Commentary: Senior housing project — great idea, wrong location

The La Cañada Flintridge Planning Commission is expected to consider on Jan. 23 the approval of the proposed 72-unit, three-story, 59,000-square-foot development at the site of the current First Church of Christ, Scientist at 600 Foothill Blvd., La Cañada. A senior housing development is a good thing for our city. The General Plan identifies a need for it.

As envisioned, however, this is a groundbreaking project for the city. It creates the largest, most densely populated, full-time-use building to date. Seventy-two people, not including staff, on a 1.29 acre property is very dense. It sets a precedent for future development proposals and threatens one of the city’s most important goals and objectives — maintaining the character of the community with a safe, family-friendly residential project.

I have lived just south of Foothill Boulevard on Oakwood Avenue for over 20 years, am a frequent customer of Foothill businesses and an avid dog walker. I also have a master’s degree in urban planning from UCLA, have financed several new senior living developments in my career, and my father-in-law was a resident in one for three years. I am familiar with the intensive use of these facilities because of their unique commercial and residential nature. I offer those perspectives in my recommendations.

The institutional zone contains specific development standards. Variances for height and setbacks are proposed. The report notes that the La Cañada Presbyterian Church had similar variances approved when it was remodeled. The report says that since they are both institutional uses and next-door neighbors, it is compatible and the variances are warranted. There are a few problems with this: 1) comparing a less frequently used church to a full-time residential senior living, assisted care and memory care facility is not reasonable; 2) having another project approved that exceeds the development standards and is incompatible with the Downtown Village Plan further reduces the impact of that plan on the community we hope to maintain and build; and 3) being side by side is not a benefit; it unfairly overburdens neighboring homes and businesses.

The city Design Commission studied the earlier design of the project in 2015 and many commissioners and residents expressed concern with the square box design and the three-story size. Those concerns have not been adequately addressed. Perhaps the roofs are more attractively sloped and the siding improved, but it’s still a three-story box.

I also think the report underestimates the actual staffing, visitor and care worker populations that may cause the city to revise its estimates of traffic, parking and other environmental impacts. I did not see any detailed analysis or comparative study of other similar projects and the actual populations in the Mitigated Negative Declaration or exhibits.

I have three suggestions here:

• Develop a two-story design that meets the height and setback requirements from the standard, reduces the overall bulk of the buildings and the number of residents.
• Create a separate study of similar senior developments (not just Oakmont) to determine actual use, onsite populations and parking and traffic impacts.
• I would recommend, if it is not already required, that the applicant place “story poles” on the site before the Planning Commission considers approval to show the location and height of the two proposed buildings so everyone can envision what the project will look like once completed.

The latter two suggestions should be done to fully analyze this the impact this development could have. I still think the right thing to do for this 1.29 acre site, so close to single family residential homes and the Downtown Village Plan area, is to reduce the size of the project.