HomeMy WebLinkAbout0482.093~ .....•.. ; ~
September 16; 1993
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
·
Nonconforming Use Termination Extension for a
~s'{chiat:ric Skllled Nursing FgcilitY. 4277 Miranda Avenue
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
This report forwards to the C01l.ncil the recommendations of the
Planning Commission on an amendment to Section 18.94.070 of the
Zoning Ordinance, that would extend the nonconforming use
tertnination date for a skilled nursing facility at 4722 Miranda
Avenue for six months.
BackQrcuw
On August 25, 1993. the Planning commdssian considered a zoning
text amendment, extending the nonconforming use termination
prevision for this skilled nursing facility use at 4277 Miranda
Avenue~ This action was in response to a City Council directive
on July 28, 1993; requesting the Planning Commission to initiate
proceedings to extend the termination date for this nursing
facility for six months (see attached report to the Planning
Commission of August 20, 1993).
~ng Commission ~
At the conclusion of the public hearing on August 25, 1993, the
Planning Commission recommended approval (five in favor, one
against, one absent} of:
1. The negative declaration, and
2. The added provision to the nonconforming use termination
section of the Zoning Crdinance {Section lB.94.07D) of the
Palo ,Alto Municipal Code permi'L.ting a termination extension
frorr; July 20, 1993 to January 20, 1.994 for a gero
psychiatric skilled nursing facility at 4277 Miranda Avenue.
..
I
!
!
, »
";:l..";:,
'_.-
o
In taking this action, Planning Commissioner Vic Ojakian
dissented be.::ause he believed this skilled nursing facility
provided commensurate, if not greater, community benefit than
other noncoJtforming us':s, e.g .. the Linus Pauling Institute or
the Beaudoin Dance Studio, that had recently been granted
termination extensions for longer periods of time. As a result,
he said he was voting no on this item, in order to express his
opinion that the principles used in determining periods at time
tor termination extensions were out of balance. The other five
Planning Commissioners who participated in this action voted in
favor of the six month extension Isee Plann1ng Commission ~~nutes
of August 25, 1993) >
RgcornmendatiQIl
Planning Commission and staff recommend that ~he City Council
adopt:
1. The attached environmental assessment recommending a
negative declaration, and
2. The attached draft ordinance that adds a provision to the
nonconforming use termination section of the Zoning
Ordinallr:e (Section 18.94.070) of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code that permits a termination extension from July 20, 1993
to January 20; 1994 for a gere-psychiatric skilled nursing
facility at 4277 Miranda Avenue.
Respectfully submitted, iL£: GEORGE(fI RMAN
Assistant anning Official
BER.~ARD M. STROJNY
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1} Draft Ordinance
2) ELA Negative Declaration
~1r;u:d/ f diJttak~
KENNETH R> SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Communi t}" Environment
3) 8/20/9~ Staff Report to the Planning Commission
cc: John Bird (Bay HealthCare Corporation, 4277 Miranda Avenue,
Palo Alto ~4306), Applicant and Property Owner
Don Nielson, Greater Miranda Community Ass~ciation
(800 Miranda Green. Palo Alto CA 94306)
9/16/93
Page 2
•
Lillian Haning (4283 Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94)06)
Orval Bllsworth (840 Miranda Green, Palo Alto LA 94306)
Fred Mirsky (850 Moana Court. Palo Alto CA 94306)
Jackie Berman (810 Miranda Green, Palo ~to CA 94306)
Lou Cole (4277 Miranda, Palo Alto r CA 943C6}
Catherine Petersen (9 Coleman Place, Apt. 7, Menlo Park,
CA 94025)
om.:482:93 9/16/93
Page 3
• , o
ORD! NAL\'CE NO.
ORDINA."-:CE OF THE COU!';"CIL OF ~T"'H"E"'--""C"I"'TY OF ?ALC ALTO
.AMENDING SECTION 18.94.070 fNONCONFCR..:'I.::NG USE
REQUIRED TERMINATIONj '!'O CHA."lGE T:"E REQUIRED
TERMINATION DATE FOR THE L"SE AT 4277 M!RAl."mA
AVENU'E
;""HEREAS, the gero-psyC'hiatric skilled r..ur-sing facility (t.he
.. facility") located at 4277 M.'l.randa Avenue ! the "Property" J was a
nonconforming use that, among oth~rs. was scheculed to have
terminated on July 20. 1~93, pursuant to the amortization schedule
set forth in saction 18.94.070 of the Palo Alto ~unicipal Code, and
WHEREAS~ prior to July 20, 1993 1 the owner of the facilicy
applied for a zone change to change the zoning on the property from
R-1(929J to RE. which would have allowed the use to continue with
a conditional use perm~t; snd
·",'"HEREAS, the City Council denied the application, but
directed the 'Plar.ning commission to initiate proceedings to extend
the required termination date for the facility an additional six
months, or until January 20, ~994, to permit orderly relocation cf
the residents of the facility; and
WHEREAS. the Pla!lDing Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held AuguSt 25, 1993, has reconttnended that section
18.94.070 of the Palo ~to Municipal Code be amended to allow such
use to be extended until Janua~ 20, 1994; and
wn~REAS. the City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendation~ finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest, will promote the public health, safety and welfare, and
will not he detrimental to any other uses, for the following
reasons;
The business owner applied for the zone change in a tim-:ly
fas!lion. and although the City Council has determined that che
existing R-l(929) zone is the most appropriate zoning desig~ation
for the Proper~y~ the Council realizes that a reasonable ~~ount of
time will be neC'2ssary to relocate the facility's residents t.o
alternative facilities. The City Council finds that the small
exte.zlsion given for this reasonable purpose is temporary and
therefore, will not be detrimental to any other uses.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SBCTION 1. Subsection (b) (2) of section 18.94.070
[Nonconforming Use -Required Termination] of Title 18 [Zoningl of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code is hereby amended to read:
18~94.070 Nonconforming Use -Required Ter.mioation~
Ihl
1
I
I ,
· .:
(2) Whe~ occupying or using facilities designed or built
for nonresidential use, the nonconforming use shall be ter.minated,
and the facilities shall be conveI'ted or modified to accommodate a
conforming use, or shall be removed at or before the time lireit
prescribed in subdivision (3) of this subsection; provided,
however, that no such termination, removal, or conversion shall be
required within fifteen years from July 30, 1978, or within fifteen
years from the date such use becam~ nonconforming, whichever date
is later; provided. however, that uses which were made non
confOrming as a result of the 1974 Fire Zone 1 StUdy, by Ordinance
NO. 2777, adopted March 25, 1974, shall terminate on November 23,
2990; and provided, further, that any use made nonconforming by
said Ordinance No. :2 777, the primary purpose of which is to prepare
and deliver food to senior citizens, shut-ins ana others with
limited mobility may remain and shall not be subject to termination
pursuant to this section. Such uses shall be permitted to remodel.
improve or replace site irnprovemen~s in accordance with applicable
site development regulations, provided that any such remodeling.
improvement Dr replacement shall not result in any increased floor
arEa.
Notwithstanding the dates of termination of uses r~quired
by this suOsection (b) (2) 1 the required termination date of the
fo21owing uses shall be as her~inafter set forth:
(i)
(iii
(iii)
The oonconformdng uae(BJ of the property at 440-
460 page Mill Road for conprofit orthomolecular
and molecular medical research functions shall
te~~nate on or before July 20 1 1998.
The nonconforming
Colorado Avenue
associated parking
July 20. 2003.
use of the property at 464
for a. dance studio and
shall terminate on or before
The nonconforming use of the property at 440
pepper Str~et for an art studio specializing
exclusively in the medium of mana type
printmaking and associated instructional uses
shall terminate on or before July 20~ 2~03"
(iv) The nonconforming use of the p1"Cperty at. 4.277
~randa 'for a gere-psychiatric ski11ed nursing
facili ty shall terminate on or before January
20. 19~4.
Such uses shall be permitted to remodel, i!nprove Dr replace site
improvements in accordance with applicable site development
regulations, provided that any such remodeling, improvement or
replacement shall not result in any increased floor area or
increase in intensity of the use, nor any loss of parking.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that this project ~ill have
no significant environmental effect.
2
9301: II '" OOl01~ 7
~Q!L..L
commencement of the
adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED;
AYES:
NOES:
}'-BSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATl'EST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
This crdir:.an;::e shall be
t~irty~fir6t day after
APPROVED:
t-tayo.l..
City Man.ager
effective
the date
0:1
of
Senior Asst. City Attorney
3
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
t!"le
its
';"
o
EnvironMental Documents -City of Palo Alto
ENYr~ONMrNTAI ASSESlI!ENl
.--
Projett Oescription/Title: Applicatlo~ to rezon~ th€ property frcm th€ ~-1
(5291. Sjnglr F3mily Residence District to the Rf, Re~ident,al Estate
Phtrict. Thh 1.48 icre site ;s occuPjed by Bay HealU1Care C.orporoaticn. a
gerQ-p$ychiatri~ facilit¥ licensed by the Department of Health Services as a
~O-bad skill~d nursing facility that providEs int~rrnediate-to lo~g-Lerm
pSYchiatric treatmtnt to the elder1y, The 20ne cnange would allow this
convalescent facjlity to aDp1~ for i cnnditional use permit to continu~
~tion on thi~ site.
---lcit"at ion;iddre-ss -: --"4'iir Mi'ra-r.dinA"nr.ue, . Pai"o Al 1:9. CA-943-06-
Sponsodng Agenc."'/Applican'" John Co Bjrd, Bay HeaHhCare Corporatipn
Address and jele-phone of Applicant: 4277 Miranda Avenue. Palo Alto. CA 94303
!4!51 948-5041
Application for: .Z~on~.~C~hAa~ng#.~ ______________________________________ __
Zoning at Proj€ct Location: R-j(929) Fee Receipt No. 93-162
NOTrCE OF DETERMINATION
Bised upon re~iew of the project files, the undersigned member of t~e Planning
Department has concluded:
1Il Negatiye Declaration: The proje~t ha~ no significant Environme"ta1
impact. No Environmental Impact Report is required. The reasons for a
Negative Declaration are:
in the attached injtial study, A re~Qrd of proiect action lS
available for review at th~ Palo Alto Planning Department. l~
on thg 5th floor of C;ty HalL 250 Kiimi1ton AY2'~ue. Palo Alta. C,6.
943nl.
':1 The project may have a sig~ificant environment a' i~pact. An
Environmental Impact Report ... il' be prepared. /;") ..--11 /' _. --I---PlaT1ni~9 Department Off~cial: .k~ ri:X':.~"'-""
Planning Director, ';;~.4e ScilU.;;,i.w Oat.: 't//9/F~
The project has been approved,
The project has been denied.
Date;
Date:
File No, 93-UA-10
!
I ,
.' .. /" ,
o
ENVIRONM,NTAl DOCUMENTS· PAlO AlTO
lNrTlAl STUDXt **
I. Project THle/Addri!ss: 4277 Miranda Avenue. Palo Alto. CA.
J1. Project Description: Applic:-aUon to r.gzone the property from the R-I
(929). Single Family Pesidenc€ District to the RE. Residential Estate
Ill.
IV.
01 strict.
Envlronmental Setting: The 1.48 acre site is occupied by Sa.... Healt~.r:iire
c.orporation. a ggro-psydliatric faLility licensed bV tbe Department or
Iita1tb Sg.rvicgs as f. SO-bed skilled nlIqino fadlitv that provides
jnterrned1ate--to leng-term psychiatric treatment to the el<lerly. Th.e
prQPerty is Lordered by the Alta Mesa Cemetery to the uortn. Adobe
Cree); and fingle family resideutTar ((ity Of los Altos) to tne eiSt,
11nslt fami y residgnces to the 5gutn and Alta Mesa Cemettry and
Foathill Expressway tn the ~~st.
En ..... ironmenta1 Impact Ch!ckHst {Explanation of all "yes· an$w~rs are in
Section V]
I. Earth. Wi'll the proposal result ;1'1: v,s
a. Unstable earth conditions or chang~s __ X __
in geologic substructures?
b. Disruptions, displacelTlerlts, compac-
tion ~r oyercover~ng of tne soil ~
c. Change in topography or groun.d
surface rel ;ef features.? __ ! __
d. The destruction, covering or modi
fication of any un~Que gEologic or
Physical features? __ ! __
e. Any increase in wind or wal!,.. erosion
of soils, either on or off the site? __ X __
f. fxposure of peeple or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides~ mudslides, ground failure
or similar hazards? -I-
g. Changes in siltation, deposition, or
erosion which may modlfy the cnanne'
of a river or the bed of a bay or
inlet? __ ! __
.. Adapted from Appendill: I. California Gu:dehnes fer Implemenla,io!'l of
CECA, December 14, 1.970 .
... Updated May 1982, June 1983
z. ~. Will the proposal result i~:
a. Substantial air emissions or de'
t~rioration of ambient air q~ality?
b. The creation of objectionabl~ odors?
c. A1teration of air 1I'l0~'ement, mois~ure
.. telT!per~t1J_rl?', .or any. change in cli
mate, either locally Dr regional?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption ratfs, drainage
patterns, or the r6te ,nd amount of
surface water runoff?
b. Alterations t3 the course or flow of
fl cod waters·~
c. Discharge into surface waters, or in
any alteration of surface water
quality, inclUding but not limited to
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
tlJrbidlty?
d. Alteration of tre'direction or rite
of flow of ground waters?
e. ExposurE: of people Dr propert1' to
water related hazuds stiCh ilS f] ood
ing or tidal wave?
f. Change in the qUMtHy of ground
waters, either through direct
additions or withdrawals, or throug~
interceptions of an aquifer by cuts
or excavations?
4. Plant lifg. ~ill the proposal result in;
il. Cnange in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (in·
cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
microflora and aquatic p1ants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
unique, Tare or endangered spe(ies
of plants?
--L
_1_
_x_
_x_
_1_
o ,r-,
c. Introduction of n~w species of
plants into ~n area, or in a barrier
to the normal replenishment Qf
existing species?
d. Reduction in icreage of any
agricultura1 crop?
5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of spec"ies,
or of any species (.If· animal s {b; rds.
land animals including re~tiTes,
fish and shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects or microfauna)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any
uniQue, rare or endangered species
of animals?
c. introduction of n~w species of
~nimals intc an area, or result in
a barrier to the migration or move~
ment of animals?
d. Deterioration in e~isting fish or
.lldlife habitat?
6~ Ngise. Will the prop~sal result in:
i. Increases in existing noise levels? ....L
b. Exposure of people-to sev~re noise
_1_
_1_
_1_
_1_
levels? __ X_
7. Li9~t and 6iare. Will the propos~l
produc-2 new 1 ight 91 are? ...!....
s. land Use. lrhll the propos.al result i~
a subs.tantial alteration ~f the present
OT ~lanned land use of an are,a? _1_
9. Energy/Natural Resources. Will the
proposal result in.:
i. Use of substantial amounts of fu~'
or energy:
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sovrces of energy. or
require the development of new
sources or e~e~gy?
_1_
_1_
c. Increase 1M the rite of use of arry
natural resources?
d. Substantial decletioo Qf any nonre·
newable natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. 002'50 the proposa1
involve 3 risk of an Explosion or the
release of hazardous substances lin
cruding. but not limited to, 01~.
pesticides, chemicals DT" rad;ation) 'irl
_____ the_~yent of __ an accident or upset?
J J. Ponyl atior./Housirlq.
a. W'il1 the proposal alter the 10cat10n,
distribution, density. or growth rate
of the huma~ population of an are~? -1-
b. Will the propos.l effe,t existing
~ousfngt or create it; demand for
_1_
_1-
additional housir.g? .l.
1Z. Transportation/Circu1ation. Will tne
proposal result in:
a. Gene(ation of substantial aoditio~~l
vehicul ar movement? L
b. Effects. on exht(ng par-'Klr)g facili-
ties, or demand far new parking? ~
c. Alterations to present patterns of
Circulation or movement Df pe~ple
and/or goods? ..-1..-
d. Jncrease in traffic haznds to motor
venic1es, bicy(lists O~ pedestrians~ ..-1..-
13. Public Services. Wjll the proposal have
an effect upon, or resu1t in i need for new
Dr i1tered governrn~ntl1 services in any of
the fo1lawing ~reas~
i. Fire pr~tecti~n?
b. Police protection?
c, School s1
d. Parks or other recreational
facil ities?
..L
_1-
-1
I
i e. MaintenanCE! of pub' lC facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services'
/
14. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a
need for nt;'w systems. or substantial
alteratlons to the fo1lowing util}t;~s:
•• Power or nat ... ral gas'?
.. b. Cormrun;r;::at1o!'ls systems!
<-Water'?
d. Sewer or septic tank?
e. Storn water drainage?
f. Sol id waste .nd disposal?
J5. Human Hu.lth. Will the proposal result
in:
a. Cr!ation of a~y heaith hazard or
potenti.l he.lth haz.rd (excluding
mental h.altb)l
b. Exposure of peoplE to potenthl
health hazards?
16. Aesthetic,. Will the propos.l result
in the obstruction of any scenic vista
or view open to the public, or will the
proposal result in the creatio~ of an
aesthetically offensive site 'pen to
pub"j c view'?
J7. Recreation. 'l'il1 the proposal result
in an impact upon the quality Of Quantity
of existing recreational oppo~tun;tjes?
18. Cyltural R~sources.
I. Will the propcsa1 result in the
alteration of/or the destruction
of a prehistoric ~r historic
archaeoTo9i~al Site?
b. Will the proposal result In ad
vers! physical or aesthetic effects
to a prehistoric or historic
building, structure; or object?
--"
ill !ill
_X_
_X_
..L
_X_
-L
-L
_1.-
-L
c.
d.
Does the prcposal ha~e t~e pot~ntfal
to cause a physical change ~r.icn
wou1d affect unique cultural va1ues?
Will the proposal restrict existing
r~ligious or sacred uses ~itnin the
potentia1 impact area?
19. Mandgtorv Findings cf Significance.
a. Does the prnject have the potential to
degrade _the quality of the, environmer,t,
substantially reduce the habitat of i
fish or wildlife species~ cause a fish
or wildlife population to drop be-lew
self-sustaining leve7s, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal community.
reduce the number Dr restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or
ani~al OT eliminate important exa~ples
of the major periods of Cal Hornia
history Dr prehistory?
b. Does the project have the pDtential
to achieve short-term, to the dis
advantage of lon9~term, environmental
goa.ls? (A short-te-rm impac.t on the
environment is one which occurs in i
relatively brief, definitive period
of time while long-term impacts wilT
er,dure well into "the fi..lture.}
c. Does the project have impacts which
are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (A p~o
ject may impact on two or more
separate resources where tne impact
on each resourc~ is relatively
smal1~ but where the eff~ct of the
total of tho~e impacts on the
!nvironment is significant,)
d. Does the pr~ject have envirarmp.nta1
effects which will cause substantia1
adv€rse effects on h'J~.;;.n beings,
eithEr directly or i~directly?
ill
V. Explanation of ·yes U answers in environmental ch~cklist.
See attached.
------
_1_
_x_
_L
o
1. !J!1h. Tn! site ;s in a moderate risk zone cf Pal Alto and would be
subjeet to VeT) strong shaki~9 i~ the eve~t of a major earthquake along the
San AnCr!iS fault. Provisions in th~ Uniform B~ildjng Code are dp.signed to
reduce the hazard of butldin9 failure in the e~ent of a ~~jor earthquake.
6. Noise. Generation of noise by the facj1ity's patients has been a
complaint of some of the surro~nding residents in the p~st. This see~s to be
due to the close proximity of the facility's sundeck and dayroom to the
r!sidences, and the ele~ation difference between the hospital and the
residences (the ncspital is significantiy higher). A dense vegetative screen
along Auobe Creek currently ex,sts l yet it does nat ap~ear to be totally
effective noise buffer. If the rezoning is approved and the app1ic:ant applies
__ , for. ,I u~e_permit"to continue the ,existiT'lg \.Ise Df .the site,. i conditiDTI.cf
approval should either require the construction of a noi:~ wa11 along the rear
of the facility or that the sundfck be closed.
s. land Vse. A1though the convalescent car~ facility was a (onfonming use
when built, it is no longer. On July 20, 1978, during the City-wide r-ezorring
process, the convalescent facility property was rezoned from the R-E.
Residential Estate D~strict to the R-l(929). Single Famil~ Resident! District,
T~;s rezoning rendered the facility nonconforming_ The ComprehensivE P1Q~
la.nd use designation for the property is also sing1e faml1y resi<ient'a1.
If the relonin9 were ip~rcv~d, the a?plicant ccu1d apply f~r a use permit to
continue the use of the property as a convalescent faci1it .... '. However~
rezonin9 tnt prop~rty to the R-E Distr!ct inv~1vE5 ;ssue~ relating not only to
t~e c-ompatibnity of the existing use to the surrounding uses, but alsn of the
compatibility of the range of potential uses within the R-E District with the
s~rro~nding uses. Penmitted ~ses ir. the R~E District inslude single family
residential {one single family resider.,e would be permitted on the property),
home occupations, agl"'ic\Jlture, horticliitwre. gardening, sale of agricultural
products, reSidential care homes, mobile homes, small and large family day
care homes and small adult da.y car-e home. The permitted uses withi.n the R· E
Oistrict would nave less impacts (e.9,~ noise and traffic) compared to Ue
~xistin9 use of the property.
In addition to c:o:rvalescent facnities, tonditional uses in the r,-E Oistr~ct
include cemeteries, churches and reiigious institutions, commercial pla~t
nurseries, community tenters, day care centers, large adult d~y Care homes.
outdoor recreation ser'Jices, private educational facilities, temporary use,
utility facilities and a second detached single-family dwelling unit. The
impacts of the conditicnal useS would be evaluated at the time that a use
permit application 1S filed and future en .... ironmental studies are conducted.
11. Population/Housing. Up to nile residenc'=!s could be construc.ted on the
pro?e~ty under the existin9 R-l~929} 2Dnin9. Unde~ x-£ zD~in9, only one
Single family residence coullj be constructed. Thus, the rezol'ling could result
in the loss of fou~ potEntia1 res1deDces.
12. lranspartati.onfCirculation. The facility employees a total of 31
emplDy~es (21 full time and ]0 part time employees) on the lQ~gest shift fer
its 24 hour facil ity. Studies done of similar facilities suggest that a
total Df 130 vehicular trips!day could be generated by the s.te over a 24 hour
period. During the PM peak hour, a total of 9 trips could be generated.
-• !~'.-.-.-
\'., .. -,-'
Traffic seneration under R-E zoning would vary depending upon t~e parti~~lar
use. The permitted uses are not expected to result in additional traff'c
generation. f~r txample. if the existing site ~ere full) d~velop~d under R-E
zoning. ~ne single family residence could be created_ Tri~ generaticn rates
for single family residences are calculated on a 9.S trips/residence bas·js.
During the PM peak hour appro~imateli 1 trip would be generated. Traffic
studies would be conducted for any propLls"3'd conditional lJses in the R·E
District at the time that ~se permit application i5 filed.
•
August 20, 1993
PLAI'iNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, California
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
NONCONFORMING USE TERML"IATION EXTENSION FOR A
GERO-PSYCHIATRIC SKILLED NURSING FACiLITY,
4277 MIRANDA AVEl'HJE
Members of the Commission:
REPORT IN BRIEF
The pwpose of this report and attached ordinance is to recommend extending the
nonconforming use termination date ior:
A gero-psychiatric skilled nursing facility at 4277 Miranda Avenue from
July 20, 1993 to January 20, 1994. This recommended action responds 10
a City Council directive of July 28, 1993 to extend the termination date for
this use at 4277 Miraoda Avenue for six months.
BACKGROUND AND REQUESTED ACTION
On July 28, 1993, the City Council voted to deny a zone c~ange application from
R-l (929) Single Family Residential to RE Residential Estate District for the site at
427i Miranda Avenue. In taking this action, the City Council eliminated the possibility
for continuing the operation of this gero-psychiatric skilled nursing facility because !he
current R-I (929) zoning doe, nO! permit this type of use. Nonetheless, the City Council
directed that a six-month exteusion to the July 20, 1993 tennination date be initiated in
order to aUow for an orderly relocation of the patients at this facility before the City's
zoning regulations require its Icrmmation.
• I,
"\ --
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
Staff suppons the six-month tenninarion extension of this I!onconforming use fer the
reason cited in the Council motion Le., to allow for the orderly relocation of the patients
prior to this facility's required closure.
ENVIROl'o"MENTAL ASSESSMENT
The negative declaration, that was prepared for !he requested lone cillL.,ge, is attached.
No further environmental assessment is required.
RECO:'v!A!Et-.'DA TlON
Staff recommends thac the Plannlng Commission recommend to the City Council approval
of the following:
The ordinance amending the nonconforming use terrnbation se-;tion of the Zoning
Ordinance (Section 18.94.070) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (see attached draft
ordinance) to permit a termination extension from July 20, 1993 to January 20,
1994 for a gero-psychiatric ,hUed nursing facility at 4277 Miranda.
RespeytfuIly.submitted,
r CJ -t.:-V~/7/ '''-<~-:J L-r'{l .... ~ L(!~.f~~
GEORGEZ~ERMAN
As,istaut Planning Official
NAl'lCY MADDOX LYTLE
Chief Planning Official!
Attachment:
Zoning Administrator
(I) Site Map
(2) SA Ne~8~i e Beelafftti 9ft
(3) OfIHuunee ldfieBSiag geetioa 18.9 1.8"'1'8 ef W._ 28Mli,:,
RecsiatieM
co: Jolm Bird (Bay HealthCare Corporation, 4277 Miranda Avenue,
Palo Alto 94306), Applicant and Property Owner
Don Nielson, Greater Miranda Community Association (800 Miranda
Green, Palo Alto CA 943(6)
Lillian Haning (4283 Miranda Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94306)
Orval Ellsworth (840 Miranda Green, Palo Alto CA 94306)
Pred Mirsky (850 Moana Court, Palo Alto CA 94306)
Jackie Berman, 810 Miranda Green, Palo Alto CA 94306
P:\PCSR-.4:!71MJR SiU
"""".,..--_ •• -'"
08-20-93
Page 2
...
" '.:-
(
_~_ . _____ :~_ ..:..:..:..:~.r..:.:~ .::.'J', ;_1~~~ r ~n·""!~f,'[_"""V:."~.,,·-,," '~""T""'"'~
SITE
LOCATION
(;IU l1li' lOI 'trill
• '... '\ ~ ... . ...,'" II r.r r /" \ \ • IG) GRAP~IC ATTACHMENT DATE: 5/1'-4/"1'3 LsCALE: ~. s.~'._ I,;
TO STAFF REPORT, FILE NO, q ~,-7 C .. 2>"---'11
PROJECT: Y?-77 1"\; r",~<r _ Pr,,'-"'v. ... ' --\ • • --I EXHIBIT A I
, -
o
i
I
!
!
f ,
\
.,
, " •