City of Palo Alto

Report Type:

(ID # 3721) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report

Meeting Date: 5/22/2013

Summary Title: 567 Maybell Ave. PC Rezone Title: Request by Palo Alto Housing Corporation for Planning and Transportation Commission Review of a Proposed Planned Community (PC) Zone District and Comprehensive Plan Amendment to Allow 15 Single Family Homes and a 60-Unit Affordable Rental Project for Seniors on Parcels with a Combined Area of 107,392 Square Feet and Zoned R-2 and RM-15. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration 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 City Council approve: 1. The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment K); 2. A Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan designation for a portion of the site from 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 family and a 60 unit multifamily affordable rental project for seniors, including two concessions for providing affordable rental units under California Government Code 65915.

Background
The proposed project was originally submitted on November 6, 2011 as a request to initiate a Planned Community (PC) zone district and Comprehensive Plan amendment for a single family and 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-Family Residential. The proposed development would replace four existing single family residences

City of Palo Alto

Page 1

and a non-functioning orchard so that the two adjacent residentially zoned parcels would form a 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 corner of 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 Avenue and is approximately 0.5 acres. The remainder of the site is zoned RM-15. With the existing zoning, the site could accommodate 34 units (potentially more with density bonuses). The current land use is a non-functioning orchard and four existing one-story single family homes on Maybell Avenue. The homes were built between the late 1950s to the early 1970s. The building square footages range from 2,500-3,500 square feet. Historical records show the orchard 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 prevent vehicular 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. There were minor concerns about existing contaminants in the soil. The applicant initiated a voluntary 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: WestEastSouthSingle Family residences of one and two stories (Zoning: R-1) Multifamily residences (The Tan Plaza Continental, Zoning: PC-2218) Briones Park (Zoning: PF)

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

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

City of Palo Alto

Page 2

Attachment F. The project plans represent the applicants Development Plan for the proposed PC 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 increased density and smaller lot sizes than the underlying zone districts. PAHC plans to demolish the existing four homes and develop 15 market rate single-family homes and 60 affordable senior rental multifamily units. The affordable senior units would be rented to seniors earning between 30%-60% of Area Median Income (AMI). The projects inclusion of affordable rental housing units allows for the granting of concessions under State Density Bonus Law per Government Section 65915. Requested concessions are described later in this report. The project would be designed to meet or exceed the Citys green point rating system. PAHC plans to subdivide the project site to create a subdivision of the single family homes and a parcel for the senior affordable rental project. The single family subdivision (Market Rate Parcel) would then be sold to a developer and the proceeds would be used to help finance the affordable senior development (Senior Parcel). There are two legal parcels on the site. A smaller 0.32 acre legal parcel is adjacent to Maybell Avenue and is surrounded on three sides by the larger 2.14 acre parcel. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the smaller legal parcel is Single Family with a zoning designation of R-2. The larger parcel has a Comprehensive Plan land use designation of both Single Family and Multi-family and also has both R-2 and RM-15 zoning (Attachment L). The Comprehensive Plan amendment is necessary because the applicant proposes to site single-family homes along Clemo 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 use to be consistent with the proposed project. The proposed new development would rezone the two 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 with the proposed site plan. In consideration of the impending July 3, 2013 tax credit application deadline, PAHC needed to demonstrate that the tax credit financing would be specifically applied for the Senior Parcel and not for the Market Rate Parcel. Considering the short timeline, PAHC applied for the Certificate because it could be done at the administrative level and therefore required less process time. On April 8, 2013, the applicant also submitted a Tentative Map application for the proposed development. 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 PC rezone to shorten the land use entitlement timeline. Staff anticipates scheduling the Tentative
City of Palo Alto Page 3

Map application for P&TC consideration within a month. Once the Tentative Map is approved, it will 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 Citys aging population. According to Census data, the senior population has been the second fastest growing age group in Palo Alto over the last ten years. Of the Citys senior population, 20 percent of seniors are living at or near the poverty level. In order to reduce the development costs of the senior housing project, the PAHC is proposing to develop market-rate single-family homes adjacent to the residential building for seniors. PAHC plans to sell the land identified for the single family homes and the entitlements (if approved) to a housing developer, which would be bound to the Development Plan as described in the proposed PC ordinance. With many 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 be more 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 feet with an overall height of 50 feet above grade. The roof height of the structure is 45 feet with a 5 foot high stairwell for roof access for a total overall building height of 50 feet. The senior rental building would be on a 1.03 acre parcel on the northeast corner of the site and would include 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, a resident services office, as well as outdoor common area space. The affordable apartments would have an average size of 600 square feet and be affordable to senior households earning 30-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). The total floor area breakdown and unit distribution of the senior development is as follows: Sq. ft. First Floor Second Floor Third Floor Fourth Floor Total
City of Palo Alto

Res. Units 14 16 16 14 60
Page 4

16,116 13,976 13,883 12,237 56,192

The fourth floor will also have a roof terrace and an exercise room available for all the residents. 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. Water conservation will be achieved with drought-tolerant landscaping of all vegetated areas. Energy Star appliances will be used in the residences. Additional sustainable measures will be met throughout the construction and materials selection process which may include recycled aggregate, engineered lumber, no added formaldehyde insulation and modular cabinets, lowVOC 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. The 15-unit subdivision would comprise fee simple lots of approximately 2,300 to 3,400 square feet with residence sizes between 1,800-2,400 square feet. A majority of the homes are three-story with an approximate height of 35 feet. There would be eight single-family houses located on Maybell Avenue (Lots 1-8), one on a corner lot (Lot 9), and six along Clemo Avenue (lots 10-15). The houses on Maybell Avenue would be two or three stories with an average height of approximately 25 feet for the two story houses (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 feet from Maybell Avenue. In response to the January 17, 2013 ARB preliminary review, the applicant has redesigned the proposed homes to step back the upper stories of the three story homes from the first story to reduce the verticality and massing of the homes. Houses on Clemo Avenue would have three stories and a height of 35 feet. The Clemo Avenue homes would 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 would be provided at the rear of each unit, accessed by an alley in the interior of the site. Garage parking at the rear of the homes would allow an uninterrupted sidewalk along Maybell Avenue which will connect existing sidewalks north and south of the property. The eight homes along Maybell Avenue (Lots 1-8) will also have two car driveways to accommodate additional parking if necessary. Planning & Transportation Commission (PTC) Purview The PTC purview is to review and recommend City Council action on the request for a Comprehensive Plan land use amendment and rezoning of the site from R-2 and RM-15 to a PC
City of Palo Alto Page 5

zone district. The purview includes review and recommendation of the Comprehensive Plan land use amendment to reconfigure the land uses to be consistent with the proposed development. Planned Community rezone procedures and standards are described in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. The first step in the PC process was PTC review of the concept plans, development program statement, draft development schedule and an initiation the PC process. Following feedback from the PTC initiation hearing on February 13, 2013, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans were submitted for Architectural Review 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 findings for approval, and green building regulations. The Citys conditions of approval were shared with the ARB and refined for inclusion in the draft PC ordinance (Attachment A) following the ARB recommendations. City staff requests review by the PTC, together with a draft PC ordinance, draft resolution for the Comprehensive Plan amendment, and environmental document, for the PTCs final review and recommendation to City Council. The Mitigated Negative Declaration includes mitigation measures and a mitigation monitoring program. The PC ordinance identifies the permitted uses and 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 not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result 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, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.

(c)

City of Palo Alto

Page 6

1. Zoning Comparison The development and zoning comparison table (Attachment E) analyzes the development standards for the proposed PC zone development compared to a development of the site following the existing R-2 and RM-15 zones and, by comparison, the RM-40 development standards. RM-40 development standards are included since the proposed density of the development is most similar to RM-40 zoning. In addition, the site development regulations of the Village Residential housing type (PAMC 18.13.050) were compared with the proposed project, in that the proposed single-family lots are generally consistent with the purpose and 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 setback requirements. In addition, the maximum height requirement is 30 ft. The three story homes would exceed the R-2 height limit. The proposed homes along Clemo Avenue would meet the existing RM-15 Village Residential standards for height and front and side setbacks. However, the lot areas are smaller than what is allowed in Village Residential because the width and depth of the proposed lots do not meet the minimum requirements. The Project exceeds the RM-40 requirements for height, daylight plane and Village Residential setback requirements. The proposed senior building exceeds the maximum allowable 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 to meet the goals of the Project, the applicant has requested PC zoning in that the development plan would not specifically conform to any of the multi-family residence district. Furthermore, the PC district, if granted, would be applicable only to the approved Development 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 require additional rezoning that could only be approved by the City Council. This requirement for additional City Council approval would not necessarily be required for a typical RM-15, RM30, or RM-40 zoned site. 2. Circulation, Access and Traffic Automobile ingress and egress for the single-family homes and the residential units for seniors 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
City of Palo Alto Page 7

directed to Arastradero Road. The existing automobile traffic barrier would remain; therefore, there would not be vehicular traffic access from Clemo Avenue onto Maybell Avenue. The four existing driveways on Maybell would be removed and an additional four street parking spaces would be created. (Note: A secondary access, however, is now proposed 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 the proposed project. The scope of the study focused on peak hour levels of service for six intersections and one roadway segment. The study reviewed existing intersection operations and assigned each intersection a level of service (LOS). The study determined that the proposed project would generate 19 gross new trips in the AM peak hour and 25 gross new trips in the PM hour. However, since the proposed project would be replacing 4 existing 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 peak hour will be generated. Based on the intersection analysis, the study reviewed the impacts of 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. There are also a significant number of bicycles and pedestrians that cross that intersection during that time, adding to the difficulty of turning left onto Arastradero Road. By adding the proposed project trips to the intersection, the study found that it would incur a substantial increase in delay and deterioration in the level of service. The intersection currently operates at a level of service (LOS) C. With the addition of traffic from the project, it would exacerbate the existing congestion at the intersection and downgrade the LOS to D. This is not considered a significant impact under the Citys traffic thresholds . However, California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) law requires that any project be reviewed for cumulative impacts. Cumulative is a represented forecast in the future (year 2020). 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. The deterioration of service to LOS E creates a potentially significant impact.

City of Palo Alto

Page 8

In addition to the proposed Clemo Avenue via Arastradero Road access, the traffic study reviewed two other alternatives. Alternative No. 1 Obtaining an easement to Maybell Avenue PAHC owns the adjacent property to the north, Arastradero Park (APAC). Arastradero Park is a 65-unit affordable housing development consisting of one, two, three and four bedroom units. The 65 units are distributed in two and three story buildings on the three acre property. Access to the property is from Maybell Avenue and Arastradero Road. PAHC has obtained a conditional approval from HUD, the APAC lender, granting an easement for the Maybell project to use the APACs Maybell Avenue driveway. This alternative would reduce the increase in delay and deterioration in the level of service during the AM peak hour at the Clemo Avenue/Arastradero Road, but would add some additional traffic to Maybell Avenue. 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 would be moved just east of the proposed Clemo Avenue entryway. Therefore, all vehicle traffic would be directed onto Maybell Avenue. The APAC easement would remain unchanged. The study concluded that with this option, there would be slightly increased traffic on Maybell Avenue, south of the project. However, due to the low number of daily trips the project would add to Maybell Avenue, the study concludes that it is unlikely that there would be any perceived increase in traffic. As mentioned, the proposed Clemo Avenue via Arastradero Road alternative was found to create a potentially significant impact in the Initial Study. Therefore, the project must mitigate the impact in order to avoid any potentially significant impacts. Staff has included the following mitigation measures in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The mitigation measure is as follows: a. The project sponsor shall obtain and provide an access easement through the adjacent Arastradero Park Apartment Complex to connect the site access aisle to the existing driveway for APAC on Maybell Avenue. b. If an access easement cannot be obtained and access is from a single driveway on Clemo Avenue, the access barriers on Clemo Avenue shall be relocated from the intersection of Maybell Avenue to east of the project driveway on Clemo Avenue. The mitigation measure has been included in the Planned Community Zone Ordinance as Section 4(i) and in the Conditions of Approval as Condition No. 6.
City of Palo Alto Page 9

Staff recommends the first mitigation measure, as it avoids moving the traffic barrier on Clemo, which would reduce the safety of pedestrians crossing Clemo Avenue at that intersection. Traffic from the APAC driveway to Maybell is likely to be minimal and would primarily 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 Pedestrian Transportation Plan. It is also a suggested route to Henry M. Gunn High School and Juana Briones Elementary School as part of the Citys Safe Routes to School program. Many bicyclists using Maybell Avenue are students attending Juana Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Henry M. Gunn High School. There is concern that the proposed project would add additional traffic onto Maybell Avenue and create additional hazards to an already impacted street. The project would be removing four existing driveways on Maybell Avenue and replacing it with a new sidewalk, decreasing the bicycle hazards while improving pedestrian safety. The sidewalk will 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 onto Maybell Avenue. However, the traffic study did review this scenario and determined that the traffic 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 has recommended additional project conditions. The conditions are as follows: 1. A No Parking sign shall be installed on the Maybell Avenue frontage of the project site. The no parking hours shall be between 7AM and 7 PM. 2. Shared Roadways Markings (Sharrows) will be installed in both directions on Maybell Avenue. Traffic Impact Comparison The table below compares traffic generation from the proposed project to traffic generation estimated if the site builds out to existing zoning but as market-rate single family homes. The table compares peak hour trip traffic generation assuming maximum buildout of the project site using the existing zoning (R-2 and RM-15), existing zoning with the maximum 35% State density bonus and the proposed development. As previously mentioned, the project site using existing zoning is permitted 34 units. Based on data used by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), the average AM trip generation rate per single family detached dwelling unit is
City of Palo Alto Page 10

.75 and a PM peak trip ratio of 1.02. Therefore, a 34 unit subdivision, as allowed by the existing zoning would generate 22 net new trips occurring in the AM peak hour and 32 net new PM peak hours trips. In comparison, the proposed project would have 16 AM peak hour trips and 21 PM peak hour trips, as senior units produce significantly less peak hour trips.

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Existing Zoning Existing Zoning with 35% Density Bonus Proposed Maybell Development

Maximum Number of Dwelling Units 34 46 75

AM Peak hour trips 22 32 16

PM Peak hour trips 32 43 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 with height and daylight plane requirements. The height and daylight plane requirements are applicable 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 150 feet of residentially zoned parcels otherwise the maximum height is 50 feet. The Arastradero Park and Tan Plaza Apartments are within 150 feet of the proposed senior development. The proposed 50-foot height of the senior development exceeds the 35 foot maximum height requirement. Section 18.38.050(e) requires a daylight plane be established along that portion of the lot that abuts the neighboring residential property. The daylight plane is to be measured beginning at a height of 10 feet and increasing inward at 1:2 slope (30 degree angle). Using this formula, the residential building for senior citizens would protrude into the daylight plane at approximately mid-way point of the second floor of the senior development. In addition, 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 aforementioned formula, the home would protrude into the daylight plane at approximately 12 feet above grade. The applicant is requesting concessions per State Density Bonus Law Government Code Section 65915 for relief from the daylight plane and height requirement in exchange for providing affordable housing. The daylight plane intrusion and the height of the senior
City of Palo Alto Page 11

building would only affect the Arastradero Park Apartments in the winter months. The Tan Plaza and the single family residences along Maybell Ave. are not affected by the daylight plane encroachment or the additional height. 4. State Density Bonus Law and Concessions Government Code 65915 requires that a city and county shall grant incentives or concessions to an applicant who agrees to provide, under a 30 year commitment, housing units for low and moderate income households as defined in the Health and Safety Code, which is the standard reflected in Palo Altos Below Market Rate (BMR) regulations. Government Code(GC) 65915 (d) (A) provides for (i) one concession for projects providing 10% of its units allocated for lower and moderate income households; (ii) two concessions for 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 and moderate income households. The development is providing more than 30% of its units for affordable housing as the applicant proposes to provide 60 affordable units. This means the applicant could choose to use three concessions. The applicant is requesting two concessions to address: 1) the senior building height exceeding the 35 foot height limitation (a 50 foot height is generally allowed for a PC zone but 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 the nearby residential lots). These concessions are generally allowed by right through State law. The jurisdiction must grant the concession unless the jurisdiction finds that the concession is not necessary for the production of the affordable housing or if it creates an adverse impact on a Historical Resource. Staff notes that, although these concessions are supportive of the project, the PTC and Council are not obligated to approve a rezoning (to PC or any other zone) or Comprehensive Plan change by such concessions. If the City feels that the project violates the intent of the PC zoning or the Comprehensive Plan, there is still discretion allowed by the City to deny or modify 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 Benefits The second of the three required PC approval findings specifies that: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result 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 P&TC and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district.

City of Palo Alto

Page 12

The substantial public benefit for this project is the provision of 60 units of affordable housing for seniors earning between 30%-60% of area median income (AMI). The senior population in Palo Alto has been steadily increasing since the 1970s with the senior population increasing 39% between 1980-2008. The senior population is now approximately 11,120 persons or 17.1% of the Citys population. According to the Silicon Valley 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 to increase in Palo Alto, it is becoming much more difficult for seniors to find housing in the City. Another public benefit will be the installation of a sidewalk on Maybell Avenue. There are existing sidewalks on the adjacent blocks on Maybell Ave and on Clemo Avenue. The new sidewalk 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 a comparison of the proposed project to the Context Based Design Criteria as outlined in Section 18.13.060 of the Zoning Code in the RM code. The proposed design appears to be consistent with many of the requirements. In summary, the project would improve pedestrian walkability by adding the sidewalk on Maybell Avenue, a bicycle-friendly environment with the removal of driveways on Maybell Avenue and connectivity through design elements with the existing neighborhoods. In addition, the applicant is proposing to add new trees along Maybell Avenue to help improve the visual appearance of the Maybell Avenue streetscape. The Maybell Avenue homes would minimize massing with increased setbacks at the top two floors. The proposed homes on Clemo Avenue have given a larger front yard setback to integrate the existing mature oak trees into the design of the homes. All the residential units 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 behind the single family residences and is concealed from public view. Landscaping provides a visual buffer between vehicle circulation areas and abutting properties.

City of Palo Alto

Page 13

7. Parking The plan provides for 42 parking spaces with five reserve spaces for a total of 47 spaces for the senior development. One space would be an electric vehicle (EV) space. The City requires 1.5 units per one-bedroom unit and 2 spaces per two-bedroom unit. Therefore the development would typically require a total of 97 parking spaces (90 spaces for the residents and 7 spaces for guest parking). However, the City has recognized that senior developments generate less traffic impacts and require less parking than other residential developments. The developer is providing a total of 47 parking stalls for 60 units or a ratio of .78 stalls per unit. Seven of the stalls have been designated for guest parking for the senior development. This ratio is consistent or exceeds other parking ratios for senior developments throughout the City. In addition, staff has researched affordable senior residential project parking ratios. In a 1996 paper presented to the Institute of Transportation Engineers about Senior Housing Trip Generation and Parking Demand Characteristics, the paper concludes that the average peak demand is .4 vehicles per dwelling 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 parking is .6 for a one bedroom unit in an urban area. Therefore, the .78 parking ratio proposed by the applicant is above the either of the findings. This ratio is higher than other existing affordable senior housing developments throughout the City and the region. Below is a table that provides a summary of parking at other nearby affordable senior properties. PROPERTY Sheridan Sr. Apts. Stevenson House Fair Oaks Plaza MAYBELL CITY Palo Alto Palo Alto Sunnyvale TOTAL UNITS 57 120 124 60 SPACES PROVIDED 20 58 84 47 PARKING RATIO .35 .48 .67 .78

Parking for the single family homes would be provided with two car garages. Access to the garages is from the interior of the project site. Driveways for all the units on Maybell Avenue 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 are mature oak trees are proposed to be retained. Two other oak trees are in fair to poor condition and are proposed to be removed. The oak trees that will be retained have been

City of Palo Alto

Page 14

integrated into the overall design of the project. The arborists report, prepared by McClenahan Consulting, LLC, dated November 26, 2012, has been prepared that evaluates each oak tree and includes a tree preservation and protection plan which outlines the necessary protection measures to be implemented during construction to prevent injuries to the trees to remain. These recommendations include installation of protective fencing around the trees during construction, that any grading or excavation within Tree Protection Zones (TPZs) must be accomplished through hand digging, and that a qualified arborist must supervise any cutting of roots greater that one inch diameter. In addition, the single family residences along Clemo Avenue would be set back an average of 20 feet from the property line to accommodate the oak trees. The trees will also provide a privacy screen between the homes and Briones Park. Medium sized canopy trees are proposed along Maybell Ave. The new frontage trees would be located in each front yard of the Maybell Avenue homes. Planned Community Ordinance Section 4 of the attached draft Ordinance (Attachment A) delineates the permitted and conditionally permitted uses, development standards, and development schedule for the new development. Comprehensive Plan Amendment As part of this proposal, a resolution (Attachment B) has been prepared to accommodate the requested 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 the proposed project with them on multiple occasions, as recently as April 24, 2013. The current design incorporates many comments received from the neighborhood meetings. Letters and electronic mail received as of May 16, 2013 are posted online on the City website and have been placed in a binder for public review in the Planning and Community Environment office and at the Council Chamber Public Table. Nevertheless, there remain substantial concerns from neighbors, with the primary concerns including: Additional traffic on Maybell Avenue and its effect on pedestrian/bicycle safety; Increased residential density;

City of Palo Alto

Page 15

Inappropriate to site a residential building for seniors at this location since there are no walkable 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 Pedestrian Transportation Plan. It is also a suggested route to Henry M. Gunn High School and Juana Briones Elementary School as part of the Citys Safe Routes to School program. Many bicyclists using Maybell Avenue are students attending Juana Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School and Henry M. Gunn High School. There is concern that the proposed project would add additional traffic onto Maybell Avenue and create additional hazards to an already impacted street. Staff recommends, however, that the Clemo barrier remain with a secondary access to Maybell through the adjacent Arastradero Park property. The traffic study determined that only approximately four (4) trips would be generated to Maybell Avenue during the peak hour with this configuration, and those would most likely turn right towards El Camino, away from the school and opposite the morning peak hour bicycle traffic to school. Staff also recommends No Parking on the project side of Maybell Avenue during the day to further reduce conflicts with bicycles and pedestrians. Four existing driveways onto Maybell will be removed as part of the project, 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. Community members maintain that increased density would be inconsistent with the surrounding density and would deteriorate the quality of life in the area. Staff notes, however, that immediately adjacent is the Tan Plaza, by comparison, is a 61 unit development on 2 acres. It was approved in 1965. Also immediately adjacent on another side is the Arastradero Park project, a multifamily affordable housing development. Only one side of the project (across Maybell) is characterized 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 Tan Apartments site. School Impacts There have been some concerns raised about introducing additional students into the Palo Alto Unified School District. In discussion with PAUSD staff, they have reviewed this project and the 15 single family units. Based on their estimate, each SFD would produce .67 students per home. As proposed, the project, with the eleven net single family detached units, would yield approximately eight new students.
City of Palo Alto Page 16

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD Existing Zoning Existing Zoning with 35% Density Bonus Proposed Maybell Development (PC)

Maximum Number of Dwelling Units 34 46 75

Number of new students 24 32 8

In comparison with the existing zoning and using the same .67 student/SFD ratio, the maximum buildout of 34 market rate units under the existing zoning, it would generate 24 new students to the school district. Inappropriate siting for senior housing Some residents have commented that the site is inappropriate for senior housing since there are no services within walking distance other than Walgreens which is 0.2 miles from the project site. The commenters maintain that seniors will need to drive to access services therefore increasing the traffic on Maybell Avenue. However, there are a number of services within 0.5 miles on El Camino Real. PAHC also provides a multitude of transportation and other services to its residents at Arastradero Park which could also serve the residents of this development. Annex the orchard to expand Juana Briones Park There have been suggestions to use the orchard to expand Juana Briones Park or to develop playing fields on the project site. There are no play fields in the area since the fields at Gunn High School and other schools in the area are not accessible to the public. Staff notes that such a proposal has not been fully considered but an initial review indicates that there are a number of concerns about locating athletic fields at the site. The site is too small to accommodate a playing 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 also quite 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 should be designed consistent with the existing zoning. Staff notes that (as indicated previously in this report), such a development would have greater traffic impacts on Maybell Avenue and would generate more school children than the proposed project. Some neighbors have urged that the
City of Palo Alto Page 17

site be built as senior affordable housing at the existing allowable density, but that is simply not feasible for the PAHC (or likely any other developer). The price of the land would dictate that a lower 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) as part of the PC rezone initiation at the February 13, 2013 P&TC meeting. The proposal is to demolish the four existing single family homes and develop 15 units of market-rate single family housing 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 the project. The February 13, 2013 staff report is available as Attachment G. Meeting minutes from the P&TC public hearing is provided as Attachment H to this report. Individual Commissioner comments 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 a need 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 the structures. They revised the site plan to provide 42 parking spaces for the senior building with a five car parking reserve. If there is additional parking demand from either the single family homes or the senior development, the parking reserve can be used. Additional design features have been added to the senior building in response to the PTC and ARB review. The applicant has also redesigned the third story on the single family homes. While they have not reduced the 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 during a public hearing held on January 17, 2013, during which the ARB provided comments to the

City of Palo Alto

Page 18

applicant. The staff report is included as Attachment I and the Action Minutes are included as Attachment 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 overall development. The applicants revised the plans based on ARB preliminary review and P&TC initiation comments. ARB Review and Recommendation The ARB reviewed the revised project plans during its formal review on April 4, 2013. The ARB and public had an opportunity to comment on the environmental review document included in the staff report. The ARB recommended approval of the project by a vote of 4-0 (ARB member Lippert absent) with a condition that the project return to the ARB subcommittee to provide design details for 15 items. The staff report is included as Attachment I and the Action Minutes are 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 Implications
The proposed project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation and policies and staff believes there are no other substantive policy implications. A table of applicable Comprehensive Plan policies is included as Attachment C.

City of Palo Alto

Page 19

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

Timeline
Preliminary ARB Hearing Initiation by P&TC First ARB Hearing Formal P&TC Hearing Estimated City Council Hearing January 9, 2013 February 13, 2013 April 4, 2013 May 22, 2013 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). The Mitigated Negative Declaration identified the traffic circulation as proposed from Clemo Avenue to Arastradero Road less than significant if mitigated. The mitigation measure will require the applicant to either obtain an easement on the adjacent Arastradero Park Apartments property or relocate the traffic barrier east of the proposed entry way to direct the project traffic from Clemo Avenue to Maybell Avenue. The close of the comment period is May 30, 2013.

COURTESY COPIES Palo Alto Housing Corporation Attachments: Attachment A: Draft PC Ordinance (DOC) Attachment B: Draft Resolution for Comprehensive Plan Amendment Exhibit A: 567-595 Maybell Location Map PROPOSED LU Designations Attachment C: Comprehensive Plan Policies (DOC) Attachment D: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) (DOC) (PDF)

City of Palo Alto

Page 20

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) (PDF) (PDF) Attachment I: ARB Staff Reports, January 17, 2013 and April 4, 2013 Attachment J: ARB Action Minutes January 17, 2013 and April 4, 2013 Attachment K: Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Attachment L: Map with Existing Zoning and Lot lines (PDF) (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)

City of Palo Alto

Page 21

ATTACHMENT A

NOT YET APPROVED

Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (The Zoning Map) to Change the Classification of Property Located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue from R-2 Low Density Residential and RM-15 Multiple Family Residential to PC Planned Community Zone No. xxxx for a 15 single family homes and a 60 unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors.

Ordinance No. xxxx

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 Planned Community (PC) district for a property located at 567-595 Maybell Avenue (the Subject Property) 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 the Project design and recommended the City Council approve the project with associated draft conditions of approval Exhibit B. (d) The Planning and Transportation Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held May 22, 2013, reviewed, considered, and recommended approval of the draft Mitigated 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 to a new Planned Community zone to permit construction of the proposed project depicted on Exhibit A, (the Project), consistent with conditions included in the Planned Community zone related 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 and Transportation Commission, adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring 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 and welfare, 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 Community District 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
*****DRAFT*****

NOT YET APPROVED

uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the proposed district are consistent 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 on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Zoning Map, is hereby amended by changing the zoning of Subject Property from R-2 and RM-15 to PC Planned Community . SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the Subject Property that the project (the Project) comprises the following uses included in this ordinance and a residential 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 2,273 to 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 bedroom units 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) a residential roof terrace of approximately 1,152 square feet located on the fourth floor, and 2) a 468 square foot covered terrace as part of an approximately .35 acre courtyard, and 3) a second floor 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 the applicant pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section (PAMC) 18.38.090, shall be subject to the 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 as follows: Permitted Uses (subject to the limitations below under Section 4(b)): (1) Single Family Residential (2) Multifamily Residential Conditionally Permitted Uses:
*****DRAFT*****

NOT YET APPROVED

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 rental housing 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 as described in Section Three and Section Four herein and in the Approved Development Plans. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements: Parking and Loading requirements for the site shall comply as specified in PAMC 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 Development Plan, any modifications to the exterior design of the Development Plan or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or the site development regulations contained in Section 4 (a) (c) above shall require an amendment 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 the modification may be approved through the Minor Architectural Review process. Any use not specifically permitted by this ordinance shall require an amendment to the PC ordinance. (f) Public Benefits: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The Project includes the 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 and very low income) rates; Installation of a sidewalk. A 5 foot sidewalk will be installed along Maybell Avenue to link that section of Maybell Avenue with the sidewalk system to the adjacent parcels. 3

(2)

*****DRAFT*****

NOT YET APPROVED

(g) Development Schedule: The project is required to include a Development Schedule pursuant to PAMC 18.38.100. The approved Development Schedule is set forth below: Construction of the Project shall commence on or before October 2013, unless a change in the development schedule is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, not to exceed a one year extension in time and only one such extension without a hearing, pursuant to PAMC 18.38.130. The total time for the project construction and occupancy of tenant spaces is expected to be 12 months, or by October 2014, unless extended by the Director for up to one additional 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 City Development Impact and Quimby Act requirements. 2. The Senior Building, as an affordable housing development, shall be exempt from all Development Impact Fees as set forth in Chapter 16 and Chapter 21 of the City Municipal Code. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES 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) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. SECTION 5. Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall 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 ordinance or 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. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its choice
*****DRAFT***** Formatted: List Paragraph, Indent: Left: 1.06", First line: 0", Tab stops: Not at 0.65" Formatted: Indent: First line: 0.02" Formatted: No underline

Formatted: Numbered + Level: 1 + Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, + Start at: 1 + Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 1.06" + Indent at: 1.31"

NOT YET APPROVED

SECTION 6. Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits. Not later than three (3)one (1) years 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 that conditions 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 conditions or benefits are found deficient by staff, the applicant shall correct such conditions in not more than 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 before the 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 prepared in 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 Mitigation Monitoring 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: __________________________ City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: __________________________ Senior Assistant City Attorney __________________________
*****DRAFT*****

APPROVED: _________________________ Mayor _________________________ City Manager

NOT YET APPROVED

Director of Planning and Community Environment

*****DRAFT*****

ATTACHMENT B

RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE MAP BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 567-595 MAYBELL AVENUE FROM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public hearing on May 1, 2013 recommended that the City Council amend the Land Use Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth below; and WHEREAS, upon consideration of said recommendation after duly noticed public hearing, the Council desires to amend said plan as hereinafter set forth; The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council finds that the public interest, health, safety and welfare of Palo Alto and the surrounding region require amendment of the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan as set forth in Section 2. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby amends the Land Use Map of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan by changing the designation of the area depicted in Exhibit A from Multifamily Residential to Single Family Residential. Exhibit A is attached to this resolution and incorporated into it by this reference. // // // // // // //

1
130516 syn 0120152

SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no significant adverse environmental impact. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Manager Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED: Mayor

2
130516 syn 0120152

EXHIBIT A

41 48

55 0

9 53 8 41 75

OR

54 5 41 33

VE NU E

EN

41 52

GE

CI T Y

41 58

IRV

55 7 56 2 55 9 56 4 56 8

55 6

AL

PALO OF
O

R P O R A

TO AL
D

41 37

56 4 41 43

LA

NU E

41 70

TA ME S
41 74

54 41 85

R
I
L

BE L

41 51

AA
55 4

AL

1 6

I F OR N

AV

56 6

MA Y

41 63

57 1

AB

EL

41 55

VE

55 7 56 7 56 6 57 2 56 0

NU P a l o A l t o

T h e

C i t y

o f

41 36 41 34

41 40 41 44

56 7 57 0 41 50 57 6 57 8 57 5

TR AD ER O AR AS

41 33

MA YB EL LA VE NU

41 39

57
58 7

41 47

41 51

59 5

NT AC

VE

41 54

NU E

41 55

57 5

AR A

41 50

CL EM O

57 9
0 57

41 58

58 0

61 2

41

MA YB EL LA VE NU E

46

AV EN U

58 1

57 8

62 2

05 42

62 8

Legend

60

63 8

ST RA DE R

41 69

41 71

41 73

Major Institution/Special Facility Multi-Family Res Public Park 61 9 Single Family Res Proposed Single Family Residential Designation Project Site - Lot Lines
41 75

RO AD

60 0

02 42 06 42 08 42

L L E
7 58

Y
7 57 9 57

01 42

This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS

61 0

60 7 60 9
12 42 16 42

15 42

21 42
0' 150'

42

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

This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. 1989 to 2013 City of Palo Alto

567 - 595 Maybell Avenue Project Site Area Map Proposed Single Family Residential Comp Plan Designation Amendment

AM

41 43

OU RT

AR AN TA A

59 0

RO A
56 5
4 57

41 38

D
N AN

EN UE

Z SU

Attachment C
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE 567-595 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 nonresidential areas and between residential areas of different densities. To promote compatibility and gradual 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 diverse housing 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. Provide continuous 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, onstreet parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details. Program T-36: Make new and replacement curbs vertical were desired by neighborhood residents. Natural Environment Program N-16: Continue to require replacement trees, including street trees lost to new development, and establish a program to have replacement trees planted offsite when it is impractical 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.

Housing Element Policy H-2: Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of affordable and attainable 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 and application fee reductions for projects that propose development at the higher end of a sites allowed density range and that provide affordable housing in excess of mandatory BMR program requirements. Consider increasing minimum density requirement in multiple family zones in all Comprehensive Plan land use designations that permit housing. Program H-21: Where appropriate and feasible, allow waivers of development fees as a means of promoting the development of housing affordable to very low, low, and moderate income households. Waivers should be considered for projects that proposed affordable housing units in excess of the minimum City BMR Program standards either in terms of the number of the affordable 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 lands for 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, low and 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.

City of Palo Alto

ATTACHMENT D DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 567 -595 Maybell Avenue 12PLN-00453 Planning Division 1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial compliance with plans dated April 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 City of Palo Alto requirements. 4. Upon submittal of the application for a building permit, the project is required to comply with the Citys Green Building Program (PAMC 16.14). The project required to complete a green building application, and implement the programs requirements in building plans and throughout construction. More information and the application can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/sustainablity_green_building_building/application/d efault.asp. 5. All Mitigation Measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration dated May 9, 2013 shall incorporated into these conditions of approval. 6. Vehicular ingress and egress will be from the main entryway on Clemo Avenue and the applicant shall obtain on access easement through the adjacent Arastradero Park Apartment Complex to connect the site access aisle to the existing driveway for APAC on Maybell Avenue. a. If an access easement cannot be obtained and access is from a single driveway on Clemo Avenue, the access barriers on Clemo Avenue shall be relocated from the intersection 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 Maybell Avenue. 9. The Senior Building will be exempt from Development Impact Fees as provided under the City Municipal code as an affordable housing development. The 15 unit single family subdivision (Market Rate parcel) will be subject to the following requirements as provided under the City Municipal Code:

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 Subdivision Application 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 permit cannot 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 be required to repave (2-inch grind and pave) the full width of Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue and install all new sidewalk, curb, gutter, and driveway approach in the public rightof-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 be done 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 the Development Center. 12. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the propertys frontage. Call City Public Works arborist 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 arborist has determined including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by the Public Works arborist. The plan must note 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 Urban Forestry. 13. STORM WATER RUNOFF SYNOPSIS: Provide a synopsis of pre and post-development storm 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 storm water 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 all current storm water discharge regulations and shall provide calculations and documents to verify compliance. All projects that are required to treat storm water will need to treat the

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 and reuse, infiltration and evapotranspiration are infeasible at the project site. Complete the Infiltration/Harvesting and Use Feasibility Screening Worksheet (Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Stormwater Handbook - Appendix I). Vault-based treatment will not be allowed as a stand-alone treatment measure. Where storm water harvesting and reuse, infiltration, or evapotranspiration are infeasible, vault-based treatment measures 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_IFeasibility_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 Category may 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_JSpecial_Projects_2012.pdf). The applicant must incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures that treat storm water runoff prior to discharge. The prevention measures shall be reviewed by a qualified third-party reviewer who needs to certify that it complies with the Palo Alto Municipal 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 Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Programs (Program) list of qualified consultants. 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 to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the projects permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. The project must also enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance

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 Notice of Intent to Comply (NOI), paying a filing fee, and preparing and implementing a site specific storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) that addresses both constructionstage and post-construction BMPs for storm water quality protection. The applicant is required to submit two copies of the NOI and the draft SWPPP to the Public Works Department 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 where chemicals or hazardous materials may be handled shall not drain to a street, gutter, or storm drain. 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 the new Senior Building, any drains in the food service facilities shall be connected to a grease removal device. 18. PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION: The pedestrian circulation shown for Senior Building on Sheet C2 indicates pedestrian route through neighboring property to access the public sidewalk at the north end of the property. Such encroachment through a private property is not 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's Development 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, soils report, Interim and Final erosion and sediment control, and storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). Refer to our website for Grading and Excavation Permit Application and guidelines. Indicate the amount of soil to be cut and filled for the project.

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 elevations and 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 utility infrastructure 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 the wet 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 shall include 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 Altos companion document to Start at the Source, entitled Planning Your Land Development Project). The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate BMP's for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the SWPPP prepared for the project. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. (PAMC Chapter 16.09). The applicant is required to paint the No Dumping/Flows to Barron Creek logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. 23. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Development Center or on our website. Also, the applicant must provide a site-specific storm water pollution control plan sheet in the plan set.

http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 24. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: Since the project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas. The calculations need to be filled out in the Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form which is available at the Development Center or on our website, then submitted with the building permit application. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2718 25. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY - If any work is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, curb inlet, storm water connections or utility laterals, the following note shall be included on the Site Plan next to the proposed work: Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY. 26. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to PWE prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the Citys right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractors parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractors contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be part of the building permit submittal. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2719 27. FINALIZATION OF BUILDING PERMIT: The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. Similarly, all as-builts, on-site grading, drainage and postdevelopments BMPs shall be completed prior to sign-off. Public Works Water Quality 28. PAMC 16.09.170, 16.09.040 Discharge of Groundwater: The project is located in an area of suspected or known groundwater contamination with Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). If groundwater is encountered then the plans must include the following procedure for construction dewatering: Prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering, the water shall be tested for volatile organic compounds (VOCs) using EPA Method 601/602 or Method 624. The

analytical results of the VOC testing shall be transmitted to the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP) 650-329-2598. Contaminated ground water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain system or creeks. If the concentrations of pollutants exceed the applicable limits for discharge to the storm drain system then an Exceptional Discharge Permit must be obtained from the RWQCP prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. If the VOC concentrations exceed the toxic organics discharge limits contained in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (16.09.040(m)) a treatment system for removal of VOCs will also be required prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer. Additionally, any water discharged to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system must be free of sediment. 29. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(11) Carwash Required New Multi-family residential units and residential development projects with 25 or more units shall provide a covered area for occupants to wash their vehicles. A drain shall be installed to capture all vehicle wash waters and shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharge to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every six months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. The area shall be graded or bermed in such a manner as to prevent the discharge of storm water to the sanitary sewer system; (Note: the Senior Housing component of this development may apply for an exemption to this requirements, in which case any hose bibs must be fitted with lock-outs or other connections controls and signage indicating that car washing is not allowed.) 30. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for singlefamily and duplex residences, shall provide a covered area for a dumpster. The area shall be adequately sized for all waste streams and designed with grading or a berm system to prevent water runon and runoff from the area. 31. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(14) Architectural Copper On and after January 1, 2003, copper metal roofing, copper metal gutters, copper metal down spouts, and copper granule containing asphalt shingles shall not be permitted for use on any residential, commercial or industrial building for which a building permit is required. Copper flashing for use under tiles or slates and small copper ornaments are exempt from this prohibition. Replacement roofing, gutters and downspouts on historic structures are exempt, provided that the roofing material used shall be prepatinated at the factory. For the purposes of this exemption, the definition of "historic" shall be limited to structures designated as Category 1 or Category 2 buildings in the current edition of the Palo Alto Historical and Architectural Resources Report and Inventory.

32. PAMC 16.09.175(k)(2) Loading Docks (i) Loading dock drains to the storm drain system may be allowed if equipped with a fail-safe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. (ii) Where chemicals, hazardous materials, grease, oil, or waste products are handled or used within the loading dock area, a drain to the storm drain system shall not be allowed. A drain to the sanitary sewer system may be allowed if equipped with a failsafe valve or equivalent device that is kept closed during the non-rainy season and during periods of loading dock operation. The area in which the drain is located shall be covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading. Appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent shall be provided for all rainwater contacting the loading dock site. 33. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 34. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(b) Copper Piping Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 35. PAMC 16.09.205(a) Cooling Systems, Pools, Spas, Fountains, Boilers and Heat Exchangers It shall be unlawful to discharge water from cooling systems, pools, spas, fountains boilers and heat exchangers to the storm drain system. 36. PAMC 16.09.165(h) Storm Drain Labeling Storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. Fire Department 37. Fire sprinkler, standpipe, fire alarm and underground fire supply installations require separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau. 38. Roof access shall be provided from both stairways. A hatch with ladder access is acceptable where access via stair is not otherwise required. Hatch must be a minimum 36 x 48 inches in size. Where alternating tread access is approvable under the code, a ship's ladder shall be provided instead. Utilities GENERAL

33. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 34. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 35. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE 36. A completed Utility Service Application and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 37. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 38. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department and the Architectural Review Board. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16. 39. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 40. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customers switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 41. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 42. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 43. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utilitys padmount transformer and the

customers main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 44. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to padmount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 45. The customer is responsible for sizing equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements. The service conductors shall be sized per City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 46. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 47. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customers expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. DURING CONSTRUCTION 48. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 49. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 50. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customers expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 51. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes.

52. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 53. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors, bus duct, transition cabinets, and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 54. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gopal Jagannath, P.E. Supervising Electric Project Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 55. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 56. The customer shall provide as-built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 57. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 58. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 59. All fees must be paid. 60. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. SUBDIVISION PROJECTS

61. There may be other conditions applicable to your project that can be found in previous sections of this document. 62. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. 63. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. In addition, the owner shall grant a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed within the subdivision as required by the City. 64. The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (i.e. conduits, boxes, pads, services, and streetlights) as well as other utilities. The developer/owner is responsible for all substructure installations (conduits, boxes, pads, streetlights system, etc.) on the subdivision parcel map. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and all work must be inspected and approved by the Electrical Underground Inspector. 65. The developer/owner is responsible for all underground services (conduits and conductors) to single-family homes within the subdivision. All work requires inspection and approval from both the Building Department and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 66. The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City.

Utilities Water, Gas Wastewater PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 67. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 68. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 69. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities for each residential or commercial unit. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads

plus any existing loads to remain). 70. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 71. There is no sewer main in Clemo Ave and the sewer main in Maybell Ave is constricted to 6 in the last block approaching El Camino Real. As part of this project the applicant is required to pipe burst the 6 section of main sewer main to 8. 72. Water and gas services for each single family home will be served directly off Maybell Ave or Clemo Ave. 73. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 74. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 75. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 76. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-builts) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the

contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 77. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPAs for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. Residential single family homes with no special cross connection hazards will be allowed to use double check assemblies. 78. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system (non single family home buildings only) to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAUs approval). reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5 of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 79. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 80. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be abandoned per the WGW Utilities Standards. 81. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 82. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 83. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. New gas service installations are required. Show the new gas meter locations on the plans. The gas meter locations must conform with utilities standard details. 84. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for facilities installed in private property. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa

Clara, and provide the utilities engineering section with copies of the public utilities easement across the adjacent parcels as is necessary to serve the development. 85. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW Utilities procedures. 86. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1 horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10 or existing trees. Maintain 10 between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 87. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 88. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 89. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in the El Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the WGW engineering section. PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 90. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL REVIEW-CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, the plans submitted for building permit shall be reviewed by the project site arborist to verify that all the arborists recommendations have been incorporated into the final plan set. The submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborists certification letter that the plans have incorporated the following information: a. b. c. d. Final Tree Protection Report (TPR) design changes and preservation measures. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. Outstanding items. Itemized list and which plan sheet the measures are to be located. Landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130.

91. PROTECTED TREE REMOVAL REQUIREMENTS(Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.05). Provide an evaluation and summary for any Protected Tree proposed to be removed with findings recognized by the tree ordinance; include replacement tree Mitigation Measures using the Replacement Standards (Tree Canopy/Value Method) in the

Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.00. If the total Mitigation canopy cannot be entirely planted on site, the remainder shall be paid to the City of Palo Alto Forestry Fund (Acct#60662). A Protected Tree removal permit shall be issued by the Urban Forestry section. 92. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on the relevant plan sheets: a. Sheet T-1_Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/environment/urbancanopy.asp ), Applicant shall complete the Tree Disclosure Statement. Inspections and monthly reporting by the project arborist are mandatory. (All projects: check #1; with tree preservation report: check #2-6; with landscape plan: check #7.) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the TPR approved by the City, Arborist Report for 567-595 Maybell Avenue, dated November 26, 2012, prepared by McClenahan Consulting, LLC shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc.) and added to the sheet index. c. Protective Tree Fencing Type. Delineate on grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans, Type II fencing around Street Trees and Type I fencing around Protected/Designated trees as a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (per the approved Tree Preservation Report) per instructions on Detail #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. d. Site Plan Notes. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated in the Tree Protection Report on Sheet T-1 and the approved plans. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall include a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at (650) 326-8781 Note #3. Basement foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires City Arborist approval, please call (650) 496-5953. Note #4. Utility plan sheets shall include the following note: Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions. 93. LANDSCAPE PLANS. a. Make the following changes in plant material for the following species, and planting specifications (if any) b. Provide a detailed landscape and irrigation plan encompassing on-and off-site plantable areas out to the curb shall be approved by the Architectural Review Board. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a statement of

design intent shall be submitted for the project. A licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant will prepare these plans, to include: i. All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including street trees. ii. Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. iii. Irrigation schedule and plan. iv. Fence locations. v. Lighting plan with photometric data. vi. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. vii. Reduce heat islands--Parking lot shade tree plan. Provide a landscape sheet showing tree planting designed to achieve 50% shading of paving surfaces pursuant to PAMC 18.40. 130(e) (Parking Lot Shading Guidelines, Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 9). viii. All new trees planted within the public right-of-way (public land) shall be installed per Public Works (PW) Standard Planting Diagram #603 or 604 (include on plans), and shall have a tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. ix. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. x. Automatic irrigation shall be provided to all trees. For trees, PW Detail #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers shall not be mounted inside an aeration tube. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Irrigation in the right-of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards. xi. Landscape Plan shall ensure the backflow device is adequately obscured with the appropriate screening to minimize visibility (planted shrubbery is preferred, painted dark green, decorative boulder covering acceptable; wire cages are discouraged). d. Planting notes to include the following mandatory criteria: i. Prior to any planting, all plantable areas shall be tilled to 12 depth, and all construction rubble and stones over 1 or larger shall be removed from the site. ii. Note a turf-free zone around trees 36 diameter (18 radius) for best tree performance. e. Mandatory Landscape Architect (LA) Inspection Verification to the City. The LA of record shall verify the performance measurements are achieved with a separate letter of verification to City Planning staff, in addition to owners representative for each of the following: i. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and is acceptable.

ii. iii.

Fine grading inspection of all plantable areas has been personally inspected for tilling depth, rubble removal, soil test amendments are mixed and irrigation trenching will not cut through any tree roots. Tree and Shrub Planting Specifications, including delivered stock, meets Standards in the CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 3.30-3.50. Girdling roots and previously topped trees are subject to rejection.

94. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION

95. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using air-spade method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans. 96. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the project site arborist, John H. McClenahan, WE-1476B, (650) 326-8781, with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the city for review. 97. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 98. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and Contractor and Arborist Inspection Schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. A mandatory Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 99. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant

to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 100. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY

101. LANDSCAPE INSPECTION. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of written verification that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 102. TREE INSPECTION. The contractor shall call for an inspection by the Project Arborist. A final inspection and report by the project arborist shall evaluate all trees to be retained and protected, as indicated in the approved plans, the activity, health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injury, if any, and for the long term care of the trees for the new owner. The report shall provide written verification to the Planning Department that all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. The final arborist report shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy. The final report may be used to navigate the security guarantee return process, when applicable. 103. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 104. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery.

ATTACHMENT E 567-595 MAYBELL AVENUE PLANNED COMMUNITY-ZONING COMPARISON TABLE

R-2 REQUIREMENTS RM-15 REQUIREMENTS (Village Residential) RM-40 REQUIREMENTS (COMPARISON) PLANNED COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Minimum Site Area (sq. ft.) Minimum Site Width (feet) Minimum Site Depth (feet) Minimum Front Setback (feet) Minimum Rear Setback (feet) Daylight Plane

6000 60 100 20 20 Front and Rear Daylight Plane is initial height at 16 ft. with a 60 degree rise. Side Daylight Plane is initial height of 10 ft. with a 45 degree rise.

8500 70 100 20 0-25 10 10 No daylight plane for side and rear lot lines for sites abutting a RM-30, RM-40, Planned Community or nonresidential district that does not contain a single-family or twofamily residental use for lots with width of 70 feet or greater.

Single Family Senior Homes No minimum 1.5 acre 1 acre No minimum 36' 196' No minimum 68 or 95' 248' NA 12'-20' 10 NA 0-12' 10 Lot 1 does not Northern and Within 150 feet of Eastern any R-E, R-1, R-2, comply with the RM, Resi PC zone, PC Daylight Plane elevations do not comply requirement the angle at 10 feet with PC side/rear property Daylight Plane line, increases 3 ft. requirement height for each 6 ft. distance from line (unless 60% residential, NA NA 30% 38% 30,681 sq. ft. of 56,192 sq. ft. single-family of senior residential floor residential area, FAR .47:1 floor area, FAR 1.29:1

Base Site Coverage Maximum FAR

40% 6000

35% 0.5:1

45% 1.0:1

DEVELOPMENT STANDARD

R-2 REQUIREMENTS

RM-15 REQUIREMENTS (Village Residential)

RM-40 REQUIREMENTS (COMPARISON)

PLANNED COMMUNITY REQUIREMENTS

PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT

Maximum Height (feet)

30

35

40

Within 150 feet of any R-E, R-1, R-2, RM zone or Resi PC zone, the maximum height is 35 ft ft.

Single Family Homes 35

Senior The proposed 50 foot Senior building does not comply with the height requirement.

Residential Density (units/acre) Usable Open Space (%) Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit) Minimum Common Open Space (sf per unit) Minimum Private Open Space (sf per unit)

2 NA NA NA NA

15 35 200 100 50

40 20 100 50 50

NA NA NA NA NA

10 26-32 792-1056 None 792-1056

60 20 285 142 None

ATTACHMENT F

MAYBELL ORCHARD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Planned Community (PC) Zone Change Originally Filed November 6, 2012 REVISED March 15, 2013
INTRODUCTION On June 22, 2012, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with Sambuceto Partners and Maybell Sambuceto Properties to acquire the properties located at 567-595 Maybell and 575-587 Maybell, in the City of Palo Alto, California. The APN numbers for the property are: 137-25-108 & 137-25-109. The main purpose of this acquisition is for PAHC to develop a much-needed affordable housing development in Palo Alto. Escrow for the transaction was successfully closed on November 30, 2012 and PAHC now owns the property. PAHC is applying for a Planned Community (PC) Zone Change, a Comprehensive Plan amendment, Architectural Review Board (ARB), environmental review, and tree removal for the property. PAHC has had preliminary meetings with City staff and neighbors, as well as a City Council study session in September of 2012 and an ARB preliminary review session in February of 2013. Relying on input from the surrounding community, City staff and policy makers, PAHC is applying for: PROPOSED APPLICATIONS 1. PC Zone change from R-2 and RM-15; a. Architectural Review Board (ARB) b. Comprehensive Plan amendment c. Environmental Review & Approval per CEQA; and d. Tree Removal DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT The two parcels presently carry R-2 and RM-15 zoning designations. Approval of the Planned Community (PC) Zone Change Application to rezone the 2.46-acre underutilized property would allow for the redevelopment of the site into a mixture of fifteen single-family, market rate homes and sixty affordable, rental housing units. The Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Multifamily Residential to Single-Family Residential for a portion of the property proposed for single-family homes will make the Comp Plan consistent with the proposed rezone. The apartments will serve extremely-low to low income seniors with incomes in the range of 30-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI) for Santa Clara County. City codes for high-density residential development do not provide sufficient flexibility to develop the proposed community under standard regulations. The proposed development will not

be attainable without a PC Zone change. The application allows for greater City oversight to ensure a unified, comprehensively planned development that will guarantee the development of affordable housing, thereby providing substantial public benefit to the City of Palo Alto. A PC Zone Change would enable PAHC to build sixty affordable, rental housing units for seniors on approximately 1 acre of the site, and to set aside approximately 1.46 acres for market rate housing development to be either developed by PAHC or a private developer. The sale of the market rate portion will significantly reduce the costs associated with the land acquisition and development for the sixty unit senior housing project. The project will increase the affordable housing stock available to the Citys aging population. According to Census Data, the senior population has been the fastest growing age group in Santa Clara County, and second fastest growing in Palo Alto, over the last ten years. The Housing Element, part of the Citys Comprehensive Plan, reports that Palo Alto seniors are deciding to age in place and many will begin to shift from larger single-family homes to smaller units. According to the Silicon Valley Council on Aging, twenty percent of seniors in Palo Alto are living at or near the federal poverty level. The project will provide long-term affordability restrictions and will leverage the monetary contributions of the City and the County for the public benefit. Furthermore, the project will help the City meet its regional housing needs per the Association of Bay Area Governments housing allotment. The property is a designated a Housing Inventory site under the Citys Housing Element. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject property is the configuration of two contiguous parcels of land with a net site area of approximately 2.465 acres (107,392 square feet). The larger parcel, currently zoned RM-15, contains a former apricot orchard and two single-family houses. The smaller parcel, currently zoned R-2, contains two additional single-family homes. These four one-story houses were built in the 1950s and 1960s and range in size from approximately 900 square feet to 1,500 square feet. All four homes face Maybell Avenue and have two-car garages. 567 Maybell Avenue has an additional attached one-car garage so there are presently a total of five garages fronting Maybell. Unlike typical single-family dwellings, none of the houses have their own individual lot. All homes are in need of maintenance, repair and upgrades. The former orchard, which comprises the majority of the larger parcel behind the four houses, was family-run by the property owner, producing fruit until roughly 1990. Since the early 1990s, the orchard has not been maintained. The south frontage of the orchard along Clemo Avenue is lined with large mature live oak trees. The entire property is level and at grade with surrounding properties and is served by all major utilities. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project will provide sixty affordable rental apartments, including fifty-nine (59) onebedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom unit for the onsite manager. The project will also

include common areas such as a community room, computer room, laundry rooms on each floor, managers office, resident services office, visiting nurse's office, exercise room, as well as outdoor common spaces including a large courtyard and patio, community garden, and rooftop terrace. The units will have an average size of approximately 600 square feet and rents will range from $532-1,065 per month for one person and will be adjusted annually based on Santa Clara County AMI. The fifteen single-family homes will range between 1,840 and 2,330 square feet. The homes will have three and four bedrooms and will vary in height between two and three stories. The following provides a brief description of the application: Architecture. Elevations vary in height. The two-story homes will not exceed 25 feet and the three-story homes will not exceed 35 feet. All of the single-family homes will feature architectural elements that will enhance the diversity of the streetscape, including step-backs on each floor. The senior apartment building will be four stories. Fenestration of the building will be achieved through large windows, alcoves, textures, and stepping floors back on the southern side of the building. In doing so, the elevations will be broken into several plains, reducing the mass of the building. The single-family homes and the apartment building will compliment the natural features of the site and will take into consideration adjacent properties in order to blend into the overall neighborhood fabric. Height. The single-family homes along Maybell and Clemo Avenues will have maximum heights of approximately 32 feet, and the senior apartment building will have a maximum height of approximately 45 feet. Massing and orientation of the buildings will respect and mirror the massing of the neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories. The development will gradually step up in height from the two and three-story homes along Maybell and Clemo Avenues, to the four-story senior apartment building. This gradual step up in height will provide continuity between the one and two story homes present to the west of the development, the three story APAC apartment complex to the north, and the eight-story TAN apartment building to the east. Setbacks. The eight homes along Maybell Avenue will have approximately 12 foot front-yard setbacks, 7 foot side-yard setbacks and 18-foot rear yard/driveway apron setbacks. The corner house will have (approximately) a five foot setback from Clemo Avenue, a 20 foot setback from Maybell Avenue, and a 5 foot side- and rear-yard setback. The six remaining homes along Clemo Avenue will have between 10 and 20 foot front yard setbacks in order to preserve and feature the mature live oaks lining the street, 12 foot side yards, and between 2 and 10 foot rear setbacks. Fourteen (14) of the 15 homes will have alley-loaded garages, allowing space for the addition of an uninterrupted sidewalk along Maybell Avenue which will connect existing sidewalks to the north and south of the property. These improvements will make Maybell Avenue a safer bicycle and pedestrian route. Development. The senior apartments will have a standard size of approximately 600 square feet and the managers 2-bedroom unit will be approximately 726 square feet. The development will, at a minimum, meet ADA requirements for accessibility in bathrooms and kitchens. Gas and water will be provided to the building via a single meter and are included in the rent. Internet and cable service will be available throughout the building and each resident will

have the option of contracting with an independent contractor for this service. Each unit and the common areas will be provided electricity via individual meters. Roof top photovoltaic energy systems are proposed to pre-heat water prior to entering a central boiler. Heating and cooling will be supplied to each unit via individual meters. Photovoltaic electric solar panels are proposed to power the community room. Water conservation will be achieved with droughttolerant landscaping of all vegetated areas and the use of Energy Star appliances. Additional sustainable measures will be met throughout the construction and materials selection process which may include recycled aggregate, engineered lumber, no added formaldehyde insulation and modular cabinets, low-VOC paints, wood coatings and adhesives, and low-emitting flooring. Other green features will be explored as funding permits. The single-family homes will range in size between 1,840 and 2,330 square feet. The protected/heritage oak trees along Clemo Avenue will be preserved. PAHC plans to have edible landscaping and/or a memorial plaque in the courtyard of the senior apartment building as a tribute to the agricultural history of the neighborhood. The project is designed to meet or exceed the Citys green point rating system and will be environmentally sustainable. Table 1 and Table 2 illustrate the proposed housing mix and livable square footage.

Table 1 Senior Apartments Housing Mix Apartment Square Apartments Housing Mix Composition Feet Floor 1 Floor 2 Floor 3 Floor 4 Unit 1 1 Bedroom 600 14 16 16 13 Unit 2 2 Bedroom 796 0 0 0 1 Apartment TOTAL 14 19 14 13

Unit Total Square Feet 35,400 796 36,196

Table 2 Single Family Housing Mix Single Family Housing Mix Single-Family Square Home Design Feet Quantity Height Bed Plan 1A 2,330 2 3 story 4 Plan 1B 2,330 3 3 story 4 Plan 1C 1,901 3 2 story 3 Plan 2 2,304 1 2 story 4 Plan 3A 1,832 2 3 story 4 Plan 3B 1,840 3 3 story 4 Plan 3C 1,840 1 3 story 4

Bath 3.5 3.5 2.5 3.5 4 4 4

The senior apartments will provide high-quality rental housing to seniors with annual incomes

ranging from 30% - 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Table 3 illustrates the Santa Clara County income limits per home size as a percent of AMI, which are adjusted annually. Table 3 Santa Clara County Area Median Income (AMI) Area Median Income Number In Household Santa Clara County 1 2 3 100% Income Level 60% Income Level 30% Income Level $71,000 $42,600 $81,100 $48,660 $91,200 $54,720 $27,360

4 $101,300 $60,780 $30,390

$21,300 $24,330 Source: TCAC 2013 Maximum Income Levels

Open Space. The apartment building will surround a large courtyard, complete with interesting landscape elements, walking and seating areas and a community garden. The community room will open up to an outdoor patio, making the courtyard easily accessible to residents. The current plans include a roof terrace. The landscaping plan includes a walking path through the courtyard and a connecting path from the senior apartment building to Briones Park. The garages for the single-family homes are alley-loaded, providing front yard open space for each house. Tree Removal. S.P. Mclenahan Co. has drafted a tree survey and tree protection plan. A site visit with David Dockter was conducted and S.P. McClenahan Co. Inc. is following through on the recommendations of the City. The mature Oak trees along Clemo Avenue will remain and have been incorporated into the project design. The tree protection plan is included as Attachment A. Parking for Senior Apartments. The senior apartments will have a total of 47 parking spaces, inclusive of three handicap spaces. Five of these spaces will be placed in a landscaped parking reserve which can be converted to parking if necessary. The typical parking ratio for a senior development in Palo Alto has been approximately .5. The Maybell Orchard Apartment project will have a parking ratio of .78, accommodating residents as well as visitor parking needs. For comparison, the Stevenson House, a 120-unit low-income senior housing development in Palo Alto, presently has a parking ratio of .45 spaces per unit and is well-parked. PAHCs Sheridan senior apartments has a parking ratio of .35. Table 4 provides an overview of parking at nearby senior properties. Table 4 Senior Development Automobile Parking California Total Spaces PROPERTY City Homes Provided Sheridan Sr. Apt Palo Alto 57 20 Stevenson House Palo Alto 120 54 Fair Oaks Plaza Sunnyvale 124 84 DeVries Place Milpitas 103 70 Eden Issei Hayward 100 52

Parking Ratio .35 .45 .67 .68 .52

Maybell Orchard

Palo Alto

60

47

.78

PAHC will monitor parking demand at the senior apartments. Parking will be metered by assigning spaces to residents as needed, with proof of registration and insurance. Due to the typically lower car ratios for seniors and affordable housing properties in general, we expect to be more than sufficiently parked to allow extra spaces for visitors and PAHC staff. Five spaces will be landscaped as a parking reserve. Should further parking prove to be necessary for the senior housing, the parking reserve can be converted into parking. Furthermore, PAHC is exploring the option of providing a shared van for resident use. Also, PAHC plans to provide an Electric Vehicle charging station on-site. Parking for Single-Family Homes. Fourteen of the single-family homes will have alley loaded two-car garages. The corner home (corner of Maybell and Clemo) will have a garage loading onto Clemo Avenue. In addition to the two-car garage, seven of the homes along Maybell and the corner home on Clemo will have guest parking for two additional cars in the driveway apron. Covered Parking. The zoning code requires residential parking to be concealed from the street for projects with six units or more. Although uncovered, all of the proposed parking spaces will be concealed from Clemo and Maybell Avenues through a combination of landscaping and building locations on the site. The single-family homes and existing live Oak trees will shield the parking area from view from Maybell and Clemo Avenues. Bicycle Parking for Seniors. Palo Alto Municipal Code does not address bicycle parking requirements for senior housing. The City of Santa Rosa requires 1 bicycle parking space per 8 units of senior affordable housing if a private garage or bicycle storage space is not provided. The City of Mountain View does not have a requirement for bicycle parking related specifically to senior affordable housing. However, Mountain View requires a minimum number of bicycle parking spaces equal to 5% of required vehicle parking spaces, which equates to roughly one bicycle parking space per ten units. The current plans for the senior apartment building include indoor bicycle parking for 20 bikes (1 space per 3 units) on the western end of the building, adjacent to the stairwell, and a rack for an additional 7 guest bicycles (just over 1 space per 10 units) located just to the east of the main entrance. Table 5 provides comparable bicycle parking for local affordable senior apartments. Table 5 Palo Alto Affordable Senior Bicycle Parking California Total Spaces Parking PROPERTY City Homes Provided Ratio Sheridan Sr. Apt Palo Alto 57 24 .42 Stevenson House Palo Alto 120 40 .33 Maybell Orchard Palo Alto 60 27 .45 Public Transit - Bus. The project is within 500 feet of the north-south peninsula artery, El Camino Real. El Camino Real is served by Santa Clara Valley Transit Agency (VTA) Bus Routes "22", "Rapid 522" and "88." The bus stop for each of these routes is less than a five-

minute walk from the property. Additionally, the Palo Alto shuttle route extension will bring the free shuttle within a few blocks of the development. The Palo Alto Crosstown Shuttle operates a circular route through Palo Alto, providing service to Mitchell Park, Main Library, midtown shopping, downtown Palo Alto and the Palo Alto Caltrain Station, among other destinations. It runs Monday-Friday from roughly 9:00am5:00pm. The 22 operates along El Camino Real, running northwest to the Palo Alto train station and southeast to San Jose. It runs 24 hours a day, with buses every 12 minutes from 6:00am-7:00pm and every 30 minutes after 7:00pm, seven days a week. It runs every 15 minutes on Saturday and Sunday. The Rapid 522 also operates along El Camino Real, running northwest to the Palo Alto train station and south to the Eastridge Transit Center. It runs during workweek daytime hours with service approximately every 15 minutes from 5:30am to 8:30pm. It runs every 15 minutes on Saturday and Sunday between 6:00am and 8:00pm. The 88 runs between the Palo Alto V.A. and Middlefield/Colorado streets, serving south Palo Alto neighborhoods with easy access to grocery stores and satellite colleges at the Cubberley Center; it runs during workweek daytime hours with service approximately every hour from 6:30am to 6:30pm. There is no service on Saturday and Sunday. Public Transit - Caltrain. Railway access is readily available at the Palo Alto, San Antonio, and California Avenue Caltrain stations. The California Avenue train station is located approximately 2.0 miles north of the property. Access to the station involves a short 9 minute bus ride and a 6 minute walk. Alternatively, the station is a 39 minute walk or a 10 minute bike ride from the property. The Palo Alto train station is a major transit station for Caltrain operations. The station is located approximately 3.5 miles north of the property. Access to the station involves a short 20 minute bus ride that drops off right at the train platform. The San Antonio train station is located approximately 1.9 miles east of the property. Access to the station involves a 15 minute bus ride and a15 minute walk. Alternatively, the station is a 33 minute walk or a 10 minute bike ride from the property via sidewalks and a Class I pedestrian trail.

Development Schedule. The anticipated development schedule is as follows: November 2012 November 30, 2012 March 2013 June 2013 June 2013 July 2013 September/October 2013 October 2013 October 2014 October/November 2014 December 2014 Secure City/County and Additional Funding Close of Escrow Architectural Review Board Approval Council Development Permit & Design Review Approval Market Rate Portion Land Sale Deadline to apply for tax credit financing for 2012 year Obtain Grading/Building Permit Commence Construction Complete Construction* Obtain Occupancy Permit Full Occupancy and Operational

* Site constraints & difficulties associated with winter construction may cause delays.

CONCESSIONS Government Code section 65915 provides zoning concessions for the development of affordable housing. The following provides a brief description of the concessions that are being sought for the development. Height. The maximum allowable height for any PC district is fifty feet. However, Section 18.38.150(b) requires that the maximum height within 150 feet of any residentially zoned or applicable PC district shall be 35 feet. The single-family homes are in compliance; however, the senior building exceeds this restriction by approximately 10 feet. The senior buildings strategic placement on the property nearest the APAC apartment community and the TAN Plaza Apartments allows the building to blend in with the context of the 3-story and 8-story adjacent developments. As discussed in the project description, the entire development smoothly transitions up in height from the two and three story single family homes, to the four-story senior building, linking the existing one and two story homes along Maybell with the three-story APAC apartments to the north of the property and the eight story TAN apartment building to the east. Daylight Plane. The PC code requires that setbacks be scaled to the height of each building the taller the building, the greater the setback ensuring minimal shading of neighboring properties. Given the four story height of the senior building, the structure would need to be set back 72 feet from the property line in order to comply with the daylight plane zoning ordinance. Due to the limited size of the property, setbacks meeting the daylight plane requirement are not possible. At the request of the Architectural Review Board, a shadow study was conducted, included on Plan Sheet A2.1. The study shows that the structures on the neighboring properties are subject to minimal shading due to their setbacks from the property line and their height. The three-story APAC apartment community to the north of the senior building is setback 57 feet from the property line with a parking area and a driveway in between, thereby limiting the possibility that residents will be shaded by the senior building. The eightstory TAN apartment building is similarly setback from the property line behind carports and a drive aisle. Due to the height and location of the TAN building, it is not shaded by the senior building. The single-family homes do not present any daylight plane issues.

ATTACHMENTG

City of Palo Alto

Report Type:

(ID # 3449) Planning & Transportation Commission Staff Report

Meeting Date: 2/13/2013

Summary Title: 567 Maybell Ave. Planned Community Initiation Title: 567-595 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453]: Request by Candice Gonzalez on behalf of Palo Alto Housing Corporation for initiation of a new Planned Community zone district to allow the development of 15 single family residences and a 60 unit multifamily affordable rental project for seniors on parcels having a combined area of 107,392 square feet and zoned R-2 and RM-15. From: Tim Wong, Senior Housing Planner Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review the proposal for a residential Planned Community on a 2.46 acre lot and: a) receive public testimony and provide comments on the development proposal; b) provide direction and identify key issues for the applicant and staff to consider prior to the preparation of an environmental document and staff report for design review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and c) initiate the Planned Community rezoning request to allow for the development of 15 single-family residences and a four story, 60-unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors. Background Site Information The project site is comprised of two parcels (APN # 137-25-109 and 108) located at the corner of 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 Comprehensive Plan land use designation is Single Family and Multiple Family Residential. The sites currently contain a non-functioning orchard and four existing single family homes fronting on Maybell Avenue. The four homes were built between the 1950s and 1970s. Vehicular access to the site is from both Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue with an automobile barrier at the end of Clemo Avenue to prevent vehicular traffic movements from Clemo Avenue on to Maybell Avenue.
City of Palo Alto Page 1

To the west of the project, across Maybell Avenue, are 1-2 story single family residences. The adjacent parcel to the north is the Arastradero Park Apartments, owned by the Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC). The multifamily residences are 2-3 stories. East of the parcel is the Tan Plaza Continental, an 8-story, 61-unit multi-family residential building with an overall height of approximately 90 feet. South of the site is Briones Park. On the southern corner of Clemo Street and Arastradero Road is Palo Alto Fire Station No. 5. Summary of Land Use Action The request is for initiation of a new Planned Community zone district. The proposed Planned Community zone would allow for the development of 15 single-family residences and a four story, 60-unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors. Rezoning to a PC district follows a set of procedures and standards, which are prescribed in Chapter 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). The PC process begins with PTC review of the concept plans, development program statement and draft development schedule. If the PTC recommends initiating the PC request, the development plan, site plan, landscape plan and design plans are submitted to the ARB for design review in the same manner as any commercial or mixed-use project. The environmental document is prepared and circulated prior to ARB consideration. The development plan recommended for approval by the ARB is then returned to the PTC, together with a draft PC ordinance and environmental document, for review and recommendation to the City Council. The PC ordinance would identify the permitted and conditionally permitted uses and site improvements, as well as a schedule for completion of the project. The PTC may recommend a PC zone change only if it finds that: 1. 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 not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. 2. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. In make the findings required by this section, the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. 3. The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.

City of Palo Alto

Page 2

DISCUSSION Project Description The applicants project description in support of the proposed PC district zone change is provided in Attachment A and plans are provided as Attachment C. These documents are known as the Project. The Project consists of the demolition of the four existing single family houses and removal of the orchard for the construction of 15 single family homes and a 60 unit affordable rental development for seniors. The existing homes each have approximately 900 to 1500 square feet (sq. ft.) of floor area, and are single-story structures, built in the 1950s and 1960s. The demolition is necessary for the construction of the 15 single-family homes. The proposed singlefamily homes would range between 1,900 to 2,400 square feet. The homes would be constructed on fee simple lots of approximately 4,000 square feet. The single-family homes would be sited adjacent to Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue, the western and southern boundaries of the property. Eight of the homes would face Maybell Avenue, one home would be located on a corner lot, and six homes would face Clemo Avenue. All automobile ingress and egress to the homes will be from a main entry driveway on Clemo Avenue, except for the corner unit which will have its own driveway onto Clemo Avenue. In order to avoid parking impacts on Maybell and Clemo Avenues, garage parking would be provided at the rear of each unit. The Maybell Avenue residences would be two and three story homes. The maximum height of the proposed three story homes is 35 feet and the two story homes would be approximately 24 feet tall. The corner home and six homes facing Clemo Avenue would be three story units with a maximum height of 35 feet. The intent is to sell the homes to a market rate developer to help defray development costs for the affordable senior rental development. The affordable senior development portion of the Project consists of fifty-nine (59) one-bedroom units and one (1) two-bedroom managers unit in a single building consisting of four stories with an overall height of 46 feet. The one bedroom units would be approximately 600 square feet. The senior project will have common open space including a rooftop terrace, a community room, and an exercise room. The total floor area of the senior development is as follows: First floor Second floor Third Floor Fourth Floor Total Floor Area
City of Palo Alto

16,116 sq. ft. 14,115 sq. ft. 14,085 sq. ft. 12,237 sq. ft. 56,553 sq. ft.
Page 3

Rents will target seniors with low, very low and extremely low incomes. Rents for the units will range from $590 to $1,181 per month. Rents will be adjusted annually. Summary of Key Issues The overall goal of the Project is to provide 60 units of much needed affordable senior rental housing. The Project includes the unique approach of proposing market rate, for-sale singlefamily residences to be approved concurrently with the affordable housing to help reduce some of the senior housing development costs. The purpose of the PC initiation process is to provide direction to the applicant as to whether this project may be supported, and if so, what issues need to be further addressed. In addition to providing affordable housing for seniors, the development has been designed to enhance the pedestrian circulation on Maybell Ave. The four existing homes and their driveways will be removed. The parking spaces will be located behind each home. This segment of Maybell Avenue currently does not have a sidewalk. Removal of the existing driveways will allow for the installation of a sidewalk on the southern side of Maybell Avenue. The homes have been designed in a way that is integrated the existing Oak trees on Clemo Avenue. The proposed homes on Clemo Avenue would be set back 20 feet from the property line to accommodate the 10 existing oak trees. The Oak trees will provide a natural visual buffer between the homes and any persons at Briones Park. The services that would be offered at the senior development are designed to maximize the seniors independent living experience. A community room with computers is proposed, along with an office to provide residential services. A community garden in the common open space area is also offered. The site is a short walk to El Camino Real, where the residents would have access to public transit and a number of commercial services. The landscaping plan includes a walking path from the senior development to Briones Park. Staff has identified the following issues for the PTCs specific consideration and comment: Zoning Compliance The first of the three required findings to be made by the PTC to recommend a PC is that: The project 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 not provide sufficient enough flexibility to allow the proposed development. As noted earlier, the project site consists of two zoning designations: Residential Multifamily-15 (RM-15) and Residential-2 (R-2). The RM-15 zoned portion of the site is 93,692 sq. ft. (87%) of the 107,392 sq. ft. project site. The R-2 parcel is encompassed by the RM-15 zone and extends through approximately half the Maybell Avenue frontage.
City of Palo Alto Page 4

The proposed development appears to be consistent with many of the requirements of the Planned Community zone district as outlined in Section 18.38.060 of the Municipal Code. Staff has prepared a zoning comparison table (Attachment B) that analyzes the development standards for the proposed PC zone development compared to a development of the site following the RM-15 and RM-40 development standards. RM-40 development standards are also included since the proposed density of the development is most similar to RM-40 zoning. As stated in the zoning comparison, the Project exceeds the RM-40 requirements for height, daylight plane and Village Residential setback requirements. The proposed senior building exceeds the maximum allowable height and projects into the daylight plane. The single family residences on Maybell Avenue would not meet the setback requirements for the RM-40 zone. In order to meet the goals of the Project, the applicant has requested PC zoning in that the development plan would not specifically conform to any of the multi-family residence district. Furthermore, the PC district, if granted, would be applicable only to the approved Development Plan, thereby ensuring that only the proposed Project could be developed. Any future redevelopment of the site to a different use would require additional rezoning that could only be approved by the City Council.

Planned Community Zoning Requirements and Considerations There are special requirements for PC zoned sites that abut any residentially zoned or applicable PC zoned districts: Height - Section 18.38.150(b) requires that the maximum height within any residentially zoned or applicable PC district shall be 35 feet. While the single family residences are at a maximum of 35 feet, the proposed height of the senior development is 46 feet. Daylight Plane - The PC code requires that the daylight plane is to be measured beginning at a height of 10 feet the property line and increasing at a slope of three feet for each six feet of distance from the site line until intersecting the height limit otherwise established for the PC district. The senior housing is setback 10 feet from the property line. In order for the senior housing to comply with the daylight plane requirement at the proposed height of 46 feet, the housing would need to be setback 72 feet from the property line.

The PC zoning district does not have a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) limit. For comparison, the maximum FAR allowed in the RM-15 zone is 0.5:1. RM-40 is 1.0:1. The total square
City of Palo Alto Page 5

footage of all development is approximately 88,594 square feet. The total square footage of the site is 107,408 square feet thus the proposed FAR for the development is approximately 0.82:1. Approaches to Zoning Code Compliance The applicant will need to address the height and daylight plane inconsistencies in order to comply with the PC zoning development standards. The applicant has three options available to resolve the inconsistency. The applicant may request: 1) pursuant to Government Code 65915, concessions and site development incentives, permitted with the production of affordable housing; 2) exceptions to be granted by the City Council to amend the PC zone ordinance to allow for the additional height and daylight plane encroachment, or, 3) variances to be granted by the City Council to allow exceptions to the height and daylight plane requirements. Government Code section 65915 provides concessions or incentives that provide regulatory relief to projects in exchange for the developer providing affordable units in the development. The number of concessions is based on the percentage of affordable housing provided in the development with a maximum number of three concessions. Based on the percentage of affordable housing provided in this proposal, the development is eligible for three concessions. One concession could be used to request exceed the maximum height limit and another concession could be requested for encroachment into the daylight plane. For the second option, the City Council may grant exceptions to the PC ordinance to bring the project into compliance with the zoning code. Therefore the Council, in reviewing the PC request, may grant exceptions to height and daylight plane requirements. It is within the Councils authority to amend any provision of the zoning ordinance, including provisions within the PC zone section. Staff notes that these exceptions would not have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential parcels due to the distances to the Arastradero Park and the Tan Plaza residences. Height and daylight plane exceptions were granted to the 101 Lytton Avenue commercial development for similar purposes. The third option is for the applicant to request variances for not meeting the height and daylight plane requirements. Specific findings would need to be made in order to grant each variance; this option is more complex and would be the least desirable from the applicants standpoint. Staff has not prepared draft Variance findings.

City of Palo Alto

Page 6

Public Benefits The second of the three required PC approval findings is that: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC district will result 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 PTC and City Council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned community district. The public benefit derived from this development is the increase in the Citys affordable housing inventory for seniors. Over the past ten years, according to Census data, the senior population is the second fastest growing population in the City. The Silicon Valley Council reports that 20% of Palo Altos seniors are living at or below the poverty level. The project will provide affordable housing on a long term basis to this rapidly increasing population at a density that would not otherwise be allowed in any multi-family residential district. Parking The Project would include 47 parking spaces, at grade, for the senior development. The City requires typically 1.5 parking spaces per each one-bedroom unit and 2 spaces per each twobedroom unit. Therefore the development would need to include a total of 91 parking spaces to meet the parking standards. However, the City has recognized that senior developments generate less traffic impacts and require fewer parking spaces than other residential developments. The developer is providing 47 parking stalls for 60 units; this is a ratio of .78 stalls per unit. This ratio is consistent with (or exceeds) other parking ratios reflected in existing senior housing developments throughout the City. Parking spaces for the single-family homes would be provided in two-car garages. Access to the garages would be from the interior of the project site. Driveways are proposed for each home to accommodate additional parking. Street parking would be available on Maybell and Clemo Avenues. Traffic/Circulation All ingress and egress for the development would be from one main entry driveway located on Clemo Avenue, except for the corner lot housing unit. The corner lot home will have its own driveway onto Clemo Avenue. The existing four single family residences all have driveways connecting to Maybell Avenue to allow access to the automobile garages. Removing the four units and their Maybell Avenue curb-cuts would allow for additional on-street parking spaces as well as help create a safer street and a more walkable sidewalk. The Transportation Division staff is in discussion with the applicants traffic consultant, and is reviewing the applicants traffic study. Initial traffic data suggests that there may be some benefit of providing limited access from and onto Maybell Avenue, in addition to access from
City of Palo Alto Page 7

Clemo Avenue. Following an initiation, the traffic study would be used to prepare the Transportation section of the environmental review document. Trees There are twelve mature oak trees fronting Clemo Avenue. Ten of the larger oak trees would be retained, while the two smallest oaks are recommended for removal. The remaining oaks are integrated into the overall design of the project. The proposed homes on Clemo Avenue would be set back an average of 40 feet from the property line to accommodate the oak trees. The trees will also provide a privacy screen between the homes and Briones Park. Medium sized canopy trees are proposed along Maybell Avenue. The new frontage trees would be located in each front yard of the Maybell Avenue homes. Community Concerns The applicant has conducted a number of community meetings to introduce the project to, and obtain feedback from the immediate residential neighbors; the Barron Park and Green Acres neighborhood associations. The current design incorporates feedback received from the participants in these meetings. January 17, 2013 Preliminary Architectural Review Board A preliminary review of the proposed Project was conducted on January 17, 2013 by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB was complimentary about the site layout for the entire project, but there were some key ARB points that the applicant would need to address. Some of the comments included: Concern about the height of the senior building. Because of the height, the ARB had suggested conducting a solar study to measure the effects of the 46 ft. building with surrounding residences; The site layout seems to isolate or cut-off the senior building from the rest of the site, and A more contemporary design was suggested for the single-family homes.

Policy Implications This project is consistent with the policies and programs of the current and propose Housing Element. Housing Element Program H-2 encourages development densities at the higher end of allowed density ranges in multiple family zones. Program H-4 stresses allowing increased residential density where adequate urban services and amenities can be provided. This site is on the draft Housing Elements Housing Inventory Sites list, which designates it as appropriate for
City of Palo Alto Page 8

the development of housing. The draft Housing Element also contains Policy 2.1.4 that amends the code to encourage the development of smaller, more affordable housing units, including units for seniors. Timeline The applicant hopes to obtain approval from the Council in June 2013 in order to submit a tax credit application in July. Concurrent with the tax credit application review, the applicant would submit for building permits with the first building permit issued in October 2013. Construction would commence in November 2013 and completing construction in October 2014. Completion of renting and occupancy would occur by December 2014. Environmental Review If the PTC recommends initiation, this project will be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements. An environmental document would be prepared in accordance with CEQA. Attachments A) Applicant Project Description* B) Zoning Comparison Table C) Proposed Development Plans* D) Site Map * Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff Attachments: Attachment A: Project Description (PDF) (PDF) (PDF)

Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table

Attachment C: Preliminary ARB Submittal (Commissioners Only) Attachment D: Location Map (PDF)

City of Palo Alto

Page 9

ATTACHMENT H

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Planning and Transportation Commission Verbatim Minutes February 13, 2013 EXCERPT

567-595 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453]: Request by Candice Gonzalez on behalf of Palo Alto Housing Corporation for initiation of a new Planned Community zone district to allow the development of 15 single family residences and a 60 unit multifamily affordable rental project for seniors on parcels having a combined area of 107,392 square feet and currently zoned R-2 and RM-15. *Quasi-Judicial Chair Martinez: Ok, welcome back everyone. Were going to move into our second item of the night and thats a request by the Palo Alto Housing C orporation (PHC) for the Planning Commission to provide comment on a m ultifamily housing development at 567 Maybell and to initiate a Planned Community (PC) zoning dis trict for the project. We will begin with, oh. This is a quasi-judicial item so members of the Comm ission are asked to report on ex-parte communications with others in the community regarding this project. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Y es I had a phone call the other day from a person, a m ember of the community who did not wish to give her name who basically mentioned about the issue of traffic on Maybell, parking on Maybell and Clemo, the issue of height of these buildings in comparison to the surrounding buildings, and the impact of use on the surrounding neighborhood particularly with the additional tall building in the area. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Panelli. Commissioner Panelli: I have nothing to report. Chair Martinez: Yes, Vice-Chair Michael. Vice-Chair Michael: Yes. I also had a call from a member of the community. It may have been the same person who spoke with Commissioner Keller who had the same issues, also mentioned the limited number of streets going into and out of the neighborhood so that there would be an ingress/egress problem potentially if there was an emergency evacuation scenario. And then several months ago I had a call from a representa tive of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation who invited me to get an introduction/ orientation to the project which I declined to do in observation of our policy regarding ex-parte communication. Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Alcheck. Commissioner Alcheck: I spoke to Ann Lisbee who identified hers elf as a resident of Donald Drive and expressed concerns about em ergency traffic scenarios and identif ied the concerns about egress and ingress as especially important in this review. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. Commissioner Tanaka: Nothing to report. 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Chair Martinez: Ok. I want to thank Vice-Ch air Michael for rem inding me of the call a few minutes ago. I also had a call from a member of the Palo Alto Housing Corporation suggesting a meeting with Commissioners and I just suggested th at probably wasnt a good idea at that tim e. And so I believe that nothing went forward on that matter, but Im pretty certain that it didnt. so with that lets being with the staff report. Aaron Aknin, Assistant Dir ector: Thank you Chair. Ill also not e that I also had a contact from the same unidentified person I believe who also expressed the same concerns and I said I would communicate those to the Comm ission, but it sounds like youve already communicated those. Tim Wong, Senior Planner with the department will be giving this pres entation. So Ill tu rn it over to him at this point. Tim Wong, Senior Hous ing Planner: So good e vening. Ag ain my name is Tim Wong. Im a Senior Planner. And before you this evening you have a request from Palo Alto Housing Corp as stated by Chair Martinez to do a Planned Community rezone and this is the initiation process of the rezone to allow them to develop 15 single family homes and a 60 unit affordable senior rental development. And so as staffs recommendati on that yes, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review the Pl anned Community request and to receive public testimony and provide comments, identify key is sues, and provide direction and then to initia te the P lanned Community rezone process. Just some quick inform ation about Palo Alto H ousing Corp; they have been our partner since 1971 in developing affordable housing in the City. They manage the Citys Below Market Rate (BMR) program and in addition they do devel op their own affordable housing throughout the City. As for the prop erty they acquired the site at the end of Nove mber last y ear partially through a City funded loan of $3.2 million and the City is ready to loan an additional $2.6 to the project in the next few weeks. And the purpose and intent of the P C rezone, there was discussion between whether a PC or an RM40 zoning designation was m ost appropriate for this site. However, it was decided to do a PC zone for the sake, the ability to control the site for affordable housing. In other words if the affordable housing was not done then the PC zone would not be valid and it would revert back to the existing zoning. W hile if it went to RM40 any particular developm ent could then construct at that density. Therefore it was decided to initiate with a PC rezone. The intent of this project is that the 15 units of single family development or dwellings would be sold to a market rate developer to help buy down the costs of the 60 unit affordable housing development. And as a requirement of the PC zone the project must show a public benefit and in this instance the public benefit is the 60 units of affordab le housing. It is well docum ented showing the need or demonstrating the need of affordable housing for Palo Alto seniors. Currently the site is about a fi ve acre parcel split over two legal lots, .3 2 acres and 2.13 acres respectively. And there is bot h R2 and RM15 zoning on the site. There are four existing hom es that are on along Maybell Avenue which use Maybell Ave. for ingress and egress. And the remainder of this site is a nonf unctioning orchard. I believe it ha snt been functioning since the early Nineties, but I could be wrong about that . And there currently is no sidewalk on the Maybell Avenue segment of the parcel. And as pa rt of the proposal the applicant would install a sidewalk for that portion. 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

The project site is surrounded by single and multifamily units. Across th e street from Maybell Ave. are single fam ily residences of one and tw o stories. T o the eas t is the Aras tradero Park Apartments owned by Palo Alto Housing Corp and that is, those buildings are two, three sto ries in height and that was created through a PC z one. To the South is the eight story Tan Plaza building. Approximately 90 feet in height and th ats to the South. And across the street fr om Clemo Avenue is Briones Park. And one m ore item on the project site are there are mature Oak trees that front Clemo Avenue and the applicant, Palo Alto Housing Corp they are here and the y will go a little more into how the Oak trees have been integrated into this proposed development. Some information about the single fam ily homes, again theyre proposing to construct 15 single family homes which would, with eight units al ong Maybell Avenue, a corner lot and then six units or six lots on Clem o Avenue. The four existing homes would be demolished to make way for the eight homes. And on Maybell Avenue you will have two and three story units. The two story units are about 1,900 square feet, 25 feet in height, and the three story units are about 35 feet in height up to about 2,400 square feet. And the units along Clemo would be three story about 35 feet in height and the same square footage of about 2,400 square feet. As for the senior housing Palo Alto Housing Corp proposes to construct a four story building of approximately 46 feet in height, total square footage of about 56,000 square feet, and each floor ranging from 12,000 to 16,000 square feet. T here would be 59 one bedroom units about 600 square feet in size with a two bedroom managers unit. Som e of the am enities they will be offering is a community room with a com puter, a side com puter room. Theyll be a nurses station, an exercise room, a se rvice coordinators office, and a courtyard, and therell be a rooftop terrace also in regards to some open space, and laundry facilities on each floor. The slide says 57 park ing spaces will be p rovided, but in actually thats a typo. Its 47 spaces will be provided for the 60 units. And that comes out to about a .78 ratio of spots to, or units to spots parking spaces and typically theyre required to p rovide 1.5. However, the . 78 ratio is a higher ratio than other com parable affordable senior developments throughout the City and in affordable senior developments in adjacent jurisdictions. And again all eg ress and ingress to the site will be through one main entryway on Clemo Ave. In regards to zoning com pliance generally the project is in com pliance with th e PC zone requirements, however, there are two special requirements that spec ifically the sen ior building does not meet. Those are m aximum height and also daylight plane. The PC zone states that if the project site is 150 feet of residentially zoned parcels the m aximum height is 35 feet and it must meet the daylight plane requirements. As re ferenced the senior build ing is proposed to be 46 feet high and based on its location it would protrude into the daylight plane. Some possible options to bring this project into compliance with the PC zone is the applicant can request density bonus concessions or request exceptions from the City Council or lastly it could, they could request a variance to becom e in c ompliance. However, the applicant is looking, preferring to request density bonus concessions the reason being that per Governm ent Code Section 65915 because of the percentage of affo rdable housing that they are producing they are eligible for concession s and con cessions must be granted by right. While the other two, th e exceptions from the Council or variance is a discretionary process.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

And a few weeks ago the PTC reviewed the Citys draft Density Bonus Ordinance. And just to report that these, th e request for height and daylight pl ane are consistent with th e Citys draft Density Bonus Ordinance in that both are, w ould be on the m enu of concessions that you had reviewed. In addition in the Ordinance it also provides for greater flexibility when there is a development that is 100 percent affordable such as the proposed senior center or senior rental. Lastly there are other items in regards to the site. One was m entioned is traffic. As stated all ingress and egress is from Cle mo Avenue. However, Palo Alto Housing Corp is working with the United States Departm ent of Housing an d Urban Developm ent (HUD) in the adjacent property, the Arastradero Park Apartm ents, which Palo Alto Housing Corp also ow ns. They are working with HUD to create an easem ent from Maybell through the A rastradero Park site to access this project site. And a tr affic report is being prepared as we speak to analy ze not only exclusive ingress and e gress from Clemo, but also from Maybell. And all this will also b e analyzed as part of the environm ental review if the PTC chooses to commence the initiation. And also as stated there are Oak trees on the site which are being integrated into the design of the project. Two Oaks have been pr oposed for removal. The arborist s report has been sent to the City Arborist and as of yet no comments have been received from the Arborist. And finally the nex t steps in term s of the pr ocessing timeline; staff anticipates starting the environmental review period around March 7 th, going to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on March 24 th, closing the review period around April 7 th and coming back to the PTC on April 24th with City Council consideration on May 30 th. Understanding that th is is an aggressive schedule, however staf f is trying to m eet Palo Alto Housing Corpor ations timeline to gain entitlement prior to July since July is the deadlin e for tax credit app lications. So that concludes staffs presentation. We have representatives from Palo Alto Housing Corporation, Candic e Gonzalez and Jessica DeWitt (interrupted) Chair Martinez: Tim could we get a couple of clar ifications before the applicants speak? You said the only difference between the requested PC zoning and the RM40 is the amount of control we have on the affordability aspect of the project, yes? Mr. Wong: In addition there are others that this project would not have m et, been able to m eet RM40s in regards to the 15 units there are village residential guidelines or requirements that this project could not meet. So therefore the PC allows for greater flexibility in designing for the 15 unit subdivision. Chair Martinez: Ok and then one last one. You said the project is 100 percent affordable? Mr. Wong: Well, I understood 60 of the 75 units. So I guess if you look at the total development it would not be 100 percent affordable, but (interrupted) Chair Martinez: But then do they meet the concession guidelines to the letter of the law? Mr. Wong: Absolutely. Any project that provides more than 35 percent affordable is eligible for three concessions. So they would be eligible for the three concessions. Chair Martinez: Ok. Excellent. Ok, yes, you have 15 minutes.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Candice Gonzalez, E xecutive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation: Good evening Commissioners. Tim , thank you for your very de tailed presentation. We will do a very brief one. Im Candice Gonzalez, Executive Director of the Palo Alto Housing Corp and this is ou r Project Manager Jessica DeWitt. W e have som e Board Mem bers present that a re very supportive as well as other staff members to answer questions and our architects from the Dahlin Group. We do have a PowerPoint as well. Great, thank you. As Tim mentioned we were esta blished in 1970 with the help of City Council Members. Our mission has always been to develop, build, acquire, and manage affordable housing in Palo Alto. We currently own over 700 units with over 2,000 resi dents. And here are some of our properties at a glance. The Tree House you m ight remember from 2011. W e finished construction in December of 2011. Jessica DeWitt, Project Manager: Were goin g to switch gears over to m e here. So I know staffs already introduced our prop osal to you so I wont go ther e, but I want to mention PHC prides itself on building award winning housin g and one of our m ost recent developm ents the Tree House Apartm ents won the Association of Bay Area G overnments (ABAG) Growing Smarter Together Award recentl y. In addition, as far as I know to date the Tree House Apartments has also, th ey are the h ighest or th ey have rec eived the highest m ultifamily green point reading in Palo Alto to date. As far as I know. So PHC str ongly supports having green building and we definitely will be incorporating these features into the Maybell property as well. In addition we plan to own and manage the property just like the property next door and by doing that we definitely pride ourselves on being very good neighbors. So next slide? Thank you. So why senior affordable housing? You can see here the stats th ere is a growing population of the elderly in Palo Alto and theres definitely at least 20 percent of the seniors here that could really benefit from having more affordable housing available to them. Since Ive talked a little bit about need here Im going to go straight to bene fits. So at all of our properties currently in Palo Alto we have very lengthy wa iting lists. S o being able to increase the affordable housing stock here in Palo Alto is definitely critical and important. All of our, most of our lenders have 55 term affordability restrictions on our properties so we are holding these properties as affordab le for a very long period of tim e. In addition, not with a mission. Our organization is to hold these proper ties as af fordable housing indefinitely. And speaking to the leverage of the Citys contribution the City is usually one of our lenders on our property as they are here at Ma ybell. By doing so they are not only helping m ake this project feasible they are also helping m eet the affordable housing goal overall for th e City. So we think thats a great benefit. Wrong slide here, thank you. So Tims already talked about the site condition s and zoning. I havent used one of t hese before but Im certainly going to try. Y ou can kind of see th e R1 zoning right there and the PC zoning to the east and the north and then the Juana Briones Park to the south. And then Maybell Avenue on the left, sorry, Maybell Avenue on the left and Clemo, this is not working very well. Yeah, Clemos, Clemo working down here. So I m just trying to give you a fram e of reference as we move from slide to s lide. Go ahead Ti m. Alright so here we go again, Maybell Avenue right there and Clemo Avenue down below. Hopefully people can see the red dot . The single fam ily homes these are one and two stories and then to the north is our neighbo ring property, which is three stories with one two story building. And t hen we have the eight story Tan building on the east here. Lets see our next slide. 5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

So here we have the proposed si te plan and again let me give you a point of reference if this will work. So the Maybell housing here is on the left and then or sorry the Maybell Avenue is on the left and then Cle mo is on the right down belo w. And the L shape is, the L shape along the perimeter of the property is the single fa mily housing and then it graduates up to the senior housing in the back here if itll point. Anyways so that gives you a point, a relationship of where everything is and while were still on the slid e so let me go through th at there, so each of the single family homes has a two car garage. Th e homes along Maybell have driveway aprons as well as you can see the 47 spaces for the senior parking. And typically seniors need less parking and Im going to go through we have actually put together a chart for you on parking. And thats the next slide. So here we put together a chart of properties in Palo Alto as well as nearby. The two properties on the top there, Sherid an Senior Apartments is actually one of our proper ties and then theres Stevenson House, which is anothe r senior, affordable senior prope rty in Palo Alto. And both of those have the lowest parking ratio on the char t there at .35 and .45 for parking ratio. Then you have a couple others that weve put in there, but ours is coming in at the highest here at .78. So I want to just br iefly go into the circu lation here. Just to give a little history on the background of where we started and where we are now with the site plan. In your original site plan all of the hom es on the Maybell side actually had the garages fronting Maybell. And after we had a fe w neighborhood meetings as well as a City Council preliminary review meeting and after those meetings and with the feedback that we received we actually ended up flipping all of the driveways so that theres now only in ternal circulation on t hat Maybell side. And were hoping this addresses the concern of m eeting bicycle and pedestrian safety on Maybell Avenue. And then currently yes we do have one ingress/egress on Clemo, but we are exploring options to try and provide another access, s econdary easement on the Maybell side with HUD. But again this is a federal, one of our lenders its a federa l lender and the process is probably going to be a little lengthy, but we are working with them now as we spe ak. So with that Im going to pass it over out our architect John Thatch from the Da hlin Group to get into a few more architectural details. Thank you. John Thatch, Principal Designer, D ahlin Group: Now Tim can you go back one slide for a second? Good evening, my na mes John Thatch and Im Principal Designer with Dahlin Group Architecture and Planning in Pleasanton, California. Were very happy to be here and working with Palo Alto Housing as far as creating a plan and providing more senior housing. Some of the things I want to point out on the plan are we do have I think we talked about, Tim talked about on Maybell we are providing a si dewalk, were also providing a si dewalk thats on the east side of our property that co mes in off of Cle mo into the seni or building. Along with that the architecture we have a lot of variety as far as what were doing. Were doing two and three story buildings as was talked about an d I think making a transition. How we go from two story edges on Maybell continuing to three st ory loft spaces and then we ha ve our four st ory building in back, the seniors. And also having the park and I think like weve talked about having sort of the access to th e garages f or the sing le family units that are com ing off of right now their m ain entrance is off Cle mo, not on Mayb ell really hearing our, the nei ghbors concern about traffic. Next slide. With that Ill m aybe just talk a little bit about the senior building. As yo uve been pointed out there are 60 units. There are 59 units that ar e going to be approxim ately 600 square feet one 6

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

bedroom units. Therell be one managers unit. But part of the design is we also have a community room on the main floor. And part of the design of the building if you look at it is that were on the south side were putting the community building and creating more of an L shape to really let a lot of sunlig ht come back into that courtyard. The courtyard design were looking at a garden area. W ere creating walkways, a lawn area that can, you know, different uses for that area, and also sort of a v egetable garden that th e residents can participat e in. And I think a big part of that was again the way weve done a club and having very glas s through the club room which also has concierge or I s hould say services for the resident s, managers office, computer room, a display kitchen where things can happen. I think a lot of different things can happen inside and outside in that area. Also on each floor we h ave a common lounge for people on each floor to get together. Laundry rooms on each floor. And also I think a big thing which Im very excited that we were able to do with Palo Alto Housing is putting a rooftop terra ce in that will have great views looking west to the mountains and to the south. So I think that will be something very attractive to get out there and get closer to the blue sky. W ith that we are again wrapping the bu ilding around and I think also reflection, I think well have a very sunny courtyard. Next please. The homes on Maybell again we talked about being two and three stories. W ere also going to something more contemporary as far as the architect ure, but a lot of layering of the architecture using a variety of m aterials, stone, plaster, some horizontal siding with the design. I think that creates something thats very dynam ic on the st reet. This rendering doesnt do at quite the quality I want to give it, but the lof ts areas or the third floors are really more of a loft area on these on Maybell side. The loft areas on the thir d floors push back 15 to 20 feet from the front edge of the buildings. Were also looking at creating really nice patios out towards Maybell, side courtyards as far as the design of these hom es. And as Tim brought up the one stories are approximately 1,900. The two stories are 2,400. Next. On the corner we have one special lot on the co rner. It has its ga rage is on its the one thats on Maybell thats right around the corner that doesnt access from the back side. But the idea is to really wrap the architecture around the corner. And its a little bit bigger home, its 2,500 square feet. And then behind these are a little m ore compact homes. Part of the reason for that is the Oak trees that we are maintaining along Briones Pa rk and along that edge that are very dram atic that youll see later in a rendering here. But they have a m ain living room on the second floor. Theres possible almost carriage unit or a secondary unit downstairs as far as a boomerang kid or an in-law living with them. Next please. And this shows a little bit the upper elevation is our elevati on on Maybell. Here w ere trying to say we faded a little bit, the lo st spaces show we do have a fair ly a very strong edge, two story edge even on the three story hom es on Maybell as far as how youre goi ng to look and perceive that. And then the lower one show s on Clemo what the architecture there looks, theyre m ore again straightforward as far as being three sto ry, but the middle elevation shows the trees were saving. And those are sort of the silhouette of those Oak trees. And I think really provide a great transition from the residentia l to Briones Park. And this shows basic ally some of the things were talking about as far as our building that were making a transition from two to three stories along Maybell and then getting back to our four story building. Next. And then this shows, on the upper slide we really want to point out is where we get into where we have the eight story building behind us. And I think you can sort of see we make a transition 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

from two, t hree, up to our four story building up to the eight story condo building behind us. Next. So I think Tim said a lot about what were trying to do and I think were open to any questions you may have. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Ok. Were going to open the pub lic hearing. We have one, two members of the public who wish to speak tonight. And youll each have three minutes. Vice-Chair Michael: So the first speaker is Jerry Underdal to be followed by Bob Moss. Jerry Underdal: Good evening, my names Jerry Underdal. I live at 534 Georgia Avenue, which is about two blocks from the property that were talking about. And my wife wanted me to make sure that I came to address, make sure that traffic concerns were addressed. W e hadnt seen the mock ups and things and reading through here I wa s really pleased to see that by and large they have been addressed on Maybell. It is hugely important not to have ad ditional traffic going in and out there. That road has becom e a main thoroughfare for bicycle tr affic as kids are going across from El Camino way they fl ood up there early in the morning and then flood back in the afternoon and so cutting out the driv eways in there is a net gain as far as I can see. Sidewalks and also those four houses wont have the driveways in. So thats to the good. The other thing was to see that the flow on Cl emo was going to go out to Arastradero, which I gather it is. Is th at correct that its going to be im possible even for the corner house that has its own exit they will be turning left on Clemo as well? Theyre not going out on Maybell? Mr. Wong: That is correct, yeah. All traffic will go from Clemo to Arastradero. Mr. Underdal: Ok. So thats good. Then the next point is down at Arastradero and Clemo where you may want to consider whether it will be necessary to have a fu ll traffic light there with the additional traffic thats going to be coming. Now theres kind of a pedestrian alert button you can push and it sets flashing lights to make traffic on Arastradero pause, but it may really call for a full stop traffic light which is, thats a heavy lift I think often. Then the only other point was a neighbor suggested make sure that they think about providing shuttle service. The Palo Alto shuttle to com e out there to give services to those seniors who are in the apartments because theres really very li ttle kind of very close in walking distance or kind of reasonable for people who have mobility pro blems. You know they can get to Walgreens, which is good, but if the Palo Alto shuttle could come and service that area more frequently than it does that would be all to the good. So thank you very much for your good work. Chair Martinez: Thank you very much. Vice-Chair Michael: Mr. Moss. Robert Moss: Thank you Chairm an Martinez and Commissioners. First of all under no circumstances will sidewalks be installed along Maybell or Clemo. That is illegal. When Barron Park was annexed in 1975 the C ity Council m ade a comm itment that under no circumstances would sidewalks be added in Barron Park unless the residents of Barron Park specifically asked for them. So these sidewalks should not under any circumstances be installed. There is no reason for them and they will violate an already firm agreement. Thats the first point. 8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Second when this came forward originally as a PC I didnt have an awful lot of problems with it. But since then weve had two PC s heard by the City Council: 395 Page Mill and the one last Monday at El Camino and Page Mill. And the mo re PCs come forward the more the problems grow and it just becomes an incredible task to try to establish whats a public and private benefit. So looking at the proposal I think a cleaner way to do it w ould be to rezone m ost of the site RM40 because that allows an FAR of one, which is more than theyre asking for in this property, which is .83. And then in the case of things where the RM40 zone d oesnt meet this design theyre allowed concessions under Governm ent Code 65915. So for exam ple they can say, Well we want RM40 to be exceed ed for height and for setbacks and for dayligh t plane, as examples. That would be three concessions, which are legal and leave it at that and they still end up building essentially the sam e building they want to build cu rrently, but its under a clean zone. Under a straight RM40. You dont have the PC problems to fight about, to argue about. The other problem I have the m ore I look at them the worse I feel about th ese three story single family homes. I toured the ones at A lma Plaza and theyre ghastly. Now Johns design is better than what theyve go t at Alm a Plaza, but still I think we would have a better project if we reduced the total num ber of single fam ily homes. Have perhaps 11 or 12, have larger lots, and then have the houses two stories prim arily instead of three. It would fit m uch greater compatibility with the neighborhood. There are no three story single family homes in our part of Palo Alto, Barron Park and the sim ilar neighborhoods. So two story single fa mily homes would be more compatible an d would f it in bette r. And having say 12 instead of 15 is not going to cause any financial problems. Chair Martinez: Excuse me. Thank you Mr. Moss. Commissioners, Commissioner Panelli had a suggestion on how to go forward tonight and Id like to give him a chance to offer that to us. Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Mr . Chair. There are sort of two distinct aspects to this project that I have a num ber of questions on and Im guessing that som e of the other Commissioners do as well although thats just a guess on m y part. One is more on the concessions/entitlement side and then the other one is more about site sort of call it site planning issues. And I would suggest that if everyone is predisposed to it that we take them on one at a time and try to focus our comm ents and synthe size our comments in such a way that they provide good feedback. Chair Martinez: Ok, unless theres another plan I think thats a good way to go forward on this and to me it makes most sense if we being with site planning/design issues that the Commission wants to discuss unless there are jus t clarification questions that the Commission has of staff or the applicant we can do a quick round of that. If it goes into the rezoning and like that I think we should try to hold it. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Yes, excuse me I have a few quick questions . The first quick question is, is the 400 square foot for each of the units in cluded in the square footage for the single fam ily residential buildings? So Im hearing the answer is no. Mr. Thatch: No it is not. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. Mr. Thatch: Its just living space. 9

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Commissioner Keller: So if these were single family residences they would be 400 square foot bigger to think about it in term s of the mass. Ok. The second question is , is there any overflow parking if you will onsite for the single fam ily residence type buildings? I th ink our code requires more than two units. Im not sure what our code exactly requires, but theres an issue whether theres overflow parking for the single family residential buildings. Mr. Thatch: There are as far as there are apron spots for eight of the units in back of the total. So thats what we have two spaces on apron parks, what we have right now in the plan. Commissioner Keller: Could you identify yourselves for the record? Mr. Thatch: Im John Thatch from Dahlin Group Architecture and Planning. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So what youre sa ying is that eight of the units have apron spots. Mr. Thatch: Have two apron spots, yes. Commissioner Keller: And the remaining seven units do not? Mr. Thatch: They do not, yes. Commissioner Keller: Ok, thank you. Mr. Thatch: But the oth er item if I can add to that is that they do not have any driveways on Clemo except for one or on Maybell, which again al lows again theres the possibility of m ore parking on Maybell and Clemo as far as parallel parking. Commissioner Keller: And if I could ask one more clarification question? Chair Martinez: Yes, of course. Commissioner Keller: T here was so me confusion at leas t on my part as to the is sue of the easement with HUD and could you tell m e a little bit m ore about what that easem ent would do? Who would have access to what? Mr. Thatch: As far as what were lo oking at again it s sort of a fi nancial and sort of how things work with HUD and with any financia l institute. The intent is to get an easement that wed have rights to have an Em ergency Vehicle Access (E VA) or a secondary access for Clemo. Excuse me, to Maybell. Commissioner Keller: So who would have access to Maybell? Mr. Thatch: The residents of our project. Commissioner Keller: Well Ive just heard statements saying that people dont want the residents of this project to have access to Maybell so Im totally confused. 10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Mr. Thatch: We have looked at the possibility as far as having an EVA, but weve also been told by a possible traffic that traffic wanted to look at the possibility of having a secondary entrance there. Commissioner Keller: Can you define EVA please? Mr. Thatch: EVA is Emergency Vehicle Access. Say if the Fire Department or Police needed to get in thats one aspect. They are also looking at th e possibility is it better as a secondary entrance also, which it m eans residents also have that possibility. That has not been defined at this time; its something that is looking into. Commissioner Keller: Ok. Ill address that later, Thank you. but I wanted to add that as a clarification.

Chair Martinez: Lets begin as Commissioner Pane lli suggested with trying to formulate our questions and comments around site planning/building issues. Commissioner Panelli why dont you begin for us? Commissioner Panelli: Im sorry, which one ar e we sta rting with? Are we starting with concessions or are we starting with site plan? Site plan. Ok. There are a couple things that Id like to say that first of all that I like about the site plan. So the idea of getting the driveways off of the street and having them all from the rear in so rt of alley style, I think its very, very nice. I do have some concerns though with how youve cr eated so much open space within the project, but youve really abu tted sort of the m onolithic elements of the senio r facility, so b asically 46 foot high walls so close to the borders of the existing neighbors, yet effectively the new neighbors have a lot more open space. It just seemed like perhaps there would be a way to rather than have that courtyard pointed west to have it po inted to th e east with the lower buildings neighboring the existing projects, the existing PC zones and sort of the taller buildings inside the project. So that was sort of m y big concern there and that would addr ess the daylight plane concern. Question for Planner, Senior Planner W ong. Wh at does the code say today, I looked for it, I couldnt quite find it. What does the code say today about th e density bonus for providing low income housing? So what would the entitlement be already allowed in the code? Mr. Wong: Well right now we are in the process of adopting the draft Density Bonus Ordinance, but it has been in effect since 2004. But the code states that if you provide up to 30, m ore than 35 percent you are eligible for these concessions. And these concessions are by right. Does that answer your question? Commissioner Panelli: W ell as I re call when priv ate developers are developing properties and they set aside a certain number of units and its usually a smaller number, like the project on just off of Alma there. I forget the name of it, but they set asid e a certain number of units theyre allowed certain density bonuses. I just dont rem ember what that percentage of increase in density is. Mr. Wong: There are two things. The City has a Below Market Rate requirement. Commissioner Panelli: Thats the one. 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Mr. Wong: That requires 15 percen t be set aside for affordable hous ing and that is, that is not part of Density Bonus. That is a local City requirement. Commissioner Panelli: But I thought I recall reading that if you provide more than the 15 percent theres an additional bonus? Mr. Wong: Then yeah. Mr. Aknin: Correct. So there s a sliding scale of density bo nuses allowed under the underlying zoning dependent upon how much affordability you provide. Commissioner Panelli: Right, thats what Im getting at. Mr. Aknin: So the difference is in this case theyre applying fo r a PC that sets the zoning so theyre not, but for instance if you had an RM40 zone and you get a 35 percent bonus, which is the maximum because you provided affordable housing you would get twelve additional units. Commissioner Panelli: Ok, what I m trying to do is say if this were not a PC zone and we were trying to sort of sort through this what would that num ber be. So the m aximum amount of density bonus would be (interrupted) Mr. Aknin: 35 percent. Correct. Commissioner Panelli: And that would be for providing the maximum number of (interrupted) Mr. Aknin: Which they qualify for. Commissioner Panelli: Correct, yeah they would get 35 percent increase over the maximum. Ok. Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka. The other side of the room. Commissioner Tanaka: Can you tell me what is the age of the seniors that are anticipated for this complex? Ms. Gonzalez: Were planning on 62 years and over. Commissioner Tanaka: And so in order for them to qualify they have to be 62 years old? Ms. Gonzalez: Yes, at least the head of household. Commissioner Tanaka: The head of household? Ms. Gonzalez: Yes. Commissioner Tanaka: I see, so it doesnt just require, someone could be 62 and then there could be still other people living there who are not seniors?

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Ms. Gonzalez: Yes. Generally for a one bedroom it s 2 plus 1 is allowed as far as the num ber of residents in a unit. Commissioner Tanaka: Two plus one that means three? Ms. Gonzalez: Up to three. Commissioner Tanaka: Three, ok. And so theres one senior then it could be like a grandfather plus two grandkids or Ms. Gonzalez: It could potentially be. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. So I gue ss I didnt realize that. So I guess Im actually a little bit concerned about the parking then if thats the case. I mean if, so there could be people of driving age. I m ean 62s not that old first o f all so a lot of people a re still driving and theres less than one spot per unit then. So 62 is fairly young these da ys, not like it used to be . So thats to m e a little bit concerning. I also, so it looks like the housing along Maybell theyre a mix of three story units and two story units. And so thats kind of facing currently R1, right? Which are, do you know what the heights are of those buildings are today? The ones on Maybell, the single family units. Ms. Gonzalez: They are one and two stories. Commissioner Tanaka: One and two stories. Do you know how high they go? Are they? Ms. Gonzalez: Im assuming the two stories are up to 25 feet. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, so these are going to be towering over those units then. Ms. Gonzalez: Probably not the two stories and again as John said the three stories are more like a second two and a half story. Theyre set back like a loft. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok still its, I mean you have 35 foot buildings going against R1, which is one stories and two stories. I dont know. Has there been outreach to that neighborhood? Ms. Gonzalez: Yes, weve had several community meetings. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok and what has been the feedback? Ms. Gonzalez: Just addressing some of their concerns regarding parking and traffic. And weve tweaked the design a few times since our initial meetings over this summer. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok and theyre cool with having 35 foot buildings against R1? Ms. Gonzalez: Im assuming well still have continuing community feedback since were tweaking it.

13

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Commissioner Tanaka: Do they know that there (interrupted)

are going to be 35 foot buildings against R

Ms. Gonzalez: Yes. Yes, our last meeting was just last month. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok Im surprised that we didnt have an outcry here. Ms. Gonzalez: I think weve done som e pretty good outreach and theyre familiar with th eir adjacent uses including our three story building and the eight story Tan building. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. Can sta ff tell m e so righ t now is this just an em pty field? Just a bunch of trees in here? Ms. Gonzalez: Its a vacant apricot orchard. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. And then is there no wa y to save the other Oak trees. We have to chop them down? Ms. Gonzalez: I think we were looking at just taking down two and preserving a lot of the rest of the Oak trees and then adding some other landscaping. Commissioner Tanaka: Where are those Oak trees that are being removed? Ms. Gonzalez: Do we know where? Mr. Thatch: And they are much smaller trees. These are the major trees that you have on the site, these are much smaller trees. These are just gorgeous trees out here on the edge. Commissioner Tanaka: How big are the trees being removed? Are they heritage trees? Ms. Gonzalez: No, no theyre not. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. I m ean my first though here would be I think along Maybell if its against R1 and these buildings are a lot lower prof ile I think it would m ake sense for them to be two story buildings, not three story or 35 foot buildings. It seem s to be not very compatible. I agree with Comm issioner Panellis point as w ell and m aybe moving the m ass of the senior building inward so the other neighbors are not as affected seems to make sense to me as well. Yeah I also wondered do the units have to be 600 square feet? Is there a minimum size or why so large? These are low income so youre trying to make them affordable so why, why are? Ms. Gonzalez: Thats average for a one bedroom a nd thats about the size of our current senior property. Commissioner Tanaka: But why not studios? Because that would be more affordable for people. Ms. Gonzalez: We do have the SROs, but we t hought for the one bedrooms it would be nice for the seniors to have a little bit extra space. 14

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Commissioner Tanaka: Because if were tryin g to make this very affordable I would think studios are more appro priate. And then perhaps we wont have as m uch massing either, maybe still accomplish the mission. Ms. Gonzalez: Did we consider the studios? I think when we were looking at economies of scale it just kind of made sense to do the one bedrooms. We started out with looking at two and three bedrooms and we scaled down to the one bedroom s for the senior s specifically. And actua lly some of the community feedback was that are 600 square foot units e nough for the seniors? They thought it was actually, some think it was actually a little small, but. Commissioner Tanaka: Because the issue Im worried about is that at 600 square feet with th e one bedroom it also means you need more parking probably. Ms. Gonzalez: Actually traditionally with some of our properties now we re sufficiently parked and I think well be m ore than sufficiently parked. Again with our senior parking now we have about a 35 percent parking ratio and here were providing 78 percent. Commissioner Tanaka: I guess the qu estion is on the other propert ies what are the age of the people, what are the size of the units? Ms. Gonzalez: With the Sheridan our senior property its the same. 62 and over, 600 square feet units and actually none of them have three residents in the unit. Theyre all just one or two. Ms. DeWitt: And the property m anager just leaned over to let m e know that the studios are actually harder to rent and th e one bedroom s are actually m ore popular so thats the other concern that were juggling here too. Commissioner Tanaka: Ok, but I think the point, the public benefit here is to provide affordable senior housing. And especially as seniors age they, I reviewed one project that was on El Camino Way. I forgot the nam e of it, but that on e had kind of like, Palo Alto Commons, thats right. And I guess thats more for assisted living or people who are older than 62 perhaps, but as seniors age I would im agine that there would be more shared facilities th an less and e ach individual unit doesnt need to be as large and you could serv e, it could be a greater public benefit for more people. Versus if you m ake it a one bedroom. And 62 is really relatively not that senior these days. And so by having larger units I dont know if theres much, as much of a public benefit versus having m aybe more smaller units with m ore shared f acilities to m e that would make, that would seem to m ake more sense and be able to serve m ore people then you could by having much larger units. And you wouldnt have to have as much parking perhaps per unit. Ok those are my thoughts so far. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck. Commissioner Alcheck: I dont particularly feel equipped to address a lot of design issues. Suffice to say that I have desi gn opinions, but its m y understanding that the ARB has reviewed this. Is that the case? Ms. DeWitt: Theyve done a preliminary review.

15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. Whats come up? Whats come of th at? Has the, let m e rephrase the question. Has the design changed as a result of that meeting? No. Mr. Thatch: If I can answer, the design has not cha nged at this time. They had some items about simplifying the architecture. A lot of things I agreed with. They talked about some common space and the things that you talked about as far as better connections with our neighbors. And I think that these are all the th ings we are looking at to address after we hear everybodys comments in our next round. So theres a lot of things I think were going to be looking at as far as some of the softening of so me edges, connections and things like that you have m entioned here. W e have not done that at this tim e because we were looking at getting everybodys comments before we (interrupted) Commissioner Alcheck: But youre receptive to I guess to their direction? Mr. Thatch: Yes. The other thing I want to point out as far as ne ighbors, some of the things the neighbors had suggested was originally we were all three stories on Maybell. So weve m ade some adjustments, weve pushed things back. We ve done some things with the architecture at this point and I think again we re trying to hear everybodys co mments and see w hat our next step is as far as things that were going to be doing for our next submittal. Commissioner Alcheck: Was there a nything in particular in the A RB review that, or suggestion from the ARB that you feel very strongly about that (interrupted) Mr. Thatch: I thought the comments were very good. I think the biggest one is probably m aybe simplifying the architecture as far as things that they talked about and talked about som e things about maybe some pathways or som ething between the other apartm ent project, about what we can do there. But again as Iv e mentioned here theres som e say financial and legal considerations. How do we do that with the financing they have in place on another project? But thats something I definitely wanted to look at. Its a question legally whether were going to be able to do some of those things. Ms. DeWitt: And they overwhelmingly did like the si te plan. In addition when we met with the City Council they also were liking the fact that there was a connection of open space between the single family and the senior housing. So I just wa nted to put that in ther e. And the other thing that the A RB mentioned was that theyd like to see a pedestrian connection between our neighboring property, our neighbori ng property to the north and our current property, which is something were working on. Commissioner Panelli: Is Palo Alto Housing Corp a for profit business? Ms. Gonzalez: No, were a nonprofit 501(c)(3). Commissioner Panelli: Another ques tion I h ad, how are the rental rates set? And is the City involved in that initially in terms of determining, I notice that there were numbers actually given. Are those set with City involvement or? Mr. Wong: No, those are set if the project receives tax credit financing then those rents will be set by the State as part of the tax credit. 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

Commissioner Panelli: Ok, and if theyre not? Im assuming youre going to receive tax credits, but Ms. Gonzalez: Thats the plan. Commissioner Panelli: You know my fi rst thought about when I read this project is that all the demographic information that I reviewed suggests that this is an extremely high demand form of multifamily housing. And I have evaluated for the purposes of client acquisitions a num ber of senior rental properties. And one of the most surprising things is how sort of unde r parked they need to be. So I would sort of encourage us to k eep that in mind. It really does ten d to be a lot of individual renters that some of them dont have cars. There sort of isnt typically a need for a lot of parking. And I think to a certain extent I have to defer to your expertis e, the Housing Corps expertise with respect to the size of the units. I sort of assume that youve done your research and you know whats appropriate. I dont anticipate that th eyll be occupied with three residents. I assume this will be exactly what you intend it to be, a senior residential facility. I do think that the notion of incorporating a shuttle service is a very important one to consider. Theres a senior facility in San Mateo, Redwood City its at the site of an old hotel . Sort of a fam ous old hotel, I dont know if you guys its in San Mateo. Do you know what that hotels called? Mr. Aknin: I dont but are you, its the one on the El Camino? Commissioner Alcheck: Yeah, yeah exactly. Mr. Aknin: [unintelligible-Commissioner Alcheck talking over] Commissioner Alcheck: They have a shuttle service that takes their resid ents to different events and weekly outings and particularly because so many of the residents dont have cars I think that thats an interesting notion. I just from the, so from a site design perspective I think m y sort of take away and comm ent that Id like to share with you gu ys is that this se ems sort of like an appropriate location for a transitionary development from the perspective of height. Its so close to this 90 some odd feet tall building that its hard to imagine normal R1 parcel on that lot sort of looking up there. It doesnt seem like a viable de velopment. So theres I think som ething to be said for having a step down. Point of clarification. R1 developments the height limit is what, 35 feet? Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager: Excuse me. 30 feet in an R1 district. Commissioner Panelli: Its 30 feet. Ok. So in theory th e homes across the street if they were to be really redeveloped could be developed to 30 feet? Mr. Turner: The existing R1 development? Commissioner Panelli: The homes that are across the street on Maybell which for example would be looking at these (interrupted)

17

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Mr. Turner: Yes, under existing zoning conditions height of 30 feet.

those could be redeveloped to a m aximum

Commissioner Panelli: And the ap artments that are to the north. I t says two to three story apartments. How many of those are three story? I mean whats the height there really? Mr. Turner: Ill defer that to (interrupted) Ms. Gonzalez: Thats actually one of our properties. Ms. DeWitt: Yeah, theyre actually predominantly 3 story with only really one 2 story. Commissioner Alcheck: Do you know what the height is? Mr. Thatch: The height would be approximately 35 feet also. Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, and then I just want to follow up on one of the comm ents made by one of the community members, which is, is this Barron Park or is this Green ? W hat area is this? Ms. Gonzalez: You know its a little bit on the board er so weve actually had community meetings with Barron Park and the Green Acres . So its, w ere calling it Barron Park, but its again on the border. Commissioner Alcheck: Right, because it seem s like there are three story developments in this area and I just sort of wondered. Ok, I guess my la st comment here is that from a site design perspective I think th at the s idewalks and th e Oak trees as a vis ual barrier are helpfu l enhancements to this. I think that when we lo ok at these sort of multifamily developments we always struggle with th is notion of creating density in Pa lo Alto whic h we at lea st from my perspective come to because of its lack of, you know, its low density qua lities. A nd I think whatever design elements you can m ake to essentially enhance the separation is probably very intelligent. So thats it. Ms. Gonzalez: Thank you. Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Michael. Vice-Chair Michael: So this seems to be quite an interesting project and I expect it will get a lot of support. On the issue of the design relative to two story versus three story Im sort of inclined to think that theres som e inevitability throughout the City since we are a built out City and we have our ABAG allocations and other issues is th at there is going to be a lot of discussion about height limits going forward. Not just in the comme rcial districts, but also throughout the City. And I think that this is probably a very appropriate place to consider the three story structures as you have even though the argum ent for keeping it a little bit lower would be m ore consistent with the past, the heritage in Palo Alto and certainly the needs of Barron Park generally. So Im ok with the three story proposal as far as that goes. The topic that we had probably two, th ree months ago about traffic calm ing on Arastradero/Charleston corridor there was a ques tion that was raised about cut through traffic 18

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

along Maybell and I believe that at the tim e that was m entioned there was a question for the Traffic Director Jaim e Rodriguez as to whether thered been studies and the traffic analysis. How much cut th rough traffic was happening b ecause of th e calming on Arastradero? And I dont believe that that was ever sort of, I dont think we got the data back about that question. So I think that question is still aliv e and well with respec t to this project. So when we hear next about it m aybe you could include the analysis of the cut through to Maybell issue that was a safety issue in the minds of a lot of the residents. Also I think the person who comm ented from the community about if you have this density and this number of new traffic coming out Arastradero at Clemo particularly with what we looked at in terms of the Arastradero calm ing, it seems that having a signal contro lled intersection there would be prudent and necessary. The other sort of people movement question is the park is right across the street. And I know th at one of the aspects of we ll-being and hea lthy living is recreation and you got all the sing le family houses and the senior hopefully a lot of these people will want to use the pa rk. So I m not exactly sure whats happening in terms of the pedestrian connection between where all these people will be living and how th ey get to the park; do they have to walk up to the corner and cross at a crosswalk or? Ms. Gonzalez: So for the seniors were actually adding a walkway over here. Acting Vice-Chair Michael: Ok. So I think the adjacency to the park is really important and is really a positive asp ect, but making sure thats a safe access point for people who walk slowly and whatnot. On the parking and the ratio of .78 it does seem that youve got data to support this as a reasonable design. However, we have lots of issues in Palo Alto generally about projects that arent 100 percent parked that result in neighborhood intrus ion and I think recently weve had some issues in terms of issues of reside nts on Edgewood where theres buildings across the creek which arent 100 pe rcent parked and people are parking, they are going across the bridge and parking on Edgewood. So I think that the .78 ratio again good argum ent, makes sense, probably could be viable, but I would, I think that theres m aybe a cost aspect of Gee, wouldnt it be nice to have underground parking? Now I have no idea what that costs, what your pro forma for the project would be, but I think if you did underground parking you could have other landscaping options on the site that would be amenities for the benefit of the community and it m ight be more beautiful and more valuable. But I think that the opportunity to finance the project at a level that would allow you to do underground parking and have this be what I would consider 100 pe rcent parked is an opportunity that m aybe shouldnt be lost sight of . And I guess those are m y site and design questions. Chair Martinez: In the last item our three golfing Commissioners got to share their expertise and I remained sadly silent. This tim e as an ar chitect having designed senior housing Im going to share a little bit of my experience. 600 square feet is not too big. I was just amazed going to one bedroom senior housing units, 600 square feet that I designed, how crowded they were. Because the seniors moving in were m oving from their own residence with their own furniture and some of this looks like som e of the stuff your m om had; big wardrobes, big overstuffed sofas, big bedroom furniture, and really a very s mall apartment. And 600 square f eet was the m ost that HUD, I was designing for at the time, would allow us to have. I was pleased that we did have bedrooms separated from living room and kitchen. It just afforded a level of dignity to seniors that I wouldve been unhappy with otherwise if th ey were living in one big room or one s mall 19

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

room. So I sha re the sentiments that we sh ould try to get m ore, as m uch as we can, as Commissioner Tanaka was trying to do, but 600 square feet really is a livable space for seniors and Im pleased that you did that. Talking about site issues I was present when you presented this to the City Council and tw o things came out of that meeting that I was very impressed with their insight. One is that you had, at the tim e you had driveways along Maybell a nd they pointed out that for pedestrians and bicycles that it would be better if you didnt have those driveway cu ts and you changed that and it is better. But the second thing that I think it was Mayor Yeh that commented on the time was this quality of intergenerationa l relationships that you had the oppor tunity to have there. And they suggested that the garden be som ething that would be shared between the single fam ily houses and the s eniors so that ch ildren and s eniors and fa milies could really be part of a neighborhood, a community. And that was really I think a great idea. A nd you almost have it. The open space courtyard just seems a little bit too, oh what did they use? Defensible space like. That it belongs to the seniors and youre not going to get many families that are going there. So I would like you to look at that. Part of my senior housing experience also was with parking and I think to disagree a bit with the Vice-Chair I think youre over-parked. Not by a lo t, but youre over-parked. And your parking is like where I would like to see a garden. So I would suggest that you look at m aybe decomposed granite or som ething in that sp ace where yo u can have that sh ared community garden on half of those spaces th at will never b e used by th e seniors. Look for some flexibility in it. Its better for the envi ronment. Its better looking th an paving and you m ight get m ore utility out of it. Im just saying. And then I think when ARB made comments about that the design was t oo complex or, I think they were talking about the single fam ily because the senior housing is very plain. And I would like to see you, I know Im stepping out of my territory here, Id like to see you borrow som e of those elements that you use in your single family housing, which is very attractive and share it, some of the gables and som e of the m ovement of the buildings. Dress up the senior housing a little bit. Its a little plain. So I neglected to go back to Commissioner Keller and Im going to give him a little more time to weigh in on the site design issues. Commissioner Keller: Thank you Mr. Chair. So firstly I agree that the senior part of the project is likely to be over-parked. Ho wever I believ e that the s ingle family residential part of the project is likely to be under-p arked. And if youd like a com parison think about the idea of Arbor Real, which has buildings kind of like this that are enclosed garages and a handful of spaces that are shared and theres considerable neighborhood intrusion from that development of overnight parking in the surrounding neighborhood. So I would think very carefully about reducing the amount of parking space available because I think that the, a lot of the space will be used by the single fam ily residences who even though they have big buildings dont, som e of them have aprons, but some of them dont. And the ones who dont have aprons m ay well be storing stuff in their garages si nce they dont have basements. And when you store things in the garages the cars cant go in there. So I think that thats the thing to balance out. However there is a conc ept that was applied for the California Park Project, which is the idea of a parking reserve. So to the extent that the calculation shows that even after the under-parking of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

the single family residence part and the potential over-parking of the senior residence part if you still calculate that th eres an access of parking you could have a parking , an area that could be landscaped or whatever that c ould be a parking reserve w ith the understanding that it would subsequently turn into parking if the need arises . With respect to that Im wondering if theres parking on Maybell adjacent to this property or if that section is not parked. If theres no parking on Maybell adjacent to the property. Ms. Gonzalez: There is actually street parking on Maybell right now. Yes. Commissioner Keller: And the street parking exists and it will not change appreciably? Ms. Gonzalez: Yes. Commissioner Keller: Ok, thank you. Sir, you n recognize you, but you need to be recognized. eed to be recognized. I will ask that Chair

Chair Martinez: Ok, well give you a chance in a minute, but go ahead and finish Commissioner. Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So and there was a comment about the Palo Alto Shuttle. It is unfeasible or is it I guess infeasible to have the Palo Alto Shuttle come to this location. It is way out of the way. It is not feasible . However, there is something that is feasible since this location is within a stones throw of the Palo Alto, sorry the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) 88 bus and the VTA 22 and 522 busses. Theres som ething called the VTA Residential Eco Pass, which is the idea of giving VTA passes to the residences, the residents of this location. And in fact I would encourage th e Palo Alto Housing Corp to tr y to aggregate all of its housing units and give Eco Passes to all the m embers, residents throughout their and you can create a category like that and the price can be quite low by aggregating quite a number of people. It can be as low as $30 or $15 a year pe r resident total if you give it to all the residents in the entire, PAHC system. The next thing is with respect to the easem ent for with the HUD for Maybell I am strongly opposed to having general access to the property fr om Maybell. In term s of emergency vehicle access where that basically you b reak down something or the fire truck can go tho ugh thats a different story, but the issue of the whole idea of having access on Maybell from this property is a mistake. It would en courage cut through tr affic and people will co me through Clem o, will come through your property and come out on Maybell. You better believe it. Ms. Gonzalez: And actually just one clarification. If that easement is granted theres actually an ingress and egress on Arastradero as well, so it wouldnt be all Maybell, but it was just one option that we were exploring based on feedba ck as well. Because our current property has tw o exits and entrances. Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that, but I think that the idea is not to increase the traffic on Maybell and I think that the community said that loud and clear and I can understand Emergency Vehicle Access, but I dont understand regular access. With respect to a traffic ligh t on Clem o and Ar astradero, I think that tha ts not feasible considering the distance from Clemo to El Camino. Im not sure if its Clemo or Clemo. Maybe somebody, anyway. But the issue is the distance of that and the nature of the backups that 21

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

happen in the m orning rush hour m ake a traffic li ght there, I believe, infeasible although Ill leave that to a traffic engineer to confirm. Id like you to address the is sue brought up by Mr. Moss with re spect to sidewalks in Barron Park and whether there should be sidewalks. Yes? Ms. Gonzalez: As far as a sidewalk is concerned on that street direc tly east and west there is a sidewalk already. So the Maybell parcel that we own is the m issing link betw een the two sidewalks. And on Clemo theres already a sidewalk. Were not adding sidewalk on Clemo. Commissioner Keller: Ok so what I would suggest is when this comes back to us that you delineate exactly where there are s idewalks on the property, on the adjacent properties and indicate that missing link. Because that wasnt clear from , at least I d idnt read th at from the staff report, so. Ms. Gonzalez: Ok. Commissioner Keller: In terms of adjacency, opposite Maybell theres two sides of Abel, which is I guess a similar named street. On both sides of Maybell are those all single family residences or single family residences on the side away from El Camino and whats on the side towards El Camino. Is that also single family R1? Ms. Gonzalez: Thats the multifamily project. Commissioner Keller: Im talking about the corner of Able and Maybell on the sort of logical northeast corner. Is tha t single family residence? Is tha t single family zone or is tha t? Its not clear. Ms. Gonzalez: I think thats where the Walgreens might be, so Im not sure (interrupted) Commissioner Keller: I dont think the Walgreens is over there. Walgreens is on the other side of Maybell. Mr. Turner: Were almost certain that its R1 zoned property. Commissioner Keller: Ok, thank you. I think the Walgreens on El Cam ino and Maybell on the south side of Maybell, not the north side. Ok, the last few questions. I would suggest that you think about covering the carports with som e cover and m y favorite cover is photovoltaics because it p rovides electric power and also cov ers cars so people actu ally want to park under them. The other is sue is can; I dont supp ose you have a couple who is low incom e. Can m ultiple members of a couple be on the list for housing, let s say for exam ple a senior couple can they both be on the list to get senior housing? Do they get two dibs that way or how does that work? Ms. Gonzalez: Well it depends on how they sign up. Its a lottery process so if they put their name in the hat separately they can potentially have, you want to? This is our Director of Property Management so shes the expert on the lease up process. 22

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Chair Martinez: Commissioner does this help our deliberations to know that? Thank you. Commissioner Keller: Thats fine. Im just wondering about, this deals with the issue of the demand for the leng th of the list. And to the extent that there are m ultiple people who are a couple on the list then the de mand might not be as high as otherwise. So thats where it deals with. Chair Martinez: Thats a stretch, but Ill go for it. Commissioner Keller: Ok. Georgina Mascarenhas, Director of Property Management, PHC: Im Georgina Mascarenhas, the Director of Property Management with PHC and no they cannot apply separately unless they are divorced or separated or anythi ng. But if they are part of one household they have one opportunity or one chance at the lottery process. Commissioner Keller: Ok. Just for the Chairs benefit the reason I asked that question was because of an anecdote from my mom that she to ld me the other day, so. But she didnt talk about this particular project. Finally, are children allowed? Theres one inte resting question about the im pact on schools. And clearly there will be an im pact on schoo ls from the single fam ily residential properties. They will certa inly have a lot of students in them being f our bedrooms mostly, some three bedrooms. So theres certainly a lot of students there. Are there ch ildren allowed in the senior housing? Ms. Gonzalez: We cant discriminate against kids under Fair Housing laws, so if an adult is the legal guardian of a child then the child can live there. Commissioner Keller: But I understand that it is possible to have senior housing that is limited to only those who are 55 and above? Ms. Gonzalez: 55 or 62 and above, actually. But if they do have a child under tax credit and Fair Housing laws we cannot discrim inate against them . And m aybe Georgina she can clarify this question too. Ms. Mascarenhas: For senior hous ing whether HUD or tax credit the only absolute requirem ent in most cases is that the head of household need s to be 62 or older unless its a specific HUD program that says that we can lim it the age group to be nobody below the age of 18. So you could, the head of household would have to be 62 and nobody younger than 18 could m ove in (interrupted) Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. Were running out of time here so we need to move on. We had a member of the public who Im going to give you a minute if you wanted to state your name and your comment. Mr. Underdal: Yeah, Im Jerry Underdal, 534 Georgi a Avenue, Palo Alto, just a block off. One thing, Abel is single family on both sides heading out that other direction. The other thing is on, this is about the parking on Maybell. Im not e xactly sure of the condition righ t there at th at 23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

point, but theres a p roblem in Palo Alto and then this boarder area that is in Barron Park. Traditionally people have allowed a set back off the road and people have parked in from what the boarder of the road would be. Recently some properties have been encroaching on that and saying, Well, Im going to park my vehicle out on the street where a curb would be. Legally I can park there. What that does is if there ar e bicyclists or pedestrians who are com ing down that street they have to pop out to go around that car, pop back in and on a street that has a lot of schoolchildren, many of them on bic ycles riding in pairs and threes that ca n be problematic. So Im not sure if thats the case th ere on that, on th e road there next on Maybe ll at that particular place or not. Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you. Ok. W ere going to move quickly on this. I wanted to get our consideration of initiating the PC zone star ted with some quick questions to our staf f. First our Assistant Planning Director. Do you want to read or recite th e list of Comp Plan goals and programs that support this Motion? We received them at places, but I dont think many of us had a chance to look at it. Mr. Aknin: Sure, I think there we re actually some contained with the staff report. Can you give us one sec? I don t believe we actually p laced them. I dont think theyre actually at p laces. There was a m emo relating to the previous item with Comp Plan policies. What we did put in front of you is a m emo with clarifications related to the Density Bonus Law as well as one other question that came up earlier. Chair Martinez: Ok and then to Tim. If you can quickly give us the concessions that are being asked for? Concisely. Mr. Wong: The two concessions that would be requested are for daylight plane and height. Chair Martinez: Thank you. And to our City Attorney what, is it possible to initiate the PC with an option of the RM40 sort of to remain, or is that not sort of the way we do these kind of things? Cara Silver, Sr. Assistant C ity Attorney: W ell I guess what youre asking is whether you can initiate both a PC, well the RM40 is the existi ng underlying zone. Ok. So then what youre asking is w hether you can do two initiations, one for the PC and one for RM40. Is that the question? Chair Martinez: If thats what it takes. Im just asking whether we, whether the applicant would have the option of doing it that way without, be cause were going to talk about public benefits and like that Im sure in a m inute. Whether they would have the option to pursue it in e ither way? Ms. Silver: I think that its possible to have the applicant initiate two different zone changes and run those concurrently. However, this current agenda item is not agendized for initiating a RM40, so I wouldnt feel comforta ble for that, for the P lanning Commission at this point to initiate it. But if you want to give some direction to the appli cant if you think a parallel process would be worthwhile that could be something you could do. Chair Martinez: Ok good. Commissioner Panelli.

24

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Commissioner Panelli: So I think the thing that Im struggling with here the m ost is I see two projects. A nd I understand the inte nt which is to sort of por tion off these, the area that you intend to d o the single family homes as a way to help offset the c ost of developing senior housing. B ut as I always understo od it and the reason I was aski ng those questi ons about the BMR density bonuses is that in th e past the typical intent w as to incent a developer to provide more BMR and the offset was by giving them the density bonus that was the offset. I sort of feel like this is double dipping in the sense that we re providing concessions, and I know its not apples to apples because were talking about a PC here. But were asked to provide concessions and then also provide concessions for these singl e family homes, which for example, if you take either of the R2 or the RM50 the m aximum height would be 30 feet. But in this case were talking about a mix of I think 25 and 35, right? So yeah m aybe we can argue that the average is 30 feet. But the m inimum lot size in an R2 woul d be 6,000 square feet and here were talking 4,000 if I understand it correctly. So Im struggling with this becau se I feel like were try ing to get more out of this than m aybe what would have been originally intended unde r a normal BMR density bonus situation. And I know its not exactly the sa me. I know were tryi ng to do a PC here, but Im trying to create a parallel or an analogy where I can say is this consis tent with some of the other things that we try to do in the code without providing these, Ill reserve using that word, so. Really quick question for the PAHC people. We were talking about tax credits before. What is a nonprofit need for tax credits? If youre a nonprofit you dont pay tax, right? Ms. Gonzalez: Thats correct. So what happen s is we apply to the State for Affordable Housing Tax Credits. If we are awarde d a reservation of those Affordab le Housing Tax Credits we can then turn around and essentially exchange those credits for, to an investor who will help basically fund the project. So theyre in turn giving us f unds to be able to develop the property. So the (interrupted) Commissioner Panelli: And these are State credits theyre not Federal credits? Ms. Gonzalez: Theyre State and Federal. You can apply for both. Commissioner Panelli: Ok. Tha nk you. You know Im going to m ove on. Im sure others are going to ask the same questions that I would ask and I know were running short on time. Thank you Mr. Chair. Chair Martinez: No we can stay here. Its only 9:30 I think. Commissioner Alcheck. Commissioner Alcheck: Since I know they are listeni ng Id like to highlight for the City Council that not a s ingle member of the public is presen t tonight in oppositio n of this proposal. And specifically none has suggested that the height or daylight plane is an issue. I think thats important considering the amount of warning I received about this process and how controversial it is. I think that speaks a lot about probably your reaching out process. The biggest consideration here is the notion were increasing density in a residential area. I think one of the com forting aspects of this is that although we will be decreasing parcel sizes below what our minimum is that loss of parcel specific outdoor space is extremely accessible because theres a park across the street. So theres som ething comforting about that. I think that the 25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

proposal is contem plating a higher density deve lopment that doesnt deprive the prospective residents of those residential uni ts from enjoying many of the things that I think each Palo Alto resident seeks to enjoy, which is so me outdoor space. Im perfectly comfortable supporting the initiation of this PC rezoning request. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka. Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah Im actually also very surprised that there weren t too m any people from the public here. Th at actually really surprised m e. I dont know if that m eans because nobody thinks that h aving 35 foot buildings next to R1 is not controversial or its because they didnt know about it. So Id actua lly like to ask staff how was the public outreach done? Mr. Turner: Our standard public not icing procedures were followed for this m eeting in addition to (interrupted) Commissioner Tanaka: So that m eans you get this cryptic card sa ying were going to do a PC next to your place and those people dont know what a PC means, right? Mr. Turner: Well in terms of the noticing, the no ticing language is our typical noticing for the project which does include a general overview of th e proposed project. In addition to just the basic noticing that we do through the cards an d the newspapers certainly the outreach that th e applicant has been doing in the community in terms of this meeting and what theyre proposing I think went beyond just the minimum noticing requirements that the City would normally do. Commissioner Tanaka: The only reason I say th at is because Ive done quite a bit of work in the community and in general I know how sensitive people in Palo A lto are, if you hear people saying building a 35 foot building next to R1 that usually puts up a lot of red flags. So to have not a single person say anything is ve ry surprising to me. Very, very surprising. And so I think, I question that, but ok. So my thoughts is that I do like the concept of underground parking although I realize this is a nonprofit so I realize that could be very difficult. But I do like the Vice-Chairs idea. The idea about whether these other like Sh eridan you said has a lot less park ing, but thats next to Cal Ave. Its actually near a Caltrain Station. I m ean its near VTA. I m ean its near two transit centers so I dont think theyre a pples to apples comparisons. If you have a dense project in the middle of nowhere, in other words you dont have a lot of regular fixed rail transit I dont know thats a viable comparison or youre near downtown. This is m aybe kind of near El Camino but its not. I mean I think density m akes sense where ther es really good trans it and you could probably under-park that a bit, but to have it kind of out not near that I don t know if I agree with that as much. And I also believe that 62 years old is no t that old these days. I m ean theres a lot of people who still drive at 62 or even older. So I dont know if having a, whether were going to have a serious parking issue if we keep the parking situation as it is. I do believe this project is a bit intense and it could probably make sense if its organized in a different way or perhaps as the Chair mentioned having it m ore gables or I do nt know make it so its not such a big block building right there. 26

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

And in terms of public benefits I hear what ever yone else is saying in term s of these are, these units are good size. B ut I, I also wonder theres also a trend toward sm aller units, sm aller housing. So I dont know whether we have to, if th e benefit here is really to help the m aximum number of people and most pe ople have single occupancy then going for studios versus one bedroom to me, and if youre tryi ng to make it affordable you coul d make it affordable to m ore people and its a greater public benefit then having fewer one bedroom units that are larger. So I still think thats the way to go. I think the community room, I think the comments about how this is kind of like the parking, the courtyards kind of a private space f or this complex I think is correct an d I dont know if theres a way to open it up. B ut I think th ats something that should be looked at. And I still agree, I still think that having less density along Maybell f acing the R1s m ake sense just because I feel that, I think if the people in these R1 buildings really knew what was going to be built across the street we might see more outcry about that. I th ink one of the m embers of the public said that maybe having fewer housing with bigger lots m ight make more sense and I tend to agree with that as well. Thanks. Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: T hank you. So Im going to facilitate the process by m oving the staff recommendation, which is that the Planning and Transportation Commission initiate the Planned Community zone district for this. Chair Martinez: Can we allow the rest of the Co mmission to finish their comments and then Ill come back to you for your Motion? Commissioner Keller: Thats fine. I just figured Id facilitate the process since its getting a little late, but anyway. Chair Martinez: Its your fault. Commissioner Keller: T hank you. Ok, great. So let m e then just withdraw m y Motion and simply say that I ag ree with a m ember of the public, Mr. Moss and also with Comm issioner Tanaka and with the is sues stated by Comm issioner Panelli that the single fam ily residences along Maybell and perhaps Clem o are too tall and that it m ight make sense to have fewer of them, slightly bigger lots, and try to reduce them to two stories so th at they would integ rate better into the neighborhood. And I think that perhaps more money can be obtained from those larger lots with more generous proportion of spacing and that would allow for the project to still be financeable. And Im not sure if the planni ng of this was done, started when P alo Alto real estate has been going up. And its gone up consider ably in the last year or so and so its probably going to expect to be going up even fu rther. So that m ay make the pr oject more financeable even with fewer single family residential units that are shorter. Thank you. Chair Martinez: Thank you Comm issioner and you know I was kidding, right? Michael. Vice-Chair

Vice-Chair Michael: So this is m y second year on the Comm ission and weve had a num ber of Planned Community proposals in that time and every time it comes up the issue of public benefit is hotly discussed. And so Im very much on a learning curve about this. I did a little online 27

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48

research today. If you Googl e Planned Community and public benefit you get all sorts of interesting references and many of them actually tie right back to Palo Alto. And I quickly found an article in Palo Alto W eekly by then ch air of the Architectural Review Board Judith Wasserman last year about w hy Planned Community zoning m akes so much trouble, which I would recommend to anybody, is a good review of the topic. But she talks about the dichotom y of whether the public benefit is i nherent or intrinsic to the projec t or whether its an externality or extrinsic to the project. And here I think T im Wong has told us that the nature of the public benefit is the provision of the 60 Below Market Rate senior units, which I think is pretty clear and I think its a valid substantial benefit. So then were probably down in this situation to ge t to the analysis of the adequacy of the public benefit, which is frequently a big point of cont ention. But I think that here the, I understand from our work on the draft Housing Element that we are committed to certain goals with respect to providing housing. This is in an area where its feasible to do so. We have a significant goal that wed like to reach. This help s us get th ere. In te rms of the changing nature of the community, the dem ographics, the increased numbe r of seniors aging in place, som ething Id like to do someday, this is really an excellent and timely project. But I would like to sort of highlight for the bene fit of all those other Planned Communities that are coming down or that were also looking at that I think this analysis is frequently flawed and oftentimes its flawed because where the benefit is not inherent in the project itself we dont have any sort of analys is of what the total im pact on the community really is. Im pact on the scho ol system, the streets, the transit system s, the infrastructure, Public Works, utilities. Therefore its hard to analytically weigh the adequacy of the benefit because th eres been I guess a failure to attempt to make estimates or projections of what the total cost to the community might be. That might be sort of funded other than through the property tax that would be payable going forward. So Im trying to develop m y thinking as to wh at the analysis should be, but I do note that its frequently lacking and there were some other projects of this nature that are kind of on our agenda. Im going to com e back to that and rea lly suggest that we ge t to be quite a bit m ore rigorous so this discussion of th e nature and the adequacy of th e public benefit can be sort of more objective, more transparent, more quantifiable and less controversial. Chair Martinez: You k now it kind of sucks to speak last because all the good co mments are already taken, but Ill try. I think one of the difficulties of initiating a PC is that it has all of the flaws that the Vice-Chair was referring to. And I think as w e get smarter about it were going to want to set the bar higher for what makes a good PC. The problem with this project is its a good project, but its pretty close to the bar. And thats why I was asking about the RM40. Is can we just do it in a more conventional way and we know inherently were going to get nice residential units for both the private sector and seniors. But on the other hand the project is so im portant to this community that Im willing to a ccept this PC zoning status for it. But I think in addition to the inherent housing that were getting we should look for more. There should be a community garden. We should find a space for that as a public benefit. The community room should be made available to the public, not just for the seniors for neighborhood meetings. Im surprised Commissioner Keller didnt offer th is one. There should be an Electric Vehicle (EV) charging station there.

28

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

I think we should really com e back. W e know this is going to be a good project for our community, but I think the applicant should com e back with som e real details of how thi s exceeds that bar that were trying to establish. And I think the densities are right. If you look at some of our discussion about th e Comp Plan when its com e before us weve talked about increasing densities and m aking better use of the Ea rth. A nd here its before us, sm aller lots, bigger houses as its being proposed, but a density that I think is, work s both for the applicant and works for what our new policies and programs have been stated to be. When Commissioner Tanaka is old, 62, cant drive anym ore, lives in a one room apartment hell thank us for things like this. You know? I think it s a thoughtful project, good hous ing, and a good candidate for a PC. So with that Im going to give it back to Commissioner Keller for his Motion. MOTION Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I would like to m ove staff recommendation, which is to initiate the Planned Community rezoning request for this developm ent. I think th at the Planned Community request does not specify exactly what the development is. Am I initiating a Planned Community zoning for exactly 15 units of this and 60 units of that? Or am I simply initiating a Planned Community zoning that comes back? Ms. Silver: The recomm endation is to initiate it for the 60 unit m ultifamily affordable rental development and the 15 single family residences. Commissioner Keller: Well Im going to h ave the initiate it f or 60 unit m ultifamily affordable rental project and up to 15 single family residences to allow the potential for their being fewer than 15 single family residences. So thats my Motion. SECOND Chair Martinez: Is there a second? Ok, Moti on by Commissioner Keller, second by Vice-Chair Michael. Do you care to speak to your Motion? Commissioner Keller: Yes. I think overall I think this is intrinsically a worthwhile project unlike some other projects that people have talked about being their own public benefit, which Im skeptical of I think that this projec t is in many ways its own public benef it providing 60 units of affordable housing and single fam ily residences around it are in order to pr ovide the, in order to make the development of the 60 affordable s enior housing units m ore financeable, if you will. Although I actually prefer not havi ng more, say m ore family oriented housing in Palo Alto I think this is a, and because we need m ore senior oriented housing and for seniors and young people without kids. This is a good com promise to provide family oriented housing in order to provide that additional senior oriented housing. My concerns are first the am ount of parking thats available for single family residences and the degree to which people will store things in their garages as opposed to park there. The density of the single family residences and whether that could be reduced along with the height down to no more than 30 feet as would be allowed by the underlying zoning and the nearby comm unity I think that would provide a better transition. No vehicle access from the property to Maybell with the exception of, potential ex ception of Em ergency Vehicle Access. And as a side question, consider the idea of having angle parking on the dead end, sort of blocked o ff street of Clemo if thats feasible in order to provide additional parking on that so that if there is any issue it would 29

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

be over there. Im not sure whethe r thats feasible or not, its just one thing to consider. And I look forward to this project com ing back to us with more clarity and I think other people m ay have comments about the amount of public benefits that may come along with it. Thank you. Chair Martinez: So those arent all a Correct? mendments to your Motion, those are your comm ents.

Commissioner Keller: T hose are my comm ents. Those are not am endments to the Motion. Those are simply my concerns that Id like to see addressed when this comes back to us because I dont think we have a mechanism for dealing with those concerns in a formal manner as part of the initiation. Chair Martinez: Ok thank you. Vice-Chair Michael comment? Vice-Chair Michael: So I think weve had a good disc ussion this evening about the details of the proposed project. I believe that the requirements of the Municipal Code with respect to initiating a Planned Community will be met. The public benefit inherent in providing the senior housing I think is very important. I think that in addition to whatever comments the applicant got from the Architectural Review Board there have been a number of ideas or suggestions or questions raised this evening that m ay add to your thought proc ess about the design layout and amenities and what have you of the project which are not part of our initiation of the PC. But I think that this is a project that will be, will actually be a benefit to the community and I support the Motion. Chair Martinez: Any further comments? Yes, Commissioner Panelli. Commissioner Panelli: Yeah, Ive had a chance to synthesize some of my thoughts and I want to echo something that the Chair said, which is that we need to set the bar high for what PC is. And what Vice-Chair Michael said, which is we need to have a m uch better way of quantifying the value of public benefits when were evaluating a PC. I have historically been supportive of PCs when they a ccomplish two things. One is bein g located near transit cent ers because I think it accomplishes a num ber of the thin gs that weve identified in the Comprehensive Plan. The second thing is when theres a very direct public benefit. S o for example, two of the PCs that have come before us or two of the project or potential projects th at have come before us talked about things like providi ng public safety building. I think its pretty obvious that that benefits every single person in the City. And then there are other sorts of projects or potential projects that have been discussed. In this case the public benefit is a little bit less direct. Its a little more indirect. I wouldve much prefe rred to see, and by the way this is not in close proxim ity to a transit center. There is some bus lines that run sort of nearby. I would have much rather, if the issue here is that we should have a higher density for to promote senior housing, I would rather see us codify th at with something like the BMR density bonus. Call it the Senior BMR density bonus and have a rule that we could apply m ore objectively and less subjectively. So I am , and then as Commissioner Keller sa id, Im struggling with selling off the developm ent rights to the single fam ily housing but providing this sort of higher density even though theyre going to be m arket rate housing. So Im havi ng a lot of difficulty supporting this Motion. Chair Martinez: And were not done yet. Commissioner Alcheck. 30

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

Commissioner Alcheck: So I just want to respond to that. I think we could benefit from maybe a study session about what it is that we all interpre t a Planned Community or the PC process to be. I dont know if its fair to say that this is a difficult project to supp ort because really the guidelines are m ore simple than that. They have to suggest that w hat they want to do is impossible under the current zoning requirem ent and limitations and they have to provide support that there is a benefit and that public benefit is not really well defined. And finally it has to be consistent with our Comprehensive Plan which is sort of ope n to interpretation. And so I dont, I dont know how to sort of appreciate this notion that this is, that we need to set the bar high and this maybe doesnt meet that bar. I think I could benefit, I just want to say this out loud. I think I could benefit from us having an in depth discussion, maybe this is a retreat item, about what it is that each of you sort of view this process to ultimately provide us with because I th ink we have to evaluate these projects in the context that we live in, which is that it is not financially feasible to just develop for public benefit only. And I dont know if you made the case well tonight, but Im assuming based on past experience that these 15 units will provide significan t financial feasibility for this project. And I think we have to appreciate that we are asking for a public benefit in what is potentially the most expensive place to develop in the Peninsula. And so I just I want to reiterate. I really would like to have a session where we discuss these issues in more depth because I could definitely benefit from it and again I support this Motion. Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Michael and I have this continuing debate about whether we should be looking at pro formas and Im on the no, I want to look at it as a land use and he says there are some times where it gives us more insight. And this might be one time where I would agree with him that if we could see what the funding is available for tax credit provided low income housing we would see how important things like having those 15 units to sell would be. So you know our debate is going to go on. Hes going to com e with something more that Im going to have to think of Im certain. But in addition to what Comm issioner Panelli said about what should be included in a PC, he mentioned near transit and a clea r public benefit like a pub lic safety building, but there s one other thing. And the PC has to make it a better project. And I th ink in this case this project really reaches that threshold. It is a better pro ject because its going to be a PC. So we have to keep that in mind as we go forward thinking about the use of zoning and PC zoning in particular. So Commissioners lets call for, lets call for Commissioner Keller. Commissioner Keller: Sorry actually I was just getting your attention that Commissioner Tanaka wished to speak. Chair Martinez: Yes, Im sorry. I was looking the wrong way. Commissioner Tanaka? Commissioner Tanaka: Thank you. So I agree with the Vi ce-Chair and also Commissioner Panelli in terms of, actually Im more in favor of having it a little bit more analytical in terms of where are the public benefits. Because in m y mind, public benefits are ones which benefit the most number of people in a significant way. And so I think there is certainly a need for senior housing so in general I like the id ea of what this projects trying to accomplish, but whether its optimal, I dont know. I think theres certainly a lo t of things that can be tuned. And weve all mentioned a few of those item s. And so Im , and it sounds like also that perhaps if we had pro formas we could actually perhaps give better guidance. 31

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49

On the last PC we saw we actually continued it because we thought that there wasn t sufficient information. W e were m issing a Comm issioner or two. And so Im wondering whether we should at th is point also maybe, because we co uld certainly initiate, b ut are we g oing to g ive clear direction so that when it doe s come back to us theyre not kind of thrown for a loop versus if we actually as a group actually come to a, were able to give clearer directions so when we do initiate and it does come back it doesnt keep cycling through and it could go through the process faster. Because I do think the need for sen ior housing is real and we want to make that happen. We dont at this point as we sit here today we dont know if all the im pacts. What is the im pact of these 15 single fa mily homes going to have on th e area? You know what is the impacts of you know seniors themselves they I think while we have a lot of senio rs, additional seniors I think, I forgot where I saw it but there was a memo or something that talked about how senior housing or seniors have a lot more medical costs. So theyre actually a little bit more expensive than the, at least in terms of the medical side. So Im inclined to m ore rather than initiate today that we kind of gather our thoughts and actually maybe its a study session, I dont know. Or m aybe its another round. But I would be more in favor of having better inform ation and then initiating this once we could give the applicant more clear direction. Because I worry th at if we keep, we have a lot of comments and theyre not very cohesive today. That we initiate and its going to come back and were going to like Well, you know, what about this? What about that? And so thats my concern. Chair Martinez: Do you want to propose a substitute Motion? Commissioner Tanaka: Does? Chair Martinez: Yes. Mr. Aknin: Through the Chair. One thing Id like to note is, I mean thats the trickiest part about this initiation process is that you want to ha ve enough information to move forwa rd, but at the same time what you understand is, what we have to understand is this is the first step in the process and just to get the analysis going. So its actually an interesting step that we have in Palo Alto to give a developer some feedback as they go into the real technical aspects of their project. So I think weve had a lot of cl ear direction here toni ght about what som e of the concerns are moving forward that we can incorpor ate into the type of analysis that we do next so that when it does come before you for an actu al decision theyll be the information before you that you nee d to make that decision. VOTE Chair Martinez: I agree and I actu ally I dont know if Im permitted to do this, but Id like call for the vote and in that way see where Commissioners stand instead of putting this off. So all those in favor of the Motion say aye (Aye). Ok the Motion passes with, oh, Im sorry. Those voting against the Mo tion, nay. Ok the Motion passes with Commissioner Keller, Vice-Chair Michael, Chair Martinez, Commissioner Alcheck voting in favor and Commissioner Tanaka and Commissioner Panelli voting agai nst. Ok, so the Motion to initiate the PC has be en recommended and good luck to Palo Alto Housing. 32

1 2 3 4 5 6

MOTION PASSED (4-2, with Commissioners Panelli and Tanaka voting no)

Commission Action: Commission recommended moving forward per staff recommendation in st aff report. Motion by Commissioner Keller, seconded by ViceChair Michael. Motion passed 4-2 with Commissioners Panelli and Tanaka voting no.

33

ATTACHMENT I

Architectural Review Board

Staff Report
Agenda Date: To: From: Department: Subject: January 17, 2013 Architectural Review Board Tim Wong, Senior Planner Planning and Community Environment 567-595 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453]: : Request by Candice Gonzales on behalf of Palo Alto Housing Cor poration, for Preliminary Architectural Review of a proposed Planned Community zone change to develop 15 single family homes and a 60 unit affordable rental project for seniors.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a preliminary review of the proposed project and provide comment on the proposed design to staff and the applicant. No formal action may be taken at a preliminary review; comments made at preliminary review are not binding on the City or applicant. BACKGROUND Site Information The project site is comprised of two parcels (APN # 137-25-109 and -108) located at the corner of Maybell and Clemo Avenues. The com bined lot size is approxim ately 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. The current land use is a non-functioning orchard and four existing single family homes on Maybell Avenue. The hom es would be demolished in preparation for the proposed development. Vehicular access to the site is from both Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue with a barrier at the end of Clemo Avenue to prevent vehicular traffic from Clemo Avenue on to Maybell Avenue. 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) EastMultifamily residences (The Tan Plaza Continental) (Zoning: PC-2218) South- Briones Park (Zoning: PF) Project Description

The applicant, Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) has requested a rezoning of the site to Planned Community (PC) to allow increased density, smaller lot sizes and additional height above the maximums of the underlying zone districts. The proposed 15 single-family homes and 60 multifamily units would exceed the 34 units allowed under the current zoning, R-2 and RM-15, by 41 units. PAHC plans to subdivide the 2.46-acre property. There are two components to the proposed development; a 15 unit single-family subdivision and a 60-unit affordable rental apartment building for seniors. The project would be designed to meet or exceed the Citys green point rating system. Senior Units PAHC proposes to build a four story multifamily structure of approximately 56,216 square feet with a height of approximately 46 feet, which would exceed the maximum height limit of 35 feet. The senior rental units would be on an one acre parcel on the northeast corner of the site and would include 59 one-bedroom apartments and 1 two-bedroom apartment for an onsite manager, common areas such as a com munity room with computer lab, laundry room , managers office, a resident services office, as well as outdoor com mon area space. The affordable apartments would have an average size of 600 square feet and be affordable to senior households earning 30-60% of the Area Median Income (AMI). Single Family Housing Units The market rate units would be located on the rem aining 1.46 acres, running adjacent to the perim eter of the property, bordering Maybell and Clem o Avenues. The 15-unit subdivision would be fee sim ple lots of approximately 4,000 square feet with residence sizes between 1,800-2,400 square feet. A majority of the homes are three story with an approximate height of 35 feet. There would be eight single family houses located on Maybell Avenue, one on a corner lot, and six along Clemo Avenue. The houses on Maybell Avenue w ould be two or three st ories with an average height of approximately 25 feet for the two stor y houses and 35 ft. for the three story units. The corner house would have three stor ies with an overall height of35 feet. The houses on Clemo Avenue would have three stories and a height of 35 feet.All required parking spaceswould be located on the site. In order to avoid parking impacts on Maybell and Clemo Avenues, garage parking would be provided at the rear of each unit, accessed by an alley in the interior of the site. City Council Study Session On September 18, 2012, PAHC presented conceptual s ite and elevation plans for the proposed project to the City Council for com ment and feedback. In the site layout presented to the Council, the driveways of the Maybell units fronted Maybell Avenue. Because Maybell Avenue is a thoroughfare for pedestrian and bicycle traffic, particularly students, there was some Council concern about safety impacts of cars entering and exiting onto Maybell Av enue and the student traffic. Other Council comments included the cookie cutter design of the proposed single fam ily subdivision, traffic impacts to Maybell and Clemo Avenues and the suggestion for a community open space area shared by both developments. The Council also suggested that PAHC apply for the PC zoning designation instead of RM-40 zoning so that there would be greater control to limit the uses of the property. In addition, during a public hearing, the Council approve d a $3.2 million site acquisition loan to PAHC in November 2012 to PAHC. The City will pr ovide another $2.6 m illion loan in January 2013. PAHC conducted public outreach m eetings to neighborhood associations prior to the Septem ber Council study session. In addition, residents within 600ft. of the project site received notices about the Study Session.
587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 2

DISCUSSION Parking/Circulation The plan provides for 47 parking spaces for the seni or development. The City requires 1.5 units per one-bedroom unit and 2 spaces per two-bedroom unit. Therefore the development would typically require a total of 91 parking spaces. However, th e City has recognized that senior developm ents generate less traffic im pacts and require less parking than other residential developm ents. The developer is providing 47 parking stalls for 60 units or a ratio of .78 stalls pe r unit. This ratio is consistent or exceeds other parking ratios for senior developments throughout the City. Parking for the single family homes would be provided with two car garages. Access to the garages is from the interior of the project site. Driveways are proposed for each hom e to accommodate additional parking. There is street parking on Maybell and Clemo Avenues. PAHC also owns the adjacent property to the north,Arastradero Park. Arastradero Park is a 65 unit affordable housing development consisting of one, two, three and four bedroom units. The 65 units are distributed in two and three story buildings onthe three acre property. Access to the property is from Maybell Avenue. As an option, there have b een discussions about creating an easement to the Maybell development through Arastradero Park to utilize the Arastradero Park access if it would help alleviate traffic impacts created by the Maybell development. All ingress and egress for the development will be from Clemo Avenue including the corner lot unit. Zoning Compliance The application is generally in compliance with the requirements of the Planned Community (PC) Zone District. However, the proposed senior affordable development is inconsistent with height and daylight plane requirements. The proposed 46 ft. height of the senior development exceeds the 35 ft. maximum height requirement and the daylight plane requirement. The height and daylight plane requirements are due to the location of the project site within 150 feet of residentially zoned parcels. Below is a table outlining the zoning requirements and the details of the proposed development. Existing RM-15 PC Proposed*
Max. Height (ft.) Daylight Plane Height at PL Slope 35 35 48 10 feet 45 degrees 1:1 None 10 feet 3 feet rise per 6 feet run 1:2 None 10 feet Approx. 46 feet

* Eligible for density bonus concessions under Government Code Section 65915

Allowed Projections into Daylight Plan

The Planned Community zone is intended to accommodate development for residential activities requiring flexibility under controlled conditions not otherwise attainable under other districts. With the proposed site layout, the 60-unit senior development located on the one acre parcel would exceed the maximum density allowed in the RM-40 zone. To achieve the desired density, the project applicant has requested exceptions to the height and daylight plane requirements. The
587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 3

applicant could request concessions through State Density Bonus law. Under the State Density Bonus law, developments that provide more than 20% affordable housing in the development are eligible for incentives or concessions. An incentive or concession can be used to provide regulatory relief from zoning requirements. Per the State law, the development is eligible for up to three concessions. Examples of concessions are reduction in required setbacks, exceeding maximum floor area ratios, reduction in parking requirements, or in this instance, exceeding the height limit and encroaching into the required daylight plane. These concessions are allowed by right through State law. The jurisdiction must grant the concession unless the jurisdiction finds that the concession is not necessary for the production of the affordable housing or if it creates an adverse impact on a Historical Resource. A number of developments, both market rate and affordable, have used density bonus concessions. Palo Alto Family Apartments, located at 801 Alma Street, developed by Eden Housing, is a 50 unit affordable rental development. Eden requested concessions to encroach into the required setbacks, exceed the maximum floor area ratio (FAR) and not provide private useable space. The development at 195 Page Mill Road also requested concessions to allow residential uses in GM zoning and to exceed the maximum FAR in return for providing 17 affordable housing units. The City Council may grant exceptions to the PC ordinance to bring the project into compliance with the zoning code. Therefore the Council, in reviewing the PC request, may grant exceptions to height and daylight plane requirements. It is within the Councils authority to amend any provision of the zoning ordinance, including provisions within the PC zone section. Staff notes that these exceptions would not have an adverse impact to the adjacent residential parcels due to the distances to the Arastradero Park and the Tan Plaza residences. Height and daylight plane exceptions were most recently granted to the 101 Lytton Avenue commercial development for similar purposes. A third option is the applicant could request for a variance for height and daylight plane. Specific findings would need to be made in order to grant the variance but this option is more complex and would be the least desirable by the applicant. Trees There are eleven mature oak trees fronting Clemo Avenue. The oak trees will be retained and have been integrated into the overall design of the project. The proposed homes on Clemo Avenue are setback farther than the Maybell Avenue homes to accommodate the oak trees. The trees will also provide a privacy screen between the homes and Briones Park. Large canopy trees are proposed along Maybell Ave. The new frontage trees would be located in each front yard of the Maybell Avenue homes.

ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW

No environmental review is required for Preliminary Review action, as it is not considered a project under the California Environm ental Quality Act (CEQA). An environm ental review will be conducted for the formal project. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Project Description*
587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 4

Attachment B: City Department Comments Attachment C: Development Plans (Board Members Only)* *Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by staff

PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:

Tim Wong, Senior Planner Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager

587 & 585 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453] Page 5

ATTACHMENT J

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================

Thursday January 17, 2013 REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ROLL CALL: Board members: Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) Alexander Lew Randy Popp Naseem Alizadeh Staff Liaison: Russ Reich, Senior Planner - absent Staff: Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate Amy French, Chief Planning Official Clare Campbell, Planner Margaret Netto, Contract Planner Tim Wong, Senior Planner

PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: Announce agenda item Open public hearing Staff recommendation Applicant presentation Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. Public comment Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes Close public hearing Motions/recommendations by the Board Final vote

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. M embers of t he public m ay speak to any item not on the agenda with a lim itation of three ( 3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak m ust complete a speaker req uest card available from the secretary of the Board. The A rchitectural Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. December 6 & 20, 2012.

City of Palo Alto

Page 1

Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Malone Prichard m oved seconded by Board Member Popp to approve the minutes as amended by the Board. Vote: 4-0-0-1 (Lippert absent) AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. None.

CONTINUED BUSINESS:
1. 567 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453]: Request by Candice Gonzales , on behalf of Palo Alto Housing Corporation, for Prelim inary Architectural Review of a Pla nned Community proposal for the developm ent of 15 single fam ily homes and 60 units of affordable rental housing, for seniors. Zone Districts: RM-15 and R-2.

RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended that the Archit ectural Review Board (ARB) conduc t a prelim inary review of the proposed project and provide comment on the proposed design to staff and the applicant. No form al action may be taken at a prelim inary review; comments made at preliminary review are not binding on the City or applicant. No public comment. As a preliminary item, no action required. 2. 145 Hawthorne Avenue [12PLN-00072]: Request by Zach Trailer for Architectural Review of the construction of three detached residential units on a 10,503 s q. ft. lot. Zone District: RM15. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environm ental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15332.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff recommended the Architect ural Review Board (ARB) reco mmend approval of the proposed project based upon the findings contai ned in Attachment A and conditio ns of approval contained in Attachment B.

Neilson Buchanan, spoke that he is very pleased with the project for providing parking for this project.
Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Popp moved seconded by Board Member Lew to approve the project as presented by the staff with the following items to return to Subcommittee: 1. Placement of the light fixtures at the exterior elevation, 2. Eave details, and 3. Gutter style. Vote: 5-0-0-0

City of Palo Alto

Page 2

4. 135 Hamilton Avenue [11PLN-00463]: Request by Keenan Lovewell Ventures, on behalf of Hamilton and High LLC, for Arc hitectural Review of a new four-story 28,146 square foot mixed-use building on an existing v acant lot (approximately 20,000 square feet of comm ercial area, two residential units, and below grade garage). The project includes a Variance request for a building encroachment into th e 7' Hamilton Avenue Special S etback (511 across approximately 84 feet). Zone Di strict: CD-C(P). Environmental Assessment: A draft Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend the Director of Planning and Community Environment conditionally approve the proposed project, based upon the required findings (Attachments A & B), and subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment C). This hearing is the second formal public hearing on the project. The ARB is allowed one additional continuance of the public hearing if needed to resolve remaining items, given that this is a major project.

Neilson Buchanan, noted that he is not supportive of this project due to parking issues.
Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Lew moved seconded by Board Member Popp to approve the project as presented by the staff with the following conditions: 1. Garage door opening shall be narrower and the added glass and steel side panels shall be reviewed by the ARB subcommittee. 2. Re-consider landscape areas at the roof top terrace; modifications shall be submitted to staff 3. The Approval Finding #12 shall be modified as noted. Vote: 5-0-0-0 NEW BUSINESS: 4. 1305 Middlefield Road [12PLN-00222]: Request by Palo Alto Community Se rvices Division for Historic and Architectural Review of a ne w sign program for Rinconada Cultural Park that includes the Lucie Stern Community Center, a Category 1 Historic Resource. Zone District: PF. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per sections 15301 and 15311. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended the Architectural Review Bo ard (ARB) recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Pl anning and Community Environm ent (Director), based upon the ARB Approval Findings in Attachment A and Sign Exception Findings in Attachment B. Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Malone Prichard moved, seconded by Board Member Lippert, to approve the wall signage with the rule design and the option C design for the map and pole directory, and have the following items to return to the ARB for review and approval on the Consent Calendar: 1. Use of logo (only) at gateway locations, to be determined 2. Braille used for all signs 3. Increase banner height to an appropriate level for safety and security

for review and approval.

City of Palo Alto

Page 3

4. Review mock-ups of color in the sunlight to assure appropriate color selection for visibility 5. Consider changing Welcome on banner to identification signage for the relevant location Vote: 5-0-0-0 BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. Subcommittee Members: Lee Lippert and Randy Popp SUBCOMMITTEE: None. STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Project Description: New wall sign Subway Applicant: Karen Cho Address: 3962 Middlefield Road [12PLN-0338] Approval Date: 12/19/12 Request for hearing deadline: 1/2/13 Project Description: A proposed historic rehabilitation of Laning Chateau Applicant: Monty Anderson Address: 345 Forest Avenue [12PLN-0376] Approval Date: 12/20/12 Request for hearing deadline: 1/3/13 Project Description: Installation of two new internally illuminated wall signs Applicant: Clint Smith Address: 2305 El Camino Real [12PLN-0477] Approval Date: 12/20/13 Request for hearing deadline: 1/3/13 Project Description: The replacement installation of three building mounted wireless antennas and associated equipment Applicant: Jennifer Haas Address: 675 El Camino Real [12PLN-0442] Approval Date: 12/21/12 Request for hearing deadline: 1/4/13
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the Citys compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the Citys ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerks Office at (650) 329-2571.

City of Palo Alto

Page 4

Materials related to an item on this agenda su bmitted to the Architectural Review Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal business hours.

City of Palo Alto

Page 5

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES

=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================

Thursday April 4, 2013 REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 ROLL CALL: Board members: Clare Malone Prichard (Chair Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) - absent Alexander Lew Randy Popp Naseem Alizadeh Staff Liaison: Russ Reich, Senior Planner Staff: Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate Tim Wong, Senior Planner Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager - absent

PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: Announce agenda item Open public hearing Staff recommendation Applicant presentation Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. Public comment Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes Close public hearing Motions/recommendations by the Board Final vote

ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. M embers of t he public m ay speak to any item not on the agenda with a lim itation of three ( 3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak m ust complete a speaker req uest card available from the secretary of the Board. The A rchitectural Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. None. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. March 21, 2013

City of Palo Alto

Page 1

Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Popp moved seconded by Board Member Lew to approve the minute as presented by staff. Vote: 4-0-1-0 (Lippert absent) AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. None. CONTINUED BUSINESS: Major Review: 50 El Camino Real [11PLN-00388]: Request by Huiwen Hsiao on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University for Site and Design Review of the construction of a 70-room, three story, 51,948 square foot building on a 1.57-acre site, to house an expanded Ronald McDonald House program. The project includes a rezoning to Public Fa cility with a Site and Design Com bining District (PF(D)) zone, and Com prehensive Plan re-designation (from Streamside Open Space to Major Institution/Special Facilities), a nd a Conditional Use Perm it amendment. Zone District: Community Commercial with a Landscape Combining Distr ict (CC(L)). Environmental Assessment: A Mitiga ted Negative Declaration has been prepared for the project in accordance with CEQA.

RECOMMENDATION

Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend that the City Council approve the Site and Design Review application for the construction of a 69-room, three story, 52,278 square foot building on a 1.57-acre site, to house an expanded Ronald McDonald House program. Brad Lyman, President of the Board of Director of Roland McDonald, he is supporting the project and hope the construction would be done before the raining season. Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Popp moved seconded by Board Member Lew to approve the project with the following conditions to return to the subcommittee: Remove or replace sheet 0A0.7 Relocate the long term bike racks or reduce the number Coordination of the central element at the west elevation on first level on the building plans Bracket design and placement be studied Control or expansion joint pattern and scale be evaluated further Windows details relative to adjacent element on the roof determination Present cut sheet for all exterior light fixtures If photo vortex are proposed; return for review Rapid coordination with the Citys Arborist particularly with th e oak and redwood trees relocation at the rear of the property 10. Update Attachment A to reflect the Current Planning information 11. In Section 3.2 rephrasing the statement to orient with the creek 12. Correct the 3.10 typo Vote: 4-0-1-0 (Lippert absent) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

City of Palo Alto

Page 2

NEW BUSINESS: Major Review: 567-595 Maybell Avenue [12PLN-00453]: Request by Candice Gonzalez on behalf of Palo Alto Housing Corporation, for Architectural Review of a housing project that includes 15 single-fam ily detached homes and a 60-unit m ultiple-family residential building providing affordable rental units for seniors. The project includes off- street parking, landscaping and ot her site im provements. A zone district change from Low-Density Residential (R -2) and Multip le-Family Residential (RM-15) to a Planned Community (PC) has a lso been r equested. Environmental Assessment: a M itigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for public review. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the Development Plan associated with the Planned Community zone change request to the Planning and Transportation Commission based upon draft findings (Attachments A) and subject to the conditions of approval (Attachment B). A draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Planning Community zone request. The document was published on March 22, 2013 for public review and submittal of comments through April 11, 2013. Bob Moss, spoke that the housing units are too m uch and the three story build ings are com pletely incomparable with the neighborhood. He is also concerned about the traffic on Maybell Avenue. Jane Sidiris, mentioned that she is concern with the traffic on Georgia Avenue and Maybell is a Bicycle Blvd. The seniors will be walled in by the three story buildings. The neighborhood is all fenced out and there is no playing field for the children to play. Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Popp moved seconded by Board Member Lew to approve the project with the following conditions to return to the subcommittee: 1. Widen the main entrance. 2. Consider dual roofing of metal and asphalt. 3. Reconsider 3rd floor roof shapes. 4. Screen the utility transformer on the corner of Maybell and Clemo Avenues. 5. Reconsider wall materials on the single family dwellings. 6. Reconsider wall materials on the northern and eastern elevations of the Senior building. 7. Signage for the car wash exemption. 8. Provide fence details. 9. Contextual street elevations and site photos. 10. Provide design of cluster mailbox, if required. 11. Demarcate guest parking for Senior building. 12. A winter sun study at 3 pm. 13. Redesign the garage door and house doors for consistency. 14. Reconsider the stone on the corner lot SFD. 15. Details of the material changes.

City of Palo Alto

Page 3

Vote: 4-0-1-0 (Lippert absent) BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. Subcommittee Members: Naseem Alizadeth and Randy Popp SUBCOMMITTEE: None. STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: Project Description: Removal of two Palm trees Applicant: Kathleen Beckman Address: 237 Homer Avenue [13PLN-00107] Approval Date: 3/13/13 Request for hearing deadline: 3/25/13 Project Description: Second floor addition of a 370sq. ft. and faade improvements Applicant: Dan Rhoads Address: 210-216 Bryant Street [12PLN-00493] Approval Date: 3/13/13 Request for hearing deadline: 3/25/13 Project Description: One new internally illuminated wall sign and one new internally illuminated free standing sign Applicant: Steve Peterson Address: 3944 El Camino Real [13PLN-00053] Approval Date: 3/19/13 Request for hearing deadline: 4/1/13 Project Description: Single story & two story additions to the existing three unit apartment building Applicant: Cornelia Harber Address: 400 Ventura Street [12PLN-00512] Approval Date: 3/20/13 Request for hearing deadline: 4/2/13 Project Description: Installation of (3) new steel garage doors, new paint and new trim to an exsiting six-unit multi-family building Applicant: Naville Batliwalla Address: 260 College Avenue [13PLN-0047] Approval Date: 3/20/13 Request for hearing deadline: 4/2/13 Project Description: Modification to an existing wireless communication facility Applicant: Modus Inc., for Sprint Address: 2701 Middlefield Road [13PLN-00031] Approval Date: 3/21/13 Request for hearing deadline: 4/3/13

City of Palo Alto

Page 4

Project Description: Review for one new internally illuminated wall sign & one new internally illuminated awning sign Applicant: Tommy Yoon Address: 3990 El Camino Real [13PLN-00195] Approval Date: 3/25/13 Request for hearing deadline: 4/8/13 Project Description: Relocation of existing cellular antenna equipment and addition of 12 foot tall screen wall to the an existing three story building Applicant: Paul Ferro Address: 900 Arastradero Road [13PLN-113] Approval Date: 3/27/13 Request for hearing deadline: 4/10/13

ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the Citys compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the Citys ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerks Office at (650) 329-2571.

Materials related to an item on this agenda su bmitted to the Architectural Review Board after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal business hours.

City of Palo Alto

Page 5

ATTACHMENT K

ATTACHMENT L

GE OR

41

IRV EN

41 52

MA YB EL LA VE NU

54 5 41 33

41 58

55 7 56 2 55 9 56 4 56 8

55 6

41 75

41 37

56 4

AL T

PALO OF
CI T Y
O

R P O R A

C
N

TO AL
D

1 6

41 43

41 70

I F OR N

41 51

41 63

71

AB EL

41 55

Palo Alto

T h e

C i t y

AM

R
I

AL

o f

55 7 56 7 56 6 57 2

41 36 41 34

AV EN UE
57 0

56 6

41 40 41 44

56 7

PC-2656
57 4

41 38

41 50

R-2

NU E

57 6 57 8

57 5

41 74

41 39

41 43

58 7

TA CO U

AV EN UE 41 54
41 58

41 55

AR AN TA
RT

41 50

CL EM

PC-2218
O
58 0

MA Y

AR

41 51

59 5

57 9

61 2

AV E

58 1

41

AV EN UE

46
62 2

NU E

5
01 42 05 42

62 8 Legend

MA YB EL L

abc

60 0

AD

Zone Districts Project Site - Lot Lines Zone District Labels

61 9

PF
60 9

This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS

02 42 06 42

L L E
0' 130'

twong, 2013-05-15 13:27:38 567Maybell LocationMap (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\twong.mdb)

RO

This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. 1989 to 2013 City of Palo Alto

567 - 595 Maybell Avenue Project Site Area Map with Zoning Districts

BE LL A

59 0 41 47

RM-15

AS TR A

VE

ATTACHMENT M Submitted Project Plans (Dated April 25, 2013, Prepared by Applicant) Hard copy for Commission only Project Plans can be found on-line

ATTACHMENT N NEIGHBOR/PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE Available on-line, at the Council Chambers Public Table and th the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5 floor