HomeMy WebLinkAboutASRDRB20180215 6.2ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF REPORT 6.2
RE:
Date February 15,2018
To:Design Review Board
From: KevinJ. Gailey, Chief of Planning
TRAMMEL CROW RESIDENTIAL (Applicants) DIABLO OFFICE
PARTNERS, LLC (Property Owners) LCA ARCHITECTS (Project
Architects) DEV16-0014 Building Permit review for a previously approved
Development Plan for the proposed construction of a'1.44 to 1.47 ut'rtt
multifamily for-rent residential project ("Alexan Riverwalk")
Background - Actions leading up to the Town Council's July L8, 2017 ptoject approval
Final DevelopmentPlanrequest DEV16-0014 was approved by the Planning Commission
on February 28,2017, authorizing a 1"50-unit apartment project ona3.75 acre site along
the south side of Diablo Road (373-383 Diablo Road). The Planning Commission's action
was appealed and the project was subsequently considered by the Town Council at their
meetings of 4pri118,2017 and July 18,2017.
\Alhile the project considered and approved by the Planning Commission was
substantially consistent with the project previously reviewed by the Design Review
Board (DRB) at meetings on October20,201.6 and October 27,201.6, the project ultimately
approved by the Town Council on ]uly 18,2017 incorporated fairly significant changes
from a design and building massing perspective.
At the initial Town Council hearing (i.e., the meeting of April 18,2017) the Town Council
declined to take action on the project, choosing instead to provide direction to the
applicant and Tor,rm staff as to their concerns over the design and building massing of the
project and as regards to the adequacy of some of the technical supports prepared for the
project.
It is noteworthy to underscore that the processing steps and scope of review for this
project were different than the Town normally encounters for several reasons, all tied to
state housing law. Those include the fact that multifamily housing at a density of 25-30
units per acre was a "use by right" on this site; the fact that the applicant had invoked the
state density bonus law; and the fact that, for several project-specific considerations, the
project was exempt from further CEQA review.
As mentioned above, the concerns articulated by the Town Council at the April 18'2017
hearing generally fell into two categories: (a) The project's design and building massing;
and (b) inadequate or missing technical studies or information. As regards DRB's charge
to review the project at this stage of review, the focus of this staff report is on changes
made to address concerns regarding project design and building massing.
\Atrhile the project is a "use by right" and is exempt from CEQA, the applicable statute
(Government Code Section 65583.2(Ð) did allow for design review. Flowever, that review
was limited to "objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions and
policies. .." in. the General Plan or zoning ordinance, as set forth by Government Code
Section 65589.5(Ð.
General Plan Policy 1,.I2provides that all new development in Danville should "be
generally consistent with the scale, appearance, and small town character of Danville."
(A note in the General Plan accompanying this Poticy points out that "Other policies in
the General Plan indicate where differences in scale may be acceptable in order to meet
State-mandated housing requirements.. .")
With respect to this specific property, the Special Concern Area text in the General Plan
for this property provides that:
. "Buildings shall generally be limited to a maximum height of 35 feeÇ" and
o í'structures should be designed to appear as a series of smaller, separate buildings
rather than a single large building."
In recognition to concerns raised during the course of the April 18,2017 Town Council
hearing on the project, the applicant redesigned many elements óf the project from the
project design that had been previously presented to DRB and the Planning Commission.
The significant changes to the project that ultimately led to project approval by the Town
Council on ]uly 18,2017 are sununarized as follows:
. The overall building heights for all three proposed buildings were reduced from a
maximum of 37 feet to a maximum of 35 feet - bringing the projec! into conformance
with the General Plan height limit and eliminating the need for the applicant to
request a concession under density bonus for building height.
. The westernmost of the three proposed buildings, which had been a mix of two- and
three-stories in story height, was changed to entirely be a two-story building. As a
two-story building, this westerly building had greater compatibility with, and
transition to, the existing apartment building located on the adjacent Janlois property.
This massing change also responded to the fact the building would have the highest
degree of visibility from Diablo Road, as it is closest to the view corridor from Diablo
Road that extends along the project's main vehicular access.
. Project landscape plans for the areas between buildings as well as the perimeter were
further developed and enhanced. The most significant change to the landscape plan
a
was the incorporation of significant buffer landscaping in the area between the top of
bank for San Ramon Creek and the south edges of the three buildings. The buffer
landscaping was changed to include more interim tree planting and long term
planting within the Flood Control easement south side of the three buildings.
The building massing for the middle building was retained in the form that was
substantially consistent with the plans considered by the Town Council at their initial
hearing and that was substantially consistent with the plans considered by DRB and
the Planning Commission. The middle building continued to be a mix of two- and
three stories in story height, with the two-story elements limited to relatively small
portions of the north and south ends of the building.
The building massing for the eastern building, which occupies the area nearest the
southbound ramp to I-680, was altered to be entirely three story in design. This
change, coupled with the changes to the other two buildings, was authorized to allow
the unit count in the project to stay at 150 units while also allowing essentially no
change to the average unit size in the project.
The project's proposed parking plan was also changed as more parking was provided
than shown on the plans considered at the initial Town Council hearing. The project
approved by the Town Council }rrad 292 onsite parking spaces - 30 more than the
minimum required by DBD parking regulations - and showed a design for the
basement parking that would include 56 tandem parking spaces.
Additional project revisions include the elimination of full floor height stairway
access to roof areas; the introduction of an "interactive play area for children"; the
provision of dog stations with clean up bags and waste containers; and the inclusion
of six vehicle charging stations.
a
a
Proiect Design Changes Requested by Trammell Crow Residential
Subsequent to the Town Council's approval of the project the residential multifamily
builder Trammell Crow Residential (TCR) went into contract with Diablo Office Partners,
LLC to purchase the 373-383 Diablo Road project and its project entitlement. TCR has
subsequently been in ongoing contact with the Town relative design adjustments TCR
seeks that reflect their desire to build and own the project as an upscale for-rent'project.
The range of project changes ultimately proposed and supported at the staff level are
summarized as follows:
Summary of changes requested by TCR Plan Submittal for DRB Building Permit revièw
. Reduces the number of apartment units in project from L50 units to a range of 'l.44to
'1,47 units (with range being linked to a current consideration to convert six units shown
on current plans as two bedroom units into nine one bedroom units).
a
a
Changes the mix of apartment units, as follows:
Maintains Net Far (i.e., conditioned space goes from 143,754sq. ft. - or 0.88% Net FAR
- to 143,554 sq. ft. - or 0.88% Net FAR).
Adds/enhances onsite amenities, as follows:
Changes the number of at-grade parking spaces from 82 spaces to 72 spaces (to
accommodate changes to western project entry area required by Settlement
Agreement) while increasing the number of basement parking spaces from2l2spaces
to 224 spaces - for a net increase in total parking of two spaces.
Incorporates layout change for basement parking to simplify circulation and overall
structural design of the parking area.
a
Plan Studio One-
Bedroom
Two-
Bedroom
Flats
Two-
Bedroom
'Town
House
Style
Three-
Bedroom
Two-
Bedroom
Town
House
Style
Total
Units
Below
Market
Rate Units
Approved
Project
1.4
(e%\
78
(s2%\
58
(39y"\
None
(o.o%)
None
(0.0%)
None
(0.0%)
150 13
Proposed
Revision
5
(4%)
71 to 80
(49% to
54y")
41. to 47
(28Y. to
33%\
7
(sv')
7
(5v")
7
(5%)
1.44to'1.47 72to13
Plan
Lobby/
Leasing
Area
Clubhous
e
Gym Pool
Exterior
Common
Room
Tot
Lot
BBQ'S
Dedicated
DogWalk
Area &
Grooming
Area
Approved
Project
Yes -
integrated
within
NW
corner of
Eastern
Building
Yes -
integrated
within
NW
corner of
Eastern
Building
Yes -
integrated
within
NW
corner of
Eastern
Building
No No area
sized or
designed
as an
Exterior
Common
Room
Yes - But
limited in
size and
function
and at
south
periphery
Yes - But
limited in
size and
function
and
spaced
through-
out
common
area
Yes
TCR
Submittal
Yes - stays
within
Northwest
corner of
Eastern
Building
Yes -
Moved to
be stand-
alone
building at
south side
of
Common
Area
between
Center
and
Western
Buildings
Yes -
Moved to
be stand-
alone
building at
south side
of
Common
Area
between
Center
and
Western
Buildings
Yes -
Placed in
Common
Area
between
Center
and
Eastern
Buildings
Yes -
Multiple
Exterior
Rooms
shown for
placement
in both
Common
Areas
Yes -
Increased
size and
function
and placed
in the
south
portion of
common
area
between
Center
and
Eastern
Buildins
Yes -
Increased
size and
function
and
shown for
placement
in both
Common
Areas.
Locations yet
to be
determined
a
. Substantially increases (=35% increase) to the size of the interior coÍunon space areas.
. Retains desig+ functionality and location of the trash enclosure area.
. Introduces gated entry function for ingress to basement parking area.
. Retains, but relocates,loading zone along southern drive aisle.
. Relocates all vehicle parking off southern drive aisle.
. Retains SRVFPD hammerhead at southeastern corner of project site and makes
provides for CCCFCD turning template at southwþstern corner of project site.
. Increases the gross rentable floor area and average unit size (up from 124,041, sq. ft.
and 827 sq. ft. average unit size to 132,409 sq. ft. and 920 sq. ft. average unit size) -
with this change made possible by the design change to the western building
changing it to a two-story townhouse style layout (which eliminates need for an
interior hallway for units in the building). The changes do not have an)¡ measurable
impact of overall massing as the conditioned space is basically being interchanged
from hallway space for reallocation into the units.
. Provides for improvements along joint property line with Janlois property to allow
the provisions of the prior settlement for this portion of the property to be met (i.e.,
rebuild masonry way at shared property line rather tlitanl'-2" encroachment into the
TCR property).
. Would require reintroduction of rooftop access penthouse (2) for central building.
. Proposes refinement of exterior building elevations to a "tÍLte{' variation of
"Craftsman" design.
. Would " secrlre" entry area into coÍìmon areas through provision of fencing between
the ends of the north and side edges of the three buildings.
Recommendation
Receive presentation of project from Staff and Project Architect and discuss plan
submittal and provide direction to staff and applicant on project design
Attachments
A - Project Plans (Rolled Set supplied and Electronic Copy to be distributed)
B - Compliance Report providing comments on design-related conditions of approval
from Town Council Resolution No. 32-2017
C - Parking Requirement Comparisons - Approved Project versus TCR Project Proposal
D - Details for property line treatment for interface with abutting Janlois property
Attachment B: Compliance Report - Comments on design-related conditions of
approval from Town Council Resolution No. 32-2017
(Status Comments appear in Red font)
B. SITE PLANNING
1. Exterior wall-mounted lighting shall be at the minimum lighting intensity
necessary to provide adequate lighting for safety and security purposes.
Project light fixtures shall be of a design that generally screens the view of
the light source and provides down-directed lighting. Prior to the issuance
of building permits, the project developer shall submit a photometric plan
as part of the lighting plan that indicates lighting locations and fixture
details and provides the corresponding photometric information. This plan
shall be subject to review and approval by the Danville Development
Services Department and the Design Review Board (DRB). If required by
the Planning Divisionandf or the DRB, field modifications found necessary
to prevent inappropriate levels of off-site light intrusion andf or glare shall
be made. Information on project lighting not supplied as part of the current
submittal. This review would be a deferred item f.or a subsequent DRB
review.
2. The location of any pad mounted electrical transformers, if different than
shown on the plans referenced in Condition 4.1 above, shall be subject to
review and approval by the Danville Development Services Department
and DRB prior to the issuance of a building permit. Unless determined not
feasible by these reviewing bodies, such transformers shall not be located
between any street and the front of a building and shall be adequately
screened and mitigated with appropriate landscaping. Plans indicate there
has been no change from the plans approved for the project. Details on
location will be reviewed as part of the review of the Civil Plans.
3. The layout of the raised landscape medians and accent paving proposed for
inclusion in the western project entry driveway off of Diablo Road shall be
subject to review and approval by the Planning Division as part of the
review of the Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans. The Civil Plans and
Landscape Plans adequately detail what is proposed for this area. Prior
concerns regarding the layout were resolved through the property owner's
interaction with Heritage Bank property owners. The current plans reflect
the agreement reached by the two parties through a Settlement Agreement.
Transportation Division staff will still need to review the proposed lane
layout in close to the driveway's intersection with Diablo Road.
LANDSCAPING
1. Final Landscapê and Irrigation Plans (Landscape Plans), with planting
shown att":20'scale, shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Danville Development Services Department and DRB. The plan shall
include coffunon names of all plant materials and shall indicate the size that
T
C.
tr
tç
tç
*
tr
2
ôJ
4.
5.
various plant materials will achieve within a five-year period of time. The
current version of Landscape Plans don't constitute "Final Landscape and
Irrigation Plans..' The applicant and staff are seeking DRB's overview of
the plans at the current level of detail to provide direction on the
subsequent submittal of complete plans to DRB.
All plant material shall be served by an automatic underground irrigation
system and maintained in a healthy growing condition. Landscape Plans
comply with this standard. The irrigation system shall comply with East
Bay Municipal Utility District's Section 3L Water Efficiency requirements,
including use of a weather-based controller with soil moisture probe and
rain-shutoff switch. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project
Landscape Architect will be required to supply written verification that the
Landscape Plans meet applicable EBMUD standards
The Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans submitted for the Project shall be
accompanied by a written report prepared by the Project Landscape
Architect documenting how the plans comply with applicable outdoor
water-use efficiency recorrunendations and requirements in place at the
time of their submittal. The report shall, at a minimum, speak to
conformance to applicable East Bay Municipal Utility District (EBMUD)
reconunendations and requirements and the State of California Department
of Water Resources requirements that would pertain to the project
regarding the Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 2006 (AB 1881).
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Project Landscape Architect
will be required to supply written verification that the Landscape Plans
meet this standard.
All trees shall be a minimum of 1S-gallon container size. All trees shall be
properly staked. All shrubs used in the project which are not used as
ground cover, shall be a minimum of five gallons in size. Landscape Plans
comply with this standard.
All landscaped areas not covered by shrubs and trees shall be planted with
live ground cover. All proposed ground cover areas shall be planted and
maintained so that they fill in the affected landscape areas within a two year
period. Landscape Plans comply with this standard.
The project's Final Landscape and Irrigation Plan shall detail the planned
adjustments to edge project grading and edge fencing and retaining wall
improvements along the western edge of the project at the shared ]anlois
Apartrnents/Danville Office Partners, LLC (DOP) property line. As the
presence of existing encroaching improvements into the DOP property
have the potential to affect the functionality of the proposed public
pedestrian easement and sidewalk and landscaping improvements shown
on the project plans along the west side of the project site, the project
developer shall be responsible, through the implementation of the
6
2
7
approved project Final Landscape and Irrigation Plaru to address and
remove, as necessary and appropriate, the existing encroachments to assure
the functionality and aesthetic desirability of the improvements for the
planned public pedestrian walkway improvements. The edge project
grading and edge fencing and retaining wall improvements shall be subject
to review and approval by the Design Review Board a minimum of forty-
five days prior to developer-initiation of the building permit plan check
process. Details for the edge fencing and retaining wall improvements at
the project boundary interface with the abutting ]anlois property were
prepared and submitted in conjunction with the final public hearing for the
project (see attached). They were reviewed by the abutting property owner
and they have been deemed acceptable by the Town.
Prior to the second phase of the project's linear review of preliminary
architectural design, the developer shall contact the.County Flood Control
District regarding installation of fencing (such as split rail or similar) along
the top bank on San Ramon Creek. If the Flood Control District approves
such fencing, the fencing shall be reviewed by the Design Review Board. If
the Flood Control District will not permit such fencing, the developer shall
present confirmation of such denial. The Project Landscape Architect will
provide an update at the DRB meeting on the question of whether fencing
along the top of bank is going to be authoizedby the Flood Control District.
Earlier indications were they would not allow any fencing within their
easement area.
The interactive play area to be provided on site shall include features
appropriate for children up age 10. The play area shall be fenced. The DRB
shall review the site plan with the developer to determine the most
appropriate location on the site for the play area. Landscape Plans comply
with this standard.
ARCHITECTURE
1,. All ducts, meters, air conditioning andf or any other mechanical
equipment, whether on the building or on the ground, shall be effectively
screened from view with landscaping or materials architecturally
compatible with the main buildings. Architectural Plans comply with this
standard.
2.Trash" refuse and recycling shall be contained within frash/recycling
enclosures that are architecturally compatible with the project architecture.
Unless otherwise authorized by the Planning Division, the enclosure design
and location shall be substantially as depicted on the project drawings cited
in Condition of Approval #A.1..a., above. The trash/recycling area shall
have lockable and self-closing doors. Prior to initiating the application for
building permit, the project developer shall document to the Town's
satisfaction that adequate coordination has been made with the project
I
D
:t
3
tr
3.
5.
4
site's solid waste purveyor to verify that the planned ftashf recycling areas
are apptopriately sized and located to handle projected trash and recycling
generation levels for the project. The trash/recycling area shall be designed
so as not to allow stormwater run-off to enter the area from adjacent
surfaces nor to allow wastewater originating from the area to seep outside
the area. The area drains for the trashf rccycling areas shall be connected
to the sanitary sewer, not the storm drain system. The trash/rccycling
enclosures shall be equipped with a hot/cold water supply. The project
trash/recycling program shall include provision for on-site shared
collection bins for compostable waste. If the construction details for the
trash enclosure are not available by the time of the DRB meeting, this item
would become a deferred item for a subsequent DRB review.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the proposed method to denote
street numbers for the approved structures and the individual residential
units in the project shall be submitted for review and approval by the
Planning Division. Street numbering of the approved structures shall be
posted so as to be easily seen from the street at all times, day and night by
emergency service personnel. Addressing would be a Planning Division
and SRVFPD review item. It would elevate to a DRB item if the applicant
desires to have building numbering provided as part of an overall
architectural statement (e.g., large addressing numbers and/or addressing
numbers mounted high on buitding elevations), wherein this item would
become a deferred item for a subsequent DRB review.
If project entry signage for the development is desired, a Sign Review
permit shall be submitted to the Town for consideration under a separate
application prior to sign installation. If the construction details for the entry
monument sign shown in the center median of the westerly project
driveway at its intersection with Diablo Road are not available by the time
of the DRB meeting, this item would become a deferred item for a
subsequent DRB review.
Samples of final materials and the proposed color palette shall be submitted
for review and approval by the Design Review Board (DRB) prior to the
issuance of building permits for new construction. Color mock-ups shall
be made available at the project site prior to scheduling the project
buildings for final DRB review. Project Architect will present color and
material information at the DRB meeting.
The second phase of the project's linear review of preliminary architectuial
design shall provide for a review and approval of architectural elevations,
details and revisions by the Design Review Board (DRB) a minimum of
forty-five days prior to developer-initiation of the building permit plan
check process. This layer of review shall provide project architectural
details as called for by the Danville Design Review Board Submittal
Requirement Checklist (as revised April 2000). The project architectural
4
6
7
sections developed and submitted for review shall include, at a minimum,
twelve representative building sections for the project as mutually selected
by the Planning Division and the Project Architect. The Plans provide the
information called for by the DRB Submittal Checklist. The building section
details provided adequately depict representative sections called for by this
condition of approval and meet the intent of the condition. The purpose of
the condition was to provide cross section details for areas where there is
an exterior material change and to allow review of window recesses.
In advance of submittal for the second phase of the project's linear review
of preliminary architectural design, the developer is encouraged to
incorporate design features into the project that add further architectural
interest and detailing. Examples of items that would add the desired
architectural interest and detailing include: (a) integration of unique project
signage into project architecture; (b) recessing of windows at second and
third floors; (c) use of a pool or water feature as a focal feature in one or
both of the central pedestrian courtyard areas; (d) use of custom designed
light fixtures; (e) use of high-end/elegant architectural pottery; (f) use of a
substantial trellis as an entry treatment to some or all of the pedestrian
courtyard areas; (g) selective second floor building setbacks (to further
break up building massing and in addition to third floor building setbacks
depicted on the approved project plans); (h) introduction of landscape
planting (e.g., vines) on selected ground floor building elevations; (i)
variation in building plane where exterior building material changes
occurred; and (i) use of recesses between top of wall and parapet roof
features. The Project Architect will describe in his presentation to DRB how
the project plans have been modified to meet the direction of this condition
of approv aI to " add the desired architectural interest and detailing."
As an enhanced architectural detail and to serve as a traffic calming design
feature, the three-way driveway intersection of the onsite driveway system
at the south side of the 60' width entry driveway shall be developed as a
raised intersection box with enhanced paving details. The design of the
raised intersection and the abutting pedestrian walkway crossings of the
affected project driveways shall be subject to review and approval by the
Transportation Division and the Planning Division. The Civil Plans
submitted detail the provision of a raised intersection box. \Atrhether this
should be provided with "enhanced paving details" is an item that DRB
should provide direction upon.
Final architectural elevations, details and revisions, presented in
construction plan detail, shall be submitted for review and approval by the
DRB prior to issuance of building permits for the project. Ten full size sets
of progress construction drawings for the project shall be submitted for the
review. This review, which shall follow completion of the second phase of
the projecfs linear review of preliminary architectural design described in
Conditions of Approvals D.6. andD.7., above, may be concurrent with the
5
8
*9
tr 10.
11.
12.
13
plan check review of building permits for new project construction. \Â/hile
the current DRB review will cover a much wider range of review than
anticipated, there will be several items that will be deferred that will need
DRB review prior to issuance of building permits.
Unless otherwise directed through building code regulations, roof vents
established on the residential buildings which are visible from the
surrounding public or private roadway system shall be limited to low
profile roof vents. All residential roof vents shall be painted a color to blend
with the roof and shall be painted with a flat finish. Building Elevations
and Roof Plans indicate a project design consistent with the intent and
requirements of this condition.
In conjunction with the preparation of the final working drawings for the
residential buildings, to the extent feasible, efforts shall be made to
maximize the size of individual storage areas available to all project
residential units. The exact locatiorç size and configuration of the storage
areas shall be subject to review and approval by the Planning Division prior
to the issuance of building permits. The Project Architect has been asked to
provide a suÍunary of the individual storage areas at the DRB meeting.
This may become a deferred item to a subsequent DRB meeting.
To the extent feasible, the project developer shall install bicycle storage
facilities serving the project. The exact locatiory size and configuration of
the bicycle storage facilities shall be subject to review and approval by the
Planning Division prior to the issuance of building permits. The Project
Plans reflect adequate provision of bicycle storage facilities in the basement
area. As the Final Landscape and Irrigation Plans are further developed,
they will need to specify how at-grade bicycle facilities would be provided.
The design of the project buildings shall be modified as may be necessary
to hold the building heights of the buildings to a maximum height of 37
feet. An exception to the approved maximum building height is granted
for an elevator tower and, as may be required, for a roof access for each of
the approved buildings. The Project Building Elevations reflect this
direction.
6
Project Total
Units
# Units by Unit Type and
Additional Parking Required
Parking Standard
by Unit Type
Parking Required
Project
Approved on
Appeal by Town
Council
150
ünits
14 Studio Units 1.0 space per unit 14.00
78 One Bedroom Units l-.5 space per unit L17.00
58 Two Bedroom Units 2.0.spaces per unit 116.00
Zero Three Bedroom Units 2.0 spaces per unit 0.00
Guest Parking Spaces 0.25 spaces per 2+ BDRs 14.50
Project Parking Required for a 150 unit MFR project 261_.s0
Heritage Bank Parking (per draft settlement agreement)15.00
Cabrita Property Parking (per draft settlement agreement)L5.00
Total Parking Required 291_.50
Total Parking to be Providedl 294.OO
Parking Above DBD Minimum Standard to be Provided +2.50
Attachment C: Parking Requirement Comparisons - Approved Project versus TCR Project Proposal (2-7-L9l
1 The approved project plans depicted 82 surface parking spaces (with 22 spaces, or 26.9% of total, shown as compact-sized
spaces) and provision of 2L2 basement parking spaces (with no spaces, or 0.0% of total, shown as compact-sized spaces).
Overall use of compact-sized spaces was 22 of 294 total spaces, or 7.5% - substantially below the maximum allowed under DBD
regulations that lim¡t compacts to a maximum of 30% of project onsite parking.
2 TCR considering changi¡g six two-bedroom units on an interior portion of the easterly building into nine one bedroom units -
with two units per floor changing out to three units per floor if the change is made. There would be no change in project parking
demand as six two-bedroom units with a.parking standard of 2.0 spaces per unit equates to a 12.0 space overall demand - the
same parking demand as nine one-bedroom units at a parking demand standard of 1.5 spaces per unit. The guest parking
demand would actually decrease by 1.5 spaces as 0.25 spaces of guest parking is required for two-bedroom units but no guest
parking is required for one-bedroom units.
3 Current plans from Trammel Crow Residential (TCR) depict the provision of 72 surface parking spaces (with 24 spaces, or 33.3%
of total, shown as compact-sized spaces) and provision of 224 basèment parking spaces (with 59 spaces, or 263% of total,
shownascompact-sizedspaces). Overall useofcompact-sizedspacesis33of296total spaces,or28.O%-consistentwithDBD
regulations that limit compacts to a maximum of 30% of project onsite parking. The TCR Plan also depicts a lower usage of
tandem parking in the basement - i.e., a reduction in the amount of tandem spaces from 54 depicted in the approved project
to 30 spaces in the proposed TCR project. The TCR Plan depicts a decrease in surface parking spaces to accommodate more C-
3 treatment areas.
Project Total
Units
# Units by Unit Type and
Additional Parking Required
Parking Standard
by Unit TyÉe
Parking Required
Revised Project
Proposed by
TrammellCrow
Residential
("TCR")
'J,44to
t47
units2
5 Studio Units 1".0 space per unit 5.00
71to 80 One Bedroom Units 1.5 space per unit L06.50 to 120.00
41-lo 47 Two Bedroom Units 2.0 spaces per unit 82.00 to 94.00
7 Three Bedroom Units 2.0 spaces per unit 14.00
7 Two BDR Multi-Story Units 2.0 spaces per unit 14.00
7 Three BDR Multi-Story Units 2.0 spaces per unit L4.00
Guest Parking Spaces 0.25 spaces per 2+ BDRs 1-5.5 to 17.00
Project Parking Required for a 150 unit MFR project 264.sO
Heritage Bank Parking (per settlement agreement)15.00
Cabrita Property Parking (per settlement agreement)15.00
Total Parking Required 293.00 to 294.50
Total Parking to be Provided3 296.00
Parking Above DBD Minimum Standard to be Provided +1.50
D
I
A
B
L
O
r
/
)
F
u
t
¡
.
|
F
-
J
-
U
É
,
E
P
R
O
P
E
S
T
Y
L
I
N
!
A
l
-
.
'
)
¿
,
\
q
'
.
\
s
9
J
A
N
L
C
¡
9
P
R
E
æ
i
l
K
M
4
5
5
9
l
C
A
P
.
P
Æ
N
T
E
Ð
C
O
N
C
R
E
Ì
E
s
û
P
R
E
A
g
I
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
I
L
P
A
N
É
L
'
P
A
I
N
I
E
O
i
K
M
4
2
ì
R
i
V
E
i
W
A
L
K
r
'
1
1
1
'
t
P
A
N
T
E
O
P
A
N
E
L
C
O
r
c
R
E
f
t
8
¡
P
R
É
C
A
S
I
l
K
M
4
2
l
(
JJ=þtttot¡¡ú,èBt¡¡z.l¡ot-z.lJll-xt¡J
0
&
o
w
F
I
N
¡
g
t
s
G
R
A
D
E
Þ
g
L
L
E
C
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
Ê
P
I
E
R
O
M
I
N
A
G
:
P
I
P
E
A
N
O
G
R
A
V
E
L
W
H
E
R
É
R
Ê
O
U
I
ß
E
D
-
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
T
O
9
T
O
i
M
D
R
A
]
N
I
C
9
9
Y
s
T
E
M
O
R
Â
O
E
V
A
R
I
Ê
9
,
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
]
U
g
T
E
R
A
R
O
U
N
D
ê
f
:
E
L
D
E
9
I
G
N
E
D
I
O
A
C
Î
A
5
R
E
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
R
E
O
U
I
R
E
D
S
T
O
N
E
V
E
N
E
E
R
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
A
P
À
R
I
M
Ê
N
T
g
-
L
-
V
A
T
I
O
N
9
E
C
T
I
O
N
P
L
A
N
R
E
C
A
g
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
g
i
T
E
W
A
L
L
A
T
\
¡
/
E
9
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
J
N
-
{
J
A
N
L
O
I
g
i
z
3
o
=
I
o
o
f
r
l
-
S
Y
ã
i
q
B
=
=
ó
a
É
=
"
i
w
1
'
,
¿
e
z
d
ô
Á
E
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
O
N
E
.
,
6
b
P
R
E
C
A
S
I
W
A
L
L
E
X
H
B
N
I
{
^
\
/;\ DETAIL SITE
P
L
A
N
PROÍCTNæTrdos60æ$Æ l'= S'-d
r
J
'
-
0
"
_lCON& fAgE¡T mu6
I
F
ï
I
I
'
t
1
4
'
S
¡
"
o
F
'
l
L
J
\y
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
E
P
R
E
C
A
g
T
C
A
P
.
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
l
K
M
4
5
5
e
l
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
g
U
P
P
O
R
T
P
O
g
T
W
/
g
T
O
N
E
V
E
N
E
E
R
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
g
8
I
I
P
R
E
C
A
g
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
L
P
A
N
E
L
-
P
A
I
N
T
E
D
l
K
M
4
2
)
F
]
N
]
g
H
G
R
A
D
E
D
R
I
L
L
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
E
R
D
R
A
Ì
N
A
G
E
P
I
P
E
A
N
D
G
R
A
V
E
L
W
H
E
R
E
R
E
O
U
I
R
E
D
-
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
T
O
g
T
O
R
M
D
R
A
I
N
/
C
3
9
Y
9
T
E
M
l
8
I
I
P
R
E
C
A
g
T
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
L
L
P
A
N
E
L
-
P
A
i
N
T
E
D
l
K
M
4
2
l
l
t
_
t
G
R
A
D
E
V
A
R
I
E
g
,
N
E
W
W
A
L
L
D
E
g
I
G
N
E
D
T
O
A
C
T
A
9
R
Ë
T
A
I
N
I
N
G
W
A
L
L
A
9
R
E
O
U
I
R
E
D
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
P
I
L
A
g
T
E
R
A
R
O
U
N
D
g
T
E
E
L
g
U
P
P
O
R
T
W
/
g
T
O
N
E
V
E
N
E
E
R
T
O
M
A
T
C
H
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
9
-L-VAT]
O
N
9
E
C
T
]
C
N
P
L
A
N
pRECAer CON
C
R
E
T
=
e
r
r
E
W
A
L
L
A
T
W
E
s
T
P
R
O
P
E
R
T
Y
L
I
N
-
(
¡
¿
N
L
O
i
e
)
RIV=R\A/A
L
K
A
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
g
I
C
A
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
W
W
W
.
L
C
A
.
A
R
C
H
I
T
E
C
T
S
,
C
O
M
(
9
2
5
)
9
4
4
1
6
2
6
|
W
A
L
N
U
T
C
R
Ê
E
K
(
5
1
0
)
2
7
2
-
1
0
6
0
|
O
A
K
L
A
N
D
7
/
7
t
1
7
t-
F
'
l
L
J