 think. is the CQ,1Ce1"'n U? here. We ilre trying to look at the very long-term future of this project and assess the land use impacts, should this project rtvert to some use other thar. seni"r housing. So the long·tel"m 'Outcome of this project is of specific concern. Hr. Kcch: Speaking to that~ I am absolute1y certain that we nave control of the site for SO years. which is the long-term, probably the 1 if! of any structure. Beyond that. ] am quit!' conffdent that we will ha'lle co~trol of the site in virtual perpetuity. although ~it~out having the attorney here to interp.et a co~ple of the issues. Comissioner Huber: I have iii qUfsticrJ for Mr. Stewart. You now ha\/e a two-and a-half year waiting list? (Yes) And that equates to ho~ many people? Mr+ Stewart: That is approximatfly 300 applicants waiting to co~e in. Commissioner Huber: How does tr.at compare with five years ago? Today it is two and-a-half years. Mr. Stewart: I really do not have comparison figures. I can ten ,)'OU that approximatel~ iii year ago, we ~aj a list that had 600 to 7~O naMes on it. We ~ave 9~ne tnrougn the list systematically to find out who are the people who are still active1y ;nterested+ That came to the 300 figure. So if somebody puts their name on the list today, they can expect a two to t~o-and-a-half year wait. Una! ludden. 120 Hamiltpr. Avgnue. Palo Alto: I am one of the architects for the project. I am with Tony CarrascoTs office. When we were initia11y approac~ed a.bout.. th15 project by (.ommun-;ty Housing, Inc. and Jim Koch, we were Tu11y ex~ited about the opportunity to be able to c~ntTibute to affordable housing in Palo Aito. I personally have been involved witn a lot of projects for senior housing, senior centers and skilled nur~ing facilities. J am \/ery committed to prov~ding this type of facility in areas ..... here H is difficult to get these things .dene. I fee1 that the senior pcpl.liation cf ;'lila Alto r"1eeds t!"lis project, and I feel very serious about it. we have worked ..... it;, the neighbors; ..... -e have had two neighborhood mfetings in developing this project. ~E initially started out with il build; n9 with 64 units. As a result of the meetings 101; t~ the neighborhood, we s~aled bac~ the project as far as it was pOssible to do and still meet the HUO guidelines. ~e ~.ve reoriented the entrance to the garage; we hive modified the design of the roof, and have added details of dormers and more balconies and patios to accommodate some of the concerns that the neighbors had in terms of t~e scate of the project. We h~ve also ..... orked with the massing of the building to break it down from the large apartme~t structure that it was on one side, and il$o it the rear ... hich is now .a park.ing lot~ but we all know there is going t'D be i project de ..... eloped on tl!at site by another developer. It is our understanding t~at it will be an office building, and we do not know what L 2/27/91 -j 2 - - • --.-".[- "~ : "'. -,_~_ ,-c_. ttle di!sign is going to be like, but we do k.now it .i1l be deveioped. Then w{lrldng down into tne res~de-ntiil' iTEi on the adjacent side and across the street by stepping dCl'wrt the forms ind creating a roof that slopes. dC"'f1 at an angle to those aajac:ent properties. We hav!' tried to develop areas on site where the reSidents can have recreatiDn in a courtYird where there is some security ind pri¥acy, but in response to tn~ ~etings with t~e neighborhood 9 we have created an area in the front ~ith a fro~t po!"'ch which is ~n k.eeping with the character of tther houses in the neighborhood so that there can be an interaction with passerby and acti\lit~~s in th~ neighborhood at the front, but still h~ ... e some pri .... acy in the courtyards are the edges. We gave you some little sKetc~es that have addressed some of the questions that staff had showing a potential access that we nave addej from the baCK across these adjacent properties, although we rea1ly do not have the right do d~ that. It might be nice to connect into downtown Palo Alto that way with a pedestrian access. We could prc~ide a gate at the back, but there a~e some security issue W~ wou1d need to work out for that. We are very interested in \;,Iork 1119 on that one. One thing that is important to remember ibo~t this project, when looking at the I unit count, is that we are dea1ing with 51 units that are .... ery small. If you had 30 regular siled' units, they would take up the same area. Thirty ].200 sQuare foot units will be 36,000 square feet. So you are thinking in terms of the size of the unit versus the mass if you had' a multiple-family project on th~ site, you would ave simllar massing. For this advantage, we do get the smaller units~ and YDU get more units. so we are actually providing more housing, and that is one of the ~ajor ad¥antages we can dQ w4th senior housing in the PC zone. In terms ~f the architecture of the project, the big challenge we have had is trying to develop a character that is consistent with this well establ ished. h;gh quality neighborhood of bungalow-type houses ttlat have a lot of detc.il, wood siding, shingles. or often composition single roofs, porches, dormers. wood paned winrlows, all of the thif1gs that make for a rich and warn arc.hitectural character, yet are very diffic.ult to get funded when dealing with a federal func~ing sitlJation like HlJO. ;'~z ba1conies. the dormers, the overhangs~ the sr.-.all paned windnws, all of these ti'jings are characteristics of the neigh~orhood that we are trying !o get introduced into the project, yet they are the very items that are difficult to get fund€d funded. So 'file see it as a real r:r.alienge, and 1t has c€~ta;nly been one where we have tried to work Dut the detai1s., You spoke about the sanitary sewer system eitrlfer. WJe are very a .... are Df that situation. J think that the opportunity to have a coupe of projects contribute to that ;s iI good so1ution. That essentially describes the architectural e-lements of the project. in terms of general land p1atlning and massir,g. I dotl't know that we need to get into any more detail at this pOint, but I carl anSI'.'€r questions. >, - ··c .. ·· //17(91 -J3- - CommIsslpner Chrj§tensen: In the stiff rep~rt on Page 3, they talk about 4,000 square feet of unused. fourth floor equi¥ilent .rea. I djd not und~rstand what that was. Ms. Ludden~ If YD~ lOOK where the dormers are, they prov1de clear-storJ 1ight ,~t6 thE ~hird floor u~its, but the~e art ar~as ~here the dormer~ do nQt occur, say at the peak. That is attic space, essentia'1y. The roof system would be i truss. to be the most cost-effective system for re>of construction. That is the area that has been identified as unused area. In order tQ use that area, even if it could be used for stDrage, lt wouid have to be able to actD1'Mlodate a structural load, whic:h it could not as just roof trllsses. If you have to ma.lle-it usable, Ulere is. II higher stru:tul"11 load that goes into that? and you then have a fourth story and you get into a different type of construction. Tnat gets very costly. So it is essentiaily an attic space in the areas where the (lear-story 1 ight is net coming in from the dormers. Commhsione,.. Huber: linda, is His model the current status? Ms. llJd6en: This is essentia1'y where-it is at tonigl'lt, except for the front a.re of the on·5ite parking. We could not g'?t the mcdel tI10dified for that, but the sketches that were included in your par~ing sho~in9 more on-grade parking WOUld be the Most cur,..ent solution. Commissipner Huber: Do the 51 units contemplate 51 people, or more people! ~s. ludden: There are six on~-bedroom units, and potentia11y that could have couples. There is n~ guarantee of that. Most of the units will be single occupancy. lhe st~diDS w~uld certain1y not have couples, as they are very. ver~ slI.l1. C~ai""an Marsh: Am I correct in remembering t1'lat the si te setback from the property line to tne beginning for the first story is 20 feet? (Yes) I am also confused by Ii cmnnent that you mad!!. 'l"ou noted thiit these are 51 units. but that they are very small? aiod that if the property were deve10ped in family stj'le housing~ it is 1ike1y that you wou16 ave the sa~ mass. bijt i fewer number of units. {Yes) But my wndersta~ding is that this RM-JO slte would only allow 18,000 square f!tt under the z.oning. What you are prop<lsing is twice that. 36,000 square f.,t. Ms. Ludden: What we ilre looking at is the massing, if you tooK it the other way, if you had Sl units of sing'e~family. ,t .. ould:be h~ge. Or if you took tnis mass and pl!b single-fa1'1i1y in it~ 1t would be 30 units. Cna;rnran Kill"s'h: Fifty·one units of senior hCU.S1r"i9 does ~ot "ave the same i.m?ac:t ;s 51 units Df single-family, yet we still have to deal with the mass as being twite the a.mount Df mass a.s normally waul d be .. 1' owed in the RM·30. You mentioned the development toward the rear of this property. I am glad you did because I was going to ask you about it. The buildings on lytton Avenue are in 'L , . 2/27/91 .)4- I 'I 1 . ".'-:-"- .. ,';/;1': _> -, _ • ::~~~--tdf ..... . the process right now of deveiop'~9 a scheme for i very m~~sive redevelopment of that site. It 5eem~ to me that one of the real problems you have wlth this project is in ten=s of access and parking. Clear1y, we are pusning the tn~elope ~it~ Yisitor parking. since you would require a variance to ~ut parking in tne front vard of this project. 1t seEms to me that it would make ~ lot of sense (or you to· try and coordinate the de'lle' opment of thi s prope:--ty with the d~velopment of the properties behind you. If you could put a(ce~s from the blCk~ you might very well get some ecgn~m;es both ir. t!rms of tne cost ind in terms of the ~umber of parking spaces, in particular, dealing with the ~i5ftor issue. Ha~e you considered that? Ms_ Ludden: Yes, and 1 do not wish to speak fol'" Jim KOCh, but he has. spoken with the dev~loper of the ether project. At this PQ1nt, the best we can tell, his project is not at the point ~h~re he is ready to tall to us about it. ~e are certainly 1nte~e$ted in that. We know tnet it is proceeding, but we do not know that much about it. He does want to keep his plans at his level. as opposed to putting tnem out befJre he is ready. We are inter!sted in wo~king with him. A couple of things I ha¥e thought about is that tf we som~how get a connect, on IH!tween the two sites, conceptually it is a wc>nderful idea. l09istically, we would have to b! very sure that ne;t~~r his project nor our project negatively affected the schedule of the other. For example, if this project 'f:!er:t forltw-ard first and we anti~ipated access from that site~ and we built a parking structure and we had i ramp 9Qing down, etc., and then c~nstruction began on the adjacent site, the access-wo~ld be blocked. So there are logistics of the coordinatiDn of the two projects ~hit would be very critical so as t~ not n~gat;vcly afffct each other. The fact that they are so close could be great. and tnere certainly i5 an interest in that. Chairman Karsh: If everything we"t as smoothl,)/ as it possibly could. when do you antiCipate breaking grDund on this project, assuming you have gone through the process of getting H~D f~ndin9, etc_? M$. Ludden: Probably one year. Cnlirm;n Marsh; My last question is in regard to emergency vehic1e access, as. J am very concerned about that. Clearly. the sma11 turnaround that you ha~e right now would not accommodate emergency v~hicles. What is jour pTan for that? Ms_ Ludden: What we had on the revisec SKetch that cam~ in your packets tonight was essentially a doub1e-load!d parking solutiCln. That means the em~rgency \lehic1e would pull in at the short-term p2rldng and they .... ouid ?ar~ ther~, and then exit via tne single driveway. Chairman Marsh: Jt sounds impractical to rne that emergency vehicles could use ShDrt-term parking. 1t is likely that the short-term parking would J1ready be used. Also, emergency vehicles never travel alone. They travel in groups. so t'early, that .ou1d not accommodate them. Ms. ludden~ That I cannot speak to, as I do not handle err,ergency vehicles. ---...... c-. ---.... - 2/27/91 -15· - • -... --~ L Ch;dtlllC M"rsh: 'Iou do ,.at have i:rty p1i:ns oH,er Ulan Un,t very small access for emerge~cy vehfcles] Ms. L\Jdden: The revis'E!d phn fs essentially a double-·loaded parr::ing lot. So it would bi!! thllt I person wou7G come in and they "lI'ou1d park there. Comrn'ssioner Cullen; Chairman Marsh. have you been to tytton Gardens and seen tn~t they hive essentially the same thing? A 1Q minute parking are~. Chairman ~a~sh: Yes, but this revised plan does not have a ful1 loop. It is a pull.; n, turn around, pl,jli ·out arrangement. . Commissioner tune!'!: But ttle cfrc.tlmst-ances seem 't'Cr} simih:1"" to me, and it is working satisfactorily at lytton Gardens. Of course, a fire engine never pulls in a~y.ay~ It 9arks in the street. Tony Badge?", 381 HawthQ?"ne St"'e4!t. Palo Alto: F,rst of all, one tli~l'1.-; that bothers IDe .. bout this project is the fact that this is a leased site. At the end of 50 years~ God only knows what is going to happen to this thing. r have some serous economic doubts about whethEr this thing liill really end up being lotw'-to maderate-i1l'Come housing for the elderly. We do h3ve oil respol'1.sibiltt,' to provide that, but] haye ~I,jite a bit of fear that this t~ing might turn Dut to !:oe so~t~in9 else. Jf the neighborhood is going to compromise and allow something like this? which is clearly. if I were lhing next to it, I caM c~l"'tainly see how ttle people living next to this thing might feel about it, 1 would want to be sure. if [ was making: a comprcmi.H for a Structure like this, that in hct, it would be ~s it is being advertised when comp1eted, a~d ~ould real1y bE housing for ~ow·income elderly people. The economics must b~ VEry carefully looked at on thh project before getting ar. okaj~ It is going to be eX:Flefls~ve cor,struction if it is to bl! compatib1e wjth the neighborh::lod. 1 would 11ke to say that there have beerr some oUler sites right next to this ene that have beel'1 available to plJrtN:se 'in the 1 ast five·yuT' fler1od. The sites fue or, 'JIa't'Crley Street. tot 1310 is owned by Tan. and is a vacant lot at the present tim~. Nos. 315. 316 and 324 are .ultiple~family units which sold ~ithin t~e I~:t fi~4! J~ar~ fo~ ju~t a little over 5300,000 a pip.ce for eac~ of thos! t~o lvts. The one on the end. 13.10 Wa~trley Street. h some kind of mu.lt iple-hlT,~ 1y t1\ing ind faces. right onto the driveway that goes int.o the parking lot of ~he Ha:---e Brewer and Kelle,) buildings, so c.c.tuany a.cceS5. if that blocK. CQuld )HI~chased, an.d I n.il'1.K. it couid be, you would own that find and would not b~ facing all this rigmarole abowt what do you dQ when the lease runs out. I get a real queasy feeling about that. The other thing is that our neighborhood is extremely fragile i~ terms of traffic and de\lelopment. Just to mel'ltion a felfll of tt1e things that t1aye t'.apperled, tw'ith the open-if'lg of the Dumbarton Bridge? our traffic tripled down Ha .... thorne Stre~t. The Sand Hill Rcad connection ;s I possible potential impact that no one really k.nows Quite what that win be. We t:ave the water tower site wtllch was pioposed for single·room occupancy re~entll, and we do not know what will happen there. Yet. there has never been a compr~hens;ve traffic study of the downto~n area. 1/2)/91 -16 - , 10 -;- \ , As a matter of fact. everl with this Sand Hill EIR tMat has been proposf!d' and is ~~in9 to happen, tnere is no provision in that environmental impact study for i co~rehensive traffic study ~f t~e downtown area. I have ls~ed fo~ one for the last ten y!ars, and J always get the answer that it is teo ~xpensive and we do (lot hav! the D'loney to de it. We propose Ilany of these de .... elopments w~iCh are contrary to the present zoning~ i"d we really do not know what is going ~n in terms. of tr2:ffic~ So how can fa"e irltelligentl,)' e ... a1uate a project like this? So I do ~aye some concerns about it, e ... en though I really do like th~ spirit of the idea, but I do not want to be in fh'or of ~omething that is going to be constructed and then not be compatible with the neighborMood from a traffic and parking point of view~ as well as ending ~D b~ing told tMit now this is high-end housing for the elderly. Those are my concerns. ThanK y~u. Tricia Ward-Doltas. 412 Everett Street, Palo Alto:P I am a ~eighbor in the area. 1 fee1 that the project and the effort to havp senior housing is v~ry jmport~nt, however, there are a number of dis""ivantages that I see to this particular project. The leased land makes me lt2'"1 nervous. It is unclear what the lOrlg· term benefits are to Paio Alto. and the potential of .hat hapoen5 50 years later, will it l"'evert to a ~igh use condo facility,? The density of t,"e prCJject is a do~'1l side to me. The-visi.lal impact of it is Quae massive, and 'fIhen you consider that neighborhood. that blOCK a year ago was predominantly single-family houses. Tan has cam! in and has prQ~osed development on the opp~site side of the street: these houses are going; it is a dramatic change ta the bl{lcK. Dramatic. J thii1K the 5ew~r impact --with the ra1n today, a good two feet 0'" the side of the street --the sewers are blocked up. Tne financing concerns me, that they do not have an the financing: they neec!. All the architec.tural accoutrements will disappear in order to get the funding or to make ends ~eet. Tne things they have put in place of the dormers. etc., may not be there ~nen this project finally goes in. The other U,in is that it is contriry to the directio,.., of tne overall, lDng-ten::1 direction of U'.e city plans for this neighborhood, This neighborhoad has been down zoned i" the past, and this is the first time that there has been a proposal for an increase of zoning. The otner thing to consider is t~at right now at that location, what you see are three single-family houses from the street. quaint little cottages, but actually there are ]5 rental units there, 50 ; n look.ing at the tradeoffs-o no~ you are erod ing the amount of rental un; ts ivailable in the city. The stn.lttle service and tne traffic i",~acts are a concern. also. parking_ It is interesting that a year ago, en the 9th of January. the neighborhood called a meeting and invited Jim Koch i!nd TOr1Y Ci!rrasco to present their project to us. At that tim~t the par~ing al10wed for the residents was going to be 55 spaces. The parking for guests was going to be 10 spaces. Now 1 see that that has been reduced_ It is also interesting that a year ago, they said the number of residents ... i th cars were 75 percent of the residerlts at Lytton One. and 33 percent of He residents drove. I see from the analYSis that that has changed. It may be correct. but it indicates ... hat has changed over tne space of a year, and that at that time, the neighbor~ had i lot of concerns about the traffic and parki ng. yet it seems to be going in an opposite direction_ The last thing, in terns of other sites, then~ are a lot of sites. even in the neighborhood. If you consider ATma and Everett and Hawthorne, some c.ar company had a big lot there. It is now the (alifornia Historic.al Museum - 1/17/91 -1) - ~ f, , , , \ -\. -'., . '-'-. ,~,,~ .. ,'", and a varfety of things, but mostly ~n empty lot. That may be anotner option. It is eff of Alma Str'!!!t and has 1 tSS impact on the nei.;hb:Jrhood. When you consider t~is neighborhood. it was the werking cla5s neighborhood of Pa1Q Alto 100 years ago, In~ there is very little remalning that shows the char3cter ~f what Pile Alto was like eo to 100 years ago. Those thr!! units they aTe looking at are I part of that. They were built frem 1907 to J928. so tnere are other sites to consider tnat wouid not have the impact en th! neighbcrhood, and sti)l nave the posltivt of providing more $eni~r hc~sing. Thank you. t1eJisu Biggs. 301 Bryant Street. Pale Alto: I reside in one of the houses that bilClcs onto the proposed project. I WCll'ld like to read a letter that was dtl ivered to me by iii: neighborhood member, Irv eranner at 250 Bryant Street. "Subject: Proposed Dtvelopment at 324~340 Everett. To Whom it May Concerr,: A ~ity's Comprehensive Plan is I legally enforceable doc~ment by stGte law. On December 31, 1990, the state suprtme court further ru1ed en a voter initiative to overrule a provision of tht city's Comprehenslve Plan. Although no initiatives are in'llolved here, the Pacific legal Foundatiotl state: 'The court has rtcognized that planning is a comprehensive process and shouid not be dri¥en by single~foc~s concerns.' As applies to this development, the zoning change is In clear violation ~f Pa10 Alto's Co~prf!hensivl! Plan. The current zoning was carefu1ly established for the neighborhood to proh,bit specifically this type of development. It is un~mbiguous and can be legally challenged in court.· Som! of my concerns have been vo"ced bY pr-evious speakers, but r would 1; ke to reiteriote-some of the problems with parking. This is an incredibly t1eallY traffic street. There is literally no parking during weekday, daytime hours and eften well into the evening. My concerns invclve additional visits to the site, the safety of children and families who ~.lK back and forth frequently t~ tne park, which occurs during all the daytime hQurs. especiaily on tne weekends. There is a lot of foot traff;c crl Everett Street, clJrrently~ ind traffiC going in and out af a large develepmetlt s.uch as this wouTd' be a potential ~azard to the foot traffic an that street. Currently. the services with sewers and street cleaning are practically nonexistent in this area becaus~ of the heavy. on-street parking there. A large project such as this could do no more than increase that parking problem and the traffic prOblem, In addition. r ha~e very major concerns about changing the character of this area so drastically. Ir{hat is being proposed i:'] addition to this project is another large, multiple-family project directly across the street (In three lots. His wOlJld change tne entire block to nothing but large, mtJHi~U"ntt dwellings. There wOi.ild no longer be a~y sing1e·family housing in thil.t area. It would create I IIlHsi .... e block. Thank you. Marvin Fejn5tein. 1600 Bryant Street. Palo ft.lte: 1 have fenawed this prcject since it was first introduced to the public. This is my fourth meeting en it. r have been to the pre1iminary Arcnitectural Review Board meeting, which J think was the last public IT'~eting prior to this one. At that meetlng~ it became evident that members of th! ARB wer! not happy \rro'iU1 a cou~le of key issues. No. 1 was the ;parking, and' No.2, they wanted to see it stepped down from 350 te confoTlZl with neighborhood concerns regarding mass. With these two major concerns, it became apparent that this project probably would not ~e viab1e to accommodate the two major issues. 1 do not know what has been done about that - 2/17/91 -18- ;:·'i;~· 5 , I ~ Dr Whether the architect has addressed the preliminary issue~ raided by the ARB, but what ] ~ee happening t~night is t~at the Planning Commission is being asked to conceptuJ1 1y ipprove this. r am concerned that a conceptual a~proval on your part would endoT's! the project to suc.h in utent that the Concerns of t~e community raised it the ARB hearing would' be rUf1 oyer~ I ha ... 'e had substantial exp~rience in the d~town area. I have developed property on Emerson Street, a singTe~family rEsidence; I O~ and manage property kitty·corner to this, I am y'try familiar with th~ Elj'e::-ett Stre<et ne'gh.borhoad, and I have become '4ery fond of it. This project ;s if; \I':;olition of the C.omprehensive Plan, and I would ask that the Commission take extra p~e,aut'ons. "ou have heard tlJnignt scme of the confusion tnat exists or; the financing end. There seems to be two d~iving forc~s herE. O~e is finance, that i~ to say, the minimum we ca.n build here is Sl units because we cannot get financing oUerwisf. Th@ second issue is that of elderly housin9, whiet-. is ar, emotiona1 issue for i\ 1 of ~S. On the issue of financing, I am not an expert. I do net know what can be had from the state or from HUO. ATl r Know is w~at the developer is tell ing us, and I ser.se from the Corrmission that that is all tne Comission ~nows, as well. What opportunities are available at the state level to obtain elderly housin~ on perhaps a reduced scale en this site? I am confus.ed by the-le.ase qu.est'on. Norn,a'ly, lese-fifl.an(e mone!! ;5 high cost money. So I do not understand that. I wi 1 1 endorse the Quest ion of what 9u"iiliTilr.tees are there that Viis property wouid remain as TOII/·cost !"Qusil'lg, if the neighborhood is gOing to make a concession. ~hat is to say two Dr three years down the road that HUn flnancing could be taken away? I do no'lf know. I am speculating, but I do know that we are talting about a. major ~io1ation of the Compreheflshle Plan tnat Everett Street is net , I repeat, not lytton Street. Everett Street's truly iii res,dential street. lytton Street is a thoroughfare that can acconmodate iflstitutional buildings and has done so. This is an institutional sized bui.lding put OM iii residential street. and it is out of plac.~. That llDthers me, and it ruins the direction that the Dcwntow:'l North area has been going in. 1 t is a single-hmny, low-density housing area, and a beautiful area. lhis particuhr block of Everett is, in fact, the heaf't of your dowi"1tcwn area. rt is two blocks from the cerlter of Uni'olersity A'oIenuc, ind is right in the center of the Downtown Nart~ a~ea. [t needs to be treated with the utmost of care and caution in any de,~sions that ilre made. Nancy P1eibe1 30] Bryant Court. Dalo Alto: I would like to ask the Commission to be certain to take a serious, serlous~lovk at the sewer drainage problew in the area. J know that the contractor evidently is responsible for putting in the sewer iine in front of the project, but w~etner or not that is going to run into the r~st of the Cit¥ sewer area at some point down the line. We have sewage ba~kups from the City sewer 1i~e into our home~ in a number of cases in the area. The City nas ilddressed that after numerou.s complaints by simply taki~g Qff the sewer caps so that the backup does not occur into houses, but rather into the street_ It does not happen often, but it has ~appened. 1hat definitely has to do with an environmental impact. The other matter! would 1 i ke to Clddress ; s parKing. One speaker spoke about parKing the area, which has been an ongoing 2i27/S1 -19- -lIII!IlP!uP ~------.,L \ - pTob'~1 Ind wt wilT los! even mo~e parKing in i project of this sile, becau$e therE ob~iously w~ll be .. no·parkfng str1p in front cf it at some point. Also, t~! .rch1t~ct .entioned that they were trying to create I deslgn thlt will ~ork 1rt .. ttn the arc~ftectLlre of some of the homes in the "rei, d~rm['1' Windows, etc. Tn~y ire on b~11d1~gs that will be torn down for the project, but even tf thej create the prcject with those t~pes of design ele~nts, they are very high·cost designs to maintain. so the maintenance on construction like this wfll be a great deal more than if it were il different style requi r1r,g leosS Ma; ntenance. Commissioner Cullen: from you last remark abo~t the arcnitectural d!s1yn being high ruintenlnce~ if tnat is true, wauld you prefer they stripped it back to the HUD reQuirements, making it is simple is possible? Ms. P1fjbel; J like tne idea of trying to retain some of the design. 1 do r.ct knD~ what tne HUD reQuirements iTe. but I certainly would not want to see a box tne-re. CprMtjufC'ner tullen: That about describes the HUn r!Quirements. 1 ~nferred from your remarks that ~~ Ms. P1eibel: J was referring to considering maintenance in the future budget for this project. and whether or not 7t would be long-tern, low-rent f10using for seniors. Michael McGrall. es§ lyttpn AYenue. Palo Alto: I am a resident of Lytton Sardens, lytton One, Which is indepe-ndent living. There are some Z5 or ~O of us present tonfgnt , and w! are here simply to sholtt you that there is a drastic need for affordable nousing fQr seniors in this area. You tertainl,)' must recognize t~at lytton Cardens has been I benefit to tn:! cOrmlunH) with thE!" way it structura 1 1y handled the first threE!" buildings that were constructed. The s~me board of director's t.s working on t~is project. I do not understand all the finartcinq or art~itectura1 de-tailSt but J can oniy say tl'lat the board is 7nterested in proyjdfng affordab1e housing for seniors. When you rea1ize that tne facillty at lytton Gardells has i th!"ee~year lI.'.:it1ng 1 ist, you can understand there is a demand. There certai~ly is a need, and it is for 10ca1 reSidents. I would also like to mentiDn that I went into Lytton tardens in 1277. two yeC!TS aft~r it was buiit. At that time, there was a t~o-year waiting list, because J applied 'fr; J975 when it first opened. So I point those things out. and I hope you Wlll understand ,,'hen I do ngt understand tne idea of dcwnsizing the project. Downsizing tc me does not make any sense, providing less housing for se-niors. We need more-f\ousing for seniors. J recognize SOrTie of tne traffic prob1ems, ~tc., but r do hope yo~ understand that we are trying to provide additional, affordable, quality housing for seniors that is drastlca11y needed. Chairman M4rsh: Since r have no ~ther cards from members of the public. I will close the public f\earing and return this item to :he Planning Commission. COlTlTlissioner Christensen: (in 11s.. 'elleher answer the question r had asked earlier? - ZjZ7/91 -ZO- , \. t , , , . I , I • I • j j - - M§. ktllehu: Under our city PC ordinance? your prel iminar), review action tonight Dn this application does not bind yOl.! when you next consider Ule applicatjon an~ make y~ur final revie~ and recommendation to tr.e City Cou~cil. CqlTlTliaioner Hyber~ Several speak.ers t:.a\le al iuded to the prospect of this becoming sometnfng other than a senior housing comp1ex. Can ;t? M$. lytle: It co~Td not without i zone ch3nge, if that were a use restriction of the PC zone. rt could be restrlcted to 'o~·income senior housing through the P1anned Community zone. Co~1ssicner Cu11en: One speaker referred to the date of the housing presently on the property. I wonder if that dating is correct. !f it is correct, has it been through the Historic Reso~rces BoarQ? .hIy personal observation of the housing is that J do not thi'1!, it dates back to tTle time that was mention.ad. Mr. Gilliland: None of ttl! houses i!re on the historic inventory, 50 it wOiJld not have gone before the Historic Resources Board. Chairman Harsh: One of the speakers from the neighborhood indicated that in 1 neighborhood meeting, here belief was that th~re had been mo,e parking places ;ncorpo~ated into the project at an ear1ier stage than there are now. Can staff ci arify t"'at? Ms. Lydden: The higher number of parking spaces were re1itelj to the 64·unit oe ..... el apmenL Chainman Harsh: it is possible to pub more parking spaces :~ thi~ project? Ms. Ludden: Not in the underground parking. We would nave to go to a second story of underground parking in order to do thaL Th'Ose run from a hal f to thre~-quarter$ of a ~il1ion dollars per level. Chairman Marsh: How were you incorporating the parkir!9 in that ear1ier ..-ersion? Ms. Ludde~: I am trying to recall. We carne out farther intO' the setbacks. Ton c.arrasco: 1..,35 at that m~et ifl9. We had the garage entry ur:der tne Uree· story portion of tI1e building. To the credit of the neighborhood, they suggested that we move Hat access to the garage. Jt was the present location of the access that contained t"e additional puking. This access provides better lighting conditions for the elderly to drive up. It transitions frOlll a dark, underground garagE' through the trell is to a much more op!n, brighter space. It is a safer way to do acc!ss to underground parking. That has taken the pace of the old six parking spaces that existed earlier. There are fi ..... e no ... Cnairman Marsh: You did note that you have donE a lot of work in trying to set this project back. IJP towards the six-story building that is ne)(t door. However, irj lCtoking at the plans, my understanding is that all four of these houses are \~. '.' ~ .. 2/27/91 -21- • zoned RHO. or essenthlly. single-family homes. Is that correct? 'YH) from whit I Dbs~nled with the-foU"rth nouse 11 that it ~as il three-story buildin; directly tn its ~ack yard. with very little setback. Ms. ludden: It h set biCk 10 feet. {~ll"""n M.rs~: I theught it lias 20 feet from tn. preperty line to the beginning of th:e first story building in tne front of the lot. Ms. luddtn: It 1S 10 feet from the b.c~ building. The frent plrt is about SO feeL That s!tback from the first hOiJse on everett to the beglnning of the entrance to our project. th! lobby area, is ab~ut 50 feet. Chtirman Karsh: S~ this is 20 feet. Then] have a question for staff. What would be tne setback rPQuired for a building of tnat height under the RM·)O? £mE'S the setbacK for this height and for this angle conform to an RM-3n? Ms. warnell: The required si6e setback would be ten feet for the first story and half the he;ght of the building for every thins over the fic,t story. Chainnan Harsh: So weuld the setback b. ten feet plus? Ms. WaTheit: Ten fe.et of the first story, and then, no part of the building would be closer than half the actu3l height of t~e buiiding, which amo~nts to a 4S~de9ree dily1ight phne. But tt,e first floor could be as close as ten feet, which is half the distanc! that is th~re now. Chairman Marsh: Then for oil three-sto~y building, _nith is what we ha~e at this poi~t. a 36-foot height, we wo~ld have to have a 28-foot setback or an IS-fcot setba.ck.? ~s. W1rheit: Nor for the first sto~y. What we typica1ly see in RM-30 is that they go back 10 feet and they can go up 20 feet at that poi nt. because th' setback i, still equal ef half the height. AT that point. they have to begin going back. farther. The third floor herE-wou1d haye to be set back proba!Jl.:;' where it is now, but the first t .... o floors could be ten fert nearer to the property 1 ine. (~airman ~arsh: My questiJn is. what setback do you have to have for this t~ird fleor? The answer to that i$ 18 feet? Ms. Wal"'tlE~it: Yes 9 ablJut HI feet or half !he height of the building. Commissigner Christensen: Could staff point Qut on the model the places where the variance would be required~ especially in regard to tne dayTight p1ane? Ms. Warheit! There ire two variance issues. One was the parking in tne fror.t yard, and one was the height a.nd day! ight plane intrusi.on. .~" .. . ~r i-_ ., 1/17/9! -11- .'-... ~- t t tt! • Cofn'1'tis'?ipner Christe"g!n: The 36 fu·t .ou1d requ;re i varfanc.e. Ms, War~eit: On I pit:hed room like this, height is measured at tht midpoint on the pitch. 011 ,11 three s:des Clf the three-story walls, the daylight pla"'1: nids of; a little bit of the over~.ng and. littl. bit of t~e dem,er,. That will .11 have to be shrunk. ChAjrman Marsh: To wla.t degree is there; ntrL!sicn ii1tc the daylight plane? It 511S ·s11ghtly, and In adjustment is required.-What does that mean? Ms. Warheit: Zt is net the Entire overhang. But it cannot be built the way it lock.s on the model. By sl ight, r meant to say tint ~rcbab1j1 some dropping of that roof by eYen one foot to accommodate the height prob1em would ~ost'y rEsolve the daylight plane prohlems. It was not the entire o~erhan9 that ~as ~nvol¥ed. £hairman Marsh: Can th~ pitch of the ro~f be 10wered and still accommodate the dormers? Can we build this pr~ject within the height limit substantially wit tId s desi9fl? Chairman Mi:rsh: ~ill it accommodate the height limit? ~~, Cariass:p: Yes, it will. r am not Sure we can get the gutter inside the daylight phne t but we will certainlY try. Chairman Marsh: If that complebs the questions, we are ready to begin discussion of the item. Commissioner Beecham: I would liKe to take a fe~ ~inutes to categorize what we I have heard toni9ht~ I have 1 isted about f;~e major prob'Tems as identified by the pub1;c and the. staff. 1n no particular order, they include sewer, traffic impacts, parking, long·term usage and the mass and fit into the r.ei3tJborhooc:l. We ,1'50 had an 'issue that if we go with a PC, we would have to find a substantial public benefit. That could be Problem '6 to b. ~andled. As we tal. abeut this tonight? we need to keep in mind what are th~ alternatives that we are assessing this against. There is the no-alternative, Tnat is, r,othing happens. E .... erything stays the same. We cannot require tl1at, so ti'1at is rea11y rJot an optio~ far considerat10n tonignt. Another alternative is that it is developed within and under the limits of RM~30, The main limitation of RM-30 for the site .... ould be that it would limited to 18,000 square feet. That would be apprOXimately 12 to ]6 units. d€pending-on their size. So we might use that as a standard for some other opt inns of what ~e mlght expect in the future on the site in this neighborhood. On the problem of the sewer, 'We should clarify that there are two types of sewers. One is the storm drain sewer and the other is the sanitary sewer. What you see backed up in the streets from the rain is the storm drain sew€r~ My understanding is that this site would, in no mate-rial .... ay. affect the storm drain sewer~ except through gutter runoff. Is t~at correct? !C t - - 2/21/91 -1)- " , ,--~,~-',-..... ~ Ms. Warhgft: J be1frve t~at tnere would nat be much more impervious 5urfac~ than you ,",ave now, because !!lost of t lr lot is paved' "enind thE houses. There probably wDuld rot be m;Jch more I"'''uuff soing into the storm 5ewer~ (omissipn,,, Bgecharn: So it does l1Dt affect the pooling that does occur-in that neighborhood. On the sanitar~ s!~er, stiff has ;naicat~d a six-inch sewer ~oing through there that crust be addr-essed by this de\o'eloper or an alternative developer. but it lIust !Je addressed, l;'ld the applicarlt is a\l4ire of that. That is something tnat nas. to be taken care of. but it is not an issue that we need tc ~orry bout, because it must be handled for the project to go forward. The second problem ;s triffic impact. If we compare the project before us witn an RM~30 deove1opment, that is, about 12 to 15 un1ts., J think tne impact 15 about the same, or perhaps e\len less. We have Sl units, an.d if ~.e use-the figures provided in the staff report and discussed tonight about Lytton One, there are ~bout 200 units that have about 80 parking spaces: rounded eff. I f we use tl'lat ratio for 50 Linits, there would be 20 park.ing spacEs n-aeded. We are instead getting approximately SO park.ing spaces. We do have a problem ~n the location. There is II problem w"ith convenient, short-term parking. As CMa i man Marsh Ilentioned. there may be a problem with the emergency parlin; ipaces ava.ila.ble for those vthicles. so that this 1S sometning we dQ need to address. Otnerwise, en parkjn9, tne 51 ~nlts and SO spaces is, in fact~ generous. based on the type of tenant we can e~pect to seE in this facility. Regarding traffic impact, if you look. it the numbers provided' int en staff report about trip generation at lytton Gardens, tho~e traffiC numbers are no greater tna" one w-!>l.Ild find witM lZ to 16 singTe-fami1y, normal units. So for tr.i.ffic impact, we are nat 9'01n9 to see a mass;,lIt (100,<1' in this area CVH and. abG'1'e what could be bui1t in any case, and (lver and abolli what lIIe mignt expect in the future with tk,s land ,f it is n~t gi~en to this project. Fou~~ Qn my list of problems ,s whit happens in the long term. That shQul~ be m~dified by what happens if HUD changes their terrr.s and no longer gi\les. subsidits. ~tc. If HUn ching~s th~ir t~~s and subsidies are nat i.vailacle or the applicant goes bankr-wpt~ e-tC:.9 ~e halle this unit t1ere. and what are we gOlilg to do with it? 1 don't ~now if there ii a.~y ~~y we ,an guara~tee that it remains in the use W~ are discussing tonight. If it goes bankrupt and is taken over by s.o:rle other operation9 'We. Cinnot force the.m to 5.ubsidize i.t. ! don't be1ie .... e~ so there ;s some unknown risk there to think about. In the long term of 50 years, the Ipplicant has indicated that probablY, they feel with a hi~h certainty that they will have control of the property. I do not knolW the basis. for that, but we need t~ think about 50 years. In 50 years, 1 may be i member of thi~ U' t. if His bL ~t. At works 9 I am not gOing to lIIorr)' about it. Our children ""ill have t~ worry about it, and that i$ ~ct someth~n9 to ignore. but we need to think in rea.s.onable terms about the fconomic futurE: of U'le area. fifty years is a reason~b'e le~9th of time to consider. There .. as a150 tan .• bout certa<;nty of funding. If..,e go ilhead wi.tt-. this, it would be limited to this specific application. If funding does not proceed, the .. : L - tew.· 2/27/91 -24- J - app1itltion 1s de-ad. so t do not tf:1ieYe '-I'e wou1<t be g.etUng 'into ~ situ!.tiol'l where we would approve 51 units ilnd then because of fundif'fg. it became condominfums. Fifth on my list ;s the mass and fit ;"to the neighborhood. 'This is the major problem. This unit ;s twice the floor area that would be al1" .... ·ed in the maximum RIll-3D. We roud to address whether this design, e\,-en though not at site ind design tonigr.t, \s approximately what Wi: eQuid 1 'lie "lII'ith: W! !\ave to decide that tonight, or giv! guide1 ines to the ippl icant (l~ how they should go back lind change it. We need to ~p~nd some time o~ that. Jhe last item is ~hether there is signiflcant public benefit. C~n ~e expect that to be tne case? It is ciear that we need more loll'-;1'1come Sf'nior housinCl. There is Ihliays the q\.l:;;st'ion of .... hoarE-does. it go? 1'10 place 'is fier perfe~ct for a: project like this. Aside from the impact on tne neighborhood for i moment, if we think of where a project like this should go, this is exactly where it shculd go. It is near to downtown; you cannot g~t closer to t~e senior center; it is near medical facilities; it is near emergency facilities; it is near transportation; it is near what the seniors neea. It is near Lytt.o~ One in which they can share. So in a generic sense, there is no better place in the City than t\"l'is arel. But what about the neightJorno-Dc? That is the 'Probl~1Tl. We need to address how this fits in with our requirement to protect the single-family nature of the neighborhood. There is always the question of NIMBY --Not in My Back Yard. Sometimes we ha\l! to bite the bu1Tet, and that is one of the issues. That completes the 1 i st. Cnai'r""mi" Marsh: I would lik.e to share with all of you a ccnversatiOr1 I had HiS ifttrnoon that ~iY be cf i~t2rest her!. As ~~ have talked in some of t~e pub1)c discussion, tnere is a proposa1 being de .... eToped r·~ght no ... for the property that sits direct1y behind tnis property fronting on Lytton A .... enue and being de .... eloped by Jkn Baer. I had a con ..... ersation with Him tl'ds afternoon in terms of his plans for that project, and the way in which he might interface t1is pTans for that project, and the "IIay in which he mi ght interface hi s project wi tr. the project we are tcnsidering tOl'1ight. He noted that r was free to quite ,~;m tonight, Jim is currently in the dr:-ve1opment phase of his proposal. He e~pec.ts to break ground in April or Hay Df next year, assur..ing that ti'1ir.g~ go as he antic1pates. He indicated that he is very interested and positiv~ about w'")rking ""ith this project, both in terms of pedestrian access and vehicular access. His plans. although r am rlot pr;~'y to their full scope, include a. very l~rge underground parking lot on t~e whole of the lot that is currently parking lot and building behind this pr~ject. It is the site of the former Blase VaTentine and Klein bui1ding. He be1ieves that in his development, still in the d~ .... elopment stage, he could easily pro¥lde access to the underground parking for this project from the rear. I wanted to talk with Him, bec.:use it is my belief that one of the significant problems for this ~roject is the parking, particularly the need to use tne front yard portion of this project to house a drnpoff, pickup area. I felt that if we could figurf out some different access, we migMt~ first of a11, pro'liide some economies of scale in the building p,;ocess, second1y. be able to get 1/27/91 -15- • " .-~-~--..".,..., , ! ! I I f ~ i I i I ·1 S~ addition,] parking spaces out of it. and third, result in a design that is "DUch aore Iccessiblf! to the r,tighbcrnood ..,hich p'iovides i l1\uch l'I\':)re f'leighbc:'rliocd sca.h .nd design to the front of this bui1dlng. last but Mt least, getting those cars out of the-front yard. Obviously. 'f we 'J;i'af'lt to pU"'~ue that or encourage the develop~r of this pr~ject to wor~ with Mr. Baer, there would be some obstlt1es they would face, as linda luoden has pointed out. Ho~ever! my conversation with Mr. Baer gave me high "'opes that there could' be .. jc,;nt solutton hert to address the parking access issues, making this project ~a(e i lot ~re sens! and complement his project, as wel1~ COlmliuig.n oll ",. huller.: That is \lery interesting, Chairman Marsh. and J think it is wonderfUl. Are th~re any discretionary approva1s needed for tnt! Baer project? Chai'!·Trl.7::i1 Marsh: J am sure there will be. (ornnissioru!r (tillen: So there may be an opportunity to take ~jm up on this offer. Chairman Marsh: 1 think you can safely say that Mr. Baer will probably be very anxious to ~ncorpo~ate any kind of publ ic benefits If{e can hand to l"1im for his project. 'ommissi9~er Cullen: Very good. Commissioner Beecham has t~uched OM just about all the points I had noted. The only other thin~ would say is that ha~i!lg sat on this Commission for 4lmast ten years~ and ha~ins looKed it vario~s senior projects that have ceme bt!fore us and na¥ing seen some of them deve1oped, every one that hIS tome before us has had the same concerns about parK10g and about trlffic. When they have been approved ind built, tnose particuTar concerns havt! ju~t eVi?orat~d. It would hive been gnod fnr t~mmunit) Hcus~n9~ Inc. to have invited the COrmlissioners to tour Lytton Gardens, is we die on lytt{)n Three b~fDre it was built. There is notning like seeing someth)ng that has been bui1t and how it is functioning. If this does get conceptual approval tonight and befoye coming back to us again, I would hope that a11 of tne Comm15s;oners would have an opport~nity to tour lytton Gardens. which we are all very proud cf+ I havt 1 ~ved in this eommllnity 1{.lng enough to k:now that it was a .... ery contro .... ersial proji!ct wh!Tl it was propos~d. h!ow it is one tnat loWe all hail as slJmetfling representing the b2'st ()f this corrrnunity. 1 do think. the par~ing p;oDlems wi11 be taken eire (If through uilderg.ound parking. I s~.ire the concern of the neighborhood that they don't ."ant anymore parking, because there is M more parking on the strei!t, but this project ~as to provije parking on Site. and that He= will be taken tire of. I am a little puzzled ab{)ut the talk about traffic, ~ecause r go down Everett Str-eet fairly frequently, and in the middle of the day there is never any traffic. Perhaps in the p.m. peak hours there is. a~d I am not there at that time, and] don't think these res:dents will be out during t~e p.m. peak hours eitner~ When I drive do'lrin there. if I C'leet orl car. it is unu5ua1. As you get cl~ser to Alma, you do start to meet Cirs there, but I norma11y ~o along Waverley to Everett and 0,.. dOWl1 tD Alma, so I think the traffic problems If,ay be :'L - 2/17/91 -.26- ·1 ---~' '.: •.. ~----. 1 am very conc.erned about the f;nancing, b.ut 1 hive sat as a J·jaisc'1,. along with Cc.m:issioner-Chr1st!~sen to the Pa10 Alto Housing Corp')'ratior'! over the years, and 1 know the kinds of package-s that can be put together. It is usually flnanci~g coming fr"om more than one source -~ two or three source:, inc1uding tax credits frk corpor.tians, whic~ was USi!d in the Calif{lrnia Park. deve1opment, which corporations apparently are just beginning to discover. So th~re is the opportunity for some \li!ry creative fina.ncing packages. As for the PC, which Commlssloner Beetham aT1uded tOt if you approve a ?C~ it is approved with very specific development criteria. If those deilelopment criteria are nCit honored, then you lose you PC approva.l. So in concept, I am in fa'olcr of this project~ I wish it well. They have a lot ~f hurdles to go over, and 1 am ~ery glid to near about the Him Baer po,-;sibillty of access and ad-1itional park.ing in the aTea behind. J .. ould hope that will be pursued aggressively. it sounds liKe he is on a f~;.;ter time 1ine Ulan anyone else 1M town, as he ,always is, so maybe it will be possible to have some of those th;ngs aT~eady i" pTace by the time it co~s back to us. Commis5ioner Christensen: 1 want to express my ambivalence about this project. I, to()~ have been on the CO!m\ission long enough to be one of HtE: people resp~nsible for putting this current zoning ir. p1ace. r know how cGrefu11y we went, lot by lot, to decid~ the appropriate zoning for each individual parcel i~ this part of dDwnt~wn. 1 remember waH:.ing this over many weekends. and tnis particular parcel' was a subject of contro .... ersy .and' turned down a reQuest fjjr rezoning to nigher density since I fla\l~ been Dr} the Corrrnission. Sjj J am ver) sensitive to the issues raised by the neig~bors. That was the reason we chose tne loning that we did to not allow any more than the existing number os units if they were de~e'oped individually, and if they were developed in conjunction ... ith puttfng several properties together, then the density bonus wou1d kick in, aho 'Prograrr, 9 would kick in? and make that deve10pment at least give bad: scme of the rental units tnat would be lost, othe~ise, ;t COUld not be developed at all. Tne tnrust was that it ~ouJd not be allowed to be developed at all. That that housing would stay tnere and C'jr,tinue to be a pa:-t of the low'?r-income rental ho~s'ng stock int he City_ S~ J hav~ verj l!1ixed fe~!ings about this project. 1 nave to say I wou1~ not even begin to consider this project if the financin9 ~acki!:ge does not come through. 50 tonight I am not eager to gh'e i!: blank.et c.onceptual appro~al without tYlng it very carefully to that finanCing padage. I continue to hive concerriS anyway about the rnass1ng and about the impact on this particular street from the project, even as current1y designed. ~lthcugh J fee] that they have done a fantastic job with what they have had to work with. It probably fits about as well as .51 lJnits in 36,000 squ;,re feet could fjt and stili look unmass;'oIe and residential in character. So r am torn about this. Commissioner Glalirr: Commission!r Christensen has put it very well. I, too, am very ambiva1ent abolJt tnis. Fro~ a conceptual standpoint, I rec~gnized that there is i tremendolJs demand for affordable senior housing in this cOl'!l$unity i!!'I,d ' ... 1"'"'[' " •• -:-"C""'.· -_..,_r_' --.' -.-." II • 1. L //27/91 -17· I I I L- I \ ., '.\ . . - i i ! i \ \ \ · ..•. in ever)' CO!Mn~nit.) '1'0 the b,3Y i. "o .... e~er. thi!n are i cou?:e of 1HIJeS, ~art1cu1ar1y the mass ind fjt 1! "that rea11y trDub1e me. The way 1 am coming down tonight tonight is tnat I Clo not want to del'ljl this cor:ce.otu .. i application btCiUs.e th-e deRllnd is just too great. What l s~e before me, designwise, t like, but It I •• llttl. bi9. Some of the .rchit.ctur.l .lement. that have been b"ilt il')to it ... ill make it fit. I am concerned with tnt nr.atlc:i"~h and that WMat we see before us six to twelve mOuths d~wn t~e road is not w~at ~e see in front of us tonight. So r .ou1d net war.t to somehow tonv!y that I am in favor of any project of .ny kind that looks any ",y on this sit •. Jt could very 0.11 be th.t I. project comes bad:. to us six mCf1ths down th! 1 ioe tha.t is sl,Obshnt;ally diffe"l"'ent and dtits not fit in as well as that D!'I! does. I will sa)' now that 1 wCl11d not be surprised if. it that pOint, I decid!d not to appro'!E' it. But for ill the-reasons that COlTlTlisJ;loner Be-eti'lam menticlH!d. it is il"!;rortant. from Cly persp~ctive, that ~e push it ahead it this stige and allow the parties to go aheac ind investigate how we can br;n9 this thing t~ fT~tti~n. Commissioner Uub .. ~.r; I think. the pOints ma.de by ltirtual1y everyone here so far havE' be-en exttl ient. i wish! could figure out 110"111 to vote ambiva1ent1y. I find' the iS5ue to be one of bulk, nothing e1se. 1 don't th~nk traffic is i probJ€m. Park.ing i.s a little prnb1em bu.t it can be dea1t 'JI'ith. As r lOoOk at tnis, I t!''';n.1::. 'it is bu1k. \i£'rsus wh!theT" ,)'0\.1 k.eep face with tnt! neighboThoCld a.nd the zoning that was appl1ed, as COl"Mlissioner C·brlstensen sa~d, after i let of pair;stak1ng worle SometfmE's there is a tendency to look at project liKE' this. lco~ at the zoning, look.. it the large i!.partment Dui1ding and' sa)', oh "Well. it is el1 UleTfo and it is ill 90i~9 tnat way anyhow. C1!ar1y, w~ need the housing. 1 do nat ~now how to stitt thit J wou1d lfke t~ se! a smaller, fiscally capable project combe bac~ to us. It is possible. perhaps, through some tie ~ith Jlm Baer b~cause of the way he funct~ons that we m~ght be able to get somethin9 that vil1 work. ThlS is a 1arge project, C"on5tderi.~ RM-30" laning, so I ha~e tnrown in .en_v ambfva1ence. J like the concept of senior nousi~9 and I certainly would like tc see it smaller than it is, bulk.wiS~t lind clu.r1Yl I do f'lt'>t lH:.~ the ~oe-a of parking cut if. th~ fro"" yard. Chainl\!l' Ha,...sh: I am going to go eff on a tu.gent, "hid 1 shOUld tla~e d.one earJier. "'There are 12 rtnta1 units 0:1 this site, fronted by tr.ree h<Jmes. Dii ..... e knolfll ~ow many bedrooms are in tnose ~omes? (ND) lrI'hat 1 am wandering is whether it is feasib1e it all to take the same lease for th,s property and put seniors into the homes that exist ther! in the rental u~its and in the bedroom of these homes. I wOlJ1d suspect you could get probabTy 15 to 20 :s-eniors easi1y accommOdated in those homes without building i ver~ 1arge structure. Can I ask the appl)cant if that is anything you ha\lE" e\leT thought about. Hr. Koch: That is something tnat CHl, as. iii body, is net interested lr .• providing moderate·?rice~ rental units. Chafrman Marsh: Do you believe the wou1d be moderate1y priced due to the amount of the lease igrtement that you a-;eady have. even without expendit~res for the ~reation of a building? ~e freQ~ently hear of the shared housfng projects that exist within the community. lt would certainly be wonderfu1 t~ make this into "--_ .... _-----. --..'". - 2/27/91 -28- "~" · ". -.;~';':".'~' -:> .. " :·~~"~jt ..........•. . ----_ .. ,,--- iI nice, shared ho-,:s'TlS proje-ct for sellioT's. Mr Koch: It wouid appear that the rent levels are around 5625 per bedro~~. witho~t any subsidy at all, is it is rig~t now with no improvements. there are 11so the feder.' handicap and access regulations tnat would need t~ be included I the existing buildiogs. Ms. ludden: In th~ existing ~ous.s. the firot floors ar. typical1y abcut three feet off the 9round, so you would ave to hOI..,.! ramps ii!rid handica.p lifts. You have to meet federal ac~eS5 regulation. Chairman Marsh: That is if yeu get federil money. Ms. Ludden: Right. but even if you renovate it at all, once you do that you have to meet tne current bui'ding codes. You could not deal with th~se properties witheut doing s:Jbsta.ntial renovatlons. Just fer the pradica1ity for se~ior living, they hive to be accessible witn ramps and you wouTd have to nave some lifts. So you wo~ld nave renovation e~pense. Chqirnan Marsh: I rea.1ize that mignt sound like iii .... acky idea on tne surfacf!, but it 1$ something that might be worth some fllTther thought, as there are 50m~ renovation monies available from various sources tnat mtght be ~ortn pursuing. Renovation would certainly be a much cheap~r ~ption than building an underground garage and i large, 51-unit building. I share the ambivalence already expreSSEd toward this projec.t. When we zoned this parcel RH-30, it was the very, very ma.ximum that we agrEed upon at that time t~at we wo~'d ever contemplatE. If we were reloning this parCEl today. it would ne~er be rezoned' RM-30. 1t would be rEzoned RM-15. In fact, this Commission and Councfl, ;~ ~arious actions over tne ,ou~se of the past few yea~s, has even refused to put MR-1S next to ~ingle-f.arnily housing. We have put R-2 next to it in stmihr s1tu:ations. This is a little dif(er~nt since it does: back. up to a high fntensit} use on the one end, but these homes are very small that function as s;ngle a family homes. So you have a situation where you have generous zoning to bagin with, and a prop~sal to exceed that loning in terms of square footage by 100 percent. I do not have a problem with the way in ~hicn this projEct ha~ been designed. I think you have done as gaod a job as one can do in massing it toward a 'very large bullditlg. The problem is, is already stated by eyeryone, that you are forced to try and 92t 36,000 square feet on a lot tnat probably should have only 18,000 square feet en it. I am going to go th.rough the issues very briefly. I am not quite iLS serene as Cottmlssioner Cullen is rega.'rding the parking. She noted that in the senior projects ~e have reviewed, parkin9 has not been a problem. 1 do no think that ;s the case. If you remember. Webster House w~s bui1t with assurances that the p~rking was adequate there. Se~eral years Tater, Webster Hause returned to us and said, we have miscalculated andawe have to tear down the nouse next door. -L 1/27/91 -29- 1 , i f .. I I t it I. tru~ th~t it is ~j9~-in<o~ .nd it .l~o !"Co~p.rltts som~ '.sidenlia1 ear. fatlllt; •• , ~'I the porting sIlll "c'.a'd the •• pectations_ lytton Garaens, in the ... tori.l w. have o.,fQr •• S, not.5 thet its 30 '.ploy •• , parking tn, the n.i~hborhOOd. So "e h.,. c, .. t"d another sHuitlon thore in .. mien • senior ~ •• slng ~r'J.ct "nJ.r'$t;m~t.o it. n~.d for parking. 4 •• "'.'t, it Is th~ neighborhood lhH Is ·".-dating the CirS of ;0 '''~)o)foe$ of tytt~n Garaens. So I am not Willing te make t •• many 'CCommOd~tiQn$ 0" tM~ Varkinq for thi, PtOjo,t. Simply bec.u.e if it do,. not ~ork, there i, 00 platt else fQr th~ t~rs to go. 7nere 3rt no hou,e. next door tnat ~4n b< to~n ~Qwn, .s i" the ta.e of web,t., Hous.. s. ~e mu,t ma~e ~ure tn~t tne ~Arkl"g i; la.qu~t. at th!~ ,ito. I 11'0 think the Varkin9 nU'b,r. may be .omowhat diff.rent f'~m the .'P.ri'~ce at lytton One, 'impl, b".II5. th~r. i. no food 5erviee b~ing P>ovidea on the ,He of Lytton four. That m~'n. th.t the ,. •• i<lents of th.t f"jJity must go ovt somopl •• _ to ~"y f •• ~ or t. naYe me.". They tln do .o~. of tnat do~"town, b"t if they are gOing to took at n""",, th.y .. u,( g>t to • full service grOCery $tore. aM they aMot "". to th.t .lnQ of f.C;) ity. 1 .1'0 have • real pr.bl.~ with the access. 1 Co not f •• , we have 'CCo~od.t .. a emtrgeney vehi(l.,. ihe,. parking pl., •• are meant for parking Cars, .s are ~h. P" kin ll plot .. On the left-hand Sid ..... ,t for (l'rooPing Mr. !t is "~r:f 1; ... 11 that When an ·~rger.cy vehicle. arriVes, thr~. will not be r~om for th~m t. turn around. At th~ very l, •• t. an ~m.rge"<y '."iclt. would POs,lvly b~ ~bl. to pull in, very li~.Jy blo~ki"9 the nr, thH ar •• 1'>8(1)' P'"'~d there. Si"c~ 1 ha"e n." •• seen a par ••• 'll' tome On lts .1<", .. hit ~o are Ytllly talking .ooot i, • phce for a fite tr~,~ or a plate for a po);" t", .n<;j ". have r,OI all.wed if, this a •• ign f., th~;. "oh;,1... Lytton On. ho •• differ.nt Situation ~ecav •• tb., •• you h ••• • dri'eway th.t yo" pull in and O.t of "nd ther. is room in that driveway for Car. that hopoi. to b. on business at the ra,iJity, '$ well .s for the e"'.rg~ney •• hit1!!s. Als •• it is " 1009 ."ough dr;vew.~ to at,."".d.te • fjr~ trvtk. u I nlYe seen fire truds parked in it Many, mini n", ••. So, ~$ic.lly, 1 h ••• the s.me cO~Pl.;nts everybody .1$' ooe~ about the ~"oJ.tt. 5~nior hous'.g is absol ut.ly aM ad~ir.bl. 1"ue, .nd Sowething t~.t WO verI M"ck nted within the Cit"... It is $Omet~ing that tQu1d b •• tcO",,"od,:ed •• 11 with;" the neighborhoOd. It i. • 90ed 10t.tion f" it. A". 1 thin~ it H reHonabl. for the n~i9r.l>orhooq to ma" some aC('t!1!lQdHiQrt to provide senior hOO,i"9, but in t~l, , •••• ~. are PU'hiog on to~ many fro~! •. w •• ro PUShl"~ on the n'ssing; we are DU,hing on tht parkins; .e at. P"shi~g an the dropeff ,cees, are.. The tne think th.t eould Sa't t~i. project, to my way ot th;"<i"9, is if~. get ~tc';$ ,. thi! prQPerty ;"corponoted 'n til. development of the B.er prOJeet ~'"i"d it. [f we 'an tak~ '.re of the a,c.ss i's.es, take c.re of the Par, jog i,su.s, t><. tare of th_ droporf, reeteate the f""t of tMi. b"l1~jog so that there is ~r ... there. there;' • phce for resiaent. to Corne ovt .n<;j ·;"""cI "i:~ P~opl. "ho are walkins do.", the slr •• t, thr •• is & 'on,. thH yov or. not "'1<1"2 NH Car, that ore parked right ne.t to tno $i4 .... lk, !>~t .'e ".lbn 9 pan. V" ilain 9 that hi. • 'esidentj.l fe.l, th.~ ." ~;.ht get to • point "her. we co" 1.ok H til. bull: of thi, prOj •• t ana Hy ;t is ... hat II~ wlnt te d~ httause .e WaM <e"for hOusing in til_ neighborhood, Without talinS tart of these iss~es it) the front of the bUildiNg, r c.ul<i not ~"pp.n this prOject. IIj ,o'wersa! ion with J,m Ba.r . Z/V!9) -30- - , , I \ 9~ve .e great hopes toda1 that that is something that CQu1d b! &ctommooit~d. I 'WOuld be willing to approve thi.s tonight, predicated liith instructions that the developer of this project work Wlt~ the developer of the back project and return to us ~1th ~ eOdc~pt that incorporates access to this project thr~ugh lytton GaTdens that cleans up the front of this project~ that takes the parking off the sidewi'k.~ and that pnsent-s I. front (If the bui1ding that has .. scop-e and sca,1e that is residential in feel and C~iracter~ ~~ Comrn1ssioner Bee~ham: (move that tne Commission conceptually ap~rove the proposed Planned C.omillunity ZOne ct'liilge al,d fONUd the appHcation to the Ar<hlt.,t"r.l ~ .. iew Board; .10ng "ith that approval, that we direct the app1icant to ha .... e sincere discusston wit~ their back "yard nelghbor to resolve the issues at explained on the grade level parking and emergency access. ~: By Co.missioner Sl'2ier. MonON PASSES: Chairman Marsh: Is there any further di scussion on t.t'lis motion? tOlTl7lissipngr Cullen: I just want to add ol'le tMr..g that get a litt1e fuzzy in the disc~ssion that the HUn financing might be withdrawn from this project at some time. If tb, HUD financing 9!ts withdrawn from thiS. project. Lytton Gardens will be in danger, as that is HUD~financed too, alons with a bunch of other proje~ts around town, so ! do not see the thr~at of HUO fl~ancing. once it is in p1ace, in the samt light as the fears that hava been expressed. C~mmissi9ner Chris'tenSfn: I am not concerned in the long term about HUD financing. 1 am concerned that it is ~lear up front that this project is going TlD'Wt,ere ..,ithout the HUD financing Dr .some equiva1ent financ'ing. Chairman Marsh: I would reiterate that the accesS issue i~ essentia,l to the appr~vil of this project, eventually. MOTION PASSES: Chairman Karsh: 15 there any fvrther discussion on this motiDn~ The moUon has been made to concf:!'ptual1y appr'OV'e the project before us. encQuraging Q~ urging the deV'eloper to initiate sincere discvssions ~ith the baCKyard neighbor, ~1th the expectation that when the project returns, it will have hopefully resolve the access parking lssues that are now presented in the prcject. All those in favor. sat Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote to 5~O, with CQmmission~r Hirscn absent. ihis win next travel to the Arc:hite,tl.lral Review Board. and there ... ,,11 be 1 renoticing for both the ARB and the next P1anning tommlssico meeting. I assume we expect tne access issue to be worked {lut even prior to going to the Arthitectural Review Board. !,I.e ""auld wa.nt to s.ee the plans developed along those 1ines prior to scheduling it for the Architectural Revie~ BOi~d. --,c·(C,,·c", .... ",-'--~'~" '.:~. ;':: - 2/17/91 -31- -,' ".,',,"," , " '. ' \ • ._-- p Ci !':)~ ~OBt:, PAl.O AlTO. CA!.I'O/lNIJ. ~")OJ TO: PAl~ ALTO fLAHIIING COMMISSION PREPARED B': virginia ~arheit FlLE NO.: 90-EIA-55, 90-ZC-17. 90-ARB·19S DATE: F.bruary 22, 1991 PROJECT INFORMATION loca.tion: Appl~cant: Property Owners: REQuested Action: PROJECT SUIWIRY 324-340 Everett Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 CC1IJI11Jnity Housing, Inc Ca~rasco & Assoclates, Architects ]20 Harnf1ton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Th~ Martin Revoc~ble living Tr~st T~omas J. Martin, Partner 2345 Vale Stroet Palo Alto, CA 94305 Zone Change from ~~-30 Multi~le Family District to PC Planned Community District Tn~ applicant proposes to change the zoning for the three parcels at 324~340 Everett Avenue from RM-30 to PC Planned Commun1t) in prder to accommodate tne development ~f a Sl-unit below-market-rate senior residence project. The proposed strutture is a three-story wood fra~ bu~ lding with 52 l.H'1derground parking spaces and an additional 5 spaces at grade. There are 4S studiO units and 6 one-bedro~ units. The housing will be for independent seniors with low-and very Tow-incomes .... ho are not in need of assisted li'w'in9 services. The on-site staff will be limited to cn~ dayttme office staff person a~d one resident managt:-r. Tnt! reSidentia1 ,project will be affiliated witn the existing Lytton Gardens faci1ities, a~d the resid~nts of the propose~ project may tike advantage of the ex;st!ng recreation and social services being provided there. RECOMMENDED ACTION Staff re~o~nds that the Plinnin9 Commission Qddress the policy Questions and other issues ra.ised in this rEport~ conceptua11y approve the proposed Planned Communlty Zone change, and forward the application for Architectural Review Board review. SITE INFORMATION Parce lSi ze: Assessor's Parcel Number: Existing Zoning: PCSR33DE/vw .' . j II n >:::;'" ,'"' /,,-;;": "~~\ ." - 30,000 square fe.t 120-14-046,047.048 RH·30 .Medi urn Dens it)' MlJl tipl e-famlly Residential Page I - Coepreh~nsfye Pl.n Designation! DensHy: Existing lind Us.: Surrounding land Us.: Hi.tcry: Mandatory Action D.t.s: [nvirDnmenlal im?lct Asses.sment: AHAlYSlS Prcject Descrlption Muitfple-FI~i'y RE~ide~til' aaximU3 30 units per Icre 12 residtntial rental U~;t5 Tne block flee directly acress Ev~rett Street is zoned RH-30 Multiple-Fomily .nd is ,urrently. occupied by fl •• two-story apartment buildings, ind thre~ vacant parcels. Adjacent to the east is a five-story Ipartment building. On the west tne site borders .n RMD(NP) district wit' three !~~gl!-f~ml'Y h~mes and one sma11 two·story apartment buildillg. To tne-south at the rear of the property is I commercial slte and a public parking lot. Pre1f~inar'y review by the Architec:tu!"al Review Bo.rd (ARB) occurred ~'J 3, 1990 (summary minute, Ittached) . 1he application .as filed on December 18, 1990. Ii. Notice of ri"ll:omp1ete Applinticn was issued (Hi January 17. 1991~ and the appljcation was dee~d cOlTIj)lete on January 28, 1991. T'e Planning Commission s~all hold i public hearing within gO days of t~at oate. If the Phnnin9 COllll1ission Icts favorabl) in its initiil review of the PC Planned Community appl1cat1on, tne development plan shIll then be submitted to tnt Art~ltecturi1 Review 80ird for review. 1hf development p'a~, is ap~roved by the Archtiectural Revie ... Board. is the~ returned to the Planning Commission for final Pl~nn;r.9 Commission re~iew and recommendation before submittal to t~e City Count;l for final .,tion. An Environmental Assessment and I Ne9ative Deciaration of no significant environmental impact has been prepared lnd i5 attached to this report. The appli,ant Is proposing to construct 51 units of below-market-rat. housing for independe:1t living for seniors with low and ver,Y low inc:omes4 In order tn accommodate tnis development, the~ are requesting the rezoning of the property frem It. present 4.signation of RM-30 to PC, Planned Commu"ity. The applicant, Commun;ty Hou$ing. Inc .• is tne nonprofit corporation which operate' the existing lytton Gardens sonicr residentill complex It Middlefield ROld Ind Unive~sity Avenue. There tl currently i wait of approximately two year. for the .~b.idiz.d, Independent llv1,g units at Lytton '.rdens I. The - new preject is being proposf(1 in or!:fer to help address this urJl'~et I'lous.in; need. I" order to keRp the p""!!'nts as. low is possible. the ap~l iti.nt intends. to apply for Hou£ing an~ Urban Development (HUD) financing for tne project. The r.levent HUD housing fini"Ce programs are only available to projel':ts of 5,y or more unfts. hence tne propos~d 51:e of the project. The applicant considers thE proposed site partftularly desirib1e for this project, becaUSE the =anacement, miintenince and resident services of thE nearby Lytton ~ard!ns program could be shared by the new project, thus achieving economies of scale. In addition. the site is near Downtown, Johnso~ Park and good transportation s.rvie.s. Th. applicant h.s a l.as. option on the land ohich IIou16 make the lind available at an affordable annual rite for SO years, at which time title passes to Comm~nity Housing, Inc. In the following chart. the site development standards being proposed are compared with standards for tne current RM-30 Zone deSignation and also with RM-40 standards. PROJECT COMPAAISON WITH CURRENT O~INANCE REQUIREMENTS floor Area Max1m!Jl'J1 ISg. Ft·l FAA H.Ight Oensit,l Parking Proposed 36,000 1 1.221 36 1 51 507 4 RI1-30 All owedl 35 1 212 82 3 Required 18,000 .6 RI1-'O All ,.edl 35 1 30 2 82 3 Requi red 30,000 1.0 Does not i~clude approximately 4,000 square feet of unused fourt~ floor eQuivalent area. 2 3 4 rneludes 15 pfrcent density bonus for belew-market-rate units+ Director of Planning is permitted to reduce by 50 percent for elderly housing. Inc.ludes S t.andem parking spaces in the garage BaCkground The Planned Community Zone Change application is rEquired to follow a process whereby it is given preliminary review by the Planning Commission. Tne public Mlrill9 scheduled for Feb""ry 27, 199!, is intend.d for this purpose and is the subject of this report. Should the Commission oet favor.bly at this initial reyi~1 ~re detailed design plans are then submitted to the ARB fer its rec.ommendations. Tn! development p1an. as approved by the ARB. is thfn ret~rned to the Planning Commission for its fina1 review and recommendation before submithl to the City Ccuncil for fin.l Iction. PaQe '3. .,(, ',~: ~]: .:--'-1_; ;;,~~~,~ ,-''''' - Prior t~ m!xing I final ipprovil recommen~ltion to the City Council. the Planning tomm;S5ion 15 required to ~ake specific d!te~initions r~91r6in9 the project ir.d to .ppro~e an environmentl~ determ1nat1~n. specifi~ developme~t program statement, d~ve'opment p'ln lnd de~e1opment s~hedu1~ that wi1' becomf t~e basis for the site-spfcific regulltion5 to be lppl1e~ within the proposed PC Pllnned CCNZIDIlJnity lOl'l.e distri.ct. An estimated timeHne for the processing is IS follows. Feb",.r] 21, 1991 Karch 21, 1991 April 24, li91 May 20. 1991 ISSUES TO 8E RESOLVED Initial Planning Commission revie~ ArchitectuYi1 Reyif~ Board review Final Planning Commission revie~ City (ounei' revi~w The proj!ct designers are prop~sing I secured gite it t~e rear of the property to a110w reside~ts I convenier.t pedestrian connection to Downtown via Florence Street and. shorter route to the Senior Center 01"'. Bryant Str-=-2L Th~ ~ possibility has i1sQ been riised abolJt ~roviding i public path along one side of the prDpert~ from [verett Avenue through to lytton Ayenue. to provide a midblocK pedestrian link from the resident;,l n!ighborhood to Downtown via r10rence Street. This route hiS been identified by the Urban Des~g~ tOlm!ittee is I desirilb1e cross·uis c.onne~tin9 the residentiii r.e'ighborl1ood radth the commerciil distric.t. with the op~ortunitJ for I speciil terminus at University Avenue Jnd F1Clrenc:e Street. The ipplicant is not proposing such a pub)it patt': through the site, largely due to concerns that this would compromise security. Another impediment to the creition of a pedestrian path for either residents or for the publ,c is that the path wou1d require an Eisement across the privatel) owned ~arcel It 32J·325 Lytto~. ~nic~ liel bet~een the project site and lytton Avenue. The app1icant states that the Owner of th~t site is considerin; redevelopment. but tne plans ire very prt~;mi~ary Ind he is net prepared to coordinate the development of the two sites ~t tMis time. Because of time lilti'ts on their hise optinn for the 1and. the applicant car,not delay tne1T project to coincide with a future de~elopment on tne neighboring sit~. Parking and Traffic 1he pr{lposfd S2 underground parking space-so including flve tandem parking 5p~C~S, are ex~ected t~ be adequate for tne reside~ts a~6 staff. A sur~eJ cond~cte~ in June. 1989, by Lytton Gardens staff Df lute ~se at Lytton Gardens (see It~lched). found that only ,bo~t ~ne·f~uTth of the resideols had CaTS, ~nd tnat the iverage frequency Df residents ~5ing their Clrs was about 15 peT'(.ent per diY. Becluse of this low freQuency of auto use, the five tlndem parking spaces being proposed in the 91r~ge may be expected to be assigned to resident5 who ~se their cars ver1 infreQuently. The number of spaces being proposed exceeds the number recommended for senior ~ousing in Time Saver Standards For Residentiil Development by De Chiara. This source recommends the number ef parking spaces fer elderly housing should b. 15-50 pc ,ent ef the number of units, more if the housing is far from public trinsi~ and , • , " .~ ".~ ~"':~~'.." ~ .... : ... ~~ •. ~ , .':j-l"f_' i 1 I amen1ties t and Tess if the housing fs con~eni~ntly ioeated to transit and services, IS is the cast wit~ this propcsed site. Four guest parkins spaces and one drop-off space are being prov;ded at grade. This say ~ot be adequate to accommodate visitors and the expected higher incidence of emergency ve~icles. The applicant believes thlt ill the spaces being provided in the qarage will not be needed for residents' cars and some of these spaces can be made ifa;l.cle for guest5~ such as fgr family m€mbers who visit regularly. One of the at-gl"ade guest parking spaces shou1d be a handicap space and some b~cytle ~'rking should be pro~id~d. Tht T!'"ansportation Division has determined that the expected increase in the number of daily trips generated by 51 senior hous'n~ units ~il1 be considerably less tlian tlie 100 add't~or,al trips wh~th would have been expecte~ from the same n~mber of family unit~. Even an additional 100 trips per day would not represent ill Significant increase in the amount of daily traffic on Everett Street nor in significant PM peak hour trips. ConseQuently, the prcposed project is not exp~cted to s~9nifi:antly increas~ tr.ffic i~ the neigh~orhQod_ Variance Required The fou~ guest parkin; spaces 1~cated in th~ front yard will reauire a variance. The PC Planned Community ordfnance reQuires the front yard of tnis projrct to meet the front yard requirements of the RM-3Q zone across the street. The req~ired lO-foct setb~ck has been ~et. Howeve~, p~T~in9 except for required access to the sit! is not allowed in the front yard. The 9u~st parking spaces must be moved oiJtside t/'le reQui red front yard, Or a variance must b. granted. Tnis project is required by the PC Planned Communlty ordlnance to compl) wlth the setbac~ ind daylight plane requirements of the adJacent RM-30 and RMD zones. The proposed design s1ightly exceeds the allc)I,,"ed height and daylignt p1ane. Tha height most be reduced by one foot to a maximum 3S feet, :~~ t~e eaves and (lormel's must be adjusted' so that th.ey do not ex.tend into daylight plane, or a variance must be granted. Architectural Design The building has been deSigned to incorporate architecturi.1 elements of the wood frame vernacular single-family residences in the nearby neighborhood, with wood siding, divided wlnd~ws~ 10w pitched roof and deep overhangs, dormer wlndow$, tre11ises an~ a front porch. The b~i1dip.g massing ii arranged so that the three-story portion is 10c.te~ .long the e.st and south sides of the site. which are bordered by an existing five-story ij:lartment but1ding and a commercial ~ite. The building massing steps down to two stories and to an opeT'i courtyard to ... a.rd the we!.t, __ hire the site is idjac.ent to s,ng1t-firr,ily residences. The bui1ding includes a library and a community room opening off a south-facing CI>U1'tyud. There a:re also sittirl9 rooms ind decks 01'1 the third floor. The ne~d for recreational and social ireas in thi~ building are reduced by tne proximity to the Se~;or Center and tMe lytton Gardens complex. Additionally, HUe d~5i9n standards limit tn~ site imenities and special desig~ features yhith are a.llowed in HUD·funded projects" For eXimph, such features is overhanqs, dQrmer windows and amenity areas in excess of 5 percent of the PCSR330[!vw J L -- "~t\ ."~ .~" L - re!lt'ab1e spice must be paid for wi tn some other source (If fundi ng, and an excess Df such features will be counttd Iga~nst a pr~ject's eligibility for fundinS·1 Host of the sih is currentl~ pilved for driveways and parking. Tnere 11"2 two trees en the sit!' whiCh will be r~mcr",ed, ("ediT trees approximately 14 inc.hes In dia.et~r. Trenty-~ight new trees are proposed. The des;gn prov;d!s lO-foot-wide side Ylr<j .etblcks, rotn,r than the 10 feet required by ordinance. These wider side yards will provide suffi~ient space and root voluae to lecommodate mfdium Ind 1arge trees, so tnat t~e total tr!'e canopy for the site cln be significantly inc.reasl!'d over what is pres2ntly existing. PubHc Benefit T~e obj!'ctivE of this proposed project is to provlde re~til housing to seniors witn 10w-and very low-incomes. TnI!' applicant \s pursuing a financin9 str.tegy which will provide unit. that Ire .fford.bl. to this target group, One of the fi~ancin9 options being con3id~red ~ou1d include some funding from t'e City of Palo Alto, possibly using funds from the housing mitig.tion il'l·lielJ fees, in conjur.ction .... ith funding from St .. te a'!",d Fed!n1 Ho~sing pr~9rams {see tpplicant's summary of finzncing a1ternatives attached}. The applicant is c1lrrtnt1J fSnalizing their fjnanciil pro~o~il and ~ill be prtsentir.g it to t~e City Council for approval. It is anttcipated that the funding p~oposal will be presented to the Commission and Council prior tc f;n~l City Council actiQn on the Pianned Community lone proposal. At tnis time, the Planning Commission should revle~ the project onl1 on tne baSis of lind use anri sit. planning considerations, understanding that a primary public benefit of this projtct is thf serving of low-and ~ery low-income s!niors. Comprehensive Plan Compliance Tne u,.s and sit. development regulations within the proposed PC Pl.nned CDmmunity district ~ust be det~rmin!d to be COMsistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The objectives of the Comprehensive Plan considered most pertinent to t~is proposal are the following policies and programs of tnf HOUSing Element. P\:llicy 6: Maintain it hut the present number of rr,wltiple·family rental units whlle working to increase the overall supply of ~enti' housing. Program 9: For any residenti.l development in multiple-familY zones .,."icn causes the 10.$.5 1:lf renU,l housing units. subdiviSion approval ~y be gral'lted if any two of the f0110win9 three circumstances iTe met: provide ]00 percent more units; replace the ~x;st;n9 nymber of rentil units; provide not lesl than 20 percent below-market-rate units. Program 15: Provide zoning f1exibility to encourage the de~elopment of smaller units affordable to low-and mDderate~income persons. Policy 8: Encouragf and foster i diversity of affordable housing opportunities for 5!'nior citiz!'ns. i7l,h ng hOlJsir.g ... hidl may provide a ~ariety of strv1ces for specli1 health, socli1 and transit netds. PCSR33DE/vw Page 6 L -, • t • I • 1 t i • I - Policy 1]: En,oura~e an~ participate in low-and mod€rate-income housing programs fi~anced by 1~ci1 ~nd other l~~els of go~ernm~nt. It is stiliff's opinion that the proposed project furthers these hOI.!-;Hlg objectives. Even though th~ project will net in~olv! a subdivision and is therefore, not subject to t~e conditions of Program 9, it exceeds a11 thrfe conditions of Program 9 by increasilig the nL!mber (If rental units -on the site from 12 to 51 lJnits, and b.,)' pro~icing 100 perc!r')t of He units affordab1e to 1ow-and ~dercte-1ncome persons. The unit~ are small studios and ~ne-bedr00m units (420,694 square feet) s\litable for senio!"5 with limited incomes. The lo~ation of the project, near Downtown, the Senior Center, lytton G2rdens, Johnson Park. ind tranSit facilities, will pro~idf housing which meets the special needs of seniors. The :project is designed to take ad ... ar~tage of rederal and State funding programs. with application being made far a HUD Section 202 construction loan and Section a rent slJ.bsidies. or alternatively, app1icatiofi for a State Rental Housing (or.5truction Program 10an and syndicated funds. FINDINGS Not applicabl! for an initial review. CONDITIONS Reconmended conditions wnl be provided for the COllVilission at fil'lal review of the appl i«tion. ATIACItHENTS Project Plans Deyelopment Program Statement from the App1icant Summary of Automobile Usage at lytton Gardens Summary ~;nutes of the ARB prel~minary review of Kay 3, 1990 lytton IV -Financin~ Alterniti~es COP:ES SOO TO Architectur~l Review Board Carrasco & Associates) 120 Hamilton Aven~e. Palo A1to~ CA 94301 The Martin Revocable llvil'l9 Trust, 2345 Yale Street, Palo Alto? CA 94306 Nancy Pleibel, 301 Bryant Court, Palo Alto, CA iony Badger, 38: Poawtnorne Ayenue, Palo Alto, CA Jim Cesari, 238 BrYint Street, Palo A1to, c.4. Joe MeYErs, 301 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA Ralph Cressman, J~O Everett Ayenue, Pa10 Alto, CA Andrew Gottlieb, 309 Bryant Stre.t, Pilo Alto, CA lora Smith, 162 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA Anne Robinson, Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA Kathleen Craig, 10) Woverley Street, Palo Alto, CA Marvin H. feinstein, P. O. Bo. 1461, Palo Alto, CA Jim lIorley, 160 WaYerley Street, Palo Alto, CA lrv Brenner, 250 Byron Street~ Palo Alto, CA Dorothy Herri.m, 365 tverett Avenu., Palo Alto, CA .,,-~~;?'-:" "'J:' .. - . ! i ~ I 1 I . , '1 I I l I ~ ) • Thursday, May J, 1990 8:00 A.M. Civic Center 250 Hamilton Avenue Council Conference Room Palo Alto, california A. ROLL CALL Soard Members Presp.nt: Board Members Absent: Marni Barnes Aino daRo.sa Michael Lyzwa Jon Schink Shirley Wilson None It is noted that ~on Schink steppad ao~~ and did not vote on Item II.9 (560 waverley Street). Staff Present: B. ~PPBOVAL OF MINUTES Gilliland (through Item 11.5), ~ansen (Items 11.5 , 11I.3), Lytle (from Item 11.3), and Warheit AprilS. 1999 Minutes -Approved, 5-0, as written ~ith the following change: -for page 13, Iterc. 11.14 {130 Lytton }.ve/Design Engineering Systems): Shirley Wilson added the following sentence at the end of the item: "Shirley Wilson opposeC approval ~ecause she vas DOt sattstie4 with tbe design so~ution although she 4i4 not otljeet to the screen.1I Ap~il 19. 1990 Minutes -Approvec, 5-0, as ~ritten ~ith the following changes made by Shirley Wilson: -on page 10, Item !I.6 (529 Bryant/251 UniversitY·/Premier Properties): Ms. Wilson noted that the comments made by Pat cullen were ma~e as an individual, and did not necessarily represent the thoughts of the Planninq Commission. Therefore, in the second paragraph, "and the Planning Commission are n should be deleted. 5/3/90 Page 1 CG ,5 r f , , ~. s. - J 30 EYbRtTT A VEmJl: Carassco , Associates 90-ARB-64 PRELIMINARY RrvI~ of aemolition of 11 residenti~l units and construction of 51 senior housing units Mailed notices were sent to property owners and utility customers vithin 300 reet o! the project site. It i:6 noted that this property is no ... · zoned RM-30 (Mediwa Density Multiple-Family Residence District)~ This project will require B zone change to a Planned Co~unity zone. During th~ presentation, it ~a5 in~icated that there ~ould be 54 total parking space~ in the garage, ) on-graoe~ and 5 tandem. Also, applican~ indicated that they had begun the process of holding neighborhood ~eetings. Twelve persons, as listed bela",', expressed epinio!"1s and concerns about the proposed rezoning; the loss of moderate, well-kept wood siding homes that are part of the neighborhood character; about serious sewer problems alread J' existing in this neighborhood; about thE" need to accurately address the parking problem in this neighborhood and not to add to it by not providing adequate parking for this project; about current and potential traffic problems on this narrow street; about the fact that financing such a project on leased land puts added burdens on the finished project and might jeop~rdize its longevity and increas~ the costs of the ren~als in the future; about the need to pres~rve the character of th~ neighborhood; about the appearance of a World War II Army Hospital; about adhering to the comprehensive Plan, which shows all area north of Lytton as reside~tial; about the lack of guest parking for this project which would exa~erbate the existing street parking situation; the concern that downtown is going to be pushed ou~ too near the creek at the expense of loss of neighborhood character; concerns about tra~fic in and out of the underground garage; the ~omplair.t that their neighborhood is getting more and l%'.ore apartmentizf!.d, .hen small, separate units are very much needed; conee~nS that the model is slightly deceptive; that the "waiting list" logic used for justification may be deceptive--many of the Webster HQuse and other project residents are net Palo Altc residents; Everett street is not Lytton, is too narro~ and is inappropriate for such a project; the observation that the City Council spent. a long. agonizing time on the Comprehensive Plan and on the treatment of north Palo Alto--seems like it is bound by legality and could be a Planr'.ing Commission iss ... e; should take the Comprehensive Plan seriously and preserve the character of north Palo Alto; concern for the impact of this on surrounding single story homes--this looks like a big bo~, and it needs better stepping down; the architect.L"r2 is too monotone and it needs breaking up~ There were alsc ;eve~al requests that thes~ meetinqs be held at night bec~use many people cannot 5/3/90 Page 8 CG • r-~ c ~~. :'-:', --. . -~--- • • - afford to come to them in the daytime to speak. ~·o persons were in favor of the proj~ct although they still wante~ architectur~l i~prcv~ment~ an~ attention to parking ~nd sewage problems. Those persons speaking, and the issues they address~d# includ~d the fclloving! 1) Nancy Pleibel, 301 Bryant Court, Palo Alto: objected to the zone chanqe, the elimination of the well-kept wood sided homes that would change the character of the neighborhooc, the existing and potential se~er problems, parking underestimated fo~ this project, existing traffic and potential traffic from the Sand Hill extension, and voiced concern about dOllJnzoning in this area. 2) Tonv Badger, 381 Hawthorne, Palo Alto: wanted public hearinq scheduled at night and observed that many people cannot afford to a,ttend during the day; was in favor of afforQable senior housing but ~ould not like to see this neighborhood upzoned for senior elite; thought the design looks like a big box, was concerned for impact on single family homes., called for :better stepping QOv,rn and maj'be old style balcony to create stepping down; very concerned for finan::ing and putting this or; leased land--\ro'ill increase costs of rentals in the future. 3) 3im Cesari, 238 Bryant street, Palo Alto: doesn't want the project, noted that 5 years ago there was another attempt to downzone; objected to qivinq up the three small units that should be preserved; noted the severe existing parking problem and that there are illegally parked cars now making it impossible tor residents to find parking now; jmportant to preserve the character of the neighborhood for the homes that are still left; thinks the issue is that the neighborhood ~ould be giving up three small d~ellings for something tha~ looks like a World War II Army Hospital. 4) Joe Meyers, 30l Bryant Street, Palo Alto: although corrected and reissued, he objected to the fact that the initial postcard notices incorrectly noticed this meeting for Thursday, M~y 30, stated that the Comprehensive Plan shows all the area north of Lytton as residential and there is no reason to change this; stated that houses a~ross the street from this proposed site are boarded up and sure to become multi-family; this eventually might only leave one single family house on this block, and he noted that those kinds ~f changes would definitely chanqe the neiqhborhood character; expressed concern that sewer capacity would be severely stretched with addition of 51 units here; thought City should move surface parking underground and build higher density housing in already dense areas; objected to what he sees as the neighborhood being whittled away a little at a time~ . - 5/J/90 Paqe 9 CG ) L 5, ~lph CresSlllo!ln, :;60 E-V'erettj' Palo Alto: he was in favor of the prop~sed project, but also addressed existing $ewer problems an~ pa~king proble~si stated that Channing House and Webster HQuse don't have enough parking, but that he was glad to see 50 apaces proposed he:r-e; he supported this Pl'oposal and stated that it vould be an improvement to the neighborhood, that it would be an upqrade of property in poor repair. 6) Andrew Gottlieb, 309 Bryant, Palo Alto: stated that he was representinq workinq peo~le and his landlord who could not attend meeting today; requested future meetings scheduled at night; addressed inadequacy of parking proposed, both the ~se of tandem spaces and the assignment of visitor p3rking to the garage which li.e said is ufl'Workzblei and :said that people -would not kno~ where to park and ~ould end up attempting to park on the street; concerned for safety of children in the park; ano. objected to traffic noise generated by the garage; objected to a change in zoning and. preferred that this type of project be located to a dense area. 7) Lora Smith, 162 Bryant, Palo Alto: stated that she has lived in the neighborhovd for several years; noted that small single-fam.i,ly homes needed to be torn dolowTi to make. 'Way for the park; thought it short-sighted to relllove affordable rent.al housinq for this project; said that the 11 units :may not look like much, Dut some people need theE ~nd would be glad to li~e in them; pointed out that there are derelict houses across the street from this project site that will become multi family; objected the neiqhborhood getting more and more apartmentlzed at the expense of driving many people out of the City. 8) Anne Robinson, Byron Street, Palo ~lto: ~hought parki~g for the project is underestimated; thought the ~odel was a little deceptive; stated that she lives in a high densitr neighborhood already plagued with parking~ traffic~ sewzr and drainage problems; through traffi~ and pa~king proble~s especially exist around the parx; although she expressed surprise at hov nice the project lookS, she vas not convinced that the neighborhood coul~ handle such a project. 9) Kathleen craiq~ 101 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: stated that she lives in the neighborhood; she seconded Mr~ Cesari's and Mr. Meyers' comments; said that parking is underesti~ated; worried that their neighborhood is slowly losing its neighborhood feeling; she didn't think this building adds ~r gives back anything to the neighborhood; observed that the design isolates the residents from the neighborhood and doesn't provide any opportuni~y for interaction. 10) Marvin H. Feinstein, P.O. Box 1461, Palo Alto: owner of 7 unit apartment building at 311 Everett, and has just remodeled 150 Emerson keeping neighborhood in tact; has been involved in single family and multi-family do~ntowni thought there is a --"- 5/3/90 Page 10 CG . . ":'"""}, . ~--->', ':i'~ A.", • '. , • • ne~d to balance the needs ot the eld~rly ~ith prot~cticn or downtown nei9hborhood$i felt the justification and logic ~sed for th,ilSi project is deceptive; developer seems to be justifyInq !'Uture mistl!lKes with past. mjstakes; questioned the ·waitinq list" justification--are they actuAlly el~~rly Palo Al to residents? pointec out that che majori ty of the May! ield project resi1ents are not from Palo Alto; noted that the 6 story tluildinq at 360 EVerett would not be a llo ... 'ed today and that it does not even have parking in front; to say that you can build the sam~ thing here as on Lytton is illogical- EVerett street is not Lytton; was not in favor of the p~cject and thought it \o'otJld change the neighborhood advE:rselY4 11) J'i:rn Morley~ 160 waverley Street, Palo Alto: lItgreed with previous comments about problems in the neighborhood, but was somewhat in favor of this project; but thought parking needed a closer lOOKi the monotone nature of the b~ilding disturbed hi~ and he thought it ~eeded to be multilayer; design needs to be broken up more. 12) Iz:'v Brenner; ~50 Byron~ Palo Alto: he felt strongly that the character of downtown North should .be preserved; that the ComprehensivE; Plan should be taken sariously on what do.mto'.m North is supposed to be; that this project might not b~ possible because of the comprehensive Plan; seemed like this is bound by legality; thought it could be a Planning commission issue; noted that the City Council spent a long. agonizing time regarding North Palo Alto. Although she did not speak, Dorothy MerrlaTr.; 365 Everett, Palo Alto, 94301; completed an address slip and askec to he notified of tuture It'.eetings. Since this 1J~S a PRELIMINARY REVIEW, no for~al action was taken by the ARB~ Board mernb~rs offered the com~e~ts noted belo",,~ Jon SctJink Mr4 Schink said that he would try to limit his comments to architectural design. He did express concern, however~ for finding public benefit here when it seems that part of the net result ~ould be eroding the neighborhood~ He stated that he strongiy supports senior housing and hopes tn3t the applicant makes a stronger case when they go to the Planning Commission. In particular~ applicant needs in the tut~re to focus on parking requirements~ proviclng detail4 Observing that each parkin9 space costs $~5.000 and $200 per month per unit; he noted that impacts the numbers; the applicant needs ~o pres~Mt more data and make a stronger case for public benefit in order to convince the neighhors. 5/3/90 page 11 CG -....a·,,·'c ...... ··-· ._".,... .. ,_., -:-~.-'~ - - Mr. Schink 2ncourag~d. the ARB to hold a special evening meeting tor de5iqn aspects ot this project~ He stated that the ARB needs the public to address specifics such as massing, design .. placement of winc5~s, and lAr..dscaping. He al!".o asked applicant to let the ARB kno~ when the next neighbQrhood meetinq is scheduled and perhaps an ARB member could attend. Regardin9 design, Mr. Sehi~~ indicated that the architect needs to move more of the ma5S toward the large b'l.lildinq on .Bryant (toward 360 Everett). Plu5, take the parking e-: ..... ay ano hide all parkinq from the residential street. Mr. Schink also su?porte~ th~ idea of giving so~ething haCk to the neighborhood, and he encouraged applicant to c?nsider a broad po~ch along the front~ to qet so~e elderly interaction in the neiqhoorhood. MAO "'aRos. Ms. daRcsa wants more data on this projectts parking requirements~ She expressed conce~n about the lease issue( and the c-a'",;tion that when th~ lease is up, the use could change; thus creating mo~e of a parkinq problem. She asked what guarantee th~re is that the use ~on'~ change. She noted that the columns in the garage will reduce the number of parking spaces in the underground qaraqe. Also, she thought that a security 9ate woul~ be necessary, but that ~ollld create a management issue ~ith aCcess to guest parking in the garag~. Going on, she questioned vhethe~ the garage could accommodate flooding on the streets. Re9ardi~9 on-grade parking, sne seeS a conflict with back-up and the ramp and vith lack of ~andscaping. Also, need to consider a hanQicap space on grade, and definitely need a covered drop-ott point tor bad weather 4 Regarding the dens~ty, from a senior point ~f vie~, this is a gooa place for senior housing althougn this ~esign might be better on Lytton~ The project needs to relate more to Everett a:;d adO: something to the cOlM'lunity; m1.lst Il':ake the impact. positive. Therefore, adding a broad po~co is an excellent idea. Her image of this is a great old inn in Vermont, and it needs porches for bringing people near to the street. Porches fit very ~ell ~ith ~he style of ~rchiteeture. This project eoulQ soften 360 Everett} the six-story mistaxe r but it needs ~ore stepping QOwn {on both sides) and additional modulation with break& across the front, to tit with the single fa~ily residences eloseby. Wood is a good material he~e, providing a sense of heme. Commenting on tne light colors, she preferred so~e blending of color and the use of some darker colors. She would n~t want to see asphalt shingle on this roof. The structure neecs to look like ho~e. She said the designer needs to go furth~r ~ith what he has started in transition of neighborhood ~aterials, scale. function anQ modulation. Ms. daRos~ said that applicant might conside~ a place to sit in .-, 5/,/9Q Page 1~ CG , I , I I I .- - ""~:'-, '-'-._-''':''':' ." ... ~ ,-.-' .:. ~" " {~~"~~~~; i~f . ."., .. , . ~--.>; ~~e lanctscapinq, noting that now it is almost. a dead space. ~stly, she noted that the porches need to bE protected porches. Now there is n~ protected pla~e to watch whetls going on. Marp" brnes Ms. Barnes began by stating that she supports all the previous comments. She said that the se.age problem needs to be addressed before this problem can go through, including the storm drains and the underground garage implications. She called for a cost cap on the rental rates, and she was concerneel t,hat. if this is ':In leasecI land, how do ..... e have control on the use and longevity of t.he project. Regarding the drop off point and underground parking, she noted that older people have a large proportion of larger cars which need adequate space and large turnarocnd areas in order not to cause more traffic problems in the street. Need more accurate and detailed data on parking numbers; applicant neeos to justify tandem and visitor spaces. Ms. Barnes liked the basic idea of the architecture and material~, but the project needs to step down at the corner ncar the small house. She rooted that the courtyards no",~ seems li~e a qaping hole and that the project seems walled in and isolated. She preferred to open up this project to the street. A planned community of this nature needs to offer the Yitality of the street and the neighborhood and its Children. She asked that project be designed to add interest and vitality to the street. Noted that it is just an easy amble ?DWn to the park. M3. Barnes wants to see where the 2xisting trees are on site, and the impact of this project on them. Michael Lyzwa Mr .. Lyzwa agreed -..'ith previous com:tnents made by his colleagues. He noted that there is a terri"ble parki'ng problem in north Palo Alto~ that he owned a house near Waverle:y and Hawthorne; that business parking floods the north Palo Alto streets and many times cars never leave except on saturday and Sundays. He felt strongly that the parking proposed for this project is completely inadequate, tha~ the visitor parking has not been resolved, and that tandem parking is not workable here.. He $aid he is in favor of affordable housing for the elderly and realizes the need to make headway, ~o there is a neec to make economies of scale and as a neighborhood, give the project a little leeway to make it affordable rental housing~ He thought there is a need to look at this particular project more creatively. 5/3/90 Page 13 CG , .. 6. :".-.---.. - Mr. LytV~ said that the resi~antial materials proposed (or this o~oject Are OK, but that the project needs ~o open up ~o the street. The project needs a neighborhood rela~ionship. Pbilosophieally, vhat are the Planning commissivn and the City council qoing to 40 abo~t our parking problem? 'birleT Willop Ms. Wilson said that she eChoes other 90~rd ~ember comments. Reqardinq the rear of ~~e building, she noted an opportunity for pedestrian link and inteqration with the neighborhood; opportunity to open it up and orient it to the L}~~on side. She also wondered if this project could use the Lytton parking lot at night tor visitors. Ms. Wilson noted that the ma~erials need to he residential ana the applicant has made a qood start, but detailing needs to be carefully plar~ed. The third floor porches separate people rather then letting them sit together. The project needs waiting area in and n~ar the lobby, and better setback and light next to the large building. The solar orientation is goo;3. The architect has picked up some 'vlonaerf"..ll architectural det~ils from the neighborhood. and should continue developing ~ith that in mind. Ms. Wilson stated that this type of project is appropriate for this pieoe of qround, but a stronq messaqe should go to the Planninq Commission and the city Council that projects not continue to eat into the neighborhood. She asked where does transition stop? She supports this project on this site but it shouldn't be a precedent for more of this in the !leighborhood. Ms. Wilson said there is a need to consider accommodation of a drop-oft area ano large vehicles. She noted that ~oving vans can be a problem on residential streets. Lastly, she said that the applicant initially has aone a nice job of setting this into the neighborhood, but that lots of problems remain to be resolved. 3175 HANOVER STREET varian SD-ARE-29 construct 10-foot con~rete wall replacing an existing chain link fence, ano install li;hting and landscaping along bicycle path bordering Varian campus aPPROVED, 5-0, this ite~, includinq the 10 toot wall, subject to the following conditions: 1. For ~ fence over 7 feet high, a variance m~st be obtained prior to applying for a building permit. In its findings~ the Board thought that a 10 foot wall at thi~ location is 5/3/90 Page 14 CC ----------... ---...-""-", .. ,. I L I L - AttLichmenl 12 .1" Totar Ducnix:r Df apa:-twcAts fOf seniDrs wilb Ihulled ;ncomu 197 Studt!,) ap.rlweDI:!! 7! Ooe.'be-dr;;mm .plTlmeOa (roe:nrve-c.! (or couplC') .sO CowmvailY <.:ore ap .. rlw,I,'LlII (:neludillS: five oae·belhoom ap:lltwents:) ',--. This level or cafe does !lOI iDd 1,1 de mC'JiclIIl or Quniot ute. bul rather :II variety n( Il::rvjcclI ('s.s.c-cliJ);1 (~r sll"'tll~n;rlr lhe Dctivilie-s: of d .. ily livif10g CD~b u aa,JiSl;:lnce wilh b.albi.c!t. ,upervI1il.ll. !auodrJl .and clc2nins Jl:f ... tcU. !~HCe meab .. dlly. and rct.'rclllioDlIl prQl1Dml, Eli,jbitI" Rrogjrtmrg ll AQg Sin!l'c pers(;oo. 62 ynn of Aee or older CoupJe -(1ne. inllivid'l,Iar wuSI be 62 )'nrs of ag.: Or older The ale mitlimum i1 ,..,.ivcd (or h3ndi~pped pent-os. MAXlM"lM ANNUAl, INCOOIE; S25.000 -lIi:cgJe reu'olI sa."o -couple This cl:lclll.alion ineludes b')lb jOC~hle (Jot:tal sccloIfil), pllyrnenl~, il\l(~res.~. petllio.ar. erc.) lied' aUClli. WVICE.~ ApplicaDts for rc.sidel'ley m.u, rcs.ide b-e' .... cen SaD Mlllc-C' Icd S,," JOt.c; excep6o(l:l may be: made if family tu'CUlt-oeu live iQ Palo AJto. MEDICAL .c1lrt"C1l1 medical .Ialus vcrificaLioDs ale tC'qUil~d (or cOQ.lDJuniry ::are IppJit:&tlU. tNPEPENDw·r UVING !Wtl L,barr" I!.W .30 perccDt 'O( lliOlllhly income 30 peTceDI f.)[ mOlltDly incOalll!: RS:Quired Men' rrnram 8£wi.iIed Me.! rl.2J;.r!..l;l;l $l)O p~ mouth (oae Dle;1 a day) .s:2~1 pel UlUDW (lbreC' meal", a day) Uu $496 per mO!l!b e",.,. Reg;",y -(415) 326·8803 Service 10 lind huroc:I (or seni{H.r; ao cbari:e teo .. ppJicanl SeIliClr Ce-n(tT. 450 ~r)'(I.at Srlcet. Pilio Alto· (415) 3~7·2S11 Sool:Jer IUillllbrc. "Where 10 Li\lc"' Mucb. J 99 r • -- f1~: . ... ~'" " '00.'" o 01".- """" ~ ... r~,t'l .~ .... -, ,,,'" ,...".. '.~LlO 91,-,=C~ -,~ '.~ OIIo1(WW':11 ..... )I'). 'ilC! '47(,I!,'J' •. h-:.e May 3, 199' J_~K""" , 898 PeochI(1 Drive !.os Alios. CA ~022 Dear Jim: rollowin~ i&. :nformalion aboul lytlon Gardens ra5id~n1S f;garaing demographics, transponalion, and ptlbHc: servk:40s IIs€ld UUill WQ have be&11 able 10 galher from various ~urces.. PemgqraQhlC5~ T~ avera9e: &goe 01 Lyllon re&;identt is 87; the old,sl Is 104. Thi'i! incomes a ...... rage $11.000.:1 year. Rosldents w,arg, bor" In it6 st:;;llll$ Ind 37 roreign countries, with mine-city OrOl.'pl mak~~g up alm ... ,t a quarter 0' the population. Tra Q ljoorlalipn: From a survey conducted in June, 1989. IiII LyUon Gilrd~ns: 1. 84 Fesidenti of Ly!ton Gatden, had cars: 59 cflhcu residarrts responded it'J me lurvey, 2. 20 people drove thei.r Cit' , tD i limes per week., HI pgo,pl; dro ..... ~ 1ngir carl 4 10 5 times ~r wee«;, 20 people dro ..... Inelf cars. 1 10 ... times per week. 3. Av~ra"e mneage per week v,;;ried from a low of 34 miJn 10 a hiQh of 83 m n •• per .. eel<. 4. Average mileage drillen per )Ie or vc.ried frl)m 2,810 miles 10 5,6;0 miles per year. 5. A ___ erSl"~ trip distance was under; m.1v5 'gf 9 peopfe. 5 to 10 mi1e-s for 22 pegpJe, 10 10 20 milei for 20 ~~pI9, and o ..... "r 20 miles ror 7 people. Ei. When asked if Ihe)' dro ..... ' 0" maier trips, 36 people ~aid no, 20 peo~3 said .n·li~19 ollly, 1 person said oUI·o'·lilate only, and 1 said be!" in· and oul-of·slalE'. 7. Wltsn asked whal ofhflr forms of transportillion they us&d, IiInswers. were: no Dlhsr me.hod • ~. pl,.l~ic transit -12, la)(! • 5, and bicycle . 1. --'""'.·~",<",.""'IO!~I""-.-· ,-~. pj\: . Many Lytton rnj,denls are acti,,'e In oommunlty affairs. taking part in local porillcs. or enro!ling In courses at Iooa: CCUegl'. FOI those who $tar Q.o$fJr to "ome. fh.r~ are deny eIC«dae classes. &ducational programs. cuting'. 11Inl5:. and social .~M!ies. The shop$; 01 downtown Pita AJIO .and th, communft)' San!or Cetiier are jus: I short w.lk awa~. Jim. if you require more deta~ed informatlol'l. pfe2se hilI m~ know. ~ cOlor Exeeulive OffICer 55110" .,. • ! , --.....,. TIE l mCN Wl£NS DI FFUOICE Acciv,1tU.s -Suff socill Services rOQd $er~1c:es rt et1$port. t ion r.h::Jpr :\1" Co-op :e."';.!I.ty Sh.::>p c:::,ift Shnp ll.eS.:J.le-ShC'p LyltDn Cart--1ens .... ".~~ .... -..,~ -..... .. ..-... . _ ........ _=,_ .... UC"' ... .. --, ........... --. ........ ... -, .. ' ... ...... ,_ ...... , ....... 1000. .... _ .......... --..... _ .. -"II --...... _~ ..-.,. •• --rHI, -. __ ...-. _. · , ____ 'u·, ...... _l1li., 1_.' __ ~,. _ .... ~_ ... __ .. .-., _"' .. f_ ... • ........ ' -_._--'._-...... _ .. _ .... ""' ... ..,_ .... · ... __ "or ~.'" .. _ C"" _4 M~ ...... _..,.,.. ... , ............... ---............... -, · ~ ... --.......... -......... ......... ........ _'" .. _~ ..... ~c ... ~_~ ... _Ir·_.· .. ....,.. _, ... _ ... ' .,..J ............ ,.. r .. .- ~ .. , ....... .r. ..... __ • -,. -_'1,,", __ "-1 · ·_r __ ....,. ..... ~hI_.) ... _.'Mo ...... .~_"'.,~-,- - 1"..-_, _ ...... ot:"') .. ~'-..., ..... ___ ~.,......o ............... ---.......,_ ..-__ ... _,.,_ y", _'I .. 60 .... '~ .. ~ .. , .. ..-.""-. .. --......... - ~ .... , "'-'-... '--.. -.............. ~ .. -_ .. _-.,.' ..... ..... ~ ... "'-~ ... -.. -_" .......... ~'" 0.. ...... _ ....... . .... , ....... ..-•. , ..... _ I~'" ""C_"" ..... _ .......... _, ..... 1.' __ , .... a..-.. ...--........... ~-~ .... ~ .. ,-.-." .. - C""""w" .~ '"""I -"", ""<1li<";-'CO[ ...... ~ ""-_ .... . h'''~I'_' _'-',' ___ ' .", .. "-e. "~. r __ • ""'0"",," .',., ...... "-C: ,c;:,_ ............ ~ • • 5-0 __ ..... .-"'-~-...- :::I:: -- - TRANSPORTATIO~ SERVICE The Lytton Gard.an. Van •• rviee ic. a~.r&il .. bl. tc all rosid&nt. ot ~~ton G&r~.ns. The eervic~ a~ea 15 PalQ Alto end Manlo Park. The current Bohedule is Tueadey, Wedneaday &n~ Thursday between the hou~. of gIQOftm-2100pm~ Tuaadey and Thur.day atterncon5 are Bet aside tor group qrocery runs to Safavay and. LuoJc:ys il:l Palo Alto at :2: OOpm. Two passenger_ are allowed at each balf hour time .lot and are on e first come first serve basiD. A charge of ,50 ene w~y O~ 1.00 rQund trip i5 collected from each passenger. Sign up ah~et~ ar. available Thl.lr.c:1ay at 4:00 pm: !"or the .tallowing W6e}:.!!:' .chedul.. our Yhe~leh.ir van can eccommodat. B &ittinq p8ss9ngers and two yheelchair tiQ doyoe. The other van can comfortably s.at 13 passengers (even thou9h 14 can ride in it)~ The v~s ar~ also u£.d for monthly Independant and community Care outing$~ I ~ i n ,j : I i 1 , ! ! ~ITY HOUSING, INC. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES Tho Board of Director. of COm=unity Hauling, Inc. affi~ the foll~ng Statement of Principles.. the b •• i. for the polic1~a and can.ge~nt of all pre. ant and future facilities owned and operated by the Corp oration. These principlel .r~! I. To create an environment which promotes tru.t~ 1ndependence~ reapects individual differences, inaure. self-determination. and encour.ge. per.anal gro~h for all resident •. II. To create A community in which residents, relativel, helping professionals. volunteers and .taff promnte inter~dependence. aocial interaction and involve~ent in all CHI faciiiet •• and in the broader community. III. To provide resource_ vhich optLmize physical and emotional health and well-being. IV. To provide residential and supportive care ~th an emphas1a on meeting the needs of low and moderate income persons on a non-profit charitable basis, while operating on a Bound financial basis. V. To pursue an affirmative action progr&m which acknowledges that persons of diverse backgrounds. race. creed, and national origins ~nrich residential facilities by their presence. These principles will be implemented in the follOwing ways: Coumitment to Exc.eIlence Re,slect for Conidentiality and Privacy Right to Make Choice •. All services to residents shall meet the highest po~'ible standarde of quality. efficiency and excellence. Every effort will be made to respect residents' privacy and to assure confidentiAlity. Co~,sel which is offered. discussion of business. or information pertaining to health status ~ll be regarded as highly personal, and cond~cted in private. The resident will be considered the most 6ignifi cant party in a partnership for care, and as such has ev~ry right to expect accurate information about personal business. health, and fut,ure expecta .. tians. Residents will be encouraged to choose bet~een available alternatives regarding health care and treatment both in ineressing health and in dying. and can ~xpect to receive support from Lytton Gardens in per50nal decisions and choices which bave been made ~ Q ,.;;,; ~ ___ "'~'_"'''''''.---"_D __ . .".-' __ ..... _< - . .) ... Plan for Care Relation.hip To CoamunitI Resident participation 1U K8'iiagement work as vocation EIIG/DS: at .. ~ 11115/76 . - The rel1dent, be~g the primary r.lourc£. will be encouraged to participate in drafting an.d ·re. ... iewing • plan fo~ care. The Plan for C.re would a180 req~re p~rticlpation from health c.r~ per8onn~1. f~ly or 8ignificant other •• and Lytton Carden •. Each party will be expe-cted to fulfill ce"l·t.ein reoponoibiliti •• for the health and well-being of the resident. Relidenee ~ll be encouraged to maintain pigni fie.n~ ties ~th family, friends, church, and other interest a including pArtie1pa~ion in the responsibilities of citizenship. Lytton Gardens i. an integral part of the wider community~ and locks to that community for support, leadership, and ~&luable lervicea, and in turn offers back to tha c~ity the range of reSOurces .t its disposal. Lytton Cardens provides leaderahip ~~ the community by articulating ~he needs of older. cdult. and participating in community~ wide efforts to seek resolution of these needs. Re&ide~tR will be en:ouraged to participate in all alpacts of Lytton Gardens' communiry: the fcrma~ion of friendships, volunteer service, ehe planning of activities and programs, repre sentation on the Board of Di~QctorE. and partici pation with Board, staff and community in perfecting Lytton Garden~' management stylt. The component parts of Lytton Gardens {independent living apartments, residential csre. intermediate care, and skil16d nursing care) will be operated by the same Boar.d, and the daily operations managed by an integrated staff. All employees of Lytton Gardens w~ll be selected for not only the technical skills which they have~ but 81so for pe.rsonal potential i.n serving the neede of the elderly. Employees will expect Lytton Gardens ~o provide a climate wherein work is: understood .89 vocation (or "calling") I and a vehicle for self-expression, Employees will be encoura.ge.d to be creative an.d self·reli&t!.t. Lytton Carden, will provide opportunities for training and development in order to maxLmize the potential in every employee. - "Here. I! whaleYCI boer )'01,1 COrM., )'01.1 .... iII fInd lirbl Ind bclp ,ud !lumlll t.iDdaclJ.· -Aibert S.::hwcilz;cr LmON m At CONTINUATiON LyllOtl Gardeas Health Cate Cenler is luidcd b)' the concr:pl Iba' • be.altb e.are bcilily mUll oCfer more Ib"n .b.c..alth Clre. Huwan diB!lily. physical reb .. Mlitafio~, aDd the promolion of indcpctldcnt fiviDI In paramount, and .Zlderuc all (>1 thl: Il:rvic:cl we pw ... ddc. The Hull!! c..re Center is .. uDique rcsnurce crc.ared to lefVC Lbe pbYliQI. mCDlar, acd spirill.ud Deeds of tbc elderly, .Jc~oll,b care is aVltiJ,ble I~ IIIn)' c:oo",alelc:ins plIleoL 1otquitlD' pbysical. occuplljo!la1. or speech tbe-Tap,.. Ly1l0D III is I loglcal contiDtlltio.n of lhe pbilosophy aud aLIJltldes tIIbieh Jed !o Ibe foundina or 1...,.-1100 rand LyUOD U. Lyuon I provide. aUraclive .panll1CDLS fOf the limited-income elderly who are Cloplbl\! of living oa their 0-11!. LyttoD lI, • cnmplcl of Jice~ued eCHIlQlunil), Wlrt oIp.tl"llDeolS:. serres lbole .... bo Deed flPD-medic-al belp willi daily Jivu,J. Oyer .3050 people DOW Ii .. e. ia tbc:se Iwud·winninl faciliLic.s .... ,bere a broad .s:pcctnlm of hea..hb aDd socjal prOlram.s are offered .... ilh com.pau;ioa .nd .'ilh concela (or tbe rcq'liremellil oI eaeb iodividul. Our ,oll at the Healtb CITe Caller is relu.bilil.!io.a.. TbJ, limply mcuu: tha' we .rrjve to minimt7.e in~tilu,jona1iution b)' muimizin,g tbe palieD!". ability to f'll.cC::ljo.ll i:odepeodcnt~)' 111 his Dr ber awn cll",:toaGler:r. Ttl acbi-c.1IC thi.s: 10llll, we have c:realed a OeJ;ible. rc.spon.sive .system of carc ... hiclJ. focuscs OD tbe. 10; .. 1 pc:r:oD. The .sySlem iflcludes the less tangible al~cu or trealQ:lctH SUC" a.r p:syc:hoIO!ictl. cmoti-onal. .. ad .spiri!ul .... cU· beicJ. PaticlllV.uan infc:.rtC:1ion IS I:mpha,itcd .1 aU lc.vc.i., and the palieDI par!icipli(:S in formulating hi. or beT program of LfeltmeaL All IrellmeDt tlkes pbce under ,be direction of Ibe p.tieDI'. pbYSlcian. FalDily partilCipalion is Urohs1y cr.c:ol.lu€ed. J[ is a finn priDc:iple Ib.1 cyeryoDe cominl ia couiaci with a F.ttienl ... iII toDlfib"tllC 10 pllnniog, providinl: eire. IDd eVllualin&: each program, NII-ninl penogf)cl. physicians. Iherapisl5. social worker •. dicliliaDs. aDd cfer,ry .n .11 commiUeCi 10 cnnlinujnr ic.yolyement. Lyltoo III will Ihu, demonstrate lba, I broad lIpectrvm or lIoci.r. cummu.uiIY. IDd bullh service, un 'be IDtcaraa:d inlo an dCic:it"n! l!nd h.oliuic: prugrna ..,it.b I sLIDinc&Z:l! effect tiD Ibe qulily or care. (Cool'd) , , ~ .. ," -. OVER V1gw Of SER VlCES Allbou.h the: Healtb Calc Cen.!e:-WIS primPltii), cT~a'cd to SCI"l'C tbe e-:derly 01 Ibe-midpc.,iasul. ,ret., the fadlHy is opec 10 adull patienl.l ia DCed of atlt.J.iDI care Of reb..bi!ilat1on ser"llj::tJ. At! Iher.py u:rviC:eJ are. performed OD phy~lo;i.1I ,dctTI' oaly. Fcc", It tbe Cenlc.r aft tomparlble: Ie tholie cb",ed lor .lmi'u lervices I' Cl1ber fadlities ill tbc IIrea. Services !:lIfered iZlch4e: 128 bed, 1m skilled m.r:nin, care, 20 pri ..... lc worns aud 54 double roo:cu, 2.·bour care p"'YlCieal tberapy oc:c"paIiQDill tberapy 5peecb therapy loci,1 scrvicu. t'~unselin" and discbarge planulag nalrilioD lad tberapeutic diets ncreilioD programs: spirit'llal 5\1pp0l'1 IN SpMMABy Lytton Gardeos ir 2 DOI-Ior-profir org:miz.alio.c ",-jlb deep 1000t. in Ibe Palo Alto area. L)'tlotl I. II .• nd' III 1t"C ,governed by Obe loc .. l Board of Direc:ron, which is respoosi¥e 10 Ihe peeC:, or lhis cornmuCfl)l. Our concern 8t Lyuon Gardens Heallh Care Ccal~r [s to pro\lidc tbe fines I belllh (:ate possible-, while IosleriDI Ihe e~cb.n.e Illd _d·unceau:.DL or koowled.e. Our doors are open 10 Ibe pub TIc .• .nd' nor iimiled 10 low-i.Dcomc people. For more in/orm.lion. CO.DIACI Sfephcll Shipley, Chier EIC.ecufj'\le Offrce.r, " (4l5) 328-3300. /11· o.=,~ _____ _ I n7Q'" QABPBiS" MISStON STATl!MP.NI It i, the U'liuiCHl nf Lynoa GllfdeDI lO pre vide If/oraabl, bDD.in, wilh •• e.c .. irolUDcDI .,..t!ic:b crealel lbe oppor.vo.i.l,1 10 live ia di,Dlty ul! .,Itb i.odepe.a.deDt;::c. ApptO'lle4. Board of Director, April I. 1989 • LYITON IV -EVERETT A VENUE SENIOR HOUSING PALO ALTO-CALIFORNIA A COMMUNITY HOUSING INC. PROJECT -----,-._ ... _- .' I , I ~ -, l f . i , .-- -- -,/'. - ------,., LYTTON IV-EVERETT A VE'\fLiE SE:'I<lOR HOVSJ,\G A COMMUNITY HOUSING INC. PROJECT Reference Sheet Exhibits I Commuoit) Housing Inc. I.J ·Mission Statemenr 1.2 -V.'aiting: List lnfornlation -Other subsidized senier housing projects 1.3 -Management (further information contact; Stephen Shiple).CEO. CHI 328-3300 [I 330 E,'erel! Properl)' 2.1 -Summarj of Option & Ground Lea." 2.2 -Comparable Land Sales 2.3 -Vkinity Map (indicating proximity to sen'ices) III O ... lopmenl 3.1 -CHI De"elopment Team 3.2 -Building D .. ign (further infonnaticn contact: Carr>;co & Assoc. 322-2288) 3.3 ·Development Budge{ (construction cost data derived from co~sultation with Jaok & Cohen Builders 3220363 & Rudolp~ & Sletten 572-1919) 3.4 -Relocation Expense Budget [ V Project Fjnanrin~ 4.1 -Sources & Uses of Funds 4.2 -Funds Restrictions 4.3 -Design Limitations & ESlimate of COSt of Ameniiies. 4.4 -Tenant Restrictions. \' Casb Flo" Allal),sis 5.1 -Operating Income Budge' 5.2 -Operating Expen,e Budget 5.3 -Proforma • If r -~ -.' / E..'OUBIT 1.1 1 nmN GARQWS' ~ STAJ'P.MgNT h "I 'he miuir.'HI r.r Lyltfto Ga.rdetl. 10 p:royide affQrd_hl" hOlUinr "ilil. IfU:l'porlhe 'Uyjcc:s 10 low~r·ill.como ,eaiOf,J or Palo Alto aDd ,urtO"Dcliai eOIlUDlIDillCI, &ad quality znluiDg cart' t('J iDdiyidllah: or .. 11 iDeom~ Jevell, ia aD CAYUOWElCIlI 'Wbicb truua t'fIe opportlloi!JI to Ijy~ ia di,ail)" aad .-lIh iadepeDdezua. Appro"e4, Board of OireclofS April I. 1989 ;:~l;.:~-, " . 'j I - DliIBIT 1.2 N£El)S INDlCATOR SUPPLEMENI'A!.. .~?UCAnON FORM· WAr'nNG L1ST {EXH1BIT 1) Mlkt sure Ihlt Ibe project listed bel.,... lS l'fle »me type &.Ii !he prl'pmcd projtCl and tl',ll Ihe units ate ALL SUBS...)!ZED (use OIU! torm (or each DrolccL)_ Om" or S~ __ ~5i-/2o.:.J 1../9"'1"-____ _ COlorado Park ADt.s.. 1141 COlorad:;J Ave.. Palo.aJ. to ~"'PC"Y MINlCft" ~ _______ -'.:...-________ .:....._.:....._.:.......::..:..:.. ____ _ .. closed wa.i ling 1 ist for se.."l..iors-h' h.Irn~ ".,,- ............. Rm1a1 Jbntc NlIlBber of Uhiu no ...... .... ,,~ ==r_ __ ..... lI!:If~' poeT """" Imnil~r\ 4"lJllwl.lher ~ ,.1ic --- , .... , ... lI" .... 52i sec. 8 60 tDtal unit.s _X_~tlllr:I blrbecoJe .ra __ eoelD~lIi'Y TtX!1Il ! Ih'" MNCE SURE. TO ATrACH A vrCTNtn MAP INDlc .... nNC TIlE LOCAllON OF T • .fE COMPAAAnLE PROJECTS TO ntE PROPOSED 5:":'E. - - NEEDS INTJICATOR Sl,]]I'PLEMEr-ITAL APPLICATION FORM· WAfnNG LIST (Ex,,"flBlT I) Maire S'.In-Ihlt the proJcr:t ll:st:ld below I:s fhe: AmI: type 1$ the proPOSe'd" project atld ttl:ll the unitS are ALL SlTBS..J!ZE.D Om one Cprm (o! eaCl: n.ml.s.W. 0. • ., cr sU1"¥"lY' __ --=5:.:!..::2.:3;:./:e9:.1 ___ _ 4230 TellT'a.'1 Dr. Palo Al to Proptl1y M..IILIIJn A6.lra.: ____________________________ _ Q D~_ r>'Dm ~ f"OiecI .ile-____ ~l:..:.. ':..;!!ll.=' :le:::s _____ _ • 3 tl..rres as :rrany seniors 00 'Waiting lists t..'lan farr.ilies Vall1)pe 54p1ro:: :FOOI.Iec JleftIJlI 'R.all~ NIr.lI~f){UIIILII no "'"'" _X_ C-NID'I' __ firepbec __ ....u.lIlill.c pool , .. "" LefI"alllft ...... '" :::!..: ,.t~ --~ , ... , ... , ... 540 sec. 24 32 12 ..... . ... MAKE SURE TO ",'!TACH A V%CTNm' Jr.lA1' !NDICAiip.,lO niE LOCAnON or rue C:OM'P!t.R.Anl..E PROJEt::n TO ThlE PROPOSED sm. • ~ I to."EEOS INDICATOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM· WAfnNC LIST (EXHfBlT 1) M .. k-: JUre thll the proj«:l Uned belnw is. the :!arne type::.as the: proposc.ci projeCl and Ih~l the units ,m: ALL St.'1JS~IZED (u$e .:lne r('m1 (or e&t:h p~ojecl). 5/23/91 !hIe Ct! Surwy: ___________ _ Lytto~. Gar~€nS r J.¥tton Ave. Palo.%l2 to p~ M.n.,CT Add~ _~~ ____ =-:.: _______________________ _ tJa.lIT,.,.. $qutE Foota.~r RmLiI Ranft NUllIber o! U'M ill Pl'Oject .......".Ilica· 500 & ... ~ 3<1- 43D 387- 597 197 I [ .....It....... t"lenlO!' __ firrpr.lrc" __ "'lIlmi~, pool leI lot INlhii C'Oun diJ"-.\ ~er , ... ,.., 531- 552 423- 647 71 __ 'PLIytround bIIl'bene .re.a -X-. COGIUlIIl'lity rot'aI , .... ..... s'Xial se..."'-':ices 5: !I~d ~ SURE TO ATTACH A VJClNm' MAP INDlCATINCi TIlE .L.OC..Ano,," OF TIlE COM' .... .:tAl!l..E p~O,j£cn. TO ":'1-[E PROPOSED Srre. .1 . NEEDS INDJCATOR SUPI'l.SMTh"AL APPUCAnON FORM· wAl'nNG LJST (EXHIBIT J) Make :lure Iblt the projm Ilstcd bel.,.,.. is the same I)'pe as Ihe propo~ project.llnd' l./loll the unil:; 4ire ALL SLmS...>JZED (lI:!If ane rorm (or each prolect). c.., or '..-..y. __ 5,,1,,2::;3'"1;;:.9::.1 ____ _ 32['-92"!l Salley SMi t.~ ~ ....... .rer 1Q.mc: ___ .:.... ______________ l"hM~ SW"~bo:I"; _______ _ 'rape!")' M."',f':l Addrus ~ster ~;ox, 941 Webster, Palo A.l to o c-n.1 N~ o/VK:I ~cia· ____ _ 17 years Build'i .. ,.."rt:lj«1 Ate ___ .:.... _____ _ t. I~C' proj~ IlIbsjch:~'? 1J soctior, 8 units .s IT'.iles Dirta.ee!l'Call ~ projm rile-____ ~..::::=~ _____ _ """---... """'''''''' NWlber of Un!'.. no ...... __ eNI.:»" __ Ii,..j)luc: __ "";m""n, pool ... ~, lnIlliJ ClDIiM Cl!lhwu~ ~pIolio __ Jo- .... , ... I 610 Sec. S 4 __ pb)'ff'OUni:l __ ".1'tIoeft Ira __ ~unII)'P'OQCII ,In ..... I . ... I MAKE SURE TO A'ITAC'H II VlCTNITY MAl' tNDlCAnNC nlE L.CCATION OF'!1fE COMrARADU;: PRGJE-m TO TIi(: PltOl"OSEO sm.. • ::~----------~--"------- NEEDS 1JolD!CATOR SUPPLEMENT • ..r. APPLICATION FORM· wAfnN'G LIST (EXHIB1T 1) Make SIJJ"e IMlihe projec.t JLne.d bclO\O' is. the um~ type.as the propo.S(d Jlrnj~ct and 11'1:11 1M: units arc: .ALL !:l .... BS..JIZED (we: one roan em epr::h Plofecn. O.,t of SlIrvry __ -"S!.LI.,;'-"3J..1!!9"'1 ____ _ Ellie Knofh 327-.:;774 ~ '.hu.ret' Holme-______ -'-____________ ""one Nllm~ _______ _ hopeny MlNlftI' AUrea" __ 2:.7_2_1_m.l.:;'_"_ID.;_"'.:..:Crt;;;..:.:;._.....:P..:al=.;:o_Al..::.' to=,:-.:;c,;~ _______ _ D~ftt'e {RIG! propoaecf ~ lile: _____ ~2~.~5'-'m~j~1~e~s'-___ _ UnU ,.,.,. SqUft' 'FCOlafC ReIIu.1 RAI. NlUIlbe:r d UnlLJ SltO SIMI-!. _,,_ 1!1~lot __ lil"!'plll:ll: __ ftUlItni~, pool 101 lal d~ ::!: JlIIllO --'''''''' , ... ''''' 600 sec. a 57 __ pl")'tmwM ~:rtlctl.lc".I""..1 --X-COIDIIIII"'1y mom all sec. 8 '!I.l .... $ aul I MAKE SURE TO ATTACH A V]clNrn MJ\J" rNDiCATINC nlE lOCAnON OF ruE COMPAAA!3L.F PROlEC"n TO TI-!'E PROPOSED SITE. • - NEEDS L'roICATOR SUl'PLEMEN"TAl. APPWCATION FORM· WAITING LIST (EYJ-IlBIT 1) .Make ,ure tbat lbc projca UsIC!! below is the same r:n d the prop<»td projI:.C1 and lhat the unils arc: ALL. SUBS~)1Z£D Cus.~ OM rom.. foc o;. ..... ch project\- n.,~ lIII S\lf·~'Y. __ -"5 ... /.:2.;.3/..1-'-9.:.1 ____ _ Propc::rtr Mautf:!" N~ lL"~"1,,1,,ian ... wLaO!lJOO..,,erL _________ rllooc N 1I1J1bn": 494 -J 944 Uftll T".. Sqllat":~re R.:llLl11Wlte N\iJllbcr of Ulliu 120 total p~ IWdIicia: .. 0 ...... moo Sec. 8 ~ 57-319 92 u:u. t.s with 24 units x ~10l" ==(j~ __ ftUDlIDill, pxll 00<101 __ tcnQCClUr\ __ 4i1hwuher ___ IPIlio __ i'<=' , ... . .... 430 Sec. S , 375 28 UTilJer Sec. 8 __ pbyc'VU~ bI~ ... ara __ DDCllIIIIIIPlli:y rtIOCII Sec.:.. • ..:6 ___ _ , .. , . ... J .... rrul ti -use nx:rn .i.~ baserent MAKE SUR£ TO ATr.lt.CH A. VlClNrT'Y MA1' mcrc..I.:n"'o ntE lOCATION OF TIi~ COMJ'ARAnU P'ROJECTI TO THE fkOI"OSEn SITE. · .. , ,.,....~; .. ,-., .. ~, L l i t .. - DJUEIT 1.3 PROPERTY MANAGEMb'<, Community Housing Jr.c. (CHI) manages two rental housing developments in downtown Paro Alto. The two apartment compJe"(e~ have long waitin,g lists end no significant rent delinquencies. Lytton Gard=--.! In April of 1975 CHI completed the first phase of a building program to provide housing for seniors of 10\\' to moderate jncome, Pha~e J, constructed under Secti~l1 236 of the Federal Housing Act, provides 2 I 8 independent living units. It contains 152 studio apartments and 66 one bedrocm apartments. Each of lhe 2 I 8 units bas one small kitchen. The facilit), has a central :kitchen with dining room~ management offices~ meeting rooms, library and c!'aft rooms. There is an undprground garage providing space for 65 cars. LYl!on Gardens I is situated on 2.23 acres in downtown Palo Aha. Construction is wood frame-rwo, three and four stones. with automatic fire sprinklers and a 24 hour emergency c~11 s)"'sten throUEhoul. Laundry facilities wi:..h coin operated machines are provided In 1975 CHI received lhe City of Palo Alia BoautificaIian Award for this projecL. An apartmenls were fiJred within 30 days and :Iave maintained a high occupancy Tale since opening. !..Ulan Gardens II Phase n Vw'hich was constructed unde:-HL'D Section 202. opened in February af 1979 and pro,ides 50 independent hvi"g units and 50 Community Care units. It contains 90 studio apartm!::'nts and 10 one bedroom units. Each of these has a smal! kitchen as well. Lytton gardens. II is located on .82 acre adjoining and linked to Lytton Gardens I. Cons[MJction is wood frame-two, three and four stories with aUlOmatic fire sprinklers and an emer~ency c;1I system [hrougholJl. Laundry facilites w!lh coiT! operated mactllnes are provided on the lOp two floors for independent living residenls. All units are designed to accomodale the physical I} handicapped with speciaJ kitchens and bathrooms for the wheelchair resideTHs on the first n00r. The facility has a 200 person general meeting room, actlvitj' rooms. an auxiliary dining area, offices .ilnd • gift shop. There is an underground garage which provides space for 40 cars. Lytton Gardens II was also filled within 30 days and has maintained • high occupanc) rate In 1981 CHI received. speci,1 Design Award from the Society of American Registered Architects. r ri I ! L" '" ~ -.. _-----_ .. _--•. _----- ~.II' ... '~ . fMh PI,.I •• Crlb., L)1lon Qwdtn .. In oUII.aQdlng •• -_ JIiit ~ a' cOftHl'M,lnUy hOUIltlQ -PlQla. ..' c......~.;.~ __ P~2 .CIt,ib ,.... _____ ••• _Pa~:I: --....... .,.1dIdI ~ .. _._,. ••. J(n SIUfII Dft.-n.tl. rp.~3. V __ ---·--·.1 10e-TIIiES TRIBUNE , '.' ; .J.'" . '" _A'< -., ... Ruth Paya A haven for senior citizens YOU'D tlAV£ TO CO J\ LONe WAY 10 Imd. beller answer to &at KDHN' bOLl'OI",lhOrla" l.tiaQ Lyllun GardeGS. localed on a Jql,l.rt block 01 Palo Allo properlY, U'. 61\ oublaDihne e.:r.· .ample 01 (OIIUIILlftUy II~D" !be mUlll-sloried. wooden·and.sbake buildlll& bas many oal(oni1'5 . and aHracu\'e landscapln& lbroupouL LawfCI and &ardens are .111- . WiII)'S ta ImPlllCulale lill.pe, as Is a Ua5S'J Intenor tourlyllrd lbBI bas \fen. Ro.e~ ud evea a small fountain. . . WlIblli ltds complu ate JIB IIpiir\mll!lll.$ 'or seolor cllllens wllh lImiied lac:ome _ 5eAiotS. WilD ruD a ffiidl'PCS' associaliOQ lind whO .' [ Seniors . -.-" , , I , I .b.:oIP 10 mate L)I'lIoQ Cardt'flJ • ,color (ommuaJty Lb." tllet an proud 0', as Is au of Pwo Allo. . . I.- ):: "ActuaUt," ' .. ,d Abbie MlUet. LytIOO'" dlrrclor 01 p:"laJ ~mces . tor lhe p&.\' lIve yean" "most of tbew peopJe dOD'11ft lbea\'ie*vcs Il$ ~niors; lIIey'r •• "cry _cLIVe buAtli lad cNUlaaIJ11oyolvc4 •• Lb. aCUviUe$ berc~." ",,', .. I ASKED MILLER IF ~"E COULD CIVE me I J;fUe background OD LytloQ AQd 'ound Ibal U was ereclt4 Oil 'be IItC. 01 be old LYtlo. St:,~ool. bUilt Ibete 1Il190S and o"Ve~ Ibe liijCC~~'" reotl'S .lltnded by t IbOU§.lOIbOrp.,OAllocbUdrcQ. --.--~'_"'_4_'_" A redwood .ree marks Ihe «"Dolrann: 10 Lyuon Gardem_ It was I planleo Iher,l! by. &C:Doollractler and ber ("liUS Jn 1931..\ California lautd.liO ~tand5 nellt LY1ion', rnlranCe. For yean; II pro~lded mao)' oil leltChet 'ollIlA b;J)' leltve$ lor coolun&. 1:. I: AII~r 59 yu~ de.::lIP1ng entoUmenl flnblly cl~d Il1c schO(t1. Not l(Jn8 alit'(, It Will rilled 10 make 'WilY lor &be bUlldl~1 of Ule preSt'R1 L)110n CardeRS. LyHon Is Ihfte spparal~ unit.... under one foof. LytfOIl Ga,llleJ\.'.i t Wa.§ optned In J97:i, Lyllon II lou~· yran liller In 1979, lind In June 01 1~8J LYllon III w:u.optDt'd, Lyllon I and 1I'lIa.oi ,qQ admlOLSIfi'lor, Janie Johfi'iOn, as well as MlUer, an orllce swtr . .Hnd dlrrClors 01 lood 5r"rvlCt, mamlt'nanCf!, 1I0uSC:ktrpill£. ucl;yillcs and Inps, pod comm\;nily care. lbl~ paid :Slart IS augmtnted by 'lumelOujo volunleers 'rom botb iMide ftnd .oul5lde Ibe complrx . Miller work! wilb Ibe admlfllslf,Hor jn Iht scrl"enlnC of prospe(tlve relouJefUS, And Mdiet works 'wIth .11 Ihe resldenLS on. daily b~ls. L YnON HA.S 187 STUDIO APARTMENTS fot !lingles, 11 bed- 100m apdrtments lor Jharflf!11 couples IlIld :JO commUnity Cire apoill . menlo;. Tbe laller do flOI mc:ude medical or nup.>tnl call but pfovlde . a vanely 01 !K!rvlces lor seDlol'~ lIItiO nerd as.:.islance ""lib balMni or laundry and cleanln" a.nd the occupdntJi an ollerN $upervl!.IOR and Ihree diil), meals In BdlJlUcm !o 5p-ecu~1 tecreOlUOOill pro&lilmS.. ."_~: .*.\~ i-·.t __ !; , c· '~"" ,I i-,' ! , , _.-.:0" :,'-;; -:'\ ~. ~ .. " ,-, " ." ,,-,.' ,;:. ¥~;I W.!I".",,,,,~'ii:;','.! . )!~~;"j,".'!l:"f"Yi -, • -, ,I -L m-uBIT 2.1 SITE CO}''TROL Ttlis attachment !tlcludes an necuted option for a groundle.ase between Community Housing Inc. (CHI) and Thomas Ma"iD. o ... ner of three c:ontifllou.s parcels on Everett Avenue in dawntow.c Palo AJtc Terms of the option and attached ground Jease .,.e· I. Option for grou.t!d!eaSf' must be ercercised by October 3J. J 991, T},~ option fee is $10.00 $J2,500 must be paid wben tbe option is e"cercised 2. GroundJease tenn is 50 years. owner must offer CHI the option to property. At t/1e end of tbe 50-year term, the eltller renew the lease or purcbase the 3. At the death of Ibe l.ssor, Thomas Martin and his wife, the property will be gifted to CHI. (rhe owner is now about SO yea" old). 4. Tile first BOIlU.l groundJea,e payment is $108,000 W,tbin minimums and maximums outlined in the groundlease. SUbsequent annual groundleasl!' payments wiH increue eac.h year by 75% of tbe percentage-increase of the San Franc::isco!DakIand Consumer Price Index for the previous year. 5. CHJ must secure refl!1atlcing for t.b~ owner of three existing first mortgoges at a preagreed payment schedule -"'-------- :o:HIBIT 2.2 IN.S"'Vt'tfn! ~I.t. ~L'J' If lit. ~lr.~1 r. Nt ..... lllIble f~ 1;"1' 1 .. 1t U JIIIIY1tlll. StlQi' Ifl'~tiClf'\ for tt.r~ .,.1tCC"'1~I" lelCi ~~.l. ~~rO!lbII to tfo,e po ... 1Id project lit •. "I , • , I Vista & El ca:nmc ?age }It; 11 Rd " El car;.i. .-,,:) " "" .... Palo Alto Pepper, Palo A1 ~lestD!'. l<!. Palo PJ.to tllt.lane. ,,.. ;a,..]eet lite 2 . .3 miles 1.6 T!'iles 2.5 miles -' z..,r,. R-H5 aI-3D 1'1+-30 -.15 _30 htal IcpIri rootage 170,000 sq£t 33,750 sqft I 178,596 ~t Dltt of kill' 1/91 11/89 9/9C StIli I'd" .$6,985 1 000 $1/326-1 000 $7,350,000 'rlc:e fief' s..-r. ~.t S 41.09 $39.30 S~ 1.15 .k~l to Utility ServlCft-on site Ol"l site or. site .......... t Sitt C.ord1tt ... none ncr1e "or>O ethl:' I_rll:, 49 wJ.ts @ 1& units @ 51 u"\its ~ $142,551/u.-.it S82,906/unit S14':,1l7/unit i ikICJf'«: Cam.jJee -Frrrn da"'a m'?i"'.=r if bm5e an~ .f"=:r Tec"" h'~I5C'''' Brow'" ~gx s cc"'s::aoO':"'. James ]J.h Kcx:h .Brd:.er r Jarre5~ A. F;:~. 11"l\'!"t::W:1t Ega'i ""s ... ..a ... e, 5/2Q/0] .i: , ~ i},:~?y~~r--.: ,,--. - c. ,1 , I J I R~fer~nc~ It. # I 12 #3 #4 15 #6 17 '8 '9 110 '11 112 113 Two maps foUow: , :. \ VICINITY MAP Item L YITON IV Site Comparable #I Comparable #2 Co",!,arable #3 .EXo.lIBIT 2.3 Scbools: Addison, Palo Alto H.S., Stanford Universit), Food Market Hospital: Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto Clinic, Parks Pharmacy(one of many on University Ave.) Fire Dep"-rtmer.' Public Transportation; Bus Stop, Train Sta,i"n Palo Alro Senior Center Lynon I & Lytton II The firs! map in wbicb all tbe i,ems mentioned abo"e are noted, The ~econd map gi\l~s a c10ser iook at the location of services Bnd off-site support, all ideally localed within ...... Jldng distance or a sbor: bus ride from the L YITON IV project . . :-,~ . .l ., L ,..J - :;. I ! 'I 1 , L ~ r , L I I , ------'~-- ,._·:t;'~:~;;'"' ",;itl1i ·~~)J)t!;,,:';:Jl /J', ---- ,\ "~If'''-'''-'/~'; , I" /t, ":/ ,,\,<1', ~ ;.< I " ~';~,;:~::~{;-;, ,;.;~. ~ _~-':L. __ ~ ... ------ " Applicant: Architecl: Landscape Architect: Contractor/ Construction Consullants: ~:<~~, :-:,4~ PROJECT DE\'ELOP.\fE-.T TEA.'" Roben W. Medearis. Development James A. Koch. Devetopme", Diana Steepres, Senior Citizen Needs Blair Stewart. Legal (Ste E).h. Section B-3 for resumes and job descritions) C.".asco & Associates. Palo AllO. CA i""I,) If! BAt C9p t pCI 0 tltslu". NC't~ contraCt is on 8 time & materials basis without profIt, Ly" Winterbotham Subcontracted cnder a.rchitecl. -Jack & Cohen Builders, Inc .. Palo Alto. CA -Rudolph & Sletten. Foster City. CA Contracts under negotiation. .';' ,"-" "".' " .. ,' ."- ,\~~'!Qf7 L APPUC . .<\NTS STAFF Robert W. Medearis, lames A. Koch, Diana Steeples and Blair W. Stewart comprise the Projec! Development Team of Lytton IV. Mr. Medearis' vast expertise ~n real estate development and Mr. Koch's intimate a~~oci&tlon with tlle Palo Alto real estare market and the planning and development departments of the Ciry or Palo Alto make them well suited fo, rhe aC'Iuisition and developmenr "r the Lytton IV project. Mr. Medearis, • co· founder of Community Housing Inc. (CHI) has proven his ability with the suceS!ful develop",ent and management of Lytton 1 and 11, rwo other senior faciliries located in Palo Aho financed and ope"lted Jnder HUD Section 202 subsidies. Additionally Mr. Medearis has developed over 1000 units under Ihe Federal 221 03 program in CAlifornia and Arizona. (Sec Anacbmenl B-8 as evidence). Diana Steeples as • Director of rhe Senior Coordinating Council bas a working knowledge of the needs of the senior community in Palo Alto and surrounding viciDtks. B:air W. Sle\\:art. a partner of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, the Peninsula', largest and most respected law firm adds his legal and professional expenise .nd os Presidenl of CHI is involved in &II of ilS functions. Mr. Koch bas allocaled approximately 30% of his lime 10 this projecl wilh his emphasis being placed on financing, coordination with architeclS and the planning and approval process. Mr. Medearis acts as senior consultant overseeing all of these functions and is aiso responsible ior conltact negotiations. Ms. Steeples is responsible (or community, political and consultation as regards special needs of seniors. Mr. Stewart is liason with the CHI Board and keeps ther.> apprised of any activities on the Lytton IV development as well as having arranged a pro bono relationship wirh WiJSO:l, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati to act as legal counsel on th~ project. Mr. Stewart also acls as lia,on with local and slate legislators, Evangeline Koch i. Ihe Project Funding Coordinator for Lytton IV and is hired as arl independent contractor to Cornmunit~y Housing Inc. As Project Funding Coardinawr Ms. Koch's duties are to apply for development and construction funds through Ihe Rental Housing Construction Program, HUD's 202 program amd tile City of Palo Alto. She aJso malntains all records on the Lytton IV project. Ms. Koch ropons to the Projecl Development Team and works approximalcl)' 20 hOUTS per week. 05-24-91 BOARD OF DlREC1DRS ~QMMUNrTY HOUSr,\'G INC II YTIO:-'" GA.RDEl'~S ~ Donald F. Bogue J. Se ......... lJ Bro ...... o. M.D .• Vice p,esidCCI George. R. Cover. Treasurer Emmy Davis William S. Floyd Conrod F. G .. liIX:s.Ol' O. Charles Harden, Secfclary Judy KC.llDCdy JAmes A. Kocb F.auEoe K. Lici£llLC Wilbur E. MOlli.lo(m. M.D. H. rwllct:lcl McGraycl Robert W. Medearis Gloria J. Pysz;k;;>. DlaIl .. B. S\ccplcs Blair W. Ste ..... arl. Jr., PresidctH LeoDard W. Ely, Dj-ector E[Dcnlu~ Sc.ldotl H. Marlio. Ch:urm:t1J Emerilus -, DG-G:B:IT 3. 2 Desig~ Narrative DESIGN NAF'_~TrVE FOR CONCEPT DES!GN COTT\,IfIunity Housing Inc, is endeavoring to provide afforcable ho:.:.s.:ng fo: seniors in downto\·,m Palo Alto. Pursuant to trlis goal, tl".ree contigucus sites at 330 Everett Avenue have been obta.ined for developme'I'.t of a ne .... · apartment building. In order to provide the maximum nurrber of small or.e-b£droorn and efficiency units. it will be necessary to pursue a PC Zone designation for this property~ Pre-sent zoning on the site is R.~-JO. Surr,~u.::"'l.din9" properties are zoned PM-30, RM-D ano PF. Across the street is an R.M:-4:j zone. To rr,aintain neigt..borhcod scale and tra::"'l.sition to surrou:l.di:lg uses; it appears generally feasible to ~ork wltbin RM-40 zoning regulations for site development; utilizing the PC Zone process to obtain a h~gher density of units and higher F.A.R. than would be allowed in eit~er the RM-30 or RN-40 zone. In order to make the p:roject feasible. the unit co~nt needs to be at least 50. Parking !"',Jst be provlde:J in an unce:-qrcund g<1rage, y,.'hicrJ ~ill dictate an lnterior paved courtyard with plantings restr~cted to containers and raised planter beds. A summary of 'the pro"iect in terms of area, unit count~ densi~y and height i~ incluaed on the drawings. ThE: design approach for the site is to mass 'the building too,'aros the northeast property line. stepping do·.vr .. towards Everett Ave:1ue and the. fU''i-D Zone faci~g Sryar:t Stre€~. Entry to the project :EreIT'. Everet~ will a110 .... ' for views into the interior cou.rtyard ;..'hile rnai;-,t.2.inir;g sec·..:,rity for residents. Efficiency apartments comprise the majority of 'the units, wi~h only 6 being one-bedroom, to maintain affordability for s~ngle occupants. The first floor ",'ill have a lobby/reception room; administ:rative office and mUlti-use lib=ary space for group activities. Each floo~ will also have a laundry room and small sitting/social space. All living units have either a patio or balcony f:Jr outdoor living. The balco~y for~s are curved; to add interest to the extezior as well as interior ambiance. The architectural expression will reflect details and roof small bungalo.'s scattered throughout tr.is nei.ghborhood. lapped siding and decorative ga.b·les will help to redu.ce this t .... o-and three-storJ' building. forms of the H::nizontal the scale of Perimeter planting will be substantial as the first floor ... ·).11 be se~ back further than the t~~ical 1D foot requirement. Twenty-foot side I· •. ~·' .,' + .';~. ;~. - , ! i , I J I : I I Design Narrative yards will buffer ~he P~-D district and will provide shade and textu=e to the project. If possible,.a pathway connectl:.:q to do ..... nt.O' ..... '1 Palo Al to through the pa.-;"'inq area to the sout.heast could be developed to er.couraqe seniors to walk downtoWll. This \0.'111 also serve to c.:-eate an axis within t.he urban fabric and tie this neighborhood to the activity centers along University Avenue. The landscape planti~9 material~ reminiscent Emphasis will be put on concept will focus on the '.lse 0: "traditional" of typical established Palo Alt:6 gardens. color, drough": tolr!rance anc structural forrr. '!'he front yard (west side) will consist of a new orderly st.teet t.ree planting, lao;,m and hedgerows. Tall open trees w111 also be used -::loser to the building for scale and to soften the front elevation. The 50'0.:':':-, sideyard will have small to medium size trees for screening ar.d flowers as well 3.S hedgerows, vines and smaller accent plantings. The rearyard {eastJ will have vines on the fence and accent plantings whe=e possible. The north sideyard ..... il1 consist of small open Ca!IOPY trees to all'!:)w light and create scale with irregu.lar grc_upings of small accent plants. Another feature of the complex will be sitting porches and decks te·:' joint use by all residents. A raised seating area in the courtyar·::! will provide for social interaction of residents. At the third flo·:)!:", open decks are connected across a seating area at the main corrid::'r. The entrance to the complex .... i11 provide a scene 0: activity a:1c friendliness to the neighborhood. The goals of this p!"oject will be r~alized by not only providing a pleasant interactive at1f,osphere for s;e.r.ior citizens .but: by also bei:1g sensi '::1 ve to the neighborhcod characte:-in the s:' ting and de-'!;ign of the building. By providin9 a warm, residential feeling for the reside~ts, the neighborhood will !>e enhanced. The interaction of active ser.iors with the neighborhood and downtown Palo Alto .dll build a sense of community and will be beneficial to all. 12114/90 L - DEVElOPME."i BUDGET SITE ACQU1SmON COST OFF-SITE IMPROVEMNTS S m .It L>.NDSC AP£ UNIT CONSTRUCTI01'O gang< building total unit cOClStruC1iun CONSTRUCllON fEES permits & fc es architecl &: engineerlr.g lOtal constnlCtlon fees (net ,grOWl.d r~nl) GENERAL DE\IELOPME~i COST S loan fees &: inieresl taxes insurance relocation cOlUultar.l relocation furnishings rCD.t up;rrw.rkettng IIOtilI! gem de',lel COits ADMIN EXPENSES TOT At DEVEL C 051 EXHlEn 33 Total 33,915 1J,8t() 90,833 7!j(),OOO 1,834,00'; 2.594, <XX) 21,0!4 2OO,OOJ 2~ 1.014 IM90 o 25,OOJ 10.00J o 25,(0) 10,000 5,OOJ 93.090 35.000 3.141,7l2 -" .mu:BIT 3.4. RELOCATION J8 pe~or'iS no"", rent 12 units un the site fOT lytton rv. CHI recognizes its responsibility 10 comply with the Uniform Relocation Act, includi~g a.dvlsory housing services and repJacement housing pa)'rnents~ if necessary. The current owner ha!; been notified that relocation services and paymems must be offered to cunent residents, Relocation Budg~t: MOYing Expenses 12 bouse holds @ S~OO Potential Rent Subsidies Relocation Consultant to provide housing advisory ar.d relocation services TOTAL S 6,000 519,000 SIO,COO S3S ,000 This budget includes an .1I0 ...... nce of S19,000 for rent subsidy, Pr~Hminary discussion w~th consultant indlcates. subsidy requirement should be minimal. Please see •• tached COP)' of cl'l>sitied ads from Peninsula Times Tribune (or comparable rents. Current tenants are paying Dlu!.:el renl from 5500 \0 $1185 for studio, I, 2 and 3 bedroom unils on the sile, CHl has contacted Irene Ibarra & Associates in San Jose and intends to employ her sc:n'ices as relocation consultant. - • " DEMOunON OF EXISTING UNITS The un;IS on the sile were construcled more Ihan 40 ye .... ago and are in poor 10 moderate condition. do nol provide any handicap access.hilit),. ~omply with current building standards or spedal design considerations for. s-enior population. i.e. se,urity. accessability. safel)'~ common areas, etc. Addition.lIy tbe "Ie cre.ted an opportunit), 10 construct 51 units of low and very low income housing in a fully developed are. where no v!.cant land exists. • L • . .... .-•.. ---.. --. _ .. _._ ...... .,.. SOURCES AND USES OF fl~DS Sources of Funds: Sour;e Ci t)" of Palo Alto (mBG) Calif. RHCP HUD 202 City of Palo Alto (housing funds) C.H.I. TOTAL Uses of Fund:): Land Lean ~ Land Loan Loan 2 Grant 1 Grant contrib ulian Amount $ 665,000 900,000 1.870,025 285.000 86,975 $3,807.000 De\'elopmenl Com (<ee Exhibit 3.3) TOTAL NOTES: £t£ll!! proposed SXHIEIT 4.1 application pending appileaticn due 7/91 proposed $65,000 funded S 665.000 3.142,000 S 3.807.000 L Land loan to refinance existing de!:t (currently three seperate nOles to landowner) tn allow for assemblage of t~e three parcels. Repaid as cash flo ... allows (year) budget allows approximately $10.000 payment) 2. State of Caljfomia Rental Housing Construction Program loan. interesl at 3 % ~r annum. 40 year ammoniz3tion, principal payments deferred as necessary. 3. H.U.D. Section 202 grant. program de:ails (as to fund ma~imums and rent subsidies) not yet published. Amount based on information prcvided by Palo Alto Housing Corpora:ion . . :, - EXHIBIT 4,2 California's Rental Housing Construction Program (RHCP) and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) SO<tion 202 Program both contain restrictions. a.~ to (he application and use of funds.. Those restrictions can be di .... ided into three major categories: I) Maximum funding (discussed in this Exhibit). 2) CC'st ContainmentIDesign Restrictions (see Exhibit 4.3). and 3) Rentnena!lt Popularion Restrictions (see Exhibit 4.4). Funding through both programs is awarded on a competetive basis, where the sponsor makes application~ the project is ratr-d by a point scale according to al': estabHshed list of criteria, and the projects with (he highest point ranking are awarded fUllds up to the amount of the program funding for that :ound. California has been offering rounds of funding approximately semi annually and expects to continue to do so for the next several yean. HUD's offering has been annual. funds have been substantiaily cut back and the future of the program is uncenain, The Section 202 program is being significantly revised this year (e.g. as a gTsnt program rather Ihan a loan) and the nev..' program regulations are expected soon. Any assumptions herein ·as to (he HUD program are based upon consultation with officers at the Housing Development Division office of HUn in San Francisco Bnd discussion with the Palo Aho Housing Corporation. The Californja RHCP has no maximum loan amount. Factors limiting the amount of funds available to a project are: I) cost containment (see 4.3), 2) Article 34 of the California Constitution which requires any subsidized housing project which is funded lO a level more than 49% of it's cost by state or local governments to be approved by a referendum of the voters, and 3) the program's ranking criteria is biased towards fami]}' housing, thereby making it an unreliable source for the project's principal funding. : I • , i i 4 I -, '0..,: HUD's maximum funding liIilitation is based upon s. cost per unit If is estimated that such li"1iUltion wil! be S 33,816 per "ne bedroom unit, and $25.362 per studio_ The program tI.en adjusts thi' limitation by up to -I 160% (according to draft 202 guidel;n" issued in Ma)') on geographic or project by project basis. The projections herein assume a 140% adjustment allowing a muimum grant of 54'.342 per one bedroom and 535,506 per studio. Additionally HUD will not fund the cost of construction for any -design flmenjties· and requires identification of sucb items and commitlmem of funding for them prior 10 consideration of the applicalion. \ : .... EXHIBIT 4.3 DESIGN LIMITATIONS AND ESTIMATED COST or AMENITIES: Califonia's RHCP ranks the project based on the ~ponsor's success in implementing a co'St r.ffideot de$ign while providing a reasonable standard of construction, workmansbip, and design. The ranking is subjective and allows for design features required through city revie", (i.e. A.R.B.J. They have a published list of minmum specificAtions. BUD will fund onl)' to • level equiviilent to the cost of construction if design amenities such as; above standard materials. dorrru~rs and variations in the roof line, balconies, raised planters and trellissl!'s in the landscape, etc., were not included. These amenities must be identlfied and allocated .s part of the application. Preliminary consultation wjth Jack &. Cohen Builders indicates an expected d!fference in cost due 10 amenities as follows: site and landscape ament!Jes roof variation and dormers balconies added OB&P ~ total additional cost $ 70.()()() 86.000 138.000 ll..QQQ 312.000 \ .. f i '- EXHIBIT 4A TENAlIOT RESTRICTfO],;S: RHCP. Population Type -Lower and Very Low Income persons or families; tbere is alimitation within the program on the number of units for elderly or bandicapped tenants. Income Limitation:; -At least 2/3 of the funded units must be occupjed by tenants wbose incomes do not exceed 35% of the area median. Tbe balance may be rented to tenants with incomes not exceeding 60~ of the area median. Renta! Limilatioos median income. median income. HUD Section 202: Very Low Income units = 30% of 35% of area Lower income units = 30% of 60% of area Population Type Low Income elderly or handicapped tenants. Income Limitations -All units mlJst be occupied b,Y tenants whose incomes do not exceed 50% of the area median. Renta1 Limitations - . An units = 30% of tenant'S ir.-come. Subsidy --ProjelCl Ren[al Assistance Con:.rac~·. subsidizes received rents up 10 approved operating tost per unit • .... ~~« --~,--,~ ! I I ~ ;-<. t ,I ~ I J I " " . l OPERATING INCOME BUDGET: Unit Type MQnthl" Studio (Very Low Income) Siudio (Lower Income) I Bedroom (V.L. Income) I Bedroom(L. Income) TOTAL Rent 354 606 404 692 GROSS SCHEDULED INCOME (annual) / # of Units 34 I 1 I ~ 51 '-'-- EXHIBIT 5.1 Monthly TOlal" 12.036 6.666 404 3460 22.566 $270.792 \ ADMlN1STRA TIO!'> marketing j:!!gal &. .audit misc. To~.l Admin SALAlUES &: BENEFITS on llfe or off site mgr ;iSS" mgt grounds &: mainlenance desk clerk boosei.ecp i.ngr}ilnhrn la 1 ,Sen! ices staff oth.,. TOlar Sal & Beo€'5- MA/NTANEliCE supplies. peM control grounds comra\,'1 interior paint &. decor r<jUlpl repair & rept Total Mairua~n..-t! UIlL.fJ1ES electricity W3'eT. ~er &. tra sh P' Total Utilities INSl'RA'iCE TAXES OTHER telepoolli;! office supplies. TOlar Omf!f TOTAl OPERATING EXPEl'OSE . -.,-- EXHlBIT 5.2 eXoC'mrt 1,000 3,000 0 4,00) 3!.200 4.250 10,000 0 IO!XXl 4,250 0 59,700 ),000 1.200 1,300 7,500 2.700 15,700 21,200 14,200 13,100 49,100 18,000 2,000 1,500 3,500 150,000 ... PRorORllfA (first year operating cash flew): Income Gross Scheduled Income Landowner Payment -Land Loan Land Owner Donation V acan C) an d Call ecti on Loss Effective Gross Income Expenses Land Lease Payments Operating Expenses Rep.!acement Reserve Operating Reserve Debt Service RHCP City of Palo Alto Total Expenses Net Cash Flow (allowance for error) $270.792 73,980 9,000 (5.416) 348,356 11 I,24D 150.000 25.943 4500 27,000 10,000 328,683 +/-$20.000 • '. EXHIBIT 5.3 · " ... .-- i. i .. --.~ ! I i i I / 1+1 n f. I' /1 \ 5 CU1 t1c yt~..-.: r" a. .:.m(€.. C1:-i'E.cJ2j 04pl:',:;.s -ile f(Uf"5<',{ cL-.~coT 33c ~ r ~.u'" "(Ch-.:j ff .... :3J r tLo...:T f., $"3 bef-~.(/,. e C 1y Lc."", c; I /.<,/..z..t ;t CC">Isu'e:..rs -II-<,Sf(l:;jEct. H~"4,.;;.f', r '-'.)I( kr.J-cff=..".~ :J~i7, tduJ..Ldd ~ea.-J'>;j tied€. r ~"d~ c>sUI."J ./IuS kea.<1 ~ I. "-fC' fr...J. .1.. f?, ;;. ~-e.is . ~~fl f-~lt~~ \ -----. '~ • Nancy lyt 1 e PaTo Alto City Admfnfstratfon 250 Haml lton Avenue Palo Alto. CA 94301 Dear-Ms. Lyc:le: Ma;,.' 3 I. 1991 r have lea:-ned that the lytton Iv project hearing beFore the Cfty Counc ill S schedu 1 ed ror June 17. 1991. 1 am a ne i 9bor--hood coor dInator. and wfll unable to attend on that date. Since thfs is a 51 gn f f f cant prOposa 1. f request that the hear I ng be rooved to the J .... !y 1 age~. Thanks for your assistance. and please call if" YO'...' ha'.'€' q;..estions. try 9renner 250 Byron Street Palo Alto. 9430t 327-3981 , , • ~: ,. , Nancy Lytle Zoning Administrator City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo AlIo, CA 94303 Dear Administrator, 301 Bryant C .. '"lU!'l Palo Alto, CA 9430 I June 3, 1991 h was announced at the Planning Commission meeting last week that the CIty Council was scheduled to discuss the proposed Everett .senior hou~ing project at their meeting on June 17. Due to a prior work commitment, I will not be a~le to attend the June 17 meeting and would like to request that discussion of this projecl be Tescheduled for a week or two later In the month. I've lived in the area of the proposed pToject for the past 22 years and because of the impact this project will have on the neighborhood] live in, ] would like to have every opportunity to conrinue attending all public meetings regarding rhe project. I hope it will be possible to accommodate my requesL Thank you very much for your c::>urlesy and consideration. Sincerel},. . ~~~Q "17 It , t , , Wta-/llJ'i!/-ue / , 0/ ~tUUUI:/ j'L/4' k /'JF.2/ cY (J.I'_c.('~ 'l:/ .zI...t ...AAlu~ A':')-; Z<...k PU,/~4...c:d . - ;te.-J.-C7U~~ 1/ /./& ~4U~ /jl-C;/1J /6),IN ""3 tJ () ~C d-c f5! (:J..U~ Cl.t.<..('. JO N F:dd\NLLdN/ ~ ~7'....L /':5r::Pl ~ d.f;)?\.f!--.7t~ f7!U-1 0u"-'Z :;::z yJJf . rt6~ c ~ f!:/ C"( ,i2''L..U0.. c..cnC-·;U U.../.::i7U:!lj- c/ ...ttc..tUU'o/ .4LtL-J...A-£ tUi-« ~ a7'L&rt.c/ {Vl1;;cA.c / 'l ....vi ,~.,.o.! a .A'77 y ~'( .zA a r r/ C!A?'1 dg ~ Cf.rl.-CL'2.ll/d /~:r-<z a /-" a.1V.1~:;V .ez /00 ?'o ~ fot'i:>.t..tte.., -Ih.U I~ .;." +0 ~i: ~ -r~ ~/fih t1b ~ ~ Ht ~ f(b~ f:!:-.-[;.J..,-e.tl-<id_ be. ~ ~ 'Ji.~ n-~ >I..<--~. '}: wV-~ ~ ~ ~ .......... Cy-. -=,,--,-IT "->--"'-,<LCl eL ~~ w~ l..::.t).. ioe.... -.11"V.:.c..,;(/O ~ ~~ p'}ro~, ~ ",:~P...k fk.~~ to~~o~ ~-:-,.....~~. ~~ ~ ~ .,.~ t'I.-A-~ vh. -n-~_ 1h.~~J. fttfnu:o... ~~J.-'but \~ J11a-~ ~~. ~-------,.-...-...... .. '\ , . • 8_ PUBLIC REARING~ Planning COmIr.ission recollm'oendaticn re Planned Comm.unity zone change and variance for property l"cated at ~24-340 EVerett. (Subject to continuance to July 22', 1991.) (300) (CMR:320:91) .KOt'IOll TO CONTINUE: council Member Cobb moved, seconded b:r' Kniss, to continue the item to the meeting of July 22, 1991. 6/17/':11 66-286 KOTION PASSED 7-0, McCown, Sutorius absent. l1TY COUNCIL ~llNUTE:; i'l'? /