CC MIN 1971 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

494 William Royer , 1047 Whipple Avenue , real estate broker representing the project and principal and also the present property owners , Charles and George Rayer , stated that for the record the property owners are in favor of the project . He explained the purpose of the project which is an apartment house for the elderly , privately owned and privately financed , through the cooperation of the San Mateo County Housing Authority . He stated he has a letter of intent for a 10 -year lease by the Housing Authority with a 10 -year option , specifically for the elderly and restricting the number of occupants with cars . He reviewed the variances requested . He cited parking space figures from other identical develop - ments showing percentage of parking spaces to the number of units . He stated that in accordance with Planning Commission ' s requirement , they developed a parking plan in the event that the Housing Authority no longer had the lease on the property . The plan would provide for 48 parking spaces on site by going underground . He further stated that Planning Commission would inspect the site after one year to determine if more parking space is needed . He also stated that they would be willing to submit to a deed restriction . In response to a question by Mayor Bury , Mr . Royer stated that there are unusual circumstances pertaining to the project , particularly as to the type of tenants who will occupy the apartment house , who will not have the usual number of cars . He pointed out that the Housing Authority has approved the site from a location standpoint , as being close enough to shopping , and being in a residential area. as opposed to downtown . In response to questions by Council , Mr . Royer stated that there are no federal funds involved in the apartment . The only involvement with the San Mateo County Housing Authority is between the tenants and the Housing Authority with the rent . In justifying the increase in the number of units , he stated that with a smaller number of units , it would be impossible to meet the Housing Authority ' s rent schedule which is set by law , and also it would not be the best use of the property to have a smaller number of units . Councilman Rhodes asked City Attorney if City can control the future of this development and , if so , how ? City Attorney stated his belief that it would be possible to draft an appropriate agreement which would be enforceable by the City as to conditions under which the property might be used as a condition of variance . In response to Council questions concerning eligibility , Mr . Royer advised that the minimum age is 62 , there are income restrictions , the maximum being $3 , 000 per year , and most of the tenants would be single . He stated that the majority of the apartments are one -bedroom apartments and the rental could vary from $ 135 to $ 145 per month . Mayor Bury inquired if , in the other developments cited by Mr . Royer , the tenants are all in good health and ambulatory . Mr . Royer replied that they are in good health , and that this would in no way be a convalescent home . The residents would be senior citizens with a limited income whose rent would be subsidized by the San Mateo County Housing Authority .