HomeMy WebLinkAbout0320.091--~-~-~---~---~---------------------~--~
. ---::',-
Jun. 13, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUNeI l
Palo Alto, California
330 EVERETT AVENUE
Members of the Ccunc\l:
REPORT IN BRIEF
~t the May 29, 1991 Planning Commission nearing. the Commission unanimously
. recorrmended (6-0, with CommisSioner Cullen absE:llt) that the City Council
l?prO~e the Planned Community IQn~ <hange and approve the proposea Yiriance to
front setback and daylight plane for a reSidential devslopment at 330 [verett.
The. Planning C.~!llt1ission stiff report is a.ttached. and minutes Qf the P1an.ning
Commission meeting are in your packet.
PLANNING COMMISSION CHANGES TO STAfF REeOMMENDATIGN
The CommiSSion recommended cManges to t~o of the conditions of approva1 i~ the
attached staff report:
Condition 2d, which required the applicants to pay an in-lieu fee for
displaced parking spaces, was eliminated.
tond'tio~ 2e was c~anged to read:
-if ne 326 l"ttefl ,f'8jeet is 'Hit EBFlstFI:iEtEdm~mUe fjl;ltlie fja'f't~--1-*
(wEst seet ;8'" ef let K) . E:~ai,'IS a~-. He", t.l:lel"E s~a.ll l;Ie-mf\-e---pC:sest¥i a~
*<ess ~ni'iee6 fret\ He fl!'ii:r ef tke 33'4 ( e ... et-·_ tll"-&-.}~t, ~'iPEe U's
... alilEl! l"e~t:!iF'e waHiFi~ HFelJg~ tl:le paF'ltiR§j 1* .. I'!i:~ is flSt a saf-e--~
fe' seA;e~ c~~ An ~ntr1 ~ate shall be provided in the f~nce a1~ng
the rear, property line to prov!de access for visitors to the site from
the adjacent publt~ and private parking l~ts. A gate for emergency
access to the rear of the site sha" be pro~ided.
Staff does net have a concern regarding incorporating the Commission changes.
fINANCIAL INFORMATION
Attached ta tnis report is the applicant's proposal for financing of the
project and their request for City partiCipation. T~iS informati~n has not
been completely reviewed by staff and ;s being provided iiS irlformation to tl'le
Council.
("'R:32~:91
L
I
.-,"
• =
Tne prCiposed fina.ncing of the projtct and the r!Quest for use of (it), funds
will appear as I seplrate item on the Council agenda (ollowing the proposed
Planned Community Zone change.
jn b~ief, the applicant is p~oposin9 tc use federal fun~in9 u~der the Section
202 pro9ra~. stite flJnding under the Rental HOlJs ;,ng Coro.stl'"uct iv" Program,
pri.ate fund. and City fund.. Proposed City funding would include $655,000 of
COBG landba~k funds to serve is a land aCQuisiti~n loan to payoff the present
owner's bank loan. These funds would be repatd to the City and lil'ou1d become
part Clf COBG Program Il"o-:ome funds and 'IIIIc.I'J1;j be I~inlble foT' reuse ~n the
future.
Approxi •• tely 1300,000 of City of Palo Alto Housing Res.rve Funds are being
requested 1?i the form Clf l grant to be used to pay for amenities to the
project~ These lm€nities are items that ire not allowed in the cost
containment requiremt!nts of the proposed HLiD funding. These items include the
balconies and dormer wi"do~s wh;,~ ~ake the project fit better into the
noighborhood.
Additional information and staff recommen~ations will be made prior to the
July I, 1991 City Council meeting.
RfQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE
To ciate, six requests for contir'luance of this item ha .... e been rece~\I'ed from the
immediite neighborhood. Additionally, staff has not tomp1eted its re .... iew of
the attac.hed il'lformaticn frolll the applicant regarding fiTlanclng of the
project, including i request for city fUnds. For these reasons, staff is
reco~nd;ng continuance ~f tne item to the me2ting of Ju1y I, 19;1. Totally
unre1ited to these requests, staff notes that the public hearing notice for
the meetin9 ~tate~ that the Council will ·continue consideration,· 1ne
Cl~rk~s Office has reported that t~e wQrding of the ad was in error and
cofncide"tal, unrelated ta the publjc requests.
RECOMMENDATION
St.aff reco:rmends Hat the City {oujlcil continue this item to the meet'ing of
July 1, 15191, because tne advertisement for the item describes the ~earif19 is
~cont;nued.· This wl11 also satisfy the re~uest5 of surro~nding prope~ty
own~rs and ~ill a110w staff time to fUrther Te~iew tne financial suwmary
information.
Respectf~Jly subm~tted,
~/ ", 1~<;'~ ~--<-/z" ~ -5'''"'..-....'-'--~ _ ... ':......
VIRGINIA WARH,ll
~en;or Planner
i~UN.t~~ C~:~::::;
Assistant City Manager
CMR:31O":,,1
p :\C)\R\E~eret t
-
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Plannjng and
Community Environm~nt
6/13/91
Page 2
•
I
r
I
I
•
,
I
I
""",.';'.,.;" .;.
.~< ' .... '. ,>
...,. : ..
•
-
•
Attachments: Environment a' Assessment
Ordinance
Planning Commission staff report dated May 24. 1991, with
the following attacnments:
1. Oevelopment Program S~aternent from the Applicant
2. Development Schedule
3. Varlance ReQuest
4. letter from Jim Baer, April 4, 1991
5. Lett,r from Jim Saer, May 2l, 1991
6. lytton IV Auto Projections
7. Summary of Auto Use at Lytto~ Gardens
B. ,~inutes of AR8 meeting, .~pril 18, 199]
9. MinutE'S of Planning Commission meeting,
february 17, 199]
10. Planning Commission Staff Report. February 22,
199]
11. Minutes of ARB Prelimi,Hry Relliew, May 3, 1991
12. Supp1emental InfonllCition about lytton Gardens
Lytton l'i-Everett Avenue Senior }1clJsing FinanCial Proposal
Letter from Melissa Biggs, May 30, 1991, requesting (o~tinuance
Letter fror:l Joseph Meyers, May 30, 1991, reqLiesting continuance
letter from lrv Brenner, ~ay 31, 1991. requesting continua~ce
letter from Ndncy Ple1bel~ June 3, 1991, requesting co~tinua~ce
lttter from Loretta Cesari~ June S, 1991. requesting continuance
Lett!r from Patricia Ward-OoTkas, June 7, 1991, requesting
continuance
PTans {Council Members on1y)
cc: Architectural Review Soard
Carrasco & Asso{;htes, ]20 HamiTton Avenue, Pa10 AHo, (A 943Dl
The Martin Revocab1e liwing Trust, 2345 Yale Street, Palo ATto, CA 94306
Nancy PJeibel, 30] Bryant Ccurt, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Tony Badger, 38] Hwthorne AverlUe, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ji~ Cesari, 138 Bryant Streot, P.lo Alto, CA 9430]
Joe Meyers, 301 Bryant Street, Palo ATto, CA 94301
Ral~h Cressman, 360 Everett Avenue, Palo ATlo, CA 94301
Andrew Gottlieb, 30; Bryant Street, Palo Alto, (A 94301
Lora Smitn, 162 Sryant Street, Palo Alto, CA 94JO]
~at~l.en Craig, 101 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Marvln H. Feinstein, P~ O. Box 1461, Pale Alto, (A ~4302
Jim Morley, l60 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, C~ 94301
Irv Brenner, 250 Byron street, Pa10 Alto, CA 94301
uorotny Me~riam, 365 fyerett Avenue, Palo Alto, C~ 94301
Me1issa Biggs, 301 Bryant Street, Pa10 Alto, ~A 94301
loretta Cesar}? 238 Eryant Street, Pa10 Alto, (A 94301
Patricia Ward-Dolkas, 412 £~erett A~enue, Palo Alto, CA 9430]
CMR:l20:!1
p:\CMR\[,.rett
6/13/91
Page 3
• , -
.~
,
.. ~
, .
,
I
J
,:,,~ .', "::...-
':'>=--' -~~~~
ATTACHKENI 1
Envlron~nt.l Documents -City of Palo Alto
EHVIRONHEMTAt ASSESSKENT
tocatlon/Addcess: 324~340 Everett Avenue, Pa10 Alto CA
Sponsoring Agency/Applicant: Carrasco I Associates; Community riou~
Jnc~
Address and Telephone of Applicant: 120 Hamilton Avenue, Pi'O Alto, CA,
94301 (4J5) 322-2288
Zonin9 at Project location: R/HD ree Receipt No.: 90-'05
NOTICE OF DEHRIIJNATION
Based upon review of the project files~ the undersigned member of the Planning
Oepar~nt has con,1uded:
IXI Neoative Detiaration: The J::rnject nas: no signific.,a,tit en'Vironmental
;mpiict. !~o [nvironmental Impact Report; s re"lU ired. The rs:asons for a
Negati¥e Declaration are:
documef1ted 'iii the attached EMirol'ime-nta' 1m act Ass.ess1'l'Ier.t 90-Er,e..-rn __ ~
A record 0 project action is ivai ab e or Ti!view it the Palo P .. to
PTannfng Department located at .250 tamfltan A'~enue! Palo AHa. CA.
I_I lhe project may ha~e , S~9nifjcant environmental impact. An
£nviTlInm-ental Impact Repc!'"t will be prepaTfd. J
Planning Department DfffA.l: _ t!~1-
Phnning Director: L~''1f ~l Date: feb. 4, )99)
Tbe project has been a rOlleJ'. Date:
The project has been d~n'ed.
Revi sed 8/1/79
-
Oate:
file No.: 50·EIA·55
90-EIA-5S
1
I ,
!
\
I
•
I
I
I
!
'-~--'¥.
..... '"<l
Envlronment.l Oocuments -CIty of Palo Alto
INITIAL STUDyl.2
l.
11-
II!.
Project TI t le/ Address: _J",3~OwE.!Y,!;..!:r.~t~t~A:!.v",.n",u",.,-___________ _
IV. Environmental Impac! Cnecklist ,Explanation of all ·yes· a.nswers are in
Section V):
1. Earth. ~!11 the prop."l result In:
&. Unstable earth cQ"ditions or changes
in g!ologic substructures? ~
b. Disruptiuns, disp1acements, ~om?&ction
or overcovering of the-soil? ...!....
c~ Change in topography Dr ground surface
relief fe.tures? X
d. The-de-structicn, covering or modification
of any unique 9~~109ic or phys\c.l
feitures? X
e. Any increase in ~ind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site? ~
IAd.pted from Appendix I. C.liforni< Guid,line. for Implement.tion of
CEQA. December 14. 1976.
lUpd.ted May 1982; June 19BJ
EIAFRH 90-rIA-55'
1
'.
-
"
'0..:., :~ .• ~:
ElAFP.K
-
f. Exposure of P~Dp1e or property to
geologfc hazards su,~ as eart~Quakes.
llndslides. mudslfdes, ground failure,
or Similar halards?
g. Cbanges in sfltation, deposition. or
erosfon w~ic~ ~ay mod!fy the chann!'
of a river or the bed of a bay or inlet?
Will t~. proposal result In:
a. Substantial air emiSSions or deteri~ri~
tion of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectional odors?
c. Alteration of air movement. mOisture
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regiona1?
3~ Water. Will the proPosll result in;
a. Chlnges in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or t~e rate and amount of
surface water runoff?
b. Alterations to the course or flow of
flood waters?
c. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
aTterat;on of surface water Quality,
including b~t not 1imite~ to temperature,
diss01ved oxygen or t~rbid:ty?
d. Alteration of the direction of rate of
flow of ground waters?
e. Exposure of people or property to water
rt1ated hazards such is f100ding or
tidal waves?
f. Change in the Quantity of groun~ waters.
either tnrough direct additions or with
drawals, or through interceptions of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
_1_
90-E1A-SS
3
--.
I
I
1
_1_
ElAFRI!
~~~----~---
(. Pl.nt LIfo. VIII the propos.l rosult In:
I. Chang~ in t~e d'iversfty ef s~ec:ie$. or
numher of any species of plants (Incl"~
f~g trees. shrubs, grass J crops, micro·
f10rl and IQuatic pilnts)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any 1.inique,
rare or endangered specfes of plants?
c. Introduction of new speCies of plant.s
into an area, or in a barrier to t~e
normal replenishment of lxisting specfes~
d. Reduction in acreage of iny agr-ic:ultural
cr"p?
S. Anima1 life. Will the proposal result in:
i. ~~inge in the diversity of species. or
of any species of animals ,birds, land
ar.imals including reptiles, fish and
she1lfish, bentnic organisms. insects
or microfauna)?
b. P.eduction of the numbers of iny unique,
rare or endangered species of anlmals?
c. Introduction of new species Df a.nimals
into a.n area, or re~ult in a barrier to
the migration or movement of animals?
d. DeteriDrat!on iT! existing fish or
~iJdl;fe habitat?
6. Noise. '.'ill the proposal result in;
a. Jncreisrs in existing noise levels?
b~ Exposure of peopl e to $tvere no; se
levels?
7. Lignt and glare. Will the proposal produce
ne~ light glare?
B.
9.
Land ,-",se. Will the proposal resuH in a
substantial aTteritio~ of the present or
planned land use of an are.?
Enerry/Natura1 Resources.
reslJ tin:
Will the propvsa1
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
en!rgy?
....... _rt ......... ··, .. ;e ... i!'w ... ~.~.~.-.. '.,_ .. _-."--
-
x
90-ElA·55
4
•
x
x
, ,
f
l
I
r
•
EIAFRM
-
&. S~bstlMtlal fncrease in demand upon
txtstfng source~ of enfrgy. or require
the devtTop~ent of new sources or
enerqy?
c. IncrelSe fn the rate of use of .any
natura' resources?
d~ Substantial depletion of any nonrenew
able natuTll resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Does til. prop ... ! i",olve •
risk. ~f an explosion or the nltue of
l1.zardous subshnces {including. but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemica1s or
rad:ationJ in the event of an accident cr
upset?
II. Popul.tion/Housing.
i. 'iill the proptlsal aHer the location.
distribution. density. or growth rat!
of the human popuiaticn of an BTea?
b. Will the proposal effect fxisling
hcusing, or create I demand for addi-
tional howsing? ...L
12. Transportalion/Circulalian. Will the propos~'
result in:
I. Generation Df substantia1 addit10nai
venicu1ar movement?
b. Effects on ex;sti~g parking facilitie~.
or demand for new parking? ~
~. Alterations to prese~t pattern~ of
circu1ation or movement of people ind/
or goods?
d. Increise in traffic ~azards to motor
~ehicles. bicyclists cr pedestrians?
13. Public Services. Will the proposal ha .... e an
effect upon 9 or result in a need for new or
a1tered 90vernmental ser~ices in any of the
fol To ... ing areas:
i. fire protection?
b. Pc1}ce protection?
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
90·EIA·55
5
f
f.-
I
I
! ,
l
, .
f
t • f
-
--.~,~~*i:_~ .,
~~l'
>,;;:.;,. ..... '
".:. .
-; .... "
EIAFRM
e. Molnto.inel ef publIc f.cllltl.s,
hlc:1udfng reads?
f. Other 90y!~~mentll services?
14. UtIlIties. WIll the prepes.l result In I need
for ~ew sy;tem5, D~ substantii1 ilterltfons to
the fellowlns utilltles:
15.
16.
17.
18.
I. POW@T Dr natura' gas?
b. Commun1catfons systems?
C" Witer?
d. Sew~r Dr septic tank?
e. Storm water dr.inage?
f. So1id wast! and disposal?
Human Health. Will the prcp~sal resu1t in:
i. Cre.tio. of ony he.lth hozord or
potentl.l he.ltn hazard (excluding
lIIenhl he.lth)?
b. Exposure of people to pote~tial heaTth nUirds?
Aesthetics. WIll the propos.' result in the
obstrucUon of any scenic 'r'ista or vie~
ope~ to tne public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive Site open to public view?
Recreation. Will the proposal res.ult in in
impact upon the quality or quar,tHy of exi.s.t.
ing recreational opportunities?
Cultural Resources.
I. Will the proposal result in the altera
tion of/or the destruction of a
prehistoriC or historic archaeological site?
b. Will tMe pioposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric Or historic building,
structure. or object?
90-EIA-SS
£
x
x
NO -y
L
x
'.
!
I ,
i
!
[
1-
I
I
f
(
'--' ,--
•
--:i;;,."_
•. ~ .... -".~ •. -. \~~
.\ .
...... I
-'
•
-
•
v.
[ IAFRIt
19.
c. DOfS the propos.l ~ave the potentia'
to tl~se I physlca' change which ~ou'd
affeet unique cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existir.g
religious cr sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
Mandatory Findings of Siqnificance.
•. Doe. tne project no,. tn. potential to
de9rade tne Quality of the envir<:lnment,
.uostantially reduce tne habitat of •
fish or wiTdl;fe species, cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop below
self~sust61ning leveTs. threaten to
eliminate a plant or a~imal community.
reduce the number or res.trict He rang!'
of a rare or endangered plant or anlma' or
eliminate important examples of the major
periods of Californli history or
preh1 story?
b. Does the project have tne potential to
ilchieve short-term f to the dfsadval'ltage
of long-te~, enVironmental goals? (A
short-te~ impact on the environ~ent is
one which occurs in I relathel1 brief.
definiti~e period of time w~ile long-term
impacts will endure well into the future.)
c. Does t~e project ~a~e impacts which are
indivfdually limited, but cumu1atlvely
c~nsiderable? (A project may impact on
two ~r ~re separate resources wh€re the
impact on each resource is rel.tively
smal]~ but where the effect of the t~tal
~f those impacts O~ t~e environmen~ is
significant.)
d. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial
adverse effects on human b~ings, eitner
directly cr indirectly?
YES
Exp'a~ation of ·yes· answers in environmental checklist.
See attathed.
--"::l-"-_-"'~ ....... """'-....... _"" .. ""
I ,
. __ , ____ "'" .8.
_x_
90-EIA-SS
7
r
i
,
r
I
r
I
I
t
t
I
r-
!
I
I
1. (uth ~b,fl) ConstnJ,tfon cftheproje,t wOl disrupt site 50i1$ and resuH
fn .inor-c angu to sitl!' topography. Since all plrk.ing will be at grade. a
~i"1mUM amount cf gr~ding w111 be reQulred. A detailed grad,ng and drainage
pTa~ shall b~ required for re~iew Jnd approval of the City engIneer prior to
issuance of any grading i~d/OT bui1ding permits.
Z. Air (a' Demolition of the ex;stf~g structures and construction of the new
buildings will temporlTtl, result In In increlse in dust emTsslons cve~
existing ambient afr conditions.
10 redute dust levels during demclition a~d constru~t~on it shall be reQ~irfd
that exposed earth surfaces be watered (reque~tl1 during the Tate m~rn'"9 and
it the end of the day, ..... ith frt!quenc:y of watering increasing on windy days.
All streets Ind naul routes Shill be c1eaned dail,. Spillage resulting from
hau1ing operat;ons along cr across any public or private prop!rty shall be
removed immediately and paid for ~y the contrictor. C~st nuisanc~s
eri9~T'.ite;ng from the contractor's operations. either inside or o'J.tside the
right·of~way shall be controlled at the contractor's expense.
3. Water (a) The development of t~e site will result in mino~ alterations tQ
exittin~ dra;nage patterns. A d~tailed dri1na9~ plan 5~a11 be required to be
approve by the Citjl ETlgineer prior to issuilTlce of i Bunding Pemit.
4. Plant life (a) The proposed ne~ deve10pment plan ~ilj ~esult in an
increased nLrmber of treo!s on the siU. Most of the Site beyorld the front yard
is presently paved, and the on1y trees on th! site ire two cedar trEes
apprDximately 14 inc'nes iTi diarnetert which wlll be removed. 1"'e proposed r1eOll
b~i1din9 and tke underground 9arage Ire set back from the D~opertj li~e 1
minimum of 20 feet Gn three sides of the property. providing adequ~te pllntinq
space for medium and large size trees. Twenty-eight new trees are propo.sed in
the set~back lTeas. The applicant should provide and implement a protection
plan Rrepared by i certified arborist for protecting during construction the
t .. o Mlgnolia strtet tree!. in front of the property and the existing trH.s. on
adjacent pro~erties to t~e north and to the south of the project site.
S. Noise (a) C<lnstructiCln activities \Jijll result in temporar-y increases in
Toea' ambi~nt noise-levels. All construction activities shall be subject to
the prOVisions of the City's Noise Ordinance. Chapter 9.10 PAMC.
6. Light and Gl~rt The project w,11 result in a slight increase ~n light an~
glare generited from the site. It is recommended tnat all exterior lighting
be shielded and directional in order to minjmite light and g1are impacts on
adjacent residential uses. A fi~al ligh:in~ plan sha11 reQuirt revje~ and
approval of the ARB as p3rt of t~e fina1 1andscape plan prior to the j~swance
of 1 building permit~
7. Population/Housing {b} There is currently a long wait, appro~imately two
years, for below-mark.et·rate hous jng units for independent Seniors ,t lytton
Gardens I~ These proposed new housing ~nits will serve the same populat1on
and help to address the unmet need for this type of ho~sing. The need for an
increased number or affordatlt housing units is identified i~ the Housi~g
Element of the Comprehen~ive Plan. PoliCY a~ Program 19. of tne Ho~sing
Element calls for support of agencies that provide ~ovsing which mets the
nee~s of 1aw and ~oder.te income senior citizens.
EIIlfRM 90-£lA-SS
8
-
.•. ".~ .. -.
I
I
t
,
·::';i~i~;~·~ .
~:~·~:{~!1";~~~;
".': "r;;':f'~:<~';<:"
.... ·=;.,.:~t:.~2:;~~::;..~~r_-..;.. ....... _III!IJiI!!'-.,.,.,,~., .. , ..
,
, ,-
,
-
8. The proposed three visitor parkfng spaces
in t e rop-o iTei S own on t, e proposed: phrl.S Ire :not IdeQuate. The
number of visiter parking spates sh~u'd be incr!ased and i drop-off arel
provided ~ich ~oe$ not impede ether traffic enter~ng and exiting the site.
The prop~sed S3 u~dergrou~d parking spaces Ire expected to be Id~~uate for the
propo.ed 51 unit.. A Survey conducted In June, 1969, by the lytton G,rdens
stiff of luto us. at lytton G.rdens ( •• e .tt.cned) found tnat only Ibout
one-fourth of the residents had caTS, and that tMe average frequency of
residents usfng t~eir clrs was about 15~ per day, Time-Saver Standar~s For
Resldentl.l Oevelopment by Oe Chllrl recommend. the number of p.rking space,
for elderly housing should be lS·SO% of the nu~beT of units. ~o~e If tne
nousing is fir fro~ public transit and amenities and less if the housing is
ccnvenfently located to transit and ser~ices. is is the case with this
proposed site wflfch is nnr tne Senior Center. Johnson Park.. lytton Gardens
ind Downtown.
T~e Transportation Division has det~rmined that the expected increase in the
number of dally trips will be con.iderably l.ss t,at 100 trips por day. and
tnat this will not amount to i significant increase in the amou~t of daily
traffic on Everett Street nor in significant p.m. peak hour trips.
g. Utilities (d) Heasure~nts taken by the Utilities Department in December.
1983, showed the 6 inch sanitary sewer on Everett Avenue peaking to over SO~
Df full pipe. A E inch sewer 1~ considered to be at capacity when it reaches
15~ of full pipe. An upgrade of the E~p.rett A~Enue sewer to a~comodatE the
;ncrelsed capacity required by the proposed project will be the responsibility
of the project developer.
£IAfRl1 90-rIA-55
9
•
,~..; .. "'je4."
f
! , ,
f
f ,
!
-
.ill! __
ORDINANCE NO.-=~~~
ORDINANCE OF THE cO[J}lcIL OF THE CITY OF PALO }.,LTO
"..!'lENDING SE-l."'!'ION 19. os. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO M" .. 1NIC
HAL CODE (1'l!E ZONING MAP) TO CHANCE lHE CL.'$SIFI
CATION OF PROPERTY JQJOIli"N AS 324~ 328, 330, 33:2,
334 A.1<JD 340 EVERETT AVEN1.JE _fROM Rl'l:-J 0 TO PC
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDA!N as
follow-s:-
SEcrrOH 1. Section 18.08~040 of" the Palo Alto H'.micipal
Code, the "Zoning Map"~ is herepy amended to change the zoning of
certain property known as 324, 328, 330, 332, 33~ and 340 EVerett
Avenue (the ·subject property"J from the -RM-JO Medium. Density
Multiple-family Residence Di5trict~ zone classifica~ion to the ~PC
Planned Ccmmuni ty DistL'ict lf zone classification. Said propert:t is
5ho~..m on a map attached hereto as Exhibit tfA'II al'ld incorpcrated
nerein by reference.
SE~JON 2~ The Ci~y Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The use or Uses proposed for the site are of s'Jch
characteristics that the application of gene~al
districts or cocbining dist;':icts """ill not p::-ovide
sufficient flexibIlity to allo ..... tee Frc-posed devel
op;nent, wnien .. "ill provide housi~9 fer Ie, •• and ~.'E~l
low iT,cOrte seniors. The increased density and
decreased parking requirements .. ·ill alloW' a g~eate-.r
number of smaller units suitable to older persc:1s,
thus serving a larger nu:her of persons needing this
type of hou5ing l and Y~ll reduce the cost per unit,
thus mak.ing the units affordable to persons \"ith 10" .. ;
and very Ie. inco~es.
(b) Development of the subject prope:-ty under the
proviSions of the Planned Cortlmuni ty District ",:ill
resu~t in public benefits not otner~ise attai~able by
appl ication of the regulations of general districts or
combining districts I in 't.hat housing for lov a.~d very
lo~ inco~e seniors is a public need, considering Palo
Alto's aging population, and that this type of s!r'..all,
affordable units is not being prc",lided in the
community by other projects.
(c) The use pennitted and the site develc!"r:ler:t reg-ulatior:s
applicable .... ithin the district shall be consiste::-lt
~ith tne Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and existing
and potential uses on adjoining site.s or -withir. the
general vicinitr. in that the permitted use (i.e~~
~.ousing for 10\01' and very 10 •• income senicrsl r.dll haVe
;r.inimal traffic or noiSE impacts on the ~urro'..lnding
neighborhood, and that the deve lop:::lent prcj ect
proposed to be cer"Lstructed on the subject prcperty
1
!
t
I ,
!"
I ,
f
-
C' .;
:. '~~';'~':
-::.... -
:. ~~~~:~~~,::-";~
.'-""-lIli>'_~
vill turther the policies and prog~a~s of the Hou3ing
Element by increasing the supply of rental housing,
pr-ovidinl/ smaller, attordable units, providing housing
which meets the special needs of senior citizens and
by taxing advantage of finan~ing availabie from other
levels of government (Programs 9 and 15~ Policies 8
and 11).
SLCT10N 3. Those. certain plan5~ entitled WLytton IV senior
Hcusing--J30 Everett, Palo Alto, California-prepared by Carrasco
, Associa.tes~ given Architectu:;:-dl Review Board approval on Apr-il
18, 1991. a cOPi:~ of 'Which is on file in tbe Planning Department,
ana to which copy referer::ce is hereby made concerning the full
particulars thereof, are hereby collectively approved as the
Development Plan for tne subject property pursuant to section
18.68.120. Said Development Plan is appro .... ed for the fol1c·.,-.ing
uses, and subject to the following conditions:
(a) Per!t'litted Uses. The permitted only use shall be
housing for loW" and very 10"-incoi:'le seniors, and
accessory uses incidental thereto.
(b) conditional Uses. ~o uses shall be permitte~ in this
zone other than that us~ specified in paragraph {a).
(c) Site peyelopment R.egulations. The site develc,p:::i1ent
regul:ations governing the subj ect property shall be i~
accordance with the Development Plan.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements. 'I'he parking a':"'lc
loading requirements qoverninq the subject property
shall be in accordance ~ith the Develop~ent Pla~.
(e) Special Requirements. The following conditions are
made special requireme:;;ts conditioning the approval
granted by this or-dinance;
(lJ If the Q\oIII1er of the pro:rerty kno'.rn as 325 Lytton
transfers ten feet of property located at the
co~on property line bet~een the t~o properties,
which is to the rear of the subject prcperty,
the trash fa-::ili ty shall be relocated to that
rear ten foot area. 'the PASCO access to t:he
trash facility in such case shall be tro~ Lytton
Avenue. If the prcpe:rty line remair,s u:lchanged,
the trash shall be located in the basement.
{2} Pedestrian and emergency vehicle access to the
parKing lot shall be provided at the cont."r.cn
property line l~cated at the rear of the subj~ct
property.
2
~ , ,
I,
i ,
-
tJ) Th£ o~~er of the subject property shall obtain
tram the City of Palo Alto ar. easement for
vehicular access through the city t::arldng lot
known as Lot 3r to provide access to the garage
rarop ..
(4) The ow~er of th~ subject property shall obtain
from the owner of the property k..~o1Jn a:::; 325
Lytton an easement for vehicular access acrcss
the 325 Lj"tton property to the garage rartp and
for e~ergency access to the rear of the subject
property~
(5) The o',met" of the Subject property shall obtain
frotl the OW1'ler of the property kno-"n as 325
Lytton an easement for ve~icular access a::-:d
egress from the subject property and across and
from the 325 Lyttwn property onto Lytton Avenue.
If the redevelopment of the 325 Lytton property
provides an opportunity for a cocrdinated
circulation system with the subj ect propert}~.
the location of the access ease::n€nt required by
this paragraph ~ay be cba~ged in a~cordance with
such plans as may be approved by the City
Counci 1 for such rede.veloprrLent.
(6} }. secu.rity gate sh~ll be provided at the botto~,
of the garage ramp.
(7) T;.ro Class 2 or Class 3 bicycle parking spaces
shall be provided near the er.trance of the
building for visitors and short term parking.
Some Class 1 bicycle parking shall be provided
for residents, wi tb. the n;J:'r.ber ~ desigr. ar.d
location to be determined by the Transpartatic,n
Division in consultation \o;ith the c .... ·ner of the
s\.l.bj ect proper.:.y.
(8) If, after the per:mit~ed use on the subject
property is in operatlon~ it is determined t}'
the o· ... ner of the subject property that all of
the tandem parking spaces provided pursuant to
the Developrnent Plan are not actually needed l
the o-..rnez-' may request Architectural Revie· ... Board
approval to reconfigure the garage 50 as to
provide t.o .ay circulation, replacing approxi
mately eight tandem parking spaces.
(9) The o-'''!1er of the subject property shall Frovide
\{i th the final landscape plan an. arborist' S
report detailing prote~tion measures fer trees
on neighbo!"ing parcels .... ·hich ","ill be impacted by
the construction on the subject pt"operty. and a
lette~ evidencing that a certified arborist will
•
I
!
L
"
•
,
,
I
I,
I
·1
l
I -
( fJ
.-,." -
be responsible for
protection measures.
implementation of the
(10) The seW'er line on .Everett St.ree.t shall be tested
for flow capacity~ and the ovn~r of the
subject property shall be responsible for arlY
required upgrade. in accordance vith the
applicable Utility Rate Schedule.
(ll} The owner of the subject property shall enter
into a recordable agreement vith the City to
ensure that all Uftits in the project to be
constructed in this zone shall r~~ain af~crdable
to low and very low seniors.
(12) The owner's representative shall prepare a
construction plan, to be approved by the
Transportation Division and the Public Works
Department, to identify and mitigate the
demolition and construction impacts listed
be 1 0...... This plan shall be coordinated wi ~h the
proposed construction plans of projects located
at 325 Lytton and 325 Everett:
{i) Demolition
(iiJ Construction of tempora,,· barr ieaces and
fences
(iii) Temporary closure of side',.alks a::-:j
streets
(iv) Site for the storage of construction
equipment and supplies
(V) Identification of the proposed
construction access point and truck rO<J.tes
(vi) Restoration of City stre.ets itr~pacted by
the construction activities
(vii) Replacement of entire City side""alk in
front of the property in accordance "'ith
City standards
(viii) Public relations plan directed at
resol vinq the concerns of adj acent
merchant businesses
De vel o"p"m"e"n ... t ........... S"'c"h"e"d .. ''''J"l'''eec.
obtained by October
completed by October 1.
Building
l~ 1992.
1993.
permits r:ust be
and construction
SECTION 4. The City Council hereby finds that this project
will have no significant effect en the environr::ent.
4
'C .. .. !!
'.
,
..
-
SEC'l'ION S. 'l'his ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day aft~r the day of its adoption.
INTROOOCi:D AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSEN'!':
ABSTEN'!'IONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Ass~~ city A~torney
5
APPROVED:
Mayor
Ci ty Mar.ager
Director of Pl~~~ing and
Community Environment
,
f
r-' •
~
!
., ,
~ ~PJ,PHI C ATTACKKE NT f-:D~AT:.:-f,---: ~2::..:"~"'::'''_--Ill.is_CA_L E-.: -..;.'---,;;";;.'----1
TO STAfF REPORT fILE NO .• o-ze-17 I "-A.O-',, I "-'lA-55 ~PR~O"~'f~CT-:~'"~OP~O~S'~O~ZO~"~'~CH~A'~G~E'~'O~.~'~M-~'~O~TO~'C~~~ "-
-~ . FOR 324, 3:U, 330 332,3:'"', & 3",0 EV~RET"T ~-~)'--i
NwRn~
f_
".
;-
i-..
-t,·.·~
• ,
-
.' .":'~.';.' _ "<C';--. -.:";>'::;< -"
-" '. c"· :-: §~;' ~ :~~~;, ~ ,
.:'-:~:(~~~
".·,,::~;~;;;~~;:::;r::>~, '-_. '_'f!' .;'c.' __ --.;... ___ .... "":0'..."...-----..--
t
r.
1 TO: PALO ALTO PLAHNIH& COMKISSIOH PREPARED BY: Virginia W,r",it
Fll[ NO.: 90-[I~-55, gO-Ze-II, 90-ARB-ISS, DATE: May 24, 1991
91-V-13
PROJECT INFDRMATION
location:
Applicant:
Property Owners:
Requested Action:
PROJECT SlOOIARV
324-340 E,erett A'enu.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
COlmJunity Housing, Inc-_
by Carrisco & Associates, Architects
120 Hamilton ~venue
p.le Alto. CA 94301
The Martin Revocable Living Trust
Thomas J~ ~artin? Partner
2345 Vale Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Zone Cnange from RM-30 Multip1e-Famiiy District
to PC Planned Community District; variances to
reQuired front yard setback and to sice yard
daylight plane
The applicant ~r~poses to change the zc~ing for the t~ree parceis at 324-340
Everett Avenue from ~-30 to PC Planned Community in order to a~commodate the
development of a 5J-unit be1o~-market-rate senior residence project. The
pr~posed structure is a three-st{)ry wood fraille buildir.g ... itl': 57 underground
park.ing spac2s and an additional S spaces at grade. There are 45 stl.:dlo L;nits
and 6 ene-bedroom units. The ~ousin9 will be for independent senion ',dth
low-and very low-incomes who are not in need of ass~sted living ser~ices.
The on-site staff will b~ limited to one day·time office staff person and One
resident manager. Th€ resid~ntjal prDject will be affiliated with the
existing lytton Gardens facilities, and the residents of the propcsed project
may tak.e advantage of tne 2xisting recreation and social se~vices bejng
provided tnere. The project will replace twelve residential units in six
dwellings presently on the site.
RECOKMENDED ACTION
Staff recommends tnat the Planning Commission recommend t~at Clty Council
adopt the negative declaration and approve the proposed Planned Community Zone
Change, and approve the requested variance to allow the front porch to extend
no more than 10 feet into the required front yard setback and to il10ilfi dormers
and eaves to extend 5 feet into the side yard daylight plane as show~ on the
develo,9ment plan? based on findings and conditions listed lat~r in His
repcrt.
PC330E2
W
-
L
5/24/91
r ~ ..... ~
•
, ,
. \
'-
..... ,. ,
SIT£ IHFORRATIOH
P.rc.1 Size:
A5~essor~s Parcel Humber:
[xi.tlns Zoning:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation:
Density:
[xistlng land l'se:
S~rround;n9 land Use:
History:
Mandatory Action Oates;
Environmental ]mpact
Asses.s.ent:
"'330(2
VII
-\
30,000 square feet
120-14-046,O~7,04a
RM-30 Medium Density Multiple-Family Residenti,l
Mult!ple-~ •• I'y Residential
Maximum 30 units per acre
12 residentiAl renta1 Llnits
The block face directly across Everett Street is
zoned RM-30 Multiple-Family and is ,urrently
occlJ,pied by ftve two-story apart"ent buildings.
a~d tnree ~acant parcels. A proposa1 to
construct 12 townhouses on the vac.nt parcels was
recentl~ ipproved by t~e Arthitectural Revit~
Board. Adjacent to the east is a f7ve-story
a~artment building. On th~ west the site borders
an RMD(NP} district with three sl ngle-fom'. ly
ncmes and one small t~/.Q-story apartment building.
TD the south it the rear of the ~roperty 1S ~
cO!ll'lle~chl site and a .public p=rking lot.
Prelfminary review by the Architectural Review
Board on May 3, 1990
Pre1iminary review by Planning Commission on
February 27, 1991
Final review by Architectural Review Board on
April IB, 19~1
The application .. as filed on De,ember IS, 1990.
A Notice of Incomplete App1ication ~as issued on
Januir~ 17, 1991. and the application was deemed
cooplete on January 28,1991. The Planoiog
Commission held a public hearlng within 9D days
of that date, as required by ordinance. The
Planning Commission acted favorably in its
In;!;al revie. of the PC Planned Cor:munity
application, and referred tME development plan to
the Archltectural Review Board for review. The
development plan, .s approved by the
ArchtitectuTa' Review Board, will be returned to
the Planning Commission for final review and
~commendati~n before submittal tc the Cfty
Ccuncil for final acticn.
An Environmental Assess~~~t and a Negative
5(24/91
•
f I ,-.
~--;::>
\
I ,
r
\
I
i
i ,
}
. .........-
,
•
-:..:--... -.
ANALYSIS
Project Descrlption
Det1Irit'~n of ~o si9nifita~t e~~ircnm~r.tl1
impact has ~een prepared and is ittiCh!~ to thls
rep,rt.
Thf applicant is p~oposing ta construct 5] units of belo.~mar~et"rate housfng
for independent 1 iVing for seniors IIdth 10w-ind very-low-incomu. In order
to atcommodate th~s d~ve1cpment, they are req~estin9 the r!IOnin9 of the
property from its present designation of RM-30 to PC~ Planned Community. The
applicant, Community Housing, Inc., is the no~prof1t Corporation whic~
operates the existing lytton Gardens senior residential complex at Middlefield
Road and University Avenue. There is currently 2 wait of approximately two
YEArs for the subsidiz!d, independent living units at lytton Gardens J. The
n~w project ;s be~ng proposed in order to hel~ address this unmet housing
need. In order to ~eep the rents as low as pOSSible, the applicant intends to
apply for Housi"~ and Urban Development (HUD) financing for the project. The
re1event HUe housing finance programs are only availab1e to projects ~f sa or
more un~ts, hente the proposed size of the project. Tne applicant considers
the proposed site particularly desirable for this project because the
management, ~1ntenan,e and resident services Df the nearby lytton Gardens
program ci:luld be shared by the new project, t~'IlJS athi!\ilr.~ Economies of .!.tilIle_
In addition. t~e sfte is near Oowntown~ Johnson Park and good transportation
services. The applicant has. lease option on t~e land wnich ~ould ~ake the
land available at an affardab1e annual rate for ~Q years, at wMlch time the
title passes to Community Hous1ng. Inc_
In the fol1owing chart. the 51te develcp~ent ttandards being proposed are
complred with standlrds for t~~ current RM-30 lone designation an~ 11so with
RM .. 40 standards. This chart has been re',:ised since the preliminary Planning
Corrmissicn re~1ew to reflect i modification to the roof design that eliminated
a.ll fourth floor equiva.lent spate. and if. inc.rease in the totll number of
parking spates pr~vided.
PROJECT CO~PARISOH VITH CURREKT ORDINANCE REQUIRE~EH1S
Floor Are. P'taximum
{5g. Ft.} FAR Height Densitl Pn\:~
Proposed 35,000 1.22 34 Sl 51 3
RM·)O A 11 owed/
211 81 1 Required 18,000 .6 35
1\11-40 Allowed!
30 1 81 1 Required 30,000 1.0 35
1 lncl~des 15 percent density bonus for be1ow-market-rate units.
PC330E2
VII
-
~/1~/91
\
•
"~ .... "-is ~"
~
--'.'
-
[
\
I
I
I
f
\
I
2 Ofrrctor Df Pl.nnf~g Is peMlltted to reduce by SO percent for elde~ly
haus1n".
3 Includes 10 tandem park~n9 SPiCt$ in the garage and ~ surface parking
spac.es •
The pToposed bYildin~ is I t~~~ i~d three-story wood fr~me stru~tur~ forming
an l sha,e iro~nd in outdoor patio. The building maS\1ng is arranged $0 that
the three-story portion h .'ong the property line. sh<red by. fi,e·story
apartment building and by ~ommerti&l property. ~'th the t.o-story part ion and
the open pat'o area faCing the street and Idjacent to the RMO lone. The
architectural c~ara~ter borro~s from t~e surrounding single-family
neighborhood, ~ith such details as s~in91e siding. divided light windows,
balconies, a front porc~ and a landscaped front 2arden.
rl1 response to Planning COlTl'llissfon "~rect'of"l;. the applicant has worked
together with the o~er of 325 Lytton to arrange for access to the under;round
garage t~rough t"e 315 lytton property. Consequently, the site plan .nd
design of the undergr~und and surface parkfng ireas ~ave been redesigned Since
the Planning Conrnission sa ... the project for preliminary rev;e.. The prine ipl f
changes are that the garige ramp is at the rear .,f the site and the surface
parking iIIrf"3 on heretl Street has been expanded and has been moved beyond the
front Yird set~ack. A discussion of the integration of this project with the
adjacent site and w;t~ ill potentiil project being proposed fo~ t~at site is
inc1uded in the Issues section below.
Background
A. Previous Planning Commlssion Action
At the pre'im;n~ry Planning Comission review on february 27. 1991, most
Commissioners expressed ambivi1ence tO~ird the proposed project.
acknowledging the preSSing ~eed for more housing for low intom~ seniors ,n
the communit) and the Yllue of thlS pro~o~al in addr~ssin9 that need, i~d
the hi9h quality of the architectural design, ,od on the other hand
express~ng ,oncer~ about p~tential impacts the project m~J ~ave en th~
neighborhood. Most Df these CDncerns ~er! re1lted to the slze of the
project being approximately twice the flQor irea and d£ns~ty is that
l11ow£d \n the underlying RH-$O lone. Comrnissio~er Cnr;stensen and others
ref~rred to the care which Wl$ given in th~ past to determinin9 that RM·30
~as the highest de~sitJ lo~in9 appropr;,te fer this neighborhood. They
felt that putting so much dens,ty Dn this Slte resulted in design
problems, such ~s a large buildin9 mass t inadequate access and sarface
par~ing for v~s1tors and emergency ~ehfcles, and a nonreSidential feeling
caused by locating parking and t~e er.trance to tne underground garage ramp
in the front yard.
The Planning Commission discussed c~ordinatin9 tnt cirtu1ation of the
proposed project with that of the project proposed for 315 lytton, thus
freeing up the front cf the proposed senior project and ~!lpjng to res~1~e
SDme of the design problems identified by CommiSSioners. The C~~ission
voted, 6·0~ with Comissioner HirSCh absent. to conceptually approve th-e
~roject, urging the deve10per to i~itiate sincere discussions witn Jim
eaer, the applicant of the lZ5 lytton proj.ct, with the expect.tion that
resolution to the access and par~ing issues cOl.,jld be act-liE-veo 'refer to
attached .inutes).
PC330E2 5/24/9J
w
L
-
: r
!
\
\
I
I
I
t
I
\
I
I
,
.::;:;>
1
I
I
I
I
B. Architectur~l Review Board RtcQmmendit10n
At tne Architect"r.l ~evi.w Board (ARB) meeting on April lB. 1991. the
Boa~d rtcommende~ apprQ¥~l of th~ project, 5-0. The Board ~as generally
very supportive of the architettural des1gn. part1cular1y t~p design
references to resident;" architecture in the neighborhood, the 20 feel
wide side 1ard setbacks, and the m~ss1n9 of the buiidiog so that buik is
pulled away from adjacent sfngle-femily homes. Tnere was a consensus
amo~9 Board members to support granting i variance to the daylight plane
to allow the do~rs to be c~nstructed as shown, and to support 9rant~r.g a
variance for tne front porch to into the front yard, provided that it is
redesigned to be a more useable space. Several members of the Board
expressed continuing concern that everything possible should be done t~
reduce poten t"' i 1 tl'"i.ffic 'iltlpac ts on tt,e ne ig,hborflood. I twas sugge s ted'
tnat visitors could be encouraged to use the adjacent public parking at
325 lytton Avenue. Tne conditions of approval included t~e request that
the app1icant r~study the surface par~in9 ind th~ layout Qf the garage for
maximum parking and circ~Tation efficiency (refer to attached ~inute5).
Project D~si9n Integrated Vith Adjacent Site
The owner of 325 Lytton. Mr. Jim Baer, has stated that ne will grant access
rights to the applicant to provide for construction of tne garage ramp and
access to the undergrotlnd garage iIIcross *'is property (lettt-r from Mt. Baer
attached). This would allow the project to be r.~esign.d so that the
underground garage is accessed at the rear of the site. ~ither than off
Everett Street. lngr." to the garage will be fro. Bryant Street thro"gh the
existing public parking lot {west !ection of lot K) and aCros~ the rear (orner
of the adjacent 32S Lytton site. Egress fro~ tnt site will be across t~e 325
lytton site to lytton Avenue. or to another egress scheme whicn co~16 be 1ater
approved ~s part af a PC zone change apylicatioo for 325 lytton. A proDosed
agreement for granting these access rights hds been received by the City. b~t
car.nat be a~prov~d by the City Attorney in its present form.
Mr. eaer is also proposing to deed 10 feet of Tand along their shared property
line to the senior project if his project is approved. while this is not
enougn increase in the site area to a1low tne bu;101ng to be reconfigured so
that mass can be moved t~ the reaT of the site. it does increase the rear yard
from 10 to 20 feet. This wilT allow for larger trees and for greater pri~acy
for the rear units. If the redevelopment pr~ject proposed for 325 lytton
Avenue is ~ot ipproved. th,s lot line adjustment will ~ot be made in order not
ta displace eKisting parking located it the rear of the 325 Lytton site.
'if both 'Projects were to be approved, the des.ign of the two projects 'WoIJ1~ be
integrated in suc~ a ~ay that the acceSs to the residential prcj!ct would
occur on the commercial project site. and the second and t~ird under9r~und
levels of the parking garage for tne commercial projtct ~ould be direct1y
linder the entry ramp to the residentia.l project. If {lne of the projects is
"{It iIIpproved t Dr if for some other r!ason they cannot be constructed
Simultaneously, iccess and construction 10gistica1 difficulties would OCcur.
~ctions required by beth parties and by th" City that would reduce tne,e
difficulties and that would alTow either project to proceed witno~t the ~ther
PC330E2
W
L
S/24/91 ,. "-..
are rec~nded in Conditio~s 1 l~d 2 belo~. and in the cor.diti~ns to be
r-eCQlIIIM!nded i~ the J)I'·opl>~ed 325 Lytton projet::t.
1f the projects are developed t09~thert entering and exiting the garage ramp
to t"'e residenthl project i 5 current1y prDposed in a separite PC lone charl9.<'!
app1fcltfon for J2S lytton A~enue to be via Bryant Street throu;h t"'e City
parking lot, _h1c~ ~~'l b~ converted f01 two-~ay t~lff~t. Parking space$ 'ost
~y this conyers ion would ~e replaced in tne underground garage of the
commercial project. Access to the commerci.l ~roj.ct could .1so ~e through
this same TO"to, or some or .11 of its access may bt via lytton Avenue.
Options for lccess to the cQMT~rci.l site, and the rel.ted issue of possibly
closing Bryant Street. will be discussed In the review of the 325 lytton
project.
If the residential project is developed before the commercial project, the
garage ramp to the residential project is proposed to bf constructed in the
$ame locition an6 access would ,ontinue to b~ from BrYint Street? b~t exiting
would be through the 325 lytton site onto lytton Avenue. This would ivofd
displacing existing parking in the city lot off Bryant Street, whicn wo~Td
otcuY if the let .... ere modified to ~rovi6e two-way icc-ess to 8r)'int Str-eeL
Pedastrian link to Downtown
T.ne proposed design includes, secured gate at the rear of the piopetl,Y to
a110., resid.tnts .I shorter pedestrian connection to Downtown via florence
Street and to the Senior Center en Bryant Stre!t. This pedestrian gate cannDt
be insta11ed 'f the 325 lytton site remains undeve1 oped , Since there is
pre$ent~y no sidewal( througn the e~isting pub1ic and private parking lots
behind the 330 £verett project to provide seniors with l safe route tc Bryant
and F1D1~nce St~eet$. The proposed rpdevelopment cf 325 lytton includes a
pedestrian walkway from the rear of the 330 Everett site to Bryant Street_
Another pedestrian connection _~ich has been considered in relation to this
project is i public path through the 330 EYerett site fro~ EYerett Street to
lytton Avenue and Bryant Street. Tnis pub1ic path has been rejected by the
applicants due to concerns about (olTopromising security and privacy in the
projects's prlYate and common outdoor areas.
Parking and Traffic
The pirk;n9 garage has been redeslgned to accomo~ite entr) from tht reir of
the slte. The r~design has resulted in an increase in the total number of
spaces in the garige from S3 to 57 spaces. Storage areas were also increased
by 330 SQuarE feet. Ihe revised design lnc1udes 10 tandem ?~rkin9 ~~aces,
compared to 5 tandem spaces in the original plan.
Moving the entrance to the underground garige allo~ed several impro~ements to
the parking .and cin:.u1atio!", a.nd the design of the front yard on rYerett
Street. All of the pitking has been moyed out ~f the fr~nt yard setback_ Tne
number of visitor and drop off spaces has been increased from 1 to ~ spaces_
The entrance to the under9~ound garage nO longer ~asses through the v1sitor
par~ing area? thus eliminating potentia' circulation problfms and impro~ing
accessibility to the surfaCE parking area. In addition to the five surface
parking spaces, 91JfSt parking to\J1~ be supp1emer.ted by ~nu.s-e~ ~~aces i!'\ the
underground garage, as described below, and by encouraglng V1S1tors to use tne
public parking provided at 325 lytton Avenu •.
PC330E2
w
-
L
5/24/9l r . _ c
!
r
I
f
!
>-
T~ere is space in the proposed parking area for a ~dic van to pu~l in and
park on the site without plotking the sidewalk. Emergency SerY~,~s personnel
have told staff that when making z ~dical e~rgency call they do not park the
~I~ in I parking space but pull into the site and stop in the driveway. eased
on data 'rom Emergency Services, these Ylsits would b~ expected t) be very
infrequent. about one ~is;t to t~e site per mont~. The data 5ho~s that a11
calls to Lytton II I comparable independent living r~51dence with 218 units,
received 113 ~d1ca' emerge~,y visits and 27 other vi~its for a total of 140
visits over a period of 32 ~onths. This is a frEquency of visits equal to 2
percent of the nu~ber of units per month, or about one visit per ~nth for SO
units.
Staff belieyes t~at the proposed parking .ill be adequate to meet the needs of
the project. lhe app1;clnts have conducted a surv€y of car ownership at the
Z18 independent li'fing units at lytttJn [ and' tho! 50 'in.dependent lhi!lg unit'i
.t lytton II. coll.ctl.ely referred to as 'lytton I' in the report (see
attached). They found that the resIdents of these units had. total of 84
cars, or lesi than one-third the number of units. If the ratio of car
o",,,ership at the proposed Lytton rv j s companble, \Ie would expect 17
residents to own 'iTS. Fifty·seven parking spaces a~e being provided in the
underground garage. T~n of the 57 proposed garage sp~ces are tandem spaces,
""hi ch can be used for storing tile cars of res idents wI10 may use them
infrequently. The expected un~sed spaces in the garage cou1d be made
available for gues.ts who 'Y\sit freqliently and tend tD stay fo.r an extended
period of time, .since they would become hmiliar witn the garage and' how to
enter it.
Varii.!'\ce Required
lhis project 1s re~uired by the PC, Plann20 Community re9ulat~ons to c~m?ly
with the setback and daylight plane requirements of the adjacent ~-30 and RMD
zones. Portions of the d~r.mers ext€nd approximately five feet into the
sideyard daylight plane and would reQu~re it yarh.nce~ When tfH! pl"ojec.t ...-as
reviewed by the ARe, ARB members ynznimously recommended sv~port for a
var~ance to allow the dormers to be constucted is sho~n. on the pasis t~at
only onp. dormer is adjacent to in RHO site inn the ~t~er t~Te~ ~n ~u~~tion arE
adjacent to the neighboring nve story apartment bui1dir,g, so the impact 01'1
adjacent properties would be minimal.
The proposed design s~ows the front porcn extending 7 feet into the required
lO-foot front yard setbaC:«1 which will require a variance. At their rE'Vi£ltr',
the ARB recommended that a ~ariance be granted to allow the front parch to
extend up to 10 feet into the front y,"d. provided that the front porch be
redesigned to be a more useable space. A condition of their recommendation
for approval was that the porch be redesigned and return to the ARB for
ipprova'~ lhey support-ed' th~ variance blCcaw:s.e it will allow the ~orch to be
close enough to tne Sidewalk for conversation ~;th passers-by, if reSidents
are so inclined. and it provides for i ~ore generously sized porch.
When the Planning Gommissfon saw this project for preliminary review~ the
building exceeded the 35-foot height limit by approxlmately l-foot and ea~es
extended sHghtlj into the daYlight plane. Subse.qlJent modifications. to the
P030E2
VI.'
L
5/24/91
L
•
,
.~
--'
"-, --,"'~ .
roof de.lgn have brought the building height Ind the design of the .Ives Inlo
complfance wit~ the zoning ordinance. and a vArilnce 'S no longer rCQuir!d.
Public 8<!nefit
The objective of thl. proposed project I, to provide r.nt.l housing to seniors
with low~ and very low~incDmes. The ~pp'icint is p~rsu;ng I finan,1n9
,trategy ~ich will provide unit. that Ire affordable to this target grou~.
The HUn funding ~ich the applicant Is proposing to use "i 11 15sure, and
fndeed requIres, that all units will be rented for .n amount ,ffordabl. by
low-and verY~'DW·i~come reSidents. The project deve10pers have ind'cated
that should this or comparabl. funding not be ,vailablt, they are not
fnterested in proceeding "Ith the project If the cost of the project •• de It
unaviilable to low-income seniors, since ser¥ing that group is t~efr ~ission.
To insure t~at Iny project resu1ting from this approval wou1d continue to be
affordable to the target group, and thus moet the requirement for public
benefit, the City Attorney 15 requiring IS I conditon of approval I recorded
agreement that the projett will remain low· and ~try·low-1ncome SEnior
hou';"9·
Financing
Financfng for the proj!ct is proposed t~ be a combi"ation of federal and/or
state. city and privite funds~ The prDp~std financ~ng include~ p~imar11y
Section 202 funds from the Oepartment of Housing and Urban Development.
Re~ulat1ons regarding Sect jon 202 funds were recently c~anged by federal
legislation adopted in 1990. These revised resu~~tions are expected to be
;ssyed by HUD withi~ the next few we!ks.
Because of the chuges in the reguhtfons, tn.e spec;ffcs of the fundir:g
proposal are not known it this time. However, as a P1anned Commu~ity lone
change, a condition of the PC zone and part of the public benefit fo' the
projett J 1S a reQui~ment thit the project ser~e on1) 1ow~ and ~ery low-income
reSidents. The stiff and Palo Alto Housing Corporition are teviewing the
financing proposa1 ind the changes in legislation to e~sure that the project
will serVE only low-Ind very low-income r!sidents.
Dependin9 on the I~unt ind type of federal funds. the applicant will a1so be
se~kin9 to use City funds from eitner the COBG landban~ funds or the Housing
Reserve funds. The amount requested will be appro~imate1) S95C,OOO. At least
• portion of this will be "sed t~ pa~off the .x<sting S~50.000 loans on the
property. The applicant antiCipate, th.t the City funds "ill be I, the fom
of , loan and will be repaid. The request for City funding will be scheduled
on the same City Counci1 agenda is the zone change.
Compreh~nsiv~ Pla~ Complia~ce
The uses and site development regulations within the proposed PC Planned
Community dlstrict must be dete~ined to be consistent with the Comprehenslve
Phn. Tt'te objectives (If the Comp-reke.nsi'fe Plan cO!\$-idered most perUr.~!'\t to
this proposal are the following policies and programs of the Housing El~ment.
D Policy 6: Maintain at least the present number of
rent a' lmits while ~tlrkir:9 to increase the oven.ll
'. 1!.ousing:.
PC330E2
ViI
L
-
mu1Uple·fami1j
supply of rental
5/24/91 c, __ c
,
" ,.
o
Progru 9: For Iny residenthl deve1oprM!nt irl lJ'l..'ltip1e-.family
zones ~hich causes the l03s of rentll housing un~ts, subdi~is~on
ipprov.l ~ay be granted If any two of the fol'owlng thr.e
ciTc~t,ntes are met: provide 100 percent more units; replace
the existtng number of rentil units; provide ~ot 1~s~ than 20
percent below-~arket-rate units.
Program 15: Prov\de zDning flexibility to tncourage the
development of smaller units .ffordable to low-and
aoderate·;ncome persons.
Po1icy S: [ncourage and foster a diverstty of affordable hous,ng
opportunities for senior citizens incl~~ing h~usfng w~icn may pro~ide
a varjety of services for special he~lth, social and transit needs.
o Policy 11: Encourige and participate in low-and moderate· income
housing programs finan(ed by 10c.1 and ~ther levels of go¥ernment.
It is staff's opinion that tM! proposed projtct furtners tMese housin~
objectives. It exceeds all three c~nditiorls of Program 9 by inc~easing the
number of units on the site f~om 12 to S1 units, ill of ~hich are rentals, and
bi providing 100 percent ~f the ~nits affordable to low· and moderate·;ncome
persons. The units Ire small studlos and one· bedroom units (420,694 square
feet) suitable for senj~rs with limited incomes. lhe locatiOrl of the pr~ject.
near Downtown~ the Senior Center~ lytton Gardens, Johnson Park and transit
facilities, yill provide Mousing which ~ets the sptcial needs of seniors.
The project is Gesigned to take advantage of federa1 and State funding
programs, w,th application being ~ade for a HUO Section 202 construction loan
and Section e rent subsidies, or altErnatively. applicatiorl for a State Rental
Housing (onstruction Program loan and syndicitrd funds.
RECOMHENDATION
Stiff recommends thtt the Planning Ccmm~ssion recommend that the City Counti1
adopt the negative declar.tf~n and approve the project, and approve the
var-hnces to allow the front 'porch to extend )0 feet into tne front yard
setback .n~ to a'low the dormers to extend 5 feet into the tiaylight pl.n.,
subject to the fo11owing findings and ~onditions:
FINDlNGS FOR PC ZONe CHANGE
1. The use or uses proposed for tl'le site are of such. characteristics that
the application or general dhtricts 01'" comblning distrrcts ",nl not
prov,de sufficieont flexibility to al10w the prcp'Ose:d de~'e1opment which
is to provide housing for low· and very·1ow.income serdor citizenz. The
increased density and decreased parking requirements will a110w a
greater "umber of smlller units suitab1e to older persons, thus. s.erving
a larger number of persons needing tMiS type of housing, and will reduce
the-cost per unit, thus making the units affordable to persons with 10 ... ·
and very-low·inccmeS.
2. Develnpment of the site under the provis~cns of the PC district will
res~lt in public ben!fits not otherwise attainab1e bJ application of the
reguiati~ns ~f genera1 d\str~ct~ Dr combining districts in that housing
for low· and very·low.jncome senior citizens is a public need,
conSidering Palo Alto's aging population, and tnat tnis type of small.
PC330El
YO
-
5/24/91
\
\
•
\
j
i
1
1
i
I
I
I
I
1
3.
.ffcrd&blt ~"1t5 ~s not being provided in the community by other
projects.
The use Dr us~s penlitted and the site development regulations
applIcable wIthIn toe district sh.ll be conSistent with the Pal. ~lto
Comprehensive Pian) and shall be c~'tiblf ~jth existing and potentia1
uses on adjoining sftes or .ft~in the gener.' viclnfty, in that the
project will have m;m;mal trlff" or nofse Impacts on the surrc~ndin9
neighborhood, and that the project furthers the policies and programs of
the HousIng Element by lncr •• slng tn. supply of rent.l housIng,
providIng .",.'ler, .ffo,dabh "c,lts, pro,idir.g housing "hith meets the
special needs of stnier cit;zen$ and by taling ad~lntage of f1~anc;ng
lvail~ble from other leveTs of government (Pro~rams 9 and lS, Policies 8
.nd II).
FINDINGS fOR VARIANCES
1~ There are eKceptianal or extraord,"tri c'rcumstlnc~s or conditions
appllcable to the property involved that do not apply gener.lly to
property in the same district. in that this project is adjacent to a
fiye·story building and to a commercia' lone on the east !nd south sides
of the property, respectively, .nd the project is being developed under
the constraints of federal housing finance programs, as described be1ow,
which s,gnificintly re~trict des,s" options i~iilAble to th@ ipplitant.
2. The gnnting of t~e application is necess,ar'y for the preservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, ~nd to
prevent unreasonable property l~ss or ~nnecessary hards~ip. in that the
project is being deve10ped under the constrlints of federal financing
programs which require at lelst SO ~nits to be constructed and alse
limit thr amenities which cln be included in the design~ an~ yet these
constraints must be overcome so t~at the sClle and character of the
struct~re Ire appropriate to the surro~nding ~eside~tial neighborhood.
The addition of dormers will hive the effect of reducing tne scale and
visua1'y lowering the roof of this thr~e~stcry bui1ding, i~d the
a.ddition of the front porch "'ill provide I "ort resident'ial scale and
feeling to the (.cade of the building and to the front yard, and will
provide an opportunity for senior residents to interact with the
neighborhood activity along tne street.
3. Thl!' 9ranting of t~e application will not be detrimentl1 or injurious to
p~opertJ o~ improvements in the ~itin;ty, in tnat fi~t of t~e $i~
dormers in questio~ a.re fa.cing the aoj&c~nt five story aplrtrnent
building and commercial property, the ]0 foot setback proposed for the
front porch is Ipproximately the same as t~@ setback of the adjacent
sing~e·fam;ly residence on Everett Street. and tne proposed dormers and
porch wlll maKe the structure more archltectur.11y compatitle with the
residential $tructures in the nei9hbc r hocd.
CONDITIONS
J. If tne 330 tverett proj.ct and the 325 lytton project are both approved
by City Council and executed, the following two condit;o"S shall apply:
••
L
lhe propert) 1ine between the t_o parcels shall be adj~~ted 1Q feet
to t~e etst, with the owner Gf 3Z5 lytton trlnsffr~lng 10 feet
-,
~'.'
2.
.long the I.ngth of the property line by deed to the ooners of the
ll? EYerett project.
b. The appll.ant sh.ll obt.ln from the City of Pilo ~lto • Yehlcular
access easement t~roug~ t~e city parking 10t C~est sectio~ of lot
K) t~ the 330 fve~ett p~Qject to prov~de Access t~ the 9.rige rim?
If onll the 330 Everett project Is .pproved by the City Council and the
325 lytton project is not approved .nd constructed, the (0110.lng five
conditions shall apply:
J, The shared property line between the two parcels shall not be
.djusted 10 feet but wIll rem.in as it Is in order not to displace
approximately 10 ~x1sting park1n9 spaces 10cated ilong this
property lIne on the 325 lytton property.
b. The applicant sh.ll obtain from the City o( P.lo Alto. vehicul.r
els~ment through the city parking lot (~est section of lot K) to
Frovide Iccess to the garaqe ramp.
c. The applic.nt sh.ll obt.in from the owner of t~e 32S Lytten
proptrty ~n ea~ement for vehiculJT access ~CT~SS the 3ZS lytton
property to the to tht garage ramp and for emergency access to the
re.r of the 330 Everett project.
d. The applicants ,hall pay an in·lieu fee of S25,OOO per space for
loss of seven parling spaces which will be displ.ced by the gr.nt
of the vehicular acce$S ease~~nt. in accordance wit~ co~dit;on 2.(,
above. The tct., fe. sh.l' be 117S,OOO.
e. If tne 325 lytton project is "ot constr~(ted and the pub1ic pirkl~9
lot (west section of Lot K) remains as is, then tnere shill be no
pedestrfin .ccus provided from tne rear Df tne 330 h'e-rett
project, Since this would require ~alki"g through the ~Grk;n9 lot
which is not a safe route fOT senior citizens. A glte for
emergi!:ncy ucess to the: rur of the site may be proIJided.
3. The applicant shall enter into a recorded agr~ement with the (ity that
III ~nits in the project ~11 be guarant~ed to be affardab1~ to low and
very low income senior citizens.
"'. Prior to suooitUng for a butlding per.nlt, the fol10'l'flng ... i11 return t<J
the ARB for approval: irth~tecturcl cetails, includin~ bllco~ie~,
trell1ses. soffits, building materills and colors; I redesign of t~e
porch; restudy Df the garage and ¥jsitor park1ng and bicycle parking
(see condition '5 be10,*); fina1 hndscape plan, 1 ighUng p1an. 1 ight
fixtures and p'~ing materials.
S~ Two Class 2 or Class 3 bicycle parking spaces s~al1 provided near the
entrance cf the building for V1sitoTs and short te~ parking, Some
Clus 1 bicycle parking shall be provided for resi.dents. with the
number~ design and loc~tion to be determ~ned by the Transportation
Division in consultation with the applicant.
6. A security gate shall be provlded at tne bottom of th~ 9arage Tirnp~
"'330£2
W
-
5/14,191
th-~ ••
,
,-
. ~ -'.'
1. H', Ifter tne project ts in cperat1on. 1t is determined by the
applfcants that 111 of the tande~ parking spaces being ~rovided Ire not
requir£d, the garage may be reconfigured S~ that two way circullt,on 1S
provided, replacfng approx1~tely eight tandem p_rk1n9 spaces. These
changes sh.ll be approved by the Architectural R.,I.~ Board.
S. If the rear yard is increased to 20 feet wid. (with the appro,al of the
325 Lytton project), then the tra.h facility shall be relocated to the
rear yard, tD be accessed fronl lytton A .. -enue. If the rear yard rt:"ma illS
un,h.nged (~it~out the appro,.l of 325 Lytton), the tr.sh shall be
relocated to tne basement.
9. l~e .pplicant shall provide with the final landscape plan an .rborist'.
report det~flini prQtection ~easures for trees on neighboring parcels
w~ich will ~e impacted by the construction, and, letter evidencing tn3t
, certified ilrborist is responsible f~r implementation of th2 protection
ll\eas\J'res.
10. The applicant .ha11 test the se~er lin. on [,er.tt Street for flo.
capacity and sha11 be responsible for any re~uired upgrade of the sewer
line.
11. Th. applicant shall prepare a con,truction pl.n, to be approved by the
'Trtnsportatiofl Oiv':;sion and the PubHe Work.s. Cepa,.tment, to iderftHy ana
mitigate demolition and constr~ction impacts listed below. This plan
shall be coordinited with tne constT~ttion plins of the two proposed
adjacent development projects .t 325 Lytton .n~ 325 [,erett.
L Demolition
2. Construction Df temporary barricides and fences
3. Temporar) closure of sidew.l~s and streets
4. Site for ina storige of construction equipment and supplies
S~ Identificiiilt;on 'Of the proposed c:onstrjJctiol'1 access point and
truck routes
6. Re$toriti~n of Cit~ Streets impacted by the construct,on
act ivit ies
7. Rep1acement of e~tire City sid2~aik in front of the property in
iiiI~cordance with City standards.
8. Publit relations p1an directed at resc1ving the concerns cf
adjicent merchant businesses.
-'TTACHKEKTS
Attachment I;
Attachment 2;
Attachment 3:
Attachment 4;
P.ttachment 5;
Attachment 6:
Attachment 7:
Attachment a:
Attachment 9:
Att.chme"t 10:
Attachment 11:
Attachment 12:
pe3l0£2
W
~¥~JCGMleAta-t~A'55eS5W1eFlt· See c:-:..;:;: j2U: 91
Q.J:4:i-RaREE' See efic)2U:~1
Development Program Statement from the Apo1icant
Development Schedule
Variant!' Request
Letter from Jim e.er, April 4, 1991
Letter from Jim e.er, May 21. 1991
lytton IV Auto Projections
S~mmiiilr1 Df Auto Use it lytton Gard~r.s
Minutes of ARB meeting, April 18, 1951
~inutes of Phnning Comission meeting, February 27, 1991
Planning Commission Staff R.port, February 22, 1991
5/24/91
D: --.-,..,
L
-
I ,
i
t
I
I
I ,
I
I
I
I
t
I ,
I
•
1...-...-.:; ---
~.
~>
' .
1 : .
1
\
\ -.
\ '
\
-,-"
, '--.
--1.,
,
~ AttichMen! 13~ ~~nutes of ARB PTel1mf~&r~ AReview. May 3. J990
Attachme~t 1.: Suppleme~til I~formition about lytton Gardens
Project Pi Ins
CDPIES SEIIT TO
Architectural Review B~ard
Carrasco I: Associates, 120 Hamilton Av~nue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
The Martin Revoe.bl. living Trust, 2345 ¥.le Street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Nancy flelbel, 301 8ryant Court, P,lo Alto, CA
Tony Badger. 381 Hawthorne Avenue, P.lo Alto, CA
Ji. Cesari, 238 Bryant Street, P.lo Alto. CA
Joe M.yers, 3DI Bryant Street, P.lo Alto, CA
Ralph Cressman. 360 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Andre~ Gottlieb, 309 Bryant Street, Pilo Alto, CA
lor. Smitn. 162 Bryant Street, P.lo Alto, CA
Anne RoblnsGn, Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA
Kathleen Craig, )01 Waverl.y Str.et, Palo Alto, CA
M4rvin H. Fein~tein. P4 o. 8o~ 1461, Palo Alto, (4
Jim lIorloy, 160 Waverley Street, Pilo Alto, CA
Irv Brenner, 250 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA
Dorothy Merriam, 365 Ever~tt A¥enue, Palo Alto, CA
PC330[Z vw
-
}
i ; ,
l
I
At_tacrunt!.I".~ 1
... "("'lr!(IS";A""""t~s
L).'''l''TON IV SENIOR HO"JSI1'lG
Everett .~venue, Palo "lto, California
'I'HE NEED FOR AFFOFl)ABLE SENIOR HOUSING
10'1 -= '·'1
;::,,\ -;:..
L..'01 b I.::.' .:..: ~.
DE C 1 ~ 1990
~ -:":'
,.'.~ ~~;
~n;:AA;t.~i~' L,}' f", ,.,,,,, ".,l
LE.:rt L~ ?~,~. ALTO
9' -7-<:-17
'j'O -~~ S -If!>
1 c -15.JII-'>5
commur.i tl~ Housing Inc., A California N,:>n-Prof i t Corpor=t.ion. ....·as
founded in 1973 to create a quality. caring living envirc~~ent for Palo
Alto area seniors of limited means. "l"\.olc years later l::r'ttc:": Gardens
(Lytton I) opened~ 220 studio and one bedroom apartment units at the
corner of Lytton Avenue and Middlefield Road, on a school site provided
by the City of Palo Alto \-:ith r:onstruction funds from H.:}.!). ThiS
facility has successfully operated for the past 15 years ; .. ;n.der tb.e
E. U. D. Section 8 rent subsidy prog.ram. Under this prograrr, Ci\.:i..s.lifying
seniors pay a maximum of 1/3 of their income for thc:lr housi-nq cost.
The balance of the I'ent is made up by a co-payment frOM H. U. D. 'Up 'to
the established "market rate".
The demand for this affordable housing has been ove;-.... hel~ir.g. :Every
year the increases in the costs of rental housing in Pal~ Alto far
outpaces inflation. Every year the purchasing po .... er of fixed income
seniors is severely diminished. Tne effect is ~o force ctterwise
active members of our community in~o vl.rtual poverty. Finally most
resign themselves to the fact that they can no longer afford to live
I and participate in ow.r community and move to an outlying area; is:Jlated
from their faTl'.ily and friencs. and often facing serious sec\.:Iity risks.
Lytton Gardens has been one of only a fe .... s:>lutior.s to their p:-oblem.
The waitinq list for a unit at Lytton I often is as long as 600 names,
wi th an expec-ccd ""'ait of two to three years. In an effort to better
accommoda te this need C. H.1 . has been seekL~·;.; a site t.o expand i t.s
facilities. It was f€lt that this site should be close to the existing
facility for management and services~ as well as the benefit to the
residents of Deing ~ithin walking distance of the SErvices of do"wntown
(many residents don't drive).
e.R.I. has obtained an option to enter into a long term ground lease
...... ith the o.....mer of three-contiguous parcels on EVerett Avetl'-l€. Located
between Bryant and waverly, the property ~s just one and one-half
blocks from the ~enior center, one DlocK from a city park al'.d on1l' four
blOCKS from Lytton Gardens. The term of the lease is for 50 years.
J,.dditionallYr C.H.I. ""ill have the-option to either rer.e .... · the lease or
purchase the property at the end of tnat term.
-
•
-\
.•
, -,
. ,
-
. ~ -.
DeSign Narrative
Paqe 2
DESIGN NARRATIVE fOR CONCEPT DESIGN
Community Housing Inc, is endeavoring to provide affo,t:'dable hoasing for
~eniors in downtown Palo ~lto~ Purs~ant to this goal, three contiguous
sites at 33.0 Everett Avem.le have been obtai:1ed for development of a new
apartment building.
In order to provide the maximum number of small one-bedroom and
efficiency units, it will be necessary to pursue a PC Zone cesignation
for this property. Present zoning on ~he sit~ is RM-30. Surrounding
properties are zoned F~-30, RM-D and PF. ~cross the street is an RM-40
zone.
To maintain neighborhood sca~e and transition to s~rrounding uses l It
appears generally feasiDle to work within RM-40 zO!ling regulations for
site developmect, utilizing the PC Zone process to obtain a higher
density of units and nigher F4A.R. than ~ould be allowed in ei~h~: tne
RM-30 or RM-'O zone.
In order to maxe the project feasible, the unit count needs to be at
least 50. Parking must be prov~ded fn an unde:ground garage, .... '~ich
will dictate an interior paved courtyard ' •• ,ith plantings restricted to
containers and raised planter beds. A summary of the project in terms
of area, u.nit count,. density and heiqht is inclu~ed on the dra .... ings.
The design approach for the si~e is to mass the building towards the
northeast property line, stepping down towards Everett Avenue and the
RM-~ Zone racing B,:-yant Street. Entry to the project from Everett will
allo,",,' for vii:ws into the i!:ter ior cot,.:.rq,rard ;,.'hile maintaining securi'ty
for resident.s.
Efficiency apartments co~prise the majorit.y of the units, with only 6
being one-bedroom, to maintain affordability for single occupants. The
first floor .... ill have a lobby/reception room, admlnistr.c>tive office and
multi~use library space for group a.ctivities4 Ea.ch floor .... ill also
'have a laundry room and small sittin9/soclal spaC'e~
~ll living units have either
The balcony forms are curved~
as interior ~biance.
a patio or balcony for o~tdoor living.
to add interest to the exterior as well
The architectural expression will reflect details and roof
small bungalows sea ttered throughout tr.is neigh.bcrr.ood.
lapped siding and decorative gables will help to reduce
this two-and three-story building.
forms of the
HoriZontal
the scale of
':lerirneter plant.ing '""ill be substa.ntial as the first floor .... ~ll be set
lack. fUr't.her than the typical 10 foot. requ.ireme.1.t. Twent:r··fo,:)t side
-
•
•
I
I
I
I
I
Deslgn Narrative
Page J
'.
yards will buffer the RM-D district and \o.'ill provide shade and texture
to the prcject. If possible, a pathway connect.i.ng to do ... ·nto;..in Palo
Alto through the parking area to the southeast could be developed to
encou:age seniors to walk downtown.. This will also sezve to create an
axis within the urban fabric and tie this neighborhood to the activity
centers along University Avenue ..
The landscape planting
materials reminiscent
Empnasis will be put on
concept ""i11 fo.;:us on the use of "traditional"
of t~~ical established Palo Alto gardens.
color, drought tolerance and structural form ..
The front yard (west side} will consist of a new orderly street tree
planting, lawn and hedgerows. Tall open trees will also be used closer
to t.he building for deale and to s:Jften the front. elevatl.on. Tr.e south
sideyard ."ill have small to medium size t.rees for screer.in.g and flowers
as well as hedgerows, vines and smaller accent plal"lt~ngs. The rearyard
'east) ..... ill ha.ve vines on th€ fence and accent pla>1tings ... ·here
possible. The north sideyard will consist of small ope~ canopy trees
to allow light and create scale .. ;i U.. irregular group':'r.gs 0: sr.ta.ll
accent plants.
Another feature of the complex _ill be sitting porches and decks for
joint use by all residents. A raised seating area in the co~rtyard
will provide for social interaction of resider.ts. At the third floor~
open decks are connected across a seating area at the main corridor.
The ent.rance to the complex .... 'ill provide a scene 0= acti vi t.y and
friendlines~ to the neighborhood.
The goals of this project .. .'ill be rea.lized ty not c .... ly provi,:':ir.g a
pleasant interactive atnlosphere for senior citizens but by also being
sensitive to the neighborhood characte~ in the siting and desig~ of the
building. By providing a warm~ residential feeling for the resicients~
the neighborhood will be enhanced. The interaccion of active seniors
with the neighborhood and downtowr. Palo Alto ..... ·i11 build a sense of
community and will be beneficial to all.
12114/90
"-
iJ, ."
l
i
I
i
•
!
-
, ..
• J; C III' I J r: I S ~ , ; /. -, "" t .. :s
D£Vt~OPMrNT PROGRAM ST~TEMfNT
~YTTON IV SENIOR HOUSING
330 t~erett Ayenue
by:
date:
Cl.!:r:"as;:o
12/!4/90
-:....--'---.:.-:~-~--~2..:.J
]. Hecossity for PC Zone Dist.lct '''-le--17,'Io-At2s_,
Th l t \u . . ••. 'io-c,~. re' t" yt en ,serr~Ot ilput.lflent pro)t:ct ,s ..,e1l'1g proposed as a PC ~1 ., oJ .
Zone project aue to several f,ctors: il11~w~ble dersity. Floor
~rei Ratio ilnd site coverage based upon existing loni~g would not
anow for ill'l appropriately-sized ~r~ject to be fusi1:l7e; .oarkint;
count as required by off-street parking ordinance is not reQu~red
due to the nature of the senior residents' auto usa2e.
Ex'sti~g %o~ing ~M the three s'tes ~~t~ ~ill be combi~~d to ferm
330 EY~rl!tt Avenue is RM-30, wh;c~ allows for IS units ... 3M~
increase of 151. for,. total of ZD units of hOlJsing, site CDyerage
of 4~ and FAR of .6 to 1. Units per acre could be 30, bl,it the ~O
unit count woul~ gover"~ These re~uirements are appropriate for 2
and 3 bedroom -mark.et-rate" apartments, bwt do not .appl'y very well
to srnai1, effic~e~cy senior apartmen:s. By utilizing s~al1~r
ut1its. 51 apartments can be created an.d thus can be (t,o~e
affordable.
If th~ Drovisions of tMe ~M-4D zo~e are generally ap~lied, 25
LII"l1tS ... St'~R inc.rease of lS~ for a totai or 30 units woul., be
;allowed. site coverilge could be 4S~ and Ion FA.R of 1.0 to 1 wo~id
be ac-ceDtab1e. Units per acre could be 40, but the
30 urdt C()Ul"lt would goverr,. There;s aT'l RM-40 zone across t~e
street. and at OT'le time tne (lty ,,"as considef"ing zoning these
tl'1ree properties RM-40; t!'1U5, RM-40 is 3.p;Pfoxima:eC: in the
project. D~~ to the exact config~ration and progr~m of t~e
proje~t, the nu~bers exc~e~ p~~e RM-~C.
Since tne number of units allt:r .... ed under t!'le RM-30 zonir-9 would be
50 limiting, it is necessary to sec .... re 1 PC zont to ~btaitl 5J
units of hous.ing. Senior housing reQuires m.:ch less ~a!"ldl'1g tf'"iar'l
typical multi-family housing. as !':sage cf cars is m\Jcn lower.
{SeE' the 5U1T'1T1ary of automotnle usa~e at lyttor. Gardens for
refe~~~ce.) Not only are fewer ~arking spaces required, tn~re
will be fewer vel'1ic1e trips per ~ay. Senior.:; will be encouraged,
by tl'1e location of the project. tc walk to shops, park, se~'or
cen.ter and lytto~ Gardens for acti~ities. Lytton Garden3 will
11so b~ pr-oviol~g iI shutt1e bus for group activlties and trips.
Public benefits which will result from the PC Zone for this site
include increasing the afforda~le ~ousing stoc~ 11'1 Palo Alto Jnd
providing ~uc~-needed sen;o~ housing for Palo Alto's growin;
senior population. The specific need for suc~ senior hcus;ng is
o\Jtlir;~d ii'1 tht Des;.;'" Narrative document. .Re.s.idents will have to
CjuliifJl_ for Lytton IV by i.9f: ~n.d If'\come If;l{el. It is being
deVEloped .. by a non-profit corporation, COtmlVnity i-iousing. !1"1c:.
wh'c!'l Clt;leraus tl'1t L.yttcn Gardens com,p1u in P.alo Alto. The
I
I
I
1
t ,
-, •
lytton IV Prcj~ct OeveTopme~t St~teme~t
12/1~/90
motives for develop~ent Ire to provide a beneficia1 17vin;
envircn."Mf'1t for independent Sl!'rllOTS, rather t~at1 ,. profH-makirJg
vent.ure.
An additional public bene~it will be dlversifying t~e demog~ap~ics
of the neishbcrhood. Active seniors will contribute i richness to
t~~ fabr;~ af this area of Oowntow~ Park North. The design of tne
project allows for interaction among nel;hbors as well as a
50cil11y i~teractive livinp situation for seniors.
Consiste"~y with the Comprehef'1$i~e Plan goals of multiple-family
housing fer th1s site and maintaining the existing neighbcrhood
character have been assured ; n the des;;~ of t"e Lytton 1 V
project. Fifty-one units of ho~sin~ will be p~ovided where 12
pres~ntly exist. Arcnitectu~al detaili~s ~f the bu~lding to
reflect tne c~aracte~ ~f surrounding ca~penter and bungalow-style
housl!'s bleMds tne prcject witn the ..,ei~nborhc"'d. Massing and
tExtu~e present a pleasant feeli~; fer b~th indoor and o~tdoor
activities on-site.
Due to proximity to lytton Gardens and the
senior ,e~te~ In~ do~town $no~pin~. 5enio~s
id~'ntage of ~any ser~ices a~d activities
trivll by car. This is conS1sten~ ~'t~ the
~f tne neighborhood.
2. Uses prcQosed withjn t~e PC District:
neighborhood pa~k,
will be able to take
without needing to
pedestrian character
Senior apartments cons;st;ng
~nits. Parking for 53 cars in
spaces on 9raae.
of 45 efficiency and e J-~ecrcom
underground garage and 3 visitor
3. Nature of uses proposed:
Tne nature of this project has been desc~ibed in the Design
Narrative ind th~ kecessit) statement above. Compatibilltyof
this ~rcject wit~ ot~er zo~in9 districts within the City would not
be easily Ittair'labh. !t is most appro,prj,IU tMit senior
IPartments be located ir'l I ~h!,d resio'ential aru. ""len ~roximity
tQ shopping ino' senior services as well IS triMS it. T~is site is
ideally Suited to such I ~seo.
•. S~~ed~'f of housing units:
Sef Ittac~td a~ea summary. Units will reont for ap~~o~;matl!'l~ $550
~fr ~ont~. ~c for-s,le units art p~cpostd.
' .
. -,~.~~~'::~:~-'\
..\
-
•
.'
, ,
I
r
j'
!
I
i
!
•
i ..
lYTIOO IV
S,~IOR HOUSIHG.
PROJECT DATA
OCCUPANCY; R-I
..
COHSTRUCTION TYPE: V-I HR, SPRINKLER ED.
PARKING: GARAGE
Stal"ldar-d (S) 29
Compact (e) 17
Handical' (HC) _2
48
Tand'em (TIS) _5
TOTAL 53
VISITOR
Standard 3
AREA C~lCUlATJONS (gross sq.ft.j
THIRD FLOOR
SECOND FLOOR
FIRn FLOO~
TOTAL
10.973 S.F.
12.155 S.F.
13,580 ~
36,/03 S.F.
AlLO~ABlE AREA (Ch.ot. 5 USC)
On'! Story:: H),SOO s." J( 2 (sjO:rink1er) : 2I.OC!O ::> ~
MI,IHi·story :-2J.DOC s.f. x 2 ::-42,000 s,f.
~~AAG.E lJC X 170 , J3,700 SJ.
SITE AREA , ISO I 200 , 30,000 S.F.
COVERAGE , 13.5BO , .453
30,000
F. A.R. , 36.70B , J.Z2
30,000
~--
----.'
---
(VnON IV
UN;1 eCliNT • AREA
~ote: ~11 units ,~e ffffejency ~nless nated as 1 SR.
FJRST FLOOR
Unit Tn_ Ne. of Un.its
J " S 4
51 I
E2 I
C ~
(1 1
0 1 SR 1 He 1 SR 1
! 1
-~--
Co~ridors. Stairs, r1eyatar
launOry. Jan .• Trash
Library t (ommunit¥ ~oom
lobby~ rer;eptio". ofn(.:e.z.. m;,d1bCles
S£COND flOOR
UnH l'YPf No. cf UI"l'lts
" ~
~ 7
!l 1
53 1
C 2
CI 1
01 I 8~ ;
f 1 S~ 1 , I
19
Corridorl. ttiir$. t levitto!"
~.undry. Tusl';
UM it ~iea
(s.f.)
S7~
~50
420
550
5)4
52~
694
6€3
~14
Total First floor
\.!ni.t Area
{ ,. f . I
S74
(SO
420 sn
5 )4
525
6'1
615
'39
jotal Secc~d fleor
Tcta1 Area
(s.1. l
2296
lBOO
'2D
560
U'S
,25
694
65;
5H
2H.lS sf
225 sf
1525 sf
109S !of
)3,580 sf
ictal ~ru
U.f. )
2295
31,0
~co
571
ll~S
~2S
64l
615
'38
geIO
2223 sf
121 s'
)1,155 sf
•
" ,
-----'---~-.~-~-~---------:::~---...,
UNIT COUNT & AREA «ont.)
PlIgB' Z
THI RD FlOOR'
Unit Type H~. ~f Units
A 4
B 7
C 2
(1 1
Dl I SR I
H 1 eR I
16
Corrido~s, stl1rs, tlevator
L .. I.mdry. Trlsh
Sitti~9 Arus
SU_RY
Ur. it Type
A
8
81
82
83
C
Cl
0
DJ
E
F
G
H He
I
Total Aru First
Second
Third'
No.
12
18
2
1
1
6
3
BR 1
BR 2
1
laR I
1
I BR 1
1 BR I
51
lin] t Area
(s. f.)
574
450
574
525
641
598
Total Hird Floar
13,580
12,155
10,973
36,708 sf
•• "--,-----. < ."~,---......... ,,------
Tot. 7 Area
(s. f.)
2296
3150
1148
525
641
598
8358 sf
2021 sf
126 sf
468 sf
•
-
',;;. ,
2990
2992
]992
3/2B/91
At tachment 2
('\RRASCO&~
Dec 14
Dec 28
Jan ~
Feb 27
March
Apri 1 13
"'ay 29
Jur.e 2~
June 15
Aug ] -Sept 3D
Oct Dec 31
Jan 2 -Feb ]
Feb ] -IS
Feb 15
Feb 25 -Oct 30
Nov 1 -15
No\( 15
LYTTON liS E,~ I OR HOUS ING
DEVELOPMENT SC"EDULE
Submit for PTanning Commission (to staff)
nCompleted Application-
Application due to State f~r funding
PTanning Commissi~n Hearing -fnftia1
State awarcs funding
Final ARB Hearing
Final Planning C~mrr,is.sion Hearing
City Cour,,:;l Hearing
Hue Funding Deadline
Oesign Development
Cor.struction Cocumer.ts
Biddingi~eQctiatjon and Plan Check
Contract ~egotiaticn
Building Permit
Construction
REVISED Furnis~in;,.s
Occupy
, ,
•
I --..
-,
'~~~f~r'~:
.1iI";Ii-,; .. r~;:~!~·.~:~i·~j\~Y~'_:_:~_~_~'.:_:~~"-"-"-I!III._IJII.!lI!Ie~"'''''_.';'''
, ,
1-•.. -At t.a;:;'[,...IIJent j. . , -, CARRASCO &ASSOClATfS
"IIC~ITECTS·Pl"'-':frljEII~
May 6. 1991 I.~ -'r'?~CO-'"''''" ) bit G ~ 0 V ~ l~ I
City of ~alo Alto I MAY OS 19S1 I j"'·;:N.RT'I:£jojT or P~IViNlNG DeDt .. of" ~, an" ; rig and Com:m,m; ty Erwi ronment
5th Floor. C;~y Hal'
250 Hamilton Avenue CITY Cf PAlO HTO Palo Alto, CA 94301
attn: Nancy lytle 9(-v-13
r~: ~30 Everett -Lytton IV Senior Housing
Request for Variance from PC Zon~ requirements
Deer Nancy:
Tna a~p' ;cant for-this project. Community Housing, Inc., ;s
applying for Variance for two elements of the buildin9: front
porch within the 20' front yard and encroac~me~t of roof
dormers into t~e re~u;red daylight plane. It is our
unde~$tanding th8t the Pl~nnin9 Commission and C;ty Council
would offiCially act on the ~ariance request in conjunction
wit~ the ~C 20ne application.
We are hereby reQuesting a Vari8nce f~om the front ya~d
setback for the covered porch only. al1o~ing the po~ch to
encroach 1D"-OM into the required 2Q'-O~ fro~t ya~d. Also we
are .reQuesting a Variance to allow the roef dormers at
various locations to encroach 5'-O~ into the required
daylight plane. 80th of these reQuests w~~e encouraged by
the lrchitectu~a' ~eview Board when they recommended approval
of the project on Aoril 18. Hl9L
Following are
statements:
a.
-
the reQuired Tindings and justification
~There a~e eKception8l or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions apPlicable to the
property inyolyed that do no~ apply generally
to p~operty in the same district.-
This p~oject is applying for a PC Zone to
a'lo~ construct~on of higher density, 1ow
income senior housing in sn RM 30 district.
Owe to the site size constraints and
aesthetics of blending the p~oject into the
existing neighborhood, it is not feasible to
push the building b~ck to keep the front porCh
from encroaching into the front yard. Oo~mers
encroaching into the daylight pl~ne is al'o~ed
'in R:-\ neighbor-hoods ar.d it seems reasonable
that this should be allo~ed within multi
family or PC ~ith residential use.
-~, -,-_ .... _.,.' ............ ,,"'-,,;,.~.,.. -..
t
!
I
I
'-"~ , --'
-" -t ': 1P<
.. -'.
:1
1
!
\
I ,
I
i
I
I
• _'~ _ ~,..;;""""".''''' e$ [,:)01'
Va~;anee ReQuest
5-6-91
?ag8 2
b. -The granting of th~ 8pp'ic~t1on is necessary
for the ~reser'Y8tion ar-.d &,.,joyme~t of 8
~ubstantia' ~roperty ri9ht of the applicant,
and to prevent unreasonab1e property 105S or
unnecessary nerds~ip.~
Most other properties within this neighborhood
have Tess than 20-100t front setbacks to the
porch; thus the c~aracter will appear sim11ar.
Allowing for dormer encroachment g,yes this
property the same rights given to R-1
properties in the neighborhood.
c. -The granting of the application wi" not be
detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity. and will not be
detrimental to the public health. safety.
general welfare or convenience~~
The ~ro~t po~c~ and do~me~s have
significant design fe8tu~es which
reviewing bodies and the neighb,:)~hood
encou~aged. and even insisted upon, for
p~oject. The~e a~e no adverse effects
the public~ Actually, the f~ont po~ch
encourage interaction lIImong seniors o!n·.,d
neighbors. Dormers at the roof will
been
City
nave
this
l.oPOl"\
lWi 11
the
Bdd
exter,or inte~est wh;ch enhanees the
building's appearance within the ne;ghborhood.
as well as brine additional light into the 3rd
floor studio a~artments.
Thank you for consideration
PC Zone aoplication. If
please contact me.
of this Variance as part of th~
further information 's required.
Very truly yours,
LW£4Ud~
Principal.
cc: .Jim Kbch
-
•
•
Ms. Nancy Lytle
Zoning Administrator
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Fifth Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
April 4, 1991
Re: Grant of Easem<:Dt With Respect to Lytton Gardens N
Driveway Ramp
Dear Nancy:
=...... , ....... -.1 •••
The purpose of this 1ett~r is to provide you with written indication of our
intention to provjde to Lytton Gardens rv legal rights to obtain access fOj a ramp from
the northwestern edge of our property commonJy knC\','JJ as 325 Lytlon Avenue
enabling Lytton Gardens rv to develop a driveway ramp mto the l,;nde:rground pa:-king
10 be located under its project whjch fronts onW Everett SueeL
We do not yet know whether it is preferable to provide legal a.c:cess by granting
10 Lytton Gardens for an easement or by prOviding them fee title imerest through a tot
line adjustment.
The important message, howe .... er. is that we \I.'il1 grant them legal rigbts provideJ
they arc able 10 go forward ,"'ith their project in a reasDnably timely manner.
JEB:c.ak
e<:: James Koch
'L--"'" -""
-
•
. ..-.-......
I
1" t
f
"'
I
i
I
Ms. Susan Case
City Attorney's Office
City of Palo Alto
2.SO HamihoD Avenue
Seventh Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
Ms. Nancy Lytle
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Fifth Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
May 21, 1991
Re: Irrevocable Grant of Rights for Driveway Ac.ass
for the ~ton IV Project from 325 Lytton
Dear Susan a,.,d Nancy:
. ~t t.acrunent 5
"L...I._Q .. I;
..... iI-' :»;0 ••••• ,
~-.....
BOS07·903400
Enclosed is a draft Agreement between 529 Bryaot Street Panners, a California
limited pannership, the entity whicb ones 325 Lytton Avenue, and Lytton Gardens IV
with respect to the ramp access to underground parking for the project proposed by
Lytton N.
I am sending a copy of this Agreement to JiID Koch 50 that a final document
can be availabJe for the: Pianning Commission and City Council hearings .... ith respect to
Lytton IV.
-
•
!
I
I
I
Ms. Susan Cue
Ms. Nancy Lytle
May 21, 1991
Page 2
Pl ..... c:aJJ me with your comments or COllUms,
1EB:cak
Enclosure = Jim Koch
Linda Ludden
•
.. .
AGREEMENT WITH RESPECT TO
QRIVEWAY MJ) RAMP AITFSS
THIS AGREEMEJIo'T is made this ___ day of • 1991 by and between
529 BRYAI'<'T STREET PARTNERS. • Cahfornia Umited Partnership ("529 SSP) and
_____ ~. CX'').
A. X has an option to lease with an option to buy 3 parcels ("Parcels AI,
f'.:l and 1.3") of real property the legal d •• cnption of "'hich is ""t in Ex. A. X plans to
merge the 3 paICl:ls as a single parcel and to develop S 1 units of rental housing for
low.and.moderate illcome ""ruOf citw:m (tbe "PROJECI"'), more pani::ularly described
in that cenain application for a PlaMed Community ZDne Ordinance attached as
ExJubit B.
B. 529 SSP is the owner of that real prope!1y (''Parcel Bi the legal
deS<:ription of which is attached as Exhibit C. Parcel B is directly adjacent te the south
of Parcels AI, A1., and 1.3.
c. X desires to obtain from .529 BSP and 529 SSP desires to grant to X two
valuable property rights consisting of: (i) fee <Nm."hip to tl,., cenain ponion (tbe
''DRIVEWAY FEE") of Farcel B approximateiy sh<Nm in the drawing attached as
Ex!ubit D for a driveway and ramp 10 underground parking to be developed on
Parcels A·I, A·2, attd A·3 in conjunction witb the PROJECT; and (til general access
("ACCESS EASEMENT) of ingress attd egress for vehicles and pedestrians as
necessary to preserve somt. conveniec! access to the DRIVEWAY FEE for vehides
and to the PROJECT for pedestrians..
NOW, l1-1EREFORE, X and 529 BSP agree as faliaws:
1. 529 BSP shaD gran! to X tbe ACCESS EASEMEI>'T and fee ti'k
ownership to the DRIVEWAY FEE upon satisfaction of 'he following candi'ions by X:
A X shall have merged parcels A-I, A-2 and A-3 inlD a single legal
parcel.
B. X ~han. at !tS expense, prepare ci'vil engineering dra .... ings and lega1
documents necessary to enable 529 SSP to gran< to X tbe DRIVEWAY FEE and we
ACCESS EASEME!'.'T.
c. X shall pay to 529 BSP SIOO for tbe grant of the DRIVEWAY
FEE and the ACCESS EASEME!'.'.
L
-
,
."" 4. ·"'.7 -.. '~ .
•
. I
I , ,
,
i
1 • I
D. X ,ball p" Y aD title ins~ recording, filing and escrow fees
IIecesaaJy for grllnts by S29 SSP of the DRIVEWAY FEE and ACCESS EASEMEJI<.
'oX
E. X ,haD have received aD necessary approvals for ,be CITY OF
PA1.£) ALTO Cor the PROJECr, including aD variances, and adoption of a required
Planned Community Zoning Ordinance on or before ____ _
F. X shaD have received sufficient deb' and equity financing to
develop the PROJECr On or before _____ .
G. X ,haD ha"" received building permits fro", 'he City of Palo Alto
for contnbution of the PROJECT aD or before _____ .
2. .529 SSP make no representations or warranties with respect to the
conditions 0( the DR.iVEWAY FEE; in particular, 529 SSP malces no representations
with respect to the soil or \\'flIer conditions, or the !:JCis~ence or degree of Hazardous
Materials.. underground storage tanks or allY other representation and v,:arranties. 529
BSP is providing the DRIVEWAY FEE on an "AS-IS" basis, without any express or
implied representations or warrants.
Ex=ted this _ day 0( ___ ~, 1991.
__ A """""iL-.--··-· .
-
529 BR Y M'T SffiEET P ARTI'iERS
A California Limited Partnership
By.~ _______________ __
"X'"
By;..' ____________ _
-.~.'· •• o •... ·
~" ······~i,.·
.. h:
~~;j;
(
-
afT ... ; as. .lP!:;:Ud .•• ,~:.;..~
MaY 17. 1391
MS. virginia warheit
City of Palo Alto
P la..cning Depar1:ment
250 HamiltOD Avecue
Palo ~~O_ CA St301
Subject: L~COC IV . Resident/Employee Projections
Dea.r \,irgi~ia:
At.t.aC:rlIIl .. nt 6
.. ' '.
Acc~rding to your request, ! have assembled some info~ation on
L~COC I. II. au~ III which ~e cao use to p~ojec~ a p~ofile fer
L~ton rv (3)0 Everett). L~~ton I. defined as the indepe~dent
U.ving ponioll of Lytton Gardens. ccr:.sist.s of .266 'U.=:Iit.s. As
LyttOC IV will a.lso be an indepp..ndent living facility I have tlse·~
the rAtiOS en~~tered ~t L~ton I as the model for the
projections below. Lyt~OD II consists of 50 units reserved for
ResidentiAl care (a.k.a. ~Community Care") tenants. Community
care proviOes a higher degree of supervision ~~d assistance with
daily activities and direct involvement. "'~ith the Tenant· s
nutrition. L:yt:ton III. which is operated by a seper-ate
corpora~ion (Lytton Gardens. :rnc.) ~ is a 12B bed skilled n1lrsing
facility. This operati~ bears no s~larity or connection
(beyond being part of the "Lytton Gardens fa:7"lily") to thE proposed
developm<>Jlt.
Following is a chart using the Lytton I ratios as describej above
t.o project the level of L·ytton IV's im:ensity of use:
Units
-1 Br
-StudiO
Resider..ts
Autos
usage:
Iqrtt on I
268
71
197
325 (typical)
84
5-+ trips/week 39
0-4 'trips/week 65
Employees 60
L'1,It:too IV
51
5
H
56
15
7
8
2
Services
D6rlographics
see at~achrnents
We anticipate having t.wo full time e."nployees at L:;.l't.t.on IV. one
live-in resident manager and one adrr~Distrator. Because of the
caxmoc. manageme.c.t of all the LyttOn Gardens operations all c:1ining
•
room .food service .. aC'count1ng~ aIllj most administrative functions
wi.11 be handled off lite at the :..yt.tOl:l Avenue campus. ':'he only
oeher smployee generated traffic at Lytton IV will he frClll part
time a.a::L4 OCCASiona.l service visits tor mainta.c.e.oce and. :-epairs ...
loc1al services, and tri!UliIganent supervision.
I have attached sane more 6escriptive intormatioo which I rece.i ved
from the Lytton GardellS staff al:>out Lytton I, II, ~ III Which
may he halpful in fully Wlderstanding the nature of our operation.
Plea8e don't hesitate to call if I can provide you anything
further.
. '" ames A4 Koch
Board Member
Community Housing .. Inc.
-, .. ,
r -
-
•
a JiIVI'1I!t4L .h , •. -
Atte;,~hl:Jer;t 7
Cfo.';:..C-'1/ ·7~-FleS.I'j~
'7,,-£df-S~
SUMMARY OF AUTOMOBILE USAGE
AT lYTTO~ GARDENS
t -.
---------
I J L~ lW
OEC i, 199D
Lytton Gardens has 100 parkln; spaces for its 320 ~nits. £5 spaces are reserliec,
33 are non-reser~ed a~d available for visitor use and there are 2 (10 ~~nute)
loading spaces. lytton Garderrs has 3iJ employees, most of whom park Or); the street.
Park.ing and auto usage suryey results are summarized be1aw: (SL.'rvey CQrld.H:ted 11'1
Jure 1989 by lytton Garder1s staff).
,
I. 84 resider.ts of Lytton Gardens have cars. 59 of these
residents rsspol"lded to the s:Jr~e.y.
2. 20 people drh'e their car 6-7 times p" l'Ieek.
19 people drive thei r car q-S ti!"les per week.
20 people dri .... e their car 1-4 times per week.
3. Aver-age mileage PH week varted from a low of 34
miles to a ~ign of 83 miles pe~ weeK.
4. Average mileage driven per year varied fro~ 2,810
miles to 5,e90 miles per jear.
5. Average trip distance:
6.
UrJder 5 miles
5-10 1T'.i1es
10-20 Il'1ths
c"Iler 20 rr:~ 1 es
9 peop 1 e
22 people
20 P€Ople
7 people
W~en as~ed if they drive on ~ajor trips 36 people
said no, 20 people satd in-state only. 1 person said
aut-~f-state only and 1 said both in-and out-of-state.
7. When asked what other fGrms of transportati on tl'>ey used.
answers were:
No other method
Pub-l ; c tra'1sit
Taxi
Ei cycle
34
12
5
1
• ! ~n.::bitcctlJrnl Itc\vJcw
IJlmrl1 ,\\ililites
-------~~~~-----------------------------------------------------
Thursd.y. April lB. 1;91
B:OO A.I!.
Council Cunference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.lo Alto. Califor"i.
A. ROLL t.lLL
Board Hembers Present:
Board Members Absent:
St.ff Kembers Present:
.Hami Barnes
Aino daRosa
Michael lYz~.
Julia Maser
Shirley Wilson
None
Bob H.l.y
Nancy lytle
Virginia W.rheit
Jim Gilliland
lori Tapley
Marvin O'llerway
Ashok Agg ...... l
C.rl Stoff.l
8. APPBOV~L OF MINUTES OF ~BCH 7. MABC~AND APRIL 4. ]99]
Corrections tD the minutes of March 7. 1991:
Item 3. 2500 Embarcadero Road, was c<lrrected in that the first condition
was Changed to read -Raised e1evation and/or re1ocation pest~aj of the
picnic area.·
Also, Ms Barnes changed the wording of her (o~ents to read, -Ms Barnes
is very muc~ in support ~f the hosing·off facility and feels this would
b~ I wonderful opportunity for tne City to lAY pipe so t~at ~ reclaimed
water can be used at this facility in the future.-
Ms Haser made three typographic corrections: 1J on page Zt the spelling
of Richard ·~eris-nams i5 -Meier-i 2) on page 14, under Ms Maser's
comments, the -Alpha· building correcte~ to ·Alza~; and 3) lat~T in the
same paragTilph -s ; te· corrected' to • s 1,9M -.
p:\.rb\min0418 4/18/91
Page I
-
--~----. F
<-.~",:
""'"
•
, .
. .
J
i
I
-l ,
"'-", ···r
APPEALS: All aaj('·r and IIi nor proj~c.t .. "prov .. ', ue subject to l!l ippu,T
period, whfeh allows for the Ipplicir.t or members of the public to fiTe
In _,pell froe the doclsion of the Director on the ~roject. The '?pe,l
period' for lIIajor projects {designated with an asterisk •• -J is ei eV!ii
Ill) werling d.ys foll.~in9 the date of the ARB's recommendation on the
project. The .ppe.l period for ~inor proj.cts Is seven (7) working days
following the date of the ARB'. recoOl\lend.tion or, the project. APPEll,
of ~inor sftl and design and Einar Zone changes are subject ta Chapter
18.93 of the P.lo Alto Municip.' Code. Pllnniog .tarf should b.
contacted for further infonnat;on regardin9 appeals and app!al
procedures.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: All major projects not identified by EIA in
parenthesis (EIA) follo.ing the project address have been determined to
be Categorically Exempt from CEQA review. ~ll minor projects that have
been determined to be Categorically Except from CfQA review_
TIME LIMIT: Project approval is valid for one (1) year from the
orig'"al date of appro¥al except for phased projects for which 1
specific d~velopm!nt schedu1e, not to exceed five (5) years from tne
ori~inal date of approv~', may be approved. The time per\od fer ~
project including a ph~sed proj!ct m3Y. upon app~ication. be extended
once by the Oirector for an additional ye~r~
E~FI~Tl0N: In tne event the building penoit for. project is not
, secured within tne above speclfied time limits, the approv,l of the
] project will expire &nd be of no further ferce or effect~
,tTAATING AT 8,00 A.M. ,
; I. CONSENT CALEHOAR
There were no cQnsent items on this agenda.
REGUlAR AGENDA
1. 330 EVERETT !VENUE • (EIAJ
~arra5tO & Associates
90·ARB·]15
90-EIA-55
90·ZC-17
Zone Change from RM-30 to a PC to ,llow construction of a 51-unit
senior housing proj!,t.
Prior to the applicant's presentation. ~ancy Lytle, Zoning
MmiTl.istrlta!', expla.'ned the PC ;;"rocess as it relates to this
project; that is. that this project was seen by the ARB for
preliminary re~iew, and ~aS. also seen fOf preliminary review by the
Pla~njn9 Commission. At the Planning Commission hearing.
tOR'lnlssioners rec.ommended tha.t the applfcant meet with Jim Saer.
owner of the adjacent property, to see how access to the project
through his property at 325 Lytton .igot be accomplished in
:\arb""in041B 4/18/91
Page 3
,
... -.:'~
..
.,
\.
:... l'
.~ .
.1
(
conjunction wlt~ • project which he Is considering on his site. In
respons! to that recommen~it;on. the appl;ca~t ;s submitting a
revised lPplSCition ~n conjunction with Jim Baer. The revised
application doe$ show access across the 325 lytton Sit2. The ~25
lytton project is being reviewed today as I'very preliminarJ concept
only. It was actually agendized in order that it could be d;scussed .5 it re' at .. to the 330 Everett project. The two projects >Ii lJ
proceed t0gethe~ to Plannir.g Commission on the M~y 29, 1991, where
the 330 Everett proJe~t will be reviewed by the Planning Commission
and the 325 lytton proj!ct will receive its preliminary review by
the Planning Commission. The 330 Everett project ~il' proceed to
City Council Tn June for final revitw by the Cou~ci~.
The ARB will 11most certainly ~ant to sse furthtr architectural
develepment of the 330 Everett preject. If they dc, they sheuld
condition the project that the ddditic~il irchitet~uTil development
return t<J the ARB for revieW', shou1d the project receive a.pproval by
the City Council.
The ARB members then posed questions to th! staff about cumparisons
between the pro?osed develop~ent and that allowed under current RM-
30 regulltions and a1so under RH-40 zonfng. Staff explained t~at
cDmpirison~ Staff ~as a~k~~ to explain wty the~ w~re supporting.
thfs project, ~ich is sign1ficantly larger t~an what is a110wed
under tne current RH-30 zoning. Nancy lytle responded t~at, first,
the massing of tne b~ild;ng for.ms a transition from a very large
fhe-story apartment building existin9 :adjacent to the nort.~ of the
site and the $;n91e-fa~ily home that is adjacent to the south of the
project. It serves as a transition fn an ar~a where you have Quite
• mix of densities and sizes ~f residential bui1dings_ Set~ndly.
staff is supporting the project because ~f the housing benefit to be
gained with the addition of 51 subsidized units for low income
seniors. This housing benefit meets seye~al policies and pro9ra~5
of the Comprehensive PTan.
Planning CQmmiS5ioner rit Cullen ~as present an~ responded to the
same IQ.uesticn. sa.ying that she and <Jtner members of the P1.ann"j:'lQ
Commission supported the projett because ser.ior nousing is such a
special need in the city ind because affordable senior hOLlsing every
~'ate in town is generall~ high density.
ihe a~p'i~~nts then mad! the,r presentation, ~Xplli";ng that the
project WiS being presented is it stands alene without depending on
approval of t~e 325 lytton project. The on11 connect ion .it~ t~e
325 lytten project tn. 10c.tion of tn. d"ive.,y on 325 lytton and
access to it .cros. 325 lytten property .nd a IO-feet adjustment of
the east property line of 325 lytton. If 330 Everett is not ~uilt,
that .djustm.nt would revert back te the origin.l owner. The
presentatfon ~as made b~ Jim Cocke, of C~mmu~\ty Housing. lnc.~
followed by i brief presentation by the project architect and the
landscape architect.
p:\.rb\l1lin041B
•
~ .. ~"" .••.•. ' -I c1
'f'~~~;
""~-::::,,-
::/~.
\ --:~
",
I
j
I
I
j
The Board I.sked questions of the pre$enters. They ilsited' what wou1d
~ the expected iverlge ~ge of rEsidents in the p~cject. and the
appliCltfon re~ponded t~at the Ive~ige age at Lytton Gardens is
presently 85 ye.rs old, but they .ssumed that peopl. '"'tl.lly
occupying thi$ project would be younger than tn~t, possibly as young
IS 56.
Thry wrre lsked what kind of windows were proposed for the project.
The response was clear glass .. Th. acchltect stated he preferred
casement windows, but that the ictual window type and framing ~ad
not yet been determined.
Questions were lsked about whether tne tandem parking arrangement as
shown Yas the only one that bad been considered. Board members were
not entirely conf1dent about how that would work. The applicant
responded that they had looked it • variety of l.youts for parking
in the gar;ge. They expect to need about one-thirc as many parking
spac~s is th!y have units, bas!d on expe~lenC! at Lytton I. ~hich is
• comparable ind~pendent li~'ng project. But d~e to t~2 c~~~~nt
parking sh~rtage en Everett Avenue, they determined to build ~ full
underg~ou.nd garage, even though it 'Would prollide morE par\:dr.g tha.!'I
they expected t~ need. Consequently t~ey were not concerned that
SOMe of the parking they ~e~t pro~idi"g ~as tandem. They had found
thit at Lytton !. ~any residents $tore their cars because they are
reluctant to 91"e them u~ &S i symbol of their 1ndep~nd~ncej e~en
t~ough they rar.ly use them, so they tnought they ~ould have a need
fer these tandem sp~tes to store se1dorn-used Cir~. Because they
~ll have a resident manager on site, there will always be SC~20ne
iYiilable to move a car wnich would be used infrequent,y,
approximate1y once i week or less eften.
A varlety of questions of J Inore technical nature were asked about
building code issues. Tn! arcnitect responded tnat so'utions that
had been ~orked cut with the Building Civis~cn.
Questions were asked about bicycl! parking. wt1fther it ""a5 adeq;.Ji:te.
The response WiS U.it there is presently on'y one biKe owner at
Lytton I, but that t.,.y did expect to provide for both visitor and
resident bicycle parking. Staff noted that providing more bicycle
parking was one of the conditions of appro~al.
Th. applicant was asked jf they were providing storag.. To.y
painted out that store rooms are be-ing provided in three corners cf
the garage. ~i,h they be1ieved would be adequate to seive the ne2ds
of the residents. ThfY also pointed out that given that this is
subsidized housing. ameniti!s are limited bct~ by HUe requirements
Jnd also the realities of budget concerns.
It was asked jf there was room in t~e visiter parking area for a
s~uttle van to pull in and park while people entered the van and
disembarked for trips to tMe grocery store and other off-site
p:\arb\min0418 4/l8/9l
Page 5
\
'" i
I
,
.......... " .. --'t.'
;-.
!
1
vi$fts. The appl~cants resPQnded that there WiS rOD~ for the van to
pull In I~ be cleaT of tne p~b'ic sidewalt. also that one of the
p~rking spaces might be widened to allow the v.n to pa~k ne~r t~e
door. In addition, the lppl feint stated' they will be req.Jesting i
white zone In front of th~ bul1~lng at the curb, which seems the
~st logical pl.ce for the van to stop briefly for pic,ing up and
dropping off.
The applicant discussed the \ssue of the storm sewef and storm dr~in
systems on Everett Stree-t lind thefr dist:ussions lI,.ith the Public
~orks Department about how both of those would be h,ndled to
accommodate this proj~ct. The sewer will be upgraded when the
project is built. probably in conjunction ~ith i 12-~n1t condomlni~m
project phnned across the street. ne eHy is planning to upgrade
the ~tor.m dT.ina9~ system in 1993, .nd the l?plicant'$ proj!ct ~ill
tie into the new syst!m when it is constructed.
There was discussion about the design of the por,h and the seQuence
of ;Ildoor "1'1<1 O\ltdDor spaces f.,.om the front yard, to the porch, to
the library. the meeting room and the cer.tral courtyard.
Questions were asked about the amount of parking which would be iost
~t lZS lytton i~ the ev~nt that spaces Ire given up to pro~ide •
access to 330 Eyerett t but the Jlroposed 325 lytton project and its
new additional parking i. not built. Staff and toe applicant
responded that the access to 330 EYerett would result in the loss of
seven spaces, and t~at it would be the res~Qns,bility of the owne,
of 32, lytton to mitigate the loss of those sp.ces throug~ an in·
lieu fee or replacement of the parking in some othp.r location.
The apPlicant responded t~ questions abcut handicap access to the
units, saying that HUD required .11 the units to be desi9ned to 19S1
handi~ap access standards.
The board asked questions acout t~e small siz~ of the balconies 9
with the applicant respcndi,o that HUD wouldn't pay for any
baloonies at .11, but they felt it was absolutely essential that at
lelSt some access to. thi! o~t-of-doors be pro ... ided~ Til! proposed
balconies ~ere not sized for gathering on the balcony, but to
prDvide visual ;ccess to the Dutside 9 a p1ace to locate p1ants, and
to just step out for a bTeath of air.
The applicant ~as asked if amenities 5~ch as the balconies and the
dormers and otner aspects of the project which wou1d not be paid for
by HUD could be expected to continue to be part of the prOject, or
did we need to worry that those things might disappear. lhe
.pplicant stated that they were very ~uch committed to keeping these
I~nities as part of the project, even though they would have to
find funding other than HUD to pay fo~ them. lhe applicant .1so
stated that HUD guidelines have recently been adjusted so that it
dDesn't count against a project w~en it ;5 c~nsidered for funding
p:\arb\min~418 4/18/~1
Page 6
L
-
i}
'" g"
..J
~ • '1
thit t~e .pplicant is 90in9 to provide extrl amenities and pay for
them in $(\\H ethe.r ,'ilY ~
Four lIembers of tne public spoke at publ ic testil!lOr,y.
Tony Badaer~ 381 HawthOrnC Strert. Stated t~it he thought that,
good job had b£e~ done ~n the architecture. He also expressed
~Qn~ern th&t the ARB meetings a~t scheduled in the daytime. thus
precluding some people from participating. He .t.ted th.t he w.s
v~ry concerned thilt I number of differe.nt projects with impacts on
Downtown Horth .~ in the offing, inc,uding Sand Hill Road,
development of the To.or Well .ft., the Palo Alto Medica' Found.tion
expansion, and other large projects downtown. cut no comprehensive
t.ri,ff1c st'..ld'ts hilie beer. dont to sho .. wha.t miglit be tlie ciImull.ti'Je
Impacts on Dawn town North. Hawthorne Street, h. observed, has
become very noisy, .so that it is hard to steep if you live on this
street. He was concerned th.t this project might be "held host.g,"
to Jim Bier's 325 lytton project, and be approved without ideQuate
attention being given to wh.t tho tr.ffic imp.cts might be. He
statea that Oowntown ~as many ~eeds. including a grocery storf and
other things of community ~alue tn~t cannot be pro~ided. the rtason
being gfven that the lind 15 too expensive. He safd it was ver'y
i~Drtant that this project continue to be for seniors. He •
expressed I concern that there was a oeed for bile storage. ~any
people in their hte fiftle. ,"d oldor still ride bicycles .nd need
a place to stoTe them. ~e reiterated thit his primary centern was
ttle need for I compret'lensi'l/e-traffic stLidy to determine the
cumulative impacts of traffic on tne Downtown North nelghbornDod.
Melis.sa Myers, 3Cl Bryant Str~et, aSKed staff if emergency vehicle
access was being adequately provided for. and ~ow this would be
accommodated. Alstl. if visitor parking was going to be adequate and
how and where t~at would be provided. Staff responded that
[m~rgency Services have informed staff t~at Cells made to this
address would be responded to both from Everett Street an~ from the
surface parking lot It the rear af the-project. depending on w~ere
the unit needing service was located. The data prov;ded by
Emergency Services fer emergency service visits to lytton I indicate
thlt the fraquency cf calls would be about 2 percent of the number
of units per month, or about one-visit p~r montn for the 51 proposed
units. Tne viSitor parking area is sufficiently sized t~it a
medical Yan eouid pull into the driveway and sit there without
impeding the public side~alk during an ernergtncy~ Visitor parking
has been expanded from three to five sllrface spaces on Everett
Street since the previclJs ARB prel im1nary review. Jt has been
further facilitated by moving the entrance to the ~njergrcund garage
to tne rear of the site so there is no conflict between cars coming
in and out of the garage and visitors entering and leaving the site.
In .d~itic", the appllelnt hl. Slid they expect to b. able to
accommodate some reg~'ar frequent visitors who tend to stay for an
extended period of time by accommodating t~em in the garage~ since
p:\lrb\min04IS 4/18/91
Page 7
. -,,".>.,
.-, .
. : -
. -;. .
. ~-; :,.':";".-
• -)
.>-, ... -.~
," "
".{:C" '
:,;c" ~
":;,."
r ---~~"''';#$''""'''''''' ""'''~~.~ ~-. .,.. -.... ,
they exp!ct to have ~re spaces th~re than they need for residents.
People who vfsit freQ~2ntlJ ... ~ 11 Tearn how to get In ind cut of the
garage, .and I resident IIlniger will be present to provide access for
them to the garage. Staff believes that tne combin.t;" of the
9aragt ind the surface parking will be adequate fer ~is;torl. The
appliclnt and Members of tne Board mentioned tnat some consideration
Is being given to "sing the surface parking lot at 325 lytton for
evening visitors. Jim Saer .tated that all the surf.ce parking
proposed in the 325 Lytton project would be public parking. and
Ashok Aggarwal elaborated that this surface parking w.s .11 expect.d
to be 2-hour daytlme parking and unlimited ~~ening parking, and it
.... ould be ilvailable to all members of the public., including visitors
to the 330 Everett project.
AnastasilS Karras. 4S~ Hawthorne Avenue. spOKe to the Board about
the ~ttd of old people for i grocery store downtown. She said there
~sed to be-marlY stores dO·.mtoWTl~ Sh!. in fact. had moved to
Downtown North from Channin9 Street precisely so that sh! could ~ave
access to the snops as s~e grew o1der. but now that she is in her
eighties and liVES in Oown~own North, there are ~ot the stores
downto~ that she needs. The varletJ ;$ no longer th~r~. She
believes t~at the stcre~ have been dispiaced by too much large
dev~'opme~t~ She expressed a concern that indiv~duil cld ~eople.
prefer to stay in their own homes, and the City shGuid be dOing
things to help people stay In the,r o~n homes, People should te
helped by the City to ,.lp thems.1ves to buil~ and stay in tneir own
places rather thi" prDviding $e~~or housing fer the~.
Mr. Joe Myers) 301 Bry&nt Str~et, spoke to th~ Board ~sllng ~~out
w~at planting .as pro~osed ilon9 the W!st Side of the project
between tnt Site and the houses which face Qnt~ Bryant Street. The
applicant point~d out that the building is SO feet from those
~ouses, with open space being provided on that side of the site.
She furt~er pOinted out that there 1S i ZO-foot landscape setba~k
with na 9arige under it~ which will iliow for substantial tree
planting in that setback. Mr. Myers .sk.d st.ff .hat authority one
wo~id have to go to in order to change the Compre~enSlve P13n.
Nancy L1tle responded that a crange to the ComprEhensive Pian ~cuTd
need to reviewed by the Piann1ng Commission and the City Council.
That ended the pub' ic testimony_ P'lenlbers of tne Board thel'l
discussed the proJect.
Marn; Sirnes stated that she basically likes everythil'lg about the
project. She especially appreciates the porch having been added in
response to Board comments. She likes the landscape design. but is
concerned about the adeQuacl of parking_ She beiieves that the
residents will drive because they need to use their cars to buy
groceries. It is ill shame there is no reasonably ,priced grocery
store dawnto~. She believes the City should subsldize such a
grocery story to help reduce automobile driving z:nd the need for
p:\.rb\min04IB 4/18/91
Page 8
L
L
, -.,;:
'*:
•
\-
I
"
" "
plrk1ng. A seco~d point she vas concerned about ~as the presen~e
of two garige r"iollpS ICC-US in; very nur one anottier cmto the same
surfice par~ing lot. S~! WiS Ifraid that might produce traffic
conflicts. part1c:u1irly with elderly people using (Jr.e iJf the rar..ps.
She was also concerned about the design of the porch. She said it
felt ~ore like a patiO no~ thl~ i porch4 It didn't seem to ha~e the
feel'n; of enclosure and safeness that ene would feel on a porc~,
since there is n~ change of elevation between the porch and the
public sidewllk. and r.o etner design elements in the porch to
mitigate that. She believes thlt It Is importln! for the porch to
be large enough to accommod.te severll c~airs. so that people can
s~t there. but not have to necessarily talk to each other, so that
mare than ene person coyTd be on the porch at one time without
feeling that tney composed I group that had to interact~ She
believes that it is important t"at the porch st1ou1d feel safe and
enclosed. but at the same time be visib1e from tne street and ha~e
eiSY access from inside the building and to the ether outdoor
spices. She supports I variance al1o~ing the front porch to
encroach into the front yard so that it will be nearer to the
sidewalk to encourage interaction between residents and people
passing e~ the sidewalk. 5~e supports that encroachment if the
porch is redesigned so that it ;s ~ore usable space. She does not
see it being a Ilsable: space the way H is designed no ... '.
Julii Maser's comments ~ere as f~lTows: S~e also was concerned
abo"t the design of the porch. She felt the porch ne.d,d to be
ixtended across the front of the building; that the library. meeting
rooms and internal ~eeting spaces needed to be moved to the front of
the bUilding, neareT to the ~orch. so that the conn~ction of spaces
that ~ow Dccurs on the side of the building should be moved to tne
front. Ms Maser as~ed tne applicant if they h~d considered other
designs for the pOrcf'l4 The applicant responded that they had
considered a variety of designs for the porch, and how they affectfd
th! pTogram, partic~lirly the need for i kind of circulation that
will allo'W casual obsen'ation of the reSidents, so that tlu=y can be
sur! that people are well and accounted for. The applicant said
that they wO:Jld continue to study how the porch r"ight be expanded
ind some other a1ternativ~ desi90S. Ms Maser was concerned about
the dead-end circuhtion in the garage and about tandem parking.
Sh~ felt the current arrangement is a dlfficu1t anj cumbersome one,
and might not work well for elder1y residents. She was Questic~!ng
whether there was enough parking. and whether or not the handicap
access to the eTevatcr in tne underground garage was adeq~ately
arranged. She said she would support a variance tn allow the
dormers to extend into the daylight plane? so that they could
continue to be designed ~s ShOwn4 She said that she 1iked the
arthjtecture i lot, thought the massing of the building was
wonderfullj hlndled. She suggosted that she might prefer a strong,"
contrast ir'l materla1 s, perhaps stucco and wood Tather than the
shingles a~d woed siding as proposed.
p:\.rb\min0418 4/18/91
P.~e 9
-
\
. -:~.
1!l!J
I
I
\
, -
"s Vil$on~s CDmments were as follows~ Responding to ~5 Mas~r'5
cDmments ibaut t~e mJteriaTs. ~s Wilson siid that she pref~rred the
chofC! o( materla1s shown by tne applicant. that they were a much
more subtle cant-rut than an .ctual cnange in Il.lt.!!r'iah from stucco
to wood. She thought this subtle use of the materials was similar
tc that found tn the neiqhborhoqd~ She .1so was comfortable ~ith
the ma"ing cf the building in relation to the oeighborhood. She
polnte~ cut that the house ot the corner of (,orett Street and
BrJant, while it is the 1ut sing1.-fa~i1y ~ouse on the EV<rett
Street block, is 0 very important part of. pr;mari1y-sir;le family
block on eryant Street, and she would not ever want to see t~at
house replaced with. 1ar;or structure or a .u1tiple-family
structure. She ~a$ concerned about the design of the porcn, and
f!1t that the porch and the outdoor ipaces and the one-story
.. lem.ents CJf the building should be moved around to ,[ver-~tt Stre!~.
Sh! was concerned t~at t~e porch won't be ~sed as present7y
designed. The two-story massing of the building could be moved
closer to Bryant Str~et, inta whit is now the courtyard and the
veranda concept of the porch and re11ted outdoor spaces moved tc
Everett Strett, recognizing that the interna1 fvnction~, the
library, the ~eetin9 rocms 1 need to be ktpt together. She was
c.oncerned about Ute small size of the ba1conies, and fe1t that since
tney are primarily for visua1 access to th~ outside, it ... 'ould be..
import.nt fer Windows to go ,11 the w'Y to the floor so th.t the
outdoor Irea and plants on the balccny could be seen from the
insjde. She also supports a variance to the daylight p1an! for t~e
dormers. and aha supports rear access out of the site toward lytton
Avenue and Uniyersity Avenue. She urged t~e applicant to give
special conSideration to t~e lands,aping in thE ~arrow $idE yards,
believing that those yards can be very attrlcti¥e and useab1e spaces
if properly handled. She btlieved that the par~ing as proposed is
pr{l:ba.bly i.dequate considering the o1der age-e;(pected' of tr,e
residents.
Ms daRosa's comment! ~ere as fo11ow5. She began ~y stating that she
~ad spoken with the architect and with ~rs. Karras and her daughter,
Hs d.Res. ,upported the proj.ct. She felt that the material, and
their placement on the building was appropriate. She stated that
she thought the .ood shin;l. roof .as •• ery import."t .1ement.
Because of the way the roof slopes~ it is very visib1e. and it woulc
be important to r~tain wood sh1ngles. She thinks that the rear
entrance t~ the site is a m~r~elo~s pirt of tnt design. She said
th~t parking in the garage is 57 spaces~ and if you subtract the
five thAt are tandem, you ire ltill left with 52, which 15 still one
per Ynit p1us one tandem space. She feels tornf~rtab1e with the
parking number even though Shf finds that some spaces ire difficult
to get in and o~t of. She thinks that the possibility of having
large mature trees in the setbacks, which is going to be p05si~le
since the garage does net extend into the setbacks, is much mare
Important tnan •• pondi"; the underground gar.ge into the setbac,
Ire a in ord!!r tc provide lI'\ore pa.rking. fits daRosa also 'Was concerned
p:\orb\min041S 4/18/91
Fage )0
L
,
.-
I •.•
.about the de.sfgn of the porcn, feelfng tholt it was not usable the
wly ft was proposed. She felt tholt the site ~lan with the new
entrauct frem the bold is much impr!)Yed. but t~iitt the porch has been
sort of lo:;t in the site pliln. She thinks that the-cont."ct with the
neighborhood is I benefit both to the neighbors and the residents,
Ind the porc" now is jLtst an tntryway, fsol ilted from the rest of t~e
project. a~d doesn't f~nct;on is In important pirt cf the overall
Icthity are.s of the site. She acknowledged that. tradeoff will
be sade If the porch Is connected ~.re to public sp.ce rather th.n
to the privilte space. She would recommend general approval of the
project with the porch and other architectur.l development and
details to return for ARB review.
~r~ Lyzwa's comments we~e as follows. He concurs with comments made
by other members of tMe Board, particular with Ms ~a5er's comments
abolr.it the porch and ttl! entry. Also with Mr. Badger's concerns
about the impacts of de.'!lopment projects on parking and traffic ;r.
the Cowntown North neighborhood. Mr. lyzwa said he would like for
th~ applicant to take steps to ISSLtre noise control in the project,
such IS using double-paned glass, even if this means using aluminum
windows instead of wood, using lightwefght concrete bet~een the
floors. and' staggered studs with insu1'iltion to cut down on noise
tr!nsmistlon w;thin the structure. He is assuming that because~of
cost. tne app11cant will not be able to use clear wood siding, and
win probably be usin; knotty wood siding. If that is the cas.,
would urqe tf1e applicant to consider the possi~nity (If using
masonite siding instead of wood. whic~ he .. OUId' support. He does
not believe that the f;~e proposed YlsitQr parking spaces will be
adequate, and urg!S the applicant to work out an arrangement with
~r~ Bier for accommodat1ng visitor parking on the adjacent site. 2t
325 lYtton. He also urges them to re·exa~ine the arrangement of
parking on the site. lrfhen the project returr.s fer Board" re"{iew, he
would liKe to see how the downwater leaders are handled. He would
recommend a freight e1ewatoT 9 if that is pJssib1e. He would like to
se~ tne balconies increased in size and reconfigured so that they
are more useable. He would like to see the interior floor plans
blown l.iP to a larger scale so 'it is (lear how the units will
function, and the rehtions~ip to the exterior design !If the
project. rn regard to the Ltndep"'grcund' parking garage. he reiterites
Julie ~ser's concerns about the difficu1ty in using the tandem
spaces and so~ of the oth!r spaces, and general circulation, an~
urges the app1icant to provide more storige. M~. Lyzwa .'so
supports variances for the porch to rxtend into t~e front yard
setbick. perhaps would support it extending even further into the
front yard setback. ilnd supports a variance to the daylight plane to
allow tbe donners to be designed IS prop!lsed.
The ~OTION was made and seconded that the Architect"ral Review Board
recollGend to the Planning ColtlTliSsicn that they recorrrnend to City
Council that the project be A1'PROVtD, 5-0, with the findings and
condttions in the staff report and with the additional condition
~:\.rb\mi<lOUB 4/18/91
Page 11
L
. -.
--:":"1 . . -.. ~ ~I
..... i
-,.
. ..J _'-,O~
\ ,~
'"-.
!
I
i -:
"J-;'".
"elf. _~ . ""
l!IIl"'"." '._~~o;if~l...:.o ~.r ___ , ."""ilS"'Ii".fli!t'!!l".",O"'.f"""""-',.;''' _ -""_ .. '._'"".
that before the lppli,ants submit for a building permit. t~e project
will return to tne Architectural Re~iew Board witn tne fol1owi~9:
f1NOlMliS
I. The US! or uses propcsed for the site ire of sucn
c~aracteristics that the ippl1cation Df qeneril districts or
combir.ing districts ~jll not provide suffiCient fl •• ibilily to
allow the proposed deve'opme~t which is to provide housing for
low and verI low ,ncome seniDr citizens. The increased density
and decreased parking requirements will allow a greater number
of sma11er units sultable to older persons, tnus ser~ing a
larger number of persons needing this type ~f ho~sing. and ~ill
reduce the tost per ~n~tl thus making ~nits ~ffotdable to
persons with low and very 10l1li incomes.
2. Deyelopment ~f the sit~ under the pro~i$ions of the PC district
will result in publ1c benefits not otherwise attainable by
application of the ri!g'ulaUons of general districts or C~mbir'1';n9
districts in that housing f~r law and very lo~ income senior
citizens ;s a p~bl1c need, considering Pa1~ Alto's aglng
popYiation, and tnat this type of sma1l, affordable u~its ~5 not
being pro~1deQ in th~ commu~~ty by other projects.
3. The use ar uses permitted and the site deve~o~ment regulati~ns
Ipplicable wiUin the district shall be consistent with tfle Palo
Alto Comprehl!'nsi'lle Plan, .r,j shall be c<:lmpatible with existi~g
and potential uses orl adjoining sites or wiUin the general
vicinity, in t~2t tne project will have ~inima1 traffic or no~se
impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and that the project
furthers the policies a~d programs of the Housing Element by
incre·uin9 the supplY elf renti1 hcusin3. ?rolliding srr.a11er.
,ffordable units, providing housing which meets the special
needs of senier citizens a.nd. b,!l taki.ng ad~anta.ge of finanCing
availabTe from otta~r levels of go .... ernmer,t (?rcgra:r.s 9 and 15.
Polici.s 8 and II).
CONDITIONS
1. If the 330 E .... erett project ar.d the 32, lytton project are both
ippro~ed by City C~uncil, the fcllowins t.o conditions sna11
apply:
i.
b.
The property line between the two parcels sha1l be
adjusttd 10 feet to the east. with the owner of 325 Lytto~
transferring 10 fe~t alang the length of the property line
by deed to tnt Dw:lerS of the 3.30 [ver'f!tt project.
Tb~ City of Palo Alto shall grant a .... ehicular access
easement through the city parling lot (~est sect10n of lot
p: \arb\min~Je VJS/!J
Page Jl
'L
-
l ,
, ,
~;;:> .
. . -
.,.,~.-
2.
Xl to the 330 {vorett project to provi~e access to the
91nge riUlp.
If on1y the 330 Ev~rett project is .approved by tf'lc City c.c'Unci1
and t~e 3ZS lyttor. project is not approved, the following four
conditions ,h.ll apply:
•• The ,hared property line between the t.o parcels shall not
be adj",t.d 10 feet but will remain is it i, in order not
to displace appro.imately 10 existing parking 'paces
located aloog tnls property lin, on the 325 lytton
p~operty •
b. The City of Palo Alto sh.ll graot • vehi,"lar ease~ent
thro"gh the city p.rklng Jot (west section of let KJ to
th! 330 Everett prcject to provide access t~ the garage
ramp.
C. The owner of 3Z5 lytton Aver.1Je shall reconfigure the
parkfng lot on ~;s property to provide for access to thf
garage ramp for the 330 {verott project. The lot shall be
(onfigured so t~at fire and emergency access is provided to
the rear of the 330 rverett property.
d. The applicants 'hall POYI" in-Tieu fee for the seven
parking spaces ~ich will be di'placed when the parking lot
On t~e 325 lytton site is reconfigured as described in
condition 16. a.C.
e. If the 3lS lytton pO'<>ject \, not con'tr"cted and the pubJ i,
parking lot (west section Df lot K) remains as is. then
there s~all be no pedestrlan access provided from the rear
Clf tfte 330 everett project, since Ulis wculd reQuire
wilki~g through t~e parking lot which is not a safe route
fcr senior citizans. A gate fer emerger,cy access to the
rear of t~e site lliJ ~e pTo .... ided.
3. Tne applicant s~all enter into a recorded agreement with tne
City that all units in the project will be gUiTantee6 to be
affordable to low and very low income senlor cltizens.
4.
s.
Prior to submitting for a building p,,,,,it. the fol lowing "ill
return to the ARB for approval; ucr.itectlJral details,
including ba1conies, trellises. soffits, b~ilding materials and
colors; • redesign of tne porchj restudy tlf the gar-age and
'i,itor parking: final landscape plan, lighting plan, light
fixtures and paving materials.
Two Class 2 or Class 3 bitycle parking spaces snall be provided
near-the entrance of the building for visitors and shert term
parking. Some Class I bicycle parking sh.11 be provided for
p:\arb\min0418 4/18/91
Page 13
L
L
I -
."
residents, with the ~umbejl des1gn and locition to be
determir.ed by tne Transportlticn Division in consultation with
the appHcant..
6. A security gate shall be provided at th~ bottom of tne Sarage
r.amp ~
7. If, Ifter t~e project 15 in operation, it is determined by the
applicants tfl.at all of the tandem park.ing spaces being pro'o/ided
iTe not required, the garage may be r~confj3ured so t~at two
way circulation i.s ~ro .... ided, resulting in the less of
approximate1y eignt tandem parking spaces.
8. rt tne rear yard is inc-reased to lO feet widE {with the
approval o·f t~e 325 Lytton project), then the trash faciTity
shall be relocated to the rear yard, to be accessed from lytto~
Ave-nue. Jf the rear yoil'rd remains unc-hanged (without tMe
approv.l of 325 lytton). toe trash shall be relocated to tne
ba.s~mer.t .
9. The applicant s~al' provide with tMe flnal la~dscape plan an
arborist's report detailing protection measures for trees on
neighboring parcels which 'alii' 1 be impacted by the constructjor .•
lnd a lett~r evidencing t~at a cErtififd arborist is
rfsponsib1e for implementation of the protection measures.
10. A varianCE is required to lGcate the front porch 7 feet into
the required 20-foot fror.t yard. Thi! varia~c:e can be
processed simultaneous with the remainder of the PC zone change
appHc.ation. Dormers and eives sha1' be JI".odified so that they
do not extend into t~e dayl ight p1ane~ or a variance .. 'ill be
reqiJired for these as. well.
]1. If the project is a:ppro .... ed by C~ty Council. at Uat time tlie
applicant shall test the sewer line on Everett Street for flow
capacity. and the project developer shall be responsible for
any required upgrld'e of the seRier in cor,jun..:tian ind in an
equitable manner w1th ot~er pr~pcsed developments in the
immediate ~icinity.
The ARB supports the applicant's being granted i v~riince for
dormers with reference 'to the fact that such exceptions wou1d be
made in R-l loning to allcw for architectural enhancements such as
the dormers to extend into the daylight plane; and support for i
~arjance for the porch to extend into the front yard, if the porch
is redeSigned so that it is a more usable !pace.
At this point the Board had a lO-minute br •• k.
2~ 325 lytton Avenue 91-ARB-'O
p :\arb\min04IS
' .. '.
., .•.• -i ....
4/18/91
Page 14
-,
.. e
-' .. '-..., "'."
-
EXCERPT
FEBRUARl 27, 1991
PLANNING COMMISSION ~INUTES
Attac.hment: 9
llQ...EYERm AVENUE' Appl ication for a PI anned Co","unity Zone change on three
parcels at )<4-340 £,.'ett A'enue from RM-30 Medium Oensity Multiple·ramily to
pt (Planned CommunIty) to allow for construction of • 37,000 square-foot, three
story bo.!i1ding with 5) below-ma:-ket-rate senior independent lh-jng, rl!'Sidenth1
units witn underground parr.ing. Environmental Assessment: ~o Significant
l",pa:t. A negati" declaration has be.n prepared. file Nos. SO·EtA·55, SO-le-
17, 90-ARB-19S. Zone District: RM·30.
Cnairman Marsh: This is an app1ication for a Planned Community zone change,
however, the actual Planned Community is not in front of us wfth the specifics
tha.t we would .othendse see ;1'1. such an applir:at'on. Instead, tonight th!
p1anning commission is directed te address the po1icy questions and othe~ issues
t~at are riilsecf in the report, canceptua11y appro .... ing the proposed pjanned
Community zone change. Then upon taking that action. we .... ou1d forward t~is
application to the ~rchitectural Review Board for (urtn~r wor~. rt would later
T~turn t~ us vith t~e specifics of the PC incorpo~ated ir.to the application.
MS1 Ir/arheit: I t\ave a correction to thE stoff repod. It is on Page 7, the
first p~raqrap~~ second se~tence says, -(ven though the project ~il1 not irvcl .... e
a :subdivision a.nd is therefore not subject to the conditions of Pro9r~"" 9 ... -it
will involve I subdivision in order to merge the tnree lots. Therefore. it does
have to comp1y with Progrlm 9. lt does comp1y wtt~ Program 9, 1n fact~ it meets
a11 three of the rfqu;rement5~ and only two are required ta be met.
In i~dition. there were three items put at your places that wer~ not 1n the
packet~ The environmer.ta1 assessment is befere yo~, ~ltho~gh you wi11 not be
acting on that tonight. 1t;s there f{lr your information. 1here is a letter
from iii member of tne public ~ich .'as rec€ived' after tne packet was sent out.
There is some inforrn4tion from Emergency SerV1ces about respon~es at ~ytton One
and ~ebster House, which are c{llTlparab1e, independent li .... ing residences for
s~niors downtown. Chairman ~arsh had isked for that materlal prevjously. Th~t
~s found on Lin~ 5 undei each of those four housing types that responds to the
Question y~u were ask.ing about emergency sel"'Wlices. The ethers il"t" for fire and
alarm boxes and other types of visits. It 15 for a peri dc: pf two YEir5 and Eight
montns. and it is for lytton One. which is the first houslng shown, and Wehster
Hou~e at the bottom, w~lich are indepe:1dent li .... ing residences. and are really the
ofl1y ~omparible onts to this prGject bei('lg proposecL In do,ng some rough
num~ers. 1 see that at lytton One, the number ~f ~is'ts o .... er the 32-month period
is about half the number t:lf units. At Webster House. it is s1'ight1y over one
times the number of units. I ~ave no idea why there is tnat discrepancy.
L
-
2/27/91
-1-
•
.~.~'-
"'i~:~
~->
Cbajnn", Harsh: lihen there is a visit by these emer;ency 'Vehic:l!s, do .... e «-rlOW
how many vehicles respond?
#1s. Warhe'f.1: No, r do not.
Chijrmin Harsh~ !ut we could assume th~t with a fire tr~ck response, there is
.t ~in;mum a paramedic Vi~ and probably a police car accomponying it.
Ms. Lytl.: That fs my understanding.
M.r. Gilliland: 'lfe just reethed these data and 'JtE-tali Hgure out for jlOU tr,t
iVfrage number of visits per week.
CommissiQner Beecham: Aho, where do the emergency vehicles come from?
presume it is (rom the facil;ty on Alma Street?
Mr. Gllliland: Generally, they would if they are available from tt,at facility.
Our emergent)' vebities resp.and' from quite il few uei.s, depending on 'Wnat 0,'1£$ are
available.
Comm;ssi~ner C~'len: I tllled Ms. Warheit today to find out a cQuple of things.
1 noticed in tnt minutfs ~f tM! hfaring that there were se~eral neighbors who
talked about th~ sewage facility being inadequate. 1 knew that we had recent1y
redo~e the ~)ttr. not the sewage, in that area. I wondered if the sewage was
indeed inadequate.
Ms. ~ar~eit: We hive in the fil~ i letter from ~.stewater Cc11ect1on, stating
that back in 1983. a test vas r.ade of the six existing six~;nch sanitary sewer
on EYerett Street. The results showed that the waste ~Gter was peaking to o~er eo percent of full ,ap.city. When it reaches over 7S percent of full capacity,
they consider it fu11. So that was the situation the last time it 'lias c~eck.ed.
They ~o on to say that it will be the responsibility of the de'Veloper to upgrade
the: system as needed to acc.omodate new development or'! that street. Ihe
applicant is. aware of t"at~ a.nd ... e. also ha~e a 1etter in the file from the
lpp'icant stating that is soon as t~ey get !ome indication that this Planned
Community Elight be approved. t~ey will preceed ",it" having an engineer reassess
the 1ine a.nd det~T«1iM how much bigger the line wou.ld. ha ... e to ~e. They
understand they 'Would be responsible for the costs of upgrad:ng it-
Co~missioner C~ri$tens!n: Are those costs figured into the financing ~1ans that
are being pr!sented to us?
Ms, ~arhfit: We ~il1 h~~e to ask the applicant abo~t thlt. 1 w111 also state
that there is I 12-unit houSlng project be1ng proposed a,~oss the street, which
is certainly aMead of t~is appHcation, in processing, at least. They also would
be responsible for meetin9 tMe same obl ;gation. ine two wcu1d most lik.e1y be
coordinated, to save tearing up the street twice. The impacts of both wou1d need
to be calculated, shou1d this go forward, so that tne line could accommodate botl;
de~el opments.
-
2/27/91
·2-
.,
,. . \'
'\~.;.-.~;,
~j;
.~
I
Comrniss~oner Cu11en: One other Question] asked staff thSs afterno¢n was that
the amenities built i"to this project are nc: consistent with the HUD guide7ines.
As we ,11 recall, on Terman. what I ~rob1em that was tD get either disposals or
dishw.a:shtrs (I forget whfch) 1f'1 there with HUO apprcv.a1, I see U~,t the room is
)lhat .. e wou1d all considsr IS an. (!x?ens';~e room ..... ith the o ..... erha.ngs. A1thc\J9h
J admit that we want thit in order to fit into the nei9hbo~hood, 1 am concerned
about the fln&nting , s,nce 1 am sure HUe ~il1 not approve thit ki~d of expensive
amenity. So what Ire the fal~back positions On that?
Ms. Warh.il, The applicant has told us that they are awar. of t;.,t, and t."Y
have sho~ us HUO guidelines that. in fact~ exempt lots of the niceties that ~e
expect frD~ the projects in Palo Alto~ Probabl1 when they ~aKe tneir remarks.
they will address that for you '5 to haw th.y intend te pay for it.
Commissioner t1Liber: The staff r-eport says that the relevant HUD finance programs
are on1y ilva:i1able for &0 or more units. Are there HUn monies available for
projects less than tnat?
Mr. Gilliland: I defer to the applicant to address that, but my answer would be
that I do not be11ev~ tney are rea~ily available.
~ornmissioner Christensen: r want to ask about the ext~nt
a concept PC ,omm1ts us to approval ~f the second stage.
after the public hearing is c1os!tL
to which approval of
You may answer that
Chairman Marsh:
appijeant?
will now open tne public hearii.g. Who represents tne
Jim Koch, Cp!'IIIiunity Housing. Inc.: 1 would like to explain that We are a:
nonprofit corporation tnat operates lytton Gardens, lytton One and Two. lytton
is an independent s-enior housing corrmunity for low-income seniors. It WiiS
Section 8 rent subsidles supporting the rents_ lytton Two is ha1f independent
l;~ing and half res;6entia1 care, inc1udjng certair. other support services fOT
seniors that neej non-madica1 assistance witn daily acti¥ities.
10 comment on the emergency veh'ic1e asse~sment. liebster Heuse is a continuing
care facility which goes even further in tre .mo~nt of care that is provided to
~esidents~ They go into some de9r~e ~f l~ght nursing tar~ there.
1 rece1\1ed a tel!!phone tiL11 yesterday from 1 1ady living an Ash Stre-et. who had
cOr1tacted Virginia Warheit after reading a notice of this meeting. She described
her situation where he~ landlord "'ad ralsed' her rent to o .. er S~OO PH tnor~th. iLnd
being on a fixed income. it was taking all of ~er money. Sne asked if she could
rent 1n apartment when (jur project was bullt. 1 asked' t'ier to attend this mee-tin9
tonignt to speak to that. She said sne would be u~able to do that because she
does not c!r;ve, and was afraid of gettir.g Dn the bIJ'S at night, 'So. ger.er-c.l1y she
stays at home. At lytton Gardens. we clJrrently !'louse about 350 pe'cple with
sto~i£'S 1ike th's one. As you ~re probably a~a~e. ~e have a wiiting list of
several hundred more people needing sucn a place to live. In the staff report
-
2/27/91
.J.
~t,:
'''",
,
···i
..J
" .
for th1s htlring tt,ere ~s • page ~~t(t'td -The Ne~d for Afford~ble Housing,
whi=h I prepared far I discussion with t~e P.10 Alto Housing Corpcr~tion several
mGMths 191>. Jt describes the disturbin; process jn ... hie" iI 1 argE body of our
pop~'ltion. Tong·time ~tti~e members of Ind contributors to our comrnunit~~ now
t on 1 imHed' incomes ,and without the good' fortune of hilVi~g bough and Pi id for a
t house, Ire forced into isohtion, fininC1l1 despair, and it" too oft~nl into
r daT1gerolJs and $ubshndard living envircnments. Jt;s our opinion at CHI that
t this is cr-ime of tne veTY ..roTst lind, fQr \t is. it cri:'!l!; ()f neg1ig@flce a91~T'lst
•. ourselveL Tne so1ution to this, as to Mst of our social ills. is not easy ..
I" land' a.nd construc.tion tosts i!'l cur lru lT't astronomical ~ The. only wa.y 'We can
; acquire i parcel, build it O-.lt and be able to rent this product to low-income
~ people is tD have an E'xtnme efficiency of design and to procure special funding,
! Due to the efforts of a number of dedicated peopTe, 'We are tantal iz"ing1y cTose
~ to iccomplishing this right here. ~e have actively seirc~ed for a site that
." could potenthlly a,colTITJodate such a project for more than five years. When this
: property on Everett was presented to us, we were quite excited about t~e
possibilities. First. it ~as close enough tD lytton Gardens that ~e need not
'recreate expensive manage:nent and infrastructure. Secor.dTy, the property is
';du,l1y lo('".ated two blocks from th.e senior cente~, one block. from a wOl'lde1'"ful
~park .. here tenants Can trlJly be i pa1'"t of tI'1e cottnLmity, and immediately
~,accessib1e to public tnnsportation and tne services arid vitality of do .... (~to"'n.
~Fin3'ly, knowing the kind of jensity that would be required to ~ake a project
~feas;bTe, the property seemt!d well suited to ac(ol'llmodate th15. It i'i a
reasonable dim~nsion, in a transition area for m01'"e intense use, but still able
't<l provid! the kind of residential cnnacter important to ttle Quality of 1 ife for
lour tenar.ts~ It bCJ~ders. on a Six-story structure and' a corrmercia1 parking lot.
If we ... ant to 'have Iffordable housing 111 tl'le downtown are, I caMot imaginE: a
·b~tter location.
We en9aged the excelhmt deSign team of C.uruco a.nd Associates to bring-the idea
into reality. r believe they will discuss some of the planning issues tonight.
But fjrst, J would 1; ke tD encourage you I comi S5 ioners, to 1 end your support to
'this rare opportunity to provide sorely needed, affordable .housing.
~;ommiss)Qner tlazier; 'l-lhy the 51 units? I unaerstand that SO units is it HUD
requirement, but wou1dn't perhaps i project in the 3D-40 unit range that was.
"?erhaps f~n~ed by stat! or 1eta' mor.i!~ be l l\ttle ~or~ attfact,ve and fit ~n
a little better in terms vf size?
~r. ~Dch: There are a number of factors that to into tl'lat. Fir>t of all, the
land cost is simply divided by the number of units. Dividing it by mere units.
"ather than less, keeps the cost per unit lowe1'". Second is Ue SDurc:e:s for
fundS. Over the last two years since we identified tl'lis. property as being
~otentiilly suitable, I have done an extenSive investigatIon into 111 ~f the
')otential sources for funds.. lIIe applied to HUD last June and \lIere denied. due
.D some plan details and t.ost containment items. U?'l~ r-ecfl'1ing t!',,,! denial, we
Iggressively look.ed for alternative funding sources. Here a!e none ~nat deal
tith the construction a.nd land costs. that we ire facing. e"-,en r.',H'I 51 unlts, much
'ess fewer, that deal with those costs and get rents down to a level that we ire
L
-
2/27/91
-4 -
•
,
'.
( -:>
"~'" "..,
~ .
71:
0-'}~
cOlt'tfortable with IS being truly servicing Uois group of pe-oph i~ need. A littll!'
side cOftlfler.t on that is tl'Jat the Senior Coo!"'di nat ing C01JnC1 j did iI study iI cou~ll!
of years Igo IS to what Ire the housing needs of the seni or C'1embers of our local
popuhtion. They found thit ~bo1Jt half of the local seniors OW'Tl their 0,/1'1 homes
free ind clear, ar'!d theJ have Ilonthly, fi:led housing costs of just the preperty
taxes. Ther~ is certainly no r"eed amongst Ua.t 9rol.lP. The ott"ler rla,lf. he-wever,
ire facing rer.ts of S750 to S1,500 a month. and ~hen you look at their income
le~e's, they are prim.a.rily the lower income group_ The ones th!t have the tligher
iMcome are also the ones who had it ear'ier and bought houses. So to be able to
service thEse peop'e you c.anr.ot hoi\le ·iffordable· units that are renting for S5S0
a ~ont~. That is still ~eyond thel~ price range. 50 t~e financi~g programs that
allow rents suitable for Tower·lncome people are basica11y the HUD 202 pr09ram
..-;ttl SE::t!ion 8 subsidY9 or the CaliforPlia Rent;1 Housing c.cnstructic,j Progra:n.
The rerltal hou!;ng construction program .... ould oiIllow fewer tnan 50 units. The
prob'-e-m with that is that the rental hOlJsing ccnstrlJcticn program is -geui.d.
toward family hausing. Tney have a pOint ranking system, and something like 20
percent of the ivaihble points are awarded to projects witn t!'lree-bedroom or
more units. We ha .... e fl.:Jne, of course, for senior "ll:lusing, So with Hat
intentional biiS away from senior tlousing 9 it is probably an unl Hely source of
funding. Secondly, even if we were to quaiify for those funds, to ap~ly more
t~an 50 percent of the project costs with state funds requires, due to Arti~le
34 of the California tonstit~t;on, a referendum approval of the project.
C:Jmm"iss~OT'oe-r "12;e"r: If y!.l1J de get HUD f~n~ing. how much .ooitio;,a.l 10Cl1
funding will you be seeking?
Mr"r I(och~ All the rest of it. It would be in the neighborhood of 5600,000 to
$800,000.
Commissioner Beecham: On i ;percentage basis, "What is He federal a;,d state
subsidy of t~t project? If you get the funding from HUD and other state funds,
will .. they pay for SO percent or 60 percerlt cr how much"?
~Koch: Due to the fact t~at we have leased lane', that saves us a 1arge.
initial expenditure. The HUD limitations come to somewhere around 95 perce~t of
the project c.ost. r received iI: "phone calT yesterC<!JI from 5y1vla Seman of the
Pillo Alto Housing Corporation, i1lthough r dfd not ha\le ,. chance to talk. to her.
Sne has recei\led notification that HUO is expend1ng the guide1ines for 1992.
which in the higtl-tost·rated areas. of which Palo AHo is one, they will be
riislng that ceilin9. so that could be a. gQod sign.
(om!'1dssioner Beec'-"am', $0 the federal a.nd state functs -..!ollld cover approxi.mately
95 percent {If the ca.pital cost of the program?
~r. Koch: There-are no state funds if 'file get KUD. Hey are independent
programs.
CommisslCiner Christensen: Has the tost of repl;cing the sewer line been computed
into this fin~ncin9 prDgr~m that ~e ~a¥e been pr~sented w)th?
L
2/27/91
-5-
•
,
,--,
..• ~~:;~
-.
\ "'~
-
\
\
I
!
Mr. Kqd: We-Ire aw,rt of it. 'lie ire not 1 f()r~profH de\leloper.
h.ve reserves of cisn DO hand. A1l of our prt"developme~t costs ~Ive
by d'ona.t('3n.s. of the bo .. rd members. We olre aware of the situat ion and
with it. problb~y through donations.
'We do not
befn done
will deal
Commissfgner C~~isten$!n: So it has been inclUded ~n your financing pack,ge?
M" Koch: Yes byt not fro~ KUO, From .the, ,ou,ces,
COmmissioner Huber: I am still. little puzzled a~out HUO, Are you saying that
etonomi'illy, here in P110 A1to, ~t does not ~ake sense for you to go less tnan
50 ",Its? Otherwise you cannot hold the rents down? Or is the Fed ,aying,
forget it~ you must ~IYe SO?
Mr. kQch: The HUO requirement is that it be for a project of ~O or more un;ts.
Commission@r Hu~r: So regardies~ of toe cost or where you are building. tney
state SO or more?
Mr ~och: Yes, nationwide.
Commissioner Huber; Is the waiting list that e.xists for housing fot" s.eniors r::ade
up of people from Pa10 A1to, or is it ~pen to anyone? If it lS the latter. what
a~e the percentages of local \lersus elsewhere?
Blair Shwart. CommynHy HptJsil"!g. rnc.: J am PreSident of tne OH SOi-rd. AS far
as the waiting list ;s t-O'ncern~d) there ate sellenl hundred on lL I do oat have
tl'le figures as tD proportions Df Palo AHans and non-Pa10 Ahans. However? under
HUD guidelines. we nave to be nondlscrlminatory. As ii practici1 .matt!r. most of
the people hive eHher lived fn Pale Alto .. near Pi-' 0 .Alto. or have family members
such as Children Who are turrent~y in Pil0 Alto.
(e>mmis:sioner (yl1en: 7his Question of Paio AHo residents has come 'liP in the
past an 1 know t~it HUO ha~ said cat€gor;cally that you cannat give preference~
but 'We hall! bun ab'e to maflage the stream of appl1cints in a 'Way that Palo Alto
resldents who ha~e been en the waitl119 list fer a long time have. in fact. been
able to be placed it lytton Gardens, So I .. anted to asl< if you "e going to
manage this in mlJeh the Sil'7'le 'Way that ,)Iou halle f-;~en manag~ng lytton Gardens'?
Mr. Ste'Wart: J suppose S~.
Commissioner"" tullen: 'We got into this HUn thing .... ,tTl Te-Mian. ilnd HUD was very
categ~rlca1, siying. no, you cannot do thtit kind of tning, but it didn't a~t,"alljl
work "ut that \Ofty. I·Suppose the letter of t,",e laloi and the spirit of the law .are
two different things.
Mr. Koch: I wtH.:ld certain1y had to go on record saying we would take only Pa,10
Alto residents.
L
L
2/27/91
-6-
..,~:
~,
CQmmi$$ioner Cullen: we are not asking you t~ do so.
(olTlTliuioner Huber-~ You mentioned that HUD was changirlg its guidelines. What
does tnat Dean,?"
Mr, ~och: I had ... ratn!r extensive phone ~e$sl)e from Salvia, and that is the
u-tent of' Illy ;nfonnation , illtho'Ugh I have not hH..ed with ~er "ysel f. Apparent1y
tht 1992 guidelines allow for regiQnal or local adjustments. according to the
standards of the area. The gU'idelines which 'ale presented, wh~cn Ms. ~'arheit has
reviewed, ducrlbe a project which .. auld look 11ke I HUO project in Philadelphia.
Commissioner Huber: In other 'IIord's, th~ potential e)(ists for hfgh priced areas
to get more money from HUO to bul1d something. 15 that what yoi..l are reading into
that?
Mr. koch: To some e)(tent. HUO also has a po~nt ranking system. with 90 points
"aximurn. iwenty·five of the 90 are cost containment. So to t~e extent tnat you
compl,)' with their cost containment measures, Hen under-the modified reguhticns.
nC}w rather than kicking you out, the] win rank you. Before this, they wotJid
kick you out for not conforming to cost containment.
(haima,. Marsh~ My undershnding is that the popuhtion anticipated for this
facilit.1 is comparable to those noW' l1ving in lytton One. ls that correct?
(Yes) Would YO'I describe that popuhtion for us. A 'jot af the projects that 'We
have here , incl~ding parking, etc .• have been dependent upon the profile 0 the
people whom you expect to be 11 .... ing in this facilHy, but in no place in here
does it tell us anyth;ng about the charactt~isti'5 of that population.
Mr, koch: I cannot be highly specific because 1 not dear-on the ag€
1im;tations~ but it is made up of sentor citizens who are capable of i.-.dependent
living. not in need of issistance with daily activities or medication or nursing
care. They ire active seniors who do not ex:eed the HUD-established maximum
income limitations,
C'r1airman Marsl'l: irlhat s-2!rvices. are avanable to those people H the lytton
Gardens. facility?
Mr. Koch: LyttM One is ac.tually the description of the first 218 units t~at
were built at tytton and Middlefl-21d irJ 1974-75. lytton lwo consists another 100
units, only half of which are residential care. Sc the independent li ___ ing
facilities consist of 258 units, so it is. tecnnica11y not just lytton One. 1he
services that are provided for independent living are the same as in any
apartment, uti1it1es. At lytton G~rdens there lS a common dining room, and eaen
of the units has a small kitchenette. WE" have a requirement that the residerlts
of lytton One purchase one meal a day at the dining room.
Chaiman ~arsh: My understanding is that this proposed Development would not
provide food services on site. Is that correct? (Yes) Is there any provision
for those people to get mea1s it lytton One? ~ou1d it mean taking a bus? ~re
L
-
2/27/9l
·7·
,
.-...:.-.
".
.-~
. .J
,'" ..
)QU &nt;cipiting I shutt1e back ind f~rth1 Or ire these people really on their
Dwn in term's of fe-od?
l Nt KQc~: C!neri,lly, they are on their own. These l:nits h ....... e .. more ro:np1Ete
, kitchen desfgned into them than we currently f1ave at lytton One. we would
: certlinl1 Illow them aCcess to the dining rgom !t lytton Gardens, where ~e sell
I ~~ls, but t~el would bave to get therE somehow. Steven Snipley is the person
, who actual'} runs it eVf:ry day. rle c-Du'd c~ment on tha.t.
" Ste ... en Shipley. (Mer h!tutive Officer: ¥ou isktd about the types of seni~es
t pr~yjded. We have social services, acthity progroilms, transportation programs
_. i lot of the folks present tonight tame o~er in one of Qur two vans, one of
; lrihich has iI 11ft gate ~-we woulc:! offer transportation ser-vices between lytton
I Four tha.t "'e JTe talkir'!g ab<)lJt a.nd lytton Of'te. l'Wo and "hre~. An jJf the
tdepartment managers and tne structures that are in pace are in I line. and it
I wou1d b-e simple to -utilize SOMe of the departm-ent directol""s that we have and
~ s.hare the services.
tChairmi!!n Mal""Sh: That is a fine Uing to offer, but that sour,ds contradictory to
~the assertion that there would be only two employees at this Site.
tMr. Shipley: How is that a contradiction?
~Cnairman Marsh: If you ha'll"e more people whCi are going back and forth and who l'Iliji
"be working at certain times at the l..ytto,'~ Four facility, If yo:.l are pro .... iding
'ser~ices there on site.
Mr+ Koch: ho, Wi! are r.ot providlng them on sit!'.
"Chairman Marsh: The socia, and rec!'"eational s.ervices yOiJ have describe(j wOJJld
'root be provided .at Lytton Four?
Mr. K~ch: Right+ They would be available to the res~dents of lytton Four but
not ~rovid!d there, There ~ould b~ trar.s?Qrtatio~ i~lilab1~ to t~em to come. to
'lytton One and T~o.
:".a.innan Marsh: My final question 15 in regard to the parking fjgures in the
staff re.porL There is a surra::tary of automobile usage at lytton Gardens. It
'appears tc incorporate all of lytton Gardens. includirg some of the residential
units, in this survey. I am trying to get a reasonable perc.entage of cars per
,ealUly~ independent living resident at the Lytton facility.
'lr, Kod; Tnere ari! 268 units of in independet1t living. and I 'Jrould' guess that
reltt , if any. of the cars belong to tne people in the re!;identia.l care portion.
'":~airrnan Marsh: So "We tan presume that the 84 residents who have cars are
neluded in the 268 units.
L
-..
2/27/91 .e-
,
:
.~
" i
~ I will "OW open the-publ ic hu rin 9·
I ,J Jphn Halkmann 235 Embarcadero Road. Palo Alto: My office is at 304 Bryant
III Street. where J p .. ilctic:t real. estate l~w •. The building tt\a.t is d.esigned 15 ~oW'
• going to be \lisib1e from l1y W'1ndcW'. ThlS lS iI very good: proJect, 1n terms cf ,ts
'lfinanCin 9 component ilnd in terms cf meeting the needs of seniors for t~is target
i income le ... e1 .. I am very r~spect'fLll cf the magnificent job lytton Gardens has
• done. ] am iI member of one of the groups tnat founded lytton Gardens alar'lY years
ago, and they ~ave an ~ut~tanding program which is recognized nationally. I do
have a concern that t~is type of project is being pushed into this ~orth Palo
Alto neighborhood, which has tad il difficult time surviving. £c.onomicall1, it
t is probably one of the most integrated neighborhoods, ln tenlls of farrily
compositiGn and they ty~e of penpif ~ho li~e i~ the units. There are a lot of
sin91e people , a lot of young familie3, a lot of students and a l~t of seniors.
The park. ~,as revitil1 ized ~he neighborhood, and has become i focal poi nt for the
neighborhood. The emphasfs is on hl'flilies ar.d younger people. There is 'Very 10 ....
senior use Df that park. This project is appropriate, but for a differe~t ~rea,
and on it s1ightl,Y smaller scale. Thirty to 40 units would be more appropriate
Adding this bulk.~ especially when right across the street there is ar:other
c.itade1·lik.e complu about to rise, ",hich has not yet been determir.ed, but it is
also a ~ery mass;'Ve structure. and also, it has not yet been decided iitnough it
has been presented to the Architectural Review Board. The structwre~ across the
street are eviscerating th~ lots from 361 down to behind tt1e ~-30 ar-e a are
going to be t~ree-story bJildings and Quite massive. So the character of that
r.eighborhoo~ is changing Quite a b1t. I think it would be ~ise to try and keep
this neignborhood more of a heterogeneous neighborhood ~itn more e~phasis on
people of ill ages. This project is really too large for this neighborhood, but
other than that, it is a good project? but should not go on this Site. The
neighbors are going to suffer from tne argument that since something massi ... e is
next door, 1 can build somethirrg massive next to it, a"ld because something
: massive is there? 1 can build someth'tng mere massive next to it, each time
exceeding what the city has previ~u51y decide6 as tne g~idETines for the area.
Blair Stewart. Community I-Iousirg. Inc.: I reall,Y do net have too much to add
beyon<l what Jim Koch has Slid, except that we see this as an olJtstandir.g
I opportunity to add to the senior housing stock in Palo Alto. As Jim alluded to,
the number of avC!!iiab1e Sites is exceedingly small. !,ie searched in t~e do,.nto,,·n
I
Palo Alto area for better than fiVE! years, and this is the site tnat is available
to us. We ire fortunate that it ;s available on a leas.e basis. [col'1omically+
it docs not work it is downsized, because the HUO financing is tne only ~iable
alternative Hat we see. We feel that the concerns abo\.jt traffic, emergency
calls? etc.? are re.all.)' not extraordinary, partic.Lilarly the traffiC usage by the
residents. As yOlJ 1'1~~e seen, only about une·qual"'ter of tt1~ residents at lytton
One have cars. I say that bec ause although there .a re 268 un its, !Mere a re a
number of tnose that are occupied by coupl es, so tne actual occupancy of l)'tton
One is closer to 3000+ when counting H.e independent 1ivi~g units. liith 84 CirS,
we are taking about a small number of automcbiles, an,j lie are talking about
people who are using them for 'Very ow usage, as comp~red to most people 'Who ha ... e
cars that they IHe for commuting to work.. So the position that \IIIe haVE with our
1/27/9l
oS-
• ,
r
i
r
!
I
~
ability t.o u" thit sib, the f!l';anc'nq th .. t we h,vt i..lnolbh. the length Qf
time we ~i~~ p~t into finding th~n9s tD converge t~it would allow us to build
this ... nd the two to t"'l)·and~l~ha1f year waiting l1.st ,re compelling re,uons why
t~is project ~ke~ sense at thil locltion at this time.
C:ormriu'onerthl"'fstensen: I have l QlJ!Stion regudi;"lg fbancing. The impression
I h~d wlS different from two different parts of tMe report. One is t~at at the
end of 50 years, yo~ own the property, and lhe second was that it the end of SO
years. you have to come ijp with r.oney t~ purchase the propert,.
Mr, Koch: I don't think either of those Quite st.te it, The term is for 50
years; we have the first ri5lht of refuHl in the fvent the lessor cheoses to sell
it. We alsc have something .1o~g the lines of a charitable remainder trust. We
receive title to t~e property as i donation from ~is estate at some time d~ring
the ~O'ye.r period.
(~airman Mjtsh: Are y~u saying tnat t~at is i~ effe;t? Or is it a possibility?
i don't think W~ quite understand t~at.
Mr. K~ch; Our option includes tn~t specifically~
Cormlissioner Cnristenq:n! I do r.ot see how it can be beth ways. HoII' eaf! it be
right of of first refusal?
M~. Koch; If he sells it before we are protected on anything t~at happens prior
to his estate becom~ng an estate. In ather words, if he decides he wants t~ sen
it while he is still .,iye. then we h.ve • right of first refus.l, If it passes
by way of his estate, then it is a donAtion to us.
Chairman Mars~: tin we clarify that? The leas~ is foy SO year5~ Can he sell
it d~ring the p!riod of the lea$e?
Mr. ~c.ch: Yes. he eaf'!. but 'We: have a right of first ref'Jsal to buy it.
Chairman Marsh: What you ~ould b~ bu~in9 is the land that it is situjted on?
Mr, Kod: Yes,
Commissioner Ioiub£:r: The salt .. Quid not effEc:\ yOlrr 1e-a.se. It is. sti1l a ~O-year
lease, so whoever bJught tne property is stuck witn the lease for the 1er.gt~ of
tne term. (Y!s) Is there something in Hat lease H.at wlJuld have any major
escalations in renta1 cost ;~ it, should that foreseeability t)cc~r?
~r. Stewart: There is i ffxed re~tal schedule for the enti~e SO years that is
not alttrable upon t~ansfer of title.
(ommissiorler Huber: If r lJnderstand correctly. should the o~'ner die before
se11in9t the propert) gees to the Community ~ou$in9 Development.
L
-
2/27/91
,10,
,
.-
",,"t .•
:.:~~:.
'-II!!I"""_' -:.o.:_J _~.n· ....... _ ... r",""Jt,"-x"""~ .. · :411<""'. »""'~--, ~~~;-",~ ,.
~~~ Ye~. he ~nd his spouse.
COlilTliufoner Chrf$tensen; But otl'lerwise, ff ~e sells it, tnen at the end of t;,e
SO~Jear period. there fs no option to ~uy.
Mr. Koch: Ass~i"g ht and ~is spouse are still .1iv~?
Cgmmissioner C~ristensen: No, " he se11 the property while ~e is still .1ive?
Mr. Koch: The obligation of whoever he s.lls it to will re~ain.
Commiss'oner Christensen: ~ou wi11 st111 have the le~se, but at the end of the
SO years. if you are ~ot able to ~~
~r. koch; As will the trust. That is 2 condition.
Commrssipner C~risten5en: r still do not understand.
Mr. Stewart: Is the question on of what happens if he se~ls the property but we
do not exerc:i.s-a tt\e right of flr.s.t refusa.l? (Yes) As. I understand it, the leose
would continue to the end of the 50 years. At the end of that time. \toIhoever
owned the lar.d would pwn the bui1ding.
Mr. Koch: I don't know.
Mr. Stewart: We ne!d' ciarification. WE feel ttJat we have \toIr-itt€n the lease
adtquate1y tc protect CHI's i~terest in controlling the property.
Corrmissfon!i-i"' (;ullen; 1 guess ycu st'1ould have t'1ad your attorney present to:'1ight,
~Cluse 1 ~ave ~ne more lega) quest~on. You say, ·fixed renta1 for ;0 years.~
Does that f'.ed rental c~ntain i renegot,able tease price at fixed intervQls~
Mr. KQ~h: No, it has a sched'ule of increases throughout t;,e 50 years, minimu~
and maximum increases.
COrrTiiliSSlor:er (IJPen: So you are saying that it does contairl increases.
Mr. Koch: Yes~ it conta'Tls increases but it does not conta~r. any re!"legctht~or,.
Commissioner Cu11en: Ha~e tne increases been figwred into your budget. as ~eTl?
(Yes)
Commis.5Toner Ghzi€r; Is t~ere any ba11Qon payment due at tr.e end of the 50
y~~rs in order to have this land donated to you? Or at the end of the 50 y~ars,
_ith no additional payment. is the land 1ours?
"'!r. Koctl: The cnaritable remainder trust is a ratne!" complex mechanism invohing
:! life insurance policy for the benefit of the trustor, which dOE:s give t'r1e
)roceeds of that pelicy to him or ~is estate. It ,; not funds that ~e actually
~. -----
-
L
2/27/9l
·lI·
..
.,
'--"
. . ··r·"
---.-.-.---.-,-,-~ --""~." ""' ",._-
come up with out of pocket. The life insurance pays him i sum. I am not sure
exactly how det.roiled on wants to 9ft witJ'l some: of the legal iSSuH and the
financial impilcts to .mother person.
~ Cnalrman Marsh: Perhaps I can try to summarize what 1 tnink is the co~cern up
~ nere. We a'!'"'! trying to look ~t ttie very 10ng-tf:!rt:'. future of this project and
Kissess the land use impacts, should this project revert to same use other than
~.senior housing. So the long-term outcome of this project is of specific concern.
!~r. Kpch: Speaking to that: I am absolute1y certain that we have control of the
~sHe for SO years, which is the long-term, probably the life of any structure.
~.8eyond t"at, ] am Quite confident that .... e will lia .... e control of t~e site in
.. : .... irtual perpetuity, although without having the attorney here to interpret i!
~:ou.cie of the issues.
!
<:ommissiQne-r Huber: [haye a (liJestion for Hr. Ste~art. YOli now l'1a .... e a tIo'o·and
,;".half year waiti!"lg list? (Yes) And that eQuates to how many people?
I i~r. Stewart: That is approximately 300 appl~cants waiting to come in. ,
I:Omn'iSSiQner Huber: How does that c:om~are .ith fi .... e years ago? Today it is two'
land-a-half years.
~~r, Ste.art: I really do not have comparison figures. I can tell yow t:"Jat
,iapprox1mately a ye~r ago, we h~d iI 1151 t~it tiad 600 to 700 names on it. lrJe have
:gone through the hst systematlcally to flnd aut ",ho are the people wt10 are still
iac:tively interested. That came to the 300 figure. So if somebncy pu~s their
,nam! on the list today, they car. expect I two to two-and-a·half year wait.
Lindaludden. 120 Hami1torl Avenue, Palo Altc: I am one of the architects for the
project. I am with Tony tarrasco's office. When we .... ere initial1y ipproach~d
about" His project by Community HOllsing, Inc. and Jim ~ach, .... e were really
excited about the opportunity to be ibl~ to contribute to affordable houslng in
Palo Alto. I personally have been invoh'ed ,.dth a lot of projects for ser.icr
Iho~sing. senicr centers and skillad n~rsj~9 facilities. I am ~ery corn~ittej to
iproviding t~1s ty~e of facility i~ areas ~here it is diffjc~lt to get these
;tnings dane. I feel tnat tne senior pc~u1aticl'i of Palo Alto needs t~is project,
and I feel very serious about it. lie have .... orked witn the neighbors; .... e hii!ve had
'I tllO neigh.borhc>od meetings in de .... eloping this project. WE initially started Ol.It
lJfith a building with 64 units. As a resuH Cif the meEtings IlIHh the
neighb~rhcod, we scaled back tne project as far as it .... as possible to do and
i still meet tne HUD guidelines. We have reoriented the entrance to the garage;
I
.... e have modified the design of tne roof, and ba .... e added details of dormers and
mare halconies and patios to accommodate some of the concernS that the neighbors
: had in terms of the scale of the project. We na\i'e also \II;)rked .... itn the massing
~of the building to break. it dO',m from tne large apartment structure tnat it was
101'1 one side, and also at the rear .... hich is now a parking lot, blJt we all k.now
there is going to be a. project developed on that site by another de\i'eloper. It
is our undErstanding th.at it ... ;)1 be an office bJJilding, and .. e do not k.l"IOW .... ·hat
-
2/17/9l
-l1-
------~--
-\ ., ,
.-
"."~"c"*"."·":.";"\""·" .• "j"
,.~;:~··t~-
' .. '
t
• t
t •
I
• (.he design is going to be like, but we tjo knoW' it will be devel{;1ptd. Ther.
't /Ork.ing down into the resident; 11 area on the adjacent 5 ide ,and acros.s the street
t'IY steppfng dQIfITI the forms and creating a nof that slopes down at an ang1e to
I hose adjacl!'nt properties.
e have tried to develop a~eas on site where the reSidents can have recreatio~
n a cOl.'rtyard whert th:ere is some security u:d privacy. but in response to tt1e
; leetings with the I'I,e-ighborhood', we hive created an ire. in the front with a front
f oreh which is in keeping with the charac.t~r of other hOI.lSfS in the neighborhood
o tl"lat tnere can be an interaction with passerby and activities in the
eighbornood at the front, but still ha.'e 50~,e privacy ~n the courtyards. are the
dges_
e gave you some little sketches that have addressed some of t~e questions that
taff h~d shDWing a potential access that we ha~e added from the back across
f hese adjacent properties, although ~e reilly do not have the right do do that.
t might be nice to connect 1nto downtown Palo Alto that ~ay witn a pedestrian
ccess. We could prolJide a gate at the back. but there are some security issue
e would need to work. out for that. fie are very interested in 'toIor-king on that
ne_
ne thing that is important to remember about this project, when looking at the
nit count, is that we are deal in; wi tn 51 UI'l1 ts tnc:t are very smal'. If you had
o regular sized units. they wou1d take up the same area. Tnirty l,20~ sq~are
oat units will be l6,OOO square feet. So you are thinking in terms of the size
f the unit versus the mass if you had a mu1tip1e·family project on the site, you
'ou1d ave similar 1115S;';9. For this advantage, 'We do get the smaller units, and
'ou get mere units. SD we are actually providing mcr~ housing. and that is o~e
'f the ~ajor advantages we can do with senior housing in the P( lone.
n terms Df Ue architecture of the project. the big c~a'lenge we t~ave had is
rying to develop a character that is consistent witli this \fie' 1 established, high
luality neighbornDod of bungaTo'W·t,)pe houses that have .. lot of detail, \oIood
iding, shingles, or often composition single roofs, porches, dormers •..... ood paned
·indcws. ill of the things that make for a rich and warn architectural char;!c:ter,
et are very dffficult to get fUiided when deal1ng ~'it" a hderal funding
ittJation like HUO. Tne balconies, the dormers, the overhaT1gs, U~e 5'1iall paned
'indo'Ws, all of these things are characteristics of the neig~Jborhood that we are
rying to get introduced into the project, yet th2Y are the very ,tems that are
ifficult to get funded funded. So we see it a3 a rea1 challenge, and it has
ertai n11 been one where we have tTi ed to work out the deta n 5.,
au spok.e about the sanitary sewer system earl ieI'". fie are ver-y a .. 'are c·f tnat
ituation. ] think. that the opportunity to have a coupe of projects contribute
o that is I gO.Qd soluticn. That es~ential'y describes the architectural
1ements of the project, in terms of genera1 land plan:'1ing iLnd ma5.sing. I don't
.now that we need to get into any more detcil .at this point. but I can answer
, iuest ions.
2/27/91
-13-
.,
, Cprmlin!ont[ Christensen: In the staff report 01'1 Page 3. they talk about 4,000
square ft~t of unused, fourth floor equiv41ent artl. 1 did not understand what
that 'Wu ..
Ms, LUdden: If you look where the dormers are, they pro~ide clear-story light
into the t~ird floor units. but there Ire areas where the do~ers do ~ot occur,
51} at the peak. Tnat is attic spac~, Essentia'ly. The roof system wcuid be a
truss, to be tne DOst cost·effe~tjve system for roof construction. That is the
Irel tnat ~as been identified lS unused area.
In order to ~st that irel, ~ven if it co~'d be used for storage, it ~o~ld have
to be able to accorrmodate a structural lead, w~ich it could not is just roof
trusses. If you ~lve t~ ma~e it usable, there is I higher stru~tu~l' load ~hit
goes into that r .and' YOLI then ha\lE' a fourt~ story and you get into a different
type of construction. That qets very costly. So it is esse~t;a.ll)' an attic
space in the areas where tne clear-story light ;s not (oming in from the dormers.
COrrlTlissioner Huber~ linda, is this model the current status?
Ms. Lydden: This is essentially where it is at tonight. except for the frorot ire
of th.e on-site parking. We could not get the model modified for that, blJt the
sketches that were includej in your parKing sho~ing more on-grade parking ~ou1~
be the most current solutior..
Commissior:er Huber: Do the 51 \,Inits contemplate 5) people, or more j)eoph?
Ms. Ludde,,: There are six one-bedroom units, and potentlally tniit could ~ave
c.ouples. There is no guarantee of that. Most of the units will be single
occupancy. The studios would ctrtainly not nave couples, as they iTe very. very
sm.ll.
Chaimin Marsh: Am! correct in remembering that the site setback from tl1e
propert1 line to the beginning for the first story is 20 feet? (Y~s) I am also
confustd by a coment tha.t you made. You rloted tl1at U:es! are 51 unjts, but that
tne,)' are very small, ar~d that if the prope!'ty were developed in family sty1e
hous.ing, it 1s likely that you would a ... e the same mass, b>Jt a fewer number of
l.mHs. (Yes) But my understandiTl'; is tiB.t th,s R.~-30 s,t~ ""o'J1d ol'll}, 1110 ....
18,000 square feet under the zoning. ...nat you are proposing is. twice that,
36,000 sQuire feet,
Ms. LuddEm: Ilhat we are leaking at is the massing, if you took it tne oth.er 'Way,
if you had 51 units of Single-family, it WOUld be huge. Or if you took this mass
and pub sin91e-famil, in it, it would be 30 ~nits.
Chairman Mars~: fifty-one units of senior nO>Jsing does not ~a\le the same impact
iI.S 51 units of s1ngle-faml1y, yet we st111 nave to dZ!i1 wHh tl'ie mass is being
hi; ce the imount of Ilass. as normally ItICHJld be ill owed in the RM.-30. ,(ou
mentioned the d!ve1opment toward the reaT of this. prc?e~t)~ I am g'ad you did
becatJsl! I WiI.S going to ask you about it. The b~ildings on lytton Avenue are in
~--~,-.... '---... L
-
2/27/91
,14-
"
•
~:'
~-
. --,
~. -. -1--"-:5:..
. , .R!
1
!
j
i
the protess right now of developing a scheme for i very massive redevelopment of
that sltt. It seflllS to me that on2' of tne real prob1e:m.s. you. have -.,i th. tl':i s
project fs fn te~$ of access and parking. Clear1y, we ire p~Sl'ling tr.e envelope
wfth risitor parki"9, since you wou1d require i ViTfance to put parJ;~g in the
(rent )lard ()f this preject. It seems to m~ that it would Jr1alte J; Tot of sense for
you to try and coordinate the development of this property with the deveTopment
of the propertfes behind you. If you could put access from the b~ck. you might
very well get S(lme economies both in terns of thS! cost and in terms of the number
of parking spaces:, in particu1aY', dealing with the yisltor issue. Have you
coo,idered that?
Ms. luddeT'J: Yes, and 1 do not 'Whh to speak.. ftoT Jim Ko~h, but he has spo(en with
the developer of the other project. At this point, the best we can tell, his
project is not at the point where he is ready to tal~ to ~$ about it. We are
certlinl~ 'nterested in that. ~e k"o~ that it 1S proceedin9. but ~e do n~t knc~
that ~uch about it. ~e does ~ant to keep his pla~s it his level, is opposed to
putting them out before he is ready. ~e are interested in working with ~im. A
couple of things r have thought about is t~at if we somehow got a connection
between the two sites, concl!ptually it is a wonderful idea. L09\stic.ally~ we
would have to be very SL're t~at neither his project nor our project negatively
affected t~e schedule of the other. For e~ample~ if this project we~t forward
first and we anticipated access from that sit!, and we built a parking structure
and we had I ramp gaing down, ttc., and then construction began on the adjacent
site, the access would be block~d. So there a~e logistics of t~e coordination
of the two projects what ~~uld be ~ery critical so as to not negatively affect
each other. The fact that they are so close cou1d be great, and there certainly
is an interest in that.
Chairman Marsh: 1f everything 'Went as smoothly as it possi.oly cOlJld, when do yc.u
anticipate breaking ground on this project. assuming you have gone t"'rough the
process Df 9~tting HUe fIJndir19, etc. l'
Ms. Ludden: Pr~bab'1 one year.
Cha;rman Marsh: My last que:;tion is in regard to emergency \'ehic-~e aCCESS, as
r am very concer!led about that. Clearly, the sll',ii11 turnaro,,"nd that you have
right now would not accommodate emergency vehicles. IoIholt is your phn for that?
Ms. Ludden: ilhat we had on the revised sketch that came in your packets tonight
was essent,a11y a dOlJble~loaded parking solution. That means thE: emergency
\'E!hicle .... ou1d pull in at the short-term parking and they IIIould pan there, and
then exit ~ja the single driveway.
(hairman Mars~; It sounds impractical to me that emergency vehicles could use
short-term par(ing. It is like1y that the short-term parking wo~'d already be
used. Also, emergenty vehicies nevu traver alone. T:'ey travel in groups, so
clei.1"l,~ tnat would not accommodate the'm.
M.a;. Ludden: That I cannot speak to, i5 I do not liancfle emergency vehicles.
L
-
2/27/91
-15-
,
f....:..._;. I
I
. >.. d
~, I
I
I
.-
~ : r
j
Cb"rman Marsh: You do not navt aMy plins other tna~ thlt wert small iccess for
emergency vehlclts?
Hs Ludden: The rewised plan 15 ess~Mtfl'ly a doub'e-loaded parkinQ 1ot. So it
wO!Jld be that .. person wO!Jld' co~ in and they '",ould park th~re.
COPJT!issi?~er Cullen; Chairman Marsh. have you been to Lytton Gardens and seen
tr.'lt they ~'lve ess.ent'ally tne same th1r\9? A 10 minut'! ?~!"J.in9 ~:rtiL
C~airma~ ~a~s~: Yes, but this rev)sed plan does not ~ave i full 1oop. It is a
pull-in. turn around, pull-out arrangement. '
Corrrnissione:r" Cunen: But the ci"rcumstances SEem very similar ttl me, and' it is
working ntisfactori1y at lytton Gardens. Of coune, 3: fire engine r:ever pulls
in an-yway. It parks in the street.
Tony Eadger, 381 Hawthorne Str-I?@'t. Palo Alto: First of all, onE' thing that
bothers me about Uis projec::t is the fact that this is a leased site. At the end
of ~O years, God only knows wnat is gOing to haDpen to this thing. 1 have some
serous economic doubts about wnetner this thing will really end up being lo~· to
mDderate·fncolM! hou.sing for th~ elderly. We do "awe a respons.ibility .... o provide
that, but I hav.e QuitE a bit of fear that thi s thing might turn out to be
somethi.ng els-e. If tne neighborhood is g01ng to comprom~se and il.l1z~ something
lik.e this, which is (le~r]y, if J \tIere lhling next to it, I Ci:'l certainly see no"'"
th't peop1e living next to this tMng might fee1 abol.lt it, I 'IIIould .. 'ant to be
sure, if I wa~ mak.ing i compromise for it structure like this, that in fact, it
'lliou1d be as it is being itd\iertised \o'nen c:omp1eteo, and .... 'ould really be houslng
for 1ow-income elderly people. The Eccnomi~s must be very c~refully looked at
on this project before getting !in OKay. It is gOiMg to be expensive COMstructio:'l
if it is to be c{lmpatible '.dth the neignbnrhMd'. J would like to say t~at there
have been s~rne other sites right nert to this one that have been i¥3ilab1e to
purcn.ase in the last fiwe-year period'. ine sites fac-e 0;] "-'averley Street. lot
1310 is owned by Tan. and is a vacant lot it the prtsent time. Nos. 3iS, 316 and
324 are multiple·family units which sold within t~e last five years for just a
little over l300,OOO a ~iece for fach af tnose two Tots. The one on the e~d,
1310 Waver-iey Street. is .$C'me kind of multi?le-family thit'1·; and faces rigM onto
the driveway tnat goes into the par«lng lot of the Hare Brewer and' Kelley
buildings, so actuail) access, 'f that b1oc~ could be purc~a5ed. and I th1nk it
could be, you would Oit/m that land and ""'ould not be facing all tnis rigmarole
about ~hat do you de ~en the l~ts~ runs out. I get a real que as) f~e1iog ibo~t
that.
The other thing 1S ttut ClJr neighborl;cod ; 5 extremel, fragi Je in terrrs of traffic
and developmt'nt. Just to mention a fe .... of the th~n9s that r,ave happened, wit"
th~ opening of t~e Dumbarton Bridge~ our traffic tripled' dewn Hawthorne Street.
The Sand Hill Road connect~on is a possible potential impact that no one really
knows quite what that will be. We have the water tower site which W:lS projJosed
for single-rDom occ-upan~y recently, and we do nat knOll! h''nat ..-i11 happen there.
Yet. there f'aas never been 2 cOl'l1prehenslve traffic study of the dO ... 'l'Ito .... n area.
L
-
2/27/91
-16 -
7'1 ........ -.. " ,<~, t"
", ,"
,
,
/~ , .':~~
"~
lAs a matter of fact. tven ,.ith this Sand Hill E!R thct has been propose<J ind ;s
,going to )lappen, therE" is no provision in that en"ironlTlf!'ntal impact study for iI:
c:'comprehensiv! traffic study of the downtown area. I have asked for one for the
11a5t ten yeirs, and I a1ways get t~e answer that it is too ~xpensive and ~e do
iI!,rtot have the money to do it. We propose Jlany of these de'olelopments which are
:;:ontrary to the present zoning. and \fIje reIlly do not k.now wha.t is go5ng on in
Herms Df traffic. So hew ca, we intelligently evaluate Ii project like this? So
: I do hav!' some concerns about it. even though I re.ally de lik.e the s,pirit of the
',idea, but ] do not want to be ; n fivor of something that is going to be
":,:onstructed and then not be compatible with t;",e neighborhood' from a traffic and
::Jarking point cf vie~. as well as ending up b2ing told that no~ this is high-end
·~ousin9 fer the elder1y. Those are my co~cerns. Thank you.
:,Tricia Ward-Dolkas. 412 herett Str1!et. Palo AHo:P I am a rleighbor in the area.
·.1 feel that the project and U1e effort to nave senior housing is "\o'ery important,
p 1{)WeVer, there are a number of disadvantages that] see to this partlcuhr
·"reject. The leased land makes me very nenous. It is unclear "''hat the lang
"II term benefits are to Palo ATta, and the potential of .... hat happefJs 50 years hter,
lI'ill it revert to a h~gh USi! c<lndo facilitJ'? The density of ttle projec.t is a
jjown side to me. ne 'Vi!:lu,l impac.t {)f it is Quite massive, and when you c.onsider
:ithat neighborhood', that block. a year ago 'fIiiS predominantly single·family houses.
ITan has come in and has prop{)sed deve10pment on the opposite side of the street;
!tnese houses are 90ing; it is a dramatic change to the block. Dramatic. I think
. the sewer impact .-with the rain today, a good two feet on tile side of Ue
. street --the sewers are blecked up. The finane; ng concerns IT.e, Uat they ce net
'have ill tne financing they need. All the architectural accoutrement~ .ill
jisappear in ()rder to get the funding or to make ends meet. The th1ngs they have
put "in place of the dormers, e.tc., rna)" not be there when this project finally
~oes in. The other thin is that it is corltruy to tMe direction of the overan,
long-terE direction ()f the city plans for this neighborhood. This neighborhood
has been down zoned in the past, and tMis is the first time that there has been
a proposal for an increase of zoning. The other thing to con5ider is that right
now at that location. what you see are Ulree sing1e-family houses frJ.:Jiil the
street. quai~t little cottages, but actually there are 15 rental units there, so
in looking at the tradeoffs, now you are eroding the-amour,t of rental I..mits
ilvailable in the city. The shuttle sen-ice and Ue traffic ir;:~acts .are a
concern, also. parUng. It is interesting that a year ago, orl the 9th of
January, the neighborhood called a meeting and invited Jim Keen an,:! Tony Carras.co
to present their proje~t to us. At that time, the parking allo~ed for the
rEsidents was going to be S5 sp2e!s. The parking for gU€sts ~as going to be 10
spaces. Now I see that that has be~n reduced. It is a1so i~t!resting that a
year ago, tI'ley said the number of n:sid!nts. ",'Hh cars ~ere 75 p~rcent of the
residents it lytton One, and 33 percent of the residents dreW'e. I see fro':l the
analysis that that has changed. It may be corr~ct, ~ut it indicates. what has
changed over the space of a year, and that at H.at time, the neighbors had a lot
of concerns .. bout the traffic and park..ing, yet it seems to be going in an
OPPOSite direction. The last thing. in terms of other sites, there are a 10t of
sites, even in the neighborhood. If you consider Alma and Everett and Hawthorne,
some car company had a big lot there. It is nOw the C.alifornia H1storical Mus.eum
L
-
2/27/91
-17 -
:i. ••• . ...
,
"" --
I
~
.' . r .. ~ . . -... -->--~--~' -.~., .
and I varlety of tn1ngs, but mostl] in empty Tot. That may be another option.
It U lJff of Alma Street an-d has 1 us impact on tne r~elghborhood'. IJhen you
consider this neighborhood', it ~as the working cTass neighborhood of Palo A1to
100 years ~go. and there ;s ~ery little Temainf~g that shows tne chaT~cter ~f
~at Pilo Alto was like 80 to ]00 years ago. Those three units they are Tooking
at ire a part of that. They were built fro~ 1907 to 1928, so there are other
sites to consider that wou1d not ~ave th~ impact on the ne;9hbc~hood. and still
have the positive of providing ~ore senici housing. Thank you.
Melissa Biggs, 301 Bryant Street. Palo A'to~ I reside in one of the ~ouses that
backs onto the-proposed project. r would 1 ike to read iI: letter that .... as
deiiYered' to me by a !le~ghborhcod member, rr\l Branner ilt 2S0 8ryant Street.
·Subject: Proposed Development at 324-340 £~erett. To Whom it May Concern: A
tity's Comprehensive Plan i.5 a legally enforceable document by stilte law. On
December ~J, 1990, the state supreme co~rt further ruled on a voter initiative
to overru~e a provision of tl1e citJ~s C{lmprehensive F1an. Although no
initiatives are lrwolved here. the Pacific legal Foundat'on. state: 'The court has
recognized t~at planning is a compre~ensiv! process and should not be driven by
single-focus concerns.' As applies to t~is development, the zoning change is fn
clear '\I10htion of Palo Altlj's Comprehensive Plan. Tne current zoning was
carefully established for the neighborhood to prohlbit specifically tnis type of
ide~elopment. Jt is unambigu{jus and can be legal1,Y challenged in court.'" SOrole
of Illy concern s haye been 1(0; ced by pre v '} ous Sp€a kers. but r wow r d 1 i ke to
reiterate some of tf'le problems ""ith paric.il'lg-. This is an inc~edibly h€avy traffiC
street. There;s literally no parking during weekday. daytime hours and often
well intG the evening. My concerns inva7ve additional vi.$-'Its to the site, the
safety of children and famiTies who ~alk back and forth frequent1y to the park.
jwhich occurs during all the daytimE hours, especially on the weekends. There;s
la lot of foot trafftc on Everett Streett currently. and traffic going in and out
of a large de vel opmoent such as tflis would be iI potential ~azard to the foot
traffic on that street. Currently. the services with sewer-s and street cleaning
are practically nonexistent in this area because ~f the heavy. on-street parking
there. A larg! project such as this could do no more than increase that ~arkir.g
'problem and the traffic problem. In addition, I haye very major concerns about
:hanging the c~aracter of t~is arei so drastically. ~h~t is being proposed in
iidditlon to this projt!ct is another large, multiple-family project directly
~_cross the str~!t on three lots. This would change tht! Entire b1o,~ to nothing
but Targf!~ l!luHi·unit dwellings. There would no longer be any single-fami1y
ausing in thct area. It wOlJid creat! I: massive block. Thank you.
V;arvin Feinstein. 1600 8ryant Street, Palo .AHo: I hi .... e followed this project
;ince it was first introduced to tne public. This 1S ~y fourth meeting on it.
have been to the pre1iminarj Archite:tural Review Board meeting, whid j t~ink.
~'as the last public meeting prior to this one . .At that meetin{4, it beca:me
"' .... ident that Ilembers of the AR8 were not ~appy ,.o'ith a couple of key issues. No.
I was the parking. and No.2, they war,ted to see it stepped down from 350 to
onf{lrm with ~eighborhood concerns regarding mass. Wit~ these t .... o .'najor
oncerns, it became apparent that this project probab1y would not be viable to
ccorrrnodite the two major issues. 1 do not knoltr{ what has been done about that
L
-
2/17/91
-18-
'~';
;~:.
,
I
j
-..,;"·_'-.r
or whether the Irchitect has add~essed the p~eliminary ;s~ues raided by the AR8~
but what 1 see happening toni~ht is t.hat the Planning (omission is being asked
to conceptuilly approve this. I 1m concerned thit I conceptual approval on your
part wou1d endorse the project to suc::h an exte:"lt that the Con;:£rns of the
cOlTIr.lJnity raised It the ARB hearing wou1d be run over. I have had s'Jbstantial
experience in the downtown area. ] have developed property on Emerson Stref~.
1 sing'~-flmily residence; I O~ and manage ~roperty k'tty-ccrner to this. 1 am
very familiar with tne fverett Street ne!ghborhood, and I have become very fond
of it. This project ;s I violation of the Co~prehen5ive Plan, and I ~ould ask
that the Commission take extra precautions.
You have heard tonight some of the u'nfusion that exists .on the finanCing E'nd,
There seems to be two driving forces here. Oi'1E" is finance, that is to SiY. the
minimum ~e can build here i5 51 units because we cannot get financing otherwise.
The 5!cond issue ;s that of elderly housing, ~hich is an emotional issue for all
of tis. On tht issue of financing, I am net an e;.::pert. I do not know what cal'i
be. had from the stlte Qr from HIJD. All I k.now is. 'What the deve10per is te11 ing
tiS, and I sense from the Commissio~ that thit is all t~e Commission knows~ is
well. What opportunities are available it the stite level to obtaln elderly
housing on perhaps. a reduced scale on this site?
1 am confused by the lease Question. Norma1ly, lese-fin~nce money is h;g~ cost
money. So I do not understand that. ] will endorse the ql..estion of what
9uar~ntees a~~ there that this property ~ou1d remain a~ 10~-C05t ~~us~n~, if the
neighborhood is goin~ to make ~ concess;on_ ~hit is to say t~o or three years
down the road that HUn financin9" could be taken aPiay? ] do new knoW'. I am
speculating, but [ do knew that we are UH.ing about a major \o'iohtiorl of Ue
Compref1ensi've Plan that £Verett Street is not, I repeat, not lytton Street.
Everett Street ;s truly a residentfal street. lytton Street is a thoroughfare
that can acco:rmodate institutiorial blJi1di~gs and has done so. This is an
insti.tutional sized bt.li.1diTl9 put on it residential street. ilnd it is OlJt of p1ace.
That bothers me. and it ruins the direction that the Downtown Nortr. arei has been
going 11'1_ I t is iii s;ngle~family, lnw-denslty housing area, and a beautiful
area. Tn1s particular block. of Everett is, in fact, tt1e heart of your downtown
area. Jt is tll/O block.s from ti1e tenter of University p'\lenue, a710 is right in the
cE"r,ter of the DCiJllTitown Nort-n ar~a. It need:; to be trea!~cl .... i th t"'e utmost of
car! and caution in a~y decisions that are ~ade.
Nancy Pieibel. 301 Bryant Court. Pi'P Altp: I would like to ask t~e Commlssion
to be certain to take a serious, serious look at the sewer drainage probl~m in
the area. I "now that the CC!itl"'actor elfiderltly is res.ponsible for puttirlg in the
sewer 11M in front of the project, but whether 01" not that is going to run into
ttle rtst of the City sewer area at some pOint down the' ine. We t1a\le sewage
backups frorn the City se~er line into our homes in i number of cases in the area.
The CHt has addressed that aft~r numerous complaints by sirr:ply taking off t~e
sewer caps so that the backup does not occur into houses, but rather into the
street. It does not happen often, but it has happened. 1hat definitely has to
do with an envircnmental impact. lne otheT matter I ~ould 1i~e to ~ddress is
parking. One speaker spoke-about )larking the area, 'Wro'nich has been an ongoing
L
-
2/27/91
-19 -
•
,
..
.-~
.. e.;f.
-,.-.:;-'.
-
propTem, and w! will los~ even ~or, parking in a project ~f this size, b~cavse
there ob¥tousl1 will be I no-parkln~ strip in frent of it it some point. Also,
the I.Tc'hHect nentiorled that they .. 'erR' trY~l'lg to crtl:te l design that "'i11 .... ork.
in ~ith the architect~re of some of the homes in the 'Tea. dormer w)njows. etc.
They u'e en b:.&ildings that will be tQ~n d.own for the. project. b"t e\'en ; f the.y
create tht project wit~ those types of design elements~ they are ~ery high-cost
duigns to Ililintlin, so the r:aintenaoc:e on construction lib this ~nl be a great
de.il ;non than if it wert. different style requiring less maintenance.
(omissiQne!'" Cullen: from )"QLl last remark about the architectural design being
high maintenance, if that is true, would you prefer tney stripped it back to the
HUD requirements, making it as simple is possibie?
Ms, P1eibel: r 1 ike the idea of trying to retain some of tne design. I do rot
know whit the HUD re~lJ:rement.s are, but I cert'lnly 'Would not wa"t to see a tiox
there.
(omrn'i$S~o'f'le'l" tun en: That _boot descr"'ibel the HUD requirements. I inferred' from
1
1 'your remuk.s that --
Ms. Plgibg1: I was referring to consid€:ring maintenan.ce in He future budget fer
II tnis project, and' \,'hether or not it would be long-tertn. low-rent ,",ousin.g for
seni<:lrs.
Mien!el MdiniL 6S§ lytton A .... enue, Palo Alto: J am a resident of lytton
Gardens, Lytton One, which is independent living. There are some ZS or 30 of us
pres<!nt tonight, and we are here simply to show you th.a.t there 1S a d~a:stic need
for affordable housing for seniors in this area. You certainly must recognizE
Hit lytton ' .. rdens has been a btH'lefH to this cOl'MlunH,Y with the w~y it
structurll1y handled the first three bu;ldings that were constructed. 1he same i board of directors is 'Working on this project. I do not understand a11 the
1 f'inincir.p or an;haectural detai1s. but I c.an on1y say thit the bOird is
\ interested in p"o~idiTig iffordable-tlousi!i9 for-seninrs. When you realize ti"1at
: the fa.cility at lytton Gardens hcs. it; three--yen 'Waitil"'9 l'st. YC'J ca.n understc.l1Q
ther-e is l demand. There c~rtiin1.Y is 11 need, lnd it is for local resider,ts.
I lJ(olJld also liKe to ~er\t1on that 1 wel',t into lytt~!'1 Ga.rde.'lS in 1,77. tljo/a yea.rs
.fter it was blJilt. At that time, the.re 'lias a two-year waiting list. because 1
appli!d in 1975 when it first opened. So I point those things out, and I hope
you 'IIi11 understand wh!n I do not understand the idea of downsizing the project.
Downsizing to me does not make any sense, proir'idin~ less hO\Jsing for seniors.
lWe need more housing for seniors. J recognize some of the traffiC prabiems.
lete., but I do hope you understand tnat Ir'e ire trying to provide additianal,
:affordable, Quality housin~ for seniors that is drasticalTy needed.
I:hainnan Marsh: Since I hi\le ('10 other cards from members of the public, l .... jl1
:lose the public hearing and ret~rn this item to the Planning (omnission.
1:oJTImi5s;oner C~ristensen: tan !'Is. Kelleher ln5'tjer the QI.l~5t-;on I had islt.ed
',';arlier'?
,
-
L
2127(9)
-10-
•
,
"
,..J ,-,
~
------~-.
"_~', "e
Ms. Jelh·heT': lmder OlJr city PC ordi"ilnce, your pt"tlim\T\a.ry r2'w'ie-'III ,,;:tioo
tonight on this application does not bind you whe-n you next consfd'er the
appllclt~on and make your final review and reco~ndation to t~e City Council.
Conwnissfoner Hubj!'r: Se"'eril speakers nave alluded to the prospe(;t of this
becoming sometning other than a senior housing comple~. Can it?
~i. lytle: 1t co~'d not without a zone ,hange. if that were iI use restriction
of the PC zone. It could be restricted to low-income s~nior housing tnrough the
Pla~ned Community Lone.
Commi$siQ~er Cu11en: One speaker referred to t~e date of the hou£'~9 presently
on the property. I wonder if that dat,ng is correct. ff 1t is correct. has 1t
been through t~e Historic Resources Board? My personal observ.i!tio~ of the
housing is tnat I do not t~ink it dates back to th! time that was mentioned.
Mr. Gilliland: None of the houses are on the historic inventory. so it ~ou1d not
have gone before the Historic Resourc.es Board.
Chairman Marsh; One of the speakers from the neig~bcr~ood indicated th~t ir. a
ne\ghborhood meeting. here. belief 'JI'il.S that there r,ad been more pi!ir~in9 places
incorporated into t~e projeCt at an earlier stage tnan there are now. Can staff
clarify that?
Ms. Ludden: The higher number of parking spaces \IIIere reTated to the 64-unit
deve1opment~
(ha;Tman Marsh: It is possible t~ pub more p~rKi~g spaces in this project?
Ms. Ludden: Hot i~ the underground parking. We ~ould ha~e to 90 to i secQnd
story of underground parking in order to do tliat. Those run from a half to
thre~-quarters of a million dollars per level.
Chairman Marsh: How were you incorporating the parkirg in tnat earlier version?
Ms. Ludden: J am tr,iirrg to recall. ilie came ~~t farther into the setbacks.
To~y CarrascD: J was at that m€etlng. We ~ad tne garage entry under the three
story portion of tt,e bu'i1oing. 10 the credit of the neig'nborl1oo::l', they suggested
that we Ino~e tnat access to the garage, It was the present 1ocation of t~e
ac.c.ess that conta'ned the ad.rjitionil jlid .. ir'\g. Th,s acces..s prollides better
lighting conditions for the elderly to drlve up. rt transitions from a dark~
'!.,r.derground garage through the tre1lis tQ a much more open, brighter space. It
is a safer way to do ~ccess to underground parKing. That ~as taken the pace of
the old six parking spaces that existed earlier. There are ft'le now.
Chairman Marsh; You did note that you hc1'w'e done a lot of work. in trYlng to set
this project back up towards the six-story building that is next door. Hnwever~
in looking at the plans, my I.mderstanding is that all four of these houses ire
-
2/27/9]
-11-
•
... ~
.~
,
·r -' ------,------..,---~ ........... -,."'--
zon,d RHO, or es~ent'i11y. single-family homes. Is that ~crrect? (Yes) from
""tiat I observed with the (ourt" house is thal it has .. three-story building
directly in Its back :Jnd, .. dU, very Tittle setback..
Ms L"d~en: It is SEt back 20 f •• t.
Chai,..,.n ~arsh: I t~o"ght it ~as 20 feet frorn U,e propert, line to t~e beginning
of the first .tory building In the front of the lot.
Ms. Ludden: It Is 20 feet from H,e b~ck building. The front part is about 50
fret. That setback. from the fir-st house on herett to tfH! beginning of the
entrance to our project, the lobby area, is .bout 50 feet.
ChJinman ~arsh: So tnis fs 20 feet. Then I haVE i question for staff. whit
'lfould be th@ setbac.k required fer 1; b'Jilding of that l'1eight 'Under the RM-30'?
Does tke setback for this heig~t and for this angle conform to an RM-30?
Ms. Warneit: T~e reQui~ed side setback ~ou1d be t!n ftet for the first $tory and
ha1f the height of the bui1ding (or everythin9" O'.ler the fint story.
("irma" Marsh: So would the setback be ten feet plus?
Ms. Warheit: Ten feet of the first story. and tnen, lIO part of the buildil'lg
would be closer than ha1f the actua1 height of the b~i1di~g, ~~it~ a~ownts to a
4S-degree daylight p1ilne. But the first floor could' be is close as ten feet,
which is half the distance tnat is there now.
Cl'lairmatl Mjrsh: Then for i three-story building! wt'llc:h ;s what we ha .... e at this
point, ,a 36·foot height, we wou1d' l1ave to t1a .... e a 28-foot SEtback or al'1 la-fcot
setback.?
Ms. itarheit: Nor for the first story. What we typically see ;1'1 RM-30 is that
they go back 10 fe~t and they can go liP 20 feet ,at that point, becat.lSf: the
setback is still equal of half the height. AT t'at point, t,ey have to begin
going back. farther. ne U,frd floor here .... ould nave to be set back proba,ly
..mere it is n.ow, but the first t ..... o floors could' be ten feet neal"'e!'" to the
property line.
Chairman Marsh; My qUEstion is, what setback do you have to t1a'ie fol" this third
floor? The an~wer to that \s IS feet?
Ms. Wilrheit: Yes, about 18 feet or half the height of the building.
CommiS:Sipner Christensen: Could staff point out on the f'I1odel the places wtiere
the variance would be required, especia11y 11'1 regard to the day1ignt plane?
~s. Warheit: There are t~o variance issues. One waS the parK\ng 1n the front
yar~, ,and one was the height and daylight p1ane intrusion.
-
//17/91
·12-
• I
,
•
~ 'Qmmis$~T Christtnsen: The 36 ff!t would require i varilnce~
II Ms, ~jI"heH: On, pitched. room like thfs. height is measured' at.the C'1id~oint (l!'l
·1 t~e pitch. On ill three s1des of the th,..ee~storjl walls, the dayllght ph"le nick.s
,\ off. little bit of the overhang and • little bit of the domer,. nat ~ill .11
r; hive to be shrunk •
.. (~ilinniln Marsh: To what d~9ree is ~here i~trusion into the daylight ~1a.M? It
"; says ·slightly, and In a:djustme-nt 1S ret:julred'.-\(hat does that mean?
,i M:. Warhett: It;s not the entire o\lertang. But it cannot be built the way it
;1 100ks on the model. By slight, I meant to Siily thilt probab1y some dropping of ~: that roof by even ene foot to accorrrnod;te the height probl em waul d mostly res.ohe 'I the daylight pl.ne problems. rt was not the entire overhang that was in'lcivE'd.
d Chairman Marsh: Can the pitch of the roof be Towfred and still accommodate thE'
'r: dormers? Can we build this project within the height limit substantially wit
thh design?
I Ci'1airman Marsh: Will it iilcco/M1odate the height limit?
\ MI". tan-asc.o: Yes. it will. 1 am not sure we can get t"'e gutter-insid-e the
I daylight plane. but we will certain1y try.
I 'Il;C,,!!a~l!J.r1IIJ!!la~n-lMlj'l!r~'l!h; If that completes tne questions, we are ready to begir1
diSCUSSion of the ;tem.
tommissiQner Beecham: I wcu:d like to taKe iii few minutes to categorize w~at we
'have heard ton~ght. r have listed about five major prob1ems as identified by the
public and the staff~ In no particular order. they include selfller, traffic
impatts. parling, long-term usage and the mass and fit into th~ neighborhood,
liIe al'$o had an issue that if we go with iii PC t we would ha .... e to find it substantial
public benefit. That could b. Problem '6 to b. handled. As we tal. about thi,
tonight ... we need to keep in !t';,~d 't(hat tie the a'ternat",'es that 'tfe are ass~ss'\ng
this against. There is the no-alternative. That is, not~ing happens.
£'oIerjthing stays the same. \lie c.annot require that, se Hat is really net an
option for consicerati~n tonight.
Another alternative is that it is developed with;" and undf:!r the limits of RM-JO.
The rnain limitation of RM-30 for t~e site would be that it would limited to
18,000 square fe~t. That I'oul d be approximately 12 to 16 units, dependi r.g on
their size. So we might use t"-at as a standard for some other options of ..,,'hat
~e might expect in the future on the Site in t~is neighborhood.
)n He problem of the-sewer, .... e should clarify that there are two types of
sewers. One is the storm drain sewer a~d the other is the sanitary se~er. Whet
y()U see backed ~p in the streets from the rain is the st()'l"'\II drain sewer. My
Jnderstand'ing is that this site would, in no material way, affect the storm drain
iewer, except through gutter runoff. Is that correct?
,>:<------
-
L
2/27/91
-23·
•
'. __ ' ___ ;.0.
..
..
\
'1$ W.rbcft: I bel feve that there would lIot be much IIOTi! impenioLis Sllrface than
you hive now. because most of that lot is paved behind the houses, There
probably ~uld not be much more runoff going into the stQrm sewer.
(Q!!I!!iss1one,. Beecbam: So ft does not affet:t tI'Ie pooling that does ~c.cur in that
neighborhood'. en the sanitary $ewer. staff .has indic.ated a six·inc.'" se"er going
through there that Ilust be addressed by this de .... eloper or an il1ter-native
develDper, but it must be addressed, and the appllcint is aware of that. T~at
fs somethfng that has to be ta~en care of, but it is not an issue that we nfed
to worry bout. becaus! it must b~ handle~ for the project to go forward,
The second problem is traffic: impact. Jf we compare the project bEfore us ,.iith
an RM·30 development. t,at is. about 12 to 16 units. I think t~e impact is ahout
ttle same. Dr perhaps even 1 ess. We ha'Je 51 un; ts, and if we use the figures
pro~ided in the staff report and discussed tonight about lytton One, there are
abGut 200 uTlits t~a.t ha .... e about 80 parking spactS rounded off. If we use t~~t
ratio for 50 units, there wnuld be 20 parking spaces needed. We are instead
getting approximately 50 parking spaces. W~ do haye a prob1em on the location.
There is a problem w;t~ converlient. short·term parking. As Chairman Marsh
mentioned'. there Ilay be I: problem with the emergency park.ing spaces ava iJ ab1e for
those vehfcles. so that this is something we do need to address. Otner.wise. en
parking. the 5J units and SO spaces is. in Tact. gene':'"oIJS. based on the type of
tenant we can expect to see in tnis facility.
Re9arding tr,a,ffic impact, if you look at the numbers pre .... ided lnt eh staff report
about trip generation at lyttnn Gardens~ those traffic numbers are no greater
than one VClulC' find with 11 to 15 single·family. normal units. So for traffiC
impact, ~e are not going to se! a massive fJood in this area over and above what
(auld be built in any case. and o~er and above what we might expect in the future
with tnis land if it is ~ot gjv~" to this project.
Fourtoh all lIy list of problems is "hat happe~.s in the long term. nat should' be
ZI10dified by what happens If HUe changes their tenr.s and MO longer gi .... e-s
subs;dies~ etc:.. If Hue changes their terms and !tubs;dies. are n"t a..'aihble or
Ue i!pplicant goes bankrupt. etc .• we ha~re this unit her~~ and what are we going
to do witt; iT? ! d(JO't «no ... if there is any way we car, guarantee Hat it remains
in the use W~ iTe discussing tonight. If it goes bankrupt and is taken over by
some other operation. we tan not force them to subsidize itt I don't believe, so
there is some unknown risk there to thirk about. In the long term of 50 years.
the applicant has indicated that probably. they fee' with. high ,ert,;nty that
they will have control of the prope~ty. 1 do Mot ~now the basls for that, bwt
we need to tr.;nk about SO years. In SO years. I may be riI member of this unit.
if it is but1t. At wor~s. J am not going to worry about it. Our children w111
nave to worry about it. and that is not something to ignore, but we need to think
in reasonable terms about the economic future of the aiea. Fifty years is a
reasonable 1engtn of time to consider.
There was Ilso talk. about certainty of funding. If we go ahead -.with t""i5. it
would be limit!d to this specffjc applic.ation. If fund'ing does not proceed, the
L
-
2/17/9j
·14-
. '
I
I
I
I
r
i.
[
•
'--
r
I
I .
IPplfCltion is dead? iO r do not belleve we ~ou1d be getting into i situation
where we 'Would approve 51 units and then because of funding, it became
condominiums.
Fifth on 111 list i.s the 1I',(l:SS and' fit into the neighborhood. nis 1$ the major
problem. This un;t is t...-ice the f1cor area that would be allowed in the maximum
RM'-30~ We rl&ed to address whether this design, even though not ilt site and
design tonlght, 15 approximately what we could 1 he wit11: We have to decide that
tonight, or ~:i'ilie guidelines t.o the applicant on how they should go ba'Cl( 0;,,:1
chang~ it. We ~eed to spend some t\me on that.
The liSt item is whether there 15 significant pt.Jbli'c tlenefit. Can we expect tnat
to be the case? It is dear that 'lie need more low-income senior housing. TherE!
is a1~~ys th@ quest,on of ~here do~s it go? NO p10ce is ever perfect for i
project like this. Aside from the impect on the neighborhood for a moment, jf
we t~ink flf where l project lik.e this should go, this is exactly wilere it sl1o':.:ld
go. It is near to downtoWTIj you cannot get closer to the se:-'l'ior center; it is
neu medital h,c:i1ities; it is Ii eaT" emergency hcilHiesi it is near
transportation; it is near what the seniors need. It is near lytton One in which
they can share. So in a generic sense, there is no better place in U1e City tha~
this area. Sut what about the neighborhood? That is the prob:e~. ~e need to
address. how thh fits. 11'1 with our requirement to protect the single-famllY nature
CJf the neighborhoca. There is al!JiiiYs the question of NIMBY --Not in My Back.
Yard. S~metimes we have to bite the bu1l~t. and t~at is one of the issues-That
completes the li.t.
Ctlairman Mars~: I 'Would lih to share 'With i'l of you a conversation I had tni"s
afternoon that may be of interest hen _ As we have tall:.ed in sorne of the &lvb1 it
discussion, there is a prcoposal being developed right no. for-the prop~rty that
sits directly behind this propertJ fronting on Lytton Avenue and being developed
by JM Baer. I had iI conversation with }-1im this afternoon in terms of his ~lans
for that project. and the way in which he mi'3ht interface his plans for that
project, a.nd tne w?y in which he lI1ight interface his. project ',dU the project
.:e ar-e considering tonight. He rioted Hat I was free to Quite him tonight. Jim
is currently in the development phase of ~is proposal. He expects to break.
ground in April or May of next year, issuming that things go as he a~ticipates.
He indica-ted that he is. very \nterested and positive about working with th,s
project. both in terms of pedestrian aCCess and vehicular access+ His plans,
although [ am not privy to their fvll scope. ;nc1ude a ~ery large underground
parking lot ~n the whole of the lot that ;s currently parking lot and building
b-ehind U,;;s projec.t. It "is. the $He of the former 8hse ~alent'nE! and K1e.i.rt
building. H! believes that in hiS development, still in the development stage,
he could easily provide access to the underground parki~g for this project from
the rear_ I wanted to talk with i-1im, becaUSE it is my bellef U.at one of the
significant ~rQhlems f~r this project is the par~in9. particularly th~ need to
use the front yard portion of this project to house a dropoff, pickup area. I
felt t~at if w~ could figure out some different access, we might, first of all.
provide some economies. of sca'e in the building process, secondly, be able to get
L
L
2/17/91
-15-
.-'.:' ...... '! . -~_~: :---1:
~~, • \
soee Idditfonal parkin; space-s out of it. lnd third~ resJJlt in oil design that is
.ucb .ore ~ccess;blt to t~e ne-ighborhcod wh1:h provides a m~~h m~rf nei~hborh~od
sule lnd design to the front of this b,,;1ding. last but not least. gettin;
thoslI! cars out Df tne fr~r'lt yard. Ob .... iously~ if we ... ant to pur:ue tl'lCit cr
encour'ge the developer of this project t~ work wit~ Mr. Baer. there wou1d be
some Dbstacles tney would face~ '$ linda Ludden ~as pointe~ out. However, ~J
conversation w'th Mr. SIer giVe-r.e h1gh hopes that there tou1d be a joint
solution he~ to address the parking ICCII!$S !$sues. maling this project ma~e a
lot more sense ind complement ~is project, as ~ell.
COlmliu'tQner Cu11tn: That is ver,' interesti.ng. Cha.irman Marsh, tnd I thin .. it
is wor.derful. Are th~re any discretionary approvals needed for the 8a~r project?
Chairman Mar$h: I lm sure thert ~ill b~.
Commissioner Cu1le,,: So there may be an ~pportUr1ity to take him up on this
offer _
Chairman Marsh; I thinlt you can safely say that Mr. Baer r..·ill probab1y be ~ery
ilnxious teo inc.orpnnte lflY kind tlf public benefits 'we cJ.n t,and to Mm for liis
project~
tommi5S~Qnt~ Cullen: Very good. Commiss~oner Beecham has touc~ed O~ just a~out
all tn! points I had noted. The only other thing would say is that having sat
an tni$ Commission for almost ten years. and having looked at varicus 5fnfor
projects that have ~ome b~fore us and havlng seen s~rne of them developed. eyery
one t~at has come before us h.s had the sam~ concerns about parkin~ and about
tr.ffic. When they have been approved and built, those particular concerns have
just evaporated. It w~uld have been good for Community Hou~ing. jnc. to have
invited the tormrissioners tc tour lytton Gardens, as we did on lytton Tnre-e
before it w,s built. There is nothing like seein~ something tnat ~as been built
and how 5t is functioning. If thi s does get ccnceptual approval tonight and
befo~e com1ng bac~ to us again) I would hope that all of the Commissioners ~ould
naV! an opportunity to tDur lytton Gardens? .",t1ic." we are all very proud of. I
havi! lived in this COlmli"irlity long enough to knolt{ that it was a Hry controversial
p1""oject when i.t was propos.e4. No" it is Of1e that Itl!! all hail as s.omething
repres!nting the best of tnis c~mmunity. J do think the parking problems will
b~ tilen care of through underground parking. 1 share tl1e concern of the
nei9hborh()od that they d~n"t want anymore parking. because there is no ('f.ore
parking on the street, but this project has to proyfde parking on site, and t~at
item will be t,ken care of.
J am a little puzz:ed about the talk. about traffi C I because J 90 doW'Tl EVt!rett
Street hir1y frequently, and in the Jl"11ddTe of the day there is never any
traffit. PeT'l'Iaps i11 the p.m. peak hours. there is. ind I ;am not there ~t that
time, and r don't think thest residents ~ill be out during the p.m. peak ~our5
either. \then I dr-ive' down there. if I meet on car, it is unusual. As you get
"oser to Alma, YDU do stilrrt to meet cars there~ but I I\o'!"ll'lally go 1101'09 .1-a.\ler1ey
to £Verett ,nd' Dn: down to Alma, so I thinK the traff1C problelTis may be
L
2/Z1j9l
-26-
•
::)-
;;.. ,
~i,
,
-'.
'. .'erstated.
1 lm V&Y1 CQoCtrNed .bout the ((naneIMS, but 1 hov •• at Is. liaison, .Iong with CQ"'iUlOt~r Christl,"'"" to the P~l. Alt. HO"Sing CorpOtati," OV6r ~h. ye.rs, ana
! t"~ t~, kina, of pat ••••• that tin b. put t0gether. It i$ USu,l)y finanCing
tomfns r""", IJIIJre th." on • .,\lre. -. two Or three sovr, ••. ineba in9 lox Credit~
for ~.rpQrlUons, ,,/lith woo used in the California Par. aevelOPm,,":, Wh1ck tor~.ralf.ns apPlr.ntly art just ~.ginnin~ t. diScover. So ther. is t~. apPOrt.nity for some very cr.'!lve fjo.nCj"~ ~a<k.ge •.
tj~. it eo~e. b.ck to "'.
As for the Pc, which COlMlis;ion~r Bteth.rn alluded tt, jf y~u approve a PC, it is
app
r
ove4 ""ith very $P~c'fic d'.tlcp."ot 'riteri,. If tho," doYel.pm""t ttiteri.
are not honore1. then you 1~ •• 1'" PC aPPro •• l. So in ~O"C'Pl, 1 am io favor of
Ihi' project. I Wi,h it well. They h.v~ • lot ef hUrdl., to go 0.", 'nd 1 .m
very glad to h •• r about tne Hil!\ Sagr POSSibility of occe;, 'nd .ddHioraJ parking
1n the ar •• be~i"d. 1 w"<lld hope thJt wi 11 b~ Pursued '9.9'e',1 .. ly. It 'ounq,
lTl. he is On ~ fl.tty tim. lin~ thM jnyan. tls, in town, a.\ ~~ 01>.,.)', i$, ..
... yp~ it "nl ~. P""ibl, to have SO", of tho,. things .lready in phce ~y th~
~li."@r Cbrilt."l!!l; I .ant to "pr ... my amph.l.ne •• ~'"t Ihi, P"oject,
I, to., bave been on til, CO""'i"ionlQn~ '0""90 to be .n, of th, No~l.
r,spOns!bl. for putting th;, CU"T.nt :0.109 in place. 1 .no~ hew C'ref,lly ~.
went, lot by lot, to decioo tho 'pprop'iHe ~onlng for •• .:" lM
i
vi4u.1 porcel in
this part of downt.w". 1 remember w.lting thh 0'", m"y ""','''4" aM HiS
p.rticular Pi"cel "as a '''oJett of C~"trQ'·.nJ and (IJr"~d doW!' " "Qutst for
rozlfnins to hj9h~r oeo$1IY Since 1 have b~.n "n Ihl CO","istion. 50 I 'IT! very $~n£;tive to tho jS~"'1 raised by th~ nE1ghbo,.. That ~a$ the re.soo We chose
th, <""ins thH "e did to not ello .. any "or. than the t>;,ting number 0, unit.
if th.~ ""r' develoJ>ed lr,dlvicualiy •• n~ if t.'ey were d ... loped in conjV"ctiQ"
with l'"tti"g ···'til Properties tagH.en, then the density bonvs woulq ~i<;" ir,
also ~ro~r.~ 9 waGld kiCk io, and ~"e th.t development .t least give ba,K '0'.
of the rantll "nils that would be loS!, atom,l •• , it <ocl~ not b. d~v.lop~a ot ~ll, The tllrust Wi. tn't It would not ~. al1 ••• a to~. ~.Y.l,~.d .t all. Th.:
that housing would stay there ~nd continue to h. t Part of tn. JeW'"'incom"
rental "Ousln9 stock lnt /le City, So J h." 'erl ~i.e~ f •• liriiS '00,( t~i;
I pro,j.,!. I ha,. to "1 J .ould n~t <veo b.~l" t~ to"'ider thi, VeJeet if the
: fln.n'in~ P.c~.g. <1oe. Mot come thrQ"g~. So tonigl:! I ., Mt "'gor to ill" a
blank.! concept •• l lppro •• l Without tYing it .ery ""fully to that fln'ncing
."'age, I (Qntjnv~ to ".V~ ton~""ns anyway about the m'''
in
9 and 'bout the
·"'Nc( "n this P'rne"1" U'oet froo tife P'Oje<t, he" as cun.'tly de';gr,.d,
lthO"9h I f •• 1 th~t thOy have a.ne • fint.,tlt jab ~jth ~h.t they "a,. had to
·r' with. It pro •• bly fiis ibn"! ., well" 51 Unit. in 30.000 SQuare f •• t
,1d fit and .tOl lOok unm"sive 'nd residential in ~h,""t<r. So! M torn "t thi •.
}$slonet GlaliU: COlW!li;Sioner 'hri~ten;.n ItH pvt it very ",.11. j. too, ',"~ amb;v,lent about th1s. frem. <on<ePt~'l 't'Mpoint, ! reCO~ni~'d that
is • t"emend.u. <lem,nQ for affordable .. nior hO"Slns in thi! t"'~""Jnity and
2/U/91
,27·
L
•
,
I
•
I
I
-
in eveTy tOtmlurdt,1 in the bay ana. Hg"''av~r. tne',""e an II (oup.1e of ;sst;es,
plrticuhrly the mss ind fit 15$"dE, that reilly trOt/b1e lI'le4 1he wa~¥") am coming
down tonight tonight is that I do not want to de~y this conce?tu~i app1;cat'o~
becauu the demand ;$ just too great. What 1 see bef.:lre me. des;gnll/i.se+ Iljk.i!+
but It Is • little big, Scme of the archltect"r,l .1ements tn,t have be,n built
into it win make it fit. J am cCl1c!'I"ned with the financing. and that what lrIe
see b!fore us s;x to t~elve ~ontns down t~! road is not w~at we set in front of
4JS tonight~ So 1 would not want to somehow convey that 1 a:n iT! favor of any
project of ony kind that 100<s any ~'Y on thl, ,ite, It could very well be tn.t
oil project comes bac( to ~s six months down the line that is substantiill1y
<fifferent and does net fit in is 'W'ell IS tr.at on! dces. I .. ~11 ~ay no~ that I
wou1d ~ot be surprised if, it that point, I decided not to approve it. But fer
111 the r~isons that Corml'isSioner Beecham mentioned. it is 1!'1'lportilnt. from o:,y
perspective, that we push it ihead at this stage and allo~ the parties to go
ahead and investigate how we can bring this thing to fruiti~n.
Commissfon.er Hube't: I think. the points. made by virtua.l1.)' e .. '-eryofie here so far
have be-en e.lCc~11ent. I wish 1 cou1d figure out how to vote amblva1ently. 1 find
tne i.sue to ~ o'e of bu", nothing el,., I don't think traffiC i, • problem.
Pirielng is a lHt1e problem but it can be dea1t wHh. As 1 look: at this, 1 think
it is bu1k. 'VErsus whether you ~C.ep fate wiUl the nei9hborho~d and the loning tMilt
was applied~ as Commissioner Christensen said, after a lot of pai~staking work.
Sometimes th~re is I tendency to look at project like tnis, 100K at the zc~in9,
loo~ at the large apartment Duilding and say, on we1l, it is .11 there and jt is
III 90in9 that way ifiyho ..... Cl-euly. we need tt'le housing. [d"o not know b~'III' to
state thit ] would like to see i s~aller, fiscally capable project combe back to
us~ rt is postiblf~ perhaps, throush some tie ~ith Jim Bier because of the wly
he functions that we might be able to get so~ething that w,11 work. lhts is a
large project, considering RM-30 loning, so I have thrown in mJ ambiya'~nce. I
liKf tht concept of senior nousing and 1 certainly would like to see jt smal~er
than it is~ bu1kwise, and clearly, I do not l~ke the ide~ of parking out in the
fTon~ yard.
C,",airman Mars,",: 1 aIr, 9Cling t~ go off on a tangent. whid'f 1 should have done:
earlier. There are 12 rental units or, tn,s slte, frorted by threE t'1ames. Do iIo.'e
kno .... ho~ many bedrooms are in those names? (No) 'lrI1hat I am ..... ondering js whether
it ;$ feisib1e it i11 to ta.ke the sa~,e le-se for th;;s property an.d put senlors
into the homes tnat exist there in tne rental units and in the bedroom of those
hom-es~ t would suspect you -could g-et probably IS to 20 seni<lr5 easily
accoTM'lodateo in those homes without bun ding iI '!If!"'} large st-ructure. (an 1 a~lc.
the appltcant if that is anything you ~ave Ever t~oU9ht about.
~r. Koch: That is something that CHI. as a body. 1S 1lOt interested in. providing
moderate-priced rental units.
Chairman MarSh: Do you bel~eYE the ~ould be rncderate1y priced due to tnt amount
of the 1ease agreement that you a1ready nave, even wftnQut expenditures for the
C're.ati~r'I of a building? 'We frequently heir of the shared hoosing projec.ts thit
eXlst within the commu~ity. It wau1d certainly be wonderful to make this into
L
2/27/9J
-28-
"
•
\ ,
,'"
';I" ',~ ',·,-11' .. ' . .:.~ .,
\. .;.
t
.~--.
• n1~et s~ar!~ housing project for seniors.
Hr, (och: ]t would appear thn the rent le¥els are arourld $.625 per bedroom,
without any subsidy ,t Ill, I.S H it right now: .. iV. no impro ... ements. there are
.1so the fEderal handicap and acctss regu11tions that would need to be included
I the existing buildings.
Ms. Ludden: In the existing nouses, the first f100rs ire typical1y aDout three
ffl~t off ttle ground~ so you wc>uld ,ve to tUl,'e ramps and nandicap lifts. You have
to m~et fa~eril access reguiation~
Chainman Marsh: That is if y)U get federal ~oney.
Ms. Ludd~n: Right. but even if you reno .... ate it at all. once you do that you ~ave
t~ meet the current building codes. You could not deal with those properties
without doing substantial rer-ollations. Just for !Me practicaiity for serllor
lilting, the~ have to b~ accessible wi VI ramps and you would haye to have some
lifts. So you would have renov.tion expense.
eMi rml'!n Marsh: J realiZE! that might sound 1 He a wack.y idea {In ttle surface. blJt
H is someth1ng that might be worth some further thought, as there are scme
renovation ~nies a¥ailab1e frorn various sources that ~ig~t be ~Qrth pursuing_
Renovation b'ould cc-rtalnly be a muc::n cheaper option than buildirg af'l un.jerground
garage and i lir~e. 51-unit building.
] snare the ambivalence a1ready expressed toward tnis project. When we zoned
this parcel RM-30~ it was the very, very maximum that we agreE'd upon at that time
that we would ever cor.templite. Jf we were rezoning this parcel today. it would
never be rezoned RM-30. 1t would De rezoned RM-1S. In fact~ this Commission
and Council t in various actions !l\'er the course of the past few yean, has e .... en
refused to put HR-1S next to single-family hovsing. We have put R-2 next to it
in sfmilar situations. This is a little different since it does back u? to a
high intensity use on the ene end. but these homes are very small tr.at fl.Jnction
as Single-family homes. So you nave a situation ~here you have generous zoning
to begin with, and a proposal to exceed that zoning in te~s of square footage
by lOa percent.
I do not have a problem with the way in which this project has been designed.
I think YDU ha .... e done as good a job a~ one can do in massing it towa~d a· .... ery
large bUilding. The problem 15, as already stated by everyone, that you are
f<lrc:ed to try .. nd get 36,000 square feet on a lot tnat probablY should have on1y
18,000 square feet on it.
] am going to go through the issues very briefly. I am not quite as serene as
tomissicner tullen is regarding the par¥.ing. Sohe rooted tl'.at in the senior
projects we hilve reviewed, parking has not been a problem. I do no think th~t
is the case. If you r!member, ~ebster HO~5e was built with assurances that the
parking was adequate there. Sever.l years later. Webster House returned to us
and said, we ~a~e ~i$caltulited and-we hav~ to tear down the house next door.
L
-
2/27/91
·29·
,
~-.. ~,.
,
--
\
\
it is t~~e that it is high-income and it ~lso incorporates Scme residenti11 care
hcilitiu, ,)'et the ~i.rldn9 stnl exceeded the expe'tlt~OI"\S. lytton. C.c:rdtns. in
the ~&teri,l we havt before us. notes that its 30 emp10yees par~1ng the the
neighborl'lood. So we hay! crntp.d another situat10n there in 'JIInich a senior
housil\g project underestimated its need for parkinS'_ As a res!:lt. it is the
neighborhood that i. Iccommodating the cor. of 30 employ •• s of Lytton Gardens.
So 1 am not .111i"9 to-maKe-to.o mar,! accoModations on the park.ing fer ttth
project, simply beciuse if it does n~t worK. there lS no p1ace else for the cars
to go. There Ire no houses next door that can be torn down, ts in the case of
Webst~r Hou$e. So _e must ~ake sure that the parking is adequate it this site.
1 llso think the park~n9 numbers may be somewnit different from the e~peri~nce
at lytton One, simp1y because-there is no food service being pray [ded on the site
of lytton foul"'. Th.at means. that the residents of that facility Inust go out
SG~pl&~e to buy food or to have ~a1s~ They ctn do some of that downto~. but
if th~y are going to c~Dk at nomt. they must get to a f~11 service grocery store,
and they cannot walk to that kind of faci)jty.
1 also have i real problem with the ac,ess. I do not feel we have accommodated
emeT9~nc~ vehic1es. These park1ng p1aces are meant fer parKing cars, is a~e the
parking place. on the left-hand sid. meant for dropping off. 1t is very 1: •• 1y
that when an emergenc:y vehic1es arrives, thre-e 'Will not be room for them te tunl
around. At the ver~ l~ast, an emergency vehicles ~au1d possibly he Gole to pult
i", yery likely blocking the tirS thlt ire .1re.dt parked there. Sine< I "".
never seen .. parlmedic come on its own, what we are really talking about is a
ph,e for a fire truck. or iI place for i. police c",., and we have not ,allowed in
th,s des.igrt for those vehic1eL lytton One has .. diffel"'~!"'.t situatiol1 bec.ause
there, you hive I ~r'veway tnit you p~ll in and ~ut of and there is room in that
driveway for cars that happen to be on business It the facility, as well is for
the emergeney vehic1es. A)so, it is II Tong tnough driveway to accorrrncdate I fire
truck, is 1 have seen fire trucks parked in it many, ~any times.
So~ ~sicalll. I have the same complaints Everybody else does about the proje~t.
Senior housing is abso1ute1y an admirable Bsue, and sQmething Hlat ... e .... H)' much
need within the City. It is something that could be accommodated well within tne
nei9hborhnod. It;s i good location for it. And 1 think it is reasonable for
the neighborhood to make some accommodations to provide 5enior nousing, but in
this cas!, lI:e are pushing on too many fronts. We are pusrling on the massingi we
are cushing on the parking; ~e are pushing en the dropoff access area. The one
think that tou1d save this project. to my ~ay of think,ng, is if ~e get access
to this property incorporated in the development of the Saer project beh~nd it.
If ~e can takt care of tr.e access issues, take ca~e of the parking issues, take
care of the dropoff, recreate tne front of tnis building so that there ls grass.
there, th@t"e \S i pliJ.ce for resid~!'lts t<l co",.e ou.t and interact with people 'fIho
are walking down the street, three is a s~n~e that yo~ a~e not ~6'king past Cl~S
that arE parked rj9~t next to the 51de~alk, but i~e waiking Piit ) building that
has iI residenthl feel, then we might get to I point where we can look .at the
bulk of this project and say it is what we want t~ de because ~e want senior
ht"usifl9 in the neighborhood. Witho'Jt tak.'ng care of these ,ss-yes in the front
of the buildlng, 1 cDuid not support this project. My conversation .. ith Jim Baer
L
2127/91
-30-
:
•
-_. --;::;..
·';,c . .."
"''",.." ~;,
-
9~ve .e great hopes tD~iY that that is ~~m~thin9 that cculd b£ ic,omm~dated. 1
would bE "'i11fn9 to approve ttlis tonight. predicited with instructions that the
developer of this project work witn the developer of t~e back project and return
to us w1th ~ co~cept that in(orporltes access to t~is project through lytton
Gardens that c1el"$ up the (rant of this project, t~at takes the parling off the
s~dewalk, and tnat ~re$ents a front of the buildi~9 that has i s~ope and sca'e
that ;s reSidential in fee1 and characteT.
MQIlQM: CPmmissioner eeek~dm: J move that the Comrnis51on cor.ceptual1y approve
tne propo,ed Fl •• ned Camm""ity zone chinge ind forward the application to the
Archittctur&1 Review Scud; 11009 with tnat approva', that we d;rec.t the
appl icant to ha¥e sincere d;scussicn with their t<acl Jut! neighbor to res.olve tl'1e
issues IS explained on the grade level parking and emergency access.
SECOND: 8y Commissioner G1&Zitr.
MOTION PASSES: C~ai~an ~arsh: [s there any f~rther discussion en this ~ction?
Commiuloner (uHen: ] just want to add one thing that g!l! a. 1 ittle fuzzy in the
discussion that the HVD financin9 might be ~ithdrawn from this project at some
time. If the HUO financing qets withdrawn from this project .. lytton. Gardens will
be i~ danger. is that is HUP·financed too, a10ng with a bunch of ct~er projects
around town. so 1 do not see the threat of HUe f~nancing, onc! it is in place,
in the same light is the fears that have been expressed.
CO!!!!lissfof')er Christensen! I am not concerned in the long term about HUO
financing. I ~m concerned that it 's t1ear up front that this pr~ject is g01"g
nOw~Ere vithout the Hue financing or some eQ~i~llent financing.
Chafnnan Marsh: I .... ould reiterate that the ucess issue is essential to the
appr~val of t~is prcject, rventual1y.
MOHON PASSES: t.h.~j"'"mar. Marsh: Is there an:J further discuss'ioli on this. motion?
The motion "au been ma.de to conceptual1y approve the project before 1.lS,
enco~ri9;n9 or urging the developer to initiate sincere discuss;or.s ~ith the
backyard neighbor, with the expectation that when the project returns. jt wil1
have hopefully resolve the access parking issues that ire now presented in the
project. All those in fiYOr. SlY Aye? A1l opposed? That passes on a vote to
&-D, w'th CommisSioner Hirsch iDs~nt.
This will next trave1 to the Architectural Revieltri Board, and there will be a
renotic1ng for both the ARB and the next Planning CQmmission meeting. J assume
we expect the iccess i.s.sue to be worked O'olt elr'!n prior to going to the
Arc.h1tectuYill Review Board. we would 'War.t to see tile p1ans d~'o!eloped a10ng those
lines prior to scheduling it for the Architectural Review Soard.
L
-
2/2)/91
-3l-
•
•
·.""
• _Ii·;.··.;~::..~".::/t.J·_ ._.' ~. _ ..... alll'!l .Jlzllla!$.I!>K~· •. ,.,.;;, __ v.' '-
Attacr>.ment 1Ll
Ci1~ of ralo }lIto
TO: PALO ALTO PLAHH!HG COMK:SSlOH PREPARED S~: Vlrginil ~a~he)t
DATE; rebrua~y 22. 1991 Fll[ NO,: 90·£IA-55, ga-ZC·l1, gO-ARB-ISS
PROJECT IHFO~TIOH
Appl ;Cant:
Property Owners:
Requested Action.
PROJECT SUIIIWIY
324-340 Everett A,eno,
P.l0 Alto, CA 94306
Community Housing. Jnc.
Carrasco & Asso'i~tes, Architects
]ZO Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA S4ltl
Tne Martin Revocable living Trust
Thomas J. Martin, Partner
2345 Vale Str •• t
'al0 Alto, CA 94306
lone Change from P~-30 Multiole Family District
to PC Planned Communit~ District
ihe applicant proposes to change the loning for the tr.ree parcels it 324-340
EvErett Avenu~ fr"lm RM-30 to PC Planned' Community in ~rder to lccommodate H,e
development ef a 51~unjt below-~arket-rate senior residence project. The
pro?osed structijre {s i thr&e-story ~ood frame bui1d~ng ~ith 52 u~deiground
parking spaces and an additional 5 spaces at g:r-ade. There are 45 studio units
and' 6 ene-bedroom units. nri! h01Jsin9 ..,ill be for inoeoendent se1'1iors 'W~,th
low-and very lo~-incc~s who are not in need of assisted llving ser~ices.
T~e ~n·site staff will be limited to one daytime office staff person and one
resident manager_ The reSidential project will be affiliated wit~ the
existins Lytton Gardens facilities. and the r£sidents of the proposed project
may Uke advantage of the existing recrea.tion and so,'a~ seri/ices being
pro\lided there.
RECO~MENDED ~CTlON
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission address the policy questions and
other iss~es raised in this report? conceptually apprave the proposed Planned
Community lone cnange, and forward tne applicction for Architectura1 ~e~iew
Board re .. ·jew.
SIT! INfORHA1!ON
Parcel Size: 30,000 square feet
120-14·046,047,046
PCSR3~O£I"" Pige I
L
L
•
I
i
~':~~;: ..
~;.
'-.~"
Compreh~nsfve Plln
~slgn.t!on:
Densit):
Existing Land Us.:
Surrounding land Use:
History:
Mand.tory Action Cate,:
Environmental Impact
Assessment:
AllAL HIS
Project Description
.• __ .,.."..-.:!lI.f.J'!t_ih.! ~,
Multlpl.-famlly R.sldenti.l
lIufmllm 30 Llni ts per lere
12 residential rental units
The block face directly across Everett Street i'
loned Rl',-!C lIultiplt-Famil) and is currently.
occupied by five two~story apartment buildi~9S.
lnd thr.e vacant parcels_ A~i.c.nt tD the •• st
;s a five-story ipart~nt building. On tne west
the Site borders an ~~(HP) district ~jth thr.e
sfngle-f'mily homes and ant sma11 two-stcry
ap~rtment building. To tht south at t~e rear of
the property is a commerCill site Ind I pub1ic
parking lot.
Preliminary review by the Ar'hite~turi' Review
Board (ARB) occurred lIay 3, 1990 (summary minut,s
attached) .
The ap~lic.tion was filed on December 18. 1990,
A Notit! of Incomplete App1ication was issued on
January 1" 1991. and the ap~licatian was deemed
complete on January 28, 1991. The PI.nning
Commission s~all hoid I publiC hearing within 90
days of that date. If the Phnning COIl111;ssion
Ict$ fivorably i., its initial review of the PC
Pllnned Communit~ 1pplication. the de~elopment
p1an ShIll then be submftted to the Architecturll
Review B~ard for revie~. The development plan,
as approved by the ArehtiectlJ'ri:l Review !Icard. is
then returned to the Pli~nin; Commiss~on for
final PTinnin; Commission Te~ie~ and
r·etomendiltion before 5ubl!1itla1 to tl'1E City
Council for final action.
An En .... iroTlmellt .. l Assessmef1t and a Negatiye
Declaration of no significlnt environmEntai
impact ni$ beer. prepared and ;s attached to this
feport.
The applicant is proposing to construct 51 units of below-market-rite housing
fClr independel1t living for $eniors with 10\1/ and nry low inC~~M5. In order to
accommodate this deve1cpment, they ~re reQu~stin9 the rezoning of the property
from its present designation of RM-30 to ?C, PI.nned tommunity. lh.
applicant, COlTlllunitJ Housing, [nc., h the nOllprofH corporlt;:on which
operiles the e%;5ti"9 lytton birdens senior reside~til' temp'e, it ~iddlefleld
Road i"d University Aven~e. There is currentl~ I wait of approximate1y t~o
years for ttle SUb5idized , independent living units. it lyttDn Gardens I. 1he
.' <
-
"
. ,
\
I ,
1
\
1
-
~~ -f---...".
new ~rcJeet is being proposed in ~rder to nflp address th1s unmet housing
~eed. I~ order to keep the rents 15 low is possfble, the applicant intends to
Ipply for Ho.sing Ind Urb.n Dev.lopment (HUD) fin.ncing for tht preject. The
relevent HUD housing f1n~n,e programs are Dnly available to p~cjects of SO or
more units, hence the propo!e~ site of t"e prcject. The appltclnt considers
the proposed site p.rtlcul.rly desirabl. for this project, because t'.
lIanagement, IIItdr.tenance and resident serv!ces of the nearby lyttcm Gardens
program cD~ld be s~ared by the new project, t~us achie~ing economies of :tale.
In addition, the site is near Oow~town, Johnson Park and good transportation
se .. ices. The applicant has, 1 •• s. option on the 1and which woold ~"e the
land Ivailable at an Iffordable annual rate for SO years, at which time title
passes to Community Housing. rn~.
l'l tile fol1owirlg chart, the site deve'opment standards beir.g propo~ed are
compared with standards for tne current RM-30 zone designation a~d aTso with
RH-40 standards.
PROJECT CO~PAJlISON WITH CURRENT ORllINANCE REQUIREMENT5
floer A.rea Ma.ximum
~ft.l fIJI Height Density Parking
Proposed 36,000 1 I. "I 36 1 51
RM-30 Allowed/
35 1 112 Required 18,000 .6
RM-40 Allowed/
35 1 30 2
1
1
3
4
Required 30,000 1.0
Does not intlude approximately 4,000 square feet of unused fourtn floor
equivalent area.
Inc1udes IS percent denSity bonus for below-~~rket-rite units.
Director of Flanning is permitted to reduc.e tly 50 ,percent for elderljo'
housing.
lncludes 5 tandem parking spaces in the garige
Backgl"ound
The Planned Community lone Change application is required to follo~ i process
whereby it ~s Slven prelimin,ry revie~ by the Planning Commission. Tne pub1ic
hearing scheduled for February 27, 1991, is Inttnded for this purpose and is
the subject of this report. Should the Commission .ct favorably it this
inith,' review, ~rf detailed doesi!;" plans are then submitted to the ~.RB for
its recommendations. Tne develo,pment ~lin, is appro~ed by the AR8, is t~en
retwrned to the Pla.nning C:orm'lis.sion for its final revielll and recolTlTlendation
before <uboltt.1 to the City Council for final action.
PCSR310E/w hoe 3
L
•
,
r
I
I
-
Prior to ~I~ing I {in,' approval recommendation to the City Council, the
Planning Commilsion is required tD make specific dftermi~itions regarding t~e
project and to approve In ~n ... jronmentll dehl""'llli r,atl on. specific de'llelopment
program stlteme~t, ~eve1~pmtnt plan and deve10pment sched~le t~lt will become
the basis for the s;te~s~eciflc regul1tions to be ap~iied within the proposed
PC Plan~ed Community zone distr1ct. ~~ esti~ated timeline for tnt proceSSing
fs 1$ fellows.
February 27, 1991
March 21. 1991
April 24. 1991
May 20, 1991
ISSUES TO BE RESDlVED
Pedstrian Link to Downtown
Initlll Plannlng tommi5sion review
Fir-a) Planning Commission re~iew
City Council re'lliew
The project designers are p~oposing a secured gate at t~e relr of the property
to allo .. residents a convenient 'Pedestrian connectio~ to DO\Olntown ... ia Florence
Street and a shorter route to the Senior tent!y O~ Bryant Stre~t. The •
p(lujbilit.1 his aha been raised about prc1/id~n9 a public path .along one side
of the property from Everett Avenuf through t~ Lyttcn Avenue, to prc~ide !
mid.blo-ck pedestrian 1 ink frc" the residential :ne,gnborhood to DOW1ltOwn ""a
Florence StreeL This route hu been i-oentlfied by the Urban Design Committee
as a desirable cross-axis connectins t~e re~identia' neighhorhood with the
commercial district~ with tne opport~nity for i special terminus at Un;v~r>ity
AvenYe and Florence Street. The lpplicant is not proposing such i ~ublit patn
tnrough the Site. largely d~e to concerns that this would co~promise secu~ity.
Anotner impediment to the creation of ~ pedestrian path for either residents
or for the public is tnat the Plt~ wou1d require an easeme~t across the
~rivatelJ o~ned parcel at 32J-325 Lytton. which lies bet~een t~e project site
and lytton AverLue. The app1 jeant stites that the OWl"ler of tr,at si te is
l;onsi6eril"l9 redevelopment. but th! p,lll'lS Ire 'wIery prelili',;-nny i1"ld he is T'ict
prepare~ to coordinate tne development ~f the two sites at this time. Beciu>f
of time limits (In their lease option for tne lind, tl'1e applicant cannot deiay
their project to coincide ~ith a future deveiopment on the neigl'1boring !ite.
Parking and Traffic
The pT"oposed 52 underground p:ark~T\g spa':ts~ ll"ltllJdlng n..,e-talidern park.~!ig
spaces. are expected to be adequate for the residents and staff. A sur~ey
eonducted in June. 19a9. by lytton Gardens staff of aute ~se at Lytton Gardens
(see ~ttached), found t~at Dnly about ene·fo~rth of the residents ha~ ca~s.
and ttl at the average frEquency of re~idents using their cars WIS abQ~t IS
percent per dlY. Because Dr this lc~ fre~uency of auto use~ t~e fi ... e tandem
parking spaces being proposed in tne garagE may be expected to be assigned to
relidents wno ~st their tlrs very infre~uently. The ~~mber Qf spaces be,ng
proposed !xteeds the n~ber recommended for s~nicr ho~sing in Time Sa ... er
Standards for Residentia' Develcpment by De Chiara, This sour'e recommends
the n~ber of parking spaces tor tlderly ho~sing should be lS-SO percent of
the n~mber of units, mo~e if the ~ousin9 is far fro~ pub1;c tranlit and
L
,
•
'c::,~~_:'~
, """"~,
\./.';;'
... , '-.c';'-'
I
I
'I
lmen~ties. and 1!$s if the housing ~5 co~venient'y lcclt~d to transit and
services, IS is the c~s~ with this proposed site.
Four guest parking spaces and one drop-off space are being pro~~jed at grade.
Hds ~ay net be adequate to ilc.col!fl\odate visitors ar,d the e~pected higher
incidence Qf emergency vehicles. The applicant belie~es that a11 the spaces
being provided in tne g21"'ige will not be needed for residerrts l C';U"S and some
of tn.ese spaces can be !!'lade ilYiilabh for guests, such as for famTly members
who visit regular1y. One of the it-grade gue3t pa,~i"9 spaces should be a
tlandiclp space and son(e bicycle parling should' b!. provided ..
The Transportation ~;~ision ~as determined tnat the expected increaSf in the
~umber of daily trips generated by 51 stnior housing units will be
consi~er6bly less t~an the 100 add,tional trips ~hich would have b€fn expected
fro~ the same number of famfly unjts. Even an additional 100 trips per day
lIIou1d not reprEsent a 5ignjficirlt increase in the amount of daily trifffc on
Everett Street nor in slgnlf~cant PM peak hour trips. (onsequent1y, the
proposed project is n~t expected to signif'iciiHltly ir,crease traffiC in the
neighborhood.
Variance Required
The feur guest parking spaces locited in the front yard will require a
variance. The YC P1anned Community ordinance requires the front yard of this
project to meet tne front yard re~uirements of tn! RM-30 zone across the
street. The requirtd 20-foct setback has been met. However, parki~g exte~t
for required acces! to the site is not allowed in the front yard. Tne guest
parting spaces must be moved outside tne required front yard, or a variance
~ust be granted.
This project is required by the PC Planned Community ordinanCE to comply w~th
the setback anj daylight plane requirements of t~e adjacent RM-30 and RMD
zones. The proposed design s1i9ntly exceeds the allo~ed height and d~yTight
po' aoe. The height must be reduce!d' by o'le foot ttl a IT'.axirnu",,,, 35 f-:et, and tne
eaves a.nd dcrme'l"S mllst be adjtlst<ed so that they do not extend. into daylig~,t
plane. or a variance must be grar.ted.
Arthit~ttural Des is"
The building has been designed. to incorporate archit~ctura' elements of the
wood frame vernacular singTe-famfiy residences in the nearby neighborhood,
with wood siding. divided windows, lew pitched roof and 6eep o~ernang5. dormer
Windows, trellises and a front porch. ihe b~'ldin9 massing \S lrranged so
that the three-story portion is located along tne east and south sides of the
Site, which are bordered by an existing fi~e-story apartment buildi~g and a
commercial site. lhe building maSSing steps down to t~o stories and to an
ope~ c~urtYird toward the ~est, ~here th~ site is idj~cent to single-fimlly
re s i dences.
The bliilding includes a libra.ry and a cOlTlTlunity room openin9 off a
soyth-facirtg cOl.lrtYird. inert ire also sitting rooms and decks Or'i tf\e third
f1oor. The need (er recreational and social areas in t~'s building are
rerluced by tne prcximity to the Senior Center and the lytton Gardens complex.
Additionally. HUD design standard$ limit the site amenities and special design
ftitures whi~h are 1110wed in HUD·fynded prDj~cts. For eXAmple, such feature>
as overhangs, dormer w,ndows and amenity areas in excess of 5 percent of t~e
OCSRllOf/V'« .
-
•
~
t
t
I
i
i
..
--;;.
,',...;"';"
-
"-." -
rent'lllie SPiCe-lIust be paid for-with 10m! other :source cf funding ~ );nd in
e.ces. of such fe.ture. will be c.uoted Ig.inst • project's eligibility for
funciir.g.,
Most of tne site 1$ c~r~ently pived fDr drjve~ays and parking. Therf Irt two
trees on the site which will be removed, ~edar trees IpprDximat~11 l~ inches
in dilmtter. Twenty-eight new trees Ire prcpostd. The design provides
20-fo.t-wlde side .urd setbacks, rather than the 10 feet required by
ordinance. These wider side Ylrds ~111 prov1d! sufficient spacf and root
volume to accommodate ~dium a~d llrge trees, s, that the total tree canopy
fer thE site Cin be significantly increased over what is presently uht i~g.
Public Bi!-nefit
The objective of this proposed prcject is to provide rental housing to seniors
with low-and ~ery low-incomes_ The ipp1icant is pursuing a financing
strategy which will provide units that are affordable to this target group,
One of the finanting options being conSidered would incllJde some funding from
the City of P.l. Alto, possibly using funds from the housing .itig.tiDn
;n~litu fees. ;n conj~nction with funding from State and Feder.l Housing
programs (see appl;cant's summary of financing ilternati~es attached).
The applicant is currently finalizing their finanCial proposal and will be
preStntiM9 it to the City Council for approval. It is ant1c1pated that the
f~naing proposal .il1 be presented to the Commission and (oune,' prior ~
final City Council Iction Dn the Planntd Community zo~e proposal. At this
time, the Planning Comm"ission shou1d' rt¥ie..: the projec' .. only on tr..~ baSis of
land use and site planning c:onsideraticns~ undershnd~r'9 Uit a primary public
benefit of this pro.ject is the serving cf low-and "'-ery low-income seniors.
Comprehensive Pla~ Compliance
The uses and site development regulations witoin tho proposed PC Pl.nned
COlTJTlunity district IIlJst be determined to be conSistent with the Comprehe'l'lsl'.e
Plan. The objecti~es of the Co~prehensiye Plan con~idered ~ost pertinent to
tMs proposal ire the follolfllir.g policies and prograr.o,5 cf U1e HO\Jslng (1ement.
Folley 6: Maintain 1t lent tne prts.~nt "Tiumber of 1!l\,lltip1e--fn",ily
rental units ~nile working to increase t~e overall supply ~f rer.til
hous '"!"oS.
Frogrlm 9; For any residential development in m~ltjple-fimi'y
zones which CiiUses the loss of rental housing ~nit5. subdivision
apprc~al may be granted if any two of the fo1iolflling three
Circumstinces ire met: proyide 100 percent more ~nit.$; re~lace
the existing number of rental units; provide not less than 20
percent below-martet~r.te unlts_
Frogram ]~: Provide zoning fle~~bil;ty to encourige the
development of s~aller units affcrdable to. low-and
moderate-income ptrsons.
Folity 6: Encourage and" foster a diversity of l.ffordable housing
opportunities for senior citizens including housing which may provide
a y~~;tt, of ~er~ices for specia.1 health. soclal and transit needs.
PCSRJ30E/vw Page ~
•
. -...
" " ... >,
. '-." ,-(--: .
Policy 1]: Encourage and pa~ti'ipat~ in low-and ~oderat!·income
housing progral'!l~ fjnanced by 10,a1 and other le"'els of government.
1t 15 stiff's op'inlon that the pY'oposed project furthers thes.e h':Ju:;:lng
~bjecthes. Eveon thou;h th~ project -will not in'lol .... e a subdh'ision and i.s
therefore, not subject to the conditions of Program ~, it exceeds all three
conditlons Df Program 9 by increasing the number of rental units on the site
from 12 to 51 units, and ~y providing 100 percent of the units afford,ble to
Tow· an~ moderate·fnccme persons. The units are small studios and one-bedroom
units (420,694 square feet) suitable for seniors with limited incomes. 1he
lQcation of the projett? neir Downto~n, t~e Senior tenter? lytton Gardens?
Johnson Park and transit facilities. will provide housing which ~~ets the
special needs of seniors. T~e project is designed to taxe advantage of
Federal and Stat~ funding programs? with app11cation b~1ng ~ade fer a HUD
S~ction 202 constructiDn loan and Section 8 rent ~ubsidies. or a1ternatively,
application for a State Rental Housing Construction Program loan and
syndicated funds.
FINDINGS
Not applicable for an initi.a1 review.
CONDITIONS
RetolTlM!nd'ed t-onditioT)$ win be pro,;;ded for the Commission at finai revielrl' of
the application.
ATTACKKENTS
Project Plans
Development Program Statement from the Applicant
Summary of Automobil. Usa9' at Lytton ~ardens
Sumary minutes of the ARB preHn-,i il~ry review of May 3, 19"90
Lytton IV . Financing Alternative;
COPIES SENT TO
Architectural Review Board
CarTIStO • A$Sot;ltes. 120 Hamilton ~yenue. Pilo Jlto? CA 94301
The ~artin Reyocable Living Trust, 2145 lal. Stre.t, P,10 Alto, [A 94306
Nancy Pleibel, 301 Bryant Court, Palo Alto, CA
Tony Badger, 381 Ha...tboro! A .... enue. Palo Alto, CA
Jim Cesar}, 238 Bryant Street, Pile A1tc. CA
Joe Meyers, jiOl Bryant Street, PaTe AHo. CA
Ra1ph Cressman. 360 Everett Avenue, Pa1c Alto, CA
Andrew ~cttli.b, ~09 Bryant Street, Palo Alto, CA
lora Smit~. 162 Bryant Stre.t. Palo Alto, CA
Anne Robinson, Byron Street, Pa~o Alte, CA
K.t~le.n Crllg, 101 Waverley Str.et, Palo Alto, CA
Harvin H. feinstein, P. O. Box 1461, Palo Alto, CA
Jim Morley, 160 Wav.rley Stre.t, Palo Alto, CA
Irv Brenner, 2S~ Byron Street. Palo Alto. CA
Dorothy ~eTriam, !6S £~erett A~enue, Palo A!tc. tA
-
ROLL CALL
Board Members Present:
Board Members Absent:
~hursday, Hay 3, 1990
8:00 A.M.
Civic Cente.~
250 Hamilton Avenue
Council Conference Room
Palo Alto, California
Marni Barnes
Aino daRosA
Michael Lyz'Wa
;; on Schi nk
Shirley Wilson
None
It is noted tha~ 30n Schink stepped dc~ ~nd did not vote on
Item II.9 (560 Waverley Street).
Staff Present:
s. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Gilliland (through Item 11.5),
Jansen (Items 11.5 , 111.3),
Lytle (from Item II.3)# and Warheit
April 5. 1~90 Minutes -Approved, S-C, as written vith the
following change:
-for page 13, Item 11.14 (~30 Lytton Ave/Design Engineering
Systems): Shirley Wilson added the following sentence at the
end of the item: "Sbirley Wilso~ opposeO approval because sbe
vas not aatisfied with tbe 4esiqn solution although she 4i4
not object to tbe 8c:reen~"
April 19. 1990 Minutes -~pproved, 5-0, as ~itten ~ith the
following changes made by Shirley Wilson:
-on page 10, Item II.6 (529 Bryant/251 university*/Premier
Properties): Ms. wilson noteo that the comments m~de by Pat
Cullen 'Were made as an individual, ana did not nec~ssarily
represent the thoughts of the Planning comr-ission. Therefore,
in the second paragrapb, -and the Planning Corr~ission are W
should be deleted.
---.~.,
5/3/90
Page 1 CG
, ,
I
[
t
t
I
" ,
~.:..
",
339 EVERETT AVENUE
CarasSCO , Associates
90-ARl\-6'
PREL!MINARY REVIEW of de~olition ot 11 residential units and
construction ot ~l senior hou~in9 units
Mailed notices yere sent to property owners and ~tility
customers within lOO feet of the project site.
It is note~ that this property is now zoned RM-JO (Medium
Density Hultiple-Fa~ily Residence District). This project
... .-ill require a zone che.nge to a Planned COIrlll'lunity zone.
During the presentation, it \rIas indicated that there ... 'ould be
54 tota1 parking spaces in the garage, 3 on-grade t and 5
tandem. Also, applicant indicated that they had begun the
process of holding neiqhborhood meetinqs.
~elve perso~s, as listed belc~, expressed opinions and
concerns about the proposed rezoning; the loss of moderate,
well-kept w~ siding homes that are par~ of the neighborhood
character; about serious se_er problems already existing in
this neighborhood; about the need to accurately address the
parki1l9 problem in this neighborhood and not to add to it b~'
not providing adequate parkin9 for this p4ojec~; about current
and potential traffic problems on this narrow street; about
the fact that financing such a project on leased land puts
adoed Durdens on the tinishe~ proje~t and might jeopardize its
longevity and increase the costs of the rentals in the future;
about the need to preserve the character of the neighborhood;
about the appearance of a World War II Army Hospital; about
8dhering to the Comprehensive Plan~ which shows all area north
of Lytton as residential; about the lack of guest parking for
this project which would eXacerbate the existing street
parking situation; the concern that downtown is going to be
pushed ou~ too near the creek at the expens~ of loss of
neighborhood character; concerns about traffic in and out of
the underground garage; the complaint that their neighborhOod
is qetting more and more apartmentized, when s~all~ separate
units are very ~uch needed; concerns that the ~odel is
slightly deceptive; that the W~aiting listft logic used for
justification may be deceptive--many of the We~ster Mouse and
other project residents are not Palo Alto residents; ~Jerett
street is not Lytton~ i5 too narro .. ' and is inappropriate for
s~ch a project; the observation that the City Council spent a
long, agonizing time on the Comprehensive Plan and on the
treatment of north Palo Alto--seems lik~ it is bound by
legality and could be 8 Planning commission issue; should take
the comprehensive Plan seriously a~d preserve the character of
north Palo Alto; concern for the impact of this on surrounding
single story homes--this looks like a big box 1 and it needs
better stepping do,,"'n; the architecture is too monotone and it
needs breakinq ~p. There ~ere also several requests that
thes~ me~tings be held at night because many people cannot
-
5/3/9D
Page S CC
"
[
! • r t ,
.'
-
afford to come to them in the daytime to speak. Two p~rsons
,.·e.re in favor ot the project although they still wanted
architectural improvements and attention to parking and sewage
problems.
Those persons speaking, and the issues they aadressed,
included the following:
1} N-ancy Pleibel, 301 Bryan"t. Court, Palo Alto: objected to
the zone change, the elimination of the well-kept wood sided
homes that would change the character of the neighborhood~ the
eXisting and potential sewer problems, parking underestimated
for this project, existinq tra~fic and potential traffic frem
the Sand Hill extension, and voiced concern about dowm:z:oninq
in this area.
2) Tony Baager, 381 Hawthorne, Palo Alto; wanted public
hearing scheduled at night and obServed that many people
cannot afford to attend during the day; ~as in favor of
affordable senior housing but ~ould not like to s~e this
neighborhood upzoned for senior elite; thcught the design
looks like a big box, was concerned for impact on single
family homes, called for better stepping down and maybe old
style balcony to create stepping do.~; very concerned for
financing and. puttir.g this on leased land--\o'ill increase costs
of rentals in the future.
3) Jim Cesari, 238 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: doesn't want the
project, noted that 5 years ago there was another attempt to
downzone; objected to giving up the three small units that
should be preserved; noted the severe existing parking problem
end that there are illegally parked cars now making it
impossible for residents to find parking no~; important to
preserve the character of the neighborhood for tt,e homes that
are still left; thinks the issue is that the neighborhood
would be qivir.g up three small dwellings tor so~ething that
looks like a World War II Ar~y Hospital.
4} Joe Meyers, 301 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: although
corrected and reissued, he objected to the fact that the
initial postcard notices incorrectly noticed this meeting for
Thursday, May 30; stated that the Comprehensive Plan shows all
the area no~th of L}~ton as residential and there is no reason
to change this; stated that houses across the street from this
proposed site are boarded up and sure to become multi-falI'.ilYi
this eventually might only leave one single family house on
this block, ana he noted that those kinds of changes would
definitely change ~~e neighborhood characterj expressed
concern that sewer capacity would be severely stretched with
acaition of 51 units here; thought City should move surface
parking uncerground and build higher de!1sity housing in
already dense areas; objected to What he sees as the
neighborhood being whittled away a little at a time~
5/3/90
Page 9 CG
--'
t
I
.-:~"'-
,
;
-
',""-' ~.
5) Ralph Cressman, 360 Everett, Palo },lto: hI! was in favor of
the p~cposed projeet~ hut also addressed existir.g se~er
problems and parking problems; stated that channing House and
Webster House don 't have en.:louqh parking, but that he · .. as qlad
to se. 50 spaces proposed here; hQ supported this ploposal and
stated that it would be an improvement to t~e neighborhood,
that it would be an upgrade of property in poor repair.
6) Andrev Gottlieb, J09 Bryantl Palo Alto: stated that he was
representing Yorkinq people and his landlord who could not
attend meeting today; requested future meetings schedule~ at
night; addressed inadequacy of parking propo$ed, both the use
of tandem spaces and the assignment of visitor parking to the
garage which he said is ur.work~ble; a~d said that people ~ould
not know where to park and would end up attempting to park on
the street; concerned for safety of children in the park; and
obje~ted to traffic noise generated by the qarage; objected to
a change in zonin9 and preferred t~at tbis tyPe of project be
located to a dense area.
7) Lora Smith, 162 Bryant, Palo Alto: stated that she has
lived in the neighborhood for several years; noted that small
single-family homes n~eded to be torn down to make way for the
park: thought it short-sighted to remove affordable re~tal
housing for this project: said that the 11 units may not look
like much, but some people need them and would be glad to live
in them; pointed out that there are derelict houses across
the street from this project site that ~il1 become multi
family; objected the neighborhood getting more and ~ore
apartmentized at the expense of driving many people out of the
City.
SJ Anne Robinson, Byr~n Street. Palo Alto: thought parking
tor the project is underestimat~dj thought the model ~as a
little deceptive; stated that she lives in a high density
neighborhood already plagued ~ith parking, traffic, sewer and
r.lrainaqe problems; through traffic a.nd parking problems
especially exist around the park; although she expressed
surprise at ho~ nice the project looks I she was not convinced
that the neighborhood could handle such a project~
9) Kathleen Craig. 101 Waverley Street, Palo Alto: stated that
she lives in the neighborhood; she seconded Mr. Cesari's and
Mr. Meyers' comments; said that parkinq is underestimated;
~orried that their neighborhood is slo~ly losing its
neighborhood feeling; she didn 1 t think this building adds or
gives back anything to the neiqhborhood; observed that the
design isolates the residents fro~ the neighborhood and
doesn't provide any opportunity tor interaction.
10) Marvin H. Feinstein, p~o~ Box 1'61~ Palo Alto: owner of 7
unit apartment building at 311 Ev~rett. and has just remodeled
150 Emerson ~eeping neighborhood in tact; has been involved in
single family and ~ulti-fa~ily downtown; thought there is a
L
5/3/90
Page ~O CG
•
•
..
,
,
•
-
need to balance the needs of the elderly with protection of
dovntololn naigtlborhood$; felt U""e justification lind lr>qic used'
for this project is deceptive; develop~r seems to be
just.ifying tutu:--c sr.istakes with pa.st misti'lke:s; questioned the
·waiting list-justification--are they actually el~erly Palo
Alto residents? pointed out. tha~ the majority of the Mayfield
project residents are not from Falo Alto; noted that the 6
story building at J6C Everett ~ould not be allowed today and
tha.t it does not even have park.ing in front; to say that you
can build the same thing here as on Lytton is illogical-
Eve.re.tt street is not Lytton; ,",as not in favor of tt'Ha,: project
and thought it 'Would change the neighborhood. adversely.
11) 3im Morl~y, 160 Waverley Street~ Palo Al~c! ag~eed ~ith
previous comm~nts about problems in the neighborhcod~ but was
sc~ewhat i~ favor of this project; but thought parking needed
a closer look; the monotone natur~ of the building disturbed
him and he thought it needed to be r:lultilayer; design needs to
be broken up more.
12} Irv Brenner~ 250 Byron, Pale Alto! he felt strongly that
t.he charl!.cter of dO"w'nto""n North shou Id be preserved; t.hat the
Comprehensive Plan should be taken ser iously on ... 'hat. do ...... nt.o .. ·n
North is supposed to be; t.hat this project r.,ight not be
possible because of the Comprehensive Plan; seemed lixe this
is bound by legality; thought it. could be a Planninq
commission issue; noteQ that the City Council spent a long.
agonizing time regarding North Palo Alto_
Although she did not speak:, Dorothy Merriam l 365 Everett, Palo
~lto, 94301, cornpletea an address slip and asked to be
notified Qf future meetings.
Since this was a PREl.!'KINARY ~EVIEW, no tor-mal actio!i ... as
taken by the ARB. Board :mezr;bers offered 't-ne comr1ents noted
be 1 0,",.
Jon Schink:
Mr. Schink said that he ~ould try to limit his com~ents to
architectural design_ He did express concern, hmo"ever, for
finding public benefit here when it seems that part of the net
result ~ould be eroding the neighborhood. He stated that he
strongly supports senior housi~g and hopes that the applicant
makes a stronger case ~hen they go to the Planning Commission.
In particular. applicant needs in the future to focus on
parking requirements, providing detail. Observing that each
parking space costs $25,000 and $200 per month per unit. he
noted that impacts the numpers; the applicant needs to present
more data and make a stronger case tor public benefit in order
to convince the ~eighbors.
L
5/3/90
Page 11 CG
•
Mr~ schink encouraqed the ARB to hcl~ a special evening
.eeting fo~ desiqn aspects of this prcject~ He statea that
the ARB needs the public to address specitlcs such as massing,
design, placement of ~i~do~s, and land$c~ping. He el~o asked
applica~t to let the AR! kno~ ~hen the next neighborhood
meetinq is scheduled and perhaps an ARB m~mber could attend.
Regarding de~iqn, Mr. Schink indiceted that the architect
needs to mo~e more of the mass toward the large building on
Bryant (toward 360 Everett). Plus, take the parking a~ay and
hide all parkinq fro~ the residential street. Mr. Schink also
supported the idea af giving something back to the
neighborhood, and he encouraged applicant to consider a broad
porch along the front, to get some elderly interaction in the
neighborhood.
Aina daAosa.
Ms, daRosa wants more data on this project's parking
req~ire~ents. She expressed concern about the l~ase issue~
and the caution that when the lease is up, the use could
change; thus creating ~ore of a p~rkinq problem. She asked
what ~~arantee there is that the use won't change. She noted
that the colUlMs in the 9a'1'a<;e will red\Jce the number of
parkinq spaces in the underground garage. Also~ she thought
that a security gate would be necessary, but that would cre~te
a management iss~e with access to guest parking in the 9~rage.
Going on, she questioned Whether the garage could accommodate
flooding on the streets. Regarding on-qrade parking. she sees
a conflict ~ith Dack-up and the ra~p and with l~CK of
·landscaping~ Also, need to consider a handicap space on
grade, and definitely need a covered drop-elf! point for bad
weather.
Regarding the oensity. from a senior point of viev. this is a
good place for senior ho~sing although this desigr. might be
better on Lytton. The project needs to relate more to Everett
a:nd add s01rlething to the community; must. make the impact
positive. Therefore, aQding a broad porch is a~ excellent
idea~ Her i~aqe of this is a qrea~ old inn in Vermont; and it
needs porches for bringing people near to the street. Porches
fit very ~ell vith the style of architecture. This project
could soften 360 Everett, the six-story mistake, but it needs
more steppinq down (en both sides} and additional modulation
with breaks across the tront, to fit with tne single family
residences closeby. Wood is a good ~aterial here. providing a
sense of home. co~entin9 on the light colorL, she preferred
so=e blendinq of color and the use of some darker colors. She
would not want to see asphalt shiTlgle on this roof ~ The
structure needs to look like home. She said the designer
needs to go further with what he has started in transition of
neighborhood mate=ials, scale, function and modulation. Ms~
daRosa said tha~ applicant uight consider a pl~ce to sit in
5/3/90
Page-12 CG
•
.--'
-
the landscaping, noting that now it is almost a dead space.
Lastly, she noted thct th~ pOLches need to be protected
porches. Now there is no protected place to watch what's
goin9 on.
Marpt Barnel!!
Ms. Barnes began by stating that she supports all the previous
comments. Sbe said that the sewage problem nee~s to be
addressed before this proble~ cen 90 through, incl~ding the
storm drains and the underground qaraqe implications. She
called fer a cost cap on ~e ren~al rates, and s~e was
concerned that if this is on leased land, how do we have
control on the use and longevity of the project. Regarding
the drop off point and \mderqroun~ parking, she noted that
older people have a large proportion of larger cars which neeo
adequate space and large turnaround areas in order not to
cause more traffic problems in the street. Need more
accur~te and detailed oata on parking numbers; applicant needs
to justify tandem and visitor spaces.
Ms* Barnes liked the basic idea of the architecture and
materials, but the project neecs to step down at tbe corner
near the small house. She noted that the courtyards now seems
like a qaping hole and that the project seems walled in and
isolated. She preferred to op~n up this project to the
street. A planned community of this nature needs to offer the
vitality of the street and the neighborhood and its children.
She asked that project be desi;~ed to Add interest and
vitality to the street~ Noted that it is just an eas)' amble
?own to L~e p~rk.
Ms. Barnes wants to see where the existing trees are on site,
and the impact of this project on them.
Michael LY'zwa
Mr. Lyz .... a agreed lII'ith previous: co1!l1t1_ents rr.ade by his
colleagues. He ~oted that there is a terrible parking problem
in north Palo Alto, that he owned a house near waverley and
Ha~~ornei that business parking floods the north Palo Alto
streets and many times cars never leave except on Saturday and
Sundays. He felt strongly that the parking proposed for this
project is completely inadequate, ~hat the visitor parking has
not been resolved, and that tandem parking is not w~rkable
here. He said he is in favor of affordable housing for the
elderly ana realizes the need to make head .... ay, so there is a
need to make economies of scale and as a neighborhood, give
the-project a little leeway to make it affordable rental
hous_inq. He thought there is a need to look at this
particular project more creatively.
5/3/90
Page 13 CG
•
".
"
\
\
-
\ ,
-
"'·r·
---------'.---------~.--~
Mr. Lyzwa said that ~~e reside~tial materials proposed for
this project are ok# but that the project nee~$ to open up to
the street. The project needs a neighborhood relationship.
Philoscphica.lly .. what are the Planning Commission and tl'le City
Council going to do about our parking problem?
Ms. Wilson said that she echoes other Beard member COlIUt!4e:nts.
Req&rding the rear of the bUildinq, she noted an opportunity
for pedestrian link and integration wi~~ the neighborhood;
opportunity to open it up and orient it to the Lytton side.
She also wondered if this project could use the Lytton parking
lot at night for visitors.
Ms.-Wilson noted that the materials need to be r£si~ential and
the applicant has made a 9000 start, but detailing needs to be
carefully planned. The third floor porches separate people
rather then letting them sit together. The project needs
~aitin; area in and near the lobby, and better setback and
light next to the large buildin9~ The solar orientation is
qood. The archit~et has picked up some Yonderful
architectural deti!ils from the neighborhood, a.nd should
continue developing with ~hat in mind.
Ms. Wilson stated that this type of project is appropriate for
this piece of ground, but a strong ~essage should go to the
Planning Commission and the City Council that projects not
continue to eat into the "ei9hborh~. She asked ~here does
transition stop? She supports this project on this site but
it shouldn't be a precedent for ~ore of this in the
!lei9hborhood.
Ms. Wilson said there is a need to consider accommodation of a
drop-off area and large vehicles. She note.:l that 1I'loving var.s
can be a problem on residential streets. Lastly. she said
that the applicant initially has done a nice job of s~tting
this into the neighborhood. bu~ th~t lots of problems remain
to be resolved.
3175 HANOVER STREET
VArian
90-ARB-29
Construct lO-foot concr.ete \orall replacing an ex:isting chain
link fence, and install lighting and landsc~ping along bicycle
path borderin9 Varian campus
APPROVED, 5-0, this item, including the 10 foot wall. subject
to the following conditions:
1. For a fence over' feet high. a variance must be obtained
prior to applying for a building permit. In its findings~ the
board thought that a ~o foot yall at this location is
513/90
Page 14 CG
"
";'
J
i
, ,
I
I
~
fAfT SHErr
UJ.:!'QN CARPENS HQllStNG
6:§6 Lrllpp Ayupc '$10 Alra C"ljCurnla ,.091
[4J ~l 32g.lJOO
., Ifl TOIII oumber ~( 'pulruetltS lor :IIcniOf¥ ..... ilh Bruiled inCome'S
197 SLudiu l'I.plttw-t::.ots
71 ODc-bedroom 'PlfitDC"II:U: (renrv«-d for cO\lplc,)
Att::lCMe:1t 12
,0 Cowmu.aill ~&'e 'PllrtnJClll1 (irll::lud'ing (i .... e oGe-bedroom .p~llDH·nl')
TbiJ level of care doc:'! .DO! wcrudC' medic.! or auuiol c:are, bill r .. tbct .. \'vic.l)'
of .crvt.ee. C'ssC!llilll ref U"Ia.;'1ing tlu: iilC[ivllirJ of d,ify Ij"ifll ncb u
::IIuiJIanct! 'lIo'i:,h bathi:Cl!_ '':Jperlli.siu!I. IhDdry and cleanihB .cr .... iccs. three
meal" .. day, and J"CcrclHioDal pro.c,,ums.
t;litlb illl '.----Bra ajrtweg ;,
•
~ '.
-
Sinlle-PC-UOD 4 62 )'ur, of 'Be (It ('Idoer
COllpl~ -(lne. imJi ... idual lliUSC be ~2 y~ .. rs o( ;a,g:e or old~t
The .,~ mi.cimum iJ ~ .. j"C"d (or h<lhdit"O'lpped p~n(l,Di.
MA1H¥UM AI-iNUM INCOME
S25.000 -:li.agle ,rcrson
.528.'sJO· coupfe
Tbis C8]cllr.!i()n incl!lde$ bOlb ia..:omc (~'Oei~l securil)' r.)'lllen'~. inlerest,
,pC".o..o;ions. etc.) led' uset-'
gRvtCE AREA
.... ppJiccatJ for residency must re$tde between SaD M~leo oUl~ SaD JOfe;
excepr;ons m., 'be made if ramBy members live ic. Palo Alto"
MEDIC!\J .
.. CIUTCDI medicAl :11011111 vc=r'f"tc.tions: a.re re-qui/ed lor coruDl\lnity C":u"c
appikanu"
Ih'PEPENDENT UVM'iC'
R.uJ
<"har,.s
B.ll!
joO percent uf wOlJlb.ly incoroc 30 ,perclCct of moulb.!y rncoaa
~red Mtj-Ir Ptnrrl __ m. RGuujrcd Mca __ L~r~
SJ30 per-Illoluh (ant [Heal :I d2j") S2~1 per ltDuaLh (tbree meal! • day)
B;,ktT Regi.!iI'JI -(415) 326-8803
Seryicc 10 lind "t-.umcs (or seniprs; DO cbarse 1("0 applic.ljIOJI
Segior CCf1.IC1'. '-;SO P.rY!lCI Srreel, fdlo AIIO -(415) 3Z7·:!B[!
Bool::Iet Ivailable. "Where 10 Live"
March. 1991
'_.
I
!
~:.'
[:: ...
t'''''''1S .-..
.~ ,
,r...,,'fJ ...... -. ""'" ' ....... ~L1D
Mr:C~1 ...,..,..,.
1-
t~
!
'0< .... ! ~ 'jff".,
! :::''\,11;. ~ ~rr"X ....
,'" [c.>Q'~""_'
..1~,,",:JIl1
i) ....... (".';~.l".·h~~
Ma)l 3. 1991
JamesA.KO<:I1
, BBa DOO<Iar. Orl ••
Los AlIOS. C'" S4022
Dear J1m;
Following 1$ lnformalion about Lynon Gard~niii res'dent.; rilgarcfing
demogrEpha, tr.lnsportiliion, arld pubHc services us,"d ;hal w;o hiJ\l.,
~8n. abls to galhor f.om various ~urcl$.
Pflwoorp OhtcS'
The avera"e age or Lytton fiitgidents is 87; Ih. cldf!sl Is 104. TheIr
Ln.comes .. ",erage '".Ooo.a )'U.r. R~sjdefl1s WQrii born In 48 statu and
37 foreoign counlrilllS. ""ilh mir',ority p,oupt maklnQ up _'most ,. qUBr1af
01 Ihe popl.lfafiGn.
TransDQc1arjpn:
Flom a svrve)' cooOucled in JiJns. 19B5I, at Lynon Garden.:
1. 84 residents or Lytic" Gardens had cars; S9 or lho!u!' lesider1'bi
responGed eo the survey •
2. 20 peopJe dro .... e their cars 6 10 7 limes per week, ,,, P'lopl; drOll;
theil Crlrs " 10 5 time~ per week, 20 peopJe drove IhQIr ~ars 1 to ...
limes per week.
3. Avtlriilge mJleage-per week varied f,om I low of 34 mliu 10 i high o~
83 m~l!Is ~r week..
4. Average mileage dri .... en per y~~r lIo,jed from 2,810 miles 10 S,E90
m~es per year.
5. A.verage lrip dis.lance WiiilS undar 5 m~8S for 9 p,opJ~, 5 ~ 10 miln
tor 22 people, 101.0 20 miles for 20 people, and OYt<r 20 miles lor 7
people.
6. When a.sked if 1h8~ dro .... ' on majO( 'rips. 36 people sa.id no, 20
people said Ir'Hsl.al; onl),. , ps!&on said Ou!,o'·stale only, and 1 said
both ~. and out~Dr·slate,
7. Wilen .asked whal olnfH forms of IransportAHoM they us{Xi. IInswarfj
were: no olher mQtt'lod • 3 ..... public I' ansi! ~ 12, laxl -5, and
bicycle -1,
---. --""'<" "L
-
-
""
-'-
-
I . .,U _ ill ,. ... ~-__ ___
Pace 2
Meny lytton lesidet1ts I/e active i..., c:ommunlty I!IffeJ". 'ttIkfng par1 in k>cal parities, or
enrolllttg: in COUrses B~ local oollegK. FOf those who clay Qo5er to heme, Ihlre ars dail,.
exen;:ise classes, educational programl, outing" films, anell soda! acflVflJes. The shops
or downtown Palo AIIo and' thl OQrnmu ntty Sen~r Cen rer are jus: a short walk away.
Jim, jf yO\.l require more rklaned lnfOrm31i(in, please 191 m; know.
SSltgn
,
Ii
Co-op
J,;;:",ur, Shop
c,:1!t S~r
Lytton
Cartiens
..., .. ~-.... .....-' .. -.,.... .. ,_ ... .
--....,~--....... .... ....-:. ............ _ ... -, ..... . _,---
'-....... ,...-..... .. _' ..... -... -.... ..
-"II .................. ~--.... -r .... ___ ~ __ ~
.'-___ ... '...." ... _,"ih
'-"''''' -----, _ ..... -
· ... ......--..... ""'" _, '"' r· ...... • _., .... -.I' _' ___ ' ~_ .. _ ... .
.... -..-... '" ~~ .. M .... _ ... _-_r_· .. ·· ...... _ ..• , ... . ~
· .... ___ .,.. ... , ........ t_ .... _ __ ...... __ z
.~ ........ ~ite"~ 1_ .. _' _41 _ ......... "'a ...... _', t ...
... -..--... r--, _t-
o .. '-'II" --'"', .. _ ... '.,..J ..... _ ...... ' ....
r_
·~ • ..r..a: .. ; ...... ~ ......... r _N, _ ••• _ ._ lUi · "-n, __ _ .... -.,...... ... ,-,,;., .... _ ....... ....... ,'.-.--_,..a, ... '_._
-
TIE l YTTCN G!\PL(NS Dr FFEF(NCE
OJj~ t'llSTOi',Y •.•
..-_. -. ....... <"'I ..... ..., _ .......... _ L ___ (,.._ .... _ ..... " _
_. __ ..................... _." .. o.·u .....
... 1: .. ' ..... ~.." --.. ...... _ ~_..--, ... , ~"" .. _ .. ' -,-.... ....., .... -_""' __ 'T.I"-'.,
,..,-... .-.. ~ ..... ""~ .... -... -...... ,'., ..... 1:". ~I"'''' ~-I·' ... . ...., ...... '.-.. .... " .... ...".,.r __ .... .....
__ .. ' ....... ' ... 1" ' ...... r _ .... D-'" ... .. --..... _. ~'-~ .. '~""-.,,-... ,..., ...... -
x
CO~,,\,jIl." C .. '"
_u. "'''l~'<C[or .""""" "'--. 1.,.",_, 1001'" ._',_ n' .. ~_
CI."I
""""U. UCI" '(: (00U'" ...... , •• c: ... t
",''''-...... " ... "" ... ,., .. '., --, .-. ..... ,""
. """'~'\.I'~·4 -1:,-.._ ............ ,~ • . ,,--
.'
,
I
I
---
TAANSPORTATION SEf(VICE
The Lytton Gardena Van •• rvieo ic available to .11 roaid_nt.
o~ Lytton C&rdena4 The eervice area 1. Palo Alto an~ Henlo
Park4 The ourrent sehe~ule is Tu8.~ay, Wednesday &n~
Thuraday betwe~ th~ hOU~5 ~f 9100am-2100pm~ Tue8day and
Thur.4ay .ft.rnoon~ Are set a&ide tor group grocery runs to
satevay and ~ckys i~ Palo Alto It 2:00pm. Two passenqer_
*r~ allowed at each half hour ti~e slot and are on e first
co_e first serve basi.. A charie of 450 one ~ay O~ 1400
round trip i5 collected from each passenger. Sign up .h~et5
ar_ available Thursday at 4:00 p~ for thQ tollowing veeY.~'
ache4ule. our ~heelchair van can aCcommodate a sit~~nq
pa5c:enq_r-s and two 'Whee.lcha.ir tie do .... n6. The other \-"an ear.
co=fortably s.at 13 passengers (even thouqh ~4 can ride in
it). The 'Vans are also us.d for monthly Independ.nt and
Community Care outings.
L
·' "."
•
r--
" .
COHHUNITY HOUSING. INC.
STATZHENT 01 PRINCIPLES
the 'oard of Director. of Conarunity HOUBio&. tne. affir=a the folLowing
Statement of Principle... the ha.i. for the policies and managament
of all present and future faeilitl.o owned and operated by the Corp
oration. TheBe pr1n~1pl~s .~e:
I. To cr~.te an environment which promvces tru.t. 1nd~pen~ncel
re~peet. individual differences, insures $elf~d~terminatiOD,
and encouragea per.oual gro~h for all resIdents.
It. To create & co~ity in which residents, relative., helping
p%ofe8sionall. voluntee~B and staff promote intet-dependence •
• ocial interaction .nd involvement in all CHI facilities and
in the broad~r community.
Ill. to provide relOUTceM which optimize physical and emotional
health and well-being.
IV. To provide r~5ident1al and Gupporcive c.re ~th an e=p~~11a
on meeting the needs of lo~ Bod moderate income person. on
a non-profit charitable basis. wbile operating on a aound
financial b&Ji~.
V. To pursue an affirmat1ve action program which acknowledges
that persons of diverse b&~kgrounds, race, creed, and
na~ional origins enrich residential facilities by their
presence.
These prineip Ies ",,?ill be implemented in the f'ollowir~g ways:
Commit"tUent to
Excellence
Res1ect for
Con identiality
and Priva.cy
Right to Hake
Chol.ces
-
All ser_~ces to re,1d~nt~ shall meet the highe5t
possible st.ndard~ of quality. efficiency and
excellence.
Every effort .~ll be made to respect re&idents~
privacy and to 8SEure confidentiality_ Counsel
~hi~h is offered, di6cus~ion of business, or
information pertaining to heslth status ~11 be
regarded as highly personal. and conducted in
private.
The re5ident will be considered the most signifi
cant paTty in a partnershir for care, and as such
has every right to exp~et accUr&te information
about personal busines •. health. and fut,ure expecta ..
tions.
Residents will be encouraged to choose bet~een
available <ernatives regarding health care and
t-r .. e.tlDent both in increasing health. and in dyirlg.
and can expecc to receive support frOID Lytton
Cardens in per50nal decisions and choice~ which
ha ve been ma de. .
•
.'
,~
:~::,~ ..
's:. "
. , .
."'O!!it",:: ... :_' ,CoO' a: .. _, _*~j"I'I$IfIIIi!ll£""~:-<"""'''-'''' .' c
~ P lAD fOT Care The re.ldwot, betng the primary relource. will be
encouraaed to partle1p4te in drafting and'Te-~ewin,
• plan for care. The Plan for Care would .180
require parcieipation froD:. health C4~e per.onnel~
faadly or .ignificant others, and Lytton Garden •.
tach part, will be expected to fulfill cert&~
reapon.ibl11tie. for the health and well-being
, ,
I
kelation.hl.p
To Coa:munitJ"
Int:egrateo
RanaJ5ement
Work as
Vocation
£WG/DS ,at ',.
11/15/16 .
I -.---..... ~
I
-
"f the redden t .
Re.ldent. will be encouraged to maintain signi
ficant tie. with family, friend., church, and
other interest. including participation in the
responlibiliti~s of citizenlhip. Lytton Gardens
i. an integral part of the ~der community. and
looks to that community for .~pport, leadership,
and valuable .~rvice~. and in turn offers back
eo ehe community ~he range of resources at its
disposal. Lytton Gardens provides leadership
~o th~ eommuni~y by articulating ~he needs of
older adults and participating in community·
wide efforts to seek resolution of these needs.
Reaidents will be encouraged to participate in
all aspects of Lytton Gardens' communit:y: ~he
£ormatiQn of friendships, volunteer service.
the planning of .c~ivit1e5 and programs. repre
sentatioc or. the Board of Directors. and partie1-
pation ~th !oard. staff and community in
perfecting Lytton Garden.!l' managetDent ,tyle.
The ~omponent parts of Lyt~on Garde~5 (independent
living apartments, residential care, intermediate
care. and skill&d nursing care) will be operated
by the lame Board, and the daily opErations managed
by an integrated staff.
All eMplDyee~ of Lytton Gardens ~ll be selected
for noe only the technical skills which they h4ve~
but also for personal potential in serving the
needs of the elderly. Employees will expect
Lytton Gardens to provide a climate wherein work
is understood as vocation (or "calling"), and a.
vehicle for self-expression. Employees will be
encouraged to be creative and self-reliAnt.
Lytton Garden, will provide opportunities for
training and development in order to mAximi~e the
potential in every employee.
I
~
I
I
I
lj'TI(lN t'AR.Df.NS HE.t, r 1J lOR r Cfm:R
"Hcr~. at ... ha1enr bour you cotnt. you .,tll (Iod lirbl .:.od belp .tld
bDmlD tiadacs!l."
• Aiberl Schwcil1~cr
LmON m A CONTIN\JATIQN
LYIlOD Ga.rdens Health Care eenler is ,~\ided ~JI Ihe tODcept tbal • beaftb
ure. {ac:iliry mull( offer mon: Iban beal1h care. Huru.n diloicy, phy.ir::al
rebatlHillllioD, aDd Ibe prnmnrinn o( iDdcpeudcDI livia, Ire p.ramollini. Uld
lI:tIderlic aU of Ibe ICrvlcU 'We pfl,vidie.
Tbe H~I:b Care Cenl~r j~ a tltli"Que rC&:Clutce cre •• ed 10 ser'fe tbe
pbYlic.ll. lDeat.l, aDd spirilUllr Deeds [1:( Tbe clderl,. ahbtHl,b care is av"jllMe
In aDY ctl.llvalclcing p.l1eD: re~uirjni! rbysicar, octUp'lioo.l. Of speecb
UlI:r.py.
LytlCD UI is .. logle~! tOntjDuaua~ co! the pbilo50,p'h)' 'D~ .Hltvdes
wllich led 10 tbe fOllnding of Lyuoa ] .nd LylloD lI. LytLon i: pfo"idel
lureetiyc ap.rtDlCllU for the. Iimilcod·incomc eMerl), who are: c.pable of livi::g
0lI Lbeir 0.... LyUDD lJ .• complex of Jic-e.clScd c:ommu.aiIY ure ap.e.nmcut5,
UNCI those 'Who Deed oon-medical belp' witb cbily liviD,. Over ~SO people
I:IOW bye in Iboesoe Iw.rd·"",iDnin! facilities .. bere a brold .peetnull of hallb
at:l4 social proln.lD.s are offered witt., companic.II .nd witb COtlt"tlD for tbe
reqviremeul. oC cac.b iDdi"vicful.
Our ,oal at the Heahb C.re Centct i5 rebabiJitattOD. Tb.is lia:aply mc_nl
thal we Sitive, 10 tntoimlf..!'! iQs\itU'li<;)n.hp~ion 'by masimiz.i.nl the pt.lieol"l
IbiHty 10 tuneriOD iodepeoderdy ia bis or ber 01VJ;I eOllltCc.meD1.
To .c:Qieyc; this goal. we have: crealef:! • fluible, r,=s~1I5ivc .system of
care which focUlcs. QC!. ,b~ tot.1 persou. T~ cystcm. indv.des tb.e le.n tallgi.ble
llpeets of lr"tmeot such ... p!lyc:hololic:.I, emotion.!. aad Ipiritual ","',dl·
beia,. Patiel1l./ltarr iDteraction tS empbalized at .11 levels, a.n.d the palJtDl
plr!icip'lcs i.a (ormul.tiD,g his or ber plo,gram IDC u-ealmen!. All lrc.UDec.t
tab, place onde.r the dlClt:lt:tioQ of \he palienl'l pby'lI:j~, .family
FIUidp.tio.a is .trong!y encotJfa.,ed.
Ii is • fi.nn priedpJ! Ibar c.veryooe coroin, iD cC!c.(lCL ... ilh a plLieD[
... iIl cotUribule lO p1anning. providUll carc. aDd eva!llattD& ci-cb program.
Nursing peu(JDner. rflYiicinflil. therapists. social 1IforkelJ., die-ti.liaDoS, aDd
tier", .re all commilled 10 Cflnlinuinr invorvemc,,!. LyllDG III will Ibus
cfemC'Dstfl-le thai a broad spectrum of ~Dd.1. c:umm\l.ni!)" and beahh sen'ice,
cae 'be: integrated inlo an ef!iC'ienl Ind hoti,[ic prugram .ilb • ,[,nineaDI
c.Ire.c:! c.a the; qU.ll.ry of ,.:arc:
(COD Cd)
.'
--
-
OYER YlEW Of SERViCES
Ahbo:)tli. llIe Hullh e.re eenle! was primui.ly crcated 10 serve the
rlden1 of Ibe midpeni,g.sul. af". lhe :,ci!!2,. is opc.a 10 ad'ult pllieno. ic rice(!
DC .yr.i.c.1 c:are or re.bbilil'liM servlceJ. Ail therapy .c:tvkes IrC perfDrme.d
0fII p'hy.ki.a t'de.rral only. FecS.1 !he Cenler tre: cOCJ,Par.bTc: ID those
char,£otd for simillU' Icn<ic;eJ oil clber faCLlities ill tbe Irel. Services cI!cnd'
;.CIehde:
J21 bed! lor skilled nUtS.inl cart. 20 priv'le rClcms IOd' 54 double. rooms,
2 .. -boa.r care'
IpCf':cb Iherapy
ntnrilioc. .Dd tb~rapcgtk diets
recr-cation programs
Ipiril .. 1 SUppOfl
IN SUMMARY
LyUOD Gardec.s is • Zlot·for~profit or2:1nlza~iOQ ,,·il.b ~eep tOOl. in Lbe.
p.to AJlo aru. Lyuoc I, IT, 'nd in 're ,o~crtled by o.oe local Board' or
Dircc!on. ,..bkJl j, respoc.si",e 10 Ih~ .need, or thi, commuoil)l. Our eODc-en. aL
LyUOQ O.rdeDos Heal,h Ca.re eeoLer is 10 provide the (laeU be.aIth care pouiblc.
w!Jilc lollcrilll lltt c,;cban,c: .ad .dvanctmeal or bH) ..... ledlc. Our doors are
OpeD 10 1bc pablic:, and tlO~ limHed 10 low-iocomt ;people.
for morc information, cootllcl Slephcn Shipley. Cbief Eilec-utive: Officer,
" (415) 321-3300
,., >
,
-
"'.
It b Ihe miuit'ft Dt LYliOD G4IdcD.. 10 provic!e .ff01'd.bJ, hOlUinl wid.
comGlRaltiea. Uld IliIU!ity DIllUia, ",c II) iad:ividuals: of aU iD~omt! le\leh. i.
iadcpcade-DCC.
ApprO'lle4 . .Board of ()ireclOfs
April I. 1989
•
\
,"
L YITON IV -EVEREIT A VENUE SENIOR HOUSING
PALO ALTO-CALIFORNIA
A COMMUNITY HOUSING INC. PROJECf
T'"----...... ---..... --
. '-..
~(
-<
,.
LITTON IV.EVERETT :\ VPiVE SE:\10R HO{;Sf"'G
A COMMUNITY HOllSI~G l:>ie. PROJECT
Reference Sheet
Exhibits
I Communil) Housin!! Inc.
1.1 -Mission Statement
1.2 -Waiting List Information -Other subsidized senior housing
1.3
projects
-Management (funher informalion contact: Stephen
Shiple)'.CEO. CHI 328-3300 )
II 330 E ... nll Properl)
2.1 -Summary of Option & Ground Lease
2.2 -Comparable Land Sales
2.3 -Vicinhy Map (indicating proximit) to services)
III DHelopmenl
3.. ·CHI Development Team
3.2 -Building Design (funher information contact: Carra~co & Assoc.
322-2288)
3.3 -Development Budget (cons~ructjon COS1 data den'lo'ed from
consultation wi~h Jack & Cohen Builders 322-0363 & Rudolph &
Sletten 572·1919)
3.4 -Relocation Expense Budget
I V Projecl financing
4.1 -Sources & Uses of Funds
4.2 -Funds Restriclions
4.3 -Design limitations & Estimate of Cost of Amenities
4.4 -Ter;ant Resrriccions
\' Cash Flow Analysis
S.I -Operating Income Budget
5.2 -Operating E<pense Budget
5.3 -Proforma
•
•
(
i D<HIBIT 1.1
npportlvc urvkc. 10 1()..-el·j.aCQIDC .tclion DC p.ro Alia ud •• rroll.adia,
All ea ... ito::.acot wbicb ereares Ihe DFpoUUDh,. 10 Ihe i. 6i,IIJty .ad ",lib
illdepCllchDCC.
Appro",('.(I, I!ooud at {)irrclors
April I, 19'9
-
-~~~-----
EX-ITBTT 1. 2
NEEDS INDlCATOR SUP?LEME.!'lTAL APPLJCAT10N FORM· WAITINC UST (EXHJBfT %)
Mel:::!: sure lhal tbe project liSled below Is Ihe ume type as the propo.sC'4 rrojC'C'I and Ihat lhe unil.S are ,All.
SUBS..J1ZED (jLsC' one remn lor ea I:h pro jeel).
""," s""'" __ -,5",/:.2.l.J,-,/9~1l-___ _
DiI!.1nr:e ffl!IIIl pt~ projtt1 aile:: ___ ~J,-,m~u~' ~le=.:!s _______ _
van_
Sqarc FDOIlJc
:RenUlI RMtte
p./lIlDbcT or Unitll
.. 0 I ......
__ clC"o1I!O(
__ £irrpl.te"
__ rwilllmi"1 POO:
"""" ~n'iS cnlln
.cul'rwuhn-
~ pi_OO ---
, ... "'" , .. , .. IS."
527
sec.
B
60 to+-....al 1.1:'.1 ts
_x_ p"l'rrou~d
bll"becw .. rea
t:onl12l1.l1l j l)' ~
.....
~
MAXE SURE TO ATTACH A VJCINrT'Y MAP lNDIO.nNC nlE LOCATIO!"" Of n~t COMPAJtADU. PR:1JEffi TO TrlE
PR OP'QSEO :sinE
-:~'{:'~----<'---_C __ "'"_' *-.
. <
,
NEEDS 1t<DICATOR SlJI'PI.EMENT.U AJ'P~ICATION FORM· w .• .rm'c LlST (EXH1BrT I)
Mltce .JtU'C thillhe proJec1 !heed below IS the ume f)-pe IS lbe propos.td pTOjr>C'l and' Iha! the I,I:rlilS ate ALL
StlBS • ..>1ZE> (U~ one rom roc t;8f:'" nm1eC'l).
0.111= fir S'IfIIfIr(. __ .....:5,,/..:2::3"-'::.9.01 ____ _
P'hO"lt Number _~.~5~6~-~Oll' 2'~) __
4230 'l'e= Dr. Palo Alto P~~9~~d~· _____________________________________________________ __
OIlPIICr r". ~ ~ ';I~ ____ ~1~.~7~:nil:.:::· ~e:.:s _____ _
.. 3 ti.rres as .rrany seniors 00 \rJai ti.ng 1 iSf"...s than f arT'"ilies
tJ.t1 T"..
SqUire FOCH.Ceo
Re:1tal Rallft
l"JlJtD~ oIlhtlUl
.. 0 .......
I
X c~U:It.
__ 1'i1'q)11~
__ rwilllllllill, poor
""." ~.,.iIICC'oIn ........... ::!: p!llio ---
, .... , .... , ...
540
sec.
24 32 12
olhcn:
..... .. ..
~ SURf. TO ArrltoCH It. V1ClNITY.MAP lNDICA.11NG niE I..DCA.TION Of' THE CDM~ARA1lLE PROJEC'n TO nrE
PR.OPOSED SITE.-
~---
-
[
i (.
L,"_~
I·~k;
"
NEEDS INDICATOR SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION FORM· WAl'nNG LlST (EXHIBIT I)
Maile rvre tbat tbe proj«: I.i::led below is the same rype as Ibe pmpoKd rrojec:1 and 1h31 the units are ALL
SlJ.BS~.>rzED (tI~e rtne (orm ror e..ek rroke!).
5/23/91 C.lr of Sllrwy ___________ _
J.,ytton Ave. Pa':o A: te, Ly-t:ton Garderl.S ' p~ Man.oIc:r Addraa" _'-___________________________ _
senio!' inde.oendent Ii \ti..'"!q P'rl!jcet I)'pe (T.mil)', 1eftiQr-.NII'd"".Qrpt"d, CI(.~' __ ~'-=:...==:::.:==:=_=:.:.::::-'_ _______ _
Dill.n.a: r~ ~ projec1.ilr;-____ -'.~2'-!!U~·=1~e=s:... _____ _
tJftJ1T,.,..
Sl!WI~ FooLarc:
RmWR:8n~
Ncmber ct U~il.5
no $1 ......
361-
43Q
397-
597
197
~ el'C'YIIM
__ firep!.ce
__ "":mmin, pool
WI leI
1C"1"'''' rolll'1.
dil.~lIer __ ""'0 __ p.runi
, ... , ...
531-
552
423-
647
il
--~"<
IIfortlealc .~
-1t.._ ClCIGlII!IIl"iry mom
,. .. . .'"
so:::ial se..,,,,,\;ice:s
~Lj;-,S. ta,! SE ,1 .... '"
.. '"
MAJCE SURE TO ATIArn A VlC1NlTY MA? :NDICATINC, nit LOCA nON or '!liE COMP'AR.ADt..E PROJECTS TO "n-lE
J"RoroSEO S rrE.
L
-'
•
,~.-............
I
•
tIEEl)S 1l'ID1CATOR SUPPLEMEl'ITAL APPLICATION FORM -WAITING LIST (EXHIBIT I)
Mde-J1Ul!' 'hit lbe pto}cc1 rLSIc.d below i:! l.."-=-UTne rypc as tt.e prC'po.se-.(I rrojeC1 ancl: thal !/It urlils arc ALL
S't.JBS~'>Izm:,. (Ult one fpnt'! fot tach n1ol~ct 1.
0.« or'''"''' __ "'5/,,2::3"-1"-9.:.1 ____ _
326-9271 Salley S!'ith I'Topc:nl Man.to" N'lIn::: __________________ 'heme NYl\"!ltoer: _______ _
o c.."ftII1 .... 1oI1IIbc1' of ¥'tCIntif:2;-____ _ 11 years
)IIJ14i""",qn:1 "'". _________ _
fa;nily ", .. ith 4 sa..-tior. B senior units profte lyf'C'. (tamn,. _fot, M'ICf'oCll~. ~t )', ___ ...:.. _________________ _
.5 !tiles DaUI.ec!I'!IID ~ pr1ljc'I:I f.il~ ____ ...:.....:.."-...:.. _____ _
.... -
Sqare Foatare
R.ftW Rase
NItIl'Ibcr-or Unill
ItO .... k
__ ~lt"'lltOt'
__ Orepraoe
_ .,mto.in; poel
101 lei
Lc\'l"u muM :=: d;,"wu"~
_X_ ~Iio
__ jlc=i
, ... , ...
610
Sec. S
4
__ pll)1rD11nd
bIIrtoen!e tru.
__ tIOIIIjf!,lInil)'~
,. .. .... . ...
MA.KE SUU TO ATrAOi ~ ViatlrN MAl' tNDICAT!.tJ'G mE LOCAll0N or ntE COMJ"ItJVJ!.l:f. 1'"RQ)Ecrs 1'0 THE
1'J{OPOttD SrrE.
-,-7-----~·'""-'~;·" L
-
,
•
•
4
1 ,
. i
i
I
NEEDS INDICATOR SlJPPLEMF.NTAL APPLICATION FORM -WAfnNO LIST (EiO-l18fT I)
Make wre nUit ttlc project li$!ed below is the .same ~J'PC &!II thc rropos<:d projeC'! a~C1 Lh:li the: uniu arC' ALL
SUBS~iZED (we one rorm (or ~ch pn::;ject).
'DIole or Sll~ __ -,5,,/",2l.;l~i;;t.9.!1 ____ _
El.lieKno!fl P~1 ).t.NlI~ Nlm~ _______ :... ___________ ,.~nt N~mbcr:
CIIft'ftII NIIID'bcf-ofvaatlder __ ~C=-__
!oI_k( or perICIN 011 C\I~' .. itin, r!Ji __ 55-oy"e ••• ro..c' ...... i.tt
DilltlM"C' fnIaI ~ P"tIitc1 .ile--_____ ~2~.~5'-'m~i~1~e~s" _____ _
U""_
Sqw~ Fool.are
RftIu! Rlnre
Numbd' at Uniu
","0 .....
~c>:v:..l{)l'
J'il"tpllcc
rA'iemr.i~, pool
'"'''' ___ L-nnu I:O'J r'I
-,-~~~~ -
, ... .. ...
600
sec. S
57
___ "Pl-In:rollnL1
lbt!'bec1lt lora
~ Cl:lGlEllllllil)' room
, ...
327-074
all sec. 8
..... ,.."
MAXE SURE TO ATrA01 A VlClNm' MIJ' INDICATING TI-1E LOCATION OF DIE COMT'AAAnLF PR01E-C"T'S TO nlE
PR or osen sm:..
.-.---_.-
-
•
• ,
, , ,
I
I
j
NEEDS INDICATOR SUPPLEMENTAl. APPl.!CATJON FORM -WAT!1NG l.!ST (EXHlBIT 1)
Mike sure thll lbe project !islc:d below is (be umc type as (he pfopo:;(41HOjCCl J.rod thal the units, arc ALL
SUBS.....>lZED t'lw; 0liS Corm for e.a eh Dro JCCf} ..
0." 01 '''''''' __ ..:5~/£22.3 /,-,9!J1~ __
PnIJioct'r Iobl1lp Addr1:K: Stevew5iQC tlg lSF 455 e OJ?"" <=:"'00 Pa ~ Q lj,' "0
DIl~ld'iJl&l1'~ ~e __ 2_3_y:..ear __ s ___ _
1'roI1I:IIbc:f 0( penoN an C'Urn:r.1 wail=1Ij lin: __ 3~O=-___ _ " ch~ prnjed .loIbaJ6~' . ....:Sec;:..:.;:..:.. _8=-____ _
lInhT,.,.. "'0 ., .... ..... , .... , ... . .... . ....
Scj:~FootaIC m-430
.Rmu~ ~",e Sec. 8 , Sec. 8
57-319 • 375
N~lPbcT 0/ UiJill
92 28
120 to!"..al
Projra Amenilia:
units \o"ith 24 units ...2:..... d~IDf under Sec. 8
__ pilo.r;round
--'''''''''' __ ~=U1' poor
... ,..
__ ~nil~II'"
Ifa.~~er
__ f'lliCi --,,-
HrtIcc-wc .1"t.lI
__ COC!~lIn;ry 1tJOGI
,"henr tr''':'':ti-use ro:::Tc1 i... base:re."lt
MAKE: SURE. TO ATIACH A VJCIN!i'J' loW iNOICATIt"IG 11-1£ LOCATION OF n~E COM!'AA.ADLE PROJE.CTI TO mE
PRO'POSW SITE.
-
•
f
I
I
I
I ,
f··
•
,
L
I
l
• \
,
I
1
I
\
l
I
1
I
-. "'-;:Z'. A":-"
~,~L~~~~=-~ .
,---.".~~. ,"
EXHJlll'l' 1.}
Community Housing fnc, (CHI) mana:g~s two rental housing dev~1opments
in downtown Palo Alto, The tWO apa:1menl compjexes ha'l"'c iong wai ting
lists and no sig.nificant rent detinquencies..
LyUQn Q.,den, I
In April of 1975 CHl completed the f,rS! p~ase of a building program to
provide housing (or seniors of low to moderate income. Phase 1,
constructed under Section 236 of the Federal Housing Act, provides 218
independent living units. h contains 152 studio ap?J1ments and 66 one
bedroom apartments. Eacb of the 218 unilS has one small kitchen. The
facility has l central kitcben with dining room, management offices,
meering rooms, library and craft rooms. There is an underground garage
providing space for 65 cars. Lytton Gardens 1 is situaled on 2.23 acres in
do~'ntown Palo Aho. Construction is wood frame-t"\l;'o. thr-te: and four
stories with automatic fire sprinklers and a 24 hour emergency call system
throughout, L2.undl')' facilities with coin opera!e:d machines are provided.
In 1975 CHI reaived the Cit) of Palo Alto Beautification Award for thi'
project. All ilpartmenls were filled within 30 da,Ys ar,d have: rnainul:!ned a
high occupancy rate since opening.
Lytton Gardens 1I
Phas.e II which wa£ cons.tructed under HUD Section 202. opened in
Februa') of 1979 and provides 50 independent Ih'ing units and 50
Communil,), Care: units. It contains 90 studio apanr.1en!s and 10 one
btdroom units. Each or these has a small }cite-hen a.s well, Lytton gardens
11 is located on .82 acre adjoining and linked to Lynon Gardens I.
Construction is wood frame-two, three and four stories with automatic fire
sprinkJers and an emergency calI system throughout. Laundry facilites
with coin operated machines are: provided on the top two floors for
independent li .... ing residents. All unIts are. designed (0 a.ccomodate the
physically handicapped with special kitchens and bathr00ms for the
\\'hee1chair residents on the first floor. The facility has a 200 person
general meetjng room, activit,' rooms, an auxi1iaT) dining area, offices. and
a gift shop. There i, an underground garage which provides space for 40
cars, Lytton Gardens II was also filled within 30 days and has maintained
• high occupancy rate. In 1981 CHl received a 'pedal Design Award from
the Societ:w of American Regis.tered Architects.
-_.
L
-
,.
4.
J
------~-.:.....' --'-
..:I' .. j .. ..,. •. "
f!.1jt!J. htl de:Kllbes lyt10n.
c.afl:ltnl. L"tI out:lltandlng n·
ompIo ., ._1)' """oIng
-Pogol -..
CI&.-:...:..,.:.:.'::":""' __ Pogo ~
.or....-a.-Pagil 2"
._----pogo,.
-.nS ........ t.maI:a. (f"t.ge3 ,_..... ! .... r
Paya
A haven for senior citizens
YOU'D HAVE TO CO A LONG WilY 10 rLnd a ~tte( iU15wer 10
OLe sclllar tLouslnl sMttas.e !.baa l.yUQQ Garc1eAS-Localed on ~
square bloc)' 01 Palo Alto properlY. it's ID OUlSI3tldHl., U·
Jf"ple a! commlullq' Ilousi 0"
n~ 1n1.l1tkl.cJied. 'lloodtD·and-sb3ke building. lias many balconies
trod a.UnKl.rve limdsQ,PlDl UlrouShouL lawns &!'I,;j, prdens are at
.. ways ill i.tDaJaCkl.ale Sobape. as ts & £fUSY interior courtyArd thAI lias .
. _ Lree5. (\Q,.c~ ull eveo. a 5maIl rou.nta La\.
WllbiQ tills complex are lIB apartmcJlti lar 5eOI{lf ciUzens 'iI"':!!
li!:Uled lotome -seWOI'lo wbo rull .. resl~cD~ ~iatlO~ e.!'Id who.
-
.
•
---..... , .~-.I Seniors
I. btlp fO make: Lyuoo Gardens I Rl::Iior (ommuoUy thai ,tle-y arc
Ploudot.aslsaUorpaloAJlo. -~.'" -_ ..
~.. : f. •
! ", "'Actu"lly," sale! Abbie MILler~ LyUQ.Q's director Dlsocial' st'rvkltS
ror Ibe past rn'e" )'urs. "mOSl of \.bese f.oeoplc dOD', see Uiemst}ve5 as
~oio~ lbc,)"re-I very acli~e" llullCll aod, co~t.aDU11.Qvol\led: 11:1 lbe
.cll"'~ties bert." '-.:. _ _ . ;. -: ...
) ASKED MILLER IF SHE COULO GIVE me I ~tUe llftckgrQund
011 LytlOQ and found Ibal It ,",as erecled' oc! tbe silt. oJ UlIt ~Id LytioD
$l',~COl. b\ull Inert io 1900S aDd 0\1£:£ lbe sucreedic, years .nendel1 by
~ Itol<Saj:;11s CoJ Palo AJlo cbilo;:lrc.IL -__ :_:_ .:. +_~. ___ .. . ".--_ ~:_
A rel1w"od Iree marks. tne C'oltance 10 LyUOD Gardens. II "as
,
planl(!d Ihere by it; scbaolleac:l1er and lief class in ISJI. A california
laurd al,s.Q stands near LytIOIl'S t'ntrance. Fcc yeln II pro\,jdecl' many
,.
... a leacher .,Uh bay leaves lor COOking.
Aller st ]lurs, c1ec:hniD& enroUmrnt tmalJy cJcs.ed the scbool.. Not
lon, a.rte.r. lot .. as. nutd. ~o ma~e '¥ay Io.r Ule bUl\d,ul, o( lb.t ~reseD\
Ly1toQ GiiU'dens. L Lytlon is Ihiee s.eparallt I.! flits under one [OOr. Lytloll Garderu I was
i· ()pened ID 1975, L)'1ton II tour ~'ears !ater tD 1979, Ind .0 June or
J9U t)'tlOli U1 w~, opened,
L]ltton J 2nd IJ '.has aD administrator. Janie-Jollnson. U \lien as
MIrier, ;In OJ/ICt' staff. anti c:I"ecl.o~ or 1004 .service. mamtenance,
b.1u~.d_teping. Bc:IJlfIIJcs and trips. end comml.lni[)" tatlt. TItIIS> paid
:~t.:lrt IS au,gmente:::l by numerous \'ohu:llecI'S trom bo[1a ins,,!e Bnd
.. C<.Iblde [be complex. .
Miller .. orU wilb UU: admirllstralor ill the screen iDe or pr~pecUve
rt~lde(1l5., aM M.ller ~Qrk.s vdLb. aU Ute res.iden($ 04 & dait, baSls..
L rrrON HAS U7 STUDIO APARTMEN1S for liin~ 1J bed·
. room .apJr1menlS Jor married couples and' SO community care apart·
. mtnls" The latler do (lal jnciu{je medica! 01 nUflilne care bUI prDvide
it \'aneil of st'rvke5 for ~r.IOrs Ih'M need: assistance "'Hili bathln, Dr
IJ~nd.I)' and clt'anjng. and [he occupants are oltered 5upervis,on Ind
\hreC" O<!11J' meals In iuld.llloD to SpeCLflt recrca1JoDa) programs.
-Til be ellJ,illlc to live at L)'Uon, sio.sle peo9le mast be ti2 y~ars or
;--age or over, aIId .u.lI couples. oae 01 ilacm must be thai arc. ~ a~
I I m,iwmulD CUI be walved Jar 'Iwl.4.lc.ap~d p.e-~
~ ~··}.PPilc.aJl,ts must reslde La me ern w-tweea Sao MaleQ and San
• Jos.e. aDc( WiuaEly at ~ast DOC family member ~dS to live .,I!Jm Irle
ai, Ana. Vt.rUiUUOD.' 01 eac_ .PSlt'~"IU·S lIJ\edlca.1 itatu.S. is,:t
quir e c1 .
nell total Income mlLSt be limited 10 Ie annual ma:rimlim or i l',l$D tor siD&Jt: ptl"SOQS u~ S 12,000 lor couples. 1 bls illcome fl.Gu re
'mdudcs Sodal SecuritY paymellts. lolert:St. divIdends and pensloos,
"lad renlls chUlcd OIl !be basts 0' JO perceot of lh4IlOUJ Income.
Addllionall)". a rood cb.a(ge of IUS a mGllllI l..o Ule iiloeptDdeo[
I; care se<;liol1 .ad 1111 ma.olllly .EIo the CGmmu n 1 t} care sectl 0 0 IS man
da~(lI)'. RC:Slderlts are s.erved DU IrlbonaJ mealS La iI £:omm un.ly d I nlng
TOOIP tbal has tar&e windows lookill, o"t 10 the gareca.. b~1 eaelL tiM
.. bas a tJlc.ACO ana tar L'Ilose ... tlo 'Itrisb 10 prepare mealS OQ Ulel r
.WL
: ... Eac" unilll.as I privale batb and many !lave patios or large balcon
·ia LalUldl')' raciHUes Irt 'plovided on eac" noor.
: THE BOTTOM LINE TO ALL THIS is Iballbere"s a consL'Hll ... a~l
".[nl hSlMiller lGld me she received 186 apphcallOns ~n 1985. acd 11015
·year evu more are e-1I~c.:I. Tbree IIlladred and' forty sevclI reSI
deaLS are UVUla at Lytton.. aDd vacancies II); the iade-pendent lh'ltJg
·sec:tiOCl. occur IlIllbe low raLe of [\IiO a mcnLh or so, .. lUI Lbc commLlnl·
." Q' care .~rtments sbowUli a somewbat tllghcr rLllJre..
--AJIo)!nn.e \n1crtsled \Q apptyin& lor resiGeoce at tbt tomplU slooliid
,pln all.eacl anc! eel 011. the Jlst :DOW_ YOI,l call (I'. Ibis by Ir'~t.ici \be
cUke., located: jusL .i.D.sidc tbe LytUla Stred cntrouu;:e.
THE ACl1\'TII£S AT LYTTON are ertenslve_ P;eSH~cn1J; may
, ~to.Y I nricty of cnfcise-s. sllJdy Ij~ read Lng,. .... e rld cLlI [Ufes and
clJrre-I:Il events. Tbey ca..a wjl.[cb moYit"S. play bill go. Dr. on SlJndal' .
.. auend • vespers $tn-ice condl.!,lcd by variollS iLlest. ministers anc
J;nilskiaru.. T~C1 un joir:! a sc'lll'iaB; o. CenlmlCS class, 'oIolunceer in L1It
&in 5II0p, have tluir lJ,air done iD the bea.ut) :slop. or jUSl 5OCiatu.t
.-o'ICr col~ee ill the 100000g~
•
,!lorida), p.artic.s aoJd special events an alw9rs wtll attc-nde(j. Du
!~ •• rec!:r.IIoc:aJ: election. 13 residellts.. led by .. 18·},ear old, p.andt
in 10 CUlIt.e.r Y"lc. Maoy ruiden[S are-pta-pals .. lib yeung sh.ldem
erwine Ihe K,ener.lliOIl g,aP 'G .. proc,ram bC"adldal to them bou
: ~1 ie'ast 100 of L)'tloa"s sen!ors; Ir'llh.lDtc-er P'I • 1Cl\llar. bi\Sls.
..~ .R~,oc.c15 are-allowed 10 have-pel!,. blJt Ulere are few cats an
do&,>-Some ba .... e tlllcbes or cQCblie-r.s., yd: Iber~ Wa$ eveQ a 1m
we"ddlnl al Lyttoll. "lUi two OWGeIS UnlUD. lbeir pets iii an ollie!.
certmollJ complll!'lC' wl/:a • local bisbop. g1Jests and a reee-,Ption.. BITu
lI~elj'l U1c oolJ ODes to marT) IlItr~. About a )'C'ilr OIiQ. two 0/ Ib
l esldc.>c.[S mel ~d man1e-4 &DeS IWW IIve tl:I oae of Lb.e apartrPeDLs EQ
cc .. ptcs. . "
TIle ,place ls rull ot LOferest.lnl people. lntll.ldlai wDrld tra .... elers, ill
acLive science-"flter ud:. macra.mc Ar1.isl who bas beelllul\l.re-IJ II
. SI,lf\S.t;t M.a&OWue. A..nO 1 sbol.lld mcntlolllhc il);diomltable 1(JO..),ear-oi,
resldC'Dt _bo ula4:vcncnUy I~d 0 ... ' some-,GOd 1l.1'loQS _lIh be
lIasll. tJnda ... nle-d. ~hf' made btl" war 10 the basem~nt. searcbed aLI
the "Llm~ler boldme ber ~yloo.s acO dfiJ"e-rJ a cbair up 10 Jl Tb.ei
"She IlC.iill1y climbed: rrom tbe cbair icu. the dump51~r, wb.e-re ~be It'
tnnr!d Ule 1I)'lons, chmbed bact d.owa, and lriumpba,cu, rclWlled I,
f1,cr room..
~ -''Cu "yo~ "bC'iu~"e lhat"!-" said MlllcT. ""One b~M!"e4 yca!"$ old!"
, keep I1llnkmg lllelll: b.as Ie t-c s.omeUljag .... ronl wiLlI Uli:s ptau, bUI
CJo"( IlY.Otsl1y LllIot of lIbat it would be.. Irs just • greal place 10
seoJors La lille.' "!"_
-.
r,. .. ~--___ ·_m""""~K -,,"",,---~.-. -" ·-"'---'·--~"'~-··'·"·"-'-"~-------11111
I
-
SITE C01\'TROL
This attaenmenc includes In e:reclJted option for a grcondlease bet .. eec
Comm"city Housing !.ce. (CHI) and Tbomas Martio, owner of three
contig1J01J5 parcels on Everea. Avenue in downtown Palo Alt.o
Terms of Ole o'p~ion a.cd an:.acbed ground lease are:
J. Option for groundle .. e must be .. eercised by October 3J, 199J The
option !ee is $10.00 $12,500 m,," be paid wben tbe option is ncercised
2. Gro"ndleaSf term is 50 years. At lbe end of the 50-year term, the
OWl!:er must offer CHI the option to either renew tile lease or purc.hase the
property.
3 At the death of tbe Jessor, Thomas Martin and Ju, wife. the property
will be gifted to CHI. (fhe o .... ".r i, now about 50 years old)
4. Th. fir" Innu,l groun~lease payment is
$108.000. Within minimums and maximU!!1.5 outuned in the groulldJease,
SUbsequent ennual groundlease payments will incre!.se eacb year by 75%
of the percentage increase of the San franciscoiOakland Consumer Price
lnde> for the pr,,;,u, year.
5. CHJ must se:ure refl!1af'Jcing for the owner of three eI..ist!cg flrst
mongages at a preagreed payment SChedule.
-
•
-:1.>"_ :.#-
, .
i
f ,
.
.. ~
.-"4~
" ~-.
,>
tn'IAl. ~11lIG CtIICtr.c1IC. ~
t..UI:I I4LU CJIII'.tAI .. E'I 1011(
~ l~t"'lf!rP"': t:::glpl.te Ir.~' ff lIn ~.i .. 1 " rIOl ...."nlbl, ft'. tht Lut 12 .ont;" •• ~ t,,· ..... tt_ fv I~"" ..-.e .... !i.,
k ~ sold ","c:tU ~r.l. U ttle ~fd ",...JPC:I .. It ....
, I I 1 , •
Vi S1'"....a & :El Carr.inc Page Mill ~ & £1 Carr.i.."'lO & ......... O"a""lestor. .RI:1 . Palo Alto .Pepper~ Palo Al , PaloAl~
Dilt..-.:-t' (ra 'r-oj«l Site
2.3 rrJ.les 1.6 rr.iles 2.5 rr.lle:s
lDl"lI"t Ftl-1S R+-30 1&30 m--15 R+-30
Tot.! Sq.,... 1C11O!.;-r 170,000 sgft 33,750 sqft 178,596 sqft
Dlte of hte
1/91 11/89 9/90
S.tlll "ric: .. $£:985,000 $1, 326,000 $7,3,0,000
'r In ' .. r Sq..l" 'oot S 41.09 $39.30 $~1.15
I.I:CflI tIC tltrLl!l 11t1"'Vf~ on sit.e 0'T'l site on si .... e
Uni,al,llt 11 t. c.ordl t r_ none none none
Ottle-r I_rk:, j 49 u.Tl.its ~ 16 1.Il".its ! 51 ur-.its ~ I $H2,551/w.it SS2,906/ur-.it $14~, 117 /uni t
I
22
~--
.'
'cij£"
.,'
-
I -
Reference /I..
, I
12
#3
t4
#5
16
17
IS
19
110
if I I
112
113
Two maps follow:
"leU-TrY MAP
Item
LYITON IV Sit,
Comparable II
Comparable 112
Comparable #3
E:XHIBI'J' 2. J
Schools: Addison, Palo Alto H.S., Stanford Universiry
Food Market
Hospital: Stanford Hospital, Palo Alto Clinics
Parks
Pharmacy(one of many on Uni'«rsity Ave.)
Fire Department
Publi~ Transponation: Bus Stop. Train Station
Palo Alto Senior Center
Lytton I & Lynon II
The first map in which all the items mentioned above 8Te noted.
The secon-d map gives a cJoser look at the location of services and off-site
support. all ide.lly located within walking distance 0< • short bus ride
from the LYTTON rv project.
•
I ~:_C_O_l_it 1----,-----t---__ _
L
• \
, , ,
~ --.-
I
i
l
-...r 9l ".,..--~. -~""""'lII"i' l1li',,' >. '. .' ,~,:,-. ,"flS~ I
"\
I
-,--------_.-
, .r
>.' >
~
L
"
·,.cr···· --1 ,AI --'-." ,
L '"
.
,-:.....-
,
. -
1
-
~-.. -,,"------
Applican t:
Architect:
Landscape
Architect:
Con'ractorl
ConstTt!clion
Consultants:
" .1
DGUllIT 3.1
J'ROJECT DH'EWPMP,"f TBM
Raben W. Medearis, Development
James A. Koch. Developn,ent
Diana St~epre5. Senior Citizen Needs
Blair Ste"'an, Legal
(See Exh. Section 8·3 for resumes and job descritions)
Carrasco &: Associates. Palo AltO. CA
eM,ll)fJ Ull 'eGnac' ·ua.'A,'. Note contract is on a rime
& materials basis \lw'lt"out profit.
Lyn Winterbotham
Subcontracted under architect.
-Jack & Cohen Builders. Inc .. Plio Aho. CA
.Rudolph &: Sletten. Foster Cit)'. CA
Contracts under negotiation.
APPLICANTS STAFF
Raben W. Medearis, lame. A. Koch. Diana Steeples and Blair W. Stewan
comprise the Project Development Team of L),tlor. IV. Mr. Medearis' vast
expert..ise in reaJ estate development and Mr. Koch's intlmate association
with the Palo Alto real estate mark .. ,nd the plann,ng and development
departments of the City of Palo Alto make them well suited for the
acquisition and development of the Lytton IV project. Mr, Medearis, a ca
founder of Community Housing Inc, (CHI) has proven his ability with the
sucessful development and management of Lytlon I and U, Iwo other
senior f.dlities lo.:ated in Palo Alto financed and operated under HUD
Section 202 subsidies. Additionally Mr. Medearis hiS developed over 1000
units under the Federal 221 D3 program in California and Arizona. (See
Attachment B-8 as evidence). Di8na Steeples as • Director of Ibe Senior
Coor:linating Council bas a working knowledge of the needs of the senior
community in Palo Alto and surrounding vidnties. Bl&ir W. St ..... &rt, a
panner of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich &: Rosati, the Peninsula's largest and
most respecled law firm adds his legal and professional e'penis< and as
President of CHI is inv<>\ved in all of its functions.
Mr. Kocb has allocated approximately 30% of his lime 10 this project with
his emphasis being placed 00 financing, ccordinalion witb ar,hitects and
the planning and approval process. Mr. Medearis acts .s senior consultant
overseeing all of these functions and i5 also responsible for contract
negotiations, Ms. Steeples is responsible for communi,)" political and
cons\lltation as regards special needs of seniors. Mr. Stewart is liason with
Ihe CHI Board and keeps them apprised of an)' activiti., on the Lytton IV
developmen. as well as having arranged I pro bono relationship "'ith
Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich and Rosati to act .s legal counsel on the project.
Mr. Sle"'art also acts as liason with local and s,ate legislators.
Evangeline Kocb is the Project Funding Coordinator for Lytton IV and is
hired as an independent contra-ctor to Community Hous.ing Inc. As Project
Funding Coordinator Ms, Koch's duties are to apply for development and
construction funds through the Rental Housing Construction Program, HUD's
202 program .rnd the City of Palo Alto. She also m&intains an records on
tbe Lytton IV project. Ms. Koch reports to the Project Development Team
and worn approximately 20 hours per week.
-
•
.'T1.< .. ""'·1 ,', .
•
i
I
05·24·91
BOARD OF DlFECrOR5
COMMI TNITY i-lOUSf1\;Q I~C. II )TfOS GARQE'S~
Donald F. Bogue
J. Se ..... all Brown, M.D .• \"icc Prc:s]jcn:
George R. CO'liCr, Trc:ls~n:.r
Emm)' Davis
Willl.Jm S. Floyd
Courad F. Gul/u,scu
O. Charles Harden, Sccrclary
Jud)' KCDlJcdy
lames A K ocb.
Pauline K. Lid,gale
WiJbur E. MOI1ti.soc, M,D.
H. MICh.lc! McGraycl
Robert W. Medearis
Gloria J, p}'szka
Dl,lIlOl B, Slccpics
Blair W. StCWaIl, Jr., Prcsid.:ot
L:;ooard W. Ely_ D~rcClor ErncrilLis
ScJoou H. M .. nio. Chairm::to EmcrillJ.s
•
'-"'"--"' ..... ·-.. ·.0 ..... : ...
E:XlUBrr l.2
Oe$ig~ Narrative
DESIGN NARRATrv~ FOR CO~CEPT DESrG~
Ccmmu:lity HoUSin9 Inc. is endeavoring 'to provide afforda:::'2.e hO'Jsing fer
seniors in downtown Palo Alto. Pursua~t to this gOQl. th~ee contiguous
sites at 330 Everett Avenue have been obtained for de·.~elopme:lt of a ne ... ·
apartment building.
In order to provide the maximum nu.rnber of small one-b€droom an':'
efficiency "..tnits,. it will be neces.c:::ary to pursue a PC Zone des:ign.at.ion
for this property. Present zonin.g on tne site is R"l'oj-3C. Surrounding
propert.ies are zoned P.."1-30, RM·D and PF. Ac:-oss the street is an RM-~a
zone.
To maintain neighborhood scale and transition to surrou::-lding uses; it
ap?ears generally feasible t.o work \o:it.hir. RM-40 zoning regulat.lons for
site development, utilizing the PC zo~c process ~o obtain a higher
density of units and higher F.A.R. than would be allowed in either the
FM-30 or RM-40 zone.
In order to make the prcject feasicle. the tJnit COi.l.nt needs tc, be a't
least 50. Parking !:"'ust be provloej in an unde::-ground garage. ""~'lic1'1
\o,.'ill dict.ate an ~nterio!' paved cOl..l.rtyard with plantings restricted to
cO:lt.ainers and raised planter beds. A s'.J.!TI.mary of the project in terms
of area, LLnit. count, density and height is incluoed on t.he dra .... ·ings.
The design apprc~ch for the si te is to mass tI1e building to .... 'arc.:s t.r,c
not theast property line. steppirLg dQ ... ·n towar-cs Everet. t Avenue ar:d tI-;e
R~-D Zone facing Brya:::t Street. Entry to the project from Everett .... ·ill
aIle ... · for vie~s into the interior cou=tyard while rr.ain::aining securit:l
for residents.
Efficiency apartments comprise the majority of the units ..... ·ith only E
being one-bedroom, to mair.tain affordability for single occupants. The
first floor ' .... ill have a lobby/reception room, a.dminist.rative effic-=. a:1'=
multi-use librar~" space for group activities. Each floc,r .... ·ill als~
have a laundr:r rool'!i and small sitt:ing-/social space.
All living units have eiU'ler a patio or balcony for out.door living.
The balcony forms are curved, to add interest to the ex-cerior as ;..'ell
as interior ambiance.
The architectural expression will reflect details and roof
small bungalows scattered th~ougho~t t~is neighborhood.
lapped siding and de:orative gables will help to reduce
this two'" and three-story buildin,;,.
forms of the
Horiz.or:tal
the scale of
Perimeter planting' .. ·ill be s:.lr;·stantial as the first floor ... ·ill be set
back further than the tjrpical 10 foe: rcguirerner.t. Twenty-foot sH~e
\
-J
--"
~r
_______ ................ ~';'l.".' ,;i-.' ..... ~
Oesign Narrative
yards 'Will buffer the RM-D d.istrict and will pro,,"ide shade and text.u;-e
to the project. If possible. a pathway connecti.r.g t:) do.·n'to ... ·'n Pale
Alto through the parking are!! to the southeast could be de .... ~eloped to
encourage s~ni~rs to walk downtown. This will also serve to create a~
axis within the urban fabric and tie this neighborhood to the activity
centers along vniversity Avenue.
The landscape planting
materials reminiscent
Emphasis will be put on
concept ""-ill focus on the use of "tradi t.ional"
of t.ypical established Palo Alto garder,s.
color. drought tolerance and structural forrr.
The front yard (west side) will consist of a ne~ crderly street tree
plant.ing, lawn and hedger-o .... 's. Tall open trees will also be l:.sed closer
'to the building for scale and to soften the front elev3.tior... The south
sideyard will have small to .nedium size trees for screening anc flowers
as well as hedqerows r vines and smaller accent plan~ings. The rearyara
(east.) will have vines on the fence and: accent plantlngs ",'here
possible. The no~th sideyard will consist of small ope~ canopy trees
to allow light and create scale wit.t.. irre';,ula:r groUFl.ngs of s~all
accent plants.
Another feature of the complex will be Sitting porchES anc decks fc=
joint use oy all residents. A raised seating area in the co~rtyard
will provide for social interaction of residents. At the t.hi!",:j floo!'",
open decks are connected across a seating area at the main corrico=.
The entrance to the complex .... 'ill provide a scene of acti .... ity 6.=-,::
friendliness to the nei9h-~rhood.
The goals of this project will be realized by not or:~y providjr:g a
pleasant interactive atmosphere for senior citizens br.lt by also bein~
sensitive to the neighborhood character in the sitir.g and design of the
building. By providing a warm; residential feeling for the res:dents,
the neighborhood will be enhanced. The interaction of active seniors
wi to the neighborhood. and dO .... '1ltown Palo Al to .... ·ill bui Id a sense of
commu::1ity and 'Will be beneficial to all.
'.2114/90
\-
-
•
\ . ..J
I
\
\
\
Ii
DEVELOPMThT BUDGET
SITE ACQU1S!TION COST ([le! grLlund re m)
OFF-SITE IMPROVE"" S
sm& LAND~APE
\Jl\TT CONSTRlK1lO~
pnj<
building
"'LillI unil construction
CONSTRUCTlOS FEES
"Permits &: fees
architec. &: engine~ing
1Ota.1 construe tioc. fee 5
GENERAL DEVUDPME!oo'T COSTS
Jaa:n fees &. irueresr
take.
~"\Cc.
Telocat~ COlb-U!taP!
rciocatioD
fw'niihing.s
rent up:man.eting
toa) len devel costs
AOMlS EXPENSES
ror At DEVEL COST
EXHIBIT l.3
Totar
3>,915
7J,860
9O.iB
1t1H)())
1.B4,00l
2,5~,00l
21,014
lOO.00l
2:1,014
18.090
° 25.00l
1O.00l
° l;,OOl
lO.OOl
;,000
93.090
35,000
3,14 L' 12
•
.--'~----.'
f ' , '
~ :
h" f
, i
'~
I
i
j
I
-
,""--
RELOCATION
18 persons now rent 12 units on the site for Lyuon IV. CHI recognizes its
respon.fbilit) to compl, wi,h the Uniform Relocation Act, including
advisory housing services and replacement housing payments, jf
necessary. Ttl!! current o'.-,'ner bas been notified thai relocation services
and paym~nts must be offered to current re.:;idcnts.
Relocation Budgel:
MO"ing Expenses 12 households @ 5500
Potential Rent Subsidies
Relocation Cons'Jllant to provide housing
advisoI)" and re!ocation services
TOTAL
5 6,000
519,000
510,000
535,000
This budge' includes an allow.nce of $19,000 for renl subsidy,
Preliminuy discussion with consultant indicates subsidy requirement
should be minimal. Please see attacbed copy of classified ads from
Penins.ula Times Tribune for comparable rents. Current tenants are paying
market rent from S500 10 SI185 for studio, I, 2 and 3 bedroom units on
the site. CHI has c.ont.acted Irene Ibarra & Associ-3tes in San Jose and
intends 10 employ her servkes as reJocation consultant.
'-, '~--',-'''''''''~'-' L
•
I
J
I
I ,
-
--,.,....,-_.--
DEMOunONOFEaSTINGUNITS
The uni£s on the sile were" constructed more than 40 years ago and are in
poor to moderate cond:tiol!. do !lot provide any handicap accessabilit),.
comply with current building standards or special design considerations
for I. senior popuration~ i.e. security~ Iccessabi!itJ'. saret)'. common areas,
elC. Additionally the site crealed an opportuni!), to construct 51 unils of
low and very low income bousing in a fully developed area where no
vacanl land exists.
• ; r ,-.
" . ~_ .. ,.:C~-".~<-.
,
L
-
,
. ,
\
..
I
-
Ii
SOURCES AI\'1) l1SES OF Fl~DS:
Sources of Funds:
~ ~
City of Palo Alto Land Loan
«(DOO)
Calif. RHCP Loan 2
HUD 202 Grant 3
City of Palo Alto Grant
(housing funds)
C.H.!. contribuli on
TOTAL
Uses of Fund~:
Land Loan
Amount
S 665,000
900.000
1.870.025
285.000
86.975
S3,807.000
Development Costs (see Exhibit 3.3)
TOTAL
N0fE5:
~\li
proposed
EXHIBIT 4.1
applicalion pending
application due 7191
proposed
565.000 funded
S 665.000
3.142.000
S 3,807.000
L Land Joan 10 refinance eXlstmg debt (currenuy three seperate notes 10
landowner) to allow for assemblage of the three parcels. Repaid as cash
flo ... allows (year 1 budget allows approximately 510.000 payment)
2. State of California Rental Housing ConsrTUcrion Program loan. interest
at 3 % per annum. 40 year ammonization, principal payments deferred as
necessary.
3. H.U.D. Section 202 grant. program detail!; (as 10 fund maximums and
rent subsidies.) not yet published. AmDunt based on information prDvided
by Palo Alto Housing Corporation.
•
.
-.•.. }I ..•.
~~.~ .. ,.,
-
EXHIEIT 4.2
HiNDS RESTRICTlO!'lS;
California', Rental Housing Construction Program (RHCP) and the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban De,elopment (HUD) Section 202
Program both contain restric[ions as ~o the: application and use of funds.
Tho~ r~striclions can be divided into three major categori~s;
I) Maximum funding (discussed in this hhibit),
2) CoSt ContainmentlDesign Restrictions (see Exhibit 4.3). and
3) RentITenan: Population Restrictions (see Exhibit 4.4).
Funding through bOlh programs is awarded 00 a ccrnpeteli\'e basis. where
the sponsor makes application, the project is rated by • point scale
according 10 an established list of criteria. and the projects with [he highest
point ranking are awarded funds up to the amount of the program funding
for that round.
California. has heen offering rounds of fundln!-appTo~lmatel)' ~emi
annualJy and expects to continue to do so for the nex' se\'erat years. HUD's
offering has been ar.nual, rJnds have been wbsrantially cut back and the
future of \he prog11tm is. uncerta'm,
The Section 202 program is being significantl) revised thi' year (e.g. as a
grant program rather than a loan) and the new program regulations are
expe:cted soon, Any as.sumptions herein 35 to Ibe HUD program are based
upon consultation with officers at the HOllsing De\"elopment Divis.ion office
of HUD jn San francisco and discussion with the Palo Alto Housing
Corporation.
The California RHCP has no maximum loan amount. Fartors limitIng the
amount of funds. &\'ailable to & project are',
1) cost containmenl (see 4.3).
2) Artide 34 of [he California Constitution whil'h requires an)'
subsidized housing projecl which is. funded to 2. le\le~ more than. 49% of it'.s
cost by state or local governments [0 be appTO"'ed by a referendum of the
"O[ers. and
3) the pro!-ram's rankjng. critena IS bi.ased toward:, family housing,
(hereby making ir an unreliable source for the project'~ principal funding.
L
• <
-~-~--....... "'~--.--.,.~.------.,
HUD's maximum fundjng limitation is based upon a cost per unit. It is
estimated that sucb limitation will be S 33,816 p;;r one bedroom unil, and
$25,362 p;;r studio. The progn.m then adjusts 'his limitation by up to
160% (according to draft 202 guidelines issued in May) on geographic or
project by project basis. Tbe projections herein assume a 140% adjustment
.lIo",;og • maximum grant of $47,342 per one bedroom and $35,506 per
studio. Additiooa!iy HUD will nO! fund the cost of construction for any
"'design amenities· and requires identification of sucb ilems and
commiumen; of funding for them prior 10 consideration of the application.
_.
•
~'.
'.'.~'~:~iC i .
,
•
-
~!BTT c.3
DESIGN LIMITATIONS . .\ND ESTI!'.lATED COST Of AMENITIES:
Califoni.'s RHCP ranks the projoct based on the sponsor's succe .. in
imp1ementing I COS! efficient design while providing a rea!:.onable standard
of construction, workmanship~ and design. The raoking is subjeclh'e and
allows for design features required throuEh city ""iew (;,e, A.RB,). They
have a published list of min mum specifications.
HUD \\1l] fund only to a level equivalent 10 the cost of construction if
design amenities such as; aoove standard materials. dormers alid
variations in the roof line, bakonies, raised planters and trellisses in the
landscape, etc., \\Iere nO( included. Tbese amenities must be idencified and'
allocated as part of the application.
PreUmjnary consultation with Jack &. Cohen Builders indicates an expected
difference in cost due 10 amenities as follows;
si!~ and landscBpe amemtJes
roof variation and dormers
balconies
~ added OH&P
~ total additiooal cost
S 70.000
86.000
138.000
18.000
3J2.000
w
•
-
EXHIBIT 4.4
TENAJI."T RESTRICTIOC'iS:
Population Type -Lower and Ver), Low Income persons or families;
there is alimitation IAo'ithin the program on 'he number of units for elderl)'
or handicapped tenants.
Income limitations -At least 2/3 of the funded units must be
occupied by tenants wbose incomes do not exceed 35% of the area median.
The balance may be rented 10 tenants with incomes not exceeding 60~ of
the area median.
Rental Limications -
median incerne.
median income.
HUD Section 202:
Very Low Income units = 30% of 35lt of area
Lower Income lloilS = 30~ of 60~ of area
Population T)·pe Low Income .lderly or handicapped tenants.
Income Limit&tions AU units must be occupied by tenants whose
incomes do not exceed 50% of the area median.
Renlal Limitations -AlJ units = 30% of tenant's income.
Subsidy -"Project Rental Assistance Contract'". subsidizes received
rents up 10 approved operating cost per unit.
t )
•
OPERATI!"G INCOME Bl:DGET:
Unit Type Month!> Rent
Studio (VeI)' Low Income) 354
Studio (Lower Income) 606
I Bedroom(Y.L Income) 404
I Bedroom(L. Income) 692
TOTAL
GROSS SCHEDlIT-ED INCOME (annual)
'~~t
'.'~:i';-' ">.'
,,J-;
f
•
EXHIBIT 5.1
of !.lnir~ Monthly TotaJ
34 12,036
I 1 6,666
J 404
~ 3.46C
5 1 22.566
S2 70. 792
-
" -
. OPERATING EXPENSE B '.lDGET
ADMMSTRA TlON
mark~tjng
legal &. audi!
mhc:.
To:al Admirl
SALARIES ~ BE.~'EFITS
00 site or off site mgr
ass't mp
grounds &. maimenance
desk clerk.
hous.ekcepinglj.a nttor lal
ser .... ic es staff
olll",
T ():a.l Sa! &: Benes
MAl1\'T A~·ENCE
Sl.ol'pries
pe<;1 controt
,grounds COntra;."!
interior paint & decor
equipt repair &. repl.
T DIal Mamta~nce
UTIiITlES
electridr)
W.alet". s.ewer &: 11'3 sh
ps
Total Utilities.
lJ\SliRA. "leE
TAXES
OTHER
telephone
offi{"e suppJic:,
TotalOtht"l'"
TOTAL OPERATING EXPE.'SE
•
EXHIBIT 5.2
1,000
),000
0
4.000
31,200 i::<'
4.2SO
10.000
0
lO,(XX)
4.250
° 59)00
J,(XX)
1.100
I.JOO
7.500
2.700
15,700
21)00
14,:?OO
IJ)OO
49.100
IS.OOJ
exemrl
:!.Q(X)
1.500
r
, .
PROfORMA (Ii,,! lear operaling ~.sh flow):
!.ns~
GNU S<bedul~~ Income
LandownlOr Plymen' ' land Loan
Land Own.! Dona"on
V lC$JlCY Md Collection Lo>'
Effective Gross Income
Expegses
Land lease Payments
Op~rali1l8 E~pellse,
RepJaCtmeht Rtserve
Oper'ling Reserve
Debt Servke
RHO'
City of Palo AltO
Total Expense.
Net ClSb Flow (allowance {Of uror)
S27(l,792
73.980
9.000
_LUW
348,355
111.240
J 50.000
25.943
4500
•
~,-'
~----... .
' .
. ~.-' . .
" ,
,
~
i
~
f ,
I
I ,
•
. ,
I
i
... I
I ,
..
-
i'h LS ~J:
As 0< t"1c>-l"-' e f c. !;rn(<. d:~cfb
w{pr;";:J +te.({Dfcs"A~~aT
33C C-~ .r: 4,a-_e n(Ci~ f/4' r ILr~
-h 5"'3 (,ef.-«-Me C1:JG.z"",ci( u..i''''"'';t
cc-.-,S'0s -lio{S{fCject. H~"'(', C "-ll(
k c-J-ef~" {"y< :T ~-i-17, tl.oJ.: . .tJe{
he~:::S ~J«--r rE-feci1JS tHUd.:t
.fI..u kelU\ ~ k" f'~ $ fr..,( f fO ;"0<: d:s -
&-.-:."""~f' H~/(-' ~l'.''"''
•
Nancy ly-tle
Palo Alto City Admfnfstratlon
250 Hamf Iton Avef"lue
Palo Alto. CA 9~301
Dear-Ms. Lytle:
~ay 3 I ~ 1991
i have learned that the lytton IV project hearlr"l_9 before the Cfty
Counc I 1 Is schedu 1 ed for .June J 7 ~ 19'31. J am a ne f gborhood Coor
dinator. and w111 unable to attend on tt-,at date. Since th's 1'S a 5lg~rrrcant proposal~ I request that the hear-Ing be moved to the
July I agenda.
Tr-.cnks for your assistance. and please c"311 if YOu ridve questior"ls.
Jr-'V Brenner
250 Byror. Street
Palo Arto~ 9~3Q!
~27-3981
----. .-::---
•
-
'.-
Nancy Lytle
Zoning Administrator
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Av~.
PaTo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Admjnist!'3lor,
301 Bryant Court
Palo Alto, CA 94301
June 3, 1991
It was announced at the Planning CommissiDn meeting Ia~t
week that the City Council was scheduled to discuss the proposed
Everett .senior housing project at their meeting on June 17.
Due to a prior work commitment, I will nct be able to 3rlenrt
the June 17 meeting and would like to request t.~at discussion of this
project be rescheduled for a week or two later in the month.
I've hved in the area of the proposed project for the past 22
years and because of the impact this project will have on the
neighborhood I live in, ] would like to have every opportunity to
continue attending all public meetings regarding the project.
I bope it wi!! be possible to accommodate my r~qt.les[, Thank
you very much for your' courtesy and consideration.
•
Sincerely.
cC'G ~:\>..sL_
/llJj(F / ,
c/ .-£lUW./d" ..£~~ k /J~1./ y a/d~
tI .:d..! ....A..#1.t,,? In Z/.....c ,lYVY'!-<.'t..}J ~/
/i!--yn'.b;:z.-J cy ;D'L/' .Ad-ad-t:~--, r/l-Ct~J
/,7).IN "3 0 () ~( de {!;f C':4U:~ eLk{'"
fl b ~..ddVic1Ldfc/ F-cYn ...kr...-L /-;,-JJ1-«~
d-C")7VJi-rn.i t/ U-J ;0£ f'-...k. ~ 'l....u1 _
~ccv..t.>U Y c'( r--z..uvz. U-;;-YC--)Jtd.::?7l..£A..!
c/ ...tl.'-tUJ'cvf ~t.7 ~ MW.. ~ aW4lc/
{L-71;;t;f,..t / '> ..oi ..!5:V~ ..h<! a A--ny~"
~ ;zA.a/ c:/ cV7?"1 d£k~/ U)~lVd ___ d
(L/t..l.ud / ..DJY CZU pa7t--?~;;Z~ «
c--~ C;-7:.ft ~L..L.-/_
c;x?:-t .. a~ ~-cuc-'
d 3f'" &d~~
.//~, VG/ CA-
'1V~c//
'lb J~ v.. +0 O-¢!::. t4t--t>-e. ~r'5h.
~ ~ ~t+e~ {J(tl~ ~ ~ ..... dt'it.
b~ ~ ~ -S~ n--h::> >~~,
J: td.J-~ c-...:I:: '1. ~ """ ~ 17 ~,"4
"-\'U>'~J.,.".j: ~~ ~ ioL -'I,~~/o ~
~ -t'I..d fro f-i, I; ~.£.k fk.~
+t> ~~ a ~ -h: i}....~~,
t)~~~~~~
0-.. -h-...~,
1k.~'Q~/,
ftt-triw-' ~k bot \~
L11-;} ~
~~-
.'
'.
... '