HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 296-09
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 296:09
DATE: JULY 6, 2009
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Adoption of an
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Apply the Pedestrian and
Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District to a Half-
Acre Site Zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM-40) to Allow Eight
Residential Condominiums Above Ground Floor Office Space, a
Below Grade Parking Garage, and Related Site Improvements at 305
Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan
Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project is a mixed use development on a 19,862-square foot site having frontage
on three streets located near the California Avenue Business District, with approximately 10,257
square feet of ground floor office and eight residential units above. This is the second request
the City has processed for application of the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) Combining District zoning. The intent of the PTOD Zoning District is to facilitate
mixed use and residential projects to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity in transit oriented
areas. Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend approval of the
associated environmental document and rezoning with a requirement that the Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan include transit passes for occupants/tenants. In addition, the
PTC recommends project modifications to move the garage driveway away from Grant Avenue
to access either Sheridan Avenue or Birch Street, in response to neighbor concerns for pedestrian
safety. Study of such a project redesign has been analyzed and discussed further in the report,
such that staff recommends that such a condition not be imposed and the driveway should remain
on Grant Avenue.
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 1 of 8
RECOMMENDATION
The PTC recommends:
1. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
2. Adoption of an Ordinance (Attachment A) to change the zoning classification
from RM-40 Multifamily zoning district to the California Avenue PTOD
Combining District, including provisions to a) require the project to include a
Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) that requires the provision
of transit passes for occupants/tenants (condition number 4f) and b) relocate the
parking garage driveway entrance to Birch Street or Sheridan Avenue (condition
number 4g).
Staff also recommends approval of the rezoning, but recommends the deletion of condition
number 4 regarding the driveway location.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the PTOD Combining District is to facilitate higher density pedestrian and transit
friendly developments to take advantage of the proximity to public transportation and the
California Avenue Business District, while also protecting nearby historic resources. The PTOD
Combining District specifically allows mixed use development, where residential and non-
residential uses are combined, and can be applied to properties zoned R-1, CC(2), CN, GM, PF,
RM-30 and RM-40 or with combining districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD
boundary, as shown on the City’s approved zoning maps, consistent with the provisions of
Chapter 18.08 and 18.80 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC).
Once the PTOD Combining District is implemented, the development regulations of the PTOD
Combining District would be applied to a development project in lieu of any underlying zoning
designation. If development standards such as height and setbacks are not addressed in the
regulations, the ARB has the discretion to determine the appropriate standards within the context
of neighboring sites and buildings.
Council Purview
The rezoning of a site to the PTOD district may be initiated by the owner of an eligible property
or may be initiated by a vote of the Commission or City Council. Rezoning applications to the
PTOD district are processed in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.80, the standard rezoning
process. The Commission review and City Council approval establishes the allowable or
required use limits, such as types and mix of uses, and intensity, including density and floor area
ratio. Following Council’s approval of a PTOD rezoning, the applicant can submit an
application requesting architectural review approval for the new development. The development
project would be reviewed by the ARB in accordance with the architectural review criteria and
recommended to the Director of Planning and Community Environment pursuant to approval
findings set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.76, and subject to the ARB finding the project will be
consistent with the PTOD Combining District Context Based Design Criteria (PAMC Chapter
18.34.050).
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 2 of 8
Project Description
The proposed project is the redevelopment of five parcels, totaling approximately 19,862 square
feet in size, with a new three-story mixed use building. The parcels are currently developed with
three single-family homes and parking. The proposed building would consist of one level of
below grade parking, 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space and 8 townhome style
residential units above. The property would also include a small pocket park at the corner of
Birch Street and Grant Avenue and four surface parking spaces accessible from a proposed
driveway curb cut on Birch Street.
A parking ramp accessible from Grant Avenue would be provided for vehicular access to the
parking garage for 38 automobiles and up to 12 extra tandem spaces. The project would meet
the requirement for 42 automobile parking spaces. Access to the office spaces would be
provided from a central lobby accessible from the garage and Birch Street. This central lobby
and elevator would also provide access to the residential units above. Additional pedestrian
access would be provided to the residential units via stairs from both Birch Street and Sheridan
Avenue.
The two-story townhome style units would include five three-bedroom units and three two-
bedroom units. Two of the three-bedroom units would include a room on the first level that
could be used either as a den or a fourth bedroom. Common open space for residents would be
provided through a courtyard on the second floor (podium level) and the pocket park at the
corner of Birch Street and Grant Avenue. Each unit would also feature a balcony for private
open space.
The proposed office floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.52. The non-residential component of a mixed
use project within a PTOD District is allowed a maximum FAR “cap” of 0.25. The project would
exceed this cap by 0.27. The applicant’s stated purpose in proposing greater non-residential
FAR is to accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to support the eight residential
units above. The applicant requests a Government Code Section 65915 (also known as SB1818)
“concession” to exceed the non-residential FAR cap that would otherwise require approval of a
variance. This provision allows applicants to request and receive up to three “concessions” as
incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable
housing. Incentives may involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar
standards. Staff believes this concession is allowed by State law as the applicant is providing
one unit of affordable housing and is appropriate for balanced land use and design.
Prior Review
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) held a preliminary review of the project’s conceptual
development plans on August 7, 2008. A PTC hearing on the review of the rezoning request was
held on April 15, 2009. A detailed description of the hearings is included later this report.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The PTC formally reviewed the zoning request on April 15, 2009. Seven members of the public
spoke on the project. Primary concerns included traffic impacts and the request for parking
reductions. Other concerns regarding the project included impacts on light, trees, mix of uses,
ground water contamination and open space. Some members of the public voiced specific
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 3 of 8
concerns regarding the driveway proposed on Grant Avenue because of the numbers of senior
citizens that live nearby who would use Grant Avenue to access the California Avenue shopping
area.
The PTC voted 4-2-1 (Garber, Tuma, Rosati and Holman voting yes; Keller and Fineberg voting
no; Lippert absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Zoning Ordinance with two modifications: 1) the driveway to the garage be
relocated from Grant Ave. to Birch St. or Sheridan Ave., due to concerns about the safety of
turning movements, given the proximity of the driveway to Birch/Grant intersection; and 2) that
a TDM program, to include transit passes, be submitted to reduce trips and parking for the site.
The TDM plan/transit pass modification has already been addressed by the applicant, who has
provided a revised TDM plan including transit passes for occupants/residents. Staff notes that
elsewhere in this report that staff believes that there is not a safety concern with the driveway,
the volumes are minimal, and alternative driveway locations are not practical, and therefore
recommends the driveway remain as proposed (on Grant Ave.). The staff report and minutes of
the PTC meeting are attached (Attachment H).
A preliminary ARB hearing was held on August 7, 2008 for a design review of the conceptual
project. The preliminary review is consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
18.34.060(d), which states that a single preliminary ARB review may be allowed in advance of
PTC consideration of a PTOD rezoning request. The ARB was supportive of the project concept
and offered minor comments toward the improvement of the design. However, the ARB did not
support use of the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) process to allow the project to exceed
the 0.25:1 maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the non-residential portion of the building. In
response to the ARB’s lack of support for use of the DEE process, the applicant is now
requesting the non-residential FAR exception as a “concession” under Government Code Section
65915 State Density Bonus law (also known as SB1818) for providing below market rate
housing units.
DISCUSSION
The proposed rezoning ordinance (Attachment A), specifically section 4, identifies all allowable
uses and intensities for this proposal as required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code. As
mentioned above, there was focused PTC discussion on items such as driveway safety and
parking. Staff and the PTC differ on the recommendation for the driveway and this is discussed
further below.
Driveway
The Birch Street driveway provides access only to four surface parking spaces on the north side
of the project site. The second driveway, providing access to the underground garage, is located
on Grant Avenue, near the corner shared with Birch Street. During the initial review, staff had
determined that, with maintenance of sight lines near the corner, the proposed Grant Avenue
driveway location would provide for safe vehicle operations and pedestrian movement.
However, several members of the public expressed safety concerns over the proximity of the
driveway to the corner because of potential conflicts with pedestrians; therefore, the PTC
responded with its recommendation for the driveway relocation to Birch Street or Sheridan
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 4 of 8
Avenue. Following the PTC hearing, staff reviewed the Grant Avenue proposal again, along with
the two potential new locations.
Staff does not recommend Birch Street for the location of the main driveway leading to below
grade parking because additional vehicular conflicts would occur due to the street’s higher traffic
volumes, raised median, and because the street also provides a direct link to connectors to and
from Oregon Expressway. Although a driveway on Sheridan Avenue would be feasible, it would
not provide any safety improvements over the Grant Avenue location. Given the proposed
number of parking spaces and anticipated low traffic volumes, the location of the Grant Avenue
driveway would not generate a safety hazard. Staff will continue to work with the applicant
during the ARB review of the project to ensure that sight lines will be maintained and other
safety measures, such as mirrors, will be incorporated into the project. Because relocating the
driveway to Sheridan Avenue would not improve safety, staff continues to support the project’s
main driveway location on Grant Avenue and recommends that such a relocation condition be
deleted from the rezoning conditions.
The applicant has also responded to the driveway relocation recommendation. The applicant is
requesting that the driveway to the parking garage be allowed to remain on Grant Avenue
because this location would maximize the use of the parking garage and number of potential
parking spaces. The applicant states that relocating the driveway to Birch Street would create a
garage configuration that would be unusable or at best would result in the loss of 12 parking
spaces and the deletion of the corner pocket park. The applicant has prepared site plans
examining the impacts of moving the driveway, included as Attachment F. The applicant also
believes that moving the driveway to Birch Street would create a more dangerous situation
because it would force cars onto a much busier street. The applicant has submitted a letter
prepared by transportation consultant Fehr & Peers summarizing the traffic conflicts that may be
caused by relocating the driveway (Attachment F).
Parking Regulations
The project includes the provision of 42 total parking spaces, consisting of four surface parking
spaces and 38 garage spaces. The applicant requests two parking requirement adjustments, for
‘joint use’ and ‘housing near transit,’ permitted by PAMC Chapter 18.52.050 for a maximum of
combined reduction of 30%. Without the adjustments, the required parking would total 60
spaces. If the adjustments are granted, the proposed number of spaces would meet the revised
required parking total of 42 spaces. Staff concurs with the adjustments, given the mix of uses,
the proximity to transit, and the proposed TDM measures. The project also includes four tandem
parking spaces for the residential units. The four tandem spaces meet the 25% maximum tandem
spaces allowed by PAMC Chapter 18.52 for multi-family buildings. An additional 12 tandem
parking spaces would be available if needed. The parking counts in the plan set have been
revised by the applicant in response to a clarification request from the PTC. The proposed
parking spaces would meet the requirements of PAMC Chapter 18.52, as indicated in the Table 1
on the following page.
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 5 of 8
Table 1: Parking
Required
Reduction
Proposed Per
PAMC
Revised
Total Proposed Conforms
Residential
Two
spaces/unit
Guest spaces
16
2
20% for
Housing Near
Transit
(30%
combined
max)
12 12 Yes
Office
One space/250
square feet
42 20% total for
Joint Use and
TDM (30%
combined
max)
30 30 Yes
Total 60 30%
combined max
42 42* Yes
*Plus 12 additional tandem spaces.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The sales of the residential units and lease of the office spaces from the proposed project will
generate additional annual General Fund resources in the form of property, sales, and utility user
taxes. Total revenues from these sources are projected to equal approximately $12,000 per year.
In addition, one-time documentary transfer tax revenues are estimated in the $30,000 range.
One-time impact fees would be $333,800, and in-lieu (below-market rate) fees would be
$180,000, bringing total one-time revenues associated with the project to $543,800.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The site is located within the Transit Oriented Residential designation in the Comprehensive
Plan, which is applicable to projects within walking distance (2,000 feet) from a Caltrain station.
The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of
public transportation and especially use of Caltrain. The project, as proposed, is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and supports the City’s policy objectives for
pedestrian and transit oriented development.
The project site is part of six parcels collectively identified as Housing Opportunity Site (HOS)
8-06 on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Sites Inventory. Given the mix of office and
commercial uses in the area, it was anticipated in the current Housing Element that a minimum
density of 15 dwelling units would be redeveloped. Because the subject parcel is approximately
20% smaller without the sixth parcel, the minimum density would be proportionately reduced to
12 dwelling units. The applicant proposes eight dwelling units, four less than the anticipated
minimum. Because the City of Palo Alto has permitted 316 more dwelling units than the 1,397
units identified in the Housing Element, the eight dwelling units requested to be permitted as part
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 6 of 8
of this project would not adversely affect the total amount of housing to be built within this
Housing Element cycle.
As noted in this report and described in greater detail in the April 15, 2009 PTC report, the
applicant requests a State Density Bonus law “concession” to exceed the non-residential FAR
cap limitation. Government Code Section 65915 (also known as SB1818) allows applicants to
requests such concessions when below market rate housing units are included in a project. The
“concession” would not be contrary to the intent of the PTOD zoning.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period
from April 6, 2009 to April 26, 2009. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial
Study are provided as Attachment H. No comments from the public or other agencies have been
received. Staff has recommended mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise, which would lessen potential impacts to a less than
significant level. Mitigations include measures to protect trees and to prevent exposure to
Trichloroethylene (TCE) during construction and for future occupants. The conditions of
approval and mitigation measures would be applied to the Major Architectural Review approval,
not the zoning.
PREPARED BY: __________________________________
ELENA LEE
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Draft Initial Study and Draft MND
C. Location Map
D. Development Standards Table
E. Applicant’s project description*
F. Applicant’s study of relocation of the Grant Avenue driveway and TDM measures*
G. Transportation Staff Memo regarding the driveway relocation
H Applicant’s Green Building Checklists*
I. Applicant’s response to Mitigation Measures in the Draft MND*
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 7 of 8
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 8 of 8
J. PAMC Chapter 18.34 PTOD Regulations
K. California Avenue PTOD Boundary Map
L. April 15, 2009 PTC staff report and minutes (w/o attachments)
M. August 7, 2008 ARB staff report (w/o attachments)
N. Public Correspondences
O. Conceptual Plans (Commission only)*
* Submitted by Applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to Change the Zone
Designation for 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch
Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue from RM-40 Multi-
Fanlily to the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) Combining District
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
(A) The Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly
noticed public hearing on April 15, 2009, has recommended that the City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the subject site (305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and
306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue) to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development Combining District (PTOD) zone designation;
(B) The Planning and Transportation Con1ll1ission has reviewed the facts
presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations
from the direct()r of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff.
(C) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that the subject site is
within the PTOD boundary.
(D) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that rezoning the parcel
to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District
(PTOD) zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive
Plan designation of the site is Multiple Family and within the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area.
(E) The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the nlatter on July 6,2009,
and has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other
relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the
matter.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare
require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3.
1
090623 syn 0120370
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto
to place the subject site (305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320
Sheridan Avenue) in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
Combining District (PTOD) zoning regulations.
SECTION 4. The City Council further determines that the rezoning is subject to the
following limitations:
a. The development shall be a mixed use project comprising of ground floor office uses
with residential use on the upper floors;
b. Office uses on the ground floor shall comprise approximately 10,257 square feet;
c. A minimum of eight (8) residential units shall be provided, totaling approximately
14,534 square feet in area;
d. The maximum building height shall not exceed 40 feet;
e. A minimum of 42 parking spaces shall be provided;
f. A Transportation Demand l\1anagenlent Program shall be included that requires the
provision of transit passes for all occupants/tenants; and
g. The parking garage driveway shall be relocated away from Grant Avenue.
These limitations shall be recorded as conditions on the property, to the satisfaction of the City
Attorney and Planning Director. Modifications to these conditions may be approved by the
Planning Director only to the extent that increases or decreases do not exceed 10% of the
allowable outlined in parts (b) and (c) and remain in compliance with all other zoning
requirements.
SECTION 5. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental
review under the provisions of the California Environnlental Quality Act (CEQA). An
environmental assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that no
potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project
would have no significant impact on the environment.
II
II
II
II
2
090623 syn 0120370
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31 st) day after its
passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
090623 syn 0120370
3
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENT B
'Ci ty of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329;2441 FAX (650) 329-2154
www.cityofpaloalto.orq
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended' (Public Resources
C d 21 000 ) h 1 £ 11' . '11 h "fi f£ h . 0 e , , et sec. t at tle 0 owmg project WI not ave a sIgnI Icant e ect on t e enVIronment.
File N'uniber I'TAZ ·A:WN,;f$.j· '. IDh.t~ . , .: .. , . .'."., .....
08PLN-00182 I 132-36-074,-020,-070,-069,-073 I 04-03-09
. Prot~ct Name "1?~~J,,~~t;ry!pe "" :.,
'. ,":' .....
Birch Plaza Rezoning to PTOD, Architectural Review and
Subdivision
·QwQ~r·. .. ';' f:~pttl~~ti,lil( , '. ',., .', .... "':'.' .
.". '.: .. ' ,'. '.", ',' .; . ': ;..,
Couff House Plaza David Solnick
Hrql~¢.t,lj()c~HiQn . :: ':'..>:, :;:>." .':' ....
'.' , ""'::'.:: ..• >.:"': .:\ " .. :": .. ,., " ."
2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
" ProJect Besc ripti 0 n ....
Zone change from the existing RM -40 zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District, to allow for a mixed use development consisting
of eight residential condominiums above 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking
and related site improvements.
J?1I rposeQfN otice . : . ".'
Notice is hereby given that a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B.
866, this document will be available for review and comment during a minimum 20-day inspection period.
Public Review Period: IUegins: Apr;H6,2Q09 ,I' .End'~:·Aprj]:·~6,"20Q9
Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are
invited and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific
environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. Oral COlnments
may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the
Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding
this project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact Elena Lee at (650) 617-3196
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be viewed at th~following locations:
(1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Responsible Agencies sent a copy of this docl,lment
County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
Mitigation Measures included BRihe project to Jredqcepoten~~~ny~Jgn.i&¢antiIn:pacts to a]ess~than
significant level: .. .. . .. . . .
Mitigation Measure D-l
To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk
will provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations.
ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to
achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in
parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering
Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a
minimum of 24" depth. The teclmology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification
rating.
Mitigation Measure D-2
The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety
measures or replacement according to the City Arborist requirements.
Mitigation Measure D-3
To maintain the health· of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report,
prepared by any excavation within the tree dripline shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30
inches. Pruning of roots greater than 1-112 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist.
Appropriate barricades shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies
to remove dead wood shall occur prior to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be
implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street
trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of
Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure D-4
An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application.
Mitigation Measure G-l
The proposed building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report
prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection,
and/or possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-
gas was detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based
on the result of the analyses. This work shall be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of
the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measure G-2
Prior to the submittal of a building pennit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted
to the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point
where soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels.
Mitigation Measure G-3
In accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to
remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during
demolition activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using
engineering controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and
protect workers from exposure to asbestos.
A reporting or lTIonitoring program must be adopted for measures to mitigate significant impacts at the time
the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved, in accord with the requirements of section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL
EV ALUATIONIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED APRIL 3, 2009,
PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS BIRCH PLAZA,
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES
CONTAINED HEREIN.
Applicant's Signature
CQurf-Hsllffi Plaza /-/6 /;.j & Ar .!d
Harold Hobach
C; 2)"
Mitigation Measure D-l
Summary of Mitigation Measures
To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will provide
additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations. ENGINEERED SOIL MIX
(ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to achieve normal shade tree rooting
potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil
Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with
cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology should be counted toward any credits awarded
for LEED certification rating.
Mitigation Measure D-2
The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or
replacement according to the City Arborist requirements.
Mitigation Measure D-3
To maintain the health of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared by any
excavation within the tree drip line shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning of roots greater
than 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades shall be installed around
the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall occur prior to construction. A
program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as
conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the
requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure D-4
An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application.
Mitigation Measure G-l
The proposeg building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report prepared for
the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or possibly sampling
should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-gas was detected. If excavated soil is
found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result of the analyses. This work shall be
performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto.
1
Mitigation Measure G-2
Prior °to the submittal of a building permit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to the City
for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where soil-gas
concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels.
Mitigation Measure G-3
In accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and
dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition activities.
All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering controls, trained
personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers from exposure to asbestos.
Mitigation Measure G-4
In conformance with state regulations, all flaking and peeling lead-based paint shall be removed from structures proposed
for demolition, and shall be handled, packaged, and disposed of as hazardous waste. The project shall comply with Cal-
OSHA requirements to protect workers from exposure to lead. Requirements include worker training, proper hygiene 0
practices, air monitoring and other controls.
Mitigation Measure K-l
All noise producing equipment placed at grade shall be include installation of sound-isolating, sound absorbing barrier or
enclosure to reduce noise impacts to achieve the City's Noise Ordinance requirements.
Mitigation Measure K-2
All roof mounted equipment shall be place a minimum of 20 feet from the residential property line.
Mitigation Measure K-3
A noise report prepared by a qualified professional shall be submitted with the Architectural Review application.
2
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Palo Alto, California
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Elena Lee
City of Palo Alto
(650)617-3196
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
David Solnick
David Solnick Architect
212 High Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
08PLN-00182
6. PROJECT LOCATION
2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant A venue, 306 & 320 Sheridan A venue
Palo Alto, CA
Parcel Numbers: 132-36-074, -020, -070, -070, -069,-073
The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa
Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (EI CalPino Real), as shown on
Figure 1, Regional Map. The site is located on the southwest side of Birch Street, between Grant Avenue
and Sheridan Avenue, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration
70 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The project site is designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto ] 998 -20] 0
Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40 units and 8-
90 persons per acre. The actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area, depending on
existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping centers and
environmental problems. Higher densities than what is permitted by zoning may be allowed where
measureable community uses will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will
be con1patible with the overall Comprehensive Plan. The site is located in the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use
Area. Policy L-31 states that the Cal-Ventura area should be developed as a well-designed mixed use
district with diverse land uses, two-to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets
providing links to California Avenue. The site is within the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit-
Oriented District (PTOD) designation, which makes the site eligible for the PTOD Combining District.
8~ ZONING
The project site is zoned RM-40, Multi-Family residential. The RM-40 zone district is designed to
accommodate high density multiple-family residences. Permitted densities in the RM-40 residence
district range from 31 to 40 dwelling units per acre. Eating and drinking services and neighborhood
serving persona] and retail services may be allowed with a conditional use permit in the RM-40 Zoning
District as part of a single residential development containing at least 40 dwelling units. The proposed
PTOD combining district allows higher density residential dwellings, including mixed uses, on
commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue
Caltrain station. It specifically fosters densities and facilities that encourage a variety of housing types,
commercial, retail, and limited office uses. However, the District has a floor area cap for the non-
residential portion of a mixed use. The office component is allowed to have a maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) of 0.25. The proposed project would include approximately 10,257 sq. ft. of office use, for a total
floor area ratio of 0.52, which would exceed the cap by 0.27. According to the applicant, the purpose of
designing the larger non-residential FAR is to accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to
support eight two-story residences above. Per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a Variance would be
required to accommodate the project. Because the project includes at least 10% Below Market Rate
units/in lieu fee combination, the applicant is requesting to receive an exception to the non-residential
FAR cap as an incentive per State Density Bonus legislation, SB 1818, which amended section 65915 of
the Government Code. SB 1818 allows applicants to request and receive up to three exceptions as
incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable housing.
Incentives can involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar standards.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue [08PLN-00182]: Request by
David Solnick on behalf of Court House Plaza Company for a zone change from the existing RM -40
zoning to the California A venue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development COlTlbining District
(PTOD) Overlay District, to allow for a mixed use development consisting of eight residential
condominiums above 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking and related
site improvements.
The proposed Birch Plaza project ("proposed project") would be located at 2640 and 2650 Birch Street,
305 Grant Avenue and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue within the Multi-Family RM-40 zoning district.
The project site is comprised of five parcels that occupy an entire block on the southern side of Birch
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Street, between Sherman Avenue and Grant Avenue. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet
southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station and approximately 650 feet southeasterly of
California Avenue. The site is approximately 19,862 square feet in size and is currently developed with
three single-family homes.
Should a rezoning be approved, the applicant's proposal is to construct a new three-story mixed use
office/residential building. The building would consist of a below grade parking garage and a podium
structure containing 10,257 sq. ft. of ground floor office space and eight two-story townhomes above the
podium. Access to the underground parking garage would be provided via a ramp on the pan handle
shaped parcel to the northwest from Grant Avenue. The garage would provide 31 parking spaces, up to 8
pairs of tandem parking spaces, mechanical equipment storage and bicycle parking. Three at grade
parking spaces would be provided as well with separate access from Birch Street. Separate pedestrian
entries are provided to the two office units from Birch Street. Pedestrian entry to the residential units
above would be provided from Sheridan Avenue. An elevator is provided from the garage to the first and
second floors in the center of the site.
The two-story townhomes that would occupy the second and third floors of the building comprise five
three-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units. Two of the three-bedroom units would have a room on
the ground floor that can be used as either a study or a fourth bedroom. Open space for residents would
be provided through a courtyard above the offices, which will also provide individual entries to the
townhomes. The building is proposed to be 40 feet tall with storefront glass and a stone/concrete tile
fa9ade at the ground floor level. The residential component would be differentiated by stucco and vertical
yellow cedar walls. The residential units would have painted wood trim, dual-glazed aluminum windows
and private balconies. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure existing sidewalks to accommodate park
strips with new street trees.
Approvals Required
Approval of the proposed project would consist of the following entitlements: (1) Rezoning the site from
RM-40 to the PTOD Combining District, (2) Major Architectural Review pursuant 18.76.020, (3) one
concession per State Density Bonus law, and (4) Subdivision Map to subdivide the lot for the purposes of
creating commercial and residential condominiums.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The property is located in a fully developed part of the City. Surrounding uses include a County court
house on the other side of Birch Street to the north and commercial/office uses to the north and northeast.
The remainder of the uses to the east, south and west are primarily multi-family residential buildings.
The site is located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station.
II. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
• County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMP ACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the infonnation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) hnpacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is ilnplemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual x
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1,2,6
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a J
public view or view corridor? 1, x
MapL4
c) Substantial1y damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1, x
a state scenic highway? MapL4
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan x
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or x
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,2,6
f) Substantially shadow public open space x
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to M~rch 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding development on this block of Birch Street.
The proposed project is subject to the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board review and compliance with
the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, the PTOD Context Based Design Criteria, and Comprehensive Plan
policies. The proposed project is infill development in a fully developed area of the City. The building will have a
height of 40 feet, which meets the maximum height requirement for both the existing RM-40 and proposed PTOD
zoning designations. There are other multi-story buildings within the vicinity of the site. The new building will
be designed with attractive facades and add pedestrian interest to the streetscape. The redevelopment of the site
may result in negligible increase in light and glare generated from additional lighting of the site. However, the
City'S standard conditions of approval will ensure that the impacts will be less than significant. The condition of
approval will require that all exterior lights will be shielded and not extend beyond the site. With the required
architectural review, the proposed building will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site or its surroundings, therefore no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In detennining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fannland.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1 Monitoring Program of the California x Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,8-
use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9, x
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of 1 x
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Fannland", "Unique Fannland", or "Fannland of Statewide hnportance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially . Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation x
ofthe applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,3
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute x
substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,3
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational x
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page6 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
c)
d)
e)
f)
Significant Significant Significant Impact·
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM 10);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) x
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be perfonned when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) proj ect traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an x applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,2,3 standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors )?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels x
of toxic air contaminants? 1,2,3
1. Probability of contracting cancer for the x
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds lOin one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-x
carcinogenic T ACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEl
Create objectionable odors affecting a x
substantial number of people? 1
Not implement all applicable construction x
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is in a developed area of mixed uses including commercial retail, office and residential uses in the
Cal-Ventura Area. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property is not located in an area that contains uses
or activities that are major pollutant emitters. The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on air
quality.
The project may result in temporary dust emissions during demolition, grading and construction activities. The
impacts are expected to be greatest during demolition. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of
an approved demolition and construction management plan secured before building permit issuance.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related
construction impacts:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and
watered daily.
• Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition pennit.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional 1,8-x plans, policies, or regulations, or by the MapNll California Department ofFish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 7
I
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, 1,8-x policies, regulations, including federally MapNl protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of x
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or 1,8-
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapNl of native wildlife nursery sites? 17
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances x
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3 Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.] O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
I x Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? I
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potential1y Potential1y Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
DISCUSSION: The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and
plant species have been identified at this site. The proposed project includes protection measures for the one
protected tree located on the project site per the Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance. The existing City tree is
planted in the park strip near the proposed ramp to the below grade parking garage. The applicant has submitted
an arborist report assessing the impact on the tree. The report concludes that the proposed ramp will not endanger
the tree. To maintain the health of the tree, the report recommends several measures, including requiring that any
excavation within the tree dripline be done by hand or air, digging to a depth of 30 inches, requiring that pruning
of roots greater than 1-1/2 inches in diameter be supervised' by a qualified arborist, installation of appropriate
barricades around the tree during construction, preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood prior to
construction and implementing a program of fertilization in the spring and summer. These measures will be
included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based·
upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual. The conditions of approval would result
in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure D-l
To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will
provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations.
ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to
achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking
and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section
30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The
technology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification rating.
Mitigation Measure D-2
The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or
replacement according to the City Arborist requirements.
Mitigation Measu re D-3
To maintain the health of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared
by any excavation within the tree dripline shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning
of roots greater than 1-112 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades
shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall
occur prlor to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and
summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual
and the City's Tree Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure D-4
An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution? x
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,8-x
pursuant to 15064.5? MapL8
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,8-x
geologic feature? MapL8
Disturb any human remains, including those 1,8-
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8 x
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or x
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2,8-
Historic Inventory? MapL7
Eliminate important examples of major periods x
of California history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Most of
the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic development has
altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in
future planning area construction. The site has not been designated as a historic resource.
If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing and
produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of
construction. The standard condition, detailed below, will reduce this potential to less than significant.
If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction
shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical
Examiner's office shall be notified to provide property direction on how to proceed. If any Native American
Resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease imn1ediately after until a Native
American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able
to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the See
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: below
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, x
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on 1,2
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 8-MapN-x
10
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? 8-MapN5
x
iv) Landslides? 8-MapN5 x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? 1 x
c) Result in substantial siltation? x
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral 8-MapN5 x
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 8-MapN5 x
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems 1
where sewers are not available for the x
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major x
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety technigues?
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive
Plan the project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or
in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides.
Development of the proposed project would be required to conform to all requirements in the Uniform Building
Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings includes provisions to
resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. All on-site soils on the project site are
suitable for use as fill provided that the large pieces of concrete, brick, old pipes and other buried debris is
removed. To support the at grade structure on a shallow foundation, th'e upper 2.5 feet of existing fill within the
building footprint and all the undocumented deeper and buried debris will be removed and re-worked. The
potential onsite exposure to geological hazards wil1 therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
The entire site is mostly developed and is fairly flat. Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are
not expected. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the
project for approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application
of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is
expected to avoid any grading-related impacts. The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use, x
or disposal of hazardous materials? 6,8,9,12
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the x release of hazardous materials into the 6,8,9,12 environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or x
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,6,8,9, proposed school? 12
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject x
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,6,8,8-x result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN9, the public or the environment? 12
f) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration
g)
h)
i)
j)
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a x
safety hazard for people residing or working in 1
the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety x
hazard for peop Ie residing or working the 1
project area?
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,8-
plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7, x
12
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to x
urbanized areas or where residences are 8-MapN7 intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 8,9,12 x
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION: Stellar Environmental Solutions prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a
Phase II Site Investigation Report for the project. Both documents have been reviewed and accepted by
hazardous materials experts in the Fire Department and Public Works. The Phase I report revealed that based on
the age of the building that interior and exterior building materials likely contain asbestos and potentially lead-
based paints. The residential site is not documented as having been a user, transporter or generator of hazardous
materials. However, there is documentation that the subject property has groundwater contamination by volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). The source of the groundwater contamination is a plume from the Hewlett
PackardlVarian manufacturing plant located at 395 Page Mill Road, approximately 400 feet southeast of the
project site. The groundwater contamination is referred to as the COE HP/Varian plume. The VOC plume has
been the subject of investigation and remediation since 1981 by both HP and Varian. Studies of the most recent
groundwater monitoring data have determined that the concentrations found are below the threshold that would
trigger the requirement for additional soil-vapor sampling. Thus, it was determined that soil-vapor intrusion is
unlikely. Because of the plume and the Phase I recommendation, additional soil samples were collected on the
subject site and docun1ented in a Phase II report. The Phase II report concluded that groundwater contamination
is below the threshold for concern. The consultant concluded that the detected VOC contamination in the site
groundwater and soil-gas pose no potential for health-related impacts to vicinity or site occupants. Only one of
the several borings, boring B4, was determined to require special protection for excavation. The mitigations
identified below will reduce all impacts to less than significant levels for VOC contamination, asbestos and lead-
based paint.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure G-l
The proposed building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report
prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or
possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-gas was
detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration
of the analyses. This work sha11 be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo
Alto.
Mitigation Measure G-2
Prior to the submittal of a building permit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to
the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where
soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels.
Mitigation Measure G-3
In accordance with CallOSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove
and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition
activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering
controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers
from exposure to asbestos.
Mitigation Measure G-4
In conformance with state regulations, aU flaking and peeling lead-based paint shall be removed from structures
proposed for demolition, and shall be handled, packaged, and disposed of as hazardous waste. The project shall
comply with Cal-OSHA requirenlents to protect workers from exposure to lead. Requirements include worker
training, proper hygiene practices, air monitoring and other controls.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1,8,9,12 x
b) Substantial1y deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 8,9 groundwater table level (e.g., the production 8-MapN2 rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)? x
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial x erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,8,9,
12
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,8,9, x
in flooding on-or off-site? 12
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted 1,2,12 x runoff?
f) Otherwise substantia11y degrade water quality? 1,2,12 x
g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard
h)
i)
j)
k)
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? 1,12 x
Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect 8-x
flood flows? MapN6,
12
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a 8-MapN6
levee or dam or being located within a lOO-year N8,12 x flood hazard area?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 8-MapN6 x
N8,12
Result in stream bank instability? 12 x
DISCUSSION:
The site is in Flood Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard zone. The nearest body of water is the Santa
Clara Valley Water District Matadero Canal, which runs southwest to northeast, approximately 1,000 feet from
the southeastern border of the property. During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could
result. Runoff from the project site flows to the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution
is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or
baylands. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction
management plan (secured before building permit issuance) would include the following:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
• Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan which includes
drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
• The Applicant shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP's to be
implemented during demolition and construction.
The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration
! I
/ ., J ;,' 1;'
Th e Cily or
Palo Alto
Birch Plaza Mixed Use
Location Map
ATTACHMENT C
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. •
ATTACHMENT 0
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
STANDARD PTODZONE DEVELOPMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Minim urn Site Specifications
Site Area (sq. ft.) None required 19,862 sq. ft.
Site Width (ft.) None required 40-85'
Site Depth (ft.) None required 185.70-285.82'
Minim urn Setbacks
Front Yard (ft) N one required Building Setbacks
Sheridan Ave.: 10'
Birch St.: 7'
Grant St.: 100'
Rear Yard (ft) None required 10'
Side Yard (ft) None required 10'
Total Mixed Use FAR 1.25: 1 1.25: 1
Residential Component FAR* 1.0: 1 0.73: 1
Mixed Use Non-Residential FAR** 0.35 (0.25 for Office and 0.52
Research and Development Uses)
Usable Open Space*** 100 sq. ft. per unit 138 sq. ft. per unit
Minimum dimensions Private open space: 6' Meets requirement
Common open space: 12' Meets requirement
.
Maxim urn Height (ft) 40' 40'
Residential Density (net)**** 40 dulac max. 17 dulac
* The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0: 1.
**
***
****
The non-residential component of a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total
square-footage of the project.
Required usable open space: (l) may be any combination of private and common open
spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included
as open space; (3) minimmTI private open space dimension 6 feet; and (4) minimum
common open space dimension 12 feet.
Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the
percent of the site devoted to commercial use.
Birch Plaza
PROJECT DESCRIPTION and DESIGN INTENT
ATTACHMENT E
Submitted by Applicant
The site is an assemblage of small existing parcels that will together create a 19,862 sf
comer lot at Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue, with a small extension to Grant Street.
We propose to change the current RM-40 zoning to PTOD, per the new California
Avenue PTOD Combining District regulations. The proposed mixed-use project
comprises eight 2-story townhou'ses on a ground floor office podium, with most of the
parking underground. The townhouses are configured around two interconnected
courtyards. The larger one is oriented toward and accessed by a partially hidden stair
from Birch Street. The smaller one, with a southern orientation, is accessible from the
quieter Sheridan Avenue.
The I solid' office podium is intended to act as a base for the 'village' of townhouses
above, with clear distinctions in massing and finishes between office and residential
uses. Nevertheless, the two uses share just enough of the building vocabulary to read as
a single project. The podium courtyards provide the residential component with
generous outdoor common areas, which are intended to foster a sense of community in
the project. With each unit also having its own private open space, the total usable open
, space is far in excess of the minimum required. The entries are configured in such a way
as to allow residential users their own access via the two stairs, or a common access via
the elevator, which serves the parking, office lobby, and podium right at the connection
between the two courtyards. Even the mailbox location is intended to encourage a
mixing of users.
The proposal conforms with all FAR, setback, height, daylight plane, and parking
requirements, with two exceptions. The new PTOD zoning includes a provision that the
1.25 FAR allowed for mixed-use can have no more than 0.35 FAR assigned to non-
-residential uses. As we developed the concept of ground floor office with a residential
podium, however, we found that we did not have enough ground floor square footage
to physicallysupport the residential above. The only alternative would have been to
reduce the residential fo'otprint by making it three stories rather than two, thereby
creating a 4-story project. Given the 3-story context, we considered this to be an
undesirable alternative, an opinion shared by the Planning Director during our early
meetings on the project. We also recognized that PTOD zoning is new and hence not
significantly 'field-tested'. Our first experiment here suggests that some flexibility in the
FAR ratios between the different uses would be beneficial, even as FAR limits are held
firm.
An an ciliary consequence of the larger ground floor is an increase in the site coverage to
55%, where 45% is allowed. In a sense, we have swapped some ground level open space
for residential common open space above, where it serves the greatest use. Given the
additional benefits in reducing the number of floors, we feel strongly that these two
exceptions readily qualify as Design Enhancements. Even with this, each of the two
main office areas have their own outdoor patios, as well as generous space for
landscaping on all four sides.
In keeping with the intent of PTOD zoning, as well as our own design propensities, we
have endeavored to create an engaging street experience for the pedestrian. This
includes a variety of massing articulations, landscape diversity, high quality finish
materials, entry canopies, and overhanging balconies. The sidewalk on Birch Street is
currently located right next to the curb. We are proposing to move it away from the curb
to conform to the configuration on both Sheridan Avenue and Grant Street. More
importantly, it would provide a landscape buffer from the street that would be planted
with a continuous row of sycamore trees, adding substantially to the existing trees on
Sheridan and Grant.
The underground garage contains a mixture of conventional and tandem parking
spaces, as well as bicycle parking. Additional spaces may be used for storage and
tandem parking beyond that required. The parcel' Sl finger' toward Grant Street serves
perfectly as the garage ramp~ Indeed, this is the only configuration of the parking that
allows us to meet the requirements of the Parking Ordinance. This configuration has the
considerable added benefit of providing a mini-park at the corner of Birch and Grant
that will act as a resting area and a backdrop for public art. This area, as well as the art,
will be developed further once a landscape architect is engaged on the project.
BIRCH PLAZA
ZONING CONSTRA][NTS
10 June 2008
Addresses: 305 Grant Ave, 2640 & 2650 Birch St., 306 & Sheridan Ave.
Existing Zoning: RM -40
Proposed Zoning: California Ave PTOD Combining
Proposed Use: Mixed Use: Office/ Business Services and Residential
Parcel Size: 19,862
FAR allowed for mixed use:
Office/Business Services FAR:
Residential FAR:
Residential Density Allowed:
Residential Density Proposed: 8 units
Building Height:
Setbacks (per underlying RM-40 zone):
Front (Sheridan Ave):
Interior Side:
Street Side and Rear:
Daylight Plane:
Lot Coverage:
Addi tional allowed for porches, etc.
Open Spa~e:
Parking Required:
Office: 1 stall per 250 sf
Residential: 2 stalls per unit
Guest Parking: 1 + 10% of units=
Total:
1.25 = 24,827.5 sf
0.52 10,257 sf
0.73 = 14,534
40 uni ts / acre max.
17 units/ acre
40 feet
o to ft
10 ft
o to 16 ft
none
55% = 11,357 sf
~% = 993 sf
100 sf/ unit
42 stalls
16
2
60 stalls
Adjustment for Joint Use: 20% of total
Adjusbnent for Housing near Transit: 20%
Total Adjushnent Allowed: 30% of total =
Net Parking Required:
Tandem Parking: up to 25% of residential =
N'o. of accessible parking stalls: 1 per 25
42 stalls
4 stalls
2 stalls, 1 van-accessible
Bike Parking: 1 ' (L T) 8
1 10 units for guest bike parking (ST) 1
1 per 2,500 of office space 5
Total 14
Birch Plaza
PTOD Context-Based Design Considerations
This document addresses the PTOD Combining District context-based criteria listed in section 18.34.050
of the Zoning Regulations of the City of Palo Alto.
(1) Pedestrian & Bicycle Environment
The
the
design promotes pedestrian
ways:
connecti vity and a bicycle-friendly environment in
A. The main pedestrian entrance is on Birch Street, under a welcoming canopy. Two wide stairs lead up
to two interconnected residential courtyards, the main one on Birch Street and the other on
Sheridan Avenue. Each of the two first-floor oHice units has a direct entry off Birch Street. Bike
faci.lities are located in the underground parking levet accessed by a ramp off Grant Avenue.
B See lA.
C. N/A
D. Bike storage is provided on the underground parking level.
E. The corner of the site at Birch Street and Grant Avenue is an and mvjting mini-park
wi.th and public art.
F. N/A
G. It is proposed that the BiTch Street which is currently right next to the be moved 4'
away from the curb such that a strip with a row of street trees can be added that buffers
the sidewalk from the street. conform with the on Sheridan and Grant
Avenues There is an 8' to 12' wide planting area between the sidewalk and the building, and
vertical elements with climbing plants that connect the residen bal courtyards above to
the ground leveL Also see 1 E.
H. N
(2) Street Building Facades
The street facades are to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and streets,
encouraging activity in the following ways:
A. N/A
B. See 1 A. The office units have generous windows facing all three streets. The townhouses have their
windows and decks oriented outwards, addressing the streets.
C. Canopies, decks, and vertical fins provide human scale and break up the building mass.
D. See 2B.
E. The main building entrance 1S a generous with a large shade structure overhead. The
Birch Street stair up to the residential courtyard is integrated with this building entrance. This
and the Sheridan A venue stair are both next to the tallest building elements in the project
emphasizing their function in linking the sidewalk to the residential courtyards above.
F. See 2B.
(3) Massing & Articulation
The project is designed to minimize massing, providing articulation and design variety in the followjng
ways:
A. The mass of the 2-story townhouses is articulated with projecting and recessed building forms and
varied roof heights, minimizing their mass and creating design variety.
B. The roofline is highly varied, creating visual. interest. The stairs to the residential courtyards, and
the street corner at Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue, have the highest roofs to emphasize their
importance. See 2E.
C The Birch Street and Sheridan A venue corner is massed and articulated to reinforce this
intersection. The I-story podium base rises up to 2 stories and is articulated with vertical fins and
generous sun shading.
D. N/A
E. No more than 70% , and no more than 100' continuous linear feet, of the Birch Street facade exceeds
a height of 25'.
F. N/A
G N/A
H. N/A
(4) low-Density Residential Transitions
N/A
(5) Proj ect Open Space
There are private and public open spaces for the residents, visitors and enlployees:
A. Each of the office units has a priva te south-facing patio. Each townhouse has a deck off the
living/ dining room, the majority of which have southern exposure ..
B. The office patios serve as convenient lunch or meeting areas for employees. The attractively
landscaped residential courtyards are shared by the townhouses and serve to build a sense of
community. Also see IE.
C See lA and IE.
D. There is a combination of private and common open spaces.
E. The residential courtyards and residential decks provide usable open space above the grolmd level.
F. The residential courtyards look down on to Birch Street and obliquely on to Sherjdan Avenue. There
are residential decks on each street facade. These activate the street facade and increase" eyes on
the street".
G. N/A
H. Parking is not counted as open space.
(6) Parking Design
Parking is designed such that it unobtrusive and does not detract from the pedestrian enviromnent:
A Parking is located mainly in the basement. On-grade parking is screened by landscaping and low
walls.
B. N/A
C. N/A
D See 6A.
E. Street parking is for visitor or customer parking, and is designed to enhance traffic cabning on the
street.
(7) Large (m ulti-acre) Sites
N/A
(8) Sustainability & Green Building Design
A. The townhouse building form is narrow and organized around courtyards to optimize natural
daylighting and ventilation. Sunshading and windo'w overhangs reduce solar heat gain.
B. Landscaping around the podium at ground leveL and on the residential courtyards, .is designed to
create cOITl£ortable micro-climates and reduce heat island eHects.
C See lA.
D. The landscapjng around the podium at ground level is 8' to 12' wide. This helps to Dlaximize onsite
stormwater management.
E. Sustainable bUilding materials will be specified.
F. Energy-efficient lighting, plumbing and equipment will be used.
G. Healthy indoor environments will be created.
H. Other sustainable building practices will be incorporated into the project as much as possible.
1. N/ A
Lee, Elena
From:
Sent:
To:
David Solnick [david@solnick.net]
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:01 PM
Lee, Elena
Cc: Williams, Curtis
Subject: Re: Birch
ATTACHMENT F
Submltted~ppljc,ant,_,~,_--,-
We are requesting to retain the underground driveway approach at its currently proposed location on Grant Street. It is
the only location that allows us to safely provide the parking required for this project. Access from Birch Street (option
#1) renders the underground garage entirely unusable, except where the access is near the comer (see below). Access
from Sheridan (option #2) results in a net loss of 12 parking stalls. Access from Birch Street near the comer of Grant
(option #3) retains the same nurnber of parking stalls, but puts the entrance near the comer of a much busier street; .
creates a driveway that curves sharply as it
descends; forces cars from the ground level stalls to back onto Birch St; and eliminates the pocket park.
~ ~ ~
8 ~ ~
; ~ ~ ~
laU'~JlU1OS®PlAep
iJ3iIHJ}JV
00 ....J ....J ~ 00
tuCl
w Z
o::=>
1-0
000::
I-C!)
000::
UJ UJ ooCl
=>5
CO....J
Z....J 0«
00 00
Ll.. o
UJ 00 Uoo uo «....J • •
OllV Oled 'laallS 46lH U'Z elUJOjueJ 'OllV oled 'laaJlS 4JJIII 059'Z
)t:)IN10S (IiAVa VZVld HJ~18
I-W w 0:: I-C/')
::c ~ co
3nN3J\V NVCII~3HS
I Iii 2 t:?:.S i
;
i? ]
• • •
.. 3d01;,;ttU
-r----l-------------------, ,
•
. .. 3d01;';UO
•
-,-- - - --' - - - - - - - - - - - - -+-------'---------1
- - - - ---- - ---- - - - - - -+-------~
• •
• •
I •
I •
• •
T-
~# NOLLdO 9NI)I~Vd ~
~
I~
•
I ~ Vl
:::I: U c:::: -I:C
:E 0 c:::: LL
Vl Vl LLJ
" U ;!to! a~ u «
LLJ
C)
~ ~
~--
//
//
//
//
//
//
• LOSS OF 12 UNDERGROUND STALLS
,/J-
//
~ ~
BIRCH STREIT
•
•
@11%SLOPE •
•
GARAGE ACCESS FROM SHERIDAN AVE.
rARSTFI.OORABOVE •
•
@22%SLOPE
•
•
• t'ANRoo""""",
w ~ z W ~ z C§
ii: w :::c VI
FTC
07/28/08
T ~ ~ s: ·E ~ -0
4: ~
~
0 ::::.:::~ U~ Z~ ....J.-o ~ VI!:; Q~ >-r ~~
.. E ~ u
~~
«~ N . ~~ a..~ ..<:: :::c ~ Uii:i 0::::0 ti5~
~
Z o i= a.. o
C) z 52 0:::: ~
PRINT DATE: 4128/09
SHErr
4.2
I
I
4----
BIRCH STREET
_ - - - - - --\-1 - - - - - - - - --1-'-- -- - - -
\1 1/
------~ ~-------
L ________ ~[:
.,. -I ~ ~~ ~~ ~
r---I-___ _
\
\ G~::OPE /=!===-~-__ "~~~~~ __ -.TI--------1---~
RAMPluPTU
BIRCH STREET CWWlEobORABOVE
1.-.--1ST'LOCIRABOYE
1
!!t!!!..1
37
.!m!!.1 J.!l!!ll
.Y!:!!ll
T
• ACCESS ON BUSIEST STREET
• GROUND LEVEL STALLS REQUIRE
BACKING ONTO BIRCH ST.
• LOSS OF POCKET PARK
to
VO/ I ,W v; TYP.
.!:!.!i!il. !!!i!!!
UNIT 3 I JI!j!ll
GARAGE ACCESS FROM BIRCH ST. @ CORNER
PTe
1-10: u c: ~ ~ :x: c: ~ ~
-<I; ~
M ~ z o ~ o
C) z 52 c:r::: tt.
~
'" 'E ~ u
PRINT DATE: 4128109
SHEET
4.3
Uoli6acli CR.§a(ty Company Limited (J'artnersliip
29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, CA 94027
Tel: 650/322-8242 Fax: 650/853-0325
Curtis Willianls
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Williams:
Re: Birch Plaza Project
2650 Birch Street
May 21, 2009
I am writing this letter to confirm certain issues David Solnick, the architect
for Birch Plaza Project, discussed with you on April 21, 2009, in connection with
the zone change application from RM-40 to PTOD heard by the Planning
Commission on April 15, 2009.
After hearing from condominium owners in the Birch Court Condominium
Project, the Planning Conlmission in a 4 to 2 vote approved the Birch Plaza
Project with the condition that the entrance to the underground garage be moved
off of Grant Avenue.
As pointed out during the meeting on April 21, 2009, moving the entrance
off Grant Avenue is not feasible because it would in effect destroy the viability of
the project.
Moving -the entrance to Sheridan Avenue would remove 12 parking spaces
. from the project. It would place more traffic on Sheridan Avenue which already
has much more traffic than Grant Avenue. Sheridan Avenue in this block already
services a seven unit apartment building at 303,305,307,309,311,315 Sheridan
Avenue, a 83 unit apartment project at 345 Sheridan Avenue, a 57 unit apartment
project at 360 Sheridan Avenue, and the Jerusalem Baptist Church at 380 Sheridan
Avenue
Placing an entrance for the underground garage on Birch Street is also not
feasible because of the limited space in a direction perpendicular to Birch Street to
nlake a tum into parking spaces. Providing the access from Birch Street near the
comer at Grant Avenue would save the underground parking but would create a
driveway that curves sharply as it descends. In addition, this would cause cars
parked at ground level stalls to back out into two lanes of Birch Street traffic
which would be very dangerous. It also eliminates the small park along Birch
Street extending to Grant Avenue.
Also, providing entrances on Sheridan Avenue or on Birch Street would
substantially eliminate any use of the 305 Grant Avenue property in the Birch
Plaza Project.
In summary, the Grant Avenue entrance is the only viable entrance for the
Birch Plaza underground garage. Any increase in traffic caused by the Birch Plaza
Project is best borne by Grant Avenue which carries less vehicular and pedestrian
traffic than Sheridan Avenue or Birch Street.
A Statistics Request Report, attached hereto as Exhibit A, on Sheridan
Avenue from the City of Palo Alto Police Department reports accidents fronl
January 2000 to April 24, 2009 at the intersections of Birch and Grant and
Sheridan and Birch. The report shows seven reported accidents on Sheridan
Avenue for Sheridan and Birch and five on Grant for Grant and Birch. The report
shows nineteen reported accidents for
the Sheridan and Birch intersection and twelve on Grant and Birch for the Grant
and Birch intersection ..
The statistics support the placenlent of the entrance to the underground
garage on Grant Avenue because it is safer than placing it on the more heavily
traveled Sheridan Avenue. The traffic consultant for the project as set forth in Fehr
& Peers letter of May 6, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit B, also recommend that
the access to the underground garage for project remain on Grant Avenue.
The Grant Avenue entrance also nlakes it possible to provide a landscaped
area along Birch Street which, along with the graceful Birch Plaza building fac;ade
provides a noteworthy entrance into Palo Alto from the Oregon/Page Mill
Expressway.
For these reasons we will ask the City Council to approve the
recommendation of the Planning Commission except for the condition that the
entrance to the underground garage be moved off Grant Avenue.
Yours truly,
Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc.,
General Partner
~~~
Harold C. Hohbach, President
Iill002/006
FROM: David Solnick architect PHONE NO. : 650 3271142 Ma~. 01 2009 11:01AM P2
Statl.stics Requ.est
P'~lQ Alt:Q~ P·'o,;l.i<l;~e;! D;elt?:art~,e~t,
Date:...........-~~~-4-
Name: JdA~ 9/-/~ 'Co gO/../43& cd
Address;. .2;5 a? () ¥1/ 6#!« )C err:" V-Gf:
City: A rA~re"':r-Q pJ ?? e <$'~ ;z..,7 ; ~ .
Phone #: ~' C? 02 z-2 z.c,v-z..
E~~: If&9x: Itt"s;;b/Es-S-c S '2. ~
Co.tact 'hr-
~o .. e
V-CN': ,Mad __ \~mall
........................................................ ,. .......... " ......................................................... " .............................. .
Loeadon/Repordug Distriet:
!RY~dr:e:-:re;l? Ace::,;' P~"'-'J'S' A r 7Yl/O .::c:/V"7~S"~c /o,¥s
"' t;...,eA N''--~ !SIRe # "/~.-:r-~~-rs-
TilDe Period:
FrOID: ::2 060 -------------------To: /J~t? / l..
Type of Statistics
_Crime
_Calls for servIce
_Include Maps
Take. by'~~-.,:.. ......... ~....;.&
Date, ____ ~~~~--
Fee: A researeh fee ofS60 per hour will be eharged
~ the reqllest requires research.
~~H'A-~.It!!E J;> ,'3 Y
(?"a C ,.I .,,(J -;r-A V" A y:[! IS ,..s:-
£ ~¢/ '3 2. "J -2.~:.;? t:
'" " A
Accidents rej)oned at til., intelSection of BIrch and Grant 1 i
January 2000 to ~124. 20ft I ! + ! I i i I
I .
Qccuroate 'Ioiured Occurred ON AT/OR # Feet Direction Cross beet
103-01·2002 81RCHST ' OR 10 S GRANTAV
log.2Q..2002 BIRCH ST AT GRANTAV
~01-15-2004 B1RCHST! AT GRAK"ST
01-28-2004 BfRCHST, " AT GRANTAV
04-23--2004 1 BIRCH ST, AT GRAtf."AV
10-29--2004 1 2600BLK BIRCH ST OR 51 S GRAN""AV
01-22-2006 BtRCHST AT GRAN"'"AV
08~31·2000 200BU<. GRANT A'IQ OR 68 E BlRCHST
05--12-2002 300BLK GRANT AV OR 251 W BfRCHST
06$2005 270 GRANT AV ' AT BIRCHST
11 .. 20-2006 GRANTAV \ AT BIRCHST
0+02-2007 GRANTAV AT BlRCHST
Page 1
!
Violation Violation DescriDtion
22360VC Basic speed law
21804 VC FaU to y1eJ(! right of way
VC Failure to stop at a stop si,gn
21658 VC Unsafe lane change
21802 VC intersection-fail to &tQpJ~ield
22107VC Unsafe tum
21658(A)VC Unsafe lane chan~
22106VC Unsafe start on bighwavlroadwav
22106VC Unsafe stall on highway/roadway
Reported at front desk
21802{A)VC Intersection-faU to stopMetd
21802(A)VC intersectionwfail to stop!yi~d . _
;a
.0 :3
o IlJ S,
0..:
W ...... 2,
o -,::-
III j o ::r
;t
(')
't+
lJ 25 Z m
z P
8i 6)
VJ l\J -.J ,.... ,....
A I\..)
~ llJ
If
~ ~
l\) t5J IS)
\D
~ ~
ts:J l\J D 3:
-0 W
p.
t-
l:J ,
2'
It A 1;1;.
!it v.
t§ c:: c:: v. .....
c
C
0'
AccidentS' ~Grted at tile intersection of Sheridan and Birch i
Januarv 20GB to April 24,2001 j , I . ,
i I ,
Occur Date tJJniJlred OccunadOn ArlO. # Jfit
02 .. 10.2000 SHERIDAN OR 20
03-02-2002 1 SHERIOANAV AT
08--18-2003 SHERIDANAV AT
11..Q6 .. 2003 SOOBLK SHERlDAN AV OR 40
09--06-:2005 300BlK SHERIOAN AV OR 227
01-13-2006 SOOSLKSHERtOAN AV OR 20
02..Q9-2007 SHERIDANAV AT
02-0&-2000 BIRCHST AT
Q4..24-2QOO BIRCHST AT
Og.f4-2000 BIRCHST AT
10-07·2000 27QOBL:K BIRCH ST OR 135
12-11-2001 1 2700BU< BIRCH ST OR 16
07·30-2004 2700SLK BIRCH ST OR 35
11·25-2.005 2700BLK BIRCH ST OR 50
12·18 .. 2005 2700 BIRCH ST OR 50
11.(13...2008 0 BIRCH-ST OR 40 -.-.-. 11~14-2006 1 BIRCH'ST AT
02~14-2008 BIRCHST OR 27
05-01-2008 2700BU< BIRCH S7 OR 195
Direction Cross street V'lOlation
W BIRCH 22107VC
BIRCH 22350VC
BIRCHST 22107VC
W BrRCHST
W BlRCHST 22107VC
W BlRCHST 22.10avC
BIRCH 22350VC
SHERIDANAV 22350VC
SHERIDANAV 22107VC
SHERiDANAV 21802(A)VC
S SHERIDANAV 22350VC
s SHERIDANAV 2195O{A)VC
S SHERIDANAV 22350VC
S SHERIOANAV 22350VC
S SHERiCANAV 22350VC
S SHERIOANAV 22350VC
SHERIOANAV 2181M{A.}VC
S SHERIOANAV 221D7VC
S SHERIDAN ---,_.-21f:J~VC __
Page 1
VIOlation De$criDlion
Lnsafehm
Easic~la'W
Unsafe tum
UnImown
Unsafe tum i
Unsafe start on bighway/raadway
Easic SJ)ead law
Basio speed law
Unsafe tum
Irrtersection-Fatl to stoPiYieid
Basic soeed law I
)ield righf of way to pedestrian
Basic sPeed law
BasiC SI)ee<llaw
Basic sPeed laW
Basic SPeed law
Faal to Yield right of Way
Unsafebm
.Right bait ¢ road wilY __ _
." ;:u .~
&1 <:: ..... p.
tn o
J
()
l'
OJ ..,
()
~
c+ ro () c+
II ::J: o z m
Z p
~
~ I-"" I-"" it
3: OJ If
IS)
I-'"
!\J IS) IS)
\.0
I-""
)0.>.
IS)
I\.) D 3':
~ is Q
Q
JI;:lo
........
Q
Q
CI'I
} '\:Jt
May 6. 2009
Court House Plaza Company
Via Fax (650) 853-0325
David Solnick -Architect
~
FI:HR & PEERS
1'IIANSPORTATtON (ONSIJLTANTS
Subject: Garage Access to the Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Hohbach I Mr, Solnick:
RSOB .. 2640
Based an our review of the proposed garage access from Birch Street (dl rectly east of Grant Avenue) and
a field visit to the project site during both morning and evening peak hour conditions in May 2009, we
recommend that the garage site access remain on Grant Avenue (directly south of Birch Street) for the
following reasons:
1) Birch Street is a four~lane roadway providing access to ·and from Oregon Expressway. With
traffic volumes significantly higher than the two .. Jane Grant Avenue, constructing the garage
entrance from this heavily traveled roadway will result in potential traffic issues with traffic flow on
this arterial roadway.
2) With a planted center median, the driveway could only provide right-turn in I right-turn out
movements, resulting in increased u-turns at Birch Street I Grant Avenue and Birch Street J
Sheridan Avenue.
3) Accident data for the three year time period behNeen April 24, 2006 and April 24, 2009 Show that
accidents have occurred primarily on Birch Street, and include unsafe speed, failure to yield right
of way and unsafe turn. Therefore, constructing the project driveway on Biroh Street may resuft
in an increased potential for certain types of accidents and vehicles enter and exit a heavily
traveled roadway into the parking. garage.
Sincerely,
Fred Choat P.E.
r~egistered Traffic Engineer in the State of California
No. TR1830
---1S0 W. Santa Clara Street. Suit~ 675 San Jose, California '9511~O-(408)-·278~1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
fl)OOl/OOl
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 24, 2009
To: Court House Plaza Company
David Solnick -Architect
From: Fred Choa, Fehr & Peers Associates
Subject: Elements for 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Travel Demand Management Plan
RSOB-2616
This memorandum responds to your request for a Travel Demand Management (TOM) Plan for the
proposed 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project in Palo Alto, California. The Proposed
Project is comprised of 24,827 square feet, with 10,257 square feet of office space (2 tenants) and 14,534
square feet of residential area (8 two-story townhouses).
Trlis TDM Plan includes the following elements:
• Recommended measures for the 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
• Effectiveness of TOM measures
RecoITlmended Measures for the Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Our recommendations for TDM measures at 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project are
based on the following assumptions:
• Employees will arrive and depart during traditional commute hours
• Employees will likely use transit if convenient and available
• There is a Class II Bike Lane on Park Boulevard and a Class III Bike Route of California Avenue
• There is an extensive bicycle system throughout the mid-peninsula, connecting Stanford, Palo
Alto, Menlo Park and Mountain View,
• The CalTrain California Station is located less than 1/3 of a mile from the project site (1,700 feet)
• There is extensive public transit on EI Camino Real and Oregon Expressway 1 Page Mill Road
provided by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
• There are restaurants, retail, banks and other destinations within walking distance (1,300 feet) on
California Avenue between EI Camino Real and Park Boulevard.
Based on these Fehr & Peers recommends the following measures for use in a TDM plan for any single
tenant having more than 25 employees.
Provide On-Site Amenities: In terms of physical improvements that can be implemented in addition to
the required bicycle parking are on-site amenities designed to enhance accessibility and convenience of
either walking or bicycling. This would include on-site shower facilities located within the men's and
women's restroom facilities.
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
April 24, 2009
Page 2 of 4
tp
FEHJ\ & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Identify a TDM Coordinator: Most TOM programs include the designation of a TOM coordinator. This
coordinator can have a variety of roles including providing information on available transit options,
arranging carpools, dispensing transit passes or Commuter Checks, and overseeing the operation of the
Guaranteed Ride Home Program.
Use of Tandem Parking: When the parking requirements for the office tenants are such that unused
tandem parking spaces need to be utilized, the TOM Coordinator shall contact employees of office
tenants that would be ideal candidates of tandem parking based on their arrival "and departure times. The
TDM Coordinator will assign to designated employees the spaces in available tandem parking spaces.
Institute Promotional Programs: Implement educational and promotional programs involving all
employees with these efforts supervised by the TOM coordinator.
Promotional programs refer to employer-sponsored initiatives, which educate employees about the
availability of alternative modes and the benefits of these modes. Promotional programs might include:
• TOM Coordinator
• Commuter Information Bulletin Board
• Guide to Transit Service systems and schedules
• Guide to City of Palo Alto and Regional Bicycle Systems
• Guide to CalTrain system and schedule
CarpoollVanpool Programs: The TOM Coordinator would assist employees interested in carpooling /
vanpooling. A carpool is two to six people sharing a ride in an automobile. The most common carpool
approach is rotating automobile use among carpoolers with no exchange of money. Another method is a
carpool g"roup using one car and sharing commuter expenses. Either way, the driver of the carpool has
the vehicle available for personal or company use during the workday. Carpooling reduces the cost of
commuting and provides a stress-free ride to and from work for non-drivers.
The main impediment to carpooling program is convincing employees to carpool and arranging carpools.
Incentives to carpool can be provided through allocating preferential parking or by discounting the cost of
parking for carpoolers. Arranging carpools, which entail matching riders with similar home locations, can
either be done by an employer formally or through regional agencies such as Rides for Bay Area
Commuters. This non-prom agency maintains lists of persons interested in a carpool.
Vanpools operate like a mini-transit service, with an organized route, schedule and passenger fare
charges. Vanpools typically are comprised of 7 to 15 people. Fares depend 6n the commute distance, the
total number of riders, the type of van, company-provided equipment, and incentives and subsidies.
Vanpools can be set up by individual employees or by the employer. Rides for Bay Area Commuters will
also provide assistance in establishing and operating a vanpool.
Provide Transit Subsidies: One of the most common TOM programs is a transit program, by which large
employers facilitate the use of transit by their employees. This facilitation can include subsidizing transit
passes, providing transit passes on-site, and providing connecting service to the nearest transit stop or
station.
Two available transit pass programs include Commuter Checks (tax-free vouchers employees can use to
purchase transit passes) and Eco Pass. Based on recent changes to Federal Laws, employers can now
provide up to $100 a month per employee for use in purchasing transit passes. The Santa Clara Valley
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
April 24, 2009
Page 3 of 4
fp
FE J-I R & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Transportation Authority (VTA) operates the Eco Pass program. The one limitation on the Eco Pass
program is that CalTrain (which operates a station on California Avenue less than 1/3 of a mile from your
facility) does not participate in this program.
These subsidies could be provided in the form of Commuter Checks or through participation in the Eco
Pass program. Commuter checks would likely be more useful to your employees since this program
appears to be more flexible than Eco Pass. You could also provide transit passes to your residents for
use by themselves or their visitors. Please note than any transit passes for use by residents would
require purchase by the operator of the facility.
Alternative/Flexible Work Schedule: Based on research conducted by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, implementation of the recommended TDM Program would result in a reduction of vehicle trips
during the traditional morning and evening commute periods. In addition, by providing on-site vending
machines and shower facilities, the opportunity to:
a) Bicycle or walk to work;
b) Take transit / shuttle to work;
c) Remain on-site during lunchtime; and
d) Leave the project site by automobile before or after the critical a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Alternative work sclledule programs include the following measures:
• Flextime-Workers report within varying windows rather than set times
• Staggered Work'Hours-Employees arrive in shifts rather than all arriving at once
• Compressed Work Week-Employees have the option of working four-day weeks or longer house.
For example, the City of Palo Alto allows its employees to work 9 days over a two-week period,
with an alternating day off during the week.
• Telecommuting-Employees may choose to work at home one or more days a week
Effectiveness ofTDM Measures
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publislled a review of information regarding the
effectiveness of TDM measures in the Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recommended Practice. This
review concluded the following:
• Support measures, such as transportation coordinators, flexible work hours, and other
promotional activities had no measurable impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters.
But it has been shown to reduce a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation by providing
opportunities to arrive earlier than a.m. peak and depart later than p.m. peak hours (5 to 15
percent reduction)
• Transportation services, such as vanpools and carpools had a noticeable impact on number of
vehicles used by commuters (8 percent reduction)
• Economic incentives including transit subsidies and transportation allowances for large
businesses also had a significant impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters (16
percent reduction)
This study also concluded that combining transportation services and economic incentives generated the
most significant reduction in the number of commuter vehicles (24 percent). Based on this information, it
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
Apri I 24, 2009
Page 4 of 4
11>
F Ef-1R & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
would be beneficial to include a variety of measures including on-site amenities, transportation services,
and economic incentives.
The proposed TDM Plan would reduce the reliance on the single occupant vehicle, enhance the
Proposed Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project, and potentially improve traffic operations in the area.
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
ATTACHMENT G
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
Memorandum
Date: May 8,2009
To: Elena Lee
From: Rafael Rius, P .E.
Subject: 2650 Birch. -Transportation Comments on the Driveway Location
The following is based on our recent discussions related to the driveway access on Grant
Avenue. With our department's previous comments to improve sight distances,' we feel that if
the comments related to the walls and fences adj acent to the garage ramp were set back
appropriately, and parking immediately adjacent to the driveway were restricted, that a driveway
at on Grant Avenue can operate safely.
A driveway on Birch Street would not be recommended for several reasons including higher
traffic volumes on Birch, the raised median (requiring U-turns at adjacent unsignalized
intersections, and the direct link to the connectors to and from Oregon Expressway.
A driveway on Sheridan Avenue could potentially work and would operate similarly to the
currently proposed driveway on Grant Avenue with similar positives and negatives. This is not
necessarily recommended over the proposed Grant Avenue location.
These conunents should be considered in addition to the previous comments from July 2008,
which mayor may not have already been addressed.
Please feel free to contact me to discuss further if you have any questions.
ex
LEED for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
Project Name: Birch Plaza
ATTACHMENT H
Submitted by Applicant
DIZA t-T
Project Address: 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue
Yes ?
36
Yes ? No
____ Sustainable Sites 14 Points
---T"--""""'" Prereq 1
Credit 1 ~--~--~~--~~
Credit 2 ~--~~~~~~~
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Site Selection
Development Density & Community Connectivity
f",---'--+"---'-'-""'1-'-'----'-'-,-I Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment
f---+--,::.-.i--'-~--"-'--I Credit 4.1 Alternative Transponatlon, Public Transportation
f---+---d---'-I Credit 4.2 Alternative Transponation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
f----,.,-+,.,---~~~ ___ --"-'--I Credit 4.3 Alternative Transponation, Low-Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles
~~~~~-+--~~ Credit 4.4 Alternative Transponation, Parking Capacity
r-~~----~----~ Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat
f-:.,,:-c-,-,-+-:-~--:J ___ ~-'-I Credit 5.2 Site Developmen~ Maximize Open Space
r-~~~--~~--~ Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control
f",--'"--"-+-'--,-,-----"1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control
~--~~--~~--~ Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof
f----+-'--,---:J-'-c-'-l Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof
L-__ ~ ____ ~~ __ ~ Credit 8 light Pollution Reduction
Yes ? No
Required
1
1
1
___ . Water Efficiency 5 Points
'1 " ..• > ,"c" . ','" Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1
"
" 1 .... c' ,. '. Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping. No Potable Use or No Irrigation
r 1···· Credit 2 !nnovative Wastewater Technologies
1 . Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction
. " 1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction
C' ,.','ro1d by
Adobe" liveCycle-last Modified: May 2008 1 of 4
Yes
CD
LEED for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
? No
____ Energy & Atmosphere 17 Points
Prereq 1
Prereq 1
Prereq 1
Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems
Minimum Energy Performance
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Required
Required
Required
"Note for EA.1: All LEED for New Construction projects registered after June26, 2007 are required to achieve at least two (2) points.
I)Z. 18 I Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10
'--__ -'-__ ...J1~3 __ ___'1 Credit 2
1
Powered bV
r
I
1
1
1
Adobe" LiveCycle"
Credit 3
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
Credit 1.1 10.5% New Buildings 13.5% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.2 14% New BUildings 17% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.3 17.5% New Buildings 110.5% EXisting Building Renovations
Credit 1.4 21% New Buildings 114% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.5 24.5% New Buildings 117.5% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.6 28% New Buildings 121% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.7 31.5% New Buildings 124.5% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.8 35% New Buildings 128% Existing Buildi~g Renovations
Credit 1.9 38.5% New Buildings 131.5% Existing Building Renovations
Credit1.10 42% New Buildings 135% Existing Building Renovations
On·Site Renewable Energy
Credit 2.1 2.5% Renewable Energy
Credit 2.2 7.5% Renewable Energy
Credit 2.3 12.5% Renewable Energy
Enhanced CommiSSioning
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Measurement &: Verification
Green Power
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 to 3
2
3
1
Last Modified: May 2008 2 or 4
Yes
('1
LEED for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
? No
c····
, ',:..-"
.. __ Materials & Resources 13 Points
Prereq 1
Credit 1.1
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
Credit 3.1
>. Credit 3.2
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6
1 Credit 7
Yes ? No
Storage & Collection of Recyclables
Building Reuse. Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof
Building Reuse, Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof
Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements
Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal
ConstRiction Waste Management) Divert 75% from Disposal
Materials Reuse, 5%
Materials Reuse, 10%
Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer)
Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer)
Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured
Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured
Rapidly Renewable Materials
Certified Wood
Required
1
1
1
1
.. __ Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points
Prereq 1
___ ,-,..,.,, __ Prereq 2
Minimum IAQ Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
)--__ -+~_-+',.c....-,__j Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring
F---+-....,.,....,-+'-'---c",.---i Credit 2 Increased Ventilation
)--__ -+ ___ +'~,.c....,__j Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction
1--'----1----+---,--,--i Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy
!----+-,.c....-'-+-"7:"_-I Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants
r---~~~~~~,__j Credit 4.2 Low.Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings
F---'-"--c+--.,--+-'---~ Credit 4.3 Low.Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems
Required
Required
r-~~--~~--~,__j Credit 4.4 Low·Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products
1--'----1----+--_'--:1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control
r-~~--~~~~-I Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting
1----1----+-::....~.,-j Credit 6.2 ContrOllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort
F--___ +--Tt--~ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design
r---~----~~---I Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification
1--'-'---1--___,-+--'---,--i Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces
'---, __ ---'-___ -'--__ -'-Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces
POWH"d by
Adobe" LiveCycle-
'1\
1
1
1
1
last Modified: May 2008 3 or 4
Yes
LEED for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
? No
____ Innovation & Design Process 5 Points
,
1
f'~we-r~cl by
r I
1
1
1
1
Adobe-LiveCycle-
Credit 1.1 Innovation In Design:
Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design:
Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design:
Credit 1.4 Innovation In Design:
Credit 2 LEE~ Accredited Professional
last Modified: May 2008 4 of 4
,
(§j.,.,
A •.•.. ~ .. ' '.'
Multifamily GreenPoint Ch~~eklist
""DrzA t--l
~."" ~
The GreenPoint Rated checklist tracks green features incorporated into the home. The recommended minimum requirements
for a green home are: Earn a total of 50 points or more; obtain the following minimum pOints per category: Community (6),
Energy (30), Indoor Air Quality/Health (5), Resources (6), and Water (3); and meet the prerequisites B.1.a (50% construction
waste diversion), A.8 (exceed Title 24 requirements by 15%), C.10.a (3-year subcontractor guarantee and 20-year
manufacturer warranty for shingle roofing), and F.1 (incorporate Green Points checklist in blueprints).
Build It Green is a non-profit organization providing the GreenPoint Rated program as a public service. Build It Green
encourages local governments to leverage program resources to support voluntary, market-based programs and strategies.
The green building practices listed below are described in greater detail in the Multifamily Green Building Guidelines, available
at www.builditgreen.org/greenpoint-rated/guidelines
Enter Total Conditioned Floor Area of the Project: 24,791
Enter Total Non-Residential Floor Area of Project: 10,257
Percent of Project Dedicated to Residential Use 59%
.'. '.C .: . •... :: '.~.:.,:< ,c,
.. ,
-" I '-, I ;.0,
.......~ ....
1. Inflll Sites
~ a. Project is Located Within an Urban Growth Boundary & Avoids Environmentally Sensitive Sites
~ !!ls~!~51~m~~~u~~
I Current Point Total 1 97.67 1
"; z:. ..c I/) 'c ~ CI)
~ >. ca ~ E CI) ~ }' OJ :I: j E ~ ~ 0 I/) 0 c CI) "c. 0 W 0:::
.-. i1..r:J:l.
;·.·i2S~~ii~~i~~i~~~JE~;~~~~~::~~:w~~~~~nUM;~~A;~-~ ... -·u~~ ~ ••• r-----:---;-----i----'---;----I
~ Site has Pedestrian Access Within _ Mile to Neighborhood Services (1 Pt for 5 Or More, ~ts for 10 Or More): ~ 1) Bank ~ 2) Place of Worship ~ 3) Full Scale Grocery/Supermarket
~ 4) Day Care 5) Cleaners b 6) Fire Station
~ 7) Hair Care 8) Hardware 16 9) Laundry
~ 10) Library 11) Medical/Dental ~ 12) Senior Care Facility
~ 13) Public Park 14) Pharmacy ~ 15) Post Office
~ 16) Restaurant 17) School f-18) After School Programs ~ 19) Commercial Office D 20) Community Center ~ 21) Theater/Entertainment
cgj22) Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold. . .. " ----'" 'g'-Proximi~'io-'PubiiC Tran'sit-"--'---' -.,--'----, , ,---,',, __ ,-0," ,-, ,--,---,-",--. -" '-----'---~---'----'----I
Development is Located Within:
1/4 Mile of Two or More Planned or Current Bus Line Stops ~ 1/4 Mile of One Planned or Current Bus Line Stop
, __ . . . __ ,_, ___ .1!? ~}I~_9f aC:;.9r.n.!T1~~!J@!f!!l:ig~!~?,i!,I~?~,sit?y~t,~,!! __ ",,,_ " ____ ,_ ._"' ___ " ___ ,"' __ .___________"__ ____,, ___ , ____ ''--_--'-__ -"'-_____ ~_--I
h. Reduced Parking Capacity:
I)<J Less than 1.5 Parking Spaces Per Unit o Less than 1.0 Parking Spaces Per Unit
2. Mixed-Use Developments
I)<J a. At least 2% of Development Floorspace Supports Mixed Use (Non-Residential Tenants) D b. Half of Above Non-Residential Floorspace is Dedicated to Neighborhood Services
n 3. Building Placement & Orientation
a. Protect Soil & Existing Plants & Trees
4. Design for Walking & Bicycling V p a. Sidewalks Are Physically Separated from Roadways & Are 5 Feet Wide
b. Traffic Calming StrategiesAre Installed by the Developer
c. Provide Dedicated, Covered & Secure Bicycle Storage for 15% of Residents
d. Provide Secure Bicycle Storage for 5% of Non-Residential Tenant Employees & Visitors
5. Social Gathering Places
a. Outdoor Gathering Places for Residents (Average of 50 sf Per Unit Or More)
b. Outdoor Gathering Places Provide Natural Elements (For compact sites onlv)
6. DeSign for Safety fnd Natural Surveillance
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
;r;t,
.
---",-"-"""-·--,~---",,,,t-,.--,-
.~
i
Page 1 olf ~
n
~ o o o ~
,:',
a. All Main Entrances to the Building and Srte are Prominent and Visible from the Street
b. Residence Entries Have Views to Callers (Windows or Double Peep Holes) & Can Be Seen By Neighbors
9. Cool Site
a. At least 30% of the Site Includes Cool Site Techniques
10. Adaptable Buildings
a. Include Universal Design Principles in Units
50% of Units
80% of Units
b. Live/Work Units Include A Dedicated Commercial Entrance
11. Affordability
a. A Percentage of Units are Dedicated to Households Making 80% or Less of AMI
10%of All Units
20%
30%
50%or More
b, Development Includes Multiple Bedroom Units (At least 1 Unit with 3BR or More at or Less Than 80% AMI)
~. SITEWORK
I
0
,-
I--
I--
~
r __ ... •
~
~
1. Construction & Demolition Waste Management
Divert a Portion of all Construction & Demolition Waste:
a, Required : Divert 50%
b. Divert 65%
c. Divert 80% or more
2. Construction Material Efficiencies
a. Lumber is Delivered Pre-Cut from Supplier (80% or More of Total Board Feet)
b. Components of the Project Are Pre-Assembled Off-Site & Delivered to the Project
25% of Total Square Footage
50% of Total Square Footage
75% of Total Square Footage or More
3. Construction Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan
a. An IAQ Management Plan is Written & Followed for the Project
1. Recycled Aggregate
a. Minimum 25% Recycled Aggregate (Crushed Concrete) for Fill, Backfill & gther Uses
2. Recycled Flyash in Concrete
a. Flyash or Slag is Used to Displace a Portion of Portland Cement in Concrete
20%
30% or More r 7
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
~
~'. ,,' ",,: >, ';
::',
"
'::,
I
I
I
~ B en c Q)
:J >-co ~ E Q) :J
E e» :::t: 0 .!! Q) ~ en 0 c II) ~ U W 0:::
1
1
1
1
1
, 1
i 1
J I 1
1
: 1
i 1
i i 1
! 14
1 :
: -~. ,.-",.-."' 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 !
Possible Points --
j i Y !
; i ! .2. .l i I 2
; I 1 !
! I 2
! j 2
! 2
2 i
.~i1r=1:c.
: i J 1
; : I 1 :
: : : 1 !
Page 2 off ®
~~~~~n·@ ';~~~~~ ~~N"EERPROJEC:rYNAMg"~' ... '. . .. '~'.: f
l;::-,Cs<I'.,:,;:U' ... . .' .. :.: :-., '.' ...... 3
EJ
EJ
3. FSC·Certified Wood for Framing Lumber
a. FSC-Certified Wood for a Percentage of All Dimensional Studs:
40%
70%
b. FSC-Certified Panel Products for a Percentage of All Sheathing (OSB & Plywood):
40%
70%
4. Engineered Lumber or Steel Studs. Joists, Headers & Beams V A a. 90% or More of All Floor & Ceiling Joists
~ b. 90% or More of All Studs
6 c. 90% or More of All Headers & Beams
r--
r--
I R
B
5. Optimal Value Engineering Framing
a. Studs at 24" Centers on Top Floor Exterior Walls &lor All Interior Walls
b. Door & Window Headers Sized for Load
c. Use Only Jack & Cripple Studs Required for Load
6. Steel Framing
a. Mitigate Thermal Bridging by Installing Exterior Insulation (At Least 1-lnch of Rigid Foam)
7. Structural Insulated Panels (SiPs) Or Other Solid Wall Systems
a. SIPs Or Other Solid Wall Systems are Used for 80% of All:
Floors
Walls
Roofs
8. Raised Heel Roof Trusses
a. 75% of All Roof Trusses Have Raised Heels
9. Insulation
a. All Ceiling, Wall & Floor Insulation is 01350 Certified OR Contains No Added Formaldehyde
b. All Ceiling, Wall & Floor Insulation Has a Recycled Content of 50% or More
10. Durable Roofing Options
a. Required: No Shingle Roofing OR All Shingle Roofing Has 3-Yr Subcontractor Guarantee & 20-Yr Manufacturer Warranty
b. All Sloped Roofing Materials Carry a 40-Year Manufacturer Warranty
11. Moisture Shedding & Mold Avoidance
a. Building(s) Include a Definitive Drainage Plane Under Siding
b. ENERGY STAR Bathroom Fans are Supplied in All Bathrooms, Are Exhausted to the Outdoors & Are Equipped with Controls
c. A Minimum of 80% of Kitchen Range Hoods Are Vented to the Exterior
12. Green Roofs
a. A Portion of the Low-SlOpe Roof Area is Covered By A Vegetated or "Green" Roof
25%
50% or More
D. SYSTEMS
~ 1. Passive Solar Heating
a. Orientation: At Least 40% of the Units Face Directly South
b. Shading On All South-Facing Windows Allow Sunlight to Penetrate in Winter, Not in Summer
c. Thermal Mass: At Least 50% of the Floor Area Directly Behind South-Facing Windows is Massive
D 2. Radiant Hydronic Space Heatil1g
a. Install Radiant Hydronic Space Heating for lAO purposes (No Forced Air) in All Residences
B 3. Solar Water Heating
a. Pre-Plumb for Solar Hot Water
b. Install Solar Hot Water System for Preheating DHW
D 4. Air Conditioning with Advanced Refrigerants
a. Install Air Conditioning with I~on-HCFC Refrigerants
5. Advanced Ventilation Practices
,--Perform the Following Practices in Residences:
~ a. Infiltration Testing by a C-HERS Rater for Envelope Sealing & Reduced Infiltration
b. Operable Windows or Skylights Are Placed To Induce Cross Ventilation (At Least One Room In 80% of Units)
c. Ceiling Fans in Every Bedroom & Living Room OR Whole House Fan is Used
6. Garage Ventilation ~ a. Garage Ventilation Fans Are Controlled by Carbon Monoxide Sensors (Passive Ven~lation Does Not Count)
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
"iJ,
! 2
1
1
I __ ..... __ ....... I:.-._._ ........ _~i ...... _ ....... _ •. .,... 1 _ .. +!' ...... , ......... 1
1 2 1
! : 2 !
1
1 :
1 :
2 ;
: 2 i j 2 !
i 2 i 2
i 2 i 2 :
1
I 1 ;
! 1
Y
! 1 : ..... _-, ..
i i 4 ;
1 ,
;
2
2 i 2
Possible Points ...
, 2 , I
! 1 i ! J : 2 : i
2 ! I \
, 1 ! i ; 4 r ! !
1 ! : ;
\ 2 i ,
"-. : 1 ! 1 : . 1 i i
i 1 i i
Page 3 off t6
...... , .. ' ;.',.,;,,,,:;',< .' ,
ENTER PRb~~GT: .
c><J .' '.' '., ~'.'.'~' .. '.' ". . '.' .... ".
R ' ~ Ale Installed Wherev9( Unear Fluorescent Lamps Are Used
b: / Produds, ! Where", Compact I ,Ale Used
10%
20%
300/0 or more
j ~~ay is Pro"dod in a V1ewable Pu~k: A"",
,'< "';(
, .' ....... ~
.... ,
II .. , .... , .... ::--'+"''''-+1 ""2~-+"""-
1
.1-·· .. +· __ . __ ;': .. _ .. +i ---+ ... --1 1 :' I
._ .. 1,-_.1.-'--_'--'_,--,1'--1_-1
2 : 2 :--_.'_._ _.~_ ,,_
Z : 2 , . ._! ..... _
~ -.. ~.+ :., ;'--
~ ~~'~~'~'ln~II~~ ____________________________ -L __ ~_~;_~' __ --I
a, .~a! ENERGY STAR Refrigerato<s. Al Localions I._~ _ .. ;~;~~.l:~~~ .... _ ......... _._ .... _. ,, __ . ____ _
-
b, .~ Et£RGY STAR Dishwashe<s. Al locations
AI ~he<s ~ ENERGY STAR-quaInod
Residenlil11llode Dishwashe<s Use No ""'" ~an 6,5 Gallons Per C)c~
c. Inslal ENERGY STAR Clothes Wasbets kl A1ll0ca00ns
d. ,In:
EftIciency
; ;
.. ___ .. _._ ... _ 1,--__ -,-1 -,--1 _'_--,-;_....,
:= __ .;. : _-:1",_ =t .. C--'--'''------.+:---L:
a.Use Ret)ded Water !of Lafldscape Irrigation Of to Aush TolietsAAinals ~2
b.Use Ca~ Rainwater for Landscape Irrigation or 10 Flosh 5%01 Toilets &/0( Urinals ! 4 >< c. Water is: ! 10< Each Residential Un, & I ' : 4
• . 1. Construction Indoor Air Quality Man.gement o a. Pertorm a 2-Week Whole Building Flush-Out PrIor to Occupancy
~ Entryw.ys R a. Proykje Permanent Walk-Olf Mats aoo Shoe SloI'age at All Home Entrances
b. Permanent Walk-Off Systems Are Provided at All Main Building Entrances & In Common Areas
3. RacycDng & W.sta Colldon
[XJ a. Residences:, Provide Bulll·ln Recycling Center In Each Unit
r ,
MF GIWnPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
\
. .
I : 1 , :
I· -.. ---.~---.. + 1 ! I
1 ,
I , 2
Page 4 01 6
4. Use Low/No-VOC Paints & Coatings
a. Low-VOC Interior Paints «50 gpl VOCS (Flat) and <150 gpl VOCs (Non-Flat)) -.. ~ -_ .. --T' ... _______ ... __ .i ... ___ .. ____ ... _ .. _.1.,._ ....... _ ... _ .. __ ---_~_ ... __ ._ ... _ ... _.
__ .. _ •..• __ L .. __ .. ___ .. L_Q.~~_~ .. J ______ .... .1-. .. --
i 0.41 : I
~ In All Residences D In All Non-Residential Areas: .-.-.-..... -, .... _---_._-.---.-~-.---.----~ .. -.-.-.... -.-.-~-.-.--.. -. "'---'~-"-"-"-~-'-"-'-'----' ,---.'_ .•. _---_., ... _ ......... _--, ....•..•. -.. ' -_.-., .•..... _."""-... --. -.-'-" ---"",-,"'.', -.. -..... _ ...... _ ...•.. --_ .. -
b. Zero-VOC: InteriorPaints «5 gpl VOCs (Flat)) B In All Residences 1 0.59 ! i
___ ... ________ I_~~II~~~_~~~i~~_n~~I.~r~~: __ . ___ ... _. ____ .. _______ .... _ ..... "'_ ._. . .... _. __ ._ .... _ ._ .... ___ ... _____ . _____ . ___ ... ____ '--_~ __ ---'-. ~_·O_ .. ~_4_i_-.. '_!·-_···_· .. -_· -_--'-~_-._--_ .. -_-.~ .....
c. Wood Coatings Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs
.-~-.-.-..... :~.~.::~;.~~;~~~I_~~~~~:-------.. -.... -.-. ___ .. _ ...... _ ...
d. Wood Stains Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs
In All Residences
In All Non-Residential Areas:
1.18 i "o~8iT._-._-_· ---' __ -I
5. Use Recycled Content Exterior Paint
a. Use Recycled Content Paint on 50% of All Exteriors 1
6. Low-VOC Construction Adhesives
a. Use Low-VOC Construction Adhesives «70 gpl VOCs) for All Adhesives 1
7. Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish
Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish: A) FSC-Certified Wood, B) Reclaimed Lumber, C) Rapidly Renewable D) Recycled-Content or E) Finger-Jointed
a. Residences: At Least 50% of Each Material:
~ i. cabinets
ii. Interior Trim
iii. Shelving
iv. Doors
_ .. __ ... ........ _. v:.~u.~~~!.!~P~ .. _._.__.. . .. __ .. __ ...... _ .. __ _._ ... _____ .
-
----
b. Non-Residential Areas: At Least 50% of Each Material:
i. cabinets
ii. Interior Trim
iii. Shelving
iv. Doors
v. Countertops
8. Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials
Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials (Section 01350) for At Least 50% of Each Material Below:
a. Residences:
~ i. Cabinets
ii. Interior Trim
.---------.-:;:-~;:;~----------.----_._ ........ _ .. _------.. __ .... -...... __ . __ .... _ .. -_ .. -._ ...... _-......... _ .. ---_ ... -... --. -_ ......... _._.
~
b. Non-Residential Areas:
i. cabinets
ii. Interior Trim
iii. Shelving
iv. Subfloor
9. Environmentally Preferable Flooring
, : 0.59 ; ... -........... --.... -..' ..... -....... ; ...... --.. ---1. ........ --.--
____ .. _:_ .. __ .. _ . j 0.59 1 __ -; .. . ___ ._. __ ... ~ .. ---... -.I::Q~.~~·:.[~~-~.-~{_.-.--.-.. -
! 0.59 !
: i 041 i i ... ~ .. -....... ----.. +-.. --.' .. -.-..... ~---....... --:--... _---.-' ; , 041 ' , :.:·.~.~:.--:.~·1::~--· .. ~~ ..• =r.Q~~4i:t'-:·.~ .. =·~ . .t:~.-:.-.~.~~
, 1 0.41 !
Use Environmentally Preferable Flooring: A) FSC-Certified or Reclaimed Wood, B) Rapidly Renewable Flooring Materials, C) Recycled-Content Ceramic Tiles, D) Exposed Concrete as Rnished
Floor or E) Recycled-Content Carpet. Note: Flooring Adhesives Must Have <50 gpl VOCs.
a. Residences:
~ i. Minimum 15% of Floor Area
ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area
iii. Minimum 50% of Floor Area
iv. Minimum 75% of Floor Area ............ ' .... _ .................. _ ..... _ ........... _-.... -. ...... ..
b. Non-Residential Areas:
i. Minimum 15% of Floor Area
ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area
iii. Minimum 50% Of Floor Area
iv. Minimum 75O/~f Floor Area
10. Low-Emitting FlOOring
. .. _ .. ____ ._+ __ .. ____ . __ .i .. __ .. _ ... _J.Q.:_~~_L ....
...... _ ...... ____ ... _ ... ; ! 0.59 j
· .. ·· .... -r·-·-·--· --I ·~~-~·.:·~·~r·~~~·~~·r~-
........... -..... --................................... --.... --'-----'-----'-----'---''---'--'------i
0.41 :
a. Residences: Flooring Meets Section 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (50% Minimum) I ........ _. L.Q.59 !
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
~
Page 5 off IS
tEHNITER.PRb~~CTNAME ·C.·L...--,-~ ..-,-... --.-c--.-. ··--,-.~·--,--.{\'L.;i ....
. ,
b. Non-Residential ATeaS: Fkxxing Meets Sectioo 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (500/0 Milimum)
n
•
11. Durable Cabfnllta
[nstall Durable Cabinets in All:
a Residences
b. Non-Residential Areas
12. Furniture & Outdoor Play Structures
a. Play Structures & Surfaces Have an Overall Average Recycled Content Greater Than 20%
b. Environmentally Preferable ExleOOr Site FurnishIngs
c. At least 250/0 of All newly Supplied Interior FurnIture has Environmentally Preferable Attributes
13. Vandalism Deterrence
a. Project \ocIudes Vandalism Resistant Rnlshes and Strategies
1.lncofporate GreenPoint Checklist in Blueprints
a. Required: Incorporate GreenPolnt Checklist In Blue rints
2. Operations & Maintenance Manuals
,
I ~ J ,
0.41 '--,--,
1 ' --',-"'-"-"-'T "~-----I---i---i '-~---
______ •. -: .• ___ • ____ }._. I.. _. ,.~
1
1 , ,
y
a. Provide O&M Manual 10 Building Maintenance Staff :'--}1-...!.._. ___ --f" _ _L
~~~~b~.~p~rn~~~e~07&M~M~a~nu=a~II~O~~~~~~~ _________________________ ~ ___ ~'__ 1
3. TransttOptiona
a. Residents Are Offered. Free or Discounted Transit Passes 2
4. Educational Slgnage
a. Educational Signage Highfighllng & Explaining the Project's Green Features Is Included 1
5. Vandalism Managemwrt. Plan
a. Project Includes a VandaUsm Managemeot Plan for Dealing with Disturbances Post-Occupancy 1
6. Innovation: Ust innovative measures that meet the green building objectives of the Multifamily Guidelines. Enter up to a 4 Points in each category. Poinls will be evaluated by local jurisdiction
or GreenPoinl rater.
o lnnovaOOn III Community: Enter up k> 4 ·Points at left. Enter doscriptjon Mero b · . •
o klnowtioo in Energy: Enlei up!O 4 PoInts at lett. Enter descripton heI8
o k'I00\'aIXn il WItIr: Enter up to 4 POOts allett Enter description hera
Summa
Points Achieved from Specific Categories
Current POint Total
Project Has Met All Recommended Minimum Requirements
r
MF GreenPOlnt Checklist . 2005 E~ltIon v,2 .,
~
97.67
Page 6 01 S
ATTACHMENT I
Subm,iited by Applicant
2198 SIXTII STREET, SUITE 201·BERKELEY, CA 94710
TEL: (510)644-3123 . FAx: (510)644-3859
GEOSCIENCE & ENGINEERING CONSULTING
May 21,2009
Ms Elena Lee
Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
JUN ~lJ 2fiGD
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Addressing the proposed Birch Plaza Gland G2 mitigation measures for the
proposed Birch Street Project, 2650 and 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., and 306 and
320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, California
Dear Ms. Lee:
Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. (SES) is providing this sumn1ary of how the referenced G 1
and G2 mitigation measures ate being addressed on behalf of the Hohbach Realty Company
Limited Partnership.
The G I-Mitigation Measure is addressed by:
r ,
• The above ground area of the proposed building does not overlay the bore B-4
that showed the highest concentration ofTCE in soil gas (from 15 feet bgs)
• Bore B-4 does overlay the area of the garage but the garage is not a normal point
of exposure as people are transient in a garage.
• Risk evaluations assume potential exposure for commercial space at 8 hours a
day, five days a week and residential exposure at 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.
• The soil will be screened for potential VOC while excavation although since no
local source area is responsible for the VOC, any encountered soil with VOC's it
is expected to be minor, if detected.
Ms. Elena Lee
May 21, 2009
Page 2
The G2 Mitigation Measure is addressed by:
• There being no vapor instruction risks of any regulatory significance based on the
data collected and the Treadwell & Rollo risk assessment using the highest TCE
concentration (6,400 J..lg/M3) found at B-4 with conservative site conditions.
• The California Departn1ent of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) screening model
used clays as the default soil based on the property eight bore logs
• The DTSC risk model using the worst case scenario assumptions showed 10-7
risk, as discussed in the attached Treadwell and Rolla technical letter.
• The 10-7 risk (equivalent to one excess cancer in 10,000,000) is considered to be
insignificant risk, one in 1,000,000 being the most restrictive normally used by
EPA, DTSC, and/or the RWQCB.
We trust this addresses your concerns. Please call me at 510-644-3123 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Makdisi, P.G., R.E.A.
Principal geochemist
cc-Harold Hohbach--Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership.
r ,
Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc.
'~
·Treadwell&RoIlo
6 May 2009
Project 4758.01
IVlr. Harold Hohbach
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc.
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, California 94027
Subject: Results of Vapor Intrusion Model Screening
2650 and 2640 Birch Street, 306 Grant Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
On behalf of Hohbach Enterprises, Inc., Treadwell & Rollo, Inc. presents these vapor intrusion
modeling results related to trichloroethene (TCE) impacts in soil gas at the properties located at 2650 and
2640 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, California (Site).
This vapor intrusion modeling was performed at your request on 14 April 2009. Draft results from this
modeling effort were previously provided to your environmental consultant, Stellar Environmental Solutions.
The purpose of the vapor intrusion mO,deling was to assess the risks to human health via the indoor air
inhalation pathway associated with the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), principally TCE,
in soil gas at the Site. A simple screening version of the Johnson/Ettinger vapor intrusion model!
(J/E model) developed by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) was used in this
assessmentl .
Vapor intrusion modeling was performed utilizing data collected in September 2008 during a site
investigation performed by Stellar Environmental Solutions during which TCE was detected in soil gas at a
concentration of 6,400 micrograms per cubic meter (j..Ig/m3) at boring location B4 at a depth of 15 feet
below ground surface (bgs). This result is the highest TCE soil gas concentration detected at the Site. A
Site map and boring logs provided by Stellar Environmental Solutions are provided in Attachment A.
Soil boring logs for B1, B3 and B6 indicate that the upper 15 feet of the Site is mostly underlain by fine-
grained soil (silt and clay). Exceptions include a laterally discontinuous silty gravel layer from ground
surface to 1 foot bgs in borings B1 and B3, and from 4 feet bgs to 11 feet bgs in boring B6. Also,
gravelly clay was encountered at about 11 feet bgs to 17 feet bgs in boring B1. A log for boring B4 was
not prepared. Soil boring logs are included in Attachment A. Based on the boring logs, silty clay was
selected as the predominant soil type for use in the vapor intrusion model. Since no physical analyses
have been performed on the soil present at the Site, the default parameters for silty clay contained in the
DTSC version of the J/E model were used (bulk density, porosity, and soil water content). In addition to
the use of a silty clay soil in the model, the following input parameters were used in place of the DTSC
default parameters:
• The Chemical CAS number 79016 (for TCE) was used.
• A soil gas TCE concentration of 6,400 j..Ig/m3 was used.
r 1
Johnson, P.c., and R.A. Ettinger, 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion of Contaminant Vapors into
Buildings. Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 25, no. 8, pgs. 1445-1452.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2004. Interim Final, Guidance for the Evaluation and
Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. 15 December.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
555 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1300 SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94111 T 4159559040 F 415 955 9041 www.treadwellrollo.com
Mr. Harold Hohbach
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc.
6 May 2009
Page 2
Treadwell&RoIlo
• A depth below grade to the bottom of the enclosed space floor (Le. slab thickness) of 15 cm
was used as recommended by the DTSC2 for a "slab-on-grade" structure with no basement.
• A soil gas sampling depth below grade of 457 cm (approximately 15 feet) was used.
The use of these input parameters in the DTSC screening version of the JjE model produced an
incremental risk from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 3.8 x 10-7 for carcinogens and a hazard quotient
from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 7.8 x 10-4 for noncarcinogens. The calculated incremental risk is
below the common residential threshold value of 1 x 10-6 for cancer risk and below the threshold value of
1.0 for the hazard quotient for acute risk. Attachment B provides the input sheet, calculation sheets, and
results sheets from the DTSC screening tool.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare and present these vapor intrusion modeling results. If you
would like to discuss these results with us, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned
at 415-955-9040.
Michael D. Chendorain
Senior Project Scientist
47580103.MDC
Attachments
cc: Richard Makdisi, Stellar Environmental Solutions·
r ,
. ~~ inis, PhD, PE
Senior Associate
r ,
Treadwell&RoIIo
Attachment A
Site Information Provided By Stellar Environmental Solutions
o
LEGEND I
50
I
<ri > «
C a:l .... G
0 C")
C")
0 C\I C")
• Existing key HP monitoring well location
- ---Subject property boundary
• B 1 SES Sept. 2008 soil vapor sampling locations
All concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter (tig/m3)
TCE = Trichloroethene
TCA = 1,1, 1-trichloroethane
DCE = 1, 1-dichloroethene
ND = None detected above laboratory reporting limit
Parking for
Superior
Courthouse
• F34A
F35B
260 Sheridan
Avenue
~ F32A
F32B
I.1!i:II 410 ~ NO I ~6,400 I BIRCH STREET I.I!L.) 42 IlI!I)I NO
I..L!!.;J NO
r I
w
::J
Z w > « ... z « a:
C!J
I1!!JI NO I I1!!JI 2001 /
'\ I~ 60..1\
I -B8130~ ~rant~v~o ~ ~ ~~ ~4-- --otl
I I .". B7 B6 Bircl1 Birch 306-320 B3 I
L -----=r ----St. ~ Sheridan Ave. I ~ NO ./ I '----Parking I
IIlL!LJ NO I B5 I ~:lI320 I IB1 B2 I
I.I!:;;) NO I J L.. ____________ _
360 Sheridan Ave. /
I1!i.:I NO I
IRI NO I Apt. Complex
ASH STREET
Il.L!:l:I NO I
~Nol
398 Sheridan Ave. _--+-1 __ -,-Jerusalem - T / Baptist Church
• F29A1U
I
w
::J
Z w > «
z « c
a: w
J:
tJ)
APPROX. SCALE IN FEET
1" = 50 FT.
303-315
. Sheridan Ave.
Apt. Complex
I
345 Sheridan Ave.
The Mayfields
Apt. Complex
I
1
SEPTEMBER 2008 SOIL VAPOR ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TCE, TCA AND DCE * ~u~lL[L~~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
"""""" GEOSCIENCE « ENGINEERING CONSULTI.~O
2650 & 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., & f-B...;;,Y_: _M_J_C ___ ......... S_E_P_T_E_M_B_E_R_2_0_0B---i
306 & 320 Sheridan Ave., Palo Alto, CA Figure 4
, ,
,B711 :. I
c ____ ~ ,
~------~
I I
Existing 3-story
apartment building
,---
, , ,. ,
66 •
~---
B5 •
, , , , ,
1 ______ -
r---, , , , , , , "--------,I .' '!.. 01' I~' , ~=-_ _ !I: I B1·· B2 ___ __________ 1 ______ -
LEGEND
81 •
Subject property boundary
SES Sept. 2008 boring location
Existing site buildings
-tr ST~rlrl#),~ ~ENYIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
GEOSCIENCE Ii ENOIHEF.W;O CO~SUI.TIIIO
Existing 3-story
apartment building
o 20
I I
APPROXIMATE SCALE"
1" = 20 FEET
BIRCH PLAZA PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN WITH SOIL BORE LOCATIONS
2650 & 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., & 306 & 320 Sheridan Ave., Palo Alto, CA
'-
Figure 5
by:MJC OCTOBER 2008
f
t:r §TE tLfL~lFt ~E NVlRONMENTAL SOLUTJONS, INC
:Jt;-a; GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEER.ING CONSULTING
PROJECT Birch Plaza
LOCATION Palo Alto, CA
TOTAL DEPTH _--=2",3...::fe""e::...t b"'9"'s ____ _
SU RFACE ELEV. _-",3",-0-,-,ft-"(a""m",,sCLI) ____ _
DRILLING COMPANY _--=E""C"'A ___ _
Soil Boring log
BORING NUMBER -=B:..:...l _ Page _1 _ of
OWNER Court House Plaza Co.
PROJECT NUMBER "'20"'0.::..8-.:::35"--______ _
BOREHOLE DIA. _2::..:.::..:25::...:i:..::nc""h _______ _
WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED .!..:19::...:f~ee':.!..t!Olbgt:.s __ _
DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push
DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietro paoli DATE DRILLED 9/1512008
~
i::r S u ~ [L lL #\ l??,. ",,4 ... , E NVIRONMENTAL SOLlJTIONS, INC
~ GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEER.ING CONSULTING
PROJECT Birch Plaza
LOCATION Palo Alto, CA
Soil Boring log
BORING NUMBER -=Bc::...3 _ Page _1 _ of
OWNER Court House Plaza Co.
PRO,IECT NUMBER 2=::0~08:!::-3",,5~ _____ _
TOTAL DEPTH _--=2:;::8...::fe::..::e::...t b""'g"'s ____ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::::.::::25::..:i""ncech'---_____ _
SURFACE ELEV. _--",30"-,-,-ft-",(ae.:.m""sl",,,) ____ _
DRILLING COMPANY _--=E""C'-'-A ___ _
WATER FIRST ENCOU~ITERED 26.5 feet bgs
DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push
DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietropaoli DATE DRILLED 9/15/2008
DEPTH
(feet)
r--O
r--
r--
r--
HO-
r--
r--
r--
r--
H5-
r--
r--
GRAPHIC
LOG
63-15 SG-3
~-% ~ -20-
- -
--
-
--. • • • • • • •
r25--, • • • • • • • .
P.I.D.
READING
o
DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
GM, loose, silty gravel
CL, dark grey brown silty clay, dry,
hard, 10% coarse sand, red brick
fragments (fill)
ML, mottled olive grey orange
0.2 clayey silt, stiff, dry
Higher clay fraction @ 7-8'
0.1 Moist to wet @ 13', loose
0.4
CL, mottled olive yellow orange
silty clay, moist, plastic
Y SP, mottled olive red brown
silty fine sand, moist, loose
-7 • • • • • • • • 'Sl Saturated @ 26'
-~)~--r_~-r~--~~------~--------------------~
REMARKS
Notes:
PID ~ Photoionization
Detector "Readings" are
in parts per million per
volume air (ppmv)
Continuous core
sampling-100% core
recovery unless
specified otherwise
Grab groundwater sample
collected. Temporary
screen set at 19-24' bgs .
( SG-3 )
Soil-gas sample collected
for laboratory analysis. __ ~LLLLLL ____ _
--
.f!:., EI~~ ~"1'2~~iS ~o.!!,~!~ __
Bottom of boring = 28 ft. bgs IL----=6~3-:..!1:o!.5_-.J1
-30-
- -
Soil sample collected for
laboratory analysis.
~_~ ________ L-__ ~ __________ ~ _______ ~
'5l.... First encountered groundwater Y Equilibrated groundwater level
* ~u ~lL[L ~~ /A,,,!,E NVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
.;:. ~ .... GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEE~rNG CONSULTING
PROJECT Birch Plaza
LOCATION Palo Alto, CA
Soil Boring Log
BORING NUMBER --=-B-=--5_ Page _1 _ of
OWNER Court House Plaza Co.
PROJ ECT NUMBER 2::..:0.=,;OS=---3::..:5 ______ _
TOTAL DEPTH _--=2""S'-'f"'ee:..:t-,ob"'gs=---____ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::.;.::;25:...;i,:.:;nc""h'--_____ _
SIJ RFACE ELEV. ---'---"'30::...:ft"'("'-am"'s""I)'--___ _ WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED 27.5 feet bgs
DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DR I LLI NG COM PANY _-=E=CA'-'-----___ _
DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietropaoli DATE DRI LLED 9/15/200S
DEPTH (feet)
o
5
10
15
GRAPHIC LOG
B5-15
P.I.D. READING
0
0.2
----
0
----
0 ----
SG-5
DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSifiCATION
Organic rich topsoil
CL, dark brown to black silty clay,
stiff, hard, dry
ML, olive brown gravelly silt, dry,
hard
ML, mottled reddish brown grey
clayey gravelly silt, damp, slight
plastic. ,,25% angular fragments
Becomes moist at 12'
CL, yellowish brown clay, plastic,
moist, soft
ML, yellowish brown clayey silt,
soft, moist, sl. plastiC
REMARKS
Notes:
PID = Photoionization
Detector "Readings" are
in parts per million per
volume air (ppmv)
Contin uous core
. sampling-100% core
20-f-J,.l-'-+J....L,1-I-J,.-L--Y-J....L,,J....1--!+---+---------------1 recovery unless
25
30
CL, olive silty clay, moist, plastic.
soft, dry white sandy patches ,,114"
-+-rfrrrrr'rrfTTrr-fr-r+---{'Sl CL, light gray gravelly clay,
moist, stiff ----
I ML, mottled yellow olive clay, soft,
I plastic, moist 1 ______ -----------
Bottom of boring = 2S ft. bgs
specified otherwise
Grab groundwater sample
collected. Temporary
screen set at 19-24' bgs.
( SG-5 )
Soil-gas sample collected
for laboratory analysis.
B5-15
Soil sample collected for
laboratory analysis.
'Sl.... First encountered groundwater .y. Equilibrated groundwater level
* S T~L [L#~~ ~ENV1RONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
'" wi"': .. GEOSCIENCE &. ENGINEERING CONS[JLTING
PROJECT Birch Plaza
LOCATION Palo Alto, CA
Soil Boring log
BORING NUMBER .=B:::.,6_ Page _1 _ of
OWN ER Court House Plaza Co.
PROJ ECT N U M BE R 2""0:::;08""-3""5'-----_____ _
TOTAL DEPTH _....::2::::4-"fe",e",t b""g"'s ____ _ BOREHOLE OIA. _2::.: . .:::25~i~nc~h'___ ______ _
SURFACE ELEV. ~-:::;30~ft;..J(~am.:::s~I) ____ _ WATE R FI RST EN C 0 U NTE R ED ",20"",f""ee'-'.t ""bg""s __ _
. DRILLING COMPANY _--=E~CA~ ___ _ DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push
DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pletropaoli DATE DRILLED 9/16/2008
DEPTH
(feet)
o
5
10
15
20
25
r !
:
GRAPHIC
LOG
]
..
..
P.I.D.
READING
o
o
0.2
0.4
o
DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
4 inches concrete
CL. Dark brown silty clay, abundant
organics, roots, dry, stiff
GM. medium brown silty gravel.
fill (?), loose. fragments :51-1/2",
damp
GM, medium brown'silty gravel .
. fragments :51". damp. sli. plastic
matrix
ML. mottled olive yellow reddish
brown silty clay, damp. slightly
plastic
CL, mottled olive green. reddish
brown silty clay. soft. damp 10
moist. plastic
Bottom of boring = 24 ft. bgs
REMARKS
Notes:
PID = Pholoionization
Detector "Readings" are
in parts per million per
volume air (ppmv)
Continuous core
sampling-100% core
recovery unless
specified otherwise
Grab groundwater sample
collected. Temporary
screen set at 19-24' bgs.
( SG-1 )
Soil-gas sample collected
for laboratory analysis.
B6-15.5
30 Soil sample collected for
~ laboratory analysis.
iLL_~ _____ ~ __ ~ ________ ~ ______ ~
'5l. Firsl encountered groundwaler
r ,
Treadwell&RoIIo
Attachment B
lIE Model DTSC Version Worksheets
SG-SCREEN
Reset to
Defaults
... ,
I M~RE I
I M~RE I
I M~RE I
DTSC/HERD
Last Update: 11/1/03
ENTER
Chemical
CAS No.
(numbers only,
no dashes)
I 79016
ENTER
Depth
below grade
to bottom
of enclosed
space floor,
LF
(15 or 200 em)
Soil Gas Concentration Data
ENTER ENTER
Soil Soil
gas OR gas
conc., conc.,
Cg Cg
(j..lg/m' (ppmv)
6.40E+03 I I
ENTER ENTER ENTER
Soil gas Vadose zone
sampling Average SCS
depth soil soil type
below grade, temperature, (used to estimate
Ls Ts soil vapor
(em) (0G) ~ermeability)
DATA ENTRY SHEET
OR
DTSC
Vapor Intrusion Guidance
Interim Final 12104
(last modified 1121/05)
Chemical
Trichloroethylene
ENTER
User-defined
vadose zone
soil vapor
permeability,
kv
(em2)
~.15 I 457 T 24 SIC I I
ENTER
Van dose zone
SCS
soil type
ENTER
ENTER
Vadose zone
soil dry
bulk density,
ENTER
Averaging Averaging
ENTER
Vadose zone
soil total
ENTER
ENTER
Vadose zone
soil water-filled
porosity,
ewv
(cm3/em3)
ENTER
time for time for Exposure Exposure
carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency,
ATc ATNc ED EF
(yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (day~rJ
ENTER
Average vapor
flow rate into bldg.
(Leave blank to calculate)
QsoiJ
(LIm)
DTSC Indoor Air Guidance
Unclassified Soil Screening Model
I
2650 & 2640 Birch Street
5/6/2009
2:53 PM
-.
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES SHEET
Henry's Henry's Enthalpy of
law constant law constant vaporization at Normal Unit
Diffusivity Diffusivity at reference reference the normal boiling Critical risk Reference Molecular
in air, in water, temperature, temperature, boiling point, point, temperature, factor, cone., weight,
Da Dw H TR LlHY•b Ta Tc URF RfC MW
~,
END
\
",;J&-
1 of 1
-~
\
~;fi.-
DTSC 1 HERD
Last Update: 11/1/03
INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS SHEET
Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Floor-
Source-soil effective soil soil soil wall
building air-filled total fluid intrinsic relative air effective vapor seam Soil
separation, porosity, saturation, permeability, permeability, permeability, perimeter, gas
LT 9aY Ste k; krg kv .><crack conc.
(cm) (cm3/cm3) (cm 3/cm3) (cm2) (cm2) (cm2) (cm) (f.lg/m3)
Bldg.
ventilation
rate,
Qbuilding
(cm3/s)
442 0.265 0.284 1.52E-09 0.844 J 1.28E-09 4,000 6.40E+03 3.39E+04
Area of Vadose
Crack-Crack Enthalpy of Henry's law Henry's law Vapor zone enclosed
space
below
grade,
to-total depth vaporization at constant at constant at viscosity at effective Diffusion
area below ave. soil ave. soil ave. soil ave. soil diffusion path
ratio, grade, temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, coefficient, length,
As
(cm2)
11 Zcrack liHv.Ts HTs H'TS f.lTS Deify Ld
(unitless) (cm) (cal/mol) (atm-m 3/mol) (unitless) (g/cm-s) (cm2/s) (cm)
1.00E+06 5.00E-03 15 8,382 9.80E-03~ 4.02E-01 1.80E-~ 4.10E-03 442
Exponent of Infinite
Average Crack equivalent source
Convection Source vapor effective foundation indoor
path vapor Crack flow rate diffusion Area of Peclet attenuation
length, conc., radius, into bldg., coefficient, crack, number, coefficient,
Lp Csource rcrack QSOil Dcrack Acrack exp(Pef) (l
(cm) (f.l9/m3) (cm) (cm3/s) (cm2/s) (cm2) (unitless) _umitless)
Infinite
source
bldg.
conc.,
CbUilding
(f.l9/m3)
15 6.40E+03 1.25 2.26E+00 4.10E-03 5.00E+03 3.01 E+OO 7.31 E-05 4.68E-01
Unit
risk
factor,
URF
(jlg/m3r1
Reference
conc.,
RfC
(mg/m3)
2.0E-06 6.0E-01
END
DTSC Indoor Air Guidance
Unclassified Soil Screening Model
2650 & 2640 Birch Street
5/6/2009
2:52 PM
..... ,
2650 & 2640 Birch Street
RESUL TS SHEET
INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS:
Incremental
risk from
vapor
intrusion to
indoor air,
Hazard
quotient
from vapor
intrusion to
indoor air,
carcinogen noncarcinogen
(unitless) (unitless)
3.8E-07 7.5E-04
MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW:
1 of 1
I .,
SCSSoiType K,(cnYhl
C 0.6.
Ct. 0.3<
L 0.50
l$ ~38
$ 2&78
5C 0.47
SCL ~ ..
SI 1.82
SIC ~40 SICt. ~ .. SIl n76 SL ....
CAS No. Che~
56235carbon!~.nctilOrio't' $77"9CntJ,(f~ ~4pM'Q.Ho:H;L;r;oa~l G0297Ellylether
&0571Ciddfln
67a41Acetone
8765301Iorot .. 'fm m21Ho'~chlOrce-t".I)r.fo
71432801l.ClI'\e
71550I.I.I·TrlchIotoelhane ~~=¥hb1
748J9Melhylbt~ 748T3Ila:t'ytcNo:";:!c{~lt"oC'.h'lI~1!1
74903H)'d~lIncyanj(Je
7495.J ... ettrytenebromide
75003 (::lIlQrooUlllne{ilti't:r1d"llQlWXJ) :!: ==OC!) (c1IIoI00tho.-.l:)
7501O~c:ct.,ld~ 7I5092r.le:tlyteNJcJlbnd"! 7515OCllrtondisu66e 75218Elt"Ir'...-.ooafdc 75252BlOI'fI)lo-m
7S274.1!10/"I-.»cM::!'Orr~o
7529G2-C1'I~
753431.1..c;.-..h:cr.Ie'J'ldl~
7&3S41.I..QlchIoroeU'ly"nll
75456ChlOto:flftuommethll1le
7S694TrlchlOtoftJorornethane
75716 OichJotodlllucwmeUlllne
7613't.l.2·TrldlIoro-I.2.2-U"!1tuoro.\lla 76448H~~d".bf ~~~=~lopetllacJklne
786751,2~
=~~r~::~a~bUUlnonel
79018U.cnbr:M:I.hY'ene 79209 MIII'IyIlIQ1111\e 79345I.f.2.2·rO\JIICh:.)rC'tOl8~
794692 .. 'II~"OpMe
Me28 Melhyknelhll~e
83J2gA09nap/Vl6ne
M137FIUO/ene
87683.I .... ac::h>J:'/l·I.J.~JI8r:e
S8~o-f{l\roIoiOJe1I.e
91203N.atllln~ 915T52..ue~lh ... ne m24Dij)llenyl
95478o-Xyttne
SI05Otl.2..Qi:hlorcbenz:ene
955782-ChlOtcphenot
956361.2.4-Trltnelhyliben:efMl
961641.2.:s...Tric1'lL'I~1o/l
96333"'elhyJlcry"Ia
97632EltJyltl'leCtllayflti 9&OG61et1-8UTy1be1u:QtttI 98828Cumll\e
==:e
l00414EI.hy1bt.nz:ene
l0042S$tyr.ne
l00447e-~o
10052781fl.z:alddryde
103651n-PrQl)'flbenrene 10 .. 515n-8u1y1bemene 10&42Jp.Xylane 1064571."·~eM 10~1.;H'IQ;tM'C4!""''''(a'Jrf.tn6of..-t; 1069001.J.8utDdl~
107028AcrolOin
1070621.:!.C:;cNo~
107131 ~ .. .tyi(tI:IIi!tl
10eo54Vqtleu,-,e 108101 Mw.,tisobutylllMone( .. -me\hy1.~ 108JS3m-Xyiene 10M781.3.6-Tri"netlWylbenl9n8
~=~:~~
108907~rmme
1~I-CNorobutane
I10009Fwan 110543H .... 8~
"'''448~2..;~)ttt:e-t 115297 EnclOsulfan 1187 .. , H&x&;:hl()lob!:nre.....
12082.11.2.4-TrichloIOOenune ~=~==~:::31)
12SQ87MllCNcryla"litrile
12'B9Q82-CNoro-l,3-butadiene(chb/qlf
1271&1 TwatIIlM:-othyleno
:==~nJn ,_...autylbellz:ene ''''786 EtlWylecailti l~cls--l.2.()kb1onJeltlyf!ne
1566051rM1·1.2.Ofct1io1"oell'ryien. 2O-59926enz:OI.bl'uor.In'N!"I1I! 2I&o19CJKr".er-e
J09OO2~11rin
31904G:J'CIha-HC~t'\Jo.."'.>f!~}
541731'.3·0idliorobenJene ::~:~~==~~ 1634C44UT8E 7439976"'erOJry(el~1)
('
1
50i Properties lOOkup Table BU&OetIsty
G.1(t/em) N(unitless) M(unitIBSs) n{eml/an') O.(cm'fcm') MeanGl'8lnOiamtter(cm) (~cm')
0.01496 '.253 0.2019 0.459 0.098 0.0092 .... 3
0.01581 1.416 0."'" ~"2 om. 0.016 .. ..
0.01112 un 0.3207 .., .. 0.061 0.020 '.59 0.03475 1.746 0."273 0.390 0.049 ~ ... •. 62
0.03524 3.177 0.8M2 o.J" M., 0.0 .... .. 00
0.03l42 '.208 O.lm 0= 0.117 0.025 1.63
0.02109 1.330 0.2481 0.384 0.063 0.029 '.63
0 ...... '.679 ~-0 .... O.osa O.OOCS '.35 0.01622 1.3'21 0.243) no •• 0.111 MOlO '.38 ~0083' 1.521 0.3425 0.462 0 .... 0 ..... '.37 0.00506 1.663 0.3987 0.439 0 .... 0.011 1.49
0.02687 1.01411 0.3099 0."" 0.039 0.030 '.62
Ch~tn8~locl!.UPTeblt = ~~( law~~~nl """"""" :l O::Ar DiffusMty ..... , ~::"'I IIllWtefwnc:o reference
lnwsl«. soIU~. ten'\plrallJre. 18t1"1gel'1lurw. ... D. D. If H T.
(em'to) an't, ""'~ C_, unijes:s .1nHn't"""1 rC)
1.74e+02 7.8OE-02 a.80E.()6 7.93E+02 1.24E4OO l.03E-02 25 1.20E·05 I.t6E-Ol <l37E-o& S.6D~2 ..... -03 ".65-E-OS ..
t07Et003 1.42E-02 7.304E-08 7"",,'" S.73E-04 1.4OE-05 2.
5.13E*OO 7.82£.02 &61E-08 5.68E+o.t 1.35E.OO 3.29£-02 ..
2.t4EtO<t I.25E.02 ".74E-06 1.~-O1 6.18E-04 1.51E-05 2' 3~E.!: 1.24E-OI 1.14E-05 I.ooe·oe 1.S9E..03 3.87E-05 ..
UME-OI 1.00E* 7.~E~ I.~E-Ol 3.6&E-03 ..
1.78E-*03 2.50~3 6.80E-OO 5.ooE101 1.S9E~1 3.a8E.(I3 ..,
5.89EIOI UOE.02 9.80E-08 1.79E+03 2.27E.(I1 5.54E-03 ..
1.IOE+02 7.80E.02 8.8JE-06 1.33E+03 7.03E.(I1 1.72e.02 .. 9.77E+04 1.56E-02 4.46E.(16 I.00E.(I1 &46E.o.t I.54E-05 ..,
4.47E'06 1.44E.02 5.87E.(I6 1.20E.(I1 ........ ~09E ... .. 1.05E+Ol 7.28E-02 1.21E-05 1.52Et04 ........ 6..22E-03 25 2.12ElOO 1.26E.(I1 a ...... ..".003 3.6IE.(I1 UOE-03 ..,
3.&OE+OO UJe-OI 2.10E-05 1.00E+O& 5.44E..().3 I.33E.(I4 ..
t.26E+OI 4.JOE-02 8ME.(I8 1.19Et04 3.52E-02 8.59E-04 ..
4.40EIOO 2.71E.(I1 1.15E.(I$ 5.68E+OJ 3.6IE.(I1 a&OE.(I3 25
1.86E+Ol I.06E-01 1.Z3E.(I$ &eoEIOJ 1.10Eloo 2.69E.(I2 25
4.20ElOO ...J'.28E.(I1 Ui&E.05 ~::~:: 1.42£-03 ;.~~: 2S
1.06E+00 1.24E.(II 1.41E.05 3.23E..().3 .. I.I7E+Ol 1.01E.(I1 1.17E-05 I.30EI04 .... -02 2.lae-03 .. 4.S1E+ot 1.04£.(11 I.ooE.05 1.19EIOJ Cl4E"00 3.02E.(I2 ..,
1.33E'00 1.04£-01 1.45E-05 3.04E~ 2.27E-02 5.54E-04 25
8.7IE'01 1.C9E-02 1.03£-05 3.10EtQ3 2.41E-02 5.S8E-04 ..
5.5OEIOI 2.98E-02 I.DtlE.1J.5 6.7"EIOJ 6.54E.02 1.60E.(I3 ..
9.14E+OO &88E.(I2 1.01E.(I5 3.T3EIOJ 5.93E.(I1 1.45E-02 ..
3.18EIOI 7."2E.(I2 1.05E-05 5.05EIOJ 2.3OE.(I1 5.6IE.(I3 2S
5.89E+Ol 9.00E-02 1,00E-05 2.2:$£103 1.07ElOO 2.SOE-02 ..,
4.T9EIOI 1.01E-Ol I.2SE-05 2.ooE+OO 1.10ElOO 2.70E.(I2 :IS
".97Et02 8.1OE.(I2 9.70E.06 1.10Et03 3.97E·00 9J58E-02 ..
4.57E+02 6.65E-02 9.9lE-06 2.80E"02 1.40EIOI 3."2E.(I1 :IS
1.I1E+O" 7.&oE.(I2 &"20E.(16 1.1OEt02 U7EIO' ".80E.(I1 :IS
1."'E+08 1.12£.(12 5.69E-06 l.aoE.(I1 8.05EIOI l.46ElOO 2S
2.00E+05 1.8IE-02 7.21E.(16 !.80ElOO l.l0E"00 2.69E.02 25
2.59E+()() &60E.(I2 9.JOE-08 8.5OEI04 .(JI3E.(I" 1.18E-O$ 2S
".37E+OI 7.82E.(I2 8.73E.(16 2.eoEIOJ 1.15E.(I1 2.79E-03 25
2.3OE ... 8.0aE-Ol 9.«)E-06 2.23Et05 2.29E-03 5.:!I8E-05 25
5.0IEIOI 7.80E-02 6.80E.(16 ... ael03 3.T.lE.(I2 9. 11 E-04 ..,
1.66EI02 7.90E-02 9.10E.(I6 I.47EI03 4.21E.(I1 1.0JE.02 2S ~2OE'" 1.0"E-Ol ~:=: 2.00E·03 4.ME.(I3 I. 18E.o.t 25 9.33E101 7.IOE-02 2..96E'03 1."'E.(I2 3 ..... E-04 2S
1.17E+01 9.23i!.(I2 1.0 I E.os I.1OE'04 5.03E.(I3 1.Z3E-04 ..
6.98E+OO 7.1OE-02 &SOE-06 UiOE·04 I.38E.02 3.36E-04 :IS
7.08EtOO .... 21E-02 7.69E.(16 3.57E'00 6.3<E-03 1.55E-04 :IS
1.38E+O" 3.63E.02 7.88E.(16 1.9R-00 2.SOE-03 6.3<E ... 2S
5.37EIO" 5.6IE.(I2 6.16E.(I8 ~:~: 3.33E-OI & 13E..().3 ..,
3.24Et02 5.87E.(I2 8.67E.oo 5.IIE.(I" 1.25E!-O$ 2S
2.00E--OJ .... E-02 7..50E.(16 3.\OEIOI 1.98E.(I2 ".&2E-O" 2S 2.8IEt()J 5.22E-02 7.75oE.(I6 2. .. seIOI 2.'lE-02 5. 17E.(I" 2S
".34Et03 ".0"E-02 3.15E.(I6 7.ee100 1.2JE.(I2 2.99E.(I" 2S
3.83Etm &70E-02 1.00E.(I5 1.78E+02 2.12E.(II 5.f8E-03 25
6.17E102 &90E-02 UOE.(16 1.56£+02 7.77E.(I2 1.90£-03 ..
3.88EI02 5.01E.(I2 ~ ...... 2.20E+O" 1.60E-02 3.00E.(I" ..
I.35EtOO 8.06E.02 7.92E-06 5.70EIOI ,..,. ... G.14E-03 ..
2.20EIOI 7.10E.(I2 7.90E.(16 1.75E+OJ 1.61f-02 ".OSE-04 ..
4.53E+OO 9.78E.(I2 I.02E-05 6.00Et04 7.88E..(I3 1.87E.(I4 ..,
2.~+O1 6.53E.(I2 8.37E.(I6 3.57EIOJ 3.4oCE.(I2 &4OE .... .. 7.71E.002 6..G5E.(I2 8.02E-06 ~IOI ".87E.(I1 1.19E-02 2S
".89'E+02 6.5OE.(I2 7.IOE-06 8.13E"01 ".7"E+Ol 1.16fiOO 2. 5.T7E+OI 6.OOE.(I2 8.T.lE.(16 &IJEIOJ ".3aE.(I" 1.07E-05 ..
6.46E+01 7.GOE.(I2 &60E.(I8 2.0ge103 9.82:E.(I" ~39E'" 2.
3.63E102 7.~.02 7.80E.(16 1.6SlEtOl 3.22E.(I1 7.86E-03 ..
7.76E.02 7.10E.02 8.00E.(16 3.10E+02 1.12E.(I1 2.74E.(I3 ..
6.1"E.Ol 7.5OE.02 7.80E-08 i~: 1.1OE-02 ... I"E-04 25
".59E.Ol 7.21E-02 9.07E.(16 9.T3E-04 2.37E-05 2S
5.61£+02 5.0lE.(I2 7.53E-06 &OOE+Ol 4.31E-Ol 1.07E.(I2 ..
1.11EtOJ 5.1OE-02 8.12E-08 2.00E+oo 5.38E-Ol 1.31E.02 ..
3.a9E-02 Ui9E-02 8.4"E-06 U5Etm 3.13&01 7.64E-03 2S
8.I7EI02 6.9OE.(I2 7.90E..Q6 7.90EI01 '.82E-02 2.39E.(I3 ..,
2.5OEIOI 2. 17E-02 1.19E-05 ".16EI03 3.04E-02 7."'E~" 2.
1..91E+01 2."9E-Ol 1.0SE-05 7.3I5E_02 3.01E100 7.34E.(I2 2.
2.76E100 1.05E.(I1 1.22E-05 2.IJEtOS 4.99E.(I3 1.22E-04 ..
1.7"E 1(1 I 1.04E.(I1 9.90E-OO 6.S2EIOJ .... OOE-02: 9.nE-04 ..
5.90ElOO 1.22E.(I1 1.34E.05 7.4OE+04 ".21E-03 1.03E.(I4 ..
5.25E'00 MOE-02 9.20E.(16 2.00E+O" ~09E-02 5.10E·0" ..
9..DfiEtOO 7.50E..Q2 7.80E-OO 1.9lE+()04 5.64E-03 1.34E.(I" ..,
".07EI02 7.00E.02 7.80E-06 U1E+02 100£-01 7.3lE-03 25 1.35EI03 M2E-02 8.67E-06 2.oOE", 2. .. IE..Ql 5.87E..Q3 2' 7.WIO' 7.35E-02 8.52E-06 I.4OE+Ol .. .22EIOO 1.0JE.(I1 ..
1.52Et02 3.70E.02 &GOE-08 .26E<02 2.72E-01 &82E.OJ ..
2.19Et02 7.30E-02 8.70E-06 ... mt02 1.51E-OI 3.69E.(I3 ..
l.nelOI &26E..Q2 1.00E-05 1.10Et03 6.93E-01 J.M1E.(I2 ..
U16E"01 '.O"E-Ol 1.22E..QS 1.00E+()04 2.21E-01 5.J9E-03 ..
".l4E+Ol 2.00E-Ol 7.71E-G6 1.2"E+OI 6.82E+Ol I.ME+OO 25 I.55EIOI am-02 7.53.E~6 l.nE+04 7.34E..()4 1.80E-05 .. 2.14£103 1.15E.Q2 ,USE-08 5.IOE-Ol 4.5SE-04 I.12E-05 .. 5.5OEI04 5."2E-02 5.9IE-08 5.00E-03 5.40E-02 1.32E.(I3 25 1.7eelOJ 3.00E.02 &2.31!-06 4.S8E+Ot 5.81E..Q2 1."2E-03 :IS ".62ElOO Q.5«-02 1.07E-05 U9E..,. 7.99£.o.t 1.95E.(I5 ..
6.3IE+O, 1.9I5E.(I2 1.0SE.1J.5 2.GOEIOJ 3.20E..Q2 7.8IE.(I" 25
3.58E"+Ol 1.12E.(I1 1.32E..Q5 2.54Et04 1..0 1 E-02 2.46£..0" ..
6.73£101 8.!58E-02: l.o3E-05 2. 12:EIQ3 4.91E-01 1.201:..02 25
1.55E102 7.20E..Q2 &20E.os ~OO .... 7.53E-01 1.S4E-02 25
t.O~I05 2.72E-02 7.2"E-06 1.~E+OO 4.5OE-O" I.l0E-05 .. 5.15£103 ~38E-02 &OOE·oe 3.IOE+OO 5.1$E..Q" I.26E-05 2S 9.6EEI02 5.1OE-02 8.12E-06 3.94E+oo 5.65E..QI 1.39E..Q2 .. 6.44EI00 7.32E..Q2 9.70E-08 &03E+()04 5.64E-03 I..33E.(I" ..
3.55EIOI 7.JOE-02 I. 13E.(I$ 3.50E+03 UTE.(Ii ".07E..Q3 .. 5.25EIOI 7.01£-02 1.19E-05 "-'lOEOO3 3.54£.(11 9.36E-03 2S 1.23EIOS ~26E-02 5.56E-06 I.~E-03 4.54E..Q3 1.1IE.(I" 2S 3.98E+05 ~"'-02 6..21E-06 3.30E-03 3.87E-03 9.44E-05 ..
2.0&5E+OS 1.32E-02 4.86E.(I6 I.70E.(I2 6.95E..().3 I.1OE~ .. ..
1.23EI03 1."2E..Q2 7.34E-06 2.ooE4oo ".34E.(I4 1.06E-05 ..,
1.9SE+03 6.92E-02 7.e6E-06 1.34E+02 1.27E-Ol 3..o9E..Q3 ..
".57E+Ol 6..26E-02: 1.00E.(I5 2.IIOE-OJ 7.24E-Ol 1.77E-02 ..,
1.16£102 7.10£-02 7.90E-OO 1.IOEIOJ 9.90E-02 2."'E-03 25 7.26E+()() 1.02E..Ql 1.05E~5 5.IOEI04 2.56E.(I2 6.23E.(I" ..
5.20E+Ol 3.07E-02: &3OE-06 2.00EIOt 4.4OE.(I1 1.07E.(I2 ..
e .. (c:m1/cm'} SCS Soil N8mo
O.215Ct1y
O.I68CISyLoam
O.I48l.oam
M76LoamySand
0.05<$000
0.197 Sandy Clay ~::~~ndyCIay~m
O.2t6S1lyCISy 0.198 SllyCISy Loam ~~:::~
CatEPA TOJlk:ttyCrittrr.rn bQld
EnU\.t.lpyd 11n1:lted 1121105OTSCMERD) --va:::'1I1 "' .... CtiIIca. ... ReI ... "", Molecular ..... lempenlure. bol"IftgDO! .... laC\or. """". ...,,",
T, 'T, .... , URF (::.~ MW
('1<) ("1<) ",'mol ',glm'" Jgt ....
"'~90 ...... 7,127 ".2&05 .. .oE-02 1.54E+02
624.24 .... 73 .~ooo 3.4£-04 7.oE-Oot ".IOe·02
"'.55 &30.36 .~ooo l.lE-Q4 I.IE-03 2.91e"02
J07.SO 466.74 6.338 o.oe·oo 7.oE-Oi 7."'12-401
613.32 5042.25 17,000 ".&E-03 1.8E-04 3.61Et02
329.20 S08.IO a ... o.oe·oo 3.5E-Ol 5.B1EtOI
3JA.32 ...... ~9" 5..3E-06 3.0E-Ot 1.19Et02
.... 00 695.00 9,$10 1.1E.(I5 3.5£-03 2.37E<02 3>3.>< 562.18 7.3<2 2.9E.(I5 :; t~l::·:l2 7.81E101 347.24 ....... 7.13e o.OEIOO f.OE+oO 1.33E+02 6$1.02
_ ..
.aooo O.OEIOO I.8E.02 3.4eE102 roe.44 .... 38 15.000 9.7E.(I5 o.OE+OO 3.18E+02
276.71 ..... 00 5,714 o.OElOO .. ..., 9.49EIOI
249.00 41425 5.115 1.0E-06 9.OE-02 S.05EIOI m.00 .... 70 6.678 o.OE+oo j·i2"·~ 2.70E+Ol
310.00 5aJ.00 7 .... o.OEloo 3.~-O2 I.74E+02
28S.JO ...... • .879 &3E·07 :.~i' •• (.; 6..45E+Ol
259.25 <3~00 ~~ 7.8E.(I5 I.OE-Ol 425EIOI ,.. ... ...... O.OEtOO 6.0E-02 4.IIEIOI
293.10 466.00 6.1S1 2.7E-06 9..OE-03 4.41E401 313.00 510.00 ..700 l.oE.(I6 4.0E.(II 8.49E10I 319.00 "~OO 15.391 O.OElOO ".QI;:"~: 7.6IEIOI =60 46900 5.104 3.8E·05 3.0E.(I2 4.4IEIOI 422.,. .... 00 9.47V I.IE-06 7.0E-02 2.53E·02
363.15 .... 8S 7 .... 3.7E-05 7.0E.(I2 I.6"E·02 _70 .... 00 6.288 o.OE+oo 1.0E.(I1 7.85E+Ol
330." SZl.OO ..... 1.6E-06 5.0E.(I1 9.90E'01 ,...." 5ni.05 6.247 O.OEloo 7.0E-02 9.69EIOI Zl~40 "'.30 '.'" O.OElOO 5.0EIOI &65EIOI
296.70 "71.00 5 .... O.oElOO 7.0E.(I1 1.37EI02
2<3.20 384 ... 9,"21 ~:~~:: 2.0E-Ol 1.21E.002 320.70 487.30 6."63 3.0E+01 1.87EI02
.. 3.69 848.31 13.000 1.8E·03 1.8E-03 3.T.lEI02
512.15 7<d00 10.931 o.OE+OO 2.0E-04 2.T.lEI02
341.04 547.78 '0.936 O..oE+OO I.IE"OO 7."'EIOI ,.. .. 2 572.00 7.'" 1.0E.(I5 ".OE-03 1.13EI02
,.~SO "'.76 7.481 o.OE·oo 5i~;~~ 7.2IE+OI
3M.l$ 602.00 8.322 1.6&05 I.33E+02
360.36 5<4.20 7.'" 2.OE.(I6 6.0E-OI I.31E+02 329.80 .... 70 7.260 o.OEIOO 3.5E+00 7.41EIOI
"'9.60 661.15 ..... is.1I~5 2.1E-Ol 1.68€-02
393.20 .... 00 ..,., 2.7E-03 2.0E-02 a.g'E+Ol
3"'-"700 8.975 o.OE·OO 7.0E-Ol 1.00EI02
550 .... 6OJ. •• 12, ISS o.OEIOO 2.IE-Ol I.54E-02
510.44 .7000 '~666 O.oE+OO 1."E-01 I.ME+02
<86.'5 738., 10.206 2.2E.(I5 7.0E-04 2.SIEI02 .... 00 72000 '~239 o.OElOO 3.5E.(I2 1.37EI02
"91.1" 748.40 10.313 3. .. e.o5 )':12··;,1 1.28E+02
51".26 nil.00 ~~: o.OEloo 7.0E-02 1."2E+02 529.10 789.00 o.oE+OO 1.8E-01 1..54E+02
"17.50 6Jo.3O 8.661 O.OEloo I.,·~..ol 1.06E"02 "3.01 105.00 9.100 O.OE+oo 2.0E.(Ii I."7EI02
447.53 675.00 9.5n O.OEtOO 1.8E.(I2 I.29E_02
"~30 649.17 9.389 o.OElOO 8.0E-03 1.20EI02
430.00 .. ~oo 9.171 5.7E-O" "_9E·OJ 1."7EI02 353.70 "'.00 7.749 o.OElOO 1.1E.(I1 &61EIOI
390.00 571.00 10.9.57 O.OEloo 3.2E-Ol I.I"EI02 .... 2.10 1120.00 ..... D.OElOO l."E-Ol 1.34E"02 ."" .. 631.10 10.335 O.OElOO ".OE.(II I.20E102
''''00 709.-lI.m O.OElOO 3.5E-OI I.20EI02 ..,.os 719.00 10.5&6 o.OElOO 2.0E-03 1.23EI02 .... ,.. 617.20 8.5131 O.OE+OO ~.?l:1~' 1.06EI02
"18.31 63600 8.137 O,OE+OO 9.0E-Ol 1.04EI02
4S~00 685.00 &m 4.9E.(I5 O.OE'OO 1.27EI02
"52.00 .... 00 11,658 O.oE+OO 3.5£.(11 1.06E+02
432.20 630.00 9.123 O.OE+OO 1.4£-01 1.20E+02
""'6 .... so 9.290 O.OEIOO 1.4E-01 I.J..4E.02
411.52 616.20 ~m O.OElOO IC:21J1 1.06EI02
447.21 .... " 9.271 I.IE.(I5 6.OE.(I1 1. .. 7EI02 ..... "".00 8.310 7.IE.(I5 8.cJE·O" 1.68E'02 ""' .. '2MO 5.370 1.7E.(I" "].'-(0'1 5."'E·01 315." .... 00 8.731 O.oEIOO 5.8IEIOI ,.. ... 561.00 7.543 2.1E.(I5 . ..... 9.90E-OI
"".30 519.00 7.'" 2.9~" '<·l~·::.!-5.31E-01 ,..~ 519.13 7.'" O.OE"OO 2.0E.(II 8.81E+01 _so S11.00 8,243 ~~: 8.0E-02 1.GOel(l2
.. 12.27 617.05 aoZl :.~.~.~ I I.Q6EI02
"37.89 837.25 9.321 o.OElOO 6.0£-03 J.20E+02
373.90 57220 7 ... 7 .. O.OElOO 3.0E"00 9.82EIOI
30176 591.79 7.930 O.oElOO 3.0E..Ql 9.21EIOI
.... 87 632.'0 8."'0 O.OElOO 1.0E+OO 1.13EI02
3$1.60 542.00 7.263 O.OElOO 1.4E+00 9.2se+OI ,... ... "90.20 ~'" O.oE"OO ~".OJ 6..51EIOI 341.70 506.00 ..... O..oE+OO "].0;:-·:)1 8.62EIOI 0&51.15 659.79 10.803 7.\E·04 O.oElOO U3Et02 674.43 .. ~ .. 1 ... 000 O.OEIOO 2.1E-02 4.07Et02 .. ~ .. 825.00 14.4"7 5.tE..Q4 2.8E-03 2.85E-02
486.15 n5.00 10."71 O.cJE·OO 2.0£.(11 talE+02
375.20 ,...00 9 5.4E..Q" O.OE+()() 7.olEIOI
416.1" .... 20 5 .... 2.7E-O$ 7.0E-02 2.08E+02
363.30 ..... 00 7.'" O.OE+oo 7.cJE-O" 6.71E+01 =<0 520.00 .~7S O.oE+OO 7..oE-03 8.85E+Ol
"'.40 620.20 &288 is.9f-06 3.~..Q2 1.866+02
667.i5 936 ,<371) O.oE_OO I.IE..QI 2.0lEI02
E60 .24 ..... O.OEIOO 1.4E.(I2 I.68E+02 .... 5 679 ..,30 O.OElOO 1.4£.(11 1.34E"02 ,...,. 023.3 7""," O.OElOO 3.2ElOO 8.81EIOI =60 ... 7192 O.OE+OO 3 ....... 9.89E+01
320.85 516.5 6717 o.OE"OO 7.0E-02 9.G9E+01
715.9 .... 27 '7000 I.IE·O" O.OElOO 2.52Et02
714.15 979 ... 55 f.tE..Q5 o.OfiOO 2.28E+02
503.01 &19.37 '5000 ....9~3 I.IE..Q4 3.65EI02 ...... 830.36 '5000 7.7E-04 O.OE+OO 2.91Et02 ... ... 9230.16 O.OElOO I.IE..QI 1.47EI02
381_15 587.34 7900 l.fiE.(I5 20E-02 I.IIEI02
"03.5 62. 9768.2S2525 7."E-OI5 I.IE-Ol I.68EI02 326.3 497.1 5677.~ UiE·07 'l:E-:~ 882E+OI 025 .. I7SO ''''27 O.OEIOO 9.0E..Q5 2.01E"0"2.
URF RIC _ted
extraool.IN
X X
7 X
X
X
X
X
X ?
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
7
X
X
X X X
X
? X X X 7
7
X X
X
X
X
7 X
X X X X X X
7
?
X
X
X
'" Orig' IEPAVatu "
Unit
'''' RRleft1IOII
flidOr. a>ne.. URF RIC ,~".:;., (::") aw.poIated extrI,POIated
X (Xl
UiE-050.0E*OO
I.OE-04 7.0E-04
3.7E--04 1.1E-OJ X X O.OE+oO 7.0E-OI X
".6E-03 1.8E-04 X
O.OE+oO 3.~-O1 X
2.3E-OS' o.oEt{)(I
4.0E-06 3.SE-03 X
7.8E-O& O.OE+oO D.OEtOO 2.2E+OO O.OE+OO 1.8E.02 X 9.7E-050.0EIOO X O.OE+oO 5.OE-03 1.0E-06 9.0E-02
O.OE+OO 3.0E.(I3
O.OE+OO 3.5E.(I2 X
8.3E·071.0E+01 X
6..8E.0II ,.oE.(I1
O.OE+OO 6.OE.02
2.2E-06 9.0E-03 4.7E.(I73.0EtOO O.OE+OO 7.0E.(I1 1.0E-040.0EtOO
I.IE.(I67.0E-Q2 X
1.8E..Q5 7.0E-02 X X
O.OEIOO 1.0E.(I1
O.OE+OO 5.0E.(I1
O.OE+OO 2.0E-Ol
O.OE+OO 5.OE+OI O.OE+OO 7.0E-01 0.0£+00 2.0E-Ol O.OEIOO 3..oEI01
1.3E-03 1.8E.(I3 X O.OE+oo 2.0E-O"
O.OE+OO I.IE'OO X
1.9E.(I54.0E-03 X
O.OE+OO 1.0E+oo 1.8E-05 1.4E.(I2 X
!.IE·O" 4_0E-02 X O.OE+OO 3.5E+oo X 5.8EooM 2.1E-01 X
2.7E.(I32..OE-02
O.oEt()O 7..oE-Oi
O.OE+OO 2.IE-OI X
O.OE-OO l."E-Ol X
2.1£.(I57.0E-04 X O.OE+oo 3.~.(I2 X O.oE+OO 3.0E-03 O.OElOO 7.0E.02 X O.OE+OO 1.5E.(I1 X
O.OE+OO I.OE.(I1
O.OE+oO 2.0E-OI
O.OE+OO 1.8E.(I2 X
O.OE+OO &OE-03
5.7E-O" <.9E-03 X
O.OE+OO 1.1E.(Ii X O.OE+OO 1lE·Ol X O.OE+oo 1.4E·Ol X O.OE+OO .... OE.(II
O.OE+oo 3.SE.(I1 X
O.OE+OO 2.0E-03
O.OE+OO 1.0E+OO
O.OE+()() 1.0E+oo
4.9£:45 O.OE+OO X O.OElOO 3.5E.(II X O.OEtOa l."E.(I1 X O.OElOO I."E.(I1 X O.OE+oo I.OE.(II
O.OE'OO 8.0E-Ol
6.OE-0" 9.0E-03
3.0E·05 O.OE-OO
O.OE+()() ~OE'" 2.GE-05 O.OElOO a8E", 2.OE-03
O.OE+OO 2.OE..QI O.oElOO a.oE..Q2 O.oE"OO 1.0E..Ql
O.oE+OO 6.0E..Q3
O.OEIOO 3.oE"00
O.OE+OO ...oE·OI
O.OE+()() ME.Q2
O.OEIOO 1."E-OO X
O.OElOO 3.5E.OJ X O.OE+OO 2.0E.(lI
13E-04 ....... 0.0£+00 2,IE~2 X ".6E..()4 2.8E~3 X O.OE-OO 2.0E.(Ii
5."E-O" O.OEIOO X
~ ..... 7.0E-02 X X
o.OE+OO 7.0E-04
O.oE"OO 7.OE.(I3
3.0E-06 O.GE+()()
O.OEIOO 1.1E.(I1 X O.OEIOO ""E.(I2 X o.OElOO l."E.(I1 X O.OElOO ;':: X O.OEIOO X O.OE"OO 7.0E-02: X 2.1E-O" O.OEIOO X 2.1E..QG D.OEt-{X) X
4.9E-03 1.1E-04 X
I.8E-03 0.0E400
O.OE+OO 1.1E-Ol X
4.0E-05 ~0E.Q2 7.4E..QG 1.1E~1 X O.OElOO 3.0E+OO o.OEtOa :l.OE..Q4
CelEPA I USEPA
Po\encyR.atio
~ .. 3." 0 ... NC
f.OO
NC
0.23
~,.
~n
NC
NC .~o
NC 1.00 NC NC '.00 ....
NC
'.Zl
~13
NC 0 ...
'.00 2~' NC
ClI~Aonty
C
C
NC
NC
He NC 1.2]
NC NC
0." NC
1.00
0.02 I.e '.00 1.00 NC
NC
NC
1.00
NC
NC
NC NC NC NC NC
He
1.00
NC
NC ~
NC NC
He
NC
1.00
NC
NC
NC NC .~~~:onIY
M7
NC
0.8. '2. He He NC NC NC NC
NC
He
He
He .. ,.
I.e
1.11 He 1.00
1.13
NC
He
1.97
He
NC
NC
NC NC
NC 0." U.
1.00
0.<3
He "'0 1.00
al~Aonly
18.34.010 ATTACHMENT J
Chapter 18.34
PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT (PTOD) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.34.010
18.34.020
18.34.030
18.34.040
18.34.050
18.34.060
18.34.070
18.34.010
Purposes
Applicability
Land Uses
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Developm.ent (PTOD) Combining District
Regulations
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District
Context-Based Design Criteria
Review Process
Non-confoID1ing Uses and Non-complying Facllities
Purposes
(a) California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Cornbining District
. The California. A venue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on comlnercial, industrial
and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the CalifOlnia Avenue Caltrain
station, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources
tbat may also be located in or adjacent to this area. The cOlnbining district is Jntended to
foster densities and facilities that:
(1) SlJpPOrt use of public transportation;
(2) Encourage a variety of housing types, commercialretail and limited office uses;
(3) Encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based developn1ent for the
prOD overlay area;
(4) Require streetscape design elen1ents that are attractive pedestrians and bicyclists;
(5) Increase cormectivity to surrounding existing and plarmed pedestrian and bicycle
facilities; and
(6) Implement the city S Housing E1elnent and Comprehensive Plan.
(b) [Reserved]
(Ord. 4914 §2 (part), 2006)
18.34.020 Applicability
(a) The California A venue Pedestrian and Transit Giented Development Combining
District (PTOD) may be combined with any R-1, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM30, or RM40
district or combination of such districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD
boundary (Exhibit A, reflected on the city S Zoning Map)., consistent with the provisions
of Chapters 18.08 and 18.80. Where so combined, the regulations established by this
Ch. 18.34 -Page 1 (Supp No 1 J -10/112007)
18.34.030 Land Uses
chapter shall apply in lieu of the provisions estahlished by the underlying CC(2), CN,
GM, RM30, andlor RM40 zoning district(s). Compliance wi.th the provisions of Chapter
IS.30(A), Retail Shopping (R), and Chapter IS.30(B), Pedestnan Shopping (P),
combining districts shall also be required where such combining districts are applicable.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) A pedestrian and transit oriented develojIDent combining district may be applied to a
parcel through rezoning of the site, within the specified boundalies of the district, as
shown on the city S approved zoning maps, pursuant to the provisions and process
outlined in Section IS.34.060 of this chapter and Chapter IS.S0 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
18.34.030 Land Uses
(a) The foll'owing land uses shall be pe=itted in the California Avenue Pedestrian and
Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, subject to limitations
outlined in Sections IS34.040 and IS.34.050.
TABLE 1 -LAND USES
Mixed-use development, where
residential and non-residential uses are
oomblned
P
See Seclion 18.34.030(b) below for
uses
lIvelWork Units CUP
Hotel
Subject to limitations of Seelion
18
P
Subjecllo limllations of SectKln
18.34.
(b) Mixed use development, where residential and non-residential uses are combined, may
include two or more of the following uses:
(1) Multi-family residential;
(2) Non-residential uses, limited to:
(A) Retail and personal services;
(B) Eating and drinking services;
(C) Other non-residential uses allowed except on the ground floor where an (R)
overlay exists:
(i) OffIces;
(ii) General business services;
(iIi) Business and trade schools;
(Supp_ No 13 -10/112007) Ch. IS.34 -Page 2
18.34.040 PlOD Combining Dislricl Regulalions
(iv) Private education facilities;
(v) Day care center;
(vi) Community center;
(vii) Commercial recreation;
(viii)Convalescent facility; and
(ix) Research and development, limIted to sites where the underlying zoning district
is GM and involving the use and storage of hazardous materials in quantities
less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code
(Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code).
(c) Prohibited uses in the California Avenue PTOD
(1) Single-family and two-family uses;
(2) Manufactw'ing, processing, warehousing and distribution; and
(3) Research and development where hazardous materials are used or stored in excess of
quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code
(Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code)
(d) All land uses must be reviewed and approved by the planni.g and transportation
commission and city council at the time ofrezoning to PTOD.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
18.34.040 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District Regulations
(a) Properties in the PTOD combining district are sul:ject to the following regulations
TABLE 2 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Il-" S!fi ndilrdS \ :, , PTQtj --,ealJ!g.t{lla.'Avlf~ .0; '*pTbo ~ Li>O,Wrj!,<iwltlR.eS"elYe.~I)~.
Max. Dwelling Units: 40 DUlAC 2
Max. FAR:
100% Residenllal FAR 1.0:1 2
Mixed Use FAR '. 1.25:1.2, 3
Tolal: 0.35 '
Mixed Use Non-Residenilal FAR Cap Ofnoe and research and
development uses 025 FAR
Holels 2.0
Height: 40 feel 2
Open Space:
Minimum area required 5 or fewer unils: 200 sJ per unil
6 or more unils: 100 s.f. per unil
Minimum dimensions Privale open space 6 feel
Common open space: 12 feel
ITable Conllnues on Next Pagel
Ch. 18.34 -Page 3 (Supp No I} -I 0/1/2007)
18.34.040 PlOD Combining District Regulations
. StilOdan'iS 1." iC" h ~". ,PTob...Y'P;illfqri1i~. 4~~,", ~T~ -QowntooJlo lFlesjctlgJ
Parking: Rales estabRshed by use.
per Chs. 18.52 and 18.54
Parking Adjustments: See Section 18.34.040 (d)
Setbacks and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zones:
On portion of site Ihat abuts:
Setbacks 1. Interior side yard: 6 feet
2. Rear yard: 20 feet
On portion of site Ihat abuts:
1. Interior side yard:
a. Initial height at interior side lot
Ime: 10 feet
Daylight Plane b. Angle (degrees) 45
2. Rear yard:
a. Initial height at rear setback line:
16 feet
b. Angle (degrees) 45
Setbacks and day tight and day tight plane requirements for properties adjacent to Caltrain Right-of-Way:
Setbacks On portion of site that abuts Caltrain right-
of-way: 5 feet (landscaped)
On portion of site that abuts Cal train right-
of-way:
Daylight Plane a. Inilial height at property line
w/Caltrain righl-of-way' 16 feel
b. Angle (Degrees) 45
(1) Non-residentia! development thai is not consistent with the mixed-use limitations set forth aoove, with the exception
of hotels. musl be developed per the underlying zoning district regulations.
(2) See Section 18.34.040(e) for Below Market Rate (BMR) bonus provISions
(3) The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0: 1.
(4) The non-residential component 01 a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square-footage of the
project.
(b) Live/Work Units
(I) A live/work unit, for the purposes of this chapter, is defmed asa rental or ownership
unit comprised of both Jiving space and work area, WIth the living space occupying a
minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area of the unit, and such that the resident of
the Jiving space is the owner/operator of the work area.
(2) The work area shall be located on the ground level, oriented to the street and provide
for at least one external entrance/exit separate from the living space. The work area
may be used for office, retail, personal services, or handcrafted goods (unless
otherwise limited by this chapter), but sball not be used for restaurants or cafes or for
any business involving the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the
quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Fire
Code).
(3) The maximum number of employees who do not reside wlthm the unit is two.
(Supp_ No 13 -10/ I 12007) Ch. \8.34 -Page 4
.
18.34.040 PTOD Combining District Regulations
(4) The signage shall not exceed the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Municipal
Code and shall require approval and recommendation by the arcbitectural review
process prior to approval by the director.
(5) The parking requirements shall include a maximum total of two spaces for the
residential unit, plus one space per 200 square feet for the gross square footage of the
work area, less one space from the total (to reflect the overlap of the resident and one
employee).
(6) The live/work units are subject to the development standards of the PTOD zone
outlined in Table 2 for a 100% residential development, except that the maximum
non -residential FAR is limited to 0.40.
(7) The maximum size of a live/work unit shall be lilTIited to 2,500 square feet.
(8) The design of street frontage of a live/work unit shall be consistent with the context-
based criteria outlined for street frontage in Section 18.34.050 below.
(9) A live/work unit may be converted to an entirely residential unit where residential use
on the ground .floor is not otherwise prohibited..
(c) HoteJs
(1) Hotels for the purpose of this section are defined as hotels, motels, or other lodging
for which City of Palo Alto transient occupancy tax is collected.
(2) Hotels may be constructed to a maximum FAR of2.0 and a maximum height of 50
feet.
(3) All hotels are subject to the context-based design criteria outlined in Section
18.34.050 below.
(d) Parking Adjustments·
Adjust1nents to the required parking standards lTIay be allowed with the director s approval
pursuant to the provisions outlined in Section 18.52.050, with the following additional
. allowances and requirements:
(1) For multi-family residential or mixed use projects on sites:ezoned to the PTOD
combining district, the director may waive a portion of or all guest parking
requirements, and may waive any requirement to provide a landscape reserve for
parking, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The project includes a minimun of four residential units;
(B) The average residential unit size is 1,250 square feet or less; and
(C) Not more than one parking space per residential unit shall be assigned or secured,
such that other required parking spaces are available to other residents and guests.
(2) Projects providing more than 500/0 of the project residential units at low or very-low
income housing rates may further reduce parking requirelnents by an additional 200/0.
(3) In no case, however, shall total parking requirements for the ste be reduced by
greater than 300/0 from the standard requirements, or by greater than 400/0 for an
affordable housing project consistent with subdivision (2) above, or by more than
Ch. 18.34 -Page 5 (Supp. No 13 -10/1/2007)
18.34.040
(4)
. ~ ....... _'
PlOD Combining District Regulations
500/0 if housing for the elderly is proposed pursuant to Sec60n 18.52.050 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
For any request for parking adjustments, the project applicant shall indicate parking
and traffic demand Ineasures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip
generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: lin1iting 'assigned"parking
to one space per residential unit, providing for Caltrain and/or other transit passes, or
other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program
shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed
performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction, and shall designate a single
entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed
measures. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director not later than two
years after building occupancy and again not later than fi ve years after building
occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the
initial performance targets and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance
parking and/or trip reductions.
(e) Density, FAR, and Height Bonus Provisions
The following provisions are intended to allow for increased density, FAR, height, and
other developn1ent bonuses upon construction of additional below market rate (BMR)
housing units. The bonus allowances shall be allowed subject to the following limitations:
(1) Bonuses are only applicable where below market rate (BMR) units are providedin
excess of those required by Palo Altos BMR program as stated in Progran1 H-36 of
the Housing Element adopted on December 2,2002. Key elements of Program H-36
include:
(A) Five or lTIOre units:' Minimum 150/0 of~njts must be BMR units;
(B) Five or more acres being developed: Minimum 20% of units must be BMR units;
and
(C) BMR units shall meet the afforchbility and other requirements of Program H-36
and the citys BMR Program policies and procedures.
(2) The following BIVIR bonuses shall be considered and may be approved upon
rezoning to the PTOD district:
(A) Density Increase: Density may be increased abo-e the maxinlum base density
allowed (40 units per acre), such that at least one additional BMR unit is provided
for every three additional nlarket rate units constructed. The resultant density may
not exceed fifty units per acre. Density shall be calculated based on the gross area
of the site prior to development. .
(B) FAR Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than thirty units per
acre, the allowable residential FAR tnay be increased. The FAR increase shall be
equivalent to 0.05 for each additional 5% (in excess of the city requirements) of the
total nUlnber of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed 500/0 of
the residential FAR prior to the bonus, and may not exceed a total FAR of 1.5.
(C) Height Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than 30 units ·per
acre, the allowable project height n1ay be increased. The height increase shall be
(Supp. No 13 -10/112007) Ch. 18.34 -Page 6
18.34.050 PlOD Context Based Design Criteria
equivalent to one foot above the maxin1un1 for each additional 50/0 (in excess of the
city requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but
may not exceed a maximun1 height (50 feet).
(D) Other incentives for developn1ent ofBMR units, such as reduced setbacks and
reduced open space, may be approved where at least 250/0 of the total units
constructed are BMR units and subject to approval by the architectural review
board.
(3) The provisions of this section are intended to address the density bonus requirelnents
of state law within the PTOD District, and the'maximuln bonus density , FAR, and
height may not be further exceeded.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District Context-Based Design Criteria
(a) Contextual and Conlpatibility Criteria
Development in a pedestrian and transit oriented development con1bining district shall be
responsive to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the
establishment of a pedestrian and transit oriented nej ghborhood.
(1) Context.
(A) "Context" ().s used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the
sites developnlent to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or
nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these
adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Con1prehensive Plan pohcies.
(B) The word ''context'' should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing
surroundings, but rather to provide appropliate transitions to those surroundings.
"Context" is also not specific to architectural sty Ie or design, though in some
instances relationships n1ay be reinforced by an architectural response.
(2) Compatibility.
(A) Compatibibty is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is
consistent with the intent of achieving a pedestrian and transit oriented
neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and
establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual
unity of the street is maintained.
(B) Compatibility goals n1ay be accomplished through various mans, including but
not limited to:
(i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials;
(ii) the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the
buildings and the spacing between them;
(iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections;
(iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways;
Ch. 18.34 -Page 7 (Supp No 13 -10/1/2007)
18.34.050 PTOO Context Based Design Criteria
(v) the location and treatment of entryways;
(vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; and
(vii) the treatment of landscaping
(b) Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
In addition to the findings for architectural review contained in Section 18. 76.020( d) of the
Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the California Avenue
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combming District, as further illustrated on
the accompanying diagrams:
(I) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment.
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkabiJity, a bicycle friendly
envi.ronment, and connectivity through design elements such as:
A Connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with extemal and internal (if any) streets,
pathways, or bike facilities \?ee Figure I-I);
Figure 1-1
CALTRAIN STATION SIiOng pede~!r,an/bike
connections 10 Cal. Ave.
and 5131100
+
Strong pe<!estnan/bike h~-tt--tt-H../
connections toCal, Aye
and Stalion L-X,,--' L ___ Jl_1 LJOL_H_-'!._-'''---I
B. Pathways and streets that present a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both
within a project and to adjacent sidewalks;
C Wide sidewalks (built as easements beyond the property line if needed, but not to
the detriment of existing or future bike lanes) along Park Boulevard to reinforce
the street as a primary pedestri.an and bicycle linkage to the multimodal station;.
D. Bicycle amenities that contribute to the areas bIcycle environment and safety
needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths (See
Figure 1-2);
E. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-desiiPed visibIlity
and access (See Figure 1-2);
(Supp. No 13 -IOI!J2007)
Figure 1·2
Active g-Iflt.luntj i'1I.:)C'!
11-':.'='05 a.cli/l$'L>;l tnE' a~r~t
Ch. 18.34 -Page 8
18.34.050
F.
PTOO Context Based Design Criteria
On primary pedestrian routes such as Park Boulevard and California Avenue,
climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas,
building projections and colonnades, and awnings ~ee Figure 1-3);
Figure 1-3
Wide SldSr'i'1I3Jf.,s provide a ____ ./
~"CiSi~V~ ~O~d&'il ~ri.~ft~
in f~l cih~ti>1I t.!W5:
G. Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the areas streets cape
envirorunent such as street trees, bulb-outs, benches, landscape elements, and
public art (See Figures 1-4 and 1-5); and
H. Vehicle access from alleys or sidetreets where they exist, with pedestrian access
from the public street.
1<--
~,.,~",,, ~'l
r~(I" _~_,
.".,~~,,-
Figure 1-5 Bulbo\J(S jncrease
'-----~--._-' pCui.'~lI;a" ~3fety
P.(~~p~n)' Uno:=
l'1. '1M-\0 Lilw
I
RBsiden'iia-~
Minllnile vChicle access -~~----~--"-~c~·
(0 prollid"s a continuous
facade ;;Old nree! pilrking
Ch~ 1834 -Page 9
Figure 14
(Supp. No I 3 -1 0/ \ 12007)
18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria
(2) Street Building Facades.
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks
and the street(s), to create an envirooment that supports and encourages pedestrian
activity through design elements such as:
A Facade articulation reflecting the rhythm of nearby commercial and residential
areas such as California Avenue;
B. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to
create strong, direct relationships with the street (!5ee Figures 2-1 alld 2-2);
C. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other
architectrrral elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass
(See Figures 2-1 and 2-2);
Orient doorways and --,
windows to create strong
rela~ionship to streeL
Clearly defined enl.,;es~-----~-~~[IfB~;i!l
that are ploportional to
size of building and use
Figure 2-2
Orient doorways and
windows to create SHong
relationShip to street.
Clearly defined enlrie~
that are propOrllOnallQ
size 01 building and use.
D. Entries and windows that face onto the street (See Figures 2-1 and 2-2);
E Entries that are clearly defmed features of front facades, and that have a scale that
is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed;
larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while
maintaining a pedestrian scale ~ee Figures 2-1 and 2-2); and
F. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not
walled-off or oriented exclusively inward.
(Supp No 1)-10/1/2007) Ch. 18.34 -Page 10
18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria
(3) Massing and Articulation.
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and
design variety through elements such as:
A Buildings that include pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation and craftsmanship of
the facade (See Figure 3-1);
Figure 3·1
Rooflines can emphasize
significant elements such
as entries and bays
Buildings should provide pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation,
and craftsmanship of the facade.
B. Rooflmes that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such
as entries, bays, and balconies i;)ee Figure 3-1);
C Comer buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important
intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles
(See Figures 3-2 and 3-3);
1>"''---'7'''--COfn~( buildings should
Figure 3-3
be used to reinforce
important ill!ersenions. A
retail entry can strengthen
the corner.
Ch. 18.34 -Page 11
f9=--Cornerbuildin9~shouldbe
used to reinforce Impor-
tllnt inter~ecliom.
(SllPP. No 11-10/112007)
18.34.050 PlOO Conte)(t Based Design Criteria
D Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break
down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest from the train and
neighborhood east of the tracks;
E. Limiting facades such that no more than 70%, and no more than 100 continuous
linear feet, of the street facade e!lceeds a height of 25 feet lSee Figure 3-4);
Figure 34
No rr'jl:M~ th~m HI pe,rc~_I1L .t).f SltOt:H rataoo f.;t!bUtd a~~_(j 2:5 fe.3{ to-pro~'idb
lor gpe-n view c;orriciQ';LSl iwm
.adJacen1 D@ilJhborlwo6
ldoil[!!:>~-?le·(fh~3I'\t1;.,Sh"l,J~d be GlS~ to craal~;l Wlf~ 'to the a-d~OO(1t ~o;Ii]ro~1;I lr.act-'"e;.
F. Landscape elements to bllffer the rear of the lot and the railroad Iracks, with trees
spaced at a ma!limum of25 feet on center and combined WIth other landscape
elements such as fencing, hedges or shrubs (lee Figure 3-4);
G. Application of daylight plane requirements for R-l and R-2 adjacencies to property
boundaries adjacent to the railroad right-of-way lSee Figure 3-5); and
H. Maintaining view corridors from Colorado A venue and EI Dorado A venue west to
the hills.
r······· _. The rear yard daylight plane dennes setback
requirements adjacent to (ail road. Daylight
plane has initial height of 16 ft and a 45
degree angle.
A five foot landscape strip with trees planted
at a maximum 25 feet on center. should be
used to buffer building from adjac€m tracks.
(4) Low-Density ResidentIal TransitIOns.
Figure 3-5
Where new projects are built adjacent to e!listmg lower-scale resilentlal
development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and pnvacy of adjacent
properties through:
(Supp. No 13 -10/112007) Ch 1834 -Page 12
18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria
A TransItions of development intensity from higher density development building
types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding
uses (See Figure 4-1);
.future ProD
'."~"-" "'--"-'-'-'-"'--~-'-'''r-'--:-'--'-'"''''---''''-''-''-'------, exfsling ~development:
Figure 4·1
densHy
area
B. Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of
neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale
buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match adjacent R·l and R-2
zone requirements (See Figure 4-2);
Figure 4·2
Irllll~1 ne-;ght 01 i I
\6'~, , .. ,,, y:><d. 10' nl >icl .. y_,d
C Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies
positioned so they mirrin1ize views into neighboring propert:ies~ee Figw-e 4-3);
D. Minimlzmg sight lnes into and from neighbonng properties r;>ee Figure 4-3);
Figure 4-3
,
of Trees ~n(l
hedges lor
Screening
E. Limitmg sUn and shade impacts on adjacent properties;
F. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses;
Ch. 18.34 -Page 13 (Supp. No 13 -10/1(2007)
18.34.050 PlOD Context Based Design Criteria
G. Design witl) artIculatIOn, vaned setbacks, and matenals thaminimize sound
reflection to nelghbonng properties adjacent to the railroad.
(5) Project Open Space.
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents,
visitors,and/or employees of a site.
A The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropnate to the
character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind
protection, views, and privacy;
B. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities,
groups and active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users
(e.g., residents, employees, or public);
C. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing
natural amenities ofllie site and its surrollildings ()ee Figure 5-2);
D. Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces;
E. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground (See Figure 5-1);
F. Open space should be located to activate the street fayade and increase "eyes on
the street" when possible (See Figure 5-3);
G. Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where
feasible; and
H. Parking may not be counted as open space.
-___ -Fig~5~
be kx.-\ed em pMlo,i"9
pOdlUlll\
Open ~P~Ct_ 10 be IO(~I~d ----'<i~~~r""~1ilOf.. (0 acu\l~le (he rac()d~
~"d i'''fe''5e-ey~s on m~
~(ree,H
Common op~ .... space, to ---~.
to 111~ ~d~,((iiln
p.lhways
j., '''Y comelMtion
of pilvMe 1100 (0<')01'\0»
HI~,e~.
Figure 5-3
(Supp. No ! 3 -10/)12007) Ch. 18.34 ~ Page 14
18.34.050 prOD Context Based Design Criteria
(6) Parking Design.
,
.~"
Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be alowed to overwhelm the
character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that:
A. Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not
feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.;
. B. Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible ~ee
Figure 6-1);
C. Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance
the streets cape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, andlor art (See Figure 6-2);
D. Landscaping sucb as trees, shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorporated into
surface parking lots (See Figure 6-3); and
E. Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a
manner to enhance traffic calming on the street.
Figure 6-1
I
I. '1
'" \:~ 1
'~7" ",7'''' I
Parktrlg should be wrapped by habitable OBe!';
wilen possible.
landscaping should be incQrporated into any
stlrface psrkinglots.
Semi.oepressed psrking can be used
to raise residential uses, to, provide
privacy and opportunities for stoops
and porches.
Figure 6-2
Figure 6-3
eh 1834-Page 15 (Supp. No I J -10/1/2007)
1 B.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria
(7) Large (multl-acre) Sites
Large (in excess of one acre) sltes shall be designed so that street, block, and building
patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that:
A. New development oflarge sites maintains and enhanes connectivity wi th a
hlerarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with the
Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); .
B. The diverslty of building types increases with increased Jot size (eg., less than I
acre = minimum 1 housing type; 1 -2 acres = minimum 2 housmg types; greater
than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types) (lee Figure 7-1);'and
C. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should respond
to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, md design (e.g., lower density
building types facing or adjacent to existing single-family residences ~e Figure 7 -1)
SuMifl_g (ype l!!fi.o 5
sM:IOI.Lld rei,':\t-e to adf9aenl
O~ 'Future [A"'}fI.texts
-SIms -gffiai.@rthairl 'J.!le 8cre
:sti'lould hav{] aHeast tJn'0
,l>uildi~g 1;:",,,
Si:tG!s gre<;l!er tM-ll ~wo-A'lCfes..
$ho~)Jd haye ,('1"1, lea$t tttree
b~lild~rlg typli'!:s.
(8) Sustamabihty and Green Buildmg Design.
(Supp_ No 13 -IO/ln007)
Project design and materials to achieve sustainabihty and green buildig design
should be mcorporated into the project. Green bmlding design considers the
environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for
compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it In
Ch. 18.34 -Page 16
18.34.050 PTOO Context Based Design Criteria
general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic, with high-quali ty spaces and high recycled content materials. The
following considerations should be included in site and building design:
A. Optimize building orienta tim for heat gain, shading, day lighting, and namral
ventilation (See Figure .8-1);
B. Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island
effects (See Figure 8-2);
C Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access;
D. Maxlmize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable
pavement (See Figure 8-3);
E. U se sustainable building materials,
F. Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use;
G. Create healthy indoor environments;
H. Use creativity and innovation to build.more sustainable environments, One
example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to
satisfy a portion of project open space requirements ({Jee Figure 8-2); and
I. Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater
management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion
impacts to the creek environment.
South facing windows with
Summe,r Sun tf shading devices 10 control
Q . overhealing 10 Summer.
Winter Sun:Q' .
Figure 8-1
Oirect sunlighllhrough
south lacing WIndows
would improve the passive
. healing in Winter.
Use of shading devices to control solar loads in Summer
and to galln passive heal in Winter.
E.,. "-'" oh>. '" .r---" .. ~-.....
MinimIze SIOfmwaler Runoff to Impermeable areas
Figure 8-2
Soh ~d$C.P' on
Roo/lOps in rh.lorm 01
Fi.P±~~~~~~~t~"=·'~"'f6hrllb6lp1~nlllfl
'Urban Agriculture' and roolloplbalcony gardens
Figure 8-3
eh. 1834 -Page 17 (Supp No 13 -10/112007)
18.34.060 Review IProcess
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Historic Preservatioltll
Historic resources review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is
required for alterations or n10difications to any structure designated on the citys Historic
Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of
the Municipal Code or any contributing structure located within a locally designated historic
district. The Category 1 or Category 2 designation process for becominK a historic structure is
contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code.
(e) Performance Standards
All developm.ent subject to the PTOD District requirements must also comply with the
performance standards outlined in Chapter 18.23, pertaining to noise, llghting, visual, and
access impacts.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
18.34.060 Review Process
Rezoning and review of a site to a pedestrian and transit oriented development (PTOD) combining
district shall be made pursuant to the following procedures:
(a) Application to apply the PTOD overlay district may be n1ade by an owner of record of
any property located or partially located within the PTOD boundary, or may be initiated
by vote of the plaIllling and transportation comn1ission or city council;
(b) Applications for rezoning shall be made and reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1330
(Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations), including Section 18.80.020
regarding changes in district boundaries. Planning and transportation commission
review and city council approval shall establish limits on aliowable or reqt.Iired uses
(e.g., the types and appropriate mix of uses, including revenue-generating. uses) and
int~Dsity (e.g., density, floor area ratio, height, site coverage) of development. The
specified limitations shall be part of the rezoning and shall be recorded as property.
restrictions enforceable by the City of Palo Alto. Revisions to these restrictions requires
rezoning through the SaIne process, except that the director of planning and community
enviromnent may determine that a revision is minor and does not materially alter the
city councils restrictions or intent regarding land use and intensity. As used in this
subsection, the term ''minor'' means a change that is of little visual significance, does
not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improven1ents, is not
proposed to change the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of
the structure involved. If the cUlTIulative effect of multiple minor changes would result
in a major change, a new application for approval of a pedestrian and transit oriented
development is required and shall be reviewed by the architectural review board,
planning and transporta60n commission, and/or city council, as detennined by the
director. Submittal requirements for the PTOD combining district may be supplemented
as detennined by the director of plaIllling and community environment;
(Supp. No [3 -10/1/2007) Ch. 18.34-Page 18
18.34.070 i\JonaConforming Uses and Noro-complying Facilities
(c) Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to designate a site consistent
with transit oriented residential development shall be Inade and reviewed pursuant to the
provisjons of Section 19.04.080; and
(d) Upon approval of rezoning of a property to pedestrian transit oriented development
(PTOD) combining district, the project plans shall be submitted as a lnajor architectural
review to the architectural review board, who shall revjew the project for compliance
with the architectural review criteria specified in Chapter 18.76 of the Zoning Code, as
well as Section 18.34.050 of this chapter. A single preliminary review by the ARB may
be allowed in advance of rezoning approval if plans are submitted and reviewed prior to
planning conlmission consideration of the rezoning request.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
18.34.070 N on-confornling Uses and Non-complying Facilities
Owners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non-complying facilities within the
PTOD boundary may request the application of the PTOD combining district to the site through the
rezoning process referenced in Section 18.34.060 above. In applying the PTOD combining district,
the use and/or facility would then be subject to the PTOD overlay standards.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
Ch. 18.34-Page 19 (Supp. No 13·-10/1/2007)
~ .... c CD E .c u ~ «
······i
~-... \\ZL .. ~ .... -... \ ~<~
"Y ~f'-"'-"
:,;.i.~ .. -....... . . ' <'~1 \\'~:\. ....
; ..... :
it
~ iii
II
\;
\l
Th e City of
Palo Alto
Co)
;:$>-s::: H
Co) C\J >'"'0 ~§
~ 0 .,.....,~ s::: HQ ~ .,.....,0 ~~ U~
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
® --o· 400'
This documenl is i glaphic representation only of best available 50Uf~es.
The City or Palo Alto assumes no responsibnity ror any errors. 01989 10 2006 City or Palo Allo
Attachment L
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
. DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: April 15, 2009
SlTBJECT: 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan
Avenue: Request for a Zone Change from the existing RM-40 zoning to
the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District for this site, to allow for a
mixed use development consisting of eight residential condominiums
above 10,257 sq. ft. of ground floor office space, below grade parking
garage and related site improvements. Environmental Review: An Initial
Study has been completed and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been
prepared.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) recommend that
the City Council adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and recommend approval of the
ordinance (Attachment A) rezoning the site located at 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch
Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue from the existing RM-40 zoning to the California
Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay
District for this site.
BACKGROUND:
The purview of the Commission is to:
A) Review the Initial Study/draft Mitigated Negative Declaration;
B) Ensure that the proposed rezoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and policies of
the City of Palo Alto, including establishing the allowable or required use limits, types and
mix of uses, and intensity, including density and floor area ratio; and
C) Make a recommendation to the City Council as to whether to approve or deny the proposed
zone change after adopting the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Site Infonnation
The project site is approximately 19,862 square feet in size, comprised of five parcels. The site is
bounded by Birch Street, Sheridan and Grant Avenues, a three-story triplex on Grant Avenue and
the Sheridan Apartments, three-story, multi-family development on the south side of the site
between Sheridan Avenue and Grant Avenue. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet
southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station and approximately 650 feet southeasterly
of California Avenue. The site is currently developed with three single family homes, none of
which are considered to be historic.
The project site is zoned RM-40, Multi-Family Residential district, de.signed to accommodate
high density multiple-family residences ranging from 31 to 40 dwelling units per acre. RM-40
residential development containing at least 40 dwelling units may also include eating and
drinking services, neighborhood serving personal and retail services, subject to conditional use
permit approval.
The site's land use designation is Multiple Family Residential, per the Palo Alto 1998 2010
Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40
units and 8-90 persons per acre. The site is located in the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area, intended
for diverse land uses, two-to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets
providing links to California Avenue. The site is also within the California Avenue Transit
Oriented Residential designation on the Comprehensive Plan, and within the Pedestrian and
Transit Oriented District (PTOD) Combining District.
PTOD Combining District
The purpose of the PTOD Combining District is to facilitate higher density pedestrian and transit
friendly developments to take advantage of the proximity to public transportation and the
California Avenue Business District, while also protecting nearby historic resources. The PTOD
district specifically allows mixed use development, where residential and non-residential uses are
combined, and can be applied to properties zoned R-l, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM-30 and RM-40
or with combining districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD boundary, as shown
on the City's approved zoning maps, consistent with the provisions of Chapter 18.08 and 18.80
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (P AMC).
Once the PTOD Combining District is implemented, the development regulations of the PTOD
Combining District would be applied to a development project in lieu of any underlying zoning
designation. If development standards such as height and setbacks are not addressed in the
regulations, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) has the discretion to determine the
appropriate standards within the context of neighboring sites and buildings.
PTOD Process
The rezoning of a site to the PTOD district may be initiated by the owner of an eligible property
or may be initiated by a vote of the Commission or City Council. Rezoning applications to the
PTOD district are processed in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.80, the standard rezoning
process. The Commission review and City Council approval establishes the allowable or
required use limits, such as types and mix of uses, and intensity, including density and floor area
ratio. Following Council's approval of a PTOD rezoning, an applicant can submit an application
requesting architectural review approval for the new development. The development project
would be formally reviewed by the Architectural Review Board in accordance with the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
architectural review criteria and recommended to the Director of Planning and Community
Environment pursuant to approval findings set forth in P AMC Chapter 18.76, and subject to the
ARB finding the project will be consistent with the PTOD Combining District Context Based
Design Criteria (P AMC Chapter 18.34.050).
Preliminary ARB Review
A preliminary ARB hearing was held on August 7, 2008 for a review of the conceptual proj ect
design. The ARB was in support of the project concept and offered minor comments toward
improvement of the design, such as strengthening the entries on Birch Street and softening the
articulation. The ARB did not support use of a Design Enhancement Exception to allow the
project to exceed the 0.25:1 maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the non-residential portion of
the project. The ARB recommended reducing the amount of nonresidential square footage by
incorporating a ground floor residential unit or replacing some of the office floor area with
residential support uses. In response to this, the applicant has modified the proposal to request
the FAR exception as an incentive under State Density Bonus law. Public testimony from two
members of the public focused on the potential for contaminants to be found on (or under) the
site and on the preliminary review process for the PTOD zoning applications. Minutes of the
August 7, 2008 ARB meeting are attached to this report (Attachment F).
Proj ect Description
The proposed development is a new three-story office and residential building having a height of
approximately 40 feet. A first floor podium, 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, is
intended to support eight, two-story townhomes on the two upper floors, providing 14,534 square
feet of residential floor area in total, with a residential density of 17 units per acre. On-site
parking facilities for 42 automobiles would be located both below-grade and at the surface, with
a potential for ten extra tandem spaces.
Two points for vehicular access would be provided. Ramp access to the garage would be
provided from Grant Avenue. A second driveway would provide access to three surface parking
spaces on the north side of the Birch Street frontage. The parking garage would provide 29
regular parking spaces, two ADA spaces, and up to eight tandem parking spaces (one for each
unit), with up to ten extra tandem spaces ifneeded. Pedestrian access to the two ground floor
office spaces would be provided from an elevator lobby located in the center of the site and from
doors in each unit that would open up onto the Birch Street frontage. Access to the eight
townhomes above would be provided from the central elevator lobby and stairwells on Birch
Street and Sheridan Avenue. Individual entries to the townhomes would be accessed from the
central courtyards.
The two-story townhomes would include five three-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units.
Two of the three-bedroom units would include a room on the first level that could be used either
as a den or a fourth bedroom. Common open space for residents would be provided through a
courtyard on the second floor with two distinct areas. A small passive open space would be
provided on the ground level along Birch Street, adjacent to the garage ramp. Balconies would
be provided for each of the residential units. Storefront glass and stone/concrete tile fayade are
proposed at the ground floor/pedestrian level. The residential component of the building would
be differentiated from the commercial portion by the use of stucco and vertical yellow cedar
walls, with wood trim dual-glazed aluminum windows.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
DISCUSSION
The Birch Plaza proposal is the second application the City has received requesting the
California Avenue PTOD Combining District. In both cases, the proj ects are mixed use
buildings adjacent to both non-residential and mUltiple family residential projects.
PTOD Zone Change Amendment
The PTOD combining district is specifically intended to foster densities and facilities that:
1. Support use ofpublic transportation;
The project site is within a 3-block walking distance of the California Avenue Caltrain
station. It is also proximate to bus stops along California A venue and EI Camino ReaL
2. Encourage a variety of housing types, commercial, retail and limited office uses;
The project includes office uses and townhouse style condominiums, which are
compatible in an area that already provides a mix of housing and services. The adjacent
multiple family residential communities are a three-story triplex and a three-story multi-
family complex.
3. Encourage a project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the
PTOD overlay area; and
4. Result in streetscape design elements that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists;
The project design would be reviewed and potentially modified during the architectural
review process. The project concept appears to be consistent with the Context-based
designed criteria of the PTOD Combining District, including streetscape design elements
that would be attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists.
5. Increase connectivity to surrounding existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle
facilities;
The project plans currently include five-foot wide sidewalks connecting to existing
sidewalks, but only underground bicycle parking facilities. The City regulations also
require surface-level bicycle racks for visitors to the non-residential space. Bicycle
parking requirements would need to be met in formal plans submitted for ARB review;
adequate bike parking would help to increase bicycle connectivity.
6. Implement the City's housing element and Comprehensive Plan.
The project would provide housing and non-residential uses that could benefit the
immediate area and Palo Alto residents. Comprehensive Plan policies indicate that the
actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area, depending on existing land
use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping centers and
environmental problems. The plan notes that higher residential densities than what is
pennitted by zoning may be allowed where measureable community uses will be derived,
services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be compatible with the overall
Comprehensive Plan. The project, with a proposed residential density of 17 units per
acre, is within the allowable residential density range for the site's Comprehensive Plan
designation (8 40 units per acre) and does not exceed the allowable density allowed
within the underlying RM-40 zone district (31-40 units per acre). Comprehensive Plan
policies supporting the project are cited in the attached draft ordinance (Attachment A).
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The project is also within the Transit Oriented Residential designation in the
Comprehensive Plan, which is intended to support densities that would support the use of
public transportation, including the Caltrain.
Proposed Land Uses
Land uses proposed for PTOD projects are identified as items to be reviewed by the Commission
and Council. The applicant has proposed land uses that are consistent with the PTOD
Combining District in a vertically-mixed use building with ground floor office uses and upper
floors providing a residential density of 17 units per acre.
The proposed PTOD cOlnbining district allows higher density residential dwellings, including
mixed uses, on commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the
California Avenue Caltrain station. It specifically fosters densities and facilities that encourage a
variety of housing types, commercial, retail, and limited office uses. Allowed non-residential
uses include retail, personal services and eating and drinking services. Other non-residential uses
allowed, except on the ground floor where a Retail (R) combining district exists, include office,
general business services, business and trade schools, private education facilities, day care
center, cOrhmunity center and convalescent facilities. The site is not included in an (R)
combining district. Research and development uses are allowed only on sites where the
underlying zoning district is GM and the use and storage of hazardous materials would be in
quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section
105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code).
Con1pliance with Development Standards
Attachment C outlines the project compliance with PTOD development criteria, and indicates
that the project would be consistent with all development standards except one. The floor-area
ratio (FAR) for the office portion of the project would be 0.52, where PTOD regulations would
limit the office FAR to 0.25. The total FAR would, however, comply with the 1.25 FAR
limitation.
Density Bonus Law Concession to Exceed Maximum Floor Area Ratio
The project includes at least 100/0 Below Market Rate units and therefore, the applicant can
request one exception or "concession" per State Density Bonus legislation Section 65915 of the
Government Code. This provision allows applicants to request and receive "concessions" as
incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable
housing. Incentives may involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar
standards.
The proposed project would include approximately 10,257 sq. ft. of office use, for a commercial
floor area ratio of 0.52. The non-residential component of a mixed use project within a PTOD
District is allowed a maximum floor area ratio (FAR) "cap" of 0.25. The project would exceed
the cap by 0.27. The applicant's stated purpose in designing the larger non-residential FAR is to
accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to support eight two-story residences
above. The applicant requests an SB 1818 "concession" to exceed the non-residential FAR cap
that would otherwise require approval of a Variance.
Parking Regulations
The applicant is providing 42 total parking spaces, consisting of three surface parking spaces and
City of Palo Alto Page 5
39 garage spaces. The proposed parking spaces would meet the requirements ofPAMC Chapter
18.52, as indicated in the Table 1 below. The applicant is requesting application of two
allowable parking requirenlent adjustments, permitted by P AMC Chapter 18.52.050. The two
parking adjustments being requested are adjustments for joint use and housing near transit. The
Municipal Code allows for combined parking adjustments for a maximum of 30%. Without the
adjustments, the required parking would total 60 spaces. If the adjustments are granted, the
proposed number of spaces would meet the revised required parking total of 42 spaces. The
project also includes four pairs of tandem parking spaces, for a total of eight spaces, for the
residential units. An additional ten tandem parking spaces would be available if needed.
Table 1
Required Reduction Revised Proposed Conforms
Proposed Per Total
PAMC
Residential 16 20% total for 12 12 Yes
Two Joint Use
spaces/unit (30%
2 combined
Guest spaces max)
Office 42 200/0 for 30 30 Yes
One space/250 Housing Near
sq.ft. Transit
(30%
combined
I max)
Total 60 30% 42 42 I Yes
combined max I
Context-Based Design Criteria Compliance Review
The project must comply with the requirements of the PTOD COITlbining District Context-Based
design criteria as outlined in Section 18.34.050 of the Zoning Code. The ARB purview includes
design review of the project in reference to these criteria as well as ARB review criteria. The
project features appear to comply with the context based design criteria as follows:
1. The Combining district establishes a requirement for promoting pedestrian walkability, a
bicycle environment and connectivity through design elements as well as street facades
designed to provide a strong relationship with sidewalks and the street to create an
environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity.
The project would include an attractive street fayade for pedestrians, via a five-foot wide
sidewalk and five-foot wide planting strip adjacent to the curb with street trees across the
entire frontage. The building was designed to provide pedestrian level interest with well-
articulated walls, large store front windows and direct entrances to the office uses and the
residential courtyards above. The site is not in an area zoned with a Retail (R) Combining
District.
2. The regulations also require that the building be designed to minimize massing and provide
for articulation and design variety.
The project includes varied rooflines, canopies, decks and other architectural detail to break
City of Palo Alto Page 6
I
I
up the building mass. The residential and commercial components utilize different materials
to further break up the mass. Landscaping is proposed around the podium to soften the
impact of the building.
3. Public and private open spaces are required so that they are useable to residents, visitors
and employees of the site.
Both public and private open spaces have been incorporated into the design. Two large and
open courtyards are provided on the second level for the residential units above. Each unit is
also provided with large private patios/decks. The office units also have private south facing
patios for employees. The courtyards and balconies that face the street increase "eyes on the
street."
4. Parking needs to be accommodated and not overwhelm the character of the project or
detract from the pedestrian environment.
The majority of the parking spaces have been provided in the underground garage, away
from public view. Three surface parking spaces are provided on the side.
Green Building Regulations Compliance
The applicant has prepared draft LEED New Construction and Multi-family Green Point
Checklists (Attachment G). Based on the applicant's submittal, the'project would achieve 97.67
points on the GreenPoint Checklist and a LEED silver rating. Green building elements would
include the use of low-emitting materials, high efficiency irrigation system, drought resistant
plant species, passive solar heating, low-voc paints, and energy efficient equipment.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS:
The site is located within the Transit Oriented Residential designation in the Comprehensive
Plan, which would be applicable to projects within walking distance (2,000 feet) from a Caltrain
station. The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support
substantial use of public transportation and especially use of Caltrain. The project, as proposed,
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and would support the City's
policy objectives for pedestrian and transit oriented development.
TIME LINE
Application submitted:
ARB Preliminary Review
Application deemed complete:
CEQA public review period began:
Commission hearing date:
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
June 10,2008
August 7, 2009
March 31, 2009
April 6, 2009
April 15, 2009
A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period
from April 6, 2009 to April 26, 2009. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial
Study are provided as Attachment H. Staff has recommended mitigation measures pertaining to
Biological Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise, which would lessen
potential impacts to a less than significant level. The conditions of approval and mitigation
measures would be applied to the Major Architectural Review approval, not the zoning.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Location Map
C. Development Standards Table
D. Applicant's project description*
E. PAMC Chapter 18.34 PTOD Regulations
F. August 7, 2009 ARB staff report and minutes
G. Green Building Checklists*
H. California Avenue PTOD Boundary Map
I. Initial Study and Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration
J. Conceptual Plans (Commission only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES:
David Solnick
Harold Hohbach
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Apiy French, Current Planning Manager~A
............ '·'-----'li . "".-
. ", •.•... ,,_.) .. <,..<."-.. -~-~ ..... -.'.
DepartmentlDivision Head APproval.h.'/ _/;:;; "" .~.(?~";;Q
'fi.:t£)/I., Cur. . illiams, Interim Direc
t~ "
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1 Planning and Transportation Commission
2 Excerpt Verbatim Minutes
3 April 15, 2009
4
5 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue*:
6 Request for a Zone Change from the existing RM -40 zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian
7 and Transit Oriented Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District for this site, to
8 allow for a mixed-use deve10pnlent consisting of eight residential condominiums above 10,257
9 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking garage and related site
10 improvements. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study has been completed and a Draft
11 Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with the California
12 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.
13
14 Item Number 1 is 305 Grant Avenue and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, a
15 request for a Zone Change from the existing RM -40 Zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian
16 and Transit Oriented Development Combining District PTOD Overlay District for this site to
17 allow for a mixed-use development consisting of eight residential condominiums, about 10,2557
18 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking garage, and related site
19 improvements. Would the Staff care to make a presentation?
20
21 Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair, and members of the Commission. The
22 proposal before you is as request to rezone a multifamily residential site to PTOD to allow a
23 higher density pedestrian and transit-oriented friendly development to take advantage of its
24 proximity to transit and the California Avenue Business District. The site is located within the
25 PTOD boundary of California Avenue and therefore eligible for rezoning to PTOD. A copy of
26 this boundary map was included with the Staff report.
27
28 This is the second request for PTOD rezoning within the California Avenue PTOD Combining
29 District Boundary. The process for the PTOD Zoning begins with Commission review and
30 recommendation to Council for their decision on the rezoning request. The PTOD rezone will
31 establish allowable uses including the mix of uses and intensity and project features such as
32 density and floor area. Should the Council approve the rezoning, the Applicant could submit
33 development plans for Architectural Review Design by the ARB.
34
35 The project concept received a preliminary review by the ARB as encouraged by the PTOD zone
36 tax. The proposed 40-foot tall, three-story mixed-use building would have one level of
37 underground parking, four onsite surface parking spaces, approximately 10,000 square feet of
38 ground floor office space and eight two-story resident townhouse style units on the second and
39 third floors.
40
41 The project would be consistent with all Development Standards with one exception. Whilethe
42 project as a whole would meet the floor area ratio maximum of 1.251, the proposed 0.5221 ratio
43 of ground floor office would exceed the 0.25 maximal allowable ratio for office uses. The
44 Applicant requests the additional 0.27 ground floor office area as a Density Bonus Concession.
45 The project is eligible for the Density Bonus Concession through the State's Density Bonus Law
46 because the project includes at least 10 percent below market rate units.
Page 1
1
2 The Applicant states that the larger office floor area, at the ground floor, is needed to support the
3 eight two-story residences above. An initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
4 has been prepared and circulated for a 20-day review period beginning April 6th• The public
5 review period ends April 26th• Mitigation measures for trees, noise, hazards and hazardous
6 materials were identified and accepted by the applicant.
7
8 Staff has received a few phone calls from the public on the project, concerns were expressed
9 regarding design and not necessarily the rezoning and, subsequent to the delivery of the Staff
10 report packet, actually today, Staff did receive an email stating concerns about the project from a
11 Joe Vilario that was put at places this evening. Staff recommends that the Commission
12 recommend the City Council adopt the Mitigating Negative Declaration and approve the
13 rezoning request to allow the office and residential mixed-use project at this subject site. Staffis
14 available to answer questions.
15
16 Mr. Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director: Chair Garber, I just have a couple head-on
17 comments.
18
19 Chair Garber: Planning Director.
20
21 Mr. WilIams: I just wanted to note for the Commission that, as Elena mentioned, there is a
22 request here as a concession to allow an additional amount of office space. The way the PTOD,
23 Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development, District is structured, it allows up to 1.25 floor area
24 ratio for mixed-use, but not more than 2.25 of that is generally allowed to be office use. It's
25 allowed to go to 0.35 if it's retail types of uses, and then the remainder would need to be
26 residential. In this case, they are asking for about 0.5 or 0.52 of office, and we actually think
27 that, in addition to the fact that there is a Density Bonus Incentive option here, there is probably
28 good reason for that in a couple of respects.
29
30 One is that with the concern that exists today for housing, this is actually a reduction in the
31 amount of housing units that could go on the site, and an increase to some extent in the office
32 use.
33
34 Also, I think we are finding as we distance ourselves a little bit from when the PTOD Ordinance
35 was adopted, that (and I know Commissioner Keller, in particular has kind of made this point
36 from time to time) providing employment near transit stations is important as well as housing,
37 and so in this case there is a little better balance of the employment and residential than the
38 PTOD generally would call for.
39
40 And then, the third reason I think you will hear from the Applicant, is just if you think about the
41 typical kind of mixed-use product that might come to mind, this is usually probably the first floor
42 being nonresidential and the second and third floor being residential. Well, if you kind of do the
43 math on that, that first floor is not going to be only 0.25 of a 1.25 total; it's going to be probably
44 at least a third of the three stories so you are going to have the ground floor with the
45 nonresidential, and that is at least a 0.4 or 0.45 or something like that. It does, and again in
Page 2
I addition to the density law issues, there does seem to be some reasonable intent here as far as
2 making that request for the additional office space. Thank you.
3
4 Chair Garber: Does the Applicant have a presentation? You will have 15 minutes.
5
6 Harold Hollbach, Project Applicant: I'm Harold Hollbach. I'm of the Hollbach Realty
7 Company who is presenting this Birch Plaza Project to you.
8
9 I think all of you are familiar with the Birch Street off-ramp from Page Mill Road and Oregon
10 Express and Page Mill Road. I think it is one of the main entrances in Palo Alto. I think this is
11 an opportunity for us to address that issue and provide a good solution to this problem and giving
12 something that looks very good, I think, and you'll hear from the architect.
13
14 I would like to point out that we have owned some of this land since 1996, and paid taxes on it
15 all of these years, and we think this is the opportune time now to proceed with the project.
16
17 I am here tonight with David Solnick, who is the architect, and also we have Richard Makdisi
18 with Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc., to answer any environmental questions. He was
19 instrumental in preparing the environn1ental reports which you have before you today. Thank
20 you.
21
22 Chair Garber: Mr. Solnick, welcome.
23
24 Mr. David Solnick, Project Architect: Hi, I'm David Solnick, the architect on this project, and
25 one correction here for Harold. He has owned it since 1966, not 1996, right? Yeah.
26
27 As you know, this hearing is for rezoning from an existing RM-40 to a PTOD. The PTOD was
28 written to promote sort of a pedestrian friendly and particularly mixed-use design near transit.
29 The ARB was one of the bodies advising that, helping the Planning Staff in the writing of that,
30 and commenting on the writing of it. I was on the ARB at that time so I was quite familiar with
31 the intent of that zoning, so I feel like we bring that to the table in this.
32
33 It's a mixed-use project, as has been described. It has got an office on the ground floor and two-
34 story townhouses above. The townhouses are organized around two courtyards, one here and
35 one here, that face this open area of the property next door. The main entrance to the project is
36 here off of Birch which gives accesses to the offices as well as a stair that gets you up to the
37 courtyard, and that is part of the pedestrian-friendly aspect. to really make it very easily and
38 accessible to the street, for not only the offices, but also for the residents, so that it is sort of an
39 easy in and out and encourages people to walk as opposed to just taking the elevator, although
40 there is of course elevator access on the inside as well.
41
42 I do want to point out that we are not, and just in followup to Curtis, I just wanted to make it
43 clear that there is no increase in the total floor area ratio (FAR) on this project over what is
44 allowed. It's only the proportion between office and residential. And it's a little harder to see on
45 this slide, so let me point out a couple more things on this slide.
46
Page 3
1 There is also, as part of this proposal, a little pocket park right here which includes seating and
2 some public art. At this point, this is a placeholder. That hasn't been designed yet, but the
3 location is there. There is a little bit of surface parking and the rest of the parking is below
4 grade, as has been mentioned.
5
6 Also, right now, there are no street trees along here. The sidewalk is right up against the curb
7 and we are proposing to move the sidewalk away from the curb, creating a conventional planting
8 strip, which allows the planting of quite a number of new street trees all along this area,
9 enwrapping both comers, and I think that it's a total of about six new street trees.
10
11 This bottom one here shows you the comer that you would see if you came off that off-ramp
12 from Page Mill. The intent is to do a little larger massing to sort of hold that comer and to have
13 something quite presentable at that comer which will be very visible and probably more for
14 people in cars than people walking. The other thing that you can start to see is you can see that
15 we've enlivened, and some of the elements in the PTOD zoning talk about enlivening the street-
16 scape, and we've done that with second-story balconies as well as the courtyard itself which
17 overlooks the street. We also, not only have the central entrance to the offices, but we also have
18 individual entrances from the offices, again, providing mUltiple entryways which tend to add
19 interest to the street as well.
20
21 These are a couple of little vignettes. This one shows you what somebody walking along Birch
22 Street might see. There is quite a lot going on in the design. This is the entrance in here, both to
23 the offices and up to the courtyard up here for the residential, and you can see that courtyard
24 overlooks the street. This front courtyard overlooks the street. And this is a second entrance to
25 the residential off of Sheridan, which goes up to this second courtyard, which faces out to the
26 south and will get quite a lot of sun.
27
28 This is a little vignette showing where that pocket park is and, again, that is to be designed in its
29 detailing. This is the main entrance to the offices and then the stairs going up to the courtyard
30 above and overlooking the street.
31
32 A little vignette of the courtyard at the front which has a passageway to the second courtyard at
33 the rear. They are connected to each other and the courtyards. Really, part of the design here is
34 to give the residences a sense of community, that they are not just a series of row houses that
35 don't address each other, but are sort of divided into these two courtyards with about four units
36 each. The idea is that we are trying to develop something beyond what you might get in just a
37 single-family dwelling that only addresses the street, but it addresses this sort of community
38 property as well. Here, you can just see these elements and how they are organized and planned.
39 This is the entrance off of Birch, the stair going up to the front courtyard, the passageway under
40 this, which goes to the rear courtyard, and then that has its own stairs going down to Sheridan.
41
42 There is also, and they are not shown here, but the offices have their own patios, one into this
43 yard and another over into this yard. You can see a little bit of surface parking and the pocket
44 park. There is the underground garage, and nothing terribly remarkable about it. We have met
45 the 42 parking spaces required with the reduction allowed for mixed-use. Actually, however,
46 there are extra spaces. You are only allowed to count a certain number of tandem spaces, and we
Page 4
1 had done the calculation in that way. However, we have added, and this parking does include
2 additional tandem spaces, which don't count officially but yet, of course, will be parking spaces.
3 So the total nunlber of parking spaces, between this and the four up on the surface is 53, while
4 yet only, like I said, 42 actually count.
5
6 This is the ground floor, showing the two offices with the lobby, elevator and stair in-between.
7 The stairs and elevator are next to each other, again to encourage walking, and to encourage
8 people to walk even before they get to the elevator.
9
10 I think this is my last slide. This is just, again, showing the courtyards and how they might be
11 landscaped, water features for the front courtyard, and the rear courtyard.
12
13 Just one last word. In hiring us, I think Harold got something a little different than what he may
14 have bargained for. Of course, he hoped that we would help him get through the process more
15 easily and we obviously understood that from the beginning, but it turned out that there was
16 more to it.
17 First of all, as a condition of being hired, we insisted that he use the PTOD zoning, which you
18 may know was not used for the Park Plaza Project. This probably made that process more
19 difficult than it might have been otherwise.
20
21 More importantly, we designed a project that is very much in the spirit of the PTD zoning
22 regulations with elements that encourage walking to nearby services, enlivening the pedestrian
23 environment, and foster a sense of community among the dwellers. We hope you agree and we
24 look forward to your questions. Thank you.
25
26 Chair Garber: Thank you. Does that complete the Applicant's presentation?
27
28 Mr. Hollbach: Yes it does. The Environmental Consultant is here for any questions you might
29 have.
30
31 Chair Garber: Commissioners, I thought that we would go directly to Public Comment, and then
32 we would do questions and discussion after that, if you are agreeable to that. I'm seeing no
33 disagreement, so we will go immediately to the public. We have seven people speaking. The
34 first is Chloe Kamprath, to be followed by Mary Palmer. You will have three minutes.
35
36 Chloe Kamprath. 320 Grant Avenue: I guess what I am concerned about most is that I have
37 lived at Birch Court for over 25 years. I lived in Palo Alto for over 40, and I worry about not
38 maintaining a pleasant place to live, if we put in so many buildings that get high, and we don't
39 have light, and we don't have trees, and we don't have visible Open Space. I think that is going
40 to change. So, for me personally, the little pocket park helps my personal concerns, because I am
41 on the comer that looks at that, so personally I am okay there. But, the other thing that I am
42 concerned about is, as we come out of our garage (and I live on Birch, at Birch Court right across'
43 the street) it is very difficult coming up the driveway because of all the traffic. The traffic that
44 turns off of Birch, onto Grant, comes fast. You can hardly see them at times. So I think that is a
45 danger and a traffic issue. The other thing that is a major issue is the number of times that cars
46 get honked at as they try to cross Birch. So, they come down Grant and stop, presumably, start
Page 5
1 out, but when the cars are coming off of Oregon they come very fast and that is a tough place.
2 There are accidents there frequently and there are lots of horns honking, and so that's it. Thank
3 you.
4
5 Chair Garber: Thank you. Mary Palmer to be followed by Bob Brumma.
6
7 Mary Palmer, 350 Grant Avenue: Good evening. My name is Mary Palmer. I'm a homeowner
8 at 350 Grant Avenue. I am also on the Board of the Birch Court Condominium Association. I'm
9 Vice President. I am here this evening and I have three objections. The first one is that I object
10 to the exemption for the parking spaces because of the mixed-use zoning. You may not be
11 aware, but there is another project on the other side of our complex. It's at Sherman and Ash,
12 and that project is also going to be built up to four stories, and it is also asking for a parking
13 exemption for parking spaces. So Grant Avenue is already at full capacity. Our street and our
14 traffic congestion cannot absorb any more, so I am against/we are against the exemption.
15
16 Also, the second thing is the underground parking garage entrance/exit which is on Grant
17 Avenue. That is on Grant Avenue, but it is right at the comer where the stop sign is for Grant
18 Avenue and Birch Street. So you would come up Grant Avenue, you would stop sign, you'd be
19 almost right in front of the entrance/exit for the garage. And, again, I want to stress that this is
20 also a real safety hazard because we have a senior citizen complex that is going to be next to this
21 one, and the senior citizens walk across Grant Avenue as they are going to California Avenue,
22 and so if you are going to put a parking garage there, this is going to create a real safety issue.
23
24 The third thing is rezoning from residential to mixed-use. I've lived in my condominium since it
25 was built back in the 80s. I've seen the area grow. It has been largely high-density residential.
26 It has almost become sort of like a little village. We have a small little park there, and I think it's
27 called the Sara Wallace Park, and I just think that the mixed-use is not appropriate for this. It
28 impinges on the little residential neighborhood that has been developing. Weare also getting
29 more children in the area so I would ask you to please reconsider these things very carefully.
30 Thank you so much, and I have a petition here of homeowners objecting to these things.
31
32 Chair Garber: If you would give that to the Secretary that would be great. Thank you. Bob
33 Brumma followed by Curtis Schneider.
34
35 Bob Brumma, 330 Grant Avenue: I also live right across the street from where the driveway and
36 complex is going in. I've been in Palo Alto since '81 and in this complex since late '84,
37 something like that, so I share many of the concerns of the previous speakers, and I guess I'm
38 concerned about the combination of turning it into business and then bringing in more traffic to
39 an already very congested area, and I think the safety issues can't be over-emphasized. In fact,
40 you can check police records. We had a crash at that comer, I think in the last month or so. You
41 can check that.
42
43 So, I have this very high-quality photo here, but basically what we are talking about is the cars
44 are turning left off of Birch, and they come in here, and they are immediately going to make
45 another left tum, and probably are not able to tum in because cars are stacked up here trying to
46 cross the intersection that Mary just talked about. So my concern is, because we tum it into now
Page 6
1 a mixed-use, we are going to have more businesses. Depending upon the nature of the business,
2 they will be coming during the daytime, and yeah some will use the train or bus, but I would
3 wager the majority will drive in. They are going to park and continue blocking wheelchair
4 access ranlps and other things because there is no parking, and I just fear that this left tum, and
5 left tum, is going to just be a bad combination with accidents, honking and things. It would
6 make a lot more sense to bring the cars in off of Birch, or on the quieter street on the next comer,
7 because you don't have as many cars going both ways on that next block. So, some
8 considerations for you. Thank you.
9
10 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioner Holman, you had a question for the speaker.
11
12 Commissioner Holman: I do. Now that the visual is up here, do you want to use the pointer and
13 show us specifically what you are talking about?
14
15 Mr. Brumma: Okay, so I think one of the three speakers mentioned that there was a main exit
16 off of Oregon, so you come up here, and a little off picture here, you are going to make a left
1 7 tum, pretty busy, and then you are going to make a left tum again into the entrance here into the
18 underground parking. This is where cars are also coming down here, quite congested. I think
19 you are going to find that it's going to be very difficult for these cars to make that left tum,
20 particularly during the hours of7:30 to 9:00 or 10:00 in the morning. It's going to be quite a
21 mess. Then, also coming out, you are going to have similar problems later in the day, and so my
22 suggestion was right now this next block doesn't have quite as much traffic, and so from a traffic
23 flow standpoint it would be safer to have the cars coming in and out of this other side, and I'm
24 sorry I forget what that street is. They all start with S' s on the east side, Sheridan.
25
26 Or another possibility, if you have good traffic control, and trying to slow this down, a good
27 thing to do, regardless of this complex, you could make right turns in and out of here to come
28 and go, and maybe you could put a break in here to allow cars to tum directly into there. But I
29 think that would be safer than the traffic jam of coming left tum, left tum, and trying to cross
30 cars that are backed up here.
31
32 You also see cars when you come out, and you will pull out to the right, and you want to cross
33 Birch Street and go down to Park to get back to the Oregon Expressway. I apologize, for my
34 pointer, but you basically go down the park, go down and you can cross over and loop onto the
35 Oregon Expressway, Page Mill and the other direction. I think you are going to find that this
36 continues to be a hazard. It already is, and again you can check the police records on the
37 accidents there. So that's my concern. Did that help?
38
39 Commissioner Holman: It answered the question, thank you.
40
41 Chair Garber: Gary Schneider to be followed by Harold Hollbach. Are you expecting to speak
42 again, Mr. Hollbach? Okay, to be followed by Richard Geiger.
43
44 Gary Schneider, Palo Alto: Hi, my name is Gary Schneider. I live across the street from the
45 proposed building also, and I just want to reiterate what everyone else has said that putting the
46 parking garage on Grant, at the entrance, would be a mistake. The courthouse is right across the
Page 7
1 street. You have people driving up and down that street all day long, and having the entrance
2 right there at that comer would be very dangerous. It would be much better if it would be put, in
3 my estimation, on Birch. I would also like to reiterate that the parking in that area is very, very
4 difficult. We have lots of people that would like to come over and visit us that end up driving,
5 day and night, around the block, and around the block, and around the block, and sometimes it
6 can take them up to a half-hour and they finally get frustrated and go over on the other side of
7 California Avenue to park in that residential area, so it is a very congested area, and if you put an
8 entrance on Grant Avenue you are just looking for accidents to happen. So I'm just repeating
9 what everyone said.
10
11 Chair Garber: Richard Geiger. Did you want to speak on Item Number 2, Mr. Geiger?
12
13 Richard Geiger, 714 E. Charleston Road: Yes, both.
14
15 Chair Garber: You want to speak to both items, okay, very good. Thank you. After Mr. Geiger,
16 will be Herb Borock.
17
18 Mr. Geiger, Palo Alto: Richard Geiger, and I've owned over 10 acres on Page Mill Road since
19 1958, and I noticed somebody said when they owned land at this site we built a house on one
20 acre of a portion. It was zoned one acre at that time, on a one acre portion in the comer of the
21 land, and after building the house, the City came in and down-sold to ten acres for one house,
22 one main house, and just when I came here, I came to speak to the Open Space zoning, but I
23 couldn't help but comment on developments like this, compared to developments that are zoned
24 ten acres per housing unit. I wonder how many houses would be allowed if this was even zoned
25 a generous one acre per house, or how many would be allowed if it was zoned ten acres per
26 house. Our down-zoned ten-acre parcels have a 3.5 percent FAR, compared to a 100 percent
27 FAR for this site, and a 3.5 percent IC, which is impervious coverage, on 10 acres versus what
28 IC would be on this site, and even ifICs are considered on these high density projects.
29
30 Also, this is a transit-oriented development, and there is a question of why are parking spaces
31 even allowed when people can walk, walk to the train station, or walk to where their work is? I
32 just couldn't resist coming up here and making comments, and it doesn't look like there are
33 many trees allowed on this property. Only street trees in the front. We have a 200-foot setback
34 on Page Mill Road, and I don't know what the setback is on this. I didn't really study this. I just
35 walked in, and why there isn't at least a 20 or 30-foot setback in the industrial high-density areas
36 or residential high-density projects, so that some trees can be planted. Okay, I think that covers
37 that and I won't say any more on this, but it's just interesting to see a comparison of properties
38 on Page Mill Road, in one area of the town and near Page Mill Road, and in another area of the
39 town.
40
41 Chair Garber: Herb Borock to be followed by Lynn Chiapella.
42
43 Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Good evening, Chair Garber and Comnlissioners. I attended the
44 preliminary hearing at the Architectural Review Board and Mr. Moss pointed out that there are
45 hazardous waste monitoring wells directly across the street and that the aquifer is between 10
46 foot and 10.5 and 12 feet, and the TCE concentrations are 34 and 18 in those two wells, parts per
Page 8
1 billion, with a standard that is only 5 parts per billion. So there is a question of whether it is
2 appropriate to have the underground parking garage. I couldn't tell from the plans posted
3 whether the garage extends to the property line, as it did in the version at the preliminary
4 hearing. And there was concern from the board members that you wouldn't have sufficient soil
5 to support trees, if you were going to extend the underground garage that far. The Council knew
6 what it was doing just as any other legislative body is assumed to know what it is doing when it
7 set floor area ratio limits for offices, and there is an extensive legislative history of hearings as to
8 why that was done. A Bill in the legislature, SBA-18, is mentioned but that is just a Bill that
9 amends a Law. The Housing Density Law, I believe, is in government code section 65915, and
10 it asks municipalities to create standards for the concessions and for this Density Bonus, and the
11 only place Palo Alto has done that is in this particular zone, where it sets what the floor area
12 increase is for Density Bonuses, and that is the Density Bonus concession. That is the floor area
13 concession. You can't get a second floor area concession for office uses, so therefore it's
14 inappropriate because it is riot needed for any economic reason, and secondly because it would
15 be a second bonus when you only get one, and then the only bonus is already in the regulations
16 for the zone district.
17
18 You should also be aware of what this applicant did with his project at 195 Page Mill. He came
19 in with Density Bonus concessions for one type of tenancy, tenant rental housing, and then later
20 came in with a map to create condominiums, for sale units. The Density Bonus law requires you
21 to chose whether you are doing rental or sale, and if they are for sale, they all have to be for sale,
22 and if they are rental, they have to be for the term that the City would normally have for
23 maintaining those rentals as rentals and as affordable units. There is nothing in the staffreport to
24 indicate any of that, because the Mitigated Negative Declaration should be for the entire
25 project,which includes the BMR agreement, and you should tell us which of those units is the
26 BMR agreement. It's not mentioned in the staffreport. Thank you.
27
28 Chair Garber: Thank you. Lynn Chiapella, and that's our last speaker of the evening.
29
30 Lynn Chiapella, Palo Alto: Good evening, I agree with what Mr. Borock said in terms of the
31 bonuses. This was zoned originally as an RM-40 which would have accommodated probably
32 twice as many residential units as are now proposed, so this is really a reduction in housing in a
33 city that is desperately needing housing and not more office jobs. We have many, many
34 vacancies in office buildings. We have lots of offices. We need more housing, not more offices.
35 So I don't believe that this Density Bonus is really justifiable and the 10 percent BMR, I assume
36 that means he is going to have one unit out of the eight will be a BMR. I actually didn't find any
37 enumerations showing how many BMRs. I'm sure it's in here somewhere in this multitude of
38 pages.
39
40 I will say the project is improved over what I saw at the ARB, which was really a catastrophe,
41 and this is a better proj ect than it certainly was then. I do think that the parking is a severe
42 problem in that area, even though I know that PTOD means that everybody will use the bus.
43 They will all use trains, and nobody will have a car or drive. The only problem here is that it
44 hasn't worked out. Every area of town, and I don't care if you are south of California, north of
45 California, or whether you are in midtown, and I don't know if you are down near Greer Park,
46 but there is no parking, day or night, in these reduced parking residences and offices. Parking is
Page 9
1 a problem everywhere now. We would like to think everyone lives and works in Palo Alto, but
2 they don't. You have a job in one town. You live in another town. That's just the way life has
3 dealt the hands here, and our prices are such that it will continue to be like that. ·But, even given
4 the parking they have provided, it's tandem parking. Now, this has been tried, and the Planning
5 Department is famous for its tandem parking, and I see this a lot where I live. Three tandem
6 spaces, none of them marked, so none of them used, because nobody knows who is parking in
7 what space. It's not assigned to any property, and these are just tandem spaces. It doesn't work.
8 Tandem spaces in locked parking garages. We have some samples off of California Avenue of
9 that. Nobody knows if anyone uses them. It was just a way of getting around paying for another
10 space in the public parking lot. So I do not think that the tandem spaces will provide the parking
11 that you think. You have a 22-car deficit for parking. It would be nice if everyone would not
12 drive, but this is not the reality of Palo Alto, so I think that you need to seriously take a look at
13 all of these issues that have been brought up, and see if you can justify 10,000 square feet of new
14 offices. Thank you.
15
16 Chair Garber: Thank you. That was our last speaker on this particular item. Commissioner's
17 questions? Commissioner Keller.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I have a few questions for you. There are buildings already
20 on this site?
21
22 Ms. Lee: Yes, there are three single-family homes onsite.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: So we would be losing three housing units and picking up eight, is that
25 the idea?
26
27 Ms. Lee: That's correct.
28
29 Commissioner Keller: And to what extent does it make sense, when you have a parking
30 reduction of the site proposed here, a 30 percent parking reduction, does it make sense to do
31 parking reduction and tandem parking?
32
33 Mr. Williams: Well, in this case, there isn't credit. I mean, there is a limit to how much the
34 tandem parking is credited. What Mr. Solnick, in particular, was pointing out was that there are
35 additional spaces provided through tandem parking, above and beyond what is required after that
36 30 percent reduction. Those additional tandem spaces are available, but they are not counted as
37 part of the 42 required spaces.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: I'm a little confused, looking at the Sheet 4, where it appears that several
40 of these spaces, of the required spaces, in fact, are tandem spaces. I don't quite understand your
41 answer.
42
43 Ms. Lee: That's correct, some of the residential required spaces are tandem, but what Curtis is
44 saying, and what David has mentioned, is that there are additional tandem spaces that are
45 provided that aren't marked as required parking. All the parking spaces, if you are looking at
Page 10
1 Sheet 4 (to the right) those marked with a T, those are additional spaces that are available but
2 have not been counted as part of the required parking.
3
4 Commissioner Keller: Although I noticed that two of the nonresidential ones, the 35 and 36,
5 appeared to at least not be labeled as being for a predictable unit, and those are tandem as well.
6 Let me leave that at that.
7
8 To what extent is PTOD zoning a discretionary act?
9
10 Mr. Williams: Well, it is a rezoning, so it is a discretionary action. The PTOD District was
11 created and essentially indicated that this is a boundary area within in which this type of use is
12 generally appropriate. However, there was a desire to look at the specifics of the use and
13 intensity when they came through, less so that the designers felt comfortable with that before
14 changing the zoning to PTOD, but it is a rezoning so it is a discretionary act like any other
15 rezonIng IS.
16
17 Commissioner Keller: So, hypothetically, because PTOD does include some Density Bonuses
18 along with the PTOD, could we condition PTOD zoning, just as a hypothetical situation, on not
19 allowing a further Density Bonus under SB-1818 or whatever the State Housing Density Bonus
20 Law? Could we say, we will give you PTOD only if you only do not have further Density
21 Bonuses, and if you want those Density Bonuses, you've got to be under RM-40?
22
23 Mr. Donald Larkin, Assistant City Attorney: Well, possibly, but that doesn't really get you
24 where you want to go because one of the issues is that under the Density Bonus Law, we are
25 required to allow mixed-use. They could build it, probably the same project with the existing
26 zoning, but you would lose a lot of the PTOD features that I think you are looking for in terms of
27 walk-ability, accessibility and transit-oriented development. You could end up with something
28 far worse in"terms of design, so it may not accomplish what you are trying to accomplish.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: Does that mean that under SB-1818 somebody could use an unlimited
31 amount of Density Bonus on 1818. Suppose they say, I want to violate the amount of FAR,
32 could they have unlimited amount of FAR, or is there some discretion on how much they can
33 allow?
34
35 Mr. Larkin: It has to be related to the BMR Housing, so it wouldn't be unlimited FAR.
36 Generally, we limit the FAR bonus to the amount of FAR that is required to build the BMR
37 housing. In this case, it's a little different because they are not asking for an FAR bonus to build
38 more housing. They are asking for an FAR bonus to build less housing and more commercial.
39
40 Commissioner Keller: And to address the question that was addressed by one of the members of
41 the public, is this rental or for sale? Do we know that and also do we know exactly how many
42 BMR units there will be.
43
44 Ms. Lee: The applicant is proposing eight units for sale and per our requirements for 15 percent
45 BMR units, one would be a BMR unit and the remainder would be in lieu of fees.
46
Page 11
1 Commissioner Keller: Basically, what is happening is the Applicant is getting 0.27 FAR for
2 creating one BMR unit. That's interesting.
3
4 Mr. Larkin: Just to clarify. They are not asking for it, and our Code addresses an overall FAR
5 bonus. They are not asking for an overall FAR bonus. They are only asking for an FAR bonus
6 to limit the housing and increase the commercial, so the alternative would be placing a housing
7 unit on the ground floor which is not probably beneficial at this location so that was one of the
8 reasons that we determined that the FAR bonus for commercial was actually appropriate in this
9 circumstance because it's not feasible to put the housing on the ground floor at this location, so
10 what you would end up having is basically just a big hole underneath that housing.
11
12 Commissioner Keller: Thank you, I will go to the next person.
13
14 Chair Garber: Thank you, just a quick followup. They are asking for 0.27 FAR in lieu of 0.25,
15 correct? 2.52. Thank you. Commissioner Fineberg and then Vice-Chair Tuma.
16
17 Commissioner Fineberg: Clarifying question. The first two members of the public that spoke, I
18 believe they said they lived on Birch Court. Could we have a map of the area, and could you
19 show me where Birch Court is located? Thanks. Okay, so it looks like it's in our packet as
20 Attachment H, and I would just like to know where Birch Court is.
21
22 Ms. Palmer: Birch Street, Grant Avenue, all the way to Ash, although part of that area becomes
23 a public park.
24
25 Commissioner Fineberg: Chair Garber, if I might, there is a map in our packet. If we could put
26 the map up here and then have the pointer used, it would really be helpful. It's Attachment H in
27 our packet, so we can see.
28
29 Chair Garber: And, Ms. Palmer, yes you have a laser pointer.
30
31 Ms. Palmer: I'm going to have to look at the diagranl here. That's Sheridan. This is Birch, is
32 this right? Right, so this is Birch. That's Sheridan, right? So we are Birch, Grant, Ash and
33 Sherman. Now, part of our unit, our unit actually kind of goes and just follow this. It goes
34 straight down, across, up and there. This building here is the new Sherman Building Proj ect, the
35 four-story building that is going up. This is a little public park here, and so this project you are
36 talking about is right here, so we are right here, and this is right here, okay? Everybody got that?
37
38 Commissioner Fineberg: Thank you so much. Okay, my next questions are for Staff. I'm a
39 little confused about why the State Density Bonus applies in this particular project if it is related
40 specifically because it is PTOD, or because there is a BMR unit. Why is it kicking in when we
41 haven't seen it in other projects?
42
43 Mr. Larkin: Because it's the Applicant's burden to ask for Density Bonuses, and most applicants
44 haven't, but any project that is actually building BMR units to our Code is going to be eligible
45 for one incentive or concession. State Law does not require BMR housing. We attempted, when
46 we did the PTOD Ordinance, to create some limits on the use of the concessions so that it would
Page 12
I have to be BMR units above and beyond what are already required to be provided, but the state
2 law has been anlended to preclude us from doing that.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: But relative to Commissioner Keller's questions, there is some
5 relativity between the BMRs granted and the concessions that are granted. Do we know, then,
6 what the square footage is of this extra 0.25 versus the square footage of the BMR unit, either in
7 square footage or value.
8
9 Mr. Larkin: I think they know that and if they are asking for FAR for housing, we've determined
10 that the actual FAR has to match the FAR of the housing. In this case, it's really a question of is
11 the extra FAR needed to support the housing. In other words, if they lost the FAR for the
12 commercial, would they be able to build the BMR unit. The answer is possibly, but I think that
13 what we determined was that having the commercial space on the ground floor supported the
14 housing from the above, and it doesn't necessarily have a direct relationship, but I think we can
15 answer what the square footage works out to.
16
17 Ms. Lee: The average unit sizes range from about 1400 square feet to about a maximum size of
18 1936, and then I think the extra 0.25 comes out to be about 4000 square feet, 0.27/4000 square
19 feet.
20
21 Commissioner Fineberg: So more than double than the square footage of a single unit. Okay, I
22 want to turn my questions to a little bit about the purpose of the PTOD. I'm looking at our
23 Attachment E, Page 1 of Chapter 18.34, and it says that the "California Avenue PTOD
24 Combining District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on commercial
25 industrial and multifamily parcels within a walk-able distance to California Avenue's Caltran
26 station." It continues, and that is all I'll read.
27
28 I'm focusing on the purpose of the PTOD is intended to allow higher density residential
29 dwellings, and I'm looking at a parcel that, if it is five parcels with five units, we get five, but we
30 are getting a yield of eight. I'm wondering what yield of residential dwellings would we get if it
31 conformed to the underlying RM-40, and if instead of being office, it was neighborhood-serving
32 retail. Would we actually better serve the purpose of the PTOD District with RM-40 zoning?
33
34 Mr. Williams: Developing this site under RM-40 zoning would allow about 18 units to be built.
35 I think that's a consideration, and the higher density doesn't necessarily mean higher than the
36 maximum that you could achieve under existing, but it means the not low-density housing and
37 then the opportunity for mixed-use. Then there are other items under here about a variety of
38 housing types, commercial retail and limited office uses. The neighborhood-serving retail, the
39 applicant has not proposed that, and we obviously cannot require them to do that unless they are
40 willing to proceed with that. I am not sure if you had that, then you may be having less
41 residential than those 18 units. The FAR, at least, the units could be potentially the same. The
42 floor area for them would probably be less if you had certainly if you had the entire first floor as
43 a retail use, and then you'd cut back considerably on the FAR, because you would then be back
44 to a sinlilar FAR, which is somewhat less than the RM -40 would allow for all the residential
45 units. So, it's that tradeoff. Again, I think that it's important to remember or look at whether
46 you feel like it's, and you know we hear over and over the concerns about additional housing,
Page 13
1 and now tonight you've heard, well there should be more housing and not retail. So I think it's a
2 balancing situation. We do have a lot of residential in that area. It's two blocks or less than two
3 blocks from California Avenue, so having offices that are accessible to California Avenue makes
4 sense, but that is ultimately the kind of land use determination that is before the Commission.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: And my last question relates a little bit to the benefits the City would
7 get. Our attorney mentioned the benefits of zoning under PTOD and how it would make it more
8 walk-able. I am nlissing how that would work. Would there be such differences under RM-40
9 that somehow it would be less walk-able, or what benefits and what zoning control do we get by
10 being PTOD?
11
12 Mr. Williams: Well the PTOD has a number of criteria in there as far as frontage types and so
13 there are some very pretty specific guidelines for how to do that and ways that are pedestrian-
14 friendly. Now, there is not anything necessarily prohibiting the ARB in its review from
15 imposing those kinds of requirements, even though it's not PTOD. I mean, I think the ARB
16 certainly wants to make any street in this kind of area pedestrian-friendly. For the most part, you
17 are probably going to get the most of that, but here it is that they are prescribed standards in the
18 context-based design section for that which might not pertain ifit were solely even multi-family
19 zoning.
20
21 Chair Garber: As a follow to that, there is far less discretion and opportunity for the Planning
22 Commission, by way of example, if this project were just submitted under RM-40 and we may
23 not even see the project.
24
25 Mr. Williams: That's correct. If you were/ifthis project was proposed as RM-40, it would go to
26 the Architectural Review Board and that would be the end of the process unless either variance
27 were requested that the Commission would have to see, or if it were appealed and then Council
28 would see it, but the Commissioner would not see that.
29
-30 Chair Garber: As just a brief reminder of the history of the PTOD: When it came through the
31 Commission, the great opportunity of utilizing the PTOD as an overlay district in this particular
32 area is that it allows for us to begin to build back an architectural character to the neighborhood
33 that has been intermittent at best and create a continuity that normal zoning would not allow us
34 to have that opportunity to direct and encourage.
35
36 Commissioner Fineberg: Am I correct, though, that if we recommend it, and the zoning is
37 changed to PTOD, it does not come back to Planning and Transportation? And so it's still
38 ARB's design and adoption or recommendations to adopt the Negative Declaration.
39
40 Mr. Williams: The design is, but the uses, the parameters of the uses, the density and that kind
41 of thing are determined by the Commission and Council, and that is actually spelled out in the
42 Zoning and Rezoning Ordinance, and then the design goes through the ARB process.
43
44 Chair Garber: Should the Commission recommend the use of the PTOD District, here, it would
45 give the ARB the opportunities to use the context-based design criteria as a way of making their
46 findings. Did you have other questions? Okay, Commissioner Keller, you had a followup.
Page 14
1
2 Commissioner Keller: A quick followup. Commissioner Fineberg asked how many dwelling
3 units would there be under RM-40, and it was mentioned that it would be a maximum of 18.
4 What would be the minimum number of dwelling units allowed under RM-40, because I
5 understand that there is required to be at least somewhere between 31 and 40 units per acre, so
6 what would that come out to be?
7
8 Mr. Williams: There is not a requirement for that. I think it's shown in the Comprehensive Plan
9 or in the Purpose Statement, that it is sort of an intent, but there was considerable debate about
10 whether to have minimum densities and they were dropped from the Ordinance. There was
11 never a minimum density imposed in any of the multi-family districts, but in the Comprehensive
12 Plan ... so here it is. It says that "permitted densities," and this is just a Purpose Statement in the
13 RM -40 District range from 31-40 dwelling units per acre, but then it was taken out of any
14 requirements in here as far as the actual standards because of concerns about prohibiting lesser
15 densities and having a particular site overloaded with density even though this range might have
16 been specified in the Ordinance as being a minimum. So 31 would work out to be 13 or 14.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Thank you.
19
20 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma, followed by myself and then Commissioner Rosati.
21
22 Vice-Chair Tuma: My first question relates to Attachment D which is entitled "Birch Plaza
23 Project Description and Design Intent." I guess my initial question is, whose document is this?
24
25 Mr. Williams: It's the Applicant's document. Under the attachments, we've got an asterisk next
26 to that item that says "prepared by Applicant."
27
28 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, but again we have repeatedly requested that these be marked on the
29 document themselves as to who they come Jrom. It's a little less confusing that way.
30
31 On the bottom of the first page of that document, on the left-hand side, it says that an "ancillary
32 consequence of the larger ground floor is an increase in the site coverage to 55 percent where 45
33 percent is allowed." Is that statement still accurate?
34
35 Chair Garber: Staff, and then we will go to ... would you like the Applicant to speak first, or?
36
37 Mr. Williams: This was relative to site coverage. I think that's comparing it to the multifamily
38 standard. I don't believe that we have specific criteria for coverage in the PTOD.
39
40 Chair Garber: Mr. Solnick.
41
42 . Mr. Solnick: We were initially under the misconception that the RM-40 site coverage governed
43 this, and that turned out to be wrong, and so that Design Intent was written for the preliminary
44 ARB application. Since that time, we've discovered that there is no exception being requested
45 here for site coverage, so that is really not relevant.
46
Page 15
1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, that clarifies it, thanks. Question for Staff. To what extent in the
2 discussion and decision-making process that we are going through this evening should we be
3 taking into account the issue of traffic flow and entrances and that sort of thing? I mean, are we
4 looking specifically at this project, or are we looking more at whether changing to the zoning is
5 appropriate?
6
7 Mr. Williams: It is changing to the zoning, but there is a Negative Declaration associated with
8 this. We have looked at generally the site layout where there will be additional Environmental
9 Review done for the project, itself, when it goes to the ARB. They would have to be sure that all
10 of the details at that point in time have been complied with. We have some mitigation measures
11 here, but there is even a layer deeper than that, at the ARB, that will be looked at in terms of the
12 Environmental Review. We have looked at the location of the driveways in that. If that is of any
13 concern to the Commission, it is certainly something that you could direct that we look at, as it
14 goes to ARB for more detail, and incorporate further into that and the Environmental Review.
15
16 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, thanks. A question for, and I think it's for the City Attorney. There
17 was some discussion, or some comments, made by a couple of the speakers about, in this case,
18 the Applicant seems to be double dipping on the Density Bonus. Could you address that issue?
19
20 Mr. Larkin: And I think there is some confusion, too, because as I mentioned earlier, when we
21 did the PTOD Ordinance, at the time we prepared this Ordinance, our thought was that we could
22 preclude people from using the Density Bonus if they were only providing the minimum BMR
23 total that we would require and already require in our Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. The
24 State Law has been clarified to basically preclude us from doing that, in that as long as 10
25 percent of the units provided are below market units, they are entitled to one of the incentives or
26 concessions. Those concessions are spelled out in type, and not in amount. In the State Law,
27 although the State Law also includes this, it is not limited to this. There are probably
28 conceivably other things that could be requested as a concession. And in this case, the requested
29 concession was for an increase in FAR for the commercial property which, in our experience, it
30 has been somewhat unusual and we haven't had this. Usually, the request comes for an increase
31 in the residential property as the FAR bonus, and it's easier to calculate in that sense because,
32 obviously, you can't request more FAR than BMR units that are being added, because in this
33 case it's commercial FAR. It's just what is reasonably related to supporting housing in the
34 private ... did I answer the question?
35
36 Vice-Chair Tuma: Yes, that's fine. One last question for now, and it relates to parking and the
37 calculation of the parking reduction. If I read Table 1 (on Page 6 of the Staff Report) correctly,
38 basically any project in the PTOD that is mixed-use would find itself in the position to ask for a
39 30 percent reduction in parking. Is that correct?
40
41 Ms. Lee: Yes, they would have the option of requesting that parking adjustment with the TDM
42 (traffic demand measures).
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay. Yeah, what TDM measures are we looking at here?
45
Page 16
1 Ms. Lee: We haven't specifically discussed this at this point, but that is certainly something that
2 we would be discussing further with the Applicant as the project progresses.
3
4 Vice-Chair Tuma: How do we deal with that tonight?
5
6 Ms. Lee: It would be required as a Condition of Approval in the MND, so that it is consistent
7 with City codes. I
8
9 Mr. Williams: And then they would have to provide that program and our traffic section would
10 have to approve it before any building petnlit.
11
12 Chair Garber: There is nothing that would keep the Commissioners from making
13 recommendations about what might be considered as part of that management program?
14
15 Mr. Williams: Not at all.
16
17 Chair Barger: It was going to be me but Vice-Chair Tuma has taken my questions, both on
18 density and parking and ramps, etc. so I may come back to that, but ConlDlissioner Rosati and
19 then Commissioner Holman.
20
21 Commissioner Rosati: Two quick questions, with one, to staff to address a comment that we
22 received in writing from Joe Vilario. Can you comment on the size, and not the density, but the
23 size ofa potential RM-40 development on that site? The concern here is that the proposed
24 building would be very large and take away from sunlight and space from the adjacent buildings.
25 What if there was an RM building that would be approved? How big would that be, compared to
26 this?
27
28 Mr. Williams: The RM Zone allows the same height, 40 feet, and a 1.0 floor area ratio as
29 opposed to the 1.25 that is proposed here and allowed under the PTOD, so somewhat more mass,
30 but the same height.
31
32 Commissioner Rosati: And second question for the Applicant's architect, Mr. Solnick. Can you
33 comment on the access of the parking? There has been a lot of concern about that, given the size
34 and shape of the lot. I can imagine you had to figure out how to optimize that space, which is
35 probably what led you to the tandem spaces to begin with. Would you mind commenting on
36 both the tandem space, and the access of the parking, and what options you looked at?
37
38 Mr. Solnick: Yes, we did look at options for that. The lot, however, you see as an unusual shape
39 in that it has sort ofa panhandle going over to Grant. If that panhandle were not used for the
40 driveway access, there would be no way to meet the parking requirement, the 42 parking spaces.
41 We looked at an access off Birch, we looked at an access off of Sheridan, and both of those
42 alternatives are simply not possible. I suppose you could go two levels underground, but that
43 would require a ramp which would take more space, and that is really not sensible for a project
44 of this small size. So this was the only way to get that number of parking spaces, and the
45 difference in the number of cars between Grant and Sheridan is that they are slightly greater on
46 Grant than on Sheridan, but it is not a dramatic difference.
Page 17
1
2 If I might address the issue about the RM-40 versus the PTOD.
3
4 Chair Garber: Mr. Solnick, let me interrupt you for just a moment. The City Attorney just
5 reminded me that we didn't give the Applicant, yourself and Mr. Hollbach a 3-minute rebuttal
6 opportunity. You can consider that now, or you could wait until we complete our questions and
7 take it then.
8
9 Mr. Solnick: Okay, why don't I wait until your questions are complete.
10
11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati, anything else? Commissioner Holman.
12
13 Commissioner Holman: Yeah, a handful of questions. Why does Staff not count tandem
14 parking places as part of the required parking?
15
16 Ms. Lee: It's described, actually, in the Municipal Code as to how many tandem parking spaces
17 can be considered as part of the required parking, as well as for what types of uses.
18
19 Commissioner Holman: I understand that, but I'm going to the intention and the purpose.
20
21 Mr. Williams: Well, initially, for a long time, no tandem spaces were allowed and we had some
22 residential developments that came through and requested tandem spaces by exception and had
23 those approved. They were specifically in the incidences where both spaces were under the same
24 unit ownership, so that you had control over who is parking there, and so when the Zoning
25 Ordinance changes were made to the parking section, and to the multifamily section, they were
26 provisions put in there that recognized that they could operate that way and effectively provide
27 parking spaces, even though they are in tandem, and so there was an allowance added at that
28 point, but I think that there was some concern that this not go too far, or that we at least see for a
29 while how that works. There was a limit of25 percent of the units, or the spaces, or whatever
30 the measure is, not exceeding that. So, in this case, they have more than 25 percent, but those
31 ones that are over 25 percent aren't in not counting their total number, but they are there for
32 parking purposes. I assume they are, and I am not sure how many are used for residential and
33 how many are for commercial, but certainly if they are for residential use that is much more
34 effe.ctive in terms of tandem.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: I'm going to come back to that, the existing parking conditions, and you
37 have heard from me on this at the Alma Plaza Project. What has Staff done to analyze the
38 existing parking situation in the area?
39
40 Mr. Williams: I don't think that we have analyzed the specifics of that, but I would make a
41 pretty major distinction between Alma Plaza and this. This is within the PTOD zone and does
42 have much better access in terms of alternatives, that Alma Plaza did not have, and some other
43 ones in the South EI Camino area.
44
45 Commissioner Holnlan: I understand the differences. The thrust of my question is that if I am
46 not mistaken it seems like whenever there is a possibility of a Parking Exception Allowance, that
Page 18
I we give it. Sometimes, it doesn't seem like it's given or considered in context with what the
2 existing parking conditions are in an area. That is the thrust of the question, and that's what I
3 wanted to know. Yes, it is different but to me it is commensurate because with Alma Plaza we
4 said that the Alma Plaza property was not responsible for the adjacent parking, but you still
5 can't, from my perspective, ignore the fact that there is spillover parking from the adjacent
6 project.
7
8 Mr. Williams: I understand. I do want to point out, and I think in the last (and this is purely
9 anecdotal, but) six months I think I have gone to this site, or another one that is currently in the
10 process that is within a block of this, three or four times, and parked on the street right at the site
11 with no problem, and that those are in the middle of the day and not at night. I don't know what
12 it's like at night, but I didn't have any problems parking at those two sites during the day.
13
14 Commissioner Holman: And having to do with SB-1818, could the parking exception be
15 considered one of the bonuses, understanding that it is not a guarantee, it's that the Director may.
16
17 Mr. Larkin: I don't have a definitive answer to that question because it has been a subject of
18 internal discussions, but we have not counted it, primarily just not weighing the risk of a
19 challenge, because it is unclear under the State Law. We have taken the more conservative
20 approach of not counting those things that are essentially entitlements if they meet all these
21 conditions to the satisfaction of the Director to get the Parking Reduction. To consider that a
22 concession is a risk, and so we have chosen not to count that as one of the concessions, and to
23 consider it something that is part of the planning entitlements.
24
25 Commissioner Holman: The BMR unit, is there any way as part of an initiation, should that
26 happen to the rezoning, is there any way that we can stipulate what level of BMR that is, or a
27 nlinimum size for it or that kind of thing?
28
29 Mr. Larkin: Well our Code already requires that it can't be the smallest. It's got to be an
30 average size unit, so it can't be the smallest unit, and it's not going to be the largest unit. It's
31 going to be the unit that comes closest to the average size, and so I think you can, but I think that
32 this is something that you could probably specify as part of the PTOD zoning but it is already
33 covered in our Code.
34
35 Commissioner Holman: And the level of affordability?
36
37 Mr. Larkin: I don't know that you can dictate the level of affordability, particularly for a
38 condominium unit that is generally going to be dictated by our BMR program, and by our BMR
39 program requirements. Typically, those are not going to be/you are not going to have a "for
40 sale" unit in the extremely low or very low rate. It's going to be in the moderate range.
41
42 Chair Garber: If the Commission were to make a recommendation, it's a risk that the
43 Commission would take, and it's a risk that it simply could not be action-ed.
44
45 Mr. Larkin: Yeah, the risk is that you will have a vacant unit because typically there isn't really
46 a market for very low income purchase units because people in that range don't get mortgages.
Page 19
1
2 Commissioner Holman: Clarification. It was not stated, at least as I understood it, that the BMR
3 unit is going to be a "for sale" unit. The other eight units it's indicated were going to be for sale,
4 the other seven units, I'm sorry, would be indicated for sale. But, then it just said "and one BMR
5 unit" was what I understood. So is it going to be for sale or for rent, just to be sure?
6
7 Mr. Larkin: It's for sale.
8
9 Ms. Lee: That's the understanding, yes.
10
11 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you for the clarification.
12
13 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, there is a quick followup by ...
14
15 Mr. Larkin: Just to clarify it. The BMR policy is that it be for sale. There is a possibility, and it
16 is not likely in this case, but in some instances there have been discussions about a mini net
17 policy (?) to allow a nonprofit to purchase the unit and then rent it, but that would require the
18 nonprofit coming forward with an interest in purchasing the unit.
19
20 Chair Barger: Commissioner Holman, Commissioner Fineberg had a followup.
21
22 Commissioner Fineberg: Do we know that that one BMR unit will actually be built or does that
23 need to be conditioned, or might there be an in lieu fee payment instead of an actual unit?
24
25 Mr. Larkin: It has to be built in order to get the incentive. If it is just an in lieu fee, they don't
26 get the incentive.
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman.
29
30 Commissioner Holman: Just a couple other little ones, and I guess they are not little but, the
31 Common Open Space on the front sheet of the plan, it says, and if I can read that correctly, it
32 says, I think it's 840 square feet a unit and that can't be accurate. And then in the comparison
33 table in the Staff Report it doesn't mention Common Open Space, as I found it anyway, and I'm
34 interested what the dimensions are of that Common Open Space, currently, and designed. And
35 the other question for the City Attorney, while that is being looked up, does SB-1818 address
36 level of affordability, or it is just any random for sale/rental, any level of affordability qualifies
37 for the bonus?
38
39 Mr. Larkin: Not with regard to the incentives and concessions. It does make a difference with
40 regard to a per unit, and I don't know the details off the top of my head, but I believe that it does
41 include some increases in the number of units per acre that are allowed on a site based on the
42 level of affordability, but not when it comes to the incentives and the concessions.
43
44 Mr. Solnick: On the Common Open Space, that includes the courtyards. I mean, that is
45 primarily the courtyards, and the courtyards are quite big, so I don't have the numbers or the
46 square footage of each courtyard in my head, but I ...
Page 20
1
2 Commissioner Holman: I wouldn't want that degree of specificity, but the 840 square feet per
3 unit ofCornmon Open Space, is that accurate as I read it on the sheet?
4
5 Mr. Solnick: Well, 840 x 8 would be 6400 square feet. I think, yes that actually sounds about
6 right. That's about a third. Thirty (30) percent of the site would be the courtyards. Yes, that
7 sounds about right. That's in addition to the pIivate open areas and the balconies as well.
8
9 Commissioner Holman: And then the Common Open Space that you had indicated that is on the
10 comer, do you have any recollection of what those dimensions are?
11
12 Mr. Solnick: I don't. I could certainly look at the plan and give you a sense. I mean, I'm
13 guessing about 1000 square feet.
14
15 Commissioner Holman: A dimension would be helpful.
16
17 Mr. Solnick: It's 25 x 40, 20 x ... okay, let me actually look. There is a scale on the drawings,
18 and ...
19
20 Commissioner Holman: Can I chime in, because I just penciled that out.
21
22 Mr. Solnick: Yeah, actually 20 x 50, so about 1000 square feet, so that's about right.
23
24 Commissioner Holman: 20 x 50, thank you very much.
25
26 The flag lot is about 30 feet at the comer to the round part, but 38 for the length, so if the
27 driveway down is 20 wide, that would leave about 20 for the pocket park and the sidewalk and
28 the tree strip.
29
30 Mr. Solnick: No it's 40 feet for the panhandle and to my eye it looks like, yeah, not quite half of
31 that is the pocket park, so maybe it's 18 x 60 and still coming out to about 1000 square feet.
32
33 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
34
35 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. A few more questions. First, I'd like to look at Sheet Four
36 (4). Now, my understanding is that there are 42 parking spaces required of which four are at the
37 surface, and 38 are in the garage, is that correct? Okay, and I notice that the parking spaces are
38 labeled 1-38. Are those the required parking spaces? And it looks to me like spaces 35 and 36,
39 which are required parking spaces, are tandem parking spaces that are not among the two parking
40 spaces labeled 37 and 38, which are for the housing units. So it appears to me that there are four
41 tandem parking spaces being counted, of which two of them are for the housing units and two of
42 them are for not. So, could you explain that to me? I'm kind of confused.
43
44 Mr. Solnick: If you are interested, I can explain it. Actually, there is a mistake on the drawings,
45 as far as the way the parking spaces are labeled.
46
Page 21
1 Chair Garber: So you would re-Iabel35 and 36?
2
3 Mr. Solnick: That's right. It's just in labeling. What has been indicated as units, where it says
4 Unit 3 and Unit 4, those should be moved. It doesn't have any impact. It's just a matter of
5 where those labels were put.
6
7 Commissioner Keller: So how many tandem parking spaces are there?
8
9 Mr. Solnick: There are two tandem parking places, or depending on what you would you call ...
10 if you call the front and a back, so you are allowed to have a quarter of the parking places be
11 tandem, okay? There are 16 required, 2 x 8, and 8 units x 2 each is 16, so a quarter of that is 4.
12 So there are four tandem parking spaces that we are counting. No, two pairs. Two pairs, yes.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: Okay, why don't you try to tell me this? The tandem parking space is
15 both the front and the back, is that right?
16
17 Mr. Solnick: Right.
18
19 Commissioner Keller: So what you are saying is that there are a total of two fronts, and two
20 backs, that are being counted.
21
22 Mr. Solnick: That's correct.
23
24 Commissioner Keller: Okay, so let's suppose, and just for discussion sake, that those are 21, 22
25 and 37 and 38, okay, which are the ones that are labeled as being tandem. So I'm trying to figure
26 this out, because it looks like 19 and 20, and 35 and 36, are also tandem parking spaces. So, let's
27 assume that 35 and 36 are erroneously labeled, could you tell me which of the parking spaces
28 should be 35 and 36?
29
30 Mr. Solnick: Well I actually did, and I noticed this just as I was preparing for this. And, I did
31 actually write out the way that I would properly label these. I can tell you that; 19 and 20 would
32 be for Unit 1, not tandem. So, yes, 19 and 20 would be for Unit 1. Then, 21 and 37 would be for
33 Unit 2, and so that's two tandems. Then 22 and 23 would be for Unit 3. And 24 and 25 would
34 be for Unit 4, while 26 and 27 would be Unit 5, and 28 and 29 would be Unit 6, with 30 and 31
35 being for Unit 7. Now, 32 and its tandem space would be for Unit 8. So those are the two pairs,
36 32 and the space behind it and 21 and the space behind it, would be the four tandem spaces. All
37 of the others would just be considered at the front of the aisle.
38
39 Coinmissioner Keller: Well, I appreciate that. So what you are basically saying is that 37 is a
40 tandem space, 38 is not a tandem space. You are moving that behind, and if I remember
41 correctly, you said 31, is that right? 32. So 38, is not tandem space, and you said behind 32 is a
42 tandem space, right, so that's 38. I'm still trying to figure out where 35 and 36 goes, because
43 those are numbers that are identified with a parking space, but I can't see where they wound up.
44 I still count only 36 parking spaces, of which four are tandem and then two more are missing, so
45 I'm confused.
46
Page 22
1 Mr. Williams: If I could, and I understand your concern, but it seems to me that this is a level of
2 detail where we can require this, and if there is a direction that you are looking for to be sure that
3 a certain nunlber are tandem, or not, then we can make sure that this happens with the details that
4 move forward, but it is not a Zoning consideration, per se, I don't think.
5
6 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what you are saying. I have two points about this. The first
7 point is that this does not purport to satisfy the current rules. Per current rules, as far as I
8 understand it, is that tandem is only allowed for residential, and a maximum of four tandem
9 spaces, and it has eight tandenl spaces being labeled. So that's a problem.
10
11 Mr. Solnick: It's just a labeling problem though. We are only having four parking spaces. We
12 only have four.
13
14 Commissioner Keller: I'm not convinced that this is a labeling problem. I believe it's a counting
15 problem, but feel free to count it sonle other way. You can put so many things. There's
16 something in conlputer science called the "pigeonhole principle" and if you move the pigeons
17 from those holes, you are going to find other holes to put the pigeons in, and that's what I
18 learned in my PhD program. So, I don't know what you learned in architect school, but that's
19 what you learn in computer science. With respect to tandem and parking reduction, I think that
20 tandem parking and parking reduction are incompatible, that doing both of those is double-
21 dipping. If you want to do tandem parking, that is why dedicated parking spaces that are
22 attached to units are easier to do, but when you have tandem parking and parking reductions,
23 essentially, the people will decide, "I'm not going to use my tandem space, I'm going to use one
24 of the other spaces," and essentially, I believe that those are incompatibles, but even if you don't
25 consider them incompatible, the math doesn't work on this.
26
27 And, with respect to unit sizes and such, I don't know if you want to verify my math, but I've got
28 659 square feet average unit size. There are 14,534 square feet of residential area. There are
29 1259 square foot of overhead, which is not counted in any of these eight housing units, if I did
30 the math correctly. And then you take the remaining 13,275 square feet of housing units and
31 divide it by eight, and I get 1659. My math was done on a little calculator, so I'm not sure ifit's
32 correct. I may have punched it wrong.
33
34 If you go from 31 to 40 dwelling units, at 40 dwelling units per acre, you get 1089 square foot of
35 housing as the size of the housing unit. Assuming that it is zero overhead, no hallways, no
36 corridors or anything, 100 percent housing at 40 dwellings per acre is 1089 square feet for a
37 housing unit. At 31 housing units per acre it's 1405 square feet for a housing unit. I am
38 wondering whether these housing units are too big for PTOD and whether the idea is they should
39 be smaller housing units in which we would get more likely to be smaller units. Right now, there
40 are three, and if you will, some of the three bedroom units are declared as being four bedroom
41 units, as a den or fourth bedroom. I am wondering about the size of these housing units and
42 whether they are in fact too big for this kind of development.
43
44 Mr. Williams: That's a very interesting question because when we, and again going back to the
45 review of the PTOD zoning, there was at one point a proposal to have like an average 1250
46 square foot unit size. That was not acceptable. That was not acceptable, because there was
Page 23
1 concern about that tilting things towards the highest density possible instead of allowing for
2 lower density, less parking impact, etc. with the lower density on the project. I think that most of
3 that came from concerns of neighborhoods about high-density. Some of it came from concerns
4 from developers. I think that Mr. Solnick may have been one of them that had, although actually
5 I think there is some support for that average size, but that parking is actually, in many respects,
6 the driving constraint here. So if, for instance, you tried on this slot to put 18 units and needed to
7 therefore put maybe 40 parking spaces for that, it was difficult to make that work with the
8 residential. I've got what looks like maybe that many, so maybe that would work on this site,
9 but there were some sites that we were looking at, specifically, where parking was really
10 dictating that you couldn't get close to achieving those maximum densities.
11
12 So, philosophically, I have some sympathy for the perspective. I mean, I think my one concern
13 with this would be that, if anything, it's on the low-density, high unit size for this kind of transit-
14 oriented area. But, again, we had that discussion as part of the PTOD and that was not
15 incorporated into that. I find it difficult now to kind of go back and pose that size restriction on
16 the units, but again it's the Commission's call.
17
18 Commissioner Keller: Again, thank you. I just want to point out that the kinds of housing units
19 that we've seen being built elsewhere in the city that have had the nlost severe parking problems,
20 these have been large h,ousing developments, the 3-4 bedroom ones, which have required two
21 cars and that's been a problem. For example, the Arbor Real project, and so I think that the issue
22 of the amount of parking that we require for multiple bedrooms may be insufficient for this, and
23 if we were to correct that in general, that might moderate the tendency for developers to build
24 oversized units in comparison to whatever else is in the neighborhood.
25
26 Do we know what the average size of the neighborhood is, or do we have any ideas what is
27 around there in terms of unit sizes?
28
29 Mr. Williams: No, I don't. I mean, there are a lot of condos around there. I don't know what
30 the unit sizes are. I do want to mention that I think that there is a potential with the area plan for
31 this area to revisit that issue of the size of units. That is something that may come out of that
32 discussion.
33
34 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma had a followup.
35
36 Vice-Chair Tuma: If you know, do you know what the average size of the units are at Arbor
37 Real? Ballpark?
38
39 Mr. Williams: They are larger than this, but I don't know, and some of them are like 2400
40 square feet and that kind of thing. That's not an unusual size for those.
41
42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, you had a question or a followup?
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: The parcel that would make this square, that is just next to the flag lot,
45 it's on Grant and has three units, what zoning is that, and does it conform to ... if it's RM-40,
46 does it conform to that zoning?
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Ms. Lee: Staff will have to confirm, but we believe it is a multi-family zoning. That area in
general is multifamily zoning.
Commissioner Fineberg: There is the one lot that would make this a rectangular parcel.
Ms. Lee: It's RM-40.
9 Commissioner Fineberg: The reason I ask that is that this is identical in size to the one on the
10 subject property at the other end, so it seems that you could yield three properties on that, and
11 then if you had one each on each of the single lots, you'd have three, four, five, six and seven. If
12 you squeezed one more in you'd get the same yield as eight on the five lots. So I keep coming
13 . back to why rezone this? And the idea of changing from RM-40 to PTOD is to get additional
14 yield of residential units, and much as we all complain that there are too many houses being
15 built, we've got our ABAG goals. We've got our Comprehensive Plan with all of its policies.
16 I'm struggling now with my instinct that says "build less houses" and here's a project that says
17 ''build less houses," but it's not consistent with everything else, and I'm being told I have to
18 weigh and value when I consider a proj ect.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
I'm struggling to find some benefit to the City, something that makes it more consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan. Can Staff comment on how this is better than if the project were to be
done in strict conformance with RM-40? I'm not getting that yet.
Chair Barger: It may help if Staff could address the inclusion of the residential in the Purpose
Statement. The Purpose Statement misses the direct reference to some of the other mixed-use
qualities of this district and the intents that the City has with this district is supposed to address.
Mr. Williams: Yes, and that's one of the statements that I made early on about the amount of
office that was proposed. Certainly, it's true that in having to try to accomplish higher densities
(and this is higher densities than what is out there, but it's not much, but it's on top of office use)
it's not just a residential component. This zoning district does encourage mixed-use, too, so I
think this site is not going to do a lot for the housing thing. Other sites will do a lot for housing.
This one furthers the mixed-use and getting some more employment out there, and it doesn't do
much for the housing. If this were that every property were coming in like this, that would be a
concern. But, I think that we are going to have a variety of different types of mixes or some sites
that, if they are RM-40,and they wanted to do residential, they can just do it under.RM-40. And
there are a number of sites out here that are zoned GM and other industrial and commercial uses
that will find it more beneficial to use this zoning for residential and accommodating residential
on those sites.
I think this furthers the goals in terms of mixed-use and providing some employment. It does not
strongly further the goals of housing here. It is, again in going back, originally proposed that it
did have more of an emphasis on housing. The Comprehensive Plan has this 2000-foot radius
circle around the transit station and designates it not PTOD, but Transit Oriented Residential, so
the word residential is in there. That's always been an emphasis, but it also talks about mixed-
Page 25
1 use in there, and this zoning also talks about mixed-use, so it's not meeting everything down the
2 line, but it's meeting certainly some of the goals of the mixed-use quality of the zoning.
3
4 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I understand that there are the six additional support elements in
5 the Purpose Clause and the second one does say, "Encourage a variety of housing types:
6 commercial, retail and limited office uses," so I'm still seeing that word "limited office uses" as
7 opposed to this project's design, most of it is office use.
8
9 Mr. Williams: Excuse me, I mean, more of it is residential and office. It's 0.75 residential and
10 [voiced over].
11
12 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I stand corrected, okay, but maybe not quite so far as to say
13 "limited."
14
15 The last question I have, I know it's beyond our prevue, but in the ARB Review, it talked about
16 reducing the need for the exception for the nonresidential floor area by putting residential on
17 ground floor. Would that be something that this body would consider? Can we condition the
18 approval of the PTOD with some kind of restriction that sonle of that ground floor be converted
19 to residential? And why did you make the statement earlier that residential is not appropriate on
20 the first floor? The neighborhood is full of residential on the first floor, across the street, next to
21 it and down the street.
22
23 Mr. Williams: Yeah, I think it would probably be best to have the Applicant's architect address
24 why it is not appropriate there, but from our standpoint, to have 80 percent of the ground floor, if
25 the whole ground floor were residential, that would be fine. But then try to mix and have two-
26 thirds or three-quarters of the ground floor be office, and then have a residence or two down
27 there and it's awkward juxtaposition of those uses. But I think Mr. Solnick can probably better
28 answer how that works also from a structural standpoint in supporting the residential and that
29 kind of thing.
30
31 Chair Garber: Mr. Solnick, unless there are other specific questions, let's give the Applicant
32 their three (3) minutes for rebuttal here. If you would like, why don't I give you four (4)
33 minutes, and that way you can take one minute to answer the question, and then you can have
34 your three minutes.
35
36 Mr. Solnick: Okay, I don't think that this site is equivalent to a lot of the other residential sites in
37 this neighborhood, and the reason is that it is on Birch Street. The longest frontage is on Birch
38 Street, which is a very busy street. It is much busier than Sheridan and Grant and some of the
39 other crossing or perpendicular streets. It's also especially shallow. There was am eminent
40 domain taking of Birch Street when the Oregon Expressway was built, and that's what created
41 this lot as being relatively shallow. That means that the lot is especially close. It's hard to get
42 away from Birch because of the shallowness, the shallow depth is in that direction. I think this is
43 an especially poor place to put housing on the ground floor, and that is sort of a segue into my
44 rebuttal.
45
Page 26
1 I think you are seeing this issue of the offices versus residential as sort of being a gift to the
2 Applicant. It was not perceived that way at all. This actually did not come from Mr. Hollbach,
3 this issue of adding more offices. It came from me, and it had nothing to do with economics. It
4 strictly had to do with making a better project. It seemed to me that residential did not belong on
5 the ground floor on Birch Street, and it made a tremendous amount of sense to make that whole
6 ground floor offices, and then make the residential two floors above it, as was done for the first
7 PTOD proj ect that has come through Commission and went on to Council.
8
9 I also want to address the issue that if this were under RM-40, of course, the ground floor would
lObe residential, so it would have that problem. The other thing is that you have to realize that the '
11 zoning density in this town is not determined by anything but the Parking Ordinance. It has
12 nothing to do with the zoning that is in the Ordinance itself. So RM-40 densities are not
13 determined by the density written in RM-40. RM-30 and RM-15, none of them are determined
14 by the density written in the zoning. They are all determined by the Parking Ordinance, because
15 the Parking Ordinance governs. It always is more restrictive than the zoning itself. It has led to
16 a new use ofa verb. Developers ask each other, "Can you park it?" It's a new use of the word
17 "park," and what it means is, "Can you put in that many units? Does the Parking Ordinance
18 allow itT'
19
20 You could not put in the sort of densities you are talking about because of the Parking
21 Ordinance. There is just not enough room for the parking.
22
23 The other thing that has sort of been brought up, the RM-40 FAR is a maximum of 1.0, but under
24 SB 1818, you certainly could ask for an FAR Bonus. This issue of "double dipping" and so on
25 would go away. As has been pointed out, you might give it right back to the other place where
26 you have a very similar proj ect and without any of the attributes of PTOD which seem very
27 appropriate for this location.
28
29 And, yes, we could just take a chunk out of the ground floor and make it residential. We are no
30 longer asking for that bonus. I think it would be a truly inferior design, but it would solve that
31 problem. But that would be solving a paper problenl and not solving an actual physical problem.
32 It's actually, in my opinion, making the project considerably worse.
33
34 I just want to emphasize that the whole purpose of designing it this way was really to do a better
35 design. It was not financial. It was to put the land uses in the places where they made sense, and
36 to do a project which was consistent with PTOD, which is certainly something that the City has
37 really been offering and has been encouraging developers to use, and here we are trying to use it.
38
39 Chair Garber: Thank you. Commissioners, discussion, and let's see if we can move towards a
40 Motion. Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Holman.
41
42 Commissioner Holman: Actually, I had my light on earlier. I had two more questions.
43
44 Chair Garber: Okay, please go ahead.
45
Page 27
1 Commissioner Holman: They are not long ones, pardon the voice. My question for the City
2 Attorney is SB 1818, I have understood on the past that the proj ect that came through under
3 SB1818 still has to comply with the City'S Comprehensive Plan. We may have as much control,
4 but it can't violate the Comprehensive Plan, is that correct?
5
6 Mr. Larkin: That's generally correct. I think there are some exceptions, but that is generally
7 correct.
8
9 Commissioner Homan: Thank you, and then the other question, I believe, it was asked here
10 earlier, and that is the comparisons prompted by Joe Vilario about the shading, and the answer
11 was comparably what size buildings could be built with an RM-40, conlpared to this? But my
12 question is, what is the daylight plane requirement for an RM-40 development?
13
14 Ms. Lee: The daylight plane requirements are dependent upon what it is adj acent to. I think,
15 from what we have discovered, the adjacent zoning districts would be RM-30. For the daylight
16 plane for site and rear lot lines for the sites abutting RM-30, RM-40 that don't contain single-
17 family or two-family residential use, it's basically none for lots which are within the width of70
18 feet or greater. If there is width of less than 70 feet, limited to the first ten feet from the property
19 line, it's an initial height of 10 and an angle of 45 degrees.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: So that, comparing to this, would be helpful going forward and to
22 answer Mr. Vilario's question.
23
24 The point is, then, it's not that there is no daylight plane requirement at all, which previously the
25 answer was that we were comparing building sizes to building sizes, and not really addressing
26 the daylight plane issue.
27
28 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
29
30 Commissioner Keller: So, first to follow up on Commissioner Holman's question, does that
31 mean that if these were RM-40 that because the widths are mostly over 75 feet, except for that
32 little panhandle, which is below, that there is no daylight plane? Is that what I understand?
33
34 I heard you say that is correct, thank you.
35
36 Let me make a few comments. The first con1ffient is that I think in this location ground floor
37 office does make sense and I am sympathetic with the idea that putting housing over ground
38 floor office makes sense. In some sense, that's what some people originally thought made more
39 sense for mixed-use, although we've seen projects for mixed-use that don't have that, notably
40 some project with the initials AP.
41
42 But, so I do think that tandem parking and parking reduction are not compatible because of the
43 idea that tandem parking will discourage people from parking in the front and in the back space,
44 which means that people will probably be more likely to take up the extra spaces. I think that
45 those two concepts are incompatible.
46
Page 28
1 With respect to transitioning some of the space from housing to parking, as the applicant is
2 requesting, this has the effect of actually increasing the parking requirement. The reason, as far
3 as I understand it, is that 2.5 parking spaces per housing unit, and that's 1659 square feet as the
4 average housing unit size, while office space is 4 parking spaces per 1000 square feet.
5
6 Essentially, by converting several thousand square feet of office space from housing to parking,
7 the developer! Applicant have essentially increased the parking requirement challenge that the
8 developer has by making that change. For the developer to basically complain about the Parking
9 Ordinance, when the developer is going to a use that has a higher parking intensity than the
10 Ordinance would ordinarily allow, is something odd to me.
11
12 Finally, I think on the issue of unit sizes, I am concerned about the unit sizes being somewhat
13 larger than they might otherwise be, and the fact that the unit sizes are as large as they are means
14 that we are essentially not getting the Housing Density Bonus effectively ofPTOD. And,
15 although I anl very sympathetic with the idea of mixed-use, as Commissioner Fineberg pointed
16 out, it's very easy to build eight housing units on this odd-shaped lot without doing a lot of work.
1 7 In some sense, we are taking these eight housing units and sort of lifting them up and putting a
18 whole office complex underneath it. It would seem to me that, in terms of doing that, if our
19 objective is to have more housing units, which is what ABAG is forcing us to do, and although I
20 certainly am not a fan of having lots of housing units, I'm also not a fan of having very big
21 housing units either in this regard in terms of the multifamily housing, because I don't think it's
22 the kind of mix that makes sense for this area.
23
24 There are no schools nearby, and in that regard there does not seenl1ike there are many amenities
25 for a children-oriented environment. Although I am not sure that we are allowed to make
26 determinations in terms of whether there are families with kids, or whatever, we are not, and I
27 see the City Attorney saying something.
28
29 Nonetheless, it seems to me that the issue is, from a point of view of satisfying the ABAG
30 requirements, building 14,534 square feet of housing units and getting only eight housing units,
31 it does not go very far towards meeting our ABAG goals. In that regard, I would actually be
32 interested in having more housing here and having the unit sizes closer to what was originally
33 proposed by some for a PTOD of a 1250 square foot average house size which probably means
34 somewhere on the order of 12 to 14 housing units.
35
36 I'm just going to put that out there. I'm going to leave it for somebody else who wishes to mull
37 over this and make a Motion.
38
39 Mr. Larkin: I pick this time to interrupt, and I interrupt because it's just after 9:00 and it's time
40 to check in, but I also wanted to correct something that I said earlier in response to
41 Commissioner Holman's question. There has been a change to the Density Bonus law that now,
42 for very low income BMR units, it is now 5 percent of the units being set aside as BMR for very
43 low income that will get you one incentive. A project that meets our minimum requirements
44 with very low BMR housing would get three concessions.
45
Page 29
1 Commissioner Keller: I just want to say one more thing. I think that the fact that we are getting
2 these comments about SB-1818 concessions suggests that we should pass rules affecting what
3 concessions make sense and what the limits are for those concessions.
4
5 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Vice-Chair Tuma.
6
7 Commissioner Holman: Could the City Attorney please repeat what you said.
8
9 Mr. Larkin: We haven't had this issue in "for sale" projects, so it would be difficult, ifnot
10 impossible, to have very low income "for sale" units, but if a project was coming forward,
11 presumably a rental project that was going to offer 15 percent of the unit at very low income,
12 then they would be entitled to three concessions because for each 5 percent of below market
13 housing. If you provide a very low rate, you get one concession as opposed to the 10 percent for
14 just regular BMR.
15
16 Commissioner Holman: Okay, thank you for that clarification.
17
18 I am also not going to make a Motion at this point in time. I'm just going to make some
19 comments.
20
21 To be perfectly frank, projects like this make me a little nuts and the reason is not because it's
22 necessarily a bad project. It's not about that, but it does speak to, I guess, primarily
23 Commissioner Fineberg's comments. We have a PTOD Zoning District that is to encourage
24 residential near transit. While there are the other aspects of this, we have other considerations
25 too which are kind of being discounted in consideration of this being an appropriate site for
26 PTOD because, and I'm not saying it's inaccurate in terms of what is heard by people
27 commenting on projects, but it just frustrating that because we do hear a lot of comments on how
28 much housing gets produced and the impacts of the housing, now that we are using that as
29 justification to say, "Well, this is a good site for PTOD because now we can incorporate the
30 office space." And then in creation of offices, we then have a surplus of office space availability
31 in the community, and creating office space when it is not retail. I'm not saying this is a good
32 place for retail because it's not, but when we are creating office space, which then triggers
33 ABAG, which creates some more need for housing, then I feel a little bit like a hamster in a cage
34 here, on the wheel. That's why it's making me nuts, and I hope at least some people can
35 understand that.
36
37 Having said that, I have other issues about the project and its considerations. Well, one thing I
38 will say is that I have not heard anyone from the public, with possibly one exception, saying that
39 they didn't want the project, or they thought the project was too big. There is none of that, and
40 yet every person talked about the parking difficulties in the area. I have to believe that, and I
41 understand. I go to that area sometimes, too, and I don't always have a hard time parking, and
42 you did say it was, you know, random. But/and I understand that, but I have to believe what the
43 members of the public say who live right there. They don't seem to have a hidden agenda. That
44 makes it even more convincing that there is a parking concern there, and I think we can't just be
45 providing the parking exceptions when there are existing conditions that might speak against
46 that.
Page 30
1
2 The other thing that I find frustrating about projects such as this is that we are looking at
3 reducing the parking requirement and, because it's a mixed-use project, but yet it's near transit, I
4 think Commissioner Keller has mentioned this a lot of times to, but if it's near transit, and people
5 leave their cars at home. Then, you know, the cars are all still there, and while in some cases I
6 think there are possibilities for trip reductions, but my experience has been, in watching projects
7 that have been built in the last, you know, in the recent past is, there may be some trip reduction,
8 but I haven't experienced any, nor have I heard of any car ownership reduction. So you still
9 have the parking demand. So, let's see, I think I'll end my comments there.
10
11 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma, then myself, and then Commissioner Fineberg.
12
13 Vice-Chair Tuma: I'm, to some extent, having sonle of the similar types of struggles that
14 Commissioner Holman was talking about, except I sort of come down on it, maybe on the other
15 side of where my sense was where she was leaning, but maybe I'm speaking more than I should
16 be.
17
18 It's not perfect in terms of providing a lot more housing, closer to 18, or 17 or 16, or however
19 many we could park on there. But I envision a hearing on a project at the same site where they
20 are asking for 18 housing units, and I envision a discussion where people say, "Well, geez, this is
21 PTOD, and we're encouraging mixed-use, and now we have 18 housing units, where's the
22 mixed-use? Why aren't we getting what we encouraged with PTOD?"
23
24 And I think, to some extent, given the discussion and the thoughts and the ideas that went into
25 PTOD, either we kind of believe that philosophy or we don't. Either we believe that being by
26 transit is going to some extent to reduce trips. Maybe, it's not the trips out of there, or maybe it
27 is the trips out of there, so people leave their cars, but hopefully the people who are coming in to
28 work at the office will possibly be taking transit. That's part of the concept behind PTOD.
29
30 I think that I'm sympathetic to the comment that housing, or that parking [correcting himself], is
31 what limits the site here, because I was sitting here a little while ago thinking, well, Geez, let's
32 make these units a little bit snlaller. Put ten in there. Wait a minute, we can't do that, because
33 then they can't park it.
34
35 So it is a balance, and it is in some regards that part of me says, Gee, this would be better with
36 more housing but, at the same time, if that was the discussion we were having, people would be
37 up in arms about we are puttingin too much housing.
38
39 I struggle with these things, as well, but where I come down, and where I'm leaning towards is,
40 thinking about maybe there are some issues around the use of tandem, even though/or tandem in
41 combination with a reduction. Maybe there is something to be said there to kind of pull that
42 back a little bit but, at the same time, one of the things that we are concerned about is, with this
43 mix in a relatively low number of housing units, the required parking for this amount of office
44 space, required without any reduction, would be 42, okay? For the amount of office space we
45 are talking about here, and that is coincidentally the number of parking spaces that we have.
46
Page 31
I Now, I recognize that there are still eight units there, and that's going to produce some number
2 of cars that will stay home during the day, but it doesn't seem to be that out of line. I think if we
3 had three or four more housing units, five more housing units, I think it's going to get worse.
4 But, here, with the proximity to transit, to drink the PTOD Kool-Aid, we have to believe to some
5 extent that what we put there (the reasons we designed this as PTOD) are going to work, and if
6 not then maybe we do need to address that. Maybe there is a problem with it, but we haven't
7 really given it much of a chance to work, and this is only the second project coming down the
8 pike that says we are going to get these reductions because it's close to transit.
9
10 I think there are some tweaks we could do around the edges here and maybe it is putting more
11 restrictions on tandem, and whatever impact that has on the project, but I don't think it's so far
12 off from a project that meets the overall goals, maybe not all of the goals, but the overall goals
13 and balancing of the different elements ofPTOD that I think it works.
14
15 The other thing is, we have not talked much about the other elements of it, the types of things
16 that, in terms of context base design, and the other elements of PTOD that I think it does. I think
17 the architect and the Applicant have done a nice job of addressing those.
18
19 It's a project that I'm leaning towards wanting to move it forward, but maybe there are some
20 more thoughts or creative ways we could address some of the parking and the balance issue. I
21 fundamentally don't have a problem with there being less housing and some nice office space if
22 that makes the project work.
23
24 Chair Garber: I am in support of all the things that Vice-Chair Tuma has just mentioned. I think
25 this Commission has fought very hard for the PTOD District and the qualities that it brings to
26 this particular area of the City, and for the amount of latitude that it gives the Commission as
27 well as the ARB, and the staff to really change this neighborhood into a more coherent place for
28 our city, visually, as well as in a planning sense.
29
30 I, too, do not have a problem with having all the ground floor as office, and having the remainder
31 as residential. And, I wanted, and I'm just going through a bunch of different thoughts in my
32 head, but the one thing that I did want to remind myself is I wanted to thank the developer, the
33 owner of the property in this case, for allowing the architect to have significant say as to what is
34 not only good for the project, but was is good for the City and the owner's support of that, I
35 think, is commendable.
36
37 The sorts of things that this project presents to us, the amount of Open Space that is given for
38 those residences, the amount of private, as well as public Open Space, I mean, those are all great
39 things. Part of the PTOD District is to create different types of housing projects, different types
40 ofhollsing, and having larger units that might be larger compared to some, but not all, I think, is
41 great. That is what we are supposed to be doing, and it is supposed to be providing for different
42 types of people to live there that may have more, or less, or no children, etc. It just adds to the
43 scale and the variety that you need to have a vibrant and exciting place.
44
45 I see we've got Commissioner Fineberg and then Commissioner Holman.
46
Page 32
1 Commissioner Fineberg: I see a lot of good things about this project and there is this sort of
2 ir~.ternal conflict. Does this, for the purpose of the PTOD District, provide more housing near the
3 transit corridors? And I don't think it accomplishes that. But, there's the alternative of 18, or
4 whatever, or 20 houses, creating more under-parking, so there is sort of a balance in the scale. I
5 think some of those details you will probably iron out, if the proj ect moves forward through the
6 ARB. They did say they want some switching of the ground floor retail to housing. Whether
7 they continue to press for that will be seen.
8
9 If this moves forward, there are a couple of things. Whoever is crafting the Motion, if we could
10 include this language, and I believe that the ARB had mentioned that, to be consistent with the
11 Zoning Ordinance, we would want some ground floor bike parking for the folks that do come on
12 bike to the office space.
13
14 I would agree with Conmlissioner Keller that the parking reduction is not consistent with the use
15 oftandenl spaces, especially in what we are asking people in residences. Unless we can grant
16 some kind of occupancy condition, the residents are going to make their lives easier, and take up
17 the parking spaces that would be for the offices or a member of the public.
18
19 So, I don't know if there is an opportunity to condition the residence to using their two tandem
20 spaces.
21
22 I know that it is not the responsibility of the Applicant, but that empty lot is half-parked
23 frequently, the two. empty parcels. There are people from the senior complex that pull in. We've
24 got pictures from residents, and from the times I've driven,by. So, while it's not the Applicant's
25 responsibility to provide parking for the neighborhood, those cars being forced onto the street are
26 going to further exacerbate the under-parking in the area. That gives even more credence to the
27 fact that people pull into the empty lot, that the area is under-parked. So I think we need to be
28 careful not to under-park this property.
29
30 I'd want to see as a Condition of Approval to the TDM program that we talked about earlier, and
31 then also two other things.
32
33 The driveway location that we talked about, close to Grant, I don't know if that's been analyzed.
34 I assume we wouldn't put it so close that it violates zoning ordinances, but it seems like heavy
35 traffic, 10-15 feet from a busy intersection. While the developer may say that this is the only
36 physical location, is it a safe location? I guess the ARB will consider that, and should there be
37 conditions for analysis of that.
38
39 And, there was one more. It's escaping me, so that will be it for now.
40
41 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman, and then Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner
42 Rosati, and then let's get to a Motion.
43
44 MOTION
45
Page 33
1 Commissioner Holman: Actually, I was contemplating a Motion, if that's ... or unless someone
2 else is dying to make it.
3
4 I have, as stated earlier, and I'm pretty conflicted on this, and pretty frustrated by it, and I think
5 when we passed the PTOD Ordinance, there was one set of knowledge that existed, and since
6 then, there have been other data points that have come to light.
7
8 So, and Staffhas known me for a good while now, I'm much more in favor of changing
9 ordinances than justifying acting against it. So, as I said earlier, I feel like a hamster in a cage,
10 and now I'm feeling like I'm ready for the farm because I'm going to make a Motion to
11 recommend Staff recommendations.
12
13 And, it's probably against my better judgment, because of all the conflicts that I have, but I have
14 conditions that I want to put on the project. I'nl hoping that this is, at least, the best outcome.
15 Hearing comments, I think there is going to be a Motion to Approve and likely it would pass, so
16 I'm going to at least try my best crack at conditioning it:
17
18 1. Require that as a part of the rezone, a TDM program that includes Eco Passes.
19
20 2. That, as part of any parking reductions, the tandem parking places not be counted as part of
21 that parking reduction. In other words, not counting the tandem parking places, and then also
22 granting a parking reduction. Does that make sense?
23
24 3. That the parking garage entry be moved away from the comer and that the entry be moved to,
25 is that Sherman or Sheridan that is the back side of that? Sheridan. That the entry be moved to
26 Sheridan.
27
28 There may be other Amendments, but that's my Motion for now.
29
30 Chair Garber: So there are three. So TDM and Eco Passes, is three. Tandem spaces, don't
31 count them. And then number three, the parking entry move away from the intersection?
32
33 Conlillissioner Holman: And move it to Sheridan.
34
35 SECOND
36
37 Commissioner Keller: I'll second that.
38
39 Chair Garber: Discussion? And I apologize, would the Maker like to speak to their Motion.
40
41 Commissioner Holman: I think I've said enough. I feel schizophrenic enough.
42
43 Chair Garber: And then Seconder, and then we will go to Conlillissioner Rosati who was
44 scheduled to speak.
45
Page 34
1 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. First, I'd like to make a comment about parking and theiI
2 make a Friendly Amendment about the parking.
3
4 I'm directing us to Table 1 of the Staff report which is on Page 6, and I notice something quite
5 odd about this. What's interesting is that there is this juxtaposition of where it says, "Reduction
6 proposed per P AMC." So it says, "Residential, two parking spaces per unit, and guest spaces for
7 18 units," and then it says, "20 percent total for joint use, 30 percent conlbined max."
8
9 Okay, so far, so good. Then on the bottom, it says, "Office, one space for 250 square feet," and
10 then says, "20 percent for housing near transit," and I was saying, why do you reduce the office
11 space parking based on housing being near transit? It doesn't make any sense.
12
13 So let me get to this, where I'm thinking. I did a whole different calculation, and the calculation
14 I did is, okay, I can understand 42 parking spaces for the con1fl1ercial, and I can understand
15 reducing that by 20 percent for joint use. So far, so good.
16
17 I can understand taking the 18 parking spaces for the residential and reducing that by 40 percent
18 for both combined reductions, one for the housing near transit, and one for the mixed-use, and
19 with the maximum reduction total being 30 percent.
20
21 Well, if you do the math, 42 x 0.8 is 33.6; 18 x 0.6 is 10.8, which adds up to 44.4, and if you
22 think about it that way, you get down to 45 units and not down to 42, for required parking
23 spaces.
24
25 ANIENDMENT
26
27 I am going to make a Friendly Amendment that the office space parking not be reduced below 20
28 percent, and that the total residential parking space not be reduced below 40 percent, with a total
29 combination being not reduced below 30 percent max.
30
31 Chair Garber: Would the Maker like to query Staff on their thoughts before ...
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Anticipated, will.
34
35 Chair Garber: Perhaps, Commissioner Rosati?
36
37 Commissioner Rosati: Yes, I would like to mention a few things. First of all, I think this is a
38 well thought out project that, from a con1fl1ercial perspective, the office space on the main floor
39 makes conlplete sense. I think that the proportions of the parking are absolutely adequate from
40 my experience. In fact, I think I disagree with Commissioner Keller and would not be able to
41 support this Amendment because, in my experience, the office space that is near public
42 transportation uses a lot less parking, and has a much lesser parking requirement, at least a third.
43
44 Given this location, I can see people coming in from all over the Bay area using trains. I think
45 that there are going to be people that are going to be biking to this facility, and there are going to
46 be a lot of people carpooling as well. I really believe that the projections that are being made,
Page 35
1 even with the reduction, are completely adequate, given that we are talking about 10,000 square
2 feet of office space.
3
4 I also believe that the 10,000 square feet of office space are a likely (but I am not an expert on
5 this one in terms of proportion) to warrant more than 30 employees in that space. I think that the
6 requirement of 250 square foot per parking is probably a little bit out of date with the way these
7 spaces are configured today.
8
9 I just wanted to say, nUInber one, I think this is a well thought out project and the office space
1 ° proportions are, in my opinion and experience in these kind of setups (and in fact my office is
11 located exactly near public transportation, comparable to this) more than adequate.
12
13 I also agree on having homes of the size that are projected in this project. I think that it is an
14 entirely reasonable thing, and I personally believe that it would be better, in the interest of the
15 community, to have fewer residences of this size as opposed to several more that would be
16 smaller.
17
18 My big concern is access to parking. I don't think that we have adequately studied whether the
19 access to parking in that particular position of the property is appropriate. However, I also
20 sympathize with the significant constraints that exist on the property, given the size. And, if the
21 developnlent is involving only one level of underground parking, given the shape of the lot, I
22 don't know if there is an alternative positioning, and I'm sure it has been studied extensively.
23
24 I just wanted to make the comment that I appreciate and I am concerned, but I don't know if
25 there are many options, other than potentially creating a curved driveway that ends up on the
26 other comer of the same side instead of on Birch and ends up on the other in the front, where
27 basically the access to the parking lot is.
28
29 I'm saying, specifically, instead of accessing it from Grant, you would access it from Birch, by
30 making a curve, but that's not my job to point out. I'd just like to alert of the possibility of a
31 traffic problem there.
32
33 Chair Garber: I think the Staff, do you have comments?
34
35 Mr~ Williams: Two comments.
36
37 I don't question the math that Commissioner Keller mentioned, but I mean we use these
38 reductions and show that, but we didn't. I mean, there is also a 20 percent reduction in here that
39 has allowed for the TDM program too. We didn't use that because we didn't need it. The other
40 reductions got down to the maximum reduction of 30 percent overall and 42. We could consider
41 that. Also, the bigger two questions I have of problems or concerns are, first of all, I'm not
42 understanding what the issue is with the tandem spaces. There are how many tandem spaces?
43 It's not like there are one or two in excess of the minimum required. But I mean how many total
44 are there? Anyway, there are quite a few extra spaces that are additional tandem spaces, like at
45 least a half dozen, so it's ten? Ten extra tandem spaces.
46
Page 36
1 I mean, it's really, and I understand that they may not all always be available, but they are not
2 ever, I don't think, found to not be available, where none of those are available. So there is a sort
3 of built-in addition here that generally we don't see. I mean, I would think that this is a positive
4 type of thing to see, which is to have some additional tandem spaces thrown in there so that this
5 does provide some relief, and in this case they are needed.
6
7 Then, the other issue was related to the driveway. I think we should ask the Applicant if that's
8 feasible to have that driveway work off Sheridan, given the narrowness of it, and the limited use-
9 ability of the proj ect on the other side.
10
11 Chair Garber: Let me go back to the Maker here. We've got a variety of comments coming up.
12 Commissioner Holman.
13
14 AMENDMENT
15
16 Commissioner Holman: Actually, I was going to amend my own Motion. I wanted to provide
1 7 some t1exibility because my biggest concern is that, and this is an Amendment to my Motion, my
18 biggest concern is that the driveway coming out of the parking garage is nearer the comer.
19
20 Chair Garber: That it is too near the comer? To close to it?
21
22 Commissioner Holman: Currently, it is too near the comer, and I wanted to move it away from
23 the comer, but I will take out the requirement that it be on Sheridan, and it can be optional to
24 either Birch or Sheridan.
25
26 Chair Garber: That the Applicant needs to find a safe way of entering and exiting.
27
28 Commissioner Holman: As far away from the comer as is absolutely possible, but it's too near
29 the comer now.
30
31 Chair Garber: Then, will the Seconder support that Amendment?
32
33 Commissioner Keller: I'd be supportive of the Amendment if it were quantified. So, for
34 example, to the extent that you could ...
35
36 Commissioner Holman: That's too fine in detail.
37
38 Commissioner Keller: I mean, to the extent that you could say that at least so many feet from the
39 comer because otherwise, if you say "as much as possible," they could come back with what
40 they have now, and they could say that is what they could do.
41
42 Commissioner Holman: Does the Code speak to that.
43
44 Vice-Chair Tuma: Just one moment please, point of order, the question was asked, can someone
45 other than the Seconder of the primary Motion second the Amendment? City Attorney?
46
Page 37
1 I apologize. I misinterpreted the question. I think the only way that that works, Vice-Chair
2 Tuma, is if the Seconder does not suppoli that and withdraws his Second, at which point the
3 Second would be open back to the Commission, and then another Second could be offered.
4
5 Mr. Larkin: The alternative is that the Maker could withdraw her original Motion and just make
6 a new Motion, which I think is what the Maker is intending.
7
8 Commissioner Keller: Well, there are several alternatives, and I understand the attorney
9 probably knows Robert's Rules and Orders better than I do, but my understanding is that it could
10 be offered as an Unfriendly Amendment, which would then have a Second and a vote. The
11 Maker of the Motion could withdraw, but I'm just trying to understand the issue of, could you
12 clarify, actually, the effect of your Amendment?
13
14 Commissioner Holman: I'm trying to get the parking garage entry further away from the comer,
15 and I just reminded myselfby looking at the Sheridan Street front of this property, and it's only
16 75 feet. So I don't know that it's possible to get it as far from the comer as is desirable on that
17 75-foot frontage. So, understanding that Birch is a busy street, but yet there is more opportunity
18 to put a driveway in there, on that longer frontage, away from the comer.
19
20 Comnussioner Keller: Are you suggesting that it has to be moved off of Grant? Is that one of
21 the requirements, and that it be preferably moved as far away from the comer as possible? I'm
22 not understanding exactly what the Motion is.
23
24 The problem I have with seconding, is that I am not sure exactly what your Amendment is.
25
26 Comnlissioner Holman: Perhaps the way to clarify this would be to ask the Applicant a
27 question, or ask the Staff a question about an entrance on Birch. I'm sorry if I prematurely made
28 the Motion, because that is the longer street frontage.
29
30 Chair Garber: Would the Applicant like to respond?
31
32 Mr. Solnick: I do appreciate the concern about the proximity to the comer, but there is no better
33 alternative. If you come off of Birch, you of course remove whatever parking spaces are parked
34 against Birch, and in so doing, and you can't put them back in the panhandle. So you lose
35 parking spaces, and I'm guessing, two, just offhand. No, actually it would be three. You would
36 lose three parking spaces, and the same coming from Sheridan. You can't use the panhandle, so
37 you take out parking spaces, and you don't gain any back. So we could move it a little bit farther
38 from the comer on the Grant side, but any other position loses at least three parking spaces, and
39 not three tandem parking spaces, but three long tandem parking spaces.'
40
41 Commissioner Holman: Could Staff comment on that. I'm not understanding why you would
42 lose that many parking spaces. Are you talking about parking garage spaces or curb spaces?
43
44 Mr. Solnick: The driveway has to be 20-feet wide, and a parking space is 8-1/2 feet.
45
46 Commissioner Holman: Are you talking about curb parking spaces, or parking garage spaces?
Page 38
1
2 Mr. Solnick: No, in the parking garage. Yes, I'm talking about spaces in the garage, yes. The
3 parking aisle has to be 20 feet. The width of a parking space is 8-1/2 so if you do that math, it's
4 the width you would be taking out when you came in off of Birch. You would have to remove
5 three parking spaces, and yes, the curve. I think you mentioned about Birch going in a curve.
6 That turning radius is too tight and would not be allowed by the Transportation Department.
7
8 Commissioner Holnlan: Thank you, and does Staff want to comment on that, because even ifit
9 would eliminate some parking places in the parking garage, we still don't want to create an
10 unsafe situation, and so that is the heart of this.
11
12 Mr. Williams: Yes, I concur that they would lose two or three parking spaces because you are
13 coming down, and right now you have basically got this rectangle of parking down there, and
14 now you have the driveway that has to come down in there where, right now, it isn't there. Right
15 now, it's on that panhandle area. You are not going to recover those spaces, in that panhandle
16 area, because it's too narrow to use as a parking zone. So, if you are coming off of here, there
17 will necessarily be some spaces but, again, not a lot. But, to get that driveway down over there
18 in the location where those parking spaces are now, and to make that work, is going to take out a
19 few, and I don't see where you recover those, although I guess I should ask.
20
21 I mean, right now, there are those four surface spaces, and I assume those would go over and flip
22 over kind of to the opposite side of that driveway entrance ifit is coming offwhere those four
23 spaces are served now. I don't know if there is any, or if that panhandle area at the surface,
24 could handle those couple of additional parking spaces.
25
26 Chair Garber: Forgive me. Are we trying to redesign the project here?
27
28 Mr. Williams: Again, this is an issue of use an intensity and not design associated with PTOD.
29
30 Chair Garber: I mean, we should be able to make the requirement and move forward with the
31 requirement, and the requirement has to answer to all the codes and zoning that exist within the
32 State and in the City, and it has to meet all the safety requirements. I think we just need, and I
33 think I would keep your condition, but I think I would simply temper it by saying that it needs to
34 safel y address the issue and the nearness that it has to the comer.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: Well, to answer Commissioner Keller's question, my intention is to
37 move it off Grant, because a 30-foot wide parcel does not provide distance enough to get that
38 entry away from the comer enough to provide safety. It also, as one of the members of the
39 public commented, doesn't provide adequate opportunity to get out of the parking garage at peak
40 times, and it doesn't allow opportunity to get in, so it's going to cause congestion in the
41 intersection. So I amended my Motion to say that the entry could be on either Birch or Sheridan,
42 but I do want it off Grant, so if that answers the Seconder's question.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Yes it does, and perhaps you could say, move it off of Grant and put it off
45 on Birch or Sheridan in a manner that is safe. Maybe it is not necessary, but in some sense, that
46 is the idea, so that I would accept that.
Page 39
1
2 Commissioner Holman: If Staff has a better way of wording it, that's fine, but the intention is
3 clear.
4
5 Mr. Larkin: I think because the prevue is limited to use and intensity, the original way the
6 Motion was made is preferable. I think it has to be safe in order to get City approval. It doesn't
7 hurt anything to add it, but ...
8
9 Commissioner Keller: Okay, that's fine, thank you, I will accept that.
10
11 Chair Garber: Commissioner Rosati.
12
13 Commissioner Rosati: The issue was just resolved. While and since I have the opportunity to
14 speak, I wanted to mention that I am not in favor of the tandem parking comment of that not
15 counting, on the Motion that was described earlier. I just wanted to get that on the Record.
16
17 Chair Garber: You support the use of tandem spaces for the housing in this particular
18 circumstance.
19
20 Commissioner Rosati: Exactly.
21
22 Chair Garber: Okay. So we are back to the Motion which is supporting the Staff s
23 recommendation that:
24
25 1) The project be conditioned to include a TDM, Traffic Demand Management Program, and
26 Eco Passes.
27
28 2) That the tandem spaces don't count.
29
30 3) That the parking access not be from Grant, but to be on Birch or Sheridan.
31
32 Mr. Larkin: If I can just clarify, Commissioner. I understand, for the record, the Motion is not
33 seeking to reduce four of the tandem spaces and shrink them to make them four normal size
34 spaces. You just don't want them counted.
35
36 Commissioner Holman: Correct, I just don't want them counted as part of the consideration of
37 there is any parking reduction given.
38
39 Mr. Larkin: I think the confusion is going to be in order to make them not count, that you are
40 actually basically just taking four of those tandem spaces and shrinking them to normal size
41 spaces, and I wanted to just confirm that this is not the intent of the Motion.
42
43 Commissioner Holnlan: That is not the intent of the Motion.
44
45 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma?
46
Page 40
1 Vice-Chair Tuma: Now, I am confused. Sorry, because I think that if you don't count them,
2 doesn't that have the effect of making them two parking spaces instead of four?
3
4 Commissioner Holman: It's a matter of double-dipping. It's a matter of there is a reason that
5 Staff doesn't count tandem parking places any more broadly than they do, and so I don't want
6 the tandem parking places that are now being counted to be counted when there is going to be a
7 parking reduction surely granted.
8
9 Mr. Larkin: I think, if I can explain why I'm asking for the clarifying, because there is some
10 confusion, at least in my mind. They could convert all of those tandem spaces to just single
11 spaces and still meet the parking requirements with the reductions. Instead, they are offering
12 tandem spaces which gives them more parking than they are required, and I want to make sure
13 for Staffs sake, when they are counting the parking spaces, that you are basically not asking
14 them to redesign their parking, because I think Staff is counting those, but they can just count
15 some of those tandem spaces as single spaces. Is that what you are asking, to count the tandem
16 spaces as one space instead of two?
17
18 Commissioner Holman: Correct.
19
20 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma and then Commissioner Keller and then Commissioner Rosati.
21
22 Vice-Chair Tuma: My understanding is that they have four tandem spaces that are part of the 42.
23 Is that right? And then there are 10 additional tandem spaces. Okay? Is that right? Okay, so if I
24 understand Commissioner Holman's Motion, the four that they are counting towards the 42
25 would now only be two spaces. So, as designed, they would be at 40. Is that correct?
26
27 Commissioner Holman: Yes.
28
29 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, I can't support that. I'm in the same place that Commissioner Rosati is
30 on this. I think that, not only do they have the 42 with the four tandem, but they also have 10
31 additional tandem spots here. I think that there is plenty of parking, and so I would not be in
32 support of the Motion if it did not count those four tandem spaces that are counted as part of this.
33
34 I mean, there are 10 additional tandem spaces, so I just have a problem. One of the questions,
35 actually of Staff while we are on this, I thought that there was a comment made earlier that up to
36 25 percent, or four tandem parking spaces, were permitted?
37
38 Mr. Larkin: Absolutely, they are.
39
40 Vice-Chair Tuma: Okay, I can't support the Motion as is.
41
42 Chair Garber: Commissioner Keller.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: Firstly, let me point out that as the diagram is, there are eight tandem
45 parking spaces, as it is labeled. The Applicant tried to indicate how the tandem parking spaces
46 were moved around, but did not do so satisfactorily to indicate where parking spaces 35 and 36
Page 41
1 went.
2
3 So, in fact, as you use this diagram, there are total of eight tandem parking spaces, four front and
4 four back, as well as I guess it's 30 ones that are counted as single spaces, of which somewhere
5 on the order of 10 extra tandem spaces exist which are not counted at all.
6
7 So, that is the first thing.
8
9 Secondly, I believe that as a result of that, the statement made by the City Attorney, that without
10 the tandem parking spaces, this project is sufficiently parked. I do not believe that this is
11 factually correct, and I would like somebody from Planning to confirm whether or not, if tandem
12 spaces are allowed, whether this is in fact sufficient.
13
14 If tandem spaces do not count, they only count as one space, is this sufficiently parked?
15
16 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma can also follow up, and then I suspect that it is on the same
17 question.
18
19 Mr. Larkin: Yes, while Planning staff is looking that up, we were supposed to check in at 9:30
20 on whether or not we would have Item Number 2 after 10:00.
21
22 Chair Garber: Thank you for that reminder. Let's get through this, and can we get through this
23 in ten minutes?
24
25 Vice-Chair Tuma: So regardless of how it's drawn, I think if we put the requirement in there,
26 they have to meet the requirement. So it's drawn, or if it's drawn wrong, and then we've got to
27 move them around, but if we have the requirement in there that they have to have the 42 spaces,
28 okay?
29
30 Then, however it is drawn, that's their problem. They have to meet the requirement in order for
31 it to get through. All we are talking about right here is defining what the requirements are. Ifhe
32 can't, because he has messed it up, or his math is wrong, then he is back to the drawing board,
33 but I don't think that because he has drawn it wrong, which he has admitted, I don't think that
34 this is a reason to not approve it.
35
36 What I would support is a requirement, and I think maybe what you are concerned about is, if
37 they have 8, or 10 or 12, or however many tandem spaces, then they could count all of those
38 towards the requirement.
39
40 I think the answer to that is that they really could only count four of them under the Code, from
41 what I understood the Planning Director said, 25 percent.
42
43 So, if we said that they could have no more than the four as tandems, which is really two slots
44 with two each, this is just what they have, which is two with two each, that would keep it at the
45 requirement and no more than the Code allows.
46
Page 42
1 It doesn't get into how many ever they have drawn, eight or ten or what have you. It's just the
2 four, and that I would be supportive of.
3
4 Chair Garber: Planning Director. I think there was a question here that Commissioner Keller
5 had in front of you. Would you like to reiterate it, please?
6
7 Commissioner Keller: Yes, I asked whether, and the City Attorney had stated (from my
8 understanding) that if tandem spaces do not count as more than once space,. and iil other words,
9 it's just one instead of two, then the project is sufficiently parked. And I would like to confirm
10 whether in fact that is a correct statement.
11
12 Mr. Williams: I'm not sure what he meant, but I think the bottom line is that if you have two
13 pair of tandem, no, two spaces with two spaces behind them, those spaces/that counts as four
14 total spaces. Two of them are in tandem, behind the other ones. All the other units have/cannot
15 be counting tandem spaces, because that is your 25 percent, and two of the eight units.
16 Yeah, so two of the eight units, and so then there is an additional tandem, and I mean, 8, 10, 12,
17 or whatever the number is, that we can go back and verify that is in excess of that, that are
18 tandem, and are available for parking, that are just extra spaces.
19
20 Commissioner Keller: So when you say that there are two tandem spaces, you mean the two in
21 the back. The ones in the back are counted as tandem. The ones in the front are not counted.
22 Those two are counted as tandem.
23
24 Mr. Williams: You can look at it either way, but yes let's say that for analysis sake.
25
26 Commissioner Keller: What I am trying to understand fronl this diagram is, do we have four
27 tandem spaces, the four in the back that have numbers on them? Or do we have eight tandem
28 spaces, the ones in the back and the ones in the front? That's what I'm trying to understand.
29
30 Mr. Williams: We have the two slots, just like Vice-Chair Tuma said, two slots with the two
31 spaces in the back. Those are the tandem spaces.
32
33 Commissioner Keller: And the ones in the front are not called tandem spaces?
34
35 Mr. Williams: Yes.
36
37 Commissioner Keller: They are just really long spaces.
38
39 Mr. Williams: They're spaces and those two units have two spaces, and they are in tandem, and
40 some people would say that "the one in the back," because you pull into the one,. that the one in
41 the back is the tandem, and others could say that the one that you pull farthest into is the tandem
42 space, but those are two tandem spaces. We need to work all this out, but those spaces are
43 allowed by the Code. They are not based on reductions in parking.
44
Page 43
1 Commissioner Keller: So let me just ask and try to clarify this. If you have a space in the front,
2 and the space in the back, on one column, is that considered one tandem space? Or is that
3 considered two tandem spaces under the Code?
4
5 Mr. Williams: It's considered one, wait. It's considered two tandem.
6
7 Chair Garber: It's one tandem that has two parking spaces that are counted as part of the 1egally-
8 required slots, the legally-required parking slots.
9
10 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate what the Chair added, but it does not clarify my question
11 which is, if you have one car behind the other, does that count as one tandem space and one
12 regular space? Or, does that count as two tandem spaces? And I think that we have to
13 understand that in order to be able to resolve this because otherwise, whoever is going to deal
14 with this later, is going to get confused just as I am.
15
16 Mr. Williams: We have to deal with it later. It's a requirement of the Code to deal with it. It's
17 not the Commission's analysis, and at this level of detail, to determine exactly how this provision
18 is addressed on a design.
19
20 Chair Garber: Vice-Chair Tuma.
21
22 SUBSTITUTE MOTION
23
24 Vice-Chair Tuma: I would like to offer a Substitute Motion. The Substitute Motion would be
25 that we move the Planning staffs recommendation, adding the requirement for a TDM program
26 that includes Eco Passes, and also that the entrance be moved off of Grant.
27
28 SECOND
29
30 Chair Garber: I'll second that.
31
32 Chair Garber: Would the Maker like to speak to his Motion, and if you would repeat it please?
33
34 Vice-Chair Tuma: I moved the Staff recommendation with the following two conditions, that it
35 would require a TDM program to include Eco Passes, and also that we would require that the
36 entrance be moved off of Grant.
37
38 In speaking to that Motion, the only thing that I would say is that, on the issue of tandem,
39 whether is two is four, or four is eight, or whatever it is, it is the Code requirement. I think what
40 I'm trying to achieve here is a Motion and a recommendation that is consistent with the Code.
41
42 Whatever that works out, that's what Staff has to work out, and they have to make it consistent
43 with Code, and so that is all I'm after here by taking that tandem issue out of the equation.
44
45 Chair Garber: And, I as the Seconder, have no more comments. Commissioner Rosati, and then
46 Commissioner Fineberg, finally, who has been asking to speak. We will come back to you.
Page 44
1
2 Commissioner Rosati: I support the Motion as presented.
3
4 Chair Garber: Commissioner Fineberg, then Commissioner Holman and Commissioner Keller.
5
6 Commissioner Fineberg: What happens if we approve the rezoning and if the movement of the
7 driveway to not be on Grant, I believe, causes a reduction of parking spaces and then the facility
8 is under parked. Process, what happens next?
9
10 Mr. Williams: They would have to come back. They would have to revise the project to comply
11 because they need to comply with the parking requirements.
12
13 Commissioner Fineberg: And would that be something that Planning and Transportation would
14 then have to approve, or would it be the ARB during nlajor review?
15
16 Mr. Williams: Well, the ARB would see it as part of the review, but the director essentially
17 recommends to the ARB whether it complies with Zoning or not, and in this case, the ARB does
18 not grant the adjustments, per se, or make that determination on their own. It's not a subjective
19 determination. It's based on the Code numbers.
20
21 Commissioner Fineberg: So where would it go if it turned out that they couldn't physically park
22 it properly?
23
24 Mr. Williams: Then they would have to come back with a variance to the COl11Illission, or revise
25 the project to reduce the square footage or the nunlber of units in a way that complied with
26 parking.
27
28 Commissioner Fineberg: However they chose, okay. I don't think this project's reason to
29 rezone or not to rezone hinges on two parking spaces. I'm thinking of it more in terms of
30 something I'll coin "housing neutral." Do we know how many jobs this project will create? And
31 how many housing units is the Association of Bay Area Government (ABAG) going to require to
32 house those additional employees, and is that greater or less than the housing it is creating? And
33 that, to me, I think is where I am going to hinge my decision, but if I can ask the Staff that.
34
35 Mr. Williams: That's not a project-specific analysis. ABAG incorporates job growth in the City
36 and the region. This is well within the scope of what that is. It does not look at, well, this
37 particular project did this, and this many housing units, and try to mesh those together. We don't
38 do that on a project-by-project basis. We have a project that you saw two weeks ago that's got
39 no mixed-use and we don't necessarily try to look at that, but you see another project that is all
40 residential and another project that is all commercial, and it is all factored into regional and
41 citywide growth projections and so its impossible to say or to require that one project somehow
42 generates that balance or imbalance.
43
44 Commissioner Fineberg: I guess the reason I'm thinking that, though, is if we are rezoning from
45 R:~1-40/51, residential district to a PTOD, and the goal of the PTOD is to increase housing
46 density in that area, then a project that cannot support its own housing needs, to me, flies in the
Page 45
1 face ofPTOD. If we have to build more houses because we are adding an employment center in
2 a PTOD, it is just inconsistent with the fundamental zoning.
3
4 So, I am sorry that I did not ask this earlier, but if you can bear with me, in that square footage,
5 about how many employees would we have, and then are we even in the ballpark?
6
7 Mr. Williams: I think you're making a comment, not asking a question. I think, I understand
8 your perspective, and it sounds to me like you are at a point of making comments, and your point
9 is certainly legitimate and if that is your perspective, then Staffs role is not to .....
10
11 Commissioner Fineberg: Okay, I'll pass on getting an answer then. It seems to me that, to go
12 with PTOD, the project needs to provide housing that would be adequate to not cause us to have
13 to build more housing in other areas. Fundamentally, in PTOD, the goal is to increase housing
14 density and I'm not completely convinced that this project does that over the traditional zoning.
15 Ifwe do not approve this, then we lose the ability to condition it, so my decision is going to
16 hinge on if we reject it, losing the ability to condition it, or whether these two conditions make it
17 such a better project that we don't want to lose that chance.
18
19 Chair Garber: Commissioner Holman and then Commissioner Keller, and then let's vote.
20
21 Commissioner Holman: Just a quick one. Perhaps as a clarification to the Motion, or perhaps
22 it's an Amendment, and you can tell me. The Motion, as I heard it, said to move the parking
23 garage entry off Grant. It did not reference the purpose of that. so nl0ving the parking garage
24 entry away from comers to provide greater safety, and I don't know if you want to provide that
25 clarity or?
26
27 Vice-Chair Tuma: That certainly was the intent of the Motion.
28
29 Commissioner Holman: Okay, I appreciate that.
30
31 Chair Garber: The Seconder supports that.
32
33 Commissioner Holman: Okay, great. That's very helpful, and all apologies. The discretion we
34 have with this is why I brought up the tandem parking issue, but I'm certainly sorry I brought it
35 up.
36
37 Chair Garber: No worries. Commissioner Keller.
38
39 Commissioner Keller: I think I was actually the first person to bring up the tandem parking
40 Issue.
41
42 Commissioner Holman: I meant as part of the Motion, so that's why I'm taking blame.
43
44 Commissioner Keller: I appreciate that, Commissioner Holman. Thanks to Commissioner
45 Rosati who has this nice printed floor-up version of the Code. Under Multifamily Residential
Page 46
1 Development Table, it says, and I'll read what it says about tandem parking as this may help
2 answer the questions that I and others had.
3
4 Tandem parking is allowed for any unit requiring two parking spaces, and I'm going to
5 emphasize the following, provided that both spaces in tandem are intended for use by the
6 same residential unit. For projects with more than four units, not more than 25 percent of
7 the required parking space shall be in a tandem configuration. /
8
9 To me, this means, first of all, that the front and back unit spaces are both considered tandem, not
10 just the ones in the back. The second thing it means is that, in order for you to have tandem
11 parking spaces, they must be dedicated to a unit, and that means that if you have reduction for
12 shared use, then that's somewhat incompatible with the idea of parking spaces being dedicated to
13 units, because essentially you say that if you have the tandem spaces, you have those two units
14 being dedicated. And that is why, in my opinion, the idea of tandem spaces are incompatible
15 with reductions for shared use, and that's the reason that I made that complaint.
16
17 As a result of that, I cannot support a Motion that allows for tandem spaces, and a maximum
18 reduction based on shared use, because it's just logically incompatible with the idea of use by the
19 same residential unit. I also believe that I think that people will avoid tandem spaces whenever
20 possible, and an the other tandem spaces will probably be more used by RV s than two people in
21 the office space using both front and back, because you've got to get somebody to move out of
22 your way so that you can go home. And with that, I will close.
23
24 Chair Garber: Commissioners, let's vote. All in favor of the Motion as stated, say Aye. (Ayes)
25 That would be three with Commissioners Tuma, Garber and Rosati and Holman. That would be
26 four. All those opposed? (Nays) Fineberg and Keller, nay.
27
28 The motion passes 4-2 with Commissioner Lippert absent. We will take a three-minute break.
Page 47
Page 48
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
August 7, 2008
Architectural Review Board.
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Attachment M
ArclhitectlllJral Review Board
Staff Report.
3
Department: Planning and
Conlmunity Environment
2640/2650 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave. and 306/320 Sherid~n Ave. [08PLN-
00182]: Request by David Solnick on behalf of Court House Plaza COlnpany for
Architectural Revievl of preliminary plans for a new mixed-use developnlent
consisting of eight residential condominium units above ground floor office space
and a below,-grade parking garage. This revi ew is associated with a request for a
zone change fronl RM-40 (Multi-Fmnily) to PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented
Developnlent).
RECOMMENDA TION
Staff recomlnends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a prelinlinary review of the
proposed project and provide C01nment on the proposed design to staff and the apphcant. No
formal action may be taken at a preliminary review; conlments made at a preliminary reviev.; are
not binding on the City or the applicmlt.
SUMMARY
The applicant is proposing a zone change request to add a PTOD Conlbining District to allow the
construction of a new mixed use building. Upon a favorable reconlnlendation by the Plamling and
Transportation Commission (PTC) and approval by the City Council of the proposed rezoning, the
applicant would be required to submit an application for nlaj or architectural review of the
proposed building. The Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18 .34 .060 Cd) allows the
applicant to request a single preliminary review of the proposal by the ARB in advance of
rezoning approval.
Site Information
The project site is comprised of five parcels that occupy an entire block on the southern side of
Birch Street between Sherman Avenue and Grant Avenue. The site is located approximately
1,000 feet southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station and approximately 650 feet
southeasterly of California Avenue, The site is approxinlately 19,862 square feet in size and is
currently developed with three single family b0l11es . The site is currently zoned RM-40 Multi-
Fal11ily Residential District.
08PLN-OOOOO-00182 Page 1 of 5
Proj ect Description
The applicant's proposal is for a new three-story nlixed use office/residential building. The
building, which would be located on the four parcels to the right (east), would consist of a parking
garage below grade and a podiulll structure above grade containing 10,257 sq. ft. of ground floor
office space and eight two-story townhomes above the podium. Access to the underground
parking garage would be provided via a ramp on the pan handle shaped parcel to the northwest,
from Grant Avenue. This parcel would also house below grade bicycle storage and a nlechanical
rOOln. The below grade parking garage would provide 19 regular parking spaces and up to 16
pairs of tandeln parking spaces. Three at grade parking spaces would be provided' as well on the
pan handle parcel above the parking garage. Pedestrian access to the two office spaces would be
provided by separate entries from Birch Street. The ground floor would also include the entrance
to an elevator lobby for the residential units above. A stairwell to the residences would be
provided froln Sheridan Avenue.
The two-story townhom.es would comprise the seconQ. and third floors of the building. The
project includes three three-bedroonl units and three two-bedroom units. The three remaining
units were each designed with three bedrooms and a fourth room that could be used as bedroonl.s
or studies. Open space for residents would be provided through a couI1yard above the offices that
has two distinct areas. The courtyard is also where individual entries to the townholnes would be
provided. The building is proposed to be 40 feet tall with storefront glass and a stone/concrete tile
fayade at the ground floor pedestrian level. The residential component of the building would be
differentiated by stucco and vertical yellow cedar walls. The residential units would have painted
wood triITI, dual-glazed aluminum windows and private balconies. The applicant's project
description letter (Attacrunent C), provides further detail.
DISCUSSION
PTOD COInbining District COInpliance
The PTOD Combining District, per PAMC Chapter 18.34.101, is intended to allow higher density
residential dwellings on comDlercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within walking distance
of the California Avenue Caltrain station. The regulations of the combining district apply in lieu
of requirenlents of the underlying R.l\1-40 zoning district. The combining district is
specifically intended to foster densities and facilities that:
1. Support use of public transportation;
2: Encourage a variety of housing types, comnlercial, retail and limited office uses;
3. Encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the
PTOD overlay area;
4. Require streetscape design elenlents that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists; .
5. Increase connectivity to surrounding existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities;
and
6. In1.plement the City's Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan.
The project is consisten! with the above because the site is within a 3-block walking distance of
the California Avenue Caltrain station. It is also proximate to bus stops along CalifoDlia Avenue
and El Camino Real. The project includes a variety of land uses, office uses and townhouse style
condominiulns, which are conlpatible in an area that already provides a mix of housing and
08 PLI\J-OOOOO-OO 182 Page 2 of 5
services. The project was designed to be consistent with the Context-based designed criteria
required in the PTOD Combining District, including elements that are attractive to pedestrians and
bicyclists. The project would provide attractive housing and uses that would benefit the
in11llediate area and Palo Alto residents.
Proposed Land Uses
The intent of the PTOD Con1bining District is to allow higher density residential dwellings on
comn1ercial, industrial and n1ulti-family parcels. It also specifically allows mixed-use
development, where residential and non-residential uses are combined. Allowed non-residential
uses include retail, personal services and eating and drinking services. Other non-residential
uses, allowed except on the ground floor where a (R) overlay exists, include office, general
business services, business and trade schools, private education facilities, day care center,
community center and convalescent facilities. Research and developn1ent uses are allowed only
on sites where the underlying zoning district is GM and the use and storage of hazardous luaterials
are in quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code
(Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code). All land uses are to be reviewed by the Planning and
Transpoliation Con1mission and City Council at the time of a rezoning to PTOD.
Proposed Development Regulations
The developn1ent regulations of the PTOD are intended to apply in lieu of any underlying zoning
district If a development standard (such as setbacks) is not addressed by the PTOD Con1bining
District regulations, the Architectural Review Board has the discretion to determine the
appropriate standards 'within the context of neighboring sites and buildings. As shown in
attachment C, overall the proj ect complies with the PTOD Combining District regulations with
the exception of the n1ixed use non-residential floor area ratio (FAR) cap. The proposal meets all
other requiren1ents, including open space requiren1ents, the total maxin1um FAR and parking.
Floor Area and Design Enhancelnent Exception Request
The total allowed FAR cap for the non-residential portion of a project in the PTOD Combining
District is 1iInited to 0.35 (0.25 for office and research and development uses) of the total allowed
FAR of 1.25'1 for n1ixed uses. Although the total FAR of the project as whole is 1.25, the
applicant is requesting a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) to allow 10,257 square feet of
office space, an FAR of 0.52, which would be 5,291 square feet above the allowable office floor
area, According to the applicant, the purpose of designing the larger non-residential FAR is to
have a large enough non-residential ground floor to support eight two-story residences above. A
larger base would allow the applicant to accon1IDodate the desired residential square footage in
two stories rather than three. Staff has provided an excerpt of P AMC 18.76 as reference for the
purpose, applicability and findings for DEE's. Section 18.76.050 (b) Applicability (4) states, "No
design enhancement exception shall be grarlted under this section that would increase floor area,
decrease the nun1ber of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site
landscaping, or decrease the required open space." The requested DEE is for the re-allocation of
0.27 of the allowable FAR (approxin1ately 5,291 square feet of floor area) from the residential
cOluponent to the non-residential component of the project. A determination must be made as to
whether the DEE process would be applicable to this request, or whether the Variance process is
the applicable process in this case and whether the exception is suppoltable by findings for
approval. By proposing other non-residential uses other than office and research and
08PLN-OOOOO-00182 Page 3 of 5
developnlent, the applicant could reduce the r.equested amount of floor area exception by 0.10
FAR or approxilTIately 1,986 square feet. The exception request could be elinlinated entirely be
converting the relnaining 3,306 square feet of ground floor space to serve the residents, such as a
lounge and recreation area. The conversion of the ground floor space to residential square footage
would still allow the project to meet maximum residential FAR of 1.0.
The applicant has also requested a Design Enhancement Exception to allow a site coverage
maximUIll of 55%. The underlying RM-40 zoning district includes a maXiITIUITI site coverage
f 45%. However, if a rezoning request for the PTOD Combining district is approved,
regulations for the underlying zoning district would not apply. The PTOD Combining District
does not have a maXiITIUm site coverage requirement. Therefore an exception for site coverage is
not necessary.
Context-Based Desi gn Criteria Compliance
The project as proposed appears to comply with the requirements of the PTOD COInbining
District Context-Based design criteria as outlined in Section 18.34.050 of the Zoning Code. The
project features cOInply with the district as follows:
The Co}nbining district establishes a requirement for promoting pedestrian walk-abili~v, a bicycle
environm.ent and connectivity through design elements as well as street facades designed to
provide a strong relationship with sidewalks and the street to create an environment that supports
and encourages pedestrian activity.
The project provides an attractive street fayade for pedestrians by providing a five-foot wide
sidewalk and fi ve-foot wide planting strip adj acent to the curb with street trees across the entire
frontage. The building was designed to provide pedestrian level interests with well articulated
walls, large store front windows and direct entrances to the office uses and the residential
courtyards above. The project provides underground parking for bicycles. The City regulations
for bicycle parking include surface parking in bicycle racks for visitors to the non-residential
space and these would be required in fonnal plans for ARB review.
The regulations also require that the building be designed to minimize massing and provide for
articulation and design variety.
The proj ect includes varied rooflines, canopIes, decks and other architectural detail to break up the
building mass. residential and conlmercial components utilize different nlaterials to further
break up the mass. Landscaping is proposed around the podiulTI to soften the iInpact of the
building.
Public and private open spaces are required so that they are useable to residents, visitors and
employees of the site.
Both public and private open spaces havy been incorporated into the design. Two large and open
courtyards are provided on the second level for the residential unjts above. Each unit is also
provided with large private patios/decks. The office units also have private south facing patios
employees. The courtyards and balconies that the street increase "eyes on the street."
08PLN-OOOOO-00182 4 of 5
Parking needs to be acco'mmodated and not overwhelm the character of the project or detract
from the pedestrian environment.
The majority of the parking spaces have been provided in the underground garage, away froln
public view. Three surface parking spaces are provided on the side and away from the building.
Staff requests feedback fronl the Board regarding how well the proposal complies with the PTOD
requirelnents. Findings for architectural review (P AMC Chapter 18.76.020(d)) will be prepared
for review by the ARB once the fonnal ARB application is subnlitted. Findings applicable to the
CalifoDliaAvenue PTOD Combining District (PAMC' Chapter 18.34.050(b)) will also be
prepared for review. These required findings deal wlth the pedestrian and bicycle environment,
street building facades, nlassing and articulation, proj ect open space, parking design and
sustainabili ty and green building design.
Green Building Regulations Conlpliance
The applicant has prepared draft LEED New Construction and Multi-fanlily Green Point
Checklists (Attaclunent E). The new Green Building Regulations (PAMC Chapter 18.44) becanle
effective on July 2, 2008 and are also retroactive for commercial projects submitted after
December 3, 2007. As such, because the application was subnlitted on June of 2008, the project
is required to comply with these regulations. Based on the applicant's submittal, the project
would achieve 97.67 points on the GreenPoint Checklist and a LEED silver rating. Green
building elernents include the use of low-enlitting materials, high efficiency iuigation system,
d.rought resistant plant species, passive solar heating, low-voc paints, and energy efficient
, equipment.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
No environmental review is required for this Preliminary Review application, as it is not
considered a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment
Attaclunent B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment
Proj ect Location Map
Developlnent Standards Table
Applicant's proj ect description
P AMC Section 18.76.050, Design Enhancement Exception
LEED for New Construction Project and Multifamily GreenPoint Checklist
Prelinlinary Development Plans (Board Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES
David Solnick
Court House Plaza Company
Prepared By: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Manager Review: Amy French, Manager of Current
08PLN-OOOOO-00182 Page 5 of 5
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
, 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Architectural Review Board Action:
The Board recommended approval of the project, (4-0-0-1, Board member Wasserman moved,
seconded by Board member Solnick, Board member Malone Prichard was absent) with the
following additional conditions to be reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee
a) Parking lot lights shall be no more than 15' tall, lower if possible.
b) Curb cut on El Camino Real shall be reduced. Add street trees in this location.
c) Add landscaping at base of building where appropriate.
d) Parking lot tree species size shall be reviewed by staff. Tree shall be appropriate for the
parking lot.
e) Transom over door shall be aligned better.
f) Change base material.
g) Bike rack shall be placed at the front of the building.
h) Awning shall be placed over entries. Style of awning shall be compatible with other
proposed awning on the building.
Major Preliminary
3. 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue [08PLN~
00182]: Request by David Solnick on behalf of Court House Plaza Company for
Architectural Review of preliminary plans for a new mixed-use development consisting of
eight residential condominium units aboveground floor office space and a below-grade
parking garage. This review is associated with a request for a zone change from RM -40
(Multi-Family) to PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development).
Staff Recommendation:
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a preliminary review of the
proposed project and provide comment on the proposed design to staff and the applicant. No
formal action may taken at a preliminary review; comments made at the preliminary review are
not binding on the City or the applicant.
Public Testimony:
Bob Moss, Palo Alto: Stated his concerns regarding the small housing units above the garage,
and the housing office ratios. He also discussed concerns about this being a Superfund site and
how toxins will be handled.
Herb Borock, Palo Alto: Stated his concern regarding the preliminary review process and his
opinion that the application should not be deemed complete.
Architectural Review Board Action:
As this was a preliminary review no action was taken.
4. Stanford University Medical Center Modernization and Expansion Project: Request
by Stanford University Medical Center on behalf of The Board of Trustees of the Leland
Stanford Junior University for Architectural Review of preliminary plans for the proposed
medical office building and parking garage at the Hoover Pavilion site. Zone District PF
(Public Facilities).
Staff Recommendation:
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Attachment N
Betten, Zariah
From: Joe A Villareal Uoe.a.villareal@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 15, 2009 5:24 PM
To: Planning Commission
Subject: Request 2640 Birch PTOD Rezoning be Denied
Attachments: IMG_0420.jpg; IMG_0417.jpg; IMG_0414.jpg
I had planned to be at tonight's meeting to address the rezoning requested for 2640 Birch, unfortunately because of a
last minute medical issue I will not be able to attend.
I live at 360 Sheridan Ave., a 57 apartment senior housing community, adjacent to this proposed zoning change.
Although I have spoken to Mr. Harold Hobach, he has never chosen to speak to us about this project.
Perhaps Mr. Hobach has chosen to not discuss the project because we oppose his previous proposal and/or perhaps
because numerous times we have requested that he do something about using this the conler portion of the lot on
Birch and Sheridan as a parking lot because of the risk it poses to pedistrian.
I have numerous occasions encounter cars and trucks entering and exiting the lot with little regard for pedestrians
using the sidewalk. Because there is no driveway, cars and trucks enter and exit at multiple point on Birch and
Sheridan and have difficulty seeing pedestrians. At times over 20 vehicles have been parked on this site, this means
20 entrances and 20 exits over the course ofth day. Please see attached photos.
We at the Sheridan community, believe the size is to large for the property, that it cuts off the limited sunlight we
have on the apartments facing the property and that the parking is inadequate for the volume of vehicles that will be
generated.
Additional, crossing Birch at Park is extremely precarious of pedestrians, with the additional traffic this will make it
even more dangerous. This issue has not even been noted and needs to be addressed.
We request that the change in zoning be denied until this issues are addressed.
Sincerely
Joe A Villareal
360 Sheridan Ave Apt # 101
Palo Alto, CA 94306
p: 650.326.7519
4/15/2009
My name is Mary Palmer and I am a honleowner at 350 Grant A venue across from where
the proposed development is to be constructed. I am also a board member of the Birch
Court Condominium Association.
We have 3 objections for the proposed project:
• The exemption for the allowable parking spaces required for new
construction. There is another project on Sherman & Ash that is also
requesting an exemption. Parking on Grant Ave. is already at full capacity
and this will only make it worse.
• Underground parking garage entrance/exist on Grant Ave. will increase traffic
flow. It is located right at the comer of Birch & Grant. This interaction has
had accidents and this will increase the potential for more and will create an
additional safety hazard for residents crossing at the intersection.
• Rezoning from residential to mixed use. The area of the proposed zoning
change is surrounded by residential properties and the change would infringe
on the character of our residential neighborhood. Commercial interests do not
fit in a residential area due to increases in traffic patterns and noise. Parking
for current residents and guests will be greatly impacted. It is almost
impossible for current residents to find parking on Grant.
Sincerely,
Mary Palmer
350 Grant Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94306
650 322-1766
1 l
,........ ~ T'C ."'DfW'WW~ FORaDD __ ~/ __ ~----_~D.~~
We the undersigned formally protest the proposed Zoning Changes to the property
bounded by 305 Grant Ave., 2640 and 2650 Birch Street, and 306 and 320 Sheriden Ave.
The reasons are as follows:
1. The area of the proposed zoning change is surrounded by residential properties
and the change would infringe on the character of a residential neighborhood.
2. Commercial interests do not fit in a residential area due to increases in traffic
patterns and noise.
3. Parking for residents and guests will be greatly impacted.
4. We object to the proposed underground parking garage opening up to Grant Ave. (f)11 ~~
due to the increased traffic flow that will be incurred on a residential street.. ~ 6
S-. (]b. 'ee+ 10 fk ~emrllPn ~k~df:u-b ~. b(V~h
Address
The Sheridan Residents
Petition for a Livable Neighborhood
No Change from RM40 to PTOD
For Birch Plaza
We are residents of The Sheridan at 360 Sberidan Avenue, a 57-unit senior
housing complex with just 19 parking spaces, strongly oppose rezoning Birch
Plaza (305 Grant, 2640 and 2650 Birch and 206 and 320 Sheridan) to a
Pedestrian and Transit ()riented Development (PT()D). In effect, this zoning
win REDUCE parking spaces per square foot of developed structures. Exactly
the opposite needs to occur in our neighborhood where on-street parking is already
100% jammed with cars 24/7/365. Any observer, casual or otherwise, can plainly
see our current and growing parking problem.
The central objection to the proposed project is inadequate parking. Every time
Palo .Alto has tried something like this, it has blown ~p in the face of the
surrounding neighborhood reaction. This time, it is our neighborhood that is under
attack.
The parking situation at The Sheridan is severe because the number of spaces
provided nineteen (19) is about one-third those needed to adequately accommodate
current residents, their health care providers and guests. We must drive around and
around with our vehicles burning gas and spewing carbon emissions as we vie for
available street parking. Because three (3) large developments have occurred on
Sheridan Avenue within the past few years, the addition of the proposed PTOD
with its inadequate parking will cause a currently severe parking problem to
become impossible. Nobody wants that, except apparently Atherton resident and
developer Harold C. Hohback.
One reason Mr. Hohbach wants to change the zoning from RM-40 to PTOD is so
that he will be required to provide less parking. A change would mean that
instead of requiring 60 parking spaces, he would only be required to provide
42, a 30% loss.
The vacant land for the proposed development at Birch and Sheridan is already
being used as an ad hoc parking lot primarily for overflow from Mr. Hohback's
Courthouse Plaza. As the attached photos show, the number of cars and trucks
parked is about the same number of parking spaces that Mr. Hohbach wants to do
away with. Although Mr. Hohbach has been asked to fence the vacant lot to
eliminate the parking and pedestrian hazards, he has instead chosen to fill with
gravel the worst potholes in the lot to make parking easier, thus increasing traffic
1
hazards and threatening pedestrian safety. RECEIVED
theSheridanResidents@gmail.com
~u~ \)12009
Departrnent Of Planning &.
,Commu!lity ~nVlro:-;ment
The Sheridan Residents
Petition for a Livable Neighborhood
No Change from RM40 to PTOD
For Birch Plaza
Because there is no driveway to the vacant lots, cars and trucks entering and
exiting at multiple points on Birch have difficulty-seeing pedestrians. The attached
photos illustrate how this vacant lot, contiguous to The Sheridan, is loaded with
parked vehicles, the vast majority entering and exiting the lot off Birch Street.
Pedestrians using the sidewalk are caught unaware when cars and trucks veer on
and off Birch into and out of the makeshift parking lot. This poses a life-
threatening situation.
Mr. Hohback's parking structure at 235 Sheridan Avenue serving the Plaza and
adjacent rentals is simply inadequate. Thus, the parking overflow situation
critically impacts our neighborhood.
Entrance for the proposed PTOD has been suggested on Sheridan or Birch. There
are currently two entrances/exits to The Sheridan, two entrances/exits to 345
Sheridan and another entrance/exit to the Jerusalem Baptist Church. The
entrances/exits to The Sheridan and 345 Sheridan are directly across from each
other and the entrance/exit to the Jerusalem Baptist Church is adjacent to one of
The Sheridan entrance/exits. Placing another entrance/exit on Sheridan Avenue
will endanger pedestrians; access to the underground and surface parking for the
proposed PTOD should be on Birch, which vehicles are currently using to enter
and exit the vacant lot.
Moreover, pedestrian crossing of Birch at Sheridan is extremely precarious, if not
downright dangerous. With the additional traffic this proposed development will
generate, the crossing will become even more dangerous.
We thus request Council to deny the proposed change in zoning for 405 .Birch
from RM-40 to a PT()I) until the above issues are resolved.
Sincerely,
The Sheridan Residents
Petition signatures and photos attached.
theSheridanResidents@gmail.com
2
6/30/2009 The Sheridan Residents
Oppose Zoning Change
of Birch Plaza
305 Grant Ave.,
2640 2650 Birch Str.
and 306 320 Sheridan Ave.
from Existinf! RM-40 to PT(] tD -
Name
N Last First Apt
1 Bellairs Daphne 110
2 Bermal1 Abe 216
3 Berman David 209
4 Berman Sylvia 216
5 Cannon Joan 307
6 Cardenas ctor ~ 7 Cardenas Victoria
8 Caruso Leona 116
9 Chen Pei 310
10 Chizari Ozra 305
11 Chou Charlie 204
12 Chou Grace 204
13 Danlgren Doris 111
14 Davis Ronald 106
15 Dunning Peter 309
16 Han Chen 304
17 Han Zheng 304
18 Hassitt N 319
19 Hudson Eneda 119
20 Jett Jane 302
theSheridanResidents@gmail.com
Pg 1 of3
6/30/2009 The Sheridan Residents
Oppose Zoning Change
of Birch Plaza
305 Grant Ave.,
2640 2650 Birch Str.
and 306 320 Sheridan Ave.
from Existinl! RM-40 to PTOD -
Name
N Last First Apt
21 Jomlson Loie 102
22 Katchenko Bronislav 211
23 Katchenko Lidia 211
24 Kay Helena 315
25 Keyes Bud 212
26 Khazan 316
27 Kwan Kum 114
28 Lawson Maxine ~ 29 Lee Yunwu
30 Orshansky Yevgeniy 214
31 Paleologos Marie 312
32' Peeples Henry 115
33 Pounaki Nehn 308
34 Pshansky Marina 214
35 Quesada Charles 112
36 Rapoport Alex 318
37 Scott Josephine 108
38 Scott Mabel 103
39 Seribner Muriel 314
40 Silva Mona 104
theSheridanResidents@gmail.com
Pg 2 of3
613 0/2009 The Sheridan Residents
Oppose Zoning Change
of Birch Plaza
305 Grant Ave.,
2640 2650 Birch Str.
and 306 320 Sheridan Ave.
from Existinf! RM-40 to PTO -
Name
N Last First
41 Slocum Jean
42 Sorokina AlIa
43 Thomas James
44 Tong Gladys
45 Trofimenko Nikolay
46 Villareal Joe
47 Vogel Penny
r48iWang Mun-Fai
49 Ward Maggie
50 Wyer Melissa
51 Xue Pei
52 Yeatman Vivian
53 Zhu Pei
D
Apt
311
219
107
313
219
101
117
202
218
303
201
317
208
theSheridanResidents@gmail.com
Pg 3 of3
.~
Jl
\
k ~ ~ ~ ~ t ('.... CJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ <...,..;l
,t'f\ '-S) ) ( \ <P ~ \ .~ rvJ ~ \-{) a \..9 ~ ~ \.D '~ ~ ~ ~,. It\
rfj ~
~ ~ ~ ~
C '-..... "-..) -> CV) ('lU ~ rJ'>.
'-(j ~ -)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~" ~ t.[; -00 == .... ~' = == -. ~ CI'1 .J
~ , ... ..-J ~ l' . ..) ~
::s: ~ ~ '0 {...': C) '0 '';J. ~ ~ V JIIIIIIIIIIIf ( . .-( -~~ J1
\
~ = ~ .~
~ \ ~, 1"-'< ~ ( ?
I \
f Q J: :s .~ f tt ~ £J '4';. >'i:Q ~ ".J. ~ ~g ~ :;;s ~ .-~ .-':1 Cv \i) ;::c
.' '\ '-1\
~ .-.-..... ,,:,. .J( c{'\ ~ ~ ,,~~ '--.-.....& ~
~ ~ '~ ,-J) ()Q .~ ~ ,-..:y CY) t' = M <i --.......-.;... ......:> 1:-~ \J-rr "--z ~ Q V .~ --.. -= I ~ I } \ \ ~~ ~ ) \ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ \( '0 .~ .~ '-:J M r'\ r(\ (Y) f'? An e).cJ \i) ~ .-(') r()
=1:1: '~ '" tj-' r3 ...... ' ... r ~ ~ va ----~ -... c· ..... ~ -< . .....) to .qs '6 rt -~ ...... ~
Jf~4<
Name
C)_-1'-c9\. P fr':>:1')<;; f
i'------$-'
/v',k o/o.-y TYoJ-/wrQ~kL
A-(/ CA-$ CJ V"CI 1<.-4' Yf ~
::5.' '''\ .. ~ " "V "\ .... /". , ..... / D/7/.i.~ c( :f-:' . .L / \ Ce,/ c P7 c: J--? h:'}
i../~c-~ Kar 'chd"?7/{'O
Yevgf'tVr'y Or~h G/V.<:"j(.X
Q / /
HarlNCf l)orOSh€tv:l(D
Ap t #
73
.it!; ; .J
,? )
<, "t
21Y
2lY
Phone
3D .--L G 2;
,!'-,' ...... '1'K ">, ~) {i f, "-..{.; :S
~b 0 i~2
""f l?/ U ,,,.-c=. 1-,7 I
..-~ ,/
321)--1811
325~/~:r1
E-Mail
.. ~
~ Signature
t1~~1"<-
jJf'.P ~£-1:'''"'. <f~, ... w ••• « .... "":) "" (/,
. f h /' £ ...... '".. 4.' .~ •• '<' .... "._" .. '/ .. " ~L.-·~~-"'4.,
'r--/> /c.c,,, f,.ti )? lC-L .. / !:' c.... .. ~ .,.,; .. ' ",'
(fJ~ p
/i?
1.a~
The Sheridan Petition Signatures
Name
~~ C?~~
~cb~
.l<wAt/
J1./e£: ~~te/·, /J fl
v '. ".V '.... /J., /) '. l /. , .• ~,.r/'1 ~_ __. "./'~' l-A:~>~~
1'"
;;:;::-" n ~ ,/ L{ \\ ~ ry,-",-,~bC-> \~;{
. /1 j ~ r C:'(!J I~ l " ~c'" Q~LuJL c'-, ~{:;LLr{'
\ '(hI \ ':--J~e. fl V~\I flr'-a-~ l
Apt # Phone
! I t; I 3'30--0 {; ,;( ~
t (L.. 1 ·'":3?:.~ 71)$ \
U4 "3;{2 -0376
• t
/,' ".C~ 1.2. A( ... · l/jA.J.' "p, "~I;:::> P ///0
1 \~ "< '}." ".~ ~ -J 'C, .Lj:=~·CL' 'L~
E-Mail Signature
La LC>-· 50 t//7e. , .,,),",',., __ l] /7 5-:e;C.~I(/j.1..lr;:."r (I~--La-~4e,
(/
CkLv~ 6J'v'--e~
k ~(7:---ZA..
~.;:::::7 1'7'
/
1, ( 1'-.,.1 7 ~. . !' "/ I /?~ ~[?~:~:::1;:~f:/
4/
.~" r' \. I' '" .' ", '\ \l . 't, ~ .. ~ Cv~~~~_.j!:::4 .. _-...---~i
, f u ~ 'j 1--/ ~ 2-7~?1 .. _ .... .. ... ...... ..L~~ ~~, .. ,7~
to} ;1\ ~lr;t'1\ I hll:\\lWlPrJ.1L. ~t,1dT!J
r '
LV r --, -, O· ~'I '-/ / I ' ' v(\"~
f , \./
.fl)
t:
4..: ~ ::= v
\
( = ~ J1 ~ ~ .~ ) / .~ < 0 ctJ ( ~:::>
f ~ ?i. ;:t: ~ ~ I .v ~ L; '< ~ ",.J. <s:;;Q ~ j ¥::'t ~ ~ ~ w ~ ;:t:
'...t'\
.J "'""-.. c--0r .~ .~ ?t ~ -~ Dc> \\C'~ ~ ~ '~ ~, <YJ ~ = <i ............... .~ \J-\fl. ~ -:> ~ ~ c V .~ -= i ) -........ \ \ ~ t ~ ~ "'~ 0· ) \ ........... ~ ''4''( 0 ~ \( ~ 0 ~. r:;~
£.::)...0 f'fJ 1""4\ '" {'t) f', f\() r(j r()
=tt. \.,( ()-~ .... >~ ~
() r J(J -----~ -.... -< 0 c::J ~ r6 ~ ................. ...... --.............
rJ ''-0 f'{
;;r
t:r)
'(J
)
{\t ,~
0"'<
«t,
\J
.~
''-J
I
PALO ALTO HOUSING
c: C> R P 0 RAT I C> N
725 Alma Street • PaloAlto,CA 94301 • (650) 321 .. 9709 ·f'ax (650) 32} .. 4341
June 24, 2009
ToWholn It May Concern:
I al11Sellior ServiceCoordil1ator for Palo AltoH:ousing Corp. P AHC has
twentypro:perties.My office is 011 the 2nd floor ·ofTh.e S11eridan Apartrnen
360 Sh.eridan .Avenue,where m.ost of our seniors reside.-
Ill1ny position, I hellJ residents retain their ind,epenclenceand age in place,
l011g as possible. rrhis 'prevents IJeople froln gOil1g to expen.sive care
facilities, \vhich restricts their il1dependellce al1d costs thelTI and tax payers
tnuch lnore nl0ney.
It is essential that those who provide vital s'up'port services for tllis
cOlnmunity are able to find parking llear 'I1l1e Sheridan as they often, COll1e
with Inedical equipment alld su.pplies.
I, therefore, oppose the change in zoning from an RM-40 to a PTOD. This
zoningcllallge ,¥ould actually red'uce thenlllnber of parking Cllrrently
available to The Sheridan residel1ts, their family and friends and those wile
provide l1ealtll care services to this cOlnmunity.
S3:015~
Nora Noldon, Senior Service Coordinator '
Palo Alto :Housin2: Corl').
Departrnent-of rlann~f,g &
CommUf,;tj ~rn(!l
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
CMR: 296:09
DATE: JULY 6, 2009
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Adoption of an
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Apply the Pedestrian and
Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District to a Half-
Acre Site Zoned Multiple Family Residential (RM-40) to Allow Eight
Residential Condominiums Above Ground Floor Office Space, a
Below Grade Parking Garage, and Related Site Improvements at 305
Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan
Avenue
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project is a mixed use development on a 19,862-square foot site having frontage
on three streets located near the California Avenue Business District, with approximately 10,257
square feet of ground floor office and eight residential units above. This is the second request
the City has processed for application of the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) Combining District zoning. The intent of the PTOD Zoning District is to facilitate
mixed use and residential projects to encourage pedestrian and bicycle activity in transit oriented
areas. Staff and the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommend approval of the
associated environmental document and rezoning with a requirement that the Transportation
Demand Management (TDM) plan include transit passes for occupants/tenants. In addition, the
PTC recommends project modifications to move the garage driveway away from Grant Avenue
to access either Sheridan Avenue or Birch Street, in response to neighbor concerns for pedestrian
safety. Study of such a project redesign has been analyzed and discussed further in the report,
such that staff recommends that such a condition not be imposed and the driveway should remain
on Grant Avenue.
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 1 of 8
RECOMMENDATION
The PTC recommends:
1. Adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment B) in accordance
with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and
2. Adoption of an Ordinance (Attachment A) to change the zoning classification
from RM-40 Multifamily zoning district to the California Avenue PTOD
Combining District, including provisions to a) require the project to include a
Transportation Demand Management Program (TDM) that requires the provision
of transit passes for occupants/tenants (condition number 4f) and b) relocate the
parking garage driveway entrance to Birch Street or Sheridan Avenue (condition
number 4g).
Staff also recommends approval of the rezoning, but recommends the deletion of condition
number 4 regarding the driveway location.
BACKGROUND
The purpose of the PTOD Combining District is to facilitate higher density pedestrian and transit
friendly developments to take advantage of the proximity to public transportation and the
California Avenue Business District, while also protecting nearby historic resources. The PTOD
Combining District specifically allows mixed use development, where residential and non-
residential uses are combined, and can be applied to properties zoned R-1, CC(2), CN, GM, PF,
RM-30 and RM-40 or with combining districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD
boundary, as shown on the City’s approved zoning maps, consistent with the provisions of
Chapter 18.08 and 18.80 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC).
Once the PTOD Combining District is implemented, the development regulations of the PTOD
Combining District would be applied to a development project in lieu of any underlying zoning
designation. If development standards such as height and setbacks are not addressed in the
regulations, the ARB has the discretion to determine the appropriate standards within the context
of neighboring sites and buildings.
Council Purview
The rezoning of a site to the PTOD district may be initiated by the owner of an eligible property
or may be initiated by a vote of the Commission or City Council. Rezoning applications to the
PTOD district are processed in accordance with PAMC Chapter 18.80, the standard rezoning
process. The Commission review and City Council approval establishes the allowable or
required use limits, such as types and mix of uses, and intensity, including density and floor area
ratio. Following Council’s approval of a PTOD rezoning, the applicant can submit an
application requesting architectural review approval for the new development. The development
project would be reviewed by the ARB in accordance with the architectural review criteria and
recommended to the Director of Planning and Community Environment pursuant to approval
findings set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.76, and subject to the ARB finding the project will be
consistent with the PTOD Combining District Context Based Design Criteria (PAMC Chapter
18.34.050).
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 2 of 8
Project Description
The proposed project is the redevelopment of five parcels, totaling approximately 19,862 square
feet in size, with a new three-story mixed use building. The parcels are currently developed with
three single-family homes and parking. The proposed building would consist of one level of
below grade parking, 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space and 8 townhome style
residential units above. The property would also include a small pocket park at the corner of
Birch Street and Grant Avenue and four surface parking spaces accessible from a proposed
driveway curb cut on Birch Street.
A parking ramp accessible from Grant Avenue would be provided for vehicular access to the
parking garage for 38 automobiles and up to 12 extra tandem spaces. The project would meet
the requirement for 42 automobile parking spaces. Access to the office spaces would be
provided from a central lobby accessible from the garage and Birch Street. This central lobby
and elevator would also provide access to the residential units above. Additional pedestrian
access would be provided to the residential units via stairs from both Birch Street and Sheridan
Avenue.
The two-story townhome style units would include five three-bedroom units and three two-
bedroom units. Two of the three-bedroom units would include a room on the first level that
could be used either as a den or a fourth bedroom. Common open space for residents would be
provided through a courtyard on the second floor (podium level) and the pocket park at the
corner of Birch Street and Grant Avenue. Each unit would also feature a balcony for private
open space.
The proposed office floor area ratio (FAR) is 0.52. The non-residential component of a mixed
use project within a PTOD District is allowed a maximum FAR “cap” of 0.25. The project would
exceed this cap by 0.27. The applicant’s stated purpose in proposing greater non-residential
FAR is to accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to support the eight residential
units above. The applicant requests a Government Code Section 65915 (also known as SB1818)
“concession” to exceed the non-residential FAR cap that would otherwise require approval of a
variance. This provision allows applicants to request and receive up to three “concessions” as
incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable
housing. Incentives may involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar
standards. Staff believes this concession is allowed by State law as the applicant is providing
one unit of affordable housing and is appropriate for balanced land use and design.
Prior Review
The Architectural Review Board (ARB) held a preliminary review of the project’s conceptual
development plans on August 7, 2008. A PTC hearing on the review of the rezoning request was
held on April 15, 2009. A detailed description of the hearings is included later this report.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The PTC formally reviewed the zoning request on April 15, 2009. Seven members of the public
spoke on the project. Primary concerns included traffic impacts and the request for parking
reductions. Other concerns regarding the project included impacts on light, trees, mix of uses,
ground water contamination and open space. Some members of the public voiced specific
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 3 of 8
concerns regarding the driveway proposed on Grant Avenue because of the numbers of senior
citizens that live nearby who would use Grant Avenue to access the California Avenue shopping
area.
The PTC voted 4-2-1 (Garber, Tuma, Rosati and Holman voting yes; Keller and Fineberg voting
no; Lippert absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Zoning Ordinance with two modifications: 1) the driveway to the garage be
relocated from Grant Ave. to Birch St. or Sheridan Ave., due to concerns about the safety of
turning movements, given the proximity of the driveway to Birch/Grant intersection; and 2) that
a TDM program, to include transit passes, be submitted to reduce trips and parking for the site.
The TDM plan/transit pass modification has already been addressed by the applicant, who has
provided a revised TDM plan including transit passes for occupants/residents. Staff notes that
elsewhere in this report that staff believes that there is not a safety concern with the driveway,
the volumes are minimal, and alternative driveway locations are not practical, and therefore
recommends the driveway remain as proposed (on Grant Ave.). The staff report and minutes of
the PTC meeting are attached (Attachment H).
A preliminary ARB hearing was held on August 7, 2008 for a design review of the conceptual
project. The preliminary review is consistent with the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter
18.34.060(d), which states that a single preliminary ARB review may be allowed in advance of
PTC consideration of a PTOD rezoning request. The ARB was supportive of the project concept
and offered minor comments toward the improvement of the design. However, the ARB did not
support use of the Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) process to allow the project to exceed
the 0.25:1 maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the non-residential portion of the building. In
response to the ARB’s lack of support for use of the DEE process, the applicant is now
requesting the non-residential FAR exception as a “concession” under Government Code Section
65915 State Density Bonus law (also known as SB1818) for providing below market rate
housing units.
DISCUSSION
The proposed rezoning ordinance (Attachment A), specifically section 4, identifies all allowable
uses and intensities for this proposal as required by the Palo Alto Municipal Code. As
mentioned above, there was focused PTC discussion on items such as driveway safety and
parking. Staff and the PTC differ on the recommendation for the driveway and this is discussed
further below.
Driveway
The Birch Street driveway provides access only to four surface parking spaces on the north side
of the project site. The second driveway, providing access to the underground garage, is located
on Grant Avenue, near the corner shared with Birch Street. During the initial review, staff had
determined that, with maintenance of sight lines near the corner, the proposed Grant Avenue
driveway location would provide for safe vehicle operations and pedestrian movement.
However, several members of the public expressed safety concerns over the proximity of the
driveway to the corner because of potential conflicts with pedestrians; therefore, the PTC
responded with its recommendation for the driveway relocation to Birch Street or Sheridan
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 4 of 8
Avenue. Following the PTC hearing, staff reviewed the Grant Avenue proposal again, along with
the two potential new locations.
Staff does not recommend Birch Street for the location of the main driveway leading to below
grade parking because additional vehicular conflicts would occur due to the street’s higher traffic
volumes, raised median, and because the street also provides a direct link to connectors to and
from Oregon Expressway. Although a driveway on Sheridan Avenue would be feasible, it would
not provide any safety improvements over the Grant Avenue location. Given the proposed
number of parking spaces and anticipated low traffic volumes, the location of the Grant Avenue
driveway would not generate a safety hazard. Staff will continue to work with the applicant
during the ARB review of the project to ensure that sight lines will be maintained and other
safety measures, such as mirrors, will be incorporated into the project. Because relocating the
driveway to Sheridan Avenue would not improve safety, staff continues to support the project’s
main driveway location on Grant Avenue and recommends that such a relocation condition be
deleted from the rezoning conditions.
The applicant has also responded to the driveway relocation recommendation. The applicant is
requesting that the driveway to the parking garage be allowed to remain on Grant Avenue
because this location would maximize the use of the parking garage and number of potential
parking spaces. The applicant states that relocating the driveway to Birch Street would create a
garage configuration that would be unusable or at best would result in the loss of 12 parking
spaces and the deletion of the corner pocket park. The applicant has prepared site plans
examining the impacts of moving the driveway, included as Attachment F. The applicant also
believes that moving the driveway to Birch Street would create a more dangerous situation
because it would force cars onto a much busier street. The applicant has submitted a letter
prepared by transportation consultant Fehr & Peers summarizing the traffic conflicts that may be
caused by relocating the driveway (Attachment F).
Parking Regulations
The project includes the provision of 42 total parking spaces, consisting of four surface parking
spaces and 38 garage spaces. The applicant requests two parking requirement adjustments, for
‘joint use’ and ‘housing near transit,’ permitted by PAMC Chapter 18.52.050 for a maximum of
combined reduction of 30%. Without the adjustments, the required parking would total 60
spaces. If the adjustments are granted, the proposed number of spaces would meet the revised
required parking total of 42 spaces. Staff concurs with the adjustments, given the mix of uses,
the proximity to transit, and the proposed TDM measures. The project also includes four tandem
parking spaces for the residential units. The four tandem spaces meet the 25% maximum tandem
spaces allowed by PAMC Chapter 18.52 for multi-family buildings. An additional 12 tandem
parking spaces would be available if needed. The parking counts in the plan set have been
revised by the applicant in response to a clarification request from the PTC. The proposed
parking spaces would meet the requirements of PAMC Chapter 18.52, as indicated in the Table 1
on the following page.
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 5 of 8
Table 1: Parking
Required
Reduction
Proposed Per
PAMC
Revised
Total Proposed Conforms
Residential
Two
spaces/unit
Guest spaces
16
2
20% for
Housing Near
Transit
(30%
combined
max)
12 12 Yes
Office
One space/250
square feet
42 20% total for
Joint Use and
TDM (30%
combined
max)
30 30 Yes
Total 60 30%
combined max
42 42* Yes
*Plus 12 additional tandem spaces.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The sales of the residential units and lease of the office spaces from the proposed project will
generate additional annual General Fund resources in the form of property, sales, and utility user
taxes. Total revenues from these sources are projected to equal approximately $12,000 per year.
In addition, one-time documentary transfer tax revenues are estimated in the $30,000 range.
One-time impact fees would be $333,800, and in-lieu (below-market rate) fees would be
$180,000, bringing total one-time revenues associated with the project to $543,800.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The site is located within the Transit Oriented Residential designation in the Comprehensive
Plan, which is applicable to projects within walking distance (2,000 feet) from a Caltrain station.
The land use category is intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of
public transportation and especially use of Caltrain. The project, as proposed, is consistent with
the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and supports the City’s policy objectives for
pedestrian and transit oriented development.
The project site is part of six parcels collectively identified as Housing Opportunity Site (HOS)
8-06 on the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Sites Inventory. Given the mix of office and
commercial uses in the area, it was anticipated in the current Housing Element that a minimum
density of 15 dwelling units would be redeveloped. Because the subject parcel is approximately
20% smaller without the sixth parcel, the minimum density would be proportionately reduced to
12 dwelling units. The applicant proposes eight dwelling units, four less than the anticipated
minimum. Because the City of Palo Alto has permitted 316 more dwelling units than the 1,397
units identified in the Housing Element, the eight dwelling units requested to be permitted as part
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 6 of 8
of this project would not adversely affect the total amount of housing to be built within this
Housing Element cycle.
As noted in this report and described in greater detail in the April 15, 2009 PTC report, the
applicant requests a State Density Bonus law “concession” to exceed the non-residential FAR
cap limitation. Government Code Section 65915 (also known as SB1818) allows applicants to
requests such concessions when below market rate housing units are included in a project. The
“concession” would not be contrary to the intent of the PTOD zoning.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
A Mitigated Negative Declaration, which reviewed the environmental issues as required by the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was circulated for a 20-day public review period
from April 6, 2009 to April 26, 2009. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial
Study are provided as Attachment H. No comments from the public or other agencies have been
received. Staff has recommended mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise, which would lessen potential impacts to a less than
significant level. Mitigations include measures to protect trees and to prevent exposure to
Trichloroethylene (TCE) during construction and for future occupants. The conditions of
approval and mitigation measures would be applied to the Major Architectural Review approval,
not the zoning.
PREPARED BY: __________________________________
ELENA LEE
Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD: __________________________________
CURTIS WILLIAMS
Interim Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: __________________________________
JAMES KEENE
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Draft Initial Study and Draft MND
C. Location Map
D. Development Standards Table
E. Applicant’s project description*
F. Applicant’s study of relocation of the Grant Avenue driveway and TDM measures*
G. Transportation Staff Memo regarding the driveway relocation
H Applicant’s Green Building Checklists*
I. Applicant’s response to Mitigation Measures in the Draft MND*
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 7 of 8
______________________________________________________________________________
CMR: 296:09 Page 8 of 8
J. PAMC Chapter 18.34 PTOD Regulations
K. California Avenue PTOD Boundary Map
L. April 15, 2009 PTC staff report and minutes (w/o attachments)
M. August 7, 2008 ARB staff report (w/o attachments)
N. Public Correspondences
O. Conceptual Plans (Commission only)*
* Submitted by Applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
NOT YET APPROVED ATTACHMENT A
Ordinance No.
Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending
the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto to Change the Zone
Designation for 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch
Street and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue from RM-40 Multi-
Fanlily to the Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
(PTOD) Combining District
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. The City Council finds as follows:
(A) The Planning and Transportation Commission ("Commission"), after a duly
noticed public hearing on April 15, 2009, has recommended that the City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("Council") rezone the subject site (305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and
306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue) to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development Combining District (PTOD) zone designation;
(B) The Planning and Transportation Con1ll1ission has reviewed the facts
presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations
from the direct()r of planning and community environment or other appropriate city staff.
(C) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that the subject site is
within the PTOD boundary.
(D) The Planning and Transportation Commission finds that rezoning the parcel
to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combining District
(PTOD) zoning is in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, in that the Comprehensive
Plan designation of the site is Multiple Family and within the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area.
(E) The Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the nlatter on July 6,2009,
and has reviewed the Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project and all other
relevant information, including staff reports, and all testimony, written and oral, presented on the
matter.
SECTION 2. The Council finds that the public interest, health and welfare
require an amendment to the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto as set forth in Section 3.
1
090623 syn 0120370
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 3. The Council hereby amends the Zoning Map of the City of Palo Alto
to place the subject site (305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and 306 and 320
Sheridan Avenue) in the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development
Combining District (PTOD) zoning regulations.
SECTION 4. The City Council further determines that the rezoning is subject to the
following limitations:
a. The development shall be a mixed use project comprising of ground floor office uses
with residential use on the upper floors;
b. Office uses on the ground floor shall comprise approximately 10,257 square feet;
c. A minimum of eight (8) residential units shall be provided, totaling approximately
14,534 square feet in area;
d. The maximum building height shall not exceed 40 feet;
e. A minimum of 42 parking spaces shall be provided;
f. A Transportation Demand l\1anagenlent Program shall be included that requires the
provision of transit passes for all occupants/tenants; and
g. The parking garage driveway shall be relocated away from Grant Avenue.
These limitations shall be recorded as conditions on the property, to the satisfaction of the City
Attorney and Planning Director. Modifications to these conditions may be approved by the
Planning Director only to the extent that increases or decreases do not exceed 10% of the
allowable outlined in parts (b) and (c) and remain in compliance with all other zoning
requirements.
SECTION 5. The Council hereby finds that this rezoning is subject to environmental
review under the provisions of the California Environnlental Quality Act (CEQA). An
environmental assessment was prepared for the project and it has been determined that no
potentially adverse impacts would result from the rezoning of the property; therefore, the project
would have no significant impact on the environment.
II
II
II
II
2
090623 syn 0120370
NOT YET APPROVED
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective upon the thirty-first (31 st) day after its
passage and adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assistant City Attorney
090623 syn 0120370
3
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
1 1 1 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
ATTACHMENT B
'Ci ty of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329;2441 FAX (650) 329-2154
www.cityofpaloalto.orq
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended' (Public Resources
C d 21 000 ) h 1 £ 11' . '11 h "fi f£ h . 0 e , , et sec. t at tle 0 owmg project WI not ave a sIgnI Icant e ect on t e enVIronment.
File N'uniber I'TAZ ·A:WN,;f$.j· '. IDh.t~ . , .: .. , . .'."., .....
08PLN-00182 I 132-36-074,-020,-070,-069,-073 I 04-03-09
. Prot~ct Name "1?~~J,,~~t;ry!pe "" :.,
'. ,":' .....
Birch Plaza Rezoning to PTOD, Architectural Review and
Subdivision
·QwQ~r·. .. ';' f:~pttl~~ti,lil( , '. ',., .', .... "':'.' .
.". '.: .. ' ,'. '.", ',' .; . ': ;..,
Couff House Plaza David Solnick
Hrql~¢.t,lj()c~HiQn . :: ':'..>:, :;:>." .':' ....
'.' , ""'::'.:: ..• >.:"': .:\ " .. :": .. ,., " ."
2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
" ProJect Besc ripti 0 n ....
Zone change from the existing RM -40 zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District, to allow for a mixed use development consisting
of eight residential condominiums above 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking
and related site improvements.
J?1I rposeQfN otice . : . ".'
Notice is hereby given that a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared by the Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment for the project listed above. In accordance with A.B.
866, this document will be available for review and comment during a minimum 20-day inspection period.
Public Review Period: IUegins: Apr;H6,2Q09 ,I' .End'~:·Aprj]:·~6,"20Q9
Public Comments regarding the correctness, completeness, or adequacy of this negative declaration are
invited and must be received on or before the hearing date. Such comments should be based on specific
environmental concerns. Written comments should be addressed to the City of Palo Alto. Oral COlnments
may be made at the hearing. A file containing additional information on this project may be reviewed at the
Planning Office under the file number appearing at the top of this form. For additional information regarding
this project and the Mitigated Negative Declaration, please contact Elena Lee at (650) 617-3196
The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study may be viewed at th~following locations:
(1) Palo Alto Planning Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
(2) Palo Alto Development Center at 285 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Responsible Agencies sent a copy of this docl,lment
County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
Mitigation Measures included BRihe project to Jredqcepoten~~~ny~Jgn.i&¢antiIn:pacts to a]ess~than
significant level: .. .. . .. . . .
Mitigation Measure D-l
To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk
will provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations.
ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to
achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in
parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering
Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a
minimum of 24" depth. The teclmology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification
rating.
Mitigation Measure D-2
The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety
measures or replacement according to the City Arborist requirements.
Mitigation Measure D-3
To maintain the health· of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report,
prepared by any excavation within the tree dripline shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30
inches. Pruning of roots greater than 1-112 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist.
Appropriate barricades shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies
to remove dead wood shall occur prior to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be
implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street
trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of
Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure D-4
An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application.
Mitigation Measure G-l
The proposed building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report
prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection,
and/or possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-
gas was detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based
on the result of the analyses. This work shall be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of
the City of Palo Alto.
Mitigation Measure G-2
Prior to the submittal of a building pennit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted
to the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point
where soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels.
Mitigation Measure G-3
In accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to
remove and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during
demolition activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using
engineering controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and
protect workers from exposure to asbestos.
A reporting or lTIonitoring program must be adopted for measures to mitigate significant impacts at the time
the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved, in accord with the requirements of section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code.
Prepared by:
Approved by:
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL
EV ALUATIONIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION DATED APRIL 3, 2009,
PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS BIRCH PLAZA,
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION MEASURES
CONTAINED HEREIN.
Applicant's Signature
CQurf-Hsllffi Plaza /-/6 /;.j & Ar .!d
Harold Hobach
C; 2)"
Mitigation Measure D-l
Summary of Mitigation Measures
To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will provide
additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations. ENGINEERED SOIL MIX
(ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to achieve normal shade tree rooting
potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking and compacted areas. Plans and Civil
Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section 30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with
cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology should be counted toward any credits awarded
for LEED certification rating.
Mitigation Measure D-2
The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or
replacement according to the City Arborist requirements.
Mitigation Measure D-3
To maintain the health of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared by any
excavation within the tree drip line shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning of roots greater
than 1-1/2 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades shall be installed around
the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall occur prior to construction. A
program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and summer. These measures will be included as
conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the
requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual and the City's Tree Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure D-4
An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application.
Mitigation Measure G-l
The proposeg building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report prepared for
the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or possibly sampling
should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-gas was detected. If excavated soil is
found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result of the analyses. This work shall be
performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto.
1
Mitigation Measure G-2
Prior °to the submittal of a building permit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to the City
for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where soil-gas
concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels.
Mitigation Measure G-3
In accordance with Cal/OSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove and
dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition activities.
All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering controls, trained
personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers from exposure to asbestos.
Mitigation Measure G-4
In conformance with state regulations, all flaking and peeling lead-based paint shall be removed from structures proposed
for demolition, and shall be handled, packaged, and disposed of as hazardous waste. The project shall comply with Cal-
OSHA requirements to protect workers from exposure to lead. Requirements include worker training, proper hygiene 0
practices, air monitoring and other controls.
Mitigation Measure K-l
All noise producing equipment placed at grade shall be include installation of sound-isolating, sound absorbing barrier or
enclosure to reduce noise impacts to achieve the City's Noise Ordinance requirements.
Mitigation Measure K-2
All roof mounted equipment shall be place a minimum of 20 feet from the residential property line.
Mitigation Measure K-3
A noise report prepared by a qualified professional shall be submitted with the Architectural Review application.
2
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
I
j
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. PROJECT TITLE
Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Palo Alto, California
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94303
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER
Elena Lee
City of Palo Alto
(650)617-3196
4. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS
David Solnick
David Solnick Architect
212 High Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
5. APPLICATION NUMBER
08PLN-00182
6. PROJECT LOCATION
2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant A venue, 306 & 320 Sheridan A venue
Palo Alto, CA
Parcel Numbers: 132-36-074, -020, -070, -070, -069,-073
The project site is located in the northern section of the City of Palo Alto, in the northern part of Santa
Clara County, west of U.S. Highway 101 and east of State Route 82 (EI CalPino Real), as shown on
Figure 1, Regional Map. The site is located on the southwest side of Birch Street, between Grant Avenue
and Sheridan Avenue, as shown on Figure 2, Vicinity Map.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 1 Mitigated Negative Declaration
70 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The project site is designated as Multiple Family Residential in the Palo Alto ] 998 -20] 0
Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes a residential density range of 8 to 40 units and 8-
90 persons per acre. The actual permitted number of housing units can vary by area, depending on
existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping centers and
environmental problems. Higher densities than what is permitted by zoning may be allowed where
measureable community uses will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will
be con1patible with the overall Comprehensive Plan. The site is located in the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use
Area. Policy L-31 states that the Cal-Ventura area should be developed as a well-designed mixed use
district with diverse land uses, two-to three-story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets
providing links to California Avenue. The site is within the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit-
Oriented District (PTOD) designation, which makes the site eligible for the PTOD Combining District.
8~ ZONING
The project site is zoned RM-40, Multi-Family residential. The RM-40 zone district is designed to
accommodate high density multiple-family residences. Permitted densities in the RM-40 residence
district range from 31 to 40 dwelling units per acre. Eating and drinking services and neighborhood
serving persona] and retail services may be allowed with a conditional use permit in the RM-40 Zoning
District as part of a single residential development containing at least 40 dwelling units. The proposed
PTOD combining district allows higher density residential dwellings, including mixed uses, on
commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the California Avenue
Caltrain station. It specifically fosters densities and facilities that encourage a variety of housing types,
commercial, retail, and limited office uses. However, the District has a floor area cap for the non-
residential portion of a mixed use. The office component is allowed to have a maximum floor area ratio
(FAR) of 0.25. The proposed project would include approximately 10,257 sq. ft. of office use, for a total
floor area ratio of 0.52, which would exceed the cap by 0.27. According to the applicant, the purpose of
designing the larger non-residential FAR is to accommodate a large enough commercial ground floor to
support eight two-story residences above. Per the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a Variance would be
required to accommodate the project. Because the project includes at least 10% Below Market Rate
units/in lieu fee combination, the applicant is requesting to receive an exception to the non-residential
FAR cap as an incentive per State Density Bonus legislation, SB 1818, which amended section 65915 of
the Government Code. SB 1818 allows applicants to request and receive up to three exceptions as
incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the construction of affordable housing.
Incentives can involve exceptions to open space, height, parking, FAR or similar standards.
9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue [08PLN-00182]: Request by
David Solnick on behalf of Court House Plaza Company for a zone change from the existing RM -40
zoning to the California A venue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development COlTlbining District
(PTOD) Overlay District, to allow for a mixed use development consisting of eight residential
condominiums above 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space, below grade parking and related
site improvements.
The proposed Birch Plaza project ("proposed project") would be located at 2640 and 2650 Birch Street,
305 Grant Avenue and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue within the Multi-Family RM-40 zoning district.
The project site is comprised of five parcels that occupy an entire block on the southern side of Birch
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 2 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Street, between Sherman Avenue and Grant Avenue. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet
southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station and approximately 650 feet southeasterly of
California Avenue. The site is approximately 19,862 square feet in size and is currently developed with
three single-family homes.
Should a rezoning be approved, the applicant's proposal is to construct a new three-story mixed use
office/residential building. The building would consist of a below grade parking garage and a podium
structure containing 10,257 sq. ft. of ground floor office space and eight two-story townhomes above the
podium. Access to the underground parking garage would be provided via a ramp on the pan handle
shaped parcel to the northwest from Grant Avenue. The garage would provide 31 parking spaces, up to 8
pairs of tandem parking spaces, mechanical equipment storage and bicycle parking. Three at grade
parking spaces would be provided as well with separate access from Birch Street. Separate pedestrian
entries are provided to the two office units from Birch Street. Pedestrian entry to the residential units
above would be provided from Sheridan Avenue. An elevator is provided from the garage to the first and
second floors in the center of the site.
The two-story townhomes that would occupy the second and third floors of the building comprise five
three-bedroom units and three two-bedroom units. Two of the three-bedroom units would have a room on
the ground floor that can be used as either a study or a fourth bedroom. Open space for residents would
be provided through a courtyard above the offices, which will also provide individual entries to the
townhomes. The building is proposed to be 40 feet tall with storefront glass and a stone/concrete tile
fa9ade at the ground floor level. The residential component would be differentiated by stucco and vertical
yellow cedar walls. The residential units would have painted wood trim, dual-glazed aluminum windows
and private balconies. The applicant is proposing to reconfigure existing sidewalks to accommodate park
strips with new street trees.
Approvals Required
Approval of the proposed project would consist of the following entitlements: (1) Rezoning the site from
RM-40 to the PTOD Combining District, (2) Major Architectural Review pursuant 18.76.020, (3) one
concession per State Density Bonus law, and (4) Subdivision Map to subdivide the lot for the purposes of
creating commercial and residential condominiums.
10. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING
The property is located in a fully developed part of the City. Surrounding uses include a County court
house on the other side of Birch Street to the north and commercial/office uses to the north and northeast.
The remainder of the uses to the east, south and west are primarily multi-family residential buildings.
The site is located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of the California Avenue Caltrain station.
II. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
• County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMP ACTS
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by
the infonnation sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. [A "No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (e. g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No
Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general
standards (e. g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific
screening analysis).]
2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative
as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers
must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than
significant. Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be
significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made,
an EIR is required.
4) "(Mitigated) Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the
incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less
than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how
they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier
Analysis," may be cross-referenced).
5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect
has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (C)(3) (D). In this
case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) hnpacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,"
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project.
6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document
should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
8) The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 4 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
The following Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is ilnplemented. The left-hand column in the checklist lists the source(s) for the answer to each
question. The sources cited are identified at the end of the checklist. Discussions of the basis for each answer and
a discussion of mitigation measures that are proposed to reduce potential significant impacts are included.
A. AESTHETICS
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Resources Significant Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
Would the project: Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Substantially degrade the existing visual x
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
1,2,6
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on a J
public view or view corridor? 1, x
MapL4
c) Substantial1y damage scenic resources,
including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings within 1, x
a state scenic highway? MapL4
d) Violate existing Comprehensive Plan x
policies regarding visual resources?
e) Create a new source of substantial light or x
glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area?
1,2,6
f) Substantially shadow public open space x
(other than public streets and adjacent
sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00
p.m. from September 21 to M~rch 21 ?
DISCUSSION:
The project has been designed to be compatible with the surrounding development on this block of Birch Street.
The proposed project is subject to the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board review and compliance with
the City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, the PTOD Context Based Design Criteria, and Comprehensive Plan
policies. The proposed project is infill development in a fully developed area of the City. The building will have a
height of 40 feet, which meets the maximum height requirement for both the existing RM-40 and proposed PTOD
zoning designations. There are other multi-story buildings within the vicinity of the site. The new building will
be designed with attractive facades and add pedestrian interest to the streetscape. The redevelopment of the site
may result in negligible increase in light and glare generated from additional lighting of the site. However, the
City'S standard conditions of approval will ensure that the impacts will be less than significant. The condition of
approval will require that all exterior lights will be shielded and not extend beyond the site. With the required
architectural review, the proposed building will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality
of the site or its surroundings, therefore no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 5 Mitigated Negative Declaration
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In detennining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may
refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California
Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and fannland.
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
or Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and 1 Monitoring Program of the California x Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural 1,8-
use, or a Williamson Act contract? MapL9, x
Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of 1 x
Farmland, to non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is not located in a "Prime Fannland", "Unique Fannland", or "Fannland of Statewide hnportance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Fannland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources
Agency. The site is not zoned for agricultural use, and is not regulated by the Williamson Act.
Mitigation Measures: None Required
C. AIR QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially . Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Conflict with or obstruct with implementation x
ofthe applicable air quality plan (1982 Bay 1,2,3
Area Air Quality Plan & 2000 Clean Air Plan)?
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute x
substantially to an existing or projected air 1,2,3
quality violation indicated by the following:
i. Direct and/or indirect operational x
emissions that exceed the Bay Area Air
Quality Management District (BAAQMD)
criteria air pollutants of 80 pounds per day
and/or 15 tons per year for nitrogen oxides
(NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page6 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
c)
d)
e)
f)
Significant Significant Significant Impact·
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
fine particulate matter of less than 10
microns in diameter (PM 10);
ii. Contribute to carbon monoxide (CO) x
concentrations exceeding the State
Ambient Air Quality Standard of nine
parts per million (ppm) averaged over
eight hours or 20 ppm for one hour( as
demonstrated by CALINE4 modeling,
which would be perfonned when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) proj ect traffic
would impact intersections or roadway
links operating at Level of Service (LOS)
D, E or F or would cause LOS to decline to
D, E or F; or c) project would increase
traffic volumes on nearby roadways by
10% or more)?
Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment under an x applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,2,3 standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors )?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels x
of toxic air contaminants? 1,2,3
1. Probability of contracting cancer for the x
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds lOin one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-x
carcinogenic T ACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (1) for the
MEl
Create objectionable odors affecting a x
substantial number of people? 1
Not implement all applicable construction x
emission control measures recommended in the
Bay Area Air Quality Management District
CEQA Guidelines?
DISCUSSION:
The subject site is in a developed area of mixed uses including commercial retail, office and residential uses in the
Cal-Ventura Area. According to the Comprehensive Plan, the property is not located in an area that contains uses
or activities that are major pollutant emitters. The project is not expected to result in a significant impact on air
quality.
The project may result in temporary dust emissions during demolition, grading and construction activities. The
impacts are expected to be greatest during demolition. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of
an approved demolition and construction management plan secured before building permit issuance.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 7 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The following controls shall be implemented for the duration of project construction to minimize dust related
construction impacts:
• All active construction areas shall be watered at least twice daily.
• All trucks hauling soil, sand, and loose materials shall be covered or shall retain at least two feet of
freeboard.
• All paved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at the construction site shall be swept and
watered daily.
• Submit a plan for the recovery/recycling of demolition waste and debris before the issuance of a
demolition pennit.
• Sweep streets daily if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets.
The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None
D. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,
or special status species in local or regional 1,8-x plans, policies, or regulations, or by the MapNll California Department ofFish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 7
I
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional plans, 1,8-x policies, regulations, including federally MapNl protected wetlands as defined by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
c) Interfere substantially with the movement of x
any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife
species or with established native resident or 1,8-
migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use MapNl of native wildlife nursery sites? 17
d) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances x
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or as defined by the City of 1,2,3 Palo Alto's Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Municipal Code Section 8.] O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community
I x Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3
regional, or state habitat conservation plan? I
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potential1y Potential1y Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
DISCUSSION: The project site is located in an established urban area with no riparian or tree habitat for the
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in the area. No endangered, threatened, or rare animals, insects and
plant species have been identified at this site. The proposed project includes protection measures for the one
protected tree located on the project site per the Palo Alto Tree Preservation Ordinance. The existing City tree is
planted in the park strip near the proposed ramp to the below grade parking garage. The applicant has submitted
an arborist report assessing the impact on the tree. The report concludes that the proposed ramp will not endanger
the tree. To maintain the health of the tree, the report recommends several measures, including requiring that any
excavation within the tree dripline be done by hand or air, digging to a depth of 30 inches, requiring that pruning
of roots greater than 1-1/2 inches in diameter be supervised' by a qualified arborist, installation of appropriate
barricades around the tree during construction, preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood prior to
construction and implementing a program of fertilization in the spring and summer. These measures will be
included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the satisfaction of the City Arborist, based·
upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual. The conditions of approval would result
in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure D-l
To assure the street trees will grow to expected size and life span, engineered soil mix base for new sidewalk will
provide additional root growing area as compensation for proximity to podium structure limitations.
ENGINEERED SOIL MIX (ESM). Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas to
achieve normal shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the parking surface and curbs in parking
and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering Specifications, Section
30 and Detail #604, designate the areas with cross-hatch symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The
technology should be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED certification rating.
Mitigation Measure D-2
The existing mature street tree near the proposed ramp shall be carefully evaluated for custom safety measures or
replacement according to the City Arborist requirements.
Mitigation Measu re D-3
To maintain the health of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared
by any excavation within the tree dripline shall be done by hand or air digging to a depth of 30 inches. Pruning
of roots greater than 1-112 inches in diameter shall be supervised by a qualified arborist. Appropriate barricades
shall be installed around the tree during construction. Preventive pruning of canopies to remove dead wood shall
occur prlor to construction. A program of fertilization for the tree shall be implemented in the spring and
summer. These measures will be included as conditions of approval. Street trees would be protected to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist, based upon the requirements of the City of Palo Alto's Tree Technical Manual
and the City's Tree Ordinance.
Mitigation Measure D-4
An updated arborist report shall be provided with the Architectural Review application.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 9 Mitigated Negative Declaration
E. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
Significant Significant Significant Impact
WouJd the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution? x
Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource 1,8-x
pursuant to 15064.5? MapL8
Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique 1,8-x
geologic feature? MapL8
Disturb any human remains, including those 1,8-
interred outside of formal cemeteries? MapL8 x
Adversely affect a historic resource listed or x
eligible for listing on the National and/or
California Register, or listed on the City's 1,2,8-
Historic Inventory? MapL7
Eliminate important examples of major periods x
of California history or prehistory?
DISCUSSION:
The Comprehensive Plan indicates that the site is in a moderate archaeological resource sensitivity zone. Most of
the City area east of Interstate 280 is designated in this zone. Although existing and historic development has
altered the native landscape, the potential exists that now-buried Native American sites could be uncovered in
future planning area construction. The site has not been designated as a historic resource.
If archaeological materials are discovered the applicant would be required to perform additional testing and
produce an Archaeological Monitoring and Data recovery Plan (AMDRP) to be approved prior to the start of
construction. The standard condition, detailed below, will reduce this potential to less than significant.
If during grading and construction activities, any archaeological or human remains are encountered, construction
shall cease and a qualified archaeologist shall visit the site to address the find. The Santa Clara County Medical
Examiner's office shall be notified to provide property direction on how to proceed. If any Native American
Resources are encountered during construction, construction shall cease imn1ediately after until a Native
American descendent, appointed by the Native American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able
to evaluate the site and make further recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 10 Mitigated Negative Declaration
F. GEOLOGY, SOILS AND SEISMICITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Expose people or structures to potential
substantial adverse effects, including the See
risk of loss, injury, or death involving: below
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, x
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault
Zoning Map issued by the State
Geologist for the area or based on 1,2
other substantial evidence of a known
fault? Refer to Division of Mines and
Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? 8-MapN-x
10
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? 8-MapN5
x
iv) Landslides? 8-MapN5 x
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil? 1 x
c) Result in substantial siltation? x
d) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
unstable, or that would become unstable as
a result of the project, and potentially
result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral 8-MapN5 x
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Unifonn Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 8-MapN5 x
life or property?
f) Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative waste water disposal systems 1
where sewers are not available for the x
disposal of waste water?
g) Expose people or property to major x
geologic hazards that cannot be mitigated
through the use of standard engineering
design and seismic safety technigues?
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 11 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DISCUSSION: The entire state of California is in a seismically active area. According to the Comprehensive
Plan the project site is not in an area that is subject to very strong ground shaking in the event of an earthquake or
in an area subject to expansive soils, surface rupture, liquefaction, or earthquake induced landslides.
Development of the proposed project would be required to conform to all requirements in the Uniform Building
Code, which includes provisions to ensure that the design and construction of all buildings includes provisions to
resist damage from earthquakes to the extent feasible and acceptable. All on-site soils on the project site are
suitable for use as fill provided that the large pieces of concrete, brick, old pipes and other buried debris is
removed. To support the at grade structure on a shallow foundation, th'e upper 2.5 feet of existing fill within the
building footprint and all the undocumented deeper and buried debris will be removed and re-worked. The
potential onsite exposure to geological hazards wil1 therefore be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
The entire site is mostly developed and is fairly flat. Substantial or permanent changes to the site topography are
not expected. Standard conditions of approval require submittal of a final grading and drainage plan for the
project for approval by the Public Works Department prior to the issuance of a building permit. The application
of standard grading, drainage, and erosion control measures as a part of the approved grading and drainage plan is
expected to avoid any grading-related impacts. The project will not involve the use of septic tanks or alternative
wastewater disposal systems.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
G. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routing transport, use, x
or disposal of hazardous materials? 6,8,9,12
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably foreseeable
upset and accident conditions involving the x release of hazardous materials into the 6,8,9,12 environment?
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or x
waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or 1,6,8,9, proposed school? 12
d) Construct a school on a property that is subject x
to hazards from hazardous materials
contamination, emissions or accidental release?
e) Be located on a site which is included on a list
of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant
to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a 1,6,8,8-x result, would it create a significant hazard to MapN9, the public or the environment? 12
f) For a project located within an airport land use
plan or, where such a plan has not been
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 12 Mitigated Negative Declaration
g)
h)
i)
j)
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or
public use airport, would the project result in a x
safety hazard for people residing or working in 1
the project area?
For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety x
hazard for peop Ie residing or working the 1
project area?
Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,8-
plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7, x
12
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to x
urbanized areas or where residences are 8-MapN7 intermixed with wildlands?
Create a significant hazard to the public or the 8,9,12 x
environment from existing hazardous materials
contamination by exposing future occupants or
users of the site to contamination in excess of
soil and ground water cleanup goals developed
for the site?
DISCUSSION: Stellar Environmental Solutions prepared a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and a
Phase II Site Investigation Report for the project. Both documents have been reviewed and accepted by
hazardous materials experts in the Fire Department and Public Works. The Phase I report revealed that based on
the age of the building that interior and exterior building materials likely contain asbestos and potentially lead-
based paints. The residential site is not documented as having been a user, transporter or generator of hazardous
materials. However, there is documentation that the subject property has groundwater contamination by volatile
organic compounds (VOCs). The source of the groundwater contamination is a plume from the Hewlett
PackardlVarian manufacturing plant located at 395 Page Mill Road, approximately 400 feet southeast of the
project site. The groundwater contamination is referred to as the COE HP/Varian plume. The VOC plume has
been the subject of investigation and remediation since 1981 by both HP and Varian. Studies of the most recent
groundwater monitoring data have determined that the concentrations found are below the threshold that would
trigger the requirement for additional soil-vapor sampling. Thus, it was determined that soil-vapor intrusion is
unlikely. Because of the plume and the Phase I recommendation, additional soil samples were collected on the
subject site and docun1ented in a Phase II report. The Phase II report concluded that groundwater contamination
is below the threshold for concern. The consultant concluded that the detected VOC contamination in the site
groundwater and soil-gas pose no potential for health-related impacts to vicinity or site occupants. Only one of
the several borings, boring B4, was determined to require special protection for excavation. The mitigations
identified below will reduce all impacts to less than significant levels for VOC contamination, asbestos and lead-
based paint.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure G-l
The proposed building footprint shall avoid covering the area of bore B4, as identified in the Phase II report
prepared for the Birch Plaza Project. During the construction phase of this area, PID screening, inspection, and/or
possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TCE) contamination in soil-gas was
detected. If excavated soil is found, it should be appropriately screen, profiled and disposed of based on the result
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 13 Mitigated Negative Declaration
of the analyses. This work sha11 be performed by a qualified professional to the satisfaction of the City of Palo
Alto.
Mitigation Measure G-2
Prior to the submittal of a building permit, indoor air intrusion risk modeling shall be prepared and submitted to
the City for approval to alleviate regulatory concern about the potential for impacts from the one data point where
soil-gas concentrations were above the regulatory environmental screening levels.
Mitigation Measure G-3
In accordance with CallOSHA regulations, a registered asbestos abatement contractor shall be retained to remove
and dispose of all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials (ACM) prior to disturbance during demolition
activities. All ACM removal shall be undertaken in accordance with applicable regulations using engineering
controls, trained personnel, and work methods that reduce the impact to the environment and protect workers
from exposure to asbestos.
Mitigation Measure G-4
In conformance with state regulations, aU flaking and peeling lead-based paint shall be removed from structures
proposed for demolition, and shall be handled, packaged, and disposed of as hazardous waste. The project shall
comply with Cal-OSHA requirenlents to protect workers from exposure to lead. Requirements include worker
training, proper hygiene practices, air monitoring and other controls.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements? 1,8,9,12 x
b) Substantial1y deplete groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with groundwater
recharge such that there would be a net deficit
in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local 8,9 groundwater table level (e.g., the production 8-MapN2 rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to
a level which would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits have
been granted)? x
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a
manner which would result in substantial x erosion or siltation on-or off-site? 1,2,8,9,
12
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern
of the site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount of
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,8,9, x
in flooding on-or off-site? 12
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted 1,2,12 x runoff?
f) Otherwise substantia11y degrade water quality? 1,2,12 x
g) Place housing within a lOO-year flood hazard
h)
i)
j)
k)
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? 1,12 x
Place within a lOO-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect 8-x
flood flows? MapN6,
12
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
of loss, injury or death involve flooding,
including flooding as a result of the failure of a 8-MapN6
levee or dam or being located within a lOO-year N8,12 x flood hazard area?
Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mud flow? 8-MapN6 x
N8,12
Result in stream bank instability? 12 x
DISCUSSION:
The site is in Flood Zone X, which is not a special flood hazard zone. The nearest body of water is the Santa
Clara Valley Water District Matadero Canal, which runs southwest to northeast, approximately 1,000 feet from
the southeastern border of the property. During demolition, grading and construction, storm water pollution could
result. Runoff from the project site flows to the San Francisco Bay without treatment. Nonpoint source pollution
is a serious problem for wildlife dependant on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or
baylands. Therefore, conditions of approval, incorporated as part of an approved demolition and construction
management plan (secured before building permit issuance) would include the following:
Recommended Conditions of Approval:
• Before submittal of plans for a building permit, the applicant shall submit a drainage plan which includes
drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
• The Applicant shall identify the Best Management Practices (BMP's) to be incorporated into a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project. The SWPPP shall include both temporary BMP's to be
implemented during demolition and construction.
The standard conditions would result in impacts that are less than significant.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
! I
/ ., J ;,' 1;'
Th e Cily or
Palo Alto
Birch Plaza Mixed Use
Location Map
ATTACHMENT C
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-. •
ATTACHMENT 0
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
STANDARD PTODZONE DEVELOPMENT
REQUIREMENTS
Minim urn Site Specifications
Site Area (sq. ft.) None required 19,862 sq. ft.
Site Width (ft.) None required 40-85'
Site Depth (ft.) None required 185.70-285.82'
Minim urn Setbacks
Front Yard (ft) N one required Building Setbacks
Sheridan Ave.: 10'
Birch St.: 7'
Grant St.: 100'
Rear Yard (ft) None required 10'
Side Yard (ft) None required 10'
Total Mixed Use FAR 1.25: 1 1.25: 1
Residential Component FAR* 1.0: 1 0.73: 1
Mixed Use Non-Residential FAR** 0.35 (0.25 for Office and 0.52
Research and Development Uses)
Usable Open Space*** 100 sq. ft. per unit 138 sq. ft. per unit
Minimum dimensions Private open space: 6' Meets requirement
Common open space: 12' Meets requirement
.
Maxim urn Height (ft) 40' 40'
Residential Density (net)**** 40 dulac max. 17 dulac
* The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0: 1.
**
***
****
The non-residential component of a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total
square-footage of the project.
Required usable open space: (l) may be any combination of private and common open
spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included
as open space; (3) minimmTI private open space dimension 6 feet; and (4) minimum
common open space dimension 12 feet.
Residential density shall be computed based upon the total site area, irrespective of the
percent of the site devoted to commercial use.
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
j
I
j
Birch Plaza
PROJECT DESCRIPTION and DESIGN INTENT
ATTACHMENT E
Submitted by Applicant
The site is an assemblage of small existing parcels that will together create a 19,862 sf
comer lot at Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue, with a small extension to Grant Street.
We propose to change the current RM-40 zoning to PTOD, per the new California
Avenue PTOD Combining District regulations. The proposed mixed-use project
comprises eight 2-story townhou'ses on a ground floor office podium, with most of the
parking underground. The townhouses are configured around two interconnected
courtyards. The larger one is oriented toward and accessed by a partially hidden stair
from Birch Street. The smaller one, with a southern orientation, is accessible from the
quieter Sheridan Avenue.
The I solid' office podium is intended to act as a base for the 'village' of townhouses
above, with clear distinctions in massing and finishes between office and residential
uses. Nevertheless, the two uses share just enough of the building vocabulary to read as
a single project. The podium courtyards provide the residential component with
generous outdoor common areas, which are intended to foster a sense of community in
the project. With each unit also having its own private open space, the total usable open
, space is far in excess of the minimum required. The entries are configured in such a way
as to allow residential users their own access via the two stairs, or a common access via
the elevator, which serves the parking, office lobby, and podium right at the connection
between the two courtyards. Even the mailbox location is intended to encourage a
mixing of users.
The proposal conforms with all FAR, setback, height, daylight plane, and parking
requirements, with two exceptions. The new PTOD zoning includes a provision that the
1.25 FAR allowed for mixed-use can have no more than 0.35 FAR assigned to non-
-residential uses. As we developed the concept of ground floor office with a residential
podium, however, we found that we did not have enough ground floor square footage
to physicallysupport the residential above. The only alternative would have been to
reduce the residential fo'otprint by making it three stories rather than two, thereby
creating a 4-story project. Given the 3-story context, we considered this to be an
undesirable alternative, an opinion shared by the Planning Director during our early
meetings on the project. We also recognized that PTOD zoning is new and hence not
significantly 'field-tested'. Our first experiment here suggests that some flexibility in the
FAR ratios between the different uses would be beneficial, even as FAR limits are held
firm.
An an ciliary consequence of the larger ground floor is an increase in the site coverage to
55%, where 45% is allowed. In a sense, we have swapped some ground level open space
for residential common open space above, where it serves the greatest use. Given the
additional benefits in reducing the number of floors, we feel strongly that these two
exceptions readily qualify as Design Enhancements. Even with this, each of the two
main office areas have their own outdoor patios, as well as generous space for
landscaping on all four sides.
In keeping with the intent of PTOD zoning, as well as our own design propensities, we
have endeavored to create an engaging street experience for the pedestrian. This
includes a variety of massing articulations, landscape diversity, high quality finish
materials, entry canopies, and overhanging balconies. The sidewalk on Birch Street is
currently located right next to the curb. We are proposing to move it away from the curb
to conform to the configuration on both Sheridan Avenue and Grant Street. More
importantly, it would provide a landscape buffer from the street that would be planted
with a continuous row of sycamore trees, adding substantially to the existing trees on
Sheridan and Grant.
The underground garage contains a mixture of conventional and tandem parking
spaces, as well as bicycle parking. Additional spaces may be used for storage and
tandem parking beyond that required. The parcel' Sl finger' toward Grant Street serves
perfectly as the garage ramp~ Indeed, this is the only configuration of the parking that
allows us to meet the requirements of the Parking Ordinance. This configuration has the
considerable added benefit of providing a mini-park at the corner of Birch and Grant
that will act as a resting area and a backdrop for public art. This area, as well as the art,
will be developed further once a landscape architect is engaged on the project.
BIRCH PLAZA
ZONING CONSTRA][NTS
10 June 2008
Addresses: 305 Grant Ave, 2640 & 2650 Birch St., 306 & Sheridan Ave.
Existing Zoning: RM -40
Proposed Zoning: California Ave PTOD Combining
Proposed Use: Mixed Use: Office/ Business Services and Residential
Parcel Size: 19,862
FAR allowed for mixed use:
Office/Business Services FAR:
Residential FAR:
Residential Density Allowed:
Residential Density Proposed: 8 units
Building Height:
Setbacks (per underlying RM-40 zone):
Front (Sheridan Ave):
Interior Side:
Street Side and Rear:
Daylight Plane:
Lot Coverage:
Addi tional allowed for porches, etc.
Open Spa~e:
Parking Required:
Office: 1 stall per 250 sf
Residential: 2 stalls per unit
Guest Parking: 1 + 10% of units=
Total:
1.25 = 24,827.5 sf
0.52 10,257 sf
0.73 = 14,534
40 uni ts / acre max.
17 units/ acre
40 feet
o to ft
10 ft
o to 16 ft
none
55% = 11,357 sf
~% = 993 sf
100 sf/ unit
42 stalls
16
2
60 stalls
Adjustment for Joint Use: 20% of total
Adjusbnent for Housing near Transit: 20%
Total Adjushnent Allowed: 30% of total =
Net Parking Required:
Tandem Parking: up to 25% of residential =
N'o. of accessible parking stalls: 1 per 25
42 stalls
4 stalls
2 stalls, 1 van-accessible
Bike Parking: 1 ' (L T) 8
1 10 units for guest bike parking (ST) 1
1 per 2,500 of office space 5
Total 14
Birch Plaza
PTOD Context-Based Design Considerations
This document addresses the PTOD Combining District context-based criteria listed in section 18.34.050
of the Zoning Regulations of the City of Palo Alto.
(1) Pedestrian & Bicycle Environment
The
the
design promotes pedestrian
ways:
connecti vity and a bicycle-friendly environment in
A. The main pedestrian entrance is on Birch Street, under a welcoming canopy. Two wide stairs lead up
to two interconnected residential courtyards, the main one on Birch Street and the other on
Sheridan Avenue. Each of the two first-floor oHice units has a direct entry off Birch Street. Bike
faci.lities are located in the underground parking levet accessed by a ramp off Grant Avenue.
B See lA.
C. N/A
D. Bike storage is provided on the underground parking level.
E. The corner of the site at Birch Street and Grant Avenue is an and mvjting mini-park
wi.th and public art.
F. N/A
G. It is proposed that the BiTch Street which is currently right next to the be moved 4'
away from the curb such that a strip with a row of street trees can be added that buffers
the sidewalk from the street. conform with the on Sheridan and Grant
Avenues There is an 8' to 12' wide planting area between the sidewalk and the building, and
vertical elements with climbing plants that connect the residen bal courtyards above to
the ground leveL Also see 1 E.
H. N
(2) Street Building Facades
The street facades are to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks and streets,
encouraging activity in the following ways:
A. N/A
B. See 1 A. The office units have generous windows facing all three streets. The townhouses have their
windows and decks oriented outwards, addressing the streets.
C. Canopies, decks, and vertical fins provide human scale and break up the building mass.
D. See 2B.
E. The main building entrance 1S a generous with a large shade structure overhead. The
Birch Street stair up to the residential courtyard is integrated with this building entrance. This
and the Sheridan A venue stair are both next to the tallest building elements in the project
emphasizing their function in linking the sidewalk to the residential courtyards above.
F. See 2B.
(3) Massing & Articulation
The project is designed to minimize massing, providing articulation and design variety in the followjng
ways:
A. The mass of the 2-story townhouses is articulated with projecting and recessed building forms and
varied roof heights, minimizing their mass and creating design variety.
B. The roofline is highly varied, creating visual. interest. The stairs to the residential courtyards, and
the street corner at Birch Street and Sheridan Avenue, have the highest roofs to emphasize their
importance. See 2E.
C The Birch Street and Sheridan A venue corner is massed and articulated to reinforce this
intersection. The I-story podium base rises up to 2 stories and is articulated with vertical fins and
generous sun shading.
D. N/A
E. No more than 70% , and no more than 100' continuous linear feet, of the Birch Street facade exceeds
a height of 25'.
F. N/A
G N/A
H. N/A
(4) low-Density Residential Transitions
N/A
(5) Proj ect Open Space
There are private and public open spaces for the residents, visitors and enlployees:
A. Each of the office units has a priva te south-facing patio. Each townhouse has a deck off the
living/ dining room, the majority of which have southern exposure ..
B. The office patios serve as convenient lunch or meeting areas for employees. The attractively
landscaped residential courtyards are shared by the townhouses and serve to build a sense of
community. Also see IE.
C See lA and IE.
D. There is a combination of private and common open spaces.
E. The residential courtyards and residential decks provide usable open space above the grolmd level.
F. The residential courtyards look down on to Birch Street and obliquely on to Sherjdan Avenue. There
are residential decks on each street facade. These activate the street facade and increase" eyes on
the street".
G. N/A
H. Parking is not counted as open space.
(6) Parking Design
Parking is designed such that it unobtrusive and does not detract from the pedestrian enviromnent:
A Parking is located mainly in the basement. On-grade parking is screened by landscaping and low
walls.
B. N/A
C. N/A
D See 6A.
E. Street parking is for visitor or customer parking, and is designed to enhance traffic cabning on the
street.
(7) Large (m ulti-acre) Sites
N/A
(8) Sustainability & Green Building Design
A. The townhouse building form is narrow and organized around courtyards to optimize natural
daylighting and ventilation. Sunshading and windo'w overhangs reduce solar heat gain.
B. Landscaping around the podium at ground leveL and on the residential courtyards, .is designed to
create cOITl£ortable micro-climates and reduce heat island eHects.
C See lA.
D. The landscapjng around the podium at ground level is 8' to 12' wide. This helps to Dlaximize onsite
stormwater management.
E. Sustainable bUilding materials will be specified.
F. Energy-efficient lighting, plumbing and equipment will be used.
G. Healthy indoor environments will be created.
H. Other sustainable building practices will be incorporated into the project as much as possible.
1. N/ A
Lee, Elena
From:
Sent:
To:
David Solnick [david@solnick.net]
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:01 PM
Lee, Elena
Cc: Williams, Curtis
Subject: Re: Birch
ATTACHMENT F
Submltted~ppljc,ant,_,~,_--,-
We are requesting to retain the underground driveway approach at its currently proposed location on Grant Street. It is
the only location that allows us to safely provide the parking required for this project. Access from Birch Street (option
#1) renders the underground garage entirely unusable, except where the access is near the comer (see below). Access
from Sheridan (option #2) results in a net loss of 12 parking stalls. Access from Birch Street near the comer of Grant
(option #3) retains the same nurnber of parking stalls, but puts the entrance near the comer of a much busier street; .
creates a driveway that curves sharply as it
descends; forces cars from the ground level stalls to back onto Birch St; and eliminates the pocket park.
~ ~ ~
8 ~ ~
; ~ ~ ~
laU'~JlU1OS®PlAep
iJ3iIHJ}JV
00 ....J ....J ~ 00
tuCl
w Z
o::=>
1-0
000::
I-C!)
000::
UJ UJ ooCl
=>5
CO....J
Z....J 0«
00 00
Ll.. o
UJ 00 Uoo uo «....J • •
OllV Oled 'laallS 46lH U'Z elUJOjueJ 'OllV oled 'laaJlS 4JJIII 059'Z
)t:)IN10S (IiAVa VZVld HJ~18
I-W w 0:: I-C/')
::c ~ co
3nN3J\V NVCII~3HS
I Iii 2 t:?:.S i
;
i? ]
• • •
.. 3d01;,;ttU
-r----l-------------------, ,
•
. .. 3d01;';UO
•
-,-- - - --' - - - - - - - - - - - - -+-------'---------1
- - - - ---- - ---- - - - - - -+-------~
• •
• •
I •
I •
• •
T-
~# NOLLdO 9NI)I~Vd ~
~
I~
•
I ~ Vl
:::I: U c:::: -I:C
:E 0 c:::: LL
Vl Vl LLJ
" U ;!to! a~ u «
LLJ
C)
~ ~
~--
//
//
//
//
//
//
• LOSS OF 12 UNDERGROUND STALLS
,/J-
//
~ ~
BIRCH STREIT
•
•
@11%SLOPE •
•
GARAGE ACCESS FROM SHERIDAN AVE.
rARSTFI.OORABOVE •
•
@22%SLOPE
•
•
• t'ANRoo""""",
w ~ z W ~ z C§
ii: w :::c VI
FTC
07/28/08
T ~ ~ s: ·E ~ -0
4: ~
~
0 ::::.:::~ U~ Z~ ....J.-o ~ VI!:; Q~ >-r ~~
.. E ~ u
~~
«~ N . ~~ a..~ ..<:: :::c ~ Uii:i 0::::0 ti5~
~
Z o i= a.. o
C) z 52 0:::: ~
PRINT DATE: 4128/09
SHErr
4.2
I
I
4----
BIRCH STREET
_ - - - - - --\-1 - - - - - - - - --1-'-- -- - - -
\1 1/
------~ ~-------
L ________ ~[:
.,. -I ~ ~~ ~~ ~
r---I-___ _
\
\ G~::OPE /=!===-~-__ "~~~~~ __ -.TI--------1---~
RAMPluPTU
BIRCH STREET CWWlEobORABOVE
1.-.--1ST'LOCIRABOYE
1
!!t!!!..1
37
.!m!!.1 J.!l!!ll
.Y!:!!ll
T
• ACCESS ON BUSIEST STREET
• GROUND LEVEL STALLS REQUIRE
BACKING ONTO BIRCH ST.
• LOSS OF POCKET PARK
to
VO/ I ,W v; TYP.
.!:!.!i!il. !!!i!!!
UNIT 3 I JI!j!ll
GARAGE ACCESS FROM BIRCH ST. @ CORNER
PTe
1-10: u c: ~ ~ :x: c: ~ ~
-<I; ~
M ~ z o ~ o
C) z 52 c:r::: tt.
~
'" 'E ~ u
PRINT DATE: 4128109
SHEET
4.3
Uoli6acli CR.§a(ty Company Limited (J'artnersliip
29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, CA 94027
Tel: 650/322-8242 Fax: 650/853-0325
Curtis Willianls
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Dear Mr. Williams:
Re: Birch Plaza Project
2650 Birch Street
May 21, 2009
I am writing this letter to confirm certain issues David Solnick, the architect
for Birch Plaza Project, discussed with you on April 21, 2009, in connection with
the zone change application from RM-40 to PTOD heard by the Planning
Commission on April 15, 2009.
After hearing from condominium owners in the Birch Court Condominium
Project, the Planning Conlmission in a 4 to 2 vote approved the Birch Plaza
Project with the condition that the entrance to the underground garage be moved
off of Grant Avenue.
As pointed out during the meeting on April 21, 2009, moving the entrance
off Grant Avenue is not feasible because it would in effect destroy the viability of
the project.
Moving -the entrance to Sheridan Avenue would remove 12 parking spaces
. from the project. It would place more traffic on Sheridan Avenue which already
has much more traffic than Grant Avenue. Sheridan Avenue in this block already
services a seven unit apartment building at 303,305,307,309,311,315 Sheridan
Avenue, a 83 unit apartment project at 345 Sheridan Avenue, a 57 unit apartment
project at 360 Sheridan Avenue, and the Jerusalem Baptist Church at 380 Sheridan
Avenue
Placing an entrance for the underground garage on Birch Street is also not
feasible because of the limited space in a direction perpendicular to Birch Street to
nlake a tum into parking spaces. Providing the access from Birch Street near the
comer at Grant Avenue would save the underground parking but would create a
driveway that curves sharply as it descends. In addition, this would cause cars
parked at ground level stalls to back out into two lanes of Birch Street traffic
which would be very dangerous. It also eliminates the small park along Birch
Street extending to Grant Avenue.
Also, providing entrances on Sheridan Avenue or on Birch Street would
substantially eliminate any use of the 305 Grant Avenue property in the Birch
Plaza Project.
In summary, the Grant Avenue entrance is the only viable entrance for the
Birch Plaza underground garage. Any increase in traffic caused by the Birch Plaza
Project is best borne by Grant Avenue which carries less vehicular and pedestrian
traffic than Sheridan Avenue or Birch Street.
A Statistics Request Report, attached hereto as Exhibit A, on Sheridan
Avenue from the City of Palo Alto Police Department reports accidents fronl
January 2000 to April 24, 2009 at the intersections of Birch and Grant and
Sheridan and Birch. The report shows seven reported accidents on Sheridan
Avenue for Sheridan and Birch and five on Grant for Grant and Birch. The report
shows nineteen reported accidents for
the Sheridan and Birch intersection and twelve on Grant and Birch for the Grant
and Birch intersection ..
The statistics support the placenlent of the entrance to the underground
garage on Grant Avenue because it is safer than placing it on the more heavily
traveled Sheridan Avenue. The traffic consultant for the project as set forth in Fehr
& Peers letter of May 6, 2009, attached hereto as Exhibit B, also recommend that
the access to the underground garage for project remain on Grant Avenue.
The Grant Avenue entrance also nlakes it possible to provide a landscaped
area along Birch Street which, along with the graceful Birch Plaza building fac;ade
provides a noteworthy entrance into Palo Alto from the Oregon/Page Mill
Expressway.
For these reasons we will ask the City Council to approve the
recommendation of the Planning Commission except for the condition that the
entrance to the underground garage be moved off Grant Avenue.
Yours truly,
Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc.,
General Partner
~~~
Harold C. Hohbach, President
Iill002/006
FROM: David Solnick architect PHONE NO. : 650 3271142 Ma~. 01 2009 11:01AM P2
Statl.stics Requ.est
P'~lQ Alt:Q~ P·'o,;l.i<l;~e;! D;elt?:art~,e~t,
Date:...........-~~~-4-
Name: JdA~ 9/-/~ 'Co gO/../43& cd
Address;. .2;5 a? () ¥1/ 6#!« )C err:" V-Gf:
City: A rA~re"':r-Q pJ ?? e <$'~ ;z..,7 ; ~ .
Phone #: ~' C? 02 z-2 z.c,v-z..
E~~: If&9x: Itt"s;;b/Es-S-c S '2. ~
Co.tact 'hr-
~o .. e
V-CN': ,Mad __ \~mall
........................................................ ,. .......... " ......................................................... " .............................. .
Loeadon/Repordug Distriet:
!RY~dr:e:-:re;l? Ace::,;' P~"'-'J'S' A r 7Yl/O .::c:/V"7~S"~c /o,¥s
"' t;...,eA N''--~ !SIRe # "/~.-:r-~~-rs-
TilDe Period:
FrOID: ::2 060 -------------------To: /J~t? / l..
Type of Statistics
_Crime
_Calls for servIce
_Include Maps
Take. by'~~-.,:.. ......... ~....;.&
Date, ____ ~~~~--
Fee: A researeh fee ofS60 per hour will be eharged
~ the reqllest requires research.
~~H'A-~.It!!E J;> ,'3 Y
(?"a C ,.I .,,(J -;r-A V" A y:[! IS ,..s:-
£ ~¢/ '3 2. "J -2.~:.;? t:
'" " A
Accidents rej)oned at til., intelSection of BIrch and Grant 1 i
January 2000 to ~124. 20ft I ! + ! I i i I
I .
Qccuroate 'Ioiured Occurred ON AT/OR # Feet Direction Cross beet
103-01·2002 81RCHST ' OR 10 S GRANTAV
log.2Q..2002 BIRCH ST AT GRANTAV
~01-15-2004 B1RCHST! AT GRAK"ST
01-28-2004 BfRCHST, " AT GRANTAV
04-23--2004 1 BIRCH ST, AT GRAtf."AV
10-29--2004 1 2600BLK BIRCH ST OR 51 S GRAN""AV
01-22-2006 BtRCHST AT GRAN"'"AV
08~31·2000 200BU<. GRANT A'IQ OR 68 E BlRCHST
05--12-2002 300BLK GRANT AV OR 251 W BfRCHST
06$2005 270 GRANT AV ' AT BIRCHST
11 .. 20-2006 GRANTAV \ AT BIRCHST
0+02-2007 GRANTAV AT BlRCHST
Page 1
!
Violation Violation DescriDtion
22360VC Basic speed law
21804 VC FaU to y1eJ(! right of way
VC Failure to stop at a stop si,gn
21658 VC Unsafe lane change
21802 VC intersection-fail to &tQpJ~ield
22107VC Unsafe tum
21658(A)VC Unsafe lane chan~
22106VC Unsafe start on bighwavlroadwav
22106VC Unsafe stall on highway/roadway
Reported at front desk
21802{A)VC Intersection-faU to stopMetd
21802(A)VC intersectionwfail to stop!yi~d . _
;a
.0 :3
o IlJ S,
0..:
W ...... 2,
o -,::-
III j o ::r
;t
(')
't+
lJ 25 Z m
z P
8i 6)
VJ l\J -.J ,.... ,....
A I\..)
~ llJ
If
~ ~
l\) t5J IS)
\D
~ ~
ts:J l\J D 3:
-0 W
p.
t-
l:J ,
2'
It A 1;1;.
!it v.
t§ c:: c:: v. .....
c
C
0'
AccidentS' ~Grted at tile intersection of Sheridan and Birch i
Januarv 20GB to April 24,2001 j , I . ,
i I ,
Occur Date tJJniJlred OccunadOn ArlO. # Jfit
02 .. 10.2000 SHERIDAN OR 20
03-02-2002 1 SHERIOANAV AT
08--18-2003 SHERIDANAV AT
11..Q6 .. 2003 SOOBLK SHERlDAN AV OR 40
09--06-:2005 300BlK SHERIOAN AV OR 227
01-13-2006 SOOSLKSHERtOAN AV OR 20
02..Q9-2007 SHERIDANAV AT
02-0&-2000 BIRCHST AT
Q4..24-2QOO BIRCHST AT
Og.f4-2000 BIRCHST AT
10-07·2000 27QOBL:K BIRCH ST OR 135
12-11-2001 1 2700BU< BIRCH ST OR 16
07·30-2004 2700SLK BIRCH ST OR 35
11·25-2.005 2700BLK BIRCH ST OR 50
12·18 .. 2005 2700 BIRCH ST OR 50
11.(13...2008 0 BIRCH-ST OR 40 -.-.-. 11~14-2006 1 BIRCH'ST AT
02~14-2008 BIRCHST OR 27
05-01-2008 2700BU< BIRCH S7 OR 195
Direction Cross street V'lOlation
W BIRCH 22107VC
BIRCH 22350VC
BIRCHST 22107VC
W BrRCHST
W BlRCHST 22107VC
W BlRCHST 22.10avC
BIRCH 22350VC
SHERIDANAV 22350VC
SHERIDANAV 22107VC
SHERiDANAV 21802(A)VC
S SHERIDANAV 22350VC
s SHERIDANAV 2195O{A)VC
S SHERIDANAV 22350VC
S SHERIOANAV 22350VC
S SHERiCANAV 22350VC
S SHERIOANAV 22350VC
SHERIOANAV 2181M{A.}VC
S SHERIOANAV 221D7VC
S SHERIDAN ---,_.-21f:J~VC __
Page 1
VIOlation De$criDlion
Lnsafehm
Easic~la'W
Unsafe tum
UnImown
Unsafe tum i
Unsafe start on bighway/raadway
Easic SJ)ead law
Basio speed law
Unsafe tum
Irrtersection-Fatl to stoPiYieid
Basic soeed law I
)ield righf of way to pedestrian
Basic sPeed law
BasiC SI)ee<llaw
Basic sPeed laW
Basic SPeed law
Faal to Yield right of Way
Unsafebm
.Right bait ¢ road wilY __ _
." ;:u .~
&1 <:: ..... p.
tn o
J
()
l'
OJ ..,
()
~
c+ ro () c+
II ::J: o z m
Z p
~
~ I-"" I-"" it
3: OJ If
IS)
I-'"
!\J IS) IS)
\.0
I-""
)0.>.
IS)
I\.) D 3':
~ is Q
Q
JI;:lo
........
Q
Q
CI'I
} '\:Jt
May 6. 2009
Court House Plaza Company
Via Fax (650) 853-0325
David Solnick -Architect
~
FI:HR & PEERS
1'IIANSPORTATtON (ONSIJLTANTS
Subject: Garage Access to the Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Hohbach I Mr, Solnick:
RSOB .. 2640
Based an our review of the proposed garage access from Birch Street (dl rectly east of Grant Avenue) and
a field visit to the project site during both morning and evening peak hour conditions in May 2009, we
recommend that the garage site access remain on Grant Avenue (directly south of Birch Street) for the
following reasons:
1) Birch Street is a four~lane roadway providing access to ·and from Oregon Expressway. With
traffic volumes significantly higher than the two .. Jane Grant Avenue, constructing the garage
entrance from this heavily traveled roadway will result in potential traffic issues with traffic flow on
this arterial roadway.
2) With a planted center median, the driveway could only provide right-turn in I right-turn out
movements, resulting in increased u-turns at Birch Street I Grant Avenue and Birch Street J
Sheridan Avenue.
3) Accident data for the three year time period behNeen April 24, 2006 and April 24, 2009 Show that
accidents have occurred primarily on Birch Street, and include unsafe speed, failure to yield right
of way and unsafe turn. Therefore, constructing the project driveway on Biroh Street may resuft
in an increased potential for certain types of accidents and vehicles enter and exit a heavily
traveled roadway into the parking. garage.
Sincerely,
Fred Choat P.E.
r~egistered Traffic Engineer in the State of California
No. TR1830
---1S0 W. Santa Clara Street. Suit~ 675 San Jose, California '9511~O-(408)-·278~1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
fl)OOl/OOl
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 24, 2009
To: Court House Plaza Company
David Solnick -Architect
From: Fred Choa, Fehr & Peers Associates
Subject: Elements for 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Travel Demand Management Plan
RSOB-2616
This memorandum responds to your request for a Travel Demand Management (TOM) Plan for the
proposed 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project in Palo Alto, California. The Proposed
Project is comprised of 24,827 square feet, with 10,257 square feet of office space (2 tenants) and 14,534
square feet of residential area (8 two-story townhouses).
Trlis TDM Plan includes the following elements:
• Recommended measures for the 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
• Effectiveness of TOM measures
RecoITlmended Measures for the Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project
Our recommendations for TDM measures at 2650 Birch Street -Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project are
based on the following assumptions:
• Employees will arrive and depart during traditional commute hours
• Employees will likely use transit if convenient and available
• There is a Class II Bike Lane on Park Boulevard and a Class III Bike Route of California Avenue
• There is an extensive bicycle system throughout the mid-peninsula, connecting Stanford, Palo
Alto, Menlo Park and Mountain View,
• The CalTrain California Station is located less than 1/3 of a mile from the project site (1,700 feet)
• There is extensive public transit on EI Camino Real and Oregon Expressway 1 Page Mill Road
provided by the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA)
• There are restaurants, retail, banks and other destinations within walking distance (1,300 feet) on
California Avenue between EI Camino Real and Park Boulevard.
Based on these Fehr & Peers recommends the following measures for use in a TDM plan for any single
tenant having more than 25 employees.
Provide On-Site Amenities: In terms of physical improvements that can be implemented in addition to
the required bicycle parking are on-site amenities designed to enhance accessibility and convenience of
either walking or bicycling. This would include on-site shower facilities located within the men's and
women's restroom facilities.
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
April 24, 2009
Page 2 of 4
tp
FEHJ\ & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Identify a TDM Coordinator: Most TOM programs include the designation of a TOM coordinator. This
coordinator can have a variety of roles including providing information on available transit options,
arranging carpools, dispensing transit passes or Commuter Checks, and overseeing the operation of the
Guaranteed Ride Home Program.
Use of Tandem Parking: When the parking requirements for the office tenants are such that unused
tandem parking spaces need to be utilized, the TOM Coordinator shall contact employees of office
tenants that would be ideal candidates of tandem parking based on their arrival "and departure times. The
TDM Coordinator will assign to designated employees the spaces in available tandem parking spaces.
Institute Promotional Programs: Implement educational and promotional programs involving all
employees with these efforts supervised by the TOM coordinator.
Promotional programs refer to employer-sponsored initiatives, which educate employees about the
availability of alternative modes and the benefits of these modes. Promotional programs might include:
• TOM Coordinator
• Commuter Information Bulletin Board
• Guide to Transit Service systems and schedules
• Guide to City of Palo Alto and Regional Bicycle Systems
• Guide to CalTrain system and schedule
CarpoollVanpool Programs: The TOM Coordinator would assist employees interested in carpooling /
vanpooling. A carpool is two to six people sharing a ride in an automobile. The most common carpool
approach is rotating automobile use among carpoolers with no exchange of money. Another method is a
carpool g"roup using one car and sharing commuter expenses. Either way, the driver of the carpool has
the vehicle available for personal or company use during the workday. Carpooling reduces the cost of
commuting and provides a stress-free ride to and from work for non-drivers.
The main impediment to carpooling program is convincing employees to carpool and arranging carpools.
Incentives to carpool can be provided through allocating preferential parking or by discounting the cost of
parking for carpoolers. Arranging carpools, which entail matching riders with similar home locations, can
either be done by an employer formally or through regional agencies such as Rides for Bay Area
Commuters. This non-prom agency maintains lists of persons interested in a carpool.
Vanpools operate like a mini-transit service, with an organized route, schedule and passenger fare
charges. Vanpools typically are comprised of 7 to 15 people. Fares depend 6n the commute distance, the
total number of riders, the type of van, company-provided equipment, and incentives and subsidies.
Vanpools can be set up by individual employees or by the employer. Rides for Bay Area Commuters will
also provide assistance in establishing and operating a vanpool.
Provide Transit Subsidies: One of the most common TOM programs is a transit program, by which large
employers facilitate the use of transit by their employees. This facilitation can include subsidizing transit
passes, providing transit passes on-site, and providing connecting service to the nearest transit stop or
station.
Two available transit pass programs include Commuter Checks (tax-free vouchers employees can use to
purchase transit passes) and Eco Pass. Based on recent changes to Federal Laws, employers can now
provide up to $100 a month per employee for use in purchasing transit passes. The Santa Clara Valley
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
April 24, 2009
Page 3 of 4
fp
FE J-I R & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
Transportation Authority (VTA) operates the Eco Pass program. The one limitation on the Eco Pass
program is that CalTrain (which operates a station on California Avenue less than 1/3 of a mile from your
facility) does not participate in this program.
These subsidies could be provided in the form of Commuter Checks or through participation in the Eco
Pass program. Commuter checks would likely be more useful to your employees since this program
appears to be more flexible than Eco Pass. You could also provide transit passes to your residents for
use by themselves or their visitors. Please note than any transit passes for use by residents would
require purchase by the operator of the facility.
Alternative/Flexible Work Schedule: Based on research conducted by the Institute of Transportation
Engineers, implementation of the recommended TDM Program would result in a reduction of vehicle trips
during the traditional morning and evening commute periods. In addition, by providing on-site vending
machines and shower facilities, the opportunity to:
a) Bicycle or walk to work;
b) Take transit / shuttle to work;
c) Remain on-site during lunchtime; and
d) Leave the project site by automobile before or after the critical a.m. and p.m. peak hours.
Alternative work sclledule programs include the following measures:
• Flextime-Workers report within varying windows rather than set times
• Staggered Work'Hours-Employees arrive in shifts rather than all arriving at once
• Compressed Work Week-Employees have the option of working four-day weeks or longer house.
For example, the City of Palo Alto allows its employees to work 9 days over a two-week period,
with an alternating day off during the week.
• Telecommuting-Employees may choose to work at home one or more days a week
Effectiveness ofTDM Measures
The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publislled a review of information regarding the
effectiveness of TDM measures in the Trip Generation Handbook: An ITE Recommended Practice. This
review concluded the following:
• Support measures, such as transportation coordinators, flexible work hours, and other
promotional activities had no measurable impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters.
But it has been shown to reduce a.m. and p.m. peak hour vehicle trip generation by providing
opportunities to arrive earlier than a.m. peak and depart later than p.m. peak hours (5 to 15
percent reduction)
• Transportation services, such as vanpools and carpools had a noticeable impact on number of
vehicles used by commuters (8 percent reduction)
• Economic incentives including transit subsidies and transportation allowances for large
businesses also had a significant impact on the number of vehicles used by commuters (16
percent reduction)
This study also concluded that combining transportation services and economic incentives generated the
most significant reduction in the number of commuter vehicles (24 percent). Based on this information, it
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
Apri I 24, 2009
Page 4 of 4
11>
F Ef-1R & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
would be beneficial to include a variety of measures including on-site amenities, transportation services,
and economic incentives.
The proposed TDM Plan would reduce the reliance on the single occupant vehicle, enhance the
Proposed Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project, and potentially improve traffic operations in the area.
160 W. Santa Clara Street, Suite 675 San Jose, California 95110 (408) 278-1700 Fax (408) 278-1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
ATTACHMENT G
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
Memorandum
Date: May 8,2009
To: Elena Lee
From: Rafael Rius, P .E.
Subject: 2650 Birch. -Transportation Comments on the Driveway Location
The following is based on our recent discussions related to the driveway access on Grant
Avenue. With our department's previous comments to improve sight distances,' we feel that if
the comments related to the walls and fences adj acent to the garage ramp were set back
appropriately, and parking immediately adjacent to the driveway were restricted, that a driveway
at on Grant Avenue can operate safely.
A driveway on Birch Street would not be recommended for several reasons including higher
traffic volumes on Birch, the raised median (requiring U-turns at adjacent unsignalized
intersections, and the direct link to the connectors to and from Oregon Expressway.
A driveway on Sheridan Avenue could potentially work and would operate similarly to the
currently proposed driveway on Grant Avenue with similar positives and negatives. This is not
necessarily recommended over the proposed Grant Avenue location.
These conunents should be considered in addition to the previous comments from July 2008,
which mayor may not have already been addressed.
Please feel free to contact me to discuss further if you have any questions.
ex
LEED for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
Project Name: Birch Plaza
ATTACHMENT H
Submitted by Applicant
DIZA t-T
Project Address: 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue
Yes ?
36
Yes ? No
____ Sustainable Sites 14 Points
---T"--""""'" Prereq 1
Credit 1 ~--~--~~--~~
Credit 2 ~--~~~~~~~
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Site Selection
Development Density & Community Connectivity
f",---'--+"---'-'-""'1-'-'----'-'-,-I Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment
f---+--,::.-.i--'-~--"-'--I Credit 4.1 Alternative Transponatlon, Public Transportation
f---+---d---'-I Credit 4.2 Alternative Transponation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
f----,.,-+,.,---~~~ ___ --"-'--I Credit 4.3 Alternative Transponation, Low-Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles
~~~~~-+--~~ Credit 4.4 Alternative Transponation, Parking Capacity
r-~~----~----~ Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat
f-:.,,:-c-,-,-+-:-~--:J ___ ~-'-I Credit 5.2 Site Developmen~ Maximize Open Space
r-~~~--~~--~ Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control
f",--'"--"-+-'--,-,-----"1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control
~--~~--~~--~ Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof
f----+-'--,---:J-'-c-'-l Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof
L-__ ~ ____ ~~ __ ~ Credit 8 light Pollution Reduction
Yes ? No
Required
1
1
1
___ . Water Efficiency 5 Points
'1 " ..• > ,"c" . ','" Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1
"
" 1 .... c' ,. '. Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping. No Potable Use or No Irrigation
r 1···· Credit 2 !nnovative Wastewater Technologies
1 . Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction
. " 1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction
C' ,.','ro1d by
Adobe" liveCycle-last Modified: May 2008 1 of 4
Yes
CD
LEED for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
? No
____ Energy & Atmosphere 17 Points
Prereq 1
Prereq 1
Prereq 1
Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems
Minimum Energy Performance
Fundamental Refrigerant Management
Required
Required
Required
"Note for EA.1: All LEED for New Construction projects registered after June26, 2007 are required to achieve at least two (2) points.
I)Z. 18 I Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10
'--__ -'-__ ...J1~3 __ ___'1 Credit 2
1
Powered bV
r
I
1
1
1
Adobe" LiveCycle"
Credit 3
Credit 4
Credit 5
Credit 6
Credit 1.1 10.5% New Buildings 13.5% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.2 14% New BUildings 17% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.3 17.5% New Buildings 110.5% EXisting Building Renovations
Credit 1.4 21% New Buildings 114% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.5 24.5% New Buildings 117.5% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.6 28% New Buildings 121% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.7 31.5% New Buildings 124.5% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.8 35% New Buildings 128% Existing Buildi~g Renovations
Credit 1.9 38.5% New Buildings 131.5% Existing Building Renovations
Credit1.10 42% New Buildings 135% Existing Building Renovations
On·Site Renewable Energy
Credit 2.1 2.5% Renewable Energy
Credit 2.2 7.5% Renewable Energy
Credit 2.3 12.5% Renewable Energy
Enhanced CommiSSioning
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Measurement &: Verification
Green Power
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1 to 3
2
3
1
Last Modified: May 2008 2 or 4
Yes
('1
LEED for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
? No
c····
, ',:..-"
.. __ Materials & Resources 13 Points
Prereq 1
Credit 1.1
Credit 1.2
Credit 1.3
Credit 2.1
Credit 2.2
Credit 3.1
>. Credit 3.2
Credit 4.1
Credit 4.2
Credit 5.1
Credit 5.2
Credit 6
1 Credit 7
Yes ? No
Storage & Collection of Recyclables
Building Reuse. Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof
Building Reuse, Maintain 95% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof
Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements
Construction Waste Management, Divert 50% from Disposal
ConstRiction Waste Management) Divert 75% from Disposal
Materials Reuse, 5%
Materials Reuse, 10%
Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer)
Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + 1/2 pre-consumer)
Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured
Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured
Rapidly Renewable Materials
Certified Wood
Required
1
1
1
1
.. __ Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points
Prereq 1
___ ,-,..,.,, __ Prereq 2
Minimum IAQ Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
)--__ -+~_-+',.c....-,__j Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring
F---+-....,.,....,-+'-'---c",.---i Credit 2 Increased Ventilation
)--__ -+ ___ +'~,.c....,__j Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction
1--'----1----+---,--,--i Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy
!----+-,.c....-'-+-"7:"_-I Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants
r---~~~~~~,__j Credit 4.2 Low.Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings
F---'-"--c+--.,--+-'---~ Credit 4.3 Low.Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems
Required
Required
r-~~--~~--~,__j Credit 4.4 Low·Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products
1--'----1----+--_'--:1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control
r-~~--~~~~-I Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting
1----1----+-::....~.,-j Credit 6.2 ContrOllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort
F--___ +--Tt--~ Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design
r---~----~~---I Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification
1--'-'---1--___,-+--'---,--i Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces
'---, __ ---'-___ -'--__ -'-Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces
POWH"d by
Adobe" LiveCycle-
'1\
1
1
1
1
last Modified: May 2008 3 or 4
Yes
LEED for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
? No
____ Innovation & Design Process 5 Points
,
1
f'~we-r~cl by
r I
1
1
1
1
Adobe-LiveCycle-
Credit 1.1 Innovation In Design:
Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design:
Credit 1.3 Innovation in Design:
Credit 1.4 Innovation In Design:
Credit 2 LEE~ Accredited Professional
last Modified: May 2008 4 of 4
,
(§j.,.,
A •.•.. ~ .. ' '.'
Multifamily GreenPoint Ch~~eklist
""DrzA t--l
~."" ~
The GreenPoint Rated checklist tracks green features incorporated into the home. The recommended minimum requirements
for a green home are: Earn a total of 50 points or more; obtain the following minimum pOints per category: Community (6),
Energy (30), Indoor Air Quality/Health (5), Resources (6), and Water (3); and meet the prerequisites B.1.a (50% construction
waste diversion), A.8 (exceed Title 24 requirements by 15%), C.10.a (3-year subcontractor guarantee and 20-year
manufacturer warranty for shingle roofing), and F.1 (incorporate Green Points checklist in blueprints).
Build It Green is a non-profit organization providing the GreenPoint Rated program as a public service. Build It Green
encourages local governments to leverage program resources to support voluntary, market-based programs and strategies.
The green building practices listed below are described in greater detail in the Multifamily Green Building Guidelines, available
at www.builditgreen.org/greenpoint-rated/guidelines
Enter Total Conditioned Floor Area of the Project: 24,791
Enter Total Non-Residential Floor Area of Project: 10,257
Percent of Project Dedicated to Residential Use 59%
.'. '.C .: . •... :: '.~.:.,:< ,c,
.. ,
-" I '-, I ;.0,
.......~ ....
1. Inflll Sites
~ a. Project is Located Within an Urban Growth Boundary & Avoids Environmentally Sensitive Sites
~ !!ls~!~51~m~~~u~~
I Current Point Total 1 97.67 1
"; z:. ..c I/) 'c ~ CI)
~ >. ca ~ E CI) ~ }' OJ :I: j E ~ ~ 0 I/) 0 c CI) "c. 0 W 0:::
.-. i1..r:J:l.
;·.·i2S~~ii~~i~~i~~~JE~;~~~~~::~~:w~~~~~nUM;~~A;~-~ ... -·u~~ ~ ••• r-----:---;-----i----'---;----I
~ Site has Pedestrian Access Within _ Mile to Neighborhood Services (1 Pt for 5 Or More, ~ts for 10 Or More): ~ 1) Bank ~ 2) Place of Worship ~ 3) Full Scale Grocery/Supermarket
~ 4) Day Care 5) Cleaners b 6) Fire Station
~ 7) Hair Care 8) Hardware 16 9) Laundry
~ 10) Library 11) Medical/Dental ~ 12) Senior Care Facility
~ 13) Public Park 14) Pharmacy ~ 15) Post Office
~ 16) Restaurant 17) School f-18) After School Programs ~ 19) Commercial Office D 20) Community Center ~ 21) Theater/Entertainment
cgj22) Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold. . .. " ----'" 'g'-Proximi~'io-'PubiiC Tran'sit-"--'---' -.,--'----, , ,---,',, __ ,-0," ,-, ,--,---,-",--. -" '-----'---~---'----'----I
Development is Located Within:
1/4 Mile of Two or More Planned or Current Bus Line Stops ~ 1/4 Mile of One Planned or Current Bus Line Stop
, __ . . . __ ,_, ___ .1!? ~}I~_9f aC:;.9r.n.!T1~~!J@!f!!l:ig~!~?,i!,I~?~,sit?y~t,~,!! __ ",,,_ " ____ ,_ ._"' ___ " ___ ,"' __ .___________"__ ____,, ___ , ____ ''--_--'-__ -"'-_____ ~_--I
h. Reduced Parking Capacity:
I)<J Less than 1.5 Parking Spaces Per Unit o Less than 1.0 Parking Spaces Per Unit
2. Mixed-Use Developments
I)<J a. At least 2% of Development Floorspace Supports Mixed Use (Non-Residential Tenants) D b. Half of Above Non-Residential Floorspace is Dedicated to Neighborhood Services
n 3. Building Placement & Orientation
a. Protect Soil & Existing Plants & Trees
4. Design for Walking & Bicycling V p a. Sidewalks Are Physically Separated from Roadways & Are 5 Feet Wide
b. Traffic Calming StrategiesAre Installed by the Developer
c. Provide Dedicated, Covered & Secure Bicycle Storage for 15% of Residents
d. Provide Secure Bicycle Storage for 5% of Non-Residential Tenant Employees & Visitors
5. Social Gathering Places
a. Outdoor Gathering Places for Residents (Average of 50 sf Per Unit Or More)
b. Outdoor Gathering Places Provide Natural Elements (For compact sites onlv)
6. DeSign for Safety fnd Natural Surveillance
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
;r;t,
.
---",-"-"""-·--,~---",,,,t-,.--,-
.~
i
Page 1 olf ~
n
~ o o o ~
,:',
a. All Main Entrances to the Building and Srte are Prominent and Visible from the Street
b. Residence Entries Have Views to Callers (Windows or Double Peep Holes) & Can Be Seen By Neighbors
9. Cool Site
a. At least 30% of the Site Includes Cool Site Techniques
10. Adaptable Buildings
a. Include Universal Design Principles in Units
50% of Units
80% of Units
b. Live/Work Units Include A Dedicated Commercial Entrance
11. Affordability
a. A Percentage of Units are Dedicated to Households Making 80% or Less of AMI
10%of All Units
20%
30%
50%or More
b, Development Includes Multiple Bedroom Units (At least 1 Unit with 3BR or More at or Less Than 80% AMI)
~. SITEWORK
I
0
,-
I--
I--
~
r __ ... •
~
~
1. Construction & Demolition Waste Management
Divert a Portion of all Construction & Demolition Waste:
a, Required : Divert 50%
b. Divert 65%
c. Divert 80% or more
2. Construction Material Efficiencies
a. Lumber is Delivered Pre-Cut from Supplier (80% or More of Total Board Feet)
b. Components of the Project Are Pre-Assembled Off-Site & Delivered to the Project
25% of Total Square Footage
50% of Total Square Footage
75% of Total Square Footage or More
3. Construction Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan
a. An IAQ Management Plan is Written & Followed for the Project
1. Recycled Aggregate
a. Minimum 25% Recycled Aggregate (Crushed Concrete) for Fill, Backfill & gther Uses
2. Recycled Flyash in Concrete
a. Flyash or Slag is Used to Displace a Portion of Portland Cement in Concrete
20%
30% or More r 7
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
~
~'. ,,' ",,: >, ';
::',
"
'::,
I
I
I
~ B en c Q)
:J >-co ~ E Q) :J
E e» :::t: 0 .!! Q) ~ en 0 c II) ~ U W 0:::
1
1
1
1
1
, 1
i 1
J I 1
1
: 1
i 1
i i 1
! 14
1 :
: -~. ,.-",.-."' 1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2 !
Possible Points --
j i Y !
; i ! .2. .l i I 2
; I 1 !
! I 2
! j 2
! 2
2 i
.~i1r=1:c.
: i J 1
; : I 1 :
: : : 1 !
Page 2 off ®
~~~~~n·@ ';~~~~~ ~~N"EERPROJEC:rYNAMg"~' ... '. . .. '~'.: f
l;::-,Cs<I'.,:,;:U' ... . .' .. :.: :-., '.' ...... 3
EJ
EJ
3. FSC·Certified Wood for Framing Lumber
a. FSC-Certified Wood for a Percentage of All Dimensional Studs:
40%
70%
b. FSC-Certified Panel Products for a Percentage of All Sheathing (OSB & Plywood):
40%
70%
4. Engineered Lumber or Steel Studs. Joists, Headers & Beams V A a. 90% or More of All Floor & Ceiling Joists
~ b. 90% or More of All Studs
6 c. 90% or More of All Headers & Beams
r--
r--
I R
B
5. Optimal Value Engineering Framing
a. Studs at 24" Centers on Top Floor Exterior Walls &lor All Interior Walls
b. Door & Window Headers Sized for Load
c. Use Only Jack & Cripple Studs Required for Load
6. Steel Framing
a. Mitigate Thermal Bridging by Installing Exterior Insulation (At Least 1-lnch of Rigid Foam)
7. Structural Insulated Panels (SiPs) Or Other Solid Wall Systems
a. SIPs Or Other Solid Wall Systems are Used for 80% of All:
Floors
Walls
Roofs
8. Raised Heel Roof Trusses
a. 75% of All Roof Trusses Have Raised Heels
9. Insulation
a. All Ceiling, Wall & Floor Insulation is 01350 Certified OR Contains No Added Formaldehyde
b. All Ceiling, Wall & Floor Insulation Has a Recycled Content of 50% or More
10. Durable Roofing Options
a. Required: No Shingle Roofing OR All Shingle Roofing Has 3-Yr Subcontractor Guarantee & 20-Yr Manufacturer Warranty
b. All Sloped Roofing Materials Carry a 40-Year Manufacturer Warranty
11. Moisture Shedding & Mold Avoidance
a. Building(s) Include a Definitive Drainage Plane Under Siding
b. ENERGY STAR Bathroom Fans are Supplied in All Bathrooms, Are Exhausted to the Outdoors & Are Equipped with Controls
c. A Minimum of 80% of Kitchen Range Hoods Are Vented to the Exterior
12. Green Roofs
a. A Portion of the Low-SlOpe Roof Area is Covered By A Vegetated or "Green" Roof
25%
50% or More
D. SYSTEMS
~ 1. Passive Solar Heating
a. Orientation: At Least 40% of the Units Face Directly South
b. Shading On All South-Facing Windows Allow Sunlight to Penetrate in Winter, Not in Summer
c. Thermal Mass: At Least 50% of the Floor Area Directly Behind South-Facing Windows is Massive
D 2. Radiant Hydronic Space Heatil1g
a. Install Radiant Hydronic Space Heating for lAO purposes (No Forced Air) in All Residences
B 3. Solar Water Heating
a. Pre-Plumb for Solar Hot Water
b. Install Solar Hot Water System for Preheating DHW
D 4. Air Conditioning with Advanced Refrigerants
a. Install Air Conditioning with I~on-HCFC Refrigerants
5. Advanced Ventilation Practices
,--Perform the Following Practices in Residences:
~ a. Infiltration Testing by a C-HERS Rater for Envelope Sealing & Reduced Infiltration
b. Operable Windows or Skylights Are Placed To Induce Cross Ventilation (At Least One Room In 80% of Units)
c. Ceiling Fans in Every Bedroom & Living Room OR Whole House Fan is Used
6. Garage Ventilation ~ a. Garage Ventilation Fans Are Controlled by Carbon Monoxide Sensors (Passive Ven~lation Does Not Count)
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
"iJ,
! 2
1
1
I __ ..... __ ....... I:.-._._ ........ _~i ...... _ ....... _ •. .,... 1 _ .. +!' ...... , ......... 1
1 2 1
! : 2 !
1
1 :
1 :
2 ;
: 2 i j 2 !
i 2 i 2
i 2 i 2 :
1
I 1 ;
! 1
Y
! 1 : ..... _-, ..
i i 4 ;
1 ,
;
2
2 i 2
Possible Points ...
, 2 , I
! 1 i ! J : 2 : i
2 ! I \
, 1 ! i ; 4 r ! !
1 ! : ;
\ 2 i ,
"-. : 1 ! 1 : . 1 i i
i 1 i i
Page 3 off t6
...... , .. ' ;.',.,;,,,,:;',< .' ,
ENTER PRb~~GT: .
c><J .' '.' '., ~'.'.'~' .. '.' ". . '.' .... ".
R ' ~ Ale Installed Wherev9( Unear Fluorescent Lamps Are Used
b: / Produds, ! Where", Compact I ,Ale Used
10%
20%
300/0 or more
j ~~ay is Pro"dod in a V1ewable Pu~k: A"",
,'< "';(
, .' ....... ~
.... ,
II .. , .... , .... ::--'+"''''-+1 ""2~-+"""-
1
.1-·· .. +· __ . __ ;': .. _ .. +i ---+ ... --1 1 :' I
._ .. 1,-_.1.-'--_'--'_,--,1'--1_-1
2 : 2 :--_.'_._ _.~_ ,,_
Z : 2 , . ._! ..... _
~ -.. ~.+ :., ;'--
~ ~~'~~'~'ln~II~~ ____________________________ -L __ ~_~;_~' __ --I
a, .~a! ENERGY STAR Refrigerato<s. Al Localions I._~ _ .. ;~;~~.l:~~~ .... _ ......... _._ .... _. ,, __ . ____ _
-
b, .~ Et£RGY STAR Dishwashe<s. Al locations
AI ~he<s ~ ENERGY STAR-quaInod
Residenlil11llode Dishwashe<s Use No ""'" ~an 6,5 Gallons Per C)c~
c. Inslal ENERGY STAR Clothes Wasbets kl A1ll0ca00ns
d. ,In:
EftIciency
; ;
.. ___ .. _._ ... _ 1,--__ -,-1 -,--1 _'_--,-;_....,
:= __ .;. : _-:1",_ =t .. C--'--'''------.+:---L:
a.Use Ret)ded Water !of Lafldscape Irrigation Of to Aush TolietsAAinals ~2
b.Use Ca~ Rainwater for Landscape Irrigation or 10 Flosh 5%01 Toilets &/0( Urinals ! 4 >< c. Water is: ! 10< Each Residential Un, & I ' : 4
• . 1. Construction Indoor Air Quality Man.gement o a. Pertorm a 2-Week Whole Building Flush-Out PrIor to Occupancy
~ Entryw.ys R a. Proykje Permanent Walk-Olf Mats aoo Shoe SloI'age at All Home Entrances
b. Permanent Walk-Off Systems Are Provided at All Main Building Entrances & In Common Areas
3. RacycDng & W.sta Colldon
[XJ a. Residences:, Provide Bulll·ln Recycling Center In Each Unit
r ,
MF GIWnPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
\
. .
I : 1 , :
I· -.. ---.~---.. + 1 ! I
1 ,
I , 2
Page 4 01 6
4. Use Low/No-VOC Paints & Coatings
a. Low-VOC Interior Paints «50 gpl VOCS (Flat) and <150 gpl VOCs (Non-Flat)) -.. ~ -_ .. --T' ... _______ ... __ .i ... ___ .. ____ ... _ .. _.1.,._ ....... _ ... _ .. __ ---_~_ ... __ ._ ... _ ... _.
__ .. _ •..• __ L .. __ .. ___ .. L_Q.~~_~ .. J ______ .... .1-. .. --
i 0.41 : I
~ In All Residences D In All Non-Residential Areas: .-.-.-..... -, .... _---_._-.---.-~-.---.----~ .. -.-.-.... -.-.-~-.-.--.. -. "'---'~-"-"-"-~-'-"-'-'----' ,---.'_ .•. _---_., ... _ ......... _--, ....•..•. -.. ' -_.-., .•..... _."""-... --. -.-'-" ---"",-,"'.', -.. -..... _ ...... _ ...•.. --_ .. -
b. Zero-VOC: InteriorPaints «5 gpl VOCs (Flat)) B In All Residences 1 0.59 ! i
___ ... ________ I_~~II~~~_~~~i~~_n~~I.~r~~: __ . ___ ... _. ____ .. _______ .... _ ..... "'_ ._. . .... _. __ ._ .... _ ._ .... ___ ... _____ . _____ . ___ ... ____ '--_~ __ ---'-. ~_·O_ .. ~_4_i_-.. '_!·-_···_· .. -_· -_--'-~_-._--_ .. -_-.~ .....
c. Wood Coatings Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs
.-~-.-.-..... :~.~.::~;.~~;~~~I_~~~~~:-------.. -.... -.-. ___ .. _ ...... _ ...
d. Wood Stains Meet the Green Seal Standards for Low-VOCs
In All Residences
In All Non-Residential Areas:
1.18 i "o~8iT._-._-_· ---' __ -I
5. Use Recycled Content Exterior Paint
a. Use Recycled Content Paint on 50% of All Exteriors 1
6. Low-VOC Construction Adhesives
a. Use Low-VOC Construction Adhesives «70 gpl VOCs) for All Adhesives 1
7. Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish
Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish: A) FSC-Certified Wood, B) Reclaimed Lumber, C) Rapidly Renewable D) Recycled-Content or E) Finger-Jointed
a. Residences: At Least 50% of Each Material:
~ i. cabinets
ii. Interior Trim
iii. Shelving
iv. Doors
_ .. __ ... ........ _. v:.~u.~~~!.!~P~ .. _._.__.. . .. __ .. __ ...... _ .. __ _._ ... _____ .
-
----
b. Non-Residential Areas: At Least 50% of Each Material:
i. cabinets
ii. Interior Trim
iii. Shelving
iv. Doors
v. Countertops
8. Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials
Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish Materials (Section 01350) for At Least 50% of Each Material Below:
a. Residences:
~ i. Cabinets
ii. Interior Trim
.---------.-:;:-~;:;~----------.----_._ ........ _ .. _------.. __ .... -...... __ . __ .... _ .. -_ .. -._ ...... _-......... _ .. ---_ ... -... --. -_ ......... _._.
~
b. Non-Residential Areas:
i. cabinets
ii. Interior Trim
iii. Shelving
iv. Subfloor
9. Environmentally Preferable Flooring
, : 0.59 ; ... -........... --.... -..' ..... -....... ; ...... --.. ---1. ........ --.--
____ .. _:_ .. __ .. _ . j 0.59 1 __ -; .. . ___ ._. __ ... ~ .. ---... -.I::Q~.~~·:.[~~-~.-~{_.-.--.-.. -
! 0.59 !
: i 041 i i ... ~ .. -....... ----.. +-.. --.' .. -.-..... ~---....... --:--... _---.-' ; , 041 ' , :.:·.~.~:.--:.~·1::~--· .. ~~ ..• =r.Q~~4i:t'-:·.~ .. =·~ . .t:~.-:.-.~.~~
, 1 0.41 !
Use Environmentally Preferable Flooring: A) FSC-Certified or Reclaimed Wood, B) Rapidly Renewable Flooring Materials, C) Recycled-Content Ceramic Tiles, D) Exposed Concrete as Rnished
Floor or E) Recycled-Content Carpet. Note: Flooring Adhesives Must Have <50 gpl VOCs.
a. Residences:
~ i. Minimum 15% of Floor Area
ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area
iii. Minimum 50% of Floor Area
iv. Minimum 75% of Floor Area ............ ' .... _ .................. _ ..... _ ........... _-.... -. ...... ..
b. Non-Residential Areas:
i. Minimum 15% of Floor Area
ii. Minimum 30% of Floor Area
iii. Minimum 50% Of Floor Area
iv. Minimum 75O/~f Floor Area
10. Low-Emitting FlOOring
. .. _ .. ____ ._+ __ .. ____ . __ .i .. __ .. _ ... _J.Q.:_~~_L ....
...... _ ...... ____ ... _ ... ; ! 0.59 j
· .. ·· .... -r·-·-·--· --I ·~~-~·.:·~·~r·~~~·~~·r~-
........... -..... --................................... --.... --'-----'-----'-----'---''---'--'------i
0.41 :
a. Residences: Flooring Meets Section 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (50% Minimum) I ........ _. L.Q.59 !
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
~
Page 5 off IS
tEHNITER.PRb~~CTNAME ·C.·L...--,-~ ..-,-... --.-c--.-. ··--,-.~·--,--.{\'L.;i ....
. ,
b. Non-Residential ATeaS: Fkxxing Meets Sectioo 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (500/0 Milimum)
n
•
11. Durable Cabfnllta
[nstall Durable Cabinets in All:
a Residences
b. Non-Residential Areas
12. Furniture & Outdoor Play Structures
a. Play Structures & Surfaces Have an Overall Average Recycled Content Greater Than 20%
b. Environmentally Preferable ExleOOr Site FurnishIngs
c. At least 250/0 of All newly Supplied Interior FurnIture has Environmentally Preferable Attributes
13. Vandalism Deterrence
a. Project \ocIudes Vandalism Resistant Rnlshes and Strategies
1.lncofporate GreenPoint Checklist in Blueprints
a. Required: Incorporate GreenPolnt Checklist In Blue rints
2. Operations & Maintenance Manuals
,
I ~ J ,
0.41 '--,--,
1 ' --',-"'-"-"-'T "~-----I---i---i '-~---
______ •. -: .• ___ • ____ }._. I.. _. ,.~
1
1 , ,
y
a. Provide O&M Manual 10 Building Maintenance Staff :'--}1-...!.._. ___ --f" _ _L
~~~~b~.~p~rn~~~e~07&M~M~a~nu=a~II~O~~~~~~~ _________________________ ~ ___ ~'__ 1
3. TransttOptiona
a. Residents Are Offered. Free or Discounted Transit Passes 2
4. Educational Slgnage
a. Educational Signage Highfighllng & Explaining the Project's Green Features Is Included 1
5. Vandalism Managemwrt. Plan
a. Project Includes a VandaUsm Managemeot Plan for Dealing with Disturbances Post-Occupancy 1
6. Innovation: Ust innovative measures that meet the green building objectives of the Multifamily Guidelines. Enter up to a 4 Points in each category. Poinls will be evaluated by local jurisdiction
or GreenPoinl rater.
o lnnovaOOn III Community: Enter up k> 4 ·Points at left. Enter doscriptjon Mero b · . •
o klnowtioo in Energy: Enlei up!O 4 PoInts at lett. Enter descripton heI8
o k'I00\'aIXn il WItIr: Enter up to 4 POOts allett Enter description hera
Summa
Points Achieved from Specific Categories
Current POint Total
Project Has Met All Recommended Minimum Requirements
r
MF GreenPOlnt Checklist . 2005 E~ltIon v,2 .,
~
97.67
Page 6 01 S
ATTACHMENT I
Subm,iited by Applicant
2198 SIXTII STREET, SUITE 201·BERKELEY, CA 94710
TEL: (510)644-3123 . FAx: (510)644-3859
GEOSCIENCE & ENGINEERING CONSULTING
May 21,2009
Ms Elena Lee
Senior Planner
City of Palo Alto
JUN ~lJ 2fiGD
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Addressing the proposed Birch Plaza Gland G2 mitigation measures for the
proposed Birch Street Project, 2650 and 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., and 306 and
320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, California
Dear Ms. Lee:
Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. (SES) is providing this sumn1ary of how the referenced G 1
and G2 mitigation measures ate being addressed on behalf of the Hohbach Realty Company
Limited Partnership.
The G I-Mitigation Measure is addressed by:
r ,
• The above ground area of the proposed building does not overlay the bore B-4
that showed the highest concentration ofTCE in soil gas (from 15 feet bgs)
• Bore B-4 does overlay the area of the garage but the garage is not a normal point
of exposure as people are transient in a garage.
• Risk evaluations assume potential exposure for commercial space at 8 hours a
day, five days a week and residential exposure at 24 hours a day, seven days a
week.
• The soil will be screened for potential VOC while excavation although since no
local source area is responsible for the VOC, any encountered soil with VOC's it
is expected to be minor, if detected.
Ms. Elena Lee
May 21, 2009
Page 2
The G2 Mitigation Measure is addressed by:
• There being no vapor instruction risks of any regulatory significance based on the
data collected and the Treadwell & Rollo risk assessment using the highest TCE
concentration (6,400 J..lg/M3) found at B-4 with conservative site conditions.
• The California Departn1ent of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) screening model
used clays as the default soil based on the property eight bore logs
• The DTSC risk model using the worst case scenario assumptions showed 10-7
risk, as discussed in the attached Treadwell and Rolla technical letter.
• The 10-7 risk (equivalent to one excess cancer in 10,000,000) is considered to be
insignificant risk, one in 1,000,000 being the most restrictive normally used by
EPA, DTSC, and/or the RWQCB.
We trust this addresses your concerns. Please call me at 510-644-3123 if you have any
questions.
Sincerely,
Richard S. Makdisi, P.G., R.E.A.
Principal geochemist
cc-Harold Hohbach--Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership.
r ,
Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc.
'~
·Treadwell&RoIlo
6 May 2009
Project 4758.01
IVlr. Harold Hohbach
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc.
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, California 94027
Subject: Results of Vapor Intrusion Model Screening
2650 and 2640 Birch Street, 306 Grant Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
On behalf of Hohbach Enterprises, Inc., Treadwell & Rollo, Inc. presents these vapor intrusion
modeling results related to trichloroethene (TCE) impacts in soil gas at the properties located at 2650 and
2640 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, California (Site).
This vapor intrusion modeling was performed at your request on 14 April 2009. Draft results from this
modeling effort were previously provided to your environmental consultant, Stellar Environmental Solutions.
The purpose of the vapor intrusion mO,deling was to assess the risks to human health via the indoor air
inhalation pathway associated with the presence of volatile organic compounds (VOCs), principally TCE,
in soil gas at the Site. A simple screening version of the Johnson/Ettinger vapor intrusion model!
(J/E model) developed by the Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC) was used in this
assessmentl .
Vapor intrusion modeling was performed utilizing data collected in September 2008 during a site
investigation performed by Stellar Environmental Solutions during which TCE was detected in soil gas at a
concentration of 6,400 micrograms per cubic meter (j..Ig/m3) at boring location B4 at a depth of 15 feet
below ground surface (bgs). This result is the highest TCE soil gas concentration detected at the Site. A
Site map and boring logs provided by Stellar Environmental Solutions are provided in Attachment A.
Soil boring logs for B1, B3 and B6 indicate that the upper 15 feet of the Site is mostly underlain by fine-
grained soil (silt and clay). Exceptions include a laterally discontinuous silty gravel layer from ground
surface to 1 foot bgs in borings B1 and B3, and from 4 feet bgs to 11 feet bgs in boring B6. Also,
gravelly clay was encountered at about 11 feet bgs to 17 feet bgs in boring B1. A log for boring B4 was
not prepared. Soil boring logs are included in Attachment A. Based on the boring logs, silty clay was
selected as the predominant soil type for use in the vapor intrusion model. Since no physical analyses
have been performed on the soil present at the Site, the default parameters for silty clay contained in the
DTSC version of the J/E model were used (bulk density, porosity, and soil water content). In addition to
the use of a silty clay soil in the model, the following input parameters were used in place of the DTSC
default parameters:
• The Chemical CAS number 79016 (for TCE) was used.
• A soil gas TCE concentration of 6,400 j..Ig/m3 was used.
r 1
Johnson, P.c., and R.A. Ettinger, 1991. Heuristic Model for Predicting the Intrusion of Contaminant Vapors into
Buildings. Environmental Science and Technology, vol. 25, no. 8, pgs. 1445-1452.
Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), 2004. Interim Final, Guidance for the Evaluation and
Mitigation of Subsurface Vapor Intrusion to Indoor Air. 15 December.
ENVIRONMENTAL AND GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
555 MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 1300 SAN FRANCISCO CALIFORNIA 94111 T 4159559040 F 415 955 9041 www.treadwellrollo.com
Mr. Harold Hohbach
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc.
6 May 2009
Page 2
Treadwell&RoIlo
• A depth below grade to the bottom of the enclosed space floor (Le. slab thickness) of 15 cm
was used as recommended by the DTSC2 for a "slab-on-grade" structure with no basement.
• A soil gas sampling depth below grade of 457 cm (approximately 15 feet) was used.
The use of these input parameters in the DTSC screening version of the JjE model produced an
incremental risk from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 3.8 x 10-7 for carcinogens and a hazard quotient
from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 7.8 x 10-4 for noncarcinogens. The calculated incremental risk is
below the common residential threshold value of 1 x 10-6 for cancer risk and below the threshold value of
1.0 for the hazard quotient for acute risk. Attachment B provides the input sheet, calculation sheets, and
results sheets from the DTSC screening tool.
We appreciate the opportunity to prepare and present these vapor intrusion modeling results. If you
would like to discuss these results with us, please do not hesitate to contact either of the undersigned
at 415-955-9040.
Michael D. Chendorain
Senior Project Scientist
47580103.MDC
Attachments
cc: Richard Makdisi, Stellar Environmental Solutions·
r ,
. ~~ inis, PhD, PE
Senior Associate
r ,
Treadwell&RoIIo
Attachment A
Site Information Provided By Stellar Environmental Solutions
o
LEGEND I
50
I
<ri > «
C a:l .... G
0 C")
C")
0 C\I C")
• Existing key HP monitoring well location
- ---Subject property boundary
• B 1 SES Sept. 2008 soil vapor sampling locations
All concentrations in micrograms per cubic meter (tig/m3)
TCE = Trichloroethene
TCA = 1,1, 1-trichloroethane
DCE = 1, 1-dichloroethene
ND = None detected above laboratory reporting limit
Parking for
Superior
Courthouse
• F34A
F35B
260 Sheridan
Avenue
~ F32A
F32B
I.1!i:II 410 ~ NO I ~6,400 I BIRCH STREET I.I!L.) 42 IlI!I)I NO
I..L!!.;J NO
r I
w
::J
Z w > « ... z « a:
C!J
I1!!JI NO I I1!!JI 2001 /
'\ I~ 60..1\
I -B8130~ ~rant~v~o ~ ~ ~~ ~4-- --otl
I I .". B7 B6 Bircl1 Birch 306-320 B3 I
L -----=r ----St. ~ Sheridan Ave. I ~ NO ./ I '----Parking I
IIlL!LJ NO I B5 I ~:lI320 I IB1 B2 I
I.I!:;;) NO I J L.. ____________ _
360 Sheridan Ave. /
I1!i.:I NO I
IRI NO I Apt. Complex
ASH STREET
Il.L!:l:I NO I
~Nol
398 Sheridan Ave. _--+-1 __ -,-Jerusalem - T / Baptist Church
• F29A1U
I
w
::J
Z w > «
z « c
a: w
J:
tJ)
APPROX. SCALE IN FEET
1" = 50 FT.
303-315
. Sheridan Ave.
Apt. Complex
I
345 Sheridan Ave.
The Mayfields
Apt. Complex
I
1
SEPTEMBER 2008 SOIL VAPOR ANALYTICAL RESULTS FOR TCE, TCA AND DCE * ~u~lL[L~~ ~ ENVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
"""""" GEOSCIENCE « ENGINEERING CONSULTI.~O
2650 & 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., & f-B...;;,Y_: _M_J_C ___ ......... S_E_P_T_E_M_B_E_R_2_0_0B---i
306 & 320 Sheridan Ave., Palo Alto, CA Figure 4
, ,
,B711 :. I
c ____ ~ ,
~------~
I I
Existing 3-story
apartment building
,---
, , ,. ,
66 •
~---
B5 •
, , , , ,
1 ______ -
r---, , , , , , , "--------,I .' '!.. 01' I~' , ~=-_ _ !I: I B1·· B2 ___ __________ 1 ______ -
LEGEND
81 •
Subject property boundary
SES Sept. 2008 boring location
Existing site buildings
-tr ST~rlrl#),~ ~ENYIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
GEOSCIENCE Ii ENOIHEF.W;O CO~SUI.TIIIO
Existing 3-story
apartment building
o 20
I I
APPROXIMATE SCALE"
1" = 20 FEET
BIRCH PLAZA PROPOSED BUILDING PLAN WITH SOIL BORE LOCATIONS
2650 & 2640 Birch St., 305 Grant Ave., & 306 & 320 Sheridan Ave., Palo Alto, CA
'-
Figure 5
by:MJC OCTOBER 2008
f
t:r §TE tLfL~lFt ~E NVlRONMENTAL SOLUTJONS, INC
:Jt;-a; GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEER.ING CONSULTING
PROJECT Birch Plaza
LOCATION Palo Alto, CA
TOTAL DEPTH _--=2",3...::fe""e::...t b"'9"'s ____ _
SU RFACE ELEV. _-",3",-0-,-,ft-"(a""m",,sCLI) ____ _
DRILLING COMPANY _--=E""C"'A ___ _
Soil Boring log
BORING NUMBER -=B:..:...l _ Page _1 _ of
OWNER Court House Plaza Co.
PROJECT NUMBER "'20"'0.::..8-.:::35"--______ _
BOREHOLE DIA. _2::..:.::..:25::...:i:..::nc""h _______ _
WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED .!..:19::...:f~ee':.!..t!Olbgt:.s __ _
DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push
DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietro paoli DATE DRILLED 9/1512008
~
i::r S u ~ [L lL #\ l??,. ",,4 ... , E NVIRONMENTAL SOLlJTIONS, INC
~ GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEER.ING CONSULTING
PROJECT Birch Plaza
LOCATION Palo Alto, CA
Soil Boring log
BORING NUMBER -=Bc::...3 _ Page _1 _ of
OWNER Court House Plaza Co.
PRO,IECT NUMBER 2=::0~08:!::-3",,5~ _____ _
TOTAL DEPTH _--=2:;::8...::fe::..::e::...t b""'g"'s ____ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::::.::::25::..:i""ncech'---_____ _
SURFACE ELEV. _--",30"-,-,-ft-",(ae.:.m""sl",,,) ____ _
DRILLING COMPANY _--=E""C'-'-A ___ _
WATER FIRST ENCOU~ITERED 26.5 feet bgs
DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push
DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietropaoli DATE DRILLED 9/15/2008
DEPTH
(feet)
r--O
r--
r--
r--
HO-
r--
r--
r--
r--
H5-
r--
r--
GRAPHIC
LOG
63-15 SG-3
~-% ~ -20-
- -
--
-
--. • • • • • • •
r25--, • • • • • • • .
P.I.D.
READING
o
DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
GM, loose, silty gravel
CL, dark grey brown silty clay, dry,
hard, 10% coarse sand, red brick
fragments (fill)
ML, mottled olive grey orange
0.2 clayey silt, stiff, dry
Higher clay fraction @ 7-8'
0.1 Moist to wet @ 13', loose
0.4
CL, mottled olive yellow orange
silty clay, moist, plastic
Y SP, mottled olive red brown
silty fine sand, moist, loose
-7 • • • • • • • • 'Sl Saturated @ 26'
-~)~--r_~-r~--~~------~--------------------~
REMARKS
Notes:
PID ~ Photoionization
Detector "Readings" are
in parts per million per
volume air (ppmv)
Continuous core
sampling-100% core
recovery unless
specified otherwise
Grab groundwater sample
collected. Temporary
screen set at 19-24' bgs .
( SG-3 )
Soil-gas sample collected
for laboratory analysis. __ ~LLLLLL ____ _
--
.f!:., EI~~ ~"1'2~~iS ~o.!!,~!~ __
Bottom of boring = 28 ft. bgs IL----=6~3-:..!1:o!.5_-.J1
-30-
- -
Soil sample collected for
laboratory analysis.
~_~ ________ L-__ ~ __________ ~ _______ ~
'5l.... First encountered groundwater Y Equilibrated groundwater level
* ~u ~lL[L ~~ /A,,,!,E NVIRONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
.;:. ~ .... GEOSCIENCE &: ENGINEE~rNG CONSULTING
PROJECT Birch Plaza
LOCATION Palo Alto, CA
Soil Boring Log
BORING NUMBER --=-B-=--5_ Page _1 _ of
OWNER Court House Plaza Co.
PROJ ECT NUMBER 2::..:0.=,;OS=---3::..:5 ______ _
TOTAL DEPTH _--=2""S'-'f"'ee:..:t-,ob"'gs=---____ _ BOREHOLE DIA. _2::.;.::;25:...;i,:.:;nc""h'--_____ _
SIJ RFACE ELEV. ---'---"'30::...:ft"'("'-am"'s""I)'--___ _ WATER FIRST ENCOUNTERED 27.5 feet bgs
DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push DR I LLI NG COM PANY _-=E=CA'-'-----___ _
DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pietropaoli DATE DRI LLED 9/15/200S
DEPTH (feet)
o
5
10
15
GRAPHIC LOG
B5-15
P.I.D. READING
0
0.2
----
0
----
0 ----
SG-5
DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSifiCATION
Organic rich topsoil
CL, dark brown to black silty clay,
stiff, hard, dry
ML, olive brown gravelly silt, dry,
hard
ML, mottled reddish brown grey
clayey gravelly silt, damp, slight
plastic. ,,25% angular fragments
Becomes moist at 12'
CL, yellowish brown clay, plastic,
moist, soft
ML, yellowish brown clayey silt,
soft, moist, sl. plastiC
REMARKS
Notes:
PID = Photoionization
Detector "Readings" are
in parts per million per
volume air (ppmv)
Contin uous core
. sampling-100% core
20-f-J,.l-'-+J....L,1-I-J,.-L--Y-J....L,,J....1--!+---+---------------1 recovery unless
25
30
CL, olive silty clay, moist, plastic.
soft, dry white sandy patches ,,114"
-+-rfrrrrr'rrfTTrr-fr-r+---{'Sl CL, light gray gravelly clay,
moist, stiff ----
I ML, mottled yellow olive clay, soft,
I plastic, moist 1 ______ -----------
Bottom of boring = 2S ft. bgs
specified otherwise
Grab groundwater sample
collected. Temporary
screen set at 19-24' bgs.
( SG-5 )
Soil-gas sample collected
for laboratory analysis.
B5-15
Soil sample collected for
laboratory analysis.
'Sl.... First encountered groundwater .y. Equilibrated groundwater level
* S T~L [L#~~ ~ENV1RONMENTAL SOLUTIONS, INC
'" wi"': .. GEOSCIENCE &. ENGINEERING CONS[JLTING
PROJECT Birch Plaza
LOCATION Palo Alto, CA
Soil Boring log
BORING NUMBER .=B:::.,6_ Page _1 _ of
OWN ER Court House Plaza Co.
PROJ ECT N U M BE R 2""0:::;08""-3""5'-----_____ _
TOTAL DEPTH _....::2::::4-"fe",e",t b""g"'s ____ _ BOREHOLE OIA. _2::.: . .:::25~i~nc~h'___ ______ _
SURFACE ELEV. ~-:::;30~ft;..J(~am.:::s~I) ____ _ WATE R FI RST EN C 0 U NTE R ED ",20"",f""ee'-'.t ""bg""s __ _
. DRILLING COMPANY _--=E~CA~ ___ _ DRILLING METHOD GeoProbe 5410 Direct Push
DRILLER Brent GEOLOGIST H. Pletropaoli DATE DRILLED 9/16/2008
DEPTH
(feet)
o
5
10
15
20
25
r !
:
GRAPHIC
LOG
]
..
..
P.I.D.
READING
o
o
0.2
0.4
o
DESCRIPTION/SOIL CLASSIFICATION
4 inches concrete
CL. Dark brown silty clay, abundant
organics, roots, dry, stiff
GM. medium brown silty gravel.
fill (?), loose. fragments :51-1/2",
damp
GM, medium brown'silty gravel .
. fragments :51". damp. sli. plastic
matrix
ML. mottled olive yellow reddish
brown silty clay, damp. slightly
plastic
CL, mottled olive green. reddish
brown silty clay. soft. damp 10
moist. plastic
Bottom of boring = 24 ft. bgs
REMARKS
Notes:
PID = Pholoionization
Detector "Readings" are
in parts per million per
volume air (ppmv)
Continuous core
sampling-100% core
recovery unless
specified otherwise
Grab groundwater sample
collected. Temporary
screen set at 19-24' bgs.
( SG-1 )
Soil-gas sample collected
for laboratory analysis.
B6-15.5
30 Soil sample collected for
~ laboratory analysis.
iLL_~ _____ ~ __ ~ ________ ~ ______ ~
'5l. Firsl encountered groundwaler
r ,
Treadwell&RoIIo
Attachment B
lIE Model DTSC Version Worksheets
SG-SCREEN
Reset to
Defaults
... ,
I M~RE I
I M~RE I
I M~RE I
DTSC/HERD
Last Update: 11/1/03
ENTER
Chemical
CAS No.
(numbers only,
no dashes)
I 79016
ENTER
Depth
below grade
to bottom
of enclosed
space floor,
LF
(15 or 200 em)
Soil Gas Concentration Data
ENTER ENTER
Soil Soil
gas OR gas
conc., conc.,
Cg Cg
(j..lg/m' (ppmv)
6.40E+03 I I
ENTER ENTER ENTER
Soil gas Vadose zone
sampling Average SCS
depth soil soil type
below grade, temperature, (used to estimate
Ls Ts soil vapor
(em) (0G) ~ermeability)
DATA ENTRY SHEET
OR
DTSC
Vapor Intrusion Guidance
Interim Final 12104
(last modified 1121/05)
Chemical
Trichloroethylene
ENTER
User-defined
vadose zone
soil vapor
permeability,
kv
(em2)
~.15 I 457 T 24 SIC I I
ENTER
Van dose zone
SCS
soil type
ENTER
ENTER
Vadose zone
soil dry
bulk density,
ENTER
Averaging Averaging
ENTER
Vadose zone
soil total
ENTER
ENTER
Vadose zone
soil water-filled
porosity,
ewv
(cm3/em3)
ENTER
time for time for Exposure Exposure
carcinogens, noncarcinogens, duration, frequency,
ATc ATNc ED EF
(yrs) (yrs) (yrs) (day~rJ
ENTER
Average vapor
flow rate into bldg.
(Leave blank to calculate)
QsoiJ
(LIm)
DTSC Indoor Air Guidance
Unclassified Soil Screening Model
I
2650 & 2640 Birch Street
5/6/2009
2:53 PM
-.
CHEMICAL PROPERTIES SHEET
Henry's Henry's Enthalpy of
law constant law constant vaporization at Normal Unit
Diffusivity Diffusivity at reference reference the normal boiling Critical risk Reference Molecular
in air, in water, temperature, temperature, boiling point, point, temperature, factor, cone., weight,
Da Dw H TR LlHY•b Ta Tc URF RfC MW
~,
END
\
",;J&-
1 of 1
-~
\
~;fi.-
DTSC 1 HERD
Last Update: 11/1/03
INTERMEDIATE CALCULATIONS SHEET
Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Vadose zone Floor-
Source-soil effective soil soil soil wall
building air-filled total fluid intrinsic relative air effective vapor seam Soil
separation, porosity, saturation, permeability, permeability, permeability, perimeter, gas
LT 9aY Ste k; krg kv .><crack conc.
(cm) (cm3/cm3) (cm 3/cm3) (cm2) (cm2) (cm2) (cm) (f.lg/m3)
Bldg.
ventilation
rate,
Qbuilding
(cm3/s)
442 0.265 0.284 1.52E-09 0.844 J 1.28E-09 4,000 6.40E+03 3.39E+04
Area of Vadose
Crack-Crack Enthalpy of Henry's law Henry's law Vapor zone enclosed
space
below
grade,
to-total depth vaporization at constant at constant at viscosity at effective Diffusion
area below ave. soil ave. soil ave. soil ave. soil diffusion path
ratio, grade, temperature, temperature, temperature, temperature, coefficient, length,
As
(cm2)
11 Zcrack liHv.Ts HTs H'TS f.lTS Deify Ld
(unitless) (cm) (cal/mol) (atm-m 3/mol) (unitless) (g/cm-s) (cm2/s) (cm)
1.00E+06 5.00E-03 15 8,382 9.80E-03~ 4.02E-01 1.80E-~ 4.10E-03 442
Exponent of Infinite
Average Crack equivalent source
Convection Source vapor effective foundation indoor
path vapor Crack flow rate diffusion Area of Peclet attenuation
length, conc., radius, into bldg., coefficient, crack, number, coefficient,
Lp Csource rcrack QSOil Dcrack Acrack exp(Pef) (l
(cm) (f.l9/m3) (cm) (cm3/s) (cm2/s) (cm2) (unitless) _umitless)
Infinite
source
bldg.
conc.,
CbUilding
(f.l9/m3)
15 6.40E+03 1.25 2.26E+00 4.10E-03 5.00E+03 3.01 E+OO 7.31 E-05 4.68E-01
Unit
risk
factor,
URF
(jlg/m3r1
Reference
conc.,
RfC
(mg/m3)
2.0E-06 6.0E-01
END
DTSC Indoor Air Guidance
Unclassified Soil Screening Model
2650 & 2640 Birch Street
5/6/2009
2:52 PM
..... ,
2650 & 2640 Birch Street
RESUL TS SHEET
INCREMENTAL RISK CALCULATIONS:
Incremental
risk from
vapor
intrusion to
indoor air,
Hazard
quotient
from vapor
intrusion to
indoor air,
carcinogen noncarcinogen
(unitless) (unitless)
3.8E-07 7.5E-04
MESSAGE SUMMARY BELOW:
1 of 1
I .,
SCSSoiType K,(cnYhl
C 0.6.
Ct. 0.3<
L 0.50
l$ ~38
$ 2&78
5C 0.47
SCL ~ ..
SI 1.82
SIC ~40 SICt. ~ .. SIl n76 SL ....
CAS No. Che~
56235carbon!~.nctilOrio't' $77"9CntJ,(f~ ~4pM'Q.Ho:H;L;r;oa~l G0297Ellylether
&0571Ciddfln
67a41Acetone
8765301Iorot .. 'fm m21Ho'~chlOrce-t".I)r.fo
71432801l.ClI'\e
71550I.I.I·TrlchIotoelhane ~~=¥hb1
748J9Melhylbt~ 748T3Ila:t'ytcNo:";:!c{~lt"oC'.h'lI~1!1
74903H)'d~lIncyanj(Je
7495.J ... ettrytenebromide
75003 (::lIlQrooUlllne{ilti't:r1d"llQlWXJ) :!: ==OC!) (c1IIoI00tho.-.l:)
7501O~c:ct.,ld~ 7I5092r.le:tlyteNJcJlbnd"! 7515OCllrtondisu66e 75218Elt"Ir'...-.ooafdc 75252BlOI'fI)lo-m
7S274.1!10/"I-.»cM::!'Orr~o
7529G2-C1'I~
753431.1..c;.-..h:cr.Ie'J'ldl~
7&3S41.I..QlchIoroeU'ly"nll
75456ChlOto:flftuommethll1le
7S694TrlchlOtoftJorornethane
75716 OichJotodlllucwmeUlllne
7613't.l.2·TrldlIoro-I.2.2-U"!1tuoro.\lla 76448H~~d".bf ~~~=~lopetllacJklne
786751,2~
=~~r~::~a~bUUlnonel
79018U.cnbr:M:I.hY'ene 79209 MIII'IyIlIQ1111\e 79345I.f.2.2·rO\JIICh:.)rC'tOl8~
794692 .. 'II~"OpMe
Me28 Melhyknelhll~e
83J2gA09nap/Vl6ne
M137FIUO/ene
87683.I .... ac::h>J:'/l·I.J.~JI8r:e
S8~o-f{l\roIoiOJe1I.e
91203N.atllln~ 915T52..ue~lh ... ne m24Dij)llenyl
95478o-Xyttne
SI05Otl.2..Qi:hlorcbenz:ene
955782-ChlOtcphenot
956361.2.4-Trltnelhyliben:efMl
961641.2.:s...Tric1'lL'I~1o/l
96333"'elhyJlcry"Ia
97632EltJyltl'leCtllayflti 9&OG61et1-8UTy1be1u:QtttI 98828Cumll\e
==:e
l00414EI.hy1bt.nz:ene
l0042S$tyr.ne
l00447e-~o
10052781fl.z:alddryde
103651n-PrQl)'flbenrene 10 .. 515n-8u1y1bemene 10&42Jp.Xylane 1064571."·~eM 10~1.;H'IQ;tM'C4!""''''(a'Jrf.tn6of..-t; 1069001.J.8utDdl~
107028AcrolOin
1070621.:!.C:;cNo~
107131 ~ .. .tyi(tI:IIi!tl
10eo54Vqtleu,-,e 108101 Mw.,tisobutylllMone( .. -me\hy1.~ 108JS3m-Xyiene 10M781.3.6-Tri"netlWylbenl9n8
~=~:~~
108907~rmme
1~I-CNorobutane
I10009Fwan 110543H .... 8~
"'''448~2..;~)ttt:e-t 115297 EnclOsulfan 1187 .. , H&x&;:hl()lob!:nre.....
12082.11.2.4-TrichloIOOenune ~=~==~:::31)
12SQ87MllCNcryla"litrile
12'B9Q82-CNoro-l,3-butadiene(chb/qlf
1271&1 TwatIIlM:-othyleno
:==~nJn ,_...autylbellz:ene ''''786 EtlWylecailti l~cls--l.2.()kb1onJeltlyf!ne
1566051rM1·1.2.Ofct1io1"oell'ryien. 2O-59926enz:OI.bl'uor.In'N!"I1I! 2I&o19CJKr".er-e
J09OO2~11rin
31904G:J'CIha-HC~t'\Jo.."'.>f!~}
541731'.3·0idliorobenJene ::~:~~==~~ 1634C44UT8E 7439976"'erOJry(el~1)
('
1
50i Properties lOOkup Table BU&OetIsty
G.1(t/em) N(unitless) M(unitIBSs) n{eml/an') O.(cm'fcm') MeanGl'8lnOiamtter(cm) (~cm')
0.01496 '.253 0.2019 0.459 0.098 0.0092 .... 3
0.01581 1.416 0."'" ~"2 om. 0.016 .. ..
0.01112 un 0.3207 .., .. 0.061 0.020 '.59 0.03475 1.746 0."273 0.390 0.049 ~ ... •. 62
0.03524 3.177 0.8M2 o.J" M., 0.0 .... .. 00
0.03l42 '.208 O.lm 0= 0.117 0.025 1.63
0.02109 1.330 0.2481 0.384 0.063 0.029 '.63
0 ...... '.679 ~-0 .... O.osa O.OOCS '.35 0.01622 1.3'21 0.243) no •• 0.111 MOlO '.38 ~0083' 1.521 0.3425 0.462 0 .... 0 ..... '.37 0.00506 1.663 0.3987 0.439 0 .... 0.011 1.49
0.02687 1.01411 0.3099 0."" 0.039 0.030 '.62
Ch~tn8~locl!.UPTeblt = ~~( law~~~nl """"""" :l O::Ar DiffusMty ..... , ~::"'I IIllWtefwnc:o reference
lnwsl«. soIU~. ten'\plrallJre. 18t1"1gel'1lurw. ... D. D. If H T.
(em'to) an't, ""'~ C_, unijes:s .1nHn't"""1 rC)
1.74e+02 7.8OE-02 a.80E.()6 7.93E+02 1.24E4OO l.03E-02 25 1.20E·05 I.t6E-Ol <l37E-o& S.6D~2 ..... -03 ".65-E-OS ..
t07Et003 1.42E-02 7.304E-08 7"",,'" S.73E-04 1.4OE-05 2.
5.13E*OO 7.82£.02 &61E-08 5.68E+o.t 1.35E.OO 3.29£-02 ..
2.t4EtO<t I.25E.02 ".74E-06 1.~-O1 6.18E-04 1.51E-05 2' 3~E.!: 1.24E-OI 1.14E-05 I.ooe·oe 1.S9E..03 3.87E-05 ..
UME-OI 1.00E* 7.~E~ I.~E-Ol 3.6&E-03 ..
1.78E-*03 2.50~3 6.80E-OO 5.ooE101 1.S9E~1 3.a8E.(I3 ..,
5.89EIOI UOE.02 9.80E-08 1.79E+03 2.27E.(I1 5.54E-03 ..
1.IOE+02 7.80E.02 8.8JE-06 1.33E+03 7.03E.(I1 1.72e.02 .. 9.77E+04 1.56E-02 4.46E.(16 I.00E.(I1 &46E.o.t I.54E-05 ..,
4.47E'06 1.44E.02 5.87E.(I6 1.20E.(I1 ........ ~09E ... .. 1.05E+Ol 7.28E-02 1.21E-05 1.52Et04 ........ 6..22E-03 25 2.12ElOO 1.26E.(I1 a ...... ..".003 3.6IE.(I1 UOE-03 ..,
3.&OE+OO UJe-OI 2.10E-05 1.00E+O& 5.44E..().3 I.33E.(I4 ..
t.26E+OI 4.JOE-02 8ME.(I8 1.19Et04 3.52E-02 8.59E-04 ..
4.40EIOO 2.71E.(I1 1.15E.(I$ 5.68E+OJ 3.6IE.(I1 a&OE.(I3 25
1.86E+Ol I.06E-01 1.Z3E.(I$ &eoEIOJ 1.10Eloo 2.69E.(I2 25
4.20ElOO ...J'.28E.(I1 Ui&E.05 ~::~:: 1.42£-03 ;.~~: 2S
1.06E+00 1.24E.(II 1.41E.05 3.23E..().3 .. I.I7E+Ol 1.01E.(I1 1.17E-05 I.30EI04 .... -02 2.lae-03 .. 4.S1E+ot 1.04£.(11 I.ooE.05 1.19EIOJ Cl4E"00 3.02E.(I2 ..,
1.33E'00 1.04£-01 1.45E-05 3.04E~ 2.27E-02 5.54E-04 25
8.7IE'01 1.C9E-02 1.03£-05 3.10EtQ3 2.41E-02 5.S8E-04 ..
5.5OEIOI 2.98E-02 I.DtlE.1J.5 6.7"EIOJ 6.54E.02 1.60E.(I3 ..
9.14E+OO &88E.(I2 1.01E.(I5 3.T3EIOJ 5.93E.(I1 1.45E-02 ..
3.18EIOI 7."2E.(I2 1.05E-05 5.05EIOJ 2.3OE.(I1 5.6IE.(I3 2S
5.89E+Ol 9.00E-02 1,00E-05 2.2:$£103 1.07ElOO 2.SOE-02 ..,
4.T9EIOI 1.01E-Ol I.2SE-05 2.ooE+OO 1.10ElOO 2.70E.(I2 :IS
".97Et02 8.1OE.(I2 9.70E.06 1.10Et03 3.97E·00 9J58E-02 ..
4.57E+02 6.65E-02 9.9lE-06 2.80E"02 1.40EIOI 3."2E.(I1 :IS
1.I1E+O" 7.&oE.(I2 &"20E.(16 1.1OEt02 U7EIO' ".80E.(I1 :IS
1."'E+08 1.12£.(12 5.69E-06 l.aoE.(I1 8.05EIOI l.46ElOO 2S
2.00E+05 1.8IE-02 7.21E.(16 !.80ElOO l.l0E"00 2.69E.02 25
2.59E+()() &60E.(I2 9.JOE-08 8.5OEI04 .(JI3E.(I" 1.18E-O$ 2S
".37E+OI 7.82E.(I2 8.73E.(16 2.eoEIOJ 1.15E.(I1 2.79E-03 25
2.3OE ... 8.0aE-Ol 9.«)E-06 2.23Et05 2.29E-03 5.:!I8E-05 25
5.0IEIOI 7.80E-02 6.80E.(16 ... ael03 3.T.lE.(I2 9. 11 E-04 ..,
1.66EI02 7.90E-02 9.10E.(I6 I.47EI03 4.21E.(I1 1.0JE.02 2S ~2OE'" 1.0"E-Ol ~:=: 2.00E·03 4.ME.(I3 I. 18E.o.t 25 9.33E101 7.IOE-02 2..96E'03 1."'E.(I2 3 ..... E-04 2S
1.17E+01 9.23i!.(I2 1.0 I E.os I.1OE'04 5.03E.(I3 1.Z3E-04 ..
6.98E+OO 7.1OE-02 &SOE-06 UiOE·04 I.38E.02 3.36E-04 :IS
7.08EtOO .... 21E-02 7.69E.(16 3.57E'00 6.3<E-03 1.55E-04 :IS
1.38E+O" 3.63E.02 7.88E.(16 1.9R-00 2.SOE-03 6.3<E ... 2S
5.37EIO" 5.6IE.(I2 6.16E.(I8 ~:~: 3.33E-OI & 13E..().3 ..,
3.24Et02 5.87E.(I2 8.67E.oo 5.IIE.(I" 1.25E!-O$ 2S
2.00E--OJ .... E-02 7..50E.(16 3.\OEIOI 1.98E.(I2 ".&2E-O" 2S 2.8IEt()J 5.22E-02 7.75oE.(I6 2. .. seIOI 2.'lE-02 5. 17E.(I" 2S
".34Et03 ".0"E-02 3.15E.(I6 7.ee100 1.2JE.(I2 2.99E.(I" 2S
3.83Etm &70E-02 1.00E.(I5 1.78E+02 2.12E.(II 5.f8E-03 25
6.17E102 &90E-02 UOE.(16 1.56£+02 7.77E.(I2 1.90£-03 ..
3.88EI02 5.01E.(I2 ~ ...... 2.20E+O" 1.60E-02 3.00E.(I" ..
I.35EtOO 8.06E.02 7.92E-06 5.70EIOI ,..,. ... G.14E-03 ..
2.20EIOI 7.10E.(I2 7.90E.(16 1.75E+OJ 1.61f-02 ".OSE-04 ..
4.53E+OO 9.78E.(I2 I.02E-05 6.00Et04 7.88E..(I3 1.87E.(I4 ..,
2.~+O1 6.53E.(I2 8.37E.(I6 3.57EIOJ 3.4oCE.(I2 &4OE .... .. 7.71E.002 6..G5E.(I2 8.02E-06 ~IOI ".87E.(I1 1.19E-02 2S
".89'E+02 6.5OE.(I2 7.IOE-06 8.13E"01 ".7"E+Ol 1.16fiOO 2. 5.T7E+OI 6.OOE.(I2 8.T.lE.(16 &IJEIOJ ".3aE.(I" 1.07E-05 ..
6.46E+01 7.GOE.(I2 &60E.(I8 2.0ge103 9.82:E.(I" ~39E'" 2.
3.63E102 7.~.02 7.80E.(16 1.6SlEtOl 3.22E.(I1 7.86E-03 ..
7.76E.02 7.10E.02 8.00E.(16 3.10E+02 1.12E.(I1 2.74E.(I3 ..
6.1"E.Ol 7.5OE.02 7.80E-08 i~: 1.1OE-02 ... I"E-04 25
".59E.Ol 7.21E-02 9.07E.(16 9.T3E-04 2.37E-05 2S
5.61£+02 5.0lE.(I2 7.53E-06 &OOE+Ol 4.31E-Ol 1.07E.(I2 ..
1.11EtOJ 5.1OE-02 8.12E-08 2.00E+oo 5.38E-Ol 1.31E.02 ..
3.a9E-02 Ui9E-02 8.4"E-06 U5Etm 3.13&01 7.64E-03 2S
8.I7EI02 6.9OE.(I2 7.90E..Q6 7.90EI01 '.82E-02 2.39E.(I3 ..,
2.5OEIOI 2. 17E-02 1.19E-05 ".16EI03 3.04E-02 7."'E~" 2.
1..91E+01 2."9E-Ol 1.0SE-05 7.3I5E_02 3.01E100 7.34E.(I2 2.
2.76E100 1.05E.(I1 1.22E-05 2.IJEtOS 4.99E.(I3 1.22E-04 ..
1.7"E 1(1 I 1.04E.(I1 9.90E-OO 6.S2EIOJ .... OOE-02: 9.nE-04 ..
5.90ElOO 1.22E.(I1 1.34E.05 7.4OE+04 ".21E-03 1.03E.(I4 ..
5.25E'00 MOE-02 9.20E.(16 2.00E+O" ~09E-02 5.10E·0" ..
9..DfiEtOO 7.50E..Q2 7.80E-OO 1.9lE+()04 5.64E-03 1.34E.(I" ..,
".07EI02 7.00E.02 7.80E-06 U1E+02 100£-01 7.3lE-03 25 1.35EI03 M2E-02 8.67E-06 2.oOE", 2. .. IE..Ql 5.87E..Q3 2' 7.WIO' 7.35E-02 8.52E-06 I.4OE+Ol .. .22EIOO 1.0JE.(I1 ..
1.52Et02 3.70E.02 &GOE-08 .26E<02 2.72E-01 &82E.OJ ..
2.19Et02 7.30E-02 8.70E-06 ... mt02 1.51E-OI 3.69E.(I3 ..
l.nelOI &26E..Q2 1.00E-05 1.10Et03 6.93E-01 J.M1E.(I2 ..
U16E"01 '.O"E-Ol 1.22E..QS 1.00E+()04 2.21E-01 5.J9E-03 ..
".l4E+Ol 2.00E-Ol 7.71E-G6 1.2"E+OI 6.82E+Ol I.ME+OO 25 I.55EIOI am-02 7.53.E~6 l.nE+04 7.34E..()4 1.80E-05 .. 2.14£103 1.15E.Q2 ,USE-08 5.IOE-Ol 4.5SE-04 I.12E-05 .. 5.5OEI04 5."2E-02 5.9IE-08 5.00E-03 5.40E-02 1.32E.(I3 25 1.7eelOJ 3.00E.02 &2.31!-06 4.S8E+Ot 5.81E..Q2 1."2E-03 :IS ".62ElOO Q.5«-02 1.07E-05 U9E..,. 7.99£.o.t 1.95E.(I5 ..
6.3IE+O, 1.9I5E.(I2 1.0SE.1J.5 2.GOEIOJ 3.20E..Q2 7.8IE.(I" 25
3.58E"+Ol 1.12E.(I1 1.32E..Q5 2.54Et04 1..0 1 E-02 2.46£..0" ..
6.73£101 8.!58E-02: l.o3E-05 2. 12:EIQ3 4.91E-01 1.201:..02 25
1.55E102 7.20E..Q2 &20E.os ~OO .... 7.53E-01 1.S4E-02 25
t.O~I05 2.72E-02 7.2"E-06 1.~E+OO 4.5OE-O" I.l0E-05 .. 5.15£103 ~38E-02 &OOE·oe 3.IOE+OO 5.1$E..Q" I.26E-05 2S 9.6EEI02 5.1OE-02 8.12E-06 3.94E+oo 5.65E..QI 1.39E..Q2 .. 6.44EI00 7.32E..Q2 9.70E-08 &03E+()04 5.64E-03 I..33E.(I" ..
3.55EIOI 7.JOE-02 I. 13E.(I$ 3.50E+03 UTE.(Ii ".07E..Q3 .. 5.25EIOI 7.01£-02 1.19E-05 "-'lOEOO3 3.54£.(11 9.36E-03 2S 1.23EIOS ~26E-02 5.56E-06 I.~E-03 4.54E..Q3 1.1IE.(I" 2S 3.98E+05 ~"'-02 6..21E-06 3.30E-03 3.87E-03 9.44E-05 ..
2.0&5E+OS 1.32E-02 4.86E.(I6 I.70E.(I2 6.95E..().3 I.1OE~ .. ..
1.23EI03 1."2E..Q2 7.34E-06 2.ooE4oo ".34E.(I4 1.06E-05 ..,
1.9SE+03 6.92E-02 7.e6E-06 1.34E+02 1.27E-Ol 3..o9E..Q3 ..
".57E+Ol 6..26E-02: 1.00E.(I5 2.IIOE-OJ 7.24E-Ol 1.77E-02 ..,
1.16£102 7.10£-02 7.90E-OO 1.IOEIOJ 9.90E-02 2."'E-03 25 7.26E+()() 1.02E..Ql 1.05E~5 5.IOEI04 2.56E.(I2 6.23E.(I" ..
5.20E+Ol 3.07E-02: &3OE-06 2.00EIOt 4.4OE.(I1 1.07E.(I2 ..
e .. (c:m1/cm'} SCS Soil N8mo
O.215Ct1y
O.I68CISyLoam
O.I48l.oam
M76LoamySand
0.05<$000
0.197 Sandy Clay ~::~~ndyCIay~m
O.2t6S1lyCISy 0.198 SllyCISy Loam ~~:::~
CatEPA TOJlk:ttyCrittrr.rn bQld
EnU\.t.lpyd 11n1:lted 1121105OTSCMERD) --va:::'1I1 "' .... CtiIIca. ... ReI ... "", Molecular ..... lempenlure. bol"IftgDO! .... laC\or. """". ...,,",
T, 'T, .... , URF (::.~ MW
('1<) ("1<) ",'mol ',glm'" Jgt ....
"'~90 ...... 7,127 ".2&05 .. .oE-02 1.54E+02
624.24 .... 73 .~ooo 3.4£-04 7.oE-Oot ".IOe·02
"'.55 &30.36 .~ooo l.lE-Q4 I.IE-03 2.91e"02
J07.SO 466.74 6.338 o.oe·oo 7.oE-Oi 7."'12-401
613.32 5042.25 17,000 ".&E-03 1.8E-04 3.61Et02
329.20 S08.IO a ... o.oe·oo 3.5E-Ol 5.B1EtOI
3JA.32 ...... ~9" 5..3E-06 3.0E-Ot 1.19Et02
.... 00 695.00 9,$10 1.1E.(I5 3.5£-03 2.37E<02 3>3.>< 562.18 7.3<2 2.9E.(I5 :; t~l::·:l2 7.81E101 347.24 ....... 7.13e o.OEIOO f.OE+oO 1.33E+02 6$1.02
_ ..
.aooo O.OEIOO I.8E.02 3.4eE102 roe.44 .... 38 15.000 9.7E.(I5 o.OE+OO 3.18E+02
276.71 ..... 00 5,714 o.OElOO .. ..., 9.49EIOI
249.00 41425 5.115 1.0E-06 9.OE-02 S.05EIOI m.00 .... 70 6.678 o.OE+oo j·i2"·~ 2.70E+Ol
310.00 5aJ.00 7 .... o.OEloo 3.~-O2 I.74E+02
28S.JO ...... • .879 &3E·07 :.~i' •• (.; 6..45E+Ol
259.25 <3~00 ~~ 7.8E.(I5 I.OE-Ol 425EIOI ,.. ... ...... O.OEtOO 6.0E-02 4.IIEIOI
293.10 466.00 6.1S1 2.7E-06 9..OE-03 4.41E401 313.00 510.00 ..700 l.oE.(I6 4.0E.(II 8.49E10I 319.00 "~OO 15.391 O.OElOO ".QI;:"~: 7.6IEIOI =60 46900 5.104 3.8E·05 3.0E.(I2 4.4IEIOI 422.,. .... 00 9.47V I.IE-06 7.0E-02 2.53E·02
363.15 .... 8S 7 .... 3.7E-05 7.0E.(I2 I.6"E·02 _70 .... 00 6.288 o.OE+oo 1.0E.(I1 7.85E+Ol
330." SZl.OO ..... 1.6E-06 5.0E.(I1 9.90E'01 ,...." 5ni.05 6.247 O.OEloo 7.0E-02 9.69EIOI Zl~40 "'.30 '.'" O.OElOO 5.0EIOI &65EIOI
296.70 "71.00 5 .... O.oElOO 7.0E.(I1 1.37EI02
2<3.20 384 ... 9,"21 ~:~~:: 2.0E-Ol 1.21E.002 320.70 487.30 6."63 3.0E+01 1.87EI02
.. 3.69 848.31 13.000 1.8E·03 1.8E-03 3.T.lEI02
512.15 7<d00 10.931 o.OE+OO 2.0E-04 2.T.lEI02
341.04 547.78 '0.936 O..oE+OO I.IE"OO 7."'EIOI ,.. .. 2 572.00 7.'" 1.0E.(I5 ".OE-03 1.13EI02
,.~SO "'.76 7.481 o.OE·oo 5i~;~~ 7.2IE+OI
3M.l$ 602.00 8.322 1.6&05 I.33E+02
360.36 5<4.20 7.'" 2.OE.(I6 6.0E-OI I.31E+02 329.80 .... 70 7.260 o.OEIOO 3.5E+00 7.41EIOI
"'9.60 661.15 ..... is.1I~5 2.1E-Ol 1.68€-02
393.20 .... 00 ..,., 2.7E-03 2.0E-02 a.g'E+Ol
3"'-"700 8.975 o.OE·OO 7.0E-Ol 1.00EI02
550 .... 6OJ. •• 12, ISS o.OEIOO 2.IE-Ol I.54E-02
510.44 .7000 '~666 O.oE+OO 1."E-01 I.ME+02
<86.'5 738., 10.206 2.2E.(I5 7.0E-04 2.SIEI02 .... 00 72000 '~239 o.OElOO 3.5E.(I2 1.37EI02
"91.1" 748.40 10.313 3. .. e.o5 )':12··;,1 1.28E+02
51".26 nil.00 ~~: o.OEloo 7.0E-02 1."2E+02 529.10 789.00 o.oE+OO 1.8E-01 1..54E+02
"17.50 6Jo.3O 8.661 O.OEloo I.,·~..ol 1.06E"02 "3.01 105.00 9.100 O.OE+oo 2.0E.(Ii I."7EI02
447.53 675.00 9.5n O.OEtOO 1.8E.(I2 I.29E_02
"~30 649.17 9.389 o.OElOO 8.0E-03 1.20EI02
430.00 .. ~oo 9.171 5.7E-O" "_9E·OJ 1."7EI02 353.70 "'.00 7.749 o.OElOO 1.1E.(I1 &61EIOI
390.00 571.00 10.9.57 O.OEloo 3.2E-Ol I.I"EI02 .... 2.10 1120.00 ..... D.OElOO l."E-Ol 1.34E"02 ."" .. 631.10 10.335 O.OElOO ".OE.(II I.20E102
''''00 709.-lI.m O.OElOO 3.5E-OI I.20EI02 ..,.os 719.00 10.5&6 o.OElOO 2.0E-03 1.23EI02 .... ,.. 617.20 8.5131 O.OE+OO ~.?l:1~' 1.06EI02
"18.31 63600 8.137 O,OE+OO 9.0E-Ol 1.04EI02
4S~00 685.00 &m 4.9E.(I5 O.OE'OO 1.27EI02
"52.00 .... 00 11,658 O.oE+OO 3.5£.(11 1.06E+02
432.20 630.00 9.123 O.OE+OO 1.4£-01 1.20E+02
""'6 .... so 9.290 O.OEIOO 1.4E-01 I.J..4E.02
411.52 616.20 ~m O.OElOO IC:21J1 1.06EI02
447.21 .... " 9.271 I.IE.(I5 6.OE.(I1 1. .. 7EI02 ..... "".00 8.310 7.IE.(I5 8.cJE·O" 1.68E'02 ""' .. '2MO 5.370 1.7E.(I" "].'-(0'1 5."'E·01 315." .... 00 8.731 O.oEIOO 5.8IEIOI ,.. ... 561.00 7.543 2.1E.(I5 . ..... 9.90E-OI
"".30 519.00 7.'" 2.9~" '<·l~·::.!-5.31E-01 ,..~ 519.13 7.'" O.OE"OO 2.0E.(II 8.81E+01 _so S11.00 8,243 ~~: 8.0E-02 1.GOel(l2
.. 12.27 617.05 aoZl :.~.~.~ I I.Q6EI02
"37.89 837.25 9.321 o.OElOO 6.0£-03 J.20E+02
373.90 57220 7 ... 7 .. O.OElOO 3.0E"00 9.82EIOI
30176 591.79 7.930 O.oElOO 3.0E..Ql 9.21EIOI
.... 87 632.'0 8."'0 O.OElOO 1.0E+OO 1.13EI02
3$1.60 542.00 7.263 O.OElOO 1.4E+00 9.2se+OI ,... ... "90.20 ~'" O.oE"OO ~".OJ 6..51EIOI 341.70 506.00 ..... O..oE+OO "].0;:-·:)1 8.62EIOI 0&51.15 659.79 10.803 7.\E·04 O.oElOO U3Et02 674.43 .. ~ .. 1 ... 000 O.OEIOO 2.1E-02 4.07Et02 .. ~ .. 825.00 14.4"7 5.tE..Q4 2.8E-03 2.85E-02
486.15 n5.00 10."71 O.cJE·OO 2.0£.(11 talE+02
375.20 ,...00 9 5.4E..Q" O.OE+()() 7.olEIOI
416.1" .... 20 5 .... 2.7E-O$ 7.0E-02 2.08E+02
363.30 ..... 00 7.'" O.OE+oo 7.cJE-O" 6.71E+01 =<0 520.00 .~7S O.oE+OO 7..oE-03 8.85E+Ol
"'.40 620.20 &288 is.9f-06 3.~..Q2 1.866+02
667.i5 936 ,<371) O.oE_OO I.IE..QI 2.0lEI02
E60 .24 ..... O.OEIOO 1.4E.(I2 I.68E+02 .... 5 679 ..,30 O.OElOO 1.4£.(11 1.34E"02 ,...,. 023.3 7""," O.OElOO 3.2ElOO 8.81EIOI =60 ... 7192 O.OE+OO 3 ....... 9.89E+01
320.85 516.5 6717 o.OE"OO 7.0E-02 9.G9E+01
715.9 .... 27 '7000 I.IE·O" O.OElOO 2.52Et02
714.15 979 ... 55 f.tE..Q5 o.OfiOO 2.28E+02
503.01 &19.37 '5000 ....9~3 I.IE..Q4 3.65EI02 ...... 830.36 '5000 7.7E-04 O.OE+OO 2.91Et02 ... ... 9230.16 O.OElOO I.IE..QI 1.47EI02
381_15 587.34 7900 l.fiE.(I5 20E-02 I.IIEI02
"03.5 62. 9768.2S2525 7."E-OI5 I.IE-Ol I.68EI02 326.3 497.1 5677.~ UiE·07 'l:E-:~ 882E+OI 025 .. I7SO ''''27 O.OEIOO 9.0E..Q5 2.01E"0"2.
URF RIC _ted
extraool.IN
X X
7 X
X
X
X
X
X ?
X
X
X
X
X
X
?
X
X X
X
X
X X
X X
7
X
X
X X X
X
? X X X 7
7
X X
X
X
X
7 X
X X X X X X
7
?
X
X
X
'" Orig' IEPAVatu "
Unit
'''' RRleft1IOII
flidOr. a>ne.. URF RIC ,~".:;., (::") aw.poIated extrI,POIated
X (Xl
UiE-050.0E*OO
I.OE-04 7.0E-04
3.7E--04 1.1E-OJ X X O.OE+oO 7.0E-OI X
".6E-03 1.8E-04 X
O.OE+oO 3.~-O1 X
2.3E-OS' o.oEt{)(I
4.0E-06 3.SE-03 X
7.8E-O& O.OE+oO D.OEtOO 2.2E+OO O.OE+OO 1.8E.02 X 9.7E-050.0EIOO X O.OE+oO 5.OE-03 1.0E-06 9.0E-02
O.OE+OO 3.0E.(I3
O.OE+OO 3.5E.(I2 X
8.3E·071.0E+01 X
6..8E.0II ,.oE.(I1
O.OE+OO 6.OE.02
2.2E-06 9.0E-03 4.7E.(I73.0EtOO O.OE+OO 7.0E.(I1 1.0E-040.0EtOO
I.IE.(I67.0E-Q2 X
1.8E..Q5 7.0E-02 X X
O.OEIOO 1.0E.(I1
O.OE+OO 5.0E.(I1
O.OE+OO 2.0E-Ol
O.OE+OO 5.OE+OI O.OE+OO 7.0E-01 0.0£+00 2.0E-Ol O.OEIOO 3..oEI01
1.3E-03 1.8E.(I3 X O.OE+oo 2.0E-O"
O.OE+OO I.IE'OO X
1.9E.(I54.0E-03 X
O.OE+OO 1.0E+oo 1.8E-05 1.4E.(I2 X
!.IE·O" 4_0E-02 X O.OE+OO 3.5E+oo X 5.8EooM 2.1E-01 X
2.7E.(I32..OE-02
O.oEt()O 7..oE-Oi
O.OE+OO 2.IE-OI X
O.OE-OO l."E-Ol X
2.1£.(I57.0E-04 X O.OE+oo 3.~.(I2 X O.oE+OO 3.0E-03 O.OElOO 7.0E.02 X O.OE+OO 1.5E.(I1 X
O.OE+OO I.OE.(I1
O.OE+oO 2.0E-OI
O.OE+OO 1.8E.(I2 X
O.OE+OO &OE-03
5.7E-O" <.9E-03 X
O.OE+OO 1.1E.(Ii X O.OE+OO 1lE·Ol X O.OE+oo 1.4E·Ol X O.OE+OO .... OE.(II
O.OE+oo 3.SE.(I1 X
O.OE+OO 2.0E-03
O.OE+OO 1.0E+OO
O.OE+()() 1.0E+oo
4.9£:45 O.OE+OO X O.OElOO 3.5E.(II X O.OEtOa l."E.(I1 X O.OElOO I."E.(I1 X O.OE+oo I.OE.(II
O.OE'OO 8.0E-Ol
6.OE-0" 9.0E-03
3.0E·05 O.OE-OO
O.OE+()() ~OE'" 2.GE-05 O.OElOO a8E", 2.OE-03
O.OE+OO 2.OE..QI O.oElOO a.oE..Q2 O.oE"OO 1.0E..Ql
O.oE+OO 6.0E..Q3
O.OEIOO 3.oE"00
O.OE+OO ...oE·OI
O.OE+()() ME.Q2
O.OEIOO 1."E-OO X
O.OElOO 3.5E.OJ X O.OE+OO 2.0E.(lI
13E-04 ....... 0.0£+00 2,IE~2 X ".6E..()4 2.8E~3 X O.OE-OO 2.0E.(Ii
5."E-O" O.OEIOO X
~ ..... 7.0E-02 X X
o.OE+OO 7.0E-04
O.oE"OO 7.OE.(I3
3.0E-06 O.GE+()()
O.OEIOO 1.1E.(I1 X O.OEIOO ""E.(I2 X o.OElOO l."E.(I1 X O.OElOO ;':: X O.OEIOO X O.OE"OO 7.0E-02: X 2.1E-O" O.OEIOO X 2.1E..QG D.OEt-{X) X
4.9E-03 1.1E-04 X
I.8E-03 0.0E400
O.OE+OO 1.1E-Ol X
4.0E-05 ~0E.Q2 7.4E..QG 1.1E~1 X O.OElOO 3.0E+OO o.OEtOa :l.OE..Q4
CelEPA I USEPA
Po\encyR.atio
~ .. 3." 0 ... NC
f.OO
NC
0.23
~,.
~n
NC
NC .~o
NC 1.00 NC NC '.00 ....
NC
'.Zl
~13
NC 0 ...
'.00 2~' NC
ClI~Aonty
C
C
NC
NC
He NC 1.2]
NC NC
0." NC
1.00
0.02 I.e '.00 1.00 NC
NC
NC
1.00
NC
NC
NC NC NC NC NC
He
1.00
NC
NC ~
NC NC
He
NC
1.00
NC
NC
NC NC .~~~:onIY
M7
NC
0.8. '2. He He NC NC NC NC
NC
He
He
He .. ,.
I.e
1.11 He 1.00
1.13
NC
He
1.97
He
NC
NC
NC NC
NC 0." U.
1.00
0.<3
He "'0 1.00
al~Aonly
18.34.010 ATTACHMENT J
Chapter 18.34
PEDESTRIAN AND TRANSIT ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT (PTOD) COMBINING DISTRICT REGULATIONS
Sections:
18.34.010
18.34.020
18.34.030
18.34.040
18.34.050
18.34.060
18.34.070
18.34.010
Purposes
Applicability
Land Uses
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Developm.ent (PTOD) Combining District
Regulations
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District
Context-Based Design Criteria
Review Process
Non-confoID1ing Uses and Non-complying Facllities
Purposes
(a) California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Cornbining District
. The California. A venue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District is intended to allow higher density residential dwellings on comlnercial, industrial
and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance of the CalifOlnia Avenue Caltrain
station, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with historical resources
tbat may also be located in or adjacent to this area. The cOlnbining district is Jntended to
foster densities and facilities that:
(1) SlJpPOrt use of public transportation;
(2) Encourage a variety of housing types, commercialretail and limited office uses;
(3) Encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based developn1ent for the
prOD overlay area;
(4) Require streetscape design elen1ents that are attractive pedestrians and bicyclists;
(5) Increase cormectivity to surrounding existing and plarmed pedestrian and bicycle
facilities; and
(6) Implement the city S Housing E1elnent and Comprehensive Plan.
(b) [Reserved]
(Ord. 4914 §2 (part), 2006)
18.34.020 Applicability
(a) The California A venue Pedestrian and Transit Giented Development Combining
District (PTOD) may be combined with any R-1, CC(2), CN, GM, PF, RM30, or RM40
district or combination of such districts within the designated California Avenue PTOD
boundary (Exhibit A, reflected on the city S Zoning Map)., consistent with the provisions
of Chapters 18.08 and 18.80. Where so combined, the regulations established by this
Ch. 18.34 -Page 1 (Supp No 1 J -10/112007)
18.34.030 Land Uses
chapter shall apply in lieu of the provisions estahlished by the underlying CC(2), CN,
GM, RM30, andlor RM40 zoning district(s). Compliance wi.th the provisions of Chapter
IS.30(A), Retail Shopping (R), and Chapter IS.30(B), Pedestnan Shopping (P),
combining districts shall also be required where such combining districts are applicable.
(b) [Reserved]
(c) A pedestrian and transit oriented develojIDent combining district may be applied to a
parcel through rezoning of the site, within the specified boundalies of the district, as
shown on the city S approved zoning maps, pursuant to the provisions and process
outlined in Section IS.34.060 of this chapter and Chapter IS.S0 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
18.34.030 Land Uses
(a) The foll'owing land uses shall be pe=itted in the California Avenue Pedestrian and
Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining District, subject to limitations
outlined in Sections IS34.040 and IS.34.050.
TABLE 1 -LAND USES
Mixed-use development, where
residential and non-residential uses are
oomblned
P
See Seclion 18.34.030(b) below for
uses
lIvelWork Units CUP
Hotel
Subject to limitations of Seelion
18
P
Subjecllo limllations of SectKln
18.34.
(b) Mixed use development, where residential and non-residential uses are combined, may
include two or more of the following uses:
(1) Multi-family residential;
(2) Non-residential uses, limited to:
(A) Retail and personal services;
(B) Eating and drinking services;
(C) Other non-residential uses allowed except on the ground floor where an (R)
overlay exists:
(i) OffIces;
(ii) General business services;
(iIi) Business and trade schools;
(Supp_ No 13 -10/112007) Ch. IS.34 -Page 2
18.34.040 PlOD Combining Dislricl Regulalions
(iv) Private education facilities;
(v) Day care center;
(vi) Community center;
(vii) Commercial recreation;
(viii)Convalescent facility; and
(ix) Research and development, limIted to sites where the underlying zoning district
is GM and involving the use and storage of hazardous materials in quantities
less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code
(Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code).
(c) Prohibited uses in the California Avenue PTOD
(1) Single-family and two-family uses;
(2) Manufactw'ing, processing, warehousing and distribution; and
(3) Research and development where hazardous materials are used or stored in excess of
quantities less than the exempt quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code
(Section 105.8 of the Uniform Fire Code)
(d) All land uses must be reviewed and approved by the planni.g and transportation
commission and city council at the time ofrezoning to PTOD.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
18.34.040 Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District Regulations
(a) Properties in the PTOD combining district are sul:ject to the following regulations
TABLE 2 -DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Il-" S!fi ndilrdS \ :, , PTQtj --,ealJ!g.t{lla.'Avlf~ .0; '*pTbo ~ Li>O,Wrj!,<iwltlR.eS"elYe.~I)~.
Max. Dwelling Units: 40 DUlAC 2
Max. FAR:
100% Residenllal FAR 1.0:1 2
Mixed Use FAR '. 1.25:1.2, 3
Tolal: 0.35 '
Mixed Use Non-Residenilal FAR Cap Ofnoe and research and
development uses 025 FAR
Holels 2.0
Height: 40 feel 2
Open Space:
Minimum area required 5 or fewer unils: 200 sJ per unil
6 or more unils: 100 s.f. per unil
Minimum dimensions Privale open space 6 feel
Common open space: 12 feel
ITable Conllnues on Next Pagel
Ch. 18.34 -Page 3 (Supp No I} -I 0/1/2007)
18.34.040 PlOD Combining District Regulations
. StilOdan'iS 1." iC" h ~". ,PTob...Y'P;illfqri1i~. 4~~,", ~T~ -QowntooJlo lFlesjctlgJ
Parking: Rales estabRshed by use.
per Chs. 18.52 and 18.54
Parking Adjustments: See Section 18.34.040 (d)
Setbacks and daylight plane requirements for properties adjacent to R-1 and R-2 zones:
On portion of site Ihat abuts:
Setbacks 1. Interior side yard: 6 feet
2. Rear yard: 20 feet
On portion of site Ihat abuts:
1. Interior side yard:
a. Initial height at interior side lot
Ime: 10 feet
Daylight Plane b. Angle (degrees) 45
2. Rear yard:
a. Initial height at rear setback line:
16 feet
b. Angle (degrees) 45
Setbacks and day tight and day tight plane requirements for properties adjacent to Caltrain Right-of-Way:
Setbacks On portion of site that abuts Caltrain right-
of-way: 5 feet (landscaped)
On portion of site that abuts Cal train right-
of-way:
Daylight Plane a. Inilial height at property line
w/Caltrain righl-of-way' 16 feel
b. Angle (Degrees) 45
(1) Non-residentia! development thai is not consistent with the mixed-use limitations set forth aoove, with the exception
of hotels. musl be developed per the underlying zoning district regulations.
(2) See Section 18.34.040(e) for Below Market Rate (BMR) bonus provISions
(3) The residential component of the mixed use may not exceed 1.0: 1.
(4) The non-residential component 01 a mixed use project shall not exceed 50% of the total square-footage of the
project.
(b) Live/Work Units
(I) A live/work unit, for the purposes of this chapter, is defmed asa rental or ownership
unit comprised of both Jiving space and work area, WIth the living space occupying a
minimum of 60% of the total gross floor area of the unit, and such that the resident of
the Jiving space is the owner/operator of the work area.
(2) The work area shall be located on the ground level, oriented to the street and provide
for at least one external entrance/exit separate from the living space. The work area
may be used for office, retail, personal services, or handcrafted goods (unless
otherwise limited by this chapter), but sball not be used for restaurants or cafes or for
any business involving the storage or use of hazardous materials in excess of the
quantities allowed by Title 15 of the Municipal Code (Section 105.8 of the Fire
Code).
(3) The maximum number of employees who do not reside wlthm the unit is two.
(Supp_ No 13 -10/ I 12007) Ch. \8.34 -Page 4
.
18.34.040 PTOD Combining District Regulations
(4) The signage shall not exceed the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Municipal
Code and shall require approval and recommendation by the arcbitectural review
process prior to approval by the director.
(5) The parking requirements shall include a maximum total of two spaces for the
residential unit, plus one space per 200 square feet for the gross square footage of the
work area, less one space from the total (to reflect the overlap of the resident and one
employee).
(6) The live/work units are subject to the development standards of the PTOD zone
outlined in Table 2 for a 100% residential development, except that the maximum
non -residential FAR is limited to 0.40.
(7) The maximum size of a live/work unit shall be lilTIited to 2,500 square feet.
(8) The design of street frontage of a live/work unit shall be consistent with the context-
based criteria outlined for street frontage in Section 18.34.050 below.
(9) A live/work unit may be converted to an entirely residential unit where residential use
on the ground .floor is not otherwise prohibited..
(c) HoteJs
(1) Hotels for the purpose of this section are defined as hotels, motels, or other lodging
for which City of Palo Alto transient occupancy tax is collected.
(2) Hotels may be constructed to a maximum FAR of2.0 and a maximum height of 50
feet.
(3) All hotels are subject to the context-based design criteria outlined in Section
18.34.050 below.
(d) Parking Adjustments·
Adjust1nents to the required parking standards lTIay be allowed with the director s approval
pursuant to the provisions outlined in Section 18.52.050, with the following additional
. allowances and requirements:
(1) For multi-family residential or mixed use projects on sites:ezoned to the PTOD
combining district, the director may waive a portion of or all guest parking
requirements, and may waive any requirement to provide a landscape reserve for
parking, subject to the following conditions:
(A) The project includes a minimun of four residential units;
(B) The average residential unit size is 1,250 square feet or less; and
(C) Not more than one parking space per residential unit shall be assigned or secured,
such that other required parking spaces are available to other residents and guests.
(2) Projects providing more than 500/0 of the project residential units at low or very-low
income housing rates may further reduce parking requirelnents by an additional 200/0.
(3) In no case, however, shall total parking requirements for the ste be reduced by
greater than 300/0 from the standard requirements, or by greater than 400/0 for an
affordable housing project consistent with subdivision (2) above, or by more than
Ch. 18.34 -Page 5 (Supp. No 13 -10/1/2007)
18.34.040
(4)
. ~ ....... _'
PlOD Combining District Regulations
500/0 if housing for the elderly is proposed pursuant to Sec60n 18.52.050 of the
Zoning Ordinance.
For any request for parking adjustments, the project applicant shall indicate parking
and traffic demand Ineasures to be implemented to reduce parking need and trip
generation. Measures may include, but are not limited to: lin1iting 'assigned"parking
to one space per residential unit, providing for Caltrain and/or other transit passes, or
other measures to encourage transit use or to reduce parking needs. The program
shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed
performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction, and shall designate a single
entity (property owner, homeowners association, etc.) to implement the proposed
measures. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the director not later than two
years after building occupancy and again not later than fi ve years after building
occupancy, noting the effectiveness of the proposed measures as compared to the
initial performance targets and suggestions for modifications if necessary to enhance
parking and/or trip reductions.
(e) Density, FAR, and Height Bonus Provisions
The following provisions are intended to allow for increased density, FAR, height, and
other developn1ent bonuses upon construction of additional below market rate (BMR)
housing units. The bonus allowances shall be allowed subject to the following limitations:
(1) Bonuses are only applicable where below market rate (BMR) units are providedin
excess of those required by Palo Altos BMR program as stated in Progran1 H-36 of
the Housing Element adopted on December 2,2002. Key elements of Program H-36
include:
(A) Five or lTIOre units:' Minimum 150/0 of~njts must be BMR units;
(B) Five or more acres being developed: Minimum 20% of units must be BMR units;
and
(C) BMR units shall meet the afforchbility and other requirements of Program H-36
and the citys BMR Program policies and procedures.
(2) The following BIVIR bonuses shall be considered and may be approved upon
rezoning to the PTOD district:
(A) Density Increase: Density may be increased abo-e the maxinlum base density
allowed (40 units per acre), such that at least one additional BMR unit is provided
for every three additional nlarket rate units constructed. The resultant density may
not exceed fifty units per acre. Density shall be calculated based on the gross area
of the site prior to development. .
(B) FAR Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than thirty units per
acre, the allowable residential FAR tnay be increased. The FAR increase shall be
equivalent to 0.05 for each additional 5% (in excess of the city requirements) of the
total nUlnber of units that are proposed as BMR units, but may not exceed 500/0 of
the residential FAR prior to the bonus, and may not exceed a total FAR of 1.5.
(C) Height Increase: For projects with a residential density greater than 30 units ·per
acre, the allowable project height n1ay be increased. The height increase shall be
(Supp. No 13 -10/112007) Ch. 18.34 -Page 6
18.34.050 PlOD Context Based Design Criteria
equivalent to one foot above the maxin1un1 for each additional 50/0 (in excess of the
city requirements) of the total number of units that are proposed as BMR units, but
may not exceed a maximun1 height (50 feet).
(D) Other incentives for developn1ent ofBMR units, such as reduced setbacks and
reduced open space, may be approved where at least 250/0 of the total units
constructed are BMR units and subject to approval by the architectural review
board.
(3) The provisions of this section are intended to address the density bonus requirelnents
of state law within the PTOD District, and the'maximuln bonus density , FAR, and
height may not be further exceeded.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District Context-Based Design Criteria
(a) Contextual and Conlpatibility Criteria
Development in a pedestrian and transit oriented development con1bining district shall be
responsive to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the
establishment of a pedestrian and transit oriented nej ghborhood.
(1) Context.
(A) "Context" ().s used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the
sites developnlent to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or
nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these
adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Con1prehensive Plan pohcies.
(B) The word ''context'' should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing
surroundings, but rather to provide appropliate transitions to those surroundings.
"Context" is also not specific to architectural sty Ie or design, though in some
instances relationships n1ay be reinforced by an architectural response.
(2) Compatibility.
(A) Compatibibty is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is
consistent with the intent of achieving a pedestrian and transit oriented
neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and
establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual
unity of the street is maintained.
(B) Compatibility goals n1ay be accomplished through various mans, including but
not limited to:
(i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials;
(ii) the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the
buildings and the spacing between them;
(iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections;
(iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays, and doorways;
Ch. 18.34 -Page 7 (Supp No 13 -10/1/2007)
18.34.050 PTOO Context Based Design Criteria
(v) the location and treatment of entryways;
(vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; and
(vii) the treatment of landscaping
(b) Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings
In addition to the findings for architectural review contained in Section 18. 76.020( d) of the
Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the California Avenue
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development Combming District, as further illustrated on
the accompanying diagrams:
(I) Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment.
The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkabiJity, a bicycle friendly
envi.ronment, and connectivity through design elements such as:
A Connectivity for pedestrians and cyclists with extemal and internal (if any) streets,
pathways, or bike facilities \?ee Figure I-I);
Figure 1-1
CALTRAIN STATION SIiOng pede~!r,an/bike
connections 10 Cal. Ave.
and 5131100
+
Strong pe<!estnan/bike h~-tt--tt-H../
connections toCal, Aye
and Stalion L-X,,--' L ___ Jl_1 LJOL_H_-'!._-'''---I
B. Pathways and streets that present a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both
within a project and to adjacent sidewalks;
C Wide sidewalks (built as easements beyond the property line if needed, but not to
the detriment of existing or future bike lanes) along Park Boulevard to reinforce
the street as a primary pedestri.an and bicycle linkage to the multimodal station;.
D. Bicycle amenities that contribute to the areas bIcycle environment and safety
needs, such as bike racks, storage or parking, or dedicated bike lanes or paths (See
Figure 1-2);
E. Ground floor uses that are appealing to pedestrians through well-desiiPed visibIlity
and access (See Figure 1-2);
(Supp. No 13 -IOI!J2007)
Figure 1·2
Active g-Iflt.luntj i'1I.:)C'!
11-':.'='05 a.cli/l$'L>;l tnE' a~r~t
Ch. 18.34 -Page 8
18.34.050
F.
PTOO Context Based Design Criteria
On primary pedestrian routes such as Park Boulevard and California Avenue,
climate and weather protection where possible, such as covered waiting areas,
building projections and colonnades, and awnings ~ee Figure 1-3);
Figure 1-3
Wide SldSr'i'1I3Jf.,s provide a ____ ./
~"CiSi~V~ ~O~d&'il ~ri.~ft~
in f~l cih~ti>1I t.!W5:
G. Streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the areas streets cape
envirorunent such as street trees, bulb-outs, benches, landscape elements, and
public art (See Figures 1-4 and 1-5); and
H. Vehicle access from alleys or sidetreets where they exist, with pedestrian access
from the public street.
1<--
~,.,~",,, ~'l
r~(I" _~_,
.".,~~,,-
Figure 1-5 Bulbo\J(S jncrease
'-----~--._-' pCui.'~lI;a" ~3fety
P.(~~p~n)' Uno:=
l'1. '1M-\0 Lilw
I
RBsiden'iia-~
Minllnile vChicle access -~~----~--"-~c~·
(0 prollid"s a continuous
facade ;;Old nree! pilrking
Ch~ 1834 -Page 9
Figure 14
(Supp. No I 3 -1 0/ \ 12007)
18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria
(2) Street Building Facades.
Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalks
and the street(s), to create an envirooment that supports and encourages pedestrian
activity through design elements such as:
A Facade articulation reflecting the rhythm of nearby commercial and residential
areas such as California Avenue;
B. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to
create strong, direct relationships with the street (!5ee Figures 2-1 alld 2-2);
C. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other
architectrrral elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass
(See Figures 2-1 and 2-2);
Orient doorways and --,
windows to create strong
rela~ionship to streeL
Clearly defined enl.,;es~-----~-~~[IfB~;i!l
that are ploportional to
size of building and use
Figure 2-2
Orient doorways and
windows to create SHong
relationShip to street.
Clearly defined enlrie~
that are propOrllOnallQ
size 01 building and use.
D. Entries and windows that face onto the street (See Figures 2-1 and 2-2);
E Entries that are clearly defmed features of front facades, and that have a scale that
is in proportion to the size of the building and number of units being accessed;
larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while
maintaining a pedestrian scale ~ee Figures 2-1 and 2-2); and
F. Residential units and storefronts that have a presence on the street and are not
walled-off or oriented exclusively inward.
(Supp No 1)-10/1/2007) Ch. 18.34 -Page 10
18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria
(3) Massing and Articulation.
Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and provide for articulation and
design variety through elements such as:
A Buildings that include pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation and craftsmanship of
the facade (See Figure 3-1);
Figure 3·1
Rooflines can emphasize
significant elements such
as entries and bays
Buildings should provide pedestrian-scaled detail, articulation,
and craftsmanship of the facade.
B. Rooflmes that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such
as entries, bays, and balconies i;)ee Figure 3-1);
C Comer buildings that incorporate special features to reinforce important
intersections and create buildings of unique architectural merit and varied styles
(See Figures 3-2 and 3-3);
1>"''---'7'''--COfn~( buildings should
Figure 3-3
be used to reinforce
important ill!ersenions. A
retail entry can strengthen
the corner.
Ch. 18.34 -Page 11
f9=--Cornerbuildin9~shouldbe
used to reinforce Impor-
tllnt inter~ecliom.
(SllPP. No 11-10/112007)
18.34.050 PlOO Conte)(t Based Design Criteria
D Design with articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break
down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest from the train and
neighborhood east of the tracks;
E. Limiting facades such that no more than 70%, and no more than 100 continuous
linear feet, of the street facade e!lceeds a height of 25 feet lSee Figure 3-4);
Figure 34
No rr'jl:M~ th~m HI pe,rc~_I1L .t).f SltOt:H rataoo f.;t!bUtd a~~_(j 2:5 fe.3{ to-pro~'idb
lor gpe-n view c;orriciQ';LSl iwm
.adJacen1 D@ilJhborlwo6
ldoil[!!:>~-?le·(fh~3I'\t1;.,Sh"l,J~d be GlS~ to craal~;l Wlf~ 'to the a-d~OO(1t ~o;Ii]ro~1;I lr.act-'"e;.
F. Landscape elements to bllffer the rear of the lot and the railroad Iracks, with trees
spaced at a ma!limum of25 feet on center and combined WIth other landscape
elements such as fencing, hedges or shrubs (lee Figure 3-4);
G. Application of daylight plane requirements for R-l and R-2 adjacencies to property
boundaries adjacent to the railroad right-of-way lSee Figure 3-5); and
H. Maintaining view corridors from Colorado A venue and EI Dorado A venue west to
the hills.
r······· _. The rear yard daylight plane dennes setback
requirements adjacent to (ail road. Daylight
plane has initial height of 16 ft and a 45
degree angle.
A five foot landscape strip with trees planted
at a maximum 25 feet on center. should be
used to buffer building from adjac€m tracks.
(4) Low-Density ResidentIal TransitIOns.
Figure 3-5
Where new projects are built adjacent to e!listmg lower-scale resilentlal
development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and pnvacy of adjacent
properties through:
(Supp. No 13 -10/112007) Ch 1834 -Page 12
18.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria
A TransItions of development intensity from higher density development building
types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding
uses (See Figure 4-1);
.future ProD
'."~"-" "'--"-'-'-'-"'--~-'-'''r-'--:-'--'-'"''''---''''-''-''-'------, exfsling ~development:
Figure 4·1
densHy
area
B. Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of
neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale
buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match adjacent R·l and R-2
zone requirements (See Figure 4-2);
Figure 4·2
Irllll~1 ne-;ght 01 i I
\6'~, , .. ,,, y:><d. 10' nl >icl .. y_,d
C Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies
positioned so they mirrin1ize views into neighboring propert:ies~ee Figw-e 4-3);
D. Minimlzmg sight lnes into and from neighbonng properties r;>ee Figure 4-3);
Figure 4-3
,
of Trees ~n(l
hedges lor
Screening
E. Limitmg sUn and shade impacts on adjacent properties;
F. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses;
Ch. 18.34 -Page 13 (Supp. No 13 -10/1(2007)
18.34.050 PlOD Context Based Design Criteria
G. Design witl) artIculatIOn, vaned setbacks, and matenals thaminimize sound
reflection to nelghbonng properties adjacent to the railroad.
(5) Project Open Space.
Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents,
visitors,and/or employees of a site.
A The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropnate to the
character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind
protection, views, and privacy;
B. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities,
groups and active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the users
(e.g., residents, employees, or public);
C. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing
natural amenities ofllie site and its surrollildings ()ee Figure 5-2);
D. Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces;
E. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground (See Figure 5-1);
F. Open space should be located to activate the street fayade and increase "eyes on
the street" when possible (See Figure 5-3);
G. Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where
feasible; and
H. Parking may not be counted as open space.
-___ -Fig~5~
be kx.-\ed em pMlo,i"9
pOdlUlll\
Open ~P~Ct_ 10 be IO(~I~d ----'<i~~~r""~1ilOf.. (0 acu\l~le (he rac()d~
~"d i'''fe''5e-ey~s on m~
~(ree,H
Common op~ .... space, to ---~.
to 111~ ~d~,((iiln
p.lhways
j., '''Y comelMtion
of pilvMe 1100 (0<')01'\0»
HI~,e~.
Figure 5-3
(Supp. No ! 3 -10/)12007) Ch. 18.34 ~ Page 14
18.34.050 prOD Context Based Design Criteria
(6) Parking Design.
,
.~"
Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be alowed to overwhelm the
character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that:
A. Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not
feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, etc.;
. B. Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible ~ee
Figure 6-1);
C. Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance
the streets cape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, andlor art (See Figure 6-2);
D. Landscaping sucb as trees, shrubs, vines or groundcover is incorporated into
surface parking lots (See Figure 6-3); and
E. Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a
manner to enhance traffic calming on the street.
Figure 6-1
I
I. '1
'" \:~ 1
'~7" ",7'''' I
Parktrlg should be wrapped by habitable OBe!';
wilen possible.
landscaping should be incQrporated into any
stlrface psrkinglots.
Semi.oepressed psrking can be used
to raise residential uses, to, provide
privacy and opportunities for stoops
and porches.
Figure 6-2
Figure 6-3
eh 1834-Page 15 (Supp. No I J -10/1/2007)
1 B.34.050 PTOD Context Based Design Criteria
(7) Large (multl-acre) Sites
Large (in excess of one acre) sltes shall be designed so that street, block, and building
patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that:
A. New development oflarge sites maintains and enhanes connectivity wi th a
hlerarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with the
Palo Alto Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); .
B. The diverslty of building types increases with increased Jot size (eg., less than I
acre = minimum 1 housing type; 1 -2 acres = minimum 2 housmg types; greater
than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types) (lee Figure 7-1);'and
C. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each housing type should respond
to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, md design (e.g., lower density
building types facing or adjacent to existing single-family residences ~e Figure 7 -1)
SuMifl_g (ype l!!fi.o 5
sM:IOI.Lld rei,':\t-e to adf9aenl
O~ 'Future [A"'}fI.texts
-SIms -gffiai.@rthairl 'J.!le 8cre
:sti'lould hav{] aHeast tJn'0
,l>uildi~g 1;:",,,
Si:tG!s gre<;l!er tM-ll ~wo-A'lCfes..
$ho~)Jd haye ,('1"1, lea$t tttree
b~lild~rlg typli'!:s.
(8) Sustamabihty and Green Buildmg Design.
(Supp_ No 13 -IO/ln007)
Project design and materials to achieve sustainabihty and green buildig design
should be mcorporated into the project. Green bmlding design considers the
environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for
compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it In
Ch. 18.34 -Page 16
18.34.050 PTOO Context Based Design Criteria
general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and
nontoxic, with high-quali ty spaces and high recycled content materials. The
following considerations should be included in site and building design:
A. Optimize building orienta tim for heat gain, shading, day lighting, and namral
ventilation (See Figure .8-1);
B. Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island
effects (See Figure 8-2);
C Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access;
D. Maxlmize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable
pavement (See Figure 8-3);
E. U se sustainable building materials,
F. Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use;
G. Create healthy indoor environments;
H. Use creativity and innovation to build.more sustainable environments, One
example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to
satisfy a portion of project open space requirements ({Jee Figure 8-2); and
I. Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater
management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion
impacts to the creek environment.
South facing windows with
Summe,r Sun tf shading devices 10 control
Q . overhealing 10 Summer.
Winter Sun:Q' .
Figure 8-1
Oirect sunlighllhrough
south lacing WIndows
would improve the passive
. healing in Winter.
Use of shading devices to control solar loads in Summer
and to galln passive heal in Winter.
E.,. "-'" oh>. '" .r---" .. ~-.....
MinimIze SIOfmwaler Runoff to Impermeable areas
Figure 8-2
Soh ~d$C.P' on
Roo/lOps in rh.lorm 01
Fi.P±~~~~~~~t~"=·'~"'f6hrllb6lp1~nlllfl
'Urban Agriculture' and roolloplbalcony gardens
Figure 8-3
eh. 1834 -Page 17 (Supp No 13 -10/112007)
18.34.060 Review IProcess
(c) [Reserved]
(d) Historic Preservatioltll
Historic resources review, as required in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code, is
required for alterations or n10difications to any structure designated on the citys Historic
Inventory as a Category 1 or Category 2 historic structure as defined in Section 16.49.020 of
the Municipal Code or any contributing structure located within a locally designated historic
district. The Category 1 or Category 2 designation process for becominK a historic structure is
contained in Chapter 16.49 of Title 16 of the Municipal Code.
(e) Performance Standards
All developm.ent subject to the PTOD District requirements must also comply with the
performance standards outlined in Chapter 18.23, pertaining to noise, llghting, visual, and
access impacts.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
18.34.060 Review Process
Rezoning and review of a site to a pedestrian and transit oriented development (PTOD) combining
district shall be made pursuant to the following procedures:
(a) Application to apply the PTOD overlay district may be n1ade by an owner of record of
any property located or partially located within the PTOD boundary, or may be initiated
by vote of the plaIllling and transportation comn1ission or city council;
(b) Applications for rezoning shall be made and reviewed in accordance with Chapter 1330
(Amendments to Zoning Map and Zoning Regulations), including Section 18.80.020
regarding changes in district boundaries. Planning and transportation commission
review and city council approval shall establish limits on aliowable or reqt.Iired uses
(e.g., the types and appropriate mix of uses, including revenue-generating. uses) and
int~Dsity (e.g., density, floor area ratio, height, site coverage) of development. The
specified limitations shall be part of the rezoning and shall be recorded as property.
restrictions enforceable by the City of Palo Alto. Revisions to these restrictions requires
rezoning through the SaIne process, except that the director of planning and community
enviromnent may determine that a revision is minor and does not materially alter the
city councils restrictions or intent regarding land use and intensity. As used in this
subsection, the term ''minor'' means a change that is of little visual significance, does
not materially alter the appearance of previously approved improven1ents, is not
proposed to change the use of the land in question, and does not alter the character of
the structure involved. If the cUlTIulative effect of multiple minor changes would result
in a major change, a new application for approval of a pedestrian and transit oriented
development is required and shall be reviewed by the architectural review board,
planning and transporta60n commission, and/or city council, as detennined by the
director. Submittal requirements for the PTOD combining district may be supplemented
as detennined by the director of plaIllling and community environment;
(Supp. No [3 -10/1/2007) Ch. 18.34-Page 18
18.34.070 i\JonaConforming Uses and Noro-complying Facilities
(c) Applications for amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to designate a site consistent
with transit oriented residential development shall be Inade and reviewed pursuant to the
provisjons of Section 19.04.080; and
(d) Upon approval of rezoning of a property to pedestrian transit oriented development
(PTOD) combining district, the project plans shall be submitted as a lnajor architectural
review to the architectural review board, who shall revjew the project for compliance
with the architectural review criteria specified in Chapter 18.76 of the Zoning Code, as
well as Section 18.34.050 of this chapter. A single preliminary review by the ARB may
be allowed in advance of rezoning approval if plans are submitted and reviewed prior to
planning conlmission consideration of the rezoning request.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
18.34.070 N on-confornling Uses and Non-complying Facilities
Owners of sites with existing legal non-conforming uses and non-complying facilities within the
PTOD boundary may request the application of the PTOD combining district to the site through the
rezoning process referenced in Section 18.34.060 above. In applying the PTOD combining district,
the use and/or facility would then be subject to the PTOD overlay standards.
(Ord. 4914 § 2 (part), 2006)
Ch. 18.34-Page 19 (Supp. No 13·-10/1/2007)