HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 413-10TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE: NOVEMBER 22,2010 CMR: 413:10
REPORT TYPE: PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: Approval of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Adoption of an
Ordinance Amending the Zoning Map to Change the Zoning
Designation for 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 and 2650 Birch Street and
306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue· from RM-40 Multi Family to the
Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD) Combining
District.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project is a rezoning to Pedestrian and Transit Oriented Development (PTOD)
Combining District to allow for a three-story, mixed use building on a site near the California
Avenue Business District, currently developed with three single-family homes and parking. The
applicant proposes a replacement building with ground floor office space and eight residential
wlits on the upper floors, an underground parking garage with additional surface parking spaces
and a small pocket park. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) recommended
approval with changes to relocate a driveway and add a Transportation Demand Management
plan requiring provision of transit passes for residents and employees. Staffs recommendation
is to not require the relocation of the driveway.
RECOMMENDATION
The PTC recommends:
1. Approval 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
Multifanli1y zoning district to the California Avenue
PTOD Combining District, including provisions to:
CMR: 413:10
Location Map
Page 10f9
(a) Require the project to include a Transportation Demand Management Program
(TDM) that includes the provision of transit passes for occupants/tenants (Approval
Condition 4 f), and
(b) Relocate the parking garage driveway entrance to Birch Street or Sheridan
Avenue (Approval Condition 4g).
Staff also recommends approval with the deletion of the PTC' s recommended Approval
Condition 4g requiring relocation of the driveway.
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-l, CC(2), CN, GM, PF,
RM-30 and RM-40 or with cOlnbining 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 a site is rezoned to the
PTOD Combining District, the PTOD development standards are applied to the associated
development project in lieu of regulations of any underlying zoning designation. If development
standards such as height and setbacks are not addressed in the PTOD standards, the Architectural
Review Board (ARB) has the discretion to determine 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 PTC or City Council. Rezoning applications to the PTOD
district are processed in accordance with P AMC Chapter 18.80, the standard rezoning process.
The PTC review and City Council approval establishes the allowable or required use limits for
the area rezoned, 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
proj ect 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 (P AMC Chapter
18.34.050).
Proj ect Description
The proposed project is a request for PTOD zoning, initiated by the applicant, to facilitate the
redevelopment of five parcels, totaling approximately 19,862 square feet, with a new three-story
mixed use building. The proposed building, to be constructed over a new below grade parking
garage, would contain 10,257 square feet of ground floor office space and eight two-story
townhome style residential units above, including one below market rate (BMR) housing unit.
The garage would be accessed from Grant Avenue and houses nineteen regular parking spaces
CMR: 413:10 Page 2 of9
and fifteen pairs of tandem parking stalls for a total 49 garage spaces (4 additional spaces are
provided as surface parking). The property would also include a small pocket park at the comer
of Birch Street and Grant Avenue and four surface parking spaces accessible from a proposed
driveway curb cut on Birch Street. A detailed description of the project is available in the PTC
staff report.
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, which the project
would exceed 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; an exception that would otherwise be
associated with a request for approval of a Variance. This provision allows applicants to request
and receive one "concession" as incentives from the appropriate decision making bodies for the
construction of at least 10% affordable housing units. 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 BMR housing unit but the Council's rezoning is
entirely discretionary and the PTOD zoning allows the Council to determine appropriate limits.
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
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 Avenue to Birch Street or Sheridan A venue, 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 been addressed by the applicant, who
has provided a preliminary TDM plan including transit passes for occupants/residents (a detailed
TDM plan will be required for Architectural Review Board review). The PTC was made aware
of the applicant's request for the City to consider the non-residential FAR exception as a
"concession" under State Density Bonus law (SB 1818) for including one below market rate
housing unit. Commissioners Keller and Fineberg voted no because of concerns that the project
provided an inadequate number of parking spaces and housing units respectively. Staff believes
the driveway as proposed by the applicant is safe, the volumes are minimal, and alternative
driveway locations are not practical, and therefore recommends the driveway remain as proposed
(on Grant Avenue). The staff report and minutes of the PTC meeting are attached (Attachment
K).
CMR: 413:10 Page 3 of9
DISCUSSION
Subsequent to the PTC and ARB hearings, three issues arose which impacted the proj ect and
caused the project's City Council hearing to be continued from July 6, 2009 to a date uncertain.
The issues consist of (1) the recirculation of the Mitigated Negative Declaration, (2) the neighbor
opposition regarding the driveway safety and parking, and (3) the new Housing Element cycle.
CEQA Issues
Staff re-circulated the CEQA document to allow review and formal response by the State
Regional Water Quality Board (WQ Board). The applicant worked directly, over an extensive
period with the WQ Board to provide additional information, including peer review of the
technical docun1ents. On October 14,2010, staff received final confirmation that the WQ Board
has no objection to the project. One member of the public expressed concern that the project
would expose future occupants/residents to hazardous chemicals and that the WQ Board did not
/ provide adequate review. The WQ Board is the agency with jurisdiction to review CEQA
documents and with oversight over environmental clean up efforts in Palo Alto. Detailed
discussion on the CEQA document is provided in the Environmental Review section below.
Neighbor and PTC Concerns
In the intervening time, staff took the opportunity to hold a meeting with the applicant and the
representatives of the adjacent Sheridan Apartment residents to discuss their objections to the
project. The neighbors reiterated their concern that the project provided too few parking spaces
in an area that has parking issues and safety concerns over the location of the driveway on Grant
Avenue. The neighbors also expressed concern about underground contan1ination. These issues
were also raised by the PTC. All of these issues are discussed in-depth below.
1. Driveway Safety
The Birch Street driveway provides access 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 comer shared with Birch Street. During the initial review, staff had
determined that, with maintenance of sight lines near the comer, the proposed Grant Avenue
driveway location would provide for safe vehicle operations and pedestrian movement. The PTe
recommended the driveway relocation to Birch Street or Sheridan Avenue because several
neighbors expressed concern about safety for pedestrians. Some Sheridan Avenue residents also
raised this issue at the November 3,2010 meeting. Following the PTC hearing, staffre-reviewed
the Grant Avenue driveway proposal, along with the PTC's suggested potential 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 the project maintains sight lines and provides
other safety measures, such as mirrors in key locations. Because relocating the driveway to
CMR: 413:10 4of9
Sheridan Avenue would not improve safety, staff continues to support the project's main
driveway location on Grant Avenue and recommends that the PTC's relocation condition be
deleted from the rezoning approval conditions.
The applicant has also responded to the PTC's driveway relocation recommendation, noting the
Grant Avenue location would maximize use of the parking garage and the number of potential
parking spaces. The applicant states that relocating the driveway to Birch Street would create an
unusable garage configuration or the loss of 12 parking spaces and the deletion of the comer
pocket park. The applicant also believes 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 and site plans examining the impacts of
moving the driveway (Attachment F).
2. Parking Regulations
The project includes the provision of 42 parking spaces, consisting of four surface parking
spaces and 38 garage spaces. In addition, 11 tandem parking spaces are provided in the garage to
support the office use or residential guests. 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 supports the adjustments, given the
mix of uses, the proximity to transit, the proposed TDM measures and the additional 11 tandem
stalls. The project total of 42 spaces includes four tandem parking spaces proposed for the
residential units. The four tandenl spaces meet the 25% maximum tandem spaces allowed by
P AMC Chapter 18.52 for multi-family buildings. The additional 11 parking spaces in tandem
stalls would be available if needed for the office use or for guest spaces for the residential units .
. The proposed parking spaces would meet the requirements ofP AMC Chapter 18.52, as indicated
in the Table 1 below.
Table 1: Parking
Required Reduction Proposed Revised Proposed Conforms PerPAMC Total
Residen tial 16 20% for Housing Near 12 12 Yes
2 spaces/unit Transit (30% max)
Guest spaces 2
Office 42 20% total for Joint 30 30 Yes
1 /250 sq. ft. Use/TDM (30% max)
Total 60 30% combined max 42 42* Yes
*Plus 11 additional tandem spaces.
Housing Element and Density
Staff is currently in process of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment proposed for a horizon of I
2010-2020. As part of the overall update, staff is preparing a revised Housing Element for the
CMR: 413:10 Page 5 of9
2007-2014 Housing Element cycle per the requirements of the State of California's Department
of Housing and Community Development. At the time of the ARB and PTC hearings, the City
was subject to the previous Housing Element cycle, adopted in 2003.
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 previous 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. When the project was initially considered and at the time of the PTC hearing, the
City of Palo Alto had pennitted 316 more dwelling units than the 1,397 units identified in that
previous Housing Element cycle. Therefore, the eight dwelling units requested to be permitted
as part of this project would not have adversely affected the total amount of housing to be built
within the previous Housing Element cycle.
Under the new cycle, the City is required to identify locations for a minimum of 2,860 housing
units. Staff is currently working on finding locations for City Council approval. City Council
has directed staff to focus on sites near transit, such as the subject property. Because a new
Housing Element cycle has begun, approving fewer units for a Housing Opportunity Site could
be considered inconsistent with City Council direction and with the City's Goal H -1, as
identified in the Comprehensive Plan, of providing "a supply of affordable and market rate
housing that meets Palo Alto's share of regional housing needs." The applicant could be
required to redesign the project to provide the full twelve units designated for the site. The
project would then better meet the City's housing goal.
Staff acknowledges that the project has been in process for over two years and that the staff
position regarding the total number of housing units is the result of the timing of the Housing
Element cycle. The property's configuration and potential vehicular impacts potentially limits
the site's capacity for additional units. llcreasing the number of units would also increase the
number of required parking spaces unless the office space is reduced or eliminated.
ALTERNATIVE
As an alternative, the City Council can also choose to deny the applicant's request to rezone the
site to the PTOD Combining District designation. If the rezoning request is denied, the
development standards of the RM-40 Multi-Family zoning designation would be applied to any
future development of the site. A commercial or an office and residential mixed use project are
not allowed uses under the RM -40 zoning designation.
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 current Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and supports the City's policy
objectives for pedestrian and transit oriented development.
CMR: 413:10 Page 6 of9
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), which reviewed the environmental
issues as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), was originally
circulated for a 20-day public review period from Apri16, 2009 to Apri126, 2009. No comments
from the public or other agencies had been received during the public review period. Staff
received one comment from the public on the environmental document just prior to the originally
scheduled 2009 City Council hearing, and the hearing was postponed to allow recirculation of
the CEQA document to obtain feedback from the WQ Board as the agency charged with
oversight. The MND was circulated for another thirty days, from November 20, 2009 to
December 21, 2009. Copies of the document were sent directly to the WQ Board and the State
Clearinghouse for input. The WQ Board then worked directly over the next year and a half with
the applicant to obtain enough information to make their final determination on the document.
The WQ Board required the applicant to provide for a third party assessment of the studies,
including an air intrusion risk modeling. The WQ Board issued formal approval of the CEQA
document and the mitigation measures on September 2,2010. One comment letter was received
by staff from Bob Moss. No comments have been received from other agencies or individuals
on the CEQA document. Mr. Moss requested that an Environmental Impact Report be required
for the proposed proj ect because he did not believe the MND and supporting documents
adequately address the hazardous conditions of the site.
The Initial Study/MND includes mitigation measures pertaining to Biological Resources,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Noise, which would lessen potential impacts to a less than
significant level. Specific nlitigation includes nleasures to protect trees and to prevent exposure
to Trichloroethylene (TCE) during construction and for future occupants.
Groundwater Contamination Analysis
The site is subject to groundwater contamination by the northeasterly portions of the known
Hewlett Packard-Varian plume, which has been under the WQ Board oversight for remediation
since 1981. The federal Environmental Protection Agency has an agreement with the WQ Board
to grant the WQ Board jurisdiction in this area. Accordingly, the WQ Board is the agency who
would review environmental documents and establishes appropriate thresholds and standards.
The plume is currently referred to as the California-alive-Emerson plume or CaE. The source
of the contamination is offsite and appears to be located at 640 Page Mill Road and 601
California Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet south/southeast and up gradient from the subject
site. Because of this condition, a Phase II Site Investigation Report and Vapor Intrusion Model
Screening were prepared for the site and incorporated into the City's environmental documents.
Per the Phase II Investigation report, referenced in the Initial Study, excavation of the site for the
construction of the four story building and underground parking garage would be completed to a
depth of approximately 15 feet below ground surface. The studies did find evidence of
trichloroethylene (TCE), a cleaning solvent commonly used by the semiconductor industry and
associated with the CaE plume, in three of the eight onsite testing areas. TCE is considered a
volatile organic compound (VOC), a carcinogen and therefore an environmental concern.
Exposure can occur either through direct contact with contanlinated groundwater or through
indoor air intrusion from off-gassing from the contaminated groundwater. The testing
determined that there was only one testing site that yielded environmental testing levels (ESLs)
CMR: 413:10 Page 7 of9
that exceeded the WQ Board's threshold for residential and commercial uses (Bore 4). The
MND includes nlitigations of avoiding construction of the residential component of the building
over Bore 4 and the preparation of a risk-based model to evaluate potential indoor-air vapor
intrusion. Accordingly, the applicant prepared a Vapor Intrusion Model ScreeninglRisk
Assessment because of the high ESL level found in the one area. The risk assessment,
completed to the satisfaction of the WQ Board, detennined that the risk from potential indoor air
vapor intrusion was significantly below the threshold for concern. The WQ Board reviewed the
MND and technical documents and detennined that the project would not subject future
occupants or residents to unacceptable environmental impacts with the mitigation measures. The
WQ Board did not require the addition of a vapor barrier for the project. Therefore, staff
believes that the Initial Study and MND prepared for the project adequately addressed the
requirements ofCEQA.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The proposed development of office space and residential units will generate additional annual
General Fund resources in the fornl of property, sales, and utility user taxes. While the properties
currently generate an estimated $2,500 to $3,000 per year in those revenue sources, the
completed project will yield recurring revenues of approximately $13,000 per year. In addition,
the sale of the residential units will yield one-time documentary transfer tax revenues in the
$30,000 range. Adding in the impact fees of $336,000 and in-lieu (below-market rate) fees of
$180,000, total one-time revenues associated for the project amount to $546,500.
On the expenditure side, the project is expected to bring to the City an additional 12-16 residents
and 25 employees. This will create marginally increased demands for City services such as
Community Services, Planning, Police and Fire that will be absorbed within the current GF
budget. The development impact fees are designed to cover the incremental facility needs of the
new residents, and service fees in Community Services and Planning are designed to recoup
operating expenses associated with the delivery of classes, sports progranls, plan reviews, project
pennits, and other services.
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR: 413:10
ELENA LEE
Senior Planner
Page 8 of9
ATTACHMENTS
A. Draft Ordinance
B. Revised Draft Initial Study, Draft MND and Regional Water Quality Board responses
C. Location Map
D. Development Standards Table
E. Applicant's project description*
F. Applicant's study of relocation of the Grant Avenue driveway and parking evaluation*
G. Transportation Staff Memo regarding the driveway relocation
H Applicant's Green Building Checklists*
1. Applicant's response to the Draft MND and CEQA comments*
J. California Avenue PTOD Boundary Map
K. April 15, 2009 PTC staffreport and minutes (w/o attachments)
L. Public Correspondences
M. Links to related background documents
N. Conceptual Plans (Council Members only)*
* Submitted by Applicant
COURTESY COPIES:
Court House Plaza
David Solnick
CMR: Page 9 of9
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
Family 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 Cornbining District (PTOD) 'zone designation.
(B) The Planning and Transportation Commission has reviewed the facts
presented at the public hearing, including public testimony and reports and recommendations
from the director 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 matter on Noverrlber
22, 2010, 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/
//
1
101116 sh 8261473
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 proj ect 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 Management Program shall be included that requires the
provision of transit passes for all occupants/tenants; and
These limitations shall be recorded as conditions on the property, to the satisfaction of the City
Attorney and Planning Director. Modifications to these conditions nlay 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 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An
environmental assessment and mitigated negative declaration was prepared for the project and it
has been determined that all potentially adverse impacts that would result from the rezoning of
the property can be mitigated to a level of insignificance; therefore, the project would have no
significant impact on the environment.
II
II
II
II
2
101116 sh 8261473
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:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
101116 sh 8261473
3
APPROVED:
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5 th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
(650) 329-2441 FAX (650) 329-2154
www.cityofpaloalto.org
ATTACHMENT B
Notice of Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration
A notice, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended (Public Resources
Code 21,000, et that the followin ro'ect will not have a si ificant effect on the environment.
2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 305 Grant Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Zone change from the existing RM -40 zoning to the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit Oriented
,Development Combining District (PTOD) Overlay District and construction of 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.
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 30-day inspection period.
Public Comnlents 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 comments
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
(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
'"',,,:,,c" " .... ..." ..... , ........ ~.=, ... , ... ''" ..... '' ... ,.''' ... , .. ,~."."~ .... =''''"' .. " .".'.'''''"' ......... ' .. H" .. h·'·'~''·'' "' ........ ,.. ;;:{ltesponsible Agencies sent a copy of t is document
• County of Santa Clara, Office of the County Clerk-Recorder
• County of Santa Clara, Department of Environmental Health
• Santa Clara Valley Water District
• San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board
• California State Clearinghouse
MifigationMeasures included in the project to reduce potentially Signific'8ot imp~cts to a less than )
I, ~i,gl!! .. f!f!l!!~I~y~t: 1
,-, ..... C"'~~-••• ~
, ' #, .::
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 SOlL 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 a warded 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 in~es 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 above ground building footprint shall not extend over 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, andlor possibly sampling should be performed where elevated tricholorethylene (TeE)
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 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.
A reporting or monitoring program must be adopted for measures to mitigate significant impacts at the lime
the Mitigated Negative Declaration is approved. in accord with the requirements of section 21081.6 of the
Public Resources Code.
,
Prepared by:
Approved by:
nil '1/0,
Date
'jlt,/o<r
Da e
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 Avenue, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue
Palo Alto, CA
Parcel Numbers: 132-36-020, 069, 070, 073, -074
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 (El Camino 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
7. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
The project site is designated as Multiple Family Residential in 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 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 compatible 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 personal 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, section 65915 of the Government Code.
Section 65915 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 Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership for a 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.
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 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 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 on the second and third floors. The residential units are all located on the second and third floors
above the podium and garage. Access to the underground parking garage would be provided via a ramp
on the pan handle shaped parcel to the northwest from Grant A venue. The garage would provide up to 50
parking spaces. There would be 18 regular parking spaces and 15 pairs of tandem spaces, for a total of 49
spaces. The garage would also provide mechanical equipment storage and bicycle parking. Four at grade
parking spaces would be provided as well with separate access from Birch Street. Separate pedestrian
entries are provided to the offices from Birch Street. Secondary 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 podium level 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
fa<;ade 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: (l) 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 and a four story office building 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 is comprised of
primarily multi-family residential buildings. The site is located approximately 1,000 feet southeasterly of
the California Avenue Caltrain station.
11. 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
• San Francisco Regional Water Quality Board
-----------------------------------
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 3 Mitigated Negative Declaration
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND DISCUSSION OF IMPACTS
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-sit~ 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) Impacts 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 IMP ACTS
The foHowing Environmental Checklist was used to identify environmental impacts, which could occur if the
proposed project is implemented. 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
public view or view corridor? 1, x
MapL4
c) Substantially 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 substantial1ight 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 March 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
I
B. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
In determining 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 farmland.
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 Farmland", "Unique Farmland", or "Farmland of Statewide Importance" area,
as shown on the maps prepared for the Farmland 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
of the 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
I (NO), reactive organic gases (ROG), and
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 6 Mitigated Negative Declaration
I
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources
I
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 lO);
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 performed when a) project
CO emissions exceed 550 pounds per day
or 100 tons per year; or b) project 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 nonNattainment tinder an x
applicable federal or state ambient air quality 1,2,3
standard (including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresho1ds for ozone
precursors)?
Expose sensitive receptors to substantial levels x
of toxic air contaminants? 1,2,3
!
i. Probability of contracting cancer for the x
Maximally Exposed Individual (MEl)
exceeds lOin one million
ii. Ground-level concentrations of non-x
carcinogenic TACs would result in a
hazard index greater than one (l) 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? i
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 permit.
• 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 MapN11 California Department of Fish and Game or
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 7
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 MapN1
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 8.1 O)?
e) Conflict with any applicable Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural Community x
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, 1,2,3
regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 8 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated i \
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 he 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 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.,
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
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the'project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Directly or indirectly destroy a local cultural
resource that is recognized by City Council
resolution? x
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the
c)
d)
e)
f)
significance of an archaeological resource 1,8-x
pursuant to 15064.5? Ma~L8
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 immediately 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: be10w·
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, x
as delineated on the most recent
Alquist-Pri010 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-MapNS
x
iv) Landslides? 8-MapNS 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-MapNS x
spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or
collapse?
e) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to 8-MapNS 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 techniques?
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, the 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 will 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
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 }2foject area?
g) For a project within the vicinity of a private
airstrip, would the project result in a safety x
hazard for people residing or working the 1
proiect area?
h) Impair implementation of or physically
i)
j)
interfere with an adopted emergency response 1,8-
plan or emergency evacuation plan? MapN7, x
12
Expose people or structures to a significant risk
ofloss, 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. The groundwater underlying the project site is contaminated by northeasterly portions of the known
Hewlett Packard-Varian plume, which has been under Water Board oversight since 1981 and is currently referred
to as the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume. The source of the contamination is off site and appears to be
located at 640 Page Mill Road and 601 California Avenue, approximately 1,000 feet south/southwest and
upgradient from the subject site. However, this source is associated with the COE study area, of which Hewlettt
PackardN arian are identified as the responsible parties. In the Phase II investigation at the project site in 2008,
groundwater and soil gas samples were collected at eight on site locations. The data from these bore holes showed
the same dominant chemical of concern, trichloroethylene (TCE), a cleaning solvent common used by the
semiconductor industry, which is associated with the COE Area plume in three of the borings. Concentrations of
the TCE ranging from less than 1 to 110 micrograms per liter (J..1g/L) in the groundwater samples were in line
with expected grab-groundwater samples in this area of the plume.
There was no detection of TCE or other volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the soil gas in five of the eight
bores. The Water Board has established Environmental Screening Levels (ESLs) for evaluating environmental
impact for different kinds of uses. A residential ESL is being used to evaluate this site. Of the three where VOCs
were detected, two showed TCE at 320 and 410 micrograms per cubic meter (J..1g/m3), below both residential
and commercial environmental screening levels (ESLs) of 1,200 and 4,100 J..1g/m3 TCE, respectively.
There was only one boring location, B4, which exceeded ESL for both residential and commercial
criteria. B4 was detected with 6,400 J..1g/m3 TCE.
The B4 bore is located on the outer perimeter of the project site, outside the above building footprint,
under the northern edge of the garage. It is also located 38 feet away from the nearest elevator or stairs.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 13 Mitigated Neaalwe Declaration
I
The proposed project includes 10,257 square feet of office space on the ground floor and eight two story
townhon1e style condominium units on a concrete podium with a ventilated underground garage.
The applicant submitted a vapor intrusion model screening report on May 6, 2009 conducted for the project for
TeE impacts in soil gas. The purpose of the test is to assess the risks to human health via the indoor air inhalation
pathway associated with the presence of VOCs, principally TCE in soil gas. Vapor intrusion modeling was done
using data collected in September 2008. A simple screening version of a modeling system developed by the
Department of Toxic Substances and Control (DTSC), called the Johnson/Ettinger vapor intrusion model, was
used for this project. The highest TCE soil gas concentration was detected at the site at boring location B4 at a
depth of 15 feet below ground surface. This concentration of 6,400 micrograms per cubic meter was one of the
parameters used in place of DTSC default parameters. The soil-vapor ESL for TCE is 1,200 micrograms per
cubic meter. The report outcome was that an incremental risk from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 3 .8xl 0-7 for
carcinogens and a hazard quotient from vapor intrusion to indoor air of 7 .8xl 0-4 for noncarcinogens. This
calculated incremental risk is below the common residential threshold value of lxl0-6 for cancer risk and below
the threshold of 1.0 for acute risk hazard quotient.
The consultants, Stellar Environmental Solutions and Treadwell & Rollo concluded that the
contamination of the groundwater under the property poses no lmacceptable risk based on the Phase II
study and vapor intrusion modeling results prepared for the proj ect. The potential for vapor intrusion
exposure is further mitigated because one level of the underground parking garage and office space will
separate the soil from the residential units on the second and third floors.
Mitigation Measures:
Mitigation Measure G-l
The proposed above ground building footprint shall not extend over 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 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 practices, air monitoring and other controls.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 14 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
H. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
I 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) Substantially 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
surface runoff in a manner which would result 1,2,8,9, in flooding on-or off-site? x
12
i
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 substantially degrade water quality? 1,2,12 x
g) Place housing within a 1 ~O-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or
other flood hazard delineation map? 1,12 x
I h) Place within a 1 OO-year flood hazard area
structures which would impede or redirect 8-x
flood flows? MapN6,
12
i) 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
Hood hazard area?
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 8-MapN6 x
..
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 15 Mitigated Negative Declaration
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.
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,6 x
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan,
policy, or regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the geneml plan, specific plan, local x
coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an 1,2,6 environmental effect?
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community 1
conservation plan? x
d) Substantially adversely change the type or x
intensity of existing or planned land use in the
area?
e) Be incompatible with adjacent land uses or with x
the general character of the surrounding area,
including density and building height?
f) Conflict with established residential, x
recreational, educational, religious, or scientific
uses of an area?
g) Convert prime farmland, unique farmland, or x
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 16 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significant Impact
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
farmland of statewide importance (farmland) to
non-agricultural use?
DISCUSSION:
The site is designated for MUltiple Family Residential use in the City of Palo Alto's Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed PTOD designation is consistent with the site's General Plan Designation of Multiple Family, per the
Palo Alto 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan. This land use designation includes 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 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 compatible with the overall Comprehensive
Plan. The site is located in the Cal-Ventura Mixed Use Area. Policy L-3] 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 Comprehensive Plan policies
and programs most applicable to this project include:
• Policy L-6: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non
residential areas and between residential areas of different densities.
• Policy L-13: Evaluate alternative types of housing that increase density and provide more diverse
housing opportunities.
• Policy L-28: Maintain existing scale, character, and function of the California Avenue business district as
a shopping, service, and office center intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the
smaller neighborhood business areas. '
• Policy L-29: Encourage,residential and mixed use residential development in the California Avenue area.
• Policy L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding
development and public spaces.
• Policy L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to enhance a sense of
community and personal safety. Provide an ordered variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and
balconies along public ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or solid
walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing.
• Policy L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by expanding and maintaining
Palo Alto's street tree system.
• Policy B-2: Consider a variety of strategies to increase housing density and diversity in appropriate
locations.
• Policy B-4: Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting
diversity and neighborhood vitality.
• Policy B-23: Reduce the cost of housing by promoting energy efficiency, resource management, and
conservation for new and existing housing.
• Policy N-15: Require new commercial, multi-unit, and single family housing projects to provide street
trees and related irrigation systems.
• Policy N-23: Reduce the discharge of toxic materials into the City's sanitary sewer collection system by
promoting the use of Best Management Practices.
• Policy N-26: Support regional, state and federal programs that improve air quality in the Bay Area.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 17 Mitigated Negative Declaration
The proposed residential and office mixed use project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies.
Zoning
The site is located on Birch Street, between Sheridan Avenue and Grant Avenue, and is proximate to the
California Avenue Business District. The site has a zoning designation of Multi-family RM-40. It is also within
the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented District (PTOD) designation, which makes the site eligible
for the PTOD Combining District. The site has also been designated as a Housing Opportunity Site (HOS 8-06)
in the Housing Element. HOS 8-06 was identified for high density housing with a maximum density of 40
dwelling units per acre. The existing RM-40 zoning designation allows for a small amount of neighborhood
serving commercial uses, such as eating and. drinking services and neighborhood serving personal and retail
services, as conditional uses as part of a single residential development containing at least 40 dwelling units.
Although the project is proposing viewer residential units than the what was identified for the site as a Housing
Opportunity Site, because the City has permitted more residential units than the 1,397 units identified in the
Housing Element, the eight dwelling units requested to be part of this project would not adversely affect the total
number of housing to be built within this Housing Element Cycle.
The applicant is requesting to implement the PTOD designation to allow for a mixed use development with
ground floor office space and eight townhome style condominiums above. The PTOD Combining District
permits mixed use development where residential and non-resideQtial uses are combined and may include two or
more the following uses: multi-family residential, retail and personal services, eating and drinking services,
offices, general business services, business and trade schools, private education facilities, day care center,
community center, commercial recreation and convalescent facilities. Prohibited uses consist of single-family and
two-family uses, manufacturing, processing, warehousing and distribution, and 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.
The PTOD Combining District, Section 18.34 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), is intended to allow for
higher density residential dwellings on commercial, industrial and multi-family parcels within a walkable distance
of the California Avenue Caltrain Station, while protecting low density residential parcels and parcels with
historical resources. 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, commercial, retail and limited office uses;
3. Encourage project design that achieves an overall context-based development for the PTOD overlay area;
4. Require streets cape design elements that are attractive to pedestrians and bicyclists;
5. Increase connectivity to surrounding existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and
6. Implement the City's Housing Element and Comprehensive Plan.
The project is consistent with the above because the site is within a 3-block walking distance of the California
A venue Caltrain station. It is also proximate to bus stops along California Avenue and EI Camino Real. The,
project includes a variety of land uses, office uses and townhouse style condominiums, which are compatible in
an area that already provides a mix of housing and 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
immediate area and Palo Alto residents. All land uses are to be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation
Commission and approved by the City Council at the time of a rezoning to PTOD. A subsequent Architectural
Review permit is required for the building. The subsequent permit is subject to a final review by the Architectural
Review Board to ensure that the overall design in compatible with the surrounding structures, aesthetically
pleasing, and any potential aesthetic impact will be mitigated. The project will also be required to comply with
the requirements of the PTOD Combining District Context-Based design criteria as outlined in PAMC Chapter
18.34.050.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 18 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
J. MINERAL RESOURCES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known
. mineral resource that would be of value to the
region and the residents of the state? 1,2 x
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-
important mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan, specific plan 1,2 x
or other land use plan?
D~SCUSSION:
The project will not impact known mineral or locally important mineral resources.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
K. NOISE
I Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
, Incorporated
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise x
levels in excess of standards established in the 13
local general plan or noise ordinance, or 1,5
applicable standards of other agencies?
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of x
excessive ground borne vibrations or ground 1,5
borne noise levels?
c) A substantial penn anent increase in ambient Ix
noise levels in the project vicinity above levels 1,5
existing without the project?
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in x
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above levels existing without the project? 1,5
e) For a project located within an airport land use x
plan or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1,5
excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private x
airstrip, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to 1,5
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 19 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
g)
h)
i)
j)
k)
I)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
excessive noise levels?
Cause the average 24 hour noise level (Ldn) to 1,5 x
increase by 5.0 decibels (dB) or more in an
existing residential area, even if the Ldn would
remain below 60 dB?
Cause the Ldn to increase by 3.0 dB or more in 1,5 x
an existing residential area, thereby causing the
Ldn in the area to exceed 60 dB?
Cause an increase of 3.0 dB or more in an 1,5 x
existing residential area where the Ldn
currently exceeds 60 dB?
Result in indoor noise levels for residential 1,5 x
development to exceed an Ldn of 45 dB?
Result in instantaneous noise levels of greater 1,5 x
than 50 dB in bedrooms or 55 dB in other
rooms in areas with an exterior Ldn of 60 dB or
greater?
Generate construction noise exceeding the 1,5 x
daytime background Leq at sensitive receptors
by 10 dBA or more?
DISCUSSION: The project site is located in an area with an existing noise level of 65 Ldn (24 hour
average noise level). The project site is located within a mixed use area proximate to the California Avenue
Business District and the California Avenue Caltrain Station. The site is surrounded by office uses and multi
family residences. It is adjacent to Birch Street, which is a busy thoroughfare. No noise impacts would be
generated by the rezoning process. Construction. activities will result in temporary increases in local ambient
noise levels. Typical noise sources would include mechanical equipment associated with excavation, grading and
construction, which will be short term in duration. Standard approval conditions would require the project to
comply with the City's Noise Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 9.10), which restricts the timing and overall noise levels
associated with construction activity. Short-term construction that complies with the Noise Ordinance would
result in impacts that are expected to be less than significant.
Long term noise associated with the new building will be produced by mechanical equipment. There is no
equipment proposed as part of this process. Future proposal of any outdoor noise producing equipment will
require a subsequent permit application. Such equipment will be required to comply with all requirements of the
P AMC. The project will be required to include noise control measures such as roof screens, operational controls,
and the selection of quiet equipment. The City's standard conditions of approval will be applied to the project to
ensure the construction noise and rooftop mechanical equipment noise impacts will be reduced to a level of
insignificance: The project site is not located within an airport land use plan or within the vicinity of a private
airstrip.
A noise impact analysis was prepared by Charles M. Salter and Associates Inc. for the proposed project. The
analysis studied the impact of rooftop and at-grade condensing units. The study concluded that it would be
possible to reduce the impact of the equipment to a level that would meet the City's Noise Ordinance. Reducing
the impact to a less than significant impact would require the installation of sound-isolating, sound absorbing
barrier or enclosure for at-grade units. Roof mounted equipment will achieve the City's noise requirement if
placed at least 20 feet from the residential property line.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 20 Mitigated Negative Declaration
I
Multi-family housing in the State of California is subject to environmental noise limits per the California Building
Code for interior noise. The limit for interior noise is a maximum level of 45 decibels or dBA Ldn. When
exterior noise levels exceed 60 decibels (dBA Ldn), a report must be submitted with the building plans describing
noise control measures that have been incorporated into the design of the project to meet the noise limit
requirements. A noise report by a qualified professional would be required with the Architectural Review
application for the development of the site. The report must demonstrate how the new building will meet all City
and State noise requirements. With the City's standard conditions of approval requiring implementation of the
Palo Alto Noise Ordinance and any.recommendations of a new report, noise impacts from future development
, will not be significant.
Mitigation Measures:
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 placed 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.
Significance after Mitigation: Less than significant.
L. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Induce substantial population growth in an x
area, either directly (for example, by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for 1,2,8
example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
Displace substantial numbers of existing x
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? 1
Displace substantial numbers of people, x
necessitating the construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? 1
Create a substantial imbalance between x
employed residents and jobs?
Cumulatively exceed regional or local x
population projections?
DISCUSSION: The proposed rezoning and development will replace three existing homes with a mixed use
development of commercial office space and eight residential units. California Sate Housing Element law
requires that local jurisdictions provide their "fair share" of the region's housing needs. The Association of Bay
Area Government (ABAG) has determined that Palo Alto will need to add significant numbers of housing units to
meet State law and reduce the jobs housing imbalance. This project will increase the number of available housing
Birch Plaza Use Page Mitigated Negative Declaration
on site from three to eight units, while also adding about 10,257 square feet of office space. The project would be
subject to the policies and regulations of the Below Market Rate Housing program, including the payment of in
lieu fees. Based on the size of the project, the project is expected to have a less than significant impact on
population and housing.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
M. PUBLIC SERVICES
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
a)
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Would the project result in substantial adverse
physical impacts associated with the provision
of new or physically altered governmental
facilities, need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental
impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, re"sponse times or other perfonnance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 13 x
x
Police protection? 13
Schools? 1 x
Parks? 1 x
x
Other public facilities? 13
DISCUSSION: The proposed project site is located in a fully developed area of the City, where public
services are already available. The proposed project would not impact fire service to the area and the site is
" not located in a high fire hazard area. The conditions of approval for the project contain requirements to
address all fire prevention measures. The site is located within the jurisdiction of the Palo Alto Police
Department. The facility would not by itself result in the need for additional police officers, equipment, or
facilities. No significant demand for school services would result from the project, which is not expected to
generate a substantial increase in Palo Alto's residential population. No significant direct demand for
additional parks would result from the project, which is not expected to generate a substantial increase in Palo
Alto's residential population. The City's development impact fees would be imposed upon new development
as applicable.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
N. RECREATION
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 22 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Would the project increase the use of x
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the 1
facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational x
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the 1
environment?
DISCUSSION: The small increase in the residences may add to the number of people using park services.
The project is subject to Development Impacts fees for parks totaling approximately $338,952.66 which will
provide for any additional demand on local parks from the new housing units. However, there will not be a
substantial change to the demand of recreational services as a result of the proposed project.
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
O. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC·
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Cause an increase in traffic which is
substantial in relation to the existing traffic x
load and capacity of the street system (i.e., 6
result in a substantial increase in either the
number of vehicle trips, the volume to
capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at
intersections)?
b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively,
a level of service standard established by the x
county congestion management agency for 6
designated roads or highways?
c) Result in change in air traffic patterns, x
including either an increase in traffic levels
or a change in location that results in X
substantial safety risks?
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a x
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible 1,2
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,13 x
f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? 3,6,9 x
g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or x
programs supporting alternative
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 23 Mitigated Negative Declaration
transportation (e.g., pedestrian, transit & 1,8
bicycle facilities)?
h) Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection x
to deteriorate below Level of Service (LOS)
D and cause an increase in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more and the critical
volume/capacity ratio (V /e) value to increase
by 0.01 or more?
i) Cause a local intersection already operating at x
LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average
stopped delay for the critical movements by
four seconds or more?
j) Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate x
from an LOS E or better to LOS F or cause
critical movement delay at such an
intersection already operating at LOS F to
increase by four seconds or more and the
critical VIC value to increase by 0.01 or
more?
k) Cause a freeway segment to operate at LOS F x
or contribute traffic in excess of 1 % of
segment capacity to a freeway segment
already operating at LOS F?
1) Cause any change in traffic that would
-~ x
increase the Traffic Infusion on Residential
Environment (TIRE) index by 0.1 or more?
m) Cause queuing impacts based on a x
comparative analysis between the design
queue length and the available queue storage
capacity? Queuing impacts include, but are
not limited to, spillback queues at project
access locations; queues at turn lanes at
intersections that block through traffic;
queues at lane drops; queues at one
intersection that extend back to impact other
intersections, and spillback queues on ramps.
n) Impede the development _ or function of x
planned pedestrian or bicycle facilities?
0) Impede the operation of a transit system as a x
result of congestion?
p) Create an operational safety hazard? x
DISCUSSION: The mixed use project site is located in a multi-modal area with access to major
thoroughfares, such as EI Camino Real, Caltrain commuter rail system and buses (Valley Transportation Agency).
The applicant is proposing a zoning designation change from high density multi-family residential to PTOD for a
mixed use development with 10,257 sq. ft. of ground floor office use and eight.condominium units above. Based
on a trip generation analysis for the use, the project will not create a traffic impact because it generates less than
20 peak hour trips. Projects that generate less than 50 peak hour trips are not required to submit a Traffic Impact
Analysis report. The project will provide 18 regular parking spaces and up to 16 pairs of tandem parking spaces,
which meets the required parking. The P AMC requires 42 parking spaces, with Director approved reductions for
mixed use and proximity to transit. To qualify for the reductions, the applicant will be required as a condition of
approval to submit a Transportation Demand Management Program to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning
prior to the submittal of a building permit. The applicant has provided four of the required spaces at grade and 38
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 24 Mitigated Negative Declaration
spaces in the garage for required parking. In the garage, the applicant is proposing 30 regular parking spaces and
eight residential tandem spaces for the required parking. Transportation staff has some concerns regarding the
circulation inside the parking garage. However, for the Architectural Review process, the applicant will be
required to submit revised plans showing a garage layout that will ensure safe operations, to the satisfaction of
Transportation staff.
Mitigation: None required.
,/
P. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of x
the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board? 1,12
b) Require or result in the construction of new x
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant 1,12
environmental effects?
c) Require or result in the construction of new x
storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental 1,8,12
effects?
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to x
e)
f)
g)
h)
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded 1,12
entitlements needed?
Result in a determination by the wastewater x
treatment provider which serves or may
serve the project that it has inadequate
capacity to serve the project's projected
demand in addition to the provider's existing 12
commitments?
Be served by a landfill with sufficient x
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project's solid waste disposal needs? 8,12
Comply with federal, state, and local statutes x
and regulations related to solid waste? 12
Result in a substantial physical deterioration x
of a public facility due to increased use as a
result of the project?
DISCUSSION: The proposed project would not significantly. increase the demand on existing utilities and
service systems, or use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Standard conditions of approval require the
applicant to submit calculations by a registered civil engineer to show that the on-site and off site water, sewer
and fire systems are capable of serving the needs of the development and adjacent properties during peak flow
demands. Trash and recycling facilities are proposed in the project to accommodate the expected waste and
recycling streams that would be generated by the expected uses within the project site.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 25 Mitigated Negative Declaration
Mitigation Measures: None Required.
Q. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Issues and Supporting Information Resources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Would the project: Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining x
levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community; reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major 1,5,12
periods of California history or prehistory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are
c)
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in x
connection with the effects of past projects, 1,6,12
the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probab Ie future projects)?
Does the project have environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects x
on human beings, either directly or 1,4, 12
indirectly?
DISCUSSION: The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self
sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal. The proposed project would not eliminate an important example of Ca1ifornia
History.
The project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable nor does it have
substantial environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings either directly or
indirectly. The project is located on an infill site and will not result in considerable effects to the environment,
and therefore, would create less than significant impacts on the quality of the environment. When considered
with other current projects and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the project is not anticipated to result in
cumulatively significant impacts.
Global Climate Change Impacts
Global climate change is the alteration of the Earth's weather including its temperature, precipitation, and wind
patterns. Global temperatures are affected by naturally occurring and anthropogenic generated atmospheric gases,
such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. These gases allow sunlight into the Earth's atmosphere, but
prevent radiative heat from escaping into outer space, which is known as the "greenhouse" effect. The world's
leading climate scientists have reached consensus that global climate change is underway and is very likely
caused by humans. 20 Agencies at the international, national, state, and local levels are considering strategies to
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 26 Mitigated Negative Declaration
control emissions of gases that contribute to global warming. There is no comprehensive strategy that is being
implemented on a global scale that addresses climate change; however, in California a muItiagency "Climate
Action Team", has identified a range of strategies and the Air Resources Board, under Assembly Bill (AB) 32,
has been designated to adopt the main plan for reducing California's GHG emissions by January 1,2009, and
regulations and other initiatives for reducing GHG emissions by January 1,2011. AB 32 requires achievement by
2020 of a statewide greenhouse gas emissions limit equivalent to 1990 emissions, and the adoption of rules and
regulations to achieve the maximum technologically feasible and cost-effective greenhouse gas emissions
reductions.
By 2050, the state plans to reduce emissions to 80 percent below 1990 levels. While the state of California has
established programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, there are no established standards for gauging the
significance of greenhouse gas emissions. Neither CEQA nor the CEQA Guidelines provide any methodology for
analysis of greenhouse gases. Given the "global" scope of global climate change, the challenge under CEQA is
for a Lead Agency to translate the issue down to the level of a CEQA document for a specific project in a way
that is meaningful to the decision making process. Under CEQA, the essential questions are whether a project
creates or contributes to an environmental impact or is subject to impacts from the environment in which it would
occur, and what mitigation measures are available to avoid or reduce impacts.
The project would generate greenhouse gases primarily through electricity generation/use and generation of
vehicle trips. Efforts to reduce the project's greenhouse gas emissions by reducing electricity demand and
reducing vehicle trips and miles, therefore, should be implemented. The proposed project would conform to the
City's Comprehensive Plan and other policies to reduce vehicle trips and miles traveled, and encourage
automobile-alternative modes of transportation (e.g., public transit, walking, and bicycling). The project is
located within the California Avenue Pedestrian and Transit-Oriented District designation and is in close
proximity to transit and services.
Although greenhouse gas emissions generated by the project would cumulatively contribute to global climate
change, to determine whether the proposed project would have a significant impact on global climate change is
speculative, particularly given the fact that there are no existing numerical thresholds to determine an impact.
However, in an effort to make a good faith effort at disclosing environmental impacts and to conform with the
CEQA Guidelines [§ 16064(b)], it is the City's position that, based on the nature and size of this redevelopment
project, its location within an established urban area served by existing infrastructure (rather than a greenfield
site), the transit oriented nature of the project's nominal percentage increase in greenhouse gas emissions and the
measures included in the project to reduce vehicle use, the proposed project would not impede the state's ability
to reach the emission reduction limits/standards set forth by the State of California by Executive Order S-3-05 and
AB 32. Over the long term, the expectation from regional planning agencies is that intensifying land uses near
transit will lead to reduced dependence on the automobile and increased transit ridership. For these reasons, this
project would not make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change associated with
greenhouse gas emissions. Based on the conceptual design of the project at this point, specific measures to reduce
energy use have not been identified, apart from the project features related to increasing light rail transit use. Final
measures to reduce energy use and emissions would be reviewed during the design review process.
The project will be required to comply with the City's Green Building Regulations (PAMC Chapter 18.44). The
project includes components that will offset the project's potential minor incremental contribution to global
climate change. These include:
• For buildings, require energy-efficient design such as that encapsulated in the Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Ratings. LEED standards are widely recognized benchmarks
for the design, construction, and operation of energy efficient commercial and residential buildings (energy
efficiency is only part ofLEED; a big part of the rating is also indoor air quality).
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 27 Mitigated Negative Declaration
• Require incorporation of transit into project design through considerations of siting, location, and transit
linkages.
• Require p.urchase of energy-efficient appliances and office equipment (Energy Star compliant, etc.).
• Promote waste reduction measures and recycling (reduces cost to transport and dispose waste and energy
associated with product manufacture).
• Incorporate on-site renewable energy production (such' as solar installations on building rooftops) and water
reuse.
• In planning, promote mixed-use, compact, and higher-density development to reduce trip distance, promote
alternatives to vehicle travel, and promote efficiency in delivery of services and goods.
SOURCE REFERENCES -All reports used as sources and prepared specifically for the project should
be listed by title/date
1. Project Planner's knowledge of the site and the proposed project
2. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, 1998-2010 (list specific policy and map references)
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 18 -Zoning Ordinance
4. Required compliance with the Unifonn Building Code (UBC) Standards for Seismic Safety and
Windload
5. Various Technical Reports on project (e.g. Noise, Air Quality, Historic, Geotechnical, Biological
analyses)
6. Project Plans, Birch Plaza, prepared by David Solnick, dated March 31,2009.
7. Arborist Report, prepared by s.P. McClenahan Co, Inc.
8. Hazardous Materials Studies/Phase lAssessments
9. Hazardous Materials Studies/Phase 2 Assessments
10. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
11. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual, Municipal Code Chapter 8.1 0.030, June 2001
12. Departmental communication/memos such as Fire, Utilities, Public Works, Police, Planning
Arborist, Real Estate, Community Services that address environmental issues.
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 28 Mitigated Negative Declaration
DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the x
project have' been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or
"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one
effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis
as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required,
but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
in an earlier EIRor NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and
(b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project, nothing further is required.
Project Planner Date
Birch Plaza Mixed Use Page 29 Mitigated Negative Declaration
~~ Historic Site
~ Special Setback
~ Near Creek (SCVWD)
~/~--'----Curb Edge
/--.-.~-. Sidewalk
1 ,;~at:[Gi\1 Known Structu res
,: ;/' Highlighted Features
...... ~~--. Underlying Lot Line
:-•• .." t ._l:J.I~c_. Easemen
~ Water Feature
Railroad
The City of
Palo Alto
Figure 2
Vicinity Map
Birch Plaza
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
-.
0' 44'
This document 1. a graphic representation only of best available sources.
The City of Palo Alia assume. no responsibility for any errors@1989 to 2009 City of Palo Alto
WE, THE UNDERSIGNED, HEREBY ATTEST THAT WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS INITIAL
EV ALUATIONIDRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DE CLARA TION DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2009,
PREPARED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOP:MENT OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS BIRCH PLAZA,
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA, AND AGREE TO IMPLEMENT ALL MITIGATION :MEASURES
CONTAINED HEREIN.
~~5~
;;;
Applicant's Signature
Court House Plaza
Harold Hobach
/1 II <I / D ,
Date
Summary of 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 Measure D-3
To maintain the health of the tree, the following measures recommended by the Tree Protection Report, prepared by any
e~cavation within the tree dripline 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 proposed above ground building footprint shall not extend over 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 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, 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
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
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Roger Papler [RPapler@waterboards.ca.gov]
Thursday, October 14, 2010 12:44 PM
Lee, Elena
French, Amy; Salazar, Matt; Vasudevan, Lata; Wolfenden, John
Subject: Park Plaza and Birch Plaza I PA: Followup Response -5YR-Related Concerns
Elena:
Following up on a recent phone discussion with Amy French, we provide the following clarification to our recent email response
to your urgent inquiry.
The Regional Water Board approval of the submittals for the two subject sites will stand regardless of the future potential vapor
intrusion investigation for the CDE plume. This is based on the following:
-Site specific soil gas investigations were performed at both sites and for:
--Park Plaza, acceptable mitigation measures were selected.
--Birch Plaza, acceptable risk assessment was performed.
Please contact us if you have any other questions.
Respectfully,
Roger W. Papler, P .G.
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94612
»> Roger Papler 10/14/2010 12:00 PM »>
Hello Elena:
Thank you for your inquiry and patience.
Regarding the status of the current Five Year Review, USEPA and the Regional Water Board have directed HP to completely
define groundwater plumes in all the water-bearing zones of concern to the Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs). We
anticipate that this will probably be completed in about two years and will re-evaluate the need for vapor intrusion investigation
at that time.
We hope this helps and recognize the urgency of your situation. However, if the above does not completely answer your
questions, we need to confer internally before responding.
Respectfully,
Roger W, Papler, P,G.
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94612
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Roger Papler [RPapler@waterboards.ca.gov]
Thursday, September 02, 20104:01 PM
Lee, Elena
John Wolfenden
Subject: Birch Plaza / PA: Request -MND Comments
Hello Elena:
Thank you for your request to follow up with the City of Palo Alto on the lJulyl0 letter (Letter) that approved the October,
2008, Phase II Site Investigation Repott(Report) and the February 4, 2010, Results of Vapor Intrusion Model Screening [2010
Update] (VI RA).
As indicated by our Letter, we approved the Report and VIRA. So we have no major comments on the Report or VI RA or the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that was based on those two submittals. However, we suggest that the field personnel
performing field screening of the proposed excavation subgrade use a photo-ionization detector (PID) with parts-per-billionlevel
sensitivity. Only 1 part per million (ppm) equals over 5,000 micrograms per cubic meter (ug/m3) and the field screening is
being performed to remove contaminated soils near the prior soil gas borehole where TCE in soil gas was detected at 6,400
ug/m3, exceeding our soil gas ESL of 4,100 ug/m3.
Respectfu lIy,
Roger W. Papler, P.G.
San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1500
Oakland, CA 94612
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
{
Linda S. Adams
Secretary for
Environmental
Protection
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612
(510) 622-2300 • Fax (510) 622-2460
http://www.waterboards.ca. gOY /sanfranciscobay
Arhold Schwarzenegger
Governor
Date: July 1, 2010
File No. 43S1132 (RWP)
Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership
c/o Mr. Harold Hohbach Harold@hohbachenterprises.com
Hohbach E~terprises Inc.
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
SUBJECT: Approval of Phase II Site Investigation Repot and Results o/Vapor Intrusion
Model Screening (2010 Update) for 2650 and 2640 Birch Street, 305 Grant
Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
This letter responds to the October, 2008, Phase II Site Investigation Report (Report) and the
February 4,2010, Results o/Vapor Intrusion Model Screening (2010 Update) (VI Risk
Assessment [VI RAJ) submitted for the subject site on your behalf by your consultants Stellar
Environmental Solutions and Treadwell & Rollo. As explained below, I approve the Report and
VI RA and require no further action regarding site investigation.
The Report and VI RA were submitted to the City of Palo Alto to evaluate potential vapor
intrusion concerns for the subject site. The City of Palo Alto forwarded copies of the Report and
VI RA to the Regional Water Board for review.
Report and VI RA Summaries
Report
The Report documents the results of a soil, soil gas, and groundwater investigation that was
conducted to evaluate the potential for indoor-air vapor intrusion from chlorinated volatile
organic compounds, mostly trichloroethene (TCE), off-gassing from the contaminated
groundwater beneath the site. To evaluate this potential, soil, soil gas and groundwater samples
were collected from eight locations. Soil samples were collected from approxImately 15 feet
below ground surface (bgs). Soil gas was collected from approximately 15 feet bgs, with the
exception of borehole B2 where low-flow conditions required collecting the soil gas sample from
approximately 12 feet bgs. The grab ,groundwater samples were collected from approximately
19 to 27 feet bgs.
The Report indicates that TCE was detected in soil gas up to 6,400 micrograms per cubic meter
(ug/m3) and in groundwater up to 110 micrograms per liter. In seven of the eight soil gas and
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years
o Recycled Paper
- 2 -
groundwater samples, TCE levels were less than the Regional Water Board's May 2008
environmental screening levels (ESLs) for vapor intrusion. TCE was not detected in any of the
soil samples.
The Report concludes that TCE in groundwater and soil gas (off-gassing from the groundwater)
originated from the comingled HPNarian plume emanating from 395 Page Mill Road (PMR).
The Report recommends:
• Avoiding construction of the building over the location of borehole B4 with the highest TeE
level detected in soil gas.
• Preparing a risk-based model to evaluate potential indoor-air vapor intrusion.
VIRA
The VI RA modeled the risk from potential indoor air vapor intrusion based on the Report
findings and used the maximum TCE detection of 6,400 ug/m3 • Based on the risk-based model,
the VI RA concluded that the:
• Potential cancer risk from vapor intrusion would be 4 x 10-7, less than one excess cancer case
per million individuals.
• Hazard quotient would be 7.7x 10-4, less than the threshold value of 1.0.
Water Board Response
The Report and VI RA satisfy Regional Water Board requirements. I hereby approve them and
require no further action regarding site investigation.
Please note that we do not agree with the Report statement that the source of the HP N arian
plume is located at 395 PMR. The HPNariah plume sources up gradient from the site are located
at 640 PMR and 601 California Avenue. The cited source at 395 Page Mill Road is located cross
gradient from the site and the probability of that source impacting the site is extremely low.
If you have any questions, please contact RogerPapler of my staff at (510) 622-2435 [e-mail
rpapler@waterboards.ca.gov ].
cc: Mailing List
Sincerely,
Bruce H. Wolfe
Executive Officer
Digitally signed by Stephen Hill
Date: 2010.07.0116:45:07
-07'00'
MAILING LIST
Santa Clara Valley Water District
ATTN: Mr. George Cook
5150 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
City of Palo Alto Fire Departnlent
ATTN: Mr. Gordon Simpkinson
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Stellar Environmental Solutions
ATTN: Mr. Richard Makdisi
2198 Sixth Street, Sutie 201
Berkeley, CA 94710
SECOR International
ATTN: Mr. Mark Becker
2301 Leghorn Street
Mountain View, CA 94043
Barron Parks Association Foundation
ATTN: Mr. Bob G. Moss
4010 Orme Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306-3136
gcook@valleywater.org
gordon. silnpkinson@cityofpaloalto.org
rmakdisi@stellar-environmental.com
mbecker@secor.com
bobgmoss@comcast.net
ARNOLDSCHWARZENEGGER
GOVERNOR
December 24, 2009
Elena Lee
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subj ect: Birch Plaza
SCH#: 2009112067
Dear Elena Lee:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
ING ANn RESEARCH
CYNTHIA BRYANT
DIRECTOR
The State Clearinghouse submitted the above named Mitigated Negative Declaration to selected state
agencies for review. The review period closed on December 22, 2099, and no state agencies submitted
comments by that date. This letter acknowledges that you have complied with the State Clearinghouse
review requirements for draft environmental documeilts, pursuant to the California Environnlental Quality
Act,
Please call th~ State Clearinghouse at (916) 445-0613 if you have any questions regarding the
enviromn~ntal review process. If you have a question about the above-named project, please refer to the
ten-digit State Clearinghouse number when contacting this office.
cottMorgan
~
Acting Director, State Clearinghouse
1400 10th Street P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, California 95812-3044
(916) 445-0613 FAX (916) 323-3018 www.opr.ca.gov
The City of
Palo Alto
01092.2009·04 -08 13:02:46
(\\cc -maps\gis$\gl s\edmin\Personal\Plannlng.mdb)
Birch Plaza Mixed Use
Location Map
ATTACHMENT C
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
--o· 43'
1hls docum ent Is 8 graphic representation only of besl available .sources.
The City of Palo AHo assumes no respons ibility for any errors. e 1989 to 2009 City at Palo Allo
ATTACHMENT 0
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED PROPOSED
STANDARD PTODZONE DEVELOPMENT
REQUIREMENTS
i Minim um 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'
Minimum Setbacks
Front Yard (ft) None required Building Setbacks
Sheridan Ave.: 10'
Birch St.: 7'
Grant St.: 100'
Rear Yard (ft) N one 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
Maximum 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: (1) 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) minimum 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 si.te devoted to commercial use.
!
!
Birch Plaza
PROJECT DESCRIPTION and DESIGN INTENT
16 Nov 2010
ATTACHMENT E
Submitted by Applicant
The site is an assemblage of small existing parcels that will together create a 19,862 sf
corner 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 townhouses above 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 office floor serves as a podium 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 building vocabulary to read as a single project. The
podium-level 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 one exception. 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 residential
above, we found that this ratio was insufficient to provide enough ground floor square
footage to physically support the townhouses on top. One alternative would have been
to reduce the residential footprint 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. Another alternative would have been to introduce residential
uses onto the ground floor. But because the parcel has most of its frontage on heavily
trafficked Birch Street, and because it is unusually shallow in depth (the result of an
eminent domain taking when Oregon Expy was built and Birch was widened as an off
ramp), there was no place to locate the dwellings away from the busy street.
Furthermore, this would create an awkward mix of office and dwellings in very close
proximity on the same floor.
PTOD zoning is new and hence not significantly 'field-tested'. Our first experiment here
suggests that some design flexibility in the FAR ratios between the different uses would
be beneficial, even as FAR limits are held firm. In our case, because the project will have
more than 10% BMR units, this one exception would be allowed as a concession under
state law SB1818, now codified as Section 65915.
The eight townhouses on top of the podium range in size from 1470 to 1766 sf, plus one
corner unit of 1936 sf. Given the size of the office podium, a design with more but
smaller dwelling units would have made it impossible to provide the parking required
by the parking ordinance, even with the reduction allowed by the mix of uses and the
proximity to mass transit.
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 and storage. Given the shape of the parcel, the
parking garage necessarily has one row of extra-deep stalls. These will be used to
provide tandem parking beyond the parking required. The parcel's extension 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.
Furthermore, this configuration has the considerable added benefit of providing a mini
park at the comer of Birch and Grant that will act as a resting area and a backdrop for
public art.
J(oli6acli CR§a{ty Company £imitea c.Partnersliip
29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, CA 94027
Tel: 650-322-8242 Fax: 650-853-0325
November 15, 2010
City Council RECEIVED
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue NOV 15 2010
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Department of Planning &
Re: Birch Plaza 08PLN-00182 Community Environment
2650 Birch Street
Dear Council Men1bers;
Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership (HRC) and its predecessor began
acquiring the five lots for this Birch Plaza Project as early as 1966. After the last lot was
acquired, HRC initiated the Birch Plaza Project in year 2000 under 00-PC-05 for a 20
unit three-story project requesting a zone change from RM-40 to PC and for and FAR of
2.2 where the RM-40 zone only permitted an FAR of 1.0. This zone change application
was pursued through a preliminary review by the Public Art Commission and a study
session of the ARB. Residents at 360 Sheridan Avenue objected to the project. Upon
being advised by City staff that it would not accept an FAR of greater than 1.5, HRC'
decided to hold the project in abeyance because such an FAR with only housing was
uneconomlc.
With the advent of the PTOD becoming available for this Palo Alto Housing
Inventory Site, HRC decided to proceed with the present application. The present
application seeks rezoning in lieu of the earlier PC. The PTOD permits a mixed-use
development with an FAR of 1.25. HRC believes that this FAR for the proposed mixed
use provides an economically viable project. As pointed out above, an exclusively
housing project with an FAR of 1.0 is not econon1ically feasible.
This project is sited at one of the main entrances to Palo Alto - -the Birch Street
off ramp from the Oregon-Page Mill Expressway. The blighted site at present is
comprised of two vacant lots and three lots with small houses dating from the 1920's.
These would be replaced with an artistically designed building with 50 below-grade and
4 at-grade parking spaces for a total of 54 parking spaces. This is only 6 less than
required parking of 60 spaces without any allowance being given for a mixed-use project
and its proximity to CalTrain which reduces the requirements to 42 parking spaces. The
residents at 360 Sheridan Avenue are still objecting to the present project because of the
lack of parking at their project, which only provides 19 parking spaces for 57 living units.
HC should not be held accountable for this shortcoming. HRC provides n10re than
adequate parking spaces for its Birch Plaza occupants. This Birch Plaza Project will not
exacerbate the 360 Sheridan Avenue parking problem.
HRC earnestly requests that the City Council approve the rezoning to PTOD.
HRC has been paying taxes on these parcels for over 40 years. This may be the only
opportunity for HRC to develop this site.
Yours truly,
Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership
Hohbach Enterprises, Inc.,
General Partner
Harold C. Hohbach, President
Lee, Elena
From: David Solnick [david@solnick.net]
Sent: Tuesday, April 28, 2009 3:01 PM
To: Lee, Elena
Cc: Williams, Curtis
Subject: Re: Birch
Page 1 of 1
ATT,ACHMENT F
'"""""~"~""" "~~~"~_'~' __ '___'_'""_""'~'_~"~~'""""_'""'W_'~~'_~o/_"_"~~~N~,~JN~!!~LI.?Y",Ap.Rlt~A!1l",""
Weare 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 number 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.
• ACCESS ON BUSIEST STREET
• LOSS OF ALL UNDERGROUND STALLS ~-T u c: ~ ~ i: 1: ~ <5
< ~
~
~,g
u~ z£
BIRCH STREET ....J .. ; o ~ VIz -------r-r---------I o~
-en
• I I
• 1-- --- - - - ---I
• • • • 9 ~I •
>.:i: «N
ON
, I • • • • • I L _________ ...J--------.J •
'" 'E
.E
~ u
S' <
''''RDO'''BOV<~ ~
~ ~I
iii
,-
I-ow :;:~ ~
~~ ~~ iii
e
•
-
..9 W «II: ::> joi z ~ W a..~ ~ I"2
UiD z 0::::0 « jj5~ 0
c:::
W
I
CJ)
II
• • t..',,"ROOM'SOY' ~
z
0
i= a..
0
\.!) z
185"-83l8" 52
0:::
~
.. I PRINT DATE: 4/28trll
SHEET
GARAGE ACCESS FROM BIRCH ST. 4.1
" l>
~
" ITI
l> n n
ITI
V"
V"
."
::0 • 0 r 3: 0
V" (J)
:J: (J)
ITI 0 2!:! c to " l> ~ ...Jro.
Z ::r: I'.)
~ VI C -I
;::0 Z I"T1 0 ITI ~ . m
;0
(j')
;0
0 c z
0
(J)
~ r r
(J)
1:1 SHERIDAN AVENUE
!£ ~ ~ .~ !!I ~ ~ PARKING OPTION #2 BIRCH PLAZA DAVID SOLNICK ARCHITECT
N 2650 Birch Street, Palo Alto, California 212 High Street, Palo Alto david@solnlck.net
! ~ ~
i ~ ~
I
I
,
I
I "
, ,
4it-i
I
l
BIRCH STREET
L.~_-.~_ ~_ .=_ '" .---------------_-' .---
- - - - - - --\-1-- - - - - - - --1-'-- - - - - -
\1 1/
------~ ~-------,
~-- ---- --~[:
.,. -, ; ~~
Gl22~2':OPE /'.1 !..~m1~'~_. I
"
'---1-___ _
,
OARAOEObORABOVE ,
i---1STFLOORABOVE
UNIT 1
37
.!:lli!!..1
!:lli.!il
38
l!!!!ll l!!!!ll
• ACCESS ON BUSIEST STREET
• GROUND LEVEL STALLS REQUIRE
BACKING ONTO BIRCH ST.
• LOSS OF POCKET PARK
i)
~II I.
I fir t/{A -,:.-I~
2.
l!!!ll .!.!!:!!!.l !!!!I!..!.
GARAGE ACCESS FROM BIRCH ST. @ CORNER
1-1'"
u <::
~ ~
~ ~ « ®
M
:tI::
Z o
i= a.. o
l!) z
52 c::: ct
~
fa
I u
PRINT DATE: 4/28/09
SHEET
4.3
)
)
1fofi6acfi ~a{ty Company £imited(J>artnersfiip
29 Lowery Drive, Atherton, CA 94027
Tel: 650/322-8242 Fax: 650/853-0325
Curtis Williams
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hanlilton 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 Apri121, 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 Commission 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 linlited space in a direction perpendicular to Birch Street to
make 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 A venue.
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 from
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 placement 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 makes it possible to provide a landscaped
area along Birch Street which, along with the graceful Birch Plaza building fa9ade
provides a noteworthy entrance into Palo Alto from the Oregon/Page Mill
Expressway.
F or these reasons we will ask the City Council to approve the
recommendation of the Planning Comnlission 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
May 6. 2009
Court House Plaza Company
Via Fax (SSO) 853-0325
David Solnick -Architect
fP
FEHR& PEERS
TIIANSPUu.nON COHS.IlLTANTS
Subject: Garage Access to the Birch Plaza Mlxed·Use Project
Palo Alto, CA
Dear Mr. Hohbach / Mr. sot nick:
)
RSOB .. 2840
Based on our review of the proposed garage access from Birch Street (directly 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 .. lane 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 I
Sheridan Avenue.
3) Accident data for the three year time period between 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 Birch Street may result
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.
I~egistered Traffic Engineer in the State of California
No. TR1830
---160 W, Santa Clara Street. Suite 675 San Jose, California 9511~O(408Y278=1700 Fax (408) 278"1717
www.fehrandpeers.com
fljoo 1/001
fp
FEHR & PEERS
TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
November 4, 2009
Ms. Elena Lee
City of Palo Alto -Planning & Community Environment Division
Mr. Rafael Rius 1 Ms. Ruchika Aggarvyal
City of Palo Alto -Transportation Division
250 Hamilton Ave
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: Birch Plaza Mixed-Use Project Off·Street Parking Analysis
Dear Ms. Lee/Mr. Rius/Ms. Aggarwal:
The City of Palo Alto requires that a mixed-use project provide off-street parking according to each
component land use. The project proposes a total of 42 parking spaces with 38 underground parking
garage spaces and 4 at-grade parking spaces accessible from Birch Street. However, there are 16
tandem spaces in the underground parking garage for a total of 32 parking spaces. The City of Palo Alto
Parking Code only permits 4 tandem spaces for a total of 8 parking spaces to be counted to provide
parking for the project. Thus, there remains a total of 12 tandem spaces or a total of 24 parking spaces
which are usable to provide parking for the project but can not be included in the 42 parking spaces
identified above.
For this project, the project applicant will assign one parking space to each residential unit. As shown in
Mission Engineering, Inc. drawings 1 and 2 dated July 16, 2009 attached hereto, parking spaces 21, 23,
25,27,29,35, 37, and 38 would be assigned to these 8 residential units. All of the other spaces would
be available for daytime use of the office and residential tenants. Of all of these "other spaces, the
tandem parking spaces 19/20,31/32,41/42,43/44,45/46,47/48, and 49/50 would be assigned to office
personnel who remain on the job and do not need in and out access during the day. Thus, 42 of the 50
underground parking spaces would be available for daytime use by tenants of the office area.
The mixed-use project requires 60 parking spaces as shown in Table 1. Since only 38 of the 50
underground parking spaces can be counted under the City of Palo Alto Parking Code, these 38 spaces
with the added 4 surface parking spaces gives a total of 42 spaces for a shortfall of 18 spaces.
However, when all of the tandem parking spaces are utilized as pointed out above, there will actually be
12 additional parking spaces for a total of 54 available parking spaces, resulting in a projected shortfall of
6 spaces.
Alternatively, considering the 60 space requirement, there are 54 spaces provided by the project, 50
underground and 4 at-grade, resulting in a shortfall of only 6 spaces without any consideration being
given for shared parking.
This pOints out an important fact that the parking spaces would be shared among the mixed-use
components of the project that have different peak hour parking demands. Therefore, a shared parking
analysis was conducted for the mixed-use development. The Urban Land Institute (UU) has published a
guide to shared parking analysis that provides time-based parking demand rates for different land uses,
Shared Parking, Second Edition (2005).
2990 Lava Ridge Court, Suite 200, Roseville, CA 95661 (916) 773~1900 Fax (916) 773·2015
WNW.fehrandpeers.com
November 4, 2009
Ms. Lee
City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Division
2 2
Using the City of Palo Alto parking code as a starting point, the shared parking analysis projects a peak
parking demand at 10:00 AM of 55 parking spaces (as shown in Table 3). Using the ULI published
parking rates; the shared parking analysis also projects a peak parking demand at 10:00 AM of 55
parking spaces.
Lastly, ITE has published parking generation rates that are based on surveys conducted throughout the
United States. Through empirical research, parking demand data have been collected that quantify the
amount of parking required by land uses. Based on the ITE average parking rates, it is estimated that the
proposed mixed-use development would also utilize 55 total parking spaces as shown in Table 2.
The primary conclusions of the parking analysis are:
• Using the shared parking analysis set forth above, it can be seen that the park demand
occurs at 10:00 AM requiring 55 parking spaces. The demand is substantially met by the
54 parking spaces provided by the project Although the 54 parking spaces include 32
tandem parking spaces, all of these tandem spaces can be fully utilized under the plans
outlined above. Based on the shared parking analysis, the project is requesting a
negligible 1.8 % reduction. (This is calculated based on 1 space I 55 "provided" spaces).
• The City of Palo Alto parking Code permits a reduction of 20% for a mixed-use and
another 20% for being within 2000 feet of a CalTrain station, but not more than a total of
30% when combined. According to City Code, the project does not provide adequate
parking, resulting in a shortfall of 6 parking spaces (This is calculated based on 60
required spaces minus 54 "provided" parking spaces); However, the City Code provides
for a reduction of 20% for mixed-use and another 20% for being within 2,000 feet of a
CalTrain station, but not more than 30% when combined. Therefore, the 'Project is
requesting a 10 % reduction (This is calculated based on 6 spaces 160 spaces).
Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to email meatf.choa@fehranpdeers.com
Sincerely,
FEHR & PEERS
Fred Choa, P.E.
Principal
.Table 1
City Code Parking Requirements
Required
Land Use Size Rates Parking
2-Bedroom Apartments 3 2.00 6
3-Bedroom Apartments 5 2.00 10
Guest Parking (33% unit counts) 3
Research & Development Office 10.257 4.00 41
Total Parking Spaces Required 60
Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, October 2007
Fehr & Peers, October 2009
Table 2
Parking Analysis.-ITE Requirements
Required
Land Use Size Rates Parking
2-Bedroom Apartments 3 2.50 8
3-Bedroom Apartments 5 3.50 18
Research & Development Office 10.257 3.50 36
Total Parking Spaces Required 62
Source: ITE Parking Generation, Third Edition, October 2004
Fehr & Peers, October 2009
Table 3
Shared Parkin
of Palo Alto Parking Code 1 ULI Parking Rates 2
Research & Research &
Hour of I Apartments I Development I Apartments I Development I
Day 3 Residential Office Total Residential Office I Total
19 41 26 36
6:00AM 19 1 20 26 1 27
7:00 AM 17 12 29 23 11 34
8:00AM 16 31 47 22 27 49
9:00AM 15 39 54 21 34 55
10:00AM 14 41 20 36
11:00 AM 13 41 54 18 36
12:00 PM 12 37 49 17 32 49
1:00 PM 13 37 50 18 32 51
2:00 PM 13 41 54 18 36 54
3:00 PM 13 41 54 18 36 54
4:00 PM 14 37 51 20 32 52
5:00 PM 16 21 37 22 18 40
6:00 PM 17 10 27 23 9 32
7:00 PM 18 4 23 25 4 29
8:00 PM 19 3 21 25 3 28
9:00 PM 19 1 20 26 1 27
10:00 PM 19 0 19 26 0 26
11:00 PM 19 0 19 26 0 26
12:00AM 19 0 19 26 0 26
Sources: 1 -City of Palo Alto Municipal Code, October 2007
2 -ULI Shared Parking -Second Edition, 2005
3 -Shared parking time-based demand from UU Shared Parking, Second Edition, 2005
---
AlL R_
SI!E SliT. C-4
'":tt..: '.",
--";;;;l
BIRCH STREET (70' \\IIlE)
--
~ • .
~,"",qM
1· OFFICE SPACE A
.2!I.f.'f ~,.,.
....
--------
INSTA!.l.
lJ:bCU!1BaoGUT1iR
;1;1 PER aN sm. ~. ~ t>WC. HQ.1Jc3 ~
~1"+,;-:1.:-::...;.·
~
I
.-SI
OFFICE SPACE iii
tl.:-" AC P.W'.lNV
1 ~,I 1-I I:=J 1:=:1' ~f'::~, I
~ I
PUNNING • LlNOSUR~NG • ClVIlENGlNmIING • CONS1liUClIONSTAKING FOR HOHBACH REALTY COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ~U@@U@~ g~@JU~~g[ffi@9llWl«;D APN 132-36-020. -069, -070. -037 & -074
RESPONSM. R£LIABI£ RESULTS SINCE 1953 305 GRANT AVE., 2640 & 2650 BIRCH ST.. 306 & 320 SHERIDAN AVE.
""" ~
SHirr ~ PHlUPPE AUGEII, R.c.E. 2111OO-EXPIRES 9-30-11 OFFICE LAYOUT 1ST. FLOOR
355 Reed St .• Sonto Clora, Coillornia 95050
Ph: (4Q8) 727-6262 fAX: (4Q8) 727-8265 E-mail: ml .. lonGmIo.lonenglneerslnc.com IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA or 4 SH!I:lS
I
I
I
I
I
, ---I '''''''-------j -----------
I
I
BIRCH STREET
(FORMERLY SECOND SIREET. 40' WIDE. VOL "B" PG. 642)
I + ----WONUIIENT uiiE"N 56"29'43' W, 223 I12:EiAsisOF BEARINGS -
I
I
I
I
I I ~ ---~~. _~.5.oo'
'W ~, .",,"' ........ ...,....,.... .....
'I-Ig "'; 8~' Ii!r~1 I "'=='" ::II
zl
I
~ !I~ a> /' ~~/-ss-
N 58"29'43"W 100.00'
r--------------------
I
I
I ,
I
I ci:
: I '"
~=-'~ ~4·~~
: I
ci:
~III~
.. A
..
l!!!Iil
,.
IItIIU
" l!!!!!.<
" I1lIII>
PHIUPPE AUGER, R.C.Eo 21500-EXPIRES 9-30-11 PRELIMINARY GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN (BASEMENT
PLANNING' LAND SUR\IE'I1NG ' ClI<lLENGINEERING • CONSTRUCTION STAKING FOR HOHBACH REALTY COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ~~~~~@~~~@~~[g[gffiJ~\l ~~~" APN 132-36-020, -069, -070, -073 & -074
AVE,
) --r---/ . ----------"",
," E 80.17
---r --r-l~I---n---
u ~ M m ~
DAn:
" /'
DI ~
.;. I ..::II ~ I ~ I .:... 11.:...1 Off<:<
BY
.,
lI!!!I..! " l!!!I!J
REVISIONS
DESCRIPTION
..
~ .. I ., ~ ~
I
r--r---
I I
_...J
CH'KD
SCALE: 1"=10'
w
::> z w > «
1---------i3O'---;
~I ~i
I
I
I
I
I
I
SHEET
2
00274
"1246 • OF. SHEElS .oNT
RESPONSIvc, RELIABLE RESULTS SINCE 1953 305 GRANT AVE., 2640 & 2650 BIRCH ST., 306 & 320 SHARI DAN
Ph: (-108) 727-;2~~ R;:~: ~~fO;i~_~:-~' ~~~~;:nl~I:.7.?,~I •• ,Dn.ngln ..... ,nc.com IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA D .... NO. ~~SEI'-
) ) ATTACHMENT G
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
Memorandum
Date: May 8,2009
To: Elena Lee
Front: 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 adjacent to the garage ramp were set back
appropriately, and parking intmediately 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 comments 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.
r 'O: \.,
J
LEED for New Construction v 2.2
/,) ATTACHMENTH
'I Submitted by Applicant
DIZA r-T Registered Project Checklist
Project Name: Birch Plaza
Project Address: 305 Grant Avenue, 2640 & 2650 Birch Street, 306 & 320 Sheridan Avenue
Yes ?
36 ~
Yes ? No 0.
____ : Sus~~inable Sites _ 14 Points
,--------,-..,...-------,
~---~---~~~~
Prereq 1
Credit 1
Construction Activity Pollution Prevention
Site Selection
J{::'?,"",:';,{U;;I Credit 2 . Development Density & Community Connectivity
Brownfield Redevelopment Credit 3
~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~
Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation
~~--~------r---~~
Credit 4.2 Alternative Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms
~~~~~~~~~-~
Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting & Fuel Efficient Vehicles
Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity
~~~~~~~~~~~
~----~~~--~~-~
Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat
Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space
~~~~~~~r=.~~~
Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control
~----~------~---~
Credit 6.2 Stormwater Design, Quality Control
~~---~~~~~~~~
Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof
~~--~-----~---~
Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof
~~---~~--~~~---~
~~~~-~~~~~~
Credit B Ught Pollution Reduction
Yes ? No
Required
.1
1
.. __ ~ Water Efficiency " _ 5 Points
~~~~~~~~~--~
Credit 1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50%
~~--r~~--~~~~
Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation
~~~~-----~~~~~
Credit 2 ~nnovative Wastewater Technologies
Credit 3.1 Water Use Reduction, 20% Reduction
~~~~~~~~~~~
Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction
~~~~--~~--~
PowlO r <!d b y
Adobe® LiveCycle'" last Modified: May 2008 1 of 4
r)
• LEED for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
Yes ? 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 EAc1: All LEED for New Construction projects registered after June 26, 2007 are required to achieve at least two (2) points.
Credit 3
~----~--~--~----~
Credit 4
~--~~~--~F-~--~
I Credit 5
~~~~~~~~~~~
Pow::! f i! 0 by
r ,
Adobe* LiveCycle'·
Credit 6
Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10
Credit 1.1 10.5% New Buildings /3.5% Existing Building Renovations
Credit 1.2 14% New Buildings / 7% Existing Building Renovations 2
Credit 1.3 17.5% New BUildings /10.5% Existing Building Renovations 3
Credit 1.4 21% New BUildings /14% Existing BUilding Renovations 4
Credit 1.5 24.5% New Buildings /17.5% Existing Building Renovations 5
Credit 1.6 28% New Buildings /21% Existing Building Renovations 6
Credit 1.7 31.5% New Buildings /24.5% Existing Building Renovations 7
Cr edit 1.8 35% New Buildings /28% Existing, Buildi':lg Renovations ' 8
Credit 1.9 38.5% New BUildings /31.5% Existing Building Renovations , 9
Credit 1. '\ 042% New Buildings /35% Existing Building Renovations
On-Site Renewable Energy
Cr edi t 2.1 2.5% Renewable Energy
Cred it 2.2 7.5% Renewable Energy
Cr edit 2.3 12.5% Renewable Energy
Enhanced Commissioning
Enhanced Refrigerant Management
Measurement & Verification
Green Power
10
1 to3
2
3
Last Modified: May 2008 2 of 4
• Yes
(~\)
LEED·for New Construction v 2.2
Registered Project Checklist
? No
.. _ .. : 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
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
Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal
Materials Reuse, 5%
Materials Reuse, 10%
Recycled Content, 10% (post-consumer + 112 pre-consumer)
Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + 112 pre-consumer)
Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured
Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured
Rapidly Renewable Materials
Certified Wood
Required
____ ' Indoor Environmental Quality 15 Points
----r-------"
~~~~~~~~~~~
~-----r------~~--~
~~~~~~~~~~~
Prereq 1
Prereq 2
Minimum IAQ Performance
Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control
Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring
Credit 2 Increased Ventilation
Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction
Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy
~~--~~~--r-~~~
Credit 4.1 . Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives & Sealants
~--~-+--~--~--~~
Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings
~---+----~--~~
~--~~--~~r-~~~
Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems
Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber Products
~~~-r~~~~~~~
Credit 5 Indoor Chemical" Pollutant Source Control
~~~~~~~~~~~
~----~--~--~----~
Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting
Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort
~-----+----~+---~~
r-~~~~~~~~~~
Credit 7.1 Thermal Comfort, Design
~~~-+--~~~~~~
Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification
~~~=+~~~+-~~~
Credit 8.1 Daylight" Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces
~~~~-~~~~~~
Credit 8.2 Daylight" Views, Views for 90% of Spaces
Pow €re dby
Required
Required
Adobe® LiveCycle" last Modified: May 2008 3 of 4
Multifamily GreenPoint CJJklist
DRA t-
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.1 O.a (3~year subcontractor guarantee ~nd 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 U$e 59%
I 1. Inflll Sites
~ Build It Greeri
. Smart Solutions From The Ground Up
i ~ II ~ ::J a. 0
! i -. ....
lin-i ~~-~~~--~--~--~-~ I _ ~ _ Q. L~a~e ~Withi'l_E!<~~ti~!l GoIT!n1~~ity ~~t ~a~ ~~~r L~~~ ~ ~!ilitil?~ in ~I~~e __ ~ _ ~ _ _ _ ~ _ < __ < __ _ ~ <
~ < ~ 5l .. '!2~ct ~ed~~~lops_a_~~~eld S!te C!!~ QE!lsl!ln.~~_'! ~~l?velopmenlArea EY a City __________ ~ _______ .< _ <_. __
1
1
10
1
1.
has Pedestrian Access Within _ Mile to Neighborhood Services (1 pt for 5 Or More, 2 pts for 10 Or More):
Bank 2) Place of Worship 3) Full Scale GrocerylSupermarket
5) Cleaners 6) Fire Station
8) Hardware 9) Laundry
11) Medical/Dental 12) Senior Care Facility
14) Pharmacy 15) Post Office
17) School 18) After School Programs
Commercial Office 20) Community Center 21) Theater/Entertainment
Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold.
Development is Located Within:
1/4 Mile of One Planned or Current Bus Une Stop
1/4 Mile of Two or More Planned or Current Bus Une Stops
Less than 1.5 Parking Spaces Per Unit
Less than 1.0 Parking Spaces Per Unit
2. Mixed-Use Developments
a. At least 2% of Development Floorspace Supports Mixed Use (Non-Residential Tenants)
b. Half of Above Non-Residential Floorspace is Dedicated to Neighborhood Services
3. Building Placement & Orientation
a. Protect Soil & Existing Plants & Trees
4. Design for Walking & Bicycling
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 Gatherin Places Provide Natural Elements For com act sites onl
6. Design for Safety ,nd Natural Surveillance
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
~
Page 1 off t5
~' b. Residence Entries Have Views to Callers (Windows or Double Peep Holes) & Can Be Seen By Neighbors
I 7. Landscaping ,
R=P1i_,.. ." ..... ~~~C;~~;,:~~~(;~~;q~~;;~;~.~f~~~~~~~~.~~e .. a~~~~.~~~:~~t~~:~~ .. :~~/~~~.~:~,~~,ea.~~~.,c~::~~~.~~.~_~ ~::S.i~:~~~~~t-ct_iO_n._....i....... __ ":""""' __ '---=---' __ --1
1.~~~.~:~'~ ..... b.:.!'IgJ)~~~~.n..~~~~!:i~!~_2n..!~~1n.~!i~.~I~.~t~v~~!()!Y.~¥!h~.g~lif2r.!l~1.~ya.s~v:e.~I~DtQ2~.r!~!1
I ..... , ......... ~: ~!~&~*:h~t£:~~~~~~~i~~.~~!v:~~~~!~~~.n.~~n.!J~g~~!~.EP~P.~a.!~~fl.e~i.~_ ...... ,_ .. , ......... "."'-........ ' .. __ ...... _ .. _ ........ " ....... , ... '--____ ---I. __ ~ __ ~_1=_~
1_ .. ~ ... " .. _ .. ~:~~::.~;~~B~;f~~~~~~~~a.~:~~n~:~~~~~~:~;;~;~~;il~~~;~na~~~.a.t!~~ .... "', ........ _... .......... -.... --.-' ........... ---'-----'----~---'---=-l
1 e. Design & Install High-Efficiency Irrigation System
1 ••. ·i~ .. ~~~ii1~~i!Ii~ti;~;~1~i~i;i~iT~fo~~~~'rt;~~inI~]a~onP~ans
cs::J i. Do Not Specify Turf on Slopes Exceeding 10% or in Areas Less Than 8 Feet Wide
[ZJ , ii. Less Than 33% of All Landscaped Area is Specified as Turf AND All Turf has Water Requirement <= To Tall Fescue
£i II)
» c; ~ CIt :::I ~ ~ 0 lis cP C!I II) j c: :$ cP w D:!
8. Building Performance Exceeds Title 24 by at least 15%·Required
Enter the Percent Above the 2005 Version of Title 24 for Residential and Non-Residential Portions of the Project.
a. Residences: 2 Points for Every 1 % Above 2005 T24
b. Non-Residential Spaces: 2 Points for Every 1% Above 2005 T24
9. Cool Site
a. At least 30% of the Site Includes Cool Site Techniques
10. Adaptable Buildings
a. A Percentage of Units are Dedicated to Households Making 80% or Less of AMI
~. SITEWORK ! POSSible Points
~-
• onstructlon emo Ion a e anagement 1 C &D lit W st M
Divert a Portion of all Construction & Demolition Waste:
Z a. Required : Divert 50%
I
1 ! y i ~ b.Divert65% : 2
c. Divert 80% or more ! i ! 2
2. Construction Material Efficiencies
a. Lumber is Delivered Pre·Cut from Supplier (80% or More of Total Board Feet) I ! 1 i 1
F
b. Components of the Project Are Pre-Assembled Off-Site & Delivered to the Project
25%ofTotal Square Footage I I l 2
50% of Total Square Footage l ! J ; 2
75% of Total Square Footage or More I : i 2
3. Construction Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Management Plan
~ 8. An lAO Management Plan is Written & Followed for the Project I 2 i
C. _ STRUCTURE ' Possible. Poin~s. _ . _ . __ _
~
1. Recycled Aggregate
s. Minimum 25% Recycled Aggregate (Crushed Concrete) for Fill, Backfill & Other Uses I \ 1
2. Recycled Flyash in Concrete
~
s. Ryash or Slag is Used to Displace a Portion of Portland Cement in Concrete
20% I , I 1 i
30% or More l l
, ! 1 1 r
1
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 Page 2 off r6
3. FSC·Certified Wood for Framing Lumber
a. FSC-Certified Wood for a Percentage of All Dimensional Studs:
~% ' 2
~ 2
b. FSC-Certified Panel Products for a Percentage of All Sheathing (OSB & Plywood): D ~% 1
~ ~70~~_o~~~ __ ~~~~~ __ ~~~~ __________________________________________ ~ __ ~. ____ ~ ____ ~~1~~ __ ~_~
I 4. Engineered Lumber or Steel Studs, Joists, Headers & Beams
r"7 ~ a. 90% or More of All Floor & Ceiling Joists ~ b. 90% or More of All Studs
V"-c. 90% or More of All Headers & Beams
c-5. Optimal Value Engineering Framing
R
Ii
IB
a. Studs at 24" Centers on Top Floor Exterior Walls &Jor Ail 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 Installin9Exterior Insulation (At Least 1-lnch of Rigid Foam)
7. Structural Insulated Panels (SIPs) Or Other Solid Wan Systems
a. SIPs Or Other Solid Wail 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 & Roor 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. sUilding(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
in All Residences
3. Solar Water Heating
a. Pre-Plumb for Solar Hot Water
b. Install Solar Hot Water DHW
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)
I'
f
Bedroom & Room OR Whole House Fan is Used
Carbon Monoxide Sensors Ventilation Does Not
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
2 !
l 1
i 1
; 1
2 '
2 i ) 2 i
i 2 : ! 2
2 i 2
1 .
; ; i Y i
i 1 i
i 4 .
1 :
1
2 2
2 2
Page 3 of 15
I. ... ...... 'if).<'; C)~· --:---...,..----,-----..,...,-,.,...,-{~d'>
~,~~~~;~;'~,~£~~CT,~~ME·'
7. Low-Mercury Lamps
a. Low-Meroury Products Are Installed Wherever Unear Ruorescent Lamps Are Used
b. Low-Mercury Products Are Installed Wherever Compact Fluorescent Lamps Are Used
8. Ught Pollution Reduction
a. Exterior Luminaires Emit No Ught Above Horizontal OR Are Dark Sky Certified
b. Control light Trespass Onto Neighboring Areas Through Appropriate Rxture Selection & Placement
9. Onslte Electricity Generation 0, a. Pr<r.Wire for Photo~oltaics& Plan for Space (Clear Areason Roof &in Mechani~1 Room)
"-b:'<~staIlPhOio;;oltaics to OOSeta PerCen"i"of theProjecfs'i otal "Estimated 'Elecirlcityoema'nd ---
r--
10%
20%
30% or more
c. Educational Display is Provided in a Viewable Public Area
10. Elevators
a. Gearless Elevators Are Installed
11. ENERGY STAR® Appliances
a. Install ENERGY STAR Refrigerators in All Locations
ENERGY STAR-Qualified
ACEEE.Usted Refrigerators
----1): Instal'-ENERGY-STAR-oishwashersinAliiocaiions---,-
Ali Dishwashers Are ENERGY STAR-qualffied
Residential-grade Dishwashers Use No More than 6.5 Gallons Per Cycle
c. Install ENERGY STAR Clothes Washers In All Locations
d. Install Ventless Natural Gas Clothes Dryers in Residences
12. Central Laundry
'na. Central Laundry Facilities Are Provided for All Occupants
Residences: Kitchen -2.0 gpm or less
Non-Residential Areas: Kitchen -2.0 gpm or less
Residences: Bathroom Faucets-1.5 gpm or less
Non-Residential Areas: Bathroom Faucets -1.5 gpm or less
e. Non-Residential Areas: Install Pre-Rinse Spray Valves in Commercial Kitchens· 1.6 gpm or less
_ 14. Source Water EffiCiency
-
0
EJ
a. Use Recycled Water for Landscape Irrigation or to Rush Toilets/Urinals
b. Use Captured Rainwater for Landscape Irrigation or to Flush 5% of Toilets &lor Urinals
c. Water is Submetered for Each Residential Unit & Non-Residential Tenant
4 I .
1; Construction Indoor Air Quality Management
a. Perform a 2-Week Whole Building Flush-Out Prior to Occupancy
2. Entryways
a. Provide Permanent Walk-Off Mats and Shoe Storage at AI! Home Entrances
b. Permanent Walk-Off Systems Are Provided at All Main Building Entrances & In Common Areas
3. Recycling & Waste Collection
a. n : Provide Buil-In R lin er In Ea h nit Reside cas. ecyc g Cent c U
r ,
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2 ,
\ ' ,
~---"'.-~-.-".~-.. -.,,~ .. ,
,._,-· __ ·_'·r_.·,~·"· __ ··",·_""·,_,,,,,,,
I
I
I
.s:: III ;:I:i! CD
>-m e
~ I ~ s 0
In C CD ~ w a::
i 1
~
1 j
1
: i " 1
2 : 2 '!-2 2
""" '"''
2 2 i
1 :
1
1
,--,-"'-,,--i 1 i
i 1
1 1
1 2
i 1 i
; 1
1 1
-,--+ "--r--i 3
3
! 1 : i 1
059 0.59
0,41 0,41
0.59 0.59
0,41
{'-"'-
2
i 4
4 .. t •• t
! ; 1 t !
j 1 I
!
i ! 1 i :
2
Page 4 o~ ~
I ...... .....:U;....,.......,.---..,.-_--,....,........,.._...,.-........,----:---.-,-.. -. -....,\~)---------------:--..,.-...,....,--,~)t-7", --,---j!1-_-,---,---,----,.-----.
I~EN[ER.eROJECr;NAME '" :.'; ~
I;;>'~'~r '.; ji';~ '. . --'.. .... 8
D
,
In All Residences
In All Non·Residential Areas:
5. Use Recycled Content Exterior Paint
a. Use Recycled Content Paint on 50% of All Extenors
6. Low-vaC 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 Matenals 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:
1
!
0.59
0.59 i ......
0.5~
0.59 !
0.59 l t .j ......... ~l~............. .. .................................. ..
-
-
-
-
-
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 (SecHon 01350) for At Least 50% of Each Material Below:
a. Residences:
0,41
0,41
0,41
i 0.41
0,41
.. § ..... r~;::_.... 0.59
0.59
0.59
0.59
. --~. ~
-
-
-
-
B
b. Non·Residential Areas:
i. Cabinets 0,41
ii. Interior Trim 1-'" _._ ... _i ........... _ ... _! .... ( __ )_'~,,4.·.·;: .1::...+ .................. ,. __ .............. ..
iii. Shelving 0,41 iv. Subfloor , .. --.--·· .. ···'t· .. -···----·--;-··0::-· .. ,4· ... ·1' .. ··t··--··.·-· ..... +--............. .
9. Environmentally Preferable Flooring I
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 Roor Area
iii. Minimum 50% of Floor Area
iv. Minimum 750/p.0f Floor Area
10. Low-Emitting Flooring
a. Residences: Floonng Meets Section 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements (50% Minimum)
0.59
0.59
0.59
: 0.59
O~41.
; 0.41
0.41
0.41
0.59 i ....
MF GreenPoint Checklist 2005 Edition v.2
>l:\
Page 5 of 6
i 11. Durable Cabinets
II.' ~ Install Durable Cabinets in All:
a. Residences
I b. Non-Residential Areas
12. Furniture & Outdoor Play Structures
I § a. Play Structures & Surfaces Have an Overall Average Recycled Content Greater Than 20%
b. Environmentally Preferable Exterior Site Furnishings
c. At Least 25% of All newly Supp lied Interior Furniture has Environmentally Preferable Attributes
13. Vandalism Deterrence
D a, Project Includes Vandalism Resistant Finishes and Strategies
• 1. Incorporate GreenPoint Checklist in Blueprints
a. Required: Incorporate GreenPoint Checklist in Blueprints
2. Operations & Maintenance Manuals I:8J a, Provide O&M Manual to Building Maintenance Staff
b. Provide O&M Manual to Occupants
3. Transit Options
a. Residents Are Offered Free or Discounted Transit Passes
4. Educational Sign age
a. Educational Signage Highlighting & Explaining the Projecfs Green Features is Included
5. Vandalism Management Plan
a. Project Includes a Vandalism Management Plan for Dealing with Disturbances Post-Occupancy
.-.. _-_._-.----+
1
I-.-.--.-.--:.-,----, ... --~_. _____ . __________ 1 .. _. __ ; _______ 1
1
1 .. . ....
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. Points will be evaluated by local jurisdiction
or GreenPoint rater.
Innovablln .Comm~lty: ,Enter up to 4 Poilts at left. Enter descripfjon hem
, ....... (
.lnncYatIJn In Ei!ergy:.Entel' up 10 4 Points at left. Ell ar,~,tkm here
'. r _ . III .. _ ~
tnrioval:kln in IAQJto! .. 1th1 Enter up k) 4 Paints at 19ft, Ellier descriPtIon herQ
il • ''''-, ,I .,'0 • .. • :> .
up 10 4 PoInts at 18ft. Enter desa1pIion here
Points Achieved from Specific Categories
Current Point Total
Project Has Met All Recommended Minimum Requirements
r ,
MF GreenPoint Checklist . 2005 Edition v.2 Page 6 01 5
November 16, 2010
City of Palo Alto Planning Division
250 Hamilton A venue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
ATTN: Ms. Elena Lee, Senior Planner
ATTACHMENT I
Submitted by Applicant
219BSjX'HISrt(l;f~f, Surm 2,OI·BtR~loU"Y; CA 94110
'1'1:.1..:(51 (»644~.31 2:3 • r."x: (510)644-3859
OEOSCIENCE & ENOINEERI/iOCONSULTINO
SUBJECT: Response to Comments of December 13, 2009 submitted by Mr. Bob Moss in
reference to the Birch Plaza Project proposed development.
Dear Ms. Lee:
You have requested that Stellar Environmental Solutions, Inc. (Stellar Environmental) respond to
Mr. Moss's December 13, 2010 comments. There are two recurring themes of concern expressed
by Mr. Moss in this and previous communications.
One is that the same standards that have been applied to the Moffett Field NPL site under the
jurisdiction and oversight of the U.S. EPA should be the same as is used in the case of this area of
Palo Alto underlain by the California-Olive-Emerson (COE) plume. The COE plume, with its
identified responsible parties ofHP/Varian, is under the regulatory oversight of the San Francisco
Bay Area Regional Water Board (Water Board) and no other regulatory agency. Mr. Moss's
observations about what has been done at Moffett Field site is not relevant, each case being
viewed independently on a site by site basis by the regulators.
The other concern expressed is about the risk of vapor intrusion. Various investigations and risk
evaluations were completed for this site, culminating .in the Water Board's peer review of the
applicant's consultant (Treadwell & Rollo) February 2010 vapor intrusion risk assessment
(VIRA). The peer review concurred with the Treadwell & Rollo VlRA that there was no vapor
intrusion risk that indicate the need for any sub-slab depressurization or other VOC vapor barrier
mitigation. The July 1, 2010 Water Board letter approval of the VlRA referencing the peer review
is attached hereto.
We trust this response clarifies the issues raised. Please contact us if you have any questions.
Richard S. Makdisi, P.G., R.E.A
Principal Geochemist & President
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
Linda S. Adams
Secretary for
Environmental
Protection
1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400, Oakland, California 94612
(510) 622-2300 • Fax (510) 622-2460
http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/sanfranciscobay
Date: July 1, 2010
File No. 43S1132 (RWP)
Hohbach Realty Company Limited Partnership
c/o Mr. Harold Hohbach Harold({~hohbachente1J.?rises.com
Hohbach Enterprises Inc.
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Arnold Schwarzenegger
Governor
SUBJECT: Approval of Phase II Site Investigation Repot and Results o/Vapor Intrusion
Model Screening (2010 Update) for 2650 and 2640 Birch Street, 305 Grant
Avenue, and 306 and 320 Sheridan Avenue, Palo Alto, Santa Clara County
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
This letter responds to the October, 2008, Phase II Site Investigation Report (Report) and the
February 4,2010, Results o/Vapor Intrusion Model Screening (2010 Update) (VI Risk
Assessment [VI RA]) submitted for the subject site on your behalf by your consultants Stellar
Environmental Solutions and Treadwell & Rollo. As explained below, I approve the Report and
VI RA and require no further action regarding site investigation .
. The Report and VI RA were submitted to the City of Palo Alto to evaluate potential vapor
intrusion concerns for the subject site. The City of Palo Alto forwarded copies of the Report and
VI RA to the Regional Water Board for review.
Report and VI RA Summaries
Report
The Report documents the results of a soil, soil gas, and groundwater investigation that was
conducted to evaluate the potential for indoor-air vapor intrusion from chlorinated volatile
organic compounds, mostly trichloroethene (TCE), off-gassing from the contaminated
groundwater beneath the site. To evaluate this potential, soil, soil gas and groundwater samples
were collected from eight locations. Soil samples were collected from approxinlately 15 feet
below ground surface (bgs). Soil gas was collected from approximately 15 feet bgs, with the
exception of borehole B2 where low-flow conditions required collecting the soil gas sample from
approximately 12 feet bgs. The grab groundwater samples were collected from approximately
19 to 27 feet bgs.
The Report indicates that TCE was detected in soil gas up to 6,400 micrograms per cubic meter
(ug/m3) and in groundwater up to 110 micrograms per liter. In seven of the eight soil gas and
Preserving, enhancing, and restoring the San Francisco Bay Area's waters for over 50 years
o Recycled Paper
-2-
groundwater samples, TeE levels were less than the Regional Water Board's May 2008
environmental screening levels (ESLs) for vapor intrusion. TeE was not detected in any of the
soil samples.
The Report concludes that TeE in groundwater and soil gas (off-gassing from the groundwater)
originated from the conlingled HPNarian plume emanating from 395 Page Mill Road (PMR).
The Report recommends:
• Avoiding construction of the building over the location of borehole B4 with the highest TeE
level detected in soil gas.
• Preparing a risk-based model to evaluate potential indoor-air vapor intrusion.
VIRA
The VI RA modeled the risk from potential indoor air vapor intrusion based on the Report
findings and used the maximum TeE detection of 6,400 ug/m3 . Based on the risk-based model,
the VI RA concluded that the:
• Potential cancer risk from vapor intrusion would be 4 x 10-7 , less than one excess cancer case
per million individuals.
• Hazard quotient would be 7.7x 10-4
, less than the threshold value of 1.0.
Water Board Response
The Report and VI RA satisfy Regional Water Board requirements. I hereby approve them and
require no further action regarding site investigation.
Please note that we do not agree with the Report statement that the source of the HPNarian
plume is located at 395 PMR. The HPNarian plume sources upgradient from the site are located
at 640 PMR and 601 California Avenue. The cited source at 395 Page Mill Road is located cross
gradient from the site and the probability of that source impacting the site is extremely low.
If you have any questions, please contact Roger Papler of my staff at (510) 622-2435 [e-mail
rpapler@waterboards.ca.gov ].
cc: Mailing List
Sincerely,
Bruce H. Wolfe
Executive Officer
MAILING LIST
Santa Clara Valley Water District
ATTN: Mr. George Cook
5150 Almaden Expressway
San Jose, CA 95118
City of Palo Alto Fire Department
ATTN: Mr. Gordon Simpkinson
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Stellar Environmental Solutions
ATTN: Mr. Richard Makdisi
2198 Sixth Street, Sutie 201
Berkeley, CA 94710
SECOR International
ATTN: Mr; Mark Becker
2301 Leghorn Street
Mountain View, CA 94043
Barron Parks Association Foundation
ATTN: Mr. Bob G. Moss
4010 Orme Street
Palo Alto, CA 94306-3136
gcookal.{valleywater.org
gordon.sitnpkinson@cityofpaloalto.org
rmakdisi@stellar-environmenta1.com
mbecker@secor.c01TI
bobgmoss@corncast.net
ATTACHMENT J
Il~~~~~~n-r"""~~~~~~rnrr.,...-r.~~
i ~. )::::.::).:;:::.')::;:.~":':::::!::::::'.":::::::::':.;: .. :;~ 6~.-·:: ~~ •.. ~;: .. ~:::::~;~/:~C:::'.'")j t ~ · .. _l··_··\ ......... ·······':";2', ........ ······,
~ ~ ~
i
~
0
-<
."
Q
~
If
i ~.
~ ..
~; -<"0
2~
.. B
~"2
~ ~
~g'
"'0 m~
0" 0
~[
g~.
~ ;;-
C!
~
~
()
~
Q,
-u
III
0-»
8'
G)
Ui
-i
~ :::T
(ii' .., 3 ~ :::.-I\)
"0 -'" iii California A venue o () I\)
"0 PTOD Boundary >.; a c.. c
!l
Q, rio
g: 0 ro
ATTACHMENT K
PLANNING &TRANSPORTATION
'DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO: PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM: Elena Lee, Senior Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: April 15, 2009
SUBJECT: 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 Information
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, designed 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 inPAMC Chapter 18.76, and subject to the
ARB finding the proj ect 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 project
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 proj ect. 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 bedroonl. 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 projects are mixed use
buildings adjacent to both non-residential and multiple family residential projects.
prOD Zone Change Amendment
The PTOD cOlTlbining district is specifically intended to foster densities and facilities that:
1. Support use of public 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 Avenue 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-st,ory 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 architecturaf
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
permitted 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 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. 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, cortnnunity 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).
Compliance 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 requirement adjustments, permitted by PAMC 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 I Reduction Revised Proposed I Conforms
Proposed Per Total
PAMe
Residential 16 20% total for 12 12 Yes
Two Joint Use
spacesltlnit (30%
2 combined
Guest spaces max)
Office 42 20% for 30 30 Yes
One space/250 Housing Near
sq.ft. Transit
(300/0
!
combined
max)
Total 60 30% 42 42 Yes
combined max
Context-Based Design Criteria Compliance Review
The project must comply with the requirements of the PTOD Combining 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 conlply 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
)
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 proj ect, as proposed,
is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning designations and would support the City's
policy obj ectives for pedestrian and transit oriented development.
TIMELINE
Application submitted:
ARB Preliminary Review
Application deemed complete:
CEQA public review period began:
Comnlission 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. P AMC 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
COlTRTESY COPIES:
David Solnick
Harold Hohbach
Prepared by: Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, Current Planning Manager ,:A
~'L-._/
",,_ ... ,....rtO" ~~y~)
DepartmentlDivision Head APproval~/:<,p ,/~' ....... __ '..--;rJ
, ,~"6" t", CUT--I
\.."
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 development 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 conlpleted 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 Conlbining
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 proj ect 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 begimling 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 proj ect, 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. Staff is
14 available to answer questions.
15
16 Mr. Curtis Williams, Interim Planning Director: Chair Garber, I just have a couple head-on
1 7 conlments.
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 ifit'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
)
1 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 proj ect.
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 environmental 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, andjust 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 bottonl 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
1 7 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 sonlething beyond what you nlight 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 number 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 d~fficult 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 envirolllllent, 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 nlay 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
1 7 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 tlus 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 turn, 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 ramps and other things because there is no parking, and I just fear that this left tunl, 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
17 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 Ijust 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 if ICs 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. Ijust
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 Commissioners. 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 not 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 ternl that the City would normally have for
23 maintaining those rentals as rentals and as affordable units. There is nothing in the staff report 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 staff report. 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 project 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 nleans 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 ajob 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 itenl. 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 tandenl 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 rezomng IS.
16
1 7 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 iri'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 ofF AR, 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 diagram 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 Project, 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 ifit 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 proj ect 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
) )
1 have to be BMR units above and beyond what are already required to be provided, but the state
2 law has been amended to preclude us from doing that.
3
4 Comnlissioner Fineberg: But relative to Comnlissioner 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 nlatch 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
1 7 Ms. Lee: The average unit sizes range fronl 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 tum 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'nllooking 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 nlean 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 similar 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 missing 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 if it 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 proj ect were just submitted under RM -40 and we may
23 not even see the proj ect.
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 Comnlissioner 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 nlaximunl 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 mininlum 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~from. 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
\ } )
J
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 nlean, 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 sonle con1fl1ents, 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. .
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 permit.
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
1 7 Chair Barger: It was going to be me but Vice-Chair Tuma has taken nly questions, both on
18 density and parking and ramps, etc. so I may come back to that, but Commissioner 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 of a 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 of a 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 of 25 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 tIns at the Alma Plaza Proj ect. 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 Holman: 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
') )
1 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 adj acent
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 problenl, 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 sonlething that is part of the planning entitlenlents.
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 minimum 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 Comnlon 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 randonl 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 of Common 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 private 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 corner, 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
1 7 Mr. Solnick: It's 25 x 40, 20 x ... okay, let nle 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 corner 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, nly 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
1 7 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 number are tandem, or not, then we can make sure that this happens with the details that
4 mo~e 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 tandem spaces being labeled. So that's a problem.
10
11 Mr. Solnick: It's just a labeling problenl 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 some other way. You can put so many things. There's
16 something in computer 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 nlany 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 most 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 ... ifit's RM-40,
46 does it conform to that zoning? .
Page 24
) )
1
2 Ms. Lee: Staffwill have to confirm, but we believe it is a multi-family zoning. That area in
3 general is multifamily zoning.
4
5 Commissioner Fineberg: There is the one lot that would make this a rectangular parcel.
6
7 Ms. Lee: It's RM-40.
8
9 Commissioner Fineberg: The reason I ask that is that this is identical in size to the one on the
10 subj ect 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 project.
19
20 I'm struggling to find some benefit to the City, something that makes it more consistent with the
21 Comprehensive Plan. Can Staff comment on how this is better than if the project were to be
22 done in strict conformance with RM-40? I'm not getting that yet.
23
24 Chair Barger: It may help if Staff could address the inclusion of the residential in the Purpose
25 Statement. The Purpose Statement misses the direct reference to some of the other mixed-use
26 qualities of this district and the intents that the City has with this district is supposed to address.
27
28 Mr. Williams: Yes, and that's one of the statements that I made early on about the amount of
29 office that was proposed. Certainly, it's true that in having to try to accomplish higher densities
30 (and this is higher densities than what is out there, but it's not much, but it's on top of office use)
31 it's not just a residential component. This zoning district does encourage mixed-use, too, so I
32 think this site is not going to do a lot for the housing thing. Other sites will do a lot for housing.
33 This one furthers the mixed-use and getting some more employment out there, and it doesn't do
34 much for the housing. If this were that every property were coming in like this, that would be a
35 concern. But, I think that we are going to have a variety of different types of mixes or some sites
36 that, if they are RM-40,and they wanted to do residential, they can just do it under.RM-40. And
37 there are a number of sites out here that are zoned GM and other industrial and commercial uses
38 that will find it more beneficial to use this zoning for residential and accommodating residential
39 on those sites.
40
41 I think this furthers the goals in terms of mixed-use and providing some employment. It does not
42 strongly further the goals of housing here. It is, again in going back, originally proposed that it
43 did have more of an emphasis on housing. The Comprehensive Plan has this 2000-foot radius
44 circle around the transit station and designates it not PTOD, but Transit Oriented Residential, so
45 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
1 0 [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 some 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 project 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
10 be 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 deternlined 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 of a verb. Developers ask each other, "Can you park it?" It's a new use of the word
1 7 "park," and what it means is, "Can you put in that many units? Does the Parking Ordinance
18 allow it?"
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 project 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 nlake it residential. Weare 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 problem 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 SB1818, I have understood on the past that the project 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 conlparably what size buildings could be built with an RM-40, compared 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 adjacent 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 comment 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. fu 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 am 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.
17 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 seem like 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 ifit's near transit, and people
5 leave their cars at honle. 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 nlyself, and then Conlffiissioner Fineberg.
12
13 Vice-Chair Tuma: I'm, to some extent, having some of the similar types of struggles that
14 Commissioner Holman was talking about, except I sort ofcome 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 conlffient 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 smaller. 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 putting in 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 nurrlber 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
) )
1 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 proj ect 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 of housing, 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 project 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 Commissioner Keller that the parking reduction is not consistent with the use
15 of tandem 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
1 7 the parking spaces that would be for the offices or a menlber 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 seenlS like heavy
35 traffic, 10-15 feet from a busy intersection. While the developer nlay 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 Coil1missioner
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'm 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 Commissioner 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 Commissioner 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 theit
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 PAMC." 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 combined 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 commercial, 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 AMENDMENT
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 nlax.
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 commercial perspective, the office space on the main floor
39 makes complete 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 proj ections 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 ternlS 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, number one, I think this is a well thought out project and the office space
10 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 development 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 of30 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 nlany 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 project 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
17 some flexibility 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 support 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 Ijust reminded myself by 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 Commissioner 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 Commissioner 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 ofa 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 Holman: Thank you, and does Staff want to comment on that, because even if it
'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 if it is coming off where 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 safely 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 recomnlendation 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 Comnlissioner Holman: 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 ifit 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 pemlitted?
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
1 7 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 nleet 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 nlany 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, tIus 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 Con1ffiissioner 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 in 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'nl 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,
1 7 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 from 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. Willianls: 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 legally-
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 offofGrant.
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 Staffhas 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 major 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 Co:m.t.i1ission, or revise
25 the project to reduce the square footage or the number 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 RM-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. Ifwe 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 anl 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 Comnlissioner 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 If we 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 moving 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 Comnlissioner 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 nlust 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 maximunl
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 aU the other tandem spaces will probably be more used by RVs 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
Sheridan Residents
For a Livable Neighborhood
Oppose Change from. RM-48 to PTOD
For Blreh Plaza
Attachment L
Nov 3,2010
We oppose rezoning 2650 Birch, Birch Plaza, from RM-40 to a Pedestrian and Transit
Oriented Development,(pTOD).
We live at 360 Sheridan Ave, The Sheridan is a senior community, adjacent to this proposed
zoning change.
Our primary objection to the project is the inadequate proposed parkfug. The parking situation at
The Sheridan is severe, 57 units which only 19 parking spaces .. Only 19 spaces were
provided because it was thought that seniors don't drive. There are no spaces for vis~tors, no
spaces for people who work here, no places for home health care workers who delivers services
to seniors here and at least 10 people are waiting for a parking space, thus there is a 24/7/365
lack of street parking. With the addition of the proposed PTOD with its inadequate parking, a
severe problem to becomes untenable. Fifty-four (54) residents have signed and submitted a
petition asking that the re-zoping be denied.
By having a PTOD, Mr. Hohbach will reduce a required 60 parking spaces to 42, a loss of 18
parking spaces. The empty portion of the proposed project at the comer of Birch and Sheridan
is currently used as makeshift parking for overflow parking from Mr. Bohbach's
Courthouse Plaza. On any given day 25 to 30 cars, trucks and Rvs parked there. Once Birch
Plaza is built, where will there vehicles park?
Adding up a definite loss of 18 parking spaces by re-zoning to an average of 25 to 30 cars ~nd
trucks on the makeshift parking lot, the loss of 2 parking spaces on Grant for the garage
entrance plus at least 10 residents of The Sheridan with cars but no parking, totals at least 55
vehicles (18+25+2+10) looking for a place to park.
The zoning change will overwhelm the neighborhood with cars driving around looking a place to
park and make walking in the neighborhood difficult and dangerous.
In conversations with Mr. Bohbach, he said that "if I think it bad here, consider what San
Francisco residents have to deal with."
Turning Palo Alto into San Francisco where parking is impossible and walking unsafe is not the
way to go.
A firm NO to rezoning from a RM-40 to PTOD until the parking issue is adequately
addressed.
theSheridanResidents@gmaiLcom
The Sheridan Residents
The Math
Net Result of Re-Zoning
Residential
Two
t spaces/unit
1 " L Guest s~aces
Office
One spacel2S0
sq.ft ..
Total
Required
16
2
42
60
BirchPfODPJ.atA.pdf, Page 6
Table 1
Reduction. I. Revised
Proposed Per' Total
PAMC
200/0 total for J 12
lointUse
(30%
combined
max)
20% for
Housing N'ear
Transit
(30%
combined
nlax)
300/0
combined max
30
42
Required 60 PTOD reduces to 42 Loss of
Loss of Comer lot( 25-30 on average)
Loss for Grant Garage Entrance
The Sheridan current needs at least
Proposed Confonns
12 I Yes
30 I Yes
42 I Yes
18 Parking Spaces
25 Parking Spaces
2 Parking Spaces
10 Parking SJ!aces
BOTTOM LINE
MINIMUM Net Shortage 55 Parking§paces
Nov 3, 2010
Comments on Mitigated Negative Declaration, 305 Grant, 2640 & 2650 Birch, 306 & 320
Sheridan Ave., 08-PLN-00182
December 13, 2009
This MND is incomplete, inaccurate, and fails to mitigate any of the existing conditions at this
site due to the well-known presence of high concentrations of toxic Volatile Organic Compounds
in the ground water and soil. Standard requirements by EPA and DTSC for mitigation of new
commercial and residential developments in Superfund sites are ignored. Taken in it's entirety
this MND is an unacceptable document. It must be rejected and a full EIR prepared that
adequately and completely addresses the toxics, health hazards, and required mitigations.
The MND should be rejected as inadequate and replaced with an EIR because preparing and
reviewing an MND, particularly one so erroneous as this, does not comply with CEQA, and does
not adequately protect public health and safety, particularly for a site such as this with residential
occupancy over part of the 640 Page Mill COE Superfund site. Mitigation of VOC is ignored,
and there are no vapor barriers or Vapor hltrusion Mitigation System. No measurements of indoor
VOC levels are proposed in the residential part of the development or anywhere else, in serious
violation of EP A guidelines. "
The most significant VOC in the contaminated aquifer and the soil below the area proposed for
this development is trichloroethylene (TCE) that attacks the liver and kidneys, is a known
carcinogen, and is a suspected cause of Parkinson's disease and autoimmune disorders such as
Crohn disease, multiple sclerosis, and rheumatoid arthritis. No efforts are made to control this
VOC nor to perform any tests or verification of the indoor air to assure safe TCE concentrations.
A few examples of problems with tIns MND are noted below.
In mitigation G 1 the corrective action is not to build the above ground building over the B4
sample area where soil gas concentration is 6400 ug/m3 of TCE or more than 50% greater than
the normal Environmental Screening Level of 4,100 ug/m3 for commercial spaces. The ESL for
residential development is even lower, 1,000 ug/m3 for TCE in soil gas. The underground garage
apparently will be built over this B4 location, putting the base of the garage a few feet from the
high levels of TCE in the soil. There is a high probability the TCE will penetrate the garage, "after
which it can disperse to any part of the building, including the residential units, especially since
there are neither vapor barrier membranes nor a Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System(VIMS).
Many aspects of the design and lack of on-going indoor air monitoring violate normal"practices as
applied by EPA and DTSC. Proper mitigation would prohibit any structure in the vicinity of
sample site B4, either an underground garage or above grade commercial or residential
occupancy and would require both a membrane vapor intrusion barrier and an active sub-slab
VIMS with regular indoor air monitoring for TCE and other undesirable VOCs.1
Section G2 cites the risk model as saying the underground garage separates the housing from the
plume. In fact an underground garage connects the directly to greatly increases the probability
that VOC in the groundwater and soil will enter the building. This was demonstrated when a
number of residential buildings at Moffett Field were tested for indoor TCE levels. Building with
basements that came in contact with or were close to the aquifer had significantly higher levels of
TCE indoors than those on slab. Depth of the garage is not given. How deep would the garage
1 EPA Proposed Plan to Address Vapor Intrusion Pathways at NIEW Site and Moffett Field in Mountain
View, July 2009
be? Typically this developer proposes garage excavation depths in the range of 14 feet to 16feet,
which at this site will put the garage close to the aquifer. If the garage penetrates the
contaminated aquifer the concentration of VOCs inside the building are significantly higher than
when there is no contact between the underground garage and the aquifer.
There are several monitoring wells near this property. One, F34A, is at Grant and Birch directly
across Birch from the site. In 2005 depth to the aquifer was 17 feet in F34A with TCE
concentration of 58 ug/L. If the concentration of TCE in groundwater exceeds 50 ug/L, future
residential construction should include both a membrane vapor intrusion barrier and an active
sub-slab membrane/depressurization system with regular indoor air monitoring.1
Any garage deeper than 13 feet will bring the bottom of the excavation close to the contaminated
ground water and probably will result in significant indoor air contamination. The MND ignores
the depth of the garage, the presence of contaminated groundwater and the depth to the aquifer.
Is the garage open to the atmosphere or mostly underground, with openings only at the entrances?
If the latter the probability of VOCs entering occupied spaces above is significantly increased.
The project does not include vapor barriers or Vapor Intrusion Mitigation System (VIMS), either
passive or the preferred active sub-slab system These vapor barriers are standard practice when
either commercial/industrial or residential structures are built over a contaminated site such as
this one in the COE area. EPA insists on such vapor barriers for any new construction over
contaminated sites such as this, and considers them to be essential to protect the health of site
occupants. Without such vapor barriers public health and safety is seriously at risk. Occupants at
the site, especially in residential units will be at high risk of contracting some of the serious
illnesses known to be associated with TCE.
Since there are no vapor barriers there is no mention of testing the indoor air for concentrations of
VOCs, especially TCE. EPA and other agencies consider it standard practice to test indoor air in
the commercial and residential spaces regularly and over an extended period, at least 5 to 10
years to verify that the vapor barriers and other prevention measures remain effective in
preventing intrusion of TCE from the contaminated soil and groundwater. No such testing is
proposed for this project, another violation of standard practices as defined by EPA and DTSC.
Supposedly vapor intrusion is mitigated by the presence of the underground garage and the office
on the lowest level. Underground garages increase the probability of TCE intrusion into the
structure, and the mass of the building reduces the distance between the garage floor and the
plume of TCE. The TCE plume is pushed towards the surface of the ground by the mass of the
structure, making it more likely TCE will pass into the building. In fact, and as has been
demonstrated at the Mountain View MEW Superfund site, which is very similar in characteristics
and properties to the COE site, and at Orion Park in Moffett Field, unless there are effective
vapor barriers the TCE vapors will enter the building via the garage or floor slab preferentially
following transmittal portals such as cracked slab, elevator shafts, ~tairways, and utility pipelines.
The MND fails to recognize or acknowledge these serious threats to public health that will be
caused by the current design proposal. At a minimum the garage and occupied above-ground
structures must have adequate vapor barriers as discussed above. Presence of a garage must be
reconsidered since it will be very near the aquifer and can enhance TCE penetration into the
building. A full EIR is required since this development is over the COE Superfund site and it is
clear that mitigations are required and alternates for development must be carefully studied,
evaluated, and implemented. Significant changes to the design are required for protection against
TCE intrusion by addition of proper vapor intrusion barriers. There must be adequate long-term
indoor air sampling and verification that there is no intrusion of TCE into the spaces occupied by
residential or commercial uses. Corrective actions must be taken if concentrations of VOCs
exceed the generally approved safe levels. The plans must be changed to assure meeting these
needs. Even if the developer opposes an EIR, or claims that this proposed project is all that will
ever be built on this property, a full EIR still is required to address the health and safety issues
adequately and to evaluate needed corrective actions such installation of vapor barrier
membranes, active sub-slab depressurization, and elimination of all underground parking, or
eliminating the underground garage near the area with high soil gas readings for TCE. These
necessary changes in underground parking spaces will reduce the allowable size of the overall
project, preferably the office component.
Another major problem is the amount of commercial space proposed on the site. This is the first
development under the PrOD zone that was developed by staff and the Planning &
Transportation Commission after years of study and discussion. The intent of the PTOD zone is
to increase residential developments near transit hubs and help to reduce the jobs/housing
imbalance in Palo Alto. The proposal is for 8 housing units, a net increase of only 5 units since
there are 3 small homes on the site. The maximum FAR allowed for commercial or office use in
PrOD is 0.25 in order to emphasize housing, not commercial development in the zone. This
project has an office FAR of 0.57 because the developer does not believe the 0.25 FAR limit is
reasonable. How nice of this particular developer to insist upon overruling regulations for PrOD
zoning that were carefully crafted by the professional staff and the Planning & Transportation
Commission. If the excess office FAR is approved the potential number of jobs at the site could
be more than 40, far exceeding the 8 housing units and making this PrOD project a source of
greater, not less, jobslhousing imbalance. This is another reason why the current proposal is
inappropriate and should be denied.
Bob Moss
40100rme St.
Palo Alto CA 94306
From: Morariu, Kelly
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 4:37 PM
To: Williams, Curtis
Subject: FW: July 6,2009, Council Meeting, Item #18: 305 Grant; 2640 & 2650 Birch; and 306 & 320 Sheridan
FYI
Kelly McAdoo Morariu
Assistant to the City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
650-329-2452 phone
650-325-5025 fax
kel'y.morariu@cityofpa'oalto.org
From: herb borock [mailto:herb_borock@hotmail.com]
Sent: Monday, July 06, 2009 4:35 PM
To: Council, City; Clerk, City
Subject: July 6, 2009, Council Meeting, Item #18: 305 Grant; 2640 & 2650 Birch; and 306 & 320 Sheridan
Herb Borock
P. O. Box 632
Palo Alto, CA 94302
July 6, 2009
Palo Alto City Council
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
JULY 6, 2009, CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Page lof5
305 GRANT AVENUE, 2640 AND 2660 BIRCH STREET, AND 306 AND 320 SHERIDAN AVENUE
Dear City Council:
Staff recommends Council (1) adopt the proposed project by granting a
concession or incentive for increased office Floor Area Ratio (FAR), and (2)
approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration that has not been circulated to the
7/8/2009
State Regional Water Quality Control Board as required by the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
Page 2 of5
I urge you to deny approval of the proposed project and the proposed Mitigated
Negative Declaration (MND)/ because based on substant evidence:
1. The proposed project has a Potentially Significant Impact on the
environment due to hazardous materials that has not been mitigated/ and because
a fair argument can be made that an Environmental Impact Report is required.
2. The MND has not been circulated to the Regional Water Quality Control
Board and the State Clearinghouse for the required minimum 30-day period.
3. The MND does not evaluate the whole project that includes the proposed
Tentative Map and the Below Market Rate (BMR) agreement between the City and
the applicant.
4. The project does not fulfill the requirement of Housing Program H-29
,that requires the provision of 25% BMR units.
5. There is no Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
6. Building the underground parking garage out to the property boundaries
fails to provide adequate soil for healthy tree growth.
7. The project is not entitled to a reduction of parking spaces/ because
the cumulative effect of this project and others in the immediate neighborhood
requires more parking spaces than a project with the same uses and floor area
would normally require.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED;
REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD DID NOT RECEIVE MND
The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment and the Phase II Site Investigation
Report evaluate hazardous materials beneath the site's ground surface located
in the COE [California-Olive-Emerson] HP/Varian plume/ but perform an
evaluation only for hazards in ground water.
That is the same evaluation error made in the environmental review of the
project at 195 Page Mill Road that evaluated hazards in ground water, but did
not evaluate hazards in the soil.
Further/ the only bore holes drilled are on the perimeter of the site.
No bore holes were drilled in the area that would be beneath the project's
footprint, which is the area of the project site that most likely would be the
source of any hazardous waste impacting the project's residents and office
tenants, and that would most likely to disclose the presence of hazardous
waste generated by former occupants of the site.
The court in Santa Clara County Superior Court Case #107CV-078386 found that
additional environmental review was necessary the project at 195 Page Mill
Road that is a short distance from the current project and that is above the
7/8/2009
Page 3 of5
same COE HP/Varian plume, because the State Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) stated that "more environmental documentation was required to
deal with the potential threat to human health from Volatile Organic
Compounds ('VOCs') known to be in the soil at the Project site", and that
members of the public "may very well have argued in response that confirmation
of VOCs in the soil required the preparation of an EIR."
For the current project, the RWQCB was not notified of the project, and the
environmental evaluation considered only ground water, but not soil.
The failure to circulate the MND to the RWQCB, and the failure to evaluate the
presence of hazardous waste in the soil beneath the project are both violations
of CEQA and prejudicial abuses of discretion.
The analysis already done of the same hazardous waste plume beneath the nearby
site at 195 Page Mill Road provides substantial evidence that the same
unmitigated Potentially Significant Effect exists for the current project and!
therefore, an Environmental Impact Report required.
WHOLE PROJECT NOT CONSIDERED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
CEQA requires the MND or EIR to evaluate the whole project, and CEQA Regulation
15378 defines "project" as "the whole of an action, which has a potential for
resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment! or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment."
The BMR agreement and the Tentative Map are part of the "project" that must be
evaluated in the same MND or EIR as the rest of the project that is before the
Council for this agenda item.
Breaking up the project into~pieces deprives the public the opportunity to
review and comment on the proposed BMR agreement and Tentative Map at the time
you are required to make a decision about the environmental assessment and
project.
Piecemealing the project in this fashion is a prejudicial abuse of discretion
and a violation of CEQA.
Recall that the same applicant, Harold Hohbach, for his project at 195 Page
Mill Road, first obtained approval for a rental project that
included concessions and incentives pursuant to Government Code 65915, based on
an environmental assessment that omitted that project's BMR agreement and
Tentative Map, and then submitted a tentative map for a for-sale project and
negotiated a BMR agreement with staff to change the income category of the
target population for that project's BMR units.
PROJECT VIOLATES HOUSING PROGRAM H-29
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Housing Program H-29 limits the removal of rental
units by a subdivision or condominium "unless there is a significant net gain
of housing or a replacement of rental units or affordable units. The program
applies to the most recent umber of rental units on the site whether or not
7/8/2009
Page 4 of5
they have been demolished. All units after the first unit are considered
rentals. "
Program H-29 requires the project meet at lest two of three circumstances:
1. Produce at least a 100 per cent increase in the number units currently
on the site.
2. Provide at least the same number of rental units as the number
currently on the site.
3. Provide at least 25% BMR units.
There are three rental houses currently on the site. Therefore, two units are
considered rentals for Housing Program H-29.
The project provides eight residential units, which meets condition #1 above,
because eight is more than a 100 per cent increase over the number of units
currently on the site.
The project is a for-sale project. ,Therefore, it does not meet condition #2
above.
The project provides only one BMR unit out of a total of eight units, or 12.5%
BMR units. Therefore, the project does not meet condition #3 above, which
requires 25% BMR units, or two BMR units out of eight total units.
The project violates the Comprehensive Plan, because it violates Program H-29.
Violating the Comprehensive Plan is a violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse
of discretion.
INSUFFICIENT PARKING
Page 3 of 4 of the property owner's information form in Appendix A of the Phase
I Environmental Site Assessment says the "parcel at 320 Sheridan Ave was
demolished for surface parking for the office building at 260 Sheridan Ave."
The proposed project would remove parking needed for an existing office
building, which creates a Potentially Significant Effect that has not been
discussed in the MND and has not been mitigated.
The need for extra parking for the office building at 260 Sheridan Avenue
provides substantial evidence that the proposed project needs more than the
normal amount of parking.
Instead, the proposed project would provide less than the normally required
amount of parking by assuming that the total parking can be used by adoption of
two discretionary parking reduction formulas.
The office uses in the proposed project would normally require 42 parking
spaces, which is the total parking spaces proposed for the combined office and
residential project.
7/8/2009
Page 5 of5
Essentially, the project is providing zero residential parking spaces, when it
needs additional parking spaces above the normal 42 spaces required for the
office uses alone based on the substantial evidence of the parking history of
260 Sheridan Avenue.
Failure to evaluate and mitigate the Potentially Significant Parking deficit is
a violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of discretion.
INSUFFICIENT SOIL FOR HEALTH TREE GROWTH
The underground parking garage for the proposed project extends to the property
boundaries.
At the August 6, 2008, preliminary Architectural Review Board hearing, Board
Member Alexander Lew expressed his expert opinion that extending the garage to
the property line would adversely impact the project's tree plantings, because
the garage would prevent the project from providing sufficient soil for health
tree growth.
That Potentially Significant Impact has not been addressed in the MND and has
not been mitigated, which is a violation of CEQA and a prejudicial abuse of
discretion.
Thank you for your consideration of these comments.
Sincerely,
Herb Borock
Lauren found her dream laptop. Find the PC that's right for you,
7/8/2009
,'")
Betten, Zariah
From: Joe A Villareal [joe.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 andlor perhaps
because numerous times we have requested that he do something about using this the comer 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 of th 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 homeowner at 350 Grant Avenue 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
650322-1766
I t
FOR THE _",,-f?_Ti_C._MEETlNG.
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 residentia.! street. ~ 6 P
s-. ()b.'ee+ 1-0 fk~e-rr'-flltJn ~k~d~ ~. b(Y~
Name Address
)
The Sheridan Residents
Petition for a Livable N eighhorhood
No Change from RM40 to PTOD
For Birch Plaza
We are residents of The Sherid an at 360 Sherid an /\.ven ue , a 57-unit senior
housing complex with just 19 parking spaces, strongly oppose rezoning Bir ch
Plaza (305 Grant, 2640 and 2650 Birch and 206 and 320 Sheridan) to a
:Pedestrian and Tran sit ()ricn tcd :D cvclopment (P T()D). In effect, thi s zon ing
will REDUCE parki ng spaces per square foot of developed structures. Exactly
the opposite needs to occur in our neighborhood where on-street parking is already
100% janmled 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 sonlething 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 fronl 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 m~ke parking easier, thus increasing traffic
1
hazards and threatening pedestrian safety. RECEIVED
theSheridanResidents@gmail.com
JUL J 12009
Department of Planning &.
.Commu!,ity ~nl(lr9nm e nt
) )
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. Rohback'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.
W e t h us requ est CouncH to deny th.e proposed cban ge in zoni ng for 405 Birch
fro!]] RM-40 to a P T (JI) 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 PTOD -
Name
N Last First Apt
1 Bellairs Daphne 110
2 Berman Abe 216
3 Berman David 209
4 Berman Sylvia 216
5 Cannon Joan 307
6 Cardenas Hector 206
7 Cardenas Victoria 206
8 Caruso Leona 116
9 Chen Pei 310
f Chizari ~ 305
Chou Charlie 204
12 Chou Grace 204
13 D anI gren 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 Pg 2 of3
Oppose Zoning Change
of Birch Plaza
305 Grant Ave.,
2640 2650 Birch Str.
and 306 320 Sheridan Ave.
D
Name
N Last First Apt
Loie
Bronislav
Lidia
Helena
25 Keyes Bud
26 K11azan 316
27 Kwan Kum 114
28 Lawson Maxine 105
29 Lee Yunwu 203
30 Orsllansky Yevgel1iy 214
31 Paleologos Marie 312
32' Peeples Henry 115
33 Pounaki 308
34 Pshansky Marina 214
35 Quesada Charles 112
36 Rapoport Alex 318
37 Scott 108
38 Scott Mabel 103
39 Seribner Muriel 314
40 Silva Mona 104
theSheridanResidents@gmail.com
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 PTO D -
Name
N Last First Apt
41 Slocum Jean 311
42 Sorokina AlIa 219
43 Thomas James 107
44 Tong Gladys 313
45 Trofimenko Nikolay 219
46 Villareal Joe 101
47 Vogel Penny 117
48 Wang I Mun-Fai 202
1491 Ward Maggie 218
50 Wyer Melissa 303
51 Xue Pei 201
52 Yeatman Vivian 317
53 Zhu Pei 208
theSheridanResidents@gmail.com
Pg 3 of3
-..
~
~
~ ,--
~
V) , ~
~
\ ~ ~ \:r ~ '" ~ g; ~ 1~ -tf)
~ ~ 3 \~ f"\J ~ .~. ~ 'fl. ~ ~ ~ ) ( \
\ "n ~ ~ ~ \ i ~ i:'-~ ~ \.$ \J) {)'\ ~ ~ ~,. ~ tA {'(\ ~ ('(\ ~
dj "
~ ~ ~ c " ~ ......>
('lD \)y) rJ'>
I}~ -~ J
~ r '" ~ ~
r4 ~
.-'" 00
~
f ~
III
\!
4:;
-~ ':J
JIIIIIIII!I! U
.~ (
«t ~ Jl ~
\
~ ~ \ / ,-< 0 ~
r
? ~ ~ I i !1 ); -,) <:r .l}i .~ ~ '<\;. -:s-.....t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::t: ~ '" .Jl "' ....
("'() '~ ?t ~ (1.) ~ {)<J ,\{'-.-.:'!r <Y) ~ ~ == <i --~ -:> ~ \)' ~-'r ~ e V---i ~ """-\ l ~ I \ ?:J ~ --.. 0 ) ~ « <) ~ ...... .:'.) C'! "" ~ f\, e)a ('() ~) .r(\
.....n
=1:1: ~ <)-~ ..... ~ ~ ------... -< c:.:;
~ .~ rt "---...... ~
N ame
M-4< r ) I
1 '-GJ,..p~ p~,;:;") r~ 'C.
-"------;v
/VI' ko/~'t TroJ / WfQVlJ-vO
.4 I / C~ S ~ V'C] J,~ .... / /:'1 w
/6 rOn/s /CI V ,I( arC'A? c" 1-", ~"l ,.
c<-Karoc /'/7( (,..;)
Apt #
....{ ·a ..,..'1 /0
2 if g
, ..... ') .-:! -f I..;
2 //
2//
Yevq:t:'tVi~~ Orsh()/V'<:J~Y I 2ty
Q / /
l'1arlN() 'lJoro She/llt<o I 21Y
Ph one
'2 ") . . it ,.."\""
' .. J ").. ,,-} ..... ~ '.'. l .. ~"" ./ "".">. ~~' $." V t.. '~¢' ~ .'
/""'/ .. ' . ..,-~)tf b '-1~ 3 ?
~b{;··!~3 ::S~
.3' d /' -,,"P t( _. ..
32 ?""-!lC .9./
325"-ig 11
325 ... /~1(
E-Mail
------. ..
~ Signatnre
rl~~L'-
,,-LL 'f~p ~~ .~~' ?tf,( .... ~) . LL if!-r;'h"':
~~ ~7 -'"="_
/., ..... -.. -~-~ ..... -.,,~". / ... ,.,...., ,
c.:'"~
(,,/ Ie···· / '"'~"~ /".-c''''''' /7 p;:;.)." t:.... ." I""'-I:..{.,. ~ .. ". I' A:-.~
({):./~-&A .'.-p
~ if
#
~
) )
t'< ~ i~
~ ~
('.. ~) = .~ M ~ l(
e ~ 9 '0 ~
f ~ ~, }..n
c f; ~ ~ ~ \t
fi' ff')
:;t: \.9 , "J
t-\ ........ ............... ~
.~
<::::> ---
--~ ~ \ ( f
Q .i
.-fl '"' " ,~ ~ ". \)-< <-l -\)(.
l V t ~ {
~
.~
0 \(
£:)...0 . \'fj
r \:(
0 K:)
C
~'"'--• ....,t -
P , .. I .•. f.J .•. ·, .... ~ .... ~ ......••..... ~ ......... .
i •. ~ •.... ' .~ .. " .... \ f ."X. ~
)
,.A
/---
":;>
~ ~
W
~)
\\('
.~
}
0-
c{
~,")
~
c::::,
...........
~ 4 r4
~ ~, .
, ....• 1 I. ~ (\$,
. .j
~
;f
il)
~
'< ~
< -.l. ::s::. ~
'.....sl
.~
~
~
l
..a
~
..-{j
~ --~
-l w
\..b ~
0 {..:
~. + v
.(
@
\
~
a ctJ ~ ~ -zr... ~. ~ ~
;::t: ~~ .'-"
.~ ~ ~ ~~ ~
~ .~ ~
\),
\ I \ ,
~ ~. N
'" (Y) f', r()
.<:;-~ ---~ -...
.~ ri
~ ~ . N:::
lo ",-\'
LYJ... ... ..". ft-c-~ ,
.!i
fi
;;r
If)
~,
},
r{"
~u
~\;
~
~
~
~ r
)
/ I ,
)
,/
Attachment M
Birch Street PTOD R,ezoning Proposal
Links to Related Documents
1. April 15, 2009 PTC Staff Report and Attachments
http://www.cityofpaloalto.orglcivicalfilebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=15412
2. August 7, 2008 ARB Staff Report and Attachments
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicalfilebanklblobdload.asp?BlobID=13097
3. Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.34 PTOD Combining District Regulations
http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicalfilebank/blobdload.asp?BlobID=13770