Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRESO7508RESOLUTION NO. 7508 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THAT THE VARSITY THEATRE REMODEL PROJECT FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT AND MAKING FINDINGS ON THE PROJECT The City Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as follows: SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of Palo Alto ("City Council") finds, determines and declares as follows: A. An application has been filed with the City of Palo Alto ("City") for the Varsity Theatre Remodel project. The project requires a Major ARB Application to -allow interior and exterior renovations including a seismic upgrade, historic preservation and 50' expansion to allow a two-story retail use within the existing theater space and a cafe in the existing lobby of the Varsity Theatre at 456 University Avenue. B. The City, as the lead agency for the project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR") for the Varsity Theatre Remodel project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15132(e), the Final EIR consists of the following documents: "Draft Environmental Impact Report, Varsity Theatre Remodel Project, City of Palo Alto, Wagstaff and Associates, Urban and Environmental Planners, February 1995; and Final Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Varsity Theatre Remodel Project, Responses to Comments on the Draft EIR, City of Palo Alto, Wagstaff and Associates, Urban and Environmental Planners, April 1995. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is on file in the office of the City Department of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated by this reference. C. The Notice of Preparation for the project was prepared on December 29, 1994. The Draft EIR for the project was circulated for public review from February 10, 1995 through March 29, 1995. The Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review Board (ARB) and Planning Commission held public hearings on the Draft EIR on March 1, 1995, March 2, 1995 and March 29, 1995, respectively. 1 950517 bdc 0051365 • • D. During the preparation of the Draft EIR, the applicant submitted plans for a modified project, referred to as Alternative B in the EIR. While converting the building into a bookstore, CD store and cafe, including expansion of the side walls .of the building and creation of a second floor, Alternative B would preserve many more interior features than the original project, including the lobby, lobby -to -mezzanine stairs, mezzanine, and auditorium -side aisle arcades. E. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing for the purpose of reviewing and considering the information contained in the Final EIR, and considering the required Major ARB application on May 22, 1995. F. The City Council, in conjunction with this resolution, is also approving a reporting and monitoring program pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6, which program is designed to ensure compliance with mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the effects identified in the Final EIR, and described in detail in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. G. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings, including but not limited to, testimony received by the City Council during the May 22, 1995 public hearing. SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the requirements of CEQA. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approval the actions related to the Varsity Theatre Remodel Project. SECTION 3. Significant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated to a Less Than Significant Level. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies significant environmental effects of the project in regard to Historic Resources; Structural Factors; Parking and Traffic; and Construction Period Impacts. The City Council finds that, in response to each impact identified in the Final EIR and listed in this Section 3, all feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which avoid or substantially lessen all significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR as summarized below: 2 950517 bdc 0051365 • • A. Historic Resource*. 1. The Alternative B revised scheme, like the proposed project, utilizes the 1973 and current UBC as the code standards for the seismic upgrade. Using these codes requires rebuilding of the forecourt parapet, and dismantling and retrofit of some of the lobby and auditorium columns. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: The State Historical Building Code permits testing to assess the structural capacities of existing materials, which in turn may lessen the degree of necessary retrofit impact to these historic features. If, even with the use of this code, features such as the load -bearing lobby and auditorium columns would still require a retrofit, implement all of the following measures to reduce the associated historic resource impact to a less than significant level: a. Carefully document and dismantle these features. b. Salvage, catalogue, store, and reinstall removed ornamental plaster. .(Some loss of material would be inevitable during this process.) c. Retain a qualified ornamental plasterer, experienced with restoration, both to document and dismantle the features and to reinstall and repair them. 2. The Alternative b design calls for furring the pilasters in the forecourt uniformly to conceal the new tube columns without disrupting the symmetry of the original design. This approach could still result in an awkward appearance if not carefully detailed. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: a. Prepare elevation drawings to study this detail. b. To insure that the tubular steel elements are in keeping with the clean wall forms and symmetry of the Tuscan -style forecourt, more shallow tube sections shall be used so that the new fur -outs can be recessed from the face of the existing pilasters, ore another acceptable design strategy acceptable to the HRB and ARB shall be sued. All existing pilasters in the forecourt shall be furred -out to provide a symmetrical appearance. 3. The impacts related to the proposed removal of the existing lobby rear (south) wall were not specifically identified in the EIR for the proposed project because the entire lobby would be removed under the project design. Under the 3 950517 bdc 0051365 • • Alternative B redesign, the remaining specific impact would be the loss or displacement of the prominent Churrigueresque arch which now graces this rear wall. This removal of the rear lobby wall will also change the proportions of the lobby. These effects would represent potentially significant adverse impacts. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: a. The applicant shall submit ceiling and wall details of the proposed extension of the lobby to the rear (south) which show to the satisfaction of the HRE and ARB that the interior design will avoid an awkward space, or one in which the extended portion appears falsely historic; b. The applicant shall submit details of the Churrigueresque arch in the lobby, along with its raised tile base, for review by the HRB and approval by the ARB. The applicant shall study the possibility of retaining the Churrigueresque arch in the lobby at its present location and using it as a passageway. If this is not allowed by applicable Codes, the Churrigueresque arch, along with its raised tile base, may be relocated to another wall, preferably within the new lobby extension and a drinking fountain shall be installed inside of the arch (the existing mirror infill is not original); 4. For seismic retrofit purposes, the project design includes replacement of the existing heavy concrete side parapets above the forecourt with lighter, replicating stucco -on - metal stud parapets. To brace the reconstructed parapet, new surface -mounted tubular steel columns would be placed alongside every other existing pilaster in the forecourt. The addition of these new tubular steel elements would not be in keeping with the clean wall forms and symmetry of the Tuscan -style forecourt, and would have a substantial adverse visual effect on the historic resource. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: Apply the State Historic Building Code criteria as the prevailing code for the seismic retrofit design, i.e., to determine whether parapet wall modifications and related bracing at the existing forecourt pilasters are necessary. If they are, then to insure that the tubular steel elements are in keeping with the clean wall forms and symmetry of the Tuscan -style forecourt, use more shallow tube sections so that the new fur -outs can be recessed from the face of the existing pilasters, or another design strategy acceptable to the HRB and ARB. Fur -out all existing forecourt pilasters to provide a symmetrical appearance. 5. The project design includes installation of a new fountain in the center of the forecourt where one existed 4 950517 bdc 0051365 • • historically, with a design selection based on documentary evidence (old photos, etc.). If a design is selected based on poor documentary evidence, false historicism would result. If a contemporary design is selected instead, the new feature could be incompatible with the existing historic resource. Either eventuality could substantially detract from the essential form and integrity of the historic property. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: Submit details of the proposed fountain design demonstrating to the satisfaction of the HRB and ARE that is will accurately replicate the historic fountain, if possible, or design the as a contemporary -compatible feature of the same size, scale, and location as the original. Base the replicated design on adequate research so chat the fountain can be accurately recreated, or if sufficient documentary evidence is not available, the new design shall be compatible with, but clearly distinct from, the character -defining features of the historic building. 6. The applicant's intention is to retain the existing barrel-vaulted auditorium ceiling if possible; however, the seismic safety of the suspended plaster ceiling has not yet been fully evaluated. A discovered need to demolish the existing. ceiling, and subsequent construction of an inappropriately designed new "restored" ceiling, could result in a substantial adverse change to the historic resource. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: The historic auditorium ceiling shall be protected - in -place wherever possible. However, the seismic safety of the suspended ceiling has not been fully evaluated. If further evaluation indicates that protection -in -place is impossible, implement the following measures: a. Fully document the ceiling with photographs and drawings to provide for its accurate reconstruction. b. Where protection -in -place is impossible, the contractor shall carefully saw -cut, remove and store ornamental plaster for reinstallation. Only as a last resort, the existing ornamental plaster shall be replaced with new ornamental plaster to match the existing. All detailing, protection, removal, storage and reinstallation; and any replication of historic plaster, shall be specified and monitored by a qualified Architectural Conservator or Preservation Architect. Any actual removal, reinstallation, or replication of ornamental plaster shall be performed by a skilled ornamental plasterer with experience in restoration of historic plaster. 5 950517 bdc 0051365 7. The proposed desigi includes a new second floor within the volume of the existing auditorium and mezzanine space to allow a major increase in commercial floor area. The second floor design is intended to allow for possible future removal and return of the building to a theater use. However, the ability to remove the second floor with minimal disturbance to the historic fabric has not been clearly demonstrated. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: To ensure the proposed reversibility of the new second floor, provide details and specifications that allow clear evaluation by the Chief Building Official of its reversibility. If the Chief Building Official concludes that the second floor addition will not be reversible, an amended project application will be required and all work on the project will be stopped pending evaluation and approval of the amended application. 8. The original theater proscenium was widened in the past, presumably to accommodate a modern "wide screen." The project design includes restoration of the proscenium opening to its previous smaller size by introduction of two side shear walls, as part of the seismic retrofit. This alteration may make it difficult in the future to return to the "wide screen" configuration, reducing the feasibility of a future return to cinema use. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: To ensure the proposed reversibility of the restored proscenium opening, submit details and specifications to provide for clear evaluation by the Chief Building Official of its reversibility. If the Chief Building Official concludes that the restored proscenium opening will not be reversible, an amended project application will be required and all work on the project will be stopped pending evaluation and approval of the amended application. 9. The new rear entrance facade appears to be more elaborate than the existing front lobby facade upon which it is based. The design incorporates a shaped pediment which appears to be a direct copy of the existing pediment over the lobby entry, but rendered in finer materials than the existing lobby facade. The Secretary of Interior's Standards recommend against such duplication and imitation, especially for contemporary uses. This proposed design aspect could be inconsistent with this standard. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: Submit more design details on this rear elevation to demonstrate to HRB and ARB satisfaction that the design "suggests" rather than "duplicates" the character -defining features of the building and forecourt through use of a more simplified parapet profile. 6 950517 bdc 0051365 10. The project would involve subsurface disturbance for foundation. work. There is a possibility of encountering and disturbing an historic or cultural resource during these excavation, activities. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: Conduct or request an archaeological records search at the State Historic Resource File System to ascertain whether the site vicinity is archaeologically sensitive. The records search shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planing Division. If the file search indicates that subsurface artifacts could be encountered, also implement the following: Retain a professional archaeologist to be on -call during project excavation phases, in the event that any archaeological material may be encountered. The necessary extent of onsite monitoring of subsurface construction activities shall be determined by the archaeologist after portions of the existing floor slabs are removed, and before excavation for new footings or other excavation work. B. Structural Factors. Alternative B includes strengthening at two lobby columns--gridlines F-2 and F-3. The Uniform Building Code (UBC) and State Historic Building Code (SHBC) require that all columns used to support the new second floor must be brought up to current code (see technical discussion in Appendix F of the Draft EIR). A potentially significant adverse environmental impact could result if those remaining lobby columns which support the new vertical load from the second floor are not strengthened or supplemented to meet current code requirements, as required by the UBC. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: The applicant shall revise the structural design as required by the UBC to strengthen or supplement all lobby columns which support the new vertical load and lateral loads from the second floor, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official. If strengthening or- replacement is chosen, the technique for preservation of important architectural details on or connected to the columns shall be specified and monitored by a qualified Architectural Conservator or Preservation Architect. Any removal, reinstallation or replication of ornamental plaster shall be reviewed by the HRB, approved by the ARB and performed by a skilled ornamental plasterer with experience in restoration of historic plaster. C. Parking and Traffic. The project -related increase in bicycle trips would generate the need for a minimum of eight additional bicycle spaces, based on current City requirements. To reduce this impact to a 7 950517 bdc 0051365 • • less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: Provide eight bicycle parking spaces, including three bicycle lockers. Provide the non -locker bicycle parking onsite on the sidewalk bordering lot H or within the theater forecourt. Provide the lockers onsite along the south side of the building adjacent to parking lot H. Submit bicycle parking details for review by the Transportation Division and HRB and approval by the ARB. D. Construction Period Impacts. 1. If the applicant -proposed protective scaffolding along the project's University Ave. frontage is inadequate, project construction could result in hazards to pedestrians and customers of adjacent commercial uses. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public works Department for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during construction. Design and construct the proposed University Avenue scaffolding and protection features to be sufficient in size, strength and configuration to prevent impacts on passing pedestrians. The protective scaffolding design shall comply with UBC Section 4407 and shall be subject to review and approval by the Public Works Department and Chief Building Official. 2. A special protection barricade (temporary fence and barrier) is proposed by the applicant between the project and the day care/preschool playground area adjacent to parking lot 'W. No design details for this barricade have been provided. If the ultimate design is inadequate, significant risks to the safety of the day care/preschool play area could result. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: a. Some trimming of the existing trees may be required, or the barrier should be modified to accommodate existing tree branches. The barricade should be constructed outside of the - existing cyclone fence, but may be constructed on top of the existing wooden retaining wall surrounding the play area with the approval of the property owner. Protect existing trees within the project construction zone with eight -foot -high chain link fencing to the satisfaction of the City Arborist and Planing Division. Also, see other barricade performance criteria described in Section IV . D . 3 . a (3) of the Draft EIR. 8 950517 bdc 0051365 • • b. Provide the day care organization with a detailed demolition and construction schedule and inform the organization of any subsequent schedule changes so that they may relocate their operations during selected periods, should they so desire. 3. The project construction plan proposes but does not detail tree protection around each tree located near the proposed work area. If this protection is inadequate, the project could damage the trees. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: Protect existing trees with the construction zone as described in Section IV.D.3.a(4) of the Draft EIR. 4. The proposed location of the temporary construction fence at the project edge of parking lot H and within the theater side alley would constrain existing use of the alley for local business garbage bins. The applicant has proposed, but has not detailed a new common area for the garbage bins behind the theater off lot H. The new bin placement here could result in garbage collection operational problems, inconvenience for local businesses using the bins, interference with parking, and visual impacts. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: a. Revise project construction plan to include specific provisions for a construction period garbage bin locations (serving University Ave. businesses on the affected alleys). The new locations should be easily accessible to collection services and should not block the alley. b. The garbage bins should be located and screened (in the Long term) according to City standards to reduce visual impacts. The new long-term bin locations shall be submitted for review and approval by PASCO and the Planing Division, shall be easily accessible to PASCO, and shall not block alley access, and shall be subject to review and commented by affected building owners. 5. The proposed location of the temporary construction fence could block rear pedestrian and emergency access to neighboring businesses which back onto the two affected side alleys. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measure shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: Revise or refine the design and location of the proposed construction fence to allow adequate employee and emergency access to affected businesses and other uses. 9 950517 bdc 0051365 • • 6. The estimated three to ten truck deliveries to the site per day during the project construction period could create delays and safety hazards within parking lot H. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: a. Obtain an encroachment permit from the Public Works Department for use of city lot H. b. Manage exterior construction operations to minimize interference with parking lot H driveway operations. c. To the maximum extent feasible, schedule truck movements at times other than daily AM, midday (lunch) and PM peak hours. 7. Project construction could expose adjacent pre- school, hotel, restaurant, retail, church, and other uses to temporary noise levels above city standards. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: a. Provide the day care organization, All Saints Episcopal Church, Palermo Rotisserie Restaurant and the Garden Court Hotel with a detailed demolition and construction schedule and inform these organizations of all schedule changes. b. Comply with the requirements of the City's Noise Ordinance. Locate all stationary noise -generating construction equipment as far as practical from the daycare/ preschool play area, church education building, Garden Court Hotel, and other adjacent businesses. Acoustically shield this equipment where necessary. c. Complete as much interior demolition and construction activity as possible before opening exterior walls. d. Properly muffle and maintain motorized construction equipment. e. Permanently close or place temporary noise barriers over windows between the forecourt and adjacent beauty salon. f. Appoint a member of the construction crew as Noise Disturbance Coordinator, who shall have detailed knowledge of project construction activities, monitor all noise -related mitigation activities, and have the authority to stop work. 10 950517 bdc 0051365 • • 8. Dust generation from project demolition and construction activities could have temporary significant impacts on parking lot H and the adjacent daycare/preschool play area. To reduce this impact to a less than significant level, the following mitigation measures shall be incorporated into the conditions of approval for the Major ARB application: a. Schedule major dust -generation activities for non -windy hours; b. Cover storage piles; c. Sweep University sidewalk and lot H regularly (at least daily); d. Sprinkle work areas with water to control dust; e. Perform as much dust -generating activity as possible within existing building; and f. Immediately remove any spillage from hauling operations from any public or private property. g. Install sign(s) at the entrance to parking lot H indicating that the public can use other nearby lots or structures during construction. SECTION 4. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant. The City Council finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains any substantial evidence identifying significant environmental impacts dismissed through the scoping process with "no" responses on Initial Study 94-EIA-20 (Draft EIR, Appendix 1;) and with respect to the following impacts identified as not significant in the Final EIR: Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures; Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil; Change in topography or ground surface relief features; The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features; Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site; Changes in siltation, deposition, or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or the bed of a bay or inlet; The creation of objectional odors; Alteration of air movement, moisture temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regional; Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff; Alterations to the course or flow of flood waters; Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration or surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity; Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters; Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding or tidal wave; Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interceptions of an aquifer by cuts or excavations; Change in the 11 950517 bdc0051365 diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, microflora and aquatic plants); Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants; Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species; Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop; Change in the diversity of species, or of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or microfauna); Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals; Deterioration in existing fish or wildlife habitat; The production of new light glare; A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area; Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy; Substantial increase in demands upon existing sources of energy, or which require the development of new sources of energy; Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources; Substantial depletion of a nonrenewable natural resource; A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset; Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area; Affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing; Change in the demand for schools; Change in the demand for parks or other recreational facilities; Change in the need for maintenance of public facilities, including roads; Change in the need for other governmental services; Significant increase in the need for power or natural gas; Significant communication system demands; Significant water demands; Significant sewer or septic tank impacts; Significant storm water drainage effects; Significant solid waste and disposal demands; Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health); Exposure of people to potential health hazards; Result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view; Result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities; and Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. SECTION 5. Pr.ject Alternatives. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the project which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the project and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives. Although there remain no significant, unmitigated impacts, the City Council hereby expresses its rejection of the proposed alternatives in favor of the proposed project as summarized below: A. Alternative A: No Project. The City Council finds that this alternative would not meet the project's objectives to renovate and seismically upgrade the property while preserving its 12 9505171;400051365 • • historic features to the maximum extent possible, so as to provide for use of the property which generates sufficient revenue to pay for the renovation, historic preservation and seismic upgrading of the property while permitting profitable ownership and operation thereof. Although some project specific impacts would be avoided under this alternative, it would result in the loss of an opportunity to renovate and seismically upgrade the building. B. Alternative B: Modified Project. This alterative is the revised 50 percent floor area increase proposal filed by the applicant in February 1995 which is discussed above as the "modified project". The City Council finds that this is the environmentally superior alternative other than the "no project alternative" and Alternative E. The following historic resources impacts noted in the Draft EIR (see Draft EIR, pages 203 - 204) would be eliminated: 1. Proposed removal of lobby ceiling and decorative columns; 2. Proposed removal of lobby stairway and mezzanine; 3. Proposed removal of lobby wall and construction of new elevator and stairway; 4. Proposed removal of side aisle arcades in the auditorium; 5. Proposed removal of the forecourt floor slab; and 6. Proposed removal of sloped floor (since the loge floor would be retained under the revised project, this impact would be reduced from significant to minor). C. Alternative C: Different Commercial Use with No Floor Area Expansion. The existing building would be converted to a new commercial use through extensive interior modifications similar to the project, but with a commercial tenant other than the book/music store, including a combination of specialty retail and office activity, and no change in the existing floor area. The City Council finds that Alternative C could result in significant adverse impacts on the historic resource values of the Varsity Theatre which would be similar to, but slightly less than, the proposed project. The interior modifications would result in reconfiguration of the interior walls and floors, general changes in spatial volume, a general loss of historic fabric, and extensive loss of interior historic finishes. However, the impacts of this alternative would be less than that of the project due primarily to the maintenance of the existing building envelope and the lack of 13 950517 bdc 0051365 i a new second floor in the auditorium space. This alternative would not meet the project's objectives to renovate and seismically upgrade the property while preserving its historic features to the maximum extent possible, so as to provide for use of the property which generates sufficient revenue to pay for the renovation, historic preservation and seismic upgrading of the property while permitting profitable ownership and operation thereof. Although some project specific impacts would be avoided under this alternative, it would result in the loss of an opportunity to renovate and seismically upgrade the building. D. Alternative D: Different Commercial Use with a 25 to 50 Percent Floor Area Expansion. The existing building would be converted to a new commercial use through extensive interior modifications similar to the project, including a floor area increase, but with a commercial tenant other than the book/music store, including a combination of specialty retail and office activity similar to Alternative C. The City Council finds that Alternative D would require similar levels of interior demolition to the building, and could therefore be expected to have similar significant adverse impacts on the building's historic resource values. These impacts would include the reduction of the integrity of the resource due to the general loss of historic fabric, extensive loss of interior historic finishes, reconfiguration of interior floors, and changes in the spatial volume and envelope of the building. This alternative would not meet the project's objectives to renovate,and seismically upgrade the property while preserving its historic features to the maximum extent possible, so as to provide for use of the property which generates sufficient revenue to pay for the renovation, historic preservation and seismic upgrading of the property while permitting profitable ownership and operation thereof. Although some project specific impacts would be avoided under this alternative, it would result in the loss of an opportunity to renovate and seismically upgrade the building. E. Alternative E: Community Theater Use - Two Auditoriums. As'proposed by the Save the Varsity Committee, the existing building would be renovated for use as a two -auditorium community theater for cinema and live performances; the main auditorium would be retained and renovated for an 800 -seat cinematic and performance venue, and a small 100 -to -120 -seat "high- tech film studio" auditorium would be annexed to the rear of the structure. The City Council finds that this alternative would result in the least adverse combination of environmental impacts and would therefore be the "environmentally superior" alternative. However, the economically important 100 -to -120 -seat "high tech film studio" component of this alternative appears to be physically infeasible in its proposed "annex" form (inadequate available 14 950517 bdc 0051365 • • exterior area). Moreover, this alternative would not meet the project's objectives to renovate and seismically upgrade the property while preserving its historic features to the maximum extent possible, so as to provide for use of the property which generates sufficient revenue to pay for the renovation, historic preservation and seismic upgrading of the property while permitting profitable ownership and operation thereof. Although some project specific impacts would be avoided under this alternative, it would result in the loss of an opportunity to renovate and seismically upgrade the building. F. Alternative F: Community Theater Use - Three Auditoriums and, a Restaurant. Reflecting a second Save the Varsity Committee proposal, the existing building would be renovated for use as a three -auditorium community theater for film, video,and performing arts use, plus a restaurant; the orchestra section of the main auditorium would be retained for use as a 400 -seat cinema and performance facility, and the existing mezzanine area would be enclosed and divided into two additional approximately 115 -seat cinemas. The City Council finds that Similar to Alternative E, the historic resources impacts of Alternative F would be less than the proposed project. Unlike the project, the important interior historic resource values associated with the lobby and mezzanine stairway would be preserved. In addition, the auditorium space would remain in its original use as a theater, and therefore could retain its existing sloping floor slab, arcade side aisles, stage, and window -less envelope. However, this alternative would result in a significant adverse change in the spatial volume of the auditorium (i.e., the existing mezzanine loge would be separated from the main auditorium and divided into two theaters). Enclosure of the mezzanine to create the two additional cinemas would require removal of at least the rear portion of the existing auditorium ceiling and cornice, and installation of a major new partition, changes which would significantly detract from the integrity and grandeur of the existing auditorium space. This alternative would not meet the project's objectives to renovate and seismically upgrade the property while preserving its historic features to the maximum extent possible, so as to provide for use of the property which generates sufficient revenue to pay for the renovation, historic preservation and seismic upgrading of the property while permitting profitable ownership and operation thereof. Although some project specific impacts would be avoided under this alternative, it would result in the loss of an opportunity to renovate and seismically upgrade the building. 15 930517 bdc 0051365 • . SKTION 6. Substantial evidence supporting each finding is contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: May 22, 1995 AYES: ANDERSEN, FAZZINO, HUBER, KNISS, MCCOWN, ROSENBAUM, SIMITIAN, WHEELER NMS: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: NOT PARTICIPATING: SCHNEIDER ATTEST: C y Clerk APPRO T+ 'ORM: torney APPROVED: Ma •r ti Cit nager 1 irector of Planning and Community Environment 16 950517 bdc 0051365