The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0514.092, ~. •... "':'. + ~(D. '. . '~" ".".' 1 po. ;: November 12. 1992 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL Pile Alto, Calir~rnia ~Sl H.milto" ~ •• n" •. 536-516 Middlefield. 523-575 Byron Street: Application far Planned Corrrnun;ty lone and Impro\lal _of 36-Unit Senior Condom;nium Prcject Members of the Council: Report In Brief The proposal is to rezone the six parcels at the above address from low Density Multiple Fa~ily (RM-lS) to Pl.nned Community Zene (PCl .nd to construct a 36-unit, high-incco!Fte s.enior residential 1 lYing cor.nunity. The PC zone cnange is being requested in order to allow 1 larger rl~or Area Rat~o (FAR) tnan is permitted in multipl, family zene districts. The proposed FAR is 1.76, ~hi1e the muximum FAR al1Qwed unde~ the exi~tin9 RM·1S lone designation is .5; and the maximum FAR allowed under the highest density multiple fam~ly ~one district, RM-4C, i~ 1.0. Th.e project as pr<oposed "ou ld reQ,u i re Vi!.!", ances to th~ crt:;' 1 igrot plane ilnd s i<:le yard setback requirements of the PC zone district. The pub-' it bene-fit being proposed by tne appl icant is seven market rate units to be purcha.sed at an off-site locat~-on and gilJen to the City as Below Market Rate housing for the Cjty's BMR program. An additiona1 seven off-site units would be pro~ided to III<!et the ZO percent BMR requirement of the Housing Element. Please seE the attached Planning CommiSSion report for a complete description and discusSio('1; of the projtct c..nd ar. examination of ttie r€:1ated po1icy issues.. The Planning Com:ission, after tak.il'lg p',Ibl,c h.stimony an.d cOl';';i'\Snt1f19 or, the proposed project, is referring the proposal direct1y to City Council for the resQlution of certaln pol icy i.s.slJ.es related to publ ic. benefit, the s'!ze of tne project, and the appropriateness of the current zoning on this Site before proceeding ~ith any further review of the ~roposal. Planning Commission Action At the September 30, 1992, Planning Commission meet1ng, the app1icant's representatives presented the project to the CommiSSion, and nine members of the public spo~e to the it@m. The public r,eari~g was c.losed, and the item ~as continued to October 14. At the applicant's request, the date for the continua~ce was later changed to October 28, 1992. Minutes of the September CMR,S14:92 -. 30 meeting Ire 1nc1uded in ycur packet, an~ an excerpt of the October 28 meeting ~inutes are attached to this report+ At t;'.21r October 28, 1992 meetirlg~ the Phnning Commission discussed this project ~nd adopted a motion to f~rward tne item to City Council. A motion was mad~ by Commissioner Ojakian, seconded by CommisSioner Marsh, !o support RecOITInendat1on 13 in the staff report, to forward the project to CHy Counc i1 with I recoamendation for denial of the project, b~t ~ndicate tnat some development greater than the cur~ent RM-1S zane designation may be apprJpriate for this site. That motion pass~d 7-0. Commissioner Carra5co stated. and Commissioner Glalier agreed. that tney did not believe the project should be denied, t::ut l!I'ould support the motion so that the project could be forw'!rded to City Council. Policy issues. Ident1fitd by Planrdng Conrnission The Comissioners identified pol icy issues which were c'?ntral to the proposed project and which they bel ieve-d shOUld be resolved bi' the City c:.oum:il. These ls!UeS are relate-d' to 1) q'Jestions abDut public be-nefit. and 2) Questior.s about the size of the pro~osed project and the appropriateness of the existing RfoI-1S zoning fDr tnE site. ~ Be-nefit. The public ber.efit being proposed for this proj~ct is seven off-site BMR units to be provide-d in addition to the seven BHR units required to meet the 20% BMR r~quirement for the project. The appl icant would purchase exi!ting rent.a1 un; ts and turn them over to the City to ba adminis~ered through the City's BMR program. The questions ra.ised by Pli1i'ir,1ng COlTlll.issinners regarding publ'!c benefit were, J) whether the proposed public benefit was sufficiently inherent to the project, 2) whether the proposed p~b'ic benefit was adeQuate. and 3} whether tne proposed BMR units were the most approp~iate type of public benefit for the project to p~Qvide. Commissioners Marsh and Beecham ~uesticned whether the application met the Planned COlTlllunity requi rement for publ"tc benefit. as it seemed to them there wdS no public benefit innerent in this project, since the proposed BMR units would be off-site, no other features of the project itEelf being provided as a public benefit, and the proposed project would se~ .. 'e people who can cperat~ in the housing market without finan(ial assistance. Commissioners Carrasco and GlaZier said they believed the project provided public benefit by adding units to the housing stock, providing a housing type for which there is currently a shortage in Palo Alto, and keeping long-time residents from moving away from the community. The Commissioners a1so discussed the concept of ~zQning for sa1e:" comparing this project with other previously approved PC projects. The CommisSioners discussed the adequacy of the proposed public benefit. COIIYIissioner Marsh said she bel ie'w'ed i precedent had been eshb1 ished that the amnunt of public benefit should be commensurate with the degree CMR; 514: 92 11/11/92 Page 2 • " . " J of e'l(emption fr-c~m the LlPderiY1ng lMil'lg. ar.d questicned whether the provision of seven BHR units was adequate considering t~e requested incre.se in FAA f,-om .S .11owod under ~·15 to t,e 1.76 fAR of the prcposed projtct. The CommiSSioners also raised Questions about whether the proposed orf site BHR units were the best choice for pro~id;ng the required public benefit. (ommiSS;Dner Beecham said that one purpose of public benefit ;s to mitigate the impacts of tne exception to zoning for those most affected by it, and that would not be the case in this ir.s:tance, since the BMRs may be located in .nother part of town and have no physical relations~ip to the project Site. Commissioners Glazier and CarriSCC suggested an endo\rmlent to tfle downtc-wn Senior Center as a public: benefit rather than tne provision of ~R units. Commissinners wondered whether BMR units or I Senior Center endowment, or other p~ssiDle public benefit proposals, .. ou.ld be most cons.istent 'IIith the City's. social sen,'ice priorities. Size of tne Project and Appropriateness of Cy~~ent Zgning The size of tne proposed project exc~eds the ma~imum height, FAR, and Goverlge both of the underlying RH-1S zoning and of t~e hi~hest density residentia1 tone, RM-40. The number of units beirg proposed would be cD~s~s1ent wit~ RM-~C zoning. Because Df tne mlgnitude of the proposed change in intensity of the site over the existing zoning, the Planning Commission is asking City Countil to address whether a development of this size in this 1acatiDn is c~~t;bl! with la~d use goals for the area. Commi$sioner M.rsh ~aid she be',ev~d that the proposed change in land ~se should be addressed by the Council in a comprehensive way, within t~e tontext of the future plans for DowntGwn, the general question of desirability of hig~ density housing in the O~wntown~ and the Urban Design Study. (ommissione~ Glazier painted out that the lytton tv project was approved o~ a site zoned RM-30 in a sensitive residentia1 area ~ithaut i comprenensiv€ Downtown land use study. The central Question to be addressed by Counci 1 ; s. l} whether the existing pattern of reduced density along Middlefield Road forming a transHi{ln from the Downtown cOl'I"rrlercial district to the single family neiqhborhood across Middlefjeld Road is to be maintained, or whether residential densities greate~ than RM-15 might be appropriate in this area. If higher density is to be considered an this b1ock. the CQunc~l should address. 2~ ::-.'hether RM-40 is acceptab1e for this blcck~ and 3) . whether the size of the de~elopment being proposed bJ the ap?1i~ant is acceptable for the site. !n addition, staff proposes that Council aridre~s the questio~, 4) if a ~igher densltj is pe~itted an this site, should the rest of the b1ack be rezoned for higher density? Some Commissioners see this a~ea along Middlefield Road as i sensitive ar~a, combining low density commercial and residential uses to pro~ide a tranSition to the nearby R-l neighborhood and bel ie~e t~at any increase 04R:514:92 ---... • .. w ..... • •• lileeiiliR;llil· .. ;"'S"""· .... · ---,"",,--- ll/12/92 Page 3 .. -.'-, in d~nsity must be i~troduced seiecti~ely and carefu1ly. Others see Middlefield R[)ad as a major arhrial where high density r(':sidenthl is appropriate, particularly o~ this b10ck 'Which marks tne entrance to Downtown. RECOI'I'tENDATlON Staff reconnends thtlt ttte tHy Council address the polic)' Questions out1ined abeve and provide dlrectl0n ~n these issues for the Plan~ing Commissio~, and take one of the f~11owing four actions. If the Council decides to adopt Recommendation 12 or 13, reco~nded changes to tne development propo~al should be as specific as possible. 1. Approve the prl()ject in concept and forw~rd it to) the A.RB and to the Planning Commission for their review and recommendation. 2. Approve the project fr. concept but .ith significant modifications to the development proposal and forward the project to t~e ARB and the Planning COlTmission for their review and recoTmlendation. 3. Oeny the project but initiate oil rezoning of the project site and the rest ~f the blOCK to a higher density residential zone dlstrict. 4. Deny the project arid' reaffirm Ule existing RM-15 zoning. Respectfully subm;tted, J -LU~ YI~T AC KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Senior Pl anj1er \~MJ/~'1~ 01 rector of Pl arming and Community Envtron~nt JC} flEMING Interim City Manager Attad\ments; lacat .. en Mt;p 9/25/92 PTanning CommiSSion report. with attachments 10/27/92 letter from the applicant letters from the pubTic received since 9/25/92 Planning Commission report Excerpt minut~s of 10/28/92 Planning Commission meeting CC: James B. Hill, Hamilton Avenue Properties, 555 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Leland !_ ~ieder~ 210 Sin Antonio Circle, Ste. 235, Mountain View, CA, 94040 University Park AssOCiation University and Crescent Park Homeowners Association CMR: 514:92 ,.'~on,aTW J-. lljl1/92 Page 4 il'": i r-c .-, t . ,- ! .. -' , TO STAFf REPORT ·FILE -NO, ... -zo-.. O2-EIA-7 I)r,H .. ~ ~i1o '%c,Io!. " '5se>."'-S'-\ s.. ': '""-:.~ , ,~, 5'" ~ GRAPHlC ATlACHMENT DATE: If1GI02 .. • PROJE..CT:_ ZOtE ctiAHQE~_.'!!:!..~ . ..!~ _____ --------cI LOCATION MAP: ---------1 - ~ I .~ I j I Cit~ of Yolo )lito DAT£: September 25, 199Z P' o. sox :o"~~ P',l,Ul ALT~, C:A 9Uc.>3 TO; PAlO AlTO PI..AHIIINli CDIII1SSION PRfPARED BY; 'Irglnl& Warhelt R£PDIIT IN IUU, 651 Hglltg" Aveo"e. S3§-575 hiOdJefi.1d. S2:l-S7S Byron ~. ThIs propos.1 is to rezoo, the project site fr~ Low Oen.ity MultIple FamIly (RM-15) to P1anneO Coaounlty Zone (PC) and to construct a high-Income sen10r reside~till living comm~nity. Tne proposal is i four-story, 90,760- square-foot structure, with 36 condomin1um units ind common facilities which include dining roo~ and commercial kitchen, living room and two bar/lounge areas, exercise room, spa and enclased pool, an office, and three guest rooms. Sfxty-"'ne parking spaces are provided in an underground garage and flve spaces are provIded at g~ad,. Tne PC zone change is being reqYested in order to Jl10w a larger Floor Area RatIo (FAR) thon Is penoltted in multiple family zone dIstricts, .Ith • proposeO FAR of 1.76 compared to • maxi.us .5 FAR unoer the existIng RM-15 zone designatIon and 1.0 FAR In RM-40, the highest densIty multiple famIly zone~ The develop.tnt propesal e~ceeds t~e site deyelc~nt requirements of the PC zone and. therefor!, would require vartar.ces. The proposed structure extends 8 feet beyond the required daylight plane for approxImately 100 feet along the Interior lot lIne shared with RM-15 zoned property, and balconIes above the first flOOT extend 5 fEet into the side Yird setback along this SaNe lot line. The applicant 15 propOSing to provide I total of 14 Below Market Rate housing units iiI,t an off-site locition. Se'Je-n of these units are required to r.:eet the 2~ 8MR requirement, and seven ~nits are being proPQs~d to meet the pt lonE public benefit req~;remer,t. Enyjrgnmental AsseSSment: A negativi decliration of no significa~t environmental impact has been prepared and is attached to this report . • Zone District: RK-1S, low Oensity Multiple Family Zene District File Nos.: 91-ZC-3; 92-EIA-7 JI;\~"'" n_~-'j? n g"," .¢" 9/Z5/91 Page 1 .• APPLICATION INFORMATION Applicant: Type of Application: Dates: S[IE IHFQRrATIQH OWner: Ha.ilt~n Avenue Properties, Inc. 555 Byron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Planned Commu~1ty Zane ChangE Application received April 3, 1992; Appllcatlon currently incompltte; Mand.tory action deadline: NA Hul1ton Avenue .Propert'ie1, Inc. 555 8yron Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Ass.sscr's Parcel Humber: AN 120-03-047,048,049,052,053,073 Comprehensive Plan Designaticn: ""ltlol. Family Residence EXisting land Use: Three single f ... ily houses; 1 four-unit apartaent building; 3 professional ofi1ce buildings containing lO~800 square feet of flDor area. Surround'"9 land Use: Uorth: Single family house, parkln9 lot, profession.l office building Existing Zoning: Parcel Size: .:\~ (1St: Two pr~fessional office bui1dings South: Hultipl. f .. ily residenti.l condominiums West: Cnurch education building end parking lot RM-15 Low Density Hultiple Fomily Residential Zone District 51,500 square fe.t 9/25/92 Page 1 PRqJ£CT INFORMATION --~ .~-- Table 1, project Comparison With Current Qrdinanct ~eQuirements PROPOSED ALLOWED ALlO'olED ALLOWED EXISTING i...,nded (Required) (Required) (Required) rQ os,1 RI1-l5 RH-30 RH-40 90,760 25,750 30,900 51,500 26,200 I. 76 .5 .6 1.0 .5l Mui.,. SO feet 30 feet 35 fe.t 40 feet appro)(. 25 HelM feo!!t Coverage 55% ~5% 40% 45:0: 28:0: Number of 36 IS 34 47 7 Units Parkin unit 2.33 unit 2.33/unit 2.33 unit SO s aces Use Planned L." lledi ... Hign l ... CODDunity Density Density Densit,!l' Density Res.1den-Residen" Residen-ReSiden- tial thl tial t ial; Profes- siona' Offi ce fr~je~~ D~~~rigtion: This proposal is to rezone six parcels at t~e corner of Midd1efield Aoad and Hamilton Avenue from RM-15 to Planned Community Zone and to construct a high inco.e condominium project for senior community living. The structure being proposed is • handsome, tradit10nal Spanis.h Colonial irc~itectural style .ith stucco exterior, four stories high along Byron and Middlefield frontages, and three stories high .10n9 Hamilton Aven~e, with i one-story p~o' structure at the Hasilton/Byron corner and an open interior courtyard. The size ~f the struct~re is 90,760 SQUire feet, with a maximum height of 50 feet. The main entry is located on Byron Streett where five surface parking spaces are provided along t~e entry drive. Tne entrance to an underground parking garage ~;t" 69 spaces is also located on Byron Street. A ser~ice entrance is located on tne north side of tne building and is accessed off Middlefield Road. 9/25/91 Page 3 :'\{J'"" '.,. - , ' T~ struct~re provides spacious private units and cOmmQn 3~enities te support o1der res' dents .nd to attommodat~ the activities of 1 s~niDr residential coamun1ty. T~e applicants expect the average age of reside~ts to be bdween 1S and 80 years. tht private units rangp. in size from 1,~4C to 2.130 squire feet with an aVErage size of 1,799 square feet. All 1Jn'its have two ~r two and"one~ba'f bedr!>oms and two or three fun baths, and are arransed to accomIOdate t~e assisted ,ar~ of the r~sident if required over time. All of the units havt full kitchens. and tnere ~s 1150 1 common c~ertiil kitchen and dining room where ~l15 will be avail.bl! fer residents. Th~ other common flcilities inc1u~e t~r!e guest rooms, it; living room and two bar/tOun9~ ar~as. In exerc1s~ room, spa and indoer poo', and an ad~in1strative office and sle~~lng ro .. for. security person. lh •• p"llcants .r. proposing • stiff of five full tilll! ....,loy ... ind In unspecified number of other employees to manage ,nd cpcrite the faci1ity and pr~Yide s~r~ites for resident~. Four rentl' units are ~re$ent'~ located O~ the proposed project site and ~o~ld be displaced by the project. Since rentil units are b.in9 displaced, lhe Below Mar~et Rate (BMR) rtqulrement for the project is Za%, rither thin the st.ndard lOS. To me.t the 20S BMR requirement, the applicant is proposing to provide le~.n 8MR un\ts Qff~s1te, a~d to ~et tht PC Zcn~ ~equirement for Public Benefit they ar~ proposing to pr~~ide an addftional seven off· site BMR unfts. The appltcant's proposal for mett{ng SMR and Public Senefit requ1~nts are discussed in grt~ter detail ~n the ana1ysi$ section of this report. Th. plans which .r. includ.d with this report are a complete h,lf·si,. set of the origl"lllJ submitted pIons Ind. supplem.ntal set of s.'en sh •• ts (Sh.ets 41, 5, 6, St 9 i ]0, 1J) sho~ing revisions ,.hleh were recently made to the proposa1. The revision$ were made in order to reduce nonconfo~nce with PC zone requirement. for daylight plane, 10 feet pl.nted landscape buffer and side yard setback. Tne revised project does not comply with the PC zone dayHght plane and setback reqlJirements and so continues, to rt:lquire variances; this Is discu$Sed in detal.l ;n the .nalysi s section of this report. The ~vi$ions which were made to the project include the f0110win9: 1. 3,253 sQ'Jare feet ."as r-emoved from Hie fourth ncor .along the nortn side of the buildin9_ 2. The total number of units ~as rE~uced from 38 to 36. 3. The number of guest ro~ms was ir.creased from 2 to 3. 4. Tne serYlc~ drive and garage entry were shifted away from the nDrth property line in order t~ provide the required ]O-f~ot-~ide planted landscape buffer aiong the interior lot line. pevelopment Schedule: A tentative development schedule has been prepared by the applicant ind is i"cluded in Secti~n 6 of their submitta1 do~urnents. According to this schedUle, preparation of working drawings would begin in Sept~r ]992; demoliti~n on the site would take place in June-July 1993; 9/25/92 P'ge 4 .... c:onst"uct10n would begin August-September 1993j a.nd final oc<.:upancy of the building would octur in August-September 1994. App11cat1on precess: The Planned Community Zone Change appi;cat~on is reQlJired to follow i proces:; whereby it is q;'o'en preliminary review by the Planning Ccuml'tsslon. The public hear-ing scheduled for September 30, 1992:. is intended for this p~rpose i~d is the subject of this report. Should the Commission Ict fiVD~lbly at this initia1 revlew, more detailed design plans Ire then submitted to the ARB far its recolTImtndations. The development phn. as Ipproved by the ARB, is t~en returned to the Planning Commission for its flnal reyle. and recommendation bofor. be!ng submitted to toe City Council for final actlon. Prior to mlking I ftnal .ppro~.l recommendation to the Cfty Council, the Pl~Rnin9 Commi~$ion is requ,red to &a~~ specific det~rminitiQns re9ardi~9 the project and to approve in envfronmentll determinltion t s~ecific development prog~ .. statement, d~velopsent p1an, and de~elcpment schedule that ~ill become the bash for the site-specific regulations to be appl ied "ithin the proposed PC zone district. !he app1tcition has y~t tD be det~rm;ned complete for purposes of this final review, but should the Planning Commission recommend ipprovll of the project IS propD3ed, in estimated time line for the processing wo"ld be as follows: September 30, 1992 Nove.ber 5, 1992 Noye=ber 25, 1992 Oec~r 21, 1992 AHALYSI$I[SSUES Initial Planning Commission Review Archltoctural Revie. Board final Planning Commission Review City CounCil Rey;ew Thfs proposal raises several pel,ey issues wh1Ch ne!d to be addressed by the Pll"~ing Co.miss'c~ ;~ their review of the ~rojett. These iSSUES are summarized in the last section of tnfs report. D~nsity Increasg The revlsed proposal comprlses 36 units located on a 1.1S-a.cre site, a ~ensity of 31 units per acrE. The applicant considers this number of units to be necessary to support the commen servic!s and facilities of the senior living communfty. This density repr~sents approximately a doubling of the density .11owed by the current RM-IS zone desi9n,tion. Toe desired density of 36 units is slightly more tnan _auld be permitted on this site under RM-30 loning and is conside~ably iess tnan would be permitted under RM-40 zoning. Table 1 (~ag€ 3) shows the number of units tnat ~ould be permitted an the site ~nder each of the three ~ultip1e family ZOne districts, compared with the proposed density. The propos~d density is similar to current zoning cf ether property in the inrnediatc vicirdty. The block. face directly ac.ross Middlefii!ld Road ~s zoned RM-10 and the property directly across Byron Street~ currently occupied by a church, is zoned RM-40. The bloc.k on ~hich the site is 10cated, and the next p:l~..pc::!I , ,. '. 9/25/92 Page 5 . - ,. three blo,ks so~th ;1ong Middlefield Road, aTe zoned P~-15. rn general, this band of RM-1S zoned property .10ng ~iddl.f,eld Road fOMOS a transition from RM-30 zoning naar ~owntown to the single family reSidential neighborhood across Middlefield Road (although the block face cross Middlefield Road frem the SUE is loned RH-30J. [nc:rusing the density on the project site would npresent i change i1l this hnd use pa~terT'l. However, a case can be made that higher density is more appropriate t~e cl~ser to University Avenue the land ;s located. likewise. HiddJefield Koad provides an edge for higher density development. and low density tranSition may not be as appl~cab'e along in arterial as along subordinate streets. The RM-15 zoned property directly across Hamilton Avenue from the project site ~s currently occupied by an approximately flfteen·year-old ~ondominium project with a density of IpprQ~;mately 20 units/acre, so it 1: not likely that t~is site ~ill redevelop in the foreseeabla f~ture. However~ tne remainder of the band of RM-1S zoned property bordering the .. st .lde of Middlefield Road south to Cnanning Awenue is currently o~cup1ed mostly by sing1e family homes and s~11 professional office buildings, suc~ as are currently on the project site, and t~ese sites may be expected to redewelop in the fut~re. The Planning Commission s~ould consider whether increased density on tne project site m~ have implications for this eX1stj~9 land use patterr., or whet~er the sites Situated .10ng Hiddl.fi.ld .nd in the block bo'mded by University and HaMilton are appropriate fur an approximate RM·30 density. Increase in Byjlding Hass: EAR. Height and 'Mverag- The prcposed buil~ing mass, as measured by FAR, height anj coverage. is greater than permitted by RM·40, the bighest density multiple family zone. The applicant is requesting, Planned Community zone change because the FAR permitted in other general zcne distrfcts is not suffiCient to accommodate the propo~ed deve1opment, due to the more spacious ~n1ts and shared facilities, suc~ as dining, lounges, pool and eKercise room and Dffices~ to serve tn€ senior living community. An ~pprox;mate al10catiQn of the proposed FAR lS 1.26 for residential units and ~5 for common facilities. The proposed unit size 11 larger than 1n typicil senior residence facilities. ranging from 1,140-2,130 square feet with an average size of 1,799 square feet, c~mparedt for example. with a s~ze range of ESO·l,ZOC square feet at Webster House. While rezoning the property ta RM·30 or RM·40 would permit the desired density or number of units, it would not ~ermit the amount of floor area befng proposed. The m~ximum resldential FAR allowed in RM·40 is J.O, while the propose<! FAR is J. 76. Table I (page 1) compares the allowed F.~R, height and caverage in the three multiple family ~one districts with the pr~posed proJect. The location of the site at the intersection af two major streets makes a larger build;n~ mass appropriate from an urban design rerspective. Building ~~lumes are currently unbalanced alang Uniwersity Avenue near Middlefield Road, wit~ no buildings of comparable size icross University Avenue from tne lytton Gardens Comp1ex. This project would lend greater symmetry to the area, although it would be better placed if located at the other end of tne block on 9/25/91 Page 6 • '. .. 0< University Av&.nue. Th.e Dn.ft Urban. Design Pla.n recolmlends three-and four story buildings 010n9 most of Homi1t., Avenue, but it accepts the current lawor d."ity land use nearer M\ddlefield Road by recommonding that buildings east of Webster Street ,tep down in height to tra .• sltion to the resident I a1 ar'l~. The Or~ft P1J~ ~ccmmends hi9he~ density res,dentill ~ses at the other end of this b10ck on University Avenue between Webster Street and Kldd1efield Road, ~coaoending building volwoo, that match lytton Gardens to form a transition from noontown to the residential or.a across Middlefield Road. With its fourth floor removed, th@ propose~ biji'ding ~ould be mo~ simi1a.r i~ v.lwoe tQ lytton Gardens, with. height of approximately 41 feet and 1.44 FAR, cacplred to Lytton I .t 43 feet .nd FAR 1.4. (S •• attached Draft Urban D.sigo Plan, Ham11ton Aveny! District and University Avenue District.) r~e prop~sed mass is greater than three other Palo Alto senIor residence pTojects, lytton I, 11, and tne approved but not y~t con,tructe1 lyttoo IV. However, the proposed FAR is less tnan that of Webster Hou,e. Table 2 prov\des a coaparison of the sile af these proj~cts with th~ sile of th~ proposed project. TABLE 2: SIZE COMPARISON OF. PALO ALTO SENIOR RESIDENCE PROJECTS l ton !V" l '''' I l ~0f'1 II tlam11t~ We-b's til! t Ho4lle FAA U, 1.. 1. 7S 1.16 2. 4~ kHdl"'ll 50 " " " ., 1<0' '''' Lot COYer m .m '" SSt ". \)I1'1'S'1.), ,. " l:J3 " " (unlh/acrel .-.Der or 51 '" '" " " ~it:s Let Aru. .69 ... .IS 1.18 .. "' .... ) Tot .. , Fl~r 360.000 141. :}49 5~.S4Z 90,760 Sl,1!:i() o\l"'U (.!qa.&r«" fnt) P~ SertiD~ PrcjlK'l.lot 330 her-etl ".~l,III. Webster House, located at the (orner of Webster Street and lytton Avenue, is a 37-unit senior res'dence Planned tomm~nity approved in 1983. Prlor to .pproval of the PC, the slte •• s zoned R-S, High DenSity Residentl.l. In the R-S zone, building ma" .as restricted by a height limit of 50 feet and by required setbacks, but there was no FAR limit. The fAR of Webster House ;s 2.4. The m~ximum denstty permitted on the site under the R·S zoning was 21 units. The PC ZDne was requested in order to increase the denSity allowed, thus proyiding a greater number of smal1er units suitable to ,predominantly 5;~9le elderly residents, and providing i project of adequate size to obtain a gro"p DOoieal care package. (See attached PC Ordinance '3437.) The building was constr~cted w;t~ four stories a10ng the street to be compatible with the ---_._-_ ... 9/lS/92 Page 7 \ , , . / 43-fDOt hefght Df LYtton I _nd ]1, with l five story section interior to the project built to the 50-foot height limit. Plinning to.missioners may find a comparison with the Cowper Hotel. 520 Cowper Street, helpful in Y15ual1zing the prcpc5ed prOject. The south e1evation of the Cowper Hotel, facing the public par'ing lot, Is similar in height. but somewhat longer, tnan the proposed Middlefield Road elevation of The Hamilton project. (See attached plan shewing the south ele"\ion of the Cowper Hotel.) The four· story portion of the hotel is SO feet to l.he ~id-polnt of the pitched roof. t~e saae heig~t as t~e proposed fo~r-stDry portion of The Hamilton. 80th building elevations are four storjes, stepping down to three stQrips it ,ach end. The south elev,tlon of the hotel Is 2~O feet long, while the proposed Middlefield elevation of the Hamilton', IS5 feet long. A comparable 15S-foot length of the h,tel elevation is ~arkec DO the attached plan to iSsist Ie cOIIIjl.rlng the two projects. Vicws, Shadows and [ffeet on Adjacent Prpperties An issue to be considered is t~e proposed project's relationship to tne $lJrrDund1n~ one-and two-story buildings, and pO$s~,bl e-impacts on a.djacent building. by blocking views and sunllg~t. The applicant has prepared shadow .tudies showing s~.dows cast by the buil~!ng during DOming, n'Oon and afternoon on the longest and shcrtest days of tne year and at spring and fall eQuinox. (See Plan Sheets 'IS, 116 and 117.) These studies s~ow that properties across Hamilton Avenue and across Byron Street from the project are not impacted at all by cast Shadows. Property across Middlefie1d Road is not snaded by the project in spring, s~r cr fill, but Ift,moon shadows extend about 40 f.et across the front of the property in mid-winter. T~e greatest t~pact from cast shadows is along the north interior lot line. The s~adow studies were done based on the Dri9i~al design before the revisions were _ade. These revisions eliminated portion~ of the fourtn floo~ Ilo~g the north side of the building in order to r~~~~ the daylight plane intrusion alDng the interior lot li~e. Although revised shadow studies have not ~!en prepared. these changes to tne building will have reduced the Shido~s cast on the adjacer.t property. Bef~re the revisions were mad~, significant morning shadows were east ~n the prop!rty to the north during fa", winter ~nd spring, .ith the great!st impact in mid·~inter when the sun is lowest in the sky. On December 21, the shadows !xter,ded 80 feet across tne property line at 111d mQrn1n9. 74 feet at noon and part of the s:te along the lot tine continued to be shaded into the afternoon. Additional shadow studies sho~ld be prepared showing shad~ws cast by the re~ised building design. Architecture The project ha~ a handsome. hi~h Quality arc~itectural design. The Spanish Colonial Revival architectural style proposed for The Hamilton will help to visually reduce the mass of the building. The style has a residtntial p:\~pa 9/25/92 Pogo 8 \ . ~,;,.~ ;.'¥-~~ r.h4rltter lnd i strong culturil conn~ction to P~lQ Alto. The proposed .. terials and details con be used to break up the building into smaller u,;ts o.d to gi •• texture and scale. Toough not exactly the same style, • similar pleasfng visua1 Quality ~as been achieved in several large residential ~ildings 1n Downtown at 345 Forest, 360 FDrest Avtnue and The ?res~de~t Apartments It 490 University Avenue. Virjancf~ Regyired Th. orlgin.lly .ubmitt.d propos.l did not conform to the daylight plane and sido yard requlresent, .long the Intorior lot line shared with RH-15 zoned property. Th. appllcant .. de ro.;sions to the originally· submitted phns in order to reduce the Int,",lon Into the daylight pl.ne and provide a required lQ-foot llndscape b~ffer along the i~ttrior lot 1ine. ~i1t the re~is,ons to the original proposal haye reduced the degYee of nonconfenoance, the proposal still does not tomply with the roqulred d.ylight pl.ne and side yard setbacK and Wtuld continue to require the folloWing varl.nces to the PC zone ordinance: 1. Daylight Pl.ne intru,ion of 8 feet for approximately 100 feet along the north Interior property lino shared with RM·15 ,oned property. 2. E.lccnle, abo.e the first floor extend 5 feet into the required Z5·faat side yard .long the north interior property line. Staff does not belie.e that the required findings <ould be made to grant th.s. variantes, particularly the finding th.t there are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions app11cab1! to the propertJ ;~¥olyed th.t do not apply generally to property in the •• me district. Daylight pl.ne int~~siDn. In the originalTy proposed plans, there was a da11i~ht pl.ne intru,ion .long the entire length of t~e narth interior lot 1.n., with the building ,ectio" facing Middlefield Road intruding 17 feet and the building section facing Byron Street intruding 4.5 feet. Revisions to the fourth f1oo~, which inc1uded removal of two un'ts? brought tht section of the bu;ldi~g facing Byron Street i"!o compliance ~ith the daylight plane. (S.e Sheet 9 of the revised pl.n,.) The chinges to the fourth floor reduced t~e daylight plar,e lr.trus1(1n of tne Sett'D~ of the building f~cTng ~~ddlffield Road from 17 feet to a feet. (S.e Sheet 10 of the revl.ed plans.) She.t II of the revised pla", show. that while the portion of the b"ilding f.oing Middlefield Road doe' not comply with the required RM-15 dajlight plane, It would tomply with the RM·30 daylight plane. Baleonies extending into side yard. The PC zone ordinance requires resident,al PC p~ojects s~~rin9 lot lin~s with res,~ential1) zoned prop!rty to comply with tht side yard requirements of the abutting zone. The RM-1S zone requires a side yard setb.t~ :/2 the height of the building and does not pe~1t balconies above tne first floor to e~tend 9/25/92 Page 9 : ..•. into this required side yard. On the nort~ sid! of th~ buildt~g, b~lconies on the second, third and fourth floors ext!nd 5 feet 1hto th! re~irod ZS·foot sid. yard. ficKing ,ad {01<l109 In staff's estiaat1on, t~e P~CPQsed parking and 1aading plan does not meet the req~irkments of th~ PC zone ordinance. A comparis~n of p~oposed and required parking is shown in Table J below+ The PC Zone ordinance re<luires pl"'ojects tc provide parking and l.ading plan. ba,ed on the st.ndards of tn. parking ordinance, but alternat. proposals may be approv4d if the ~pplicant presents relevant data demon<trating the feasibility .no adequacy of the proposed parking and loadin9 plan. At present, such data has not been presented, Staff cOIplrfsons wft~ the ~iiki"g needs of other projects indicates that th! proposed 6 spaco. fer employee parking probably is not adeQuate, and the proposed S2 as.igned space. for "esidents may be adeQuate, but only with a carefully .. nit.red parking management plan, The applicar.t should either provtd~ the amount of pzrkfng req~1red b~ the parking ordinance, or submit 1 parking plan onolyzl"9 the expected porking n,eds of residents and employees and showing how the proposed parking will be m,n'g.d s. that it is ad'Quate to meet the porking needs of the project. (See attached letter from applicant, September IQ, 1992, regarding porking,) TABLE 3: PARKING PROPOSED AND REQUIRED ~n~ Qr:·~1 n!nce Preposed RegujrJ!Aents Assigned Resident Pirking 52 spaces 72 s.paces (1.44 per unit) (2 per unit) Employee '"rking 6 spact!s 10 spaces (estimate) "'est Parking 12 spaces 12 spaces; (33% of units) Handicap Parking 3 spaces TOTAL 73 spaces. 94 spaces Comparison With Other prQh~ch. Staff contacted the directors of Webster House and three other upscale senior residential communities on the Peninsula regarding parking it their facilities. Based on the ir.fonmat1on which they provided, it wou1d seem that tne ratio of 1.44 9/25/92 Page 10 • , " • ! u .assigned resident par'king spices per lJnit may be adequate over time, though there will probably b! a demand for more rEsident parking at the b&ginnlng of the project .hen the residents are relati •• ly young and more un~ts are occupied by couples with two cars. (See attached Table S. Parking Comparaon of Senior Residence Projects.) While the r~tfo of assigned $pace~ per unit ranged from .76 to J.2 spaces per un~t ~t the proje,ts surveyed, the directors of these prQjects ;ndicated that the amount of resident parking is k~pt this low by diligent, proactiv~ efforts an the part of the Eanagement to persuade people to give up cars th~ are no longer usf~g and by tnt financial incentive of charging i high renta~ rate for a second parking space. Employee rarklng, it is difficult to estim.te the amount of employee parkt~g tnat this prDject will ne~d by looking It other senior residence projects, because etch project is unique w1tn regard to the re,s~dent _ix, design and locitian of the facilit1es, tne services offered, and tne level of tolerance in the individual community for parking deficits. St.ff esti-ated the minlm~ employee parking requirement for Tne .Hutllton to be 10 spac:es; this nl.ll!'.ber was deteMllined as follows: B.sed on Parking Ordinance requirements Kitchen (I spice/ZOO square feet) Office (I spice/250 s~u.re feet) Addi~;onal services (estimate) 2 spaces 4 spaCi!S 4 spaces Tho applicant is proposing approxi.ately flve full time employees and an unspecified number of additional support stiff. The proposed staff include a ~d1cal dir~ctor! activities director. security person, administrator, and staff wtlo will provide cleaning, laundr)', transportation, maintenance, personal care and fODd service. Staff l S best estimate for the number of err.p10yees ; s coros; stent with a campa,.lson of employees at Webster House. According to inforn:ation provided by the administrator, Webster House has 6 full time emp10yees and 3 part time employees, not including the food serviCE personnel from Rush Hour whicf1 operates a catering se~'vicE out of t"-e Webster House kitchen and provides meals for residents. Even t~ough they ~.ave about tnE same number cf units, we wouid e~pe~t Tne Hamilt~n tQ requi~e more on~site employees tnan ~ebster House, because the total project is nea~ly twice tne sQuare footage, thus reQ~iring more housekeeping and aaintenance, all the ~nits are 1~rge enough to ho~se at least two people, and the units are designsd to accommodate assist!d care if reQuired, possibly resu1ting 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 the downtown location, providing the option for employees to use publ ic transit. Webster House reparts that ~e·"eral of their employees are dropped off by spouses, II:·' ...... ~...-·..,... 9/25/91 Page 11 .' / Qn-Strttt ParKing. C~rrentlYt there is n~ excess street partjn~ in the vicinity of the project site, T~e proposed project would result in , net gain of one curbside park .. ing space. The number of spaces along the Hamilton A,enue frontage will incre.se fro_ l to 3, due to closing of existing curb cuts. There will c.ontir.l.H! to be 7 curbside spaces. .along Byron Streett though existing cu~b cuts will be closed and three ~ew drivewajs added, resulting in a total of 10 curbside parking spaces at the project ,ite. Service Are! Tyrnaroynd. The blckup dfstanC2 it tne se~V1ce area 1S opprcxiaately 13 feet. Thi. short b.ckup dist.nce will make it difficult Dr impossible for del'v~ry v~ns to turn around on the site, thus requiring the delivery vehicles to bac, out onto Middlefield Road. The parking ordinance requires that the parking layout be arranged so that vehicles are not required to bick onto a public right-of-way. PUBLIC BENSFIT The app1icant is propOSing to meet t~e PC zone requirement bf public benefit by providing twice the required number of Belo~ Market Rate housing units. BecaLlse renta1 housing is being removed by the prc-ject, it 15 required by Program 9 of the Housing Element to pro,lde 2~ eelow Market Rate (SMR) housing units, rather than the standard l~. The 2~ SMR requirement for this 36 unit project Is 7 unIts. The public benefit being proposed is the provision of 1 addition.l BMR units, combln.d with the 7 "nits required by Prograa 9 1 for I total of 14 BKR units. to be provided off·5ite. A detailed doscriptlon of the SMR proposal Is presented in the September 23, 19!12, letter from the applicant to Ken Schreiber, whict. ;s athched to this report. The propo •• l Is for the applicant to pvrch.se and deed to the PAIIC 14 existing rent.l housing units. The PAIIC will retain title and provide 5lnagement of the units at acceptable tolow .arket rates. The units are to b. one-and two-bedrooms, with I .ini.um of six being two-bedroom units. St~di~ units can be provided so long as e.ch studio unit is offset by an additior.al two-bedroom unIt. The initial ~R units will have to be approved by the City Council prior to issuance of tne first building permit, and the subsequent SMR units will also be Subject to Council approva1. The applicant Is further propOSing that th.y will make a good faith effort to work with the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAIIC) to explore other possibilities for financing additional BMR units with funds from the Section e program, CoSS Dr ot~er sources. This could 1ead to the prOVision of more than the ~;~imum 14 BMR units. For example, the app1 fcant may locate a building wit~ more than 14 units and, by working ~ith PAHC, arrange fvr the conversion of the total units in tne project to the BHR progr.m. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE The uses and site development regulations of the Planned Community zone must be found to be consistent wit~ the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Following 9/25/91 Page 11 (, " ,. ~' •• 'j .. : ..- / ire Fol~(ies of the Housing El~me"t wh;c~ are p~rtinent to the proposal. The propos a' appelrs to be con;.istent with tne following Housing Element policies and objoctives, Policy 7: Encourage and foster th~ developrneMt of new and existing housing units affordable t<) low and lIoderate incorm:! househ<l1ds. The BKR agr •• ment being proposed by the applicant would conve"! a ~Inim .. of 14 existing market r.te re.t.l units into below marKet r.te units. PoHcy II and Polley 13:. Cor,tlnue support for the Palo Alto Housing Corporation in tne provision Qf low-and moderat~-in,ome housing, and increase funding sources used to provide aff<)rdable housing. These polities are supported by the applicant's stated intent~~n to work with the PAHC to l!Jok for ways to pMvide more Ulan tne required minimlJm 14 BKR units. Polfcy 14: Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and industrial areas. loeating the units tlose to downtown near shops, transit and other ~ervices supports this policy. Second of t~e tnree Major housing object!ves identified in the Housing Ela.ent: Maintain a diversity of housing opportunities,and pro~ide a variety of housing types and SiltS, a mixture of ownership and rental hGusing, and _ full range of housing costs. The ~ropo.ed ~roject furthers this housing goal by providing a type of highaincome housing with on-site !ervices f~r seniors ~h;ch is not presently available in the community, and thus provi~es the Dpp~rtunity for re~;dents in this hcusihg market to ~acate family homes and move to I senior living community within Palo Alto. The Hou$ing Element identifies persons over 60 as an increa~in9 popu1 ation group ~ith housing r.eeds to be acconmoda.ted. In ]989 thi 5 age gro"p made up one· fifth of the pcpul.tlcn an~ included 12,8!1 people, in increase of 26% slnce 1980. The proposed development will serve this increasing segment of the population of Palo Alto. The projected Association of Bay Area Governments {ABAGJ -filr share ~oustng need for Palo Alto ;s 1597 units, to be provided between 1990- 1995. Of this total, 680 units are identified as housing for households witM ibo~e moderate income. The proposed devel~pmer.t will provide 36 units of housing for abo~e moderate income households, thus helping to address this id~ntified -fair share-housing need. -_ ........ , ... _ .... -....... _.- 9(25(92 P.ge 13 Tne proposed prQj.,t apv""s lts; consiStent "it~ the following Policies of the Housiog £le~nt: Polley 2: ?r ... rve oldor ~in91.·h",ny h.", .. and .",.11 apart",."t ,,"!loins· . Th" ~ropo$.d project would re,ult In tn. demoliti.r. of • four·unit rent~l .~.rtoent building an~ three ol.er slngl.-f •• ily hO'~$ w,le" ar. rent.d. Removing the 4-unlt apartment building s •• "'s patti,c'.rly contrary to this policy. H ..... r. Program 9 proyid •• tnat mitigation for the removal .f rent,l housing may be .ad. by incr •• si"9 the number of existing housing units on site. ,nd pr •• idins Z~ BMR unit •• rather than tal, Tbis project is meeting both of these stand.rd,. Policy 6: K,l"taio at 1.a$t the pre.ent number of _"ltlple-famlly renhl un·lts .mih working to incr .... the ..... 11 supply of rentil lI.uslng. The proposed proje,t ~ill result in a "at 10" .f four ""it. in the (it)''"s rental he-using stocli;. four apAr-t:lJ1ents, a.nd tn},St!. sfngle family hous •• wIli.h "1 be r."t.~. are ~.i"9 removed from the 'ite. The 14 S"R .nits which ~r. being pro,jo •• are •• i.tlng units which .re turrently part of the t1ty f s rentAl ~ou$i~9 ~tock, $0 they co not represent aN ;neTSI" in the ,upply of r •• t.l hou.ing, ~rogram 9 provi~.' th.t .1tlgatlon for the re~.al of rental housing •• nd this ~rQje<t i. Meeting both conditions of Program 9. S'I"&8Y AMP fQNfI tiS WM The pT~pos.d Planned Community Zone contains. number of polie; issues the re •• lutlon of whiCh cou14 l.,d to either City approval or deni.l of the apl>1f •• tlon. As noted In the staff report, Palo Alto's populati~" continue, to eontain more people ~llssified is seniors (IZ,Sll in lSeS •• Z.~ incr •• s. over the 1980 e.nsus). Many of the .. unicrs liVE! In single family hous.s that h'" greatly a~preciat~d in value. It is underst&ndab1e th~t many of these seniors ~ant a living arrangement that offers some ot the livIng .pace amenities th.t they are us.~ t. in their current heme.. ~.lo Alto's bou,in9 mar •• t do.s not contain an elderl1-Qriented _ultipl. family facility providIng 1.rger living unit! pl~$ a range of $ervj~tS "s~il1J associat&d with ·ret1~~ment~ 1ivir.g. The Hamilton would provide units for this oi,h. of the housing market. Stot. hGusing 'l~ is specific in requ1rfng a community to address the needs of all its householders. ineluding high-ineorn< houstholdees. Staff belie.e, th.t the fund~nt.l eoncept behind the Hamilton is valid and this tyoe of hou'ing faeility we"1. b. an aperopriat. and y.luabl •• ddition to Pal. Alto's housing .toc~. A critical i$s~e i~ the projett'$ b~i1din9 mas\. A good ar9u~e"t can be m~de th.t the pro.isl.n of specialized heu,in; fe, the .1¢er1y. whother 1 ••• , ~/2S!91 hgo H • 1ncoae (e.g" L,ytton Gardens) or higher ;m:om£l (l.g. Webster HO(Jse) can justify increased bl.l.ildiny mass abDye that provlded in convt'!ntiona1 zones. Wnile tne Homilton would be I very large structure, it would also be in a logic.a.l lOtition (i.e., in relation to OOWfltown services, the entrance to OowntGWn, transit services). Significantly greater than typical mass nas been allowed in tile Hiddlefield/University(l/eb,ter/Lytton block and a ,;m,lar argument can be made for the bl~ck that would contain the Hamilton. From an Urban Design perspective I the mass of the project would lend greater symmetry tc tne University Avenu~ spine and ISsist in empnasizing the g.s:teway t<l the Downtown. Also, th~ proposed project I 5 deslgn Is attra~tive and appropriate for P.l~ Alto. However, staff can not support variances. In staff's opinion, even an unusually large building in tlli, bloc, needs to meet the d.yli9ht plane tnd setback provisions of the code. ]n conclusion, staff finds that good argUK~nts can be made for either support or denial of the project and these arguments focus on policy issues tnat are appropriate Commisslon and Council considerit1ons. The Ci$! for approval includes: The type of housing and combination of housing and services a~e ne!ded in Palo Alt~ and approprilte f~r a P1anned Community Zone. -In an entranc~ to Jo~to~ and w1t~ a large structure on the block south of Byron, the site is Q~ a block that i3 appropriate for greater mass and bulk than allowed by e1tller the current zoning or tn" RM-4D Zone. -Tne project 1s well designed and would be an attractIve addition to Palo Alto . . The pro'lision of 14 BMR rental units would be a val uable additic.n to tne City's lower income housing stock . . The loss of 10,800 square feet of office space will have some benefit and tne replacement of offices witn fiousing is fundamentally acceptable. The tas& for denial inc1udes: People able to afford tne proposed housing fiave tne resources to function in the conventlona1 housing ~arket and do not need the ·public assistance-of substanti.11y higner building mass tnan allowed by the zoning regulat~ons. The bulk af the project is e~cessive and would change the visual atmosphere of Middlefield Road is i negat;v~ and unacceptable way, and will cast shadows on neignboring properties. Goad desi~n can not overcome the n~gative impacts of the prQPosed size of tn. project. p:I~_"" 9/25/92 Page l5 51· ,. -........ - k, -" r ' - T~e Comprehensive Plan policy to preserve o7der single-family houses small apartment b"lldings justifies retontioo of the current RM-1S ZDning. Th!r~ ire fo~r possible actions for the Pjanr.ing Commission O~ t~is application: I. Rec ..... nd appro·"l of the project In concept and forward the proJect to the ARB for In-depth design review. arod 2. Recommend approval of the project with slgnific.n! modifications to the aevelopment concept ind forward the project to the ARB. 3. Re-colllnend denfal of tne project but indicate that scm! development gr&lter tna~ th! RH-1S Zone may be appropriate for this site and fo' .... rd the project to the City Councj]. 4. Recommend denial of the project, confirming the acceptability of the RM-lS Zone and forward the proj.ct to the City Counci 1. As noted previously, staff does not support the granting of vari.nees for this project. AI,n, the aaount of parking proposed fDr the prDject may be acceptable but further documentation from the applicant is necessary. Attachments: l~ Ext!rpts from Draft Urban DeSign Plan. Hamilton Avenue and University Avenue Districts 2. PC zone ordinanc.es for Webster House: Ordinance 13437. 1983, as amended by Ordinance 13753, 1987. 3. Pl.n of south .Ievatlon of Cowper Hotel 4_ letter from ~p1ic.nt, Septe •. ber lO, 1992, regarding parki ng 5. Table ., Parking Comparison of SeniGT Residence Projects 6. Table 5, COIaparison of The Hamilton and ""ebster House 7. letter from Appl icant, September 23, 1992, regaroing BMR units 8. EIA 9. Appl Scant's Development Program Staternent 10. App11cant's Project Binder (Commission M~rnbeTs only) 11. Plans (Corrrn;ssion Members on1y) •• ,__ 9(25/91 Page l6 • ---- te: J-.es 8. Hill. Hamilton Ave.u. Peep.rlles, 55; Byron Stro.t, Pal. Alto, C~ 94301 Leland E. Wiede¥, 210 San A'tQn~o Circ1~. Ste. 235, Mountain Vi~v) CA, 9404~ Unlver$ity P.r~ ASSDclatlon V.l •• rslty ond Crtseent PJrk ~~.wn."$ AssQci.tion 9/25/92 Page 17 I j 1 , \ \ I .. / HAMILTON AVENUE DISTRlCT OBSERVATIONS The HamDwo Avawe Di.strict is a milled offi~~!retJ!l district with some raiclential u.sc:s. [t has several landmarks ioolud:ng Civic C"",« FI-. <he Cit) H<li Buildinj:. th, PO<! Office, !he Downey Building, lb. CardUW flO!el. All Soints Episwpal Church mI First Med>odi&t Church. The orea transitions from primarily office with SOI'I"'..e retail (In the west end, to office use toward lb. east iIId ttansitioniDJ to ... id....w. The streot bas • ""'08 buil4in& edge tIw is cbaracf<riud by miId..-buDd .... OD lor,., jarC!h 1han fi:N=Dd 0%1 LyUoIl Avenue, wit!! typical Jo( .,..idths of 100 feet. However, I! Oil LyttDIl A......,.. the __ street ...;dlb alloW! for l;oqror scale buildinp and I ... dependence aD • small scaI, IIorefrom %bythm. Building heights / ATIACHM,N7 I GOALS Promote Hamilton Avenue as an active mixed U$E! district -which tomforta~'1 .ceommodatu larger .scali comrne:"ClIf~ institutional building.s. -- M.intJin Hirnittor. AvenUf as oil pieuing. me-rrned -.uian environment, with ~ry outdoor amenitias to offset th& urbar. iman.sify wtlich natunltly raults from the provWon of tr:tnsit UIV1te and .xmvenient allf"'faC1l parking, vary from one to three ~ries with setN4;:ks, green area! and open pMcels apparent east from Civic CenIel Plaza. VegetatioD Iild tree:; are spotty with .. lack of significant street trees as compared to Lytton or University Av ....... TeI"9hones, "'ater fo""w.., booch .. aod <><be< street Nrnil\lre are limitod. The only public resttoolilS arc in the City HaJ] buUdwg, which is dosed night3 and weekends. GUIDELINES Create I sense of entry at the Alma Street1HamUton AYenue imers.eWon by hnpro'w'emuu. ~:.Ich i.'> IaDdscapiDg, building comer setbacks, speciallighti::.g. public a.."'t and other design amenities. M.ainta.i.n the wtt. transition edge from the co:nmercw/offtce area to the res.ideiltial ~ea through landscaping. reduatons in building votu:m~ and height, and reduced street lighting as wmp.tred to Umversity Avenue. Open spaM Enco\lrdge additional s.etbacks fronting 10 Hamilton Aven\le 10 creale a landscaped and green strip &long the street. Continue 10 upgrade Civic Center P1aza to provide public amenities, a m~ place and a fO(':a1 point for the d.i.&ttict. -49 -Hamdtoa Avenue DJsmCl ----.... ~-.......... ~''''-........ '''' ..... -'.-.. -.. -.... Maizai!t the ai.stin& open sp&ee& of the Ch.,Le Cemn Plaza, 300 Hamilton Avenue parldng lot and All Slims Epis«>p.il Churd! at SSS Waverley Sir ... , Eohanct: and Improve Civic Ce:01ef Plaza as defined in the Civic Cr0S5 Axis Distric[ discussion. BuDdjng votUltlei\ Encoata&e throe 10 four story buildines from Waverley Street west tD Alma Street in order to compleme:.Dt the existi.oi streetseape IDd eabanct the building wiiLJl of Hamilton Avenue. Buildm~ east of Webster Street &bawd .step doWli in beight toward Middlef.idd Road to t:rulSitiOD to the _J resNieutial areas. ~.-- Promoce lbe developmeat of t!Lree ~ buikhnes surrounding Civic Center Plau to create an outdoor room at lb. plaza IDd define Ill' pi ... boctodlries. Encourage itOimuDt s.qmena. of 2S to SO foot ... -idttu th%t will enhaace the ped~trl.an s.:a!e of bWIdinp Ol<reedi!Ijr ]00 feet in width, aDd will maintain Ibe build"", rnythm of the screet frontage, Cjn;ull!!jop C!mside<!he c!<MOopi»t!rt of. pod..m.n link from University Avenuelhrough the Liddiroat buildi" at 340 UDiversity AUI:w.e (as illurtmed in the f10redCe Street s.econdary d~ disalssion OD page 3J}. Eabmc:e !he Emotson SITea linkage to Ill. Sooth of For .. , Area IDd tile Bryant SlIoetlinkage '" the Palo Al!O MecrJcal Founda£jon area IIlrougb sL>Ch Ibings IS special paving, lands<aping, ;igbting. ,treet trees and odler' street amenities. Provide pedestrian links from Hamilton Avenue to University Avenue iII conjunctiun with development of the alleys and parking lots. Ui'bCl DCSiiiI pi&D . ,~ I . HimiltoD Avenue DLStncl , . ';'-" ... J J ~1 1 1 ! ! UNIVERSITY AVENUE DISTRICT OBSER VA TIONS Utivenity A,,-e:nu.e is the identifiJbte ucter of me downtOwn It'ea. It is the prim.uy reference to visitors ana • rqionaI 3ttraction for peslp[e and activities. Oece it cros.ses three significant transportWoD obstac1e:s. AJma Street., the nllro3d ttada and El Cam:oo Real, it links the c:omnnmi<y phYlieally and symbollC3lly ",itt Stanford U Diversity. University A ... enue is also the vebi<:UiM and pod_on corridor 10 the Palo Atto train.stJtion. the single regional mass transit terminal fu< _ train and bus co=. Thi.5. b"'"olmD: facilk} is me western aocbor of the OOW1llOWD oore, but is bamp<red from funmoum.c as such since it is l~ on the opposite ,ide of the ran...,..r tnda. The vehicular ertt:ries to the Uwversiry A vmue District ore lo<:ated It AI"", Street and It "" M'ldd:efield Road. Pedestrian mtrie:s occur at High Sir«< >Cd Cowper Street. Th. """", and predomi.nanllaod ~ is ttl e reWl core between High Sir«< ODd Cowper Sttcct. n.. S....ru 25-SO foot wid. p>tImI of :ru>mrams aea!<s I pleasing rhythm and aIlows I variecy of boildiD{ facades wilhin • siDiIe blod: face. GemnIly buildings are two, three or four AOries ./ wiIh • c.w uceptious. Most boUdiDp blVe DO setbaci:: to the street aDd rise Iv .a parapet waIl without , distinct roof. The arcb ite<Iur;al style of !:he rt!tall sto[efron~ is mbl:ed. Many corner stores from ora.!y to Univer .. ity Avenue while igncring the side streets, Th is. limits. the opportunity to continue retail Vitality ontQ the side streets. GOALll R&lntorce Univer:Si1v Avenult as the retail core Qf Downtown Palo Aha by ~inuinil1g thP strO"g c:oncenvation of ground floor ii8'taii 1J!le! between Alma and CowpE:.r Streets. Create i foea! point ~or 'tht! «znt~r of the d'LStriet at the ~..ersection of University A\o'tInu8 ilnd 1he CiviC Cross Axis pedestrian way. ,nd I de.ntnation tefminus nlUr 1he e~st end of University Ayenue at Cowper Street. 08'18101' and ¥Inane;. the c;uaffties of Un'veniity Avenue wto.ich make it 8f': exciting; outdoor ~d pedeS11ian .nvironment. including vibrant and eclectic architecture, outdOGr food MNa and ent4lrtainment. and improved public: ilmenities suet! 8S fiO"ting and str'Ht fumituff. Creata aowntoYllon entriss lit both 4Ind.s of Universtty A""nue. with I dominant urban. entry at Alma and High Streets and • .subo:)fdinant entry at~leta Rc~ The mature Sycamore ttees and, to a lesser extent., the 1970's ttreet improvements, define the c:har.Iaer of University Avenue and provide a shady anj pleasant atmosphere. Public restrooms, water fou.ntaiDs. public teJephones and information kiosks are lacking. Free-standing ce:wspaper rdc.ks clutter the sidewalks, and in many locatiom reduce the aVaJl able pedestrian pathway. SiI:.ce Univenity Avenue is the center of downto\\'D pede:srrian activi:y and. als.o carries more than 2:0,000 vehi,les per day. there is a strong tD.tennix and sometimes conflict between pedestri an and vehicuhr circulatioD. However, this heightened lctl\'ity add5 a certain livelirles:; to the street Landm.arb within the district include the Palo Alto Office Center al 525 Uni ..... ersity. the Varsity Theater and the Sunford Theater. C rtlIIIi DeSign pGil ·27· UDJVCf5Jty A .... enue Dl5tnCI , i GUIDELINES Musu.e. major rcdevelopmtIH. of the Alma: Street entry as 5uucsted by the e:t'1try plans illustrated in the Buic PIlon on pas .. 12 and 13. Beautify aDd eohaDcc the pedestrian entries at Unive:stty AvenueIHigh Street.and Unive~tty Avmue!W~ Street 10 make lhem mo~E' apparent.and attractive CO pedeslIi~. MaimaiD In QpaJ eatry c.omer at M"lddlefield ~ 1D4 lJ.llli'ersitl'~ ~ create an entry _. priDwilY tIiroI>Bb 1illllbcapm, improv......,.. . .' ._-...... -- Opr;p Sms= Provide for ildditiollal improvements 10 increase the aesthetics a.'1d tae of LyttGD Plaza . • Jmprovs organization of plaza and seating to encourage pedestrian use • New trees define edge of Plaza Actlvity Npdsi LYTTON PLAZA Punctuate the identity of major activity nodes along University Avenue by such thing.s as dL~tincti\le pl;mttngs. banners .and architectural' fearures at identified intersectioru -29 -tJruverslly Avenue Dl.5tnct -. - ·i l , , .. 1 , j 1 , i i UJ ;};tE~ fttlj~ ~TTACHfIENT 2 ORIGINAL ORDINANCE NO • ...ll.l.7_ ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO AL'I'O A"ENDING S&CTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MDNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CRANGE THE CL.r..5SHICIlTION OF PROPERTY ~NOWN AS 401-419 WEESTER STREET AND 602-608 LYl'TON AVENDE FROM RJoI-5 '1'0 PC The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: • SECTION'. Section 18.08.040 of the P~lo Alto Municipal COdE, the ·Zoning Map·~ is hereby amended by changing the zoning of ceItain prop erty known as 401-.'9 Webster Street and 602-60a Lytton Avenue fz:orr-. RM-S {High Density Multiple .Family Residence District) to PC ,Planned Community District). Said property is !Shown on a map attached hereto as Exhibit -A-end incorporated herein by ~eference. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds vith respect to the subject property that: {aJ The site is &0 situated, and the use or uses pr:o posed for the sitel:!"e of such character 1sties, that th-e application of general ais~ricts or oombining districts will not provide sufficient flezibility to allow the proposed development in that the basis for the project is to proviae bousing for the elderly inclading lite-long medical care. The increased density will allow smaller units to be con structed of a siz-e suitable to precominantly single elderly residents end will permit a project of an adeql.late l5ize to --obtain a group medical care package. (b) Development of the site under ~he provisions of the PC plann>ed community district 'Will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by applit~tion of the regulations of general districts or combining dist~icts in that housing for the elderly, including medical care; is a public need consid erin9 Palo Alto's sizable elderly population Pl.4' of the total population as of 1980, a 28' increase from 197n to 1980 l • . (c) The llse or uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable vithin the district shall be consis tent \dth the Palo Alto COlDFrehensive Plan, ar:.d shall be com patible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the project will bave minimal traffic or noise impacts on the surrounding neighbor hood and is of a size compatihle with scale of the Lytton Gardens complex. SECTION 3. The plans attached hereto as Exhibit -B-constitute the development plan and ere incorporated berein by same E:JI:hibit -8- refezence. Said development plan is approved pLltSuant to Section '8 .. 68~ 120 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, subject to the following conditions: .,' '< ,~.,;~~, " ( 'a) £!!! 1 ~ Allowa!:Jle I:lse5 shall be limited to the following: Thirty-seven resioential apartment units, two guest ~nits ~or tempo:ary lodging, dining! food preparation and office facility for provision of sl:'r'Vices to project resiaent.s. ana 9uests. 2. The mini-rnum age of, occupants shall be 62. Ib} Improvements 1. All improvements and development shall be substan tially in 6c'Co't'dance wi.th the appt:oved development plans" wi th all appl icable codes and ot"dinances" and wi th the re qQi~ements of the Di~ector of Public Wotk&/Enginee~in9' the Director of Otilities, and the Chief of the Pa.lo Alto Fire Department. 2. A plan providing for coordination .of construction proc--esses including such items as eJ:c4vation shoring lind underplnninq t unaerqroDnl'lng: of utilities and right of ltIay "impacts shall be developed to the satisfaction of the Build ing, Transportation. Publie Works, and Otilities Departments prior to issuance of a building permit. 3. project draina9~ shall be as foll0' .. ~s: The basement shall arain to a sump and be aischarged to the surface storm drain; a drainage slot shall be provided for the ramp: perimeter footin9 drain shall empty to basement sump; eurface drain and roof runoff shall be channelled to an uncer perimet~r drain th~t then flows off into the ezisting sto~m sewer line at one point; no sheet flow shall be permitted across the side ..... alk; swimming pool backlo'ash system shall discharge to the sewer line~ 4. The developey shall oolain approval and recordation of a parcel map merging the three ezisting parcels prior to issuance of a builoing permit~ 5. Of the 20 pinking Spi!llCcP'S proposed, 12 shall be indicated as reserved parking i!lInd eight shi!llll be labeled for viSitor pa-rlc.ing. 6. Electt'ic utilities 6hall be C'ontin\l~d unde't"gtound from Lytton Gardens III along Webster Street a.t thE' developer's expense., including t.he provision of underground 6ervice to eXisting projects along the south side of Webster Street which are nov 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. .> e '. ~ .. , ' I I ; 1 I I I I , ( ( s. Bicycle spaces provided shall be Class I spaces. 9. The swimming pool shall be 301ar heated and a pool cover shall be provided by the developer. lO~ Oevelop~r shall design a drainage system within the property subject to approval of the City Engine~r. 11. Abandoned driveways, ot: any portion thereof, shall hI! removed and replaced with standard curbs, gutters, and sidewalks~ 12. Broken and/or cro!!cked sidewalks shall be replaced. '3. Portions of .concrete slabs in planting strip and behind the sidewalk shall be removed. 14. Details of the sitE development plans including trellis, pool enclosure, and li9hting designs and detailing of the brick veneer shall retcrn to the .ARB as an application for a minor PC amendment prior to issuance of a bui Iding permit fer the project~ 15. Satisfaction of the BXR program shall be through one of the lItO folloving alternatives: (aJ Provision of two two-bedroom off-site units for sale under the B.HR program for $60,OtlO eech, or Cb) A cash contribution for City housin9 programs to be equal to 3t of the actual sales price of t~e . Webster Bouse units, excluding the medical care component. 16. Mendrr,€'nt of the :9KR prov~s:i.ons above Sh !::Ill 1 be review2c only by the City Council~ 17. The applicant shall provide and op€rate a passenger van for shuttle bus transportation of project residents ~ 18. The developer shall provide attendant parking ser- vice for the underground par-king garage if, at some time in the future, the chief building official determines that the project caUSes traffic congestion or on-street parking by project resioents, 9~ests or employees. Ie) Development Schedule Construction shall begi!'l no l.eter than one year follo .... - ing City Council approval of the zone change .end sha.ll be completed within 13 months of the start of construction. ." SECTION 4~ The Cou!lcil finds that this project "'ill have no Sig nificant adverse environmental impact~ -,- f ~l.7 StC'l'lON 5. 'I'h is (,,·di".ne~ $M 1l t..""... ~ff"~t i.. upo" lell. co",... ·~.nc.mebt of th. th;tty-ti~$t day art •• th~ dbt. of its pa;.A9", 1~'I'RO~OCED, May 9, 1983 PASSBP, May 23. lSa3 "YEs: Bechtel. Cohb, Eyerly. "Hino. nete)!H. ~1.1tl. ~"Y NOES, Renl£1 AaSTeNT10NS, Non. '.';' ---~'-'-~ IfC-2649 • L,- 'c' '-3 .. 7 33S 327 -.... _ r , ,-'-. - " 1 J ! j ,1 I i " ORDINANCE NO. 315l ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF P.\LO ALTO AMENDING ORDINANCE 3437 AND AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 ()~' THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL COllE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY R'O"~O AS 630 LYTTON AVENUE FROM RH-5 TO PC The Council of the City of Palo Alto do~s ORDAIN as follows: SECTICN 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the ·zoning Map·, is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 630 Lytton Avenue from ~-5 (High Density Multiple Family Residence District) to PC (Planned Community District). Said property is shown on a map attached hereto as Eihib.i t -A· and inCOl"porated herein by reference. SE.CTION 2. The City Council r.ereby finds with respect to the subject pro~rty thijt: (aJ The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts viII not provide &~fficient flexibility to allow the proposed development in th~t multiple family residential districts do not allow parking as a principle use and the parking is intended to be ancillary to an existing pl&nned community development. (b) Development of the site under the proviSions of the planned community district vill result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of general districts or combiMing districts in that the project ~ill provide twelve additional parking spaces J which are nct required, but are ~eeded by the adjoining residential project, which presently relies upon on-street ~arking for employees and guests~ (c) The use permitted, and the site development regulations appli~able ~ithin the district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, ar,d are compatible with existing potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the project will provide needed off-street parking for an adjacent residential development and will provide a visual break between two high density residential oevelopments. SECTluN 3~ The plans attached hereto as Exhibit -8- constitute the development plan and ar-e incorporated hereby by this reference to Exhibit ·b·~ Said cevelopment plan is approved pursuant to Section 18.68.120 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. SECTION ~. Uses~ The allowable use shall be limited to parking for the adJOining housing project at 401 ~ebster Street, autnorizec under planned community Ordinance '3437. Jiil n f " j i .' SECTION 5~ Improvements and reQulations~ (~) The developer shall obtain approval of a parcel map merging the property at 630 Lyttor. Avenue ~ith the adjoining property known as 401 Webster Street prior to issuance of a building pe~mit~ '(bl approval p!'!rmit. The develop~r shall obtain Architectural Re?iew Soard of a final landscape plan prior to issuan~e of a building (c) All work Sh911 conform to city regulations and standards and the review authority of city departments including_ but not limited to, the following requirements: (1) Abandoned drio.~eways shall be replaced wi th new sidewalk, curb and gutters. (2} All work done within the City right-of-way shall require issuance of a street openir.g permit from the Department of Public Works/Enginee~ing. (3) Final qrading and drainage plans shall be cub~itted to the Department of Public Worxs/Engineering for review at least thirty days prior to building permit applications. {4J Fire eztinguishers shall be required for the parking areA. Fire sprinklers sh~)l be requirec if the proposed structure;' exceeds 1,000 g.Pm fire flow. {d) The operator of the residential development, for which the parking is ancillary, shall provioe parking permits in city parking lots for 611 proje~t employees who regularly drive to work end who are not accommodated by on-sitE parking, and shall limit the ~s_tt!! parking spaces for residents t.o no more than twenty-~i9hl--spaC'e_s • ------.-. --. . (e) Of the total of thirty-two surface parking spaces provided on this site at 630 Lytton and the adjacent site at 401 Webster ,authorized under planned community Ordinance .3437), three shall be labeled and reserved for guest p~rking. SECTION 6. Development sehedule. Construction shall begin within SiX months after City Councll approval of this o~dinance and shall be completed within six months of the issuance of a building pe~rnit. SECTION 7. Parasraph (b)(S) of Sect Lon 3 of Ordinance ,3437, the planned community district ordinance for the property ~nown as 401 Webster Street, is herp.:by ameneed as follows: 5~ Of the total of thirty-two su~face parking spaces provided on this site et 401 webster and the adjacent site at 630 2. • Lytton, th~ee shall be labeled and reservea for gues t park ing. SECTIO~ 8. The Council finds thllt this proj ect will t~ave nv signiflcant ~nvironmental impact. SECTION 9. commencement of pass'age. 'l'his ordinance shall become effective upor: the the thirty-first day e:fte-r the day of its INTROOUCED, May 18. 19B7 PASSED, J"ne 1. 2&87 AYES: Bechtel. Cobb. Fletchfl'". Klein, Patitucc', Renz1e, SutorjlJs~ ~oo1]e.1 NOES, Hone ABSTENTIONS: Levy ABSENT, None Attorney APPROVED: Mayor »-Q 6 DH.> £'':>'::..··':;:·:r 13 c:~" .•• ' '. ~':; A'~ OD~·:.\~:'.-" ;:',".1" !"'\:S':~':. :.:: CC~"":I~ C~Ti"'EC:7"~ ':-: ~:.:J ,,J ......... -0 ~':-:-.,_",::",: r:-·.-·) :;., r:·:" CC\::-..:.::'. C·':,,",::-';; C:l f1 I l ; 1 : I , i , , . : : J I ! I , I HHiSrT "A" SITE LOCATION: 630 LYTTON PC-2649 - ". : . ! ; (?----- (0'----- i , , , i I i I z i " , < ~~ "[ 5, 0, I .In, l.Je J. ;1. ~~ .: HAMILTON A VENUE PROPERTIES, INC. 555 BYRON STREET • P.~LO ALTO, CA 9,JOI Septemb~r 10, 1992 !ten Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: The Ramilton Senior Livinq Community Parking Layout Dear Jil:en: ATTACHMENT 4 "THE HAMIL TON" Tn. (415) J26·4616 F.U (415) J1i-SI97 ~ :: ~~ ~9; ill DEP . .4.:' !"ME-NT Of PLAl~ N IN CITY OF PALO ALT. As discussed in our Tuesday meeting, we have revised our plans to reflect what we feel is a realistic parking program for The Hamilton. These revisions will be evident on the drawings which will be submitted to your office tomorrow or early Monday morning. I ~ writing to you in advance, however, kno~in9 that you plan to be in Wisconsin for a few days. The revised plans will provide for parking spaces 8S follo~s: A. Surface: 3 visitor spaces, 1 handicap space and 1 -drop-o!£-space~ B~ Lowe~ Level: 9 visitor spaces, 2 handicap spaces, 6 emplcyee-spaees, and 52 reserved residents' spaces~ Since 'We plan to' reduce the number of. res5.dential units from 38 to 36, the total of 12 visiter spaces appears to comply with the applicable ordinance. Handicap spaces are provided per code. The 6 employee spaces appear to be adequate when one compares the project with Webster House, a very similar operation to that Which we propose. Note that 'We intend to reduce office space considerably, thus minimizing the space factor as it applies to parking. Perhaps the most significant issue to be addressed 1s that of ceserved residents' spaces. We propose S2 spa=es for 36 residence units or a ratio of 1.44 spaces per unita To our kn~wledge, r.his ratio is greater than that of any similar owner occupied, upper end senior living community in the Bay Area4 Even though couples who choose to live at The Hamilton will often have two cars at the outset, they are apt to dispose of one car for many reasons. The~e include: , , , CITY OF PALO ALTO Ser,tember 10. 199. Page Two Re: The Hamilton S~n1or Living Community Parking LaYOl!t l~ Proximity to downtown and the numerous services in th~ immediate area. 2. The availability of & van for routine trips tc doctors, Stanford Shopping Center, theatres, etc. 3. ~llnes& or the r~luctance tc drive on the part of one or both members of the family • .t. The relatively hiqh cost of a second parking space. (We anticipate including only one space in the ba~ic price of a residence. I As we have indicated in o~r discussions, we expect that the average age of persons moving to The Hamilton will be approximately 80. We al&o expect that up to a third of the units will be aold to mingle persona. This has been the case at similar projects, where even the largest units have been acquired by widows (..or the occasional widower. We feel that enougt. parkinq spaces must be provided to meet the requirements of what we perceive as a relatively affluent market. With that in mind, we share your concerns and are optimistic that the proposed parking facilities will ~eet both our anticipated needs and the City's requirements for adequate on-site parking. Sincerely, BAHZLTON AVENUE PROPERTIES, INC. q,.~~ '" .. . ··tJ .~. / j rAcllltl' 1Il.8ST[J IIM( (IYIt",aoO'II "!Ie: 114) UQlIIII!.S POIIfOLA WAltH WAY[JlfORD. I(JSSMI*: PUlfilSIU SAN ~f(O (averlqll -90J: 19) ..... , ......... IIiIlU'lllD£IIT LlVrlG tMHS 37 2Z6 Itoh! 29.) 300 (131 nccupl@dl 207 (total 2211 TABLE 4: PARKING COMPARISON OF SENIOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS UfOEPFlftl(lr I£SI.IIS 45 Z80 Itota1325) 400 IproJ~tlld) 280 (tohl 3no) 'Ulile AsslW"a IS IESfDUTS Z8 lIZ 300 (prDj~ted~ 25J ,',: "er i SEfi , ""Ill • .w:;fMl "ITS 32 261 JZ4 278 .... " '-'IM; IIIITS J 1.\ vln) 30 8 I7 OI'lOYl(!i' 'Mi;11I6 lIIlYS o 60 Ylrtes 8 _____ ! .. ~'r,.,...,"-,. UlASJI_O 1_ (If PMr.11IMi otrUW([$ tIIlt" 0 I 6 full· "Oo 3 p.rt-" .. 59 16 ~6 fltll-t,_ 0 110 JMrt-t t .. and futl- \5 l> ~ I " '" z -; ~ ,-; -.I .. '! . . ", .', ~i §! ~i : -" .. a .. A Ti ACHMEN T 6 i , . • >TTACHMENT 7 HAMILTON A VENUE PROPERTIES. INC 555 ByRON STREET. PALO .... LTO, CA 94J~l Septecber 23, 1~92 Ken Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY OR PALO ALTO 25~ Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re.; The.Hamil t',:m Senior Li ving Community Hamilton Avenue Between Middlefield and .Byron Application for Rezoning from RM-15 to Planned Community (PC) Assessor's Parcel Nos: 120-03-047, 048, 049, 052, 053 and 073 Dea.r Ken: "THE HAMILTO,"" TEL (415) 326·4616 fA.X. (041S) 327-8197 This letter sets forth the specific proposal of Hamilton Avenue Properti~e, Inc. '·Applicant~) to provide ~he City of Palo Alto ('City-J a minimum of fourteen (14) BMR units in conjunction with the above-referenced project. Tbe provision of the BMR units, as set forth herein, ~ill create a direct public benefit for the City not otherwise obtainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. This public benefit ~ill result from the granting of the requested Pl~nned Community ,PC) zone change. Pursuant to Programs 9, 11 and 13 of the BOUSin9 Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Applicant proposes to provide a total of Fourteen (14} BMR rental units~ As set forth in the applicaticn for rezoning of the referenced parcels, these BMF. units comprise twic::e t,he number of BMP.. units required of the project under existing ordin4nc::es~ The BMR units will be identified and funded in accordance with conditions set forth in this letter~ In cooperation with the Palo Alto Bou~in3 Corporation and the City, Applicant will explore other possibilities for financing additionsl BKR units, using Section e money, COBG funding, conventional financing or oth~r sources of funding. Such an approach c::ould well lead to the proviSion of more than the fourteen (14) units offered herein at the same cost hasis to the applicant. Applicant fully recognizes the need for BMR housing in Palo Alto and will make every effort to explore all reason able alternatives ~ith the Housing Corporation and the city. • CITY OF PALO ALTO September 23, 1992 page Two Re; The Hamilton Senior Living C~unity Applicant will provide a minimum of fourteen (14) BMP. units on the basis &et forth below: 1. A minimum of seven (') BMR units (Phase I) will be acquired O~ constructed by Applicant and given to the Palo Alto Sousing Corporation, free and clear of all liens, prior to the issuance of a bQilding permit for the referenced pzoject (-The Hamilton-). Thes~ units constitute a public benefit for the City and their l~ation(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 least three {3) two-bedroom units. A mix of stuaio, nne-bedroom and two-bedroom units will be permitted, however~ with at least three 2-BR units and one ~dditional 2-BR unit for each studio included. For example, a mix of two studio units and five 2-BR units would be acceptable .. 3. In addition to tbe seven {7) Pha~e ! units referred to above, following completion and partial occupancy of The Hamilton, Applicant will provide a n~er of BMR unit! (Pha£e II) sufficient to bring the total number of dedicated BMR units to fourteen (14). Phase ~I units and their location{sl will be subject to City Council approval and the -mix· requirement set forth above will apply, overall, to the £ourteen (14) units~ Phase II units will satisfy Applicant's obligation to provide BMR units in accord with existing ordinances4 L Funding for the Phase II units "dll be provideo by Applicant as units in The Ea~~lton are completed and occupied4 Applicant will pay into a special City fund a total amount equal to the number of units in Phase II multiplied by Applicant's average cost per Phase I unit~ For example, if Phase II consists of six units and the ei9ht-unit Phase I cost Applicant $800,000, the total contribution to the Phasp. II fund would De 6 x $100,000 or $600,000. 5. A paYIDent into the Phase II fund will be made as each of the first twenty-four {24J units of ~he Hamilton is occupied, each payment being 1/2~th of the total contribution determined above~ The Phase II fund will be made available to the Applicant for acquisition or construction of Phase II units~ Should the fund be insufficient to cover the cost of Phase II units~ Applicant will make available 3uch additional funds as are reasonably required. • ,./ C~TY OF PALO ALTO SepteJl"~~er 23 1 ].992 I'age Three Re~ The Hamilton Senior Living Community 6~ All BMR units to be provided by Applicant shall be in reasonably qood coneition. They shall be structur~lly sound with all plumbinq, beating and appliances in good working order. It is understood that such units ~ill not be required to meet cu~rent Building Codes, byt they shall be free of termite and othez pest infestatian and seismically sound. w~ feel that the foregoing represents an effective approach toward addressin9 the need for low to moderate income housing in the community~ AE se~ forth abo~e, we wish to retain the flexibility to look at alternatives that will increase the number of BKk unite that can be made available to the City. We are commi~ted, however, to providing at leAst fourteen {14J units~ This letter is intended 88 8 more detailed supplement to the Application fQ~ re~onin9 on file with the City. We welcome comme4ts from staff related to this proposal and look forward to workinq with the City to achieve maximum public benefit in the form of additional ~MR units. Sincerely,. '. I I -~ . -. ATTACHMENT 8 Environmental Oocurner.ts -City of Palo Alto ENVIBQ~ENTAl ASSESSMENT Project Description; Zone (~ange to rezor.e propert~ fro~ RM-15 low Density Multiple family lone to Planned Community Zone ind to cqnstruct S4,QOO square fegt s~n1or cQndomi~jL~ project with 38 residential units and assochted corrmgn areas ilicluding dinin~ room. kitr"'~n. public rooms. exercise rgam ind enclosgd cpo1 and tW9 gUest rooms. Seventy pat!ing spaces are provided 111 an undergroynd garage ind five spices ire provided .. it grade. locotion/Address: 651 H,milton. 536-S76 Hidqefjeld. 523-575 Byron Sponsoring AgencY/Applicant~ Hamilton Avenue Properties, rnc. Address and Telephone of ApplIcant: 555 e,ron Street. palo Alto, CA 94301. !41S) 326-4626 Application for: f.lanned CO!1lT!\!nily Zone Cnange (e.g., zonins change, subdivision of property, architectural review, use pel'll!!t) Zoning at Project Location: BM:1} Fee Receipt No.: ~ NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Based upon review ~f tn~ project files, the unoersfgned member of the Planning Department has eoncluded: 111 Negative Qeclaration~ The project has no signiflcant er.vironmental impact. No Environmental !mpact Report is required. The reisons for • Declaration are: in the atta£ned Environmental lmpact Assessment (92~EIA~15). A record of project action is available for revlew at the Pale Alt~ Planning Department. located on the 5th floor of City Hall. 250 Hamilton Avenue. Palo Alto. CA 94301 I_I T~e project may have i significant enYlronmental impact. An [nviror.mental lmpact Report wi11 be prepared. Planning Department Officill: 1/.:")';';' 110./.., I-'/ . Plar.n1ng Director: ~-,ScLt7Lf~ Date: Secbmber 8,1992 The proj~'t has been approved. Th2 project has been denied. ,.; \Y'J\~i ltcr. .Ilcd Oite: Date: Fll, No.:92-ZC-3 92-ElA-7 "'.". '''''''-'' <--< ... / h[NVIR~NTAL DOCUMENTS -PALO ALTO INITIAL STUDY' Project lit1e/Addr .. " .651 Hamilton. 536-576 I'iddl.fieJd_ 523-515 Bvron Project Description: Zong ~hange to rezone property from P~-15 tow Density Kult101e Family Zone to Planned community lone and to construct 94,000 square flet senior condolllinium prcies::t with 38 residential units a.nd ~jated c§mon irajlS including dining room, kitchen, Dub1 it: raoms. enrche room Ind enr:los!d Dool and two guest r09jils, Seventy parking spaces are provided in an undergrQund ga~lge and five spaCES are prcvide~ iLgFlL. EnVironmental Setting: The sitt is b-ordered 9n the east arid' squth sides by arterial streets. Middlefield Road and Hamilton Avenue. and on the west by a local street. Byron Street. £xistjng zonjng 'nd land uses across these streets from th~ project site are! I} acr(lSS Kjddlefield Road property ;;oned iit'-30 Medium Densjty ~[Jysin!l and presently occYD1ed by (lnt-and two storv pffice bllildfng;;; 2) ItrRss Hiplllton Avenue property zoned RM-15 lmt oens1\y Hgysfng and presenth occupied by two-st<lry residential condominiumS; procerty at the tcrner of Middlefield and HiJn,ilton is zoned B-2 TWO family R~sjdtnce District and presently gccupied by a ODe-story priVate resjdence; 3) acrpu Byron Street prQpertv zoned RM-40 High Density Besidentfa.1 ind presently occupitd by I two-stOry churCh educi:!ticn 1!Yildfng. The interior lot line it the north side of the site ad.joins ,prORtth zoned AA-15 Low pen$jt'L HQu;;1ng and preunth occupied by a parkfng lot. a single fimilY hQ~ and a tva story office building~ [v. [~vironmental Impact Checklist (bpranat1on of all ·yes· answers are-il'1 Section V): I. Earth. Will the propo,.l result in: l. Unstab1e earth conditions or changes in geologiC substructures? b. Disruptions. dispiacements , compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? c. The destruction. cov€ring or modificiti<ln of any unique geo1c9ic or physical feature? x X X I X fJ.clillted ft~ Ap~r.dilt 1, ~llferni. G~lOelin~s fel" II!1p1emerltatlGn e! t:£QA. O<!C~l!r ld, 1916 ~r<is~ JtJM l'3a~. 'I 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. " "" . -,-, Elant lif •. Will the proposal result in; i. C~ange in the divers1ty of spetie~J or number cf any species of p1a~t5 !induding trees, shrubs, grass, crops, nicrofloTi and aquatfc plants)? b. c. Reduction of th~ numbers of any un1Q~e. rare or endangered species of plants? lntroduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barri@T to the nonaal rep' enis~lMent of existlng s~cie$? .d. Reduction in icreage of any agr1cult{Jral crop? Animal Lif.. Will the proposal result in; a~ C~ange in the diversity of species, or number of any speties of animals (bird, land anlma1s lnc1udin9 reptiles, fish and shellfish. benth1~ organisms, insects or microfauna}1 b. c. d. Reduction of the n~rs of any unique, rare or endangered animals? Introductio~ of new species of anima1s into In arta, or result in a barrier to the migration or ~vement of animals? Deterioration in existing fish or wildlife nabftats? Nois!. Will the proposal result in: •• b. Increas!s in existing noise leve1s? Exposure of people to se~ere noise levels? light and Glare. Wil' the propos~l produce new light gl.'e1 land Use. Will the proposal result in a substa~tia' alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? -';"'/'"" ~ .".", ','<'. "'" '" . , .- x x x 1. x x x x x x x n-EiA-7 Page 3 :; '; ~. Energy/natural Pesqurces. Wi 11 t~e propcsal r!suTt in: a. b. Use of substantial amounts of fuel OT energy? Substantfa' increase in demand upon ex1sti~g suur~es of energy, Qr requ~r€ the development cf new scurces of energy? c. Ioc.r!ase in the rite of use of any natural reso~rce1 d. Substontial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upstt. Ooes the propo,.l involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (fncl~din91 but not 11.1ted to, oil, p!sticldes, chemicals or radiation) ;~ the event of an a~c;dent or upset? IL pgpulatiort/H9usfnq. a. Will tn. propos.l .lter tne location. distribution. density or growth rat. of t~e human popu1ation of an area? b. Will the proposal effect existing housing, or creat~ a de~and for addition.l housing? 12. Jr;nsDortation(Circ~lition. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of suhstantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existlng parking facilftfes or demand for new parking? c. Alt!rations to present patterns of circulation ur movement of pecp1e and/cT goods? d. Increise fn traffiC hazards to motor vehiCles, bicJclj~ts or pedestrians? ',:.' . . --. . ' ! I X X X j X X X X X· X X p:\Io'W\JIaIit«l,!!l.& 92·EIA-7 Page 4 ., .... \ i 13. Pub1]o;: Service. Will the prop-,sal ha ... ·e an effec.t Llpon, or result in oil need for new or altered governmental s~rvices 1n any of th! following areas? •• b. c. d. e. ~jre pr~tection? Police pratecti,n? Schools? Parks or other recreational facilities? Maintenanc. of public fICiliti •• including roads? f. Other govel";menhl services? 14. UtilIties. Will t~e proposal rosult in , need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utfllties? 15. I. Power or "iturai gas? ~. Communications systems? c. Wa.ter? d. Sewer or septic tanks? e. St~rm water drainage? f. Solid wa.te and disposal? !!JmIan H~'l1b . Will the propos.l result In: a. Creation of any hei't~ hazard or potential) hazard (excluding Dlental h •• Tth)? b. Expos.re of people to potenti.l healU. hUiirds? le. A.,thetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any sce~jc vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal rfsult in the creation of an aesthetically offensiv~ site open to pub"1 ic view? 17. Rfcreatjon. Will tne proposal result in an impact lip on the qual ity Dr Quanti ty of existing recreational opportunities? p:\w\holoailtOl'1.II'\.11 x x X x X x X X X· X· X X J X x 92·ElA-7 Page 5 ~ . 1 I " 1 18. 19. euHur.l Rg:iQurc:es. a, 11m the proposa1 "E~ul t in the alteration of/or the destruction of i prehistoric or histori, archeQ1ogi~ll site! b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects t~ a prehistoric, historit building, 5tr~cture or object? c. Oo.s the preposal ha" the potential to cluse a physical change which would affect unique cultural values? d. IIi II the proposal restrict existing religious Dr sacred uses within the . potential impact arn? ~in~~tQ!( FjD~jng~ gf Sjgnif;,aD,e. •• Does the project haye the potenti.l to degrade the quality of the envfrcn~nt, subst.ntl.lly reduce the habitat of. fish or w11dlff~ specfes, taus! i fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining lev.ls , threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number Dr restrict thE range of a rare or endangered pla~t or ini~al or elioinate important examples of the major periods of Ca.l ;fornia history or preh 1 st Gry? b. Does the project ~a .... e the potent"j al to achieve sh~rt-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmenti1 goals1 (A short-term impact on the environment ;s (H,e which occtJrs in a rel ithely brief, definitive period of time ~blle long term impacts ~1] endure well into the future. ) x X X X X X p;\I'W\ham~.ti. 92-ElA-7 Page. 6 • " .. - ru 1!Alli NO c. Oaes the praj!ct hav! impacts' which are x-l' individually limited, but cumulat1vely considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resourceS where t~e impact on each resource is relatively small, but Wn!Te the effect of tne total of tnost impatts on the environment is significant.) d. Do.s the project hay. environmental X effects whIch will cause suhstantial adverse effects on human bei.ngs. either directly or indirectly? Y. ExPlanatfon of ·yes· an$wers and' 'no' answers marked with an asterisk. "'"J i~ enY;ro~ntl' checklist. 1.. Earth (p,f). In the constructioll of the undergr<lLlnd garage, approximately !2,OCD cubic yards of soil wiT 1 be excava.ted and disposed of off·site~ As the site is located within a built urban environment. sl.lcf\ impacts are MoOt considered Significant. A detailed gradhg ;P'!!j dra~i'I"-:I! plan shall be required for review and approval of the City Engineer prior to fss.uance of al1Y grading aodVor building pormits. . The project site is located in a seismic area of modErate risk. and will be s~bject to ~ery strong ground s~ak1ng 1n the eyent of ~n elrthquake. All ne~construction on the site will be subject to the provisions of the current Uniform B~iTding Code, portiens of which are di~~c:ted at minimizing se;smic risk ind pre~enting loss of life and property in the event of an edrthQuake. 2. Air (al. Constr'-!dion of the fCllr-story condominium projed. will temporarily re5~lt ir. in increase in dust emissjons oyer exist:ng anwient air conditions. T~e fenawing Clust control mitigation shall be required to reduce the impact to an acceptable level; To red~c::e dust l.cilels dur1ng construction. it shall be required' that exposed earth surfaces be watered frequently, during the hte: morning a~d at the end of t~e day, witP1 frequency o.f watering increasing on wlndy days. Spil1age resulting from ha'Jling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed i~diately ind paid f~r by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from t~e contractor's operat;ons~ either inside of 1': \ .... \tw.n i 1hn.ei;& 92-[IA·7 Page 7 , , 3. 4. . "" , oats ide the right-of-WiYl shall be ccntrol1e-d at thl! contractor's exp.ense. If, in the opinion of the Ctty £r.gineer, the contractor fails to comply .ith any of the items concerning spillage and dust control, and the c~ntriilcto'" is either unwilling elr unabie to remedy the deficiency, the (ity Engineer shall employ priv.ate or public work forces and eqUipment is requTred to correct tne deficiency. The cost of ~p1oying such fcrce, .nd eqUipment sh.l1 b. doubled as • penalty, ~nd such cost snal1 be borne by the contractor. S~cn acti~n tak.n bJ tho City Engin.or sh." not r.liev. the contractor cf the responsibilIty conc.rning spillage and dust centro1. Witt,.. (al. The pr(lpos~d nt:!w constilJction lliay result in an increase in tne rate ar'Jd amoLlnt of surface water rU'noff. In the proposed' development, the :sHe is continuously covered by bu11ding or paving, exc:ept for portions of a 16-25 feet wide perimeter setback, and there is an L:ndergr'ound garage under most of the structure. ]~ t~e existing dev'!lopment, muc::h of the site is covered by buildings or is payed. Howeyer, there are currentl, no underground struc::tYres and development is moTe sc::attered , with many small unpaved areas located throughout the site, providing opportunities for some run-off to be absorbed. See Section 'l~. Utilities f~r disc::ussion of impact ~n t.ne incredS! in storm draill Tun-cff and the stormdrain syste,1l. Plant Ufe 1.1. The propOSEd project win result in a decrease in the number and speCies of plants and the amount of tree canopy on the site. There .re presently 23 canopy tre.s of DBH (Olimeter it Breast Height) of S 1nc~es or greater. and 3 palm trees on th~ Site. The development plan proposes to ret.1n 1] of t~e5e trees; they are Magnolia, Ash and Pine trees located llong the Hamilton and Middlefield fr~ntages of t~e site. Three palm trees may be re'~cated on t~e site or on a different site. The plan proposes to remove 12 of the 23 1arger trees on the site. Fi ve of these are not significant or are in poor condftlon. Sever'! of the trees proposed to b! removed are substantial canopy trees in sound condition. They include] loquit tree 9.5 inch DBH, I tulip tree ]0 inches DBH, ] C.liforni. pepper tree 24.S inch.s DBH and 4 Chinese elm tre~s 12-20 inches DBH. The Calif~rnii Pepper tree has a canopy width of approximately 40 feet, and the four Chinese Elm trees are grouped together and for.; a continuous canopy of approximately 4S )( 110 feet. ]n addition to the 23 1 arger trees, there are at least 12 smaTTer trees on the slte, wit~ D8H of "1-8 inches, lnc::1udlng oli~es, birches, pittosporum and fru1t trees, all of whicn will be remov~d. The total rlomber-of street trees along bot~ Hamilton A~eliue and Byron St reet IIIOU' d' be increased by approximately 3 trees On each F :\vw\kImi 1 ton. Ii! i" 92·ErA-7 P.ge S • :."-.:- street, due to a reduction in the RtJmber of curb el.lts. !-Iowe'lle!'", He pioposed developmQnt ~lan wOI.Jld require the r-emcv.al of four e.xfsting street trees on Byron Street because of the 1ocations of tne proposed new curb cuts on tnat street. These exis:ting trees are Cnfnese Pistache trees, approximately 4.5 inches DBH and 18-20 feet t.ll. 1Ih1le they ore yo"ng trees, they are well established and represent several y&ars growth. The locations of curb cuts for the new project s~ould be adjusted $0 tnat these existing street tr~es are not required t~ be removed. In the de'telopment pl an, areas. whfch iN-nat' excavated include portfons of the porillleter setbacks and the b"ilding courtyard. Since t"'e~~ areas will haYe adequate sol1 va1ur.1e to supp~rt substintill canopy tree,., as lIany such trees as. Cin be re-asonably acco~dated should be p1anted in thase areas .s mitigation for t~e tree canupy to ~ removEd from the site. Trees removed snou7d be replaced at a ratio of 2:1, either on the site or in the immediate vicinity. 6. Hqjs! (i1. Construction of tf'le project will result in temp<lrary 11"!CreaSlS in ambi ent noi se 1 eve 1 s , Constructi on act i vi t; es wi 1) be subject to the Palo Alto NOise Or<finance, which requires construction equipment to be muffled so as not to exceed a noi.s@ emission of 83 deCibels (dEA) at a distance of ,5 feet, or a noise level exce~ding 86 dBA Dutside the s1te boundary, unless an exception is granted. Middlefield Road is a major arterial st~eet, and the traffic noise may be a disturbance to residents. The project wi11 be required to cOlllply with California Sttte law. Title 24, which requires that a lIinilnUll interior 4S db (Nfl (Corrmunity Noise-Equivalent level) or less be maintained for n ...... ltiple-famlly projects. Th. project has been designed so tkat the common patiO area is iocated away frcm Middlefield Road and is partiilly ,"rrounded by building .alls .hich will S!rVE to protect the area from street nois~+ 7. Light and Glare. The proposed four story building will increase the amount of light fixtUres and tfte height of SOIT!! light sources em tfle site. These increases, particlJTarly outdo~r lighting, may have an adverse impact on adjacent residences. To mitigate the potential for impacts on adjacent land uses, outdoor lighting should be kept to a minimum and all outdoor light fixt"re, sho"ld be directional and shielded, with no light sources directly Visible and no light spillage beyond the property linE. A detai1ed outdoor lighting p1an shewing fjxtures~ light throw patt~rns and intensity shall be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Board prl0r to issuance of a Building ~ermit. ~:\vw\,.l'W!1iltol'1.l'll 92-tIA-J P'ge 9 .. S. l.and Use. The proposed project will change the ~res!nt hnd us'! of H.e site from iii c:Otnhination of office, single family residenthl and low density mu~tip)e farolly residentili to high density multiple fa~i1y residential use. The pre-sent uses include apprcximatl!ly 10,600 square feet of office, three sil'!gle family residences and one 4-url1t ipl1rtment buildir,;. The planned use for ttle site, as indica.ted by the current zoning. is low densit.)' muHf!;:lle family residential. Thus, the-proposed project would be more consister.t with the p1inr.ed use for the site than the present uses. The new u~e wou1d ha~e a much 1.rger b"ilding and twic. tne residenti.1 density permitted by current zoning, but is permissible under the Planned Community Zone. 9. Risk of Up'et.... Some types of chemicals used in the ~fntenance of pools and spas are pDtenthlly hazardous and have specia.l re~ujremerlts fOT tne~r safe use and stcrage. A list of names, quantities and hazards of all chemical s 'hal i be provided to the Palo Alto Fire Department (PAFDJ. The developer snall .eet standard. for the us. and ,torag. of the chemicals, as specified by the PAFD. 10. Population/Housing (a,b). The proposed development will increase th! totil number of residential units presently on the site and will Ilso provide approximately twice the number of units ~'lowed by current zoning, There are presently 7 dwelHng units on the .site, 3 sfngle family homes lnd a 4-unit apartment building. The present zoning (RM-J5, Low Oo ••• ly Multiple family Residenti.,) would permit IS units on tne site, while thE proposal 1S for 38 units. The dev~lopment wou1d cause tn! loss of 4 rental units and 3 5i~9'e family ~nits all of which are rented. Since the proposal does not re-place those rental units I it wi 11 be required to pro ... ·ide a 20% Below Market Rate (BMR) oomponent or e;ght B,10. Market Rate iBMR) units. r!le developer is proposing to provide oil:! additional e BMR units to me-et Pub' ic Benefit requirements of the Phnned COrmllJflity Zone, for a total of 15 BltR units. The project would increase the supply of lIIarKf!t rate housing de5-igned especially for senior citizens, ~ type of hOUSing for which there m;y be at present an unmet demand in the conrnun1ty. If the proposed new units are sold to senior residents who presentry five in the community, tne project may resu,t ,in an in!:rease in the availability of market rate family housing when these units are vacated by residents of the new senior units. p: \w\NaI 1tlm. t 110 92·EIA·7 Page 10 • 1 1 -/" . :. . 12. Tr~n~PQrtatlon(CfrculatiQn (b,(), Traffic. VoJLIlj!f' .Reduct;on A traffic study of potential fmpi!cts of tfle proposed p'roject W01.$ ccnduchd by Tne Wilson Engfneering Company. The Ctty of Palo Alto Transportation Divis10fi has reviewed this study and found it to be acceptable with r,gard to the a .. alysis of traffic volumes. The traffic study hiS shown that the project is expected to result in a net reduction in tMe number of trips generated by the site, with 97 fewer trips per dilY tnan are generated by existing site uses. In arriying it this estimate, tne study .assumed no reducticn for senior residents, using instead a worst clse scenario similar to a typical candominfurn complex 1n a suburban area. The expected trip distribution will be a decreas~ in triffic on Un1v~rsity Avenu!, Hamilton Avenue and Middlefield Road, .. ith in incruse en 8yron Street of 105 trips per day, with Il additional trips in the am peak period and 5 additional trips in the ~ peak period. This 1ncrease is conSidered to be minimal and to pass ~nnDticed by eXisting motorists. RAAtlired Park.ing The proposal provides fewer parking spaces for re~1dents, employees and guests than is required by ordinance. The· Pl anned Corrmun; ty Zone Ordi nanee reQu; rH projects to provi de parking based on the requirements of the Parking Ordinance unl ess it is shown by traffic engineering ~t~dies n~ ot~er relevant data that less parking will me.t the n •• ds of the project. The foil.wing table shows the number of parking space. which are propOSEd by tho prGject compared with the number of spaces required by the Parking Ordinance. PARKING PROPOSED AND REQUIRED ZO[]f ~t~inl[!S;;1 Proposed R@Guirments Resident Parkln8 65 spaces 76 spaces (1.7 per unit) (2 per unit) loployee Parking 5 spaces 10 spaces (estimate) Guest Pirking 5 spaces 13 spac., TOTAL (13% of units) (33~ of units) 7S spaces 99 spolces Whi1e the need fgr park.ing is generally considered to be less for senior residences than for standard family housing, this Ir'lay not be the Cise for luxury senior housing where residents are more likely to own cars, to entertain guests, and where the program includes a high level of services to Pe provided by employees on the site. p:\ ....... \.~11tCl'1.ela S2-EL6,-7 Page II • , .;:- / The estimated employee parking requirement of In spaces is determined as ronows: based on the parKing rrdinance re<juirements, the kitchen .... ould requlre 2 spaces and the office 4 spaces. The office could be expected to b. occupied by the proposed full time Mdical director, activities director, 5~curity person and admintstrator. In addition to these six spaces, parking is required' fol" the proposed additional staff who will provide c1eanil1g, laundry, transportation, maintenance anc:! personal tare. The residenthl units are dfsigned' to accommodate assisted care if required. The prQject provides two guest quarters ar,d splcfous facil ities for ent!rtaining. No 1nfo~ation has ~e" provided which would support a reduced n~ed for visitor pa.rking. In ord'er to provide thfl required guest pari.'ng, 10 spaces in the garage shQuld be reserved for guests ~nd as well as 3 spaces in the surface parking area in front of tf\e building. The other 2 surface park.fng spaces shouTd b'!! used to provid~ ] handicap parking space and 1 drop-Gff 5pa~e. Currently, there is no excess street parxing in the vicinity of tne project sit!. ]f the parking needs of the projp.ct are not provided on~site, the fncreased shortage Df parklng fer existing residents and tJstS could lead to requests for residenthl parking Zones or other parking controls. r~ provide the required number of parking spaces for eaployee5 and guests, 10 of the 70 total spaces in the garage should be res!rved fOT guests and )0 spaces for employees. Th! remaining SO spaces shouTd be reserved for residents, providing a ratio of ].3 spaces per ~n1t for res1dents. ff I higher ratie of resident parking spaces per unit 15 required, the lu.mber of units should be reduced or conside:"ation could be given to providing addttional park.fng off-site in close prol(imity to the deveTopment. Curbside parkinQ The projJosed project would result in a net gain of one curbside parking space. The nUr.1her of spaces along the HahliHon Avenue frontage will increase from 2 to 3, due to clo::.i~9 of existing curb cuts. There will continue to be 7 curbside spaces along Byron Street, though existing cUl"'b cut.s will be clo.:ed and three n!w driveways added, resl!1ting in iii. 'total <If 10 curbside parking spaces at the project site. Access to Adjacent Parcel Presently, one ef th! two driveways on the adjacent property to the Mrlh ; s accessed across the west corner of the project site, with the curb cut for this drive .... a.l' being in front of the project site. If the proposed projECt removes that access, a new dri .... eway must be prow'ided' for the neighboring property. 92·UA· 7 Page 12 '. Servict vehic1 es Sel'vice vehic1e access is being provided off Middlefit1d Ri:>id. The seJ"v1ce drive is designed to acc::unrnodate van size SE'Tvfc! :snd delivery vehicles and to permit these 'w'enjcles to turn around on thp. site so that they can exit in a forward direction onto Middlefield Road. Traffic Contral Phn Prior to any demolition or construction on tn~ $ite, the OevelLlper will be required to provije I Traffic COl1t1"ol Plan for the constructiGn period, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department and the Transportation Oivls;or.. Jtems to be addressed in the plan will include~ but are not limited to, access to the construction site, parking for persona1 cars of construction workers, sidewalk. 'accessibility) location of staging and de1i .... ery areiS, truck routes l:1d acces.s to rlefghboring properties. 14~ Util~t1es (c,d,e\ The sewer &ains at f!!iddleffeld Road and Hamilton Avenue are near capacity. The Developer's engin~ers shall submit flow ca1culaticns which will show that the off·stte and on-site witer and se~er mains will provide the dOm.!,stic wat~'!", fli'; flo.,s and se~er c~~a.city needed to serYicE' the development and adjacent properties during Int!c;pated peak loads. The applicant will b< required to prove by one week. of flow Ilonitoring that the sewer main has adEquate capacity to handle these pe." no... The Developer oil1 be held responsible for fnstalling and upgrading on~site and ~ff-site water and sewer utilities as necessary to hand1e antic1pated peak loads, including ttle cost of a11 iSSDciated utility installations and upgrades. An increase in runoff from the site may adverse1y impact the Cityrs existing stormdrain system. Botn of the stormdrain systems which serve this site are-currently over capaci ty. In order to reduce the impact on tne stonndrain system, and to comply with the-reQui rements of tf?e National Pollution Discharge El imlnation S~stetn and' tht Santa. clara Vil1ey Nonpofnt Source Pollution Control Program, steps shouid be taken to redUCE both the amour.t and the rate of runoff from the site. The stonr;water from the site shaul d' be di .... ided into two lI!atershed arEas, with part of the runoff directed to the pllbi ic stonndrain at the corner of Middlefield' Read and Hamilton Avenue, and th~ other part directed to the public stormdrain at the cor~er of Byron street and Hamilton AvenuE, In order to slow the rate of disch.:crge and reduce tne level of ,pol1tJtants entering the stormdrain system~ on-stte detention should be provided. The detention may b~ provided in swales located within setback. areas, or in exparlded underground piping, or scme ether form of underground storage, The app1lcant should meet 'With the Publ ic Works Department to discuss the storm drainage requirements for the site prior to submittal cf constr~ctior. drawings. p:\_\ ..... ilton.eil 92·ElA·7 P.~e 13 .. ' .. ./ 16. AUthet1cs.:. Tl'le lIassillg of the proposed development m~y adversely affect adjoining properti~s by blockin; $unl1ght and ~ie~s. The proposed develo~n:ent would be a four story building, SO feet high, while surrounding buildings ire one and ha storjes 'in neight. Shadow studies prepared by tne applicant show that durtng fall, winter and sprfng, the propose-d new development would cast a sr.i1doit over portions Df the adjacent properties to the north throughout the IIlCIrning and over portions of propertfu east across Middlefield Ro~d durin; the ilfternoon. me greatest effect w'Ou"id be, of cOlJrse, in Winter when the sun fs lcwest in the sky .. The shadow study shows that en December 21 t the pre-posed development would cast a shadow SO feet beyond tke north property line .t l~ :~o a.m., and as feet Myond the !'list property 1 ine, across Middlefield Road, at 2:00 p.m.. The exhtir!'S' uses on the adjacf!nt sites to the north and east are thre~ professl~nal office buildings, a sing'~ family home and a parking Tot. All of t"'e propert ies are zoned for 10111 density or medium density multiple f<mlly housing. Along the north property line, wher! Ciit shadows hive the greatest impact O~ neighboring prQpert1es, t~e proposed ~eve'vpment extends beyond tile required dayl1ght plan. by 17 feet. The Planned Community (PC) Zone District imposes I daylight plane requirement along let lfnes Shired' with residenthll)' Z<lnl!' property. such as the north prope~t1 lint of the project site, fn order to T!duce impacts such as these. The bund'ing vl)lume which extends beyond the day1igkt phne includes portions of 3 fourth-floor unfts and Z third-floor unlts_ The proposed project d •• ign should b. IDOdlfied to comply. at mlnim~J with the reQ~ired daylight plane and additional shadDW studies shol.ild be conducted for the reVised dt5ign to determine if shadow impacts have been sufflciently reduced .. If the project is not redesign.d to comply with the daylight plane, , variance would be required. Tne proposed development a1so does not meet the interior side yard requirement along the north prllperty line~ A ter. foot planted landSCape screen is requlred by the PC lone District along lot lines adjacent to residentially zoned property, but in tnt propDsed plan driveways are set bId onl.1 0 to 5 fe~t a10ng most of tne north property line where a 10 feet planted landscape screen ;s requtred. The Zoning Ordinance (18.04.030 (76)) specifically excludes drhe',,:ays, parle;"9. load i"9 or storage frOID requ ired hn.dsci.pe £.reas. Tne plan should be Ilodffied so that th~ required 10 foot wide p1anted lar-,dscape screen is provided. If t."1e project is not redesigned to comply with t~e 10 feet planted 1 andscape screen reqUirement, a variance would be required. The City's Draft Urbarl Design fllan calls for mare SUbstantia: building mass at tne Middlefield/University .Avenue interSEction to mar~ tne entrance to Downtown, b~t it does not especially cail for n·EIA-) Pag~ 14 .. \ -.--~ greater building mass at the Middlefifld/Hamilton intersection wnere tne prC'ject site is locite:d. There could be urbiiln ciesign benefits 1n lvciting i substantial and distinctive structure it this intersection of twa major streets, though it wOllld not necessarily requfre as tall nor as large i building as is being proposed. The relative design merits (if the proposed design, including massing, architecture, relltivnship to urb!n form ar.d impact on neighboring properties should be f\lil uated by the Architectural Review Board. F ~\YWV-i ItOl'l.e ia 92-ElA-7 Page 15 01 I I I ATTACH~ENT 9 HAMILTON A VENUE SEl\10R lIVING COMMUNITY PROGRAM DEVEWPMENT STATEMENT AND STATEMENT OF POLlCY ISSUES . , . \ .J .. Arguably, the most significant policy statements of the Comprehensive Pl." for the City of Palo Alto are concerned w:ith Housing. The Housing Elem(:ot of the Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need to expand the City's hou~ing SllPp1y and Llte need to create housb.g capable of <erving senior members of the oommunity, since this is the most rapidly growing ..segment of the City's population. Even though the Comprehensive Pla.., ,mphasizes gr:>W\h of housing inventory, relatively few residential units have been added since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan in 198!. Further, the development of multi-fa!Ilily projects in Palo Alto has been less than some of our . neighboring communities for over 2S years. There are many factors involved in this low gr~ foremost of which may be the scarcity of parcels suitable for deoelopment given the nearly fuDy developed character of ow residentia! neighborhoods. Because of this scarcity of developable parcels, and betause of the City's goal to increase housing, those few parcels capable of being developed for housing (and, in particular, for multiple family senior hou'ing) should be skiIlfuDy and sensitively planned to provide the maximum. level of housing consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and appropriate for tlu~ir neighborhood. DIGNIFIED HOUSING FOR SENIORS The owners of the proposed Hamilton Avenue Senior LMng Community have assembled ... unique, developable property at the comer of Hamilton, Middlefield and Byron capable of pravidins increased housing for seniors. A UNIOUELY APPROPRIATE SITE The projoct proposed for development by the owners (an of whom are local residents - Leonard Ely, Sam Webster, Loren Brown, ADan Brown, Bill ao.s, Jim Hill) is a senior living commur.ity project. This typ< of housing differs from other fonus of mUltiple·family housing and generally cons;'ts of the following elements: Independent living units of various size at a density sufficient to foster the perception of a community, and sufficient to warrant its support facilities. Access to medical care (on and off si te). AvaJlabiiity of public transportation Shared dining faciliti.e.s with prepared meals Common living spaces, lncIuding social and recreation 5pace.s, exercise a..-,.d activity rooms Security and administration spaces I _,f,:r .. ;,:: . ~. " •• \ (Fae1lides estabi.i:shed 10 pro"Jide this housing along ""':th the promlse to provide care and .sen.ices to the: residents for an extended period oC time are required by the State DC C3lifcmia to be licensed a; a "Residential Care FaCIlity for the E~erly-(''RCFE''). The state's requirements are involvi!;d, aDd gov-'!rn financia~ operatjona~ and structural concerns. The: Hamilto!l may be licensed as an RCFE. This has not yet beel':' determinedl Together, these feattlres provide independence and privacy w1tl"lOUt iso\ation.. Daily contact wiL'l a larger COInmTJnity is ~vailable, as are transportation, recreation, meals and access to health care, witllout sacrificing quality in one's personal IMng space. Few facilities are able • to provido !his type of dignified houslng (or seniors. In Palo Alto, quality senior housmg is f.llJ with yean-long waiting li.15 for new applicants. This is true for )ow-and· modest income housing for seniors such as provided by the Lytton complexes, and alw for costly housing for Seniars sucb as Webster House and Channing House. This type of bousing is loosely termed "Senior Uving Communities.· The pmject site consists of 51,500 square fee~ assembling 6 parcels (two office buildings, one fourpJex rental unjt and three singJe family residen-ces), located on over one-half to-Ivck at the Northwest comer of Hamilton and Middlefield extendlng west to Byron. The site presents wique favorable conditions for dense development: (1) 51,500 square feet is an extremely large residential parcel. No parcels of .imilar size bave been assembled north of Embarcadero in over 15 years. By comparison, the Lytton IV projeC! with 51 enit> assembled three parcels totaJiing 28,000 square feet. (2) Oniy one edge of the property is adjacent to neighboring properties. The other three .ides are adjacent to City Streets. Tnis ,esults in iar Ie .. impact on neiphers in tho application of setbacks and daylight planes. We are aware o( nO other project in recent years with meb a favorable configuration. (3) The site is situated on major traffic corridors, Middlefield and Harrulton, making the ~c aspeC! of development insignificant; (4) The project is less than one block from the Lytton complex.s of Community Hewing. Inc. and from Webster House which are very dense bousing for seniors.. D~lopment of this project in SlJch proximity to other senior projects will create shared ac.;e.ss to certain facilities and convenient heaJth care: and transportation suppor.. Thh is an ideal site far devebpment of senior howing which meets important Comprehensive: Plan Objectives. A.'1 ELEGAl\'T PRQI6CT FOR SENIORS The HAMILTON SENlOR LIVING COMMUNITY creates 38 "jgb qUality urtits in lour !loon; totalling 94,013 square feet, a Floor Ar.a Ratio cf 1.83. A one·!evel underground garage provide.s. 70 spaces using no tan dem or street parking. The architecture o! the project is Spanish Colonial Revival. The Site win be landscaped beautifully with 33.8% o[ the ground floor usable open space, The avenge size per unit is 1,763 square feel Of the 94,013 feet, 66,978 is for the private units, and 27,019 is for common health, safety and recreatio..: faCllities. 2 ~l 'I j I .' . . :: ~ -. - The Floor Area Ratio of the dweHing units 'Without common areas is 1.30 (66,9i'S 'tlJdg. area + 51,500 site area). The sit~ coverage of th·:: project is 54.7%, 28 ,164 square feet Tt,e project is 4 stories, approximately 47-50 feet tall The audience targeled for this project are active seniors who need community living fa,,:ilitie. .. after they .&Ie either no longer able to or comfortable b remaining in their single family detached homes. WJu1e the units will be luxuriow; in many respects, the average size of 1,763 _square feet is modest compared to houses in our co=unity. [NOTE: See Schedule A at the back of this first section of the PC Application for detailed project statistics.! Renderings and architectural plans for the project are inelu ded in Section 3 of this application. As a so!tier living rommunity, a number of special uscs should be included in The Hamilton. Most basically. these include: 1) 38 Independent living urulS. 2) A dining room and commercial kitchen. 3) Public rooms. 4) Exercise room and pooL 5) Two guest rooms to accommodate visiting guests or relatives. 6) Administrative security and support staff 10 maintain the above progra.TTIs. 7) Parking. The primary goal of The Hamilton is to house older area residents in an environment structured to provide a healthy. independent lifestyle into the future. The Hamilton would have larger than average units, and would create: an alternative to 'Lie long waiting lis! flJr reIative..'y small residences at existing Palo Alto retirement communities. Residents have 1he choice of thirty...eight II nlU of a variety of types and sizes. All unit'> would llave fun kitchens, spacious living and dining areas, gradous baths and bedroom .. as wen as generous private outdoor spaces of either a patio or deck. Unit! are designed tD be able to accoIlllIlOdatc Ihe assisted care of the residents if required over time. The units are designed to be handicapped acceSSIble, and contain medical alert and ,eourity systems. The Hamilton would provide a number of amenities, Residents and their gue~;;ts wouid bave the opportunity to have meals in a common dining room 'IoVith food prepared in a smaD on· 3 ;.; . , site kitchen. A lVing rOOII4 I.Jbrary. and garden co~rtyaId wuuld inspfJe sociai events of all kinds. A spa a....,d indoor he~ted l&p poo~ adJacent to an exercise room allow the re'lident.'i in house recreation options. Family guest> could stay in one of two guest rooms provided for the resjdeJ'1t's use. A small van \Wl1l be available to take residents to medical ~nd denral 8ppointmeD~ to selected evenlS within the community, etc. The project would be permanently staffed by approx:imately five full time people. A medical <iliector w-ou!d oversee the beGlth care needs of the r~sideDts and manage lifc~long care. An activities director would ccardinate c::ccrcise options re1atltd' tc the poo~ spa and exercise spaces. A security pe""n would be on the premise. at an times. Additional ,up;>ort .taff would "ee to the administration and assist in the daily comfort of the re,ide,nts, including providing serv;ceo {or weeldy house cleaPing, laund!y and transportation. Th. final operational program bas yet 10 be completed in detail; there are many possibTIities that thls form at housing can, ultimately, incorporate. PC ZONE REQUIRED In order for the site to be developed in the manner of the proposed Senior Living Commu.."1ity, a planned commurtity :woe change is required. This is because neither the current zoning (RM-15) nor the City'S densest residential zoning (RM-40) provide sufficient flex'-ouity to allow the proposed developrnenL Schedule B at .he end of this Section 1 identified as "Preliminary Zoning Analysis and Comparison" sets fonh the cevelopment opportunities for RM-l5 and RM-40. The RM-15 :rone is inappropriate for the subject .... mblage of six parcels. The r"'luirements of RM·15 are appropriate for 8,500 "luare foot parcels, but net for large parcels such as the Subject si.e a. 51,500 "luare feet, which is one of the largest residential assemblages north of Embarcadero in many yean. Further, the property is adjacent on three .ides '0 streets, unlike typical parcels. Without detenninations required for a FC Zone, we believe a zone change to R.M:-40 would be we] supported for our project. An RM~40 zone would anow 47 units, whiJe the proposed project proo.ides oniy 38 units. R.\1-40 requires only 1 parking space per senicr unit, ",We the proposed proje<t provide, !.?1 spaces per unit. All cf the .etback requirements of t."e R.\1-40 :rone are satisfied by the projecL Tncre arc:, however, site development aspects of the RJ.1-40 zone which th~ proposed project does not satisfy: "... "" RM-40 anows an FAR. of 1,0 or 51,500 fee~ the proposed project FAR. is 1.83 or 94.013 fe-et Of this 94,013 fe~t, 27,019 are common areas for seniors s.o 66,978 feet or an FAR. of 1.30 applies to exclusive residential portions of the project RM-40 allew. a maximum build[ng height of 4Q (eel; the proposed project is between 47 and 50 feet taU al it> highe.t points. 4 • , " -. " \ -, " ." .-.-----~---------. RM40 alloW'S maximum sHe coverage of 45%; the propOSC:G rroje::.t tire coverage will be 50%" Because of "the foregoing conditions by which the propo~ed project exceeds allowances cf the RM~ zone as weO as of the RM·15 zone, thls project "quire> a PC ZONE rather tt,an merely ,It %One change to RM-40. The site,. with its extraordinary si2:e, thlee-sides adjacent to streets, its proximity to the Lytton and Webs!er Houst xnior projects) its location at the comer of two traffic corridors, (Hamilton Avenue and Middlefieid Road) and with the elimination of two existing office lrofldings totaling 11,000 square feet, is weO qualified for the increased height and floor area ratios requested. If Palo Alto genuinely wants to increase its muItiple.farruly housing inventory for seniors, !ben it must actively support development of those few developable sites :.;ur:h as has been assembled for this project CONSISTENT wrrn COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The proposed project is consistent with the Compreher.sive Plan. Policy 8 of the Housing Element is as foO""" "Encourage and foster a diversity of affordable housing opportunities for senior citiz!!DS, including housing, which may provide. variety of services for speciai health, social and transit needs." The most rapidly grO\\ing segment of the City's population is over age 60. As the Housing Element state;: "Persons 60 yean and older made up over oDe·fjfth of Palo Alta's residents. This population increa>ed from 10,170 in 1980 to 12,811 in 1989; a 20 percent increase. One of the highest concentrations of seniors in Santa aara County is found in Downtowll Palo Alto." The need for the housing op~ion thai The Hamil!on would provide is demonstr'dble within the Palo Alto community. ru things erist !lOW, long time area residents lIl~t leave the community to find this hOUSing option. Policy 1 of the EmploVT1"lem Element is as faHa'W'S~ "'Continue efforts to reduce employment potential implemented with the 1976 Comprehensive Plan and 1978 Zoning Ordmance." Policy 2 af the EmpJovrne.nt Element is as foDows: "Encourage the construction of more housing priman1y on or near industrial and commercial sites.· 5 By eliminating Ibe offi<e bullding< latalling 11,000 feel. emplO)'Il'.ent is red~<ed. The new construction increases housing ncar the Do\vntown c-ommerciii.1 area. Seven! policies of the Transportation Element arc furthered by this project Devolopi,S senior housing near the Downtown reduces occupants' re:uance on transportation by private cat . .... pects of the Urban Desii" Element are furthered by this project. Several, poorly maintaiMd properties are repla<:ed with an archilecmrally spectacular set of buildings of Spanish Colonia! Revival .tyle. This enhance< gateway Gualities at Hamilton p.nd Middlefield. Members of Ill. PlIlo Alto CO!!lIllunity will enjoy the project architecture and point to it with pride. EUBUC BENEFITS Approval of It PC ZONE requires demonstration of public benefits. not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of genera] districts. The project is in keeping wit" the stated goais of the City of Palo Alto 10 reduce the housing imbalance. a. A5 • conditio. to approval of the project, the applicart will provide prior to ocoupancy of the project. 16 BMR RENTAL UNITS which will be owned by the Applicant but will be IldJninim,red by the Pilla Alto Housing Corporation .. low and moderate income unit. BMR Rental Units have been provided for throe olher projects since 1983: Southwood Apartmenl Homes, 1985; 1100 WeIch Rd, 1987; The Mayfield, 1988. Providing these 16 units increase< by over 50% the number of BMR Rental Units in Palo Alto. This is more than twice the BMR contnbutian required of the project under existing ordinances. b. The project directly add< a Det of 31 units (38 "ew unilS los< 7 existing units) of housi:1g to the City of Palo Alto. No other site can provide this many ne~ units without negative ~"3ffic impact Oll ..... c::ighborirJg prope rtie.~. Co The p~ ~Ject eliminates 11,000 square feet of office space o:urrently on the property. OTIffiR PROJECT ADYM'TAGES 1. Average daily traffic volumes associated "With the site will be significantJy reduced. Peak-bour traffic will be reduced as well. This is due to elimination of the 11,000 foot offiC(: build1ng and the fact that senior houstng generates relatively fewer tri~. See the traffic study in Section 4. 2. Initial sales and all successrvc resales of the 38 onsite unitS wl1l generate real estate transfer taxes for the City of Palo Aito General Fund. 6 .-: - ';;-:5"--•• : ; .. f- [, l~ ~ !I ;1 'J ;1 'I I 1 i 1 I .\ -', ' 3. Howing units 'l.¥itlltIl the Palo AltO dty limits which are sold, so that owners can move 10 the HamHlon, Vr11J generate real estate transfer taxes for the City of Palo Alto Genua! Fund. 4. The sale of real estate descnbed in items 3 and 4 WI1] initiate a reassessm.:nt of property "alues by Ih. u,unty Assessor's Office which, in tum, will rais<: property taxes and increase revenues wltich fund aty of Pa1a AltO services, County of Santa Qara cervices and Palo Alto School District ~rvices (among others). Th, general publi~ is a direct ~neficiary 'Or this increased funding. S. The level of on-street parking associated with the ,ir. is likely to be reduced as a result of this project. 6. Then: are no comparable projects (in terms of unit sizes and s,enior amenities) within the City of Palo Alto, Those residents of Palo Alto who opt to mO\'e to a project comparable to the Hamilton currentrj ba\'C 10 kave the community 10 find such a project. This includes many residents who hi.iVe lived the majority of their rives in Palo Alto and have served the community weD. Given the opportunity, they WJll continue their contnbutions to the public's ~nefil 7. The project will replace mting nonconforming uses, which can be descnbed collectively as acchilectUraDy insignificant, with a single project with design men". This will significar.tly improve the appearance and image of the Middlefield/University e:ltraw.e to t.~e City of Palo Alto for decades. 8. The tlet addition of residents ca used by the project will bring revenue to downlClWll merchants. 9, In aD likelihood, the Public Worlc! Depa:tment will require that all of the existing sidewalks be replaced which surround the property. This will benefit aD public users of '.hese sidewalks and will reduce the amount of money required for the replacement of sidev..'alks paid out of the General Fund This will free up revenues 1.0 be spent for ot..1er uses benefiting the public. f'OLlCX QUESTIONS We realize that this project presents conceptual question:; for various land use poticies. As this project seeb guidance from a conceptual revi~r by !he Planning Commission and, perhaps,. the City Council. we request that decision-makers assist us by providing specific analysis of the following issues, 1. RM-40 Desigr;ation. Is the asseml;!led site (51,500 feet) appropriate for a zone change to RM-40 provided the parcels are mcrged into parcels of 8500 fect or greater? [f sa, can tbe applicant cuncurrently prOfcss an RM-40 zone Ghangc and a PC zone: a.pplication? 7 .' -. 2. Height Limit R1I,1-40 limits height to 40 feel The proposed project is be'-'.~ 47 and SO feet laU. Is this site appropriate fo:-heigh! i:1 excess of 40 feet bcc.ause of its location ;. at Llle corner of Hamilton and Middlefield? 3. U& RM-40 allows a 1.0 FAR The propose~ project is 1.83. 1.30 FAR i< for individllBl units aod.53 FAR is for common areas. I, a 1.83 FAR acceptable, if nct, wnat FAR level canoc,upported, given t/:e provision cf adequate pubUc benefit? (fhi> requires consideration of the urtique site characteristics -51,500 feet ·,~ .. ith three street Sides.) 4. Setback. Can setbacks along Hamilton a"d BlTO" be Jess than !O feet and a! MiddiefieJd less than 25 feet at certain points in O!"der to reduce the feeling of =? The issue is wbether reductions of the feeling of the m .... at the building can be mitigated through "'tback exceptions? s. ~ The BMR policy requires a doubling from 10% to 20% of new units when any renla! units are destroyed. This policy was developed to discourage deduction of rental units and replacement with only B few more: total new units. In this casel 38 units will replace a fourplex and 3 owner...occupied bomes. '\Vhere the new project provides such an enormous increase aver tmting housing ,hould the double BMR policy apply? Also, the BMR policy docs Dot recognize any benefit where housing replace. existing office 'pace. In this case 11,000 feet of offir" spaces are being eliminated. Should t.~e BMR poUcy reward eliminations of office .pace? 6. Pubhc BenefiL rn. applicant ",ill prCh'ide 16 BMR Rental Units 8t a total project value for those 16 units of about $1,800,000. A portion of !hi> obligation (about one-1taJf of the units) is required to satisfy existing BMR ordinances. Is !hi> adequate pu!>~c benefit? (It is our hope that th= BMR units will be targeted for senior members of the ro=unity.) 8 -----.... - • BACKEN ARRIGONI & ROSS, Ii\C 9123192 \, ~'" ," I '" , I'J., ",," I • " 1,,,, "'" H,,~t~t' ".1.'1 11".~, '\,., • I "",II i """"" t \ ~ II I '" , W,III·I:71 ~~, II', I II·, II'" HAMIL TON A VENUE PROPERTIES Palo Alto, California BAR #90062 PRELIMINARY ZONING ANALYSIS AlI<1> COMPARISON DenSIty .de + Rear yard Maximum eoght Maximum Total ts ow Total BUil F.A.R. rrin<'I'.II, 11 ..... ~,.r r 1-1.." l.. ... 1 .\1 \ 11."1,,,,1 \ .\" ',:.~", \1 \ I·"" ... \1",1,,-11, IlIII \ "" 10.",1 If ",", ... ,t \1 \ RM·1 ~."j.,,"'" 1'"·",10>",, ( .. " ! ( I, ."d"-,, 11<,1",.1,,,,,_ ",,,,t f,.!" , 11.:,I,,,,!\ .. 1I,,,,,, RM-4 NA 1"1,,, \ \ I .. :',,,111: .• ,,,.1,:, 11119 evised Design .45 DUlAC ; 60 ,I s . sr. 1.5IDU (Resident); 69 Total Spaces (R.siden~ G'Jest & Employee) 4, 1 s. abv. grade 32,993 sf. blw. grade 127,006 sf. total .76 ',-L L: l,' ; -=-: 'I SFP 2 T '" ,-- "",'I',.,,,,!,,,,, .'1", ,~ 1/",. \1 ,I~ •. , " f I j, ,II " "I iJ""!I,, •• 1 "" "',, II, II I''''~ II"". " II tn, ....... '-. 13A(~KEN ARRIGONI & ROSS, INC. HAMILTON AVENUE PROPERTIES Palo, Atro, uhfomia 9111192 BAR /190..162-1 I'LA/IINED COMJ\nJNJ1Y ZONE CHANGE· PHOJEC'f STATISTICS ·",ll sttJljstic~ c.,.~ prellmirla,., Unit Unit Ana Dalc.Area 1st F.lr. A-I l,5n sf 165 sf 1 A·2 1,600 sf 93 sf I B 1,352 sf 81 sf 2nd HI". xd flr ~ 4th rlr , 2 2 I TOTAL 6 3 3 \" 1 '''' , I".,', 1'1. ,. ,"" ~ .. I'·,. "", \I. "~,' II,,,,, 11",1, "'" «,' ~." }, ,"" '" ". I ), 'I I I ~ '" II', '111, 1 ~:' : f" Ii·, I I~'~'\' ,I' _~LT AREA 9,462 sf 4,800 sf 4,056 sf C 1,776 sf 128 sf 3 5,328 sf D 1,000 sf 173 sf E ),735 sf 88 sf F 2,130 sf 173 sf F·I 2,045 sf R3 sf F·2 1,640 sf 173 sf F·3 1,870 sf 173 sf TOTAL GROSS aurLDlNG AREA LEV-cL I GROSS BUILDING AREA LEVEL 2 GROSS B UILDL'IG AREA LEVEL ; GROSS BUILDING AREA LEVEL' B1l!LDING AREA GARAGE TOT.u. GROSS AREA Total D.l', 8 I 2 3 II 2 3 11 36 units 1799 sf 51,500 sf 2 6 3 6 9 36 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 9(),760 sf 33,193 sf 123,953 sf A ve. Unit Size Site Area FAR. 1.76 ·Jncludc ~ grruk sq~rt~o.gr only COVERAGE CALCULA 'CION RESIDENTIAl. AREA 15,730 sf COMMONS 8,268 sf POOL 2.l69 sf BALCO,\1E5 1.055 sf COVERED EXTERlOR SPAC=-E _____ --o.,;--,94.2 sf TOTAL 28,]645[--- COVERAGE 54.7% r';ncip .... 11''''~'dJ l\.d.t".fAr~ ~"'JAI'TI!:,,",.AI"" J~"'~' MHd, .. U. J(!!lA RKhIord D ~ .. rd, A I" 5<-.. "" \ ,cr !',cUd..-"I' I.", f (.I,.mlo,'I, [)c-l;' C" .. n~ 1',"1 r"hN J ",,(Iu,d Le.I,lm J"'''' \ \ 1.,-, l'~,,: r i!.q""leJ, \,,~ 1", .. ,",0"," ~I~,' .!. k,-,,, \\' dll~rr. f I~, ,I:~,,<f Il~""ll"~~1 I" ", ' Ii J,'''~ ..... _"'-'1 \", I." ... • I 1 j i :l ':; , HAMILTON A VENUE I'ROPERTlES, INC. 555 BYRON STREET. rALO ALTO, CA 9BOi October 27, 199."2 Palo Alto Pl&nninq Cornmi~sion CITY OF PALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Ave~ue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: The Ramiltcn Senior Living Community Ea~ilto~ Avenue Between Middlefield and Byron Application for Rezoning from AM-IS to Planned Comrr.unity ,PC) Dear Members of the Planning Commission: "THE HAMilTON' TEL (415) J26·d616 FAX. (4! S) 31i·8i97 We ere s~bmittin9 this letter in re6po~6e to a number of concerns raised at the September 30 Public H~arin9 and in letters from interested citizens. We hop~ that our comments will assist you in your deliberations eoncernin~ our application. As we have presented in ~ur epplication and at the public hearing, our proposal is for a speci~lized seniors' community which, in addition to its physical facilities, vi!l provide intertwined health care programs, social opportunities and nutrition programs for its residents. The objective of The Hamilton is to provide a complete peckage of hOQsinq and services that will ~eet all of the care n~eds (present and future) of its residents4 If a service level cannot be provided on site (i4e. skilled nursing), re~ationships ~ill be formed with ~ther nearby facilities to provi~e the desired service. We have 9rouped a number of concerns raised by our application and our comments in five ge~eral categories co~ering daylight plane, traffic, parking, height and building mass as follows: '1) Daylight Plane Intrusion at Neighboring Parxing Lot: a4 We are prepared to revise our design to eliminate this intrusion and any need for variances. (2) Increased Traffic: a4 If the city so requests, we will initiate a ne~ traffic count on Byron Street. This traffic count WQul~ lead to a revised report by our consultants. Such a report, we believe, would project and even greater reduction in traffic were The Hamilton to be constructed~ b. Our report utilized an average daily trip generation factor of 6.8, typical for condominiurn~. Utilizing a factor of ~.O, more vQlid for a seniors' complex, our project WOQld generate 144 trips per day or 211 trips LESS than existing site uses. r w • • Palo Alto Pl~nning Commission october 27, 1992 Page Two / (3) Incraased Demand for On-street Parking: · ... - a. Exhibit A., attached., compares The Hamilton wit:h other Bay Area seniors' resid~nces~ Please note that our project provides more on-site parking in every category than twenty other similar projects researched~ Given the City's strict requirements for visitor ana employee parking, The Eamilto~ should not usurp on-street parking spaces. b. We are wo:kinq with Webster House to develop specific programs involving the sharin9 of the services of a number of e~ployees. Such joint arrangements, ~her. put in place, ~ill ~ignificantly redoce the need for e~ployee parking as projected by Cit}· staff. (4) Seight of Proposed Buildings: a. The sloping 'tiled roofs ... ·hich give the building its' appropriate character do, indeed, increase its height. High point5 are set back from the edges of the building, however, lessening the feeling of mass. b~ We have teken care to reduce building heiqht adjacent to and across the street fr~ our neiqhbors on Byron and on Ramilt~~. Such revieions also will enable us to conform with applicable daylight plane re~irements. {S) Mass (as measured by FAR): a~ The proposed Fk~ is approp~iate to the site in an urban de£igr. context. The project will lend symmetry to the area wh'ch is now somewhat dominated by the -Lytton Gardens Block·~ b~ Since the site is boroered on three siees by streets, the potential impact on neighbors is greatly reduced~ c. SetbackS, the courtyard, lower building tleights in key areas, landscaping ar.d architectural style all combine to lessen the feeling of mas& which FAR is expecteo to Dleasure~ As you know, we have gaineo the support of a significant majority of homeowners in the area of our property. We feel that this support will he broadened as oor neighbors learn more about The Hamllton. And we hope that ~he points made in this letter will address many of the concerns of other interested members of the corruttunitY4 i I. • i I .; I Palo Alto Plannin9 Commission OCtober 27 I 1992 page 'Three .~ -'''' /C-- We respectfully request that the Planning commi6~ior. approve our application in concept. We feel that we hav~ been responeive at every step of the way to concerns expreEsed by staff end other interes~ed partjes~ leading to a we11-desiqned project that will enhance the entrance to the downtown area. The F.amilton will result in public benefit by the addition of l~ BMR units to the City's lower income rectal hou~inq stock and will add housing for seniors which is not otherwise 6vailable in Palo Alto. Your favorable consideration of our application will be greatly appreciated .. IIMULTON AVENUE PROPERTIES. INC. James B. Bill~ Presidect iF 111 ". j rACltlff \'t~lnl <)"1( t""c r'9. ''i'': IUJ 1 \" ~(1)1I11~ 'CIIIOI.A J\ 'fM.lf1 Y1IIltUMD. I{]~VI)OII \n",.,,~ .. g.-es) '(II!'~tA.' ~"" Mol(O ("'I''Ig. jqt-19) Note: Among all t'>enior residential projects in the np,y ~rea The Hamilton proposes the hi9hest ratio of parking RpaC~8J (a) asslgned per unit (~.44); tb) in t.otal per unit (2~OJJ; (c) for gUf!l9ts per unit (0.3), And (..1) for employ~ea per unit (0.17). (In H.~ditiot\ t.o thoae vroject-B summarized belo~. we have J.nveotigatf'd I1nother eleven senior residont.L .. l projectB. Making ~or\!H!rvat,ive al1f)Wltofl(~P8 for nUTsing lind i.ntflnnediate care faciLity parking, they all have lesR pad.::ing per unlt. t.hl'ln any or the ninE' projectB shown.) III!)(PllllnJ ll'WtG UllIn 37 <26 (tot. 1 2')41 )00 (Zl1 IKCllp1l!d) 207 (totl! 7111 TASLE 4, PARKING COMPARISOM or SENIOR RESIUEHTIAL PROJECTS 1IIfI(I'tllD(IH ltnUlf.llls, 45 180 (tot.l )1,)} 400 haroJ.ctr.lil 180 (tot,,1 3001 P-Atl(fllG ASSIGII£D fn I[\UX:ln. 18 liZ 300 (,lrojKud} 15) ,., .. ASSljjij(6 m UI'(fi£tI lOT UfIIrT 0.76 O.S l.0 1.2 l111AL ,NllUHi Uln'S 32 (.~~) 261 (, .• <) 324 ( •. 0.) 218 ( .. ,.) """ ,..1116 lJIllS. 3 (., unl (o,ot» 30 (o .• t) 8 (o.ol) 11 (MI.) UI'lCW([S' '.-:1", 'llin o (,,"") GO N.~. v~rtes e (O,D~) 1.MA. .... 'w-a'Ift.III(.£" 'MU.' I I r"'L01'[~S I*IIS I C 6 ",.11· 59 11~ J p"'. 11~ 16 ! 36 full-I"· o !IID Ilnt·,,,,,, ,nd 'vII' .,~ lS I ••• ~ I .... ''''.... 10 IOc;, Ii) I 1.0 \1.0 \~ '8' : v,"",., " ("' •• ,,~.) _I ,(,.+)~ (,,~,J (o,to) (0,1" I :n'~ !, n,. t' ,~ I '10 ,,~ 1.0 110 1'-8 2.1 t-:., ,i ~I;: .. rnll"l'F-".,O ..... .. ... i _ ('1 : (~, ...... _}.o) ___ , _~~~:~~ _______ ~_~~ _ (j,b") (l'I."z+) (o_I'JJ i i A!~ I c; ..... ,T"t-O ' 7 I "'jZ I '<. .... ~ 38'1.. 510 18t. 1,0 '\-1'>'1-4<> 1.() 40'. 0) ~ :--__ ("","~f..t.'UO) (I.I~" u.u.) (0.10) (o.o~) ~ !, In 100 f'~ I' I 5n "J~ ~'\1 ?'C(",) (I.,~) (o,n) (0,«) ,. ,., 7) I I~ ~~~, (1.,.1) (o:~, (001') I I > ';;;~ 1 I"", ,.nu~! 11 ~ I 41.0 I' ;l~ 1 I (jllfl."l-.LT'l.I) l=~~j I-~~---~'l~'=~~' F'"==" ! TW. :H Sf') S1.' 1·++ 1 ~~:'~ :'_:~L _. ~ ___ L~~~~~~:.~_ ~ ___ ~J_ ~ __ l 1.1.. r; &.1\~ ~I"'-" ( ) 1 .... "ll-'lr~' ~p,,(.{,,( Ptdl Ul,lIr.lr, wAJ''( *-Ie Ih,j.. u .... 11\ q111f"'~O t,,,u.£ .... fll/l I\r~ .. "",. Tn tJf("n,. .... T(. ~ \-'-, " '" r~ Ivl ct, ~ , J~' , ..... j I-I o ',.' .. : ,~' ~'·~0, ,<j', • October 28, 1992 Planing Commission City of Palo Alto 8011 250 Hamilton Avenue Polo Alto, California To Whom it May Concern: : L! GBT SOrRCE I am wntIDg this letter to express my concern. regaI<llng the ·Planne<! Community Zone" being considered at 536-576 Middlefield Road. I am a home owner resident at 536 Fulton Str«t which i. 112 bl<>ek due east of thi. proposed development. I bave been al this address for over seven yean. I bave two major conC«Ds: 1. The bulk of th~ project as proposed is excess!" and complelely out Of character for Ihe neighborlwod I live j" .. This pan of Palo Alto is a ttansitiOD zone of ,ingle family homes. condombiums, apartment bnildings and office building •. As a cose in point. I Ii ve aero.. the street from • condomininmfaparunont boilding and dire<:t1y behind an office building that fronts Middleficlfd. What mak"s this "corridor" work is the &mall scale (two stori .. or less) residenti.Bl feeling of all the buildillgs. I find the ,;'sual atmosphere pleasant and nol inlruolve. I enjoy wh ere I live. The size of the proposed proje<:1 would forever change this visual atmosphere and op,el the delicate balance in the neighborhcod. Tbe building is tOO :all and will caS! sh.,dows in the neighborhood. Put simply this project as proposed will be an immense intrusion on the lives of the surrounding residents and completely oot of character for a neighborhood composed of single family homes and small apartment buildings. \ -'"'---... _-- . , " tIGHT S Ot1!:CE 2. Th~ proposed density of ,h~ project will compound and aggravate an already seriou.s traffic and paricing pr""bl~m.. During the business day, FulliJn Street where J live between Hamilton and University Avennes and Hz.m.illiJn Street from Fulton to Middlefield is frequently jammed with daily parkers from the surrounding bUAinesses and medical t"Uldings. If [ come home early in the day. I often ean', find a parking space on the street. Many of the cars are the same each day and many of the pe cple parrug seem to go to the surrounding medical buildings ( a Jot of white unllonru; observed.) In addition Fulton Street is a short cut between University. Hamilton and F<>rest Streets. Can zoom up and down the street trying to avoid stoplights or simply to get over to the next street. 36 new residential units in a area zoned for 18 units will compound a tip! traffic situation. Parl:ing will become • n.ightmare. The project i. too big and to dense for the area. I urge denial of the project, confirm tb. acceptability of the RM· 15 ZODe and fo ..... ard the project to the City Council. Sineerely. C~- Timothy Dese amps 536 Fulton Street Palo Alto. Californ;a 94301 -;Z'j-18'10 LAW.t:lFFICU. CRIST, GRlFFITHS, SCHl,;LZ B: BlORS- _"IIIG....,.,...,-r"'1 IOCloIICI'" It SC;"U"",, ",..,.. - ~PI" ....... ~DI ~'.-"[ -.,. "U,-' october 28, 1992 Palo Alto Planning commission CITY OF PALO AT~TO 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ." RE: The Hamilton Senior Livinq co .. unity 651 Hamilton Avenue 535-576 Miadlefield 523-575 Byron Street Dear Members o~ the comafasion! On beha1f of Haailton Avenue Properties, Inc. (-Applicant-), I would like to aubmit this letter in support of Applicant's application for a Planned Community Zo~e Chanqe (.pc Zone") for the above-referenoed parcels. This matter is before the Planning commission for conceptual review and conaiaeration of the issues set forth in detail in Applicant's Program Development statement and Staff Report of Septe!lber 25, 1992. Both the StatAel"lt and Report address the speci~ics of the project, and the purpose ct this letter is to daveloPI in a more general senee, so~e of the concerns which I have discussed with ~y of you personally and with the staff, and have raiseQ at the public hearing. As you are aware l this project will provide thirty six new housing units for seuiors in a residential living community, includinq services and facilities required for this ty?e of living arrangement~ rhe necessity for inclUding the facilities essential to senior living, combined with the desire of Applicant to provide a type of housing which is not now available in Palo ~to, has necessitated this request for a PC Zone. This project is uni~ue and will add to the housing mix and provide an opportl..mity for many seniors, who would otherwise leave Palo Alto to seek this type ot housing J to remain in the community~ ... CRIST. OllJI'"FITaS. SCHU1.% • .!' :.N Palo Alto Planninq Commission OCtober 28, 1992 pa ... _ TVa RE: RaaJ.lton senior Living co_unity The analysis provided with the application illustrat •• the l1eed tor a PC Zone since no other zone is available under the present zoning regulations Whicb would enable this project. to 90 forward. The PC Zone requires tha.t the Planninq Ca.misaion make a find1nq, among others, that the "developaent o! the &it •..• will re$ult in public benefits not otherwise obtainable by applici!I'_tion of the r~qulations of qeneral districts or coabininq di.tricts.· DUe to the lack of a zone in Palo Alto which would give the flexibility to 4evalop a houling project or this nature, an applicant and the Planning Cozaisaion are placed in the position Of trying to juatify the granting ot a PC Zone by determining that the public benetit i. adequate in each case. It is unclear in the Code if the individual development must have inherent public Danefit or if ita oowpletion will r~sult in the pUblio benerit. Palo Alto has seemed to accept the l~tter definition, and I also share the opinion ~~.t especially in the case of additional bousinq, if the development will result in some pUblic bene~it to the community, that it should qualify a8 appropriate tor a PC Zone des!gnationa In this case, Applicant has worked with staff to develop a program. for providing-a total of fourteen BMR UDi~: 7 for the BMR component of the project, an~ 7 additional BKR units to be utllizeo:i ide.ally :tor senior . housing at a location and of a type of housing which must be approved by the city council. In addition, Applicant bas made it clear that it wishes to work with staff, the Housing Corporation, or other similar ~ies to e~lore creative ways to b~ &ble to ~ossibly p~ovide additional units fer the same equivalent cost. This benefit clearly recognizes the need in ~is community of many of our seniors for affordable housin9 and will be of immediate, direct assistance to the BKR proqra., give immediate revenue to the Houa1nq Corporation, ~ypa5s a len~1Y acquisition process, and ulti~ately be of qreater economic ~enefit than a direct payment. Althouqh discus$ions to date have focused on BMR rental units, Applicant has also ~een in preliminary discussions with other senior qroups to aevelop mutually beneficial ways that the senior programs ~igh~ be Assisted in perpetuity through the providing of f~nds from the project to endow or underwrite certain programs that other.ise might be CJlI~. OBlPTITBS, SC.lftlLZ "E! :Jo( Palo Alto Planninq Commission October 28, 199. Pag-e Three RE: Bamilton Senior Living community eliainated. In this way, large numbers ot seniors in this co .. unity are directly aided through leveraginq seea funding combined with .aintaining and expanding existing and new progr~. Applicant is open to turther discussi~n and 4iraction tro. the Planninq Commission or staff on the issue of pUblio benefit. The opportunity for providing benefits to the co .. unity through this process are widely varied a~d open to creative and imaginative thinking with which Applicant is willing to partIoipate. In sumaary, I feel that the project deserves the support of the Planninq commission. It is an excellent design, well thouqht out to serve its target population, will be a positive a4dition to that looation, proYi~es an t..ediate and lasting public benefit, and i •• quality project of which thi. comaunity will be proud. Thank you tor your consideration o~ this matter~ SWP/blc CC: Jill> Hill Kennith Schr"ber Director of Planning lind CoIIlmuruty Environmt.llI City of Palo AltO Palo .4Jto. CA 94301 Re: "The ~on" development project Dear Mr. Schreiber, Ttm Litldholm Lucy Ann Ga)'lorn 623 Middleficld Rd. Palo AltO, CA 94:.01 (415)321~~ 27lkro bu ! 992 "'" iol ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ill) IN (Ie T ~ 7 1992 OEPAR TMENT OF ?L.o.NN ING CITY OF PALO ALTO Our home is less than balf a block from the site of the proposed' dev~opmeru ~The HaIililton". AlIhough we do GOt generally object to a seniors' J'e'sideni:e at that location, we tb.i.nl:: that there are compelling rcasom why this development must DOt proceed as it is currently COllCt:ived.. The points thai we consider most significam: L Density and cballgcs to zoning 2. Effects cn park:ing and traffic 3. Hardships caused by CODStru.ctiOD Density and Zoning It is well documented that Ibe Hami1ron~ is of a size that will require maja" changes. in the zoning of its site due to its lot coverage, number of u.ojts, heigh! anti .FAR h\.~ greatly to excess of wh3t is permitted by the current R\1-15 zoning. We think thjs is by far the major objec:i.on to the deveiopmeru.. both because of its fundMleru.a.i and irrevocable t:b.ange to the neighborbood aD.d be<.:ause the densiT) of the developmeru det:rmiJles its effectS on parki..cg and trafiK:. aud disruption during construction.. As is poi:oted out in the Planning Colllmission staff repon. if the develcpmeru were locate.(! at the other end of the h!ock. its proposed densit), might be more appropriate. However 8 struCl.W'e ofthls size !U the proposed site c.ertai.Dly does not maimain the tr!L.'lSition from high density to stngle-familty residellC'.e which is the current functi')o of tt.e Midillefield-Hamilton C'ea and the recommendation of the Draft: Urban Design Plan. The developers of "The Ham.llton~ coosldcr the proposed density essential 10 the projCC! If the intended level of common serdces and facilities are to be S1.ipponed That mayor may not be true. bu[ we do nor ch:ink that th.a! argues for the P1a.nning Commission to grant extreme zoning exceptions. The deve1cyecs are intelligeIll Uldividuals whQ chose to / Page 2 purchase this site a. its;;urrem zonlng. and could have proJdently chosen to ile .. ign [0 tLc site, Oearly rbcy c!l.dn't have mur:b res~., for !oech 4 DOtiOn, as tile .moum of Ilme and mooe)' spcDI designing a buUdj.cg iaappropri<I!e for the. site attests, The developers do recognize that deJl5it) is I serious issue with their projea, but dive:; respom:tbilit)' by ary.u.in& that additiooallllnd adjactm to the 'pro~ site is Dot availa'oh:. If a development J..i.t:: '-rb.e Hamilton" Ls desirable for Pale Alto then let's find a suitable sire; bowev~. the :P.lannjng COmnaissiC'D and city should not bail developen. OUi Of IOUgh $pOlS or suboptimal ilIvestments ilt the expense of existi:cg tesl,jent:s and the pl.ann.ing process. A cI:wlge from RM-lS to PC wiling foc !:he site could also have SeriOllS con.\C.qUeoces for the furure develoymem of our neighborhood. If "The Hami1ton~ is trecteo in (il:i.t. form or anotbcr, it is liJa:ly [0 set or contribute to a prccede.n.r for the redevelopment of ocher ~\{-15 prope:r..ies 'West of Mlddlefield ano1 so'Uth of HamUton.. With the proposed chani.~. might the wnina; of these: other properties also be considered to be ~flexIble" in the future? We do Dot want our Un)' (RM-l) boose to face a. PC development the S~2.e of "The Hamilton" ten yea.'"'S. f.'ilDlllOlll'l TraffIC and Parking Otbt::rs h.!-"'c pointed OUt thai Byron Street i~ narrow and opens on. e:thu end imo 00.'»' Hem:ilton and University AVeIlIJes. We share the concern that adding traffic load to Byron is unsafe and question tbe traffic .stUdy t!w shows 00 i.ncrease iD. tra..Ffic 0:1 Byron as a result of "The Hamilton". One related issue that we have not seen raised is Uat rome of the residents of "The Hamilton". as s::mors, may be less pronC:..eDt driven than 4veragc. Poor eyesigh!: could lead w accidents negotiatiIli narrow Byron., and s:.ower reaction timet c..owd make turning omo UnivetSity or Hamil:tOIl nun~. A site offering better visrDility and a smoother transition into traffic would be safer for alL To the: extc:ll!: that residents do decide not to drive IUld have desti.oatiOll5 that. can"t be w8ll.:ed to (e,g. a gtCJCeJj' s:l:ore). their cars would be rep~ by tax.is, delivery vehicles, and the: C4[~ of sen.'ice people" (Elderly r-eop!e who can .afford million-dollar condos will probablj' not bOJ: a bus 011 Universi(;y!) Becau.se fewer tas.k::s would be schlcve:d per vehicle oc Byron as sei ..... ice·givc:rs replace resident dri'"ers, traffic wouJd i..oc..rea..><e more th.an the llumber of rcs.idePlS would suggest There is DO bc:tIer a!Iernative to eatering and exiting via Byron, as Hamilton, Middlefield or UnivetsiIy would mal:e even. worse ICC".tians for traffic triJ.n.<;i (ions Should the traffic problems be partially dealt ~lh by, for instance:, creation of a turn lane: between B}TOn and HamiltOll, Ulis will further cut into available parking and ino'ease lot coverage. Many existing users of B)TOn Street have arguo:1 that parking: in that area is already inadeql.ia::e for their crees. Que JiSSClltl.nG voice at the September ~O PlAnning meeting argued [Q the c::)Dtrary. but it turned out she had been parking across the suw in the developers· parking lolr We c-ena.inly wouldn't park: in someone'slot withOUT knowing we • .. ooldn't be Im',oo. at least if we had ample OD-Street .alternatives ,-------.-..,.. ---,.----- T1 Octobor 1992 Page 3 We agreed with a poinr brough.c up at the P.l.a.a.aing meeting on the psychology of undergrouod parking: We cormany assume that underground parking (apan from that at posted public par:kiIl8 g;uages) is ~'o.1. and as casual visitors wouid not attempt 10 park: th!:e. If underground parking is inteLded [0 be residenl·only, tbCrJ the five above-grooM ",iSlor/servlce spaces seem quite inadequate. Tbe current mix or re.'iick~ and oIfices or small businesses tends to sta,ge parking .req.lin::[MIJt!:: during the aay, residents might be away at: wale. so office<. can us: those spots without fDcooveniCD.Cini resid .. ,ms. At the end of the: day the offices close and Byrne Street rcsi.:1ents rctun; for the night. to a relatively quiet nei:ghborhood. A large residential developmem for retired people will im:rease traffic mere evenly as prople participate in activities or recei)lC services day an.d night The resuil would r-e mCX'e COtl!ClltiOD for parki!J.g during tho busi=s day an.l for B)'I'Oll residents in "'" eve:ling. Comtruction 'Iba:I the construction of 8 dc\'eIopmem the :slze cf "TIle flamilton· will cau.se noise. din a.nd disruption in proportion EO its size l.!; i.oevitabIe. It ~ill e.xa.cerhau: the ~g traffic and parting probIf'P..IS Iloted previously. Fi.o.aIly, the high sit: coverage of the development .. ...... iz;aves l.ittle space for vehicles ;;00 macb:i.oely, wll:eoe a developrneru: with less lot coverage migh! coma.in its activities 'beaer. As it i5. the COllstrnctioD will tend co spm into the street,. cause mae abrupt and unsafe en.traIlces and exits to tbe site. aDd take more time. Conclusion A development like "The Ha..cri1t.on" may fill .a need for high-end housing for our commwtity's setriors. We. are co:: capable of j'J.clging that, but i.hin.k. that if such a need is rccogcizeditsiJouldbemet However, it is not enough to ao:ldress 011; Deed w~t.bout consideration of a wider COntexl; ime,grariOIl with c1!)' development guidelines (including those fO!"m8li2.eQ by zoning). comparability with existing oses. and eifett; 00 "'" neighborbood. The PUIJlO5" of the planning process is to ellSUre thai each developmem is R:levant and appropriate, not separately. but i.n its rorucxt. As we've argued. "The HamiltoD~ does !lOt meet the oiteriOD of appropriateness within ;rs comext, being too big fOf the s.i!e. out of ;:haracrer w~lh me De:ghborhood, and obuusive to current residents. If me development ;,;owd be scaled doWIl to a size consistent v..'ith the Imt::Ddcd zoning of the 5ite and uses that the .site realistically pe:mlts. we v.."OUld \VelcoillC its attractive archir:ecture and irs senior residents. Until then. we u-rge you to conclude that "Good design caWX>t overcome the negative impacts". Thank you for reading a long lerte.r! Your> tru1 y. ----....... ,.;,,, ......................... ---- • I ~ ". ·it fi J -;C· •. MRI ~ RfSi.~RCH .... , ... 0 TRA!, ..... ,!, .... 'G [,,,,',STift. If I'OR THE :~"';Tf~L"C:rrO\'''L STL'OY OF iHE ("'DI'.'iDcA!.. ;'"Hi (,-\,\110' .4, .... '0 (i-IE CO,\,I,\IL',".IT'l' Mayor and Members Palo Alto City Council 250 Hamilton A\'e~ Pelc, .\lto~ 0. 94301 Oct. 27, '19-92 -. Re: Proposed Planr:sd Coml!'.u:1':'tJ on ~.iddlef Lela-Ranil ton Ave ~ -Byror:. Dear Mayor and COUI1_cil J1emb-er's. I am writing in opposition to the above propased prcje::t. '1:-int.en-st:s are as a pr.afessionsl 'lr'h.ose 'lr'od( rill be ser-iou.sly ir.terfeore:d .... ith as :..'er i as 5eopOl.!'dizin"g t.he .... elfare of tIlJ patients. ~oreso. I am a resident of Palo A!to a.'1d am concerned about the impact suc:" a project would ha~'2 en ::l:e quality of life fo!" the city no .... and even gr~ater. for the fut.ure. r am a psychiatrist and researcher ""ho has beer.. at t.",e currei'lt-lccatior. for the last ten J~ars. It is directly across from the prcpas~~ s:te of t~is planned community. My office fronts on :1iddlefi-eld Rd. and ::.l.e nat;.l!"e of my ... ork .... ith patients requires some modicum of pri-"acy 8r'.d (J.uie::. A th!"ee or four storey edifice W'o(lld r~quir.e closing the d::-a?es during t:"E: €"ltl-re da:r and t~e additional noise of increased traffic to ar.d i::c. a~d ou:: of t~,e planned COm!:!un ity would bring noise lel,lels abave reascnable. levels since this _oelld be i:t addition to cur:-e-r-.t traffic alone; Middlefidd. 7he one ra ':OiCo years cE requ.ir ed construction 'Io'ould effectively end r1y p-ractl.ce at the curre~t location. This is in ad~itioo to the aes~hetic changes resultl.ng from a block:ng out completely of any .. ie ... · of the sky as "ell as sUClli g .... t i::se:: tr.rougb ~u(.." of the day. riore i[jJ?ortantly, the erection of sucr. a ~rS'ject. :':1. its size and heig:-tt, al'ui location, ... ·oUJd c0mpr~Se = stra.tegic s:ep in ::'1'': ult:'rr.a::;: ur":la".izat-:cn of Palo Alto. The city has li::i:ited higr-J-:-ise =-tr'-,c:~:--es t-.c t~.e ir;'~'2Ciate do' .. n~o\o". ar~a and for purt"Qses sui~ed to that ;O.:-ea: the City Eel.l 3.:".d businesses. :-':; bring hign-der-.sity housing no' .. ' to the res::'dent:al areas "'ou.:d be, I belin'e. settirlg the death-knoll of the leisu:rel.y and inforrnal pace ",·r.len has charact erized the town. At the very least. if the Council is .~11ing tQ sec in moticn a lIIove COIo'arc ur-bani:!.:a-cion, j t should be f:x T.:'€: ~eCle:':'t :;f pee'ple · .. 'hose i:-.c,jm€s C!O noc a11o .... the 0pticflS 'Of the,se able tc afford millio::: dollar housi!".g. Palo Altc's strength and attractiveness has depended on d;;'-.'ers:'q· of people! and ideas. I believe that changing the to:"\e to accornodate the s;;per c:fflu~nt wou1.d ser-- 10usly alte!r the vitality of the Cicy. r urge yo~ not to apprQve-this dra4tatic change .i.:-. cur to'l.'fl. cc: Palo Al ta Flann~ng Corr.rnisSl.or; - Respectfully s~bm~t~€d. R1c~a:-d fis=h. M.D. Senior Research F,;<lc",: ME-....T-'lJ,. ilE5E,"JKJ-1 Ir"5TI;~n 33, M,dd' ... ;,~I;i ROik" "~ic' ..,Jlr) '-~.l;,rrnn,.1 ".l~O· ... :; Jl!·'l,~'i; ;:~x ' .. 15 :~~_i r rr .. . . "-,..- Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenoe Palo Al ~o, C. 94301 -. ":,. RE: 651 H~ilton Avenue project Octo!>er 26, 1992 Dear Sir.,$ -,' " ~ -.,.. ... / ... -."'., .... I am concerned about the real problems that the ccnstruction end existence of the proposed development on H~ilton Avenue, Middlefield Ro~d, and Byron Street bring to our neighborhood. The following items are the reason for my concern: 1) Construc~ion to last about 3 years noise dust traffic problems 2) Additional traffic once constructed from tha 36 residents, their visitors and service people. 3} More parking problems to add to an already impossible parking situation within the immediate area, 4) Increase in noise level -large service vehicles' quick stops -taxis -amhula."'1ces 5J This 4 etory building will be large, dense, ovc.n.7helming, and out of place in this neighborhood. 6) The developers are requesting the City of Palo Alto to double the numbe:r of u •• its ;:or~ed. for tl'lis azea. They are p=oposing: Currently the zoni~g allows for 18 units -Their plan is for 36 units -Maximum height allowed is 30 fee~, -Their plan is for 50 feet, -The allowed coverage is 35%, Their proposal is far 55%_ Allowed floor area is 25,750 sg ft. Their plan is for 90,760 sq ft 7) These units are in total contrast to the character of the quiet and narrow Byron Street -A situation the City of Palo Alto would usually reject. B} This buildir.-; will affect several adjacent streets: Middlefield, Hamilton! University, Fulton! Byren, Cowper/ and others as traffic and parking spillover to the~_ 9) We can expect a decrease in our property values because we will not be able to enlarge our own properties since that development . i· • " . will have added so much density to our area already. 10) This busy area, with its .omet~e~ quiet moments, will h8ve an increased noise and population problem 24 hours a day/7 days a week. ~l) This development will brin9 no benefits to o~r neighborho~d as it is presently proposed. These developers are not concerned about our neighborhood. They are not willing to scale down their current plans to the existing buildinq codes that we must adhere to. We need to insist that the developers follow the curre!lt z':lninq requirements. We must remind the City of Palo ~to Planning Commission that their job is to ensure that all cJtizens are represented and considered. h:e/CI ~,;.c/L[St/ F<Oi th Ii. Briqel I. (/;-'/:;) 32 6-.2 530" , SlI B)'T"" StIr< [ Palo AIla, C&lifimtia 94301 Ortober26,lm w. "'" ckntisls who m>iIllain ow pmcti"" 01 S Illlyr"".t Lbiv<rslly who"," p.n 'Wll<l'S of Ilns bvildiIlg and the building.' 680 Urivonoily Ave,"", We arc writing .. garding the prop<>s.d SCM N'lndomjnjmn proje Q on Hr.millon be tween Mi~1ield and Byrou. Wt have v:e we d the atdIi!< ctmol =doting:; Illd no ad mud! of the """ pectu.., W. lind the proje d wen de signed anrl hI it woWd be a Ul:D'ltndous improvement ~r the old build.m~ 8Jld. holne-t that no .... ~::W t OS! the project .iI<. We k,l the Ovtrall design blends wen WillI the <1isting .troa=, in the ""~ It app<"'" !hat the dndop<IlI IilId IIldlitcdJ hs"" be<n .... itrve (0 the priv.cy ofLhe ""~ lI<;Pbo!>, !'<ter Ge'l'hoide, D.D ,S, ~-Steven Kener, D,D.S ....... _ .. :e " '~ . ') . / .. Kenneth Schreibe~ Director of Planning and Community Environment City of palo Alto 250 aamilton Avenue Palo Alto, Ca 94301 RE~ 651 Hamilton Avenue project October 26, 1992 Dear Sir, • .. :--<~ - I am concerned abou~ the real problems that the construction and existence of the proposert development on Hamilton Avenue, ~ddlefield Road, and Byron Street bring to o~r neighborhocd. The following items are the reason for my concern: 1) Construction to last about 3 years noise dust traffic problems 2) Additional traffic once constructed from the 36 residents, their visitors and service people. 3) More parking problems to add to an already ~possible parking situation within the immediate area. 4) Increase in noise level large service vehicles' quick stops -taxis -aro.hulances 5) This 4 story building will be large, den!e, overwhelming, and out of place in this neighborhood. 6) The developers are requesting the City of Palo ~to to do~blE the number cf units zoned for this area. They are proposing: Currently the zoning allows for 18 units -Their plan is for 36 units -MaxLmum height allowed is 3~ feet. -Their plan is for 50 feet~ -The allowed coverage is 35%. Their proposal is for 55%. -Allo~ed floor area is 25,750 sq ft. Their plan is for 90,760 sq ft --.,"'". 7) These units are in total contrast to the character of the quiet and narrow Byron Stre~t - A situation the City of Palo Alto would usually reject. 8) This building will affect several adjacent streetst Middlefield, Hamilton. University, Fulton, Eyron, Cowper, and others as traffic and parking spillover to them. :t<- : .;.~~~ ? v .. 9) We can expect a decrease in our property value! because we will not be able to enlarge our own properties since that development will have added so much density to our area already. 10) ThL~ busy area, with its sometimes quiet moments, will have an increased noise and populat:Lon problem 24 hours a day/1 days a week. 11) This development vill bring no benefit.s to au:::-neighborhood as it is presently proposed, These developers are not concerned about our neighborhood. They are not willing to scale do~~ their current plans to the existing bulldinq codes that ¥e must adhere 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 ensure that all CitIzens are represented and considered. ;(-£ t?!d/71(cf:':Cyj Faith W. Briqel / (1f)") 52?-233C" • ..~ I ~1 ~! p :-J ~J october 25, 1992 Mr. J(en SChreibe:r Director of ?lanning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 200 Hamilton Ave~ palo Alto, California 94301 Dear Mr. Schreiber: The below membere of the Palo Alto Dental Group, located at 511 Byron, have several concerns regarding the proposed Hamilton Senior Living c~mmunity. First, we are not opposed to the development of this property. If designed properly, the project could e~hance Palo Alto. We do object to the size of the project. The size and density of the project will certainly increase parking r~Jirements in OUr area. OUr group maintains two parking lots for patients only (no doctors or statf) at 511 Byron and 530 Middlefield Road. Because of the lack of available street parking, our lots are frequently overflowing. These lots are often used and abused by non-dental patients from the Brauer Medical Building, Lytton Gardens, MRl, etc. The Hamilton project does not provide adequate parking for guests, emplo-jees and auxiliary help. Our lots would certa.inly be abused by these peopJe. 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 apparelit. At this point, the city will have little choice but to eliminate a significant amount of street parking OD Byron. The city woul~ thee have an even greater influx of street parking on the surrounding residential arEas~ Finally, from an esthetic point of view, ~ have conce=ns that the size a.,d height of the project • .'ill overwhelm the area. A more downscaled proposal may not enhance the developers profit margin, but it certainly would better serve the needs of. Palo Alto. Sincerely, John E. Tabor, DDS Peter ~asenCh~DS ----.... -.,.. .... it:I .. 108rr ...... , .... , ___ ~ __ .. My primar~ conte-rn is t.rrelt e prOj2ct of f}ifs sizl? will m~h~ '-' Siglllficen:t impact on the p)rkjng ::::rtuljt!on 1 n the lr.lrn8di;j!.e c:~e.::. T~'; 3 A spoke::::person fo~ the p:oject st,~l.ed thet S~n;~I'-rE'tire:""~'Ent corl'oominiurns require rrllJre en2ill:::r~ h~lp th~,! other conclomi"i:...:i'tl-:-_ .. rlrC':-e This pr(lpo~.ej pn:.:se~lt. irr:ree'~',e end further futL:re i:-,:':TE'B::·8: if: p~~-kl ,:~ requiraments i'5 ir; tf, tfe.t WhE'iP. pre'BBnt. parking n~eljs o;"e nn L'::~r,g mEt. The peopl:e ¥,'~ID (:~:rl efforc· 1.Q li 'te in this cor;ipl,e:~ will tE 'i'18,:-Hr,v. acU',o'6 en:j most likely t',';'[i (·15.r c:Jllp1e-s. The~-efore th~-prC?'J2e'd p.c:n-:In~ fer .:'i!I> .. "'U' very best. neigh~or i.e. to Ctl.:::;e the I€';;::·t ~<'%Itile r.e;.:;:~',·,; I~':r~·:~. ;~ tr~ffic o~d perking C'3ngestjo~. I de cffere propo:3~1 th:5t could 'Cf.):: gre~t dee! tCI',','cr"c ~~l~",.'i~ti~l; this par'..:ing problem" At the north edge of tt>? proposed condom:r;i;;:-r'1 P:-(:.It?ct ;": our parkjng lot, 5::::J Middlefield Road Ad.1'~CEi"lt at 5~t4 111jljlfiield Ro~(l ; . .= the ·Ptoh ~Oljse-· It is m~ ui!Derst.endlng t~f.;t. Pt~rj m.,~ tie ~ mcti'7'etEc seller et ttl~ prEs6'rJt time, M~ 3ugf;e;stion is tMt th~ Ple.n:"liilg C(!rll~·itS:::1(,;; get thB inter-e-sterj partiEs together to di 5:::_,53 the purch::.se of tnf ·Pt~h" porcel b~ the de',l~loper::, 1;nd e S\flfjD G~ U!"e pf;:'.pert~ fer tr:-e-e:<i:::.~.lril~ pei¥ing lot et 5?,1) MiddlBfieid F-:lJ~d The Pte;~ t'CIJ2f CGulc' "'~;E'i1 t'~ demolisned tl~ the deyelopers and U"!2 pr-[!pei-ty pa'/eo for-;:; P,:J"~:.in; Tot Tl',e condominium c,]rnple't( [.'OIJ1C then ttk?-0'· .. '£, trH? I?:,(l-:.t!~i:; :~! Of. 5::,( Middlefield os the-if ~,ri'nt.-e g-;"oull'': Je'~!21, ~' .. ~ri:'_ing let PGrt ~,f U"Jis ;1~~"Tf"i COL:ld 'evert tle t:"OrTClwed to Pic>\'ide tl;rn-a:-our,d sp~,:e for their ~,E,...v;ce drivewa~. • "!-,-., Contrast this witt-: the-f1idI11e(te:lj Po~d E'le'~'atwl1 of L~ttc~': C,.:-n;l-:n':, i·j,:,tt' tho-t thE' four ~torles Df l·~tton Gorcer.~ .~;-e twoh?n r.:~ b~ i~;c>:'nt~t1cl"':'':, " I . .1 M RI .... RH£I\RCH AND rRII,I~INC !N5TiTl'Tf fOR THE J,'yTfR!.CrrOI'.'.A.L STUD'" Of THE INDIVIDL:"'C THE rA.MIi..'f liND THE CQ ..... 'Ml)l ... 'In' ;i~ October 7, 1992 Planning cOEmission city of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alt,o, California To Whom It May Concern.: We are writing this letter to express our concerns regarding thp-·Planned Community Zone ft being consi~ered at 536 -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 yeal-s we have been at our current location which is directly across from the proposed aevelopment. The variance being considered for the height of the building 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 regard ~re not only that we will no longer be able to look out our windows and see the blue sky we enjoy, but we will be faced with a massive structure out ot scale with other buildinqs on this blocK of Middlefield. More practically, in the winter time we will be in the shade of the building. With the cost of utilities these days the sun is a valuable commodity, especially during the winter months. It's also very nice to be able to have some sunlight during the months when the sky can be so qrey. We are also conceLned that the direction of housing has become increasingly expensive in Palo Alto. The approval of this project would most certainly move further in that direction given that the cost of the individual u.~its begins at $1,000,000. Therefore, for both its effect on raising Palo Alto2s 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!kcf~ Judith E. Foddrill Administrator M.ENTAL R~SE:""RCH ~';ST~TUTE ~5.s Mlddle-rle-Id ~oad, P.I" Airel, Callielrrl'" '34]:()1 1,415 12\·10;5 FA); 1.~15'1 :!!I·]7S:; ir { 1:' t ~ .. '-' ..... "'-".,,-- • 2 Bar'tara RJ.per 1670 Edgewood Drive Pale Alto, CA 94303 October 6, 1992 O=~"'F-;-;",C.I\ I uf PLANI,,uNIJ CIIYOF PALO ALTO Palo Alto 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 need for such projects, but as a resident ....... 'ho reguIarly drives Hamilton A ... ,enue past the site of the proposed project on Mlddlefielc!lHamil ton/Byron I think this is the wrong place fer SC large a project. Tra.ffic on Hamilton and Universlty, already slow in crossing Middlefield b,,=cause of the Hghts, would be fu:--ther slowed by all vehicles turning L'lto and out of Byron, the access to The Harnflton's entrance. Byron 1s particularly narrow and awK, ... rard for two ca! 5 moving 1n opposite directions to maneuvzr around parked cars. w~hat happens when large moving vans are adj,ed to the s:::.ene, as they would be with some regular-ity? Parking in the are?l. is often impossible to find already. 1 do nDt think that 69 underground parking spaces would be adequate for the residents plus all the serVice peopJe such residents wl!l c--xpe'c:t to have. Five s!ots for gues':. parking on ground level is totally unrealtstic. These are-boring prob1ems when faced ,,, .. ·i.th looking at attractive plans, but they aTe real and will not disappear. H I "tere shopping for such a reSidence, I would not want to teel so crowded in the block, however spacious my indivldua! quarters were (f would also not want to live in handsome space on su,:h noiSY, exhaust-tllled streets as Hamilton and 1'.11ddle-t1r<.:ld are r-ight there, bl.lt that 15 perhaps not pertinent to your taSk.) i hope you vvill not facilltatE' the building of this project, which might be desirable !n a larger setting, on thlS site Sincerely. '. -'fhJ s' ___ -~'--___ d __ _ /{,/(.. -.1 / .'. . • Palo Alto Mayor and (ity (oonci I (IY I c Center 2SO Ham I I ton Ayei1Ue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I Dear Mayor and Coonei I members, ~/r./~ OFFICE Of T+1.E ern M'!' r~ ~Gu \/,;~i~,',,~ Q;J Fjl t- Oct 1st, 1992 I encourage you not to approve rezooing (or tne proposeci luxury senior housing project at Hamilton Ayenue and Middl&fleld Road. The only informatloo f haye regarding this are articles (rom the Peninsula Times Trll>une of Sept. 30th and Oct. 1st, so I may not have all the facts. NevertheleSs, this sounds like a poor attempt at serving senior hOUsing needs In the city. Jim Hill, one of the Investors in this proposed develO!llTlent is quoted In one article as saying "It will allow people who haYe some means to stay In the area: People with "some means" can already stay In thl! area I eocourage you to (ocus your time, energy and City resoorces helping the seniors without means to stay in the arl!3. I'm always sorry to sl!e marl! IllXUIY townhomes bullt in cur ar'ea when low cost senior houslf19 is In such demand. The pt'Ol1lise of the developers purchaSIng 14 units in the future and selling them below market value is not worth considering unless 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 den sHy as Menlo Park is now considerfng. I can't beTfeve anyone would like a two or four story wall being erected six feet from their property I irle yet City planring and councils continue to approve monstrous hOmes on small neighbp~ , sites. Why not scale down this proposed Ham! It on Ave. projecl arid sell:: 1.tlr.R oolts below market? C""" -~ TharlK you. ~~--- Neil Panton 5 Cedar Court Menlo Part., CA 94025 ---"'''''''-, ... -»---.-- , ,I October 2 ~ 19512 Flanning C~mmis~ion City of Palo Alto 250 ~lton Av~nue Palo Alto CA 94301 , ~ ." ':'?\~. ' :~ ~~~~ . . 2 y .... O:'lne Wellhausetl 628 8amiltoo Ave. Palo Altc~ CA 94)01 415-324-9259 R-~ r: r~ 415-327-6000 !") 415-329-2922 ~;.' • ,""-; . . '....:. . , ..:::; ;:;'!...l-.~,., •• -en 'I' 0F PALO ALTO Re: Palo Alto City Council Meeting -Wed •• Sept. 30, 1992 -7:30 P.M. {Proposed Senior Complex. 600 block of Hamilton Avenu~) The senior complex bu11~~ng propo~ed for the 600 block of Bamiltoc 1~ in it~ present plan perposterious. The environmental inpact of its s1~e on traffic and pollution is ~nough reason alone to oppose the site for such E. complu:.. I. as a r~sident of 628 Raailton. look out O~ sa1~ corner a~d think about what I am golng throu~h with the expense aDd inconvenience of the mis managed and still undon~ underground utility project Qcd wonder if there 1s thTee more yeare of filthy construction. The fruition of the ucderground vill give wonderful. wire free skylin~ to look at~ If tbis proj~ct vere to succeed the wire free skyline vi!! b~ blocked by a h~lk structure. I believe that corner should remain at ne~r its present height. My objections are: 1. Too big and tal! for the site. 2. Not enough parking. Narrow and busy streets that Will Dot accommodate the number of cars faT residents and service people. 3. Three filthy and noisy years of construction. 4. Service people and workers arriving and leaving around the clock vho have no vested interest in the neighborhood. 5. Decreased property value for surrounding residences due to shadows cast by proposed height. 6. ~angerous traffi~ and par~ing. door slamming n~ise and lights -(!be City of Palo Alto has no regaTd ho~ fast cars travel on Hamilton and Byron). 7. BluaDt disngard for existing z.oning la .... s. Flawed traffic stue)" 011 Planning Report. Some of the biggest mistakes have been in zoning commercial and Tesidenti~l pu1ldinss too big for the sites. Nothing can be done after the structure iG built. Added Comment: I am very curious where the dev~lopers think they ar"2: going to parties with a ~111ion bucks .... ho vant to live Dn that corner~ nice but people With that kind of money, I ,shDuld tbink, would q ,. get 30-33 other Palo Alto's not vant to cont. other 61de \ cant. from side one. Stt the homeless. b~ anc rehab people who hang out 4t the church and on the street. Believe ~ it's bad. In 5umm&~y. the pro~o6ed structure 16 too big and disruptive to adjacent propeZ"tiE:s, Please c~ll me with aDY questions. Sincerely, ~.(;/./~~ Yvp-.me W1::11hauSIl!D fS /~ afI ~ :tA.ti fP'.A. ~ .h:tt"z. V A-6-«:iui .eX fi A17/...(. /zu-U ,'Ct.) .At k'71£C1/;J4y.z..& ,----;;;,.." LEONARD E, LINCOLN 1Ir. Ienneth 5<:breil>ec Pl~ Director City of Palo AltC>, Q 94301 ARCHITECT '"" , f5)~~~pn~ ~ 8f;P ~ 9 1?8!' OEPAAT/,jE .... r Of' PUlNrllNO CITYOF PALO AkTO RI: lIe-zOllizrl appHeatiOll af a..11ton " ltiddldield l>a.r I!r. 5<:breil>er. 1.>0 aA '''file< of property loc:ated .. t ~36 Ilidd.l.field. 1 .. auld 1ft. to encoutaq. tile eity to .ppr...... the p,apo~ed senior ~.".lopaOJlt project. 'Ibis ll~lopaOJIt vculd enhance ow: cOUtm1ty by offering ow: ~eniou an attAcU", COIIplel in lfhicb to lin. It .. ~ al,o iJlprove tile or ... am b • .. vel<:4&e<l t.1Idi liun to the neillbllorbood Ve ry lMy your,. LeDllllcd !. L inl:;oln Alclutect :: I.. _!,....:_ 1': .. . '.';;' -\ . -"~" t _____ _ STRUTZ-LEVETT INVL -' ~T & HOLDING COMPA' ImEGU\Q~IDJ 501 WAVERLEY STREET P.~'_O ALTO • 0, 9430. 1415) 321 -04010 a - Ken Scn relber U'0. 5lP ~ 9 1992 DePARTMENT OF PLANNiNG CITY OF PALO ALTO September 23, 1992 Director of Planning and Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton A,enue P.lo Alto, CA 94301 Re; Proposed Senior Condominium Project Hamilton A¥enue between Middlefield and Byron Dear ~r. Schreiber. I own property at 721~ 737, and 741 Webster Street in Pal~ Alto. near the referenced project knowl' a~ The Hamilton. I feel that the proposed project makes ,erY good "SO of tne sft~ by pr~¥iding an attr~cti¥e and functional building in place of the present mixture of undistin~uished residential and office buildings. I The proposed use is quite tompatible with other facilities in the area such as Webster ~ouse and Lytton Gardens I, II and [II. The proximity to downtown Palo Alto and its many services will be of greet benefit to these who choose to be our neighbors. The Ham'lton promises to be a positive addition to our neighborhood and will help f111 a need for a type of housing ~hich is in very short supply in Palo Alto. We urge its iPprova 1. Mr. ~enneth schreiber Planninq Director City of P~10 Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Subject: Re-zoning Application Hamilton and Middlefield Pear Hr. Schreiber: f5) ~ © ~ nJ IE ill) ~ ~tP l::91992 OEPAATMEI'IT OF pLANNING CITY OF PALO AlTO I want to go on record in favor of the proposed re-zoninq of property on Hamilton Avenue between Middlefield and Byron~ Oee of thi& site for a condominium project designed expressly for seniors seems ideal to me. I have hriefly reviewed the plans for the project and it is obvious to me that the proposed facility ia far more att.active and 9ppropriete for the site than the mixture of undistin9uished buildings p~esently in place. I own the property at 62~ University Avenu~ ~nd my interest in the matter before you 16 thus obv~ous. I would like to see the area tmproved~ The proposed residential units, to be owned by their occupants, will clearly add both financial and esthetic value to the entire area. Please do all that you can to expedite approval cf the application for re-zoning~ --.,..-.................. ~~'" .... --.-.- 0. , f' tJ ! 'roo .. "" . ''':;.< .. J~: .t:c __ : __ , .-" . __ ~' ~w o,.,.,c:. OJ! CHARLES G. ScHULZ DIT ay.ol'l tn'R.1M' r'Q8"r OI'PICX DOX 1.&9& P.lLLO A.t.TQ, C ..... LlPQ8.K1A. 9430lt-1JlQ[l. n~o_ (410) a_-.oso "A.X~"~' O~2l:I September 25~ 1992 THE MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING COMMISS~CN OF THE CITY OF PAl.» ALTO RE : 651 HAKILTON AVENUE THE HAMILTON SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY APPLICATION FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE CHANGE I am. the owner cf an office building at 517 Byron street, which is occupied by three attorneys and a CPA. I have owned this property since 1979 and occupied it since 1959~ My property is on the northern border of the proposed 36-unit condominium project. All traffic to and froe the 36 condo~inium units will use a driveway immediately adjacent t~ 517 Byron street. The traffic will be on Byron Street~ in spite of the name nHamilton" for the project. Byron street is a narrow street, with street parking on both sides, one block long. bet'Ween Hamilt.on Avenue and University Avenue. The applicant seeks a Planned community zone. change and therefore must establish, among other things, that the proposed project is consistent 'With the Comprehensive Plan. This letter is intended to be a p~~liminary 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 o;..·eel{. 1. Housing Element The applicant cites Policy 8~ .'hich deals 'Io'ith encouraging and fostering a diversity of affordable housing opportunities for senior citizens. However, all of the supporting text for Policy s, including Program 19, stresses providing housing for lo~~ moderate a~~ middle income housing. The proposed project 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, moderate and middle inco~e housing have difficulty '14, M~mbers of the Planning commission of the city Of Palo Alto September 25, 1992 Page 2 buying in Palo Alto, and planning should assist them. Individ~als who can atford the proposed condominiums are not in that category. In fact, according to the applicant. a number of those people. 'Who may be signing up fo:-units alr.eady live in larqe homes Palo ~to. '!'he applicant proposes 16 Belo .... Ma:-ket Rate (8M:R) units# twice the number which might be required. In spite of the applicant's offer, the planning process should not ~e used to make it appe.ar that development rights can be bought in Palo Alto. Providing 16 BMR units, to satisfy the BMR requirement and promctional aspects of the development, si~ply allows the applicant to buy up other housing stock in Palo Alto. w~ether the BMR housing stock will be at any particular price level or in any particular location, cannot be determined. ~he project displaces three homes and a f~ur-plex which is occupied by tenants. Therefore, the project eliminates some moderate housing stock in downtcwn Palo Alto and replac~s it with high income housing. 2. Employment The applicant cites the removal of existing office buildings from the site as a way of reducing employment and thus the demand for housing which employment creates. The proposed expensive condominium units ~ill bring with them their own requirements for employment, including cleaning staff, care givers, and maintenance personn~l. The occupants of $1 million condominiUllls are not people ""ho are likely to live isolated lives in their O'llffi home. They are active people who ex:pect to have people visit them and to have parties and events at their home. The project will, in soroe respects, be an employment generator. There are currently businesses in the immediate 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 lccated on Byron Street. Personnel of these organizations, as well as 'their clientele (patients, churchgoers, people who attend functions and concerts at the ~hurch, etc.), use Byron Street ana the surrounding streets. The additional traftic load and loss of street parking means that both employers and employees in the area will suffer because of the SUbstantial incra&se in the nu~ber and character of the proposed units. "\ I I I , Members of ~~a Planning cnmmission of the! City of Palo Alto September 25, 1992 Page :3 3~ Transportatign / While applicant cit~s the fact that those who re3i~e at the project will have fewer ne~ds to take auto~obile trips, the reality is that individuals who can affora $1 ~illion condominium units wi.).l not confine their daily activities to 'Walking to and from downtown palo Alto. The additional traffic load on Byron straet will h~ve its impact by forcing people who currently use that street to avoid usinq it, and perhaps to park at still further distances frem their cIestinations. Parents who lee.ve children ~t the day care center, across the street from the project, delivery trucks such as UPS, persons who attend concerts and other activities at the church, and pati~nts and clients seeking access to the businesses on Byron street, ~ll will be forced to avoid By~on street at certain times, thus further congesting the &rC6, rather than reducing traffic in the area. The properties replaced by the project have driveways which are on Middlefield Road, Hamilton Avenue, and Byron Street. All residenti~l access to the project, however, will be concentrated onto Byron Street. There .il1 be visitor spaces for tha project also on Byron Street. Emergency vehicles and taxis will usa Byron Street. (There will be an auxiliary access to the property from Middlefield Road& but that is designed 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 ResigD The project replaces eXisting two-story buildings, lIo'hich are consistent with the. RM-15 Zone, 'With a massive four ~tDry facade and a building which occupies its site quite densely. (There are open areas within the project, but they will not be apparent from the stre~t~) This diminishes, rather than enhances, the characteristics of the zone ~ithin which the 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 shodow ~ill be all day long. During the period of construction, which will probably last between eighteen months and two years, the • I Members of the Planning Commission of the city of Palo Alto Saptember 25# 1992 Page " , . /. _/'-.----~ project will generate considerable additional noise, dust, congestion, and possible exposure of residents and other persons in the area to the hazards associated with large-scale construction. N?t the least ot the disruptions and impacts will be the vehicles which will be used in clearing the site, excavatinq, bringing construction materials to the site, and t.ransportinq the workers. The proj ect will be acth·e six days a week~ Undoubtedly, there will be disruptions in electrical service, water service, and sewer service, because no project of this size proceeds without some mishaps. The impact of this project on the neighborhood is immediate, substantial, and, if approved in 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 Palo Alto when it requires a sacrifice from adjacent property owners and other persons in the vicinity. A planned cOlMlunity must be a positiYQ benefit to the commu.."lity il"l an overall sanse and to the neighhorhood ir'1 a specific sense. otherwise, the planning process has been defeated. Sincerely, (!k.J0~ CHARLES G. SCHULZ J CGS/lgal '. --. 1 , .. > INVESTMENT REAL ES TATE 499 MIDDLEFIELD FlOAD, PALO ALTO, C~ 943~1 • (4'5) 321··314' Be.pt~r 25, 1991 !<en Schreiber Director of Pl~g an~ Co=m.mi ty Env i romr.oar.;.t ern Oll' PALO "!ira 250 Hamilton Avenue Paln Alto, CA 9'301 R.e: proposed. Senior Condominium Project JJamilton AV6DUe between ~d41efield. " Byron Deer ¥-r. Schreiber~ As owners of property at -499 Hiddlefield. Road in Palo Alto., 'Which ia near the above referenoed project: known as -The Ea.milton-., we feel that the proposed project will be an asset to the community and make gOOd use of the site. The propoae4 use 18 very campatl~le with other facilities in the area such al Webster House and Lytton Gardena :I., II and III. The prOXUldty to downtown Pal.o Alto and its lPaJly services will be of great benefit to thole who choose to resid.e at -The Hamilton-. We believe this project will be • neighborhood and will help fill a IE in short supply in Palo Alto. Sincerely, {. positive a6ditio~ to our nee~ for a type of housing We urge its approval. CORRESPONDENCE. POST OFFICE BOX 55!t, PALO "l.TO. CALIFORNIA 9';'J(J;> tr. which · .-.' \ Ii [I tj Ii',j ~.,',; :~~~E~~,ns Inc C.:>mmunrty Houslng,lilc A _"' .. _ CAIII<" --~ rA::"''''' I ~I IOAtD Of OIMCTCIl1 krn w, S'eworT, J! !"relloenl ; S&wal' BrOW!'1, M,n ~'iee PT~n1 0, C~,Qries foIordEon s.cretar)' IJOAtP .... S.Uts Donold ~. BooItJe ~mmy DovJ:s ""illtOm.5 Floyd COJ1'OCl F_ Gulltlc$or1 Judy JlfJl'Irledy Jame~ A KOCI'l ;:c.,;Ji/)EIII:_~e Wiltxo E. Momson, ,}( . PIlI D I" MiehcNJ MeCr,:,ylli RobertW,~t!I Glorkl J Pyspo D~o So SteePEl~ ~eooar~ W, "''I' D"~;o< ~memus S,." ~ICP,",Cr'1 SMfpley :::r'1fC1 [_oe-cufuoa ~er ,o',mD"d W G_ ::'-r"ef Flnonc>Ol QHlc:er O'J:e" Af1(Ir"4-:><"1 "d"""LS~rotO' , ~ wee.ler Sireei )10 ~10, COIlI'om,e 94lC1 15} 12&-JJOO FAX (41:') 124-!66t. s@ptember 25, 1992 Mr. Ken Schreiber Director of Planning and community Environment City of Palo ~to 250 Hamilton AVEnue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE' '1'IIlI DlaLroB PROJl!C'l:' ,~-' Corn_r of Baai1toD Avenu. and Hidd1efie14 aoaC Dear Hr. Schrieber: As you know, Community Rousing Inc. is currently developing the Lytton rv Project for lov income and very low income senior housing, which ~ould add to the housing stock we currently own and operate ~or low-income seniors at Lytton Gardens. The Hamilton Project would prcvide privately :financed housing :for higher income seniors, This would aid in maintaining economic diversity i~ our neighborhood, Which I believe is a very desirable goal. We enjoy baving Webster House as our immediate neiqhbor, and we would also enjoy having the Hamilton Project as our neighbor. The site seems particularly well suited to the project. certainly the same reasons that make our location so attractive for s~nior residenc~s apply equally to the Hamilton Project. We see the Hamilton Project as a plus for ~e neighbor~ood and ~ould ~elcome the project as our neiqhbor~ Sincerely, COMMUNITY HOUSING INC. ~t~ President, Board of Directors BWS/tllm CC! Hr. Stephen Shipley <--~'''''''i(-''''''''''''''''' il ... _,.t/* .. ,....-';'_o-. <. • / September 25, 1992 :Ken Schreiber Director of Planning and Community Environment City Of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ; Rei Propos eo Senior Condominium Project Hamilton Avenue at Byron and Middlefield Dear Mr~ Schreiber: Our home is at E33 .Hddlefield Road, 1r1id ..... ay between Hamilton Avenue and Forest Avenue. We feel that the proposed residenti~l project is ~el1 conceived and very attractive. It will replace the existing hodge-poage of buildings that presently occupy the site. It is also consistent with the tone of the neighborhooo that was established and improved by the various Lytton Gardens projects and Webster Bouse. The proposed use of the property will be an asset to the down town area and a significant benefit to the community at large. We hope that you will approve the application for re-zor.ing as SUbmitted. c I ~ N ;1 "I .~ ! 2 September 22, 19'2 Keu Schreiber ill) ~ ~ 1H ~ IE ill) lfu ~tP ;,& 1992 DEPARTMENT OF f'l.ANNII'lG CITYOF PALO ALTO Director of Planning a~d C~unity Env1ronmen, CITY OF FALO ALTO 250 Hamilton Ave~ Pule Alto, California 94J01 S~bje~t: Proposed Senior Condominium Project 8am1lton Ave. Bet".oIeeu Mid~leiield Rd. 6 By-roc St. Dear Mr. Schreiber: I own the property at 652 ~iltoD Ave. and have live~ at this address for more than 30 years. AB having one of the very feW' dogle. family homes 'Jh1c:h face directly toward the proposed senio~ condomin~um complex known as The ~11tcn. I vas obviously most interested ~n learning of its development. No~, ~fter a rat~er thoroug~ and lengthy review of its design, scope and purpose. I have concluded that it 1& a sensible and sensitively planned project which will enhance the neighborhood, have minimal impact upon traffic and provide a much ne~ded senior housing option to thE people of Pale Jo...lto. Although I fi't'lZlly believe that the residential character of ne_arby neighborhoQ,ds to the north, south and east of Middlef1e.1d Road be retained, the Hamiltoc Ave./Byron St. area has for many YEars been a someWhat ur~que mix of condos. apartments, businesses and church property. The prospect of substituting a senior condominiao complex for the office buildings 'Which presently face my home ;,,'1.11 rl!tu~ some se..tl',~lance of a. residential cature to my 1mmeciate nei.ghborhood yet not diminish the vitality of an area I so enjoy. In SUC~ I 'Welcome this project, not nnly as a neighbor but as z valuable addition to the macy elements Vh1.ch constitute the cOIl:ple:t and d.iverse fabric we know as Palo Alto. I urge its approval. Very truly yo~rs, ~->-:>7~ Philip ~ Paulsen Nolan & Armstrong ""nQ~.N [~!'o "r lA'/,' -:-fiOM.o.,S J. NOl.Ar"! \ _Mlcr:""EL-\1,' A,~~--rRON~ '\ D".N~EL e, ... ,RTDr. ""NDj(~II.' H F',"R~ES Of C::lur~l september 22, 1992 Ken Schreiber Director of Planning and Comm.".L'"li ty Envi::-oT'"..I'ier.t City o£ Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue 9430~ Re: Pro~sed Senior Condominium Project Hamilton Avenue Between Middlefield and Byron Dear~Mr. Schreiber: I own property at 600 University Avenue in Palo Alto~ near the referenced project known as The Hamilton. I feel that the proposed project makes very gooO use of the site by providinq an attra~tive and functional puildinq. The proposed use is q'.J.~ te compatible with other facilit.ies in the area sucb as ~ebster Hoase and Lytton Gardens I, II & III. The proximity to downtown Palo Alto and its many services will be of qreat benefit to those who choose to be our neighbor5. The Hamilton pro-mises to be a positive ~ddition t.o ou= neighborltood and ....-ill help fill a need for a type of housing which is in very short Eupply in Palo Alto. We urge its approval. Very truly yours l NOh~ & ARMSTRONG ~/~ TJN(lmm 500 U"'1I',rEc:RSrr'l' ,f,V(,r-;UE r,o\,~G ..... .:..10. CA:'IFORr,I.A. 9·1)0 i .2';,7~ f.o.CSI '., ~;: ,~; '., llfl~'[" jElEPH.O:,t. (<1.15) 32e.·29a'.1 r rt N . , ", 2 September 22. 1~92 ~n Sc.h:re iber Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY OF PMO ALTO 250 Hamilton Ave. Palo Alto. California 94301 Subject: Pcopo5ed Senior Condominium Project Wl ~~p ~: ~~lID DEPARTMENT 0<' pL}.NN1NG CITYOF PALO ALTO Hamilton Ave. Betw~en ~ddlef1eld Rd. & 5yron St. Dear Hr. Schreiber: 1 ~ the property at 652 Hamilton AVE. and have lived at this address for more than 30 years. As h3~-ng one of the very few singl~ family homes which face directly toward the proposed senior condominium complex known 83 The Bamilton, I was obviously mo~t interested in learning of it! development. Now, after a rather thorougb and lengthy reviev of its design, scope and purpose, I bava concl~ded that it 15 a seusi~l~ and sensitively planned project ~~icb will enhance the neighborhood, have minimal impact up~n ~raffic and provide a much needed senior housing option to the people ot Palo Alto. Although I firmly believe that the residential character of nearby neighborhoods to the nor~h, south and eas~ of Middlefield Road be retained, the Bamil~on Ave./Byron St. area has for many years been a somewhat unique mix of condDs~ epartments, businEsses ~nd chu~ch property. The prospect of substituting a senior condoninium complex for the office buildings which p!'esently face my home will return some. se..mblance of a residential nature tG my immediate neighborhood yet not diminish th~ vitality of an area I so enjcy_ 10 sum, 1 welcome this project. not only as a neighbor but as a valuable addition to the many ~leQlents which constitute the cOr.lplex and diverse fabric we know as Palo Alto. I urgp-its approval. Very truly yours~ ~~7~ Philip "-Paulsen Q .. t 'r -~"~,-- ... ~ THE Flh..5T UNITED METRJDIST CHURCH· Palo Alto, Californ:" 94301-2016 ('15) 32.3-616' Douglilo5 [, NonU. Putor Re"rue utnam-Furund~. Auo<:im P;I5to.r Peggy G oocho'), "1· "'~ ~ 'Il<\ir'ffi'l..nt D ,.1;:;-;.,) I •• ' JU:'i L I:~~ June 5,1992 Ken Schreiber Director of Planning CIty of PaJo Mo 250 Hami~on Avenue Palo Mo, California 94301 RE: The Haml~on; comer of Byron, Hami~on and Middlefield Dear Mr. Schrejbi!r: DEPARl i".Jt:I'IIT OF fllJow"""" ,l CITYOF PALO AI-TO On May 26, the Administrative Council of our church voted unanimously to express our support of Th. Hami~on project which wi II be Iccated across By ron Sfreet from ou r property. We are in favor of The Hamilton as we pre1er to have neighbors as DLJr neighbors, rather ttlan a high rise office building. We are Increaslngly becoming concerned about the lack of housing In Palo Mo for persons with high incomes, as well as those with low incomes. long-time residents "f Palo A~o, including several of ollr church membi!rs, have nad to move to ,esldential projects outside the city of fheir choice bi!ceuse of the lack of facHnies ~uch as The Hammon. Recently a muple lamented the fact that 1hey had to move to The Forum in Cupertino because The I-',ami~on had nc;t yet been bui~. They would have preferred 10 stay "home" in Palo Mo. Another of our members had to move to downtown San Mateo. Severa! have moved to The Sequo;.as in Portola Valley, and flnd h increasingly difficuh to drive 10 their church. The HamHton promises to be an attractive addition to our neighborhood, and will help fiJI a desperate need for housing in Palo Alto. We urgG your approvaL Si;iJIY. ~~ Dougla~a$to, te4~~ Art Hammar, Chairperson, Administrative Council DINlref 'b'd UI!Ii " ... ·.1 'I I I 11 , ~ : ii' _-.o ___ L AGENDA ITEM 2 65) HAMILTON AVENUE. 536·576 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD. 523·575 S:YRON STREE1; App1ication for a: Plumed COllYnurdty zone to rezone property from RM·15 low-Oensity, Multip1e-Family zon€ to P1anned Community zone, to tons truet a 90,760·· 5 quare -foot sen i or tCndO!TI1 n i urn project with 36 rEsidential units end associated common ar!as, including dining room, kitchen, public r~oms, exercise room and enclosed pool and three guest rooms. Sixty-nine parking spaces are proposed in in underground garage and five spates are proposed at grade. EnVironmental Assessment~ No significant impacts ~ere determined to result from this project, and i negative declaration has been prepared. Zone District: RM-15. File Nos: 92·EIA·7, 92·Ze·3. Chainnao Beecham: At our last meeting, we had a public hearing on this item. Since that time. we have had additional comments received by mail. We have those either in Dur packet or at our places this evening. Does staff have anything to add? Mr_ S~hreiber: For thE sake of the television audience. allow ~ t& briefly identify this item in a little more detail. Since .e will be going right into discussi~n of it, rather th~n having publjc i~put< The proposal is for the site at Hamilto/'l. Avenue, Middlefield Avenue and Byron Street, whic~ is a little over haif of the block. The proposal is for a four-story. 90,760·square-foot senior residential living structure --36 condom1n;um units. The develop~nt is substantially larger than a110wed either by zoning or ~y size of development which woul d be allowed if the site were rezoned from the current RM-1S to the maximum r~sidentia1 density of RM-40. Therefcre, the proposal is for a Planned Community zone. The staff report idi!ntified a variety of policy issl.les that tertainly are of contern and in need of discussion --density, bu1iding mass, v1ews 1 pl!!:!l lC benefit. ihe publ ic benefit proposal is to double tne below-marKet-rate {SMR) housing requirement from seven~ as would be reQuired under the conventional zoning, to fourteen below-market-rate units to be provided off site, most lik€ly by acqulsition of an existing structure somewhere i, Palo Alto. Those belo~-market-rate units ~ould be acquired in conjunction ~ith the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The staff report ccncludes ~ithout a recommendation in the sense of a clear approva1 or denial. Th~re ~s a strong case to be m2de for approval. and there is a1so a strong case to be made for denial. The staff report {Jutlines that ca~e. The options before the planning co~ission are really four. (J) You can reco~nd approyal of the project in concept. Then undp.r norma1 Planned Community rone procedures~ the project would go to the architectural review board (ARB) for in-depth, design re .. ·ie\l/. (2) The planning corrmission could reccmmend approval of the project lliit" Significant modificaticns. and then also forward it to the architectural revie\l/ board. (3' The commission could recommend denial of the project. In that case, the project goes forward to the city ~ouncil, but you may ~ant to recommend denial and indicate that some development great~r than RM+)S fs appropriate for the site. (4) Finally, you could recolTll'lend denial and confirm the validity of the RM-IS underlying zoning as being the apprQ~riate de~elopm€nt standard for this location. --~---.-~ Jf the c~ission re;!cnes the point iflhere it is either unable Dr does not desire to make a firm recommendation on this item, you !ls~ have the ~~tiDn of referring this issue to the cou~cil with jour comments. and ask them for their policy guidance is to the appropriateness ,f the project. If the project dges go to the touneil I and the cDuncil desires to see the pr~ject contInue en through the city review p~ocess rather than rejecting it at that PO'1'It in tirn:, it would t.hen go back. t~ the architec:tura,l review board. Ctrtainly 1t could also come bad to the planning coliltl.i~siQn .at the completion of the Planned (.QrMlunity zone precess, as would normally occur, Your Pdck~ts contain a variety of information, including several 1etters which arrf~ed at c.ity Hall in tl'le iast couple of days. A1 1 Olf me to note them very briefly for the record. There is a 1etter from the members of the Pit 1;:1 .A Ht:! Denta 1 Grou~ d t S!l Byroli St reet obj ect ; fig to the size and vi sua' 1mp:".:ts of the project. lhere is a letter from Dr. Richard Fisch, a member of the Mental Research Institute across the street from this proje,t, writing in opposition to the project. 1here is a letter from Tire lindh~1m and lucy A~n £aylord it 623 Mjdd1efield Road writing in oppositi~~ to the proj~ct, identifying rea~ons ~hy they feel the pT~ject snould be rejected. There is a letter from Faith Brigel l 518 Byron Str~~t. identifying a vari~ty of her conCErns about the project and opposln~ the proposed develop~nt. There i~ a 1etter from three dentists in practice at Sll Byron Street. Hav; ng reviewed the projp.ct, they feel ~t would be an improvement and wou1d like to see it gn forward. Tn!re is a letter from Timothy Descamps of 536 Fulton Street expressing concerns about the pr<Jject. He feel s that the project is too big and ',.00 dense for the area, and urges retention of the RM-15 zone. There 1s a Tetter from the applicant's attorney. Stephen Player, discussing the project, especially the public beneflt issue. It encourages accept~nce and approva1 nf the project. There is a letter from the project proponents, signed by James foli11, President of Hamilton Avenue Properties, Inc .• indicating that they are prepared to revise their design to eliminate any need for variances. That was .n issue that was of notab1~ concern in the staff report. Staff ~id not support any granting of varian~es for t~'s project if it were to go forward. so they wou1d re~ise their design to eliminate ~ariances. They had some additional co~r.ts on traffic, parking, height, mass, and of course, h~pe tne commi;sion will recommend approval Df the project. With tnose introductory coments and items for the record !'laving been coverEc. staff ~ll1 be pl eased to respond to Quest; Gns. Chainnan Beecham: Are there qu€stions for staff? (~one) I see we have all done our homework thoroughly. Coromis$ioner Carrasco: I do have one question. it i~ in regard to the letter written by the dental group t~ City staff on t~e amount of parking that mi9ht be expected on Byron Street. T~e~ a~e concernerl that B~ron Street is narrow. I am wonderir,g .... hether the kinds of ilisitor pc:r~in9 that yOy anticipate with this project ~ou1d be more tnan the exi~ting uses on that street. Or would they be the same~ or less? Ms. Warheit: Regarding the spaces that the applfcant is proposing on site. in the staff report we rico~mended that they assigr. 13 gu~st parking spaces, which wouTd meet the full requirement of the parking ordinance for standard mult~p1e-family housi~g. Does that answer your . :, 10/28/92 -2- the i' • ___ -'-_.L ________ _ question? ~jssjoner Carras~: Yes, it dn€s somewhat. but it tends to fi7lply Hat thue wi' 1 bl? fewer vi sHors parking on the st.reet than the present condit;on~ if vlsito~5 are tlken off the street ar.d pi aced on the site. Ms. ~arheit: Yes, the uses that are there now ar~ probably underparked to a ~reater extent than this project. beca~se if 13 are dedicated for guests, it would meet today's very strict guest parking requireIDfnts. CM'missioner Cullen: 'lith tnis appncaticn, are we allowed to recolTIT\end another zoning? If we were to tark about another 2oni~9, would it ha~e to come back under anDther application? Ms. Case: Yes. Tney 'Would not necessarPy have to pay anGther application fee, but it would be a whoTe different project than the Planned Community zone. It probably would depend upon what you asked for. Vou can do just about anything you wa~t to. But if you get too radical, it wou1d d~finjtely be making thE rounds again. COmmissioner Cullen: But not with another application fee, I gather? Ms. Case: No, I do not believe tney WOUld hay! to pay another fee. Mr. Schreiber: If the commi~sion fe~t that some type of denSity hfgher than RM·IS was appropriate for this location, the c~mmiss;on ,auld also have tf"fe option of leoking at the rest of the blod. You cfJu1d flot tak~ an action, in terms of changing the zoning. but you couTd recommend initiating the process to change the zoning en the rest of the block, if the desire was to create, say. RM-40 On the entire block, or R.M-3~ on th~ entire blotk, or to do something On this property a'ld then bring the rest of the b10ck up to a different zone that might be c'os~r to what was ~n thls property. Chairman Beecham: Jf there are no other questions, we can begin the discussiol1. COlTlTli s s i OT1er Marsh; G i yen He few wee ks IrIE' ha ¥c had to th i r,k ,s,boIJt th is. I will jump in first. I do want to mdke an overall comment before getting into my specific ones. It is that th~ intervening weeks that ~2 have had since we heard this it~m previously have been beneficial, because more members of the public have found out about the project. I part icularly want to thank those people who hav'2 submitted correspondence to us in these last few weeks. I am sorry that we wili not hav~ time to thoroughly read the letters that arf! in front of us tonight~ but just in scann i n9 them, r .. ant to COrmlent on 1 et ters reeei ved from Timothy Descamps~ Dr. Richard Fisch, Tim lind~olm, Lucy Ann Gaylord and Fiit~ Brigel. Those letters all contained some comments that I felt were quite relevant to the projec.t. I appr9ciated receiving them. I am also glad personalTy that we ha¥e had t~e dp.:lay of the 1as.t few weeks! because in thinking about this project, as r "aye come and gone around the downt~wn area in the past few weeks 1 I have b~come more and more con¥inced that this is the wrong project for this site. I will briefly go into some of my CDncerns over the project. In general, I think there are two areas of discussion that I would like to see us focus '"'>---! j'~ . '<--,". JO(28/91 -3- • / on toni9~t. The first one Is th~t of the public benefit offered by the project. In the traditional zoning that we are-.. 11 uSf!d to working '-'Hh, it is meant to accommodate market-based projects generally ~imed at people who are capable of payi~9 for them. We assume that our zoning ordinance is libEral enough to a1~ow ~ project that is market-based to be able to proceed forward. T~e Planned Community zo~e. on the other hand, was devised by the city in order to accommodate projects which, for 50~ reason or another, could not be accommodat~d within the normal zonir.g re9u'at~ons. but offered the city some subst~ntial, inherent public benefft. It \OiouTd be a publi<: beMfit that would ma~€ us, tti€ city, the residents feel tJlat it was worth 9iving a lonir.g tradeoff to ttl!! proj!!ct that would not oUerwise be ill1o,-"ed to a different kind of project, basically gh"ing the project an ~xemption from the n 01'"1113 1 zoning reguiat ions. This project coming before us requires a public benefit. 1 believe it po::;es some Slgniflcant 1Ssues in front of us. First of all, it is my opinion that there is no inherent pub1ic benefit in the project itself. The project is a lo~ely ene; it is one that I would like to ltve 1n myself. It is very nice. but it is basically intended as iii luxury project for seniors who can pay. I think it was Sam Web~ter who said at o~r public heaiin9, this project does not, for example. inhibit any profit. It is l::-olsically full pay-in and full ~ay·out when you leave. 1hc public benefit that is being offered by the project is not inherent, and it is fulTy iO off-site public benefit. That is, seven units of low-income housing somtplace elst, we don't know where, in the city. This is the first time ever that this cor:tnission and the city has ever faced a real zoning-far-sale issue. It is th~ first time we havE' had a project come before us that contains no inhetent p'Jtllic benefit, but requires the Planned Comm~nity designation. let me digress a little to talk about the project5 that reflect on His but we~e 5ubstantialry d1ffere~t. OnE of th~m (and these have all been developed i~ the downtown area) was the historic Pacific Telephone building at 520 Bryant Street. In that case. the council did allow s~me expansion and did allow that building to get out of the downtown retail zone by an investment in upgrading city hall phza right o~t!iide. That project, in my mtnd. did not beg the zoning·for-sale ques.tion, because at the planning cOlTlTlission level. we agreed that the publ~c benefit received by ~pgr2ding the alley and by restoring the historical fa~ade \lias, in fact, enough of a public beroefit to j:.Jstify tne PC designaticn, in and of itself. The second project that is related here is the downto~n project on Cowper Street? in which part of tne public benefit was an investment in a downtown child care center. Again, I think that project is signiflc~ntly djfferent from this one, first of all b~cavse there was some inherent public benefit ir. that project. The 1andowner ~roposed to build an arcade tnit would ha~e p;o~lde~ public access down the aiJeyway to the parking lot that is out behind it. There was at least one member of the planning commission itl{ho stat.ed tnat si1e belie~ed that that publiC benefit on the project site its~lf was enough to justify tne project. The investment in the childcare cent.er was an investment that had been agreed upon in the downtown study some five or s;~ years ago, so th~re was a cGntext that had already been provided in th~ downtown study to justify a child care public benefit. At any rate, the project that we have here tOTli'9ht nas none of tnose 10/28/92 -4· • • Gn-s.it€ ilnpr.Qvements similar to tnose past projects. it is simplY oil prpject that proposes to buy its waj intc a public benefit. r think th.t is a major and very dangerou~ ; sSlJe that needs to t'oe decided by the city COUi'lcil. The s€cond 1ssue involved in public benefit here is whether or not se~en units, were we to go for the zoning-for-sale issue, is substantia' enou9n a public benefit to justify the zoning exemptions that are being asked. in the Lytton IV project that this planning commission re~iewed, we had a project that proposed a one-to-ane FAR. The public be~efit was fifty units of very· low-income senior hoUSin9. I"~ this projE-ct, we are proposing to put in 36 high-~ncome c~ndorr.inium units for those ,,7'10 can afford them by providing seven un~t~ of low-income housing somewhere e1se. The magnitude of difference, in terms of public benefit being provided in t~ese various projects, is exceptional, in my mind, In generai, we have, over the past fe~ weeks in particular, talked at the planning commission 1evel about the re1atian5hip between ffiagn1tude of public benefit that is required in a pr~ject in relation to the degree of exemption from the zoning or~inanc~ b~'ng is~ed. For examp1e, in t~€ radio tower issue we had near California Avenue, ~e agreed that tne except~on to the zcn~ng ordinance was minor an~ that the pub'ic benefjt was minoT, but it was a reasonable tradeoff. Her€ the exception that is being asked is dramatiC --a 1.1 FAR w"nere otherwise one-quarter of that would be allowed. rt is my opinion that seven u~;ts is not ~nywhere close to being able to justify the project. So 1 have these o~erwhe1rning conc€,,'ns abcut publ ic beneflt. Finally, r want to comment on the design impact, b~cause that is the second ~ajor area befnre us tonight. 1 think the design of tnis project is simply overwhelming. Jt is too high; it is too bulky. Just down the street, within the next bTeck, we ha\,ie R·l and R-2. On the very same block placing this building in its current design at that location would 5~~P'Y oyerwhel~ Middlefield Road. I am interested that the urban design plan proposes more bulk down toward that end of Universiti Avenue. I have not seen that plan, however, and r fran~ly am not sure I agree ~ith it. I think t~at if yau told res;~ents of Palo Aite that we were going to replace a1l of the old homes that (ontairJ offices on UniVersity Avenue and pro~ide a transition up Uni~ersity Avenue into the commercial care because we think there should be more bulk there. you would have i lot of resi.deilts who would not be lIerj happy at'lJut that conclusion. So 1 cannot buy the amo~nt of bulk that is being proposed at all. Finally. some quick general corrrnents. First of all, after think.ing about this project for a long time, it has beEn my conc1usion that this is a project that, although it p~oposes to b~ ~laced in an urban setting. it does not artual1y respect the urban setting. The proponents of tne project have noted that they want to be close to snops and transportation, dnd that tney ~alue being placed in the downtown. As a downtown resident, I comp1etely understand and support that sentiment. But people who li .... e downtown live in an urban settin.g. If lie live in single·fami1y homes, we llve on small lots. If we li~e in apartments, we generally live in dense apartments, often of modest size in the urban core, because the assumption in the urban core ;s that land is of great l/a1ue. When you .. re part of the urban 'o:enUE, you spend a good deal of your tfme being out and about, and you need less living spare. It is an urban approach to 1 i fe. "'i th t~i s project. you ha __ e a project that wants lO/28/92 -5- • it all. The proponents want to be near shops and transportatfM, yet they ire propo~in9 wh~t to me ar~ very luxurious, large condominium projects thist I feel are simply not approp.'iate in an urban core. If yot.! want te have a projf'ct lHe this, whid hH silliw,ing poo1s and workout rooms, I think it needs to be farther away where land ;s not Of such g:--eat value. Secondly. I thInk that this i5 a project that points Dut ~ow out of date our Compreh-ensiVe Plan is. I want to get this corrment in because I think it is important tr.at we all consider t~i$ ~n its context. This project *gs a r.u.onber of pol icy 1ssLles. NO.1: should iIIe ha ... e higj,-density housing downtown? This town ~as been very schizophrenic an that question in the last few y~~rs. We have not gotten agreement on that. Secondly, should we al10ill projects tnat have public benefits to provide that public benefit aff site? That is a big policy ~uest1on that we need to lock at vn a citywide basis. Thirdiy, if we are going to do that, what are the socia~ priorities of the city? If we are going tc allow public benefit projects to in\l~st in other ways within the city, w! r.eed to be clear about what it is we want funded so that we wind up with an end resu1t that satisfies what we want to see deveToped in the city. I think it would be a great mistake to make these d~cis!ons on an ad hoc basiS with this project or any other project in the future. I think we ~eed answers to those questions on a comprehensi~e basis. Finally. I think we need to send t~is project straight to the city countil. We need to punt it t~ere tonight after cOlmlenting on the sal ient issues before us. E\ren if ill of you like the p-roject and I am the only one .... !"1o does not, r think there are a lot of policy issues here. 50 it would ba a great mistake to have the prDponents of the project invest iny more time in architect!Jrll issues until theJ get a clear ~ssage from the council as to whether there is something here to ')0 fCnrlard wHh. Commissioner Glazier: Pam and I both agree that this project, as it stands, is in~ppropriate for us to appro~e tonight and send on to the ARB. My perspective is that It is inappropriate to ask the deve10per t~ absorb tne additional cost Qf developing the appropriately detailed plans prior to getting direction on the h~ce5sary poUcy lssues involved. Pam has laid out those key policy issues quite well. Our agreement just about ends therf. I want t~ talk about somE of the reasons why I think this would be i good thlng for Palo Alto. It would pro~ide addit10nal housing for seniors. As I read :he Comprehensive Plan, one of the biggest thin9s that hils me, page afte; page after page. is the jobs/housing 1mbalance. Toc ~any peop:e, to~ many jobs. not enough hOuSing. If you look at t~E various housing r!ports that have been done, Palo Alto, for its fair share of ~ousing over tne next decade, has to come up with 2,800 ne~ ho~sing units over the next ten years. Given that there aren't a lot of vacant lots, except in the foothills, I don't think there are going tc b~ a lot ~f single-family homes bUilt, so that leaves multiple-family complexes. I ha~e not seen buckets of multiple-family applications coming before us recently. There are lo:s of reasons for that, but here is a project that is 36 units that apparently is market-driven and makes sense. That, to me, is a good thing. Thirty-six extra units will open up 36 other residences, and there is the spillover effect som~where down the line that 36 houses are going to become available to people who want to live in this community. I think that, in and cf itself. may not be a complete and adequatt! plIblic lO/28/92 -5--.... , , I >j 1 , benefit for the PC zone, but [ think. it is a darn good thing. Secondly, I w.nt to t.lk about th1s .~ol. issue of public benefit and IIIhether SE-ven units is adeQuate. Pam :-1gl1tly identifies that 50 units of low-income housing 'Iller! a part of the lytton IV project, but sne did not mention that the ,ity is probably going to ~3ve to kick in $2 mi11lon to lDaKe that happe1'l. Here is a project wheT'e WE' are I"!ot:. goir.g to 'nave to kick i~ a pe~ny. This is self-fur.ding, self-financing. etc. It is seven SMR units that would not othe~ise be there for the public benefit. in additicn to the se .... en units that will be ther-e as a result Qf the BMR requ l rement s. Thirdly, I think this is going to be an attracti .... e bvildfng. It is gOing to e~hance urban design. When 1 go past it or 'When anyone goes past it, the.,)" will 100i<. at it and say, "Wow, thH looks nice,-particularly compared to the hodge-podgf! of California ,rackerjad uchitec:ture th.at is inherent in that a.rea right MW. I think; t can be somewhat 1 i ke a buildi ng al cmg the 1 ines of the President Apartments or the University J..rt bui1ding or 251 University Avenue. I t~in~ it can bf! an important architectur.al statement that Pa10 Altans will be glad is there. Now that 1 haVE! stated my general rf!a~ons for wanting to see the project go forward in some form, I want to talk about what I think are inappropriate re.sons to reject the bui1dlng. The one that comes first to mind is this whole issue of its bein9 for hi9h-income people a~d they can flgure out how to house themselves on the; r OWfl. We have to be careful not t~ deceive ourselves here. We ire a re~sonably affluent co~nity. lnat is the ~ay it is. 1 think it is important that ~et as a planning commission and the members of the city council, take it upon o~rselve$ to look out for and promote the interests of everyone ~o happens to be a resident of Palo Alto. Many of the people who wi1l want to be a part of this community are people who have been Te~jers in the ccmnunity fer years. I cion't think it is appropriate for us to take a policy of ~benign neglect" which ;s probably not the right term~ but it is the t~rm I ~ill use, whereby we inadvertently ferce them to go somep1ace else because their hou;sing requirements cannot be met in the ctty. Another way to look it this is, r don't t~ink. S700.000, the entry price of tMis, is something that can be conside~ed luxurious in Palo Alto. I wou~d s~y 15 to 20 percent of the houses i~ Pa 10 Alto are worth more than that. My Mouse. a tiny little l,SCO-square-foot i'lC!use on ;J; 5,OOQ-squar€·foot let, when my parents come to visit, they 1augh at met is worth almost S7()O,QOD. I don't U.ink. 1 am afnupnt by any stretch of the imagination. In some ways. I think this is a1most akin to saying, if you use the argument ;n the staff report that a. possible reason for denial would be that high-income people can find their ~ay into the pr-ivate market for housing. It is almost eyui .... alent to saying, we shou1d not send high-lncome childr~n to our s,hoo1s because they car. go to private scho01 or they can't use our parKS because they can figure out private ~ays to have recreation. Also, there has been dis,ussion that the FAR itself is inappropriate or that there arE toa many units there. [think we have already set a number of precedents for multiple-family for senior housing throughout the city --Webster House, Channing House, lytton, the President Apartments, even though those apartments are flot for s.enior housing --where densities and fARs are not too far different. To 10/26/92 -7 > . , .... address t~is who1e issue of market-driven zones, our current multiple-family lones J think are targetp.d toward the il.'erage, family-oriented multipie-fami1i' proj£:cts, SeniQr projects, in particular, are differ~nt. Seniors ~ave wery unique requirements. They ha~e requirements for medical tare. They ~av,=, requirerr.ents for social meeting places. They hawe requirements for exercise areiS for health reasons. They have requirements for space that needs to be devoted to persone:l services people, if they cannot get along as WEll as they did whe-n they were perhaps younger. nat adds space to a building. It 15 a reality, and if we want to promote senior housing, as w~ obviously do, aur z<,,~ing ~n some way has to reflect that need. Another inappropriate reilSon, in rny opinion, to reject the building is because it is in ~too sensitive~ an area. When I think of sensitive areas in the city, from a development pOlnt of vie~, I do not think of tne corner of Page Mi n Road and E1 Camino. I do fI,Ot th 1 nk of the corner of £1 Camino and San Antonio Road. By and large, I do not think a lot a~ut University Avenue and Middlefield. It is one of the bUSier corners in the area~ and it is primarily larger bu1ldings. TherE is a sm~ll section of residential, and we need to be senSitive to that. but we are ~ot tclki~9 about a primarily residsntia1 neighb~rhood. We are talking about a nelghborhood that is primarily cnmmercial and business-orfe"ted. Lastly, ] want to tal~ about the whole issue of nothing inherent in the project proY i ding a pub 1f c benefit. I caul:j rna ke tne argument that the provision of housing f01" seniors is, t!l some degree, a public beflefit. I do not want to make the a~~ume~t t~at it 1s a sufficient p~blic benefit, but I want to point out that in the two ether cases that Pam mentioned, we re1ied to some degree on public bei1ef1ts that were off site. Once you rely, to any degree, on a public benefit that is off site, you can very quickly fall int{l a very muddy discussion of what is zOiling for sale and what is not. J don't think Uis is zoning for sale. I don't think 529 8ryant Street was zoning f~r sa1~. Let me sUlllnar'jze. I don't disagree tllat we probably want to fiddle a lot with this project. If we h~d to vote yes or no on it today. I probably would wete no, because I think ther€ are some more modifications that need to be done to it. But 1 t~ink it is IWrong to reject it at this stage. For all the important polley reasons that Pam mentioned and that I have talked about, J think it is appropr~ate that we kick th~s up to the city council le~el and get thfir perspective on these issues. T~en it can retlJrn to liS to make iI more detai 1 ed, lI'lore thoughtful and perhaps longer lasting decision than ! t~ink W2 can tonjg~t. One last point about public benefit_ I have a philosophical problem with the BHR units being a J.iublic benefit. In generaT, r am extremely supportive of the concept of EMR units. but in this particular instance. I find that the benefit, whiTe significant, would be prowlded to too few people, relative to other potential p~blic benefits. This is something I mentioned at our earlier meeting. I think we should seriously ccnsider the possibility of creating 5{lme form of endowment for the senior center in terms of plain old dollars. I frank1y feel t~at would be an outstanding public benefit for this project. That 15 sO~Ething 1 would to hear other commissioners comment upon, COlTlTlission.~r (.ul]Ji!l: I wisf1 trat this applicatioll were before uS fer a 10/28/92 ·8- .\ " j. I -------...... ;1 .... - zone change tc RM-40 rither than to a PC. I think it wouid stand on its own under an RM-40 zone chan~e. PC zoning requires a 10t more, particularly the public benefit ~nd also a '.,t more desig" featUl"fs. It is in attractivE building. Th~re is I need for oldEr citizens who have 1 hed in this. cOlTlTlunity and have lived in larger houses to move on to the next stage, as I tndeed have. I thirok that the bulk of the project and the FAR comes franl wantin9 large units and heil aies and also a certain number of units. You ~ant to have both. You cannot have both. I thinK you could have fewer units of the large size that tnis market apparently demands, or you could have more units cf a smaller size. for which there may be a market. I d<ln't tflink you can ~Iave it botn ways .. ithout contributing to something in t~e neighborhood that is really overwhelming. So I think it is the wrong application. It should be RM-40, and then thi:; who~e business of public benefit .. ould be elimlnated. While we are an the public benefit. I don't hepp~1"! to think. that doing away with middle ,lass housing on the s~te for 'J~pet" in<::ome housing and then making up for it by bU,ying another !it! which is probably ~iddle class housing .nd turning it into BMRs contributes much to the complexi~n of this community. We don't went to wind up with just upper income and lower income people. We want to keep the middle income peGpie. TlH! BMR benefit is not actually creating units. It is buying LIp units that are already there. I think the way it is being proposed will el iminate a pGrt10n of the housing that is very important in Uds co~unity and which fits in with our Ccmprehensi~e Plan. I am also concerned that when we contr.st it with Webster House, as we ha~e, the applicants told us ther! is no medical compDnent in this one. rt would h.~e perhaps made the upper range of prices look a little different. That is not our problem, of course, as we are discussing the zoning. The other thing I WOUld also say ;s that it is not at the corner of Univer5ity Avenue and Middlefield. It is • whole b10ck away, and it is a block that we ha~e alre.dy given protection to as a transition znne .cross tn! street on Middlefield, where things are one Dr two stories at tn! most, and even if you w~re to go into a11 the mtdical offices along Middlefield, nane of them is more than one story. The only structure that is high is one that is gOing to be remo~ed by this project, the one tr.at was once a house on Uni~ersity Avenue, now at tne (orner of Hamilton and ~iddlefield which was rno~ed to its present location and then restuccoed, was for awhile Hare, Bre~er and Kelly, and then became this new technological headquarters. Do you think tnat is 40 feet tall? (CoRll1issioner Carrasco says it is about 35 feet) R.'t-4u does al10.w a 40-foot height. so ~ am looking at that as you loo~ across the street from those present bUildings. I am not g01ng to be able to ~ote for this application in its present form. I would like to see it resubmitted as an RM-40 app1ication. COlm1issioner ~n..midt: r would like to state for the record that although r was absent from the initial meeting dis(ussi~g this project, I did watch the video and therefore have benefit of the public hearing. I agree ~ith some of the things that !veryone has said tonight, ~rimarily ttie concept that Hi s does need to go to the ci ty counei 1 for-a pol i cy d~cis;on. I like the project. I feel there 1S a need for a project like thls in the commu~ity. and r think it is a good l~<::ation for it. rt might be a little 1arge, but r would agree ~ith the concept suggested in 10/18/92 -9- the excerpt from the urban d~sign plan that something lar9~r and ~ore massii.'e in that end of the downtown sectior, is appropriate. I think 1t is appropriate to provide lJrger cor.dominium housing for older people in the community who have li~ed here fer d lon9 time. 1t was stated t~at they would like t~ remain in Palo Alto, a community which they have helped build and kngw well. Their friends and fimily are here. However, one of the main problems here is tht! public benefit and tne way in which the app'i~ation 1s presented. I don't know wnat a good solution is, but I believe t~at public benefit snoulc be inherent in the project~ rather than off site. Although BMR units off site are a help, a PC should have public benefit on site. As Pam initiated, there are really i~portant policy decisions here that should go before the city council, and the public benefit, the idea of whether loning ca!'l be bought or not. Regarding the two projects that Pam mentioned O~ Br)ant and on C~er, I was not on tMe commission at that time, so I do not ~now the fuli analysis of them, but it seemed odd to me at the time that the public benefit ~as off site and not ass~ciated _it~ It. Also, as Pam mentioned, since the Comprehenshe Plan is coming before us again, there are some issues to address there, It might include looking at zoning in that area. In looking at the zoning map, seeing an RM-1S block ~ithin higher,density zoning on three Sides. it may be appropriate to look. at what that zoning should be. I wili not yote for approyal of the proj~ct, but would support sending it directly to the city council. Comrnlssion!r Ojaki#n: J will be brief, since most of my colleagues ha~e covered my thoughts on the subject. I am in particular agreement ~ith Commissioner C~llen. 1 look at this site in the same ~ay. r also want t{l reinforce some of the COilViients that others ha'lle made. First (If all, 1 think it is fully appropriate that we have diversified senior housing in Pal~ Alto. We tend to have certain e'e~ents of that currently existing in the community, and what we do have existing we (now is in sore need. I th~ught Mr. Webster's comments that we ha~e a ten-jear waiting list for some of these proje~t$ is appa11ing. So I a~ fully in support that diversifled senior housing, ~ethe-r high end or l~ ... e!'1d or in the middTe, is something that we want in Palo ~lto. 1 agree with Commissioner Cullen. I ~DuTd have less prob1ems ~ith this site and would probably vote for appronl if it were an RJol-4.Q site. We probably ~ould not even be sitting here t3Tking about it at the 1ength that we are. Unfortunately, it did not come bef~re us in that mode. Locking at this section of town, one that I am very familiar with~ I feel that upzoning the area would be appr~priate, given the condition of the area right now. ~e would end up with a significantly better section of town than it currently is. I also would like to make some comments, since it seems like in the past, this commission and/ur the counctl has dwelled a lot on El Camino and where it is going. The same sorts of concepts, tne same sorts of sensiti~ities need to apply to Middlefield Road. r de not see it as an area where necessarily bigger projects. or bulkier projects are rr,ore appropriate than somewhere else. I s.ee it more in line ~ith what C~mmissioner Marsh has stated, which is tMat it is a residential ~rea, a transition area. 1 do not see this project in its current height and iO/28/92 ·10· , ., bulk as something that adds to that area. I see it is detracting from the a~a. S~me of the other things I li~ed about the ~roject, i~ it was proposed, was U;at I find the 8'MR units attractive. The fact Ulat they are offered. Not necessarily the fact that they are offered off site, but the fact that we are going to add them to t~e housing stock. Tne more th;n~s we dtl to gi'¥e incent;vE'5 for that, the better. Although I do agree with Pam, I had difficulty dealing with the fact that everyone has stated, that they are not a part of the project, but are separate from it. Those are the Key things. In looKing at the staff report, I find rec~mrnendation ,3 to be the one that is the mast acceptable to me. It says~ ~Recommend denial of the project, but indicate some development gr~ater than the RM~15 zone may be appropriate for this sile, a~d fOT"\flard the project 1:0 the city council.- COlTlTlissioner Carrasco: r wanted to lJait until the end because I wanted to hear if there were negatives on this project. I do not hear an overwhelming number of negatives. There is a. thread ttlr:lugh everyone's discussion tonight that indicates some positives, with somp thinking that might need to be dane. I agree with Commissioner Mars~ that this project should ~o directly to the city council. There are policy issues inv01ve~ here that require tradeoffs ~tween t~e pubifc benefit and the type of housing tnat is proposed. I want to make one cOlTlTlent about high-income hous1ng. It is very important and it is needed downtown. It is a segffi€nt of the communlty that is not being seryed at present. I had the opportunity to talk to a couple Qf friends of mine who spoke about being able to give up their homes in Cresc~nt Park and would want to live in a project liKe this. They cited adllantages of being ab1e to live ifitn othe'l" seniors ina community type of atn~spher2, a secure community atmosphere, thereby giving up their htluse to their chi~dren or putting it on the market for younger families for whom it would be more appropriate. In that sense, we are producing valuable types Df housing. 1t is high income, which runs through our staff report as a n~9ative. Whl1e that might be pol iti::al1y correct, I don't trtink we should be ashamed of provlding hQusing for a segment of our community that is ne€:ded. Ld ~ maKe an argument that this project, in and of itself, is a public ben!fit. First let it be said that the project r€:leases housing for younger foami' ies to move into. Secondly. it is a good place fer seniors to liye. I recall 15 year3 ago reading a book by Jane Jacobs called PThe Death and life of American Cities.-in there she talked about seniors watching the streets and keeping them safer. I have talked in that re9ard ttl the Palo Alto Police Department, and they have indicated that i number of their calls come from s~niors related to criminal or quasi~criminal activity occ~rr-ing on downtown streets. Seniors, in fact, perform that duty adm1rab1y. Th1s kind of housing ir. the downtown will create great activity for the restaurants and retail stores that ~e haye ther-e, thus increasing the vitality that we are longing fer and ne-ed in the downtown. More than anything, it keepz the sense of nistory. If we dn not produce this kind of housing in Palo Alto, we are going to lose a segment of our 10/28/92 -1!- '.I ~l ,I , I ?i : I H community to Woodsi~e or other communities where the ~fnds of housing we are talking abol.'t is available. To keep that sense of hist(lry. to keep t~at ~erbal history. so that the pa!t can be passed on to the r.e~t generatlon htre is important. Changing some of the office space to residential is a ber.efH. The staff report mentions that. Ir, tenns of the transitilJn fram singl~-famil}' to offices to corm;ercial. it pro~~des a good transition. I stood opposite the site and tended to ~raw an ima~i~ary line across the Palo Alto Fountaln~ project~ stirting at the s1ngle·fa;lnily house c-n the left side of The Fountains as you face west. If yau draw a line betwee:1 tfti'! uppermost peak of this prnposed project and tne peak of the ioef of the house, you do not see this project from that sir.;le~famlly house. In my mind, that is an adequate kind of tra.nsition, in tErms of mass. 1 ~ant to taik a little about the urban form issues. For four years, Wt agonized over this. urban design plan and how to pro'olide a sense of entry it Uniyersity Avenue. lytton Gardens, on the one hand, is a ~ery aC~fptabTe project for most of our community. Very few people Tn our community would tnink this ts i bulky, masstve project, yet it is oyer lOC ~nits per acre. The setbacks tnat this project tonight has p~ovided ire equal to the setbacks at lytton. I agree wit~ staff that it wouid be nice jf it were ~ little cl~sei to University A~enue, but 1t d~es provide that sense of entry. This is an urban town. Downtown is not a glorified suburban type of area anymore. If 1 were to think aboiJt It<!~;,t ~::',.!1t! happen if we wer-e to tear down laning's Chateau or the President Apartments. I think. there wCi.ild be a huge outcry. Both of those p~ojects are larger in scale and volume than the one being proposed, far 1arger, in fact. Tn! deve1oper, Sam Webster, has produced some very exce1lent projects in this town. The hotel on Co .... per is considered beautiful even a year after it was built, and it was ~ery well accepted in the community. I have no doubt that this project ~;ll be of that same quality and will be accepted, as well. The biggest problem I ha~~ is th~ public benefit issue. I, lik~ Comissioner Marsh, hav~ a problem that the seven BMR units will not be produced close to downtown ~nd that the benefits do not accrue to the ilTlT1ediate neighbors nor to downtown. I would mw:h prefer a {;ontribution to th! senior center or for other kinds of senior acti~ities. On the whole, I believe that this kind of housing is appropriate. I feel U.at it 1 s a publ ic benefi t that \lfe would l'1a· ... e a l1i9h (jua' it), type of building at this site. It fits 1t1iU, the entry to PaiD AHo, and lie need seniors downtown. Sa I am willing to vote for it at this pcint. However, I w(luld ask that we refer ttlis item tr; the city council directly, with no ~ote on it. MOTION; Commissioner Carras~Q: so move. Chairman Beecham: Before I accept the motion, let me make my statements" too. So far~ we t1aye two yiews up here. One is that we do need to he visionary, to say what we wou1d like to see someplace. I think we are saying ~ery strongly that we would like to see something like this. We 10/28/92 -12- " like the basic idea and we think the idea of m~re hous;n~ in the city is nice. We think. the desigr, is nice. In a way, ~e like what we see. We are all expressing seme reservations on another aspect, and that is that we also need to be bureaucrats. We need to figure out how to make this work. in this location. SOllie of us, because we 11ke it SO much, are willing to 00 a lot to find a way to make it work. As a bureaucrat, I would "'ave a lJt of troJb1e saying the.e is, il'l fact, a public benefit to this project. Pam talked about th~ benefit being a substantial, inherent benefit. To chrif,y w~etner we are talking about a policy or supporting' the direct code, I would lik~ to ask staff if the co~e gives os any direction on whether the benefit needs to be ,nherent or not. earlier when we talked about a site on 500 Bryant Street, we talked about the nexus~ the public -benefit. I never really understood nf!Xus. I know what inherent means., so I would lHe t{) find out if we hewe an.)' support fer that. My recollection is tnat it is not n€cessarily in the co~e, so if we support it, it is ~ore of a poT icy direction that we want to take. Mr. Schreiber: Your conclusion is correct in terms of the code. Ms. lytle is lco~in9 up th~ specific settlon. The code does not define ~publlc benefit-in terms of being on site or wit~in the confines of the pruject. T~e conel usior. as to wtlat ; s an appropriate~ adequate, acceptable public be0efit is a deCision that is left to the d~c;sionmakers, the planning commlssioo recommending, and the council then deciding. As far as nexus and tne benefit of the project, it gen~ra11y has been felt that the public benefit should halle some logical reiation to the project. But again, I don't believe that there is any requirement tnat then has to be a firm 1 ~,nl(age between the nature or fc:-m (If the project and the public benefit. Again, that is a discretionar,y decision that ultimately, the city's elected decisionmakers need to make as to what is appropri ite. We usually use the word "nexus· in terms of mitigation measures. The~e ~e have state law, court cases, etc. to establish that relatic~ship. ~_~5e: in edoing, baSically, what Mr. Sctlreiber has said, Tet me say that ~~ usual1,y have gone on record as suggesting that you do try to make a 1inkage between exactions and the project that is being requested. This, in some circles, might be considerp.d an exaction, even though this is a legislative action you are takinq because it is a zone change. So the linkage is always an appropriate conSideration, even if it might not necessarily be a legal requirement. We would ce~tainly advise it. ~_~_ .... J •. YJJ.!; Just to read from tile code so that you can hear the i!Xict lang~~ge you are to cr.nsider when you thi~k of this public benefit issue, under Section 18.6e.O~O(b). it reads tnat ~DevelQpment of the Site under the prollisions of the Planned COrlll1unity district .. ill reslJH in public benefits not otherwise attain~ble by app1ication of the regulations of general districts or combining di$tricts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and counCil, as appropriat~, shall spe~ifically cite the ben~fits expected to result from use of the Planned Community district." So J think that the only rea' 10/18/92 ·13 - -~ " .J,; -1> ".' . ~ , . ,~, -:.;::. ,- guidance you are 9i~en is that whate~er these benefits are, they would b! t~.hgs that ctluld not be achieved through, let's say. the R.~-4D district that was talked a~out by two commissicners. Chairman Beecham: So what we have here is a struggle to find essentially the policy that W! feel comfortable in fo1'owi~g in defining tn~ p~blic ben!fit and how it should relate to the project. I much more fall in line with ~hat Pam is talking about. I like the word "inherent.· I would not use it strictly. I think aboiJt what we have done in the past whe~ we have siid ~more or less ~ff;'iated~ benefit! for the area, for th€ neighborhood, but still something directly relating to it. I Hink that makes senSE, because anytime you essentially violate a zoning law, ~h;ch is what we are potentially doing here by calling it i pc, t~e impact of that is very lecil. The impact of this site at Middlefield, Hamiiton and University won't affect us down on E1 Carr:-ino, won't affbct us down on San Antonio. So it is very ippropriate that IS a policy, ~e say, the public benefit shouTd be as localized as possible. So in my mind, I really cannot see how we could say tnat this project, even though they are offering some BMR units, is a substantial public benefit, bi!cctuse I t:'ink it should also be inherent~ to some degree. Al so there is the Question about degree of publ;c benefit. I would say that buying existing h{)using stock and then d~H1i:!ting it to it BMP. program is not sufficient. It is nice, and I w(luld like to see it, and God blen you folks who want to do that voluntarily, b~t in terms of whether that is adeQuate for this project, J ~ouTd say no, it j s not. It certainly would make a difference to me if there were additional new housing befng built in the city. Ther-e would be BMR units. So one thing we Med to chrify for tne council in tems of our collective tt'lou9hts is __ hether this is appropriate tQ b~ a PC zone, based on what the a~plicant is proposin9 as ptlblic benefit. Another point we should talk about tonight is whether or not · .... e would support changing the zoning on thlS site Staff has indicated that is an option. ] ha .... e a questHln far staff at this point. Is there an,,)" concern or issue about this being spot zoning, if we ~ere to do so? If ~e were to change the zoning on this ene site to be RM-40, is there any issue about this being termed spot zoning? ~chreibet:.; No. C~rtainly in this area where you haYe (adjacent sites with higher density, multiple-family zoning than the currer.t zoning on the site, it certain1y would not be a concern. Cnilrman Beecha~: So we have heard already from a few people that they think nigher zoning may be 3ppropriate, and ~e should address that, and perhaps seE' if we can come forth with a motion for t~e council on that issue on whether or not we would want to see that advanced. Another thing we sl'1ou1d address, more for the appl'rcant than the counei 1, is whether or not they should anticipate that if they were to ask for a variance, that we would be able to conclude that the site has any extraordinary or unusual circumstances about it, which must be a finding in order to have an,)' \/iricmce. So J fee1 we should provide that information to the appl icant tonight. My last comment is on th~ value cf ha~lng hous~no for the upper class, for rich folk, perhaps. 1 do not see housing for the more affluent among lO/28/92 -l4 - ··i 0, --.,.- us as bein9 a pcbl ic benefit, as 8; 11 perhaps does. I d{l bel1eve there is some trickle·down theory here, but on tne other hand, I do not s.£!e any reason to be biased 19ainst housing for anybody. A housing unit 1S a r,ousing unit. If we can afford tc slJbsidize it and gil.le it away to people who ~Qu'd not ~ave housing otherwi~e, that is great. But in any case, nousing. no matter how rich one must be to get in, is nice to have in the city. It helps in a number of areas housing, jobs imbalance, traffic, etc. So ~hat I would prop~se that we do is to try to address whether !:IT not we think this is appr"oprhh as a PC program. Ms. Case: Thfre is a motion on the floQf. Comissioner Carrasco: I -..;11 withdraw the motion, if acteptable to the second~r, to follow tr.rough with the discussion that you are h~ving. and then I will make it at the conclusion. ~: Chairman Be 6 charn: In t~at case, I move that we recommend to the city council to not accept the appTication to be a Planned Community zone applicatiop on the basis that the public benefits are neither sufficient nor sufficienti~ inherent in the program. SECOND: By Commissioner Marsh. ~ORI!lissiG:-.er Carrasco: I wculd 1 ike to make a substitute mction that we send this project directly to the city co~~cil because there are public benefit issues a~d pel icy issues that ~ave to be balanced, and it is most appropriate that they bahnce it, rather than us. There are issues related to the Comprehensive Plarr tnat we are looking at that are socewhat outdated along transportation corridors. J think that Middlefield is i transportation corridor. We ha\.'e new form issues that ~ are looking at downtown, and this is a project that does not conform 'With strict RM-40 reguTa.tions. We don't know if tne Comprehensive Plan and zoning ordinance that might ~ome out after this process will include an RM-4C. It might contain an increased density for seniors~ for example. So there are complicated and important zoning issues and policy issues that council should look at. MO]JON: Commissioner Carrasco: So I move that _e send this dire~tlJ to cOl.mcll . Corrrnissioner Cullen: In the or-iginal motion, I did nCit see any of the four recOrrrl"l{!tldations on page 16 0 the staff report. Your motion was to deny the PC zoning autrlght wiU,iJut .any of the caveats in here. Is that C{ll"'rect? Chairman Beecham: That is correct. I am dOing it a little more piecemeal than what staff had re-corrmended in their report, since 1 am anticipating addressing zoning specifica1ly also, which is one of the wariables in the staff r€port. as well as vari~nces. Commissioner Cullen: Does tne substitute motion take precedence, at this point? I'!s. Case: Yes, it does. Chainnan Beecham: Toni'. could you restate your substitute motion? I kill 10/28/92 -15· -_~"""""'_."'-"'_t""'''''''.'''''''·''''_.~ , .,.\'< , :~:-i/' '. . not sure t~at I understand the thrust of it. Commissjoner Carrasco: What 1 am suggesting is that we s~nd this application directly to council to resolv~ policy iss~es related to public benefit and in relation to the project tnat is being proposed, with no recommendation. Commissioner Marsh; I am not going tQ s.l!pport that motion. I would supp~rt the recommendation that came forward in comments that we endQrse Jtem 13 in the staff repert, which is to recorrmend denial of the project? but ",dicate that some del/eiopment grea.ter tha.n RM-15 l!lily be a?prGprhte fer this site. If this 1I10t;on that is on the floor now \liere just to f~rwar~ to the c~un~i1 without further comment 1 ~~thcut e1aboratir.g on it, is defeat~d. r would support a motion to th~ gist ~f Item '3. tbairman Befcham: The motion was mad~ by Tony and seconded by Bill that we pass this on directly to council for thei~ decisions on the policy issues ;nvol~ed, and I presume, not gi~e them cur explicit opinions. Commissioner Carrasco: The second pa,t r~lated to not g1ving them ovr opinions is not part of the motion. I thlnk WE can talk about ho~ we feel. and we have d~ne that. If we want to further c~ntinue o!scr;bing in addition to what we have done in the past. that is acceptable to me. (missioner Cull@: r want to speak against that motion. I cannot b~lieve that we sit here as a pTanning commission and send on to the council an item tn<:,t we halie cnnsidl'rec first in a PUbl ic hearing, and second1y, as di!:lcu5sed among ourselves. I assume they will read the minutes~ but r think we should get t~ether on some kind of recommendation to tne council as to what our recommendation is~ if we are not gOing to just deny the PC zoning outright. That was the original motion. 1 cannot su.pport this su.tlstitute matlar!, nor will 1 support the original motion. COmmissioner Glazier: I wa~t to ~ddress a coup1e of issues that may be rele~ant to p~ople's unwillingness to consider th1s ffioticn. There has been some discusslon of BMRs not really tleing created as a result of this proce~s. My understanding of tne way this ~i\l .OT~ is that the applicznt lIIil1 go OLit 3:'1d bJY market-rate housing. I don't think therte are too many de-ve1opers IJr apartrr'ent o'ltner-s, whp -want to go O\lt and offer him a discounted pric~~ just bec~use he 1S going to turn these into SMRs. He is going to take apart~nt houses, etc. that currently sell at market rate, buy them, give them to the city, and they will then bec:ome BMR unltS. So we are creati~g BMR \lnits. We are not adding housing, but we are creating BMR units. That is a good thing. Th"'! second thing I wanted clarification on (anc:! staff please correct me if J am wrong) ; s that in the Cowper Street PC that you brought before us, there was no officially sanctioned retail requirement. Chajrman Beecham: Bill. is this relevant to the motion on the table? COmmissioner Glazler: of ord.,. tend to feel that it is. b~t you can ru1e me out Chairma~ Beecham: I rule you out Qf order. Any other comments on the 10/28/91 -] 6- • ., ... IOOt;nn? t2.!oo!..Usjoner-Oiakiall' ! agree with Commissioner Cullen, I don"'t tninl:. I can supp~rt eit~er of th~ moti~ns before us. I am going to go back to w~at ] originally said in my comments, which Pam sounds like she is g01ng to b~ in support of. That is, that we get p.ecorrmendaUon 1'3 before us. Tna t wi 11 prov; de tt1~ C:OU!"1C i 1 with some of our cQr.J!T1ent s on wh a tis needed to resolve how we ire going to go ahead with this p~oject, or where it is 901ng to end up. I10TIDN FAllS: Chairman Beecham: Is there il!1Y further discussion en this motion? Ail these in favor cf send~ng th~ project on to the ca~ncii directly w1thout otherwise reconnendin':l appro'oa1 or disapproval please say Aye? All op~osed? That fails on a vote of 2-5, wit~ CDmm'ss1~ners Carrasco and Glazier voting for it, ~hairmac Beecham: Maving heard the other comments, r w111 withdraw my motion. if r can do that lega11y, and I ~ould welcome another motion. MOTION: Commissioner Oj~kian: Once ag~in, I am going to make a moti~n that ~e accept the Recomrnendati~n #3 in the staff report, which is tc recommend denial of the pr~ject, but indicate that some development greater than the RM-1S zone may be appropriate for th·is sitS', and forward the project to the city counc~l. SECOND: By CommiSSioner Marsh, Chairman Beec·nem: Any corrments? CornmiS$ioner Carrasco: J am going to ~upport that mot!on, nat because I think. denia1 is appropriate for this project. but because I think it is the easiest );'ay tQ get it to the city C;Junci 1. COmmissioner £'tzier: We really have no ether choice. My feeling and Tony's fee1ing 1S that some development potential greater than the current zoning is appropriate, and I ~ould like the city council to take a look. at it. COrmlissio'1tLMarsh: As I indicated earlier, I win support th.e motion. I tnink it is reasonable that we Took at something greater than RM·15. However. 1 would also like to state that J am not ready tonight, nor at anytime in the near f~ture. t~ say that this site should be RM-40, as I have heard some comments tonight. I really feel that the zoning of this area needs to be considered as part of a comprehensive look at the downtown. To go ahead and pull an RM·40 out arid place it on this corner without looking at what that does to that larger downtown core I fee1 would be a mistGke. That puts this back, in my mind, to where we started, which was il1corporatirlg a look at this site, and indeed th-:! entire blOCK, as part of a comprehensive l00K at the downtown~ and as a part of t~e greater urban design study. Let me also note that] don't think that any of us here are, as ] have heard tonight ~asham-edn of developing high· income hous'ng for seniors. But we are looking at a much different question, ~hich is, should the public subsidize high-income housing for seniors, or for anybody, for that matter. Jndeed, an exemption to the zoning ordinance is a public lO/2S/gz -17- • \ ( subs1dy of som< type. Com; s:;iontl'r Schmidt:-r I too wi l' support tni s mot 'on. but J ... ant to cl~rlfy that ev~n if the zDning were to be 'hanse~ to RM-40, that would still net allow a project .anywhere close to the magnitude of whit is betng proposed here. ihe FAR for the current project is 1.6 and the FAR for RM~40 is ].0, according to my understanding. So there st~'l would be a great differe~ce between what has been proposed tonight and what might arise from i change to RM-40. Those are my comments. COnIDissioner Glazier; If? is Pam suggests, it 1S apDropriate tl> take a bigger pict~re look at this in the context of an overa11 downtown study, 1 think ~e shou1d have 11so applied that reasonlng a year ago when we approved lytton IV. That ... as an equally large project in an equally sensitive area. We had many neighbors from tnat nei~hborhood come tn~t night and talk about thelr reservations for the project. \;'e chose to move ahead with that 1 based on a ~ariety of factors, and [ do not see any reason why we should Wait for a mo~e comprehensive study if, in fact, we feel it is the right thing to do. MOTION PA~: Chairman Beec.ham~ Is there any fu.rther discus.sion orl this motion? All those i'l favor of the motion to accept staff recommendat~on _l, ~hich ,s to recommend denial of the project but to indicate that some development 9reat~r than RM-lS may be approprhte for this site, please s.ay Aye? Ail ~ppo5ed? Th,t ?3SSeS Gn i vote ~f 7-0. I s.till l'Iaye ! concern in that staff, in Uleir repGrt, ind~cate that they belie~e it would not be appropriate to find that the site has any extr&ordinarJ circumstances about it, ~hic~ is a required finding to grant any variance. As Kathy mentioned, the project ;s still considerably lurger than a110wed even in a RM-40. If the app1icant does want to come back before us with a project that is designed to fit any RM, and request t~at c~ange, ! think the app1icant should have some ldea as to whether Dr not they can expect i variance. Commissioner Cullen: 1 don't tnink we can consider that ~ntf1 we see if they do tome wlth anotMer project that fits whatever laning, and what 1 assume under a different zoning regulation, different variances mayor may not be reql!ired, so I am not in a po'Sition to gi\le any direction or advice to the applicant tonignt. J want to see what they do ~ith the council action. Chairman Beecham: To me, with any \larianc€' Jrlatter, no m3tter how large or small, we need to make a finding that t~ere are e)ceptional or extraordinary circumstances regarding the site. Comm{ssign~r Cu11en: That may well be. but I am Mot prepared to decide that taoight. CO!mtjssioner "',,arsh: I agree \IIith Commissioner C\ll1erl. I thin.K it is really dependent UpOfl the design of the build)ng and the land that is 'incorporated in the project. HO'fle~er, 1 .ill 90 onE. step further and say that I do think that a project of this magnitude shou1d be designed in a way that does not requir@ ~a~iances. I ~ould put 1 1arge burden of pronf on the applicant to indicate that a variance is really necessary and warranted. lO/28/9? -18- COIITihs1oner Cyl ltl'l: I halle one more thing to .add. I was surpri sed that und!r the en~irD~mentll ;~act assessment, the aest~et;c impact was considered to be just medium. To me, the aesthetic impact from the magnitude of tkat building in that locatlon is more than just I -maybe.· I would 1Ike to have staff take another look at ~.hat. It is on page 5 of the [IA. Also t as i raised once bffore in another project, r ha~e a questiQn about tf1.e water, and whether there wouid be a need" for new systems. The answer is no. We st 111 have T1Ct gotten any ansuer to ~ow these new projects are affecting our water s~pply. 1 sure wou1d like to get that one of these days. ("'lima!) Beecham: Are you asking a direct Question of staff tonight? Cammiss1Qner Cu11en: If it is included in the ~;n~tes, J assume staff w~11 be prepared to answer that kind of Question. Ms. lytle: We would project a date of NOllember 16. although we cannot guarantee that date at this point. 10/28/92 -19· ------ ., ','.