HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-27 City Council (3)City of Palo Alto
City M nager’s Summary Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
6
FROM:CITY ~[ANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING &
COI~E~I~NITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:SEPTEMBER 27, 2004 CMR: 422:04
SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL OF REQUEST BY
COURT HOUSE PLAZA COMPANY FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A
PROPERTY AT 195 PAGE ~VHLL ROAD AN~ 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891, AND
2901 PARK BOULEVARD VIA A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TO MIXED USE, AND A
REZONE FROM THE EXISTI~NG GM(B) DISTRICT TO A PLANNED
COMMUNITY FOR A FOUR STORY BUILDING WITH GROUND
FLOOR RETAIL AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT SPACE
TOPPED BY THREE LEVEL RESIDENTIAL APARTMENTS TOTALING
177 UNITS, PLUS A SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND
RELATED SITE ~IPROVEMENTS INCLUDING THE USE AND
LANDSCAPING OF THE ADJACENT SECTION OF PAGE MILL ROAD.
FILE NUMBERS 03-PC-01, 04-CPA-01, 03-EIA-18.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) and staff recommend
that the Council deny the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment and
Planned Community (PC) project and allow the applicant the opportunity to
submit a new application. A draft record of land use action is attached
(Attachment A) for Council denial of the project.
DISCUSSION
The Planned Community application process set forth in Palo Alto Municipal
Code Section 18.68.065 requires a preliminary review by the Commission to allow
discussion of major policy issues prior to reviewing more specific details of a
project. For the initial public meeting, plans are to be preliminary and the
environmental analysis is not yet prepared. Technical documents, such as traffic
reports, remain in draft form.
CMR: 422:04 Page i of 10
This~two-step review by the Commission allows the Commission to provide their
comm~ents~ and direction to the applicant prior to the next public hearing. If the
Commission is generally in favor of the project concept and land uses, the next
review body is the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and an environmental
document is prepared for public review. In this case, the Commission voted not to
recommend the project; therefore, the next public hearing review body is the City
Council.
The project as proposed is described in the attached Planning and Transportation
Commission report (Attachment F). It would require a Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to "Mixed Use" to allow the residential density and mix of uses. The
PC rezoning was requested to allow the project to exceed allowable density,
maximum floor area ratio, maximum building height, minimum building setbacks,
maximum site coverage, and reductions in the required amount of common and
private open space.
The Commission identified their concerns about the project, as set forth in the
draft record of land use action, provided later in this report and in meeting minutes
(Attachment G). Briefly, the concerns include the project’s inconsistency with
Comprehensive Plan policies, impacts to the neighborhood, density, mass and
height, setbacks and open space, access and parking, and public benefits.
If the City Council concurs with staff and the Commission and denies this
application without prejudice, the applicant could submit a new application
addressing issues discussed by staff and the Commission. The project could be
revised to include: (a) only residential use in conformance with the existing
Transit Oriented Residential land use designation, with densities not exceeding 50
units per acre as currently defined in the Comprehensive Plan, or (b) a mix of uses,
with a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use with
residential and non-residential not exceeding a 2.0 Floor Area Ratio in areas
adjacent to transit corridors or 3.0 in areas resistant to revitalization as defined in
the Comprehensive Plan.
The following information is provided to elarify and discuss in ~eater detail
project related information as reported in the Commission report and/or presented
at the Commission meeting.
Comprehensive Plan Desi_~nation
The applicant is basing the proposed density of 50 units per acre on the existing
Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Transit Oriented Residential. This
designation would be applicable only to residential projects within walking
distance (2,000 feet) from a Caltrain station. Although the project site is
approximately 1600 feet from the California Avenue Caltrain station, the project
CMR: 422:04 Page 2 of i0
as proposed does not qualify for this land use designation because it includes non-
residential floor area; specifically, research and development (approximately
46,000 square feet) and some retail (2,000 square feet). The Mixed Use land
designation is proposed to allow the Research and Development use.
The project’s research and development component would not be compatible with
the proposed Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development (P/TOD) zone district,
which the Comprehensive Plan anticipates and the new zoning ordinance will
implement. The Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) team is bringing this new
P/TOD to Council later this year. Attachment K to this report provides the ZOU
Issues Paper for the new zone district, prepared by the City’s consultant Van Meter
Williams and Pollock. The paper identified key issues and Comprehensive Plan
Policies for the development of this new land and these were presented to the
Council at a joint study session with the Planning and Transportation Commission
in July 2003.
The PFFOD zone district would allow residential and retail developments with an
emphasis on designs that are conducive to pedestrians. Allowable densities would
be up to 50 units per acre, maximum building heights would be 50 feet, with
shared and/or reduced parking standards. Specific development standards (such as
required setbacks) could be site-specific, with a strong reliance on Architectural
Review Board review for design compatibility with surrounding development. A
major emphasis of the P/TOD land use would be on mixture and type of
residential housing with commercial uses that support the development and
surrounding area. The development standards would support designs that promote
a pedestrian environment, including ~ound floor neighborhood serving retail and
residences that have a street entry emphasis.
Building Height and Daylight Plane
The maximum allowable building height in the GM(B) Zone district is 50 feet.
An additional fifteen feet of height is allowed for rooftop mechanical and elevator
equipment and screening. The proposed building measures approximately 49’-4"
to the top of the roof and 51’-0" to the top of the parapet. A 15’ tall mechanical
equipment enclosure, located on the roof at the intersection of Park Boulevard and
Page Mill Road, would meet the additional height allowance. The combination of
building parapet and the equipment screen produces a height of 66 feet tall for a
distance of 22 feet.
For a mixed use project within the GM(B) zone district, the residential portion
could not exceed a height of 35 feet or a daylight plane restriction in accordance
with PAMC Section 18.55.070(2), which references use of the RM-30 district
standards for the residential portion.
CMR: 422:04 Page 3 of l0
The proposed project would exceed the maximum allowable building height by
approximately 16 feet and would project beyond the required daylight plane at
each side and rear property line for the full length of the structure.
As a comparison, the Agilent Technologies building located on the opposite side
of Park Boulevard at 395 Page Mill Road is 45 feet tall as measured to the top of
the parapet. A seven-foot tall rooftop mechanical equipment screen brings the
building to an overall height of 52 feet. This overall height is 1 foot taller than a
portion of the proposed project, but 14 feet shorter than the comer of the proposed
project, where the equipment screen would be located.
Floor Area Ratio
The total Floor Area Ratio of the proposed project is 2.35 (258,282 square feet).
The maximum allowable floor area (FAR) for nonresidential land uses in the
GM(B) zone district is .50. The maximum FAR for residential mixed-use
developments in the GM(B) zone is 1.0, provided that the FAR of any
nonresidential use does not exceed .50 (54,970 square feet) on this particular site.
The nonresidential R&D portion of the proposed project would have an FAR of
.43 (47,115 square feet).
The .43 FAR for the R&D and Retail would leave an allowable remaining FAR of
.57 (62,666 square feet) for residential use. The residential portion of the
proposed project would have a FAR of 1.92 (211,167 square feet), exceeding the
maximum allowable square footage by 148,501 square feet.
There currently exists 50,468 square feet (.46 FAR) of R&D space on the site that
could be demolished and reconstructed under the existing zoning.
Parking Analysis
The project would require 552 parking spaces. The proposed project includes 392
parking spaces, which is a shortage of 160 spaces. The following table provides
clarification regarding the requested reduction in parking spaces. Additional
analysis of the proposed reduction in the required number of parking spaces is
included in the Commission report.
Parking Space Reduction Table (PAMC Section 18.83.120)
Required
Number of
Parking
Spaces
Proposed 20 %
Reduction for
Joint Use
(20% Allowable)
Proposed 10.1%
Reduction for
Proximity to
Caltrain Station
(20% Allowable)
56
Total
Proposed
Spaces
Parking
Shortage
Parking 552 104 392 160
Spaces
CMSR: 422:04 Page 4 of 10
Noise
The project would be located adjacent to railroad tracks used by the Union Pacific
Railroad and Caltrain. The Noise Element of the Comprehensive Plan and
California State Title 24 standards specify a limit of 60 dBA DNL (average day-
night level, also call Ldn) for exterior residential uses and 45 dBA DNL for
interior living spaces. The 60 dBA DNL for the City noise element is a guideline
with the understanding that a 60 dBA DNL is a goal that cannot be reached in all
residential areas. The California Building Code requires that mechanical
ventilation of air conditioning be provided for every room exposed to this sound
level (60 dBA).
The proposed project site is exposed to noise levels of 70 dBA DNL based on the
Comprehensive Plan Noise Exposure Contour Map. These ambient conditions
include noise from nearby land uses, traffic noise from Alma Street and Page Mill
Road and rail noise from the Union Pacific Railroad/Cal Train line. According to
a noise assessment study submitted by the applicant and conducted by Charles M.
Salter Associates, Inc. (Attachment K) the existing noise environment on-site is
due primarily to vehicular traffic and the CalTrain line. The noise study identified
noise levels from 65 dBA (auto traffic noise) to 74 dBA (train noise). The
proposed project has a building wall facing the CalTrain facing which would be
exposed to a DNL of 70. Noise levels indicate that building design measures are
required to reduce noise level exposure for the project residents. Measures
designed to minimize noise impacts would be designed into the project.
If the exterior noise level is geater than 60 dB, then maximum instantaneous noise
levels generated by repetitive, commonly occurring events should be maintained at
50 dB in bedrooms and 55 dB in other rooms. The Salter study recommends that
windows in residential units have a minimum STC (sound transmission class)
rating of 38 for units facing the CalTrain tracks. The Page Mill facing fa~cade, the
Park Boulevard fa,cade, and the side facing Stanford European would have a
minimum STC rating of 35, 32, and 35 respectively. The Salter study
recommends Sound Transmission Class (STC) ratings for exterior windows and
along the CalTrain tracks to meet the State Building Code Requirements. The
project would include a minimum of STC 50-rated exterior walls facing CalTrain
and bedroom windows would have a STC 45 rating. The proposed project would
exceed the minimum standards recommended in the Salter report.
The exterior building faqade would act as a sound barrier for the courtyard facing
facades, which the Salter study estimates would be subjected to a DNL below 60.
The courtyard building facades would not be required to have sound-rated glass.
CMR: 422:04 Page 5 ofl0
The possibility that the proposed project would act as a sound wall and reflect
train noise into the neighborhoods on the opposite side of Alma Street was
discussed at the August 11, 2004 meeting of the Planning Commission. The
applicant has provided a letter prepared by Charles Salter regarding reflective train
noise (Attachment M). The letter indicates the reflected sound would contribute
less than 1 dBA to the overall noise level, and that there is mitigation for that
incremental increase in noise.
Contaminated Groundwater
The applicant submitted a geotechnical report prepared by Jo Crosby and
Associates (included as Attachment J), which did not identify toxic materials on
the property. However, the report states that a toxic plume of contaminated
groundwater underlies the site. According to the report, this contamination from
nearby electronic manufacturing plants has been known since at 1981, and is
commonly known as the Hewlett Packard-Varian plume. The extent of the plume
and its contaminants are well documented, and a number of developments
including residential have been built in the area over this plume.
Excavation for the undergound garage and foundation for the building would not
exceed a depth of 17 feet. The geotechnical report states that groundwater was
located at soil depths below twenty feet and contact with the groundwater would
not be expected. The applicant has stated that the presence of contaminated
groundwater limited the depth of the below grade parking garage to one level
instead of two and that one level of undergound parking necessitated some
ground level parking.
The Fire Department’s Environmental Protection Coordinator reviewed the
geotechnical report and concluded the project could proceed without any
significant negative impacts from the toxic plume. The Fire Department would
require that any groundwater encountered during construction be sampled and
analyzed for contaminants and properly disposed. Before any further work could
proceed, the applicant would be required to obtain confirmation from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board that the construction and site activity would not
result in exposure of construction workers or the public to those contaminants.
Vacation of Page Mill Extension
The applicant is proposing four public benefits as part of the PC rezoning, as
discussed in the Commission report. One of the public benefits proposed by the
applicant would be a request for the City of Palo Alto to vacate the adjacent
portion of Page Mill Road for conversion into a landscaped plaza. It should be
noted that the proposed area to be vacated was not calculated into the lot area or
used to determine the required building setbacks, floor area ratio, lot coverage, and
the amount of required open space.
CIVlR: 422:04 Page 6 of 10
Staff would not consider the landscape plaza as a public benefit because these
types of spaces are often dominated by the adjacent use and could become more of
a private than a public plaza.
Joint Powers Board (Caltrain) Right of Way
The current design of the proposed street vacation as shown on the development
plans (Attachment F) would include a new cul-de-sac at the current terminus of
Page Mill Road within the Caltrain right of way. The cul-de-sac would need to be
shortened so that it is not located within the Caltrain right of way. The road that
runs parallel to the railroad tracks linking Page Mill Road to the Caltrain Station is
located within the Joint Powers Board right of way. Staff has contacted the JPB to
determine its plans for this area. It is the Joint Powers Board’s future intention to
remove the road to add two additional passing tracks, to bring the total number of
tracks up to four. These new tracks would allow Caltrain to improve the
efficiency of the baby bullet trains and increase the number of daily trains from 85
to 120 trains per day. The Page Mill Road extension would become a dead end
street terminating at the railroad tracks, with no vehicle access, but providing
pedestrian and bicycle access.
BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning and Transportation Commission held a special meeting for a site
tour at the proposed project site at 5:30 P.M. on August 11, 2004. During the tour,
staff described the project and provided the Commission the opportunity to view
the existing site and surrounding land uses and the section of Page Mill Road
proposed for vacation.
The Commission reviewed the application at its regularly scheduled meeting on
August 11, 2004. One of the ten public speakers spoke in favor of the project,
citing the need for housing. The other nine speakers requested denial of the
project, citing the following reasons in brief:
(1) The project’s mass, scale and height are out of proportion to the surroundings
(2) Negative impacts upon the west midtown neighborhood, particularly train
noise, lost views of the foothills, light pollution, setbacks and landscaping,
uninteresting east facing facade
(3) Inadequate parking and access, and traffic congestion
(4) Insufficient public benefits, retail area and common usable open space.
The Commission unanimously recommended the Council deny the PC application
and Comprehensive Plan Amendment, finding that the project as proposed does
not comply with three comprehensive plan policies noted in the Policy
Implications section. In addition, the Commission was not supportive of the
Planned Community benefit package as proposed.
CMR: 422:04 Page 7 of 10
The action of the Commission is reflected in the draft record of land use action
(Attachment A) and is recorded in the minutes (Attachment H) and generally
includes the following comments:
The project is out of scale with adjacent buildings as well as other buildings
in the neighborhood
The massing is too large for the area
The project would exceed and nearly double the RM-40 development
standards (the Commission previously recommend the site be rezoned to
RM-40 from its current zoning of GM(B)
The building wall adjacent to the railroad tracks could reflect train noise
into Midtown neighborhoods
There are inadequate building setbacks, which would limit landscaping
opportunities
The PC findings are difficult to make
The 2,000 square foot retail is potentially inadequate
The vehicle entrances may be better suited on Page Mill Boulevard instead
of Park Avenue
The height of the project could limit hillside views from Alma Street
Rental housing should not be considered a public benefit for a PC
Additional BMR units are not a public benefit if they result in additional
market rate units
Vacating a public street for private use would not be a public benefit
The project has inadequate open space, especially in the interior courtyard
The design should be more creative, less dense, with increased pedestrian
opportunities, and a few commissioners thought a geater amount of retail
was needed
The requested parking reductions may be too generous
ALTERNATIVES
The Council has the option to send the currently proposed project to the ARB for a
complete analysis of architectural detail, consultant reports, and to direct staff to
prepare an environmental document. However, staff does not recommend the
Council exercise that option because the Commission has already identified major
drawbacks of the project as proposed. Should the City Council decide to refer the
currently proposed project to the ARB, staff recommends that Council give the
applicant direction or development parameters including FAR, massing, bulk,
parking and neighborhood compatibility.
CMR: 422:04 Page 8 of 10
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
As noted in Commission report and discussed by the Commission, the project
would not meet Comprehensive Plan policies L-3, L-5 and L-31, relating to the
size of the project. The particular focus of the Commission was the two latter
policies. Staff has prepared additional description under policy L-5 and L-31.
Policy L-5
Maintain the scale and character of the city; avoid land uses that are
overwhelming and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
The project is four stories, and features a design that includes an interior parking
lot such that the full building height abuts the two street frontages and the rear
property line facing the Caltrain right of way. The large-scale walls at the edges
are not well articulated, with facades that are basically flat with only slight
projections and recesses, unmitigated with landscaping due to proposed setbacks.
The scale of the development exceeds standards for residential density and non-
residential floor area on one site. A large ~portion of the Park Boulevard fa,cade is
devoted to vehicle access and parking, and the fountain will not mitigate this bad
entry design. The extent of parking within the courtyard prevents the use of this
area for usable common open space for the residents.
Policy L-31
Develop the Cal-Ventura area 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 Cal Avenue.
The project is a four-story building that exceeds the two and three story policy for
this neighborhood, and appears to exceed the 50-foot height limit as well. The
residential use, located wholly on the upper floors, is separated from the
commercial use on the first floor instead of interfacing with the streets or gound
floor edges of the project site to allow pedestrian access.
PREPARED BY"
Christo Riordan
Planner
CMR: 422:04 Page 9 of 10
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Steve Emslie
Director of Planning and Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAI,.:~~v
,~E~--I-I_~.AR_R!~ NAssistant City ~nager
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
Attachment E:
Attachment F:
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
Attachment K:
Attachment L:
Attachment M:
Attachment N:
Draft Record of Land Use Action
Location Maps
Applicant Submittal
Comprehensive Plan Table (prepared by staff)
Zoning Table (prepared by staff)
Commission staff r~port dated August 11, 2004 (without
attachments)
Commission minutes from meeting August 11, 2004
Correspondence
Geotechnical Report prepared by Jo Crosby and Associates,
dated May 10, 2004
Noise and Vibration Study prepared by Charles M. Salter
Associates, Inc., dated June 28, 2004
Zoning Ordinance Update Issues Paper prepared for
Pedestrian!Transit Oriented Development by the City’s
consultant Van Meter Williams and Pollock presented to the
Council at a joint study session with the Planning and
Transportation Commission in July 2003.
Reflective Train Noise Letter
Traffic Impact Analysis prepared by Fehr and Peer, dated
July 2004
Project Plan Set (Council Members Only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Harold Hohbach, Court House Plaza Company
Richard Campbell, Hoover Associates
Carol Jansen, Jansen Consulting
CMR: 422:04 Page 10 of 10
Attachment A
ACTION NO. 2004-07
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE ACTION
FOR 195 PAGE MILL ROAD AND 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891, AND 2901 PARK
BOULEVARD: PLANNED COMMUNITY REZONE 03-PC-01, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT 04-CPA-01, AND ENVIRONEMNTAL IMPACTASSESSMENT
03-EIA-18 (COURT HOUSE PLAZA COMPANY, APPLICANT)
SECTION I. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. Court House Plaza Company, property owner, have
requested the City’s approval of a Comprehensive Plan Amendment
from Light Industrial to Mixed Use, and a rezone from the
existing GM(B) district to a Planned Community ("The Project")for
the construction of a four story building to include 45,115
square feet for Research and Development space, 2,000 square feet
of retai! on the ground floor and 211,167 square feet for three
leve! residential apartments totaling 177 units, plus a
subterranean parking garage and related site improvements
including the use and landscaping of the adjacent section of Page
Mill Road.
B. The project would include the demolition of all
existing structures on site. The apartment units would have four
unit types, ranging in size from 660 - i,316 square feet and
would be distributed throughout the upper three floors.
Parking would be provided in a full underground basement with
space for 275 vehicles. An additional 117 spaces would be at
grade and located in the courtyard. Access for the surface spaces
and a separate ramp for access to the be!ow grade garage would
both be from Park Boulevard.
The project site is approximately 1600 feet from the California
Avenue commercial center and Caltrain station.
C. Following Staff review the Planning and Transportation
Commission (Commission) reviewed the Project during a preliminary
hearing on August !I, 2004 and unanimously recommended denial of
the project to the Council as per PAMC Section 18.68.065. The
Commission’s actions are contained in CMR: 422:04 and the
attachments to it.
D. On September 27, 2004 the Council of the City of Palo
Alto denied without prejudice the project making the findings
determinations and determinations as contained in Section Two.
Park Plaza Page 1
SECTION 2.Planned Community Findings
The Planning and Transportation Commission and the City Council
could not make the following required findings for a Planned
Community Zoning District:
I. Development of the site under the provisions of the PC
planned community district will result in public benefit not
otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general
districts or combining districts.
The proposed 2,000 square feet of neighboring serving retail is
inadequate to be considered a true public benefit. The applicant’s
request for the city to vacate the adjacent portion of Page Mill
Road for a public plaza is not a substantial public benefit.
2. The use or uses permitted, and the site development
regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with
exiting and potential sites on adjoining sites or within the
general vicinity.
The project is to massive and out of scale with buildings on
adjacent sites. The side of the building facing the railroad
tracks would reflect train noise into Midtown neighborhoods on the
opposite side of Alma Street. The project site has been selected
for rezoning to RM-40 and the project would greatly exceed the
maximum density of that district. The lack of street side building
setbacks would limit opportunities for landscaping adjacent to the
public right of way. Parking entrances should be !ocated on Page
Mill Road instead of Park Boulevard to reduce traffic congestion on
Park Boulevard. The fifty-one foot building height would b!ock
hillside views from Alma Street that would be in conflict with
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-31.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
Park Plaza Page 2
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
PLANS AND DRAWINGS REFERENCED:
I. Those plans prepared by Hoover Associates titled "Park Plaza
Apartments", consisting of 21 pages, dated July 30, 2004, and
received on August 4, 2004.
Park Plaza Page 3
Th~ City of
Palo Alto
Location Map
195 Page Mill Road
2865, 2891, 2901 Park Boulevard
Attachment
This map is a product of the
City of Pato Alto GIS
I87’
Th~ C~t? nf
Palo Alto
Aerial Map
195 Page Mill Road
2865, 2891, 2901 Park Boulevard
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto GIS
Attachment B
Attachment C
Courthouse Plaza Company
29 LoweryDrive, Athedon, CA 94027
Phone 650.322.8242
Fax 650.853.0325
Wednesday, June 3, 2004
Chairman Michael c_mtfin
Vice Chair Phyllis Cassel
Members of the City of Palo Alto Planmng and Transportation Commission
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Re: Park Plaza, 2865 Park Blvd. & 10l Page Mill Road
Dear Michael C_mffin and Members oft_he Planning and Transportation Commission,
We are pleased to submit an application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light
Industrial to Mixed Use, and a Planned Community rezoning of the 2.52 acre site located
southerly of the intersection of Page Mill Road extended and Park Boulevard adjacent to the
California Avenue CalTmm station. The site is currently used for commercial purposes, and
contains old concrete and Buffer corrugated steel buildings. Our plan is to construct a four story
mixed use building with 177 one, two and three bedroom rental residential units over 45,115 sq.
feet of Research and Development and 2000 sq. ft. of neighborhood serving retail. Parking is
provided with one ft~ level of underground parking, interior courtyard parking, and on- street
parking on Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard.
The property is currently zoned for general manufacturing use (GM-B) and has 50,468 sq. ft. of
grand£athered R & D buildings (primarily corrugated Buffer and concrete buildings) which will
be removed to accommodate the proposed development. This proposal is consistent with city,
regiona!, and state policy in four key areas:
The project will introduce housing into an area that has been historically zoned and used
for manufacamng, research and development, and commercial service uses;
As a mixed use development, the project will provide for a working, living, and
neighborhood-serving retail environment within two blocks of the Califomia Avenue Cal
Train station.
The project will generate 177 one, two, and three bedroom rental residential units m a
community that generally receives only for-sale housing proposals at market rate due to
extraorNnafily high land costs.
The proposed project includes 18% below- market rate rental residential units, within a
50% density bonus increase consistent with the Comprehensive Plan for projects located
m Transit Oriented areas, and a 26.5% allowance for parking reductions based on a
mixed-use development and the site’s proximity to multiple oppommities for public
transportation, especially within 2000 ft. of the California Avenue Cal Train station.
Pubic Benefi~ -
The construction of new rental housing within walking distance of the Cal Tram station,
California Avenue retail, and the Stanford Research Park employment area. (Applicant’s
foregone profits from for-sale versus rental housing is conservatively estimated to be at
least $25,000,000).
Provision of additional BMR’s over the City required 15% below market rate housing
units, for a total of 32 rental BMR traits on-site. (Estimated value to the community on an
annual basis is $115,000 in reduced cost to BMR rentors).
Public Art at the entrance of the project, including a fountain and bronze sculpture, both
accessible and visible to the public. (Estimated cost to the applicant is over $250,000).
An opportunity for Page Mill Road extension to be re-used for both private and public
open space purposes that is unparalleled for the City. (Estimated cost of improvements to
the applicant is in excess of $500,000).
This project is unique in that there are few commercial sites with residential development
potential available m the City that is 1) suitable for higher density residential use within a transit-
oriented area; and 2) provides the substantial public benefits as described above. The site has
been a designated site for housing under the City’s adopted Housing Element since 2003.
Transportation Impacts -
The traffic analysis for this proposal shows that there are no significant impacts generated from
this project. Approximately 1224 new vehicle trips will be generated from the mixed use proposal
on a weekly basis, with 87 new AM peak-hour trips and 114 new PM peak-hour trips. The most
compelling aspect of the project is that the site is in close proximity to the City’s California
Avenue CalTram station, the California Avenue Business District, the Stanford Research Park,
and the Stanford Marguerite systems, all of which substantially reduce dependency on the
automobile. In addition, individual 5’ x 5’ x 8’ storage lockers, capable of holding one or more
bicycles, will be provided for all 177 traits.
Sustainability -
The Park Plaza project incorporates many elements that sut~port sustainable development and
reduce our long term impact to the environment. The existing concrete corrugated steel buildings
and concrete paving will be recycled so that these materials can be used in other projects without
adding to the City’s limited landfall capacity. The existing buildings predominately consist of
steel, concrete and metal framing, all of which are recyclable materials. Many of the units are
oriented to increase the potential of passive heat gain in t~e winter and natural air circulation in
the summer, thereby reducing energy costs for the heat p~ system.
Both the predominant residential use and nearby California Avenue Cal Train station are
in concert with current City Council policy direction to create new housing opportunities on
commercially zoned land, especially in transit oriented areas. Nearly 5000 square feet of
R & D space is being efiminated to provide for more housing, in support of the City’s
recently adopted Housing Element. The opportunities for a live and work environment with
neighborhood serving retail on 2.52 acres is unparalleled in the City.
Project site information -
Gross site area 2.52 acres
# Residential units 177 one, two and three bedroom apartments
# Units permitted
by Comp Plan
189 (2.52 acres x 50 du’s per acre permitted under the
City’s Comprehensive Plan for Transit oriented residential
within 2000 ft. ofa Cal Tram station = 126 units; plus 63
units under Housing Element Program H-38 at 50% density
with 25% additional BMR’s)
# BMR units 32 one, two and three bedrooms
R & D space 45,115 sq. ft
Existing R& D space 50,468 sq. ft.
to be removed
Neighborhood serving 2000 sq. ft.
retail
# Parking spaces
provided 392 (270 underground unismW 107 surface parking spaces
within the plaza area, and 7 landscape reserve spaces, and 8
handicap spaces), not including eight surface spaces on Page
Mill extension if re-use for plaza/park purposes
# Parking spaces
required by City
522 minus 20% reduction for Joint Use 18.8383.1208 and 6.5%
reduction for Transportation Alternative per section 18.83.120
Project design -
Since our initial discussions with staff on this project several months ago, we have further defined
the project, and generated increasingly more detailed drawings. In addition, we have participated
in an ARB Subcommittee meeting for both design and land use input. We value the many
comments that these meetings have provided, and have worked diligently to incorporate
suggestions that we believe substantially address staff and ARB subcommittee concerns..
This mixed use proposa! is in keeping with the highest standards of design for projects within the
City of Palo Alto, and represents a unified, comprehensively planned development with
substantial public benefit consistent with the purpose ofplmmed community zoning. 1
Design features of the plan are as follows:
3 Section 18.68.010 of Chapter 18.68 PC PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS
The overall project is a contemporary four story building surrounding an interior
courtyard, with one level of underground parking and surface court yard parking that
incorporates textured paving in both the parking area and at court yard entries to the
R & D interior spaces. Based on Architectural Review Board subcommittee input,
thirteen additional parking spaces within the courtyard have been removed and placed in
landscape reserve to allow for greater tree and landscape planting that will be in view of
both the residents and R & D tenants.
The architectural style of the building is contemporary, and reminiscent of the industrial
and warehouse uses m the area. Materials such as natural stone, granite, and stainless
steel balcony railings lielp to create a modern, and rich architectural palette in a location
that includes the Agilente headquarters across the street and the Sheridan Plaza
apartments at Park Blvd. and Sheridan Avenue, and the prominent green marble office
building at 200 Page Mill Road. The proposed building is consistent with the height and
volume of residential, office, and housing projects within a two-block area of the site.
S¢~tton 18.68.060 of the Planned Commtmity district regulations requires that the following
finchn~ be made by the Planning Commission and City Council in establishing any new PC:
(a)
(b)
(c)
The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will
not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development.
Development of the site under the provisions &the PC planned community
district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the
regulations of general distrticts or combining districts...
The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within
the district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall
be compatible with existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the
general vicinity.
Potential findings for the Commission and Council that respond to the above points are as
follows:
The site is 2.52 acres, and is located less than lO00 feet from the California
Avenue CalTrain station and the California Avenue Business District in Palo
Alto. As such, it represents a unique opportunity in central Palo Alto for a
substantial mixed use housing, employment, and retail uses in a predominately
general business service and retail area. Construction of this project will provide
an important housing entry to eventual redevelopment of the Fry’s Electronics
site. While the GM-B zoning permits residential development, the density and
FAR (floor area ratio) of any residential project, and particularly rental housing,
um’ter standard zoning wouM not be economically viable.
Standard development would not result in conversion qf commercially zoned
property t.o residential, and wouM sign~ficantlF reduce the housing potential to
the Cit3,, and especially the belcnv market raterental housing opportunin’es
provided bP this project. There has never been a housing pro/ect constructed on
GM-B zoned land in the California Avenue district, and the proposed ground
floor R & D is 4541 square_feet less than the GM-B zomng wtntM permit under
the City’s grandfathering provisions.
A
The proposed mixed use hausing, employment, and retail use on the site is
consistent with, and indeed, actively supported by, the City’s adopted
Comprehensive Plan and approved Housing Element. Following are pertinent
sections of the Plan that relate to the proposed development:
i.The project will reduce the 1244 new housing units deemed
necessary in the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan (tt4) to meet
State of California Housing Element requirements for Palo Alto’s
"fair share’" housing needs.
ii. The project will contribute 32 Below Market Rate rental residental
units toward the unmet needs of 507 additional low and moderate
income housing units in the City (It5).
iii. The proposal is supported by the following goals, policies and
programs in the Comprehensive Plan:
Policy H-1: Meet community and neighborhood needs as the
supply of housing is increased. Specifically, this policy notes
that "Increases in the housing supply shouM be
accomplished without diminishing the quality of City
services or surpassing the capacity of infrastructure and
transportation facilities. ’" Located within three blocks of the
California Avenue Cal Train station, and within an area
where all infrastructure is in place, the project supports
policies H-I, H-2 - to "Consider a variety of strate~es to
increase housing density and diversity in appropriate
locations "’, and prog-ram H-l, which states "Allow for
increased housing density immediately surrounding
commercial areas and particularly near transit centers. ""
Program H-3, which supports zoning incentives, including
planned community zoning, to encourage the development of
mixed use projects, diverse housing types, more affordable
units and two and three-bedroom units suitable for families
with children.
Program H-8 supports incentives that encourage residential
development on commercially zoned land, and suggest that
further incentives be explored by the City in the upcoming
zoning ordinance amendment to accomplish this goal.
Currently, the only zoning mechanism available to develop
the site for mixed use and housing purposes is the planned
community zone.
Program H-38, which supports building three additional
market rate units for each BMR unit above that normally
required, resulting in 32 new BMR rental units in the City.
This provision allows for a maximum zoning density
increase of 50% for both the number of units and FAR on the
site.
Program L-I O, which supports up to 50 du ’s/acre within
2000ft. of a CalTrain station thereby supporting the use of
public transportation and reduced parking.
The project supports Policy L-16: "Consider siting small
neighborhood-serving retail facilities in existing or new
residential areas. " The project inchMes 2000 square feet at
the intersection of Park Boulevard ancl Page Mill Road
extension dedicated to neighborhood-serving retail use.
Outdoor seating and a park-like setting will be incorporated
in conjunction with the vacation of Page Mill Road
extension, shouM the City approve that vacation.
The project is consistent with Land Use and Comrmmity
Design Policy L-17, to "...Provide continuous sidewalks,
healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that favor
pedestrians."
We believe the project is highly supportive of the existing Comprehensive Plan, the City’s
approved Housing Element, and is compatible with adjacent commercial and residential uses
within the California Avenue District. The project is an important new housing entry into the
Ventura neighborhood. The unique and extensive public benefit package is unprecedented for a
mixed use housing, employment, and retail project in the City of Palo Alto.
Conversion of commercial land to predominantly residential use is rare in Palo Alto. Conversion
of commercially zoned land to incorporate 177 rental housing units is virtually non-existent m
this community. The Mayfield and Sheridan Plaza projects m Palo Alto, built in the last 15 years
by entities controlled by Harold C. Hohbach, tota! 113 new multi-family units, and have remained
as rental residential.
We are particularly pleased to bring forward this unique, high quality development to the City’s
California Avenue area, and appreciate the Planning and Transportation Commission’s timely
review of this proj ect.
Yours truly,
Court.house Plaza Company
Hohbach Enterprises Inc.
General Partner
BY
Harold C. Hohbach, President
Attachments: Housing Statement
Development Schedule
Proposed R & D uses
Cc Frank Behest, City Manager
Emily Harrison, Assistant City Manager
Bill Fellman, Director of Real Estate
Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and Community Environment
Lisa Grote, Chief Planning Official
Joe Kott, Chief Transportational Official
Park Plaza, Palo Alto, CA Planned Community Zone Change June 7, 2004
PROPOSED USES OF RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT SPACE
Permitted uses of the LM Limited Industrial!Research Park district, including, but not
limited to:
Research and development involved in the study, testing, design, analysis, and
experimental development of products, processes, or services, including the
incidental manufacturing of products or provisions of services to others
Medical and drug research, including consultation, diagnosis, therapeutic, and
preventive care R & D
Product Design Development
Design and Development of engineering prototypes
Light Manufacturing
Warehousing and Distribution
So£cware Development, including but not limited to computers, educational,
games, and animation
General, marketing, consuking offices associated with the above uses, including but not
limited to consulting engineers and manufacturing representatives
Park Plaza, Palo Alto, CA Planned Community Zone Cha~ ,ge June 2, 2004
Unit Type
Unit A, 1 br, 1 ba
With Balcony
Unit A-l, 1 br, 1 ba 13
Without Balcony
Unit B, 2 br, 2 ba 57
With Balcony
Unit B-l, 2 br, 2 ba 56
Without Balcony
Unit C, 3 br, 2 ba 9
With Balcony
Unit C-1, 2 br, 2 ba 1
Without Balcony
Unit D, 3 br, 2 ba 2
With Balcony
STATEMENT OF HOUSING
Number of Units Size of Units Projected Rental Income
39 660 sf $1350 - $1500
710 sf $1350 - $15O0
1015 sf $1500 - $1900
1066 sf $15O0- $1900
1266 sf $2000-2200
1316 sf $2000-2200
1316 sf $25OO-$280O
177 Units
Park Plaza, Palo Alto, CA Planned Community Zone Chang,~June 2, 2004
February- March 2005
March - April 2005
May - June 2005
November - December 2006
December 2006
DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE
Demolition
Excavation
Start of Construction
Completion of Construction
Beginning of Phased Occupancy
Attachment D
Comprehensive Plan Table
A)The proposed project would be in conflict with the following three Comprehensive
Plan Policies.
Land Use and CommuniW Design
Policy L-3
Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills from public
streets in the developed portions of the City.
Due to the 51foot tall height of the proposed project, it would likely remove foothills
views from Alma Street.
Policy L-5
Maintain the scale and character of the city; avoid land uses that are overwhelming
and unacceptable due to their size and scale.
The project would be taller than surrounding buildings. The acceptability of the project’s
size and scale is a matter of opinion. Staff would look to the City Council to comment on
this policy.
Policy L-31
Develop the Cal-Ventura area as a well designed mixed use district with diverse
land uses, ~o to three story buildings, and a network of pedestrian oriented streets
providing links to Cal Ave.
The project is a four-story building as proposed, so it would not comply with this
policy. The )qrst floor commercial and the three stories of residential units accounts for
the overall height as proposed. Staff would like the Council’s comments regarding the
residential density and commercial use.
B)The proposed project would be in general conformance with the following policies
of the Comprehensive Plan
Land Use and Community Design
Policy L-29
Encourage residential and mixed used residential development in the California
Avenue Area.
The proposed project is located in the general area and is within easy walking distance of
California Avenue. The proposed project would be constructed as a mixed use project,
consisting of177 rental housing units and approximately 45, 000 square feet of Research
an d Development Space
Policy L-73
Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in connection with
new development projects. Consider incentives for including public are in large
development projects.
The proposed project would feature a circular fountain with a bronze sculpture as its
centerpiece. The applicant has requested that the City vacate the adjacent portion of
Page Mill road and at the applicant expense, would be developed as an outdoor
landscaped plaza.
Policy L-75
Minimize the negative physical impacts of parking lots. Locate parking behind
buildings or underground whenever possible.
The proposed parking would not be visible from public streets. Surface parking would be
located in the courtyard within the building and the majority of the parking would be in
an underground parking garage.
Policy I.-78
Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project by
providing for shared use of parking areas.
The proposed project is being developed as a Research and Development and Rental
Housing Mixed Use Development, offering 138fewer spaces than required by the Zoning
Ordinance for these types of use taking advantage of the opportunity for shared use of the
parking facilities. The parking requirements for the R&D would be primarily during
normal business hours with the parking demand for the residential occurring in the
evening and on weekends.
Transportation
Policy T- 1
Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and public transit use.
The proposed project would be in close proximity to the California Avenue multi-model
station and would be within walking distance to the California Avenue business district.
Stanford University and the Stanford Industrial park would be easily accessible by
walking and bicycle.
Program T-2
Promote mixed-use development to provide housing and commercial services near
employment centers, thereby reducing the necessity of driving.
The project would provide 177 rental housing near Stanford Research Park. The
project would include a small retail store to serve the residents of the project and workers
from nearby businesses thereby reducing the necessity of driving.
Program T-3
Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multi modal
transit stations
The project would include 177 residential units within easy walking distance from
the California Avenue multi-modal station and the El Camino Real transit corridor.
Policy T-37
Where sidewalks are directly adjacent to curbs and no planting strips exists,
explore ways to add planting pockets with street trees to increase shade and reduce the
apparent width of wide streets.
The project would include street trees planting pockets on both Park Boulevard
and Page Mill Road where currently there do not exist street trees.
Housing
Policy H-2
Identify and implement a variety of strategies to increase housing density and
diversity in appropriate locations. Emphasize and encourage the development of
affordable and attainable housing.
The density bonus program for the addition of extra BMR housing units would
result in 177 housing units, 32 of them as BMR units, near the California Avenue multi-
modal station.
Policy H-3
Support the desi~maation of vacant or underutilized land for housing.
The project site is underutilized. Current uses on the site are vacant warehouse
a bakery, and an auto repair shop. The City’s Housing Element has designated the
a good location for high-density housing.
Program H- 1
Increase housing density immediately surrounding commercial areas and
particularly near transit stations by either increasing allowed densities or encourage
development at the higher end of the of the existing density range for sites within 2,000
feet of an existing transit station or along major transit corridors, El Camino Real,
xvherever appropriate.
The project would include high densi& housing, 70 units per acre for a total of177
units, near the California Avenue Commercial Area and within 2000feet of the California
Avenue multi-modal station and El Camino Real.
Potic’~ H-4
Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while
promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality.
The proposed project would be constructed as a Research and Development and
Residential Mixed Use project, adding 177 living units to the housing supply and
revitalizing an underutilized industrial site.
Program H-38
Adopt a revised density bonus program ordinance that allows the construction of
up to three additional market rate units for each BMR unit above that normally required,
up to a maximum zoning increase of 50 percent in density.
The project would take advantage of the density bonus program by providing 13
additional BMR units over the minimum required of19 BMR units. The 13 extra BMR
units would result in 38 additional market rate units.
Policy H-8
Maintain the number of multifamily residential housing units in Palo Alto at no
less than its current level while supporting efforts to increase the rental supply.
7"he pr(~iect would add 177 units to Palo Alto’s supply of rental housing.
Attachment
Comparison between the existing site condition, GM(B), RM-40, Pedestrian
Transit Oriented Development (P/TOD) zoning, and Planned Community
(RM-30 regulations are applicable for the residential portion in the GM(B) zone)
Feature
Minimum
Site Area
Min. Site
Width
Min. Site
Depth
Front
Setback
Interior
Side and
Rear
Yards
Street
Side Yard
Floor
Area
Ratio
Res.
Density
Site
Coverage
Below
Market
Rate Units
Building
Height
Common
Open
........ Space
Existing
Buildings
and Site
Conditons
109,941
square feet
745 feet
263 feet
10 Rear
15 Side
GM(B)/
No Req.
No Req.
No Req.
20 ft. for
residential
element
25ft.
RM-40
8,500 sq. ft.
70 ft.
100 ft.
Avg. adjacent
structures
10ft.
Pedestrian
Transit Oriented
Development
(P/TOD)
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
TBD
0 16 ft.TBD
TBD.46 (50,468
square feet)
NA
45%
Avg. adjacent
structures
1:1 (109,941
sq ft)
40 units per
acre for a total
of 100
45% of site
16 units
40 ft.
21,988 sq. ft
(20% of site
NA
Varies
Undermined
.5 for non
residential
(54,970 sq. ft)
.5 for
residential
(54,970 sq. ft)
30 units per
acre for a total
of 78
40% for
residential
element
12 units
35ft.
32,982 sq. ft.
(30% of site)
Maximum 50 units
per acre for a total
of 126 units
TBD
1.9 units
50 feet
TBD
Proposed Planned
Community
109,941 square feet
745 feet
263 feet
0
0 Front
5 rear
5 side
0
.43 for non residential (47,115
sq. ft.)
1.92 for residential (211,167 sq.
ft.)
67% for residential units
32 units
51 feet to top of parapet
18% of the site (19,789 sq. ft)
70 units per acre for total of 177
units
Private
Open
Space
Parking
spaces
required
for non-
exempt
floor area
Accessible
Parking
Bicycle
Parking
NA
Undermined
Undermined
Undermined
Each unit
shall have a
balcony of not
less than 50
sq. ft.
552 spaces for
the required
for the
apartments,
retail, guest
parking, and
the R&D
11 accessible
parking stalls
for 501-1000
provided
parking
spaces- 1 to
be van
allocated
213 -189 as
lockers, 26 as
racks
Each unit shall
have a balcony
of not less than
50 sq. ft.
361 spaces for
the apartments
and guests
8 accessible
parking stalls
for 301-400
provided
parking spaces
- 1 to be van
allocated
!95 - 177
spaces as
lockers, 18 as
racks
TBD
Depends on # of
bedroom for each
unit.
1.25 spaces per
studio unit
1.5 spaces per 1
BR unit
2.0 spaces per 2
BR units
10% guest parking
265 Spaces-
Maximum number
required if all units
were 2 BR
Depends on # of
parking spaces
(7 accessible
parking stall for
201-300 spaces- 1
to be van allocated
assuming
maximum number
required if all units
were 2 BR)
139 - 126 as
lockers, 13 as
racks
69% of units have balconies
approximately 50 square feet
392 on site spaces for the
required for the apartments,
retail, guest parking, and the
R&D
(20% deduction allowed for
joint use parking facilities=104
spaces)
(10.1% deduction requested for
proximity to the California
Avenue Caltrain Station = 34
spaces)
8 accessible parking stalls for
301-400 provided parking
spaces 1 to be van accessible
space
213 - 189 as lockers, 26 as
racks
Attachment F
PLANNING DIVISION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANN~G & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
FROM:Christopher A. Riordan
Planner
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
August 11, 2004
195 Page Mill Road and 2825, 2865, 2873, 2891, and 2901 Park
Boulevard [03-PC-01, 04-CPA-01, 03-EIA- 18]: Request by Court
House Plaza Company for review of an application for a
Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed
Use, and a rezone from the existing GM(B) district to a Planned
Community to allow the construction of a four story building to
include 47,115 square feet for Research and Development space and
a caf~ on the ground floor and 211,167 square feet for three level
residential apartments totaling 177 units, plus a subterranean parking
garage and related site improvements including the use and
landscaping of the adjacent section of Page Mill Road.
Environmental Assessment: Staff will develop the initial study and
subsequent environmental documents in compliance with CEQA
regulations.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff requests that the Planning and Transportation Commission (Commission) conduct
its initial review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Map Amendment (PAMC Title 19)
and Planned Community project pursuant to PAMC Chapter 18.98 Amendments, and
Chapter 18.68, Planned Community (PC) District Regulations, Section 18.68.065 and the
request to the City, to vacate the adjacent section of Page Mill Road and select from one
of the following t~vo options:
City of Palo Alto Page
Option # 1
If the Commission acts favorably in its initial review of the PC application, an
environmental document would be prepared and the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
would review project plans and make its recommendation on the Planned Community
project. The Commission would then have an opportunity to review the draft resolution,
draft ordinance, environmental document, project plans, and initiate proceedings to either
vacate or establish a Pedestrian Mall at a second public hearing prior to Council review.
Option #2
If the Commission does not act favorably in its initial review and recommends denial of
the PC application, the project would be forwarded to the City Council.
The applicant was encouraged by staff but elected to not have the Commission review the
project during a preliminary review. The Commission could provide preliminary type
comments to the applicant during this initial review.
SUMMARY OF KEY ISSUES:
Existing Conditions
The approximate 2.5-acre project site is composed of three lots fronting Park Boulevard
and Page Mill Road (see location map, Attachment A). The site is improved with
buildings of corrugated metal and concrete. Current site uses are warehouse space,
bakery, and an auto body repair shop.
Primary site access is from both Park Boulevard and Page Mill Road. The site has good
pedestrian access, is within 2000 feet of the California Avenue Caltrain station and
walking distance to a transit corridor (El Camino Real). The zoning and land uses of the
surrounding properties are as follows:
Location
North
East
South
Southwest
Existing Use
Railroad Tracks
Auto Sales
Zone District
Joint Powers Board Right of Way
GM(B) General Manufacturing Combining
District
GM
GM(B) General Manufacturing Combining
District
GM(B) General Manufacturing Combining
District
Agilent Technologies
Law Offices
West Vacant
Brief Project Description
The project would include the demolition of all existing structures on site and the
City of Palo Alto Page 2
construction of a 258,282 square foot, four story, residential and research and
development (R&D) building with one level of below grade parking (see applicant’s
project description, Attachment C). The 47,115 square foot first floor would include
research and development spaces and a 2000 square foot retail store. Located on the
upper three floors would be 177 rental apartment units totaling 211,167 square feet.
The apartment units would have the following four unit types, ranging in size from 660-
1,316 square feet and would be distributed throughout the three floors.
.....Unit Type Square Footage Number
One Bedroom 660-710 52
Two Bedroom 1,015-1,316 123
Three Bedroom 1,316 2
Percent
29%
7O%
1%
Parking would be provided in a full underground basement with space for 275 vehicles.
An additional 117 spaces would be at grade and located in the courtyard. Access for the
surface spaces would be from Park Boulevard. A separate ramp with access from Park
Boulevard would provide access to the garage.
The subject site is approximately 1600 feet from the California Avenue commercial
center and Caltrain station with safe and convenient pedestrian and bicycle access
provided over Oregon Expressway via the Sheridan Avenue over-pass.
The Reason for Changing the Land Use Designation and Zoning
The existing Light Industrial land use designation allows mixed-use projects but does not
allow them to exceed a .5 floor area ratio for the light industrial portion. A mixed-use
designation is proposed because the Transit Oriented Residential designation as presented to
the Commission on August 13, 2003 as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) does not
allow non-residential uses. Given a mixed-use designation, the project would comply with
Comprehensive Plan Policies encouraging a mix of uses and higher densities near transit
facilities (see Attachment D.
The Transit-oriented Residential land use definition was added to the Comprehensive Plan in
1998 and has yet to be applied to any lands in Palo Alto. The updated Housing Element also
calls for the creation of a zoning district and standards that would encourage higher density
development near transit stations while still preserving the character of adjacent
neighborhoods. As mentioned in the August 13, 2003 ZOU staff report the intent of this
designation is to allow higher density residential dwellings in the California Avenue
commercial center within walking distance, approximately 2000 feet; of the California.
Avenue multi-modal transit station and thus support transit use. This land use category is
intended to generate residential densities that support substantial use of public transportation.
Net densities would range up to 50 dwelling units per acre. Fifty units per acre would result
City of Palo Alto Page 3
in 126 dwelling units (50 x 2.52 acre site).
The proposed project includes a 47,115 square foot commercial element, which precludes
it from being amended to Transit-oriented Residential, and is why a mixed-use
designation is proposed. However, the residential element of the proposed project is the
type of project that may be considered to be consistent with Transit Oriented Residential.
A table is provided in Attachment E comparing the project features to the GM(B) zone
standards. The GM(B) General Manufacturing District regulations allow multiple family
housing as permitted use. In this zone, the maximum floor area for both non-residential
and residential uses is limited to 1.0 to 1, provided that the floor area ratio of the non-
residential uses does not exceed .5 to 1. The RM-30 development standards would be
applied to the residential use. Under the existing zoning, both the residential and
nonresidential elements would be limited to 54,970 square feet and the number of
residential units would be limited to 78 units. Therefore, a PC is proposed to increase
residential density and overall floor area.
The proposed floor area ratio for the R&D would be .43 (47,115 square feet) and 1.~2
(211,167 square feet) for the residential. The proposed Planned Community would have a
density of 70 units per acre for a total of 177 units.
Project Site is on the Housing Sites Inventory_ slated for Rezoning to RM-40
The project site is included on the Housing Sites Inventory contained in the Housing
Element of the Comprehensive Plan (Program H-14). This list identifies potential
housing sites most suitable and likely to be developed for residential use (Attachment D
includes Housing Policies from the City’s Comprehensive Plan). The proposed rezoning
of the site would be RM-40 and could yield 100 dwelling units, 25 more dwelling units
than under the existing GM(B) zoning. The Commission reviewed and recommended
approval of a comprehensive plan amendment to change the designation from Light
Industrial to Transit Oriented Residential and a rezone to RM-40 during a meeting on
August 13, 2003. The Council is anticipated to review the amendment and rezoning later
this year. Rezoning the site to a residential use would limit land uses to only those
residential in nature. The proposed project could not be constructed in an RM-40 zone
because commercial uses would not be permitted and the residential density would exceed
the RM-40 density by 77 units.
Below Market Rate Units
The project would provide 32 Below Market Rate (BMR) housing units. All residential
projects of five or more units on parcels five acres or less are required to provide a minimum
of 15% of these units as BMR units. The minimum BMR requirement for a 126-unit project
would be 19 units if Transit Oriented Residential were applied to a site of this size. Program
H-38 of the Comprehensive Plan allows the construction of up to three additional market rate
City of Palo Alto Page
units for each Below Market Rate (BMR) unit above that normally required, up to a
maximum zoning increase of 50 percent in density. The project would include 51 additional
units, which would include 13 BMR units more than the minimum requirement consistent
with Program H-38, for a total of 177 units.
The proposed rent structure of the BMR units would be as follows:
1 Bedroom BMR Units 10-Units $890 starting monthly rent-Based on 45% of
area median income
2 Bedroom BMR Units 20-Units $1,300 starting monthly rent-Based on 55% of
area median income
3 Bedroom BMR Units
median income
2-Units $1,645 starting monthly rent-Based on 60% of area
The number of parking spaces will be reduced
The proposed uses would require 552 parking spaces. Research and Development uses in the
Light Manufacturing (LM) Zone district requires 1 parking space per 300 square feet of gross
floor area and 1 space per 250 square feet in all other districts. PAMC Section 18.83.050(c)
lists the parking requirements as follows:
Multi-Family Residential Units and Guest Parking - 362 Spaces (based on number of
bedrooms in each unit)
Retail - 10 Spaces (1 space per 200 square feet of use)
Research and Development not in the LM Zone District- 180 Spaces (1 space per each 250
square feet of use)
The applicant used the parking requirement for the LM zone district to calculate the parking
requirements for the R&D portion of the project. The parking requirement for all other
districts other then LM zone should have been used that results in 30 more parking spaces
being required than the applicant calculated (552 rather than 522).
The parking reductions as depicted in the table on sheet two of the development plans are
based on the lower parking requirement assumed by the applicant. The total number of
proposed project parking spaces is 392 spaces, 130 fewer spaces than required, based on the
following allowable reductions.
The PAMC Section allows up to a 20% reduction (104 parking spaces) in the number of
required spaces when the parking facility will be jointly used by non-residential and
residential uses and up to another 20% reduction when effective alternatives to the
automobile are available (PAMC Section 18.83.120(f)). The project would use the full 20%
City of Palo Alto Page 5
reduction for shared parking (104 spaces) and a 6.5% reduction for being close to alternative
transportation (34 spaces). These reductions are based on the hours of use of the parking
facilities; the R&D tenants would use the parking primarily during the day and the residential
would use the parking primarily in the evening and the fact that the Caltrain station is within
walking distance, approximately 1600 feet away.
The actual number of required parking spaces is 552 and 392 are proposed. The allowable
parking reduction for being close to alternative transportation would need to be increased
from 6.5% (34 spaces) to 9.0% (50 spaces) for the total parking requirement to equal the
number of proposed parking spaces.
The Transportation Division is in the process of reviewing the Transportation Impact
Assessment and has not yet made a final determination on the adequacy of the proposed
parking reductions.
Public Benefits
The planned community district is intended for unified, comprehensively planned
developments, which are of substantial public benefit, and which conform with and the
policies and programs of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. One of the three findings
that must be met for approval of a planned community is the public benefit requirement.
Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 18.68.060 (b), states that development of a site under
the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining
districts. In making the findings required by this section, the Commission and City
Council are asked to specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the
planned community district.
The public benefits that are proposed by the applicant are the following:
1)A request for the City of Palo Alto to vacate the adjacent portion (.39 acres) of Page
Mill Road. The applicant would convert the area into a landscaped plaza for public
use. Some of the ideas suggested by the applicant for this area may include decorative
paving, basketball court, sculpture, caf~ tables, and planting of ornamental trees.
This area would also include a twenty-foot wide driveway to provide access to parking
spaces and two roll up doors proposed for the R&D spaces.
To vacate this portion of Page Mill Road, the Council would need to make the finding
that the street is "unnecessary" for public use" (Streets and Highway Code §8324). It
could be difficult for the Council to find the street to be "unnecessary" based on the
applicant’s plan to use the vacated street for parking, access to two roll up doors for
the R&D spaces, an a one-way drive aisle.
City of Palo Alto Page
In lieu of vacating the street, the Commission could recommend that the Council
initiate proceedings to establish a Pedestrian Mall in this location in order to allow the
improvements proposed by the applicant (with the exception of the proposed parking
stalls). In establishing a Pedestrian Mall, the Council would be required to make the
finding that "vehicular traffic will not be unduly inconvenienced" (Streets and
Highway Code § 11200). Vehicle traffic could be prohibited only in part, and the
ordinance establishing the mall could include a list of exceptions in favor of all or
certain classes of vehicles as determined by the Council. This could include
emergency and delivery vehicles. The establishment of a Pedestrian Mall requires a
noticed hearing and the adoption of an ordinance. The ordinance could be reviewed
and acted upon concurrently with the ordinance establishing the PC District.
The provision of 13 additional BMR units above the minimum requirement of 19 for a
total of 32 BMR units.
Public art at the entrance to the project on Park Boulevard, including a fountain and
bronze sculpture that would be visible to the public.
4)Construction of 177 new rental-housing units within walking distance of the
California Avenue Caltrain station, the California Avenue business district, and the
Stanford Research Park.
It should be noted that the city has historically not recognized the uses in a proposed PC
project as a fulfillment of the public benefit requirement. Also, it would be difficult to
count the 13 extra BMR units as a public benefit when the project benefits by the addition
of 38 additional market rate units. The public benefit has traditionally been an element or
feature that will benefit the general public, not just those that use the project.
TIMELINE:
Action:
Application Received:
Application Deemed Complete:
Initial P&TC Meeting:
Date:
12/16/03
7/8/04
8/11/04
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW:
Environmental review would begin after the initial Planning and Transportation Commission
hearing, given a favorable review. An Initial Study and subsequent environmental
documents would be required prior to the formal Architectural Review Board hearing in
compliance with the California Environmental Quality A~t.
City of Palo Alto Page 7
ATTACHMENTS:
No
B.
C.
D.
E.
Location Map
Aerial Photo
Applicant Submittal
Comprehensive Plan Table
Zoning Table
COURTESY COPIES:
Harold Hohbach, Court House Plaza Company
Richard Campbell, Hoover Associates
Carol Jansen, Jansen Consulting
Prepared by: Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP, Project Planner
Reviewed by: Amy French, AICP, Manager of Current Planning
Department/Division Head Approval:
Lisa Grote, (~ef Planning Official
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Attachment G
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Planning and Transportation Commission
Verbatim Minutes
August 11, 2004
NEW BUSINESS:
Public Hearings.
o 195 Pa~e Mill Road and 2825~ 2865, 2873~ 2891, and 2901 Park Boulevard [03-PC-
01, 04-CPA-01, 03-EIA-18]*: Request by Court House Plaza Company for review of an
application for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment from Light Industrial to Mixed Use,
and a rezone from the existing GM(B) district to a Planned Community to allow the
construction of a four story building to include 47,115 square feet for Research and
Development space and a caf~ on the gound floor and 211,167 square feet for three
level residential apartments totaling 177 units, plus a subterranean parking garage and
related site improvements including the proposed vacation and landscaping of the
adjacent section of Page Mill Road. Environmental Assessment: Staff will develop the
initial study and subsequent environmental documents in compliance with CEQA
regulations.
SR Weblink: http ~/ /~.citv~fpal~alt~.~r~/citva~enda~pub~ ish/p~annin~-transp~rtati~n-meetin~s/365 5.~df
Ms. Amy French, Current Plannin~ Manager: The Planned Community application process is
set forth in PAMC Section 18.68.065, which lists the items intended for initial Commission
review as the development pro~am statement, development plan and development schedule, and
notes that the plans are to be preliminary at this stage.
The scope of the Commission’s initial review is broad - it is to discuss the concept plan
presented by the application and focus on the land use issues such as the Comprehensive Plan
amendment and the proposed mix of uses. The Commission may wish to point out potential
design issues relating to the building’s massing, orientation on the site, the provision of open
space and site access. Commissioners can question the applicant and staff on such items as the
proposed public benefits, the feasibility or desirability of reduced parking, and the proposed use
of the Page Mill Road extensions. The Commission can also note potential environmental
issues, can suggest alternatives to the concept plan and otherwise critique the proposal.
The initial review should not focus on architectural details, nor detailed technical documents
related to environmental concerns, as they have yet to be identified or accepted by Staff. Please
note that Staff has not yet accepted the draft traffic report that Carol Jansen sent to
Commissioners without consulting staff first. Staff is not prepared to discuss the draft traffic
report in detai!. An environmental assessment has not been prepared for the project. It would be
prepared only if the Commission initial review of the project was favorable.
If the Commission acts favorably, then the development plan is sent to the ARB for review in
accordance with their findings and process. That is when a detailed plan is reviewed, and the
environmental document is prepared and circulated.
Page 1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The final review differs from the initial review, in that the final review occurs only after the ARB
has studies and provided a recommendation on more detailed plans, and after the environmental
document has been prepared and circulated for public review. The focus of the final review is
the final plan, the resolution for land use change and the PC ordinance which would include a
description of permitted and conditionally permitted uses, zoning standards, findings and
conditions, public benefits and the below market rate component for the project.
The applicant mentioned the ARB subcommittee reviewed the project. This occurred on May 6,
2004, at a noticed subcommittee meeting held after the regular ARB meeting. Technically, the
subcommittee meeting was the first public meeting on the project. Subcommittee meetings,
comprised of two ARB members in rotation, are published on ARB agendas and posted at least
72 hours in advance of the meeting. Subcommittee meetings are open to the public and are held
in the Council Chambers. Members of the public are invited to sit at the table with staff and the
two board members.
Commissioners have requested clarification regarding staff’s analysis of the project’s compliance
with the Zoning regulations and Comprehensive Plan policies. Attachment D and E to the report
were prepared by Staff.
Attachment E compared the proposed PC to the existing GM(B) zone and R_M-30 zone standards
by reference. Staff has expanded that table to show the RM-40 zone standards and Transit
Oriented Development land use desig-nation that the Commission recommended last year for
comparison purposes.
Attachnaent D omitted three Comprehensive Plan policies that are potentially in conflict with the
project. They are Policies L-3, L-5 and L-31.
L-3 (guide development to respect views of the Foothills and East Bay Hills from public streets
in the developed portions of the city). The project would likely remove Foothills’ views from
Alma Street. Should the Commission act favorably in this initial review staff would require the
applicant to provide a visual analysis, which will be included in the initial study for the
environmental document.
L-5 (maintain the scale and character of the city, avoid land uses that are overwhelming and
unacceptable due to their size and scale). Staff looks to the Commission to comment on this
policy, as this is a matter of opinion.
L-31 (develop the Cat-Ventura area 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 Cal.
Ave.). The project is a four-story building as proposed, so would not comply with this policy.
Having a first floor commercial and the number of residential units accounts for the overall
height as proposed. Staff would like the Commission’s comments regarding the residential
density and commercial use.
Commissioner Holman asked for additional information regarding proposed parking spaces. A
total of 392 spaces are proposed on the site, with an additional 14 spaces on the streets fronting
Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
the project. The entrance is proposed on Park Blvd. It is not proposed on Page Mill because that
is the proposed plaza location. Required parking for R&D in the LM zone district works because
the parcels are large. GM(B) parcels are generally smaller and a denser use is typically
proposed, so that is why more parking spaces are required.
Chair Cassel: Why don’t we hear the applicant’s presentation. We will start with Mr. Doug
Hohbach.
Mr. Doug Hohbach. 333 Kipling Street. Palo Alto: I am Doug Hohbach. I am representing my
father, Harold, Hohbach, who is President of Hohbach Enterprises, the General Partner of
Courthouse Plaza Company who is the owner and developer of the Park Plaza. My father is
sorry he can’t be here. He is in Russia on a long planned vacation. He left on August 7 and will
be back on August 31.
We have here five members of the project team who will go into detail on the project. Carol
Jansen is a planning consultant, Cliff Chang with Chang Architects is the design architect,
Richard Campbell of Hoover Associates will be the architect of record, Linn Winterbotham is
the landscape architect, Fred Choa is the traffic and parking consultant. I am also actually
serving as the structural engineer on the project. Carol, would you please come forward?
Ms. Carol Jansen. 575 Hawthorne Avenue. Palo Alto: Good evening members of the Planning
Commission. Can you hear me? I have been working with Harold Hohbach and the project
team for the last three months on this application. The application was actually submitted in
October of last year and from April on since then we have been working diligently to make it a
complete application for the City.
I just want to make a few comments. One is I think for those of you who had the opportunity to
see the site it cries out for redevelopment. This is a combination of four parcels that are
currently zoned for General Industrial and have been used over time as Service Commercial,
General Industrial, R&D, and warehouse and storage. The actual application reduces the square
footage of the commercial buildings on the site by approximately 5,000 square feet. So the
45,000 square feet, the first floor would be R&D with 2,000 square feet of neighborhood serving
retail on the corner and then 177 units would be on top of that. It is a mixed-use development
that will allow for working and living within 1,000 feet of the Caltrain area. This is throughout
your Comprehensive Plan as you know there are a lot of policies that very much support that.
This project will also generate 177 rental residential housing units in a market that as you know
is very difficult to get rental housing including 32 BMRs, which is approximately a little bit over
18%.
The public benefits on the project in terms of what we feel are the public benefits, the rental
housing we feel is a public benefit on this. It represents a diminishment ofvatue in this project
of approximately $25 million versus a for sale housing product. The provision of the 32 BMRs
represent on an annual basis a savings to BMR renters of approximately $115,000 a year. There
is public art proposed at the entrance of the project that would be done by Lorraine Vail who is
one of the artists in the Caf4 Riatchi area that has the woman with the washing machine above
her head.
Page 3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The finally, another public benefit that we think would have enormous value to the California
Avenue area and the neighborhood in genera! is the possibility of having Page Mill Road
extension from Park Boulevard to the Sam Trans driveway area be redone and not as a vacation
but as I understand it from talking to the attorney’s office as a pedestrian mall type of
improvement. How that occurs, we have shown a plan to the Planning Commission and we are
certainly very open as to how that might occur and whether it has softscape in combination with
hardscape and so forth but we feel it could be a rea! asset to the area in-general. Thank you very
much. I would like Cliff Chang to present the plans.
Mr. Clifford Chan~, 156 Chapin Lane. Burlino, ame: I just wanted to clarify for the record I am
the designer for the building but I designed it while I was at Hoover Associates. So technically
Hoover Associates is the design architect for the building.
I would like to briefly go over the plan and identify some of the important points. The R&D
space is located here, railroad tracks are back here, California Street is here. The whole building
is a courtyard building with a plaza in the middle.
Commissioner Hotman: Excuse me, I need to interrupt for just a second because I think maybe
if the applicant could put his presentation over here I think maybe the Commission could see it
and the members of the public could see it too ifI could make that request.
Mr. Chan~: Is that as best as we think we can do here? Great. So the entire complex is a
courtyard with the R&D on the first floor and the main entrance is off Park Boulevard. There are
actually two entrances, one entrance is to the central courtyard, which has parking primarily for
the R&D, and then there is another garage entrance here, which goes down to an undergound
one-story garage. Here is where the pedestrian mall would be that would be new and then the
railroad tracks are back here.
On the second story above this are three stories of the apartments. It is a double loaded corridor
so half the apartments are looking inside the central courtyard and half are looking on the
outside. When we took a look at this project obviously the corner was an important element,
which I will go through on the elevations and obviously the entrance here, which is also going to
have a fountain, and that is where the sculpture is going to be located. So we are really playing
that up. The core’s access into the apartments are located one here, one here, one here and one
here and those go all the way do~vn to the garage and then up to the top.
So I am just going to briefly go through the elevations. I know there are some questions
regarding scale and whatnot. First I want to clarify that the existing sidewalk along Park
Boulevard right now is really almost nonexistent. It is probably about 30 inches. So the plan is
really to expand that sidewalk to a minimum of five feet in some areas and then in other areas we
are adding planting and that is going to be exceeding the five feet and we will get eight feet.
Those are in the corners and near the entrances and that is where we are adding trees. In general,
as opposed to just creating a four-story wall with repetitive apartments the idea is really to create
a composition of elements. So this doesn’t really become just one building. For instance we
stake the corner with a primary element, which kind of has some visual excitement and then we
Page 4
.1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
4o
41
42
43
44
45
46
have a cadence of repetitive elements. These are basically apartments that are separated by
terraces and decks where they can go outside but they add some visual separation between
groups of units. Then after a couple of these it is interrupted by another event, which is another
material and a different massing. That is really where the garage entrance occurs, where
everyone would primarily be coming in and out every day. Then there is the main entrance to
the courtyard, which is yet another material and another form and then the cadence of the typical
units picks up again. Then the ends are treated special. What we are trying to do is create these
vertical separations of elements and still maintain a nice rhythm going down the street. Then the
same thing happens down by the pedestrian mall.
Now just taking a typical bay it starts off with a two foot six stone base and then there is a
storefront with some colored glass. We want to use different types of glass on this project to
express a variety of different materials and elements. This element here is a relief metal panel.
If you have ever been up to Yorba Buena and seen the Metrion it is that same metal panel. It is a
very fine and delicate looking material but it is very durable at the same time. Now that is mixed
in with the basic stucco of the bodies of the units. Then at the second story is an accent color of
stucco which projects actually out. What it does is it actually creates this kind of two-story
appearance. So we are starting to break down the scale both vertically and horizontally. Then as
you rise up to the body it is capped off again with a repeat of that metal panel. At the balconies
that metal panel actually gets set back about five feet and then projects up to kind of add these
accents at the top. So there is real kind of roof-scape to it and there is a definite base, a body and
a top.
Now the other element of material is we are adding stone. That occurs here in this kind of
composed tower, composed with the metal panel, and then a visor at the top and we are using it
at the entrance here. This is actually a shear wall element but it is a beautiful shear wall element
because it is this kind of massive stone that is holding this corrugated metal panel.
Chair Cassel: You have four minutes for the rest of the presentation.
Mr. Chang: Okay. I just want to add at this entrance we have a lot of the public amenities for
the project. I am going to hand this off to the landscape architect. Thank you.
Mr. Linn Winterbotham. 212 High Street, Palo Alto: Just briefly there are three areas of
landscaping in this project. The first is the interior courtyard that has been referred to, that area
is going to be enhanced with decorative pavers probably interlocking pavers in combination with
colored concrete and there will be some vegetation added with trees in large containers. We
have been fairly successful both at Sheridan Plaza and at the Mayfield in getting reasonably
sized trees to grow for a long period of time in containers like that. Then there will also be
precast containers against the building that will have lower vegetation just to soften the area.
The second area is going to be the landscape bulbouts along Park Boulevard to continue the
pattern that has already been established at the Sheridan Plaza closer towards California Avenue
allowing to get some shade trees along that area and provide a protected bicycle lane up and
down Park.
Page 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
"~1
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Then third is the public pedestrian plaza, which it is public. As of right now we are required to
have a fire access through there. That will be treated in the same type paving stone that the rest
of the plaza will be so that it doesn’t look like a driveway and looks more like the usable plaza
space. In this core area here there will be room for tables and chairs to serve the neighborhood
retail use. The primary sculpture will be at this location. I am sure you noticed, when you were
out at the job site that there is just a marvelous sight line looking down Page Mill even from E1
Camino. You look right at that spot there and it is really an opportunity to do something fun.
Then lastly ther.e is an outdoor active recreation basketball court in back for the residents to use.
I will turn it over to Fred Choa. Fred is passing. That’s it.
Chair Cassel: Is that the end of your presentation? You gave me cards for Richard Campbell
and Fred Choa. You have a minute and a half go ahead.
Ms. Jansen: I had advised the Staff that we were giving the traffic analysis. I prefer since given
their comments that we not have Fred Choa make a presentation on the traffic this evening. If
you have any questions with regard to the project or anything I ~vould be happy to answer them.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Now we have some people from the public here xvho I believe would
like to speak and there is a tape recorder up there and a mike. Annette Ashton is the first person
to speak to be followed by Stefanos Sidiropoulous.
Ms. Annette Ashton, 2747 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: Good evening members of the Planning
Commission. I am speaking for Midtown residents. The Midtown Residents Association just
heard about this project on Monday when the phone began to ring with a number of residents.
Our Steering Committee has not had time to review this and take an intensive formal position nor
have had time to present this to our residents. Due to the speed of this project we want to share
our concerns and preliminary thoughts with you.
We urge you to deny this application for a Planned Community project. This is an appropriate
location for housing. However, this project needs to go back to the drawing board. Let’s stick
with the current zoning, RM-40, or the planned Transit Orient Residential for the site.
We have eight reasons for asking you to reject this project and send a clear message to Council.
Let’s first look at the process. For the residents this stealth project came out of nowhere. This
project wasn’t even covered in the press. Many of our residents in Midtown will tell you that
they weren’t even noticed. Now I point out this project is not physically in Midtown but it will
affect a sig~aificant number of our residents in the western part of our area. Even though Amy
French did mention the process about an ARB subcommittee the developer decided not to do a
prescreening thus the project should have come to this Commission first. In the Staff Report it
does talk about architectural review and land use for the subcommittee but land use falls under
the purview of your Commission not the ARB.
Second the project. This overwhelming project has large mass, scale, the height is out of
proportion and I’d like to talk to streetscape and density. This building is a monolith poorly
massed and out of scale with the surrounding buildings, excessively tall. Let me point out that
Page 6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
this building is three times -the size of 800 High. At 51 feet this building exceeds the height limit
of the City. The current zoning is 35 feet. The design is described by the developer as
reminiscent of industrial and warehouse.
Chair Cassel: The sound system has come back on. Please go over to the other mike and then
we can proceed with the meeting.
Ms. Ashton: Density. This project proposes the largest density RM-70 for residential housing
that has ever been conceived by the zoning in Palo Alto. The residential FAR, floor area ratio,
proposed is 1.92 where it is currently zoned for a floor area ratio of .5. Thus the developer is
asking for a project four times the size of the current zoning allows. Had the developer waited
for the ZOU a minimum of RM-40 probably would have been allowed and this is almost 60%
~eater density than proposed.
As far as noise, landscaping and setbacks the back of the building, which we haven’t seen, is a
tall non-articulated wall. I will tell you that it will act as a sound wall magnif.ving sound
bouncing the sound back to the east and bringing new noise impacts that will degade the quality
of life in west Midtown.
The developer has asked for significant variances as a matter of fact for almost everything that I
can see.
Sufficient landscaping is not possible with zero side yard and front setbacks and five-foot side
backs. There is no legitimate reason for reducing the setbacks of the current zoning.
The Oregon-Park intersection is presently busy and dangerous. Drivers northbound on Park
turning onto Oregon Expressway can wait more than five minutes before making the turn. This
is extremely dangerous in rush hour, business closing and bicyclists riding down Park. This
proposed exacerbate the situation. The Staff Report does not adequately analyze the traffic
impacts of new commercial and residential of this scale proposed. The Fry’s lease expires in the
near term and there should be a comprehensive look in this area including an expanded traffic
analysis.
Insufficient parking will become the issue since the remaining options for parking are Agilent
and the train parking lots. I just want to comment that this project does not meet any of the
required findings for a Planned Community zone. I want to point out too PC zoning is not
essential to develop this site and it does not provide sufficient public benefits. The rest of my
comments are in writing. We ask you to deny this project. Thanks.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. The next speaker will be Stefanos Sidiropoulous. We do have the
sound system back. We will be able to proceed with this meeting.
Ms. Stefanos Sidiropoulus, 9550 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: I will be very brief. Annette
couldn’t have said it any better. I would voice my concern on the process of this whole project.
In addition I would like to call your attention on the quantitative details of the Attachment C.
For example the company claims that they will lose during this project $25 million. This sounds
Page 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
ll
13
15
1-
23
24
25
26
28
~9
3o
31
32
34
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
more like a charity project to me and it doesn’t make sense for a property organization to donate
$25 million by building a larger building when they could have built a smaller scale building of
residential houses for sale. In addition just a back of the envelope calculation of traffic impacts
these apartments would create will show you the claim of only 1,200 new trips in the area by
having 177 apartments and about 200 occupants doesn’t really check out. I would really request
some more quantitative data to back these numbers up before we even consider going forward
with this.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. The next person to speak is Carolynn Patten to be followed by
Suzanne Bayley. Would you give your name and your address? You can actually stand back a
little bit from that mike or a little bit beside it if you want to read your notes and I think it won’t
echo as much.
\Is Carolvnn Patten. 2535 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Ladies and gentlemen of the Commission
thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am in the west Midtown neighborhood. I am one of a
.qrm~ of residents who will echo the comments of Annette Ashton who put together a very
comprchcnsive response to a number of concerns that we have about this project. First of all, all
oi us arc very concerned about the process. We learned about this only in the last few days.
l h~., project will have a very significant impact on the quality of our lives and our residences.
t ~ ould urge you to deny this application. It needs to go back for further review. I will express
i\~ur specific areas of concern. First, pertaining to the impact on the site neighborhood at Park
and Page Mill. In order to address the traffic backup that was described two speakers ahead of
My second major concern is pertains to the negative impact on the xvest Midtown neighborhood.
This building structure will be a 51-foot high building that will present a solid sound wall that
will affect all of the residents between Colorado Avenue and E1 Dorado and wil! create a sound
echo from the Caltrain and any of the traffic on Alma. This has been wholly un-addressed in the
proposal.
Secondly, there will be a loss of privacy to residents on the apartments ~vith their balconies
looking directly, down into their ne~ahbor s homes and yards.
[AUDIO DIFFICULTIES]
The third category of concern is planning issues that are specific to the neighborhood. There has
been this magnanimous reference to the retail space, which wit! be only a total of 2,000 square
feet in this large monolith of a development. If we really realistically think about 2,000 square
feet we will be lucky if that ~vould be a coffee shop or some form of a restaurant that would be
available to residents. So we think that this is really insufficient to address the project.
Then finally two additional concerns with the building. One is the need for a more inviting
edifice. There has been a request for a variance to push the building out to absolutely every
boundary of the site. This is going to leave little opportunity for landscaping or for green space
in order to make it inviting for the neighborhood. We think that his should be reconsidered.
Page 8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Then a gentleman who was out at the site visit this at~emoon was an individual in a wheelchair
was making a point that the sidewalks are not wide enough to allow for navigation of pedestrians
and wheelchair dependent individuals simultaneously. There was also recognition that the flow
of traffic would be better if the parking access was on the Page Mill entrance rather than on the
ParkAvenue entrance.
Finally, I will just close my comments saying that the public benefits while they have been
highlighted abundantly by the developer are really elusive to the public. Thank you for your
consideration.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Now let’s make sure that I have this right. This was Carolyrm Patten
that was speaking, right? The next person is Suzanne Bayley to be followed by Dorothy Bender.
Ms. Suzanne Ba’clev: 2553 Emerson Street. Palo Alto: Thank you. Good evening members of
the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Staff. I am also a west Midtown resident.
I am here tonight along with some of my neighbors to ask that you deny the application from
Courthouse Plaza. Where to begin? Even though my neighborhood is across the railroad track
and across Alma Street from the proposed site on Park Boulevard ~ve are highly impacted by
developments in that area. Due to its height, massing and higher elevation the recently
completed Agitent building on Park Boulevard looms over our front and back yards and directs
florescent green lighting into our living rooms and bedrooms all night long. Since we are more
than 300 feet from the site we were not notified of the Agilent development. We didn’t
understand the impact until the building was completed and changed the character of our
neighborhood. We have just found out about the Courthouse Plaza development on Page Mill
and Park and are extremely concerned about the major potential impacts of that project as
proposed. Unfortunately it is summer and many of the neighbors are on vacation and we haven’t
really had a reasonable amount of time to notify other people and the larger community about the
proposal and its potential impacts and to have them review the plans and express their views. As
far as I know the developer has made no attempt to inform or meet with the neighbors that will
be affected by this development even though they are requesting numerous concessions from the
City including buildings at densities higher than what is allowed, building to a height that is
higher than allowed, asking for less restrictive setbacks, increased floor area ratio, more site
coverage, less common open space, less private open space, to provide fewer than the required
number of parking spaces and finally requesting that the City vacate a valuable adjacent parcel of
their own land on Page Mill Road.
I do not have a copy of the plans and have only had a brief chance to look at them so my
comments are not as complete or as thorough as I would have hoped but my initial comments
and objections are as follows: the public benefit, the emperor has no clothes. There is no real
public benefit here. The public art piece that this developer previously was allowed to use as a
public benefit on a residential project in the California Avenue area now graces the patio of a
for-profit restaurant. It is completely surrounded by tables with umbrellas. I was there today to
verify this. It is neither visible nor accessible to the general public. It is in actuality publicly
funded private art. Additionally the City is asked to donate a valuable piece of public owned
property to benefit a private developer. I could go on but other things have been mentioned.
Page 9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
The aesthetics of the building, the plans show insufficient setbacks and landscaping on all sides
of the building but especially on the side facing Alma Street and our neighborhood. The
architects have failed to recognize that this building will be visible from all sides and there is no
visual excitement on the side we will see. The buildings are massive and will look like a giant
wall and block views of the western foothills from many different parts of our neighborhood and
that does not meet policy L-3. The noise will not only look like a giant wall but it will act as a
giant sound wall bouncing traffic noise from Alma and we already have increased noise from the
Baby Bullet Trains going by and this will be a giant sound wall that will project the noise right
into our neighborhood. I think the traffic has not been analyzed very closely. There are already
incredible backups on the small streets trying to access Page Mill and Oregon. Currently they
seem beyond capacity. Dedication of the City lot I believe, I wasn’t able to go out on the site
visit tonight, but I think that would block the access to the back of the Caltrain lot. The parking
is extremity limited. A project of this size will geatly impact the already difficult parking
situation near California Avenue and the Caltrain station. The neighborhood serving retail, the
2,000 square feet is woefully inadequate and 45,000 square feet is too much. I just want to say
that housing is vital and important and please don’t give away the store on this prime residential
site for a very bad project. I strongly urge you to recommend denial of this project. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Dorothy Bender to be followed by Bob Moss.
Ms. Dorothy Bender. 591 Military Way, Palo Alto: Hello. I live in Barron Park. I concur with
the remarks made by the Midtown Residents Association, Annette Ashton, Carolyrm Patten and
Suzanne Bayley. Thank you for the site visit this evening.
I find this application very troubling. I appreciate Amy French going through some of the policy
issues that have not been complied with. She mentioned Policy L-31 but didn’t read it and I
think I would like to refer you to two pages in the Comp Plan, which describe the goals for the
Cal-Ventura mixed use area. Policy L-31, develop the Cal-Ventura area 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. There is a map and on the map
it points directly to this Park Boulevard site that we all visited this evening. There is a statement,
improve Park Boulevard for pedestrians and connect Cal-Ventura to the transit station. So we
really have an opportunity to do something really good for our city if we look at pages 24 and 25
of the Comp Plan.
Mv issues about this project. The developments anticipated at the Campus for Jewish Life,
M~yfield, Elks Club and Rickey’s I would like to ask the Staff what is our actual housing deficit
in Palo Alto. Number two, regarding our overall build out of offices how far along are we
towards the maximum permitted in the Comp Plan? My understanding is that we have a
maximum limit of 3.25 million square feet of offices and how close are we to that maximum?
Regarding this project I would like to see a complete traffic impact analysis. This is a huge
project and were neighbors notified? I don’t think so.
Additional points. The developer is asking for almost four times what he is entitled to build. It
is an abuse of the Planned Community, PC, Ordinance. It inappropriately suggests the transfer
of public property to a private developer. It promotes a development in excess of existing
Page 10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
zoning. It is incompatible in scale with the existing neighborhood. It has highly questionable
peak trip calculations. How were the 87 AM peak hour trips and the 114 PM peak hour trips
calculated? Park Boulevard lacks the capacity to absorb more cars. When I left that site this
evening on my bike and I needed to make a left turn on Park Boulevard to go back down to
Barron Park I had to wait a really long time. That intersection is a very important intersection
because that is where cars are going into, and I know you have discussed it, onto Oregon
Expressway. If there are residents living there and the kids have to go left, perhaps they are
going to Gunn High School or one of the schools. Something has to be done about that
intersection. This project will make parking and traffic in the area too heavy and will harm local
merchants and residents. I know you are aware that there are two viable businesses there right
now. There is the Akins Collision business and I don’t know if the bakery is still there but there
are some other businesses there. It is really unfortunate that the developer didn’t come in with a
true mixed-use project that has some reasonable retail, not 2,000 square feet, which is less than
one percent of the entire 250,000 square feet of development.
So finally, I guess I suggest that you deny this project. I would hope that the developer would
come back with a project that is consistent xvith our zoning laws and with the Comprehensive
Plan. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Bob Moss to be followed by Joy Ogawa to be followed by Lynn
Chiapelta and that is the last card I have.
Mr. Bob Moss. 4010 Orme. Palo Alto: Thank you. I would like to associate myself with the
previous speakers starting with Annette Ashton. I have seen an awful lot of proposals and
projects come before the Commission and the City in the last 30-some years and I must say
giving this the benefit of the doubt it is absolutely one of the most ghastly if not the most ghastly
proposal I have ever seen in my life anywhere in this city or any other city.
It is insulting to have a developer come to us and say that it is a public benefit to give almost
four-tenths of an acre of public land to them so they can use it for their benefit on their project.
As a resident of this town I am a part owner of that land which is worth more than $2 million and
I strongly object to calling that a public benefit and giving away any of my land to a private
developer.
Let me give you a couple of other examples. Harold Hohbach says, "Conversion of commercial
land to predominantly residential use is rare in Palo Alto." Garbage! We have been doing it for
a quarter century. I could list a dozen projects just off the top of my head, which have been
converted from commercial to residential in this city. The reason he wants a PC isn’t because he
wants to build all this marvelous housing it is because he wants to build 47,000 square feet of
office and R&D space, which is going to create close to 200 jobs which is going to far out weigh
the 170-some housing units. These deny the jobs/housing realities, proposes a piece of garbage
as a development. [Mees Vanderall] would hate that project believe me. That is not a nice
looking development.
We are being asked to provide something to the developer in exchange for a public benefit. One
of the public benefits is art. Let me give you an example of art that Mr. Hohbach has provided.
Page 11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
You may not realize it but at 200 Page Mill Road when he got that project approved he provided
so-called art. I challenge anybody in this room to find the art in that building. You can do it if
you look very carefully but it is difficult.
Then he talks about the value. The value of $250,000. We have had people say we have given
half a million dollars worth of art. What they have done is given some commission to a relative,
overpaid them for something that is worth maybe $5,000 or $10,000 and said look at the art we
have given you.
Another example. They don’t talk about the fact that this is part of a superfund site and there are
significant amounts of toxic chemicals right under that ground. Right across the street where the
project you were told about was built they had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars
cleaning that up. This site is contaminated and they are not talking about that.
You also have something that talks about how we don’t have a parking problem with other
developments like Courthouse Square. That is because the parking garage was built at
Courthouse Square, was built for a building that was intended to be ten stories. They only built
five stories and then they built the garage. They came back years later and asked to build the
other five stories and the City Council denied it. But they still have overflow parking from that
project that goes into other parts of the area. They talk about how other parts of the Bay Area
that have mixed use developments and are near transit don’t have to have as much parking but
those are near BART, they are I San Francisco where they have real transit bus lines and trolleys
that run rapidly. This is Palo Alto we do not have that. The parking is inadequate. The setbacks
are inadequate. The height is too large. The density is too large. The only projects we have
allowed in Palo Alto with densities of 70 units an acre have not been this sort of project. They
have been ones which were a 100% BMR, the SROs for example. This is an absolute
abomination. Let’s kill it now and put it to bed. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Joy Ogawa to be followed by Lynn Chiapella and I do have a couple
more cards.
Ms. Joy O~awa. Yale Street. Palo Alto: I am so glad that I am speaking at the end when all these
other people have made great comments and I don’t have to repeat them. One thing I wanted to
point out was that it doesn’t seem to me when I look at the plans that the project provides
common open space recreation areas for its residents onsite. In stead what they are proposing is
to take the adjacent section of Page Mill Road and landscape that and supposedly include some
recreation space in that. Unfortunately, when a developer tries to squeeze too much onto a
property the result is that you end up with not enough space for fluffy stuff like usable common
open space, some recreation space for the residents. The project is ridiculously under-parked.
Really the floor area is so out there that the total floor area is huge that in order to provide even
the inadequate amount of parking they are using that so-called courtyard for parking. They have
to squeeze in parking there because they need to provide some parking even though it is
inadequate. If you are going to make a residential complex make it a decent residential complex
with good open space.
Page 12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
I wanted to also talk about the residential neighborhoods nearby are already really heavily
impacted by workers parking in their neighborhood streets. This project proposes 160 fewer
parking spaces than the 552 parking spaces that Staff has calculated to be required for this
project and 160 parking spaces is a !ot of parking spaces. They are asking for a 20% reduction in
required parking for joint use parking facilities based on the idea supposedly that during the day
the residents will remove their cars in order to drive to work thereby freeing up the space for the
R&D workers. Then they are also asking for a nine percent reduction for proximity to the
California Avenue Caltrain station, which I assume they are saying that the residents are going to
take the train to commute to work. Well, if you take the train to commute to work you are going
to leave your car parked at home, right? So then you are not going to free up that space for the
R&D people. I have never understood the logic where you basically claim a reduction in parking
spaces for residents taking their cars away during the daytime then also on top of that ask for a
reduction in parking assuming that the residents are going to be taking Caltrain which of course
then means they are going to leave their cars at home. You can’t have it both ways. Either they
leave their cars at home in order to take Caltrain or they take their car away and drive to work
and don’t use Caltrain.
The final point I want to make was with regard to Dorothy Bender’s point about mixed use.
Mixed use in my mind, appropriate mixed use for residential is neighborhood serving retail and
there is a minimum amount of that here. The R&D you well know what research and
development turns into it is not necessarily our original idea of very low impact research and
deve!opment. I could be really high-density office use. So just using the label research and
development you might as well just say that it is going to be office because it could very well or
likely turn into office. I just don’t think that...this could be a good residential project, a good
mixed-use project with the appropriate amount of residential and retail. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Lynn Chiapella to be followed by Sally Probst.
Ms. Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Avenue, Palo Alto: I want to agee with the Midtown
Residents points made by Annette Ashton and some of the other speakers particularly in regard
to the art done by this particular developer xvhich has disappeared both at the so-called publicly
accessible plaza which has disappeared at Sheridan Plaza and also the fountain which has not
worked for years that Bob Moss mentioned.
I am not going to repeat their points but I am concerned that the City would even consider ceding
land to a private developer. If you ~vere interested in doing that kind of thing then the outfit
would be to the Palo Alto Housing Corporation for 100% transit oriented residential. You could
probably do a very nice job of something on that that has been done in other parts of Palo Alto.
There is a project Downtown that I think Mr. Lippert may knob, about that would be a nice
project but certainly you don’t cede it to a private developer so that he can develop 70 units to
the acre where 30 or maybe 40 is allowed by the zoning.
The public benefit being the rental units and particularly the BMR units he is only proposing as
far as I can understand from the zoning exactly what the zoning allows in that he is asking for 70
units per acre, he would be required to provide one unit of BMR for three units of regular rental.
Page 13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
In that case he is just meeting the bare minimum requirement. There is nothing extra here in that
respect.
Having lived in that area for 30 years every time I go up the expressway I see more and more
walls, we get more and more bounce of noise from the tracks. We have lost much of our view of
the hills thanks to these dense buildings. Eventually the trees have grown on most of them and at
least it is a greenscape and it is not so harsh you don’t just see a bright white wall but this is just
proposed to be more like a factory stuck on the railroad tracks with nothing nice to look at. This
is what we apparently deserve in our area. There is no landscaping in that area on the Oregon
Expressway and on the Alma side, residential side, and now there are just going to be more
buildings. So I think that you really need to rethink the landscape plan.
I am also concerned about if children are going t be living there. That whole area has very few
facilities for children. No schools that they can walk to. I have been to many of the apartment
houses, no playgrounds for them to go to. The publicly accessible space has somehow
disappeared that they were going to be able to use in similar proposals earlier done.
In other words, I am opposed to this project. I think it is too dense. I think it hasn’t been thought
out as to who will live there and what kind of a lifestyle are you asking them to live. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Sally Probst to be.followed by Douglas Moran. This time I think that
is the last card.
Ms. Sally Probst. 735 Coastland Drive, Palo Alto: Good evening. I live in Midtown. I do not
live anywhere near this project but I think it is time for you to hear a different point of view. I
am speaking for myself. I think that this is the kind of project, this is the beginning of a tong
process for this project and I think that you should send it on its way. There will no doubt be
chan~es along the way. There will be an Environmental Impact Report. If there are toxics they
will t~ave to be cleaned up. This is something the State of California is urging, brown-field
cleanup so that our land can be used. We need to use land that is within city boundaries so that
we don’t eat up the open space and the agricultural land that still exists. I think this project has a
lot of possibilities. There are a lot of people, not necessarily with children, who are looking for
this kind of housing. They are new families, they are old families whose kids have grown and
there is a real definite need for this kind of housing in the region and in Palo Alto and in the
state.
As far as transportation people who live here can walk to the Caltrain station. They can use the
Marguerite to Stanford Research Park. They can walk to the California business district. They
can walk to the E1 Camino Real. Recently we talked to the VTA, which is moving forward, but
it will be a little while but they are moving toward the bus rapid transit on ECR. So there are a
number of possibilities for transportation. Some people will have to drive to work of course. I
don’t think that the figures that are here are necessarily the ones that we will end up with when
this project is completed. But I urge you to look at it ~vith an open eye. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. Douglas Moran.
Page 14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Douglas Moran, 790 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto: You have comments before you that I
wrote on traffic analysis. Since you don’t have a report I am going to skip those other than to
say that just taking the numbers from the basic Staff Report and doing some back of the envelope
calculations this does not seem to pass even a basic smell test. That the amount of traffic
impacts is just so monstrous. I went to Downtown California Avenue today and counted the
number of parking spaces in the two large lots behind California Avenue off Sherman between
Park and Ash. There are roughly 300 parking spaces there compared to the almost 400 parking
spaces there would be in this development. If you look at how the street grid goes you start
saying how could this ever work. You start looking at the other businesses there, is this going to
create traffic problems that are going to severely impact those businesses. Another factor for
concern is although this was determined as transit oriented residential Palo Alto has recently
noticed how much our development plans are impacting businesses. Park Avenue right here is
one of the many auto malls we have in the City and we are trying to improve the climate for
them and we are eliminating space that would potentially help those two major auto dealers
there. It also is a major route for people getting to Fry’s one of our major sales tax generators
and making traffic much worse around Fry’s could severely impact the continuing viability of
that business even though it is currently slated to turn into housing that is no longer a set deal.
So that is what I want to say. I hope you look at the back of the envelope things and think
whether or not there is a need to even do the fine grain traffic analysis. Thank you.
Chair Cassel: Thank you. That closes our public hearing and brings us back to the Commission.
We are probably going to have to set some time limit tonight. I presume at 11:00 we will all turn
into pumpkins.
At this point I think we want to go back to the Staff. I believe they have some additional Staff
Report to give us. Did you have any more or was that it? Okay, we are ready for questions.
Bonnie, you have a question?
Vice-Chair Packer: Yes, I have a question. Last year I pulled a file because it said Park
Boulevard- Page Mill Rezone, you came to us with a Staff Report asking for a city initiated
rezoning of these parcels or more or less these parcels to make it transit oriented residential in
the Comp Plan and to make it high density RM-40 zoning. I don’t know what happened to that.
Apparently if we have this application before us we are still under the GMB zone. So can you
describe what happened? I don’t even remember how we voted on that and what happened?
Ms. Grote: You did as a Commission vote to support that Comprehensive Plan land use
designation and the accompanying RM-40 District zone. That is to be scheduled with the City
Council. So final action has not been taken on that. There were several other rezoning and land
use designation changes that were packaged xvith this one. They are waiting to be heard at the
City Council. The applicant didn’t believe that that was a sufficient density or the correct
density on the site and that is why he has come forward with a PC application.
Chair Cassel: I made a mistake. I think our applicant gets another five minutes to comment.
Ms. Grote: That is true, yes.
Page 15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
.31
32
.3.3
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Chair Cassel: Should I go-back and do that? Pardon me. Go ahead and follow that up and then
let’s go back. If the applicant would like another five minutes they get that to rebut anything.
Vice-Chair Packer: What I would request of Staff is to give us some more background on this
proposed rezoning and maybe provide to the Commissioners some of the correspondence, etc.
because I have a letter in our Staff Report from Courthouse Plaza Company to the Planning and
Transportation Commission that I think would be useful for all the Commission members to have
if they don’t still have that file and any other information that maybe helpful to us in looking at
this project in the context of that. The City’s initiated request to make it RM-40 and how that fits
in with the City’s perspective on this project.
Chair Cassel: Go ahead, Pat.
Commissioner Burt: Bonnie, the letter you refer to is that from a year ago when the zoning
change was proposed?
Vice-Chair Packer: Yes, it is dated July 2, 2003.
Commissioner Burt: I had a general recollection of that. Can you share the thrust of it with us?
Vice-Chair Packer: I would be happy to. It was signed by Mr. Harold Hohbach and generally
Courthouse Plaza was opposed to the City initiated plan to have it rezoned RM-40. They said
RM-40 zoning is much more restrictive than GMB zoning. It is their opinion that RM-40 should
revert back to the previous RM-50 zoning. A 50-foot height limit should be permitted. FAR
should not be necessary if it is included should be no less than 2.0. Things to that effect.
Chair Cassel: Does anyone else have a question of Staff? Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I had posed a question about Staff’s opinion about R&D parking
standards. We have not established those but we have had several discussions about those at the
Planning Commission. I just want to frame the parking relationship here if Staff had any
comment about if we might be changing that since it has been very difficult these days to
differentiate be~,een R&D and General Office.
Ms. Grote: As part of the Zoning Ordinance Update there will be a detailed discussion about
R&D parking, about office parking. At this point they haven’t been changed so they are as they
appear in 18.83, which is our parking section. I think we called those out in the Staff Report but
at this point there haven’t been changes to those but we recognize that that may be occurring in
the future.
Chair Cassel: Michael.
Commissioner Griffin: t wonder if Staff could discuss some of the detail behind the allowed
reduction for being close to transit as well as there is another reduction for the shared parking. Is
it permissible to read the code to say that applicants would get a 20% allowed reduction for
shared parking plus another additional 20% for being close to transit?
Page 16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
1 9
21
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Grote: Those parking reductions can be added together. So yes you can request up to a 20%
reduction for what is called shared or joint use facilities. You can also request up to a 20%
reduction for being close to transit facilities or having other types of transportation management
demand progams in place. Those 20% reductions are maximums but they can be added
together. So the total could equal more than a 20% reduction.
Commissioner Griffin: Just to follow up on an item that Ms. Ogawa brought to our attention
about the fact that if you jump on Caltrain you wind up leaving your automobile parked in its
parking space. Is the idea behind the 20% reduction for being close to transit is the concept there
that you would have fewer automobiles, you would only have one instead of two, or none
perhaps?
Grote: Our Transportation Staff may want to comment on this too but I believe the concept
embodies a couple of primary points. One is that if you live close to a transit station there is a
posstbilit.v that you would have fewer cars. It also means that if you leave your car parked there
dunng the day that it is not going to take up a needed parking space because people will be
coming into the site via transit whether it is Caltrain or the bus and not need that parking space
bccat~sc thev will be traveling to their workplace via transit. So there are a couple of concepts
there but our Transportation Staff can probably elaborate.
(’ommissioner Griffin: Joe thinks you did well.
Chair Cassel: Are there other questions? Any from this end? Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: In taking a look at the parking along the street, particularly along Park
Boulevard generally in most areas we have a five-foot wide planting strip and then a five-foot
wide sidewalk. In this case you have a parking area that has bulbouts and then you have a five-
foot wide sidewalk and then zero clearance to the building line. Can this be improved landscape
wise? Is there a way to get more landscaping and the parking too?
Ms. Grote: I think that is part of the concept behind the bulbouts. It was a method that was used
to get more landscaping further down Park Boulevard with other developments where you have a
bulbout. It does reduce the on street parking, which is public parking. It does reduce it but not to
a significant de~ee but there are planning bulbouts that are located along Park Boulevard
already. I think part of their proposal is to continue that which would reduce some on-street
parking. It gets a little bit more landscaping. I think they have also proposed some widening not
of the public sidewalk but of the private area adjacent to the sidewalk, which would act as kind
of a quasi-public landscaped area. But there isn’t a lot of right-of-way to work with there to
actually make a wider sidewalk or include a planting strip all the way along the frontage.
Commissioner Lippert: Generally in the Downtown we have a much wider sidewalk but the
reason why is that the sidewalk actually projects into the property line in many cases. In that
case couldn’t we require more landscaping, make them pull the building back and put more
landscaping on their property along the building?
Page 17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1.~
15
1-
18
14)
24
25
26
28
"~9
30
32
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Ms. Grote: That could be one of your comments in order to enhance the design or enhance the
public right-of-way that you believe the building should not be all the way to the property line or
be located at the property line in essence.
Chair Cassel: I am going to ask a question. I have a question about vacating the street. I
haven’t a clue why we would vacate the street and I want to know either from you or from Joe
why the City would consider vacating the street from the City’s perspective.
Ms. Grote: We have not supported their request to vacate the street. There is another option,
which would be this pedestrian mall. It is a technique that was used across the street from City
Hall on Centennial Alley. It allows the City to retain ownership of the public right-of-way but it
does allow other types of uses besides vehicular access. It allows pedestrian access. It allows
~ourt.vards, tables and chairs, things like that. So we would retain ownership. We have actually
not at this point taken a position on either one of those two approaches but the pedestrian mall
approach has been used in other instances.
(hmr (’assel My question is more basic than that. Why would we give up the street in either
c~rcumstance to be used by a private person to make it into a mall? Why would we give up the
strccl access?
Xls. Grote: Joe may want to elaborate on that. I think part of the concept at least as the applicant
has presented. I understand your question.
Chair Cassel: I would like the City’s response for what it does with the street and its needs and
why it would give up the street for any other developer.
Ms. Grote: Joe can elaborate a little bit but I do want to emphasize we have not taken a position
that we do in fact support the request in either of its possible variations.
Chair Cassel: Go ahead.
\:ice-Chair Packer: I want to thank Amy for explaining what the scope of our initial review is
tonight. What I am gathering from what you are saying is that the Staff has not or the City has
not taken a position yet on this application pending our comments or are we just sort of making
our comments without any Staff position. We are on our own so to speak.
Ms. Grote: We have identified in the Staff Report concerns that we do have and asked for
Commission comment and response on those. I think parking is one of the issue areas. I think
the public benefit in general is another issue area particularly the pedestrian mall or vacation of
the street. Size, mass, landscaping some of these other issues are outlined generally in the Staff
Report so we are asking for your comment on that and ~ve did outline two possible courses of
action or recommendations that the Commission could make.
Chair Cassel: My understanding is that we are either to forward this to ARB with comments that
they may want to take into consideration and other suggestions to Staff or deny it and send it to
Page 18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2o
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
City Council in which case we may need to make some notes as to why we would be denying it.
Is that correct?
Mr. Steve Emslie, Plannin~ Director: Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Dan Soder~en, Special Counsel to City Attorney’s: I just wanted to make one comment on
that.
Chair Cassel: Go ahead if it is on that.
Mr. Soder~en: Given that this is considered an initial review there is some question that I have
whether if in fact you do recommend denial of this initial review whether it will have to come
back before the Planning Commission for you to take action formally on the application before it
goes to the City Council. I just wanted to point that out that after your action tonight depending
on what your action is tonight if it does happen to be denial again we will take it directly to the
City Council unless after taking another look at this we opine otherwise in which case it may end
up coming back to you.
Chair Cassel: Why?
Mr. Soder~en: Because there is some question the way the Zoning Ordinance is drafted whether
or not the initial review process is in addition to the regular Zoning Ordinance application
process or whether it being more specific takes a~vay part of that process.
Chair Cassel: Okay. Karen.
Commissioner Holman: I have a question about the first PC finding. That one is always a little
difficult but I have always understood it to mean that there should be some constraint on the
property that wouldn’t allow development as proposed. I don’t see any constraints on this
property. Could Staff comment on that please?
Ms. Grote: The current zoning is GMB, which refers if you are going to do a residential project
or a mixed-use project would refer to the RM-30 zone district requirements for the residential
portion. You could make the case that there is development potential under that RM-30 zone
that is sufficient for the site. So you may not necessarily be able to make that first finding for the
PC.
Commissioner Holman: I was specifically referring to the site is so situated so having nothing to
do with the zoning that is in place.
Also could Staff comment on there is a significant housing component here, not commenting for
the moment on the density or parking related to that, the Comp Plan talks about converting
commercial lands to residential is the presumption that the commercial will go away and be
replaced by housing not that the commercial will be retained and housing be added on top of that
or in addition to that?
Page 19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
!1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Ms. Grote: In our Zoning Ordinance we do have provisions for residential use in all commercial
zones. So there is some allowance for mixed use currently. Under our existing zoning district
there are some difficulties with trying to do mixed use projects because all of the commercial as
well as the residential portion of the project becomes subject to the more restrictive residential
requirements and we are working on that and evaluating that as part of the Zoning Ordinance
Update. I think the Comprehensive Plan anticipates and supports mixed use as well as additional
housing. So as far as what can be done on an individual site I don’t think the Comprehensive
Plan comments on that. I think that the Comprehensive Plan supports mixed uses and it supports
additional housing. One of the speakers asked about the deficit that Palo Alto currently has for
housing and we can get that number for you. It has been reduced somewhat from when you
reviewed the Housing Element because we have added housing units. We can get the exact
number for you.
Chair Cassel: Can we go to Mike and then I will get back to you?
Commissioner Griffin: I will give Commissioners who haven’t had a chance to ask their
questions yet that opportunity. I think I will pass on my question and let them go ahead. I am
ready to make a motion actually but I want to make sure that everyone has a chance so I will
acquiesce to that.
Chair Cassel: Go ahead Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: A couple of things. I would be interested in understanding or knowing
why, this is a project that is proposed in a condition that I see similar to the SOFA II area where
in SOFA II we allow for certain buildings that are of similar character defined under the SOFA
regulations. It is close to transit. It can be up to 50 feet high. It has an FAR that is similar, it is
not exactly the same but it is similar. Why is it that we would allow something like this? Can
you sort of compare and contrast the two? This is very close to the California Avenue which his
almost like a second Downtown.
Ms. Grote: I do believe that the FAR that is being proposed on this site is higher than what was
approved.
Commissioner Lippert: It is.
Ms. Grote: Yes, in the SOFA area. One of the reasons why we considered higher densities in
SOFA was because it is adjacent to Downtown. It is kind of a transition area that goes from
some lower density residential into the Doxvntown area. The additional FAR, the additional
density, was for housing in the SOFA area. There was a desire to preserve some of the uses that
are already there but allow some additional housing so it becomes a mixed-use area even more
than it is now and retains it vibrancy. I don’t think that the general area for this proposed project
has those same characteristics and that same level of activity or density.
Commissioner Lippert: Okay. Then one last question. The height of this building in
comparison to the adjacent Agilent building, what would the relationship be like?
Page 20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
Mr. Chris Riordan. Planner: The adjacent Agilent building at 395 Page Mill Road is actually 45
feet tall.
Commissioner Lippert: So it would tower over it by six feet?
Mr. Riordan: That is correct.
Chair Cassel: Pat, do you have a question or shall we go to Mike and see if he has a motion that
we could debate?
Commissioner Burt: I haven’t had any opportunity to ask any questions at all.
Chair Cassel: Okay, go ahead.
Commissioner Butt: First is a process question. Normally we have made available to applicants
in particular for PCs a prescreening process which had been setup several years ago specifically
so that a PC would have an opportunity to get feedback on a broad scoping kind of level. This
applicant apparently has elected not to use the prescreening process. Can Staff comment on that?
My understanding then is that at the applicant’s election they have decided to kind of take the
gamble of whether this is going to get supported by the Commission without any prescreening or
have the Commission recommend a denial to Council. Is that basically the way things have been
setup here?
Mr. Emslie: We do recommend and encourage a prescreening prior to any PC application that is
department policy and that ~vas discussed with the applicants as an option. Clearly they do have
the option to accept or reject that, as the prescreening is required to be initiated by the applicants
and there is a payment of a fee for that. We do believe it is a way to get either Commission or
City Council input early on in the process before design work is completed and it gives them the
opportunity for broader land use issues to be discussed and direction given even though the
prescreening is a non-binding on either the applicant or the City, either the Planning Commission
or the City Council. It is a good way to flush out issues of significance and priority. One was
recently completed in June for the CJL and Bridge Build housing project on the former Sun site.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you. Next, we as a Commission had recommended changing the
zoning to RM-40 and that is going forward right now it is GM in the prior zoning. My
understanding was that when the Commission was going through the ZOU part of our purpose is
to establish zoning guidelines that implement the Comp Plan in ways that diminish the need for
PCs. Does Staff have any comments on whether this project is in essence outside the scope of
what had been the intentions of the new ZOU?
Ms. Grote: We did provide a chart at places that somewhat addresses that question. There are
copies available at the back of the room for the audience. There is a new pedestrian transit
oriented residential land use concept that is mentioned specifically in the Comprehensive Plati
and is being discussed as part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. It would allow up to a maximum
of 50 units per acre for residential uses. So that 50 units per acre would be kind of the upper
limit. The current proposal for this project is at 70 units per acre, which does exceed that upper
Page 21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
maximum or that upper limit under the new land use designation. So it is outside of or beyond
that designation.
Chair Cassel: A follow up to that. Is it in theft transit oriented residential we were presuming
that would be all residential and not in addition to that be a research and development or some
other mixed use over and above the 50 units.
Ms. Grote: That is correct. We do have another new concept, which is called mixed use, which
would allow retail, commercial and residential, but at that point the densities would not be as
high.
Commissioner Burt: What would those densities be under the mixed use or do you have that
handy?
Ms. Grote: I don’t have that in front of me.
Commissioner Burt: Well, if anybody were able to dig it up shortly that would be helpful.
Finally, one of the stated public benefits is the additional BMRs but at the same the applicant is
using the proposal of the additional BMRs to justify the additional FAR. Can they count that as
a public benefit and get the FAR bonus at the same time? Isn’t that kind of double dipping?
Ms. Grote: We were pointing that out, yes that that is a difficult public benefit finding to make if
in fact what they are receiving for those additional BMR units is additional market rate units. So
we would not at this point consider that to be a public benefit.
Commissioner Burt: Then on that same public benefit vein does Staff view the granting of
publicly owned land to be used as what the applicant would be providing as public open space
really a public benefit in that we would be granting the land?
Ms. Grote: That is what we would need to discuss further. At this point we are not prepared to
say that is a public benefit we would need to see how the land would be used, what the public
accessibility really would be, how it would be managed on a daily basis. So at this point we are
not prepared to say it is a public benefit but we would continue a discussion.
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Chair Cassel: I would like to go to Michael and see if he can propose a motion and that may
focus our discussion.
MOTION
Commissioner Griffin: I am going to move that we deny the application and ask that it move on
directly to Council. I have about ten different items here.
Chair Cassel: I think you need a second.
Page 22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3o
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
SECOND
Cornmissioner Holman: I’ll second.
Chair Cassel: Karen seconded.
Commissioner Griffin: I would like to put these ten items in here as a part of the motion and if
other people want to add other things to it they may but the idea here is to give direction to
Council as to why we did what we did here this evening. I find the project large and out of scale
with adjacent buildings for example Agilent as well as other buildings in the neighborhood. The
massing I found troubling and the fact that the project is exceeding the RM-40 standards that we
proposed in our transit oriented residential zoning decision of last year. Secondly, the 70
dwelling units per acre almost doubles not quite but approaches doubling our PTC proposed 40
standard. The sound wall next to the railroad tracks seems to have been ignored in terms of
trying to attenuate the reflective sound into the Midtown neighborhood. Setbacks were likewise
inadequate in my opinion and made it difficult for the landscaping efforts to be properly
extended to the project. The PC findings were difficult for me to make as welt as for other
Commissioners from my understanding of the comments tonight. The 2,000 square foot
neighborhood sera, ing commercial is potentially inadequate. I would like to see more
development trying to improve "that aspect of the project." I thought Joe Villareal’s comments
this afternoon about the parking lot entrances being better suited on Page Mill extension as
opposed to Park made sense to me and needed further investigation. I was distressed by the fact
that this project came to us prior to the Transportation Division not yet having made a final
evaluation of the draft transportation study. I felt that needed to be done. The whole issue of the
conversion of the public street to private use was troubling and I picked up a comment about the
potential of maybe converting the whole street to a park might be another approach if indeed we
are going to be decommissioning that piece of roadway and putting it to recreational purposes.
The blocking of the views of the foothills from Alma due to the 51-foot height is an item. I think
at that stage I will stop making my points and give Commissioners a chance to tack on.
Chair Cassel: Karen, would you like to make some comments?
Commissioner Holman: Yes, I want to concur with the points that Michael made and I have just
a handful to add to that. The public benefits, considering rental housing as a public benefit I
think would be groundbreaking in this community. I don’t know that we have ever considered
housing itself as a public benefit unless it was BMR. The point that Commissioner Burt made
about the additional BMR units there is a double dipping aspect to that so I can’t find that that’s
a public benefit. Then again the vacating of the land doesn’t seem like that xvould be well, it
would be hard to determine that that was a public benefit no matter what they did there if we are
giving them the land and especially considering what they are proposing there. I have concerns
also about the parking reductions and this Commission has spent a fair amount of time talking
about R&D and how it really is not much different from other general business space. So to use
the parking standard that the applicant did is doubly troubling then. I find that the project does
not have sufficient open space and I think the interior courtyard to be used for parking is a lost
opportunity for some common open space. The other Comp Plan Policy that it doesn’t agree
Page 23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
36
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
with is L-31 that does talk about California Avenue and that connection to Cal Avenue. I think
that would conclude my comments.
Chair Cassel: Shall we start on this end and work down?
Commissioner Bialson: Well, I am in fear of being considered to have piled on ifI add anything
more. I generally concur with everything that has been said before me and I am pleased to vote
for the motion. I think we have made it clear from our comments and I think the public has also
been loud and clear with regard to their comments which I second.
Chair Cassel: Lee.
Commissioner Lippert: I am afraid that I agree with my colleagues as well that I really wanted
to like this project and I really wanted to accept what was being proposed here. I kept finding
myself coming back to the same thing, which is that what is being proposed here is both brutal
and extreme. Those are the two words that I came up with. Unfortunately in a town where we
look very badly on monster single-family residences what I see here is monster multi family
residential.
Vice-Chair Packer: I will also support the motion for all the reasons my colleagues have been
stating and what a lot of the public has stated. It is kind of sad because it is true that we need
rental housing and this is a great site, it is near transit and it would be great to have a developer
who could come to us with a really exciting mixed-use project. Today in the Ne~’ York Times
there was an article about the Fruitvale Village over in Oakland. It sound so nice with two story
buildings with paseos and shops and it sounds like it is really a lovely place to live and to be.
When I looked at the plans here and I saw those apartments coming out of corridors it was like
public housing that was demolished in St. Louis, dreary apartment buildings. We need some
creativity here and we are moving for~vard with our Zoning Ordinance for mixed use. I hope the
City initiated proposal to change this into RM-40 gets approved at the City Council level and that
the developers are listening to what the kinds of things we could approve but we don’t see it
here. So hopefully this will go back to a drawing table and there wilt be a new application that
would present to us something very exciting, not this dense, something that is truly pedestrian
friendly, something that has a lot more retail. I don’t know if there is going to be office that it be
minimal. That is all I will say in the interest of time.
Chair Cassel: Pat.
Commissioner Burr: I concur with my colleagues on everything that they have said. I would just
like to add a few points. One is to emphasize the lack of setbacks on virtually all sides, the lack
of articulation of the building and that both floor area ratio and the site coverage are in
contradiction to our zoning requirements as well as the private open space does not even comply.
Having said that I just want to emphasize what I think is the overriding Comp Plan policy we
need dwell on and then a couple of good things to encourage the applicant to consider in
returning to us.
Page 24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
!5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
2~/
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
This Policy L-31 while we have other policies that speak in a general sense about the
Comprehensive Plan this one takes those general policies and specifically applies them to the
Cal-Venture neighborhood. So that is the sense that we should be having. It is a well-designed
mixed-use district with diverse land uses, two and three story buildings and a pedestrian oriented
street. That is the general context that the Comp Plan dictates. Our job as the Planning
Commission is to review projects and in particular PCs in terms of their compliance to the Comp
Plan and that is the one policy that is very specific about this neighborhood. If there were to be a
general plan or a specific plan for this neighborhood it would evolve around those guidelines.
Finally, as a word of encouragement to the applicant when and if this returns I certainly would
consider it a plus if it included rental housing so I would be more inclined to support a project
with rental housing than other types of housing. I think the RM-40 district was the district that
we thought was appropriate for here and it sounds like we are sticking to our guns on this thing.
I wouldn’t rule out consideration of a PC but we have looked at tr.ving to zone areas according to
our new Zoning Ordinance Update that diminish the appropriateness of PCs. So if it is going to
be considered as a PC application in the future it has to have real public benefits, it can’t break
the bank on our zoning like this thing intends to do and I hope that we will have a project that
comes back to us that is much more consistent with both the Comp Plan and these Zoning
Ordinance Update. Thanks.
Chair Cassel: I too came up with about ten issues some of which have been stated. I will
support the motion but I do want to comment on some of these. It is not just the number of units
but the floor area ratio in this project, the massing of the project, it is transit oriented land use, I
have no problems with that it is 2,000 feet from the train station it is what we want in that sense.
The mixed use is what we want. The retail is good. I don’t find 2,000 square feet a small retail
space. I don’t mind the mixed use that doesn’t bother me. The whole density of this project is
too much. I like housing. I am normally supportive of housing but in this case I think that we
have a site that is too, as other people have said, too close to the sidewalks. The BMR units are
~eat I am glad we have some increase in BMR units but I agee you can’t get both out of that.
The parking is another issue. I do agee that a reduced parking rate is appropriate on this and this
was not the night to discuss what the exact reduction should be and how much it should be but
we tend to over park on these kinds of projects and that is the idea of doing a mixed use. There
is virtually no open space and I agee with what other Commissioners have said about this. I am
very concerned about vacating this public street unless the City decides it doesn’t need the public
street and what it is replacing it with is either housing that we can put up for moderate or low
income people or a public park or some other use that will be truly accessible. Now there you
would have a public benefit if they develop a park space in which everyone has access to but the
City has to decide that for some reason it doesn’t need the street. We need to know what is
going on with access to that street as well along the Caltrain line. I think I mentioned setbacks.
My issues mention gandfathering but I don’t remember why I said that. I think I am concerned
about the doubling of the residential on top. In summary I would like to see it go to City
Council. The FAR is too dense. The street vacation is inappropriate. The open space is not met.
I a~ee with Pat that we really want to see some housing. I hope something ~vill come back that
is not this dense and has wider spaces especially along the sidewalks.
Am~ette.
Page 25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
Commissioner Bialson: Would the City Attorney like us to modify the motion somewhat to say
that it should come back to us if his office finds that that is the appropriate action to take or do
you want us to have the motion say that it goes on to City Council? As I recall the motion said
something about going on to City Council.
Mr. Soderaren: I think that’s fine. Again, it is something we will take a second look at and ifa
determination is made that it needs to come back to you for any reason we will bring it back.
That being said most likely it will go right on to the City Council.
MOTION PASSED (7-0-0-0)
Chair Cassel: Then we are ready to vote? All those in favor please say aye. (ayes) All those
opposed? That motion passes seven to nothing.
Page 26
Attachment H
Wednesday, August 11, 2004
Chairman Michael Griffin
Vice- Chair Phyllis Cassel
Members of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission
Re: Park Plaza 2865 Park Blvd. & 101 Page Mill Road
Dear Phyllis,
\Vc have had the opportunity to review the staff report and attachments on the Park Plaza
project scheduled for the August 11,2004 Planning and Transportation Commission
meeting this Wednesday. We thought it important to augment this report with
information and clarifications to the planning staff report. They are as follows:
The staff report does not include the Transportation Impact Analysis prepared
by Fehr & Peers, transportation consultants. We are enclosing a copy of that
report, because we believe it is critical to the review" of this project. Since
April of 2004, we have worked with Fehr and Peers and City transportation
and planning staff to prepare a comprehensive and final report on the traffic
and parking impacts of the proposed project. As a result of those meetings,
we feel we have reached resolution on a number of issues pertinent to the
review of the Park Plaza Project:
[]At the request of the City, the impacts of the proposed project on
intersections within the area were studied, as follows:
a.Page Mill Expressway / Foothill Expressway / Junipero
Serra Boulevard
b.Page Mill Expressway / Hanover Street
c.Oregon Expressway / Middlefield Road
d.Page Mill Road / Park Boulevard
e.E1 Camino Real / Charleston Road
f.Olive Avenue between E1 Camino Real and Park
Boulevard
g. Sheridan Avenue between E1 Camino Real and Park
Boulevard
Based on the attached final traffic report, the project has virtually no impact on any major
intersections, or on the 0live Avenue and Sheridan Avenue neighborhood streets.
In fact the level of service difference from existing conditions to the addition of the Park
Plaza project is less than one percent on any of the freeway segments shown above.
The level of service is significantly less on local street systems (Olive Avenue and
Sheridan Avenue), far below the City’s 25 % criteria for increased traffic within
residential areas.
o The parking analysis sections of the planning staff report focuses on one key
issue - how best do we address the parking requirements, and more
importantly, do we have enough parking for this project?
As the staff report states, parking requirements are based on the
numbers proscribed by the City’s ordinance. The LM district requires
three per 1000 sq. ft. for parking, whereas any other zoning district in
the City (including the GM-B district, which this property is currently
zoned) requires four spaces per thousand square feet of parking.
Why is there a difference from LM zoning and GM zoning
requirements for parking? We believe it is related to the size of
parcels. The LM district, which is mostly located within the Stanford
Research Park and Embarcadero Road area of Palo Alto, have larger
parcels, and therefore the opportunity for parking efficiency, whereas
smaller parcels (GM and similarly zoned properties) have less ability
to provide on-site parking in an efficient manner.
As for Park Plaza, our acid test as to whether there would ever be a parking problem at
Park Plaza is this:
Long term experience, including the construction and operation of the rental
residential projects of Mayfield 1 and 2, Courthouse Plaza offices, Sheridan 200
offices, and the Sheridan Apartments (which included the very successful Caffe
Riace), all of which have been built and in operation for many years, and none of
which have experienced any parking shortages; and
The findings of the Fehr & Peer’s report, which shows actual history on
comparable projects in the S.F. Bay Area that have residential and R & D that
function beautifully with 35-40% parking reduction, well above the 20 %
reduction allowable for mixed use and the 6.5% additional for location within
2000 feet of the Cal Train station.
We ask the hypothetical question that represents the "worst case scenario" for
parking at Park Plaza:
If all 177 apartment units left one vehicle on-site during the daytime, (177
spaces) and all employees were on-site at the time (at a ratio of 1 employee
per 250 sq. ft) or 180 spaces, and all visitors to the residents were there (22
spaces as required by ordinance) and parked during the daytime, and all
2
visitors to the R & D came at the same time, would there still be ample
parking for all uses? The answer is yes, and the attached Fehr & Peers
report demonstrates that well.
On the public benefit discussion, we feel it important to clarify the staff report on the
public benefits of the project. The public benefits are stated clearly in the Wednesday,
June 3, 2004 letter of application (attached), and they have not changed. They are as
follows:
Public Benefits -
The construction of new rental housing within walking distance of the Cal Train station,
California Avenue retail, and the Stanford Research Park employment area. (Applicant’s
foregone profits from for-sale versus rental housing are conservatively estimated to be at
least $25,000,000).
Provision of additional BMR’s over the City required 15% below market rate housing
units, for a total of 32 rental BMR units on-site. (Estimated value to the community on an
annual basis is $115,000 in reduced cost to BMR renters).
Public Art at the entrance of the project, including a fountain and bronze sculpture, both
accessible and visible to the public. (Estimated cost to the applicant is over $250,000).
An opportunity for Page Mill Road extension to be re-used for both private and public
open space purposes that is unparalleled for the City. (Estimated cost of improvements to
the applicant is in excess of $500,000).
The application for Park Plaza last year makes no mention of the Page Mill Extension
right of way, because it was not conceived of at the time. While we feel it would be of
~eat benefit to the Ventura neighborhood and the California Avenue business district to
improve Page Mill Road Extension in the manner suggested by the plans, our position
has always been that the project stands alone, regardless of whether or not Page Mill
Extension is vacated. No density bonus, setbacks, or FAR benefits result from this
addition to the project to the applicant - only a $500,000 potential cost of improvements.
Why then do it? Because it will add to the project, the neighborhood, and the community.
We look forward to Wednesday’s meeting, and thank you for spending the time to see the
site.
Best Regards,
Carol Jansen
Cc: Steve Emslie, Director of Planning and Community Environment
3
Mid, own Re~iden~
www.mid~ownreeidente.org
Dear Members of the Planning and Transportation Commission,
August10,2004
MRA just heard about this project Monday. Our steering committee has not had time to meet, review and take a
formal position, nor have had time to present this to our members. Due to the speed of this project, we want to
share our concerns and initial thoughts.
We urge you to deny this application made by Courthouse Plaza Company for a Planned Community Project on
Park Avenue. This is an appropriate location for housing; however, this project and needs to go back to the drawing
board. Let’s stick with the current zoning or the planned Transit Oriented Residential zoning for this site.
We have the following reasons for asking you to reject this project and send a clear message to council.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2)
3)
The Project - Mass, Scale, Height, Streetscape, Density
Noise/Landscaping/Setbacks
Traffic Impact/Parking
Cannot meet the Findings for a PC
No public benefits
Request for the City to vacate .39 acres of land which even staff agrees could be difficult to justify
Comprehensive Plan issues
Process Issues
Overwhelming Mass & Scale, Height, Streetscape, Density:
This building is a monolith - poorly massed, out of scale compared with the surrounding buildings, and
excessively tall.
At 51 feet this building exceeds the height limit of the City. Current zoning is 35’. Its nearest neighbor,
Agilent, is under 35’.
The design is described by the developer as "reminiscent of industrial and warehouse" This design does
not meet the finer grain of the newer buildings nearby including Agilent and the Sheridan apartments by
Caf6 Riacce. Industrial is a description of the buildings removed, not the current streetscape.
¯Density: This project proposes the largest density (RM 70) for residential housing ever conceived by zoning
in Palo Alto. The residential FAR proposed is 1.92 where it is currently zoned for FAR of .5. The developer
is asking for a project 4 times the size that current zoning allows. Had the developer waited until the ZOU
was complete, a maximum of RM 40 would be allowed; the developer is requesting almost 60% greater
density than this. Stay with current zoning or the proposed ZOU definition of RM 40.
Noise/Landscaping/Setbacks:
The back of the building facing the railroad tracks is a tall, non-articulated wall. This edifice will act as a
sound wall magnifying sound. It will bounce sound to the east, and bring new noise impacts that will
degrade the quality of life in west Midtown.
The developer asked for significant variances in setbacks on all sides. Sufficient landscaping is not
possible with "0" side yard and front setbacks, and 5’ foot side and rear setbacks. There is no legitimate
rational for reducing setbacks.
Landscaping and improved articulation are needed. Setbacks should be maintained.
Traffic Impact/Parking:
The Park/Oregon intersection is at present busy and dangerous. Drivers northbound on Park turning onto
the Oregon Expressway can wait more than 5 minutes before making the turn. This is extremely dangerous
in rush hour, with businesses closing for the day and bicyclists riding down Park. The proposed project
would exacerbate this situation. The staff report does not adequately analyze the traffic impacts of new
commercial and residential development of the scale proposed. The Fry’s lease expires in the near term;
there should be a comprehensive look at this area including an expanded traffic impact analysis.
¯The argument that more than 10% of these new residents would use CalTrain is not persuasive.
¯Insufficient parking will become an issue, since remaining parking options are Agilent and train parking lots.
4)
5)
This project falls short of the required findings for a Planned Community Pruject as below:
FINDING ONE: The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics
that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the
proposed development.
COMMENT: PC zoning is not essential to develop this site. In addition, TOR zoning will meet
Comprehensive Plans goals for this site.
FINDING TWO: Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or
combining districts. In making the findings required by this section, the planning commission and city
council, as appropriate, shall specifically cite the public benefits expected to result from use of the planned
community district.
COMMENT: This proposed project does not provide pubfic benefits sufficient to warrant granting a PC
zoning. (See point 5)
FNDING THREE: The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the
district shall be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and shall be compatible with existing
and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.
COMMENT: TOR zoning will meet Comprehensive Plans goals for this site. (See point 7)
This project does not provide significant public benefit.
Housing has never been accepted as a public benefit. Even the staff report states that "it would be difficult
to count the 13 extra BMR units as a public benefit, since the project benefits by getting 38 additional
market rates units."
A fountain is not a significant public benefit. The staff report does address this by stating that a public
benefit "traditionally" is an "element or feature that benefits the general public not just those who use the
project".
The "taking" of public city lands to declare as a public benefit is ludicrous (see below).
6) City to vacate .39 acres of land; this point is a red herring.
o The city should not make a gift of any public land or roadway. Public land is not necessary to complete the
proposed project in this location. The staff report agrees: this request could be difficult to justify.
Alternative uses should be explored. A public park for the neighborhood would have greater community
value. It should include green not hardscape.
7)The letter from the developer in the staff report attempts to relate this project to comprehensive plan elements
that encourage dense housing near public transit, mixed use, etc. We support housing on this site, but strongly
recommend that the site be developed according to the current zoning or the ZOU standards of Transit
Oriented Residential and not as an oversized planned community project.
8)Was the process correct?
As stated earlier, MRA first heard about this project Monday, and we have not had time for full public
review and a formal position. This stealth project came out of nowhere as far as the public consciousness.
This MAJOR project wasn’t even covered in the press, nor was the public informed through the new
electronic method being implemented via streamlining.
From the developer’s letter page 3, this project was reviewed by an ARB subcommittee for design and land
use issues. How can you have an ARB subcommittee established, without the ARB meeting on this? The
developer decided not to do a pre-screening, thus the project should have gone to the PT&C first.
Land Use falls under the purview of the PT&C Commission, not the ARB.
We urge you to deny this project. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Sheri
Annette Ashton
Chair, Midtown Residents Association
Sheri Furman
Vice Chair, Midtown Residents Association
.Opposi,tion to Proposal for 195 Page Mill Road
To;
Subject:
Date:
From:
Page 1 of 4
Planning and Transportation Commission
Opposition to proposal for 195 Page Mill Road and ... Park Blvd by Court House Plaza
Company
2004-08-10
Douglas B. Moran
790 Matadero Avenue, Palo Alto 94306-2734
650-856-3302
Overview
This response focuses on the traff~c aspect of the proposal. The staff report contains no information on
the derivation of the trip counts. However, some basic calculations from the numbers provided indicate
that the applicant’s projected peak AM and PM trips are a mere fraction of what might reasonably be
expected.
The staff report also fails to mention multiple significant conditions affecting traffic in this immediate
area, such as immediately abutting an intersection that already has major congestion problems during the
PM peak.
Consequently, the application should be denied on the basis of transportation issues alone: It is too large
for the existing traffic infrastructure.
Relevant statistics
Note: The computation in the staff report yields a requirement for 30 more spaces than that in the
applicant’s proposal. I will use the applicant’s numbers here.
The applicant’s proposal has 392 parking places (20% reduction for mixed-use plus 6.5% for being in a
transit-oriented area), but they predict only 87 and 114 peak trips in morning and evening respectively.
With 304 bedrooms in the apartments (52 one-bedroom, 123 two-bedroom and 2 three-bedroom), this
trip calculation works out to
~~laces/bedroom
~ 0.29 !~ips!bedroom
~t peak PM trips/bedroom
0.2~2~2[ peak AM trips/parking space
~0.29 ~[peak PM trips/parking space
These peak-trip numbers seem absurdly low, especially the peak trips per parking space. My expectation
for people living in apartments next to railroad tracks is that they have jobs that are less likely to have
flexible hours, and thus they are less able to shift their commutes outside of peak hours. I would also
expect that there would be few "excess" cars (cars that are used infrequently).
Peak trip calculation are not credible
~~e~//C:kD~cuments%2~and%2~Settingskzbetten\L~ca~%2~SettLngs\Temp~rary%2~Interne... 8/11/2004
.Opposi.tion to Proposal for 195 Page Mill Road Page 2 of 4 .
The reduction in the parking requirement for mixed-use was 104 spaces (from staff report). The very
reasonable rationale for this reduction is that the parking places used by residents who drive to work (or
other day-time equivalent) are available for use by office workers during the day.
This number of 104 spaces provides a reasonable first approximation of the number of vehicles that are
leaving and arriving at the site during peak hours. If all of this switch from residential to office use
occurred during peak traffic hours, you would have 208 peak trips for both AM and PM just from this
alone (not counting any trips for any other residents). This is more than double the predicted AM traffic
(87) and almost double the PM prediction (114).
It is a bit of an simplification to model the situation as a complete switch-over that occurs during peak
hours: The requirements for both residential and office are supposed to have some buffering (guests,
visitors) that somewhat reduce the need for exact synchronization at the beginning and end of the work
day. However, even assuming that only half the switch-over occurs during peaks, the projected trips still
seem much too low.
School trip generation - apparently ignored
The development’s location is far from schools, both physically and, more importantly, psychologically.
The psychological factors involve major streets that children must cross, and to a lesser extent ones that
they must walk along.
My guess would be that parents will be driving children to school, adding to AM peak trips. This does
not seem to be included in the applicant’s calculation.
One of the questions that repeatedly arises for traffic impacts of apartments and similar higher-density
housing is the demo~aphic mix. Anecdotal evidence is that Palo Alto deviates sig-nificantly from
national nornas because the premium that parents are willing to pay to have their children in the PAUSD
outweighs the premium that others are willing to pay to be closer to their jobs.
Transit-oriented development - any vetted numbers?
Part of the reduction in parking requirements comes from the site being near a Caltrain station, but
remember, California Ave is not a "Baby Bullet" stop, making it a far less desirable location for
someone planning to use the train.
On the utilization rate of public transit, I have asked various people at the city whether there has been a
local study, for example of the current transit-oriented housing in the California Ave area. None of them
has been aware of such a study. My personal experience from being at the California Avenue Caltrain
station at various times at evening peak (between 5-6pm) is that relatively few" people left as pedestrians.
My sample set is too minuscule to draw any conclusion other than to raise doubts that projections based
upon experiences in more traditional cities is probably inapplicable here.
El Camino "Transit Corridor" in theory only
The desig-nation of E1 Camino as a "transit corridor" was highly controversial even before the VTA
cutbacks (both existing services and expansion plans). Experience and observation suggest that the
buses along E1 Camino are little used by residents - that much of existing usage comes from people who
work here but live elsewhere.
~e://C:~D~cuments%2~and%2~Settings~zbettenkL~ca~%2~Settings\Temp~rary%2~Interne... 8/11/2004
Oppositi,’on to Proposal for 195 Page Mill Road Page 3 of 4
Street grid - limitations of
I am familiar with the traffic situation on Park Blvd both as a bicyclist and as a motorist - my route to
the California Avenue area (and north) is via Margarita (bicycle) or Lambert (car) to Park.
In the evening, the on-ramp to 101-bound Oregon Expressway (from Park via Page Mill) is backed up
on Park, often to Sheridan and sometimes almost to Grant. At times, the situation approaches grid-lock
(the queue is lengthening and drivers decide to try alternate routes). Traffic also backs up on north-
bound Park because vehicles wishing to get onto the ramp have difficulty merging into the queue
(involves a left turn across traffic).
The entrance to 280-bound Page Mill is at Birch and is a difficult and low-capacity merge.
Access to E1 Camino from this site is very poor. To the north, California Avenue is the first intersection
with a traffic light (after Page Mill). To the south, the first traffic light is Portage Avenue, but that
requires winding around Fry’s. The next light is at MargaritafMatadero and requires winding through a
residential neighborhood (Park to Lambert to Birch to Fernando to Orinda to Margarita) with narrow
streets - on-street parking is the norm, reducing them to effectively single lane.
Existing commercial uses along Park Blvd result in not infrequently short-term blockages of the street.
Deliveries to the auto dealers routinely result in prolonged blockage of a single lane. Longer tractor-
trailer rigs making deliveries to the MaxiMart site (back side of Fry’s) often having problems
maneuvering into the driveways, producing complete blockages that are several minutes long.
No~e: Opposition to retaining Fry’s at its current location often cites its poor access to the major arterials.
This project’s access to those arterials is even worse.
Other traffic impacts
Park Blvd is a secondary, but still sig-nificant, entrance to Fry’s and an important entrance to the
California Avenue business district. Congestion could be detrimental to their businesses.
The courthouse may be a significant generator of peak hour trips in this area.
Park Blvd Bicycle Lanes
Park Blvd is a heavily used bicycle way (marked bike lanes) and serves as a collector for broad areas of
southern Palo Alto commuting to northern Palo Alto. The section of Park between Page Mill and
Sheridan is already a hazardous segment, especially southbound (heavy traffic, lane shifts, speeding).
The additional traffic from the proposed project would likely make it much worse. The volume of traffic
entering/exiting the proposed project would also likely be detrimental to safety on this important bicycle
way.
Vacating Page Mill Road segment
The segment of Page Mill Road adjacent to the propose project that the applicant requests that Palo Alto
cede to this project is one of two back entrances to the Caltrain parking lot. My observations are that it is
typically the second choice for people using the back entrance, but is an important "escape valve" during
periods when the Sheridan-Page Mill seg-ment is virtually grid-locked.
fi~e://C~kD~cuments%2~and%2~Settings\zbetten~ca~%2~Settings\Temp~rary%2~Interne... 8/11/2004
Opposifi, on to Proposal for 195 Page Mill Road Page 4 of 4 ,
Competing land uses
Putting housing so close to the train tracks seems imprudent, especially in light of the complaints by
residents near the California Avenue business district about noises associated with a business district
(refuse pickup, sidewalk cleaning, ...). Remember, it is not just Caltrain using these tracks - there are
also freight trains at various times throughout the night (I don’t have recent info or experience on the
frequency of such trains).
The existing light industrial or similar zoning would seem to provide a better transition between the
railroad tracks and the city.
For example, Park Blvd already has a miniature auto-row, and given the city’s recent moves to provide a
more supportive environment for auto dealers, such a use would seem to be a better fit for the area.
Minor Comments
On page 24 of 27 in the staff report, the applicant’s comment to Program T-2 states that
"The project would include a smal! retail store to serve the residents of the project and
workers from nearby businesses thereby reducing the necessiO, of driving."
At 2000 square feet, this retail is more likely to be a coffee shop or care (as stated in the "Subject" of the
staff report), thereby having significantly less value for trip reduction.
~~e://C:\D~cuments%2~and%2~Settings\zbetten\L~ca~%2~Settings\Temp~rary%2~Interne... 8/11/2004
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN at
THE PLANNING DIVISION :
177 apartments multiply by
2 cars each =~354 vehicle~,,
It’s a lot of NOISE POLLUTION
" ’ AIR POLLUTI Ohl,
Not ~O :men~ion the vehieles from the
~ew businesses ! ! ...
.PARK BOULEVARD IS NOT A HIGHWAY.6~
It’s just a smal! portion of
~ SiDcere regards, ~
SINCE 1965
Attachment I
JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
756 CALIFORNIA STREET ¯ P.O. BOX 4220 ¯ MOUNTAIN VIEW. CALIFORNIA 94040
TELEPHONE (415) 969-3268 ¯ FACSIMILE (415) 969-3345
BRANCH OFFICE: MONTEREY. CALIFORNIA ¯ TELEPHONE f408) 757-8109 ¯ FACSIMILE (415) 969-3345
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
Mr. Harold Hohbach
Court House Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, California 94027
Subject: Report of the Geotechnical Investigation of the Park Plaza Apartment
Complex with a Multi-Use RID Building, at Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard,
Palo Alto, California
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
We have completed our geotechnical investigation of the site of the proposed Park Plaza
Apartment buildings in Palo Alto, California. Our investigation has shown the site to be
suitable for the planned construction. The soils on the site are relatively uniform and the
ground water levels are below the depth of the planned construction. Specific recom-
mendations for geoteehnical design criteria are included in the attached report.
The work recommended in our report will require our observation during the eon-
struefion phase of the project. A second proposal for this observation work will be
issued prior to the beginning of such work. The cost for such work will be noted in
the proposal.
We wish to thank you for using our firm for this project, and hope that we may be of
further service to you. We will be pleased to answer any questions that you might have
regarding this investigation and report.
REPORT
on the
GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
for the planned
PARK PLAZA APARTMENT COMPLEX
with a
MULTIPURPOSE R/D BUILDING
PAGE MILL ROAD AND PARK BOULEVARD
PALO ALTO, CALIFORNIA
by
JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
MAY 10, 2004
~JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE 1965
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 1
INTRODUCTION
This project is a planned four-story apartment complex and R/D office building. The
entire site will have one level of underground parking. Our geotechnical investigation
was undertaken to obtain geotechnical design criteria for the building foundations, bracing
during excavation of the sublevel parking structure, permanent retaining wall design,
anticipated seismic loading and potential settlement of the completed structure.
To aid our investigation, we have discussed the project with Mr. Harold Hohbach and
observed the property with him. We were given a plot plan showing the building outline,
and a copy of two geotechnical reports done earlier for adjoining properties.
SCOPE OF SERVICE
In order to complete our investigation, we performed the following services:
1.The available soil, groundwater and geological data for this area were reviewed.
2.Four test borings were completed to depths up to 48 feet.
3.The borings were logged by an engineering geologist, and soil samples were taken
in each of the borings.
4.A site plan was prepared delineating the subsurface work performed by this firm.
5.Laboratory tests were made on the recovered soil samples to establish the engineer-
ing characteristics of the soil.
6.Analysis was made of the collected data in order to develop our conclusions and
recommendations.
7.Three copies of a report that include our findings, conclusions and recommendations
have been issued.
SINCE 1965
dO C~OSBY & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHN~AL CONSULTANTS
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 2
SITE CONDITIONS
The investigated site is a near-level property located to the northeast of the intersection of
Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard in the central portion of Palo Alto, California (see the
Index Map). This property is a combination of several lots and boundary changes that
resulted in the rectangular configuration shown on the attached Site Plan. The site is
bounded on the North by the fight-of-way of the Southern Pacific and Caltrans railroad,
on the South by Park Boulevard, on the West by Page Mill Road, and on the East by
private property. The various lots within the planned development have supported single
story buildings ranging from concrete to sheet metal. Use of the buildings has varied over
time, but currently have a bakery, automobile repair shop, and cabinet shop. All have on-
site asphalt or concrete parking surfaces. In the past, a spur of the railroad passed over
the eastern portion of the property. The spur went to Los Altos, Cupertino and Saratoga
with passenger and freight service.
There is no known toxic material on the property. However, the property is underlain by
a plume of groundwater contaminated by nearby electronic manufacturing plants. This
plume is being monitored by others.
GEOLOGY:
Regional_: The site is located on a broad plain on the San Francisco Peninsula, bounded to
the West by the Santa Cruz Mountains and to the East by the borderland of the San Fran-
cisco Bay. This area was subjected to past regional tectonic forces. The sedimentary and
volcanic rock units have been folded and faulted into northwest trending mountain ranges
and valleys. This area has been recently eroded into the configuration visible today, with
(~JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE 1965
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 3
filling of the edges of the Bay by material eroded from the foothills to the West.
The Santa Cruz Mountains contain metamorphic assemblages composed of the Jurassic to
Paleocene aged Franciscan Formation. These lithologies were originally sedimentary and
volcanic in nature, and later deformed by the processes involving heat and pressure. The
foothills, locally, are composed of oceanic and land sediments. The marine sedimentary
units, composed of conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone, and claystone, were deposited in a
near-shore marine environment. The terrigenous sediments deposited on the broad plain
are stream-laid gravels, sands, silts, and clays transported from the adjoining highlands.
~_1: This site is underlain by deposits of alluvium eroded from the higher land to the
West (see the Geology Sheet). The materials would have been deposited in flesh to brack-
ish water along the edges of San Francisco Bay. The variety of materials is caused by the
mode of deposition. The fine grained silts and clays would be deposited in slow or
ponded water that was removed from the source. The sands and gravels would represent
near source fan deposits from more rapidly moving streams. The more uniform clay and
silt deposits would reflect the wide spread area of deposition. The rapid change in the
composition of the sand and gravel materials would be indicative of the short term periods
of deposition and changing sources.
SEISMICITY
The subject site is located in the seismically active San Francisco Peninsula. There are
three major right lateral, northwest trending fault systems, mapped in this region. The
San Andreas Fault lies about 51/2 miles to the Southwest. The Hayward and Calaveras
Faults lie roughly 14 miles and 21 miles to the Northeast, respectively. Large earthquakes
~JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE 1965
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 4
have been associated with movement along the three fault systems. There are several
mi_nor fault systems between this site and the San Andreas Fault. Dislocation could occur
along these faults in conjunction with displacement along the neighboring San Andreas
Fault.
SOIL CONDITIONS
The soils on the site were found to be quite uniform in the four borings drilled. The near
surface soil is a silty clay and clay silt mixture that is locally contaminated with organics
and debris from past grading operations. These soils extend to a depth of 7 to 10 feet
below the existing ground surface. At a depth of 7 to 10 feet, we encountered a thin
deposit of gravel with clay and silty clay binder. The permeability of the gravels was
high, but no groundwater was encountered in this gravel deposit.
A second, and very similar, gravel deposit was encountered at about 20 feet of depth.
The soils between the two gravel deposits consisted of silty clays and clay silts with minor
amounts of gravel in thin layers.
The soils below the lower gravel stratum were silty clays and clay silts very similar in
appearance and properties to the near surface soils.
GROUNDWATER
Groundwater was encountered in all of the borings in the lower gravel stratum at about 20
feet of depth. This groundwater is the water being monitored as a toxic plume from
nearby electronic manufacturing sites. The water bearing stratum was isolated from the
soil layers above arid below. There was little hydraulic head on this water and the
~JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE 1965
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 5
groundwater level rose only a foot or less after the gravel deposit was entered. The lower
soils appeared isolated from the water bearing gravels. Moisture contents in these lower
soils were relatively dry.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
It is our conclusion that this site can safely support the planned construction. The major
problem with this site would be the excavation of the parking level. The fine grained
soils are normally consolidated. The weight of the planned building will be offset by the
weight of material removed for the sublevel. There should be no problem of settlement of
the structure.
DISCUSSION
This project involves an excavation for sublevel par’king that will encompass the entire
area. A planned excavation will be 14 feet below existing grade, and will extend to the
property lines. In order to complete the excavation without damage to surrounding
properties, it will be necessary to support the walls of the excavation until the permanent
sublevel structure is completed. The relatively shallow groundwater level will restrict the
placement of soldier piers as cantilever support. Tiebacks for the soldier piers, or soil
nailing will require encroachment on the surrounding properties whether private land,
public streets or transportation corridors. This phase of the construction should be dis-
cussed with the project engineers, contractors, City of Palo Alto and the railroad owners
and operators.
The planned buildings will be supported or strong soils at the base of the parking excava
~/-~ ~o c~os~v ~ ~,ssoc~’r=_s
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE ] ~55
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 6
tion. The total weight of the new structures should be less than the weight of the excavat-
ed soil for the project. The moisture content of the majority of the soil is below the level
of saturation. We do not anticipate any problem with total or differential settlement.
SEISMIC CONSIDERATIQNS
The granular soils on this site are strong and dense. The fine grained soils are generally
free of ground water. There should be no problem of liquefaction, ground displacement,
ground lurching, differential settlement or lateral spreading at this site.
Seismic design criteria for this site were developed based on the 1997 Uniform Building
Code format. The criteria are as follows:
Active Fault Near-Source Zone Map E-19
Soil Profile Type = SDDistance from San Angreas Fault = 9 km
Distance from the Monta Vista - Shannon Fault system = 6 km
N = 1.0
L’L, iav 1.0
Ca = 0.44No
Cv = 0.64!@v
UNDERGROUND PARKING EXCAVATION
Common construction practice in this area would be to use a soldier pier wall around the
perimeter of the excavation while the permanent concrete walls are constructed. Place-
ment of soldier piers with any capacity will require developing lateral resistance with piers
placed to some depth below, the base of the par’king level excavation. This will require
drilling through the water bearing gravel layer. Our experience in drilling for the investi-
gation showed the water capable of flushing large amounts of gravel into the drill hole as
the auger was withdrawn. The same can be expected with drilling for the soldier piers.
This movement of gravel will require casing of the holes with substantial additional cost.
¯~ JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATESGEOTECHNICALCONSULTANTS
SINCE !965
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 7
If concrete is to be tremied into the soldier pier base, it will cause displacement of toxic
water into the excavation. This will require special treatment at an additional cost. A soil
nailing procedure or a braced excavation may be logical solutions for this problem.
The excavation for the sublevel can be done using soil nailing. The soil nailing should
consist of minimum #8 bars, placed in 6 inch diameter, grout filled holes. The nails
should be drilled at an angle of 15 degrees to the horizontal and be of a minimum length
of 20 feet. Spacing for the nails should be a minimum of 5 feet vertically and 7 feet
horizontally. The facing of the excavation should have a suitable wire mesh placed on the
exposed surface, attached to the nails by welding or plates, and covered with a minimum
thickness of 4 inches of gunnite. No drainage will be required behind the wall. Grouting
of the upper gravel deposit (at about 5 feet of depth) may be used to prevent sloughing of
gravels as the walls are excavated.
A soldier pier and timber plank bracing system can be used for the support of the excava-
tion. The system should be designed using an active pressure of an equivalent fluid of 55
pcf, and a passive pressure of an equivalent fluid of 225 pcf. The passive pressure can be
considered as acting over 2 pier diameters. The soldier piers should be placed no deeper
than 20 feet in order to avoid problems with the groundwater and sloughing of the drilled
excavation.
The limited depth of the soldier pier embedment may require tiebacks in order to resist the
active lateral forces. All tiebacks should be designed to develop resistance at a point
beyond an imaginary failure line. This line should be drawn at a 35 degree angle from the
base of the wall. The tiebacks should be placed in 6 inch diameter, grout filled holes.
~JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE 1965
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 8
For ease of design, the tiebacks should be based on developing a "skin friction" behind the
imaginary failure line. This skin friction should be considered as an adhesion of 750 psf
over the surface of the grout filled tieback hole behind the imaginary failure line.
D’uring the excavation period, no storage of materials or equipment should be permitted
within 20 feet of the edge of the excavation. Surface drainage should be directed away
from the excavation.
It should be noted that the design and installation of the shoring for the excavation
are the responsibility of the Contractor and his Engineers. Jo Crosby & Associates
will not assume responsibility for this phase of the work.
..DEWATERING
No need of dewatefing is anticipated for the planned excavation of 14 feet in depth.
FOUNDATIONS
This structure can be founded on the mils encountered at the base of the planned excava-
tion using shallow, continuous or isolated footings. The footings should be embedded a
minimum of 1 foot into undisturbed soil at the base of the excavation. Footings placed to
this depth can be designed for a bearing value of 4500 psf. This is for dead plus live
loading. The value may be increased by 25 % for temporary loads such as wind or seis-
mic..Retaining wall footings should be designed using the same criteria.
RETAININ~ WALLS
The permanent walls for the sublevel of the building can be designed using the same cri-
teria as given for the excavation. The exterior of these walls should be provided with an
~dO CROSBY & f-,$SOCI,~,TES
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE 1965
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 9
impermeable material to protect the interior from seepage water. We recommend the use
of clay panels.
The distribution of the lateral pressure may be altered if the floors on the sublevel and first
level of the building can be considered as non-yielding. We will be pleased to provided a
distribution based on whatever sublevel system is adopted.
SLAB-ON-GRADE
The floor of the sublevel will be used for parking. Such a slab should be designed as a
pavement section. For design purposes, the soil can be considered as having an "R"
Value of 30. The fine grained soil should be assigned an "R" Value of 15. Slabs at the
exterior of the building should have a minimum of 4 inches of gravel beneath the slab.
We recommend reinforcing for all slabs at the exterior of the building. No slabs should
be structurally tied to the building.
LIMITATIONS
Review, Observation and Testing: The recommendations presented in this report
are contingent upon our review of final plans and specifications and upon our
observation of the soil and foundation work to be performed at the site.
UniformiU of Condition~: The recommendations in this report are based upc,n the as-
sumption that the soil conditions do not deviate from those disclosed in the borings. If
any variations or undesirable conditions are encountered during construction, or if the
proposed construction is to differ from that generally anticipated at the present time, JO
CROSBY & ASSOCIATES should be notified in order that supplemental recommenda-
tions can be given.
~JO CROSBY & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE 1965
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 10
Services Provided: This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility
of the owner, or his agent, to call to the attention of the architect and the engineers for the
project the information contained herein to effect their incorporation into the plans. The
conclusions and recommendations contained herein are professional opinions derived in
accordance with the current standards of professional practice. No warranty, express or
implied, including any implied warranty of merchantability or fitness for the purpose is
made or intended in connection with our work.
Time Limitations: The findings of this report are valid as of the present date. However,
changes in the conditions of property can occur with the passage of time, whether they be
due to natural processes or to the works of man, on this or adjacent properties. In addi-
tion, changes in applicable or appropriate standards occur, whether they result from legis-
lation or the broadening of knowledge. Accordingly, the findings of this report may be
invalidated, wholly or partially, by changes outside our control. Therefore, this report
should not be relied upon after a period of one year without being reviewed by a Geotech-
nical Engineer.
SINCE 1965
JO CROS~Y & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHN#CAL CONSULTANTS
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 11
ATTACHMEN’I~
References
Appendix: Field Exploration and Laboratory Testing
Index Map
Site Plan
Geology
Soil Classification Chart
Logs of Boring
Summary of Laboratory Test Results
(~JO CROSB¥ & ASSOCIATES
GEOTECHNJ.CAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE 1965
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 12
REFERENCES
Dibblee,T. W., Jr., I966, Geology of the Palo Alto Quadrangle, Santa Clara and
San Mateo Counties, California; California Division of Mines and Geology,
Map Sheet 8
Brabb, E. E., Gmymer, R. W., Jones, D. L., 2000, Geologic Map and Map Data-
base of the Palo Alto 30’ X 60’ Quadrangle, California: USGS Map MF 2332
Woodward-Clyde-Sherrard and Associates, 1965, Soil Investigation for the Pro-
posed California Lands Office Building, Sheridan Avenue and Birch Street,
Palo Alto, California
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1984, Geotechnical Investigation, Hohbach Office
Building, Page Mill Road and Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, California
Jo Crosby & Associates, 1995, Report of the Geotechnical Investigation of the
Court House Plaza Apartment Building, Sheridan Avenue and Park Boulevard,
Palo Alto, California
~JO CROSBY & AS$OCIATE£
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
SINCE 196.,5
Project 4384-5
May 10, 2004
page 13
APPENDIX
FIELD EXPLORATION AND LABORATORY TESTING
Field Exploration
Four test borings were drilled at the locations shown on the Site Plan. Borings 1, 2 and 3
were advanced with a 6-inch diameter, truck mounted, continuous-flight auger. Boring 4
was advanced with a 4 inch diameter, crawler mounted, continuous-flight auger due to
constraints of access. All of the borings were logged by one of our engineering geolo-
gists. At selected intervals, or major strata change, representative soil samples were
recovered in a 2.4-inch, split-barrel, ring-lined sampler. The sampler was driven by a
140-pound hammer, free-falling through a vertical distance of 30-inches.
The method of classifying the subsurface material is indicated on the Soil Classification
Chart (ASTM Designation D2487-69). The materials encountered in the bore hole are
indicated on the Logs of Boring. Sample types, blowcounts and sample depths are indi-
cated on this log. The boring logs denote the subsurface conditions at the location and
time indicated, and it is not warranted that they are representative of subsurface conditions
at other locations or times.
LABORATORY TESTING
All recovered samples were tested for moisture content and dry density, and the results are
indicated on the boring logs. Two samples of native soil were tested to determine their
strengths by a multi-phase triaxial test. A consolidation test was run on a sample of the
fine grained soil. The results of the above tests are presented in the Summary of Labora-
tory Test Results.
SINCE 1965
JO GROSBY & ~,SSOGIATES
GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANTS
PARK
/
/
PAGE MILL ROAD
S] TE PLAN Jo Crosby & Associates
Civil Engineers & Geologis£sPLAZA, PALO ALTO ~ ~,o=,. ~.~ ~o.~.,. rio., c, ~,~
Medium-grained alluvium (Holocene)--Un~onsolid~d Io m,v~ieramlv
consolidated, moderately sorted f:ne sand. silt, and ciayey Mit de-
posited a: edge o5 c~arse-grained a~l~,ial fans (eat), Form~ m~: L
of fletland alluvial phin. Intertingers ~!h coarse- and fi~m-grmned
~luwum (Oac, Oa~. Gcneraliy less than 20 it lhick
GEOLOGY
PLAZA, PAL0
Jo Crosby & Associates
Civil Engineers & Geologists
758 C~lifomaia Street Mountain View, CA 94,04/.PARK ALTO
MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP
SYMBOLS
.S
SILTS AND CLAYS
liquid limit
50% or less
SILTS AND CLAYS
Liquid limit
greater than 50%
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
GW
TYPICAL NAMES
Well-qrod4d ~rav41s and grav~l-sand mlztures,little or no fines.
Inorganic silts,very fine sands,rock flour,silty or clayey fine sands.
sandy clays,silty clays,lean clays
Orgaolc silts and organic silty cloys of lay plasticity
Inorganic clays of high plasticity,fat clays.
Organic cloys of medium to high plasticity.
Peat,muck and other highly organic soils.
SOILCLASSIFICATION CHART
ASTM DESIGNATION D2487-69
¯Based on the material posting the 3-in.(76-mm)sieve.
Jo Crosby & Associates
Park Plaza
Harold Hohboch
SAMPLE TYPE I DISTURBED
Cenozoic truck rig used for Borings # 1,
2, and 3. Small cat rig used for Boring
#4
[~NO RECOVERY [~SPT @DAMES & MOORE
BOREHOLE NO: 4.584-I
PROJECT NO: 4384
ELEVATION: 29 ft
{]]]SHELBY TUBE [I]CORE
OH
13
GM
2 45
CL
.:-- ~-0.0 CL
CL
~- 4.5.0
50.0
25
Log of Boring
Asphalt Paving with thin base rock
FILL, Clay Silt with Qrovel and wood
fragments
SILTY CLAY, black, stiff, moist
aradina to brown ir! color
28
.34
GRAVEL with clay silt binder, brown,
stiff, moist Fine gravel is angular,
Coarse gravel is rounded
SILTY CLAY with smell gravel, moffled
brown-red, iron stained, stiff, moist
varying amount of gravel, less iron
staining
GRAVEL with silty, clay binder, mottled
brown-black, dense, wet
SILTY CLAY, dark brown, stiff, moist, no
gravel
becoming softer
minor gravel
no gravel
,~Dry Densi~ pcf~
61 82 103 124
PLASTIC M.C.LIQUID
10 20 30 40
SILTY CLAY, dark gray, stiff, moist
i Boring terminated
Crosby & Associates
.Mountain View. California
25.6
14.8
~ 29.0
101.3 I
~2~.o
110.5 ~
20.1 .I 105.6
7.9 £7.9
E-- 14.0
ILOGGED BY: JC
IREVIEWED BY: JC
IFiQ. No: 1
15.5 98.3
E
COMPLETION DEPTH: 47.5 ff
COMPLETE: 04/28/04
Paoe 1 of I
IPark Plaza
Harold Hohbach
SA~PI.£ TYPE
25.0
tL
30.0
CL
35.0
CL
40.0
50.0
¯ DISTURBED
0Z
1
2
Cenozoic truck rig used for Borings # 1,
2, and 3. Small cat rig used for Baring
#4
[]NO RECOVERY [~SPT ~DA"ES & "OORE
11
5O
29
Log of Boring
6O
5 54
47
SILTY CLAY, dark brown, stiff, moist
CLAY SILT, brown, medium dense, moist
GRAVEL with silty clay binder, brown, very
dense~ moist, ,qravel to 2"
SILTY CLAY, brown, stiff, moist, no gravel
varies from silty clay to cloy silt
occoisonal small gravel
GRAVEL with silty clay binder, gray to
brown, very dense, moist
!CLAY SILT with grovel fo 1/2", dark brown,
dense, moist
GRAVEL, mottled brown-red, dense, wet
1 SILTY CLAY, dark brown, stiff, moist
varying amounts of small gravel
becoming light brown in color
Boring terminated
BOREHOLE NO: .4584-2
PROJECT NO: 4384
ELEVATION: 29 ft
F11-IS.E SY TUBE ITiOORE
,@ Dry Dens~ pcf ~61 82 103 124
UQUID
40
15.8
11.6
19.4
12.6
14.6
i
104.8
98,.6
05.3
110.2
120.2
99.2
Jo Crosby & AssocJaLes
MounLain Vie~-. California
ILOGGED BY: JC
IRL-VlL-WED BY: JC
~COMPLETION DEPTH: 40 ff
ICOMPLETE: 04/28/04
29.0
~- 24.o
~-- 19.0
L14.0
L go ’
~-4.0
E
E-_1n
IFio. No: 2 Page 1 of 1
Park Plaza
Harold Hohbach
SAMPLE ~PE ID~STURBED
Cenozoic truck rig used for Borings # 1,BOREHOIF NO: 4,384-3
2, and 3.- Small cat rig used for Boring PROJECT NO: 4384
#4 ELEVATION: 29 ft
[~]NO RECOVERY [~SPT ~DA)~ES & "OORE [~]]SHELBY TUBE [[]CORE
0.0
10.0
~25.0
~-- 30.0
35.0
i 4O.O
i 45.0
CL
27
23
Log of Boring
SILTY CLAY, black, stiff, moist
CLAY SILT, brown, stiff, moist
GRAVEL with silty clay binder, brown,
dense moist
SILTY CLAY, brown, stiff, moist
variable silt and clay layers, similar
colors and propedies
33
GRAVEL with clay silt binder, dark brown,
dense, wet
28
becoming SANDY CLAY with scaffered gravel,
brown, dense, moist
grading fo SANDY CLAY with minor angular
gravel, moffled brown-red, stiff, moist
scattered gravel layers
Boring terminated
I, so.o
Jo Crosb7 & AssociaLes
Mounfain Vim~’. California~7’~/10 os:~IPW t~wacLs;
¯, Dry Density pcf ~.
61 82 103 124
PLASllC ~.C.UOUID
I ’~I
10 20 30 40
!
ILOGGED BY: JC
FREVIEWED BY: JC
Fla. No: 5
22.6 103.,3
13.t 116.6
19.6 95.2
g 110.8
98 E
E
E
ICOMPLETION DEPTH: 40 ff
ICOMPLETE: 04/28/04
Paqe 1 of !
Pork Plaza Cenozoic truck rig used for Borings # 1,BOREHOLE NO: 4584-4
Harold Hohbach 2, and 3. Small cat rig used for Boring PROJECT NO: 4384
#4 ELEVATION: 29 ft
SAMPLE TYPE IDISTURBED [~NO RECOVERY [~SPT ~DAMES & MOORE []~SHELBY TUBE [I]CORE
Log of t oring
SILTY CLAY, brown, stiff, moisi
21
41
grading to CLAY SILT, dark brown, dense,
barely moist
becoming light brown in color, increasing
!moisture
j GRAVEL with silty clay binder, mottled
!brown-red, dense, moist
SILTY CLAY, brown, stiff, moist
28
scattered gravel layers
36 GRAVEL wHh silty clay binder, moffled
brown-black, dense, wet
alternating layer of silty clay and clay
silt, scaffered gravels
Boring terminated
~ Dry Density pcf ~
61 82 103 124
PLASTIC M.C.UQUID
10 20 30 40
Crosby & Associat:es
8.2
16.6
10.4
107.3
108.9
100.5
98.8
COMPLETION DEPTH: 35 ff
COMPLETE: 04/29/04
Mountain View. California
29.0
19.0
!Fiq. No: 4 Paqe 1 of 1
SAHPLE *
USCSNO.
GRA!N SIZE ANALYSIS
GRAVEL SAND S I LT CLAY
% % %
LABORATORY
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIOUID PLASTIC P. [.
TEST RESULTS
STRENGTH HOIST. DRY
PARAMETERS CONTENT DENS I TY
COM. B % P.C,F.
FILE NO 4384
DATE 5- I 0- 04
REMARKS
T/S.F, ]EGREEE
I-I 014 :25.6 101
I-2 GM 14.8 110,5
I-3 CL 20, I 105.6
I-4 CL/GM 7.9 97.9
l-S GM II.2 108.8
1-6 CL 15.5 98.3
I-7 CL 12. I IO4. 1
2-1 CL 15.8 !O4,8
2-2 GM II .6 98
2-3 CL 19,4 IO5.3
2-4 GH 9.0 !!0.2
2-5 GM 12,6 120.2
2-6 CL 14.6 99.2
3-1 CL 22.6 IO3.3
-X-JO CRDSBY al ASSOCIATESLI~FIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION CHART
GRAIN SIZE ANALYSISSAPIPLEIUSCS
NO.GRAVEL SAND S I LT CLAY
LABORATORY
ATTERBERG LIMITS
LIOUID PLASTIC P. [.
TEST RESULTS
STRENGTH ~o I ST. DRY
PARAMETERS CONTENT DENSITY
COld. IZl % P.C.F.
T/£.F.3EC4~EES
FILE NO 4384
DATE 5 - I O- 04
REMARKS
3-2 ML\GM 13. I 116.6
3-3 CL 0.42 10 19.6 95.2
3-4 CL 9.0 110.8
3-5 CL 12. I 98.0
4-1 ML 18.2 !O7.3
4.2 GM O. II 28 II .9 IO8.9
4-3 CL 16.6 100.5
4-4 GM IO.4 98.8
J~~ CROSBY~! A~IATESLI’q|FIED SOIL ~LAS~IFI~ATION CHART
Attachment J
PARK PLAZA: 101 PAGE MILL ROAD/2865 PARK BOULEVARD
PROPOSED MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL ~ R& D DEVELOPMENT
PaiD Alto, California
NOISE AND VIBRATION STUDY
June 28, 2004
Prepared for:
COURTHOUSE PLAZA COMPANY
29 Lower3; Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Fax: 650.853.0325
Prepared by:
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES~ INC.
Charles M. Salter, P.E.
President
130 Sutter Street, Suite 500
San Francisco, CA 94104
Phone: 4!5.397.0442
Fax: 415.397.0454
Charles M Salter Associates Inc
130 Surfer Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report contains the results of our analysis for the proposed Park Plaza site at 101 Page
Mill Road/2865 Park Boulevard. On 21 April 2004 and 10 May 2004 measurements were
conducted to determine the noise and vibration environment at the site. From the collected
data, STC ratings for window/wall consmactions were calculated to meet both City of Palo
Alto and State of California noise criteria.
SETTING
The site for the proposed Park Plaza complex is near the California Avenue CalTrain
station in Palo Alto, and is bordered by Alma Street and the Union Pacific rail tracks, Park
Boulevard, and Page Mill Road, and the Stanford European Auto Dealership. The major
contributing sources of noise were vehicular traffic and CalTrain movements. The
building design includes an interior courtyar& which provides a quiet outdoor use space
for all residents of the project, and tenants of the R & D space.
Charles M Salter Associates Inc
130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE CRITERIA FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING
The California Building Code (Appendix Chapter 12) contains acoustical requirements for
interior sound levels in habitable rooms. In sttmmary, the CBC requires an interior noise
level no higher than DNL1 of 45 dB. Projects exposed to an exterior DNL of 60 dB or
greater require an acoustical analysis showing that the proposed design will limit interior
levels to the prescribed interior level. Additionally, if windows must be in the closed
position to meet the interior standard, the design must include a ventilation or air-
conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment.
The proposed project will have a heating, cooling, and ventilation system that would
support a closed window design along the CalTrain wall of the site. Closed windows at a
lower STC rating than proposed by the applicant would substantially mitigate the noise
from Cal Train, including single event sound. While City building and fire exiting
requirements do not permit closed window conditions on the second and third floors, they
are permitted for ftre exiting purposes on the fourth floor. It is the applicant’s intention,
however, to install all operable windows in the project.
CITY OF PALO ALTO NOISE ORDINANCE
The City of Palo Alto’s Noise Ordinance, most recently revised in 2000, has several requirements
and stipulations for noise levels. Section 9.10.030(a) states that "No person shall produce, suffer, or
allow to be produced by any machine, anirnal, or device, or any combination of the same, on
residential property, a noise level more than six dB [decibels] above the local ambient at any point
outside of the property plane." For commercial property, Section 9. t 0.040 raises the limit to eight
dB above the ambient noise level for commercial property planes. For public property noise limits,
Section 9. !0.050 increases to fifteen dB the allowable level above the ambient noise level.
Section 9.10.060 includes a Special Provision that exempts noise sources from the
aforementioned Sections’ limitations for daytime hours between 8:00am and 8:00pm.
9.10.060 states, "Any noise source which does not produce a noise level exceeding 70
dBA2 at a distance of twenty-five feet under its most noisy condition of use shall be
exempt..."
CITY OF PALO ALTO NOISE ELEMENT GUIDELINES
In 1998, the City of Palo Alto adopted revisions to the Comprehensive Plan, including the
adoption of Policy N-39, which reaffLrms the State of California and City Ordinance goals
on noise mitigation. In particular, Policy N-39 states that "Where the City determines that
providing an Ldn of 60 dB or lower outdoors is not feasible, the noise level in outdoor
areas intended for recreational use should be reduced to as close to the standard as feasible
through project design."
1 Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL): A descriptor established by the U.S. Envirormaental Protection
Agency to describe the average day-night level with a penalt3, applied to noise occurring during the
nighttime hours (10 pm- 7 am) to account for the increased sensitivity, of people during sleeping hours.2 dBA: A-Weighted Sound Level in Decibels. A-Weighting is a standard frequency weighting that de-
emphasizes tow frequency sound similar to human hearing.
Charles M Salter Associates Inc
130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 39"/ 0454
The City ofPalo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan noise Element guidelines are not clear in a
number of policy areas. While they speak to single event noise, they do not establish
statistical criteria for meeting those events. In addition, single event measurements at any
one point in time cannot take into account changes in CalTrain schedules or that sound
measurements from any future Wains may be above or below current single event levels.
We have approached this project, therefore, by applying noise criteria that incorporates
normalization, or an average of single event noise mitigation. This approach is consistent
with the City ofPalo Alto’s determination for the Oppommity Center in Palo Alto, as
evidenced in a letter (attached) dated April 26, 2004.~ In that letter, the City takes the
following position:
"... Where existing conditions such as ambient noise already exceed standards, and
the project is not contributing to a worsening of that condition, the project should
not be required to "mitigate" an existing condition... "
"... The Comprehensive Plan does reference this "maximum instantaneous noise
level of 50 dB (Bedroom) and 55 dB in other rooms under a discussion in the Comp
Plan Noise Element, but the context of the discussion is that it is a g-uideline to
"encourage the location of land uses in areas with compatible noise
environments. "However, the Comprehensive Plan also encourages "the location
of higher density housing near transit stations and routes" and points out that
residential noise levels may not be achieved in this area and then presents the
g-uidelines on interior and exterior noise levels under Policy N-39."
"We would interpret these as guidelines in our Comprehensive Plan, not hard
standards (otherwise we would have them in the Noise Ordinance and these
interior noise levels are not in the CiO, Noise Ordinance... "
The applicant’s design for Park Plaza, which includes courtyard area balconies for most
residential units, and an STC rating of 50 for the CalTrain wall exposure and wrap of one
unit, and operable bedroom window ratings of STC 45 adjacent to the CalTrain line, are in
excess of City of Palo ordinance and Comprehensive Plan gnidelines. In addition, the
design will come close to meeting noise mitigation for single events.
ACOUSTICAL MEASUREMENTS
On 21 April 2004, noise monitors were deployed on the roof of the warehouse at 195 Page
Mill Road to quantify the 24-hour average sound level (DNL) around the site. Two
monitors were deployed at the fa,cade of 195 Page Mill Road facing the train tracks and
Alma Street beyond. Another monitor measured the noise levels at the comer of Page Mill
Road and Park Boulevard. The warehouse’s roof height was 20 feet, approximately the
same height as the second story of the proposed Park Plaza project.
"~ Attached April, 26, 2004 letter from John Lusardi, Planning Manager, to the Housing Development Officer,
Housing Authorits’ of the Count" of Santa Clara re: sound mitigation for the Oppormnits, Center, a residential
project to be located on Encina Avenue.
Charles M Salter Associates Inc
130 Surfer Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: ,~15 397 0454
The DNL for each location is noted below in Table 1:
Table 1: 24-Hour Monitor Locations and DNL, 21 April 2004
Monitor Location I DNL
Comer of Page Mi!l Road and Park
1 Boulevard 65 dB
(Traffic Noise)
2 Facing CalTrain and Page Mill Road 74 dB(Train Noise)
Facing CalTrain and Stanford Auto
3 Dealership 72 dB
(Train Noise)
On 10 May 2004, additional measurements were conducted to re-confirm the hourly L~ for a
representative daytime hour at the site. Four noise monitors were deployed at various positions
around the Park Plaza site. These positions were similar to the ones on 21 April 2004. Correlating
the hourly L~q for a specific hour from the 21 April 2004 data with the hourly L~ data gathered on
10 May 2004, during which time at least three Ca!Trains passed Table 2 below displays the data
gathered on 10 May 2004.
As an alternative to roof positions, and to give independent locational sound measures, all monitors
were positioned bet~veen eight and fifteen feet elevations adjacent to the faCades of the 195 Page
Mill Road warehouse.
Table 2: One-Hour Monitor Locations and Houri), Leq, 10 May 2004
Monitor I Location i Hourly Leq
1 195 Page Mill Road fa,cade facing CalTrain 68 dB
195 Page Mill Road faCade midway between
2 intersection of Park Boulevard and Page Mill 64 dB
Road, and CalTrain
3 195 Page Mill Road adjacent to comer of 65 dBPage Mill Road and Park Boulevard
4 Industria! building adjacent to 195 Page Mill 60 dBRoad on Park Boulevard
NOISE CONTROL REQUIREMENTS
This project has several characteristics that will help it meet City and State noise control
requirements. The central courtyard area allows more outdoor use spaces to be added to
the project without increasing the exposure to exterior noise sources. Glazing areas on the
exterior fa,cades wil! be controlled to limit noise impingement on interior spaces.
In addition, the applicant has committed to exterior wall and bedroom window
construction available in the industry to mitigate sound on the CalTrain side of the building
to at least STC 50 for the wall, including single unit wrap, and at least STC 45 for bedroom
windows located along the CalTrain side of the building.
Charles M Salter Associates Inc
130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454
Employing the day-night average sound level data, we have calculated the window-wall
STC ratings necessary for the dwelling units to meet both the State of California Building
Code and City of Palo Alto Noise Element and Noise Ordinance requirements.
Table 3 below displays the minimum glazing necessary to achieve the State of California’s
interior noise level requirements, as described above.
Table 3: STC Ratings for Exterior Facade Glazing to Meet State of
California Interior DNL Requirements
Exterior Facade from Sheet A-3
CalTrain
Page Mill Road
Park Boulevard
Stanford European Auto
Minimum STC Rating
38
35
32
35
The applicant’s proposal is to use minimum STC 50-rated exterior walls facing CalTrain
and one housing unit on both side fa,cades. The bedroom windows in this sound-rated wall
will have a minimum STC 45 rating. These STC commitments on Park Plaza significantly
exceed both the City’s ordinance requirements and the State of California’s interior DNL
requirements for residential construction.
The window/walls in the courtyard fa,cades will not be required to be fitted with sound-
rated glass because the calculated DNL will be below’ 60. The exterior facades will act as
barriers and lower the outdoor DNL in this area below the maximum allowable DNL from
Policy N-39 of the City’s Noise Element.
GROUND-BOILNE VIBRATION
While the CitT of Palo Alto does not specify any particular criterion for vibration levels, the
Federal Transit Administration (FTA) gives guidelines for assessing the impact of ground-borne
vibration. These levels are dependent on the purpose of the structure and frequency of events. A
vibration event is any occurrence causing vibration levels perceivable to humans. Structure types
can be considered as "high sensitivity", "residential", or "institutional". The frequency of events is
broken into "frequent", more than 70 events per day, and "infrequent", fewer than 70 events per
day. This project falls into the category of residential with infrequent events.
In order to determine the vibration levels at the site, four measurement locations were
chosen. Accelerometers were affLxed beside the curb across the street from the existing
structure at 195 Page Mill Road at distances of 50, 75, 100, and 125 feet from the closest
railroad track. A second railroad track was 14 feet further from the first one. Nine train
pass-by events over a three-hour period were recorded and analyzed. According to the
FTA guidelines, the 1-second RMS (Root Mean Square) value of the vibration ve!ocitv
level for any event should not exceed 80VdB4. According to the data, the vibration levels
at the point of the structure closest to the tracks ranged between 65 and 71VdB. This value
is below the maximum level recommended by the FTA.
~ VdB: Velocity decibels with respect to 1 microinch per second. Velocity decibels are a way to convert
gound movement velocity to the decibel unit.
Charles M Salter Associates Inc
130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 4!5 397 0454
An adjustment of-5 to -7VdB can be made as a coupling loss between the ground and the
foundation. Another adjustment of-2VdB can be made for each floor above grade.
Finally, an adjustment of+6VdB can be made for the amplification due to positions on a
particular floor. Our data and calculations indicate that the levels meet the FTA guideline
at 80 feet from the closest track.
If the number of train operations becomes "frequent" as defined by the FTA, the guideline
is decreased to 72VdB. This more restrictive criterion is approximately the value of the
calculated maximum for the measured events on the site.
Charles M Salter Associates In¢
130 Sutter Street San Francisco California 94104 Tel: 415 397 0442 Fax: 415 397 0454
-. ’.....Attachment K
" I;omprehensive Plan Land Use Type: TransitOriented Residential
Key Issues :
-1..Shon]d transit 6riented residential also include a mixed use component to facilitate trip reductions and pedestrian
orientation? Specifically, consider: .
c~ ComlSatible design of, higher intensity, uses, includingstrong pedestrian orientatior~;
C~ Need for mixeduses to create a livable em~ronment for residents and to provide alternative~ to auto use;
:~.To what e~ent, if any, should parking reductions, or maximum pa~king r~tios, be allowed for transit oriented
residential? Specifically, consider:
~Extent o~:parking reductions that are appropriate to recognize transit use and discourage auto use;
~Parking spillover potential and management strategies;
n Parking strategies such as unbundling that allow parking supply to better match demand;
3.Should transit oriented resid;.ntial be applied as an overlay, within proximit3, to rai! stations, but avoiding low
density residential areas? Specifically, consider:
~ Selective geographicifl application of this zoning to minimize impacts to single-family neighborhoods
within 2,000 feet of the transit stations;
u .Whether to app!y a transit-oriented approach outside the 2,000-foot circles, where transit exists, such as
al.ong Ei Camino Real;
~ Whether "transit~oriented development" should be classified as a subset of"mixed-use development."
g, What are appropriate design considerations to promote smooth transitionsto adiacent uses?
Comprehensive P|an Land Use Definition
Allows higher density residential dwellings in the University Avenue/Downtown
and Califdrnia Avenue commercial centers within a walkable distance,
approximately 2,000 leer, of th-e City’s two multi-modal transit stations. The" land
use category is intended to generate residential densities that support ~ubstantial
use of public transportation and especially the use of~Caltrain: Design standards
will be prepared to ensure that development successfully contTibutes to th~ stree;
and minimizes potential negative impacts. Individual ozoject performance
standards will be developed, including parking, ~o ensure that a significant
portion of the residents will use alternative modes "of transportation. Net density
will range up to 50 units per acre, with minimum denMties to be considered
during development of new City zoning regulations.
Van Heter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, inc.
What is Transit-Oriented ResidentialiMixed Use?
Overview
The Palo .Qto Comprehensive Plan specifies:
Higher density residential dwellings in the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue commercial centers
within a walkable distance, approximately 2000 feet, of the Cit3~’s
two multi-modal transit stations;
n Generate densities that support substantial use of public
transportation and especially the Caltrain;
Design standards will be prepared to ensure that development
successfu!lv contributes to the street to minimize impacts;
Individual project performance standards will be developed,
including parking, to ensure that a significant portion of the
residents will use alternative modes of transportation;
Net density ~dll range up to 50 units per acre, ~th minimum
densities to be considered during development of new City zoning
regulations (L-f1);
~ Ailow increased housing density immediately surrounding
commercial areas and particularly near transit centers (Housing
Program H-l);
z Modifl." parking requirements to allow higher densities and reduced
housing costs in areas appropriate for reduced par’king requirements
(Housing Program H-7).
Intent
Alma Place is an ambitious example o~ transit-oriented
residential development, with increases in residential
gensiw and reeu~ion in parking ratios to encourage
transit use.
"Transit-adjacent" development 81iows residents to take
advantage of nearby transit resources but does not
inherently encourage use of transit over auto use.
Higher residential Oensitles alone do not encourage
transit use-development must inciuoe well~esigned
pedestrian access, attractive amenities, and a
"synergistic" mix of uses in the area ~o be successful.
Taken together, these descriptions and policies outline a development type that has a higher residential densinf and
modified par’king requirements to encourage transit use, while contributing to street qualit3, and minimizing potential
negative impacts. The higher densities and mo&ified par’Idng are also intended to reduce the cost of building housing
near transit.
Yet transit oriented development is more than just accommodating larger building programs and more units, or allowing
the access prmdded by transit to justin" development scenarios that may be inconsistent with the surrounding
neighborhood. Transit-oriented development should complement and facilitate a broader land use and circulation
pattern that allows people to walk and bike ~ithin the neighborhood, as we!l as to access transit for destinations beyond
the neighborhood. From this perspective, transit-oriented development does not only represent a "node" that is focused
on settling the station, but as one of several building blocks that together create a place that offers a choice of
transportation modes, housing ~_-pes, and li~eso, les, as well as access to jobs and fewer negative automobile impacts.
Van Heter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
Although appropriate physical qualities such as densiD~, distance, and
urban form are essentia! for mak_ing transit-oriented development work,
the goal should not be focused on creating a particular physical form, but
rather to create places that function differently from traditional
development.
Considerations
There are different levels of commitment to the relationship between
transit-oriented development and transit resources. "Transit-adiacent"
development merely locates higher-densiD’ development near transit but
~ith conventional parking requirements and minimal integration between
land uses and transit facilities, so that transit use is a convenient choice
but not strongly encouraged. At the opposite end of the spectrum isa
more proactive strategy where tr.ansit use is encouraged and auto use
discouraged by limiting the amount of available parking, requiring a range
of unit sizes for a diversiD~ of households, and prmdding a welt-integrated
mix of land uses so that travel for shopping, services and work can be
reduced. Households that desire the convenience of transit and the abiliD"
to reduce or eliminate auto use ~dll "self select" these proactive proiects.
Design standards should ensure that development
successfully contributes to the street. Standards should
focus not only on density and parking, but, also on the
qualhies that create a "place."
While residential densiD" is the most significant and important Trans,-oriented residential development should have
component from the point of ~4ew of potential transit ridership, design is strong relationships to streets, a vadew of pathways and
also an important consideration. The most successful examples of transit-
open spaceS,walking andan~ finelYfit in toSCaiedthe existingmassingneighborhood.t° encourage
oriented residential development feature a varieD’ of unit types that
accommodate a range of household tTpes and respond to the surrounding neighborhood. Buildings have strong
relationships to streets, a varlet3:" of pathways and open spaces, and finely scaled massing - all of which encourage
walking and allow new projects to fit in to the existing neighborhood context.
The mix and relationship of uses is crucial, and it may make sense to classifi., transit-oriented development as a subset of
mixed use development. Proiects should not be oriented strictly to a single obiective such as generating revenue for a
transit agency or maximizing housing production, but rather to creating a "s?mergism" that not only takes advantage of
the transit resource but also serves the overall neighborhood. Reduced auto dependency will result from an effective
blending of convenient and effective transportation links with the ability to carry out most everyday tasks close to home.
Additional considerations
a Selective geographical application of this zoning and to avoid single-family neighborhoods within 2,000 feet of the
transit stations;
~ Extent of parking reductions that are appropriate to recognize transit use and discourage auto use;
~an Meter Williams Pollack
tJrbsworks, inc.
Parking spiLlover potential and management strategies;
Parking strategies such as unbundling that allow parking supply to better match demand;
Compatible design of higher intensity uses, including strong pedestrian orientation;
Need for mixed uses to create a livable environment for residents and to provide alternatives to auto use;
Whether to apply a transit-oriented approach outside the 2,000-foot circles, where transit exists, such as along E1
Camino Real;
Whether "transit-oriented development" should be classified as a subset of"mixed-use development."
Preliminary Policy Options
Tr, ree oDtions are outlined below to reflect different degrees of implementation of these concepts:
Comprehensive Plan Option: Basic Implementation (Recommended)
~)ens~:~es and intensities consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, applied through a selective zoning or overlay process
:r~a: protects low-density residential areas within the 2,000-foot radius. Key components could include:
Pedestrian-oriented design, including building facades close to the street;
Incentives for mixed use (e.g. retail on the first floor with residential above);
Modest parking reductions to reflect increased transit use, for appropriate mixed uses, and for affordable housing:
Transition designs to address the interface bet~,een the lower residential areas and the higher densi~’ transit
oriented development.
£omprehensive Plan Option: Plinimal Implementation
Emphasis on pedestrian-oriented design, allowing higher densities and FAR’s only for residential uses that include a
itmi~ed retail rob:, parking reductions for affordable housing only, and providing transition designs near low densi~:
residential.
Eomprehensive Plan Option: Optimum Implementation
.&l] of the requirements of the t~ecommended Option, plus requirements for residential or mixed use components of
projects, and parking strategies that include maximum parking ratios and unbundled parking options. May also include
expansion of the transit-oriented residential areas to select sites outside the ~-icinit3" of the train stations, such as near
maior intersections of E1 Camino Real and arterials.
RESOURCES. Belzar, Dana and Gerald Autier. Transit Oriente~ Development: Moving from Rhetoric to Really’. Brookings Institution Center on Urban and
Me~.ro#oli~an Policy and Great American Station Foundation: Washington D.C., June 2002.
Tumlin, Jeffrey and Adam Mil~ard*BaE "How to Make Transit-Oriented Develoument Work," Pianning, May 2003.
Van Pteter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc,
Proposed Locations for Transit-Oriented Residential
Legend
proposed locations for Transit-Oriented
Besidential
2ooo’ radius around Caltrain station
~Housing Opportunity site
transportation routeSS
Siting considerations
,u Proposed location for Transit-Oriented
Residential includes all areas within 2000’
radius of Caltrain station.
~Will require refinement to minimize impacts
to single-famit)" residential areas.
Van Heter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc.
Transit-Oriented Residential. Detail of California Ave
existing multiple family
residential zoning, proposed
Village Residential
le dwelling zone to be
protected through design
standards
radius around
Caltrain station
existing commercial zoning,
proposed Transit-Oriented
residential area
g Opportunity sites
4OO(7
Van Meter Williams Pollack
Urbsworks, Inc,
SAHPLETRANSIT-ORIENTED RESIDENTIAL PROTOTYPE
12,000 sf (I 00’ x 120’) site ¯commercial zone within 2,000 ft of Caltrain ¯ underground parking
This prototype demonstrates a concept for a
transit-oriented development near one of the
multimoda! (Caltrain) transit stations.
Because there are no existing Transit Oriented
zoning standards, the prototype is based on the
RM-40 and downtown commercial (CD-C)
standards. Referencing the RM-40 standards is
consistent with the housing opportunity sites
assessment approach; adding ground floor
commercial uses recognizes the importance of
coordinated mixed use for achieving successful
transit-oriented development. In order to achieve
this prototTpe, however, the following adjustments
would need to be made to the CD-C/RM-40
standar&:
1. Modi~, the side daylight planes to correspond
to the adjacent use. This scenario eliminates
the dayllg~lt plane adjacent to the commercial
building, but maintains the daylight plane
adjacent to the residential building.
2.Modi~. the requirement to match the frontage
setback with the adjacent residential use.
Rather than changing the first 150 feet of side
street frontage (in this case, the entire frontage)
to match the adjacent RM-30 site, this scenario
takes an average of the two adjacent setbacks for
the frontage within 50 feet of the RM-30 site.
In this case, the building is set back 10 feet,
(which represents the average of zero on one
side and the 20-foot RM-30 setback on the
other side), which creates a transition between
the residential RM-30 site and the commercial
street-oriented character of the CD-C district.
3.Allow more flexibiliw between maximum
commercial and residential FAR’s. tn this case,
there is still a substantial amount of commercial
floor area, but the residential FAR is allowed to
exceed 1.0 as long as the overall building does
not exceed the 2.0 maximum. This allows a
greater number of units and a better mix of unit
sizes.
Van HeterWilliams Pollack
Urbsworks, inc.
e s M Salt e r Ass oci
Attachment L
Aud;of\;~suai
S}~tem
22 September 2004
Harold Hohbach
Courthouse Plaza Company
29 Lowery Drive
Atherton, CA 94027
Fax: 650.853.0325
Subject:Park Plaza, Palo Alto, CA
CSA Project No. 04-0151
Dear Mr. Hohbach:
At the 11 August 2004 Planning and Transportation Commission meeting, I understand that two
Emerson Street residents of the subject project expressed concern about sound reflections off of
your proposed building. This letter responds to this issue.
The added noise created by sound reflections is a phenomenon that we and other acoustical
engineers have studied extensively. A study by Caltrans concluded that reflections off buildings or
barriers typically contribute less than 1 dBA to the overall noise level~. Our firm has conducted
reflection measurements. These measurements occurred off a 50-feet tall building and a 15-feet
tall sound wall where there was direct line-of-sight between the reflecting surface and the receivers
of sound. In the case of the concerned citizens who testified at the hearing, their homes on
Emerson are located over 400 feet from the proposed building. Furthermore, they are shielded
from sound reflections as a result of one row of one and two story apartments and another row of
homes on the west side of Emerson Street. We thus conclude that the effect of sound reflecting off
the proposed building would contribute an immeasurable increase to the noise at the homes of these
concerned citizens. There is no reason for their concern.
This completes my comments on the subject matter. Please call if you have any questions.
Sincerely Yours,
CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
Charles M. Salter, P.E.
President
Carol Jansen
E-mail: ciansenrfi;worldnet.att.net
CMSmh P: IM-0151_04Sep22C.MS_Park Plaza
Interstate 680 Liroma Stonecastle sound wall study, California Department of Transportation July 19,
1994.