Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout0247.093- ~ ~ April 15, 1993 HONOFABlE CITY COUNCIL P.10 A1to, California 4269-4173 £1 Ca'l'1ir.o Real 91 aroned Community lone Cha.ng~J Preliminary Parcel Map and Variances Members of the Council: R£PORT IN BBTE> 11 This report forwards the Plannlng Commission and Architectural Review Eoard recolTmendations on an application for a propos.ed planned cO!mlunity zane cnange, preliminary parcel map for a lot split, and variances for property located at 4Z69-4273 [1 Camino Real. ihese approvals are necessary to allow separate ownership of an existing residential bu~lding by a nonprofit housing grotip and comersion of iii mark.et rate apartment to low-im:ome housing. T~is projett has resulted in conflicting recnmrnendations from the ARB and Planning Commission and, at times, emotional public debate, The Planning Commission lS recomm~nding approval of the PC lone Change, while the ARB is rec~nding denial. The issues raistd includ! the City1s desire to encourage good design, improvement ind viability of existing hotel prcpert~es, as well as the long estiblished policies for fuifilling community neads for diversIty of hDusing types. These policies have been described as conflicting, a1though staff ind the Piann1ng Commi3~;cn majority do not think they need be. Any apparent conflict over tl1is application was e.xacerbated by the icicsyncl"'acies 'e.g., the mismatch of driveways and easements) of two adj~cent properties, tne.Dinah's Shack. restaurant and the Oihah1s Garden Hotel, which de'oleloped in reliiinc:e or. one another, but ..-ithout the benefit of an effective c.ollaborative planning effort to deal "itn that code~i!ndenc.e. Staff has been aware of the historic co~flict5 Oetw!en the Dinah's Garden Hotel and Djnah's ShaCK properties for seYer,l y~ars, due to processing two unsucc~ssful restaurant proposal $ on tbe front parce1. Staff has advised the current applicants from the onset as to the contro'olers;es and encumbrances associated ~ith the propertioes. An application for a new restaurant, Houston's, is being proposed simultaneously with this project. HDustQn's restau~;nt has applied to the ARB to construct i new restaurant on proposed lot!. An appeal of the ARB decision to appro ..... e the new res.taurant is scheduled for Council consideration on thi~ same agenda. A greater description and discussion of eacn element of the subject application is pro~ided in the Planning Commission stiff Tenort dated CMR:Z47:93 - ----------------.- • ..:.~~,: > ~~!~.h'?< _~ • ,,..;:-'0 - October 23 1 ~992, prowided is Attachment M. A discussion of issues raised by the Arch1tectural Re~;ew BOlrd is ~rovlded in the Plannfng Commissio~ staff r!port dated March S, 1993, pr.cvlded is .I~ttachm!nt L Ittinwtes of all meetings are .11 so attached. BACKGROUND Ihe following information slJpports the staff and Planning COlTlT1issio~ recommendations. City Prigrity to Increase Supp1y of AffQrrlab1e Hnusing Increasing the City's supply of affordable housing is a major prforlty of the Hoas1r.g Element of the Comprehensive Plan. This pr;o~1ty is re~lected in t~e numerous programs and policies to increase the City's supply ~f hou~ing affordable to low-and moderate-income hOUSE::holds, by whate· ... er creative or inr.o'llative means possib1e {see pps. 10 and II of Attachment M for specific listing;). The proposal to convert an existing struc-tur! from its current residential l!se to permanent low-income housing. with a priority to serve people who are emerging from hamelessness or at risk of be~oming homeless, cl~arly meet~ the intent of the polities and programs of the tity's Hous,ng Element. Approval of i P( ZO~E c~ange for th1~ project. needed to exceed den~ity levels in the RM-30 district, is conslste!lt with Housing £lement Program 15 --to provide zonir.g flexibility to facilitate sma11er. more affordable housing units. It is also consistent with the priorities established in the City's Comprehensive Housir.g Affordability Strategy {CHAS). Pro~iding adequate shelt~r and supportive counselling serw~ces for people in greatest need was given the highest priority in the adopted CHAS. The purchase of the Tamarack Court project for conyersi~n to low-income housing ~s an example of such a project and was identified by staff as a priority goal in the CHAS Annual Plan, based on the receipt of the Midpeninsu:la Housing Coalition~s applic.ation. In recognition of the growing homeless situation, the Cit) Council made addr!ssing the needs of reople in criSis a Council priority in 1991. The City's ability to provide ~dditional lOW-income housing has diminished in the list decade. This is partly due to a substantial reduction in federa1 housing assistance funds and partly due to a lack of available suitable sites. Jhe City now has 1,009 subsidized renta1 units. Only 19 perc2nt {191J of the units were constructed/acquired in the last 12 years 0981-1993L wf'd1e 81 percent {SIS) were con$tructed/acquired in the prewious 12 years (196B-1980). It will continue to be difficult to increase the supply of affordable housing in future years, with budget prob1ems ilt .11 governmental le .... e-ls and high demand for arly potential housing sites. Publ ic eenefit ~f Proj~ct The public benefit of this project is to increase the supply of lQ~-income housing in the City by converting 21 units of a 22-unlt residence hotel into CHR:147:91 :::L 4/15/93 Page 2 - pt!rmanent 'o.-1nc::.om~ nousing. Hid-Pel"11nsu1,a Housirlg Coalitlon (MPHC). a r,on­ pr~fit hGusing organilatio~, prop~se$ to purchase and manage the project, renting the units to eligible families and single hou~eholders. Th~se individuals will likely be employed ir1 low paying ser"ice jcbs, eqlli'r'a1ent to those needed to mainta1~ the nearbt hotel and restaura~t uses along El Camino Real. MPHC will provide a resident site manager and will contract with the Urban Ministry to provi1e on-slte casework and counsEl1'ing to aHist th,= residents 1n impro'w'ing thefl" 1 i ..... es~ The provisions of th~ proposed PC zone are to :1mlt site uses to low-income housing and the a.ncillary support serv1ce$ require·j by the residents of the project. Such prov1sions are to be enforced through the requirements of the PC zo~e and through deed restrittions. Apprgpr1itanrss of HQusing at this Lpcatipn The portion of the project Slte to be rezoned to PC is al~eady d!signated for Multiple Fam11y Ho~sing in the Comprehensive Plan, and has dual Multiple Fam1ly (RM-30) and Senice Co"",erelal Hotel Combining <Ii strict zoning, (5(H)_ (Staff bolieve, that the ,mall amount of CS(H) applied to thi, portion of the sib was iI drafting error, i;'ld the Tamarack Apartment building was intended to be e.xcllJsively residential.) Tne site is sU'rrounded by MuTtipl.e Family des~gnated sites to the south and southeast. The City goals of the 1980 (omprenensive Plan, and subsequent Citywide Land Use 4n~ Transportation Studi, to increase the housin,:! supply and cnange the strlp corrmerci a1 character of El CaminD Real are refiected in the rel~ning and redesignations of many £1 Camino Real parcels, including the neighboring Elk's Club and Palo Alto Bow1 sites. Any proPGse~ non-resider.tial redevelopment for the proJect site that would remove the e~isttng housing would reQufre loning and land-use designation changes, and would need to ~it;gatE the loss of such hou5;n9. The b~ildir.g was d~signed for residential use. The eXisting building was constructed as an apartment and met tity requirements for such a use in effect at t.he time it was bunt. The building was esselitially operated as a residence inn (rentals fCl'( 30 days or more) by the owners of the: Dinah's Restaurant until the restaurant closed. The project has not been subject t~ the City's transient occupancy tax applicable to all hotel and motel uses. Should the PC apPlication and subdivision be denied, the structure wov1d likely continue to be used for rfsidential purposes and could be used only for hJtel purposes if operated is a rfsidence inn. Effects of Proposed Project A. Physical Changes The project will result ir. no physical chan~es to the site, other than building rehabilitatior.. Site tirculation. access? setbacks, parking, building sizt! and height will not change. All eKisting access easements will be mair,tained? and' a new access easement · ... ill be granted to Ojnih's. Snac~ and Dinah's Garden Hotel 'p~aels which better reflects existing access. Staff lIIo~ld prefer to redesign .11 pri ..... ate access easements to better conform to CMR:247:93 4/15/93 Page 3 -- actual ingress/egress. D~e to the longstanding inability of the private ~lrt1es ~nvolved t~ co~rdi~att, this re~~mmendat~on was not made a requirement. ~Cbange in Use The project will resuit in no essential chan9~ in use. it is now used fer non-transient ho~sinq, meaning rentlis must exceed 30 days. Testimony received durfng the Plln~in9 Commission H~arin9s indicat!d tr.at occupants have resided at the project for up to s;. years. The building ~ill continue to be used for housing. even if the project is not approved~ lhe non-conforming nor.-,ompiy1ng status of th~ existir.g bu11din9~ wh~ther in its current parcel configuration or in its new parce' configuration, effective1~ iimits deve10pment of the area to that which currently exists. Th-e only change in use 1.s the incotr.e 1e\le1 s of new ter.ants~ whidl in and cf 1ts~lf has no d~rect phys~c'l impact. Th~ C1ty h~~ many sub~\dized housin~ units. There is no eVidence that subsidized housing units have had any detrlllental effacts on neight-orin.; residents or businesses. In fact. there is nothing apparent that would distinguish these proj!cts from non-subsid~zed ho"slog. . PLANNING COWoijSS!QN ~.crION The Planning CO~1ssion held two public hearings on this project. At its initial publ;, hearing ~eld on October ZB. 1992, the Planning Comm1ssior. voted un~n1mously (6-0, one absent) to recommend conceptual approval of the planned community zone cnange portion Df the p~oject. On ~arch 31, the P1ann;n; Coem;s,l.n voted (3-1 wlth two absent) to recommend approval of the pTeli.inary parce' sap, variances, ar.d planned community zone t~ange ~ith additional conditions. The majoritJ position acknowledged the uniqUE site conditiQ~s and c~nfisuratiQ~, but recognized the se¥ere ~ted to in~rease the supply of low-income n.ou.sing. The (clI'm; ssioners in fal/or of the projf!c.t bel ievl!d that the project would nat result ir. .any perce~tible cnange in use or sitE: conditions, and "auld not na.\le any d'etrimerltal impa.ct on adjoining use:>. Tn~ use .as seen as being no different than that which currently exists on the site. The negativE as~~ct:i of tne buildin3 desisn and site ccnfigurati~n exist and wo~Td continu! to remain whether the project was approved or not. The CommiSSion did recommend additional (ondjti~ns of approyal be added to the PC ordinance to assur~ that tne project management and permissible us~s would reflect the-Planning Conmission's irltent. These cond'ftions have been incorporated into the attached draft ordina~ce. The minarity pos~tion stated a strong support for low-income housing, but be1ieved that the severe cDTlstrail'lts presented by the irregu'dl:r s~tt configuratiorl, sma1l parcel site, lac.k of ~pen area arId location between two portions ~f ) h~tel ust made this partiCUlar Site inl~?ro?ri6te for separate parcelizition and permanent housing. CMR:247:93 4/IS/93 P'ge 4 , I i I I r , . - ARB ACTlQlj At t,e ARB .. eting of December 3, 19~Z, t,e ARB voted (4 to I) to recommend denl,' of the project. The majority pDsition was based O~ the inability to make affirmative re~p~nses for all findings needed for appro~al of a Planned Community Zone, and for the majority of the go~ls and stand~rds fer re~1ew estab'fs~ed in the Architectura1 Review OrdiManc~ (Chapter 16.48 PAMC, s~e excerpt of goals and standards in Attachmer.t K}. The recommendation for denial •• s based on the beliefs that: (I) the existing building and site layout were poorl~ designed for the proposed use; (2) i penaal',ePlt housing use, was inappropriate in between two portions of an existing hotel os.; and (3) t'e parking and open space needs of permanent residents WQ~ld conflict with the surrounding commercial hotel and restaurant uses+ T~e ARB believed that support of the PC Zone ChanSl'5: and proposed 5ubchvisi{lrr would exa:erbate i poor existing situation a~d would preclude tne po!entia: for the 22-ur,1t complex to be incorporated into the ex~sting Dinanrs Garden Hatel it some f~ture time. The ARB recognized the need for increasing tn@ supply of low-income housi~9, but given the existing sit! in~ building deSign, did not consider it to be appropriate at this location. The minority ARB position was to continue the pr~ject to al1~w the applicant time to respond to concerns raised about parking, play area, storagf, bicycle parking and design enhan(ement of the builOi~9+ Joint P1anning CommiSSion/ARB Meeting The ARB and Pla~nln9 Commfss1on held a joint meeting on Marc~ 10, 19~3, to disc~ss their differing recommendations on the proposed Planned Community Zone cnange before the Planning Commission made its final recommendation to the City Council. This ~eting was held in compTi2nce with provisions of the Architect"ral Review Ordinance [Section 16.4S.0S0 (b)(3)J. Hat requires the PTanning Commission and ARB to attempt to res~lve inconSistent recommendations being forwarded to the City Council en PC zone applications. The ARB did not dange its ~n,itial reco'l1l'l'lendat ion to recommend denial of the project as a res~lt of the meeting. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Tne Enyironmental Assessment prep~red for this project finds that it ~ill not result in any direct physlcal impacts, and recommends adoption of a negative decl arati!}n; A copy of the Etllliron~ntal Assessment is pro\lided as Attac,ment B. fINDINGS AND CONDITIQNS The following findings and conditions for the prelimlnary parcel map, variances and planned community lone change have been prepared in support of the planned projfct. CHR:Z47;93 .. :\c:rrr\~_ ---,~"'---.. -- L 4/15/93 Page 5 . ::<~f;!;··::O . ';'-, _·",",:'~':~:C ___ " -~ -' F'nd1~qs for Pr@l1minary Parcel Map 1. <rhe proposed map is consistent with applicable Comprehensive Plan goa1s and poHcies, in that allowing sulxliwision of the property -.lill resuH in no cii~ect physical changes but will enable the fxisting resid~ntia' structure t~ b! sold separately and cOTIYerted to permanent low-income ~cusing consistent with Policies " 9, 11 and 12 and Prcgrams II, 15, 20~ 27 and 30 of the City's Housing Element, which are directed at ; Mcreasing the supp1y of 1 ow~;ncome housing. 2. The design and improvements of the prcposed subdivision are consistent wlth the C~mpr!hensiye Plan~ in that the site is deSignated for Myltip1! family Residential deve'op~ent, the site is occupied by a structure desfgned for multiple-family resid~ntial use, and circulation a~d access to adjoining uses will be mainta;ned and protected. 3. The site is physic-alloY suitable for tfle type and density of development proposed, in that all proposed site improvements currently exist an1 will not be changed a.s a result of the proj~ct, and r~develo'pment will be limited to the same density and configJration which currently exists. The ~Dmprehensive Plan, Program J5 of the Housing Element~ encourages zoning flexibility tc facilitate tnis type of housing. 4. The desigr. of the subdivision, the di~i$ion of one lot into two, ~411 not cause substantial environmental damage or substar.tial1y and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. in that the projec-t site is a developed site withir. a developed urban area. s. Tn! design of the subdiviSion l~d the proposed improvements will not result in serious, public health prob1ems, in that no physical changes. or changes in use will be made to the site, and no public health prob1e-ms are known to exist. 6. Tnc proposed design of the subdivision and improvements wnl not conflict with easements acquired by UtE public·at-la~'ge for access through or us~ of property within the propo~ed subdivi~ion, in that the­ site is ~nencumbered ~y any public easements. will m~intain existing site access and an f)(ist'fng private ingress and egr.:!ss easements, and wil 1 ereatt ill n~·1fII ingress and egress easement for the benefit of an adjoining property owner. Findings for Varian~r ProPQ5~d tot ( 1. There are exc.epUonal or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicab1e to the property involved th~t do not apply generally to property in the same district, in that the project site has an irreg~'ar configuration. ~ith mixed RM-30 and (S(H) loning, and is developed with a structure deSigned for resldenthl use, which crosses the zoroing line and does not meet current site development regulations of eitner zone; and the sole need for ~ariances 1S based on a technical re'orientation and definition of specific parcel boundaries resulting from a proposed subdivision rather tnan arly physical changes to site conditions. CMR:247:93 4(l5/93 Page 6 • \ - 2. Tne granting of the application is necessary for the pres.ervati{,ln iind enjoyment ~f a substantial property right of the applicant. and to prev!nt unreasonable proge~ty loss or unnecessary hardship, tn that the site improvements creating the need for the ~ariance now exist, are grandfathered and tin be rebuilt; and granting of variances recognizing ttle existing site setback and dayli~ht plane encroachments is nec.essary in order to make! ffr'!ding5 that ttle project is in compliance with zoning regulatiQns and ~nab'1ng approval of a parcel map allowing for separate ownership of t~e site. 3. Th. granting of t~e applicotion will not oe detriment.l to the pub1ic health. safet~, gener~l welfare or convenie~ce. in that all site improvements currer.tly e~ist, and nave no detrimental impact to the public health, safety Dr gener;l welfare. F1ndjng$ fgr Plinned COmmunjty lone Cnangp for Proposed lot? 1. Tt1& site is 50 sHuated, and the use pr'Oposed for the site is of sucn a characteristic) thiit the applic.3tion of gf!~.eral districts or combining districts will be c\..-erljl restricti\le in dppl ication for the followir,g reasons: a) the site that is already developed borders multiple-family resident1il loned property to the north and eist~ thereby imposing speci.l req~;rements for greater yard and daylight plane setbacKs for 111 adjoining zones; and b} t~p. existing residential structure is i noncomplying facility and confcrming use, wnich does net co~ply with the current site development re9~iat;ons of either of tne underlying dual CS(H) lrid RJ11-30 zones, !'!Or will it comply with th!. c~rrent site de~elopme"t regulatlons of the higher density RM·40 zane, yet wuuld be able to be remodeled, improv~d ~r replaced under the pro\lisions of the ClJrrent code. 2. Oevelopment of the site under the provisions of the Planned C.orrrnunitJ District will result in publ~c benefits nQt othe~ise attainable by application of the regulitions of genera1 distric.ts {)t combining dlstricts in that the Planned Community District would accommodate i stlcdivlsion, thereby enabling separate ownership of a~ €xlsting residential structure by i 10cal nonprofit hc~sl~g corporation and allowing its conversion to permanent low-income housing with supporti~e serwices. Tne n!ed for and b~nefits of increasing the supp1y of housing avai lab'e-to very-low-and 1 C>W-inccr'rre househ"lds has been we"11 documented in the City's updated Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan adopted on October 26, 1991 and Comprehensive Housing Affordabiljty Strategy adopted on December 14, 1992. 3. The use and site development regulations applicable withjn the district iTe consis.tent with the Pale A.lto Comprehensive Plan, and are compatjb1e with exis.ting anc' potenthl uses cn adjOining sites or within the general vicinity, in tna~ the existing s!ructure was designed is a residential facility and never used as i traditional hotel; the project site is designated for Multiple Family Residential in the Com~rehensive Plan Land Use Map; a portlor, of the sHe is zoned" for rlultiple FamiTy Residential and is bordered by Multiple Family Residential zoning to the 00:247:93 o •• k, 'L ~,:,: •. ; .. -~ 4/15/93 Page j - '~-.:.'~ •. ~ ;,> '.. 0-'~ nort~ and northeast; a11ow;ng f~r separate ownersMip of the site and existing facility by a nonprofit "oLising corporation, for conversion to pe~anent low-income housing to be made aViflable to those mo~t i~ need of housing assistance, is in compliance ~itn specific goals of the tic-using Element of the ComprehensiVE Plan (Pc1icies i. 9, lJ ind J2 and Programs 1]. IS, 20, 27 and 30) dir!cted at increasing the suppiy of low-inc~ ~o"sing in the Citi_ Conditions for P1anned Community Zone ). That a parcel map subdividing property at 4169 .nd 4173 [1 C.mino Real i~to two parcels be recorded prior to issuance ~f an occupancy permit for re-otcupancy of the Tamarack Court Apartments. 2. Approval Gf necessary variances be obtained that ref!ect the front a~d side yard setbacks and daylight plane e~croachments of the existing building lo(ation. 3. The c_~er of the subject property shall ret~in an Qn-site manager who will reside in one of the units. 4~ ClJrrent residents of the subject property who have 1; 'led at the property for two years O~ more shaTl bE able to remain as tenants of the property or be relocated. 5. On-site counselling shall be for residents of the subject property only. E. The owner of t~e subject pr~perty shall designate c neighborhood liaison to handle compiaints. The name, address and pncne nwnber of the liaisen shall be given to the loning Administrator and the Manager ef Dinah's Garden Hotel. 7. The tenants of the subj~ct property sha11 have no rights to ~se the adjacent property or facilities beyond the rights afforded to the general publ ie. B. Subject to the approval of the Arcpit~ctural Re.ieRi Boal"d, the owner of tnt subjer.t property shall filike e_lCterr.al improvemefits. to the buiiding inclUding, but not limited to. lighting, baleeny railings, deck layout, provid~n9 outsid~ acti~ity or play area for residents, painting in a more compatiblE color, and adding handicapped access if Teq~ired. 9. The Planning Commission shall review this PC lone one year after occupancy of t~e subject property. SubseQ'Jel'lt year reviews \l/ill be held if deemed necessary it the ~ne-year revlew. Conditions for Preljminarv Parcel Map 1. Tne subdivider shall obtain City approval of a fi nal parcel map and record the map with the Santa Clara County Reccrder. CMR:147:93 4/15/93 Page 6 - 2. 3. The parcel map sha': incl~de i noneXCfU$;~e ingress and egress easement for the benefits of properties ,t 426! and 4261 £1 C.mino Real. is shown on tne 1'1""21 !mfnarj" parte-' map. Tile final parcel map shall be filed with the City within ()ne year of the approval of t~e preliminary pa~cel map. Ewidence of sufficient funding for purchase, renovatiDn and eperatlon of the sjte by a qua1 ifle.j nonprofit hous;n; corporation, 1n compliance with the provisions of the Planned Community lone for use as permanent jaw-income housing. shall be pr~vided to the Planning Department fo~ review and approval prior to filing of the fin.l parcel map. RECOIf!ENDATl ON Staff and the Planning Commi.sion recommend that the City Council find that the projett will not resylt in any significant environment~l impacts ar,d ipprove the following elements of the project subject to the findi~gs and conditions listed above: I. A zone change for proposed lot l (42i3 [1 Camino Real) from CS(H) and RM-30 to PC, as per the draft Ordinance pro~ided as Attachment A~ and the Development Plans; 2. Subdh'1sion of property located at 4269-4273 El Camino Real from one parcel into two parcels as per the enclosed prelim~nary par,el map; and 3. Variances for lot 2 to recogniZE the e)istence of: aJ a front s~tback of zero feet wnere 20 feet is normally required, b) side yard setbacks along t~e north property line of zer~ fe!t or. the first floor, where 10 feet is normally required, and 7.S feet on tne second floor, where 17 fe!t is normally required, ind c) a 6-foct-high encr~achme~t into the daylight plane along the north property line for a distance of 32 feet, as per sheets 4 and 5 of the Development Plans. Respi!ctfu1iy submitted, ~. ~ClA...J.-. ~~ . SARAH CHENEy ..... ' ~vJt£7A' If' ~~.a4 KENNETH ~. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Se".ior Planner ~~ Community £nYir~nment C. ; ty Manager Attachments: A. CMR;247:93 .. "-'t_Mlk._ B. C. D. Draft Ordinance Environmtntal Impact Assessment Letter from Planning Ccrrrnissioner Bern Beecham, dated 3/31/93 hcerpot of 12/3/92 Architectural Re .... iew Board m~fl\,,jtes 4/15/93 Pa~. 9 t , , E. F. G. H. r. J. K. l. M. N. o. P. Q. R. Excerpt of 10/2B/92 P1ann1ng Commission minutes Letter From the Midpeninsul. Housing Co.lltion dated 3/17/93 Notice and Surnnary of 11/,9/92 neighborhood meeting ;,old by Mfdp~ninsu'i Housfn~ CQalition letters received in fiVQr of project letters recei ..... ed opDosed to p~oject letters froll! Alin Goode, Houston's Restaurants. Inc., indicating neutrl' position Excerpt from ARB Ordln.nce 3/5/93 Planning COlm\fssion staff report, w; U1Cl:t attachments 10/23/92 Planning Commission stafF report, Developw~nt PrQgram Statement, Budget and Schedule Survey of SRO Development Standards ind Poiicies prep.red by City of Mountain View, 1992 Cjnatlls S;.ac.k Restaurant and Oinilnls "Garden Hotel 51t! phn. provided courtesy of Mr. Hindley (Council Members only) PC Development Plans (Council Members only) Preli~;r.ary Parcel Hap .. see also Sheets 2 and 2A of Development Plans ((Dunen Members only) cc: Architectura1 Review Board Pl~nning Commission Applf~int . M1dpeninsula Housing Coaliti~n Property OWner· Dinah's Tam~rack Partners Jerry Matters, c/o Dinah's Garden Hotel, 4261 E1 Camino Real, P~lo A1to, tA 94306 John O. Germ1no, "/0 Germino. Brodie, Aunte, Amaral, Jordan ilnd Carpenter, 2500 ,1 Camino Reil, Suite 210, P.lo Alto, CA 94306 Spetkers at Planning Commission and ARB meet1ngs Marlene Prendergast, c/o Palo Alto HDusing Corporation. 540 Cnwper Street, Suite G, Pale Alto, CA 94301 All who "ave sent letters CMR,Z47,93 .. ,~.- 4/15/93 Page 10 , -----~-,.....-~­." ~- I ! ~.-~ ~-----------------~-~-_ .. _--' OlUlIWu'iCB NO. ORDINlINCE OF THE COUNCIL "O;;P-TH=EDOC'"I""TY OF P.~ ALTO AMl!NDING S~CTION 18.0$.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MONICIPAL CODB (T"dE ZONING MAP I TO CHAN;;E THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 4269·4273 EL CAMINO REAL (TAMARACK COURT EXECUTIVE SUITES) FROM CS (HI AND RM(30) TO PC WHE:REAS, the Pla.o.ning Comniesion, after duly noticed public hearing held March 10 I 1;93. bas recOIIlI\ended that. section 18. as. 040 [the Zoning Ma..pJ of the ilalo Al Co Municipal Code be a.."nended as hereinafter set forth; and the Architectural Review Board, upon consideration at its meeting Of December 3, 1992, has recommended that the amendment not be approvedi and WHEREAS. the City Council. after due consideration of the reconmendations. finds that the proposed amendment is in the" public interest and will promote the public health, safety and ~elfare. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as f 011 ows : SECTION 1. Section 1B.08.040 of the Palo ~to MUnicipal Code l the ·Zoning Map,· is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 4~69-4273 Bl camino Read {also k~own as the Tamarack Court Executive suites, the ~subject property·) from ·CS (S) Service Conmereial Hotel Combining" and RMC30) MediUl!l Density MUltiple Pamily Residence to ~PC Pl&nned Ccmmuni~y.· The s1lhject property is shown on the map labeled .Exhibit ·AI, att.ached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SBC'Tlo.."l 2. The Cie:y Council hereby finds with respect t.o the subject property that: (a) The Bite is so situated, and the USe proposed fo~ the site ia of such a characteristic chat the application of general districts or combining ~iBtricts will be overly restrictive in application for the following reasons: (1) The site, which is already developed¥ borders multiple-fancily residential zoned property to the north and east, thereby imposing speCial requirements for greater yard and daylight plane setbacks for ~ll adjoining zoneSi aod (~) The existing residence hetel is a noncomplying facility and ccnfor.ming use ~hich does not comply with the current site development regulations of either of the underlying dual CS(H) and RM~30 zones. nor wil~ it comply with tne current site development regulations of the higher density RM-40 zone, yet would be able to be remodeled$ tmproved or replaced under the provisions of the current code. 1 'I. >,. -. - (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the Planned Community District "ill result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by applic_tiou of the regulations of general distri~ts or combilling diet-rict.s in that the Planned Community District would accOlImOdate a subdivision, thereby enabling separate owner&hip of an eXisting residential structure by a local non­ profit housing corporation and allowing its conversion to peruanent low-income housing with supportive services. T"ne need tOI-and benefiea of increasing the supply of housing available to very-low and low-income households has been well docuwented in the current Housing Blement of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan adopted on October 28, 19S1. and the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy adopted on December 24, 1932. (c) The use and site development regu~atiens applicable within t.he district are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. and are compatible with existing and potential uses 0'0 adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the existing struct~re vas designed as a resid~ntial facility and never used as a tradi~io~ hotel. The project site is designated for Multiple Family Residential in t.he Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. A portion of the site is zoned for MUltiple F~~ly Residential and is bordered by Multiple Family Residential zoning to the north and Dortheast, and allow-ing for separate ownership of the site and e.'1tist.ing facility by a nonprofit housing corporation fer conversion to permanent low-income housing to be made available to those most in need of housing assistance is in compliance with specific goals of the HOUSing Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Policies 7~ 9, 11 and 12 and Programs 11, 15. 20, 27 and 30) directed at increasing the supply of low· income housing in the City. SBCTION '3. Tbese certain plans approved for the existing Tamarack Executive Suites, being cix pages consisting of a Landscape Plan approved. by t.he Architect~,J.ral Review &card on. Jo".a.y 3, 1979 {one page)~ and other developwent plans prepared by Edward ~~rell Stone, Inc., approved by the Planning Departrnen~ on September 18, 1972 (five pages), plus a plot plan and circulation plan dated August 1992, and revised February 1.9513 I prepared by Arcturus Lacd Surveying for the applicant, Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition, a c.opy of which plar.a is on file in t.he Planning DivisiOIl office, and to which copy reference is hereby made concerning the ft!ll particulars thereof. are hereby approved as the collective Development Plan for ehe subject property~ pursuant to Section 18.68 120. Said Development Plan is approved for the follo~ing uses~ and subject to the following conditions: (a) Pemitted l1BeS. The use shall be lirr.i ted to non~ ~Qiijj~jll(~ housing for very-lOW and low-income households and access'Ory uses incidental thereto. (b) permitted. L \ Conditional Uses. No conditional uses shall be 2 , 1 ---"'f, ! , , - Ie) development DeveloptneJlt .5..1te D(;velooment Regulations. All improvements and shall be Substantially in accordanc~ with the approved Plan. (dj parting and Loading Requirements. The parking and loading requirements governing the subject property shall be in accordance with the Development Plan. (e) Special Reguir~~nts. (i) A parcel map subdividing the property at 4269 and 4273 El Camino Real into two parcels 8t~11 be recorded prior to issuance of an occupancy pe~~t for reoccupancy of the Tamarack Court Apartments pursuant to this ordinance. (li) Approval of necessary variances shall be obtained that reflect the front and side yard setbacks and daylight plane encroac~~ts of the existing building location. (!irli~:r.mtresia~·.of"fui ... I!Ubj.cl:·,p.\:operty.W:I¢ ~"'iU~TiM.r~'~"'fo"tt.<o ··yH.r .. =morellhaJ.l.be.~le '·100 l!i.::~(l2!!:~i'ritii~~,t:M;~t,,*,~~~~edr .... ...... ...... .. . ... . ct"lU:.ci~;;8ie<!l~ell.:t"l!9':,@AllDe .. ti:ir .iea'l~iIl:or: ~!;:~~!;,:j;\~~~il ." .' ..... ....... ....... .... '.' ....... '.' ........... . ~£:;!i'liit·i,:'~er ··ott:he,· . .&ub.:J~et: •.. pr~yshiJ.ll ~~!:it:{Ii('!I,w:!t~~tu..llion •• tob<!J;iU.,e~l a fl>!;s.~ 'tfuiname.; ~i~·:~,:~~"f'tl1e .. Ua.ison·"hal.l be .. !Jiven."tO .t!>e ~~~.~;rt!t:,..",~;~ .. ~..r Of .. fJ4>ah~. Hotel._ Nr'l'tiet~1's o!the' subJe<:t property shall haVe no'~"i9h1; .. toUsethea4jacent.property ,oxc facilities beyond t.he rt!1htB .a;forded to.t.h~. ~~ .. j;>Ul:>lic. f\.";lr'.C.~~:'fo.·:the··~. o"f""fui'~tectUill R4v;1:ew,aaara;"tl1e~Clf!~"sU!> ..cl; .property"bb.ti.~exiermu J.mp~I;IJ> .. ·····l:U!:.'i>uU~.::·.~1'~~1l9i})ut;'~il.~te<1~o. ~j9ht$ll\J ...... ' ... ~i~~t.P"<>Viding ~~ilIeaetivicy 9t·.Pliay· . ':l,'esia.,.ne.;.Pi!!.IU;i.ag ·ll1.·a. ~ ·.=--db.Ie.· COlor; an4 ad4ihiol'id~,"" . ·s'.lf'.:~he!i> .. ::::::-.:cc.. .' '. ..•. ' .. ' .ll$ .••...... ,. "...."." •• ~A·."",...~m ~'~'1>:l~g .·Coim:tisaiOti ."ballrevi'''r.t:his .PC ."~1!~eai'.~~o~tl!e,....wje"".prop<!m i~ent = .. ". e~·:Wil.;t,b&~dif.~ ~ at ,.the.~year (f} Deve1gpment Schedule. Rehabilitation construction shall be completed within two years of the effec~ive dat~ of this ordinance. 3 SUCTIQN 4. The Council f1n~ that thie project will not have a 8ignificant environmental effect. BRCTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date ot its adoption. INTRODOClID: PASSED: AYES: NQr>S : ASS'l'BNTIONS : ABSBN'l': A'l"l'BST: City Clerk APPROVE!) AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney 4 APPROVED: Mayor Ci ty Manager Director of Planning and COOIIIWli ty Environment .' . - - OF PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE SITE CS(H) ., "lH-21 G"2 42"-4271 EL CAM.NO P.EAl GRAPHIC ATTACHMENT DATE: '0""" 10 S1AFF REPOj;:j fILE NO. u-zc-u, I2-EIA ... a1, I2-V-23, !IU-P,,-II PROJECT: ZOItE CKAHGE .,ftOK etlt"') A.NO R .. (tOl TO PC, -------1 PRru .. ,NAAY 'ARCI!L MAJI TO DIYID£ 'J:~..!_!:~T_,?~ "'H",O:-:-,-=_-I VARIANce. 'Oft 1 .. , • .11.01(8 AlriID DAYUOHT PLANE. ~NCRO"CH"ENT L " NORTH " 1 --, ~--, , -, ~ I .• ' I , . ~ i I 1 -:s ! - AITACHMENT B EnvirofmEnt.a' Docume.r.ts • City of Palo AHo ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Project ~scri.pt1oTl/Title: PreJimi:1aj""Y parcel map. planned C9!OOmnitYlone chaoge ind variances tg IJlqw itojrate 9wne~shlp of an f11sting residential hote1 by a non·prcf1t h04s;nQ g~QuP and .llow it$ conversion t2 Jow·income hgysing. The prqlect ineludes! ]) preliminary Pircel Map to subdiv1de a 72.590 $9uarf fQot parcel 'ptp twp parcels of :57.370 square feet (Lpt II and 15,220 SQyare fget (lot 21, 2) a planned emuDit! 20m! cbange fo1" Lot 2 from (SCI-II, Service CQ1'rmercia,1. HotrJ Cpmbfn1ng Djstrftt and 8M-3D. Medium pen~ity Mu1tiple Family Residentia' to PC. planoed Community. and J1 y,riances for lot 2 to recognize the existence of J front setback of zero feet where 20 feet is. nOT1l1al h regu; rEd. sjde varc' setbacks aloDg the Dprtherly property Tine of zero feet on the first flQor where lQ (eft is nO"Palh reQyired and 7.5 feet on the second floor where 17 feet is cornall! rfguiad, and to recognize iD encroachmerJt intq the day' ight ph"e algog tnt north property line six feel high for a distance of 32 feet. location/Address: 4269 El Caming Rea'. Palo Allo. California Sponsoring Agency/Applicant: Mfd·Penjnso'a Ho",;"o Coalition ((jS) 688·8300 Address and Tc1,'.pho/le of App7icant: Pile Alto, Califgrnia 24306 430 Sherman Avenue. Suite 20;. Application for: Prsl1mjn,ry Partgl Map, Zope Change. yar7a~ces Zoning at Project location: ~1, RM(301 Fee Receipt No.: 92·459 NomE OF DETERMINmON Based upon reyiew of the project files, the u~derslgned m~~ber of the Plinning Department has conCluded: IXj Negative pec1arat,or:: T.~e project has no significant en\lircn,nenta.l impact. No EnVironmental Jrr.patt Report is required. H1~ reasons for a Deo::hration are; On the attachgd' sheet. A record of project action js avail~b'e for re~iew between tne hours of 8 AM and It ~oon and 1 PM to 5 PM at the Pala Altg Department pf Planning and C{)ITrTlunity Environment 19bAtE? at Z50 Hamilton Avqnue, 5th F190r. Pa~e Alto California. 94301 The project wi II have • Environmental Impact Report Planning Oepartment Official: Plannfng Director; The project has been approved. The project h •• been denied. .:I .. rlK ...... I. L Date: Date: fileNo.: impact. An 92·EIA·3! 91·[IA-31 \: 4 \ ~ 1 t @ I -. - '. The project sfte is In irregularly shaped 77,590 square foot commercial parcel with Service Comerc:ial Hot!'l Comb; ning [Jistrict zoning fOT the majority of the parcel along the f1 Camfno Real frontage, and Medium Density Mwltiple FamJi,)' Restdenth1 zoning on .; small narrow plJ!"tion in the rear. An approximately 11,420 square foet vacant restaurant building is locat!d on the Jarge portf~n of the Tot and an l8,500 square foot th~~~ story hotel is located 1~ th~ narrow relr portion of the 1ot. The purpose of the project is to divide the parcel into two l~ts to allo. the hot.l to be sold separately to enable to I nonprofit housfng group to convert it tQ 1ow-1ncome housing. (xisting parkfng~ c1rcu1at1on and access for the two adjcining USES (restaurant ind hotel) will be mainta;r.ed thro~gh retention of an existing access easement and establishment of a new access easement. Approval of tn" project will oot result in .ny direct physical impacts as no new development is currently proposed. Reuse of the ~otel for low-income ~ousfng is €xpected to have relttive1y the same traffic impalts as the eXisting use~ Parking provided 1S one space per unit wnich i~ considered .de~u.te given tnt design of tho existing uroits (19, 576 sq. ft. Jr. one­ bedro~s, two SOC SQ. ft. studios and one 1.200 sq. ft. two-bedroom mana9~rs unit) . The project cou1d facil1tate redevelopmfnt of the vacant restaurant site b~ separating ft from tne ex1sting hotel, but will not substantiilTy affect the sitels redeyeTopment potential. The existing hotel is t~ be retained and represents the maxim~ ~unt of development would could occur on this portion of the site (proposed Lot 1), whetner or not it is rezoned. Tne narrow portion of tne parcel whert the hotel ;s located {proposed Lot 2) has dUQl zon1ng R,MalO, and CS(H) zoning. lhe ~otel ;s a nllnconforming, noncomplying facility under existing zoning. It does not meet the current floor arEi ratio, density limits or utba,k and daylight pTane requirements of the RJoI.-30 zone, or the CS,HJ zone. Under current RM-30 reguhtions the r,otel is i grandfathered use which could be'replaced or redeveloped as long as it dfd not tncrease in size or density. Under tne CS(H) zoning lot 1 could b. redeveloped up to a .4:1 floor ar •• ,'atic (FAA) if strictly cO""lorc1l1. This would allow approximately 22,950 square feet of deve1opment, OT i doubling of t~e existing restaurant. provided tnat the parking requirements and other site development regylations were met. If the site were to redevelop tQ a hotel use and approval of a conditional ~se permit to go t. a hlgh.r .6:1 FAA were obtain.d, up to 34,220 sq.ft. could b. built~ Under tne existing zon~ng of lot 2, 51 640 square feet of deve10pment WOUld be permitt.d on the RM,30 portlon (.i5:1 ~AR) and 2,984 square fe.t would be allowed on the C5tH) portion (.4:1 FAR). The existing 18,500 sqc,re foot hotel is over double wnat would curr!ntly bE allowed for this area. If the project site were not divided the total devel~pment potential on the site would be slightly l.s. as the square footage of tho hotel falling within the C5 (HJ portion of the sIte (approximately 6,500 square feet) would have to be deducted from the remainlng de·i~Topment potEntial. L 92·ElA·31 Page 2 . ' , • 4 - The division Df the existing parcel into two separate parcels will shift the t.c~nlc.l arlentatlon of the smaller hot.l lot (front lat line on Tao.r.ck Lane instead of n Camincj lnd di.."ide the total lot irea. These c~anges ~;'} increase the exf~tfng hotel's degree of noncompliance ~it~ standard setbac~ requirements and density reQ~frement$ of the underlying (5(H} and RM·30 zones. If the use were to" I"'ede'.'elop to housing it would be required to complj' with ex1~t1ng regYlatJons? and wc~ld es~ential1y be unbuildible in its current location because of t~e setback-requirements_ The standi:d 20 foot front yard ond varylng .1d. yard ,.tbacks and daylight plane requirements of the RM-30 zone ar other multiple faml1y zone. and the narrow width of the lot .ould preclude provislon of • rE.sonabl. buildable area without approv.l of variinces. A Planned Community zo~e is necessary to reduce tha technical areas of nonc~11lnce and enabl~ s~bd1vis1on of the propertYt as it allows establishment of site specific density lilllits and many site dt!velopmerlt reguht1c;ns, provided the project result!. in a recognized public benefit. PC zoning will best accolTfl1odate-retention of what Cin be-corrie a valuable source of low-income housing for the City. .:t ..... IoCk. •• i ... 92-EIA-3I P.ge 3 - --------------~-------------------------------------------------·---~' .. ~~----.. ~II >. ~;. -. ,-", ~ ATIACHMENT C Dear Fellow Commissioners, I'm sorry I am Ull.1ble to attend tonight's meeting -I would appreciate it if the Vice Chair would read these comments 00 Tamarack Court into the record at the beginnin, of that item. This bas been one of the most difficult issues for me to decide during my tenure. Our task is to approve a package of determinations, findings and conditions leading to a revised parcel map, variances and zone change. A few things seem quite clear to me. 1. To approve a PC zone, we must find that it wiil result in a public benefit nOl othetwise attainable. Th~ public benefit of subsided low mcomc housing is substantial and unquestioned. There is no issue here. 2. Low income housing will have no detrimental impact on residential and the business neighborhoods. There is no evidence that low income housing and people in need an: incompatible with general residential and business neighborhoods. 3. There has been some discussion of the true or market value of the site in question and whether the Mid-Peninsula HOUSing Coaiition is over-paying for the property. This is of no impact 10 the Planning Commission process_ If one feels a price is inappropriate, the most one can do is offer that opinion and move forward. The valuation of. transaction between parties is of no relevance for our proceedings. 4. We bave heard =h of the difficult relationships of two of the involved parties and discussions of wbo offered what to whom, when, and why . We often spend considerable effort to enable compromise, sometimes publicly here in the chamber and, as may be appropriate, occasionally privately. Compromise failing, we are required to work strictly on the requirements defined by our supporting ordinances and by-laws, regardless of the parties' private relationships and personalities. S. A final item that is clear for me is hypvthetical; if the site in question were a standard site meeting basic minimum site development requirements, even in the same location, then 1 believe this matter would bave been rescived some time ago in favor of the applicant. But the site development is the crux of problem: the site as developed is grossly substandard. The consequences of this lead me to conclude that this site has no right nor capability to stand on its Jegal own, regardless, unfortunately, of the public benefit the community would receive. . I ~. , . , , • f" - ." .. ': '.-- : -".- '..<." --.,: • ~-":: As mentiontd, for us ro proceed, we must be able to fuUy accept the complete ;>ackage of the parcel map, variance and ZODe change. But this package fails as follows: 1. To obtain • variance, we must find that the variance is 'necessary for the preservation and ellioyment of a substantial property right'. The property right at issue here is whether the site can be separated as a legal parcel from the larger existin& parcel. If the building were not present on the site, [ believe the sire could be parceled. However, the building was created by the property owner (or predecessor). Although the owner has the right to continue to use the bullding, I do no! see how the owner now has the right to parcel the site so as to create an even less conforming site. 2. For the variance, we must also find that the granting of the variance 'will not be dctrimenlal or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health safety, general welfare, or convenience'. Because of the absence of adequate setbacks on this site, the inter-twining of the site with Dinah's Hotel, and the absence of any practical boundaries between the site and hotel uses, we have a heightened obligation to show that granting this variance will not be detrimental to the hotel. It has been argued that approving this package will not result in any net change in the use of the site. Current use is for non-transient residents with no prohibition on children and in fact the proposed use will be similar. However the site deficiencies are such that there are inadequate practical boundaries between the site and the hotel. Consequently, even potential or subtle changes that may detrimentally impact the hotel are sufficient reasons to prevent finding that there will be DO detriment to the hotel. 3. Finally, let me apply the above rationale to the requirements for approving a PC zone, specifically that "the use or permitted use, and the site development regulations ... shall be compatible with existing and potectial uses on adjoining sites .... Again, it is not the use itself but rather the use in conjunction with the site development that I find may be incompatible with the adjoining use. This use on a complying site would be compatible. I need to emphasize that the severe limitations of this specific situation are rore and not appli~able to many other possible sites for low income housing which may directly adjoin commercial or residential uses. There is nothing inherently incompatible between low income housing and residential and commercial uses. In the end, [ am distreSsed to be unable to suppon a project that is so needed in PaIo Alto. I believe the findings necessary to suppan this application cannot be made. B~mBee;ham ,-:x ~ -"--~~, -- ~"f~i...:h 3i, i993 -"' , I I - Archltect~ral Re~iew 90ard Hearing December 3, 1992 4169 [l CamIno Real (Tamarack Court) 4269-4143 (1 Cami"" Reil Carrasc~ and Associates AITACHM[NT D 92-1e-14 92-ElA-31 92-Y-23 92-1'/'1-8 Julie Maser; We will now take up regular agenda item r, 4269 El C~;no Real, which is ttH! tlol.lsing coal ilion. This is for a Planned CMl!'lU~ity zone change, var~antf!'s and preliminary parcel map to divide one lot into two tD illDW separate o..,.jersf':dp: of an existing residential ~oh1 by a non-profit housing group and allow its conversion to low-income ~ousing. Are there additional staff comments? Nancy lyt-.h: Yes, there arl!'. I would like: to begin bi clarifying for the Architectural Review Board your roTe in this set of appl~cat1ons. The ARB's jurisdiction is for the Planned Commun1ty zone ch~nge portion of the application. Yo~r jurisdiction is not for th~ parcel map nor the iariance, although obviously, your recommendations on variances are always welcome. To remind everyone, the PC ZG~e change application process goes f1rst to the Pht'lning Commission for c{lilceptual review and tneir determination of public benefit. Then it goes to the Arc~itectura1 Review Board for their consid~ration of design and physical improvements on the property~ It then goes back to the Planning CommiSSion for their final recommendation on the project. and on to the City Countil for final action. Tnfs weeK, in issue bas arisen related to the prelimfnary parcel map, causing us to cont1n~e the item it the Planning Commission level. We discovered that the submittal of the appllcation does not revea1 what looks to be a very narrow parcel along the frontage of Tamarack C~urt. We will need to get that issue resolved with the npplicant's surveyor prior to Planning Commission consideration. But that f~ not an issue for t~is board in looking at the design and physical improvements on the property. That ;s why we have ~ot contir.ued the PTanr;ed Community zone aspect of the project for your re!J1 eilli. Shirley Wjlson: We also have to SUpport the enVironmental impact report. Ms. lvtle: Yes, the environmental impa~t assessment is also something to be done. Of cours~, the riA deals w;t~ physical impacts resulting from physical development. That is your jurisdiction, as well. Jom Hise: I have a question. From ~ome of tnis materia' here, ! see that there-is opposition or concern in the neighborhood about this project. It is referred to as a homeless shelter. CDuld you clarify the applicant's intent? It appears here that the applicant's intent is really for law-income housing~ and there is no mention made in the appiication of this being a hDme1ess she1ter . Ms. lvtle: That is correct. .. il1 let Sarah Cheney expand on that. Mr. Hise: Is tbere some pub1ic misconception of what the applicant is asking for? 12/03/91 - J - ~1(- .... ~ .- , ... " , ;'" - Sarah Cheney: I think that the mi~concepticn is due to what has beer, stated in the publ ic recor~. In the mat.rill submitted as part of this ilDplic.':ltion~ the inte!lt1on of this project ~ould b:e te> serve those wh.:! are in greatest I"leed. Those pilTsons who were either r!cently t,omelf!S$ or are ~~ the verge ~f becoming home1ess. The te~ Rho~e1ess· has been used, but it is nat intended to be oil hm":'leless shp.lter~ it is not intended to be tr.ansit1onal housing. It is inte-nded to be penr,J1'ent, 1ow-income housing. Aino paRosa; I have i! questiorl for staff. We halie a letter here that is unsigned. Dc you ~ncw what it is ? Lorrajne Weiss; 1 did recei~e that 1etter. Ray Handl~v: My s~9natur2 should be on it. am not sure it CiL'M" from. Hancy tytle: For t~e record, this was received here this morning. Can staff get copies later? (Ies) Ms. Ma$er: 1 have a Questian for staff. I would like t~ k~o~ a little about the nature of the current tenants. Are they living there permaner.tly? Are they familie~? Is this considered a hotel use, or residential currently? And how is :t maintained? Ms. Cheney: I can answer that question. (B~t she is very inaudible) Current1y it is operating as & residen~e hotel. These units do not pay the trans it occupancy tax, and are !Iva i1 ab. 1 e for renta 1 s beyond 30 days:. It is my understanding that in the past they hi..-! been rented to various executives or staff member~ of businesses in the industrial park. They are here for several mGnths at a time. I understand that thej have also been rented to famines or 1ndividuals who are awaiting medica' treatment at Stanford Medical Center. I don't Know what the current situation is. You would have t.o ask the appl icant. Ms. Maser: I will address that qu~stion later on to tne applicant. 00 you know what the total square footage of the project is? That may have been in the literiture, but I did n~t run into it. Ms. Cheney: I cannot quote it rigt.t now. Ms. Ma.ser: I ""ill ask you: later t but if you ccwld lock at the total square f~otage of the project, and the square footage of a typfcal unit. Do ~e know what the floor area ratio (FAR) currently is? "'50 Lytle: Yes, we dC). It is in the Planning Corrmission staff re~ort. ~. Maser: 1s there handicap access to this building? there is. Ms. Cheney; Per current standards? Ms. Maser: Yes. Ms. Cheney: I don't believe it meets current standards. don't think Ms, Maser: Dc you know anything about the seismic safety of this buil ding? 11/03/91 -1- - Ms. Ch:n;y: In terms of w~ether it meets current standards? Ms. Haser; Yes. Ms. Cneney: Certainly, an upgrade of the build1n9 wo~'d not be required. We did meet with ~r. Herma!'l~ Ch'ef Build1r.g Offlcial, to confirm this. It is possible that some of code upgrade! may be required by the U.S. Departme~t of Housing and Urban Dev~lopment. such is requirements related to upgrides of thE £levators. At the ti~ of wTlt!ng the staff report. any required upgr3des ~ad net been spec1f1cal11 ident1fied. Ms. Maser: I need i review of the eas~ments. It may not be germin2 to what we are suppos~ to be reviewing, b~t ] would still like to understand a little better this whDle easement situation. I find it very confusing. Is t~ere SOmPone w~o c~uld walk us through it? Either you or the applicant. l hate ta use the applicant's ten minutfS with it. Cal"'! ycu do th.t? (Yesj Ms. lytle, The floor .re. r.tl0 of the proposed lot 12 is l.2 to I. That was one of tne questions you asked. Hs Cheney: let me walk you through the easement~. There is a descriptiM of tfje easement provided in the plan. I wi";l be referring to the two parcels \lth~ch are ;ovoived in the easement. One is Dinan's Shack. the restaurant site, and Dinah's Hotel, which are two separ3t~ properties. There are two easements, whid are the none)(clush'e ingress and egress easements which are for the benefit af Dinah's Hotel, which were granted from Dinah's Shack restaurant. The fjrst is a IO-foot wide, nonexclusive ingress and egress easement which r~ns from £1 Camino Real to the Dinah's Hotel 5ite. Tne ~econd 1s a n~nexclusiye ingress and egress easement which ;s 24 feet wide run~ing from fl Ca~;no Real alon9 the Tamarack Ccurt frontage down to the front of the Tamarack Court Executive Sutte frontage. The ease~nt t~en makes a 90· turn towa~ds the Dinah's Hotel office. Ms. Wilson: What does ·nQnexclusi~e· mean? Ms. Cheney: It meariS tnat no one party or er.tHy "~a5 ;?:a:ch:sive r19hts to use; t. There are slJch t[-,ings as exc' usi 'lie easements. The tern ·nonexclusive" means that other peop~e are able to use tne easement. The third e.sement is granted from the Dinah's MDtel site to the Dinah's S~ack site. It is 10 feet ~ide and goes from E1 Camino R~al to the hot21 sfte. Then it makes i 90· turn, becomes 18 feet wide and runs all the way back to Wilkie Way. ~ll2n: Is there a curb cut at E1 Camino Real? Ms. Cheney: There is a curb cut on E1 Camino Real, but the locaticn of the easement does not match the curb cut. The 24-foot wide easement wnlch runs ilong the Dinah's Shac.k/Tamarack Court prop€rty line was established prior to Tamarack Court being created. This easement was established prior to Tamarack Court ccming into existence. rt was intended to ensure that tne notel would have du.l aCcess to E1 (,mino Real. The purpose of these easements 1S to ensure that both properties wo~ld maintain necessary access. L 12/03/92 -3 - "..,.......,,-~~-----' , I , I - '. -. The office fr:>r the hotel is. located t1ere, which is net right off of E1 CamSno Real. The easements provide direct access tQ E1 Camin~ Real. That is the purpose of the easeme~t --to ensur€ that they have geod access to the 01nan's Hotel offlce. Ms, Ma$!'r: What is the proposed situation? p..re these ea~ements to reoain? Ms Cnenev; The proposal is to make no chinges to the ease-mer,ts, They will be maintained, and would be unchan~ed. The 24-foct-wide easement, which makes a right Ingle turn in front of the Tamarack Court Executive Suites, is really not practical to use. The easement makes it 90" tLJrn right in front of the Tamarack C~urt dr1vewlY. rt is nearly impossible to make that turn. It doesnrt make sense. S~ part of tne proposal of tne prel~.inary pircel mdp is t~ expand that easement to ref1ect the area which is a~tual1y used by a vehicle to reach the office. Hi. Lyt1t: In the staff report for the P13nnlr'2g COlTlTlission on Page S, it says that the access easement granted to Dinah's Hotel w{)uTd better refl~ct tne functional aspects. We prefer that everything line up. This could be accomplished bj re~onfigurin9 the Tamarack Court access easement and cT~atin9 a new, 20-foot access ease~ent along the restaurant site's rear property. The pr~perty owners have proposed this modification, but they have not been able to negotiate that change. likewise, there is a Testa~rant proposal pendin9. It is: an applfcation illihich Miill be coming before you, where I reconsider~tion cf some of !nese other easements is a1so to be discussed. They have not yet reached any resolution. This proposal. as the report says, is that no physical changes or parking and site circulation are pro~o$ed .s part of the project, Access and circulation to Dinah's Restaurant and Dinah's Hotel can be maintain@d through granting of th~ n~ easement across Tamarack Court. or the existing situation c.an simply remain. There is no physical change here. so nothing is be1ng changed. It could certainly use improvement. however. This property is nigh1y encumbered, anG the encumbrances do not match the functional rea1ity of what is ~ccurrin9 there. So there is great room for improvem€nt. an,j we ~oold En.courage that on the part of all parties involved. Yo~ can ~ork to help f~cjlitate it. Ms. Maser; "'e are still 10{JKing for the unit size. Ms. Cheney; T.'ey a ... ·erage approximately 560 square feet. There is one two-bedroom unit. There are 19 -junior one-bedrooms· and there are two studio ~nits. I believe the twa studio units are less tnan SOO square fe~t. The others average out to bE about 560 square feet. Ms. DaRosa: Here it is. on the first page of the app1ication. Ms. Maser: 1f there are no otner questions for staff. we will hear from the appl icant. ~ikg Wiley. Mid-Peninsula H~using Cqalition: We are working toward approval of the PC zone change and the parcels for purposes of acquiring the Tamarack Court [xecutlve Suites and converting them into affordable housing for peop1e of very low income. We have been success'Ful in obtiining a HUD gra~t wnich allows us to address a very large need in the 12/03/92 -4· - PalD Alto Irea. We are planning en maklMg no gross change to t~e exterior of the building. 'we are planning extensillE-interior upgrades on a un1t-b,.-unH basis, .and upgradi n9 the ele .... ator system. ~e are plannhl9 on c~angi"g MOst of the furn1sh!ngs and on bringing things which are not ~p to (ode up to .hat we feel is a mafntenance of standards. We were also tn1nking of upgrading the raillng around TamaraCK Court. Tne ri1ls are now six inches ap.art. That meets code but does net lYI'!"et what o~r txecutive director and or b~ard feels 15 safe. We are taking that down t~ I four-1"," separ;tio~ for the purpose of small cfiildren who might be ,'sltlng tho uoits or the possibility of • number of sm.l1 children who .ight be living there. We are .1so p1anning to put on a new roof to the eXisting building. It wo~ld be cf the same composition or similar to what is there no~. The~! wo~'d be no r.oticeab1! change. As!de from that, to ans~er some of those questions. we are not required, under Title 24. to bring this up to current handicap standards. It is gofng to be difficu1t. We ha¥! not hired an architect at this point to come in to see if it is feasibl e-. The ele\lator is smalL 'tie have sta1 rs going to the-ele'..'ator itself to get up to the first floor. So we are going to propose to see if there is some possible w~y we can convert at least I portio~ of the units to be handicap acces~ib1e. It is diff1,ult. Thl •• a. built In 1973. For the purpose. simply of Mid-Pen; .. ,"l, Housing Co.11tlon. it I. going to be difficult. but .e are going to 100< into it. We are not proposing It at this point, and it is not a reQuirement. That is about 111 r have to Sly. Th! represer",tative .of the property owner, Mr. Aufautn, i 5 here to address questfons you might h"'Ie. "$, Maser; Are there any board questions of the applicant? Ms. DaRosa; Tnere is some discussion about the parking. Reference was made to another project in, I believe, Snuth San Francisco. saying that they had a similar p3rking ratie and that that worked ~ery well. Whe~ this project has been compared tc other projects, ha''''e these other projEcts been in ~re urb~n settings, or had tney been on a strip like [1 Camino Real? Are w! comparing a similar project? Mr. W11ey~ The one most similar that we min age right now is Sun Dial in South Sin Franciscc. It 11; more urban, actually. rt actually has no parking within it. Tnere are no PQrking spaces within the 11-unit structure. All parking is off the site. There is a publiC parking lot across tne street. Recent'y we did a s~rvey of the number of cars that r!sidents owned. There were no parking spaces for them. In similar projects i~ ot~er areas wh€re there is family housin9. our average is about 1.2 to 1.15 cars per unit. But that is fer families. We are net targeting families for this complex, so we feel that even without use of the two spaces located within the easgmerlt. we will ha,\;e adequate parking. Twenty spaces within the development itself would be more than adequate_ W. find that in thl, type of hou'ing. a lot of the residents will be travelling most1y by bike. We are tarQeting people who have low-paying jobs or are abl~ to ,",ark. witn the Urban ~ini5try and exchange service for rooms. Or there are people who arf worling in the arei a~d living in tne1r cars. They wou1d be able to form a triangle commutin9 to work, or li¥f in the area and work somewhere els~ and not be required to 12/03/92 -5- • -,.,t:" .t:~~"-.' .: o:~,'-; ", ~-;, , -------- .~~ .. '-"<~~ - ~-~':;;' .. , ... .,.-.. '~~Lu own I clr. r stress that tkis ;s a very 10.., income project. Ms OaRosa: What happens wh!~ the i~ccme improves? Mr. W;1ty: ff they improve beyond ~ certain lim1t ~hi,h expands their cwn requirements or goes above the limits, tney would nave to seek othfr housing, such as otner ~id-Peninsula Housing Coalition deye1o~~r.ts whfeh t~ey could qualify for~ or they would jiJst be forced to move out beci:Jsoe they do ~ot ~et the requirements. ~. DaRosa: i/llat .bout children in this site? Mr. Wil@1: This is targeted .s • singl.-roCl1l occupancy (SRO) project. To clarify a junior one-~room, it is very similar to a studio but is approXimately 100 square feet larger. So in tM! definition of HUD terms, it is. called a junior one-bedroom. It is still a single room and kitc~enette in the same livin9 area, pius bathroom. Right now, u~der t~e current manag~ment there fs kind of a screen, a Japanese-type screen that separates the little sitting area from the Sleeping area_ We Ire targeting single people 111 this de'olelopm€nt. We ire not targeting families, but if there is a family. it would b~ a displaced family or iI single parent with a small child. If there are two people w1th a child, we would try to place them in other develop~nts. That is not the need we are addressfng in this proje~t. Ms. paRosa: When you say you aTe targeting, do you have control over it? You can discriminate Igainst peD~le? Mr. Wiley: Through wor«ing wit~ the Urban Ministry, community services and other agencies in the neighborhood, we will seek those people ~ith the greatest need that fit int~ this type of development. If it is I family witn two children, tnat does net meet what we are striving to put in this development. We would much rather place someon! there of a very low inc~ ievtl ~o is single or a singl! parent .itn a small child. It is more of a stepping stone where you take peop1e wno are under serious duress and are in danger of beclJming nome1ess. and get them biiclt:. in the mai n stream. which Wi;;" call a step. iheir stay there could be anft'tit!re from sh: to 18 months. Transitional ht)using is u~cer 30 days. ~ight no"" the average stay at iamarack Court under curr~nt management is ii!pproximately six weeks. That .... as is of October. ft could be upwards of six months, but th~ average stay is about six weeks. We are expanding that. We expect that most people will be able to move into th! mainstream and have. full-time job. Ms. DaRosa: So legally. yot! t~n centro1 who 90es into th15 project? Mr. Wiley; Oh yes. the full screening starts with the ~id-Peninsula Housing mlnage~nt. The corporation which is an affili~te of the Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition will manage thfs. There will be on-site representatives at all timts. ~! will be placing those peop1e who need assistance mainly through outreach situations. We go through ccmplete backgro~nd checks, screening. etc. fils. pai{ou: I was thinkfng of thildren, ;;, here is a family with school age chi'ldren. them to be someplice else. 11(03/92 -6- part~cular. So you can say, It 1 S more appropriate for . ". - ar, W;leV: We do ~ot discriminate. p~r se, but it is under the discretion of m4nage»ent and the ~id·Peni"sul. Housing Co,litic. to place them in the most proper $urro~ndjnQs. That is what we hay~ at the Sun Dial. We ~ent through the selection process theie, and that is what we are $tr1~ing to do it tbis '~cat;on" Mjchal] Lvzwa: Durir.g yo~r screening pr~cess for prospecti~e te~ants, how do you handle th! issues of , cri~inal record, substance abu$e, and live·!" partners? Mr. )ljley: 111 the letters, that was on-e of the Questions addressed to us. We are concerned about that. We cannot guarantee that someone, 30 yeaTs ag~. who had a criminal re'~rd .t that time will not be placed in t~is fac~lity. If they had a hisiory of criminal activ1t~ t~at fs revealed in t~e screening, whether it is for drugs ~r alcohol, they will not be placed in this facility. It is through our outre.eh and references. I ean~ot say that somebody lS net going to just walk off t~e street ind put in an application. W'I! can address .:hat Jim Burk10, or his s.uccessor, is recomending. It is Dnly 21 units. Tnere is i tremendous amount of need out theTii!. The list is probabl~ 9~ing t, be 200 to 300 people. So we will have a large list to pull from. We will be very s~1ective and address people with the most need wno have represented !ither to c-ofmlunHy service agencles or the urban ministry. W~ know through r~ferences that they are deserving peopie, I cannot place any guarar.tees that there is no prior crimina' record, however. As regards live-in partners, .. e have to run this under the same Cal ifornja laws. We cannet discriminate against them. What we do, if s~one is a fr;e~d or a visiting friend. they cannot stay beyond a week. If they stay beyond a W€ek. they get a r.otice. If they stay beyond two weeks, the~ get a rootice of e~iction. It is strictly adhered to. So .. e have s~ ver~ strict laws that they ha~e a limited timt to st.y. Mr. lyzltr.'a: what I am trying to address are potential human prob1ems that ariSE e~erywhere, not just Palo Alto, tnat has to cia with 1; .... 1n9. It does not necessa~i1y have to do with lo~-;ncomt people. I just want to know what happens. for ~nstance, jf there is a tenant who is creat1r.g problems because of drug use, or because ~f .. hate .... er reason. Mr. Yiley: They will' be evicted if tn~re is any drug us.e or drinking Dr breaking ~f any laws. Mr. lyzwa: I understand the e~ictio~ process is rather lengthy. Mr. Wiley: It is less for us than for a nD~-govern~nt subs~diz~d development. We have much stronger enforcement policies. Also. in our developments, we do not ha ..... e high tl.ll"nover. People who initially qualify for this ana are able to qualify to liwe in this development have been thoroughly ~creened~ and it is very ;mp~rtant on th~ir part to live in here. We just do not find, in our developments, that people .ant to give us any cause to eVlct them. We just find that they want to be there. They desire to be there, and once they are 7n, W~ just do not see this in our developments that pe:Jple either push or even ,ome eTose to exceeding 12/01/91 ·7· ~--~ -------- our rs~uire~~nts. ~s. W11$Qn: Are there laundry facilities in UI{!se units'? !!J:..j'il.ll : bring in i upgradIng. Most of them art fully operating right now. We are contractor to look them o~er and see which ones need r believe there ar2 three washers a~d three dryers. going to ~ Wilson: Could you expand a little bit on t~e on-site management? Is one unit going to have a live-in manager? Mr. Wiley; Yes, it will ~(Qbably be the two veterans who qualified u[.der Qijr funding source. It;s going to be the sa~~ sort of management that tney have now. Cl/rrently, the), have iI full-time man19~r who 1 ives on the sit~. We will have a Mid-Peninsula Ho~sin9 Coalition representative living ~n the site. "s. Maser: 1f those are a11 the questions, it 1S time f:l'!'" the public hearing. Please come up to the micropMone. 1-.nnette G. BiaTson: .... hat i wOiJld like to do is to put this project in context for you in two ways -. the physical context, and alsc what th! thart~r is~ is far as the property Dwners who are contiguous to it. You have had maps that have Men put up. I ha· ... e iii map that goes a little further. This is an aerial photo. let me review what your charter is here~ You are the only entity that is going to review this project t~at has profession.l standards app1ied to the majority. In that context, I think the Planning Commission and the City (ouncil art looking to you for professional re1ponse5 to two main issues .. functionaiity and iest~etics. Aesthetics are somewhat fixed. There ire not going to be any ~hanges made tG the exter~a' character cf the property. But function is a really tig iss~e, as you have all raised in your questions. You had questions in regard to functionality. What we want you to understand is that your concerps Ire well founded, and there are even more con:erns we would liKe to have yau consider. What iQU have here is a building th3t is actu.l1y larger than its site, ~ith zero setbacKs on three sides and actt.:al1y encroaching or, an easeme>nt. It is surroiJilded by Dir,ah's Hotel on this side and on this side:. So it 'js plopped right in the middle of I hotel complex. These are relative1y luxurious suites. we invite you to go into tnose rooms and see the quality of them. There are essentially ten corporations that provide 85 percent of our occupancy. We wil1 have th~ manager of the hotel speak to that issue. . We have a lot of ~asements that have been created hert. To give you a historical conceDt, that has been necessary because thlS ~raperty was purchased from R"ickey's, whD initial1y owned all of this property. All of t~ese easements were created beciuse there was i certain tension between these landowners trying to operate as t~n landowners in this district. We are now looking at injfcting a tnird landowner. You may wcn~er .my we did not object to the creation of this bui1ding right in the middle here, It the time it was built. lhat was because it t~e time, we had three shacks located there. We were happy to get rid of the shacks. There waS a fence running along here between the landowners. which r wou1d like to call a spite fence. So anything was better than the three s~acks located there 12/03/92 ·8· ,</:-. ':t~l~tt; "'"'''''; .. ~' - i , , ~ f -, •. f':"'" '-"," . "..'". "'-.'"-,"-." .;. ~---'~ .. ', lnd occupied by people who were not maintafning them. ~e never thought tn. city would all •• somebody to build this type of building with zero setbacks in this location. We were distracted by ether items, and we ended up with this building, ~hich S~2one has characterized to me as troe replac~nt of a spite fence with a spite building. What we have here is a one·foot~in-fee ownership of land along here (alon1 Tamarlck Court) . c.Q~owr;ed by the ci ty and Di r;ah' s Hotel. This ~as be~ause there were issues already existing with regards to the f~nct1onality of this building. There was an attempt, and unfDrtunately no one from the city is still here to t.l1 us .x.ctly why they •• r. already concerned then abol./t functio"la1itj of the unit. So wnat ide nave now, from what I see, and I have only been 1nvolv~d i~ th,s m~tttr for a re1it;vely short time, is a certain (Toudi~9 of th~ issue of functionality because e~eryo~e is focused on the fatt that w@ ~ant to do .hat is right by tne low-income people in this community and provide housing for them. But if you could set aside th~t whcle ,ssue, which is i pOlicy \ssue fer the Planning Commission and the City Council to decide, what w. have to look it I. the functionality, Will this war, with • ~uilding of this .iLe for what we are told are going to be targeted, whic" Is small househo1ds. But if you look it the priorities that are realistIcally going to b. creat~, I family unit witn preschool cnildren, which is what the &pplicition ea'1s for as tne tar9~ted tenants, is go'n9 to have the highest priority over a single man and singl~ wo~an. Let's fiCP. 1t. If you ilre p~sented wtth a man with i. chnd or i. 'fI'oman witr. a chi 1d. ""e .. a.nt to place them before ill singl! individua1. If one is about to become homeles., I .yself would prob.bly ~.nt tne presch"l age child to be In U~is location. irlfJat you have are pools tlere with greens. Tj,~re is .. bsolute'y no space, no tdjacent park., no open space 'MliiltiCEt"ii't for children, let .1on~ parking~ There'is no plajl area for ch11dren. Be(:alJse the project consumes the entire site, there )$ n~ open space whatsoever, except aaybe tf'te underground parking garage. So what we are addressing 1 s a situation where we hav~ the city spending $1.5 million Dr whatp.ver to aCQuire a location that barely worked and barelY ~orks no~. becaus~ ~e already hi~! the issue of o~erf;ow of occupants using otn~r fa~il;tie~. We-ha .. e less than 51) percent occupancy on .it temporary basis in the ex~cuti¥e suites, and what ~e are looking at now is permanent rental housing with pre-schoo1 age children shoehDrned into this sitE. It is our feeling that there's got to be another site in Palo Alto for $1.5 million which is DOre suitable. this is not an ~ndless tap that is open where the doll.rs .pill out. We have checked the qualiffcations of the Mid·Peninsula HoYs!ng Coalition, and t~~y are wonoerfui. It just seems liKe this is net an appropriate site. What we ire looking to you design professionals to te1' us is that. gi~en the floor areG ratio, 9iY~n the parking facilities, giye~ the fact that are no ~pen ar~as for children to piay in, this does not ~rk. Tni$ area ~ight t~re is additional hotels. Across the str~et you have the Cabana Hotel. Up here, you have the Elks todge. There is nc area on El Camino Real at Tamarack Court for children that is at all open. This is a hotel area. It is not an apartment area. The aerial photo give$ you .nother sense of this building sittinG right 1n the middle of those two hal~es of the hotel. liIe are lookiog for a situation wllien we can spe;ak. to having some sort Qf targeting or narrowness of Qualifications that would work for people in tnis. We cannot come up with anything that really is 12/03/S2 -9 - - going to be enf~rceable in the future that does not violate certain laws. We would appreciate the board ~eeting their charter snd speak to the coyncil and comm1ss;~n on function3lity. Raymond Handley: This site was one entire site originl"Y owned by the owners of D~nahjs Restturant. They wanted a hotel operation. n~melJ. what they really wanted was so~one to build ~ luxury ~tel that wou1d function as a hotel. They would provide all the services that wou1d allow it to become a ~ote'. They agreed to certain covenants, because obviously it was I back-front property. So ~e raised a quest~on. What do you do if yo~ dp.c1de to bYild something here at the corner of £1 Camino Real and Tamarack, because we want a clear view from El Cami~o Real. They said, that's okay. So we created c.overlant C. Tnen we said, what about here at Co~enant E, the location of ramarack Court Ex~cutive Suit~s? Can we b~y it? They said, We have i problem with t~at. We won't sell it to you. Our prob;em is a personnel probl ell!. There were three tinder block buildings here which provid~d six units, a11 told. They were tnre€ two-unit duplexes. In one of those units, the reaT cook of fried c~icken, a Chinese co~k whose name was Chung, resided. He had cooked onl) fried chicken for tn!m for 15 years. He could not speak English. He cCl.llu not drjve iI car. They were not 90i~g t~ sell this property. They had to keep it because of t~at particular employee. That is why it exists th€re. While we were negotiating and were still in the development stage, and nothing had gone beyond the arc.r,itects who had been Mred to do the s;te pla~~ the owners of this property got into trouble with the law, which they probably wD~ld not have done under today's iaws. They left for J(e:dco, came back, faced trial, and were give;, 24 houl"s to get rid Qf their property, inc1uding the possibility of loslng their lic~nse. They called mP. up and asked ~e jf ] wanted to buy it for $225,000. I turned it down. As part of our agreement, there was a covenant on the property that t~ey could not compete with me. They asked, would you mind if W~ waived tnat covenant aild ask John Rickey if he would buy it? I sai:d, r'JO problem whl':tsoeller. They wert to John Rickey and talked to them. John Rickey bought it. Let's not get into the ramifications of that. It was bought for nothing down a!: a desper-ation sale. The following dGY. r went to see John Rickey and said, look, we have covenantS on this property. If what we are doing he~e is going to be a problem for you, we w1l1 pu)l out and sell you the property~ because life is too short. He said. ~e ~on't have the money to develop this. We had a spirit cf good cooperation at that leve1, Our lack of cooperation deveToped when suddenly --- Ms. Maser: Mr. Handley, your time limit is up. ~ould you please wrap it up in a sentence ~r two? Mr. Handley: In a ward or two, this thing (Tamarack Executille Suites) should never have been built. To rent this out and continue on is another use is wrong. There are three business activities for this property. There is a restaurant operc.tion. a full-ser .... ice restaurant, ind Dinah's Hotel. The injection of another ele~nt in there with SOCial con5eque~ces w~uld be the ·wrong thing to do at the wtong time in the wrong place. 11/03/91 -10- i , , c ~,: , .. :.'":--; ""C;;~,i',- \. , - Gordon M.cDon.l~: I am witM Habitat. My feeling .bout this tMat this buildin9 shou1d never have been built. There are no setbacks. and it cerlafnly does r.Qt ,amply ~itn today's re9u1ations. The parking t~at was ~esignated for the units worked when there was one car per unit. When ttley added the other I.,lnHs, additional parking ... as requ"ired It this 10cit1on. Overflow pal"'king> othe-r than what was rec;ui red under the building here. ilw~s c~uld happen or. the site, b~cause it is .11 pa~t of one parcel. 1f you introduce I property line. you are ma~ing an existing tad condition wnrse. We think there is going to be a reQulrement for more parking than nas been stated. This is not ii!n urban location. It 15 more of. suburban situation. ne additional parking tMat we feel is gOing to be necessary to support full occupancy of families in t~is building is gDing to ~appen <In: sOl'lecme else's property. rt will happen on this property. and on this property. and it is gOing to be on the striet. Your r~gullt;ons do r.ot recognize on¥street parking as being adequate to serve any of these types of facilities. There are going to be 'Visitors coming to see the,e people, and that will be part of tM. parking preblem. I cannot see that the introdu~tion of a property 1tMe will do anything but make th~ existing situation wors!~ I would think that wvuld be a concern to you. It has been admitted that there could be some probability of overflow park1ng, and it has been stated that it will happen here. It could just as well happen here. which is on Mr. Hand1ey's pr~perty. These are the most convenient spaces for people who need to park and access this buildin;. This is the parking that is more secluded. more se~ure. than parking out here where it is going to be ~ future resta~rant. There is a lot with regard to the vlriances tnat are required, and there is "othi~g. from a prictic~' standpoint. tnat can be done. You need a variance on this site; you need a variance on this site; you have your dayligMt plane variance that I. required. All of that .Mould have be,n addressed when this building was bui1t. It wasn't, and there is not much you can do ab~ut it now. To create an additional, worse situation by introducing this property line I feel goe~ against all of your regulations. If 1 were standin~ here and proposing t~1s as a commercial .... enture. other tha., low·cost hous'ing, 1 wCJuld have a very difficult time getting your cooperation to approve it. Jpsephine Schuster. Palo Alto R~dwo~ds: r live across the street from tnis project. 1 am representing myself as a human being. I have waite.d a long time to move back to the Palo Alto areal and J am living in high-density, high-inc~e hous1r.g. r appreciate the fact that there is a great need for low-inco~ housing. J belong to organizations who help feed and give shelter to the homeless, etc. We have some low-income housing in our building. by law. It is now seven or eight years old. agree with th! technical people that it is a miserable place to have children 1 iving of any age. I have a daughter and tw~ children liY:lng wah !!'Ie who are h.omeli!ss it the moment. The chi ldren are four and seven, and they are not allowed to leave our unit unless they are with an adult at all times. There is no place to play in that area, certainly. J have gone over f~r breakfa.st. etc. at the Poolside Restaurant. There;s no place in my complex for chfldren. There is the pool area, which of course the children are not allowed to 90 to witho"t an adult. This is not a good place to Mave cMild.en. 12/03/92 ·11· · ',-" - As far as low-income housing is concerT',!d and my particular attitlJdes. I think it is fine to tlave hlJrf-inccrne hou~ing, but I don't think it should .11 be in on. build1ng. j don't th1nk it should 0. in the middle of hotel row. Thank you. Jerrv Matters: am tn! manager of Dinah's Hot!l at 4261 E1 Camino ReaL I hay!!! been there t~o years, and nne had 20 yea.rl> in general notel mnagemertt. ! would like to address two areas, that is, tne marketing aspects and the problems we would have with the propose~ bu'ld~r.g, The economic aspect I think about is the de~astation tc us. We are a (orporate hotel. Our .,.rage rat. 1s $85 • day. That is pretty h •• ,y. Last year, we generated S242,000 for th~t unit. This year, it ~;Tl gen.rat. S350,000, S10,000 of .hich we .ill give to the CitJ of Palo Alto in hotel taxes. That is ! consider.tion. As mentioned by Ms. Schuster~ this is hotel r~. We have Dinah's Hotel, Oin~h's Suites. Over here we have t~e Oaks Motel_ Rece~tly upgraded across the street is the Hyatt Hotel. This is essentia11y one grand street of hotels for hotel pe~ple. tn terms Clf economic rents that rEflec.t "hat 'We have ~n terns of people as they perceiVe what a hotel snould be, we 1001<. at an average Tete here of SSS, over here, S4S .t the Pale Alto Oaks, .nd at th, Hyatt, proDably 1ook;ng at about 575. Under the proposed Tamarack court housing devl!'lopment , the average unit \IIi11 be paying $13 a day. if you look. at the context of what we have here. you have a 5ituation where obviously you c.annot discriminate against cnl1Cren. There is no place to ph,). So where will the children gravitate to? We have pools here and here, lagoons, wild life, ducks, that is where children will go. We are not in a position of policing children from the neighbor~ood. That essentjally is what we are going to have. We _ill ~ in a situation where we are using our securit~ personnel to actually keep the cnildren out of the pool area. As pointed out by counsel, more t~an likely, with the situation managed by Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition and tne,e is a chOice bet~een a single person Dr a ~ingle person with a c~ild, that is who is going to get it. No question about it. With regard to parking. anathe. problem is traffic and tne children. If they choose to play on the street, they will be on the asphalt. Over here at Dinah~s Restaurint site, we have a high volume. $4 million a year restaurant {Houston's}. That is their average throughout the United States. So there is a high traffi c pattern here. Ne questi or. about t~at. As far as Tamarack suites are concer~ed. we have to k€ep in mind that the actual basement is where the parking is. People at that leve1 of income prefer vans, because of their functional tty. They can 1 ive in them. There is no place to park i ~an in the basement. So in essence, what I am saying is that this does not make sense. Ooe other thing I would like to pOint out, as Mr. Wiley said at the meeting at the church on the 28th of November ~-a great revelation that there are people working in P,alo Alto who cannot afford to 1 jve in Palo "'1 to. There is some sense to that. r went home to Dinah l s Hotel, where j live and went througn the files of our 43 employees. On1yone employee lives i~ Palo Alto, and that is me, the resident manager. I couldn't be ,a resident manager if I lived in Milpitas. So it is the -L 12/03/92 -11- .. -" ;:,-,- - ------------------- Amerjc~n way that ~e commute. But what] am saying is that this fa"ac'ous if you say that you have to live near wn€re you work. Ihi, i, not' good ide., and it shouldn't h.ppen, is F1h.llJ, Bruce M2an~: I would like to addrESS some of the contradict1~ns t~at I believe ~jke ha~ made in his st2tements. Number Or-e, he cannot legally discriminate against appiicants. He has expla:ned tc us in previous meetings that if he Is ove~elmec by app1icants, he .auld h~ve to conduct a lottery in order to put people intc this project. Humber Two, tni~ proj~tt is not a $t~pp;n9 stone for homeless, low-1r.~Dme indhidu.tl.s 1Qolcing to ;l:IlprDVe their situation. It is i Tanding lone. In Mike'$ own statement, ~~e ht~e very lnw turno~er.· He has stated this o~er and o~er. So what that ind;~ate$ to ~ 1S that once they ire 1n tnere, there is n~ y~tiyat1cr. for these people to improve their Situation. Humber Tnree~ evictions are just as hard for ~ike as they are for any otner landlord. He nas to follow the same process is anyone else. It couid take months to g~t someone out of there. He might e~en nave to go to court. ~umber Fouy, I was rather shOCKed to h~~r that the current Dperati~n is not going to cDntribute to tile city coffers. There was a Tong period of time when the hmarack.. units were rented on a. daily basis. Changing t.he zoning could jeopardiz~ the jobs nf people now working there. ~yng: J am a ~omeown!r living near this prop~rty. I understand that this property Is within the business zone which affects al' tn! business hotels. 1 fully agree that even though 1 am not in the hotel business, I believe it is going to affact the business of these hotels. J want to add one p~int to the children 'issue. foY' ttH! cM1dren who have 1"11) phte to phy, I have found a place for them to play. Do you kno ...... 'here-? It is right across the street ai the Ptla Alto H~att. There is a big park right up front. How will they get acress the street? They .ill run across £1 Camino. let ~ tel' yo~ what happened last FridiY. last Friday at about 6:15 p.m_, I: person trias killed right in f!'"ont of the Pa.lo Alto Hyatt en El (uina Re.al by a ca'l"'. Think aD-:Jut that. I also wa~t to say tnat beyond tne property towards Mountain View, we have mort than a lhoY5and units dDWn there Df apartments with sin91e-farr.i1ies, families, single people. There are a Tot of communities already c~ngested. Having th1S used for families rather than hate1 business is going to cause the whole concept of this plan to fail. I appreciate the board look1ng at it in a broader view. Larry Aufmuth: I am an att~rney and also i trustee of the Jonn H. Rickey Trust, which has i large ownership interest in the property under question. John RiCKey died In 1~85, and since then, we ha~e basically been attempting to try to find 3 new restayrant operator for tniS stte. We had a deal with Mallards which goes back three or four Y~irs ago, but they have r.ad finlnchl ~rroblel\',s.. S.ince then. we have bee:"! unable ta find any finanCially viable user who will 00 a restaurant use and be burdened with an _partment use. As a consequence, W~ came up w1t~ the idea that we needed to do something with this property. thus the Mid·Peninsula Housing Ccalition. I wish to point out two very important th1r,gs. This is currentlj operated as an apartment project. The ger,tl eman who spoke 12/03/92 -13- i I ! I ---~---~-~~-~~-------------",""-==-",,,,-----.........-. --., - eir11er was correct. Wh~n tbis was built in the 19705 , 1t was operated .5 a hotel. It paid t~e tranSient tax until John P.ickey's death. Upon his death, I ~ngaged in discussions witn Ray Handley. to do i joint venture. Tnat fe11 apart. but as part of that. we disclosed .hat ~e were dotng here + Mr. liandl ey then ins1 sted that we c.eaSE being,. hotel, beciuse it violated agreements t~~t he claimed b~rdened our property. Rather than engage tn 1 itigat1on, ~e cOI1"ierted it into apartments. and we ~a'lle TlJn 1t as ITo apartment project since then. ..D.s an apartment manager, we ire required to abide by all the discrim;nation rules that are applicable in this country, including renting to families. We do not have t.he facilities for the screening process tn~t Mid-pfninsula H~using Coalition does~ WE rely upon an independ~nt r~al estate ~anager to handle our tenancies t and we hive an on-site manager. There are currently i greater number of families living in there now under ~ur management than there tould conceivably be under future management. The import~nt pOint here is that there is absolutely no change in the nat~re ~f that building ~-how it is occupied, who is going to possibly live in it 1n terms of the human inhabitants, tne str~ctur~, etc. We are stuck with that. Whether this project is appro'led or not, it is 90in9 to continue to b4! rented. What Mid-PeninslJla offers, from our perspective, is the opportunity to go and find a rear user for the restaurant~ and we have ~ouston's coming before this board in January, acsolute1i conditioned on this deal going forward, to propose a restaurant for the site. If this falls. we are back to the same apartment use we now nave. Ms. Lytle: I would o~ly add that oil logical alternati¥! to the existing aiternath1e 'Would' be to see this property incorporated into the Dinah's Hotel property_ Given the history of th2~e property owners, pragmati(ally I tnink It is ~nlikely that they wi11 ever be able to agree en that. So J think that is not in the foreseeable future. Ms. Haser: Does anyone on the board nave any questions Df members of the public? Mr. Hise: J ~ave SDme questions for stafL I ail! not ccmpl.ete-iy clear on why we are seeing a PC zone applicatio~ here. It is loned RM·30 and it is being used as an apartment building. Why dGn't they just sell this building, and why is this g01ng throu~h any review process? It is zoned as an apartment building. Tne f~ture intent is as an apartment building. I don't see any reaso~ to do a PC. Am r missing something~ ~~: T~e alternative would be a grosser zone varian,e, essentially. The int~nt Qf th& PC was to allo~ the publ ic benefit finding to be a part of this issue. The low-income housing, as you are all clearly aware. is a ver~ big program in our Comprehensive Plan. It is an overriding city policy that we try and find many Tocations for this type of hoysing+ Tne PC lone chang~ was chosen rather tr.an just a straight separation of property and combfnation of variances fot' that reil.san. Mr. Hise! I still don't see the reason. Ms, Cheney: The state subdivision map act requires a subdivision to divide property for the purposes of saTe, l~ase or financing. There is no way they ciln sell thit property for separate ownershi p without having the subdivision. They could create another partner, They (ould have an l2/03/92 -14- <, .- - undf-lidltd interest in the prop£rt,)' so that in the'ir own minds, they owned it, but for leg.!l purposes, th!y ('.annot divide it. Mr. Hise; So you irE saying that the piece of property that is being proposed for sal!'. for whatevei reason, does I'ot need Ute basic minimum subdivision reQui~ements ~n its o~n? ~~: No, it doesn't need the density requirements of th! urlderlyins lone. Tne prcj)erty hu to meet loning requirements. MS. lytle: proposal is change. It ;s density. and you cannot get a variance to ~ens!t1. to establish density tnrougn this Planned Community lone Mr. ~;se: So there are physical subdivision laws that would not allow this to be subdivided str~ight out as it is zoned? Ms. lytle: Yes. Mr. Hise; Does it ~ave to be larg~r, or what? The ~s. Cher.ev: The sYCdivision must comp1y with local zcn(ng regulations. The proposal for i PC is to rfduce the number of specific site deve10pment re9uTations. I would 1ike to cl~rify the need for variances. What we have 15 an existing, noncomplying, nonconforming l.Jse in tnat it crosses toning lines and does not meet the regulaticns of the underlying zones. If we were not proposing t~ subdivide the property, then variances would not be required. The need for the variances is a technicalit¥ due to the addition of the new property line. You don't need a variance for that newly established setbaCK. Introducing the new property line does not require a varian~e from tne build;~g to t~at property line. The reason for the varianee is that the introduction of that prop!rty line shifts the te~hnical definition of what are tne front, rear and side yards. That is the reason. Mr. lvzwc: Could you point this out t\J us, bec.a\Jse this is the essence ~f this session. Ms. Cheney~ This is the property site whlch I have referred to formerly as a hatchet. Right now, the front yard is E1 Camino Real, the rear is here, and the side yard is aiong Tamarack Court. Those ar! the jfards from which the required setbacks are determined. By the introdu~tio" of a new property 1 lne out here (points to map). by definition, that shifts: the Tamarack Court property line. Instead of its being a side property line. it now b!comes a front property line, because this is the property line that fronts on the street. So what we have is a situa.tion where allowing continuation uf the existing use wouid not reQuire variances. But witr. the introd~ction of th;s new property line and the shifting of what was previously recognized as a side property line to a front property line, the requirements of setbacks for front prop~rty lines and rear pro~erty lines ire greater tnan for side property lines, a0d varia.nces are needed. So it is a technical issue which requires variances, ~ith no change in e~ist1ng eonditions. 12/03/92 -15- ",., 'i~~:·· Mr.-..L..tl!!i: So by gOing ttirough this proces'S, wtlat I M1V'e heard Nancy say is tnat by getting a PC Zone change? W! are now going to have fewer variances than _e would otherwise. But we will have to have variances, regardless. Ms. Cheney: That 1S corrfct. Hr. tYZWi: So the purpose of the PC zone change is to make it i little simp ler. Ms Lytle: And tn allow the d~nsity, which wo~ld not b~ allowed. Mr, Lyz~a: fn order to sell this property, we ~ave to have the subdi~is1o~. In order to have the subdivision, ~e ha~e to introduce the red property line. Ms. Cheney: No, this red line does n~t represent the property line. The proposed property line is right here (pointing to map). Mr. lvzwa: What is the red line? Ms, C~eney: The red line represents the e~istence of a Dne-foDt strip, in wh~c~ the city and another rarty acquired in undi~ided half interest at the time that Tamarack Court was created, We are dDing research as to tnt signi ficance of ttli s parcel, Ms. lytl!: The red 1ine is the reason this was continued at the Planning Commission level. We just became aware of it last week. Mr. lyzwa: So that is something the city has to s~1ve. Let's go back to the property line that you started pointing ~ut for me. M.s. Chengv: This is the ,propos~d new property line, splitting the Dlnah's Re.stau!'ant site into Lot 1 and tnt hmarack Executive SuHes into lot 2. It includes the driveway which ;s the acc~ss to Tamarack Execut~ve SYites. Mr. lyzwa: So ill the traffic that you a~e antiCipating w~ll be toming to the Tamarack Executive Suil~s through Ta~arack Co~rt. Ms. Cheney: Yes. M .. , lyzwa: Is there arlY way )OU would preclude traffic from traversing through the existing parking lot in the f~ture? Ms. Cheney: ihey would not have any legal rights to cross the other properties, Mr. lyzwa: How would you stop people from driwing across there? "$. Cheney: I ~ouTd imagine it wou1d be very difficult to enforce. Who would know if they were going to the restaurant or not? Hr. lyzwa: And you are not antiCipating an} cutoff as part of this deal? Ms. Cheney: TMs easement which exists for the b2rH!fit of the Dinah:'s Hotel would continue, and would give tn€m the right to continue to c.ross 11/03/92 ·16- I ! - t~. property_ ~~: So this would just be a property lin! ~n order to conclude the sale. Ms. Cheney: The reason for the proposed cc~fi9uration is to ensure that t!1e proposed Lot 2 has fee title to the iccess frain Tamarack. Court. The ,roDosed easement that we are su~gestin9 be required of the preliminary parcel ~p would be .I nOr'lexc1usive ingress/egress granted to tnt restaurint ind to the hotel so that the users of botn of those sites could continue to have rlghts to use tne Tamarack Court drlve~ay. Ms. Miser; That was tne best explanation we have had on this whole iSSUE .11 DID"'in,_ Thank yD._ Mr, Lyzwa: have on! more question. When this project came to you, understanding .11 the difficulties and adjustment of property linc$ and the variances that would be required, what was the basis for your support for low-income housing in this particular l~catjon? Ms. Cheney: If you would allow me to backtrack for a moment, another reasop. for thi PC i! that it would e~lble the city to ensure that thE long-tf~ use of this building would be for low-income housing. That is the only wa) the (ity could control it. Wh!n this issue ~as first brought to the city~ there was no ment~o~ made of a lo~-income use. At that time, the city did not support doing such a subdivis;~n. Our recGmmendation at the time was to retain it under the existing restaurant ownership or sell it to the adjoining hotel. As I understand it. th.:at was not acc3ap1lshed. When we were approached w~tn t~e possibility ~f low-income housing there. we went out to the property and looked at it. We understood that it would oe difficult. The only way we could rec~n~ it. and the only med'lan~sm the c.ity wol.ild have to allow sue,", a subdivision, would b. t"rough , PC .nd through the public benefit of low-income ~ous;ng. This part1cular $1~e we tnought was appropriate in that the building ElCists. It would c:c;.r;tinue to F.!xist as a residentia1 use. whether the pr{lject was approl.'ed cr net. The the income level of tn€ inhabitants alone .. culd not pose an adverse problem to surrounding properties. W~ also have some major goals for the city i~ the Housing Element which ~as recently adopted and a Comprehensive Housing Affordabillty Strategy. Also, i City Counc;l directive this last year was to focus attention on people in crisis. So we felt there was a strong directive from the city to try and ~!et the housing needs of all the people in the community. The building was constructed as a residential buildin~, and there was an opportunity to purchase it and have it occupied without e~tensive renovation. There is also a lack of housing sites available. and tn<:Jse that are availab1e ;jre ~n c~etition with for-profit housing developers. Ms_ lytle: To expand on tnat, the physical cOfifigurati~n of the building is suitable for this type of housing, as you have ~eard described. such as t~e unit content~ the !iz~ of thE units being appropriate for tne use proposed, its pro~i~ity to public transit. with a bus line down the street. and its pro~imity to jobs. There are a considerable number of service jobs in the immediate area that make it a desirable location for this type of ~se. 12/03/92 -17 - Mr. Hjse: I wouid like to kr.ow the dollar ~alue, either per day o· per mont~, of t~e units ncw. What de th€y rent fer? Mr. Mfmutn: In the $650·700 per "",.th range. ~r. HiSt: Is there a minimum stay required? Mr. Aufmuth: Thirty days. Mr. Hise: $0 that is tne least amount of time y,u c~uld rent it for right no"",,? Mr. '-'.ufmtlth: That is correct. Ms. DaRosa; Do you hav~ full occ~pancy now? ~Aufmuth: No, it varies. We run from 85 perc!nt down to 65 percent. It tends to be lower at the Chr; stmu/January time period. Then H pitks up i~ the spring. Tne mix h!s baen, for instance. we recently had a group of Penney~s trainp.es in there. We have had some hospital spillover, and we ha~e a regular flaw of low-end income people and t~ansition people, di~orcees, people going through the economft system. Ms. Wilson: Let's get back to this little red line. That is an o~ership, net an easement? Ms' Chen~y: lt is an ownersnip. Hr. Aufmytb: T~at red line litera11y? as best 1 k~~w, came into knowledge. forget about existerlce-, within the 1 ast 72 hours. I flave never ever s~en a~y document or eVidence of that. These maps whith have been done by ALTA Sur~eys. there is title insurance, t~ere ~r~ title T~ports~ 1 am n~t q~e$tioning that it mayor may not exist. but in all due respect to everyone here, at least to the applicant, we have never even seen anything on it. Ms. Wilson: We11, if it does exist, whi:ch I am sure 'wroJe car. see, jf the city is participating in this, there ~ust be some documentation, If it does exi~t, and a property owner d~cides that they de not want to create ~n e~~ement across that, no~ c.n you get to Tamarack fxecuti~e Suites? Ms. Lytle: I dn not think it is rele~ant to your ilsue. frankly. It is a subdivision issue. We are not sure what the status is. I res,ect Mr, Aufmuth's concern that we are discu~sing an item tnat he has not been aware of. We do not know what the nature of it is. We are researching it. We ~o believe we have half ownership in it. We do not know where the other half of the ow~ership lies. It needs to be further researched before we can r!spcnd to it, but J don't think it needs t~ be an issue here. It is a subdivision issLte. If Utere is no ability to access across it, then ob'Jiously it could nave a ramification on Q·jr recommenda.tion for the s.ubdivision. Ms. Maser: I nave some questions. We did not rective in our packets the Planning Commission minutes. I felt personally somewhat hampered by the exclusion of those minutes. J wanted to bring that forward. Will this meeting today be transcribed verbatim for tne Planning Commission's next 'L 12/03/92 -18- -'1--. aeeting D~ this issue? I1s, tytle: It wtJul d not normally be tr.anscri::'ed f<lr them. W~ wouTd ask t~it I representativt of th~ Architectural ~!~iew Beard be present. Clearl,)', it will be trans.cribed ir, time for the c(Juncil reco:mtendatio11. Norma11y, our turnaround does not permit a tra~script to go to the com1u~on. Ms. Maser: Is it poss7ble to have !~methin9 special done? P1S~ lytle: It cou~d be, in this instance, since we have had I continuance. We wiil make every effort. We had to continuE the item as a result of the red lfne. Ms. Maser: So that ~i9ht ~ll~w you to transcribe this meeting. Ms. lytle: T~at;s correct. Ms. Maser: Did the P~annin9 Commission ~a~s the benefit, as we did, of seeing the ~aster sit~ plan when they last reviewed this project? Ms. Lytle: Oh, yes. H:i· Ma~er: ~as it in their packets? M~, ~~tll': Yes. Ms. Maser~ The master site p1an, meaning that entire configur.tion that wu brDught to us this mor'ning? Ms. lyt1e~ Of the ~otel, yes, there was clearly an air photo as part of the sit. and design application that they had the benefit of. Ms. Cheney: They did nDt have the site plan showing tht configuration Df the O!nah's Hotel site. ~s. Maser~ We were given that. ~Cheney: Yes, it was inc1u<:led in your packets in r-espons€ to a specific request of the ARB, and it is provided as a courtesy by Mr. Handley. Ms. Maser: We will now return the item to the board for board comments. Who wishes to start? Mr. HisE:~ I wi.] 1 . I find myself going back and forth tin D1Y support Dr opposition to this prDject. It has gotten clearer for me this morning, hearing the different sides. I find that my support for the project tenters around three topics~ One is that it is currently being used as apartments, therefore. this is really no chang!. except for the amount of DOney that is being charged and that it is being targeted to the low~income tenant. r see part of my support as being tnat it is currently ~ing used as apartments. So there is no real change. The second point of support tomes from t~e fact that I am very sympathetic and feel tnere is a need for creating housing for the low-income population in this area. 1 find myself wanting to ~uppart it for those reasons. The third is that this little piece of property and this 12/03/92 -19- ~ ! I i i , -.--~;~~~X~~;' ··~ii_ - ~ilding does present an inc~mbr~n(~ of probably the fuliest and best use Df the entite phce of property. So if we could separate this off and put it under separate ownership, it rea11y does free up doing something with a piece of property t~at right ~ow nas more negative impact on the neighborhood than potentia"y this prcposal presents. Then when 1 jook at the reasons why 1 hear the public is opposed to the project, and some of my o~r. concerns about it, they become pretty s1gr.ificant. .her. I read the reQuired determinations for a PC finding, 1 cannot find cor.sensus Of. all three of Ule~1!' pOints. Till!' first is that the site is so situated that the USt or uses proposed on the site c.nnot be cruted in any of the c·ther zor.in9s. 1 can find that yes~ that is true. There is no combining of d1strlcts that ~ould allow what is being provoseo there. So it meets t~at crfttrion. "The deve' oprnent f.lf the site under the p~Qvisians of the Planr.ed Community district will result fn significant public benefit.w That is true. But when r read tnE third one, "The use or uses permitted and the-site de\ie1Qp:r.ent regl.ll,ations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the C1ty of P.l0 Alto Comprehensive Plan," that is affirmative so far, but then, It says, -and shall be compatible with Existing and potential uses on adjoining sites within the generill 'r'icinity." I cannot really sign off on that one, at least from the tl1'stimony here, that __ e .~ave really met that one. I think that 1s th! one that is still under Question. Even the apartment use is not rea11y tompat1ble. so 1 am finding it hard to ~ake a positive (ineHng on a~l threE! of the detenr.17'lations requirerl' far-i PC. That troubles ~~ a litt1e bit, but in and of itse1f, it was not enough to maKe me nonsupportive of this project. But t,en, I looked it the .cty,l ~partment us~ tnd started to th~n~, if an ipa~tment was being proposed there, would we, in fact, al10w it, if a ne~ building wer-! being proposed tn~re? T~at was when 1 $tart~ to get into 1 lot Df prnb1ems with the proje::t. 1 doni t think that the use that it is-bein9 used for, whic~ is part of the reis~n 1 was supporting ,t, its current use as apartme~ts, is a change from what is propo~ed. Hcwever~ we would not approve this project for 'Jse as apartments nowadays. That is ve.ry diffic.ulL T~en 1 go to our ordinance for ARB rE~iew and the first of t~e five declared goa1s and purposes of the AR8. I find negative 01'1 all five. ·Prcmate orderly and harmonious deveiopment within the city.· r wou1d have to say tnat is Questionable. "Ennar.ce the des'rability of residents and investment in the city.-Again, 1 could make an argument either way~ but it is not strong. "Encourage the attainment !Jf the IliOSt deSirable use of land and impr~v&ments.· Again, th!re is some question ,~ ~y mind. -Enhince the desirability of living conditlons upon the immediate site or adjacent a.reas.-I would nave to say that is pretty negative. ·Promote vlsual environments cf high aesthetic Qua1itJ ~nd variety and whic", it the time, are considerate of each. -I ai.1 negative (In mo~t of those fiva. Then I go to our standards for review. These are mostly designed for new structures. So i rel'~Zt it is difficult to app1y those. ~Y1lt; t think the confusion here is in trying to apply any standards to a project that is already uhtfng. If you werE to do that with .any ARB application where y~u are dealing with an existing Situation, ther! are many instances ~nen y~u would not be able to do it. You have to lOOK at the physical change that is occurring here. ltI03/92 -to- , . : :, Mr. H1se: I understand th,t. The troubl. I had with it 1s that I a. le-oking for some reason to support tne project because of lI'iy sympathies for the goal here. Ms, lytl,: I don't think the test is that you treat it as a new projett. Mr. Hise: ~es~ beca~sE that do~sn't work at all. J end up with only one OT t'li<l of thc IS the::;t arE ret appl icabie. As for the rest~ if it were a new proj!ct, _e would have to rule it out. Ms. Lytle: Ab.olut.ly. Mr. Hjs§: So I have ~r~ conCErns than I have support for the project right n ... I would li'e to he.r what the oth,r bo,rd member. ha,e to say. I re-alile it is a very difficult situatilln, but] alii vrry concerned about this being ~sed as a apartment use at any 1evel, altho~9h ~en [ se~ people paying $600 to 5650 a month fer it. it starts being in line with staying in a motel for I month. So that la~ has a tendency to be a TittlE moTe (~patible and attracts th~ kind of person who is Tooki~9 for a motel/hotel kind of use, w~ich is compatible with other things Dn the Site. For it to be for permanent or lon~·term reSidents, I am a lot more concerned, especial1y with families and children involved. Those iTe my feel1ngs right now, and J 'Would not be slJpportive cf the pre-jett ;.s propose<!. Ms. DaRosa: r share many of Tom's concerns. F~r the record, I met with Mr. Hand1ey and tou~ed the site, and r was contacted by Gordon MacDonald by telephone. This is an existing building, SD the building Is not going to change and set back the daylight plane, whether or not the yari~nce ;s granted. That beccmes a \fery technical iss!Je, and I don't think any decision we make really makes a difference, in that sense. It is not pnysically going to change the bui1ding. There is a lot of qu(!stion about the e-asements, what Hey mean, what the red line means, but that, too. is a 'iegal -Question that win ha ..... e to be resohed if this project is approved, but wiil not make a difference in • OU)-review today. So I reaily look to the goa15 and purposes. This is in wUJsual project in that it is built, and] look to see what th~ role of tne ARB is in this. As r look at the goals and purposes, most of these goals and purposes are fer buildings that are going t~ be buiit, not ones t~at exist. But t~ere is one goal ~. -Does the project enhance the d!siraollity of liYing conditions on tne immediate site cr adjacent areas?~ That is where J reaily get hung up with this project. Although this project, in a way, does not result in a use change if it is already being used as an apar~nt, it does result in a change that will guarantee f~1l ~ccupancy, so the impact on the slte will be greater because of that. Then we get to the real issue of parking and the outdDor space. T~e lack of parking in an urban area does net bother me as much as the laCK of parking: in this area, combine.d with the physically open area of the hotel and Dinah's Shack Restaurant for t~at site. It is much easier to park on the sl.Irface than it is I.!nder the building, so I am a little concerned about the parking. lack of outdoor space, when you haYe people wno are un!mployed, they need to 90 someplace. They .re not necessarily g01ng to "L 11/03/91 -/1- ,---I .•.•.• - b~ Sltting in thefr apa~tment~ so t~Ere is a tendency for tho~e people to be outside. Since this is suc~ a weird situation l this really dense unit built tc thE site Tines stuck in I very beautiful matel irea wit~ lagoons, it seems like there would be an attract~o~ tc take these peQPle at t~ls site and nive then walk intJ the neighboring areas. People who Ire totally employed would be going someplace durir.g the ~ay~ and there wo~ld n~t be that kind of attraction. So although the uses wou1d change from apartments to low·income rentals~ and is a similar type of housing, th~ p~ap1e 'Who are there are going to be dHferenL You will have more people there, and those peopTe ~11] probably ~ave more time to spend in those "nih. The other issue is that of childr.n. They are relying on the good oi11 of the management to limit the children in this area. If c-hildre-n Ire not limjted~ that is a real attratti~e nuisance next door and acrQSS the street for children to ~xplore. So I am rea'l) concerned about the impact cf this chang! on tne immediate site+ On the other Mand, it is so tempting. You Took at this property that is practlcalTy ready to moye fnto, and there are people who are realTy in need. rt seems like such an appropriate use fer that specific property in terms of cetching those people who are abJut to be out or, the street. But the impact on the adjacent sites is. something that real1y conce't~ns me and is one of the goals in which we review the environmental impact assessment. Mr. Lyzwa: I share Tho:nas' and Aino's concerns very I!luch~ ar,d em in agreement with their c~~nts. I agree that we cann~t look at this projett as if it were a new building that 'is Ming proposed. because we all know this would never even be submitted to us for review. I have i lot of difficulties with the existing building. Again, 1 feel that there is a lack cf landscaping. I don't belieye tnat the parking is adequate to allow for visitors and to allow for nonmal~ standard par~i"9 ratiOS. There is n~ storage proY;ded for units. There is a questionable securit~ system, as I see it right now, not that there is any, but as far as security is concerned~ r wouTd not feel comfortable. The issues of pdvacy I do not feel ha .... e been resol 'Jed \tery \ll/e11, especially on the first le .... el deck, wtiere you can literally circle the whole b~i1ding and waH.. fi'"o~ tne inside out or outside in. The ha:1dicap standards are not addressed~ or at least J have not heard that the) are going to be resolYed according to code. I see that there are concerns with Tit1e 24 pnergy considerations. There is no bicycle parking that am aware of. There really is no system of mail deliyery. Signage, although a ver~ ~inor issue, 11so has not been addressed. What J would like to nave done, ~t pernaps the next review if the board wants to tontinue it. 'S to have the issues of bicycle parking resolved, and address th~ concept of a play area, .e have talked about the problem with children, and we all realize that if this becomes i low-income housing project, we do haYe to antiCipate for children, especially young chiTdren, some sort of a play area that could perhaps be created it the first level tlal can,)' which; s 'oIery generous and runs the ler,gt;, of the building. I think the appearancp enhancement of the building shouTd be addressed somehow. We shouro try to have a minimum standard that would be required of a bonding in reference to this building. I don't feel 'tWe ha ..... e 12/03/92 -22- addressed aEsthetics; I don't tMink we have addressed the iiSU~S t~at we ire wrestlj~9 with. On the otner hand. I very rnu:n support what Thomas stated. which is that the existing use is an aplrtment b~ilding. It is c~rti1n'y tnt fullest and best use of that site. Low-1nc~me housin9 is a very Ippei'i~g USE 1n this location. I tnink we ire all str-uggling with 1ow-income housing. Ptriod. I think that for ytars, we ha .... e all stated. is a rule, thlt Palo Alta is very much in favor of low·;ncome housing, as 10ng it is r •• lly not In my neighborhood. The truth is that nobody wants it anywhere in P.lo Alto in their neighborhood. That is al.o an issue that needs to be addressed, Ind perhaps much mo~e S~ at the City Council l~vel than here. i feel uncomfortable with saying yes, r can support this pr~ject as 1t is before roe right now. On the other hand, r do fee1 that we need to addr!ss tr.! issue of low-income housing, and we need to have maximum flexibility in being able to accept and understand th~ issues involved. Ms, lin sgr,: I always feel r~ally badly when the city gets embroiled in somet~in9 like this, because it is ~ery comp1icated. The~e are a lot of interests that need to be ilddre'i;~ed and corrsid~red. Tne answer posed to Sarah about why is tne city backing this has i very simp1e answer. There is one word ~-availability. This is available. It is h~rd to f~nd something that Is available. 1 did meet 'With Mr. Handl ey on the site, and I want that on the record. I tnink tnat optimally, for the function of this, that this site sh~uld be sep_rited. I can appreciate why i restauraMt owner wo~ld not want to operate a hottl or an apartment or whatever. But I also think that optimally, this property should be owned by the Dinah's Hotel loterests. That should be approached in almost a sense of arbitration that someone should come up with a fair market value for that property and give the hDtel ownership an opportunity to buy it at fair market value. There is some Question about the price that Mld·Peninsu1a is 'paying for this pr<lperty. I na~e done or,1y sup€rficial resec:rch about this or. my own, but it certainly 1s questionable that tne price is too high, 1 don't think a person should be held li'p in this k~nd of a situation. What we naVE here is a bus ,ness and a property owner who has been operating in a very Viable and productive way i~ this (ommunity for many, ~ny years and 15 really getting the shaft right now fr~ an economic standp~1nt. J think that is anotner goa1 of this city. We do nave a goal to support low-income housing, but we also have a goal to support the economi( base t~ this crnmmunity, Doing things detrimental to property owners is not pursui ng thlt goal in good faith. The most c~mpatibTe use here is the hQtel use. Whether the hotel. if it bought it, ~ould lJse it as a hotel, I don't know. But it distw·bs me that the c;t1 is participating in this aggravation of a bad situation. [t has been stated many times th~t we have a bad situation. I think we are making it wcrs!_ As long as this property ;5 in the private sector, there is an opportunity for some kind of negotiation to go on. The minute tnis property becomes ~ublic property and it gets invol~ed with a low·income ,",Dusing agency, this parc.elization. whic1'1 i5 very bad, is cast in bronze. I wovld ~ot want to be the hotel owner trying to sell this property in thE futUre. I think they were very negatively impacted by this. L 12/03/91 -13· ....... '. t··, J -- - I ql.'estiol'1, architecturally, .. heri;' tr.~ t1u:" aCces.S is to Dina~;s Hot!!'l. r don't th1nk, from a design standpoint, that t,.t Is .t .11 lop.ront. r don't t~ink signage for the hotel, if this change is made. has been addre5sed. No addressing has been made of separ.tion of th~ two sitts for safety with fences. We have talked II 1et about w~it prob'~$ could occyr, and 1 feel that the on~s is on the Mid·Peninsull Housing COilitfon o~ whoever does own that property to ~ork on that ~ith the adj~ce~t own~~. It disturbs me to see a cO'ltr~buting busin~ss with I: lot of wit.1fty in:d landmark liIndsca,pir.g. ~ort of II hidden treasure in Pilo Alto, beh'l9 so nega!;vely impacted. It is very easy to get concerned ab~ut .fnor1ty needs in this conITIunity, and I i!.m not just talking ab<lut low-incoae nousing. There are a lot ~f other minority ne~d5 that get J ~ery "fgh profile i~ this community, and very often, there is i silent .ajor1ty that suffers because of it. J feel really b!dly a~c~t that. because thit is the strength of Palo A.1to, the long-t'n11 base of people wIlo are productIve and contributing to the community. So their concerns are very le9iti~te, and thoy should be respected. It disturbs me that we repeatedly near that t~ere is no change t~ be .. de here. We hiVe an eyesore of i bui Jding. ar.d no attempt is beir.-g IfLlde to improve it aesthetically. Michael alluded to some tnings that could happen. The least, as a good r.efghboT, t~at cou1d ~ done here is 5~ improvements ,to the appearance Or this building. ] am also disturbed about the variance-so I think. they negatively impat:t the adjacent properties. Any improvements that an adjacent property owner would try to make would b! impacted negatively by the variances that arE given to this property. It is 50 different from i Variance that we might glve. i$ on i property we saw recently at 1050 Arastrider~ Road where there was an infringement on a property line. The variance did n~t impact the neighboring properties. but this one realty does. ]t is $0 blatant that it is hard for me to bel ie'll! that we can be condoning it and trying to cement it. So tr.ose are my toncerr.s. I sti11 wish tn€re coul~ be some typ~ of arbitration or negotiation going on h~re tnat WJS fair to everybody fair to the O'nah's property owners so that they could, in fact, develop this restaurant site in a way that was attractive to a rest~urant de\o'eioper~ and fair to the ~otel operator so that they could, perhaps, heal a wound t~at has been sitting there s~ long and festering. ], too, went thrcugh our code, and c~uld hardly answer yes to anything on the ARB c~eckl ht that ttds project meets. With any other d~'IIelDper COOling in here. we would certainly expect significant visual improYernents. and no~e aTe be i n9 put fort;-,. The QUi!stion of -cniidren. to me, ; s very real. No matte I"" how hard W~ tr.,';' to keep them out, a single person cou1d move in tnere and ~aye a child. If it is permanent houslng, the child is going to grow ind start crawling around. 1t is sometliing we really cannot cOfitrol, even though in good faith. WE would try to. So J am very troubled about It. r am still hopeful that som~thing positive can corne out of this through some kind of negotiation_ Ms. Maser: Tnere is not much left for me to say. Kost of the things I wrote down have been stated by my colleagues. J will not repeat t~em, L 11(03(92 -14- - except to say that J am irl accord .... ith what has been said. One thin~ that ~as not been brought up is the psychological 1mpacts of being fn this building in the mfdst of what is a very tempting and Llpsca 1e neighbornood: part1cu1.riy for children, and not being allowed tc particip~te in that nefghborho~d. That is ar. extremel) uncomfortable situation for ~veryone i~vGlved. For them it gives a ~ense ~f isolation and no N-al sense of conmurl'fty. To me, that is very important for ar.ybody in that situation. If, by some magic, this property could be reverted, or could became a part of the Dinahls Hotel comp1t!x, all these z!l~ing lSSI.les would be resclved, I belie~e, althoug~ I hive fiot studied it, piece by piece. Anybody 1M planning, taking a look at tMis master plan, ~uld say th~t what ~a5 happened here wa5 crazin~ss twenty yeari ago. WMat cDuld Mave been the impetus for such a strange anoma1y that we ire looking at ~ver there wlth, as Sarah puts it, this hatchet splitting this piece of land in half. I do fa'llor low-income hQ~JsiTl9, as Wi! ail do, and I am not living in this neighborn~od, so I am not in that NIMBY positlon~ but it i3 real1~ going to be impossible for me to support a project whicM violates a1most e'llery standard and goal that we, on tMe ARB, are asked t~ pro~te. Furthe~re, by splitting off this parcel and creating a public benefit on land which 11 no longer privately controlled w;1i effectiv~11 elim~nate any possibility of allowing this property to become integrated into tne existing hotel, probably the most natural and obv~ous use Df the site. Thomas Mas alread1 reviewed some of the goals and standards. I would like to mention a few w~re of thE standards in the form of questions. Is this design compatible ~ith the immediate environment of the site? Can we honestly state that the design oromates harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between different designatad land uses? Is there in interim sense of order ~nd i desirable en~ironment for the applicants1 Is the amount of open space appropriate to the design? This projEct, IS Tho~a$ pointed out, is in conflict with all of the goals of the ARB, as stated in the Drdinance. So I ~ould urge the applicant and the notel owner to seek ~rbitration~ if that is possibl~, before this gets set ir. con~rete, to reso1"e their djfferences and work towards the incorporation of this site into the surrounding hotel Site. Maybe that is pie in the sky. but it is never too late to sugges,t somettling 1 ike that. An unfortunate ind ~nhappy situation was launch~d by the creation of this divisive site and this unattractive) prisonlike building. Approvin9 the proposal before us today only exacerbates that situation and makes tne possibility of a unified and harmonious environment even more unattainable. I wonder if anybody ~oul~ like to ~ake a motion ~r any further comments? Mr. Hise: The only other cOrn1'1,ent I ha'olt! is to address the encumbrarlee 1)f this building on the h:ghest and best use of the rest of the property. It was stat.ed by the applicant that nobody wants tMe front cf this site because they don~t want the apartment b~11ding. That really COUld be solved here, because it is sUt~ a valuable piece of property. I can think of a couple of solutions right off hand. We have heard about negotiatin9 or arbitrating the sale of the property. J could see Hit whoever wanted the front of that property to just give this property to the hotel, and 12/03/92 -25- Oilll!& \ . { - reQ'J1re the hohl to take it down and lea ... e 'it as open space. ft wou1d probab1y the highest and best !.lse, and we would get this builljing <:Jut of 1her~. The ~nes that fall short in this scenario are t~ose people ~ho are looking for lo~-inco~~ housing in this community. That tr~ubles me, but that just clouds the problems that this piec~ of property has as bringing in Ute low-income iSsue. I "'ould have been more supportive of the project if t~c low"inc~me issue was approached that this is going to be a snort-term, hotel type U5e for low" income people and if there were some kind of restriction placed on it so tnat it stayed in the hotel genre of u~e. Then I think ~e would have a harder time with a lot of our concerns here. Jt, s the apartment tlse that specifically concerns me more, and it sounds like I hear my colTeagues saying, as ~el1. ~: By Mr. Hi,.: ~: By Ms. Wilson? move denial of this project. Ms. ~asel": Is there any discussion? Or any coments from the applicant b~fore we taKe a ~ote? Mr. Wiley: 1 am wondering ~hat is the outlook from the board in stating what your purpose was here today. The purpose of this, ] thought. was not in relation to the use: but getting into your customary review. You are saying you ~a"ted a homeless shelter. M<. WilsOll: I didn't say tllat. Mr. ~;'ev: Thomas Hise said it. Ray, as part of th,s, he has a covenant against the property to use it as a transftional use. It cannDt be used as I h~less shflter. We a~e willing to do that. That use is definitely high on the priority list in Pale Alto. r am ur)derstanding sl)me of the things. We addressed the bicycle issue. That is 1n the report. There lS tons of bicycle space in the baCK i~ the underground storage crea. I thought tnat was addressed in the report. It should have been. We supplied that infornatior, ta the staff. It also does have storage for each unit. It has c..'J .... ered storage down be1011i in the. undergrourid parkir,g. Again. you are saying trris ;s not an urbar; area. PeopTe are suppGsed to commute to work. That is a number one goal under the rental of housing. That is what we are striving fOT, to prevent 45 peGple wo~kin9 n!xt door in tne hotel who don't e .... en live here. Tnei could walk across the st~eet to their jobs, eHn';flating a lot of environmental problems. Js Z2 units big for Palo Alto? Yes, that is a 10t of need that gets met. A lot of things you are addressing here --is tnis an ugly build~n9? This is, from Mid-Peninsula Housing standards, an exceTlent building. It is open~ It dGes have open area in front. Can w! make a play area? Rignt noR' it is used IS a bar~cue are.. We call that open. I am net 901ng tD ~ddress it as open play area, because we are not going to put structures in there. Under HUD requirements or gUidelines, it is not open play area because 1t is in front of the residence. Is tnu a prison? Is it a bad building? No, by {Jur standards, if we had to put in .nother S500.000. I ~ight classify it as an ugly building. 12/03/92 ·26- Comparable to what we have done in los Gatos, and what we are trying to do in San Jl)se, Sunnyvale and Cupertino, this building is in greet shape. We do !'lot want t<l change the aesthet ic: ... ~1t!e in the front. We feel tnat tn!re ~ay be SOmE maintenance alan; some of the trim, but it is in excellent shape. We Wi 11 upgrade as un.its become open. We are not proposing. is Larry said, to mike any changes. Sun Dial and other deveiopments that are the same d~ n~t have any children. The chPdrer: issue is. nat going to b.e a problem in this deve1opment. If there ire children of a sma11 age, they will be very fe .... in ~umber. There is one child 1ivjng there no~ with a dog. We won't have p.ts. 1"ot ~asn't brought up. A lot of the issues of .. hat I felt an~ fran felt that was g~ing to come up before the board here is what we are proposing to chtnge. We are ~ot proposing to impa:t either side of us. Is this area ccnducive to high-denslty housing? ~hy don't you just eo to one mo~e adjacent p~operty. That;s about over 200 units. How about going to the other side. That is about ]50 units of apartments. This is id!al. So YDU say this little niche looks big on that diagram. Put this into the wh~le. and what you have surrounding us, that is all part of it. Are we trying ttJ get into los Altos, as someone askt:d1 We would 10~e to get into los Altes. ~e are trying every day to get into los Altos. We are tryipg to !let out into Portola \lal1ey. This is not in a bad area. rt is in a bad location which we can do nothing abJut. It has been seven years since Mr. Hand1ey and Mr. Aufmuth tried to work something out. If th'2,Y can't do it in se'y'en ye-aTS, it is not l;~e:y. You say somebody is going to buy the front and give the back away? It is not going to nappen. Is it w~rth what ~e are paying for it? Yes. by using the appraisal method of $700 a unit. That computes tt:) over a minion dol1ars. We are not using a milliQn and a half worth of city funds. Right new we are ~sing zero city funds. We are using federi1 funds. The rest comes Dut of a HUD guaranteed annual income cash flow t so this Sl.S million, don't know where that came from _. ·of city funds.· It is zero city ftmds. 1 r-eal1t waT'1t to bring you the context of what \!joe are propos; ng here and why this isn't gOing into greatEr detail and Yr.'hy ~id-Perlinsu1a Housing Co~lition, as a ncn-prJfjt~ is net spending two or three thousand dollars a~d coming up with some fancy new renditions or what~ver else you want to see, because that is not what we are planning on~ We are pianning on kee-ping ttl; s as a sound structure and putting people ir,to it. Thank. you. Ms. Maser: Are there any other comments? If not, we will vote. All those in favor of the moticn, say aye? ~11 those opposed? Four in favor, witn Mlchael tyzwa dissenting. Mr. Lyzwa: I thought we should haYE continued it. Ms. lytle>: This item win next go t{) the-Planning Commission on January 13. 1993. We need an Architectural Rei/iew Board representative at tha', meeting. END Of HEARING. 12(03/n -27- - AG ENDA IT£M 3 42§i-4213 £l CAMINO REAL (J~BACK CQUR!l: Application for I prel1minary parcel map, Planned Community zone change and var1antes to allow separate ownership of In existing r.sldent!,l hotel by • non-profit housing grQup Ind allow its conver-sion to l(\'W~incame housing. The pr()jl!'ct includes; 0) a preliminary pircel map to subd;~lde I 72.590-square-foot parcel 1nto two parcels cf 57.370 squ,", feet (Lot I) and 15.220 'Qu,re f.et (Lot 2); (2i • Planned Community zone ch.nge for lot 2 fr~ CS(H). Se.-iice Conmertfal Hotel Combining DI,trlct and l1li-.30. Hedfum-Oenslty Multiple-Family Residence ~istrict to pc. Planned Community zene district. and (3) varl.nces for Lot 2 for. front .etback of zero f.et where 20 f .. t Is normally required. side yard s.tbacks .iong the northerly property line of zero feet on the first floor where 10 feet is normally requIred. and 7.5 feet on the second floor ..... r. 17 feet is "orm.lly required. and a 6-foot d,yllght pl.n. protrusIon ,long the north property line for I distance of 3Z feet. £nv1ronment.l A~sessment: Ne significant impacts were determined to restilt from tnis project, and a negative detlaration has been prepared. Zan. District: CS(H). RM-3~. File Nos. 92-ZC-14. 92-EIA-ll. 9Z-V-23. 9Z-PM-l. Commissioner Carri~co: I hive I potential conflici of interest on this item, so r .il1 abstain from participating. CQmm1ssJgoe[ Marsh: In the spirlt of c~jett hGnest,. I ~ave to confess that J have been out cf town a~d did n~t have time to read tht~ project as thoroughly as I want to in order to partlcipat!9 so r am going to abstain from participatio9 also. Commissioners Carrasco and Marsh leave the meeting.) Cha irma~ Beecham: Are tnere allY staff cormel'!ts? Ms. chen!y: Yes~ this app1icat1Dn includes 2 preliminary parcel ~ap to divide on! lot into two, a Pran~ed tomm~nity zone change. and ~~riance to anew separate ownership of en ex~s:t1n9 residenti.al hotel by a nonproflt housing group to allow it5 conversion to law-income housir.g. Also at your p1aces tonfght is a copy of a letter that the Mid-Peninsula Housfng Ccaiitftn sent to property own~rs within 300 feet of the site, informing them of the prop.,.l. Chairman Beecham: ~re there any questions by commissioners for the staff? COmrnis$joner Qjakia0: In reading this ove~. I beca~ verj confused about how all the easements work on t~is piece of property. So it would be very helpful to me, as the 1ea$t experienced of the commissfoners bere, if you would explain all of this. Chainman Btech~m: I don't believe your experience is the determining factor on this. Vic. "'5. Chgnl!V: transparency. expected that comment~ and am prepared with a What I have referred to in the report as Easement 11 is I 10/28/92 -22- ~-,.:- _:~;~If~~ - 24·foot .. w1de nonexc:lus,1ve access easement wtddl runs I'en~ tne Toimarack. Court frcntagf, and then ctkts a right-angle turn in front of the eXist'"9 T.mar.c~ Executiye Suites. ~ithln a portion of that is the acc.,s slairs t. the Tomarlc' Execull •• Su\t~s. That •• s.~r.t has bee .. gr.nted by the Dinan's Shade. restaurant property to the Oinah"s Hot.el property. Ccmniujo.,er Cullen: Do YC'j mean that 'Tamarack does not flave access to that f.l$ement'? ff~, Chentv: Curr~ntly~ S~aek rastaurant a~~ on h.tchet-s~.ped parcel. th4! Tamarlt;' Ex-ecut1't'e Suites an.d • single parc.l, which I refer to Sa th~y ire one parcel. the Dinah's IS a (t'lairman Begcham: But aiso, Camti,ssicn.er Cuneo, it ,s a nonexciusiv'! ease.menL Ms. Chenev: Tnat is correct. 1t is a nonexclusive access easement. Euemant 12 is granted from the Djnan's Shack. restaurant p;;:rc:el to Dinah's Hotel, and it is ten feet wide. It runs aian9 the ~rea northwest af the restaurant. Easement 13 is granted fr~m the Dinah'~ Hotel site to tne Dinah's Shack r.staurant sit.. That Is ten feet wid. back to the .. idth of that parce1, and then it runs 18 feet wide back to ~i1kie Way. As part of this application, there is a new easeme~t WhlC~ i$ defined to better reflect the curre~t access area which is US9d to 9ft to the Dinah's Hotel Sit! . ~C,:,O""'=-iLl'~,=j~o,:,nli:e:-r-iQ~l,,· ao.;~'if~'!ln.: From read; nq some co"cern by the property owners arrangement. Is tnat correct? the report, it sounds like there is of the hotel with tne e~sernent Ms. Chpnev: I hive not spoken directly to repres!ntatives of Dinah's hotel on that issue. Nancy lytle participated i~ th€ processing of sorr~ preliminary ARB applications from restaurants fOT the Dinah"s Restaurant sit~. Same of those ~uestions were raised it that time. We have been informed b~ tn€ prpperty owner thct they ~ave offered I proposed modification of the ea.s.emerlts to the Dir,ah's Hotel property o.,.,ner. ihat, agai~, is what we have been told, but! nave no tonfirmatlon of that. I believe that a representative frolT! Oinahts is here tonight, is well as the property owner, who CQuld speak to that if you care to question them further. Commissioner Qjakisn: The section I am reading is on Page 6, t~at first paragraph that says, in pirt~ that • ... approva1 of the project not be contingent upor. the adjoining property owner relinQuishing the existing easement for t~e more functional new ease~nts, partic~larly i5 tney are not believed to be receptive to the proposal.-1 am l~oking for clarification on what tnat means. Ms. Lytle: It is our understanding. (rom talking to applfcants on the Dinah's Shack. property. that they nave approached the Handleys to see if tnere could be some trades mad~ in Drder t~ release thesp, encumbrances on the property. and to substitute them for different types of acce,s easements that reflect the actual situation a~d' the functioning of what is going ~n out there. The Handleys have not been receptive to those proposals. This is second-hand information, but that is what we 10/28/92 -23- • I I ~ • 1 1 • - understand. C1-ur1y, the property is enc~mbcred not or,ly by Its unusual shapt. its unusual mix of uses, but both of thesa parce13, the Handleys to the rear cont~in;n9 the notel sit£ and the one to the front, have some reciprocal easement arrangEments that are odd~ Ind tnty d~ not function With1" tf'lose u.sements that ~aYe be(!n gr.anhd to each (lther. They ire not even utilizing the aCcess easements that they h~ye been given, and instead, 'are tak.ing access and using parking in a conf1g/Jrit1ol'l outside of th05! ,ega' descriptions. So it would be good, from our perspective, if we could clarify and release the site in thE front from those outdated encumbrinces and get new antS ~~e the way th~ properties are being bsed. So we do not want to make the suOdi>ision of this particular se~nt of tho lot, unique in and of Itself, contingent upon that. Cha~rman 8eecham; So staff wnuld like to $e~ the easements more or l~ss consolidated and made more realistic to the actual configuration toctay. On t~e other hand, staff does not believ~ that th~ existing ease~nts ~;ll prevent ... ting the baslr objective, of the application befo", us. Is that correct? Hs. Lytle; That is correct. We do not feel that the proposal will interfere ~1th t~f use Gf those ease~nts, as they 1ega1Ty are the right of the property behind th~ Dinah's Hotel property, so although we ~ould like to see this fixed, it would' tak.e the pennfssion of the Hand'e.Ys to fix it. Jf they den't want to get that accomp1fshed, we don't see that thi, subdivision would need to be held accountable for that solution. It will not irlterfere with their abilit,)' to continue to utllize their rights to tn. extent tnat they do today. COmmissioner Qjakian: I need to be a little more familiar with easements. Where is the commission's p~er in relationship to tMe 9rant1ng of easements or gett 1n9 involved in how easemer.ts are set up? Ms. Case: You have jurisdittion over the prop~rty that ;s part of the application. That does not include the Dinah's Hote1 ~roperty. That is one Df the main reasons that Haney is not recommending that you try to put any restrictions on that property, since they ~ou'd be unenf~rceable. Apparently, the actual physical easement is totally located on the property in question. Howeve1'"t t have to. say that I ha\'e not rHiewed these easements, so it can only be bised upon what I read in the staff report that if, if, fact, they are written for the benefit of the <lther property owner, then we ~c~ld not be in a position to de away with these p!opl!'s easem~nts. We would have nt right to do that. Now that I realiz! there ;s an iss~e, I will be happy to revie~ the easements. Commiss!pner Oiakian: I don't know that ~e need to do that at this time, but in the staff report. there 'Was such a large section devot.ed to !asements that I wanted t~ have some feel far that. As we go through this, and hear some of the people who are 901ng to speak during the pub1ic hearing, we can be sensitive to tnat. There are i lot {If things 1 liKe in this project, and I will be interested in hearing any OPPOSition to it. I am, of course, open minded on it, and I want to make sure that 1 have some understanding of the factors involved so that we (an address evp.rything and CDme out .ith e.eryone being somewhat satisfied .ith this project. M$. (ase: project. 'L Yes, luckily, this is just th~ initial review of this PC Hopefully, -we will have it further prepared when we come back to 10/28/92 ·24· • . .J --~------------------------- '.--" ,_"_,_". _"._ ... _"';~ ___ • __ k __ _ you ~1tr. reCommend3t1ons fo~ mitigetiuns, etc. tpa1rman Beecham: 1 .... 111 no .. open the .oub1ic ~earing. fran Wagstaff. 730 Sherman Avenue. Palo Alto: Good e'llerdn9, "r4 Chairman and plannfng commissioners. I am here representing tne Mid-Peninsuli Housir.g Coal,tfon. The reason we are pursing th;s project is because 1t s~what proves the axiom that every probiem presents an opportunity_ In this cas!, we ha~e a ~er1 odd parcel. Because it is an odd parcel and there has to be a public benefit in order for it to be split off from tn. main parte1 which ;, appropriate for other types of developmont, .e were able to get. very favorab1. price on thi, property. That .il, allow us tD c~eate some affordable housing for w~ry-law-income individuals. Our organization is a n~nprof1t development c~rporation~ We are actIve regiona1ly on the peninsula, and ve ~ave developed some 1,BOO units of housing over our 2Z·year history. In the case cf this particular property. our plan 1s to convert I building whicl'l is currently used as execvti'Je suites to bi! used as permanent hOLlsing for ve"y·low-income individuals, most of whom will' probably be coming out of the rotating church shelti!rs. fn doing so, W! plan to work with the Urban Ministry and community services of Mountain View and los Altos, who will be providing ongoing services to the resldents of this property. We wer~ very fortunate, retently. ," being successful in securing a HUn Section S mod rehab alJocatio~ for the entire ~roject. What that means fer the residents is that th~ will pay no more than 30 percent of tneir inc~me for rent. The rest will be s~bsidized by HUD. the rent will include utilities~ and the unit'S will be fu1l), furl'1ished. ~hlle the building is 1n sound condition, it is 20 years o1d, and it 1$ time for some upgrades Ind the repTa'~ment of so~~ systems. So we have budgeted not to change the exterior appearance of tne b~ilding it all or to change it architecturally in any way, or in terms of the f~otprint, but rather to just upgrade i lot of the systems t~at req~lre it. such as the elevator, the roof, railings which are spaced too fir apart, to make c.osmetic improvements and other impro .... e-ments of stuff that is simplY worn o~t in 20 years. A~ part ~f this project? the Quality of the building will be upgraded whil~ the appearance of the 2xterior 'Will n'Ot dlilnge. The concerns tnat we have exp~cted to be raised ir~ about the odd configuration of the parcel. We did not design it tnat .ay. It is already there. It do!sn't make much sense as one parcel ~ttach~d to the Olnah's Shack restaurant parcel. That parcel will be developed to some use. The building still has.a usef~l life. it w01J1d really ma;':'e no sense to tear it down. We feel t~at with i ver$ favorable price of SJ million for 22 units. we ca~ do.an awful lot of good for the City of Pa10 Alto by housing some very-low· income people wno Ire coming out of homeless shelters and are ready to get on th!ir feet, stabilize th!ir life, and basically get on ~ith life, go to work. ~tc. So that is our purpose in doing tnis project. W~ will b! managing the property with our own management cCJDpany which currently manages more than 1,800 units. We are very experienced ~anagers of offordabl. housing. We have. long list Qf references that we c.n prollide, anywhere from some of the 14 cities where 'We have built ~,oLlsing ind continue to manage housing. We are not goin9 to be absentee . landlords . .-e Will own this building in perpetuity. We ire looking to L 10/18/92 -25· I!!!a'-...;..' ___ r. \. - secure the balance of t"e finar-cing that we have l and the Soi!cticr1 6 com.1t~nt that we have is really ~ey to the affordability. In addition to toe 20 parking spaces that are located under the building. tf\ere ~! qUite a hrgl!! area. for bicycle storage. We will prob.bly be­ adding to the bicycle storage area, because t)e residents we antic1pate hav1ng in this buildi~9 are lI'.ore lihl)' to own bkyc:1es than CZTS. Our experience is based both on our management 2x~erience with affcrdable housjn9~ but probably tnt best compatable in terms of the ;nstance of car ownership is based :In our experIence 'With four homel ess shelters that we bave developed a~d own in San Mateo Count~. We are also in the process of building I fifth on! in Fremont currently. In these homel!ss shelters, the instance of car o~ersnip fs extremely low. It has never g~ne as high as SO pe~c~~t ~f the residents. and these are in family shaiters. ]n the or.e facility wa have in San Mateo that we have for singles, the instance of cars Is probably closer to 20 or 25 percent. extremely 10 •. Jim Burklo with the Orban Ministry, who is here tonfgnt, can address some of those hsues. I~ summary, what we are hoping to do here is to take advantage ~f an opportunity by separating thi:~ parcel so that we can halle owne!'shfp of Tt, put it in nonprofit ownership, and contfnue t~ operate it as affordable hous1ng for the people in Palo !~1to who need it the most. These are the people wno currently are going irom ene church to another. in rotat1ng shelters. people who may be at riSK of becoming homeless anJ we can just sort of catch it before they fall through the cracks and actually go through tnt trauma of being homeless. So that is going to be the focus of the program in this facility. Commissipner Cul len: fils. Wagstaff, I st!e in the staff' report that it talks about renting the units to eligible f~milies, as well as Single ho~sehcld!rs. Aren't all of these, except for one uMit, Single bedroom units? Ms. Wagstaff: Ves, they are. Our poliey is that our maximum occupancy on units is two peopie per boedroom plus {lr,e. Under the current clYil rights law, we cannot discriminah aoair.st ch~1dren, so if we had, for instance, a parent with one child who needid hOUSing, that would still be two people, ar.d they 'i¥ould b:eo eligible to li .... e there. I hasten to add. however, that we really do net believe this to be a geod facility for children. We would make every effort to recruit or.ly adu'\ts to live in this facility. However, we de not pian to discriminate against people who may have a child. Commissioner Cullen: W~at about the HUD regulations on the number of bedrooms? r am just 901n9 on what I ha¥e heard in the past from the Palo Alto Housing Corporatlcn that there are KUD regulations about the number of bedrooms for families with different sexes. Ms. ~iagstaff: Those were neVfr reguhtions. They were always guidelines. In fact, these were the! guidelines that WE apply to our ty~ical family housing. We try to ha¥E children Over the age of three have their {lwn bedroom. However, th~t is not a strict requirement. Tnat is simply a suggested' guide1ine. It is a level at which HUO ;s willing to subsidize the extra bedrooms. What we are looking at here are p!ople who are in dire neec of housing. We have found tnat we can accomodate, for 10/28/92 ·26· • .. '"., .-; ~,:~;~··i .~.. . - r··· eXimp'.e, I single parent and in infant in iii ont:'~tH:!droom apartment. People can ~ke mo~ificltions wherr one might sleep on tne couch and the child has the bedro~m, so it ~orks Dut. T~is Is goi~g to be aimed at people who Ire really in trouble flna.!Ichlly. rt is going to ~ e.r.tremely affordable, and it fs 901~g to f~c'ude services. We are not looking to cram I lot of peo,p12 h here. We e.xpe~t that every unit }IIill ha~1! only one individual 11~f~g per unit. Cqnnhsfoner CuJlen: J didn't !I',ean to 1mply that 1 agrefd with the HUe guidelines. just .anted to be sure th.t th.t h.d been t.ken into consideration. Ms. Wagst.ff: Yes, it has. Not .11 of our housing is HUD housing, but ~e iTe probably managing l,nOa units of HUD-f1nanced housing, so we are very familiar with the regul.tions. Commj~sfoner Ojakian: Fran, I want to get a brief idea on the financing for this project. You are t.l king .bout the HUO funds. .~re they the only fund~ that you need? Ms. Wagstaff: What \lte have 1 ~ned u~ so far is rent subsidies tnr<lugi1 the HUe mod rehab program. What that provides is actually subsidies between a market r~nt and What peopie can afford to pay. We are i" the process of attempting to line up tne baTanc! of the financing. We need financing for the aCQuisitiDn and for the rehab. We are just in t!'l~ process of doing th.t. CQmmissjQne~ Oiakian: From what other SOUfC!$ would you get the funding? Ms. Wagstaff: We have a proposal before a. foundation w~ere we have had some positive feedback. Tnere will probably be 5]00,000 coming as • grant. We are a.pp1yfr.g to the City of Pa10 Alto for some home funds under the National Affordable Housing Act. We are in ccnversations with a prj·/ate bank, which will be providing the mortgage. Commissioner Oiakian: Are there any timing restrictions~ The faison I am getting at theSE questi~ns is tnat in lOOKing at the schedule for this who1e process, it looks like this thing won't clear tne City council until scmetime in mid·January. I noticed in tne staff report that it least Qne of the fU!lding items looks lila! it has a deadline for tne ap,p7ic:ation of December 7,1992. Is there any conflict there? Ms. Wagstaff: No, these t~jngs ire going to be happening concurrently. This is fairTy typical of the way these projects move, or don't move. Lawrenc~ Aufmutn. 314 lytton Avenue. Palo A1to: J am an attorney and also the trust!e of a trust that owns a substantial p~rtion of the property. basically represent the heirs of john Rlckey, the original owner of tne property. Tne other owner is the originaT chef from Oinah's Shack. For those of you lII'no have eaten there in the past. that is Harvey Steinfr. It is owned by a partnership. I am here primarily to answer Questions, although i would like to speak to this easement question that came up earlier, at 1east for clarification purposes. ] am very familiar with the easements, both from a legal and from a practical point of wiew. L 10/28/91 -27- - Eisement 11 is a 24-foot-wide e~sement. It flows literally across the southern ~rcperty line. It i1 currently occupied along that southern boundary line by a brick wal', on the top ~f which are nDW ~hite-faced men. _galn, thos~ of you wh~ have been around Palo Alto for a~hije, they used to be black-faced men. They ~re little lamp posts. Th~re is n~ curb cut it El Camino Real for that easement to mak~ it functional. Tnat easement i5 the result of a legal grant from the Dinah's Snack pr~perty in favor of tn~ Dinah's Hotel property. ~e have been referring to it tonight as RBY Handley~s property. That easement was recoro£d in 1958. It is in eUHent for fn9ress and egress. It is iI Mnexclusive casement. :it has never been used fer ingress: and egress. It has been pilrked on bef-ore 1958, and continuously thereafte~. The particu1ar easement was just recently repav·ed and park.ing striped by P.ay Handley, without our consent, 1 might add. This project does net, in any way, shape or form, interfere with th.t e.sement_ All th,t Is .ffected by this proposed p.rcel split and the transfer frnm Dinah's Shack to Mid-Penir.sula is~ in fa,t, a gr.ntlng of • fee simple interest in • parcel which starts with the hatchrurk. area Dn the transparency. From tnere-back. to the building, including the building, would be gr,nted to Mid-Peninsul._ They would taki! ownersMp subject ttl that easement and whate.,er cont,riuing rights Mr. Har.dley ~ay or may not have in th.t eaie~nt. The bUl1ding~ wh1ch is the subject Df t~nfght's discussion, ~as built in 1972. As you can tell from the easement, it was built literally on top of the easement. It ends in the middle of the down ramp into the parking garage under the building. rt makes an immediate right·angle turn, and if you ~ere to attempt to dri'tE it, you would then run; nto a concrete wa'l and the shin."ay that goes up to the bui1ding for pedestrian access. ihat nas been in place since 1972, a.nd again, there is no effort in tt:1s approval proce'Ss to interfere in any way with the building footprint, etc. What we haVE offered, and Hid-P2ninsu1a has agreed to take the property subject t~ it, is to legally grant to Oinah's Hotel property withcut any considEration whatsoever from them a legally d€fined e.sement in that hatchmark erea wntcn would go effectively from the Tamarack Court c-urb cut directly to Ra1 Handley's property. ¥ou cannot tell it tnere. but that little box just above the parcel split is pretty much wher~ the office for the Motel/hotel sits. As a practical matter, frG,~ a historical point of view. that has been the major a.CCESS to th! hotel. When th~ restal1rar.t was ir'1. operation, the par;':ing lot was gener.ally very full. It is als~ the ~ain signed access, since there is a monument sign at th~ ccrner of Tamarack Court and [1 Camino in the middle of that easement, and there is an add1tionai sign for the Handley office and the Dinah's motel suites it the end of Tamarack Court pOinting in that directicn. So that is the history of that easement. Unrelated to this particular application, an~ one of the reasons why Mr. Carrasco i!~cused hims!lf, is that we ar! contemporaneously ~orking witM a Huston's resta~rant to put a restaurant on the front part of that property. prett~ much in place of the existfng Dinah1s Restaurant footprint, as part of the Huston process which is just beglnning with the city and with stlff. The~ have agreed to, and we have again propcsed to Mr. Handley t~at we would give him i legal access across the rear of our property connecting the h.tchmark access to the two mutu.l lO-foot easements that exist On the far end of tne property. W! have made every effort to clean up the easement Situation. Unfortunately, Mr. Handley has proved, at best? to be not very receptive to any of these proposals, to 10/28/92 -28- - d~te1 for reasans tr.at his counsel can explain to ycu bette~ than I can. That is the status of the property. Copnlssfnner Schmidt: Did you say that tni! proposed new easement and the back part of that first e&s~~ent is the pr'mary e~trAn~e to t~e hotel? Mr. Aufmulh: That is correct. John p. verm,pq. 'SOC £1 (amino Rea'. P11c A1tp; I represent Dina~l~ Hotel c6TpcratfcD. Unfortunatel,', ~,r. Ray Handley. who h the chfef txec~ti~e officer and pr!sident of Dinanrs Hote1 torporat1on, had to 1eave town yesterday "nexpectedly. Therefore. I .. here to pinch hit for him. I ao familiar wIth this property to some degree. but I can i"ure you that Mr. Haodley i. ~uch more familiar with It than I im. I would lik. to ~ake the {allowing comments'on beha1f of Mr. Handley and myseTf. Appearing here tonight .nd objecting to this project ~ake. me feel 11k. I am objecting to apple pie and Mom. Thos. of us who ,re involved with Dinahls Hotel are very much in fav~r of the housing that th'l project is s""og to put into Palo Alto. ~e t'ink that this is the ~ind of project t~at the city n!eds, and we support it wholeheartedly. VnfortunatelYI we have to object t~ it for some reasons W~ trl 90in9 in present this evening. What r had in ;'lind, .Mr. nairrnal'l. at tnis time is to introduce to you Mr. Jerry ~atters, ~ho is tnt zinager of the hotel, .nd he woy1d 1jke to make some comments about some of the problems that he sees with this project. Then MT. McCan.ld. ~h. is an aTch;tect. and I would li,e him to make Some comments about so~e of problems he sees with the project, and 1 would like to conclude. Wou1d that b. appropriate? Chairman Beecham: That is fine. Jerry Matters. 426] £1 Camino P.eal, Palp A1to: r am the manager of Dinan's Hotel. To prefice this. r .... Gu1d liKe to say that I nave been in general manageme~t for 20 years. Ten years of that WlS in family resort management. ~jtn re9ard to Mid~Peninsulal I took the opportunity to visit 14 of their properties. 1 was most impressed. They arf ~ery good at what they do. They are in ..... ol ved jn emergency family hOLlsing~ retirement, wholesale fimny ~ousing, large. small r an sorts. I notice that they are very good. in 'Wh.at they do and are to be ccm.ended. I shQt.:ld a1so like to. point ~ut that at those facilities which! did visit, they ail had green areas. When t~ere w~r€ children present, there were e~ther plaY9rounds, apparatus for playgrounds, or they WGuld be next door to a munici~al playground ~r a rnu~icip~l park, or in some cases, next to a scho01~ I~ fact, two of their operations had swimming pools. Our situation is this. We cannot see where Tamarack can offer to chiTdren what the Mid-Peninsula traditionally has offered to their other clients. In ether ~ords, Tamarack wouTd offer t~ the child at play an asphalt street. As you go ~ut of the building. you are on asphalt. T~ your left, y~u have Tamarack Court. Then within a very few feet, you would be in the entr~n,e way of automotivf traffic coming to the hatel. Our traffic is increasfng, oor occupancy is increasing. We just spent well over a million dDllars in renovation. We ~il' continue to spend to upgrade and reposition the hotel in the market place. Also. to the Tight, U you w.l~ out in front. and children will be running, would be a thoroughfare g01n9 back to our 9ir~en units. Although we do hi~e speed bumps. peop't do travel through that area. L 10/28/92 -Z9· \ t \ , t t I I • 'j - """\~r· As you look toward the ne~ re~taurant proposed by Huston/5 1 with that pa~ki,g lot, ] know H~ston's. Tney niye 22 propsrties. Their average s.l. i. $C,500,OOO. Tn,t is a lot of traffi" That is .bout t~.lye or thtrteel'l thouu",d do1hrs i day in receipts. It in'w'oives , lat of automobile traffic-and chi ldren wi11 be walldr19 to one street, to our tnoroughf!rf, to our entry, or to thEir parking lat. Hustonls fs I fine organfzation, very w@1l respected in the industry. So whit we would now Mave is e~sentfa111 22 u"its without any p1a~ area, without any green arta. The green area tnat theSE kids ~auld see would be to the left, QUi 19 units, o~r club ~ultes, which is a green area with i swimming pOD1. T~ the rtqht 1 they would see our hotel, with a large Dool and ~tSO with two lagoons, witb koi fisn. with ~;;ind1Hc, with ducks. What wou1d they gravitate to? They wo~lt p1ay on the concrete or the asp~all. I have managed family resorts, controlled family resorts. Ours is a corporite hat~l. On ~eeKe~ds, we have famil(es with childien. It is I patrul1~d situaticn in that the parents are looking after the ~hildren. In this Situation, you have ill sorts of liability pr.sant. ~e would b. vulnerable because we would be i~ a situation where we would probably have to be 1n i control facet. \Ie ,"ould be policing the ueighborhood. fer us. to have o~r securjty p~ople, which we do have, being in a situation ~here ~e wou1d peThaps, an cccl$ion, have to sht?herd these peop1e back intG the innards of t.~t Tamarack is unfair to us. Dinah's has been a very good t,t1len of Pale Alto. Ovar th~ ye~rs probably, ln acting as your age~tt we ha'ie collected $2 mill ion in notel tax for ),olJr coffers. We have been a very 900d c1;ent and i verj good citizen. You ar@ forcing 1 situation or. ~S, poss;~ly, tnat we would have to be more than just a hotel operltion. After all, we lre not 1 public fat;'ity. ~t aTe nDt a put1iC parx. This~ r am afraid. is where the children of Tamarack would find themse'ves. Gordon M&Q9na'd, 255 N, Market Str@et. San J~S&: i am an arch1t~et, and 1 have been asked by Mr. Handley to look at this proposal last weekend with respect to two items. One ~r. H2tteTs ju~t spo~e to. That is the p~s1ibi11ty of children. The second is parking. In my researc~1 I heard from staff and from Fran thit this project ~ill probably not hive .oy children in 1t, although is we all know, y~u cannot discriminat€ and you cann~t sa~ that there ~cn't be any chi1d~en. 1 notice in th~ staff rep~rt that in three 10catio:1s) it speaks to families as being desirable, Sp~cifitaliy. it says~ -The proposed use fo~ lama rack t~urt is to house families with pre-school~age children,-So I think it is safe to say that there is a good possibility that there will be chi1dren i~ thls facility. As Mr, Matters pointed out, there is no green area at all. It is a substandard lot. as it lS, and is probably gOing to be worse when it is subdivided. There certainly 1S no p1ace for these children to play. A second hsue is ~arking. There are fewer par:k.;r,g spaces in the garagf;! of tha.t building thdn there are units. Now t for iii hntel use, is pOinted out in the staff repnrt~ it is substandard by two spaces. That, to me, does not seem to be a prob1em and has not been one in the past. But if you change it to multiple-family reSidential, then by your standards, it is certainly substandard. I agree with fran that there won't be the number of cars that your zor,tng ordini!.nc~ reQlJires, but I am concerned that there is going to b. enough parking for all of tho~e units when they are filled up. For exampTe, let's say that 7n pErcent of tho$e units are occupied by people witn Ol'l!: car. I would su!;:pect t~at the 5yaces·in the garage are going to be designated , one car for each unit. So my Question 10/28/92 -30- '71', ; ~ " :--;.' --,. ". I - ~ .. 4 . is, where will the guest parking be? If there was more parking requ;red than Fran ~nt1'fpates and ~re than Is i!:¥alhble, it l.s going to be on someone else's pr~perty. That is one of Kr. Handley's co~cer~s. So r ~ou'id suggest that you look at those ho issues. Thank you. Mr. GermiDo: Johf'l Germlna, again, JoIr. Chiirm·an. At this time, I woult1 1,k.e to just give you I; little hist(lry. In doing so, [ am going to to{Jcn on the easement situation ar.d on th~ cover-ant situation. I have heard yo~r i~terest in it. and I will point it out fr~rn Dinah's ~otel site. In 19S5 t this property was lctual1y improvEd by only Dinah's Shack, the restaurant. Where the T~arlck property is ~cw. I ~nderstand there were three or four s.ul1 cottlg::!'s .. Mr. Handley ~nd his ~ife entered into a contract .t th,t time with the owners of the Dinah's Shack property to buy the property where the hote1 no~ sits. In fairness to you, as we11 is t~ Mr. Handl~y, I have a map, not to scale, of w~at exists cut there today. The map that you see on Ex~ibit 3 and also the map that is O~ the screen does not really accurately reflect the situation a~ the property now sits. This map shows that here is Dinah's Shack, the restaurant which ;s no l-o:-.ger operating; here in whlte are the Dinahls buildings. You will noti~e that there is a Dinah's building on the other side of the Tamarack Court. So what you see tnere is Tamarack Court at the bottom, b~t if you keep coming down, therE is another bu~ldin; th~t belongs to tne hotel. So in effect, w~at you have are the Tamarack Court residents sitting somewhat 1n the midd1e of the hotel complex. What happened in 1955 1s th't when the prope.ty was bousht, the people !ntered into an igreem€nt, ratner lengthy, with man~t many covenants. many easements talk.ed abcHlt and granted. Shortly tnere.after, they entered into anot~er agreement. that is, the Handleys and the owners of the Dinan's Shack property, which they recorded. Then in 1958, there was another agreement entered into which was recorded between these people. Based upon all of these agreements, the faciliti~s which you now see on this little map were built. The idea~ as 1 understand itt was with regard to the TamaraCK Court de~elopmenti the tn~ught was tl1at it was kind of a forerunner to Embassy Suites. At tl1e time this particu1ar de'v€1opment was built~ the hotel had no facilities for p~opie who were coming 1nto tM2 community who needed a place to stay for a month or two while seeking a home in the area. It was decided by Mr. Rickey and his people to build this Tamarack Court for that purpose. r~ 1955, when the parties entered into their agreement, one of the covenants that ","as agreed to at that time was the follOWing. First of .11, they said that the sellers agreed that the r-emainder of the land shown in Section CE and Section E ;s the property of the Tamarack Court and would not be used for ~~te' and mote' purposeL Then in the next paragrilph. Uley put in a caveat. Triis was in 1955. It was that the sellers reserve the ri9ht to remodel (that would be the cottages that -.Kere there). or build income units on Section E of the area. but net to rent to transients. The idea was to have these units specifically for people who were in there for 20, 30, 4~ days. As I understand it, (Mr. Handley knows better than I) there was maid service provided to thes~ units. They were able to use the Dinah's Shack facilities for their food. They also had room service, so it was kind of a part and parcel of t~e whOle complex. You had the restaurant up front. You had the hotel which serviced nightly visitors, and you had this Tamarack Court which was more of a resldency or Embassy Suites kind of arrangement. It worked this way until fjv-e years ago, when Dinah's Shack restaurant shut down. L 10/28/92 -31- - At that time, Dinah's H~tel filed I lawsult !gafnst the owners of the Dinah's Sr.ack pr~pert~. Remember tnat at this time, the Dinan~s Shack property 1. the hatchet that S.rah .0 aptly poi"ted out to you. The Dinah's Shack property 1s not only where the Oinah's S~ack restaurant sfts, but alse the TsmaracK Court property. It is all one parcel. Five years ago when the Rickey family decided to sh~t down th~ restaurant, for economic reasons. ) suppose. ~r ~hat~ver r!a~cn, the co~enants th~t ~ad been entered into in 1955 i~ two a9re~T.ents and the covenants t~at had been entered into ~n 1958, among other t~fn9s, said that Dinah;s Shack restaur.nt wo~ld operate 2nd would provfce room ser~ice. ete. to the hot.1. Dinah', Hotel f.lt that the shutting down of the restourant wa' possibly going to ~ • breach of the covenants, ~ea"se as I h.,e indicated t~ you, in these covenants t one of the thi~gs t~jt the Ri~keJ people agreed to was that the property ".uld nevor be used fo" anythin9 but I restaurant. At that time, when they shut down the restaurant, Mr~ Handley and his people were not sure what they .ere gOing to do with it. So the~ filed. 1.",uit against the Rickey people to enforce the." eoven.nt.. There are .ome 25 or 30 of them. Most of them aeal with the restaurant use versus the ~ct9l use, bar verlUS no bar, between the two properties. I have already read you the eO'.n,nt that dealt .ith Tamarack Court, which can only be used as an income prcperty. ! suppose that under the cov~nants. if they 4re truly enforceable, if an earthquake ever came and kooeked that building do~n, the only thing they could do with it, if they ,,"'anted to under the covenants. forgetting the powers you peeple have. would be to rebuilt it for income units. T~ey could not use it for anything else. That lawsuit was opposed by the Rickey family, ~nd th!re W6S soma ver) serious litigation for a couple of years. Then Mr. Handley , amJ Nr. Aufmuth were able to sit down and say, maybe we can work sDIM!thing out. Why don't we put this thing en hold for awhile. So that is what has happened with t~e lawsuft. i~ere is an agreement between the pa~t1es it this tiDe where the litigation has been stayed through the end of this year. If something does not get worKed out, tnen there i$ no question that the litigation will have to be completed. The question in the lftigation is, are these covenants enforceable? That includes all tnese easements you have seen here and are talKing about, plus all the other cove'lants that yOU do not really need to kilOW about, but nevertheless they ar~ important as far is the parties are concerned. So when you ask about these easements, and yc-u know that Mr. Aufmut~ indicated to YDU that there is no curb cut at £1 Camino and it goes underneath the property and they are taking the property subject to these eas~nts, not only will they be taking this pr~perty subject to the easements, but if our lawsuit is succe~sful~ they will be taking the property subject to a1l of the CDvenants that we think are enforceable~ because at the time these covenants were made, thlS Ta~arack Court property, which they are now trying to split off, was part of the big parcel. Therefore, when covenants run with the land. they run with all of the land. So that is anoth.r problem that needs to be looked at by you peopl~, becaus~ it is something that is important. ] don't think tnere is anything more I can tell you at this time~ The Dinah's Hotel people are very serlously concerned about t~is project, not because of what it does for the peopl! who ~ant to live there, because that I, something th.y do believe in, but they do feel that with the investment they have there, and with t~e covenants that we think are enforceable, and with the parking problems that you ~ave heard about9 it is just not the place for this kind of iii project. lO/28/92 -32- . . ,". - M$, (Ut: Are you trying to imp7y, Mr. Germino l that ttl<ere is some l~al impediment to t'ls map? ~T, Germino: No, I think the map tnat is ~f~re the ~lannin9 commission is legal'j correct. is far as it goes. J just thought we should nave tne opportunity to s~ow the p1annfng commission the total pict~re. Ms. Case: r just w3nted tQ clarify tnat. Thank you. ~i~ B~rk'o. 600 HOmeT Ayen~e, Palo Aito; I am the exetutive director of the Urban Ministry of Palo Alto. We oper,te th~ rotating shelter here In t~. of wh1ch Fran ~ade mention. We nave felt for many years that the most critical investmont that can be made on behalf of the people th.t we serve is to create housing opportunities for them. Th1s is I tremendous opportunity. It is an unusual property. I have been in the !.Infts, ha ... e looked them over, and they are in very g~od condition. The property Is in ready·to-use condition. The rooms are f1exible, and can be used in a variety of ways. 1 W<luld agreE wi tn Fran and .. itt: everytme who ftas spoker, that this is not a facIlity that .auld lend ltself to families with children. I don't think there are very many children in the building today. and there would be a la. against barrir.g them from the facility today. as 1t stands. I think the issue that is be~n9 raised by the property owner at t~e Dinah's Hotel ~s one t~at, gfYen the current rtaltty that children could stay in that pro~Erty today. the question I would ask fs. why don't we see a problem now at Oi~ah's Hotel? Why is this not a complai~t that is being expressed today by the management? ~e con't expect tnat there is going to be any more interest from famf11es ~OVlr.g into this property out of the populatjon that we serve than out of the population at large. Any family, flomeltss or not, if t~.ere is any other opportunity that can be found for them, they will pursue it, ather tnan at a facility where there is absolutely nowhere fo~ children t~ play, no place where they could supervise plays mucn less play at all. So we do not expect th15 to be a problem in providing tMis Kind of housing at the Tamarack. What is p~rticu1arly exciting to me in this project is the ~ossibility of replicating an arrangement H,at. we l1a'Je at the Barker Hotel in Palo Alto. W~ have an a9reement with thE pro.Derty Owner there whereby we ilre able to prcvide social services en Site. ~e maintain an effice inside tne Birk~r Hctel, a single-ro~m cctupancy hate' where lOW-income people live a~d pay relatively law rent, although it is privately owned hoYsing at the present time. By providing the social services, tne case w~rkers of the Urban Ministry maintain an off\ce there. They do money manage~enti tney do income advocacy; they do personal support, brok!ring of services, etc., for the residents. By dOing that, ~e are able to not only loc~te housing for people right off the street, people who are ready for pennanent housing! but .... e are abie to keep them in the housing. We are abTe to br~ker servjces thct they ~eed in order to maintain thefr housing and maintain a stable life styl!. We would like to replicate this arrangement at Tamarack Court. W~ would 1 i ke to see Tamarack Court cease belng even a sl ightly tranSient occupan.cy use, ~hich it really is today, regardless of what the covenants say. We are excited about the possibility of a new restaurant being required by the covenants to have room service in the Tamarack for the ~omeles5. That is exciting. We hope that tne covenants will be enforced flil1i by the 'L 10/28/92 ·33· .. - l"le" Involved. Th.t is good news. Also the staff of th, Urban Ministry will be Quite excited about this, too. One more reaSGn to occupy the place with socia' services. The point is that ~ lot of the objections tn~t hiye been raised, we have to question t~e grounds cf those objettions, given the fact that this 15 already ~ousins that exists, and there 1s an opport~nity for children to liYe in it today, It doesn't seem to be a problem. lik.~ise, t~e other aspects of th.e property. certainly it is a nonstandard facility. We have to recogniz~ that. At the same tl .... ! dor,'t think that .ny-.!1ere in th, press or before tnis body you have he.rd ony c~l.ints .bout the way this property ~.s been used. I Cin tell you this. The landlord that you .oul~ have with the Mid-Pen!nsu1. Housing Co.1ltlon Is extremely professional. They do. magnificent job of property management in .11 their types of facilities. It ~uld be • re.l credit to the community to have them own thi, property and .. Int.in it. It would be very exciting for us to provide stable housing for the people 'lie encounter who nl!'ed it. The worst probl~ we have in t~e Urban Ministry is assistir.g our p~ople in fln~\ng , place to go when they are done .ith their shelter stay. assht1n51 people in gett'ing access to l'lolisiTl9 when they are ready to pay rent. when they are ready to have a stable life style. It Is .xtremely f~strati"g for me and the rest of our staff and volunteers tc see people dofng the very best that they can, achieve a great deal in the way af stab11;ty, finantial independ!nce, etc.t and then at the end of their shelter stay after two mont~s still not be able to find permanent housing. That is incredibly frustrating. This;s an opportunit1 to break that cycle. tomroi$sioner Glazier; Jim, earlier this evening, you ~eard s~me discussion regarding tne issue of public benefit and c~nversion of BMRs from existing market rate units. Tn~re were some people on t~e commi\sion who said l if you are taking eXisting mark!t rate units and converting them to BHRs, thit reilly is not much of a public benefit. What is your opinion on that? Hr. Bu~klo: In looking a! this particu1ar s~t of housing units (we could get into a broader discussion), curfel-.tly what you have is essential iy a quasi-notel ~se. rt is a transient kind of occupancy. 50 what we are ta1king about doing here is converting a facility that is not permanent housing today, net tru1y pe~anent housing use, into a permanent ho~sing use. Sa in a sense, you are creating permanent housing here where there was none before. The units existed, but for a s~bstantia'ly different purpose than what they are being put to. 1 agree that in general, certainly, it is better to build new housing. Ther'E' is some truth in the trickle-down concept. 1 believe in that, too. You create any kind of ho~sin9 opportunity, and hopefully. that opens others it the lower end of the ~~rket. But in this case, even that logic realiy applies~ because you are talking about a substantially different kind of housing use. Commissioner Gla25er: So in your opinion, from a public good point of view. from a BMR point of vie~. whether the thing was created out of the clue or wh'2ther it was a conversion of an e.xisting unit, from your perspecthe, the 'publ ic benefit is the same-? Hr. 8urk12: Yes, in this case. And it 1s a very substantia1 public benefit. Another tning to look at here very carefuTly is the per unit 10/28/91 -34· " ,'.! - '·r· -.. ---~,--~ \ cost compared to new constructfor. or any -other kind of purchase of housf"'g for this population. There Is just no comparison. This Is a re.11y good deal from the point of ylew of makfng the best use of public funds. Cpmm1s5ioner Schmidt: When. person wou1d apply for hous1ng in this new factlity, do you ha~e the opportunity to direct the applicant, if it 1s someon! with a chlld, to i ~re suitable facility that has playgounds, etc. Mr. Btlrklp: OM, certiinly~ The Urban Ministry does quite I bit of w~at yotl 'Wc;uld can marketfng', I g'!ess. OlJr'" people-certainly have a harder tiDO accessing anything In that market, but the point fs that we certainly direct peop'~ to the type of housing that is IIlost appropriiillt~. We would not be directing families to this p"operty at .11, given the fact that w. have. whole lot of folks in the wfngs waiting for this type of housing opportunity for whom it ~s appropr1ate. ] cannot imagine a s1tuttion woere we woold be tempted to direct somebody to this facility who had kids. COlllTlhsioner SLnmidt: Regarding the current occupants of the building. ! would like to ask. question of the .ttorney. I wou1~ like to know who are the current occupants and how long are they typica1ly there? Are there kids currently Qccupying the facility? Mr, Aufmuth: There are some childr!n. We are run~ing it 1$ an apartment house, which we are obligated to d~ ~nder the covenants Mr. Germino referred to. 8y the way, tne ccwenants specifical1y pennit an apa'r'tment use tnere. We have defined that is stays of 30 days ~r ~reJ so all of our tenancies are more than 30 days. They run probably on the shorter end of six months tnan on the lor-ger end of six months. They are currently rented in t~e $700 range, ~1ij~ ur minus $50.~O. They are fair1y well occupied. T~e ~fx is a random mlx. There iiIIre a l~t of trans~tion families. They ire not necessarily coming up, but perhaps Ire going the wrong .... a.v~ There are some famil ies who arE here for medical reasons associated with Stanford Hospital. Obviously they are not staj'ing at the richest plaCE in town. That is pretty much the makeup right now. Thli!re are children invol~ed, and they do use the Din~h's Shack pool with a written agreement e~istent wit~ tn! pxisting Dinah's Hotel. Comdss1oner Schmidt: What per<:e."Itage of the facility ;s actupied? Hr. Aufmuth: We run 70·aS percent at this time of the year or better. It gets tough between approximately November to February. People o~er the holidays don't get divorced. People over the holiday. stay where they are a 1ittl. longer. Commissiqner Ojakian: Jim, we have been ta1klng about this project specifical1y, in and of itself. I think you are probably the best person to ask this of. ~ould you put this thing in context for me? How great i need in Palo Alto do we have for housing like this'? Mr. 8urklo: All r can say is that €¥ery day at our drop-in center, we serve between lOO and l50 people. Most of them are homeless Dr living in near homeless circumstances, living in ~1aces whete they should not be, technically. where they are not paying rent; Of those people t only 20 of them can be housed through our shelter program. That is the 1egal limit 10/28/n -35- .J, ...J. , \ _. that we are able to house fn the ,hur'n~ba~ed shelter system. Sa you are talking about the gre.t •• jority of people that .e serve through our system, and ~ de not have I housfng opp~rtunity for them. Again, I would say that roughly h.lf the people who go through our sh.lter progr .. (and t~is is anecdcta1 as it is pretty tough t~ maintain a satisfying statistic on th~s> d~ not ha.." a hO'Jsing opportlJrdty i.t the end of the~r stay t~lt makes sense fDr the~ in the immediate area. That is to say, they have not found affgrdab'e permanent housing at the end of their stay in our shelter prC'lgram. So the ans •• r ;s th.t there 1$ • tremendous neEd for this type of houslng_ For example, w. h.,e never had any trouble filling up the Barker Hot.l. W. h.d a meeting a coupl. of years .go with some members of city staff and the Palo Alto H.using Corpor.tion personn.l. We had a ch.t with the owner of th, M •• s Hot.l. and with Mr. Haas himself who owns the Palo Alto Hot.l and the Craig Hotel. W. ask.d Hr. Hai$ his lmpressio" of the mark.t. Ve asked, 'How h.rd is it to fill up your hotel?' He .aid thot the only thing that l1m1t. his ability to fill the hot.l Is the amount of morley that 5Sl pro\l~de-'i 1: t1 ient lnd his. ref'lt s.,tructuye. H.e has built his rent structure around SS!, which is 50me~here around S600 a mcntn. The point Is, if he charges. monthly or weekly rate that fits tho budget of s~body on 55!, h. can k •• p his hotels full. If he goes above that level, t~e hotels will empty out. So he never has any troublt filling his hotels as long is he is ab1e to keep his rent within that position. So the answer is, theN! is i tremendous need OIJt ther.e fel'" tnis typ~ ~f housing, for efficiency unitS. No q~Estion ibout it. r could not give you II tlard figLlre, however. We have n{lt done a forma1 market SL~rvey. Commissioner Oiakjan: That;s good enough. Barry fllz!ge. 466 Monrge Orjv§!. Palo 4110; I am a biochemist ~nd patent ittorn~,. I also li~e Dn the other side of Adobe Cr~ek from this project. That puts ~~ about )00 feet away from the Tamarack Court development. I ha~e a number of quest\on$~ and I will start off with l somewnat tangential remark. It strikes me that there is a basic flaw in the environmental impact conclu~jan~ becaus~ 1 see at least three possible bases for envlronmenta1 -imp.:cts. In the first place. as stated in the report itself, there .. nl be removal of ilsbestcs ceilin9 materia1. TiJat is a tQ~ic substarlce and will reQuire disposal. So the absence of a.ny inc1usion of that ;s i problem. Another ~rob1em ;s something that Mrs. Cullen referred to. There is no ~i~c~ssion of the impact of the redevelopment .of t:-tiS building on the sellage and water systems. r think those ~re substantive, physical matters that ougnt to be addressed. Secondly, and ~ore germane to ~j interest, there has been no discussion of the potentlal PU~11t harm from th's project. ~@ have f~cused en l puuth,e benefit to a small group of people, but with no analysis 'fjr,ats.oe'ler cf the potentiil negative 'impacts on the ne,ghborh'Ood~ 1 have a number of questions abo~t the people who are likely to be residents of this hote1. I have two small children, ages three anc five, is do many people in this neighborhood. I am really concerned about the prospect of putting in a numbe~ of people en whom I have no information about their bac'ground e".pt that they .re p~or. In looking over thi s material, I see no indication that anybody screenS a.ny of these potential tenants to ~eed out peop1e who may have adverse j~pacts on the nei9hborhood~ ]n particular~ 1 wonder if any of tne ),800 people who have L 1Q/28/92 -36- 1 .J i t I , I :-j ti .. -;...';"', '~;; . . Y~L4:';-r , . . ,----,--_.-----------_ ..• I" - gono through the unit. that the Mid-Peninsul. Housing Coalitlon has m~~aged are convicted drug users? Ar~ any ~f them convictEd drug s.ller.? Thls 1, • real concerr. for a family neighborhoDd with .mall children. Will W~ have any aSSUT~nce that the people who occ~py tnfs facility will not b< involved in drug dealing? That they will not be ~ers of yoyth ganss? J see n~thing whit50e~er in any of these materials tnat wo~ld leid me to s~ppose tnat anyont has s'reen~ these potential tenants t~ $~e wheth?r they hive these kinds ~f back9rounds~ da~;t see a~v indication that any of these peopie have jobs. Jf t~ey don't, then they have a lot of free time during th. day. lhe problem about the lac< of gre.n spa,' applies to everything el •• in the neig~borhood. There is no other placo 'or people. whether they ar. children or young adults. to amuse themseiv~$ other than hanging out on .treet corners. j thiok t~i. 1. a serivu, pro,l... I know that I and .y neighbors do not look for.ard to having large number. of people wandering around the n.ig~borhood. There has been a lot of commentary about the length of stay of petential tenants. Tn! recent c~~nts from tne urban ministry repres!ntatfve suggest that we are talking about peopl. who are going te b. here for months or years. I thir.k that lends a~ even grelter urgency to tne comments about small children. As the report itself s~s, the purpose of this project allegedly is to provide housing f~r families with childre", with preschool children, in particul.r. If these f.ml1ies .'th childre. stay there for years, th~y are going to becDme school-age chl1dren. I think this problem could potenti.lly exacerbate itself. Several people have noted that there ~s no way to restrain people .ith children from moving lnto this .re.. If it is leg.lly irnpossiblo to k.ep O"t people with c~ildr.n. tnen I think there is. high probability that people with dildren eventua1ly will find t~eir Wi)' jlere. Finally. I have anot~er ~OTt of fairness issue tonight. We are conferring a p~blic benefit and a public subsidy onto thls private, nonprofit housing authority, and we ,are defer"ing the standa!"'ds for ch{)csing tenants onto thiS private agenc.y. 'We ha.e ser:n no standa.rds) r.o criteria, for ~el~'tion of tenants. We ire giving out public ~oney, and we ~re having the ~nfettered dfscret;on of tne Mid·Pen;nsull Housing (oa1Itio" to choose the people who will be the beneficiaries. That worries me. because I think 1t is an abdication of responsibility to hand out a public subsidy. yet have no control over ~ow it is administered. kgmmis5joner Gla;1rr: I respect your current concerns, but J want to get your peTspecthe on the fact that the Mid-Peninsula Hous;ilg Coal ition has managed seveTil bu;1di~gs of this kind. According to ind~pendent, third·party sources wno hav! comt! to us tonight. they have said, they hay! done a good job. I think it is fair to Sa) that what they will do in the future is, in large degree, based on what they h~ve done and now well th~y have done it in tht past. Although they do not have .spec1fic criteria that we are aware of tonigilt, the,)! may have them. I donrt know of the-JII, ind neither do you. Mr. Elledge: J weuld like te know what they are. 10/28/92 -37 - . .,~" ".:' ~"; J """ - (ornmlss390er G1alfer: My Question ts~ don't you believe that based on the1r Pist tratk reccrd, it is likely they will continue that positive track. re:ord? Mr. El1tdge: First tf i11, neit~er ~f us knows what tnat track reco~ reilly is. We have hid severill glowing l'eports. We hawe .. 150 had a report by I gentle~an who is the manager of , hotel and who looked at 14 properties. HilS anybody looked at the police reports for the neighborhoods immediately around these 'acii1t1es? Has there been £ny increase in crime .fter these facilities w~re instituted? Does anybody hawe an answer to that? Has anYbody who has ever be!n a reSident of I Mid-Fen1"sula housing project been arrfsted fOT selling drugs? Ooes anybody have ~n answer? J would very much like to know the ans~er to those questions. ]f the answer is t~~t everything is fine and there are no problems, then] would be interested in knowing how they go about screening potentl.l c.ndidates out of tnis l.nge pool of people who would like to have subsidized housing_ Corrm1u1gner Cullen: Oid you see the statement that was at OL!'r places tonight from the Mld·Peninsula Housing Coalition? We are tonignt just approving this in concept. On tho last page, they talk about holding nefghborhaod meet1ngs witbin the next few months to receive (omments and t~ answer questions. You have raised some concerns which you~ and perhaps otn~rs ~n the neighborhood, ~ave. I would look forward to the meetings you would have with Ue ~id·Peninsu1a Housing Coal ition where some of your concerns tan be addressed. Mr Ell-dge: Will the contents of these meetings be i pa~t of the public record? J don't want this hearing to adjourn. having been our sole opportunity to have a public hearing input Ind tnen defer our opportunity to have meaningful questioning for a neignb~rhood meeting, the results of ~~ich will net be included in the public record. Commis§jQngr Cullen: I would defer to staff on that. This item will, of course. go t~ the cit$ council. Maybe the neighborhood ~eetings will take place in between. Ms. lyth. As J understand it, the neighborhood <!1eetings would take place in between this meeti~9 and the second me~ting that tn! (ommissio~ would have on this application. Mr. Ell~dge; Would therE be a publi~ hearing at the second ~~eting? Ms. lytle: Yes, tnere would be. This is the conceptual review, and the second meeting would be the fina1 public hearing for the planning commission on thls zene change. So there will be a second opportunity for input. And again at the ,;ty council 1evel, there would be another opportunity for public input when the council 1 the final dectsion·making body, holds their hearing, as well. Commi$sioner OjaKian: Maybe it would be fair to say that s~mewhere at the completiQn of this proce~s? we will prcbably ga back through and tell you what some of the other steps are. This process goes before the ARB .• nd then it comes back to us, etc., and there are already dates tagged to that. So we can make that clear at the end, as we have always done, to let people know about the rest of the process. 10/28/92 -38- . -.4.... . -~~ :-. t - --------------------------------------------~- Jpseph;ne Shusttr. 42$0 £1 Camino Real. Palo A,to: 1 hav~ been a mather, 2 grandmother, a stockbr~ker, an elementary school teacher. J have helped feed t~e homeless and peopl£ in shelters. J am well aware of the prob1em, and I am 11so a homeowner. I lJve acrC55 the street from th1s project. I bought ...nIt 1II.u~ for mE:, .. tl1q~ priced condominium. 1 fee1, fel' owing the Urban Hin1stry ... little lf~e Mary Magdalene fol1o~ing the blessed virgin. ] am here t~ prctact'~y interests. 1 also happen to be ;~terested in children. I have lots of 9ra~dchildren. a~d that project is tetany unsuitable fQT chndrfn, in l!'Iy humble opir.ion. ihere is no place for them to play except streets and parking lots, which othErs have ment~oned. I am not going to try lnd be as e10Quent 2.5 some of the fa'f'W!r speakers, but is a taxpayer, J feel that I have rights, is well. I admir! what the Urban Ministry is doing and Mld·Penins"la Heusing Ce.litlon. as well. J know it is nece$sar~ and know that it is needed. But I feel, is a taxpayer. that I have rights that should be protected .lso. r loo~ forward to the puollc he,rings. H,(, Brodersen. 1270 Byron Street. Palo Alto: r am the chairman af the Board of Trustees at the Palo Alto [l.s Lodge. 1 came up here with an unbiased opinion. however, I am a little-biased It this point. Your. Urban Ministry gentleman is v~ry elOQuent. However, how many families from Palo Alto ire homeless1 He says ~e is in marketing. I have an idea tMat he is marketing and bringing people into the comm~nity. Obviously, wit~ t~e number of people that he has, he must be, because yo~ are not going to find hoysing for people ~ho are ~n this S700 ~r!a in Pale Alto. They Ire going to have to go elsewhere. and they probably nave come from elsewhere. 1 am also concerned tnat if there ire children in there, these children are going to create their Own right-cf-way and come over into the Palo Alto Elks Lodg.. We have a very nice par. in the back and a pIcnic grove. We have a beautiful pool, and we have an empty lot in the back that abuts to WilJde Way. Uke the lady that preceded •• who Is • neighbcr~ I am concerned about what ~appens to our property. We have been there longer than the city has had jurisdiction over us. Thank you. Bruc~nusQn. ]]89 Matterhorn Drive. Sa~ Jose: For the last twenti years. I have operated Dineh's pools ide coffee ShDP which is located inside Oina~;s Motor Hotel_ ] have also been a tr~stee of the Palo Alto Elks Lodge and have b~en before this planning c-orrrnissian about thr€e years ago when we were discussing the rez~ning of the Elks Lodge. You granted us i grandfather clause and allowed us to expand our b~'lding. The reas~n ] have come herE tonight is becau~e as I Tocal restauranteur and operator of this coffee s~op, ] do have twenty years experience. I did have the privilege of getting to know Mr. John Rickey and Mrs_ Rickey and the past gentral managers of that operation. We worked hand ;n hand for several years until John Rickey;s death. That is when this tr~st fend took over. At that time, Mr. Aufmuth began to operate the trust fund. If ] can help you in any way in understanding some of this access and egress, etc .• the basiC idea of ill that was so that the delfvery trucks for Dinah;s Shack restaurant cou1d pull into the property. go across.the hotel property, go to the north side of Dinah's Shack and drop off their deliveries. At the same time, a11 of t~is was designed s~ that the hotel goests coold enter the property. go around the various hotel rooms. and have the same ability to go into t~e hotel. L ]0/2B/92 ·39· - Originally ~en the'. gentlemen road. th,ir agr •• ment, (I am ,pe.~i"s of Mr. Hand1@,)J and Mr. Rickey), it was I m'Jtl..lal 19t"eeft'>f.r.t that was to benef\t bot~ the hot.l and the rest.urant_ ,"it i, Why they entered into them. Comlnq from the ~otel office, there is an exi'tlns w.lk •• y that h.s s~me neon lights on top of it. That wa1kway cont1nue~ ill t~e way to the south corner Df Dinah's Shack r!staurant in the rear. That is the back of Din.h's Shack bu11ding. All along that side of the building Is • rea' n1ce walkway, and a good portion of it was co~ered. Up until a.pproxfmately 10 ~r 12 years ago. there was a toyer that \tent across t~ere. It was so that the guests of the hotel could w.lk dur'og incl.ment wolth.r .11 the .ay to the restaur,nt protected. One day, • delivery truck knocked it down, and It was never replaced. My p~int is that in the 20 ye.rs I h.'e been th.re, I a.si,ted Hr. Rickey and .. 11 his manag!Mnt in providin-i these ser'rites ttlat this attorney talked about .. providing room service_ They were only open in the afternoons ind evenings, and they were ~ct ~pen on Saturdays or Sundays for lunch. lhey wert open Monday tnrough friday, and dinner seven nig~ts a week. So they came and asked me jf I wou1d put menus rn the rooms to help prov~6e them w~th roem service. Di~ah's Hotel did not provide it. provided ft. The only time that Dinah's S~ack eyer provided any room service to Dinah's Hotel was in the evenings ~he~ ~e were clos~d. The point I am trying to ~ake 1s that regardless of what di$put~s there might be over cO'w'enants, etc., the basic ide~ of this prOpErty, when John Rickey built this unit, .as to lease these units to compa.i., 11k, I.B.~., etc., so that they could put up their executives by the ""'nth or two zontns wIthout the cost of renting a hotel room by the day. That is how this stayt~d Dut. It was mQntion~d that th~y used Oir.an's poa1. Back in 1983 wilen we re~el ed the pool sideeoffee shop, •• added on a cOlllbinatiDn meet'~9 room and dining yoom that ~ent all through the planning commission, the ARB, every~ne. At that time, the chef t Ha~ey Steiner, .sted if they could begin to us. the ~oDl to help get them through. Th. prOblem tney were having with that hotel was that the guests who came to this area, and we get 9Utsts from ill ove~ the wor1d, not just the United States. Dinah's is known worldwide, and r~ot for the hotel but for the famous Dinah~s Shack restaurant. It was d 1andmark ..... hat happened was that a lot of 9uests, when their s!cretar-ies wOlJld maKe reservations for their clients, they would ca11 Dinah's. Sometimes th!y would get Dinah's Snick, a.nd Dinah~s Stack. 'tillS the booking agent for 1 ama.ra.d, COU1"t. Or they might get Dinah's Hotel. ~ll they knew •• s that they were getting Dinah's.. It was a community, and Everybody around here thought for years that Dinah's was all one operation. It was not a question of who owned what. It was i q!Jestion t~at "'hen )'DU went to Dinah~st you had one pleasant experience. ~hat used to happen was that quite often in the morning!;j, I would get hotel keys from their gUi!Sts. So there has always been mutual ,oop!ration. Vhat bothers me about this proposed project is this. It is just th~ (onrlotation (.'f lOIoi-income housing. That is a worldwide tenn, but it has d,ffer~nt meanings to diffl:rent peop'e. 1 am sure that wha.t the c,ty is trying to do is .ery .el1 intended. But if •• were to ha" any type of problem On this property that .as connected .ith low-income housIng, that could hurt the property as a whole. There is always mutual cooperation between hotels. When we are booked and are looking for some hotel that has reams ava.ilable, we might (ont.ac:t Rickey's, we might contact the Hyatt L 10/23/92 -40- ~. ~~,~:--~ 1 - Palo Alto, and they do the same. But they .,y obj.ct, and I am only g~es51ng at t~fs. that if there was some connotition or SQ~ problem to develop IS I resu1t of low~1pcome nousfng, thdt .ould begin to damage tne reputation of Dinah's Motor Hotel. Dinah's Snack is gone. It is gane forever. and! don't t~ink th&re is ever any bringing it back. That is somothing that larry had to do with, not us. But the fde. Is that when Dinah's Shack closed, I WitS sev2re-l,y damage-d. ! WiS sever-ely d4imaged from the tiae John Rickey died, but t~at is gone and I am not so worried about that because we rectlvered' fram that aspect. It is the fact that now, t"ey wlnt to take one of his dreams. Of course~ he is g~ne, but 1 t~ink he ""uld be rolling over in his grave if l1e .as to ffnd out IfTat thfs 1dea he had was being conye~ted to low-1ncome housing. That is ~y bkS'C objection --the cor.not,tico that it ~ight 'ave for the Whole area which fs primarily iii hotel area. You all «now tfie area. Thtre are ,",otels on ttle other stde of the street. Thare are. a c{)LIple of restaurants. iI car agoocy, • muffler shop. On our side of the street, you begin wfth Rickey's hotel, the Elks lodge, Dinah's Hotel, and the P.lo Al!o Oaks. That i •• 11 th.t is there. Chairman St@cham: Seeing no other spea~ers, I will c10se the pub1ic purtion of th~ hearing and brin9 it back to the commissfan. CO!M!jssi'one't" Cyllen: I am a little sorry r brought up the qlJestion about ch~ldren i~ tne begfnning of this discussion. because althougn we ha~e been reassured that there would not be any children directed to tnis l we have llso had this fright of hordes of children r~nnjng ac't"oss adjacent prQpertfe5~ to the detriment thereof. I don't th~nk there is any evidence of that fn t"e moder.te-to lOW-income projects that exist fn the city. Thos~ of you who haVe these feaTS sho~ld v;s~t some of the projects that t~e Palo Alto Housing Corporation bLIi1t here. To my knowledge, this is tne fi't"st one tnat hiS cor~ from the Mid-Peninsula 'Housing Coalition witnin tbe city limits~ but 1 know t~ey have several outSide Palo Alto. Althoug~ one gent1eman did say he ~isited them, he only commented on the fact that tnere was a lot of green .rea around. J gather he did not bump into ilny adverse impressions OT he "'Quid ha ... e cOlTlTlente-c en them. So I am a little sarry thC:t this whoTe issue of chUdren. who sameho,,; iTe suppose'O' tD be different from etner children, has been raised tonight. 1 think it is i red herring. I am satisfied that th1s applicat10n is in order. I am satisfied that it is a need in the city. 1 am also satisfied that 'We have two orga.nizations of established reputation that are cooperating on this. r also am sensitive to the fact that there may be people in the community who are not as aware of that record. I do think tnat the opportunity to meet witn the nelghbors (and I hope t~ere will be addltional staff, sLIch as the police) to settle tnt anxieties some people may have is a gOGd one, so that they can gi~e reports before it comes back to us. But at this point, 1, for one? am in favor of the c~ncept of chang1n; the loning and dividing this parcel map into two lots, and the ~ar1ances ,;hich will a110w the separate ownership. and also the access on Tamarack COUTt~ which would then become tne frontage. although the variance is ne~ded because 1t does n~t have the setback. ~: CO mm lssioner tullen: I therefore move the staff recommendation to cor,~eptual1y approve the proposed zone change ind forward it to the arcnitecturil revieW' board f<>r Ue next review. It will come back to us 10/28/92 -41- = iiQ , • - • nd tnen go for..rd to the city council. So if some addition,l f.ar, or anxieties have come up in the meantime, you will ~av~ an opportunity to either hive them satisfied or to raise them agiln. ~: By Comm'ss!oner Glazier. Cha1n1in Beecbam: We ha~e a moti~n and second to accept the staff recOla!ter.:dation that we re-:oDnend conceptl;ai appro ... al of tf't'.s project. Are t~ere fyrtner comments? Ccmtn1pner EJaz'er; [would second many ef tOmliu1oner Cullen's •• rlior COMOents. I do want to bring up the issu. of public benefit. E.rli.r this evening, we t.lked about wheth,r the conversion of existing market-rab units to BMR units was, it! fact, a public: benent. I thought I heard .. significant percentage of the conmi ssion saying that they dld n~t feel it was. l!m glad, fn this case. tc personally support th! concept of i public benefit through the conversion of mark~t·rate units to BMR units. I hop! the rest of the co~issfon agrees with tMat cor.cept of • public benefit. There are some interesting similarities in thp. fact that perhaps, this is .a slightly inappropriate location. This is ,not a perfect 10catiD"~ and it is I substand1!:rd situation requiring "'iiriances~ but I' personally feel that tho public beoefit of providing this additional subsidized housiog for low-income residents is appropriite) is in fact, I have consistently vDted as I member of the planning commission, contrary to e.rlier assertior.s by others. S~ J am glad to second the motion. CQmmissipner Schmidt: I would agr~e with Commissi~ner Cullen and COJm'I:iss i oner Gl azier. It woul d appe ar tha t the current use of the facflfty is fairly simil.r to wh.t the proposed use ~ill be. But the . proposed use 'Will incll.lde counsel ing anc prograrus to he1p get the occupants back into better lfv1ng circumstances than they ha'/e even th.re. So I would definitel! support this. Corrrnissionoer Oiakian: 1 am .going to support it. also. am gOing to USF-, sometf!ing thit Be':"n s.aid earlier. Tnis is an appropriate change '1'1 zoning! anj ! see in this PC zone a public benefit because it is both loca1ized and inherent. Having ~aid that, J have a couple of other brief cormnents. Althoug~ I ~nderstand the concerns of a number of people tonight .ith regard to children and drugs and some of the otM~r potential negative factors on this site. I disagrEe that that is n~cessarily inherent ~n the change that we are going to recomrne"d tonight. Those same factors could come into play under the current situation, both for the lot tnat we are looking at and for the hct~l. The potential exists that you could have children from tne r.e";!lnbornood running through Hat aru. You could ,",aVE drug use going on by occupants Df the hotel. The real factor there is nat ,",ow we change the usagE on the property. That is reilly a basic law enforcement question, in my mind. If people tn;nk there are those sorts of activities gOing on. regardless of what we make of this particular piece of property or the adjacent piece of property, they niVE an avenue in wMich to address tMose concerns. 1 do not hold those same concerns, and I can say tnat r come from a little different bent~ in i sense, than most (Jf ttle cOlmlissioners here. I 1 ive next to a lalit-income) L 10/28/92 -42- .... --\-. • -. - modent.·;ncome housing proje-ct, arl'd r ha'/e four childreil_ it to be • bt~efjt in the!r liveSt not ~ detriment. I ~ive found I liked. lot of the co .... nts that Jim Burkl0 mide. I like th. hct th.t IJt'E are p:Tolr'i'ding S~ transftfonal housing opportunities here. I liKe the fact tnat we are cDnverti~g tr~nsient housing to permanent housing. Staff has done a very good job In showing how .11 of that fits in with the policies and programs in the ComprehEnsive Plan. From roy poi~t of view, this is the route the cfty has said 1t wanted to 90. and we are doing just what the city has proposed we shDule do. We are r..rrying the torch for .11 of the concepts th.t ha.e been before us. A couple of tho things at~ut the project f.sc;nate me. One is that although there is a potential variance involved in this project. the fact is that t~e current e~istin~ building does not change in any way, shape or font. In ess~nce, we have to go through a Variance process only because it is a part of the existing piece of property. I like t~e fact that vhat we ~~ve thtre is esser.t1al1y a sufficient housing unit t~at can be used right now, wHn some modifications. r also like the fact that tney are gOing to be improving t!lat by remevi n9 thirlgs like Ue aSbestos. I also feel good about the fact that we have not, in a sense., caused any fl",nci.l hardship as it rel.tes to the rest of the property. Staff has indicated that this does ~ot inhibit in any way the development of the otner pieteL In fact~ maybe in a Sens!l it enhances them. So I am very comfortable with what we are going to try and de here tonjg~it. [.am in support of tommissioner Cullen's motton. CommisSioner Cullen: I want t() correct the fact that the asbestos is gOing to be removed. It 1$ not. ft is 90ing to be encapsulated. It is when you start removing asbestos t~at you rur. into a problem. If you cuver it up, it is fine. I also want to respond to COlTl'llissioriE'r Glaz'ierls sort of side rema~k about my previo~s remarKs on the applicatl~n before us. Tnis is a different kind of housfng that is being changed. It is tranSient housing. It is not permanent, middle·class ~oustng. [might have a very different opinion if this we~e an apartment buildin9 that was occupied by permanent residents of Pil ~ Alto, and we-werE go; ng to convert it to low-t(l-moderate-1ncoiTH: hOL!s1ng_ Commissioner Ojakian: I would strongly recommend to the applicants tnat before this comes back to ys after going through the ARB. that those applicants meet with some of the concerned individuals who w~re speaking tonight, and any others in the neighborhood who are cnncerned, and create the platform, so to speak, to pro· ... ide a meeting feruiTI where thost peop1E' can get together and speak with each ot~er. J would be very inteiested in ~,earing wtlat the outcome of that meeting was. MOTION PASSES: [halrm~" Beecham: Is there any fUrtnEr discussion on t~1S root ion? All these in favor of tne m~tion that we conceptually ipprove the proposed PC zone chang! and forward the application to the ARB for further review, please say Aye? All opposed? That passes unanimously, with Commfssioners Carrasco and Marsh abstaining. M,. Lytle: This;s scheduled for the a"h;te,tural review baard on November 19tn. It ~i1l ret urn to the p lann in 9 cOlTIni 5S f on NI December 9. It is scheduled for tne city council on January J8th4 10/28/92 -~3- . Ms. Cese: For the record l Mr. Chairman, the legal termfnol?9Y f~r Commissioner Harsh is -abstain1ng-and for Commissioner Carrasco, -not partlclpatln9.' Even though neither partIcipated, I beii.v. that Commissioner Carrasco had a conflict of interest, although he did not so state ~en he left. "hairman Beetham: Thank you for the c1arifitatfon. • , - ------~-~~-~---~ MJl).PENINSUL\ HOUSING COALITION 430 ShcnDa.I:I Aveoue. SUlk 2C.G Polo Alto, CA 5>4306 ATTAC~[NT F Tel. (415) 688-8300 F", (415) 327-111'" roD (415) 964-8774 Marcil 17, 1993 Pltnninj Commission City of Palo Alto 2S0 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430 I ~: T&maraCk Coort PIat1l1ed Community Zor .• AppJjcatiOD Dear Commissioners: RECEIVED MAR t B :233 -""'''''-'' -""'-.",,,.l ~ ~ ---. .:,,; Thls letter is in response 10 some issues and concerns that were voiced during the March 10, 1993 Planning Commission bea.-ing of MId· Peninsula Housing Coali,ion', (MPHC) application fora zonechange of the Tam.rack Coort romp! ... MPHC is applying for. "'''" change and lot split for the pu:poses of separating. resirlential pa:rcel from a commercial parcel which fronts EI Camino Real. The Jirst issue concerns the perC"cived change of use oftne Tamarack Court complex. Tamarack Court is currently being operated as a quasi residential complex. The current z.oning of Tamarack Cou:t is I. combination of multi-farruly residen1.uu and service CiOmmercia.I. Approx:ilnately ten (i 0) of the twenty·two (22) units.are currently occupied by tenants that have resided .in the complex for more thatl one (I) year The remaining units ha\:'t: had a high rate. on tu.m-over with the aW!fage rental. teon being ;.il( (6) weeks.. The current managemen!'s marketing plan for the complex is to plac-e long-tenn tenants _in fhe units. In fact, Tama.r'lck Court has been operating as a long·terrn apartment complex fIX over five (5) years. ~"r. H~ndley, the representative of the owners of Dinah's HoteL claims that covenants elcis:: barring the use of Tamarack apartments for translent or hotel purposes. MPHC~ purch:\Se 2~reement includes. restriction cta';Jses complying wlth such COVenar'.ts The!'lext issue that has been repeatedly raised in meetings c,Qncem~ the children who might reside in the comp!ex, The size of the uruts v.1!1 determine occupancy in Tarnarack Court. The marketing plan for the future resldents of the complex win be very sinular to the CJ.ll7lm1 management agent's leasing plan v.i.th the exception tha1 MPHC 'NiU uI.@et low-income persons whc ha ... , been homeless or are at risk of being homeless_ \Ve expect residents 'NiH be primanl,-single adults, And serl\ors. v,1.th a few unitS betng occupied. by couples. Occasionally v.,~ may also have a paTen! and a cluld. Maximum QC(;upancy ora unlt nUght be a couple and one smaJi child. There are current1y cr31dren residing in -,. T:mIlI11Icl: Coon. MPHC will not be targeting fomilies with children for this df'Velopment and does not foresee thtre bcing any increase in the number of children li ... ing in the apartment complex. MJ'HC has developed and operate; many multi· family complexes targeting families mtb ch·:dror:-l1 and these complexes have better aC'commodaticms for this group. Ta.marack Coun will le I-developm~! whicb targ~ts a differer1t popuration which also has severe housing n "!ed~ The Tama...-acl:: Court tpartment complex contains over 4,000 square feet of open space Included in this c.ajculaiJon ~$ t\e approxirn3tely 2,800 square foot de-ck on the first floor The deck i.i CUi"Tently being used by the resjdtnts for OI.ltdoor acti"i.ties. 1-fPHC plans to improve the deck area by installing planter boxes Jlong the perimeter and by adding ne\\o' handrailings. We plan to ':lUlld secured storage compartments in the underground parkins garage for use by the feJidcrm: There is adequate space in the parking facility !o accomm~~ sixteen pl.-: (It.&..) Dicydes. ~ithol:t eliminating any parking 'Spac~. We will be cru'eful to screen an appIi.cants for credit and landlord references and we hope :ha! Tamarack: Court will be ii stepping stone for individl.i.a1s who are newly employed and who need to stabiliz.e their Ii\les MPHC operates a similar facility in Soutn San Francisco (Sundial) and has experil:nced;:}() problems in renting to tenants that are most suited for the ccmplex. The Sun::lia: corr.ptex has no on-srre parking and far less common area than Tamaraclc, yet has cr~tecl no problems for its neighbors. We request tha: Planning ~~ommission approve this PC zone ~hange and lot split because oflhe overriding public benefit and' the unique opponunity 10 house a group of people who are kientified as a top p~rity for asslstance in Palo Alto's Housing Element Sincc;relYQ ~'w~<:.L.h Fran Wagstaff l7 ., 7T Executive Director - <. 11-'17 ... -'92 "1 ~ 47 AnACHHENi G I Mw.rl>NlNsln-A 1I0USING COII.LITION ! 43tshennDn Avenue Suite 203 I ralv to, Californi. 94306 I Telephone (4l5) 68S.83(J(l I , I Dear JI .. 1dent: I Noveaber 11, 1992 Kid-p.n!n.~la Houoing coal~tior. ie currently vorkinq on a p on t~ p~rch ... the twenty-tva (2~) unit Taaarack court apartment c ~pl.x in Palo Alto, oaapri.ed of· nineteen (19) junior one-bedroaz itl, 15 locoted at .269 El cIllIIino Reol, Yitll oonveni.t>t w>lic tran8po::tation, and relldy acca •• to 5h'O:pp1.nq areas and .,001 •. KPHC propes.. to convert he Taaa~ack court comple¥ to pe anant attordable hous1nll. ! ae.1d.nta of Palo Alto,i local •• rvice provider., and*oth~r com.unity ;roups have cit'id the urgent !le.d in the coaauni y tor par.anent bo~lnq at 10" r,nt.. 'l'h. proposed u .. for the 'l' orack COurt pro~rtj' meats this I "o .... unity need l:y prcvi,Unq hous nq to households who are currentay ho .. ola.. or are 1n danger of b~m!nq hc:·ael..... llIIaidants for ~amarack Court 1II'il1 be •• lected, among other qualification., b.B~~ on their demonstrat.~ vil11n9n I and abilltr to iAp~Qve ~~.ir «cono.lc .tability. . s.cau •• you ara a re51den~ of the neiqhborhOO4 Which 1. neLr thQ Tall\&rack Court cOJ:lplax i.: locateC:,. we 'Would like to ••• t "'~th )-C~ to enaver any J:tUestions cr.' concerns you may have reqardinq '!'~.flr&cx. court ~nQ/or Mid-penin.~l' Housing Coalition. . w. hope you will Bhare YDU L ideas with u& at a nolq~orhood eetinq to b. held on Thurlday, ,oveml:er 19th at 6:00 p.m. at th Saint Andrew. United Ketbodio~ Church loc.teol at 4111 1.110. ~ Your questions and sU<;Igeationalwill b. ~elcoB •• Sincerely, l"-..c......0~7 MiCh •• l C. Wiley Project coordinator 'L I i I I , I - ~ -----" .. MID-PENINSULA HOUSlNC CO.'\LITION ThMARACX COUl\ T NE!GHBORHOOD MEETING NOVEMBER l(j. 1992 D::PA~n .. ;:::.(.s: OF PIJ3'{~lING CITY OF P",LO ALTO 1. Ta.ma:a=k Ctmt wu Nilt as a ho~l and is 'i:x:alcd 1:1 01 c-omm~rc:.at ZOrie &411 is !lot cvndudvt to ~drtn. 'Wltc:te ~ the cblldre;:!. who may li~ in Tamarack going 10 pJay'1. L l'odPHC.is act targeting families ror T~ C~ .... Tama.r:rck Court ,;\,11 have \~'Y few if Li"J-Y :-hildre:n and those-c:lJ.il.drelllhat mlght livc i.n TamaracllNill mOSllikcly be v-=.ry)'(lUllg in!a:lts. 2. Wben an-the chtld!en who J:!l3)' ii-:'c in T~ JPir.g to go to school? I.. The few thndrezl that might live in Tamatacl:: .. ill probably t'C below the school age. (-iCC 1.) 3. Is the City going to be RSpQn ... ibIe!or Tam:a.radL C.anrt and will they be ptJtti!lg City ruo.c.ey into the proj<a? a. The CiI)' is appI}'iDg fir. F=eral fu:nds ~ the HOl\.!E program. tD amst thls ~'-elopment. UrukI ~ HOME ~ the City ~iIl be-r=quired to C\o--erser= the ~~opmeIlt to p~de some """""'" to the HOME prog1lm. 4. Howmany~opmentsdoc$MPHC MaTlage'! a. ~HC throu.gh an affiliatt Mid~ Hcusin& .M:magecent CCIJl current:}' ~ 1$ compl<xes 5. Docs it h:av't experience in this type of project? L Yes, the SllJId..W in South SF is va;." similar 10 tM proposed Tamarack Court pro~'"t. 6, Hoo' ",aD)" resideD!s of)'OOl" proj«ts have been anested? L Any resident found breaking the law lJlc, vioiati:::tg the conditions oftileir lease is e-.'icted. bu: MPHC has tIiC)I keep 5t3tisria on the occwmIcts Cl'tr the last 20 ,em. 'j. Can MPHC guarantee that thcrt: wiU ~ no romicted feloru living a: Tamarad: Coun'! a No, we cannot gua."3!lLee that a person for e.u:mple ';\'ho mjgh: have been .a.~ed in th:: 60's for 5C:lling IUlijuana ~ilJ no{ be living in Tamanc;lc: CO~~ However, we dN not aDo .. a pC"!s.C:n .... bo hru:.a bstOJ)' of b~, the Jaw tc ~ in OI-lr compl~. !. Will tbe City be requlred to put in MOne). ev-ery yea: for the project? a.. No. MPHC 60esc notproje=t Ulcre-10 be any operating deficits in rega:-ds to th.is dev-eIo.pIDent If any d~ec! docs QCCW' it is the ttSPQruibili[), of M?HC, ~------ MID-PEN!NSUI.A HOUSING ~L4..NAGEJ..mNr CORPORATION SmGLE ROOM OCCUPANCY FIGURES AND RATIOS NOVEMBER 1992 I. R.e$id:rus p:r unlI-I residen.t: per unit ~ .• at du1drrn pc: unit-0, ~.s~ DO cJuldrulliving in MPW"fC SRO unlt.s. 3. 'or parong:paa::s J'U unit-0, thc:r= is ilO avaUablt: ptlrkirlg Oll--site fOJ the SRO units. 4. f af ears per WI-the ratio IJt ca.., to residential unit is 9 In I J. ,--.- Ccmmissioocts P'-iDs Cammissloo Cily of Palo Alto ljQ HamiItoo A ....... Palo Alto, CA 943111 ATTACHMENT H Man:b 24, 1993 W. ate wri1ma 10 "'S. you 10 ....... forward .. qWclcJy as "",,101. and =<>mmead the proposal 10 COIIYcrt the TIRIaladr;; Coon site 10 affordable bousina for low to moderate iN::omc resideo1s of Palo AlIa. Our """"""",:.as bccoo.c llaltely aware of the "'B"" ot<d for affordable bow"". TODWa<k Court """" ideal -.. iI is k>cauod near J><lblu: """-<portatjoo, easily """";ble 10 xbaoIs and otb:r scruc.. and c:aa be quicldy __ . Whco we reviewed the u" of projects 10 be «>a>idaod w>der the New ~ Dcvek>prneol F ... -.d. we r~ Ilw T am.rack Court to<.:i>c lop priority fur CDBG funds. Pleau bclp US make this much D«d:d projea a =llty. Sin=ely, (!j"u~l"-<c.L .siu",..! -r-,I'­ CI\ristine Shambo;. Chairpcr>on, Citiuns Commirree. Commu..rtity De,,'dopffialt BJocl.: Grant Program 1 \ 1 Lu-ch 17, 1993 1'0 the !.{elllber.s 0': 'tbe :;:'.::10 ,_Ito ?::'2.:l..'''..:'n:: '~o:::r:ission: ?rom Elinor Heaths 40 Cesano ':;ourt ~ jo:J9, :: ::.10 __ 1';.0 9d 3lJc n·.is is to '.ll',S'e you to v~te Yes or" :':~rol:. 3,lst t.o ;rovide low cost bo'.!:::lnc g,t T~eck Co,;rt. I OW!:! IlliY c:o:ndociniuc:. two block.e frc.= that site~ ;.$ ~ :'Jei,;c.'bor ! !:l?-Ye receiv~a. the me.i1inss o:~ Concerned i~eig.cbol'"s who are D:p:~s1l'd toO th9 pr::-c;rc.!!J. ·C'ut I GO not azree wah their areurcents. '"['!lese ;!'t::.iline,~ D~e .fro::,: L.onroe .... ve. u.d yo .... E.!"e aWCl.re there is :=. creek, fe.nce~ and no petru;; between :i'C:J:naraok end. l:onxoe. I have liver! at Cea!1no Court ::or ':lver 4 :re:;.rs ana kn~ tbG.t tbe ~~ar:c.c;~ loc.:tion a~s several advanta~es for a lm~ cost bousin: pro~ject. It i~ not close to .rrivete 2::.oIi:Ies cut it is clo::.e to pub:i.ic tr:;:.r..spa::.~t.:..tio:r"J drug stores :.;.:n-:i c-.::.rke·ts • ..!·~e I honr fe:!.I'S 0:' nei.:;hbcrs to t:t.js rrogr~ I ~il retlr'.(ied :::'0'7 lar;f; it too~ the r:eve:::,,~nd Jim. ;:.u=klc 'J:: the, ·urb=.n i:.il"'..istry to c~lllvince 'tblol r,·.;,isbbors of" r-210 .• lto CburCl:i8S t!lat tbey tlould no"t be ~ed by tLJe program of' s:helter c.2.11ed E:-tel ~ link.. I li'\~ed thxoue:h that 2.!l:l nOIT we 4ncr.; t.b-<..t 12 churcbu ir. }'::Ilo .c1to .and ma.ny in Los _1 tos and l:t~ ~\iie1." and. els~he:"€ C=.v€ adopted tile ~rogra.z:::t in wbich on e rotc:;.ting basis ti:ie ch.U1'c .... 'le~ ~leep -the h::n::eless :;:·or c.. r,cnth. .':'llo"tinc i'ro.cJ a rec'!!"nt newspaper •• "l'be!"e were ~l'.y i'e;;:.rfl en(: crea t oppol:i t ion tlben the l'I'"oGl'em: si;al"'ted but now after tb.re~ y-:".a.J':9 a':· ~.'.lcces~i'ui o~'5!ration hos?,it<:.lity to the hO!:leless has beCOc.B a s-:cred pari; of tbooe churc!Jes yearly celend:l!'." I reoognize the concerns 0: "tbe nearby hotel b>.Jt feel they ere e:!a';~I"i:'.ted. Otber ~it'3.ized hO'.lsine J:-Xo(:jeo"te in the city :b~ve beo:!n euccE!'ssf'ul. Pleluie don't 'Vote l;o unless there is a certain rel,lc:..cement elsewbere-for 22 low oos t homes V,'e need 80 bad 17. I n' ... ve lived in -:'~lo !.lto since 1952 e.nd wetched tho:; char...ses. ..e c.:o::.ve tal:-:ed Iil.nd .po.ctponee. action on o .... r ~o1..:sin.s n-eea.s. It is tirfC€" to C2Xe -to ;?ct. '~'ery 'tr-..lly ~'ot.;.::-s, r;~-HJ iJ~ ":,,J.:"II.or ?Ga'tc RECEIVED MAR 1 8 1993 O[~AATl~:'·[\"~ '"; 'L~:~~.~;,;'3 AA[J CC: .. :~:;(.m;T'--.Y .::·~:.'.=r·lT - Aufmuth, Fox & Baigent A Profes.oJlO!lJl COrp(H'i.li:l!l Marner-; VIA FIRST CLASS MAIL Ma:t'ch 1S t 1993 Bernard Beecham 321 ~owper Street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Patricia CUllen 231 Homer Avenue Palo Alto, CA 9430~ Pam Marsn 327 Waverley street Palo Alto, CA 94301 Xathryn Schmidt 833 Lincoln Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RECEIVED MAR t 8 1993 ~.?A.=n'1I.~arr 0:= ptAN':mro AN::' CC~.:1'·,<.!~ITY -c!:'.'3.0?;\!.ENT Tony Carrasco 120 ~amilton Avenue Pale Altc, CA 94301 Bill Glazier 350 Sea~oia Avenue ?alo Aito, CA 94306 Victor oj al<ian 526 Addison Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Dinah'. Tamarack court/Mid-peninsula Bo~sinq coalition Dear Commissioners: This lett.er is written as a follo"W-up to the Planning COm!f.ission meeting of March 10, 1993 and Chairman Beecham's agreement to read any vritten submissions~ Because of representations by various oppone-nts of the project and the apparent direction of questior.s from certain members of the COIl"J1[1.ission .. on behalf of ~inah's Tamarack Partners I "Wish to emphasize three points for your consideration. %. Destruction of Property Values. A common theme of all of the opponents of this project is that the s~rrounding property values will be detrimentally affecteci -"destrcyed n to use the ~ords of the most vocal opponent. One of the obvious contiguous property owners ~ho has a significant stake in the property values in this immediate area is Din.~h(s Tamarack Partners {"DTP"J, the very property owner 'Who has applied for this lot split. The city made it clear to DTP that in order to obtain the City's support for the lot split i DTP ~ould be required to agree to a sales price below the fair ~arket value for the Tamarack Apartments. The John H. Rickey Trust, Lorraine Ricker and Gerhard steiner, the three partners of DTP, ~onsidered all of the ramifications of this transaction and concluded that tha value of CTpts remaining property ~ould, in fact, be improved and enhanced by this transaction~ Because the Hou~ton's Restaura~t is not a 314 Lytton Avenue, Suite 200 PaloA],o, california 94301 415322-7100 Fax 415 322-6635 ... *. ' .-J. " - March 15, 1993 :Page 2 completed transactio" ," DTP anal:tzed the effect of the sale of the Tamarack Apartm:ents to Mi.d-Peninsula Housing Coal i tion (ItMPHC") or. f~ture users of its ~~maining property. DTP believes that the site will be enhanced by having Tamarack Apartments owned by MPHC because M.PHC has the manageltloent resources and Ir.<3nagelrient skills to ensure and maintain a higher level of tenancy than DTP has been able tv maintain. In addition: MPHC has the available capital to make needed improvements, inclueing cosmetic improvements, which DTP has lacked. Thus, ""ith or ..,ithout Houston's, DTP, the most: immediately affected land .owner, is not only comfortable .ith the MPHC transaction but enthusiastically endorses it as an impr~vemeat of the neighbDrhood. The fact that Houston's is proceeding loIith its approvals ".;ith knowledge of the pro~osed use of Tamarack Apartments by MFHC reinforces DTP's opinions about the value of this use. 'I.:I.. The "Let's Make a De&l" 1ssue~ There 'Was much unsupported and fa~laci.ous testimony that Ray Handley offered to purchase the property for the full price asked by DiP, that Ray HandlEY is re.ady, able and willing to purchase the property for the same amount MPHC is currently under contract for, and similar representations. In addition, t!',any of the opinions of the ARB and several questions from the Planning Co~ission suggest a desire to force a t::-ar.saction betW"een DTP and Ray Ha:ildley w' i th respect to the Tamarack ~partments. The Planning Co~ission needs to k~ep in mind that the undersigned, as a fiduciary, and Lorraine Rickey ana G~rhard steiner, as rational econo'mic human beings, are ul"l'w'illing and unable to '"give'" the property to Ray Handley, tc convert it to open space, or to sell the property at less than a reasonable fair market .... alue j and the Flanning Com.!"!'lission cannot properly use its po ..... 'er-s to require the foregoing \trlitiJout just cot'lpensat.ion to DTP. As I explair.ed at the public hearing I ther-e have been numerous unsuccessful attempts to sell this property to Mr. Handley. Ho ..... ever, I think it is very important to bear in 1<lind that the Planning commission has no right to require that the property be sold to Mr~ Handley cr any other party, and it ~ould be improper to use this body's discretionary po\tr1ers over plannir.g to force such a sale. Certainly if the City Council .. anted to condemn this property and sell it to Mr. Handley. assuming a proper public purpose can be found, it could do so ~y paying fair ~arket value for the property. As to this body's responsibilities, I urge the Commissioners t.o focus on the iSS"ileS over 'W'hict~ they have j°o.lrisdiction, which do not include their personal opinions about 'Who 'Would be a bett~r purchaser tor the site~ That is DTP's decision to make. We nave a qualified purchaser, and a contract for the sale. As discussed below, Mr. Har.dley simply has been un'Willing to agree to terms that DTF is • , \ .- '\" .. , " < -I 1 I ~ ~~~ ........ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- March 15, 1993 Page :3 willing to sellon. The Planning Commission should not be ~uped into improperly leveraging PTP into a sale. 'With Mr-. Handley, which 'Would eq-..:.ate to invers2 condemnation by the city. For the record, DTP has offered the propert)' for th€ past six Y4ars to Ray Handley. In fact, prior to completing the transactions .ith MPHC, the property was again offered to Ray Handley~ See the letter attached hereto. The tr~nsaction ~ith Mid-peninsula is a significant below market tr~nsaction. It was aqreed to because it presented immediat& liquidity (it is an all cash transaction), it frEed DTP from the continued active management, mainten~nce. and operation and capit~l obligations of the Tamarack Apartn~nts, and left DTP with a free-&tanding $50,000 ± square toot El Camino frontage r$staurant site. The Tamarack Apartments are rentable at a mini~um of $650.00 p~r ~onth rent (22 units) and ~t that rent, occupancy probably can be ~aintained at greater than ninety percent. Each of you can work the math on s'l.!ch a cash flow as well as I can to arrive at a value for that project~ Regardless of how conservative the cap rates. gross rent I[(ultipliers or ur.it cost analysis rou use, lie believe that you will agree that the value is clearly in excess of $1 millicn~ It is silr.ply e. pipe c1real:. to believe. that Mr. flandley. "rho views the $1 million MPHC price as ftthree times vhat Tamarack is worth", will be able to arrive lit a fair transaction .... ith DTP. On March 10, 1993 you 'Witnessed from Mr. Handley the kind of response OTP has received since 1986 when it comes to discussing the prtlopert.y or its pU'l"chlise and sale. To believe tna"L -r.att.e.rs 'Will be any different noY, and to cos~ DTP its sale to MPHC on the hope that "something ..... i 11 \I.·ork 01J"t:", is sir:1ply very misguided. III. the Halt-Full, Ha.1t-Empty __ I99u~4 As I sat arid listened to the advocacy of Mr. Handleyrs professionals portray ho~ terrible it was that DTP ~as originally able ~o build the Apartmer.ts in the middle of Mr~ Handley/s property, I wondered why I didn't see it the same way. The first and obvious point is that the Tamarack Apart~ents are not Mr~ Handley's property, and the fact that they were developed in that location is ancient history. Please remember that John Rickey and Ray Handley each acquired their properties contemporaneously in the mid :!"9SD's. wnen John Rickey bought Oinah's, ~he only existing operating structure was the Dinah's Shack Restaurant. Mr. Rickey operated the Dinah's Shack Restaurant. y~. Ha~dley's motel carne much la~er. }Oi:.r. Rickey built t.he Tamarack E)'.ecut.ive suit.es ...,itn Mr~ Handley's TJ1o'W"le.dge a.nd acquiescence, as he !lever voiced any concern or complaint about the original project. If Mr. Handley now wishes he had. complained, it is no longer timely. Mr. Rickey and his successors have legitimate property rights in this L - March 15, 1993 Page 4 property. The Planning Commission cannot retroactively deny the original project. The project's use is not changing, except for the bette~ becausE of MPHC's management skills and capital avail~bility. Ho~ can anyone logically argue that con~inuin9 the very use that is currently being 1n.<lde of t}-.& property .. "ill depress property values in the area? What is really being said is that if this use was never approved j the eXisting property might he more valuable. w~ether the ~se that exists is appropriate is not at question, since no one is proposing that DTP be prohibiteQ from continuing the use. Again, to do so ~ould amount to a taking of DTP's property. Mr. Ri:.key contriblJted to Pale Alto's tran~ie~t tax and property tax values in Palo Alto "IlIith this project. You should also 'keep in roJnd tha,t Mr. Rickey developed p.ickey~s Hyatt House and Rick's Swiss Chalet, each of which was a significant contribu~or to the overall revenue and employment base of Palo Alto. If good citizenship is the quid pro quo for approval, I do not think Mr. Rickey, just because he is dead~ should rank any differently th~n Mr. Handley. More importantly, the project should be dispassionately vie~ed on its merits under the planning doctrines for the City of Palo Alto, not as the prize for a good citizens' beauty pageant. You have heard from your staff regarding the appropriat~ness of this project for carrying out the City's express planning objectives. The re.alty of this situation is that the Tamarack Apartments have been, and will continue to be~ lower income apartment households~ whe.ther owned by DTP or MPHC. The planning question is whether MPHC ~ill do a better job of enhancing the property, consistent .... ith the Cit.y's stated goals for affonlabl~ l".ousi-ng. we have told you that [:IT? cannot do any b.;tte.r job than it now is doing because of lacK of capital. The historical issues involving Mr. Handley's oesires to acquire this parcel simply are not germane to your decision. :March .15, 1993 Page 5 We thank you for the time you have taken to read our comrnen~s. Corai~lly, f THE JOHN H. RICKB TR ~T [/ BY~~!~ ~~t(([L , Trustee Approved by: DINAH'S TAMARACK PARTNERS By: cc:: Sarah Chenay / Sue Case COMPANY • Aufmuth, Fox & Bai" ~t A. PtofI!!SSIO!i.o.l Corp';:l~":mUl Attorneys Vl:a. FIRST CLASS );;. ... IL March 20, 195'2 ¥~. John Germino Germino, Brodie, Runte, Amaral, Jordan & Carpenter 2500 El Camino Real, suite 210 Palo Alto, California 94306-1791 Re: Dinah's Shack -Di~ab's Hotel, Ine. Dear .John~ In passing on the Houston's invita~ion and i~fo~ation to Ray Handley. I would ask that i'OU also advise hi:-:-, t.hat ve a=e in the final stages :;;f completir.g an optior: agree':le:-.t ..... ith Mid ?enins..:la Housing coalit.ion fer the. sale of Tan-.arac}': Cou:::-t.. The sale is conditioned. on a lot split effectively parceling off the TamaracK Court apa:::-t::nent5. Given the \..!5e to 'Whic~. Mici. Pe:::insu13 Housing Coalition 'Will put Ta!llarack Court, pre.limir1a~y indicaticns are that the City of Palo Alto ~ill look favcraoly or. this lot s?lit~ Having CClme t.o tenn.'5 on the option agr-ee:':!e.nt and havi!1g a fairly good understanding of the economics of a pro?csed :Houston's transaction, .e fJould again offer Ray Har.dley the opportunit.y to acquire the prope:r-t.y since we. cont.inue to believe he is t!'le most. rational buyer. The basic econo~ics transla~e loosely to a $2.5 million cash purchase price. Since fJe a~e p~epared to cons~der a ground lease i,rith HOllS";Or'.'S , we obviously wo':,;.ld consider carrying one-half of the purchase price C~ reascna~le te~~~. If P.ay has any irrterest, he :-teeas te-~,cve quickly sir-,ce. "'"E: , ... ill be finalizing the o!=l'tion agre.:!!t\ent quite soc:"'... L.'>.A/dt cc: Lorraine Rickey Gerhard S'tei!"ler 314 Lvtton Avenue, Suire 200 Palo Alto. California 94301 415322.1100 F"" 415 322·6635 - Aufrnuth, Fox & Baigl.llt A Pro/e<....5io.:ui COrpO."l:jo~ VIA. FIRST CI. .. '.$S M.ill March :20, 19c:'2 Mr. John Cermino Germino, Brodie j Runte, '~a~al, Jordan & carpenter 2500 El Ca~ino Real, Suite 210 Palo Alto, California 94306-1791 Re: Dinah's Shack -Dinah's Rotel, Inc. Dear John: We have s".lapped calls anc., thus, this let.':-er. Dinah's Tamarack Partners is seriously pu!'sulng Q lease of t::"e resta1.1rant parcel (50,OOO square feet) t.o HC'..ist,:-n's. Joe Lecbett.er of Eou.st.o!"':'s has invited Lo=r-aine and P.:arc.y to visit hilT. 2.r:C to vie. and to dine at their most recent resta'..l=an~ o-;.ened in Los An;eles. Lor-raina, Hard}' and I feel that before en'Cer-ing into any kir.d of final negotiations to complete cur deal with Houston's, it is irr.pcrtan"t: t.~at P.ay Handley be. ~xposed to 'the!:'. so that we can unc:erstand 'Whether -we ..... ill have. Ray's s"o.lpport. On tehalf of 'Sous"t-on's I i~vite Ray to visit ~oe Ledbetter and the Houston's operation in Los Angeles at Houston's expense, I have already discussed this ~ith Rob Suelflohn l the broker h3~dling the transaction, and by a copy of this le~ter I am letting hi~ know tha~ I have extended this invitation formally to Ray. CordiallJr~ .;'C,Xt''!H, ~':;X & BAIr;E:~"'T " , A ?rofeSSlor.alrco~~at~o~ , , BY; t) ! U Wi'; I ,-"utI .... L~ .. -rence A, Au'twuth LAA/dt c~· ~orraine Ri~key Gerhard Steiner Ecb Suelflol'.n 314 tvn:on Avenue, Suite 200 POlIo P,Jw, Califc.)rnia 94301 41:; 322"7100 Fax 415322·6635 • " .. ' ~"",->". ' .. ' ~1~;ic' .' \ ,,' . :. I~I wA I~JJt. . ...•..•........ f~ ~J C'A 9'7Jt;~ ... ~ 6; 1<11, ~ ~)'\..;'I?,:4K..- fL~" f.I.,.1ff! R E C!:, "e 0 ~ ~~. HAll 91993 f.io t2t,1$, t!/7 9'1JOJ ~c:.~~ 4!~~ -J~..-t4~ ~~~~r­W~~~4~~ ~N~~~~r~ ~~~~~~ '.' ~/lr~~~~~ e~. /J' tJ~ ~ ~ ---,/.,,~,~-------,.--. lliELEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF PALO ALTO - Planninq commission city of palo Alto 250 H~ltcn Ave. Palo Alto, Ca. 94301 RE.: Tamarack Court 4269 El camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Dear commission Members: 457 KlNCSU'I' AVENUE. PALO AlTO, CAUFORNJA 94301.415/327-9148 Mar-ch 5, 1993 The League of WOlDen Voters of P-alo Alto urqes the Plal'.ning commission to approve the Application for a Preliminary Parcel Map, Planned community Zone Change and Variances, to allow separate ownership of the existing residential hotel (Tamarack Court) by a nonprofit housing group {Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalition). Tamarack Court will provide 21 housing units for very-low-income single persons or small families. Priority will be given to people who have recently been homeless or are in danger ot becoming homeless~ There ~ill be on-~ite casework under contract with Urban Kinistry~ The project has received a funding reservation from HOD to assure that rents will be atfordable~ Tamarack Court meets the goals of Palo Altors Comprehensive Plan and the 1933 Comprehensive Housing Atfordability Strategy (CHAS). Policy 9 'of the Housinq Element states that local 3nd regional housinq assistance aqeneies should address the needs for emergency shelter and transitional housing in Palo Alto. Policy 11 states that Palo Alto will encourage and participate in low­ and moderate-income hOlJsing pr-oqraiIls tina.nced by local ar~d. other levels o~ government and will make a good-faith effort to meet the lower-income housing need projected by the Association of Bay Area Governments' as the 1990 to 1995 fair share goals. In the CHAS Annual Plan, Fiscal Year 93, Palo Alto lists its highest hO'.J.sing prioritie.s as (1) lo'ti-ine-o:r.te. and very-lo'W-incom.e renters, (2) pe~anent housing for the homeless, and (3) permanent housing for persons vith special needs~ The CHAS lists as a priority acquisition and conversion to low-income housing units of the Tamarack Court Apartments. The Leeque of Women Voters of Palo Alto urges the Planning Commission to approve the preli~inary Parcel Map and associated zoninq changes for Tamarack Court. Sincerely, ~ .. t$z.~ Marilyn Mack Bryant, President .... ~.J j ~J,i", I ','>, 'I 'f'fi l , I ;, .. ,' "". ; / , il ~ ---~,~----" '-.' - ........ ' .. O· ..... L (Jl.IIItAlM"ALO I ........ ,..,.... '"":~':~'''''~.::-''ri~-----jaII!K.i .. " ,,{,,:, ,;~~: ~': " ,\',.' i ~.II.t.I WE NEED YOUR HELP! Dinah's, which has been se",ing the Palo Aho cOlntnUllity since 1955, is now having its ability 10 do business ~u'eatened, We have speDl on renovations well over a million dollars wiillin the lasltwelve maDill,; AND NOW THE CITY OF PALO AI.:ro I~ CONSIDERlNG PLACING SUBSIDIZED LOW INCOME HOUSING P.IGHT WITHIN THE CIiNTER OF THE DINAH'S HOTEL f'ACILlTY! The issue will be before Ihe City Council on April 19th, 1993, Please call your Council mcmber wi~1 your thoughts about UJi, peril \0 a fellow member of Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 'n,ank you so very much, THE STAFF, MANAGEMENT AND OWNERS OF DINAII'S GA~DI:N HOTEL .------ , ,''1,1,;~!t~1~'.\('~',1;~\ ,J, f/ I "'i/" "'~I.~,~~_-i'f/11'Y'ii,jl.''Vl,.)," I ~ '.'. "~l\b\"r. 'tt \~.(, 1-""'" ." .~t,>t(~{~.<}ll~''.~,': /' ":\~" ;', .,.' ,.':' ,: ' . ,,'\ ", , . k': ~: (, I I I 1 I ._~c G. ., ...... O"-.He.. Bn...ouot .1:_01 ... ,... c. ....... C"'~I .... " ........... ,"'<:. .... -.... o<e .... • ............. 1l0~1[ ~~"'I'04(;OC .,,",,-"ao><,J. -.... .. _'" ... "CINe""' PI.anniDg Commission Mr. Bernard Beecham Mr. Tony Camosco Ms. Patticia Cullen Mr. Bill G!azjer Mr. Victor Ojaldan Ms. Kalhryn Schmidt , 1f¥" $'U Li;; :S:~~ .... ~ ~-. BIALSON, BERGEN & SCHWAB "TTO""'I:YS""" I.. ... w .. _ ... vo ...... _ ______ "-100<1- 305 ST""'N~O.ctO ,,-'''1 ....... CI ... ;. SO""A~!: "''''LO "I,.TO. c .. I,.~,..c~ ......• oII30S M2rch 31, 1993 Re: Plannr4 Community Zone Danv RECEIVED APR 1 1993 ."u:=-- ~OFptJt;J""'~ N4)CC)IIMlHTY~ 426~273 EI Caminc Real, Palo Alto. California Members of !be Commission; Thank. you for the opportunity to submit a wrinen stat.."ment before your flOal decision is rendered. ARB Findings: In making your determination of whether. PJa.:med Community Zone Change Is appropriate for this si!<, we would ask you to revisit the findings of the Architectural Review Board and give those findings the consideration and respect due !be fmdings of such a body. The ARB undemood compl.,..eJy their charter with regan! to analyzing the functionality of !be property for the purpose inrended. The ARB's charter is Dot limited to =Wetics. Functionality is of equal value in ARB analyses and the ARB found tIJAl a PC ZODe on thl s site would DOt function for the purpose intended, ~ of Planning Commisciqn: Tbc Planning Commission needs to understand its charter with regard to making • determination of • PC District. The publication of the Departmont of Planning • - ---------------- Piann.inb:: Commission Much 31, 1993 !'age 2 entitled' Applying for a Planned Community Zone Change' sets forth clearly the 'required det;m;;nagon;." rcquin:d to be made by the Planning Commis~ion prior w rewmmendillg approval of any PC Districl. One of the :hree required findings is; 'TIle use or uses permictal and the site devolopm,,,t regulations applicable within the District sba!l be consistent with the Palo Allo Cmnprebensive Plan and sh.alJ be companllle wllb eldsting and potectial uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.· TIle planctal use of Tamarack is DOl C<Jmpatible with the botel or =ta= businesses whiCh cpera!t on the adjoining ,ites. 'I'll!: ARB SO found tha! to be the case, and the Planning Commission, UPOD Wldcrstanding the conflict that would be created wi th regard to parking and the attractive nuisance of the Dinah's Hotel grounds must also fmd that it is _ a compatIble use. Dinah's Garden Hotel: The name used by Dinah's Hotel for its brochures and advenising is Dinah', Garden Hotel. TIle emphasis is on the word 'garden' because of the landmark, priz.e­ wimiliJg landscaping that is an essential c.omponettt of Dinah's Hotel. We m:lose with this Iet!er some ~ brochures which show yo.! the em;>basi. that Dinah'. Hotel pla= OIl its grounds as a means of attracting and keeping customers. PI""", pay special attetttion to the atmlCtive and inviting Dllture of the po.ru:ard 00 the front of the brochure. Having securilJl guards policing the grounds or having othors use the grounds who are Dot paying guests of the Hotel would be " substantW dimimltiOD in the value of those grounds for Dinah', Hotel customers. We ali know that there is no effoeti,'e way to fe""" off Tamarack from Dinah's Hotel and it is clear tha! Dinah's Hotel garden is going to be "" attractive nuisance for children, as well as a very UIlderstandable attraction for the adults living at Tamarack. TIle bospitalilJl business is a very fragile business. Hotel users are infamous for their intolerance to any disIUption or ~ioD in their surroundings. TIley are aloo very upset if they sec neighbors or othen using hotel facilities that <hey feel they are paying for. Because Dinah's Hotel receives such • buge proportion of its business from six cOIpmations, it is more fragile and vulnerable than most bospitalilJl businesses. That is because, should one executive or a. high tech Palo Alto business have an unfoI'tUlWe expcrienc.c at Dinah's we lose not jusl tha! executive, but his entire .:orporatioo, as a customer of Dinah's. L , , • I - PlllIl!lirJg Commission Mat<:h 31, 1993 Page 3 There is 00 way for the Planning Commission to assure that parking "'ill be adequate for Tamarack. The covenant1; between the parties requL'"e that each site provide its own paiIdng. Tamarack does DOl bave enough spaces to support its own parking needs. Tamarack has balf the parking thaI would normally be required and is over two times the density that would normally be allowed. This site cannot SWld on its O"'D but must rely and burden its adjoining neighbors. Reganiless of the assurances we bave received to date as to the unlikelihood of car 0Wlla'..hip and the fact that 00 visitors will bave cars. how can the Plarnling Commission and the City assure that this condition will DOl change in the future? Vrbtt plancing requires thai you consider likely futllre changes in making zoning and land use decisions. It mali:es 00 sense to crea .. a site tba1 is already short of parking for its residents, aI!d has absolutely no parking for visitors. There will be parIi:ing wars among the residents am! visitors of TaIlWli<.k and the busine.sses operating on the same site. Hgusjng 1.&W$: The California Fair HOll5ing Act of 1992 ties the bands of the Applicanl with regard to the sela:tion and ability to discriminate against potential tenarJts of Tarnan<:k. The Act probibits discrimination in any housing accommodation on the basis of faroilia.! status or disability and el<pODlls the def.tnition of hOll5ing discrimination to include refusal to rea50IIably w:mnmodate • disabled person in • ren:aI agreement or hou.,ing accommodation. Tamarack will have to be upgraded for bandicap access and cannot discriminate against cbildretL IT the ftnt twenty peopl. wbo apply for h0UJ5ing at T=k all t.ave children, there is no way Mid-Peninsula can reject th05e families whh children. PI..,. review the enclosed momocandum from Gordon McDonald, architect, regarding the need to do hand"",p access and the length of ramp uoeded for such =eos. That ramp will disrupt acces, to Dinah', Hotel and furtbe!' hamper parIi:ing. HoostJln's Remurant and !rtqpsn' Business on Site: We all unders!and why Houston's cannot express its feelings with regard to the PC zone change. Houston's is in !legotiations with Mr. Aufmuth and ca.anot alicnare him or attempt to mVlo"alt his wishes at this time. However. if Houston's becomes as S'lolCCCSSfuJ as we c~ it to and generates the four million dollars a year revenue it predicts. parking and noise iss\;.es will arise between Houston's and Ta.mara.d. Enclosed is I letter dated March 17, 1993, from Houston', indicating that they are holding off complete plans development until clarifICation of the Tamarack and related L * '. . , 'I Planning Commission March31,l993 Page 4 issues. 1be Planning Commissjon must give rea.sS'UI'im:;e to Houston's that it will respect the contribution of businesses 10 PltIo Alto by reco=nding agatn. .. the PC zone designation sougb1 by Applic.am. Funhmnore, as the momhly room revenues sbeet tnelosed sbows, business for Dinah', Holel bas increased substamially (more Ih.ln 2S %) as a result of the over $1,000,000.00 spell! on refurbishing the Holel. As the HOlet does increased business, parking and other issu<s will be e~ . <>= HvustoD', is in possession and operating and Dinah's HOle! busine" has grown to its full POlenti.al, it would be far easier 10 see just wlW the fully operational situation is at the sile sbared by Tamarack, Dinah's Hotel, and Houston's Restaurant. At the very least. the Flanning Commissinn should acknowledge that DOW is l1CI an appropriale time to allow Ibis PC zone to be created. Conclusion: The malter before yuu is not an intellectual ex=ise. We an: dealing with • situation in which we cannot characterize the housing as -Jew cost· so that we can extrapolale from experience in placing low cost bousing accommodations in reside:ttial noigbbotboods to give us the sense <bat Ibis expet"imom will war!<. This is bous:ng for the bornel ... or about to be borneless. This is placing !lousing in the parking lot of • h~1 and reswuam. This is taking an awkward and UD!enab1e land use and cementing it in place forever and going. step further and exacerl>ating it. Thank you fix your consideration and all your efforts. We would ask that you again walk the property so that you C3!l see that Ibis is • "seamless" site, so thaI it only makes = for all three uses of the site 10 be dim:ted to hospitality, rather tban to inletject and set in concrete • residential use in an inappropriat;o location. AGB:kdhs CC; Sue Case, City Attorneys Office Staff Very truly youn, BIALSON, BERGEN & SCHWAB Annetto G. BiaIson Arl:hi1CCtWal Review Boan1 Members , t , " ,.c":4i':iS>"~~ 'ff~~~-l; I_~~ ____ ", • .",; ....... ,","'~';"c~~.~ .,,,',, ..• ,,. ,., ~_ " ~ch 30, 1993 '1'0: CIla.l..l1l4n Planninq commi •• io~, City of palo Alto FROM, G~n 1'.::00., .. 1", Architect REt 426P-4~73 21 e&Ddno ... 1 (~amaraek court) SlllIJ'£C'r, JJand1<:appe4 Accaall ThtI r.termu::ed project _. canetructed with tho .. in leval of 0:11. building a halt atory aI:IoV" grade lUId the pu-I<inll laval " haU .tozy bolov '1%'&110, All floors including th4! parkin" 1." ... 1 ara BarYacl ~ an alentor. 'fhb elevater, b ..... ver, 1. not .ccusibl. to peraens .pproaching tba b\lJ.ldJ.ng tram tho a1d8walJc (~ad .. laval) u:capt loy lleans of 1It&1n. Pr .. ant raqulatory cQd ... tate that elevator. wet" .c" .... 8ible to per...... aec ••• ing tho. lNi ldiz19 trOll ;red. l.vel. It. ramp tr"", the gracl. 1",",1 to the :f'.I.r.t nOQZ' level ot tho bullclinq is propoaed, than we "11eve that t.'lb ralIIp vh1ch WOUld have an appr<»c1Aata lanqth or 80 teet COIlle! only bo CCMtru"te'" if it ancroachecl into the area presomtly onOUlllbar&4 ~ an ."" ........ ml!Jlt to !)inah·. lIotal. '1'ha han4iC4P. 0: whaelchaU'. .co ..... to the existin; .l.vator 1. " r~ ot pr •• ent ood. .. an4 it i. 0 .... undaratandin'l' that this requir...nt will be enfcrc&4 a •• Canditiob of 1s.uinq a buil~ini permit tor work .uoh aa ravt.!.o"" to the u:bting quardral1. of 1:11. lNilcU,ng. - -~~--------~----~-------------~----....... Mare;"! 17. 1993 Mr. Raymond G. llandley 2500 Xl camino Real Palo Alto. CA 94306 Mr. !l<utdl ey: r spoke with Srad and Joe regudi.ng the letter you requested we send to the City of Palo Alto A.R.B. Since we have so much tiJne and expense invested in getting our approval.. we cannot write that letter. Such a letter would Deed to reference and acknowledge your site plan preference, which cannot be achieved give::. the =eat property line configuration. r would remind you that we are temporarily holdinll our c:amplete plans development peadinll furthto: res"lution of the ap~t issue and clarification of &11 of the issues pencting on this property. Very truly yours. ~.e;..& h (~ Allen Goode Vice President of Design cc: ~ette BallsOD Joe Ledbetter Glenn Viers Pa!.o Alto ~ r.-1.t~!",~.1 ~. E~f":~~ a ~-:~;::.\~\ !' l';.':'.":.. _ ----I l. W.ll i S,; HOUSTON'S RESTAURANTS, INC. __ -~'L--------- • i I . ! ----------~--------- -...:-~.,. -' ';.,' -'-: , -- Eu:culiv~ Offices fo M.mber. of th. Plann1ng Coaa1sQ!on C!t~ Of Palo Alto I wo~l~ like to point out •• verel phrases within the Staft AOpOrt of Marcb 8th with whicb you aay oona1der oeretully: (~.g. C, paragraph 3) Xc evJ4enee ~. been pre •• nte4 that Mould in41cat. that uee ot the ex!.t1ng T~.~k Court !xecut1v. SulteB for peraan.nt low-income hcue1ng would have • detrimental or a4ver_e impaat on adjoining u •••. DO YOU AGREE? (Page &.para;~.pb I,lin. 8) It .boul~ be noted tbat th.~. 1e no ev!~enc. tha~ the ua. h •• created any .lgn1t1cant perkJng prDbl •••• ln 844Jtjon, T ... r.~t court h6a eutfJc1eat .rae tor 28 on-street p.rk1ng .pao ••• DZDICATID OM-STREET PARXIW~? {page 6,paragraph EI ~h. !nv)ro~ent.1 A ....... At prep_red tor thie prQject f1n~s that H .,111 r.ot re8ult in any cHroct ph:!e!c .. l impact., .m~ ~.eoms.n4. adoptJon of • neglt1v. ~.cl.~.tior.. WHO DID THE ASSESSHEKT? (Page !,p.r.~r.pb 2) The r.eo".n~.t1on of ~he ARB rat •••• tunda~~ntal land use que.t1on-the approprlaten ••• of • houl1n; use in this location. Staff contend. that houeJng i. an appropr!ete use tor the r ... ona 'outlined below·.P%NI. BUT WHAt DID THE ARB CONTEND :l'HE 2WD nME AROOND? .. ~J .I)~ u c \-. [) .\!vI ... A ~ khCcl £; ood Q\rtJU{\0vx~). Dinah' i HOl~J Corporalion 4261 EI Cimino Real P~To Aflo, C.lifclmia 94306 .; .. - rill tnP b Mt \ XI 41~·493· 2844 800 • 22' • ~22() ." .', ", i _ \ , , ','; ~ .. ~ V-~'~;.-.s;., j I ()in'lh '!It lI<J{d ('orf'<'rlll iOIl 42~1 H Camino 1<.("tll ~'" .. F L '. 1 Din~h·.!'; Ciub Svitc~ ~juj]t 196$ '1'4"'!0/'I rll ck Apar:..rnentl bUl] t 1973 41~·4YJ· 2R44 r .. 4 LI • ~\t" 471\ .' : ~ iIIIrdI 11, "",, The 'l"am4Nic'k Ap'rtmt'n1J. . Wtre b ... Dl1rllm on (he hllnaJe, Tw<1 ,...,. .,tor, !!on".~ buill DW~I'. Club Buitft oppoJite th~ ~clI; Apt.r.:merlt6, IfInd· wlchlne 1>10 lpertrnmtls be· lwocm the hOle!. ,. . THB A80VE IS INCORR~CT fl'&lllie ba adv1 •• d that in a .tor\' .~~t Dlnah l 5 Hotel in the !j~e.-1r1bune M.r~h 11. 1993. &n er~or w •• =~d& within the .rlle) •. A. Jt happened on that newe­ paper l 5 1.5t dav of pUb11cat1on~ tnete w.s not .n op~ortun1tv to have prJnte4 • earrect1on. THE TAMARACK APARTMENTS WERt BUItT IN 1873, EIGHT YEARS AF~£R DINAH'S SUITES ~tRt COMPtETEO IN 1;6~: ~HUS $EPARA~ING DI"A~'S HOTEL PROM DINAH'S CLUB SUITES. plte Ul~. y Y.tYe)" \l \.. ~~ .. .-.- e eor .. l Manager Mar n 17. Iw~3 jll\ 415·493' 2844 Fa. 41l • 8.~6' 4713 - Planning Commission City of Palo Alto 250 HamiIIOII Avcnut' Palo Alto. CA Members of th< Q,mmission: March 10. 1993 I am writir;g in ~ganls to the proposed Homeiess Shelter at the Tamarack Coun. Hotel. 4269-4273 El Camino Real. Palo Alto, I. my family and all;)f lIle neighbo!> 1 have spoken to are .... ehemently opposed 10 this proposed sr.:elter. The reasons for ou! opposition are nUIne:"OUS and include such concems as: 1. The safety of our chjJdren. The represen La rive of the Mid-Peninsuia Housing Coalition has stat«l that the coalition vvill accept renteTh -with I crta-Jna1 history and no proof of prior residence for 'Jpto 3-4 years. Worse yet is the tendency (or loitering by other un--checkcd n:sklents and L"::e promulgation of associated criminal activity, 2. Se-"en: diWppoo of I close family neighborhood. 3, .Lmlililm of this neighborhood from the;eS! of Palo Alto, Our n<;ghborhood is ,urrently swrounded on t.1u"ee sides by: th~ ;ail road tracks «) the r-..ast;. low­ irx:rnne apa..'"mlent complexes to the south along Del Media (Mountain Vlew); and E1 Camino to L'lc IA''CSL By placemenl of tile Homeles5 Sheller to our nonh we become surrounded 00' four sides a:1d i;olated from the !"est of the community. 4. The proposed unfair zoning 'I.'arianru and dle n::s.utri~g c!1cumbrance: on our propert)' values. This last issue is the one 10 which] will address you the members of th= Planning Commission as it is in your power to disaIIo\l,' the propt..."'Sed variances. My wife ar.d 1 have lived in Palo Alto for 10 years now. We borh worked very hard to purchase a home in Palo Alto so l~at we <:ould raise our future children i..e a safe farnity-oriented neighborhcod. Because of the accepted high coS: of housing in this a;ea we bought a small 864 ft 2 house on a substandard lot in Barron Park. 'W'hc:n we found our that we were expecting a child we investigated the possibility of adding on a room 10 our house. We were informed by the Planning Department that due K> required set-backs and daylighr plane requirement.:; an addition was impossible. Because: of the: Palo Alto wni.ng requirements as appHed to us we were forced 10 tnO"ve. We purchased a home of sufficient size this year in MunrrlC Park (direct!y adjacent to Tamarack Coun). This purchase came at the expense of exO'eme fmancial hardship. but we wuued to raise our child in a safe family-orientcd neighborhood in Palo Alto. SRI htemationaI - " Now we find out from our neighbors (with no nOlification from the Planning DcpartmcnQ that there is ! plan to build a homeless shelter one street north of our new ~. To do this you an: consideJing allowing several variances, among which w-e: 1, A zero fron! setback, whm 20 feet is standard. 2. A zero ilfSl floor side setback, whe~ 10 feel is standard. 3. A 7.S feel second floor side setback. where 17 feet is standard. 4. A da)'1ight plane pro,,"",ion 6 fee. high for 32 feet If we had been allowed such variances.. afler working hard and c.ontributing [0 t..;'c community for 10 years. we-would have added on to our previous home and not moyed. Thus avoidil"Jg me ClC.trel"'tle financial hardship we are cu:rrently in. Worse yet everything we moved to PaJo Alto for "a safe famHy~orienied neighborhood" would be destroyed by the proposed shelter. Is tlJis fair? While low to moderate income :housing may be needed in Palo Alto, alternatives a.'""e available (see alllt:hed .. -tiele). P\ease find it in your wisdom to be: fair 10 mose (al'T'jhes 'hat have worked hard to afford to Jjve Palo AIm. Vote no on th~se proposed va..-:iances and zoning changes. Dr. Eric D. Wachsman 112 Monroe Dr. Palo AiIO, CA 94306 . ; I - r Panel explores affordable housing • LOS ALTOS from Page IB erate" mcome, made-up or .. _orkin, couple with hifo chil­ dren, eamt up to '71,()()O • year, &:kn¥...tnoome family the I&lTl(! size eartl5 .38,600 CO ~,864 annual· Iy. • J7 nry·ktw-tnc:omt: untt:A. A "eT)'-1o-4ncome famOy of (OUT earns • 29.760 or less .. year. • 14 Io"-Incomo wilts, To qual_ ity Cor u.... UJlJ:Ia, • famlly or four woWd not em'1l more th&zI '39,864. L • 19 mod.eT&~lflCOme u.n.ita. M~ income means a family of four that eat'N *39,666 to *11,000. )/(:U, • 66 .. bove--~odet"8tt l..ro.eot't\f IIn.1~ (or !urJlies of ('OW" eam1i"lI f71,oiOO ,or :more.. -rhe oomm.ittee feels u..t \he dty can meet the-lUte". QUOta.. .. Ena __ "Our buic philoooplly 11 to U'Y to &ccompluh these thlnp "'thout eIwIg!ng tho 01> pearanc! of Lee AJtoe;, We odon't 'IVIZtt the looi" of "in8tvtt ~. We want to build housin& 10 that It fa compatible-with tbe wr­ """""'" neighborhoods· reac.h its &!fordable housing goals by furtt.e:r ~ oondomirii­ am cODveT'licm& and build.ing h!&her-density housing &nd m· c:reuing rental unl~ from exist­Ing hou""« __ H~ aaid ~ way is tD allow amat1 re::nLal: wtit& tn 'I.:I&c:!k yards to be OOW\ted as "l:vin,g I:nits" and to l:lciudE rooms Md£Q 1:Iu'ou.gh l"tl1\Odellng that are now being rentrd out. The cit)' also c:ouki e:ncoutqt owne1'!i of ~ of 1150,000 a.qUat'I! ret'(; or more to buUd an &tI.&t:hed or df'uched UJtlt of LIP to 640 squere feet atld rent Jt bl I"".-.income tetl.ant.s TheIle c:::JrUjd be used as rna:id"s quarters, for example. The committee'lS 811ggnUOM Eng Hld dw committee be-will 10 ID the rlty eoond] for ru~ Ii li~v" u.t Lot AJtoa can belt t:un-action. 1\-1 L i I j - -~----------- DI.A.L50N, BEBGE:.N &: SCHWAB 1'._ItTTr o ......... ~ '00C0 "~"'OOOI,.I" .11_1 ...... c. ~I:"':::II ... .,c; .. --. '''0::. ... E .. ~ .... q~" ~....,. ........ IIICE-': 1tCI~ .... .o.c:OII ,", .. u-.o", oJ .......... ... __ It .. .,:. 1>'11'''1:," Ms. 1ulia Maser Mr. Thomas Hise Mr. Michael L~ Ms. Aim VieiIa-Do-Rosa Ms. Shirley Wilson 30D S't"'P«"C~:O n ..... Mc' ....... SOu"''''£- zeoo t .. c:; ...... ,NO ""Co ... " ,.. .... 1.0 .. ;,. __ ~c, C"'I..I"::I~"t ... ';>"30e March S, 1993 Re: PlaM Community ~~ 4269-4273 E! Camino RuI, Palo Alto Members of !be Commission: RECEIVED MAR 9 1993 .t:..~II. .... 5;_·01 .. :11. ...t~I:~"1£ i""':!/ '''7'~~OO This firm n:prescnts Dimh', Hotel Corpor.!tion, 0"""'" and operaror> of Dinah', Hotel. The lot whlch is attempting ID De split off from :he Dinah', Shack property contalns • building now known as "Tamuacl: Executive Suites". Tamarack Suites ,its in the middle of !be !wo parIS of Dinah', Hotel. The location of the Tamaracl< Suites and the fa..rt Chat !be lot being considered for =ation is subSUllldard on multiple boses, bas zero setbacks on most sides, inu'wk:s on an casement owntd by Dinab', Hotcl, as well as bas no legal a=ss to Tamarac.k: CO".lrt should !be application before you becom< • sep= p=o!, l!lalces it of _ ~ to Dinah's Hotel. Dinah', Hotel, and its seven slwebnl<1cn;, all acknowledge the ooed for bnwing for the hom<less as .. en as very low income bnuslng. However, it is our position Chat !be sire being considered is inapproprialc and will do violeDee to all of the City', normal staDdanIs fOr !be allowan<Z of • subdivision, will be setting I otgalive precedent, and that the City will seod a very caIIO\15 message", businesses, boIels in specific, IS to !be Ctty's interest and =gnition of the impacl of Iand use decisions OD the bnsiJless ciliuns of Palo Alto. -.. Re: Pia om Community Zone Change March 8, 1993 Page 2 mSTQRY All of the propeny of Dinah's Hotel. Dinah's Restaura!lt (this oame wiD be use« in lieu of "Shack"), and Tamarack Suites was ODCe entirely owned by tire prior owrltrs of Dinah', RestaUrant until 1955. Those individual, wanted • hOlel operation on the back ponion of their property which would rece[ve services from the ReStaurant (i.e., room service). The entire site was considered to be dirt:cted to the hospitality business, that is, a restaurant and hotel ser\'-U!6 the ~blic. There were covenants and agreements between the seDers of the site to Dinah's HOlel with regard to the us.ge being restricted to botel Purpose.'>. provjding of ro .. ,m serv:ce by the restal!ranl. no o:ompet:ing businesses between the two sires, and giving the Hotel access to El Camino, among various other agreements be",,= tire parties. After the purchase of the Hotel site but while tire Hote! was still in the deveJopmem stage and nothing had gone beyond architects being !tired to do tire site pl.n. the ownen of Dinah', Restaurant got iota trouble with the law. Tbey left for Mexico. came back, f.ced trial, and were given a very few days to get rid of their property. As Dinah's Hotel was unable to pun:hase the property UDder the time restraints, the o.ner of Dinah's Restaurant sold this =ining property to Jobo Rickey. Ray Handley, on behalf of Dinah', HOIeI, went to ..., John Rickey til<: following day and expl.tined to him the covenants on the propeny and what was being built in reliance on the covenants and shared vision of !be prior owner of Dinah', Restaurant and tire owners of Dinah's HareL An offer was made to seU the Dinah's Hotel prope1'1)' at the price paid by !be Ho",1 to Mr. Rickey should he not share the same vision. Mr. Riclr~ seemed cooperative and d""lined to purchase tire Dinah's Horel propeny. Dinah's Hocel went on with its development a.oj construction, Tbe Hotel was developed with. singular <lyle and !andmar\;: landsr ... ping. The use of duel:: ponds and lagoons willI meandering paths was ~n as a unique anistic: accomplishment. Tbe design was fearurcd in ao e:<hibit at the De Young Musewn because of its high level of c.reativir:y and uniqueness. & ODC ARB member has descnDed the site and development by Dinah's Horel, tire site is • "hidden jewel". During the 1960's, difficulties had arisen between Mr. Rickey and Dinah', Hotel. The difficulties culminated in !be coDS[!Uctian of. redwood "spite' fence along that area which is DOW the border between Tarruu'"'3ck: Court and tbc RestaunmtfHotel site. As difficulties arose between the two owners. a one foot strip of !and was retained by the owner of Dinah's Hotel along tire Tamam:k Court side of the RestaUrantlHorel propeny as a means of enswiDg that til<: Reslawant owner did no! talce actions which would be deleterious to the Hotel operation. Tbe redwood spite fence caused a great deai of diffICulty for Dinah's Hotel. A., agreement was reached berween the Restaurant and Hotel owners in 1%9. It is a very shon agreemem -fWO pages -and is attach...~ for yow review. A more complete discussion of the one fOO! strip and 1%9 Agreernem is C<lmained UDder the heading "Multitude of Easement and Access Issues' . - ------ R.t: 'Plimnp:l Cmnmunity ZaP' Change ~b 8.1993 Page 3 The site where the Tam.arar;k Executive Suites DOW exists contained three concrete buildings until 1972. Viben the owners of Dinah's Ho"l bad anempted to pun::hase the strip that coruaiDs Tamarack Suires, they were told Illat there was no way they could .. quire that strip because of. personnel issue. Unbel:Mwnst to the buge numbers of Palo Alto R!Sidecrs who ~ Dimh's Shacl< for ilS supert fried chicken. the fried chicken chef was a Chinese gentleman wbose name was Chung. Mr. Chung resided in 0". of the buildings located 00 the strip. Mr. Chung could not speak English and !he operata" at Dinah's Shack felt it imperative for him to reside on the property. l'JIlIW2Ck Executive Suites was construcu:d in 1972. Dinall's Hotel did nOl objou to the constructioo on that 'itt for many reasons: they were distracted at the tim< and were not fully aware of the exact type of building be;"g pLumed; they were in favor of removing the three concrete == existi.ng on the site; they did DOt think it WOllld be considered I "neigbborly· thing to do to objea to ... !!.at their neighbor wished to do; and the)' felt assured that the City wou.id not allow an inappropriatt structUre to be built 00 such an odd sized pan of an overall lot. Dinah's Hotel did DOt realize they were conttnding with the then vel)' popuJ:u architect who bad just been r<eently designing Palo Alto's City Hall. The City at that time seemed to feel that this architect oould do 00 harm aod allowed him to construct the building you oow see on Ib, propeny. The building has zero setbacks on three sides and is essem;,lly a three story building on a lot the size of a huge home (approximiteiy 100' by ISO' lot), whicb partially encroaches 00 an casement given It' Dinah's Hott!. 10 the latt 1980's, after Mr, Rickey died, Mr. Aufinuth as representative for Mr. Rickey', trust discussed. joint venture arrangement Co operate the ~ural'C and Hotel. Unforrunately, sucb joint vetUUre agreemettt was never reached. It is .lear Illat the mose harmonious use of the property would be to allow one O'WIli:T or owners with common markets md in the hospitality bus ..... to comrol !he entire property, or for one owner ,0 at leas, control the Hotel and Tamarack sires. Ai Ms. Lytle stau:d in page 14 of the ARB transcript. the logical alttmative to the existing app:ication would be to see !he property incorpOIllted into the Dinah' s Hotel property, She ciu:d the history of the property owners to say thaI it was unlikely, l1w is DOt !he usc. Dinah's Hotel would be happy to acquire the Tamarack .ite or the entire Dinah's R<staur.tDl site (subject to !he righlS of Houston's). Unfortunately, Mr. Auftnuth will not entertain an offer from Dinall's Hotel for llC<jUisition of just the Tamarack property and will not even enrmain an offer for !he entire ~uram property (subject to the rigblS of Houston's) until this application is re.<olved. It was a mistake nOl to vigorously oppose the construction of Tamarack Suites in 1972. The owners of Dinah's Hotel will DOl make &" same mistake twice. Whlle we have every faith Illat the City will deal with this application for subdivisioo in an appropriale manner, we are all aware of the political and social • pull" of creating very low income housing for the homeless. Dinah's Hotel will have to oppose this application through the L , ·71····: ,-" , . -....--,{, ,"-J. - . -" " :- , . '" .~: ~~""'" . .. !' ~ ... --, Re: fla.nne4 ConU!lUnirv Zone Change March 8, 1993 Page 4 Cir:y and beyond. if oecessary . As observed by ARB n:ernber julie Maser: 'what happened twenty years ago wirn regard to the COn.stnJctiOD of Tamarack was craziness.· We fear that the City's approval of this application will merely compound that "craziness· and set it in concrete, Dever to allow for the natural and. appropriate land use to e::tist. MULTITUDE OF EA$E.YENT A]I,'D ACCESS ISSUES A num"oer of easements and agreements were created to allow the two businesses of restaurant and hotel Lo essent;aHy share what really should haYe been a site owned by one entity. There.are sign easements, access easemeI!tS, agreements to maintain view access from El Camino, Don:ompetition agreements. etcetera. A one foot parcel along Tamarack Court is owned jointly by Dinah's Hotel and the City of Palo AI,o. It is the position of Mr. Larry Aufmuth, representative of the Dinah's Res-.aurant owner, that the 1969 Agreemeru that is attached gives acces, to the Tamarack Suites parcel over that cne foot strip. We have been infOrtned the City ArtOllleY agrees with Mr. Aufmulh. Mr. A~fmuth's position is ;espectfuUy dL"'greed "ilb by the Dinah's Hotel. The 1969 Agreement must be read in light of all Ibe agre<:ments between the Restaurant and Horel. All agreements that were reached were done so with the understanding and belief that the only uses the property would ever have were as a restauraru and horel. The 1969 Agreemeru was eTltered into by Dinah's Hote! in order 10 ha'¥e the redwood fence reft-ITed 10 in the Agreement, the spite fence. removed and to assure that the utilities that ran uno its half of propeny located on Tamarack Court WQuld nor be -;ut off. Dinah's Shack wan!ed "' have the undergrouD<! utility usage, as well as agreements with respect t') the sharing of costs for creation of • driv<way aD<! lighting on the ",wer that still exists on the property. The one foot strip is not mentioned and was noc inrended to be covered by the 1969 Agreement. The Agrecmem was never intended [0 extcDd to parties olller than those that signed the Agreement. It was an agreemeru [0 ru. ... .her use of the two properties to support one another on this unusual site. The Agreement was not fashioned in recordable form or in an appropriate fonnaJ manner, even though botai parties were represented by anorneys. The last paragraph of lhe Agreement does reference a sharing of costs in the everu: the easements need to be recorded. and the agreement of the parties tD execute documents to record the easements. However, for over two decades, no demand was made for recording of e.a.s...-ments because both parties understood the intent of the Agreement and how it fit into the context of other agreements between them and what was necessary for the mutual benefit for L - -~----~~--~--.--------- ~: P!:yw.;d Cornmunirv Zoe LI1allge M.rn:b 8, 1993 Page S their two businesses. The 1969 Agreemeru was !lOt intended to benefit I third party, sucb lIS Mid­ Peninsula, woo comes to the site with an eD1irel)' diff= use and agenda, II is belieYed by this fi.."IIl that the attorney for the Dinah', RestalL'lIIIt prepared the two page agreement. The As=cnt did not specificaUy provide that successors or ... ips benefit from the AgiOCmtlll. It fli •• in the face of =son and 1egal prcced<:nt that this Agreement can be coDlOrted such .. to provido an .. semenl oyer the one fOO( proprny for any OWDCr of a new subdivided 1'=1. The fact that the City was 00\ approach:d with regard to an ea.<l!IlJent over its .5bare of the one fOO! strip also supports our argumem that the one foot strip contimles to e.tist and block access to • new pa=I. It was never inImlded that thi'tl parties benefit from the 1969 Agreement, and certainly not new partie:; that "'" DOt in the bo<pitAlity business or conducting • similar business on the site, We understand that the City Attorney bas relied on Mr. Au.'muth', cbaracrtrizatiOIlS in detemtining that the one foot strip does DOt block access fo< a DeW parcel. We would respectfully r<qUCSt tbal the City Attorney', Office reconsider its position, It must be Ullderstood that the IlUIIlbers of ~ and agn:emems were reacllcd and needed between the operators of the two bcsine&e! conducted on the property - hotel and resaurant -and "'" much like the agrcemems reached by retailers in • shopping COllier. Retailers pay the !tigher rem of ~ COllier and submit to the number of covenants and conditions in shopping = Ieaseo reganIina the type of itemS they can sell and the hours of """ration because they recognize that being in • location with compatible busIDo:= subject to the same COVCIWlLS and. conditions creates a mulUally desirable CDvironment for .all the busin<sscs. The whole of • shopping COtlUcT lw a greater _on than anyone of its tenantS. The history of this site can be best understood if you keep that analogy in mlnd. It is interesting to note that while it is Mr. Aufmulh', position now that the 1969 Agreement created an C2Selllent over the one fOO( strip, it was !lis position in udier discussions with regard to the agreements betWeen the two operators that those ~ would cease to exist with the death of Mrs. Rickey and Mr. Handley. On CDC band be sees agreemenIS which tetminatc with living parties and canDO! be assigned, while on the other be sees the 1969 Agreement as being effective to grant an easement III unrelated parties over a one foot strip which is never referer=d in the AgreemcDl, nor is the co-owuer of the ODe foot strip, the City of Palo Alto, ever mentioned. THE "NO CHANGE IN USE" MISAPPBEIfflNS[ON Througbo\lt the staff reports and discus.ions wt have been reviewed, it appears thaI much of the support for this project is founded upon a belief that the use by , ~ , \ ., , ' , 1 1 i , , , , I .j' J J , I I i i · , '.r-.' .. -'J > ."'->._------,;._. ----,~--.. ,,- R.c; P1armr4 CQmpwnjrv Zone Change Mucll 8. 1993 Pag.6 Mid· Peninsu!.a Howing of the Tamarack Suite, will tlO! be a change from its .,isti.'1g use. Tbis is I major misconception. TamAraCk Suites was ro=ted as a boteL It initially operated as a hotel and pai~ room t!X til the City of Palo Alto. At some poillt • chang. was made so as to acc..."t only tenanlS whcse length of stay was of at least Ihirty days duntion. T =15 now stay an ."""'80 of six weeks and L~ comprised of corutruction workers. trainees (i .•.• the local J.C. Penney's had trainees thert for a period of ti'lle). in<tividual5 going through divon:es and 01her ttansltion points in their lives. and relatives of individuals hcspi!.ali=l at Stanford H~spilal. It is our ~g that the oeeupancy is generally no more than 50 to 60 percent of potential oa:upaocy. The tenaots of Tamarack are allowed use of Dinah's Hotel pool acilities. Tcis was in recognition of the reality that it is impossible to effectively keep Tatnarack oa:upants from the Dinah's Hotel recreatjonal area. Mr. Aufmuth had previously claimed serious damage would occur to IDs business if the pool was not ava ilable to Tamarack patrons. Converting !IllDSient to permaneru hcusing is a real cl=ge with substantial impact on how the TamAraCk SWtes will be used by its oa:uparus. Mr. Aufmuth has stated a! the ARB as follows: there will be ".bsoIUlCly 00 change as to who will live in it and use of premises". However. Mid-Peninsula represenutives acknowledge T=k is now a "temporary botel". 'The perspecti,. of a teoant in t!1IIlSient housing or a "temporary hotel" is very diff= than that of a tenant in hOll.ling that he expects to live in for. six to eighteen month period. It was the testimony of the Mid-Peninsula Housing reprcsenra:tive before !he ARB that it was his expectation thaI = would he in cbe Tamaru:k Suites far. sL-.. to eighteen mcDlh period. if not longer. The application of the Mid-Peninsula Housing said that it would use cbe Tamanck Suites "to house families with children (parent!s] and child) aod single households." If the City approves the su!xlivisian, you would be placing esEeotially permanent bo'Jsing in !he nricldle of • hotel and restaurant parl<ing lot. People staying at • rransiem facility L"e DOt as oensitive to issues such as the ocise and rommotion caused by restaurant and hotel operations. If. wedding or meeting occurs at the hotel, or should customers of the reswmmr thaI is going to be operating al the site (Houston's) IIlllke noise going in and out of their cars at nigllt •• tenant in transient housing is less likely to attempt to restrain the operations of the neighboring bU5~. A tenant in long term bousing lias every rigllt to rome before cbe City with an objection as to the = operation of neighboring businesses and to object 10 planned expansions of the botel and restau.,uL The new character of the tenants at Tamarack will handcuff the operators of the Hotel and Restaurant. Dinah's Hotel was designed to be on, ,ite with romp.uble uses. Pedestrian flow through the Hotel paths. along its lagoons. bridges and pool cannot be effe<:tively restrained. r---~-----~-~ .. --.-.• L - 1k: P1ann¢ Cpmmunit} Zone Change March 3, 19'13 Page 7 We must address • mis<:onception that was crealfd by Mr. Aufmuth w repcatM by stAff II prior meetings. It was repre.s.nted th>t Houston's, the propo<ed ol"'rator of the restauram who is oegotiating for • Icase on the promises (and who was ,.lSI last weel< grame<I approval by the ARB), would DO! br'.ng its very =SSfUJ operation 10 Palo Alto unless !he Tamarack Suites were converted as requested by the appli<ant. Mr. Aufmuth say. 00 page 14 of !he ARB meeting trans<:ripl thar 'we have Houston', coming before this Board in January, absoIllltly C<Jnditioned on this deal (fBIDllnCk subdivision) going fcrwanl ... ' I enclose a copy of a letter from Houston'S denying such condition. All residents of Palo Alto 1001< forwanl to having Houston's, which is expected to be • $4 million • year generator of business with coccomitalll lUes poy>bl. to th< City locate in Palo Alto. Dinah's HOIeI bas done nothing to a1iellale Houstoo', and bas .ttemplfd to be supportive of Houston', in moving into the abandoned Dinah', Slw:k location. crorPBEN After it was poinl<d out to Mid-Peninsula Housing that !he Tamarack location would absolutely DO! wode for cIIi!dren, Mid-Peninsula changed its cbaracterization of po1mIiaI tenants in its wriaen application of 'families with cbildcen' to saying that the <arget population wouIci be singJe individuals. It is very difficult to address the moving target which Mid-Peninsula bas created, however, it is only logical to """""'" rhat since !he residents of this DOW very low income bowing = !he llomoless or aboul to be homeless (the ~OD in the applkarion), an individual is DO! going to be as appealing • ten.ant "" an individual with. child or childcen. It is inconceivable that Mid-PeninsuJ>, if Frescnred with two potential tenants: a bOille!ess single indi"'idual and 2. homeless individual with a child, is going to allow the child to stay 00 the streets rather than be pul into Tam .. : .. ck. There will be as many childcen in TamL"8Ck as Mid-Peninsula can :;ave WJID !he streets. Remember, Mid-Peninsula was being = wben it cha.."aCteriud Tamarack as • proposed development for 'very low income individuals and small families.' On any sort of. DOeds basis, people with children will cert>inly have priority for Tamaru:lc over single individuals. Also, it is acknowledged by Mid-Peninsula rhal it cannot legally di.scrimina!e against children or pregnant women. Once in Tamarack, child .... " will have 00 pLace 10 play or enjoy the outdoors. They will be mvleoiably dnwn and attracted ~ the lagoons and duck pom's of Dinah's Hotel. Adults, as wen as cJ.ildren, will oaruraIly gravitate to Dinah', Hotel and the open space that is !he entry :0 Hyatt Hotel across EI Camino from the TaDlaIaCk. The transient tenants who stay at Tamarack now have jobs and activities occupying their time. Mid­ Peninsula will be placing individuals wbo an: probably uoemplo)'ed ODd therefore have free time to be filled. A speaker for the ARB pointed (oUt !he baz&rds that can arise from people who live in Tamarac!:. being atttaclfd to such locations. An individual was recently killed L - Re:; Planptd Community Zone ~ MAn:ll 8, 1993 P3gc g crossing El CdlItino at that location. The Tamarack = is an urt>ao type of building with no setbacks and 00 land but tt.e land whicb !he building itself =tS on. It will always reiy on adjacent property for its facilities, for open space, and parlting. PARKING Mid-PeninsuLa H"'lSing argues that parking is WI • problem on this site as there are twcor, parl;ing spaces underneath the Tamaracl< building. Theso are the only spaces for this buildlng. UnfortUnately, vans cannot clear the limited elevarian and so would 001 be able 10 parI< downstaiIs. It is expectcll many of the occttpam, of the type of housing proposed would have vans as they are very utilitltrian vehicl .. for those who are homeless. Furthermore, tlle easiest and most attractive parking for both tenants and visitor; 10 Tamarack is on hotel property. Mid-Peninsula argues tblIl in projects of this son, few tenanlS have cars, however, tenants who my in this facility for the period of time projected may be oble to acquire a car, and they will certainly have visitors woo may have cars. Mid­ Peninsula even aclmowledges that many of the people they propose to place in the Tamanck are pnosen1ly living in cars. The agrcemerus bet"""", the Restaurant and Hotel provide tblIt each must pro>'ide a<k<juate parking for their own uses. If Mr. Aufmuth claintS the 1969 Agreemem benefi13 no .. · !O Mi<!-Penlnsula, then the parking obligations must also flow 10 Mid-PeniDsula. Tbe parking requirements of !be City for a 22 unit apartment building require more parking than this project can provide. ONSITE SUppoRT The application illdicates tblIt !he Urban Ministry will provide support on site. Jim Burklow indicated in an earlier meeting that the Urban Ministry serves 100 to 150 homeless people a day. There is DO .... """"'" tblI! the onsite supp<>rt tblIt will be provided may IlOI at some future point become a support for all homeless being served by the Urban Ministry. W. are DOW seeing the administrator of the Urban Ministry change and as time goes on it is unclear just what necessity may drive the Urban Ministry and Mid-Peninsula Housing to use all facilities avallable to them to be used \0 serve their constituents. If Tamarac!< becomes ve1)' low iIlcome housing for the OOmeloss or about to be homeless, it would not be inconceivable for !be Urban Ministry and Mid-Peninsula Housing li) use this rewurce in the community to serve not only the 21 rcsi4ents of Tamarack, but all its constilUellL5. Parldng and the additional draw of individuals by expansion of !be support facilities to other> than just the residents of Tarnamck would have a devastating effect on Dinah's Hotel and adjacent businesses. - Re: fj,onr4 Cpmmunity Zone Change Mm:h 8, 19?3 Page 9 IMPACT ON RESIDENTS As Ms. Maser brought out, the pe~tive of a tenant wbe bves ill Tamarack must be considere<i. As Ms. Maser said, 'the one thing that h>s not been brought up is the psycbological impaC'", of being in this building in the midst of what is • very tenlpring and lIpSQIe ""ighboffiood. parti<:ularly for children, aoo oot being allowed to participate io that neigbborbood, That is an extremely uncomfonabIe situation for everyone: involved. For them, i: giv ... sense of isollltion and JXl real sense of community. To me, that is very importam for anybody in tbat situation.' It is apparent Ms. Maser is absolutely correcl. PAl 0 ALTO'S MESSAGE TO BUSINESSES Dinah's Hotel has been an excellcm business citiun of Palo Alto. While ether betels in the community wen: witbdIawing the suppott for their betels and DO! investing in them, Dinah', Hotel spent $1.5 million in the last rwo years to upgrade its facilities. It bad plans 10 conIim1e spending similar amounts of mo""y in the future. We are attempting to make Dioah's Hotel a premier betel with continued attta<:tivenoss Ul the business customer we serve. In prevjoos years, Dinah', contribution of room revenue taX was in the range of S250,OOO.OO. We expected that comnbution to Palo A1.o Ul be $350,000.00 this year. 'W'hat you do with regaro to Tamanck is gcing Ul give. message not only to Dinah's Hotel as to wbeze it should invest its money, but to Hyan and other hotel operators ill the City of Palo Alto. NO! oDly will botel opemors hear the message, but tbe ten local companies which comprise 85% of Dinah's Hotel business will also see and e;q>erience the effect of PalD Alto's land use decisions. Will the Cll), be giving business.. .. the message of the desirability of iovesting in :he City and e.panding aDd C<lntinuing operatioos' Or is Palo Alto going to encourage a socia! experimem never tried before -pJacing perma.ncnt housing fer the bomeless or about to be homeless in the parking lot of. restaurant and hotel? Due III the covenants on the land, Dinah's Hotel property =t be used for lUIything 0!Ita !ban hotel operations. The owners of Dinah's Hotel feel so strongly about this matter of the application by Mid-Peninsulo tbat they would propose to the City tbal Ill.ir site .Iso be acquired if there is so mucb mo""y from the federal govemmetll availible for such uses as are IIOW being considered. You would be destroying most, if oot all, of the incentive tbal the 0WII<rs of Dinah's Hotel have to improve their property and expand for additional uses and services Ul the businel;, community. Dinah's recently e,e.tod I meeting room which bas been very popular with local businesses. They would hope Ul add additional meeting rooms, however, with the swam of this application banging over them and n !lOt being clear just how the OCC'Jpants of Tamarack might respoI¥l to the increased n .. ffic and noise additional meeting rooms might cause, suc~ plans have been suspeoded. L , , . .> , . , , ...•. -:-}. i ;: ':"-" j ' ...... I . ~ I - .: ~~~:;~~~;~;~'~:~"-. ~l~tT-' Re: PIilIlIl£d Cgmmunity Zone Chang Marth 8, 1993 Page 10 CONCLUSION What ~ !lave bcforo the City al this time is alJ issue of !aDd use ""mpatibiliIY. The City IDIISI balaDce its desire to meet the needs of !be hatlJel=, wbo ltlOIy or may Il001 be IeSIdc!I!s of Palo ;\lto, agaimt !be =ge it will be giving regarding !be value it pIa= CD !be ooods of Palo Alto', good business citizens. TlUs piece of land sbould no:vcr !lave been aIIC1Wed 10 be COIlSid=d for subdivision. When Mr. Aufmuth fIrSt approached City staff with zcpn: 10 subdivision of this site, be was !l.atJy informed that subdivision .... ouId be impossible. Now that !be issue of homeless and very low iD<:omt housing is being used as !be c:bampion of !be subdivision, aU the variances and difficulties which staff saw as ovcrwhelmiDg ~, are DOW = tecbnioalitics. A citizen of the con:mlllCity such as Dinah's Sllack which allows • om. to be tun down and ahiUldonc<i for so long is being given !be oppor1llllity to receive • windfall because !be ItIOlIOy is coming from the fcdmJ govemmem and is txIIally DOt economically well fowlded. The inability to acquire the Tammclc site in • bcsiness = is very fnI<trating. Th: site is being sold fot a nnu:h bip:r prkc 10 Mid-l'e!IimuIa that it was offered to be sold to private parties during the g0- go real _ marbt of !be w. 1980' s. A good clIiun S1lCh as Dimh's Hote! and ""'founding boIel opem1On will be burdened with a housing omit in !be midst of. bote! zone in pe:pc!IIity. This is IIO! 50UIId !aDd use pl.a!ming. Dinab', Hold n:spectfuIly requests that !be applicalicn of Mid·Pecinsula be denied. This will allow !be DOIIIr.Il use of !be !aDd to evolve by acquisition cilher by Dinah's Hotel or Houston's. The IlDII=igncd will be p=t at !be March ]0, 1993 meeting for additional ""= and q'JCStion.s. AGB:b!hs CC: ARB Memb= Planning Commission Members Sue Case, City Attorney', Office Staff - FEE-2-83 TUE :&:15 CAMEl BACK/ESPLANADE FA,X NO. 602,5321!2 City 0: Palo Alto Pla.nninq and Zoning .oeporuc.en't 250 Hamilton Avenua Palo Alto, california 94301 Attn: Nancy Lytle, Zonilig' Adminiatrator Ita: Propcaed 1I""ltcn'. 1'.81tlOur&1lt 42~9 El C&aino Real 1)61lr MIl, Lytle: RECEiVED ",AR S 1993 I.t. bas c::ome to our atta.ntiCln that yC".Jr under.tanding of O'l.1r project'. viability is contingont on the approval 0: tho M!d­ Pcn1n ...... la !>=sl..nq proj .. ct on TlOlIIarac Court_ I want to ulure you t.b.a.t this is not. the ca... OUr p<lsition alw.ys baa ~en and will re_ain neutral toward. the ho~:ing project. We have submitted to th. A.R.i., &t your diraction, a. t.hough the prcperty will be divided; but 1t is our understandin9 that our projact will meat your criteria Whatever the oute"". ot the Mid-Penin.ula pr .. ject application. We wOllld simply rev i •• ~xr .ite plan to alialnat. the proposed property lub-division linn and all other aapeets or our .ite plan drawing-vill ~. accepted. aa discussed and shown~ . V?k:Ji;;:' _ Allen Good. Vice PTeaident -Design ec: Palo Alto permit fil. p, 02 A G R £ E MEN T _i;; .;"':"J'?-;.J TiilS AGREEMEN'l' , Jtl,adll! thi ... 7:":-dt'::y of 196$1, by 4tld between DINAH'.!: BOTE!. And DINAH'S Sr.ACK-?ALQ +:u.TCl. WI 'I'NES S~'I'H ~ W"rlERZA.S, Oinah'a: Shaek";".Palo Alto owns reo.l prop3:rty located at 4269 El Camino Rea1, Falc Alto, California. and iiiiERE.AS, Di.nah'lI Bot.el O"'"ll~ real property loc.3 tt.:~ at. (26 S E1 Camino Real, Pal~ Alt.o. Cali.fornia, to the rear of Dinab's. Shac:';'­ P.lo ~to property and .... ~Jip of land adjacent .to Tamarack Court; and WHJ:.R.EAS, tli.r.alJ·s Hotel is desiro";.1.s of obtainirlg t.1-o.e righ~ to place a sign ~t the corner ot T~ack Couxt and E1 camino on Dinah's Shack-Palc lite property; and W!iER:z:!AS, .both tlinab' s Botel and Dinah' s Shack-Palo Alt.o are desirous 0; prov~ding easements for ing4ess and egress bot.h for vehieu..l&r ar.d. pade5trian traffic bat.ween the.ir respective propcrt.ies ~~kEAs, D~&h'. Hotel is desirous of obtainicg an e~sE­ mont tor ~~dergroun4 electrical utilities service £.om its property t.o Tazar ad:; COyrt. parties he.e~c as follows! 1. Oinah's Shack-Palo Alto does bereby grant to Dinah's Hotel a.n eiUiament to place a sign ~ve.ti ... ing Dinah's Motor Botel Dot the corner of El ·Camino Real and Tamara.ck Court upon the property ¢f Dinah's Shack-Palo AltO eo B$ not to Qisrupt the prescnt off- street parking and driveway; Dinah'5 Botel shall ha;,'e t..he .right to run a conduit for e.lectrica.l !Service to said II>i-gc from the strip of. l~nc borde=ing Tamarack Court owned by Dinah's Hotel; Dinah's Betel sha11 at all times kaep said sign in good workins condition and in a IState of goocl repair. WlU.1AM E. ANDERSON. JR. -_ ........ -....., ~o Al..TCI. CAUfalUUor, • __ :11.1400{) "~-.-.------ - 2. Th&t &6 consideration for ~e qranting of the right re­ ferred to hereinabove in Parl.l.9'r<l.ph 1., :Oinah' ... Hotel hereby gr.a.nt~ t.o "",jJ,..~~l:·t Din.ah·$ Sha.ck-Palo Alto one axxm"'r~~'rion-exC:ll.J,SiV(! easc,.-tl~!'_t4 for in- gres5 ~c. egress: 'a.n.d uncIergrou..",~ 't.ltil.ities hetween Ta:ccxack Court U I!I!lCIm, on E);hibit A attac:hl!!'ej ~d the property of Dinah's Shaek-P&lo Alto/ and f~r~her that Dinah's ~ (h--ere-£o and made I!II part hereof Shack .. Palo Alto 5hall grAl'lt to Dinah's"Hotel oil. non exclusivE 6Asement ._'; for undergroune untilities from ~~rack Court to Oinah's Botel pro- PQrty benoath ""..he existing' 24' eueme.nt;> that each party shall bear one-half {1/2} of the COSt to install &~id 5urface in~recs and C9rQ~S, said 1/2 not to exceed $250.00; that each party shall bear equally th~ cos~ of mainte~ance of the same. 3. Upon the obtaining of an ~nsurable non-excl~sive e~se- Jnent between 'i'~arack Court and Dinah's Sha.ck-Palo Alt.o property, Oinah's Shack-Palo Alto ~ball re~ve the existing redwoQd fence that has beec and is ~oeated on the property line of Dinah's Shack-Palo Alto adjacent to 'l'~ack Court .. and said removliill sha.ll be at the expense of Dinah's Sh.~~-P&lo ~to~ 4. rn the event Dinah'$ Shack-Palo Alto obtains approval from the City of Palo Alto to place lighting of some form on the tower lo~ated on its property~ Di~~~'5 Motel shall bear one-ha.lf {1/2} of the cost thereof not to ~xceed $1,300.00 for one-half. 5. 1t ilS understood between the parties hereto that ea.ch vill execute ~h~tever papers are necc~sary to record the above re­ ferred to easement&,' and that a t~tle policy will be i$Sued insuring the ri9ht~ of each of the partieB to in9res~ and egress referreQ to aoovc, the cost. to be borne eqUAlly between the pa.rti~.s hereto. IN WITNESS WQZREQP the parties hereto have executed this agreemen~ the day and year first above written. DINAH'S HOTEL ',' ';' I' P.'}'" tDh ~(g-"..~ c:..;...:,.. ~;.v RECEIVED '" S~ f..l~ ClJ.,..,. 9 1993 'P >-tr. CtiC~ jeA 9 '130 I ClEPNmOENTO<'PWIHIHG """ COIoIMIJNI1'( ~ ~~, P.tu-.. ~~ r "1> O.u.o GW"4-'~ ~!.-1 ~(~'>~.J> '\~~. Pdea.u.. ~ ~~r,..! ~~ --6 ~ "--", k L. ""-~..,,\, ..... "-"-"-...--.;.. ~ O>~~ .' :-J., u 1"'" \! ....... J:.~ ~, <t <:I " ,h-<~~~ .. ( .Q.'~'b' rr,'0...u .. --\ '3 E' (' ',:' ')::, c~ \'4<. .... p~ ~IC1"Iq~3~t ~,-! Royston H:mamoto Alley & Abey 2:U IotI.L\l:r ,~, ... "R"'" Mi!l .... ..tley C ... 9ot1oOo09)7 .:s 1IJ..1'IOO :;: .... X.I'JII'l-IOJ ------------------- January 8, 1993 Mr. Ek>mard Beecham ChairpersonL P:aMfng COIT.mission City 01 Palo Allo 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94306 RE: DINA/i'S HOTEL Dear Mr. Beecham: RECEIVED We are a professional firm of landscape arcnHects and planners, and we .are writing you at the req~.x Raymor.d Handley. His comp.lny, Renault & Handley. developed what is known as Dinah's Hotel. We we", the original site designer; .x that development, be!!;inning about 1957. The architects were Campbell and Wong. We are presently working with Mr. Handley on refurbishing and upgrad i ng 01 the property. In 1973, when I was visiting Mr. Handley at the hotel, I was startled to "'" a three-story building placed between Dinah's Hotel and Dinah's Apartments. It was clearly a strueture vastly different than these of Mr. Handley. Itju't didn't belong. Dinah's Holel architectu<e had won awards and accolade, from such critics as Architectural Forum and the Architectural Record, and even House & Carden. The Tarnarack project divided Drnah's Hotel p."ysicafly, visually, and architecturally. The one con.solation was the building's tlse a!! an exe-cutive notel was compatible in u:;e with Dinah's Hotel. Housing.. l'egardless of high or low income tenants, requi!'"es thaI use of exterior spaces be addressed, for viewing. relaxalion, recreation ar.d dining. wnich the Tarr .... ck property does not offer. Recrealion space for Ihe T a rna rack property does nOl exist. and the p.lrki ng is questionable. This building drives a wedge between two sectioos 01 Dinah's Hotel; where do children go to play or visitors to park? The pr~ use for the Tamarack property, thaI of low incoOTle housing. certainly must be questioned. It is our professional opini"" that if the Tamarack is to be used for hot:5;ng it will nOl only cause an uncomfortable relationship between the two areas of the holel but ma~ go fa, af",ld from tradilional City planning within an ac,epted Comprehensive Plan. ~ LoIIm N ... .,...... FASLA I..,)q ...... H~FASLA L..J6: l.vuo Abey.uu 'L10J7 '-'io (j Ak)o "14 LCl7l6 htriI:iI:" CvbW AS1..A ~/It 1: .... ,.-.IUU Lilli :a.rtMInI 0 ~ ASLA tol" I :toWM S ~na .... SI.A t lo(IIl; '"'--Ct.t,; L tlu.eea: oI..5Lot.. 1.1 2.;.] l.a>U1 J L'Yllll -'SLA APA Wi.!l>u! E. :F. A.SLot.. WJ' u... .... AUIO! ~ A.SLA.. Ll21l En!: G s..,.,-ASU U179 !Ienn t.-.ft ... 5,-" ~ N~""" As.UI. l.2(W~ ~D_".a.n.er"-SoL.'" L0J 1t.obnt L. Wwr AS ..... ." .. , "':".,~' ;;­ . :~'>i~: :,i ~~ .. Mr. Bernard Beecham -2-January a, 1993 Placing ve<y low income hou,jr>g within a beautiful garden hotel complex must be reconsidered. N lease the use 01 the Tamarack Pfoperty as an extended·stay corpo!ate hOieI made some sense in location, if not aesthetic;, Please reconsider!h is proposa I. Sincerely, cc: Tony Carrasco PatTicia Cullen 8ill Giazier Pam Marsh VICtor Ojakian Kathryn Schmidt :.'. - --;.~-- <~'"" lP1 :~ ~! ~9~ IDJ OEPA.RTMC:N I OF t"'lJ\I .. f'IIlN8 CITY OF PALO AI. TO It is; the request of Dinah'J Hotel that i. 101 !;ubdivision propo5Cd by Dinah', Shack Restaurant be denied, The improved property in qu~"'rion is oommonI) known as Tamaraclc Court Executive Suiles. We are asking for this denial ror the following reasons: 1. The entire klt: is «Wered with .. J-story building. 2. There. are DO provisions (or .s.u;rface parking. although this could be corrected by enIa.rpjng tM site. There 2J'e '20 subterranean parking spaces and there are 22 apartmem units. 3. The otalf ropon of the Palo All<> Planning Commission ignores th< fact that the entry to the building is tncumbered by an easement poted to Dinah·s Hotel. 4~ There is no outside or ins.ide recreation area avaiIabie to the tenants· either a.fujt or child. The property is an ",tegraJ part of Dinab', Hote~ '" therefure H QfUlOt be fenced for the. purpose or ic.knti5eation or containment 5. The property Iw no lopl frontage on Tamar.od< Coun. The bUilding site u located on • wedge between Dinah', Hotel Suites and the rest of Dinah', Hotel. 6. ThCiC U CXtnside~e spcruIatioQ as to ~ effects thai low cost housing would have on the occupancy of Dinah·, Hotel and Suites Dinah·s Hotel and Dinah's Shack: Restaurant origina.l.1y jomed together on November 25, 1955 in a mutual agreement to best serve the public. It is reas.or.ablc to raise the question wbetbcr the public would be but served by introducing a cew element (lm.' cost bowing) thai might be considered to be a social c%periment. If the effect of this wert ilIdeed damaging. it would be di$a.SUous to Dinah·s Hotel. Since property ,,-alues arc always dependent upon tht environment in wbich !be property em ... Tamaradc Coun uccotive SIOi tos ;. not a proper location for low ClOSt housing. 7. The property is .ffectd by covenants that .pecifically ,tate that both parties ,haJl provide: "adequate parking for its own guests and customers-. Litigation pertaining 10 these: covenants is pending. , '" - ~. :r' '~¥'. lR< U~ IE n ~[ID 1\\ DEC PZ 1992 DEPARTMENT Of pI"ANNING CITY OF PALe .UTO F'~:;E,(t! Archi~ Review BOOId City 0( Palo AltO De=nbcr 2, 1992 230 Hamil!xm A\'t!l~ !'RIo Abo, CA AIIr.: M •. Lomine Weiss FAX; 329-2240 Member.; of Ill. ~ I am writing in ",¥ ... 'IlS to the propc»e<l Homeles. SheIlOf 11 1M TBnUI1'%Ck Court lio.,l, 4269-4273 EI CamInO RaJ, Palo Alto. I, my family and all of 1M neighbor. I !a~ spol<e.~ 10 .... vehemently opposed 10 [hi. proposed .beIter. The fOLSOn> for our Opposition ~ numerollS and include such concerns as: 1. The sarm X of m1r chilm, The rcpre3CI\tltive of ::he Mid-Peninsula Housin, Coalition !as Stated tha, !he ooalUiOll will accept reruen with • <:riminaJ hisuy an<! no proofofpriorresid= for lIP to 3-4 y=s, Worse yet is !he tendenc)' for !oiterin& by other un ..:hccked residents and !he pmmulg.ui()n of a.ssociaJed criminal activity. 2. Severe djmmtjpn of a. closc fPJJ'ily neiEhbarhood. 3. Wl.Pgn of tIlis neiehbomood from !he rest of Palo Alto. Our ~ghborhoo.:l is curm1~y SUITOIInded on Ihrce sides by: the rail road tracks 10 !he cas:; low· Ux--<>me apenmen' comple .. , 10 the sooth alone Del Medio (MO\J!1tain View); ."d EI CEmioo 10 m. weot. By placement of the Homole<; Shelter te our north wo: be>~me S:WTOunde:d 00 four ndes and isolated frotD the rest of the com:nunity. 4. The proposed ynfair zooiD, 'rJIiinD£CjS and the resulting cnC\U1'1brance on OW' property values.. This las, i$Sue i. the one to which I ...ru addre .. you In. membero of the An:hitecturaJ Review Board as il is in your po~ 10 disallow th. propooed vari.ances. My wife and 1 have lived in Palo Allo for lO yem now. We both wo.xed very hanl to purchase & home in Palo AltO .so that we could raise oW' future children in I safe family· oriented neighborhoM. Beca.Ull:. of the accepted high cost of hOtlsing, in this area we bought a small 864 1,2 house on • ."bstandortlloi in B"""" Park. "''hen we found oUl th&t we were expecting a ~hi!d we iItvcstigated the pos$ibility 0( addin, 00" room to OW' hou.$C. We were infarmed by the Planning Department that due 10 required se'-bacb a..nd daylight pl&l\e requ1ttments '.n a.ddition wa.s imp0'Siible. Bec.u~c. of thc Palo Alto ''oln1.ng requirements as apphed to us we W~ farced to move. We pu:rehased a. home of sufficient size this year in Monroe PulL This purchase carm. It the expense of CJlltrc.tnC fmanc.w bardsltip, but we wanled 10 raise OUT ohild in. safe family-orienled neighborhood in Palo Alto. 'L I I j ~ , t DEC :2 '82 17:( P~GE.,IJ.2 Now w. find out from OW' neighbon (with DO notification from til. l'lannini Depanmenl) tlW then: i, & plan 10 build. homel.ss lhelter ClIO street nOlth of our new home. To do thU <he Planning 0.;,-' is con,;derine allowing uvera! Vlria.nces, _II which ... " 1 • A .."., from setback, where 20 reel is standard. 1. A =0 !inl floor ,ide setb&cl<, when: 10 feet is smn4a111 3. A 7..5 rcol sccood noar side setback. where 17 reet i. standard. 4. A daylight plane procrllsiort 6 reet hieh far 32 feo!. rI we IwI bee. allowed such ~, after working I!!td and conll'il>yting to !he CODlm\If',ity for 10 yell'S, .... would hIve lidded on 10 our previ"". home and not moved. Thus ovokIiftg !he extmne finon<:W b8!dship ;ve ate =ntly in. Wrme yet tverything ... e mo.cd 10 Palo AIla for", safe family-oriented IlCighborbood" would be destroyed by the propoaed ohelrer. r. Illi. faiJ'l PIcuc find il in yClUl' wisdom to be f&iT 10 Ihose families that ha •• worked b.ml to affonllO 1M Palo Alto. Vo<c DO on these ploposcd variJrn. .... Eric D. Wachsman 112 Monroe Dr. Palo AlIa, CA 94306 !WI I - Royston Hanamoto AlJev& Abey --------- November 19,1992 Ms, Vieira~Da-Rosa, Ai no W Ioblar A_a­ NU! .... ....,. C:" Io6il.(l9)l '1~ ".J-~ FAX"!! !&J-JO} Chairper;on, Arcnitec1ural De,ign Rev;ew Board City of Palo Alto P.O. Box 10250 Palo Allo, CA 94303 RE: DINAH'S HOTfl Dear Madam; We are a professional firm of landscape architects and planners, and we a,e writing you at the request of Raymond Handley. His company, Renault & Handley, developed what is kno\Ml as Oi nah I 5 Hote r. We W,,", the original site designers of that developmen~ begin"ing about 1957. The architect; were Campbell & Wong. We ar~ presently working with Mr. Handley on refurbishing and upgrading of the property. AI the time (1957) the adjoining property. now suggested f", hoosing. was an integral part of the Dinah's Shack property and not a separate parcel. Our profe<sional opinion is that if a portio., of the Dinah's Shack property is to be used f'" housing (the proposed new usel, it will cause an uncomfortable relationship between the two areas of the hotel. The housing portion of the Dinah's Shack property will need additional parking and some outdoor garden or recreational space for adults and perh.ps children, space that does not exis: in the proposed property 'pliL Please recon,i<iEr this proposed spliL I hope this will be of some help in your design review. Sincerely. 'hr'W'N&~~ RliW,to Principal kf cc; Nancy lytel, Director of Planning. City of Palo Alto Raymond Handley. Renault & Handley P'rW:ipais lolom Jri. ~ F4SLA t...Wa AM H~ F~l.A uo x.n.c Alley ASU LI~:n l..<IU G. ~ AlA. l.CJ7,Ni hr.....ca.. .... C&riiM o\SLA Harold N. 1.~.-..sUo LlIll ...... D.llUldboq...sUo ~I~j ,10""",,, 5 s.."~ 'SL .... UMI .......... er.c. B. ~..-.sUo l..r:~1 u.n J. 1....rlc! "-SUo AF-A Wlllazm!. F .. ASLA ~J' ~ .... ..w, ...... or Lq.0.5u. un] Eri< G_ s.,.,....su. l.2119 H"' ..... In!::.utA PaqW .,., • ...,~ ASt.A ~~ M&r'Q,a 0 V~ ,\SlA U29J R~L 1II' •• ASUo ----~---~----~------.-------~-:--.. GE.RMINO, BROOIE, RUN"rE, AMAi=l:AL., .JORDAN & CARP'E:NTEF< a ~ .. I-_._ 1 .. -",7aI .iOOO"" __ 'OOC' ""0011'_ 0;. ........ 0 "I: ... ~ .", .. 1",0 ..... ~o "~'O, e.. .. , .. o .... , ....... ;10.-',. • ,r:~o:: .... O .. 1: '.',,"' .",.-s~,. ~"''-I:CO .. ,I: .. ,.",., .: .... "." c. ... r.u.o. ... ~CJIII: .. , .. , ...... v,nll: .......... 0; c_ .... ""1: .. ~""'~, .. " ~ ..... r> .. -........ .... ce".,....,.."""'" "ofo we.,.-, .... , .. .. .. o .. ~ o~ .. ,,:~ ....... . ~"' ....... 0. C.O.c ... C' .... , •• :J.a" .. " .......... ~ .. ---~..: .. ~ ....... october 21, 1992 HAND DELIVERED ~E .. II: .... <'.> .. 1t "'0", ... 0-.. " .... ~"' .. C<:"' .. ,!:O' r:rOD' ."6-;10'.' .... ' .. Planninq Depar-bl.e.,flt Civic Center, 5th Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue PAlo Alto, CA A'l'TFlfl'ION: SUE CJiENE'i "''''''"01 ,,"'''C'>''''O ...... 0 ... ~'O RE: Application for a Preliminary parcel Map, Planned co~uni~y Zone Change and Variances by Mid-penins~la Housing Coalition Gentlemen~ The undersiqned represent. Dinah's Hotel Corporation. It is the purpo8~ of this letter to request that my client be placed on the agenda ot the Planninq co~ission for next Wednesday evening, October 28, 1992 to voice its objections and the reasons therefore with reqard to the a~ve referenced application4 I will call you later this week or the first of next week to contir.. that my client has been placed on said aqenda. Thank you for your cooperation and co~rtesy. n O. Cermino JOG/l'ILT ce: Raymond G. Handley ~!E©~pnrID on 21 1992 D€PAATMENT OF P!.ANNING CITYOF ?ALO "LTO I~ : --~.~.----~----- , , - Ms<ch 9, 1993 City of Palo Alto Planning and Zoning Department 250 Kami~on Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Proposed sale of Tamarad< Court Apartments Joint P.CJAR.B meeting of March 10, 1993 Ladies and Gentlemen: RECEIVED MAR 1 2 1993 DEPAR'illENTOF Fi.Au"'wa AND~' C:::Y'=..lO?MENT We have reviewed the report from Sarah Cheney and Nan<:y Lytle daled March 5, 1993 regard.ng the above referenced mailer and request that this leiter be reed inlo the record at the above referenced meelir.g. We wanled 10 make our position regarding the proposed sale clear. We are negotiating a lease for a re~taursnt on an adiSoent site,and we expect to continue those negotiations and to consummate a tease on that sne regardiass or whether the sal" of the apartments to Mic1-Peninsul. Housing is consummated The report refers 10 the issue or overflow parking from the apartments to our restaurant Site. We unde.-.tand thai Mid-Peniosula and the staff have expressed the view L~at the sale of the apartmeols and their conversion to iow­ h"\COme housing will not produce a demand for parking or. L~e apartmerlt site wihich is Il'eater tha n the parking spaces on the site. We have flOt taken a position on Ihese conclusions. Indeed. __ have tried to maintain strict neutralitv between the persons who are for and against the sale of the apartments, and that neutrality has extended 10 the various arguments advanced by either side. Piease reference ourpr&vious letter to this effect dated December 14,1993 (copy attached). The report also slales that our representative referred to the potential of employing tenants from the apar'.rnerlts in t"" restaurant. While it is certainly possible that persons meeling our reqUirements for employment will live in the apartments, we did flOt mean to imply by our statements that we favored the sale of the apartme.~ts boca use the low-income tenants would be a good source of employees. HOUSTON'S RESTAURANTS, INC. H ',i City of Palo Alto Psge2 March 9, 1993 Once aga in, W6 ... oold like to reilerate our neutrality on the issue of the sale of the apartments and emphasize l .... t WI! are will iog 10 go forward with our restaurant rsgardless of whether the proposed apartmenl sa Ie is consummated. Sincerely, ~~ Allen Goode Vooe Pres ident of Design · , December 14, L992 city of Pa20 Alto Plann.in9 and ZOD.1.n9 i:lepa:..raa.en'C 250 Bamiltcn Avenue P310 Alto. california 94301 Attn: Nancy Lytle, Zon~q Administrator Re: ProposeC', Houston' s Rastaurant 4269 El CAaino Real Cear Ks. Lytle, It has c.Olle to our attention that your understanding of our project's viability is continqent on the approval of the Mi~­ Peninsula housing project on Tamarac Court. I want to assure you that this is not the casa~ Our position always has been and. will remain n-sutral tow.&rcis the ncusinq project. We have submitted to the A.R~S •• at your di=ecticn, as tr40ugh the property will be divided; but it is our understanaing that our project will meet your criteria whatever the outcome of the Mid-Peninsula proje~ application~ We would simply re~ise Qur site plan to eliminate the proposed property sub-division linea and all other aspects ot our site pIa!'). dra .. ·inq will be acce.ptec1 as dis~~ss.d ana shown. V?1t:Ji;:' Ulen Goode Vice President -Desiqn cc: P~lo Alto permit file I , - CHAPTER 16 •• ' ARCmnCTUllAL REYIEW' 16 .• 8.010 D<cl.intlo. or roalI aDd pur­ poses. Tho &<Ws mll""J'OStS of Ibis chaplet.,. Ie: (a) Pramoce cl'lldy ODd lwmocJous d..-.l­ opmem orb: city. (b) EnI!anoe d!o doIinhllity of ",.;dtnc: .r iJMsIItI<III ill d!o .:ily. (c:) ~ the· 'I!hll,a' DfdJe moade- _ ..... f1m! I!ld ..... o.om<nIS; (If) EtIbatlI:c d!o doslroIIiIity of Ii'rinB roodi­ tiODS apon!be imtt'le4iate site Dl in adjaeeU areas; mi , (0) PIomoIe visuaI_ which ate cfhilll> _e quallIy I!ld ~ I!ld w!lid!, II .... -lime. ... _ofeld! ocher. (Ord. ~16 II (part). 1983) . 16.48.120 5wdlrdJ for rm .... (a) In addi"on Ie !he a<'&ls and J>'I1llO"S of this clup<er IS SCI 10M in S«tion IMB.OlO, LI]e ! allo ..... ing sta.."ld~ ibatl be used by I.be archi­ ItCllliAl ~ board in mriewing projeas within i(S furisdidion: • (1) WbeI!lcr .... ;!esign Is consisItnl and comp.tible with appligb!e .!emcms of!h< cl!y's mnp!'il<nsi,'e plan; (2) Wbet/>er!he design is COIlIpao'ble wilh the jmmw_ emironrntnt of the site; (3) WbeIher!he desjgn is owro;x' .... Ie !he _ 01 !he pn>jea; (4) In areas considered by !he board as having I uni.fied de:sipl c..1w'acter or hi51Oric31 ~, WheIbe,!be design is compa!ibl< .. ,Ill such~ ~ WbeIher die desjgn promoleSlwmoni • OUS D'lIlSi!lons in .sc.a.l: and cb.a:ra.cUr in areas belwoen crurerem desj~ Land ~ (6) \VbeIher Ih: d<sign is compatible wilh l1'l""""'i improv_ bo<!J on IlId oft'!be W; (7) Wbeohet!be plWIing and oi1iD& of!h< various fllnc1iow I!ld I>JiIdinBs en !he Ii!< awe 10 inb:moI &<me uf order IlId provide I desinble eoviromnent for occ:upams, visi,lDfS.md !he "'" era! ammlDlity; (I) Wbethet!be _ .md arnngemenl of open space .,. approprW.e 10 !be design .md d!o Iim:Iioo of!h< stnJC!IU<S; (9) Wlle!her sufficienr ancillary N.ocli ons .,. ptOVi<le.o' to support !he m.m functions of the :project II'li:! wbethcr *' szm.c ~ compatible \\ith the project'. design concep<; (10) Wbttber ICC<5S 10 !he property and circ:u.laDon lbeJ'l:lOn an: safe and COIl\Icnient fo[' pedes!rW!s. oyclisIs I!ld vdlicles; (ll) Wbolller ",,1Un] few .. , .,. appro· pt\>ttly pleserYed IIIld inb:gnU<d with !he proJect; (12) Wbetl>er!be: awerlals, ,":au,"" ",10" and \kWls of constnJction IlId pUnt material .", .~ exp=sion '" !he design and function and whether tile WIle ~ compatible with the ildjaceru and neighboring ruuc-.OJres, landscape clem""" and functions; ( 13) Whether the landscape design concept for tho .i,", as shown by til< t<Jationship of plan, ma.ss.e:s, open space. s.cale. plant forms.and foli­ age lexrures Md coton ClUte I desirable &nd fWlction.! envirorlmen! am .m.:u..r!he lIlIdscape - COnct:pc depicts !l!l .ppropriate unity v.ith tht _ boildlnp oollle siu:; (14) 'Wbol!Ior pLml ",...rial is suiubie and Idap<>blt '" IIle sia:, capable of being properly malnntined 011 rht: sHe I i.Dd is of I nne[)' whlcb would _ '" be drouglu-.. runnt and '" rod"", conrumptioo of ~ in ru insCaIlatiml and,m..arn- """"'" (I$) Wbe!!l<r me design i! energy '.ffidem and in<:orponlOS renewable =rgy design ele­ mtDts in.~lQfting bur: IlOllimiCCd ID: (A) ~ energy design et.:rnents (B) IDa:moIligluing sem", and cIi:nacic: cmtroI Sj'SII'mS. and (0 BuiIdin& siting and lmdscape ele- =- (b) III lpplyinJ IIle , .. "dald"., forth in su1>- sectloa (a) of Ibis lOCIion, me ar-~ review _ may zeview _ of me following items of !be J'!OPCIS"<! ,mject: (1) Uses and f=!ioDs .. !bey ro..e ..0 !be desip', DllIle projecIand I<!ja= uses; (2) Ccmpan1>ililJ with 1lcigllbori:Ji p"'J>­ e!Iit:o md uoes: . (3) VlSIoility and effect upon vie .. II an sia: lines; (4) A""""'in" (S) Qwl;ty of cIlsign; (6) 0Wacu:r. (7) Scak; (8) BL1ildin3 materials:;. (9) Calor; and (10) Sia: dtvd"l"=! chmd:rislios lncIwl- inl, rot !lOt _ "': (A) Lots!u. (B) Building """...",. (0 Setboru, (0) BuildlD& beigbl, (E) LoaIioa upoo!be sile, (FJ Open space, and (G) PeCesIrW!. bic)'de I!XI vehicle cirt:u­ laDen; O!) Environmental !iM.-wrs including, but DOt timW:d 10: (A) Nois<:, L r 1699 ____________ 111--~ (E) Emission of smoke. fume:; and odof'S. (C) Fue safety. life saf:'[)' 2tJd: fire ae- (D) Disrurba!>:e 0 f exirJng lOJX>graphy. ~, shrubs. and other narural features, (E) Wau:r pen:cWion, ping a.'>l drun­ age, and impeJ1llcobility of soils; (12) B tillding and building =po.'lems l'­ eluding. bm oot limitod "': (A) S WI'S, ramps, escaluo rs, moving sidewalks. e1evoCors or down.~pouts on the ex­ terior l:uildini5, (B) flues. chlmDeys, exhaust fans. &i,­ condltioaiDg equipment. eIevuor eq'Jiprn-enL, fans, cooling [Cwers, a.ruenrw: or simila:: str.;c­ b.llU phc:ed upon the roof or Ehc exterior cf the build:.". (C) SIloi1 shades, awnings. louvers or in)' visIOle device for deflecting. filteriIIg or welding 1he SC'\lCtlm or irucrior from !be e1eme:na, (D) Balconies, pentho~es> loading docks orsimilar $peci&l purpose a~r.dag~s or ICI%SSOl)' s:ruaures; . (13) Accessory mucru .... tru:luding ga­ nges, Si""leds, utility !.aciliti.es and waste: reccp­ ~ (14) Other oc-si~ improvemenrs lndud.ing. but "'" limit:d Ill: CAJ Pa.rkirJi and other paved m:jl!:, (B) 1 '""vaping. (C) Ligluing. (D) Sip'.! and graphics ... 'U! (E) AJtwo rt:. ~cuJpt'lJ.R:. fountains and ocher a:tisac fc:an:res: (IS) Energy efficiency and renewable ener­ gy design elements including. but no< limited too (A) Enc:ior 011CTiY cSe.;gn elements. (B) ImetrW bghting service 2Ild clim ali, conttoI systems, me! (0 Building siting and landscaped <le- == (16) Such other Ieatura as .affeC'! the design &nod ultimate Ippearance ef !:be work:, as deter­ mined' by the lI'thi1Cc'".l.I1iIl rev~w 'boud. t-: • i ! - (e) The an:hltea:Jral miew board may rec­ ommend ~irement:s "''hidl an:: more ~aive than IIle mulroUlll resuJJIiom &ellOnh in ntle 16 tnd/o, Tj~e IS of lhis Code, wben it cooc1ud<o such requi_CIl!.! arc """""'Y- (1) To promD'" IIle _ inlegrity of!he: desipl of !he: projea; (2) To ISSUlO =potibiIity of !be proposed projocl', design .. ,til !!3 sill: &IX! I11m7UI1dinp; m1 (3) To lllinimltt!he: errviromDomaI etrccts .ftlle p!'Op<)Sed projea. In IIO case. bowovI:r, DllJlllle boMI roduo:e IIle size of • Do:nsidomial project by more than twenty-Hv, perccat of !be ""SO floor ...... oth<rwi5e aIIl>wed by Ibo zoDiDa ordlDIn<e. ocr nuy Ibo board !tdu"" Ibo Jizc of & residential projea by IIIIm than rwemy-five per-=!< of rile site cove.... ..... 0_" allowed by !be ZODiDa onIinure. The limitmons lei fot1b in Ibis 5CCIioo sbalI DO! Ip!iy III any _00 OIl I Pf'DJ'ect by !he plmnirJ.a: commission nor any llecision co • projea by IIle d!y __ (On!. 3796 19. 1988: On!. 34&6 fl. 1983: ():oj. 341611 (pan), 1983) 1 ~.48.0 SO ApplLcabHlty or [hapt~r. No pennit required' under Title 16 shall be: iss!.l:.d except af:.l!r approval of the design o(1hc: projCC( by the: direcLor of planning a1"\d ccmm-Ilnity env'troJUnet1t, or by the city council. as the CASe may be, !.lpon;t rccomml!ndation or t. ... e arcIlitec· turaJ review bean::. in compiiancl! w:lh L~S &.3;>-­ leT. Tn~ arthitectnral J'C·de ... board sh.aU mu.e .. r:commendl.:.km on the: design of all of tlIe fol­ lowing projeas: (a) Ne\\' co:-:.strucrion, u,cluding public proj­ tcLS and c:mstrolction on public property. anj in­ cludinl paved ve.as. exterior wort and sigru which reqt:ire I ptrmit from tbt dty. but ucept­ ins singly developed singJe·flllllily dwcllings and duple=, md additions Ibcreto; (b) Unless lhe: applicatioCl is cfiverte-d for administrative Ipproval pUr'S1!lInt to Otapw 18.99. a PC zone dirnici cr any ;mendment thereto, applied for pursuant 10 Cll.apo:r l8.68: (1) Any applicaticm for appro"lal of or ammdm.c:u to , PC zone: cfu;uicl shaD initiaJJy be reviewed by the planning commission for con­ formance will> OlJpror 18.68. !bon rile <level,,!> mcm phn shall be reviewed by Ibo arcbireaural review board for compliance with Ibis chJptcr. and finally Ibo dcvelop!llen! plon IIhaII be """"'" 1D Ibo pWming <OI!lIlli$si OIl for a finaI ~ dati"" 10 !he city =>cil. (2) In the everu the planning commission, at its iT.Jtial review, recClmmends denial or the applicuion, such n:commenclation 5l~ 'be for­ warded directly to the: city council. aM the archi­ :ecru:ral rev:ie\\o' board $hall. make: no l""'....commc:n­ dation on the application ell.':-epl as may be di­ recn:d by !he: city council (3) In l1'!e event of incons istenci es in the m;omme:ndation of the architeCIllral review ooard on an applic.a.tion for approval of or arnendmc:m to I PC zone: district, the com mission and board shall attempt to ~lve such inconsistencies prior La the commission's making I final re::ommen­ dation to the city councfl. by meanr wruch may i:;,,]ude I joiru meeting. If th~ inconsistencies ue not resolved, ;hc:.'l the separate re::ommendati ons of each body. togc:th!:T with the minules or their n:~ctive meeLings and/or of the joinl meeting shall be tr.msmiaed to the eil], council '! ,-;,;- - March 5, 1993 PlANNING COMMISSION Palo Alt., C.liforn1. Ci~ of 1'010 )lIto p~ !lOXlOZSC 1'.11 .. 1) "l.1~, c .... ,4!i}3 Elinned Cqmmunity lone Change -4269-4273 fl Camino ReiT Members of the Commission: REPO!!T IN BRIEF "This report addresses a proposal for a planned comm~nity zone change, preliminary parcel map and var;ances that 2re necessary to allow separate ownership of an uisting resid'ent'ial iJse by a non-profit housin9 group and a110w its conversion to low-income housing. 1J The prelimfnary parc!l map is to dillide on'? 72.590-sQuare·-f(l~t par'cel lnto t~o parc.'s of 57.370 squ.re f •• t (lot I) .nO 15.220 squ.r. feet (lot 2), protecting all exjsting ingres.s and egress easements and creating one n€w in~ress and egress easement; 2) A p1anned commur.ity zone change is proposed for lot Z fr~m CS{H). Service Ccmmercial. note1 Combining District and RM-30. Medium DenSity Multip1e fam;)) ReSidential to PC, Planned Community; and 3) Variances are proposed for lot 2 to recognize the existence of: a) a front setback cf zero-f€et where 20-feet is normally required, b) side yard s€tbacks along the northerly property line of zero-feet on tnt: first floer where lO-feet is normally required and 7.S-~eet en the sec.ond floor where 17-feet is normally required, and c} a 6-foct high enc:roachiilEnt into the dayllght pl ane along the nartn pr~perty , ine for a distance of 32-feet. A greater destripiion and discussion ~f each e1ement of the project is pro'llided in the P1anning (ormtiss1on staff report dated October 23. ]992 provided as Attachment F. JOINT PLANNING COMMISSION/ARCH!TECTURAl REVIEW BOARD MEETING The Planning COlTI7!ission previously reviewed this application on September 30, 1992. At that meeting the Planning (omission voted unanimousl,:; (6-0, Marsh ab~ent) to conceptual1i approve the Planr.ed Community zone chan9~ portion of the project and forward it to the Architectural Re¥iew Board (ARB' for recor.rnendation. As described below, the ARB J"ecommended denial of the project. ----L-.-. . - .' .. ._'r h:;~ :-"~-: '.,"f;.{, ;,q~ +~-.. ' .. ~-~,'. lil· : b .. ';"; ';;"';"' __ ~ __ - In Closes cf 1ncons;stent reconlTlendations on Plan~ed (crrltTlun1ty Zone I~plic:at;ans. Section 16.48.050 {b)(3) requires the Planning CormlissiCI1 and ARB to attempt t~ r2so1ve their differencss before the Planning Commission makes its final recoll1'Tlendaticn t., t"-e City Council (See Attachment 0. A joint ~ianning CO:'mlission/ARB meeting has been schedu1ed for March 10. 1993 to faci1itat! this process. Ardlite-ctural R€'J1ew Soard Act icn At the ARB meeting of December 3, 1991, the ARB voted 4 to 1 to recommend denial of the project. The majority position was based on the inabiTit) t~ make affirmat;\le responses for all findings needed far approval of a PTanr,ed ColTItunlty Zone, and for the I!lajority of the goals and standards for relllew established in the Architectural Review Ordinance (Chapter 1£.43 PAMC, see excerpt of gOlls and standards in Attachment £). The l"'ecc}lTIl1er,daticn for denial it!as based on the beliefs tr.at: 1) the existinq building and Site layout were poorly desigr.ed for the proposed us~. 2) i - penn(l.nent houslng use was inapPI"':)pri:a.te In the projeo:t location between two hotel uses, and 3) the parking and open space needs of permanent residents would conflict with the surrounding (ommerci~l hotel and restaurant ~ses. The ARB considered the existing 22-unit complex to be poorly deslgned fer any I..:se, but particularly so for permanent housing. Concerns were expressed about the potential for phcement C'f families with cl1tTdren and He lac.K of suitable Dutdeor play area, as well as the potential for children to play en the groijnds of the adjoi~ing hotel. Concerns were also expressed about the is.olition of the housing from other resident;ai us-eSt potential spillover parking. and lack of !itorage area in the units. The ARB believed that support of th€ PC and proposed subdi~ision would exace-rbate iii poor existing situatiorl and WOUld preclude the potentia' for th~ 22·unit cDmple~ to be incorp~rat~d into the existing Dina~'s Hotel at some future time. The ARB recognized the need for increasing the supp1y of lew­ income housing, but given the existing sHe and bund~ng design, did not consider it to b~ appropriate at this locat'on. The minorlt) ARB positfcn ~as to (ontinl.ie the project t.:J a.lio ... · He applicant Urne to respond to cencern:; raised about parking. pla:; area, storage, bicy\:1e-parking and design enhancement of the boi1dir.g. Midpeninsula HOlJsing Coalition he1d a neighborhood 17.Hting prior-to the ARB meeting to explain the project concept and respond to neighborhoad concerns. A meeting summary provided to the ARB is provided as Attachment B. it~ALYS!S The project c~nsists of a proposed PC lone change, preliminary parcel map and variances. Detailed discussion of the-:e e'~fi1ents of the :project is provided in Attachment F. The development program, :plan, and statement remain the same as presented in Attachment F. TM~s report addresses issues raised by the ARB and the staff response to the ARB's action. P:\SC\TMRK.PC3 3(5(93 Page 1 ".', - Staff bel i'!ves the ARE decisiJIl was based on a narrower review persDectiVe than that used by staff. addressing site specifics ·.dthout p1a::ing them in the bro~der perspective of the entire ~out~ El Camino Real area, the broader ccmmun1t~ needs. and the constralnts cf dn eXlst1ng situation. The issu~s raised by t~e ARB are responded t~ below. Appropriateness of land Use T~e !'"eco!Mlendation of the .A.RB raises a fundamenta.l land use question· the appr~priateness of a ho~sir.g use in t~is lccatlon. Staff contends that htll!5ing 1.5 an appn)priate use for the reasons ol~t' ined below. The building ;s designed foi'" residential ljse. The ~xisting building waz ccmstructed IS illl'1 apartment and mt't City requi rements for such a use in Effect at t~e tfme it was built. The building was essentially operated as a residence inn (rentals f~r 30 days or more) by the owners of the Dinah's Rest.aurant until the restaurant closed. The project has not been subject to the City's transient occupancy tax applicable to all hotel and motel uses. Should the PC appi1cation ind subdhision be denied tne structure ma.1t continue to be used for residential purposes. Consequent1y. the 1and use proposed is not substantially different than what noW' exists, The project site is designated fat reSidential use in the Compre-hensi\le P1an. Tne portion (If the project site to be rezoned to PC is deSignated for Multiple Family Housing in the Comprehensive Plan, and has dual Multiple Family {RH-40) and Servic'! COlTI'I"Iercial (CS) zoning. Staff beli.e .... es the dual loning is a result of a graphic error on tne City's zone map. This is becau5e staff be1ie'les the locatiQn of a Zone line tnroug!'-1 an existing structure was unintended. and the 19-unit e:xecutlve sU 1tes porticr1 of the Dinah's Hotel operatton located to the s~utn is als~ zoned and designated for multiple­ family housing. The City has long supported a mix of houiing and commercia1 uses, and has initiated the reloning and redesi9nation of a number of properties aiong [1 Camino Real from tommercial to housing d-=s~gnations. These include the El.s Club site (4249 El Camino Real) and toe Palo Alto 60wl site (4315-4319 E1 Camino Real) in the viCinity of tne project. These actions are conSistent with tn.! major goals :Jf the Comprehensive PTan to increase the r.ous:ng supply and to change the strip commercial character of E1 Camino Real. The recommendation of th~ ARB questions the appropriateness of the !xisting residential zoning and ComprehensiYf Plan des;gnation~. Jf the ARB's reconrnendation is supported, the City should initiate redesignations of the Site. and the issue of how to mitigate tne 105S of a houstng site would need to b. (>c<d. P; \5C\ TMRK. PC3 \ 3/5/93 Page l " ". '.t' .. ~; -v ~ ~eed for low-Income Hoysing The ir.t:rusing number of homeless families and indj'liduals tnrougMout the region and nation is refl~ctive of the critic~l ne~d for aff~rdable housing. A major emphasis of th.e Citjl'S Comprcner.sh€, Plan is meetil"lg the r:r.u:s.ing needs of il1 i'a10 Alto residents by increasing the sl,;ppll of Mousing affordable to 1~ an~ v~ry-low income households. The City has also 2dcpted a Comprehensive Housing Affocdabllity Strategy (CHAS) and Annual Plan te define tho specifio .. ins the City wi1l IJse to rr.eft row-income housing ne~ds. The purchase of the T~ara,k Court prvject for conversion to lo~-income housing is identif,ed as a priority goa' in H'e CHAS Annual Plan appro' .. ed by the City Council for fiscal year 1993. The project Site is considered appropriate fDr a l~w-income housing projett bee.use it is located near a major tr&niit ~orrjdor, El Carnine Real, and near services and employment. The structure is in good condition and will provide the site alTlenities considered desirable in .3 project of this type .-private bedrooms for all but two units, private baths, individual <itchens, laundry facilities, adequate pa!"king and access to m03.$S transit. ~o ~vidence has been pres;nted th3t would indi~ate that ~se of the existi~g Tamal"lck Co-urt EX2!cutille suites for permiiner.t low-income hous1ng .,ouJd niive i detrime~tal or adverse impact on adjoining uses. Apclicability of ARB Standards for Review Prior to the ARB's taking action the Planning Staff clarified that the ARB standlrds were to ~ app~ied to the physical p~oject changes prQPosed. not the existing CGndltlons. For this application no physical changes are proposed. The proposed property line will result in no oi~ect pMyslcal changes to the project site 9 circulation within or access to the adjoining uses. The narrow area ~f the project site limits the abi1ity to make des~gn changes. The purpo~e of the ARB's rGle in the PC review process is to determine lf th~ proposed developrl1ent plan is appropriate for the proposed IJS~ and ccmpa:ti~le ~ith surrcund1ng conditions. The prpposed use is not signlficdntly different from the /!)iisting and' permitted use of the bui1ding~ whic.h h-as been in use s~nce 1973, ~jthout ev'dence of incompatib1lity or ad~erse im~act on svrrounding ~ses. Scillover Parklng Concern ~as been expressed OVEr the potential for parking d~mand from the sit~ spillitlg ever ~nto the adjoining hotel and restaurar.t sites. lr,formation profiided by staff conta1ned in the ilttaded ARB informatior.al mEmorandum indiatEs that the ,prospe-ctive tenants of the prQject are expected to hive i! lower r.atio of auto c>"ners.,ip than inhabitants of a mar~l(et rat! rental projtct. Auto o;merst'1ip will be t:omparable to that E);hibited by the C'uner.t use of the ~rope,..t.Y. Other (aljfornia communities ha .... e adopted standards fer Single Room Occupancy {SRO' projects as 10\'/ is 0.5 parKing spaces per Uflit P:\SC\TI1RX.PC3 l/5/93 Page 4 . ..,.~ • . l j , t t t I I I (ste survey compiled by MOL!ntain \fiew P'lannlng Staff provided as Attachment G). This project pr<lpos.es 0.9 space::; per unit and ~ou1d provide one space per unit if use of two svrface spaces located in an unused acc~ss easem~nt were allowed to c~ntinl...·e. Staff believes this w'ill provide syfficient par~iJ'1g: for the project. It should be noted that there is no Evidence that the pre~ent use has created any significant parking pl""ob1ems. In add1tion. Tamarack c.olJrt hiS sufficient area for 29 on·street park~ng spaces. R~p~esentltives of the Howsto~'s Restaurant chain, is prospective tenants of the Dinah~s Restaurant site have stated that they are not cOrlcerned about either the proposed low-inco~e housing us~ or potential spillover parking, T~e potential for f~ture tenants to be~ome re~taura~t e~ployees was also ril1s!d by the Houston's repre:>entati ve. Outdoyr play Area Concern has been expressl!d about the 14Ck of pl ay area, should famil ies be plated at the site. The applicant has stated that the project is inte~ded for adults and will on1y plac~ famili~s at the site on an emergenty b~sis if space il available, and until more appropriate housing ca~ld be located. The demand (Dr hO~$in9 of this type is so great, It is ~xpected to be ful1y occupied by ttle hrgeted households lmrnediately. Howelo'er~ l'1ouseholds with children cannot be discriminated against. The potentia1 of children not naving a piace to ~l~y and t~e potential nuisance the) cvuid become for the adjoining hotel has been cited. What has not been openly acknowledged is the greater tragedy of childrer; lIying in cars or rotating throug}! homeless shelters and other area hotels. The lack of suitable she-lter is a far grea.ter problem than lad of ~ suitable outdoor p1 ay area. The need for the clJrm'tunity to respond to the great need for housing affordable to low·incorne households far outweighs the .inor nuisance an ~ccasional child may cause. Cnildren are not discrimina!ed against in the current r~ntal of th~ facility, and the use will not change subshnt"jally from what it currently is. The large balcony located to the northeast of the first floor units has a width of between 9 anij 12' feet wMich prn"'ldes a gieater amou~t of cutdocr area and .;:()uld provide some p1a} ir-E'a.' The etltries to th€se lower uilHs are a.ccessible from both Sides of the building. The northeast ba1cony area is not fenced off or partitioned, and is therefore is avathble t-~ all residents. Each unit has a minimum of ho intertor closets and 'Will have access to approximately 12 square feet of storage space located above the garage 'Parking spaces. The tW{I studio units ha .... e tWD, 2' x 6' closets for a total of 24 square feet. The 19 Junior one-bedrooms have one 2' x 6' ClOSEt and one 8' x 6' closet fer i total of 48 square feet of storage. The two-bedroom unit ha~ four closets total11ng 62 squar~ feet of !t~rage. Ihe amount of available storage is s1gnificant1'y greater than that required by City regulation:;. P: \SC\ TMRJ<. PC3 3/S/93 Page 5 ------""-"L - , ( I - Sufficient s~ace for parking of four bicycles eXlsts in front of the par~ing ~arige lnd fcur bicycles n~xt to the rear ext~rior stairs. A~d1tionil space is ivailab'e-fc'r D'icyc1~ pulting It the rear of the tll,iildi\,,\g. but wou1.j requiri! th..: bicycles to b1! brolAght up a short flight of stairs. Bui'd~n9 ApDeirance He changes are proposed to the exteriQr of tne bu; ld ing other than maintenance, and little area exists for increased lanascapin9. The ARB cO!MIented on the bu11ding's unattractive desigr!. However, without significant changes) minimal opport.unities Exist to improve the-building's appearance. PaintlT1g the bui1ding 1 carKer color c.vl.l.ld be consid~Ted one im?rovement to its appeirance. Site A"ce~s Dinah's Restaurant. Dinah's Hotel and the Tamarack EXecuth'e suites were developed wlth an ~nt~rdependcnt c;rcu1ation system. 60th the Dinah's Restaurant site and Dinah's Hotel site have direct access from £1 Camino Rfai. However~ functional access to the Dinah's Hotel Office is directly from tamarack Court and alon9 the rear ~f Oinah'$ R€staurant. Three recorded nonexcl us h'-E! ingress and egress easements have been granted between the restaurant 'Site a.nd hotel site. However. these dQ not all reflect functioni.l site access and circulation patter~s currently in use. A greater description of the easi!-menls and site circuliti{)n patterns. is pro\.'lded on pag!s 4 and 5 of the October 23. 1992 Pi anning Comrni S5i0l1 St.aff Report (Attachr.jent F). ~Q changes in pa~king or site clrculation ire proposed as part of this project. A new nor.-excl~sive access easement b~nefitting Dinah's H~tel is propcsed as part Df the parcel map to forma1ize tne actual existing acc.ess to the ~otel's office fr~m Tamarack Court. Street frontage and access t~ proposed Lot 2 (22-unit apartment building) will continue to be from Tamaiac~ Court. ENVIRONMENT.~L ASSESSMQ!L The fr,\{ironmental As.sessmer.t pra-pared for this project finds that it W11'l not r~s ... 1t in any direct physical impacts, and recommends adoption {)f a negatiVE: declaration. A copy of the EnV)TOnmentai Ass~S5ment is provided as Attachment I of Attachment F. FINDINGS The following findin9s anG conditions for the Preliminary Parcel Map, Variances and PTanned Community zone change have been prepared by staff in support of the proposed project. p: \Se \ TMRJ<.. PC3 l/5/93 Page 6 - Flociings f9~ Preliminary Parc~] Map 1. The proposed map is consistent with appl icable-Comprehensive Phn goals and polic1e~ in th~t allowing subaivision of the property will result in no direct p~ys1cal thanges but will enable the existirg residential struc.ture to be sold separatel,)' and ccr'l'lert~d to ~ermanent Tow-income housing cenlistent with Policies 7, 9, 11 and 12 and Programs Il, 15, 20. 2i and 30 of the City's Ho~s1ng El~ment ~~ich ire ~irecte1 at in'Cre;esing the supply of 1o",-income housing. 2. The design and improvements of the proposed subdiVision Gre co~sistent with tf'te Comprehensive Pla.n in that the site is designated for Multiple Family Residential development, the site is occup;~d b~ a structure designed for mu1tiple-family residential use, and cfrculation and access t.o adjoining uses "'ill be maintained and protected. 3. The site is physica11y 5~itable for the type and density of de~elopment proposed in that all prcp~sed site improvements currently exist and will not l.'.e changEd as a result of the project~ and redeve10pment .. i 11 be li~ited to the same density and configuration which currently exists. 4. The design of the subdivision, the di.vi:iio!l of one 10t into two 1 will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoid.bly injure fish or wl1dlifa or their habitat in that the project site 11 a de¥eloped site within a de¥elcped urban area. S. Tne desfgn of the subdivision and the proposed improvements wili not result in sericus public healtn problems in that no physical changes will be made to the site, and no public health problems are known to exist. 6. The proposed design of the subdivision and impro¥ements will not confiict with easements acqulred by th~ publ1c-at-large fo~ access through or use of property wit~in the proposed subdivis10n in that the site is unencwnbered by any pub1ic easements, \IIill maintain uisting site access points and al1 ~.xisting pri\'"att! ingress and egress easements, ind will create a neJ,/ jngr-ess afld egress easement f.or the benefit Qf i adjoining pr~perty owner. findings for Variances for Proposgd lot 2 I. Tn!re are exceptional or ~xtTaordl~ary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property invo1ved that do not applY generally to property in the same district in that the project Site has an irregulir tonfiguratf~n, with dual C5(H) and RM-30 zoning and is de¥eioped with a structure designed for residentia1 use whicn crosses the zoning line and does not meet current site de~elopment regulations of Either zone; and the sol! need ;~r variances is based on a technical re-orientatior. and definitiGn of specific parcel boundari~s resulting from a proposed subdivision ratner than any physical changes tQ site conditions. P,\SC\TMRK.PC3 3/5/93 Page I - 2. T~e granting of the appljca.tio~ is necessHY for the preservation and enjoyment of a subshr-!tial property rigH of the applicant, and to prevent unre;tsonable prClperty loss or unnecessary r,ardship in that the sit! impro\'emer.ts creating the ne~d for tne 'IIariance MW exist. are gr~ndfathered and can be r~bullt, and granting of ~ariances recagnizin3 the e.xisting site setback and dayl1ght plane Nlcrcachments is nE'c:essary in order to male findings that the project is i~, compliance with zoning reguht10ns and enabling apprcv.a! of a parcel map ailolrllln.g fO'r" separat€ ownership of the site. 3. The granting of the i!.ppln:ation will not be dE'trimental to' the public heilth. safety, general w-elfare or con"eniense 1n that ill siti! improvements currently exist, and have had nO' detrimental impact to the pub1fc health, safety ~r general weTfarf. Findings for Fianned CommunIty Zone Change fer Pr~sed lot 2 1. The site is so situated) and the ~se propcsed for the site 7S of such a characteristi~ that the appll,aticn of general dlstricts or '~mbinin9 districts will be overlY rest~ict;ve in application for the fc1lowing reasons: l} the site tnat is 1I1ready deveioped bord€rs multiple-family residential zoned property to the north and east thereby imposing special requirements for greater yard and dayl ight plane setbaCKS flJr all adjoining lones, and 2) the eX"1sUny residential structure is a noncomplying facility and conform;n; use which does not comply with the current site de~e1opment re9~lation~ of either of the underlying dual C5(1l') and RM-30 zones, nor wi 11 it comply with the current site dev'!!loprr.ent regulations of the higher density RM-4C zone. yet would be able to ~ remodeled, improved or replaced 'Jnder the provisions of the current code . 2. Development of the site under the provisions of the Planned C.ormlunHy District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainabl.e b_\o' applicatien of the regulations of general dist~icts or combining districts in that the Pranl'1l:!d CO:TPr.!lJnity District WJu1d accommodate a subdivision thereby enabTing s~parate ownership of an existing residential !itructure b_y a local non-profit housir'9 c0rpnratilJr1 and allowing its cO;'1versioll to permanent low-income hotJslng ....,ith supportiVE ,;;erY1CE:$. ihe need for and benefits of increasing the sUPPlY of housing i~ailable to very-l~w and low-income housing hous~holds has been well documented in t~e City's updated HouSing Element of the Comprehensive Plan adopted on October 2B, 1991 and Comprehensive HOUZ,1j',g Affordabllit.Y Strategy adopted on December 14, 1991. 3. Tne use and the site development regulations app1icable within the district are conSistent wlth the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, ind ar~ compattble with existing and potenthl us~s on adjoirdng sites or Irtithin the general vicinity in that the existing structure was designed as a residentia1 hei' ity and neVEr used as a traditional hotel. The project site is desi9nat~d for Multiple Famil, Residential in the Comprehens;~e P:\SC\TMRK.PC3 3/5/93 Page a ------~------~------------~'.-' ... -> <~--·-c ,,, .... -. -. Plan Land Use Map. A portion of the site 1S zoned for Mw:!;ple Famjly Res.id'ential ind 'is bord~red by Multip1e FaitiTy P,esidential lOr1fng to the north and nDrtheast, and allvwing for separate ownership of t~e site and exfst!ng facfi1ty by a nonprofit housing ccrporati~r. for convErsion to permanent low-income housing to be made available to those most if! need of hous1ng assistarlce is in compliance .ith spec1fic goals of the Housing E"lemer,t of the Cnmprenens';ve Plan {P.Jllcies 7. 9, 11 and 12 and Progrilms 21, )5, 20. Z? and 30j directed at increasing the supply of low-income housing in the City. CqnditioDS for P1ar.ned Community lone 1. That a parc.el map sub-dividing property at 426g and 4273 n Camino Real into two parcels be recorded prlor to issuance of an occupancy permit for re-o,:c~pancy of the Tamarack; COUt·t Apartments. 2. Approval of ne,~ssary variances be obtained that reflect the front a~d side yard setbacks and dayli9ht pl~ne encrnacnments of tne existing building la<atlon> Conditjqn5 for Preljminary Parcel Map 1. The subdivider shall obtain City approval of a final parcel map and record ttl!!' map wi th the Santa Clara Count)' Reccrder. 2.. The parcel map shall inc1 ude I nonexcl usive ingress and egress easement for the Dtnefits of properties at 4269 and 4261 [1 Camino Real, as shown on the pre11mi~ary parcel map. 3 ~ The final parcel map shal 1 be filed ""ith the City ... ·!thin one year of the approval of the prelimlnary parcel map. Evidence of sufficient funding for pUT,hase, renovation and operation of th~ site bj a qualifie~ nonprofit housing corporation in compljance ~ith the provisions of the Pl.nrsed Community ZonE for use as permanEnt low-income housing sr.all be provided to the Planning DepartmE!nt for re~'iew and ap~))"oval prior to fjljng of the final ~arcel ~ap . .tIecommendation St4ff recommends that the Planning CO~lssion recommend tnat the City Council find Ulat the project -.ill not result in any significant environmental impacts and approve the following elements of the project subject to the findings and conditions listed above: 1~ A zone c~iinge for proposed lot Z (4273 El Camino .~E-alJ from CS(H} arid RM-30 to PC, as per the Draft Ord~nanc€ provid~d in Attacnment A. and thE Deve10pment Plans; P:\SC\TMRK>PC3 3(5/93 Page 9 I I .~ , • , c ~. 2. 3. Subdivision of prcpertJ' located .2.t 42&9-4273 El C~mino Real from c~e parce1 1nt~ hie parce'ls ilS per the enclosed preliminary parc21 map, Variances for tot 2 to Ti:!cognize the existence of: I) a frant :Soetb!d:: of zero-feet where 20-feet is normally reQvired, b) side yard setbacks along tne n{lrth property l1ne of zero-feet on t"'-e first floor where 10- feet is norma' ly requ1red and 7.S-feet on the second floor where 17-feet is normally required, and c) a s1.x-foct high encroachment into the daylight plane along the nort~ property 1in~ for a distance of 32-feet, IS per sheets 4 and 5 of th! Development PTans. ~s~ SARAH CHENEY J Senior Planner- '1I?J'N2I·lA.%lk~sJJ:fJlV NANCY LinE Attachments: P:\SC\TIIRK.PC3 A. B. C. D. E. F. G. H. l. J. Chief Planning Dfflclal Draft Ordinance Summary ~f Neignbornood Mteting held by Midpenins~la HO'Js'ing COdiition on November 19, 1992 Excerpt of Architectural Re~iew Boa~d Minutes of 11/3/1991 Excerpt Planning COlT1l'i1fssion Minutes of 10/28/92 Excerpts fr~m ARB Ordinance Planning Commiss1on Staff Report Dated October 13. 1992 w~th attac~ments: J • Envi ronmenta 1 Asses sment 2. location Map 3. Oe~elopment Program Statement 4. Development Schecul. 5. letter frorr. Jonn O. Germino dated OctobEr" 21, 1992 Su~vey of SRO Oevelopment Standards and Poiic1es prepared by City of Mountaln View, 1992 Prel iminary Parcel Map (Commission Members on7y) Dinah's Snack Re~taurant and Dinah's Hotel sit! plan provided court~sy of Mr. Handley Development Plans were proliided in Plannlng COrJlll"',SSiOfl Packet of October 23. 1992 additional copies availabTe for Planning C~mmission Members upon request 3/5/93 Page 10 ~-------~---------- tOD'U S:nt To: Architect.r.l Review Soard Appllcant Property OWner Jerrjf Matter.$, e/a Oir,~h's Hot.fl. 4261 El Camino Re.a'~ Palo Alto CA 94306 John O. Goermfno. (io Genn1~<:? Brodie? Run:e, AmaraT. Jordan and Carp.enter, 2~OO [1 C.mino Re.l, Suit. 210, P.lo Alto CA 34306 Speakers at Plarm~n9 Conmission Meeting of 10/28/92 Marlene Pren::!ergut, c!r; Pa'e-A.Ho Housing Corporation P;\5C\TMRK.PC3 3/S/93 Page 1I -- ., " DATE: October 23, ;992 (it~ of Yolo JUte P,O I!(o~ :ll2~r; "'.ol!.D "'~TO. ,"-&"lOl TO: PALO ALTll PlAHNING COIIIUSSJOI! PREPARED BY: Sir., Cheney R£PORT IN 8RIEF: 4269·4273 El Cimino Real: Frelimln.ry parcel ~.p to divide one '~t into two, planned commu~ity Ion. change and vi~iances to allow separate ownership of an existing residential hotel by l non-p~~fit h.us1n9 group and .1100 its conver.lon to low-income houslog. Zon, oistrh:t: An Initial Study recomm!ndlng adoption of a negatlve declaration 1. att.c'ed. tS(H), Servlce Commercill Hot.1 Comhlnlng District and RI'I(30), Medlum Denstty Multlple Family ResIdence District File NQ!.: 92-2(-14, 92-El~.-31, 92-V-23, 92-!'M·8, APPLICATION INFORMATION Appl ic.nt: Type of Application: Dates: Mid·Peninsula Housing Coalition 430 Sherman Avenuf, Suite 203 Pal. Alto, CA 94306 (415) 688-B300 Planned Community Zone Change, Preliminary Parcel Map and Variances App1fclt1on received 9-10-92; Application complete lO-lQ-92j Mar.datory action deadline: Np~e for zone ~ (legislative action}, City Countil Hearing within 30 days from Planning Cor:mi ssion recommend at io~ on Prei ;minary Parcel r-!c.P. wittlin E months of application completion for Variance. process: The Planned Comunity Zone Change process includes I preliminary review by the Planning ConmissfDn. Should the Ccmmission act favorably it this initiil review, the project plans are forwarded to the. ARB for its recommendations. The development plan, as approved by the ~RB. is then returned to the Planning Commission for its final review and recommendat1on before submittal to the City Council faT final action. Prior t~ making a final approval re(ommendation to the City Council. the Planning Commission is reQ~ired to make specific determinations regarding the project and to apprcve an environmental determination, specific development program state-ment. development plan and development schedule 10/23/~2 Page 1 -,. '. that wlll bec ... the bas,s for the slte·specific regul.tlons to b. applIed within the pr~~osed PC ~lanned Communit, zone district. An estimated timelinl!: for the processing of ttle app'icilt~o", is IS fo"l»fs~ October 28, 1992 Initial Planning C.canission review H~yeJllber 18, 1992 Arctdtecturili Review Board review December 9. 1992 fln.' Plannlng Commisslon revl.w January 18. 1992 C;ty Co"nei1 review SIT; INFORKAT[PN OWner: Cina.h's TUlal"'lck Partners 314 Lytton Avenue, Sufte 200 P.lo Alto, CA 94301 (4! 5) 493 ·1l2 j Assessor's P.rcel Number: 147·47·33 Coruprenenshe Plan Designation: Mu't~;;'E fjjmn,i Residential EXisting Land Us.: Surro~nd;ng land Use: ExistIng Zoning: Parcel Size: PRQJfCT INFOBHATl~ Project HjstDrV; 1955 Vacant r~staurant building, and Z2-unit residence hotel Nortr.: Multiple Family Residential, Dinan's Hotel EilSt ~ Hote 15 Sout~; Commercia1 uses West: Vacant Restaurant buildin9~ Oil'llh's Hotel C5(H) and RM(30) lot I lot 2 Teta 1 57,370 square feet 15.220 SQUire feet 72.590 sQua .. fe.t B~ild;ng Department records 1nd1cate tnat the existing restaurant was built prior to this date. 10/23/92 Page 2 Sept..o.r S. 1912 JIll! 3, 1979 April ~. 1980 Dec ..... It, 1989 Ooc.mber 4, 1990 Use Pe~it gY~nted to eonstruct 20-un~t lpartment buIlding (1Z-UP-'ZJ. ~rchltect"r.l Review BOird Approval for e~t'osure/conver$,on Qf th'rd story deCK of residence hotel into two st~dio u"it~ (79-ARB-&5}. CGnstructlo~ of tw~·unit co~~e~51on t~pleted. ~rtnlt.<tur.l Review Soard Approval for demolition of existIng Dinah'. Shack restaurant and constructIon of new restourant (Mallard's) at CZ69 .1 Camino Real (B9-ARB-264). Approval expirEd December, 12. 1990. Architectural Review Board application for d~1~t1Qn of eXisting restaurant and c~nstructl0~ of n~ rfsta~r'nt withdra~ after being continued by the ARB for redesign [90-ARB-I04)_ 10/23/92 Pig. 3 ,~ 1 - ,_..:: ANAL VS ISO SSUES Prg ject Pescript 1.m!: The project s1tt is In irregularly shaped 77~590-$quire-foot commercia1 parcel with Se~ice Commercill Hotel Combining D;st~jtt zoning fOT tMe .ajorit, of the ~ircel a1cng t~e [1 Camino R!al frontage. and ~edium Dens.ity Multiple Fuail)' ResidenU.l lonirlg on a slnall narrOIli portton in the re.r. An approxImately 11.400-square-f.ot vacant restaura,t building (Dinah'l Shack) 1s ~ocated on the large portion of tMe lot and an lS,40D sQuare-f~ot, t~ree-$tor~ residence hetel (Tamarack Executive Suites) is 10Clt9d 1n th! nlrrQW rear po~t1or. of the let. T~e purpose ~f the project is to dh'ide ttle parcel int~ two lots to illow the residen.ce hotel to be ;01d separ&tely to enable to a nonprofit ho~s1ng group to convert it to low-income housing. Approva1 of the pr~je't will not result in any direct physical impacts as no nh' develo~nt h currently proposed. Reus€ of the hotel for low­ income hous.ing is expected to ~ave reliti¥eiy ttlt same traffi c: impacts as the existing use. Another hotel. Dinah's, is located to the rear of Dinah's Shack restaurant. next to the Tamarack f~ecutiv! Suites. This parcel has direct access from E1 Camino Real, but also uses TZmiraCK Court fur aCCESS through an easeme~t. The exfst1ng parking and c~r~ulatjon pattern between the three e~ist1ng uses is integrated and functions differently than strictly provided for by access. easements. A more <letinl:!:d di scussion tlf the easements is provided below. Planned Community Zone Change Tne r-oroject includes an application for a PlaMed c.omrllunity lone change for propDs~ lot 2 from CS(H), Service Commercial, Hotel CDmbining District a~d RM-30. Medium Density Multlple family ReSidential to PC, Planned CO:l'!::'iunitj. A Plann~d Communitj zone is necessary t~ in order to allow subdivision of th! property and create what wauld normal', be considEred a substandard parc~l. Though no specific lot depth. width or area standards are established for the (5tH) and PC zones, proposed Lot 2 is considered substandard by virtue of applicable site de¥e1opment regulatSons. Approval of a Planned Community Zone is being purrued because it allows ~s.tablishment of site speclfic density limits and many site development regulations provided the project results in a recognized public benefit. Application of PC zor.ing is considered appropriate for tMis project in that tMe stru~ture and functicnal areas of noncompliance with site development regulations already Exist and increasing the supply of low-inc.ome housing is a Major goal of the ComprehensivE Plan and a recognized public btnefjt. :-,~~, .. t~_<' " , 10/23/92 Page 4 prel1m1na~v ~ircel Hap The project in:Tudes , req~est for I Preliminary Parcel Map to subd;vfd~ the 12,590-square-foot parcel into two parcel, of 51,370 squ.r. f02t (lot I) tno 15,220 sQu,r. f •• t (lot 2)- J:15:ments Two access eas~nts cross th! prOject s1t~ ;ri~ting iccess to the .djolning Dln"h's Hot.l parcel. A third •• sement grants the project sit. aeces. to Wilkie Way_ Easement 1 -th1s easement is a Z4-foot wide elsemer.t that runs par911e1 to the property's southwesterly property lin •• long the Tamarack Court frontage. then .akes a right ang1ed turn in front of the Tamara,k Exe~utive Sulte, buildlng_ Only the portion of t~i, e.sement which cre •• es the l1maratK Court c~rb cut is current'y ~sed f~r access. Th~ rema'nder of the easement is not functf~~a'. Landscaping) a monument sign? 21 restaurant parking spaces and a portion the Timirlck Executive Suites access st.'rs and garage ramp Ire locat!d within the eisement area, Use of the easement for di'rect ac:c!ss from [1 (Ulina Real would be 1nfeas ib1 e e'Jen with remo\lal of th~ parking spaces bec1use the C't.y would not support creation of an additio~al curb cut ri9ht at an intersection. Easement 2 -is a lO~foot wide nonExcl~$iye ingress and egress eise~nt loc't~d along the projett's northwesterly property line rur.n1ng from E1 tlmin~ Reil to the Dinah's Hote1 parcel. T~is els~ment is also not fu1ly f~nctional in tnat does net .atcn the loclti~n of tne E1 Cami~o Real access drivewa;!. Etsement 3 -is a nonexclusi\le ingress and egress eas~er.t granted fr~ the Oinah's :'ote1 parcf.l t1l the prc>ject site, lO-feet '1II~de running from El Camino Real to the Dinah's Hotel site .nd th.n lS-feet wide back to Wilkie Way_ Functianal ~ccess to Dinah's Hot~l is pro\lided directly from the Tamarack CO\4r't driveway and to thl! rear of the eX1st1T'1S restaur3.lit .101'19 the reu property line. The acce£s ease~nts granted to Dlnah's Hotel should reflect its functional access. This could be accomplished by reconfiguring the Tamarack Court access easement, creating i ne~ lO-foot wide iccess easement along the restaurant site's rear property line. The property owners h.~e p~oposed such mDd~fi~~tions tc> ~inah's ~ctel, including an offer to retinq~ish their own access easement to Wilk1e ~ay. but the offer was not received favorably. No physical ckanges in parkfng or site circulation are proposed as part of the proposed ?rQje,t. Access and tircul\tion to the Dinah's re$taurQ~t site and Dinah's Hotel can be maintained through the granting (If a new access easement to thes! two pa~cels from the Tamarack Court d~iyeway. T~e other e~isting easements can be retained as well. 10/23/92 Page 5 ---"',------"L - ...... - Staff re~ommends the ap~licint and property o~er be encouraged to pursue -adification of the site easements is suggested, b~t apprQval of the project not be cont1ngent upo~ t~e adjoining pr~p~rty owner relinQu;sning th:e existing ease!JE!nt for the Mre functional fie" easements, particularlY .5 they ire not believed tJ be re,epttvE to the proposal. Twenty parking spaces are provided for the ~ocsin9 pr~ject In a se~i­ depressed bas~nt parking garage. Two surface spaces exist at the front of the building, but these ire located within the access easement. the easement shou1d be reconfigured so that t~ese spa~~s could be used for guest parking, but t~at will reQuire the adjacent property owner's permission. The existing parking shov1d be adequate for the project 9i~en the s.a1' s~ze of the units, the !xpected fnco~~ levels of the future residents and its lotatfon near p~blic transit. P~velQPrnent Potentjal The project will not substantially affect the site's rede<.lopineot potential. The prQject could facilitate redevelopment of th~ vacant restaurant sit! bl separating it frcm the existing residence hotel. Access issues and other record~d agreements between the Dina~'s Hotel and Dinah~s restciiLIrant nave contriblJted to the compl icat10ns of redeveloping , and most commercial (primarily restaurant) dev!lopers have voiced an unwillingness to be further encumbered with the existing r!sidence hotel us~. The Taaanck Executhe Suites structure B to be re-tained. This amount {If developaent represents tne ~~ximum that could occur on proposed Lot 2 whether Dr nQ~ it is rezoned. The development potential of lot 1 (Dinah's Shack) will not change Significantly. The dev~lcpment potential will increase slight1y by the transfer of a portion of existing square footage (6,500 sq,ft.) to a sep,r.t. parco] (lot <). The development pot!nti&l of tn! ~eighc~r;ng Olna~'5 Hatel Site will not be 2ffected by the proj2ct. In fad, a.cceptance af the offer to relinquish the Wilkie Way easement ~o~ld increase the site's development potential. Realigned access easements could ;1so better accommodate redevelopment <lptions. Staff has recently been directed to initiate 2 zoning crdinince amenctmcnt to the {H) Hotel C~ffibining District to eliminate the FAR limit of 0.E:1. This action wau~-d' increase the development potential of both the Dinah's Hot~l and Dinah's Shack sites. 10/23/92 Page 6 --------------------------------~ ,- - ¥arhnc,:.s Aithc~9h no phys1cI1 changes Ire proposed, diY'sion of the existfng parcel into two separate ,arc!ls wi11 shift the front lot lir.e of proposed lot 2 on to TUlarack Lane instead of [1 Camino: Ttle division will inc.rease the eXlsting res11ence ~otel~s de~ree of nonc~liance with standard setb.cK .equi~nts and d.nsity requiroments of the underlying CS(H) and RM-30 zones. If tnt residenc.e hotel was demoHshed and the area rtdeve10ped to housing, it would be required to comply with existin9 regulltions, and ,",uld essentially be unbuildable in its current 10Cition beea",e of the •• tback requirements_ The standard 20-foot front Ylrd and varying side y •• d setb.ck, and daylight plan. requirements of the RK-)O zone or other DUltipl. fomily zones and the narrow width of the lot would pr.clude provision of a r~lsonible buildable area with~~t approval ~f variances. Under tne PC zooe, voriances will still be needed for lot 2 to recognize the existence of I) • froot setback of zero-feet where 20-feet is nonoilly requir!d, ~) side yard s!tbacks along th! nortner1y property line of zero­ f.et on the first floor whore la-feet i. normally required Ind 7.S-feet on tho setond fioor where 17-' •• t 10 normally required, and 3) • six-foot high encrDadlment ir.to the dijr·1ight plane al em; the north property 1 ine for a distance of 32-fe.t. Staff considtrs the existing site conditions to provide i sufficient basT£ to llee-t tr,e required ~ariance findir.gs. The hct tnat tne bUilding currently exist£ and ~iriinces are on1y needed for setbaCKS and dayl'ght plane rfQuirements from e~1sting property lines presents a sufficient case Df unique circumstances, T~e incbil1ty to allow for separate ownership of an ex1stfng residence hotel could be co~sidered a hardship, particularly when no physical changes are propDsed. Additionally, the eXist1"g use co~ld redev!lop t~ the same build1ng footprint and env!lope as i grandf.tn"red motel use. [ven though the condition.l use pe-mit for the existing building was approved as apartments because of the kitchens, it has been operated as i residence bote' with 3D-day plus rentals and does not pay transient occupancy tax. Conversion of the ~se t~ low-i~come hDusing will not have any det,.~mel'l:il effect on tne surrounding cOIMlI.mity, and wc.uld be regal'ded is a publ Ie b~neftt by increasing tt'le supp1y of thi 5 valuabre housing. Project Comparison With kurrent O~inan't ~eguirements: No changes In the amount of exist1ni development are proposed as a result of tMis prcject. tnfcTmaticn in the following table is based on the boundaries of the proposed lot lines for purposes of comparison. 10/23/91 Page 7 • ------~ PROPOSED AllOliED (Reau; redl £XISTI~G Floor Area No change Lot I: ~~; ; -l~ 'sq. ft.) CS(H) 22.950 Totil -29, lot z: CS(H) 2,890 ll!11~gl 5,~4Q Tohl 31.480 FAR Lot I -0.2:1 lot 1: 0_4:1 lot 1: 0.2: I CS(M) CS(H) lot 2 -],2: I lot 2: lot 2: ~I~~) 0.75:1 RH(~~) I .6: I CS H 0.4:1 CS{H 0.87:1 Maximum No change 35 feet' 34 feet for Heiqht residence hotEl Parking lot 1: as lot 1: restaurant, lot 1:85 spaces·** spacf.s .... I spice/60 sq. ft. ,Q! Z· ZO sQ5!~U L21 Z: ZO s~ace~ of public serv;,e Tot.l IDS spaces rot.l 105 spices area," 1 space/20o- sq. ft_ of other area*- lot 2: 23 spate, for hotel use - one per guest ~oom and 2 f~r mana~ers unit, 44 spaces for multiple .. family residential use, (33 spaces plus II guest spaces} Use lot I: Uses in Multiple Fi-'Ilily let J: vacant CS(H) zone Residenti.l/ restaurant Service Commercial lot 2: low-income uses l..,clud;ng lot 2: residential housing restaU1"ants and' ~otel hotels 'ThC ma;umIll%l liia,bt allnw:ea m a PC district it 50-feet, e:tcq;t wbf.:ll • PC projoct ls within ISO­ feet or &:I. RM or resi.dential PC d.ist:ict. 35 f<et u the maximum. •• -No interior rloor plans {;If the e.xistin, rcst&..ura.nf art av.ail.ahle. . 21 of these sp.a.oes are l~ within & r;.onex;;h.lsi ... e ~ ease.mcnl, N,·o other covered sp.i=s were originally required for the a~Ofl of the resideace holel OD proposed Lal 2 10/23/92 Page 8 - :-'"" "r ___ ~'"m"'rr'~~""--\"-" "" ~i"g Ccpd1tjDn M;d.Peninsula Housing Coalition has had tne hotel structure eVi1uated by an independent eontr.actor .-he cenc' uded that the structure 1 sir, good conditiDn. Site repairs that will be n~cessary prier to ccnversian to low­ income ~ou$fng 1n~lude I new roof l new railings, n~ d~ck s~rface. encapsulation of the tsbEstos t!xtured ceilings 9 upgrading the elevators and other interior repairs. A more detailed listing of r~pairs and their e.tillited costs 1$ provided io tno .ttached Deve10pment frogr •• Statement. peve1qpmrnt SchedMJt: If t~e PC application and preliminary parcel map are approved, M1d·Pep.1n$~la H~u~ing Coalition expects to purchase the Tamarack txecutive Suites by Mirch, 1993, and initi~te rehabl1itati~n immediat~ly. As no new construction is pr~~osed, the site repairs and madificat10ns are exp.ct~ to be comp1eted within six months. by September 1993. Fu11 occupancy of the building i. expected by October 1993. Financing Hid-Penfnsuh Housing CoaHtion (,!PHC) has entered into a contrad to p~rchase the Ttmari~k Executive Suites for one million dollars, provided that thE' PC zone chug! and parcel lIIap are approved. MPHC proposes to finance the purdlase of the site arid' necessary site repairs (tat.al prOjected CDsts of $1,545,000) through a combination of Santa Clara Co~nty Section 8 Hod-Rehab funds and State HOME funds. In order to be eligible for the State KOHE funds the City must ,ubmlt an app1ication by Oeoember 7. J992. Th~ maximum the City could be expected to re(eive in HOKE funds i~ one million dollars. Pa10 Alto is now consideri;')Q MPHC's applicatfor, for a ,naro of the City', antIcipated HOME fund •. PUBLIC BrNEFIT The public benefit of this project ;s to increase the suppiy of l~w·income housing in the City by converting 2i-units of a 22·unit residence hotel into permanent lo ... -income hO:.Jsing. Mid-Peninsula Housing Coalitiorl, a 10c.1 housing non-profit organization, proposes to ,purchase and lIlanage the prcj~ct, renting t~e units to eligib1( families and sir.g1e householders with priority 9lven to these wh~ have been recent1y hDmel~ss Dr are ~t ris~ of bec~ming f'lome'iess. MPKC win provide iI resident site manager Olnd will contract with the Urban Ministry to pra~ide on·site casework and counselling to assist t~e reSidents in stabilizing t~Eir lives and ach1~ving pe~anent housing_ The pro'lllsions of t;,e proposed PC lDne are to limit site uses to lm,,·income housing and tne ancillary support servlces required by the residents of such a project. Such proYision$ are to be enforcad through the requirements of t~e PC z~ne and thr~ugh deed restrictions. , . , 10/23/92 Page 9 " 0,,0. - ~~PREHENS!VE PL~H 'OMPLIANC€ The uses and .site dl!'velopment reguhtions within tn.£! PC Planned (ontl.unit,y distr1ct ~st be d!tt~ined to be consistent with tne Ccmprenensi¥e Plan. me object hies of tne '~reher'oSh'e Plan considered most pertinent to this proposal are the fol1o~;n;: 2. J:i2Jlillg El!ment Policy 7 ~ Enco'Jrag!. and foster the development of np.w in~ existing housing units aff~r~ib1e to low-, moderate-, and Bfddle-i~come ~cu$eholds, esptcia11y tnose households wit~ children. 2. Housjng Element Pro9ram 11 -Continue suppart fer t~e Pale Alto Housing Corporation in t~e provision of lo~-, F~derate·. and middle­ t"tOie housin;, _ith primary em~hisls on the low-and mederate-income sectors. 3. HQusing E1ement Progr~ Provide zoning flexibility tc encourage the develc~]ent of smalier units lffcrdable to low-and moderate­ income persons. 4. Housing Element PQlfc1 5 . Support local and regional housing­ assistance agencies in addressing the needs for em!rgency shelter and transftional housing. s. Housing Element Program 20 . Wii~e appTication f~es and assist local agencies and nonprofit DrglnizatiQns i~ obtaini"9 funding and conditional use permit' to optrate emergency shelters and transitional housing. 6. Hoysing Element Polic. 11 . Encourage and participate in low· and .oderate·incom! housln; programs financed by local and other levels of government. 7. Hoysing Element PrOQr4~ (1 . Support the Rental Housing Acquisition Program in which the P.10 Alto Housing Corporation acquires, rehabilitates if nece~5i"I. inc! ~verates eXisting rental hOlJs;~g rrimarily for lew· ind aoder~te-inccme persons. 8. Housing Elgment PeTlcr 12 . £ncourage ;~no~atiYe housing financing techniques to mike ~~. ~CU\1"; affordable. 9. HQusing £1ement Prog","" 39 ~ Use federal and state tax 'Credits, .artgage revenue bonds ina MOrtgage credit certificates to re~uce the cost of housing fl~4n(to The intent of the above-listed policies and programs is to fncrease the City's supply of housing affordible to low-and moderate-inco~ households by whatever creat;~E means are possible. This ~roj~ct is precisely that type of project. The proposal to convert an existing structure from its current use as a residence hotel wi tho lf10nthly rer.ts of approximately 5750- 10/23/92 Page 10 > , I l • - " ,.{~t~~;': ;~'l; ... -~-.-.. -" ~--~~~, S800 to low-1nc~ hDusfng with reots of app~oximatelJ S3S0 per ~nth, wfth I priority to se~e those l~Wai~'OmE hQus~~olds most .t risk of b!in9 or betQS1~~ home1es$, clearly meets the intent of the lbc~e-li~ted poli(\!s and programs of the Clty's Housing Element. ApPioval of a PC zone change for tnis project is consistent with t~e Clty's desire to support flexible 2oni~9 to encourage the provision of smiller~ more affordible housing units. Tnough Mid·Peninsula Housing Coalition 1! ~pt ~~tioned dtrectl" those prograas which Bake refereoce to support for the ?,'o Alto Housing Corporltion ITe ipp'icable to any nanprDfit housing corporiticn _n~se purpose is to increase the supp1y of affordable housing for low-inco~e households. Thl, project 1$ not Intended to be eme~.ncy or tran,ttion.' housing. MDwe~er, the increased housing to bE: provided for a.t-rh1: ~ouseholds will free up space in C?m:!-rgency shflters a.nd trarlsitional h<Jus;ng that these­ household3 ~;gkt otherwise occupy. S~pportin9 I PC zone change far this project is the first st!P r.etessary to enable the Mid-Peninsula HOU!in9 COllition to p~rsue the variety of funding ~echaTIisms available to pUTC~aS! and Tfhabilit;te housing projects fOr low­ income households, and theTffore is considered consistent with the City's goals of assisting nonprofits in cbtaining affordable financina for such projects. _ . RECOMMENDATION Stiff recommends that the ~lannln9 tommission conceptually approve tht prgposed Planned Community zone ,~ange, and farward the application to the Archltecturll Re~1ew Soard for ~tyiew. The applicitions for preliminary parcel map and variances 'T! r~tommended to be contin~ed for consideration concurre~t with the secand In~ (Inil Planning C~mm1ss1o~ r!view of the PC zone change. FINQINGS Not applicable for an initlil rrYle~. CO!!!! IT!~S A fina' environmental deterelnitlon. recommended condltions and an ordinance will be pr-cv'ided for-thlP C.ol'l'lTlissior: at final re~iew of the app1ication. ":"'~~-PC" l0/23/Q2: Page 11 L 1i1 f.··1 " ""j '1 ; + i i AtUchmtnh: E~vfronmental Assess.ent location Map Developaent ?rDgra~ Stite~nt letter fro. Jo~n 0, 'enolna dated October ZI, 1992 PToject Ph,. (C_lsslon M ... bers only) Photos (Commission Member! only) CgRieS Sent TQ~ Architectural Review Board Appl i cant Property Own.r Jerry ~""tter>, c/o Oinah', Hotel, 4261 E1 C •• ino Rea', ra'o Alto CA 94306 John O. GeMiino. c/o '~rmino. Brodie, Runte. Amaral, Jordan and (arpent!r, 2500 E1 Camino Real, S"lte ZIO, ralo Alto CA 94106 10/23/92 Page 12 ---~-----'. - Ta_nlck Court PCJARB ZoDt Application Pm n 1. Sectiou la.6I.03ll P ...... itte<I V,,, ATI!CHMENT N The rcrmfited use at :he T 0IIW"lII;.k Court oomplex will be perman<nt affordable ren!Dl housing. TICs CCll'PJ"" will be opemed in accordance with relevant SUIte and federal laws. 1. ~ 1I.6I.04G Conditio.a! Uoeo Tbere ate DO oonditio!w uses. 3. SedioD 18.61.080 Developmmt J>rosram SialOID""! .) Nocd ro< Clw>go SUlom ... t The Mid-Penin>ula Heusing Coalition (MPRe) b.u.., optiOD to pun:1wt :he alrea4'Ye><istillB 21 unit Tamaracl< Cour. apartment compl"" in Palo Alto, oom;>rised of nlneteen (I9) S76sfjunior one-bedroom units. two (2) appro-.l:natoly 5oo.f studio units, and d"" (I) 1200sftwu bedroom unit. The project is looated olfEl Camino Real aD Tamarack Court. with convenient public traruponatilli', and ready acces, to shopping areas and schools. !Y!PHC pnJp0se5 to convert the Ta..ma..""aC..'\{ Court complex to permanent affordable bousing. Increasing the supply of scarce affordable housing b.u clear public bonoliu and is consistent with !be policies outlined in :he Palo A.~o Comprehensive Plan. A PC zone change is required in order for MPHC to acquire and separately awn the Tamarack Court oompl .. for:he purpose of coDVel'3ion to affordable housing. MPHC propo= to convert the Tam&r3ck COIL''! complex to pennanenl aft"ordable housing by peri"OmtinS reItabililllliOD war\: primorily on :he wenor of the building. Sine< eaclt of the units rurrently oootain fully equipped ki'tchens .. '!J separate EYing 2Jtd sleeping 'L ~-. ~.'" '.--. ,.-':...'-,--;,:~-~.; - '~~--:Vf!?{~,;~~ q""'>c-' areu and the building is in good shape, the rc:habilitMion work is cxpcc!ed 10 be minor. The only majo< work to be perfonned OD the exterior cf the building will be • reroofing jc.>b, MPHC i: not proPOling 10 (benEt thr ensliDg desiC'I1 of thr building in aDy _yo The opartmem buildiDs is =tly located 00 the rear portiOD ,,[. large pucd. !be front portion oIthe large pucd is used fur parlcins and restaurant use The entire pw;eI, including Tamarocl: c"ur .. is currentIy in • CS zone. AlO1l8 with !hi!! PC zo .. application, MPHC is submitting • preliminal)' paroell!ll!J> dividing the par<el into !wo sep.".,e partel.s. If approved, this pucel split would allow MPHC 10 sepamely oW!: Parcel 2, on which Tomaracl< Court is situated. In ad<!ition 10 requirins • parcel spEI, Paroe! 2 wiII require the flOXlbility ofa PC zone be<ause the newly crealed parcel will no! comply with curTeltt site developDl«l! regulatiO!!$. It should be stressed, boweve<, that nothing about the originAl parcel Of the exterior of the already­ existing building will cbanBe. A ...... property fine is propostd nile (5) feet west of the <::Csting curb rut alO1l8 TlUr.aBClc C<lt"t. (S .. prdiminAry map.) The flexibility allowed with & PC zoning designation would pem>it the creation of this ·oub-stand&rd" parcel, which will in turn .. ~ow separate ownership of the two pareeis MPHC proposes to use the TIIlr.araci: Court units for perm,nent affordable housing, not for trans.ient or short~tcrm oo::upancy for which it is currently use. The poblic beIlefits ofincreasing the supply of scarce affordable housing would not be attainabIe under the current CS zoning R&IuS because of the ·non-compIiance· with current CS zone site development regulatiO!!$ of the par<el. The flOXlble regulatiO!l5 po",bJ. under • PC zone de&igr.atiOD would allow MPHC to divide the current parcel and conv~r1 the Tamarac.k Court complex to affordable housing. "Palo Alto should rut its clforts into permanenl renl.al housing with se:vi .... to lddress 10 fiIcility and service needs oft!,e homeless popul4tion of Palo Alto. (p. 2 I of Palo Alto CHAS.) The Tanw-ack COUrlLL'lits will be rented 10 low-income and Vet)' low- . i i j j • - income houoeboids with pricrity given to hoUS<bolds who are hom.I ... or .t r.sk of beooming b<>meless. The Housing Element ofth< Palo Aha Comprehensive FI." also ...... that iD<:reo!ins the supply of rental housing and affordable botUing IT< poflci .. l.'la, sbouk! be pur1llec!. Thus, the proposed use of T~ Court ;, cle&rly ,orui31en! v.,th the Palo AIlo CoOlpiebensi'lO PIm Additionally, the ~1onned resi~ u..<e ofTamarack eoo" is CC<!IpOtibie with the various resideriol us<:s that e:CSI in the general vicinity. b) ListiIII of AI l'ropooed U ... The oornplex will be wed 10 provide permanent alfordable housing to low-income and vtry-low-income bousebolds who are currently homeless or are at-risk "fbecoming homel.... Supportive services to bell' the residents recover frOll:! povorty &tId hornelessness will also be offered at the sit.. The sit. will not be wed for purposes besides permanem housing &tId supportive services for residents of Tamarack Court. c) DeocrlptioD of Nature of Uses The Tamaracl< Court building currently exist. on the smsller lot that would be ..-..dec! WId .. the proposed lot split. MPHC is not proposing any f.rrtlw developroent 0" the let but in the cn:ation of the smaDer parcel the degree ofllOlKOmpfutn", "ith CS zone sil. deveioproem regulation.s is increased. This coodition wamutts regulations differing from those of a CS district Thus, the per""l split require:< th. fl""ible regulation.s oniy possible with a PC zooe designativ". The proposed use for Tamarack Court is to house f'amilies with pre-school age <hildreo (parent(s) and chila) and single households. with priority given to those who have receotly been homeless or are at-risk of becoming homel .... Such residents are in need of OD-site casew-ork assista:nc.e in order to stabilize and maintain their fives in per'n!.."lent hotUinS. The Urhar. Ministry of Palo Alto (UMPA) will provide sucb on-site casework services for the residents the Tamarack Court for a period of at least 10 year.. (It should be noted that "on-site" means the caseworkers. will come to the complex to work v-ith the ',i" . "L- . , -" r.:.si&w.1s in ilicir 1IpaEf..menLs, 00 separate office space ~il1 be used to p:o"';de these servi=.) UMPA ca<eWOri< consists of personal support through list<:ling and presen«, brokenge ofneed<d social, medical, psyc.biatric. emergency assistan", and other seruces, income ",,-, usistaDc< On budgeting, DlO!l<')' ~ &ruI repr ... nbUivc payeesh.'P for the disabled, job readintss ouppprt and resume preparation, assistance in arranging &ruI getting to needed oppoi!ltments, and formal and informal education regarding c:IUld rearing. family dynamics, and interper30llll colIlIJlWlication. UMP A will "",end oaseworic servioe through paid staff .. t.o .,.assisted by trained &ruI supe,vised volunteers matched o ..... to-oo. with individual and family ciien,.. d} Stat .... ..,t or Hoa.iDI Uuits Proposed in the PC District N amber. 22 units Type: oine:_ (19) r.mio< one-bedroom units, two (2) approximately studio units, and ooe (I) two bedroom unit Floor Am pu unit: approl<iuwe!y S76sfper junior o..,.b»droom unit. approx;mately SOOsfper SIUdio unit. and 1 200sf per two bedroom unit Number or Bedrooms! 23 beclrooms !Unto! Pric.! $300 per stomo unit, $350 per junior one bedroom unit, 5550 two­ bedroom apartment. .All units are fully serJietd. • • - ;.~;:;;,. >';;'.' - .) Dndupmenl Budget Coustractl<la Costs: Roof ($21 000) -Removal and repl""=: of existing mof system. (Bid) }kchanicaT ($2 400). Rewiring and upgnding interior and aterior 5)rteiIJs and the '"Placement of forty-five lamps. Ceilings ($22.QQQ) .. Repair and encapsulation of the !.Sbestos textured ceilings. M""baoiel (524 000) -Upgrading and refurbishing the elevator S)'SIem, repacemeu; of the DOn .. working unit fi~ turcs a..,d replacement of eight (8) indl viduzI unit beatiog syst= Deck Repair And Rec::catjn g ($1 O,OQOl • ~aj;i cg of the CTa(:ks and pODding 1I1:aS. Re-coating of the dew ,..ith • sealanl and surface malcrial. (TuIl1ex) Bailini' ($18 000)" E'I;isting railing bas spreads of over 6" between bars. Railing will be upgraded to =1 curren! .. rely standards of 4-.preads. (Bid) Total Coastractl<l. Co,Is: 591,400 Cpp!!lructjon remits and Eeg i$ I 9 000) -Fees required to rohabililale the structure and lb. units incl"din~ all .,cbitecturaJ and eogineeriDg fees. Subfotal: 5117,400 noon (111 COo) (@500 f"CT ",'\il) .. Replace exterior doors~ scree.-u ilnd lDch as required. Included are the slid In,: ~1.w; doors and the wood f.ront entry dool'l. Fjx.:ures ($6 000) • Rep.1lr and replace outdated appliances. stnks, toilets and tubs that are in Don~working ordeT. R.elatM Coss ($93 600 I • InclUllcs all financ[ng, legal, audit and appraisal eJ::penses. Also includes inswolncc, prcJ'CT1Y taxes, hotding cosUj and relocation costs. TOTAL PROJECTED REII.\BILITATION COST -S228,OOO 4. Section 11.63.1 00 Dffdopm •• ! S<ho<! "Ie I) 1993 September 4 Expec!e<l completioo of improvements October 4 Expectet1 dale of full =par.cy k shown 00 the atlzched full developmen( timeline, in May 1992 initial step. were taken to begin the proc= of acquiring and developing the T!.manck Court property for lifordable housing put poses. Preparatioo for the submittal of zone change and subdivision requests took place between]one IlI!d July 1992. Between August I, 1992 and Jl!lUM)' 4, ) m the application filing pr""ess for a planned community zone change and • ,"bdjvision willl!ke plate. U these applications ... granted according 10 the timelin .. publish<d by the Cicy of Palo Alto, then MPHC can expect to purcbase the Tamareck Cou,t property by Marcil~, 1993. The improvements 10 the site, which will include only rehabilitation (Leo no new construction), should be completed by within six (6) months of the purchase .we (by September 4, 1993). Full <><=Plll!cy of the building '!KlWd be achieved .. ithin on. (I) month of completing tile improvements (by October 4, 1993). • - Pari m 1. SectionIl.63.e90 Development PIon • -~) ~ attachmenl3 d} Land U .. Plan Tbt; original and current u"" of the Tamara<k Court complex is &S. 1=!'Oral)' commercial hot<!. MPHC proposes to convert the T&m&ra<:k Court complex to permanent affordable m:ta.I botuing. 11te unia that DOW serve as bot~ rooms MPHC proposes to we as alfurdable rental housing U!lits, MPHC proposes to cootimJe 10 use the parking garage for the autos of the re!idems of the afforcW>le housing Tamarack Court complex More specifically, MPHC proposes to use T&m&ra<:k Court to hOllS< families with pre-&choolase ciwdreo (paren1(S) and child) and single household .. with priority g.'ven to those who ~ recently been homeless or are at-riJk of becoming homeless, Such ~ents are in need of oo-site CUO"WOrk assistance in order to stabilize and maintain theiT livea ill j>e>'l!Wlent housing. The Urban Ministry of Palo Alto (UMPA) wiD provide lOch aD-sit. c:asework services for the residents the Tamara<k Court for • period of at least 10 years. I: shoWd be noted that ·on-sIte" I!'IeaDS the casew~rkers will come to the comp1ex to work ""ith the residents in their Bpa.rtrnen15; no separate office space will be used to provide these services. e -h) ~ attachment> I) Dot applicable (no new construction) 2. Name aDd Add ....... or NdgbbGriD' Property Own.,., Ii'f # SINGlE ~OOM OCCUI'I\~ Vf.;Vt.lOl"MENT SlJ1NDMPSJIND rOIJC1I:f>/N fA'!.ECT CI\UFORNlI\CI~6 ~~t~LI? r '--::':::'j:<L_ I f ... ifCll $lli!JI(f.' W1!IIH C()litP1H& 1f1 ClTV {tf KiUNr~lN 1ft.' SiM£. ii' i·· > L -' , . • ''14;