The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0290.091.. I" .~. May 23. 1991 HOIiOAABLE cm COUNCil Palo Alto, C.lif.roi. The Tower Well Site: Recommendations of the Finance and pub] 1; Works tOllfttee and the Planning Comroissfon Neibers of the Council: BeROrt 1 P Prj e f This r~PQrt presents the Plannfng Commission and Ffnance and Public Works Com.ittee's r.coaaendatfons for a City process to consider proposals for reuse and/or disposal of the Tower well Site located at the southeast corner of Alma Street Ind Hawthorne Avenue. Backgrpu nd I~ 1988. Council approved I Ut11itfes Department recommendation to ibando~ ind dispose of four of the City's ten well Sites, including the Towe" well site. On June II, 1990. the City Council considered the recommendations of the Sfngle-Roo. Occupancy C ... lttee which was created to address the Issues rel.ted to the pres.ryatlon of the City's single-rooo occupancy (SRO) hotels_ One of the loiti.l recommendations of the SRQ Committee was to commit the Tower well site for I new SRO deYelopment. At this .. eting, • number of neighborhood reSidents raised concerns about potential neighborhood Impacts from an SRO it this site. The City Council voted 9-0 to approve the SRO ComRittee recom.endations to 1) recognize SROs is an important element of the C;tJ~s 1a.·income housing stock 1ft the Housing El ernent. and 2) to assist SRO hotel owners ;. obtlfning loans and in upgrading and expanding existing SRO facilities. The Council did not take any action on the third SRO Committee rec .... nd.tlon. to use the Tower .ell site for an SRO, and forwarded this SRO Committee reccamendatlon back to tne Planning Commission for their review and recoa.endatiDns~ The SRO Coomitlee .. t twice, on August 20 and ag.i. on Septecber 24, 1990 to reconsider their recommendation regardir.g use of the Tower Well site. Jn response to neighborhood conceros and the Incre.sed Interest 10 the sile by • number of parties I the SRO Committee ~nded tneir original recommendation for use of the site. T~e SRO Committee's new recommendation was for the Council CHR!290!91 • \ .. ..:,: . o to consider the Tower Well site for an SRO but mak! no commitment for at least iI year. Prior to this time, the Council had ,Iso referred disposition of the Tower Well site to the Council', finance .nd ?ubllc Works (FlPW} Committe •. On October 30, 1990, the f!PW CGallttee deferred t.klng ac\lon on the staff rec~ndation, that I request for proposals {RFP) be issued for the Tower Well site. until after public hearings were eonducted and iI recnmmendation was recefved frog the Planning Co.mfssion on the SRO Subcommittee's report4 More detailed background Infonoatlon on pa,t actions related to the Tower Well site Is provided In the attached Planning Comalsslon and Committee reports. planning Commissipn Action On Nove.ber 1., 1990 , the Planning CDMmiSS10n considered the recommendations of the SRO Com.ittee. The Planning Com.issfon 1150 considered a separite staff recommendatio~ to initiate an RFP process for proposals for use of the Tower Well site. Use of an REP proce.s was recommended by staff to establish a structured proce~s and fra.ework for consideration and evaluation of different propo.als. The SRO Committee did not favor os. of an REP proce.s. The Planning Co..issfon believed the issue needed further study and created thelr own Tower Well Site Subcommittee to ~ke a recommendation to the Plannfng Com.ission. The Tower Well Site Subcommittee met tWice, on January 24 and february 5. 1991. and concluded t~at use of an RFP process was appropriate as long is the proposals were conceptual and were prepared in compliance with specific Identified criterlo. The Subcoomltte. developed the concept of a Request for Conceptual Proposals (REep} and the specific Items to be addressed. The conclusions of the Subcommittee were presented to the Planning COimissfoD on February 27 t 1991, which unaniaous1y endorsed them, with .inor revisions fA text and Ite~ order of the RECP requirement.. These change, are reflected in the recommendations listed belo •. finance and Public Works Comgjttee Action The P14nning Commission's recommendations were considered by tne City Council's Finance and Public Works (flPW) Committee on April 16, 1991. The F&PW Committee unanimously recom.ended adoption of the Planning Commission recommendations to initiate I RFCP process to consider possible uses for the Tower Well sIte, with two .Inor changes i. the ite. order of the RFCP requirements. These changes are reflected in the recommendations listed below. The FlPV Com.lttee f •• ored staying wit. ,oneeptual proposals for the benefit of nonprofit organizations. but w;s~ed to have the Planning Commission conSider wse of an expanded publ1c not fee process, wit~ nore t~an just mailed noticing, to incorporate t~e neighborhood ;D the process. CItR:290:91 p:\C1IIr\t_r2 5/23/91 Page 2 ~. ~I / o RECOIII£JIlATIOH The Planning Coamlsslon and Finance and Public Works CGallttee reca.mend t~e Ctty Council direct .t.ff to proceed with. nlne-.. nth Request for Conceptual Propos.ls (RFCP) for reu.e or dispositIon of t~e Tower VeIl Site, Includln9 the guidelines, criteria and specific content Ite~. listed below, and to ret"ro to the City Council for Council approval of the final RFCP before It is sent Gilt. I. While the RFP p~ •• s ;s not alway. t~ ... nner In which the City has disposed of propertle. in the past, In this ca.e It I. an ,cceptable w.y of obt,lnlng conceptual proposal. fro. , v.rlety of sources to be evaluated by the City. It I. advisable to ensure that t~e proposal. relafn concept~'l in nature; therefore, the process should be called 'request for concept.,1 proposals' (RFCP) I. this ca.e. It Is understood that ,ny future project which .ight be selected during t~e AFtP process would subsequently be required tD obta1n III necessary lone change and development approvals throug~ the regullr planning permit process~ 2. A longer-than-no ... l, nlne-.. nth tl .. lin. should be establls~ed for responding to the RFCP, i. order not to put nonprofit entitle, ot a disadvantage to other developer •. 3. Once conceptual proposals have been received and the RFCP ti .. period is closed. t~e review process for conSidering and recommending to City Council on the v.rlous proposals should Include review by the Planning Coa.1ssion ~nd the Hu~an Relations Coamission, 15 recommendfng bodies to Finance and Public Vorks and tho Cltl Council. 4. The neighborhood will continue to be Involved In the process throug~ direct agenda •• Illng t. Indl.ldual. on the Tower Well Site .. Ili09 list and throug~ n .... l public noticing of the PI.nnlng Coomiss;on and Human Relations Coonls,lon meetings. S. The RFCP should encourage proposils to Includo the following chir.ctorlstlcs: •. Providing for an identiffed publfc need, e.g., c~i1d care, SRO housing, low·lnco .. famlll housing .nd f .. 11, projects such a. single-parent tranSitional hDusing; b. Uses with low traffic and parking impacts on adjacent residential no!ghborhoods; c. Use and design coop.tlbllit, with the ,djacent nelghbor~ood; d. Compliance with the PC Zone dl.tr;ct regul.tlons. CMR: Z90: 91 p:\cw\tower2 --~------.~.".-""""",---..-.--' 5/23/91 Page 3 • \ ' . . 5. 7. o The RFtP should discourage office uses. The RFtP s~ould entertlln and not rule out: o I. Ab.ndorooent or barricading of Hawthorne A.enue ot tho AI .. i"tersK.tfon; b. Reuse of t~e water tower; and c. Consolidation with adjacent properties in order to gain t~e ,dYant'ges of • larger .ite and better pI Inned project. 8. Proposal. sUDoltted should be required to include the following specific It .. s: I. Prell.lnary Site plans shOWing in9ress and egress, parking, eleYatfons, and floor plans wh'c~ label p~Dposed uses; b. A written description of: How the project will satisfy. public benefit Dr need, How the project will be compatible with the adjacent residentl.l neighborhood .nd the process for in.o!ving the neighborhood In the development of the project pl.ns, -The nUMber and types of resident~al units, if any, -The planned disposition of the property, f~e., purchase ar lease Ind i general ftnanc1ng proposal far the project, proposed ti.109 for project implementation; and c. An environmental assessment work sheet. g. Proposals should be eval •• ted USing the criteria listed In Policy .nd Procedure 1·11, .odified &s follows: •• The extent to which the proposed use satisfies a public need; b. Consistency of the proposed .se with existing City goals and objectives (set forth in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code); c. The i~act of the propos!d use (compatible services and uses, triffic i2pacts, noise impacts, energy conservitton, etc~) upon: . Tne f~diate neighborhood, CMR:290:91 5/23/91 P'ge 4 p :\Clllr\t .... r2 '. .. I .J -The co-aunity generally, and The envfronment; .-.-~- d. Th. blstory and •••••• ment of the propos.d group's ,bllily to carry out the construction, If ,ny. and o~erotlon of the facility Ind services as praposed; and e. The .. netary consideration to be provided to the City. R.spectfully ,uboltted, t~1~~.".: EIUly'iiARRISllN r' Dfrector of fln.nc. ~ ~~slstant City Manager ~:7d'£/d~ K[NNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of P)annl"g and Com.runlty Environment Related CMRs: CMR 289:91, CMR:545:0, CMR:374:0, CMR:3S]:0, CMR:220:0, CMR:497:9, CMR:267:B. Att.choents: 'lonnlng Coo.I,.lon Staff Report of February 22, 1991 Jonuary 31 .... to the Tower W_ll Sit. Subcoomitt.e Plannfng C""'sion ,t.ff report of November 9, 1990 Single Roo. Occupancy C ... ittee Report of Hoveober 9, 1990 Ch'pt.r I-II of the City of P.lo Alto Policy .nd Pracedure, M.nu,l Minute. of the Pl.nnlng Commi.sion meetIng of Nov~r 14, 1990 .nd February 21, 1991 cc: Planning C ... ission SRO Comitt._ Hu.an RelAtions Com.isslon Tower Well SIte Subcoomltt.e ~.Iling li.t CMR:290:91 p:\Cllr\tower2 5/23/91 Page 5 . , I .~-------.----.---~'~,---------~--~.-- february 22, 1991 PUlllNING COltUSSIOH Palo Alto, Californli Recommendations Of the Tpwtr Well Sjte Sybcommittee Members of the CGallsslon: ~ November let 1990 Planning Commission considered the recommendations of the Single Roo. Occupancy Committee (SRO) and a recommendation from st.ff regarding initi.tion of a Request for Proposal (RFP) process for disposal and/or reuse of the Tower Well Site. While t~e Commission endorsed the recommendations of the SRO Committee~ they ~ere unable to approve staff's recDlmendation to initiate an RFP without further study. Tbey formed i subcommittee to address the concerns and tlk! testimony fro~ the iDter~5ted public. Since their apPOintment by the Planning Commission on Hovember 14, 1990, the Tower Well Site Subcom.ittee. composed of CGmmiss;oners Beecnam. Christianson ind Cullen (substituting for Karsh), has held two public ~etings to de,elop recomgendations for a City process to consider proposals for the reuse and/or disposal of the Tower Well Site. The purpose of this staff report is to forward to the f.ll Planning CODOjssion • summary of their final recommend.tions. The Planning CDlmis,ion should consider and adopt recDBIITIendations which wi 11 then be forwarded to the Finance and Pub1 jc ... ·orh Committee (F and PW), where the issue is under consideration. From the~e, tn! recommendations on t~e Tower Well Site and the SRO Committee report will be agendized for City C~u~cil considerition. In their meeting of January 24, 1991, the Subcommittee reached the fellowing conclusions: I. c:\Tower .1 While the RFP process is not always the manner in which the City has disposed of properties in the past, it is an acceptable way of obtaining conceptual proposals from a variety of sources to be evaluated by the City in this case. It is advisable to ensu~e that the proposals remain conceptual in nature, therefo~e, the process should be called -request for conceptual proposals· (AfCP), in this case. It i, understoed that any future project which might be selected during the RFCP process would subsequently be required to obtain all necessary zone cnange and development appro.ols through the regular planning permit process. 2/21/91 Page 1 ~. ; ~:; " tr • ~ i 2. 3. ,/ o o A ]onger~tnin normal, nfne month. tfme line should be established for responding to t~e REep, in order n~t to put ncnproflt entities at I disadvantage to other developers. Once cOTlceptual proposals )laye been receh'ed and the RFCP time period fs closed, the review process for considering and recoonendlng to City CouncIl on the .arlous proposals should Include revIew by the PlannIng Ccomls.'on and the Human Rel.tlons Co .. ;sslon, as recommending bodies to F and PW and tne City Council. 4. The neighborhood will continue to be involved in tne process through direct agenda mailIng to Indivldu.ls on the Tower Well Site .alling list and through nonnal public noticing of the Planning Commission and Hwoan Relations CommissIon meetings. 5. The RFCP should encourage proposals to include the following characteristics: a~ Providing for In identified public need, e.g., child care, SRO housing, etc.; b. Uses with low traffic and parking impacts on adjacent reSidential neighborhoods; c. Cons.lld.tion with adjacent properties In order to gain the advantages of a larger site and better planned project; d. Use coopatibility with the adjacent neighborhood; and e. Coopllance with the PC Zone district regul.tlons. 6. The RFCP sho"Td discourage office uses. 7. Tile RFCP should entertain and not ",le out: a. Abandonment or barricading of Hawthorne Street at the Al~a fntersection b. Family projects such as single-parent transitional housin9 c. Reuse of the water tower 8. Proposals subooitted should be required to include the following specific: items: <:\Tower 01 il. Prelillinary site plans showing ingress and ~ress. and parking, elevations, and floor plans which label proposed uses; b. A written description of: 2/21/91 Page 2 • -._._---- 0" , .; T' '1;-. • The number and types of residential units, if any; How the project will satisfy I public benefit or need; What is the planned disposition of the property, i.e .• purchase or lelse and I general ffnancing proposal for the project; proposed timing for proj.ct 1~I.mentltion; .nd How the project will b. comp.tible with the adjacent residenti,l neighborhood and the process for involvfng the neighborhood in the developaent of the project plans; and c. An en~ironrDental assessment worksheet; g. Proposals should be e •• l.oto4 us1n9 the criteria listed 1n Policy and Procedure 1·11, modified as follows: I. The extent to wIlich the proposed use satisfies a public need. b. Consistency of the proposed use with existing City goals and objectl.es [set forth in the Ccapreh,nsi.e Plan, lonlng Ordinaote, Municipal Code]. c. The impact of the proposo4 us. (compatible services and uses, traffic impacts, noise impacts, energy conservation, etc.) upon: Th~ immediate nei9hbor~ood; Tbe community generally; and The enviro~nt. d. The monet.ry conSideration to be pro.ided to the City. e. The history and ass.ss .. nt of the proposed group's abi lIty to carry out the constructfo~, jf any. and operation of the facility and services is proposed. Staff Recommendation StIff recoaoends that the Pl,nnlng Commission recomeend that t~e C~ty Council direct .tlff to proc.ed with the g·month RFCP .e1ection process as outlined above, including the gu1delfnes, criteria and specific content 1te.S r.c .... nded by the Tower W.ll Site Subcommitte •. c:\T"""r n1 l/21/91 Page l < , < o o BeeIUS. the Plonning Coomisslon deloyed making a r,comoendation on the SRO C_IUee report until the .. or. of the Towor W.11 Site Subc .... itt.e was ccapleted, staff recooaends th,t the SRO C ... ittee r.port be r.agendiz.d for f1nll Planning Com.issiDn reconaendation on the next ivailable agenda. Respectf.lly suboltted, --/l!t~, #!1dd~ A //.// L "g LYTlE '~ l-L Zoning Ado nistrator KENNETH R, SCHREI~ER O;re~tor of P11nning and Communit} Environment Attachlents: January 31 .... to the Tow.r Well Sit. Subcoomittee Planning COIDI,slon staff report of NoYeober 9, 1990 Singl. R ... Occupancy Co .. ittee Report of "o"ember 9, 1990 Minut.s of the Planning Commission meeting of Noyember 14, 1990 cc: Tower Well Site Subcommittee Mailing list t.i11 Harrison Bill Fell .. n Janet Free land c:\Tower .1 2/11/91 Page 4 -': . • ; January ll. 1991 TO: FROM: Tower Well Site Subcommittee of the Planning Commission Nancy lytle, lon1ng Adminfstrator SUBJECT: SUlIII!ary of Conclusions of the January 24. 1991 Public "-etfng and rtems to be Di~cys$td and Resolved at the Febryary 5. 1991 ~getin9 The Tower Well Site Subcommittee conducted a public meeting on January 24, 1991 to discuss the process and land ~5e issues tnvo1ved with the disposal and/or reUSE of the Tower Well Site at 201 Alma Street. P1anning Commissioners Beecham and Christensen attended (Chairman Marsh was absent) and were supported by Nancy lytle and ~irgin;a Warheft from the Planning Oivision, and Janet Freeland from the Real Property Division. Comments were freeiy solicited from members of the publiC who attended. including Sylvia Sea.n and Lou Goldsmith from tne Palo Alto Housing Corporation ind Single Room Occ~panc1 (SRO) Subc~nmittee, Tony Badger frOll tne Downtown North Neighborhood "'"ociation. and Jon Schink and Tony Carrasco. Jane Haley. staff 1 ilison to t~e Hllr.1an Relations COImIission, also contributed. The Subcommittee reached the following conclusions at the meeting: I. Whlle a request for proposal {RFP) process is not always the manner ill whfch the City has disposed of properties in the past, tnat process is an acceptable way of obtaining conceptual proposals from I varlety of sources to be evaluated by the City in this case. It is ~nderstood that any future project whieh may be selected during the REP process would subseq~entl'y be required to obtain ill necessary zone change and development permit app~ovals through the regular review processes. 2. A nine-mont~ time line should be established for responding to tne RFP in order not to put nonprofit entities at a disadvantage to otner developers. 3. TWSUB1 n1/dsk Tne reyjew process for the RFPs sho~ld include recommendations from the l1uman Relatfons COftI'I'lission and the Planning C0l7l!l11 ssfon. prior to final consideration by the City Co~ncil. 1/31/91 Page 1 . - -, -, '. ~------ o 4. The netghbor~ood ""'ill continue to be inv;:J1ved througtl direct agenda. ftliling to indi,idual. on the Tower Well Site Subcommittee mailing lht .nd through no ..... l public hearing notice of ,11 future meetfngs. 5. The proposa" being solicited should be conceptuaT. 6. Site development parametors do not need to be defined for the sito prior to the conceptual RfP process, i" order to encourage creatIVity. 7. The RFP should cont,in broad guidelines for the typo. of proposal. being solicited, criterh under wf1lch they will be evaluated, and spec'ftcs about the expected content of the indiYidua1 proposals. Topic. for discussion at the next meeting include specific recommendations for lte. 7 aboye. Mllcs Attacruoent, lea.ed ~se of Cit] land/FacilitIes cc: Tower Well Site Subconmittee aalllog list l'Wst1Bl nl/dslt < 1/~1/91 Page 2 . - .' . , '; Noveobtr t. JttD PlANNING COMMISSION '.10 Alto. Callforal. , CI lOX lDUO ,oI.J,O ~10. '-'WfOt....... '.)O.l STAFf R£tlJ!VI£NDATION TO PR£PARE A IIQUEST· fOR PggPOSAL £OR USE OF THE wrLt TOWER SlIt Kemberl of thl Co.ml •• lon: " . At t~. FI.anct and PublIc WOrks (F , IV) Commlttll ... tln9 of October 3D, 1990, Itlff .. dl I recommendltlon thlt I Rlqu.st for Propos.l. be Issuld for the Tower Will Sltl It AI .. and Hlwthornl. The f , IV Commltt.1 deferrld any Ictlon until thl Planning COIII!lul.n hll reported on the SI.glt RD"" Occuplncy (SRO) C_Ittee's rec_ndltlons for the property. Ttle SRe Comltte. does .ot beHlve thlt a foro.' Requ.st For PropoS "' (REP) process II required f.r tho disposil .r futuro USI .f thl pr.pert, and recoamends thlt thl City C.uncll dell1 mlki.s a dlclslon .n thl sit. for on. yelr. for rea.ons outlined In the pr.Clding report from thl SAO Committll. Th •.. mber. of the F , IV Coomittll w.rl Inclined to Igrl' with thl SRe Commlttl. rec .... nd.tl.n. At the ""tln9 • .ombor. of F , PW Ixpr •• s.d I preflrence i. hiving prop •• ll. rec.lvld f.forolll, by • 11.lson In thl Pl.nnlng Deplrtment. wil. would Iho conduct I nllghborh.od .. eUng to sol1clt their fdel.. Thlro werl •• Downtown North nelghborl reprlsented .t thl meeting Ind F , IV decided to contfnul the declsl.n until Iftlr the Pllnnfng Commission rocom..ndltlon on the SRe fssue. hlv. be.n present.d. Staff would contlnu. to recOIIIIO.d thlt • IIOTO f .... l REP proc .. s be directed for rlun of the lit •• This rlcommendatlon Is mlde beclun the City Counen hIS not yet provided cliO' cUrectf.n o. tho 1I.0ls for the use or dl,po .. l of tI,. property. Ind beCIU.I fnterest in the us. 0' the propert, has Irhe. from 0 number of dlff.rent sourCls. f.cludlng the IdJlcent pr.p.rt, owner. Without In RFP proc •• s. whIch would DutIl .. the blslc submittal rlqulrements for Iny porty fntlr.stod in purchasing or r.dovlloplng It, It would be difficult to fl'rly .val~'t •• nd complre tho yorfous optIons thlt .'ght be Ivallibl. to th. City, wlthf. whltlvlr tf .. fr ... Is ,,'.ctld t. moke I d.clslon .ft the property. Tho 'lonnlng Deplrtment fs wllll'lI to .ppolnt I lilison to the neighborhood Ind to conduct I .. etlng with the Downtown North n.lghborhood. H .... ver. Planning Ind Rei' Propertf .. Itlff beH.vI thlt It woulel be dHflcult to Info ... ll, .ntertlln proposil. for th.-reu.e of thl pr.perty f~ the v,rlous int.r.sted plrtl •• ond hlYI. proClss thlt WIS perc.IY.d IS und.rstlndabl., fllr Ind Ilplrtill. Thus • ~, o oar coaolYllon that In RFP proc ••• that •• t,~ll.h •• ~, •• for .ubmltt., •• tieing Iftd decision .. tla8 would .. " SlrvO ro.olutlon of the Towor Well Sit' reu., Illye. n.. RFP tl_ 'r .. rec..-nded to the f , pW C .... ittH WII three .. nths for recolpt 0' proposals. The RFP would be doy,loped Ifter Council ,etlan on t~e F , PW recoemend,tlon Ind thus the totll tloe fr ... would be ,t 1.lst sfx months fro. eDlmISSlon.lctIDn. R£C!!t!Elf!)AJION Stiff rec .... ftds that tho Pllnnl"9 Comm!s.Ion recoameftd to the F • PW Committe. that the City Councn direct staff to preplre , ReQllest for Proposol for the Tower Well Site. st.ff concurs with all ather recommeftdatlons of the SAO C ... ,tt ••• Respeotf.lll suboltted, J~r /.t.d; 4- NAllty MADDOX l nL[ ZonIng A41lnlstrltor II1l/cs Attac'-nts: 11/09/90 SIngle Room Occup,ncy C ... lttH IIno cc: Jon Schlnt. 664 en .. n Street BIll Petorson. 2ZB FMlton Street Roger Crllg. 101 Wa.er'.y Street Rlct TIpton. 690 Oregan Ayenue Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne Strett Greg Chesson. 115 WlytrllY Street Ted tal, 724 C.ntral Street Sopbll DIIr,-. •• 483 Hawthornt Street Jrvl" Dawld. 161 BrIant Street An .. t .. '" tarr... 483 H.wthorne Street DavId Nlrtln, ChIld eire Coordlnltor. City of P.'o Alt. Annl Hernlndez. Deputl DIrector, Housing Authority or Santo Clara County. 50S West Juliln Street, San JOSt, CA 95110-2338 leldlrshlp Palo Alt •• 325 Forest Avonue Jolnne Vltttrott, "'0 Alt,ns for Hot" Housing. 1560 Sin AntonIo Street. Henl0 Plrt. CA 94025 TDW£R 10/09/90 .1/dsk -2- . . () rit~1 of Tal 0 )lito 11,0 10.1 1aue ! No.aber I, litO To: Pllnnlng C-Isslon Singl. ~ DecuPlncl Coom,tt .. R.coaoeo4ltlons of the CoImlttee RevIewIng ,"10 Alto's SIngle R~ Decupaney Hotel. FollowIng Is tile report ao4 ree_ndatlons of the Singl. ROiltI Occupancy (SAO) Committee to th~ PlannIng to.ol.slon Ind City Counell. Plel •• see tile staff report to ~Ic~ ~fs DemO Is Ittached for Iddltlon.l Infonl.tlon and recoBlendatlons of the staff reglrdlng the proposed Request For Proposa' (RFP) process for the Tower Well SIte. BACKGROUNO On June II, 1990, I stiff report outlinIng Issu.s pertaInIng to Slngl. ROOD Occupancy hotels In 'alo Alto ao4 Including r.e .... nd.tlons of the SAO Committe. was presented to Cfty CouncIl for rlYlew. The Commltt.e "cGamended that Council consider the following: 1. Id.ntlfleltlon of SAO hot.ls IS an Important element of the City's low IncOie housIng stock In the Cltl's st.t.· •• nd.t.d HousIng n_nt updatl; 2. Commit adminIstratIve and technIcal I.slstanee via PlIo Alto HousIng Corporation and Cltl staff resourees to Isslst SAO hotel owners In obtaIning Ival1able feder.l a,,4 state grants Ind lOins for s.lsmlc rehlbilitatlon, seneral upgrldlng and additIons to Ixlstlng SAO facilities; and 3. Commit the Tower Well Site loeated at the south •• st co .. er of AI •• Street 104 Hawthorne Ayenue for In •• SRO deYelopment. CouncIl voted '·0 to Ipprov. the SAO Committee Recommeo4ltlons J and I but to refer R.eomoendatlon 3 and the cone.pt of a conversIon ordlnane. to the PlannIng Coeaiss'on for revIew and ,on.lderltlon and to alk. appropriate r.'DOmendatlons to the tit] Counell. On Allgu.t 20 .04 Sept ..... r IC, UfO, t~ SIlO C_Itt .... t to review Council's lellon and to prepare ree..-endallons for PlannIng (Dlmisslon review. follDW1ng Is a s .... rl of tbe C ... ltt .. 's reeommendatlons. pcsrsrol ... 1I/9/90 -I, • - o The t ... ltee strong1, supports the construction of now SRO housing to lugment the .xlstlng stock of SAO units. They believe thlt the Tower Well Sit' .. , be a good locotloo for new SAO units. Other sites Ire also being considered by the 'alo Alto HousIng Corporation as possible locltlons for now SAO const .. ctlo", Including a county-owned parcel at '"ge Mill ROld and A3h Street. Upon further consIderatIon, the C ... lttoo belIeves that It Is pr~ture for Council to cDlDlt the Tower Well Sit. t. this use It thIs time. Althou~h the Tower W.ll Site '" be appropriate for SAOs, thero Ir. other sites wlthl. the cOlDYnlty which, upon ex .. lnltlon, "1 provo to be .. re approprlat.. Other potential uses for the Tower W,ll Site should be explored and rel.vant l.nd use Issues Ix •• lned before .. king I c ... lt.eot t. 101 p.rtlcullr use. A process should be followed for det ... lnlng thl use of the sIt. which Illows for neighborhood Input and PlannIng c...ls,ion and Cltl CouncIl review. The C ... lttee recognIzes that SRO housing I, rol.tlvely controverslll, and th~, recommend that (omIUnlty educltlon Ind neighborhood outreach precede the de,lgnatlon of the Tower Well Sit' or any other Site for this u,e. REgUfST FOR PROPOSALS FO~ USE OF TOWER WELL SITE At the fInance Ind Public Works CommIttee (F&PV) .. etlng on October 30, 1990, City st.ff prosented I City Manlgor's ~port reglrdlng disposition of the well sites whIch rec .... nded thlt Council direct staff to prep.re I RFP for the Tower Well Sit.. The F&PV Cconltte, delayed Ictlon on that recoomendatlon, preferring that the Issue of an RFP for the Tower Well Site stay with the Coonltt., until the Planning CommissIon has reportod to tne Council on the 5RO Coaslttoo's rec .... nd.tlons. The SRO Committee Is requesting that proposils for use of the Tower ~ell Site not be solicited and thlt CounCil d.lay committing the Tower Well Sit. for any particular .se for at leist on. year. The Coonftte. Is •• king thIs request fn order to provfde li .. to develop a pIa. for constructing new SRO Housing. Tbls pla""fng Is expected to take considerable time due to the complexlly of the financing Involv.d Ind the bulldin; code and special design Issues to be addressed. HUO Is currently developing ant ... rtgage !nsurince program speclflcilly designed for new const .. ctlon of SAO hou.lng_ Other progr .. s at the State lovel for new construction of SAO housfng are .1so befng explored. MOOIFIC~TIONS TO THE PALO AlTO BUIlDING COOE TO FACILITATE SINGLE ROOK OCCUPANCY CONSTRUCTION Under the Building Code, slngle-rooo living units are categorized as efficiency .nlts If they !nclude tltchen flcilltl,. and as hotel units If they do not Include kitchen facilltl.s. Th. Palo Alto Building Code provides stlndards for .Ich of these two categorl.s, but nelth.r one Is suit.d to the partlculi. requlre.ents of SAO .nlts. Under curre"t code, In .fflclency unIt cu.t have I .ini ... of 220 square feet and .. st hive Its own bathroom and kitchen. If nO kitchen Is provided, the hotel provisions apply, which allow a .Inl ... size of 70 square feet wIth I aloim .. di .. nslon of 1 feet. pcsrsro2 w 11/9/90 -2- f I I , • . - - , ' .'. _. lb. Stat. Bu,ldlng Code (Health and Slfety Code, 50c.17958.1) has been amended to penalt cltle. to adopt an ordlnanc. to allow units of •• I.I-.m of 150 .quare feet, to be occupied by ... xl.um of two people and to Include a partial kltch •• andlor b.~hro .. facllltl •• InSide the unIt. The •• ,ta.dard. wre spec,.", d ••• ,ope<! to act.-dat. the needs of SIlO units. San Diego and other cltl.s have Included th.s. standards In their building code. fn order to fa~lllt.t. tho provision of SIlO housing. 'al0 Alto's thl.f BuIlding Offlcl.l supports ..ending tho Clt1's Sulldlng Code to Include the special standards for SIlO housIng authorlled by the Stat. aulldlng tode. lhe SRO CORIltt.e recoomends that the touncll direct preparation of an ordinance adopting the revision ••• In encourag .... l to SIlO development. PRESERVING EXISTING SINGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY UNITS BY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE EffORTS, NOT WITH A cOliY£~IOIi ORDINANCl The Committee reafflnted their lack of support for establl.hln9 I conversion or de~lltiDn Drdln.nce, s1nce the, thooght thlt other efforts would be preferable for retal.lng the exlstin9 SAO units. The Jun. 7, 1~90 st.ff report to the Citl CounCil presented l number of .IY' thlt the City could support prl.ate owners of SAO units In their .fforts to ret.ln the.e units 10 their present use, fncludlng pro.,dlng technlc.l Isslstlnce ta owner. I. Iccesslng SOurces of funding for renlblllt.tIDn. An example of these effarts 1nclude. a pending Ippllcltlon by tne owner of the Barker HDt.l ta the Rent.l Rehabilitation progr .. (RRP) to help with the necess.ry sels.lc upgrlding of th.t hotel. Additionally, the Housing Authority of Sintl Cllra County h •• applied to ~ouslng and Urban Development (HUO} for lllocition of funds under new programs for SOttion 8 "oderlt. R.h.bllit.tlon fo. SAO hotels, _ith the appllcltlao being Intended for the Blrker Hotel. DISBANDING Of THE SIHGL£ ~ OCCUPANCY tlWIlnEE Since the ta.\s for which the SRO cORIlttee .as estlbllshed hIve been accomplished, the C ... ltte. believes It should be dlsblnded It the concruslon of City Councl1 conslderltlon of the Planning Coomlsslan recomoend.tlon. on thi s r.port. SINGlr ROOH OCCUPANCY CCfOI!!nEE RW1"H£HDATIONS 1. That the Commission recommend th.t the City Council continue to consider SAO housing IS I posslbl. use for th~ Tower Well Sfte. Z. Th.t the tity COdncll defer for one yelr t~e decision to coomlt the Tower Well site tD Iny partlcullr use, while the Palo Alto Housing Corporation explor •• construction of new SRO units Ind posslbl • • Ites on whlc~ they could be built. 3. The Council should direct stIff to proceed wlt~ Building Code rev1$~ons to provide incentive for pri~~te or r.onprofit proPQ$&ls fDr SRO construction on any potent III site. 4. The Citl shou1d not enact a d ... lltlon Dr conversion ordinance, but should act to protect existing SRO units through commitment of admlni.tratlve lnd technlcIl assistance to prlvlte owners with funding source. for rehabilitation, sels.ic I~rcvements, and other federll 'nd stat. funding. pcsrsr02 11/9/90 vw -3- .. - , , • _. o o 5. The SRO C_Itt" sho.1d be disbanded at the conel.,lon of City Council con,idaratlon .f the '1lnnlng C.-mi"ion r.c~nd.tlons on th" ... port. 97;:;;ut.L~ /. f k~~,VI' SINGLE Jocca~n4 ~-/ JI. BertI. Ron Hall ""rlene Prendergast Sylvia Stun Nancy ShIpley Bob 1o'000s Attachients: October 25. 1990 City Manlger's Report. CMR:545:0 August 20. 1990 letter fro. Zoning Adolnl.tr.tor August 1990 Article fro. ZONING NEWS. 'SROs: A 'oor Stepchild COIle' of Age' July S. 1990 tetter fro. E. A. "a •• Jun. 7. 1990 SRO St.ff Report to City Council cc: Jon Schlnk. ~6C G11 .. n Str.et. ,.10 Alto, CA 8111 ,eter.on. 228 Fulton Street. '"10 Alto. CA Roger Cral9. 101 Wa.erley St .... t. 'alo Alto. CA Rick Tipton, 690 Oregon Ayenue. '"10 Alto, CA Tony Badger. 381 H,wthorne Street. ,,10 Alto. CA Dan lor1.er, 465 Hlwthgra Avenue. Palo Alto, CA Greg Ch •• son. 115 Io'averl.y Street. ,.10 Alto. CA Ted KlI, 724 Centr.l Str.et. 'alo Alto. CA SOph11 Ohryoes. 483 Hawthorne Street. '.10 Alto. CA Irvin Oawid. 161 8rYInt Street. P.l. Alto. CA Anast.sll Karras. 4B3 Hawthorne Street. "I. Alto. CA Dlyld Martin. ChIld Clre Coordinator. City of ,"10 Alto Anoa Kernlndez, Deputy Director. Housing Authority of Santi Cllra County. 505 W.st Jull'n Street. S.n J •••• CA 95110-233B leadershIp Polo Alto. 325 Forest Avenue. Palo Alto. CA Jo.nne rltterott, P.l. Altlns for Hotel Housing. 1560 San Antonia Street. Menlo Park CA 94025 pcsTlrol w 11/9/90 -4- October 25, l'9D '1'IU: BOIIORABU CITY COllIICIL Falo Alto, california Attention: Finance an~ Publi~ Work. Committee pI'PQIXJlqH or 'PiPLoa !ILL 11'11 -T0!IR, MIOPLEtZILP IHp SEALE !ELL 'X,I' X.abera of the Council: ''POrt II Iri.f Thi. report .u.s the followin9 recommendations r.qar~in9 the dbpcsl.tion of the City'. surplus vell sites: 1) that Council approve the sale of the Middlefield Well dte (ule of the Kiddlefield Well site wl11 r.~ire removal of the wat~r tank and aUXiliary buildlnfis); 2) that Council direct staff to process a Certificate of Compliance to remove the undorly!nq lot lIne on the Seale Well site prior to sale; and 3} that council direct staft to prepare a Re~."t for Propc .. l 'cor the rower Well site. rhis report a180 transmits to the Council the Falo Alto Hou.inq Corporation'. propos.l to use $1.45 .illion of the proceeds of the .ale ot both the Biddlefield and Seale Well aites for the purchase of the 33-unit oak Banor townhOlllU cOlIIplox at 630 Los Robles Avenue. IoIUR 9 9p4 In 1918, Council approved a Utilities Departaent recommendation to .!>endon and dispose of four of the City'. ten w.lls, the Park BDulevard, Seale, Middlefield and rower Well.. rhe Park BOUlevard Vell vaa .eale.:s, the eqUipment ".moved and the .. 1 te has been OOt:S45,O , \ • 'w - • , , ;:,' . • ______________ "'~"".-__ • .." •.• " • •• _~~ .. l!ijl!j!lla ___ .,;..... o d.veloped lIy th. Palo Alto a""ain ... Corporation. In the OCtoloer 19, 1919 .Uff report (OIIt:n?:,), .Uft .. de rec .... endaUo,lA re ... ardin'l" the _1. and Hiddl..f1dd Well dtu and 1nfono.d counc:il that .taff v.. conduct1..... further .tudy of the future "ae of the Tover W.ll aite, .nd vould return to Couneil at • latar date with recomoendlltions • On .:run. 25, 1990, Counell approv.d the Finan",. and Public Worb CaEBltt •• •• (F'PW) r.commendation dir.ctln9 staff to •• 11 the Seale W.ll 8ita. -ak ... ~ application to razone the eite to R-1, and .end out a RequelJt for Pi"opoaal for the nl. of the .ite with a ainilllum bId of $750,000. For the Middlefield Well aite, council directed _taft to -ake application to rezone the site to R-1 and r ••• tablbh two parcel Bit .. lIy .. ana of a Certificate of compliance. Council alao approvad an allocation of 25 percent of the proce.d. from the .. le of both well alt •• to the Ho".i ..... R .. erve Fund. On OCtober 15. Counc:U approv.1! the rezonin9 of the Saale and Middlefield .itas to R-1. In thr •• ataff reporta (OIIt:n"", 0IIt:220:0, and 0IIt:274:0), staff propo.ed davelopin9 the Middlefi.ld aite with two sinqle family bOIl •• and then holdln9 th8JII tor their Inco.e atream and. appreci«t ift\l value. ,.PW expr .. nd conc:ern over the City ,.akift\l thia type of invntaent, end reque.ted that staff explore thia conc:ept further end return to the Committe. with its findings. Given the concerns of the F'PW Committee and. the recent downturn In the real •• tate aarket, statf 1. now recommendinq .ale of the two Middle field parcel •• I4mpyal of \h • .,tt[ flDk 'DO lUXi1i1ry 'uilAina' If the Council decidu to sell the Mid,Uefield dteo, staff recommends that the City remove the water tanlt and auxiliary bulldin9.. The vater tank is located on the new property line er.atad by division of the eXistIng site. The latest estimate fer the removal of the tank and. the .uxiliary building_ is approximate ly. $30,000. Staff f.als str<>n91y that the removal of these facilities will expedite t. ... e sale of the two parcels end avoid confusion should the parcell ael1 to two different buyers. Staff ha. pr.par.~ • Bud9at Amendment Ordinance transferrinq ~~e Doney fra. the cepital I.prove~.nt Progra8 Reserve account. Nor.ally, the Water Fund would be expected to pay for the removal cost, but that fund ha. been experiencing serious financial difficulty over the past aevard yean. ,.,1 ••• 11 Ii,. In the first ateff report (CMR 4'7:') reqardIft\I the disposition of the surplus ve11 aitel, staff intoraed Council that .ubdividing the seale Well alte would require approval by the Cit)" co"ncil of a 0IIt:54S:0 2 -"L L ," [ I , c' I . . f " , , I I I j ! • ~ 'I \.1 .. o parcel aap with exc.ptions. and that con.id.ri~ the large si •• of the lo~ In this neighborhood. it would be unlikely that Planninq ~ff would recoaaend epproval of a aubdivision with exc.pti~ns. !be S .. le Well .lte 1. 20.150 aquare feet. approximately 100 feet by 200 teet. Dividin; the lot into two would result in two lots. 50 teet by 200 t •• t. ...tin; the .inimum square footage require .ent. but .ubstandard in width. Statf h .. recently dbcoverecS that an exbtin; underlyin; lot line .ay qualify the site fo .. aub division by .eans of • Certificate of Compliance. an acSaini.trative p .. ocedure raquirin; no pu~lic hearing. The proce •• in determining t.l!e dbpoaiUon of this site thus far has been ba .. d on the ••• umption the ait. 1. one lot, would be aold .s one lot and would r ... ln one lot for development. To •• sure the .ite 1. not subdivided following •• 1. by the City ... Certificato of Compli .. nce .hould be prace •• ad tD reaove the underlying lot line prio .. to .. le. 11 19 'l\p Bop',»; Cprp9r1ti9D (PARe' Iropo •• l The Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PARe) has approached st .. ff with a specific proposal that would require all the est i •• ted proceeds trca the a.l. of both the Se .. le .. nd Middlefield sites. The PARe haa entered into a pyrdhase contract with the owner. of 33-unit townho.es at 630 Los Rebles Avenue. Cost to purehase and reh.bilitate tha tovnhoaes ·is estill.ted to be approximately $4.300.000. State and federal funding require. that .. majo .. ity o~ the unite be "ented .. t below .... k"t rate... The long-tara qDal of the PARC w111 be to make all 33 unit. belov ..... ket. but th .. t I" not the C\l.rrent .i tuati on. Therefore, stat. and federal fUnds are unavailable for purchaae of this tac:llity. The PARe bas looked for other .our .... with the Object of keeping the debt service low enough to convert the units to below market rate. PAMC, with the help of the California Housing Partnership Corporation, bas COBle up with. financial plan wherein a consortium of hanks or savings and loan institutions will provide $2.000.000 of the $4.JOO.000 .. t a favorahle interest rate. There is a180 $850 .. 000 in the Cit:.". Sousing Reserve fund whicb could be used toward. the purchase of this property. That leav.. a shorttell of approxl~ately $1,450,000. In previous reports ataft estimated the revenue gener .. ted from the Seale Well site and the two Middlefield .ites to be $1.450.000. The $1,450.000 fundinq could be provided to PARe either by an outriqht grant or loan~ Previous smaller PARC projects h"ve been ~unde~ both ways. As a q .. ant tha funds would not be paid beck. and the PARC vould be able to provide below .... ket rates in each of the 33 units .uch quicker. If the city i.plementa a repayment program, the PAHe below-m«rkat-rlte goal would be exten~ed aignificantly. It the Council app .. oves tho sale of the Middlefield Well .ite with the procee~. applied to the purchase of 630 Los Roblea, there may QIR:54S:0 3 :~~f~" ~t::~ ~"'~ - • ". ! . c. - o RUl !No • tiJDing probl.... Tho purch ... contract for 630 Loa IIobl .. Iload expir •• Deo_r 31, 1190. rho .. 10 of tho .,ell aitea io tontotively acbodulod for 3anuary, ond tho succo •• ful biddors .,111 !No ,ivon '0 4oyo to _cur. financing. Tho PMC 1. lookin9 for alternative intorla .financing but ... y require opproxi.ately $700,000 to oo.ploto tho tran •• ction by l)ec_r 15. rhe PMC .. ay !No roqu .. Uft9 aft .dvance frOlD tho city'. General Flmd or the us .. of tho City .. an inlluror to covor thio inhriJD poriod. Flmds l>orTOWtId, including inter."t loot by tho General FImd, vould be replaced .,ith revenue rMc.ivod fro. the •• 10 of the .,ell oite •• lOY" .,1.1 'it. Tho Tovar Well oito, located at the corner of Alma and Hawthorne C.ee attached "it. aap}, i. 8,437 .quar .. feet C75 x 112.5} and is zon .. d Public Facilitie. (PTI. It is adjacent to property zoned COmmercial Downtown Neiqhborhood Pr .... rv.tion COlDbininq District (eD-HPI and aero .. the str.at from property zoned Multi-family Residential CRK-30). It containa a tower well facility Which h •• be~n .stiJDated to coat $150,000 to r ... ovo. 8ecau.. the Tower Well .. it. va. id.ntified by the committ.e studying the City's dngl. r""" occup.ncy CSRO} hotel. as a po •• ibl. location for a no" botel, staff h •• not to d.te .. de any recommendation ro,arding the dispolition of this .ite because of tho COWIcil'. roc01DlllendaUon to th. PlaMing CO,...i .. ion for a publiC hoarinq and land use policy 9Uidance. rhe SRO Committee'S rocommendation originally vas to COllllllit the alt. for SRO hotel cYrtStruction. ~e SRO Committee has subsequently reconvened and rovbed ita recommendation, achedulo<l for Planning co,...iuion considoration on November 14, 1990. It nov recDlIImands that the disposal of the 2'owor Well site or any RFP for that purpoa. be del.y.~ for a period of one year. !'he reason for the delay vould be to allow the Housing Corporation time to study the financing and practicalities of SRC con5tru~ion, analyze the land us. i~pacts wbich ai;ht result, perfora neiqhborhood outra.ch, and e.xplore alternative .i~es for an SRO hotel. Beeau •• thl. type of housinq hal only r.cently been identifi.d by the Housing Corporation .s a need in Palo Alto, they are not r.ady to move forward with a specific propos.l at this time. staff doea not agre. that the dilpolition of the 2'over Well slte be delayed for one year. 2'hi. conclusion is baae~ on the high level of nei,hborhood and community interest in the lit .. and it. ulti .. ate u... Several groups and Individ~.l. have eXFressed their interest in the .it. for uses .~ch a5 low and .cderate income bousln9; .. day care cent.er, • re.liidentlal development owned and developed by II neighborhood ••• oclation, and varying use. whieh would incorporate the existing tower facility. Given the competing interests in the coamunity •• to the ue. cf the .ite. _tatt feels that circulating CIIR'S45:0 4 , , • Wi - • a.queat tor Proposal (RFP) would be the beat way to proceed in detera.l.n!nv the dhpodtion. of this site. rhe UP would be general, outlln!nv the City'. ba.ic require~.nt. that the use be caapatibla with the neighborhood, that the development and _aUon further public un or provide a public bend it and be cond.tant with e"bUng City policiea, plana, aervices and ,rocedur... !'be RFP will require the applicant to provide 1nforaation QODCarfting: 1) the al<tent to which the propoaed uae .atiari .. a pWblic naad; 2) the ccnaistency of the proposed ua. with exiaUng City Voal. and o!>jactiv.. a. aet forth in the eo.preheneive Plan, Zoning Ordinance. and Municipal Code; 3) the devree of public access; 4) the monetary consideration to the City and 5) tile lliatory and .".e.a~ent of til,. propoler'. ability to carry out tha proposal. staff wo,,1d return to council for approval of tile RFP pacJtaVe prior to .enlUng it out. It 10 anticipated that after COuncil approval of tha UP, there would be a three-month tiae ~or n_pondanta to prepare r.sponses. Iter'" Steff b •• propoaad .avaral tim.s to the Finance and Public Works Committee that develop.ent of an investment in the Middlefiel" Road Well aita would aata!>liall thro"9h appreciation a sound, long-term :r.t.~ on lnv •• tJlant.. The Palo Alto Hou5ing Corporation has presentad an alternative propos. I that reflects the City Council's commitment to .fforda!>la housing. rhe purcha •• of 630 Los Robles will bring 33 ~ita, ultimately to be rented at below-market rates, to the PAIIC portfolio. hvirop.ph.l 'u! .. Authorization of the •• 1. of City property and preparotion of on RFP for disposition of City property do not constitute projects under the california Enviroruoental Quality control Act (CEQA). Removing or restoring on aXiotinv lot line io categorically ex.~pt under CEQA. Therefore, no environmental findings are required tor th ••• City Council actions. R'COM'D4·t;!9p' statf race_ends that Council: 1) Adopt the B~dget Aaandaant ordinance making fund. available fer the ra.oval of tha tank .nd auxiliary buildings located on the Middlefiald VeIl aita; 2) Direct .t.ff to proceu e Certificate of Compliance to remove the underlying lot line on tho seale Well site; CI!R:S45:0 5 • r I 0; ,. JJ o It Cmmcu .upport. tho Palo Alto Rc>uaing Corporation" PZopD •• l to a," $1.45 .111ion of tho proceld. of Middllfield and ... 11 Will .ito. for ~Jrcb~&e of the 33-unit townhoule ~lex; IJ AflprOYe tho propolo.1 to •• 11 thl MidcUlfield Well parcel.; II) Approve tho .... of $850,000 of bc>uo1ng-in-lieu fu .. ,ds "-rd th. purch ... of no 1.0. Rol:>l .. Road; 0) Appr ..... tho propoald dlotribution of the revenul reeelvelS fro. th ... 1, of the ... 11 lite.. 1. I.. 1) prec •• IS. up to and including 51,eSC,Ccc I:>e wrontld/loon.d to the Palo Alto .0Uling Corporation for the will .ite. parch •• e of 630 too Rol:>lo. Av.nue; 2) Any remaining .onoy will I:>e depoo.ited In the city" General Fund; and 4) Diroct ~ff to proper. a Request tor PropoI.l for ~~e rower Voll .1te. ee: alo Alto Rousing COrporation Palo Alto Child Car. rook Force Downtown North AI_iotLon Pr~y own.r. adjac.nt to the Tover, S •• 10 and MidlSlefield Well lite. R.loted CKR'.: CMR:4'7:', CKR:220:0, CMR:374:C onlS CKR:267:1. CKR:545:0 6 ~. -- '< " ... I\. >-:;; ... '"' UlHU r I • . , "h a~ • ." 1;o ... ~~~- •. , ~;.u; ... _ -::.' - " '~, " ... .,IH I ~. ", -L ---.... -, -_._-_. -y,ny -"=-"*'-t- ..... • I , , DepartMent of Plln~l"g ar.d COIWftUnit1' £nvlP"'cnment (415) 329-2321 ALI9ust 20, 1990 [. A. MeilS 18 E. Main Str •• t Los S.tos, CA 9S032 Dear Hr. Man: Subject: Lotter of July S, 1990 Regarding [congmic lncrntivps fOT SRQs ZSO Hamflton Avenue Post Office 80x 10250 Palo Alto CA 94303-0862 Thank yo~ for yo~r letttr to Ken Schreiber in w~ic~ yo~ ~ake i proposal for prDviding economic incentives (or maintiining S~Os through I five-year ren~abTf 3greement w~ich allDws for the waiver of parking assessment fees. As J explained to you by telepnone. I have reccnfjn=ed with o~r attorney's office that there is no mechanism thrcu9h whlch the (it, can waf~e assessment di.strict fees. £ither i lonjng text amendment nr PCl.Q~LcilanQ.£:_wol.:ld be_ nece.ssary to implement !cur ;m_~9i~it.i""! plAn..:.. If your use weie rechssifitd to a residential category. thus .llowing e~fmption from tne requirement to pay into the assessment district. it cauld not under cu~rel'1t ordinances be reconverted to i commercial use in the fut~rE ~ithout providing parking. J ~11 refer your letter to t~e SRO S~bcommittee for their consideration. is ~11 a~ a copy of this response. Please feel free to contact me with any fUrther Questions. Sincerely. AfiL4,f; NANCY HADDOX LYTLE Zoning Administrator IIML/lc AltochMnt cc ke~ Schreiber. Director Dr P1anning and Communlty Environment SRO Subcommittee Susln Cast. Alsistant Cily Attorney M ... /.ld,t ." - SROs: A Poor Stepchild Comes of Age Si"iJe·room-cceup;:l~}' hO'l~ls (SROs) hJ ~e-lonl been ,,~wtd ;u (he: .. rimy ~cf\tcrpieccs Clr stc::dy nc;!hborhood'.s, Vn!o .. ed ~nd u~rc:n6ed. many SROs (eil ... ictim to urban rt./'iCwlll, dcc:.:t.1. ;alld hith prepc.J\y u,,,es,. B~. as ",,J,tio!'ll.! at':cntion hu shifted 10 the problcfN orhcmc.!~ness 11.",,,-;.(for<:bb~ hou~}nt. it; h:u. btCOTtlt: clear lh:lt SR05. in (at1. provide a 51:able livinr: environment for rn:Ir'I)' tlderly pe(lplt. h.:I1l6iCOlppc:d people, :II I'Id 5infle mcmbc:Tl oftht wtltli:jn, poor. This ~ why .social re(ormc:rs. c:il)' pl;U1rlCrl. binkcrs. and rAJ C!oUIlC developeN art" takin. a .sttond 1001: :u SRO bold", Zonin, bws. VIIrious bui1dln.c c-ode n::qll in:me~s .• nd "')I. J:lW;S e::ln .freC1 the Lmp;!CI orthe: SRO on the: nc-igi'lborbcod and '":In innue~ cflc IDildy or SilO O\lo'lCil Ie provide housitlllO ~oplc :Ie the bo!:lom -!If me income ladder. Th~ folTowiJ'" dlKUs.s.io1'l consrders e.ach of these disp..filu: efemenu aDd orrers sULGt.Stiaru and cQmplcs o( how plaftllin&: and %Onln, Qffici;2.1san re..,iWizea.1'd reest,hnshSR~.!o ... iabt( houS.inl options rQr 11\ iJ\cr~itol 'klmen .. ofd1.e popubtiO!\.. Ccmmerti~' 01' RtSidenlb.!,!, From city to city. :fOllin, laws ~~C!:I ronfusictl.:lbow 11,.: ro1~ of SR.OS in the: loal f)oltSinr:.zr)d hOfeJ m.ukeu;. l)nlih halcls ~ c:uer 10 :r.:Jn.s~nlS, most ten:lnlJ. or an SRO ~jdc:r !he pbc-e their home. Many have: lived in meir room (or JC.3r'l OInli h:lve dc:vdopccl rri.cn.:bhiPl widl other residenLJ. HO .... cVCf. IlIRliJ,:e other pc:rm;lnC'n.l 'homc:J.. SRO hOlels f)ffer 1I1:ilher flIn b.n"rOQms nor ki(cher. facilities ....... b(s1, therc m;Jy be p:lni:ll (OI.ci]ilies 1n lhe room, ~ch;as.l $in~ or a srO\"e. while. a shower, toilt:;t, and shared litdwen arc Joc:ate..t o'owo. the. ha!L it is oi(r~\lh 10 zone fOf S\lch • pi~tt. sil'oc( it ~ nti~h.er a. 1rolC;tionol.1 hOlcillor a C'ot'I..-emion::l! 'ap81nrntnl bl,ll1di1tl~ In .}Orne clfin. SRO\ are fwnd t.."1 hi,b-deru.iIY rt:sidemiotl arw. 11:1 wc:h CI$C:S, the 10ning eode .. !To .... s them in rcsidenli.21 Jire::a Ct In:ndr.:nhtt cl""u)(J.ln;1.ke them ;llel31 nonconforminr USo]e, Ol,'le.f cille~ pc:nnit SROs (lnf,. io comm.crei:lt Jh"c.s, mOl'! orten nc.Jf downtowns" Lcx~ zoning omdals U10uld Ioak.: into OICCOUru Ifl2( SilOs ilrt best praced' in 11I0SC' pllU or"':''''''11 fh.2i offer iI)CJtpeMi'll'c-Cilftlcrw, Jl"OC'cry StOTtS. and 3deql6.i1l.c piJbl ic lr"ruc>Olt.Ition. Zcnzin, d'c:fillit.toru;.llsa R:Re:Cllhe..:on(usiOf!.aboo1 w~r~t SRO\ 2re a\Qrt ",hlfun},,, t't.s.id'enti:JJ or eom.merc:i.a.t Ilst._ Ait ordi!U.n«" Pf090SCd is Atta"'tl d"istil\'I,I~es. bc.twun In.m[en,t 1odJelSt, wdI aJ d\Qsc. "lllho su.:r a few "i,I\\s in .. hotel Or mOIc:l. and p«mrafICN I~. b-.n ~\ ordlf\.aonces do 1\01. 'II Chic.:llO, rDr iIW.1I'1Cf:,.an SRO 4 lOlX'd:lnd t:lud H i! il.'Ctc: :II r("llulOlr )IoIe1. IU'en though • .IS one .-dW)C!lIt: poil'lu. DU!. 110 01'11: win confusc iln SJtO .. ilh lhe: p..bO'ioli. In;l sliburb of Ck"cbnd.1IiI:i,hborl ill'l opposinlll propak.>d reSidence inn irl pJir'l bct'.:IUSC: lNJ .are arl1lid iI: ~y kcD;TW: lin SRO d t11c c,rie i~ lise bccon'leS unprorilabrc:. The inn. \Which, tf iI IS buiit, wHf inc:1~ a kItchen in t'lery room and win Oler tc:I L - AIfIIIrill IC"N ~L.A"''''INC "s'OC;:I .... n<)~ TJ~ lobb)·lJJthr 1tI&.4lilNl Ht1<tl. QIf SRO in Shn'wpo". tDuu4e''IC Tnf Jrdtrliwts. uxiol u"'~r'l rtliMStl:;Jr}Dr ie rrlidf'tttJ ttf'/d -tor.moll 'UrQSjiQr rcoLiliJ. JMf'VI( "Idtr. MIl wcio!i;Jlltl· business pc'Dple tn JOWl! rer mort: than :II wetk. will cfler mote p.;.!rL:in.r .znd .. menlr;e:s Ulan ... !,pl<-.al SRO resident can ,fford Room ~ZC! 5RO h(W.sin! is Ir'I}'wing bUI Jpacious ... rthou,h lIew development,!. l(J'ld' U) ((';Iture biucr rooms. S.n PieBo'~ cod~ requires. mi".irnum 0(10 lQllll'e (w (or slecpiJ'l1 roonu. Thes.t rooms ~ hlO'C' kill:hr:nJ Of boIthroorns, A l.aw receru!y pa$SC:d' in Cahfomia defines a ne ..... cy~ of li vine s.p,.ee ualaa.()I,il to SRO rool'M, ailed liwoUtI unitl. L\vin, uniu arr: bine.r (lun ~Q(\ittonal SRO ..,nilS, I"II\&inl trom. ro:quHc_d millimum or lSOsqua1t ~ 101 tN",i",I,Im,g,ra.hout 215 ~I,;:rre kel, They OIott ano-t-d m tomm:r6al aleu ...-h-c:re hOJc:-\J.fn.d' molels OI.rt pc-rmiueci. Unlile sUldlo ;panfnCl'lli. which require.z run kilChCl'll11d b.J1h. Lvin. unilS ;lrc flOt re.qllircd 10 effer compte/( fxihtie.s for clI;arnptc:. one fOlCih!y "" .. jlh li"jni unils. hu roonu ltiIIt are:H fUll 190 Jqu:lrc: reel. Thty lnclude.;r r..n NI}UOOfn :lnd an incompletc kill.~htn .... ith • mler(lw.~e r;Jt"'cr U\.an I ('onver'llic~ o"en. \ • , , \ \ , <~. ;,,# <~ -.- , . . -'"' • A ~ AII:i!lL:l C'OCk. whidll is cu~~~ in (".crNniuC'C. requires "':If rooms. be a ~ 100 ~1'£ I'«t:. In Sc:utle. when dder SROI Ilf"e~. the riIy Otdinlrlee lInOW$ the cleve-Ioper '" kcq f'OQtfts ~.sln Wy were, HoweYer. the eic,'s ~rtmcm DI CommuniI)' Llc...-croptnem .is ~;rlnJ ~hCWSROsafTcr ~Wf;..."tar Iu~ IXl~rc:fcc!. n.e ilMIiIIJ"ld'~' as o(lhis wrili"l, iI bcinC ch:Inj'td, and if: .is unciar ilthc: mrrumum fOOU\si&e ... ill end up bo=in~ 120 Of 1.50 1qU.:I~ I'ect, Common Arus CCIlnnQt aras arc In i~t pan of III SRO. aJcI\oul~ the, . arc: DOl llIeCIWatiJy rt:qIlirtd by local ord:inanca. The: propos.ed' At!ant:L ctGlftiIl1C'C requires ttw dxn: be .. JcasI rive squlte f«1. of comrnoa IpItc per cfwdliftJ wit. widt • minimllm of 2SO .tq'J.lrt' feci T'CHrvcd fot I CCImtI'ICfI area. RRTWion lras. flleClin, P'DOfnI. and difltnc rooms #lrC' an tOnSickted eommon Ip«. hllcfCSIin.I)"lhe maifl kIibb;y. YCI)d'inllrtas, Ind ~ttilY kit;hcns are DOt considt:'ed COM1!lQn IreM. In SeaI1k. when!: SRO rchIbiIiwion" IlI4IRy done by ftOnpror-lt orpnwtioas with partial tuDlf"LIlI (rvm me tilY. ammolt s;ott is DOC I codt rcquirt.mcr.u. bul iil is.somt2brr.,: the tioly in.sins upoa ac !he: MllXiatin& table. Common are;u Ire 110[ required by the S~ Lou:i.siIaa. cede. Howewt. !he McA600 Hen] i.e Shn:vepon bouts _ pe.lio on the ICC'DM floor and &reas arhc.R raidtftu ca.zI IPlItt eookiftl and mall:. Common areas an: 1M)( Fell'lircd in Denver either • .slncc SROs an: eonsid'cred ruiOtru:!:J bocel.s Ind mu.u IIIttIW SlntC R"qUiremcIUS as an,. other kind or bo<cl. .E~n moulh older cocSa tend !tOt to rcqui11: common Ires. it iIi.;a ICIOd ide2 10 rollow AlI..;uuatlo lead in mUinllhem mancf;llOry. T1tesc.spoca lIOI only alJow T't.Sidcnts KI ckyclop suppoonjvc tic:s. abel' abc otrsa die sma n sizt: of die tooms. hrkinl MOSt riUes requite flCl)c or no patklDl rl;)r SROs.]n.same «Ima'IUniUa. an the SROI ~ so Did dial arandr.thct c~ prouct diem (rom plrkin, rquiremcDlS. San Oie.odocs rI01 require pullinl ror DeW SROs dw 1r"C bu ill in the dOWftlowtl am. Atfaru will Dot: require park;", ror s.Ros in cknscly devcl~ lrus"llelr ptlblic: lr:al\5pon:lliM1 but d"ocs rtqu ire: o~ Sf&" ror \tYel")' ~o Ie rCKIr!'tlOftl$ Ind one 'p'ct per cemplo,.n in.5OfM zona. Li1:cWlu. Saft Oit"IO Kll7'IC1irntl ~iru parkin, in 5eu.<Je""Cl0pc4 cornrncn:ial :3TUS. The city nc:lOIitucs pitkin, tcquirvncn(S ... ith dt\lelapt:t'Io on ;I C"Qc~by~ CUt _is. Eric ~tI. presidenr arlN Sin,le.Room Opc~IOfS AJSoc:i.Jlign in: OteilO. thinb tha1 parkiftJ requi~mc:nu arc- 1111,. Of;]] me residents in the lOO buildinlS OPCl2ltd by the auocwion, he-ts.!im.;ales m.. only tiYIC ar sil. !lave an. He !1.I1"thCT l4lpau Ifw. ifl residcnr.is ablc 10 afford .. car,wl person is; also likely 10 be:: able '0 1'£N.p Iplrtmc:lU. BIK SR.O opponents J\a¥e IlSC'd chc ,parkjnl ~inmcms to kill SilO proposW;. JIt one insLaUU:, .. dt¥elcptr __ lUtd TC build .. l6()..room SRO .. die: uu Claire nc-ilhbothood of Adama. He-u.k.ed the Ulftin. board 10 reduct &he tequi1C4 number ofpukin. spaces. whidlulfulilirnc ~ Ihc: same as lhca rcqt.Ii.rcd I'ot. ~Iublr hatd. The l'IC:ilhbcrs objmtd to ~uc:iJ:Il: !.he bU:mbtr or required~. and. c"~Nly. the: SRO ended up hOC bcin.lMll. aU'iJcr.,. Codes IUS( as .... 1'C are IfirrCfCbttS across the CDUfllF)I rrprdllli parkin, and !Oftilll rcquirefl"lC1\U. cif)' bui:din, cedes.a.lsa dir7cr ill melt I'CJUlalion or SROs. The: San Oiltll)cit, 1 L - o 1O'YU"Lfhtr-.&sliIU1Cd a pOiI", o( .no .... i1l1 code ~(Orr' Ih.:1t would tonLillue 110 pr01CC11bc hCollth:lm$: g(cl,. of resi6cnts while: makin, dc¥'Clopmc:nl: ku c..-~i ... c. Far insL.1ncc" in tI.~nlc (or lllini feN taptllSi¥c lit!: dOOr1i. a dc-..elopcr (lr one: SRO put ill. Ilpt'U,kru I)ISltm throuIl'lOU1 Ib.:' bl"ild"i n, 1"k lnId«lff aUowt4 ror ackq\llie fire prOlC'cl ion bll~ :3.1 ;; IolW'r C'OSi 10 tIIc d"clI'c1opcr. Chic_,o", codes 60 I'lOl bavc !he IolIrrte bvilt·in n:xibility • mud. 10 1M-r!llJlr:llliofl (lr SRO ownt:r Erk R1Ibcl\St~fn. He bellevcs ~l build'in, eod:t:: insp:r:tOrs C01 n be .inscnsi!;II'(" 10 the . SROs rmOtndzr toru;lrainllo ~n the)' o,*r C:lptnsiYe renovations lhal do nilic mort-INn d"ri¥'C ~nLS up, For inwna:. in OIIC' orbis bu~dln,s. sinks \ll'Crc rhrte m~hcs too n&rrO"W. Th tn.spccter cm£cred him 10 lei! OUt lht Jin.ks and' 110 rtplaa lhcm wilh 1::trJtf sinks. In INII ta.S!, &~dle $Iw Ihinls Rubcl\Slcin'J ... y aM I"\llc:d in his r ... or. }!oW'C ... ef. :r.IC:h d'i ff.cu lites incfCUC tnt cost or doinJ busitle1S. H.istoric Preoen'l!liofl :and" Nei;hborhood Stabilily SRO boit"ls.h;ave: ~ such. chu:l:;c~ p.m lhallht::y art n01 the rl"" thin, one thinks or .... hc:n uyinl lo"clp Spf1.1Cf: up I dtlt:,iClnlljl\l Mil1'lborhood or pracnoc btauli hit old" buiJd'inp. Slin. i:n lOrne: plac~. SR Os Irt bi.uori~ prope:~1I::Ii or zre in h~lori.C:: distrkts .nd hive-prOvtl"lIO be lUetS ID [he communoil)', Stue Chambers, an ;In:hi!l..'ct.nd d"irt-etor orlhe Wcslertl H0U5~r.J AJ.sistine-c CC;"lIef ill Oc:.nver. sin,s the pt;1~ orlhc .earth HOld rcno\lllion. Hc says Uw me eld brick buiJdln,. wllh iIl.rt"ilmLttoll deu il. ICT'YCS lb: neighborhood .... en h hurn;l1l.ius dM: til}'Japt a..'Id ~ncourAfC5 ocbcr ownr rs. or olc!e:r buitdifllslO rUOV1Ile dlcir propc:nJ. U an SRO is ill a bworic district. dc-1'~lepcrs an ,~~ U:'I crc:diu 10 de n:h.abml.:llion. T~ bcncIiu, from LIIe t:u bre;li.: Jt"neran, ol.lIwei,h !:hI' d"ifflt"Urry or .k.ccpin, Ille flc:tde blsl:OfJc:l\n, .K".urace. Oftcn.. Itowevc:r. chc "hisloric t.u cr~dilS arc no4 cnou,r:n. for insufttC" ~lle h:u I01T'IC SROs in bllolorjc cfl.$tr;CU lhar hI~ qu~tifica (Dr prnervalicn liU c~djts Ho~, beausc lhc: tTrdiu h:J"'e ~riecl (I~r Otc fa rs. the c ily provides DlMr .subsidies in ord;::r 10 L:eep lhe hoiers prot'illblc:. N(ll<1 Grur. rormrrl}:ofthc N;lli~1 Tf\j:s.l f":Jr Hisleric Prc:IoC'r'W"oll ion. Sll'res~ cdler bene-rns J;.;.n lhc prue:rvoll ion or Old ~iId"in&s, Qu:l\hry 5ROs can help prc .. c..n.t ,enmfic;Jio!'l .I\CI s.ubsequcm diJpiY.C'mc'ru Orl.ow·lncomc.rc r~sidClllS, They ~n htlp prc ... idc ~~c!enLJ witll • KTUC of ncilhbclrhood andpl:tee, Flnoll'ly,l:hcm;l1 1l2S0II 1tIe: rif'Sl tlDor o(rmny SRQs provide seNIen 10 the nei,hborhoocl' an.djobs to somC' Clf~ haec! ruidena. ~lIn:l&rmrftl The qualil,. or 5RO rNlU:lemeN varies ,rC::III,... Tk ;,ld jnu!~ orlhe .nub:ll no~. '«minJ wi.l;h roachts o1t\lJ d"runk old men Ufl be dilpellt:d only ifhocels are ,*cll run. Silln OiclO requirc.s tIlIlC"YCt)" "Clcl ... itJI morc lh;an 1211n':tS tu .. r:l\ rnidcnl INnalc r. Atr ... 1IUI prtlposC'S 10 require I1w the rrom ilw be :aarr~ It.n timc:s. I,. many SRCs. the: INl'\I.lcrnc:1lI doelmorc ~n C"oneCt renll and' make n:p;airs. 511« membc-1'1o alsc help 'CSK1cn.il ~Ioci:tr~ the sociI r serllir;c I)'S-Ic:m. Indeed. s.o.rnt S ROi. C'$pc:ciany thow-i1nAru~ by fIOnptOfllS. NYC' In()re: rCIlm;,l s.cciollloCl"'wicc tomponc:N 110 wi' pd.:.:!re. ScalirC :IN! Lo~ Anlclts boch ~"'c IoPC:CW nudlo SROI. tNl calCf 10 me:n!:! rly ill re:5i4cnu and rCSldcnls .. ho "':11111 001 ftCcd.n "'!cohol·r,C't:" ltotnc:. M'cn~lJ:r ill rnicknls .le COl'Ctfllr;u:d: on one nCOl or S",e-"'C'pol'fS McAdoo HOle! where :I rounstlor is on dUI, La belpCUI. • , f I I I , • . 1"""\ "Mont)' M:atttn . Ne one.has evc.r ;accused SRO raideMJ c[havj". an GV'CnbuhdaDCC or wt.o:IlliI. Whet! an SHO c1CtSe:1. its re..tickntJ do nee one", ftIO'tc: inca R:lul1r .Ipmmcnts; they arc mLICh mwc liuly 10 end u:p in I wJu:r,instn\lti()ll. or on If'Ic meets. Tu. 'tRCfiu.. propcMy lU a~tf.:rnent.l •• nd .wb.J.Hf.ICS can. help Mcc:1 ownet'S fI:oI y-ill lKainus wilbouf 1;1 isi". n:~ beY"'Jd \he: r~ Qf tt.e-lcT';lIU. Iu d1st1.1ssee abo'wt. bwcrrlt \:u ct'tlSiu an be I:lKd' _hen rtbabbin. build:in,s ill hisloric di.sctj(:tJ. The: low~wome bow.i.!'I!1 tn c.redh J\u betn ustd tQ rcnonue Uutinl ~its. Jo edc:ilion, seytn! yea:~ '10, BUD R'wed ruia Ib! u.s dIscouu,cd: the use 01 $cdion I ICUtirit:aICi ror SRO renQ!. ' But fl,,*ncial assistance: nt"ed 1101: Mppcn m the redc::ra! level. Some of the best ptOJrllft$ to C'Ut ~ c:osts of Dwnin, and operOlli"l SROs Irt bc:inJ; INn.apd ar f1tndcd by 10:.21 10'ltUnfMnt1. rOf ir.s\anc:e. $n111c ~ an SltO f\md tStablisPted ... llh CornmlIDUY OeYtlopmc:nt Block Gram money. The ruM boosu the budJ,C'U Qf nonpror .. CI\lmCr'$ workin. lo..uab old hooce! buildiels-. San Oiqo .. Ise subsKru:es SRO rehab and offers develope", Jow.jnu:rc:st loaru 10 rehab or COftSInK11lCW uni15. The: city further Ns ch&naed ~ fee .sc-hedvJa for sewe.r and' -,waler to meR' Kr»;a[t:ly reneo SRO u:o.a:.t.lfthe SRO p"oposIIJ paua ill Allana, 1M: lentch or time i: t:l1ce.s for.l1 indj .... idtJaJ 10 c:,.sQblish p:rmaM~ raiC'enc)', !bus. mJokinl t¥ SltO CWMI e.J.~pc. frem the hOltllmcetl occvpancy lU ..... ilI be reduced (ram lO libys 10 ,SCvc-n days_ Anceller ~y to hep SROs in the br~dc: is 10 .abolle proper:y 1a;Jt:S. In. Chicillo, SRO O'W1\t;rs ue ~s.ed all1Ic: Ame ~le G$lhe Ho!",lday 1M aM !Mer C'ommerc:i.1lr YClltUt'tll. Ad'VOQICS art pushi:llllO Ie'! the propeny t:I.l tale dropped \0 the 1:3mt: as lha! ror I sinzk-f.amily bousc-16 perC't1U of a.s.se.uc:d VJ11JC:. This IU bl'e:lli: woold .1IC"knowled~ the f'ell!dent iar purpose ~f the blloi\dina. and ~ke if. usit.r rOf 0WTIt1'l to pr..,"~ 10w <01t h~n&. Those chits [hat b.l:ve mfe::{j~ their poflCit:S 011 SROs b.'1C rnaNl8ed' 10 .... rile btJiJd'ina: and loohll cocks ltw adt:qu~u:ly prOlttt !he :ncilhborhoods wh i1c INIbn, low-C:OSI Ptousini Iv;ulable to people ..... ~ rw:cd iI. key &c1ors to SUttc:u. are avaibbi1ity or mone)' ;nd [01.11: credi ts, flell:ibi1i.1)' ~Ia refl nl bllildinl cades, Ind rel.ued or-. bener yC1, DO parkin, n-quire.ments. ZQn.i.r., tod-a s.ho.Ild als.o tt.qlloi~. rou~-mr.- C'[ockw rfin.c &I'd adequ.ale common spaoce. ex. Hugo Makes CIIanges 10 South D.ro!ina's Tough SH-ch Managemenr Law Soud'I C .. ,oJifta-l \OUltl1lc:W \:C.Kh rraahazemena l1w. 4uilf'ltl! 10 re:s.tritt buildirll on tXca.nfrtlnr bexl\es. Ippc:Jll1 ICI be I wuh out. HundR:Cb o{buchr,On1 homu smashed by Hurral'\e HIIJO las:I)"C2r Ire kin, rr:bt.lih on Ihc-same b.lndalio~ and Oft !he Slmt YVT.ncfllble bc.Khlront l«s. And. U alual, the: homo wLn be-CQiII'e~ by t:I;a;paycr~subsidiud Icdcm r100d insu,.~ Befort: Hurric~.nc HI,lJCI, the Soutll CaroTinalaw wu used as • model for twrrkllJM: ·prone SUItS. 1M. lhc JUle-' rclu~nce to us.e lht bw afltr KuCO 1MJ be makinl tbt bw )Omethinl"\en thin. model. ThI: 5g.Le:·S 19aB Cour.al z..onc MoIlUlremcf'll AI:'! lie-elated It".a.t &nJ ho.nc cloic lO the. 4ulIIe fine I.M1 was. t1iIIIO third.! or more dtsI~ could tIOI be ~~~" unles.s iI w;s pu5hcd shor'tward :lO (m bqond w dune:. - ~ Bu(, after KUla, " ·.ulh C"tofl~ CGUt:ll Council ~pted '¥try Ilbc:r.:lIt c:"illcri;a 10 d~[~rmine ",...lul CC'ru.1 :IUted • l'IO\ISot' Jlin morc: thu OM-third inl:lct. -We Wtre fa irly len ienl. ftl4ybc too le-nient.. -Mirnined wle RtprtU'I'I!.lli"'c unoir .scurkie.. I C'Plampion cr!he bcx:h tNlIO)lcroe-nl ~ ill L"e SO\Ilh C.:ar(llina Ulis!;alurt and. member 01 &11: C~13t Council. StUrkie 'told the Mi41f1J· HmJ/d • -Ma,.'bc Chis W~ a ~~\ltnct or the. maznitudt or the ="lMIf. H(,~ dl(! 10 thi~ s.t:l.le .... Lon, berore tile hllrriane occurred", Sturkie .and' O1hers w.<erc in the midsl or. nisin, polil ial fi,hllo prOlCC1 Ihe 1:1 ... rrom . prooe"'clopmeru rPf"C"t$. AI w gmt time:, ~ SL,1.1e was ~in.& noodcd .,.,ith tawsLliu frprn OWftt'1'1 of '1K;1nL bc::achfront propc ny, 1l~"!;Jlc lC build becausr 0 r the fa w·~ re.,urie1 icnl. Bclw«n thnc: mounlin, lawlu"ia ud Hurrical\C: 1i1olj:e-. Ole k.&i~I:lIOt1 passed. <;:cmpromise Imttldmeru Ie lhe 199B r:.'W ~ June 25 Nt .nO""'1o some eonS'.N<::lion ~ar (he Wlttr(ronl. ~ nce: on ;te:1i"c bcxhcJ (lr und duna. The arm.ndment also prohibiu!he cOr\$llVC1iOft (lr llt:OIwalll on«: lhcy ~\It been d~~cyed. E'o'f.:n with the new a.mcrwSimcnt, tMre is ~ilt the problem or tM redera! flood Uuuranct prolram.lnd iu c01ltn;;ls. Stal~ SeMIOf 10110 H,yes •• TKJ\her mc:mbt:r o{ lIIc Couul Counci7. said tM •• ftcr HumcaM HUlo, he had. upceutl the federaJ progrilm to rLJrlic rebuilding on cfiSlslu·ptOflc s.hordincs. But ltIt: oprclnm doun'l CO rr,ut~ rnor~ \J'Qn pro'" iCe Wllihu ('OI'\S!l\Ict:o" rcquircmenu. The prOlam. ~ S3id. does notflinl to pu$h ~h "houseJ bxk from Che shore. And en."iTonlTlC1U,disu. are n.01 happ) eilher. "1L d'oc.sn·1 m;al:e sense 10 provide:: ms.unncc rie'" on t1Ie bexh-DOl ecoloa:k:lny, 1101 for public 1lI rety. and iI: c:eminly doe.sn-c mlIke ItMC e..::onomiany .... dded Eli~ JOrle.s ofthc-N;liol1.:ll Wildli ft Federation. -I don', tl'IlMlc Ihc p-opJe mIo .... rC:llil.t L";al their t.lill: morley i.s $l.Ios.idizing: yat31l0n homes in SOIJ I M C).tcri~." 5. L Florida Right-of-Way Mapping Ruled lII.g.l Fl.ctldJ-S Supreme Coun recentry llIruck dcr.vn me S~ le-s -Mappin.& nd Rcs.tT"l3cion-I2w tk law. ell.ll::lCd in ~~, !\;ad" an~d \he Florici.;. Oeplinmenl ofTn.!"I~p(rN;\;On (fOOT) to rtlt':rve cOTridQrs g{ land for N.ture: ri,hl-0r-w:lY X"qIJi3.i I ioM.. 1M t.l'/I' hJ.d btt.n pus.ed '0 entlJrt 1Jla! FOOT VoOIJld ~ arrorcbble iCCCU 10 parcC'ls.of [and duI coold be 1JSC"d' 10 up;nd hilhw:ry cap.acil)' in this !'2pidlJ arowin8 JLltt:. FOOT ltad" to identify 1hcsc corridors aru:l tht:n dC"'o'elop .I TNp hi&hri&htinl OIem. The m:lp h.ld 10 be rded in the ~ppropr~le COtl'nrJ CQUrt. Once the INp "S tiled. it! beramc Jleg::Jl rar a bndowncllO bc-,in Iny new dew:lopme<'\l on a mJpped p::Jl'~el for up to 10 YUTlo. The n:llr:: \lI'I.S n01 rr:quirtd 10 compt1\l:l\:l:. lhC' landO'WTlU unlil the ptO$'el'1)' W;U; K luarlJ .cquired. In tin: mantime., che propen.} QIoIIftC.r wu Still rr:q,uif"td' to p.a}' property tues em Iht: land. whir:h ltad betl\ made-es~"I~lly Vnn'\:IrkeLlblc: I7"'ClTIill'lL Sound lib:. t:IIkinllD }'Oat':" Wen. iI cfad co lhr:: Stllt'J bi,h CCM.In. The: CUot ahal forud the i:s:we irt...olwcd an c:illu'Krt ~rrel of !.and' iJ1 Tamp.a owned ~ 10int VCtlltJn:J. !nc. The company fiird ~il"'I;II\St the SlIlt in 1985 .. rIC:T ..... 'J.S un.lble lO eomp\c:1t lhe ~\e ofl~ p.roperty &$ a 1l:SlIh cr fOOT tap,unc the ir p.arrc! 1S.a future ti,N·of-~J. Eve nlu;lPY. thc s .... tc bou,h.t the 4.nd (tfJm loiN. "toItnlun:.s.. The cue continued as a It: SI or lhr:: ~ridil)' or the bw. ~.j II ft:5ull ollhc: CMComc afu.is $Uil, FOOT I~;ln , , '. " ./ E. A. MAAS 11 [. MAU'iI ST'REn LOS GA lOS. CALIfORN .... 15032 I40Bi ls,. .. dOO Hr. )(en SCflnilier Director ~ Plzmino and O:mmnity E:nVil:oment 250 !'.aml1ton ... _ Palo Alto, a. 94301 Sirs: July 5,1950 t.'e arc: in r~~-t ~ yc;:;,r S.h.O. ~ &t&:d: ':-'l!ic 7, .liSC. .. :::' Wo are praxl of our ope<atioos at ~ the craig and Palo Alto I!<>Uls. We o:nstantly up grade living conditic:os and wist on and majntAizl a c1e&1'\ drug tree ~t. '1be staU te:::on::eab!.tion. that ther~ is a qreat ~ tar CI.ll"" hot..e.ls .is "Iell 5UppOttl!d by th8 Stanford J>ep:>rt, an:! the newspapers. wrIH FlESPECT ro '!HE !D:KM!C INCENl'IVES =lED IN YOUR R!l'ORr WE Ml'J'I '1HE ~ OFFD<: WE w'JIL GlWW71'E!: ni7a' = IIOTEI.S WIlL M1\INrAIN '!HEIR aJRRENI' S.R.O. ~"'\:s FOR'" PDUOO OF FT./E YEAAS IN DCOWGE roR CD-IPIEl'E E:GIPTICN FiUI 'lHE P>.RKING =cr fEES. = ~ IS llElm1l\!lU xr fIVE YFAR !:1I'.ERVJV..s BY .Ht1It2AL a:NSENT .. The S.P_O. npcrts _ it clear that the residents do not use pubU" par'.cinq, and to char1;le an operation like o.lrS parlciro? fees ,s.iD:ply subsidizes ethers at the. expense of the resident.s. It IIIJSt also be clear that Q;a:' ope<ations do =e yield • great profit. Raooving the parking assess::ent iroeqlity 'JC>.\ld shooI 9= faith and suppr..rt fer the S.R.O. concept and help us DlUntoin OU!' high stan:l=Cs. Eay;/~ E ..... Haas for-the Craig an:l Palo ,\lto Hotels I " - ~.' ... . , .... :! "... . • flr'- Aif ;/:1", ~ \~CJ June 7. Ino HONORABLE CITY C~~ll P.lo Alto, Cllifomi. RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COHMITTEE REVIEWING PALO ALTO'S SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY NOTELS Members of the Council: (. Attached fs the report of the Sfnglo-RoDm Occupancy Hotel Commltte' requested by City Council at Its November 2B, 1~8S moet;n;. The Committ •• w.s comprised of members of tho Numan Rel.t;ons CommisSion, tho ,.10 Alto Nou,Ing Corporatio., the Urb.n Ministry .nd City st.ff. findings and recommendations of the Committee Ire df$cusse~ in detail in the report, .nd are suamlrfzld .s follows: Findings and Recommendations In ,.~.ry, the Committee recommends that the Council consider the following: J. Identification of SIlO hot.ls .. In important elernent of the City', low Income h.using stock In the City', st.te-mandat,d Nousing Element update (schedul.d for City Council consideration on June 27, 1990); 2_ Commit .dminlstratlve and technical Issistance vii P.lo Alto Housing Corporltion and City staff resources to Isslst SRO hotel owners in obtaining Iv.ilabl. f,d,r.l and st.t. grants Ind leans for seismiC rehabillt.tlon, 9.oer.l upgr.ding lnd addition, to existing SRO faciliHes i and 3. Commit the wlter towfr site located at the sD~theist cor~er of Alma Street and HI~borne Avenue for I new SRO development. R.spettfull, submItted, ... ,."-. .~"d'.:·~~~/.('I CAROl. JAIISE~ Chief PlannIng Offlcl.l \ If \. r.~il.\'U'U f\ ~ r' JuN!: FLtMI~ A"ist.nt City Klnager A~uchment C~: 3~1:8 ,. I • l . ./ -,.r.-/. ... t/ f . KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Oirettor of Pl.n~fn9 and Community Environment • I· I!OrIDAABU CITY COUNC!l P,'o Alto, Califoroia o ; ( ~.' .. RECMtrNDATlImS FOR TlIE PRESERVATION AND DEVELOPHEN1 OF SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPAN(~ HOTELS IN PALO ALTO Members of the Countll: S..!!!!!M! On November 28, 1988, the (Ity Countil reque,ted th.t a committee ~e formed to lddr .. s the IUlits related to U. preservltion of the titl's singh-room ottu.,nty (SAO) hOlels_ The Committee was to be tomprlsed of members of the Human Relations Commission, the P.lo Alto Housing Corporation, the Urban "Inlstry and st.ff_ This Ictlon was prompted by the then Impending sale of one of the tlty's SRO hotels, the 'or.er Holel, and the potentlll eonverslon of this fatllily to a BOre upscol., commerclll hotel. The Council Iction w" preCipitated not onl, by the potentl.l loss of one of these hot.I., but by Ih. brooder policy fssues of displocement of on Important 'ow-Income housing res.urc. I. the Clty_ The SRO Commltt.e first convened In December, 1988_ Shortl, thereofter, It w., learned thot the Sarker Hotel had been sold to F'lo Alto developer Jim Ba.r, who purch.sed the building sp.'iflcally to ret,l. Its S~O hotel .se_ Th. Barker Hot.l hiS recentl, undergone fnterior cosmetic upgr,dlng, .nd ho. been full, or ne.rly fully renled fcr the r.,t few months. In ,dditlon to providing housing, the owner of the propert, hiS worked with Jim Burklo of the Orban Ministr, to pro.lde needed soolol ser.ltt. for the residents of the hotel. Although disposition of the B.r~.r Hotel WaS resolved, the Committee continued to ... t I. order to report bItt to the Council on long-term ~ethlnis~s to fa<illtat. single-ro~ occuplncy hotel preseTVotlon Ind possible new SRO development in the d~tDwn Ire.~ The (emmitt,e ~as ~t on sever.' octastons. and reviewed fl •• drift reports_ This report culminotes the fin.l conclusions and Committe. retoamendltions lo the tit, tountll on P.l0 Alto', S~O hotel,. flNDINCS Arro R£COI'M£rroATlONS I. summary, the Ccamftle. retommends that the tounc!' consider the follOWing: I. Ide.tlffcotion of SAO ~otel s II In Import,nt .lement of the Cit,', low Intome housing stock i. the Cit,'s st.te-•• ndlt.d HOUSing SROo 6/7/9~ lIB -1- "C"'"----"-........ -~----~----. • - n_nt 19'0) ; ~ifU 1""\ .. ' ~ . upd.t~c:hedu1ed faT. City (oUFloc:l1 con~rltfon on JI,jF\t 27. z. Comait l~i~1strltiv. Ind technfcl' Issistlnc~ yfl P.lo ~lto Housing Corporltlon Ind Cltl stIff rosources to 1 •• lst SRO hot.l own.rs In . obtal.lng 1.llhbl. federll Ind sutt grlnts Ind 'Oln, for sohmlc rahlbllftltlon. glnlrll upgrlding Ind Idditlons to exl.tl.g SRO focOUI .. ; 1. C ... lt the wlt.r towor Site lOCI ted It the .outhelst corner of Alma Street I.d Hawthorne AVlnul for I new SRO deyelopment. THE SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPANCY HOTEL '"10 Alto's SRO Hot.ls Ind their .. sld.nts 1. g.nerll, I Ylrl.ty of temporlry/pl ... nent home'"s, .. elr-homoless Ind low-lncoDO person. inhibit slngl.-room occup.ncy hotel.. In PI'O Alto'S CISI, the m.jorlty of SRO resident' Ire comprised of lOW-Income people or the 'working poor_' Th. following Informltlon hIS been obtllned from I 1987 report pr'plred by the Urban Ministry's Director, Jim Surklo. This ,tudy, entitl.d 'SRD: A [ndlngered Specl.s Of HouSln9, A Report On The future of SRO Hotels In '"10 Alto' II Included In Appendl. A. There Ir. 208 SRO hotel units In four downtown holel, 'n PlIo Alto--the Sirker Hotel, the Crllg, the '"'0 Alto Ind the Clrdl •• ,. The .. Jority of these unIt. Ire occupied by wortlng people, lO,tly with low Incomes. forty-four percent 'of Polo Allo', SRO reslde.ts Ire usor, of the Urbln Ministry'. Downtown Food Cl0.ot (Hoy 18a7), whlc~ su990.ts t~lt t~ese Ire very low-Income peopl.. M.ny of these visitors Ire -.ployed locally. T~e study "'SO found t~,t sa.. of tne food Clo.et vIsitors who live In the SROs are the homeles. who Ire Ibl. to st.y in the hotol. only port of elch month. Appro.l.lte'y 10 porcont of the SRO unit' Ire occupied by seniors on I 'ong-teno basis. "umerou. people w;t~ p.ychlltrle Ind phYlleol dislbilities II •• Ie the hotels, plying re.t ~Ith their dislblllty checks fr .. Soclll Security or the Veterlns Adml.lstr.tlon. A very few of the reSident. Ire flmill •• eon'lstln9 of Dne p,rent Ind one c~I'd living on weI fire supp'eatnt.d w1t~ plrt-tlme work. The majority of residents Ire working poople with lOdost-paylng Job., some of whom Ire only I piycheck IWay fro. hooel.s.noss. The SRO hotels Ir' s.rvl.g some of the neediest members of tne community by off.ring che.p, floxlble, 11ter.,tlve housing not ly,lllble elsewhere. SRO hot.,. occooaodlte those who hlvo IrTogullr or InsuffIcient Income. Requ;reaent, 1 •• tandlrd rental Ipartme.t, such as rent pro-payaent, list month rent, security deposit., time log. and tenancy commitments Ire unro.'I.lle for lO.t low-Income people. A .. r. recent survey of downtown SRO tonlnts (Included sa SRO tenant. from the Sarker, the Cr,lg .nd the P.,. Alto) wa. prepared In June 1989 by students of the Polltlcll Ind SoCial I.su •• Cl ••• from Stanford UnlYerslly (s.e Appendix 8). Tho students found that half of the reSident. Intervlowed '"id they hid no other housing optIons beSides renting the furnished hotol rooms Ind would be left homeless without the 5120 per week li.lng qUlrters. Over hllf the SRO, MB 6/1/90 -2- • . ' 11 ,1 ... - f""\ ~spondent$ Slid thlY used lOr. t~.n 4Q percent of t~tif lnCQme to ~ovtr rt~t. The .urvey Indlclted thlt the.e r.,'dent. Ir. peop" who work I. loco' bU51neS$eS , rtstlurlftts and on the Stanford clmpus. Eighty percent of the respondents ~re .. l.s between the IgtS 20 Ind 49. Description of In Sto Hot.1 The federal g~vern .. nt def1ft.1 In SRO room IS -A unit ~hich contl1ns no .o.itlry faclI1tl," or food preparation facilltl,., or which co.tal.1 o.e but not both type. of fo,'lltl ••• and whIch IS suitlble for occupancy by 0 Single ellglb'. Individull clplbl. of Indtpendent living.' Hotell generolly .re con.'dered. for p'.nnlng purpose •• I 'transient occupAncy· use; how!ver, eost of the SRO hot., residents in downtown P,'o Alto hive been lfvtng, off Ind on , 'D one or more of tne hotels for mlny months or even ye.ro. AccordIng to both the 19B1 Urbon Ministry Study and the 1989 Stanford Survey. very few SRO untts r perhips 2 percent at ~ostt art occupied by busin •• s visitors or tourists. T~e ge.,rlc SRO hotel's 9hysicil l.yout uou.ll, Include. I sma'l lobby which Is domln.ted by I •• cured "b.nk tell.r·ltyl.d' c.shi.r oreo. Eoch IndivIdual room Is ulually no llrger th.n 120 squore feet. olthough the minImum lize .s specified by the Unifono Building Code Is 70 squire f.et. Included In the room is I oln~, mlni-refTIgerotor (sometImes. hot pllte), bed, f.n, closet and t.levislon. Kitchen and bathroom facllitl.o ore communal. thu> differentiating the SRO hot.l from I regu'.r hotel or motel. '.10 Alto's SRO Hot.ls ,.10 Alto's 5ROs ire loc.ted In downtown ",d Ire Identified IS the Crolg. Polo Alto, Ind the Blrker. Th. Clrdinal Hotel w ••• lso detormf.ed by the Commltt •• to be In SRO hot.l sInce It dl.pl.ys similar ch.rocteristlc. to the other three. However, the present otcupancy of this hotel. IS perceIved by the .. nagement fino lhlt operate. the Clrdinol. Is predominantly transient In n.tur. rlther than long-teno. For the purpo.e of discussion withl. thIs report. the Committee concluded that the Cardinal should be Included .s In SRO hotel. Ho~ver. tho Committee f.lt that eortoln r.coorr~ndation. contoinod within this report (i .••• waiver of the tron.l.nt occupancy tlX) should not be applied to the Clrdln.l Hotel until such tl~ IS the C.rdi.ol's occupancy charlcterl.tlcs mor. n.orly resembles the B.rk.r, Crolg I.d Polo Alto. The following provIdes. brief de;eript Ion of nch SRO hotel. Th. Barke,·- The Borker, which Is owned by 10e01 developer Jim B.er. is loco ted .t 439 Emerson Stroet Ind wos built In 1925. A s.oll door It Itre.t level provIdes an entron~. to the hotel which Is on the second floor obove .evor.l commercial uses. The B,rker hos 22 room.. Reside.t. It the Sarker p.y 5215 I menth for rooms without boths (16 units) or 5415 a .. nth for one of t~e four room. wit" I ~.th. Sm,ll r.frig.ratorl are pres'nt, however, hot plotes Ire not Illowed. The building is I. need of • oelsmlc upgr.dlng (Cotegor, I). An .xceptlon to the floor are. r.tl0 (FAA) llalts i. t~e Commerclol Downtown Diltrl,t lone regulotlons was Idopted to oncour.ge seismic re~.bflitltion. The exception ollo.s • 25 percent lncreo.o " FAR or 2.500 squ.re feet. whlc~ev.r Is SRO. Me 6/7/90 -3· - • ----~. o o grelter. to be Idded without pro.111"9 plrklng If I qu.llfylo9 .olsolclll, upgrlded. Tho alrkor Notel 1. e'pected to undergo upgrldlng In 1990·91. The trofg· bundln~ Is seismic The Crl19 fs 10clted It 1i4 H~Ilton Avenue Ind WI. built In 1963. It hI' botn owned by the Nil. Corporltlo. for abov. 30 Y.lr.. The Crllg cont.ln, 63 unIt.. The current rOOD r.tes are '125 per week wlt~out blth and SI55 •••• , with. b.th. The .eekly rate hIS Increl.ed by 114 within. two·y •• r period. The .verage room 1. Ipproxl •• t.ly 8' xIS' Ind cont.ln. 0 TV. sm.ll refrlgerotor. double bed, closet, sink Ind f.n. Common cooking f.cilltle, .r. loelted on the ground floor. The Palo Alto· The P.lo Alto (Ilso owned by E. A. M.ls) I. loe.ted It 425 High Str.et Ind .as built In 1t65. It clo.el, resembles the Crllg I. re.pect to It. Interior/exterior llyout. but Is • llttl. sm.ller with 59 rooms. Weekly room rat. without a b.th 1. 5137 ('30 per night) and with. b.th 5154. At 135 per olght, the rate hIS Incrnsed by $14 with i._ a tw.-yur period. Slxty· .. ,e. percent of the ~s Ire rented for less th.n a month. Tho roan sf.e aver.ges 8' x 12' and Includes a .aoll refrIgerator, f.n. closet. sink. TV and double bed. The Cardinll· The Clrdlnl' Is loclt.d It 235 Hlmllton Av.nue In~ hi. 64 vnlt.. It was built In 1924 Ind was d •• lgned by '.10 Alt.'s f.med Irc~lt.ct Birge Cllrk. Amerfcan Hotels h •• a 1 •••• to operate t~. hotel until 1990. T~e fino do •• not con.lder the Cardlna' a typic.' SAD beelus. of the nlture of th.fr clients Ind the dlff.rence In the .phy.ical '.yout from the oth.r SAD., Ittrlbuted to tho pr ••• nce of a large open lobby. HoweY.r, the .. Ire sl.illrltl •• with the other SADs. For 1nst.nc., hllf the ro ... do not provide bath.. Tho •• with baths rent for 14D per night (1220 per week). Tho,e without bath. rent for 130 per night {S140 per wetk}. According to the Urbln Mlnlstry's 1987 Survey, the .. are I number of tenants ""0 have lived there for seve .. l y .. r. and they recel.e I discount (I bout 75S of tht room •• re for long-term reslde.ls). Some ba.o been th.re for 20 y,"rs. The Clrdln,l h.s both Cat.gory II S.lsmlc Ind historiC stalu,e.. It. C.tegory II s.lsmlc stltU' .llows I 2S perc.nt Incr .... In FAR or appro.l .. t.119,OOO Idditlon.1 .qUlr. fnt. to be Id~ed wIthout providing plrklng If the building I. sel.mlc,l'y upgrld.d. Whit other Cltl •• HI.I Done During the ll.t t.n Y.lr •• there hIS been I trend to red.v.lop SRO hotel. throughout the country. A number of llrger C.llf.TlII cities have Idopted ordlnlnce. to addre.s gentrlflcltlon, conversion Ind/or demolition of SROs. Two yo,rs 'go, Sin Diego e.sed building regulotlon. Ind parking requirements fn order to prDOOtl pres.r •• tlon of It. SAD hot.l.. The rl.ult hIS been the renovatfon of 15 downtown SAD. Ind construction of four new hot.l. with the help of city-financed low·;nterest 101ns. los Angele. has helped e.tlbllsh • prlvlte, nonprofit Nousing Corporatfon ""ich oper.to. II SRO hotels. SI. franCisco Ind Berk.l.y prohibit the demolition of these hoa1s u.less lhe units art repllced .1sewhtTe~ Bath titles have develop!d rent cap ordinances ;0 order to .. inta!n the affordabl. rent. chlrlcteristie of SROs. A .ynop.is SADa M8 L 6/7/90 ·4- ... , -- -- - , r of •• c~ of the,. cit Ie,' ordln.nces Is Inc1"~ed In Appendi. C of thIs repert. Alt •• n.tl~., eonsld ••• d .y ~e Coonltt.e Tt~ CObOltt .. dellbe."ted at length the pros Ind cons of est.bllshlng • convers1Qn ar demol1t1on Grdfn,nce cD~lrlbll to thos* cantlined in Appendix C. Two of tho three SRO propert, owners, JIm el.r Ind £. M. Maas, wIre qUlstioned b, the Commill,e IS to their fulur. Intentions to conv.rt. Both own.r. strongl, Indlclted I deslr. to retlin the facilities IS SRO hot.ls, but bct~ owners wore IquIl" ed ••• nt In theIr oppositIon to the ImpO'ltlon of a con.erslon ordlnlnce on thllr use. In Iddltlon to owner opposition, sInce .ffectl.1 conv.rslon ordInances generoll, invol," r,nt control, ~Ich was not considered pilitable by the Committe., the Commltt'. opted not to recommend. conversion ordinance similar to San Di.~o·s or Sl~ Francisco. The Committee strongly supported IsslstancI to SRO hote' owners for .ny fundIng progr ... for reh.bllilltlon or new construction, ,hould that be feaslbl,. Tho St.te of Cillforoll hiS cre.ted I new program speclflc.lly for SROs fn It. Callfornf. Housing RehabilItation Progrlm (CHRP). Th, Owner of the Barker ~IS submitted In application to the Aental A.h.bllltitlon Progr •• (RRP) to help wlt~ the necessary s.l.mlc upgrl~lng of th.t hotel. The St.tl al.o h.s I Special User Housing RehabilItatIon Program for whIch Ippllcatlons can be .. de for low Interest rite lo.ns for r.habilitation. The New Nouslng Il€"lopment rund of the CDB~ program could help In pr.·development cost •• socllted wIth tho development of I ne. SRO. In additIon, the Clt,'s Rent,l Housfng AcquIsItion Program (RHAP) Ind Housing Reserve funds could b. utilized for Icqulrlng In eXisting SPO hotel Should that need occur In the future. A acre dltilled discussion of tho flnlnclng that Is av.il.ble for SROs Is In Appendix D. The Commltt.e also discussed .conomlc Ince.tl.es, SUCh IS ,.emptlon from plrklng Iss.ssment f.e. for SRO hotels wlthi. the downtown parkIng asselsment dIstrict, contingent upon .n agreement with SRO owners that the properties m.intain their present use. Currently, the four IdentIfied SROs .r. p.ylng into the University Avenue Parking As.essment DI.trict. T.ble 1 (reftr to Table I 10 Appendi. £) shows tho Imount of Issessments and assessed squ.r. footage for thesl ~otel. loclted withl. thIs ~istrlct. According to owners, Jim Baer Ind E. M. M.as, this would be I sub.t.ntl.l commitment for property owner. to aake for In annual fee w.l.er of 14,000'513,000. However, there was gre.t.r receptivity for 'locking In' an SRO use as an incentl'e for the development of new SRO hot.l. wit~ no asse.sment dIstrict participatIon Tequ;:rements. Another economic Inc.ntl.e consIdered by tho CommIttee was to •• empt SROs from the City's tran.ltnt occuplncy ta. requirement. The City of P.lo Alto Is currently COllectIng I 10 percent translont occup.ncy t •• on Its 31 hotlls/motels. Persons w~o stlY for less than a 30·dlY period are subject to this t.x. SRO relldents pay a disproportIonate amount of this tl' bec.us. they ha.e interruptions In their tenancy. According to Jim Burklo's 1987 Itud,. a c-on5erVltrv@ est'lIIlte of the tnnsfent C(c:upanc-y hI( p,aid ITI.nUol1Ty by people ~o hl.e at lelst on. episode of homelessness per ye.r Is S24,OOO. About 10 percent of the money used by loc.l socl,l service 1gencles to provide housing at hetel. for the h ... l •• s goe. for this tl'. ,. 1989, the Cr.ig, B.rter, PlIo Alto Ind Cardin.l hotell paid I. e.ces. of 550,000 In transient occupancy taxe5. SRO. HB -"'l' 6/7/90 -5- • , <-.• ",:" .. : ... "" . ':.' ',":-''->'f'-'" -~.:: c'>';;-:-'-, -------------~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- . t ' o The Clrd1~ll HOt.l Pllt sub5tlntfal1y ear. t~Ir.,~e~t occupancy tax. which concurs with thl a&nlgement's assertiDn t~lt mOlt of tts c1ientelt ITe transient. fDr t~f' reason, the CDmmittee ftlt t~lt the Cardina' Hotel was in I dlffer.nl <alevory fr .. the othor three SROs. S.,.us. of the potenlla' dolllr, whl<h oould be dl.ertod to SAO residents, the Commltt •• 10ltlol1y rec~ftded that the Counc" consid.r the waiver Dr trlnsfent Dc~uplnCl texts for tho Blrker, Craig Ind PII. Alto hot.,s. Jim 8ur\'0 of the Urbln Ministry felt that the •• I.er of the trlnslont oc<uplney tl' <ou'd result I. It 'Olst SIO per .. et .1.lnss 'or the SAO hotel t,'"nt. Upon revl.w of thIs rec~ndltlon by the City Attorn.y's Offlc., howev.r. It Is stIff', opinion thlt .al.or of the translont occupancy tlX Is Inf.lslbl.. Such a .llver would requlrt a rod.fS.ltlo. of tho transient oecuplr.cy 'or III hotels I. the tlty, whl<h could hive flr-relchlng Impll<ltlon, on the City's hote' tl' revenuos. !lew SRO Oppcnunltl.s It .IS t~ opInIon of the Commltt •• thlt the domlnd for SAO· typo housing far ex< .. ded the present supply. consequently, the City could 11.0 assist In spc.sorlng I .ew SAO hotel project. Th. City" contribution <ould be I combl.atlon of lind. construttlo. loans. rela.atlon of specific code .. qulreoents, 1.,I,tanc. In penalt revlewlns. Ind lowered application Ind penait f .... Currently. the Clty's·Re,l £st,t. Depart ... t Is reviewing the depo,ltlon of the City', wat.r tower sit. leeated at the southe.st co ... r of Alma Street and Hlwthorne Avenu. (see [xhlblt I). T~. sit. cor.tlln, 8.437 sQuire , •• t (75 • 112.5) Ind Is currently zoned Pu~llc Facllitio. (PF). Th. C ... ltt .. found that this sIte pre •• "t.~ : ~"l~"l opportunity for tho CIty to d.volop a new SRO hoto'. The Cooalttee cited tho City of San Ol'go's sucees' with jOint SRO developments f. conju.<tlon with nonprofit torporatlons. Sin Diego recently developed two SAO, on smlll plrce's; one Is on I 5.000-square-foot sit. (a 14.COO-squlro-fo.t building with 63 units) Ind Inother Is on a lD,DOO-squl .. -foot site (I 32,OOO-.quare-foot building with 140 units). Both de.elop.ents are four ,torle. and Ire built property line to property 11 •• wltft iDterlor courtyards. CONClUSIONS In summary. the Coomlttee on Single-Roce Occupancy hotels hi. concluded that: I. The .. Is I ~Igh unmet need for low-Incomo hou.lng In Palo Alto. The subcommltte. believes thoro should be I ,trong commitment to ret.ln the few downtown SROs that exist I.d to pro,'de new housing opportunltle. for low-Incceo persons If felslble. 2. C ..... rtlll dlstrl<t. In the prollmity of downtown Ire Ipproprllt. lotltions for s~nglt~room occupancy hotels. [ssenti.' serv;~es are provided for low-Income plrscn. such IS trln,portation, job, Ind health and welfare .orvlco,. 3. Under present regulltlons. the SAO hot.l, within the downtown Ire. could be converted to other uses. demolished. rebuilt or rehabIlitated to .n 'ups<ale' ,.tl1lty or another use. There Is prese.t1y '0 ordinance prote<tlo. from tonversions_ Mowe.er. Palo Alto I. fortun.te In th.t we hIve strong tommltment from two SRO owners tD ~tlln the existIng uses In6.fiDlte'y. flnl'll. the policy fmplications af conversion ordinances, and part~cu"rl, rent SROI 6/7/90 KB -6- • o r\ "- contrDl. wert thcug~t to negatively outwe1g~t at this timet ben.ftts of such conversions. COMMITTEE RECOHKEHDATIOHS the I. Identlffcation of SRO hotel> as In !m~ortlnt eloment .f the Cily's 'ow~lncoae housing .tocl fn the state~mand.ted June 1990 HOUSing [l~nt updat.d (schedu,.d for City Council consideration on Jun. 25, 1990); 2. Comit administrative and te,hnl,al a .. lstince vi. PII. Alt. Housing Corporation and CIty staff rlsoure •• to Issist S~O hot.l owner. In obtaining IVIIlable f.dera' Ind stat. grlnt. Ind l.an, for •• i •• i, r.hlbilltat!on. gon.r.l upgrlding and ,ddit!on. to •• istlng SRO flc I 11 t les; 3. Comolt the ~at.r tower lIto loclt,d .t the south •• st corner of Alm, 5tr.et and Hlwthorne Av.nue for a new SRO development. Respectfu"y luboltte<!. The C.""ltte. Reylewing 90'0 Alto's Single-Room Occupancy Hotels Palo Alto. CalifornIa SYlVIA SEMAN JIM BURKLO [~ecutt~e Clreetor , PAHC [xecutfve Director. Urban Hi.htry BOB WOODS Board Member, Human Relatiofis Co",,1 s s I on MARLENE PRENDERGAST Board Member. PAHC NAlley SHIPlty RON HAll BOlrd Kember, Human Rel.tlons CODniss1on Bc.rd Kember. PAHC CAROl. JANSEN JANE HALEY Chief Planning Ofilcl.l Human Services Administ~ator Athchments: Exhibit I. location of W.ter Tower Site Appendi. A. SRO: An Endangered Speci.s of Housing Appendix B. A Profll. of Residents lIving in the Slngl.·Room Occupancy Hotels of Polo Alto Appendi. C. Other CIty Ordinances Appendl. C. Av.llabl. Finonclng Appendi. [. Tabl. I SRO Hotel Uso. Within P.rking Assessment Cistrlcts cc: Jim eaer SROo MB E. A. M •• s. 18 [. M.in Street. los 'atos. CA 95030 Fred [yerly. Chafrain. Pila Alto Condominium Owners Association 101 Al~. Street. Palo Alto. CA 94301 M •. Marlon Fritz. K.nager. Cardinal Hotol. 235 HamIlton Avenue. Palo Alto. CA 94301 6/7/90 -7- . . - ... , ., .. .. : :-', PF " . " .... , . i ~ " ! :1 : .1 cc ---.~ .. • ~-..... -... --- . -. -.. PF , ./ ... ' .. - • POL%ClC AND PROC!:DI1RZ5 1-11 Page 1 of 6 REVISED: August IttO UW;IID pn OF ern U.!!pIlACnnus poLIcY nATQWtI The purpo •• ot thi~ pollcy 1. to enour. that decIsion. rogardlng u •• of City property aro made in the ~e.t intere.t. of the citizens and taxpayer. Of Palo Alto. Thia policy an<l it. i .. pltl .. antinq procec:lurn were approved Ily the City Council on )lovember 23, 1981. The d.velopment and operation ot tacilitiu Ily otbers (profit an~or non-profit entities) on City-owned property i. appropriate only wben .ucb development onc:l operation will further public us. or provide. public Ilenetit. Such taciliti.s and operations must be consistent with .dsting-city policies, plans, services and/or procedure.. Open c~mpetitiv. and/or Ilic:l processes will Il. used to solicit proposals or provide opportun1tiu to others prior to awarding an Option to Lease. Thla policy shall not apply to short te .... intera. lease. where no oigniticant Change In use 10 proposed. lBpCBOOU. A. criteria (or Pe.rmitting Lealed v., of City Property by others The propo •• d leased us. must be compatillle With, inci<lental to, an~or aupportiveot, the primary public use of the City owned property, •• g. a snack stan4 In a district park, or the pro shop and cottea .hop at thtl Golf cours •• In the event of p .. rk d.dic .. tec:l land, the proposed use sh .. ll Ile consbtant with the provisions set forth In the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, Article VIII, and the Palo Alto Munioipal Code (FAKe), Sections 22.C4 and 22.06 et. seq., which require that use. of p .. rk dedicated land Ile park, play;round, recreation or conservation related ua.l. 8. opt.ion to Lea" In all case. Where there are ai;niflcant approval requirements (significant tenant construction and/or rehabilitation), financing-requirements (fundrabin9 drives, obtainin9 financing trom lending-institution., .tc.), or other tenant pre-operation conditions, the Council shall awarc:l an Option to Lea •• aetti"9 forth all pre-construction/operation conditions as con4i tions to the tenant's obtoinin9 thll lease'-The option term .hall be for a reasonable period of time consistent with the natura ot the conditions ot the option. • \ (" o POLICY JUID PTdX!EWRES 1-11 Page 2 of 6 REVISED: August 1990 Prior to ewardin9 an Option to Lea.. for a apacific u .. , conaidaration aball be 'liven to particular information. (SpecIfic application and. tha relative importance of .. ch of the followI~ considerations wIll vary from .it. to .it. and by apeci fie u .... proposed). Application. tor l .... ed u.e ahall provide th. tollowin'l information: 1. The aKtent to which the proposed leased use satisfies a public n.ed (a.q., by a significant number ot Palo Alto realdent. and taxpayers) for the proposed service. and/or us ••. 2. ·Consiat.ncy of the proposed " •• with existinq City 90ale and. objectlves (ut forth in the Comprehensive Plan, Zoni~ Ordinanco, Kunieipal Code, and qeneral municipal aervicea ~jactiY •• ). . . .. 3. ConBistency ot the proposed use with eXisting plans for the property or facility (0.'1., an approved K .. ter Plan). The impact of the proposed u.e (compatible •• rvices and uses, traffic impacta, noi.. impactal anergy conaervation. ate., upon: e. the ianadiet. nei'lhborbood, b. the community 'lenerallYl and. c. tho environment (~he propos.d tenant Bhall, during tha Option period, .. atilfy the CIty'. environmental raview procau., s. The de'lree ot public access, includinq city sbared Use of the facility or co-sponsorship 0: programs and/or service., 1.e., the numbers of paQple, especially Palo Alto r.sidents and taxpayers, that will ~ served by the proposed us". and/or service. (It 1 .. -the general intent of the City to maximi •• public acce •• to its facilities and aervic •• , aspecially if park land i. involved). ,. The fees that will ~ charqed to Palo Alto citizon.. (It is the intent of the City to prc>vide public acc ... to its facilities at pric.. and./or teos that aro falr and reasonable to the public. In the case of parklan~s, any fees and cbarges .hould be a1nimua and consistent with the fae. and charges of comparabl. City-prc>vided •• rvio ••• , . 7. The monatary consideration to be provided to the City. .. \ ( 1. ( l i i , C. -"" -:' " o • POLICY All!) PROCEIXlJIZS 1-11 P.goa 3 cf 6 REVISED: Auqust It~o •• The hi.tory 6nCS •••• s •• ent of tbe proposlI!!c1 9'roup IS ability to carry out the construction, it any, and cperaticn of the facility and .ervices as propos.d. ,. A five-year pro-ferae tin.ncial analysis ot the proposed u •• , .ettinq forth the project revenues and expenses for thia period of U.e. Public Hotifica~ion 1. Prior to evardinq an Option to tease (or Lease if there are no pre-construction or pre-operation conditions), the city .bllll provide a reasonable and appropriate opportunity to other q?Oups or entities to respond to possible .. se of City facilities. Such reasonable and appropriate opportunities shall take one of the following to.nu: a. A Notice of Intent to Award. an Option to tease (or lAa.e it there are no pre-construction or pre operation conditions) goenerally outlining the coMi tiona of the Option aM teas., shall be publisbed daily for one veek in the Penin.ula Ti~es Tribuna and twice In the Palo Alto Weekly. Tne NoUce aIIall prevUe at least 30 days notice to the public prior to a public bearing for council action to eward the Option to Le.... In addition, copi •• of the notice shall be .ailed to residential property owner. 1n accordanee with Sec:tion 18.'0.030 of the Munieipal Code. Generally, this notiee and h.aring proce •• _hall be usod vhen the propooed user is a non-prefit enUty proposing a apecific use providing a Significant pUblic benofit ·and Vb.n it appear~ that there are no other competing users. b. A Request for Proposal. will be sent to g'roups or entities likely to bave an intere.t in sUbmitting a . proposal), subsequent to a public hearing and Notice of Intent to Request Proposals being publi.h.~ in the appropriate media. At a mini~um. tho Notice cf Request tor Proposals shall be announced in the PenInsula Tilrles Tribune and the palo Alto Weekly and copies of the notioo .ailed to residential property ovnero in accordanee vith section 18.'0.OlD of tho Municipal Code. 'rhe Notice sball provide at least 30 days notice to the public prior to the public hearing. • ---------~ - / \.--------.-...;.--.:..----- Q POUCY All!) PROCE~ 1-11 Page 4 of , REVISED: Auqwot 1UO In preparation for ~lic noticing, tho applicant Bust provi~e tho City Rool Eotato Divioion with: a. ,A zono of Intor .. t Xap shoving tho proporty propo .. " to be loa .. " by tho applicant/propo .. r and .howing all parcol. or properti •• within a d1.tance of '1.4 .otar. (300 t.at) from tho extericr boW'ldari.,. of tho subject property. Thia Bap can b. obtain." frl>ll tho Planning Deportment or the ~lic Work. Department, Engineering Division, at tho Ci vi c Contor, 250 Hamil.ton Avenuo, If more than one up La require" to .how tho ~on. of intero.t, applic.nt/proposer Buot combine the aapo into a oingl. map of not 1I0r. than 18" x 30· size. b. A Ibt of otroot addre.ses, by block, tor III pr~.rt1ao within the zone of inter.at, tor oxaaplo. It[ll!i: B.I. M~tlll~1 Zip Cod'g Bryant stroot 100 through 251 '.301 saailton Avenuo 203 through 373 94301 c. Tho n ..... end acScSro ... eo, inclu~ing lip codes for elch parcol or property ownor within tho .91 ••• "tor (300 foot) zono of intarest properly typ.~ on adhesive ui11ng labels. Tho Planning Department or Public Worts Engine .. ring Divl&ion can preville a source ct &'Ucb addr...... . c!. In tho event tl",t the City La the proj ect proponent of such le.sed u •• , the sponsoring City ~epartm.nt/divi.ion, 0.'1. Department ot Community servic •• , will provide this information to the Real Estate Division. 3. To ensure that notice. will be mailed to tenant. 50 well as owner., the Roal Estata Division will provide tho Xnfor.at1on Resources Department, Data Proeesslni, with the liat of addre.sos prevllle~ in 2b.above an~ request mailing labels for all utility account. chlrged to the •• • ddre ••••• 4. The aailing lists gonerate" by atopa 2 and 3 above will be examined by the Real Estate Division for accuracy and to eli.inato ~upllcationo. Noticea will then be mailed • ( ( C' .-.. ...,.:.. -"~:. ,., -~;' '. ( POLIcY AJ!D PROCEOOUS 1-11 hqe 5 of 6 REVISED: Augou,t 1990 by the Division. In the event th"t the project falls within tho jurisdiction of an operating department, the operltin9 city d.partment/divi.ion, •• q., Department ot Cosmunity Service. for recreational projects, will pertor. tho •• tunction •• s. '1'110 n,"wspaper .dvertia .... nt announcinq the pul:>l1c hearinq ahall be prepared and placed by the Real Estate DiVision with tho ••• istance Df the operatinq department, if any, invol vod w1 th the project. . . 6. '1'11. costa of complyinq with the above notice procedure. ohall be borne by the successful applicant/proposer and ouch sum ahall be due and payable upon the awarding of the Option ot Lease (or <Lease, if there are no significant pre-operation conditions to be .atisfied by tho propoaerl. In tho event the City is the project proponont, au-=!> cost. will be borne by the sponsoring dopartaent. . D. !,'Dlnt. Inrpy •• ent. 1. Construction of tenant improvem"ntl ,hall take place only attor having received Council approval Ca. well as Planning Commission and Architeotural Review Board approval when otherwise required by City procodures] of plans for a:uch tenant proposed construction. rn t!'U! avent of park dedicated lands, Counoil approval shall be by Ordinance subjeot to referendum (PANC Sections 22.08.005 and 22.08.006). 2. Generally, illprovements to 'tl:Ie rea.l property shall be~ome tho propert~ of the City upon termination of the Lease. Tenant-provided fixtures shall remain the property of the tenant. E. TermS Df the LeI" 1. Tenant shall be required to provide City with adequate compensaUon for the riqhts granted loy city to t."e tenant. Determination of appropriate consideration shall begin with the estiaated fair .. arket rental value of the lease premia.. for 'the U5e propos ... d. consideration shall, however, be given to non-monetary benefits to be ~~--------~--.. -, --.~~~' • , , , , • o '0 POLICY ANI> PIIOCZDCJIES 1-11 ( P0ge , of , 2. REVISED: Augu.t lPPO provicSlOd lIy the tenant. These propoae4 non-mon.tary pulll1c lIen,tit. au.t lie clearly articulated an4 lOU.t provill. an actual lIenofit to • oi9hitlcant portion of the citilan. and ta~ay.r. of Palo Alto. The 1 .... t.n .hall lie tho ainaum perioll of the till. requirell to: a. am~rtiz. tenant '• investment in any permittea and approv.1I t.nant construction, and 11. 110 consistent with tho nature of the propo.ed tenant operation. NOTE: Questions anJ/or clarification of this policy _hould lie -4iroctedto the I!ana!l'ar. Rul Property. ( '1 '1 ;.\ , 1 ;' AGENIlA ITEM 3 • EXC£RPI PLAriNING CQMMlSION MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 14~ 1990 REm OF CIJt!!IT[[; SINGLE-ROOM OCCUPAHCY HOTEL COMMITTEE: ALO(o.oendatlons of the Single-Room Occupancy C..olttee on the prGvlsion of SRO units units, Including potent!.l use of the property located at the soutn.ast corner of the AI .. Street Ind Hawthorne Aven., intersection, c~nl, known as the Tower W~ll Site. Chairman ~arsh; VI are not tonight making any judgments as to the SRO report itself. Rather, we will be c~ntf~g on a future procedure for ascertiinlog any kind of development on th.t tower well site: The way th.t procedure aay work. ind the ti.log of it. in particular. ~s. Lvtl'; I would Itt. to c_nt that it would be benefichl to have the plann1ng c~~1sstQnis recOIBendation ~n the SRO Committeels report, in addition to the Issue that stiff has r.ised In their memo. In other words, our reca..endation is that you concur with the r2m4fning recom.endations of the SRO Commfttee, ~fth the exception of the one we ~aye rafsed in aur ~. (hJl~an eJrsh~ J hid the opportunity to talt with Sylvia Sernan~ Director of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation earlier tonight. and I expect that .e .ill be hearing fro. other representatives tonight. Staff would like to initiate a fo~l Request for Propos. I (RFP) process. Is that RFP .lready developed? }lis, Lytle: No. Chairman ~ar5h; So -men you tilt about initiating tne process~ that would be a process that would develop an RFP to be released at some f~ture time? Ms. Lytle: T~at is correct. Chairman Marsh: How long do you see such a process taking that would develop the standards to be Incorporated in an RFP? MS. Lytle: It is us~ally three months from the tiae t~e city council directs us. Cha1f!@n Marsh; So yo~r recom.endat;on wouid be to initiate that process ~nd then to release an RiP whenever that process is completed1 Ms. lytl.: Exactly. II/H/90 -4- c--___ ~ ........ __ .• _ ...... _ .. :._. _~-- • o '0II155foolr Cullen: J think we are talking alphabetese here. For the sake of the public record and the publft in general t J would like to know whit is involVed in an Rf9~ J cnow that means Request for Proposal. but that s~ould be on the recDrd~ [would like to know why this proposal is suddenly 5~rfic1ng on thiS iteM, whith seeMS to be separate from tne s1ngle~rQo. occupa~cy hotel as a general issue, and then to talk about putting these two together ioto one package is something I have never encountered in the ten years I bave been on the commission. So would you explain tne Request for Proposal pre<edure, and p~rhaps the rationale behind It? "$. lytlt: T~e RfF procedure is merely one whereby proposals are solfcited for certain projects. I~ this case, it would be for the reuse of and disposal of the property in question. What Is i'cluded in an RfP depends upon the nature of the proposal t~at you iTe soliciting_ That would have to be devised, but r would assume It would include a development contept, fundjng mechanisms, a timeframe for the project implementatfon, and i list of qualifications and criteria for a project~ So an REP Is • standard way of being able to solicit ideas from a lot of different dfrect~ons ind get those ideas or proposals formatted in a consistent kay so you can evaluate them and compare them fairly_ You had a question also about the reason th~t the RFP issue ;s rlised in conjunction with the SRO Committee's reco.mendations. Tne history of t~1s. is you will remember. is that the SRO Committee was directed by the city council to study the issue of SRO hot.ls. it came forward with. recommendation in the spirit of the Housing Element, I beltev!~ to commit a specific piece of property, the well tower site, fDr that puryose. That recommendation is t~e only recommendation in tne SRO Committee's report t~at the cit, council was ~ncomrortable wit~ adopting is It was written. Tne council referred that recommendation to the planning commission. In .aking that referral, the SRO Committee regrouped and felt that it would be necessary to go forward with a specific proposal to the commission in order for tne CORmission to evaluate land use issu~s related to tnat recom.endation. rt decided that tne former recommendation was premature and that it needed f~rther development prior to ca~ing f~rward through whatever process. Their recommendation, then t on that specific subject was to defer for a year. Beca~se there ~as been so much interest expressed i" the property from different directions in the i~terimt staff is not comfortable with informally accepting all of these proposals without Iny structure~ IS was sug9~sted by the Flna~ce irrd Public Works Committee. We would like to see some structur~ to accepting those proposils. and also, some guidance in what kind of te~s a~d conditions we would be accepting proposals on the basis of. Comrnissjoner Cullen: Aren't W~ breaking new ground here? We had proposals for the Gamble property; W! had proposals for the downtown park north; we had proposals for a n~mber of ~thers. like the vegetable gardens behind the libriry; all kinds of proposals that have gone through the regular process of the cit,. This is a separate kind of proposal, a Request for Prorosal. It re~inds me of when Stanford's property manager sent out requests for p~oposal on the development on property out near Sand Hill without it e.en 'a.ing gone through the process of being appro.ed. It seems to me a mechanism t"t is used by staff to bypass the decisiDrnBiking process that e~ists within tne city. 11/14/90 -5- • • - ------'- lis. LOll: Nat not It ill. In fact, it B sil;ply i aectlanlsll for I~l ... ntloq what the declslonaakers would like to see IMplemented in a bigger structure. The RFP would need to be defined b~ the pDlicymakers befon! It went out, net by staff. We would need guIdance in draftIng that REP fro. the polIcy ... er,. So It Is sl~ly I .ay of structurIng those proposals so that you receIve th .. In I foroot that Is consIstent Ind whlc~ enables th .. to be evolulted fllrly. It Is .y under,tlndioq that it hi' been used before, as i. the G.-bl. Gard.ns process. tPml',sjQDcr cullin: No, it was not. Ms. Lytle: T~is Is the mechanis. thot our fInance department has iterated to ~s is used f~ these sit~at1Qns. so that is why we ire recommending it. it i. not on unusual process. I know that the F1PW coomitte. said that it would inyolve conSUltants, but it does not have to Involv. any con~ultants. Anybody can put together a proposil. You just read through the reQ" .. t for proposals ond respond. It Is .i.n .. to fnling out an Ipplfcltlon. CQI!issJoner Christensen: You Slid there hiS been Jots of fnterfst ]D thIs .ite fr .. lots of dIfferent partIes, but it seems to me that what you Ire actually doing is setting ~p i process thit creates an unfair burden for particular partIcIpants In the process In thlt some of th .. may not be i •• pOSitIon .t this poInt to ... e forwlrd. If you have to have , developoent concept, fundIng source. Ind a time line for your development, .... people .. , be in I better position It thIs point in t~eir thinking to do t~at. and certii~ly in t~eir fundfn9~ For i~stance, for I de~elopeT, bls fundIng sources are very .uy to Identify, and his concept is probably fairly .I.Y to ccae up wIth, whereas • public ogency, like the Pal. Alto Housing Corporation, would hove gr.lt difficulty in putting together. propos. 1 wlthi. I three'month period of tIme, re.ponding to this wh.n their funding SOurces for Iny project Ire very diffIcult to pi. down, always uncertain. It seeas to me that it gives In unfair advantage to cert.in partiCipants. ~St Lytle: !t depends upon what your goal is in the criteria of ... luat;on. If your criteria have to do with public benefit, then I do not feel it puts those organizations at I disadvantage at al'4 [assume that would be one of the criteria. Jf t~e length of time is at issue, the tIme frlMe I. up to the pollc,..ker. to set. We are recommending th.t it be a typicil time fr.-e, but It is up to the council to set whltever time fra.< they wlnt. Cpemissfoner Chrf$tense~: Then r guess [ need to hear from staff why you are recom.ending t~ree months versus I year. "so Lytle: Because it Is Our typIcal RFP time frame. Cntjr-aD Marsh: J understood yo~ to say that three ~ntns would apply to the developoent of the RFP. The REP could then be out in the world with a deadlIne that was whatever we created. ~s. lytle: That Is correct. thait!jD Marsh: So it co~ld be I ~uch longer period than three months for applications. 11/14/90 -6- '" ,._'> - I wIll now open the public he.rlng. Tony Badger 381 HawthQrne Street. Palo Alto: I a~ the presidtnt of the Downtown North NeIghborhood Associ.lion. It Is not .t .11 ,l •• r to me ~o. t~e c1t1 (in decide ~at to do with t~is s1te 9 ultimately. _hen you consider how ~n1 interests are competing fOT it. It is nat It III clear to lei fro. .n eth1ca' point of view, how they can, o~t of all of these proposals. pitk the right one. I feel. however. that there ii a weight t ... rd the neighborhood, as the peopl. there are going to be affected by thIs city-owned property and how it i. goIng to be developed. I feel strongly that the neighbor~ood should ~ave i very strong voice in choosing what they feel fs the appr~prilte ~se for that site. not e~traneous forces that .al have their own interests, voices rrot involved j~ the neighborhood or lfving there. Our neighborhood is being impact~d probably ~re severely than .ny other neighborhood in Palo Alto by the potentIal Sand Hill connection, genera1 development, the Dumbarton Bridge, the traffic e5cil~tfon through our neighborhood. Whatever this site development 1s, we should have a .ajar part and should also have a cornpetin9 vote 1~ actu.lly being part of a development. Ther. has been. proposal by • developer that ~e might ~ork in conjunction with h,m in I partner$h1p to develop this site. I really feel this should be an open process. J 5tron~11 feel tnat the city should carefully search their souls as to how they arrive at a decision as to _ho, out of all of these competing interests, gets the final saj as to how this t~ing is going to be developed~ I really feel strongly that we should make this ~n open forum at this polnt. 'Qlmfssioner CglTen~ [am not sure jf yo~ are speaking in favor of or igii"t an RFP. Mr. Badger: I feel that the R~q~est for Proposal '5 a good idea. That is what [ am siy1ng. The thing t~at mystifies me a little is, what is going to be t~. decision~ikjng process of the citr in determining. out of all these proposals, and some are weighted heavi1), what lind of an impartial decisicnmaking proctss will be set up? It is not at a11 clear to me no~ you do this within the present framework ~f city government. The neighborhood should have the overpowering decision as to the use of that sit!' because they ue the ones who .-111 llve with it. CD!missloner Culltn: And you aTe saying tnot the RFP precess will be more flyorable to the neighborhood inp~t than our reg~Tar city process? Mr2 Badger; It is not at all cTear to me what the regular citJ praces5 is~ This is why 1 am a little confused_ [have seen otner developments go iD, but tnis is the flrst time! have been through something li~e this, IS it is with City-owned land, other than the Downtown Park Nort~. which was I very big battle. Maybe you car. tell me what kind of process the c1t, goes through in determining tne best use of the propert1. "so Irtle: My ~n~erstandin9 is that there are state requirements for disposing of public property, wh'ch invol~e notifi~lticn of oth~r govern.ental agencies. We nave policies internallJ toward notifying th~ hOlJsing-corpontion. prior to disposir,g of pro?ert'es. In this case. huth of those steps .ere taken, and no agencies, intTuding the housint CD~rition, wanted to commit tkis property for their purposes it that 11/14/90 -7- • - • --.~.----'-' ti ... Tberefore. generally what happens is that the co~nctl directs staff to .lther dlspos. of the property by selling It for the highest price, ~fch was recentl, done on sa.e properties that C~ before the C~issicn on & rezoning action, or eTse sa.e other process n~s to be de~el~ped. The RFP process does not hive to circumvent p~blfc hearings or planning Ca..1S5f~" rec~nditfons Dr &nyth1ng els&. [t can be set up so that the pl,n"lng cOBlI.sl.n could be the coonltte. to ev,luat. the propos.ls. Sole other cOBllttee with nei9hbo~ood representation could be established for purpose, of eVAluating those propos.ls. In other words, the RFP process. IS reca..ended by 5taff. is not to circu.vent other normll city revlow. It Is .1~ly I way of orglnillng the lde.s that ar. cooing in so th4t they can be .v.luated under s ... type of fromeoork. The process for doing that can be established by the council, or you can .ake a rec .... nd.tlon on th.t. I would .ssume that that would cooe l.ter .fter we h.ve been directed to go ahe.d with this concept. We would need to est.bll,h (I) the c~sitlon of the RFP and (2) what Is the process for evaluating the propoSib thlt c ... in. . tha!lJH!n Marsh: If I can poraphrise wh.t y011 h.ve just said, the RFP reall, provides a tl .. line Ind a set of expect,tions for .ny applicant. ~s, Lytle: Yes, that is tt, tit, Btd9'r~ [wo~ld j~st encourage tnat tnt neighborhood be made ~ware. We Ire P.Ot experts in ctty 90yern~nt. We Ire trying to live our lives, and we Ire very concerned about what happens t~ our neighborhood. r personally .. uM opprec;,t. knowing what this process is going to be. It now seeRS like even the people Involved do not reilly know wh.t It is going to be. It has to be a process that will be established as to how you decide which propos.1 you will pick. Again, I feel the neighborhood should be • part of that process. Cplliss10ner HYber; Ms. ~tlet the way r read this stiff report. the suggestion there is that .n RFP Is ... re fo"""liled .. thad wit~ so .. structure to It for present,tion of ideas. The way the F&PW committe. seeas to suggest ;t is rully the sae thing. It is just n<lt iI formalized' process. It just says to gather up Idus. Me, Lytle: Yes, do outreac~ to the neighborhood, Sither ideas for i one-year pertod. COMmissioner Huber: followfng up on what Mr. Badger spoke of. in either of those cirCUMstances, at some pof~t in time, I number of jd~iS will hit the desk. At thiS point, no on. ~as yet decided what to do when they hit there. Ms. lytle: That Is correct. Greg (hesson. 1]5 Waverley Street. P119 Alto: I have same senerll CQlnents on the nature of the RiP process, and J have SOQe specific c~nts rellting to this particuhr RFP and IIY concerns about them. In general, an RFP is beth 90ad Ind bid. It Is good i, • sense that it can let anyone who can put two words down on a piece cf piper .ake a proposal, and preswoably, It will be granted eQu.l weight to other propos.ls accompanl@d by I.~er' .nd staff reports and computer printouts. The b.d p.rt of 1t is that an RFP m.y only cr.at. an illusion of f.irness, where 11/14/90 -8- , - o everyone gets to say something, but what t~e city staff wanted to ~appen .11 along is really wired into the background. The danger nere is t~at if JOu put out ~" RFP and don't .ake it absolutely clear what the decis;on process is IS to whf(~ proposal is going to be chosen, you only create tne illusfon of I fafr playing field. The history of this particuliT property is t~at f~ June, city staff floated a report wbic~. to everyone's surprise, Slid, here is this tower site. let's stick an SRO hotel there, and it showed up on the cit, council agenda one night. They could have voted it in without ~ny due process. It was continued dt that city council .eetfng because (121rT, it was the wrong procedure to be using, How it has been transformed into thi5 RFP process. and one fears that this fs being done to giye th~ illusion of fairness and cons,deration of all proposals. I would suggest that, in general, let's have an RFP preces5. It is I good thing, but l!t's let tne city establish i prDcess where the ne1ghbor~ood actually votes in an election+ If you haye ten good proposa~sl 1et~s vote on them. In that way. we know who makes the decision and we know who gets to live with it. Specifically. ~en r first heard about this thing in June, my reaction was anger and dismay at what looked to be a rather se~ere intrusion for a neighborhood. After readj~g the w£ll prepared information by staff on the nature of SRO hotels. what they do and what they are 900d for~ I was more kindly disposed toward it, but I still have some concerns. To the extent t~.t I believe this RFP is re.lll a way to wire in an SRO hotel there and make it Took pretty fair t r would like tc see these concerns be included i~ the RFP process. I have three of them. One ha~ to do with management, o~e has to do with panhandling and drug5 in our ne19hbijrhood, and one hai to do with parkfng and f~ture use of t~is site. With respect to aanagement, one of t~e t~in;$ I got out of readlng the stiff report was that eXist!ng SRO hotels go to great pains to keep them clean and drug-free. An RFP that has to do with an SRO hotel should make certain stitements about preserving that kind of operation. Secondly, there is qUlte a lot of panhandling .nd some occasional d~ug dealing in Johnson Park. Jf ptople are going to p~cpcse an SRO hotel~ I would like to s~e so~one stand up and say that the fr!quency of panhandling and drug dealing in our neighborhood is not going to be affected and would act~alTy be decre.sed if thel plopped an SRO hotel down in the middle of this neighborhood. furthermore, if they say that and it turns out to be wrong, I would like someone to take the responsibility for f;xin~ it in tne future. I have been panhandled not only in mj front yard but in my back yard! My father, an 82-year-old guy recovering from a stroke, when he visited here earlier in the summer, every day when he went out for i walk, he got panhandled. It didn't really bother him because he spent most of ~is working years in New York City and was able to co~e back with some pretty fast remar'ks+ HD~ever, a }ear from now, if he does that again, he might get bopped on the head for his trouble. That is the kind of thing that worries.e. lastly, parking and future use. To the extent that SRO hotels go out of business or chang~ their use structure. such as the (ardl~al Hotel changed, if you build an SRO hotel on this site and you don't ~ave any parking because the people living there are not supposed to have cars. and the thing changes from being an SRO hotel. what are we then left with? Sfxty rooms and 60 cars and people trying to park them all through the neighborhood? A proposal has to make some statement about parking and future use ff the fir!! i~ter.ded use of a structure is not the ffnal use five years from now. 11/14/90 -9- • --. tl5tl,. ff J had to c~oos. between In SRO hot.l on the sfte. which would not be .11 bad, f certafn11 understlnd tht good tkat it does for the city. and chUd care, I would choose child CIte. J bel feve there are Ilore blbles and .a .. fLOi11 •• th.t need c~11d clr. th.n there ar. poop1. and r .. 11les .no need to be 1. In SRO hot.1. So If you ir. going to •• ke the Irguoent lbout the gre.ter good for the city, count the number of people who ~st need a p~rtJcull~ kind of 5ervfce. It fl yet to be proven that you Cln put adequite child CI .. on this site. I do fear that the housing corpor.tlon and city st.ff and others Ire so tuned up about this SRO hotel thot there is not. an ictive and organized enough lobby In the cHy for child care, because all the people .no ar. DOst likely to orgaolze that are unable to because they are busy ta,ing eire of their kids. They get lost i. the shuffle. Thanks for the tiDO. t ippreclate the opportunity to speak on this subject. loy Goldsmith. Palo Alto HOY$'ng Cprporation: J aa also i sometime member of the SRO Committee, sort of .n alternate. I think it is unfortun.te t~at the COMmittee rec~nditiDns went to the council with the statement t~at the property should be coomitted for an SRO. Actually, no project w.s anyomere near the point of befog proposed, and it just slipped in th@re. which was too bad. becaus! [ am not eve~ sure if the site 1s big enough for an SRO of any real consequ.nce. After .11, it is only 75 • 112.5 feet, • little over a,DDD square feet. It may not be a viable project. Regarding the question here of the RFP and the length of time that you are ~oncer"ed w;t~, it see.s to Me t~ere is not~i~g wro~g with .n RFP if you want to put a lot of people to a lot of trouble. Everybody can spend. lot of tl .. making proposals that may just go down the drain. We recognize in the housfng corporltton that we do not hay! any i~side track or any lock on this property, and we would not want to be doing something that is total 1, out of keeping with what the people of the city want. W. are not an independent 1gency that tries to run roughshod over anybodY4 Unless the c .... nlty wants an SRO and wants it in that location, and indeed ~elps·to make lt pOSSible, since you have t6 have a lot of money to do .nythl"9~ and have it be affordable, as you well know. There is nothing wrong with dofnq these RFPs, but we have pointed out th,t you cannot do th .. in a hurry. The •• In thfng that bothered us .as the three aonths for getting t~ings together and another three months to respond does not give an SRO project a fair shake. There .re too many balls in the air about SROs. ~e of t~e thfngs ~ntioned 1n the report is the need to get our zoning ordinances and our building code revisions to recognize that SROs are. special breed~ W~ do not ~aye anyt~ing in the building code for the CIty Df Palo Alto. It has been done in quite a number of c~nities~ San Diego took the lead several years ago~ We ha~e talked w;th Fred Herman, and he is Quite willing to go through the process, but it does need to ~ave a Palo Alto (ity ordinance dri~ up to even recognize a special breed of • small unit that mayor may not ha,e a full bath or kitchen r.cil!ties. It is kind of a hybrid between a very .mall hotel ro .. and a tiny efficiency unit, .omeoher. In the region of 150 to 250 square feet i~ S1Zt, an unusual beast. So we would like to get that prDcess started. Of course, the financial aspects for any klnd Df .ffordable housing, espeeiilly this kind, will be difficult to put together. We would only be able to build an SRO if there is significant suppo~ fra. state or county Dr cit) or ~lYbe even the feds. Speaking of other sites, we have mentioned the possibility of the cDunt1 sito Dn Page Mill Road, whfch the city .. y buy if toey e,er get it , -, " 11/14/90 ·10· .--~ .... -.'""'",... '~~~~~,L "' ..... ' . },:~ - -. i I \ -I ~ ;;:,;~-,::":",,-_,,,;, _____ , __ .-~. ______ .. m_ ... ' ... " ..... ~'". ______ ~_ o .. ~oti~ted with the 'Dunt,.. That might be a good phce for an SRO and .ight lend itself , being on ~ ~jor arterial. There may be one or two other places, 50 all we are real1, talKing abo~t is that we would like to hive I lear's tfme to do t~i5. Unless tne city is desperate for ~oney (and Incidentally. it might not get ,ny from an SROJ. I do not se. anyth1nq wrong wft~ waiting for I year. rt ~IS been there for i great .any years. Ind it is not going away. so 1 would lite to see uS ta~e our ti.e and ~ke sure we do it right. ChJinaan Narsh: The delay se~s to be re(~renced in particular to the deve10pment of In SRO. 1f t~lS commission were to state that it was our feelIng that an SRO would not be appropriit. ,t that site, would thi housing corporation st111 request a de1ay, or ~ould you be in a positf~n to respond ~ith I different kind of hOUSl~g proposal for tnat site in iii shorter period of time? Hr. Golds.ith: I would think we could put together so~ sort of proposal fort uY. senior housing. rt is a tiny site for family hOLlsing, but lt is not going to be affordable in such small quantities. Even if tr.e land ~ere free. we would have difficult, with any kind of family housing. We ~i9ht be able to eake some ~using for the elderly, and if so, we might be able to do that in a six-month period if we get enough funds fr~m somewhere. On the other hand, we might say the best deal for that is iii 202 proposition ~hich only comes up once a year with the federal govern~nt_ rf we ~iss t~e timi"g on tnat, we have missed a year. So that is i little ~ard to reply to. After all, most any project we have bUllt has taken anywhere fr~m three to five years? so that is the kind of t1ae fra.e we generally work in. C~atn-an Marsh: It does seem to me that if tnis commission has any strong f~elings about the SRO issue, yo~ might appreciate hearing tn~se tonight. ~~olds.it~: Sure. We are not beating the tub so hard for an SRO that we cannot look at other possibilities. Tbis came ~ut of the deliberations of • ComMittee that said, her~ is J piece of ground in kind of a main location, so what about an SRO? That was the subject of tne study~ Ron Hall. 1152 Channing. Palo ~lto: J am a board member on tne Palo Alto Housing Corporation~ r have also participated in the SRO Committee f~r three years. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation is only one part of thii SRO Committee that has been meeting for a n~mber of years. It is not our com.ittee. It is i committee in which we part?cipate, so we have not necessarily been the ones whQ ha~e been steering the committee. Tne people partiCipating in it are interested in housing, interested in affordable housing. ana interested in the SRO issue in the entire city of P.1. Alt •. With regard to t~fs site and the RFP, I do not remember there ever being a direct offer of thi1 site to tne houslng corporation. There was never a request from the housing corporation for this site. Again. the idea of the possible SRO use on this site carne out of the committee is a whole. As Mr~ Golds.,th hentioned, it was unf~rtunate that the wording wfnt forward to the council. There was no intention of that type of wording. The intention was to have a consideration? is any otner consideration would be for this site. That is the way it was left. ] have been involved in RFPs on i number of different levels. J am in the 1l/14/9C .]1. • , ". ... o construction industry. and we use them ill tne time for various things. ~.v. been Involved not only In P.lo Alto but In otner cities In finance and public works whe .. I send out RFPs for different types of capital loprov ... nt.. HiVing been In tn. plonnlng field for, number of yeors, there are only I few situ~tfDns that I can r~r (and none in Palo Alto) where in RfP .as used for disposition of • city site. Agafn. re1ter.tfng Lou's statement. it takes I long tiae for a non-proflt organization to develop RFPs. If you are gOing to compare tne time line it takes for a non-profit .fth various types of ffninC;"g and i prirate sector developer for usfng up the same amount of ground. it probably takes about four tl .. s as long for the non-profit. We cannot go to just a b'nk. We ha.e to find specific funding for. specific use. We have to find specific funding thot reflects the aMOunt of money we need, tne specific funding that BaY r.flect the interest r.te, that •• y reflect the type of people we are going to serve, whether it Is inco~ or fa.llies or seniors. All of thesp things take. great de.1 of time. Plus, we would ha.e to go through the saMe process .s the publiC process would be to do SOMe zoning considerations. the neighborhood consideritions, and any nu.ber Qf ot~er considerations tnat need to be taken into account. So I am here to reiterate tnat tne RfP p~ocess, as applied to t~js tower well site, needs to hive the consideration to take into account any type of nonaprofit ~se t~at does not have all of its ducks in a row, timewise. ChairmtD Marsh~ You stated, and I certainly agree. that non-profits face particular burden. In prep.ring proposals to develop .ny kind of develoPDent, si~11 beCiUS! of the lack of resources t~at Ire available. That brings up I question for IN!_ If an RiP process or a 'ttructure was created that defined tne e~pectltions for any o~e development or anyone parcel, it seems to iDE! t~at 1919M l1ake it lI1UC~ us;er for you to respond. For example, on this property, if we were to say in the RFP proposal tnat wh.t we really want to see here is low-income hDusing of a type, then it see.s to ~ that gives you an advantage, then go ahead and prepare a developoent propo.al. Mr. Hall~ Yes, as long as you realize that we cannot just go to our local banker and say, I want to borrow I amount of money. Even the search for funding can take. year_ Chairman earsh: Yes, b~t what the REP might do for you is to eli~inate loese ends and help to focu. effort •. Hy second question is this. I believe t~at you are the only member of the SRO Coaoittee pre.ent tonight. As .taff has correctly point out, the dispoSition of the water tower site is only a s~all part of what we are discussing tonight. We will be ma.ing comments on the whole SRO Report, as well: I want to ask you if you have any general comments yo~ wish to .ate on that? Hr. Hall: J haye some quick general comments. After partiCipating in t~1s process for tnree years, it fs amazing bow muc~ you Tearn as time goes on. It took us an lnorcHnite imount of time to learn abo~t tne whole anfaal itself. the h~less issue, single-rooa occupancy, the relitionsbip between SOCial services and Single-room occupincy and other places in Santa Cl.r. County and statewide. All tho.e facts and figures and concepts took. long tiDe to be digested. It wa. very applicable and -->L·.~.· .... ,., "'-, .. 11/14/90 -12- • o fort~n't! that the State of Californfa asked the various ~unicipalities in Clliformfa to dedicate a portion of tnefr housing element to this type of issue. the hoeeTess issue. So we addressed t~at, toc. It is apparent tftat vovern~nt is becoming aware of this situation and that every ca..unft1 has the need for some of thfs type of housing. 5i~gle-room occupanc~ housing. So we, as a committee educated ourselves, tried to ca.e ~p w't~ a number of parameters. As lou mentioned. the building ordinances need to be addressed. The city needs to be interested ~n ca.ing up wtt~ I new kind of animal that is not really around. San Diego, $anta Ba~lrll San FranciSco, Portland, Seattle have started using an~ere from s~ll ones to big ones. yo~ see t~it thert is a great deal of shapes and types you can ha~e. but it is sametning tnat takes a cDnsiderable ~unt of tiF.e and researc~ to develop. Ther~ is an ;ncredible need. ~lI-~t1!B~..,l~f-!!!l:~!,J1r.~",-{P~l ~A~l~t~o: ] wa nt to echo tn e COlM'Ie n ts Greg Chesson. They iddressed t~e issue t and tke issue is not SRO hotels. It is the zoning and use of the well tower site. There Ire bi~ conflicti~g uses there -the high-d'ensity AbiUre block. and the Jow-density neighborhood north of downtown. What we have here is somethfng l1ke the medical (enter complex, ~ith a transiti~nal region. The Question is, what kind of densit1 de we want to stick down tnere. It seems to ~ that when this ReQuest for Proposal is prepared, the neigh~rhQod, as advocated by both Tony Badger and Greg Chesson t should particfpate, and some guidance should be given in those propo:als as to w~at kind of de~sjt1t and in particular, with the tremendous threat of the Sand Hill Road tr,ff1c coming thrDugh thtre, serious c~nsideration should be gi~en to .11owiog some uses to use Hawthorne Street and act~ally block it, ~king the site MOre valuable. ! have one question. Are some, all or none of tne properties of the pa10 Alto Housing Corporiilltion exempt frem taxes] ] feel it is i relevant question for the eva1uation of the proposals as to whether there would be income for the city or not. Chiliman filarsh:-Thank ytlu. V{lU tla'ie made the point on t~e record. Fred Everly. ]01 Aima Street. Palo Alto; from the Board of Directors at 101 Al~, ] have written a couple of letters to the p1anning commission regarding SRO hotels on the tQwer site. Generally. the concerns at leI Alma have been that for an SRO hotel, it ;s not an ideal locotion. It is not really corrrnen~urate 'IIo'ith the housing arei adjacent to t~at site. There are three sitES in the downtown area already. The location of any new SAO hotel should be scattered in the tit]. The SRO~ are not really compatible wit" a neighborhood reSidential area, ought to be more in the core of a commercial area. Ttle question tonight is not that alone, but is with respect to Requ~sts for Proposals and what your suggestions might be to send it back to the Finance Committee. It seems to me that being a planning commission. you ought to put contingenCies on what you think could happen on that ground. There have been a couple of other speakers who ha~e expressed concerns 110n9 that way. Ird like to give yo~ a few t~at Ire il -1 _indo One is to rule out SRO hotels for that site. Anot~er Dne WQuld be that parkfng ~a5 to be on sit@. We are already congested with parking in that irea, so you would not want to illow anythIng to be buIlt there that woul~ have to use street parking. lot cDverage shou1d be similar to what the reSidential areas are adjacent to J 1;1~!90 • J J. \ " ~ .•.... ,. -- , , f - that sfte. One ~th~r major concerfi for the residents of J01 Alma are tne ~elght. you .Ight consIder on or,y develo_nt at that site. thank you. Jon $chink. 1146 H,.tltDD Ayenue. 'Ilp Altp: r would ltke to say that J favor tne itlff recoaaendatlon. with one lOdii1catio~. J would encourage you to allow at l.ast sIx mont~. for the RFP proc •• s. Th.t i •• bout how long It wIll take to stl.ulate all the creativity th.t Is going to flow forth fo this process. Eventually, you Ire gOing to h.ve the dlfflcull chlll.nge of deciding the proper zoning. There I, no queslion Ihat through the RFP proce.s, I 101 of good Ideas are gOing to ~ fleshed out. It will give you a lot of things to consider, but you will still have to deterolne the zoning. It will let. lot of people In the communIty put logether their Id.as and present th .. to you so you can see how they would take shape on this property, .nd see what works. Also I would Idd th.t If you .lloln,te the possibilily of an SRO .t this time, you would get I lot .are interestfng. creative proposals coqing forward. My sense In working with the neishborhood with one Idea we had was that people were llmost rushing to the propos.l that we h.d as .n alte~.tive to an SRO. If you push the SRO aside, I think you will get. better di.logue on whether child c.re is the right solution, or whether It should be an art g.llery, I 'ingle·famlly residence, etc. So I would encD~rage you, if you can aake t~at decision to~ight. to tnink along tnose lines. Thank you. 8gb Wgpds, 19$2 Louts Rpad, Pile A]t9: J am a member of the Numan Relotions Commission .nd 0 board ~r of the Palo Alto Housing Corporltlon. I spelk to you tonight IS I .. mber of the Human Relations COIDlssfon. I .. also 0 ~r of the SRO Coomitte., but not .s • member of the Polo Alto Housiog Corporotlon, if we Cln .11 follow that! I he.rd tne discussion on televisio~ tonight, Ind heard Chainman Mars~~s question to lou Goldsmith IS to what types of uses would the housing corporation propose for the ,Ite. That CluSed .. to get Into my lutomoblle and drive down here. T~e issue 1 want to speik to is that as I human relations commissioner and member of the SRO Committee. J was a strong advocate for the yelr's delay in the RFP process, because there might be other public benefit' that should be conSidered before we dispose of this property. The belief is thot the lime frame you ,re proposing is way too short to oove forward with child care or to .. ve fo~.rd with SRO or with any other public benefits that SDOeone I;ght COle up with. The HRC is itself debating the relative benefits of h.ving child c.re there versus .n SRO. If we took. poll, I think the HHC would come down towards an SHO because ttlit is where we have been, time after tilDe. ill OUT 'fotes. 'We, too, would like to h.ve the time to debate whether there should be something related to h~n services on this Site. [do not understand what the fire is in .. ving forw.rd with an RFP process. Heither did the FlPW commllt... They said. let's all ha~e in open debate about this over a year~s time and see if we Cin come up with a proposll, then move forward. Irv1n Dawid. 161 errant Street. Palo Alto: r. to~, am a member of the neighborhood that fs going to be .ffected. I would like to make it quite clear that when the Downtown Neighborhood Associ.tlor. speaks, it speaks for the people whose views they Ire advocating. They do not speak for the neighborhood. I .. here beclu'e I .ant the city to address the problem of the homeless people living fa the El Camino Park irei and surrounding areiS of Menlo Park and Stanford. As J see it, this is one of the 11/14/90 ·14· • - o o greatest probleM t~at o~r community has to face. dld some investigation and was very pleased wit~ the report that r got. I learned Quite a bit, and 1 would like to take Issue olth some of the findings of the SRO C~ittee. They aent10n that SROs should be considered I vital part of the low-income housing stock, Dr something like that. Anybody who reads that report can s •• that out of the thr •• SROs, there is only one that is affordable, the Barker. 1 called up and found out that the current rate i. $15 per week Dr $100 per month. The other two are in the neighborhood of $ll5 per week, $500 per aonth. Somebody who Is •• king minimum wage, working 40 hours, Is pulling In $170 per week before ta.es. How they can afford $125 • week Is beyond... The Barker Hotel Is 1 imited right now to people with disabilities. They hav. , soti,l worker there who works with the people. I take not. that last w.ek, th. City of P,lo Alto is going to be loaping Dr 9;~ing to tke Pi'~ Alto Ho~sing Corporation something like 52 million so that workln9 families Dr sing'!-pare~t families can live in affordable housing. 1 thin~ [ r.ad in the paper that those units currently rent for $900 to 11,200 for two bedrooms. Now all tney ha,. to do is pay one·thlrd of their rent. That was very commendable, but I thought about the people who live in the park. and who .re working right nov who cannot afford first, last and a deposit. To move into my place which I share, 1 had to come up with 1900 for first, la.t and deposit. 1 am only paying $400 a month, and J am lucky that J had the finances to do it. A lot of these people do not. I ~Q~td also like to address some of ~y comments t~ the community. What ~ hearing in ~y community I can understand. but [ hope the city council and planning commission can identif~ it for what it is. I refer to Ni~yis.. pure and simple. We have to ne1p the homeless, but not in our neighborhood. My rell interest is actually in public transportation. [ recentl, attended a meeting i" Menlo Park for the Oumbarton rail. Everybody is. for better transportation, but don't put the train through m,l' back yard. Today on the ABC news, I heard something about drug treatment prograMS. They defi~itel, address Nimby. Nobody wants to have a drug treatment progr~ fn their neighb~rhood. The drugs are in their neighborhood now. The homeless people ire in our neighborhood, and the tower site 1S an ideal place for an SRO. It;s ideal because of Hs locat;on~ Its location is near to the urban ~1nistrJ across the railroad tricks. It is rlear UH~ Palo J.lto transH center. one of the best phees 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 now. J took a walk through the back there. I saw the shopping cirts~ We have i serious problem and it has to be addressed. An SRO is one way of addressing it, prowjding we keep it affordable. I don't think we should charge S125 i wee~. The whole point is that there are people who are living in the woods, some of wh~m are ~orking. some of whom are getting some type of check, and I am sure they would like to get out. 1 got somewhat angry when I heard th. gentl.man from 101 Alma ll.ting all tne reasons -my we should not have an SRO site there. When I first moved into the neighborhood, 1 thought that apartment building at 101 Alma didn't fit In. Talk about hOight. Th,t i. the t.lle.t thing in the neighborhood. I thought it was an eyesore. I conSider myself a~ enVironmentalist, and I realize that it is good to nave high denSity housing in certain areas, so It aakes sense~ and I said, okay. it's not that aesthetic Tooking. but it does serve I purpose. But be nentioned parking. In one of the articles that c ... In the packet which you sent to me mentioned that out of SOD residents who lived in SROs in Cnicigo, only five people had cars. If 11/14/90 ·1 S· ······::...>=L·· ..... . . " ' . -t, ~. . _ . ,~ • _.' ' ., \. I I I l - they cou1d .fford I car, they cou1d offord an apartment. Speaking Df cars, r;g~t now on Alma Street across the street from the tower site, ~It do YDU se!? Yin after yan, car after car of ~eople living in their .ehieJes. It is ,trociouS. That wIlole .... is being destroyed by the h ... less people. My helrt goes out to them, but at the sa.e ti .. , the irea is filthy, and you ,II know wily. The homeless popul,tion in the £1 Comlno Plrk ,re, and downtown Ir.a has to be Iddressed. Eirller this e.enlng someone spoke ibout plnhandling and drug trafficking. It is • problem that needs to be 'ddressed. Giving people the option of .. vlng into' place that they can .fford rand $75 a week .. tes I lot of sense). I lIsa think it makes, lot of sense to get, little tough with some of these people. I call it the Art Agnost approach th.t d.llled for two years at the civic center. He fin.lly said. we are going to provide shelter for the.e people Ind then tell them they h.'e to "ye out. r think that i. , pretty good approach. You can't just tell th .. to .. ye out unless you gl.e th .. an ilternatlve. [view the SRO .s a very hei1thy Ilternative. I would lit, to retIlind everybody that people here are gofng to be paying their own way. TOis is not gOing to be welf,re. Thes. people Ire going to be working and .ome of them are getting disability checks. They will be plying thefr Own way. Right now in the report, ft showed that people who live tn SAO, spend SO·70 percent of t~eir Inc ... for rent. In tMe place that the city just bought. the Oakaont converslon t they are going to be paying 39 percent of the rent. and they -nl1 be li~ing in nite apartments. One person said on tne radlo t~at we sbouldn't do t~lS because people ire li~ing above their means. I don't think anybody .ould ever want to live in an SAO. It is like a closet. s... of the thing' the city con do to help Is i. th.t parking iSS ...... t thing. [cl.arly think tMat if they do not have vehicles. that is wanderftil t~at they do not. ID conclusion, I ~iew the SRO as a real asset. We are addressing t~e homeless proble. right w~ere it exists. The cfty counctl or planning commission is going to have to be I ltttle courlqeous, because there .111 be. lot of people who .ill be offended. We don't ~ant this kind of people in our neighborhood. Well. they are ilready here. nank you. Chairman earsh; S~nce I ~aye n~ other cards from members of the publiC, will clo.e the public hearing and return thiS itea to lhe ~l.nnlng COMission. Commissioner Cgl1en: I ~ave a q~estfon on ~rocedure. As I read t~e item before us. it Is the report of the Single·Room Occupancy Hotel Committee and the recommendations of that c~lttee. Tne packet arrived with tne staff recommendation ta prepare an RfP in frant of the recommendation for the Slngle·Roo. Occupancy committe.. I considered the st.ff reCOMmendation an addendum I and r am wondering why it preceded the item which is agendized for tonight. Ms. lytle: [think it .as j".t simply because generally the staff report fs the first thing th.t the secr.taries put together in a packet. Th,t is the onl, re~son~ The~ are used tD having ft is i cover sheet. That fs generally our format. Cpomissi"ner [.llen: Th.n [ wo"ld like to colI the ittention to the caa.;ssion that the fact tnat the real issue before us is tn! report of the Single· Room occupancy Hotel Coomitt.e. and not the stiff proposal for 11/14/90 ,16· • H ! ' Ij ~. I .. In RrP. In teras of proc!dure, HadaN Chairpers~n. J would li~e to su;gest th.t we foc"s ~" that before w. get Into this RFP business . Cbafn!in Hjrsh: That, in fict, was what! waS going to propose to you, so [ accept your recommendation. We w~11 turn to the Slngle-RoON Occupanc1 Report, whIch Is the secono page of the stiff report. At this point, w. will tike comments and questions on tnat report. As I see it. there are three Issues that art delineated In that report, other th.n the future of the water tower site, The first Is proposed modifications to the building code to facilitate SRO construction; the second is a recommendation to preserve ,existing SRO units vh; pubHc and private efforts, is opposed to t~e use of a conversion ordf~anc,; and t~e t~1rd ;s to disband the S1ngle-RoDm Occupancy Committee. There are some specific recommendations following that, which generilly summarize the issues I just enumerated. Are there a~y comments on the other issues contained in the SRO Report? CO!pi$stoner Cullen; When you say ·other issues· do yo~ mean other tnan tho.e you just enuDerated? Chat""n Marsh: Well, if you find other issues. CQ!!issfoner Cullen~ Ho. the ones you have enumerated are, in fact. the i~ortant substance of the SRO Committee~s recommendation. Chafnaan Marsh: I simply meant other than discussion of the water tower site, whic~ we will defer, for the moment. (Qmlissioner Cullen; I am fn agreement with the SAO Committ~e's reco.mendations, excluding the water tower site. They have gone into the (act that there needs to be i lot ~re stud~ Df ~ans to obtai~ the desired end of producing more SROs, and that ft is a general policy rather t~an a specific Site of policy. I endo~se the commlttee's recommendation Nos. 3 and 4. and we can discuss Hos. 1 and 2 later. There is also No.5 for disbanding. If they want to disband, I guess they can. CommiSSioner Christensen: I have a question about the disbanding. In the body of the report, they talk about th~ ~ommittee having time to develop a phn for constructing new SRO housing. and thClt is the reason for the request for the delay on the tower well site. If tney are disbanded, ] do not understand how tney Cin continue to worl on that issue. If it is befng turned Dver to some other body, such as tke housing corporation, perhaps we should turn it over more fonnally. Mr. Hall: I think that the general feeling of the committee wa~ that it was not the purview of the committee itse1f to develop a specific proposal. If in fact, one agency or any group in the community 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 cOimittee was onl1 to study the issue and to come up with what facts we could, and ~ke recommendations fro~ there. CQlmissioner Chrjsten5en: That 5t,11 leaves me conterned that no one is specifically c~arged with follOWing up on this iss~e. J believe it is a very important lssue, whether or not the well site is under consideration. As lou Goldsmith mentioned, there Ire other sites that are possible. and certliDly are being pursued. The Human Resources CommiSSion 11/14/90 -17- • . .. \ -.-1 I~ ! ... his been fnvclyed and should cQ~t1nue to be involved. from my perspective. 1 see I role for I continuation of I committee of some sort to work on the issue. Ms, Lytle: There fs a reco.mend.tion here t~it staff commit technical support and Issistance in Iny of these proposals. J think the Human R.l.tlon. C..mlss!on I. probably the lpproprilte coomlttee for follOWing the fssue .nd will continue to do so. But this partIcular commIttee WlS organized for I speclfi( purpose in response to SOMe issues t~at were very urgent .t the tl .. , wilen s_ of our locol 5ROs ....... under thr .. t of being .old. r think they have provided thot function, and I do. not feel it is necessary to keep th .. becau.e they have fulfilled that (.nction. Their reCo.Iendltton is Iccur.t~ and t~e specifft proposals will C~ from a varfety of dffferent sources. Tho cfty will continuo to provide technical support on &n ongoing basis, is directed in our Housing £lesent and againt as stated here. Ch.frl@D Marsh: J wo~ld underscore sDmet~ing that ~s. lytle referred to, and that is t~e fact t~at we have, in the time since the committee was foMBed and reported to us, incorporated a w~ole SRO section in the Co.prenensive PTan and Housing Element, so ~ have certainly deSignated a priority by that lction in future city planning efforts for 5RO developoent. Of course, that does not speak to Exactly who will do it, but it does set it iD I fr.mework~ As CQlD1ssfoner C~llen pOints out, the Palo Alto Ho~sing Corporation is designated in t~e Single-Aoom Occupancy Room Committee recommendation as the agent to explore construction of new 5RO units. I think what the 5RO ca..ittee has done was to invest I sense of ownership in t~e housing corporation for SRO issues. They ~iY not be the final body that winds up doing a development. but I believe they sense that a transfer has taken place. Seefng no other comments on the issues raised in the SRO report, we will aove to the water Site ind potential disposition of that parcel~ Cpmmi$$jgngr Huber: It seems to Be that for whatever reason, it was unfortunate that the RFP water tower sit. came _long with the SRO proposal, becauso they are re,lly separ.te things. There Is tho SRO ispect of what this community 5~ould be doing. and there is an issue of a city-owned piece of land ,nd what should end up on it, if anything. 50 I look at what we are talking about now is a question of the city owning some land, and what are we going to do wit" it. That could be anyone of SO or 100 different uses, although r.a1istlc.lly. that is not possible. I personall, think that S~ form of an RFP would ~ake some sense, for the. si~le relson that I believe lt forces organizations or individuals to get serious .bout whit it is that they think they should or can do. So I would support s_ form of loose RFP. I believe J heard two t~i~9S. One is Haney speaking to about three months for staff to develop some type of guideline, which then becomes available for those people wishing to make proposals~ Tne issue r seem to be hearing fram people in the audience, is how much time do yo~ have after that pOint? It seems to me that six mont~sl or nine mont~s or a year after that would be a reasonable ti~~, because there aT! thing5 like SROs or low-cost housing or designs t~at include the tower to remain there for 11/14/90 -IS- • , \ .'-- - • ...." 12 , _I, -_ o conda.fnfu.s. that w111 ill tik~ I lot of t;~. Because it is In area t~at loplcts In existing neighborhood th,t his, heck of lot of problems already, I think it should go slow, wit~ plenty of time for people to get their t~Dughls out on the table. As an old neighborhood .cll,lst fro. , nearby are., I know what It felt like to be somewh.t co-opted In tenos of things that were going on. So it Is Yery Import'nt the neighborhood be fncTYded 1~ so.e fashion or lnother. It does not ~a~ in tht end that what t~. neighborhood wants to h've happen would happen, but at le.st the voicel are tnere throughout, ind t~at Is extremely jmportant. J do not know how lOU devise an RFP, b(Jt however it is done. it shou1d be broad .noug~ so th.t anyone can come forward with whatever they think is approprilte tc put on that sfte~ If [ were to sake I reconmendation to the city council, I would s,y we should do that --take an extended period Df tile to alTow whatever 1de.s there are to come fo~ard. The next questfon is, what do you do w~en they are all in front of you. don't think that is a Question we can inswer. Jt see~s to me that that goes back to the Pilt1CY and Procedures Conmittee to say, now, that you have .11 these prGposals. who decides wnat is the procedure? What is the public heorlng process, etc. That is somet~lng we have not been asked to do, however. eq..issloner Cu'len: Tbis is i land us~ decision, not an F&PW dec.sion. ]t seems to me that the very machinery that an RFP sets 1n motion, Step '1 ineYitably leads to Step 'ZO, and I see no reason to rush into .n RFP. T~! reason t~at was alleged was for considerat'on of an SRO. Now] see tne SRO cOImtttee. and we have endorsed it, look at the whole SRO situation throughout the (oRmun1ty. So to zero in on the well site in ter.s of the c~nitywide need for SROs is, I t~ink, a .istake. [feel it is i .istlke to set 10 mot1on an RFP. The only RFPs I have ever been fa.1liar ~th fn the city have been for capital improvenent projects, not for land use. ]t removes fro~ the planning commission its charter deSignated responsibility for land use, so I a~ not in favor of an RFP. whet~r it tlkes three months or six months or a year. I think that the land use proposal should CQme before the commission as a land use proposal. Given He guidel ines of VIe Compr'ehens;ve Pl an, we are as good a body as any to set up crlteria for judging proposals for that land use. I do not see propos.ls being put In competition with each other. let the process go i~ it always has. Commissioner Cnristgnsen; ] concur with Commissioner Cullen. It seems to De it is backwards .-plinning by RfP, instead of dOlng the planning first. We lire starting a fairly fOl"ll11 process requiring some very specific things and some very elaborate things on the part of applicants before we have decided what we want to see nappening on the parcel. It is backwards from t~! way we do every other kind of city planning. We usually deCide what we .. ant to de .. ·ith a piece of property. then send out requests for propos.ls to people who want to build the kind of thing we ar! looking for. So 1 see it as backwards planning. I also think that it works against c~11d care or the housing corporation or any non·profit organization because they do not necessarily have the ability to put together the elaborate kinds of proposals that can come forward from other sources. I do not really understand the impetus or the justificition for t~is and ] a. not prepared at this time to support the concept of it. 11/14/90 -19- - Ch"n1in HIrsh: This is an interesting discussion for me, because I hear thing' fr ... 11 of you thot I completely agree with. [think what we have here Is possibly a problem with nooencl.ture. One thing I. very clear. Tbl, h.s been a ~ungl.d process, so far. We do not do anything on the water tower site. and we got forward a proposal that ca~sed complete c~aos In the neighborhood. We got It on a leyel that po.ed so many surprises to neighbors that the project, for .11 practlc.l purposes. was torpedoed at t~at point. tertai.l" if an SRO fs ever developed. it ~as an immense sount.ln to cllob wlthl. the neighborhood .I~ly because of the lack of process that we have experienced so far. Commissioner Chrfstensen is I&lklng about the ,.eed to do land use planning. C .... lssloner Cullen mentIoned this as .. 11. When I .Iew an RfP proposal, that is what [ see a' the point at which lan4 use decIsions are made. We would look at the Site, and we would say, from a land use point of wfew or a humin service pOint of view, what .hould be on this site. We would .ake judqments about that; .. would decide thIngs like, do we want to go for profit on this .Ite? Do we want to consIder an SRO? What should the height be? The .ery ba.lc Is.ue. would be Inyo1yed •• any of which haye been touched upon by .peaker.. We would take those issues and trans1.te them into a set of sta~ards and expe<tations for developers to come (orward. T~e work we would do on setting up the land use deci.ions a~e.d of time proyldes the fr • .ewer' for propos.ls is they come forward. Maybe the tItle "RFP' is the proble. ~ere. ~aybe .~at we want is some ;ntermediary point, a set of policies that we would like to see carried out 0" t~fs piece of property. Dr ~ set of expectitions that we have. Perhaps t~e problem with an RFP is that It kicks In too ~c~ complIcation into the process. If we .imply lelye t~f$ whole process iTone and let inything come forward at any time, that is the bIggest abdication of Our land ,se responsibilIties that we can 1.agfne. In that case, we are giving no kfnd gf direction to any developer fa the community as to w~at we see as being appropriate on this parcel. Staff has no standards from which to ey,lu,te proposals that may land on their desks. CQlmissfoner Christensen; 1 agree with you that we should not necessarily leave the property alone, but it is the wrong choice of words -Request for Proposal -mean1ng something ver1 spectfit, CnainDtD Hjrs~! The question, then. is can we devise i process here that takes care of issues like a time frame and i structure and a set of expectations, but does not have the connotltion that I think some of ~5 are feeling from th! Request for Proposa1 process. which you have experienced as being lOre formal. Commissioner Cullen: You may be right about the nomenclature. The fact 11 that an RiP is a very technical term, and it is a request far develo~nt, and it has always been wsed that w~. We have not used it in t~e citJ, b~t J see staff sha~in9 its head. So you want to comment? "s, Lytle: Yes~ Requests for Proposals can be for a~ environmental i~ict report. They can be for .ny project. It Is not .1w.ys a reQuest for deYelopoent. We Issue an RFP if we are going to bire a consultant to do an en\l~rDfI_ntal technical study. Commissioner C~r!sttn<en: That is ex.ctly right. They .re .aking , proposal. They are coming before you and saying, we can d~ this better, we can do t~is for less ~o~ey, and this is how we would dQ it. It is very 1l/14/90 ·20· .... '. , • -, ........ .. AS •.•. o specific .nd tied to .0methlnQ .peclfic. It I. not a request 'or 'wh.t would you like to do with thl. property?' It is not something that the nefghbor~ood is 1~volyed in, either. Neighbors have not sat in ~hen we ~ave let contracts to developers. It is not an open meeting. lQllfss1QDer Callen: So ~aybe there is an intennediate ground, and not I.sue an RFP. I would like to sU9gest that we reque.t staff to come back to u. with stondards for the deyelopMe.t of this peeperty, In terms of l.nd .se, and suggestions for Yarlous llternatlYes 'or the deSignations that we 019ht put on th.t property, and what use. might come under these d •• lgnatlon.. Then we would decide where to go from there. Cb"raaD Marsh; I think we are on tne right track, but what you have just proposed puts the whole •• tter In the h.nds of the st.ff. Wh.t we have ~eard over and over agafn is that we ~eed I process that says, we nave a parcel bere, we need neighborhood fnput, we need land use considerations, l.t', work together .s a group to c ... up with a set of stondard. by which we will judge future applications. Commfssioner Huber: When I said J wanted an RIP, the reality of tne staff report to us is just that. The F&PW has asked for Dloosey goosey· suggestfons in tenDs of what to do with the propert1~ As I understand it, staff disagrees with that fluid approach and suggests th.t something a little .. re fo_Hzed ought to exist. When I was hiking about an RFP (eyen call it a Request for Philosophy), I was looking 'or something that defines it a little, so that you don't have .omeone suggesl'ng a Great A.erlca Park, for Instance. Something i little ftCre controlled than th.t, a llttl. ecre formal than what the FtPV ComDlttee •• nts but not something as technical as the last fifty cents worth on the bottom line. Ho. you do that. J do not know. but tnat is .Y view ~r it. With a little $truct~re, you will wash out .cae stuff, ind you prob.blt ought to do thaI. Commissfoner 'ul1en: I think we could give the~ ~ few recommendations tonight. It;s a public piece of property. and we obvi~usll do not want it tg go 1nto private development. We want to have some publ;c good to co.e out of it. They are ilways giving ~s recommendations o~ changes in the land us. deSignation, and they do not seem to shilly·.h.lly about that at Ill. 50 J do not understand th~ir reluctance abo~t not having enough direction tD figure out what to do with that pro~ert1. and t~rn it all over to sOle consultant. I am reilly against that. We can set up i few recom.endations tc the staff right now. Maybe we should continue this ite. ~ntil we ~ave a full commission. I certainly am not willing to go .long with the RFP tonight. Chairman Marsh: I would hop€ we do not ~ave to continue this item. would like to keep our recommendations to process, how to deal wlth this, rlther t~a" debating the merits of one lind of proposal over another. Th,t Is what we are .11 about tonight _. what process i. tne staff going to ~se to eVlluate proposals that come forward. CPlmI55jDner H~ber: Maybe I am ~tsunderstlndjng this, Commissioner (tillen. but J do not sense that the F&PW Committee has ne,~ssarily excluded privite development on that site. "so lytle: Tnat is correct. they have not. 11/14/90 ·21· • I , , - --. ~19ner Huber: COIInfssfCiner Cullen was talkfng ilbout publ ic benef; t, ,nd It could very well end up that the city council s.ys they will put It on the .. rk.t like .nother well site. Ms. lytl.: lb,t Is ~at happened recently with two other properties, without the benefit of this kind of process. In other words, this kind of proce.s would not clrewovent the noraol lAnd u.e deelsionmoklng. the zone chinee, or .nythlne el •• that WQuld nOnollly COMO before the coemlsslon. It ¥culd be In Addition to what nOMlally COleS before you. ChaiQliD Marsh: In proposing the RFP process, ~DW would you have AntiCipAted 90lng about setting up the criteriA for that RFP? Ms, lytle: I would issume that it would be done after direction is provided frog the council on ~at types of t~ings need to b. Included In the RFP. What Is the structure for It' First. It WQuld probably need to go t. F&PV to get that recONlendatlon .. de on ~.t Is our policy on this property, Ind finally to the city council to give us the scope for the RFP. Chiiraan M.rsh: How wculd you have included the neighborhood ;, th.t process? Ms, lytle: The neighborhood wou:d be Included bec.use those are ill public heir1~s. I would ass~me we would continue to contict the same .. Illng list we ha.e .ttached to this issue. These people have been following It, and It would expand through tl... The neighborhood outr.aeh would be the same IS conducted on t~is report, plus the notiCing before the .eetlngs occur. RFPs ~ decided with neighborhood input. We just hid. slngl.-f .. il, design guideline RFP th.t hid public testiMOny at the Policy and Procedures CaMlltte. level before t~e RFP w.nt out. So it is e .... n to hive neighborhood input. CPmli$sfgner Christensen; I still continue tG see this as a land issue and s ... thlng we should be involved fn. not just th.t it goes through FAP\'. Chai~n Marsh: Let me make a suggestion to get something on the floOf. What if we were to appoint a small subcomMittee of the planning com.ission t. take this on. notice the .. etfngs to the publiC, take input from the publiC, come back to the planning commission with eight or ten criteria in a land vse foraat, for that site, and debate those criteria. Ms. lytle: Yes, t~en you could forward those criteria to f&PW for their consideration and on to tne city council for final action. C~airmtn ~arsb: T~at is the consensus of .mat J am hearing up here. We need to tackle the 1and use questio~s involved here; we need to give some direction t. staff on how to deal with it. and we need to be f.lr to potential developers in the community. They don't want to be out chasing things we would never consider. This may achieve sa.. of ,II of those objectives. 'Qlmisslgnrr HVber: Does t~is essentially ~an we would write the RfP? Ch'!noan Kar'~: There seems to be some dis.greement .s to what that RFP 11/14/90 ·22· ~----~ . • " , i ·1 ... ~ ~-":., -·'-~e ·" __ .-.: ___ -___ 1_-_______ ·_ o Ictually consfsts of. Yo~ hive planning commission ~bers sUQgestfng thlt it is ~ch .are technfcIl than land us~ decisions might b~. CQmI'$$1oner C~l]en: I don't know whether It is because we have not had the f.ll COIIIprehensfye Plan before fus for 0 number of years. We haye be.n dofng It fn pfe<.s, but ft SeeDS to me that we ore getting further and furt~er iWIY fro. cons1deritfon of ite.s or of specific sites and theIr fncl.sion fn the C.-prehenslYe PI.n. It needs to be stated that this site, a~ whatever disposal is ~ade of it, needs to be consistent with the goal' ond policies of the Comprehensive Plan. That is whether it is done by 0 ,.beDROltt •• or by wh.t,'er body. I .. a little confused about the role of the flPV, sInce the planning commission recommendations usually go directly to the city council, not to a subcommittee of t~e council. ~jnlin Marsb: Since t~ts 1te. is before us, J sU9gest we attack it on planning grounds, and what we or. suggesting Is very appropriate. Then the flPW can ... lgOMat. their sugg.stions is they wlnt with whateyer crlterlo we come up wfth for development. Ms. Lrtle~ The reason that the FIPW 1S involved i~ because that is where the tower well site RFP recommendation was made, at one of their ~ettngs. Frankl" their tendency was to det;de to have no REP. Just have i waiting period of one year, whfth was t~e recommendation of the SRO COIIRittee. But tflere was no neighborhood representation at t.hat meeting~ and they were concerned about doing that without the benefit of • public foru. lovolving the neighborhood. Therefore, they delayed their action until the cOAI;sslon conducted thl' ... ting to heaT what yOUT recoamenditton an the SRO Commfttee~s report was, ~icn includes the rec~"dation to defer this fss~e for one year. That is why your rec .... nd.tlon will be passed back to the flPV, because they 'Te the body where the issue of whet~er Dr not to let an RFP is now under conSideration for reCOimendatfon to tne counCil. CQ!lissioner Huber: Jf we proceed as Chairman Marsh has suggested, before actually undertaking any activ1tJ. do you go back to the subcommittee of the council and say. this is what the plann1ng commission is proposing to do? Ms. lytl,: I assume it would be prudent to i~form them. I also assume they would be wflling to wait. They s .... d to be in no hUTry at their aeeting w'fUt regard to this property. I iUI pretty sure they would be more than vllling to w.it if you want to appoi~t a subcommittee to give specific land use direction. ComMissigner Huber: My question is, do you go to thero for t~at direction? We could baye a committee and come up ~;th suggestions, and they could COle back and say, we wanted something informal and that is what we still want. Hs. Lytle: I assume they could do that. Sut tneir po,~t in not taking t~at action was to hear fro. you prior to taking it. Their tendency was not to disregard your input. ChairP'" Marsh: And I .ight add that what the cfty cQuncil has repeatedly told us is that they want our best land use expertise. So J think _e have • .. ""c\,· co.e to I point =f Ig~eeMent as to ~ow we C~~ gt~. that to thes~ [a~ r.ady to .. ke ... tlon. ~: Cbl'OIiD K,rsb: 1 .. ,. th,t the planning commission adDpt , sube ... ltt .. , t~e Tower Well Sit. Subcoomftt.e. to look at the land u'e fssues t~at are I.,olved 10 potontlal dev.lopoent of the tower well site ,nd t. cr.at. a list of crlterl, tb,t should be considered in any propo,.l fo. tbat • it •. ~, By C ... Issloner Collon. 'halOlio Marsb: let it be cl ••• that t~l. should be a .hort-te .. sube ... ltt... We hav. a falr1, slip!, task In front of us. Wo cert.lnly want to get Input from the neighborhood, f ... the heuslng corpo.atlon. and f .... anyon. else ""'. would like to spe.l< to us. B.,t we should not be ,pendlnq l "",01. l.t of tl .. on thl •• noTION PASSES: Ch.irtan MJr5b~ [s there any further disc~ssjo~ on t~ts .. tlen? All the •• In f.vDr, .ay Aye? All opposed? That pa,ses una.IMu,ly. Wh.n .. inltl.1 .. eting of th.t ccamlltee Is ,et, can we agr •• to seod "otific.ticD to tho •• people whD were notified of this item tonight? Ms. lvtl., , ... (hairPin e.rsh: let us defe • ...oer,hip Df the coomltt •• until Noyember Zath. END OF £J(cElU" -24- -- ------------~-- ------~,.~ .......... Q .... '--- EXCERPT Planning Commission Mi~utP'5 February 27. 1991 AGENDA ITEM 4 Report and recommendatIons from tne Tower Well Site C",""itte •• Cna1r1@D NaTsb: Are there comments from stiff or commissioners? Commissioner Huber: [t~ougbt this report _is fantastit in the way it was hId out. C~.jrman "a!1h: I would echo that. I thought It w.s a outstanding job. I ha.e • couple of small changes. In Ite~ S(a), I would like to add after 'child c~reJ SRO hous;n9~ 19W-jncgmg family hDusing, etc,-so that we get sa.e other Dptions in there. Also under Sed) I would like to add 'Use and des;gn compatibility with the adjacent neighborhoods,· based on our earlier itea tonight. I would like this Item to be Slc) and mo.e (c) down to 5(d). The order does suggest prIorIty. Under 8lb}. where It says, • A written descrIption of:' I would like to reorder the TtelllS ttl at follo..". for the same reaso~. first [ would like -How the project will satisfy a public benefit or need;' second, "How the project will be compatIble with the adjacent residential neighborhood ... ·; thfrd, ~tne nuBber and types of residential ~nits, if any;-and fourth, ~at Is the planned disposition of the prop.rty ... • Under 9(d). I would lIke that to be the last Item, as 9(.). I am making these comaents because r feel t~at since this n~ighborhood accommodates a lot of different public ~eeds. it is more and more incumbent upon us to make sure the neighborhood is considered in all future applIcatIons. ~: Commissioner Glazier: I move approval of the repert. ~: 8y Conalssioner Huber. MOTION PASSfS: Chai ... n Marsh: All tho'e In fa.or, say Ay.? All opposed? That passes 6-0 with Commfssioner Hirsch absent. Mr. GillIland: That will go to finance and Public Works on April 9. Chairman ~ars~: Can someone attend that meeting? (Coomi,sioner Cullen can probably attend) • -.". , I I I ' I "