HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-05-19 City Council (28)TO:
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Manager’s
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
CITY MANAGER
City of Palo Alto
Summary Report
DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
13
May 19, 1997 CMR:256:97
SUBJECT:390 Lytton Avenue: Application to rezone a property from CD-
C(P) (Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Combining District) to
a PC (Planned Community) District to construct an 18,921-square-
foot, three-story office building. File Nos.: 96-ZC-6, 96-ARB-78
and 96-EIA-20.
REQUEST
This application is a request for rezoning of property from CD-C(P) (Commercial
Downtown--Pedestrian Combining District) to PC (Planned Community) District for an
18,921 square-foot, three-story office building.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and staffrecommend that the
City Council approve the application, including the following:
o
Approval of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration [Attachment #4] finding that
the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain
conditions of the project approval are imposed;
Adoption of the’ attached ordinance [Attachment #1], including findings and
conditions, rezoning the property at 390 Lytton Avenue from CD’C(P) (Commercial
Downtown--Pedestrian Combining,District) to a PC (Planned Community) District,
allowing the development of an 18,921-square-foot, three-story office building; and
3.Approval of the attached ARB findings and conditions of project approval
[Attachments #2 and #3 ].
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan and should be evaluated against the recommendations contained in the Downtown
Urban Design Guide. The site is currently designated as Regional/Community Commercial
CMR:256:97 Page 1 of 15
in the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed office use is allowed within this Comprehensive
Plan designation. The proposed use and project design are consistent with the programs,
¯policies and requirements in the Comprehensive Plan and Downtown Urban Design Guide,
as discussed in the POLICY IMPLICATION section of the attached In.Depth Report.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The applicant proposes to construct an 18,921 square-foot, three-story office building at the
southwest comer of Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street. The building would be 45 feet in
height, with 50 parking spaces located within a two-level underground garage. Vehicular
access to the proposed underground garage would be provided from a proposed 20-foot-wide
access easement across the City’s Parking Lot F, which is located west of the site. The PC
Ordinance requires the applicant to pay compensation to the City in exchange for the
granting of the easement across Lot F. The proposed Planned Community (PC) zone would
include 50 of the 74 required parking spaces on-site in a two level underground garage. The
fee for the 24 in lieu spaces will be the amount in effect at the time of the building permit
issuance (currently, the total fee would be $428,352).
A PC process is necessary due to the proposed building floor area, 18,921 square feet. Under
the CD-C(P) zoning of the site, a 10,500-square-foot building could be constructed. The
proposed public benefits of the project are discussed in the attached In-Depth Report under
PC Rezoning and Public Benefits. The following public benefits of the project are included
in the attached PC Ordinance [Attachment # 1 ]:
The building is substantially recessed along Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street and
provides a 10-foot-wide pedestrian walkway on the western side of the building. The
recessed areas will be dedicated for public uses and will be maintained by the
applicant.
Public art, as approved by the Public Art Commission and the Architectural Review
Board, will be integrated into the project. The applicant proposes to provide public
art around the exterior of the main entrance to the building. The art would consist of
a semi-circular sculpture portraying the a history of the automobile, which has been
the primary business of the property owner’s family. On December 10, 1996, the
Public Art Commission unanimously accepted the applicant’s public art proposal.
The art Work proposal was unanimously approved by the Architectural Review Board
on January 16, 1997.
The project includes a $75,000 contribution for a traffic study and/or improvements
in the Downtown North Neighborhood (see discussions under Summary_ of Plannin~_~
Commission Action and Proposed Downtown North Traffic Study in the attached In-
Depth Report).
CMR:256:97 Page 2 of 15
o
o
The project includes the installation of a new bus stop bench and replacement of the
existing bus stop sign and trash receptacle on Lytton Avenue along the project
frontage, consistent with the Downtown Improvement Plan.
The project includes the repair Of existing tree wells on Waverley Street between
University Avenue and Lytton Avenue.
The project includes six new street trees, to be planted at off-site locations near the
project on Waverley Street and Lytton Avenue.
ALTERNATIVES
There are two alternatives which should be considered by the City Council. One alternative
would be to direct the applicant to reduce the mass and height of the building and provide
additional landscaping and open areas. Another alternative would be to deny the request,
if the City Council finds that the proposed .project does not incorporate adequate public
benefits.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project will not have a significant fiscal impact on the City. The application is subject
to the full cost recovery fee schedule.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment and Negative
Declaration have been prepared and are attached [Attachment #4].
PREPARED BY: Robert Schubert, Contract Project Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
.g.and
Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
Manager
CMR:256:97 Page 3 of 15
CMR:256:97 Pag~ 4 of 15
City Of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
SUBJECT:390 Lytton Avenue: Application to rezone a property from CD-
C(P) (Commercial. Downtown - Pedestrian Combining District) to
a PC (Planned Community) District to construct an 18,921-square-
foot, three-story office building. File Nos.: 96-ZC-6, 96-ARB-78
and 96oEIA-20.
REOUEST
This application is a request for rezoning of property from CD-C(P) (Commercial
Downtown - Pedestrian Combining District) to PC (Planned Community) District for an
18,921 square-foot, three-story office building.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board (ARB) and staffrecommend that the
City Council approve the application, including the following:
Approval of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration [Attachment #4] finding that
the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts if certain
conditions of the project approval are imposed;
Adoption of the attached ordinance [Attachment #1], including findings and
conditions, rezoning the property at 390 Lytton Avenue from CD-C(P) (Commercial
Downtown - Pedestrian Combining District) to a PC (Planned Community) District
allowing the development of an 18,921-square-foot, three-story office building; and
o Approval of the attached ARB findings and conditions of project approval
[Attachments #2 and #3].,
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan and should be evaluated against the recommendations contained in the Downtown
Urban Design Guide.
The site is currently designated as Regional/Community Commercial in the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed office use is allowed within this Comprehensive Plan designation. The
proposed use and project design are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan
objectives, policies and programs:
CMR:256:97 Page 5 of 15
Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42: "Promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and
improvements through the review of new development." The site is designated
Regional/Community Commercial and the site is well suited for commercial office
use. The proposed project is a better use of the land at a comer location than the
current small structure and parking lot.
Urban Design Element. Objective. p~: "Promote visual environments which are
¯ of high aesthetic quality and variety, and considerate of each other." The proposed
building adds a contemporary building with architectural character, human-scale
elements at pedestrian level typical of the Downtown, and utilizes high quality
materials. The project .would replace the existing small one-story commercial
building and parking lot with a building which compliments the surrounding
neighborhood.
Urban Design Element, Policy 5. page 45: "Encourage rehabilitation of aging retail
areas to keep them economically healthy." The existing building (a former gas station
building) on the parcel and parking lot has become dated and the new building and
uses will be an improvement to the site and downtown area.
Urban Desi_ma Element, Program 20, page 45: "Require-street frontages that
contribute to retail vitality in shopping districts." The new building contributes to the
pedestrian atmosphere of the downtown street bY creating pedestrian spaces set back
from the property lines.
Urban Design Element, Policy 6B: "Limit nonresidential development in the
Downtown Area to ten percent (350, 000 square feet of floor area) above the amount
of development existing or approved in May 1986. Of this 350, 000 square feet, a
minimum of 100,000 square feet of floor area shall be reserved for projects
demonstrating specialpublie benefit .... " The additional floor area this project would
add in the Downtown area would remain under the maximum cap allowed pursuant
to this policy and the project will include public benefits:
While the Downtown Urban Design Guide is considered an incentive and guide for
redevelopment, rather than policy, it calls for continued development of the Lytton Avenue
District. The goals for this district include the following:
1.Promote Lytton Avenue as an enlivened mixed commercial and residential district;
CMR:256:97 . Page 6 of !5
Ensure that development respects the transition into the adjacent Downtown North
neighborhood, and protect this residential area from incompatible encroachments of
commercial buildings; and
3.Maintain and enhance the pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian qualities of Lytton Avenue.
The Lytton Avenue streetscape is presently weakened by parking lots at street comers,
including the subject site. The Guide encourages the Lytton Avenue District to have
buildings and!or landscaping at street intersections to better define and anchor the comers,
thus strengthening the visual impression of the streetscape. The Guide also encourages
building setbacks and planting strips to provide areas for planting and greenery that Soften
the buildings and surrounding paving. It also encourages the development of occasional
courtyards and green spaces that provide visual and spatial relief to the street, such as art,
sculptures, fountains and other uses.
DISCUSSION
Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,106-square-foot, one-story commercial
building and construct an 18,921 square-foot, three-story office building at the southwest
comer of Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street. The building would be 45 feet in height with
50 parking spaces located within a two-level underground garage. The main pedestrian
access to the building would be from a lobby facing Lytton Avenue. A new 10-foot-wide
pedestrian access way would be installed along the western property line, creating a new link
between City Parking Lot F and Lytton Avenue. At street level along the property frontage
facing Lytton Avenue, the building would be constructed to the property line for
approximately 30 feet of the building frontage, creating a main lobby entrance with a
recessed arch. The remainder of the ftrst floor is set back 6 feet from the Lytton Avenue
property line. The Waverley Street elevation is set back 6.5 feet from the property line. The
second story is flush with the building face below and has recessed windows. The third story
is recessed 2 feet from the exterior wall below. A 5-foot-high, black simulated slate roof
located above the third floor would serve to screen the rooftop equipment. A site description,
development schedule and more detailed description of the proposed project are in the
attached staff report for the April 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting [Attachment #5].
Proposed Access from Parkin Lg.Lg_LE
Vehicular access to the proposed underground garage would be provided from a proposed
20-foot-wide access easement across the City’s Parking Lot F, which is located west of the
site. Access to Lot F is through 3.one-way curb cuts on Florence Street. The PC Ordinance
requires the applicant to pay compensation to the City in exchange for the granting of the
easement across Lot F. In response to a comment from the applicant following the April 9,
CMR:256:97 Page 7 of 15
1997 Planning Commission meeting, Section 4(f)(i) of the attached PC Ordinance
[Attachment 1 ] was revised to indicate that the compensation for the easement shall be
obtained prior to the issuance of a building permit. The method for determining the
compensation was also revised.
Parking
The site, which is less than 10,000 square feet, qualifies for consideration of satisfying some
or all of the parking requirement through payment of an in lieu fee. Examples of other
downtown sites that have satisfied some of their parking requirement through an in lieu fee
pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of the PAMC include:
Address ~Building Size On-Site Parking
400 Emerson PC 8,100 sq. t~.10 spaces *
483 University PC 16,305 sq. ft.0 spaces
171 University CD-C(P)(GF)9,243 sq. ft.0 spaces
430 Kipling CD-C(P)12,302 sq. ft.0 spaces
In Lieu Parking
9 spaces
7-20 spaces **
30 spaces
9 spaces * **
In addition, there are two existing parking spaces located on the site which are reserved for
the adjacent building at 412 Emerson Street, which results in a total of 12 existing parking
spaces on-site.
**The number of required (in lieu) parking spaces depends upon whether the.third floor
is used for commercial space or live/work units.
*** In addition, the property was credited with 44 spaces based upon previous in lieu fees.
During recent City Council discussion of potential new downtown parking structure(s), there
was no Council objection to the staff recommendation to continue the current fee until more
precise construction costs are identified for a new parking structure. The amount of the in
lieu parking fee is established in Chapter 16.57 of the PAMC. The current fee is
$17,848/space and is adjusted annually based on changes in the Bay Area Construction Cost
Index.
The proposed Planned Community (PC) zone would include 50 of the 74 required parking
spaces on-site in a two level underground garage. As noted above, access to the garage is
through City parking lot F. The fee for the 24in lieu spaces will be the amount in effect at
the time of the building permit issuance (currently, the total fee would be $428,352).
Regarding the appropriateness of the 24 in lieu parking spaces, staff, the ARB and the
Planning Commission have all been complementary regarding the proposed building’s mass
and design. Avoidance of curb cuts on Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street is also regarded
CMR:256:97 Page 8 of 15
as a positive aspect of the project. Given the reactions to the proposed building and the
provision of over two-thirds of the required parking on-site, 24 in lieu parking spaces are
regarded as acceptable.
Code Compliance
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto Zoning
Ordinance (Title 18). Given that the project proposes a rezoning to the Planned Community
(PC) District, the provisions of the existing zoning of the site would not apply to the
development. The following table compares the proposal to the applicable provisions of the
CD-C(P) zoning district.
REGULATION PROPOSED
PROJECT.
PC
(Allowed/
Required)
Floor Area 18,921 *N/A
Floor Area Ratio 1.9 to 1.0 N/A
Maximum Height 45 feet 50 feet
Lot Coverage 65%N/A
Parking 74 spaces ** N/A
CD-C(P)
(Allowed/
Required)
10,500 *
1.0 to 1.0
50 feet
N/A
39 spaces ***
The maximum allowable floor area includes a 200-square-foot exemption towards
floor area ratio per Section 18.49.060(b)(4) of the PAMC; and a 489-square-foot
exemption per Section 18.49.060(b)(1) of the PAMC.
Of the 74 required parking spaces, the applicant proposes 50 on-site spaces and 24 in
lieu spaces. (i.e., the number of required parking spaces is based upon 1 space/250
square feet of floor area and 689 square feet of floor area is exempt from parking
requirements; in addition, three existing parking spaces would be removed in Lot F,
and credit would be provided for two on-street parking spaces that would created by
closing existing curb cuts on Waverley Street and Lytton Avenue).
* ** The number of required parking spaces is based upon 1 space/250 square feet of floor
area and 689 square feet of floor area is exempt from parking requirements.
cP~.[Le./,9.~lg and Public Benefits
Since the project involves a rezoning from the CD-C(P) District to a PC District, the
applicant is required to present a statement identifying the proposed uses, the phasing
CMR:256:97 Page 9 of 15
schedule and the public benefits of the project [Attachment #8]. A PC process is necessary
due to the proposed building floor area, 18,921 square feet. Under the CD-C(P) zoning of
the site, a 10,500-square-foot building could be constructed. The following public benefits
of the project are included in the attached PC Ordinance [Attachment # 1]:
The building is substantially recessed along Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street and
provides a 10-foot-wide pedestrian walkway on the western side of the building. The
recessed areas will be dedicated for public uses and will be maintained by the
applicant.
Public art, as approved by the Public Art Commission and the Architectural Review
Board, will be integrated into the project. The applicant proposes to provide public
art. around the exterior of the main entrance to the building (see the approved public
art proposal in the applicant’s binder). The art would consist of a semi-circular
sculpture portraying the a history of the automobile, which has been the primary
business of the property owner’s family. On December 10, 1996, the Public Art
Commission unanimously accepted the applicant’s public art proposal (see
Attachment #10, letter from Judith Wasserman dated December 13, 1996). The art
work proposal was unanimously approved by the Architectural Review Board on
January 16, 1997.
The project, includes a $75,000 contribution for a traffic study and!or improvements
in the Downtown North Neighborhood (see discussions below under Summary of
Planning CommiSsion Action and Prot~osed Downtown North Traffic Study).
The project includes the installation of a new bus stop bench and replacement of the
existing bus stop sign and trash receptacle on Lytton Avenue along the project
frontage, consistent with the Downtown Improvement Plan.
The project includes the repair of existing tree wells on Waverley Street between
University Avenue and Lytton Avenue. " -
The project includes six new street trees, to be planted at 0ff-site locations near the
project on Waverley Street and Lytton Avenue.
Summar~ of ARB Action
On November 7, 1996, the ARB unanimously recommended approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Planned Community Zone Change, ARB findings and conditions of
approval (see Attachment #11, ARB minutes). No members of the public spoke at the
meeting.
CMR:256:97 Page 10 of 15
Generally, the ARB enthusiastically supported the project, and specifically the applicant’s
proposal to provide underground parking for the building with access from Lot F. The ARB
noted that the proposal for underground parking, with access from Lot F at the rear of the
site, is beneficial because it screens the parking from view and eliminates the need for a
driveway across a public sidewalk.
The ARB recommendation for approval of the project was conditioned upon the applicant
returning to the ARB with building details, exterior lighting, public art proposal and detailed
landscape and irrigation plans. On January 16, 1997, the ARB approved the building details,
exterior lighting, public art proposal and detailed landscape and irrigation plans (see
Attachment #12, minutes from January 16, 1997 ARB meeting).
Summary of Planning Commission Action
On April 9, 1997, the Planning Commission, on a 4-1-1-0 vote with Commissioner Cassel
¯ voting no and Commissioner Beecham abstaining, recommended approval of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, Planned Comm. unity Zone Change, ARB findings and conditions of
approval (see Attachment #10, Planning Commission minutes). Although Commissioner
Cassel supported the proposed project, she voted against the motion for approval because she.
believed that the Planning Commission should have continued the item in order to obtain
additional staff analysis regarding the applicant’s alternative public benefit proposal which
was presented at the meeting.
At the meeting, the applicant, Jim Baer, presented an alternative public benefit proposal and
requested the Commission to recommend several revisions to the draft PC Ordinance and
conditions of approval. Under the applicant’s alternative public benefit proposal presented
at the Planning Commission meeting, funds from the following sources would be earmarked
by the City to pay for a traffic study leading to traffic improvements in the Downtown North
Neighborhood (see Attachment #6, letter from the applicant for a description of this
proposal): ¯
A $75,000 contribution from the project (the applieantinitially proposed that the
$75,000 contribution be used for public improvements either between Lytton and
University Avenues, along Waverley Street, or for use on Florence Street, including
Lot F, in order to make this area a pedestriat! amenity to accommodate the anticipated
parking structure to be building on Parking Lot S);
o The required compensation for the proposed access easement across Lot F. The
amount of the compensation would be determined prior.to the issuance of a building
permit for the project (see Section 4.f.i. in the draft PC Ordinance, Attachment # 1);
and
C!vlR:256:97 Page 11 of 15
3.The project’s in-lieu parking fee for 24 spaces (see discussion above under Parking).
Under this alternative, the applicant requested the Planning Commission to recommend that
the funds be earmarked by the City to; 1) retain consultants to evaluate traffic conditions in
Downtown North; 2) hold meetings between City staff, the residents, and the Downtown
North Neighborhood Association to identify traffic improvements to reduce the traffic and
parking impacts from the nearby Lytton Avenue commercial area; and 3) design and
construct the recommended traffic improvements. The traffic conditions in the Downtown
North Neighborhood, the potential costs and benefits of performing the proposed traffic
study are discussed below under Proposed Downtown North Traffic Study.
One member of the public spoke at the Planning Commission meeting. Dan Lorimer,
President of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association, encouraged the Commission
to support the applicant’s alternative public benefit proposal (see Attachment #9, letter from
Dan Lorimer dated April 9, 1997). Mr. Lorimer indicated that, in a recent neighborhood
survey, Downtown North residents overwhelmingly supported some form of protection from
the traffic that uses the neighborhood as a short cut.
In general, the Planning Commission found that the project has an excellent design, the
building will strengthen the comer, and the site can handle the additional floor area. The
Commission suggested that it is advantageous for the project to provide a portion of the
required parking spaces on-site, rather than paying an in lieu fee for most of the spaces. The
Commission also indicated that the modified public benefit package, with funding of a traffic
study and/or improvements for the Downtown North Neighborhood, is very thorough.
In response to comments from the applicant at the meeting, the Planning Commission
recommended the following revisions, which are incorporated into the attached PC
Ordinance and conditions of approval:
The PC Ordinance should allow office, retail, f’mancial and personal service uses as
permitted uses of the property (see Attachment #1, PC Ordinance, Section 4(a)).
The PC Ordinance should allow general business uses as conditional uses (see
Attachment # 1, PC Ordinance, Section 4(b)).
Minor changes to the building, as defined in Section 19.99.020 of the PAMC would
not require an amendment to the PC Ordinance (see Attachment # 1, PC Ordinance,
Section 4(c)(i)).
CMR:256:97 Page 12 of 15
o
o
The Planning Arborist should be given discretion regarding the required design
criteria for the street tree components of the project, including the proposed off-site
street tree improvements (see Conditions #2, 40, 41, 42 and 54 in Attachment #2).
In response to the applicant’s altemative public benefit proposal, a majority of the
Commissioners supported the finding that the proposed $75,000 contribution,
earmarked for a traffic study and/or improvements in the Downtown North
Neighborhood, would be a public benefit of the project (this recommendation is
incorporated into Sections 3(b)(iii) and 4(f)(iv) of Attachment #1, PC Ordinance).
The Commission did not support the applicant’s proposal to earmark funds for the
proposed access easement across Lot F or the required in-lieu parking fee for a traffic
study and/or improvements in Downtown North.
Proposed Downtown North Traffic Study
City staff recognizes the need for, and appropriateness of preparing a traffic study for the
Downtown North neighborhood. The Downtown North neighborhood is adversely affected
by through traffic as well as traffic to and from downtown. In the past, Downtown North
residents have expressed concems to City staffregarding the traffic volumes, speeds, parking
and accident potential and the resultant impact traffic conditions have had on the quality of
life in the neighborhood. While certain actions have been taken over the years to address the
residents’ concerns (e.g., signs, truck routing and speed enforcement), the area has not had
the benefit of an in-depth review of traffic conditions and a comprehensive approach to
addressing traffic issues.
If the City Council approves the applicant’s proposal to contribute $75,000 for a traffic study
and/or improvements in the Downtown North neighborhood, the Transportation Division
would retain a traffic consultant to perform the necessary technical work. The Transportation
Division estimates that the study would cost a minimum of $50,000. The estimated time to
complete the study is 9to 12 months, after a consultant has been selected and a formal
contract is executed. The consultant selection process would likely require 4 to 6 months of
additional time.
The traffic study would involve a considerable level of community input and involvement,
including a working study committee as well as periodic neighborhood meetings. The traffic
study would likely produce a series ofrecornmended measures (i.e., enforcement, education
and/or traffic improvements) to address any traffic problems that are identified. If the
applicant’s entire $75,000 contribution is not used for the traffic study, the proposed
conditions of approval would allow for the remaining funds to be spent on implementation
(see Attachment #1, PC Ordinance). However, full implementation of the measures
recommended by the traffic study would very likely require an additional expenditure of
funds, beyond the funds remaining from the applicant’s $75,000 contribution. If City funds
CMR:256:97 Page 13 of 15
were to be allocated in the future to implement any measures that may be recommended by
the traffic study, the funding needs of the Downtown North neighborhood would have to be
considered in relation to-other City infrastructure needs, and prioritized accordingly.
Finally, it should be noted that the issue of parking intrusion into residential neighborhoods
is an existing City Council assignment to staff (i.e., to study the feasibility of implementing
a residential parking permit system). Although a traffic study for the Downtown North
Neighborhood may consider the impacts of parking intrusion into the area, it will not
specifically address the issue of solving the parking problem, but would focus on other issues
such as bicycle and vehicle related improvements that could reduce speeds, accidents and/or
traffic volumes.
ALTERNATIVES
There are two alternatives which should be considered by the City Council. One alternative
would be to direct the applicant to reduce the mass and height of the building and provide
additional landscaping and open areas. Another alternative would be to deny the request,
if the City Council finds that the proposed project does not incorporate adequate public
benefits.
FISCAL IMPACT
The project will not have a significant fiscal impact on the City. The application is subject
to the full cost recovery fee schedule.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment and Negative
Declaration have been prepared and are attached [Attachment #4].
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Assuming City Council approval of the project, the applicant would submit more detailed
plans for final review and approval by City staff, in accordance with the conditions of
approval, The applicant would then develop construction drawings and apply for a building
permit, while implementing the remaining conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment # 1:
Attachment #2:
Attachment #3:
Attachment #4:
Attachment #5:
Attachment #6:
Planned Community (PC). Ordinance
Conditions of Project Approval
Findings for Architectural Review Approval
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Planning Commission Staff Report, April 9, 1997 (without attachments)
Letters from applicant dated April 9, March 26 and May 8, 1997
CMR:256:97 Page 14 of 15
¯ Attachment #7: Revised Development Program Statement from applicant
Attachment #8: Letter from Judith Wasserman dated December 13, 1996
Attachment #9: Letter from Dan Lorimer, dated April 9, 1997
Attachment # 10: Minutes from April 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
Attachment #11: Minutes from January 16, 1997 ARB meeting
Attachment # 12: Minutes from November 7, 1996 ARB meeting
Project Plans (Council Members only)
Applicant’s Binder (Council Members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
Public Art Commission
CANOPY
Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
John Northway, Stoecker & Northway Architects, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Clare Malone, Stoecker & Northway Architects, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Leonard Ely, 575 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto CA 94301
Dan Lorimer, Downtown North Neighborhood Assn., 465 Hawthorne Avenue, PA 94301
Helen Krogh & Elaine Shearer, 1320 Country Club Drive, Los Altos CA 94024
George W. & Mary Jo Liddicoat, 3706 Carlson Cl., Palo Alto CA 94306
Jaime & Elizabeth Wong, P.O. Box 1554, E1 Cerrito CA 94530
CMR:256:97 Page 15 of 15
Attachment 1
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALOALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18 . 08 . 040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWNAS 390 LYTTON
AVENUE FROM CD-C(P) TO PC
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i.
(a) The Planning Commission,~ after a duly noticed public.
hearing held April 9, 1997, and the Architectural Review Board,
.upon consideration at its meetings of November 7, 1996, and January
16, 1997, have recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map)
of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set
forth.
(b) The City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as
hereinafter set forth.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as 390 Lytton Avenue (the "subject
property") from "CD-C(P) Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Shopping
Combining District" to "PC Planned Community." The subject
property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto
¯ and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The City council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is~so situated, and the uses proposed for
the subject property are of such characteristics that ~the
application of general districts or combining districts will not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed office
development. Under the CD-C(P) zoning which is currently
applicable to the project site, a 10,500 square foot building could
be constructed. Thus, the proposed floor area for the project,
18,921 square feet, would exceed the maximum floor area by 8,421
square feet. No other downtown commercial zoning district would
accommodate the proposed size of the project.
(b) The project will result in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of general districts or
combining districts, as follows:
970514 lac 0080400
1
(i)The building is substantially recessed along
Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street and provides a ten-foot-wide
pedestrian walkway on the western side of the building. The
recessed areas would be dedicated for public use and would be
maintained by the applicant.
(ii) Public art, as approved by the Public Art
Commission and the Architectural Review Board, will be integrated
into the project°
(iii) The project includes provision of a $75,000
(iv) The project includes installation of a new
bus stop bench and replacement of the existing bus stop sign and
trash receptacle on Lytton Avenue along the project frontage,
consistent with the Downtown Improvement Plan.
(v)The project includes repair of existing tree
wells on Waverley Street between University Avenue and Lytton.
Avenue.
(vi) The project includes six new street trees to
be~planted at off-site locations near the project on Waverley
Street and Lytton Avenue.
(c) The uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the
Palo Alto .Comprehensive Plan, and existing and potential uses on
the project site,~adjoining sites, and within the general vicinity.
Specifically, the project would be consistent with the following:
(i)Urban Design Element, Objective, pa e~:
"Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the
attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through
the review of new development. " The site is designated
Regional/Community Commercial and the site is well suited for
commercial office use. The proposed project is a better use of the
land at a corner location than the current small structure and
parking lot.
(ii) Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42:
"Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality
and variety,.and considerate of each other." The proposed building
adds a contemporary building with architectural character, human-
scale elements at pedestrian level typical of the Downtown, and
2
970514 lac 0080400
utilizes high quality materials. The project would replace the
existing small one-story commercial building and parking lot with
a building which complements the surrounding neighborhood°
(iii) Urban Design Element, Policy 5, page 45:
"Encourage rehabilitation of aging retail areas to keep them
economically healthy." The existing building (a former gas station
building) on the parcel and parking lot has become dated and the
new building and uses will be an improvement to the site and
downtown.
(iv) urban Design Element, Program 20, page 45:
"Require street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in
shopping districts." The new building contributes to the
pedestrian atmosphere of the downtown street by creating pedestrian
space set back from the property lines°
(v) Urban Design Element, Policy 6B, Resolution
#6535: "Limit nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to
ten percent (350,000 square feet of floor area) above the amount of
development existing or approved in May 1986o Of this 350,000
square feet, a minimum of 100,000 square feet of floor area shall
be reserved for projects demonstrating special public benefit .... "
The additional floor area this project would add in the Downtown
Area would remainunder the maximum cap allowed pursuant to this
policy and the project will include public benefits as described
above°
SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "New Office
Building for Leonard Ely--390 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, California"
prepared by Stoecker and Northway Architects Incorporated, dated
March 13, 1997, approved by the Architectural~Review Board on
November 7, 1996 and January 16, 1997, copies on file in the
Planning Division office, and to which copies reference is hereby
made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject
property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.68.120.
Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and
subject to the following conditions:
(a) Permitted Use____~s. The permitted uses shall be limited
() Site Development R~. All improvements and
development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved
Development Plan and the Conditions of Project Approvaladopted by
970514 ia¢ 0080400
3
the City Council in conjunction with approval of this ordinance.
The following site development regulations establish rules for
modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or
landscaping on the subject property° Definitions of terms ~sed
shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18
(Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code:
(i) Once the project has been constructed
consistent with the approved Development Plant any exterior changes
to the buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted
by the Development Plan.or by these site development regulations
shall~require an amendment to ~his Planned Co~ityZone~!ili~i~
constructed.
(ii) No new floor area or coverage may be
(d) Parkinq and Loading Requirements. The parking and
loading requirements governing, the subject property shall be in
accordance with the approved Development Plan, on file with the
Department of Planning and Community Environment and as amended in
accordance with this section. The following requirements shall
apply to the project and shall be reflected inamendments made to
the Development Plan and approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment prior to issuance of building permits:
Bicycle parking spaces, in the number and type
required under Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC, shall be provided on the
site.. The plans shall be revised to reflect the required bicycle
parking prior to issuance of any building permit(s) for the
project.
(e). Development Schedule. Construction of .the project
shall commence on or before March 30, 1998, and shall be completed
and ready for occupancy on or before December 31, 1999.
(f) Special Requirements. The following special
conditions and requirements shall apply to the project. These
requirements shall be reflected in amendments made to the
Development Plan and approved by the Director of Planning and
Community Environment prior to issuance of building permits:
(i) The project as proposed requires access
across City’s Parking Lot F. Applicant shall pay compensation to
the City in exchange for the granting of an access easement across
Lot F, to the satisfaction of the Real Estate Division. The
compensation shall be
970514 i~ 0080400
4
(ii) On January l6, 1997, the Architectural Review
Board ~approved a plan for improvements to the 10-foot-wide
pedestrian walkway on the western side of the building. These
improvements shall be installed and represent a part of the public
benefits provided by this development project.
(iii) Prior to the issuance of a building permit,
the recessed areas along the Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street
rights-of-way and the 10-footowide pedestrian walkway on the
western side of the building shall be dedicated to the City for
public uses. Maintenance of these areas shall remain the
responsibility of the property owner.
5
970514 htc 0080400
(v)This project was approved in part on the
basis that it will incorporate original art, visible to the public,
as a public benefit of the project. The applicant’s public art
proposal was approved by the Public Art Commission on December I0,
1996, and by the Architectural Review Board on January 16, 1997.
The approved public art shall be fully installed prior to the date
of initial occupancy of the project.
(vi) Prior to the date of initial occupancy of the
project, the applicant shall plant six (6) new 36-inch box street
trees at off-site locations along Lytton Avenue and Waverley
Street. The locations and species of the new street trees shall be
subject to review and approval by the City Arborist. The new trees
shall be inspected by the City Arborist before they are planted.
(vii) Prior to the date of initial occupancy of the
project, the applicant shall replace the existing bus stop bench,
sign and trash receptacle on Lytton Avenue along the project
frontage with a new more contemporary bench, sign and trash
receptacle consistent with the Downtown Improvement Plan. The
design of the bench, sign and trash receptacle shall be subject to
review by the Transportation .Division and approval by the
Architectural ReView Board.
(viii) Prior to the date of initial occupancy of the
project, the applicant shall repair the existing tree wells along
Waverley Street between University Avenue and Lytton Avenue, to the
satisfaction of the Director of Public Works.
(ix) Mitiqation Measures and Other Conditions
In addition to the Conditions of Approval adopted by the City
Council in conjunction with approval of. this Ordinance, the project
shall incorporate the mitigation measures presented in the
Environmental Impact Assessment (96-EIA-20), on file with the
Department of Planning and Community Environment°
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
970514 lac 0080400
6
SECTION 5. The Council finds that this project, as
mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
¯ APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
.Director of Planning and
Community Environment
970514 lac 0080400
7
ATTACHMENT #2
CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
390 Lytton Avenue
Office Development
File #s 96-ZCo6, 96-ARB-78 & 96-EIA-20
Most of the conditions listed below are standard conditions. These conditions would normally be
applied to the project as part of the final ARB approval process. However, given that the project
proposes a zone change to the Planned Community District, which includes the normal ARB
process, these conditions have been incorporated into this recommended action. Major and/or
special conditions are proposed for incorporation into the PC Ordinance for thisproject. All
mitigation measures identified in the mitigated Negative Declaration, Environmental Impact
Assessment are incorporated as conditions of project approval.
Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit
Planning/Zoning
The applicant shall submit.an arborist’s report with standards for protecting the two
existing street trees (10-inch Camphor and 8-inch Geijera) that are to remain during
construction, particularly during the shoring and excavation for the proposed underground
parking structure. The report shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning
Arborist and shall include recommendations for preconstruction care and pruning of the
trees.
Protective construction fencing shall be installed at the drip lines.of the.two existing street
trees that are to be preserved. The protective fencing shall be installed prior to any
demolition or movement of construction equipment onto the site and shall remain in place
and undisturbed until all construction is completed. The fencing shall be 6 foot high chain
link material mounted on two-inch galvanized iron posts driven two feet into the ground.
There shall be no. excavation, including shoring, within 10 feet from the center of the 8-
inch era tree or within 7 feet of the 10-inch Camphor.
Utilities Engineering (WGW)
The applicant ~shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public
and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work, the applicant shall
contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning
work.
4.The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters
including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department.
Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request.
The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been
disconnected and removed.
All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities,
shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans which shall show. that no conflict will
occur between the utilities and landscape materials and that the utilities are screened
in manner which respects the building design and setback requirements.
The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE
CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto utilities. The
applicant shall provide all information requested for utility service demands (water in
G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.).
The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must
show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the
public right-of-way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements,
sewer cleanouts and any other required utilities.
The applicant shall show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary
water supply.
The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and
sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This
responsibly includes the design and all of the costs associated with the construction for the
installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or servicesl
10.The improvement plans as well as construction drawings for issuance of a building permit
shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by the Utilities Engineering
Division summarized in the memorandum from Jose Jovel, dated June 21, 1996, on file
with the Department of Planning and Community Environment.
Prior to Issuance of Buildin8 Permit
Planning/Zoning
11.The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit
drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features.
12. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application.
13.Approved color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings shall be
attached to the cover sheet of the building permit set by the applicant.
Utilities Engineering
14.The project requires a padmount transformer. Electric primary shall be provided to the
transformer. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the landscape plan
and approved by the Utilities Engineering Division and the ARB.
15.The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement (PUE) for the padmount transformer
and primary trench.
16. All new electrical service shall be underground.
17. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
18.The location of the electric panel switchboard, shall be shown on the plan and approved by
the ARB and Utilities Department. Secondary conduits shall be concrete enclosed if the main
switchboard is located inside of the building.
19.All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be installed
by the applicant to City standards.
Public Works Engineering
20.The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the property.
The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the
building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month
following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division.
21.Portions of the garage structure will be under the sidewalk in the public right-of-way. The
building owner shall obtain an Encroachment Permit from the Public Works Department for
this proposed encroachment.
22.A sidewalk easement shall be recorded for thewalkway between Lytton Avenue and City
Parking Lot F. The applicant shall provide the required documents for the recordation.
23.The applicant shall submit a drainage plan for review and approval by the Public Works
Department. The plan shall provide for the disposal of drainage from the roof, tree wells, site
paved areas and the parking garage.
24.A Permit for Construction in the Public Street shall be obtained from the Public Works
Department to address the impact of the public use of the sidewalk, street and City Parking
lot, A logistics plan for demolition and construction activities shall be submitted with the
associated building permit application and must be approved and incorporated into the Permit
for Construction in the Public Street. This submittal shall include the following:
-sidewalk closure plan, including pedestrian protection/detouring and parking space usage;
-construction staging, including underground work, conducted within the City. right-of-
25.
way, with traffic control measures to be used;
shoring requirements;
tree protection;
-truck routes for hauling and delivery;
-public relations plan;
-construction employee parking;
-dust abatement procedures;
-stormwater system pollution prevention plan;
-traffic control plans for any utility service lateral construction in the street; and
-construction hours and days.
This permit will require the issuance of a bond, with the amount to be determined by the
scope of the work within the approved Building Permit, for potential restoration work in the
public right-of-way and City parking lot.
A soils report will be required for the proposed project. In addition to addressing structural
requirements for the building, this report shall also provide the highest projected water table
level for the site.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
The applicant shall obtain written approval from the City Arborist for any street tree removal,
and any excavation work within 10 feet of a street tree. This written approval shall be
available at the time of Building Permit application submission.
The applicant shall provide protection to the remaining street trees at the site to the
satisfaction of the Planning Arbofist.
The design of the pavement for the sidewalk in both the right-of-way and potential sidewalk
easement area shall conform to City standard colors and materials.
The applicant shall provide a plan showing an inventory of existing facilities in the City right-
of-way, including adjacent curb and street striping, signs and parking lot facilities (striping,
curbing and pavement).
The sidewalk from Lytton Avenue to City Parking Lot F shall be designed to maintain a
minimum of 8 feet clear sidewalk in the pedestrian walkway. It shall be in conformance to
American with Disabilities requirements for public sidewalks. A wheelchair ramp shall be
installed at the interface of this walkway and the City parking lot.
Any excavation of more than 100 cubic yards or any excavation deeper than 3 feet requires
an approved Grading and Excavation Permit issued by the Building Inspection Division.
The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit. All off-site improvements
shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
Fire
33.The applicant shall provide fire sprinklers throughout the structure. An underground fire
service line and floor control valves are required. Sprinkler system alarm supervision is
required for water flow and valve tamper.
34. Impacts of emergency response must be determined (paramedic response service demands).
35.Illuminated exit signs, emergency lighting, portable fire extinguishers and a knox. box shall be
provided.
36. Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided within the building.
Public Works Operations/Recycling
37.The applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan for review and
approval to the Public Works Operations/Recycling Division.
Transportation
38.
39.
The applicant shall pay an in-lieu parking, fee (pursuant to Section 18.49.100(d) of the
PAMC) for the 23 required parking spaces that are not provided on-site and the loss of
public parking spaces in Lot F. Credit will be provided for two on-street parking spaces that
would be created by closing the existing curb cuts providing access to the site from Waverley
Street and Lytton Avenue. Thus, the applicant would be required to pay an in-lieu parking
fee for one additional parking space (24 total spaces).
An improvement plan for proposed changes to Lot F shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works Engineering Division. The plan
shall include the installation of appropriate signage, as determined by the Transportation
Division.
Planning/Zoning
40.Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plantable areas out to
the curb shall be submitted to and approved by the Planning Division, City Arborist and
Utility Marketing Services Divisionl A Landscape Water Use statement, water use
calculations and a statement of design intent shall be submitted. The plans should be
prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and
irrigation plans shall take into consideration all elements included on: a) the City of Palo Alto
Landscape Plan Checklist; and b) the Water Conservation Guidelines. A dedicated water
meter for irrigation (only) is required. The landscape plan shall include a complete plant list
indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size and locations; an irrigation schedule and plan.
The plans shall include the installation of, at minimum, 4 street trees along each street
frontage. All new street trees shall be 36 inch box (minimum) unless a smaller size is
specified by the Planning Arborist. With the exception of the existing 8-inch Geijera tree on
Waverley Street, the planter strip openings for the street trees shall be 4 feet by 12 feet. The
planter strip opening for the 8-inch Geijera tree shall be 4 feet by 5 feet (to allow direct
access to the street for the trash containers). The new street trees shall be inspected by the
are
41.To provide soil Volume for the street trees, there shall be a minimum clearance of
approximately 3.7 feet ofuncompacted soil between the top of the sidewalk and the top of
?"""~:~ii:~:~i~i"":’~!:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:~:the proposed underground parking structure.
42.[~i~iii~.i~!~.i~i~.!~ii.i~he new sidewalk around the street trees shall be self-
supporting (non-beating). The applicant shall submit a report by a horticulturalist with
recommendations regarding the adequacy of the proposed design of the wells for the street
trees including the radius needed for the self-supporting (non-bearing) portions of the
sidewalk around the trees; the type of soil for the tree wells; and any other factors pertinent
to the health of the street trees.
43.The planting area for all street trees shall be designed to provide adequate soil volume,
aeration, drainage and irrigation to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist.
During Construction
Public Works Engineering
44.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street oron the sidewalk without
prior approval of Public Works Engineering.
45.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced in
compliance with the Public Works approved standards.
46.The applicant shall require the contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s)
for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services
Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the applicant’s construction activities on
private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the
developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any
construction debris (soil, asphalt, saw cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste
materials into gutters or storm drains.
Police
47.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s
Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires among other things, that a sign be
posted and that construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday
10:00 Am to 6:00 PM Sunday
Utilities Engineering
48. Any utilities to be relocated due to this project shall be at the applicant’s expense.
49.All new underground electrical services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building
Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing.
50. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling.
51.The contractor shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works
before digging in the street fight-of-way.
52.All Construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City
jurisdiction shall conform to the Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility
Departments.
Planning/Zoning
53.In accordance with applicable State and federal historic preservation regulations, should
previously unidentified significant cultural resources be discovered during construction, the
project sponsor is required to notify the City of Palo Alto Planning Division and cease work
in the immediate area until such time that a qualified archeologist can access the find and
make mitigation recommendations, if warranted. The Coroner, upon recognizing the remains
as being of Native American origin, is responsible to contact the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties to provide for
the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, in addition to identification of a
Native American Most Likely Descendant, who may be responsible to make
recommendations as to the handling and reburial or disposition of any human remains. To
achieve this goal, it is recommended that the construction personnel on the project be
instructed as to the potential for discovery of cultural or human remains, and both the need
for proper and timely reporting of such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof.
Prior to Finalization
Planning/Zoning
54.The applicant shall plant six new 36-inch box street trees at off-site locations along Lytton
Avenue and Waverley Street. The new off-site street trees shall be planted in tree wells that
are currently empty or shall replace existing street trees that are in poor condition at locations
approved by the Planning Arborist. The applicant shall provide 4-foot by 4-foot planter areas
(wells) for each of the new street trees.
55.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to the Planning Division, and call
for inspection, that the on-site and off-site landscaping, including the new street trees, have
been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the
irrigation has been installed and tested for timing and function, and all plants, including street
trees, are healthy.
Utilities Engineering
56. The applicant shall install a secondary box to tie to the secondary side of the transformer.
57.If service exceeds 1600 amperes, the applicant shall install a transition cabinet as the
interconnection point between the service lateral and the service entrance conductors.
doe 390.eo
ATTACHMENT #3
390 Lytton Avenne
Office Development
File Nos.: 96oZC-6, 96-ARB-78 & 96oEIA-20
DRAFT FINDINGS REGARDING COMPLIANCE WITH ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
ORDINANCE STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
GOALS AND PURPOSES OF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The proposed project furthers the goals and purposes of the ARB Ordinance required in Section
16.48.010 of the PAMC, as follows:
The project promotes orderly and harmonious development of the City. The project design
and proposed improvements are compatible with the immediate environment and the
surrounding improvements. As discussed on page 7 of the staff report for the April 9, 1997
Planning Commission meeting under Downtown Urban Design Policies, the proposed project
is consistent with policies in the Downtown Urban Design Guide which calls for continued
development of the Lytton Avenue District. The guide encourages the Lytton Avenue
District to have buildings and/or landscaping at corners to better define the street corners
which will serve to anchor the open corners at parking lots, thus strengthening the visual
impression of the streetscape.
The project will enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City. The
Downtown Urban Design Guide encourages building setbacks and planting strips to provide
areas for planting and greenery that sof[en the buildings and surrounding paving. It also
encourages the development of occasional courtyards and green spaces that provide visual
and spatial relief to the street, such as art, sculptures, fountains and other uses. Although the
project does not include a courtyard, the proposed setbacks and landscaping would soften
the building. The new building would provide interest on Waverley Street and Lytton
Avenue by utilizing a recessed building from for a large portion of the building to be used for
pedestrians and large glass windows which foster pedestrian linkage to the commercial
downtown University Avenue District and the Lytton Avenue District. The project includes
a proposed 10-foot wide walkway along the western property line, which has potential to
provide a new public pedestrian link between Lot F and Lytton Avenue. Along the Waverley
Street frontage, the front portion of the building is’recessed I0 feet from the property line to
provide a trash/recycling enclosure area, as well as a visual transition to the adjacent single-
story building which is located near the property line. In addition, the existing sidewalks
along the Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street frontages would be removed and replaced
with a colored concrete pavement treatment, and pursuant to conditions of approval, the
plans will be revised so that the street trees on Lytton Avenue will be adequately, protected
and new trees and tree sites on Waverley Street will be constructed and replanted.
The project will encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and
improvements. As outlined in the staff report for the April 9, 1997 meeting on page 6 under
Comprehensive Plan Compliance, the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the
applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. As explained on page 7 of the staff
report for the April. 9, 1997 Planning Commission meting under Streetscape Context, the
project design and proposed improvements are compatible with the immediate environment
and the surrounding improvements.
The proposed project will enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate
site or in adjacent areas. As explained on pages 7-8 of the staff report for the April 9, 1997
Planning Commission meting under Streetseape Context and Architecture,. the materials,
textures, colors and details of construction coupled with the proposed plant materials are
appropriate for the function and design of the office building and would be compatible with
the neighbodnguses, structures and landscape elements.
The project will promote visual environments which will be of high aesthetic quality and
variety. The proposed building design and exterior materials would be compatible with
those designs and materials found on other buildingsin the neighborhood. New landscaping
.would be installed around the perimeter of the site, including new street trees. The existing
sidewalks along the Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street frontages would be removed and
replaced with a colored concrete pavement treatment. These improvements will maintain the
mature, landscaped character of the surrounding, developed neighborhood.
STANDARDS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW
The proposed project complies with the Standards for Architectural Review required in Section
16.48.120 ofthe PAMC, as follows:
As outlined in the staff report for the April 9, 1997 meeting under Comprehensive Plan
Compliance, the proposed project is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements
of the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the project is compatible with the site’s
Regional/Community Commercial land use designation.
The project is compatible with the immediate environment of the site as the proposed three
story commercial building has been designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood
character which has a mix of architectural styles and one to three story buildings.
The design of the proposed improvements is appropriate for the office function of the
project. The building’s design is contemporary, constructed with red/brown brick in patterns
providing deep reveals and shadow lines. By providing 50 parking spaces in an underground
structure, the project has been designed to minimize the impacts of surface parking on the
pedestrian district. As conditioned, the project will provide an in-lieu contribution for any
unmet parking requirements.
The site is located in an area which has a unified design character, as described in the Urban
Design Guide, Lytton Avenue District. The project design is in keeping with and an
improvement to the variety of architectural designs in the surrounding area, as described on
page 9 of the staffrepon for the April 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting.
o The project, as designed, promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character to
neighboring structures. The site is adjacent to one story buildings and a three-story office
building is located across the street at the northwest corner of Lytton Avenue and Waverley
Street. The project includes a proposed 10 foot wide walkway along the western property
line, which has potential to provide a new public pedestrian link between Lot F and Lytton
Avenue, and would also serve as a visual transition and buffer between the proposed three
story building and the neighboring single story cottage, which is setback approximately 3 feet
from the property line.
The design of the project would be compatible with existing improvements off-site, as
conditioned to protect the City street tree system. Specifically, as conditioned, new
landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the site, including the establishment of
new street trees and sites, protection of existing street trees and sites, and flower boxes in
front of the windows on the ground floor along the north (Lytton Avenue), east (Waverley
Street) and west (rear) of the building. The existing sidewalks along the Lytton Avenue and
Waverley Street frontages would be removed and.replaced with a colored concrete pavement
treatment. These improvements will maintain the mature, landscaped character of the
surrounding, developed neighborhood.
The planning and siting of the building and related site improvements create an internal sense
of order to the site by placement ofthe driveway to the underground parking garage at the
rear of the property and away from the front of the building.
The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and function of the
proposed structure. The building has recessed frontages for pedestrian circulation along the
Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street providing a desirable environment for occupants, visitors
and the general community.
The project proposes a design that provides sufficient ancillary functions to provide support
for the proposed office use. The design of ancillary functions, specifically the location and
access to the on-site parking are compatible with the project’s design and function.
10.The project has been designed to ensure that propdrty access and circulation are convenient
for pedestrians, cyclists and vehicles. Access to the on-site underground parking is from Lot
F, thus minimizing impacts to pedestrian features of.the project. The required bicycle
parking spaces would be located in the underground parking structure for safe and
convenient access by the building occupants.
11."As conditioned for protection of street trees, natural features are appropriately p~’eserved and
integrated into the project. New landscaping would be installed around the perimeter of the
site, including flower boxes in front of the windows on the ground floor along the north
(Lytton Avenue), east (Waverley Street) and west (rear) of the building.
12.The materials, textures, colors and details of construction coupled withthe proposed plant
materials are appropriate for the function and design of the mixed use project and would be
compatible with the neighboring uses, structures and landscape elements. As described on
page 9 of the staff report for the April 9, 1997 Planning Commission meeting, the proposed
building design and exterior materials would be compatible with those designs and materials
found on other buildings in the neighborhood.
13.The landscape design of the project would create a desirable and functional environment for
the future occupants of the building and the neighboring residents. The proposed new
plantings and pedestrian walkway between Lot F and Lytton Avenue would provide unity for
the area and compatibility with the landscaping that exists in the surrounding neighborhood.
14.The proposed plant materials would be suitable for the area. The proposed landscaping
provides additional plantings beyond what now exists on the site.
15.The project design would be energy efficient. The building design incorporates energy
efficient features, including dual glazing and insulation. Furthermore, the proposed building,
located on the northwest comer of the site, will maintain solar exposure to nearby buildings,
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title:New Office Building for Leonard Ely
2. Lead. Agency Name and Address:City of Palo Alto Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue, Fifth Floor
Palo Alto CA 94301
31 Contact Person and Phone Number:
4. Project Location:
Robert Schubert, contract Planner
(415) 329-244.1, Ext. 1277
390 Lytton Avenue
5. Application Number(s):96-ZC-6, 96-ARB-78 & 96-EIA-20
6. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:Clare Malone
Stoecker & Northway Architects
437 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
7. General Plan Designation:Regional/Community Commercial
8. Zoning:Existing: CD-C(P)
Proposed: PC
9. Description of the Project:
The applicant has requested approval of an application to rezone the property from CD-C(P) to
a Planned Community (PC) District in order to construct an 18,921 square foot, three-story office
building at the southwest comer of Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street. The building would be
45 feet in height with 50 parking spaces located within a two level underground garage.
Vehicular access to the underground garage would be provided from a proposed access
easement across City Parking Lot F which is located west of the site. Construction of the project
would require the elimination of at least 3 existing parking spaces within Lot F in order to provide
access to the underground garage. Three existing curb cuts serving the site would be
eliminated (two curb cuts on Lytton Avenue and one on Waverley Street). The main pedestrian.
access to the building would be from a lobby facing Lytton Avenue. A new 10-foot wide
pedestrian access way would be installed along the western property line creating a new
pedestrian link between Lot F and Lytton Avenue.
S:~IA~3901yt.EIA ¯
Page 1
96-EIA-20
10.Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The .23 acre vacant site is flat and rectangular, with 105 feet of frontage on Lytton Avenue
and 93 feet of frontage on Waverley Street. For many years, the site was operated as a
gasoline service station. The gas tanks were removed and the service station was closed in
1990. There is an existing vacant building of 1,106 square feet at the southwest corner of
the site. The remainder of the site is paved and striped as a parking lot. The site has three
existing driveway curb cuts; two on Lytton Avenue and one on Waverley Street. There are
two existing street trees (10 inch Camphor and 12 inch Camphor) on Lytton Avenue and
three street trees (6 inch Privet, 12 inch Privet and 8 inch Geijera) on Waverley Street.
The site is bordered on the north by Lytton Avenue; on the south by a single story office and
service commercial building; on the east by Waverley Street; at~d on the west by City
Parking Lot F and a single story residential structure which is used as an office for a design
consulting firm.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Theenvironmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land use and Planning X
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Biological Resources
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Hazards
Water Noise
Air Quality Public Services
X Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
Aesthetics
X Cultural Resources
Recreation
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
S:~..IA\3901yt.EIA
Page 2
96-EIA-20
DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a
NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigal~on measures described on an attached
sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that l~e proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment; but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal
standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as
described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potenl~ally Significant Impact" or "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there
VV1LL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significan.t effects (1) have been
analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
X
Project Planner Date
Director of Planning & Community Environment Date
S:MEIA\3901yt.EIA
Page 3
96oEIA-20
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOUrCes Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Significant actImpact
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?,1,2 X
b)Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 1
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?1,2
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to 3
soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established 3 "
community (including a low-income or minority
community)?
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a)Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 3
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or 3
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or
major infrastructure?
c) Displace existing hodsing, especially affordable housing?3
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?4 X
b) Seismic ground shaking?4 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?4
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?4
e) Landslides or mudflows?4
f)Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions 4 X
from excavation, grading or fill?
S:~EIAL3901yt.EIA
Page 4
96-EIA-20
g) Subsidence of the land?4
h) Expansive soils?4
I) Unique geologic or physical features?4
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
X
X
X
a)Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface runoff?
b)Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding?
d)
f)
Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality, including but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen, turbidity or other typical storm water
pollutants (e.g. sediment and debris from construction, ""
hydrocarbons and metals from vehicle use, nutrients and
pesticides from landscape maintenance?
Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body
or wetland?
Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements, in marine or freshwater, or wetlands?
Change in the quanl~y of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of
groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h)Impacts to groundwater quality through infiltration of
reclaimed water or storm water runoff that has contacted
pollutants from urban or industrial activities?
3
4,5
3
3
3
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
I)Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 3otherwise available for public water supplies?
j) Alteration of wetlands in any way?3
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a)Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an exiting or 6,7projected air quality violation?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 6,7
c)Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any 6,7change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?3,6,7
6. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
S:~EIAL3901yt.EIA
Page 5
96-EIA-20
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b)Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves
or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm
equipment))?
c) .lnadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts?
8
8
3,8,10
9,17
3,8
3
X
X
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result reduction or interference in:
X
a)Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to .plants, fish, insects, animals or
birds)?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c)Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest,
coastal habitat, etc.)?
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, dparian andvernal pool?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b)Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient
manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that Would be of future value to the region and the residents
of the State?
3,11
3,11, 19 -
22
3,11
3,11
3
3
3,11
X
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a)A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)?
Possible interference with an emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?
c)The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard?
3,12
3,12
3,12
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
x
X
X
X
X
S:kE.IAL3901yt.EIA
Page 6
96-EIA-20
d)Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health
hazards?
e)
of trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of.people to severe noise levels?
Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass
12
11.
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d)Maintenance of public facilities, including roads or storm
drain facilities?
e) Other governmental services?
12
3,13 X
3,13
PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
11,12
11,12
11
11
11
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
X
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage or storm water quality control?
0 Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ..
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
15
15.
15
16
16
16
16
3
3
3,6,10
11
11
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:~EIA\3901yt.EIA
Page 7
96-EIA-20
c) Affect historical resources?
d)Have the potential to cause a physical change which would
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e)Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential
impact area?
11
11
11
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a)Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or
other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
11
11
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of
the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restdct the range of
a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
b)Does the project have the potenl~al to achieve short-term, to
the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals?
Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? (’Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental, effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in connec’don with the effects of the
past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substanl~al adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
S:~IAL3901yt.EIA
Page 8
96-EIA-20
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1.a. Land Use
The proposed project would result in an alteration of land use on the site in comparison to the existing
condition which is a vacant gas station building of 1,106 square feet and a private parking lot. The
site is designated for Regional/Community Commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan and is within
the CD-C(P) zoning district. The Regional/Community Commercial land use designation provides for
shopping-districts that have a variety and depth of goods and services .usually not available in
neighborhood shopping areas. Typical uses include department stores, apparel shops, sporting goods
stores, toy stores, book shops, plant stores, fabric stores, appliance dealers, furniture stores,
restaurants, theaters, and non-retail services such as offices, real estate brokers, banks, and insurance
brokers.
Office uses are permitted in the CD-C District. The CD-C District limits the floor area ratio (FAR) to
1.0 to 1.0. A building of 10,500 square feet could be constructed on the site under the existing CD-
C(P) zoning (including a 200 square foot exemption towards the FAR per Section 18.49.060(b)(4) and
a 489 square foot exemption per Section 18.49.060(b)(1) of the PAMC). The .proposed 18,921
square foot building has an FAR of 1.93 to 1.0. Thus, the applicant requests a zone. change on the
site from CD-C(P) to PC.
Mitigation Measures: None.required.
3.a,b.c. & f. ~
Excavation: Construction of the two level underground garage will require the excavation of
approximately 10,006 cubic yards of material, or approximately 83 truck loads. Site soil modifications
are not expected to result in significant adverse environmental impacts. According to the City of Palo
Alto Fire Department records, three underground fuel tanks and one oil tank were removed from the
site in 1992. The site is not listed on .the Santa Clara Valley Water District’s current inventory of
active sites.
With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the earth impacts of the project will not be
significant. The standard conditions of approval will require the applicant to obtain approval of a
construction logistics plan from the Public Works Engineering Department and to submit a final grading
and drainage plan for review by the Department of Public Works, prior to the issuance of any grading
or building permits. All truck routes will be required to conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks
and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48. A detailed site-specific soil report will be required,
including information on water-table and basement construction issues.
Seismic: According to the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Update, Geology & Seismic Technical
Report, the property is in a seismically active area, subject to strong ground shaking in the event of
an earthquake. Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction and subsidence of the land are possible,
S:\EIA\3901yt.EIA
Page 10
96-EIA-20
but not likely at the site. No known faults cross the site. Therefore, fault rupture at the site is very
unlikely, but theoretically possible. All new construction is required to comply with Uniform Building
Code (UBC) standards, portions of which are directed at minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss
of life and property n the event of an earthquake. Thus, the geologic impacts of the project will not
be significant.
Mitioation Measures: None required.
The site is in Flood Zone X which is not a special flood hazard zone. It is in an area of moderate
flooding outside the 100 year flood zone but inside the 500-year zone. The project would result in the
development of a new structure and pavement. It is estimated that approximately 62% of the site
would be covered with impervious surfaces compared to approximately 100% existing site coverage,
thus resulting in a net increase of rainfall absorption and a decrease in runoff.
During construction activities, storm water pollution could result. Runoff from the site flows to the
San Francisco Bay with no treatment. Nonpoint source pollution is a serious problem for wildlife
dependent on the waterways and for people who live near polluted streams or baylands. Construction
debris (soil, concrete, asphalt slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) are a source of this pollution.
With the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the water impacts of the project will not be
significant. The conditions of approval will require that adrainage plan be submitted which includes
drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The contractor will be required to incorporate
best management practices (BMP’s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations,
in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Pollution Control Program.
Mitiaation Measur s:None required.
The project would result in temporary dust emissions during grading and other construction activities.
The standard conditions of proje.ct approval would reduce these air quality impacts to less than
significant levels. The standard conditions of approval will require that the following dust control
measures be employed: 1) exposed earth surfaces shall be watered, increasing on windy days; 2)
spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be
removed immediately; 3) overfilling of trucks by the contractor is prohibited; and 4) trucks.shall be
covered during the transportation of demolished materials from the site. Thus, the project is not
expected to result in a significant impact on air quality.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
S:\EIA\3901yt.EIA
Page 11
96-EIA-20
6.a. Traffic
The site is located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street.
Lytton Avenue is designated as an arterial street and Waverley Street is a collector street. According
to the Transportation Division, no further traffic analysis of the proposed project is required because
development of the site was evaluated in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study.Thus,
the traffic impacts of the project would not be significant.
Mitiaation Measures: None required.
6.c. & d. Parkin_~ and Access
~: The project includes 50 parl~ing spaces in an underground parking structure compared to 73
spaces required by Code (parking is not required for a 200 square foot bonus pursuant to Section
18.49.060(b)(4) or 489 square feet for handicap access as determined by Section 18.49.060(b)(1).
The parking deficit would be mitigated through the payment of an in-lieu parking fee pursuant to
Section 18.49.100(d) of the PAMC. The in-lieu parking fee would be used by the City to expand the
supply of public parking spaces downtown.
As an alternative to paying an in-lieu parking fee, the applicant proposes to pay of for the identification
and implementation of traffic improvements (e.g., traffic barriers and/or round-abouts) in the
Downtown North area, located north of the Lytton Avenue. Under the alternative proposal by the
applicant, funds equivalent to the in-lieu parking fee would be paid by the applicant and ear-marked
by the City 1) to retain consultants to evaluate traffic conditions in Downtown North; 2) hold meeting
between City staff, the residents and the Downtown North Neighborhood Association to identify traffic
improvements to reduce the traffic and parking impacts from the nearby Lytton Avenue commercial
¯ area; and 3) design and construct the recommendedtr.affic improvements. However, implementation
of measures that would improve traffic flow in the Downtown North would not mitigate the parking
impacts of the.proposed project (i.e., 23 space deficit). Thus, the applicant’s proposal is not an
acceptable alternative for paying an in-lieu parking fee.
Pro_Dosed Access through Lot F - Access to the project’s underground parking structure would be via
a proposed 20 foot wide access easement across a portion of Lot F, a 0.39 acre City-owned parking
lot with 53 parking spaces within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The easement would
be located adjacent to the northern property line of Lot F. Providing access to the project from Lot F
would require the elimination of at least 3 existing parking spaces on the east side of Lot F.
The proposal to provide access from Lot F is.consistent with a guideline in the Downtown Urban
Design Guide which encourages public/private partnerships in order to "expedite, facilitate and
economize on projects." In addition, providing access from the adjacent City property is beneficial
because it eliminates the need for a curb cut on Waverley Street which would conflict with pedestrian
movement along the sidewalk.
According to the Downtown ParkingStructure Feasibility Study, Interim Report, June 12, 1996, the
S:\EIA\3901yt.EIA
Page 12
96-EIA-20
overall feasibility of constructing a parking structure on Lot F is poor, due to the relatively small size
of the lot and its close proximity to Lot S, which has a higher overall feasibility for a future parking
structure). Lot S lies one block southwest of the site, within the block bordered by Florence Street,
Bryant Street, University Avenue and Lytton Avenue.
Access to the proposed underground parking structure at 390 Lytton Avenue could be temporarily
interrupted during maintenance and/or construction activities on LotF if itwere to be selected as the
best site for a new structure. Thus, the City would reserve the right to close the private access during
maintenance activities and/or construction of a new project on Lot F.
Mitigation Measures: The project will not have significant access or parking impacts with the
implementation of the following mitigation measures:
a.The applicant shall pay an in-lieu parking fee (pursuant to Section 18.49.100(d) of the PAMC) for
the 23 required :parking spaces that are not provided on-site and the loss of public parking spaces
in Lot F. Credit would be provided for two on-street parking spaces that would be created by
closing the existing curb cuts providing access to the site from Waverley street and Lytton Avenue.
Thus, the applicant would be required to pay an in-lieu parking fee for one additional parking space
(24 total spaces), which would be used to fund a portion of the costs for a new downtown parking
structure; and
The applicant shall pay compensation to the City in exchange for the granting of an access
easement across Lot F. The City shall reserve the right to close the private access during
maintenance activities and/or construction of a new project on Lot F.
7.b. Street Trees
Along the property frontage, there are two existing street trees (10-inch Camphor and 12-inch
Camphor) on Lytton Avenue and three street trees (6-inch Japanese Privet, 12-inch Japanese Privet,
and 8-inch Geijera) on Waverley Street. One street tree planter space on Waverley Street and two
planter spaces on Lytton Avenue are currently vacant.
The applicant proposes to remove two existing street trees (6-inch Privet and 12-inch Privet) on
Waverley Street which are in poor condition and a 12-inch Camphor on Lytton Avenue. An existing
10-inch Camphor tree on Lytton Avenue and an 8-inch Geijera tree on Waverley Street would be
preserved.
Three new 36-inch box Nepal Camphor street trees are proposed to be planted along Lytton Avenue
and two new 36-inch box Australian Willow street trees are proposed along Waverley Street, for a
total of four street trees on each frontage. Thus, there would be one more street tree on Waverley
Street and two additional street trees on Lytton Avenue, compared to existing conditions. The
applicant also proposes to plant six additional new street trees at off-site locations along Lytton
Avenue and Waverley Street. The new off-site street trees would be planted in tree wells that are
currently empty or would replace existing street trees that are in poor condition.
S:\EIA\3901~.EIA
Page 13
96-EIA-20
The applicant recently submitted arborist’s reports from Barrie D. Coate and Associates, S. P.
McClenahan Co., Inc., Davey Tree and Lawn Beauty, and Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
evaluating the condition of the three existing street trees thatare proposed to be removed. Below is
a summary of the findings and recommendations of the arborists’ reports.
_Street Tree Pro_Dosed to be Removed Condition and Recommendations
1.6-inch Japanese Privet (on Waverley) Good condition, but is demonstrating signs of decline.
o 12-inch Japanese Privet (on Waverley) Very poor condition, with a dying canopy of the north
side.
=
1 2-inch Camphor (on Lytton Avenue)Fair to good condition, but has poor structure due to
poor pruning in the past. The tree presents branch
failure hazard.
The Planning Arborist has reviewed the arborists’ reports and noted that the 12-inch Camphor on
Lytton Avenue, which the applicant proposes to remove, could survive for another 10 to 20 years if
the tree were made safer by reducing the endweights to keep branch-shedding in control and if it had
a more frequent pruning cycle. The applicant’s proposal to upgrade the size of the new street trees
to 36-inch box and to provide 6 off-site street trees will mitigate the loss of the 12-inch Camphor.
The applicant proposes to construct the underground parking structure within the City’s right-of-way
and under the sidewalk and planter strip. The underground garage extends to near the curbline on both
Waverley Street and Lytton Avenue, leaving only a small shelf in which the tree roots may grow. If
not properly designed, construction of the proposed building and underground parking structure could
permanently eliminate street tree planter spaces and irreparably damage the existing street trees that
are to remain. Recent research correlates tree size by trunk diameter with the soil volume required to
sustain the tree.
Mitigation Measures: Implementation of the following mitigation measures will reduce the impacts on
street trees to a level of less than significant:
The plans shall include the installation of, at minimum, 4 street trees along each street frontage.
All new street trees shall be 36 inch box (minimum) unless a smaller size is specified by the
Planning Arborist. With the exception of the existing 8-inch Geijera tree on Waverley Street,
the planter strip openings for the street trees shall be 4 feet by 12 feet. The planter strip opening
for the 8-inch Geijera tree shall be 4 feet by 5 feet (to allow direct access to the street for the
trash containers). If warranted by field conditions, the Planning Arborist may modify the required
sizes of the planter strip openings, provided that the long term health of the new street trees is
protected. The new street trees shall beinspected by the Planning Arborist before they are
planted.
b.The applicant shall plant six new 36-inch box street trees at off-site locations along Lytton
S:\EIA\3901¥t.EIA
Page 14
96-EIA-20
Co
.e.
Avenue and Waverley Street. The new off-site street trees shall be planted in tree wells that are
currently empty or shall replace existing street trees that are in poor condition at locations
approved by.the Planning Arborist. The applicant shall provide 4-foot by 4-foot planter areas
(wells) for each of the new street trees. The Planning Arborist shall have discretion to modify
the specific requirements of this condition.
To provide soil volume for the street trees, there shall be a minimum clearance of approximately
3.7 feet of uncompacted soil between the top of the sidewalk and the top of the proposed
underground parking, structure. If warranted by field conditions, the Planning Arborist may
modify the minimum required distance between the top of the sidewalk and the top of the
proposed underground parking structure, provided that the long term health of the street trees
is protected.
If requried by the Planning Arborist, the new sidewalk around the street trees shall be self-
supporting (non-bearing). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit
a report by a horticulturalist with recommendations regarding the adequacy of the proposed
design of the wells for the street trees including the radius needed for the self-supporting (non-
bearing) portions of the sidewalk around the trees; the type of soil for the tree wells; and any
other factors pertinent to the health of the street trees. The Planning Arborist may modify the
requirements of this condition, provided that the long term health of the street trees is protected.
The planting area for all.street trees shall be designed to provide adequate soil volume, aeration,
drainage and irrigation to the satisfaction of the Planning Arborist.
The applicant shall submit an arborist’s report with standards for protecting the two existing
street trees (l O-inch Camphor and 8-inch Geijera) that are to remain during construction,
particularly during the shoring and excavation for the proposed underground parking structure.
The report shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Arborist and shall include
recommendations for preconstruction care and pruning of the trees. Protective construction
fencing shall be installed at the drip lines of the two existing street trees that are to be preserved.
The protective fencing shall be installed prior to any demolition or movement of construction
equipment onto the site and shall remain in place and undisturbed until all construction is
completed. The fencing shall be 6 foot high chain link material mounted on two-inch galvanized
iron posts driven two feet into the ground. There shall be no excavation, including shoring,
within 10 feet from the center of the 8-inch Geijera tree or within 7 feet of the lO-inch Camphor.
If warranted by field conditions, the Planning Arborist may modify the minimum required distance
between excavated areas and the existing street trees, provided that the health of the trees is
protected.
10.a. Noise
~ Noi.se: Temporary impacts would occur as a result of construction activities. However,
with the City’s required standard conditions of approval, the project’s noise impacts will not be
significant. The standard conditions of approval will require the applicant to comply with the
S:\EIA\3901yt.EIA
Page 15
96-EIA-20
requirements of the Palo Alto Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 of the PAMC, which limits the amount
of noise and restricts demolition and construction activities to specific hours of the day to minimiz~
disturbance to adjacent.residents. Thus, the noise impacts of the project would not be significant.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
13.b,c. Aesthetics
The project has been designed to be compatible with the character of surrounding development. The
building’s design’is contemPorary, constructed with red/brown brick in patterns providing deep reveals
and shadow lines. A pre-cast two-story lobby entrance is a dominant feature, located in a tower
element facing Lytton Avenue. The development of the site may result in a negligible increase in light
and glare generated from the glazing on the building and exterior lighting, but will not have an adverse
impact on surrounding uses. With the standard conditions of approval, the light and glare impacts of
the project will not besignificant. A proposed, lighting plan with specified light fixtures is required for
submittal and will be a condition of project approval. Any lighting is required to be shielded such that
the light does not extend beyond the site and that the source of light is not directly visible.
Mitigation Measures: None required.
14.a. Cultural Resources
The site is designated as a moderate sensitivity area. The flatlands of Palo Alto are known to contain
.widely dispersed prehistoric sites with shell-ridden components, including human burials and a variety
Of artifacts.
Mitiaation Mea r : If during grading and construction, activities, any archeological or human remains
are encountered, construction shall cease and a qualified archeologist shall visit the site to assess the
find. The Santa Clara County Medical Examiner’s office shall be notified to provide proper direction
on how to proceed. If any Native American resources are encountered during construction,
construction shall cease immediately until a Native American decendant, appointed by the Native
American Heritage Commission of the State of California, is able to evaluate the site and make further
recommendations and be involved in mitigation planning.
S:\EIA\3901yt.EIA
Page 16
96-EIA-20
Attachment 5
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
Nancy Lytle
April 9, 1997
DEPARTMENT: Planning
SUBJECT:390 Lytton Avenue: Application to rezone a property from CD-
C(P) (Commercial Downtown - Pedestrian Combining District)
to a PC (Planned Community) District to construct an 18,921
square foot, three story office building. File Nos.: 96-ZC-6, 96-
ARB-78 & 96-EIA-20
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the following:
Approval of the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration [Attachment #4], finding.that
the proposed project will not result in any significant environmental impacts, if certain
conditions of the project approval are imposed;
Adoption of the attached ordinance [Attachment # 1], including findings and conditions,
rezoning the property at 390 Lytton Avenue from CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown -
Pedestrian Combining Distric0 to a PC (planned Community) District allowing the
development of an 18,921 square foot, three story office building; and
Approval of the attached ARB findings and conditions of project approval [Attachments
2 and 3].
PROJECT INFORMATION
Project Description
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,106-square-foot, one-story commercial
building and construct an 18,921 square foot, three-story office building at the southwest comer
of Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street. The building would be 45 feet in height with 50 parking
spaces located within a two level underground garage. The main pedestrian access to the
building would be from a lobby facing Lytton Avenue. A new 10-foot wide pedestrian access
way would be installed along the western property line creating a new link between City Parking
Lot F and Lytton Avenue.
Vehicular access to the underground garage would be provided from a proposed 20 foot wide
access easement across City Parking Lot F which is located west of the site. Access to Lot F is
through 3 one-way curb cuts on Florence Street. Three existing curb cuts serving the subject site
would be eliminated; two curb cuts on Lytton Avenue and one on Waverley Street.
At street level along the property frontage facing Lytton Avenue, the building would be
constructed to the property line for approximately 30 feet of the building frontage creating a
main lobby entrance with a recessed arch. The remainder of the first floor is setback 6 feet from
the Lytton Avenue property line. The Waverley Street elevation is set back 6.5 feet from the
property line. The second story is flush with the building face below and has recessed windows.
The third story is recessed 2 feet from the exterior wall below. A 5-foot high metal black
simulated slate roof located above the third floor would serve to screen the rooftop equipment.
Rezoning to PC _(Planned Communi~)District and Statement of Public Benefit
Since the project involves a rezoning from the CD-C(P) District to a PC District, the applicant is
~equired to present a statement identifying the proposed uses, the phasing schedule and the public
benefits of the project [Attachment #5]. A pc process is necessary due to the proposed building
floor area, 18,921 square feet. Under the CD-C(P) zoning of the site, a 10,500 square foot
building could be constructed. The applicant has provided a public benefit statement (see
Attachment #5, letter from the applicant dated February 13, 1997 and the applicant’s’s binder.
containing a Program Development Statement).
Development Schedule
The construction of the project is expected to begin by March 1998. The project is expected to
be completed and occupied by December 1999.
BACKGROUND
Site Description
The .23 acre vacant site is flat and rectangular, with 105 feet of frontage on Lytton Avenue and
93 feet of frontage on Waverley Street. For many years, the site was operated as a gasoline
service station. In 1990, the service station was closed, the gas tanks were removed and the site
was approved for redevelopment by the Fire Department.
Currently, there is a vacant building of 1,106 square feet at the southwest comer of the site. The
remainder of the site is paved and striped as a private parking lot. There are two existing street
trees (10-inch Camphor and 12-inch Camphor) on Lytton Avenue and three street trees (6-inch
Privet, 12-inch Privet, and 8-inch Geijera) on Waverley Street.
S:~PCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page2
Project Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor parcel number, Comprehensive Plan
designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Applicant:
Owner:
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zone District:
Existing Land Use:
Surrounding Land Uses:
Stoecker & Northway
437 Lytton Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94301
(415) 327-7070
Leonard Ely
575 Middlefield Road
Palo Alto CA 94301
(415) 322,8103
120-15-006
Regional/Community Commercial
CD-C(P) Downtown. Commercial-Pedestrian Combining
District
Vacant building and parking lot
North: Lytton Avenue and commercial uses beyond
South: Service commercial and retail uses
East: Waverley Street and commercial uses beyond
West: Professional off.tee uses
Parcel Size:
Dates:
¯ PROJECT HISTORY
0.23 acre (9,811 square feet)
Application received:
Application complete:
Mandatory action deadline: None
PI~~ mission Initial Review
On September 11, 1996, the Planning Commission completed an initial review of the project (see
Attachment #6, Planning Commission minutes). The Planning Commission concluded that the
proposed building will anchor the comer a.nd represents a substantial improvement over the
SAPCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 3
current condition of the site. The Commission voted to forward the project to the ARB with the
following comments and recommendations:
The proposed project will be a substantial improvement over the existing condition of the
site. In particular, the proposed underground parking, with access from Lot F at the rear of
the site, is beneficial because it screens the parking spaces from view and eliminates the need
for a driveway across a public sidewalk. The Commission also suggested that it is also
beneficial that the project provides at least a portion of the required parking spaces on-site.
o The Commission indicated that the public benefits, as proposed by the applicant, satisfied the
requirements of the PC District. However, one Commissioner suggested that the applicant
should consider providing new landscaping in front of the 7-11 property which is located
directly across Waverley Street and improving the existing bus stop which is located along
the Lytton Avenue frontage.
Some of the Commissioners suggested that, if the project included retail use rather than
office space on the first floor, it would provide a more vibrant streetscape while also serving
the needs of nearby residential neighborhoods. One Commissioner noted that this concern
may be addressed to some degree with the future improvements for Lot L, at the southwest
comer of Lytton Avenue and Florence Street. The conceptual plan for Lot L includes retail
along the Lytton Avenue frontage. In addition, there is a parking deficit in the area and the
proposed office use generates less parking demand compared to restaurants and other types of
businesses.
o The Commission encouraged the applicant to continue addressing issues related to street trees
by working with Canopy Trees for Palo Alto. In addition to proposing new street trees, the
plans should provide adequate soil volume for the trees. A block-wide street tree perspective,
addressing the existing Privet trees along Waverley Street, would benefit the project and the
neighborhood.
Some of the Commissioners suggested that the applicant consider providing vines along the
west side of the building to soften the visual impact of the project on the adjacent single story
building on Lytton Avenue.
Since the proposed bicycle lockers will be used mostly by the building occupants, one
Commissioner suggested that the applicant should consider relocating them within the
underground parking structure. Secure, covered bicycle parking encourages people who work
in the facility to use bicycles more often.
Architectural Review Board (ARB) Action
On November 7, 1996, the ARB unanimously recommended approval of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration, Planned Community Zone Change, ARB findings and conditions of approval (see
S:~PCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 4
Attachment #8, ARB minutes). Generally, the ARB enthusiastically supported the project, and
specifically the applicant’s proposal to provide underground parking for the building with access
from Lot F. The ARB recommendation for approval was conditioned on the applicant retuming
to the ARB with building details, exterior lighting, public art proposal and detailed landscape and
irrigation plans. On January 16, 1997, the ARB approved the building details, exterior lighting,
public art proposal and detailed landscape and irrigation plans (see Attachment 7, minutes from
January 16, 1997 ARB meeting).
Project Revisions Following Planing Commission and ARB Meetings_
At the previous Planning Commission and ARB hearings regarding the project, the applicant
proposed to transfer a total of 6,716 square feet of proposed development rights to the site,
including 4,216 square feet from 340 University Avenue (Z Gallerie) and 2,500 square feet from.
403-405 University Avenue (Taxi’s). If the requested transfer of development rights were
granted by the City, the applicant would have been able to construct a 17,216 square foot
building.
On November 18, 1996, the City Council approved a revised TDR program. However, the
revised program did not include the provisions that would have allowed the applicant to transfer
development rights from 340 University Avenue and 403-405 University Avenue.
Consequently, the applicant recently revised the Program Development Statement to identify
additional public benefits of the project (see the applicant’s binder and the discussion below
under Assessment of.PC District andPublic Benefit Statement).
Following the Planning Commission and ARB meetings, the applicant submitted revised plans
with the following, revisions:
1.the number of proposed parking spaces in the underground parking structure was increased
from 46 to 50 spaces;
2.to accommodate the additional par.king spaces, the plan was revised to propose the removal
of an existing 12-inch Camphor street tree on Lytton Avenue;
as recommended by staff at the previous public hearings, the landscape plan was revised to
provide a total of 8 street trees and the design of the underground parking structure was
revised to provide adequate soil volume for the street trees (see the discussion below under
.Street Trees.);
4.as suggested by the Planning Commission, the landscape plan was revised to provide vines in
raised planters along the west side of the building;
5. as suggested by the Planning Commission, the bicycle parking spaces were relocated to the
underground parking structure;
4-9-97
S:~PCSR\390LYT.49 Page 5
o in response to comments by the ARB and staff, the proposed walkway between Lot F and
Lytton Avenue was extended to allow clear passage (i.e., under the previous design, the
walkway ended abruptly in front of a parking space).
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive
Plan, Zoning Ordinance and Architectural Review Ordinance and should be evaluated against the
recommendations contained in the Downtown Urban Design Guide.
Comprehensive Plan
The site is currently designated as Regional/Community Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed office use is allowed within this Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed
use and project design are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies
and programs:
Urban Design Element. Objective, page 42: "Promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements
through the review of new development." The site is designated Regional/Community
Commercial and the site is well suited for commercial of-flee use. The proposed project is a
better use of the land at a corner location than the current small structure and parking lot..
o Urban Design Element. Ob_iect~ "Promote visual environments which are of high
aesthetic quality and variety, and considerate of each other." The proposed building adds a
contemporary building with architectural character, human-scale elements at pedestrian level
typical of the Downtown, and utilizes high quality materials. The project would replace the
existing small one-story commercial building and parking lot with a building which
compliments the surrounding neighborhood.
o Urban Desima Element Polic 5 e 4 : "Encourage rehabilitation of aging retail areas to
keep them economically healthy." The existing building (a former gas station building) on
the parcel and parking lot has become dated and the new building and uses will be an
improvement to the site and downtown area.
°Urban Design Element, Program 20, page 45: "Require street frontages that contribute to
retail vitality in shopping districts." The new building contributes to the pedestrian
atmosphere of the downtown street by creating pedestrian spaces set back from the property
lines.
Urban_Design Element,.~ "Limit nonresidential development in the Downtown
Area to ten percent (350, 000 square feet of floor area) above the amount of development
existing or approved in May 1986. Of this 350, 000 square feet, a minimum of lO0, 000
S:WCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 6
square feet of floor area shall be reserved for projects demonstrating special public benefit
.... " The additional floor area this project would add in the Downtown area would remain
under the maximum cap allowed pursuant to this policy and the project will include public
benefits.
Downtown Urban Design Policies
While the Downtown Urban Design Guide is considered an incentive and guide for
redevelopment, rather than policy, it calls for continued development of the Lytton Avenue
District. The goals for this district include the following:
¯ 1. Promote Lytton Avenue as an enlivened mixed commercial and residential district;
2. Ensure that development respects the transition into the adjacent Downtown North
neighborhood, and protect this residential area from incompatible encroachments of
commercial buildings; and
3. Maintain and enhance the pleasing, tree-lined pedestrian qualities of Lytton Avenue.
Lytton Avenue is presently weakened by parking lots at street comers, including the subject site.
The Guide encourages the Lytton Avenue District to have buildings and/or landscaping at street
intersections to better define and anchor the comers, thus strengthening the visual impression of
the streetscape. The Guide also encourages building setbacks and planting strips to provide areas
for planting and greenery that soften the buildings and surrounding paving. It also encourages
the development of occasional courtyards and green spaces that provide visual and spatial relief
to the street, such as art, sculptures, fountains and other uses.
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis
The staff analysis for this project relates to the streetscape context, architecture, proposed access
easement, pedestrian design features, public art, shadow analysis, code compliance and
assessment of proposed public benefits.
Streetscape Context
Buildings on Lytton Avenue are a mixture of architectural styles with a predominate building
height of two stories and recent office construction reaching three stories. Lytton Avenue has
many comer lots without structures, including the subject site, which create undesirable gaps in
the urban form.
Existing development of the site’s block along Lytton Avenue consists of a single-story cottage
which is used as a professional office, and a two-story building at the southeast comer of the
intersection of Lytton Avenue and Florence Street, which is occupied by law offices. There are
three buildings on the blockface across Lytton Avenue: a three-story office building on the
S:LPCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 7
comer, a single-story building occupied by a restaurant and a two-story office building. Existing
development south of the site along Waverley Street consists of a mix of one- and two-story
buildings, which are occupied by retail and service commercial uses.
As encouraged by the Downtown Urban Design Guide, the proposed three-story building, sited
near the intersection and taller than the adjacent buildings on each side, will serve to anchor the
comer. The building will be balanced with the existing three-story office building on the comer
directly across Lytton Avenue from the site, which has a similar height.
The new building would provide interest on Waverley Street and Lytton Avenue by utilizing a
recessed building front for a large portion of the building to be used for pedestrians and large
glass windows which foster pedestrian linkage to the commercial downtown University Avenue
District and the Lytton Avenue District. The project includes a proposed 10-foot wide walkway
along the western property line, which has potential to provide a new publig pedestrian link
between Lot F and Lytton Avenue. Along the Waverley Street frontage, the front portion of the
building is recessed 10 feet from the property line to provide a trash/recycling enclosure area, as
well as a visual transition to the adjacent single-story building which is located near the property
line.
Architecture
The project has been designed to be compatible with the existing neighborhood character which
has a mix of architectural styles and one- to three-story buildings. The building’s design is
contemporary, constructed with red/brown brick in patterns providing deep reveals and shadow
lines. The proposed building materials and color scheme consist of the following: red brown
brick veneer, buff colored glass fiber reinforced cement (GFRC) window surrounds and spandrel,
charcoal grey glazing and black simulated slate standing seam metal roof and plaster soffit. A
pre-cast two-story lobby entrance is a dominant feature, located in a tower element facing Lytton
Avenue.
Proposed Access Easement
Access to the project’s underground parking structure would be via a proposed 20-foot wide
access easement across a portion of Lot F, a 0.39 acre City-owned parking lot with 53 parking
spaces within the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The easement would be located
adjacent to the northern property line of Lot F. The applicant has indicated that the underground
parking structure is more efficient with access from Lot F compared to the providing access from
Waverley Street (see the Revised Program Development Statement in the applicant’s’s binder
indicating that only 23 parking spaces are achievable in the proposed underground parking
structure if access is provided from Waverley Street).
The proposal to provide access from Lot F is consistent with a guideline in the Downtown Urban
Design Guide which encourages public/private partnerships in order to "expedite, facilitate and
economize on projects." In addition, providing access from the adjacent City property is
S:~PCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 8
beneficial because it eliminates the need for a curb cut on Waverley Street which would conflict
with pedestrian movement along the sidewalk.
The applicant would be required to pay full market value for the access easement based upon a.
formula established by the City Real Property Manager or through an independent professional
appraisal process which allows both the City and the applicant to have appraisals prepared and a
City third-party appraiser to settle the differential, at the applicant’s expense (see Attachment #6,
memorandum from Bill Fellman dated August 29, 1996). The appraisal will take into
consideration the impact of the requested easement on the redevelopment potential of Lot F for a
parking structure or building.
Providing access to the project from Lot F would require the elimination of at least three existing
parking spaces on the east side of Lot F. Credit would be provided for two on-street parking
spaces that would be created by. closing the existing curb cuts providing access to the subject site
from Waverley Street and Lytton Avenue. Thus, the applicant would be required to pay an in-
lieu parking fee (see discussion below under Parking), which would be used to fund public
parking construction off-site.
Access to the proposed underground parking structure at 390 Lytton Avenue could be .
temporarily interrupted during maintenance and/or construction activities on Lot F, if it were to
be selected as the best site for a new parking structure. Thus, the City would reserve the right to
close the private access during maintenance activities and/or construction of a new project onLot
F. The City would also reserve the right to reconfigure the access to 390 Lytton Avenue, should
the parking or development configuration on Lot F be modified in the future.
Pedestrian Design Features
The site is within the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. The proposal complies with the
Pedestrian Shopping Combining District regulations by providing recessed areas adjoining
pedestrian sidewalk, large windows at ground level, and landscaping to provide pedestrian
interest.
The proposed setbacks and landscaping would soften the building. The project includes 1,266
square feet of pedestrian area between the property line and the building including 781 square
feet along Waverely Street and 485 square feet along Lytton Avenue. The building would be
setback 6 feet, 6 inches from the property line and would have three, 3-foot wide concrete
planters adjacent to the ’building along Waverley Street. The setback from Lytton Avenue varies
from 0 to 6 feet with two, 3-foot wide recessed planters adjacent to the building.
By providing parking within an underground structure with access from the rear of the site, the
project is able to achieve a continuous building facade with large windows along both frontages.
The existing sidewalks along the Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street frontages would be
removed and replaced with a colored concrete pavement treatment. In addition, there would be a
S:WCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 9
total of 8 street trees (four along each frontage).
Public A~
As a proposed public benefit of the PC application, the applicant proposes to provide public art
around the exterior of the main entrance to the building (the approved public art proposal in the
applicant’s binder). The art consists of a semi-circular sculpture portraying the a history of the
automobile, which has been the primary business of the property owner’s family.
On December 10, 1996, the Public Art Commission unanimously accepted the applicant’s public
art proposal (see Attachment #8, letter from Judith Wasserman dated December 13, 1996). The
art work proposal was unanimously approved by the ARB on January 16, 1997.
Shadow Analysis
Staff requested the applicant to submit a shadow analysis for the proposed building. Sheet 14
(Shadow Study) indicates that the structure will not cast any shadows on adjacent buildings.
Code Compliance
The proposed project has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance
(Title 18). Given that the project proposes a rezoning to the PC (Planned Community) District,
the provisions of the existing zoning of the site would not apply to the development. Table 2
compares the proposal to the applicable provisions of the CD-C(P) zoning district.
TABLE 2: Project.,Comparison With Current,,Ordinance Requirements
REGULATION PROPOSED
Floor Area
Floor Area Ratio "
Maximum Height
Lot Coverage
Parking **
PROJECT
18,92i *
1.9 to 1.0
45 feet
65%
50 spaces
PC
(Allowed/
Required)
N/A
N/A
50 feet
N/A
N/A
CD-C0’)
(Allowed/
Required)
10,500
1.0 to 1.0
50 feet
N/A
73 spaces
*The maximum allowable floor area includes a 200-square-foot exemption towards floor
area ratio per Section 18.49.060(b)(4) of the PAMC; and a 489-square-foot exemption per
Section 18.49.060(b)(1) of the PAMC.
**The number of required parking spaces is based upon 1 space/250 square feet of floor
area and 689 square feet of floor area is exempt from parking requirements.
SAPCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 10
Floor Area: The existing CD-C(P) District limits the FAR to 1.0 to 1.0 or replacement of
existing square footage, whichever is greater. The applicant also receives a one time only 200-
square-foot exemption towards floor area per Sectionl 8.49.060 (b)(4) and a 489-square-foot
exemption per Section 18.49.060(b)(1). Thus, the site could be replaced with a building of
10,500 square feet in floor area under the CD-C(P) zoning. The proposed 18,921 square-foot
building exceeds the maximum allowable floor area under the conventional CD-C(P) zoning by
8,421 square feet.
~: The project includes 50 parking spaces, including 36 standard spaces, 12 compact
spaces (24% compact spaces) and 2 handicap spaces, on two levels in an underground parking
structure. A total of 73 spaces are required by Code. Parking is not required for a 200-square-
foot bonus pursuant to Section 18.49.060(b)(4) or 489 square feet for handicap access as
determined by Section 18.49.060(b)(1). The parking deficit of 23 spaces would be mitigated
through the payment of an in-lieu parking fee pursuant to Section 18.49.100(d) of the PAMC.
The in-lieu parking fee Would be used by the City to expand the supply of public parking spaces
downtown.
A_~t~licant’s Proposed Alternative to In-lieu Parking Fee: As an alternative to paying the in-lieu
parking fee required under the Municipal Code, the prospoed $75,000 contribution for public
improvements and the required fee for the proposed access easement use the use of Lot F, the
applicant has proposed to pay an equivalent sum of money for the identification and
implementation of traffic improvements (e.g., traffic barriers and/or round-abouts) in the
Downtown North area, located north.ofthe Lytton Avenue (see Attachment #5, letter from the
applicant). Under this alternative, the applicant proposes that funds equivalent to the in-lieu
parking fee, $75,000 contribution and the payment for the easement across Lot F would be ear-
marked by the City to: 1) retain consultants to evaluate traffic conditions in Downtown North; 2)
hold meeting between City staff, the residents and the Downtown North Neighborhood
Association to identify traffic improvements to reduce the traffic and parking impacts from the
nearby Lytton Avenue commercial area; and 3) design and construct the recommended traffic
improvements.
Staff does not recommend that the in-lieu parking fee be earmarked for traffic improvements in
the Downtown North area primarily because it would be difficult to establish a nexus between
the project’s parking requirements and traffic improvements in the Downtown North area.
Although they may have merit from a traffic standpoint, implementation of measures that would
improve traffic flow in the Downtown North would not necessarily mitigate the parking impacts
of the proposed project which has a 23 parking space deficit. If the in-lieu parking fee were not
used to construct additional public parking, the proposed project could have undue parking
impacts on surrounding properties. In addition, the City Council would need to amend the off-
street parking provisions of the Zoning Ordinance (Chapter 18.83 of the PAMC) to allow the in-
lieu parking fee to be used for a purpose other than providing additional public parking
S:WCSR\390LYT.49
4~9-97
Page 11
downtown.
Bicycle Parking: A total of seven bicycle parking spaces are required for this project per Section
18.83.050, Table 1, Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements. The applicant proposes to
provide two Class I bicycle lockers (holds four bicycles) in the underground parking structure
and a Class II bike rack (holds 3 bicycles) adjacent to the walkway on the west side of the
building.
Street Trees." Along the property frontage, there are two existing street trees (10-inch Camphor
and 12-inch Camphor) on Lytton Avenue and three street trees (6-inch Japanese Privet, 12-inch
Japanese Privet, and 8-inch Geijera) on Waverley Street: One street tree planter space on
Waverley Street and two planter spaces on Lytton Avenue are currently vacant.
The applicant proposes to remove two existing street trees (6-inch Privet and 12-inch Privet) on
Waverley Street which are in poor condition and a 12-inch Camphor on Lytton Avenue. An
existing 10-inch Camphor tree on Lytton Avenue and an 8-inch Geijera tree on Waverley Street
would be preserved.
Three new 36-inch box Nepal Camphor street trees are proposed to be planted along Lytton
Avenue and two new 36-inch box Australian Willow street trees are proposed along Waverley
Street, for a total of four street trees on each frontage. Thus, there would be one more street tree
on Waverley Street and two additional street trees on Lytton Avenue, compared to existing
conditions. The applicant also proposes to plant six additional new street trees at off-site
locations along Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street. The new off-site street trees would be
planted in tree wells that are currently empty or would replace existing street trees that are in ¯
poor condition.
The applicant recently submitted arborist’s reports from Barrie D. Coate and Associates, S. P.
McClenahan Co., Inc., Davey Tree and Lawn Beauty, and Mayne Tree Expert Company, Inc.
evaluating the condition of the three existing street trees that are proposed to be removed. Below
is a summary of the findings and recommendations of the arborists’ reports.
Street Trees Proposed to be Removed Condition and Reeornmendation.~
1. 6-inch Japanese Privet (on Waverley)Good condition, but is demonstrating signs of
decline.
2. 12-inch Japanese Privet (on Waverley) Very poor condition, with a dying canopy on the
north side.
3. 12-inch Camphor (on Lytton Avenue) Fair to good condition, but has poor structure due to
poor pruning in the past. The tree present~ branch
S:WCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 12
failure hazard. If the tree were made safer by
reducing the endweights to keep branch-shedding in
control and a had a more frequent prtming cycle, it
could survive for 10 to 20 more years.
The City Arborist has reviewed the arbofist’s reports and has noted that the 12-inch Camphor on
Lytton Avenue, which the applicant proposes to remove, could survive for another 10 to 20 years
and it would be removed only to provide additional parking (i.e., 4 parking spaces) for the
project, not because the tree presents an imminent hazard. The applicant’s proposal to upgrade
the size of the new street trees to 36-inch box and to provide 6 off-site street trees will mitigate
the loss of the 12-inch Camphor. With the implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures, the City Arborist has indicated that the new street trees may survive up to 50 years.
The applicant proposes to construct portions of the underground parking structure within the
City’s fight-of-way and under the sidewalk and planter strip, which will require an encroachment
permit. The underground garage extends to near the curbline on both Waverley Street and
Lytton Avenue, leaving only a small shelf in which the tree roots may grow. If not properly
¯ designed, construction of the proposed building and underground parking structure could
permanently eliminate street tree planter spaces and irreparably damage the existing street trees
that are to remain. To provide adequate soil volume for the street trees, the conditions of
approval require a minimum clearance of approximately 3.7 feet of uncompaeted soil between
the top of the sidewalk and the proposed underground parking structure.
Trash/Recycling Enclosure: The required trash/recycling area would be located on the south side
of the building and would be accessible from the sidewalk along Waverley Street. The Public
Works Operations/Recycling Division has indicated that the proposed trash/recycling area meets
Code requirements (Section 18.49.140 of the PAMC).
Padmount Transformer: The project requires a padmount transformer which would be located at
the rear of the trash/recycling enclosure area adjacent to the southern property line. The
transformer would not be visible to the public because it would be located on the upper level of
the underground parking structure. The Utilities Engineering Division has indicated that the
proposed location of the transformer is acceptable.
Assessment of PC District and Public Benefit Statement
A PC zone is requested for this project because the City’s conventional zoning districts do not
accommodate the proposed building floor area. Approval of the requested PC zone change will
require that public benefit findings be made. The public benefits should be inherent in the
project and go beyond the minimum Zoning Ordinance requirements and compliance with the
ARB standards and Comprehensive Plan.
S:~PCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page lJ
Proposed Public Benefits
The applicant’s revised public benefit package includes the following proposed benefits which
were included in the proposal which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on September
11, 1996 (see the Revised Development Program Statement in the applicant’s binder):
1.Two poor quality street trees on Waverley Street would be replaced with new street trees and
an existing 12-inch Camphor tree on Lytton Avenue would be replaced with 6 new street
trees.
2.Six new street trees will be planted at off-site locations on Waverley Street and Lytton
Avenue, as approved by the City Arborist.
The building is substantially recessed along Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street and provides
a 10-foot-wide pedestrian walkway on the western side of the building. The recessed areas
will be dedicated for public uses and will be maintained by the applicant. The applicant
suggests that the public benefit of the pedestrian walkway will become even more significant
with the anticipated development of a parking structure on Lot S.
Public art, as approved by the Public Art Commission and ARB, will be integrated on the
western wall of the lobby.
The applicant would provide a $75,000 contribution for public improvements either between
Lytton and University Avenues, along Waverley Street, or for use on Florence Street,
including Lot F, in order to make this area a pedestrian amenity to accommodate the
anticipated parking structure to be built on Parking Lot S.
The applicant’s revised public benefit package includes the following new proposed benefits
which were not included in the proposal which was reviewed by the Planning Commission on
September 11, 1996 (see the Revised Development Program Statement in the applicant’s binder):~
o
o
The applicant would replace the existing bench, sign and trash receptacle on Lytton Avenue
with a more contemporary bench, sign and trash receptacle consistent with the Downtown
Improvement Plan.
On-site parking is being provided at a cost of up to $475,000 more than in-lieu parking fees.
The City would be paid for providing the proposed access easement across Lot F plus one in-
lieu parking space.
The tree wells along Waverley between University and Lytton will be repaired by the
applicant.
S:WCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 14
Analysis of Proposed Public Benefits
Overall, staff finds that the applicant’s revised public benefit package is sufficient to warrant a
positive recommendation on this project given its size (i.e., the building would exceed the
maximum floor area by 8,421 square feet). The draft PC ordinance [Attachment #1] includes six
of the applicant’s proposed public benefits (i.e., items #2-6 and 9 above). In the draft PC
ordinance, item #5 above was revised to eliminate the reference to Lot S and to more specifically
define the types of public improvements which could be funded with the proposed $75,000
contribution.
However, staff does not believe that items #1, 7 or 8 above should be considered public benefits.
Providing new street trees along the property frontage on Lytton Avenue and Waverely Street
(i.e., item #1 above) should not be considered a public benefit because the street trees would be
typically be required as a standard condition of approval.
Similarly, since the provision of parking for the proposed building is a Code requirement, it
should not be considered a public benefit (i.e., item #7 above). When in-lieu parking fees are
paid, they are used to construct parking spaces which are available to the general public.
The applicant is required to pay for the proposed access easement across Lot F as a standard
condition of approval. This payment is compensation to the City for the proposed private use of
public property and should not be considered as a public benefit. "
Finally, it should be noted that the public benefits of the proposed pedestrian walkway from Lot
F to Lytton Avenue would be limited (i.e., item #3 above). For the users of Lot S and
approximately one-third of the users of Lot F, the preferable route to Lytton Avenue toward the
east would be via the sidewalks on Lytton and Florence Avenues. In addition, for users of Lot F
heading east, there is an existing pedestrian walkway leading to Waverley Street across the
property at 416-424 Waverley Street, which is adjacent to the site.
ALTERNATIVES
There are two altematives which should be considered by the Planning Commission. One would
be to recommend modifications to the proposed project (e.g., the Commission could request the
applicant to reduce the size of the building). Another alternative would be to recommend denial
because the proposed project does not incorporate adequate public benefits.
DRAFT FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Attached are proposed ARB findings and conditions, as approved by the ARB [Attachments #2
and 3]. The Planning Commission should make reeornmendations on the draft PC Ordinance
and ARB findings and conditions, and forward those recommendations to the City Council.
S:~PCSR\390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 15
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The project is subject to environmental review under the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An environmental impact assessment and Negative
Declaration have been prepared and are attached [Attachment #4].
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The process for this rezoning action continues to proceed in the following order: review and
recommendation by the Planning Commission (second review); and review and action by the
City Council. The project is tentatively scheduled for review by the City Council on May 19,
1997.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
1. Draft Planned Community (PC) Ordinance
2. Draft Conditions of Project Approval
3. Draft Findings for Architectural Approval
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration
5. Letter from applicant dated March.26, 1997
6. Revised Development Program Statement from applicant
7. Memorandum from Bill Fellman dated August 29, 1996
8. Letter from Judith Wasserman dated December 13, 1996
9. Minutes from. September 11, 1996 Planning Commission meeting
10. Minutes from January 16, 1997 ARB meeting
11. Minutes from November 7, 1996 ARB meeting
Project Plans (Commission members only)
Applicant’s Binder (Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Architectural Review Board
Public Art Commission
Leon Kaplan
Bill Fellman
Dave Dockter
CANOPY
Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
John Northway, Stoecker & Northway Architects, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Clare Malone, Stoecker & Northway Architects, 437 Lytton Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301
Leonard Ely, 575 Middlefield Road, Palo Alto CA 94301
Helen Krogh & Elaine Shearer, 1320 Country Club Drive, Los Altos CA 94024
George W. & Mary Jo Liddicoat, 3706 Carlson CI., Palo Alto CA 94306
Jaime & Elizabeth Wong, P.O. Box 1554, E1 Cerrito CA 94530
S:WCSRk390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 16
Prepped by: Robert Schubert, Contract Project Planner
Division/Department Head Approval: ~~0~ ~
Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official
S:\PCSRL390LYT.49
4-9-97
Page 17
March 26, 1997
Planning Commissioners
City of Palo Alto
Attachment 6
Re:"--tton Avenue Planned Cornmuni~
Dear Planning Commissioners:
Provided.with this letter is a Revised Development Program Statement, with
Exhibits, for the Planned Community Zone Project proposed for 390 Lytton Avenue.
Also enclosed are a cover letter to City Staff members dated February 13, 1997, and a
letter dated February 17, 1997 from the.Downtown North Neighborhood Association
supporting 390 Lytton Avenue and the prospect for traffic mitigation as an element
of the Planned Community Zone Application.
The Planning Commission previously granted conceptual approval for the 390
Lytton Avenue Project at its September 11, 1996 meeting. At that time, the project
included the use of Transfer Development Rights, which rights have subsequently
been disallowed by the City Coundl. Therefore, we have substantially modified our
application to increase the parking provided in conjunction with this project and
the extent of Public Benefit.
The project has received final approval from the Architectural Review Board (with
only minor remaining Conditions, which have been delegated by the ARB to City
Staff), and final approval by the Public Arts Commission for sculptural art to be
incorporated at the lobby for the project.
Since this September 11th Planning Commission meeting, we have also resolved
several open issues with City Staff. The applicant and Staff have agreed to a parking
and tree plan which provides for fifty underground parking spaces and eight evenly-
spaced trees (four on Lytton and four on Waverley) over the parking structure deck.
The applicant has received reports, from four City-approved arborists, and
concurrence with the Planning Department’s arborist for this tree and parking
scheme. We are proud to have worked through this issue successfully with Staff’s
cooperation.
The issues for which we seek support and guidance from the Planning Commission
are as follows:
Consistent with the conceptual approval of the Planning Commission on
September 11, this project provides for an access easement across City Parking
Lot F leading to the driveway ramp for the two-level underground parking
garage. This is discussed at p_ages.6~ of the Program Development Statement.
Page Two
At the previous Planning Commission Hearing, Staff had requested
that the applicant pay for one net lost parking space as a result of the access
easement, plus a fair market payment for the access easement. The applicant
has had prepared an MAI Appraisal for the Value of the access easebaent,
which is stated to be $67,000. We request that the Planning Commission
approve the access easement and a fee equal to $67,000, plus the cost of one in-
lieu parking space.
A n in-lieu parking contribution for twenty-three spaces will be provided
under Municipal Ordinance 18.49.100. This is discussed at ~ of the
Program Development Statement. The cost for these spaces at the time of
completion of construction is estimated to be approximately $422,500. Staff
may have a more precise calculation, about which we will not disagree. The
formula is established by Municipal Ordinance 19.49.100.
Public Benefit is set forth at ~.of the Program Development
Statement. W e hope Planning Commission will endorse these benefits
as sufficient for recommendation of this project.
This project provides an opportunity, o n behalf of downtown property
and business owners, to address a primary issue of concern with respect to all
activity in the downtown for the immediately adjacent .neighborhood known
as Downtown North. At ~ of the Program Development Statement,
we propose that a portion of the in-lieu parking contribution for this project,
and a portion of its Public Benefit, totaling $295,500, be allocated for use by the
City for traffic mitigations for Downtown North. The funds would be used to
retain a consultant to work with members of the Downtown North
community, City Staff, and City governing bodies, to develop a plan for a
variety of mitigations to protect Downtown North from east/west traffic
between Alma and Middlefield, and north/south traffic intrusions partially
associated with downtown commercial activity. Marvin Overway, Director of
Transportation, has, since 1991 (when another downtown development
project proposed traffic mitigation as Public Benefit), indicated that
Downtown North is so situated, and of a size that would allow traffic
mitigation such as turn2abouts, bulb-outs, and barriers, to be highly-effective
without diverting traffic to another residential neighborhood.
I am proud, on behalf of this applicant, to offer our participation in a neighborhood
traffic solution. Particularly with parking structures adding over 700 spaces planned
for Parking Lot S and Parking Lot R (as approved by the City Council Policy and
Procedures and Finance Committees), the time is right for funds to be allocated for
Page Three
traffic solutions. This is a way for the downtown business community to participate
in providing long-term solutions for traffic which has been endured by the
.Downtown North community for many years. As the vitality of the dowhtown
continues, so, too, does traffic.
This letter is being written in advance of the applicant’s receipt of the Staff Report
for 390 Lytton Avenue, so we do not know Staff’s response to the proposed parking
mitigation or other issues. Nevertheless, we believe that the time is right for a bold
and appropriate planning approach to solve the traffic problems of Downtown
North. We are proud to carry forward this proposal and hope that you will support
it.
Downtown North is now organized in a way that will make participation by-.
members of the Downtown North community comprehensive and effective.
I hope that the Program Development Statement is easy, well-organized reading for
you and that the Exhibits are useful, requiring only brief review. I will call to discuss
this proposal with you over the next several days. I can be reached at 329-7977.
I look forward to talking with you soon.
Sincerely yours,
James E. Baer
Leonard Ely
John Northway
Warren Thoits
Nancy Lyfle ¯ /
Robert Schubert4,"
Dan Lorimer
~TIES
April 9, 1997
Planning Commissioners
City of Palo Alto
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The purpose of this letter is to identify the few issues about which we will speak
during the public hearing on April 9th with respect to 390 Lytton Avenue. We are
deeply appreciative of the support provided by the staff during the lengthy process
for this PC Application and for the positive recommendation by Staff.
There are three issues for which we seek your guidance:
fnr lm~lementatlnn nf Teehn[ea| ~nndifinn~.
Because of the legislative aspects of the Planned Community Zone
Ordinance, some conditions can be so specific as to prevent Staff from
exerdsing discretion in modifying conditions to accommodate construction
or engineering conditions that arise subsequent to adoption of the PC
Ordinance.
The following conditions either require modification or flexibility on the part
of Staff to modify conditions in order to respond to construction and
engineering parameters in the field.
Our drawings have consistently shown that excavation and shoring will
take place within 7’ 6" of the Geijira trees. The dimensions identified
i n the Planning Staff Conditions cannot be satisfied.
Our drawings show the planter strip opening for the 8" Geijira tree as
4’ by 4-1/2’, not 4’ by 5’, Staff discretion during the course of construction
is important.
172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 4 1 5 ¯ 3 2 5 ¯ 7 7 8 7 Fax: 4 1 5 ¯ 3 2 5 ¯ 4 3 6 4
Page Two
Our extensively engineered drawings at Tree #7, Sheet 13, show that
we cannot satisfy the full 3’ 7" of uncompacted soil with respect to Tree
#7. For this Condition, i n particular, Staff discretion during construction
is important.
One of our Arborists, Barrie Coate, does not think the sidewalk must be
self-supporting. Again, this is the kind of technical engineering detail
for which Staff should be provided discretion.
Staff recommends planter area tree wells to be 4’ by 4’ for the off-site
locations along Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street. W e have not yet
done field evaluations of these six locations. There may be site constraints
at these six locations so that Staff should be provided discretion to
accommodate field construction conditions.
W e have submitted to Staff an appraisal prepared by Kurt Reitman and
Associates, MAI, who have determined that the value of the Parking Lot F
access easement is $67,000. The detriment to the City from providing the
Parking Lot F access easement is insignificant so the $67,000 is not based on
lost value to the City of Palo Alto. Even under future development, the
Reitman appraisal indicates that there is not meaningful detriment to
development of Parking Lot F. There have been many other access easements
provided in the downtown, several of which are recent. We encourage the
Planning Commission to adopt the appraised value submitted by Reitman
and Associates.
W e encourage the Planning Commission to allocate those funds which
it deems appropriate for traffic mitigations for Downtown North. As
previous correspondence and the Revised Program Development Statement
indicates, we believe that providing funds for traffic mitigations for
Downtown North is a meaningful contribution by this project and, on behalf
of the Downtown business community to mitigate traffic impacts, a portion of
which may be related to development in the downtown area.
Page Three
There are three specific sources of funds we have identified:
$75,000 of the public benefit measures may be reallocated
from improvements for Florence Street or Waverley
Street to traffic mitigations. There is a comprehensive
downtown improvement study nearing completion.
At such time as downtown improvements are approved,
there should be funding sources available for improvements
to Florence Street and Waverley Street.
Funds received for payment for the Parking Lot F access
easement. These funds cou. ld be allocated by the Planning
Commission and City Council for traffic mitigations in
Downtown North.
W e had suggested that some portion of the in-lieu parking
fees to be paid by this project be allocated for traffic mitigation
because it is anticipated that within the next two or three
years a major parking structure will be developed on Parking
Lot S and L, which will alleviate much of the parking problem
along Lytton Avenue. Therefore, traffic mitigation funds may
be appropriate for this site as a higher priority than an in-lieu
parking contribution.
The Staff Report indicates that in-lieu parking fees cannot
be allocated, other than for parking purposes, without an
amendment to Chapter 18.83 of the Municipal Code pertaining
to off-street parking and loading regulations. It is my under-
standing that this position derives from restrictions set forth
in Chapter 18.68 of the Municipal Code concerning PC
Planning Community District Regulations. At Chapter 18.68.090(h),
it is required that a parking and loading plan be provided
based upon the requirements of Chapter 18.83, "unless requested
modifications to meet the n eeds of the individual project are
supported by traffic engineering studies o r relevant data, as may
be required by the Zoning Administrator, demonstrating the
feasibility a n d adequacy of t h e plan."
Included with this letter is correspondence dated April 7, 1997, from Ludann Laraul,
Director of Finance for Townsend, Townsend & Crew, the tenant for the proposed
project. Townsend, Townsend & Crew require parking at the ratio of one employee
per 288 square feet, which for our 18,921 square foot building would result in the
necessity of 66 parking spaces. Under Chapter 18.83, and through the combination of
Page Four
50 on-site parking spaces and 23 in-lieu parking spaces, our project is providing 73
spaces. Accordingly, were the Planning Commission to so choose, it could make the
finding [hat relevant data has been provided indicating that 66, rather than 73,
spaces is appropriate and that funds which would otherwise be received for 7 in-lieu
parking spaces could be allocated for traffic mitigations.
We appreciate, as do members of the Downtown North neighborhood, that the,
policy issues and findings related to parking are more complex than would be [he
allocation of other funds from this project.
We hope that [he Planning Commission will recommend that substantial funds be
allocated for traffic mitigations through some combination of the three sources of
funds identified in the preceding paragraphs.
Again, we want to thank Staff members for their diligent efforts and support of this
project.
Sincerely yours,
James E. Baer
John Northway
Leonard Ely
Warren Thoits
TOWNSEND
TOWNSEND
C R EW
LLP
Deliver, Colorado
Palo .Alto, California
Tel 415 326-2400
Seattle, Washington
Tel 205 457-9600
San Francisco
Two Embarcadero Center
Eighth Floor
San Francisco
California 94111-3834
Tel 415 576-020(1
Fax 415 576-0300
April 7, 1997
James E. Baer
Premier Properties
172 University Avenue
Palo Alto, Califomia 94301
RE: Townsend & Townsend & Crew parking for 390 Lytton Avenue
I am the Director of Finance for Townsend & Townsend & Crew. As you know, the firm
has entered into a long-term lease for occupancy of the entire building at 390 Lytton Avenue.
Townsend & Townsend & Crew is a law fu-m specializing in patents and other intellectual
property.
Presently, the firm has two Northern California operatiom. We occupy a total of 69,909
rentable square feet in two locations -- one in San Francisco and one in Palo Alto. Our total
employees and partners in these locatiom is 243. This results in an allocation of one
employee per 288 rentable square feet.
Based on our present ratios, we would anticipate about 70 employees to be located at the 390
Lytton Avenue property; The nature of our law practice is such that our visitor traffic and
parking is lower than for most professional offices.
If you require further information, please contact me at 415-273-4773.
Sincerely,
Luciann Leraul
Director of Finance
~TIES
May 8, 1997
Ms. Nancy Lytle
Robert Schubert
Planning Department
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
RECEIVED
MAY -" 8 1997
Department of PI3nnin£t and
~ty Environment
Re:
Dear Nancy & Bob:
The purpose of this letter is to address two of the conditions of Project
Approval so that this does not need to be discussed at the City Council
Hearing.
Prior to issuance of a Building Pennit, Condition 22 requires that the sidewalk
easement be recorded. 531 Cowper and 250 University, in their Planned
Community Zone Applications, had similar easements that were completed
prior to the date of initial occupancy. Completion of the civil engineering
drawings, based on completion of the Building Structural Shell, is preferable
to preparing an easement before issuance of a Building Permit.
Stoecker and Northway may review other Conditions with you. Please call
me so that we can resolve this item.
We propose adding a final overriding Condition as follows: "The Director of
Planning shall have the ability to reasonably modify any of the Conditions of
Approval to address minor issues that arise during the final design and
construction process so that the project can move forward without further
review by the City Council or other City Boards."
Sincerely yours,
E. Baer
cc:Leonard Ely
Warren Thoits
John Northway
172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 4 1 5 ¯ 3 2 5 ¯ 7 7 8 7 Fax: 4 1 5 ¯ 3 2 5 ¯ 4 3 6 4
~TIES
M A N A. G E M E N T
May 8, 1997
HAND DELIVER
Ms. Debra Cauble
Assistant City Attorney
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 7th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
Ms. Nancy Lytle
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, California 94301
Re: PC Zone Ordinance -- 390 Lytton Avenue
Dear Debbie and Nancy:
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments concerning several
provisions of the Draft PC Ordinance for 390 Lytton Avenue. It is my hope
that we can discuss these items over the next few days so that some items can
be resolved so that they are not topics for discussion at the May 29, 1997 City
Council Hearing. Some items may not be resolved.
1. Section 3(b)(iii) should identify the $75,000 as for a traffic study and
mitigations.
2. Section 4(a) and (b) -- There should be new language for Subsection (a)
based on Planning Commission action. The Applicant will request, as it did
in its Application, that all uses permitted in the CD-C(P) Zone be permitted
and all conditional uses allowed in the CD-C(P) Zone be allowed conditional
uses. To restrict the uses reduces flexibility over the useful life of the
building. We do not think the project uses should be different than other
Lytton Avenue uses. The PC Zones for 250 University, 400 Emerson, 531
. Cowper, and 529 Bryant/251 University all provided for the CD-C uses. 499University was the first PC to modify the CD-C uses, but continued to allow
for medical care, business and trade schools, churches, daycare, lodges,
convalescent facilities and the many uses that seem ill-suited for the CD-C
Zone in 1997, but which may not for the useful life of the building (we have
enclosed copies of the use paragraphs from the PC Ordinances).
3.Section 4(c)(i) -- The Planning Commission modified this provision.
]72 University Avenue, PaloAlto, California 94301 415.325.7787 Fax:415.325o4364
Ms. Debra Cauble
Ms. Nancy Lytle
May 8, 1997
Page Two
4. Section 4(0(i) -- After discussions with Bill Fellman, we propose the
following language:
(i) The project requires access across City’s Parking Lot F. Applicant
shall pay compensation to the City in exchange for the granting of an
access easement across Lot F to the satisfaction of the Real Estate
Division. The compensation shall be determined on the basis of an
appraisal process by which the City appoints an independent MAI
Appraiser (the "City’s Appraiser") to determine the fair market value
for the access easementi If the value determined by the City’s Appraiser
is within 10% of the value determined by the Applicant’s appraisal
determined by Kurt Reitman, MAI (the "Reitman Appraiser"), then
the higher of these two values shall be the compensation to be paid by
the Applicant. If the City Appraisal and the Reitman Appraisal are not
within 10% of each other, then the Applicant can either: (x) pay the
higher of the appraised values; or (y) require that the .City’s Appraiser
and Kurt Reitman to ap.point a third MAI Appraiser who shall
determine the compensation to be paid by the Applicant. The
Applicant shall pay all costs associated with these appraisals. The City
shall reserve the right to close, relocate and/or reconfigure the private
access during maintenance activities and/or construction of a new
project on Lot F. During the construction period for the project the
Applicant shall only use Parking Lot F pursuant to a
Lease/Encroachment Permit as would be applicable to any
development project making use of or. encroaching on any public
property. Prior to the date of initial occupancy of the project, the access
easement shall be recorded and compensation for the easement shall be
paid by the Applicant.
5. Section 4(f)(iii) -- We proposed that the requirement be for periods to
the date of initial occupancy of the project, not prior to issuance of a building
permit. The civil engineering drawings are Best finalized when the exterior
wails of the buildings are completed from "As Built" drawings, not job plans.
For 250 University and 531 Cowper, easements were granted subsequent to
building permits and prior to initial occupancy. Further, construction
commencement is scheduled for July so the heavy excavation, steel, concrete
and truck work can be completed before the impacted November-December
"holiday period. We do not want the Building Permit to be developed due to
City review and civil engineering issues. I discussed this will Bill Fellman.
Ms. Debra Cauble
Ms. Nancy Lytle
May 8, 1997
Page Three
6.Section 4(f)(iv) -- The $75,000 is now for traffic study/mitigation.
Please let me know your thoughts about these items. I would appreciate
seeing the proposed Ordinance at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely yours,
James E. Baer
cc:Bill Fellman
Robert Schubert~¢/
Leonard Ely
Warren Thoits
and approved by the Archltectural. Review Board on July 6, 1995,
copy on file in ~he Planning Division office, and towhich copy
reference is hereby made, ~are hereby approved as the Developmen~
Plan for the subject property, pursu~n.t to Pals Alto Mu/~clpal Code
section 18.68.120~ Said Development Plan. is approved for the
followinS uses, and subject to the following ondi~ions~
(i) The permitted uses sha~l be llmlced to retell
uses and eating and drlnkln~ Zacili~les on the fi~s~ floor. On
second and third ~floor, the pe.r~Li~ed uses .are: atilt care
~exu~udlns boardln~ ~ ke~els), business a~ ~rade schools,
chur~hes.~d religious i~tltutiong, ~onvalescenn ~acili~ies,
care~ canter, la~e ~y ~are h~es, s~ll ~y care homes and
resldennial care h~S, ea~Ing and "dri~inS ae~Ices (excluding
private cl~s, lodges, or fraternal orS~izatione, private
edu~ional facilities, retail se~ices, and residen~ial uses.
(ll) On the third floor, ~he permitted usesinclud~ "floe/work" units+ which’ incorporate Zacili~lee for
sleeping, eatln~, ~ooklns, and sanitation, and where an on-si~e
resident also. cond~~s hls/her llvel~hood, Permlt~d work uses ~nsuch unlt~ include professional office, genera~ business offloe,
~r~gnal s~rvlce,. ’a~ ar~-ma~in~/~esisn stu~ios which do not
¯ nvo~ve use of hazardous ~a~erlals exceeding Ehe threshold which
zaruous Ha~er~als Permlt Ordinance). one ~mploye~ in addition
to ~he resldenU(s) as allowed for each tmlc ahd on-slt~ sale o~
~oods pro~uce~ by the res~den~ is allowed.
(b) ~. The+ following usesapprgved sub~ec~ to a condlulonal use permit: On the fir~n floor,
comm~rclal recreation, day care, financial ~ervlces (excluding
drlv&oln services), and/or ~eneral business services. On the
secon~ and third floors, commercial recreation, general business
whlchmay have klt~hens}. ’: : .... : ......
I+ (C) t~ ~ .... ~ ......... " - ~l improvements and
development shall De su~snantlally In accordance with the a roy
Development Plan and the Condlulon . pps. of Pro~c~ Approval adopted bythe Ci~y ~ouncll in con~uncn.lon wluh approval of this ordinance.
’The followlnS are site development reg~11ati0ns which establish
rules £or modiflcaulons or addltion~ =o an buildln ¯
structure or lan~caDin~ ~ -~ ....... .Y. S, accessory
~, ~ ~+~= ==~u ~uo M~nlclpal. Code. ’
(i) The design, placement an~ specification ofuhe ’bicycle parking ~equired for the project under Palo
0080093 3
upgrading of. the Cowper St~ee~ en~ry ~o the
Webster/Cowper garage with a-widened sidewalk, special
paving treatment, lighting and landscaping, a covered
pedestrian.arcade, and building scale complementary to
the urban landscape.. In addition to the alley and
other .site improvements, the applicant shall pay
$150,000.00 to the city’s Child Care Trust Fund to be
used towards providing a child care facility in or
near the downtown area. The City Council has
identified both alley improvements and provision of a
downtown child, care facility as possible benefits
requiring major incentives.
The use or uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district shall be
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan~ and
will be compatible with existing and potential uses on
adjoining sites or within the general vicinity, in
"" that the project will maintain the same uses which
apply under the current CD-C(P) zoning district~
.~. Those certain plans, entitled "531 cowper
Street" prepared by DES Architects, given. Architectura! Review
Board approval on April 18, 1991, and revised June 14, 199’i, a c6py.
of which is on file in the Planning Department, and to which copy
reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof,
are hereby collectively approved as the Development Plan for the
subject property pursuant to Section 18.68.120. Said Development
Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the
following conditions:
(a)~ Uses. The permitted uses shall be those
uses permitted in the CD-C(P) zoning district.
(b) . Con ’ ’on Uses. The conditionally permitted uses
shall be those uses conditionally permitted in the CD-
C(P) zoning district.
Si~e DeveloDment’ Beuu~atioDs.’ The site development
regulations governing the subject property shall be in
accordance with the CD-C(P) zoning district and the
Development ~Plan; provided, that in the case of a
conflict between the two, the Development Plan shall
control.
(d)"P~~ and Loadina Requirements, The parking and
loading requirements governing the subject property
shall be in accordance with the CD-C(P) zoning
district and the Development Plan; provided, that in
(c) ’The use or uses permitted and the site. development regu-
lations applicable within the district shall be consis~
tent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and with
existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within
the general vicinity in that the project will maintain
the same uses which now apply .with the underlying CD-C
(GF)(P) district.
SECTION 3. Those certain plans, collectively ent.itled "250
Univer~y Avenue--Developed by Jim Baer & Roxy Rapp--D.E.S.
Architects & Engineers", dated March 30, 1989, a copy of which is
on file in the office of the Zoning Administrator, and to which
copy reference is hereby made concerning the full ~particulars
thereof, is hereby approved as the Development Plan for the sub-
ject property, pursuant to Section 18.68.120. Said Development
Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the
following conditions:
(a) Permitted Uses. The uses perm’.itted hereby shall be
those uses perm~tte In t e CD-C (GF)(P) zone, as of the effective
date hereof.
(b) Conditiona~ Uses. The uses which.may be permitted in
the zoning-~i~ict es~abl-ished hereby, subjgct to obtaining a use
permit therefor, are. those uses conditionally permitted in the.
CD-C (GF)(P) zone, as of the effective date hereof.
(c) Site _Development Regulations. The site development
regulations 9ove~nlng-£ e su-]e6t ~ty shall be in accordance
with the Development Plan, and with the site regulations estab-
lished for the CD-C (GF)(P) Zoning District; provided, that in-the
case of a conflict between the CD-C (GF)(P) regulations and the
Development Plan, the Development Plan shall control.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, building height shall not
exceed 53.5 feet for the main Portions of the structure and 62.5
feet for the stair and corner tower elements; and no leasable
floor a[ea shall be permitted above 50 feet.
(d) Pa~ Loading ~e uirements. Subject to the condi-
tions here~na~ ten-set orth -t, ~e par zng and loading requirements
governing the subject prope[ty shall be in accordance with the
Development Plan, and with applicable regulations of the CD-C
{GF)(P) Zoning District; provided, that in the case of a conflict
between the CD-C (GF)(P) regulations and the Development Plan, the
Development Plan shall control. The parking and loading, regula-
tions are specifically subject to the following conditions:
1) The developer shall be responsible for resurfacing,
restriping and signing Ramona Street from University to
Hamilton at the completion of t’he project construction and
prior to occupancy of the building to the satisfaction of the
Public Works Department.
precedent may siimu.la~e more mlx~d use
proposals in downto~m.
A publ£c drinkSnS fountain and art niche,
which are consistent with .the" Urban
Design. Guidelines b~cause 5hey provide
pedestrian ~islbillty to this cor~er.
The owner of the subject property will
.maintain and service a drinkln~ fountain
tha~ will be available for ~se 24 hours
per day. This. is a Service ~ha~ ~he City
would no~ l~kely beable ~o d=pllcate.
(c) The uses permitted, and the site development
regulations applicable within ~he dlstric~ are conslsnent wi~h the
PaloAlto comprehensive Plan and with existing and a!lowable uses
~n adjoinln~ sites and within the general vicinity. The proJec~ is.
consistent with Housing Policy 6, Housing Policy 14, Employment
Policy 2, and ~nvironmental Resources Pol~cy 13, Prp~.ram 43.
~I¢J~7~_~. T~ose certain plans prepared by DES Architects
& Engineers, entitled "400 Emerso~ S~ree~," da~ed Ma~ch 24, 1994
and revised Augus~ 3, 1994, and’ approved by the Architectural
Review Board on July 20, 1994, a copy of which plans is on file in
~he Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby
.made concerning the full particulars thereof, are hereby approved
as the collec~ive Development Plan’~or the subject proper~y,
pursuant to Section 18.68 120. Said Development Plan is approved
for ~he following uses, and subject to ~he following conditions:
(a) ~. The use shall be limited to one
reslden£ial unit and app~oxlmately 5,833 square feet o~ commercial
uses. The allowable uses shall be those a!1owed in ~he CD-C(P)
District.
(b) Q_Q/%dltlonal use~. The allowable conditional uses
shall be those conditional uses allowed in the CD-C(P) District.
(c) .’ velo m nt t OnS. The site develop~en~
regulations s~all be in accordance with the Development Plan.
(d) yark_~ ~nd boad~g..Re_c[u~rements.,
requirements shall be as show~i in the Development
parking requirements shall be as follows:.
The loadin~
Plah. The
A total of 12 on-slte parking spaces
, shall be requlr4d, includin@ one space
specifically rese~ed for the ~esidential
unit, one space to beshared between the
residenZial and co.n%~e~cial uses on. th~
2
the potential for 3,330 additional square feet
of usable floor area at 251 University Avenue;
The provision of street trees, tree grates and
alley improvements.
(5)The provision of recycling containers for
downtown businesses.
The use or uses permitted and the site development
reg%~lations applicable within the districtshall be
consistent with the Palo Alto~Comprehensive Plan,
and exSsting and potential uses on adjoining sites
or within the general vicinity, in t~at the Planned
Community District will maintain the same permitted
and c0nditionally permitted uses that now apply
within the Downtown Commercial and Pedestrian
Combining Districts with respect to both proper-
ties, as well as those uses that now .apply within
the Ground Floor Retail combining District, with
respect to 251 University Avenue.
SECTION 3. Those certain plans, entitled ."529 Bryant--
Developed by Jim Baer--D.E.S. Architects & Engineers", dated
May 18, 1990, andthose "as built" plans for 251 University AVenue,
entitled "Bank of America Building", prepared by Bank Planning
Associates", dated December 21, 1976, ~ copy of each of which is on
file. in the Planning Department, and to which copies reference is
hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof, are hereby
collectively approved as the Development Plan for the subject"
properties, pursuant to Section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan
is approved for the. following uses, and subject to the following
conditions:
(1)2.51 University~Avenue. The uses permitted
hereby ~shall. be those uses permitted in the
CD-C (GF) (P) zone.
(=)~29 BrYant Street~ The uses permitted hereby
shall be those uses permitted in the CD-C (P)
zone.
(b)Conditional Uses.
(~)_2511 Univer’sit_~y_~venue. The uses which may be
permitted in the zoning district established
hereby, subject to obtaining a use permit
therefor,, are those uses conditionally permit-
ted in the CD-C (GF) (P) zone.
~ryant Street. The uses which may be
permitted in the-zoning district established
hereby, subject to obtaining a use permit
therefor, are those uses conditionally permit-
ted in the CD-C (P) zone.
(c)Site Developmen~ Regulations.
(i)251 University Avenue. The site development
regulations governing the subject property
shall be in accordance-with the Development
Plan, and with the site regulations estab-
lished for the CD-C (GF)(P) zone; ~provided,
that in the case of a conflictbetween the CD-
C (GF) (P) regulations and the. Development
Plan, the Development Plan shall control.
No[twithstanding Section 18~49.060 (b), no
further expansion of square, footage shall be
al~owed at this site, excepting only Square
footage which, in the judgment of the Chief
Building Official, does not increase the
us’able floor area, but is necessary to comply
with state handicap access requirements.
529 BrYant Street. The site development
regulations governing the subject property
shall be in accordance with the Development
Plan, and with the site regulations estab-
lished for the CF-C (P) zone; provided, that
in the case of a conflict between the CD-C (P)
regulations and the Development Plan, the
Development Plan shall control; provided,
however, any landscaping improvements proposed"
tooccur within the alley shall be subject to
final. ARB ~pproval. Notwithstanding Section
18.49.060 (b), the property may be developed
to a maximum building size of 45,600 square
feet and a Eloor Area Ratio of 3.43:1.
(d)Parkinq’ and Load!~ ~e~uirements.
(1)251 Uniyersi.ty A~enue.. ;The parking and load-
ing requirements governing the subject proper-
ty shall be in accordance with the applicable
regulations of the CD-C (GF)(P) zone.
(2)529 Bryant Street. The parking and loading
requirements governing the subject.property
shall be in accordance with the Development
Plan and with applicable regulations of the.
CDzC (P) zone; provided, that in the case of a
conflict between the CD-C (P) regulations and
the Development Plan, the Development Plan
shall control.
(e)Special.Requirem~ents. The following conditions are
made special requirements conditioning .the approval
granted by this ordinance:
Attachment 7
REVISED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM STATEMENT
390 LYTTON AVENUE PC ZONE APPLICATION
This document constitutes the Revised Program Development Statement for 390
Lytton Avenue. A Revised Statement has become necessary because at its
November 18, 1996 meeting, the City Coundl determined that Transfer
Development Rights could not be applied retroactively to 340 University and 403
University. 390 Lytton had relied previously on these Transfer Development
Rights. The Revised Program Development Statement is presented in ten sections:
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
I.
Public Hearing Process Status
Existing Conditions
The Proposed Development
Satisfying the Full Parking Requirement, On-Site and In-Lieu
Parking Lot F Access Easement
Tree Replacement - 8 On-Site and 6 Off-Site Trees
Public Benefits for the Project
Planned Community Zone Findings
Development Schedule
A n Alternative - Traffic Mitigationsfor Downtown North
In addition, the following. Exhibits are provided:
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Schedule of Meetings with City Staff
Photographs of the Site and Plans of Existing Conditions
Plans of the Proposed Development
50 Parking Spaces In a Two-Level Underground Garage
Parking Lot F Access Easement, Appraisal, Previous Access
Easements, and Endorsement Letters
Plan for 8 On-Site Tress and Correspondence from Axborists
Plan for 6 0ff-Site Trees
Pictures of Previous Downtown PC Projects
The Approved Public Art Proposal
Supportive Letters from Neighboring Property Owners
The 390 Lytton Avenue PC Zone Change Application and design has been under
development since 1994. The PC Application has progressed through six public
hearings:
November 16, 1995 -- The Architectural Review Board provided strong
conceptual support for the three-story building consisting of 18,921 square
feet.
September 11, 1996 - The Planning Commission conceptually approved (by a
6-0 vote) the 18,921 square foot project. The conceptual approval specifically
approved: (a) access across Parking Lot F to two levels of underground
parking located at 390 Lytton Avenue; (b) public benefit consisting of public
art, increased tree planting, and $75,000 for urban design improvements,
including possible improvement of the bus stop located in front of 390 Lytton
Avenue. This approval anticipated 390 Lytton being able to utilize 6,716
square feet of Transfer Development Rights from 340 University and 403
University.
November 7, 1996 - The Architectural Review Board approved the project
unanimously subject to a few conditions which returned to the ARB on
January 16,1997.
November 18, 1996 - The City Council rejected retroactive use of
Transfer Development Rights by 403 University and 340 University. As a
result of this policy decision by the City Council, it has become necessary to
revise the Program Development Statement for 390 Lytton.
December 10, 1996 - The Public Arts Commission unanimously approved the
sculptural art proposed for the lobby entry and forwarded this feature to the
ARB for final review.
January 16, 1997 - the Architectural Review Board approved the proposed
public art and outstanding conditions of approval.
W e anticipate a March, 1997 Planning Commission Final Hearing.
W e anticipate an April, 1997 First Reading by the city Council.
Because of the strong support we have received from Staff, the ARB, and the
Planning Commission for the design and size of the building, its site coverage (62%),
FAR (1.93%), underground parking, and Access Easement across Parking Lot F, we
are proud to present this Application for your review.
The following discussion revises previous materials focusing on a few unresolved
issues and presents new analysis of parking mitigations and public benefits.
The Applicant has had over 25 meetings with Planning Staff concerning 390 Lytton
Avenue, beginning on February 8, 1995. During these meetings the 1.93% FAR, the
18,921 square feet for the building and 8,421 square feet added above that amount
allowed under the CD-C Zone have been endorsed as appropriate for the site. A
schedule of meetings is set forth as f, xhih.[~
390 Lytton Avenue, owned by Leonard Ely for over 10 years, is a parcel consisting of
9,811 square feet located on the southwest comer of Lytton Avenue and Waverley
Street. For many years the site was operated as a gasoline service station. Gas tanks
were removed and the service station was closed in 1990..There is an existing
building of 1,106 square feet which remains on the site. This is presently a FAR of
0.11 to 1.0, which is one of the three lowest rates in the CD-C and the type of under
developed property for which the Planned County Zone process was considered
when the downtown zoning ordinance was adopted in 1986. The site is in the CD-C
Zone and Pedestrian Combining District. It is not in the Ground Floor Retail
District. The site has three driveway curb cuts, two on Lytton Avenue and One on
Waverley Street, resulting in the loss of two on-street public parking space outside
of the bus loading zone on Lytton. The building has been unmaintained for several
years and the site does not currently contribute to the beauty or vitality of
downtown Palo Alto.
There are 5 trees located on the site, 3 of which are in poor condition. This proposal
will replace the 3 poor trees, and provide 3 additional trees, for a total of 8 trees as
requested by Staff and in furtherance of the goals of the Committee of Canopy Trees
for Palo Alto. The condition of the existing trees and the new tree plan are
discussed further under Section F.
Under the CD-C Zone, the site could be developed with a building of approximately
10,500 square feet under Ordinance 18.49.060, including (i) a 200 square foot one-time
bonus (18.49.060(b)(4)); (ii) a handicap-accessibility bonus of approximately 489 square
feet (18.49.060(b)(1)); and (iii) the one-to-one FAR allowed generally under the CD-C
Zone (18.49.060). Thirty-nine parking spaces would berequired as the two bonuses
described above are exempt from any parking requirement.
9,811 ÷ 250 square feet (4 per thousand) = 39 Parking Spaces
Photographs of the site in its current condition and a diagram of existing conditions
are attached as ~
3
The proposed project consists of a three-story building totaling 18,921 square feet; a
1.93% FAR. The site coverage is 62%, meaning that 38% of the site is reserved for
open space, landscaping, and pedestrian movement. Sixty-two percent is one of the
lowest site coverage ratios in downtown Palo Alto (comparable to the site coverage
for 250 University - Plaza Ramona), while a 1.93% FAR is also substantially less than
most developments along Lytton Avenue, and all but one new development in the
CD Zone since adoption of the CD Zone Ordinance in 1986.
The building’s design is contemporary, constructed with red/brown brick, in
patterns providing deep reveals and shadow lines. The project architect, John
Northway, utilized brick on two of the most successful contemporary buildings in
downtown Palo Alto--the Stanford Bookstore at 135 University Avenue and the
three-story office building at 435 Tasso Street.
Pre~cast GFRC accent materials will be used around the windows. A GFRC two-story
lobby entrance is a dominant feature---located on the southern portion of the Lytton
elevation. The roof is a black simulated slate, as has been effectively used at 531
Cowper, and at the new building at 400 Emerson Street. There will be extensive use
of planters along Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street, with the number of street
trees preservedwalthough two existing trees of poor quality are being replaced.
The project was approved unanimously by the Architectural Review Board on
November 7, subject to minor conditions, which conditions were satisfied by the
ARB on January 16, 1977.
The proposed development will be occupied by tenants making use of the building
in ways that are consistent with the CD-C Zone, with the expectation that the entire
building will be used as general office.
Under our proposal, 50 parking spaces will be provided in a two-level underground
garage. The cost to provide on-site parking spaces for a site as small as 390 Lytton
Avenue is enormous (over $28,000 per stall due to shoring the street and the
sidewalk, protecting existing trees and underpinning two adjacent properties). The
Applicant is committed to addressing parking concerns of downtown Palo Alto by
providing these spaces rather than satisfying the parking requirement entirely
through an in-lieu payment, even though the cost of providing these spaces will
greatly exceed the in-lieu payment currently established under Ordinance 18.49.100,
which is currently approximately $18,500 perstall.
The proposed project requires assistance from the City with several planning
policies -- some of which have been resolved in previous public hearings.
4
The parcel Size is 9,811 square feet. 10,500 square feet would be allowed under the
CD-C Zone. The proposed project is 18,921 square feet, which results in a FAR of
1.93%, which is highly compatible with other projects on Lytton Avenue and is a
smaller area than all other PC Zones in the Downtown, except for 400 Emerson
Street. Two otherPC Zone projects (531 Cowper and 483.University) have been very
dose in size to the project proposed for 390 Lytton Avenue. Two PC Zone projects
(531 Cower and 250 University) have been approved adding approximately 8,000
square feet through the PC Zone. 390 Lytton is adding more area in its PC Zone as a
percentage of total area only because the site has been nearly vacant with an existing
1,060 square foot building (0.11 to 1.0 FAR) used as a gasoline service station and the
third least coverage site in downtown Palo Alto. This is unique in the CD-C Zone.
No parcel that is not vacant has a lower existing FAR. The ARB and Planning
Commission have previously approved the design, size and FAR of the building as
being compatible with the CD-C Zone and neighborhood uses, and a strong
architectural contribution for the Lytton/Waverley intersection.
Elevations and floor plans for the proposed project are attached as ~
The development at 390 Lytton Avenue proposes 50 parking spaces in a two-level
underground parking garage. These spaces fulfill the parking requirement for 13,189
square feet on-site based on parking 12,500 square feet with one parking space per 250
square feet (12,500 + 250 = 50); and receiving 200 exempt square feet (Ordinance
18.49.060(b)(4)) and 489 exempt square feet for handicap access upgrades (Ordinance
18.49.060(b)(1)), as allowed under the CD-C Ordinance.
Additional parking spaces for 5,732 square feet or 23 parking spaces are required.
The Applicant proposes providing these 23 spaces through in-lieu payments under
Ordinance 18.49.100. The price for these 23 spaces will be about $18,500 per stall, or
$422,500 under Ordinance 18.49.100.
The cost of providing 50 on,site spaces at $1,400,000 exceeds the in-lieu parking fee
for these 50 spaces by about $475,000.
No other parcel of under 10,000 square feet in downtown Palo Alto has provided
substantial on-site parking, and none have provided underground parking.
Other recent PC Zone projects - 483 University (Roxy Rapp), 400 Emerson (Ed
Storm) and 531 Cowper (Jim Baer), on similar small parcels, did not provide on-site
parking because of the high cost of providing underground parking. Only two
projects in the CD-C have provided parking since 1986 when the CD Zone was
.adopted. These projects are 250 University on a 22,000 square foot parcel and where
the Parking Assessment District purchased one level of parking, and 245 Lytton,
which provides parking on a 40,000 square foot parcel. 390 Lytton Avenue is
committed to parking solutions by providing on-site parking at a cost of $475,000
more than the established in-lieu fee.
The 50 underground parking spaces are a primary and positive element of this
Application. The Applicant is making this additional investment in parking in
order to develop a top-quality office building and to participate in solving long-term
parking problems of downtown Palo Alto.
~sets forth a diagram for the 50 spaces. The cost of construction of these 50
spaces is approximately $28,000 per stall, as set forth in Devcon’s budget estimate as
identified in ~
In order for the Applicant to provide on-site underground parking, 390 Lytton
requires that the ramp to the underground parking enter from City Parking Lot F,
which is adjacent to 390 Lytton. Were the driveway ramp to enter from Waverley
Street (which is the only other alternative), only 23 parking spaces could be provided
in two full levels of underground parking. This would result in a cost of about
$55,000 per parking stall, making on-site parking financially unfeasible for the
project. The Transportation Division has reviewed the Waverley Street ramp
option and the resulting 23 space parking plan. The unfeasibility of underground
parking entering from Waverley Street is an unavoidable circumstance. If a
driveway ramp is allowed to enter from City Parking Lot F, only 3 public parking
spaces are lost at the intersection of the ramp and Lot F, but two on-street parking
spaces are gained by eliminating the current curb cuts at 390 Lytton which results in
the net loss of one public space. The circulation of vehicles and pedestrians is not
otherwise disrupted.
At its September 11, 1996 public hearing, the Planning Commission endorsed the
Parking Lot F access:
Uc~rnrni.~.~ioner Byrd.- "I am especially enthusiastic about the siting of the
parking underground, and especially the entrance to the parking being at the back of
the lot."
Crwnrni.~nicmar Oiakia~ -- "I would concur with your (Byrd’s) comments
about this project and the parking ... The fact that in this particular case, they are
incorporating it in here, I feel is important."
-"I feel it is a very good solution to have the garage
access from the parking lot."
¯ " " - "On the access issue, I feel this is a really important
planning issue...It is a much better situation having the access off of the parking lot."
Commissioner Beecham did not participate in this debate; Commissioners
Eakins and Cassel did not speak to the Lot F access, but voted in support of the
project.
We have had an appraisal prepared by Kurt Reitman & Associates, MAI, who have
valued the Access Easement at $67,000.
The access easement does not disrupt the City’s use of Parking Lot F for parking, or
result in any City .costs, except for the one net lost public parking space for which we
will pay an in-lieu fee under Ordinance 16.57.040.
Parking policies and precedents favor providing the access easement across City
Parking Lot F in order to accommodate the proposed ramp for 390 Lytton Avenue.
With respect to parking policies, maximizing parking on existing parcels, including
private parcels, is a highest priority for downtown Palo Alto.
The Planning Department and the Transportation Division have recognized and
encouraged maximizing parking on private parcels in the downtown area. Because
of the downtown parking defidt, and the increasing vitality of the downtown area,
parking problems cannot be solved if privately owned parcels forgo development of
on-site parking and provide only in-lieu contributions, pursuing in-lieu
contributions as a method of solving the parking problem will cause the downtown
to run out of land available for parking. 390 Lytton Avenue, by providing 50 spaces
at a cost of $28,000 per stall, rather than paying an in-lieu contribution of about
$18,500 per stall, is providing a substantial public parking benefit for the City. The
increased cost to the Applicant for these 50 spaces, above the in-lieu fee, is about
$475,000 ($28,000 - $18,500 = $9,500 x 50 Spaces).
The City cannot provide additional downtown parking (except on the two largest
City-owned parking lots in proposed parking structures) at a cost as low as the in-
lieu contribution requirement of Ordinance 18.49.100. ~ Therefore, an in-lieu
contribution results in a net cost to the City for replacing parking, since the in-lieu
contribution will not cover the marginal cost of the most expensive space which can
be provided by the City. Instead, the in-lieu contribution recovers only the marginal
cost of the least expensive space which ,can be provided by the City. Other than the
two large proposed parking structures, no public lots in the downtown can provide
parking more efficiently than proposed by the 390 Lytton project with the driveway
entry from Lot F.
Specific analysis of Parking Lot F demonstrates that its greatest potential
contribution to solving the downtown parking problem is to provide an access
easement for a driveway ramp at 390 Lytton Avenue. -The City’s consultant for
downtown parking has concluded that Parking Lot F is not economically feasible to
develop because of its small size and configuration.~ We have reviewed the access
easement across City Parking Lot F and driveway ramp for 390 Lytton Avenue with
most of the members of the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Committee,
and will have met with all of the members of this Committee before concluding the
PC Zone Process. We have received encouragement and endorsement from most
members of the Parking Committee.
7
The access easement does not impact the current parking layout and can
accommodate future development of a parking structure without interference.
Were Parking Lot F to be sold or utilized for future development of a commercial
building, the access easement would have only minor impact on development
rights, particularly since Lot F would not qualify under Ordinance 18.49.100 because
it is larger than 10,000 square feet and so parking any development on Lot F would
necessarily use underground parking, thereby resulting in the access easement not
disturbing future development of Lot F. The cost of this access easement should be
included in an analysis of public benefits for the project.
There
rights
rights
are numerous other cases where the City has limited future development
to City parking lots in order to accommodate private parking. These access
have been provided without cost to the party benefiting from the easement:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
10.
325 Lytton Avenue - Lot K
Lytton IV - Lot K
305 Lytton Avenue - Lot K
University National Bank - Lot A
Cowper/Webster Garage - 6th & 7th Floor Private Lease
531 Cowper Street - Modified Access to Cowper/Webster Garage
355 Bryant Street - Lot E and Private Parking Access Over Public
Right-Of-Way
Pacific Bell Building- Lot E and Private Parking Access Over
Public Right-Of-Way
250 University Avenue - Lot B (Ramona Garage/Ramp Subject
To Private Easements)
300 Hamilton Avenue - Lot G Easement
The benefits of providing 50 on-site parking spaces at 390 Lytton Avenue outweigh
the efforts necessary to identify and address the problems associated with providing
an access easement across City Parking Lot F. We are confident that the Applicant
and City Staff will develop an access easement that is practical and of value for the
Applicant and the City in the context of evaluating public benefits for this project.
We encourage you to accept a $67,000 accesseasement fee plus payment for one in-
lieu space at an estimated cost of $18,500, both fees to be payable on or before the date
of final building permit approval, and prior to occupancy of the building, pursuant
to an agreement with the City of Pal. Alto as is consistent with in-lieu parking fee
payments pursuant to Ordinance 16.57.040.
~rovides a diagram of the ramp proposed to enter from Parking Lot F, and
drawings of the 23 car garage if a ramp from Lot F is not provided. There are also
photos and a map of the 10 other vehicular access easements over public parking
lots located downtown for which no compensation was received by the City of Pal.
Alto. Exhibit 6 also provides the Reitman appraisal and letters of support from
Downtown Parking Committee members.
8
There are five City street trees on the site. There are ~wo camphor trees on Lytton, ’
one of which has serious structural defects and is of poor quality (in part because it is
adjacent to a bus stop bench and has been damaged by busses and trucks). On
Waverley there are three trees, two poor quality privets and a geijira.
Staff has requested that we provide 8 street trees, 4 on each of Waverley and Lytton.
The Applicant has previously resisted this request seeking to maintain 5 trees on the
site as is the current condition. The problem is that the proposed project has 2 levels
of underground parking which encroach under the City sidewalk (as is necessary’ to
provide 50 parking spaces). The Applicant could not accommodate 8 street trees and
the previous parking design. At the November 7, 1996 ARB Hearing, the ARB
spedfically approved 5 trees rather than 8 because of the conflict between new trees
and the parking structure.
Subsequent to the November 7, 1996 ARB Hearing, the Planning Staff has continued
to emphasize the importance of providing 8 trees and have requested that the
Applicant explore design and engineering.solutions that could accommodate 8 street
trees.
We have received reports from 4 Arborists accepted by the City of Palo Alto as
qualified experts. Together, we have developed a scheme for providing 8 street trees
with adequate soil, air and sidewalk pockets for healthful tree growth. The Arborists
are Barrie D. Coate, James M. McClenahan, The Davey Tree Expert Company and
Mayne Tree Expert Company.
The roof of the parking garage has been re-engineered to provide a 3-1/2 foot
clearance from the top of the ceiling to the sidewalk. This area provides plenty of
room for the street tree root balls as has been reviewed and approved by the City. In
order to accomplish this result, we have changed the entire structural engineering
system under the trees by increasing the concrete thickness, and beam and column
strength without lowering the garage floor which would have created drive lane
slope and water table problems.
By retaining the 3 poor quality trees, preserving the Waverley Geijira and the 1
healthy Lytton Avenue Camphor, and planting 6 new 36 inch box trees (this exceeds
the City’s recommendation for 24-inch boxes). We can provide 8 evenly spread
trees, thereby achieving the canopy objectives for downtown Palo Alto.
In addition to the 8 on-site trees, we propose planting 6 additional new trees on
Lytton Avenue and Waverley Street to replace poor quality trees or to place trees in
empty tree wells.
Ex]liJ~L6_shows the 8 on-site trees we propose with plans of the root protection and
letters from 4 Arborists. ~ shows where the Applicant would install 6 new
trees to improve the canopy on Lytton and Waverley.
9
There have been 8 Planned Community Zone applications in the downtown since
1988, which are listed chronologically:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
250 University Avenue
529 Bryant Street
Parking Lot J
251 University Avenue
531 Cowper Street
355 Bryant Street
400 Emerson Street
483 University Avenue
All of these PC Zone applications have been unanimously approved by the City
Coundl and have received the support of downtown property and business owners
without objection from residential neighbors.
This series of planning successes are based on the following attributes: (i) Each of
the projects have made excellent use of the site with appropriate setbacks and respect.
for the pedestrian experience; (ii) each of the buildings have been of extraordinary
architectural character - each of 250 University Avenue, 529 Bryant Street and 531
Cowper Street have won national architectural awards; 251 University Avenue, the
original bank building in Palo Alto, is an historic masterpiece; 355 Bryant Street, the
Byxbee House, is a beautiful restoration, 400 Emerson Street and 483 University
Avenue (both recently completed), should receive design ’ awards; and (iii) the public
benefits have been determined to be appropriate to the public policy impacts of each
of the projects.
390 Lytton Avenue proposes the following public benefits:
Two poor-quality privet street trees on Waverley Street and
one defective camphor on Lytton Avenue will be replaced
on-site with 6 new trees as approved by the City Arborist.
Six new trees will be planted along Lytton and Waverley, as
approved by the City Arboristo
The building is recessed by as much as 12 feet along Lytton Avenue
and Waverley Street, and provides a 10’ wide pedestrian walkway
on the western side of the building. These recessed areas will
be dedicated for public uses and will be maintained by the
Applicant. The western 10’ walkway becomes a significant
easement for pedestrians to move from Parking Lot S and
¯ Parking Lot F to Lytton Avenue. This public benefit becomes
even more significant with the anticipated development of a
I0
D
parking structure on Lot S. The result is a 62% lot coverage.
Areas outside of the building footprint become rights of
way for the City. In previous PC Zones (250 University, 531
Cowper, and 483 University), these setbacks have been deemed
to be substantial public benefits.
Public art, as approved by the Public Art Commission on December 10,
1996, will be integrated as sculptural art at the lobby of 390 Lytton
Avenue. The art consists of a history of the automobile, as this has
been the business of the Applicant’s family for over 60 years. The lobby
wall is highly visible for pedestrian and vehicular traffic heading east
on Lytton. The cost for the sculptured lobby arches will be about
$110,000.
The Applicant would provide a $75,000 contribution for public
improvements either between Lytton Avenue and University
Avenue, along Waverley Street, or for use on Florence Street,
including Lot F, in order to make this area a pedestrian amenity to
accommodate the anticipated parking structure to be built on Parking
Lot S. Florence Street will become a major urban design node with the
development of Parking Lot S.
The Applicant will replace the bus stop bench, sign and trash
receptacle with a with a more contemporary bench, sign and
trash receptacle consistent with the Downtown Improvements
Plan.
On-site parking is being provided at a cost of up to $475,000 more than
in-lieu parking fees.
The City is being paid $67,000, plus one in-lieu space of approximately
$18,500 for the Lot F Access Easement when there is no cost or
detriment to the City resulting from this easement, except the net loss
of one public parking space.
Tree wells along Waverley between University and Lytton
will be repaired by theApplicant as approved by the Public Works
Department.
Exhihitfl_provides pictures of the previously approved downtown PC projects.
Exhibit~ includes information about the approved Public Art, including an
endorsement from Leon Kaplan. ~ provides endorsement letters from
neighboring downtown property owners.
(a)A PC Zone Application is Necessary:
A PC Zone Application is necessary for processing this project. 390
Lytton Avenue, by seeking to develop 18,921 square feet at an FAR of
1.93, cannot be accomplished through the existing CD-C Zone. A PC
Zone change is necessary to accommodate the proposed development
of 390 Lytton.
(b)Nature of Uses Within the PC District:
The uses within the PC District will be identical to those of the present
CD-C Zone .for the property, including the Pedestrian Combining
District. No special conditions or characteristics of use will be necessary
for the PC District.
(c)Consistent With the Comprehensive ~lan:
The uses and site development regulations within the proposed PC
District shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and shall be
compatible with uses on adjoining sites and within the general
vicinity.
The design and uses of the proposed project have been conceived with
great care in order to be compatible with and complimentary to the
objectives of the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Summary
Report, published in January, 1988, and the Downtown Urban Design
Guide of 1992, which identifies the importance of advancing Lytton
Avenue through contemporary designs that enhance the pedestrian
and neighborhood experience.
The PC Zone approval process schedule results in an effective Ordinance no sooner
than June, 1997. We anticipate demolition and excavation to begin in June or July,
1997, with construction requiring up to 15 months. The commencement of
construction could be delayed until September, 1997, depending on City approvals
and the speed of issuance of a building perrait.
390 Lytton Avenue proposes for consideration by the Planning Commission and
City Council as an alternative to the public benefits and in-lieu parking .fees set forth
in this Revised Program Development Statement, that the City .consider allocating
the $75,000 identified for improvements to Waverley Street or Florence Street, the
$67,000 and estimated $18,500 in-lieu parking fees for the Lot F Access Easement, and
an additional $125,000 portion of the in-lieu parking contribution, for a traffic study
and traffic mitigations for Downtown North.
This $295,500 would be "ear-marked" for use by the Transportation Division to
retain outside consultants to evaluate traffic conditions in Downtown North and to
work with neighbors in a continuing, dynamic process by which a variety of traffic
mitigations are installed and evaluated for Downtown North. These mitigations
could include barriers such as in College Terrace, round-abouts such as used at
Bryant Street and Addison Avenue, and bulb-outs such as occur at intersections
along University Avenue. This program for traffic analysis and mitigations has
been discussed .with leaders of the Downtown North community since 1991.
Development in downtown Palo Alto, as well as increased traffic between
Middlefield Road and E1 Carnino Real, have resulted in significant traffic impacts
for Downtown North. It is our hope that 390 Lytton Avenue can be a source Of
proceeds to be used by the City in cooperation with the Downtown North
community to implement meaningful traffic mitigations..
The $295,500 provided by the 390 Lytton Avenue project would empower neighbors
of Downtown North tO work with the City toward traffic solutions and would create
a meaningful contribution by the downtown business community to the real
problems of Downtown North.
December 13, 1996
Department of Community Se~vices
DMsionof
Arls & Ctdture
PublicArt
Commi~ion
Bob Schubert
Pal. Alto Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pal. Alto, California 94301
On Tuesday, December 10, 1996, John Northway and Scott Donahue appeared
before the Pal. Alto Public Art Commission to present the public art for their
project at 390 Lytton Avenue.
The artist presented drawings and models for an archway frieze which the
Commission accepted unanimously and enthusiastically, with the following
comments: ..
The Public Art Commission strongly recommends that this piece be lighted at
night with an integral lighting system.
The Commission agrees with the applicant that security measures are
important and concurs with the applicant’s proposal to tie the artwork into
the alarm system. ,
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or any member of the
Public Art Commission.
Very truly yours,
Judith Wasserman, Co-chair
Architectural Review Board
~jolanning Commission
hn Northway
Public Art Commission
P’do Alto CulturalCenter
1313 Newell Road
Pal. Alto, CA94303
415. 3~. 2227
Attachment 9
DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD ASgOCIATION
4.65 HAWTHORNE AVENUE, PAI..O ALTO, CA 94.3OI
TELEPHONE 322-5500 - FAX 322-5501
February 17, 1997
Ken Schreiber
Nancy Lytle
Robert Schubert
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, Callfornia 94301
Re : ~
Dear Ken, Nancy & Robert:
Downtown North has a very severe traffic problem. It is, in
fact, the numberone neighborhood issue. Our east-west streets have
been used as shortcuts between Middlefield and E1 Camino for a long
time. With the markedly increased vitality of University Ave. and the
commercial district, far more traffic is drawn to through our streets
than we have ever had before. Officers of our Association have
discussed traffic mitigations with Marvin Overway for roughly five years
nowF and he has consistently indicated that Downtown North was an ideal
1ocatlon for the installation of barricades or other types of’ traffic
dlverters because doing So had no negative spillover effects on other
neighborhoods.
When Downtown Residents have asked Councilmembers to help us
with traffic mitigations, it has been explained to us that the reason
traffic mltigationmeasures have not been developed for Downtown North
has been lack of funds. Recognizing that there are substantial costs
associated with properly buffering the neighborhood from traffic, we
have spoken with several developers about including funding for
protecting Downtown North from traffic in their development proposals.
To date, developers’ interest in doing so has been limited to projects
with severe negative impacts on our neighborhood, where the developers
felt that our support was necessary to proceed with the projects. We
were unable to support the projects, and thus,for one reason or
another, no responsible developer has proposed to allocate funds for
traffic r~Ltigatlons.
Jim Baer has consistently approached our neighborhood in a
different way. He recognizes that thereare inevitably somenegat~ve
impacts to almost any development from the neighborhood standpoint..
Rather than simply packaging questionable benefits of his projects,
i.e., trying to put an attractive spin on what he would be doing anyway,
he has tried to work with us to incorporate elements that have actual
value to the neighborhood to offset the problems. H~s honesty and
straightforwardness have been greatly appreciated.
Which brings us to where we are now: we urge you in the
strongest possible terms to give your approval to the allocatlon of
funds that Jim Baer has proposed. Earmarking a small portion of the
funds that would otherwise go to buildlng parking structures seems
entirely appropriate~for several reasons. Foremost among these i8 that
providing additional funds for parking continues the pattern of treating
impacts of development as if they were costs borne exclusively by the
downtown n~rchants and consumers. They are not. If anything, providing
more parking facilitates bringing more cars into the commercial
district, which inevitably means that more cars come through Downtown
North. We do not begrudge the merchants and commercial property o~ners
their success, but we do feel that it is high time that steps be taken
to protect Downtown North from all the traffic that this success
engenders.
Indeed,. we feel that what Jim Baer is doing here should be a
model for future developments. Downtown North has for years borne°
significant financial and non-flnancial costs of nearby commercial
development with no recompense. Various t~es of public benefit funds
collected from the developers of these projects have had very little
value to Downtown North because the supposed publlcbeneflts are spread
over the population at large while -e are bearing a major portion of the
costs directly and exclusively. We believe that these costs should be
explicitly recognized, and that the City should require that
developments adjoining resldential neighborhoods include a11ocatlons for
the necessary measures to offset these costs.
The Association’s prelln~nary proposal to develop the tower
well site as a community rose garden has been well receivedby
Councilmembers. We believe that extending the rose garden and pergola
across Hawthorne Avenue would provide an ideal setting to preserve the
tower as a Palo Alto landmark, while creating a unique buffer park which
would be the cornerstone of a comprehensive traffic control plan for
Downtown North. This type of integrated neighborhood design for traffic
management and neighborhood improvements cannot be accomplished without
adequate funding. Since the funds are to be collected in any case, the
question is really one of allocation. A!locatlng funds from projects
adjacent to Downtown North is clearly the appropriate way to offset the
effects of these developments. Jim Baer’s proposal demonstrates that
responslble development can benefit the surrounding community. We ask
that you accepthls proPOsal.
Sincerely,
THE DOWNTOWN NORTH NEIGHBORHOOD /~SSOCIATION
Dan LOrimer~ President
Attachment 10
DRAFT
Minutes of the
Palo Alto Planning Commission
April 9, 1997
pUBLIC HEARINGS
390 LYTTON AVENUE: Request for approval to rezone a property from CD-C(P)
to a PC district to construct an 18,921-square-foot, three-story office building.
Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration was approved on
October 18, 1996. File Nos. 96-ZC-6, 96-ARB-78, 96-EIA-20.
_Commissioner Beecham: I will not be participating in this item due to a conflict of interest.
Ms. Lvtle: Bob Schubert is the contract planner who managed this project. He has a brief
staff report to present.
Mr. Schubert: Last September, the commission forwarded this project to the Architectural
Review Board. In November, the board unanimously recommended approval of the project.
Later that same month, the City Council took up the revised TDR program and adopted a
revised program which did not include the provisions that the applicant proposed which could
have allowed him to transfer development rights from 340 and 403 University Avenue to this
site. Consequently, the applicant recently revised the proposal to include additional public
benefits which are spelled out in the staff report. One of the public benefits is to provide
public art around the main entrance to the building. In December, the Public Art
Commission unanimously accepted the applicant’s public art proposal. It was unanimously
approved by the ARB in January, 1997. In conclusion, staff is reeomm.ending that the
commission recommend approval of the mitigated negative declaration and the ordinance
rezoning the property to a Planned Community district.
I have a correction to one of the conditions which is in Attachment 2, Condition #41. It
should say, "To provide soil volume for the street trees, there shall be a minimum clearance
of approximately 3.7 feet of uneompaeted soil between the t_o.p__..ofthe sidewalk and the too of
the t~rot~osed under ound ar "n struc re." That is what is currently shown on the plans.
Chai~n Cassel: Are there any questions of staff?. (None) Then I will open the public
he~ring. First, we will hear from the applicant.
A:IPCMins5 I PC0409.spc .Page 27
O4-09-97
Jim Baer, 532 Channing, Palo Alto: I want to begin with an apology to the commission that
goes back to Our last hearing in September. That apology extends to staff, as well. At the
September 11 heating, we received approval for a TDR recommendation, as well as a
recommendation for this project. My apology is because we were very actively and
forcefully pushing a policy uphill. The council did not support the TDR being applicable to
this project through the two projects it was bringing in. I appreciate the commission’s
listening in support, and staff has consistently said since we first raised this TDR retroactive
issue in February of 1996 that they did not think this was a good policy. We all have
valuable time, and I really apologize that we misapplied our reading of the policy. I am sorry
that we used your time, your good will and your vote in a direction that did not win support.
Recovering from that, we also appreciate staff’s support and recommendation of this project.
There are three issues that I want to discuss tonight. I am sorry that these are contained in a
letter that was only delivered today. It is a function of the time when we receive staff reports
and the many detailed conditions for a PC ordinance. So the three topics I would like to
discuss are that we discuss the modifications of certain conditions, and more importantly,
how staff be given direction to have flexibility in certain of those conditions that have to do
with construction or engineering field conditions solutions. I will come back to that one, as it
is the one that requires the greatest specificity. To support me in that discussion, as
necessary, from the of-flees of Stoecker,Northway are John Northway, Claire Malone and
Elena Campana.
The second issue has to do with the appraised value for the Parking Lot F access easement.
In the materials you have, we have submitted a detailed MAI appraisal by Kurt Reitman &
Associates, who valued the access easement at $67,000. Staff’s position was that either Bill
Fellman’s valuation, which was $142,000, or an independent appraisal be pursued. As a first
choice, of course, wewould like you to adopt our appraisal of $67,000. Second is that you
consider a review appraisal which has been done before by the city. In a discussion with Bill
Fellman, he indicated that it was not his intention that his memo be construed as an appraisal
of the value of the access easement. It was a one-page memo,and in fact, was modified
between ten in the morning when he left me a voice message at a very different and lower
value than the memo of August 29 at one o’clock shows. So we would ask that you consider
that access easements have not been charged for in the downtown. There are multiple access
easements, and that either you adopt the value that our appraiser has suggested, or that there
be a review appraisal and that we work out with staff how that would take place.
The issue third has to do with allocation of funds for traffic mitigations for Downtown North.
There has been correspondence to you and staff about this issue. There will be a subsequent
speaker from the Downtown North neighborhood to address the importance of this. In the
last two weeks, the two subcommittees of the City Council have approved and passed along
and provided some funding for advancing the development of parking structures on Lots S
and L and Lot R. These are major undertakings. Proposition 218 changes the way in which
A: [ PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 28
04-09-97
assessments will occur, meaning that those to be assessed have much more power than the
relationship between the assessed body of voters and the governing board. The governing
board’s power is much less than used to be the case. If50% of the assessed group seeks an
assessment, thereis an assessment. That is what Proposition 218 did. Before, if there was a
vocal 10% objecting, the council could go forward. The point of that is that we have several
problems that occur as a result of the intensified use and vitality of downtown. One of those
is parking, and that is being actively worked on. It will be ftmded with a high level of
probability by those in the assessment district within the next two or three years.
Another issue, particularly for Downtown North adjacent to Lytton Avenue is that there is
enormous traffic between E1 Camino and Middlefield. While the downtown is not the
primary contributor to that, such as the Dumbarton Bridge and activities west of E1 Camino,
certainly the vitality oi’the downtown does contribute to the perception of increased traffic
and the experience of increased traffic in Downtown North. What we suggest is that some
appropriate portion of funds and legal portion of funds, given those constraints, be allocated
for traffic mitigations in Downtown North. As the letter explains, there are three sources of
funds that would be available in our application to allocate. One of those is that we suggest
$75,000 of improvements to Waverley Street or Florence Street as our public benefit. This
dates back to the September period. We think it appropriate, if policy considerations favored
that, for the commission to recommend to the council that those funds be earmarked for a
traffic study leading to traffic mitigation. The second source of funds is whatever the value
of the access easement across Lot F is determined to be. Is it appropriate for those funds to
be allocated?
The third is a more difficult issue. In my letter, I suggest that we even allow in-lieu parking
fees be allocated. There is a legal constraint there in the PC zone ordinance that says, "A PC
application must satisfy the off-street and on-site parking requirements of Section 18.83
unless there are traffic engineering or relevant data to dictate otherwise. The data we are able
to provide is that our user parks at a ratio that is less than four per thousand. There have been
numerous inquiries done in the downtown in the past five years showing that this is true for
many professional offices. They park at a lower ratio than four per thousand. What we are
doing here is saying that while this is a different character and has different legal constraints,
if you so chose to make that fmding, we are.providing some data. We are saying it is a very
complex issue, the tradeoff of parking for traffic mitigations, but I hope you appreciate the
spirit and the positive intent of actively trying to win the good will and address a problem to
solve for Downtown North which does experience traffe and parking problems from the
tremendous growth in the downtown in the last ten years.
The third has to do with specific conditions. There are three that I want to add. I apologize
that these were not included in the letter. It is due to my less diligent reading of the
conditions. In the ordinance, Condition 4B says that there can be no conditional uses at the
site. In my experience with other PCs in which I have participated, the limitation has been
A: I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 29
04-09-97
that uses must be consistent with the CD(C) zone. Here we would say that if a day care
center is a conditional use, and twenty years from now, somebody wanted to put in a day care
center in, it would require an amendment to the PC zone. The public hearing process is
necessary to get the conditional approval, so to us, it just seems that we are putting in a
process barrier that does not deprive the public of the ability input for a conditional use.
The second is that Section 4(c)(i) which says that if there are any changes to the exterior of
the building, this must come through as an amendment to the PC ordinance. So if we change
light fixtures, or if the ground floor, which right now does not have many doors because it
anticipates an office user on the ground floor, were to be retail, if you read the narrow
language there, that could not be a minor PC subject to staff level approval.
A third is that in Section 4(f)(vii), the bus stop bench, signage and other features related to
our bus stop improvements are to return to the ARB. These, along with the other conditions,.
lead to this process policy nightmare. If staff is deprived of the ability to make discretionary
decisions that are a rational, give-and-take with an applicant, it is incredibly abusive of
Planning Commission, staff and City Council’s time. It isan embarrassment for the
applicant; it is an embarrassment for the policy boards that would have to sit and listen to
some issues. There is a PC right now that is having a problem with the conflict in the PC
ordinance relative to a tree and an unimproved building. The solution seems to be that where
it stands right now, the interpretation is that this has to return to the Planning Commission
and City Council to determine whether staff has the discretion to trim a limb and whether
staff has the discretion to allow that. Much of what we are reacting to here is that in the
positive intention to defme protective measures in a PC ordinance, if they become so
technical, and you will see that particularly when you look at trees, whether it is 3 feet 7
inches or 3 feet 6 inches when we get down to the fmal engineering document, are we
depriving staff of the ability to be the capable administrators of the problem that they should
be? We certainly do not deprive the chief building official or the fire marshal of the ability to
make interpretations on the codes that they are required to enforce. Here, the biggest concern
I have is that we may have field conditions, reality parameters, that don’t violate the spirit
and intention of tree protection, healthy trees, an exterior that comports with the plans we
have submitted, but in practicality, have adjustments that we have deprived staff of the abi!ity
to negotiate.
So I have identified those conditions that we feel are specifically in conflict with drawings we
have submitted or with engineering information that we have, or professional consultants’
information. The three conditions in the ordinance that we have identified we hope you could
discuss. The overriding issue is more that we have a lot of capable people on staff and a
Planned Community ordinance that has either minor modifications that are defined as minor
or major modifications which require a process of returning to Planning Commission and
City Council. We would certainly hope that for the kind of field conditions that require legal
give-and-take or legal interpretation, that we give authority to the capable staffto work those
A:I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 30
04-09-97
out with applicants. We are here to answer questions about specific conditions. I am really
sorry that we have used much public hearing time on those conditions, but the project has
been so well worked over, and staff and the applicant have resolved so many issues that, in
fact, it is fortunate that they are so technical, the issues we are here to discuss, and then, of
course, the broader issue oftraffic mitigation which I hope you will favorably consider.
_Chairperson Cassel: We have just one more speaker from the public tonight on this item.
Dan Lorimer. 465 Hawthorne Avenue, Palo Alto: I am president of the Downtown North
Neighborhood Association. I am here tonight to encourage you to support Jim Baer’s
suggested allocation for public benefit, easement purchase and in-lieu parking funds for
traffic study and mitigations for Downtown North. You are certainly familiar with the
Downtown North Neighborhood Association and its former president, Tony Badger. I want
you to realize that this association has changed in significant ways since I was elected two
and a half months ago. We now have 19 block captains, five standing committees and a
steering committee. We have just begun collecting dues for the association, but I can
confidently project, based on our recent survey of Downtown North, that we will be able to
document three to four hundred dues-paying members by the time this issue comes before
Council; At our March 26 meeting at the Senior Center, we had over eighty Downtown
North residents in attendance.
At Jim Baer’s suggestion and in respect for your process, I have come here alone tonight, but
there will definitely be a substantial contingent of Downtown North residents at the council
meeting addressing this issue. In our neighborhood survey, we asked, "Does Downtown
North need protection from traffic that uses the neighborhood as a shortcut?" The response
was overwhelming: five to one, residents favored some form of protection from cut-through
traffic.
Downtown North has a very severe traffic problem. It is, in fact, the number one
neighborhood issue. Our east-west streets have long been used as shortcuts between
Middlefield and E1 Camino. With the markedly increased vitality of University Avenue and
the commercial district, far more traffic is drawn through our streets than we have ever had
before. Officers of our association have discussed traffic mitigations with Marvin Overway
for roughly five years now, and he has consistently indicated that Downtown North was
ideally suited to various means of diverting traffic because doing so had no negative spillover
effects on other neighborhoods. ’ ’
In the past, when downtown residents have asked council members to help us with traffic
mitigations, it has been explained to us that the reason traffic mitigation measures have not
been developed for Downtown North was lack of funds. Recognizing that there are
substantial costs associated with properly buffering the neighborhood from traffic, we have
spoken with several developers about including funding for protecting Downtown North from
A: [ PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 31
04-09-97
traffic in their development proposals. To date, developers’ interest in doing so has been
limited to projects with severe negative impacts on our neighborhood, where the developers
felt that our supportwas necessary to proceed with the projects. We were unable to support
these projects, and thus, for one reason or another, no responsible developer has proposed to
allocate funds for traffic mitigations.
Jim Baer has consistently approached our neighborhood in a different way. He recognizes
that there are inevitably some negative impacts from any development from a neighborhood
standpoint. Rather than simply packaging questionable benefits of his projects, i.e., trying to
put an attractive spin on what he would be doing anyway, he has tried to work with us to
incorporate elements that have actual value to the neighborhood to offset the problems. His
honesty and straightforwardness have been greatly appreciated.
Which brings us to where we are now. We urge you in the strongest possible terms to give
your approval to the allocation of funds that Jim Baer has proposed. Earmarking a small
portion of the development-related fees that would otherwise go to minor street
improvements and the parking fund seems entirely appropriate for several reasons. Foremost
among these is that it breaks the pattern of treating impacts of development as if they were
costs borne exclusively by the downtown merchants and consumers. They are not. If
anything, providing more parking facilitates bringing more cars into the commercial district,
which inevitably means, that more cars come through Downtown North. We do not begrudge
merchants and commercial property owners their success, but we do feel that it is high time
that steps be taken to protect Downtown North from all the traffic that.this success engenders.
Downtown North has for years borne significant financialand non-financial costs of nearby
commercial development with no recompense. Various types of public benefit funds
collected from the developers of these projects have had very little value to Downtown North
because the supposed public benefits are spread over the population at large while we are
bearing a major portion of the costs directly and exclusively. We believe .that these costs
should be explicitly recognized and that the city should require that developments adjoining
residential neighborhoods include targeted allocations to offset these costs.
A proper traffic study and implementation of mitigations cannot be accomplished without
adequate funding. Allocating funds from projects adjacent to Downtown North is clearly an
appropriate way to offset the negative impacts of these developments. Jim Baer’s proposal
demonstrates that responsible development can benefit the surrounding community. We ask
that you accept his proposal.
Chairoerson Cassel: Thank you.
Commissioner Ojakiar~: I have a question for Dan. It sounds like you have worked
extensively with the transportation department and Mr. Overway. It sounds like the main
A’. I PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 32
04-09-97
reason why something has not been done so far in your part of the town is, if I heard your
words correctly, funding. Is that fight?
Mr. Lorime_r: That is one reason we have been given. I think that another reason is that the
Downtown North Neighborhood Association has not been perceived necessarily as being as
large a force as it now is. A third reason is that there has been some notion (which I have
heard from Gary Fazzino, for example) that when Tony would come down here and speak, he
never really knew whether Tony was speaking for the neighborhood or speaking on his own
behalf. Now that we have had an extensive survey of the Downtown North residents and
have a much larger membership that is going to be demonstrable to you, we can now say that,
in fact, when our people come down and say, this is what we want, that it represents the
views of the Downtown North residents.
Commissioner Ojakian: So basically, it is funding, but you feel like at this stage, you did not
have "political clout."
would say that’s right.
Commissioner Byrd: I want to go back to an issue with Jim that he did not treat that we
raised at the heating last fall. That is the possibility of ground floor retail in this location.
You alluded to the fact, in talking about the ordinance, that there might change over time. I
said last fall that I am concerned about creating a less pedestrian-hospitable office
environment, separating Downtown North from the retail vitality of University Avenue. As I
have gone back and looked at this project site more, it strikes me as one that would be
appropriate for ground floor retail if it pencilled and if it worked at other levels. So on that
subject, Iwas wondering whether you could explain why, at this point, that appears not to
work, and what would be the possibility of its working in the future.
.Mr. Baer: The highest level accurate answer from a developer’s point of view to your
question is that anything that restricts potential use has enormous consequences. Lytton is
not a thriving retail bloek,~ and neither is the Waverley side on which this building is located.
Those types of retailers that could be reached for a building on Lytton would most likely be a
restaurant use, which is painful for a landlord, expensive for a landlord, and painful for
neighbors due to traffic consequences. So the answer is, what we are building is a
professional office building that by its design has the opportunity to have many openings and
be retail, but that is not a market demand for this location that we experience now, partly
from the Seven-Eleven and partly from what goes on on most other parts of Lytton Avenue.
It is not our desire to put in another restaurant on Lytton Avenue.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question either for the applicant or for staff. My reason for
asking is that last.week, I had the opportunity to lead an architectural tour of the downtown,
so I paid particular attention to what was nice on streets and what was less appealing. One of
A:[ PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 33
04-09-97
the things that seemed less appealing to me was the parts of the street where north-facing
walls were dark and there were non-deciduous trees. In the wintertime, it made that part of
the street darker and less inviting. As I look at this building, it looks like the street trees that
are being put in are ones that match existing trees or that relate to existing trees on those two
streets. I think they are both evergreen so they would have their canopies in the winter. I
think the trees on the north side of the building are also trees that would do better in full sun.
So my question is, are those trees being placed there because the city recommends matching
trees there? If so, does the city look at individual projects, or does it just have
recommendations per street as to what kinds of trees to put in?
Ms. Lytle: The street tree master plan, and in particular, the Urban Design Guide, includes a
tree designation for certain districts that were defined in the Urban Design Guide. I believe
that the required street tree planting is consistent with that. It probably does reflect other
trees that are already mature on that street. It is a valid point that in changing over street tree
types, that probably should be considered if it is something that degrades the quality of the
environment in the wintertime to have evergreen trees. We may want to think about that. It
is a tough choice to make a switeh,’project by project. Obviously, you lose the integrity of
the district. If you already have some established trees in that district, you would not want to
wipe those out until perhaps later on, making a change in the type of tree.
Commissioner Sehmidt_: So it is probably something long term that the street tree master plan
needs to address to make changeover considerations for taller buildings and darker colors,
etc.
~: That is what I would suggest..That feedback would probably be given to both the
arborist and Public Works and the Planning Department, and perhaps even a letter to Canopy,
making that suggestion that we revise the guide and the street tree master plan to include
those criteria.
Commissioner Schink: I have a followup on the tree question. I noticed in here that We were
calling for a Nepal camphor tree. I am not familiar with that particular one. I plant a lot of
camphor trees, and .this is a new one to me. I wondered if there is some flexibility, or has the
tree master plan been modified so that this is the required camphor tree now?
Ms._M__a.~: I cannot answer that. My suspicion is that they keep developing better and better
urban trees. We try and keep up with the times in terms of using the latest and greatest non-
root-invasive and other attributes that they breed into these trees. It is my guess that that is a
new type, but without the arborist present, I cannot answer that question.
Commissioner Sehink: Would it be appropriate for us to make some suggestions here along
the lines of what Kathy was raising, so that they might have some flexibility on the exact type
of camphor tree also, as well as other types of trees?
A:I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 34
04-09-97
Ms. ~le: I think the flexibility you would want to give would be to the arborist, not to the
applicant.
Commissioner Schink: They could work together.
Commissioner Ojakian: I have a question of the applicant. Jim, I noted in your very
thorough booklet that you gave us, you pointed out a couple of other projects in the
downtown that were also PC zones that had an additional 8,000 square feet added to them.
Are both of those your projects? I know.that 250 University Avenue is? (Yes) Also 531
Cowper? (Yes). Just give me a brief idea as to what type of public benefit you offered in
those two PCs.
Mr. Baer: At 250 University Avenue, it is complex in their translation. The city bought a
level of parking at $23,000 per stall in that. So one element in the statement is that we have
been providing the air space in which to pay for public parking. Detractors of 250 University
Avenue said that $23,000 is an awful lot to have paid per stall. Chop Keenan was a leader of
that group at that time. The second public benefit was that we did the plaza improvements
and dedicated easements for land that otherwise would not have been required as an
easement. There was a particular circumstance there which was that it had previously been a
T-alley with the alley extending all the way from Bryant to Ramona for vehicles, and the city
was allowing us to close that and make it only for pedestrians. So that was part of the
interchange. At 531 Cowper, the public benefits were to create the pedestrian arcade and to
provide $150,000 for a child care center fund.
Chaimerson Cassel: I believe our city attorney has some comments to make on several of the
points that Mr. Baer brought up.
Ms. Cauble: Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. Staff is at somewhat of a disadvantage, having
received this letter tonight. I will do the best job I can, given that I have just received it.
There were several procedural issues that I wanted to mention to you. Mr. Baer is correct in
pointing out to you that the PC ordi.nance, as proposed, is very specific as to permitted use. It
only permits of-flee use and permits no conditional uses. So if the commission is interested in
having more flexibility (and I am sure Nancy may want to address that as to what her
recommendation would be), that is part of what you should recommend. That appears on
Page 3 of the PC ordinance where we have our listing of permitted and conditional uses. In
this case, no conditional use is permitted, only office.
Chairperson Cassel: So the question we really have is, is it typical? I am sure Nancy will
answer that.
Ms. Cauble: I will tell you from my short time here that it really has varied. In some cases,
the PC ordinance has recommended the permitted uses of the preexisting zone, in this case,
A: I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 35
04-09-97
the CD zone. In others, it has been very restrictive, and it really depends on circumstances.
So that certainly is an appropriate area for consideration. You may want to get planning
staff’s opinion as to what went into their recommendation, and maybe they have a different
recommendation at this point.
Commissioner Ojakian: What types of uses could go on in a CD zone?
Ms. Lytle: Commissioner Schink and I went through those earlier today for conditional uses.
I will go through it for permitted uses. Animal care is a permitted use. Also business and
trade schools, churches and religious institutions, convalescent facilities and day care centers
(which we now call child care centers), eating and drinking services, financial services except
drive-in, home occupations when accessory to permitted residential, hotels without kitchens,
hotels built after August 5, 1985 having an unlimited number of rooms with kitchens, liquor
stores, lodging, medical, professional and general business offices, mortuaries, personal
services, private clubs, lodges or fraternal organizations, private educational facilities, retail
services, shopping centers, single-family, two-family and multiple-family residences. Those
are the permitted uses.
As for the conditional uses, I will save you the trouble of going through them. The only one
that Commissioner Schink and I found to be even suitable in this district that is conditionally
permitted is the general business service use. We could foresee some potential for a general
business service. Other than that, most of the conditional uses are automotive-service-related
or parkingrstructure-related~ something that just would not work with this building. The day
care center example given by the applicant is a permitted use. It is not a conditional use. But
it would need to be added to this ordinance if it wereone that the commission wants to
include under the permitted use category.
Commissioner Byrd: Out of curiosity, food retail grocery store, is that a either.a permitted or
a conditional use in this zone?
~: It is permitted in this zone, but to have it as a retrofit to this building, you would
need to list it in the permitted uses in the ordinance. But in the CD(C) preexisting zone, it is
a permitted use.
Commissioner Sehink: Just so that I understand, where it says in the ordinance that the
permitted uses shall be limited to X square feet of office use, the only thing, of the permitted
uses listed that we can put in here, is office use?
~: That is correct.
Commissioner Schmidt: For further clarification, it is my understanding from what was said
that some PC~ might say, a permitted use is anything that is allowable in the CD(C).
A: I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 36
04-09-97
Ms. Lytle: Yes, we have done several Planned Community districts in the downtown that
have used the list of uses from the CD(C) regulations. That was what was requested by the
.applicant.
Ms. Cauble: When I first arrived in this office and got my first draft from staff for a request
to prepare a PC ordinance, I went through the roof when it had anything allowed in the CD
zone. The staff report was full of analysis that this attractive office building will contribute to
the area, etc., etc., and then we had an ordinance that said, you can put a dog kennel in there,
a hotel, etc. So I certainly do not have an opinion on whether it should only be office or
something else, but our PC ordinance specifies that every ordinance has to specify the
permitted and conditional uses. So it is presumed in the zoning code that you will go through
some level of special analysis for one of these projects, thinking through whether it should be
everything that would have been allowed before. Or should it be limited in some way, now
that we are creating this building that is larger or in some way different from what we would
otherwise have permitted under the zone. So I think it deserves careful thought in each case,
rather than just a knee-jerk "Keep it the way it would be." People are not building what they
otherwise could build. It is often much more intense.
Chairperson Cassel:. Isn’t this usually discussed before it reaches us at this level?
Ms. Lvtle: Usually it is part of the applicant’s application. They generally outline the uses.
Chairperson Cassel: I am surprised that we are sitting here discussing exactly what items
need to go into this PC zone.
Yes, it seems late for that discussion.
Chairperson Casse_l: Usually, you expect the applicant to have brought forward what he
wanted in the PC zone.
Commissioner Schink: He has. He wants an office. But some of us think there should be the
flexibility of adding retail and other uses.
Chairperson Cassel: I am asking questions of staff at the moment. Debbie, you had some
more items to cover.
~: Yes, a couple of other things. You have heard this from me on other projects,.
but I am concerned by the language in Mr. Baer’s letter which urges that the commission
allocate his public benefit money to a certain use. We do not allocate money. An applicant
presents a proposal to you, staff gets to evaluate it, and Planning Commission and City
Council ultimately get to decide whether this project has a public benefit as proposed. I am
very concerned about the commission, with the consent of an applicant or not, getting into a
A: I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 37
04-09-97
position of saying, you have offered us a pot of money, and now, we get to decide where to
spend it. The zoning ordinance requires a project, as presented, to have public benefit. I
understand (and Mr. Baer can correct this) that he is now suggesting that what he proposes as
part of his public benefit is a contribution toward a Downtown North study versus a
contribution toward nearby improvements. Maybe that can be clarified and followed up with
him. Then it might be interesting to hear whether the staff recommendation is that that is a
public benefit, and then the commission can evaluate it. But I am troubled by the request that
you allocate the money. That is not your role here. Your role under the code is to determine
whether this project has a public benefit. We start offon a very dangerous path if the city
were to start deciding what an applicant does with the money.
Chairperson Cassel: So what you are saying is, we really have two public benefits proposed.
Ms. Cauble: I am not clear about it. So that is something that I think you need to follow up
on.
On a related but slightly different issue, there is a proposal that the Planning Commission
adopt a certain appraised value for the easement. Because I just got this tonight, I did not
bring with me the city’s policies on evaluating leases, easements, etc. But we have a policy,
and I am certain that it does not include the Planning Commission deciding how much an
easement is worth, with all due respect. In fact, I don’t think it even includes the City
Council getting to decide it unless a particular process has gone through. I understand that
part of the applicant’s request is that a different process for appraisal be followed. We would
have to determine whether or not that meets with the city’s established policies on how we
value interest that we convey to other people. In my opinion, that is what should be followed.
If our condition in the staff report is inconsistent with the city policy, then it should be
changed. I am not in a position, as I sit here tonight, to say whether it is consistent or
inconsistent. Certainly, no one here tonight, from a legal point of view, is in a position to
decide what that easement is worth. None of us in this room has the authority to make that
determination.
Finally, on the issue of in’lieu parking, on Page 3 of Mr. Baer’s letter, he makes a proposal
which I have seen for the first time tonight. It suggests that a lower parking requirement
should be considered for this project on the basis of the needs of a particular tenant. His letter
is quite correct in noting that our zoning ordinance, which specifies the parking requirements
for.any use, including uses in PC zones, does have a provision that allows, under certain
limited circumstances, a different parking standard to be established. It does require special
findings. It requires supportive data, as determined by the zoning administrator, who as far as
I know has never been asked to look at this situation. So I am not sure how she could have
determined what information should be provided.
A:I PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 38
04-09-97
This was used at 2700 Ash Street, you may recall. It was a PC zone that came before you
recently involving a project for developmentally disabled persons. Under both our PC
ordinance and under funding obligations, we were quite satisfied that the use of that project
was narrowly restricted. That was part of the basis for staff recommending that you could
make the finding, but a different parking standard would be appropriate for that project.
We have no legal right to limit use of this building to this particular law firm, even assuming
that flae information is correct. It may be Townsend this year, and it may be Gray Cary next
year, and it could be an insurance company the following year. So I am troubled by the fact
that we have not gone through the process required to make any assessment of the parking
demand. Certainly, it would be my opinion that you cannot base it on the needs of a
particular, individual tenant unless we have some meaningful way to restrict the use of the
building to that tenant. We do not have a way to restrict it to a particular law finn.
Chairperson Cassel: In addition to that, we are considering making the permitted uses
broader than just an office use.
Ms. Lvtle: I would like to thank the applicant for looking over these conditions very
carefully. This is the point in the project where we need to make sure we can live with what
is going to be adopted and carried out, not after we are in the midst of construction. So I do
appreciate the thorough review of conditions of approval that has taken place here.
In terms of the letter submitted this evening, Item 1, "Modification of certain specific
conditions that allow staff flexibility for implementation of technical conditions," I feel there
is a good suggestion imbedded in Conditions #2, 40, 41 and 54, which is to allow for field
adjustments.during construction as authorized by the planning arbodst when it relates to the
tree preservation issues. I think that is sensible. There are times when a minimum dimension
that was established without knowledge of exactly where the main tree roots are can be
adjusted, but it needs to be done quite carefully and with prior approval from the arborist.
We do not recommend, however, establishing lesser dimensions for engineering drawings
than what have been conditioned here. It needs to be clarified that the arbodst and planning
staff have reviewed the engineering drawings, and found them not to be of a sufficient
dimension to support the trees. So there may be some ability to broaden that space, once we
get out in the field, but we should not plan on doing that right from the beginning. That is my
point. You might be able to expand that area, once you get out there and find that there is
ample room to do it. But I would not want us to count on that, or the tree is going to lose out
to the structure.
Chairoerson Cassel: Which item is that, Nancy?
~: It is in any instance here where we have a difference in dimension between our
staff condition and the engineer’s plans. It was intentional that the condition establish a
A: ] PCMins5 ] PC0409.spc Page 39
04-09-97
broader dimension than the plans showed. The reason for that was that the plans were
insufficient.in their soil volume to support the tree. It would be any of the conditions (2, 40,
41, 42 and 54). So whereas we would agree with the idea of putting some standard language
in there for the last field adjustment, we would not want to recommend to you that we
diminish the dimensions.
Commissioner Schink: I would like to ask a specific question about those dimensions. For
Condition #54, you are recommending a planting area 4 feet by 4 feet. In Condition #40, the
applicant is asking for a planting area 4 feet by 4-1/2 feet, rather than the 4 feet.by 5 feet in
the condition. It seemedto me that if staffis recommending 4 feet by 4 feet in
Condition #54, we might be able to accept their request to go to 4 feet by 4-1/2 feet.
Ms. L~fl_.!..: I think the distinction is that in one instance, we are preserving an existing,
mature tree, and in the other, we are planting new ones. I would have had the arborist present
tonight if I had known these questions would come up. I have not been involved in the
specific details of planter dimensions, and am really not qualified to reply, but my guess is
that the difference in those dimensions has to do with the different circumstances in the
various planters.
I would agree with Debbie on the appraisal issue. Planning staff does not agree with the
applicant’s proposal to use their own project appraisal. It declares the value of public
property to be insignificant to be adequate for protecting the public’s interest in the parking
structure. So we would fall back on our typical polieyfor making appraisals of public
property value.
I feel it is worth mentioning that we have a conflict in this letter and the application materials
before us now. The contributions are spelled out in the public benefit statement by the
applicant on Page 11 of their original development statement. They have given $75,000 for
public improvements, etc. So this letter seems to call for an amendment. They need to make
up their mind about what they want, and amend their public benefit proposal so thatit can be
considered.
Commissioner Schink: I did not read the letter in quite the same way, so maybe you could
point out what it is in the letter that made you draw that conclusion. The way I read it was to
say that he was making some creative suggestions as to where we could find the $75,000, that
we could take it from the easement charges or we could take it from the in-lieu parking fees,
and just trying to make a ease for that. I was of the conclusion that we still got the $75,000
for the downtown improvements. IfI missed it in the letter, I would like to get clarification.
Ms. Cauble: If you look at the top of Page 3 of Mr. Baer’s letter, he is suggesting that
$75,000 of the public benefit measures (and the public benefit measure that involved dollars
is the improvements to the vicinity of the project) may be reallocated from those
A: [ PCMins5 [ PCO409.spc Page 40
04-09-97
improvements to traffic mitigations. So I think that is the cause of the confusion on the part
of the staff.
~: That is the only one of these choices that seems to have validity from our
perspective, as well. You do not take money from an in-lieu parking ordinance requirement
and shift it to a traffic study. That is not something that is legally appropriate. Likewise, you
would not take money to reimburse the public for the value of property in an easement and
shift it from the General Fund and target it for a specific purpose. So the only one that I feel
has any feasibility here would be converting the $75,000 public benefit statement in their
original latter to a traffic study, as opposed to public improvements. We have not evaluated
that as a benefit in our staff report.
Commissioner Oiakian: I want to get back to staff regarding the question I asked Mr. Baer a
few minutes ago. Looking at the list of public benefits that we have in here in the staff report
(and let’s not talk about some of the revisions to that which we think we heard tonight), and
then looking at the other two projects that had eomparab!e square footage added to them as
part of a PC process, in one case, looking at the project on Cowper Street, we had a
pedestrian arcade, and then we had $150,000 given to child care, do we have a comparable
benefit being offered in this project? We have comparable square footage under other PCs.
Staff said in the staff report that they are comfortable with the public benefit that is offered,
but hearing these other, numbers tonight, is that an apples for apples public benefit?
Ms. Cauble: I can tell you what our legal advice certainly of late has consistently been to the
staff and Planning Commission and City Council. It is that it is not appropriate to make an
apples for apples or dollars for dollars comparison. It is not zoning for dollars. It is a
question of whether this project offers a public benefit. Some projects include some
monetary contribution to particular improvements as part of that. Some provide public art.
This project happens to include that kind of element, as well. Some include a particular use
that is considered.especially desirable that we would not be getting but for the project. There
is a variety of elements to that which the commission and council and staff have
recommended to be considered as a public benefit. Our office is very, very uncomfortable
with any effort to try and equate dollarson one project to dollars on another project.
~: You mentioned that there has been a shift in our legal advice on the
proportionality issue, the amount ofupzoning and the amount of value that is being offered. I
know that in the past, we have had both of those comparisons requested by commissioners
and council members. We have had the council request tables comparing the various benefits
we received from various projects versus the square footage of upzoning that was required for
the project. The attorneys are counseling us that the code does not read that way and that we
should not be looking at projects in comparison to either their size or in comparison to each
other. We should simply be using the findings in the PC zone and evaluating the project as it
stands for its inherent benefit and for any public benefit beyond that. So you will notice that
A: [ PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 41
04-09-97
shift in the staff report. You Will not see that type of language in this report or in future
reports. So yes, in treating this application on its face, we found that according to the original
statement, there was sufficient benefit for the upzoning, including the inherent benefit of
having a fine building on this comer, and we think the comer can hold the building volume.
Urban designwise, it makes sense. Also, the comer is long overdue for this fine addition, and
also in terms of the additional benefits that were originally proposed by the applicant and
accepted by staffin the staff report. The applicant’s public benefit package on Page 11
includes several statements that we do not agree With, and we have let you know in the staff
report which ones we do not think are benefits. But those that we concur With we feel are
adequate benefits to justify approval of the project and meet the findings for a PC zone.
Commissioner Byrd: In the staff report on the subject of the use of this money for a traffic
study of Downtown North, you raise the issue of nexus. You say it is inappropriate to take
in-lieu parking fees and apply them toa parking study and possible parking mitigations. I do
not completely follow the argument, because it seems to me we are drawing too fine a
distinction there between ears that are parked and cars that are moving. In both cases, we are
trying to deal with the impacts of automobiles upon a portion of the city. From that
perspective, whether or not we choose to pursue this, it seems to me to be an adequate nexus
for us to consider this.
Ms. Cauble: I reviewed this report, of course, and I do not recall exactly what the language
says, but from the perspective of our office, it may well be an appropriate thing to do to
charge fees to builders in the downtown that are used for a variety of things, including
parking, studies of traffic, and other things. The bottom line, though, is that right now we
have an ordinance scheme that says you must provide required parking, or you can pay an in-
lieu fee, and the in-lieu fee is used for specified purposes. So if the council wants to revisit
the in-lieu parking program as a matter of policy, the way to do it is to revisit the in-lieu
parking program. There is not a mechanism to create a special situation for a particular
project. You would need to look at the whole thing. The whole thing came forward as a
unified scheme. There were studies done as to how much it cost to provide parking, What an
appropriate in-lieu fee was, takinginto account what parking space deficit we expected, what
kind of parking we thought we could provide, etc. So I do not see a nexus issue with respect
to this particular project. The issue is not even on the table with respect to the particular
project, because it has a code requirement to provide parking spaces or pay a fee that the law
right now says will be used for some other purpose. If that law changes before they pull
building permits (and as I recall, the fee is structured that you pay the fee before you pull
your building permits), certainly at that time we would have to look at all of the legal aspects
as to whether it is a legal fee and whether uses are appropriate. Assuming that could legally
be done, if it happened before building permits were pulled, the money that this project has to
pay for in-lieu parking might indeed go for something else.
A: I PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 42
04-09-97
Commissioner Byrd: I would also be interested in hearing from the applicant on this same
subject.
Commissioner Schink: I am getting a bit concerned that we are starting to debate a public
benefit that I am not sure is on the table. So I would suggest that we take a five-minute break
and let the applicant talk with staff. When we come back, we could be informed as to what
the public benefit package is.
Chairperson Cassel: I will call for a break.
(A short break is taken.)
Chairperson Cassel: I would like to propose that this item be continued for two weeks so that
it will be heard at the City Council meeting scheduled for May 19th.
Ms. Cauble: If the commission wanted to consider that, someone could make a motion to
that effect. If you are thinking of considering such a motion, you might want to get the
applicant’s comments on that.
Chairperson Cassel: Would this still go to the City Council on May 19th?
Ms. Cauble: The next commission meeting is April 30th.
Chairperson Cassel: I do not see how we are going to analyze some of these issues tonight
that have been brought up.
Ms. Lytle: I am not sure, with the Sand Hill Corridor, whether we could get this on the May
19th agenda without having the report done in advance.
Chairperson Cassel: This is scheduled at the moment for May 19th. Our hearing this on
April 30th would not delay their presentation to the City Council. If the Sand Hill Corridor.
were to delay it, it would be delayed anyway.
That is true.
Commissioner O_iakiar~_: Let’s get Mr. Baer’s comments.
Commissioner Schink: And let’s agree not to do the Comprehensive Plan tonight.
Chairperson Cassel: Do we think we can complete this tonight? The problem is that we have
had two items proposed, and Mr. Baer can bring something forward to us, and on one issue
we can proceed, but on the other issue, staff has not had the opportunity to evaluate the item.
A: [ PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 43
04-09-97
would allow him the opportunity to clarify his position.
Mr. Baer: We will bring clarity and surrender those issues that we know to have a complex
aspect outside of the powers of the Planning Commission. I am sorry for the lateness of the
letter. In the enormously impacted schedule that all of you experienced and that planning
staff experienced, we submitted roughly this binder application in mid-February, partially
hoping that we would resolve some of these kinds of issues and have a cohesive response and
policy set of decisions worked out with staff. I received the staff report yesterday.
Chairperson Cassel: What I need now, Mr. Baer, is a concise definition of where you would
like to proceed.
Mr. Baer: What I am trying to say is that I am an applicant who tries his best and finds
himself in a circumstance of having ad hoe decisions, and this was not the intention. This has
been a two-month process. Now I will get very clear and precise.
The use that we request and was submitted in our application (and was very specific in our
application) was that the uses be all of those allowed within the CD(C). This is consistent
with 250 University, 531 Cowper, and 499 University as PCs. It is consistent with the first
and second floor for 400 Emerson. The only two PCs that did not apply were where we
specifically asked that two projects be removed from the GF zone. So we would ask that the
CD() uses be allowed. The general economics of the downtown will dictate that it not be a
veterinary hospital, but we certainly want to allow retail or personal services or financial
services.
Secondly, staff was in agreement with our request that the conditions that we have raised be
modified to allow as approved by the city arborist. There have been very sensitive meetings
between John Northway and his office, city staff and the city arborist, and.we think these
conditions do not quite reflect where the arborist and the architect are in agreement.
Chaimerson Cassel: Do you want us to debate that here or do you --
Mr. Baer: No, we think staff is saying, they will accept language that says; on those
conditions or as agreed to by the city arborist.
We certainly tmderstand the issue that city has a process on how appraised value is
determined. We hope we can meet with staff to resolve that. I am withdrawing my request
that you accept our appraised value. We understand that that is outside of your authority to
act, and we would like to work with staff on reviewing their policy and to see that we are
efficient, and go to council on how we propose that the appraised value be determined.
A:[ PCMins5 [ PCO409.spc Page 44
04-09-97
On the allocation of funds, it was the intention, in suggesting traffic mitigations as an
alternative, that we get the kind of feedback that said, here is what you can and cannot do in
specifying funds, not allocating funds. The public benefit component that we are asking is
that $75,000 be allocated for traffic mitigations and studies, and not that we provide dollars
for improving WaVerley Street or Florence Street. At this point, I should point out that this
’ has an origin in 1991 with a project that was not completed where we had extensive
discussions with the neighborhood and Ken Schreiber and Marvin Overway. As Dan
Lorimer pointed out, the traffic department said, this neighborhood can benefit from traffic
studies and mitigations without diverting traffic to other neighborhoods. It was not only an
absence of funds that has perhaps led to this not being picked up, but there are so many
neighborhoods that would like traffic mitigations that it is difficult for staffto recommend
favoring one neighborhood over another without their being some nexus tied to a project. In
199 I, there was a clear discussion about the nexus of a Lytton Avenue property and traffic in
Downtown North. So I hope it is clear that we have a consistent, not a confused request for
our public benefit.
We also understand that the funds that would be received for parking Lot F are a General
Fund issue. So we will withdraw that the Planning Commission take that action, but again,
we are hoping that this raises the level of discussion that will take place at this commission to
say that if you start with funds for the study, we hope that you will look at allocating CIP
funds for traffic mitigations in Downtown North in the near future. We also understand the
limitations of modifying Section 18.83 or the off-street parking ordinance or in-lieu parking
as being elements that have a much more Complex nature. We do not want to make that a
requirement for your deliberations, although your comments encouraging traffic mitigations
will certainly be appreciated.
Finally, the two other issues I raised of a very technical nature are that we recognize that
some modifications to the exterior of the building are of a minor nature and do not require an
amendment to the PC zone but could be handled at the staff level or by ARB approval.
The other is that I am eoneemed about this going to the ARB with thebus bench, because we
might well have transit authority requirements or some other agency requirements as to what
those are. It is a burden to put upon us when we can solve that at the staff level with the
transportation department, planning staff and whatever county authority we must deal with. I
hope this has summarizedfor you with clarity what we are asking. We appreciate staff’ s
advising us that some of these things cannot be resolved in the manner we have requested.
Commissioner Schink: I have a question for the applicant. I see a bit of a dilemma here. It
appeared that the application we had presented to us said that there was a $75,000
contribution which pretty specifically was going to go for street improvements. That is the
perspective from which I reviewed this application. I would like to keep the application
intact in that sense, and suggest that if you want us to consider other uses of that $75,000, that
A: [ PCMins5 [ PCO409.spc Page 45
~04-09-97
we, as a commission, might talk about it. It may get at a recommendation that is an
alternative that might be considered by someone, but that we would go forward with the
application essentially as submitted. That would give you an opportunity to build an
argument between now and the council hearing for that other $75,000. Or we could step back
for two weeks and consider the other alternative. I would like to know what your choice is.
Would you prefer that we try to move this along with what we understood to be the original
public benefit? Or continue it for this other issue?
Mr. Baer: We would like to have action tonight. We would hope that in that action, a
majority of the commissioners could support the proposal for -- now I see the quandary. Is it
possible for the commission to make a motion that would say, we accept the public benefit as
being sufficient, and that that public benefit be identified as Items 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, as staffhas
identified, substituting for No. 1 that traffic mitigation funds be used? I guess I do not
understand that if there is a majority willing to support funds for traffic mitigation, we would
certainly like to get on to the City Council. We would like to not go in with the issue of a
traffic mitigation alternative confused by a Planning Commission adoption of a public
benefit. We would fully expeet to present at the City Council the traffic mitigation as a nexus
and a wise use of the funds.
Chairperson Cassel: At this time, we will have to decide that we cannot take up the agenda
item of the Comprehensive Plan. What is the procedure?
Ms. Cauble: You can bring forward Item 6, as originally numbered on the agenda, although
you renumbered it. You can bring that forward for the purpose of continuing it to your next
meeting, which is currently scheduled for Thursday, April 17th at 6 p.m. So you can bring
that item forward for the purpose of continuing it to that date and time.
MOTION: Commissioner Oiakian: I would so move.
~: By Commissioner Schmidt.
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All
those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-0.
Returning to Item 7, do we have other questions of staff at this time? What we are doing is
looking at the proposal before us. We will now have comments and discussion, and then a
motion, if that seems appropriate.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question of staff in regard to the last two items that Mr.
Baer mentioned and which were mentioned in his letter. I wondered if staff agrees or
disagrees with his suggestions that staff be able to take care of certain modifications, such as
A: I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 46
04-09-97
modifications to the exterior, and that the bench and bus stop-related items not have to return
to the ARB.
Ms. Lytle: The bus bench we are recommending requires ARB approval. The reason for that
is that it is part of a street furniture system that is being approved by the ARB. This is a later
addition, a little piece that is going to come in separately. We think it would benefit to have
ARB approval for that singular component of a greater furniture program that the commission
will also be seeing shortly.
Chairperson Cassel: But it will not go back and forth from one group to another. It just goes
to the ARB.
Yes, just to the ARB.
Chairperson Cassel: Just like all of the other conditions are going to go to the ARB anyway.
Commissioner Sehmidt: So bus benches throughout the downtown will be part of the street
furniture program and will all be the same?
~: I am not sure that they will all be the same, but they are being looked at both in
terms of the whole and as individual pieces.
Commissioner Sehmidt: So they will be designed, rather than being put in place by eotmty
transit.
Ms. Lvtl~ee: I believe that to be the case in the downtown improvement plan.
I am not sure that I understand the first concern having to do with staff’s being able to make
approvals of minor modifications. We have that authority currently, so I am not sure what
part of the ordinance is causing concern. Maybe the applicant could be allowed to point out
the specific section that concerned him.
~: It is Section W(c)(i): "...any exterior changes to the buildings or any new
construction not specifically permitted...shall require an amendment to this Planned
Community zone." That would be such things as doors, light fixtures, paint color. There I
see that we could have art interpretive circumstance where we want to change a light fixture,
and staff feels that they would not have the authority to make that change.
~: I think we are still okay, because the Planned Community zone allows for an
ARB minor process. The ARB process allows for Staff approval if it is very minor. So I
believe we are still okay there. In the Planned Community zone, there is a mechanism for
that.
A: [ PCMins5 [ PC0409.Spc Page 47
04-09-97
Mr. Baer: Your commentary gives us comfort.
Commissioner Schmidt: And this statement might be something that is a typical statement in
a PC ordinance.
Ms. Cauble: It is a typical statement,, however, in light of recent developments, Nancy and
Jim have more comfort than I do. This is very express language, and if it is appropriate to
provide some flexibility, which it probably is, I think we should have that built into the
ordinance, making clear that we are not, by this language, eliminating the ability for minor
changes under Section 18.99, the part of the zoning code that lets staff approve certain minor
changes. I don’t think there is any problem in doing that, but I would feel much more
comfortable if we include that, and probably, in the future, staff should consider whether, on
a routine basis, they want to include that language.
Chairperson Cassel: So minor changes in the exterior will be approved by the ARB process?
Ms. Cauble: We can come up with some language that staff and the ARB, pursuant to
Section 18.99 in the ARB ordinance. We can make it a little more graceful than that. I think
it would be wise to include the specific language.
Commissioner Schink: In my original notes, I had added "major" in front of any exterior
changes, and then added a sentence: "Minor modifications may be approved by the Director
of Planning." I would feel more comfortable with that.
Going back to the bus bench, could we have the bench approved by the Director of
Planning? He has the authority to send it to the Architectural Review Board if he wanted to
for their approval. If the applicant gets caught in a box where he cannot get all of the parties
to agree, the decision really is with the Director of Planning, and we should just describe it
that way. I think it gives him more of an out. It gives the developer one person to work with.
Chairperson Cassel: Not having done so yet, I will now close the public hearing.
~: Responding to Commissioner Sehink’s question, you have heard our
recommendation. We would prefer that the public street furniture go to the Architectural
Review Board rather than just making it a director’s decision, acknowledging that the director
is actually the decisionmaker in the ARB process. We may be getting into semantics here. If
there is a problem, the director has the authority to take care of the problem if someone gets
caught up in it. It is his final decision, and he can take it to the council if he thinks the ARB
is being unreasonable, for example. Or he can send it back to them and let them know he
thinks they are being unreasonable.
A: I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 48
04-09-97
The second part of your question was, again using the director rather than the ARB on the
minor changes. My preference would be to just use the process that is in our PC zone now.
It is confusing when we tailor things for different Planned Community zones to have a
different approval process for different features. I would rather do it in the way we have been
interpreting this part of our PC zone to allow us to do it, especially when we have just been
informed by our attorney that we should clarify that.
.Commissioner Schink: Did you have a problem with their request to add retail, finance or
personal services after the of-flee use under permitted uses?
Ms. ~: No, I do not have a problem.
Commissioner Schink: And then we might be able to add, "except general business uses"
under the conditional use part? [OR IS THAT "ACCEPT"?]
~: I do not have a problem with that, either.
Commissioner Schmidt: But they have asked for all of the uses within the CD(C), I believe.
Ms. ~: I thought I heard them modify their request.
Commissioner Byrd: I think I heard the applicant say, all of the uses, understanding that the
¯economics of the downtown would naturally limit what those uses may be, and that the
language regarding all of the uses has been used in other PCs.
~: I think what has happened is that we have had another opinion of that rote
practice. It is not as sensible as we might have found it to be. It was a very flexible process,
but it might not make sense when you go and evaluate individually the uses in the district. A
lot of uses that we would say are permitted uses are automotive service uses and things that
we know are never going to happen, so it seems mindless for us not to do this in a thoughtful
way.
Mr. Baer: We are not in disagreement with staff. We just want to create the flexibility that
allows those uses that would be beneficial to the downtown and adjacent neighbors.
Chairperson Cassel: Other comments or questions?
Commissioner Ojakiau_: Let me ask a larger question of staff that I have been pondering for
awhile. In looking at suggestions by the Downtown North Association about the whole issue
of traffic and parking in their neighborhood, why is it, Nancy, that that is not an issue that is
being discussed right now by the city? I do not necessarily see a connection between this
particular project. More, I see a connection between the whole downtown vitality and what is
A: [ PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 49
04-09-97
going down in the neighborhood. Why aren’t we, at this stage, looking at that anyway? I
guess I say that partly in light of some of the actions that happened at the council meeting the
other night. A group of neighbors from Ross Road came down with a problem, though
probably not as long-standing a problem, and maybe not as severe a problem. In fact, I
would not suspect it to be as severe a problem, although that is conjecture on my part.
Ms. L.L.,~: I know that we have a pool of money that is allocated annually for doing
neighborhood traffic studies. I know that there is some kind of pdodtization system that the
transportation division uses in performing those studies. My sense is that the pool is
probably not adequate to cover all of the requests that they receive. I would guess that they
use some kind of engineering criteria to establish who gets the funds first. I would bet it
relates to. safety issues where people may have been hit, where there have been accident rates,
things of that nature.
We also know that through the Comprehensive Plan, if the draft is any indication, there will
be further call for looking at neighborhood traffic-calming programs. I believe that
Transportation has already anticipated that as a likely outcome, and has begun, through their
budgeting cycle, to advocate for increasing the pool of money that they currently have to
accommodate community expectations for expanding the program. But I cannot answer why
the city is not doing that already. My guess is that there have been insufficient funds to
handle all of the requests we have received. This area probably did not rise to the top. I do
not know where it sits in terms of priorities now, either, and whether it is the next one to be
funded or if it is ten years from now.
Chairperson Casseli We have had a lot of discussion about the Downtown North traffic,
however. Some work has been done in that area, and Marvin is not here tonight to discuss
that and share with us any of that information on what has been done. That is the problem
with this issue. I knew this issue would come up, but I thought that this request was going to
be withdrawn at.the meeting, based on some other discussions I had had prior to this.
Ms.L_..y~: In my conversations with Marvin Overway, he would generally be supportive of a
neighborhood traffic, study as a public benefit. He is the official responsible for trying to
divvy up this finite fund, and he knows there is a great demand. He does believe it to be a
benefit. But as a planning department, we have not looked at that. The idea of a study as a
benefit is a leap for us. We have always considered improvements to be something
substantial that you could point to as being a benefit. So this would be a change in our
thinking. I would be more comfortable if, as suggested by Commissioner Sehink, if the
commission wants to pursue that modification, that we have a two-week delay to allow us to
give you some analysis on whether or not we think that is a benefit.
Commissioner Ojakian: My difficulty with this issue is that I do not want to cloud what I
consider as two separate things. We have a project in front of us, and we should look at that.
A:[ PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 50
04-09-97
It has a suggested public benefit of $75,000. We have had similar types of public benefits
offered before in other projects in the downtown area. I want to address that here, yet I am
grappling with the difficulty that says, here we have an area that we know is being-impacted.
We should be studying it anyway, but it is not an issue that we specifically have in front of us
tonight. I wish there was a mechanism where we could tell staff to go back and somehow
present that, either through the Planning Commission or City Council, to do something about
that, and not particularly in light of what is only going on in the downtown but also the fact
that we have the Stanford projects possibly coming along, which makes this area more
unique, in some ways, than other areas in town. I hear what you have said, and I am not sure
ifI agree with delaying this project for two weeks. I wish we had a different mechanism for
dealing with a different problem.
Commissioner Byrd: I, too, do not want to delay our decision for two weeks. I think we
have enough information to make a decision tonight. We have spent a fair amount of time,
now, engaged in a series of details, and it is useful to lift us back up and look at the project in
the big picture: I am where I was last fall. I think that this is a good project for this location.
I think the public benefit package as proposed and as amended, so to speak (and we will get
to some of the details of those amendments), tonight is adequate. In general, I want to
preserve the ability to evolve the uses over time. I do think that Lytton is appropriate for
some retail development over time. I would like to see the possibility of retail at this site
retained, which is both a benefit to the applicant and to the community. I am also intrigued
by the applicant’s willingness to work with the neighborhood on an issue that is of deep
concern to the neighborhood. I area little concerned about how the issue of traffic in the
neighborhood is being postured in this proposal. I want to figure out a way, through this
project, to spend some money on that issue. I think that the first issue that those in the
neighborhood (and I live there, too) need to address is, how do we get those of us who live
there to drive less and to drive slower. There has been a lot of discussion about protecting the
neighborhood from cut-through traffic and outside traffic. I think good change begins at
home. I would like to see us start by directing our attention towards enabling us to drive
slower and to drive less. Part of driving less means being able to walk to services. The
reason why I brought up the issue earlier about a grocery.store was that we in Downtown
North are blessed by the ability to walk to lots of services, since we are near downtown, but it
is tough to go and buy the ingredients for dinner. I think it would be a benefit to the
neighborhood if, at some point, probably not here because of this building’s economics, but if
somewhere on Lytton, we.could locate a small super market that served the neighborhood,
that would enable those of us who live there to drive less. That is the sort of thinking that I
would like to see us apply to the traffic problem, which I agree is a problem, but which in part
can be addressed by reducing our own trips. So I would like to see us somehow find a way
to engage with the neighborhood as the applicant, which the neighbors want to do through
this project, although I agree with Vic that it is an issue that extends beyond this project. So I
hope we can act on the project tonight. I think the public benefit package that we had
A:I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 51
04-09-97
previously discussed at our last meeting is sufficient. I hope that we can also accommodate
some of this traffic concern.
Commissioner Schmidt: I am in general agreement with what has been said. I think this is a
good project, and the proposed public benefits are adequate. It is too bad that there was some
confusion or that tonight’s proposed change in public benefits could not have the benefit of
staff analysis. I certainly think that a Downtown North traffic study is something that is
necessary for the reasons suggested. I am surprised that we have not heard more about that,
especially in light of.the Stanford project.
I, too, would like to take action tonight and move forward. I don’t know if staff is .
comfortable only with the public benefits as analyzed and that the proposed change in public
benefits would have to be addressed at the council versus here. That is not quite clear to me.
It sounds as though what staff is saying is that the analyzed public benefits are acceptable, but
the fact that this is a study and a study has not previously been used as a public benefit, if we
make the change, it would not be good as far as staff is concerned.
Ms. Lvtle: Our recommendation would be that if we are going to amend to a study, you
might want to continue this for two weeks to allow staff to come back with our
recommendation to you. Or you can proceed tonight and take action on what Mr. Baer has
proposed as an amended public benefit, or you could request him to change back to his
original request, and take action on that.
Commissioner Schink: I am a little confused. As you said, we now have an amended public
benefit in front of us. We do not have the original public benefit.
Chaimerson Cassel: Let’s clarify what is before us.
Ms. Lyrtle: I am being reminded by the attorney that in the past, we have requested a written
amendment to a public benefit as opposed to just an oral amendment. We may want to
clarify with the applicant again exactly what is the public benefit at this point so that we all’
understand it.
Ms..Cauble: I think the important thing is that the Planning Commission needs to determine
what you think is before you. That is what you need to base your recommendation on. If you
believe that the applicant (and he has just stated) is amending his request to be specific, and
that he is proposing that $75,000 go for the study, and if you are accepting of the manner in
which the project proposal has been amended, that is what you should evaluate, and not
evaluate something that he is saying is not his project. The code requires you to make
recommendations on the findings, and it does not put the council in a position of
recommending what the appl!cant says the project is. If you find that that is what the project
is, that is what. you should evaluate.
A:I PCMins5 ] PC0409.spc Page 52
04-09-97
Commissi~oner Schink: Can we pick either one? Or can we say we like them both?
Ms. Cauble.: You need to evaluate the project. So if you have any questions in your mind as
to what the project is, you may want to get Mr. Baer up here again.
Chairperson Cassel: Let me make a comment before making a motion. When I first read this
project, I said, this is a slam dunk issue. This is a fine project. It looks nice. The public
benefit is clear. The only concern I had is that the trees didn’t have enough space to grow, as
I did not know how trees were expected to grow in such a little bit of space. Other than that, I
felt that the public benefit was adequate, that the nexus was good, that development in that
parking lot behind where the access is going to be for the cars to come through the public
parking lot was an excellent public benefit to work with this particular project. We were
going through a public parking lot, we were going to get 50 spaces underneath. I did some
calculations that showed that if we did not do the PC, we were going to roughly need this
many public spaces of in’lieu public parking whether we did one story, two stories, three
stories under the current zoning. I felt really, really comfortable with what was before me.
So now I am frustrated. I feel that the Downtown North neighborhood is frustrated because
they thought they were going to get something here that we cannot legally give them, with
the exception of a $75,000 study. Something needs to be done in the Downtown North
transportation area anyway, so I am actually angry that it has not been resolved the way it
was before we came in. I thought we had something we could do in 15 minutes. Done.
I think what we have before us is a proposal by Mr. Baer to amend what is in front of us, to
change the $75,000 from what I thought was an excellent nexus, though not a huge amount of
money, to the study for Downtown North. In that ease, my feeling is that we need to delay
this for two weeks. We need to give staff the chance to do that, and that seemed to have been
his request.
Commissioner O_iakian: My preference is to go ahead and approve this application, leaving
the $75,000 as the public benefit that is suggested in the staff report, and.leave it up to the
applicant and staffto discuss this between now and when it goes to council to see if there is
some meeting of the minds. Then when it gets to the council, if there is something different
from what we are proposing, the council can take up that issue, given the fact that there will
be all of these deliberations in the minutes.
Ms, Cauble: I do not want to belabor this, but I am really concerned about that approach.
The fundamental element of a PC zone is the public benefit f’mding. The Planning
Commission is required by law to make the recommendation to the council. Essentially, not
evaluating what the applicant says to be his project puts the commission in a position of not
having fulfilled its very important role in the process. So what I have put in this draft
ordinance is not the project. For example, there is a statement on Page 2. "The project ~
includes provision of a $75,000 contribution for public improvements." If that is not the
A: ] PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 53
04-09-97
project, I do not know how you can make a recommendation on it. So I am really
uncomfortable with the idea of your making a recommendation on something that the
applicant says is different from his project.
Commissioner Byrd: I have a question for you and perhaps for staff. We are now all clear
that there has been a proposed change, and we regularly deal with the give and take of ’
information here, and we can evaluate that change, because that is now the project that
apparently is being proposed. We can either approve it or disapprove it, but Iam not sure
why two weeks is needed for us to think about it before we deal with it. We have already
spent a couple of hours on it.
Chairperson Cassel: It is because what Debbie is trying to tell you is, normally, we have a
staff review on whether this is a public benefit that we can use and what happeris and how
they would do this with a study; and can they do a study for $75,000. The original proposal
in writing before you was not just for $75,000. It was for a great deal more money. So of
what use can $75,000 be? How useful is $75,000 to the staff to develop this kind of study,
for instance? They have not really had a chance to look at that issue. So if that is what is
before us, then we have not had a chance to have an adequate analysis of it. I think that is
what she is trying to tell us.
Commissioner Schink: I have gone all around on this, and I have come down to the direction
in which I would feel comfortable going. I would feel most comfortable proceeding forward
with the original benefit package. That has been analyzed by staff. Then hopefully, the
Planning Commission could take a very strong stance in advocating that the funds that are
received.from the sale of the easement rights in the parking lot be used for a traffic study.
Hopefully, we can use our pulpit to make that argument and suggest that that is where the
source of funds should come from. Then we would accomplish both things that we want to
accomplish. I know it is not within our purview to be making budget recommendations
necessarily, but we are seeing the money there as a direct result of this project, so it is a
reasonable way to suggest that it get funded. We can have a lot of rational discussion as to
why anything that is being paid for, such asan easement, is really found money. When you
consider that what they are doing in this project by putting in the parking lot access offofthe
rear is such a great public benefit from a land use planning decision, that to charge for it is
probably a planning mistake as it is. If you do get money for it, you might as well put it into
some other planning kinds of issues in the neighborhood. So I think we can make a strong
argument for that, and I prefer that we Proceed forward and approve this project as submitted
with the original benefit package, with amendments to the ordinance. I don’t want to
monopolize the microphone, but I could talk a lot about the rest of the project. First, I wanted
to see if we could get a direction like that and proceed with this.
Commissione~r Schmidt: It is my understanding that that is not the project before us. The
project has been amended by the statements that Mr. Baer made to change that public benefit,
A:[ PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 54
04-09-97
and that the $75,000 that was to go for improvements on Waverley and Florence would go
instead to $75,000 for a Downtown North traffic study. That is the project we have in front
of us. So we therefore could not approve what is on the papers in front of us. Is that correct?
Ms. Cauble: That is my concem. I do not know how you can recommend approval of an
ordinance that recites that the project will include a public benefit of providing a $75,000
contribution for certain improvements that the applicant is not offering. He is offering
something else. A contribution is not a condition that we get to impose.
Chainperson Cassel: We are going round and round in circles. We really have to delay this
until the next time. We have to have the staff and Mr. Baer work out what they are going to
do: They can include those suggestions and amendments that we now have, and it may go
very smoothly.
Commissioner Schink: Or staff could ask if he wants us to proceed on the first application.
Or walt two weeks and modify the application.
Ms. Lytle: I think those are your three choices. You either continue this, as the Chair has
mentioned. You could ask the applicant if he would be willing to amend back. He has
amended one way. He might want to amend back. The third option would be to take action
on the application as amended, in the absence of this staff information, and just on your own.
Chairperson Cassel: None of us seems very comfortable with any of this. It is not being
resolved easily.
Commissioner Byrd: I am comfortable with the third option. We have heard enough about
the project tonight.
Chairperson Cassel: Would you then make a motion?
MOTION: Commissioner Byrd: .I would move Nancy’s third option that we consider and
act tonight on the project as amended, with the information provided tonight by the applicant.
SECOND: By Commissioner Schink.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: Is there any further discussion?
Ms. Cauble: Could I ask the commission, since you do need to make the finding, and
typically the finding is based, in part, on the staff report, since we do not have a staff report
analyzing that particular proposed public benefit, it would be helpful if the maker of the
motion or the seconder could briefly address the manner in which you find that the
contribution toward the traffic study is a public benefit. Then we can proceed.
A: I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 55
04-09-97
Commissioner Byrd: I see your question. I think the finding is pretty straightforward. The
project will, in and of itself, generate traffic in the immediate vicinity that will, in part, impact
that neighborhood. Therefore, an allocation of those funds for studying traffic impacts on
that neighborhood provides a clear public benefit as a result of the project. Is that adequate,
or are you looking for something more specific?
Ms. Cauble: That sounds to me like a mitigation for an impact from the way in which you
have stated it. I am not sure that is what you meant it to say. In other words, I heard you say
the project creates an impact, and it will mitigate it. That is not a public benefit, but I do not
think that is what you meant.
Commissioner Byrd: There is an existing problem that the contribution made as a part of the
public benefit package will help address. As a result, I can make the finding.
Commissioner Sehink: Could Debbie point out in the ordinance portion which paragraphs
you think need to be amended? I think it is on Page 5, Article IV.
Ms. Cauble: Right, there are two places. What we do is, when an applicant proposes that
their project has certain public benefits, if they are not completely inherent, like it is designed
by Birge Clark and we know that Birge Clark drew the plans, we include related conditions to
ensure that the benefits that they said were offered .actually happen. So the reference to the
contribution appears in two places. One is the place that Commissioner Schink mentioned on
Page 5 of the ordinance. It is in a condition section. Condition #4 talks about payment of the
proposed contribution prior to the issuance of building permits, and it shall be used by the
city for certain things. The parallel place where a reference to that item occurs is on Page 2
of the ordinance, where atthe top of the page, the six elements of public benefit that were
proposed by the applicant and which staffreeommended that you find were public benefits of
the project are listed. Item 3 there is that contribution. So if the commission is
recommending that the project has been amended, and that as amended, it is a public benefit,
we would change Item 3 on Page 2 as well as Item 4 on Page 5.
Commissioner Byrd: Yes, that is a portion of my motion.
Commissioner Schink: I want to speak to the motion. To start with, I would agree with
Chairperson Cassel’s original comment that I came in tonight thinking this was a slam dunk
project. It was good for us to get into all of the issues, and as we looked at it more closely, it
is obviously more involved. The reason I believe we thought it was a slam dunk at the outset
was because it is an excellent building, appropriate for the site, well designed, and this
particular location can certainly handle the addition of this square footage. Frankly, in my
analysis of a PC, that is the critical question. I am always a little uncomfortable, as we
wrestle over what these public benefits should be, because frankly, ifI didn’t think the
building was right and the square footage was not right for the site, it doesn’t matter how
A: IPCMins51PC0409.spc Page 56
04-09-97
many dollars or how many trees or how many benches were going in, it is not going to go
forward in my mind. But since it is fight for the location, the question in my mind then
becomes, what is the appropriate contribution that best repays the community for the added
size of the building, or what is peculiar about this building? Sometimes, the fight benefit is
more trees on a certain street to mitigate the fact that the building is bigger, and it makes it
more appropriate to the site. Probably at other times, what is most appropriate is to give back
to the neighbors for some of the impacts that all of the businesses have imposed upon them. I
think that in this particular case, we have seen in a very articulate statement made by the
Downtown North neighbors that what is right inthis location is for us to focus more of the
benefit on the concerns of their neighborhood. So in looking at it, we have seen a good
opportunity here to move things from trees and benches over to looking closer at a
neighborhood and how the traffic moves through that neighborhood, with the obvious
eventual conclusion that maybe, something like speed bumps is going to be appropriate or
some other traffic calming method. We make theassumption that a traffic study is going to
lead to some eventual improvements. So out of this whole process tonight, we have come to
a better place with better public benefits. So that is why-I was happy to support the motion
by Commissioner Byrd.
As the seconder, I would like to recommend that we make some other changes to the
ordinance. Hopefully it will be agreeable to the maker of the motion. I believe that to make
the motion consistent with the ordinance, on Page 2, Article II, we should amend it to strike
the word "public improvement" and say "traffic study in the Downtown North
neighborhood." The next change I would like to recommend is that trader Permitted Use, we
include after "office" "retail, finance or personal services." Under conditional uses, that we
include "general business uses." On Page 5, that we modify Article IV and take out the
words "public improvement" and add "a traffic study." Then after that sentence, the next
sentence should read, "The contribution shall be used by the City of Palo Alto for a traffic
study in Downtown North" and the rest of that paragraph is deleted. I would like to go back
to Page 4, where I believe we should add language in what I call Article I which refers to the
project. It says, "Once the project has been constructed consistent with the approved
development plan, any ~ exterior changes..." and the rest remains the same.
Commissioner Sehmidt: Could we add to that Debbie’s wording about referring to a specific
article regarding ARB review?
Commissioner Schink: That sounds like a good idea to me. That is the extent of the changes
I would like to see made as the seconder of the motion, if they are acceptable to the maker of
the motion.
Commissioner Byrd: They are all acceptable to me. I would prefer, on the permitted uses,
that it be made more general to the uses allowed in the district, but I am also willing to leave
it as you have suggested, with those specific listed uses.
A: I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 57
04-09-97
Commissioner Schink: The reason why I did not expand the list was because I was
impressed by the city attorney’s comment that the project was analyzed in a narrower
framework than everything included in that category. I felt that by opening it up too much,
we might subject the project to some legitimate challenges.
Commissioner Byrd: Fine. I accept those friendly amendments.
Commissioner Schmidt: Jon, I don’t know if you mentioned the other statements, although it
may apply to conditions, about the applicant asking for a variety of conditions that the
statement "or as agreed to by the city arborist" be added. I think those are conditions. Also, I
would like to note that it is in the proposed ordinance on Page 5, Item VI, about locations and
species of new street trees being subject to review and approval by the city arborist. So my
concerns about future-looking appropriate trees should be taken care of there, and maybe in
addition, in the Staff report that goes to the council, or as Nancy suggested earlier, we need to
comment to the Canopy organization and arbodst to review appropriate species so that the
future canopy be deciduous where appropriate and long lasting, etc.
Commissioner Schink: I would also like to bring up to the maker of the motion a revision of
Conditions #2, 40, 41, 42 and 54, and that those conditions be revised to include language "or
as approved by city staff." .
Commissioner B.vrd: I accept that revision, and I would like to make an amendment of my.
own which I forgot to include originally which is consistent with that suggestion. On Page 5,
Paragraph 7 talks about the review of the design of the bus stop bench and trash receptacle. I
would like to leave that subject to review by the Transportation Division, so that it does not
need ARB approval.
Commissioner Schink: That is acceptable to the seconder.
Commissioner Schmidt: I would just comment that staffhas noted a couple of times that it is
street furniture that is in a plan now being created for us and for ARB approval, and it will be
a standard thing to have it go to the ARB.
Ms. Cauble: Deleting that clause will not cause it not to go to the ARB. This paragraph
makes it clear, and actually, approval by the ARB is redundant. It is informative for the
applicant. If we decided to put in a prettier bus bench, it would go through the Architectural
Review Board. So that is informative, and that is what Title 16 of the code says. The part
that calls for review by the Transportation Division is kind of an add-on that would
informally happen, but it makes it clear in the ordinance that theapplicant knows he has to go
through that process, as well. I have not even thought through the legal issue of whether, by
this ordinance, you could exempt someone from the ARB process. I tend to think not, but
A:[ PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 58
04-09-97
you can make that recommendation if you wish, and we can think about it when it goes to
council.
Ms. Lytle: I don’t think the Transportation Division would be comfortable with making
aesthetic judgments about a project, only functional and transit ridership types of issues.
Commissioner Byrd: Then I will withdraw my amendment.
Commissioner Schmidt: I agree with most, if not all, that has been said. I, too, thought that
this would be a quick and easy project tonight. We have had some good discussion, however,
that may now result in a couple of things. One, that there hopefully will be a traffic study
done for Downtown North, and two, maybe studies will become a possible future public
benefit for other projects. That would be a reasonable way to go.
This project has a very good package of public benefits. The projectitself has a lot of good
points that we have mentioned before. Providing parking on site is a great advantage to the
project rather than putting all of the parking elsewhere. No one has mentioned tonight the
public art benefit, which is now specific. It is fun and inventive and will make that building
memorable and unique to have the story of cars and traffic around its entry. It is appropriate
to relate to more traffic studies. We are talking about the future of traffic here. Perhaps that
will relate to the public art benefit.
As others have said, I feel that the building strengthens the corner. Also, it is forward
thinking to start replacing some of the street trees. Some of those older street trees have
never grown well. They have been damaged by trucks and other vehicles. Again, I will
emphasize that I hope we end up with a broader variety or a different variety of street trees
that we plant downtown.
The package that has been presented to us by the applicant is very thorough. Maybe part of
the problem is that the applicant gets too thorough on some of these things, causing too much
thinking to occur. However, the result is a good project in the city, and this is a good issue to
have been brought up tonight. It just made it hard to maneuver on the fly here. But overall, it
is a good project with good public benefits.
Commissioner O_iakian: Kathy has done a good job of summarizing most of the details of the
project. I am surprised that she left out the padmount transformer being placed out of sight, a
pet peeve of this Planning Commission. Hopefully, everyone else is involved in looking at
those ugly little things on the surface, as well. I am comfortable with the motion and with
some of the changes that we made. I am sorry that it has taken us so long to get to this
conclusion. In fact, I have only one minor thing in here that troubles me a little bit. That is
the whole thing about wanting to create some flexibility, but also allowing for some other
uses on the ground floor. The reason why that troubles me a little bit is that we will probably
A: I PCMins51PC0409.spc Page 59
04-09-97
get what we don’t want, and probably what Owen does not want, which is that we might end
up with another restaurant. It would generate more traffic and more parking. It is a parking
hog, so to speak, but hopefully, that will not happen.
Ms. L~rtle: The motion did not include eating and drinking establishments.
commissioner Ojakian: Then I am comfortable with the motion. Going back to my earlier
remarks, it is too bad that we have to confuse issues a little bit. Some of us know that we
have a problem in the Downtown North in terms of traffic and parking. It would be more
preferable to have that issue addressed as a separate issue. Then we can focus in on it and
talk about what we need to do about it. But for whatever reason, that has come into play
tonight, so I am comfortable with this $75,000 being spent to do a study. At least, that gets
us on the road to saying, we are going to be doing something about it. Other than that, since I
made comments before about the public benefit, it is basically to just raise that issue because
it is one that we always talk about when we talk about PCs. So I think we have to address it,
and I probably will always bring it up, but I am comfortable with the benefits that are
provided. So I am happy to vote for the motion.
Chaim_ erson Cassel: I am not going to vote for the motion. I really feel that this should have
been continued. I think that if this had been a different applicant, it would have been
continued. I don’t think that is a reason to continue a detailed discussion. We were presented
with two public benefits in our written material, as proposed, and that should not have
happened. We have a very skilled applicant with us, and they know very much what is going
on, and there was no need to be presented with two public benefits.
I am not voting against the project itself. It is a nice project, nicely designed, and my only
request was that it be continued for two weeks. That would still have allowed it to come
before the City Council, but would have given staffthe chance to look at this issue on how it
would be implemented. It would havegiven some staff who are not here tonight a chance to
make some comments on how that would have worked. So I am disappointed that we didn’t
continue it, and continue it earlier. But I do like the project, and I think it will do well there.
Ms. Lvtle: I thought that if acceptable to the maker and seconder of the motion, staff might
recommend that you modify everyplace where the words "traffic study" appear, to say
instead, "traffic study and/or improvements" in ease the study costs less or we may have "
already started a study, and all we are doing is wrapping it up. We could extend this money
into making some improvements. That would give good flexibility, and we would not be
forced into spending the money on a study.
Commissioner Byrd: That is acceptable to the maker of the motion.
Commissioner Sehink: And that is a great change. A good idea. Thanks.
A: [ PCMins5 [ PC0409.spc Page 60
04-09-97
MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Cassel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All
those in favor, say aye. All opposed? Thatpasses on a vote of 4-1, with Chairperson Cassel
voting no and Commissioner Beecham abstaining. Thank you, and good luck with your
project.
A: [PCMins5 [PC0409.spc Page 61
!04-09-97
Attachment 11
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING
January 16, 1997
390 Lytton Avenue
Leonard Ely
96-ARB-78
96-ZC-6
96-EIA-20
Final review of building details, public art and detailed landscape and irrigation plans.
~: The Public Art Commission has reviewed this and made a couple of comments.
Onels that it needs to be lighted, and the second is that some security measures be in place. Also
we have a new staff person on board. Mr. Doctor, an arborist, has reviewed the plans. His
comments mainly relate to the species of plants proposed.
Mr. Ross: Does anyone have questions for staff?.
Mr. Alfonso: So we are going to be primarily evaluating this particular project for the building
itself?.
The building itself was approved before you joined us.
]~r.,_~,f~a~: So we are primarily looking at the trees? (Yes)
John Northwav. 43 L venue. P 1o I : I am going to take a very short time, because I
want to introduce Scott Donahue, our artist. That is really the feature event of today. Small
things we have picked up that you had listed the last time are that the area under the windows on
the front pedestrian facade will be brick. We are adding vines to the blank wall that faces down "
Lytton. That is in the plans that you have before you, and I can go over those with you, but I
would rather give the time to Scott. We show where the transformer location is in the first level
of the parking garage. Those were the basic items in the conditions. Now I would like to
introduce Scott Donahue, who will go over the design of the art work that we are pretty excited
about. It is going to be very well integrated into the building. As you know, this building is
going to be named the Ely Building after Leonard Ely. Stanley, Leonard and Shidey’s family
has been very involved in the automobile industry for a.long time, so we are doing a frieze that is
integrated into the big entry arch that tells the story of the automobile industry.
hL~l~h~,: Thank you, John. The entry arch is 28 feet high at the top. I am proposing
something that would look like ornamentation from afar. When you walk up to it, you would see
that this cylindrical pilaster that is almost three-quarters of a cylinder in section, goes up and
A: [ARBVerbMins [ 390Lytt.min Page 1
1-16-97
around the arch with a keystone at the top that would.say "Ely Building." It would have niches
in it. This is a little illustration of that. The theme is the history of the automobile, and there are
34 niches. At the top of the arch; it starts out with the human foot. Looking from the bottom,
you will see human feet. Then proceeding down would be horse hoofs. On each side, they
would be slightly different. Then as you go on down, there would be the discovery of the wheel,
and coming down further will be chariots, and finally, carriages.
Then as you come to the vertical section, there would be automobiles starting from 1900, and
each niche would represent a 10-year period. Marching on down, it will be a kind of evolution
getting down to 1990 at this level. As you come down, you would see the evolution of model
changes. One side might be a Buick and another side might be a Ford, even though Leonard Ely
had a General Motors dealership. Down at this level, is the 2000 to 2010 model, which is
exciting for me. I get to invent the future, and at the very bottom is the more generic future. The
more generic future is somewhat mysterious. In the bottom niche, I have done a drawing of a
seer with a water pattern on it. The background would have waves and water textures as if it
were raining in that. One side would be a sphere and the other side would be an egg at the very
bottom, so each side is slightly different. Over time, people will start to notice the differences on
the different sides.
Each of these automobiles will be cast in modified gypsum, which means they are an integral
pigment, and all of the colors would be integral. It is harder than concrete, so it really will resist
the elements, and there is no paint t.o peel off. The column itself will be cast calcium aluminate
concrete. I have done a number of projects in that material. It integrates very well with
fiberglass, better than Portland cement. These horizontal bands at the bottom represent tires,
pneumatic at the bottom, and as you go up, they become more like wheels, and they relate to the
pilasters that are on the rest of the building. They would be a similar color to the brickwork.
I was interested in doing some lighting. The lighting would be uplit to each niche. The shape in
the niche is going to vary. Down low, you will be seeing the automobiles or the other shapes
from an angle so that when you are a pedestrian, you could perceive it well. As you go up, the
angle within the niche is going to change so that by the time you get up here, way over your
head, you will still be looking at the automobiles at about the same kind of angle. So the pitch
will change. That completes my comments.
Does the board have questions for the applicant?
~: Does the size of these various niches vary as you go through the timeline? In other
words, for the pieces on the third floor, will they be the same size as the ones on the ground
floor?
Mr. Donahue: Yes, they will. I worked out what you would perceive. These are at about 25
feet. At 25 feet, you can perceive the human foot pretty well. So the detail will be enough for
A: [ ARBVerbMins [ 390Lytt.min Page 2
1-16-97
pedestrians.
~.~_~LK~: As you look at the plan section of this, where along that area, this is sort of
stepping back and then at some point, you get this frieze, and then, is there a further distance to
the glass from there? Or is this right up against the glass?
Mr. Donahu.~ge: This will explain it.
Okay, thank you.
]~.~_,lgL~a: I have a concern, which I am sure you share, about vandalism. I suspect these are
going to be so attractive that people would like to take one home with them. How are those
adhered in place? I can see someone coming along with a crow bar to see if they could pop one
of those out.
Mr. Donahue: Underneath each of these, you would not be able to see the rear wheels, because it
is going to be solid. It will be bolted with two bolts from underneath. They will also be epoxyed
down. It will take tools, a lot of tools, and they are not going to come off. They would be
destroyed. What we have come up with is that we want people to be able to touch them. Part of
the appeal is to be able to come up and put your hand on a ear and see that they go all the way
up. We are going to put a motion detector in this that eormeets to the building alarm system so if
someone tries to shake it, it sets offthe building alarm. I have done a lot of public art that is
exposed to the public in this way, and I feel really confident that this system will take care of it.
(Inaudible comments regarding lighting)
Mr, Donahue: In each niche, there is a little lip that sticks out. In looking down on this lip, I
have three little oval lights, almost flashlight size bulbs, that would uplight each niche.
Mostly domestics here?
r~d..~_~2.~].~tk~: Up in this area where it is sort of carriage-like between 1900 and 1910,
Oldsmobile had somettting that was very carriage like. The carriage-like qualities slowly change
as you go down. The cars with fins on them will be just about reaching height, so I had to think
about how thin to have a fin, with someone working on it with a tool. So they are not going to be
the exact morphology, but they will be identifiable. Some areas will have to be a little thicker.
Mr. Peterson: Will the 1990s feature a white Ford Bronco?
Mr. Ross: Do people ever climb on your public art? Is this durable so that it will Stand up under
the inevitable rock climbers?
A: [ ARBVerbMins [ 390Lytt.rnin Page
1-16-97
Mr. Donahue: Calcium aluminate concrete has a higher psi than normal Portland cement. I have
had sculptures glued on the backs of buses on the windows, and kids hang on them. This is a
factor that I have dealt with before. I don’t know if you have a lot of those climbers on buildings
in Palo Alto, but they have them in other cities.
Mr. Ross: Thank you very much. Are there any members of the public who wish to address this
item? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing and return this to the board for comments.
Mr.....Peterson_: Do you have a landscape plan? Regarding the pedestrian circulation from the
parking lot onto your site, specifically where the entry to the parking garage is, when you put the
bike lockers in there, you end up.with four feet, which is a little tight. Do you have any good
ideas about that?
This comes out and this is all walking area.
r~_~.~ed~: Is there a gate for the parking, a closure?
r~!..~N__q~l_~: At the moment, no.
r~L.~e_~_~: Ultimately, is there any landscaping there?
~[L.J~W.~: There are the vines going up the big wall on the rear elevation, and there are the
planter boxes along here. I don’t think you can get any soil in there.
~~_: I have a question about the planter boxes. Are they about two feet by the margin
of the building?
Yes.
Mr. Alfonso: Is the reason for the removal of the privet trees due to the parking underneath?
r~J..~.j2L~h_~: No, and the the tree issue is still in flux. We are still in negotiations about the
trees, so we probably should not get too detailed about it. I think that we are working it out to
everyone’s satisfaction. It looks like the engineering is probably going to work to get the street
trees thatthe city is interested in. Those trees were being removed partly as a joint venture with
the city. Privet trees are rather nasty trees. The city arbodst was not very excited about them.
They drop little berries on the sidewalk. I thought it was just to get dd of those and replace them
with some others.
Mr. Alfonso: Will it be part of the scope of this project to replace those?
Yes.
A:IARBVerbMins 1390Lytt.min Page 4
1-16-97
Mr. Ross: If that .completes the questions, we can now take board comments.
_Mr. Peterson: Let me begin with the art element. I think it is a terrific idea, and it is wonderful
to see really unique and specialized art work come with each building. That is what gives us the
kind of variety and excitement that we want. It is a wonderful piece, and it is a great idea. I
think people are going to try and steal your ears. Hopefully, they will not be able to.
I have already expressed some concern about the access from the parking area, some way to
spread those bike lockers so that there is a little more room, because I think a lot of people will
be coming in that direction. You might want to think about some sort of gate since that is going
to be a big hole, and they may wander down there, trying to locate the front door. Other than
that, I am in complete support. It looks very good.
r.~..~_~A~2~: I find the concept of that entryway, a kind of transportation timeline, a brilliant
idea. It will give some life and interest to that archway so that people will have to look at it with
interest all the way up and around. Also from the inside, from the various balconies, you .will
look through and see it perhaps in silhouette from the interior. That will give it a whole different
character from the exterior. I had not thought about the safety problem until Bob brought it up,
and that could be an issue. But I think it is a great concept.
I still have some problems with the landscaping plan. I had not seen the original proposal for this
project,oand I don’t know what the scope of the landscape plan was previously, but I agree with
John that privet trees are really nasty. There is a very, very tall fagade on a stark walkway that
needs to have some sort of a canopy to break down the scale of the building. So if some suitable
tree could be found, I think it would be essential to replace those trees with something that would
create a canopy, break the scale and provide some shade in that area, that is, the Waverley Street
area.
The actual planters that are being used I feel could be bigger. There is a kind of timidness about ..
them in the scale of the walkway. If you get something larger, you can get some larger plantings
to grow that will create a nice buffer from the sidewalk for the employees inside, as well as to .
give some texture for the exterior. It does not have to be quite as large as what is happening at
the Comeriea building on Lytton, but along that scale, it would give a whole different texture and
quality to the experience of the sidewalk. That is really a big concern of mine there.
I agree with Bob about the entry from this parking area. There is currently a large oak that is
behind that little structure, and it seems to be sited enough so that there is a canopy at the end of
that walkway. Perhaps something could be introduced, such as a Vine, at the end of that stark
wall as a terminus to this walkway here. You do not have a lot of room if you are going to keep
this parking, especially that one that is near the oak tree. That is somewhat of a concern, but my
major concern is the size of these planters on Waverley, and also the need for a canopy asa
scale-giving device and for shade. Other than that, I think this whole entry idea is really great.
A:IARBVerbMins 1390Lytt.rain.Page 5
1-16-97
Ms. Piha: I do not have alot to add. I am sympathetic to some of the landscape issues that have
been raised, and I am really excited about the art element. You have done a nice job.of
integrating with the architecture, and it will make the buildi’ng special.
~_.L..-.-.-.-.-.-.-~: I think the arch is great. It is going to be a destination. People will come to see the
art, so I really look forward to seeing that. I think it is going to be a pain in the neck to change
the light bulbs, but that will be a maintenance problem for you guys to deal with.
The tree and planting issue is one of the things we spent the most time on in previous meetings.
Of course, the concern of the Waverley elevation is whether there is sufficient soil volume to put
the trees in the recessed locations in the sidewalk where they are now, or whether the city will
allow bulbouts in order to get some soil underneath them. It sounds like that discussion is still in
process.
~.IdN_92I.h_.~: Yes., that one is in process. Don’t spend an enormous amount of your time on
this, because I think that will be resolved probably within the next ten days.
_M..L._R..o~: So that will return to us if there is a change there. All of our previous comments on
that issue are on record. You know we want trees there. I think the changes that you have made,
adding the vines, etc., are good ones. I would love to see vines on the ramp wall also on the
building that you don’t own. It is not a part of your project, so you may need the other property
owner’s permission to grow things on his building. I don’t think it is practical to try and compel
something on that wal!, but if you can think of a way to do so, it would be very welcome.
Mr. Peterso~!: How about another piece of art work!
Yes, a mural.
Maybe we could palm some vines on it.
Mr_ML.ILo~: I like the changes you have made and am in support of this application, particularly
the art. That is going to be a lot of fun.
I have a procedural question for staff. The art that is being proposed is largely contained in the
presentation that was made today with some moekups that we have seen. It is not really well
defined by the application that was turned in. How do you all follow through this after we
incorporate that into our motion?
Ms. Grote: The applicant would need to give us what was submitted today -- the drawings and
sketches.
Mr. Ross: So we should make it a condition of our approval that therebe some kind of submittal
A: I ARBVerbMins 1390Lytt.min Page 6
1-16-97
of relevant documents for the art element.
~: J~P_glg.~: I move for final approval of the building details, the public art, the
landscape with the exception of the items still in transition, that is, the trees on Waverley, and on
all sides. We do need submission of the art work backup material. The only thing left would be
the tree element.
~0.~l~Y.~: I have a question on the trees. If we get the tree situation worked out to the
satisfaction of the staff, can that be a staff approval, rather than coming back to you again, in the
interest of time? I think everyone is on the same page, and we are all working very hard to get
either six or eight trees on Lytton and Waverley. I am quite sure we are going to be able to do it,
so from a time standpoint, it would be nice if staff could approve it and we could proceed.
~: I will ask saffto double cheek on that, but I am pretty sure that was the status of the
condition previously that it would be staff level approval.
]~P_glg~9~: Let me include in my motion a couple of elements that Frank raised. That is, the
enlargement of the planter boxes. Is there anything else, Frank?
~¢.~1~: That was mainly it. I think they are too small all the way around, especially on the
Waverley side. The combination of that and the lxees would make a far richer experience
through, there. .
]~[,.~.~: So staffwill need to review both of those and the lxees for the specific type to make
sure they produce an adequate canopy.
~: By Mr. Alfonso.
~: Is there any discussion or clarification needed? All those in favor? That passes
unanimously. Thanks for bringing this in.
A: I ARBVerbMins 1390Lytt.min Page 7
1-16-97
City of Palo Alto
Attachment 12
MINUTES Thursday, November 7, 1996
8:00 AM
Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Board Members Present:Jim Mci:all
Bob Peterson
Cheryl Piha
Dave Ross
Board Members Absent: Julie Maser
Staff Members Present:Lisa Grote
Chandler Lee (Contract Planner for Item I. I)
Bob Schubert (Contract Planner for Item II.2)
PPROVAL OF MI ’
Approved as amended (4-0-1-0).
APPROVAL OF M 7
Approved (4-0-1-0).
ORAL COMMiJNICATI :
Lynn Chiapella, 631 Colorado Road, requested that Section IV of the agenda, Staff
Approvals, list project addresses of the staff approvals rather than the applicant addresses.
She showed the ARB .the "How Much Soil?" handout. She stated that potted trees of
trees do not have enough soil volume to grow properly.
AGENDA CHANGES. DELETI D DD :
Item #5, 1701 Page Mill Road, Item #8, 2080 Channing Avenue, and Item #9, 3445 Alma
Street was continued to November 21, 1996.
Item # 10, 180 El Camino Real, will be continued to a date uncertain.
....)B:AKB:MIN1107.drf "Page l
The ARB approved materials and color scheme shall be shown on the building
permit drawings.
Color chips to match the colors specified in the approved ARB drawings shall be
attached to the cover sheet of the building permit drawings set.
The applicant shall ob~in a sign permit for any proposed signs.
I_gonard Ely
96;ARBo78
96-EIA-20; 96-ZC-6
Request for approval to rezone a property from CD-C(P) to a PC District to
construct an 18,921 square-foot, 3-story office building.
Jim McFall stepped down due to a conflict of imerest:
PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: John Northway, Stoecker & Northway Architects,
provided a project background and presented the final design of the project.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: None.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: Approved (3°0-1-1) with staff
recommended conditions, and the following additional conditions for items
return to the Board on consent calendar:
2.
3.
4.
Additional greenery on building especially along Waverley Street.
Artwork, after approved by the Public Arts Commission.
Exterior lighting.
Restudy of the building base material for a richer and higher quality
material other than plaster as proposed.
The Board also commented that street trees were a positive public benefit and
supported exploring planting trees in planters along Waverley Street similar to the
planters used on University Avenue.
CONDITIONS
B:ARB:MIN 1107.drf
~fthe Pro’e!~
Pri~r to the Planning Commissionmeeting, an arborist’s report shall be submitted
with recommendations to protect the existing street trees which are to remain,
Page 16
through further building and garage design as well as during construction
activities.
This project was approved in pan on the basis that it will incorporate original art,
visible to the public, as a public benefit of the project. The exact nature and
location of the an will be determined by the City’s Public Art Commission (PAC)
and Architectural Review Board (ARB), applying the standards set forth in
PAMC 2.26.040. The art will be approved by the PAC and APd3 prior to City
Council review of the project, and shall be fully installed prior to the date of
initial occupancy of the project.
prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit
Utilities Engineering (WGW’}
The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities,
both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work, the
applicant shall, contact Underground Service Alert at (800) 642-2444, at least 48
hours prior to beginning work.
The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or .
meters including a Signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the
Building Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 ¯ "
working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after
all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed.
All utility meters, lines, transformers, baekflow p.reventers, and any other required
utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans which shall show
that no confllet will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and that
the utilities are screened in manner which respects the building design and
setback requirements.
The appfican.t shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER
SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo
Alto utilities. The applicant shall provide all information requested for utility
service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H.., and sewer in G.P.D.).
The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans
must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the
development and the public right-of-way including meters, baekflow preventers,
fire service requirements, sewer eleanouts and any other required utilities.
8.The applicant shall show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or
B:ARB:MIN1107.drf - "Page 17
o
10.
auxiliary water supply.
The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water
and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads.
This responsibly includes the design and all of the costs associated with the.
construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or
services.
-The improvement plans as well as construction drawings for issuance of a
building permit shall comply with or include all conditions recommended by the
Utilities Engineering Division summarized in the memorandum from Jose Jovel,’
dated June 21, 1996, on file with the Department of Planning and Community
Environment.
¯ Prior to Submittal for Building.p_ermit
11.
,12.
The ARB approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building
permit drawings forall buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other
landscape features.
Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plant able
areas out to the curb shall be submitted to and approved by the Architectural
Review Board (ARB), City Arborist, Utility Marketing Services Division and
Planning Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations and a
statement of design intent shall be submitted. The plans should be prepared by a
licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and
irrigation plans shall take into consideration all elements included on: a) the City of
Palo Alto Landscape Plan Checklist; and b) the Water Conservation Guidelines. A
dedicated water meter for irrigation (only) is required. The landscape plan shall
include a complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size and
locations; an irrigation schedule and plan. The plans shall include the installation
of, at minimum, 4 street trees along the Lytton Avenue frontage and 4 street trees
along the Waverley Streei frontage. All new street trees shall be 24 inch box
(minimum) unless a smaller size is specified by the City Arbodst. The planting
area for all street trees shall be designed to provide adequate soil volume, aeration,
drainage and irrigation to the satisfaction of the City Arbodst.
13.An arborist’s report shall be submitted with standards for protecting the 3 existing
street trees which are to remain during construction, particularly during the shoring
and excavation of the underground parking structure; and including preconstruetion
care and pruning of the trees.
B:ARB:MIN 1107.drf Page 18
Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate application.
Approved color chips to match the colors specified in the building permit drawings
shall be attached to the cover sheet of the building permit set by the applicant.
16.The project requires a padmount transformer. Electric pdma~ shall be provided to
the transformer. The location of the padmount transformer, shall be shown on the
landscape plan and approved by the Utilities Engineering Division and the ARB.
17.¯The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement (PUE) for the padmount
transformer and primary trench.
18.All new electrical service shall be underground.
19.Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel.
20.The location of the electric panel switchboard shall be shown on the plan and
approved by the ARB and Utilities Department. Secondary conduits shall be
concreteenelosed if the main switchboard is located inside of the building.
21.All electrical substructures required from the service point to the switchgear shall be
installed by the applicant to City standards.
P__u_b I i c Works
22.
23.
The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works
Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The
plan should demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent
properties are not altered. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage
patterns from adjacent properties are not altered. Roof water leaders should be
directed tO the permeable areas of the site. The project design should include
permanent features as well as temporary measures employed during construction to
control storm water pollution. The applicant may meet with Public Works
Engineering to verify the basic design parameters affecting grading, drainage and
surface water infiltration.
The proposed development will result in a change in the impervious area of the
property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious
area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will
take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the
Building Inspection Division.
.,,_,)B:ARB:MIN! 107.drf .Page 19
24.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at a minimum parking,
truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and
Vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform
with the City of Palo Altos’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48,
and the route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of PaIo
Alto.
Prior to Issuance of a B~
l’cW " e "
25.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works Engineering
for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalks during construction.
26.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public
Works Engineering for a structure, awning, or other features constructed in the
public right-of-way, easement or on property in which the City holds an interest.
27.The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe building, permit. All off-site
improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off.
The applicant shall provide fire sprinklers throughout the structure. An
underground fire service line and floor control valves are required. Sprinkler
system alarm supervision ’is required for water flow and valve tamper.
29.Impacts of emergency response must be determined (paramedic response service
demands).
30.
31.
Illuminated exit signs, emergency lighting, portable fire extinguishers and a knox
box shall be provided.
Portable fire extinguishers shall be provided within the building.
"c Works a"eevclin
32.The applicant shall submit a Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan for
review and approval to the Public Works Operations/Recycling Division.
33.An in-lieu parking fee shall be paid for the difference between the proposed number
B:ARB:MIN 1107.drf Page 20
34.
of parking spaces and the number of parking spaces required by .Code.
An improvement plan for proposedchanges to Lot F shall be submitted for review
and approval by the Transportation Division and Public Works Engineering
Division. The plan shall include the installation of appropriate signage, as
determined by the Transportation Division.
35.To provide soil volume for the street trees, the plans shall demonstrate that there is a
minimum clearance of 3 feet of uncompaeted soil between the bottom of the
sidewalk subgrade material and the top of the proposed underground parking
’ structure.
36.The plans shall demonstrate, that there will be no excavation, including shoring,
within 10 feet from the centers of the trunks of the three street trees that will be
preserved, with the following exceptions: 1) excavation, including shoring may
occur within 7. feet of the 10 inch Camphor on Lytton Avenue; and 2) if it is
infeasible to adjustthe location of the handicap parking space adjacent to the 12
inch Camphor tree along Lytton Avenue, excavation, including shoring, may occur
within 6 feet of the west side of the tree.
Prior to Commencement of Construction
37.The south side of the 12 inch Camphor tree on Lytton Avenue may be carefully
pruned prior to construction of the project, to the satisfaction of the City Arborist.
38.Protective construction fencing shall be installed at the drip lines of the 3 street trees
that are to be preserved. The protective fencing shall be installed prior to any
demolition or moveme~it of construction equipment onto the site and shall remain in
place and undisturbed until all construction is completed. The fencing shall be 6
foot high chain link material mounted on two-inch galvanized iron posts driven two
feet into the ground.
u r~_U.EL~ Construction.
~..~blic Works Engine.ering
39.To reduce dust levels, exposed earth surfaces shall be watered as necessary. The
contractor shall avoid overfilling of trucks to reduce spillage in the public right-of-
way. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or
,.~)B:ARB:MIN 1107.drf Page 21
private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust
nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of
the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense.
40.
41.
The contractor shall contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929
prior to any work performed in the public, right-of-way.
No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk
without prior approval of Public Works Engineering.
42.
43.
All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and replaced
in compliance wilh the Public Works approved standards.
The applicant shall require the contractor to incorporate best management practices
(BMP’s) for storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in
conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the
applicant’s construction activities on private properly; and the Public Works
Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction
activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris
(soil, asphalt, saw cut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into
gutters or storm drains.
44.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the
City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requiresamong other things,
that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows:
8:00 AM to 8:00 PM
9:00 AM to 8:00 PM
10:00 Am to 6:00 PM
Monday thru Friday
Saturday
Sunday
45. "Any utilities to be relocated due to this project shall be at the applicant’s expense.
46.All new underground electrical services shall, be inspected and approved by both the
Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before
energizing.
47.All new underground service conduits and substructures Shall be inspected before
baeldilling.
B~ARB:MINI 107.drf Page 22 ~.
48.
49.
The contractor shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public
Works before digging in the street right-of-way.
All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under
City jurisdiction shall conform to the Standard Specifications of the Public Works
and Utility Departments.
50.In accordance with applicable State and federal historic preservation regulations,
should previously unidentified significant cultural resources be discovered during
construction, the project sponsor is required to notify the City of Palo Alto Planning
Division and cease work in the immediate area until such time that a qualified
archeologist can access the find and make mitigation recommendations, if
warranted. The Coroner,. upon recognizing the remains as being of Native
American origin, is responsible to contact the Native American Heritage
Commission within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties to
provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, in addition to
identification of a Native American Most Likely Descendant, who may be
responsible to make recommendations as to the handling and reburial or disposition
of any human remains. To achieve this goal, it is recommended that the
construction personnel on the project be instructed as to the potential for discovery
of cultural or human remains, and both the need for proper and timely reporting of
such finds, and the consequences of failure thereof.
Prior to Finalization
51.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to the Planning Division,
and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with
all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and
that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street
trees are healthy.
52.The applicant shall install a secondary box to tie to the secondary side of the
transformer.
53.If service exceeds 1600 amperes, the applicant shall install a transition cabinet as
the interconneetion point between the service lateral and the service entrance
conductors.
.~.)B:ARB:MIN1107.drf Page 23