The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0117.093. -' . , (D IIOIIORABI.E C lTV COUNO l Palo Alto. California 651 H ... ilton. 536-576 ~iddlefield. 5l3-S75 Byron Street: Application For Planned Commynity lone and Approval of 36-Unjt Senior Condominiym Project Mellibers af th't Council: REPORT IN B~IEF This stiff report responds to questions raised by Council Members during ind after t~e November 3D, 1992 public hearing cn t~e proposed senior residential complex called The Hamilton, at 651 Hamilton Ayenue. Ttle proposal is to rezone the six parcels. at the abov! a~d.·ess from low Pensity Kultiple FaMily (RK-IS) to Planned Coomunity Zone (PC) aod to construct a 36-unit, ~1gh-income SEnior residential living community_ T~~ PC zone change 1$ being requested in order to allow a larger floor area ratio (FAR] tnan is permitted in multiple family zone districts. The proposed FAR is 1.14, while the mixi~m FAR allowed under the existing RM- 15 zone designa.tion is .5; and tne-maximum f.oI\R allowed under tne highest density multiple familj zone district, RH-40, is 1.0. The public benefit being proposed by the applicant is eitner an additional seven off·site Below Market RatE units beyond the seven-~nit BMR requirement, or, alternately, an endowment of SS~O,OOO to the Senior Coordinating Council. Please see t~e attached November 12. 1992 City Man.ger's Report (CMR:514,92) and the September 25. 1992 Plaoning Commis,ion staff report for a complete discussion of the project and related polity issues. BACKGROUND Tne Planning COlllTlission revif'·_ed this pr;Jject on September 30 and October 28. 1992. and adopted a motion to forward the Item to City Council with a rec~ndat1on fOT denial of the project~ but an with indication that some development greater tnan the current RM-1S zon,=, designation may be CMR:1l7:93 5 _"~ __ h;$ ,N._ appropriate for this sit!. That motion passed 7-0. Commissioner Carrasco stated, ind COMmissioner Glazier agr!ed, that th~y did n~t be1ieve the proje~t should be d~nied, but would support the mot;on so that the project could be forwarded to City Counci]. On Novellber 30, 1992, Ue CHy Council reviewed the project. foll owing the applicant's presentattan, 22 members of the public spoke to tne item. The public hearing was closed, and tne item was continued to the City Council .. eting of January II, 19.3. ThE minutes of tile November 30 City Counc11 ae~ting are included in the January 7. 1992 Count;l packet. Additional jnfgOlatiqn Reouested by Coyneil "embers At the NO\lellber 30 CitoY Councl1 lM!eting, r,ouncn I4embers posed se\lE-ral questions and requested additional infol"'Jllatton to be presented by City staff and by the applicant when the item returns for Council re.iew. The following is a compilation of those requests with staff prepared answers. SOMe requests and questions have been comb1ned. • Corlfi,.. that the project no longe,. requires nriances. The revised plan has eliminated tn! need for variances. This was acclJIOIllhhed by moving the north •• 11 of t~e building several feet away from the pro~erty line and by dropping sections of the building nearest the prope~ty line from 4 stories to 3 stories. • Cln ~xisting .ature street trees and trees on the perfmeter of the prDject site be ret'i"ed to he1p scree" the prcject? Along both Middlefie1d Road and Ha.ilton Avenue, none of the eXlsting street trees are proposed to be removed by the projtct, alld new street trees are proposed to be added (14 additional trees on Middlefield and II additional trees on Hamilton). Within the project site, there are )0 existing trees lotated in the front and side yard setbacks (5 magnolia trees and 2 pine trees along Middlefield and 3 ish trees along Hamilton). These 10 trees are ~roposed to be $I~ed. Thirteen otner existing trees on the property will be remo.ed. . Along the project frontage on ayron Street, there are presently 8 ~treet trees. The proposed locations for the project's three driveways wo~ld require removal of 4 of tnese tr~es. to be replaced witt! 7 new street tre-es. The 4 trees pr(lpose-d to be removed are Chinese pistache, about 20 feet high. Since they are good street trees a~d are ~ll establishe-d, they s~ould not be remo~ed if that is avoidable. It appears that with minor adjustments to the width and location of the one-way driveways, 2 or 3 of the trees proposed to be remo~ed might be saved. CHR:117:93 p:\cn"r\I!ISI"'-m,_ 1/7/92 Page 2 II , ~< " , , i ! 'i I , t I ! 'j Ip. addition to tn~$e existing trees, a number of new trees could be ylanted in tne setbacks. Tne undergr~und garage does ~ot extend 1nt~ tht setback I 50 U~!re would be adequate so11 '~olume to 5upport sub,t.nti.l tree pllntings. I [ ... Turt, the present ~IJue ~f th~ tlf'D pub1ic benefit ilter-nat (ves befng PNJPosod by the .pplic.nt Ind the r.l.tl., public h,nefit to be derivod f,..., the two proposa 1 s. Usin9 n~t prese~t Y~1ut analysfs, staff has esti.ated tn! dollar y.lu. to tne Cit1 of the two public benefit options. I. ["d~nt Option -this option co~rises two types of payments: CMR:1I7:93 I) An endowoent of $50,000 per year for 10 years {11193- 2002), to be contributed to the City by the appllcint. 2) At a discount rate of 9 per,ent. tnis stream of annual p~nts for 10 years has a net present value of $321,000. The applicant has agreed that .t the time the 32nd unit is sold, he will contribute all re04inlng unpa;~ installments. If, for ex~le, we assume the $50,000 p.,.ents .re mad. annually for the first 5 ye.rs, followed by one lump-sum, 1250,000 p.yoent in 1998, then the net present yal~e of the endowment rises from $321,000 to 1344,000. T~is option .ls. includes an .greeeent to pay 2.5 percent of net sales price of each unit ""en 1t is RE-SOLD. If we assume a 2.5 percent res,le fee that runs for 30 years beginn1ng 2003 and ending 2032, and if we iSSume that 1/12 of the 36 units ire sold eyery year (;_e., 3 unit. resold each year be;;;nning 2003), and t f we assume a constant purchase price of $1 ~il11on per unit, t~en there wll1 be .n addition.l cash flow to the City of $75,000 each ye.r from 2003 through 2032, or an additional 30 years, .. ~icn is close to perpetuity for accounting plJrposes .. The net present value of this annual $75,000 cash flow, disc~unted a9~jn at 9 percent, is $325,000. This nl!1llber can then be added to t~e prey;OUSl1 calculated cash flow for the 150,000 pa~nts. That would be a tottl net present ~alue of Optfon One, the end...ent, of IJ44,OOO • 1325,000 -1669,000_ In ot~er words, from a fiscal perspect1.e. the City would be equally weTl off with $669,000 1n the bank today, or rec.iv;ng $50,000 a year for the next 5 years and a lump sum of 1250,000 .t the end of the f1fth year, and a 2.5 percent resale fee for an addition.' 30 years as described above. 117/92 Page 3 • • r ~_~~~._ .. , __ ...... lii'l, .... .; ... ...;.. ..... , _ II. BMR OpUon: Tne .econd option is tn. purchas. of 7 below'market~rate housln; units in 1993, and their tra~sfer to the City or a CitY-designated no~profit. eased on recent SMR purchases, staff expects H~iltDn A~en~e Properties will need to pay .pproxl .. tely $90,O~~ per unit. Sey •• unit. would tnus senerate $630,OO~ of dol1.r Ya10e to the Clty in 1913. The result of this .nalys;s i. that the .alu. to tho City of the two options ~s basically identical, wit~ the net present .alue of Optlo" Ooe being $669,000 and Option Two being $630,000. The difference CJn~ot be considered significant, given the ~ncertai"ttes for which assumptions had to be made. • Can we protect the .ndow.ent so thlt it won~t repl.c~ gener.l f~nds and re..ins I.ddition.1 .one,", and c.n ... e hive a system that gives preference to Palo ATto resider:ts? See acc~any1ng memorandum of the City Attorney. • Wh.t WiIS the reuoning fer the residential FAAs jllposed since ilebster House w.s bui 1 t? The resident i.' FAR requirement originated in the Hultiple family Zoning Ordf~ances passed by (tty tou~cil Apr,' lS, 1988. The purpose of 1~osing FAR li.fts was to reduce bulk. Mass and boxiness of .ult1ple faaily residential development, particularly to reduce the i~act of development on nearby single family or lower density resident1al s1tes~ Jt was not the intent of the FAR limits to reduce density, bt.it rather to reduce tfle sile and bulkiness of IM,Iltlple f .. i1y de.e10poents and tnus reduce tneir impact on neighboring residential uses. • Can senior congregate care be provided "'fthin the llUJ1tip7e faIRily FARs? T~e current m~ltlple family zonss .ere deveToped for standard au1tiple family housing, with the FAR and density li$it< based specifically on models of .ultiple f&mily housing. Tney were not intended to be used for congregate care "OUS'n9, .hic~ has additional density and space requirements. All of tne previously approved senior congregate care projects in Palo Alto exceed the curr~~t density and FAR limits of t~e multiple familY zones. In all of these projects, the number of units required to support the medical cGl90nent and common facilities. or the number required by i~e federal funding progr~ in the cas~ of lyttc~ lY, was greater tnan tne density allowed under the current multiple family lones. Also, the coamon fac.iT ities pro .... ided tn these projects require addit~or,al CNR: 1I7;S3 -.---~-- 1/7/92 Page 4 , ~ < t-- ~. ~i I '1 j 1 I i -, i I ! spac!!, tnus increlSir\g the size of ttl\l. bli~ ldings b~yond the maximum FAR allowed by tn" ~ltiple family zones. • Is tMre a preced~nt fQr off-site pub'ic benefit fer housing? No, the publfc benefit for all three residential Planned Ccom"nities approved since adoption of the 1'78 zonfng r_g"l.tions (Webster Heus., Palo Alto Comoons and Lytton IV) w., determioed to be the special characteristics Df the housing being provided on the site. The public benefit, exceptions to und~rly;ng loning. and ~R require.ent for these previously ipproved residential PC lones are su~rfled below. Lytton IV Webster HOLlse Public a~"efit: iJ units of affordable ser.ior ~lous171g • Exceptions to Underlying Zoning: lncreased d~nsity (51 unit. where 21 were allowed), 1.22 FAR w~ere .6 FAR allowed; reduced parking requir~nt; minor vir1ances to setback and daylight plane (or e~ves and dormers. 8MR Requirement; Ail 51 units are SMR units. Publfc. Benefit; Housing for the elderly, includillg medical care. Exteptions tD Unde~ly1~ Zoning: Increased density i31 "nits where 21 were allawe<), to penait tne nu~r of ~nits required to obtain 9roup ~dica1 ~ackag!; reduced parking requirement. BMR Requirement: 3 percent of or1gin~1 sales pric.e ~f all units, excluding .edical care packagt. Palo Alto Commons ~ublit Benefit: Housing for tne elderly, including residential (are. Exceptions to Underljing Zoning: Increased ~ensity and decreased parking, to be constructed within the same building envelope allowed under the RM·2 zone. BMR ReqUirement: $226,751 contribution t~ reduce the cost of on-site units for low-and moderate inco.e seniors . • City Attorney is to provide an cpinion regardif!9 appropriate form of pub Ii c be •• f it . See accompanying memcrandum from t~e City Attorney. CIIR: 111: 93 p:~'ham._ 1/1/92 Pa9' 5 • H~$.J de\l~7oper ever purchased exfstin'} housing for requi'red BIfRs? lhe only occasion of an existing unit being purchased to meet a aMR re~uireae"t was I IS84 agreement a110wing the Cedar Terrace project loclted at 435-45 Homer Str •• t to meet t~eir ~R requiremont by providing one BMR unit It t~e Oregon Gr •• n project. • What is the FAR on the property right now? The FAR. of the existing deve'cp;nent on the site is .51. e How IN!!Y units, and what size units. Ire p"oYfd~ at Ch'''''1n9 HQuse, .nd h~ 70ng is the w.iting Jist for units there? Cnanning House has a total of 250 resider.tial units? ranging i~ size fr~ 431 square feet t~ 1,200 ~Quare feet. The types af units and the length of ti.e applicants expect to wait fgr i unit to be available are as follows: Studio 8e<f/Alcov. 1 Bedroom 2 B.drooo. 6 montns -2 years S 1 years 6 8 y •• rs 8 -10 yoars • Do the trip generltion figures take into ,ccount employees, ser~ice, rnd guests, IS we7J is residents; trips? When trip generltion of a land use is r!ferred to for tr_ff~c studies, it refers to lutomobile trips; and it is based on observations of other projects by professional transportation organizations. These observations count all one-way vehic1e trips made to and from the land use, including trips made by persons who park nearby and walk to th! use. These tr~ps include, but ar~ not limited tOt trips ~ade by residents, visitors l service p€Tsonnel, delivery pe~sons, and staff associated w7th the compie~. fQr senior projects, trip generation &lso incl~des all service trips related to housecleaning, food service, nursing care, medical visits ~nd emergencfes. adlt~;stratiun, and others. Trip generation of senior housing is typically less than that of housing that is not specified for or rEstricted to se~icrs? because (aJ fewer se~iors want to or are 3ble to drive than the aVfrage population, probably due to health and/or financial reasons, and {b) certain amenities are usually provided on site that reduce the need to drive. The trip generation studies s~ow t~at this reduction 'n trip~klng f~ senior projects is greater than tne added trips made by tile additional ser'lice trips notP.'d above. CMR:1l7:93 1/7/92 Page 6 -... , Ii ~! , To the degree that , senior project Accommodates younger, more affluent seniors, and provides few~r on·site amenitie3, tTipma~in9 would tend to approach that of a housing project for the general pljplJlat1on, Le .. or.e that is 1'Iot Ol'fented to seni<1rs. . • HCtI do we get hous1ng uniess WI! increase the densitYi a,'/d if we o·c ;"cruse th~ density .here d(; we locate H? The nUllber of housing units developed is inf1 u.ncEd by • number of factors, in addition to density reguhtions. [conOllic conditions, lending institution policies, ~.rket trends, and the interre'at1ons~ip between ilTowabTe density and FAR and ether site develoPMent regulitions all influence the densft~ at which housing projects .re built. ~.n the ou1tiple f .. i1y loning w.s revised i. 1988, the highe,t density zone was set at 40 units to the aCT!. Prh'iously, the City had an R-S zo"~ district whic" allowed up to 45 "nits to t~~ acr~. At t~e time of the loning revisions, there was considerable discussion about whether there might be some locatlons in town wh!fe a higher density .tght be appropriate {i.e+, Downtown, California Avenue and E1 Co.ina Real). Since the imp.ct of higher density projects is related to _any components (i.e., size and aix of units, parking and on-site a~nities), the general discussions ind~cated that proposals for greater densities were best handled on a clse-b/ case baSis. The only ·unusual cise· mechanis~ available in the City's zoning regulations fs the Planned Community lone. In t~e four years since the adoption af the revised multiple family zoning, two of ~1ne multiple family cDndoain;~ projects have been proposPd at the .axi~m density allowed for the site. One project on an RM-40 site proposed the .aximum n~mber of units plus IS percent additional units .110~d by the BHR density bonus. Toe proposed units were relatively small. ranging in size from 500 (studiO) to 1,300 square feet (two-bedroom). This proposal wa' subsequently withdr.wn before action wa~ taken. Another 12-unit project Gn a~ RM- 15 site proyosed lOa percent of the ~nits al'owed on the site, with 2-and 3-bedroom units averaging. ),500' sQiJar! f~et. The other seven projects approved on RM-15 and/or RM-30 sit., proposed from 50 percent to 93 percent of the maximum number of u~its allowed on the site, optln:g to allocate the maximum allowable floor area to felrf'er, Targer units. Two factors 'Whic.h may halle influenced fewer ttl an the aaximum allowable number of units being proposed during t~i~ period are: I) CMR:1I7:93 All the proposed projects were for-sale housing, with no applications for mark:et-rate rental housing. In renta1 housing, t~ere may be more ad~antage in maximizing the number of units rather than the size ~f units. 1/7/92 Pag' 7 • Z) for varlQ~s ec~nomic reasons? developars of for-sale ho~s1ng found it IIO~ profitable durin; this tl ... to produce larger units. • ililat ,'Ju been the experience of o-ther CO:NIJ(Jniti(ls wfth tMs type of hcusfng? The type of project bein; proposed is • product recently introduced ;~ res~nse to ~arket research showing a d!mand for senior cD~gregate condoai~1ums, ~1th living units t~lt are closer in size to the houses beIng occupied by prospecti .. buyers .nd at a price that offers prese,...ation of heusing equity. Th. only proje<t of this type that has been complet.ed in the ir~a i$ the Stratford in downtown San ""lea, coopleted to 1992. I. this 55-unit project, ftCst of the units are two-bedroom. 1,180-1,630 square feet, with II three-bedroom units of I,900-!,ooO square feet_ The density is appro.iaa!.ly 90 units/acre, height is ]0 stories, a~d the FAR is approximately 4.67. By contrist, existing muket rate senior congregate c(}ndo.:n;ni~l projects typically ~ave I range of u~it types and sizes and provide fewer relatively large unlts. Examples are The Waterford in Walnut Creek, Tne Carlisle in San FranCiSCO, Tne Peninsula Regent in San M~teo and the Sequola in Portola Y~'ley. In these four projects. ~nit siles rlngp. frOB studiQ or one-bedroom units be9inning at 400- 600 squ.re feet to two-bedroom units .t 900-1,800 ,quare feet. At The For~. which opened list year in C~pertino~ approximately one third of the units are one-bedroom, 720-950 sQyare feet. and two thirds of t~e units are two-bedroom, 1,020-1,404 square feet. Other cnaracteristics of these projects vary greatly with tne setting, from the 42-icre, semi-rural site of the Sequoia to the urba~ setting of the Carlisle. The nuaber of units in these projects range from )12 .t the C.rlisle to 319 at tne For,,",. • Does the FAR inc1ude co-.on ,reas? FAR is bised on total floor area within the outside ~alls. For the proposed project, the total floor area is 89,454 square f •• t and the FAA Is 1.74, with the followingappraxim.t. bre.kdown: CMR:I17:93 Private living ireas Access to units (nills, stairways) Total residential Common facilities (pool, living/dining, office, securitYt guest roomsj Project Total Square Fe..el 63,808 li...ill 78.346 ~ 89,464 FAR I.Z4 ---.2.§ 1.52 --'-'.Z. I. 74 1/7/92 P.ge 8 \ • , 1 ~. , • • What fs the N1.tfonship bet~eelt the huHh care pickage being provided .M the (n:iivid.,1 ""n<r'. equity in the project, o'it,\ reg.rd to the public benefit being proposed by the 'pp' fc.nL The .ppllcant Is propo.ln~ tn.t the cost of the h.alth care p.ckage oill be Inc'cded in the oonthly charges to residents and will be separate from the owners' equity in their i~dividual units. $ee atta:hed letter, ~ated December 23, )992, from the app1icant describing the proposed he.lth care packoge, • Whit parking il1ternltfves have the applicant explored in the neighborhood, such a.s snared perking klitlt th. church? The applic.nt informed ,t.ff that though they did pursue the possibility of shared p.rklng with the Methodist Church, they have not been successful in arrangi~g for any shared parking off the project site. • Staff should reviffN .. r.d respond t~ the November 25 letter fr.IJm the .pplie,nt. Clarification is p"rovided for t"e following bo Hems from the attached November 25 Tetter: (1) In the applicantls letter, and in pre~lo~s staff report~. an fAR of 1.24 has been attributed to the residenti.l units in the project. Th.t flgur. includes only the actu.l pr;vate living arl!:!a within ttle units and does not include related areas, such as halls and stairways which are normally include~ in tne FAR of i residential structure. When these areas are ir,cluded, the fAR for the residenti.l part of the building is 1.52, with the additional .22 FAR attributed to the shared facilities. (2) The letter makes reference to portions of toe building being -44 feet high to the decx of the ~ansard roof-, For zoning c~9liance pUrpOSf$, the roof is considered to be a pitched roof and hel9ht ;s measur~d to the midpoint of the pitch. 1n the revised proposa1, the neic;hts (pH the Zoni!lSl Ordinance) of the four-story portions are 48-50 feet, and the heights of the three-st~ry portions are 35-39 feet. RE CIlII'IENDA Tl ON Staff recommends that the City Council address the policy Question5 reviewed in the attached November 12. 1992 staff report. and provide direction on t~ese issues for the Planning Co~ission. Essentially, these policy lssues are the appropriateness of the proposal for a Planned CMR: 117:93 1/7/92 p;.....r.eIJ1...."._ Page 9 " . C~n1ty Zone. lnd the suitab~lity of the proPQsed building .ass and the proposed density .t this lo,ation. Staff further recommends tnat CQunCil taie one of the f~11owin9 four acttons. Council should recognfze that any ·conceptual-approval or c08ents Ire expressl) 11.ited by the fact that the Council is functioning is t~e Plann1ng Ca.m;~siQn in tne f1rst stage of a Planned Community Zone r,view process. Additionally, the EIA is not yet final. Council cannot leg.lly bind itself to any particul.r form of project, until it h.s rev1@Wed ind approved the environmental docu~ntat1on. If the Counci1 dec1d~s to adopt ~ec~ndat1on 12 or '3, recommended changes to the developaent proposal sho~id be as specific as possible. 1. Approve the projoect !n concept and forward It to the Architectu~al RII/lew Board and to tne Plan~1n9 Ca.Mi$~fon f~r their review and recommendation. 2. Approve the project in concept, but with significant modifications to the deve1op.ent proposal, and forward the project to the ARB and the Planning Commission for their revfew and reca.mendation. 3. Deny the project, but initiit! a rezoning of t~e project site and the rest of t~e block to a higher density residential zone distrfct. 4. Deny the project and reaffirm the existing RM-15 zoning. Respectfully submitted, Ii .. MMt;r ~IIARHEIT I/'$> Senior Planner ~1P./dud, KENNETH R. SCHREI8ER ;;V Oir~ctor of Planning and Community Environment Attachments: I. Noveaber 12, 1992 CHR:SI4:92, with attacn~nt$ 2. Letters from the public received since the 11/12/92 CHR 3. Letter from the apolicant dated November 25, 1991 4. letter from the applicant dated December 23, 1992 S. Net Presp.nt Va1ue Analys1s prepared by applicant CMR:117:93 1/7/92 p:'-"CI5I "-"........ Page 10 co: J.-.$ 8. Hill, H~\jt~n AY~n". ~t.pe~t! •• , 555 Byron Street, V,lQ Alto. CA 94301 l.land t. Vltder, tlO Sa. A.toni. tirel., St •. 2l5, Meunta1n Vi~, (:It 940.0 U~lY.r'itl 'atk As,vol.tfon U.I •• rl!ly .nd Crescent Park Homeowners A'$.~j.ti.n Rut" J. ",poe1J. 511 HaM1lton A.onue, Pal. Alto, CA i4301 E~ •• rd H. fr.poe1J. 1440 Girard A.,.ue, La Joll •• CA 92037 Althe. F •• poe)1 And.rs" •• 1866 Venetia. Point, Cl.arwater. florid. 346]$ 00:111:93 p:~,~.." 1/7/92 Page l! i , I , i ,-: November 12, ;992 HONORABle CITI COUNCIl P.1e Alto, C.1ifornl. ATTACHMENT 1 651 Hamilton Avenue. 536-576 Middlefield, 513-575 Byron Street: Application For Planned Community Zone and Approval of 36-Unit Senior Cor-dominium Proiect Membe~s of the Council: Report fn Brlef The proposal is to rezone the six parcels at the above address from low Density MultiplE F •• i1y (RM-15) to Planned Community Zone (PC) and to construtt a J6-unlt, high-income senior residential living community. The PC zone change 1s being requested in oruer ~o ajlow a larger Floor Area RatiQ (FAR) than is permitted in multiple fam11y zone districts. The proposed FAR is 1.16, w~ile the maximum FAR allowed under the existing RM-IS zone deSignation is .5; and the maximum FAR allowed und~r the highest density I:ultiple f.il'llil,Y zone district, RM·40, ;s 1.0. The project as pr~posed would reQuire variances to the daylight plane and Side yard setback requirements of the 'PC z~ne district. The rubli, benefit being proposed by the applicant is seven market rate units to be purchased at an off -site 1 oeat ; on and 9 i 'lief': to the City ... s Below Market Rate housing for the City's BHR program. An addltio~il seven off·site units would be provided to Deet th! 20 percent BMR requirement of the Housing Element. Please see the attached Planning COlTlT1ission report for a complete description and discussion of the project and an examination of the related policy issues. The Planning Commission, aft!r taking publl~ testimony and comme"ting on the propo$ec project, is referring the proposal directly to City Council for thE resolution of certain policy issues related to public benefit, the s;ze of the project, and the appropr1ateness of the current zoning on this site before proceeding with any further re'lliew of the proposal. P1annjng Commiss;on Action At the September 30, 1992, Piannir1g Commission meeting, the appl ie-ant's representatives present~d the project to the Commission, and nine members af the public spoke to the item. The public hearing ~a$ closed, and the item was continu~d to October 14. At the applicant's request, the date fer the continuance was later changed to October 28, 1992. Minutes of the September CMR:514:92 ---~, .. "--""'- 30 meeting are included in you'!" packet. and a!1 excerpt of the October 28 ~etin; minutes are att~ched to this report. At their October 2a, 1992 meo~ting. the Planning COl'm1~.ss'tln discussed' th';;s project inet adolJted l motion to forward the iterr. to City Cot.:~cil. A motion ~iS made by CCmmi$S10ner Oj~k1in. $eccnde~ by CommissiQ~er Marsh~ to ~upport Reconmendation 13 in the staff report, to fOl""'Ward the project to City Counc.i1 with i recommendation for de~iil ~f the project, but indic~te thdt some development greater tfian the current RM-J5 Zone deSignation may be appropriate for this site. That motion passed 7-0. Co~issioner Carrasco stated, and Co.m;ssioner Slazfar agreed, that they did not believe the project should be denied, but wo~ld support the m~tio" so tMat the pr~ject could be forwarded to City Council. Pql~cy fssues ldentified bv Planning CQrnmissjoo The Commissioners identified policy issues w~ich ~ere central to the proposed project and which tn~.)' be-iifo·yea sn(llJld be resa1ved by the Citjj Counen. The-se issues are related to 1) questions about public benefit: and 2) r:;uestions a.bout the size of the proposed project a.nd the appr(j.pr~atenes.s of the existing RH-1S zoning for tne site. Public flenefit. The public benent being pr<lpo:o.ed for this project is seven off·site BMR units to be provided in additi~n to the sever. 8H~ units required t.o meet ttle 2~ 8MR requirement for th~ project. The applicant wCould purt~ase eJChti ngo rental units and turn them <lve,. to Ule City to be administered through the CHy's B11R pr(jgr-am. Tht questions !'"a;~ed bjl Plann'ing Corrmiss;oners regarding public beneht were, 1) wheth~r the pro~osed public benefit was s~fficiently inherent to the project. Z) ~hether the prop~sed public benefit was aQequate, and 3) whether the propo.ed BMR units were the mest .ppropri .te type of public benefit for tne project to pro~ide. Commissioners Marsh and Beecham quest;aned whether the application met the Pl~nned Community requirement for public benefit, as it seemed te them there iIIas no public benefit inherent in this project, since tne proposed BMR units would be off~site. no etner features of the project asel f being provided as a pllbl ic benefit, and thp. proposed project wauld serve people wr.o Can operate iTi the housing market withDut financial assistillice. COlJITJissioners (arrasco and Glazier said they believed the project provided public benefit by adding units to the housing stock. providing a housing type for which tnere is curre~tly a shortige in Pa10 Alto, and ke~pi~g 1ong-tlme reSldents from moving away fr~m t~e community. Th~ Commissio~ers also discussed the concept of -zoning for sa'e,'" compa.ring this project -.rith -other pre'JiGusij apprc'Jed PC projects. The Commissioners discussed the adequacy of the proposed pub1ic ben!fit. CGmmissi~ner Marsh said she believed a precedent had been established that the amount of public benefit should be commensurate with the degree CHR:5J4:92 p:1~on,.,.,... -.. c·-:;.'_ ,---------____ --- 11/12/92 ?age 2 , ~: ,. .... of exemption from the underlying loni~9. and questioned whether the provi!;on of seven 6MR units ~as adequate considering the requested ;ncreise in FAR from. S .Jill owed under R~-i. 5 to the 1.76 FAR of the proposed pr~ject. The CommisSioners also raised questions about whether the proposed off sit.:; BMR units were the best chOice for providing the reQui rEd publ i c, benefit. Commissioner Beecham said ~nat on~ purpose of public benefit is to mitigate the impacts of the exception to zoning for those most affected by it, and t~at w~uld not be the case In this instanc!. since t~e ~s may be located in a~other part of to~ and have n~ physical relationship to the project site. Co~nissicners Glazier ~nd Carrasco slJggested an eild~~nt to the downtown Senior Center as a publ ic ben~fit rather than the provis10r. of BMR units. Cor.missioners wondered whether BMR units or a Senior Center ~ndowment, or other possible pubiic benefit proposals, wauld be most consistent with the City's socia1 service prj orit! e •. Size of the Prolect and Appropriateness of Current Zoning The size of the prop~sed project exceeds t~e maximum height l FAF~ and coverage bot~ of the underlying RM-1S zoning and ~f the highest density residential zone, R1-!-40. The nllmber of units being proposed wouid be consistent with RM-30 zon~r.g. Because of the magnitude of the proposed change in intensity of the sit~ over the existing zoning, the P1Q~~ing CommiSSion is asking City Ccuncil to address whether a development of this sile in this 1ocation is coapat1bl! with land use goals for the area. Commissioner Mars" said she beTie~ed that t~e proposed c~ange in land use should be addressed by the COtlncil in a comprehensive wai, within the cD!1text of the future plans for Downtown, the general question of desirability of high density housing in the Downtown, and the Urban De~ign Study. Commissioner Glazier pointed out that the lytton IV project was appro~ed on i site zoned RH-30 in a sensitive residential area without a ;:omprehensi~e Downtown land use study. T~e central question to be addr~s.5ed by (Iuneil ls. 1) \lrihether the existing pattern of reduced d~nsity a10ng Middlefield Road forming a transition from the Downtown ccmmercial district to the sing1e family neighborhcod across Middlefield Road is to ~e maintained, or whether residential densities greater than RM-1S might ~e appropriate in this area. If higher density is to be considered on this block. the Council .houTd address, 2) whether RH-40 is acceptable for this block, and 3) whether the size of the development being proposed by U\~ appl icant is acceptable for the site. In addition, staff proposes that (ouncil address the question. 4) if a higher densitj is permitted on this site, should the rest of the block be rezoned for tdgher densjty? Some CommissionErs see this area along Midd1efield Road as a sensitive area, combining low density commercial and residential l1S~S to provide a transition to the nearby R-l neighborhood and belie~e that an.y inc.rease CHR:514:92 p:1~on.CI'l'Y 11/12/92 Page 3 . -.-----~-:! in density ilftJst bE introduced selectivf!1y f,nd carefully. Others see Middlefield Road is a. major arterial where hlgh density residential is appropr1ate~ particularly O~ this block which ~a~ks the entrance to Downtown • RfCOI'tIENDATlON Staff recD~nds t~at the City Council address the p~iicy questions ~utl)n~d above and provide dir-action (in these issues for the P":anning COlll'l'1ission. and take one of the fol1DWing four actions. If the Council decides to Jdopt ~ecommendat!on 12 or '3. rec~nded c~anges to the de~elopment proposal should be as specific as possible. 1. Approve the project in (crocept and fONard it to the ARB and to t~! Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. 2. Approve the p!"'ojec.t in concept but with signiflcant modif~\:itlons to the development proposal and forward the project to the A~8 and the Planning Commission for their re~lew and recommendation. 3. Deny the prDject ~ut initiate; rezonfng of th2 prOject site and the rest of the b10ck to iii h',gher denstty resident;el ,one district. 4. Deny the project and reafftr.n the exist ing RH-15 l<Jn ing. Respectfull, submitted, V,vtc. . LU~ VIRGI~T '" '- Senior Planner \~~ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of PTanning and Community Environment 1H) FLEMING Interim City Manager Attachments: location ~ap 9/25/92 Planning Comm1ssion report~ with attachments 10i27/92 letter from the appl ioant letters from the public received since 9/25/92 Planning Commission report Excerpt minutes of 10/28/92 P1anning COTMllssion rr,eeting cc: James B. Hill, Hamilton Avenue Properties, 555 Byron Street. Palo Alto, CA 94301 leland E. liieder~ 2],0 San Antonio Circle. Ste. 235, Mountain View. CA, 94040 Un1versity Park Association Universjt~ and Crescent Park Homeowners AssoC1At;on 11/12/92 Page 4 ~ .. • 117 ~ GRAPHIC ArTACHM£NT DATE: .".,.. ~~~ . TO STAfF REPORT . FILE ~O. 02-ZC-3, U-aA-1 • • ~P~R~O~JE~C~T-:--------~Z~~~~~~E-~~--~~~'-TO--.C~~_~-_-_-_-----------------I LDCATION MAP: .- II • t . ~ . 'I ~ 1 ~-~ ~l d " ""I 'I 1 I City of :palo )lIto DATE: September 25, 1992 , 0. BOX: .o~~o PALe ALfO, (.II 54Jlll TO: PAlO ALTO PlAHNlHG CO"USSIDN PREPARED BY: Virginia Warhelt RFPORT IN BRIEF: 55) Hamilton Avenue. 536·576 Middlefield. 523-575 Byron ~. Tnis propos. 1 is to rezone tne project site from low Density Multipl. Foally IRM-IS) to Planned Coomunlty Zone (PC) and to construct. high-fncome senior resident1., livfng c~nlty. The proposal is a four-story. 90.760- squareafoot $truct~re, with 36 condo.1n1um units and common facilities which include dining rooe and commercfal kttchen , li~ing room and two bar/lounge areas, e~.rcise roo. I spa and er.closed pool, an office, and three gue~t rooms. Sixty·nine parking spaces are provided in In underground garage and five 5paces are provided at grade. The PC zone change Is ~lng reQutsted In order to .110. a larger Floor Are. Ratio (FAR) th.n Is penoitted In .ultlp1e f .. ily zone districts. with a propo.ed FAR of 1.76 compared t •••• xim ... 5 FAR under the existing RM-15 zone deSignation and 1.0 FAR 'n RM-40. tn. highest density .ultlpTe family zone. The develoPMent proposal exceeds the .It. development requirements of the PC zone and, therefore, wDuld re~utTe variances. The proposed structurf extends B feet beyond the required daylight plan. for approxi"at.ly 100 feet .10ng the int.rlor lot line snared with RM-IS zoned property •• nd b.1conies above the first floor extend 5 feet into the side yard setback .10ng this same lot line. Th. applicant is prop~sinq to provide I total of 14 Below Market Rate housing units at an off-site locition~ Seven of these units are required to meet tne 2~ BHR requirement, and seven units are being proposed to meet th! PC zone public benefit requirement. Environmenta' AsseSSment: A negative declaration of no significant environmental iapact has been prepared and is attached to this repo~t . • lone ojstri,t: RM~lS, low Density Multiple Family Zone District ~iJe Hos.: 92·ZC-3; 9c-EIA-7 .. :\~ ..... 9/25/92 Page ) • AP~lIC&TJQH IHFQRMATIQN "",,p 11 cant: Type of Application; Oat .. , SIT£ INFORMATIpN OWner; Hamilton Av!nue Properties, Inc. 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 9430] Planned Comownlty Zone Change Appll<atlon TE'thed April 3, 1952; Appllc.tion currently Incomplete; Minditory action dead1fne: HA HiMilton Avenue PrOp!rt1Es~ Int. 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 9430. Ass.s.or's Parc.l Humber, AN 120-03-047,048,049,052,053,073 Comprehenslye Plan Designation: Multiple ~amily Residence £xfsting Land Use: Three $ingle fun,)' houses j 1 fOllr·unit .partment building; 3 profe •• ional office buildings containing 10,SOO square f.et of noar arn. Surrounding Land Use: North: SIn9le f ... l1y house, parking lot, prof.ssional office building Existing loning: Parcel Size; East: Two prof.s.lonal offlc. building. South; Multiple family residential condom; n i UIIS ~est: ChUTCh education b~ild;n9 and parking 1 ct RM-15 low Density Kultiple Family R>sidenti.1 Zone District 51,500 5q~are feet 9/25/92 Page 2 • • i PROJECT INFORMATION Table I. prgject Comparison With Current Ordjnance Reguirements. PROPOSED (_nded prDposai 1 90,760 ALlOllED (RequIred) RH-IS 25,750 ALlOllEO (Required) RH-30 30,900 ! ALLOWED (Req"lrEd) RH-40 51,500 EXISTING 26,100 Floor Are. ~(~;SQ~ .. ~ft~.l~ ______ +-____ ~ ______ -r ______ r-_____ _ FAR Coverage Number of Units Porkino lhe 1. 76 50 feet SS% 36 2.0/unit Planned CClnaUnit,)' Preitct Ot!scr-ipt1on: .5 30 feet 18 2.33junit low Density Residen· ti.l .6 35 feet 34 1.33/unit Modium Density Ruiden thl 1.0 40 feet 47 I l.l3/unit HIg" Density Residen thl .51 approx. 15 fed 7 50 space, Low Oen.;ty Res i den tial j Profe.s sional Office This proposal ;s to reZone six parcels at the curner of Middlefield Road and Hamilton AY~nue from RM-15 to Planned Community zone and to construct a high inco.e condominlum project for senior commun'ty li~ing. The structure being proposed i. a handsome, traditional Spanish C.lonial architectural style with stucco exterior. four stories ~igh along Byron and Middlefield frontages, and tnree storias high along Hamilton Avenue! wit~ a ~ne·stDry pool structure at the H~iltDn/3yron corner and in open interior courtyard. The Sile of tne structure is 90,760 square feet, with a maximum height of 50 feet. The main entry is located on Byron Street, where five surfac~ parking spaces are provided along the enti"'j drive. Th! entrance to an underground parking garage with 6~ spaces is al$~ located on Byron Street. A service entrance ;s located on the nortn side of the building and ;s accessed off Mjdd ,.field Road. 9/15/92 Page 3 f. ":.' . --~--------- Tne structure provides :;pacious prhate units and cOlllnan amen1tie~ to .~lJPpDrt older resfdents and tc accommodate the activities ~f a senior residential c~n1ty. The applicants expect the average a~e of residents to be between 75 and 80 yurs. The private unsts range; n size from J) 140 t~ 2,130 SQiJire feet with In av~rlge size cf 1,799 square feet. All units have t.o or twc and·vne-ba1f bedrooms and two cr thre2 f~il baths, and are arranged to ICcoamo4ate t~e assisted Cire o( t~e ~es1d!nt if required over time. A1l of tke unfts have full kitche~s, and there is also a co~n commerCial Kit~hen a:1d dining rcom where IDeals will be iI'Jajlable for res'dents. The ottler cOlTlTlon facflittes include three guest rooms. a living roc~ and two bar/lounge areas, an exercise room, spa and indoor pool, and an adm1nistratfve office and sleeping room for a security person. The ~pplicants are proposing a staff of five full ti ....... loyee. and "" IIn.pe<ified number of otner employees to .... nage and operat.e the facility and provid! services for res;d&nts. Four rental ~n1ts are present1y located on the proposed project site and would be d1sphced by the project. Since renta1 unfts .ar~ be~T!g displaced, tne Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement for tne project i. 2~, ratner than the standard 101. To.et the 2~ BHR requirement. the appliciI,nt is proposing to provide seven BHR units off~sfte, and to meet the PC zone requirement for Public ~neftt they are proposing to prow ide an additional seven off-site BHR units. Tne applicant'. propo.al for .eetlng BHR and Public Benefit requtre.ents are discussed in greater detail in the analysis section of this report. Th. p1ans which are Included with this report are a complete half-si,e set of the origInally submitted plans and a supplemental set of .even sh.et. (Sh.et, 41. 5, 6, 8 t 9, 10, Il} showing revisions whfch were rece~tly made tc the ~roposal. The revisions were made in order to reduce nonconformance ~1th PC zone requirements for daylight plane, 10 f.et planted landscape buffer and sIde yard setback. The revised project does not eomply with the PC Zone daylight plane and setba<:k requirements afld so continues. to requite variances; this Is dIscussed In detal.l in the .nalysis section of this report. The revisions which were made to t~e project include the following: 1. 3,253 square feet W;)S rerrlO',ed fnJm the fourth floar along the north side of the building. 2. The total numbe.-of lJnits was reduced from 38 to 36. J. The number of guest rooms was increased from 2 to 3. 4. T~e service drfve and garage entry were shifted (I,way f:""om the nQrt~ property line iT! ~rder to provide the req~ired 10-fo~t-wide planted landscape buffer along thE interior lot line. ~velQPment Schedule: A tentatiwe develapment schedule has been prepared by ttle applicant and is included in Sect10n 6 of thefr submittal documents. Ja.ccord1ng to this schedule, preparation of working drawings wauld begln in September 1992j demolition 0,: the s1t£o would tak.e place in June-Ju1y 1993~ "-I"< • 9/15/91 Page 4 '< fl "I t. ~' , I "<i, i ! " construction would begin August-September 1993i and final occupancy ~f t~e bUl1di"g would occur In August·Sept.mber 1994. Applicatipn prgcess; The Planned CCrmll.mH.1 Zone Cnange appl ;cation is required to follow a prDCeS$ whereby it is given pre1iminary review by the Planning tommiss1~~. Tn! publit h!aring scheduled for September 30, 1~92, is intended for this purpose and ;s the subject of this report. Snould the CMl1uion act ""'orably at UJis initial reI/few? IKlre detailed design plans are then .ubmitted to the A~ for its recommendations. The development plan, as appro~ed by tn~ ARB, is then returned to t~e Planning Commfssion for its fln.l review and recomendat;on before being submitted to the CHy Council for final ~cti~n. Prhr to J'iilk1n9 I final appr{)val reccnnendation to the City Council, tf'le Planning COImlss1on is required to liKe specific determi"ations regarding the project and ta approve an env1ronmentil determination, specific development program st~teDe"t, development plan, and development schedule that will become the bas!, for tne site·specific regulations to be applied witnin tne proposed PC zone district. Tne application has yet to be determined complete for purposes of t~is fina1 review, but shouTd t~e Planning Commission recommend approval af the project is propesed, an !stimated time line for tne processing would be as fol lows: September 30, )99l November 5, 1991 November 25, 1992 December 21, 1992 AHAbYSIS/lssm:s Ini~iil Planning Commiss;cn Revle~ Architectural ReView Soard Final Planning Commission Review City CounCil Review This proposal raises se~eral policy tsS~!S which need tc be addressed by th~ Planning COI!IIission in tneir revi!W of the pl'Dject. These issues ire s .... rized !n the l.st section of this report. pen$ity Increase The-revised propOSill compris:es 36 units located on i LIB-acre site. a. de-ns;ty of 31 ur.1ts per acrt. The applicant considers this nlJ1!l.b.:-r of units to be necessary to support the common services and facilities of tre senior living community~ rhi~ density represents 'pproximately a doubling of the denSity allowed by the current R/t·15 zone deSignation. Tne desired density of 36 units Is slightly more tnan would be permitted on this Site under R/t·30 zoning and is <onsiderably less than would be permitted under R/t-40 zoning. Toble 1 (pag.;! 3} shows th2 number of units that would be permitted on the site und!r each of the three mu1t1ple family ~one districts, compared with the proposed density. The proposed density is similar to current loning of other property In the immediate vicinity. The block fate dir~ct'y across Middlefield ROid is zoned RM-JO and the property directly across Byron Street. cur~ently occ~pied by a church, is zoned RoM-"'O. The block on w~ich t~e sft~ is located, and the next II:\~.IQI 9/25/92 Page 5 _ ... _ ..... _ ....... ::"'-LI"'-...... _ .... T ..... -...... .,.' .. t ... · ....... ·_----"..,.- .• '."It' ~-;. ;:~-~" -:;-:- :~~: -.... ' • -~. 0- ,~,;: ;~,-,::~ .~:~ ---~~~~;--' ;~,~ -".'0 :-:~ ~~. - 'T. :r i - three blocks south along ~iddlefield Road, are zoned ~-15. In general, this baod of RH-IS zoned p~perty along Middlefield Road forms a transition from KK-30 zonlng near downtown to the s1rl91e family residentia1 neighbcrhood across ~Iddl.field Road (although the block face cross Middlefield Road from the site Is zoned ~-JO). Incre,slng the density on the project site would represent a change In t~is land use pattern. However t i case can be made th~t higher dens,ty is more appropriate the closer to University Avenue the land is located. Likewise, Middlefie'd Road pr~vides an edge for higher density development, and low density t.ransition may not be as applicable along an arterial IS along subordinate stre~ts. The ~-15 zoned property dire<tly across Hamilton Avenue f,·om the project sit. is currently occupied by an approximatel~ fifteen-year-old condcrnin1~m project with a den,lty of approximately 20 units/acre, so it is not likely that this sfte .111 redevelop in the foreseeable future. However, thE remainder of the band of ~-lS zoned property bordering the west side of Middlefield Road south to Channing Avenue is e~rrently occupied mostly by singl~ family hoees and s~all professional office buildings, such as are currently on tnE project site, and t~ese sites ~ be expected to redevelop in the f~ture. Th~ Pllnning Commi.sfon should coni'der whether increased d!ns1ty on the project site m~ have implications for this existing land use pattern, or whether t~e sites situated along Middlefield and in the block bounded by UniverSity and Ho.llton are appropriate for an approximate ~-30 density. Increasg fn Building Mass; FAR. Height and CQvtrage Tna proposed buildjng miSS, IS measured by tAR, height and coverage, is greater thar, permitted by ~-40, the highest density multiple family lone. The applicant 1$ requesting I Planrled Cornnuni ty zone change because the FAR penr1tted in other general zone districts is not sufficier.t to accommodate the proPQ~ed dEvelopaent. due to the more spaciou5 units and shared facillties, sucn as dining, lounges, p~ol and exercise room and offices, to serve the 'Senior 1 f\.'ing cDalluntty. All appr-oxiaate allocation of the proposed FAR is 1.26 for residenti.l units and .5 for common faeilities_ The proposed unit size fs larger than in typical senl0r residence facilities, rangi~9 from 1,140-2.130 sq~are feet with an average size of 1,799 sQuare feet, compared, for example, with a size rar-g! of 650-1.200 squlre fe~t at Webster House. Whil. rezoning the property to RH-30 or ~-40 would permit the desired density or number of units. it would not permit the amount af floor aT~a being proposed. The aaximum residential FAR allowed in RM-4~ is ].0, wnile the proposed FAR is 1.76. T.ble I (page 3) compares the allowed FAR, height and coverage In the three multiple f .. ily zooe districts with the p"oposed project. T~e location of the site at tne intersection of two m~jor streets makes a larger b~ildin9 mass appropriatp from an urban design perspective. Building volumes are currentl~ unbalanced along Uni~ersity Avenue near Middlefield Road. with no buildir.gs of comparable size across University Avenue from the Lytton Gardens Complex. Thi~ project would lend greater sy~~etry to the area, although it would b. better placed if located at the other end of the block on L 9/25/92 Page 6 l .' Un1versity Avenue. The Draft Urban Design Plan reco~end5 three-and f~ur· story blli, :ngs 0110"9 most Df Hamilton Avenue, but it accepts the current tOiri!r den: ''J land use nearer Middlefie,d Road by recommending tni2.t buildings .ast of Weo.ter street .tep down In height te transftion to the r,sidentla1 .r.... The Draft Plan recommends higher den.lty residential uses at the other end of thl, block on Unlver.lty Avenue bet ... n Webster Stre.t and ~iddl.field Koad, recoaoendlng building volumes that .atch lytton Gardens to foro a transition froe Downtown to the res'denthl area across Middlefie10' Road. With its fourth floor re~yed, the proposed building wDu1d be more si~ilar i~ volume to lytton G.rdens, with. height of approximately 41 fe.t and 1.44 FAR, compared to lytton I at 43 feet and FAA 1.4. (See .ttached Draft Urban Desig, Plan, Hililton Avenue District and Unfvers1ty A~enue District., The proposed mass is greater than tnree other Palo Alto senlor residence projects, lytton I, II, and the approved but not yet constructed Lytton IV, However, the proposed FAR ;s loss than that of Webster House. Tabl. 2 provides a comparison of the siz& of th~s! prcjects with the size of the proposed projett. lABLE 2; SIZE COMPARISON Of PALO ALTO SENIOR RESIDENCE PROJf.CTS Lyttlll'1 IV" lytton J L"'!tCln II Kni'.1tcm Wli!bSUr 1'iouH: FAR 1.22 1.' 1.15 1. 76 l.43 Bt;l1dlng .ilOht·ireetl 50 " ., so ., lot c.ove~ .,. '81 "" m m Density .. t1m1ts'acrel " " 13> " 77 ._of 51 ". 100 ,. " Ii'lltl ~ .''''1 , .. 2.' ,IS l.ie ," &J:T'Ul Tn.l FlOCl'r lE,OOO 141.34g 56.SoI2 90,760 51.lC>O A,... tlqUolr"e fnt] . Webster House, located at the corner of Webster Street and Lytton Avenue, is a 37-unit senior residence Planned Community approved in 1983. Prlor to approval of the ?C, the site was zoned R-S, High Density Reside"tia1. In the R-S ZD~e, ~lldin9 nlr:.S-5 was restricted by iI height 1 imit of 50 feet and by required setbacks, but there was no FAR limit. The FAR of Webster House is 2.4. The ~axim~ denSity permitted en the site ~nde~ tne R-S zoning was 21 units. Tne PC zone was requested in order to increase the densfty allowed, thus prDviding a greater n~mber cf smaller units suitable to predominantly single elderly residents. and providing a project of adeQ~ate 5i,! to obtain iI group .. d;cal care package. (See athched PC Ordinance *3437.) The tuilding was constructed with four stories along the street to be compatible with the ,'--9/25(92 Page 7 oC$4 ~l-foot ~.i9ht of lytton lind 11. with. five story section interior to the project bYilt to the SO-foot height limit. Planning Cc.tIis:Sioners say find iI comparison with the Cowpel'" Hotel, .52C Co~per Street. helpful in V;SU.lil;"9 tr •• proposed project. lhe south elevation of the Cowper Hotel. facing the publ ie parking lot. Is simi lar in height, but so$OWhat longer, than the proposed Middlefield Road elevation of The H,milton projoet. (SeE .ttaehed plin showing the south elevation of the Cowper Hote1.) The four-story portion of tile hotel is SO feet to tile mid-poiot of the p,tched roof. the same height is the proposed four-story portion of The Hamilton. Both building elevations are four stories, stepping do~ to three stories at •• ch end. Tho ~o"th elev.tlon of tile hotel Is ZOO feet long, while the proposed Middlefield elevation of the ~amilton is ISS feet 10ng_ A comparable ISS-foot length of toe hot.l elevation i ••• rked on the attached plan to .ssist in comparing the two projects. Views. SbadQWs and Effect gn Adiacent PrQpertiei An issue to be considered is the proposed projact's relationship to t~e surrounding one-and tw~~stcry buildings, and possib1e i~a~ts on adjacent buildings by blocking views and sunlight. 1he applicant ha, prepared shadow studies ,"owing ,hadows cast by the building during .arn1ng t fl,l)l)n and afterT\Qot'o em the 1<Qngest and shorte.st Oi,YS of the ye.r and .t ,pring aod f.ll equino.. (See fl.n Sheets '15. '16 and '17., These studi25 show tnat p~pertfes atr~ss Harn;lt~n AYenue and across Byron Street from the project are not Impacted at all by ,a.t shadows. froperty lC~$S Middlefield Road is not shaded by th~ project in spring, 1ummer or fall. but afternoon shadows extend about 40 feet across the front of the property in mid-winter. The qreiltest iMpact from cast shaJows is along the north. interior lot line. The snadow studies were d~ne based ~n the or1gjnal design before the revisions were ~de. These revisi~ns eliminated partions ~f the fourth floor along the north side of the building In order to reduce the daylight plane intrusion .1ong t~e interior lot line. Although revised shadow studies hive not be.n prepared, these changes to the bui 1din9 will tHllie reduced the s~adows cast on the adjacent property. Before the rewisions were made, significant ~rning shadows were cast on the prop!rty to the north durin~ fi11, ~inter and spring, with the greatest impact in ~id-winter when t~e sun is lowest in the sky. On Oece$ber ZI. the shadows •• tended SO f.et acros, the property line .t mid morning, 74 feet at neon and part of the Site along the 10t line continued to be shaded into tne ifternoon. Addittonal shadow studies s~ould be prepared showing ~hidows cast by the revised bUilding design. Arc:hitectl.p"e The project has a handsome, high qua1ity ardlltectural design. The-Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style proposed for The Hamilton will help t~ Yisu~lly red~ce the mass Df the buildin9. The stYle has a reside~tial 9/25/92 Page S charicter and I strong cultural connection to Falo Alto, The propos~d mater;.ls and det.ils can be us.d to break up the building lnto sma'ler units and to give texture and scale. Thgugh not exactly the same style, a similar pleasing visual qual1t) has been ach~eved in several large residential bulldings i" COwntDII1l at 345 Forest, 360 Forest Ayenue aod Tile President Apartment~ at 490 University Avenue. v2rjances RegU;red Tho originally submitted proposal did "ot conform to the daylight plane and side yard requirements along the int.rior lot line shared .lth RH-I. zoned prDperty. The applicant made revisions to the originally-submitted plans ir order tc red~te the intrusion into tne daylight plane a~d provfde a required 10-foDt landscape buffer along the Interior lot line. Whll. the reYisions to the orIginal proposal haye reduced the degree of nonconformance, the prDposal 'till dDes not co.ply with the required d.ylight plan. and side yard setback a~d wou1d cont1n~e to requfre the follOWing variances to the PC zone ordinance: 1. Oayl ight Phne intrusion of 8 feet for approx;I .. tely 100 feet along the north interior property line shared with RH~I. zDned property. 2. Ba'con1e~ above the first floor exten~ 5 feet into the reQu~red 25-foot side yard along the nDrth interiDr property lin •. Staff do.s not belieye thlt the required findings could be made to grant these vlrianees, particularly the finding that there IrE exceptional or extraord1nary circumstances or cond;tion~ appi1cable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property In the tame distrIct. Onl1gbt plane intrUSion. In the originally proposed p1ans~ UleTe was i daylight plane intrusion .long the entire length of the north ioterior lot line, with the building section facing Middlefield Road intruding 17 f •• t and the building section f.clng Byron Street intruding 4 .• feet. Revisions to the fourth floor, wh;tM included removal of two units. brought the section of the b~11ding faCing Byron Street into compliance with the daylight plane. (See Sheet 9 of the revised plans.) The changes to the fourth floor reduced the daylight plane intrusion of the sectlon of the bUildIng flcing Hiodlefield RDad from 11 feet to B feet. (See Sheet 10 of the reYised plans,) Sheet II of the reYised plans shows that while the portIon Df toe building facing Middlefield Road does not comply .ith the required R/1-15 daylight plane, it would comply with the RM-30 daylight pl.ne. 8ale;QDies elCtendfng into ",ide yard. The PC zone ord"ir.c:;,nce requires residential PC projects sharing lot lines with residentially zoned property to comply with the side yard requirements of the abutting lane. The RH-15 zone reQui"es a side ya"d setb.ck 1/2 the height of the b~11d;n; and does not permit balconies above the first flDor to extend .:\~ ...... 9/25/92 Page 9 " . ..,-' ":~i into thfs reQufred side yard. On the north side of the ~uild;ng, bal,onle. on the •• cond, third and fourth floor, extend S feet ;,to the required 25-foot ,Ide yard. Parking and Lgading In staff/s estj~ation, tne proposed patkin9 and loading plan does not meet the requirements of the PC zone ordinance. A comparison of proposed and required p.rklng I •• h""" In Table 3 below. m. PC zone ordioan,e require, projects to provide parking .nd lo.dlng pl,n, b.sed en the standards of the p.rkiog Grdin.nce, but altern.te propo.als .ay be appro,ed If the applicant p"esents relevant data deoon.tratlng the feasibility and adequacy of the propo.ed pirk,ng and loading plan. At present, such data has not been pre,ented. Staff co.parisons with tne parking needs of other projects indicates that the proposed 6 spaces fer eoplcyee parking prob.oly Is not adequate, .nd the pr.posed 52 ,sslgned sp.ces for re.ldent, may be adequate, but only wfth a ,.reful1y DOnltered parking .. n.gement plan. The applicant should either provide the laOunt of parking required by the parking oroinance, or .ubmit a parkin; plan analyzfng the £xpected parking ne&d$ of residents and employees and shOWing how the proposed parking will be •• naged .c that it I. adequate to aeet the parking needs of t .. e project. (See attached 1etter ,rom appiicant. Septe.ber 10, 1992, regarding parking.) TABLE 3: PARKING PROPOSED ~~D REQUIRED Zone Qr~jDi[!Ce propos,!! RegujI:emen~s Assigned Resident 'arklng S2 spac •• 12 spaces (1.44 per unit) (2 per unit) £llploy .. 'al'll:l ng 6 spaces HI spaces (estimat.) Guest Parkl"g 12 spaces 12 spaces (33% of unit.) Hanaleap ParkIng 3 spaces TOTAl 73 spaces 94 spaces Comparisqn With Qt~er Profec~ Staff tontacted t~e directors of Webster House and three ether upscale senior ~e$idential communities On the Peninsula regarding parking at their facilities. Based on the lnfo_tlon whi'R the~ provided, it would seem that the ratio of 1.44 p:\~ 9/25/92 Page 10 ~ ! .--- Isstgr.ed resident parking spaces per un1t may be adequate over time, thoug~ there will probably b< • demand for more resident parking at the beginning of the project when the residents .re rehUvely young and ...are unfts are occupied by ~ou.pie~ with two cars. (See attached Table 5, Parking Comp,rison of Senior Residen,e Projects.) ~ilE the r.tio of ~ssi9ned spices per unlt ringed from .76 to 1.2 spaces per unit at the projects s~rveyedt the directors of these projects indicated tnat thE amount of resident parking is kept tni. low oy diligent, proactive effort~ on tne part Gf the £iI,ana9,l!'ment to persuade people to glve up cars they are no longer using and by th~ financial incentive of charging a high rent.l rate for a secend parking spa,e. EmPloy'! parking. It is difficult to estimate tne amount of employee parking th.t thi. project will need by looking .t other senior residence projects. because each project is uniQue with regard to the resident .ix, desfgn and location of the fac11ities. the services offered, and the level of tolerince in the indi~1dual community for parking deficits. St.ff estimated the minimum employ •• p.rklng requir.~~nt for The Ha.1lton to be 10 spaceSj t~is number was determined as follows; Based on Parking Ord1nancv. requirements Kitchen (I .p.ce/200 sQu.re feet) Office (I space/250 square feeti Additional services (estimate) 2 sp.aces .( spaces 4 spaces lroe applicant Is propOSing approximately five full time employees and an unspecified number of addition.l support staff. The proposed staff Include I medical director, activities director, sec~rity person, adatnistr.tor, and staff who will provide cleaning, laundry, transportat1on, maintenance, personal caTe and food serv1ce. Staff's best estt~te for the number of employees is conSistent with a comparfson of employees at Webster House. Acc~rding to inf~rmation provided by the administrator, Webster Heuse ~as 6 full time employe.s and 3 part time empl oyel!'s , n~t fncluding the food service personne1 from Rush Hcur which operates a catl!'rfng service out of the Webster House kitchen and provides meals for reSidents. Even though they have about the same number of ~nits; we would expect The Kamilt~n to rEquire more on-site emplOYEes than Webster Hous~, because the total project is nearl,1 twice the square footage, thus requiring more housekeeping and maintenance, 111 the units are larse enough to house at least two people, and the units are designed to accommodate assisted C2re if requ~ ... ed, possibly resulting in live-in caretakers. (See attached Table 6, Comparison of The Hamilton and Webster House.) The need for employee parking could be offset to some extent by tn~ downtown location, pro'/iding the option for employees to \IS! public transit. Webster House reports that severa' <:If their employees are dropped off bj spouses. tI:\ .... ~ ... .p:II 9/25/92 Page Il Ii On-Street P,rk1ng. C~rrently, there 1s no extess street par~ir.g in tnE vicinity of the project ,ite .. The proposed project would re,ult in a net gain of one curbside parking space. The number of space$ along the Hamilton Ayen~e ftontage will increase from 2 to 3, d~e to closing of existinQ curb cuts. There wil1 continue to be 7 curbside spaces al~ng BYT'Ort Street, though exhtfr'lg curb cuts ·.,ill be c10sed and thre! ne'W drJvew~s added, resulting i~ a total of 10 curbside parking spac!s at the project site. SerylGe A~ta Turnargynd. Tne backup distance at the service area is approxf.ately 13 feet. Thi, short backup di.tance will make it difficult or imposstb1e for delivery vans t~ tur~ around on the site, thus "qufrlng the del'yery vehfc1es to bac. out onto Middle'ie1d Road. The parkfng ordin.nce re~ulres that the parking layout be arr.nged '0 that vehicles are not requlred to b.ck onto. public right·of-way. PUBL Ie BfNEFIT The applicant is proposing to meet the ~C zone reqUirement of public benefit by providing twice the T!qu1red number of Below Mark~t Rate bou~ing units. Secau.e rent.1 housing fs befng remoyed by the project, ft !, reQ"ired by Program 9 of the Housing E1eoent to provfde 2~ Below Market Rate (BHR) houslng units, r.ther than the standard 1~. Th. 2~ BHR require .. nt for this 36 unit project Is 7 unit,. The publIc benefit being proposed is the provlsfon of 7 addftlona1 BHR u"fts, c .. bined wIth the 7 unit' required by Program 9, for a total of 14 BMR unlt., te be proyided off-slte. A detailed description of the SMR proposal is pre.ented in the September 23, 1992, letter from the app11cant to Ken Schreiber, which 15 attached te this r.port. The propo,a1 !s for the app11cant to purchase and deed to the PAHC 14 e'istfng rent.1 hou.lng "nits. The PAHC "Ill retaIn title and provide .... gament of the units at acceptable below market rates. The units are to be one-and two-bedrooms, wfth •• Inlm .. of ,fx being two-bedroom units. Studio units ean be provided so 10n9 ~s each stUdio ur,it is offset b,Y a:"! additiona1 two-bedroom unit. The Inft!a1 BMR unlt. will hlye to be approved by the Clty Council prior to fssua~ce of the first building peMmft, and the subsequent BMR unit' will also be subject to Co""cil approva1. The applIcant is further proposfng that they will make a good faith effort to work with the Pi10 Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) to explore other pos.ibilities for ffnancing additional BHR units .ith funds from the Section 8 program, CDRG Dr other sources. Tnis could lead to t~e provision of more than the minimum I~ BHR units. For example, the app1!cant may locate a building with _re than 14 units and, by working with PAHC, arTiinge for the conve)~s;on of the tot.1 units fn the project to the BMR program. CPMPREKENsrVE PLAN COMPLIANCE The Uses and site development rtgulations of the Planned Community zone must be found to be consistent with the Palo A1to Comprehensive Plan. Following 9/25/92 Page 12 , I· I I ,"'" .,." , i r ~ • "-,-'~---- are Policies of the Housfng £'~nt wh!ch ar~ pertinent to the prop~sa'. Tne proposal appears to be ~onsistent with the follo~in9 Housing EI~ment policle, and objectfves: Policy 7: Enco~rage and foster the development of new and existing housil'1q unit!, affordt.bl! to low a~d moderate income househc1ds. The BMR .greement being proposed by the applicant woul. con'ert • ~in1mum of 14 ex1sting market rate rental units into below market rate uniti. Policy II .nd Policy 13:. Contlnu. support for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in t.hE! provision of low-and moderate-income housing, and increase funding sources used to p~oYfd~ affordable housing. Tnese policies are support!d by the applicant's stated intention to work w1t~ the PAMe to look for ways to provide more than the required mi~;mum 14 !!lIP units. Polley 14: Support the mixing of resldenti.l use, In commercial and Industrl.l are.s. locating the units close to d~town near ~hDP31 transit an~ other services supports this policy, Second of the tnree Major ~ousinq Dbjectives identified in the Housing Ele.ent: ~ajntain a di~ers1ty of nous1ng opportunfties,ind prDv~de I variety of nousing types and sizes t a mixture of ownership and rental housing, and. full range of housing costs, The proposed project furthers this housing goal by prDvl~ing • type of htgh~incoae nousing with on-site services for seniors which is not presently avail.ble in the comownity, and thus provides the opportunity for residents in this hO~$fng market to vacate family homes !nd move to • sp,nior l1vir.g communit~ within Pa1e Alto. The Hoasing rlement 1dent~fies persons over 60 as an increa~ing population group with hou,ing needs to be accommodated, 10 1989 this age group made up one·fifth of the pDpulation .nd included 12,811 people, an i"cre'se of Z6~ since ;960. The proposed development will serve this increasing segment of the population of Palo Alto. The projected Associatl~n of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) -fair share housing need fo" Palo Alto t.s 1597 'Jnits t to be prcvided between 1990- 1995. Of tMis total, 680 unit! are fdtntlfied is housing for households w;t~ above moderate income. The proposed development will provide 36 units of housing for above moderate income households, thus ~elping to address this identified -fair snare-housing need. 9/25/92 Page 13 The prop. sed project appear. ies. consistent w;th tne following Policl.s of the HousIng EleMent: Policy 2: Preserve older s'ngle-family homes and sma1) apartment building •. T~e proPDSed pr~ject would result in the demolition of a four~~nit rental apartment buildin9 a"d three eld~r s'ngle-family homes ~ich arE rented. Removing the 4-unit .part .. nt building seems particuTarTy contrary to t~is po1icy. However. Program 9 provides that mit;gatiGn for the remo~a1 of r~nta' ~Qusin9 may b~ made by inCrel$ing th~ numb~r of extst1ng housfn9 unlts on site. and providing 2~ BMR units, rathEr tha. lOS. This project is me.ting both of these standards. Policy 6, Maintain at least the present number of ,,'tip'e-family rental units while working to 1ncrease the overall supply of re~tll hou'i~g. The proposed project will result in a net 10" of four units in the city's rental housing stock. FOl.lr apartml!'l"Its, and three single fimny housl!'s ~h'th .ay be rent~, are be~n9 removed frGm the site. The 14 BMR units which are being pro~ided are existing units wh1'~ ire currently part of tnl! city's renUl hOl,lsinq stock, so ttrey do not represent an incro.se in the supply of rental housin9. Program 9 pro, ides that mltigation for the removal of rent.l housing, and thl. project is meeting both conditions of Program 9. S"'''PY '@ cONer 115 [QN The proposed Planced C~n1ty Zone contains a number of peliey issues the resoiutlon of whlch could lead to either City approval or denial of the application. As noted in the staff report, Pa10 Alto's population c~ntinues to contain mere people cla.sifled as seniors (12,811 in 1989, a Z6% lncrea.e over tho 1980 census]. Mlny of these seniors live fM single famil) ho~ses that have greatly appr&clated in ~11ue. It is understandab1e that man~ of these s2ni~rs want i Hying Irranqement Lhat offers some of the 1 lying space aMt:!nities U~it they are used to in their currer.t homes, Palo Alto's housing market does not co,tal. an elderly-orionted multiple f .. ily facility prcvidi.g larger living antts plus l ranqe of services usual11 iss~ciated wjth ~ret1rement~ living. T~e H .. ilton would provide units for this niche of the housing •• r~et. Stat. hcu:s.1ng law is specific in req'j,ring a corrmunity to address tne needs of an its householders, including hig~-intome householders. Staff belie"es that the fund~ntal concept behind the H~iltQr. is valid and this type ~f housing facility WQuld be an apprcprjate ind valuah1e addition to Palo Alto's housing stock. A critical iS5~e is the project's building mass. A good argument can be made that the provision of spe~ii1ized housing f~r the elderly, ~h~th£r lower 9/25/92 Pige 14 • , ,----... --~ incoae (~.;., lytton Sa~dens) or higher income (e.g. Webstar House) can JustIfy Increased bulldi~g mass above that provided in convention.l zones. While the Hamilton .ould be • very large structure. it would .1'0 be in , loqfcal 10tition (i.e., in relation to OOwni;{lWTl senrices, the entrance to ~town, transit services). SignIficantly 9reate~ than typical mass has been Illowed In the Middlefleld/Unl.erslty/Web,ter/lytton block a.d a similar irgu.ent Cln be made for the block that would conta~n the Hamilton. from an Urban Design perspectlYe, the Mass of the pr~ject would lend greater symmetry to the University Avenue spine and issist in emphasizing the gateway to tne Oowntown$ Also, the prop~sad proje,t's design ;s ittractive and appropriate for Pale Alto. However, staff can not support variances. In staff's 0plnion, even an unusually large bul1ding in this block needs to meet the daylight plane and setback proY1sions of the code. In concl~s1on, staff finds that good arguments can be made for either suppert or denial of the project and these argument. focus on policy issue, that are IP9ropriate CommiSSion and Council considerations. The case-for approval includes: Tne type of hOlls1ng and combination of ~'IIHl$Jn9 and services are ne-eded In Palo Alto and .p~ropri.te for I Planned Community Zone. In an entrance t~ dO\intown and with a h,"ge structure on the block south of Byron, th~ site is on a block that is approprl«te for greater mass and bu1k than allowed by either the current zoning or the RM-40 Zone. The project is woll deSigned and would be an attractive ,ddition to Palo Alto. -The provision of 14 BMR rental unit' would be a valuable addition to the City's lower ';ncone housing stock. -The loss of 10,800 square feet of office space ..... n 1 hClVe some benefit and the replacement of offices with housing is fundamentally acceptable. The case for denial includes: People ab1e t{l afford the prapos~d ~cusing have the resources to function in the conventional housing market and do not need the ·public assistance' of substantially higher building miS, than allowed by the zoning regulations. -The bulk of the project is excessive ind would changE the visual atmosphere of Middlefield Road is a negative and unacceptable way. and will cast shadows on neighboring properties. Good design can not ~vercome the negative impacts of the proposed size of the project. 9/25/n Page 15 ;. :". .~' -.. ~. / The Co.prekens1ve Plan poiiry to preserve older single-family houses and , .. 11 apartment b"lldlngs justifies ret.ntion of the c"rrent AM-IS Zonirlg. There are four p03sicle actions for the Plan.ning Commhsion on this appli<ation: 1. R.commend approval of the preject in concept and forward the project to the ARD for in-depth design review. 2~ Reconmend app~oYll cf the prcject with significant aodifications to the de"elopment concept and forward the project to the ARB. 3. Rec~nd denial of the project but indicate that some development greatEr than t~e RM~15 Zone may be appropriate for t~is site and forward the project to the City Council. 4. Rec .... nd deni'l of the project, confirming the acceptability of the AM-IS Zone and forward the project to the City Council. AJ nDted previousl" staff does not support the granting of variances for this proJect. Also, the aDO""t of parking proposed for tho project a.y be acceptable ~t further documentation from the applicant is nece,sary. ,It ttchments: 1. Excerpts from Draft Urban Design Plan, Hamilton Avenue and University AYenue Oistricts 2. PC zone ordfl'1ances for Webster House: Ordinance 13437~ 1983, as ... nded by Ordinance 13753, 1~87. 3_ Plan of south eleyation of Cowper Hotel 4_ letter from Applicant, September 10, 1992, regarding parking S. ra~Te 4, ?ark1ng Comparison of S~nior Residence Project~ 6. Table 5, Comparison of The Hamilton and Webster House 7. letter frOD Applicant, September 23, 1992, regarding ~R units B. EIA !iI. Applicant's Development Program Statement lao Applicant's Project Binder (Comm:ssion Members only) 11. Plans (Conrnissie' Members only) ,.".-_ 9/25/92 Page 16 • cc, J~, S. Hill, Hamj1ton Avenue Properties, 555 8yro" Str~.t, Pal. Alto, CA 94301 leJond E. Wieder, 210 San Antonio Circle, St •. 235, Mountain I'jew, CA, 94040 University P"'k Associat1on Univer$itl and Cretce"t Park Homeown~rs Assc(iatfon ._-g/Z~/92 rage 17 . - HAMILTON AVENUE DISI'RICT OBSERVATIONS r-~ liaw.Jto .. t\:voou~ District: ~ a mixed officelcommerclal/reuil district with some residential UMII, rt Ius &e\'eraI landmarb lDcludinj: Civic CeIlter Plaza, !he City Holl IIWlding. !he Post Office, !h, Downey Building, tile ClIrdi:Jlil Hm.!. All Szints Episcop<il Church and First Metbodis: Church. The !rea transitiuns from pnmarily off'"i'..:e with soille retail on the west end, III office .... toward tile =t and t1'>DSitionini III .... ldemlal. The 1Ir ... bas • r.roug building «!.ge,jbat is _by~~onJorger ~ __ on L)'tUlll Avenue, wi!h typl<:iJ lot widths of 100 feet. HowC'o'er, is on Lyttoc Avenue, die increased street width aJ[ows for Jorge< JUle builiIingl; and less dependence on • small JUl. s:orefroDl Jhythm. Building beigh" GOALS Promote Hamilton AVI!I"lue as an aeli \/8 miJl:&d we district wbich accommodates. Maintain Kim»torJ A.venue as a plea.sin,g;1r'1te-4inedi pedeMrian envirOflJ'Tttflt. with ~n*.ary outdoor .men1tiu to 'Offset the urban InttrlOity which nawraBy re.sults from. tf'1e pro\liaion of uansit urvice and convenient .urface I"'r\Ono. vary from one to _ stories wiIh solhacl:s, green areas and opec porcels apparent east from Civic CCIIb::r PIua. Vegeratioo and trees are rr,.,ouy with alack of significanl street trees: as eompared to Lyttorl or Univetsity Avenues. Teiepho.nes. water fountains, ben.che:s and other street furnitur~ arc limited. The only public reslrooms are in the City H;olj boildinj:, which is cle>ed nigllts end weekends GL'lDEUNES Create a UDSe of entry.a: the Alma SU-eeulWnilOOIl Avenue int.et!ectioo by improvements such as landscaping. building corner setbacks, special lighting, public art and otbe: design ame.cJties, M.ainra.m tbe soft: transition edge from the commercial/office area 10 the residential area through landscaping, reductiom in building volumes and he5ght, :and leduC'.ed street lighting as compared to Universjty Avenue., Open maces EnCO'a1'38e additional sethacks fronting to Hamilton A venue to create oil landscaped and green strip along the street, Contmue to upgrade Civic Center Flaza to provide public amenities, a meeting place and a focal pc,int for !he district. ·49· MaiDtain '!be existi:ne oped spaces. of the. Ctvic Cent« PJ~ 300 HamilooD ..... \·eJlue parkin& Jot and An SaiDI5 Episcopal Cburell ., 555 Waverley Str .... .EnbaDce and improve Civic-Center Plaza as defined in the CIvic Cross Axis Duukt discussion. Building yfflumt:S ~,_ '" four swry buDdm,s from Waverley Street west to Alma Street In order 10 compl_ 1ile existing ... -....cape I!Id enlwle< !h. buDding wall of Hamilton A v,nu.. BuildingS"1 .... of W _ S".... abould .1Op <!oWl! in hcight IOward Middl etield Road 10 transition 10 the . ..-J residemial areas. '-- Promoce the devdopmem of three &tory bundings ~ing Cwic Center Plaza 10 create an outdoor room., the pI"", and define the plau_. Architmre Eocourag. -.. ..", .... of 25 to 50 foot widths that will enbanct th, ped .. trian SC3ie of buildinas acooclill& 100 f=t in width, and wlll mainrain the buil~iDg rhythm of til, street fromge. Cirg.ITpipn C!msider 1ile devo!opm<nt of • pedestrioD lin!: from Uruvmity Avenue Ihrough the Liddicoat building at 340 UBiven:ity Avenue (as illastrated in 1h.e Fioreace Street secondary dlstrkt di.~ioll OD page 31). Eohmce the Emers.on Streel linkaae Ie the. Soud:I of Forest Area and the Bryant Street linkagt ;c the Palo Alto M_ FOOIIdaIion ... ealhrou&h .. eII th"", as special pa>'ing. landscaplni. ligbting. street t=s and OIlIer meet amenities. Provide pedestri1n linb from Hamilwc. Avenue 10 University Avenue in oonjunction with deveiopmem of the alleys and parrug lots. -51 - • - UNIVERSITV AVENUE DISTRICT OBSERVA nONS University Avu:ue is the identifiable-c'!tlt~ of the do'MdDwn..artI.. It is the primary merenc.e. to visi!Ots and a MlionlI an:racrion fur people Jlld activities. Once it crosses three signifiClnt traDSponation cIJ6tocl .. , AIm> S ....... the tailro><! lriIob aD<l EI Camino Real, it liab llIe ""Dlm,"ity physkally wi symbolically with Stanford University. Ullivenity Avonue is also Ille velli<:ula! IDd pedestrian =rid", In .ne PIle Alto train statioll, the single regional mass transit termmal for doWlllOWD c-ain and bus "'lllDUItm. lhls tr..wt flocility is the .....rem an::bor of Ille downtown core, but. 1$ h.ampettd from f'uncIioning as lOeb .sinu it is located OD th~ opposite ,ide of Ihe railroad tracks, The vehia:.1ar entries 10 the Univenity A".enue District are loczI<d It Alma Streel and It .I Middlefield Road. Pedestrian emrto. occur at Rig\> StreellDd C<>Wj)e' StrlOOt. The eent<t and predominaDt lanG use is tho retail ",re between Rig\> Streel aDd C<>wper Street. The ,..,..., 15-50 foot wide pall,", of storeIrolllS or ...... pleasing rhythm a."" alia .... variety of building _o. within • 'inti. blook faco. GaIcnIIy buildings are two, _ or four storios.l .. "ill> • few excq>tions. Most buildings have no _ to the _ and rise In • parapet wall without • distinct roof. The architectural .tyle of the reW1 storefronts is mixed. Many COrner stores front. only to University Avenue whOe ignoring the side streets. This. limits dle opportunity to continue retail vitality onto the 5 ide :itreets. GOAlS Reinforce University Avat\WI as ttwt ' retail core of Dowmo'l.'VT\ Paio Altc by rr.alr'ltainfl\.g' 1M strong concentration of ground floot retl!l1 \JUS between Alma ami Cawper Streets. Craate I 'focal po:Ml"ot for the cQM&r of the district.at the Inttrs.ection of !Jof'i8r$ltv Awnue end 1h4eI CMc Crou Axis pe~an ~, 8nd 8 destinatiOl"l termint.:s Mea r the aut .rn:t of Unlvarsity Avenue at Co~rStteet. Develop and enhance the 4UlJities of Un'iveraitv AVWluB which make it an exciting o~oor -And P8dntrian enlo'ironmet't. Pnduding vibrant and ecJocVc .m:l1itecwre. outdoo< fuod _ an<! emartainment.' .e:.d improved pubrlC .amenmel wet! .as tC;:hVn.g and street ",",nun, Cteate 6owntotNn entrieS lit bOth WICh of Unive:raity A,vet'lue. with • dominant ut'ban entry 8t A.lma and HlQh SvetJts and 8 .wordir'tam etltry 111 M'ld~\Bfi8@ Roid'. The mature Sycamore trees am1, to .. Jessei' extent, 'the 1970's meet improv~enu.. dmne the cl1a:ncter of Uruversity Avenue and provide a shady :and pleu.ant atmosphere. Public rtStrOOms~ water fowttains. public telephones and informatjon kiosks are lacking. Free-st.anding Dewspaptr rack.<; clutter the sidewarb, and in many ]ocarioni reduce the available pedestrian patbway. Since University A .... enue is the ceruer of downwwn pedestrian acti ..... ity and aLr,o carries more-than 20,000 vehicles per day, there is a strong intermix and sometimes conflict between ~estriar< and "Veillcular circu10tti0n. However, this beighlened activity adds a cenalll liveliness to the street. Landmarks within the district include the Paio Alto Offh;e Cenrer at 525 University, the Varsity Th ..... aDd the Stanford Theater. 0& DCSlJ'D pLUi -27 - • I • 1 :! I '~ .' / GUIDELINES Punue major redevelopment o(the AJma Str<e\ entry as ,ugg<SUd by the entry pi.." illustrated in the Basic P!.m on p8IOS 12 and 13. Bautify IDe! ~ tbe pedc:strlan ftttries it Univmity Aveouel6"i,gh Stte-et and Un:iverstt~· Aveuue/WeDstt!:r Stred 10 make them. more apparent and attractive 10 pedesnia.1'l5. !oWuWD II! open 0IIlry corner II Mi<SdI<fie!d Rood andlJ,,;v .... ity Avenue to "' .... an emry ","", ..... primarily 1il100gh 1.mdoapiDj: i:nprovemems. _ -.----- ~J!>"'jpm II! bi&l!.!t .... ity nsidemiol .... 1> •• .,..., M"lddlefield Rood IDd Web<tO< Street, -wiiiidie buikfinc yo}!lma; that DlItrb L~ Garoen.spIKed to~ University Avaro_e;asa-- oransiIioAlo lb. mixed multi-mil 'ingie-family ar.., wbich begin 00 Ill. oortll .:de o( M"1ddl efield RilId. --. ---.--- QnSnr= ProvMIe &>r additiooal improvements 10 _ .... the aesthcci", and use of LyttllD PIau . • Improve organization of plaza and seating to encourage (JE'destrian use • New trees define edge of Plaza LYTTON PLAZA Puncilaa::e the identity Gf major activity nodes liong University Avenue by such things as distinctive plantings, banners aod IF..hftectura! features at Klendfied in:ersections. -29-Ull1versaty AvtrlLle DlStncl • \."':-~. " .. .' !)4i . i I 1 1 ~TTfl.CKMENT 2 ORIGINAL ORDIN~.NCE NO • ....ll.l.7_ ORDINANCE OF TEE COONCn OF THE CITY OF PAW ALTO AMENOING SECTION 18.0B.C;Q OF TEE PALO ALTO HUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZOIlING M.1>,P) TO CEANGE TIlE CLASSIFICJ>TION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 401-(1~ WEBSTER STREET ANP 502-608 L)'TTOS AVENCE FROM RH-5 TO PC The Council of the City of relo Alto does ORDAIN as foll~~s: • SECTION 1. Section 18;.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal 'Code, the ·Zoning Map·, is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain prop erty known as 401-.. '9 webster St:-eet and E02-608 Lytton Avenue from RM-S {Sigh Density Multiple FAmily Residence District) to .PC (Planned Community District).. Saie! property is shown 0., a map atta.ched he::eto as Exhibit -A-and incorporated herein by ~eference. SECT!ON 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to t.he s~bject property that: (a) The site is so situo:Ited, ~nd the use or uses pro posed for the site are of sllch characteristics, that the application of gener~1 districts or co~ininq districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development in that the ba!is for the project is to provide housing f'Or the el~et:ly including life-long medica.l care .. Tbe increased density 'Will allow smaller urdts to be con structed of i!l. size suitable to predominantly single. elderly residents and will permit a project of Al'I a"eqllate size to --obtain a 9t:ouP medical care packages (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community dist.rict will t:esult in public benefits not othervis~ attainable by appli~&tion of the regulations of general disttiets or combining districts in that housing for the alQe~ly, including medical care, is a public need consid ering Palo Alto's sizable elderly population (13~.c. of the total popula.t.ion a.s of 1980. a 2S\. inct~ase from 1970 t.o 1980). (c) The use or uses permitted and the site development x'egulations applicable 'Wit.hin tbe distyict shall be consis tent with the Palo Alt.o Comprehensive Plan, and shall be com patible 'With existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general Vicinity in that the pIoject will have minimal traffic ox noise impacts O~ tbe suyyounoing nei9hboy hood end is of .a si%e compatible with scale of the Lytton Gardens eomplex. SECTION 3. 1'he plans attached hereto as Exl1ibit "B" constitute the develoPIDent plan and are incorporated be:rein by sue txhibit -2: reference4 Said development plan is approved pursuant to Se~tion lB.68~120 of the Pa.lo Alto Municipa.l Code, subject to the followiilg conditions: '. ( ,. (al .!!m 1 , Allowable uses shall be limited to the following: Thirty-seven resi~ential apartcent units, two guest units f~r temporary lod9'in9~ dining, food preparation and office facility for provision of services to project residents a~d 9uests~ 2. The minimum age of. occupants shall be 62. (b) Improvements 1. All i~rovements and development shall be substan tially in accordance with the approved developm.ent plans, with all applicahle codes Bnd ordinan.;es, and 'With the re quirements of the Director of PUblic Works/Engineering, the Director of Ot!lities, and the Chief of the Palo Alto Fi!"e De partme n t. 2. A plah providing for coordination of construction processes inc:ltJding such items as eacavation &horing and underpinninc;, undergrounc!lin9 of util ities anil r igbt of way 'impacts ~h!ll be developed to the satisfaction of the Build ing, Transportation, public Works, a~d Utilities Departments prior to issuance of a building p@rmit. 3. PLoject drain.a9~ shall be as f0110 .. ·s: The basement shall dr~in to a 5~ and be dischar;ed to the surface storm drain, ill "rill inag-e slot Shall be provide-d for the Tamp; .perimeter footing drain shall empty to basement sump, surface drain and roof runoff shall be channelled to ~n under perimetet drain that then flows off into the ezistfng storm sewel line at one point, no sheet flov shall be permitted acr·.,ss the sidewallq swimming pool backwaSh system shall di6ch~rge to th~ se~er line.' 4. The developer shall obtain approval and recordation of !. parcel map merging the three ezisting parcels prior to issuance of a building permit. S. Of the 20 parking sPeices proposed, 12 shall be indicated as reserved parking elnd eight sh~ll he labeled for visitor parking. 6. .Electric utilities shall be continued underground from Lytton Gardens III along-Webster Street at the developerts expense, includ ing the provision of underground service to ezisting projects along the south side of Webster Street which are now served by the utility pole in front of the Webster Bouse site. 7. Approval for the kitchen and pool shall be obtained from the Santa Clara County Health Department. , .. ( ( 8. Bicycle spaces provided Shall be Class I spaces. 9. The swimming pool shall be selar heated and a pool cover shall be provided by the develoPEr. 10. Developer shall design a drainage system within the property subject to approval of the City Engineer. ". Abandoned driveways, or aro.y portion thereof, shall be removed and replac~d w..i.th standard curbs, gutters, and side'!otalks. 12. Broken and/or cracked sidewalks shall ~ replacel3. 13. Portions of concrete slabs in planting strip and behind the sidewalk shall he removed. 14. Details of the site development plans including trellis, pool enclosure, end lighting designs and deta.iling of the brick veneer shall return to the ARB as an application for a mi.nor PC amendment prior to issuance of a building permit for the project .. 15. Satisfaction of the BMR program shall ~ through One of thEl two following alternatives; CaJ Provision of two two-bedroom off-site units for sale under the B~R pr09r~m for $60,000 each, or (bJ A cash contribution for CitY,housing programs to be equal to 3\ of the actual sales price of the . Webster House onits, excluding: the medical care component .. 16. Amendment of the BMR provisions above shall be reviewed only by the City COuncil. 17. The applicant shall pi"ovide and operate a passenger van for shuttle bus transportation of project residents. 1 S. The developer sha.ll provide lIttendant parking ser- vice for the undergrou.nd parking garage if, at some time in tbe future, the chief building official determines that the project ca.uses traffic congestion or on-street parking by project residents, guests or employees. (cJ ~elopment Schedule Construction shall begin no later than one year fo110 ... - ir.; City Council appr-oval of the zone cnan.ge and shall be cO!DPleted 'Within 13 months of the start of construction. SECTION C.. The Council fines that this pt'"oJect vill have no nificant adverse ~nvironmental impact. ( .. '-.,::: ( -' .. SECTION 5~ This orcHnance shall become effective upon the 'mence~ent of the thirty-first day after the date of its passage. INTRODUCED: May 9. 1983 PASSED: May 23. 1983 AYES: Bec;~te'. Cobb, Eyerly, Fazzino, Fletcher, Klein. le\'y 110£5: Renzel ABSTENTIONS: ~O". ABSENT: j . .,.- 1;; , '-3(,7 33S 3Z7 --.... ,~. ------L - , -, g 3+0 ""'1 "~, • -~-, ,." -, -' I '. ~ _. -. _ ;: , -~ -'-1 I , j • . ~ • . ' I Ji 1 I 1 ! ORDINANCE NO, 3 7 53 ORDI~ANCE Of THE coeNeIL OF T', S CITY OF PAW ALTO AMENDING ORCIN~.NCE 34,7 AND AMENIING SECTION 18.08,040 Of' THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL COllE (TlfE ZC;NING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERT~ ~~OWN ~S 630 LYTTON AVENUE FROM ~-s TO PC The Council of th~ City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as fOllows: SECTION 1. Section 18.08a040 of tbe Palo Alto Municipal Code, the 'Zoning 1'ioap" I is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 630 Lytton Avenue from RM-S (High Density Multiple Family Residence District) to PC (Planned Community DistrictJ. Said property is shown on a map attached hereto as Exhibit -A-and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (aJ The site is so situated~ and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characte~istics that the applic~tion of general districts or combining districts will not provide s~fficient flexibility to allow the proposed development in that multiple family residential districts do not allow parking as a prinCiple use and tbe parking is intended to be ancillary to an e~isting planned community deyelopment. (b) Development of the site under tbe proviSions of the planned community ~istrict vill result in public benefits not otberwis,e ettainable by application of general districts or combining districts in ~hat the project ~ill provide twelve additional parking spaces, which are not required, but are needed by the adjoining residential project, which presently relies upon on-street parking for employees and quests. (C) The use permitted, and -the site development regulations applicable within the district a~e consistent with the Palo Alto CQuprehensive rlan, and are compatiole with existing potential uses on adjoining sites or ~ithin the general vicinity in that the project vill provide needed off-street parking for an adjacent residential development and ~ill provide a visual break between two high density reside~lial developments. SECTION 3~ The plans attached hereto ~s Exhibit -5- constitute the development plan and are incorporated hereby by this refere.l'lce to Exhibit -.0-. said oevelopment plan is approved pursuant to section 18.68.120 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION 4. Uses. The allo~able use shall be limited to parking tor the adJolning housin~ p~oject at 401 webster Street, autnorized under pl~nned co~~unity Ordinance 13437. • ~ ~ SECTION 5. Improvements end resul~tions. t:, r Cal The developer shall obtain approval of a parcel map ~ lilerging the property at E30 Lyt.to'l Avenue with the ac;joining property known as 401 webster Street prior to issuance of a building permit • . (b) appr"bval permit. The developer shall o~tain Archit~ctur~l Revie~ Board of e final landscape plan prior to issuance of a building (c) All work shall conform to city regula~ions and standards and the review authority of city departments including, but not limited to, the following requirements: (1) Abandoned driveways shall be replaced with new sidewalk~ curb and qutters. (2J All work done ~1thin the City ri9ht-of-~ey shall require issuance of a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works/Engineering. (3J Final grading a~d drainage plans shall be submitted to the Department of Public WorkS/Engineering for review at least thirty days prior to building permit applica~ions. {4) Fire extinguishers shall be reguired for the parking area. Fire sprinklers shall be required if the proposed structure exceeds 1,000 gpm fire flow. (d) The operator of the residential ~evelopment, for which the parJcin9 is ancillary, shall provide parking permits in city parking lots for ell project employees ~o regularly drive to work and who are not accommodated by on-site parking, and shall limit the ~n-'_:lt.e parking spaces for residents to no more than t"""e nt y-e igh t-space s '. -----------. -.---. (eJ Of the total of thirty-two surface parki~g spaces provided on this site at 630 Lytton an~ the adjDr.ent site at 401 webster (authorized under plannec community Ordinance f3437), three shall he labeled and reservec for quest parking4 SECTION 6. Development schedule. Construction shall begin ~ithin six months after City Councll ~pproval of this ordinance and shall be completed within six months of the issuance of a building permit. SECTION 7. paragr~ph (b)(S) of ~ection 3 of Ordinance ,3437, the planr..ed community district ordinance for the p:-operty kncown a,s 401 Webster Street, is hereby amended as follows: 5. Of the total of thirty-two surface parking spaces provided on this site at 401 Webster and the adjacent site at 630 2. • i I • \ -._--------_--:-_: .. Lytt;~n, three shall be labeled and res.er-ved for gue.::" parkin;. SECTIO~ B. The Council finds that tnis project will have no sivnif~cant environmental imp~ct. SECTION 9. cODUllencement of pass"age .. This ordina~ce shall become effective upo~ the the thirty-first day after the day of its mTRODUCED: May 18, 1987 PASSED: June I, 1987 AYES, ae,htel, Cobb, F'letchei, Klein, htituc:c:i, Renzle, Sutorius. ~;ool1ey NOES: None ABSTENTIONS, le,y ABSENT: None ATTE:f'" ~~~e~':~k~' ~~~~~-----Mayo!' APPROVED: "i> ' Q APPROVED I- Attorney - .~ ] SITE LOCATION: 630 LYTTON PC-2649 ~" . le CD-C '!S3t 52.5 ii o I (?--,--- :. ... " . ' , " 'J HAMILTON A VENUE PROPERTIES, lNC. 555 BYRON STREET' P .... LO ALTO, CA 94301 A rrACHME~T 4 "THE HAMiL TON" TEL W5) J2~16 FAX. (415) 32'7·8l97 • ffil ~~ ~~ ~~! ill September 10, 1992 OEPAFi l">I1ENT OF PLANNIN CITy OF PALO ALT, :ken Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY OP PALO ALTO 250 Bamiltoc Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Tbe ftamilton S~nior Living C~unity Parking Layout Dear Ken: ~ discussed in our Tuesday meeting, we have revised our plans to reflect what we feel is a realistic parkinq program for The HAmilton. These revisions will be evident on t~e drawings whioh will be .ubmi tted to your office tomorrow or early Mondl!l.Y morning_ Z am writing to you in advance, however, knowing that you plan to be in WisconSin fo: a few days. The revised pl~& will provide for parking spacee as follows; A. Surface; 3 visitor spaces, 1 hand.ica.p apace and 1 'drop-off-space. Lover Level: 9 visitor spaces, 2 handicap spaces, 6 employe;-&paces, and 52 reserved residents' spaces~ Since we plan to reduce the number of residential units from 38 to 36, the total of 12 visitor sp"aces appears to co:nply with the applicable ordinance~ Handicap spaces are provided per code~ The 6 employee sp&Ges appear to be ade~~ate when one compares the project with Webster Hou~e, a very similar operation to that Which we propose. Note ttJat we intend to reduce office space considerably. thus minimizing th~ space factor as it applies t~ parking. Perhaps the most signifiCant issue to be addressed is that of reserved residents' spaceS4 We propose 52 spaces for 36 residence uni ts C~· a ratio of 1.4'" spaces per un! t ~ To our knowl~dgeJ this ratio is greater than that of any similar owner occupied, upper end senior living community in the Bay Area. Even though co~ples who choose to live at The Hamilton will often have two cars at the outset, they are apt to dispose of one car £or many reasons. These include: ." er'l'Y OF PALO ALTO September 10, 1992 Paqe ho ' ... Re: ~e Hamilton Senior Living C~unity Parking Layout 1. Proximdty to downtown and th~ numerous services in the immedi il t.e ar ea . :2. The availability of .li. van for routine "t.rips to doctors, Stanford Shoppinq Center, theatres, etc. 34 Illness or the reluctance to drive on the part of one or both m~r8 of the family. 4. The relatively high cost of a second parking space. (We anticipate including only one space in the basic pri~e of a residence.) As we have indicated in our discussions, we expect that the averaqe age o~ person~ moving to The Hamilton will be appro~tely 80. We also expect that up to a third of the units will be sold to single persons. This haa been th~ ca6e at similar projects, where ~ven the largest units have been acquired by widO\rll& or the occasional widower .. We feel that enough parking spaces must be proyided to meet the reauirements of what we perceive as a relatively affluent maxket. With that in mind, we share your concerns and are optimistiC that the proposed parking facilities will meet both our anticipated needs and the City's requirements for adequate on-site parking. Sincerely .. BAMILTON AVENUE PROPERTIES, rN~. ~I~ ~)s B. Rill 'P'ft",.. '_~,r,., TABLE 4: PARKING COMPARISON OF SrNlOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS fACILITY I 1_1'f'1IbE1tJ I_pt •• , '''111 mAl ..... , UPlD\'(U' ~51_D jg&R or u.n'G IIII1S !tESIDEI'S ASSIGJIED lU ,Mkllfl ,,,., .. I'Mr:nr; -, .. OI'lDt£U ',,' ,,-, '".' II:ESIIJ[ITS "IT! 'Ims IIIITS WIlTS il(IISTER 31 4S 2~ 32 3 0 0 6 fll11- ', .. ,' , !:" ..... , (+1 '.tn) U .. I,verag!! 3 p.art-Agill': 8.) S[QlltIM 226 280 112 261 30 60 S9 ""IT"'" (total 294) (tilt. I )Ot5) WAlln VATURIID, 300 400 300 324 8 lJaries 16 131) full-.OS ..... tlJ1 oe"uplBd) (pruJ!!et"d) (pmjeat.dJ tI .. fJ[11.S(A.A i 207 280 253 278 17 8 0 I 110 WI MAJ[O (tnt .. , 1l1) Itllhl300) I ~rt-Il_ leV6r1!p1 .M '!"ull-.!I.~ ,-!l1 II .. » =1 ". ~ '" '" '" z -~ ~ .,\ ......... lftl~ .. ' ATTACHMENT 6 . . ' . if ! c ~ i· l/ ~ -~ 11 ~ ~ Ii ~ :I §~ ,! N ~, ~ ~ ~. ~ :l I. -! -~ ii :!li ~r ~~ "";;::; ~:; =< ;; :0 ~ - ~ c.; l. g~ c. c ~: t..::: ;;it ~~ ~. ~ c .r: ~i I ~i .; c· ; ~. ~ v -c. -. ~1 .-:l • 1I~ ~~ ~ -. .. · . ~, ~i ~ • ~. " "-o • .. • § • · . · . ~ ~ . ::~ ;! 1 .. .. · . , IU. I · : • AnACHMENT 7 R\Mn.roN A VENUE PROPERTlLS, INc. SSI ~YRON STREET' PALO ALTO, CA 94301 September 23, 1992 Ken Schreiber Director of Planning and community Enviro~~ent CI TY O!1. PALO AL TO 250 Bamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: The Bamilton Senior Living Community BilUldlton Avenue Between Middlefield and Byron Application for Rezoning from RM-IS to Planned COlDIIIunity (PC) Assessor's Farcel Nos: 120-03-047, 048, 049, 052, 053 and 073 Dear Ken: "THE ft"M1LTO"'" TIL (415) 316-1626 FAX. (415) 327·8197 This letter seta forth the specific propos~l of Hamilto~ Avenue Propertie~, Inc. (-Applicant-J to provide the City of Falo Alto '·City·) B minimum of fourteen (14} BHR units in conjunction with the above-referenced project. The provision of the BMR units, as set forth herein, will create e. a,irect public benefit for the City not otherwise obtainable by application of the requlatior.3 of general district5 or combinin9 districts. This public benefit will result from the qrantinq of the requested Planned Community {PC) zone change. Pursuant to Programs 9, 11 and 13 of the Housinq Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Applicant proposes to provide a total of Fourteen (1.) BMR rental units. As Gat forth in the application for rezoning of the referenced parcels, these BMR units comprise twice the number of BMR units required of the project under exi5ting ordinances. The BMR units will be identified and funded in accordance with conditicns set forth in thifi letter. In cooperation with the Palo Alto Sousing Corporation and the City, Applicftnt will explore other possibilities for financillg additionsl BMR units, usinq Section 8 money, CnBG fundi~g, convent.ional financing or other SOI.Jrces of funding.. Such an approach could well lead to the provision of more than the fourteen (14) units offered herein at the same cost basiE to the applicant.. Applicant fully recognizes the need for BMR housing in Falo Alto and will make every effort to explore all reason able alternatives with the Bousing Corporation and the City. . j. cn'lf OF PALO ALTO September 23, 1992 Page 'T"-wo Re; The Bamilton Senior Living Community Applicant will provide a minimum of fourteen (14} BMR units on the basis set forth below: 1. A minimum of seven (7} SMR units (Phase I) will be acquired or constructed by AppliC'ant and qiv'en to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation, free and clear of all liens, prior to the issuance of a building permit for the referenced ~roject (-The Bamilton·)~ These units constitute a public benefit for the City and their location(s} shall be subject to approval by the City Council. 2~ Applicant will Make good faith efforts to secure seven (7) or more BMR units with no studio units and at leaEt three (3) tWo-bedroom units. A mix of studio, one-bedroom and two-bedroom units will be permitted, however, with at leRst three 2-BR units and one additional 2-BR unit for each studio included. Por example, a mix of two studio units and five 2-BR units vo~lG be acceptable. 3. In addition to the seven (7) Phase r units referred to above, following completion and parti~l occup~ncy of The Hamilton, Applicant vill prov!d~ IS number of BMR \L~its (Phase II) sufficient to bring the total number of dedicated BMR units to fourteen Ct4). :Phase.II unit. and their loeation(s) will be subject to City Council approval and the -mix· requirement set forth above will apply, overall, to the fourtEen ~14) units. Phase Z.I units will satisfy Applicant's obligation to provide BMR units in accord with existin9 ordinances. 4. Punding for the Phase II units will be provid~d by Applicant as units in The Samilton are completed and occupied~ Applicant will pay into a speCial City fund a total amOl!l.lt equal to the number of unit& in Phase II multiplied by Applicant's average cost per Phase I unit. For example, if Phase II con~lsts of six units and the eight-unit Phase I cost Applicant sscn,ooo, the total contribution to the Phase II fund would be E x $100,000 or $600,000. 54 A payment into the Phase JI fund will be made as each of the first twenty-four (24) unite of The Hamilton is occupied, each payment being 1/24th of the total contribution determineJ above. The Phase II fund will be made available to the Applicant for acquisition or construction of Phase JI units~ Should the fund be inSUfficient to cover the cost of Phase II units. Applicant will make available sueh additional funds as are reasonably required. '-'-r; • , L CITY 01' PALD ALTO September 23, 1992 Page Three ' .. ' Re: Tne Hamilton Senior Livi~g Community 6. All 8MR units to be provided by Applicant shall be in reasonably good condition. They shall ~ structurally sound with all plumbing, heating l!Uld appliances in good working order. It i~ understood that such units will not be required to meet current Building Codes, but they shall be free of termite and other pest infestation and seismically Bonnd. We feel that the foregoing represents an effective approach toward addressing the need for low to moderate income housing in the community. As set forth above, we wish to retain the flexibility to look ~t alternatives that will increase the number of BMR units that can be made available to the City. We are committed, however, to providing At least fourteen (l~) units. Thil letter is intended as B more detailed supplement to the application for rezoning on £ile with the City. We welcome comments from staff related to this proposal and look forward to working with the City to achi~ve maximum public benefit in the form of additional BMR units. Sincerely, IIiIMlLTON AVENUE PROPERTIES, INC. ~Ri~'~dent · ___ ,_,""'-o~· _______ ·_ AnAChMENT 8 Envi.ronmental Docume~lts ~ (. i ty of Palo Al to [NV! RONM[NT!.l ASSESSMENT Proj!ct Ce$cript;~n: Zone Change to reZDne prDpErty from 8M-IS low Densit~ Multiple Family Zon! tQ Planned CommuNity Zone and to construct 94,000 sqyare ftet senior condominium project with 38 residential units and Iss9ciattd cpmmon Ire.s including din~"g room. ~itcht~, public rgpms. gxercise toP! and enc10sgd pool and two guest ropms. Se~eDty cark1ng spaces Ire provided in an underground garage and fjve spacts are provided .. at gude. location/Address; 651 Ha~ilton. 536-576 Midd.fleld. 5?3-57S ByrQn Sponsoring Agency/Applicant: Hamilton A,,"ue Properties. Inc. Addres. and Tel~phone of Applicant: 555 Byron Street. palo Alto. CA 94301. !4! 5) 326-4626 Application fOf'~ Piarmgd COfj1TlunHy Zong Cnange (e.g., zoning change, subdivision of property. architectural review, use p ..... lt) Zonl.-s at Project location: ~ Fee Receipt No.: ~ I!llIlIT OF DETEf!!:!!NATIPN Based upon revi~w of the project files, the undersigned member of the Plonnin. Department has concluded: III NeoitlyC Declaration; The project has no sig-.iflcant environmental impact. No Environmental Impact Report is required. The reasons for I Oeclarlt1on are: in th~ attached [nvironmentil Impact AsseSSment (il-ErA-]S'. A record of prQi!ct actjgn is available for review at tbe Pi'9 Alto Planning Department, lDcated pn the 5th floor of City Hill. 250 Hamilton Avenue. Palo Alto. CA 9430l I_f Tn.e project may have a significant enYlronmenh1 impact. An £~vironmental Impact Report will be prepared. Phnn I ng Departme n t Offi t ia I ; _.L1I't'"~7),..:;.~'·",-"t-,I.~~'i'4=i--,-________ _ /j • Planning Director: ~.J.i?be' .'5cj,Iq<f~ ~ate; September B.1992 The project hiS been approved. ','he project has been denied. Revi sed B/1/79 ':\W\~llton.nod Date; Oate; file Na.:92-lC·1 92·ElA· 7 .. '-: jo,ENV1RQf\!1ENTAl DOCUMENTS -PALO ALTO INITIAL STUDY' I. Preject Title/Addr",: 651 Hamilton, 536-576 Hiddlefi,ld, 523-575 BYLQDL 11. Projact Oescriptlon: Z.one C~aoge to relon!: p'rQpttlLfro~ RH-15 L DW Densitv Hultiple Family Zone to Plan!'led Cognity Zone and t9 construct 94,000 sqyare feet senjgr condominium project with 38 residenthl units and' associated cogn areas including dining roQ~I, kitchen. public rooms. "'rei;;?: room ivd eiJclosed po01 and two guest tOOlS. Seventy parking spaces Ire nrovided in an undergrQund gara~e and five spaces Ire prQvided at grade. Ill. Environmental Setting~ The site is bordered on tnp east and south sides by Idethl streets, Middlefield Road and Hamilton Avenue. aDd pn the west by I lqcal street. Bvron Street. Existjng zon1ng and land uses across these strett$ from the prpject sHe Qre~ ]) across Middlefield Road property zpned 8M-30 Med1Uft1 Density Housing and prespntly occycjed by one-and tW{) stgry Qffjce bUjldings; 21 across Hamilton Ay~nue property zoned RM-15 low DenUty Housing and ~rEsent1y occupied by two-story residential condominiums; Ptop.rty it t e c~rner of Middlefield ind Hamilton is zpned B-2 Two Family Residence Oistrict and presentlY gccupied by j Dne-story privlte ",s1dene,; 31 aeros.s BVron Stnet property loned RM-4C High ~$ttV Rgs1dent5\1 and pri!sentl v occLlpied by a twoast!?ry church edur-ation building! Ttle ,nter!or lQt lIDe it the north side of t~e s1te adjQlns .,property zglled RM-15 LeW Density Hgus;ng Ind presently occypied bv i puking JDt, a .single famiJ v hOITH! and a two story office building. IV. Env1ron~ntal Impact Checklist (Exp1an.tion of all ·yes· answers are in Section Yi: 1, l1!ln, ~il1 the propo,.l result in: a. Un.stable eartfl condition:; 'Dr cnang!'s in geologfc substruct~res1 b. Disruptions t displacements, compactlon Dr overcovering of the soil? c. C~~nge in topography or 9r~und surface relief f~atLlres? d. The dEStruction, covering Dr IIOdification of any unique geolog1e Of phys1cal feature? I X X ~ X X '~ted f~ Ap~ndiJo: I, C.l~(ornl. GuiDelll'les (OT' l!r'Cl!Slent.tlOI1 of C[QA.. ~cll!'rllbeT' 1~. 1!l76, Rnlsed J~ U!ilS. .... Q 4. Plant Lif •. Vill the propos.l result in: i. C~ange in the div!rsity of species, or number of arty species af p1ants {including tre!5, shrubs, 9Ta~s, crops, .. Ieroflora and .quatlc ~Tants]? b. Reduttion of the numbers of any ~niqo@, rire or endan.ered specie. of plants? c. Introduction of ~ew species of plants into an ar,a, or in I barri~r to the norma1 replen1st!5ent of t""Xi sting spec'es'? d. Reduction in acreage of any Igriculturl' trop? 5. Anl •• l llf.. Will the propos.l result in: a. Cnange in tne diversity of species, Or number of iny species of Inimals (bird, land ~"I .. l. Including reptiles, fish •• d shellfish, benthic orqaolsn<, fns!cts or .i,rofaunaJ? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare Dr endangered animals? c. Introduction of MW species of .nlmals into an are., Dr result in a barrier to the .Igratlon or movement of .nlmol.l d. Deterioration In existing fi.h or w1l~life habitats? 6. llRJ.ll. Will the prepo .. ' result in: I. In-cr!ues 1n existing RO·rSe levels? b. Expos~re of people ta seyere noise levels? 1. Light and Glore. Will the propos.l produce new lig~t glare? 8. Land Use. Wi 11 the proposal result ;n a sub~tantial a1teration of the present or planne~ land use ~f an i~ea? x X X X X X X x X x X X 92·flA·7 Page 3 \ J ;~ Energy/natural Resources~ Will the proposai result in; I. Use of substantial amounts of fu!l or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon 6xisting sources of energy, Dr require the development of new sources of energy? c. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resource? d. Substantial depletion of any n,nrenewabl£ natural resource? lO~ Risk 9f Upset. Ooes the proposal involve a risk of an explosion Dr the T!ltase of nazardo~s substances (including, but not limited to, 011, pesticides, chewfeals or radiatfon) 1n the event of an icc~dent or upset? II. panlllation/HQu5ing. a. Will the propos.l alter the location, distribution, density Dr growth rate of the human population of an area? b. Wiil the propos.l effect existing housing, or create a demand for . additional bousing? 12~ Transportation/Circulation. Will the propos.l result in: a. Generation of substantial .addHional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing p.rking facilities Dr demand for new parking? c. AlteratiDns to present patterns of circulation or ma¥ement of pe~ple and/or goods? d. I:n<:rease in traffic hazards to motor ¥ehicle~, bicyclists or pedestrians? . ; ill MAYS!: NO x ! I X X X X X X X' X X p'\"",,\hailtlm,eil 92·[jA-7 Page 4 #c'~'. "if . 13. ~~;c S,.";t •. Will the propos.' ~ave an effect upon, or result in a need fer new or altered g~vernmental servfces in any of the following areas? a~ fir! protection? b. Pollee protection? t. SGhoo1s? 0. Parks or otner recr!ationa1 (acil Hfes? e. Maintenan,e of public facilities including roads? f. other-governmental services? 14. UtlllUes. Will the proposal res"lt In a n6ed for new systems. or substantial alterations to the follOWing utilities? 15. •• Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? c. Wattr1 d. Sewer or septic tanks? •• Storm witer drainage? f. Solid waste .nd disposal? H!i!l!a" HU Hh . Will the proposal res.ult in: i. Creation of any h.alth hazard or potentiai) hazard {excluding mental healthj1 b. Exposure of people to potential hea1th hazards? 16. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic Vista or view open to the public, or will the propos a' result in the creat;o~ of an aesthetical1y cffenslve site open to public view? 17. ~tion. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational oppcrtunities? x X X X X X x X X X· X' X X X X X 91·E1A-7 Page S 18. 19. CvltunJ Rl"-iQurces. a. Will tho proposal resuH in the ilterJtton of/or the d~struction ~f a prehistoric or historic archeologital site? b. Will the propos.l rasult in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric, "htorje. building, structure or object? c. Dces tho propos.l h.ve the potenti.l to CiUSt I physicil change which would affect unique cultural value-s? d. Will the propos.l restrict existing religious or s.cred use, within the potential impact .re.? HJn4itg~ EiD~lD9t 2f ~ign1fl~ID&g. i. Dce. the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environa&nt. subst,ntially reduce the habitat of a fish Dr wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popul.tlon to drop below $elf-sustai~ing levels, threaten to eli~'nate a plant or ani~il c~nitYt reduce t~e number or r!strict the range of I rare or enda~gered plant or animal or eliminate important ex~.ples of the major periods of C.lifornia history or prehistory? b. Does the pr~ject have ihe potenti.l to addeve short~teT1ll, to tne disad'olantage of Tong-term, enYiron~ntal goals? ,A shart-term impact on the environment is one Whfeh Dccurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long· term impacts will endure well into the future.) -I; --- vU J.iI .:............. x X X X I X I X I P:\VW\MailtOf1.e i l 92-EIA-7 Page 6 '. -j i , ! c. ~oe~ the project nav~ impacts· which are individually limlted, but curnuhtively considerlble? (A proje~t may impact on two or more separlte reSCijrc~s where the fmpact an eac~ resource Is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those iopatts on the enviro_ .. t is signlflcant.j I X I d. Ooes tne project have environmental effects whfch will cause SUbstantial idv~rse effects on h~n beings~ either dlrtctly or indirectly? X V. Explaniltfon of -yes-answers and -no· answers madc.~d with an astE-ri'sk ("j in en.ireRDOntal checklist. 1. Elrtb Ib,O. In the construction of the underqround garage, approximately 12,000 cubic yards of sofl will be exca.ated "d disposed of off-site. As the site is located within a huilt urbao environi»ent t such impacts &re not considered ~ignificint. A detailed grading and draln.ge plan shall be requir,; for review and approval of the City Engineer prior to issu.nce of any grading .nd/or building p .... lts. . The project site fs located in a sei$~ic area of moderate risk, and will be .ubject to very strong ground shak'ng in the event of .n earthquake. All new condr",tior. on t~e sit. will be subject to the provl'ions of the current Uniform Building Code, portions of which tire directed It minimizing sefsm~c risk ar.d preventing ross of 1 ife and preperty In the event of ao earthquake. 2. Air Cal. Construction of "the four-story condominium project ~ill tempora'!"'ily restllt in an fncrease in dust eraissfons over existing a.blent alrcondlti.ns. Tne following dust control mitigation shall be required to reduce the impact to an acceptable level: To reduce dust 1e\le-ls during construction, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently, during the 1 ate IKIrn1ng and at the end of the day, with frequency of wata"';ng increasing on windy days. Spill.ge resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private pr-opert'y shall be remcved immediately and paid for by the contractor. Oust nuisances or1ginating from the contractcr1s operations, either inside of p:\vw\l'IaIIi ltDr1.e'i .. 92-EIA·7 Page 7 , , :..._ ..... _ ..... .,. U l4 II! outside the right-of-way, sh;:;ll be controlled at the contractor's expense. If. 1n the opHllon of t~e City (ngineer, th! ccntractor hi Is t!) ~Dmply ~;t~ any of the items concernfnq spil1i9~ and dust controT t and the contractor" is either ~nwil1fng or unable to remedy th~ deflciency, the City Engineer sh.l1 ernp10J private or publ tc work forces and equipatent as required to correct the deficiency. The cost of employing such force. and equipment shall b. doubled .s a penaHy, and stich cost shall be borne by the contra.ctGT. Such act ion taken by the City Engineer shall not relieve the contractor of the responsibility cDncernlng spillage ~nd dust control. 3. Water CIL The .,roposed new construction may rUL!1t iT! an increase in the rate and amol.lnt of surface witer runofL In the proposed development, the sit! is continuously covered by building ar palling, except for portions of • 16-25 feet wide perimeter setback, and there is an underground garage under most of tne structure. In the f!xist1ng deve1 opment, much of the slt1; i.s covered by buildings or is paved~ However, there are currently no u~derground structures a~d development is more scattered, with many small unpaved areas located throughout t~e site, providing opportunities for some run-off to be absorbed. See Section 1'14. Utilitles for dlscussion of impact on the intrease in stonn drain run-off and the stOnndrain s,)'stem. 4. Plant life C.1. The proposed project ~ill result in I decrease in the number a~~ species of plants and the amount of tree canopy on t~e site~ There .re pres,ntly 23 canopy tree. of OBH (OlLOeter at Bre •• t Height) of 8 inches or greater, and 3 palm trees on the site. The development plan proposes to retain ]1 of these trees; they are Hagn~lia, Ash and Pine trees located .long the Hamilton .nd Middlefield front.g.s of the site~ Three palm trees may be relocated on the Site or on a di fferent site. The p1an proposes to remov! 12 of tne 23 larger trees on the site. Five ~f t~ese a~e net sfgn$ficant or are in poor condition. Sev~n of the trees proposed to be remov!d are substantial canopy trees in sound con~ition_ They include 1 loquat tree 8.5 lnc~ OBK. I tulip tree 10 lnches DBH, I Callfornia pepper tree 2~.5 inches DBH and ~ Chlne ••• 1. trees 12-20 inches DBH. The California Pepper tree has • canopy width of approximately 40 feet, and the four Chinese Elm trEES are gro~ped together and fors I continuo~s canopy of approximately 45 x 110 feet. In addition to the 23 l.rger trees, there are at lea~t 12 smaller trees on the site, witn DBH of 4-8 fnches, including olives, blrches, pittosporum and fruit trees, all of whicn will be removed. Tne total number of street trees a' ong both Ham; 1 ton Avenue and Byron Street would be increased by approlCimately 3 trees en each 92-fIA-7 Page 8 • str~et, due to Q reduction in the number of curb cuts. Ho ..... ever, the proposed dev510pment plan would require the removal of four existing streoet trees on Byr~n Street bec.ause of the locations of tne proposed new C\Jft) cut.s on t~at $treet. These existing trees Ire CninEse Pistache trees, 'pp,oxlmately 4.5 inch., DBH and 1B-20 feet hlL While they are young trees, th.y are •• 11 established and reprennt several years growth. The ~ocitiC'ns Df curb cuts for the new project s~ould be adjusted so that these existing street trees are not reQuir!d to be temoved. In the developmer.t pl an, areiS which are not' excavated include portlor,s of the perimeter .. tbaclt. and tn. building courtyard. Since t.~ese areas will have adequate seil \lollJfTle t\l support substantial canopy trees, IS ~lny such trees as can be reasonably acc~d.ted she"ld be plonted in the,e are.s as oitigatlon for the tree canoplo' to be removed from the S.itE. Trees removed shou1.j be replaced at a ratiD of 2;1, e1th£r on t~e site or in the imm~diate vicinity. 6. Hofc;g Cal. ConstructIon of the project tli11 result in temporary increases in iUllb1ent no1$e levels, Constr~d1on activities will be s;Jojec-f to the Palo Alto Hoise Ordi~ance. w~ich r~Qu~res construction equipment to be IlUffled so .a.s not t<l exceed a noise emission of a3 decibe1s (dBA) at I distance of 25 fe~t. or a noise level exceeding 86 dEA out$1d! the site bo~diry, unless an exception is granted. Middlefield Road is • major arterlol street, aod tne traffic noise -.y be I disturbance to residents. The prDject will be required to cOllply witn Ca1ffo,..';o Stote law, Title 24, "hich requires that a Rlniorum Interior 4S db CNEl {(comunlty NOise Equivalent level) or leu be maintained for new .ultiple-filllly projects_ The project l1as been designed so that the cOllJllOn potlo area is located .way from Middlefield Road and Is partially surrounded by bufldlng •• lls which wjll ser\l~ to protect the area from street noise. 1. lignt and SJare. The proposed fOLlr story building' will i.1crease the amount (If light fin,res and the height of some llgnt sources on the site_ m". increases. particularly (lLItdool'" 1 19htfng, may have an adverse impact on adjacent residences. Te mitigate tne potentill for impacts on adjacent land uses J outdoor lighting should be kept to a minimum and III Dutdoor light fixtures ~hould be directional and' shielded, with no light sources dIrectly visible ""d no light spillage beyond tn. property line. A detailed outdoor lighting pTan showing fixtures, 1 i gM tf)ro'ori pa tter'n sand 1 ntens ity sha 11 be rev; ewed i::nd approveci by the Arctlitedural Review Board prior' to issuance of a Building Pennit. 92-ElA-7 Pig' 9 • 8. land Use. The proposed project will chang~ the ,present land use of the site from a combination of off1ce~ single family residential and loil' dens!ty multiple family res!denti.l to high density multiple f •• il, residential use. The present uses inc.lude appro.ximately 10 1 600 sq\.liire feet of offic.e, three single family residencE:s and one 4-unit _partment building. The planned us~ for the site, as Indicated by the curre"t zoning, Is low density ,,"Hiple family residential. Tnus, the propol.d project would be more consistent with the planned use for the site tr.atl the present ~se::li. The !'lew use would bave iii: ouch larger buildln9 and twIce the res!denti.l densIty perm!tted oy current zoning, but is pennissible l.'nder the Pli71n€d Connunity Zone. 9. &lilt of Ups.tl.:.. Some types of chemicals used in the m.intenance of pools and spas ire po-tenthlly hazardDus a!'ld have special reQu; N!ments for their sife use and storage. A list of r.ames. quantities and hazards o-f .11 chemicals shall b. provided to the Palo Alto fire Dep.rt~ .. nt (PArD). The develope, sh.ll .. et standards for the ",e and storage of the chemicals, is spec!fied by the PArD. 10. PODulation/Housjng (a,b). The proposed development ~ill Incre"e the tot., number of resldent!al units presently on the s!te and will .1 so provide approximately twice the number of units allowed by current zoning. There ... presently 7 do.lllng units on the s!te, 3 si"gle family homes and a 4·unit ipar~~nt building. T~e present zoning (RM-15. low Density "ult1ple family Res1dent1al) would penait 18 un!ts on the site, whll. the proposal Is for 38 "n!ts. The development ~ould caus. the loss of 4 rent.l "nits and 3 single famIly un1ts all of wh1ch ire rented. Since the proposal does not replace those rental units, it will be roqu1red to prov!de a 1cn\ eelow Market Rate (8MR) ccmponent or eight Below Market Rate (BHR) units. The developer is proposing to provide an additional 8 BMR units to meet Public Benefit requirements of the Planned Community Zone, for a total of 16 BMR units. The project ~uld' increase t~e supply of lIIarket rite housing designed espechlly f.or senior citizens. a type of housing for which Ujere may ~ at present an unmet demand in the cOftllunity. If the proposed new units are sold to ser.ior residents who presently li'lle in the cOlmlun1tJ, the project may r~su1t .in in increase in the iilIvailab11 ity of :market rate fam'ily housfng when these units are vacated by residents of the n€w senior units. 91-EIA·7 Page 10 '. ,---j.. !-- 11. TriDsportltjcn/Cirtulatiqn (b. e). Tnff)c volume Redllctiof} A tnffic: study of potenthl1mpacts of tne pro90sed p"ojett w.s conducted b~ Tne Wilson Engineering Co.p.ny. Tne C1ty of Pilo Alto Trlnsport.tion Division nas reviewed tMs study Ind found it to be occeptable with regard to toe .n.lysis of tr.ffit volumes. The traffic stud)' has shown that the project Is expected to result in a n::-t reduction in the number of trips ger.erated by the site, with 97 ff!'wer trips per day Han are ge-nerlte-d by existfng site Ilses. In Irrhin!il It this estimate, the .study assllm(ld no reduction for senior res ider.ts , using instead a worst case sCl:!l1aritl similar to .II typical condaminfum cample)!' in a suburbin area. T~e expected trip distribution will be I decraase in triffic on University Avenue, Hamilton Avenue and Middlefield Road. with .n incl·"s. on Byron Street of lOS trips per day, with II additional trips In the .. pe.k period and 5 additional trips in the pm peak period. Tnls Increase is consid,red to be mi"lmal and to pass un~cttced by ex1stfng motorists. Reqyired hrking Tj~e proposal provides fewer parking spaces fo: residents, empioyees and guests tnan is required by ordinance. The' Plal1n&d COlIIDunity Zone Ordinance requires projects to pr{lvic'e p.rklng based on the requirements of the Parking Ordinance unless it Is shown by traffic eng!n.erlng studies or other relevant data that 10s$ parking will meet the need' of the project. Tno following t.ble shows the number of parking spaces whith ar, proposed by the project compared ~Ith the number of spac •• required by tho Parking Ordinance. PARKING PROPOSED ANO REQUIRED lonl Qr:~iDii\I\C~ proposed Requirements Resident 'arklng 65 sp,ces 76 spaces (1. 7 per unit) (2 per unit) Employee 'arklng 5 spaces 10 spaces (est1maf.e} Guest 'ar.lng S spa.ces 13 spaces TOTAl (In of units) (3311 of units) 75 spaces 99 spaces ~ile the need for parki~g 1s genera1ly considered to be iess fer senior residences than for standard family housing, tnis may not be the case for luxury senior housing where reSidents Ire UIOfe 1iki!ly to own cars, to entertain g~ests, ind where the program includes a high level of services to be provided by employeu en the sit!. .:, 9~-ElA·7 Page II " Tne estimated employee parkin; requirement of 10 ~paces is determined is foll~ws: based In the parking ordinance reql.:irerne:nts, the kitchen "ould nquire 2 spac .. aod the office 4 spaces. The office could be expected to be occupied by the proposed full time ~fcll director, ictfvi'ties director. securfty pers~n a"d' adJIin!.strator4 In Idditir.m tD these sfx spaces, parking h-r"!quired for the proposE!d lddlt~cna' stiff who h-ill provide cleaning, laundry, transportation, maintenance and personal ca"e. 1Me residential units are designed to atcorrmodate-ISsfsted care if .. qui rod. The project provides two guest Quarters and spacio~s faci1itfes for entertaining. No Information ~as been provided which would support • r..duced need for visitor plrklng. In ord.r to provide tho required guest parilng, 10 sp.c.s In the go rage should be reserved for guests and as we'l as J spaces in the surface parking arEi In front of the building. ThE other 2 surface parking 'p"es should be used to proYlde 1 ~ondlc.p parking space Ind 1 drop-off spo,e. Currently, there Is no e.cess street parking 10 t~. Vicinity of the project site. If the parking needs of the project are not provided on-site, the Increased shortage of parking for ex;stl.g residents and US!.s could lead to requests for resfdentfll parKing zones or other parking controls. T~proYlde the required numbor of parking spaces for employees ond ~uests, 10 of the 70 total spaces In the garage should be reserved for guests and 10 spaces for employees. The rea.Jni~g 50 spaces should be reserved for reSidents, providing • ratio of 1.3 spaces per unit for residents. If a higher ratio of resident parking spites rer unit is required, t~e number of ~nits should be reduced or consideration could be given to providir.g additional parking .ff-slte In close proximity to the developme"t. '"rbold, parkIng The proposed project would result in 0 net gain of one curbside parking spate. The numbe,r of spaces along the Hamilton Avenye frontage will increase from 2 to 3. due to closing (If existing curb cuts. There will ccmttnue to be 7 curbSide spaces along Byron Street, though existing curb cuts will be closed and three new driveways added, resulting ~n .I total of 10 cl.lrb-::ide parking tpaces at the project sit •. ~esi tc Adiacent Par~el Presently, one of thE two drive-ways on thE adjac.e:nt property to the nortn ls actHsed across the west corner of the prlJject 5i1l. wiU, the curb cut for t~is driveway bel~g in front of tne project site-. If the proposed prDject removes that access, I new driveway must be-provided for the :neighboring property. 92-EIA-7 Pig. 12 • . , Senliee t,:ehicles Service vehicle access is being provided off Middlefield RoaC. The service dr;v~ is designed to accommodate van size service and delivery vehicles and to permit these vehicles to turn around on the site so that they can exit in, forward direction onto Hiddlefi.ld Road. Traffic Contra) Plan Prior to any cem!)1 itio" or constrl.lcC'ion on the sit!, the Oeveloper will be required to prcvjde I Traffic Control Plan for the construction period, to the satisfaction of the Public iWrks Dep.z;rtment and tne Tran~porta.tioii Division. Items to be addressed 111 the plan will include, bL'-are not TilRited to, ac.cess to tne construction site, parking for ~ -sonal cars of constructton workers, sidewillk 'accessibility, lotat,on of stagi!1g and delivery are~s, tr~ck routes and access to neighbori~g propertfes. It. Utilities Ic,d,e) The .sewl!r mains .at Hiddlefield Road and Hamilton Avenue are near capacity. Tne o.e .... eloper's engineers shaH submit finw calct£1ations whlch wl11 .how that the off·sit. and on-.lte water ar.d sewer main. win provide tne domestic water, f1re flows and sewer tlp.city needEd tD service tne develapmtnt and adjacent pr~.Derttes during anticipated peak loads. The applicant wll1 be required to prove by one we-ek of fiow IROnitor1ng that t~e sewt!r main has adequate c.pacity to handle the .. poak flows. The Cevelopor .,111 be held responsible for lnstalling and upgrading on·.it, and .ff-sit ... ater and Sewer utilities .s necessary to banale anticipated peak loads, ~ncludln9' the cast af all .ssochted utility installaticns and upgrades. An increase in runoff from the .Ite may adversely im91ct the City'. exIsting stonadrain syst... Both of the storadrain ,ystom. which serve tMs site are currently aver capacity. In order to reduce the lmpact on the stonodrain system, and to comply with the require .. nts of the National Pollution Cischarge Elimination System and the Santa clara Val ley Nonpoint SOlJrce Pal1 ution Control Program, steps should be taken to reduce both the amo~nt and tne rate of runoff from the site. The stonrwater from the site shOUld be divided into two watershed areas, with part of the runoff direc.ted' to the pub] ic stonndraln at the corner of Kfddlefield" Road and Hamilton AvenGe, and the other part directed to the public stormdriin at tne corner of Byron Street and Hamilton Awenue~ In order to slow the rate of discharge ind reduce the level of ,pollutants enterjng the storCldrain system , on-site detention should be prov;ded~ The detention may be provided in swales located with in setback areu, or in expanded undergrcund piping, o~ !ome other form of underground stcrage. The appTicant should meet with the P~hlic Works Department to d1SCUSS the storm drainage requirem~nts for the site prior to submjttal of construction drawings. p; \'IW\haII~ 1101'1, II! I. 92 -E IA-7 Page 13 · ,~" 16. Aestnetics. Tn! lIassing of the proposed deyelopme,,,t may ad .... !rsely affect adjoining prDpert1es by blocKing sunlight and views. The proposed deyelopnent would be a four stot'y building. 50 feet high, whlJe surro~ndtng buildings are one and two stories iii height. Shadow st.dies prepared by the applicant sho~ that during fall. winter and spring, the p:"oposed new de'lle-lopll1€nt would cast a shadow o\'er portions of the adjacent properties to the north throughout the IDOming Ind oyer portions of properties east across MiddJefield Road during the afternoor.. The greatest effe.ct WCHlld be, of course, in ~inter when the sun is lowest in the sky. Tne shadow study shows that on December 2I t the proposed' development wolJld cast a shadow 80 feet beyond the north property I ine at 10:00 •.•.• aod 88 feet beyond tne east property line. across Middlefield Road. at 2:~O p.m •• The existing us.es on thE adjacl!nt sites to the nortn and east are three professional office by;ld1ngs, a sin;le family ~ome and t parking lot. All of the properties are zoned for 10. density or medium density multiple family ~ou.ing. Along the north property line, where cast shadows have the greatest i~.ct on neighboring properties, the proposed developmont .xtends bey .. d the reQuired daylight plane by 11 feet. Th. Planned COIIIIDUnity (PC) Zane District i~o,es a daylight plane requir"""nt along lot llnes shared with residentially zone property. sud as the ~crth propertl line of the project sjte, fn order to reduce impacts such as thes.. The building volu •• which extends beyond tne d01];ght plane Includes portions of 3 fourth·floor units and 2 third·noor units. Tne proposed project design should be modified to camply. at minimum. with the required daylight plane and addition.l Shidow studies shDuld be condu~ted for the revis!d design to determine if shadow ilRpacts hilve been sufficlently reduced .. If the project Is not redesigned to cllOIjlly with the daylight plane. a varfance would be reQuired. The proposed development Ilso does not meet the interior Side yard requiremerit along the north property 1 ine. ,.. ten foot planted landscape screen 1S required by the PC Zone District ilong lot lines adjacent to resldent1a11y zoned property, but in the proposed plan driveways are set back only 0 to 5 feet .along 110St of the north property line w~ere a 10 feet planted landscape screen is re~ulred. Th. Zoning Ordinance (18.04.030 (76)) specifically excludes drive_ays, parking. loading Dr storage frc:; required landscape oreas. The plan snould be "",dified so that the r'Qulred 10 foot wide vlanted landscape scre~n is provided. If the project i:5 not r!d!signed to compiy with the 10 feet planted' landscapE! screen reqUirement. a variance would be required. The City's Draft tlrban Design Phn calls for more substantial blJilding mass at the Middlefield/University Ayenu~ intersection to mark. t~,e entran(e to DowntoW11., but it does not especially call for- 91·[!A·7 Page 14 gr"e.ater building mass at tfloe Midd1efieldiHamiHon ~r.tersect;on .... here the ~roject sft~ is 1ocated. There could be urban des1gn ~enefits in 1~cat1~9 ~ substantia' and distinctive structure at t~ls intertection Clf t~o major s.treets, tno!Jgh it wCJld /'Jot r.ecessarfly req~ire as tall nor is la~e i bUlldinq as is being proposed. The rel,atfve design merits of the proposed design, hH:1uding massing, aTthite~ture, re11tiQ~~hip to urban farm and impact on neighb~ring propertl., should be evaluated by the Architectur.l Revi •• Soard. 92-E1A-7 Page 1, • ,. ATTACHMENT 9 HAMILTON AVENUE SENJOR LMNG COMMYNIIT PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF POLICY ISSUES Argnably, the most significant policy .tatements of the Compreher..sive Plan for the City of Palo Alto are concerne~ with Housing. The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan empbl!sizes the need to expand the City's housing supply and the need to create bousing ""pable of serving senior members of the community, si"ce this is Ibe most rapi<!:y growing .... gment of the City's populat;"'\. Even though the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes growth of hawing inventory, relatively few re.idential units have beeI: added since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan m 1981. Further, the development of multi-family projeeu in Palo Alto has been Jess than some of our neighboring communities for over 2S years. There are many factors involved in this low grow'.b, foremost of which may be the scarcity of pa;cels suitable for development given Ille nearly fully developed character of our residential neiB-~oorhccd:;. Because of this scarcity of developable parcels, and because of Ille City" ooaJ 10 increase housing, those fow paTcels capable of heing developed for bausing (and, in particular, for multiple family senior housing) .houl~. he skillfully and sen.,itively planned 10 provide Ille D1l!ldmum level of housing consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate for their neighborhood. DIGNIFlEP HOUSING FOR SENIORS The owners of the proposed Hamilton Avenue Senior llving Community have assembled ..a uniq\lC, developable property at the comer of Hamilton, Middlefield and Byron capable of providing increased housing for seniors. A UNIOUELY APPROPRIATE SITE The project proposed for development by the owners <aU of whom arc local residents - Leonard Ely, Sam Webster, Loren Brown, ADan Brown, Bill Ooss, Jim Hill) is a senior Jiving community project. This type of housing differs from other f<>nIIS of multiple-family bowing and generaDy consists of the foDowing elements: inde.pendent living units of various size at a density sufficient to foster the perception of a community, and sufficient to WdIT8nt its support facilities.. Access to medical care (on and off site). AV3Jlability of public transportation Shared dining facilities with prepared meals Common living spaces., ir.eluding social and recreation spaces, exercise and activity rooms Security and administration sp"'lces 1 \ (Facilities established to provide this housing along YIIi~h the ,W:.Q.mise to provide care and services to the residents for an _ -:tended period of time are ceq alrc d by the State of California to be licensed as • ' iden,;at Care Facl1ity for the Eld~rly" ("RCFE"). The .$tatc~s requirements are invor nd govern finano:ial, operational, and structural concerns. The Hamilton rna) ::ens.ed as an R CFE. This has not yet be en determined. J Together, these fearures provide incependence and privacy ~ithol.lt isolation. Daily eootact with 8 Iar~r community is tIVallablc, as are transportatio~ recreation, meals and access to health care, without sacrificing quality in one's personal living space. Few facilitie.; are able _ '0 pro-ide this type of diGnffied housing for seniors. In Palo .Alto, Guality senior housL'1g is full with yca~·Iong 'Waiting lists for new applicants. 'l11i! is true for low-and-modest income housing: for seniors such as. provided by the Lytton complexes, and also for co<tly housing for Senion such as Webster House and Channing Hause. This type of housing is loosely termed "Senior Living Communities." The project site consists of 51,500 square f~~ assembling 6 parcels (two office buildings, one fourpIa rental unit and three single family residences), located on over one~half bJock at the N ortbwest corner of Hamilton and Middlefield extending west to Byron. The site presents unique favorable conditions for dense de''elopment: (1) 51,500 square feet is an extremely large residential parcel No parceis of simuar size have been assembled nor.ll of Embarcadero in over 15 years. By comparison, the Lytton IV project with 51 units assembled three parceis totalling 28,000 square feel (2) Only one edge of the propeny is adjacen' to neighboring properties. The other three ,sides Bre adjacent to City Streets. This results in far Jess impact en neig."bors in the application of setbacks and dllylight planes. We are aware of no other projec' in recent years with such a favorable configuration. (3) The site is situated on major traffic corridors, Middlefield and Hamilton, making the traffic aspe~ <>t development insignifican~ (4) The project is less thl:n ooe block from the LYtton complexes of Community Housing, Inc. and from Webster House which are very dense bousing for seniors.. Development of this project in such proximity to other senior projects wilI create shared access 10 cenain facilities and convenient health care and transportation support. This is an ideal site for developIl!cnt of senior housing which meets imponant Comprehensive Plan objectives.. AN ELEGAl'IT PROJECT FOR SENlORS The HAMILTON SENIOR LIVING CDMMUNITY crea'" 38 high quality units in four flOOTS totalling 94,013 square fee~ a Floor Area Ratio of 1.83. A one-level underground garage provides 70 spaces using no tande:n or street paridng" The an:hitecture of the project is Spanish Colonial Revival. The Site will be lanrucaped beautifully with 33.8% of the ground fjoor usable open space. The average size Pf:r unit is 1,763 square feet. Of the 94,013 feet, 66,978 is for the private units, and 27,019 is for common health, safety and recreation ~acilitje!. "...., .. ,~ 2 .--~'--...... ;. The Floor Area Ratio of the dwelling units 'Without (ommon areas is 1.30 (66,978 bldg. area + 5l.S00 site area). The site coverage of the prc .• js 54.7%, 28,164 square feel The project is 4 stories, approximately 47-50 feet tall. The audience targeted (or this project are active seniors who need community living facIDties after they are either no longer able to or corroJortable in remaining in their single family detach"" homes. While the units will be hlX'Jriou, in many respects, the average size of 1,763 square feet is modest compared to ho\lSe.S in our community . • [NOTE: See Schedule A at the back of thi' fin! section nf the PC Application for detailed project staliotics.] Renderings and architectural plans for the project are included in Section 3 of this application. /U • ",nior living community, a number of special use. should be included in The Hamilton. Mosl basicaDy, th= include: 1) 38 u,dependent living units. 2) A dining room and commerc.a1 kitchen. 3) Public rootttL 4) Exercise room and pool. 5) Two guest rooms to accommodate visiting guests or relatives. 6) Administrative ",curity and ,uPP<'rt staff to maintain the above programs. 7) Parking. The primary goal of The Hamilton is to house oldt:r area residents. in an emiror.menL structured to provide a healthy, independent lifestyle into the future. The HamiJton would have larger than average units, and would create an alternative to the long waiting list for relatively ~man residences at existing Palo Altu retirement COmID'Jnities. Residents have the choice of thirty-<'ight units of a variety of types and sizes. All units wo uld have tun "kitchens, spacious living and dining areas, gracious baths and bedrooms as wen as generous private outdoor spaces of either a patio or deck. Units are d;!sigrled to be able 10 accommodate the assisted care of the residents if required over time. The units are deslgned to be handicapped accessible~ and COIltain medical alert a.'1d security systems. The Hanulton wowd provide a Dumber of amenities. Residents. and their guests would have the opportuniry to have meals in a common dining room with food prepared in a small on- 3 " ."" ___ ""'_ "oJ_ lite kitchen. A living r.xml, hbrary, and garden courtyard would inspire social events of 0..1 kinds. A spa. and indoor-heated lap pooL adjacent to an nerrue r(X)m allow the !e.siden~ in house recreation options. FamBy guests could stay in one of twO guest rooms provided for the resident·s me. A smal! van wi!] be available to take resicents to medicat and dental appointments, to scl«tcd events wftrun tbe community, elc. The project would be permanently staffed by approximately five fun time people. A meme&l director would oversee t.i.e health care needs of the residents and manage life-long care. AIl activities director wouJd coorc::Hnate exercise options related to the pool, spa and exercise spaces. A security perwn would be on the pr<m!ses at all times. Additional support staff would ~ to the administration and assist in the daily comfort of the residents, including prO"";ding ,ervices for weekly house cleaning, laundry and transportation. The fina] operational program has yet to be completed in detail:; there are many posslbilities that this form of housing can, ultimately. Incorporate. PC WNE REQUIRED In order for the sire til be developed in the manner of the proposed Senior Living Community, a planned community zone: change is required. Tnis:is because neither the current zoning (RM-15) nor the City'S densest residential zoning (RM-40) provide sufficient fleJability to .now the proposed d.,'eJopment. Schedule B at the end of this Seetion I identified as "Preliminary Zoning AnalJIsi' and Comparison' sets forth the deveIDpn!c-nt opportunities for RM-15 and RM-40. The RM-15 zone u inappropriate for the subject assemblage of six parcels. Th<, requirements of RM-15 are appropriate for 8,500 square foot parcels, but not for large parcels such as the Subject site at 51,500 square fec~ which is one of the largest residential assemblages north of Embatcadera in many years. FUrther, the property is adjacent on three sides to streets, unlike typical parcels, WithOllt detenninations required for a PC Zone, we believe a ZOlle change to RM-40 would be wen supported for our project. An RM-40 zone would anow 47 units, )"rule tile proposed project provides only 38 units. RM-40 requires only I parkJng space per senior unit, while the proposed project provides 1.71 spaces per unit. An of the ,"tback requirements of the RM-40 zone are satisfied by the project There are, however, site deveiopment aspects of the RJ\.~-40 zone which the proposed project does not satisfy: . -.." ... RM-40 an,,,,,. an FAR of 1.0 or 51,500 fee~ the proposed project FAR is 1.83 or 94,013 feeL Of this 94,013 feel 27,019 are common areas for seniors so 66,978 feet or aD FAR of L30 applies to exclusive residential portions of the project. RM:-40 aIiows a maximum bwlcti!lg 'height of 40 feetj the proposed project is betweon 47 and 50 feet tall at its higbest points . 4 ---""'-'-~---. - R.tvf-40 aIlQ\.lS maximum site cO\,~Tage of 45%; the proposed projec~ site cover willlx: 54.7%. BeC3U$C af the foregoing conditions by which the proposed project t)(ceeds allowances of the R.M:...oW zone as wen as of the RM-1S zone, thLs projl':cr requires a PC ZONE rather than merely a :wne change to RM-40. The site, with its extraordinary .size, three-sides adjacent to streets, its proximity to ~h~ Lytton lind Webster House SerJor projects, its location at the corner or two traffic corridors, (Hamilton Avenue and Middlefield Rood) and with the elimination of two .:xisting office buildings totalir.gll,OOO sq1ll!!e fee~ ;. wen qualified for the increauJ heig/lt and floor &rea I1Itios requested. If Palo Alto genuinely wants to increase its multiple-family hous~ng inventory for seniors, then it must actively support development of these few developable .ites such as has been assembled for \his project. CONSISTENT Wl1H COMPREHENSIVE PIAN The propo>ed project is consistent with ttle Comprehensive Plan. Policy 8 of the HoYSi". Elemnt ;,; as fon",,~: "Encourage and foster a diversity of affordable 110using opportunities for senior citizen.<:, including housing, whicb may prDllide a variety of oeIVkes for special health, social and transit necc:ls.. ,. The most rapidly growing segment of the City', population is over age 60. As tbe Housing Ilk"",o! states: "P=oru 60 years and older made up over one-fifth of Palo Alto', residenu. TIris population increased from 10,170 in 1980 10 12,811 in 1989, a 20 percent increase. One of llIe highest concenll1ltior.s of seniors in Santa Clara eolmly is four.d in Downtown Palo Alto" The need for the bousing option that The Hamilton wculd provide is demonstrable Ylilhin the Pale Alto community. As thiIlgs exist IlQ\\" kmg time area residents must leave the community to find \his housing option. Policy 1 of the Emwoyment Element is as foUows: "Continue efforts to redu,", employment potential implemented with the 1976 Ccmprel1ensive Plan an~ 1978 liming Ordinance." Policy 2 of the Employment Element is as faDows: "'Encourage the construction of more housing primarily on Or nea.r industrial and ccmmercial sites." 5 By eliminating the office buDdings totalling 11,000 fee~ employment;, reduced. The new construction incl"'eases housing near the DowntoVo11 commercial area. Severn poEcies of the Tra!JSl1Ortation Elemenl a:e furtl.ered by thi> project. Developing $Cf'jor housing near the Downfov .. n reduces occupants' reliance on transportation by private car~ Aspects of the Urban Design E!ement are furthered by this projecl Several, poorly maintained properties are replaced with an ardtitect"rany spectacular set of buildings of Spanish Colonial R~ .rjle. This enha;}CCS galeway qualiti", at Hamilton a~d Middlefield. Memhers of the P2lo Alto oommunity will enjcy the project architecture and poinl to it with pride. PUBLIC BENEFTrS Approval of • PC ZONE requires demonstration of public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regu1ations of ge'lleraJ districts. The project is in keeping with the stated goals of the City Df Palo Alto 10 reduce the housing imbalance. ... As a cor.6ition to approval of the project, the applicant will prO\ide prior to DCCllJ>Bl>CY of the project, 16 BMR RENTAL UNITS which will be awned by the Applicant but will be administered by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation as low and moderate income units. BMR RenmI Units have been provided for three other projects since 1985: Southwood Apartment Hames, 1985; 1100 Welch Rd, 1987; The Mayfield, 1988. Providing these 16 units increases by over 5(l% the number of BMR Rental Units in Palo Alto. This is more than twice the BMR contnbutioD required of the project under existing ordinaooe •. b. The project directly adds a eet of 31 units (38 new uruts less 7 existing units) Df housing to the City of Palo Alto. No other ,it. can pro,ide this man)' new units without negative traffic impact on neighboring properties. c. The project e~minat'" 11,000 square fcct of office space currently an the property. OTHER fROJECf ADVANTAGES 1. Average daily traffic volumes associated ,.,ith the site vn.l1 be significarltly reduced. Peak-haur traffic will be reduced as well. This is due to elimlnation of the 11,000 foot office . building and the fact that senior housing generates relau=vely fewer tri~. See the traffic study in Section 4. 2 Ini!ial sales and all successive resales of the 38 omite l..mits will generate real estate transfer ta'Ce$ for the City of Palo Alto General Fund. • 3. Housing units withirt the PaJo Alto city limits which an: sold, so that QWIl(:rs r;an move to the HamIlton, wJ1! generate rea! estate transfer taxes for the City o[ Palo Alto General Fund. 4. The sale of real estate cescn"bc:d in items 3 and 4 will irtitiate a re~ment of property values by Ibe County Assessor's Office which, in tum, .. iIi raise property taxes and increase revenues which fund aty of Palo Alto services, County of Santa Clara cervi= and Palo Alto School District services (among "lben;). The genem] public is a direct beneficiary of Ibis increased funding. 5. The level of on-street parldng 2Ssodated wilb Ibe site is 1ik,1y to be reduced as a result of this project. 6. There are no comparable projects (~ tc:I'IIl.S of utit sizes and seniar arnenme!) within the City of Palo Alto. Those residents of Palo Alto who opt to move to a project comparable to the Hamilton currently have 10 leave the community to find such. project. This incrudes many residents who have lived the majority of their lives in Palo Alto and have served !he community well. Given the opportunity, they will continue their contnbGtions to the public'. benefit 7. The project will replace existing nonconforming uses, which can be described coDec!ively as architecturaDy insignificant, with a single project with design merits. This will significaDtIy improve Ibe appearance and image of the Middlefield/University entrance to the City or l'ala Alto (cor decad .... 8. The net addition of residents caused by the project will bring revenue to dOWIrt:o-vrJ merc::hana 9. In 211 1ikeliJ..ood, the Public Work> Department will require that 211 of the existing sidewalks be replaced which surround the property. This will benefit an public = of these sidewolks and will reduce the amount of money required for the replacement ofsidewalks J"'ld out of the General Fund. This will free up revonues to be spent for other uses benefiting the public. POuey OUFSflONS We realize that this project presents conceptual quC'stions for various 1and use policies. As Ibis project seek> guidance from a conceptual review by Ibe Planning Commission and, perhaps, the City Council, we request that decision~makers assist us by providing specific analysls of the roDewing issues. 1. &\.f-40 Desjgnation. ~s the asse:m1;lled site (51,_"00 feet) appropriate for a zone change to RM40 provided the parcels are rm::rged into pan:els of 8500 feet or greater? U so, can t~e applicant concurrently process an RM-40 zane change and a PC zone application? 7 ! , . ,; \ 2. H;ight Umi!. R.>.!-4t) limits height 10 40 feeL Tne p;opcsed project is between 47 and 50 feer taU. Is \his site appropriate for heigh~ in excess of 40 feet because of iu Iocaticc at til. corner of Hamillon and Middlefield? 3. Eb.B. RM-40 alia,"" 1.0 FA.R. Th" propcsed project is 1.83. 1.30 FA.R. is for individual units and .53 FAR. is for cornman areas. Is a 1.83 FAR. acceptable, if no~ what FAR. level can De-supported, given the provision of adequale public benefil? (This requiru consideration of the unique site characteristics -, Sl.rSOO feet with three street sides,) 4. Setbad(. ('.an ."tbacks along Hamilton and Byren t" less than 1 a feel and at Middlefield !_ than 25 feet at certain points in order to reduce tile feeling of mass? The issue is whether rcduc:tions of tile f;elir.g of tile mass of the building can be mitigated thrDUgh setback exceptions? s. nME,. The BMR polley requh •• doubling from 10% to 20% of new units whee any renla! units are destroyed. 'This policy was developed to discour&ge deduction of lenla! units and ~p1acemenl with only a few more total new units. In this case: .l8 units will rep1ace a fourplc:x and 3 owner..occupjed homes. Where the nC\\' prOject provid~s such an enormous inerease over existing housing ,hould the double BMR policy apply? Also, tile BMR policy does ""at recognize any benefit where bouoing replaces existing office space. In this case 11,(]()(] feet of "ffice spa""s are being eliminated. Should tile BMR policy reward eliminatiom of 0 ffice space? 6. Public Benefit. The applicant...ru provide 16 BMR Rental Units at a tola! project value for those 16 units of about $l,SOO,(]()(]. A portion of this obligation (about one-bal! of the units) is required to .. list) existing BMR ordinances. Is this adequate public benefil? (It is our hope that these BMR units will be targeted for senior members of the co=unity.) 8 • BACKEN ARRIGONI & ROSS, L\'C. HAMIL TON AVENUE PROPERTIES Palo Alto, c.1ifomia 9/23/92 BAR #90062 " ;""""",, 1'1'''''''''1: .... r,,,,',,,,,h."J:" he,OJ 11",1, ~","'1 ... '" r' '''."" to, I,' '1Ir"" I r-, I "'I,~ I ~"'~ I' -, f II· ~ :Ij,,, PRELIlIlINARY WNING ANALYSIS AND COl\tI'AiUSON IRM-15 RM-40 9711192 ReVlse<l Design Density 16 -15 DUlAC 31· 4lJ DUlAC 3O.4j DlJ/AC :;.te Area '~~'\QU Sf ffilI'. ~,500 sf mlll. 51,500 sf. ISide + Rear yard setbacks I! 0' single ,tory; 1(1 up to 25' hl Yanes, 16' -33' 25' up to 30' hI 25' up to 40' hl MiCOleneJIl Road Setback r~' IZ:>' fE' lMaximum Height _ stones, 3IJ 14Il' 47 to deckef mansard roof Maximum .... e 135 %. 18,025 Sf . 4591,23,f7SSf. 154-:7%'; 18,I04SL IliIOU1Id J:"1r. Usable Open Space 135%,18,025 sf. ,20%, 10,300 sf. 133.8%; 17,386 sf. Tow Umts 117DU 47DU ,:>6DU .~ IIDU (Senior IIDU (Sentor T37Du (Resident); Housing) Housing) (:fj Total Spaces (Resident, Guest &. Employee) Tela! ~untl1ng Area N."" N."" !94,OIJ sf. ahv. grade 32,993 sf. 1>1 w. grade 127,006 sf. total F.A.R. -0,;) I 1:'16 . -.. ' ---. I . ';1 (;, !" '.,,,~,\';: j., 2..:.._:;_ ~_ ~:~~.L:'~ rn .... ip..!h 11, ... , .. ,1.1 r. •• L,'",. '1,\ I!,~ .. ,,, \' ,\11 '~"'" \1' J)W,,,, \1", 1",11, ~lli \ ~'"'''' \'j", r,,,",j<l.·,,,, (;'" ~ I 1.,,,,,1" ", i>o'l" (\,""~ r"I", \ \ ." I',,, ,I \ 1< ,'''".\ ,t, \'". ",.""\""" \I.,,~.~ 101, '" .. ~ .\1",,,, I \ I .. \\,,,,,~ \,,,,.,1".,,1 t..",,,,, ,I, II i''''~ \", ," , ," \, \ "~ " ... ,11,.1 •• , ... "" ... ,11) 1\.-,,,,1 \1 \ I 10. ,. 1,.".\ l" ,.~, ,,, • DACKFN ARRIGONI &: ROSS, INC. HAMILTON AVENUE PROPERTIr-S Palo, Alto, California 91l1l92 BAR 1900<52-1 I'LANN~'l) COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE· rHOJECT ST ... Tlsncs -A 1I .rratistia OT~ prdlmillLZl"Y Unit Vnil Area Dak:.Aru A-I 1.577 sf 165.f A-2 1,600 sr 93 sf B 1,352 sf 81 sf C 1,776 sf 128 sf D 2,000 sf 173 sf E 1,735 sf 88 sf F 2,130 sf 173 sf F-I 2,045 sf 83 sf F-2 1,640 sf 173 sf F·3 1,870 sf 173 sf TOTAL GROSS BUILDING AREA LEVEL I cmoss BtJlLCING AREA LEva 2 GROSS BUILDING AREA LEVEL 1 GROSS BUILDING AREA LEVEIA IIUILDING AREA GARAGE TOTAL GROSS AREA TotarD.V. 1st FEt-. 1 I I I I 8 2nd Flr. xCI' Ftr. 2 2 I 1 , • 2 2 3 3 II 11 36 units 1799 sf 51,500 sf 4th Flr. TOTAL 1 6 3 3 3 3 6 2 9 6 36 \"',,,., .",,' I"~'" "'''; A. I"",',",,, II."~" 11';,\\ I'. .. ,!, ..,,,,,,, ~",. f:~''''''L "~, c.,. ~"ET ARE.4 9,462 sf 4,800 sf 4,056 sf 5,328 sf 6,000 sf 10,410 sf 19,170 sf 2,045 sf 1,640 sf 1,870 sf 64,781 sf TOTAL 26,167 sf 23,895 sf 24,023 sf 16,675 sf 90,760 sf 33,193 sf 123,953 sf A v .. Unit Size Site Area F.A.R. 1.76 ·{lIcluda 4bo~ grath f,!!"4rrfOO{a.8~ onI. .. COVERAGE C ... LCUL ... nON ItESlDEN11Al. AREA COMMONS pOOL BAU:01'o1ES COVERED EXTERlOR SPACE TOTAL COVERAGE r.i,,,,,, ".J, H'''''H<JJ I\~(lo." tAl" ~!'\.VA"'J,,,.,,i.I\.I'" ].om"" ~1I~hcll, ~tlJJ\ lIt,dl~fI:I O.r.c",d,AII'I Sr-niu, \"'(f I't~lid ... n C;,., f Ci,~""I ... " h<:b. ~h""i ".i .. ll .. I.~r 1 •• rhl "I G rIll 1m 15,730 sf 8,268 sf 2,169 sf 1,055 sf 942 sf 2B,l64 sf 54.710 )0'1", \' \' J r'. ",0 .. .' T Rq""'tl, ";"" . ~'-':;'~-'" -"::::~-' \'ra "rurrl<, .. , ~t.r" III ).(,'r<' \~\t~,.",-f 1,,,11.,,,", D.",j r" .. ."r +,.",,,,,1, II I"".:. ""~f',r.'" C" ... , . " t I ,. HAMILTON A VENUE l'ROPERTlES, INC. 555 BYRON STREET· rALO ALTO, c.~ 9,101 octobel' 27l" 1992 Palo Alto Planning Commission CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: The Hamilton Senior Living CO'If.munitj~ Hamilton Avenue Between Micdlefield and eyron Application for ~ezonin9 from P~-15 to Planned community (PC) Dear Members of the Planning COmmi5&ion: ~THE HA}.'ilL TON" TEL. (415) .326-4620 FAX. (415) 327-8J9i We are submitting this letter in response to a n~~er of concerns raised at the September 30 Public Rearing and in letters from interested citi~ens. We hope th~t o~r comments will assist you in your deliberations concerning our application~ As we have presented in our application and at the public hearing, our proposal is for a specialized seniors' community whichJ in addition to its physical facilities, will provide intertwined health care programs, social opportunities and nutrit_ion proqrams for i~s rlP.sidents. The objective of The Hamilton is to provide a complete package of ho'Osing and services that will meet all of the care needs (present and future) of its residents. If a service level cannot be provided on site (i.e. skilled nursinq)t relationships ~ill be formed with ~ther nearby facilities to provide the desired service. We have grouped a number of concerns raised by our a~~lication and our comments in five qer~eral categories cover-ing daylight plane, traffic 1 parking, height and building mass as follows: (l) Daylight Plane Intr~sio4 at" Neighboring Par~in9 Lot: a. We 1J.re prepared to revise our design to elin'l.inate-this intrusion and any need for variances. , (2) Increased TraffiC': a. If the City so reques~sp we will initi~te a new traffic count on Byron Street. This traffic count would lead to a revised report ~y our consultants. Such a report, we believe, would pzc.ject and even greater reduction in traffic were The Ha1f,ilton to be constructed. b. Our report utilized an average daily trip ger.eration factor of 6.8, typical for condominiums. Utilizing A factor of 4.0, mere valid for a senicrs' complex, our project woulc genexate 144 trips per day or 211 trips LESS than existing site uses. P410 Alto Pla!ln:ng Com.'1'Lission october 27, 1992 Page Two (3) Increased Demand for On-str~et Parkin9; a. Exhibit A., attached, compares The Hamilton with othe,r Bay Aree s~niors' reGidenceB. Please note that our project provides ~ore ~n-site parking in every category than twenty other simil~r projects researched. Given the City's strict requirements for viEitor a~d employee parking, The Hamilton should not o~urp on-street parking spaces. h. We are working with Web!ter Bouse to develop specific programs involving the sh~:ing of the services of a number of employees. Sur·). jOirJt arrang~mentl5, when Pl.lt in place, will significan~ly reduce the need for p~ployee parking a. projected by City staff. (4} Height of Proposed Building~: a. The sloping tiled roofs which give the bQilding its appropriate character ~o, indeed, increase its height. High points are set back from the edges of the building, however, lessening the feeling of mass. b. We have taken care to reduce building height adjacent to and across the street from our neighbors on Byron and on Hamilton. Such revisions also will enable us to conform with applicable daylight plane requirements. (5) Mass (as measured by FAR), a~ The proposed FAR is approp=iate to the site in an urba~ design context~ The project ~ill lend symmetry to the area which is now somewhat dominated by the -Lytton Gardens Block·. b. Since ~he site is bordered on three sides by streets, the potential impact on neighbors is greatly reduced, c. Setbac~s, the courtyard, lower building h~ights in Key areas, landscaping and architectural £tyle all combine to lessen the feeling of mass ,""hich FAR is expected to measure. As yo~ know, we have qained the support of a significant majority of homeownets in the area of our property. We feel that this support will be broadened as our neiqhbors learn ~ore about The Hamilton~ And we hope that the points made in this lette~ will address many of the concerns of Qther interested members of the community. 1-.' [, . ~ ~ I J 1 1 Palo Alto Planning Commission October 27. 19 9 2 Page Three We respectfully request that the Planning Commission approve our application in cor.cept. We f~el that we have been responsive ~t eve~y 6tep of the way to concerns expressed by staff ~nd oth~r interested parties, leading to 6 well-designed project that will enhance the entrance to the downtown area. The Hamilton will result in public henefit by the addition of 14 SMR units to the City's lower income rental housing stock and will add housinq for seniors which is not otherwise available in Palo Alto. Ycur favorable consideration of o~r application will be greatly appreciat.ed. EA~~LTON AVENUE P~OPERTIES. INC. ---::;;,,,,. ~~ ~ ~ James B. Hill, president ! -- ·. ::..:_l:_.~!:~'·";E:::r~..:.:.......~!\ rl,ClllTl VUIliTO. ""'" h ... r t'1P aoa": ul S£omrAS POI lOlA U.(.U' Note: Amonq all senior T@sidenttal projects in thp. Bay Area The Hamilton proposes the highest ratio of parking spaces I (a J ~ssi9ned per ani t (1.04<1), (b) in total p~r unit (2.0J)~ fe) for guests per unit (0.33), and (d) for employees per unit (0.11). (In o'lddition to thoBe projects Bummarized below, we have investigated another eleven Renior, residential projects. Hakiug conservative 8110waTices fOr nUTsinq nnd internu"tdiate care facility parking, they all have 1eaa [Iarkih9 per unit titan any of the nine projects ahown.) IIOCrElI'D(lT UYlIG "",lfS 37 226 Itot.1294) TABLE 4: PARKING COMPARISON OF SENIOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS 1.,.£1111(1' IUlllf.lrTS 4~ 200 (tOI.l ]l~) MlIIII6 IISSI£Jf(O TO II[SIOUlfs" 28 Il2 ',AUIIOI "SSlfiilU' K111ft'(~ O(JIT IJIHf .. 0.76 0.5 lot,.. ",.kUIG Wlln 32 (.S~) 261 (,.,<) ... " ",1111:.1'" tailS J 1"1 un) (b.O~) 30 (0.,1) 0.1..01(U' """Mi UlITS o (fiOO) 60 N.". I.IIIASSICM(D PU(I'" uwlf5 o 59 II,N(I (If UIPlonn 6 full ,,~ 3 p.~t· ,,- if "';""',. JOO 400 I 300 1.0' 324 8 tarle, I ;i", IO:'~JUlI! Un fI':C:Llp'.d] {pruJechrll J (proj .... t.d) I",' (" 1) " .. I ( .. t~.9f I.Otl} lO.O a~S) 'I---------~I----------_+--.------_+----~--t_------t_----. -----t-------+-----~ >---'II I . 5 'rll'I~~" I, ~M IIJ,I£a i [hPf''I'" II. aq" /91 p"'R. .... I VI '-'"'. 207 [total un 10 I -1 280 (Inhl lila) 253 1.2 278 (,.~~) 17 (0.00) B (M+) IDS ' ( .. ,_.m.) 1<> 1.0 I' 1'1..0 I ___ (I.+)~ () 14 B o L8 110 p.rt·, ,"It .11" full· ,,~ I \l1i..L-fII(,o{. '10 "0.1(. '. ,,5 I ('II'.'''IH,.~O) I • ~TI1I1Tf""'O ). I, __ _ (, ...... ,..~tl:l_ I~·;.~ 38'1.. I rz.1'I~~ c..~ -,.', (o,to) (0.11\ 1.0 I It) I I I---. ( .. ~)M ( ,II. B <;'0 I 1.~ -----.. -l--,,""U C •• H) (o.,v L±BI" , i,:-:::l--=---:---~(~'~.::."~.:"."r::.~o~). uti" .0 .t. • ( -rIB 7. 4-0 C ,.hv~ '.\I~ I.' \. (I.,,,) .) 2.D 4 ! ? ___ I 41.0;, +---to.,o (0 os) 0 . ---4 CPO.""" •• ) '\ I. <. 511 ~ --!~~~ON I 3{, I ~~ ~.-' F=' (, .• 0) (~~\) (:",,) ?"!:(I.,-=.) IOOf-'t I' l ' ( S'1. 1 ,~(\ f~ t .;;;-;=-----'-, ... ", •• 1 ....... 7~ 1'1.. (,' ' (2.ol1 (0.11) (0 ,,) ." ,5 (v'" I ( ) 1 ... f)It~ !. i 1 ';;;~ ! r~ r n"c~C' P(!1l. {.J'V 1",(',. UAJIy" j .. . .N .. 11= IJLL U"'''' 'ti iii IJf:.O r;'IfU( ..... fll"_ "'~~lh","('1 7n !'?f{lflflI'lT('. III ... . -, ." ... 't ~ <;'> r., '" z U ~ I", -~ .' J-;; '" r ~l rn . \vi i~: ~I i • ," , ~ 1 , 1 lctober 28, 1992 Planing Commisoioll City of Palo AltO SOl1 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Califomi. To Whom it MAy Concern: LIGHT SOl'RCE I am writing tl'.;$ letter to expr ... my CODcems regarding the "Planned Community Zone" being consideied at 536-576 Middlefield Road, I am a bome owner resident at 536 Fulton Street which is 112 block due cut of this proposed development, I have been at thi, addre.s for over seven yean, I have two major concerns: 1. T1u bulk of the project OJ proposed is exctstivt ami complelely Old Of cluuacter for the neighborlwod I live in ,This port of Palo Alto is a traJli;ition zone of single family homes, condominium" apartment buildings and office buildings. As a cli>C in point. I live acroBS the street from a c<>ndonriniwnJ'partment bnilding and d.ire.:tIy behind an office buildin,g that fronts Middleficlfd, What tnakes this "conidor" work is the small scale (two stories or leIS) residential feeling of ali the buildings, I find the visual atmosphere pleasant and not intrusive. I enjoy where I live, The size of the proposed proj eet would forever chang e this vis u aJ atmosphere "".;; upset the delicate balance in the lleighborbood. Tbe building is too tall and will cast sbadows in the neighborhood. Put _imply this project as propose<! will be an immense intrusior. on the lives of the ,urrounding residents and completely ant of cbaraete< fot a neighborhood composed of single family home. and sDJaIl apartment buildings. ~oo: LI GIlT S(lU~CC: 1. Th, proposed density of rh~ project will compound and aggravate clIl already &erious traffic and parking problem. During !he business day, Fulton Street where I live between Hamilton and Univer.it)' Avenu« lind H&milton Street from Fulton to Middlefield is fr"'lDently jammed with daily parkers from the surrounding businesses and medi~al buildings. If [ come home early in the day, often can't find a parking space cn the stre\Ot. Many of !be cars arc the lame each day and many of the people parldng seem to go to the surrolUlding medical buildings ( a Jot of white uniforms observed.) In addition FI>ltOD Street is a shon cut between Unlversity, Hamilton and Fored Streets. Can zoom up and down the street trying to avoid stoplights or simply to get over to the ne"t street. 36 Dew residential units in a area zoned for 18 ,,;.its will compound • tight traffic situation. Parking wH! become a nightmare. TIle project ii too big and to dense ror the area. I urge denia! of the project, confirm the acceptability of the RM- 15 zono and forward the project to the City COllncil. S ini:crely. Timothy Desumps 536 FulleD Street PaIo Alto, California 94301 -;Z"j-ISO,O 'llIoo, • _"'~GIIII"""'" ~,-ac .. ..u ~,.,""t:_tJO'" .......... It!t ~~,"""'" "-.. ,,~. ...... w orrl.:tS GRIST, GRIFFITHS, SCHULZ 8-: DIOXz.,.- october 2S, 1992 Palo Alto Planning commission CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Bamilt~n A~.nue Palo Alto, California 94301 RE: The B •• ilton Senior Living community 651 Raailton Avenue 536-576 Kiddle!ield 523-575 Byron street Detar Hembe.rlil of the C01IIaission: r ....... " cr~ ~~'S~ ~" .(:'"'.[:0 r ....... ~ c([ ~~I'\.r,:SA ,' .... ' ... " On behalf ot Haailton Avenue Properties, Inc~ (·Applicant· J, I woUld like to submit this letter in support ot Applicant's application for a PlazL~ed Community Zone Change (.pc Zone-) for the aboVe-referenced parcels. This matter i. before the Planning Com.issioH for conceptual revi.w and consideration of the issues set forth in detail L~ Applicant's Program Development stateaent and stoff Report of SepteJDber 2S, 1992. Both the St&t_ent and Report address the specifics of tbe proj -set, and the purpose ot thi& latter 1s to develop, in a mC're general. aense:, some of the concerns which I have discussed with many of you personally and with the Btaf~, and have raised at the public bearing. As you are aware, this project vill provide tbirty six new housinq units tor. seniors in a residential livinq communi~y, including services and facilities required for this type ot living arranqement~ The necessity fo~ incluQing the facilities essential to senior livinq, combined with the desire of Applicant to provide a type of housing which is not now available in Palo Alto, has necessitated this request for a PC Zone. This project ia unique and will add to the housing mix and provide an opportunity for many seniors, who would otherwise leave Palo Alto to seek this type of housing, to remain in the community. • I. I Clil:l~" GIi/:!1"l'lTHS, SCHULZ .. E' ~ Palo ~to Pl~nning c~iBalon october 28, 1992 pag-e Two RE: RaJlilton Senior Living Community ----.. 7be analysis provided with the application illustrates the need tor a PC Zone sinee no o~~er zone is available UDaer the present zoninq regulations which would enable this project to g"O torvard~ The PC Zcne requires that the Planning cOlUliasion make a findi.nq, a:mor.g others, that the ~development ot the site ..• wlll result in public benefits not otherwise obtainAble by application of tho regulation~ of general districts or combining districts.-Due to the lack of a zone in Palo Alto which would qive the flexibility to develop a houa1nq project of thi. nature, an applicant and the Pl.nninq co..isBion are placed in the position of tryinq to juatHy the grantinq of a PC Zone by detel"lllininq t!lat the p~lic benefit ia adequate in ea~~ caBe. It is unclear in the Code i~ the individual development must have inherent public benerit or it its ca-pletion will result in the public benefit. Palo Alto haa seemed to accept the latter definition, and I also sharo the opinion that especially in the case cf additional houainq, if the development will reeult in SOBe pUblic beneti~ to the community, that it shoUld qualify aa appropriate for a PC Zone deBignation~ In this case, Applicant has ~orked with statt to develop a proqraa for providinq a totel ot fourteen 5KR uni ts~ 7 t'or the BHR component of the proj ect, and 7 additi~~l SkR units to be utilized ideally for senior . housing at a location and of a type ot housing which must be approved by the city council. In addition, Applicant has made it clear that it wishes to work with ataft, the Housing Corporation, or other similar bodies to explore creative ways to be able -to possibly provide additional W".ita for the same equivalent cost. This benefit, cle.arly recognizes the need in this ccmmunlty of zany of our seni.;)rs for affordable housinq and will be of immedia~e, direct assistance to the BKR program, give immediate revenue to the Housinq Corporation, bypass a lengthy aoquisition proc6£s, and ultimately be of greater econcmic bene~i~ than a direct payment. ~thouqh discuBsions to date have focused on BMR rental \L~its, Applicant has also been in preliminary discussions with other senior groups to develop mutually beneficial ways that the senier programs might be ~ssi5ted in perpetuity throuqh the provi~ing of funds from the project to endow or underwrite certain programs that otherwise miqht be .;.fi'··· ... :~~:~i~~--: .-;.': " . ... ~ . .:. ... ::~ C.81~T. OIRll'1'1THS, SCHULZ .&;e tN Palt:l Alto Planr,inq COJm.ission october 28, 1992 Page Three RE: ~amilton sanior Livinq Community e!iminated. In thia way, large numbers of seniors in this oa.munity are directly ai~ed thrcuqh leveraging seed funding combined with aaint~ining and expanding exiating and nev programs. Applicant is open to further dis~ussion and direction from the Planninq Commissi~n or staff on the issue or public benetit. 7'he opportunity tor providing benefits to the ca.aunity through this p~oce.s are widely varie~ and open to creative and a.ginaUve thinking with which Applicant is willing to participate. In S\lJIDlary, I teel that the projeet deserves the support of the Planning comaio.ion. It i. an excellEnt deaignJ well thouqht out to serve its target population, will be a positive addition to that location, provides an t.aadiate and lasting public benetit, ~ i. a quality proj act Dr Which this cOJlllluni ty will be proud. Thank you ror your consideration at this matter. R •• ~::)4'''' SIfP/blc CC: Jim Hill • . . ----:....------ ffi) IE ~ IE n lE !ill lffi or r ~ 7 1992 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING CITY Of PALO ALTO KCl.'lith Schreiber Director of Pla.nzli.ng and Community Environment City ofPaJo AltO Palo Alro. CA 94301 Re: "Tbe Hamilton" development project Dear Mr. Scl!reiber, Tun LiDdholm Lccy Al1n Gaylord 623 Middleficl~ Rd. Palo .'\.1<0. CA 94301 (415)321·6656 27 Cctober 1992 Our home is less than baa' a block from the. site of the proposed deve1;),Pmeru "The Ham.iltoo". AJthough we do DO( gencraUy object [0 I seniors' resideno: at tb.tt IlJC8.ljon. we think that there are compelling reasons why this dC'Welopmem must not proceed as :it is cmrenrly couccived. 'The poiDt5 thaI we consider most significant I. Density aru! changes to zening 2. Effeas 00 parking and traffk 3. Hardships caused by conmuction DensHy and Zooinl It Ua well dOOlttlCIlreil that "1be HamiltOD" is of .. size that will require map cha.nges in the zoning of ics sEte due to its lot covetR8e. number of units. height and FAR being gn:atly in excess of whu is pc:;mtitted by the C'l.lI"retU R1v!·!5 zoning_ We think this is by fa: the major objection to the deveicpmem.. both because. 9f its fundamem.al and urevocable chacge to the neighborhood and because the deC5ity of ale developroen1 det.ennines its effeas on parking and trdffic, aDd disruption rl'.ning OODStrUct:ion.. As is poime4 out in the Pl.anni.ng CoIIJ.ID.lssion s-..a:ff report. if the development were located at the o~ cod of tbe block, its proposed density migllt be more appropriare. However a SlrUaure of this size at the proposed site certainly does not maintain the b'aru;ition from blgh density to siogle-familty residea:e which is !he curreru: fuoctiOIl of the Midd1eIield-HamiJ.rou area Ed Ohe recommendation of the Draft Urban IX-sigJl P1.a.n. The developers of "The Hamilroo" con.'>ider the propcsoo density csse.ntill to the project if the iDtClldcd level of comm03 services and. facilities are to ~ suppone:d That mayor ma)' 00( be true. but we do DOt think. that that argues for the PLanning CommiSSiOD to grant extreme zoning exce,?tiOflS_ The developers are intelligent individuals 9o'bo cbose to 27 CkIObcr 1992 P~2 purchase this site It its CWTCo:".t wning. and t;ollid have prudently ch~Cll to design tv L'\e !oil£'. Clcarl.1 they dldo.' t !I.we mllch respect for sud] a 004:ion. as the amount of time l!ld money .speru designing .. buUd.J.ng .inappropriate for the -sile attests, The devdopers do reoognite that demit)' i .. l serious is'il.le ..... ith their project. b,J.t di,,'ert responsibility by arguillg that additiow land adjacent to t.be proposol".d site Ls DOt available If a clevclopmem 1.i.k.e "'The HamiltoD-is desirable for Palo Alto thelllet's find e !uitable site; however, the P1:mng Comml ssion and city should .cot bail jjevelopers out of IOUgb spots or suboptim.al icvestmems at the expease of existi.cg residents am !lie plan.u.ing proc.ess. A change from RI~·lS to PC zoning far the site could also have s::riou!i coG.'ieGucnces for the future devclopmeIlt of our neighborhood. If ~Tbe Hamilroo" is ereo-:.d i.e one form or anot:hc', it is likely to set <r contribute to II precedent for the redevelopmem of other RM·15 properties west of MJdd1efl.tld and south of Hamiltvll. Vlith the proposed change, mi ght the! .rolling of these other properties also be coc.si.dered 00 be "flexible-in the fucure? We do not want our dny (R.\!·l) house ro face a PC developmem thC: sUe of "The Hamilton" ten year-; from now! TralT'IC and Pw-king Otbers have pointed out that ByroD Streel ts narrow anc! opens Oil eithu end into rosy flamilton and Uruver.;ity Avenues. We SDa.."'e the COOCU11 that add1Ilg tramc load tc Byron is. unsafe and question the tr-Jfic stUdy that sbo~ no increase in tra.ffic on Byron as a reru1t of "'Ih:: Hamilton". One reJ.ated issue that. we have not teen raised is that some of the res'dents. of '''the Hamilmn" , as seniors. may be less profldem drivers thaD ayenge. p~ eye::oight could lead to ac:cideots :cegotiatiog: IJam)W Byron. and ~tower reaction times c:ou..Id make tumin.g Ollto Univc:rsiIy or Hami:ltoo m(J"e dangerous. A site offering better visibility and a smoother rransition into ttaffic would be safer for all. TOe the exteD1 thai: res.ldems do decide not to drive anJ. hav:: destinations thaI caD't be waI.k:ed 10 (e.&. a grocery store), their can; would be r~laced by Wtis, deliver)' vehkles. and the cars of service people. (Elderly people who r.:an afford million-dollar coodos will probably D(X hop I bus on Universir:y~) Because fewer tasks would be achieved per v~h.icle: on B)TOn as service-givers replace resi..:k:m drivers, traffic would increase more than the number of residents would suggest. There is DO better altenwive to entering and exiting via Byron, as Hamilton. Mlddlefteld or UDi~.:.rsl.ty would make even worse locations for traffic transitions. 5 hould the traffic problems he partially de!lt with by. far insta:D.ce, aealioD of a turn lam: between B)TOn and Hamilton., tbis will.furthel cut into available parking and increase lot coverage. Many existing: users of Byron Street have argued that parking in thar area is already i.aadeq'.Jate for their needs. One dissenting voice at rhe September 30 Plan.Wng meeti.ng &fgued to the contrary. but it rurned out she had been parking aonss the street in tJle developers' parking lot.l We certai.llly wouldn't park in someone's lot without knowing, we wouldn't be lOWed, at least if we had ample Oo.·meet a1reroatives. :1 27 Cklobe< 1992 We agreed with E poiru brought up at the: Plamling meeting on the psychology c.f underground parking: We. cormany assume thaI underground parking (apan from that at pos1e'J pub!ic puking garages) 1s reSd'Ved, and as Cas1lal visilOfS would !lot attempt lO puk: tho'e. !f underground parlCDg is intended to be residtc.t-()nIy. then the five above-ground \-'"lstor/service: spaces seem. quite inadequate. 1be CW'TelU mix of resldeDCeS and ofOces or small busi.nes.!es tends to stage parking requireIr.ents: durin& the -1ay, residem~ might be aWly at ... ~k, so offlces can use those spots without ir.c.o1lveniel1c:i.!!g residents. AI the end of the day the offices close and :9)TOD Street residems .return for thc'-nigbt. to a relatively qulet neighborhood. A large re:.idential de-/elopmc:ut for retired people will increase traffic moce ~'enly IS people participate in act;;vities or receive seJV1CeS day and: night The n:sult would be more conteDtion for parking during the business day and foe Byron reside.D.'S in the evening. Cons.truction That me COllSttlu:tion of a deW'Jopmec: the s.iu of "The Hamilton" 9iill cause noise, dirt anC d.i~tion in propcl'tion to iu. size is illcvitable. II will exacerbste tht c::dsting ~ and parking problem.s noted previously. F1nRlly, the high site coverage of the developmem_ ...... leaves liUie space for vehicles and mac:hlnery. where I!. development with Jess 101 coverage might rot1talc. iU activities better. As ir is, me constructioc. will tend to 5pill into the street, cause more abrupt and unsafe eno:-a:ru:es and exits to the site, and take more time. Conclusioll A development like "The Hamilton" may fill ! need for high-end hotlslnB for oar axnmunity's seniors. We are DOl CRpable of judging th1!., but think that if such • need is =ognizcC ft should be met. However. it .is DO( enough to address a need without consideration of a wider context: inlegraLion witlt city development guidelines (includi"li those fotmalized by zolling). compatabilill' with txistiI!g uses. and effects on the neighborhood. 1be P\UjXl5e of the plamling proces;s is 10 enst!:re that each development is relevant and appropriate. 00.: separaIely. but in its context As we've argued, "The Hamilton" does not mret the citerion of appropriateness within its come:n, being too big for the site. out of charaaer with the neighborhood. and obtrusive to CW!'em residents. [f the det'elopmem could ~ scared down to a size consistent 'Iloith the im'ended zoning of tb£ site and uses tiw; t!::Je site rca1isti.caIly permits, we w"".J.d welcome its artI"'tCtive architectw'e and its senior residents. Until then. we urge you to conclude that "Good design caIlOO( overcome the negative impacts". Than.k you for reading along letter! Yours truly, • MRI ~ ;U5E, .. H~CH ,'\,~ .. D TR,.;r~.u'''G iNsrrn'1"E .tOP iHE 1,'IITfR,1cnor....-lJ. Sn: ... 'Dr Of n-if :1-"D1I,rOI .. 'A;" T;,'f F,,!,,"'i['f A~C THE COM,'l.Il .. '!\;!rY Mavor and Member5 pa.io Alto City Council 250 Hamil ton A 'I».. Palo Alto. CA 94JOi Dear ~Jor and Cou~cil Members, Oct .. 7..7. '1992 Re: Proposed Planned Corurnunit)' on Midd I€' fie ld-~arr.il tCrJ Ave. -B.Hon. I am .... riting in opposition to the above prop1Jsed project. ~y interests are as a professional ~hose work ~ll be seriously interfered ~ith as .... ~11 as jeopardizing the ~e!fare of my PQti~nts. Moreso. I am a re5i~ent of Palo Alto and am concerned. a~out the impact such a project · ... auld have m: the quality of life far the city no~, and eve~ greater, for the fu~ure. I am a psychiatrist and res~<:i.rcher .,he has been at the current loca'::io::t for the 18~t ten rears. It is directly across from t~e prDposed site of this plann~ community. My office fronts on Middlefield Rd. ant! r-':1e nature of :'ill work with patients requires some modic~ of privacy and quiet. A three or four storey edifice ... ould req<.iire cbsina the drapes during the entire day and ~he additional noise of increased traffic to and in and ou~ of ttle planned CC'iCI"lun ity liQuId bring noise levels above reasonable levels since t!".is .... auld be ir;. addition to c.urrent traffic along Middlefield. The one to t'o,'O ye3.rs of re1uir ed const.ruction ;."ollld effectively end 'lli' practice at: the curren: lc,ca:iao. This is in addition to the aesthetic changes resultiD~ fram a blocking out completely of any vie .. of the sky a.s \Oell as sunlight i::self rr.rcugh !:Iuc:' of the day. More importar.tly. the erecti,::,j of such a. project, ::':1 its size anc heigh~. aii.d location ..... ould compri!!5e a stra~egic s-:ep in t:,e :.:!:t::.mate " .. ::-banizatioCl of Palo Alto. The city has limited high-rise structures to t:-te :'r.l1:Iediace do'.r.t,y .. -:-," area a:-l.d for pur?oses suited to that aas.: ~he City nail. and businesses. To bring hizh-d€nsity housing new to t.he residential areas Io"oul': be, I belie',re, setting the death-knoll of the leisurely and informGl pace which has charact e~ized the toYn. A~ the very le35t, if the Council is villing to se~ in mation a move tew-ard urbanization, it should be for the benefit of people w"hose incomes do not allo .... the c'pt!.ons d those able to afford million dollar r,.ausing. Palo Alto's strength and attractiveness has depended on dive,slty of people and ideas. I believe that cha:lging the tone to accomodate the s'..J.per affluent ,",auld SE:r iously alter the vitality of ~he City. I urge you nat to approve this dramatic chang~ in owr tG~n. cc: Palo Alto F'Lannil1.g COIiliJissicn , R~spectfully sub~t~ed. ~ic~ar1 Fisch, M.D. Se~ior Rf'search Fello.i , .. Ir"-'T-I.l RfSf.-I.RCl-i ,NST::'"l..'TE 353 .\.Irdd!e: ,.Il! R(J.lCl PJID -I.lln (~.l~,r ),c . .1 ~.jl[r1 ,..I J~l").,S5 =-1.)( ':15. J~" ~'ili • ---.~ , Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, C& 94301 RE; 651 Hamilton Avenue projer.t Octobe= 26, 1992 Dear Sir..$ I 4Dl concerned abolJt the real prCJblems that the construction and exJ.stence of the proposed development on Hamilton Avenue, Middlefield Road, and Byrcn Street bring to our neig~~rhood. The following items are the re~son fer my concern: 1) Construction to last about 3 years noise dust traffic problems 2) Additional traffic: once construct.ed. from the 36 residents, their vl!itors and servicE people. 3) More parkinq problems to add to an already impossible parking situation within the .immed5.ete area. 4} Increase in noise level -large service vehicles' quick stops -taxis ~ ambulances 5) This 4 story building will be l5rge, dense, overwhelming, and out of place in this neighborhood. 6) The developers are requesting the City of P~lo Alto to double tha number. of t;.:r.its zo~ed tor this a=ea. They e:re p:;'oposing; -Currently the zoning allows for 18 units -Their plan is for 36 units -Maximum heiqht allowed is 30 feet. -Their plan is for 50 feet. -The allowed coverage is 35%. Their proposal is for 55%. Allowed floor area is 25,750 sq ft. Their plan is for SO,760 sq fc 7) These units are in tot.al contrast to the character of the quiet and narrow By=on Street - A situation the City of Palo Alto ~ould usually reject. S} This building will affect several adjacent streets: Middlefield# Hamilton, University, Fulton, Byron, Cowper, and others as traffic and parking spillover to them. 9) We can expect a decrease in our property values because we will not be able to enlarge our O~TI properties since that development will have added so much density to our draa ~lready. 10) This busy area, with its sometimes quiet moments, will have increased noise and population problem 24 hours a dayll daye a week. 11) This development will br~nq no benefits to oor neiqhborh~ it il presently propcsed. Thes'!! develcpers are not concerned about our neighborhood. They are not willing to Bcale down t.h.eir current plans to the existing buildJ.nq codes that we must edhere to. We need to insist that the developers follow the current zoning requirements. We must remind the City of Palo Alto Planning Commission that their job is to en8ur~ that all citizens are represented and considered. pa6.{;(f( Lh/'.c/kYJ (~{) j2t-.2330. ~l , • , c ·/." 511 Byron S_, Palo All •• ColiIimtia 94301 Qaober 26, 1m Dt:sr Membelll of til< Planning Cummis ,ion of til< City of Palo AM: We.,. dentist> who maintain our practjoe, .1 SII Byron at Uoi1I.llIiry ..-ho .,. l'art own",. of this building aru! tl>< building It 680 unv.l!Iity AYell1><. W. an: writing ,.garding the p"'p"'ed senior cm.J'ij!ljli iWl1p!'Ojc:a. on 1iaJni1lon between Middlefield and Byron. We have Viewc:d ':.he: :ud>ite<tll2'ol ren<lcrinSS and l1:dJ:!UCh of the P""'l"=' W. find tl>< proF" wen desigoed 3.Od i:e.l it would be I-trellltndJas imptovemc:nt ave: the old buildings a.nd.lwme-i: that nO-;JJ emt on tl>< pro;:'" 'ilo. We kelllle ... raJ! design blends ""U with tl>< eJ.isling .trUC!ll!<. in Ill< ne;ghbodloo<!. It appears that Ille develope", and udJiJe.u haw bee ••• ",i\M 10 the privacy gf the IlljoiDUIg neighbon. '- .. Kenneth Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94301 RE: 651 Hamilton Avenue project October 2~, 19 9 2 Dear Sir, ~l;G~~~1~1ill lr~ C~T n 1~9Z DEPAAT,\IENT OF PL...A.NNING CITYOF PAlO ALTO I am concerned about the real problems that the c?nstruction and existance of the proposed development on Hamilton Avenue l Middlefield Road, and Byron Street bring to our n&ighbcrhocd. The fOllowing items are the r9ason for my concern: 1) Construction to last about 3 years noise dust traffic problems 2) Additional traffic once constructed from the 36 residents, thgir visitors and service people. 3) More parking problems to add to an alr.eady impossible pa~king situation within the Lmmadiate ~rea. 4) Increase in noise level -larqe service vehicles' quick stops -taxis -ambulances 5} This 4 story buil:iinq will be large, dense, ove:r;..rhelming, and out of place in this neighborhoOd. 6) The developers are requesting the City of Palo Alto to double the number of units zoned for this area. They are proposing: -currently the zoning allows for 18 unitE -Their plan is for 36 units -Maximum height allowed is 30 feet. -~heir plan is for 50 feet. -The allmo{ed coverage is 35%. Their proposal is for 55%. -Allowed floor area is 25,750 sg ft. Their plan is for 90,7~O sq ft 7) These units are in total contrast to the ch~racter of the qui~t and narrow Byron Street - A situation the City of Palo Alto woulrl usually reject. 8) This building will affect several adjacent streets: Middlefield, Hamilton, univer~ity, Fulton, Byron, Cowper, and others as traffic aDd parking spillover to them. • . , '~:-:~'. '--, ',-;;,. -~~ ... , . "-:e"':';::, . 9) We can e~pect a decrease in our property values because we will not be able to enlarge our own properties since that development will h6.ve i!.dded s·:;, much den!iity t,o our area already. IO} ThLs busy area, with its sometimes quiet moments, will have an increased noise and poP'J.lation problem 24 hours a dayJ7 days a week. 11) Thill development will bring no benefit.s too our neighborhood as it is presently proposed~ These developers are not concerned about our neighborhood. They are not willing to scale down their current pl~ns to the existing building codes that we mus~ adhere to. We need to insist that the de,"elopers follow the curr€:j1t toning' requirements. We must remind the City of Palo Alto Plar~inq Commission that their job ie to ensure that all citizens are: rep.resented an·j conside::-e<:!. '( " OCtober 25, 1992 .Mr. Ken SChreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 200 aamilton Ave. Palo Alto l California 94301 Dear Kr. Schrei.ber: The below members of th~ Palo Alto Dental GrouPI located at 511 Byron, have several conce:rns regarding the proposed Ham.ilt,on Senior Living Community. First, we aze not opposed to the d2velopment of this property. If designed properly, the project could enhance Palo Alto. We do object to the size of the project. The size and density of the project will certainly increase parking requirements in our area. Our group maintains two parking lots for patients only (no doctors or staff) at 511 Byron and 530 Middlefield Road. BeCause of the lack of available street parking, our lots are frequently overflowinq. These lots are often ~sed and abused by non-d~ntal patients from the Brauer Medical Building, Lytton Gardens, HRI, etc. The Hamilton project does no~ provide adequate parking for guests, employaes and auxiliary help. Our lots would certainly be abused by these people. OUr other concern is that narrow Byron Street cannot accommodate an increase in residential and service vehiCle traffic. we feel that if the project is completed as proposed, this problem will become apparent. At this point, the city will have little choice but to eliminate a significant amount of street parking on Byron. The city would then have an even greater influx of street parking on the surrounding residential areas. Finally, from an esthet.ic point of vie .... ·, we have concerns that the size and height of the project will overwhelm the area. A more downscaled proposal may not enhance the developers profit margin, but it cf?rtainly -would better serve the needs of Palo Alto. Sincerely, ~ James E. Parker, DDd~ C O~·~ C .. -1',./. ~ . .A(. J7" tu.~ D fJ,'; . John E. Tabor, DDS fi'r--~- Peter J<asench~nDs ' :;;;:c;! ~ p,,'::' Leonard Iverson, DDS ~ /? _ ;,1 /" ~~ A ;; 0<. A. C7 P'{/·,A'.rr>"'LJ. jJ.{j Bri.an Scott, DDS /\ /,.; ('?(JI /' ~47'.~ /i l/'o~ ~ ·-~-t/"'t " -I~, v' • My prim~ry conceril i:3 th·~t e proJe-ct of t~Ji'S si.:::e wiil m;::k:e e significor.t impact en U;e p.:l'-king ~::tu:JUon in the jnrn8dl~1.e ue.!. T~'~s puJd;'"j~ sHuat.ion is alrecdy str-.oiil€:j A spokespecson fai t~e \:woject stlj'te.j th:;t. Sei"r i D7"" fetireIrE";'"it cOi!dDmjniums require more tlncn1::rrk' h8lp lh~rl other cor,lj1.:";rni!"";i~..:rns." mo:-e nursing, marl? CDoki7"lg, mDre r:::::J;:E~'eE'p~flg, rr"icre CerE~9;ven It W:!!:: 1::l1~C sttlle-d that these reQl..lirerrr8nt~, w(l~Jld incre-a'Si' -a: th-e lnrj~bitQn~ '3 ;s~.:" This ?f"cposed present m::r€'6';;:'1? lH)!j further h..:ture-~!jcrt';S"2·8'::', :1: P'~:-~l:i~ rt2CiUirements 1'5 in en ere'o where pf"l:se.nt porking ne.ed3 are net tl'E<n"; fn.e. The people who (en afford to Ii ... ,/; iii this c.c;~p1ex wi Ii t-e 'fte·sHr,:;. the complex Villl not prol/ide for err;prciI,dl?eS, guest:" and 8fT,jeo? ','ehic18:S Perking for our bujjdin~ j:; th~ PGrkbg iot at 53:) i1i;jd;E'f~fT::r Rcoe:. p,~r'r:jr]g taken up b~ ernpTO!:l6'E::, Of U'1;-212 C'f:::fession~l bui]8ings In tr.i~, tlioc\.-, .:!ione (50C' r-liddlefi61d., 511 5~rorr, 517 E'drOn;!, 1t ':ee:T13 lij .. _>;'"j,~ t.~IGt [Jl,.J' Dari::in;~ lot tt 53(: nJd;~lsfjeld F:cl~,j ·,,../ill!).; an aHr:::ctl\·'e 1:;tfl-:-iGti'~'€ Tt';~,: ver~ bBSt nE'i~hbor I,?, tn ctu~.e Ui~ Jt·~:;.t Pli:3'3It;i~ . ;:?'g,~'_i"'f l:r:p,::ct I;'"; lieffic find perking £ongestion. perkj~'; probh;:m. At. ttle nor-t" ?oge of tt:i2 p:--o;'osed COfH:lOrnim::;-fi ~;;"LjE:'::t ~':, nur parKing lr-t .530 t1iddlef1eid P-(:~d, A;jJec:H,t ~i_ :,'241'1'l::lOlefiein Rot:lu 1; the RPt~h hcuse~_ It lS r;-~id unders\.e.nG1ng ti'\~t Pti::~: m~~ t',:, e rnoU\~t\~d se.Her -e.t the-pre::,€nt t1:\1t!. M~ '5rJggest i ori 1;: th~t the Pl~nni;-i::: CO-m~I'i~,:;~~;\; get the interested parties togl?ther to CiSCI1'SS tJre D~rches,; or th~ "Ptilh" p~rcel b,:; thE' de~'cTopers end ~ n'lti~1 of the Dr2p'9rt~ fcl'" t/"is e,-d:::tin'~ par'r{wg lol ::.t 530 Mio'dlefieid Road Ttl2 ~·tt:,h [~,:)r.;';€ c0L:1c' t1en b~ UiB price cf tr:e ~""eretge c:r:E n""llljion dDll;;:r un~~_ ir, n-,i~ p'-c~~:I;,~ij H-~-:~::f~" i d\jubl that thi:=, srn~11 jncrt?m8r.t~1 jn~-rea::.t-in ~e;::+, u~it 'l"ouT~ €1i~-:ir-:f:tE- C:on'.rost this witil thE' MldClieilE'!lj Roed E'levotlOn of L'~ttc~' C,~r-der-::. NClt~ thot the four stories of i..':ltton Ge:rder:-.-:lre brcken up b::: ince:1t,:!t1r,:.:, pl'E'Osing geometric sh~pes ,~nd tree,'S, I fE''?l t~jB arc.hltE'ct '3[;oJ,.:ld :,:,itE'~! C'it imposing reelJng of the MiddlefIeld w~l1. s,"~e;~,1 <~j;P/dCC0~~~ ~ {Obert 5_N(~"11li~ms, DC'S l1RI A RfSt .... RCH .... ND TU,tNJNC iNsrrn"rTt "OR. THf J,.,.'TERACTlOr-.'/U STUD" 01= THE II>.'DIVJDUM, THE F,.,M;tY A/>,iD THE COMMUNiTY OCtober 7, 1992 Flanninq cOE2ission City of Palo ~to 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, california To Who. It May Concern; We are writing this letter to express our ccncernE regarding the "Planned. CClDlD\ll1ity Zone" being considered at 5.36 .... 576 Middlefield Road. The Mental Research Institute (MRI) has been in Palo Alto since it's establishment 33 years ago~ For 25 years of those years we have ~en at our current location which is directly across from the proposed development. The variance being conside~ed for the height of tbe Jy~ildin9 would have direct effects on our block since the back of the building. it's highest part, would be facing us. The considerations in this reqard are not only that we will no longer be able to look out our windows and see the blue sJcy We enjoy, but we will be faced with a massive structure out of scale with other buildlnqs on this block of Middle!ielda Hore practically, in the winter time we will be in the shade of the buildinga with the cost of utilities these days the sun is a valuable commodity, especially during the winter monthsa It's also very nice to be able to have some sunlight during the months when the sky can be SoC:. qrey. We are also concerned that the direction of housing has become increasingly expensive in Palo Altoa The epproval at ~~is project would most certainly move further 1n tt,at direction given that the cost of the individual units begins at $1,000,000. Therefore, for both its effect on raising Palo Alto's housing costs and in blocking our view, we respectfully ask that the Palo Alto Planning commission recommend disapproval of the proposed planned community. Sincerely, ~p.~~ Judith E. Foddrill Administrator ~··1 t l Barbara Riper 1670 Edg<'wood Drive Palo Alto, CA 94303 . October 6, 1992 PalO Aito Planning Commission 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Commissioners: As a nearly 40-year resident of Palo Alto and one who may soon be looking for a senIor residence, I recognize the rAeed for such projectsj but as a resldent who regularly drives Hamilton Avenue past the site of the proposed project or. Middlefield/HamlltorJByron I think. this is the wrong place for so large a ~roject, Traffic on Hamllton and University. already slow in crossing Middlefield because of the lights, would be further slowed by all vebicles turning into and out of Byron, the access to The Hamilton's entrance, Byron is particularly narrow and awkward for t· .... lO cars moving in opposite directions to maneuver around parKe'j cars What happens when large moVing vans are addeo to n~e scene, as they would be ,,",,'ith some regularity? Park.ing in the area is otten impossible to find already. 1 do not think. that 69 underground parking spaces would be adequate tor the residents plus all the service peopJe suer" residents ...... 'il1 expect to have, Five slots for gl..ll2'st parking on ground level is totally unrealistic. These are boring problep.s when faced with looking at attractive plans, but they are real and will not disappear. If I were shopping for such a reSidence, I would not want to feel so crowded in the block, however spacious my individual quarters were (I wou!d also not want to live in handsome space on such nOiSY, exhau st-tilled streets as HamIlton and Mlddlefleld are right there, but that is perhaps not pertinent to your tasle) I hope you will not faciiltate the building of this project, which might be desirable in a larger sett[ng, on this site Sincerely, ~ . . 6 ('"[,..,. /..-" -"' .".- ., ~\ 2 Palo Alto Mayor anc1 City Coonc! 1 Civic Center 250 Ham i I too AverlU'i! Palo Alto, CA 9430 I Dear Mayor and Ccunei I members, ~/~ 1/ I':~ j~ .'" ~ (l) Fi I c, Oct t st, 1992 I encourage yO'J not to approve rezonlOg for the proposed luxury senior housing project at Hamilton Avenue and J-llddlefield Road. The only Information I have rega~ding this are articles from the Peninsula Times Tribune of Sept. 30th and Oct. I st, so I may not have all the facts. Nevertheless, this sOUllds like a poor attempt at serving senior housing needs in the cHy. Jim Hi II. one of the investors if) this proposed development is qucted in one article as saying "!t will allow people wh'J have some means to stay In the area: People with "some means" can already stay In the area I encourage you to focus your time, energy and city resources helPing the seniors withOUt means to stay in the area. I'm always sorry to see more luxury townhomes built in our area when low cost senior houSing is In such demand. The promise of the developers JXrChasing 14 U'llts In the future and se1lfng them below market value Is not worth considering lX'less they can be as specific with that project·s location, size and costs as they are with the one on Hamilton Ave. I also disagree with the allowance of variances or rezoning for plans that overbuild a plot of land or increase density as Menlo Park is now consiClering. I can't believe anyone would like a two or four story wall being erected six feet from their property line yet cIty planning and courocfls continue to awove monstrous homes on small ,)eighbp~ '. sites, 'y.,'tly not scale down this propoSed Hamilton Ave. !rlOJec~ arid sel.!"; ~units below market? _ C'--. - Thank you. ~~ -, Neil Panton 5 Cedar Court Menlo Pari<, CA 94025 • October 2. 1992 Planning CQmm1ssion City of Palo Alto 250 Hamiltcn Avenue: 2 Yvonne ~ell~au5en 628 HamiltoD Ave. Palo Alto. CA 94301 415-324-9259""i' !7 ("l f¢ 415-327-8000 I,:,!j '.__ .. 415-329-2922 : ~, .. , • Palo Alto CA 9430! '..:, C j"j"l Re: Palo Alto City CouDcil '~eting -Wed .• Sept. 3D. 1992 -7:30 P.M. (Proposed Senior Co-mpJex. 600 block of RamllUm Avenue) .,..: '., 0:': i;.,:... .. ,:'.,.:,'~·..:: OF PALO ALTO The senior eomplex building proposed for the 600 block of HamiltoQ is in its present plan perpo8terious. The environmental inpact of its SiZf cn traffic and pollution 1i enough reason alone to opp~se th~ eite for such a complex. I. as a re61dent of 628 Hamilton. look out on said corner and think about what I am going thTOUgh w1th tbe e1pens~ and inconvenience of th~ mis managed and Btill u~done unde~groand utility project and vander if there 13 three mor~ years of filthy constru~tion. The fruition of the underground will 8ive wonderful. wire free skyline to look at. If this project ~re ~o succeed the wire free skyliae will be blocled by a hulk structure. I believe ehat corne~ ~bould remain at near its present beight. My objections are: i. Too big and tall for the site~ 2. Not enough parking~ Narrow and b~6Y streets that vill not accommodate th~ number of cars !~r r~sideDts and service pe~ple. 3. Three filthy and noisy years of construction. 4. Serviee people and workers arriving and leaVing areued the clock who have DO vested intere$t in the Deigbborhood~ 5. Decrea~ed property value for surrounding residences due to Ehado~s cast by proposed bei~ht. 6. Dangerous traffic and parking. door slamming noise and lights -(The City of Palo Alto has no regard how fast cars tTavel on Ramiltou anj Byron). 7. Bistant dhregard for existing .2;on1ng laws. Fla.wed traffic Etudy or: Plaun1ng Rep~rt. Some of the bl&g~st mistakes bave buildings too bis for the sites. is built. been in zoning commerciAl and rcsidenti~~ Nothing can be done after the structure Add e.d Commen t: I am v£ry 'curious where the developers think they an; going to part.1es witn a million bud,s 1ofho want to liv-e 00 that corne!'~ nice but people with that kind of money. I should think~ would ---....... -......... "-.--.---_ .. ,get 30-33 other Palo Alto's not \iat'.t to cont. other side < _., CODt. frPJII: at-de one. g~C the homeless, buas and rehab peDp!~ who hang o~t at the church and on the Btreet. ~e11~v~ me it's bad. In summary, tbe proposed structure 15 too big and di~ruptjve co adjacent properties. ?laaae Call .e ~ith any questions, Sillcerely. ~. [;UJ.1i.i~ YvoD~e Wellhauaen uPS I~ all /111.(, :tit} j;#u A-i0"-C ~il'('j 44...t~ 1:/ AMdul .t-f .A ,/it /;,h<1ul ~y.dL . • I ! r----NI LEONARD <.. LINCOLN SepteBber 29, 1972 III. (OIliletb Schreibe, P]anning Director City 01 Palo Alto. CA 94301 ..... RCHITECT RE: Re-zoniDq a~plication 01 Baldlton , ~ddlofiel~ ~ r III Schreiber . h an O9IIOr of property located at 636 l!i<!dletield. I vould like to ... courage the city to oppran the propo~ed .enior deTolopaent project. 'nli.s ~ovelDpllellt vould enhance our couunity by oUering our ~enioro an attractive e<>apl •• in.mob to liTO. It ¥cull! aho ilIpron the or ... and be • ftlcoaed addition to the neiohllorbo~. Very truly yours, Lecaard I. L inco1.n Architect :", -;. - • ;-. STRUTZ·LEVEn INVL "' a ~1 & HOLDJNG COMP'" \D)~~lEn~ill) ~ 5~P 'l S 1992 DEPARTMENT OF pLA.'lNING CITY OF PALO ALTO SOl WAVERLEY STREET PALO At TO • CA 94301 i4151 321·0<40 -Sept.~be r 23. 1992 Ken Schreiber Director of Planning ~nd Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue ~alo Alto. CA 94301 Re: Proposed Senior Condomfr.ium Project Hamilton Avenue between Middlefield and Byron Dear Mr. Schreiber, I own property at 721. 737. and 741 Webster Street in PaTo Alto. near the referenced project known as The Hamilt~n. ! feel that the proposed project ma.es very good use of the site by providing an ottractlve and functlon.l building In place of the present mixture of und1stin9~fshed residential and office building!. ,. The proposed use Is quite compatible with other facilities in the area such as Webster House and lytton Gardens I, II and III. The proximity to downtown Palo ,~lto and its many services will be of great benefit ta those who choose to be our neighbors. The Hamilton promises to be a positive add;tio~ to our neighborhood and w111 help fill. need for a type of housing which is In very short supply in Palo Alto. We urge its approval. 9/28/92 rZ£ /V'z:---- Mr. Kenneth Schreiber Planning Director City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Re-zoning Application Hamilton and Middlefield Dear Mr.. Schreiber: lID ~ ~ ~ n ~ill) ~ 5t.P :! 9 1992 DEPARTMENT OF pLJu'lNING CITYOF PALOAL1"O r want to go on record in favor of the proposed re-zoning cf property on Hamilton Avenue between Middlefield and Byron. Use of this site for a condominium project designed expressly for Beniors seems idea] to DIE:.. I have briefly reviewed the pla_!ls for the project and it !~ obvious to me that the ~roposed facility 1& far more attractive and appropriate for the site than the mixture cf undistinguished buildings presently in place .. I own the property at '24 Oniversity Avenue !nd my interest in the matter before you Is thus ObV10US.. I would like to see the &.rea improved. The proposed residential units, to be owned by thei~ occupants, will clearly add both financial ar.d esthetic value to the entire area. Please do all that you cali to expedite approval cf the application for re-zoning. • UW o ..... [c. OF CHARLES G. SCHULZ Itu,. B'nlQi" .~lI:rr 1"OS'l' "_lC 11 DOX 129il P..Io..LO Auo. CALIP'ORNIA e-4302·1209 'I"IILBPHO_ '4.1:01 311~ p~'J( l"IlI' 3;i1~_:S September 25, 199~ TO: THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALO AL!'O RE: 651 BAMILTON AVENUE THE HAlIILTON SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY APPLICATION FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE I am the owner of an office building at 517 syron Street, which is occupi~ by three attorneys and a CPA. I have owned this property since 1979 and occupied it since 1959. My p~operty is on the northern border of the proposed 36-unit condominium project. All traffic to and from the 36 condominium units will ~se a driveway immediately adjacent to 517 Byron street~ The traffic will be on Byron Street, in spite of the name -Hamilton" for the project. Byron str&et is a narrow street, with street parking on both sides, one block long, between Hamilton Avenue and University Avenue. ~~e applicant seeks a Planned community zone change and therefore :must establish, among other things, that the proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. 'I"his letter is intended to be a preliminary statement of objections to the project~ I have not had an opportunity to see the staff report and only received notice of the hearing earlier this week. ~~ Housing Element The applicant cites Foliey a, whiCh deals ~ith encouraging and fostering a diversity of affordable housing opportunities for senior citizens. However, all of the supporting text for policy S, including Fro9ram 19, stresses providing housing tor 1ow, moderate and ~iddle income ho~sing. The proposed projact will have 36 condominiums estimated to range in price from $650,000 to over $1 million. One of the assumptions of the Comprehensive Plan is that individuals who seek low, Jriooet"ate and middle income housing have difficulty • Memb~rs of the Planning commission of the City of Palo Alto September 25, 1992 Page 2 buying in Palo Alto l and planning should assist them. rndivid~als who can afford the prop~sed conduminiums are not in that category. In fact, according to the applicant l a number of those people who may be signing up tor unite already live in large homes Palo Alto. Tbe applicant proposes 16 Below Market Rate (SMR) units r twice the number which might be required. In spite of the applicant's offer, the pla~~in9 process shoulQ not be used to make it appear that development rights can be bought in Palo Alto. Providing 16 BMR units, to satisfy the BMR requirement and promotional aspects of the development l simply allows the applicant to buy up other housing stock in Palo Alto. Whether the BMR housing stock will be at any particular price level or in any particular location, cann~t be determined. The project displaces three homes and a four-plex which is occupied by . tenants. Therefore, the project eliminates some moderate housing stock in downtown Palo Alto and replaces it with hiqh income housinq~ 2. EmploYment The applicant cites L~e removal of existing office buildings from the site as a way of reducinq employment and thus the demand fcr housinq which employment creates. The proposed expensive condominium units will bring with them ~~eir own requirements for employment, including cleaning staff, care givers, and maintenance personnel. The occupants of $~ million condomini:.:ms are not people 1rIho are likely to live isolated lives in their ~ . ..m hO!:l.e~ They are active people ".rho expect to have people visit them and to ha'·,,re parties and events at their home. The project will, in some respects I be an employment generator. There are currently businesses in the imm~diate area which have substantial numbers of employees and staff, such as the Pale Alto Dental CliniC, First United Methodist Church with its day-care center, and Brauer Pain Control Center. These are all located on Byron Street. Personnel of these organizations, as well as their clientele (patients, churchgoers, people who atte_'1d fUnctions ana concerts at the church, etc.) r use Byron street and the surroundinq streets. The additional traffic load and loss of street parking means that both employers and employees in the area will suffer because of the substantial increase in the number and character of the proposed units. • \ Members of ~~e Planning Commission of the City of Palo Alto September 25, 1992 Paqe 3 3. Transportation While applicant cites the f~~t that those who reside at the project will have ~ewer needs to take automobile trips, the reality is that individuals who can a£ford ~l million condomi~ium units 'Will not confine their daily activities to walking to and from downtown Palo Alto. The ad'jitior!,al traffic load on Byr-on Street will have its impact by forcing people who currently use that street to avoid using it, and perhaps to park at still further distances from their destinatiolls. Parents who leave children at the day care center, across the street from the project, delivery trucks such as UPS, persons who attend conce~ts and other activities at the church, and patients and clients seeking access to the businesses on Byron Street~ all will bE forced to avoid Byron street at certain times, thus further ~ongestinq the area, rather than reducing traffic in the area. The properties replaced by the project ~ave dLiveways which are on Mi~dlefield Road, Hamilton Avenue, and Byron Street. All residential access to the project, however~ will be concentrated ont~ Byron Street. There will be visitor spaces for the project also on Byron Street. Emergency vehicles and taxis will use Byron street. (There will be an auxiliary access to the property from Middlefield Road, but that is Qesiqned for truck and delivery service.) Byron Street is not designed for all ·of the traffic it now has plus the projected additional use, during construction and afterwards. 4. Urban (lesi.9D The project repl~ces existing two-story buildings, which are consistent with the RM-15 Zone, with a massive !our story facade and a building which occupies its site quite densely. (There are open areas within the project r but they ~ill not be apparent from the street.) This diminishes, r~ther than e.nhances, the characteristics of the zon'e. within "Which t..~e project will exist. 5. Environment The four-story building will cast a shadow across most of the adjacent properties. At certain times of year, the shado~ will be all day long. During the period of construction, ~hich will probably last between eighteen months and tio.'O years, the • ---~.~--. --'''''--- Members of T~~ Planning commission of the city cf P~lo Alto September .5, 1992 pag .. 4 p~ojeet will qenerate considerable additi~nal noise, dust, congestion, and possible exposure of residents and other persons in the area to the hazards associated with large-scale construction~ Not the least of the disruptions and impacts will be the vehicles which will be used in clearing the site, e...xcavat.ing. bringing construction materials to the site, and transpo~ing the workers. The pr~ject will be active six days a week. Undoubtedly, there will be disruptions in el~ctrical service, vater service, and sewer service, because no project of tills size proceeds without some lDishaps. The impact of this project on the n~iqhborhood is immediate, substantial, and, if approVed i"1 its present form., permanently negative~ I understand the right of property owners to develop their property. I do not believe that development should be encouraged by the city of ?alo Alto when it requires a sacrifice fro~ adjacent property owners and other persons in the viCinity. A planned community must be a positive benefit to the community in an ov~rall sense ~nd to the neiqhborhood in a specific sense. otherwise l the planninq process has been defeated~ CGS/lgal I ~ INV'fSTMENT J'lEAl ESTATE. 499 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD. PALO ALTO, C .... '014301· (415) 321-3'41 september lS,. 1.5'92 DEPAlTn":;il,ll uF PLANI\ltNG CITYOF PAlO ALTO !ton Sch:xei:ber Director of Planning' and Co:amuni ty BD.vi roameo.t CITY OF PALO AL'!'O 250 Bamdlton Avenue Palo A1to. CA )4301 Jle; Propelled Senior Condominium project Eam11tOQ Aveuua between MiddlefielO • Byron Dear Ifr. Bchre 1bor, As owner. of property at '.9:9 M.!"-d.lefield Rcat1 in Palo Al to, whioh is near the e.bove referenced proj-ect :k:i:lown alB -The Hamilt.on-, we feel that the proposed project will he an asset to the comnunit:r an~ make good u.e of the site. ~ proposed Uile is very compatible with other facilities in tae area IlUQh aa webster Bouse and Lyttcc. Gardena I, II and XII. '!'he proximity to downtown Pal-o Alto and its wmy 8 ervi ces wi 11. be of great benefit to those who choose to reBi~e at -The Hami1ton-. We believe this project will be a neighborhood and will help fill a il in llhort. supply in Palo Alto. Sincerely, / '~'_r , , (.- positive a~ition to our need for a type of housiDg w~ urge ita Bpproval. CORRESPONCENCE POST OFfice BOX 55S, PALO ALTO, CAI_IFO,"N." 9430~ which .- l ~ ~ ,; LytfOll Gardens. Inc, t ... ~~,ACUI'I' ~ Cammunif'I Howing, ~nc. D! " ........... c:-.. :!l:;oK"'~ • ..a.." .. \, ~E~~r~G;WJ ·f Se.pte!abe::-~S" 1992 ~ ~p ~ 8 1992 OE:PA!1-rM C ) !'NT OF PtANNi NG 1_ BOARD Of tHIK'lOR$ 1lI0ll W SIErWart. Jf ~P~r'lt J $e.....ol Brown, '-4.0 t \lice Pre5Jdent :) Cl'1or\M HOfOen : ~'I!tary '! aoAlO MiII8EtS JoOOld F. Bogue ~~~~''<j I :crooo F. " ludy 1Cern-.e0y Jon'!e'I A.. 1(0(;1'1 'oultne ", J..idOQ1& Mr:t:lU E, Ma!'I~, jr .. "'I.D -;, ~ McG«Jye1 lcoer1W.~1I .' ;iQJ)Q J. ?;:IZ:i<:o :JiOrn:l8, StINP'M eonordW, By )',rector fmerftl.a "AR te¢len SNpIeo, :~ bec~ OfT\c:er 'cy:'T'K)n.d W _ G.e ;1'1>ef Fll'lOnelOt OtXer :Jurel'1 Ar"nsQIl ~trtI::tor 1~t ... S,,..t ~o AJlo. CQilfOlnia 94301 IS)J18-3.l1)) FA>:,odI5i324-!J666 !(r. Ken Schreiber Director of ~lanninq and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 U. 'l'IIZ DXI L'l'OIi PROJIICT TYOF PALO ALTO COrDer o~ Haai~ton Avanue an4 KidClefie14 Road Dear Hr. Schrieber: As you know, Community Housing Inc. is currently developing the Lytton XV Project for low income ~~ very low income senior housing, which would add to the housing stock we currently own and operate for low-income seniors at Lytton Gardens. The Hamilton Project would provide p~iv8tely financed housing for hiqher income seniors. This would aid in maintaining economic diversity in our nei9hborh~~~ which I ~elieve is a very desirable qoal. We enj~y having Web~ter Bouse as our immediate neighbor~ and we would also enjoy having the. Hamil ton Proj ect as our neiqhbor. The 5i te seems particularly well suited to the project. Certainly the same reasons that make our location so attractive for senior residences apply equally to the Hamilton project. We see the Hamilton Project as a plus for the neighborhood and would welcome the project as our neighbor. Sincerely, OOKMUNITY HOUSING INC. ~t~1 President l Board of Directo~~ BWS/tmn ce: Mr. stephen Shipley "----~-'~~--,'-. .,- , September 15, 1992 !'.:en Schreiber Di~ector of Planning and Cammunity Environment City Of Palo Alto 25C Hamilton Avenue P510 Alto, CA 94301 Be: proposed Senior Condominium Project Hamilton Avenue ~t Byron and Middlefield Dear Mr. Schreiber: Our home is at 633 Middlefield Road, midway between Hamilton Avenue and Forest ~venue. We feel that the proposed residential project iE well conceived and very attractive. It viII replace the existing hodge-podge of buildings ~~at presently occupy the site. It is al~o consistent with the tODe of the neighborhood that was established and improved by the various Lytton Gardens projec~s and Webster House. The proposed USe of the property will be an asset to the down town area and a si9nificant benefit to the community at large.. We hope that yeu will approve the application for re-zoning as submitted. Very tr~ly yours, ~::t::z£~ .~)d6~ • 2 Septa~er 22, 1992 Ks.o Sc:hrei be r Director of P1anning and Community EDviro~nt CITY OF FALO ALTO 250 Bamjlton Ave. Palo Alto. California 94301 Subject: Proposed Senior Co~daminium Project rmlEelE~~lE® ~ ~tP ~11992 DEPARTMENT OF pJ.},NfOlNG CITYOF PAlO ALTO aamilton Ave~ Between M1ddl~f1eld Rd, & Byron St. Dear Mr. Schreiber: I own the property at 652 Hamilton Ave. and have lived at this addr2SS for more tb~n 30 years. As having one of the very few Single family hO~9 ~~ich face directly toward the proposed senior co~do~n1um complex known as The Bamiltoa. r was obviously most interested in learning of its development. Now. after a rather thorough and lengthy review of its de81gn. scope and purpose, ! have concl;.&ded thAt it is a sensible and settsitive.ly planned project which will enhance t.be neighborhood, have minimal impact upon traff~c and ~rovide & ~ch neede~ senior housing option to the people of Palo Alto. Although I firmly believe that the resident.1a1 charact~r of nearby neighborhoods to the north. south and east of Middlefield Road be r~ta1n~d, the Hamilton Av~.!BYTcn St. area has for macy years be~n a somewhat unique mix of conaos. apartmento., bus:1nesses and church property. The prospect of substituting a senior condominium complex for the office buil~ing$ which p~esently face my home will return some 8~blance of a residential n~ture to my 1mmedia~e neighborhood y~t not diminish the vital~ty of aD area I so enjoy. In SUh. I welcome this project. not only as a neighbor but as a valuable add~tioD to the maoy elements which constitute the complex aod diverse fabric we know as Palo Alto. r urge its appro~al. --'-- • -------~-- Nolan £. Armstrong "':"1t:,I't~n'S ... '::.A" ~AS J NOlAN \ MJCH ..... El W ARMSll<ONG I, O' .... ' .. HEL 'E!'RTO~ MDRE.W H. P,o,RNES 0/ C~ ... ~I september 22, 1992 Ken Schreiber Director of Planning and Comm.:.!.."1ity En ... .ri!:'orJl':er.t city of Palo Al~o 250 Hamilton Avenue 94301 Re: Proposed senior Condominium Project Hamilton Avenue Between Middlefield and Byron Dear Mr. Schreiber: I own property at 600 univers~ty Avenue in Palo Alto, near the referenced project known as The Hamilton. I feel that the proposea project makes very good use of the site by providing an attractive and functional building. The proposed use is quite compatible with other facilities in the area such as Webster House and Lytton Gardens I, II 'III. The proximity to downtown Palo Alto and its many services will be of great benefit to those who choose to be our neighbors. The Hamilton promises to be neighborhood and will help till which is in very short supply approval. Very truly yours l l:aLAN • ARMSTRONG < T:omas-;'~~/ "j TJN/lmm a positive addition to our a need for a type of housing in Pale Alto. We urge its Ml{iU"'1IVF.RSrT'r !'IVUmE ' +'ALO .... lTO. CAUFOf.<~'i." 94)012'Jn f~C.",,"',LE '~I;.],gg,o," T~LEPHONE r415,)2/j 2<)8D • 2 Seple.mh"!r 22, 1992 JCe.n Schreiber Director of Planning and C~~ity Environ~nt CITY OF PALO ALTO 2.50 Rurll con AVe. Palo Alto, California 94301 Sobj~ct! Proposed S~n1Gr Condomdnium P~Qject ~\E ~ ~ ~~H fD\ UJ) ~tP ~11992 DEPARTMEN T OF pL-"NNING CITY OF PALO "l TO Bamiltou Ave. betwe~n M1ddlefield Rd. & Byron St. Dear Mr. Schreiber: I own the property at 652 Hamilton Ave. And have lived at this address for more than 30 years. ~~ having one of the very fe~ single family homes which face diyectly toward the proposed s~or condomin~um complex known as The ~lton. I WAS obviously MOst interested in learning of its development. Now, after a rather thorough and lengthy review of its design, scope and purpose, I have concluded that it is a sensible and sensitively planned pro~ect which will enhance the neighhorhood, have minimal impact upon tra.ff.1c and provide a m.uch needed senlor housing optic.(! to the people of Palo Alto~ Although I firuUY believe that the residential ch4ract~r of nearby ueighborhoous to th~ north, souto and east of Middlefield Road be ret~inedJ the Hamilton Ave.IByron St. area has for m4ny years been a somevhat unique ~ of condos J apartments, businesses cnd church property. The prospect of 8ubstitutir.g a senior coodomini~ cDmplex for thE office buildings which presently face ~ home viI! xeturo s~me semblance of a residential nature to my immediate. neighborhood yet not diminish the vitality of an area I so enjoy. I~ sum, I welcome this project, Dot only 8S a neighbor but as a valuable addition to the many elements which constitute the comple% and diverse fabri~ we know as Palo Alto~ I urge its approval. '. THE FIl,ST UNITED METRJDIST CHURCH 625 Hamil!on Avenue af Webster Palo AHo, California 94301·2016 (US) 32..)...616' Dougw I. NOlI'U, Fu~01' RtnaC' btrwn·FemAndez:, As~e Pastor June 5, 1992 P'ggy Gooch/y, l[l~ ~'l'F!Denlttrt i\S JU,I !~ i:,,, ' .. ' DEPARI j'J~rH OF PU\h ... ,,~,l CITV OF PA~O At.TO Ken Schre ibe r Director of Planning City of Palo Ma 250 HamiHon Avenue Palo AHa, Califomia :.4301 RE: The Hamikon: cornarof Byron, Hammon and Middlefield Dear M" Schreiber: On May 26, the ... dministrative Councn of our Cllurch voted unanimously to express our support of The HamiHon project which will be located across Byron Streel from our property. We are In favor of The Hamihon as we prefer to have neighbors as our neighbors, rather than a high rise offioe building. We are IllCfeasingly becoming concerned about the lack of housi"!) in Palo Ako for persons with high lnoomes, as well as those with low incomes, long·time residents of f'alo AHa, including several of our church members, have had to move to resfdential projects outside the city of their choice because of the lack of facilities such as The Hamikon. Recently a couple lamented the fact thallhey had to move to The Forum in Cupertino because The Hamihon had not yet been bui~. They would have preferred to Slay "home" in Palo Aka. Another of our members had to move to downtown San Mateo, Several have moved to The Sequo',as ic Portola VailEY. and find it increasingly difficutt to drive to their church, The Hamilton promises to be al1 attractive additior1 to our neighborhood, and will help fill a desperate need for housing in Palo AIIo. We urge your approval. Sincerely, ~ ~~~or /ft;~~ Art Hammar, Chairperson, Administrative Council DINtref _ -"II , •. ,. f .'.J ..... " ,-.. • AGENDA ITEM 2 65) HAM)LTQN ~.VENUE. 536-575 MlDDLEFIE! D ROAD. 52;l-ill BYRON STREET: Appl ication for a Planned Conmu!.fty lone to rezone property from RM·15 low-Density, Mul tip1e-Family zone to Phnned Corm:un1 ~y lone, to construct a 90,760-sQuare-foot senior ~ondominium project w~th 36 res;dent1ai units and associated common areas, including dining room, kitchen, public rooms, exercise rOJm and enclosed pool and three guest rooms. Sixty-nine parking sPdces are propossd in an underground garage and fi~e spaces are ~roposed at grade. (nvironmental Assessment: No significant impacts were determined to result from this project, and a negative declaration has ~En ~repa;!'ed. Zone District: RH-1S. File NIJs. Sl-EIA-I. 92·Ze-,. Chairman Beecham: At cur last meeting. ~e had a public hearing on this item. Sinte that time, we ha¥e h~d addit;~nal comments r€ceived by mail. We ha¥e those either in our pacKet or at our places this evening. Does staff hi¥e anything to add? Mr. Schreiber: For the sake of the te~evision audience, allow m2 to briefly identify this itelTl in a little m(1re detail, since we will be going right into discussion of it, rather than having public: input. The proposal 15 for the site at Hamilton Avenue, Middlefleld Av~nue and Byron Street. which is a little over half of the block. The propoul is for i fo~r-storYt 90,760-square-foot senior residential living structure --36 condominium units. The development is substantially larger than allowed either by loning {lr by size of development which would be allo\li'ed if the site were rezoned from the current RM-15 to the maxi~m residential density of RM-40. Therefore, the proposal is for a Planned Communjty IOn!. ihe staff report identified a variety of policy issues that certainly are {If c:oncern and in need of discussion --dens.ity? building mass, views, piJDlic benefit. The public benefit proposal is to double the below-market-rate (BHR) housing re~uirement from seven, as would be required under t~e conventional zoning, to fourteen bElow-market-rate urdts to be provided off site, roost 1 ixely by acquisition of an existing structure somewhere in Palo Alto. Those below-market-rate units would be acquired in conjunction ~ith the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The st.aff report concludes witi1out' a recormlendation in the sense of a c1ear appr~val or denia1. There is a strong case to be made for approyal, and there is also a strong case to be made for denial. The staff report outlines that case. The options before the planning commission are really four. (I) You can recommend approval of the project in concept. Then under normal Plannea Community zone procedures, the project would go to the architectura1 review board (ARB) fer in-depth, design re¥ie~. (2) The planning commission could recommend approval of the project with significant modifications, and then a1so forward it to HIe architectural review board, (3) The cornr.ission could recOlTJ11e~d denial of the projed. fr, that case~ the project goes forward to the city council, but you may want to recommend denial and indicate that some development greater than RM-lS is appropriate for the ~ite. (4) finally, you could recommend denial and confirm the validity 'f tne RM-J5 underlying zoning as being the appropriate development standard for this 10cat,on, 10/28/91 -1- , . Jf the commission reaches the pofnt where it is either unable or does not desire to make a flrm recommendation on this item, you also hive the option of referring this issue to the counCil with your comments? and ask them for their policy guidance as to the lppropriateness of tf",e project. ~f the project doe:; go tt'! the councl1, and the council desires to se-e the project continue on through the city review process Tither than rejecting it at tnat point in time. it would then go back t~ the archit~cturjl Tf!Vlew board. Certainly it could also come back to the p1ir.!1ing cOlmlissiol'l at the completi~n of the Planned C01IIJluni t: Ion€' process? is would normally occur~ Your packets contain a variety of infQ~ation, ;nclud~r.g several Tettar~ which arrived at City Hall 1n the last coupTe of days. Allow me t~ note them very briefly for the record. There is a letter from tne members of the Palo Alto Dental Group at 511 Byron Street objecting to the size and visual impacts of the project. There is a letter frorrl Dr. Rlch~rd Fisch, a member of the Mental ~p.search Institute across the stre€t from t~is project, writing in opposition to the project. There is a letter from Tim lind~olm and Lucy Ann Gaylord at 623 Miodlefield ~oad ~riting in opposition to the prnject, ;,aentifying reasons why they feel the project should be rejected. There is a letter from Faith Brigel, SJS Byron Street, ident1fytn~ a vartety of her con~erns about the project and apposing the proposed development. There is a letter from three dentists in practice at 5!l Byron Straet. Having revfewea the pl'oject, they feel it would be an improvement and would like to see it go forward. There is a letter from Timothy Descimps of 536 Fulton Street expressing concerns about the project. He feels that tne project is too big and too dense for th~ area, and urges reter.tion of the RM-1S zone. T~ere is e letter from the applicant's attorney, Stephen Player, discussing the project, especially the public benefit issue. !t encourages acceptance and approval of the project. There is a letter from the project propon~nts, signed by James Hill, President of Hamilton Avenue Properties, Inc:., indicating that they are prepared to revise their design to el iminate any need for va~iances. That was an issue that was of notable concern in t~e staff report. Staff did not suppnrt any granting of variances for this project if it were to go forward, so they would revise their design to eliminate variances. They had some additional comments on traffic, parking, height, R'1ass, and of course, hope the corrrnissior) will recorrmend approval of the prcject. With those introductory comm~~ts and ~tems for the record having been covered, st'aff will be plused to respo~d to questions. Chafrmaf'l. Beecham; Are there questions for staff? (None) I see we have a11 done our homework thoroughly. CO!!!!lissioner Carrasco: I do have one question. It is in regard to the letter written by the dental group ta city staff o~ the amount of parking that might be expected C~ Byron Street. They are concerned that Byron Street is narrow. I am wondering whether the kinds of visitor parking that ycu anti~ipate with this project ~o~'d b€ mo~e than the existing uses on that stre~t. Or would they be the same, or less? Ms. Warheit: Regarding the spaces that the applicant is proposlng on the site, in the staff report ~e recommended that they assign 13 guest parking spaces, whid would meet the full requirement of the parldrlQ ordinance for stal1dard multiple-family housing. Does that answer your 10/28/92 -2- Question'? Comm'ss5Pogr Carrasco: Yes~ it does somewhat. but it tends to imply that t~ere will b~ fewer visitors parking on the street than the present co~ition, H V"i5Hors :H"'e taken off t~e street ar.d placed on th,;;o site. Ms. Warhe1t: Yes, the uses tha~ are there now ar~ probably underparked to a greater extent tnan this project. because if 13 ~re ded;(ated for guests, it would meet todayls very strict guest parking requirements. COmm1$sione~ Cyllen: ~ith this application, are we lllowed to recommend another zonin9? If we were to talk about another zoning, would it have to come back under another appl~cation? Ms. Cdse: Yes+ They would not necessarily have to pay another appllcatron fee, but it would ~e a whale different project than t~e Planned Community zone. It pr~bably ~ou1d depend upon whit you asked for. You can do just abeut anything you want to. But if you get too radical, it would definitely be making the rounds again. (ornni$sioner Cullen: But "ot with anot~er application fee. I gather? Ms+ Case: No, I do not believe they ~ould nave to pay another fee. Mr. Schreiber: If the commission felt that s~m~ type of density bigher than RM-IS was appropriate for this 1ocat10n, t~e commission could also have tne option of looking at the rest of the block. You could not take an action. in terms of ch~nging the laning, but you co~ld rec~nd in1tiating the process to change the zoning on the rest of the block, if the desirp. was to create, say, RH-40 on the entire block, or RH-30 on the entire block, or t~ do somet~tng on this property and then bring the rest cf the block up to a different zone that mignt be closer to what was on till. property. Chairman Be!charn: If there iN! no other questions~ we can begin the discussion. COmmiSsio~er Marsh: Given the few weeks we ha~e had to tnink abc~t this, I will jump in first. I do ... ant to make an overall cOl11T1ent before getting into my specific ones. Jt;s that the intervening weeks that ~~ have had since we heard this item previousI) have been beneficial, because mare members of the public have found out about the proj~ct. ! particularly want to thank those people who have submitted corrEspondence tD us in these 1ast fe~ weeks. I am sorry that we will not have time to thoroughly read the letters that are in front of us tQnight, but just in scanning tnem, I want to comment on 1etters received from Timothy Oescamps, Dr. Richard Fisch, Tim Lind~olm, Lucy Ann Gaylord and Faith Bri~el. Those letters all contained some comments that I fe1t were quite rele~ant to the project. I appreciated recehing them. I am also glad persona11y that we ha~e nad the delay of the last few weeks, because in thinking about this project, as I ha~e COmE and 90ne aro~nd the downtown area in the past few weeks, 1 have become more and more convinced that this is the wrong project for this site. I .i11 brief1y go inte some of my concerns over the project. fn general, I think there are t~o areas of discussion that I would like to see us focus 10/28/92 -3- on tonight. The first one 1s that of the public benefit offered by the project. In the traditional zoning that we are all used to working with, ~t is meant to accommodate market-based projects generally aimed at people who are capable of pajing for them. We assume Hat O!Jr zoning ordinance is liberal enough to allow a proj£ct that is mdrket-based to be able to proceed forward. Tne Pianned Community zone, on the other hand~ was devistd by the city in order to accommodate projects ~hich. for some reason or .another, cou1d not be accorrmodated within the Mrmal zQni:'1g regulatlons, but offered the city some substantial, inherent public benefit. It would be a publ ic benefit that. .... ou1d l11,ake us, the cHy, the residents feel that it was worth giving a zor,in«;i trad'!off to the project that would not otherwise be allowed to a dlfferent kind of project, bas;calij giving the project an e~emption from the normal zonin9 regulations. Tnis project coming before us requires a publiC benefit. r believs it ~oses some significant issues in front of us. First of an, it is my opinion that there is no jn~er~nt public benefit in tne project ftself. The project ;s a lovely one; it is Gne that I would like to live in .yself~ it is very nice, but it is basically intended as a luxury project for seniors who can pay. I think it was Sam Webster wno said at our public hearing, tnis project does not, for example, inhibit any profit. It is basicallJ full pay-in and full pay-out when you le,,'. Tne public benefit that is being offered by the project is not inherent, and it is fully an off-site public benefit. That is, se¥en units of low-income housing sameplace els2, we don't know where, in the city. This is the first time ever that tnis cammission and the cfty has ever faced a real zoning-far-sale issue. rt is ttie first time we hi'ie had a project come before us that cGntains no inherent public benefit, but requires the P1anned Community design2tion. let me digress a llttle to talk about the projects that refle~t on this but were substantially different. One of them (and these have all been developed in the dOYntown area) was the historiC PaCific Telephone bUl1ding at 520 Bryant Street. In that case, the council dld allo~ some e~pansjon and did allow that building to get out of the downtown retall zone by an in'iesbment in upgrading city hall plaza right outslde. That project, in my mind~ did not beg the zoning-for-saTe Questi~n, because at the planning commission 1evel, we agreed that tn€ p~bTic benefit received by upgrading the alley and by restoring the historical fa~ade was? in fact, enough of a public benefit to ju:>tffy the PC designat'ion, in ind of itself. The second project that is related here is tne downtown project on Cowper Street I in wr.icn part of the p'Jbl ic benefit was an investment in a downtown child care center. Again, I t~ink that project is sfgniftcantTy different from this o~e, first of all because there was some inherent public benefit in that project. The land'owner proposed to bl..:i1d an arcade that would "ave pro¥ided public access down the alleyway to the parking lot that i3 out behind it. There was at least one member of the planning commission who stated that she belie'ied that that public benefit 011 the project site itself W'IS eno:.:gh to justify the project. The investment in the childcare center was an investment thit had be'!n agreed upon in the downtown study SQme five or six years ago, so there was a ~ontext that had already been pro'lided in the downtown study to justify a child care public benefit. At al'1Y rate~ the project that \llje ha..:e here tonight has none of those 10/28/92 -4- • 'I I 1 _-'-...;. ... __ u ,.~ ____ .• _ on-site improvements simliar to thQse past projects. It is simpl] a Pi"oj~ct that propose-s to buy its way into a public br'nef~t. I t~ink that 15 i major and lIery dangerc-us ; sstJe that needs to be declded by the city cDunei 1. The second issue invo1ved in pub 1 ic benefit here is whether or not seven units, we~~ we to go for ~he zcning-for-sale issue 1 is substantial enough ill pub1ic benefit to justif,)l the zoning exemptions that are being asked. I~ the lytto~ IV projeGt that this plann~ng commission relll~d, we had a project that proposed ill one·to-one FAR. Th~ public benefit was fifty units of very-low-income senior housing. !n tnis project. we are proposlng to put in 36 nigh-income condominium units far those who can afford them by providing seven units of low-income nousing so~ere ttl se. The magnitude of di fferenee, in terms of publ ic bE:nefit being provided in these various projects. is e)cepti~nal. in my mind. Tn general t we have, over the past fe· .... weeks in particular, til1k!d It the p1anning (ommission levei about the relationship between magnitude of pub1ic benefit that is requirtd in a project in relat10n to the degree ef exemption from the zoning ordinance heing asked. For exampie, in the radio tower issue we had near California Avenue, we agreed that the exception to the zoning ordinance was minor and that t~e public ~n~flt was minor, but it was a reasnnable tradeoff. Here the exception that is being asked is dn:matic --a 1.7 FAR where otherwise one-Quarter of that would be allolJrled. It is my opinion tr.at se'llen units is not i!.nywhere close t~ being able to j~stify the project. So I ha'lle these overwhelming concerns abo~t publi, benefit. F;na11y, I want to comment on the design imp~ct, because that is the second major area before us tonight. J think the design ~f this project is simply o\lerwhelming. It is too hlghi it is too bulky. Just down the street, within the next block, we have R-] and R-2. On the 'IIery same block placing this building in its current d~siqn at that location ~Duld simply o.v~rwhe',m Middlefield Road. I am interested that the urban deSign plan proposes more bulk dDWn toward that end of University AvenuE. J have not seen that plan, however, and J frankly am not sure I agree with it. J think t~at if you told residents of Palo Alto that we were going to replace III of the old homes that cont~in offices on University Avenue and provide a transition up Ur.~vers1t-, Ayenue into the cOll111erc:ial core because we think there should be more buH. there, you would l':a'.le a lot of residents who ~ould not be very happy about Hat conclusion. $\1 I ca~nCJt bujl the amount of bulk. that is being proposed at all. Finally, some quic~ general comments. First of all, after thinklng about t~is project for a long time. it has been my conclusion that tnis ;s a project that, although it proposes to be phced in an urban settir.g. it does not actually respect the urban setting. The proponents of the project have noted that they want to be close to shops and tr~nsportation, and that they value being placed in the downtown. As a downtown resident, I completely understand and support that sentiment. But people who 'j ive downtown 1 lve in an urban setting. If we live in single-family homes, we live on small lots. If we live in apartments, we gl!neral1,)< 1 h'e in dense apartments, often of modest sIze in the urban core, because the assumption in the urban core is that land is of gre~t value. When you are part of the urban verJue, you :>pend a good deal of your time being out and about, and yo~ need less living space. rt is an urban approath to life. With this project, you have a project that wants 10/28/92 -5- • - > 1t all. The proponents want to be near 5n~ps and transportation. yet they are proposing what to me are veTi 1uxurio~s. large condominium projects tnat I feel are simply not appropriate in an urba~ core. If you wint to have a proj~ct 11ke this, which has swimming pools and workout rooms, I think it needs to be farther away where land; s not of such great val ue. Secondl], r thInk t~at this i~ a project that point~ out how out of date our Comprehensive Plan is. r want to get t~is coment in because I Hdn'k it is imp~rtant that we all consider this in its context. This project begs a number of policy issues. Ho. 1: should we have high-density hOl!sfng downtown? This toW" Mas oeen very schlzr-phrenlc on that Question in the 1ast fe~ years. We nave ~ot gotten agreement on that. Secondly, should we al low projects that have p[Jb11c b'2nefits to provide that publ ic benefft off Site? That is 2 big policy question that we need to loot ~t on a citywide basis. Thirdly~ if we are going to do that, what ire the social priorities of the city? If we are gOing to allow public benefit projects to ~nvest in other ways within the city, we need to be clear about what it is we want funded so that WP. wi nd up wi th an end resul t tnat satisfies what we want to see developed in the city. I think. it would be a great mistake to make these decfsions on an id hoc oasis with this project or any other project in the future. J think we need answers to those questions on a comprehensivE basis. finally, I think we need to send this prcject straight to the city council. We need to punt it there toni9ht after commenting on the salient issues before us. E~en if ~11 of you like the project and 1 am the only one who does not, I think there are a 10t of policy issues here, so it would be a g~eat mistiKe to have the prcpcments of the project im'est any more time in architectural issues until they get a clear message from tne council as to ~hether tf'lere is something here to go forward ,-,itfl. (ommissjQner Glazier: Pam and I both agree that this project, as it stands, is il1appr(lpriate for us to appro~e toni<:;r,t and send on to the ARB. My perspectiYe is that it is inappropriate to ask the develop!r to absorb the additic;nal cost of developing the appropr-iately dehiled plans pr;o~ to getting direction on the necessary pOlicy issues involved. Pam nas laid o~t those key policy issues quite well. Our agreement just about ends there. 1 want to talk about some of the reasons why] think this would be ';I good th'i'lg for Palo Alto. It ,,"auld pra~ide additional housing far seniors. As r read the Co~prehenslve Plan. one of the biggest things that hits me, page after pag~ after page? is the j~bs/housing imbalancE. Too many people, too many jpbs. not enough hcusing. Jf you lock Clt the various housing reports that have been done, Pal~ Alto. for lts fair share of housing ov~r the next d~cade. has to come up with 2,80Q lie .. housing units over the next ten years. Given that there aren't iI 10t of vacant lots, except in t~e foothills, I don't think there are gojr.g to be a lot of single-family homes built, so that leaves multiple-family complexes. I have not seen buckets cf muHiple-fiiilmi1y appl~cations c::.ming before us recent1y. Tnere are lots of reasons for that? but here is a project th,~· is 36 un'tts that ilpparent1y is market-driven and make:; senslE!. ;nat, to me. is a good thing. Thirty-sh extra units wi 11 open up 36 other residences. and there is the spillover effect somewhere down the line that 36 houses are going to become a"iai1able to people who want to live if! this conlTtunity. I think that, in and of itself, may not be a compl~te and adequate public 10/28/92 -6- beneflt for the PC zone, but J thin~ it is i darn good t~ing. Secondly, I want to talk. about this _-hole issue of publ ic benefit and whether seven units i~ adequate. P~m rightly 'dentifies that 50 u~its of low-income housing w!re a part of the lytton IV project, but she did not mention that the citl is probably going to have to ',ck In $2 million to maKe that happen. Here is a project where we are not gOing to have to kick in z pellr'lY. This is sElf-funding. self·financing. etc. rt is sevP,:n BMR ~nlts tnat would nat otherwise be there for the public benefit, 1~ addition to the se~en units t~at will be there &s a result of the BMR r€QI.! j rernent s. Thirdly, I think. this is going to be an attractive building. It is going to enhance ~rban cesign. When I go past it or when anyone goes past it, they will look at it and say. "Wow. t~is looks nice," particularly compare~ to the hodge·podge of California crackerjack architecture that ;s inherent in that area right now. I think. it can be somewhat like a building along the lines of the President Apartments or the University Art building or 251 tJniversity Avenue. I think it can be an important architectura1 statement that Palo Altans ~ill be glad is there. Now that I have stat~d my general reasons for wanting to see the project go forward in some form, I ~ant to talk about what I think 3re inappropriate reasons to reject the building. Tne one that comes first to mind is this whole issue of its being for high-income people and tney can figure out now to house themselves on their own. We ha~e to be careful not to deceive ourselves here. We are a reasonab1y afflLient community. That is the way it is. I think it is important thet we, as a planning commission and the members of t~e city council. tak~ it upon ourselves to look out for and promote the interests of everyone who happen~ to be a resident of Palo Alto_ Many of the people ~ho will want to bE a part of this <omrnu~;ty are people wh~ ha\e been lea~ers in the cummunity for years. I don't think it is appropriate for us to take a policy of "benign negle(t-which is probably not the right term, but it is the term] will use, whereby we inadvertently force them to go someplace else because their housing reqUirements cannot be met i~ the City. Another way to look at this is, I don't think $700,000, the entry price of this, is somet~ing that can be considered luxurious in PaTo Alto~ I would say 15 to 20 percf!nt of the houses in Palo Alto are worth roQre than that. My house. a t1ny little l,500-square-foot house on a 6.000-sq~are-foot 1ot, wh&n my parents come to visit, th~y laugh at me, is worth .lmost $700,000. I don't think I .m .ffl"ent by any stretch of th~ imagination. In some ways, I think. this is almost akin to saying, if you use the argument in the staff report that a possible reason for denial would be t;,at high·income p~ople can fir.d their ~ay into the private market for ho~sing. It is almost equivalent to saying, we should not send high-income children to cur schools becau~~ they can go to private school or they can't use our parks because they can figure out private w~s to nave recreation. Also, there has been discussion that the FAR itself is inappropriate or that there are too mar.y units there _ I think we have already set a number of precedents for multiple-family for SEnior housing throughout the City _. ~ebster House, Channing House. Lytton, the President Apartments, even thcu9h thos~ apartments are not for senior housing --where densities and FARs are not too far different. To 10/28/92 -7- , . ' .. -,~. address this whole i:sue of market+dri· .. en zones, our current multiple-fai'l'lil,Y 20nes I tnink are targeted tC\orIard' the aver-age, family-ariented multiple-family projects. S'C't,ior projects, in particular. are different. Seni{lrs have ver.,.. unique reQuiremt!nts. The-,}" haye reQuirements for medical care. They have requirements for social llE'eting places. Hey ~Iave requirements for exercise areas for hea1th reasons. They ~ave requirements for space that needs to be :1eYoted to personal sen.·ices people, H they caui10t get along as well as they dH w~en they were perhaps younger. ihat adds spac.e to a buildll1g. 1t is a reality, and if we want tD promote senior housing, is we obviously do, ~ur zo~ing in some wa, ~as to reflect that need. Another inappropriate reason, in my oplni~n. to rej~ct the building is because it is in ~too sensitive~ an area. When r think of s~nsitive area~ in the t.i"~.y, from i development point of ViE"', 1 de nut think of the corner of Page Hi 11 Road and [1 Camirlo. r do not think of the corner ~f £1 Camlnu and San Antonio Road. By 2nd large, 1 de not think a lot about Un1versity Avenue and Middlefield. rt i~ one of the busier corners in the area, and it is primarily larger buildings. Ther~ is a small section of residentlal, and we-need to be sensitive to that, but 'lire are not talking about a primarily residential neighbGrhood. We are talking about a neighborhood that is p~imarily commercial and business-~rie~ted. lastly, I want to talk about the whole issue of nothing inherent in th~ project providing a public benefit. r could make the arg~ment that t~e provision of ~ous;ng for seniors is, to some degree, a public benefit. do not want to make the argument that it is a sufficient jjub1ic benefit, but I want to p~int out that in the two other cases that Pam mentioned, we relied to some degree on public benefits that were off site. Once you rely, to any degree, 0" a public benefit that is off site, you can v!\~y qu·ic.kly fall ~nto a very muddy distW"ssion (If what is loning for sale and what is not. I don't think this is 20ning for s~1E. I don't think 529 Bryant Street was zoning for sale-. Let me summarize. I don't disagree that we probably war.t to fiddle a lot with this pr~ject. If we had to v~te yes rr no Gn it today, ! probably would vote no, because I think there are some more modifications that need to be done to it. But r think it is wrong to reject it at this stage. For all the importar;t poli~y r-easons that Pam mentioned and that 1 have talked about, J think it is· appropriate that WE kick t~ls up to the city council leve1 and get their persp~ctive on these issues. Then it can return to us to make a more detailed, more thoughtful and perhaps longer lasting deCision than i think ~e can tonlght. One last paint about public benefit. I have a philos~phical problem with t~e BMR units b!ing a public benefit. In genera1, [ am extre~~ly s~pportive of the concept of BMR units, but in this particular instance. I flnd that th~ benefit, ~hile significant, would be provided to too few peopl~, reT~tiye to otner-potential public benefIts. T~is is sDmething I mentioned at our earlier meeting. ! Udn~. we should seriously consider the possibillty of creating some form of endowment for the serdor center in terms of plain old dollars. I frankly feel that would be an outstanding publ it benefit for this project. That is something! wouTd to hear other commissioners cOmm€nt upon. COmmissioner Cullen: J wish t~at this apPlication were before us for a JO/28/92 -8- • : i '. , lone change to RM-~O rather than to a PC. r think it would 5tand on its own under an RM-40 lo~e c~ange. PC zonfns requires a lot more, partic{.Ilarly the pub1 ~c be-nefa and aha i lot more design features. It is an attracti¥e buildin~. There is a need for older clt1zens who have li¥eO in t~is community and have lived in la~er houses to move on to the n~~t stage. as I indeed have. J think tnat the b~ik of the project and t:le FAR comes from wanting h:rge unfts and facilHies and .also a certiiir. number of units. You want to have both. You cannot hi!.ve both. J think you cou1d have fewer units of the la~e size that this market apparently demands, or you could have more units of .a smaller size, for which there may be a market. I don't think you ca~. have it both tWaY3 wHhout contributing to something in the ~ei9hborhood that is really overwhelmir.g~ So I think it is the wrong application. It should be RM-40, and then this wh01e bUSiness of public benefit would be elicinated. While we are Dn the public benefit, I don't napp!n to tnink tnat doing aw!y with middle class houslng on the site for upper inc~me housfng and then making up for it by buying another site which is probably middle class housing and turning it into BMRs contributes ~uch to the complexion of tnis commun~ty. Wt don~t want to wind up with just upper income and lower income people. We want to keep th~ middle income peop1e. nte BMR b-eTiE'fit is not actually creating units. It is buying up units that are aiready there. J think t~e way it is being proposed .ill el illlinate a portion of t.~e housing that is very important in thi $0 community and which fits in with our Comprehensive Plan. I am also concerned that when we contrast it with ~eb5ter House, ~s we have, t~e applicants t~ld us there is no medical component in this one. Jt would have perhaps made the upper range of prices look a little different. T~at is not our problem, of course, as we are discussing the zoni~g. The other thing 1 would also say is that it is not at the corner of university Avenue and Middlefl~1d. Jt is a whole blvck aw~, and it js a blOCK that we have already given protection to as .a transition lone across the street on Middlefield, where things are one or two stories .at the most, and even if you .e~e to go into all the medical offices along Middlefield, none of them is more than one story. The only structure tnat is high is one that is going to be removed by this project, the one that was once a house on ~niversity Avenue, now at tn! corner of Hamilton aqd Middlefield which was moved to its present location and then restuccoed, was for awhil~ Hare, Brewer and Kelly, and then became t~is new technological headquarters. Dc you think that is 40 faet tall? (Corrrnissioner Carrasco says it is about 35 feet) RJ11-40 does allow a 40-foot height, so I am looking at that as you loox a'r~ss the street from those present buildings. 1 am not going to be able to vote for th1s application in its present form. I would liKe to see it resubmitted as an RM-40 application. COITlTli:s.sioner Schmidt: I WOlJld like to state for ttle record that altholJ:gh [ was absent from th~ initia1 meeting discussing this project, I did watch the ¥ldeo and therefGre have benefit of the public hearing. I agree with some of the th~ngs that everyone has said tonight, primarily the concept that this does need to go to the city council for a policy dedsior.. 1 like the project. I feel there is a need for a project like this in the cOlMlunity. and I think it is a good locat1.,n for it. rt might be a llttle large~ but I would agree w1th the concept suggested in 10/28/92 -9- __ .... !!!11 ............. _ .. ·."ffff .......... " ___ .... "~~' ... _~ _. ~:~~~~;::' • . 'I. th! e~cerpt from tne urban design plan tnat something larger and more massi'Je fn that end of thE dcwntown section is appropriate. I think it is appropriate to provide larger 'on1omi~icm ~ousin9 for older people 1~ the community wn~ have lived here fDr a long time. It was stated that they would like to remain in Palo Alto, a community which tney have helped build and know well. Their friends and famil".. are hoere. However, on~ of t~e mai" problems here is the public benefit and the way in whith the app1itatfon is presented. r do~'t know wnat a good s;)lution is~ but I belhlie that public benefit shol.tld be inherent in the prcject, rather than off site. A1though BMR units off sit~ are a help, a PC s~o~'d have public benefit on Site. As ~am initiated, there are r€all~ ~mportant p~1icy decisions here tnat shou1d go before the city council, and the public benefit, the idea of whether zoning ca~ be bought or not. Regarding the t~o proj~'ts t~at Pam mentinned on Bryant and on Cowper. I was not on the cOMnission at that time, so I do not know the full anaTysis of them, b~t it seemed odd to me at the time that the public benefit was off site and not associated with "it. Also. as Pam mentioned, since the (omprehensi~e Plan is coming before us again, thE'.re are some issues t~ "&dd:-ess there. It might include look.ing at zoning in that area. In looking a~ the zoning map, seeing an RK-15 block within higher density loning on three sides, it may be appropriate to 100k lit what that zoning should be. I will not vote for l:pprcval of th~ project, but would support sending :t direct1y to th~ clty council. COl'IITds'sjpngr Qiakia,,: [will be brief. s.~nce most of my colleagues have covered my thougnts on the subject. ! am in particu1ar agreement with Corrmissioner Cullen. I 100k at thts site in the same way. I also want to reinforce some of the corrments that others "Iave made. First of all, I tnink it is fu1ly appropriate that we ha'/e diversified ser,ior housing in Pi10 Alto. We tend to have certain e:~ments of tnat currently existing ;n the community. and what w€ do have exfsting we know is in sore need. I thought Mr. webster's corrments that we have a ten-year waiting list for some of the£e projects ;s appalling. So I am fully in support that dlversified senior housing, whether ~;gh end or 10~ end or in tne middle, is something that we want in Palo Alto. I agree witn Commissioner Cullen. I would nave Tess problems with thj~ site and would probably vote for approval if it were an RM-40 site. We probably would not e~en be sitting here tal«ing about it at the length that we are. Unfortunately, it did not come before us in that mode. looking at this section of town, one that I am ~ery familjar with, 1 feel that upzoning the are~ wou1d be appropriate, given th~ condition of the area right ~ow. ~e would end up with a significantly better section of town than it currently is. I a1so would like to make some comments, since it seems 1ike in the past, t~is commission and/Dr the councrl has dwelled a lot on E1 Camino and ..mere it is going. The same sorts of concepts, the same sorts of sensithities need to apply to Middlefield Road. I do not see it as ar; area wh~re necessartly bigger projects or bulkier projects are more appropriate than somewhere else. r see it more in 1ine with what (orrrnissioner Marsh has stated, ~hich 1s that it is a residential area, a transition area. 1 do not see this proj~ct in its current height and 10/28/92 -10- ' ..... i buH. as some-thing that adds to that area. I see it as detracting frCHll the area. S~me of the other th!ngs I liked about the pr~ject. as it was propose-d, was that I find the aMR unHs attracthe. The fact that they are offered. Not neces~arily the fact that they are offered off site, but the fa,t th~t we are going tc add them to the housing stock. The more things ~e do to give incentives for that, the better. Although I do agree witn Pam, I had difficulty dealing with the fact that everyone has statei1, that the,. are not a part of the project, but are seprJrate from it. Thos. are the ley thiogs. In looking at the staff report, I find recommendation ~3 to be the one that is the most acceptable to me. It says, "Rec()rm1eno denial of the project. but indicate some de~e1opmer.t 9reater than the RM-J5 zone may be appropriate for this site, and forward the project to the City council.- Comlissjoner Carrasco: I wanted t'J wait until the end because J wanted to hear if there were n~atives on this project. J do not hear an overwhelming n~mber Df negatives. There is a thread through everyone's discussion tonight that indicates some positives, with some thinking that might need to be done. J ~gree with Commissioner Marsh that tnii project should go directly to the city council. There are pol fey issues involved here that require tndeoffs between the publ ic benefit and the type of nousing that is proposed. I want to make one comment about high-income housing. It is very i~ortant and it is needed downtown. It is a segment of the community that is not being served at present. [had the opnortunity t~ talk to i! couple ~f friends (If mine who spoke about tH!ing able to give IJP their h~s in Crescent Park and would want to live in a project like this. They dted advantages of being able to live with other seniors in a community type ~f at~sphere. a secure community atmosphere, thereby giving up their house to their children or putting it on the market for younger families for whom it would be more appropriate. In that sense t we are producing vi~uable ty?es of housing. It is high income, which runs through our stiff report as 2 negative. Whi1e that might be politically correct, J don't think we should b~ ashamed of providing housing for a segment of our community that is needed. Let me mak.e an argument that this project, in and of itse1f, is a publ;c benefit. First let it be said that the project r~1~as2s housing for younger families to move into. Secondly. it is a good place for s€niors to live. I recall 15 years 090 reading a beak by Jane Jacobs called "The Death ilnd life of A:nerican Cities-· Tn there she talk.ed abol.lt seniors watching the streets and ke~pir.g them safer_ I have talk.ed in that regard to the Palo Arto Police Department, and they have indicated that a number of their calls come from seniors related to crimina~ or quasi-crimi~al act!vity occurring on downtown streets. Seniors, in fact, perform that duty admi~ably. This kind of housing in the downtown will create great acti .... ity for the restaurants and retail stores that we have there, thus increasing the vitality that W~ are longing for and need in the d~~nt\Jwn. More than anything. it keeps thE! sense of hi5t~ry. If we do not produce this kind of hOUSing in Pale Alto, we are going to lose a se~ment ~f our 10/18/92 -1I- community to Woodside or other commun1tfes ~here t~e kinds of ~ous1ng we are talking about is ivai1ab1e To keep that sense ef nistory, to keep that v~rbal history, so that the past can be passed o~ t~ the next geoerat;on h~rE is 1mportant. Changing some of the office space to residential is a benefit. Ttle shff report ment10ns t.hat. In te~s of the trans1tia~ from sinqle-faml1y to offices to commercial, it provides a 900d transition. I stood opp~site th~ site and tended to draw an imaginary line across the Palo Alto Fountains project, starting at the single-family house on the left sid~ of The Fountains as you f~ce we~t. [f you draw a line between the uppe~st p~ak of this propo~ed project and the peak of the roof of the house, you do not see thi 5 prQject from t~at slngle-fam,1y house. In my m,nd, that '5 a~ adequate kind of tra;nsition, in t!'rms of mass. J want to talk i little abeut tn~ urban ferm issues. For fo~r ye~rs. we agonized over this urban des~gn p1an and hc~ to provid~ a sense of entry at University Avenue. lytton G~rd~ns. on tne ona hand, is a very acceptable project for m05t of our community. Very few people in our community would think. this is a bulky, massive project, yet it is over 100 units per acr~. The setbacks that this project toni9ht has provided are equal to the setbacks at Lytton. I agree with staff tr.at it would be nice if it were iii 1 fttle closer to Unh'ersity Ayenue, but it does provide that sense of entry. Tnis is an urban towr.. Downtown is not iii g10rifled suburban type of area ~nymore. If I were to think about what would h~pp~n if we ~ere to tear down lanir.9~s Chateau or the President Apartments. I think there would be a huge outer)'. Both of those projects are larger in scale and vol~me tnan the one being proposed, far larger, ';,T\ fact. ihe deyeloper, Sam ~ebster. has ?roduced sGme very exce'lent pr~jects in this town. The hotel on Cowper is considertd beautiful even 1 year after it was built. and it ~as ver~ ~ell accepted in the communit1_ I have ~o doubt that this project will b< of that same quality and will b< accepted. as well. The big.;est problem 1 have ;s the publ:c benefit issue. l,likli! Commissioner Marsh, have a problem that the seven BMR units will not be produced close to downtown a~d that the benefits do not accrue to the immediate neighbors nor t~ downtown. I ~culd much prefer a contribution to the senior center or for ot~er kinds ~f senior activiti~s, On the whole, I believe that this kind of h~using is appropriate. I feel that 1t is a public benefit that we would have. high quality type of building at tt1is site. It fits with the entry to Palo Alto, and WE: O'!ei!d seniors downtown. S:J I am wil1ing to .... ote for it at this poi.nt. Ho.ever, r would ask that we refli!r this item to the city coun~il dir~ct1y, ~ith no v~te on it. MOTION: Corrmj ss \oner Carrasco: so move. Chairman Bee~ha~; B~fore I accept the motion, let me make my statements, too. So far, we have tw~ vie~s up here. One is that ~e do need to be visionary, to say whdt we wou1d 1ike to see someplace. I think we are saying very stron91y that we WOUld like to see something lik~ this. We 10/28/92 -12· J Hke the basic idea and we think the idei: of more housi!'!g in Hie cHy is nice. We think the design 1$ ',ice. In a 1Jtay. we like what .. e see. We iTe .11 expressing 50me reservations on an~ther aspect, ~nd that is that we also need to be bureau.:rats. \f~ need to figure out ~o\!o' to make th~s work in this locat~on. Some of us, recau~e ~e 11ke it so mucn, are wil11ng to do a lot to find a way to make it work. As a bureaucrat 1 1 would have a Tot of trouble saying there 'is, in fact. a public benefit to this project. Pa~ talked about the benefit being a substantial, lnherent benefit, To cta~ify whether ~e are talking about a policy or support1ng the d~rect code, I wou1d lik€ to ask staff if the code g;~es us any direction on whether the benefit needs to be inherent or not. Earlier when w~ talked about a Site on 500 Bryant Street, we t,lked about the nex~s~ the public beneFit. r never rea11y understood nexus. I know what inherent mEans, so [ would lik~ to fin~ out if we have any support for that. M] reco1le<t i on II that it is not necessari1y in the c~de, so if we support it, it is more of i policy direction that we want to take, Mr. Schreiber: Your conclusion is correct in terms of the code. Ms. Lytle is leaKing ~p the specifi( section. The cod~ does not define ·public benefit-in terms of being on site or within the confines of the projett. The co~cluslon as to what fs ~n appro~riate, adequate~ acceptable public benefit is I decision that is left to the decisionmakers, the planning commission recommending. and the council then dec1di n9. As far as neXiJS and the benefit of the proje<:t, it genet"ally has baen felt tnat the publlc benefit should have some logical relation to the project. But again, I don't belieVE! that therf is any requirement that there has to be i firm linkage betwe~n the nature or form of the project and the public benefit. A9a;r,~ that is I; discretionary decision that ultimately. the City's elected d~cj$ionmakers need to make as to wnat is appropriate. We usually ~se the word "ne~us" in te~s of mitigation measures. There we ~ave state law~ court cas~s. etc. to establish that relationship. Ms. (ase: In echoing, basically, what Mr~ Schr~iber has said, let me say that we usually have 90ne {.In record as suggestiny that you do try to make a linkage between exactions and the project that ;s being requested. This~ in some circles 9 might be considerl:'d an exaction, even though this Is a legislative action you are taking because it is a zone cnange. So the linkage is always an appropriate cor.sicieration~ even if it might not tn::!cessarily be a 'ega~ req\.lirement. \lie would certainly advis! it. ~~: J\.Ist to read from the code so that you CJn hear the exact language you are to consider when you think of this public benefit ;$sue. under Section 18.68.060(bJ. it reads that ~DeveTopment of the site under the provisions of the P1anned Community district will result in pubTic benefits not otherwise attainab1e by appltcation of the regu1ations ~f generaJ districts o~ combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning comission and cO(.jncil, as appropriate, snall specifically cite the beneflts e~pected to result from use of the Planned Community district," So r think that the only real 10/26/91 ·13- - '. QU1d~nce you lrt given is t~at what~ver these benefits ar~, they would be t"ings that could not be aChieved thrO!!gr,l let's say, the RM-40 district that ili'as talked about by two cmmIlS,5:;oners . .t..!:!.i.irmiln Beecham: So w~ -t we na'le here i3 a stru9g1e to find essentill1y the policy that W~ fe~l ~cmfortable in fc11owin9 in defining the publit benefi t and ho" it shot.ild rehte to the project. I much more fall ; n line with what Pa~ is talking abowt. I like the word ·inherent.~ I would not use it str'ictly. I thinK about what we hi",e dotle i~ the pa'St when we have said ~mor~ Dr less affiliated" hen~flts for the iTei, for the neighborhood, but still something directly re10t;"9 to it. r think that makes sense, because a~yt;m€ you essentia11y ~;olit~ a zonlng law, which 15 what we are potentially doing here by calling it i PC, the impact of that is very local. The impact cf this site It Midd1efie1d, HallTilt!)n and University won't affect us down on E1 Ca:l1ino, won't affF:ct us down on San Antonio. So it is very appropriate that as oil pGlicy, we say. the public benefit should b€ as localized as possible. So in my mind, I real1y cannot see h~w we could say that this project, even though they are offering some BMR units. is a substantia1 public benefit, because I think it should also be inherent. to SOffie degree. Also there is the question about degree of public benefit. J would say that buying existing housing stock and then donating it to a BMR prqgram .s not sufficient. It is nice. and I would like tc see it, an~ God bless you folks ~ho want to do that voluntar11y. but in terms of ~hetner that is adeQuate for this project, I would say no? it is not. It certainly would make 4 differenc~ to me if there were ~dditional new housing being built in the city. There would be BMR units. So one tning we need to clarif~ for the (ouncil in tenns of OUr· c{)llective thoughts is whether this is appropriate to be a PC zone, ~ased on what the applicant !s propOSing as pub1 ic benefit. Another pcint we should tal« about tonight is whether or not we would support changing the zDnin~ on this Site. St~ff has indicated that is an option. I hive a question for staff at this point. £5 there any concern or issue about this being spot zoning, if we were to do so? If we were to change the loning on this on~ site to be RM-40, is there any issue about this being termed spot zoning? Mr. Schreiber; No. Certain1y in thi s area where you have adjacent sites with higher density. D'iu1tip1e-fami'ly zoning than the curre~t zcni:'lg on the s;t~. it certain1y wo~ld not be a concern. C~ainman Beecham: So we have he~rd already from a few people that they think higner zoning may be approp~iate, and ~e should address that, and perhaps see if we can come forth wi th a mot 10n fol'" the counci 1 on that iSSUE on whether or not we wou~d want to see that advGnced. Another thing we sr.ould address, more for the applicant than the council, is whether or not they should anticipate that if they were to ask for a variance, that we wou?d be able to conclude that the site has any extraordinary or unusual circumstances about it, which must be a fi.,ding in order to have any varianCE. So r fe~l we should proYide that information to tne applicant tonight. My last comment is on the value of haYing housing for the upper class. for rich folk, ~erhaps< I do Mt see housiilg for the more affluent among 'L 10/28/92 -14- • 'Us is being a public beneflt. as '3;11 perni:lps does. i do believE-there is same trickle-down tneory here. but on the other hand. ] do not see any reason to be biased against houslng fer anybo~y. A housing unit ~s 1 housing unit. If we car. afford to subsiuize it and give it away to people who .,;ouid not have housing otherwis£. that is gre;t. But in any case, housing. nQ matter how rich one must be to get in~ is nice to have in the city. It helps in a numb~r of areas housing, jobs imbalance, traffic, etc. 50 what I would propose that we do is to try to address whether or not we thin~ thfs is appropria.te as a PC program. Ms. Case: There is a motion an the floor. COmrni$sjoner Carrasco: I will withdri~ the motion, lf acceptab1e to the .'ieconder, to follo ... through with the discussion that yol.l a~ having, and then I ~ill make it at the conclusion. ~: Chairman Beecham: In that case, I roo· .. e that we reconnemd to the (lty council to not accept the application to be a Planned Community zone application on the basis that the pub11c benefits are neither sufficient nor sufficiently inherent in the program. S[COND: By Co~issioner Marsh. CQmmissioner Carrasco: I would Tike to make a substitute motion that we send t~is project directly to the city council because th~re are public ben~fit issues ar.d policy i S5ues that have to be balanced. and it ,s most appropriate that they balance it. rather th~n us. There ire issues r!Tated to the Comprehensive Plan that we are looking at tnat are somewhat outdated along transportation corridors. I tf)ink that Middlefield is a transportation corridor. We have new fortl issues that we are looking at d~town~ and t~is is a. project that does not conform with strict RM-40 regulations. We donJt know if the (omprehensive P1an and zoning ordinance that might come out after this process will include an RM·40. lt might contain an increased d~nsity for seniors, for exampTe. So there are campl jeated and important zoning i.Hues arrd pol icy issues that ,ouneil should look at. MOTION: Cc~issioner Carr~sco: 50 r move that we send this directly to council. Cammlss;oner Cullen: In the original motion, 1 did not see any of the four rec.orrmendations on page 16 of the staff report. Your motion WillS to deny tnE PC zDning outright without any of the caveats ;n her!. Is that correct? Chairman Beecham: That is corri!::t. ! am doing it a 1ittle more piecemeal than what staff had recommended in their report, since I am anticipating addressing z~ning specifically a'so~ which is one of the variables in the stiff report~ as wen as variances. CommiSSioner Cullen: Does tna SUbstitute motion take pre(edence, at this point? -"Is. Case: Yes. it does. Chairman Beecha.n: Tony. could you restate your substitute motion? I a.m 10/28/92 -15 - • not 5ure that f ~nderstand the thrust of it. Cgmmissiongr Carrii£2: What I am suggesting is that we send this application directly to councii to resolve policy issues related to public bar.efit and ;~ relation to the project that is being proposed, with no recommendation. CO!lI!1issioner Marsh: I am not going tc support that moticn. I would support the recorrrnendaUon t'n.t caf!\(! fo;-ward in conne:nts that we endorse Ite~ 13 In the staff report, wnich is to retommend der-ial of the project, but indicate that so~ de~elopment greater than RM-1S may b2 appro~rilte for this site. If th,s mot7on that is on the floor now were j~st to forward to the cDuncil without further comment, wtthout elaborating on it, is defeated, 1 would support a motion to the gist of ftern '3. C~airman Beecham: The motion was made by Tony and ~econded by Bill that we pass this on d1rectly to council for tneir decisions on the policy issues invol~ed, and! presume, not give them our explicit opinions. COmmissioner Carrasco: The second part re1ated to not giving them our opinions is not part of the motion. I tnink we can talk about how we feel, and we have done that. If we want to furtner continue describing in addition to what we have done in the past, that is acceptable to me. Commissjoner Cullen: I want to speak a9a~nst that motion. 1 cannot bel ie\'e that we sit here as a planning: comission and send on to the council an item that we have considered first in a public heiring, and secondly, as discussed among ourselves. 1 assume they will read the min~tes, but I think we should get together on s~ tind of recommendation to tne council as to what our recommendation is, if we are not going to just deny the PC zoning outright. Tnat .. as the origfnal motion. I cannot support this substitute motion, nor will [ support the original motion. Cgmmis§ioner Glazjer: I want to address a couple of issues that may be ~ele~ant to people's unwillingness to consider this motion. There has been some discussion of RMRs not really bei~g created is a resu1t of this process. My understanding of the way this .. ill work is that the applicant lIIill go out and buy mark,et-rate Mousing. I don't thinK there are too many de\lelopers or apartment owners who -..al"!t to go out and offer him a discounted price~ Sust ~ecause he is going to turn these into BKRs. He is going to take apartment houses, etc. that cu~rently sell at marKet r~te, bUY them, give them to the Clty, and they will then become BHR units. So we are creating BMR units. We are not adding h~u~ing, but we are creating BMR units. That is a good thing. The second thing I wanted clarific!tion on {al',d staff please correct me if I am wrong) is that in the Cowper Street PC that you brought be faT! us~ there was no offici21ly sanctioned retail requirement. Chairman Beecham: Bill~ is this relevant to the motion on tne tabl!? COrm1issjpner Glazier: of order. tend to feel that it lS, but you can rule me out Cha;rrean Beecham: I rule you out of order. Any other comments on the 10/28/92 -15- • ,. t. r :. , " . i tKJtfon? Cymhsjongr Cjakian: I agree with COOTl'l!issione-r Cullen. I donlt think. J can support either of the lIlotions be-fore us. I am going to go back to what r ori;1na,lJ said in R"IY cOlTWl'!ents, which Pam sounds 1ike she ;s going to be j.., support of. That is. that we get Reco:men<iation 13 before us. That will provide-the council with some of our comments on what is needed to resolve now we arf go,n9 to go ahead with this project) or where it is going to end up. ' '!JTION fAILS: Chai~an Seecham: Is there an), further discussion On this lOtion? All thos~ in fa¥cr of s€~din9 the project on to the council directly witheut otherwise reco~nding approval or dislpprov~l please say Ay~? All opposed? That fails on a vote of 2-5, with CDmmfssloners Carrasco a.nd Glazier voting f<Jr it. Chairman Beecham: Ha~in9 heard thE other comment!, I will withdraw ~ -ation, if J can do that legally, and I would welcome another mation. ~: Commissioner Oja(ian: Once again, r am going to ~3ke a motion that we accept the Reco~ndation 13 in the staff report. wnith is to recommend denial of the project, but indicate that some development greater than the RM-15 zone may be appropriate for tnis site, and forwar~ t~e project to the ~~ty council. ill.ru!Q: By Cor.1I11 ss~oner Marsh. Chairman Beecham: Any comments? Commissioner Carrasco: I am going to support that motion. not because 1 thi~k denial is appropriate for this project, but because r think it is the easiest way to .get H to the city council. Commissioner Glazier: We rea11y have no other choice. My feeling and Tony's feeling is that some development potential greater than the current zon-ing is appropri ate, and I woul d 1 i ke the city council t!:) take • look .t it. CQ!I!llissioner Mars!!: As] indicate~ earlier, J will support the motion. I think it is reaser-able tnat ~e look at so~ething greater tha~ RM-J5. Howe~er, I would also like to state that I am not ready tonfght, nor at anytime in tne near future, to say that th~s site sr.oi.lld I>-! RM-40, as I have heard some cOlTlTlents tordght. I reall;! feel that tt'le zoninQ of this area needs to be considered 1S part of a c~mprehenslv~ l~ok it the do-.:ntown. To go ahead and pull an RM-40 out and place -it on ttlis corner without looking at what that does to that iarger dGwnto~n core I feel would be a mistake. That puts this back~ in my mind, to where we $tarted~ which ~as incorporating a look at this site, an~ indeed the entfre bloc~, is part of a comprehensive look at the downtown, and as a part of the greater urban deSign study. let me also note that I don't think that any of us her~ are, as I hay! heard tonight "ashamed" of developing high-inc~me housing for seniors. But we are looking at a much different Question, which ;s, should the public subsidize hi9h-income housing for s~niors, or for anybody, for that matter. Indeed, an exemptiDn to the Zoning ordinance is a public lO/28/S1 -17 . ~' .j , . ,.: , ' " -:..' ' .. ' s"bsl~y of some type. tomhs}cne:r Schm:dt: f, too \Ii, support tt'l~s motion? but J want to clarify that even if Ute zuning i--. 'e to be changed to RM-4Q, that wOl..:id still not allow a project anywner~ close to the mag~itude of .hat is being proposed here. The FAR for ttle current prOject is 1.6 and the FAA for P~-,O is 1.0, according to my understandlrg. So there st111 would be a great difference bet~een what nas been prcposed toni;ht and what ~i9ht Irise from a change to RM-40. Tbose are my comments. Conmhs1oner Glazjer: If, as Pam suggests, ft f.s. appropriate teo take i bigger pict~lre look. at this in the contelCt of an overall downtown stlJd'.)', J think we sliould have i1 so dp"l ~ed' that reasof'Iing a year ago ~hen we approved Lytton IY. That wa, an equally l.rge project in an equally sensit;-ve area. We had many neighhors from that neighborhood come that night and tal Ie. about their rese-rvat ions for the project. We chose to nove ahead with that, bas~d on i variety of factors, and I do not see ar.y reason why we should wait for a more cornprehcr.sfve study if, in f~ct, we feel it 1s the right thing to do. ~N PASSES: Ch;innan Bee-;~.' fs there any further discuBion on this motion? All those in favor of the motion to accept stiff recompe~dation 13, which is to recommend denial of the project but to indicate that some de-ve1opment greater than P~·iS may be appropriate-for this sjte~ please s~ Aye? All opposed? That passes on a vote of 7-0. I still have 31 concert. in that staff, in their report, indicate that they believe it would not be appropriate to find that the site ~as any extraordinary circumstances ab~ut it, which is i required finding to grant a~y variance. As Kath~ mEntioned', the project is still considerably larger than allowed e~en in a RM-40. rf the applicar.t does want to come back befor~ us with a project that is designed to fit any RM t and request that change, I think the applicant should have some jdea as to whEther or not they can expect a variance. Conrnissipner Cyllen: [don't t~ink "We -can consider that untn ~ see if they do come with another project that fits whatever zoning. and what I assume under a different 2~n~ng regulation, djff~rent variances mayor may not be required, so J am not in a position to give any dire~tion or advice to the applicant tonight. "I want to see what they do with the (ouncil action. Chairman beecham: To me, with any v~rian(e matter? no matter how large or small, we need to make a finding tnat tnere are eKc~ptional or extraordinary circumstances regarding the site Commissjoner Cullen: That may well be, but I am not prepared to decide that tonight. Commissioner Marsh: r agree wiUl COlflTlissioner Cullen. J think it is really dependent upon the design of the building and the land that lS incorporated in the project. Hcwever, r will go one step further and say that J do thinK that a project of this magnitude should be deslgned in a way that does not requi re variances. I wOl.Old put a 1 arge burden of p!'"oof on tne applicant to lndicate that a variance is really necessary and warranted. IOl2S/g2 -IS- --.. .......... ..,.. ---.' Cw1 $Sioner Cull en: I ~a ... e OIlE more thing teo add. I was surprised that under the ~nviro"mental impact assessment, the aesthetic tmpact was considered to be just medium. To me, the ~esthetic impact from the In.gnitud~ of that building in that location is more than jlJ5t is "maybe.- I w.,ld like to have shff take .nether look at that. it Is on page 5 of the EIA. Also, as r raised once before in another project, I have a Question about tile ~ater, and whetner thera would be a need for ne~ systems. The answer is no. We still have not gotten any answer to how t~ese new pr~ject5 3re aff!cting our water supply. I sure would 11ke to get that one of these days. C~a;rman Beecham: Are you asking a dir~ct que~t;on cf staff tonig~t? Conrr.issigner Cullen; if ft is included' in the minutes, I assume staff will be prepared to answer that kind of question. Ms. Lytle: We ~ould project a date of November !6~ alth~ugh we cannat guarant&e that date at this point. 10(26(91 -19· :wow Op-pl"t;& OF CHARLES G. SCHULZ 1\ ,1 BY1t')~ S':"JtBX'T POST 01'l'"1'~. 110< .... !.2~y P4LO ALTO, CAI..fPOJUiIA 9400E'-129i) nt.1r'!lO~ ;4UI) 321!H!Q80 P4.l( ~4U11 3&8001l1Vlo Dec2mber 30, 1992 ATTACHMENT 2 Re: The Hamilton Condominium Flanned community Proposal: Neiahborhood Meetin~ at First united Methodist Church on Decamaer 10, 1992 Dear Ms. McCo'Wn ~ On December 10, 1992, about 20 people me~ at First United Methodist Church at the ~equest of the developers and Pastor Norris to discuss The Hamilton project~ Nine were from the developers' team, 2 from the City's staff (Virginia ~arheit and Carl Stoffel), 3 or 4 from the church, and 5 from the neighborhood. No one took official minutes. The crevelopers or their spokespersons ~ade some ~tatements and gave answers which have not been presented publicly, so far as I Y~ow. I thought you should have this information, which I have group~d by subject matter, not the order in which the comments were made. r. PARKING 1. Twelve spaces for quests and six spr.ces for em~'loyees will be provided on site, together with fifty-two assigned ~paces to residpnts. Jim Hill answered a question about how many vehicles each resident would have by admitting that couples might have two and perhaps t~ree motor vehicle~. The developers' p!an is to assig~ one parking space ~er unit. Any additional space on site will cost $30,000; it was not clear if this is an one-time purchase price or whet~er space rent will be charged in addition. Hill said he thought this price would discour~ge people from havinq more than one car. O~hers observed ~hat street parking would be a rea~istic cption at that price. Hill acknowled~ed that two active people with different schedules might want or need more than one ve:hicle~ 2. In response to a question, Hill agreed that individuals who occupy units, either as buyers or perhaps as a widow or widower, would be likely to have someone else living in the unit or at least spending an extended period there. So, there probably 'Would be a need for a second car in many units occupied • K~: The H~milton Dece~~er 30, 1992 page tfAio ty ~ sinql~ per$Qo. Hill estimated that, after a numb~r of y~ars, perhaps 40\ ef tha units would be occupied by couples. 3, Hill could net an~wer how guests would find the und~r9round parking spaces. If the parking entrance ha$ a s.curity gate, a quest will have to c~ll in a1vance to ar~ang$ ta get through it. Ifill himself said t!at SU .. "ts ,.111 pr-ol>allly learn to come early, betore 1:3C a.m., to get a parking sp~ce on the street+ 4. Pas~or Norris said that the First unite~, Methodist Church all~w~ broXe~s from Merrill Lynch to rent spaces on the chu"Cch·s pa.rking lot on Wel;)ster street 4 In arlswer to' tlle question whethe.r t.he church .. ~ould -make other parking-spaces available t~ The Hamilton on a rantal basis t he :staid d~fi~itel.1 no. 5. Additional parkin~ ne4Qs on ayron street will ~e created by delivery trucks~ ~ovin9 t~cks~ food se~~ice trucks, cars be.lor.g.inq to do:m~.stics-l and qu.asts 'Who come to visit. It vas £~ated that the residents at The H~ilton would probably have 9Ilests \lb.o would be comins en a regular basis# includinq faNily members. 6. Far~ing usage on Byron Street varies. The chu~Ch ha$ activities on ~~a we~kends, including Sunday night s$rvices, which overflow from th~ church's parkinq onto th~ $tree~ and into neiqhbors J lats. The present mix ot uses on tbe st~eet allows parking spaces to turn ov-e-r~ the profezsicnal and business <J:!le;cs, including stC;!~k brokers from Herri.ll Lynch and elIlployees o~ ~atients af the dental clinic, occupy spaces d~rinq the day; !'€!sl.dents and peopl* attending ,the chur-ch use these spaces. durin9 the evening and on yaekenQS4 7~ A ~~estion was asked about instit~tin9 tw~-hou~ pa~ktnq ~imits on eyrcn Street~ This would caU$~ a turnover of space$ but have an impact on the guests and d~~es~ic helpers a~ Th~ Hamilto~ and affect the peopl& ~ho use street parking while warkinq at or patronizing the businesses nearby~ Parkinq from The Ha~ilton and it~ us~s will prob~bly overflo* into the streets in th~ neiqhOorhopd. S. Ji"O Hill said that the deve~opers had considered puttin9 a secon& level in the garage but were concerned about the ~at~r table ~ :He. ackno.,.tledqed that liIan}' people 00 not 1 ike to use underqround parkinqi sO a second level ~ight be even l~ss a~tractive than a single level undergrcund. The Ramil ton December 30 1 1992 Page three 9. Webster parking The Direc~cr of Webster House said that parking at House is not a problem, Qut Webs~er House has an extra lot. 10. Hill said that L~ thought that people ~ho might be away from their unit for two Qonths or so could arrang~ with The Hamiltonrs manage~ent to let their garaqe parki~g space be used by someone else; of co~rse, this would not be possible if the people required parking space for their own cars during their absence. 11~ Art Bodin questioned whethe~ we shoUld be re~~ired to wait to see how the project evolves and whether attrition or some other circumstance reduces the need for parking: once the project is built, it creates it,s demands on t.'1.e area immecUately, and the neighbors will bear the brunt of the adjustment. II. 'I'IsAFFIC l~ ~im Hill said that the t~affic consultant had changed the factor which he applied to the traffic study fro!n !II regular condo~inium development typically occupied by working heads of household to a senior or retirement facility~ Hill ·t.hen acknowledged that the target population o~ The Mamilton is active people over the age of 65 who are likely to be going in and out of their units rather than staying in a unit all day long. Whether they will walk or use automobiles depends on ~eather, destination, convenience, etc. Hill said that there is no truly coaparable project to The Hamilton from Which to make comparisons, althcugh he refers to Webster House as a project of similar size. 2. J£m Hill and the architect, Richard Beard, stated that there was no goed. street for ha.ndling 1:.he traffic created by The Hamilton. The developers have closed the possible service road on Middlefield Road and will concentrate all traffic on Byron Street. Virginia wa~heit observed that ~ere is a peQestrian access gate on Ha~ilton Avenue, so that a moving van or delivery truck cO~11d stop on Hamilton Avenue to load or unload and bring items through that gate. Faith Brigel said there appears to be no good place for the entrance to The Hamilton, \r,'hich shows the projec~ is too big for the site. 3. Jim Hill said that the developers were trying to work out an arrangement with webster House to have it provide meal service for residents at The Hamilton. Charles Schulz asked the Directo~ of Webster Hause how many people eat meals there, and • • ~. _. Re: The Hdruilton Cecembe~ 30, 1992 Page four she replied about si~. Schulz asked about the kind of meal service and what kind of meal choic~s Webster House would provide to residents at The Hacilton. No one could say. Hill acknowledged that there would have to b~ delivery service at least three times a day to bring meals to The Hamilton if meal service is to be provided from an ou"t.::>ide SOiJrce. ~. Sound p~oblem. Art Bodin pointed out that a tour-story building across trom KRI creates a reflective sound wall for traffic noise on Middlefield and this limits the use of spe~ial facilities built at MRI for training purposes. The :present heiqht of buildings and permitted height in RK-15 zoning on Middlefield minimize the likelihocd of sound reflection. III. HEALTH SERVICE 1. Jim Hill said that the minimum entry age woulQ be 55 and that each person must have passed a physical exam within six months prior to taking up residence. 2. Jim Bill said that three of the developing group had ind.icated an interest in buying a Wlit, Sam Webster, Len Ely, and Bill C1Qss. He did not give any information about other persons interested in buying a unit. 3. director not give Jim Hill said there would possibly be a medical and insurance provided for the residents, but he could a.ny details. 4. Hill and attorney steve Player said that the difference between The Hamilton and Channing House is that individuals .. ill o"m their units at The. Hamilton and may transfer them. Residents of Ch~'ning House cannot tran~fer their units, and there is no reimbursement or possibility o~ sale by the occupant~ (There was no discussion of the kinds of restrictions Which could be included in a dee.d for a condominium unit to restrict the transfer to individuals 65 years or older who had passed a medical examination.) IV. CHANGE OF CHARACTERTSTICS OF BLOCK 1. Leland Wieder, who lives at 637 Middlefield and is a consultant for The Hamilton's developers, said that the Urban Design Plan indicates that there should be bigger buildings on the Middlefield block between University and Hamilton Avenues. Art Bodin countered that putting a large structure there creates a prec~dent for further high rise or larger developments in 'I Re: The Hamilton Oece~2r 30, 1992 page five residential ~rees south of Hamilton o~ east of Middlefield. Bodin said that Lytton Gardens in effect cre~tes a precadent fer development south of University Avenue, and each additional building is another precedent. Bodin referred to the height of the sanctuary ~f the church and said that one could consider ~lere should be a sloping transition from that high point to the height of a two-story building on Middlefield Road4 2. Faith Brigel said that the size of The Hamilton changes the character of the block and the neighborhood. It displaces individual residences and two-story buildings used for office or pro~essional uses. Instead of a mix of uses, there will be a more intense multiple-family residential use of the blOCK, with more traffic at times. 3. Jim Hill said that, if ~.e Hamilton planned community project is rejected, the develop~r~ will seEk a zone change to RM-40. In answer to a question from Art Bodin, to whom Jim Hill apparently had said, -If you turn this one down, you should see what we will put there instead", Jim Hill said that he hoped he had not been that blunt~ Ho~ever, Hill did not deny the stateI:l.ent. Attorney steve Player told the group that The Hamilton PC application is the only thing which the group is presenting and that there has been no decision made about proposing another project. Since.rely, CHARLES G. SCKULZ CGS:bh cc; All members of City Council _ ~inia Warheit, Senior Pla~~er, city Hall, P.O. Box 10250, pr Palo Alto, CA 94303 Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division, city Hall, P.O. Sox 10250, Palo Alto, CA 94303 James B. Hill, Hamilton Avenue Properties, Inc., 555 Byron St4, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Donald I. Norris, Pastor, FUMe, 652 Hamilton AVC4, Palo Alto, CA 94301 .' HAND DEUVEREO 12. o. n hi, Cit,. Cou.lldl Pal. AIO' CA "")"1 Do"" CouD,i1 J bope you'l1l:iYt the 'I' ebsur/E.lr reLireme.ol ccmpln proposal an affirmative vote Theose are people 'rho have j:ivell a ~re'l dnl tc t.b;e commu,DJty a.od will co.ct.icut' La do 50. f"e sbould l:C't,P Lhem ana olhus (Or Lhrir ciUiMr bert. or do Y{lU 1'a.nllO seod them -away and apptaJ to the 10'11 CO~ bousi...cl:mariet iaS\.elU1; Baving lived in Palo Alto for.o years myseU. 11001 fOrT&rd to Staying here aad vauld deosire • smaller ba..me later 0.0. eel 1 feel Lhey 'WiLf::t their project -would fill I niche [or a qu:ality eoviro:::tmellt f(lJ' reLi.rees later 0.0. AnytlliJU: Sam. I' ebmr does is prime Quality You sboutd teep .him here !..inc~reJY '~ <?:'-P;;;pas W--- 120 I Bryan t SI Pal. All<>. WI 9i.\(Il EDwARD S. ARNOLD .54 HAMIL TON AV'E~vE PALO ALTO CA 94301-3124 II D~cembeT 14, 1992 HONORAB~E CITY COUNCiL PALO ALTO CA La~les and Gentlemer,: This planned community proposal oresents ~ number of most interesting and some~hat challenging decisions for yOu to make. I would like t~ comment en certain as~ects. Size doesn't seem a problem since it ~omes i~ under the height liffiit. Mass could be to so~e peop~e. b~t I think a unified and t6steful1y deslsrled building would be an improvement over th~ hodge-podge of the current development. Th= social oenefit trade-off seems particularly attractive having in mind your past suppOT~ and appreciation of the good work of the Senior Center. I realize r_hat yo',; ... ill .... elgn this against the cr~ation of housing u~its. b~~ I thin~ it a reason~ ole alternative. ThEJ zoning area is e thicket. I am aware. In an ieeal Iolorld zoning regulations would neatly resolv~ all proposals. Perhaps the new g~neral plan ~ill minimize problems but that's a couple of years down the road and t~Is is no~. A~d I fe~r!essly predict that the new general plan will leave aoout as m~n~ grey a-eas as the present zones do. Just differer.t. As a matter of fact this ~c !<Oo...tld b~ an actl.al development ... hich mi~ht well be a pcsitive i'nput to the general plan consid erF.tions. There is a saying in the NBA: "NO harm; r.r:, foul. can't see who's hurt by this proposal. Traffi~. r,oise, appearance all pass muster in ~y view~ I hope yeu ~:ll possible to agree. j just density. f lTid it Decembe~ 8, 1992 The City Council City of Palo Alto 250 Ha~iltcn Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Memb er s : ~y wife and I have been reading with keen interest The Ti~25 reports an your considEration of the projected Seniors Reti~ement home, The Hamilton. We ~re rather st~ztled and dismayed that there was sone ad\~erse feeling on The Council regarding issuing a building permit for thi~ project4 Both of us ha\"e been locking forwar~ to t..'1e full completion of this facility as it gives us the sort of retirerneut home we have been lookiing forward to moving to in our later years. In fact. we have not been considering any other such establishment in the City of Palo Al to" and as }5 year residents of this community# would regret the necessity of moving out of the City where we have been so active ourselves and with our three children. We both sincer.ely believe there is both a neeO: and a proper place in Palo Alto for this dimension of retirement living, and we both urge the Council to co~sider the project favorable---we just have no place else to go# or really want to go. Thank Ycu! JO~d( ~enter > , November 6, 1992 CityCouncJl City of Palo Alto 250 Hamillon Palo Alto, CA 94303-0862 Dear City Council Members: ; ; I .?,' I .... ish to express my opposition to the proposed zooing changes being requestec oy the developers of 'The Hami1loo Project'. Any development of lt1e proposed s~e shoo Id ocx:u-wfthj" the requirements of existing zooing. Sincerely, My address Is: 1 1 I l I 1 i November 6, 1992 CityCOUnol City 01 Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 94303-0862 ' .. " -, Dear City Coone" Members: J Wish to express my oppositJon to the proposed zoning CIlanges being requested by 1M develOpers 01 "The Harrullon PrOject", Any development of the proposed site should 0<XUr within the req-Jirements of existing zoning. ~~ My address Is: 6'-t :: ;: ;(:C~-. If 1 .. --rJ Jc' ~ a-v"?5 NOV<>moor6, 1992 City CoundI City 01 Palo AIlo 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CA 94303-0062 Dear City Council Memoors: I II II ~j I wish to express my opposition to the proposed zoning' changes being requested by the developers of ""e Hamilton Project", My ~ve!opmem of the proposed sffe should occur within the requiremems of existing zoning, Sincerely, My address is; PO &0;.. 11140 • , '.: < •• : November 5, 1992 City Cout1dl City of Palo Alto 2'50 Hamlltoo Palo Alto, CA 94303-0862 Dear City C<lunctl Members: ';, ',::: I wish to express my opposition to the proposed zoning changes being requested by the developers or "The Hamilton Pro]ecf. Any devEiIDpmer'lt of the prcposscl' site shc.uld occur wlthln the requirementS ~ existing zooing. SinCer~ly. -". ' ·.~ November 6, 1992 City Coon"'l City of Palo Alto 250 Ham1ton Palo Alto, CA 94303-0862 Dear City Counal Members: ,-----.-----~. I wish 10 express my opposition to the proposed zoning changes being requested by the developers of rrhe Ha,-n:1ron Projecr. AiY da .... elapment cl the p.oposed she should occur wtthin the requirements of existing zoning. Sincerely, Jtb.1 J1fu.c!fo d. ~;t; _""s.",-~~~£-",~~""-",<-,,s:.'-LT.~. ~#~202...- il4 4e1v -,=-,C",-,,,,,,--_ My address is: November 6, 1992 City Council Ci'y 01 Palo Mo 250Hamil!oo Polo A.>to. CA ~2 D<;st CIty eou"", Members: I wish Ie ,xpress my OppoSi!iOf to me proposed ''''''ing changes beinG req~esled by the ooveloptrs of "The HM'i1ton Proisct', My development 01 !~e proposed ott. should OCCUr vdthin the requirements of existing 2'Cf',lng, SiMCerely, My address is: • November S, 1992 City Couner' City of Palo Alto 25C Hamilton Pelo Alto, CA 94303-Cl862 o.ar City Council Members: .', " , ., I wish to express my op):osition 10 the proposed zoning changes being requested by the developers of 'The Hami~on PrOject". Any development of the proposed s~e shouk! 0C:ciJr Mthin the requirements of eXisting 2on1ng. My address is: NowmberS,1992 City Coo""l Cit)I a! Paio Alto 250 Hamil'.on Palo Alto, CA 943C:Hl862 ~ear City Counc" Membe",: "---......... - ~.:. ,r{· • ~:, cmCE OF Hi';: em MANAGR I wish to express m;," opposition 10 the proposed zoning changes being requested by the developers or Jhe Ham.ih:on Project". Any development of tt,e proposed sfte shoufd OCC!.!f within the raquirements of existing .zoning. Sincerely, Cct~()J! fJjjrf'~(td{-I:1 My addre'3s is: ~!J-,j /(a Ii j7 liz/f {($ Cft/lc/ , , • " " November 6, 1992 CityCounal c.1y of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton • Palo Alto, CA 94303-0862 Dear City Coune1 Members: <' ' c I wish to express my oppc>3ition to the proposed zoning changes being requeSled by the developers of "The HaIi1~ton Project". Any development of the proposed s:'te should occur \oYfthrn ttle requirements of ex;stJng zening. My address IS: G2! f~'-o ( 'lr r \ F.d'~ ~ jv.? 4<,1., ( c ,1 Q'130 I ~) i'-'>'ff7 p.). N( (..-..,1".( o .. ........,..i.. t ,Fc-e·( [c....t( >0"":J ly ~·,-.. A JL,...."J t~s,,< . 4-Ut...'-J/., !,., ,'IL....<..-,~ c...s '" .~,fj ,"-A{, f, c ..... ,f(. t...--c.t t\....o I'<~a-c. [..<h .... "'j I L..r~ ~., NOV<lmber 6, 1992 City Council CitY 01 Palo Alto 250 Ha'l1i1ton Palo Alto, GA 94303-0862 ", r Dear City Coone" Members: __ .l.\ _______ ...,.;..-~ CfF;CE 0:= Tfj::: em "'MABER I wish to express my cDposilion te 1I1e proposed zoning changes being requested by tI1e ccvelopers of "The Hamilton Projeer. MY development of the proposed s~e should occur '.,yfttlin the rsquirements Of existing zoning. II Sincerely, •• My address is: • November S, 1992 City Council City 0/ Palo AIIo 25() Hamilton Palo Mo, CA 94303{)862 Dear City CounCIl Members: i -:1 I. ) wish to express my opposition 10 the proposed zoning changes 00;09 requested by the rrflV<. .... ~rs of --r!"::~ H~7,;;tv.; i"ioji3h.;.i-. AJ.y u:veiopmem Of me p~ed sn:e should occur within the reqUirements of existing zoning. Sincerery. My address is: I I City Coonci1 CitY of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, CI\ 94303-0062 ~ City Council Members: " -,' {\:'1' ;0 1'1.:, "I • .., .. , . "' ~t -, : -. ..... i, --=;--, ..;. "1, "'J!' '.;~ :: C ;~S2 ..:'.,..1 I wish "" express my oppositiO<'\ to lne praposed .O"i"g Changes bei'lQ requeSled by the developers of "The Hamilton Project'. k:,' dave;"""",n< of 1he proposed .. ~. should 0<lCIX wi!hin lne requirements of eJC$fi'lQ zon'ng Sincere~J,. //~ ~~ rLIM~0P-' My addreSO! is: -- • November 6, 1992 CityCounal City of Palo Alto 250 Hami1too Palo Alto, CA 94303{)862 Dea! City Counal Members: II ; I Ail '9Z I wish to express my opposition to the proposed zoning changes being requested by the dsvelope:-s of "'TI".e Hami1ton Prolect". A..'i'j d9';e!op:-ner.t of the p!'oposed site snourd OCCUr within the requirements of existing zoning. Sincerlely, ------=' I G My oddr •. ss is: -- November e, 1992 City Council City 01 Palo Alto 2SOHamiiton Palo Alto, CA 94303-Q862 = : :": .~:. . I . ~ Dear City Cound1 Members: ",: . I wfsh to express my opposition to the proposed zoning ell anges being requested by the developers of 'lhe Hamilton Project". Any development of the proposed site should occur within the requiremenlS of existing zonlng. Sincsre!y, My eddress is: at dtu.( Ef'-!dNI au"" I. i r E~r .. d k'1' ., 't.lot • '\ '-,-. November S, 1992 city Coonol CitY of Palo Alto 250 H""'ltton PaIo AiIo, CA 94303-0a62 Dear City Coun"'l Members: ".', ------------,~~-- "·r ... C~i' (.. L I. 'i j .. vi.sh 10 express my opposition to th e proposed zoning changes being requested by the d&\.'8lopers of "The Hamilton ProJect". ft.ny development of the proposed site SMuld OCCUr within the requirements of existing zoning. Sir.cerely, My address is: -- c; <77 r-o/'es,,-40 e /:A-/o ,4'--y_,/ November 6, , 992 city Counol City ol Palo Alto 250 Harnilton Palo Alto, CA 94303-0852 Dear City Council Members; , r I wish to express my opposmon to the proposed zoning changes being requested by the devetope:rs of "The Hamilton Project", Any development of the proposed 5~e should occur within the requirements of existing zonlng_ Sincerely, My address Is; , , (J fl1-o At-h> OJ... > 91(301 ,$ ., :-1 , I , I . L Dear Neighbors, Have you heard about "The Haml1ton-? Surprfsingiy, this immense proposed de\relopmerrt has no! been getting as much pub~crty as it deserves. Before it is too late, we wourd like to grve you some information so that you can herp dec;d~ what deve:oper<s do ylith the nearly /uP city b!Qd( bounded by Hami11On, Middlefield, University, and Byron Streets . The City CounCIl or Palo Mo needs to know our concerns and reactions. ff not, devElopers wil1 qu'~ a:1d graduaI?y construct t.,is area to their own advantage arid beneftts. The City Cc-.Jnol will be responsive to oor COi'lCerns if we make thEm known. Over the past few yearn, several !arge, de.n5e devefopments nave passed the inspection 01 our Pala Alto govemmen~ such as 531 Cowper and the new Lytton Gardens N. However, it is po~sible 10 stop overly dense building wtl',ch benefit the developers bLJt cause us problems of mo<e traffic, parking, and ponution without c;ear benefit to local residents or the City. The developers are pianni'1g 36 dense, Iuxu!')l condos for wealthy seni",s and propose pul"Cf1asirlg 7 to 14 existing hooSir'lg unfts elsewhere in Palo Alto and offering them at below market rates. We beneve these are of dubious benefit 10 the neighborhood or the City. The developers are recuesting the City double the number of unils zoned for this area . CurrerrJythe2Or1ing allows for 18 unils. Their plan is for 36 unils. -Maximum helgh! aJlowed presen1ly is 30 feel Their plan is for 50 reet -T,.,e a~owed coverage currently is 35%. The'r prcposa1 is for 55%. -.l\lIo.,ed flooc-area is 25,0CIJ sq. feet. Zoning change recuested by developers would allow 9O,0CIJ. Several other facts are important negarding Ihis projer.l 1. The developers are trying to persuade some nelQhbors that this project win increase the value of their property.. This is probebly not true. Property may be worth ress when parking and trl3ffic become major pmbrems. AIso excessive densrty in one area ma)! Umit the ability or acceptability of expansion in the 1-nmedIate surrounding area. 2. The massive character and style of the bu~a1ng is overwhelming or. Byron Street architecturallssues which normally the Cfty is very concemed about. .. -~' 3. Traffio and parkff"'g is very congested now EVen with severol of th e bl!ildings in rrttle use. The project will brtng many extra cars, taxj~. ser...ice trucks, vans, ambulances and visi1crs. This will inevttably create CDrIge5tiDn in an t,e surrounding streets. Although 'Some underground parking is proposed, ~ appears to be insL..1ficism fO( the size of the proje::t.. It is Itkely that visitors. service person:lB! a'1d perhaps residents and staff wr~ prefer to use street park,ng whenever it is alla~able, rather than search underground. 4. This project will ol/ervmelm and s"hade sel/eral or the e>6sting bundfngs adjacent to it S. The coostn..'ction wiil take approx1mately 2 years and w .... ,avoidably cause a variety of dlsturbing cflsrupfions. There w11l be daity noise Construction vehicles and equipment and the large construction -B:1VE:'Ope· around the site wi'! obstruct .:=in the streets SUlTOLoong 1I1e project Substantial amounts of existing street parking Wlli be ertminated during the construction period. Local traffic will become more congested. tnlerruptioos in electricity, gas and water are likely. Our area has rec~ntiy been going through the several installation phases of underground wiling. Even this relatively sman p,roject caused significant disruption with noise and r,mned parking for U1lee months, " is Slm Incomplete alter six months. A construction project the size of '"The Hamilton· w!ll be dramaticafiy more intrllsive in L'1e frfe of the neighhorhood. 6, By t'le request 01 the Developers, t"" City Council may change the proposed the PLanned Community (PC Zone) to RM-40 zone. This would a~ow 47 smaner untts rather t'1an 36 [arge-r ones. Such a change wouid peml~ even greater density and is even less desirable. h wourd mean a greater population and mere cars and more traffic problems. We need to retain the present zoning (RM-15J. Per tile cu~ent code, this would a~ow the construction of 18 :Jnits. We Palo Altans need to care abol.<"t our downtown area and protect it. We a150 need to take or. the responsibTIlty of lettjng the City CoUTlCn know mat we are proud of Palo Me as it 15 and w.e do not want it to get overiy congested. Enclosed are copies of a recent ne\0Y5 arJde. Although the Planning Commission voted against the project as proposed, they referred ~ to the City Counel '0( e decision, The Counc-i meets NOl/ember 3) and may wen dedde to approve it in its present or a modified form. They may also recommend an increase in zoning density fOf the entire area. If you agree that masSive, dense development of t1e Hamlrton, Middlefiefd, Byron area for the benefrt of developers and wealthy seniors should be Dpposed, there are two action steps you can take; 1. ~ your name and address on the attached lett:er 10 the City Counc~, place it in the enclosed stamped envelope, addressed to Faith Brigel. and mail it today ----"""'l' 1IiiilI • We wm submjt it lo trle Councij at the critical November 30th m eetrng, 2. ~ to the impo~1a't City Coun..:~ meet~ng on Monday. November 30, at 7:00 p.m. at City HaN, 250 Hamilton Avenue, and expres:'i your view. Thanks for your ir.volvement in this community cha"enge. For mOre lnformatioo, or if you would like to participate more act .... ely wtth us in overseeing the proposed development process, please can Charles Schulz, Fanh Brigel, or Alan Brauer. Sincerely, ~bjJ~4. Fafll1 Brlgel 518 Byron 326-2336 • I ~I~.~ • i' -:.Ie "-,-,-( '. __ ,.-IU,/ ~arfes G. SC~~1z ' J 517 Byron 32S-8080 FB:db . G;."~,("",, <- Alan P. Brauer 630 Univarsity 329-8001 ~~e..i{/Lh~ Yvonne Wellhaussn 628 Hamilton ·"" , ~. ~PP~,OJ~(C~TLJI~Hf~Q~~~T~I~O~N __________________________________ ~ _____ TabTe 1. Prole~t Comparison. With 'Current Ordinan~e Requlre-menil PROPOSED ALLOWED ALLOWm AllDliW EX/STING (.""nded {Reql1ired} ,R.qu ired) (Requi rod) prop.soil RH-IS 1t~-30 RM-40 F100r 90,7.0 25,750 lO,'OO 51,500 26,200 Aru f~a.ft.l fAR 1.76 .5 . ! 1.0 .51 Maximum 50 feet 30 feet 35 feet 40 feet Ipprox. IS Weioht feet , Coverige 55X 35~ 40X 4SX Z~ Number of 36 IS 34 47 7 Units Parkin. 2. Of unit Z .33/unit 2.33/lmit l.ll/unlt 50 sll aces Use Planned tow l'Iedium High Low Comnmlty Oensfty Den:s ity [len" ity Density Residen· Residen-Residen-Re.sfden· tfal Ual t1i1 1101, I Profes-sional Office Prcj~ct oescription: This proposal is to rezone si~ parcels at the corner of ~iddTeffeTd Read and Hamllten Avenue fr~m RM-15 to Planned Community zone and to construct I high income condominium project for senior community li~fng. The structure befng propos&d is a hindseme, traditional Spanish Colonial archltectural st~le ~it~ stucco extertor. four stories high .long Byran and Middlefie1d frontages, and three stQrtes high a70ng ~ami1ton A~enue, with i one~story pool structure at the }b:ll!ntonIB~,..on corner' and an open interlor courtyard. Tne slze of the structure j,s 90,i60 square feet. wTtn a !l'tiximum hejght Df SO feet. The main entry fs located on Byron Street, w~ere five surfac~ parking spaces are pro~ided along the entry dr-i~e. The e[jtrance to an under9round paribng gir.ge with 69 spaces is ilso located on Byron Street. A sen'ice entrance is located on the north ~ide of the building and is aCCEssed off Mrddlefjeld Road. .. ~~""---. 9/2S/92 Page l Palo Alto weekly, 11(4/92, Page 9 SEh70RS Decision on retirement homes put off £xpensil.'l! Ham:lron A\.'c"lrue ccmdas raise Lrs~~ aboul 'zoning/or sa.le' ~1o~t of len whee Ciiy Fb;:m~rs t!linlt lbrlll stnior b<:'using, Lh~y think .bOW p:v"idin: I decl~ill pl-a<:oe Ie Jil'e for pecpl~ 011 ru:~.;llllL-om~s who l"(qul!c:.l S!J.blit:ly to afford rt'1<t. 50 • re'::C'llf propcul b~· sevcn.! i!t~'cstO(l lnd dev:lopc~s hu !.he (ity'" Flanni/ll e:,1lUT,i~:oc ~rnc· whll pllzz!ed , Tile idu iJ; 10 proJIl<:e 'Ilptl· plush. wpcr-cxpc:uh'c .and IT.tpu· doense hoUS::ng en Huclltoa AVC':lt:.C II: the ecmc! of Mld~eliC'ld ROlli Thc ".Dil1, wbich could stn Car u muc:.b 1.$ 51 miLIiJJ%l ai'ir~ W(lIlTd be tll!gelc-d a( th~ wc:!!thy :ito;on who ,,"'ant !o -sperod tf:eir ,old~o J'UN i.rJ Para Aho, The 36 ctlndomini\:llU., .lIvU';1gillg 1,800 squlI'C ir:c:1 each. 'IIo'o..tld bJ. .. ~ I ki~c:."Cll, two or ftl.:l!=' bcdrco:n5 .a.nQ IwO co three ftlU b&th~ The (ommon areas of fr.~ h ... nd.;;ome, SpUoisb Coloni~ de:sip W()llld ta· ~udC' • din.inl area. t'IIo'O foLlIISC aM bM arcas" .an ucrci..c room. l Spl a."U! c:ncl~d pooL Nobody has displltecf tllll Ibts nidle of bOllsilllis n<lo--(:rim:u i.:l Ulwn. ""J Ihick i1 's i!ll~runl ~ b.l\lC Lhls kind ofh.:ollS1ng." ~id Cc;~m:s S:OIl me!'l'ltlu Tony Carrasco, ~I doo. 'I tb ink we shoilid be .l.Sllamc~ Clf" Jlrovid'UlI boUSlng ror • Mgtnell.1 or ~ ~rnmllnily ilia.! CH.:h it. ~ Ylh,al tile: dr:'iclopc:rs. Il.lve askC'd fw, howcYC'!, i:s rort..':e cilY to i.!lo.",. I buildlllg 3.!i limcs: more: dea!;c U'oUI che Cllmroi lonllle: 1110\\.'5 l.1d I ,8 lirn~ mort dcnst: ~ ~CG !.be: ciIY'S mos! dellse mlllli·family housing. In exch.a.!Jge rOt thC' exLn dClI'Sily, Ihc doevclClptn ~Iy they wo~d buy .sevcn m)Jk~!·r"le hct.t!" ing tI.lIiLS and ,ive. ilic:::! U) the til,. to prol'idt 10 low-!noo~c ~r'l\~ Thai bu .some PliMi!l1 Commts siO!l members (oc.ccrr:ed !.hal, in d· (CCI, chc ci!y will be prOviding I s.bsi.Jy to 3 project bdlI by SIlpe! ..... wlhy dcvdClPCrs liew! at Sl;p~r" woe:;Jhhy residcnls. La.'! ...... ~~k t},~ PL1.nl1;.~g COJT';m'~· ~ioi1, i..:", "':ViS:lf)' bod/l~ Ihr Cily COlJ11'::1 i, Cecid~d ntll to vO',e 00 whelf'l~r to ~;Jpr~Y( Ihe PiOj~.;1, In.· I,tad, ItL~ C'.;)mrr,Jniof." lerefu~ th e iS5ue to Ihe CclJ!ldl fOJ s.::lmC" i~;~· anc: em whetner lhe de",doFe,·~ nlve pil:Jvided ei1O~.sh bc;)erit Ie me c-o":ll'n~,t:y loj~$tly the high denli· I,. Howe ... ~r. comrr-i$Jiion merr.bers did b .... 'c bolh kind and cOI-so-.k:!.1d worjs !i;,r the project. "1 bet.ome more ud more 1;01l· Cl: mel! thaJ this is lhc wrong ('t:l;t1d illg) (or this .. ile,· uid PIUlo.in.a: Comm ~ion member P.mI Musll Ar.lon&: olnu iU1J(S, such u t}.c .pproF!ill~IlI;SS oC high"de:,;sity hOllSill& ill this p"'M of 1l0w:l~o\loll, Mmll objec:e' l.:; w flll shc CiOld' "'zollbg f'J! SiJc," He! rcrerenu 'IIo'i.Ji n<;;l to (f.e :e!,,· cively'heft,. SIl~S :f'.~ t:evclojlcts ;po:v.:red inlO lh~ campaign cl',eSIS of Cily Ccun'dl CUl0tt:lales dllring 11$1 )'~a.I's. c1eC'1iort. bl.lliO thc Wli::s Lll~ de:V'tlcpc:s W'01.tid biJY in ucbacge f;y the favor oJ b;gllu developm~t Marsh'l objeniQ.ll.5., ""'h.icll werc echocd by tw~ orher cO'Tlm"is.t:oa melIlbcn, raise tbe Intlrky issue oI .. ,hal cs::aetly the City Council ill· tendcd ,"'hen it rorme~" !'J;lfIned CArnmWlily %WIe: tNl l'11ows d('Y"'J· {l~rs m viof.alt %WIlng \'\lIes ill ex dl.llgc for thC' ?'U!lHc becdit . WOl.lld. project, for ttample, be a pu·orle ~fil if tne deve!opcr j...n huldtd O\le:I put Dr the prC'fillO Ihe cilY? . In ttH: put, dcvtlo;c.rs ru.\le !!.Ie PLvu1~ Communi~,. lOll" Cor l'L;~h . Slruct"JrU u l1e L~1:on IV 1r:<''''_~~4 C;)rne "nior ll::l\ .. srl~g plal1'1ed f.:Jt EVertll AVer;;'lC' vd Ramon.a Piau at lllc: ;:cmer of t'llive:l.i:y AI'C'Il'.:e L'ld RlI'MIl" Street ThOU&!l (hll.j" are (=d\. and O.y Hill i:n;I"I::M~ mellU b.&vc b-een Fuel for as "jnl:bll( benefits," m;l.'lj' G1 thc bc11diu from .Planl".d U:H1lI:11JJ'Ii1y projects have (\C(lJrToed orl-silc:.. • "1 llliok UlC'l'C'S lllec:i:I for l IlJO. jttlliu !.his," s.aitl' JC1lhl' Schmidt Howew:r, ~!'e said, "J !xlieve plJclk bend.t sboultl be inhe:rclli ill tb.e project, :Dot off-si:e,'" :. .. '_ Tho'Jgb ~c::, I'ol:d wit1l.Cheu ccl· hagu.es Ie ~lld t~,e U:slles oc Co the' Cit,. C:l1l:Jci1 [OI".scmC' ptJliC) 8".:lid+ lll(:C', rommi:osion meCll;Jel"S~· Cl) Uld BiLl GJ&Zier said a.ey wOlJld ' ·b~ wllling Ie VOlc for lile projea a.l most.as is. "', c!on'L ~.hini this b OWIlwg r;y uJe," Gluier uid .• -Jock Fn'rd1J __ .~, ____ N_-'- l" ~~ ,..(!" L ET .:J _ p;:-.. ~ ,05 • e:113I8. "9THEl~'IR'~T UNITE;M~THUDIS'~ CHURCH 625 H.miltnn A .. nue at WebSier P.lo A ,,~, Californ;a 94301 , t (4]5) 3:?3-(i16' : ~ 11111[1[ :O,lJglu I, Norris, Pastor ~~~~~',~ __ ~ I R.""e "L~"'-Fen"'rd", ""od." , •• 1., november 2~, 1992 I NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING ANNOUNCEMENT TO DISCUSS THE HAMILTON SENIORS' FROJECT Thuraday, Oecember 10, at 7:30 p.m. Pea:r-Neighbor: \" ': ~ " In the spirit of b~ingi"q the l~ediate community t0get~t, let's meet to diacua. the proposed 36-un1t eenior living comm~ity adjacent to 01. A eQmmunity op~n-forum will be held on Thursday evening-, Oecember-lOth, from 7;)0 p.m. to approximately I,t p.m. in the Fellcwship Ball of The Fir.t Onlted ~ethodi$t Churchil~lIIt the corner o~ Ramilton and Byron~ This meeting i. in addlti~n to the November 30th Public Bearinq in the City Ceuncil Chamb~ri. T Ths December lOth lleet.1ng will provide an opportunity fo'~ all of iJl to hAve .a close look .t the proposed Bartilton projec:t\~s it now stand. and •• it might be modified followinq the Novirnber 30 Public Bearinq. A repr •• entative of the City PlanniMg S~ff will be on h.nd to address your que.tion. as will ~im Hill, o~ of the applicants for the propoeed re-Eonin9. 'I: We hope to 8e8 you on December lOth~ In the meantime, i~ you ha~e any question •• bout the meet1n;, please ~all Bill J~on, one of Our nei91,~.rI5 .. lit: 321-805O-~ It yOY would like to ;"I~ave a copy of the City .taff report or !'HIVe: questions regardin!fi City procedu~e. or pol!~ies .. please contact Senior Planner Vi~i~ia Worheit at 329-2364. ,t Very truly your8, If ""~L ~ ;"'--' . :~L-r_~ DoUglas> I. Norri!> .. Pastor ;", .II',', ;i '10 <, 'Iii ! II· I: " I . liAMlLTON AVThLJE ~or~fjP.s,:JN~., 555 BYRON STREET· PALO ALTO,.C": 9i~.~\ " November 25, 1992 :-:_... .'" . ,:. H ,Jl 'J( EONORl\BLE CITY COUNCIL City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California S4JOl ATIACHMENT 3 HAND DEuVt:Ht:U"TKE H.A.MrL TON" TEL (415) 326·4616 FAX. [41;) 3!7-S197 NoTE-..: THl';' If-.'f"'lEo''L (..c>Nk'I'l~~ ~-.)11~ 7""'4T" Ot:\..lo.t./lE-O n 1-1''''''eE:~~ C~ TH€ (C"(HV(AL CJ..".,J II) 2..7/'2 ~.(cP'j FN:. '1"HE. c.,,:gf .. cr'CN ~";,",v"'" (lJoJ ,olllff __ 4_ ~ (g·~1 Re: 651 Hamilton ..Avenue, 5J~-575 Middlefield, 523-575 Byron ~ Street: Application for Ple:nned Community Zone and Approv.e.l of 36-Unit S"",l"li~r CondominiU!'1 Project(The Harniltcn} E: :;: Members of the Council: , i ;:1, < This letter is intended to address the policy issues identifie~ F3 ~ b~p the Planning Commission <""ncerning public benefit, the size..;pi our proposed proje~t and appropriateness of the current zoroing." We -will also review changEs 'We h2.ve made or propose to make to our development program and design. Finally, we will touch on a number of othpr matters which ~e would like you to consider as you review our application~ PUBLIC BENEFIT The Hamilton is intended to provide accomodations and support services for seniors. We feel that, ideally, the public ~enefit that we provide should assist other seniors in the community. As set forth in o"~r Jetter to the Planning Commission cated 9/12/92, we have for the past year been worr,ing with City staff to develop a public benefit component of our proposal tc include 7 BHB. units in addition to those required by statute. These additional units would be of significant benefit to the city, providing much-needed affordable hou5in~, especially for seniors. During the application process .. howe"'~2r, we have h~d a number of infomal discussions '\;,dth membfi!rs of the City Council and the Planning Comrr.ission concerning alternative means of providing public benefit. Their goa! was a program which could serve a large number of seniors by providing an end~ring source of income to preserve and maintain valuable senior programs in the community. A memo dated 11/18/92, submitted to the Council and signed by Joe Huber, LiJ: Kniss, Joe Simitian anCi Lanie Wheeler, suggests this alternative to the Council for your and our further consideration. In response to the memo and if the council concurs with the recommendation therein, we are prepared to provide the public b~nefit component of our project by establishing an endowment for the benefit of the Senior Coordinating Council on th~ basis outlined in the attached Exhibit A. This alternative offers a unique and creative opportunity to provide the funding needed to preserve on a continuing basis certain existing senior programs. We also feel that this alternative more t!la:'1 meet!. the require ment included in the PC zoning ordinance for public benefit. The Hamilton Senior Living Ccmmunity Nov~mber 25, 1992 P-:tqe 2 SIZE O? THE PROJECT .. _-_.-.. --,....,.-- A senior living community, with its dining rOOm and other common facilities, necessarily r~quires ~ore floor area per unit than a typical condominium or rental unit. The F4A.R. of The Hamilton is 1.74, of which approximately 1424 is attributaLle to residential units (See staff report to the Planning Commisssion dated 9/25/92). The apparent mass of the building as measured by F4A4R~ is , in our view, mitigated by the site's large size, its separation from adjacent parcels on three sides by streets, residential neighbors on only one side (across Hamilton Avenue) and proximity to other intensely improved properties <Methodist Church, Lytton I, II and III and Webster House}. Additional ~itigation is afforded by The Hamilton's sensitive and appropriate architectural treatment, t:he varying heights and placement thereof and a site plan that reEpects ~eighbors and requires no variances. Fortions of the building are 44 feet high to the deck of the mansard roof, 6 feet less than the City~s present height limit4 The Hamilton is approximately the same height as Lytton I and II and considerably less t.han the heights of the cr.urch's sanctuary. Lytton III and Webster House, all located within 500 feet of our site. APPROPRIATENESS OF CURRENT ZONING We have appli~d for PC zoning due to the fact that no ~xistin9 mu;.ti-fa.m.ily zone in Palo Alto permits t~e F.A.R. (or height) .... 'hich typically is required for a seniors' residential facility. The severa.l Lytton Gardens projects, Webste:t" :SO""..lse and Channing House are cases in point. In the effort to determine the magnitude of the zoning exception that we are requesting, it is logical to compare the ~ey elements of our design with an appropriate multi-family zone. We feel that a stron9 case ca~ be made for RM-4Q as the appropriate underlyin9 zoning for the entire block on which our site is located 4 The block across Byron is zoned R~-40 and the entire double block across University is zoned PC with F.A.R~ 's and heights general]y well above RM-40 limits. To our knowledge, all but three parcels in our block presently accomodate prior existing non-conforming uses. This fact would seem to make the present zoning c]""..:i te inappropriate. In any event, the attached Exhihit B. compa~es a number of oesign parameters with both RM-15 and RM-40 standards4 -". .. '!"he HarniltC'n Senior 1,ivinq ('o1JUl1unit} November 25, 1992 Page? DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM REVISIONS ~ne principal change in our Development Program submitted in July is the proposed alternative public benefit ciescribe3 above and 1n Exhibit A. The o~her relevant change is a reduction in the number of employees. Oiscussions are underway with Webster House which will leed to a sharing of facilities and personnel to the end that The Hamilton will have no more than four full time employees, exclusive of hO~6ekeepinq ~orkers. DESIGN REVISIONS The eave line and roof line of all 4-story clements have been lowexed 3 feet and the 3-story ele~ents 2 feet. This, coupled ",,-i th the u.oving of a portion of the north wall 3 feet, has eliminated the need for variances due to intrusion into the daylight plane and balconies projecting into the required side yard. NO VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED. The Middlefield Road elevation has been oramatically improved by lowering the northernmost portion to 3 stories, ~ropping the eave and roof lines, varying the fenestration and deepening the balconies. See Exhibit C. and Sheet 9 dated 11/10/92. The Byron Street elevation has also been improved by adding gates and a trellis {Sheet S dated 11/10/92). Colored renderings of all three street elevations are enclosed. We have e11minat~d the service drive off of Middlefield Road and replaced it with landscaped patios and open area. Service ~ill be acc~modated at the new location of kitchen and dining room off of Byron Street. See Sheets 4A, 5 and 9 dated 11/10/92. As a result of the above cl'.anges the F.A.R. r.as been reduced t, 1.74 and other project statistics slightly modified (see Exhibit D., Project Statistics~ attached). Earlier major design revisions, a total of five since April, 1991, ~ere made in response to staff's suggestions. In the process F.~.R. has been reduced from 1.99 to 1.74, the n~ber ~f units from 41 to 36, and the height from 50 feet to 44 feet. Numerous other revisions were made in response to staff's r~quests concerning surface and basement parking and circulation, setbaCKS, etc. ON-STREET PARKING DEMAND Please refer to our letter of 10/'27/92 Which 'Was appended to the 9/25/32 staff report to the Planning Commission. The expanded Table 4 attached to that letter emphasizes the fact that our plans provide the highest ratio of parking spacl?s per unit among all seniors' resiaential projects that ~e know of in the Bay Area. This is true in regard to all categories, i.e. homeowners' spaces, quest spaces~ employee spaces and overall total spaces. The Ramilton Seni~r Living Cow~unity Novemhe= 25, 1992 Page 4, It is our firm opinion that Palo Alto's conserJative approach to the p~ovision of on-site pa~king assures that there will be no added burden placed on the neighborhood's on-street park~ng facilities~ CUests at The H&milton will often be repeat visitors. We ~jl1 make every effort to ~irect them to the easily accessible single level basement parjdng. Many guests 'Will visit on weer-ends and during the late afternoon and evenings w~en on-street parkin~ spaces are readily available. (we have observed that nea~ly all on-street spaces on Byron Street are occupied by the same cars fram S a.m. until about 5 p.m. on weekd&ys.) These facts lead us to believe that the 12 visitor spaces provided are sufficient. UPDATED ~~FIC ANALYSIS A second look at the ~trip generation factor· for a seniors' project indicates that from 3.3 to 4.0 trips per day for each residential unit is realistic, as opposed to 6.8 trips for c typical condominium project. ~s indica>t~ in the traffic enqineez's letter of 11/22/92 (Exhibit~~attached), use of the 4.0 factor qives a redoction in average daily traffic generation from 355 trips (existing uses) to 144 ~rip9 (The Hamilton). Of particular interest is the projected REDDCTION OF TRAFFIC ON SYRON STREET FROM 135 TO 126 TRIPS PER uAY. Note also Table 1, Trip Generation, which indicates that average daily trips and peak hour trips generated in the area will all be significantly reduced by r~placing existing uses with ~NY sort of 36-unit condominium project. NEIGBBO~HOOD MEE~ING We understand that you may 'WEll defer your decision ir. regard to our applica~ion to a date in early January. With that in mind end given the potential impact of The Hamilton on its neighbors, we have welcomed the ':Jpportunity to participate .in a neigh:Oorhood open-forum as described in the attached letter. A number of you may ""ish to attend thi~ meeting, scheduled fo~ Thursday, December lath at The First United Methodist Church. We appreciate this opportunity of communicating ~ith you on the broad range of subjects that QPpear to us to be relevant at this juncture. It will be our pleasure to come before the Council on Monday evening, November 30, to present our plans and to ans'.ver your questions concerning The Hamilton senior living COIrl!!lt1 :-1ity. Sincerely, HAMILTON AVENUE PROPEF'I'IES, INC. ~~-~.~ ~$ -B~ ;ill, President . HAMILTON A VENUE PROPERTIES, INC. .555 BYRON STREET· PALO ALTO, CA 9-4J01 PROPOSED sec ENDOWMENT FUND -OUTLINE ~THE HAMILTON" TF.~ rH;) 326-4626 F."..x. (415) 3n-S!97 EXHIBIT A. To 11/25 Letter 1) We will contrib~te $500(000 to an endowment fund established by and for the benefit of the sec. This contribution will be ~ade in annual installments of $50~OOa on June 1 of each year from 1993 through 2002, subject only to the conditions set forth in 5} and 6) helow. 2) In adcition to the $500 1 000 initial contribution, we will contribute an additional amount equal to 2 , of the net sales price of each residential unit in The Hamilton when it is RE-SOLD by the original or subsequent owners. 3) Upon closing of the sale of our 32nd unit (out of the 3£ units proposed), we .... i11 promptly contribute all anm.lal installme:lts which remain unpaid Cl,t that time, e.g. if the 32nd unit sale closes in October, 1997, we will immediately pay the remaining five installrn~nts totaling $250,000. 4) The June 1,1993 installment for FY 1993-94 will be paid promptly upon the City's approval of our rezoning application reqardless of the oate of such approval~ 5) On April 1st of any year prior to the start of construction 'We may terminate our obliqation to contribute to the endow ment fund in the futUre by qiving written notice to the sec of our irrevocable decision to abandon the project. All cont~ibutions made prior to any such notice will remairr in the sec e!"ldowr.lent fund. 6) In the event that we fail to close the sale of at least 32 units in The Hamilton within three years following the start of constrlJction, 'We may terminate by written r.ot:i_ce to the sec our obligation to contribute the 2 , ·re-sale fees· described in 2) above. All of the obliqations and conditions o\,1tli-ned above are intende:d to apply to any successor to our position as applicant and/or developer ~ BACKEN ARKJGO.~I 8.: ROSS, I:-.iC. HAMILTON AVENUEI'ROPERnES Palo Alto, Cali fomia 111101'12 BAR 1'90062 H;[,(I P,,,.!'l ~lrn·' ~H' [;;'''' , i~,.., c.~ ~ .. J'I;l 11, ,p;.~:ij r;ll ~U ·HI ~-'L'O PRELIlION,I,R \' ZO!'l1NG A:-IA LYSIS ..1.:\1) COMPARlS01'i 'RM-15 RM-.w 1 010192 Design Density 6 -15 DUlAC )1 -40 DUlAC 30.5DUIAC Site Area 8.~w sf min. 8,500 sf mi". 51,500 sf. Side + Rear yard SetDaCk; I:~' single slary: I U' up to L~: hI. Varies, 16' -3J' 25' up '0 >0' hI 25' up 10 40' III -J Mlddlefield Road Seiback 125' 25' 25' I Maxi mum Height 2 stories, ,jU' 4u' 44' to deck of rn ansard roof :M.aumum Coverage 35%,18,025 sf. 45%,23,175 sf. 54%; 21,~02 5t. Ground F1r. Usable open Space 35%, I~,O') sf. 10%, lO.'W sf. .14.5%; 11,70lJ sf. 'TotaJ Units Allowed 170U 41 DU 36DU Parlting llDU (Semor llVU (Senior !'J~ spacesJ IHousing) Housing) 1.5IDU(re=ved) Total BUllding Area N.A. (A ~9,464 sf. abv. grade 33,193 sf. 1>1w.gra<l<! 122,657 sf. total FAR. 1 0 .5 1 1.74 J'Tinci".:.1, ..,,'."'.,.,~ j l>~,\".", r,.,\ ... R"t) .. , \' "''''il''''''' "i" Jan."" M,,,"I,dl Rl?" 1t"I> .... t> !',car!!! AI.<\ ~""i", \'" ?r~'l<kn:'. C~1 r C'.' .... ".h I!~b C~~~.~ 1"'".'-, __ '\ l.,.. )'.,,'; r IIt "-C':" \'i.-.-f, • .,i."Lo !\.!:.,l d~ R~~· \\'ttl,",,· r ,",'"JI~~<l fl,"'f 1,,"·,-1 '\i.~n"e,1\ 1) j~". \.\.,.-.tn \4 I .... l'~~J L.~.~· J. \l,,,t-, ... ~ ('-0\>'"'' / I g.i.J. -n .YZ! 1/ O.J.. .:::> j.l1'K~3 ~'-~- \ l ! , .,> _ "'._~_, ... _."'_u __ _ \ { BACKEN ARRIGONI & ROSS, INC. HAMILTON A VENUE PROPERTIES Pal", Alto, Calif,""i. IlltOl92 BAR #90062·1 \ ~--~--- El(HI1l1T-. D: n 11/2..<; "',~~ ' .. ..,.u rI', !"I '~~J"o; !. h'N'l"f D,";!'~ PLANNED COMMUNITY ZOJlo'E CHANGE -PROJF-CT STATISTICS 166:;) l\ u~i': S~r~("1 s~" r-r~".;:",,,, c .... '9~ I 0" T"L ~L~ ,·~l·~171 i".u: "l5·~~I-!i.l6(l .. ..All #atlJlio arr preJimituuy Unit VnHAru Bak.Areo A-j-1,545 sf 165 sf A-2 1,600 sf 93 sf B 1,352 sf 81 sf C 1,776 sf 128 sf D 1,804 sf 173 sf E 1,735 sf 88 sf F 2,130 sf 173 sf F-I 2,045 sf 83 sf F-2 1,640 sf 173 sf F-3 1,934 sf 113 sf F-4 1,870 'f 173 sf TOTAL GROSS BUlLDING AR£.A LEVEL I GROSS BUILDING ARE.l.l..EVEL 2 GROSS BUlLDING AREA LEVEL 3 GROSS BUILDING AREA LEVEL 4 BUILDING AREA GARAGE TOT AI. GROSS AREA Total V.U. Ave.Unil Size Sire Area F_A.R. COVERAGE CALCUl.A TION RESIDENTIAL AREA COMMONS pOOL BALCONIES 1st Fir. 1 8 COVERED EXTERJOR SPACE '-'---- COVERAGE 1i"0",,,1' I\ .... ~,," ,1,1A /<,J",,, \i ArT'"~",,. "I,~ J~nll" M"~hc' n ~ ~II /I, k,<.-r,."J I) 1,,, .... <\ I'\1r\ ... "~,,..-,/,,,,,, 1'o""J.'n" cu~ C, Oh~'I1~"'" lkf.j ('~U"S- 2n; FJ. .. 3rIiFLr. 2 2 1 1 2 2 2 2 I 1 11 11 36 units 1772 sf 51,500 sf 4tbFlr. 1 I 2 6 lOT AL 1\1>1 AREA --6-'---U70 sf" 3 4,800 sf 3 4,056 sf ~ 5,328 sf 3 5,412 sf 5 8,675 sf 7 14,910 sf I 2,045 sf 1 1,640 sf 3 5,802 sf 1,870 s~ 36 63,80& sf TOTAL 25,805 sf 23,428 sf 23,556 sf J6,675 !!... 89,464 sf 33,193 sf 122,657 sf 1.74 ·"U;!IJa"es abo~\!' grOOt! squar~ f()(}!a8~ only 15,263 sf 8,373 sf 2,169 sf 1,055 sf 9~2 sf 27~802 sf 54.0'k J"hr. \" V I,," i'.uJ L ~"yn(1IJ' K .. ",'.:! :j, Jur~ \\'~!T." ' .. ' 1 C'''' " IO.XHICI' £, THE \,.t'[LSON ENGINEE:R1NG COMPANY -r-O IJj'2-~1 !..-E.f"-£..Q. Nov<:mb« 22, 1?92 Mr. Jarn~ Hi.E Hamilton A'lt:nue Pr()percies 555 Byron Strett Palo Alro. CA 94301 RE.: Profect Tnp Gencracion Rar~.j \'crsus Chang~s in TrafFic Voiumes on Surrounding RQadw .. ys Dear Hr. Hill: Wilson Engin~ring has completed a funher rel'iew of potencial trip gemracion as!Ocijred wir~1. [h(: propo::.cd Hamiiron Avenue PI:O~ru~ condominium ptOject on Byron Str.:e:r in Pale ,\leo as n:quesrcd. ~'hen completing our ini~ traffic stud), for !hc: project in Mardl cf 1992, we pr::~-!n~eC: il worst calc analysis in terms of nip generarjon which as~umed projn. trip gem:ntion .n the ute of .a ~ar co'ndominium dn<dopmc:nc rypicaJJy occupied b,. wo.rking heads of household ramer chan a senior or rerlremem type: facility. This was done bas.ed upon ~H'.: understanding u that tim:, char you were unsure of whal I)'IXS of fi..Hure owne~ mig!u resLae a[ me sir.e. Th.e followLng proems a comp--..rison of tnp gcnerari.on esdmatts as well as estim<lte5 of changl:'s. i."l traffic volumes on BYlon Street for ditr~refH I)'pC5 of occupancs (s.enior or rer~ed versus rypically employed). B~d llpan trip g~n:::rarion rates used 1.'1 me previolJ.s tra...lfic upon fur a regular condominium devdopment which assumes a l.arge portion of (:mproyed o ..... ners, the proposed pl'Oject with 36 units would generate 244 trips per day:as shown In the aIT1.:hed t.a.blo: (tho: 38 unit prcject ana1y1.~d i.n the p~ious tl2ffic rt:port has been reduced in size by rwo units). Of [1,~. 17 would b.: completed during the morning pea.~ hour and 22 during the-evening peak hOIlJ. The attached table aha indudes esrimatl:'s of project trip gem:rd!ion which ~sune occupation ohhe project by seniors. Trip geM •. aior. ~tlmues were developed wing trip g.!neracion nees pu'bli~hl:'d or used by CALTRA..~S, The San Diego /usoclarion ofGove:rnmencs \ SA..NDAG) , a.n.d the Town of Lo.s G.al'J5 for comp.arison. Th(: CAL~"JS race of 3.3 [rips per unit Pl=r d.ay is me Sa'11e ra~e: wed by the a ry [0 ~va1\late me impactS of Kniof rdated residenti.a.l projects in ule Ciry of Palo Alto. Review of the table: will mow du.t all of the [rip generatiGn U~ and roulting e.o.timat~ (Gr .. senior or .rerittment-type pro,i~i.."t are-appraximard}' ofle half ra !;'NO minu thac of a regular condom in illm, born on an ovenll daily basis and a. puk hour oa.lis. "With regud to dtdr:ge.s in trAffic volumes-on ByI'::.n SUett, exining m.~.s. on the: P!oj~C!. Site .... ::::-e escimac~d to gc:ne:race 135 crip5-per day on Byron SrI("c:t in the March ~r:offi.: repGrt. The propos~_d project wich 36 rrgular condominiunJs i.s forea.sr to gcner.are 228 uips per day on Pyron Srre~r if Mr. J2me. Hill November '~2, 1992 POige 2 :he project is assumed [0 be regu[,zr condominiums rypicaHy occupied by members of [h~ reg~lar work foret:. Using S ...... 1>.lDAG trip genl:ntion Jate~ for n:tirement ::-ommunlcies whert: all occupanrs aIC: us!.!med to be retired, me 36 unitS arc' (orc:cu[ [0 genc:r.ace 125 uifl'i p<:r day on B}TOn Suec:r. This ts nine k:i& ujps .. [~isri!"lg sice W-M~~i~~~~~~~~~ Using trip generation races for fetireme-nr communiriei publiliooed by the Town of Lcs G.itOS and CALTRA.a"l'5 (me! rare used by the Ciry [,[) e'o'a1:.J.are impactS of senior ies.;dwriaJ proj~ct5) yidd~ estimates of project [!'ip gen::r;uion on Byron Street of 111 .nd 101 trips per day re~1X'::civdy or between 25 and 35 trips per day less than o;jscing ~i(C' uses respccti,,·dy. If you hve any lunher questions. ple.uc do nee h~jt:l:rC' to uli. Sincc:rdy, Wilson Engineering ii tJttlk.. ohn D. Wtison, Traffic Eilgin~r Arr.achmrllt cc Virginia Warhdgh[ Carl Sloffd · Tabl~ 1. Trip Generation ~-------- Use Size Average Daily AM. Pezk Hcur P.M. P«k Hour (#DU) T~ffi, T raffie Traffic Factor Trips F.acror Trip.s F:oictor (I) Condo 36 6.8 245 048 17 0.61 (2) Senior 35 NIA 0.05 2 0.08 A,,,ched Hou.dng (3) Retirement 36 4.0 144 NIA NIA Community (4) Reciremc:m 36 3.3 119 0.4 14 OA . Community (5) Retirement 36 3.55 128 0.38 I4 OAI Community E>;\ST'IN6-LY..t~ ; ~ 43 -~ (I) Regular or Standard Condominium Trip Genetaeiotl Roues. Cicy of Pi/a Aleo. (2) ~niot Howing with Attached UnL,s Trip Generation R;.te.s. lmcirure of Tl4:nsporcaion Eng<mc:ers, 1991 (3) Rairc-menc-Community Trip Gener:a::-icn Rates, SAJ'iDAG. 1992 (4) Retirement Community Trip Gener:u!on R.ire5", CALTR.. .... "J'S, 1986 (This is also me: rarC' uso:l by the Cil)' of P.oo.!o Alto (0 C\':;Ju"re impactS of seniN residential proj~.) (5) RellrC:lnc:m Communlry Trip Gemration Ra~c:s. Town ofLQ5 Gatos, 1992 Factor = Trip G~ncr<l(i"c Rare (X'f Dwelling Unir, DU" DwdJing Unit, Trips -= one-way (rips. Condn:o Ccndomir,iuJn lIIIIl!lIII--~---" .-' Trip:;; 22 3 14 15 45 1986 .~. r. I I , ( , , • • / / ?'"' t f J i ; j • • · . · . f; , . ----------'- " , .,-.. "" , :II J-til ~ . . . • "1 ~, W" ", ~l ~I 'J ATTACHMENT 4 December 23, 1992 THE HAMILTON: Concept for Health C8re/Senior Wel1ness program Our goal is ~o ~a~imize the inoepencence and w~ll-bein; of The Hamilton's residents. This means deslgnjn~ ar.d managing a life style pro9ram with a strong focus on health and fitr,es~ .. This program will have a broae range of ~continuin9 care services. Continuing care refer~ to an organi2cd program of ~onitorinq an~ supporting ~el1ness. The monitoring caD be very active or relatively passive, depending on tbe health and ~€eds of the individual. The Hamilton's overall lifestyle program, encorr,passing both preventive services Cp}, and care services (c}, ~ill; • • • • • Create an easily accessible SU?po~t and social network (p) • Provide dail~ meals with good nutrition (p)~ Provide planned and supervised wellness a~tivities (p). pzovide qualified s~aff to assist with medications, special diets, provide blood preS6u~e checks or other health care concerns that require attention (c)~ Provide assist~nce in the home for chronic or debilitating conditions ee}. Assure pre-~rranged access to personal care, ~ssi6ted living, or s~illed nursing {c). The Hamilton will be licensed DY the State as a Senior Continuing Care Conununity. Such licensed cO:mJl'1unities IT':ust offer lonq-tenn ccntracts that prcvide a resi1ence (in The F.a~ilton·s case through ccndominium ownership) a~d a range of services and amenities which focus on maintaining an independent lifestyle~ This includes the reouirernent to make available to each resident three meals per day. -In addition, there must be pre-arranged provisions for a ·continuum of nealth care-(in-home personal care, assisted living and skilled nursing. __ see definitions below). We plan to provide as~isted living within the individual residences and, when appropI.-iate, at a qualified nearby facility. Skilled nursinq services will be provided as well at a nearby facility. The licensinq process for a Continuing Care Community through the California Department of Social Ser .... ices is arduous; and costly. It requires an approv~d business and management plan as well as t~e pre-sale of approximately EO , of the living units prior to the start of construction. • There is a very real nee~ for th~ sort of long-term care plan to be offered by The Hamilto~. It is estimated that 2 out of every 5 pe~ple ~ill require one or more forms of long-terro c~re at ~ome time in their lives. The average length of such care is 3 years and the average cost is about $90,0001 Most people assume that Heciicare and/or :Medi-gap insurance policies cover long-term assisted living ar.d skilled nursing care. T~e reality is t~at Medicare pays for less than 2 , of skilled nursing stays. Neither Medicare nor private Medi-gap insurance C~Vers the cost of assisted li .... ing services. We plan to Hamilton. following: create a long-term care plan for the residents of The This plan will incQrporate one or more of the • A lonq-term care group insurance policy designed to CQve= expenses, such as those mentioned above, which are not covered by Medicare or traditional Medi-gap policies~ • • A pre-arranged agreement with long-term care entities that provide in-horne personal care, assisted livin9 and skilled nurs.1n9 6eryice:5~ Arr~nqernents that take full edvantage of anticipated new nation~l health pr09ra~s~ Given tnat health care and ~ealth insurance programs are in a high stat~ of flux, it is impractical for us to precisely define the long-term care plan for a commu~ity that has yet to be a~?roved for construction. ~s necessary approvale are obtained and as national health Care policy is redefinea, however, we will refine and rev~se our long-term care :plan to Dleet the aT"lticipat-eo needs ,of the residents of The Hamilton. ~o~thly costs {or the long-term care plan and proposed wellness pr09raIt1S will be included in the common charges for each unit. The overall costs cf cperatj nq and l'[;ai ntaini:19 Tr-Ie" RaTr.i 1 tOIl ~re presently being roughly estimat~d en t~e basis of the operating cost experience of webster House and other somewhat simila r senio!"s' cO!nmunities. However, firm figores will be determined during the St~te licensing process and in the COUTEe of obtai~ing approval from the California Department of Real Estate to sell condo~i~iuro uf'lits. erief definition of terms used above: Home Care There are a number of home care services that ~ay be useo depending on the resicents' needs and the appropriateness of remaining at horne to receive c~re. Tnese services range from homemaker activities (cleaning, shopping, laundry, errands) to home deli vered mea 1 s during a rer::uperat j on and outpatient care ~ith medical supervision. '. A!sisted Living This refers to hp]p with the ~activities of daily livin9- including dressing, bathing, ~oiletin9, eating and admini~tering medications. Assisted living provides 2oC-hour, on-call staff~ Residents must be a~bulatorYI p~rhaps with the assistance of wheel chairs, walkers or canes, a~d able to ~ove around without :harming themselves or others. All :meals are su-,e.rvi sed and special diets are often required. Intermediate Care and Skilled Nursing There are two levels of skilled care, depending on the amount ana kind of nursing required. Intermediate care emphasizes personal cer~, rehabilitation and social services _ith regular but not rcuna-the-clock nursing care. It is for people who are not capable of living on their own but are not ill enough to require 24-hour attention from a nurse. S~illed nursinq is the closest to the level of hospital care~ It includes 24-hour nursing care w~th ~edical supervision. .. 5~,OO~ ~~,O~t \0,000 ~O. OOD ~~ .~,~ 110, O~O o ! I I 15,~~~ 1~,M~ 1\,010 j5, DOt. 15,0~~ 7~. &O~ H.~OO 11,000 'l'.MIl 1\,101 1\,100 15,1CC 'l~ .DOD 75.Cilv '5,C~O 1\,110 :I,m l~.tI\)t i5.SS0 1\, leo 15.0(;0 1\,000 ?5,QO~ 11,:01 1~,l).tt l~,O~O i~. ~oo 1\,000 75 .OO~ B.OO~ 5U~C 10,00' \0.000 10,oeo IUIO ao.o~~ o o o I 11,000 H.OQ~ '5,000 11.100 ~'s.e~~ lUll ~~ ,~oo 11.100 'l'.aeQ 15.00~ 1\, III 15,un n.oco H.COG i5. DO~ 1~,O~~ 7UOO l~.tCC' j~, 000 11,m 1;,m n.~~o is .~~~ 11.000 lUll 15.000' is, ~~~ 75, ~oc 15.11C JUOO 11UU 5C, O~~ 5C,onn 11.100 ~Uoc ~~ .~~I) 110.o", o I o I 1I,m 'l~.~~O 7UD~ 1':1, t"~~ ~!UoO 1~, one 'IUDC 11.00" 's.c~o jS.~Q~ 15, e~~ ",m {5.00v H.or,~ iUOC 1U~I\ 1lu~a 1~,~~'~ 11.COO 1~, ~~~ 1;,00' n.DOD i5. ~~~ :5. iI~C 7~,~C~ 15,on 1~,~GQ 1U·~D 11, tCO H.OO~ ~uco ~uoc 50. C~~ ~o ,~~O S( .C~~ 2S~,~~~ I I I I i~, O~ a 75,000 n.~o~ 11.m 1\ .~~o H,e~Q 7'5.0~~ 75, ~t~ l\.OOt n.ao~ ~~ .~1jC 15 .1I~C, ".~H i5, ~~o 1UOO n,coc 15. O~~ H.UQ i5 .~~~ ~~.~t~ l\.IDI 11.10& 11,loe lUIO 7UO~ ~ n. O~~ ;~.ijO~ lS .O~~ is, Qr..~ i.un ~t. ~oc II,CDC 50. Q~~ 350.~~~ I o I .1.000 ,~, ~~o IUOI H,H~O H,C~O 15. oo~ 1~.C~Q is,~CO 15, tD~ 1~ ,~oo n.~oo "5.0 C ~ 11.001 ~~,qOO 1S, c~t, 'l~,~t>n H.OOO 15. OD~ 15, ~G~ 11.010 1\,000 7~, 8'0 11,111 1UOI i~.tlt>~ 11.101 11, lOt ""15 .~tl~ 7S, O~~ lS, co~ B,CC~ 11,1&0 1\,100 m.m A TT ACHM£NT 5 ~LO~~ 30. COG H,~M m.m I I I lUCI IQ.OOO ~~, ~D~ is.OOO 1\.011 i),UG l~ ,lina 7~ r ~~t '~,H~ '5.00e 11.m i5, ~O(, lUDO H.OOQ 1\, leo ') ~ ,ij~ ~ n,oo~ 1\.110 l~,n~ 11,111 1\,001 11.m 11,110 11.111 11.110 is, DCC 1\ .lot n,oo~ i ~. C~ I i 5.0 U ~ '5.00(' 'l~.M~ is.co~ 131.11\ ,c, ~v~ 5tUl:;O ~t, ~~~ H~. O~~ o o 1 lUll 10.m 5~, OOC i~,M~ H.~O~ 15.000 11.m 11.001 1\,000 ;:,QOO n. OU~ ;5.0~~ '5.C~Q 11.000 11,m ,~ .~~Q is.oae r~,n~~ 75,nc~ '5, c~c 11,100 !~.ooo 1\,m 7).oeo 1~.OQ~ 75.0('Q :5.0Li:' 7UO~ 7S,VCO 15, ~~: 1\,m l\.COO 1;,011 ",' ,~, O~~ ~~, tt-O lUll 310.001 D I I 11.000 5t, ,c~ 10, all 1I.m 1S.0U lUC~ 7UO~ 1~,O~C 11,101 i~. :~~ i5.-one "5, ~&O ~s ,oco 1\,001 n.~o~ 11.001 11.000 15, ,~~ 75,)H ~~.OD~ 1\,100 1\,001 1\,110 I), coo n.QOQ 15 .~~O 11.111 iU~~ 7~, o~o 11,010 11,111 TS.OOO lUll