For the second time in three years, Palo Alto in preparing to approve a housing development for a former orchard site on Maybell Avenue.
This time, however, both the project and the community’s reaction is drastically different. Unlike in 2013, when residents struck down in a referendum a council-approved housing project featuring 12 single-family homes and a 60-unit complex for low-income seniors, the current proposal for 567 Maybell has won widespread support in the Barron Park neighborhood.
The new proposal from Golden Gate Homes includes 16 homes: five along Maybell Avenue and 11 in the interior of the 2.47-acre site. The latter would be accessed through a private road that would stretch from Clemo Avenue.
The proposal has already gone through numerous revisions since April 2014, when Golden Gate Homes purchased the property from the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. While initially envisioned as a 30-home development, the project was scaled back to 24 and, ultimately, 16 homes based on feedback from residents. As of Friday afternoon, more than 230 residents signed a petition urging the council to support the project.
The high level for resident support was a key consideration for the Planning and Transportation Commission, which unanimously voted on May 26 to recommend approval of the new proposal. Based on public feedback, commissioners also rejected a recommendation from the city’s planning staff that the developer include a pedestrian path that connects the housing development to Maybell (in the existing plan, the path that comes off Clemo terminates in the interior of the site).
The path was the main point of contention between city planners and the developer. Ted O’Hanlon, consulting project manager for Golden Gate Homes, argued at the May 26 meeting that the path is not necessary and that requiring it would be unreasonable, given how few residents would use it.
“Clemo will provide residents with adequate pedestrian access to Maybell Avenue,” O’Hanlon said.
But Chief Transportation Official Josh Mello said the city has consistently requested that the developer offer residents access to both Clemo and Maybell. Without it, the walk from the private street at the site’s interior to Maybell would be about 440 feet, Mello said, or equivalent of about two city blocks. The distance, he said, is long enough to potentially discourage people from walking to area services.
“It’s not a trivial addition to walking distance,” Mello said.
The commission generally agreed that a pathway would be a good idea. But they ultimately sided with the neighborhood residents, who joined O’Hanlon in arguing against the pathway.
Joe Hirsch, who was one of the leaders of the 2013 referendum, called the current proposal a “unique circumstance” in which a developer has been collaborating with the neighborhood.
“We encourage the city to respect the wishes of this neighborhood, and we ask this commission to recommend approval without the condition requiring a pedestrian path,” Hirsch said.
The commission ultimately deferred to the public sentiment and voted 4-0, with Chair Adrian Fine and commissioners Kate Downing and Eric Rosenblum absent, to recommend approval without the path. Commissioner Asher Waldfogel, representing the view of the majority, argued that the city should respect the will of the community.
“Once you construct a process, you just have to take this process where it goes,” Waldfogel said.
Now, it will be the City Council’s turn to consider the project and the potential pathway. The council is set to consider approving the tentative map for the proposed development. If the project gets approved, Golden Gate Homes would still need to go through the architectural-review process before it could start building.
I support the proposal for the 16 homes and the road traffic circulation plan associated with it. Golden Gate Homes deserves a great deal of credit for modifying its project to make it possible to get agreement from residents worried about traffic on Arastradero and another group worried primarily about traffic on Maybell.
But I am concerned that the pedestrian path from the interior units to Maybell recommended by Transportation Director Josh Mello was dismissed without adequate consideration by the shorthanded PTC (4 out of 7) at the hearing.
City policies call for increased bicycle and pedestrian connectivity to foster a healthier lifestyle and reduce our carbon footprint. Pedestrian and bicycle connectivity should be encouraged, if not required, for cul-de-sac developments, especially if a developer is requesting accommodations to get a project permitted.
It’s not in GGC’s interest to have the path included since it will reduce slightly the amount of land available for other features. And it’s not something that the Maybell negotiators favor, though I’m not sure why. But they aren’t the final decision makers. The City Council is, and I would like them to be sure that the public’s interest is not being sacrificed by leaving out the recommended path.
In my opinion, a path is an amenity, not a burden for cul-de-sac residents. Just on Maybell there are several projects that were built without alternate bike/ped access points at a time when traffic was less dense and there was less attention paid to walking and cycling. Barron Square, for example, would have benefited from a bike/ped path onto Georgia Avenue as a way for residents to walk and bike around Barron Park without having to go out to Maybell. It’s too late to redo that project, and many others, but the city can credibly stand up for better connectivity in the future if it doesn’t back down this time.
@Jerry,
Thank you for your support of the plan. I think people don’t want that parcel to become a cut through for bicyclists the way Juana Briones School is, for example, even though the past Maybell improvements were allegedly going to make that unnecessary. The bikes would come out on Maybell at an unexpected place. It’s much safer for the bikes to intersect that Maybell traffic at just Clemo, where they do now, rather than both Clemo and at an unexected place next to the APAC driveway onto Maybell.
Thank you for sharing your concern about bicycle cut through as a reason for resisting the staff recommendation.
Bicyclists from the interior 11 units on the cul-de-sac will be well served by the overall circulation plan, the little extra distance to get out on the street is trivial and unlikely to affect their mode of access to neighborhood streets. Not so for pedestrians. Adding two city blocks, four for a round trip, for a walk down Maybell to Walgreen’s reduces the likelihood that people will walk rather than take the car to do their business.
+
The question of cut-through traffic could be addressed the way Barron Square handles its pedestrian access to El Camino, little-used now but available when there is more interest in walking. A locked gate for which residents have the key allows them to exit Barron Square onto the ECR sidewalk. Perhaps that could be a model for giving convenient access to lovely (seriously) Maybell to people who will be paying over $3m for their luxury homes in that enclave. I don’t see what would lead a bicyclist coming from outside the development to cut through on a path designed for pedestrians instead of simply continuing to the corner of Clemo and Maybell and turning right. What’s the advantage?
The City Council needs to be clear that the city is getting the best possible deal when it signs off on a Maybell project.
Barron Park is a very walkable neighborhood once you cross Maybell. New residents at the orchard site should be encouraged get out into it and become part of the community by having that pedestrian back door. Just as, by the way, the residents of the 65 condos at Barron Square should have had easier access to Barron Park streets at all times without having to go onto Maybell. If only the city had pushed for that 40 years ago!
@Jerry,
I’m afraid I don’t understand your post. Kids cut through where they can. If they can cut through the new development to cut a corner, they will, just as they cut through the elementary campus when you would think going around is no big deal ( at least, that’s what I was told when I expressed concern about the cut through traffic not going away). That means there will be an extra intersection of bikes with Maybell, not at a major intersection, which as you are probably aware from the Stanford study increases the potential for injury accidents. We have around 4,000 kids coming from and going to school in the area, a large percentage by bike. A hypothetical about people not walking to the drugstore without the path does not offset the downside to adding the path. People will walk in the neighborhood if it is pleasant and safe to do so. They will not if it us not. Despite the new development adding sidewalk on Maybell to the APAC site (a wonderful feature), there remains a segment between APAC and Walgreens with no sidewalk, only very limited setback, which us typically parked on. People often step right into the road. That deterrent will remain and is a bigger issue that a pleasant walk to the park. People are not likely to make separate trips to walgreens, they are likely to combine with other car trips anyway.
The path is an unreasonable bone of contention. Putting it in restricts the developers’ choices in making a compatible development, from what I understand. If not, then they should only approve it if the safety issues around bikes making that a cut through – which they will sure as kids are kids – are solved definitively, AND the city bites the bullet and makes a continuous sidewalk to El Camino and no more parking on that side of Maybell. That could only happen if they also bit the bullet and finally provided some extra onsite parking for APAC because there is only 1 car per unit which has always been inadequate, hence Maybell always parked up.
Regardless, the lack of continuous sidewalks to El Camino is a far bigger issue in terms of whether people will walk to Walgreens. This neighborhood has little agency to anything else, so car trips are a given to everwhere else (any argument over Walgreens is just red herring), it’s one reason a community space and orchard would have been preferrable.
Of course I meant, this neighborhood has little adjacency to anything else – City Council seems to think only residents on the north side of town deserve investments in most of the major civic walkable amenities, I guess, even though we are increasingly cut off because of traffic.
I find it humorous that the discussion revolves around walking to the lone outpost of civilization with any adjacency here, Walgreens, LOL.
Lots of differences in the assessment of risk, likely outcomes, value of pedestrian and bicycle exercise. The city council should take a close look at this project and give it the critical examination that to my knowledge it hasn’t had.
Whose idea was it to make this small detail a deal-breaker anyway? I didn’t hear any mention of it at the community meeting called by GGH to get neighborhood feedback and support before submitting it to the PTC. I thought the circulation plan of the 16-home project had resolved all outstanding issues regarding access to the project.
The BPA alert for residents to appear at the PTC hearing did not mention the pedestrian path as one of the reasons to show support for the project exactly as submitted by GGH. Yet it looks as if the petition would include that as a non-negotiable part of the circulation plan. How did that not get addressed at the community meeting?
In the financial analysis presented to the PTC, GGH showed that it was foregoing millions by going with the 16 unit project instead of a higher density plan that would meet current zoning requirements. It will come out OK if the market for $3M+ homes stays strong, but it is assuming a significantly greater risk than with a plan that has five $3.75M homes on Maybell and twenty-six $2M Townhouse units. Should the city council give in on the pedestrian path so that GGH won’t back away from the 16-home plan.
Let me offer another option. Don’t force GGH to lose more (or make less) by agreeing to build a 16 home project that includes the recommended pedestrian access to Maybell. Use city funds to pay for the path. Agree to one more lot of than 6000 sq ft–if you can do it for two, you can do it for three. And move on with a win (GGH), win (neighborhood), win (City of Palo Alto) outcome.
Correction:
Agree to one more lot of *less* than 6000 sq ft
Most people think the Maybell development is a tragically poor use of the land. The biggest problem for the neighbors of Maybell now is pedestrian cut through ? Goodness. Bicyclists from the culdesac ? Weighty problems indeed when compared to the loss of senior housing. Now lets all gang up and take the Mr. Jissers land.
I take issue with the comment that “Barron Square, for example, would have benefited from a bike/ped path onto Georgia Avenue as a way for residents to walk and bike around Barron Park without having to go out to Maybell.” My family has lived in Barron Square for over 16 years. Over those years, I have enjoyed daily walks in the larger Barron Park neighbor and have never once wished for a cut-through onto Georgia, which would I believe would decease the security of our home.
When a developer and a neighborhood have worked so diligently to find an agreeable outcome, I think that agreement should be honored. If a pedestrian path were truly such a great benefit to the residents of the proposed new Maybell development, it would be in the developer’s interest to include it. I trust the developer’s judgment that a pedestrian path would not result in a net benefit to the development’s residents, to an extent that would offset the negatives, including loss of security, privacy, & a reduction of lot sizes. I don’t believe third parties should second-guess what potential benefits might theoretically accrue to a handful of the development’s future residents.
“I don’t believe third parties should second-guess . . .”
That’s the role of city government in this situation, to take a look at what conflicting parties in the working group have come up with as an agreement and pass it through the additional filter of city policies and community values before approving it. The council heard public comments this evening and postponed discussion and a decision until next week.
@Jerry Underdal,
I am not sure of the purpose of such a financial analysis as you mentioned. In the last community meeting for the neighborhood, the agent for the developer said that they tried working with the city to see if thry could do a more dense development there, and there were too many “grey areas”. Given that the market for tiwnhouses sort of elbows over relative to singke family homes in a boom, they seem to have either underestimated the value of the homes and/or overestimated the value of townhouses. Next to R-1 neighborhoods, density is supposed to be on the lower end of the range (in the RM-15 part). While the comp plan is generally ignored because of our charter city status, it would be enforceable by neighbors in a subdivision process. I don’t think such high density would be possible, but perhaps the developer is trying to make a good case for this plan, I don’t know. You also have the issue of neighbors very likely to get fed up and going for more drastic actions if this development is not approved.
As for “most” people thinking it’s a waste, I agree – but what the survey in the neighborhoid reported is that the most people think the ORCHARD should be saved and the parcel turned into community space, a walkable community space for this whole side of town. It would be a haven for families, and could be very healing given that we have so many schools over here. The City really let generations of Palo Alto children and families down by not exercising it’s right to purchase the property noncompetitively after the referendum. There is a deficit of open space owed residents because of all the development, and this would have been a small part. Plus it would fit all the parks and rec goals when it comes to saving urban trees.
To people who keep harping on what they wanted there, the eggs-all-in-one-dense-basket approach – that plan was unacceptable to too many neighbors because of conditions there which even Jerry Underdal now acknowledges (thank you Jerry). Had proponents been willing to acknowledge the strong desires of the neighborhood, putting safety first, it would have been possible to move forward with a working group to meet all goals, including the housing, which is what happened in a very similar development battle to save Terman school in the same neighborhood (which ended up also creating affordable housing). A lot of time has passed since the referendum, and many more suitable parcels along El Camino – empty or dilapidated like at the old Compadres site – could be purchased or worked on for housing. What efforts have all the sour grapes people made?
I’m still also astonished that the City has not developed analytical tools to evaluate development relative to all the needs, like water, environment, noise, pollution, open space, traffic, and especially safety, including emergency safety. It could solve a lot of arguments, though I suspect most don’t want to be faced with the facts. Having trustworthy tools to analyze proposed development – indeed, to look at our City as a whole – might make opportunities more obvious too.
Palo Alto City Council
There’s no reason for the city to yield on anything of importance to accommodate a decision reached by parties in conflict who agree that neither of them likes what the city recommends, in this case a pedestrian path.
PASZ doesn’t want a pathway for people in the interior units to access Maybell due to exaggerated safety and security concerns. GGH doesn’t want a pathway because it feels it is already leaving money on the table by taking the risk of a 16-home all R-1 project instead of holding out for a 23-home project that might be easier and more profitable and doesn’t want the additional cost of building the path.
So what happens if the city holds to its recommendation to have a path, in accordance with best design practices and the city’s values of promoting healthier transportation alternatives and reducing our carbon footprint? Nothing, and that’s OK.
We’d all get to enjoy the orchard for a little while longer as the parties involved considered their next moves. We could entertain anew fantasies like a community center or a renovated orchard. Either would be a lot nicer for the neighborhood that an exclusive cluster of 16 $3–4M homes. We can dream while developers and land use activists scheme to realize their non-affordable housing objectives on that property.
@Jerry Underdal,
First of all, saving the orchard was not a “pipe dream”, if the then City Council had not acted in such a petty, shortsighted, and juvenile way, probably to punish the uppity neighbors for the referendum. Just after the referendum, the Council decided on whether to exercise their right to purchase the property, and they decided not to. Had they simply done this, in hindsight, they could have ultimately gotten the park space for close to FREE (after selling off the existing homes on Maybell on the site). Even without the benefit of hindsight, the same neighbors who launched the only successful citizen land use referendum in anyone’s memory (decades) were asking for the ability to raise the capital for preserving the park. In other words, there again, the City could have gotten the land for FREE and volunteer power to finance and build community space there. Not only was this not a pipe dream it was more easily doable than the referendum.
Since later that season it was found that Karen Holman (whom I otherwise support) had been taking finders fees from developers, we the public are still left to wonder why the City Council took such a hard line on that exact development and
refused to consider a working group of citizens/neighbors and the city in order to examine how to produce the affordable housing AND meet the goals of the neighborhood for safety and consistency with the comp plan, since many of the same neighbors had been involved in a working group during a similar development in the same neighborhood that saved the Terman School from development and resulted in a 92-unit affordable housing complex being built.
The same neighbors rebuffed a school from going there before the Maybell referendum, even as they work collaboratively with another school on Arastradero.
My question is why would the current City Council want to start up Maybell 2.0 by doing anything but approving this plan? I, too, think it’s a waste, because saving the orchard is a unique opportunity to provide a focal community space in a part of town that has NONE. Do you know that nearly 50 children from Gunn were taken from school for serious depressive episodes, and that two of the Gunn high school students who died last year lived on properties within feet of the orchard? What if there had been a community space that welcomed teens there? The community and Council spout all kinds of concern and rhetoric about how they care, but when an opportunity like this is staring them in the face, they can’t see over their sour grapes about not being able to ignore neighbors’ safety concerns and do whatever they want.
But if the site is going to be developed, it is a low-density bird in hand. Any argument over the bike path is a red herring, and just plain stupid, since the sidewalk along Maybell ends midblock, the setbacks on those properties are small and walkers usually end up in the road, and anyone wanting to go to the Walgreens is more likely to be deterred by the lack of a continuous and safe pathway on Maybell before the drug store- which the City will do nothing about.
@Jerry Underdal,
You know very well that neighbors concerns of safety are not exaggerated when it comes to a a midblock nonintersection entry of dozens, possibly hundreds of bicyclists daily only Maybell. According to the CDC and NHTSA:
CDC link:
http://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/bicycle/
What are the major risk factors?
* Adolescents and young adults (15-19 years) and adults aged 40 years and older have the highest bicycle death rates.
* Children (5-14 years), adolescents, and young adults (15-24 years) have the highest rates of nonfatal bicycle-related injuries, accounting for more than one-third of all bicycle-related injuries seen in U.S. emergency departments. …
* Most bicyclist deaths occur in urban areas and at non-intersection locations.
Non-intersection locations include driveways, alleys, and other “midblock rideout” locations like this proposed bike path.
NHTSA link
http://www.nhtsa.gov/DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/Associated%20Files/Prevent.pdf
-More than one-fifth of all bicyclist deaths occur among school age youth ages 5 to 15. More children go to hospital emergency departments for bicycle related crashes than for any other sport. …most deaths occur as a result of bicycle and motor vehicle crashes…
Bicyclist comes from Alley or Driveway
Often called a “midblock rideout,†this is THE MOST FREQUENT CRASH TYPE FOR YOUNG RIDERS and occurs soon after the bicyclist enters the roadway from a driveway, alley, or curb without slowing, stopping, or looking for traffic. The bicyclist’s sudden entry leaves the motorist too little time to avoid a collision. [emphasis added]
If that pathway is put in, bicyclists will cut down it to cut a corner at Maybell and Clemo. They are far safer coming out at an existing roadway intersection. Reminding that there are many hundreds of kids who ride bikes to school and the only two routes for the majority of them are Arastradero and Maybell.
@Greenacres
“You know very well that neighbors concerns of safety are not exaggerated when it comes to a midblock nonintersection entry of dozens, possibly hundreds of bicyclists daily only (do you mean “on”) Maybell.”
My close experience with bicycling, walking, and driving on Maybell in the three years since the Maybell blowup tells me that those concerns are grossly exaggerated. It’s a block from my house. I go past it all the time. I have been in constant contact with crossing guards at El Camino and Coulombe. I know the street and I know the traffic and I am eager to see the positive effects of the street improvements on Maybell that will soon go out to bid, many of them recommended by the community in feedback sessions on the city’s bicycle plan.
I hope Transportation Chief Mello will give a full, illustrated analysis of the project map and circulation plan for the council’s and the public’s benefit if he gets to explain why the city recommended a pedestrian path. It’s the city’s plan, not mine. I didn’t even know one was under consideration. That’s an indication, I believe, of how disguised it was as an issue by Golden Gate Homes and elements of PASZ that took on the primary role of negotiator, sometimes to the disadvantage of its co-complainants on Charleston/Arastradero.
Which side insisted that elimination of the path be non-negotiable? Or was it both? Neither of them wanted it, but who would really be ready to withdraw the project and undo the results of all the negotiating that’s already been done? After getting virtually everything they (the Maybell side) demanded from the start–R-1, 16 homes, no new traffic onto Maybell–would they really walk if their no-path demand was rejected?
How about Golden Gate Homes? I think they are more likely to withdraw the plan if the city insists on the pedestrian path. They have already achieved the objective of demonstrating to city officials and residents that they are able and willing to work constructively with the community in formulating a project. If they truly have had it with making concessions that increase their risk and reduce their projected profit, they can abandon this fight and prepare for another one with PASZ and the Charleston/Arastradero group over the 23-home plan. The traffic impact plan done for the 23-home plan was so clear in its conclusion that there would be no adverse traffic impact that they didn’t even bother doing a separate one for the 16-home plan.
Look on the bright side. Maybe nothing gets built. The orchard is still there, the neighborhood need for additional gathering and recreational space is still there. Time for another push in that direction? Maybe there’ll be more receptivity to it this time. Suggestion: start with a petition. Communicate with the city. Lobby PASZ and PAF, and all other political players. No one took it seriously in the Measure D era. Maybe there will be more backing now.
“Look on the bright side. Maybe nothing gets built.”
Only in Palo Alto would that be the definition of progress.
When are people going to start focusing on the common good rather than just protecting their own back yard?
“When are people going to start focusing on the common good rather than just protecting their own back yard?”
Speaking of the common good vs. backyards, how’s your campaign to to build 360 or so affordable housing units in Atherton coming along? Got the permits all squared away?
Don’t let a selfish few who don’t want the civic pride showing up in their front window views get in your way. Maybe the grateful citizenry will even name the project after you.
@Jerry Underdal,
Notice how you just used a personal anecdote (biased by your wishes from the referendum) and completely sidestepped the safety data from the CDC and NHTSA that points out that the exact kind of intersection this pedestrian path would create results in the most common collision scenario between bike and car, that children are the most likely to be in such accidents, and that hundreds of kids on bikes go through there every day. If you look at the statistics of what percentage of bicyclists will have an injury accident in a year, you can start counting the number of injuries that will result from it. PAHC, in the previous plan, even acknowledged this danger in reducing the number of driveways onto Maybell in their erstwhile plan, as does the GGH current plan. Note that NHTSA also points out that children aren’t just small adults and there are inherent dangers that are simply related to development.
Note to Counci in case they didn’t get it from a bunch of neighbors going to the mat to organize TWO land use referenda: we care a lot about keeping the traffic impacts of that location down. Can you just accept that and do your jobs?
But then, I think Council should put a light at Clemo and Arastradero, tied to the light at Coulomb. Everyone hates that idea, but if they thought about why that is, they would realize that the answer to too much traffic on Arastradero isn’t to foist it onto substandard Maybell.
If this doesn’t get approved, may we count on your support for saving the orchard, Jerry? It will get ugly before it gets better…
I also use Maybell everyday, and not only think the safety concerns are reasonable, I KNOW the main push for the Maybell referendum came primarily from safety concerns of people who live in the immediate area, including me. I also remember the previous safety upgrades of Maybell and all the work that went into them – plus the broken promises and limitations in what could be done given the hard realities – and find the current “upgrade” to be little more than expensive window dressing. If the Council really wanted to make Maybell safer, they’d do things like underground the utilities to take all those poles out of the sidewalks (and prevent the blocking off of the area if there is a downed power line in an emergency).
Your position is just a wee bit biased by your position on the referendum, Jerry, starting with your ignoring the facts from NHTSA, CDC, and history.
Greenacres,
Sure, I’d be interested in exploring the possibility of getting some kind of community use from that property. But I’d be pretty skeptical about the chance of success even though it would be the best use of the property.