A developer's plan to build 16 homes on a former orchard site on Maybell Avenue scored a major victory Thursday morning, when Palo Alto's Architectural Review Board signed off on the project.
The board voted 4-1, with Peter Baltay dissenting, despite some concerns from some members about the parking layout and vehicle access on some of the lots at the 2.46-acre property. These reservations notwithstanding, the board agreed that it's time to move the project forward.
By getting the board's approval, developer Golden Gate Homes has cleared its highest hurdle to date for a development project that will be located at the site of one the city's most notable land-use battles. The Palo Alto Housing Corporation had initially proposed a development on the site that included a 60-unit complex for low-income seniors and 12 single-family homes.
That project won the council's approval but faltered after a citizen referendum.
The new project, by contrast, proceeded with broad neighborhood support -- a factor that the City Council took into account in June 2016, when it approved a tentative map for the proposed development.
While the applicant had addressed most of the design issues flagged by the board, board members Peter Baltay and Wynne Furth remained concerned about the design of the driveway on one of the lots, which they felt was not practical for vehicle maneuvering.
While Baltay eventually voted against the project, Furth joined the rest of her colleagues in approving it.
Chair Alex Lew was less troubled by the parking situation, noting that the area probably won't get too much traffic. The board ultimately agreed that the applicant has sufficiently revised the project to meet members' concerns.
The community, which vocally opposed the prior project, also appears to have been appeased. Jodie Gerhardt, the city's current planning manager, pointed to the lack of opposition in the Council Chambers, where not a single speaker challenged the new development.
"The fact that you have no community members here is very telling," Gerhardt said. "The project has been highly controversial and the fact that there's no one here today should speak loudly to the fact that the community is now more comfortable with this project."
Comments
Professorville
on Jul 20, 2017 at 10:29 am
on Jul 20, 2017 at 10:29 am
Terrible outcome. 16 single-family homes instead of 60 units for low-income seniors and 12 single home. This is why housing costs continue to escalate in the Bay Area.
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Jul 20, 2017 at 10:38 am
on Jul 20, 2017 at 10:38 am
These units will have greater impacts on traffic and school enrollment than senior housing would have had. I don't see how this is an improvement over the previously proposed project. It doesn't address our housing problems in market segments that matter more--seniors and young adults.
Registered user
Midtown
on Jul 20, 2017 at 11:21 am
Registered user
on Jul 20, 2017 at 11:21 am
Please see my comments and Greenacres on the previous edition of this story. Maybell was a badly designed project on the wrong street. The same people who opposed it, including myself, enthusiastically supported the acquisition of Buena Vista Park which will provide far more housing for low to moderate income families and seniors IN THE SAME NEIGHBORHOOD. This was a much better use of the money. Please stop bashing the opposition to a truly awful project and come up with proposals for more low to moderate income housing.
Let's be creative: how about apartments on top of parking garages? How about requiring developers to build housing before more offices? How about rezoning some of the low density commercial properties in Southeast Palo Alto for higher density housing, and require 15% of it actually be low to moderate income housing? In-lieu contributions should be scrapped.
How about rezoning some of the Palo Alto Square parking for medium density housing over underground parking? How about rezoning land between Foothill and 280 for medium density housing - no worries over rising sea level. Does it really make sense to build high density housing somewhere that could be underwater or in extreme flood danger in the next 50 years rather than someplace near existing transportation corridors like 280? Private bus systems could provide true mass transit or - let's be truly creative, and extend BART around the Bay up the 280 corridor. We need multiple routes from San Jose to get to San Francisco.
Let's try to come up with some positive suggestions for the future rather than just bashing past decisions.
Barron Park
on Jul 20, 2017 at 2:10 pm
on Jul 20, 2017 at 2:10 pm
Maybell was a lost opportunity to provide much needed low income and senior housing in our community. The Maybell local residents wanted to preserve and or enhance their home values by opposing development at existing zoning and they achieved their goal. All Palo Altans lost. There is nothing good about the Maybell outcome. Measure D would have won (zoning to allow the development) if the true goals of the Maybell residents were known at the time.
"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?"
YES! YES! YES!
Registered user
Barron Park
on Jul 20, 2017 at 2:44 pm
Registered user
on Jul 20, 2017 at 2:44 pm
"The project has been highly controversial and the fact that there's no one here today should speak loudly to the fact that the community is now more comfortable with this project."--Jodie Gerhardt
Funny enough, suspense about the outcome arose from within the ranks of ARB itself, not from any expressed neighborhood concerns. The Weekly's account is far too dry for the tension that rose as three of the five members expressed concerns about street width and parking before the final 4-1 approval was announced.
Downtown North
on Jul 20, 2017 at 4:49 pm
on Jul 20, 2017 at 4:49 pm
"...the tension that rose as three of the five members expressed concerns about street width and parking before the final 4-1 approval was announced."
Those pious expressions of concerns were for the minutes. The 4-1 vote was for keeps.
Downtown North
on Jul 20, 2017 at 6:27 pm
on Jul 20, 2017 at 6:27 pm
"These reservations notwithstanding,the board agreed that it's time to move the project forward."
As is too often the case at our city hall, the deciding factor is the schedule, not the merits of the project.
Barron Park
on Jul 21, 2017 at 12:06 am
on Jul 21, 2017 at 12:06 am
There will never be enough housing in Palo Alto as more and more jobs are squeezed into the city to have the prestige of being here. We are building more and more housing to essentially allow more and more rich foreigners to move here. The housing is not affordable for the employees working in Palo Alto. All these 1 BR or studio apartments/condos will be purchased by families with 1 or 2 kids, so they can overcrowd our schools. You can't build house only for single people, you have to sell to anyone willing to buy, even if that means 4 people will be in 1 BR.
Mountain View
on Jul 21, 2017 at 9:05 am
on Jul 21, 2017 at 9:05 am
@BP - exactly!
"We are building more and more housing to essentially allow more and more rich foreigners to move here."
Sadly, this is precisely what's happening, not only in Palo Alto but all over the Bay Area. Our city councils are allowing the big tech companies to expand without limit in our little region, always with promises of tax windfalls that will benefit our local economy. But instead, it's the tech execs and shareholders who get richer and richer at our expense while we watch our communities get dismantled.
Barron Park
on Jul 22, 2017 at 6:45 am
on Jul 22, 2017 at 6:45 am
Time to stop the underdeveloped luxury homes going in at Maybell. That land is currently zoned RM-15 and RM-2 !!!!!
It is criminal to put up just 15 homes on RM-15 and RM2 land when current zoning allows multiples of that number !
Way to keep 'em out locals!