HomeMy WebLinkAbout0289.091!
I ~ ~
.,i
>
-
May 23, 1991
HOHORI\SiE CITY COUNCIL
P.lo Alto, Califorol&
RECOMMENDATIONS fOR THE PRESERVATIOM AND DEVELOPMENT
OF SINGLE-ROOM QCCUPANCY HQTElS IN PALO ALTO
Members of t~e Council:
Rgport 1rt Brief
This report forwards t~e Planning Commission's recommendation for adoption of
the Single Roo. Occupancy Co.m1ttee's recommendatfons for preservation and
development of single-roo. occupancy (SRO) hotels.
Background
The recommendations of the SRO Committee ~ere first considered by the Planning
Comaission on Nove.ber 14, 1990. However, the Planning Commission did not
take action on the five SRO Coomlttee recommendations. Instead, the Planning
CoamissiaD created a subcoma1ttee to further consider the two reco.mendations
whlc~ concerned the use of t~e Tower Well Site for an SRO (SRO Recommendations
No. I and No.2}. The Tower Well Site Subcu.mlttee was also to consider the
staff recommendation that the Planning Commission recommend staff be directed
to initiate I Request for Proposal from various groups expressing interest in
deyeloping the Tower Well Site.
The Tower Well Site Subconoittee's recommendations for a Request for
Conceptual Proposal (RFCP) for use of t~e Tower Well Site, with related
crtterfi and guidelines for such I process, ~re consfdered by the Planning
Com.;ssion on Februar1 21, 1990~ Tbe CommiSSion unanimously endorsed the
Subcommittee's recomaendations with minor revisions to the text and itea
order. Throug~ staff oversight, fo~l actions on t~e remaining three SRO
Com.ittee recommendations were not taken at the February 27th Planning
Commission ~eting. The Planning Commission's recommendations concerning the
RfCP process for use of the Tower Well sit. were forwarded to the Citl
Council's Finance and Public Works Committee and the three remaining SRO
Com.fttee recommendations were returned to the Planning Commission for formal
action, prior to being forwarded to the touncll.
CIIR:289:91
•
:i
'. ,~
Pl~ING COMMISSION ACTION ON SRO COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are the c.-plete SRO C.-mittee recommendations of November 9,
1990~ It~s No. 1 and 2 were recommended by the Planning Commissfon at their
... tlng of rebruary 27 Ind forwarded in a separate report lCMR:290:9Ij. The
recoamended .eferral of actl.n on the Tower Well ~lte vill be effeclively
acc.-plished through the Commission-recommended REep process. The Planning
Commission cons1dered the reaa1ning recommEndations No.3, 4 and 5 on April
24, 1991 and unanimously recommended that the tlty Council take the following
actions:
I. That the City Council continue to consider SRO housing as a possible use
for the Tower We11 Site;
2. That the City Council defe. for one year the decision to commit the
Tower ~'el1 SlIe to any particular use, while the Palo Alto Housing
torporatton explores construction of new SRO units ind possible sites on
which they could be built;
3. That the Council direct staff to proceed with Building Code revisions to
provide Incentives for private or nonprofit proposals for SRO
construction on any potential site;
4. That the City should not enact a derno'it'on Dr con~er$ion ordinance, but
should act to protect exIsting SRO units through commlt8ent of
idm;nistrit1Y~ and technical assistance to private owners with funding
sources for rehabilitation, seisaiC improvements, and other federal and
state funding t and
5. That the SRO Comaitt.e should be disbanded at the conclusion of City
Council consideration of the Planning t~iS$ion recomae~ation$ on tn&
SRO Committee's November 9, 1990 report.
RECOHH[HOATION
The Planning (camission recommends that the City (ouncil approve the above
listed SRO Committee recommendations.
Respectfull, submitted,
/la,vfl j;[tUW~ 4d~_'L
HANey MAIi60x lYTLE
Zoning Adoinistrator
~?~
Assistant City Manager
00:289:91
p: \c.r\pctower
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
5/23/91
Page 2
•
,
,I .,
o
Attach .. nt,: Apr!l 19, 1991 PI inning Comml,sion Stiff Report
wlt~ att.chaonts
Excerpt M1nuta£ of Plan~1ng Commiss1on Meetings of February 27,
1991, .nd April 24, 1991
cc: Plinning C ... i,s!on
SRO C.,..ittee
Huaon Relitions C.,..;,sion
rower Ve11 Site Subcommittee Mailing list
Re lated CMRs: CMR:290:91, CMP.:545:0, CKR:374:0, CKR:351:0, CKR:220:0,
CKR:497:9, CKR:267:8.
CKR:289:91
p: \CIII'\pctower
------------
r
-. , ,
5/23/91
Page 3
April 1 g, 1991
PlANNING COMMISSiON
Palo ... 1 to, C.lIfo .... ia
Ciip of J'alo Jllto
p,o lOA l02~O
RECOMKENDATIOHS FOR THE PRESERVATION AND OEVELOPMENT
Of SINGLE -ROO!! OCCYPANCY HQTELS IN PALO ALTO
Members of tne Coo.I •• loo:
BACKGROONO
o
This report forwards the Recommendations of the Single Room Occupancy (SRO)
COONittee to the Planning C ... ission for action. The recommendations of the
SRO Coomittee were previously considered by the Planning Co .. ission on
November 14, 1990. However, the Planning Commission did not take action on
the five SRO C ... lttee re<...endatlons. Instead, the Pl.nning C..mission
created I subcom.ltte. to further consider the two recommendations which
concerned the use of the Tower Well Site for an SRO (SRO RecooaendatlDn No. 1
and No.2). The Tower Well Site SubcORIitte. was also to consider the 'taff
re<oonendatlon that the Planning C ... lssion recommend staff be directed to
i~1tf.te a Req~est for Proposal from various gr~up$ expressing interest in
developing the Tower VeIl Site.
The Tower Well Site subcommittee', recOROendations for a Request for
Concept.,l Proposal (RfCP) for us. of the rower Well Site, with related
criteria and guidelines for such. process were considered by the Planning
Commission on February 27, 1990. The C ... lsslon unanimously endorsed the
$~bcommittee's recoamendatfons with minor revisions to t~e text and item
order. Throu9h staff oversight, formal actions on the remaining three SRO
COIRittee rec~ndatlons were not taken at t~is meeting, and .~st be taken
before a c~lete set of Plannfng Com.ission recommendations concerning SROs
can be forwarded t. the City Council.
SRO COMMITTEE RECOMMENOATIONS
The following are S~ Coaolttee recommendations of November 9, 1990. Items
No. 1 and 2 bave already been acted on by the Plann'ng Commission, with the
recommended deferr.l of action on the T~er Well SitE effectively aCCOMplished
through the toom'ss'on recommended RFCP process. )t~s 3, 4 and ~ still need
consideratfon by the Planning Commission: ~
1. That the Pl,nnlng Commission recommend that the City Council continue to
consider SRO housing as a possible us. for the Tower Well Site.
.: \J>.:tower. pc
SC
4/19/91
?age I
, , ,
f
t .'
,
! . That the C;tl Council defer for one year t~e declsio~ to commit the
Tower Well Site to any particular use, while the Palu ~lto Housing
Ccrporat1on explores construct;on of new SRO units and possible sites on
which they could be built.
3. That the Council direct stiff to proceed wit' Building tode rev;slons to
provide irlcentives for private Dr nonprofit proposals for SRO
construction on any pote~t1al site~
4. That the City should not enact a demolition or conversion ordinance, b~t
should let to protect existing SRO units through commitment of
a~inistrative and technical assistance to private owners witn funding
sources for rehabilitation, seismic improvements, and other federal a~d
state funding.
S. That tho SRO Committee should be disbanded at the conclusion of City
Council conSideration of the Planning Commission r~ommendat'ons on the
SRO Committee's Noyember 9, 19S0 report.
REt~NMTlOII
Staff recommends that t~e Planning CommissIon consider the above listed SRO
Committee recommendations and recommend approval to tne City Council.
Respectf.lly submitted,
/Lt.-y./1,.( ;;1-
NANty IWlOOX L I'TLE
Zoning Administrltor
~i&ij£hJ~
KENNETH R. SCHREIBE~
Director of Planning and
C~un;ty Environment
Attachments: February ZZ, 1991 Planning tommlssion Staff Report
with attach ... nts
February 27~ }991 Excerpt Minutes of Planning Commission
meetinlJ
cc: Tower Well Site Subcoamittee "all in; list
Dolly Harrison
Bill Fellman
Janet Freeland
':\pctower.pc
SC
4/19/91
Page 2
f: ,
t,
~ I
H february l2, 1991 U , I !: PLANNING CIMIISSICH
Palo Alto, California
I
I Recommendatjons of the Tower Well Site Subcommittee
Nembers of the COMmission:
On November 14. 1990 Planning Commission considered the recommendations Qf the
Single Room Occupancy C~ittee (SRO) and a recommendation from staff
regarding initiation of a Request for Proposal (RFP) preeeso for disposal
and/or reuse of the Tower Well Site. While the Commission endorsed the
recomaendations of the SRO Committe!. they were unable to approve staff's
recoornendation to initiate an RFP without further otudy. They formed a
subcommittee to address the concer~s and take testimony from the interested
public.
Since their appoint..nt by the Planning Commisoion on Noveober 14, 1990, the
Tower Well Site Subco.aittee , composed of Commissioners Beecham, Christianson
and C.llen (substitutin9 for Narshl, has held two public eoetin9s to develop
recomiendations for a City process to consider proposals for the reuse and/or
disposal of the Tower Well Site. Th. purpose of this staff report is to
forward to the full Planning Coomission a sWlm'ry of their fin,l
recommendations. The Planning Commission ShDUld consider and adopt
reccamendations Which will then be forwarded to the Finance and P"~lic Vor's
Committee If and PW), where the issue is under conSideration. rrom there. the
recommendations on t~e To •• r VeIl Site and the SRO Committe, report ~ill be
agendized for City Council consideration.
In their DOeting of January 24, 1991, the Subcommittee reached the following
conclusions:
1.
c:\Tower
.1
Wh1Te the RFP process is not ilways the manner in which the City
has disposed of properties in the past, it is an acceptable way of
obtaining conceptual proposals fro~ I variety of sources to be
evaluated by the City iD this case. It is advisable to ensure
that the proposals remain cDncept~al in nature, therefore, the
process should be called ·request for conceptual proposals·
(RFCPl, in this ca.e. It is understood that any future project
which might be selected during the RFCP process would subsequently
be required tQ obtain all necessary zone change and develo~nt
approvals throug~ the regular planning penoit process.
2/21/91
Page 1
.-.'
/
o o
A Tong!r-than normal. nine montk. tim~ lint should be established
for responding to the RFC.P. in order not to put nonprofit er(tHies
It l disadvantage to other developers.
3. O~ce conceptual proposals have been received and the RFCP time
per10d is c1osed, the rev;~ process for considering lnd
recommending to City Council on t~e various proposals should
include review by t~e Planning Commission and the Hu~an Relitions
Commission, as rec~mmending bodies to F and PW and the City
Council.
4. T,e neighborhood will continue to be involved in the process
through direct agenda mailing to Individuals on the Tower Well
Site mailin~ list and through normal public noticing of the
Planning Commission and Human Relations tommfssion meetings.
5. The RFCP should encour.ge proposals to include the following
characteristics: •
I. Provtding for an id~ntlfied public need. e.g .. child care,
SRO housing, etc.;
b. Uses with low traffic •• d parking impact, On adj.;.cent
resident;al neighborhoods;
c. Consolidation w\th adjacent properties in order to gain the
advantages of a larger site and better planned project;
d. Use compotibility wit" the adjacent neighborhood; and
e. Compliance with the-PC Zone district reg1Jlat1ons.
6. The RFCP should disco1Jrage office uses.
7. The RFCP should entertoin and not rule out:
i. Abandonment Or barricading of Hawthorne Street at the Alma
intersection
b. Family projects such as singl~-parent transitional housing
c. Reuse of the water tower
B. Proposal, submitted should be required to include the follOWing
speci fi c. ; tems ~
c:\Tower
.1
a. Prel iminary site plans shOWing ingress and egress and
parking, elevations. and floor plans which label proposed
uses;
b. A written desc.ription of:
2/21/91
Page 2
.. -.
()
The number aod typos of resIdential units, if
ar.y;
Mow the project will satIsfy a public benefit or
need;
What Is the planned dispositIon of the property,
i.e .• purchase or lease and a general finar.tfng
proposal for the project; proposed timIng for
project Impleoentatlon; .nd
How the project wIll b. compatible with the
adjacent residential neighborhood .nd the
process for involving the neighborhood in the
de.elopoent of the project plans; and
c~ An envlron.ental IsseSSDent worksheet;
9. Proposals should be evaluated using the criterIa listed in Policy
and Procedure 1-11, .. dified as follows:
I. The extent to whf'~ the proposed use satisfies I public
n.ed.
b. Consist.ncy of the propos.d use with .xisting City goals and
objectives (set forth in the C.-pr.nensive Pl.n, Zoning
Ordinance, Municipal Cod.).
c. The impact of the proposed use (compatible services and
uses. traffic i~ictSt nGfse impacts, energy conservation,
etc.) upon:
The immediate neighborhDod;
T~e community generally; and
Tbe environment.
d. The monetary consideration to be provided to the City.
e. The history and Issessment of the proposed group's ability
to carry out the constr~ction. if any. and operation of the
facility and ser~ices as proposed.
Staff RecqmmendatfDn
Stiff recommend, that the Planning CommISSion recommend that the City Council
direct staff to proceed .ith the 9-month RFCP s.l.ction process as outlin.d
above, including the gUidelines, criteria and specffic content items
rec .... nd.d by the Tower Ltl Site Subcommitt.e.
c:\Tower
.1
2/21/~1
Page 3
--
:~¥~~~
~~.".
,". ">'~
o o
Because the Planning Commission d!layed making I recommendation on th~ SRO
C ... ltt •• report until the ~ork of the Tower Well Site Subcommittee ~a.
caapleted, staff recommend. that the SRO Committee report be reagendiled for fln~l Planning Commission recommendat1on on the next aViilable agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
--/ld1l/~$dd/(Y f d./l:. L "g Mt.IlIlO LYTLE I'c:f' L-L
Zoning Adm nistrator -
~ENNETH R_ SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Communlty Environment
Attachments, January 31 memo to the Tower Well Site Subcommittee
Planning Commission staff report of Movember 9, 1990
Single Roo", Occupancy C..."ittee Report of November 9; 1990
Minutes of the Plan"lng Comml.slon meeting of Movember 14, 1990
cc: Tower VeIl Site Subcommittee Mailing list
EIIl1y Harrison
Bn I Fellman
J .net Free I and
c:\Tower
.1
2/21/91
Page 4
.-/
." "-.
".~ ,
".! r~_
o
January 31, 1991
TO:
FROM:
Tower VeIl Site Subcommittee of the Planning Commis.ion
Haney tytle, Zoning .~dministrator
SUBJECT: SUII,,,ary of Conclusions of the Januar] 24, 1991 Public Meeting and
ItemS to be Discu$sed and RQSGJygd it t~e Febryary ;. 1991 Meeting
The To.er Well Site Subcommittee conducted a public meeting on January 24, 1991
to dBcu.s.s ttle process and land use issues involved wit" the disposal and/or
reuse of the Tower Well Site at 20] Alma Street. Planning Commissioners Beecham
and Christensen attended (Cha"iTllan Marsh was absent) and were supported by Nancy
Lytle and Yfrg1Aia Warheit from the Planning Divis;o~, and Janet Freeland from
t~e Real Property DiVision. Comments were freely solicited from members of the
publ ic who attended, including Sylvia Seman and lou Goldsmith froo the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation and Single Room Occupancy (SRO) Subcommittee, Tony Badger
frOll the Oowntown North Neighborhood Association, and Jon Schin~ and Tony
Carrasco. Jane Haley, staff liaison to the Human Relltions Commission, also
contributed.
The Subc.OfIIDittee reached the following conclusions at the meeting:
1. While i request for proposl' (RFPJ process is not always the manner
in wh1ch the City has disposed of properties in the past, that
process is an acceptable way of obtaining conceptual proposals from
a variety of sources to be evaluated by the Cfty in this case. It
is ~nder5tood that any future prOject which may be selected during
the REP process would ,"bsequentl, be required to obtain ,11
necessary zone chanQe and deve10pment permit approvals through the
regular review processes.
2. A njne-mont~ t:me 1ine 5ho~ld be established for responding to the
RFP in order not to put nonprofit e!ltities at a disadvantage to
other developers.
3.
TWSUBl
n1/dsk
The review process for the RFPs should include recommendations from
tfte Human Relations Conm1ssion Ind the Planning COnr.lission, prfor to
final consideration by the City Council.
1/31/91
Page 1
4.
5.
6.
7.
o o
The nefghborhood will continue to be involved through direct agenda
mai1ing to IndivIduals on the Tower Well Site Subcommittee .alling
11st and through normal publIc hearing notice of all future
meetings.
The proposals beIng solicited should be conceptual.
Site de~elopment parameters do not need to be defined for the stte
prior to the conceptual RFP process. il'! order to encourage
creativity.
The RFP should contain broad guidelines for the types of proposals
befng solicited, criteria under 'Which they wil1 be eva' uated, and
specifics abDut the expected content of the individual proposals.
Taptcs for dfscusslon at tbe next meetlng include spec'fic recommendations for
item 7 above.
NL/cs
Attachment: le.sed Use of City land/Facilities
cc: Tawer Vell Site Subcoomittee •• Iling list
TWSUS1
nl/dsl<
1/31/91
Paqe 2
i
,J
, i
, I , I
j
j
1
I
1
;1
.
IIol/ellber t. 1110
flANlilNG co,.nsSlON
fal. Alto. Cailforala
II 0 101 Ig1~O
,..,,0 .uIO. CAuf'OI: ... jA ,_303
STAFF RrCOl1HENOATlON TO PREPAAE A REQUEST,
roB PIWPOSAL FOR USE Of THE \ltLL mER sm
Member. of the COIalsslon:
At tho flnane' and ~bl'c Wort. (f I PW) Commltt.e .. etlng of Detober 30. 1990,
staff made a r.c~ndatlon that I ReQueJt for 'ropo.al. be I •• ued for the Tower
Well Site at A1 .. and Hlwthorn •• The F. PWCommltte. deferred any attlon until
the Plann'ft9 C .... I,.'on hu reported on the Slngli RODII Deeuplney (SRO)
C .... lttle's r.c ..... ndltfon. for the property. TIl. SAO Co"",ltt .. does not beltevI
that I formal ~Quelt for ProPO.I' (RFf) proces. 'S reQufred for the dl.posal or
future use of the property Ind recommend. thlt the Cfty Council dIllY ~.k!ng I
decl.fon on the sfte for one year. for realons out1fned In the preceding report
f .... the SRO ComlttH. The ... r. of the F • PW Commltt ........ fncHold to
aV .... o;1th the SAO C .... ,tU. rec_ndatton. At thl .. etlng, wmbers of F • P\i
I.pressed a preferenc. 1ft hl.fng propOSI'S r.c.f.ed fnfonoilly by I lfalson fo
the PlannIng Departaent. "". would Iho conduct a neighborhood .. etlnli to s011clt
their ldlas. There ... re no Downtown North neIghbor. repre •• nted at the ... tlng
Ind f I PW decided to continue the decfslon untfl Ifter the Pllnnfng Commlsl'on
rec_ndaUon on the SAO hsu .. hl.e been presented.
Staff would conUnue to rlCO!IIDend that I IIOre fo ... ' RFP proce .. be directed for
rluse of the ,It •• This recommendltlon f ... d. becaule the City Council hiS not
yet ~ro.'ded cl .. r direction on the gOI'. for thl UII or dlsposa' of the
property. and beCIUII Intl ... t f. the use of the property ba. Irl.e. from I
number of dlffe .. nt .ource •• Including the adj. cent property DWner. Without In
AFP proc •••• which would out 1 In, the b •• lc .ubmlttal rIQulr ... nt. for any party
'ntlre.ted fn purcb."ng or rede.e10plng ft, ft would be difficult to fllrly
evaluate Ind complre the •• rlous option. that .Ight be I •• fllb!. to the tlty,
wllhl. whlt •• er tl .. fr ... fs •• llcted to make I decl,'on on the prop.rt,.
The P11nnlng Deplrtment Is willing to Ippolnt I llal.on to the neighborhood and
to conduct I ... tlng with the DowntDWn North neighborhood. H ...... r. P11nning In~
~al Propertl.s staff bell •• e that It would be dlfffcult to Informally ent.rt.in
proPo'll, for the-re •• e of the property fr .. the .Irlou. Interested pIrtle. and
hl.e I proc •• s thlt was percel.ed as understandable, fair Ind Implrtlal. Thus
TDW[R 10/09/90
.'/dst '1-
... -p.---
, '
o
our conclusion that an RIP process that estlb11shes rYles fer submitt.1s. timing
and decision .aking wou1d well serve re$olut1~n of t~e Tower Well Site reuse
tssue.
The RFP tl .. frame rec ...... nded to the f • PIt Comlttee WIS three IIOnth. for
r.~elpt of proposal,. Th. RFP would be developed after Council let Ion on the
f • PIt recommendatl.n and thus the total time frlme would be It least six months
fr .. Commlssl.n lctlon.
RECo!!!EliOATlON
Staff recommend. that t~. Planning Commission recoomend to the f • PIt Committ.e
thlt the City Council direct stiff to prepare I Request f.r Pr.pos.l for the
Tower Well Site.
Stiff concurs with III other recommend.tlons of the SRD Commltta •.
Respectfully submitted,
• (,~y ~t./.I'I 4-.
NANCY IIAODOX L mE
Zoning Adaln!.trator
NKl/cs
4ulffk h 1utU,-i. "~:~~H R. SCHR~/.f,
Director .f Pl.nning .nd
Community Enylronment
AltachMnts: 11/09/90 Single 80 ... Cecupancy Comltt •• IIemo
cc: Jon ScMnk, 664 Gnun Street
Bill Peteroon, 228 fulton Street
Roger Cr.ig, 101 Wlyerley Streit
Rick Tipton, 690 Oregon Avenue
Tony B.dger, 381 Hlwthorne Street
Greg Chesson, 115 W •• erley Stre.t
Ted KlI, 724 Centrll Street
Sophia Dhrymes, 483 H.wthorne S~re.t
Irvi. Dawld, 161 Bry.nt Street
Anastasia Klrras, 483 Hawthorn. Street
Olvid Hartin, Child Clre Coordinator, City of PlIo Alto'
Annl Kornlndez, Deputy Director, H.using Authority of Santi tl.ra tountl,
505 West Juliln Street, S.n Jose, CA 95110·2338
Le.dershlp PlIo Alto, 325 forest Ayenue
J.lnne Yatterott, PlIo Altans for HGt.l Houslng, 1560 San Antonio Street,
Mon10 Plrk, CA 94025
•
-.
Noyeober t, life
To: Planning to.olsslan
F"., 51 ngl e Ro .. Occupancy C_Itt ..
Subjoct: Recomoendatlons of the Coo.ltt.o ~.YllWlng ,.10 Alto's Single Room Occuplncy Hotels
c
Following Is the report and recoo.ondltlon. of the Single Room Occuplncy (SRO)
CDlmltt •• t. th~ Pllnnlng Conalssl.n and City Council. Ple.se se. the staff
report to which this ..-0 Is attlched for addltlonll f.fonoatlc~ and
rec .... nd.tlons of the steff regarding the proposed R.quest F.r Pr.po.al (RrP)
proce.s for the Tower Well Sit ••
MCKSROONO
On Juno II, 19ge, 0 staff report .utllnlng Issuos pertll.'ng to 51.91. Room
OccuPlncy hotols In '.10 Alto and Including recommend.tlon •• f tho SRO
Coomltt .. wa. pr.,ented to City Council f.r ~e.lew. Tho CODa,tt,. recoo.ended
that Council consider tho following:
I. rd.ntlfleltlon of SRO hotels I. In Import.nt .leDent of the City"
low inc ... housing stock In the City" stlte· .. ndated Housing
EleDent update:
2. Commit Idolalstratlv. Ind tochnlc.l a.,'otlnce .'1 '"10 Alto Housing
Corporltlor. and Clt, stiff resoure •• to Isslst SRO h.t.l owner, In
obtai.lng IVllllbl. foder.l Ind st.te gr.nts .nd lo.ns for .el •• le
rehabilltition, goneral upgrading and additions to ex!stlng SRO
faenltles: and
3. Coo.lt the Tower Well Site loelted at the southe.st cerner of Alma
Str .. t and Hlwthorne A •• nue for I new SRO do.elopoent.
C~ncll voted t-e to approvi the SRO Ccoaltt •• Recommendations I and Z but t.
refer R.eoo.endatlon ) and the c.ncept 0' a conyerslon .rdin.no! to the
Planning COIDlsslon f.r revIew Ind 'Dnslderatlon and t • .ak. Ipproprlate
rec .... ndatl.ns to tho Cltl Council.
On August 2D and 5eplellber ze, 1190, the SRO C_ltt .... t to review CDuntil's
Ictlon and tD proplre recoaoen6atlDns for '1lnnlny Ceamis.lon review.
fo11owfng I, I ..... ry of the , ... Itte.', recommendltlon ••
peSTSra!
vw
1I/9/ge
-I-
11 ~ I
;!
~
I
I
I
! .,
i
-
Th. Coomlt •• strDngly supports the ton.tr"ction of new 5RO housing to augment
the •• isting st~k of SRO "nfts. They btllovo th.t the Tower Well Sit. ~.y be
• good location for new 5RO units. Other site •• r •• lso btlng consIdered by
the Palo Alto Housing Corpor.tion .s posslbl, locations for new SRO
constr"ctlon, including. county-owned parcel .t Page ~ill Road and Ash
Street.
Upon further consIderation, the Committee btlle.es that It Is premature for
CouncIl to commIt the Tower Well Site to this us •• t thIs time. Although the
Tower Well Sit. may bt approprllt, for SROs, there ar. other sItes ~Ithin the
community which. upon examination, may prove to be more appropriate. Other
potential uses for the Tower Well SIte should bt explored Ind relevlnt lind
US9 issues eXlmlned before elking I commitment tD any particular use. A
process should bt followed for determinIng the use of the sIte whIch 'llows
for neighborhood Input and Pl.nnlng CORIlsslo. Ind City Council review. The
Committee recognizes that SRO housIng is relatively controverSial, and they
recommend that co~nity education and neighborhood outreach precede the
designatiDn of the Tower Well Sit. or .ny other site for this use.
REquEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR USE OF TOWER WELL SITE
At the Finance and Public Works Committe. (FlPW) meeting on Octobtr 3D, 1~~O,
Cft, staff presented a titl Man,ger's Report regarding dispositIon of the ~oll
sItes which recommended that Council direct staff to prepare 0 RFP for tn.
Tower ~.ll Site. The FlPW Committe. del.yed .ction on that recommendation,
preferring that the issue of In RFP for the Tower Well 5ft. st.y with the
Committee until the Pla.ning 'comission has repDrted to the Council on the SRO
Committee's recommendatiDns.
The SRO Committee is requesting that propos.l. for us. of the Tower Well Sit.
n~t be solicited and that Co.ncll del.y comoitting the Tower Well Site for any
particular use for ot leost one ye.r. The Committee is making this request in
order to provide ti .. to develop 0 pl.n for constructing new SRO Housing.
Tbis planning is expected to take eonslderabl. time due to the complexity of
the financing Involvod •• d the building code and special design issues to be
addressed. HUO i. currently developing , new .crtglge fnsuranc. progr ..
specificoll, designed for n~ construction of SRO housfng. Other programs It
the St.t. level for new construction of SRO nousing are .lso being explored.
MODIFICATIONS TO THE PALO ALTO BUILDING CODE TO FACILITATE SINGLE ROOM
OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTlOli
Under the Building Code, .Ingle-ro •• living units .re categorizod ••
• fficfency unit. if they Includ. kitchen facilities .nd .s hot.l unIts if thoy
do not include kitchen f.cilitles. The P.lo Alto Building Code provides
standards for •• ch of these two cotegories, but neither one Is suIted to the
plrtie.lor reQuireoents of SRO units. Under current code, an .fficiency unit
must have 0 .inlmuo of 220 square feet and ... t have its own b.thrDDm and
kitchen. If no kitchen Is provided, the hotel provisions opply, which .1100 •
minimuo size of 70 sQuore f.et ~ith a minimum dimension .f 7 f •• t.
pcsrsro2
w
~j--.)~.--',
~ ~'-;:"'<"
<.-~:~£~~~~
.:;:~>,
"'\0;',7 . \
11/9/~O
-2-
•
,-
1
I ,
-~
ne Stote BlInding Code (H.IIV, Ind Slftly Code, Se<.!7~S8.I) hu been amended
to penlll clti •• to Idopt In ordinance to allow unit. of a .'ni..m of ISO
.qUlre f.et, to be occupied by I ... iou. of t.o peopl. and to Include a
portial tltc~e. andVor blthrooo flcilltl •• In. Ide the u.lt. Th ••• ,tlndard.
wore .peclally dov.loped to Iccoomodlt. the need. of SRO unit.. San Diego and
other clti.s hlv, included th •• e stlndlrdS I. their bulldlnv cod.s i. order to
flcllitate the pro.ision of SAO housing. PlIo Alto'. Chi.f Building Officlll
supPOrts I .. ndlng the City's BIIilding Code t. includ. the .peclll stlndlrd.
for SAO hou.ing I.thorlzed b, the Stlte BIIilding Code. The SAO Comoittee
rec .... nd. thaI the Council direct preparltion of an ordinance adopting the
reyi.ion. I. an encourag ... nt to SRO deyelopment.
The Committee relffir.ed t~ir lick of .upport for .stabli.hlng I con.ersion
or demolition ordinance, since the, thought that other efforts would be
preferlble for retaloing the exlsti.g SAO units. lhe June 7, 1~90 staff
report to the City Council presented I number of WIYS thlt the City could
.upport prlvlto owners of SAO unit. i. their effort. to retlln the •• unit. I.
their pre.ent uso, including providing technicil a$.I,tanc. to owner. i.
Icce.slng Sources of funding for rehabilitltlon. An e'>Ople of the •• effort.
Include. I pendi.g applicltlon by the owner of the Sarker Hotel to the Rent.l
Reh,bilit.tlon Progr .. (RAP) to help with the nocessary •• i,.ic upgrading of
that hotel. Addition.lly, the Housing Authority of Santi Cllra County hi'
applied to Housing and Urban Development (HUn) for Illoc.tion of fund, under
new progr .. s for Section 8 Moderate Rehabilitation for SAO hotel., with the
application being intended for the Sarker Hotel.
DTSBANOING OF THE SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY COMMITTEE
Since the tlsk. for which the SRO committee w., e.tabll.hed have been
Iccompll.hed. the Ccoaitte. belie.es It should be di.banded at the concl.,ion
of Cit1 Council consl6erltlon of the PI Inning Commission r.commendltlons on
thl, rtport.
SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
I. Thlt the Ccomls.ion recoomend th.t the Cit, CounCIl eontinue to
consider SRO housing as I po •• ible use for the Tower Well Site.
2. That the City Council def.r for on. year the decl.lon t. commit the
Tower Well ,it. to Iny partlcul.r use, whil. the f.lo Alto Housing
Corp.rltion expl.re. con,tructlon of new SRO "nit. Ind possible
.It •• on which th.y could be built.
3. Th. Council should direct .taff to proce.d with Building Code
revfs10ns t~ provide f"eentfve for prtvlte or nonprofit proposals
for SRO construction on any potential ,It •.
4. The Cit, should not enact I demolition or conyers Ion ordinance, but
.hould Ict to protect existing SAO units through commit.ent of
administrative and technical Is.i.tlnce to pri.at. owner. with
funding .ource. for rth,bilitltlon, .els.ic I~ro.ements, Ind other
federll Ind .tlte funding.
pc.rJro2 1l/9/~O
w ~.
-.',.-,'
L
1 ,
• I
~
1 • I
I
I
l
.. '
o o
5. The SAO Coonltte •• ~ould be dlsba .. ded ,t t~e c.nc1u.lon of City
touncll considerltion of the Pllnntng Comm'ss1on recommendations on
this report.
Respectful'y 5uboltted,
tzf::icitt0:ntA
Jla Bertlo
Ron Hall
~arlen. Prenderg,st
Sylvia Slsan
Nancy Shipley
Bob 1I0ods
Attachaents, October 25, 1990 tlty Man,ger's Report, tKR:S4S:0
August 20, 1990 letter fr~ Zo.lng Adminlstr,tor Augus~ 1990 Artlcl. from ZONIN. NEWS, ·SAOs: A Poor Stepchild
COllIeS of Age·
Ju'y 5, 1990 letter fro. E. A. M.a.
June 7, 1990 SRO Staff Report to City Council
cc, Jon Schlnt, 664 GI' ... Street, P,'o Alto, tA
B11' Peterson, 228 rolton Street, Pal. Alto, tA
Roger tr,lg, 101 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA
Rick Tlpto., 590 Oregon Avenue, P.lo Alto, tA
Tony B,dger, 381 Hawthorne Street, fal. Alto, CA
0 •• lorl .. r, 465 KlwthoTD Avenue, Palo Alto, tA
Greg Chesson, 115 W,.er'ey Street, ,.1. Alto, tA
Ted KlI, 724 Central Street, Palo Alt., tA
Sophia Ohrymes, 483 Hawthorne Street, Palo Alto, CA
Irvl. C,wid, 161 Bryant Street, Pal. Alt., tA
Ana.t"l. ~.rras, 483 Hlwthorne Street, Palo Alt., tA
Ca.ld Martin, Child Care Coordinator, City .f Pal. Alto
Anna Hernandez, Coputy nlreetor, Housing Authority of Santa Cllr,
County, 505 west Jull.n Street, Sin Jose, CA 95110·2338 L.oders~lp fllo Alto, 325 Forest Avenue. Pal. Alto, tA
Jeanne Vatterott, P.lo Alton. for H.t.l HDuslng, 1560 Stn AntoniD
Street, Menl. fork tA 94025
pesr,ro2 ...
----'--"--_.-----
11/9/90
·4·
/-:..
f. A. MAAS
" I. MNJIj 51l11Ul
i o
\0$ CAl05, CAl.w:o-Nt.t. »032
f"(IIllS<l-AolOO
.July 5,:'990 ~ ~!~!!! [ill
)It-. -. Sdlrelber
runctar of Plv>nlr>g
an! Q:mIIJ:Uty EnVircment
250 F.Milt<n Avenue
Palo Alto, CA '4301
Sirs:
We arc ill r~i1=-t ~ yc;.;r S.R~O. JiEp:lrt O;it;..;;a:! :-..:r..:: 7, 15;:.
We are prcu:! of cur q>en>tions lit b:>th tI'.e Cni9 ud Pale Alto
ffotals. lie o:nstantly up o;rade living oondi~ions and insist: on am ..untai1I a clean dru; free .nvircnnent. '1l1e S'"~r
Of a:ullLEl dat.i.on that the!-e is • great need for cur hotels is "''ell
~ by _ Stoanfcrd Report, and the re.lSp8per5.
Wl'lH RESPEX:T 'lO ~ El:OOiIC INCEm'IVES =1 liD IN YCXlR
~ WE ~ 'IHE ~ O~, WE wru. GUA:AAm'EE = 'IHE
IOIUS wn.t. Kl.INrADI '!HEIR aJRRENr S.!LO. STA:l~ ftt. A POOCO Of
FI'JE YEARS IN ~ fm ~ E>0IPl'1<N F;O'. ruE P'_'UClNG
DISIRIcr~. = ~ IS ~ NX FIVE ~
~.s BY KJl'\J1IL o::t<S<Nr.
'1l1e 5.1'_0. reports _ it eleu that the resiclants do rot
use pul:>U" parking, and m dlarge an q>entic:n like ours poriUn;'
fees $ilrply <Nb;ldizes ~ at the __ of the residents.
It lUSt also be cleu that our operations do !>CIt yield a qreat
profit. Fencving the parlcirq ~t in"guity \/OOld shooI <;IOCIJ
{61th an:1 SURY..rt. fcc the s.~ O. cxncept an! help us m.:airttain our
high~ ••
Sincerely,
EaYl/~
E. A. Haas
fcc the
craig and Palo A1 to Hotels
I " . ...... .
:l:.... .
" f""~
Nh~~',
Oep.rt.ent of Pllnning and
Comm~nil1 £nvironment
(415) 329·2321
August 20, 1990
Eo A.M ...
18 E. Hli~ Street
los ,.t05, CA 95032
Dear ~.r. Mus:
Subj.ct: tetter of Jul1 S. 1990 Regarding
rconomic Incentives for SROs
/ -.
o
2S0 Hamilton Avenue
Post Office Sox 10250
Pa10 Alto (A 9430)·OB62
Thank you {or your lett~r to ~en Sthreiber in which you ~akf i proposa1 fer
providing economic incentives for maintaining SROs through a five-year
renewable agreement which allows for the waiver of parking assessment fefs.
As J ex~lained to you by tllep~one~ J have reconfirmed with our attorney's
office t~at there \5 no mec~anism t~rou9h wnich the City ~in waive issessment
district feu. Either a :zoning toed ame-ndmflpt or PC-hOLc..ha!:l9.Lwould be_
necessilry to implement your im_!.giq~ti\lg pl!l1:.. ]f your-use were-reclassified
to I residentia1 category. t~us allowing exemption from the reQuirement to p~y
into tne assessment district. it CQuld not under turre~t ordinances be
reconverted to i commercial use i~ the future without providing pirki~g_
1 .,ill refer your letter to the SRO SubcolOOlittee for th.eir tonsideTiition. as
well as I topy of this response. Please feel fTe! to contact me with any
further Questions.
Sine-erel,..
AA.d4
HANCY tlAODOX l YTl E
Zoning Administrator
NMl/lc
Aluchment
cr Ken Schreiber. Direcior of ~hnnin9 and COlMlunity EI'IY-irofll'ntnt
SRO Subcommittee
Susan CaSE. Assistant City Attor~ey
tlus/olds'
-
,
\
I
SROs: A Poor Stepchild
Comes of Ag~
Sif'l,k4room-ottU~q bote!, {SJI'.Oil hc,,~ lott& been Y~w(:d
~ ,he: arimy C'el'.lt"rpiett$ c.f s«d.:t nci,hboft.oods. Ur,lo rt cd
"'T'IU ~nddC'NSed. mat'ly SROs (el1 'iicum t1) IItt11\ rene"",!,
Ike-OIY •• ~ hiJ:" propeny UlAe5. But. ~ t\31iona1 'H'!.eruion 1i;s
P1ihcd 10 che problctnJ ofhol1'JC'lt:s$neu and ~fforcb'bit.
1'I0\I~; "s,. iI has l>crome dc:~r 0\:11 SROs.. in t.t('[~ prol'idE:.
slab":: li .. in, cnvirorunent for INIny c1d'c-rlJ people. .
.tI:aI"lCfJaPpcd pcop~. zoo sin,re mcmbcn or the ""Orkin" poor.
Ti!~s i:!I why IOCLaI reformers. cily plannen, banA:eu, and ruJ
cstne de"c."" are: lalU:I, • .second look al S.RO bolei.s,
Zoni"£, raws .... arious. buiidin& code reqll.ircrnenls. and til.
1:111.'$ tan ,affect tbe imp:ICI orthe SRO on the: neiltlborflocxlarv.f
c;<n innucl\CC!he .bttity of SRO Qlillft"lle.h; 10 provide hOlllin, to
~opre:u the bonom oftht. U\c"ome: ladder. The rOticwinl
~;:oC\lssion ~onsi6t"rs nch or!hae disp.ua\t dements 1.r...d
Dffe-n; S\l'"t~iOM ~1Id t;umplu of bow pl~nnjn8 al'ld zenina
DfficQls~" 1'C'viufi2t, and fet:Stlibrish SROs IS vj:l;blt: hOI.ning
",,,,ions for :111 increninl !tame-Ill or "OU:: POPU~ljOM.
C("nm~l"(i:l;1 ar Raiaenli;lJ:'
From eil), 10 cify. :z.onitl, !aWj renCCl a cont:.:s ion OIbow 1110:
role of SRD5 in lhe IOC:II h(xuinl.:lnd hold mOlirkel5. Unlike
hotels WI Qdcr Ie> Cr.ln:J)ents, maR ~nl5 of .In SRQ coru-iefer
Ihc-piKe rhc:it· home. Many haYe !i\'td in their room for }'COIn.
and Niv~ developed rri(ncf.ship5 with oUt<::r l'C.sidcnl1.
Hu. ..... o:.v.:r. "nlike other per-rn:ane.1\l homes, SRO ~cls aITer
f'T(ilhcr run blloIhrooms ~~ kitchen !~mlies. Al bo:$.I., the!'"("
~J be ~n~1 fxilitju in the room, sueh as. irisin\:. Of oil Slove,
while ., u,owcr. lOile!.. and :s)!~rcd kitcht"fI. .,re 1«~td iW""Ti the
",n.
iI is efirrKUh 1(1 zane for Juell. piKe .sine!!: ills hl:illJer a
Ir;,cfirion:.T I'.o;d nor .. convC'l'llional.lpatTmenl b .. 'Il1in,. 1n
s.cmc cilico.s. SROs .arc r(XInd i:n .hi,h«nsiCy resiefellci:al.re.as.
In suc}j CI5CS. tilt loninl C"Odt .nO""'l them in residenti:tI :are-ll
or Irandf.zIMr cIOtuSC",i mah: them • .Ic,;)} nOfIConfortninl ... K
Other eilie, permi' SROs only in commc:rci.o!l,Jrc,u, most often
M.3.r dowlUowns. t..oc:J1.tOninc: omc-iaZs Should uke. into
ac(:()o"ItU tfQt SR~ are best placed in rltCl$C: ptru or [tJ .... (l th:t(
Drrer i~~pcnsj'tC <lIf~". ,rocr.r} 5I.0tH. ar.d .:ad<:qlUtC
pubri( ,~r.sponatior...
Zenina. rSC'finitions .. 110 renea the t'Qnf\l$iOOl about .... belher
Stl:Os:art trIOn ri,hrfully., N:s'id.c:nti.:al or C'ornrnerc~1 we. An
(I!U'i~ncc pntpOsed tn ,A.rlUII4iJcif'lru~5 bcCwtell tr.If'l,Jieru
lod,C-fl. • .AId, as lhose _110 Sl:ay::l rc-_ IIiJhll in. haec1 or
moIcl, and petm.tltICnf 'Yl:ill, but'mos.c ordiNitIC'Clo do lIor. fn
Chica,a. for irw:anc~ •• n SRO ts ZOhed :alld l.:Iud as if .... ·crt
, k;;Ur~r htx~l. eycn thoulh.:as CtnC advOt'.:lIC points OVI. nO
oru: wdl canfuse-;1n SiR 0 .... id' me: M.lrriQu. III ;1 .suburb or
Ckvdand. nciChbcm are OWOSin&;3 pr~ rc;;.idcm-e inn in
pl:n. beCause. the)! ate "rraid .cnay bct"anw:: an SRO i.lthc
ori.tiNI UIo(" bct.omcs unprorltablt. The: i.M, whieh ..... it. ~
b\lilt. win iMl»dc a kilc:btn. inC'l'tf)' room alld "WiD Ooltr 10
L
-
AUGLlSl',~
AMlIIIC"" "1..1."""",,.,,
ASS.OCr,U 10,.
",t !Dbbytlfd.t M::.4d<"O Hau'. IV! SRO ilrSltrrwpaf'l.lPursidNI.. r,,~
N7ttlllXls, JOriaf Jlr.';aJ ~lN'IJtllV for ill ~JitlnJ!J W ~
~,~ p' €OOl.1"'. Nf'I1I, _',I. IINi IJriAh:.,,,,
bLlSilJd;S people il':l rown tor mort Ulan ...... ed:: ..... iII ot'1c:r more
p;lri.:.in, JIId ;uTIC'niclCs wn. Iypic.ai SRO ~sjderu C;31'1 lfforcL
Room Sit,1t
SRO houlinJ, ts ll'lythinS blJt Spic\OI.!'l. althoucfl: ~ .. '
cf~ __ c!opmt.1\~ 'OCt'K! \0 rt"Jlure biller room,-. San Oi(:,i!lS c.'>de
requires. minimum of 10 5Qu2.re re.eI ror sleepin, rooms·
Tlle~ TOQrru; Q1I1'IOI' N-"'C &1~c:M1U or bathn"om.S. A law
rt:«lI!ly pauco ill Ca'l"!fomia d"ef'i1')tS • I'IC'W typI: of li __ ifll sp,lcr.
;lMia,cw.s IC SRO rooms. anfd livin, ~n:tJ.. L.iviJ'll uniu :art:
biller Ih:In cradl[ionaJ 51<0 uniu.l'InJinl from .nquired
minimum or I S05qldrt feet 100 a Inu.iml,ltD or .bouIl?.s
squ:arc ~el, The), ;lte' .nowed i.n commercial arC3S \Io~re
hClot!.s .. N1l;t1C1cc!1o 3rt p::nniaed. Unlike Slud'io ap.lnmenls.
~h,,: h requ;r~ J r .. n .It; ilehe'll .. lid b.:nh. ti '0'1111 unil$ • r~ 1101
rCl:!.Il'fC-d co cfTcrcompJclC r.(:i/ille.s. For ~lampl=, Qnl: r;lci!.l,:."
""!tn lI,vitlC u..n,~ fus !OOtn$lJw Ire: 31lc.ut 190 "lW!re feel.
Tke., inc:luae 2 fun bat!'l.room;and an ineomplele l(tchC1I ... ilh.
micro ...... ve: ~a{hcf lhar. .. (:Ol\ven.t~rW' O'o'CI\.
•
""'"1. ' ... l
''-..'," .-.
..
,. ~
• A pr~ A1b.nu todc:, whidl is a.lrmI'r,'"'Ifiommtllc;e.
requires ttw F'I)C)I'm be;ac lease ,00 ~n:: feet. rn $e.;IIIIc.
_hec 'OIdc.r SROs aro:: f'hOY:llcd. IfH: cit}' or4ilUflCt :lnOWS OW:
dtvtlopc:r to kC'q) rootrl$1III'h:ItcVCI Jar: Ibc)' WCI'e. HctWeycr.
lbe: dry" DeparUMfti or Coml'n\lnil1 Dcvc:kJpme:r1I is re:qui rinl
Ihat ftC:w $ROIl orr.:r rooms lh;c an IlIeut IlO.sqw.rc (.etc..
The ~lJdiJIIJ C'OIk. 2S DI dliJ writin,. is bei". cNnl-ed, and it
is uncial if~ minimum room .w-.iH C1Id up b:inJ 120 or
1$0 JqU:lJ'C rttt.
CommOll Ata.s
Common areas. arc: 111 imponaI!Il pin or an SRO. a1thou.h lht:" .
Ire-ftC)( I'ICCCSInlJ teqIlim:l by kIc:.al ord"iP\anCU. The p:opo$ed
AlJ::&tIC onf"miIncc: requircJ aw there be .. kut (Ave: IqWlfC reel
Or~spIeepttcr""'CllinlvM~ with. mirumumof250
squart: feCI f'CSI!twd for. torrMnOG area . .Rccratiofllrt.U.
rnttti", 1'OOI'nS. and cfmiAa rooms. arc an COflSldcred common
lpKt. rftterali""l ~ &he: rNtn Jobby. vendin, atUS. :lind
cornrmmit)" kitchens 1f'C DOt considt1ed tOmmOn _IUS.
In $cede.. wbcft SRO rdlatHliw;on is usuany done by
nonprofll orpaizations.,idI pvliaJ' fuocfm, rrom the city.
common spac:e: is DOl • todt rcqaimncN. bu:I i: a somettl in,
Ihc: eil)' bWsts upon 11 me rq:OIiatUll rable.
Corruncn VQS at't DOC required by the Sh~
L,a.,WIDI. eodt. Hownet'. !he MeAdoo Hard in Shrt:vepon
'bouu. ptiio 0fI1k ICCCfId: tkIor and lrus whut re:idcnu
cu Wrt: cookin, lad.fl:la1J: CcmmOI\ vas Irt nor req'"oIiTed
in De!!VCI'!tidler. sinet: SROIII'!: eonsicf=red ruideNW hoeels
a1Id'mu.a mea me ~ ~irtme1ltJ. U any Othu kind of
hold.
E'fCa 'dtaaJ'h older todcs IC1ICIl'OC 10 ~rc common lrus.
ill ill,* ida to follow Albnt~ts lead in makin, them
matIdauwy. Tbest: spaces no! only aJ10w rcs~1\1S IQ dc:vd09
.supponjwe tie:s.1hc)' a1sc ol'fscllbc.smaJI.siu of the rooms
hm",
MOIl cilia req.lift: ftnJ: or flO partin) rGt' S'ROs:. In.some
communities, aD !:he: SROs art so old rMllrv.d(aIhe:t ctalolSU
prGCttIlhem rram parkin, rqail'mlC1llS. Sari Dielo does ftOI
R:quin= plri:in, (or atW SROs dial art built in the: ~IOWII
Ira. :'datU "';0 noc requite plrtina: rar SROs ill dcru.cly
rkYclopcd::lre2S near ,pubrac UlftSpon:ni01l bv1 docs re~irr:
~ spaa for every two 10 fo.:.J! roam.s and one 'PIce per
cmplO)u in 50rnC z.otIC1. Likewise, San Oie:,o sa~j",..:s
~.Iin:s pandnl in Ie:ss. ... Ydoped r:ommen=i:l.llIrus. The cil)'
1X11Mt;IICS pitkin, requ~ ... lUI ch::¥tlopers ClII a case .by.
cuebasi$.
Eric' Rybcnacm. presNIeftI of !he S'lft,Tc: :Room OperaLors
AssocialjDn in Chalo. ltIinb lhIl partiftJ 'rtQUiremc!llS art
siny. ()(:IJ1 11M: te$idenu iJllht: 200 builtfiftl' opc.r2lecf by du:
auoci.alton, he tstLmllrc.s Uw onJ)' fiw af si. 1\1 ve C'~rs. He
rurther sUIJ'CSU 1J\a1, if. rc:sickN is able 10 .fford I car. lhal
FTJOa is also liklylO be:.blt 10 rt::fU an .p'nmcnt.
Iuc SRO DpPOI'C:nIS hive: IdCd &he pultin, rtquirtmcnu 10
liD no prcposats.. III one: Uwantt. a dev:lopc:r Wlntled lei
'build,. 16O-toom SRO iflilhe Uke Claire. nd,r:hbottIaodi of
AlIaDIa. tk asb:4 d\c: IOftinJ boIIrd lID I"t:dw:t Uw: requilt.d
number of' ,..niDI ~. whidr! at dult lime: wefe &he same: as
lhost: fcqtIm I'of'. tCplIr hold. The aelll\borJ ~ II)
~ the 1IIWrnbc:r 01 ~ired spae:a. and. ~""')'.
the: SRO ended UJt DOC bc:inz built.
auild"-Cc.-s
JIrl$! as. dIcrt ate 1i00CftftttS acrou IN: country rq:lt'dln& ,.tt..,..r JCIIlttJ, rcqu~, city build:i1IJ coda lIse
dif'kt in dIcu rqv:wioft orSJtOs.. The Sail Oielo r:ily
1
'L
-
o IO~~NAutiul1cd • pofq or allow inl code Lfl11C orrs WI
vOOJld CON:illoOlc 10 prorec1 the hC.lllh ;aN! s.:fC1,)' or r~id"c:nI5
while rn:Ikinl dcvelopmcrukuC:.lpc-liJoilrC. frM in.st:ancc.. in
uch.:!nlc ~r winllas upeMivc r~rt dooM.. I devtlope.r or
CIne SRO JNt in I sprtnllu I)'lIem lhrO>l,r:hoOl1 the building.
TM lndcQrr anOW'e'd. ror ;jIdcqWlle n.e 'pflMct;1ion bill ~I :I
I~r con La'lhc dC'>1:1op:r.
OiC-;Zlo·S codes de DOl h.alle the.l.1mc t...ih-in nClibi1ilY,
much II) the rNSlr;)lio.'l 0' SRO ownc:r Ene-R~be!\$ICin. He:
bcrlC¥a tb:Il bui1cfin& ('ode iftSpt:clers C.;jIr! ~ UuclUlEiyc Ie the ..
SROs fin;afo('i.ar cONtr;il'ltS 'IlIhen they order c~pcnsiv:
rt:novation.s ~I do riuk more than drivt. rcnl5 up. f"r
instlfl.C'e. ill ()ne ofbi5 builtfinll, sinb were rhre't inches LOO
narrow. The irupcoor ordered him Ie lear 0111 the sinls .lr.d' Ie
~1K"t IfItTfI wllh brttr sinb;, In N case, I judie s,iW dlinls
Rubenstein"s ".;jIJ 111M "tied in bis f.vor. Howe .... er. SIKh
dirrlC'uhicJ inc-rtut the ~ of doinl busin(:l1.
Hi:s1cric Prest:n'a!icm,:rnd Nri,hborhood Stability
SRO hoc:eb N .... C I\3d such II ched,tTed p.1S1 tfun they :Ire not
lhc firs.! thine one thinks or.hc,n Il)'in! to hd'p .spnKC up •
dcteriotlllin,r: neiltlborhood' Dr presavt bul.llifut old
build;nr;s., sun. in.some pI'.ac-c:s. S ROs art !I iSlorie prQpcnics
or Irt in histl)rlc c!istricu Ind N¥t p'oYeJI 10 b:: U-lCU to the
comrr.unit)'.
B~l:.c Chimbc". In archiled and 4irtt101' ofthc: Wwc:rn
Housinl Assist:lnct CC:nlef i.., Oen"'er, sinlS. the: pr.liscs of tbe
&nh HOIel l'eno .... :llion.. He.says IN1 Ihc old bric:1I buiiding.
with iu .rchiltt1u~1 det.Jil, ser-u!he neilhbcl.rflood ... cn. h
humanizes rhe c:itylQpe'nd' e"cour;a~ OIher QWI1C:rs 'O( older
bu ildinr:s. tQ rt:nO .... ;jIle !heir propeny.
If 111 SRO is in I bistOric GIJIrIc-t, dcvdop:rs Q!1 leI L3:\
~n:diu Ul do n:h1biliution. The bc:ncfi~ rrom the Ul brQk
leM r2n,. OU1\fIf'Ci&h the d'iIrIC\l!l)' oflec-pini the f.K~de
hislor-:ic:ln), K.cUr.ltt. Often. bowt'O'er, tfle hisl0ric!.:lx. c:redits
are tIO( r:nOlJ,r:h. for in:stvn. ~nk U5 some SROs m
hisloric dis.triru tN.! ha¥t qlQlifltd f<lr pre5en-.tion I.U
credits. }{l)WC-:er. beaU$C the credilS h.:Ive: varied o .... er the
)'C:I 1'5. the (:ilJ provides QlI\er subsilf..es in. order 10 kC'Cp !he
hOlds pforltable.
Nora Greer. rormerl/af tN: N;uiOTUI T n.J-SI ror Hislofle
PTCKrvllion. suggcsts elht:r bt:nc:fiu than the pre:sc~'lioll 0 r
old bui1dinli:s. QuaJif] SRCk call hdp pre"c::!;1 ,e:lllrilic~lion
Ind subscquenl displ;JCCIDeM oOcw·incomc: arc ,.......sic-cnl$.
Tbey all. htlp pro .... idt n:.:si~nlS with;ll Knse of neil hborhood
;and pl:ta. FlND),. lht reuiJ uses ~ ;he firJI fiODt or ~n}'
SROs provi6e-SoCrvictJ U) the l'Iti,hborhood and jobs to ,some
~rlfh:: hold reildcnu.
1\.1.n~lemtnf
The qlalil)' or SRO m,u\JletIKN ¥.arles Irc~lll. The old inuie
or t."'c rtc;ab:l,r: flophouse, ~e.min, 1I/o'1It1 f~r:bes and (!n.Jr.k old
men can be tfispefled olllJ if hoc:els ;a.rt "'cn Nn. ~n Diejo
requife,: thll eve". boctl ... ilh more: 11\,).11 12 units h:I .... e ..
fesiknl manlier. A!~ pt"Oposd 10 requirc tNl the (reml
dtsk be stlffed.t an ~.
1ft many SROs.. the: INIn&Jcmenl6oes mo:c WI', conerl
rtnts .nd maR rc~ i", S~f1 mc:mbc:flaflO help rt'lldeNs
nclOli2le the &eeial sc ...... ict sJSlCm. !Ildetd. s.ome SR05.
tspec..n), Ihosc m.analcd by nonptDrlU. tu"e a more torrn;.!
soc-i.aT KI"'Yw:e CDmpone.nll0 Ihc-it pxbl!e. $c;allle :In.d Los
Anlele.s boc:fI P\J"'t spc-cw netds SROs lNl c.aler La If'fCnt:lny ill
rcs.icknu and rtsldC'ftl:s. '<riIo 'IlI.l1IC or neo:d ..... lcol'lDT ·fJee
hem::. Mencn.r ill rnicfcnJs:ltt (oncenlr:n.ccl' on one noor of
Shtevcpon·,s McAdoo HOltI .. he.re;a c:ounselor is on dUlJ II)
hclp OUt.
. .
"Mone} M311U'1
No One: bas C'¥CI ~d SRO ft:S*ntJ of A:lwinl In
Oftl'llbc.md.Jl)Ct Or'llWCaWI. 'Whc1I1 ... SRO doses, its raidtlds
do no! aJj(ft move into ~pbr .IpmmtnU; they In: m~h
mort riJcely 1(1 c~ "9 ill • Wltcr. inIliUlliO!'l, or 011 the JU'fttJ.
Tu C'Rcftts. property tu aWlemcntl, and s!;Ib.sNfIU car. hc"Jp
hold owncn. NY in 'bu.sjnuJ without railinl rcnu. beyond the
ruch ordlc~. As diJatIxd above.. bi$loric r.u c1cdiu
an ~ used w:tle.tt !'Cbabbinl buildinp m 'historic' GI.Str1cU. Tlw:
low-inmrnt houJin,lU c:n:dlc P1as 'bec1I 'ItStd Ie rtllOl'all:
uistiftJ pn'IpCniu. ,n ~iTion. KYC:a/)'CatS _,0. MUO
n:1ncd nlia ~ turd cflJCOUrapd' lht: IaJe or 5eaion •
ccnirQ[CS ror SRO ~Ql_
Bvc fErurx:bl wiJuntt nud' DOl: ~ppcn at Ihc: federal ~yc:I_
Sonw of me bc.s:I proa:l'1Ims 10 cut lhc: C'OIits. of OWJIin.lNf
ope~illl SROs arc bet"1 maNlIed' Ot fuDded by Jon;
IOvemmcms. For inSUlrcc.. Se.aulc bs,ln SRO fund
esublf.5hed 'a>tth Community De~lopmmr: Block GtaN
money. The fund boosu: the bYdle'U cr tJOnprOlil 'OWners
warkinlle rdl;b old ~, twJilcfinJl_ $,an DXlc also
subsitfues SRO ~b and orren dew:lopoe:n. low·i~ltresL loaru.
10 tc:N-b or CCIUU'UCl IICW units. The dry 1\Inhe:r bs t'h&nltd
the ftc scheduJes (or sewer and waleI' to marc: a«\IraICI:
refleC'l SRO DAlt. Ifthc SAO proposal passel in Ad.Na, the
knllh of time iI ~kcs fClr &11 individual ICI aubruh S'CrmaM~t
residoency. dlus nukinllhe: SRO owner exempt rrom Ihe
~telfmcler CI(.C:JP;!ZICf l:iIll, ""ill be reduced rrom JO cl:Iys 10
scvmcl:lys.
Anccher~)' 10 keql SROs ill the bJack: is to .bale: PrD9CM)'
wes. In Chalo,SRO ~~ art; lSSe!se4~ theumc: 1011e
as the-Hofiday In!:! and other commercial Yf;nlU res. AdvDaIC5
:IrC pwJIinllO ~ the prC'pCn)' Ill)!; rolUe dropped to the ~:mc: as
tim for I s.in,le·farru1, hou.Je -16 ;>etten! or 3SS(ued value.
This IU brali would ad:l)(lwl-cd,e-the residential JXlrpDSC of
the buiTdinl .n<! rnJke ic e;u;er ror owners II) provide low-(05:I
bousin,.
Those chies IhaI have rc-derLned their pc:lrl-C:~ OIl SROs Nlve
rn.:.nqed 10 write bYildin& .. rxf :zealn, t(ldes mal ~qu"lcl)'
procea the ncilhborhoods _hire mak.inl r~cm bo\lsin,
avaitOlb!c 10 people ""boo ne-d' it. K~y fitclon to .su~SJ .re
a ..... i1abiJiI" armouy.md La'" credits. nuibilil)' ~.£ardln,
bundin., cocSe.s, Ind reta ... ed Clr, better :reI, no pulcini
rcq~irement1. Zonine codel-s1IO\Ild ats.> teqvirt: I rOllnd·!hc·
clock: Staffinlln[l :ackquall!~ ("ammon spKe. ex..
Hugo Makos O.ani" 10
South ~ror.n.', Tough
Beach Managemenl Law
South Carorin.a·S.lOulh new buck .rn.&NIlemc:N b~, dc.siJMd
10 ru.tria: build'itll on I'XUn(TOflC beaches. appars to b!: a wasJ\
DVI, Hyndre4s ~beKh(tOlLt homes smashed by Hunlunc
HuJO 11SI.)'Ut Irt bc:ina tYbYJ1lon &he S&me I'oul'ldatiol'lland'
en lhc amc: ..... IJlCrabJc be.KhrRIN lou. AAd, as. UJual. !:he
homes _iII be ctM:rrcI by CII"'pI)'Cr-sllb1.idIud bknl Rood
insur.lftC'C.
Id'on: Hurricane HulO, Ihc-SouIl1 C:aralina J.a.w was. Uled as
;Ii model fol hvrric:aDC 'prone NIts, but \he II.:IIIC·S f'C1~1K~ 10
u~ 0e law Illef HuCO may be: makE,. me bw somcthinlic:ss
than a 1nOCle-r. Tbc SIale-'. 1981 COUIaI ZoM M.na,retncl1l Ac1
cS«laft-d dw '1':)' hous.e c-fos.c to die dune. rinc: Wt -as two
t1Iirds. Of a')OtY dcs.u~ could tIOI be ~buill, .:nlen it wz
pushed lhortwatd 20 hI ~ the dune:.
L
\
, .
-
But, a!'ter HUEO. ~~Lh Ca roji~ Co.asllll COlJ~il
;I(fople(f Yer)' libe ~1 CtTli:ti .. 1.0 de Ie rminc .... hal CC)Jl.Slil!.l!ed •
houle sti]] more than ont:+l.'Iird intKt. "'We wcre fa itry lenient.
rnlIybe too len~nl," :.dmined' stilte R:ei>ruc:nuli",e Lcl'\Oir
Sturkie, a champion ofche bact. 1N!Ulemc-l'II.K1 irl ~ South
Cltol in;'l Le-,iS.r3tua·,I\d'. member or the Ca.uul Counc:u.
SIU rl.:.ie-"lold the MidwU Hr .. (JltI • "M.tybc U! is W-H Ii
Cl:lUe1l.uente of the rNllniluC:e ofthc: ~m.tle HIl.o did ." th15
SI"lI~: ...
Lon, bot: fon: the 'hurriQIIC occurred, Stt.lrkie arnr oille r! .... c re
in (he midsl of. ralin, ponlic:ll fil>1[ 10 pr04tt1 the ~ \1/ (tom
prodcvt:ropmcnl tQrcC1. At the same time, Ihr: wle wa.s bcin!
nooded ...-ilh laWS"IJilS from owners or ¥K:.nl bC'.aeIl.(!"I)1\l
property, uro.:.blc 10 build because or the raw's n.S:lrictions.
&.lwcen these mQ\IlUi1Il lawsuits tnd: Hurrk.anc HUlo, [be
Ic:,i.sl;uors p.aucd. compromise .tnendmtru 10 [he i 9S1l 1:1..,.,
on JIl n.e 2j ch:Il .noW$ some eonSlruClion nc:ar the W';!errrcl'l[.
b<.n not on acti ... e bexhcs or und dunes. The amendment also
proluoi15 the C-OhS1NC1icn f)f .K.1W"n.s once tIley h .. ~ been
cJeslrO}'ed.
Ellen with the new .amendment, there is stlrl the problem or
lM red'e raJ flood lru:urancc: .ilroa:ram .nd iu c:onU'ols. $1.1le
Scr.ator John Ha}'e.5, .nomer member O(the C~ CoundI.
uid thai, lI'~r HurriClIlt: Hu,Io, he bad ~ ... pec:~ tht federal
prOlf1.m 10 limit rebuildin, on disulu+ptOflC: Inoreli~ Bur
the prtl,ral1l docsn"! Go mu-e" more tiu:'lpto ... i.d'e tDlJ.aher
conSlruc1icn r~(i' .. irtmeNS. The prOitlm, he .said', does.
~"inl to;pusll be;ac:n hCI'Us~s. b::..et rrom the lhore.
And C"n ... il"Qnme:nt~isrs art nor fuppy eilkr. ~11 doe-sn', m:.ke
sense 10 pro ... ide: iruunne ri.aru on (he ~n-nCI
eeolo,r:ie3ny. DO< for pvbJi~ nfet)', ;and II ceT\.,;lnly does.n't
m.1.ke lenS( economiany. ~ addt:d Elise: lol\e.5 of the: N., 1 iOn.l1
Wildlife Ftdcrl:tion. "1 don"! think the: peopr~ in 10\\.01 realize
WI their tal mOM16 subsiditin,g VIC3!~cn homes in 50IJrb
C;lI1'Cillru ~ S.L
Florida JUghl,oC·\\ay
Mapping Rul.d IIlfgal
Florid .. "s. Sllpremc COY" ruenlly Slruci: dOWll the SI.:m:'s
~Mappi!lJ.atJd Rner.'lItion"l.N-. Th~ law, Cn.iCled' il'l 1984, hold
aIiO'\loOCd me Floricb Oc~nrnenl f)rTn:ruponali01l (FDOT) 10
rc:sc:rYt conidon or~nd fur fut~re: ri'hl--or· ...... y xqulsition.s..
The 11 .. hold been p;u.sec! to ensure thaI FOOT wou lei hal1!:
.. ffordable OKct'U la p:lrcels o(!.and' ltl~ c:ou!d be u~ 10
e-.1.P=lnd bil~ t'apac:i()' in lhi.s rapid!:y l!owir,S SI;;IIC. FOOT
h.ac110 ~nlify these corridors and mtn develop I rrup
hil"Ii&hlinl them. Tht: m.:Ip Il.ad LO be filc:d inlht' ::.pp~ri.:ne
cC'ulU)' coun.. Once the.tn.:lp was tiled, it bet':lrrIC il1eS::.1 f'or a
brodownc:t 10 belin Irry "'tW deYl:l09mc:ru on • rrupped ~r .. d
ror up 10 10 }'tars,. The Nte wa.s flOI required to t'ompo::n5.;l1o: me
lIndowntr unllllhe p~y ~ KIUoIn}, aCl(uired_ (n the
metnlime, the propcny owner ~ SI i)1 required to pay
,propc:nJ taus on lht: bnd'. whkh had beet! rrudt es.scnli.1l1y
unmtrktuble l7YCmi,1iL
5C11Jnd li Lt • l3k-inl to 'JOY' lJItll, -. did' 10 the s.ta1C+S. h ith
e04.ln.. Tht cue lluol breed the isJ;~ involvc-d an el,N'.cre
p.lnel or land il"l Tampa ~ned bJ loi 1\1 \t nlu ru. Inc. The
compu!y filed .sUil .aII;LnsI the SUite in 198j after II: wu llfl.lbfc
10 t'omplelC the: gJe ;,( Ih3l propt.ny as a rc:wlt or fOOT
gppinl their part'd au f\llurc ri~!u,of"..-ay_ £VC:I'lIIlJ.ny. thc
I-ULt boul'" the land rrom JOiN ow,ruUrts. Tht' cue t'onlin ... rd'
as. .. IItSZ orlhe validi!J ddle law.
AJ,::. ruull o(the CXltcomc of this s.uit. FOOT lou 3n
)
•
,1 r
I
!
i
1
June 7. 19SC
HONORABLE CfTY COUNCIL
'.10 Alto. C.,lfornl.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE REVIEWING
PALO ALTO'S SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANC! HOTELS
MtmbeTs of the CounCil:
o
Attached I. the report of the Sfngle-RoOM Occupancy Hot.! Committee requested
by Cltl Council at Its November 28. 1988 meeting.
The Commltt.e w •• comprised of .embers of the Human R.latlons Commis,lon. the
Palo Alto Housing Corporation, the Urban Hini,trl and City .taff. Flndfngs
Ind .. commendotlons of the Committee are discussed In det.il in the report,
.n~ Ire s"~rlzed as follows:
Findings and Recommtndltions
10 summary. the Commltt.e Tecommends that the Council consIder the following:
I. Identiffcation of SRO hotel. as an Import,nt element of the City'. low
income housing stock 1. the City's st.te-mandatod Housing Element update
(scheduled for City Council consIderatIon on June 21, 1990);
2. Commit admlnfstTatlve and technical Isslstanc. via P.lo Alto Housing
Corporatfon Ind tlty .t.ff r~sources to Isslst SR~ hot.1 owners in
obtliufni a.lilable feder.l Ind state grlnts Ind lo,ns for .eismic
re~.billtation. general upgrading and additions to e.isling SRO
hcillties; In~
3. Commit the water tower site llK.ated It tl'tr southeast corner Df Alma
Street and Hawtborne Avenue for I new SRO de~e'apmfnt.
Respectfully submitted.
OJ •
'."-.•. ,,:,d.o;:>'1'4/1.';
CAROl. JAIlS EN
Chief Pllnnlng Offlcl.l t I( \ • .{~~ilWJ.~\
JIJ1I£ \UMI NG
Asslstlnt City Hanlger
Attlc"ment
O\II.:l~1 :5
,.' . I' .I -J(.~ I; ~ ,!! .
~ENNETH R. SC~REIB[R
Director of Planning and
. Community [radronmer\t
•
-
Jun. 7. n90
,......,
" ..
HONORABLE CITY CDUN~IL
Pil. Alt., C.liforol,
o
RE~~ENOAlIONS FOR TME PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPMENT OF
SINGLE·ROOM OCCUPANCY HOTELS IN PALO ALTO
Member> • f the CDunC t1 :
.SUlf'lARY
On NDveaber 28, 19BB, the City Council requested thot , committee be formed to
addre.s the IS$u., related to the pres.r •• tlon of the City's .ingle-room
Dccuponcy (SRO) hotels. The Committee w,s to be comprised of members of the
Huson Relltlcns CommiSSion, the Palo Alto Housing Corpor,tion, the Urban
Minl.try and st.ff. This ,ctlon w.s prompted by the the, Impending s.l. of
one of the City's SRO hot.ls, the B,rker Hot.l, Ind the potent •• l conyers!on
of thl. focll1ty to, more ups,.le, c ... ercl,l hotel. lhe to.ncl1 Iction wa'
precipit.ted not onl1 by the potent i., 10 •• of one of th •• e hotels, but by the
brOider policy Issues of dl.pl,c ... nt of In I.port,nt low· Income housing
resource 1ft the City.
lhe SRO Committee flr.t conv.ned I. December, 1988. Shortly thoreafter, It
was le.rned thot the B.rker Hotel h,d been sold to Palo Alto developer Jim
Ba.r. who purch,sed the building specific.l1y to retli. It. SRO hote1 .se.
The Bar~er Hot.l has recently undergone Interior cosmetic upgrading, and ha.
be.n fully Dr nearly '.111 rented for the 1 •• t f.w month.. In addition to
providing hou,lng, the o.me. of the property has wor~ed with Jim Burklo of the
Urbl~ ~jn15lrJ to provide needfd 50c1l' servftts for t~e residents Df l~e
hottl.
Although dl.po.ltlon of the aarker Hotel was resolved, the Committ •• continu.d
to ... t In order to report bock t. the Council on long-term ~chanlsms to
faclllt.te .'ngle·room octup,ncy hot.l preservation ,nd posslbl. new SRO
development I. the downtown ,reo. The Committee bo. met on se,erol Octo,;on.,
and revfewed ftve drift reports. Tbfs report tu1minites t~e fini' co~C'USiD~S
•• d Committ •• recomoendllions to the City Council on Pol. Alto's SRO hotels.
firiOlNGS AND REC~ENOATJOHS
In slIIIIUry, the , ... 'ttee recommends thot the Council consider the foll0.;ng;
I. Identification of SRO hotels a, an Importlnt .lement of the City's
low Income housing stock In the City's stlte·mandated Housing
SROo 6/1/90
lIB -I·
~\
..
n .... nt updlto
1990j;
(~dul'd ;~r Clty Council cOnsid~i:on on June 21 •.
Za Comm1t administrative and technical Issist.nce via Palo A1lo Housing
COrpDf&tton and City stiff resources to Issfst SRO hotel Dwn~rs in
"Dbtlfnfng available federal Ind stitt grilnts and loans for uismic
rehabilitation, general upgrading and additions to existing SRO
facilities;
3. Coomlt the water tower site loc.ted .t the so"t~e'$t corner of AIm.
Street Ind M.wt~orn. Avenue for a new SRO development.
TME SINGLE·ROOM OCCUPANCY HOT£L
Pa'. Alto's SRO Ketels and th.lr Residents
In gentr,', • variety of te~orlrY/permintnt homeless, near·homtTess and
1 ... · I nco ... per.o.o Inhabit slngle·room occupancy hoteh. In PlIo ... lto's c ....
the majority of SRO residents are comprised of low· Income people or the
'working poor.' The following Infonnatlon hiS been obtaIned from a 1987
report prepared by the Urban MinIstry's Director, Jim Burklo. This study,
enHned 'SRO: A End.ngored Species Of MousIng, " Report On T~e rufure of SRO
Hotels In Palo Alto-Is Included In Appendl. A.
Ther. Ire l08 SRO hot.' units fn four downtown hotel. fn PI1. Alto··the B.rker
Motel, th. Cr.lg. the Palo Alto Ind the CardInal. The ~aJority cf t~ese units
are occupied by workIng people, DDstly with low incomes. rOTty-four percent
of P.lo Alto's SRO residents Ire users cf t~e Urban "ioistry', Downtown rood
Closet I~ lt81), which suggests that the.e Ir. very low-income ~.opl.. M,ny
of these visitor. are employed locally. The study .1.0 found that some cf the
rcod Clcset visitors who live In t~e SROs Ire the hemele.s who Ire Ibl. to
st.y in the hote', only part or elch oonth. Approxl •• tely 10 percent of the
SRO units Ire occupied by seniors on I long·teno basI.. N~rous people wit~
psychiatric Ind phys\cal disabilitIes live In the hotels, paling r.nt with
their ~i.abllity checks fro. Soci.l Security or the Yet.rans Administration.
A .ery few of the residents are families consIsting of one par.nt and one
child living on welf ... supplemented with part·tlme work. T~. m.jorlty of
residents Ire workIng people with mod.st,plylng jobs, some of whom Ire only a
palc~eck awaJ from homelessn.ss.
T~e SRO hot.ls .r. serving some cf the ne.diest members of t~e community by
offering cheap, flexible. alternative housing nDt Available e'~ewhere. SRO
botel. Iccomoodate those who h.ve Irregular or Insufficient Income.
~eQuirament5 in standard rental apartments such as rent pre· payment. last
month rent. security deposits. ti~ lags Ind tenanc} commitments are
unrealistic for Dost low·fnco~ peopl •.
A eore recent .ur •• y of downtown SRO ten.nts (included 58 ~RO tenlnts frD. the
B.rker, the Craig .nd the Palo Alto) w.s prep.rod in June 1989 by students of
the Polilic.l and Soci.l Issu •• Cllss frem Sl,nford University ( ••• Appendix
II·
The students found thlt b.lf of the re.idents intervIewed Slid they had no
other housing option. besides renting the furnished hotel rooms and would b.
left homel.ss withDut the SI20 per week living Qu.rt.rs. Over h.lf the
SRO.
MB
~/7/g0
·2-
•
"
; i
-
rupomfents u1d tM,Y u,.'d liar, tho,n 40 per,.nt of thei"t-· 1'ncorne to covtr rer.t.
The .U"., tndlclt~ thlt the.e .. ,Ident' Ire peopie who wor~ I. lotll
busf~!seSI restaurants I~d on the Stlnford clmpus. [;g~t~ ~trce~t cf the
~.,pond.nt. were .. 1 •• betweeo the I~e. 20 .nd 49.
Description 0' I. SIlD Hotel
The feder.' govornment d.fln ••• n SRO room a. 'A unit which tont.ln. no
•• nlt.rl facilitle. Dr food preplratlon fltilltl." or whIch tont.I., on. but
not both Iype. of flcilltle" Ind which I •• ultlbl. for octupantl by I Single
tllglblt I.dlvldual .oplble of lodtpendent livIng.'
Hotels ooneralil .re to.sldered, for pllnnlng purposes, a 'tr,.slent
Otcupancy· ~se. howeyer~ most or t~e SRO hott' residents in downtown PIle Alto
~ ••• been 11.lng, off and on, In cne or mor, of the hotels for ~ny months cr
even y •• rs. According to both the 19B7 Urban MinIstry Study ond the 1989
St.nfcrd SUrvel, very f.w SRO u.lts, p.rh.p. 2 percent It mQst, ar. occupied
by busln.,. Visitor, or tourfsts.
Th. ven.rle SRO hotel', phl.lc.l loyout usull1y Intlud., I sm.ll lobby which
Is d .. l.lted by a ,tcured 'ba.k te11er-'tyled' caShier .r... loch Indlvldull
roOM fl usuilly no l.rger than 120 .quare f.ot, .1lhcu9h the .Inlmum size as
specified by the Unlfono Building Code I. 70 square f.el. Included In the
~oom Is I .In~, .Inl-refrlger.tor (5omellMes a hot plltel, bed, fin, closet
and televlsfo,. Kltthen and bathroom f.cllities Ire communll, thus
diff.rentlatlng the SRO hotel fro. • regular hot.l or ~ot.l.
'aiD Alto's SRD Met.ls
Fal0 Altc', SROs are lCClted I. downtown and ar. Idontlfled as the Craig, F.lo
Alto, .nd the Blrter. The CardInal Hotel was also determined by the Commltt ••
to be an SRO hotel .fnee It display, .1.Illr charlct,rl,tlco to the other
three. Howevlr, the prese.t occuplncy of this holel, IS percel.td by the
management flro thlt oper.tes the Clrdln.l, fs Fr.dominantly trlnsient f.
natu .. ~Ith.r th.n long-term. for the purpose of discussIon wlthl. thl •
.. po~t, the C~ftlee concluded that the C.rdln.l .hould be Included .s an SRO
hotel_ However, the Coomltte. ftlt that certlln recommendations co.talned
withfn thl. report (f .•.• wll.er of the trlnsfent cecupancy tlX) .hould .ot be
applied to the Clrdlnal Hotel untfl such time IS the Cardln,l 's occupancy
charaeterl,tle, .. r. nearly resemble, the alrker, Craig and Falo Alto.
Th. following provide. a brIef d.,crlptlon of .ach SRO hot.l.
The Barker-
The aarker. whIch fs owned by local de •• lop.r Jim B.er. i. located .t 439
[meroon Strtet and w.s built In 1925. A s.al1 docr at otre.t le.el provides
an entr.nee to the hotel which fs cn the .econd floor aboye se.eral commercial
u •• s_ The S.rter hiS 22 rooms. R.,ldent. at the Barker pay 1275 a month fcr
rooms wIthout baths (16 unit.) cr S475 a "nth for cne of the fout rooes with
• b.th. Small refrlg.rators Ire present, however. hot plates are not allcw,d.
The building Is In .e.d of. ,.'solc upgrldlng (C.tegory I). An exceptIon to
the floor ar .. ratIo (fARl lI .. lts I. the Comercfll Downtown Oi .trlet Zone
regul.tlon, wa, adopted to eneourlge sefs.lc reh.blllt.tlon_ The exception
Illows • 25 percent !ncrea •• In fAR or 2,500 square feet, whichever is
SRO.
lIB
6/7/90
-3-
o o
g ... ter, to be added without providing plrklng If I qualIfying buIlding's
s~fs.icll11 ~p;raded. The IlrkeT Hotel $s rxp~cted to undergo se~sm1c
'. upgrading In )g90-U.
-
Th. Crllg·
The Crl19 I. loc.ted at 164 Hlmllton Aven"e Ind WI. built In 1963. It his
been owned by the Ma •• Corpor,tlon for above 30 ye.r.. The CraIg contains 63
unit.. The current room rlt.s I .. SIZ5 per week without ~ath Ind SISS •• eek
with I b.th. Th. weekly rate has Incr •••• d by SI4 withIn. two·y •• r period.
Th. aver.ge room I, Ipproxl.at.ly B' x IS' Ind contlin •• TV, .mall
refriger.tor, double bed, clo.et, sink Ind f.n. Conmon cooking flcl"tie. ar.
loclted an the vround floor.
The Palo AHo-
Th. '"10 Alto (I'SO owned by E. A. M.ls) Is 'oclted .t 4ZS High Str •• t .nd .as
built In 1965, It clo.ely resemble. the er.ig In re.pect to it'
Interlor/ext.rlor l.yout, but i •• llttl. sm.'ler with 59 rooms. Weetly room
rate without a blth f. SI37 (S30 per night) I.d wlth I b.th SI54. At S35 per
nIght, the rite bas increased by SIC wUhi.n I two·year period. SIxty· seven
percent of the ro~ .r. rented for I ••• than • ~onth. The roo~ size Iverages
B' x 12' .nd Include. a ... 11 refrlger.to., f.n, clo.et, sink, TY and double
bed.
The Cardln.l-
The Cardinal I. loclted at 235 Hamilton Avenu. and hi. 6C "nit.. It WI. built
I. 1924 Ind ..... desIgned by Palo Alto', faDed architect Birge Clark. Amerfcan
Hotei. h ••• 1.1 •• to operate the hot.l untIl 1990. Th. firm doe. not
con.lder t~e Cardlnll • typical SRO beCIU •• of the n.tur. of their ,lient ••• d
the different. 1ft t~. ph,.ic.l layout from the other SROs, Ittrlbuted to the
presente of • l.rg. open lobby. However, there Ire .Imillrltle, with the
other SROs. For Inst.nte, b.lf the room. do not provide blth.. Tho.e with
bath. rent for S40 per olght (S220 per week). Tho.e without bath. rent for
S30 per night (S140 per week), Actording to the Urban Ministry'. 1987 Survey,
there are • number of tonants who ~av. lived there for •• ,er.l yelr, Ind they
receIve I dl.count (Ibout 7SS of the rooms are for long·teno re.ldents). Some
have been there for 20 ye.r.. Th. Cardinll hi. both C.tegory II Sei.mfc Ind
historfe stltu5es. Its Category 11 seismic stitUS 1110ws I 25 percent
Increa.e In FAR Dr approxim.tel, 9,000 Iddftlon.l .qu,re feet, to be added
without providing parkl',g If the bunding Is .ei.mlca11, upgraded.
lftIat Other titles Hive Do.e
Ourlng the ll.t ten ,e.r., there has been. trend to redevelop SRO hot.ls
throughout tht tountry. A number of l.rger ellifonoi. titi •• have adopted
ordin.nte. to addre.s sentrlflcatlon, tonverSlon Ind/or demolition of SROs.
Tw. ye.rs IS., San Diego •••• d building regulations and parking requirements
I. order to proIOte pres.rvatlon of It. SRO hot. Is. Th. re.ult has been the
renovation of 15 downtown SRO. Ind ton.tructlon of four new hotel. with the
help of clty·flnlnced low·lntere.t loans. La. Angel •• h •• helped e.tlb1i.h I
privat., nonprofit HousIng Corpor.tion whIch oper.te. II SRO hot.l.. Sin
franci.co Ind Berkel.y prohibit the demolition of the.e hotel. unle •• the
units are rep1ated elsewhere. Both cities have dtveloped rent cap ord;na~ces
ift order tD •• i"tlf~ the affordable rents chJracteristic of SRDs. A synopsis
6/7/90
·4·
•
·1 q
I
cf eu'h of these cftf.,,· ordinances 1.5 fntluded in Apper.diJ: C of t"fs report.
Alternltl ••• Con,fl.red ., The eo.oltt ..
Th. ecam!tt .. d.llbtrlted at l.ngt~ the pro, Ind tons of estlbllshlng I
ccnver.sfan or demolition ordfnance comparible to t~os. contlfned in Appen~ix
C. Two of the thr •• SRO property owners, Jim ".r and E. M. MilS, were
quostloned by tho Ccamllt •• IS to theIr futuro 'ntentlons to ton.ert. Both
owners strongly Indltlted a deslr. to retlin the facilitle, IS SRO hot.ls. but
both owners were equilly Idamant In tholr opposItIon to the imposition of ,
conversion ordinance On their use. In additIon to owner oppOSitIon, sin, •
• fflctl •• convorsron ordinlnce, generally Involve rent control, which was not
considered pilatibl. by the Committe., tho Committe. opted not to recommend a
converlfon ordinance simillr to San Diego'l or Sin F'lnclsco.
The CommItte, strongly supported l.sl,tanc, to SRO hot., own.rs for .ny
fundIng programs for rehabIlitatIon or new con,truetlon, should thlt be
feosible. The State of CallforDI. hiS created a new program ,peclflc.ll, for
SROs In Its Cilifomla Mou,lng Rehabilitation Progr •• (CHAP). The owner of
the Blrker hiS submitted In Ipplltatlon to tho Rent.l Rehabllit.tlon Program
(RAP) to help with the noce'Slry seis~lc upgrading of thlt hote1. The Stlte
.1.0 has I Speclll User HousIng Rehabilltltlon ProgrAm for whIch Ippllcltlons
Cln be made for low Interest rlto 1.ln, for re~abillt.tlon. The New Housing
Dev.lopment Fund of the COBS progrlm could help In pre·development cost
.ssocllt,d with the development of a new SRO. In addition, the City's Rent.l
Hou,'ng AcquisitIon Progrlm (RKAJ) Ind Housing Reserve funds could be utilized
for Icqulrlng In exl5tlng SRO hotel should th.t need occur In the future. A
.. re detilled dlscu5slon of tho finlnclng that Is Ivallabl. for SRO. I, In
Appendi. D.
Th. Commltt .. also dl,cussed Icon .. !c Incentives, such IS exemption fro.
parking .ss,ssment fees for SRO hotels withIn the downtown parkIng Issessment
district, contingent upon .n Igreement with SRO owrers th.! the properties
ma;ntlin their present use. Curr.ntly, the four Identified SHOs Ir. paying
into the ~Iyerslty Avenue Parking Asse,sment Ol,trict. Tlble 1 (ref,r to
T,ble 1 In Appendl. E) shows the amount of I •• e"ments and as.e.sed .qulre
footage for these hotels loclted within this dIstrict. According to owners,
Jim B.er Ind E. K. M •• s, this would be • ,ubst.ntl., commitment for property
ownerJ to elte for an Inn~al fee waiver of S4,QOO-S1J,OOO~ However, there was
graater reeeptivity for ·)ockfng in-an SRO use IS an incentive fDr the
development of new SRO hotels with no Isses,ment dlstr!ct p.rtlclp&tlon
requ; relHn15.
Another economic Incentive consIdered b, t~e Commltt •• w.s tc exempt SROs from
the City" trlnsl,nt occuplncy t.x reQulremont. The City of P,10 Alto Is
turrently collecting a 10 percent transient occuplncy t.x on It. 31
hotels/Ilotoh. Persons who sUy fcr leu than. 30-d.y period Ire subject to
this tax. SHe residents p.y I di,prcpcrtion.te Imount of th;, tax because
they hive Interr"~tlon$ In theIr tenancy. According to Jim Surklo', I~B7
study. a conservlt1YI estiDlte of the transient cctuplncy tax paid annua1ly by
people who have at lel,t one episode of homelessne,s per ye.r Is S24,OOO.
About 10 percent of the DOney used by loc.l ,cc;.l ,erv;ce agenci" to provide
housing .t botels for the ho.oleu go .. for thi' tlX. In 1989, the Croig,
Barker. f.lo Alto Ind Cardinal hotels paId ID exee's of S~,OOO In transient
o~cuplnC1 taxes.
SRO.
MB
6/7/90
·5·
--.'''.·.·:.:...: .• ·L·' ... ¢::'-"-;~
~~.11~~t
'"i ',::-
-
•
•
'---'~----'--
o o
The Cardina' Hot.l pays substantial', more trans1ent occupanc1 tlX~ which
concurl with thl .In&ge~nt's assertion that most of its cl1entrl. Ire
trln$~ent. For thiJ reason, the C~1ttee felt that the Cardina' Hettl WAS in
• differ.nt cateiory from the other three SROs. Becaus. of the potential
doll.rs which could be diverted to SPD residents, the Committee Initl.lly
recommendrd t~at the Council consider the waiver Df trlnstent occupancy tlxes
for the S.rk.r, Crlli I.d P.l. Alto hot.ls. Jim Burklo of the Urban Hinistry
felt that the .I!ver of the translent occup.ncy tax could result In It le.st
SID per week sl.!ngs for the SRO hot.l tenant. Upon review .f this
rec .... nd.tl •• by the City Attorney's Office. however, It Is staff's opinion
thlt .aiver of the trlnslent occupa.cy tlx I. Infeasible. Such I .11.er would
require I redeflnltl~n of the tr.nslent occupancy for al1 hotel. In the City,
which could h.ve far-relchlng Implication, on the City's hotel t •• reve.ues.
lew SRO OpportunIties
It was the opinion of the Coomittee that the demand for SRO·type housin~ far
exceeded the pres.nt supply. tons.quently. the City could 11.0 .sslst In
sponsoring. new SRO hot.' project. The City's contributIon co"'d be a
combination of 'and. construction loans. rel.xatlon of specific code·
requirements, assistance in permit review~ng, and lowered applfcatfon and
permit fees. Currently. the Clty's'Real [state Department is reviewing the
depOSitIon of the CIty's water tower Site located at the southe.st cornor of
Al •• Str.et Ind Hlwthorne Avenul (see [xhlblt I). The site contains 8,431
squire feet (75 x 112.5) Ind IS currently loned Public Flcllitle, (PF). The
Coonlttee found that this sIt. presented I unique opport"nlty for the City to
develop a new SRO hot.l. The Committ.e Cited the City of San Diego's success
with jOint SRO developments In conjunction wlt~ nonprofit corporations. San
Diego recentTy dev.'oped two SROs on small parcels; one Is on a
5,OOO·squarl·foot sit. (a 14,OOO·square·foot building with 63 units) .nd
another IS on I IO,ODO·square-foot Site (a 32.000·sqUlre-foot building with
14D unit,). Both developments Ire four stories and are built property line to
property line with Interior <o"rtyard ••
CONCLUSIONS
In summary. the CommIttee on Single-Room Occupancy hotels has concluded that:
SROa
lIB
I. There;s a high unllOt need for low-!ncome housing in Palo Alto. The
subcommittee b!lieves there should be a strong commitment to retlin
the few downtown SROs that exist Ind to provide new housing
opportunities for low-incODe persons if f •• sible.
2. Coonercl.l distrIcts In the proximity of downtown are appropriate
locations for ling'e~rDom occupancy hott's~ [ssentill $~ryices Ire
provided for 1 ow· income persons su~h IS lransp~rtltlDn, jobs and
health and .. lfar •• ervlces.
3. Under present regulations, tho SRO hotel, within the downtown area
co~ld be converted to other ~ses, demo1ished t rebuilt or
rehabilitated to an ·upsclle-facility or Inother .s,. Tbere Is
presently no ordinlnce protection from conversions. However, P.'~
Alto Is fortunate I. that we hive strong commitment from two SRO
owner. to retain the exl.tlng uses Indefinitely. finally. the
policy implications of 'Dn~trS'on ordinances. and pirticul.rly rent
6/1/90
·6-
--<~t'"!!!l!:;·L~· " ....• -..-~~~~«<'-..
',,1 «
-
.\.
I]
:I
o
control ... re thoug~t te ntglti~tly outweigh, It t~ts t1me~ t~t
benefitJ of s~eh tcnvers'ons.
C.!J!tllITT[£ RECClt4END~.TIONS
I. IcltntifiCltion of SRO ~oto1s IS or, Important ole"",nt of the CHy'.
low·lnco~ hou.lng ,tocA in the ,tat.-.andated June 1990 Housing
Element u~lt'd (SChoduled for Cltl Council consideration on June
25, 1990};
2. Commit .dmlnlstrativ. Ind t.chnlcal 1.,lotonc. wla Palo Alto Housing
Corporation and City staff re,ouree, to 1.,lst SRO hotel o.m.r, in
Obtllnlng lvallabl. f.deral Ind stll' grant. Ind lo.ns for •• i5mie
rehabilitation, general upgrading and additions to ex!,tlng SRO
facilities;
3. Commit the water tower sit. located at the south •• st corner of Alma
Street Ind HIWlhorn. Aw.nu. for a new SRO development.
Respectfully submitted,
Th. Committ •• ReviewIng Palo Alto', Slngl.-Room Occupancy Hotels
Palo Alto, California
SYLVIA SEMAN JIM BURJ(LO
E.ecul;ve Director, PAMC [xecultve Cireetor.,Urbin
lIiol1l r 1
BOB l/OODS
Boord Member, H .... n R.latlons
C..."lulon
MARLENE PRENDERGAST
Board Momber, PAMC
~ANCY SHIPLEY RON IiPU
Board Member, Human R.latlon. Board Member, PAMe
CDlZlTli 55 ; on
CAROl JANSEN JANE HAL[Y
Chi.f Planning Official HUml~ Services Admfnistratcr
Att.,~ments: Exhibit I. locltion of ~ater To.er Site
cc: Jim Baer
Appendix A, SRO: An Endangered Spe,'es of Hou.ing
Appendix B. A Profile of Ruldenls living in the
Slngle·Room Decupan,y Hotels of Palo Alto
Appendi. C. Other Cltl Ordinances
Appendix D, Available Financing
Appendix E. Tabl. I SRO Hotel Us.s Within Parking
As.essment Dlstricts
E. A. Moas. 18 E. Main Str.et, los Gatos, CA 95030
Fred [lerly, Choi .. an. '010 Alto CondominIum Owners ASSOCiation
101 Alma Sireet. ,,10 Alto, CA 94301
"s. Karlon fritl. Mlnager, Cardinal Hot.l. 235 Hamilton Avenu., Polo
Alto, CA 94301
SROa 6/7/90
lIB .,-
,
.'
•
--~----,-;--..~
.,._ ... ..... ~
J, •• ~:
-L
-
I -
" / , . " . -, i or "' '
CC
•
........
~'CD;f: -
'J ~'{: i
0"
PC-263
.-
t;
'1
:1
1
TIlE HONOlWlLE CITY COIlNCIL
Palo Alto, california
Attention: Finance and Public Work. committe.
pr'p08XTIOK or IVRpLp' IJLL 'ITI' -fO!E8. MlppL1rrILR INp 'EILI m,l, 'IW
xaabera of the council:
_apgn in Iri.,
Tb1. report makes the followinq recolmllendations reqardinq the
dieposition of the city'. surplus "ell sit.,.: 1) that council
approva the .. 1. of the Midellefield Well dte (aal. of the
M1dc!lefield Well 8ite "ill require removal of the vater tank and
auxiliary buildinq.); 2) that Council direct staff to process a
Certificate of COmpliance to remove the ~nderlying lot line on the
Seale Well aite prior to sale; and 3) that Council direct staff to
prepare a Requ.st for Proposal for the 'rover Well site. 'l'his
r.port also tr ...... it. to the Council the Palo Alto Housing
COrporation'. proposal to USI $l.45 million of the proceeds of the
.al. of both the Middlefield and Seale Well .ites for tho purchase
of the 33-unit Oak Manor townhOlles complex at 630 Los Robl .. s
Avenue.
1'9'qrcnm4
In 1988, Council approved a Otilitiea Department r.eommen~.tion to
abandon and dispose of four of the City's ten wellli, the Perk
Boulevard, Seale, Xi~l.field and Toyer Wells. The Part Boulevard
.,.11 va. ..ale", the equipment r.moved and the .1 te has been
C)IR:545:D
•
.....
o
d.veloped ~ tAl Palo Alto Bouainl/ Corporation. In the october 19,
lilt atetl raport (OIIl,n7'~), ataff ~.eS. r.c ..... ndltlon8 rel/areSing
tha hala and "fddl.aUeld ".11 dUo and Infor.eeS Councll that
atell vaa conducting' further .tu4y of the futur ..... of the Tower
... 11 81ta. and wouloS return to council at a lat.r oSate with
re=: 31 =ndatlon..
on o1\uW 25. 1"0. Councll approvaeS the Finance and Public Works
co..altt •• •• (F'PW) recOlIIlIenclation eiucting Itaff to .. 11 the Seale
... 11 alta • .ak. en .ppllcation to rezone the oite to R-1, aneS aeneS
out • Rlqu •• t for ~ .. l for the aal. of tho dte with a .inimWD
bleS of '7S0.000. For the MieS~l'field Well alte, council directed
ateff to aalc. application to rezone the dte to R-l and r ... tebli.1l
two parcel lit .. ~ ..anI of a Certificate of Compliance. couneil
allo approve<! an allocation of 25 parcent of the proe .. da frOll! the
lale of both WIll ait •• to the Houoin9 Reaerve FuneS. On october
15. Council IpprovalS the rezoning of the S •• le and Middlefield
dt.. to R-l.
l:n thr ••• taff reportl (0IIl:49.7:', CMR:220:0, and CMR:17C,O). ataff
propoa.cI d.veloping the MilldldialeS .it, with tvo 81ngl. IUlily
home. and th.n holdIng them for their income Itr.am and apprecIat
ing value. FUW .>Cpr .... d conc.rn over the City .... king this type
of lnv.abent. and reque.teeS that staff explore thia concept
further and return to the committe.. wIth It. findIng". Clven the
concern. of the F.PW Committee and the recent d.ownturn in the real
•• tate aarket, .taff 1. now recommen~in9 .ale of the two Middle
field parcala. .
... ,yal 9' 'be •• t., raAk 'p4 auxiliary .ulldinq.
If the Council decil5ea to .. ell the Kil5c11efieleS sites. sUff
recoaaends that the City remove the ",.te.r tank and auxiliary
bull~1ng... 'n1. water tank b lccatecl on tha nev property line
created ~ clivision of the exlotlng site. The lateot .stI.ate for
the rnoval of the UnIt and the auxiliary building. 1& approxi .... t.-
11'. $30.000. Steff feel. strongly that the removal of theae
facIlities will expedite tbe "ale of the two parcel" and avoid
confusIon "Ilould the parcel" sell to two diff.rent buyers. Staff
has prepared a Bu4get Amendment OrlSinance transferring the money
rraa the Capital Iaprove.ment Program Re.erve .eeount~ Normally,
the Water Fund would be expected to pay for the removal cost. but
that fund haa been experiencing serious financial difficulty over
the past aevaral y.ar ••
,.,1 ••• 11 lit.
In the ftrat steff report (CMR U1,gJ regul5ing the diopoaition of
the surplus well .ites. staff informalS Council that subdivilSinq the
... le W.ll site w"uld re'i/\lire approval by the City council of a
CIIR,545:0 2
'~~f~;
f'
r
r I
l
?'
>-. -~
-
~. . .. .
.,.-...,
j
parcel .. p with exception., and that consideri"9 the larg •• 1t. of
the lote in thi. n.i9hbDrh~, it woul~ be unlikely that Planning
ataft would r.~and approval of •• ubdivision with exceptions •
The ... le .el1 aita ta 20,650 .quar. teet, .ppro~i •• tely lee teet
by 200 ~ .. t. Divi~inq the lot into two voul~ raault In two lots,
50 teet by 200 feet, _ating the Jlinimum lquare fccuge require
_nt, bitt lubetanclerd. in wic!th. Staff h .. recently 41acove"d that
an axbting wKJerlying lot line ... y qualify the dte for sub-
4iviaion by aeana of a Certificate of Compliance, an adminiltrative
pr0ce4ure requiring no public bearing. The prcx:.sa in dete .... ining
the dia_iUon of thb 5ite thus far has been band on the
••• umptloft the .it. 1. one lot, would be Bold as one lot and would
r_a1n ona: lot tor devalopment. To assure the .ite is not
lubdivided folleVing lale by the City, • Certificate of Compliance
Ibould be procu .. eI to remove the underlying lot line prior to
... le.
,.10 11\0 Bou,ipg corpor.,lop 'lAKe. Propa,.l
The Palo Alto HOUSing Corporation (PAKC) has approacbed Itaff with
a lpecific propo.al that would require all the estimated proceeds
from the sale of both the Seale and Middlefield sites.
The PARe has entered into a purchase contract with th~ owner& of
33-unit townhomes at 630 Los Robles Avenue. Cost to purchase and
rebabilitate the townhomes is estimated to be approximately
$4,300,000. State and federal funding requires that a .ajority of
the ,unit. be rented at below ~arket rates. Tbe long-term 90a1 of
the PAIIC wlll be to Jlake all 33 units below market, but that 10 not
the current situation. Therefore, state and federal funds are
un&voilable for purcbaae of this facility. Tbe fAIIC bas locked for
Other aourc •• with the object of keeping the debt service low
enouqh to convert the units to below lIIarket rate.. PARe, with the
help of the California Housing Partnership corporation, has come up
with a financ!.l plan wherein a consortium of banks or savings and
loan institutions will provido $~,OOO,OOO of the $4,300,000 at a
favorable ~int_e:cest rate. There is also $850 .. 000 in the City's
Housing Reserve fund which could be used towa~ds the purchase cf
this property. That leaves a ahortfall of approximately
$1,450,000. In previous reports staff estimated the revenue
generated from the Seal~ Well site and the two Middlefield sites to
be $l,4S0,OOO. Th. $1,450,000 funding could be provi~ed to PAKC
eltber by an outright qrant or loan~ Previous &maller PAHC
project. have been funded both ways. As a grant the funds would
not be paid back, and the PAKC would be able to ~rovide below
~rket rates in each of the 33 units much quicker. If the City
iaplelllenta a repayment progra!n, the PARe beloW'-market-rate goal
voul~ be extended significantly.
Xf the Council approves the sale of the Middlefield Well site with
the proceeds applied to the purchasa of 630 Los ~obles, there ~ay
CMJ<:S45:0 3
-~i;qkt
-" . ,; ,-~
•
•
-----.------.::-~ r
'1 ~I i 1
o
,
" .till be • tillin9 probl.... The p"rch .... contract f,.r 630 Los
Robl •• Roa<l expir .. Dec.lIber 31, 19'0. The aal. of the vell ait ..
i. tentatively .cheduled tor J.nu.r~. and the aucc ••• tul bidders
will be viven 110 day. to .e=re financinv. 'rhe PAIIC 18 lo<>kinq for
alternative interill -financing ~t aay r.quir. approximately
'700,000 to c01lplete the tran .. ction by December 15. The PAIIC lIay
be requesting an a4vanc. from the city'. General Fund or the u •• of
th. City a. an inaurer to cover thI. interim period. Funds
borrowac!, includin9 intereat loat by the General Func!, .,ould be
r.placed vith revenue received from th. sale of the veIl aite ••
-
,.nIX •• 1.1 • il-
The Tower Well I~t't located at the corner of Al.a and Hawthorne
(a •• attachac! aite lIap), ia 1,437 aquare feet (75 x 112.5) and is
zoned Public raciliti.. (PT). It is adjacent to property zoned
Commercial Downtovn Neighborhooc! Pre.ervation Combining Di.trict
(CD-HP) anc! aero .. the atr.et from property zoned M"lti-family
Residential (RK-30). It contain. a tower vell facility Which has
been .stlaat.d to coat $150,000 to remov ••
Becauae the 'rower Well aite v.a identified by tho committee
atudyinq the City'. ain91. room occupancy (SRO) boteb as a
po.sible location fer a new hotel, _taft haa not to date zade any
recommendation reqar~inq the dispoSition of this site because of
the Council'. reeolDJDendation to the Planninq Commi •• ion for a
public beerinq and lan~ use policy qul~anc.. The SRO committee's
r.co ... nc!ation originally Wa& to commit the &ite for SRO hotel
cQn&truction. ~. SRO Committee haa subsequently reconvened and
reviaed its recaa.endatlon, sc:beduled for Planning Commission
consideration on Noveml:!$Z' 14, 1990. It nov r.eoame.nds thAt the
,U.po ... l of th. 'rower lIe11 alt" or any RTP for that purpose be
delay.~ for a period of one year. The reason for the delay would
be to allow the llousinq Corporation time to study the financing and
practicaliti.s of SRO construction, analyze the land use impacts
Vhlch ai9ht result, perfon ne1;hborbooc! outreach, ane! explore
alternative .it.a tor an sao hotel. Because thi. type of housing
haa only recently been identified by the HOUSing Corporation as a
need. in Palo Alto, they are not ready to _ove forward with a
specific proposol at this tille.
Staff does not aqr •• that the disposition of the 'rover Woll site be
delayed for one year. This conclusion i. based on the high level
of neighborhoo~ and community inter.st in the site and ito ultimate
u.a. Several qrOUPI and 1ndivid~al. have expre.s.~ their interest
in the .ite tor use. such as low .n~ aDd_rate income bousinq; & day
care center, • residential development owne.d and developed by a
nelghborbooc1 ••• ociation, and varying u .... Which 'Would incorporate
the existinq tower facility. Given the =mpeting interests in the
community •• to the Vie of the 5it., staff f~els that circulating
CIIR: 545:0
I
, :
... 'f'
A~~
iF" ...,'-.'
.... -;
. " .. '
• Reque.t for PropOaal (RTf) wou14 be the best way to proceed in
CSet .... ining the cSiapo8ition of thi& .ite. The RTf would be
general, outlining the City'. basic requirement. that the use be
c:oapatible wIth the nei9hborhoocS, that the daval_ent a"d
operation fL>rther public "se or prOY iele a pul>lic benefit and be
consiftent with _bting City pollcie., plans, .ervic.. and
pr-=... !'lie RFP will require the .pplicant to provide
inforwation concerning: 1) the artent to Which the proposed uae
.atiafi .... pul>lic naad; 2) the consiatency of the proposed "Se
with ext.ti"9 city goat. and objectlv ... a ut forth in the
COllPl'ehanllive Plan. Zoni"9 Drdi"anc .. and Municipal CocSe; 3) the
cS..,ree of public ecce •• ; 4t the aonetary conaideration to the City
and 5) the history and ........ ent of the proposer'" .. bili ty to
carry out the prcipo5111. staff would return to Council for approval or the RTf package prior to .endi"9 it Ollt. It is anticipated that
after Council approval of the RFP, there would: be a threa-month
time tor respondent. to prepare r •• pon ••• ~
'DR'"
Staff has proposed several ti.es to the Finance and PIlblic Works
Committee that development of an investment in the Middlefield Road
Well site would establish through appreciation a sound, long-tera
retvrn on invesaent.. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation has
presented an alternative proposal that reflects the City council's
commitment to affordable housing. The purchase of 630 Los Robles
will bring 33 Ynits, ultiuately to be rented at belo~-market rates,
to the PAIIC portfolio.
lByiraDmlAt,l I.vi ..
Authorization of the aale of City property and preparation of an
RFP for disposition of city property do not constitute projects
under the California EnviroTUllentol Quality Control Act (CEQA).
Removinq or restoring an ~xistin9 lot line is categorically exempt
under CEQA'.. Therefore, no environmental findings are requireti for
these city co\,ncil actions •
•• c.o .. encSatioli.
Staff recommends that Council:
1) Adopt the Budget Amendment Ordinance making ttlnds available
for the r~moval of the tank and. auxiliary ~uildin95 located on
the Middlefield Well aite;
2) Direct &taff to process a Certificate of Compliance to remove
the underlyill9 lot line on the seale well site;
CMR:SU'O 5
•
.'
,
1 -----
It Council .vpport. the Palo Alto Ho"alng Corporation'.
proposal to .... $1.45 aill!on of the proce.d. of Middlefield
and hale Well .ite" for purc!la .. of the 33-unit to"""o" ••
CO'.p'lex;
a) Approv. the proposal to •• 11 the Middlefield Well
parce18,
b) Approve the u. of $850,000 of houaingo-in-l1"" fund.
toward the purcha.. of &30 Lo. Robl •• Road;
e) APPr0v. the propo.ed diltributian of the revenue r.eeived
froc the .ale ot the vell .ite., i •••• 1) proceeds up to
and including $1.450,OOc) be 9ranted/loaned to the Palo
Alto Hou.ing Corporation tar the well .it •• purc!lase of
530 La. Robles Avenue; 2) Any rlllllainin9 lIoney wUl be
deposited in the city'. G.neral Fund; and
4) Direct .t.tt to prepare a Request for Propos.l for the Tower
Well .ita.
~.,..ctt"ll:_~ubaitted,
,·{!td! "'c-tV. !.liL w ..../.,.
wn...t..IAPI W.. FELtMAJr 'j
Rul Property Hanager
-ij/~u"jC
EMILY I!1JUU SON
Director of F
ce: alo Alto Housing Corporation
Palo Alto Child care Ta.k Farce
Downtown North Association
Property owners .djacant to the Tower, seale and Hiddlefield
W .. ll aft ..
Rolated CKR'.: CKR:4g7:9. CKR:220:0. CKR:)7.:0 and CKR:267:8.
CKR:545:0 6
•
"---~-...... -, ---~-~,-~--~.
-~ -'U. • Ll3¥J.Si~i ---' ,'---::<..~ . . •
~ 10 ~ ~ iii
;,
~ ~ ., ~.. .., ... • -133"..1.$-.. -IoI!)r'H-· -i
® ~I ® I I· -~i -'-1 -. -,~'-'..I--
----' -..
~
~
,. -~ --.~ , .. ". Il~ 0
0
;, z, 0 iii II ,
0 ,
0 f-. Qt~ 0 , /
ill !!:~ !!I : ..
~ til 1
o. -~ -ft -_ ....... --~.
0
Ii '. , ill ~ 0 ~ lli
" , .. ...
:!I 1 '" ..
ill '" > III ...
"
•• : "h 'Ii! "!
: t~ :!I: l!I • , ,
0 ,
'R ---
\
"
.
•
al •
~ II • 0
ill ;
~ •
l:I .
go -
ORDINANCE MO.
ORDDiAII'CE OF THE COilNCIL OF '!'HE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMZNDING THE BUDGET FOR '!'HE FISCAL YEAR 1990-91 TO ESTABLISH
A NEW CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 19110 "MIDDLEFIELD WELL SITE
TANK ANP BUILDING REMOVAL"
WKJREAS, purou.nt to tho provision. of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Pal~ Alto, the Council on June
18, 1990 did adopt a budiet for fiscal year 1990-91: and
WHEREAS, Council approved the rezoninq of th .. Middlefield and
Bryant Well dt .. to ainqle-family residential sites in preparation
for dioposition; and
1IIIEREAS, eale of the sit •• will be enhanced by the r .... ov.l of
the water tank and auxiliary buildinqs located on the Middlefield
.ite; and
1IIIEREAS, the Water utili t~· Fund vou 1d normally pay the removal
coot, but that fund is experiencinq financial difficulty at this
tiae.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN ae follows:
SECTION 1. capital Improvement Project (eIP) number 19120.
"Middlefield Well Sit. Tank and Buildinq Removal" i. hereby
.. teblbhed.
SECTION 2. The sum of Thirty Thoound Dollars ($30,000) 1&
hereby appropriated to cn 19120, and the Reserve for Capital
Projects (Re5.rve) i. corr •• pondinqly reduced.
SECTION 3.. rbi. transaction will reduce the Reserve from
$4,124,608 to $4,094,608 a. of September 30, 1990.
SECTION •• The Council of the City of palo Alto hereby finds
that the enactment of this ordinance ia not a project under the
california Environmental Quality A=t and .. therefore." no envirormen
tal impact ••• e •• ment is neceaamry.
SECTION 5.
Municipal Code,
adopUon.
As provided in Section 2.04.375 of the Palo Alto
thi. ordinance shall become effective upon
•
~ .. -"
o
IlITRODOCED AI/I) PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
lIBSTEIITIOIIS:
AlISEIIT:
A'l'TEST :
c .. ty Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Asst. C .. ty Attorney
APPROVED:
city Manager
DlrectDr ot F~n.nc~
ciractor of Utilities
., .
o
APPROVED:
Mayor
90-1.13
I
I
i(
I'OlJcY J.Ht) I'ROCEOORlIS 1-U
Po9" 1 of &
~SED: August 1'90
!,!SIp USB or CXTX UHp/PACXLlTDS
POLlex §TAm'dl'
The purpose ot thi. policy i. to ensure that decisions r09ardin9
use of City property aro made in the best interests of the citizens
and taxpayers ot 1'&10 Alto. Tllb policy an<S it. implementin9
procedures vera approved by tho City council on Novembor 23, 1981.
'l'he dovelopment and oporation of 'aeiliU .. by others (proUt
and/or non-profit entitie.) on City-owned property i. appropriate
only When such developlllont and operation will further public UB .. or
provide e public benefit. Such faciliti •• and operations must be
consistent with e"ioting' City policies, pIons, .ervic.. and/or
procedure •• Open ~xp.titive and/or bid proco.ses will bo used to
solicit proposals or provide opportuniti.. to others prior to
.warding-an Option to Lea... TIlls pollcy shall not apply to short
term interim lea88. whoro no dqnificant chang-e in use 1& proposed.
A. Criteria tqr ptQitt!nq LlD,ed VI!! 9f City Pr9p«!rty by othere
TIle proposed lea.od u •• must b. compatible with, incIdental
to, and/or supportive 'of, tho primary public use of the City
owned property, e.9. a .nack stand in a district park, or tho
pro shop end coffee shop at the Golf COurIO.
rn the event of park dedicata~ land, the proposod use shall be
consistent with tho provioions set forth in the Chartsr of the
City of Palo Alto, Article VIrI, and the Palo Alto Kunicipal
Code (PAMC), Sections 22.04 and 22.08 et ••• q., whieb require
that uses of park dedicated land be park, playqround,
recre~tlon or conaervatlon related u ••••
s . cpt. ion to l.A!!0."
In all ce .... Where there are aiqnificant approval requirements
(siqnlficant tenant construction and/or rehabilitation),
financin9 require.ant. (fundraisIn9 drives, obtainin9
tinancinq trom lending' institution., .tc.), or other tenant
pre-operation conditions, the Council shall award an Option to
Lea •• lettinq forth all pre-construction/operation conditions
a. conditione to tho tenant'. obtainin9 the lea.e; The option
tera shall be for a reasonable period of time consistent with
the nature of tho conditions of the option.
PIT·
f~~ -
"
,.--.~
o
/
o
POLICY AlII) PROC'EIlCRES 1-11
Peq_ 2 of 6
JlEVISEO: . I.uqust 199 0
Prior to avardinq an option to x..... for .. apacific us ••
conaideration aball be 9iv.n to particular information.
(Specific application and the relative importance of e .. ch of
the following-considerationa viii vary fro. site to aite and
by apecific uses prcpo .. d). Applications for leased use "hall
provide the f~llowinq information.
1. ~e extent·to wbich the proposed leased use satiSfies a'
pUblic.na.d (e.q., by a significant number of Palo Alto
residents and taxpayers) for the proposed !Services and:/Qr
usu ..
2. ·consi.tency of the proposed use with existing City goals
and objectives (set forth in the Comprehensive Plan,
tonin~ Ordinance, Municipal Code, and qeneral municip~l
.ervice~ ~bje=tlv .. ).
.. . " .
3. Consistency of the proposed use with existinq plan. for
tha property or facilIty (e.g., &T1 approved Kaster Plan).
4. Tbe impact of the proposed use (compatible services and
uses, traffic lmpacts# noise i~pacts, energy
consarvatlon, etc4) upon:
a. the bUDedlat. nai9hborhooc11
b. the community qenuallYland
c. the environment (The propos.d tenant ahall, during
the Option period, satisfy the City's environmental
review proc •••• )
5. The degree of pUblic "ccess, including city shaull. use of
the facility or co-&ponsorship of programs anll./or
Fervices, i.e~, the numbers Qt people, especially Palo
Alto resill.ents and taxpayers, that will be served by the
proposed us'e and/or service. (It is the qeneral intent
of the city to maximize publie access to its facilities
end .ervices, especially If park land is involved).
6. ~e fees that will be charged to Palo Alto citizens. (It
is the intent of the City to provide public access to its
facilities at prices and/or fees that are fair and
reasonable to the public. In the CAse of perklands, any
fees and charqes should be minimum and consi5tent with
the fees and charges of comparable city-provided
.ervlces.) -
1. The monetary consideration to be provided to the city.
• , . ••
" .
PClLXcY AND PROCEDORES 1-11
Pag. 3 of &
REVISEO' Au~.t 1990
'l'h. hbtory and asoen .. .,nt of the propand group' •
ability to carry out the construction, if any, and
operation of th. facility and .arvices a. propoaed.
I. A five-year pro-torma financial analysis of the propos.d
u •• , •• ttinq forth the project revenues and expanse. tor
thi8 period of tue.
C. Public Notificatipn
1. Prior to awarding an Option to Leas. (or Lease if there
are no pre-colliitruction or pre-operation conditions) , the
City ~all provide a reasonable and appropriate
opportunity to other group. or entiUes to respond to
possible use of City faciliU... Such reasonable and
appropriate opportunities shall talte one of the follOWing
foXlD&'
a. A Notic. of Intent to Award an Option to Lease (or
Lease if there ara no pt'e-construetlon or pre
operation conditional generally outlining the
condition. of tho Option and Leale, ahall b.
published daily for one vo.1t in the Peninsula Time.
,.ribun. and twice in tba POlo )'l to Weekly. The
Notic. ahall provide at least 30 days notice to tho
public prior to a public h.aring for CouncIl action
to award the Option to Leas.. In addition, copie.
of the notice shall be oailed to residential
property ownera in accordanee 'With Section
18.90.030 of the Municipal Code. Generally, this
noti~. and hearing proce •• Ihall be used when the
proposed user is a non-profit entity proposinq a
specitic use providing a significant pUblic benefit
·and wben it appear. that there are no other
competing us.ro.
b. A Roque.t for Proposals vill be sent to groups or
entiti •• liltely to have an interest in sUbmitting a
proposal), sUbsequent to a public hearinq and
• Notice of Intent to Request Proposals being
published in tho appropria~e .. edia. At a minimum,
the Notice of Request for Proposals ahall be
aMounced in the penInsula Tilles Tribune and the
palo Alto Weekly and copies of the notice mailed to
residential property owner. in accordance with
"section 18.10.030 of tho Municipal Code. The
Notice shall provide at least 30 day. notice to the
public prior to the public hearing.
\
-
."
..... -.. , ,
o o
POLlel' AJfl) PROCEDOJtES 1-11 ( ",
Peqe 4 of ,
REVISU>: August 1990
2. In preparation for public noticinq. tbe applicant must
provida tba city Real Estate Division witb:
e. .1. lona of Interest Hap shovinq tbe property
propo.ed to ~e leased ~y the applicant/proposer and
.hovinq all parcel. Dr propertie. vitbin a distance
ot 91.4 .etar. (300 feet) frca the exterior
~undarie. of the .~jaot property. "Thi. map can
be obtai ne;S from tbe PI annin; Department or t.'>e
"Public Works Cepart~ent. Engineering-DiViSion, at
the Civic Center. 250 Bulllton Avonu.. If more
than one up i. required to show the zone of
interest, .pplicant/proposer aust combin~ the maps
into a .Ingle .ap of not .ore than 18-x 30· aize.
b. A lilt of atreet ad:dresse., by block. fer all
pr:>p~rtl •• within the zone of int.erest, for
example.
Iit[ll!~ HIli! la~"'tllll!i Zip ~2S! iii
Bryant street 100 throuqh" 251 94)01
Bami1ton Avenue 203 throuqh 313 94301
c. The naaea and addr •• se., including zip c04.s for
each parcel or property oYner within the 9l.C meter
(lOO feet) zone of interest properly typed on
adhesive mailing labels. The Planning Cepartll.nt or
Public works Enqineerlng Division can provide a
source of such .ddr.s ••••.
d. In tha event that the city 10 tho projeot proponent
of .uch l •••• ~ use, the sponsoring city
de~artmant/divi8ion. e.g. Deportment of Community
Services, will provido this in!o~ation to the Real
Estate Division.
3. To ensure that notices will be ... iled to tenants as well
as oynors. the Real Estata Division will provide the
Information Resources Department, Data Processing, vith
the list of addresses provided in 2b.~bov •• nd request
.ailing labels tor all utility accounts charqed to these
addres ••••
4. The .ai1ing-lists generated by steps 2 and 3 above will
be examined by the Real EEtate Division for accuracy and
to eliminate duplIcations. Notic •• vill then be mailed
" .. ' ....
(
l'
"
5.
6.
o
POLl Clt' AIfI) PROCEOORES 1-11
Page 5 of 6
1U:'nSED: August IUD
by the Divbion. In the event that the proje~ falls
vithin the juria~iction ot an operating department, the
operating City department/divi8ion, •• g., Department of
Co_unity Sorv1c.. for. recreational projects, will
pertorm theae tunctions.
The newspaper ac2vert1.emant announcing the public hlarinq
.hall be prepared and placed ~y tho Real Estate Division
with the a •• i.tance of the operating department, if any.
involved with the project.
The costs of complying with the above notice procedures
Bhall be borne by the ""ccesstul applicant/proposer and
auch lua shall be due and poy~l. upon the awarding of
the Option of tea.e Cor Laase, if there are no
signifIcant pre-operation condition. to ~e s.tiltied by
the propos.r). In the event the City is the pro.l e~
proponent, .uch coat. wIll be borno by the oponsorl"9
departaent. .
D. Tenant XmprqvtF'nt.
1. Con.truction of tenant 1IIprovements shall take place only
after havIng rece! ved Council approval Cas woll as
Planning commi.oion and Architectural Review Board
approval when otherwise re~ired by City procedure.) of
plAns tor such tenant proposed construction. In the
event of park dedicated lands, Council approval shall ~e
by Ordin.nee s~ject ta referendum (PAHC Sections
22.08.005 and 22.08.006).
2. Generally, lmpravements to tho real property shall become
the property of the city upon terEin.tion of the Lea ••.
Tenant-prov.1d:ecS fixtures &hal~ remain the property of the
tenant.
E. Term' at ttl LeI"
1. Tenant Ihall be required to provide City wIth ade~ate
compensation tor the rights g'ranted by CIty to the
tenant. oateraination of appropriate considoration shall
bogin with the estimated fair market rental valu' of the
1865. pre.iles for the use proposed. consideration
ahall, however, ba given to non-monetary benefits to be
•
•
o o
POLICY AIfl> PROCEDOJU:S 1-11 (
Pa9. , of 6
REVISED: AUgu.t lttO
provided. by the tenant. !'b... propone! non-aonetary
pubUc ben.tit. auat be clearly articulated anc! _at
provie!. an actual benefit to e d~iticant portio" of the
citi •• n. anc! taxpayer. of Palo Alto.
2. rh. 1 •••• t.rm .h.ll b. the .iniaum period of the time
rooqu ireeS to:
e. &Dorti •• tenant's inv •• ement: in any permitt.d and
approved tenant construction: .n~
h. be con.btent with tho nature of the proposed
t.nant operation.
NOTE: ~estion. an~/cr clarific.tion of thi. policy ahould be
.e!ire ctedto the K6naqer, Real Property.
(
AGfNOA ITIM 3
o
EXCERPT
PLANNL~G COMMIS ION MINUTES
OF NOVEMBER 14, 1990
Chajnoa. Marsh: We are not tonight making any judgments as to t~e SRO
report it!elf~ Rather. we will be commenting on a future procedure for
a>tert.inlng any kind of development on that tower well site: The way
that procedure lay work, and the ti.ing of it, in partjcular.
M$. Lrtle~ I would like to comaent that it would be beneficial to have
the planning c~;ssion's recommendatian on th~ SRO Committee's report, in
addition to the issue that stiff ~.s raised ;0 their memo. In other
words, our recomaendatfan is t~at you concur with the remaining
recoonendat!ons of the SAO ecamittee, wit. the exception of the one we
hive raised in our aemo.
C~!i~n Marsb= J had the opportunity to talt with SylVia Seman, Director
of the Palo Alto Housing Corporatfon earlier tonight. and I expe(t that we
will be hearing fro. other representatives tonight. Staff would like to
initiate a fo ... l Request for Proposal (RFPJ process. !s that RFP already
developed?
Ms. lytle: No.
C~ainRan ~aTsn: So when you talt about initiiting tne process, t~at wou1d
be ~ proc,ss that would develop an REP to be released at some future time?
Ms. l~tle: That is correct.
Chafnaan Marsh: Now long do you see SUt~ I process taking that wo~Td
develop the standards to be fncorporated in In REP?
Hs. tytle: It is usually three months from the time the cit) council
directs us.
Chainman Marsh: So ~our rec~ndation wo~'d be to initiate that process
and tnen to release an RFP whenever that process is completed?
Ms. Iytl.: Exactlr.
11/14/90
-4·
•
.. \"
~-L, •
,i', ---,-' .. -----.. ---,--.,----~ ...... ""'0
o o
CQllf$51gttcr Cgllen; J think we are tllking alphabetese here. For the
sake of the ~blic retord and the public in general. I wo~Td like to know
whit is involved in ar. RFP. I know that means Request fer Proposal, but
t~.t $~o"ld be on t~e record. r wo"ld like to know why this propos. 1 is
sudde~11 surflc1ng on th~s item) whfch see.s to be separate from the
single~rDoa occupancy hotel as i general iS$ue. and then to tal' about
putting t~ese two together into one package is sometning I have never
encountered fn the ten years I bave been on tne commission. So would you
explain the Request for Proposal procedure, Ind perhaps the rationale
behInd it?
8$. LytlE: The REP procedure is merely one ~ereby proposals are
solfclted for certlin projects. In this Cise. it would be for the reuse
of and dfsposal of the property fn Question. What is inc1uded in an RFP
depends upon the nature of tne proposal that you ire soliciting. That
would ~aye to be devised, but I would assume it would include a
develo~nt concepti funding ~~hanisms, I timeframe for the project
f~le1ent.tion, and a list of qualifications and crit!rfa for a project.
S. In RFP Is • standard w.y of belog able to solIcit ideas from a lot of
different dfrections and get those ideas or proposals formatted in a
consistent Wa] so you can evaluate them and compa're them fairl,..
You had a Q~estfon also about the reison that the RFP issue is raised in
conjunction with the SRO Committee's recummendatfons. The history of
this, is you will remember9 is that th~ SRO Committee was directed by the
city council to st"dy the iss"e of SRO hotEls. It c.me forward with a
recoa.endation in t~e spirit of tne Housing clement, I believe, to commit
I specific piece of property. the well tower site, for that purpose. That
rec~ndation 15 the only recommendition in the 5RO Committee's report
that the city council was uncomfortable with adopting as it was written.
The council rt'ferre<l that recoDnendatlon to the phnning cO!'llniSSion. fn
.. kIng t~at referral, t~e SRO Committ.e regrouped and felt t~at it would
be necessary to go forward with a specific proposal to the commission in
order for the coamission to eval~ate land use issues r!lated to that
recommendatio~. It decided that t~e fo~r recommendation was premature
and that it needed further development prior to coming forward through
~atever process. Thtir recommendation, then, on that specific subject
was to defer for a year~ Because there has been so much interest
expressed in the propert, fro~ different directions ir. the interim. staff
is not comfortable with informally accepting ill of these proposals
without any strutture. is was suggested by the Finance and public Works
COI8ittee. We would like to see some structure to accepting those
proposals, Ind 1150, some guidance in what kind of terms and conditions we
would be accepting proposals on t~e basis of.
Commissioner Cyllen; Aren't we breaking new ground here? We had
proposals for the Gamble property; we had proposa1s for the downtown park
nort~; we ~ad proposals for a number of others, like the vegetable gardens
behind the library; .11 kinds of proposals that have gone through the
regular process of the Cit,. This is a separate kind of proposal I a
Request for Proposal. It reminds me of when Stanford;s prop~rty ~anager
sent out requests for prop~sal on the de~elopment on propert~ Gut near
Sind Hill without ft even having gone through the process of being
approved. It seems to me a mechanism th.t is "sed by staff to bypass the
decfsionmaking process that exists witnin tne city.
11/14/90
-5-
, -:",
1
t
o
Its, lytl.: No. not It Ill. In filct, it is simply i mechanism f{lt
l~leDOntlng whit the declslonmakers would like to se. Implemented in I
bigger structure. The RFP would need to be defined by the pollcym.'.rs
before It went out. not by st.ff. We would need guidance I. dr.fting that
RFP fraa the policy .. ker.. So It Is sImply. w.y of structuring those
proposals '0 thit you receIve th .. In a fonnat thot Is consistent and
which enibl.s thea to be ev.luated f.lrly. It Is .1 u"derstandlng that it
tli.S been used before, u in the G&llb1e Gardens process.
CQ!lissjoner Cullen: No, It w~s not~
M,. lytle: This is the DeChinls. th.t our finonce department ~.s Iterated
to us is us~ in t~ese s;t~atiDnS, $0 that is w~y we are recommending it.
It Is not .n unusu.l process. I know th,t the FlPW committee said th.t it
would involve consul tints, but it does not have to involve any
consultants. Anybody Cin put together a proposol. You ju,t read through
the request for propos,l. Ind respond. It Is si.ll,r to filling out a"
ippl intlon.
tOMlissipner Chrfstenstn; You said there has been lots of interest fn
t~!. site fr .. lots of different parties, but it seems to ~ that what you
are Ict~al11 doing 1s setting ~p a process that creates an unfair burden
for particular partlciponts In the process in that some of them may net b.
I. 0 position it this pOint to DOve forward. If you have to have a
deyelGpment ~oncept, fundlng sources &nd I time line for your development,
scae people '" be in • better position at this paint in their Ihinting to
do that. and tertiin', in thefT fund1"g. For instance, for a developer J hIs funding sources ire yery .iSl to identify. and hi' toncept is probably
faIrly .'SJ to come up ~Ith. ~er.as a public agency. like the Palo Alto
HOusing torporotion. would have gre.t diffie,lty in putting logether I
propos.l within. three·month period of tIme. responding to this when
theIr funding sources for any project ire very difficult to pin down,
Ilways unteort.1a .. It seems to lie that it gives an unfair advantage to
certain partiCipants.
Ms. lytle: it depends upon ~at your goal is 1n the criterla of
evaluation. If your criteria have to do with public benefit, then I do
not feel 1~ puts those organi~ltions at a disadvantage at all. 1 assume
that would be one of the criteria. If the length of time is at i"ue, the
tl" fra.e is up to the pollcyaoker, to ,et. W. are recomoending t"t it
be • typlc.l time fr .... but it is up to the council to set whatever time
frame they want.
Commissioner Christensen: Then I guess ! need to hear from stiff wny you
are recomiending three months versus I year.
Ms. lytle: Secause It Is our typlca' RfP time frame.
C .... a1r1\iO Mirsh: 1 understood .yOY to uy that three mo"Us. would app1y tD
the developoent of the RFP. The REP could then be out in the world with a
de.dline that .as ~.tever we cre.ted.
Ms. lytle: That is correct.
thairman Mar", So it could be •• ueh longer period than three months for
appliu.thns.
11/14/90
-6-
..
\
•
. \ ". (.
-
/
~--'--,--. .. _----------'
o
I will now open the public hearing.
Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Streit Palo Alto: J am th~ president Qf the
Downtown North Neig~borhQod Assocfation~ 1t is nat ~t all clear t.o me ~ow
the efty can deCide what ta do with this sit!, u1t1mately~ when you
consider ~ow ~ny interests Ire competing for it. It is not at a11 clear
to 1If, frOil an etJtfcll point of view, how tney Cin. out of .a11 of these
propos.l., pick the right one. I feel, howe,er, that there Is • weight
toward the neighborhood, as the people there ire going to be affected by
this clty'owned property and how It is going to be deyeloped. I feel
strongly t~at the neighborhood ~hculd have I very strong voice in cnoosin9
what they feel 15 the appropriate ~se for thit Site, not extraneous force~
that ~1 have their own interests. voic~s not involved io the neighborbood
or ltvfng there. ~r nei9hborho~ is being impacted probably more
severel] t~an any other neighborhood in Palo Alto by the p~tent1al Sand
Hill connectfon, general devel~p=ent, the Oumbarton Brfdge, t~e traffic
escol.tlon t~rou9h our neighborhood. Whate'er this site deyelopment is,
we should have I major part and should also have a competing ~ote in
actually being part of • development. There has been a proposal by 0
developer that we might work in conjunction with him in a partnership to
develop this site. I really ffel this sh~~ld be a~ open process. I
strongly feel that the city should caTfful11 search their sou1s as to ~ow
they arrive at i decisl0n as to who. out of all of these competinq
interests. gets the final say is to how this thing is going to be
developed. I real11 feel strongly that we should make this an open forum
.t this pOiDt.
C._ission~r Cullen: I am not surE if you are speaking in fayor of or
against art RFP.
Nt. Badger; r feel that the Request for Proposal is a good idea. That is
what J am sayfng~ The thing that ~ystifie$ ~ a little is. what is going
to be t~e decisicnmaking process of the city in determining. out of ill
these proposals, and some are weighted heavily, what kind of an impartial
decfsionmaking process ~il1 be set uP! It is not at all clear to m~ how
you do this within t~e present framework of city gover~ment. The
neighborhood should bave the overpowering deCision as to the use of that
site beciuse they are the cnes who will liye with it.
Coamtss1oner Cullen~ And you are saying t~at the RFP process will he more
fivorable to the neighborhood input than our regular Clty process?
Hr. Badger; It is not at ill clear to me what the regular city process
is. Tkis is why I am a little confused. 1 hijve seen otner developments
go in. but this is the first time I have been through something like this,
as it is with city-owned lan~. other than the Downtown Park Nort~. which
was I Yer~ big battle. Hayb€ you can tell me what kind of process tne
city goes tnrough in determining t~e best use of the property.
Ms. lytle: My understandin9 is that there are state rEQulrements for
disposing of public property, which in~olye notification of othfr
government.l agencies. We ha~e policies internally tow4rd notifying the
housing corporatfort. prior to disposing of properties. In this case, bot~
of those steps were taken, and no igencies? inclUding the housing
corpor~t1on, wanted to commit this prnperty for their purposes at that
11/14/90
,7 -
l
* 1
I
j
1
tl... Therefore. generally w~.t happen, Is that the coun'i1 dire,ts staff
t. either dIspose of the property by sellIng It for the high.,t price,
whfch WI, recently done on SONe propertfes t~lt C~ before the commission
an I rezonfng action. Dr else SOle ct~er process needs to be developed.
The RFP proces5 does not ~ave to clrc~ent pub'1c hearfn9S Dr planning
cOlDlssI .. ree .... nd.tfons or anythIng e1so. It can be set up '0 that the
p1annfng c ... ls,ion could be the c ... ltto. to evaluate the propos.'s.
Soae other c ... lttoe wIth neIghborhood representatfon could be est.b1ished
for purpose. of o •• luatfng tho.e propos.1s. In other .ords, the RfP
process, as re( .... nded by staff. Is not to circumvent other normal cIty
rev I... It Is slap1! I way of 0'9,nlzing the fdeas that Ire coming in so
that they can be e.a1u.ted under some type of frimeWOrk. The process for
doIng th.t can be established by the co"nel1, or you c.n m.ke a
rec .... nd.tion on tnat. I would assume that that would come l.ter after
we have been dIrected to go ah.ad wIth this concept. We would need to
.stabllsh (I} thecDaposltlon of the RFP and (2) wh.t Is ~ho process for
eva1uoting the propos.l. that come in.
Chairman Marsn: If I can p.raphras. wh.t you have just said, the RFP
really providos , tIme lino .nd a set of expectatIons for any applicant.
~s. lytle: res. that is it.
Mr. Badaer; [WQuld just encourage tnat the nei~hborhood be ~ade aware.
We .re not rxpert5 in city goyer~nt. We are trYlng to l;~e our lives •
• nd we Ire very concerned about what happens to our neighborhood. I
person.l1y would appreciate knOwing what this process Is going to be. It
now seems 1ik. eyen the peop1. involved do not re.l1y know whit it is
going to be. It nas to be a process th.t will be established as to how
you decide Which proposal you will pick. Again, I feel the neighborhood
should be a part of that process.
Cpmmissioner Huber! ~s. lytle, the WiY I read this staff report. the
suggestion there I. that an RFP Is ... ro formalIzed .. thod .ith s .. e
structure to It for present.tiDn of Ideas. The .,y the FlPW committe.
seems to suggest it is really the sa .. thing. It is j"st not a formalized
process. It just says to gather up ideas.
Ms. lvtle:' Yes, do o~treac~ to tne ~tighbornoodt gather fdeas for a
one-year period.
Commi§signer Huber: Following up on ~at Hr. Badger SpOKt cf. in either
of those circu.stances, at some poiDt in time. I number of ideis will hit
the desk. At this point. no one has yot decided what to do When they hit
there.
"s Lytle: That is correct.
Greg Chesson. 115 Wilverley Street. Palo Alto: I have some generc:l
c~nts on the nat~re of the RfP process. and I have some specific
c~mments relating to t~fs particular REP and my concerns about them. In
gener.1, an RFP is both good and b.d. It is good In • senso that it c.n
let anyone who can put twa words down on i piece of paper ~4ke a proposal •
• nd presumably. It will be granted equal weight to other proposals
acca.panied by lawyers and staff reports and computer prjnt~ut5. The bad
part of it is that an RFP ~ only creatt an illusion of fairness , where
11/14/90
-8-
•
t 1:-.
.....
-~--~~-----------------'""'::-:"7:':'
".
\
o o
everyone gets to say something. but w~at the city staff wanted to happen
.11 11o~ is really wired Into the background. The danger here is that lf
JO~ put out an AlP and don't make it absolutely clear what the d~isiDn
process is as to which proposal is going to be chosen, you only create the
IllusIon of a flfr playing field. The history of this particular property
15 that 1" June, city stiff floated a report which, to everyone's
surprise. uid r here h tJtis tower sit!. let's stick an SRO hotel there? .
and it showed up on the city council agenda one night. They could have
voted it in without any due process. rt was continued it that City
council meeting because clearly it was the wrong prj(edure to be USing.
Now it has been transformed into this RFP process, ano one fears that this
fs being done to give the illusion of fairness and considerat;~n of all
proposals. I would suggest that? in general? let's have an RFP process.
It is • good thing, but letts let the city establish a process where t~e
neighborhood actfJal1,. votes in an e1ection. If jlou ha .... e ten good
proposals. let's vote on them. fJl tha.t way, we kMW who mahs the
decision and we know who ~ets to l;~e with it~
Specifically, w~en I first heard ib~ut this thin9 in June, my reaction was
anger and disaay at what looked to be a rather se~ere intrusion for a
netghborhQ~d. After reading the w~11 pre~ared lnf~~ati~n by staff on the
nature of SRO hotels, what they do and w~at they are good for, I was more
kindly disposed toward 1t~ but I still have some concerns. To tn~ extent
t~at [ believe tht5 RFP is really a way to wire in an 5RO hotel there and
Rake it Took pretty fair? I would li~e to see these concerns be included
in the RFP process. I have three of them. On.e has to do witn management.
one has to do with panhandling and drugs in our neighborhood, and one has
to do with parking and future use of this site. With respect to
-an age.ent, one of the things [ got out of readlng the staff report was
that exfsting SRO hotels go to grea~ pains to keep them clean and
drug-free. An RFP that has to do wit~ an SRO hotel should male certain
statements about prese~ving that kind of operation. Secondly, there is
quite a lot of panh~ndling and some octasional drug dealing in Johnson
Park. If people are gOing to prcpcse an SRO hotel, r would like to see
someone stand up and say that the freQuency of panhandling and drug
de.ling iD our neighborhood is not going to be affected and w~u1d actually
be decreased if they plopped an SRO ,otel down in t'e middle of tnis
neighborhood. furthermore, if they say that and it turns Gut to be wrong.
[ wo~ld lite someone to take the responstbility for fi~ing it in the
f~ture. I have been panhandled not only in my front yard but in ~y back
yard! My father, an B2-yea~-old guy recovering from a stroke~ .hen he
visited here earlier in the summer t every day when he went out for i ~alk,
he got panhandled. It djdn't rea1ly bother him because he spent most of
his working years in Ne~ York City and was able to come back with so~~
pretty fast remarks. However, a )ear from now, if he does that agaln~ he
might get bopped on the head for his trouble. Tna! is the kind of thing
th.t worries me. lastly, parling and future use. To the extent that SRO
hotels go out of business or chang~ tneir use structure, such as the
Cardinal Hotel changed t if you build an SRO hotel on this site and you
don't ~aye any parking because the people living there are n~t supposed to
have cars, and the thing changes from being an SRO hotel, what ire we then
left wit~? Sixty rooms and 50 cars and people trying to park them all
through tne neighbDrhood? A prop05al has to make some statement about
parkfng and future use if the fir~: intended use of a structure is not the
f~nal use five years from now.
11/14/90
-9-
') ,
o
llstly. if r hId to choose between an SRO hotel on the .ite. which would
not be all bad. r certolnly understand t~e good that It does for the city.
and cliOd eire. I would choose child Ctlr!. r believe ther~ ire I'IOre
blbl •• Ind .. re tomille. Ihat need child Clre Ihan there are people and
f .. illes who need ta be In In SRO hotel. So If you are going to .ake the
Iryuoent about the gr.ater good for the cjty. count the number of ~ople
wha .. st need I particular kind af servlc.. It is yet to be proyen th.t
you can put Idequate child care on thl •• It.. I do fear that the housing
corporation and city ,taff and others are so tuned up about this SRO hotel
that there Is not an Ictive and aryonlled enough lobby in the city for
child care, becluse.all the peeple who are DOst likely to organlz. that
Ire unable to becau.e they are busy taking eire of their kid.. They get
lost In the shufne. Thanks for the ti.... I apprechte the opportunity
to .peak on thls .• ubject.
~~~i~~~!f~~~w.~!f.~: jam illso i sOI!Ietia;e member 1 I think It is unfortunate
that the coalittee rec.-mendatlons went to the council with the statement
that the property should be co"",itted for an SRO. Actually. ".0 project
was anywhere neir the point Df ~f"9 proposed. and it just slipped in
there, which w.~ too bad, because] 1m not even sure if t~e sfte is big
enough for an SRO of any real CDnsequence~ After '11. it is onl~ 75 x
lIZ.5 feet. a HUle over 8,000 square feet. It ",y not be , .i'.ble
~roject. Regarding the question here of the RFP .nd the length of time
that you Ire ~oncerned with, it see.s to ne there is nothing wrong with an
RFP If you w.nt to put a lot of people to a lot of tro,ble. [verybady can
spend. lot of time .. aking proposals that .. y J"st go down the drain. ~e
r@Cognize in the housing corporation that we do not have any insfde track
Dr any lock on this property. and we would not want to be doing something
that Is totally out of keeping with what the people of the city want. We
Ire not an independent agency t~at tries to run roughshod oyer anybody.
Unless the coomunity wants an SRO and wants It in that loc.tion, and
Indeed belps to .ak. it possible. since you hav. t6 have, lot of money to
do anything, and h •• e it b •• fford.ble. a. you well know. There is
nothing wrong with doing these RFPs. but we have pointed out th.t you
cannot do th .. i. a hurry. The moin thing th.t bothered us .as the three
-antns for getting things together and another thr!e months to respond
does not give an SRO project I fair shake. Tnere are too many balls fn
the .Ir about SROs. One of the things mentioned in the report is the need
to gtt o~r zoning ordinanc~s and our building cod! revisions to r2cognize
that SROs are a special breed. W. do not have anything in the building
code for the City of Palo Alto. It has been done in quite. number of
communities. San Oiego took the leid severil years ago. We haye talked
wit" Fred Henman, and he is Quite willfng to go t~rough the process. but
it does need to have i Palo Alto city ordinance dra~ up to even recognize
a speci.l breed of. sm.ll unit that may Dr M.y .ot hive. full bath or
kitchen facilities. It.is kind of • hybrid between. very small hotel
room and i tf~ efficlency unit, somewher! in the region of 150 to
250 square feet In size. an unusual beast. So oe would like to get that
process started. Of course. the financial aspects for any kind of
affordable hou.ing. e.pe,i.lly this kind, will be difficult to put
together. We would only be .ble to build an SRO if there i. significant
support fra. state Qr county or city or ~aybe even t~e feds.
Speaking of other sites. we have ~ntioned the possibility of tne county
site on Pige Mill Road, which the city ~ay buy if they e~er get it
11/14/90
·10·
•
r
l .
•
,-,.--------~-------~.
o n --
negotfated with tne ,ounty. That might be I good place for an SAO and
.ight lend itself , belng or. i major arterial. There may be one or two
other places, so all .~ are rea11} ta~king about fs that we would like to
hive a year's time to do t~is. Unless the city is desperate for mon!y
(lnd incidentally, it might not get an) from an SRO), I do not see
inyt~ing wrong with waiting for a year. It hiS been therf for a great
~~ years, and it is not going away, so I would like to see us take our
ti.e ind Make sure we do it right.
CnaiflAD Mars~: The delay seems to be referenced in particular to the
development of an SRO. If this commission were t~ state t~at it was ~ur
feeling that an SRO would not be apprDpriate ot that site, wDuld tho
housing corporation still request a delay. or would you be fn a position
to respond with a different kind of housing proposal for that site in a
s~orter period of time?
Nt-Goldsmith: I would think we could put togetne~ some sort of proposal
for, say, senior housing~ It is a tiny site for famtly housing, but it is
not going to be .ffordable ;n such small Quantities. [ven if the land
were free, we would have di fficulty with any kind' of family hous in9. ~e
migbt be able to maKe some housing for tne elderly, and if so, we might be
able to do that in a six-month period if we get enough funds from
somewhere. On the other nand. we ~ight say the best deal for that is a
20Z proposition w~ich o~ly comes up once a year with the federal
govern~nt. If we Miss the timing on that, we have mfssed a year. So
that is a little hard to reply to. After ill, most any project we have
built has taken an~ere from three to five years, so that is the kind of
time frame we generally work in.
Chair.an Marsh: It does seem to me that lf this commission has any strong
feelings about the SRO issue, you might appreciate hearing those tonight.
Mr. Goldsmit~: Sure. We are not bealing the tub s~ hard for an SRO that
we can~ot look at ot~er possibilities. This came out of the deliberations
of i committee t~at said, here is a piece of ground in kind of a main
location, so what about an SRO? That was the subject of the study.
Ron Hill, 1152 Channing. Pale alto: I am i board member on the PaJo Alto
Housi~Q Corporation. I have aTso participated in the SRO Committee for
three years. The Pal~ Alto Housing Corporation is onTy one part of this
SRO Co~ittee that has been meeting for a number of years. It is not our
coamittee. ]t is a committee in which we participate, so we have not
necessarily been the ones who have been steering the committee. The
people participatin~ in it are interested in housing, interested in
iffordable ho~sfr.9, and interested i~ the SRO issue in the entire city of
P.lo Alto.
With regard to th~s site and the RFP. 1 do not remember there ever being a
direct offer of this site to tne housing corporation. There was never a
request from the housing corporation fer t~is site. Again, the idea of
the possible SRO use on this site came o~t of the committee as a Whole.
As Mr. Goldsmjt~ .ent;on~, it was unfortunate that tne wording went
forwird to the cou~cil. There was no intention of that type of wordin~.
The intention was to have a consideration, as any other consideration
would be for this site. That is the ~aj it was left. I have been
involved i~ RfPs on a number of different levels. I am in the
11/14/90
-11-
construction fnd~~try. Ind we use t~em 111 the time fo~ various things.
hive been involved not only in Palo Alto but in other cities in finance
.nd public werks where 1 send out RFPs for different types of capita'
taprove.ents. Waving been in t~e planning field for I number of years.
there ire only a few situitions t~at [ can reMember (and none in Palo
Alto) whore an RFP was used for disposition of a city site.
Agaln, reiteriting Lou's statement. it takes a long time for a non-profit
organfzatlon to develop RFPs. If you are going to compare the time line
it takes for a non 4 prafit wit~ vir;ouS types of financing ind a privite
~ector developer for,usinq up t~e s&me amount of gra~nd, it probably takes
about four times is long for the. non-~rofit_ We cannot go to just a
bank. We ha.e to find specific funding for. specific use. We ha.e to
find specific funding that reflects the amount of money .e need, the
specific funding that may reflect the interest r.te, that .ay reflect tne
type of people we are going to serve, whether it is income or families or
seniors ..... 11 of t~ese things take. gre.t ~e.l of time. "Plus, we would
have to go through the some process .s the public process would be to do
SQee zoning consideraticns, tnt neighborhood conSiderations, and any
nuaber of ot~er considerations that need to be taken into account. So I
am here to reiterate that tne RtP process, as appl1!d to t~is t~er well
site, needs to have the consideration to take into lccount any type of
non 4 profit use that does ~ot hive a11 of its ducks in a row, tlmewfse.
Chaifl@n Harsh: yo~ stated, and I certalnl~ agrte, that non-profits fice
par!icylar burdens fa preparing proposa1s to deyeiop any kind of
development, sfmply because of the lack of resources t~at ire available+
Th.t brings up a q~estion for me. ff an RFP process or a structure was
created that defined t~e expectations for anyone development or anyone
parcel t it seems to ~e t~at .iqht ~ke it much easier for you to respond.
for example, on this property, ff we were to say in the RFP proposa1 that
what we really want to see here is low-income housing of i type, then it
seems to ~ that gives you an advantage, then go aheid and prepare a
de.elopment proposal.
Mre Hall: Yes, as long as you realize that we ca~not just go to our local
banker and SiY. I want to borrow I amo~nt of money. Even the sea~ch for
fundi~ ca~ tlke i year.
Chairman Hars~: Yes. but what tne RFP might do for you is to el~minate
loose ends and l1elp to focus efforts.
My sec9nd question is this. J believe that you ire the only member of the
SRO Committee present tonight. As staff has correct I, point out, the
disposition of the water tower 5fte is only a small part of what W~ irE
discussing tonight. We ~il' be .,king comments on tne whole SRO Report,
as well. [want to ask you if you ha~e iny general comments you wish to
.. ake ()n that?
Mr. Hall; I haye some quick general comments. After participating in
this process for three years, it is amazing how much you learn as time
goes on. It took us in inordinate amount of time to learn about tne whoTe
ini~l itself. the hcmeless issue, Single-room occupancy, the relationship
between social services and single-room occupancy and other places in
Sont. CI.ra County and state.ide. All those facts and figures ond
concepts took. long time to be digested. It .os .ery appli,able and
11/14/90
·Il·
•
o
fortunate t~at t~e State of California asked the various ~unicipalities in
California to dedicate a portion of their housing element to this type of
fssue. t~e hOMeless fssue+ So we addressed that, too~ rt is a~parent
tnat govern.ent 1s be~omin9 a_are of this situation and that eyery
c~nft1 hiS the need for some of this typ~ of ho~sin9. single-room
occup.ancy housing. So we~ IS a conmittee educated oU)·5ehes. tried to
co.e up w1t~ a number of parameters. As lou mentioned, the building
ordf"lnCeS need to be addressed. The city needs to be interested in
coming up wtt~ I new kind of animal that is not really around. San Diego,
Santa Barbara, San Francisco. Portland, Seattle have started using
anywhere (rOIl slI .. ll ones to big ones. YOLI see that th~re is ,. gre.at deal
of s~ape$ ind types you can hay!. but it is something that takes a
consfderable iaount of time !nd researc~ to develop. There is an
Incredible need.
Blll Peterson. 228 fultQnStreet. P.lo Alto: [want to echo the corrrnents
of Tony Badger and Greg Chesson. They addressed the issue, and tne fss~e
is not SRO hotels. It is the zoning and use of the well tower sfte.
There are two conflicting uses there -the high·density Ab1tar~ block and
the low-dens)ty netghborhood north of downtown. What we have here is
so.ethinQ like the ~edical center complex. with i transitional region.
The Question is, what kind of de~sity do we want to stick down t~ere. 1t
seems to me that ~hen this Request for Proposal is prepared. the
neighborhood~ as advocated by both Tony Badger and Sreg Chesson. should
participate, and some guidance should be gi .... ert in thC}se proposals as to
what kind of denSity, and in particular, with t~e tremendous threat of the
Sand Hill Road trAffic coming tnrough t~ere. serious consideration should
be given to allowing some ~ses to ~s! Hawthorne Street a~d actually block
it, ~king the site more valuable.
i ~ave on! Question. ArE some, all or none of the properties of the Palo
Alta Housing Corporation exempt from taxes? J feel it is a relevant
Question for the evaluation of the proposa1s as to ~hether there would be
income for the city or not.
ChainBjn Marsh: Thank you. You nave made the point on the record.
Fred ryer1). 1Q1 Alma Street, palo Alto: From the Board of Directors at
101 Al~, I have written a couple of letters to the planning commission
regarding SRO hotels on the tower site. GenerallY9 the concerns at 10J
Al .. haYe been that for an SRO hotel, it is not an ide.l location. It is
not really commensurate ~itn the housing area adjacent to tnat site.
T~ere are three sites in the downtown area already. The location of any
new SRO hotel should be sCittered in the city. The SROs are not reallJ
c~atible with a neighborhood residential area, ought to be more in the
core of a commercial area. The question toni9ht is not tr.at alone, but is
w;t~ respect to Requests for Proposals an~ what your suggestions might be
to serld 1t back to t~e Finance Committee. It seems to me that being iI
planning cammission, you ought to put contingencies on what you think
could happen on t~at ground. There ha .... e been i couple of other speak!rs
~o have expressed concerns along that way. I'd like to give yo~ a few
that are lR ~ .ind. One is to rule out SRO hotels for that site.
Another one would be t~at parking has to be on site. We dre already
congested witft parking in that area, s~ you ~ould not ~ant to allow
anything to be built there that ~ould ha .... e to use street parking. lot
coverage should be similar to what the reSidential areas are adjac€nt to
lljU/90
-13·
•
-
"
that site. One other -.jor concern for the relidents of 101 Alma are the
height. you .Ight consider on any deyelopment .t that site. th,nk you:
Jon $ch1nk 1146 HI"1ton 'y,nu«. p,1; lltp: I would like to say that]
favor the stiff recom.endatlon, w1t~ one .ad1ficJt1on. J would enco~rige
you to Illow It lel.t sl ... nths 'or the RIP process. That Is ,bout how
long It Will toke to stlaul.t, .11 the cre,tl,lty that Is 90ln9 to flow
'orth I~ this protess. EY,ntually, you are going to haye the difficult
ch.ll,nge of deciding the proper lonlng. Th,re is no question that
through the RFP process, • lot of good Idea' are going to be fleshed out.
It will glye you a l~t of things to conSider, but you will still haye to
det.noln. the lonlng. It will let. lot 0' people In the community put
together their Ideas and pre,ent thea to you $0 you can ,.e how they would
tak' shape On thl~ property, and see what works.
Also I -.uld add that If you ,li.lnate the possibility of an SRO It this
ti.e, you would get I lot .are interesting, creatiye proposals coming
forward. My sense In working with the neighborhood with on. Idea we had
was that people were al .. st rushing to the proposal th.t we h.d as an
alternatiye to an SRO. If you push the SRO aside, I think you will get a
better dialogue on whether child care Is the right soTution, or whether it
should be an art gallery, a slngle·faaily residence, etc. So I would
encourage YDU, if you can .ake that decision tonight l to t~ink along those
lines. ThankYDu.
Bob Wpgds. 1$82 Loyis Road. Palp Alto: [~I ~r of the Human
Relations Commlss!on and a board aember of tho Pal. Alto Housing
Corporation. I sp.ak to you tonight as I member of the Human Relatiens
C ... lss!on. I .. a1so • member of the SRO Committee, but not IS a member
of the Palo Alto Housing Corpcr.tlon, if we cln all folloo th.t! I heard
the dfscussion on television tonight, and beard Chairman Marsh's questfon
t. lou Gold .. ith as t. what types of 'ses would the housing cor~or.tion
propose for the Site. Th.t caused .. to get Into .y autoaoblle and driYe
down ~ere. The issue I want to speak to is that IS a ~uman relat10ns
C~f5s1oner anrl member of tne SRO Committee l I was a strong adyocat~ for
the year's delay In the RFP process, beeluse there sight be other public
benefits that shou1d be considered before w. dispose of this property.
Th. belief. is that the ti .. frame you are propoolng is way too short to
.. ye forward with child care Dr to DOye forward with SRO or with any other
public benefits th.t s .... one .ight come up with. The HRC is itself
debating the relat!Ye benefits of haying child care there versus an SRO.
If we took I poll, I think the HRC would come down towards an SRO because
t~at is wnere we hive been. t1.e after tf.a, in DU~ ~otes. Wei too. would
like to haye the time to debate Whether there should be something r.lated
to human ser~;ces on this site. I do not understand what the fire is in
.. ying forward with an RFP process. Neither did the FlPW committee. They
said l let's all have an open debate about this over a year's time and see
if we can come up with ; proposal, then move forward.
Irwin Oawid. 161 Brrant Streett Pi'9 Alto: I, too, am a member of the
neighborhood that Is going to be affected. I would like to •• ,. It quit.
cl.ar that when the Downtown NeIghborhood Association speaks, It spe.ks
for the people whose views they ire odYocating. They do not speak for the
neighborhood. I am here beca"s. I want the city to address the proble. of
the homeless people lf~fng in the El Camino Park area and surroundlng
areas Df Menlo Park and Stanford. As! see it, this is onE of the
11/14/90
·14·
•
,
" ,
•
~---*------------...,.;..;;
greltest problem that our community has to face. did some investigation
and WiS yery ple~sed wit~ the report that [got. J learned quite i bit.
and J would like to take issue with some of the findings of tne S~O
C~ittee. The, mention that SROs should be considered i wital part of
the low-Income housIng stock, or something like th.t~ Anybody who r.ads
that r.port can see that out of the three SROs, there is only one that is
affordabl., the Barker. I called up and found out that the current rat.
i, 575 ~r week or 5300 per .. nth. The other two are io the neig"borhood
of $125 ~r week, $500 per month. Somebody who is making .ini~u~ wage,
working 40 hours, Is pulling in 1170 per week before taxes. How they can
.fford 1125 • week Is beyond me. The aarker Hotel is limited right now to
~pl. with disabilities. They ha,e a soci.l worker there who works with
the peopl.. I take not. that last w.ek, the City of Palo Alto is going to
be l.aplng or gl.ing to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation something like
$2 .;1110n so that working families or Single-parent families can live in
affordable housing. I think r re.d In the paper that those units
currently rent for 1900 to 11,200 for two bedrooms. Now .11 they have to
do f5 p~y one-third of their rent. That w~s very commendable, but I
thought about the people who live in the parks and who are working right
~ow who cannot afford first. last and a deposit. To ~ve int~ my place
whic~ r share, r had to come up with 1900 for first, last and deposit. I
am only paying 5400 a month, and I am lucky th.t I had the finances to do
it. A lot of these people do not.
J would also like tD address some of ~y comments to the community. What
a; hearing in my community r can understand, but I hope the city council
and planning cOlTITIlssion :.an ldentify it for what it is. I refer to
~imbyism, pure and simple. We have to help the homeless, but not in our
nefghborhood. MY real interest 1S actually in publ;, transportation. ]
recently attended a ~ting iD Menio Park for the Dumbarton rail.
Everybody is for better transportation, but don't put the tra!n through my
back yard. Today on the ABC news, I heard something about drug treatment
programs. They deffnite~y address Nimby. Nobody wants to have a drug
treatient program in their neighborhood. The drugs are in their
neighborhood now. The homeless people are in cur neighborhood, and the
tower site is an ideal place for an SRO. It is ideal because of its
location. Its location is near to the urban ministry across the railroad
tracks. It is near the Palo Alto transit center~ one of the best places
for transportation, and near the food Closet. These are important areas,
and to add irony to irony, that place is being used by the homeless right
~ow. I took a walk through the back there. r saw the shopping carts. We
~ave i serious problem and it has to be addressed. An SRO is one waJ of
addreSSing ;t, provid;ng we keep it .ffordable. 1 don't think .e should
charge $J25 I week. The whoTe paint is that there are people who are
liYing iD the woods. some of whom are workin9~ so~e of whom are getting
some type of check, and I am" sure they would 1 ik.e to get out. I got
somewhat angry when J heard the gentleman from 101 Alma listing all the
reasons why we shouT~ not have an SRO site there. When r first moved into
the neighborhood, r thought that apartment building at 101 Alma didn't fit
;n. T.lk .bout height_ That is the tallest thing in the neighborhood. I
t~ought it was an eyesore. I consider ~yself an environmentalist, and I
realize tnat it is good to have high denSity housing in certain areas. so
it -akes sense, and I said, okay, it's not that aesthetic Tooking, but it
does serve I purpose. But he mentioned parking. In one of the articles
that came in the packet which you sent to me mentioned that out of 500
residents who lived ;n SROs in Chicago, on1,)' five people had cars. If
11/14/90
-15-
·,
-
4¢ .... -_~-. ___ ,-_
they cDuld afford I CaTt they could Ifford in ipart~nt.
Speaking of cars, right roo. on Al •• Str!!t across tne street from tne
tower site. What do you see? Van after ~ln, car .fter car of people
llvfng 10 t~elr Yehfcles. It Is .trocl.us. That ~.le .rea fs being
destroyed by the homeless people. Ny heart g.es .ut to them, but at the
s .... tl .. , the ar .. Is fi It,,y , ond y.u .11 know why. The hOlleless
popul.tlon In the El Camino Park area .nd downtown area has to be
addressed. Eorller this oYe"I09 .... one spoke about panhandling and drug
trafficking. It Is • proble. that needs to be address.d. Glylng people
the option of .. YlO9·lnto. pl.ce th.t thoy Cln Ifford (and $75 a ~eek
.ake, a lot of ,ens~), I .lso thin. it .. kes • lot of sense to get,
little tough with some of t~es. peopl.. I call it the Art Agnost approach
that delayed f.r two years .t the clyic center. He finall, safd, we are
g.ing t. proYlde Shelter for these peoplo and then tell the. they have to
BOye out. I think that is a pretty good 'pproach. You c.n't Just tell
them to .ave out unless you give them an I'ternatfve~ I yiew tne SRO as a
yery healthy alternatiye. I would like to remind everybody that people
here are going to be paying their O~ WiY. This is not going to be
welfare. These people ire going t~ be working and some Qf them are
getting dl.abillt, cheCKS. They will be p.ying thefr own w.y. Right now
in the report, It showed that people who live i. SROs spend 50·70 percent
of t~eir inc ... for rent. In the phce that the city just bought, the
Oat.cnt conversfo~, they are gofng to b~ paying 39 percent of the rent,
and the) .nll be living in ~ice apart~nts. O~e person said on the radio
that we s~ouldn't do this because people are lfying above their means. ]
d.n't think .nybody would ever want to live jo .n SHO. It fs 1ike a
closet. S ... of the thing. the city can do t. help is in that parking
.ssossment thing. I cle.rly thiok that jf they do not have vehicles, that
f.s wonderful that they do not. [n conclusion. I view the SSW as a real
asset. We are addressing tbe homeless preble. right where it exists. The
city councilor planning commission is going to ha~e to be a little
cour.ge.us, because there will be a lot of people who will be offended.
We don't w.nt this kind of people in our neighborhood. Well, they ar •
• lready here. Thank ycu.
Chairman Marsh: 51nce] have no other cards from members of the public.
will closithe public hearing and return this tte~ to the planning
cOIIIIIi 55 f on.
Commissfoner Cu]len~ I haYe I Questfon on procedure. As I read the item
before us. it is the report of the Single-Room Occufa~cJ Hotel Committee
.nd tne recommendatf.ns of that committee. The packet arrived with the
staff recommendation to prepare an RFP in front of the recomm~ndation for
the Single· Roes Occupancy committee. I considered t~e ,taff
recommendation an addendum, and] am wondering why it preceded tne item
whfch is agendlzed for tonight.
Ms, lytl~; I think it was just Simply because generally the staff report
is the flr,t tOing that the secretari.s put togetner in a p.cket. That is
tbe anTy reason_ They are used to having it is I coyer sheet. T~at is
generally our format.
CORm;"i.ner Cullen: Then I would like to c.ll the attention to the
commission tnat the fact that the real issue before us is the report of
the Single· Room occupancy Hotel Committee, and not the staff proposal for
11/1'/90
·16·
•
\
.1 r
~!
~,
•
/
an RFP. In terms of proced~re. Mad~ ChairpErson, 1 would like to suggest
thAt we focus on that before we get 1nto this RFP business.
Chairman "irs~; T~at. In fact, was what I was g01ng t~ propose to you~ so
J accept your rec~ndatfon. We will turn to t~e Single-Room Occupanc1
Report, which fs the second page of the staff report. At this pOlnt, we
will take comments l~d q~estfons on that report. As I se! it. there are
three issues t~at are delineated in that report. otner than the future of
the witer t ... r site. The first Is proposed -adiflcations to the building
code to facilitate SRO construction; the second is I recommendation to
preserve existing SRO unlt< via public and private efforts. is opposed to
the use of i conversion ordinance; and the third '5 to disband t~e
Single-Room Occupan~y Committee. There are some specific recommendit1~ns
fDllowing that, which generally summarize the issues I just enumerated.
Are there any comments on the other issues contained in the SRO Report?
CQlljssfgner Cullen: When you ~ay ·other iss~es· do you mean other than
those you just .nWler.ted?
C~\jTl@n Marsh: Well, if you find ot~er issues.
tp!miss1oner Cullen; No. the ones you have enumerated are, in fact, the
important substance of the SRO Committee's recommendation.
Cnain!in Harsh: I simply meant other than discussion of the water tower
site, which we will defer, for the moment.
Commissioner Cullen: J am in agreement with the SRO Committee~s
recom.endatfons. excluding the water tower site. They have gone into the
fact thit there needs to be a lot more study of means to obtain the
desired end of producing more SROs. and that it is a general policy ratner
than a specific site of poliCy. I endorse the cDmmittee~s recommendation
Nos. 3 and 4, and we can discuss ~os. 1 and 2 later. There is a1so No. S
for disbanding. ]f they want to disband. I guess they can~
~i$s;oner Christensen; [ha¥e a question about t~~ disbanding. In the
body of the report. they talk about t~e committee having time to de~elDp a
plan for constructing new SRO ho~sing. and that is the reason for the
request for t~e delay on the tower well s;t~. If they are disb~nded. I do
not understand how they can continue to work on that issue. ]f it is
being turned over to some other body, such as the housing corporation,
perhaps w! should turn it over more forma11y.
Mr. Hall: 1 t~ink that the ~eneral feeling of the committee was that it
was not the purview of the committee itself to develop a specific
proposal. If f~ fact. one agency or any group in the c~unity or the
Palo Alto Housing Corporation felt that they were to develop a specific
proposal, it would be handed over in that respect, and that the purview of
the committee was only to study the issue and to come up with what facts
we could, and ~ke recommendations from there~
'opmi5sioner Christensen: That still leaves me concerned that no one is
specificall, charged with following up on this issue. r believe it ;s a
very 1aportant issue, wnether or not the well site fs under
consideration. As tau GoTdsmitn ~ntioned, there are other sites t~at are
pOSSible, and certain1y are being purs~ed. The H~man Resources Commission
11/14/90
-17-
-
hiS been involved and should contfnu! to be tn~olved. from my
~ersplctfve, I see I roll for a contt~uition of a committee of some sort
to wart on the issue.
Ns lyt],: Therl fs a rec~nd.tion nere that staff commit technical
support and assistance in any of these proposals. I think tne HWDan
Relattons Commission is probabl, th! appropriate committee for following
the fssue and will continue to do 50. But this particular committee ~iS
orglnlzed for a specific p~rpose tn response to some issues that were very
urgent at the ti.e. when some Df our local SROs were under threat of being
sold. r t~ink t~ey have provided t~at function, and r do not feel it js
necessary to keep tfiem because they ~ave fulfjlled that function. Their
recOIaendation is accurate and tne specific proposals will come from a
variety of different sources. The city will continue to provide technical
support on an ongo1ng basis, as directed in our Housing Element and again~
as stoted he .. o.
Chairman Mjrsh~ ] would under~core somet~ing t~at Ms. ~tTe referred to,
and that 15 the fact that we have, in the time since the committee was
forllled ami reported-to us, incorporated I; whole SSW section in the
Ca.prehensive Plan ~nd Housing Element, 50 we have certalnly designated a
priority by that action in future cit> planning effort. for SRO
development. Of cour.e, that doe. not speak to exa,tly who will do it,
but it doe, set it in a framewor'.
As C ... is'ioner Cullen points out, the Palo Alto Housing Corporation is
designated i. the Single·Room Occupancy Room Coomittee recommendation as
the agent to .xplore construction of new SRO units. I think what the SRO
coamtttee has done was to in~est iii sense of ownershfp in the housing
corporation for SRO issues. They may not be the final body that winds up
dQfng a development) but I believe they sense that a transfer has taken
ploc •.
Seeing no other comments on the issues raised in t~e SRO report, we ~i11
.ove to the water site and potent1al disposition of that parcel.
Com 1ssiooer Hubtr: It seplI1s to .me u,at for whate-ver reason, it was
unfortunate t~at the RFP water tower sito came .long with the SRO
proposal, because they are really separate things. There i. t~e SRO
aspect of what t~js communit} should be dofng. and there is a" issue of i
citJ-owTled piecf!! of land and what should end up on it, if anything. So 1
look at what we are tilk,n9 about now as a Question of the city owning
some land, .nd what are we going to do with it. That could be anyone of
SO Dr 100 different .se., although realistically, that is not possiblE. r
personally think t~at some form of an RFP would .ake some sense, for thE.
si~le reason that I believe it f~rces orgaofzations Dr individuals to get
serious about what it is that they t'ink they should or can do. So r
would support some form of loo.e RFP.
I believe I ~e.rd two thing', One;s Hancy speaking to about three months
for staff to develop some type of guideline, whic~ then becomes ay~ilable
for those people wishing to aake proposals. The lssue I seem to be
hearing from people in the audience~ is how ~uch time do you have after
that point? ]t seems to me that six months, or nine montns or a year
after that wo~ld be a reasonable time, because there are things like SROs
or low·cost hO~5in9 or designs that include the tower to remain tnere for
11/14/90
·IB·
•
\
condo.1n1u.s, thlt will ,11 take I lot of time. Because it Is in area
t~.t loplct. In exl.tlng neighborhood thit has. heck of lot of problems
already, I think it should go slow, with plenty of time for people to get
their thoughts out on the tib!e. As an old neighborhood actiYist from I
nearby area, [ know what it felt like to be so.ewhat co-opt~d in terms of
thing' thlt were 90in9 on. So it Is very import.nt the neighborhood be
fncluded in SaMe 'ishfon or lnother. It dees not ~in 1n the end that
what the neighborhood wants to hi.e hippen would happen, but .t least the
voices are there throughout, and that is extreMely important.
J do not know how you devise an RfP, but ~oweyer it is done, it should be
broad enough so that anl0ne can come forward with whatever they think is
appropriate to put on that sIte. If J were to ~ake a recommendation to
the clt, council, I would saJ we should do that --take an extended period
of tiE to allow whatever ideas there are to come forlfllard.
Tne next question 1s. what do you do when they are all in front of you.
don't think that Is • question we can answer. It ,ee~s to De that that
goes back to the Policy and Procedures Committee to say, now that you have
all tnese proposals, who decides what is the procedure? What lS the
publfc hear1ng process. etc. Thit is something we have nat been asked to
do. however.
CQmlissioner tulJe~: This is a land u~e deCision, not in r&PW decision.
It SeeRS to me t~at the very ~chinery that an RFP sets in motion, Step '1
ineVitably leads to Step '20, and I see no reason to rush into an RFP.
The reaSQn that was alleged was for c~nsideration of an SRO~ Now I see
the SRO com.ittee, and we hive endorsed it, look at tne whole SRO
situation throu9~out the community~ So tD lero in on the well site in
tenas of the communitywide need for SROs Is. 1 think, • mist.'e. 1 feel
it is a mistake to set in ~ot;on an RFP. The only RFPs I have ever been
f .. iliar with in the city have been for capital improvement projects, nQt
for land use. It r~ves from the planning commission its cnarter
deSignated responsibility for land use, so I am oot in favor of an RFP~
whether it takes three months or six ronths or a year. I think that the
land use proposal should come before the coamission as a land use
.proposal. Given the guidelines of the Comprehensive Plan, we ire as good
I body i5 any to set up criteria for judging proposals for that land use. r do ~ot see proposals being put in competition with each other. Let the
process go as it always has.
Commjssioner Chrjstensen: I concur with Commissioner Cullen. It seems to
me it is backwards --planning by RFP, instead of doing the planning
first. We are starting a fairl) formal process requiring some ~ery
specific things and some very elaborate things on the part of applicants
before we have decided what we want to see happening on the parcel. It is
backwards frOG the way we do ever~ otner kind of <ity planning. We
usually decide what we wa.nt to do ,,"it!'! a piece of property, then send o~t
req~ests for proposals to people who want to build the kind of t~ing we
are look1ng for. So I see it as back~ards planning+ J also think that 1t
works agafnst ch'ld care or the housing corporation or any non-profit
organization because they do not necessarily ha~e the ability to put
together t~e elaborite kinds of proposals that can come forward from Dther
so"roes. I do not re.lly understand the Impet"s or the j"st;ficatlon for
thls and J am not prepared at this time to support the concept of it.
11/14/90
-19-
•
"
-
. ~ J.,
Cb,fMli" Mlrlb: Tb1s 1s an f~teresting discussfon fa~ me, because 1 hear
thfngs f,.... ,11 of you thot J c_leteTy ogre. with. I think what we ho",.
here Is possibly, probleo with no.onclature. One thing Is very cl •• r.
This has been a bungled process, so far. We do not do inythlng on the
water tower site, and we got forwird a proposal that caused complete chaos
10 the neI9hbo~ood. we got It on a level that posed s ••• ny surprises to
neighbors thlt the project, for all proctlcal purposes, was torpedoed at
t~lt patnt. Certli»l" If an SRO fs ever developed, it has In immense
.. untalo to cllob wlthlo the nel9hbo~00d simply becouse of the lact of
process that we ~Ive experienced so far. Commissioner Christenser. is
taltlng about the need to do land use plinnfng. C"'issioner Cullen
mentioned this is well. When I view in RFP proposil, that Is what I see
IS the point at which lind use deCisions are .ade. W. would look at the
sfte, and we WQuld say, fra. a land use pOint of ~iew or I human service
point of view, what should be on this site. We wouTd .ake judgments about
that; we would decide things like, do we want to go for profit on this
sfte? Do we want to consider in SRO? What should the height be? The
very basic Issues would b. involyed, .any of which haye been touched upon
by speakers. We would tike those Issues ,nd translate the~ into i sot of
standards and expettations for developers to come forward. The work we
would do on setting up the land use deCisions ahead of time provides the
framework for proposals as they COMe forward. ~aybo the title 'REP' is
the problem here. Haybe what we want is scme inte~diary po1nt~ i set ~f
policies that .. would like to see c.rrled out on thi! pieco of property,
or , set of expectations that .. have. Perhaps the proble. with an REP is
that it kick! in too muc~ complication into tho process. If we simply
l •• ye this whole process alone and let anything CGMO forward at any time,
that Is the biggest abdication of our land use responsibilities that we
Cln 1.ag1ne. IA that case. we are glYf~ no kind of direction to any
develDper in the community as to what ~~ see as being appropriate or. this
farcel. Stiff has no standards from which t. evaluat. propos.ls that •• y
and on their desks.
Commissioner Cnristensen; I agree with you that we should not necessarily
leave the property alone, but it 1s the wrong choice of words -Request
for Proposal· Reining something yory specific.
Chainman Marsh: The Question, tnen, fs can we devise a process here that
takes ~ire of issues like a time frame and a structure and a set of
expectations, but does not have the connotit1on that [ think some of us
are feeling from tne Request for PropDsal process, which you have
experienced as being more forma'.
ComMissjoner Cullen: lou ma~ be ri9~t about tne nomenc1iture~ The fact
is that In REP is a very technical tenn, and it is a request for
develDpment, and it Mas always been USEd that way. We have not used it in
the city. but I see staff shak1ng its head. So you want to co~nt?
Ms. lytle: Yes. Requests for Proposals can be for an enwironmental
flljlact roport. They can be for any project. It Is not always a request
for devolopment. We issu. an RFP If we aro golng to ~ire a consultant to
do an environmental technical study.
Commissioner Christensir.: That is exactly right. They are ~aking a
proposal. Th!y are coming before you and saying, ~e can do this better~
we can do this for Tess Ilone-y. and this is how we would do it. It is ~ery
11/14/90
·20·
•
--_ ... _-.
specific ond tied to s ... t~lng specific. It Is not a request for ·what
would you like to do with this property?" [t Is not something that the
neighborhood fs involved in. either. Neighbors have not sat fn when we
have let contr.cts ta developers. rt is not an open meeti~g.
CQlli$sfpner CulI~n: So .iybe there is an fntermediate ground, and not
Issue an RFP. I would like to suggest thot .. request ,taff to come bac<
to us with stond_rds for the de.elop.ont of this property, in t.nos of
land use, Ind suggestfons for various alternatives for th~ desfgnations
th.t we .Ight put on that prop.rty, and what uses .ight come under those
designations. Then .. would decide where to go from there.
Cha!nlin MJrsh: 1 tnink we are on t~e right track t but what you have just
proposed puts the whole .atter 10 the hands of the staff. ~.t w. have
heard over and over again is that we need I process that says, we have a
parcel here, we need neiqhborbood input. we need land use considerations.
let's work together as • group to come up with. set of standards by which
we will Judge f.ture applications.
Commjssioner Huber: When I said I wanted an RFP, the real it) of the staff
report to us is Just that. The FIPW has ask.d for 'loosey goosey·
suggestions in terms of what to do with the property. As I understand it,
staff disagrees wit, t'at fluid approac~ and suggests that somet'ing a
little .. re formaliz.d ought to oxlst. When I was talking about an RFP
(e.on call it a Request for Philosophy), I was looking for something that
defines it • little. so tnat you don't have someone suggesting a Great
ARerlca Park, for instance. Soaet'ing a IIttl0 .. re controlled than that,
I little .. re fo ... l than what the flPW Committ •• wants but not something
IS technical IS the last fifty cents worth on the bottom lin •. How you do
that, J do not know. but that is my view of it. Wit~ a little structure,
you will wash out some stuff, and you probably ought to do that.
ComIi$sfoner Cullen: I think we could give them a few rEcommendations
tonight. It is a public piece of property. and we obvious1y do not want
it to 90 fnto private development. We want to have some p~blic good to
come out of it. They are always giving ~s recommendatlons on changes in
tho lond use designation, and th,y do not seem to shilly·sholly about that
at all, so r do not understand their reluctance abo~t not having eno~9h
direction to figure out what to do with that prop.rty, and tern it all
over to some consultant. I am reall~ against that. We can set up a few
recom.endations to th~ staff right now. ~aybe we should continue this
ite. until we have a full commiSSion. I certainly am not willing to go
.long with the REP tonight.
Chairman Mirsh: I would hope we do not have to continue this item.
would like to ke~p our recommendations to process. how to deal with this,
rather than debating th~ merits of one kind of propo5il over another~
That is what we are all about tonight .. what process is the staff going
to use to evaluate proposals that come forward.
Com.!ssjoner Hybgr: Maybe r am ~isunderstinding th;s~ Commjssioner
tullen. bot I do not s.ns. that the FlPW Committee has necessarily
excluded private de~elopment on that site.
Ms. Lytle~ That is correct. they have not.
11/14/90
·21·
•
· .
'9111$51001[ Huber: C~is5foner Cullen WiS tilting about publfc benefit,
and It could very well end up th.t the city counc,) s.ys they will put It
on the .. rket 11k. ,nother well .It •.
!$. Lytl.: Th.t Is what happened recently with two other properties,
without the benefit of thIs kln~ of process. In other words, this kind of
process woyld not clrc~ent t~ no~l lln~ use decfsfonmiking, t~e Zone
change, or anything else tha! would noreolly COle bofore the commission.
It would be I. addition to what noreally ccaes before you.
Ch.frmlP Hir5~! l~ proposing the RFP process, how would you have
anticipated goIng about setting up the crlterl. for that RFP?
Hs. lytle: I wouJd assume that it w~uld be done Ifter direction is
provided from the council on what types of things need to be included In
the REP. What is the structure for itl first, It would probably need t.
go to F&PW to get that recommendation .. de on what Is our polley on this
property, and fln.lly to the City council to glYe us the scope for the
REP.
Chalrpan Marsh: How would you haYe Included the neighborhood In that
process?
Ms. lytle: The neighborhood Would be included because those ire .11
p~blic hearings. J would assume we would continue to contact the same
.. 111ng lfst we h,ve .ttached t. this issue. These people have be.n
following It, and It would expand t~rou9~ tl... The n.ig~borhood outreach
would be the same as conducted on this report, plu. the notiCing before
the ... ting. occur. RFPs!rt decided with neighborhood Input. W. just
had. slngle-fomlly design 9uldell~ RFP that had public testimony at the
Policy and Procedures Committee leyel before the RFP went out. So it is
COMlCn to have neighborhood Input.
CQlmtssjgngr Christensen: J still continue to see this is I land issu!
and something we should be Involved In, not just that it goes through
FlPW.
Chii~an Marsh: Let me make i suggestion to get something on t~e floor~
What if we were to app<lint I small subcomittee of t~.e planning commission
to take this on, notice the .. etings to the public, ta~. input from the
publiC, come batk to the plannfng commission with eight or ten criteria in
I land use fo~at, far that sfte, and deblte those criteria.
Ms. LytTe£ Yes. then you could forward thos.e criterh. to UPI' for their
consideration and on to the city council for final Iction.
Chji~an Marsh: That is the consens~s of what I am hearing up here. We
need to tackle the land use questions involved here; we need to give some
direction to staff on how to deal with ft. and we need to be fair to
potential developers in the community. Tbe1 don't want to b! out 'hasi~g
things we wo~ld never consider. Tbi~ may ac~ieve same of all ~f those
objectives.
Commjssioner Huber; Do€s this essentiallY mean W~ would write the REP?
Cha1nnan Mar5~: There seems to be some disagreement as to what that RFP
11/14/90
·22·
..
\. ,
'.
•
" '
o
IctuI1', consists of. You ~iye p11nn1ng com.lssfon members suggesting
t~lt it is .uch more technical than la~ use decisions might be.
(QII1ss!oner Cullen: I don't knDW whethe~ 1t ts bec&use we have not had
the full Co.prehensive Plan before ius for I number of years. We ~aye
been dofng H fn pIeces, bot It s .... s to .. thot we ire getting further
.nd further awIY from consfderatfon of ftems or of specIfic sItes and
theft InclusIon fn the Compr.henslye Plin. It needs to be Stited th.t
t~ts sfte, lnd ~ateyer disposal is ~ade of tt~ needs to be consistent
with t~. go.ls and policies of the Comprehensive Plin. That is whether It
Is don. by • subco.mlttee or by whitever body. I a. a little confused
about the role of the FlPW, sfnc. the plannIng commiSSion recommend.tions
us.ally go directly to the city council, not to a subcommittee of the
council.
tbatrl@n !.rsb: Since this itee Is before us. I suggest we attack it on
~l.nnlng grounds, and whit we ire suggesting fs very appropriate. Then
the FlPV can a..lg .. ate their suggestions as t~ey want with whateyer
criteria we ca.e up ~1th for development.
~$. Lytle: T~e reason that the fl~ is involved is because that is where
the tower well site RFP recommendation was ~de, at one of their
meetings. Frankly, their tende~cy was to decide to nave no RFP. Just
have a wiiting period of one year, which was the recommendation of the SRO
Co.mittee. aut there was no neighborhood representation at tnat meeting,
and they were concerned about doing that without the ben.fit of • public
forum lDvoiving the neighborhood. Therefore. they delayed their action
until the co.aission conducted thi~ meeting to hear what your
rec~ndation on the SRO Committee's report was, whith intludes the
recommendation to defer t~fs issue for one year. That is why your
.. c .... nd.tlon wIll be pissed baCK to the FIPV, because they are the bodY
where the issue of w~ether or not to let In RFP 1S now under consideration
for recommendation to the council.
CommiSSioner Huber:
actually undertaking
the council and say~
do?
If we proceed IS Chainaan Marsh has suggested. before
an~ activit1. do you go back to tha subcommittee of
this is what t~e planning commission is proposing to
Ms, Lytle: I assume it would be prudent to inform th~m. I also assume
they would be willing to w.it. They seemed to be in no hurry .t their
meeting with regard to this preperty. r .. protty sure they would be ~ore
than willing to watt if you want to appoint a subcDmmittee to gf~e
specific land use direction~
Commissioner HUber~ My Question is, do you go to them for that direction?
We could have a committee and come up with suggestions. and they ~culd
come batk and say. we wanted sometning informal and thlt 1s what we st,11
want.
~s. Lvtle: J assu.e they could do that. But their point in not taking
that action was to near from you prior to taking it. Thefr tendency was
not to disreg.rd your Input.
Ch.lrman Marsh: And I might add that wh.t the city council has repeatedly
told ~s is t~at they want our best land use expertise. So J think we have
11/14/;0
-23-
----------',-, ----.-----.~ --.,
\
co.e ta I point of agreeBent II to how we cln i1ve that to thea. a_
reldy to .. t. a .. tIDn.
~: Cba1raan ".r$~: J .ave that t~e planning commission adopt I
.ubc_Ittee, the r ..... r lIel1 Sit. Subc ..... lttee, to look .t th •. land •••
ISSUes that are I.volved In potentl.l developoent of the tower well sfte
.nd to crelt. a list of crlterl. thlt should be considered in Iny propos.l
for t~at site. .
~: By C ... lsslDner Culle ••
ChiiTlan Karsh: Let It be cl •• r th.t this should be I short-te ..
subc_Itt... lie h.v. I fllrly sllp!Y tl.k In front of us. lie certlinly
want to vet input froe the nelghborflood, fl'''' the housing cDrporltion •• nd
froe Inyone .ls.·~o would ilke t. spelk to .s. But we should not be
spending • ~olel.t of tl .. on th!s.
NOTION PASSES: Ch.lnoa. Mlrsh: Is there Iny further discussion D. this
.. tion? All those 1. favor. SlY Aye? All opposed? Thlt pass.s
U.I.lI1OU.ly.
lIben I. 1.ltl.l meeting of that c_itte. !s set. c.n we agr •• to send
.otltic,tlon to those people ~D were notified of this it .. tonight?
Ms. Lytl.: 'es.
CbalT!@n Karsh: Let us defer ..obershlp of the committ .. until November
28th.
END OF EXCERPT
-24· ------....... ---... -------.--~.-
...
./
£XC£RPT
'lannfng COMQission Hin~tes
February 27, 1991
"
o
AG£KDA ITEM 4 Report and recommendatIon. from the Tower Well Site
e_Htee.
Cha1rMan ",rsb: Are there comments fro. stiff Dr commissioners?
CQllfss'oner Huber: J thought this report was fantastic in tne way it was
hId out.
C.alnRin ~arsh: I would echo that. I thought it was a outstandIng job.
I have a couple of s .. ll change •. In Ite. S(a), I would lIke to add after
·ch~ld care, SRO hous'ng, low·jncOI@ family hDusing, etc.-so that we get
some other optIons 10 there.
Also under SId) I would like to add 'Use and des ion compatibility with the
adjacent nelghbonhoods,' based on our earlIer Item tonight. I would like
this tt .. to be S(c) and move (c) down to S(d). The order does suggest
prIority.
Under S(b), where it says, • A written description of:' I would like to
reorder the It ... that follow, for the same reason. First I would lIke
-How t~e project will satisfy a public benefit or needjn secQnd. -How the
project will be co.patlbl. wIth the adjacent residential neighborhood, .. ':
thIrd, 'the nuober and types of resldent!.l units, if any;' and fourth,
What I. the planned disposItion of the property ... •
Under 9(d}, I would like that to be the l.st item, as gee).
r am .. king the.e comments because I feel that since this neighborhood
accommodates i lot of dlfferent public needs, it 15 MOre and more
incu.bent upon us to lake sure the nefghborhood is considered fn all
future appllcatlor. •.
~: Cogmfssfoner 'Tazier: I hOve approva1 of the report.
~: 8j1 C_lssioner Huber.
MOTIQN PASSES: Chajrm.n ~.rsh: All those in ravor, s.y Aye? All
opposed? That passes 6-0 with Cuomlssioner Hirsch absent.
Mr. Gilliland: That will go to Finance and Public Works on April 9.
Chairman Mirsh: Can someone attend that meeting?
(CoaIi.sioner Collen can probably attend)
i
'.
EXCERPT F~ COMMISSION MINU"l'ES
OF APRlL 24 ,'"fi 91
The pl&nn~ng commission .et 1n ~ requllT meeting on Wednesday, April 24,
1991 at 7:35 ~ ••. 10 the Courocll Chambers, with Chairman ~ar,h presidjn~.
Pa sent -:
AI!an1:
St,ff Prrant ~
ROll CALL
Commfssioner Christensen [for I portion of tne Me!ting),
Commfssioners Cullen. Glazier, Hirsch. Huber and Marsh
Commissioner Beecham
Eugene Brown, Assistant Buildin~ Official
Susan Clse, Senior Assistant C;t~ Attorney
James Gilliland, ~.na~er, Planning Projects
'Robert Ha1ey, Planner
Hancy ~le, loning Administrator
David Martin, Chl1d Care Coordinator
Marvin averway, Chief Transportation Official
Carl Stoffel, Transportation Engineer
Yirginii Warheit. Senior Planner
OP~l COMMUNICATIONS ' None
AGElllJA ITEM 1 Approval of Minutes, March 13, 1991.
~: CQllissiDngr Hirsch: IKIve iIIpproval.
Sf&QHD: By Commissioner C.llen.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Marsh: All those io ravor, say Aye? All
opposed? That passes on I yote of 5-0, vith Commissioners Beecham and
Christensen absent.
ACiEMOA ITEM 2 SINGLE,RoaM Q(CUP~cy COHMITTEE ACTIQH: Flna' action on
the Single-Room Occupanc} Committee recommendations for
preservation and develo~nt of single-room occupancy
hotels 'n PlIo Alto.
Chairman Marsh: We have before us final action O~ the Single-Room
~cupancy Coamittee recommendations whjc~ came before us some time in the
past. At that time, we did discuss and took action regarding the part of
tb~t recommendation that addressed the water tower site. However, we
inadvertently railed to take action on the other Items that were
recommended by the committee.
No staff comments.
CQlpis$igner Gollen: 1 see t~at Item 14 of the recommendations does not
specIfically .. ntion the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. It seems I little
yag~e, and [ would feel more at ease if tnat were in there, as ] assume
.. st of the public would, too. It sounds' little open ended, otherwise.
ChainBin Marsh; Are you talking about the item that begins, "The city
should not enact a demolition Dr conversion ordinance ... ·? (Yes) Is it
necessar;l} true that t~e assistance promised in that item would be
provided by the PlIo Alto Housing Corporation?
04/24/91
-3·
~}
,'t~.
o
!$, Lytle: It would not be exelusfve to the housing corporation.
'QII!sl'gner Cullen: J did not mean that. If you look back inta the
crfgfnal rac~ndat1Qnst ft does say -the ~'tl, private owners. or the
,.10 A1to Housing Corporation.' I Just don't like them being l.ft out.
(haItian Marsh: I do not quite understand why we would necessarily want
th .. to be Included in toat. Vhat that Item promis.s is simply,
ca.a1t.ent of administr&t;ve and techr.;(a1 assistant! to private o~ers.
COIIissjgner Cq11tn: And other federi1 and state funding. The ho~sing
corpor,tion', contract with the city is to provide that kind of
expertise. If you look back to the Single·RoOlD Occupancy Co"",ithe
recoamendations, we picked up the same recom.endations. The only thing w!
have done is t~ lea~. out the housing ~orpcratfo~.
Ms. Lytle: I belleye that ,. of that original report read, the same wa)
is 14 of this re~ort. Housing corporati~n ~rs were i part of the
writing of those recommendations.
(harTlin Marsh; I donlt think there is anything anywhere in these
recoaaendations that excludes the ho~s1ng corporation in any sense from
any of ft.
Comm1ssjgoer Cullen: No. I am not thinking ft was e~cluded. J would like
it to be included.
thairp,n Marsh: Well, it f' Included in Item '2, • ... while the Polo Alto
Hous;ng Corporation explores construction of new SRO units ... • Of course,
we took subseq~ent act,on on the tower vell site that expanded that.
~~iml~~ilJ.m;· That is just 01Y reco_ndation that Itell f4 read:
d not enact a demolition or conversion ordinance, but
d act to protect existing SRO unit. thro"~h couoitment of
nistrattve and technical assistance to prfvate owners with funding
sources for. rehabilitation, seismic impro'YeEnts, and other-fedenll and
state funding with the cooperat1on of the Palo Alto HoustRg Corpcratjo~
if n~eded.· And it has been needed.
Commissioner ~irsch: A question regarding Point 15. t~e disbanding of t~e
SAO comaittee. J ISSume that is not the planning commiSSion
subcOtElit tee. Is that correct?
Ms. Lytle: Tbe planning commission subcommittee is called the Tower Well
Sit. Subc.omlttee. This is t~e SRO committee.
Commissipner Hirsch: I question whether it ;$ premature to disband that
cooaittee. Mig~t there not be other actions where the benefit of the
thinking of the SRO committee would be worthwhile?
Ms. Lytle: J think they felt that they had served their purpose here in
looking at making recommendations for inclusion of the housing element and
reccamendatlons for continuing efforts by staff to look at SRO housing.
I~ gener01, the services that will be provided are probably gOing to be
affered through the hous;ng corporation members, as Commissioner Cullen
..
, ",'
/'
/
has ca.mented J in tenlS of providfng ong01ng assistance Ind adv1te.
Cb.inpan Marsb: 1 do remember, Commissioner Hirsch, some disCU5Sior. of
thl. the la.t tl .. that this ite. came to us. He were told by committ ••
-..bers who were present it that time that they wished to disband.
CQlmf$sfontr Hfrseh: Most planning commission su~ommtttees do want to be
disbanded! I just questicn whether that is something we should be making
I reco.mendation on. It does not sound like a land use issue, and J feel
the citl council can aake its awn determination with its own perspective
as t. whether the co.nittee J presume the~ estab'ishe~ should be
dlshanded.
COIIissioner Cyllen: I think it 15 appropriate to recommend that the~ be
disbanded~ It is I camaittee that nas been acting on land use issues.
Chairman Marsh: Ve are ready for i motion on this item.
~: Cocrn1ss1oner Huber: I move the staff report is stated in Items
3.4Ind5.
~: By Commissioner &lazler.
ChJipman Harsh: Is there any d1scuss50n on this motion?
COBIissioner Cqllen: Ny remarks Qn the housing corporation will be on the
record. It Is not t~at I f •• 1 th.y would be excluded, I just •• nted to
be sure they were on record.
Cgmais$joner Hir$ch: The Sage goes for my remarks regarding disbanding of
the SAO Cooaittee.
MOTIQH pASSES: Chairman Mar$h~ The motion is to approve Jtems 3 through
5 of the SAO Report Ind SAO [oam;tte. recommendations, All those in
favor, say Aye? All apposed? Tnat passes on a vote of 5-0 ~;t"
Com.issioners Christensen and Beecham abs!nt .
. -.--~,~,~~--".~,----
•
~ ..