Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 6956 City of Palo Alto (ID # 6956) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/20/2016 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 567 Maybell T-Map Title: PUBLIC HEARING: 567 Maybell Avenue [15PLN-00270]: Approval of Mitigated Negative Declaration and Tentative Tract Map with Lot Size Exceptions to Subdivide Four Parcels Totaling 2.47 Acres Into 16 Single-Family Lots, Ranging from 5,000 SF to 6,186 SF, and one Parcel for a Private Street. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Zoning Districts: R-2 and RM-15. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment F); and 2. Approve the Record of Land Use Action, including the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, for the Tentative Tract Map and related lot size exceptions based on findings and conditions of approval (Attachment B) Executive Summary The project applicant is proposing a subdivision tract map that would allow for the construction of 16 single-family residences on 2.47 acres at the northeast intersection of Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue. The project would result in the demolition of four single-family residences constructed between 1953 and 1968; the structures are not historic resources. Five new single- family residences are proposed with access to Maybell Avenue and 11 new single-family residences are proposed with access via a private street to Clemo Avenue. The project is subject to subdivision and architectural review applications. However, only the subdivision request is being processed at this time. The project was the subject of a public hearing before the Planning & Transportation Commission on May 25, 2016. Staff recommended inclusion of a pedestrian path from the interior lots to Maybell Avenue to encourage non-automotive movement to commercial areas, parks and schools. After hearing public testimony, the Commission determined that the pedestrian path was unnecessary and also determined that as designed, the project meets the City of Palo Alto Page 2 applicable zoning requirements, with exceptions requested for lot size and lot dimensions for certain lots. Background The applicant initially submitted applications for Architectural Review and Subdivision in support of a 23-unit residential development in June 2015. As a result of various comments on consistency with the City’s codes and policies and the applicant’s public outreach, the project was revised in December 2015 to only include 16 single-family dwelling units. As a result of this revision, the applicant proposes to move forward with the subdivision request first and then follow up with revised plans for the Architectural Review with the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The PTC reviewed the application request at their May 25, 2016. The staff report and packet is available at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=52513. Most of the discussion focused on a staff recommended pedestrian link between the interior lots to Maybell Avenue. Staff’s position was that it was an opportunity to include an amenity that would have the potential to reduce walking time and encourage non-vehicular movement. Of those members of the public that gave testimony there was overwhelming support for the project as proposed by the applicant and not the pedestrian connection to Maybell Avenue. The Commission recommended approval of the project without the pedestrian connection (4-0) citing that the connection was a good idea, however, it would not benefit a lot of people. Discussion The applicant requests approval of a Tentative Tract Map to create 16 single-family lots. The lots would range in size from 5,000 square feet to 6,186 square feet. The standard is 6,000 square feet and two of the lots would be smaller than the standard. In addition, the standard dimensions are 60’-0” wide by 100’-0” deep and various lots do not meet that standard. Attachment C provides a summary of the project’s compliance with the zoning standards. Lots one through five would have access on Maybell Avenue. Lots two and three would share a driveway and this is also the situation for Lots four and five, so that there would only be three curb cuts for five dwellings along Maybell Avenue. On the interior, a private street is proposed with a sidewalk on one side. This street provides the exclusive access for eleven lots to Clemo Avenue. The project proposes as part of the subdivision to construct a new sidewalk along Maybell Avenue where there is no sidewalk currently. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Subdivision (Tentative Map): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Government Code Section 66474. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 21.12.090 requires the Commission to first review whether the City of Palo Alto Page 3 proposed subdivision complies and is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State law. The Commission’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval.  Subdivision Map Exceptions: Pursuant to PAMC 21.32, a subdivider may apply for exceptions to any of the requirements and regulations set forth in this title. Such exceptions may be granted only by the City Council after recommendation by the PTC. Application for such exception shall be made by petition of the subdivider, stating fully the grounds of the application and the facts relied upon by the petitioner. Such petition shall be submitted with the tentative or preliminary parcel map for which the exception is requested and shall be reviewed and processed concurrent with said map. The findings and conditions associated with these two discretionary actions are contained in the Draft Record of Land Use Action (Attachment B) and key issues are discussed further below. Neighborhood Character The 2.47 acre site is relatively flat; a portion of the property is zoned R-2 (0.81 acres) and includes four single-family dwellings that front Maybell Avenue; and the other portion of the property is zoned RM-15 (1.65 acres) and is vacant (former orchard) that fronts Clemo Avenue. The property is bounded by two to three-story multi-family dwellings to the north; an eight- story residential tower to the east; Briones Park to the south, and single-family residences to the west. Within the vicinity is Juana Briones Elementary School, Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, the City’s Fire Station #5 and other single-family neighborhoods. Clemo Avenue has no vehicular access to Maybell Avenue, however, pedestrian and bicycle access is allowed. Zoning Compliance1 The subdivision application follows the zoning regulations set forth in the R-2 and RM-15 zone districts, which allow a maximum of two units per 7,500 square feet (R-2) and 15 dwelling units per acre (RM-15). These zoning districts permit single-family dwellings. The proposal for 16 units equates to 6.5 dwelling units per acre and therefore less than the allowed maximum density for the site. The subdivision and project comply with the applicable zoning development standards. According to the City’s Housing Element, a realistic yield of dwellings on the site is 27 units. Traffic and Circulation A Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed for the project and incorporated as part of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment F). The TIA analyzed a 23-unit project 1 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca City of Palo Alto Page 4 (the initial project) and a 16-unit project (the current project). In addition, based on initial concerns regarding existing traffic conditions in the vicinity, two site access alternatives are analyzed for each project scenario. Under the 16-unit project, only the Arastradero and Clemo intersection was studied because it is the closest intersection to the project. The trip distribution would remain the same as with the 23-unit proposal, and the amount of trips from the project site would be reduced. The 16-unit project is expected to generate 114 net daily trips, including 9 net trips during the a.m. peak hour and 12 net trips during the p.m. peak hours. Six of those trips would be using the Arastradero and Clemo intersection in the morning peak hour. Under existing conditions (without the project), all study intersections operate at a Level of Service (LOS) D or better in the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, which are acceptable under the City’s thresholds. When including the project, because of the low amount of trips, all study intersections still remain acceptable. There are three schools within the vicinity of the project site. Maybell Avenue, Clemo Avenue and Arastradero Road are considered safe routes to school (Attachment G). Community Comments and Corridor Improvements Throughout the outreach period, community members expressed general traffic safety concerns about traffic on Maybell Avenue and Arastradero Road. There are two roadway projects which will be implemented independent of this project: The Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard (Attachment H) and the Charleston Arastradero Corridor Project. Both projects are approved, funded for construction, and are currently entering final design. The Charleston- Arastradero project proposes widened sidewalks and corner “bulb outs” at Arastradero and Clemo. The Maybell Avenue Bicycle Boulevard project employs a range of traffic calming measures to reduce vehicle speeds. At Maybell Avenue and Amaranta Avenue, the plans propose a “raised intersection” with masonry pavers to reduce vehicle speeds while adding a decorative element to the street. Affordable housing The project is subject to the regulations within PAMC 18.14 (Below Market Rate Housing Program). Based on the project, 2.4 affordable housing units are required to be included in the project, unless determined to be infeasible, and then an in-lieu fee could be paid by the developer to meet the requirements. A condition has been added to the Record of Land Use Action requiring the developer to enter into a Regulatory Agreement prior to recordation of the final map. This agreement will set forth the applicant’s BMR obligations. Palo Alto Subdivision Code Compliance Chapter 21 includes standards for reviewing tentative maps. Because the project includes deviations from the zoning standards for lot size and dimensions, the applicant requests to apply for exceptions pursuant to PAMC 21.32. The applicant included justifications for the City of Palo Alto Page 5 exceptions provided for in Attachment E. Generally, the lots are 6,000 square feet in size and the dimensions are roughly equivalent to the requirements (plus or minus several feet). The proposal includes a substantial amount of lots that are 6,000 square feet. Two of the lots with reduced dimensions are at the end of the private roadway “hammer-head” and are not visible from the public road or park. From the public view along Clemo Avenue or Maybell Avenue, the lots would substantially conform to the surrounding single-family neighborhoods. Based on the zoning, the site could have more density than the project proposes. The applicant proposes the large lot single-family development in part to address resident concerns about a more dense development on this property. Policy Implications The site includes two Comprehensive Plan land use designations and is not subject to any area plan or specific guidelines. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, in that the site is designated as “Single-Family Residential” and “Multi-family Residential,” land use categories that support residential uses. Single-family residential uses are also consistent with the site’s RM-15 and R-2 zoning districts, which do not require minimum densities. The proposed 6.5 dwelling units per acre is well within the prescribed maximum densities. Consistency with other Comprehensive Plan policies is addressed in Attachment B. The site is included in the 2015-2023 Housing Element inventory of housing sites, which indicates a maximum yield of 27. While the project would provide fewer units than the number specified in the Housing Element, the Element’s inventory contained a buffer in excess of the city’s State allocation to account for projects such as this. Public Outreach In addition to public noticing requirements, the project was the subject of two stakeholder meetings (October 22, 2015 and November 4, 2015) conducted by the City and one community meeting (April 14, 2016) conducted by the applicant. In summary, the commenters at the stakeholder meeting objected to high density on the site and had concerns over the traffic that may be attributed to such a project. At the most recent community meeting, it was noted that generally there was no opposition to the 16-unit density and it was acknowledged that the heavy traffic perceived during the mornings is an existing condition. There was some concern about how the trips would leave the site and be distributed throughout the road network. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project requires adoption of a Mitigated City of Palo Alto Page 6 Negative Declaration (Attachment F) and a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (included in Attachment B). The Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated between May 6, 2016 and May 26, 2016 and indicated the potential for significant impacts to biological resources. The site contains a number of existing mature trees and these may be habitat for nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Incorporation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would reduce this impact to less than significant. Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: RLUA with Findings and Conditions (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Compliance (DOCX)  Attachment D: Correspondence (DOCX)  Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment F: Draft Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (PDF)  Attachment G: Final Briones Walk and Roll Map 2015-12-17 (PDF)  Attachment H: Maybell Avenue Bike Boulevard Concept Approved (PDF)  Attachment I: Project Plans (PDF) 4151 41474143 4139 4133 4146 628 622 612 4150 4154 4158 619 4169 590 41344136 4138 41444140 4150 638 571 545 4133 4171 4173 4175 4 2 0 5 578 5 7 4 5 7 0 581 579 4 2 0 1 575 5 7 9 5 8 7 4 2 1 5 4 2 2 1 4 2 5 7 7 4 2 0 6 4 2 0 8 4 2 1 2 4 2 1 6 607 4 2 0 2 609 580 600 595 4155 578 576 570 4137 4143 4151 4155 4163 4148 4152 4158 566 564 574 587 575 550 556 562 559 557 564 568 567 566 572 557 560 554 4170 4174 54 538 9 4175 4185 565 567 610 609 AMARA NT A AVENU E NUE MAYB ELL AV E NUE GEO R G ABEL AVENUE MAYBELL AVENUE MAYBELL A VENUE CL EMO AV ENU E AR AS T RAD ER O ROA D IRVEN C AL TA MES A AVE N U STRADERO ROAD S U Z A N N K E L L Y W A Y AR ANTA C OU RT This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS Legend Major Institution/Special Facility Multi-Family Res Public Park Single Family Res Project Site - Lot Lines 0'150' 56 7 - 5 9 5 M a y b e l l A v e n u e Pr o j e c t S i t e Ar e a M a p Pr o p o s e d S i n g l e - F a m i l y De v e l o p m e n t CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto twong, 2013-05-15 13:57:50 (\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\Personal\twong.mdb) Attachment A 5 ATTACHMENT B ACTION NO. 2016-XX DRAFT RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION FOR 567 MAYBELL AVENUE: PRELIMINARY TENTATIVE MAP 15PLN-000270 (YURONG HAN, APPLICANT) At its meeting on June 20, 2016, the City Council of the City of Palo Alto approved the Preliminary Tentative Map for the development of a 16-lot subdivision project with exceptions, making the following findings, determinations and declarations: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as follows: A. On June 15, 2015, Yurong Han on behalf of Golden Gate Homes, LLC applied for a Preliminary Tentative Map with exceptions for the development of a 23-lot subdivision project and subsequently on December 22, 2015 amended its project for the development of a 16-lot subdivision project (“The Project”). B. The project site is comprised of two lots (APN No. 137- 25-108 & -109) of approximately 2.46 acres. The site contains four residential structures. Single-family residential land uses are located adjacent to the lot to the west; multi-family land uses are to the north and east; and a public park is located to the south. C. Following staff review, the Planning and Transportation Commission reviewed the project and recommended approval on May 25, 2016 subject to conditions of approval. SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The City as the lead agency for the Project has determined that the project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Guideline section 15070, Decision to Prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration. An environmental impact assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that there is the potential to have a significant impact on Biological Resources if the project is implemented. However, with incorporation of a mitigation measure, the project would have a less than significant impact on the environment. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was made available for public review beginning May 6, 2016 through May 26, 2016. The Environmental Impact Assessment and Mitigated Negative Declaration are contained as Attachment F. The City Council hereby approves the Mitigated Negative Declaration and incorporates the Mitigation and Monitoring Report attached as Exhibit A into this Record of Land Use. SECTION 3. Preliminary Tentative Map Findings. A legislative body of a city shall deny approval of a Parcel Map, if it makes any of the following findings (California Government Code Section 66474): 1. That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Section 65451: 6 The site is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan as described below. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans: The Project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: Policy L-1: Continue current City policy limiting future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The Project site is located within the urban growth boundary and the Project is consistent with this policy by continuing the reuse of land within this area; and Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale. The Project would allow construction of 16 single- family residential structures, which is a permitted use within the R- 2/RM-15 districts and which is compatible with other R-1 properties in the neighborhood; and Policy L-12: Preserve the character of residential neighborhoods by encouraging new or remodeled structures to be compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The Project would permit the subsequent construction of 16 single-family residential units, which would be subject to the R-1 site development regulations as the adjacent R-1 sites in the neighborhood. 3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development: The Project site is comprised of two large relatively flat lots in a residential neighborhood that would be subdivided into 16 lots for the purposes of single-family development. Each lot would mostly meet the minimum lot size and dimension requirements for R-1 zoned properties. Conditional exceptions are requested for those deviations and those findings are discussed in a later section. The character of the project site is consistent with the neighboring R-1 development. 4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development: The project would create 16 lots that mostly meets the minimum lot size and dimensions of the site development regulations for properties using the R-1 Single family Residence development standards. Conditional exceptions are requested. However, the character of the development is consistent with the neighboring R-1 developments. 5. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat: The Project will not cause environmental damage or injure fish, wildlife, or their habitat, in that while a portion of the property is vacant, it is not adjacent to sensitive habitat areas and mitigation will be incorporated to ensure any potential nesting birds are not harmed. 6. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems: The Project will not cause serious public health problems, as the environmental concerns have been reviewed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared for the subdivision project. 7 7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public at large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. There are no easements on the subject property and no off site easement will be affected by the proposed project. SECTION 4. Exception Findings The project proposes exceptions to the zoning standards for lot size, lot width and lot depth for the following and depicted on Tentative Map Golden Gate Homes:  Lot Size (less than 6,000 square feet): Lots 14 and 15;  Lot Width (less than 60 feet): Lot 8 and Lots 10 – 14; and  Lot Depth (less than 100 feet): Lots 1 -7 and Lots 14 – 16. 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. There are special circumstances in that the underlying R-2 and RM-15 zoning allows for a higher density project and the proposal is to voluntarily develop in accordance with R-1 standards in an effort to serve the community in which the project is located. The applicant proposes a project that is consistent in character with its surroundings. 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. The City of Palo Alto interprets this finding to describe the existence of a hardship in relation to other neighboring properties. The original intent of the applicant was to develop the property to be consistent with the R-2 and RM-15 zoning, which would have included at least 23 dwelling units. It was evident through the process that a compromised plan was needed to reduce opposition and receive support from the community. The proposed project at 16 dwelling units (current project) is below the full potential of the site by ten units and by developing the site with R-1 development standards it is in character with the surrounding R-1 properties. 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. 8 The division of these parcels into 16 separate parcels will not have adverse impacts to other properties in the vicinity. The Mayell fronting properties meet the width, however, do not meet the depth, so from Maybell, the character is similar to those across the street. The smaller lots are on the interior at the end of the private street and not visible from Clemo Avenue. Therefore, the visual impacts will not be significant. The additional dwelling units will add a small amount of traffic and as determined by the project’s Traffic Impact Analysis no intersections in the vicinity will fall below acceptable thresholds for level of service. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. The granting of the exception is consistent with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive plan as well as the spirit of the law. The subdivision of these parcels only serves to add further consistency to the existing lot pattern thus preserving the character of the neighborhood. The interior lot is zoned RM-15, however, it is not likely that the site will yield multi-family densities given the neighborhood opposition. The subdivision would allow the creation of 16 lots that are more consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code (“PAMC”) Section 18.12.040. SECTION 5. Preliminary Tentative Map Approval Granted. Preliminary Tentative Map approval is granted by the City Council under PAMC Sections 21.12 and 21.20 and the California Government Code Section 66474, subject to the conditions of approval in Section 7 of this Record. SECTION 6. Tentative Map Approval. The Final Map submitted for review and approval by the City Council shall be in substantial conformance with the Preliminary Tentative Map prepared by BKF Engineers “Tentative Map Golden Gate Homes”, consisting of eleven (11) pages, dated March 3, 2016 except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in Section 7. A copy of this plan is on file in the Department of Planning and Community Environment, Current Planning Division. Within two years of the approval date of the Preliminary Tentative Map, the subdivider shall cause the subdivision or any part thereof to be surveyed, and a Tentative Map, as specified in Chapter 21.08, to be prepared in conformance with the Preliminary Tentative Map as conditionally approved, and in compliance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and PAMC Section 21.16 and submitted to the City Engineer (PAMC Section 21.16.010[a]). 7 SECTION 7. Conditions of Approval. Department of Planning and Community Environment Planning Division 1. The applicant shall confirm the location all existing features of the site, including protected and non-protected trees, wells, structures, utilities, and easements to the satisfaction of Public Works, the Planning Division, and any other agency that would have an interest in those features. 2. The owner or designee prior to issuance of any building permit shall pay the applicable Development Impact fees. 3. Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement: The project is subject to the regulations within PAMC 18.14 (Below Market Rate Housing Program). Based on the project, 2.4 affordable housing units are required to be included in the project. Two of the units must be provided on-site unless the applicant demonstrates the on-site construction is infeasible. The fractional increment shall be paid through in lieu fees at the rate specified in the Municipal Fee Scheduled in affect at the time the fees are paid. Prior to final map recordation, the applicant shall enter into a Regulatory Agreement with the City setting forth their obligation to comply with this condition and PAMC Chapter 18.14. 4. The owner or designee prior to building permit issuance shall submit for review and approval a construction traffic plan and construction phasing plan for development to the City. 5. Applicant or a common-interest development organization is responsible for maintaining on-site utilities, street lighting, paths, roadways, and drainage features to the extent required by the city’s Public Works and Utilities Departments throughout the life of the project. Prior to building permit final, the applicant shall obtain city approval of CC&R’s or other documentation acceptable to the city describing, at minimum the structure of the common interest development organization maintenance responsibilities for the on-site utility mains and services. 6. The development impact fees for this project are estimated to be $1,067,232, 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. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, 8 or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90-day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. 7. The applicant is hereby notified, as required by Government Code § 66020, that the approved plans, these conditions of approval, and the adopted City fee schedule set forth in Program H3.1.2 of the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan constitute written notice of the description of the dedications, reservations, amount of fees and other exactions related to the project. As of the date of project approval, the 90 day period has begun in which the applicant may protest any dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions imposed by the City. Failure to file a protest in compliance with all of the requirements of Government Code § 66020 will result in a legal bar to challenging the dedications, reservations, fees or other exactions. 8. 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, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant’s expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. Building Division 9. The existing buildings within the project area shall be demolished prior to recording the map. A separate permit shall be required for the removal of the building. 10. New addresses will be assigned to each lot with the subdivision, following recordation of the subdivision map. The applicant shall file and “Address request Form” and pay the required fee, to the Palo Alto Development Center. Public Works Engineering Department PRIOR TO FINAL MAP APPROVAL 11. Subdivider shall prepare and submit documents per PAMC 21.16.020 along with the Parcel Map. 12. Subdivider shall provide closure calculations and cost estimate for the off-site improvements described above. 13. Subdivider shall revise the Map to include the 10-foot wide street dedication area Public Access Easement along Maybell Avenue. 14. A Subdivision Improvement Agreement is required to secure compliance with condition of approval and security of improvements onsite and offsite per PAMC Section 21.16.220. 15. The Final Map shall include CITY ENGINEER STATEMENT, CITY SURVEYOR STATEMENT, 9 BENEFICIARY STATEMENT, DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT STATEMENT and CITY CLERK. 16. The Subdivider shall provide the offer of dedication for the 10-foot strip of land designed for the purpose and use of a public street along Maybell Avenue. 17. City Surveyor and cost recovery. The City of Palo Alto does not currently have a City Surveyor we have retained the services of Siegfried Engineering to review and provide approval on behalf of the City. Siegfried will be reviewing, signing and stamping the Final Map associated with your project. In effort to employ the services of Siegfried Engineering, and as part of the City’s cost recovery measures, the subdivider or designee is required to provide payment to cover the cost of Siegfried Engineering’s review. The Final Map will be forwarded to Siegfried for an initial preliminary review of the documents. Siegfried will then provide a review cost amount based on the complexity of the project and the information shown on the document. We will share this information with the Subdivider once the City receives it and ask that the Subdivider return a copy acknowledging the amount. Subdivider may then provide a check for this amount as payment for the review cost. The City must receive payment prior to beginning the final review process. 18. Provide electronic copies of the documents provided. PRIOR TO FINAL MAP RECORDATION 19. Submit wet signed and stamped mylar copy of the Final Map to the Public Works for signature. Map shall be signed by Owner, Notary and Surveyor prior to formal submittal. 20. Signed Subdivision Improvement Agreement and Security Bonds as described per PAMC 21.16.230. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT OR GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT 21. Final Map shall be recorded with County Recorder. UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 22. Applicant shall grant easement to all electric equipment including transformers, switches, electric pull boxes and vaults, electric conduit. 23. All equipment shall be pad mounted, NO underground equipment is allowed. 24. All the weather head shall follow CPAU standard (lower than 18') 25. Applicant shall install, owned and maintain the streetlight system on the private street. These street lights shall be fed through a meter pedestal. 10 Utilities Water Gas Wastewater Department 26. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters to the existing building 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. 27. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas wastewater service connection application-load sheets for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands. 28. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing services a necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all cost associated with design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility services. 29. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 30. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. SECTION 8. Term of Approval. 1. Preliminary Tentative Map. All conditions of approval of the Preliminary Tentative Map shall be fulfilled prior to approval of a Parcel Map (PAMC Section 21.16.010[c]). Unless a Tentative Map is filed, and all conditions of approval are fulfilled within a two- year period from the date of Preliminary Tentative Map approval, or such extension as may be granted, the Preliminary Tentative Map shall expire and all proceedings shall terminate. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: APPROVED: City Clerk Director of Planning and Community Environment APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED: Those plans prepared by BKF Engineers titled “Tentative Map, Golden Gate Homes”, consisting of eleven page, dated March 3, 2016. Exhibit A Mitigation monitoring and Reporting Program The Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies the mitigation measures that will be implemented to reduce the impacts associated with the 567 Maybell Avenue Residential Project. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a public agency to adopt a monitoring and reporting program for assessing and ensuring compliance with any required mitigation measures applied to proposed development. As stated in section 21081.6(a)(1) of the Public Resources Code: ... the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes made to the project or conditions of project approval, adopted in order to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment. Section 21081.6 also provides general guidelines for implementing mitigation monitoring programs and indicates that specific reporting and/or monitoring requirements, to be enforced during project implementation, shall be defined as part of adopting a mitigated negative declaration. The mitigation monitoring table lists those mitigation measures that may be included as conditions of approval for the project. To ensure that the mitigation measures are properly implemented, a monitoring program has been devised which identifies the timing and responsibility for monitoring each measure. The project applicant will have the responsibility for implementing the measures, and the various City of Palo Alto departments will have the primary responsibility for monitoring and reporting the implementation of the mitigation measures. 3 567 Maybell Avenue Residential Project Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan Mitigation Measure Action Required When Monitoring to Occur Implementation Responsibility Monitoring Responsibility BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES BIO-1 Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special- status birds, activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal, ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre- construction nesting bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found, an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity, and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing, flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist. If construction work is planned during nesting season, verification of completed surveys will be required. Verification that prescribed mitigation measures are taken including adhering to time delays (due to nesting or breeding season) if species are observed. At least once before work commences . Periodically during initial ground disturbance and/or vegetation removal. Applicant City of Palo Alto 4 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 567 Maybell Avenue / File No. 15PLN-00270 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.12 (R-1 DISTRICT) per TITLE 18.13.040 (c) Regulation Required Existing Proposed1 Minimum/Maximu m Site Area, Width and Depth 6,000-9,999 sf area, 60 foot width, 100 foot depth 2.46 acres Min 6,000 sf except Lot 14: 5,000 sf Lot 15: 5,682 sf Width varies - Lots 8 and 10 – 13 are less than 60 ft. Depth varies - Lots 1-7 and 14-16 are less than 100 ft. Minimum/Contextu al Front Yard (2) 20 feet or the average setback (18.12.040(e)) 20 feet NA Rear Yard 20 feet 236 feet NA Interior Side Yard 6 feet 6 feet NA Street Side Yard 16 feet 16 feet Special Setback None NA NA Max. Building Height 30 feet or 33 feet for a roof pitch of 12;12 or greater Single-story NA Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle NA NA Rear Yard Daylight Plane 16 feet at rear setback line then 60 degree angle NA NA Max. Site Coverage 35% with an additional 5% for covered patio/ overhangs (20,839 sf + 5%) 35% (36,354 sf) max potential Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 45% for first 5,000 sf lot size and 30% for lot size in excess of 5,000 sf (18,612.3 sf) 45% (46,848 sf) max potential Max. House Size 6,000 sf NA Residential Density One unit, except as provided in 18.12.070 Four NA 1. The project is a subdivision and does not include architectural detail for evaluation. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.12.060 for Single-Family Type Required Existing Proposed1 Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which one must be covered 8 spaces NA 1. Project is a subdivision and does not include detailed architectural plan for evaluation. Petitioning City of Palo Alto Planning Commission and 6 others SUPPORT REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON MAYBELL/CLEMO IN PALO ALTO (Measure D Follow-Up) Elaine D Palo Alto, CA Change.org ATTACHMENT D WE SUPPORT A REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE MAYBELL/CLEMO PROPERTY IN PALO ALTO. In November 2013, our neighborhood sent a clear signal about reasonable development on the Maybell/Clemo property by defeating Measure D. The passage of Measure D would have given a developer permission to build a 60 high-density apartment complex in addition to 15 single-family homes for a total of 75 housing units at 567-595 Maybell Avenue (later reduced to 12 homes for 72 total housing units). Maybell is a city-designed "Bicycle Boulevard" with higher protections and a school district-supported "Safe Route to School" - but neighbors here daily witness "near-miss" accidents as hundreds of children and teenagers on bikes share space on Maybell, a narrow road with high volumes of automobile and commercial traffic as people rush to get to school and work in the mornings. The residents of Palo Alto were gravely concerned about irresponsible high- density development in a small neighborhood that already encompasses several schools and after-school care programs: Juana Briones Elementary, Juana Briones Orthopedically Handicapped Center, Barron Park Elementary, Terman Middle School, Gunn High School, Barron Park Child-Care Center, Juana Briones Kids Club, in addition to two preschools and a K-8 private school. After countless hours of hearings and meetings, the City did not listen to community concerns, compelling a city-wide referendum vote - the result of which was a resounding NO on the proposed high-density development in 2013. Now it's time for the community to take action again. The current owner and developer of the property, Golden Gate Homes (GGH), originally proposed building 30 homes on the property. However, after working collaboratively with neighborhood residents through community outreach and meetings, GGH has ultimately decided to reduce housing density to 16 single family homes. This is a significant accommodation, and represents close to an 80% density reduction from 72 housing units if Measure D had passed to a REASONABLE & RESPONSIBLE 16 homes for a school-dense area filled with families. GGH has also proposed plans to ensure that each home complies with R-1 parking code requirements with driveways for additional parking, in order to curb any overflow parking on adjacent streets, retention of existing heritage Oak trees on Clemo, R- 1 lot sizes, and an installation of a sidewalk on the Maybell property line to improve pedestrian safety. I SUPPORT GGH'S 16-HOME CIRCULATION PLAN FOR THE MAYBELL/CLEMO PROPERTY (567-595 Maybell Avenue) WHICH EASES TRAFFIC AND SAFETY CONCERNS FOR OUR SCHOOL-AND-FAMILY-POPULATED NEIGHBORHOOD. I DO NOT SUPPORT A CHANGE IN CIRCULATION WHICH WOULD RESULT IN HIGHER-DENSITY HOUSING AND CONSEQUENT NEGATIVE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY IMPACTS. *This petition is NOT an endorsement or representation of the quality of GGH's developments, ONLY for the proposed lower- density plan which GGH created in collaboration and cooperation with neighboring residents. **There will be a Community Meeting on Thursday, April 14 at 6:30pm at Gunn High School Library to discuss the Maybell-Clemo project among neighborhood residents, the developer, and the City of Palo Alto. You can also show your SUPPORT by attending this meeting. Page 1 of 4 Golden Gate Homes LLC 2225 East Bayshore Rd, Suite 200 Palo Alto 94303 Tel: (650) 735-2777 Email: info@goldengatehomes.us Original: January 19, 2016 Updated: February 2, 2016 Updated: March 4, 2016 City of Palo Alto Planning Manager & Staff Department of Planning and Community Environment 250 Hamilton Street, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Tel: (650) 329-2441 Re: 567-595 Maybell Avenue, Palo Alto File# 15PLN-00248 To: Planning Staff and Planning & Transportation Commission: Relative to the Tentative Map submitted to the City on December 22, 2015 by Golden Gate Homes, we provide this letter to formally request Conditional Exceptions per Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 21.32. As you know, the Municipal Code allows for exceptions where the approval of such exceptions would secure substantially the objectives of the regulations and protect the general welfare of the community. With the community in support of the Tentative Map as submitted, to create project that substantially complies with the R-1 single family zoning regulations, Golden Gate Homes believes that the findings can be made to support and approve the requested conditional exceptions. Since acquiring the property in April 2014, Golden Gate Homes (GGH) has in good faith undertaken and performed the following: Comprehensively studied all aspects of land use, zoning, neighborhood and circulation alternatives for the site. Participated in or hosted numerous meetings with City Staff and the neighborhood constituencies to further an in-depth understanding of site characteristics and the community. Attachement E Page 2 of 4  Submitted a Preliminary Architectural Review Board (ARB) Application in September 2014 for 30 total dwelling units, consisting of 5 detached single-family units, 9 detached single-family units on small lots and 16 attached duet units. The 5 detached single-family units generally followed R-1 guidelines while the majority of the site used Village Residential guidelines in the RM-15 zone. The site plan offered access points from both Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue. Given lack of neighborhood support, the application was subsequently withdrawn in January 2015.  After spending additional time and resources working to reduce the density and respond to neighborhood comments, in June 2015 GGH submitted Applications for Major ARB and Major Subdivision (Tentative Map) for 23 total dwelling units (7 fewer than the first application), consisting of 5 detached single-family units and 18 detached single-family units on small lots. The 5 detached single-family units generally followed R-1 guidelines while the majority of the site used Village Residential guidelines in the RM-15 zone. The site plan offered a vehicular access point from Clemo Avenue and a pedestrian and bicycle easement onto Maybell Avenue. Despite generally complying with the underlying zoning for the site, the neighborhood feedback was that this proposal was still too dense.  Golden Gate Homes again seriously considered the neighborhood comments and worked to reduce the density, this time well below the allowable density. In December 2015 GGH submitted an updated Tentative Map Application to the City seeking to subdivide 16 lots for detached single-family units that substantially follow R-1 design guidelines. This plan includes 7 fewer units than the June 2015 plan and 14 fewer than the original proposal. The updated plan provides a single access point for 11 units from Clemo Avenue with no pedestrian or bicycle easement directly onto Maybell Avenue. Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning (neighborhood group) submitted a letter on January 7, 2016 indicating support for this plan. The current zoning of R-2 along Maybell and RM-15 on the interior of the site along Clemo Avenue allow a more dense project with smaller lots, but the current proposal seeks to generally follow the R-1 standards. There are two (2) Conditional Exceptions related to R- 1 standards that GGH respectfully requests City Staff, Planning & Transportation Commission and City Council approve: 1. Lot Dimensions. The proposed site complies with R-1 and R-2 standards with a minimum of 6,000 square foot lots; however, the lot dimensions are not a minimum of 60 feet by 100 feet for both zoning classifications. GGH requests that the dimensions as proposed in the Tentative Map be allowed. The dimensions of these lots will not be detrimental to the public welfare. In fact, by creating a project with R-1 sized lots, even ones whose dimensions do not exactly comply with R-1 standards, the community will be benefitted as this is a project the community supports with the look and feel of a single-family development. All other aspects of R-1 will be adhered to, most importantly appropriate setbacks. Page 3 of 4 2. Lot Size. Two of the proposed lots are not the minimum R-1 or R-2 standard size of 6,000 square feet. Lot 14 (which is in the RM-15 zoned property), as identified on the Tentative Map, is 5,000 square feet. Lot 15 is 5,682 square feet. GGH requests these lots be allowed as it does not change the goal of creating a less dense R-1 project on a site where the zoning allows greater density. Sub-6,000 square foot lots of this type exist throughout Palo Alto, and contextually in the corridor between Arastradero and Maybell Avenue where the site is located. These lots would also adhere to required setbacks as all others. By granting the requested Exceptions, it is GGH's opinion that, per code 21.32:  “Approval will secure substantially the objectives of the regulations or requirements to which the exceptions are requested”. In subdividing the site into 16 lots, the exceptions will secure a proposed plan that follows substantially the R-1 regulations, i.e. setbacks, building heights, parking, open space, site coverage, etc. The dimensions of the lots will not undermine the objective of the R-1 regulations, nor will the approval of two lots at a smaller lot size.  “Shall protect the public health, safety, convenience, and the general welfare and shall be consistent with and implement the policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan”. Please reference the letter of support from Palo Altans for Sensible Zoning (PASZ) regarding general welfare and commentary. Regarding the comprehensive plan, there are guidelines provided for maintaining scale and character of the City (Policy L-5) and promoting compatibility (Policy L-6) where the neighborhood is predominantly R-1 in character. GGH believes that these small exceptions protect the public and achieve the objective of creating a single family development on this site. Specifically, GGH believes that the City can make those findings identified in Municipal Code Section 21.32.020 and PAMC 21.12.050(j) as follows: 1. There are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property. This site is unique as it possesses a political condition where an approved (and far more dense, 75 unit) site plan by a previous owner was defeated through a public referendum. There are special circumstances in that the underlying R-2 and RM-15 zoning allows for a higher density project and the proposal is to voluntarily develop in accordance with R-1 standards in an effort to serve the community in which the project is located. Additionally, with the current support of the neighborhood, GGH believes the City can make the finding that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the property that support granting the exceptions. 2. The exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the petitioner. GGH acquired this property with the full intent to develop for residential uses as zoning would allow (R-2 and RM-15). A considerable amount of time and expense has been taken to arrive at a compromised site plan that GGH, the City and the neighborhood can all agree to move forward. This compromised plan is substantially reduced from allowable Page 4 of 4 development density under the zoning. Approval of the exception would preserve the property right of GGH to develop this property. 3. The granting of the exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in the territory in which the property is situated. Again, referencing the letter of support from a key public and neighborhood constituency, PASZ. 4. The granting of the exception will not violate the requirements, goals, policies, or spirit of the law. Aside from lot dimensions and two slightly smaller lot sizes, all other aspects of the code shall be followed related to R-1 standards and substantially are represented in the Tentative Map. The goal and the spirit of an R- 1 project will be captured with this proposal. We appreciate City’s prompt review and consideration of the requested Conditional Exceptions to the Tentative Map. We respectfully request that City Staff:  Schedule the application for Planning & Transportation Committee (PTC) calendar.  Subject to and subsequent of PTC, schedule to City Council calendar. This project has been in process for a long time and much of that time has been spent working with the various stakeholders to create a winning project. As it now appears this project has broad support, GGH hopes that the City can favorably expedite review of this project. We look forward to continuing to work with the Planning Staff on the review of this application. Please contact us with any questions or further information we may furnish. Best Regards, Yurong Han Manager, Golden Gate Homes LLC Attachment F  Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration  This document is available for viewing online at:   http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3186&Target=319 Hard copies of IS/MND is available at City Hall, 5th Floor, Planning and Community Environment  Department.   Suggested Routes Briones Elementary School WALKAND ROLLTO SCHOOL Drive Safely Wear your helmet and buckle it every time. It’s the law. To best protect your brain, your helmet must fi t properly: snug and level on your head, just above your eyebrows. Be predictable. Obey ALL stop signs and traffi c signals. Never ride the wrong way. The best way to avoid bike crashes as well as traffi c tickets is to follow the same rules of the road as apply to car drivers. Be alert. Watch out for drivers turning left or right, or cars coming out of driveways. Avoid car doors opening in front of you by riding out of the door zone. Yield to pedestrians. Be alert. Look for cars coming from all directions before entering the street - including behind you. Cross at corners and crosswalks. This is where drivers expect pedestrians. Don’t assume drivers see you. Make eye contact before crossing intersections. City of Palo Alto Safe Routes to School www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes saferoutes@cityofpaloalto.org 650.329.2156 Bike Safely Walk or Skate Safely BIKE LANE check all directions Slow down and use extra caution in school zones and along commute routes! Signal your turns and yield to pedestrians. Help reduce traffi c congestion near Briones and neighboring schools by carpooling with a neighbor and avoiding the last minute rush whenever possible. Obey adult crossing guards and “No Right Turn on Red” signs posted at designated school intersections. This allows students to cross safely without cars turning through crosswalks. Don’t make U-turns and other unsafe maneuvers that put other road users at risk. When dropping off or picking up your student, follow school guidelines and always ensure that he/she exits or enters the car from the curb side. Never double park, block access ramps or stop where prohibited. Avoid texting, phone calls and other distractions when driving. We welcome volunteers to help with Safe Routes to School events and programs at this school! Contact your PTA or email saferoutes@cityofpaloalto.org. New Street Marking! Cyclists should ride down the center of this “sharrow” symbol to stay outside the “door zone” on streets without bike lanes. Sharrows also remind drivers to watch for cyclists. Parents: Help your student learn how to share the road safely with other users. Children who regularly practice safe walking and biking skills are more likely to make safer choices as teenagers. Obey adult crossing guards. They are there to help everyone cross congested intersections safely. Attachment G 7 (2) 6 (2) 17 (6) 19 (6) 7 (2) 9 (3) 8 (3) 17 (6) I Or m e Los R o b l e s A v e n u e Enc i n a G r a n d e Cle m o Ge o r g i a A v e n u e L o s P a l o s A v e n u e Wi l k i e W a y Pa r k B o u l e v a r d Cha r l e s t o n Roa d Edl e e A v e n u e A m a r a n t a Do n a l d Dri v e Co u l o m b e May b e l l A v e n u e Ara s t r a d e r o Roa d Jam e s R d Ca m p a n a Bak e r Geo r g i a Po m o n a A v e n u e Ricke y s Lane Deod a r Stree t F o o t h i l l E x p r e s s w a y B o l P a r k P a t h El C a m i n o R e a l Al m a S t r e e t Los Altos-Pal o A l t o Bike Path Mi r a n d a A v e n u e Arroy o Cour t Par a d i s e W a y La D o n n a W. M e a d o w D r i v e 1 /2 M i l e 1/4 Mile Briones Elementary School Terman Middle School Gunn High School Barron Park Elementary School Monroe Park Monroe Park Robles Park Briones Park Terman Park 01/41/8 Miles BrionesElementary School WALK AND ROLL TO SCHOOL SUGGESTED ROUTES Pedestrian-Only Access Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Bicycle Parking Multi-use Path & Attendance Area Traffic Signal Parks and Open Space Est. Walking Time (Biking Time) XX (X) Marked Crosswalk Crossing Guard Location Suggested Route (Walking and Biking) School All-Way Stop& Suggested Route (Walking Only)Pedestrian Beacon Vehicle BarrierI The Palo Alto Safe Routes to School Partnership encourages parents and students to use this map to explore options for commuting between home and school. Parents are responsible for choosing the most appropriate option based on their knowledge of conditions on the diff erent routes and the experience level of their student. For more Safe Routes to School information, please visit: www.cityofpaloalto.org/saferoutes Briones Elementary School Briones Elementary School Am a r a n t a A v e n u e Geo r g i a Ave n u e Or m e S t r e e t May b e l l A v e n u e Co u l o m b e Dri v e Inset See Inset Attachment H Attachment I  Architectural Drawings  Hard copies of the architectural drawings were provided to the Council and are available for  viewing at City Hall, 5th Floor, Planning and Community Environment Department.  The plans may also be viewed at the following website:   Architectural Concept Plans: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=51792 Tentative Map Plans: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=51764