City of Palo Alto (CA) Planned Community (PC) Zoning Request

7/27/2019 City of Palo Alto (CA) Planned Community (PC) Zoning Request

1/191

City of Palo Alto (ID # 3721) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report

Report Type: Meeting Date: 5/22/2013

City of Palo Alto Page 1

Summary Title: 567 Maybell Ave. PC Rezone

Title: Request by Palo Alto Housing Corporation for Planning andTransportation Commission Review of a Proposed Planned Community (PC)Zone District and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Allow 15 Single FamilyHomes and a 60-Unit Affordable Rental Project for Seniors on Parcels with aCombined Area of 107,392 Square Feet and Zoned R-2 and RM-15.Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Mitigated NegativeDeclaration Have Been Prepared.

From: Tim Wong, Senior Planner, Housing

Lead Department: Planning & Transportation Commission

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission recommend that the CityCouncil approve:

1. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment K);

2. A Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan designation for a portion of the sitefrom Multifamily to Single Family (Attachment B);

3. A Planned Community ordinance rezoning (Attachment A); with Conditions of Approval(Attachment D) of the subject property from RM-15 and R-2 for a 15 unit single familyand a 60 unit multifamily affordable rental project for seniors, including two concessionsfor providing affordable rental units under California Government Code 65915.

BackgroundThe proposed project was originally submitted on November 6, 2011 as a request to initiate aPlanned Community (PC) zone district and Comprehensive Plan amendment for a single familyand multifamily residential project. The parcels have zoning designations of R-2 and RM-15,with associated Comprehensive Plan Land Use designations of Single Family and Multi-FamilyResidential. The proposed development would replace four existing single family residences


2/191


and a non-functioning orchard so that the two adjacent residentially zoned parcels would forma single Planned Community (PC) zoned site.

Existing Conditions

The project site is comprised of two parcels (APN # 137-25-109 and -108) located at the cornerof Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The combined lot size is approximately 107,392 square feet(2.46 acres). The larger parcel (93,639 square feet) and the smaller parcel (13,753 square feet)are zoned RM-15 and R-2, respectively. The R-2 zone district runs the length of Maybell Avenueand is approximately 0.5 acres. The remainder of the site is zoned RM-15. With the existingzoning, the site could accommodate 34 units (potentially more with density bonuses). Thecurrent land use is a non-functioning orchard and four existing one-story single family homeson Maybell Avenue. The homes were built between the late 1950s to the early 1970s. Thebuilding square footages range from 2,500-3,500 square feet. Historical records show theorchard has not been in operation since the early 1990s. Vehicular access to the site is from

both Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue with a barrier at the end of Clemo Avenue to preventvehicular traffic from Clemo Avenue on to Maybell Avenue.

A Phase I and a Phase II Environmental Assessment were prepared prior to purchase of the site.No significant environmental impacts or concerns have been identified in those reports. Therewere minor concerns about existing contaminants in the soil. The applicant initiated avoluntary cleanup program with the County to remediate the soil containing residual levels of pesticides, lead arsenic, and petroleum hydrocarbons. On November 30, 2012, the County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health issued a letter confirming the completion of the remedial actions to their satisfaction.

Surrounding Uses

The project site is surrounded by the following land uses:

West- Single Family residences of one and two stories (Zoning: R-1)

North - Multifamily residences (Arastradero Park owned by PAHC, Zoning: PC-2656)

East- Multifamily residences (The Tan Plaza Continental, Zoning: PC-2218)

South- Briones Park (Zoning: PF)

Development Plan and Project Description

The applicants comprehensive project description and supplementary statements in support of the Comprehensive Plan amendment and proposed PC district zone change are provided as


3/191


Attachment F. The project plans represent the applicants Development Plan for the proposedPC zone district.

The applicant, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC), has requested a Comprehensive Plan

amendment and rezoning of the 2.46 acre site to Planned Community (PC) to allow increaseddensity and smaller lot sizes than the underlying zone districts. PAHC plans to demolish theexisting four homes and develop 15 market rate single-family homes and 60 affordable seniorrental multifamily units. The affordable senior units would be rented to seniors earningbetween 30%-60% of Area Median Income (AMI). The projects inclusion of affordable rentalhousing units allows for the granting of concessions under State Density Bonus Law perGovernment Section 65915. Requested concessions are described later in this report. Theproject would be designed to meet or exceed the Citys green point rating system. PAHC plansto subdivide the project site to create a subdivision of the single family homes and a parcel forthe senior affordable rental project. The single family subdivision (Market Rate Parcel) wouldthen be sold to a developer and the proceeds would be used to help finance the affordablesenior development (Senior Parcel).

There are two legal parcels on the site. A smaller 0.32 acre legal parcel is adjacent to MaybellAvenue and is surrounded on three sides by the larger 2.14 acre parcel. The ComprehensivePlan land use designation for the smaller legal parcel is Single Family with a zoning designationof R-2. The larger parcel has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of both Single Familyand Multi-family and also has both R-2 and RM-15 zoning (Attachment L). The ComprehensivePlan amendment is necessary because the applicant proposes to site single-family homes alongClemo Avenue, which currently has a Multi-family Residential Comprehensive Plan land use

designation. The amendment would change the multifamily land use to single-family land useto be consistent with the proposed project. The proposed new development would rezone thetwo residentially zoned parcels to form a single residential PC zoned site.

The applicant has applied for a Certificate of Compliance (Certificate) for the two legal parcels.The Certificate is necessary to adjust the lot lines of the two legal parcels to be consistent withthe proposed site plan. In consideration of the impending July 3, 2013 tax credit applicationdeadline, PAHC needed to demonstrate that the tax credit financing would be specificallyapplied for the Senior Parcel and not for the Market Rate Parcel. Considering the shorttimeline, PAHC applied for the Certificate because it could be done at the administrative leveland therefore required less process time.

On April 8, 2013, the applicant also submitted a Tentative Map application for the proposeddevelopment. Understanding that the Tentative Map process requires a greater amount of review, PAHC wanted to start the review process prior to Council consideration of the PCrezone to shorten the land use entitlement timeline. Staff anticipates scheduling the Tentative


4/191


Map application for P&TC consideration within a month. Once the Tentative Map is approved, itwill replace the lot line adjustment.

Goals of the Proposed Project

The primary goal of the project is to increase affordable housing stock available to the Citysaging population. According to Census data, the senior population has been the second fastestgrowing age group in Palo Alto over the last ten years. Of the Citys senior population, 20percent of seniors are living at or near the poverty level. In order to reduce the developmentcosts of the senior housing project, the PAHC is proposing to develop market-rate single-familyhomes adjacent to the residential building for seniors. PAHC plans to sell the land identified forthe single family homes and the entitlements (if approved) to a housing developer, whichwould be bound to the Development Plan as described in the proposed PC ordinance. Withmany jurisdictions having limited funding for affordable housing, including the City of Palo Alto,this is a creative way to help finance affordable housing. It will require less City financial

assistance and since PAHC is providing a greater amount of equity, the development will bemore competitive in securing other sources of public financing.

Residential Units for Senior Citizens

PAHC proposes to build a four-story multi-family structure of approximately 56,192 square feetwith an overall height of 50 feet above grade. The roof height of the structure is 45 feet with a5 foot high stairwell for roof access for a total overall building height of 50 feet. The seniorrental building would be on a 1.03 acre parcel on the northeast corner of the site and wouldinclude 59 one-bedroom apartments and one two-bedroom apartment for an on-site manager,

common areas such as a community room with computer lab, laundry rooms on each floor, aresident services office, as well as outdoor common area space. The affordable apartmentswould have an average size of 600 square feet and be affordable to senior households earning30-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI).

The total floor area breakdown and unit distribution of the senior development is as follows:

Sq. ft. Res. Units

First Floor 16,116 14

Second Floor 13,976 16

Third Floor 13,883 16

Fourth Floor 12,237 14

Total 56,192 60


5/191


The fourth floor will also have a roof terrace and an exercise room available for all theresidents.

Rooftop photovoltaic energy systems are proposed to pre-heat water prior to entering a central

boiler. Photovoltaic electric solar panels are proposed to power the community room. Waterconservation will be achieved with drought-tolerant landscaping of all vegetated areas. EnergyStar appliances will be used in the residences. Additional sustainable measures will be metthroughout the construction and materials selection process which may include recycledaggregate, engineered lumber, no added formaldehyde insulation and modular cabinets, low-VOC paints, wood coatings and adhesives, and low-emitting flooring.

Single Family Housing Units

The market-rate units would be located on a 1.11 acre portion of the site, running adjacent to

the perimeter of the property, bordering Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The remaining 0.32 of the site will be a common space lot covering the proposed alley ways in the development. The15-unit subdivision would comprise fee simple lots of approximately 2,300 to 3,400 square feetwith residence sizes between 1,800-2,400 square feet. A majority of the homes are three-storywith an approximate height of 35 feet.

There would be eight single-family houses located on Maybell Avenue (Lots 1-8), one on acorner lot (Lot 9), and six along Clemo Avenue (lots 10-15). The houses on Maybell Avenuewould be two or three stories with an average height of approximately 25 feet for the two storyhouses (Lots 1, 4, and 7) and 35 feet for the three story units. The corner unit (Lot 9) would

have two stories with an overall height of 25 feet. They will be setback approximately 12 feetfrom Maybell Avenue. In response to the January 17, 2013 ARB preliminary review, theapplicant has redesigned the proposed homes to step back the upper stories of the three storyhomes from the first story to reduce the verticality and massing of the homes. Houses onClemo Avenue would have three stories and a height of 35 feet. The Clemo Avenue homeswould be setback 20 feet to accommodate the mature oak trees that are along Clemo Avenue.In order to avoid parking impacts on Maybell and Clemo Avenues, two car garage parking wouldbe provided at the rear of each unit, accessed by an alley in the interior of the site. Garageparking at the rear of the homes would allow an uninterrupted sidewalk along Maybell Avenuewhich will connect existing sidewalks north and south of the property. The eight homes alongMaybell Avenue (Lots 1-8) will also have two car driveways to accommodate additional parkingif necessary.

Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) Purview

The PTC purview is to review and recommend City Council action on the request for aComprehensive Plan land use amendment and rezoning of the site from R-2 and RM-15 to a PC


6/191


zone district. The purview includes review and recommendation of the Comprehensive Planland use amendment to reconfigure the land uses to be consistent with the proposeddevelopment. Planned Community rezone procedures and standards are described in Chapter18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The first step in the PC process was PTC review of theconcept plans, development program statement, draft development schedule and an initiation

the PC process. Following feedback from the PTC initiation hearing on February 13, 2013, thedevelopment plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans were submitted for ArchitecturalReview Board (ARB) review. The ARB recommended approval of the project on April 4, 2013.

The ARB reviewed the projects conformance with Context Based Design Criteria, ARB findingsfor approval, and green building regulations. The Citys conditions of approval were sharedwith the ARB and refined for inclusion in the draft PC ordinance (Attachment A) following theARB recommendations.

City staff requests review by the PTC, together with a draft PC ordinance, draft resolution forthe Comprehensive Plan amendment, and environmental document, for the P TCs final reviewand recommendation to City Council. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigationmeasures and a mitigation monitoring program. The PC ordinance identifies the permitted usesand site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project.

Summary of Key Issues

Planned Community Zone Findings

The PTC may recommend a PC zone change only if it finds that:(a) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such

characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will notprovide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.

(b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district willresult in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In making the findings required by this section,the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shallspecifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the plannedcommunity district.

(c) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within thedistrict shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall becompatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the generalvicinity.


7/191


1. Zoning Comparison

The development and zoning comparison table (Attachment E) analyzes the developmentstandards for the proposed PC zone development compared to a development of the sitefollowing the existing R-2 and RM-15 zones and, by comparison, the RM-40 developmentstandards. RM-40 development standards are included since the proposed density of thedevelopment is most similar to RM-40 zoning. In addition, the site development regulationsof the Village Residential housing type (PAMC 18.13.050) were compared with the proposedproject, in that the proposed single-family lots are generally consistent with the purposeand applicability of Village Residential.

The proposed homes along Maybell Avenue would not meet the R-2 zoning requirements.The proposed lots are smaller than the R-2 minimum lot requirements for width and depth.Therefore the proposed homes do not meet the daylight plane, height and setbackrequirements. In addition, the maximum height requirement is 30 ft. The three storyhomes would exceed the R-2 height limit.

The proposed homes along Clemo Avenue would meet the existing RM-15 VillageResidential standards for height and front and side setbacks. However, the lot areas aresmaller than what is allowed in Village Residential because the width and depth of theproposed lots do not meet the minimum requirements.

The Project exceeds the RM-40 requirements for height, daylight plane and VillageResidential setback requirements. The proposed senior building exceeds the maximumallowable height and extends into the daylight plane. The single family residences on

Maybell Avenue would not meet the setback requirements for the RM-40 zone. In order tomeet the goals of the Project, the applicant has requested PC zoning in that thedevelopment plan would not specifically conform to any of the multi-family residencedistrict.

Furthermore, the PC district, if granted, would be applicable only to the approvedDevelopment Plan, thereby ensuring that only the proposed project could be developed.Any future redevelopment of the site to a different use or increased density would requireadditional rezoning that could only be approved by the City Council. This requirement foradditional City Council approval would not necessarily be required for a typical RM-15, RM-

30, or RM-40 zoned site.

2. Circulation, Access and Traffic

Automobile ingress and egress for the single-family homes and the residential units forseniors was initially proposed to use an entry way from Clemo Avenue with the exception of the corner lot, which would have its own driveway. Automobile traffic would then be


8/191


directed to Arastradero Road. The existing automobile traffic barrier would remain;therefore, there would not be vehicular traffic access from Clemo Avenue onto MaybellAvenue. The four existing driveways on Maybell would be removed and an additional fourstreet parking spaces would be created. (Note: A secondary access, however, is nowproposed via a shared driveway to Maybell from the adjacent Arastradero Park affordable

housing project.)

A traffic study was prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. dated April 23,2013, to identify and analyze potential traffic impacts and access issues related to theproposed project. The scope of the study focused on peak hour levels of service for sixintersections and one roadway segment. The study reviewed existing intersectionoperations and assigned each intersection a level of service (LOS). The study determinedthat the proposed project would generate 19 gross new trips in the AM peak hour and 25gross new trips in the PM hour. However, since the proposed project would be replacing 4existing homes, the 3 AM peak hour trips and the 4 PM peak hour trips will be subtracted.Therefore, 16 net new trips in the AM peak hour and 21 net new trips during the PM peakhour will be generated. Based on the intersection analysis, the study reviewed the impactsof the proposed Clemo main entry in addition to two other traffic options.

Below is a summary of the studys findings:

Proposed Clemo Avenue ingress/egress to Arastradero Road

The non-signalized intersection of Clemo Avenue and Arastradero Road is intermittently

blocked by southbound traffic on Arastradero Road between 7:50 AM and 8:25 AM. Thereare also a significant number of bicycles and pedestrians that cross that intersection duringthat time, adding to the difficulty of turning left onto Arastradero Road. By adding theproposed project trips to the intersection, the study found that it would incur a substantialincrease in delay and deterioration in the level of service. The intersection currentlyoperates at a level of service (LOS) C. With the addition of traffic from the project, itwould exacerbate the existing congestion at the intersection and downgrade the LOS toD. This is not considered a significant impact under the Citys traffic thresholds .

However, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) law requires that any project bereviewed for cumulative impacts. Cumulative is a represented forecast in the future (year2020). The cumulative impact of that the intersection, without the project, will be a LOS of D. With the project, the cumulative impact would deteriorate down to LOS E. Thedeterioration of service to LOS E creates a potentially significant impact.


9/191


In addition to the proposed Clemo Avenue via Arastradero Road access, the traffic studyreviewed two other alternatives.

Alternative No. 1 Obtaining an easement to Maybell Avenue

PAHC owns the adjacent property to the north, Arastradero Park (APAC). Arastradero Parkis a 65-unit affordable housing development consisting of one, two, three and four bedroomunits. The 65 units are distributed in two and three story buildings on the three acreproperty. Access to the property is from Maybell Avenue and Arastradero Road. PAHC hasobtained a conditional approval from HUD, the APAC lender, granting an easement for theMaybell project to use the APACs Maybell Avenue driveway. This alternative would reducethe increase in delay and deterioration in the level of service during the AM peak hour atthe Clemo Avenue/Arastradero Road, but would add some additional traffic to MaybellAvenue.

Alternative No. 2 Relocating Traffic Barrier east of proposed Clemo Avenue entryway

Another option analyzed was the relocation of the existing traffic barrier. The barrier wouldbe moved just east of the proposed Clemo Avenue entryway. Therefore, all vehicle trafficwould be directed onto Maybell Avenue. The APAC easement would remain unchanged.The study concluded that with this option, there would be slightly increased traffic onMaybell Avenue, south of the project. However, due to the low number of daily trips theproject would add to Maybell Avenue, the study concludes that it is unlikely that therewould be any perceived increase in traffic.

As mentioned, the proposed Clemo Avenue via Arastradero Road alternative was found tocreate a potentially significant impact in the Initial Study. Therefore, the project mustmitigate the impact in order to avoid any potentially significant impacts. Staff has includedthe following mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigationmeasure is as follows:

a. The project sponsor shall obtain and provide an access easement through theadjacent Arastradero Park Apartment Complex to connect the site access aisle to theexisting driveway for APAC on Maybell Avenue.

b. If an access easement cannot be obtained and access is from a single driveway onClemo Avenue, the access barriers on Clemo Avenue shall be relocated from theintersection of Maybell Avenue to east of the project driveway on Clemo Avenue.

The mitigation measure has been included in the Planned Community Zone Ordinance asSection 4(i) and in the Conditions of Approval as Condition No. 6.


10/191


Staff recommends the first mitigation measure, as it avoids moving the traffic barrier onClemo, which would reduce the safety of pedestrians crossing Clemo Avenue at thatintersection. Traffic from the APAC driveway to Maybell is likely to be minimal and wouldprimarily flow opposite from peak hour auto and bicycle traffic at the morning peak hour.

Impacts on Bicycle and Pedestrian Traffic

Maybell Avenue is an existing Bicycle Boulevard as identified in the City Bicycle and PedestrianTransportation Plan. It is also a suggested route to Henry M. Gunn High School and JuanaBriones Elementary School as part of the Citys Safe Routes to School program. Many bicyclistsusing Maybell Avenue are students attending Juana Briones Elementary School, Terman MiddleSchool and Henry M. Gunn High School. There is concern that the proposed project would addadditional traffic onto Maybell Avenue and create additional hazards to an already impactedstreet.

The project would be removing four existing driveways on Maybell Avenue and replacing it witha new sidewalk, decreasing the bicycle hazards while improving pedestrian safety. The sidewalkwill provide a continuous segment of the sidewalk system for that section of Maybell Avenue.With the required mitigation measure, some additional traffic would be introduced ontoMaybell Avenue. However, the traffic study did review this scenario and determined that thetraffic impact is not expected to be noticeable (about 4 peak hour trips).

To further lessen the impact of the Maybell traffic on bicycle and pedestrian traffic, staff hasrecommended additional project conditions. The conditions are as follows:

1. A No Parking sign shall be installed on the Maybell Avenue frontage of the projectsite. The no parking hours shall be between 7AM and 7 PM.

2. Shared Roadways Markings (Sharrows) will be in stalled in both directions onMaybell Avenue.

Traffic Impact Comparison

The table below compares traffic generation from the proposed project to traffic generationestimated if the site builds out to existing zoning but as market-rate single family homes. Thetable compares peak hour trip traffic generation assuming maximum buildout of the projectsite using the existing zoning (R-2 and RM-15), existing zoning with the maximum 35% Statedensity bonus and the proposed development. As previously mentioned, the project site usingexisting zoning is permitted 34 units. Based on data used by the Institute of TransportationEngineers (ITE), the average AM trip generation rate per single family detached dwelling unit is


11/191


.75 and a PM peak trip ratio of 1.02. Therefore, a 34 unit subdivision, as allowed by the existingzoning would generate 22 net new trips occurring in the AM peak hour and 32 net new PMpeak hours trips. In comparison, the proposed project would have 16 AM peak hour trips and21 PM peak hour trips, as senior units produce significantly less peak hour trips.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDMaximum Numberof Dwelling Units

AM Peak hour tripsPM Peak hour

trips

Existing Zoning 34 22 32

Existing Zoning with 35%Density Bonus

46 32 43

Proposed MaybellDevelopment

75 16 21

3. Daylight Plane/Height

The application is generally in compliance with the requirements of the Planned Community(PC) Zone District. However, portions of the proposed development are inconsistent withheight and daylight plane requirements. The height and daylight plane requirements areapplicable as the project site is within 150 feet of existing residentially zoned parcels.Section 18.38.050(b) requires that building height be a maximum of 35 feet if within 150feet of residentially zoned parcels otherwise the maximum height is 50 feet. TheArastradero Park and Tan Plaza Apartments are within 150 feet of the proposed seniordevelopment. The proposed 50-foot height of the senior development exceeds the 35 footmaximum height requirement.

Section 18.38.050(e) requires a daylight plane be established along that portion of the lotthat abuts the neighboring residential property. The daylight plane is to be measuredbeginning at a height of 10 feet and increasing inward at 1:2 slope (30 degree angle). Usingthis formula, the residential building for senior citizens would protrude into the daylightplane at approximately mid-way point of the second floor of the senior development. Inaddition, the proposed single-family home on Lot 1 would also protrude into the daylight

plane. The home, as proposed, has a side yard setback of 4 feet. Using the aforementionedformula, the home would protrude into the daylight plane at approximately 12 feet abovegrade.

The applicant is requesting concessions per State Density Bonus Law Government CodeSection 65915 for relief from the daylight plane and height requirement in exchange forproviding affordable housing. The daylight plane intrusion and the height of the senior


12/191


building would only affect the Arastradero Park Apartments in the winter months. The TanPlaza and the single family residences along Maybell Ave. are not affected by the daylightplane encroachment or the additional height.

4. State Density Bonus Law and ConcessionsGovernment Code 65915 requires that a city and county shall grant incentives orconcessions to an applicant who agrees to provide, under a 30 year commitment, housingunits for low and moderate income households as defined in the Health and Safety Code,which is the stand ard reflected in Palo Altos Below Market Rate (BMR) regulations.Government Code(GC) 65915 (d) (A) provides for (i) one concession for projects providing10% of its units allocated for lower and moderate income households; (ii) two concessionsfor projects providing 20% of its units allocated for lower and moderate income households;and (iii) three concessions for projects providing 30% of its units allocated for lower andmoderate income households. The development is providing more than 30% of its units foraffordable housing as the applicant proposes to provide 60 affordable units. This means theapplicant could choose to use three concessions.

The applicant is requesting two concessions to address: 1) the senior building heightexceeding the 35 foot height limitation (a 50 foot height is generally allowed for a PC zonebut is reduced to 35 feet due to its proximity within 150 feet of residential zoning) and 2)relief from the more restrictive PC zone daylight plane requirement (again specific to thenearby residential lots). These concessions are generally allowed by right through Statelaw. The jurisdiction must grant the concession unless the jurisdiction finds that theconcession is not necessary for the production of the affordable housing or if it creates anadverse impact on a Historical Resource.

Staff notes that, although these concessions are supportive of the project, the PTC andCouncil are not obligated to approve a rezoning (to PC or any other zone) or ComprehensivePlan change by such concessions. If the City feels that the project violates the intent of thePC zoning or the Comprehensive Plan, there is still discretion allowed by the City to deny ormodify the requested PC zoning. If the PTC recommends and Council approves the project,however, the concessions are required to accommodate the height and daylight plane.

5. Public BenefitsThe second of the three required PC approval findings specifies that: Development of thesite under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefitsnot otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combiningdistricts. In making the findings required by this section, the P&TC and City Council, asappropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of theplanned community district.


13/191


The substantial public benefit for this project is the provision of 60 units of affordablehousing for seniors earning between 30%-60% of area median income (AMI). The seniorpopulation in Palo Alto has been steadily increasing since the 1970s with the seniorpopulation increasing 39% between 1980-2008. The senior population is nowapproximately 11,120 persons or 17.1% of the Citys population. According to the SiliconValley Council on Aging, 20% of seniors in Palo Alto are living at or below poverty level.Many seniors are on fixed incomes, and as property prices and rental rates continue toincrease in Palo Alto, it is becoming much more difficult for seniors to find housing in theCity.

Another public benefit will be the installation of a sidewalk on Maybell Avenue. There areexisting sidewalks on the adjacent blocks on Maybell Ave and on Clemo Avenue. The newsidewalk will connect to the Clemo Avenue sidewalk. It will also link the sidewalk system for

that portion of Maybell Avenue.

6. Context Based Design Criteria

Although the project is not subject to the RM zone district requirements, staff completed acomparison of the proposed project to the Context Based Design Criteria as outlined inSection 18.13.060 of the Zoning Code in the RM code. The proposed design appears to beconsistent with many of the requirements. In summary, the project would improvepedestrian walkability by adding the sidewalk on Maybell Avenue, a bicycle-friendlyenvironment with the removal of driveways on Maybell Avenue and connectivity through

design elements with the existing neighborhoods. In addition, the applicant is proposing toadd new trees along Maybell Avenue to help improve the visual appearance of the MaybellAvenue streetscape.

The Maybell Avenue homes would minimize massing with increased setbacks at the top twofloors. The proposed homes on Clemo Avenue have given a larger front yard setback tointegrate the existing mature oak trees into the design of the homes. All the residentialunits have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward.

The parking design is consistent with the design criteria in that the parking is located behindthe single family residences and is concealed from public view. Landscaping provides avisual buffer between vehicle circulation areas and abutting properties.


14/191


7. Parking

The plan provides for 42 parking spaces with five reserve spaces for a total of 47 spaces forthe senior development. One space would be an electric vehicle (EV) space. The Cityrequires 1.5 units per one-bedroom unit and 2 spaces per two-bedroom unit. Therefore thedevelopment would typically require a total of 97 parking spaces (90 spaces for theresidents and 7 spaces for guest parking). However, the City has recognized that seniordevelopments generate less traffic impacts and require less parking than other residentialdevelopments. The developer is providing a total of 47 parking stalls for 60 units or a ratioof .78 stalls per unit. Seven of the stalls have been designated for guest parking for thesenior development. This ratio is consistent or exceeds other parking ratios for seniordevelopments throughout the City. In addition, staff has researched affordable seniorresidential project parking ratios. In a 1996 paper presented to the Institute of Transportation Engineers about Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking DemandCharacteristics, the paper concludes that the average peak demand is .4 vehicles perdwelling unit for residents, employees and visitors. In another affordable housing parking

study conducted by the City of San Diego in 2011, it concluded that the demand for parkingis .6 for a one bedroom unit in an urban area. Therefore, the .78 parking ratio proposed bythe applicant is above the either of the findings. This ratio is higher than other existingaffordable senior housing developments throughout the City and the region.

Below is a table that provides a summary of parking at other nearby affordable seniorproperties.

PROPERTY CITY TOTAL UNITS SPACES PROVIDED PARKING RATIO

Sheridan Sr. Apts. Palo Alto 57 20 .35

Stevenson House Palo Alto 120 58 .48

Fair Oaks Plaza Sunnyvale 124 84 .67

MAYBELL 60 47 .78

Parking for the single family homes would be provided with two car garages. Access to thegarages is from the interior of the project site. Driveways for all the units on MaybellAvenue are proposed for each home and would accommodate two additional automobiles.

8. Trees

There are twelve oak trees on the site adjacent to Clemo Avenue. Ten of the oaks aremature oak trees are proposed to be retained. Two other oak trees are in fair to poorcondition and are proposed to be removed. The oak trees that will be retained have been


15/191


integrated into the overall design of the project. The arborists report , prepared byMcClenahan Consulting, LLC, dated November 26, 2012, has been prepared that evaluateseach oak tree and includes a tree preservation and protection plan which outlines thenecessary protection measures to be implemented during construction to prevent injuriesto the trees to remain. These recommendations include installation of protective fencing

around the trees during construction, that any grading or excavation within Tree ProtectionZones (TPZs) must be accomplished through hand digging, and that a qualified arborist mustsupervise any cutting of roots greater that one inch diameter. In addition, the single familyresidences along Clemo Avenue would be set back an average of 20 feet from the propertyline to accommodate the oak trees. The trees will also provide a privacy screen betweenthe homes and Briones Park.

Medium sized canopy trees are proposed along Maybell Ave. The new frontage trees wouldbe located in each front yard of the Maybell Avenue homes.

Planned Community OrdinanceSection 4 of the attached draft Ordinance (Attachment A) delineates the permitted andconditionally permitted uses, development standards, and development schedule for the newdevelopment.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment

As part of this proposal, a resolution (Attachment B) has been prepared to accommodate therequested Comprehensive Plan Amendment to revise the land use designation of a portion of the parcel from Multifamily Residential to Single Family Residential. Staff believes this

amendment is appropriate to be consistent with the proposed Planned Community rezone.

Community Concerns

The project applicant has contacted nearby neighborhood associations and has discussed theproposed project with them on multiple occasions, as recently as April 24, 2013. The currentdesign incorporates many comments received from the neighborhood meetings. Letters andelectronic mail received as of May 16, 2013 are posted online on the City website and havebeen placed in a binder for public review in the Planning and Community Environment officeand at the Council Chamber Public Table.

Nevertheless, there remain substantial concerns from neighbors, with the primary concernsincluding:

Additional traffic on Maybell Avenue and its effect on pedestrian/bicycle safety; Increased residential density;


16/191


Inappropriate to site a residential building for seniors at this location since there are nowalkable services in the area; and

Desire that the orchard should be converted to a playing field.

Traffic on Maybell/Reduction of Safety

Maybell Avenue is an existing Bicycle Boulevard as identified in the City Bicycle and PedestrianTransportation Plan. It is also a suggested route to Henry M. Gunn High School and JuanaBriones Elementary School as part of the Citys Safe Routes to School program. Many bicyclistsusing Maybell Avenue are students attending Juana Briones Elementary School, Terman MiddleSchool and Henry M. Gunn High School. There is concern that the proposed project would addadditional traffic onto Maybell Avenue and create additional hazards to an already impactedstreet. Staff recommends, however, that the Clemo barrier remain with a secondary access toMaybell through the adjacent Arastradero Park property. The traffic study determined that onlyapproximately four (4) trips would be generated to Maybell Avenue during the peak hour withthis configuration, and those would most likely turn right towards El Camino, away from theschool and opposite the morning peak hour bicycle traffic to school. Staff also recommends NoParking on the project side of Maybell Avenue during the day to further reduce conflicts withbicycles and pedestrians. Four existing driveways onto Maybell will be removed as part of theproject, again reducing potential conflict points. Finally, Sharrow (shared bicycle and vehicles)signage will be stenciled on the streets to highlight the bicycle use.

Increased Density

There have been many comments about the proposed density of the project. The Barron Park

and Green Acres neighborhoods are primarily single family residentially zoned. Communitymembers maintain that increased density would be inconsistent with the surrounding densityand would deteriorate the quality of life in the area. Staff notes, however, that immediatelyadjacent is the Tan Plaza, by comparison, is a 61 unit development on 2 acres. It was approvedin 1965. Also immediately adjacent on another side is the Arastradero Park project, a multi-family affordable housing development. Only one side of the project (across Maybell) ischaracterized by single- family development. Staff also notes that the high density portion of the site is set well back (more than 100 feet) from homes along Maybell, abutting the TanApartments site.

School Impacts

There have been some concerns raised about introducing additional students into the Palo AltoUnified School District. In discussion with PAUSD staff, they have reviewed this project and the15 single family units. Based on their estimate, each SFD would produce .67 students perhome. As proposed, the project, with the eleven net single family detached units, would yieldapproximately eight new students.


17/191


DEVELOPMENT STANDARDMaximum Numberof Dwelling Units

Number of newstudents

Existing Zoning 34 24

Existing Zoning with 35%Density Bonus

46 32

Proposed MaybellDevelopment (PC)

75 8

In comparison with the existing zoning and using the same .67 student/SFD ratio, the maximumbuildout of 34 market rate units under the existing zoning, it would generate 24 new studentsto the school district.

Inappropriate siting for senior housing

Some residents have commented that the site is inappropriate for senior housing since thereare no services within walking distance other than Walgreens which is 0.2 miles from theproject site. The commenters maintain that seniors will need to drive to access servicestherefore increasing the traffic on Maybell Avenue. However, there are a number of serviceswithin 0.5 miles on El Camino Real. PAHC also provides a multitude of transportation and otherservices to its residents at Arastradero Park which could also serve the residents of thisdevelopment.

Annex the orchard to expand Juana Briones Park

There have been suggestions to use the orchard to expand Juana Briones Park or to developplaying fields on the project site. There are no play fields in the area since the fields at GunnHigh School and other schools in the area are not accessible to the public. Staff notes that sucha proposal has not been fully considered but an initial review indicates that there are a numberof concerns about locating athletic fields at the site. The site is too small to accommodate aplaying field and required parking, there are no funds available for the purchase (approximately$16 million) of the site, and the expected traffic and parking impacts of playing fields are alsoquite significant, as are potential noise impacts.

Build Under the Existing Zoning

Some residents have commented that the site should not be rezoned and that a project shouldbe designed consistent with the existing zoning. Staff notes that (as indicated previously in thisreport), such a development would have greater traffic impacts on Maybell Avenue and wouldgenerate more school children than the proposed project. Some neighbors have urged that the


18/191


site be built as senior affordable housing at the existing allowable density, but that is simply notfeasible for the PAHC (or likely any other developer). The price of the land would dictate that alower density development would most likely comprise 35-40 market rate single family homes,similar to those proposed for the Maybell frontage.

Previous Public Hearings

Planning and Transportation Commission Initiation

The project concept was reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) aspart of the PC rezone initiation at the February 13, 2013 P&TC meeting. The proposal is todemolish the four existing single family homes and develop 15 units of market-rate single familyhousing and a 60 unit affordable rental housing development for seniors.

The PTC initiated the PC zone district by a vote of 4-2 (Commissioners Panelli and Tanaka

opposed); giving direction to the applicant regarding recommended modifications to theproject. The February 13, 2013 staff report is available as Attachment G. Meeting minutes fromthe P&TC public hearing is provided as Attachment H to this report. Individual Commissionercomments from the P&TC during the February 13, 2013 PTC review included:

The residential building for the seniors is overparked because seniors have less of aneed for a car;

Enhance the design of the senior building;

The single family homes on Maybell Avenue should be all two story structures, and

The overall development is too dense.

Based on the Commissioners comments, the applicant revised the site plan and design of thestructures. They revised the site plan to provide 42 parking spaces for the senior building witha five car parking reserve. If there is additional parking demand from either the single familyhomes or the senior development, the parking reserve can be used. Additional design featureshave been added to the senior building in response to the PTC and ARB review. The applicanthas also redesigned the third story on the single family homes. While they have not reducedthe number of stories, the third story has been stepped back to reduce the massing on Maybell

Avenue.

ARB Preliminary Review

The Architectural Review Board conducted a preliminary review of the conceptual plans duringa public hearing held on January 17, 2013, during which the ARB provided comments to the


19/191


applicant. The staff report is included as Attachment I and the Action Minutes are included asAttachment J. Some of the comments that were made included:

Too many exterior materials and finishes were used for the single family homes;

Reduce the verticality of the single family homes along Maybell Avenue; A shadow study of the senior development was suggested because of the proposed

height of the building, and

The senior building was too isolated and needed to be integrated more into the overalldevelopment.

The applicants revised the plans based on ARB preliminary review and P&TC initiationcomments.

ARB Review and Recommendation

The ARB reviewed the revised project plans during its formal review on April 4, 2013. The ARBand public had an opportunity to comment on the environmental review document included inthe staff report. The ARB recommended approval of the project by a vote of 4-0 (ARB memberLippert absent) with a condition that the project return to the ARB subcommittee to providedesign details for 15 items. The staff report is included as Attachment I and the Action Minutesare included as Attachment J. Some of the more significant revisions to be made included:

Widen the Clemo Avenue main automobile driveway entrance; Reconsider wall materials on the single family homes and north and east elevation of

the residential building for senior citizens;

Consider roofing materials on the single family homes; Redesign the corner lot garage and front door designs for consistency, and Reconsider roof shapes.

Policy ImplicationsThe proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation andpolicies and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. A table of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies is included as Attachment C.


20/191


Resource Impact

The City has extended a $5.8 million loan for the acquisition of the site. The project wouldprovide additional housing in the form of 15 single family homes and 60 affordable senior rentalunits. The senior residential units would not have a substantial impact, if any, on schoolenrollment and other public facilities.

Timeline

Preliminary ARB Hearing January 9, 2013

Initiation by P&TC February 13, 2013

First ARB Hearing April 4, 2013

Formal P&TC Hearing May 22, 2013

Estimated City Council Hearing June 2013

Environmental Review

This project is subject to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Staff has completed an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment K). TheMitigated Negative Declaration identified the traffic circulation as proposed from ClemoAvenue to Arastradero Road less than significant if mitigated. The mitigation measure willrequire the applicant to either obtain an easement on the adjacent Arastradero ParkApartments property or relocate the traffic barrier east of the proposed entry way to direct theproject traffic from Clemo Avenue to Maybell Avenue. The close of the comment period is May30, 2013.

COURTESY COPIES

Palo Alto Housing Corporation

Attachments:

Attachment A: Draft PC Ordinance (DOC)

Attachment B: Draft Resolution for Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DOC) Exhibit A: 567-595 Maybell Location Map PROPOSED LU Designations (PDF) Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Policies (DOC) Attachment D: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)


21/191


Attachment E: Zoning Table (XLSX) Attachment F: Project Desciption (prepared by Applicant) (DOCX) Attachment G: PTC Staff Report 02.13.13 w/o attachments (PDF) Attachment H: PTC Minutes 02.13.13 (PDF) Attachment I: ARB Staff Reports, January 17 , 2013 and April 4, 2013 (PDF) Attachment J: ARB Action Minutes January 17 , 2013 and April 4, 2013 (PDF) Attachment K: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF) Attachment L: Map with Existing Zoning and Lot lines (PDF) Attachment M: Submitted Project Plans (Dated April 25, 2013, Prepared by Applicant)

for Commission only (PDF)

Attachment N: Neighbor/Public Correspondence (available on-line, at the Council

Chambers Public Table and the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Ave., 5th Floor)


22/191


23/191

NOT YET APPROVED

*****DRAFT***** 1

Ordinance No. xxxxOrdinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Changethe Classification of Property Located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue fromR-2 Low Density Residential and RM-15 Multiple Family Residential toPC Planned Community Zone No. xxxx for a 15 single family homes and a 60 unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors .

The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:

SECTION 1.

(a) Palo Alto Housing Corporation, (the Applicant) applied on November 6,2012 to the City for approval of a rezoning application (the Project) for a new PlannedCommunity (PC) district for a property located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue (the SubjectProperty) to accommodate the uses set forth below.

(b) The Planning and Transportation Commission, at its meeting of February 13,2013, advanced the Project with an initiation to consider a Planned Community Zone process for the establishment of Planned Community Zone District No. xxxx.

(c) The Architectural Review Board, at its meeting of April 4, 2013, reviewed theProject design and recommended the City Council approve the project with associated draftconditions of approval Exhibit B.

(d) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed publichearing held May 22, 2013, reviewed, considered, and recommended approval of the draftMitigated Negative Declaration and this ordinance, and recommended that Section 18.08.040(the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the Subject Property toa new Planned Community zone to permit construction of the proposed project depicted onExhibit A, (the Project), consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zonerelated to allowable land uses and required development standards, and subject to provision of the public benefits outlined in this ordinance.

(e) The Palo Alto City Council, after due consideration of the proposed Project,the analysis of the City Staff, and the conditions recommended by the Planning andTransportation Commission, adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MitigationMonitoring Program, and the recommendations from the PTC and the ARB, and finds that the

proposed Ordinance is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety andwelfare, as hereinafter set forth.

(f) The Council finds that (1) the Subject Property is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the Project;(2) development of the Subject Property under the provisions of the PC Planned CommunityDistrict will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section (4)(c) hereof; and (3) the use or

ATTACHMENT A


24/191

NOT YET APPROVED

*****DRAFT***** 2

uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district areconsistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan (Goals, Policies, and proposed designation of Mixed Use for the Subject Property) and are compatible with existing and potential uses onadjoining sites or within the general vicinity.

SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the ZoningMap, is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from R-2 and RM-15 toPC Planned Community .

SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Propertythat the project (the Project) comprises the following uses included in this ordinance and aresidential development, depicted on the Development Plans dated April 15, 2013, incorporated

by reference, including the following components:

(a) 15 units of detached single family homes with lots ranging from approximately 2,273to 3,817 square feet with homes ranging from 2,293 to 7,770 square feet.

(b) A four story multifamily affordable rental development for seniors (Senior Building)earning 30-60% area median income (AMI). The development will contain 59 one bedroomunits of approximately 600 square feet and 1 two bedroom property managers unit of approximately 726 square feet. The total square footage of the building is 56,320 square feet.The height to the top of the fourth floor will be 50 feet .

(e) Multiple Common Open Space areas for the Senior Building including: 1) aresidential roof terrace of approximately 1,152 square feet located on the fourth floor, and 2) a468 square foot covered terrace as part of an approximately .35 acre courtyard, and 3) a secondfloor deck of 125 square feet.

(f) Surface level parking with a minimum of 42 parking stalls with a reserve of 5 spaces,with an entrance from the surface parking area of the Subject Property.

SECTION 4. The Development Plan for the Subject Property dated April 15,2013, and any approved supplemental materials for the Subject Property, as submitted by theapplicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section (PAMC) 18.38.090, shall be subject tothe following permitted and conditional land uses and special limitations on land uses,development standards, parking and loading requirements, modifications to the development

plans and provisions of public benefits outlined below, and conditions of project approval ,attached and incorporated as Exhibit B.

(a) Permitted, Conditionally Permitted land uses shall be allowed and limited asfollows:

Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b)):

(1) Single Family Residential

(2) Multifamily Residential

Conditionally Permitted Uses:


25/191

NOT YET APPROVED

*****DRAFT***** 3

No conditionally permitted uses will be allowed .

(b) Special limitations on land uses include the following:

(1) The Residential Building for Seniors shall only be for affordable rentalhousing for seniors earning 30-60% of AMI;

(c) Development Standards:

Development Standards for the site shall comply with the standards prescribed for the Planned Community (PC) zone district (PAMC Chapter 18.38) and asdescribed in Section Three and Section Four herein and in the ApprovedDevelopment Plans.

(d) Parking and Loading Requirements:

Parking and Loading requirements for the site shall comply as specified inPAMC 18.52 and 18.54 and as described in Section Three and Section Four herein and in the Approved Development Plans.

(e) Modifications to the Development Plan and Site Development Regulations:

Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved DevelopmentPlan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or anynew construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the sitedevelopment regulations contained in Section 4 (a) (c) above shall require anamendment to this Planned Community zone , unless the modification is a minor

change as described in PAMC 18.76.050 (b) (3) (e), in which case themodification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process.Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendmentto the PC ordinance.

(f) Public Benefits:

Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned CommunityDistrict will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includesthe following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and in excess of those required by City zoning districts.

(1) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing. Provision of a senior rental housing

component, and in particular, providing 60 units at below market (low andvery low income) rates;

(2) Installation of a sidewalk. A 5 foot sidewalk will be installed alongMaybell Avenue to link that section of Maybell Avenue with the sidewalk system to the adjacent parcels.


26/191

NOT YET APPROVED

*****DRAFT***** 4

(g) Development Schedule:

The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below:

Construction of the Project shall commence on or before October 2013, unless achange in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning andCommunity Environment, not to exceed a one year extension in time and onlyone such extension without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC 18.38.130. The totaltime for the project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be12 months, or by October 2014, unless extended by the Director for up to oneadditional year.

(h) Fees

The application of City Development Impact Fees shall be a follows:

1. The 15 unit single family subdivision will be subject to all applicable CityDevelopment Impact and Quimby Act requirements.

2. The Senior Building, as an affordable housing development, shall be exemptfrom all Development Impact Fees as set forth in Chapter 16 and Chapter 21of the City Municipal Code.

California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicantwho desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactionsimposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time thedevelopment project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90)days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposedon the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting thesedevelopment fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth inGovernment Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTESTWITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTESTPROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020,YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS,AND EXACTIONS.

This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCPSection 1094.6.

SECTION 5. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicantshall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents(the indemnified parties) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third

party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside, or void this ordinanceor any permit or approval authorized hereby for the project, including (without limitation)reimbursing the City its actual attorneys fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. TheCity may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice

Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.02"

Formatted: No underline

Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at:

Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1.06" + Indat: 1.31"

Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Lef1.06", First line: 0", Tab stops: Not at 0.6


27/191

NOT YET APPROVED

*****DRAFT***** 5

SECTION 6. Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits. Not later than three(3)one (1) year s following the approval of building occupancy by the City and every three (3)years thereafter, the applicant shall request that the City review the project to assure thatconditions of approval and public benefits remain in effect as provided in the original approval.The applicant shall provide adequate funding to reimburse the City for these costs. If conditionsor benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct such conditions in not morethan 90 days from notice by the City. If correction is not made within the prescribed timeframe,the Director of Planning and Community Environment will schedule review of the project beforethe Planning and Transportation Commission and Council to determine appropriate remedies,fines or other actions.

SECTION 7. A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for this project was preparedin accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act and circulated for public review for a 20-day period ending on May 30, 2013. The City Council approved the MND and MitigationMonitoring Program at its meeting of ________________.

SECTION 8. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption (second reading).

////

//

//

//

INTRODUCED:

PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTENTIONS:

ABSENT:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

__________________________ City Clerk

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

__________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney

__________________________

_________________________ Mayor

_________________________ City Manager


28/191

NOT YET APPROVED

*****DRAFT***** 6

Director of Planning andCommunity Environment


29/191

1 130516 syn 0120152

RESOLUTION NO.RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO

ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVEPLAN LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE

DESIGNATION FOR 567-595 MAYBELL AVENUE FROMMULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticedpublic hearing on May 1, 2013 recommended that the City Councilamend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan asset forth below; and

WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation afterduly noticed public hearing, the Council desires to amend saidplan as hereinafter set forth;

The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE asfollows:

SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the publicinterest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and thesurrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of thePalo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2.

SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land UseMap of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing thedesignation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from MultifamilyResidential to Single Family Residential. Exhibit A is attachedto this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference.

//

//

//

//

//

//

//

ATTACHMENT B


30/191

2 130516 syn 0120152

SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of thisresolution will have no significant adverse environmental impact.

INTRODUCED AND PASSED:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTENTIONS:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

City Clerk Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager

Senior Asst. City AttorneyDirector of Planning and

Community Environment


31/191

4 1 5

1

4 1 4 7

4 1 4 3

4 1 3 9

4 1 3 3

4 1 4 6

6 2 8

6 2 2

6 1 2

4 1 5 0

4 1 5 4

4 1 5 8

6 1 9

4 1 6 9

5 9 0

4 1 3 4 4 1

3 6

4 1 3 8

4 1 4 4 4

1 4 0

4 1 5 0

6 3 8

5 7 1

5 4 5

4 1 3 3

4 1 7 1

4 1 7 3

1 7 5

4 2 0 5

5 8 1

4 2 0 1

4 2 0 6

4 2 0 8

4 2 1 2

4 2 1 6

6 0 7

4 2 0 2

6 0 9

5 8 0

6 0 0

5 9 5

4 1 5 5

5 7 8

5 7 6

5 7 0

4 1 3 7

4 1 4 3

4 1 5 1

4 1 5 5

4 1 6 3

4 1 4

4 1 5 2

4 1 5 8

5 6 6

5 6 4

5 7 4

5 8 7

5 7 5

0

5 5 6

5 6 2

5 5 9

5 5 7

5 6 4

5 6 8

5 6 7

5 7 2

5 5 7

4 1 7 0

4 1 7 4

4 1 7 5

5 6 7

6 1 0

6 0 9

A R A N T A A V E N U E

E

M A Y

B E L L

A V E

N U E

G E

O R

A B E L A V E N U E

M A Y

B E L L

A V E

N U E

M A Y

B E L L A

V E N U

E

C L E M O A V E N U E

A R

A

I R V E

N

A L T A M

T R A D

E R O

R O A D

K E

N T A C O

U R T

LegendMajor Institution/Special FacilityMulti-Family ResPublic ParkSingle Family ResProposed Single Family Residential DesignationProject Site - Lot Lines

twong, 2013-05-15 13:57:50(\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\twong.mdb)


32/191


33/191

Attachment C

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE567-595 Maybell Ave. Single Family and Multifamily Residential Development

The proposed project is consistent with the listed Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and programs.

Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility andgradual transitions between land uses, place zoning districts boundaries at mid-block locations rather than along streets wherever possible.

Program L-4 : Review and change zoning regulations to promote gradual transitions in the scale of development were residential districts abut more intense uses.

Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diversehousing opportunities.

Policy L-14: Design and arrange new multifamily buildings, including entries and outdoor spaces,so that each unit has a clear relationship to a public street.

Policy L-17: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Providecontinuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches, and other amenities that favor pedestrians.

Policy L-75: Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind buildings or underground wherever possible.

Transportation Element Policy T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use.Transit stations and bus routes present opportunities for higher density development.

Policy T-23 : Encourage pedestrian friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details.

Program T-36 : Make new and replacement curbs vertical were desired by neighborhoodresidents.

Natural Environment Program N-16 : Continue to require replacement trees, including street trees lost to newdevelopment, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it isimpractical to locate them offiste.

Policy N-28 : Encourage developers of new projects in Palo Alto, including City projects, to provide improvements that reduce the necessity of driving alone.


34/191

City of Palo Alto

Housing Element Policy H-2 : Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density anddiversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable andattainable housing.

Program H-2 : Encourage development densities at the higher end of allowed density ranges in

multiple family zones by using methods such as preferential or priority processing andapplication fee reductions for projects that propose development at the higher end of a sitesallowed density range and that provide affordable housing in excess of mandatory BMR programrequirements. Consider increasing minimum density requirement in multiple family zones in allComprehensive Plan land use designations that permit housing.

Program H-21 : Where appropriate and feasible, allow waivers of development fees as a meansof promoting the development of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate incomehouseholds. Waivers should be considered for projects that proposed affordable housing units inexcess of the minimum City BMR Program standards either in terms of the number of theaffordable units or the household income levels that the project is targeted to serve.

Program H-3: Continue to support the re-designation of suitable vacant or underutilized landsfor housing or mixed uses containing housing.

Program H-23: Require all City departments to expedite all processes, including applications,related to the construction of affordable housing above minimum BMR requirements.

Policy H-12: Encourage, foster and preserve diverse housing opportunities for very low, lowand moderate income households.

Note : This list is not exhaustive. Additional policies/programs may be added to this table for subsequent review and comment by the P&TC or the public .


35/191

ATTACHMENT DDRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL

567 -595 Maybell Avenue12PLN-00453

Planning Division

1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial compliance with plans datedApril 15, 2013 except as modified to incorporate these conditions of approval.

2. These conditions of approval shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permits.

3. The existing city street trees shall be maintained and protected during construction per Cityof Palo Alto requirements.

4. Upon submittal of the application for a building permit, the project is required to complywith the Citys Green Building Program (PAMC 16.14). The project required to complete agreen building application, and implement the programs requirements in building plans andthroughout construction. More information and the application can be found athttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/sustainablity_green_building_building/application/default.asp.

5. All Mitigation Measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated May 9, 2013shall incorporated into these conditions of approval.

6. Vehicular ingress and egress will be from the main entryway on Clemo Avenue and theapplicant shall obtain on access easement through the adjacent Arastradero Park ApartmentComplex to connect the site access aisle to the existing driveway for APAC on MaybellAvenue.

a. If an access easement cannot be obtained and access is from a single driveway onClemo Avenue, the access barriers on Clemo Avenue shall be relocated from theintersection of Maybell Avenue to east of the project driveway on Clemo Avenue.

7. A No Parking sign shall be installed on the Maybell Avenue frontage of the project site.The no parking hours will be between 7AM and 7 PM.

8. Shared Roadways Markings (Sharrows) will be installed in both directions on MaybellAvenue.

9. The Senior Building will be exempt from Development Impact Fees as provided under theCity Municipal code as an affordable housing development. The 15 unit single familysubdivision (Market Rate parcel) will be subject to the following requirements as providedunder the City Municipal Code:
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/sustainablity_green_building_building/application/default.asphttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/sustainablity_green_building_building/application/default.asphttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/sustainablity_green_building_building/application/default.asphttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/sustainablity_green_building_building/application/default.asp


36/191

1. All applicable Development Impact Fees;2. Quimby Act;3. Below Market Rate In-Lieu housing fees.

Public Works

10. SUBDIVISION APPLICATION: The applicant needs to file for a Major SubdivisionApplication with the Planning Department for creating five (5) or more parcels. A Major Subdivision typically requires the approval of tentative and final maps. A building permitcannot be issued until the final map is recorded at the County Recorders Office.

11. OFFSITE IMPROVEMENTS: As part of this project, the applicant, at minimum, will berequired to repave (2-inch grind and pave) the full width of Maybell Avenue and ClemoAvenue and install all new sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveway approach in the public right-of-way along the property frontage per Public Works latest standards and/or as instructed by

the Public Works Inspector. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must bedone per Public Works standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Permit for Construction in the Public Right-of-Way (Street Work Permit) from Public Works at theDevelopment Center.

12. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new streettrees in the public right-of-way along the propertys frontage. Call City Public Worksarborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work will

be required for this project. The site or tree plan must show street tree work that the arboristhas determined including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements.Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavementwithin 10 feet of street trees must be approved by the Public Works arborist. The plan mustnote that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way (Street Tree Permit) from Public Works UrbanForestry.

13. STORM WATER RUNOFF SYNOPSIS: Provide a synopsis of pre and post-developmentstorm water runoff flows and drainage systems. Summarize existing storm water drainage

patterns such as where the existing site runoff drains to. Explain the increase in the site stormwater runoff flow for post-development. Show justification that the existing City storm water drainage system has the capacity to handle the increase in the flow.

14. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project must meet the latest State Regional Water Quality Control Boards (SRWQCB) C.3 provisions. The applicant is required to satisfy allcurrent storm water discharge regulations and shall provide calculations and documents toverify compliance. All projects that are required to treat storm water will need to treat the


37/191

permit-specified amount of storm water runoff with the following low impact development(LID) methods: rainwater harvesting and reuse, infiltration, evapotranspiration, or

biotreatment. However, biotreatment (filtering storm water through vegetation and soils before discharging to the storm drain system) will be allowed only where harvesting andreuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible at the project site. Complete theInfiltration/Harvesting and Use Feasibility Screening Worksheet (Santa Clara Valley UrbanRunoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook - Appendix I). Vault-based tr eatment wi ll not be all owed as a stand-alon e treatment measur e. Where storm water harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatmentmeasures may be used in series with biotreatment, for example, to remove trash or other large solids.

Reference: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.11.030(c)

http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_I-

Feasibility_2012.pdf

In order to qualify the project as a Special Project for LID treatment reduction credit,complete and submit the Special Projects Worksheet (Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook - Appendix J: Special Projects).Any Regulated Project that meets all the criteria for more than one Special Project Categorymay only use the LID treatment reduction credit allowed under one of the categories.

http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_J-Special_Projects_2012.pdf) .

The applicant must incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures thattreat storm water runoff prior to discharge. The prevention measures shall be reviewed by aqualified third-party reviewer who needs to certify that it complies with the Palo AltoMunicipal Code requirements. This is required prior to the issuance of a building permit.The third-party reviewer shall be acquired by the applicant and needs to be on the SantaClara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Programs (Program) list of qualifiedconsultants. Any consultant or contractor hired to design/and/or construct a storm water treatment system for the project cannot certify the project as a third-party reviewer.

http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants2012.htm?zoom_highlight=consultants

Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior tothe issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submitto the City a certification for approval that the projects permanent measures wereconstructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. The project mustalso enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenanceof the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_I-Feasibility_2012.pdfhttp://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_I-Feasibility_2012.pdfhttp://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_J-Special_Projects_2012.pdfhttp://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_J-Special_Projects_2012.pdfhttp://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants2012.htm?zoom_highlight=consultantshttp://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/consultants2012.htm?zoom_highlight=consultantshttp://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_J-Special_Projects_2012.pdfhttp://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_J-Special_Projects_2012.pdfhttp://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_I-Feasibility_2012.pdfhttp://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit_c3_docs/c3_handbook_2012/Appendix_I-Feasibility_2012.pdf


38/191

agreement shall be executed prior to the first building occupancy sign-off.

15. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly,the applicant will be required to comply with the State of Californias General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. This entails filing a Noticeof Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a sitespecific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both construction-stage and post-construction BMPs for storm water quality protection. The applicant isrequired to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public WorksDepartment for review and approval prior to issuance of the building permit.

16. LOADING DOCK: If there is a loading dock, storm runoff from loading docks wherechemicals or hazardous materials may be handled shall not drain to a street, gutter, or stormdrain. See 16.09.032(b)(4)(D). It is recommended that the loading dock(s) be covered to

preclude the need for a drain.

17. GREASE/OIL REMOVAL DEVICE: If there will be a kitchen and food serving area in thenew Senior Building, any drains in the food service facilities shall be connected to a greaseremoval device.

18. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: The pedestrian circulation shown for Senior Building onSheet C2 indicates pedestrian route through neighboring property to access the publicsidewalk at the north end of the property. Such encroachment through a private property isnot recommended by the City.

19. The following comments are provided to assist the applicant at the building permit phase.You can obtain various plan set details, forms and guidelines from Public Works at the City'sDevelopment Center (285 Hamilton Avenue) or on Public Works website:http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits.asp

Include in plans submitted for a building permit:

20. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT: For disturbing greater than 10,000 SF of land area,a Grading and Excavation Permit needs to be obtained from PWE at the Development

Center before the building permit can be issued. Refer to the Public Works website for Excavation and Grading Permit Instructions. For the Grading and Excavation Permit application, various documents are required including a grading and drainage plan, soilsreport, Interim and Final erosion and sediment control, and storm water pollution prevention

plan (SWPPP). Refer to our website for Grading and Excavation Permit Application andguidelines. Indicate the amount of soil to be cut and filled for the project.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits.asphttp://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pwd/forms_permits.asp


39/191

http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/11695

21. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading and drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevationsand showing drainage flows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Other site utilities

may be shown on the grading plan for reference only, and should be so noted. No utilityinfrastructure should be shown inside the building footprint. Installation of these other utilities will be approved as part of a subsequent Building Permit application.

Site grading, excavation, and other site improvements that disturb large soil areas may only be performed during the regular construction season (from April 16 through October 15th) of each year the permit is active. The site must be stabilized to prevent soil erosion during thewet season. The wet season is defined as the period from October 15 to April 15. Methods of stabilization are to be identified within the Civil sheets of the improvement plans for approval.

22. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): In order to address potential storm water quality impacts, the plan shall identify BMPs to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shallinclude permanent BMPs to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality.(Resources and handouts are available from PWE. Specific reference is made to Palo Altoscompanion document to Start at the Source, entitled Planning Your Land DevelopmentProject).

The develop

Documents

City of Palo Alto (CA) Planned Community (PC) Zoning Request