HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4007
CITY OF PALO ALTO OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
August 8, 2013
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
Transmittal of Certificate of Sufficiency of Signatures on Referendums
on Resolution No. 9348 Amending Land Use Map of Comprehensive
Plan and PC Ordinance 5200 Establishing Overlay Zone to Permit
Development of 12 Market Rate Single Family Homes and 60
Affordable Multi-Family Senior Homes, and Council Reconsideration
to Repeal Same or to Call Special Election for November 5, 2013 to
Place Referendums on Ballot
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On June 17, the City Council: (1) adopted on first reading a Planned Community (PC) Ordinance
to change the classification of the property at 567-595 Maybell Avenue from R-2 Low Density
Residential and RM-15 Multiple Family Residential to PC Planned Community Zone overlay to
permit 12 single family units and a 60 unit multifamily affordable rental development for
seniors (the PC Ordinance); (2) approved a Mitigated Negative Declaration and (3) adopted a
Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map to reflect the development of
single family homes along Clemo Avenue. On June 28, the City Council finally adopted on
second reading the PC Ordinance.
On July 17 and 28, referendum petitions concerning the Resolution and the PC Ordinance,
respectively, were received by the City Clerk. On August 1, the City Clerk certified the
sufficiency of the signatures on both referendums. (Attachment A.) Under Article VI of the Palo
Alto Charter if a referendum receives the required signatures, the Council is required to
reconsider the action and may elect: (1) to repeal the legislative action or (2) place the matter
on the ballot for a vote by the electors at the next general municipal election or at a special
election.
BACKGROUND
In 2012 Palo Alto Housing Corporation (PAHC) requested a Comprehensive Plan amendment
and rezoning of the 2.46 acre site known as 567-595 Maybell to Planned Community (PC) to
allow increased density and smaller lot sizes than the underlying zone districts. PAHC’s initial
application planned to demolish four existing homes on Maybell and develop 15 market rate
single-family homes and 60 affordable senior (62+ years old) rental multifamily units. The
affordable senior units would be rented to seniors earning between 30%-60% of Area Median
Income (AMI). The project would be designed to meet or exceed the City’s green point rating
system. PAHC planned 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
Page 2
(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 both R-2 and (primarily) RM-15 zoning. The Resolution amending the
Comprehensive Plan was proposed to align the land use map, which currently has a Multi-
family Residential Comprehensive Plan land use designation, with the project’s proposal to
construct single family homes along Clemo. The Comprehensive Plan amendment would
change the multifamily land use to single-family land use to reflect the proposed project. The
PC Ordinance would rezone the two residentially zoned parcels to form a single residential PC
zoned site.
On June 17, 2013 the City Council approved the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration,
adopted the Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation from Multi
Family Residential to Single Family Residential and conducted a first reading of an amended PC
Ordinance. The amended PC Ordinance allowed for the construction of 60 affordable senior
units, but reduced the number of permitted single-family homes from 15 to 12 and
incorporated the following additional conditions of approval in response to neighborhood
concerns:
1. Reduce the number of homes on Maybell Avenue from 9 units to 7 units with a maximum of
two stories, increase the front yard setback to an average of 20 feet with a minimum 18 foot
front yard setback and require an average 10 ft. separation between homes.
2. Reduce the number of homes on Clemo Avenue from 6 units to 5 units with a maximum
height of 32.5 feet to accommodate three stories.
3. Improve the street facing elevations of all single family units by varying the setbacks and
architectural styles, refine design features, rooflines and landscaping.
4. The Planned Community zone will be as an overlay to the existing zoning giving the
owner the option of developing under the existing zoning or the approved PC zoning.
5. Share the landscaping and maintenance staff with the adjacent PAHC owned
Arastradero Park Apartments and the coordinate and share usage of a residential van.
6. Require an accelerated payment schedule of $200,000 for Maybell Avenue payments.
7. Eliminate the two proposed electric vehicle charging stations and with the equivalent
funding, and direct staff to work with the community to find an alternative location in the
neighborhood.
Page 3
On June 28, the Council conducted a second reading of the PC Ordinance and finally adopted
the Ordinance.
Following the vote, opponents of the project circulated two referendums: one referendum to
repeal the Resolution amending the Comprehensive Plan and the second to repeal the PC
Ordinance. Under Article VI, Section 3 of the City Charter, a referendum petition must be
signed by qualified and registered electors equal in number to six percent of the number of
registered voters at the last general municipal election. The number of registered voters at the
November 6, 2012 general municipal election was 38,313. Thus 2,298 valid signatures are
required to qualify a referendum.
On August 1, 2013, the City Clerk certified that both measures qualified for the ballot. The
Comprehensive Plan Referendum received 2,992 signatures and the PC Ordinance Referendum
received 3,550 signatures.
A copy of the Certificate of Sufficiency of the two Referendum Petitions is attached as
Attachment A.
On July 31, 2013, the City was served with a lawsuit initiated by the Coalition for Safe and
Sensible Zoning. The lawsuit alleged that the City had not fully complied with the California
Environmental Quality Act before approving the project.
DISCUSSION
The City’s Charter and State Elections law provides that any legislative action of the City Council
is subject to a referendum. Amendments to Comprehensive Plans and PC Zoning Ordinances
are legislative actions subject to referendum.
The rules governing referendums are contained in City Charter Article VI and State law. Upon
receipt of a timely referendum petition, the Resolution and Ordinance approving the Maybell
project are suspended and inoperative. The City Clerk is required to promptly submit the
referendums to the Council and the Council must reconsider the action. The Council must
either repeal the actions or place the measures on the ballot. If the Council chooses to proceed
with an election, the Council must submit the measures to the voters at the next general
municipal election or at a special election which shall be held “not less than eighty-eight days
from the date of the clerk’s certificate of sufficiency.” If a majority of the voters ratify the
ordinance and resolution they become effective. If a majority of the voters vote against the
ordinance and resolution, the council may not adopt a “substantially similar ordinance for a
period of at least one year from the date of the election.”
As an alternative to putting both referendums on the ballot, the Council may also elect to
rescind one or both actions. If the Council rescinds the actions, it cannot adopt a similar
resolution or ordinance for a period of one year.
Page 4
RESOURCE IMPACT
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS FOR ELECTIONS WITH COSTS FROM REGISTRAR OF VOTERS (ROV)
AND INCLUDING CITY CLERK LEGAL NOTICING COSTS INCLUDING TRANSLATIONS IN
REQUIRED LANGUAGES FOR TWO MEASURES ON MAYBELL
ELECTION DATE/TYPE ROV COSTS CITY CLERK COSTS TOTAL COSTS
11/05/13 SPECIAL $584,400 $ 50,000 $634,400
06/03/14 PRIMARY $354.800 $ 50,000 $404,800
11/04/14 GME $303,100 $ 50,000 $353,100
STAND ALONE ALL
MAIL BALLOT *
$505,800 $ 50,000 $555,800
*Stand Alone All Mail Ballots per Election Code 1500 established election dates:
The first Tuesday after the first Monday in May of each year.
The first Tuesday after the first Monday in March of each even-numbered year.
The last Tuesday in August of each year.
ELECTION SCHEDULE
The nearest upcoming election is a Special Election scheduled for November 5, 2013. The key
dates for that election are:
August 8, 2013 Council determines election date and passes resolution calling election
August 9, 2013 Last date to forward to the Board of Supervisors the resolution to
consolidate for the November 5, 2013 Election
August 16, 2013 Due Date for Direct Arguments
August 23, 2013 Due Date for Rebuttal Arguments and Impartial Analysis
RECOMMENDATION
Referendum on PC Ordinance
The Council has two options. First, the Council could call an election and put the PC Ordinance
on the ballot. Staff has prepared a resolution calling an election. (Attachment C.) The matter
could be placed on either the November 2013, the June 2014, or November 2014 ballots. The
City has had only one referendum election (800 High housing development) in recent history.
That referendum qualified in March 2003 and was placed on the next feasible election which
was November 2003. The November 2003 election was a General Municipal Election (GME).
Note that the Charter was subsequently amended to change the GME date from odd years to
even years.
Second, the Council may repeal the PC Ordinance. Unless PAHC voluntarily requests that the
entitlements be rescinded, the Council would have to make one of the legal findings under the
Housing Accountability Act before repealing the Ordinance. If Council elects to pursue this
Page 5
option, staff recommends that the Council continue this item with direction to staff to develop
potential findings under the Housing Accountability Act and/or analyze alternatives to meet
Council’s policy goals.
Referendum on Comprehensive Plan Amendment
The Council has the same two options with respect to the referendum on the Resolution: put
the item on the ballot or repeal the Resolution. Staff notes that repealing the Resolution
amending the Comprehensive Plan would not impair the project’s ability to move forward. The
Comprehensive Plan Resolution changed the land use designation on the portion of the lot
fronting Clemo Avenue from “Multi-Family Residential” to “Single Family” in order to align the
Comprehensive Plan designation with the single family home component of the project. In the
past, the City has not required developers to build the maximum density permitted under the
Comprehensive Plan and has found less dense development to be consistent with a higher
density Comprehensive Plan designation. (Recent examples of this are 644-48 Forest, 649-653
Homer Avenue and the Wisteria Lane developments. These projects involved density less than
the density outlined in the Comprehensive Plan.) As single family dwellings can be constructed
on parcels designated on the land use map as multi-family, the amendment is not legally
necessary. Therefore, staff recommends that the Council repeal the Resolution amending the
land use map in order to save election costs. A resolution repealing the June 17th Resolution
amending the Comprehensive Plan is attached as Attachment D. Alternatively, if Council elects
to have a vote on the Comprehensive Plan Resolution, staff has also included a Resolution
calling an election on the Comprehensive Plan Resolution. (Attachment B.)
BALLOT ARGUMENTS
The Council may, by separate motion, authorize individual Council members to sign ballot
arguments for or against the measures using their official titles.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Placement of a referendum on the ballot is not a project for the purposes of the California
Environnmental Quality Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Certificates of Sufficiency (PDF)
Attachment B: Resolution Special Election on Referendum Repealing Comp Plan
Amendment (PDF)
Attachment C: Resolution Special Election on Referendum Repealing PC Ordinance (PDF)
Attachment D: Resolution Repealing Comp Plan Amendment (PDF)
Attachment E: Public Correspondence (PDF)
Attachment F: Maybell Avenue Public Letters to Council (PDF)
Department Head: Donna Grider, City Clerk
Page 6
NOT YET APPROVED
1
0131120 RESO Special Election on Referendum Repealing Comp Plan Amendment
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for
November 5, 2013 on the Referendum to Repeal the City Council’s Resolution
Adopting an Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by
Changing the Land Use Designation for 567-595 Maybell Avenue from Multi-
family Residential to Single Family Residential
R E C I T A L S
A. A referendum petition to Repeal the City Council’s Resolution Adopting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation
for 567-595 Maybell Avenue from Multi-family Residential to Single Family Residential has been
submitted to the City in accordance with the requirements of Article VI of the Charter of the
City of Palo Alto.
B. On August 1, 2013, the City Clerk certified the sufficiency of the signatures on
the Referendum.
C. On August 8, 2013, the City Council accepted the Certificate of Sufficiency of the
Referendum Ballot and directed staff to return with a resolution putting the measure on the
November 2013 ballot.
D. Elections are scheduled to be held on November 5, 2013, in certain school
districts and certain special districts in Santa Clara County; and
E. Under Part 3 of Division 10 of the Elections Code, commencing at Section
10400, and Education Code Section 5342, elections called by various governing bodies may be
partially or completely consolidated.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Special Election. A special municipal election is called for the City of
Palo Alto to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, under Charter Article VI for the purpose of
submitting the following question to the voters at the election:
CITY OF PALO ALTO REFERENDUM MEASURE ________:
Shall the City Council’s Resolution Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 567-595 Maybell Avenue from
Multi-family Residential to Single Family Residential be adopted?
For the Resolution ____
Against the Resolution ____
NOT YET APPROVED
2
0131120 RESO Special Election on Referendum Repealing Comp Plan Amendment
SECTION 2. Adoption of Measure. The measure to be submitted to the voters is
attached to this Resolution as Exhibit “A” and incorporated by this reference. If a majority of
qualified electors voting on such measure shall vote in favor of City of Palo Alto Referendum
Measure “___”, it shall be deemed ratified and shall read as provided in Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 3. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the
election is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further
or additional notice of the election in time, form, and manner as required by law.
SECTION 4. Impartial Analysis. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to
transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an
impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the
measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial
analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 23, 2013.
SECTION 5. Ballot Arguments. Arguments in favor of or against the measure shall
be submitted to the City Clerk on or before August 16, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. under Elections Code
section 9286 et seq. If the City Clerk receives more than one argument for and/or against, the
priorities established by Elections Code section 9287 shall control.
SECTION 6. Rebuttal Arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be controlled by the
provisions of Elections Code section 9285. The deadline for filing rebuttal arguments shall be
August 23, 2013, at 5:00 p.m.
SECTION 7. Duties of City Clerk. The Palo Alto City Clerk shall do all things
required by law to effectuate the November 5, 2013, general municipal election, including but
not limited to causing the posting, publication and printing of all notices or other election
materials under the requirements of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the California
Elections and Government Codes.
SECTION 8. Request and Consent to Consolidate. The Council of the City of Palo
Alto requests the governing body of any other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise
authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and the City Council
consents to such consolidation. The Council requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara
County to include on the ballots and sample ballots, all qualified measures submitted by the
City Council to be ratified by the qualified electors of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 9. Request for County Services. Under Section 10002 of the California
Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa
Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto relating
to the conduct of Palo Alto’s General Municipal and Special Elections which are called to be
held on Tuesday, November 5, 2013. The services shall be of the type normally performed by
the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections
including but not limited to checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and
arranging for polling places, receiving absentee voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving
NOT YET APPROVED
3
0131120 RESO Special Election on Referendum Repealing Comp Plan Amendment
absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election
supplies, and furnishing voting machines.
SECTION 10. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk shall submit a certified copy
of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara.
SECTION 11. CEQA. Referendum measures are exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ _____
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Resolution No. 9348
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
RECITALS
A. 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.
B. 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 RESOLVES 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.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
1
010618 jb 0131101
SECTION 3. The Council finds that the adoption of this resolution will have no
significant adverse environmental impact.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED: June 17, 2013
AYES: BERMAN, BURT, HOLMAN, KLEIN, KNISS, PRICE, SCHARFF, SCHMID, SHEPHERD
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
~.Ikk
City Clerk 9: ·
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
010618 jb 0131101
2
APPROVED: ';4~Jt/2
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Legend
Major Institution/Special Facility
Multi-Family Res
__ Public Park
Single Family Res
_ Proposed Single Family Residential Designation
.a.mlllll" •• •
a .. as •• 6 PrOject Site -Lot Lines
. twongp2013-05M1513:57:50
(\\cc-maps\gis$\gis\admin\PersonaIUwong.mdb)
$$.>
"6 ..
$$8
~
"6"
~ /
ATTACHMENT C
/
~ -:-
"y/
~ ~
'" \ -I
G)
The City of
Palo Alto
"S Q)
Q) -.§ S .~ s::
Q) "S S ~ ~<
...... Q) 0.. '" s:: -<.-<;::: t1:$ '0 Q) 0 ~I/.)~ Q)t.:li:: ..... '" ~ ~1) 0 >-61 ~ Q) ~ 8':::: ·SJ-4 1-1 ~.~ ~,t<~~8
tr) ib§
r-s:: ...... 10 ..... ~
tr) I/.) 0..
E 0 u
This map is a product ofthe
City of Palo Alto GIS
~ --o· 150'
This document Is a graphic representation only of best available sources.
The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any ertOf..$.@1989to2013CltyofPaloAlto
-< ... ...
E-I H
t:t:l H ::c t>< IJ,:I
NOT YET APPROVED
1
0131121 RESO Calling Special Election on Referendum Repealing PC Ordinance
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Calling a Special Election for
November 5, 2013 on the Referendum on the Ordinance to Rezone the
Property Located at 567–595 Maybell Avenue from R-2 Low Density Residential
and RM-15 Multiple Family Residential to PC Planned Community Overlay to
Permit a 12 Single Family Unit and a 60 Unit Multifamily Affordable Rental
Development for Seniors
R E C I T A L S
A. A referendum petition to repeal Ordinance 5200 to rezone the property located
at 567–595 Maybell Avenue from R-2 Low Density Residential and RM-15 Multiple Family
Residential to PC Planned Community Overlay to permit a 12 single family unit and a 60 unit
multifamily affordable rental development for seniors has been submitted to the City in
accordance with the requirements of Article VI of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto.
B. On August 1, 2013, the City Clerk certified the sufficiency of the signatures on
the Referendum.
C. On August 8, 2013, the City Council accepted the Certificate of Sufficiency of the
Referendum Ballot and directed staff to return with a resolution putting the measure on the
November 2013 ballot.
D. Elections are scheduled to be held on November 5, 2013, in certain school
districts and certain special districts in Santa Clara County; and
E. Under Part 3 of Division 10 of the Elections Code, commencing at Section
10400, and Education Code Section 5342, elections called by various governing bodies may be
partially or completely consolidated.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Special Election. A special municipal election is called for the City of
Palo Alto to be held on Tuesday, November 5, 2013, under Charter Article VI for the purpose of
submitting the following question to the voters at the election:
CITY OF PALO ALTO REFERENDUM MEASURE ________:
Shall the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended to rezone the property located
at 567–595 Maybell Avenue from R-2 Low Density Residential and RM-15
Multiple Family Residential to Planned Community Overlay Zone to include 12
single family units and 60 units of affordable senior housing?
For the Ordinance ____
Against the Ordinance ____
NOT YET APPROVED
2
0131121 RESO Calling Special Election on Referendum Repealing PC Ordinance
SECTION 2. Adoption of Measure. As the entire ordinance exceeds 50 pages, a
summary of the measure to be submitted to the voters is attached to this Resolution as Exhibit
“A” and incorporated by this reference. The entire ordinance is available on file in the City
Clerk’s office. If a majority of qualified electors voting on such measure shall vote in favor of
City of Palo Alto Initiative Measure “___”, it shall be deemed ratified and shall read as provided
in Exhibit “A”.
SECTION 3. Notice of Election. Notice of the time and place of holding the
election is hereby given, and the City Clerk is authorized, instructed and directed to give further
or additional notice of the election in time, form, and manner as required by law.
SECTION 4. Impartial Analysis. The City Council hereby directs the City Clerk to
transmit a copy of the measure to the City Attorney. The City Attorney shall prepare an
impartial analysis of the measure, not to exceed 500 words in length, showing the effect of the
measure on the existing law and the operation of the measure, and transmit such impartial
analysis to the City Clerk on or before August 23, 2013.
SECTION 5. Ballot Arguments. Arguments in favor of or against the measure shall
be submitted to the City Clerk on or before August 16, 2013 at 5:00 p.m. under Elections Code
section 9286 et seq. If the City Clerk receives more than one argument for and/or against, the
priorities established by Elections Code section 9287 shall control.
SECTION 6. Rebuttal Arguments. Rebuttal arguments shall be controlled by the
provisions of Elections Code section 9285. The deadline for filing rebuttal arguments shall be
August 23, 2013, at 5:00 p.m.
SECTION 7. Duties of City Clerk. The Palo Alto City Clerk shall do all things
required by law to effectuate the November 5, 2013, general municipal election, including but
not limited to causing the posting, publication and printing of all notices or other election
materials under the requirements of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto and the California
Elections and Government Codes.
SECTION 8. Request and Consent to Consolidate. The Council of the City of Palo
Alto requests the governing body of any other political subdivision, or any officers otherwise
authorized by law, to partially or completely consolidate such elections and the City Council
consents to such consolidation. The Council requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa Clara
County to include on the ballots and sample ballots, all qualified measures submitted by the
City Council to be ratified by the qualified electors of the City of Palo Alto.
SECTION 9. Request for County Services. Under Section 10002 of the California
Elections Code, the Council of the City of Palo Alto requests the Board of Supervisors of Santa
Clara County to permit the Registrar of Voters to render services to the City of Palo Alto relating
to the conduct of Palo Alto’s General Municipal and Special Elections which are called to be
held on Tuesday, November 5, 2013. The services shall be of the type normally performed by
NOT YET APPROVED
3
0131121 RESO Calling Special Election on Referendum Repealing PC Ordinance
the Registrar of Voters in assisting the clerks of municipalities in the conduct of elections
including but not limited to checking registrations, mailing ballots, hiring election officers and
arranging for polling places, receiving absentee voter ballot applications, mailing and receiving
absent voter ballots and opening and counting same, providing and distributing election
supplies, and furnishing voting machines.
SECTION 10. Transmittal of Resolution. The City Clerk shall submit a certified copy
of this resolution to the Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Clara.
SECTION 11. CEQA. Referendum measures are exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ _____
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Ordinance No. 5200
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending Section
18.08.040 ofthe 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. 5200 for a 12 single family units and a
60 unit multifamily affordable rental development for seniors overlay
The Council ofthe Ci~y 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") and depicted on Exhibit A 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. 5200.
(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 1, 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 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 two duly noticed public hearings held on June
10 and June 17, 2013, after due consideration ofthe proposed Project, the analysis ofthe City
Staff,the public testimony 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. The proposed Planned Community zone
130605 jb 0131104 1
district at 567 Maybell is necessary to insure the feasibility and long term preservation of the
affordable housing land use. The underlying zoning provides the ability to develop specific land
uses for the property, but does not assure availabilityto seniors and/or at affordable rates. In
this instance, the PC requirements can be written to specify the affordability of the land use
and the occupants. If at a subsequent date, the multifamily land use is proposed to be changed
from affordable to market rate, the proposed change would need to be considered by the
Council. In general or combining districts, the Council would not have the ability to consider the
affordability level ofthe multifamily land use. The higher density allowed under the PC also
makes the project financially feasible. Also, the PC designation is necessary based on the
applicant's site plan. To be competitive for affordable housing financing purposes, PAHC
proposes to site the 60 units of affordable senior housing on an approximately 1.1 acre parcel.
Using the RM-40 zoning designation, even with the maximum allowed 35% density bonus
provision, the approximately 1.1 acre site could yield a density of less than 60 units.
(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
ofthe regulations of general districts or combining districts, as set forth in Section (4)(f) hereof.
The proposed main public benefit is 60 units of much needed affordable housing for seniors. It
has been documented that a large percentage of seniors live at or below the poverty line.
During the recent economic decline, a number of seniors have lost their retirement savings,
creating even a greater number of seniors on a limited income. Based 01') the proposed project
of 12 single family homes and 60 multifamily affordable senior units, the applicant is proposing
a number of additional public benefits to enhance the safety of Maybell and Clemo Avenues,
including Maybell Avenue and Clemo Avenue street improvements.
(3) The use or 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 residential use for the Subject Property) and are
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity. The
proposed single and multifamily use is compatible with the surrounding uses. The multifamily
affordable senior development is adjacent to the Arastradero Park Apartments and Tan Plaza
multifamily buildings. The proposed single family units are adjacent to the existing single family
dwellings across Maybell Avenue. The reduced number of housing units on Maybell and Clemo
Avenues and additional design review will further insure compatibility with the single family
homes on Maybell. The Project is consistent with a number of Comprehensive Plan Policies. The
list of policies is included as Attachment H to the June 10, 2013 staff report. The Project allows
the City to provide for needed housing, consistent with Housing Element goals, to meet
demographic trends, while minimizing traffic and school impacts.
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 5200".
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 June 4, 2013, incorporated
by reference, and amended by Council motion, including the following components:
130605 jb 0131104 2
(a) Twelve (12) units of detached single family homes, with seven (7) homes on
Maybell Avenue and five (5) homes on Clemo Avenue.
(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 manager's unit
of approximately 726 square feet. The total square footage of the building is approximately
56,320 square feet. The height to the top of the fourth floor will be 50'.
(c) 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 approximately 125 square feet.
(d) Surface level parking with a minimum of 42 parking stalls with a reserve of 5
spaces, with an entrance from the surface parking area ofthe Subject Property.
(e) The applicant shall be required to incorporate the following elements into the
Project:
(1) The homes on Maybell Avenue shall be limited to two stories.
(2) Improve the street facing elevations of all single family units by varying
setbacks and architectural styles of units along Maybell and Clemo;
(3) Strengthen and refine the design features, roof lines and landscaping of all
housing units on the entire site;
(4) Provide shuttle services for senior housing residents;
(5) Provide an accelerated payment schedule of $200,000 for Maybell Avenue
improvements to ensure expediting of these improvements prior to the issuance of grading
permits and building permits;
(6) Increase the setbacks on Maybell Avenue to a 20 feet average front yard
setback with a minimum of 18 feet and an average 10 feet separation between homes, subject
to site and design review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB);
(7) The height of the homes on Clemo Avenue may be increased to 32 X feet
to accommodate a third story.
(8) Share maintenance and landscaping staff and service coordinators
between the Maybell Orchard senior complex and the Arastradero Park Apartment Complex
(APAC). Coordinate and share usage of van for residents of senior complex and APAC.
(9) Eliminate the two electric vehicle charging stations from the site and with
equivalent funding from applicant, direct Staff to work with the community to find a suitable
alternative location in the neighborhood.
130605 jb 0131104 3
SECTION 4. The Development Plan for the Subject Property dated June 4, 2013, as
modified in section 3 of this ordinance 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 Permittea 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:
(1) Personal or Retail Services (consistent with RM-40)
(2) Commercial Recreation
(3) Convalescent Facilities
(4) Private Clubs, Lodges, and Fraternal Organizations
(b) Special limitations on land uses include the following:
(l)The Residential Building for Seniors shall only be for affordable rental
housing to seniors earning 30-60% of AMI;
(c) Development Standards:
130605 jb 0131104
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. This Ordinance shall supersede inconsistent
provisions in Chapters 18 and 21.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements:
Parking and Loading requirements for the site shall comply with 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
4
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:
130605 jb 0131104
Development ofthe site under the provisions ofthe 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. The project shall provide 60 units of
rental housing for seniors at below market (low and very low income)
rates;
(2) Based on the proposed project of 12 single family homes and 60
multifamily affordable senior units, the applicant is proposing a number
of additional public benefits to enhance the safety of Maybell and Clemo
Avenues. The applicant, in an amount not to exceed $200,000, shall
perform all of the following improvements:
1. Install sidewalks on all no-paved segments of the southern side of
Maybell Avenue between Coulombe and el Camino, as feasible, to
improve pedestrian safety and walkability of the street.
2. Provide Maybell Avenue safety design enhancements from
recommendations developed through the Bicycle Boulevard and
Safe Routes to School implementation process.
3. Reconfigure the western side of Clemo Avenue, as feasible, to
accommodate perpendicular parking to account for the reduced
parking on Maybell Avenue from 7 AM to 7 PM.
(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
5
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 Senior Building will be exempt from Development Impact Fees as
provided under the City Municipal cod~ as an affordable housing
development.
The 12 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. In-Lieu Below Market Rate housing fee.
California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant
who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions
imposed ona 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.
(i) Vehicular Access
Vehicular ingress and egress will be from the proposed main entryway on
Clemo Avenue and the applicant shall obtain 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. 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.
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
lIindemnified 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
130605 jb 0131104 6
limitation) reimbursing the City its actual attorney's 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
SECTION 6. Monitoring of Conditions and Public Benefits. Not later than three
(3) 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 ofthe 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 that was extended to May 30, 2013. The City Council approved the June 4,
2013 amended MND and Mitigation Monitoring Program at its meeting of June 17, 2013
subject to the following amendments: In the hazardous materials section ofthe MND, "no
impact" was changed to "less than significant impact" in H(a) (b) and (c) and the following
mitigation measure was added: "Sweep surrounding streets daily while contaminated soil is
hauled offsite." The Mitigation Measures contained in the MND shall apply to the project and
are incorporated.
SECTION 8. Conditions of Approval. The Project Conditions of Approval attached
as Exhibit B shall apply to the Project and are incorporated.
SECTION 9. This PC Zone shall be approved as an overlay to the existing zoning.
The property owner has the option of either developing under the PC development standards
or the underlying zoning standards. If the property owner elects to proceed with the senior
housing project, the PC zoning regulations shall supersede the underlying zoning.
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
130605 jb 0131104 7
SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the .
date of its adoption (second reading).
INTRODUCED: June 17, 2013
PASSED: June 28, 2013 . 7) (7 I (\ 1 .~ l/l ~ IC:n~.sSJ Ir~c.e) .::>cnmldlv-AYES: Be"" ~r1 l.J (1:') f\.. e,,, I ~~ph.dn
NOES: po h-L
ABSTENTIONS: NtJll~
ABSENT: \-to l f'f'lctJl, Sc-h~rf-t?
130605 jb 0131104 8
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
PF
Legend
c:::J Existing Zone Districts
abc Existing Zone District Labels
.. Zone change from R2 & RM 15 to Planned Community (PC) Zone
The City of
Palo Alto
9
Attachment A
567 -595 Maybell Avenue
ZoneCbange
from
R-2&RM-15
to
Planned Community (PC) Zone
ATTACHMENT A
-.
Planning Division
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
567 -595 Maybell Avenue
12PLN-00453
ATTACHMENT B
1. The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in substantial complianc~ with plans dated
June 4, 2013 except as modified to incorporate the adopted PC ordinance and 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 City's 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
/default.asp.
5. All Mitigation Measures as stated in the Mitigated Negative Declaration amended June 4,
2013 shall be incorporated into these conditions of approval. The following mitigation
measure is also incorporated: Sweep surrounding streets daily while contaminated soil is
hauled offsite.
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 12 unit single family
130605 jb 0131104 10
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 fee in the amount of $1.5 million. The
City will commit the fee towards the development of the senior
affordable housing development on terms similar to the pre
development loan.
10. The homes on Maybell Avenue shall be limited to two stories.
11. Improve the street facing elevations of all single family units by varying setbacks and
architectural styles of units along Maybell and Clemo.
12. Strengthen and refine the design features, roof lines and landscaping of all housing units on
the entire site.
13. Provide shuttle services for senior housing residents.
14. Provide an accelerated payment schedule of $200,000 for Maybell Avenue improvements to
ensure expediting of these improvements prior to the issuance of grading permits and
building permits.
15. Increase the setbacks on Maybell Avenue to a 20 feet average front yard setback with a
minimum of 18 feet and an average 10 feet separation between homes, subject to site and
design review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB).
16. The height of the homes on Clemo Avenue may be increased to 32 X feet to accommodate
a third story.
17. Share maintenance and landscaping staff and service coordinators between the Maybell
Orchard senior complex and the Arastradero Park Apartment Complex (APAC). Coordinate
and share usage of van for residents of senior complex and APAC.
18. Eliminate the two electric vehicle charging stations from the site and with equivalent
funding from applicant, direct Staff to work with the community to find a suitable
alternative location in the neighborhood.
Public Works
19. 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 oftentative and final maps. A building permit cannot be
issued until the final map is recorded at the County Recorder's Office.
130605 jb 0131104 11
20. 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 right
of-way along the property frontage per Public Works' latest standards and/or as instructed
by the Public Works Inspector. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must
be done per Public Works' standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Permit
for Construction in the Public Right-o/-Way ("Street Work Permit") from Public Works at the
Development Center.
21. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street
trees in the public right-of-way along the property's 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/or Street Tree Work in the Public Right-o/-Way ("Street Tree Permit") from Public
Works' Urban Forestry.
22. STORM WATER RUNOFF SYNOPSIS: Provide a synopsis of pre and post-development storm
water runoffflows 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.
23. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project must meet the latest State Regional Water Quality
Control Board's (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.
130605 jb 0131104 12
Reference: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.11.030(c)
http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/permit c3 docs/c3 handbook 20l2/Appendix 1-
Feasibility 20l2.pdf
In order to qualify the project as a Special Project for LID treatment reduction credit,
complete and subm.it 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 20l2/Appendix J
Special Projects 20l2.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 Program's (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/consultants20l2.htm?zoom highlight=consultants
Within 45 days ofthe inst~lIation ofthe 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 project's 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.
24. SWPPP: The proposed development will disturb more than one acre of land. Accordingly,
the applicant will be required to comply with the State of California's 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 construction-stage and
post-construction BMP's 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.
130605 jb 0131104 13
25. 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.
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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:
29. 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 fiJled for the project.
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/11695
30. 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 ofthese 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
130605 jb 0131104 14
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.
31. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP's): In order to address potential storm water quality
impacts, the plan shall identify BMP's to be incorporated into the Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will be required for the project. The SWPPP shall include
permanent BMP's to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water quality.
(Resources and handouts are available from PWE. Specific reference is made to Palo Alto's
companion document to IIStart at the Source", entitled IIPlanning 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 IINo 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.
,32. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention -It's
Part ofthe 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
33. 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/or 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
34. 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:
130605 jb 0131104 15
"Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit/or
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."
35. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to PWE prior to commencing
work that addresses all impacts to the City's right-of-way, including, but not limited to:
pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor's parking,
concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution
prevention, contractor's 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
36. FINALIZATION OF BUILDINGPERMIT: The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe 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 post-
. developments BMP's shall be completed prior to sign-off.
Public Works Water Quality
37. 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. 'Ifthe 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.
38. 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
130605 jb 0131104 16
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.)
39. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(10) Dumpsters for New and Remodeled Facilities New buildings and
residential developments providing centralized solid waste collection, except for single
family 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.
40. 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.
41. PAMC 16.09.17S(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 fail
safe 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.
42. PAMC 16.09.180(b)(S) Condensate from HVAC Condensate lines shall not be connected or
allowed to drain to the storm drain .system.
130605 jb 0131104 17
43. 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.
44. 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.
45. 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
46. Fire sprinkler, standpipe, fire alarm and underground fire supply installations require
separate submittal to the Fire Prevention Bureau.
47. 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
48. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service
requirements noted during plan review.
49. 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.
50. 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
130605 jb 0131104 18
51. 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.
52. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18.
53. 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.
54. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing pad mount equipment {i.e.
transformers, switches, and interrupters} and associated substructure as required by the
City.
55. The customer shall install all electrical substructures {conduits, boxes and pads} required
from the service point to the customer's switchgear. The design and installation shall be
according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities. Rule & Regulations #16 & #18.
56. location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by
the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department.
57. 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.
58. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition
cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility's padmount transformer and the
. customer's main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric
Utility Engineering Department for review and approval.
59. 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 pad mount 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.
60. 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.
130605 jb 0131104 19
61. 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.
62. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or
reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer's expense and must be
coordinated with the Electric Utility.
DURING CONSTRUCTION
63. 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.
64. 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.
65. 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 customer's 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.
66. 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.
67. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and
shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling.
68. 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.
130605 jb 0131104 20
69. 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.
70. 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
71. 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
72. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private
property for City use.
73. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection
Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector.
74. All fees must be paid.
75. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and
applicant.
SUBDIVISION PROJECTS
76. There may be other conditions applicable to your project that can be found in previous
sections of this document.
77. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
130605 jb 0131104 21
78. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (Le.
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.
79. The civil drawings must show all existing and proposed electric facilities (Le. 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.
80. 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.
81. The tentative parcel map shall show all required easements as requested by the City.
Utilities Water, Gas Wastewater
PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT
82. 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.
83. 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
84. 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).
,
85. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. T~e plans must show
the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public
130605 jb 0131104 22
right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains,
sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities.
86. There is no sewer main in Clemo Ave and the sewer main in Maybell Ave is constricted to 6"
in the last block approaching EI Camino Real. As part ofthis project the applicant is required
to pipe burst the 6" section of main sewer main to 8".
87. Water and gas services for each single family home will be served directly off Maybell Ave
or Clemo Ave.
88. 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).
89. 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.
90. 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.
91. 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
130605 jb 0131104 23
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.
92. 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 ofthe property line. RPPA's 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.
93. 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 CPAU's 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.
94. 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.
95. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ASS, PVC, or PEl shall be abandoned per
the WGW Utilities Standards.
96. 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.
97. 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.
98. 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
130605 jb 0131104 24
locations must conform with utilitie's standard details .
. 99. 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.
100. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at
the main per WGW Utilities procedures.
101. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not
be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain l' 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.
102. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer
cleanoutat 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.
103. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards
for water, gas & wastewater.
104. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Caltrans for all utility work in
the EI Camino Real right-of-way. The applicant must provide a copy of the permit to the
WGWengineering section.
PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE
105. 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 arborist's recommendations have been incorporated into the
final plan set. The submittal set sha,lI be accompanied by the project site arborist's
certification letter that the plans have incorporated the following information:
a. Final Tree Protection Report (TPR) design changes and preservation measures.
b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080.
c. Outstanding items. Itemized list and which plan sheet the measures are to be
located.
d. 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.
130605 jb 0131104 25
106. 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. Ifthe 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.
107. 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."
108. LANDSCAPE PLANS.
130605 jb 0131104 26
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)ncluded 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.
130605 jb 0131104
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.
27
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 owner's representative for
each of the following:
i. Percolation & drainage checks have been performed and is acceptable.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
109. 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
110. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TIM. Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading,
digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using fair-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.
111. 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.
112. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be
printed on the plans submitted for building permit.
113. 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
130605 jb 0131104 28
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.
114. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor.
Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant
to TIM, 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.
115. 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
116. 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.
117. 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.
118. 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
119. 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.
130605 jb 0131104 29
30
The above statement is an impartial summary of the ordinance.
If you desire a copy of the ordinance, please call the Palo Alto
City Clerk's Office at 650-329-2571 and a copy will be mailed
at no cost to you.
NOT YET APPROVED
1
0131122 RESO Repealing Comp Plan Amendment
Resolution No. _____
Resolution of the Council of the City of Palo Alto
Repealing Resolution No. 9348 Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 567-595 Maybell Avenue from
Multi-family Residential to Single Family Residential
R E C I T A L S
A. A referendum petition to Repeal the City Council’s Resolution Adopting an
Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map by Changing the Land Use Designation
for 567-595 Maybell Avenue from Multi-family Residential to Single Family Residential has been
submitted to the City in accordance with the requirements of Article VI of the Charter of the
City of Palo Alto.
B. On August 1, 2013, the City Clerk certified the sufficiency of the signatures on
the Referendums.
C. On August 8, 2013, the City Council accepted the Certificate of Sufficiency of the
Referendum Ballot.
D. The Resolution subject to the Referendum was not legally required to permit
the development of single family homes on Clemo Avenue and an election on the Referendum
would cost the taxpayers unnecessary expense.
The City Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby RESOLVE as follows:
SECTION 1. Resolution No. 9348 Amending the Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Map by Changing the Land Use Designation for 567-595 Maybell Avenue from Multi-family
Residential to Single Family Residential is hereby repealed.
SECTION 2. This action is not a project under the California Environmental
Quality Act.
//
//
//
NOT YET APPROVED
2
0131122 RESO Repealing Comp Plan Amendment
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
____________________________ _____
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED:
____________________________
Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Members of the City Council:
Diane Lee <dianedcl@comcast.net>
Sunday, August 04, 2013 11:37 AM
Council, City
Maybell Special Election
Cll Y OF PALO ALTO, CJ\
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
13 AUG -5 AM ,: 02
We are writing to you to say as petition circulators for the Referendum on Maybell, it is not our desire or intent to have
a special election to decide the zoning of 567 Maybell. We see no point in wasting valuable tax payer dollars on a special
election. It is much more sensible to place this issue on next general city election in Nov 2014. Alternatively as 'Council
members you can chose to rescind the rezone now and spare the residents of Palo Alto the expense of an election). It is
your choice. Weare requesting you make the right choice and rescind the rezone ordinance of 567 Maybell and work
with us to create something better than what is planned for that site.
Thank you,
Diane Lee and Jim Jurkovich
4132 Willmar Dr. Palo Alto, Ca.94306
26
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear City Councilpersons,
L11 I 4 ,,2 IS, E' 'r.\lY Ct EHK'S OFF Ie·
William Hamburgen <bill.hamburgen@gm'all.com>
Sunda~, A~gust 04,2013 11:30 A~ AUG -5 M1 5: 03
Council, City
William Hamburgen
support for rescinding Maybell zoning change
Please reconsider your previous decision --please rescind the Maybell zoning change and restore
the original provisions of the General Plan.
The Amarantha-Maybell intersection is already a traffic disaster during commute, and the idea of high
density development using Maybell for access is is a bad one. The plan as currently conceived has
insufficient pa~king for future residents, particularly given the distance to basic services; just saying
"it's for seniors" does not obviate the need for parking. Not to mention that the proposal is profoundly
out of character for the neighborhood.
Ignoring the specifics of this project, what is the poiniof having a General Plan if exceptions are
created every time it's convenient and value enhancing for a developer?
Don't force a special election. Please do the right thing now for your citizens: rescind.
Regard,
Bill Hamburgen
27
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
en Y CLERf{'S OFFICE
Lowys <Iowys@jps.net>
Saturday, August 03, 2013 4:39 PM 13 AUG-5 AM!h 14
Council, City
letters@padailypost.com; letters@mercurynews.com; letters@dailynewsgroup.com;
letters@paweekly.com; letters@mv-voice.com
Letter to PA City Council to rescind rezoning to Maybell Orchard property
Dear Palo Alto City Council Members,
1 am in favor of affordable senior housing but not the increased zoning your 'misguided' decision would allow.
Please reverse course and keep the RlIR15 zonin~.
You have the power to rescind the rezoning of the Maybell orchard property. Take a step back; give the process
a chance to restart, correctly this time, by getting creative community input to find a way to have affordable
senior housing within the R2IR15 zoning. You didn't listen to and take seriously the thoughtful and legitimate
comments of Palo Alto's citizens though the many and long meetings. You are out of step with the sentiments
of the citizens.
We citizens are motivated. The large number of signatures collected to qualify the rezoning issue for a
referendum far exceeded the number required. Those signatures came from many neighborhoods across Palo
Alto, not just from Barron Park and Green Acres neighborhoods. Issues of density, traffic, parking, PC zoning,
and the like are negatively impacting all neighborhoods of our city. These are degrading the quality of life in
Palo Alto. People are paying attention and are saying 'slow down' and 'obey the rules of the City's plan' .. You
council members, our elected officials, need to look out for all citizens. We are not willing to have the
developers 'sneak' their way in on the 'apron strings' of projects supposedly for the 'benefit' of the community,
as it has been done in this case. We don't believe a developer would have been able to make a case to increase
zoning for the purpose of building market rate homes as would happen ifthat perimeter piece ofland is
developed. Thus they would make their large windfall profits at the detriment of our neighborhood, our families
and the quality of our lives.
Again please rescind your decision to rezone so we can find an acceptable way to create affordable senior
housing on the Maybell Orchard.
Sincerely yours,
RuthLowy
Michael J. Lowy
41
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Patrick Muffler < patrickmuffler@pacbell.net>
Friday, August 02, 2013 9:52 PM
Council, City; Planning Commission; Wong, Tim 13 -5
U ;\LlOi C;i\
tS OFFICE
e· 15. J' Subject: Fwd: Maybell/Clemo rezoning as part of the Housing Element
It appears that my email of 19 May to you was spot-on.
Patrick Muffler
Begin forwarded message:
From: Patrick Muffler <patrickmuffler@pacbell.net>
Date: May 19, 2013 5:36:25 PM PDT
To: city.council@cityofpaloalto.org, planning.commission@cityofpaloalto.org,
curtis.williams@cityofpaloalto.org, tim.wong@cityofpaloalto.org
Bec: info@paloaltoville.com, Robert Moss <bmoss33@att.net>, Art Liberman
<art liberman@yahoo.com>
Subject: Maybell/Clemo rezoning as part of the Housing Element
Council Members, Planning Commission Members, and City Staff:
I wish to add my objections to the proposal to rezone 567-595 Maybell (at the comer of Maybell and Clemo) to
allow high-density residential development. I choose not waste your time and mine by reiterating the many
reasons the City of Palo should avoid this action; many others have stated these reasons more eloquently and
effectively than I can. Bottom line is that you should listen to the affected citizens of Palo Alto. We are the
ones who live here and pay taxes that support the City.
I particularly object to the strategy that the City Staff, Planning Commission, and City Council have used to ram
this development through without due process or involvement of the affected community. It would be an
ethical travesty were the City Council to approve the Housing Element that includes the Maybell/Clemo
rezoning. If approved, I suspectthatthe City of Palo Alto is setting itself up for appropriate and protracted
litigation from a very embittered community.
Please include my objections in the formal records for the Maybell/Clemo property and the Housing Element.
Patrick Muffler
961 Ilima Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306.
650-493-6439
patrickmuffler@pacbell.net
50
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
AKAM <akam@seanet.com>
r~;Ty nr Pb! ntH}o el\ eli Y CLER!\,S OFfICE
Friday, August 02,2013 9:15 PM 13 AUG -5 AM ,: 15
Council, City; Keene, James; Aknin, Aaron; Stump, Molly; Williams, Curtis; Silver, Cara
Maybell Property Rezone
As of today, there are no items on the November ballot. If you choose to place the Maybell property rezone referendum
onthe November ballot, you will be' doing so at substantial taxpayer expense. No special election is required under the
rules. You have another choice, which is to rescind your rezoning vote. Please do that and save us a costly and
contentious election.
With my thanks,
Allan
Allan K.A. Marson
4150 Thain Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
Home: 650 320 8788
Mobile: 650 387 7038
Email: akam@seanet.com
51
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Dear city council members,
Laurie Peck <Iaurie.peck@yahoo.com>
Friday, August 02, 2013 7:25 PM
Council, City
Clf Y LLEHI'rS OFfiCE'
'3 AUG -5 AM ~h f 9
You have the power to rescind your decision to rezone the Maybell property for high density housing, and I urge you to do
so. By allowing developers to degrade our environment, you've angered a large number of the citizens you are elected to
serve. It is not serving the interests of the neighborhood, and the larger community. The increased density will severely
negatively impact the current neighborhood, its residents, and school children, as well as the seniors who will move in to
this already dense neighborhood.
The large number of Signatures needed to qualify the rezoning for a referendum has far exceeded the number required.
The speed with whicli these Signatures were obtained should signal to you that the residents want to resist the spread of
high density projects--and all their effects--because we do not agree that rezoning for higher density is in our interest.
Please rescind your decision to rezone.
Thank you.
Laurie Peck
57
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council Members,
Itokes@sbcglobal.net
Friday, August 02, 2013 5:10 PM
Council, City
Rescind rezoning of Maybell
CIT '( OF h\LO ALTO. CA
CIT '( CLERWS OFFICE
, 3 AUG -5 AM 5: 19
Previously I asked you not to rezone the residential 567 Maybell property to Planned Community zoning. Now,
in view of the wide scale disapproval of your action, I askyou to rescind this rezoning before you may be
forced to do so. Currently, there is acitywide apprehension of the number of misguided developments
constructed in Palo Alto and this project just adds fuel to the fire. The City would have much better ways to
spend the taxpayers' money than on futile litigations and election expenses. Furthermore, the Palo Alto
Housing Committee should also spend its funds on building affordable housing rather then on expensive
political advertisements. But, even if you refuse to rescind this rezoning, there would be no justification to
spend hundreds of thousand dollars on a special election this November if it can be accomplished fora fraction
of the cost as part of the November 2014 election. We expect you to be good guardians of the City's resources.
Laszlo Tokes, Ph.D.
4133 Thain Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
ltokes@sbcglobal.net
58
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
. '. ,'''' "'A' 'D .' Ll" '1 C A . [t"f '£ "r ",.j l,,~ l;.,,~ Warren Kirsch <kirsch_warren@yahoQ.k;b./;n~~11;::Ri\'s' OFFICE l,.11 T v __ . ,.
Friday, August 02, 2013 2:06 PM
To:
Subject:
Council, City . 13 flUG -5 AM ,: t ~
Special Election in November for the MaYDell Project
To: Palo Alto City Council
From: Warren Kirsch
Date: August 2, 2013
Subj: Maybell Project
I was surprised to read in today's Daily Post that the Palo Alto City Council is considering
a special election in November, with all of the costs entailed, to support the Palo Alto
Housing Corporation's Maybell Project.
Although I am strongly in favor of low-cost senior housing, I do not feel that a special election
is in anyone's best interest.
There appears to be a considerable backlash of citizens in all parts of Palo Alto against the
high-density projects that have been recently built, approved, and are in the development pipeline.
A special election for the Maybell Project will inflame these citizens, even more than currently.
If you want to get the Maybell Project built, as many of us do, then consider bringing the issue
to the voters at the next regular election. This will give the hot heads a chance to cool off a bit,
and will improve the chance of voters approving the project -which is what we all want.
If you authorize a special election in November where the Maybell Project is the only item
for the voters, I shudder to think of the fallout, regardless of the fmal results.
How do we get a compromise redesign o(the Maybell Project that can work for the
majority of those who support low-cost senior housing, AND that will satisfy the
residents, who live near the project, that we are not trashing their neighborhood?
Do NOT give the opponents of low-cost senior housing any more grist for their mill.
Regards,
Warren Kirsch
KIRSCH _ W ARREN@YAHOO.COM
66
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear Council,
Please rescind the rezone.
Peter Lee <plee.aaslan@gmail.com>
Friday, August 02, 2013 12:20 PM
Council, City
Rezone
LIT, JP PALe AtTB. CA
CITY CL£Ri'l'S OFFICE
13 AUG -5 AM ,= 30
Now that you are aware of how this impacts the community and residents, please take the appropriate action.
Advocating on behalf of P AHC instead of the residents is not the job of the council.
Peter Lee
77
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
. "11Y Cf Pi\LO AUG. C/\ .
Richard Evans <evansdu82@sbcglobal.n~ttTY CLEFU,'S OFFICE
Sent:
To:
Friday, August 02,2013 12:17 PM
Council, City 13 ~UG -5 AM 't 30
Subject: Maybell Project and referendum
August2,2013
Dear City Council Members,
By signing the petitions to overturn the Council's ill-advised zoning changes and amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
which you approved over unprecedented community opposition, a substantial number of your constituents have
demonstrated the seriousness of their opposition to the council's love affair with high density zoning and high density spot
zoning and its cavalier attitude toward the impacts of high density development on traffic, safety of school children, and
\ the character of the impacted neighborhoods.
It is time for the council to reform in order to regain the trust of the community it supposedly represents. Several steps are
necessary:
First: schedule a city council meeting immediately to rescind the vote to rezone Maybell and to amend the
Comprehensive Plan and then do so. Taking such action will not only save the unnecessary expense of an election, but
also the cost, distraction and divisiveness that the pre-election campaign will inevitably create as friends of PAHC attempt
to characterize as a campaign against low income housing, a referendum which in actuality is directed against high
density spot zoning and the city's failure to consider or address the cumulative impacts of all of the recently completed,
currently under construction, and presently approved development activities on traffic, other environmental impacts, and
preservation of neighborhood character and quality of life.
Rescinding these zoning changes and plan amendments will show a council responsive to the concerns of the Palo Alto
residents who will be adversely impacted by the council's rush to spot zone the Maybell project property to favor a favorite
organization to the exclusion of adequately addressing the legitimate concerns of the community and the council's
disregard for the promises to retain the rural character of Barron Park made upon its incorporation into Palo Alto.
Second: Before approving any further development, initiate an adequate traffic study of the impacts on traffic flow in the
city from Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Mountain View projects with an intent to reject future projects without first completing
significant improvements to the current traffic and parking situation (including overflow parking due to approval of projects
with inadequate parking spaces) in Palo Alto.
Third, Provide a standing instruction to city staff, to provide balanced reports regarding both projects the recommend and
those that they do not recommend. It is clear from the staff report on the Maybell project that the staff functions as an
advocate for the developers whose projects its recommends and does not even address the arguments and city policies
against the project. See for instance this excerpt from Gennady Scheyner's article for the Palo Alto Weekly, posted to
Palo Alto Online on July 19, 2013 and available at
. http://www.paloaltoonline.com/news/show story,php?id=30337 (emphasis added):
Scharff is correct to point out that the Maybell project includes tradeoffs: It's consistent with some policies and inconsistent with
others. Reasonable people can reasonably disagree on whether the goal of promoting affordable housing should trump the
goal of protecting a residential neighborhood against additional density. The job of the council, Scharff said. is to weigh these
conflicts and make a judgment. But the conflict that Scharff mentions won't be found in the staff report. When planners list 19
reasons for why the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zero reasons why it isn't, it's easy to see why
legions of residents in Barron Park, Green Acres, Downtown North and other parts of the city feel like developers are in charge
while the neighborhoods are being ignored.
When asked about the omissions in the recent staff reports. City Manager James Keene emphasized the limitations of these
reports. which he said neither attempt nor intend to represent all views and tensions inherent in a project. The city assumes,
even without explicitly mentioning these policies, "that so much has happened in public discussion and public process that it's
really clear what those (tensions) are," he told the Weekly. The findings in the staff reports tend to support the particular staff
78
recommendation rather than represent all views, he said.
"I think it would be a mistake to infer that those (policies) not existing in reports now signify any effort to sort of just steer a
discussion toward a particular decision," Keene told the Weekly.
He acknowledged the city can do a better job identifying the tradeoffs that exist in the various development
proposals and tracking the evolution of these projects. He said he plans to address this topic with Acting Planning
Director Aaron Aknin for future projects.
I am personally shocked that the staff chooses to hide these conflicts from the city council in its reports. The city staff
should be able to make recommendations, but as Mayor Scharff says in the council's job "to weigh these conflicts and
make a jUdgment." The one-sided staff advocacy reports which the council routinely receives are useless in aSSisting the
council in this important task, particularly when the staff is supporting an organization whose members they see on a daily
basis due to PAHC's offices being in the same building as city staff.
I also find disingenuous Manager Keene's conclusory statement that "it would be a mistake to infer that those (policies) not
existing in reports now signify any effort to sort of just steer a discussion toward a particular decision." There are only two reasons for
one sided reports both of them bad: Either the city council has already made up its mind before it receives the report and doesn't want
the public to have access to considerations which weigh against this prejudgment, or the city staff is advocating for the project and
doesn't want the council to have access to such considerations. Regardless of which of these considerations is correct, the process
must change.
Fourth: Engage in a highly public, open dialog with Palo Alto citizens about the council's plans to turn portions of suburban Palo Alto
into an urban corridor, about legal restraints on limiting high density development, about whether Palo Alto should become more
politically engaged to rescind, limit, or alter the mandate of ABAG, and other regional or statewide laws which force the city on a high
density, traffic clogged trajectory. Each council member should state clearly his/her position on high density development, particularly
such development outside the city's downtown core.
" Perhaps the council should propose a referendum on all of the zoning changes and comprehensive plan changes t\1at the council's
vision would require and propose in that referendum that the necessary changes to increase high density in Palo Alto cannot be
implemented without a vote of the people.
Palo Altans deserve a more effective say in what the council has planned to do in terms of the redevelopment of Palo Alto into an urban
corridor. Palo Altans deserve a clear statement from the city on what it believes that existing legal mandates will compel it to do to the
city in nature of high intensity, high density development and how it plans to protect the existing character of the city's neighborhoods
and comply with these mandates and/or to challenge them judicially and politically.
Sincerely,
Richard Evans
4168 Thain Way
Palo Alto, CA
79
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council:
Pat Raynak <praynak@gmail.com>
Friday, August 02, 2013 11:46 AM
Council, City
Maybell Rezoning 13 Q. 3·1 J'*
You have the power to rescind the rezoning Maybell and you should, I'm tried of our City Council trying to force High
Destiny Zoning into theneighborhood-----Don't spend money on a vote. Rescind, Rescind.
Pat Raynak
Barron Park
86
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Suzanne Keehn <dskeehn@pacbell.net>
Friday, August 02,2013 11:44 AM 13 AUG -5 AM ~: 31
Council, City
gsheyner@paweekly.com; bkerr@padailypost.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com
Rescind the Maybell/Clemo Zoning
Your decision to rezone the Maybell/Clemo property and orchard has awakened a sleeping populace. Many of us have
been upset by what is
happening in our city, the excess building, the high density, the poor architecture, and the already greatly increased
traffic. Plus what about
the larger picture, resources like water, clean air. We know that our area is in for more drought, and yet the whole area
is building with no
thought of tomorrow.
You have an opportunity to rescind the zoning and not waste the tax payers money on an expensive special
election: Palo Alto used to be
on the for front of sustainable development, let's get back to that, with the awareness of how one action affects so
many others, especially our quality
of life.
Thank You,
Suzanne Keehn
4076 Orme St.
94306
87
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
. CI TY OF PAL 0 t\LTO. CA steven rosenberg <canuck94306@gmall,com> CiTY CLERr\'S OFFICE
Friday, August 02, 2013 11:36 AM .
To:
Cc:
Council, City 13 AUG -5 AM 9: 31
gsheyner@paweekly.com; bkerr@padailypost.com;jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com
Subject: Maybell Ordinance and Reslution
Dear Council Members,
The petitions to repeal the Ordinance and Resolution supporting the Maybell development have been
certified with many more than the minimum number of signatures. Clearly the City Council did not
grasp either the seriousness of Palo Alto residents' concerns about the project, and the depth of the
community dislike of the project. I hope you will now do the right thing and repeal the Ordinance and
Resolution. The Council rather condescendingly told Palo Alto, when they approved this project, that
"they knew best". The citizens have spoken and will continue to speak. There is a groundswell of
oppOSition to this and other similar developments. Its time for the Council to, represent the people
who elected you, follow your election platforms, and admit the mistake, take the high road, and
redress this. .
If the City Council chooses not to repeal the Ordinance and Resolution, the Council should not spend
taxpayer money on a costly special election when it is not required under the City Referendum
rules. The Council should not favor a single developer at the cost and expense to Palo Alto
taxpayers. It should put the ballot measures on the next general municipal election (in November
2014) pursuant to the City Referendum rules. I realize the Council, may want to separate this' issue
from an election rate, but the way to do that is to step up and repeal the Ordinance and Resolution
now. I assure you that if you waste the city's money on a special election to favor a developer,
nobody will forget come the general election.
Steven Rosenberg
88
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Ellen Cohen <ellenco@pacbell.net>
Friday, August 02, 2013 11:05 AM
Council, City
Jennifer Fryhling
Maybell Rezoning
13 AUG -5 AM 5: 31
Our petitions have been filed and in so doing, the residents of Palo Alto have spoken. But, this is just a preamble. Should
that referendum get to the ballot, ALL of Palo Alto will speak and will demonstrate to all of our Citizens howto drive
change in how things are done. We would all be better off reaching a reasonable compromise prior to the November
elections, in which the project can go ahead within the boundaries of the present zoning. This will save the cost of the
referendum, but more importantly, will prevent the rift from splitting neighbors and neighborhoods with diametrically
opposed views. We don't need this source of strife. Let's find a way to get that senior housing built in a way that is not
damaging to the neighborhood. Nobody would fight that.
Regards,
Ellen Cohen
Maybell Way
******************
Ellen Cohen
650-255.-6511
Riding (again) to fund finding a cure for MS (we're not there yet). 150 miles, Sept 21-22. Please join the
fight by contributing what you,
can: http://main.nationalmssociety.org/siteITR?px=3811891&fr id=20747&pg=personal
91
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear City council Members,
CITY OF PALO ALTO. CA eugene zukowsky <eandzz@stanford.eduelTY CLERK'S OFFICE
Friday, August 02, 2013 11:14 AM
Council, City . 13 AUG -5 AM q: 31
gsheyner@paweekly.com; bkerr@padailypost.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com
repeal Maybell/Clemo rezone
The residents of Palo Alto have taken a strong stand on our objection to the rezoning of the Maybell/Clemo
project. We have opposed this project for the numerous reasons stated to you so strongly in the recent past. At
this time we urge you to repeal the rezone which was not in compliance with the original Comprehensive Plan,
and don't foist upon our residents a costly and divisive election. The best outcome for all Palo Altans would
be for you to repeal the Ordinance and Resolution.
If you don't rescind the Ordinance and Resolution~ then you should put the ballot measures on the next general
municipal election (in November 2014) pursuant to the City Referendum rules. You, our elected officials
should not spend taxpayer money on a costly special election when it is not required under the City Referendum
rules. The Council should not favor a single developer at the cost and expense to Palo Alto taxpayers.
Zita and Gene Zukowsky
Green Acres residents
90
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Kevin Hauck < kevhauck@gmail.com>
Friday, August 02, 2013 11:05 AM c LJJ ;\LTO, C/\ OFF ICE
Council, City 13 !!tUG -5 ~: 31
gsheyner@paweekly.com; bkerr@padailypost.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com
Potential Special Election for Maybell Referendum
I am writing with regard to the Maybell referendum petitions. With the outpouring of public objection to the
decision to rezone the Maybell parcel made clear by the strong public support for the referendum, I encourage
you to reverse your decision and restore the original zoning, as is in your power.
I and other citizens who supported the referendum have stated repeatedly and continue to state that we will
welcome a senior housing project that is built to the original zoning specifications.
In the event that you should choose to putthe referendum on the ballot, I strongly object to any special election
being held prior to the next regularly scheduled election, due to the significant additional expense associated
with holding a special election. This expense would amount to an improper financial favor for a developer
using city tax dollars. A message needs to be sent to all developers seeking to build in Palo Alto: if a developer
proposes a project that is ill-conceived, poorly vetted, or insufficiently mitigated to the extent that it induces a
citizens' referendum, the city of Palo Alto should not and will not commit tax dollars to hold a special election
at the time of the offending developer's choosing.
It will also be highly improper for council members up for re-election in 2014 to vote now to commit tax dollars
to prevent the referendum from being on the same ballot as their re-election vote, as this amounts to spending
tax dollars to evade or mitigate accountability for taking a position that inflamed the electorate. Our tax money
is not a campaign fund for incumbent council members, and must not be treated as such.
Regards,
Kevin Hauck
92
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com>
Friday, August 02,2013 10:55 AM . 13 AUG -5 AH g: 31
To: \ Council, City
Subject: Please resCind the rezone of Maybell
Dear City Council members,
I personally gathered over 240 signatures for the Maybell referendum petition.
I'd say over 95% of the people I approached were eager to sign both petitions in order to give Palo Alto residents an
opportunity to vote on this issue, and send a strong message to YOU.
2 % were so cynical they didn't want to bother.
Which leaves 3% who think senior housing is worth the cost no matter what.
Here are some things I heard, the reasons that very annoyed citizens were eager to sign:
1. Development is too dense and happening without regard to neighborhoods OJ traffic.
2. The Comprehensive Plan is a hoax, treated as a cover to mollify folks until the developers get what they want
3. Public benefits are PRETEND PUBLIC BENEFITS.
4. The city council bends over backwards for developers so they don't have to provide low income housing INSIDE the
developments they are profiting from, thus concentrating people into warehouses. Not the intent of the legislation.
5. The city staff is on the side of development and developers and delivers council messages that enable development. I
heard the word arrogant used fairly frequently.
6. ABAG is both the enabler of developers and the cover for staff and council to create deals for developers that are not
beneficial to the residents. Council should resist ABAG and defend this city against continuous density requirements.
7. Why do we keep allowing growth? More jobs=more housing=more traffic=public impact=worse, not better
environment.
I urge you not to waste taxpayer money on a special election. You know the cost will be more than dollars spent. Please
rescind your decision to rezone the Maybell property. This would demonstrate that you have the integrity to respect the
residents and that you care about our community.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Lilienstein
4050 Manzana Lane
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-380-6080
93
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Dear City Council:
Margo Davis <margoadavis@gmail.com>
Friday,. Au~ust 02, 2013 ·10:49 AM 1:1 _ r.:;
(ouncll, City -,-' 31
gsheyner@paweekly.com; bkerr@padailypost.com;jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com
Repeal the Ordinance and Resolution
Since the number of signatures on The Resolution and The Ordinance has been deemed sufficient by the Registrar of
Voters of Santa Clara County, please repeal the Ordinance and the Resolution. We do not want taxpayer money spent
on a special election.
IF you fail to d~ this, please have this referendum go on the ballot at the next general municipal election in November
2014 pursuant to the City Referendum rules.
There are many many citizen taxpayers from the Barron Park community and, indeed, from all over the city of Palo Alto
who are opposed to the kind of development that the city is doing. We as the residents deserve for you to follow the
rules that have been set in place and rescind the decision for rezoning.
Please do the right thing here.
Thank you,
Margo Davis
Margo Davis
margoadavis@gmail.com
6507142146
www.margodavisphoto.com
94
Gonsalves, Ronna
Ell Y [ ~{1 OFFICE
From:
Sent:
Renee and Mark Alloy <alloyfam@yahoo.com>
Friday, August 02, 2013 10:38 AM 13 AUG -5 AM 9: 31
To: Council, City
Subject: MAYBELL REZONE
Dear Council Members,
I attended most of the meetings surrounding the Maybell rezone and I realize it was.
a heated point for both sides. However as a resident of Green Acres II, I feel that I
have a insider view. Our neighborhood needs to keep the\character of a residence
in check. I feel the houses should be on par with the size -or larger-than what is
. currently there, most of the people who build here build larger structures than what
is planned currently, even though the number of houses was cut back.
Now that we have been able to prove that our concerns are more than those
reflected by those full board meetings with the signatures we provided with the
referrendum I would like you to stop and consider if you really want to spend our·
tax dollars to now put this on the November ballot. You could rescind your vote and
make the building on Maybell be within the current zoning and allow affordable
housing to go into the spot with adequate parking and less impact on our streets
with cars etc.
I implore you to do just that.
Renee Alloy
627 Georgia Ave.
95
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
Soroor Ebnesajjad <sorooreb@yahoo.com>(~,f..:'(.t:f·, ~~kP fd;rO, GJ\
Friday, August 02,2013 10:34 AM \"1 r f l.-Ll...hl\ S Or FICE
To:
Subject:
Council, City J 3 AUG -5 At1 5: 31
Maybell
Dear City Council,
I am writing to urge you to rescind the PC zoning of the
Maybell property. I plead with you .
to agree to building the senior housing without rezoning the
property. PAHC .
would be providing the low income seniors with over 40 units
the neighborhood will .
be most welcoming to it.
and
Also, if you decide to have a specia~ election in November
2013, just for the sake of PAHC,
it will be the latest deferential behavior that the council
members have exhibited. It will be
an amazing waste of my and every other resident's tax money.
please stop this train wreck now.
sincerely
Soroor Ebnesajjad
96
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Dear City Council,
Jim Colton <james.colton@sri.com>
Friday, August 02, 2013 9:47 AM
Council, City
Maybell-Clemo proposal
vii f ,t, KK'S OFFICE q
13 AUG -5 At;!: 31
As you know both the Resolution and the Ordnance petitions related to the Maybell-Clemo project have qualified for the
ballot. I think you now know that the surrounding neighborhoods, and indeed much of the city, is strongly against this
project because it stresses the traffic and safety issues already present and because it lacks the services that seniors
would need. In order to stop this controversy, and to rebuild some of the trust the city council has lost because of this
issue, I urge you to repeal the Ordnance and Resolution.
If you choose not to take this action, you should these ballot members on the next general municipal election in
November 14 to avoid the costs of a special election. Not doing so would result in the City Council expending city funds
for the election for the benefit of a single developer.
It's time to do the right thing.
Jim Colton
670 Georgia Ave
97
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Jamccl25@cs.com
Friday, August 02, 2013 9:38 AM
Council, City
jamccl25@cs.com
CIT'y
CITY
13
Repeal of illegal action on changes to residential living
o i-\L"l-Ot Ct\
OFFICE
0'32 .... 1· 'k. ,,.,
As the topic above states the action by the City Council was illegal, and as the City Council is now in possession of
enough certified signatures to retract the invasion of privacy on the residential nature of much of Palo Alto neighborhoods
so be it
Janet McClure Lyman
4128 Amaranta Court
Palo Alto 94306
( and before that with hiatus in Mtn View)since 1966
College Terrace from 1950 to 1955
98
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cheryl Lilienstein <clilienstein@me.com>
Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:40 AM
Council, City
More on Maybell
'3 AUG -5 AM ,: , ,
Attachments: 2013-2014 City of Palo Alto -Camp Est Cost of Election - 2 Measures.xls; ATTOOOO1.htm
Dear Councilmembers,
This is a response to an email I received from Nancy Shepard regarding the complexity of ABAG requirements.
I understand that state regulations are creating tensions unlike any that have been felt before, that changes in
state legislation are needed to alleviate some of the tensions, that neighborhoods will continue to feel the
adverse affects of density driven by ABAG threats and the city's lack of a defense strategy, that unfortunately
city council feels it is not in a position to be responsive to the neighborhoods because the state will punish
you. And that this issue is not likely to be resolved for several years. So whatever can be brought forward to
offer you a reason to comply is accepted whether it is obviously flawed or is inadequate. So you are grasping
for solutions that are not good solutions because of the pressure.
And that in the scramble to comply, more imaginative and vibrant solutions that could meet all our needs
are seemingly Qut of reach.
But first the facts: the cost of election. I don't know what you think is "too much," but the savings of repealing
the referendum look substantial to me.
That said, placing the vote later (if that's what you decide) would allow for the development of a plan
that could work for everyone.
Here is the estimated cost from SCCROV.
November 2013 is anywhere between $506,800 and $684,900. (Pretty darn expensive)
June 2014 is $354,800. (That looks alot better to me!)
November 2014 is $303,100. (Best, ifmoney is the basis to decide)
1
SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
COMP EST COSTS OF ELECTIONS FOR 2013 & 2014 WITH 2 MEASURES IN THE BALLOT
FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
(c/o Donna Grider, tel. no. 650-329-2229; email addlS.Donna.grider@cityofpaloalto.org )
DATA
Registration as of 05/31/2013
Projected Registration (110% of current registratic
COMPUTATION
(a) Base charge
1st Issue
2nd Issue
3rd Issue
(b) Absentee Voter Charge
1st Issue
2nd Issue
3rd Issue
(c) Shared Printing Costs
1st Issue
2nd Issue
3rd Issue
Total est base charges, VBM & Sha
(d) Candidate Statement
(e) Measure Pages
6-Page Measure
30-Page Measure
Total Est Costs of Elections
NOTES:
Prepared by:
Carolina Gomez
Accountant III
Registrar of Voters
Santa Clara County
(408) 282-3012
carol.gomez@rov.scCQov.org
37,606
41,367
2013-2014 City of Palo Alto -Comp Est Cost of Election - 2 Measures.xls 1 of 1 8/5/2013 9:05 AM
SANTA CLARA COUNTY REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
ESTIMATED COSTS OF MEASURE PAGES
FOR THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
2013-2014
DATA
Registration as of 05/31/2013
Projected Registration (110% of current registration)
6-PAGE MEASURE
Est No. of Sample Ballots to be Ordered (115% of current reg., rounded to next 1,000)
Est No. of Voter's Information Pages per sample ballot -
Est No. of Measures
COMPUTATION
FIXED COSTS PER FULL MEASURE PAGES
Typeset (for 5 languages)
Handling & proofing (for 5 languages)
Translation (Engl trans to Span, Chin, Viet, & Tag)
Est No. of Pages per measure*
Total Fixed Costs per measure
No. of measure
$ 750
$ 2,700
$ 1,920 $ 5,370
6
$ 32,220
1
37,606
41,367
43,000
6
1
Total fixed costs of measure $ -32,220
PRINTI~G COSTS
Est number of sample ballots
Est number of Voter's Information Pages (VIP) per sample ballot
Total est number of sample ballot pages in English
Language Factor
Est number of sample ballot pages in two languages
Printing Costs for 2 languages per page
Total Est Printing Costs for 2 languages
TOTAL EST COSTS OF MEASURE PAGES
NOTE:
*Estimated Pages of One Measure
1. Text of the Initiative
2. Impartial analysis of County Counsel
3. Argument in Favor
4. Argument Against
5. Rebuttal to Argument in Favor
6. Rebuttal to Argument Against
Total est number of pages
43,000
6.
·258,000
1.4
361,200
$ 0.02010
$ 7,260
$ 6,580 $ 39,480
Est No. of Pages
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
2013-2014 City of Palo Alto -Comp Est Cost of Election -2 Measures.xls -Est Costs of Meas. 8/5/2013 9:05 AM
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
ESTIMATED COST OF CANDIDATE STATEMENTS -CITY OF PALO ALTO
2014 GENERAL ELECTIONS \
DATA
Registration as of 05/31/2013
Projected Registration (110% of current registration)
Est No. of Sample Ballots Order (115% of current registration, rounded to next 1 ,001
Number of Seats
Est No. of Candidates per Seat
COMPUTATION
Fixed Cost of Candidate Statement
Typeset
Handling & Proofing
Translation
Fixed cost per Candidate Statement
No. of Candidate Statement
Total Fixed Costs
Printing Cost of candidate statement and information pages
Est. no. of sample ballots per language
No. of candidate statement pages per sample ballot per lang
No. of Candidate Statement pages per Language
"''''Ordering Factor
$ 375
$ 675
$ 480
$ 1,530
10
44,000
3
132,000
1.4
184,800
37,606
41,367
44,000
5
2
$15,300
Total no. of candidate statements
Printing cost per page $0.0201 $ 3,714
Total cost of candidate statements
Est cost per candidate statement
$19,014
$ 1,901
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
City Manager Keene:
"C'.iTY OF "PI\LO ~\LTO.CA Lrl Y GLERh S DFr iCE
Pat Marriott <patmarriott@sbcglobal.net>
Monday, August OS, 201310:59 AM 13 AUG -5 AM t I! 25
Keene, James; Council, City
Aknin, Aaron; Keith, Claudia; Perez, Lalo
RE: Time to step up!
I appreciate your taking the time on a Sunday to respond, as I appreciate all your responses.
My first thought was to let the matter drop, since -in spite of mutual good will-I doubt that we'll agree on the issues.
But in light of current events (PC zoning petitions, urban canyons, lawsuits), I must reply.
When you started your job in Palo Alto, we discussed organizational cultures. You and I come from very different work
backgrounds, so my expectations are quite different from yours. While I was fortunate to experience successes (Apple,
EA, Adobe), I am no stranger to downsizing, Chapter 11 and company closures resulting from unwillingness to confront
problems and lack of accountability.
Of course I'm pleased you reduced staff size. But you've also made quite a few high-priced hires. In my world -apart
from a few years at IBM - a lean organization was the norm. Managers had a wide span qf control. Raises, when
affordable, were given on individual performance, notacross the board. An increased workload meant adjustment of
prioritiesand longer hours.
You "think professional staff should make strong staff re,commendations to Council." I would agree if I had more faith in
staff's willingness to reach out and listen to residents and business owners who have skin in the game. The California
Avenue and Maybell processes convince me otherwise. The full page ad placed by 55 California Avenue business owners
and the thousands who signed the Maybell referendum petition show that I'm not alone in my perceptions.
You say the new "Office of Management and Budget is focused not only on budget but performance." I'm in favor of
that focus, but is a new group with a fancy name necessary? Isn't performance really your job and that of your
managers?
For example, traffic is a big problem in the city. The 2013 Budget, page 184, Planning and Community Environment says:
Objective: Decrease traffic congestion on roads and intersections
Measure 1: Percentage of survey residents rating traffic flow on major streets good or excellent has been 46% in 2010,
47% in 2011 and 40% in 2012.
Not exactly stellar.
Does the transportation department spend the majority of its time on traffic congestion? If so, why the mess on
Embarcadero at EI Camino? At EI Camino and Page Mill? On Oregon east any time after2 pm? On the Maybell "safe
route to school"?
The "successful" Arastradero road diet, which increased Maybell traffic 24%, is being blamed on school start times. The
later start time for Gunn was to allow students to sleep longer (perhaps as part of the city's focus on "youth well
being"). At the time (June 2011), Principal Katya Villalobos said the later start time "can also have a positive effect on
traffic along the Arastradero Road corridor."
1
Perhaps the chief transportation officer spends too much time thinking up new projects like the Birch Street Gateway,
which the public and the city council never heard of, so he can apply for grants -with no concern that his wish-list
projects aren't funded in the budget.
(Note that Councilwoman Shepherd remarked at the 2-11-12 council meeting, lilt looks as though staff is setting policy.
This is a complaint I hear from the community that because of this process right here staff is setting policy.")
And why does the chief transportation officer now acknowledge that the traffic model used for the California Avenue
analysis was not built to consider major changes in the district? He said, liThe old model didn't have a good analysis for
the future. It didn't add in every project that was approved."
One might ask why he didn't consider all the unapproved -but clearly foreseeable --projects that he knew were coming
up, rather than blaming the model. Were citizens' voices complaining about ignored projects too weak for lithe strong
professional staff" to hear?
One might also ask why Council is not demanding a new traffic study before spending millions on changing the street.
You say my "conclusions do a disservice to our Council, commissioners and their intelligence, and also to our citizens .... "
My conclusions have absolutely nothing to do with anyone's intelligence, and I fail to understand how you could make
that assumption.
While my original email criticizes Council for avoiding it's oversight responsibility, I don't consider it an "ill turn; wrong;
injury," as my dictionary defines "disservice." Politicians take criticism all the time. Some even respond to it and consider
it important to know what constituents are thinking.
But maybe Palo Alto considers criticism a disservice. If so, it's another way to put a negative label a on a message in
order to disregard it, akin to calling someone a NIMBY or claiming his words are "vitriolic." If the messenger is shot,
there's no need to hear the message.'
My conclusions are drawn from years of seeing citizens' concerns dismissed by staff, commissions and council members
and from the blame games and lack of accountability when problems come to light.
If residents had been heard years ago, Council would not now come to the belated realization that recent developments
(JCC, Arbor Real, Eden project, Cheesecake Factory, Miki's Market) are too big, too ugly and too close to the sidewalk.
I wonder if 5 years from now we will see a colleagues memo saying that Arastradero is too congested and should be
widened (after spending $10 M to narrow it) or that California Avenue can't handle the traffic and parking resulting from
dense housing and offices.
As for "PC'S ... established through a vote," I assume you mean a council vote, since PC zoning has never been on the
ballot. It has become the loophole of choice for developers to avoid restrictions and buy their way around zoning I~ws.
Council, on the advice of commissions and staff, is happy to accept cash or sO,-called public benefits to grant major
deviations from code. No wonder some planning commissioners say traffic and parking problems are "appropriate and
inevitable" -though that doesn't stop them from voting in favor of projects (3159 EI Camino).
Finally, I do no "disservice" to citizens. I applaud them for their recent actions in fighting back.
The city org chart shows Palo Alto Residents at the top, with the City Council reporting in to them. If only that
represented reality.
2
Residents get 3 minutes to speak at a council meeting. Rarely do council members engage them in discussion or indicate
agreement or disagreement. Even when speakers come prepared with documentation, photos, videos and professional
reports, they are discounted.
This is in stark contrast to the extended presentations and Q & A periods granted to staff members and the seemingly
obligatory attaboys given them at the end of each presentation.
Recent events tell us that the only way citizens can "hold their own" is to get a referendum on the ballot or file a lawsuit.
What else can they do with their backs to the wall? Even using these legal remedies, they're criticized for costing the city
money.
We all love the city and want to preserve the special quality of life it provides. Residents love their neighborhoods and
want to protect the ambiance which drew them here. In spite of what we constantly hear from planners and
commissioners, there has never been a mandate for urbanism to take over our suburban communities.
Democracy depends on the voice of the people and -one way or another -they will be heard.
"So, two cheers for Democracy: one because it admits variety and two because it permits criticism. II "'E. M. Forster
Pat
From: Keene, James [mailto:James.Keene@CityofPaloAlto.org]
sent: Sunday, July 21, 2013 4:39 PM
To: Pat Marriott; Council, City
Cc: Akni1n, Aaron; Keith, Claudia; Perez, Lalo
Subject: RE: Time to step up!
Ms. Marriott,
We know each other well enough that I'd appreciate your reaching out to me to get a fuller context on comments made
in the press. In our conversation with the Weekly, we discussed the evolution that projects go through during the public
review process and the many perspectives and issues that are brought up-by citizens, commissioners, staff, Council,
and so on. My comments regarding findings in a staff report as a matter comes forward for adoption are that we do
report the findings that support a particular action. At the same time,l said that during the history of a project (which in
Palo Alto can run over the course of years) there are many different comments and points of view that arise and that
staff helps identify and express problems or different issues that need attention or which may generate conflict during
the review process. I also said we would look at ways we could reasonably summarize the record of the whole process.
You should also be aware that staff reports don't always reflect simply the staff perspective, but are shaped through the
process by public comments, Council directives, etc.
Furthermore, I must respectfully disagree with you about the role of staff. I do think professional staff should make
strong staff recommendations to Council. The staff doesn't vote. PC's, for example, are established through a vote. I
think your conclusions do a disservice to our Council, commissioners and their intelligence, and also to our citizens to
think that they can't hold their own with a strong professional staff. Heck, YOU have me responding to you on a Sunday
afternoon.
Finally, we have reduced the size of our general fund (tax supported) staffing significantly over the past roughly five
years. Demands have certainly not receded but grown. In addition, even this year as we added back funding for police
officer positions and made a few other adjustments we have kept staffing flat. You neglect to mention that the
Communications Officer position is matched with elimination of the Deputy City Manager position. Our "new" Office of
Management and Budget (focused not only on budget but performance) has been created by reorganizing and
reconfiguring existing staffing. Because we do value accountability, I believe it is crucial that we enhance our
management analysis and reporting along with maintaining strong financial management. I am accountable for each of
3
these decisions and stand behind them, as inthe best interests of Palo Alto. You of course, are free to disagree, as you
freely do.
Jim
From: Pat Marriott [mailto:patmarriott@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, July 19, 2013 5:42 PM
To: Council, City
Subject: Time to step up!
Council Members,
I hope you will read all the articles in today's Palo Alto Weekly regarding planning -or lack thereof.
Pay particular attention to the editorial and this paragraph: "In an interview for today's cover story, Keene made the
startling admission that staff reports on proposed PC projects are not intended to identify conflicts between
Comprehensive Plan policies, but are meant to provide the findings needed for the council to adopt the staff's
recommendation. /I
I have long said that staff sets policy. I have written to you about traffic studies and asked you to justify them. I have
asked why you offer nothing but praise to staff members -practically kowtowing to them! -and why there is no
accountability.
You have abdicated all responsibility to the city manager and his ever-growing, highly-paid staff.
Don't you think it's about time you stepped up to the job you were elected fori to represent the residents and provide
OVERSIGHT instead of letting staff run the city?
Pat Marriott
4
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Council Members,
Bob Roth <bobroth@lavabit.com>
Tuesday, August 06, 2013 5:42 AM
Council, City
maybell
13 AUG -6 Hi 2: l~
Maybell residents do not oppose low-cost, senior housing. They oppose the two-tier zoning law implementation by Palo
Alto's City Council.
A law is a contract between government and the governed. It is not to be profaned. If I build a 'granny unit' for my
mother-in-law and my residential lot size is less than the code requirement, the enforcement arm of the law can require
that I tear it down. Not too good for me, but the entire community benefits from the rule and enforcement of fair and
reasonable laws.
But just a minute. Not all are equal before the law. If you are a special segment of the community, you can negotiate
with the government. If you promise to build soccer fields, or a theater, or a police station, you may avoid the
constraints offair and reasonable laws. You can raise office towers that violate height limit laws. Build businesses that
avoid parking requirements.You can find consultants to justify the exceptions that violate the current laws.
The residents challenging the council approved Maybell development are for stable, dependable, zoning laws. If the
community thinks high-rise, high-density housing blocks are the way to go, then pass the changes required to the zoning
laws. The nibble, nibble approach to high density zoning means that 'all are equal before the law' is a sham.
Robert Roth Middlefield Road Palo Alto
19
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Helen Simoni <hdsimoni@gmail.com>
Monday, August OS, 2013 9:57 PM
Council, City
Maybell Project
13 AUG -6 PM 2: 14
I think the community has made their views clear and that you should go back to the drawing board on the Maybell
project and Palo Alto re-zoning in general. I think it would be more productive for you to step back and think about
development in Palo Alto rather than hold an expensive special election.
Sincerely,
Helen
Sent from my iPad
22
Gonsalves, Ronna
From:
l F ~ t t \) ,~ -l ..... ~ i,_ U 1""1, _'~ t , ..
M. Fruth <mafruth@yahoo.comtny CL.EfU\'S OFFICE
Sent:
To:
Monday, August 05,2013 9:16 PM3 A"" _c 2: 14
Council, City I . ,Uti 0
Subject: *Maybell Solution Win-Win
There has been a great deal of focus on the possibility of a referendum on the Maybell project. An
election would be expensive, and will increase tension and polarization. But there is an
alternative: the Palo Alto City Council could just accept the petitions, reverse their approvals of the
project, and begin working with the landowner/developer and the neighbors to create a new
compromise proposal which everyone could live with. Then the Palo Alto Housing Corporation does
not have to spend scarce dollars on an election campaign, while preparing to show how it kept its
nonprofit funds separat~ from its political action fund (PAC).
Margaret Fruth
Ventura Neighborhood
------------------------------------------------------------
4075 EI Camino Way
Palo Alto, CA 94036
776-2088
Please do not publish my contact information.
23
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
t:t'l y, OF F:j\ LO t~LTO, C;\
d I i L~El\h g OFFIOE
Ree Dufresne < ree_duff@comcast.net>13 ft.'){\l"...PU?'15.
Monday, August 05,2013 3A2 PM HUI" -0 ,I f ,-'
Couneil, City
gsheyner@paweekly.com; bkerr@padailypost.com; jgreen@dailynewsgroup.com;
Eduardo Martinez; Aknin, Aaron
Please reseind vote on Maybell Project
Members of the City Council,
I have been notified by the City Clerk of Palo Alto (with letters of sufficiency, attached)
that our Signatures for both Referendum Petitions, have qualified for Voter approval in
the next General Election.
You now have the opportunity to repeal the Ordinance and Resolution.
It would also eliminate the need for the PAHC, which is a "Non-Profit Low Income
Housing Corporation" to spend their money on "Low income housing instead of a
"Political Campaign".
If you choose to ignore that option, the matter should be moved to the 2014 Election as
required by law.
The issue is Rezoning the property!
I encourage you to act in a responsible and prudent manner "going forward" and not
add to the burden of the taxpayers of Palo Alto, by trying to push this to a Special
Election.
Sincerely,
Ree Dufresne
Rosemarie (Ree) Campana Dufresne, R.N. (Ret)
522 Thain Way
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650-856-2024
Cell: 650-224-8845
34
Gonsalves, Ronna
, From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Palo Alto City Council Members:
ForestLight <forest129@yahoo~com >
Tuesday, August 06,2013 9:17 PM
Council, City; Clerk, City
13 AUG -7 A", 9: 04
Special Palo Alto Council Meeting Thursday August 8, 2013: Maybell Rezoning Issue
It is painfully apparent to me that holding a special election burdens us taxpayers with is major increase in election costs
for the sole and financial benefit of a single developer. That the City Council should even be considering this is not, I
suppose, a great surprise considering the clear conflict of interest the City Council engaged in by committing to financially
support this project before their constituent voter-residents had any say in it.
I was raised in Palo Alto, went to school here, raised my children here, and have lived here most of
my life. And never have I seen as clear case of bad governmental practice as I have seen this City
Council exhibit on the issues surrounding the Maybell property.
At the very least, your taxpaying constituents should be able to expect you, our elected representatives to maintain and
uphold our citizens' rights under the City Referendum Rules. We are now very clear that there is a significant additional
expense of over $200,000 to hold a special election rather than the incremental fee to add ballot measures to the next
general election. The City Referendum Rules Article VI, Section 3 (5) states that a referendum ballot should go on the
next general municipal election (in November, 2014).
Despite the cynical disinformation campaign waged by the developer, those of us opposed to the rezoning/proposed
development have consistently held that we/the neighborhoods favor affordable senior housing under existing
zoning. The residents of Palo Alto are strongly objecting to the rezoning of the Maybell/Clemo project. We have opposed
this rezoning and proposed high-density project for the numerous reasons stated to you so strongly and by so many in
the recent past. We simply do not want this rezoning in a residential neighborhood.
I hope you are aware that the large number of signatures needed to qualify the rezoning for a referendum has swiftly far
exceeded the number required. This should signal to you that Palo Alto residents are going to resist the spread of high
density projects-and all their effects-because we do not agree that rezoning for higher density is in our interest. For far
too long we have all seen the developers and the City cooperate to "game" the existing zoning that is supposed to protect
our interests and maintain our living environment.
At this time I urge you to wake up, respond to your constituency and simply repeal the (rezoning)
. Ordinance and Resolution which was not in compliance with the original Comprehensive Plan, and
don't cynically foist upon Palo Alto residents a costly and increasingly divisive election.
Sincerely,
Michael Maurier
Greenacres I Resident
646 Fairmede Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
16
Gonsalves. Ronna
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Joseph Rolfe <joerolfe@comcast.net>
Tuesday, August 06, 2013 8:47 PM
Council, City
Maybell Senior Housing
C: L .. _. CA
CITY CLERlfS OFFICE
13 AUG -7 AM ~: 05
The opposition tO,the Maybell Senior Housing is a disappointing display of NIMBY and it appears selfishness.
As a practical matter, this site will be developed. 47 single family homes will generate more traffic, demand more
municipal services, and add additional kids in an already crowded school system.
Is the real senior housing complaint about sharing the neighborhood with people who are different or poorer than they
are? A healthy community is both compassionate and diverse.
27