HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-20 City Council (5)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT/PUBLIC WORKS
DATE:DECEMBER 20, 1999 CMR:456:99
SUBJECT:1)BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE AN
ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $308,000 TO CIP
PROJECT NUMBER 19530 FOR THE DOWNTOWN
PARKING STRUCTURES FOR DESIGN RELATED
SERVICES. THIS INCLUDES $70,000 FOR PRIOR DESIGN,
AND LEGAL COSTS; $145,000 FOR COST OF REDESIGN;
AND $93,000 FOR FUTURE ENGINEERING SERVICES
RELATED TO REDESIGN.
2)445 BRYANT STREET (LOTS S/L)~ [FILE NOS. 98-ZC-11, 98-
ARB-159, 98-EIA-23, AND 98-SUB-5]: REVIEW OF AN
APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC
WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR);
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM A PUBLIC
FACILITY (PF)AND COMMERCIAL DOWNTOWN
DISTRICT WITH PEDESTRIAN SHOPPING COMBINING
DISTRICT (CD:C (P)) TO A PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC)
ZONE AND TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
MULTI-LEVEL PARKING GARAGE ON EXISTING CITY
OF PALO ALTO PARKING LOTS S/L; AND A TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP APPROVAL TO REMOVE 19
UNDERLYING LOT LINES AND COMBINE THE LOTS
INTO ONE LOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ABOVE
PROJECT.
3)528 HIGH STREET (LOT R), [FILE NOS. 98-ZC-12, 98-ARB -
180, 98-EIA-25 AND 98-SUB-6]: REVIEW OF AN
APPLICATION BY THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PUBLIC
CMR:456:99 Page 1 of 12
WORKS DEPARTMENT FOR CERTIFICATION OF THE
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (FEIR);
APPROVAL OF A ZONE CHANGE FROM A PUBLIC
FACILITY (PF) TO PLANNED COMM.UNITY (PC) ZONE
TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A MULTI-LEVEL
PARKING GARAGE ON AN EXISTING CITY OF PALO
ALTO PARKING LOT R; AND A TENTATIVE
SUBDIVISION MAP APPROVAL TO REMOVE 8
UNDERLYING LOT LINES AND COMBINE THE LOTS
INTO ONE LOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ABOVE
PROJECT.
REPORT IN BRIEF
On October 18, 1999, the City Council held a public meeting on the proposed Downtown
parking structures. The Council continued this item and directed a small "working
group" composed of representatives from the Downtown Parking Study Group, Watry
Design Group, City staff, an urban design architect, and an artist to develop an alternative
design for both parking garages. The Council provided the policy framework to provide
direction for the working group to consider redesign opportunities for both structures,
which include options to assist in the reduction in the bulk, height, and scale of the
structure in conjunction with the intent of maximizing the number of parking spaces. The
working group has concluded its study and is recommending an alternative design for
both parking garages.
Staff is requesting approval of a Budget Amendment Ordinance for $308,000. This would
reimburse the project budget for monies which were advanced to provide for additional
design services directed by Council (CMR:391:99). It will also cover the future cost of
additional structural design work for the revised design.
CMR:456:99 Page 2 of 12
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council take the following action:
Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $308,000 for
additional design-related services. Of this .amount, $70,000 is for the
consolidation of a previous BAO presented to Council on August 9, 1999
(CMR:341:99) and $145,000 is for design services rendered from October 18,
1999 to December 13, 1999. The remaining $93,000 is for furore expenditures that
will be necessary to provide structural detailing for the new design (Attachments
A and B).
Approve and authorize the Mayor or his representative to increase the contract
change order aut~hority with Watry Design Group for contract C6076145 from
$119,100 to $427,100 (for combined BAO) This increase is for design services
related to redesign and future expenditures that will be necessary to provide
structural design and detailing (Attachments A and B).
Adopt the attached resolution certifying the adequacy of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) and making the required CEQA findings, including a Statement of
Overriding Consideration for one finding of significance and potential
unavoidable short term impact, that is temporary loss of parking (see Attachments
C, D, and E).
Approve the alternative design for the parking garage at 445 Bryant Street (Lots
S/L) as part of the following approvals:
Adopt the attached Planned Community (PC) Ordinance, including findings
and conditions, rezoning the property from (PF) Public Facilities and CD-C
(P) Commercial District with Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to
PC Planned Community District; and the request for a waiver of required
parking, for the new square footage of the proposed teen center (see
Attachment F);
bo Approve the attached staff-proposed Architectural Review findings (see
Attachment G);
Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map based on the findings and
conditions of approval for the parking structure at 445 Bryant Street, Lots
S/L (see Attachments H and I);
Approve the alternative design for the parking garage at 528 High Street (Lot R)
as part of the following approvals:
CMR:456:99 Page 3 of 12
ao Adopt the attached Planned Community (PC) Ordinance, including findings
.and conditions, rezoning the property from PF (Public Facilities) to Planned
Community PC Zone to allow the construction of a multi-level parking
structure on an existing City of Palo Alto parking Lot R (see Attachment J);
bo Approve the attached staff-proposed Architectural Review findings (see
Attachment K);
Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map based on the fmdings and
conditions of approval for the parking structure at 528 High Street, Lot R
(see Attachments L and M).
BACKGROUND
On August 9, 1999, the City Council voted to postpone a public hearing on the proposed
Downtown parking garages to September 27, 1999. The City Manager’s Report
(CMR:341:99) for this item included a request made by the Public Works Department for
direction on the design appearance and massing for the parking structures; approval of
buildout of Lots S/L for a teen center and office space; and approval of a Budget
Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $70,000 for the Downtown Parking Structure
Feasibility Study Capital Improvement Project 19530. On September 27, 1999, the City
Council held a public hearing on the proposed project. The Council voted to continue the
item to October 18, 1999, when the Council provided direction on the policy framework
for the proposed parking structures on Lots S and L and Lot R as follows:
The proposed parking structure on lots S/L to include a seven level parking
structure, five levels above ground, and two levels below ground on Lot S. Lot L
would accommodate a four level above ground and one or two levels
underground.
The proposed parking structure on Lot R to include a five level parking structure
with a step-back on the High Street and Alma Street frontages.
°The structure at Lots S and L to include a teen center of up to 3,500 square feet at
the coruer of Lytton and Bryant Streets (Lot L). The remaining amount up to
9,000 square feet may be retail or office uses.
Provide adequate space for built-in restrooms (BIR) in each garage. City staff
shall assess the need for the restrooms prior to preparation of final construction
drawings for each garage.
o Form a small "working group" consisting of representative from the Downtown
Parking Project Study Group, Architectural Review Board, and Planning
Commission representatives, an urban design architect, the Watry Design Group
and City staff. The working group would create and recommend a final exterior
CMR:456:99 Page 4 of 12
architectural design to City Council in mid-December. The working group would
utilize the following policy direction:
go Complete further examination of the exterior architectural characteristics with
the emphasis of reducing the potential impacts of bulk, height and scale and
examination of existing surrounding architecture to ensure the new design is in
context with its surrounding; and
b°Redesign the exteriors of the structures to emphasize architectural
characteristics that "blend" with the existing offices or retail buildings in
downtown Palo Alto.
The services of an additional urban design architectural firm shall be retained to
assist City staff, the Watry Design Group, and the Study Group in the redesign
process and formulation of the exterior design of the structure.
Approve proceeding with the design of two floors for the teen center and
commercial space in non-parking area adjoining the garage at the comer of Bryant
Street and Lytton Avenue.
Follow design guidelines within the policy framework with one of the deliverables
to be a whiteboard model for an additional $15,000 in design costs.
DISCUSSION
The process for development of the alternative design included convening a small
working group as directed by Council. The Watry Group retained an outside
architectural firm, Carrasco & Associates, to assist in the redesign of the structures. The
study group examined the policy framework that included reducing the potential impacts
of bulk, height and scale; the relationship of the proposed buildings to the existing
surrounding architecture; and the exterior design of the structures to emphasize
architectural characteristics that "blend" with the existing offices or retail buildings in
downtown.
The study group recommends an alternative design that addresses the policy framework
and provides an appropriate architectural solution for both Downtown parking garages.
The proposal resolves the problems identified by the City Council and addresses the
concerns expressed by City Boards and Commissions. The working group endorses the
alternative designs because they provide an architectural solution that synthesizes the
functional requirement to maximize the amount of parking on the site with the aesthetic
requirement to integrate the building with the urban context. They are both exceptional
building designs that make an appropriate architectural statement for a parking structure.
The alternative design successfully combines architecture, landscaping and art to create a
desirable urban environment during the day and night for both vehicular users and
pedestrians. These buildings are background buildings that display architectural integrity
CMR:456:99 Page 5 of 12
through the expression of building materials and attention to architectural details. In
addition, the streetscape is enhanced with these designs by providing a pedestrian
experience through the use of plazas and pedestrian links.
The working group examined three major components of the design that included
architecture, landscaping, and art. The alternative design addresses the following for the
parking garages:
Parkin~ Structure at Lots S/L
Architecture
a.The bulk, height, and scale of the building is reduced by creating three distinctive
building volumes on the Bryant Street elevation, lowering the height of the
parking structure on Lot L to four stories and relocating the elevator tower from
the corner to the center of the building. The elevator tower is glass/transparent to
lighten the look of the building, to show elevator motion and to enhance the safety
of passengers.
b.The upper level of the building appears to be lighter weight because the railing is
transparent.
c.The exterior stairways are designed to be open and appear light weight.
d.The five story portion of the parking structure will be covered in a red!terra cotta
colored sandstone. The four story structure has a textured concrete surface and the
teen center/commercial building will be covered with limestone. The use of high
quality, natural stone facing material in medium tones brings human scale and
quiets the building to make it recede.
e.The rhythm and scale of building elements are consistent with the urban fabric of
both downtown Palo Alto and the surrounding neighborhood.
f.The proposed building does not mimic the architectural style of adjacent buildings,
but instead the teen center element repeats a similar rhythm and scale of the Senior
Center.
g.The pedestrian amenities include built-in restrooms on the first floor level at
Bryant Street side.
Landscaping
a. The canopy of deciduous trees creates an airy entry plaza that leads pedestrians
along the sidewalk and screens the height of the building. The entry plaza and tree
canopy relates to the tree canopy of Cogswell Plaza.
¯ b.Landscape features are incorporated to soften the base of building next to
pedestrians. A fountain in Bryant Street plaza provides soothing sounds of water.
c.The crosswalk is moved to the plaza!elevator area and additional bulbouts are
provided on Bryant Street opposite the Senior Center.
d.Different pavement texture is provided at the pedestrian level.
CMR:456:99 Page 6 of 12
Public Art
a. Public art is incorporated in the main entry and elevator lobby. The public art
includes an ’art’ street map which helps with "way finding" .in Palo Alto.
b.Signage program is functional typographical art that directs and informs users in a
friendly manner.
Parking Structure at Lot R
Architecture
a.The bulk, height, and scale are reduced by stepping the upper level back on Alma
and High Street, relocating the elevator tower away from High Street and
incorporating openings on the exterior fagade that are smaller and varied in size to
provide a human scale
b.Two distinct building elements are used; they are of different materials -- natural
stone and stained concrete -- in a warm complementary color. The upper and
corner portion of the structure incorporates a sand blasted and stained concrete
finish.
c.The project incorporates a special ground pavement for the entry plaza that
includes a combination of brown stone with an irregular pattern and a sand blasted
colored concrete.
d.The pedestrian amenities include built-in restrooms (BIR) on the first floor level at
the Alma Street side.
e.The proposed design is more of an understated background building and does not
mimic adjacent buildings.
f.The building is compatible with neighboring buildings on High and Alma Streets
Landscaping
a. An entry plaza on High Street will provide landscaping, including trees and vines
on a trellis in the side alley. The entry plaza incorporates a serpentine-shaped
planter with ginkgo trees and a decomposed granite pavement.
b.Provides a safe, comfortable and well-lighted paseo connection between High and
Alma Streets.
Public Art
a. Art is incorporated inside the structure and includes a curved, translucent wall
with a typographical message that forms a colorful art wall backdrop for the main
stairway.
b.Signage program is a functional typographical art that directs and informs users.
The revised designs for Lots R and S/L included significant design revisions, such as
adjusting elevator locations, reducing or cutting back the upper floors of both garages,
and the addition of a two level basement under Lot L. These design changes will
increase the construction costs of both garages. The conceptual cost (projected for year
2000 construction) reported in the Downtown Parking Structures Feasibility Study
CMR:456:99 Page 7 of 12
(January 1997) was $5.3 million for Lot R ($38,400 per added stall) and $16.3 million for
Lot S/L ($27,600 per added stall). Conceptual costs for the revised design are $7.6
million for Lot R ($53,000 per added stall) and $17.8 million for Lots S/L ($32,000 per
added stall). These estimates are preliminary and include remaining design fees,
construction, testing, inspection, legal, assessment district fees and other related costs. -A
portion of the increase in cost for Lot R is to protect the adjacent building, a condition
unknown at the time of the feasibility study. Final cost estimates .will be presented to
Council prior to any assessment district election.
The current assessment rate per square foot for parking in the Downtown area is $0.34,
and will be fully paid in 2007. The two new parking structures would add an additional
annual assessment of $1.08 per square foot over 20 years. This is an increase of
approximately 3 percent over a typical commercial rent of $36 per square foot in the
Downtown. While this is characterized as normally tolerable, operating margins vary
substantially between businesses. Property owners who already provide parking spaces
for their site are given credit for each on-site space provided, and their assessments are
reduced accordingly.
The revised design reduces the number of parking stalls for Lot R from 227 to 214 and
increases the number of parking stalls for Lot S/L from 646 parking spaces to 664
parking spaces. There is, therefore, a net gain of 5 garage spaces associated with the
revised design. The new bulbout design on Bryant Street, however, eliminates five on
street parking spaces.
RESOURCE IMPACT
The attached BAO requests funds not to exceed $308,000 from the General Fund Budget
Stabilization Reserve. This request is a one-time expense and there are no future year
resource needs anticipated as a result of this BAO. Attachment B summarizes the BAO’s
approved to date in 1999-00 that impact the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve.
This attachment also estimates future year ongoing costs associated with BAO’s
approved to date to provide a projection for the future resource need from the General
Fund for those programs approved after the adoption of the 1999-00 Budget.
Section 1 of the attached BAO totals $70,000 for additional services provided by Watry
Design Group. This included the preparation of subdivision maps at both sites to
consolidate parcels, preparation of a more extensive environmental impact report, and
foundation investigations of an adjacent structure at Lot R. This portion of the BAO was
originally presented to Council on August 9, 1999 (CMR:341:99). That item was
continued by the Council, so formal action was never taken.
Section 3 of the BAO provides $145,000 to reimburse the existing budget for the
architectural design structural framework prepared from October 19, 1999, through
December 13, 1999. This work includes revising the exterior design, providing additional
CMR:456:99 Page 8 of 12
landscaping details, constructing a whiteboard model, and securing the services of an
artist.
Section 5 of the BAO provides $93,000 for additional structural design services. If
Council approves proceeding with the revised designs, additional design work will need
to be provided in order to integrate and adjust the new conceptual design to work within a
modified structural framework.
The following is a detailed recap of spending to date on the project, including the
proposed BAO:
Project Funding Allocated Prior to Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO):
Design Services - Watry.Design Group
Contract Engineer Services - Turner Construction
Contract Planner Services
Operating expenses (copying, postage, etc.)
Assessment Engineer
$ 716,236.
$175,812
$ 45,000
$ 5,000
$ 72,400
Subtotal:$1,014,448
Funds requested in BAO (see Attachments A and B)
Subdivision Map, Legal Services, EIR
Revise Exterior Design (Working Group)
Whiteboard Model
Artist
Subtotal
$70,000
$100,000
$15,000
$30,000
$215,000
Modify Structural System to Accommodate Revised Design
Total BAO Request
$93,000
$308,000
Total Financing Requested to Date:$1,322,448
The City. has advanced funding for the previous design effort to the 50 percent design
completion stage. The Parking In-Lieu Fund was used to finance part of the design
services (approximately $798,000), and the remainder of the costs have come from the
General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve. If an assessment district is not formed, the
Parking In-Lieu Fund account must be reimbursed by the General Fund. If a new
assessment district is formed, proceeds from the future bond sale can be used to
reimburse monies advanced from General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve, and all
future costs for design completion would be borne by the downtown property owners via
the newly created assessment district.
CMR:456:99 Page 9 of 12
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
Final Environmental Impact Report, FEIR
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared by staff. It consisted of
responses to all oral and written comments presented during the public review period as
well as text changes made to the DEIR as a result of the staff and public review of the
DEIR and Planning Commission Recommendations on the DEIR. A DEIR was prepared
as part of the PC zoning application and was presented to the Planning Commission and
Architectural Review Board. The DEIR was made available for a 30-day public review
period that started on December 9, 1998 and ended on January~ 8, 1999. The written
comment period was extended to March 10, 1999. The FEIR was made available for
public review beginning September 13, 1999.
Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report, FEIR
An Addendum to the FEIR was prepared by staff and made available for review on
December 3, 1999. It describes environmental issues that were addressed in the design
changes that were made to the proposed parking garage at Lots SiL. The scope of
changes includes the relocation of a stair and elevator tower to the middle of the project
site on Bryant Street and a new exterior building design. No changes were considered
environmentally significant and the redesign does not affect any previous findings of
significance or insignificance.
Approval of the project requires that Council certify the EIR (including the DEIR, FEIR
and Addendum), and make the findings including a Statement of Overriding
Consideration for one potential unavoidable short term impact, which is the temporary
loss of parking during construction. Prior to the start of construction, staff will develop a
plan for parking during construction.
TIMELINE
The project will be reviewed by the Council at a first reading on December 20, 1999 and
a second reading that will be held on January 18, 2000.
After City Council approval of the Tentative Parcel Maps (Subdivision Ordinance), a
Final Map would be required to be prepared for each project. The Final Maps would
require the approval of the Council, prior to recordation with the County of Santa Clara.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Budget Amendment Ordinance
Attachment B: Budget Amendment Ordinances Impacting General Fund
Approved To Date in 1999-00
Attachment C: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) document
Attachment D: Resolution certifying the adequacy of the EIR
Attachment E: Addendum to the FEIR document
Attachment F: Planned Community .(PC) Ordinance including Draft Conditions
Approval for PC zone change at 445 Bryant Street (Lots S/L)
Reserves
of
CMR:456:99 Page 10 of 12
Attachment G:
Attachment H:
Attachment I:
Attachment J:
Attachment K:
Attachment L:
Attachment M:
Staff Proposed Findings for Architectural Review Approval at 445
Bryant Street (Lots S/L)
Draft Findings for Tentative Subdivision Map at 445 Bryant Street (Lots
S/L)
Draft Conditions of Approval for Tentative Subdivision Map at 445
Bryant Street (Lots S/L)
Planned Community (PC) Ordinance including Draft Conditions of
Approval for PC zone change at 528 High Street (Lot R)
Staff proposed Architectural Review Findings for 528 High Street
(Lot R)
Draft Tentative Subdivision Map Findings for 528 High Street (Lot R)
Draft Tentative Subdivision Map Conditions of Approval for 528 High
Street (Lot R)
PREPARED BY: Phillip Woods, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
G. EDWARD GAWF
Director of Planning and Community Environment
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMILY HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
COURTESY COPIES:
The Watry Design Group, 815 Hamilton Street, Redwood City, CA 94063
Greg Smith, Consulting Engineer, 353 Sacramento Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
City of Menlo Park, Don de la Pefia, Director of Community Development, 701 Laurel
Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Downtown Marketing Committee, c/o Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce, 325A Forest
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:456:99 Page 11 of 12
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, Attn: Catherine Lehrberg, 1085 University
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Roxy Rapp, P.O. Box 1762, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Chop Keenan, Keenan Land Company, 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Georgie Gleim, Gleim Jewelers, 322 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Rick Tipton, P.O. Box 1281, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Lot R Tenant Representative: Joseph Bellomo, 102 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301
Architectural Review Board Representative: Bob Peterson, 57 E1 Camino Real, Menlo
Park, CA 94025
Public Arts Commission Representative: Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton, Palo
Alto, CA 94303
University South Representative: Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto,
CA 94301
Downtown North Representative: Mark Nanewicz, 228 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA
94303
Downtown North Alternate: Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Downtown North Alternate: Sally Ann Rudd, 204 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
John S. Ervin, 420 Palm Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Earl Nicholas Selby, Attorney at Law, 418 Florence Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr. Michael Weed, Aufmuth, Fox, Weed & LeBlanc, 314 Lytton, Suite 200, Palo Alto,
CA, 94301
M. Wagner and R. Ferguson, Attn: Rich Ferguson (Lot S/L), 301 University Avenue,
#480, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Herb McLaughlin (property at 124 University Avenue), c/o Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz,
222 Vallejo Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Cornine Campbell, Avendias, 450 Bryant, Palo Alto CA 94301
Shulamith Rubinfien, 501 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jeff Brown, 660 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94306
Lorilee Houston, 520 Cowper Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Katherine Pering, 388 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phyllis Munsey, 2361 Santa Ana, Palo Alto, CA 94303
John Hackmann, 235 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Kathy Jordan, 685 High Street, #5C, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Bill McCann, President Palo Alto Plaza Homeowners Association, 685 High Street, #2F,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Sylvia Star-Lack, VTA Congestion Management Program, 3331 N. First Street, Bldg. B,
San Jose, CA 95134
CMR:456:99 Page 12 of 12
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1999-00 TO
PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION ~OF $308,000 FOR
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURE FEASIBILITY STUDY CAPITAL
PROJECT .NUMBER 19530
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June 28,
1999 did adopt a budget for fisca! year 1999-00; and
WHEREAS, the Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study
Capital Improvement Project 19530 was established to assess options
for constructing parking structures in Downtown Palo Alto, including
an environmental assessment, fiscal impacts, and mixed use concepts;
and
WHEREAS, Council approved in January 1998 the funding of
design costs to the 50 percent completion level, after which time
an assessment district might be established if approved by a
majority of downtown property owners pursuant to Proposition 218;
and
WHEREAS, an additional appropriation of $70,000 is needed to
reach the 50 percent design completion level and to fund unforeseen
design related services that were not originally budgeted, including
a Tentative Subdivision Map ($23,000), an Environmental Impact
Report ($17,000), and foundation design and legal services
($45,000); and
WHEREAS, these additional costs will be offset by a $15,000
fee reduction for contractual engineering services that can be
undertaken by ~ity staff; and
WHEREAS, Council reviewed CMR:391:99 on October 18, 1999,
which provided additional information and alternatives related to
design, cost, and scheduling.issues concerning the Downtown Parking
Structures; and
WHEREAS, Council directed a redesign of the parking structures
pursuant to staff Alternative Recommendation 1 in CFIR:381:99, which
recommends the establishment of a small working group consisting of
the Downtown Parking Structure Project Study Group, an Architectural
Review Board, and Planning Commission representative, with the
assistance of an urban design architect, Watry Design Group, and
City Staff; and
WHEREAS, an additional appropriation of $145,000 is needed to
fund the redesign, including additional urban design and
architectural assistance ($I00,000), the construction of a three
dimensional ~white board" model ($15,000), and the services of an
artist ($30,000); and
WHEREAS, the redesign has resulted in unforeseen costs that
were not included in staff Alternative Recommendation i; and
WHEREAS, an additional appropriation of $93,000 is needed
enable the Watry Design Group to adjust the revised garages’
structural system to the redesigned exterior; and
WHEREAS, the additional appropriation of funds requested from
the General Fund Budget Stabilization Reserve is for a one-time cost
and.no future year General Fund ongoing costs are anticipated from
this appropriation; and
WHEREAS, City Council authorization is needed to amend the
1999-00 budget as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION i. The sum of Seventy Thousand Dollars ($70,000) is
hereby appropriated to Capital Improvement Project No. 19530, for
design, legal, and administrative costs, and the Budget
Stabilization Reserve is correspondingly reduced.
SECTION 2. This transaction will reduce the
Stabilization Reserve from $19,463,339 to $19,393,339.
Budget
SECTION 3. The sum of One Hundred Forty Five Thousand Dollars
($145,000) is hereby appropriated to Capital Improvement Project
No. 19530 for the costs of redesign, and the Budget Stabilization
Reserve is correspondingly reduced.
SECTION 4. This transaction will reduce the
Stabilization Reserve from $19,393,339 to $19,248,339.
Budget
SECTION 5. The sum of Ninety Three Thousand Dollars ($93,000)
is hereby appropriated to Capital Improvement Project No. 19530 for
engineering services related to redesign, and the Budget
Stabilization Reserve is correspondingly reduced.
SECTION 6. This transaction will reduce the Budget
Stabilization Reserve from $19,248,339 to $19,155,339.
SECTION 7. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo
Alto Municipa! Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 8. On.December 20, 1999, the City Council adopted a
resolution certifying the adequacy of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for the parking structure project and made the required
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings.
SECTION 9. As provided in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:~City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of
Services
Administrative
Director of Public Works
Director of Planning
Community Environment
and
Attachment B
Budget Amendment Ordinances Impacting General Fund Reserves Approved To Date in 1999-00
Balance
Adopted Budget Addition to BSR
Downtown Urban Design Improvements, CIP 19608
Salary and Benefit Increases Retroactive to July 1, 1999 for
Management and Confidential Employees
City Manager Executive Recruitment
Friends of the Palo Alto Library Grant
Arts Council of Santa Clara County Grant
Palo Alto Art Center Foundation Donation
Cost of Sound Wall for Tennis Facility at 3005 Middlefield Rd.
IT Strategic Plan
Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study, CIP 19530
($120,349)
($432,200)
($26,0O0)
($58,00O)
($5,407)
($10,000)
($50,0OO)
($250,100)
($308,00O)
$58,000
$5,407
$10,000
$60,534 $I89,566
$18,877,888
$1,214,000
($120,349)
($432,200)
($26,000)
$0
$0
$0
($50,00O)
$0
($308,000)
($432,200)
($317,917)
BSR Balance After BAO’s $19,155,339
Attachment C
DOWNTOWN PUBLIC PARKING GARAGES
LOT R AND LOT S/L
IN THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
Final Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: City of Palo Alto
Prepared by: City Staff
September, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT LOCATION ............i
SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES .................3
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES ..................I0
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS ............ii
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JANUARY 13, 1999 ..............18
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JULY 28, 1999 ................24
COMMENT LETTERS ......................26
3.1 VTA. ~ .....................26
4.2 YORIKO KISHIMOTO ................27
4.3 NICHOLAS SELBY .................29
MINUTES OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JANUARY 13, 1999 . . ~ ............... 31
MINUTES (EXCERPT) OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JULY 28, 1999 ..................85
990909 sd10032245 i i
INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT LOCATION
A Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed
project(s) was prepared and distributed i~ December throggh
February, 1999. The proposed project is actually two
projects: the construction of two parking garages in downtown
Palo Alto.
Over the course of the various public meetings held regarding
the parking garages, the City staff and its design and
engineering consultants prepared three design schemes
(referred to as "~’, "B" and ~C") for each garage. The three
designs for each garage are not substantially different from
each other-in terms of their effect on the environment.
Therefore, they are not distinguished from each other in this
Final EIR, except as specifically noted.
Parking Garage S/L is located on approximately 40,400
square feet of land (0.93 acre) with an irregular shape,
occupying approximately one-half of the block bounded by
Bryant Street, Lytton Avenue, Florence Avenue and
University Avenue. The staff recommended parking
structure would consist of seven parking levels: one at
ground level, four above the existing ground level and
two below the existing ground level. The height of the
structure would be 48 feet to the top of the railing on
the top parking level and 64 feet to the top of the
elevator. Approximately 646 vehicle parking spaces would
be located within the garage with a total floor area of
approximately 206,300 square feet. The garage would
replace the current 109 parking spaces at Parking Lots S
and L. Construction of the parking structure would
require demolition of an approximately 2,175 square foot
house currently used as a teen center by the City.
Other features of the project include a landscaped plaza
located on the Bryant Street side of the structure; a
light well in the center of the structure to provide
light and air circulation; bicycle lockers and racks; and
electric vehicle hookups/recharging stations. In
addition %o parking, the structure is proposed to include
space, unusable for parking, which could accommodate uses
.such as a teen center, offices, retai! and/or a mini-
park. The project budget also includes one percent (1%)
for public art.
¯Parking Garage R is located on approximately 25,200
990909 sd10032245 1
square feet of land (0.58 acre) generally located mid-
block bounded b~ Alma Street, High Street, University
Avenue and Hamilton Avenue. This facility would consist
of a five-level parking garage, al! above ground. The
height of the structure .would be 48 f~et to the top of
the railing on the top parking level, and 58 feet to the
top of the elevator. Approximately 227 vehicle parking
spaces would be located within the 97,700 square foot
structure. The garage would replace the current 71
parking spaces at Parking Lot R.
Other features of the project include a pedestrian
walkway between Alma and High Streets; a 5,200 square
foot landscaped plaza at the north side of the lot;
bicycle, lockers and racks; and electric vehicle
hookups/recharging stations. The project budget also
includes one percent (1%) for public art.
The majority of the new spaces in both garages would be
used for permit parking, which is generally used by local
employees. The spaces would be available for general
public parking between 5 p.m. and 8 a.m. and on weekends.
Both st}uctures will include hookups for potential
public restrooms; however, actual restroom facilities are
not proposed to be constructed immediately, because of
the City’s previous lease acquisition of dowhtown toilet
facilities, and the cost of maintaining public toilets.
990909 sdl 0032245 2
SUMMARY OF TEXT CHANGES
This section presents all of the revisions made to the DEIR as
a result of responding to comments, as well as minor
corrections and revisions initiated by. City staff based on its
ongoing review. Added text is underlined and deleted text is
struck through. The revisions are presented in the same
sequence as the text appears in the DEIR.
1.0 Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigations
Page 1-3, Mitigation Measure 4.3.2, Bulbouts, is revised to
read:
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2, ~ Traffic Calming Devices.
................ special pavement
Traffic calming devices will be installed at the crosswalk on Bryant
Street in order to ~ facilitate the safety of pedestrians
crossinq......~O the Senior Center. ..............~~o =,~,’---~ special pavement
~ The-purpose of the traffic calming devices would be to
slow automobile traffic along Bryant, alert motorists to the
presence of a crosswalk, and thereby facilitate pedestrians crossing
~ Bryant Street ~-- reducing
stzeet to the~. The specific device(s) chosen will be
determined from a more refined engineering analysis based on the
final configuration of the garage structure, and will consist of
bulbou~ts, special pavement treatments, speed humps, or some
combination of these. Any bulbout~ must such .traffic calming device
chosen shall be constructed in such away as not to disrupt drainage
on Bryant Street or be unsafe for bicyclists.
2.4 Impacts Determined to be Not Significant
Page 3, first bullet, is revised to read:
Land Use: The project raises no land use compatibility issues,
because the two project sites are already developed as surface
municipal parking lots in an intensive urban setting, surrounded by
office, retail commercial, institution and other parking areas. Th___~e
construction of multi-story parking structures on the surface lots
does raise some aesthetic issues, which are addressed under that
subject.
Page 3, seventh bullet, is revised to read:
Cultural R~sources: Neither project site is believed to contain
archaeological, paleontological, historical or other artifacts of
historical, religious or sacred significance, nor are the sites
located in areas that contain a concentration of known historic
resources that may constitute potential historic districts. The
proposed projects have been evaluated as part of the larger urban
environment. While the area around both project sites contain
990909 sd10032245 3
several identified resources of varying levels of historical
siqnificance, these ~areas are chara.cterized by an. eclectic mixture
of b~ildinq eras, architectural styles and sizes. (See historic
resource location map and proposed Palo Alto Reqister property
survey sheets, Exhibits A through A-II and B throuqh B-15. Note
that properties identified as ~Resource List" properties will be
subject to further evaluation under Ordinance No. 4549, Integim
Hiskoric Regulations.)
3.3 Requested Entitlements
Page 24, 3.3, Requested Entitlements, is revised to add the
following:
Consideration of easements or a lot line adjustment for Garage S/L
in the alleyway near..Florence and ..alonq properties for subsurface
construction.
4.1 Earth and Geotechnical Impacts
Page 31, Mitigation Measure 4.1.1, Short-term erosion, is
revised to read:
Mitigation Measure 4.1.1, Short-term erosion. The applicant shal!
prepare an erosion and sedimentation plan to be implemented during
winter months. The Plan shall include Best Management Practice
Measures (BMP) to protect water quality from water-borne erosion and
other negativ@ effects during the construction phase of the project.
At a minimum, the Plan shall include such measures as limitations on
site entry and exiting via public streets and periodic cleaning of
adjacent streets and other requirements items as ~equized by
published by the Pa!o Alto Public Works Department in its "Pollution
Prevention Lan~uaqe for Construction Contracts." (Exhibit C)
4.3 Transportation, Parking and Circulation
Page 46, Regulatory and Policy Framework, is revised to add
the following:
In addition to the qoals, policies and objectives that specifically
address the construction of parkinq qara~es in the downtown area,
other provisions of the Comprehensive Plan are relevant to the
projects. These include the followinq:
Transportation Element Policy T-3: Support the development and
expansion of..comprehensive, effective programs to reduce auto use at
bo..~.h local and regional levels;
Land Use Element Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the
City. Avoid..land uses that are overwhelmin~ and unacceptable due to
the size and scale;
Land Use Element.Policy L-23: Maintain and enhance the Univerisyt
Avenue/Downtown area as the centra! business district of the City,
990909 sdl 0032245 4
with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and
residential uses. Promote quality desiqn that., recoqnizes the
reqional and historical importance of ~he area and reinforces its
pedestrian character..;.
Transportation Element Program T-49: Implement a comprehensive
program of parkinq supply and demand manaqement strateqies for
Downtown Palo Alto; and
Transportation Element Policy T-46: Minimize the need for all-day
employee parking facilities in the University Avenue/Down and
California Avenue business districts and encourage short-term
customer parkinq.
Page 50, Environmental Impact 4.3.2, Pedestrian circulation,
fourth paragraph, is revised to read:
Since th~ Lot R structure would be smaller than that at Lot S/L, and
since it is not located across the street from major pedestrian
destinations, no special crossing treatments would be necessary.
Pedestrians from parcels alon~ Alma can cross to the train station
at University Avenue where there is an underpass or cross Alma at
Hamilton Avenue, where there is a traffi~ signal. @nce the propo~d
Garaqe R is constructed the number of driveways aloD~-the.....north side
of Alma would be reduced. Also, adequate siqht distance would be
provided at the Garace R driveway to avoid pedestrian/vehicle
conflicts. The preliminary design for the parking structure on Lot
R includes construction of a pedestrian oriented plaza and enhanced
pedestrian pass-through between the parking structure and Hamilton
Avenue to the north. The proposed structure would therefore have no
significant impact on pedestrian or bicycle conditions. No
mitigations would be required.
Page 51, Mitigation Measure 4.3.2, Bulbouts, is revised to
read:
4.6
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2, ~u~m~-sTraffic Calming. Dulbodts=~,~, ....... ~
special pavement ..................................~ ~ ~o~=~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Traffic calmin~
devices will be installed at the crosswalk on Bryant Street in order
to ~em-v~ f.acilitate the safety of pedestrians crossinm to the Senior
Center.~ .............~’ .......~-~~ ..........,~ ~ .....paveme~]t.~=~ The purpose of
the traffic calminq devices would be to slow automobile traffic
along Bryant, alert motorists to the presence of a crosswalk, and
thereby facilitate pedestrians crossing ~ Bryant Street by ~educing
the ~-~-~ ~ ...... =:- - -: -~- -= ...... ~ .... ~--
specific device]s) chosen will be determined from a more refined
enqineerinm analysis based on the final confiquration of the qaraqe
structure, and wil! consist of bulbouts, special pavement
treatments, speed humps, or some combination Qf these. Any bulbouts
~ such.traffic calminq device chosen shall be constructed in such
a way as not to disrupt drainage on Bryant Street or be unsafe for
bicyclists.
Aesthetics and Light and Glare
Page 71, Environmental Impact 4.6.1, On-site aesthetics, is
990909 sdl 0032245 5
revised to read:
Environmental Impact 4.6.1, On-site aesthetics. Construction 0£ the
............................................ to ..............stzuctures
pa2king .........................to ..................................to
The proposed design o..f the parking structures addresses the larger
context of urban desicn in downtown, in that, the proposed parkinc
structures have a distinctive architectural style that will maintain
the diversity of architecture in the downtown area. The proposed
design of both downtown parking structures is consistent with the
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Both of the proposals meet the
objectives of the guidelines, in that, they preserve and enhance the
desirable qualities of downtown architecture.
The parking structures are compatible and will enhance the identity
of the greater urban context of downtown Palo Alto. The proposal
provides attractive building design that., includes .... decorative
architectural elements and materials that enhance the pedestrian
experience of the urban environment. In addition, the parking
structures create attractive and easily, recognizable pedestrian and
parkin~ garage entryways by providing., special pavin~ treatments,
awnings, lighting and seating areas. No mitigation measures are
required.
Page 72, Mitigation Measure 4.6.~, Views and vistas, is
revised to read:
Page
Mitigation Measure 4.6.~2_, Views and vistas. Fast growing vines
~,~’ east ---~- of~t~uctu~e ~ S/h ---’
.... thy ~ ~1 ..................................................
The project shall be required to mitigate the visual impact and
close proximity of the Parking Structure S/L to the adjacent
commercial structure by providing additional architectural elements
to the building facade. These architectural elements will provide
a human scale that will visually reduce the height, scale and mass
of the parkin~ structure. The architectural elements should include
the following:
Incorporate a combination of decorative metal screens and/or plant
boxes located in the wal! openings;
Provide architectural bas-relief panels., on......th.e building facade; and
Introduce different building materials that include tile or brick.
72, Mitigation Measure 4.6.£--3, Light and glare, is
990909 sd10032245 6
revised to read:
Mitigation Measure 4.6.£3,_ Light and glare, inte~io~
The proposed liqht plan shall be required to be in conformance with
recommendations of the Illuminating Enqineerinq Society, IES. The
intent of the parking structure liqhting is to enhance security
without having the liqhting inside the structure result in
significant light spill on the outside. In addition, the proposed
exterior lightinc shall follow city quidelines that specify the
following liqht standards:
The liq~t standards on the parking qarage roof shall be directed
downward and shall be mounted no hiqher than fifteen feet;
The lighting of the buildingexterior and parking areas should be of
the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose; and
Timing devices shall be provided for exterior and interior lichts in
order to minimize light qlare at night without jeopardizing
security.
5.1 No Project Alternative
Page 74, the No Project Alternative analysis is revised to add
the following:
Because downtown Palo Alto is essentially "built out," changes in
the existing 1,500-space deficit would be driven by land use (e.g.,
retail converting to restaurant) or economic changes. Assuming
conditions remain relatively constant, the fol!owinq are possible
"no project" implications:
Downtown Shuttle: The City Council has app.roved a 2-bus shuttle
system that will travel along Embarcadero Road at 15 minute headways
durinc the peak hours. During off-peak hours, the two buses will
take a north-south route alonq Middlefield Road at 30-minute
headways. Each bus can carry up to 30 people. The routes terminate
in the downtown area at the Caltrain station, and passencers could
conceivably be en route to Caltrain or downtown. Given the limited
carrying capacity durinq the initial 18-month trial period, it is
not anticipated that the shuttle will have a noticeable impact on
downtown parking demands.
If the shuttle is expanded in the future, it may have a qreater
effect on parking downtown, althouch probably not a siqnificant one.
The shuttle (as currently implemented) benefits Palo Alto residents
who live near the shuttle’s route, whereas the downtown area has
become a regional attraction. In order to lure out-of-town drivers
into the shuttle, the shuttle would need shorter headways and have
areas on the outskirts of town where drivers could leave their cars
and be shuttled downtown. Given that the cost of the pilot shuttle
990909 sdl 0032245 7
p..rogram.is approximately $200,000 for 2 vans, providing e~ouqh vans
to extend this service for 1,500 vehicles is probably economically
infeasible.
5.4
Commute Coordinator: The City Council has app[o.yed a posi.~ion for a
full-time .......commute coordinator to.....assist the City and Chamber of
~ommerce in develDpiDq c.ommzte slternatiyes...for downtown employees
and shoppers. Aspects of a commute program could include discounted
tran.sit passes, subsidized.bicycle purchases, etc. This effort,
~.long with the pilot shuttle bus program, will help traffic problems
i.n the .downtown, but will likely not have a significant impact on
parking. The Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program
glands Dew.....developments up to a 5 percent trip-generation reduction
credit ....Dn traffic analyses, for businesses that promise a stronc
cDmmute coordination......pro~ram.
Employee Parking Deraands: The shortage of permit!.employee parking
has both-economic and traffic impacts. Since there are not enough
parking...spaces to issue permits fgr....all.....(or even most) employees,
9.mployees tend to ei.~her park in downtown surface lots, or park in
residential neighborhoods.
~.~pl.Qyees who park in the surface lots are forced to leave work
every 2r3 hours so that they can move their cars and re-park in
another.....par.king lot, with a different color/time zone. This causes
a. loss of productivity to the employer, and makes Palo Alto a less
desirable place for employees to work..
Employees who park in the neighborhoods can now do so for an
unlimited amount of time. This becomes a quality of life issue for
..<esidents because of the difficulty of finding parking for
hhemselves or their quests. Given....the regional entertainment nature
9~ downtown and the lack of customer/employee parking throughout the
~yeninq, there is......seldom a parkinq respite for downtown residents.
The City is contemplating implementing a parking permit program for
the resideDtial neighborhoods .in downtown. It is unlikely this
program could start without some place (e.g., the proposed garages)
to relocate the employees displaced by the new permit program.
Without some plac~ in the downtown business district to park, th~
employees would simply move farther back into other neighborhoods.
Other Alternatives Considered But Rejected
Page 79, section 5.4 is revised to add the following:
Summary,,, Assuming, optimistically, that a good downtown-wide TDM
p.roqram...causes a 10% trip reduction and that downtown parking demand
.i..S 2,300 (public capacitY) plus 1,500 unmet demand = demand for
.~.~800 spaces, TDM would reduce demand by 10% of this, or 380 spaces,
~ch le.ss than the overall.....l,500 unmet demand. This unmet demand
contributes, in turn, to traffic congestion. How much, however, is
unknown. A study of. German cities done a few years ago estimated
.~hat..an average of 15% of downtown traffic congestion was due t~
990909 sd10032245 8
people circulating around looking for a parking space!~
Despite the foreqo{ng discussion,......a very aggressive transit and
bike/walk program plus TDM could sub.stantial!..y reduce parking
demand. Even TDM could be made much m.ore e~fective by enhancing
greater., access to a greater variety of alternative modes of
transportation and by market-pricing parking spaces. As seen from
the foregoing discussion of City projects for...the downtown, the City
is investing in alternative modes ..of transportation. More
agqress.ive congestion-easing measures are being considered, but
given budgetary constraints, .... future projects will be competing
against other us.~s of available funds. The parking structures are
a positive step in using scarce land mor~ efficiently, because they
provide additional parking capacity, but no~.., so much as to
discourage alternate transportation modes such as transit use,
bikinq....~nd walking.
6.4 Growth Inducing Impacts of the Proposed Project
Page 81, section 6.4, the second paragraph is revised to read:
~- because of~=~=~~ .........~ ....’-~-- o o~t ties, ~
Parking
garages do not generate or attract trips. They are "way stations"
between., trip origins and destinations. Because.. of this, the ITE
Trip Generation .Handbook has no numerica! ..estimates for parking
garage trip generation. While parking structures indirectly
increase access to ...land (th~ direct access being provided by
roadways or rail.....lines), they themselves do not induce growth. The
roadway@ or rail lines do facilitate growth in interaction with
demand side pressures, such as population, income, retail and labor
markets. Based on information contained in the traffic and
transportation analysis, a significant parking deficit already
exists in downtown Palo Alto. This is due to the amount of office,
retail, restaurant and entertainment uses already existing, many of
which have no or limited on-site parking. Construction of the
proposed garages would assist in reducing the identified parking
deficit, but is not anticipated to eliminate the parking deficit
entirely. Parking Garage S/L is located on approximately 40,400
square feet of land (0.93 acre) with an irregular shape, occupying
approximately one-half of the block bounded by Bryant Street, Lytton
Avenue, Florence Avenue and University Avenue. The parking structure
would consist of seven parking levels: one at ground level, four
above the existing ground level and two below the existing ground
level. Approximately 653 vehicle-parking stalls would be located
within the garage with a total floor area of approximately 213,300
square feet.
’ see Robert Cervero’s new book, The Transit Metropolis: A Global Inquiry.. Island
Press, 1998, and specifically, the chapter on Karlsruhe.
990909 sd10032245 9
COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and
implementing CEQA Guidelines, after complition of the Draft
EIR, lead agencies are required to consult with and obtain
comments from public agencies and organizations having
jurisdiction by law over elements of the project and to
provide the general public with an opportunity to comment on
the Draft EIR. Lead agencies are also required to respond to
substantive comments on environmental issues raised during the
EIR review period. As the lead agency for this project, the
City of Palo Alto held a public review period between December
9, 1998, and March I0, 1999.
The Palo Alto Planning Commission also held a noticed public
hearing on the DEIR on January 13, 1999 for the purpose of
soliciting comments from the Planning Commission and public.
This document contains all public comments received during the
public review process regarding the DEIR and responses to
those comments. Included within the document is a summary of
each comment followed by a response to that comment.
990909 sdl 0032245 1 0
COMMENT LETTERS
Comment letters were received by the City of Palo Alto
during the 60-day public comment period on the DEIR from
the following agencies and organizations.
Number Commenter Date
Federal Agencies
None received
2 State Agencies
None
3 Local Agencies
3.1 Valley Transportation 3/10/99
Authority (VTA)
4 Individuals
4.2 Yoriko Kishimoto 1/12/99
4.3 Earl Nicholas Selby 2/12/99
RESPONSES TO COMMENT LETTERS
This is a summary of each of the comments and the response of
the City Palo Alto. Each letter has been reviewed and divided
into smaller comments as noted by annotations in the margin in
each of the letters. Each comment is then summarized and
responded to below. The full text of each letter with
annotations follow this section.
Letter 3.1: Valley Transportation Agency (VTA)
Comment 3.1.1: The DEIR does not address impacts of Lot
R on Caltrain patrons. The FEIR should include a
discussion regarding the route pedestrians would take in
accessing the Caltrain station from parcels on Alma to
avoid walking in front of the parking lot entrance.
Response: Pedestrians from parcels along Alma can cross
to the train station at University Avenue where there is
an underpass or cross Alma at Hamilton Avenue, where
there is a traffic signal. Once the proposed Garage R is
constructed the number of driveways along the north side
990909 sdl 0032245 11
of Alma would be reduced. Also, adequate sight distance
would be provided at the Garage R driveway to avoid
pedestrian/vehicle conflicts. See text change to Page
50, Impact 4.3.2, of the DEIR.
Comment 3.1.2: Please forward a copy of the Technical
Appendix of the Traffic Impact Analysis to the County
Congestion Management Program.
Response: The transportation consultant for the project
has forwarded the requested information.
Letter 4.2: Yoriko Kishimoto
Comment 4.2.1: Section 5.4, Alternatives, The DEIR notes
that TDM programs would not construct 750 parking stalls.
The DEIR should be corrected to note that TDM plans are
not designed to construct parking stalls.
Response: A fuller discussion on TDM has been added as
a text change to Section 5.4, Page 79, of the DEIR.
Comment 4.2.2: Sole reliance on TDM would not be
consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan because it
calls for construction of new parking stalls downtown.
Note a correction: The Comprehensive Plan definitely does
not call for two parking garages and a number of Comp
Plan policies would be in conflict with the construction
of garages.
Response: The 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan created
different policies, goals and programs that acknowledge
the use of new parking structures as a way to reduce the
parking deficit. The existing surface parking lots and
structures in Downtown do not adequately meet the parking
space demand. In 1995 there was a shortage of
approximately 1,500 parking spaces in Downtown Palo Alto.
The construction of the two proposed parking structures
would provide approximately 873 parking spaces (693 new
spaces) and meet about half of this shortfall. The 13-
Point Parking Program, which is part of the Comprehensive
Plan, specifically includes pursuing a parking structure
at Lots S/L "and any other feasible sites .... " The Lot
R parking structure was determined to be feasible based
on the January 16, 1997, Downtown Parking Structure
Feasibility Study.
990909 sd10032245 1 2
The Comprehensive Plan also encourages the use of PC
Zoning for parking structures, so as to allow more
flexibility with regard to building heights and setbacks.
The Project is consistent with, among others, the
following Policies and Programs of the 1998-2010
Comprehensive Plan :
Goal T-8: Attractive,
Parking Facilities;
Con ven i en t Publ i c a n d Pri va t e
13-Point Parking Program, Point .!0: Pursue a new parking
structure for Lots S and L and any other feasible sites
(including consideration of removing the former Palo Alto
Board of Realtors structure in order to facilitate
construction on Lots S and L;
Policy Tr45: Provide sufficient parking in the University
Avenue/Down and California Avenue business districts to
address long-range needs;
Program T-50: Continue working with merchants, the
Chamber of Commerce, neighbors, and a parking cnsultant
to exploure options for constructing new parking
facilities or using existing parking more efficiently;
Program L-78: Encourage the use of Planned Community (PC)
zoning for parking structures Downtown and in the
California Avenue area;
Policy L-79: Design public infrastructure, including
paving, signs utility structure, parking garages and
parking lots to meet high quality urban design standards.
Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the
design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate
elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or
visually disruptive.
Also. in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan, the City
of Palo Alto is considering other strategies to meet the
anticipated demand for parking spaces in the downtown,
such as shuttle buses, increased reliance on TDM
measures, increased bicycle and pedestrian access and
others. A fuller discussion of alternate strategies has
been added as a text change to Section 5.1, page 74, of
the DEIR.
990909 sdl 0032245 1 3
Comment 4.2.3: The City presently enforces TDM--not for
most .downtown businesses.
Response: The commenter is correct. .The City enforces
TDM in its role as an employer. While TDM is one of the
factors often considered by the City as regulator in land
use decisions, actual TDM implementation for businesses
would be done at the employer level. See text change to
Section 5.1, Page 74 of the DEIR, adding discussion of
downtown commute coordinator.
Comment 4.2.4: The EIR should have included an adequate
transportation analysis for all or part of the two
garages.
Response: CEQA allows for a qualitative analysis of
alternatives, including transportation impacts.. This was
the method selected to analyze alternatives in the DEIR.
Additional discussion has been a’dded regarding other
methods of addressing the downtown parking situation.
See text changes to Section 5.1, Page 74, and Section
5.4, Page 79, of the DEIR.
Letter 4.3: Earl Nicholas Selby
Comment 4.3.1: The EIR is deficient in that it fails to
mention that the proposed Garage S/L would be built
directly adjacent to an 1893 Victorian-style office
building at 418/420 Florence Street, recognized as an
historic property.
Response: The DEIR does discuss the fact that the garage
would be built next to the office building located at
418/420 Florence Street. It notes that the garage will
have an aesthetic impact on the office building, and
proposes mitigation measures that will mitigate the
impacts to less . than significant. Additional text
changes to Page 72 of the DEIR have been added for
Impacts 4.6.2 and 4.6.3.
Comment 4.3.2: The proposed Garage S/L would completely
obscure two sides of the building and the DEIR does not
disclose that the proposed garage would cast shade and
shadow over the existing building.
Response: See response to Comment 4.3.1.
990909 sdl 0032245 1 4
Comment 4.3.3: The EIR does not mention that the
building located at 418/420 Florence Avenue is an
historic property and how severe the impact of
constructing the garage would be.
Response: The Victorian referred to by the commenter
was listed as a Category III on the City’s Historic
Resources Inventory in 1978. The recent Planning
Department update of the City’s Historic Inventory
concluded that the building located at 420 Florence is no
longer historically significant due to substantial
changes and structural additions subsequent to its
original historical listing.
The oider, historic portion of the building at 420
Florence is located near the corner of Florence and
Lytton, and will not be affected by the construction of
the parking garage. The portion of the building located
adjacent to the northwest corner of the proposed parking
garage is a relatively newly constructed addition to the
original building.
Comment 4.3.4: The EIR fails to consider the loss of
views of downtown Palo Alto, the park across Bryant
Street and the foothills to the west from the building.
Response: Environmental Impact 4.6.2, Views and Vistas
notes that views and vistas from thebuilding located at
418/420 Florence Avenue would be blocked. See response
to Comment 4.3.1.
Comment 4.3.5: Construction of the proposed garage would
result in a severe aesthetic impact on the environment.
Response: Potential aesthetic impacts are somewhat
subjective. The DEIR provides an objective analysis of
aesthetic impacts, of the proposed project. See response
to Comment 4.3.1.
Comment 4.3.6: (a) Proposed Garage S/L would present
significant traffic problems causing back-ups onto Lytton
and University from Florence. (b) There would also be
significant safety hazards for senior citizens crossing
Bryant Street between the Senior Center and the proposed
garage.
Response: (a) Traffic and transportation impacts of the
990909 sd10032245 1 5
project have been analyzed in section 4.3 of the DEIR. No
short-term or aumulative traffic impacts have been
identified. The DEIR~ (page 29) notes that the proposed
garage will increase the daily vehicular trips on Bryant
Street by approximately 17 percent., and on Florence by. 23
percent. Both of these streets will still be well within
their carrying capacity.
From an operational viewpoint, these additional trips
should cause only occasional minor (2-3 car queues)
turning delays into the Bryant or Florence entrances to
the garage. The majority (80% or more) of the parking
spaces will likely be employee permit parking, located on
above-grade and below-grade levels. .Most employees will
arrive at off-peak hours and proceed directly into the
garage to their parking level. Any congestion/backups
would typically occur on the ground-floor (i.e., public
parking) level at the noon (peak) hour. The worst-case
scenario would be delays as arriving cars stop to wait
for cars vacating the few stalls located nearest to the
entrance of the garage. Since there is storage/waiting
area for several cars within the garage itself (3-4 cars
on Bryant; 2-3 cars on Florence), it is unlikely that
cars would significantly back up Bryant or Florence
traffic. This would happen only if all the parking
stalls near the entrance happened to turn over at the
same time, and the arrival rate for this same period was
greater than the storage rate. Bryant Street, which
carries a higher traffic volume, will also have the
advantage of some traffic calming device for additional
northbound storage. The garage entrances on both Bryant
and Florence are mid-block, which offers storage for
about 15 cars before adversely impacting University or
Lytton.
For comparison purposes, Civic Center garage has
approximately the same number of spaces as the S/L
garage. The Civic Center garage, which seldom causes
backups of more than one or two cars on adjacent streets,
has roughly 200 public parking spaces. This is nearly
twice the public parking that the S/L garage would likely
have.
(b) Potential pedestrian safety conditions were also
analyzed and Mitigation Measure 4.3.2 proposed to ensure
pedestrian safety near Garage S/L. This mitigation
measure would require construction of traffic calming
990909 sd10032245 16
devices within the Bryant Street right-of-way to enhance
the safety of pedestrians walking between the garage and
Senior Center. See text change tb Mitigation 4.3.2, page
51 of the DEIR.
990909 sd10032245 1 7
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
OF JANUARY 13, 1999
The official public hearing on the DEIR du[ing the 60 day
comment period was held by the Palo Alto Planning
Commission on January 13, 1999. The following is a
restatement of all comments made about the DEIR at that
public hearing, followed by the response to each comment.
N~ber ,Commenter Date
5.1 Planning Commission Meeting January 13, 1999
Commenter 5.1: Palo Alto Planning Commission Meeting,
January 13,1999
Co~nent 5.1.1: The Avenidas Group recommends that
access to garage S/L be provided along both Bryant and
Florence (Kathy Gwynn).
Response: The proposed plan for Garage S/L does
provide pedestrian access along both Bryant and
Florence Streets.
Comment 5.1.2: The proposed design of Garage S/L does
not provide for a pedestrian access across from the
Senior Center (Kathy Gwynn).
Response: A stairway and pedestrian access is
proposed as part of Garage S/L near the center
vehicular access along Bryant Street. This would allow
convenient access between the proposed garage and the
Senior Center. Also, see response to Comment 4.3.6
(b) .
Comment 5.1.3: Agrees with the amount of natural light
that would be shed on the existing Senior Center
(Kathy Gwynn).
Response: Comment acknowledged. No response necessary.
Comment 5.1.4: Avenidas is concerned regarding
downtown parking during construction. The group
supports mitigation measures in the EIR calling for a
short-term parking plan (Kathy Gwynn).
Response: Comment acknowledged. No response necessary.
990909 sd10032245 1 8
Comment 5.1.5: Requests postponement of action
regarding the proposed parking garages in lieu of
other means of accommodating downtown employees
(Yoriko Kishimoto).
Response: Comment a cknowl edged. See expanded
discussion and text changes to Section 5.1, Page 74,
and Section 5.4, Page 79, of the DEIR.
Comment 5.1.6: The Historic Resources Board (HRB)
should review potential impacts on the Victorian
office building adjacent to Garage S/L and the brick
building adjacent to_Garage R (Yoriko Kishimoto).
ResponSe: See response to Comments 4.3. I. through
4.3.3. The DEIR analyzed the aesthetic impacts of the
garage on those who would be in the office building.
The historic portion of the office building faces
Florence, and thus will not be affected by the garage.
The HRB did review the project at its meeting of May
19, 1999, and commented on the Victorian office
building and the context of the proposed parking
structures to their surroundings.
Comment 5.1.7: The character of the proposed garages
on downtown Palo Alto should be addressed. (Yoriko
Kishimoto)
Response: The DEIR reviews project-specific aesthetic
impacts of the two garages (Section 4.6) as well as
cumulative aesthetic impacts of the two proposed
structures.
Comment 5.1.8: The proposed parking garages are very
large and will dominate the downtown ambience as well
as being inappropriate in design (Elaine Meyer).
Response: Aesthetics of the project have been
analyzed in Section 4.6 of the DEIR. In addition, see
the text changes to Page 71, Impact 4.6.1, of the
DEIR.
Comment 5.1.9: Palo Alto Medical Clinic has plans to
move from downtown in the summer Of 1999. This will
remove a huge source of traffic in the downtown
(Elaine Meyer).
990909 sdl 0032245 1 9
Response: The parking deficiency analysis prepared as
background to the DEIR indicates that a large parking
deficit exists in downtown Palo Alto. If the Palo Alto
Medical Clinic ("PAMF") were to relocate from
downtown, a significant parking deficit would still
remain.
While PAMF’s move will take away much of the parking
demand in the greater downtown area, it is unlikely
that it will have much of an impact on the parking
demand for the downtown retail/restaurant businesses.
Most of the vehicles surrounding PAMF were parked
there for PAMF-re!ated business, rather than shopping.
Various studies, including studies done by the
Institute of Transportation En. gineers (ITE), indicate
that the average pedestrian in urban areas the size of
Palo Alto usually walk less than 500 feet for shopping
or other personal business. The distance from PAMF to
University Avenue, where most shops are located, is
about ~ mile, or 2,600 feet. The. short walking
distance reflects shoppers" desire not to carry
purchased items for long distances as well as a
reluctance to walk long distances in the dark, such as
after an evening dinner in a restaurant. Conversely,
it is unlikely that PAMF patrons were taking up spaces
in downtown parking lots and then walking south to
PAMF.
Some of the vehicles parked in the PAMF area may be
owned by employees of downtown businesses. These
vehicles will probably remain even after PAMF" s
relocation because of the shortage of parking downtown
and resulting waiting list for parking permits.
Comment 5.1.10: If the structures are built, there
will likely be back-ups on Bryant Street, Alma, High,
University and Lytton (Elaine Meyer).
Response: The traffic and transportation section of
the DEIR (Section 4.3) indicates that although some
increases in local traffic could be expected, such
increases would not be significant. See response to
Comment 4.3.6 (a) regarding the streets around the Lot
S/L garage.
Most of the parking for the Lot R garage will likely
be permit parking, and the majority of vehicles will
990909 sdl 0032245 2 0
enter the garage and go directly to the upper floors
to park. For ground-floor public parking, there
should be no increase over the existing surface lot
parking delays (which are considered ac.ceptable) along
Alma or High. The worst-case scenario for the ground
floor would be on the Alma Street entrance, which has
three parking stalls near the entrance. Since
internal "waiting" space is limited, inbound cars
would have to queue in the driveway, or on Alma
Street, as they wait for exiting cars to back up.
Since backing up takes only a short amount of time,
and since there are only a few stalls that would cause
this to happen, impacts to Alma should be minimal. On
the High Street entrance, there is sufficient internal
storage for 2-3 entering cars. In addition, both High
and Alma Streets have two northbound and/or southbound
lanes, which allows through vehicles to go around cars
queuing at the garage entrance.
Comment 5.1.11: Garage S/L, if built, will become the
most dominant structure on Bryant Street (Sally-Ann
Rudd).
Response: See response to Comment 5.1.8
Comment 5.1.12: Are bulbouts included in the plans for
Bryant Street (Sally-Ann Rudd).
Response: See response to Comment 4.3.6 (b).
Comment 5.1.13: What will happen if residential
parking permits were to be required for neighborhoods
adjacent to downtown? The parking garages would only
meet approximately one-half the anticipated parking
demand for downtown (Sally-Ann Rudd).
Response : Comment acknowledged. The impacts of
implementing a residential permit system would need to
be evaluated by the City prior to instituting such a
system. Also see text addition to Section 5.1, Page
74 of the DEIR, regarding Employee Parking Demands.
Comment 5.1.14: The parking garages would only meet
approximately one-half the anticipated.parking demand
for downtown. What about future parking needs? (Sally-
Ann Rudd).
990909 sd10032245 2 1
Response: The DEIR notes that the two proposed
garages would only meet approximately one-half the
estimated downtown parking demand. Additional
solutions will need to meet the r~emaining unmet
demand. See response to Comment ~4.2.2.
Comment 5.1.15: The public must know of how many cars,
how much carbon monoxide, how much noise the City’s
social, economic, environmental and public safety
foundations can accommodate before they break (Jeff
Brown).
Response: The DEIR analyzes a full range of
environmental impacts of the proposed project as well
as cumulative impacts of the proposed projects. An
analysis of economic and social impacts is not
required under the California Environmental Quality
Act.
Comment 5.1.16: The HRB should review the proposed
structures (Pria Graves).
Response: See response to Comment 5.1.6.
Comment 5.1.17: The DEIR does not fully take into
account the substantial aesthetic loss to the
Victorian office building fronting on Florence Avenue.
Also, the DEIR does not acknowledge the presence of
the historic building adjacent to the site (Nick
Selby).
Response: See response to Comment 4.3.3.
Comment 5.1.18: The proposed Garage S/L would have an
adverse impact to the Senior Center on the south side
.of Bryant Street (Nick Selby).
Response: The DEIR examined potential impacts to the
Senior Center, including traffic and transportation,
noise, air quality and aesthetics. No such adverse
impacts were identified.
Comment 5.1.19: The proposed Garage S/L would result
in a significant traffic problem on streets around the
garage. (Nick Selby).
Response: The DEIR examined potential traffic impacts
990909 sd10032245 2 2
to streets adjacent to the S/L garage as well as other
streets in the. downtown. No significant adverse
impacts were identified. See response to Comment
4.3.6 (a) .
Comment 5.1.20: The proposed garages would increase
traffic on Lytton, University, High, Bryant and
Florence (Karen Holman).
Response: Refer to the responses to Comments 5.1.10
and 5.1.19.
Comment 5.1.21: Construction of the proposed garages
would make the downtown parking problem worse rather
than solving this (Irvin Dawid).
Response: The DEIR notes that the proposed garages
would accommodate only a portion of the identified
unmet downtown parking demand, however, construction
of parki~ng garages is identified in the City of Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan as at least a partial solution
to the downtown parking problem. Also, see response
to Comment 5.1.14.
Comment 5.1.22: Construction of the proposed garages
could increase crime in the downtown area (Kathy
Jordan).
Response: The project description portion of the DEIR
(Section 3.2) summarizes anticipated security measures
to be taken to maximize security within the garages,
including -but not limited to internal "bright
lighting" of the facility, installation of security
cameras and other features, and roving security
guards. Security plans for the garages would be
coordinated with the project’s security consultant and
City of Palo Alto. Police Department.
¯ 990909 sd10032245 2 3
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
JULY 28, 1999
In accordance with the City’s CEQA Regulations, the
Planning Commission, at its meeting .of July 28, 1999,.
conditionally recommended to the City Counci! that the DEIR
be found to be adequate and prepared in accordance with the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The following
is a restatement of that portion of the Planning
Commission’s action, and the response to that action.
Number Commenter Date
6.1 Planning Commission Meeting July 28, 1999
Commenter 6.1: Palo Alto Planning Commission Meeting, July
28, 1999
Comment 6.1.1: The DEIR (page 46) should include
reference to Policy T-3 (reduction in auto use),
Policy L-5 (maintaining the scale and character and
avoiding land uses that are overwhelming and
unacceptable due to the size and scale), Policy L-23
(recognize the historic importance of the area and
reinforce the pedestrian character), Program T-49
(implementation of a supply and demand management
strategy for downtown), and Policy T-46 (minimizing
the need for all-day employee parking in the
University Avenue district). (Commissioner Butt)
Response: The Comprehensive Plan references have been
added as requested. See text change to the Regulatory
and Policy Framework, Page 46, of the DEIR. The
parking structures are proposed as part of the 13-
Point Parking Program for the Downtown area, which
includes a broad range of proposals for reducing
traffic. As such, they are consistent with Policy T-
3, Program T-49 and Policy T-46. See text change to
Section 2.4, page 3, seventh bullet, of the DEIR, with
regard to the historic character of the Downtown area.
See text changes to Section 4.6, Pages 71 and 72 of
the DEIR, with regard to on-site aesthetics and views
and vistas.
Comment 6.1.2: The DEIR should include more analysis
of the alternatives considered but rejected,
specifically discussing a combination of methods
990909 sdl 0032245 2 4
rather than simply sole reliance on TDM vs. parking
garage. (Commissioners Cassel and Butt)
Response: See text change to Section 5.4, Page 79, of
the DEIR.
Comment 6.1.,.3: The DEIR should include discussion of
remote parking for downtown employees with a shuttle
to the Downtown. (Commissioner Bialson)
Response: Replacing one or two parking structures with
a remote parking and shuttle system would require
much greater transit capacity than is reasonably
affordable. The shuttles would be needed mainly at
peak h6urs, and the City would thus be required to pay
a premium for use of such resources for such a limited
time. Refer to text change to Section 5.1, Page 74 of
the DEIR, specifically the discussion of the Downtown
Shuttle as to the costs of the shuttle recently
approved by the City Council. Further, staff has not
identified any location in the City where such a
remote parking garage could feasibly be built.
990909 sdl 0032245 2 5
LETTER 3.1
Valley ~anspo~ati~ Auth~ity
Mard~ 10, lg99
City of Pale Al~o
Public Works Department
950 Hamilton Avenue
Pale Alto, CA 94~01
Attention: Karen Bengard
Subject: Downtown Parking Garages Dra~ Environmental Impact Report
De= Ms. Bengard:
Santo Clara Valley Transportation Au~oriW (~fA) staff Imve reviewed t.he Dm_~
Environmenta! Impact iRepor~ (DEIR) for lhe development of t~vo multi-story l~arking.structures in downtown Pale Alto. VTA comments follow, and a~e sepazated into
Transit Service and Congestior~ Mo..nag~n4~ .Program issues ~o reflect our dua! role
in reviewing the project.
The DEIR does no~ discuss potent2a/impacts dmt Lot R may have on Ca!train patrons.
On Page 50 of t.he DEIR, the discussion regarding ~En~ironmenta! Impact.4.3.2,
Pedestrian circulation" indicates that si~c~ Lot R "is not locm~d across the street fro~
ma~or pedestian destinations, no specis! crossing t~eatments would be necessa/T."
The Caltrain station, however, is within walking distance of Lot R, on Lhe west slde ofAln~a S~eet at University- Avenue. The Fmal ~nvlronmental impactRepor~
should include a discussion on the route pedestrians accessing the Cakrain station
from parce~ on Alma are expected to take to avoid wall4n~ in front of ~e pazking lot
entrance.
Con_~estion Management Pro_~a-am
The TransporUxtion Impact ,~maly~. CIUA) section of the DEIR conforms to the
Conges~on Management Protein’s TL~ guidelines. Please for~vard a c.opy of the
technical appendix that includes the TRAFFIX level of service (LOS) calculat2ons to ~he
Congestion Management Program at 833I Norfl~ FLrst Street, San Jose, CA 95184.
We appreciate the opport%mity to review- this project- If you hav~ any questions,
cal! Lauren Bobadilla of my stuff at (408) 32 I:5776.
2!~.omas ~ounr..ree ........
En~ironmenta! Prograra Manager
TDR:LGB:kh
3 .i .i
3 .i .2
26
LETTER 4.2
~: ~el~y review o~ ~o m~o~ par~ ~~ on lots S/L ~d ~
c~lls ~or co--orion for new pa_ddng g~rag~ gownt~r~ ~o~rectlon: Comp
least ~ Comp P1a,n policies and programs (see be!ow) t!’mt they onflict with.
¯ 3. City presently enforce~ TDM - not ~or most down%o~n’~businesses.
The EIR s~uld l~ve
part o~ aIl o~ two garages.
Following are parts o~ the comp plan wl-dch ~onMct with build~g both p~rking
str’.zctures down~wn:
2. poRcy T-3 - ~. upport, deve.lopme~ and exp~tsion of ccrml~-~nsiv~, e~ecti~e
progre.ms to reduce auto use at both loca! ~d regtonRl levels
3. pOlicy" L-S Mel.’~m~ scale ~d character of dry.., zvoid land uses tl~it m’e
overwhelming and unacceptable due t~ their size ~ scale.
4. policy L-23. Mzdntei~ e~l enhance University Avenue-Promote ’quatity
design that recognizes regkmal and histoflc h-npo:tance of exea end rei.nf0z~es its
pedestrian character.
~. prog~e.m T-4@.implement .a comprehensive program of pazkinz s~pply mad
demand maaagernent stzate~es for dowr~own. (99% o£ city eHorts have been
4.2 .i
4.2.2
4.2 o3
27
28
Law Officcs
or
EARL NICHOLAS SELBY
418 Florence Str¢ct
Palo Alto, California 94301
Telephone (650) 828.0990
Facsimile (680)
Earl Nicholas Sclby
Giotto .\. Harris
Mr. Brian Dolan
Plarming Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RE: Draft Environmental Imoact Report ("Draft EIR")
Project: Downtown Parking Garages - Lot R, Lot S/’L
Lead Agency: City of Palo Alto
Date of Draft EIP,.: January 13, 1999
Dear Mr. Dolan:
RECEIVED
FEB 1.2, 1999
DeparbT~ent of Planning and
Cc~nrr~ni~/Env~ronm.e~
E-maih cnsclhy*wcnct.nct
- gaham’ls ~ wcnct.nct
LETTER 4.3
This letter contains my comments on the above-referenced Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR is deficient with regard to the proposed parking garage for Lot S/L ("the
garage") because it fails to mention, let alone seriously consider, the fact that the garage would
be built directly adjacent to an 1893 Victorian-style office building at 418/420 Florence Street
that has been recognized by the City of Palo Alto as a historic property ("the historic landmark").
The Victorian-style historic landmark is one of the most architecturally and historical!y notable
buildings in downtown Palo Alto and is a significant part of the City’s heritage as well as a
significant visual community resource. The photographs in the Draft EIR have all been carefully
but cynically selected and cropped by the authors of the document to avoid disclosing the fact
that a beautiful 1893 Victorian will be largely, if not quite completely, obscured by" the garage.
Not only" would the garage be built directly adjacent to, and indeed, only" a few feet away
from the historic landmark, but also it Would completely obscure (and enclose in shadows) two
sides of tfae historic landmark. The Draft EIR correctly notes that there will be a "significant
impact" (italics in original) from the loss of "light entering the building.., and creating shade
and shado’.v patterns over [this] building .... " (ld., p. 72.) However, the Draft EIR does not
disclose that the "shade and shadow patterns" will be cast onto a historic landmark. The impact
,.’,ill therefore be far more severe than the impact evaluated in the Draft EIR.
o
In its zeal to approve the garage project for the benefit of prominent dov.ntown real estate
developers, the Draft E[R shov.s greater concern in its p,’oforma mention of the loss of several
(mostly nondescript, obviously non-"heritage") trees than it does for the substantial aesthetic and
genuine heritage loss occasioned by" construction of the garage in such a way as to render the
magnificent historic landmark mostly’ invisible (and completely invisible from the south,
southwest, and v.est). The discussion on page 65 of the Draft EIR does not even mention the fact
that "’combination tv.o- and thred story" office building oriented tov.’ard Florence Avenue" is a
4.3 .i
4.3.2
4.3.3
29
historic prope~y. The reason is obvious: the authors of the Draft EIR. do not want to
ac "knowledge the existence of a significant environmental impact for which there is no.available
mitigation measure except to abandon construction of the garage at this location m:to limit
construction of the garage to underground levels only. The Draft EIR.fails to take into account
how severe the adverse impact of the heritage loss will be.
The Draft EIR also fails to consider and mitigate the loss of short, mid-range and long-
range views of downtown Palo Alto, the park across Bryant Street, and the foothills to the west
from the historic landmark.
Comparing the present magnificent visual impression of the 1893 Victorian from Bryant
Street (near University) (while looking to the north) to the visual impression of the hulking
garage, one could not avoid the conclusion that construction of the garage would be a severe
aesthetic degradation of the environment. The Draft EIR thus does not comply with Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Policy L-79.
The Draft EIR states on page 61 that, "Although localized impacts to aesthetics could
result from implementing the proposed project, such impacts are not expected to be cumulative."
The attthors of the Draft EIR failed to identify, let alone consider, what the "localized impact to
aesthetics" would actually be. The representation On page 71 of the Draft EIR that "conceptual
designs of the two garages include several features to ensure that the proposed garages would
result in a positive aesthetic condition" is ludicrous and false in the face of how severely the
historic landmark would be obscured. The conclusion on the same page that the impact of
constructing the garage .is "considered sig~ifica~t altt~ough not adverse" (italics in original) not
only is hollow and misleading but also is assertable only because there is no mention of the "on-
site aesthetics" associated with the nearly complete obscuring of the 1893 Victorian. The Draft
EIR’s use of euphemisms like "localized impacts to aesthetics," "not expected to be cumulative,"
"positive aesthetic condition" and "significant although not adverse impact" to describe the
impact on the existing aesthetic conditions - when the document completel.v fails to mention the
actual historic landmark on the site - results in an assessment that is hollo~v and unpersuasive.
In addition, the garage would also present significant traffic problems. Florence Street is
far too small to accommodate the amount of traffic that v,’ould enter and leave the garage on the
northeast side at peak hours in the morning and evening. Traffic would be backed up onto both
Lytton and University from Florence. The increase in traffic due to the garage would pose
significant safety hazards for handicapped and slow-moving senior citizens crossing Bryant
Street bet’ween the garage and the Senior Center. The Draft EIR fails to discuss the safety
hazards to such senior citizens that would be posed by the significant increase in traffic due to
the garage.
For these reasons the Draft E[R is deficient and should be rejected. The City" and the
Planning Department slmuld require the preparation of a nev. Dra~ EIR for the project which
eliminates the significant and severe impacts noted above.
ENS:nsp
~ trub-vours,-
(,.._E, ~. r ~/Nich°las Setby
/
30
4.3.4
4.3 .,6
COMMENTS 5.1.1 -5.1.22
MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 ~,
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
January 13, 1999
REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM
City Council Conference Room
Civic Center, 1st Floor
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
ROLL CALL:
Meeting called to order at 7:05 P.M.
Commissioners:
Owen Byrd, Chairman - absent
Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair
Bern Beecham
Annette Bialson
Phyllis Cassel
Patrick Burr
Jon Schink - absent
Staff:
Ed Gawf, Planning Director
Ken Schreiber, Deputy City Mgr., Sp. Proj.
Brian Dolan, Senior Planner
Wynne Furth, Senior Assist. City Attorney
Acting-Chair Schmidt: I’d like to call to order the meeting of Wednesday, January 13, 1999 of the
Planning Commission. Would the Secretary please call the role.
I would first like to thank everyone for bearing with us here this evening in the Council Conference
Room while the Council Chambers are being remodeled. It’s my understanding that throughout the
duration of the remodelling project the Planning Commission will be meeting in this room. So
whether we have two people attending a meeting or two hundred people, this is where we are
meeting. The Community Center rooms are currently busy on Wednesday nights so if you can please
bear with tis we’ll appreciate it, thank you. There is a TV in the lobby for those who don’t fit in here
and we still do have a few more seats ~’or people who do want to fit in here. For any topic that you
want to talk about please fill out a card and make sure it gets up to the table. When anyone does
speak, please come up to the microphone in order for it to be on tape. Sometimes we pass the
microphone around. Tonight we have a lot of people and this is a formal Public Hearing we will ask
people to come up to the mike.
Cir., of Palo Alto
31
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
~2
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
The first item on our agenda is Oral Communications
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speakto any item not on the agenda with
a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must complete a-speaker
request card available from thd secretary of the Commission. The Planning Commission reserves the
right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes.
,~cting-Chair Schmidt: Are there any people Who wish to speak on items not on the agenda? Seeing
no one I will move on to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions.
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional items
added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time.
MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: I’d like to move that Item number 1 be moved to follow Item
number 3.
/~cting-Chair Schmidt: Okay. Is there a second?
SECOND: Commissioner Bialson: Second.
MOTION PASSED: Acting-Chair Schmidt: All those.if favor say aye. (ayes)
.Commissioner Beecham: Why are we doing this?
Acting-Chair Schmidt: We are doing this because the majority of the audience is here tO discuss Item
number 3. Item number 2 Staff is requesting that it be continued. So we will move on to Item
number 3 very soon to accommodate all the people here tonight.
I’m a little rusty here I haven’t done this job in a while and Owen is sick and also not participating in
an item tonight. Bern is reminding me I neglected to go over approval of minutes which are actually
above our Unfinished Business. I will step back now that we have completed Item 2.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF:
Approval.of Minutes of November 18, 1998.
The first approval is for the minutes of November 18, 1998. Are there any comments or is there a
motion?
MOTION:
SECOND:
Commissioner Bials0n: I move that we approve the minutes as presented to us.
Cdmmissioner Beecham: Second.
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
MOTION PASSED: Acting-Chair Schrnidt: Moved by Annette, seconded by Bern to approve the
minutes of November 18, 1998. All those in favor? (ayes) All those.opposed? That passes on a
vote of 5-0 with Commissioners Byrd and Schink absent.
Next are the minutes of December 9, 1998. Any comments or a motion.
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I move approval.
SECOND: Commissioner Bialson: Second.
MOTION PASSED: Acting-Chair Schmidt: It has been moved by Bern and seconded by Annette to
approve the minutes of December 9, 1998. All those is favor? (ayes) All those opposed? That
passes 5-0 with Commissioners Byrd and Schink absent.
Okay I think we have taken care of business on the minutes and Unfinished Business.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS.
Public Hearings:
2.Final Discussion and Recommendation of Potential Historic Preservation Incentives and
Benefits. (Staff requests this item to be continued to the January 27, 1999 meeting).
Let us move on to Item number 2. That is a final discussion and recommendation of Potential
Historic Preservation Incentives and Benefits. Staff is requesting that this item be continued to
January 27, 1999. Any comments or a motion?
MOTION PASSED: It was moved by Pat and seconded by Bern to continue this item. All those in
favor? (ayes) All those opposed? Okay, that passes.
We’ll move on to New Business. This is a Public Hearing.
NEW BUSINESS.
Public Hearings.
445 Bryant Street (Lots S/L) and 528 High Street (Lot R): Preliminary review of two
applications by City of Palo Alto Depa .rtment of Public Works for a Zone Change from Public
Facilities (PF) to the Planned Community (PC) Zone to allow the construction of multi-level
parking garages on existing City of Palo Alto parking lots S/L and R. The structure at Lot R
may have up to 228 parkign spaces. The structure at parking lots S/L have up to 653 parking
spaces and to approximately 13,650 square feet of retail office or other uses. Environmental
Assessment: A draft Environmental Impact Report. (EIR) has been prepared and is currently
undergoing a 30-day review period.
City of Palo Alto Page 3
33
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
’6
,,5
19
20
21
"2
_3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
4.3
Commissioner Beecham: Because I l{ve within 1,000 feet of one of these structures I cannot
particip.ate so I will depart for the evening. I believe also that is why Jon and Owen are not here
tonight, because of their proximity to the structures.
.Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Yes, both Owen and Jon could not participate in this. My
understanding is that the reason is because these three Commissioners live or work within 2,500 feet
of the project. So we still have a quorum.
Ms. Furth: Maybe we should explain that it is not simply working within 2,500 feet but leasing
property or owning an office within 2,500 feet.
Commis$i..oner Schmidt_: Thank you, I would like to state that this is a standard PC review process.
Tonight we have both the EIR, which we would like to comment on and get public input on, and we
have the Zone Change application from the City. After.this has been reviewed and commented on it,
it typically will go to the Architectural Review Board then it would come back to the Planning
Commission and then it would go on to City Council. That is a typical review process for the PC
Zone.
The question regarding the number of votes needed to move this item forward given that we do not
have three Commissioners participating and we have a quorum and it is my understanding that we
have an adequate numberof people participating for this item to move forward. The City Attorney is
checking to make sure. In the meantime I will make a couple of comments in regard to the fact.that
we have seen parking garages, the concept, coming before us before. Actually in the 1986
Downtown Study a parking deficit number was established and a Downtown monitoring requirement
was also established. When a certain trigger point was hit through the monitoring, it was suggested
that a feasibility study for parking garages be done. I’m reconstructing things that I recall and I’m
sure Staff will make corrections when they give their comments if I’m saying things incorrectly here.
It is noted in our Staff report that in March of 1994 the City Council approved a Comprehensive
Downtown Parking Plan. After that, or around that time, I believe there was a Parking Garage
Subcommittee. I "know there was a Planning Commissioner participating on that Committee. A
feasibility study was done in 1997 and I believe we reviewed that and I think all of the Downtown
parking lots were looked at, at that time. Then after that, the City Council decided to go ahead with
the EIR and a proposal for these two lots that we are looking at tonight, Lots R and S/L. Now we
have an answer.
Ms. Furth:. The Code simply requires that the Commissio~ act favorably. It doesn’t require any
special majority. So a majority of those voting will suffice.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. So we can indeed proceed with this. Are there some comments
from Staff at this time?
Mr. Brian Dolan, Senior Planner: Good evening, I’m Brian Dolan, Senior Planner, Planning
Division. I just have a few comments by way of introduction. The Staff report that you received was
City of Palo .4lto Page 4
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
prep.ared by Debbie Pollart, one of our contract planners who’s not able to be here this evening, I’m
here in her stead. Also in attendance is the EIR consultant, Jerry Haag, if you have any questions
later on about the EIR. There is also a whole slew of consultants that.assisted the Public Works
Department, who is acting as the applicant on this project, here. to make a presentation regarding the
project.
There are few clarifications on the Staff report I’d like to make. One relates to the project description
and the issue that for Lot S/L we describe that particular parking structure as containing up to
approximately 13,600 square feet of non-parking structure square footage for a variety of uses. I
want to emphasize the "up to." The project at this point has been designed with some fiexibility and
that by no means is a given. The amount of that square footage is subject to discussion throughout
this PC application process. There may have been a little confusion about that.
Secondly, I’d like to emphasize another point that is brought out in the Staff report. That is that the
parking structures are discussed and proposed in the Comprehensive Plan as a part of a
Comprehensive Parking Strategy for the Downtown. Specifically I’m referring to the 13-point
Parking Program described on page T-25 of the Comprehensive Plan. As a part of that proposal did
receive some level of Environmental Impact analysis in the Comp Plan EIR. Many things are
proposed in that 13-point strategy, but one of many different types of implementation programs, to
address the parking needs Downtown.
Lastly, we have had several requests for additional time to review the EIR and Staff would like to
recommend that in fact we do grant some additional time. We can accommodate up to an additional
30 days for the public to submit comments in writing on the EIR and still not adversely affect the
schedule of the project. As you know this is a PC application, th.e process is that it comes to you,
then to ARB, then back to the Planning Commission and if everything goes well, to the City Council.
So the next time it is scheduled to come back to you would be March 10. The comment period would
close then theoretically 30 days or less from now. We would have all those comments in writing
prior to the next time we met on the application.
Mr. Glenn Roberts, Director, Department of Public Works, City of Palo Alt0: Thank you Brian..I’d
like to offer a few introductory and overview comments regarding this project before turning the
presentation over to our design team to present to you the specifics of the PC design issues. In
particular I would like to speak to the history and the perspective of the project and also to address
some questions which have arisen recently, in the meeting today in fact, about the context of the
project related to transportation in the Downtown in general.
Madam Chair, as you know there is an extensive history on this project and I won’t attempt to repeat
all that since I think you did a very good job of covering it but I would like to state two key points.
First, the history of the project really dates back to 1986 when the Downtown Study was initiated. As
a part of that 1986 Downtown Study it was noted that one element of the Downtown Study should be
to evaluate the feasibility of additional par’king structures. So all this before you tonight really stems
from that 13 years worth of history from that point in time. Secondly, I want to emphasize the point
City of Palo Alto Page 5
35
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
"2
_3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
that you made, Madam Chair, in 199"] the City Council gave the policy direction for these structures
to move forward. In fact, we are proceeding now based upon that policy direction. So from Staff’s
perspective the decision to move forward with the design and ultimate implementation of structures is
a given that we are operating u.nder. Finally, in January 1998, the City Council authorizgd the
design contract to begin work, to take this project.through the 50% design stage so that accurate cost
estimates could developed to work with the private sector on the financing of these structures. Now I
want to come back to that point again in a moment if I might. So the purpose of the EIR that is
before you tonight is to evaluate the project impacts. The impacts of the implementation of these two
structures. It is in that context that it has been prepared and brought to you. Not in a broader context
which has already previously been addressed through the Council’s policy direction.
I think a key issue to remember is that the Downtown Stud~, and the Parking Feasibility Study
identified demand of some 1500 spaces of unmet currently existing parking demand in the Downtown.
That’s not growth, that’s not additional demand in the future, that’s demand that exists now but is
unmet. That’s manifested itself in the form of spill-over parking in the neighborhoods and the
number of impacts that are out there today that this project will in fact help to mitigate.
This project though will only meet half that demand. We’re going to provide an additional 700-odd
spaces here. The other half of that demand remains unmet. The City is pursuing, in fact, a number
of other alternative measures to deal with transportation and transportation demand in the Downtown.
We continue to work on the Shuttle Program; we continue to work on bicycle programs in the
Downtown, providing bicycle racks and parking; we continue to work with the Peninsula Commuter
Service to upgrade service to Palo Alto and to try and ultimately implement the so-called "Dream
Team Project" to imi~rove that interface with the Downtown; and we continue to work with the
neighborhoods and neighborhood parking districts trying to manage the impact of spill-over in the
neighborhoods as well. So I think it’s important for this project to be thought of in that bigger picture
context.
Lastly, I’d like to emphasize that this project is a partnership between the City and the private sector.
This is not a City funded project. This project, while it is being led by the City for design and review
purposes, is in fact to be funded by the Downtown Parking Assessment District. That’s why we are
before you tonight with this design so that we can move forward with the design and get a cost
estimate which will then be taken back to the businesses and merchants Downtown in the form of a
proposed assessment and an election. The financing for this will come from the private sector. City
money will not be used to build these garages. Should the election not proceed the money will not be
available.for other purposes. It will be non-existent. So i~ is really in that context that we come
before you as a partnership with the private sector. That concludes the kind of introductory and
overview comments that I wanted to make. With that, I’d like to introduce Greg Smith the project
architect who will make the presentation on specifics to you.
Mr. Gr6g Smith, Project Cgordinator: I appreciate the title of architect, that’s my training, but
actually I’m not the project architect. I work with Verner Construction and I am a consultant to the
City. My overall responsibility is to coordinate the efforts of the project team. I think the
Ci(y of Palo Alto Page 6
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
groundwork has been laid in speaking about the PC Zone team itself, I’m going to give you a brief
overview of why we need to make a change from the existing zone and then I’m going to let the
architects talk to you about the schematic design we prepared.
One of the things you need to find is that we need to make the zone change. So why do we need it?
Well, in order to meet the objective of providing 700 spaces we can’t do that within any of the
properties that were studied in the feasibility study Downtown with the current setbacks. Setbacks
pushed the parking back from the street or the front of the buildings back from the street to the point
where they really make parking structures unfeasible. So that is one of the key elements that brings
us before you to ask to change to PC from the existing zone. The other thing has to do with Floor
Area Ratios. As you can see these, well parking surface at roughly 350 square feet per space, adds
up to floor area ratios, which although not greatly in excess of those permitted, do exceed those
permitted under the current zones. With respects to other elements of the current zones, we really
aren’t making any significant changes. We’re within the height requirements of those zones and those
we expect to use we’re asking that this property of the PC Zone be approved for any uses that are
currently allowed under the existing zones but not other uses.
What are the benefits then? You’re asked to find a public benefit to making this zone change. Well,
certainly the primary benefit is the 700 spaces themselves. That was the direction that we were given
or the benefit that we were asked to provide by Council. Each of the two properties also has one
probably key feature, I would say that stands out, that I would like to point out.
Lot R which is the one that is up off Alma Street, across from the Train Station. In getting feedback
from the community, and we have spent a good part of the last year getting feedback from the
neighborhood and the community and so forth, in preparing what we’ve brought to you tonight.
We’ve squeezed the parking structure down a little bit and we developed a sort of an open space with
walkways through the block which we maintained and that provides a link to the train station as well
as access to the adjacent properties such as Blockbuster Video. Some of those properties exit now
into the parking lot. So that feature actually is a very nice feature, I was trying to see which picture
would show it best. I think I’ll let the architects point some of that out but we can show it to you in
more detail on the aerial views if you’d like to see it.
In addition to that, Lot S/L when the parking layout was done we found out that there was some
surplus space available on that property. The Feasibility Study recommended that it could be used for
public uses, public programs, it could be used as a retail space, it could be public open space.
Actually, in the plan that we present to you tonight, the comer in question, we’ve incorporated
elements of all three of those. So we have some space which is intended to house public programs,
we have some space potentially which could be retail space, and we also have some public open
space. So this is the comer that we’re talking about just to give you a point of reference. Again, I’ll
let the architects talk about the architectural details but I think you can see how this fits into the
streetscape.
One of the third things that you’re probably going to be asked to find is that we’re in keeping with the
City of Polo Alto Page 7
37
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]3
14
15
16
!7
18
19
20
21
~2
_3
24
25
26
"~7
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Comprehensive Plan. I think Glenn attdressed that to some extent. I’d just like to say that some of
the streetscape ideas that are laid out in the Comprehensive Plan actually can be brought to reality
better under the PC Zone than they can with the setback because they encourage this type of
development at the street rather than pushed back from the street. So I think with that I’d like TJ to
come up. TJ is the lead designer with Watry and I’ll let him speak to the design issues.
Mr, T.J..Towey: I just wanted to speak to some of the features of the schematic design. We went
through the feasibility design study and there was a couple of specific options that the Council
directed us to pursue when we moved forward into the schematic design phase. For the most part,
that’s what we’ve tried to adhere to. Just to try to orient everybody I’ll start with Lot R over here.
This is an aerial showing the location of the proposed structure. This is University here. This
structure departed more than Lot S/L from the feasibility study and this is one of the key things that
we wanted to point out tonight. We’ve spent the last year since the approval of the moving forward
with schematic design to get soil information, to get structure information, to meet with the adjacent
landowners and tenants, and to get information on both S/L and on R from those adjacent people and
to incorporate that into the design. Listening to the effected merchants and tenants in the area, Lot R
did undergo a change.
One of therequests was, due to the existing access points from the neighboring buildings onto that
area it would be very impactful in a negative way for them to eliminate that. We found a way, at
their encouragement, what we did was instead of filling the entire street facade on both sides with the
parking structure, which effectively cut off that circulation from the back of Blockbuster and from this
adjacent building here, what we did was we pulled the building away from the adjacent buildings on
that side. What that allowed us to do was to maintain, as Greg mentioned, a cross alley circulation
path like exists over Lot P, across the street, that way. It allowed that circulation. It also allowed
light and air t’o come into the long side of the structure. This is a radical change for this design. S!L
was always an.open, fresh air parking structure. This would have had to have been a mechanically
ventilated parking structure. By moving this back there was a very happy benefit in that it can get a
lot more light and air and be a lot nicer. Now, why didn’t we do this before? Because our mission
was to put as many stalls on this site as we could. How did we accomplish that? We were
encouraged by the merchants on both sides to add a level to the structure. We lost 25 stalls by pulling
this away but by adding another level to the building, we added 25 stalls. So rather than losing 25,
we added 25.
There were of course, from our design team point of view we were concerned about the height of
those structures, it does make it a four story building/five level. But we were encouraged to do that.
We went to the parking study committee they also encouraged us to do that because, again, it was a
way of getting the maximum number of stalls on the site while still maintaining the support of the
adjacent community. You can see here what we’ve done with the design is try to respect the idea of
the three story building but by treating that in a different architectural way, the top floor is set back
slightly, it’s a different color, it’s a different material look change, we are proposing some break here
that wouldn’t occur on the top floor, to really try to get a visual cut-off at that third floor. This view
also points out that the total height of the building is still within the normal 50 foot height limit and
City of Palo Alto Page 8
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26.
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
still matches the buildings down the street in that regard.
So that’s the most significant change to either of the structures was the change to add the level here
but to pull it back and you can see this is the side that would have been blank even going up above the
adjacent buildings, it would have had to have been blank. Now we can do a full three-sided, building.
That, we think, is a plus for everybody on that.
Then there is a proposed use for sort of a mini park or public open space in that circulation area.
We’ve also designed both of the structures so that they can have either the stand alone public toilets or
the toilets can be built into the structure depending on policy decisions, aesthetic issues that maybe
ARB and Council have something to say about. If I can go grab those two boards.
I’ll run through S/L quickly in a similar way. S/L stayed very close to the feasibility study in terms
of massing and in terms of overall architectural scheme. Once again, you can see the relationship to
University. This is a four story building adjacent here. This is the S/L right here. There is an
existing teen center right here and the senior center is here along with the park area. Because of the
unusual nature of this L-shaped site one of the original proposals showed Lot S here and then the Lot
L piece over here. The most efficient way to laythat out is to have a single bay because of the lot
depth that allowed us some s.pace in the front to do something else. As was mentioned earlier, what
the plan that you see today, and what came out of the feasibility study encouraged, was that we did
come out, the PC Zone change allows us to come out to the street which was emphasized as a positive
for this street in the Comprehensive Plan but we also pocketed it back. That allowed us here to have,
like on Lot R, a little public area where some benches could be and some planting. It also helps to
relieve what otherwise might be a very long block of the same kind of architecture. Though they are
related architecturally, there is a slight change between the parking structure area and the area here
that would be glazed and occupied. So that helped us ~o do a little change there.
Then there is a height change between an up to three story structure on the comer and the four story
height over here. You can see that ground floor plan right here. You can see that sort of pocket
area. Again, there could be rest rooms there or the rest room could be built into the structure.. The
elevator is around the comer and the circulation occurs here. We are also proposing, and this is part
of what Greg was talking about in terms of implementing some of the Comprehensive Plan,
Downtown Plan features, is doing special things with the sidewalk here and bulbing this out making a
shorter street crossing distance for the Senior center people, and a quick access for the senior center
people there. It helps to achieve some of those goals. I just want to draw your attention so we have
the two pictures here, one of S/L and one of R, and there are some other pictures in the back if
you’ve got any specific questions hopefully we can answer those for you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Is that the end of the presentation? Are theie questions from the
Commission before we move on to comments from the public?
Okay, first we have around a dozen speakers here. Your time limit is five minutes. I would ask if
you are repeating exactly what other people have said that perhaps allude to their comments. We are
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 9
39
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"2
_3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
happy to hear everyone’s comments biat if your comments are just exactly what someone else has said
then it would be nice if you could just refer to theirs. Our first speaker is Kathi Gwyrm to be
followed by Yoriko Kishimoto.
Ms. Kathi Gwynn, 450 Bryant’. Palo Alto: Good evening Commissioners. I’m Kathi Gwynn,
President and CEO of Avenidas, formerly named Senior Coordinating Counsel of the Palo Alto area
and obviously we are the occupant of the Senior Center building. That’s the role I’m here to speak
you, on behalf of Avenidas, tonight. First let me say, because there seems to have been in some
people’s minds some confusion about this but, Avenidas does support the building of the parking
structure at Lot S/L and that was agreed to by our Board of Directors in July of 1997. My concerns
and the ones that were articulated in the draft EIR that you’ve seen were really more about things that
would make it a better structure for use by seniors and more helpful to us. Not indicating opposition
to the project. I do ha’~e a number of specific comments however, about different items that were
mentioned in there. I do want to also say a particular thank you to the City Staff who have been
extremely responsive to the issues that I’ve been raising and have met with us to talk us through them
so we would feel more comfortable. I think the job that the design group has done and that the Staff
has done have a great long distance to meeting and addressing the concerns that we have expressed.
5.21..1First we do strongly encourage that as you look at the project that you keep the access in both pla~es,
on Florence Street and Bryant. There had been one version where it was just looking at Bryant and
we’re really opposed to that because we think that the flow of traffic would be better and less bulk’2,’
right at our entrance across the street from the senior center if they had another avenue on Florence to
come in andout. We are very pleased with the bulb out that has been planned there because one of
the real concerns in the design of this project, for us at least, is that currently the doors that open to
the senior center are about halfway down on this street from the bulb, right across from the vehicular
entrance and exit. It’s very similar to where it is now currently as a flat open space. The reality is
that seniors who are more frail minimize the amount of steps that they have to take. So they need to
go directly across. The bulb-out at least helps provide a venue where they can more safely cross the
street and might be more enticing to them to make that extra few steps over there and make it across
in a safe manner. So we liked the bulb-out idea.5.1.2
I am still concerned, however, that the vehicular entrance does not account for a pedestrian access.
The designer and I have talked about this a number of times and I understand that in general you
don’t want to have vehicles and pedestrian in the same place. But quite frankly, given what I’ve said
about people walking straight across to the double open doors of the senior center pretty much right
across from that entrance, a lot of people are going to do {t anyway. So I think that we should be
looking at safety with pedestrian access right there where the vehicles come in and out on that side.
It’s just what people are going to use anyway and I think it will actually reduce the possibility of
accidents.
5 .I .3
Third, I want to say after a lot of discussions we’ve been persuaded that both the mass and the n~
light issues that we’ve had have been addressed in this design. From our point of view, the mass, for
what we see as seniors coming in and what Staff have seen and worked with we feel that it’s alright at
City of Palo Alto Page
4O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
the level it’s at. They’ve done a lot of natural light testing which is one of the issues we’ve raised
about the light coming into the senior center because we are dependent on that and senior actually
need more lighting than other people do in terms of making things distinguished.
5 .i .4
We remain concerned about the parking during the Construction phase. I heartily endorse, I think
there was something in the EIR that said that one of the mitigations would need to be a short term
parking management plan that would need to be in place, that is critical. You’re not going to have
the seniors coming in to use their senior center if they can’t find a place nearby to park or other
alternatives.
Then finally, I would say at this point that certainly Avenidas is supportive of all the alternative
transportation measures that we’re trying to take as a community to provide other measures for
individuals to not have tO use their cars. In fact, I serve on the project advisory committee for the
pilot shuttle program and have been very active in trying to make sure that senior’s needs are
recognized there. I can tell youjust on the basis of use that is going on right now, and the pilot
shuttle and the time it would take to ever build us up to a full operational shuttle, I think that we
could have a lot of people who are older adults who still would want to drive, not finding access to
the senior center if these garages, especially as Downtown has become a much more vital place over
the last ten years, that we are concerned about making sure that this community has an accessible
senior center for its participants, for those seniors in this community. That concludes my remarks,
thank you.
.Commissioner Schmidt: Yoriko Kishimoto to be followed by Shulamith Rubinfien.
Ms. Yoriko Kishimot0, 251 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alt0: I appreciated the chance to serve on the
Parking Structure Committee for the last half year as the representative for the University South
neighborhood group. I’m happy to be here to comment on the parking structures now that the EIR
and the designs are done. We’ve had a lot of discussion with the new University South
Neighborhoods Group and on their behalf I’m authorized to make three requests.
5.1,5One is to request postponing the rezoning or any other approval for at least one of the parking
structures. And instead to ask the Planning Commission and the City Council to pursue other ways of
getting employees and other people Downtown first. These might include not only the shuttle, but
probably about ten other programs that we could think of i.e., Downtown Commute Coordinator, a
parking cash-out program which is now allowed by federal and state law, van/carpooling programs,
much more efficient of the 5,000 existing spaces Downtown, and many other programs which have
never been tried Downtown:
Construction of a massive parking structure is permanent. A look at the Comprehensive Plan Goals
our use of the structures as proposed work against their most fundamental Land Use and
Transportation priorities. In the discussion of the major themes it clearly states that the City will
strive to create a development pattern where people can walk, bicycle, or take public transit rather
than drive.
City of Palo Alto Page 11
41
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"~2
3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Secondly, we would like to examine the decision-making process by which the City is deciding to use
the valuable taxpayer owned lands Downtown amounting to 1.6 acres and valued at $4-7 million or
more. The land in Lots SIL and R are currently used for surface parking but I understand there is no
permanent easement or restriction on them. The City may not force Downtown landowners or tenants
to pay for alternative transportation Downtown but it should level the playing field. Examining the
feasibility of building a house in Palo Alto today would differ dramatically depending on whether the
cost of the land is incorporated or not. Similarly we believe that the parking assessment district may
well come to different conclusions if it were asked to buy or lease the land under the parking
structures. There ate many competing needs for the 1.6 acres or its equivalent economic worth. A
1.6 acre park in SOFA is in the SOFA redevelopment plan. A performing arts center has been talked
about and a new public safety building. We are all looking for one or one and a half acres. Any of
these further our City goals more than subsid.izing the use of single occupancy vehicles.
5,~.6Thirdly, we would like to request a review of the impact that the structures will have on adjacent or
nearby historic buildings such as the senior center, the old victorian, and the brick building next to
the Lot R building. We would like to see it reviewed by the HRB which has the charter to protect our
historic buildings. We also urge that ARB consider the impac~ on the overall Downtown character.1 - 7 "
Our Downtown is attractive because of its walkable and human scale architecture and the-relationships.
that many buildings have to each other. One of the propose parking structures, I believe, will be the
second or even possibly the first largest single building in.Downtown Palo Alto. Part of the rationale
for the structure is to relieve the neighborhoods from Downtown employees parking on residential
streets. The latest survey shows strong residential support for a neighborhood permit system which
will allow some non-residents to purchase permits until we can meet "parking demand" Downtown.
The parking structures will do their job but unfortunately at the cost of more traffic long term. We
would prefer to give alternative transportation a chance to reduce both lo.ng term parking demand and
traffic.
Finally, the purpose of University South Neighborhoods Group is to discover a process that will
enable us to work together with residents, businesses, City Hall, developers and others towards an
amicable outcome of all issues that concern the neighborhoods. We support a vibrant Downtown, are
sympathetic with the Downtown business and land owners and the people who work here. We
believe that it is in the best long term interest of Downtown to develop a more cost effective, aesthetic
and environmentally benign transportation plan. Non~ of us know which set of any of the alternative
transportation plans will work for Downtown but we will never know if you don’t try. Thank you
very much to the Staff and the Planning Commission as well.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker, who can say her name, to be followed by
Elaine Meyer.
Ms. Shulamith Rubinfien, 501 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto: Justa two minute urging that you
consider playing catch up now and address as much creative effort as we have heard about tonight
which culminates in these buildings Downtown into some of the other suggestions for designing a
good transportation system in Palo Alto. A parking garage wilt only take care of the car after it has
City of Palo Alto Page 12
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
gone through out streets. We urge that all of the other points that were raised here earlier be given
real consideration. Not just in the spirit but in the letter. You have already spent $75,000 1 believe,
for the consultant who is helping us with the shuttle bus program, and.you don’t have a report from
them yet. Yet you are being asked to approve a lot change for.these enormous Downtown buildings.
Wouldn’t it be wiser to put truly, and not simply the spirit of the law but the letter, into some of the
other proposals that have been made to relieve our transportation problems and simply our parking
problem. Once that is done, then perhaps you can weigh the benefit and the cost benefit of this type
of small answer, I might say, to what is a very large problem. Thank you.
.Commissioner Schmidt: Elaine Meyer to be followed by Chop Keenan.
Ms. Elaine Me.~er, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Pal0 Alto: I’m Elaine Meyer, I’m also on the Board of the
University South Neighborhoods Group. We’ve had a number of discussions about the parking
structures that are being discussed, both in meetings and online. In our online discussions, no one,
not one person, has had any positive arguments in favor of these parking lots. We see no advantage
in building two huge parking lots in the center of our Downtown. I thought I would just summarize
the reasons given by the different people who have written in our online discussions. I’m just going
to make series of disconnected points. One is, lots are very large, with a height limit of 50 feet they
will dominate the Downtown ambiance; they are inappropriate in design given where they’ll be 5.
located, in one case next to a beautiful victorian structure right in the center of Downtown, and the
other opposite the traditional architecture of the senior center. Another point: the Palo Alto Clinic is
moving this spring or summer and that will remove a huge source of traffic that affects our 5
neighborhood. Let’s wait and see how that affects traffic before we build permanent structures.
Parking lots attract cars. I believe this is a fact generally.accepted by transportation experts. Is that
what we are trying to do, attract more cars? At peak hours cars sometimes line up to get into the 5.1.1o
existing surface parking lots. If we build these structures it is very likely that at peak hours there will
be backups on Bryant Street, on Alma, on High, on University and on Lytton, as they already do now
at the existing lots. Our present parking lots are not efficiently utilized. There are empty spaces in.
some of the underground lots or some lots that strangers are not as familiar with as some of us locals
are. So while people are circling around in the more visible lots there are empty spaces on many
streets behind the -- well, we old timers know where they are. We are about to begin an experiment.
Well, we hope we are about to begin an experiment with a shuttle around town. Let’s give it a try
before we make permanent expensive changes. The argument is made that the shuttle will only
benefit residents of Palo Alto. I’m not sure why "only" is the right word to use here. If we pay for it-
.let it benefit us. If the new parking lots will primarily benefit Downtown business, why are we
donating such expensive and valuable property? Let’s be more creative in dealing with transportation
and parking problemg. Yoriko Kishimoto has presented a very thoughtful report, we wholeheartedly
support it. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Chop Keenan to be followed by Susan Frank.
Mr. Chop Keenan, 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’m the Chair of the Downtown
City of Palo Alto Page 13
43
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
-,?
.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3~
37
38
39
40
41
42
,43
Parking Committee. We’ve been at this for four years. Ironically, the genesis of this whole effort
was hearing from Downtown South and Downtown North that they’d like to get cars out of their
neighborhoods that are parking there and employees of Downtown businesses. So there’s been a lot
of work in trying to define wh.at that deficit is and to come up with solutions and our chamber
committee came up with this 13-point-parking plan a couple of years ago. One of the critical pieces
of that was to develop more permit parking within the Downtown area and with that perhaps the
opportunity to create parking permits in the neighborhoods could be accomplished. You don’t just
preclude people from parking in the neighborhoods without a place for them to go. So we’ve been
before your Commission before trying to evolve this project as opposed to spring it on you. I think
what you see here today is that evolutionary process both in terms of size and scope and the target
properties S/L and R. There were 13 or so parking lots considered in Downtown. These were
chosen for their size and their efficiency where we can get the most bang for the buck. I’ve heard a
gross mis-statement he~’e now two or three times tonight and I think I better correct it right away.
That is that this is City property. These are parking district assets. Paid for by the Downtown
property owners. They are owned by the City of Palo Alto in their fiduciary capacity as the parking
district. So the fact that we’re getting a donation is a total gross mis-statement of the facts. This
district and all the parking structures in town have b~en paid for by the district. The exception to that
is City Hall where the City in fact paid for theircohort parking demand created by this building. But
other than that they have been paid for by the district as will these prospective projects.
The couple of other ideas that were floated. The idea of doing one building only certainly has been,
we looked at it in context of sequencing the buildings rather than one building only. But I think at
this point, we’ve agreed that doing them both at the same time and trying to get resolved the deficit in
the neighborhoods is the appropriate way to proceed. It’s not cheap. It’s a $21 million bill for these
property owners. We have a sales job in front of us, getting them to agree to the assessments, but I
think what’s been presented to you is a vehicle for addressing existing problems. The new square
footage being built in Palo Alto, I think some 35,000 square feet has been added in the last ten years,
so you can put it in your eye.
I am enthusiastic about the retail component on the ground floor as an appropriate place for perhaps
the teen center replacement. The upper floors we would not be in favor of because they create an
incremental demand on the parking assets. To take you back a few years, there was a push by the
Palo Alto Housing Corp. to do the SRO housing on Lot R. We opposed that on the Parking
Committee because we can’t replace this land for parking opportunities. We ultimately found another
solution that was actually on a piece of property that I owned and the SRO is a reality. But if we
added 14,000 feet here we would generate another 70 spac.es of parking demand. So it works against
our verb’ finite opportunities for providing parking particularly for existing businesses and existing
employees. So the idea of usurping that by creating new demand within this runs counter to our
charge as the Park{ng District. Thank you very much.
Commissioner.Schmidt: Thank you.
Commissioner Cassel: Chop a question for you. I’ve been through the financing several times. Go
through it again. The land is technically owned by the City.
Ci.ty of Palo..4ho Page 14
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
~15
16
17
18.
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
.32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Keena~: It’s owned by the Parking District. It’s technically owned by the City but it was paid
for by the Parking District and the City couldn’t go plunk down Ci’ty Hall there. It is a Parking
District asset.
Commissioner Casse!: So you couldn’t put a police station on it or anything else because technically
the Parking District has control over that land.
Mr. Keenan: That’s correct.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Susan Frank to be followed by Sally-Ann Rudd.
Ms. Susan Frank, 325 Forest Avenue, Pal0 Alt0: Thank you very much. I’m Susan Frank, President
and CEO of The Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce. I try not to get defensive when I speak to groups
like this but I found myself jotting down notes here and there so you’ll forgive me if I have a little bit
of a stream of consciousness here as I respond to some ofthe things that have been brought up,
similar to whatChop’s comments were.
First of all I want to say that Glenn Roberts’ overview of this process that we’ve been through is
really probably one of the best overviews I’ve heard. We’ve actually been at this for seven years
because it was one of the first things that I did when I became the CEO of the Chamber -- create a
Parking Committee. We’ve been working with City Staff and with neighborhood groups as well.
Since that time, both University South and University North have been participating on the
Committee, not for the entire seven years but certainly in the last several years there has been
participation from those groups. We’ve been talking about parking structures for at least three years.
This is in the Comp Plan. This is something that, as a City, we have embraced the notion that we
need to address the parking concerns that are here. We have a problem already, we have cars in the
neighborhoods. More than 50% of the employees of Downtown are not residents of this community.
We forget that and while we might be talking about creating a shuttle program that serves our
residential community, what about everybody else that is coming to work here and to contribute to
our economy and to help pay to keep our parks and our libraries open? Having a shuttle program is
great and that will not remove the need for building parking structures. We have an issue now that
we have to address.
There was.a comment made about parking permits in the neighborhoods as well, and I feel like I need
to correct that statement as well. The survey that I’ve seen so far and talking with the police
department show 50/50 disagreement at best about whether a residential parking program is the way
to go. So I guess my overall comments are, we’ve been doing a lot of work for seven years and I
would like to invite the people who are here tonight, any of them who are new to the process, to
come down to the Chamber office and come look through the five or six file folders of information
that have been developed and worked on for the last seven years to address parking concerns, not just
parking structures. In our 13-point program we’ve developed the first comprehensive parking guide
City of Palo Alto Page 15
45
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
..,?
3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
in Downtown Palo Alto. We have created a train station subcommittee to examine the uses of our
train station to improve everything from signage to look at tenancy, to bringing a bike station here.
We’ve created a subcommittee that brought a special event shuttle to this community for two and a
half years that was under the Chamber’s auspices and partnership with the City. That’s why we have
a shuttle committee now even looking at this issue. So this is not just parking structures in a vacuum.
This is one part of several other parts that have been in place and have been working on for years,
including a Downtown Commute Coordinator, which I "know is in fact going to policy and services I
think in the next month. So the new folks to this process, who I think you’ll be hearing from tonight,
I think their concerns are legitimate but we’ve been discussing them and working on them for years.
And I just hope that you don’t waver from the realities of this which is we have a need, we’re dealing
with a lot of these issues and I hope you’ll move forward and recommend that we continue to make
improvements where necessary and get these parking structures in motion. Thank you.
.Commissioner Schmidt: Questions?
.Commissioner Cassel: Susan, I have a question for you as well. If we put in more spaces does that
create more business? Obviously I would presume that the Chamber of Commerce wants more
business. If we limit the number of parking spaces in the surrounding district does that just push the
same spaces into the parking structure. You could limit the permit parking in the neighborhoods in a
variety of way. How does that affect it?
Ms.. Frank: A couple of things. First of all the Chamber of Commerce isn’t in the business of saying
that we want to create in general more business in the Downtown. Certainly our job is to create an
economically vital community as a whole and it is not at the expense of any particular group. We
have long said in our committee and as a Chamber that we would support a residential permit parking
program as long as there was some place to put the people that currently are in the neighborhoods.
That has actually been something that we have heard support from in particular the University North
Neighborhood Group as a participant in our committee. They have said we would like to see parking
structures assuming that that’s going to help address this problem. We’ve been told by City Staff that
at least 50 % of the spaces in S/L will be permit parking and dedicated and that may be clarified
tonight if I’m incorrect. But that is going to help pull people out of the neighborhoods and then
perhaps exploring a residential parking program will actually work. Because you are working with
the employers to tell them strongly, I might add, I do that all the time to encourage employers to get
permits for their employees, get them into these structures, gei them out of the neighborhoods, relieve
the burden on the neighborhoods, and if a residential permit parking program then is suggested then I
think there .is a possibility for more success.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Sally-Ann Rudd to be followed by Jeff Brown.
Ms. Sally-Ann Rudd,.....204 Cowper Str¢.et, Palo Alto: I wanted to first of all kind of correct something
that Susan Frank just said. The Downtown North Neighborhood has never, to my knowledge, said
that we liked parking garages. Our view has always been that we’ll accept parking garages as the
price we have to pay for our parking permits which is something where there is so wide-spread
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 16
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21.
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
support for that in our neighborhoods..
5.1.11First of all I want to say something about Lot S/L. Personally I think it’s going to become the most
dominant structure on Bryant Street. Given the fact that we have to provide parking spaces maybe we
can’t avoid that but I really hate the design. I really like the one that is going to be near Blockbuster
but I really hate the one on Lot S/L. It looks to me like a bunch of boxes pushed together. I just
have this really strong aversion for it since I first saw it so if it’s not too late.
5.1.12
The other thing that I wanted to mention is on the bike boulevard. The last time I heard it discussed
they were talking about having bulb-outs into the street to slow the cars to make it safer for bicycles
and I don’t see that up on that drawing but I hope that it’s part of the plan.
5.1.13The main thing I wanted to talk about was how the construction of more parking garages was going to
come together with our plans for residential neighborhood parking permits in the areas which are
immediately adjacent to Downtown North and South how it might mesh with plans for a Downtown
shuttle. We recently had the results of our parking permit opinion survey and in my neighborhood,
Downtown North, we had responses from one.in six households, and 77 % of those respondents either
favored or strongly favored residential parking permits. Therefore, I think at some point-I think we
are going to have residential permits. It’s going to happen. The number which has been circulated
by City Staff in discussion is that there are 1500 non-resident all day parkers or sleepers in the
neighborhoods North and South of Downtown. My question is, and I guess Chop Keenan and Susan
Frank said it, if we get permit parking what is going to happen to all those displaced cars? These two
new structures will result in an additional net gain of 712 spaces which is less than half of the
displaced cars. And that’s assuming that every single space in both structures is used for long term or
possibly permit parking for Downtown employees. That’s not even considering future development in
Downtown because we are not up to the development cap yet and there is probably going to be a lot
of development along Lytton Avenue. Since these two new structures don’t meet the current parking
deficit, my question is what are we going to do for the future parking needs? 5.1.14
We obviously need a scalable solution and that may be more, in fact it is definitely more than just
building two parking garages. Parking garages cannot be expanded except using valet parking
schemes and so on. But basically you are stuck with that number of spaces. I really would like the
Planning Commission to recommend that we start thinking of this as a solution to a parking problem
and not just building two garages. There’s been a lot of talk about the 13-point parking plans and
people have ideas like this Downtown Shuttle, but we are really reaching the stage where we have to
start implementing some of these things. We really are going to have a big physical problem of more
cars than our streets can cope with once we have residential permits. I’d like to see some discussion
of the big picture, the kind of macro issues in with this project because otherwise I can see everybody
getting really distracted by just building these two structures and if we’re going to think in a $21
million from the parking assessment district into bricks and mortar and we’re still only solving half of
the problem, I can see that we’re going to spend a lot money and not really make a substantive
improvement in the parking situation. I hope that you can find some way to incorporate that into this
project. Thank very much.
City of Palo Alto Page 17
47
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
_3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. "Jeff Brown to be followed by Dorothy Bender.
5 .I .15
Mr........Jeff Brown, 660 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto: I’ve got to say tha.t we’re living in a city that is
supposedly supposed to be so much on the cutting edge of a lot of issues. It’s continually-
disappointing to me to hear the lack of creativity that comes out from within these hallowed halls, and
the foresight that isn’t there. I don’t know, if you’re looking at the stock reports lately you might
think that five years from now these ten square blocks may be just www.downtownpaloalto.com, and
the only parking spaces might be for the delivery trucks that are coming up and taking stuff away to
people’s homes where their ordering all their goods. I. hope that isn’t the case but anyway times are
changing. The foundation, the structural integrity of our community has been cracking under the
weight of asphalt and automobiles for a very long time. Now we witness a proposal to literally heap
tons more of each on ourselves. For what? To try to meet some perpetually growing, fictional figure
called parking demand. Well, justifications based on parking demand is a bogus one. As a matter of
fact, when you’re discussing matters of structural integrity and public safety, demand should never be
the deciding factor. Let me ask you Commissioners something. If all the people who wanted to live
in Palo Alto brought forward a proposal that each of you add multiple stories to your homes for them
to inhabit, would you seriously consider it? I seriously doubt it. But were you to do so there is
absolutely no question that you would first engage an engineer to evaluate how much additional
weight your houses’ foundations could safely handle. So I submit to you that this is your duty, to
ascertain and reveal to us the public, exactly how much load, how many cars, how much carbon
monoxide, how much noise, etc. our City’s social, economic, environmental and public safety
foundations can bear before they break. This issue has never seriously been addressed and until it is,
by you, you would be totally derelict in your duty as stewards of Palo Alto’s character and welfare to
allow this proposal to go forward.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Dorothy Bender to be followed by Pria Graves.
Ms. Dorothy Bender, 591 Military. Way, .Palo Alto: I live in Barron Park and am a member of the
Board of Directors of Barron Park Association although I speak as a citizen. I have some concerns
about the proposal to build the garages in Downtown.
Number one, if there is an assessment I’m concerned that some small businesses will not be able to
afford the assessment and will be forced out of Palo Alto.
Two, I’m concerned that there hasn’t been enough analysis to warrant the implementation of these
garages.. That we consider providing incentives for commuters to get out of their cars. For example,
if an employee were given a free transit pass for a month, would that provide enough of an incentive
for someone to forego using a car and parking Downtown.
A prior speaker supporting the R structure at Alma suggests a benefit. The structure is so close to the
train station. What benefit is that? Wouldn’t someone perhaps from Barron Park or College Terrace
who works in San Francisco decide to park their car at the structure and use the train and then come¯back and have their car waiting for them? Perhaps this parking structure would encourage 700 new
Ci.rv of Palo Alto Page
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
commuters to Downtown that weren’t there in the past for the convenience of them parking their cars
in Palo Alto. What benefit? I believe as soon as we build a garage new motorists will use them.
Motorist who otherwise would not be in Downtown. We would still have the 1500 deficit. In fact,
the deficit will get worse.
Finally, I read this week that there is a .newly announced plan to build a performing arts center in
Downtown. Will that require parking? Will it be underground parking? Is there any effort in place
to collaborate with that plan at this time? I hope you consider postponing approval of these structures
until more analysis is done. Thank you.
,Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Pria Graves to be followed by Nick Selby.
5.1.16]Ms. Pria Graves, 2130 Yale, Palo Alto: Good evening. I’m Pria Graves, head of the College
Terrace Residence Association but I am speaking tonight strictly on my own behalf.- In general I
would like to state my agreement with the requests made of you by the University South
Neighborhoods Group. In particular, I would like to reinforce the importance of HRB review for
these structures. They are massive structures in close proximity, or in the middle of our beloved and
historic Downtown area. The character area of our Downtown could be jeopardized by something
this large being built. Irrevocably. I think that the more eyes, the more competent view we have of
what these are going to do to our Downtown, the better off we will be. I’m particularly concerned
about the structure on S/L because of its proximity to the lovely victorian building on Florence Street.
What is left is a very narrow entrance into that building between the building and the parking
structure. I think that that isn’t really shown to my satisfaction by either of the two drawings here. I
think we need to have a little better view as to what that is and I think the HRB could help us gain
that.
Second I would also like to encourage you to think about the possibility of postponing one or both of
these parking structures. I ran across an interesting quote in my readings recently that likens
continuing to add capacity as a solution traffic problems to Solving obesity by letting out your belt.
We’ve been letting out our belt for 50 years. It’s time to realize that what we really need is some
more exercise. I came down here tonight by bicycle. It is possible to live in Palo Alto almost
without a car, and I think we need to charge you, as the Comp Plan does, to find ways to help us do
that.
Finally, I would also like to mention as the previous speaker did, the concern about the assessment on
our small local businesses. Some of our Downtown businesses are part of a larger chain which
theoretically has somewhat deeper pockets. But some of our other more charming and wonderful
businesses are very small businesses, businesses like Bell’s Book Store, and so forth that don’t have
deep pockets, that don’t have a whole lot of margin, and their ability to meet these assessments is
going to be limited. So I would ask you to remember that as we go forward. One of the things that
we talked about in our Comp Plan is having full neighborhood support in our shopping areas. In
California Avenue we have been losing small businesses right, left and center due to economic
constraints. I think We will begin to see that in Downtown if add additional economic burdens to our
City of Palo Alto Page 19
49
2
3
4
6
7
8
10
11
12
13
14
.15
~-6
20
21
"2
.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
small businesses. Thank you.
.Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Nick Selby to be followed by Lorilee Houston.
5.1.17
Mr. Nick Selby, 475 Melville Avenue, Pal0 ..Alto" I work in the victorian building which is right next
to the proposed parking lot S/L. I will just show you on this drawing exactly where my office is.
Our office is right in this corner of the building on the first floor. I’ve had an office in that building
~tow for 15 years and I can say that I probably have lived there as well as worked there for that period
of time. I would like to address what I see as a very serious deficiency in the draft EIR. I am an
. attorney, I practice in telecommunications law. I guess if this process goes according to the way
some people would like it to go I’m going to be learning a lot more about EIR law and EIR litigation.
My concern is that the draft EIR does not take into account the substantial aesthetic loss that would be
created by the construction of the garage. I do not believe it is an understatement t6 call construction
of that garage an aesthetic catastrophe. I’ve seen the victorian building at sunrise, 6:00 a.m., when
there are no cars in that parking lot. It is a beautiful sight to see the sun rising on that building. I’ve
seen that building late at night when I go home at 2:00 a.m. and I see it under the full moonlight.
The cupolas, the weather vanes, the beautiful victorian architecture, all of that would be lost. The
view of that building with the spotlights on it at night is just an architectural marvel. It would be lost
if you build a structure which as the EIR indicates would be taller in most places than that building
itself. Now on page 3 of the Draft EIR, opposite the heading of Cultural Resources, it states, " neither
project site is believed to contain archeological, paleenthnological, historical or other artifacts of
historical, religious or sacred significance." I think your Staff is feeding you something here because
this building was built in 1893. We are talking about one of the oldest buildings in Palo Alto. Over
the entrance of the building there is a special marker that designates this property as an historical
property.
It is my understanding that the building has major historical significance and may even be a national
historical landmark. None of that is mentioned in the Draft EIR. It is simply described as "the
building oriented toward Florence Street." Gosh, that’s just wonderful. On page 3, opposite the
word recreation it states, "The proposed project would not result in the need for increased recreation
facilities or significantly impact existing recreation facilities." Now,. not only would the teen center
be lost, this would create, in my view, a very adverse impact on the senior center. I would take issue
with the speaker from Avenidas who spoke about the senior center being in favor of this project.
Because I have lived and worked in this building for the last 15 years I am quite familiar with the
conditions that surround it. Most of the time, the parking lot is empty. It is full between 12:00 and
¯ 1:00 or 2:00, and it is full between 6:00 and 8:00. On Friday night it is full a.little bit later than that.
On Saturday night a little bit later than that. But for the most part the parking lot is empty. What
you see is very elderly driving their cars at the rate of about one or two miles per hour into that
parking lot, right now. Many of those people have, I see them cross the street, I tell you I live there,
I work there and they cross the street at an extremely slow speed. They are &ntitled to do that.
Instead what we are proposing to do is, Florence Street is very narrow, Bryant Street is only two
lanes wide and we’re going to bring into this area, instead of the cars that are there now, 650
vehicles. You’re going to have a very significant traffic problem trying to move 650 vehicles into and
C~.w of PaloAlto Page 20
5O
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
5.1.18
out of that parking lot all day long..It is going to impact the quality of life for the seniors who
already have a very difficult time parking in that lot. I think they are going to have a harder time
parking in a big parking structure there and they are going to have a harder time crossing the street.
The concern that the Avenidas person raised about having the entrance to the parking lot right
opposite the entrance to the senior center, that’s ~ very important concern. I’ve seen those people
trying to cross the. street directly into the door of the senior center.
5.1.19
Unless there is some major plan taking into account for a stop light there or some other way of
ensuring their safety you are going to imperiling their safety. So I would say the Draft EIR, to the
extent that I’ ve had time to read it, and I will try to submit written comments, but to the extent that
I’ve had time to read it, does not give adequate attention to the loss of historical resources. When I
was walking over here tonight I thought here is a way of putting it in perspective. If we think that
this parking structure at S/L looks so good why don’t we build it around the City Hall. Let’s wrap it
all the way around the City Hall then we won’t have to look at a building which I think is an aesthetic
catastrophe and we can continue to keep the building at 418 Florence available for the sight of all the
people in our community. It is a more than a century old, architectural triumph and to obscure the
vision of that building would be a great loss. Thank you very much.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Lorilee Houston to be followed by Karen Holman.
Ms. Lorilee Houston, 520 Cowper, Palo Alt0,: I’m Lorilee Houston representing the Garden Court
Hotel and other hotels in the Downtown area. I’m here to encourage the Planning Commission to
make the appropriate changes to move both of these parking structures forward. As an employer in
Downtown Palo Alto, we have a very difficult time getting employees to come to Palo Alto to work
and parking is one of those problems. I would also like to say that many employees in the hotel and
restaurant business already do ride their bikes or do take public transportation or carpool among
themselves. They do not have the luxury of living in adjacent neighborhoods and driving Downtown
to park in little secret parking places. Many of them also work two jobs so that public transportation
does not work for them to run between two jobs. So if you would approve these structures it would
definitely help our situation. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Karen Holman to be followed by Judith Wasserman.
Ms. Karen .H01man, 725 Homer Avenue, Pal0 Alto: I admire your energy Ed. We do have shortage
of parking Downtown and we are also creatures of habit. It usually takes a good nudge or some
really powerful motivation to get us to break our habits. I believe building these parking garages is
just going to encourage and foster us to stay in our cars. There have been other alternatives to be
examined as have been mentioned earlier this evening. And I’ve also been hearing of other
downtown communities that are eliminating parking spaces to encourage alternate transit programs.
People stay away from Downtown now not just because of a lack of parking but also because of all
the traffic. I do believe that having these parking structures is just going to increase the traffic
especially, as mentioned earlier, on Lytton, University, High Street, Bryant, Florence. To quickly
City of Palo Alto Page 21
51
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
’"2
.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
3(3
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
mention the building on Florence, when I first saw the drawings for these garages, one of the
questions I asked of the planning person was how much distance there was between the parking
structure S/L and the victorian on Florence. It is right up next to it.. This building won awards when
it was amended and enlarged several years ago it won design awards. This parking structure is really
jammed up right next to it. I £sked what it was going to do to daylight and it’s going to block
daylight from that building. What do you think it is going to do to the rental rate of those offices, and
she said, well, the rental rate is probably going to decline. I said to her that seems like it makes Palo
Alto a very bad neighbor. Everything is legal, it is all allowable but it seems like it makes Palo Alto
a very bad neighbor.
Also the cost of these projects is going to create a great financial burden on some of the shopkeepers,
especially the independents. Too many of which we are losing in our community already.
I have some comments too about the design of these buildings. I also think the review by HRB, the
Historic Resources Board, would be a very great added piece of this should they go forward because
they do have experience in the impact that these buildings might have on the surrounding structures.
There are some things that you can note about these too. If you look at the Medical Arts building,
that’s the building where University Art is, and if you look at the new building that Jim Baer built at
Ramona and University. If you look at those buildings they both have a lot of mass to them. If you
also look at them, you’ll notice that they don’t even have the appearance of one building. They are
stepped back, the roof lines change, the roof coverings change like they might go from tile and sloped
to fiat and wood. There is a variety of ways that you can deal with massing that really lessens the
impact of such great massing. There are different step backs or set backs that can be achieved
through design. Also having four stories at the street I really find to be contrary to human scale. The
building on Lytton that was built a coupie three years ago, the one that Cornish & Carey occupies,
I’ve heard architects say, I’m not talking historical architects, as you notice my bent if some of you
do, I’m talking architects who work in contemporary architecture have commented that that building
is not nearly as friendly as it could be because it is too close, it is an affront, it is too close to the
street. That building is only two or two and a half stories. It is too close to the street. So if you
consider that these are going to be four stories and at street, I just can’t imagine standing there beside
them without wanting to fall over backwards.
Last thing I guess is I think it is a curiosity, it is a curiosity to me that these are PC applications
where there has been so much conversation on the part of City Council to eliminate PC projects.
Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Okay, Judith Wasserman to be followed by Irvin Dawid.
Ms. Judith Wasserman, Public Art Commission: Good evening, I’m Judith Wasserman the Public
Art Commission’s ex officio member of the Parking Garage Steering Committee. I’m not going to
tel! you whether you should have one or not. I’m just going to tell you that there is a substantial Art
budget in this project and the way that it is going to be administered is that there will be a competition
to selected artists who will be subcontracted to the design team. The Public Art Team and the design
CiO" of Palo Alto Page 2Z
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
t7
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
team will constitute the selection committee. The parking people have come before us once on a
conceptual basis and sort of told us where there might be art in some of the open sPace pockets on the
facades, maybe part of the way finding but we think that the artists should have most of the say in
conjunction with the design team about where the art should go so we are not making any judgment
on that now.. That’s what I wanted to tell you because they didn’t have time in their i5 minute
presentation to get that in.
Commi.ssioner Schmidt: Question for you Judith.
Commissioner Cassel: Will these artists be on board soon enough and working with the design team
soon enough that they can have some input in working with these people in terms of the way the
building might be looked at in general and the surfaces, etc.?
Ms. Wasserman: That is a real hard question to answer because if you ask me, the artist should have
been on board from day one. But there was no budget for that. I understand when you have a fixed
amount of dollars and you have to do soils reports that the artists don’t get included at that point. My
understanding is that these designs are not fixed in stone and that there will be some impact, probably
not enough, but I think we are going to get a good art component. How much the artist will have to
say about the architectural design I don’t know.
Commissioner Cassel: In one of the presentations that was done, I think the Art Commission
probably sponsored, about how art could be involved, one of the city recycling centers in one of the
southwest cities brought an art person on board early on in the process and they came out with a’
much more interesting project.
Ms. Wasserman: I think we to instruct the City Council, next time they make budgets available for
planning purposes, to instruct whoever is in charge of the planning process that the artists need to be
included in that budget. And without that instruction we get what we get.
Commissioner Cassel: And you just figured it was not as early as it could be.
MS.... Wasserman: Not as early as it should have been. We’re here now, not a year or two ago, and
we think that the art budget is substantial which is a nice change for a City project. So we are very
grateful for that. There is some talk about making some kind of connection between the Downtown
improvement art and this art. It may not be a direct connection. It may not be that the same artists
are used but those artists will be informed of the competition. So that there may be some integration
of that as well which is also encouraging.
Commissioner Cassel: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. Irvin Dawid to be followed by Katherine Pering. Katherine Pering is
the last speaker card that I have so if there is anyone else who wants to speak please submit a card.
City of Palo Alto Page 23
53
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
~2
.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Irvin Dawid, Sierra..Club, 753 Atma, Pa!o Alto: Thank you. Irvin Dawid speaking on behalf of
the Sierra Club. Before I make the gist of my presentation I just want to address two points that I
heard. First, Mr. Roberts talked about some of the financing and mentioned something about how
this money is going to be coming from an assessment district and if you don’t spend it here you just
kind of lose it. It can’t be spent on something else. While technically that’s true, I think what needs
to get mentioned here is there is opportunity cost. If this assessment district does go through for the
pu .rpose of the parking structure that means that that’s one less assessment district, that much less
money you could use on something else. So for instance, if it was decided that the Downtown wanted
to do an assessment district for the parking shuttle which pardon me, on your shuttle, which very -
significantly does not have any approved operating funds. That means that we have denied ourselves
that revenue base. On that note it is worth mentioning that in San Francisco the big debate right now
is whether their downtown should have what’s called the Downtown Assessment District for the
purpose of funding Muni. It’s been said that the debate is that Downtown receives so much of the
advantages yet they don’t pay anything really for it.
Another thing that I heard that I thought was somewhat controversially, actually it was Commissioner
Cassel asked this of Mr. Keenan about who owns the land. The way I understand that it works is if
you retain the surface parking you can do something with the property still. That’s the reason why
the Housing Corp. suggested putting housing over parking because they would retain the parking they
would just do something else. So the land can still be used for other things and you shouldn’t feel
that you’re obligated to use it only for parking.
5.1.21
I think the most serious thing that you Commissioners need to look at here is something that is not
included in this EIR. I only got this, I was only really alerted to it because of what our neighbor is
doing. I’m referring to our neighbor Menlo Park. They are embarking on a smart-growth project.
Last week I ~.ttended their second meeting, it was a big Town Meeting and they allow people from
Palo Alto to attend. We were basically flooded with a whole bunch of facts about things. Everything
from who’s paying the sales tax, whether it’s sales tax or business tax, how people are commuting, it
was fa.scinating. It was an overwhelming amount of data but one thing that was very interesting was
that they said that in Menlo Park they break all their business areas out into certain districts..In their
downtown they mentioned how many people are arriving by single occupancy vehicles is 80%. So
they said we’re a little worse than Palo Alto where it’s 79%. Now, you need to remember that figure
because it is not in here, that 79%. You really have to ask yourself what happens to that figure when
you add 770-odd spaces. My contention is, with the Sierra Club, sort of if you build you will come
and you can’t build yourself out of this. This is sort of like adding another lane to a freeway and
you’re trying to solve your capacity problem. Rather than’ mitigating a parking problem, this project
will exacerbate it. That is why it really needs to be re-thought. Now, the Chamber has been working
on this issue for a long time but it is only lately that the public is beginning to recognize that building
yourself out of a parking problem doesn’t work just like building lanes on a freeway doesn’t solve
your congestion problem. All it doesn’t, and the VTA has a letter here, it just influences mobile
choice. Palo Alto University Station is now the second most popular destination line on Cal Train.
Now, do you think those people are coming here only because this is a popular place or is it because
parking is difficult here? By supplying more parking we risk Palo Alto University not retaining its
Cir)" of Palo Alto Page 24
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
status as the second most popular after the 4th & King Depot. This is something that this thing-
doesn’t address unfortunately. And frankly it doesn’t really have to address that because its goal was
to provide so many more parking places.
One thing that I think that you really do need to think about and that is, which I tried to include in my
letter, the way Palo Alto handles its parking situation, parking demand is by basically supplying
parking. It’s been pointed out before I think, if Starbuck’s handled their coffee by just supplying and
not really charging for it there would be lines out all over. Ultimately, the real problem with Palo
Alto parking is that it is unpriced. We know from the Chamber, they’ve pointed out that a parking
stall on the street is worth $20-24,000. Yet, here we are giving it away for free. We can no longer
continue to talk about a parking deficit without addressing the fact that it’s based on free parking.
Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Katherine Pering to be followed by Phyllis Munsey.
Ms. Katherine Pering, 388 Everett Avenue, Pal0 Alto: Good evening. I am the Vice President of the
Downtown North Neighborhood Association although I am speaking as a private citizen. I would like
to support Sally-Ann Rudd’s statements earlier this evening. I would just like to say that.our
Downtown North area is a very unique, I call it a unique ecological niche neighborhood. We are
almost like an endangered species. We are being threatened by a flood of non-resident traffic. I
personally do not see any practical way to make this a healthier environment other than a private
parking system which allows non-resident parking, or channels non-resident parking into a parking
structure. On that basis I feel that they are really necessary if we want to preserve a really unique
neighborhood. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Phyllis Munsey to be followed by John Hackmann and that is
now the last card that I have.
Ms. Phyllis Munsey, 2361 Santa Ana, Palo Alto: I am a Palo Alto resident and have an office
building on Ramona Street in Downtown Palo Alto. I have served on the Parking Committee I,think
since its inception and want to support and urge you to keep this process going. Tonight is not a
make or break play to the process, it just would keep the ball rolling for this to be continued to be
looked at. We desperately need, as a third generation Palo Altoian, we desperately need a solution to
our parking problem. It is my impression that a lot of the traffic that we see and congestion on the
streets are people traveling around and around looking for parking places. I think some of this may
be eliminated if people can go directly to structure and park their cars and then get on foot and
become pedestrians. Again, I would urge you to act favorably tonight and let us hear more about it
and study it. But I think we desperately need the shuttle, we need the train~ we need all the 13 points
that we’ve put before the City and proposed. They all have to work together as a package.but without
these structures we don’t have any place for the workers who are coming in from out of the area and
there is always going to be that problem in the neighborhood unless we get those cars into a structure.
Thank you.
City of Palo Alto ¯ Page 25
55
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
:.9
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. Our last speaker then is John Hackmann.
Mr. John Hackmann, 235 Embarcadero, Palo Alto: Probably like a lot of people, I was home
watching this on cable TV so I .want to thank cable TV for broadcasting this because I’m stfre there
are dozens, maybe hundreds, of people watching this. You really learn a lot by watching cable TV.
My feeling is that this won’t be built as this size. It’s just too big. I don’t think the neighborhood,
the town,the property owners are going to support it. I think the major problem is that what you
have is a plague of autorriobiles and the solution that the committee of doctors have come up with is to
build another graveyard. There is just no limit to the amount of storage available for parking. The
question I asked myself, and I think everyone is here of goodwill and people have put a lot of timel a
heck of a lot more time more than I put into this and they deserve to speak more than I do, but the
question I’m asking is ttie parking is sub part of the problem of the transportation. We want to have
an active business culture, we would have a lot of customer client spaces, we want to have a town we
enjoy. Parking is sort of a sub topic to achieve those other goals. What I find with the parking
structures, i don’t see the strong connection between the structure and these ultimate goals of how
much do we enjoy walking in our town. How profitable are the businesses? Are the older businesses
squeezed out by rent? Who are the winners and losers of the property owners Downtown? I don’t
really feel that by fol!owing the examples of other cities who buy ever larger parking structures and
keep building them that they’ve really solved their problem.
If you go to downtown San Francisco the worst areas of town are near the largest parking structures.
Homelessness, prostitution, senses of alienation follow parking structures to some extent. Now,
you’ve taken care of a fair amount of that with the design. But you can’t get around the mass of a 50
foot building here. I think that this doesn’t represent the best thinking I think the people in Palo Alto
are capable of, or the people in the community are capable of, or the property owners. The solution
has to be some integration of the transit issue, the movement issue, the grids issue. A few examples
have already been brought up. A couple more that I will offer, and when I was a consultant to a mass
transit district back in Illinois I was able to convince the city government to agree to fund the fee to
give a free bus service to every student at the University. This is the University of Illinois. That
resulted in, I think, $50.00 per student. Even the students who didn’t go on the bus voted for it.
What this then allowed was every person to ride the bus for free with a huge increase in mass transit.
Of course, most people who run bus companies do not want any more customers because they aren’t
in the free market system, they are in a governmental system where they are judged by how well they
manage. The more customers they have the more problems, they have, the worse they manage, they
lose their job. In most businesses you want more customers because you make-profit. In the mass
transit you lose money on every customer. You take customers very reluctantly you accept new
customers. It’s a big problem. Ultimately I think the problem is we aren’t using our best efforts to
solve the integrated transportation, making money having fun in our downtown, living in livable
neighborhoods problem. We haven’t found the right solution yet.
Secondly, I think we have not utilized the free market to the extent we should be. Do people feel that
government are the only people that can bake bread? Or the bread would taste better, or be cheaper,
Ci~" of Palo Alto Page 26
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
or have more variety? If the government ran all 83 restaurants in Downtown would they be better
restaurants? The government essentially has a monopoly on parking. By underpricing it through
government subsidy you prevent any effective solution and you destroy the competition. You could
go faster from Oakland to downtown San Francisco in 1937 than you can now on BART. The
headway was 90 seconds, it cost a nickel, it was run by free market and it made a profit. The first
principle I think we should explore is to have the City get completely out of the parking business and
turn the entire thing over to the free market. I, as a Democrat, that’s a little hard for me to say. But
I am convinced of it. I really believe, I don’t know what would happen but I think it would be
wonderful and t think it would work fine. Because I don’t find the problem with the quality of our
restaurants. I don’t find the problem with the other products that I buy that are provided by the
market. I think what Palo Alto should do is immediately, as fast as is practical, get rid of every
parking place and every parking structure and allow a free market to do this. For example,
practically what I woulddo, as this gent)eman said about the free spaces, let each parking space be
rented out by anybody who wanted to, let any person buy each parking space and use it for any
purpose they want as long as it is used for parking. By definition the amount of parking would not
decrease since it had to be used for parking, but Bell’s Books could buy the space in front of their
business and say "only Bell’s Books," a haircutting place could say "1 1/2 hours," a Walgreen’s may
want to have the spaces as 10 minute spaces.
Instead, we have a committee of government deciding, two hours here, one hour here, they don’t
have time to analyze 50,000 spaces, and they don’t have time to respond to political spaces. A very
few parking spaces are individually targeted. This just shows the success of the system because it
works so well, like the bike racks in front of the little cafe on Hamilton, or the fact that someone can
get a special white zone for valet parking. But it shows the weakness of it because this has to be
dominated by political efforts and it takes a huge amount of capital and time to get this. So the
solution is this is not the right solution. We should go back to do our best thinking and we should try
to use market forces. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. We have one more card from Kathy Jordan.
5 .i .22
Ms. Kathy Jordan, 685 High Street, #5C, Palo Alt0: Hi, my name is Kathy Jordan. I live at 685
High Street which is one block away from one of these proposed parking structures. If we can
remember what the first part of what the previous speaker was talking about there about living in a .
downtown where we can make use and enjoy a livable downtown with restaurants and walking all of
those amenities that we enjoy, I would very much agree with him that I would oppose a multi level
above ground parking garage. I think we have some nice examples here in Downtown of structures
that have underground, specifically the one here at City Hall, the one on Ramona Street, I know we
have an above ground one down at the other end of University which seems to work out okay. This
reminds me of Los Angeles and a lot of other cities where we have above ground parking garages and
I think I agree with that speaker that that seems to cause a lot of, crime does seem to generate around
those places. It’s dark and I think also there is space, there isn’t anything happening there. I just
think this would be a great mistake. I certainly would not want to live a block or two away from it. I
think we are seeing increasing crime already here in Downtown Palo Alto. I think this could add to
Ciw. of Palo Alto Page 2 7
57
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
.15’
16
17
18
19
20
21
<2
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
it. I know we have a disastrous parking situation. I encounter it every day as I try to get into our
¯ underground garage. People crossing the line on a one way street not knowing, anything to get to
their parking spot. I don’t think this is a solution. I think I can speak for our homeowners
association that we will strongly oppose this. Let’s see if we can find some other solution.- I think
below ground would be a better Way to go about it. I know that’s costly so let’s see if we can explore
some other solutions. Thank you.
Commissi~Ber Schrnidt: Thank you. Now that was the last card that I have. It’s 9:00 p.m. we might
want to take a break. I’m sure we have questions for the applicant and I believe we need to do that at
the end of the Public Hearing. So if we take a break now we would leave the Public Hearing open
and ask questions after the break. So we’ll take a ten minute break and come back with questions for
the applicant. And just to remind you that the video and audio are still on during, the break.
Okay we are back in session. It is now time for questions from the Commission for the applicant.
And then you can ask questions of members of the public who have spoken also since the Public
Hearing is still open. Who wants to start?
Commissioner Bum First Kathy, can you clarify who the applicant is?
Commissioner Schmidt: The applicant is the Public Works Department. So it would be the Public
Works Department, Glenn Roberts, and the Various members of the design group who made
presentations. I think any of these people are available for questions.
.Commissioner Butt: Great. My first question has to do with the plan for the shortfall of parking
spaces during construction. That was mentioned that that would be a necessary element and in the
EIR it was mentioned. What are the plans?
Ms. Karen Bengard, Project Manager,...Public Works: My name is Karen Bengard, I’m the project
manager from Public Works. We will be meeting with the Chamber of Commerce to set up a
contingency plan during construction. We’ve asked Kathi Gwynn of the Senior Center to sit on that
working group with us since the seniors will be impacted by construction. We haven’t yet come to
any conclusions. We have identified several surface lots and the Cowper/Webster garage for
example, that could be used, we could rent spaces although we haven’t yet approached any of the
landlords to actually do the negotiations for those spaces but we will have something in place before
we go to construction.
Commissioner Burt: I heard second hand that there were some prospective lots that had been
identified but also that, from those meetings, it was pointed out that those were unlikely to be able to
be available. When you say that you’ve identified some prospective lots, how feasible is this?
Ms. Bengard: Feasible would depend upon whether the property owner wants to lease them to us.
For example, the top two levels of the Cowper/Webster garage by California Pizza Kitchen are
privately owned, and the top level, the sixth floor, is completely vacant the few times we’ve gone by
City" of Palo Alto Page 28
58
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35,
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
to look at it. The fifth floor is mostly vacant and those are two areas that they might rent to us, and
then again maybe they wouldn’t. We’ve got the Cal Train parking lots which currently are being
used. One of them is being used by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation to park their construction
workers. When the construction workers go away they might consider renting to us. There-are some
private garages Downtown one of which I believe is owned by Chop Keenan, he might be willing to
rent us some spaces. But we haven’t yet approached or gotten to that point.
Commissioner Bur’t: Then follow on question. If those spaces would prospectively be available for
the short term during construction, is there a reason that they wouldn’t be available long term and
eliminate or reduce the need for some of the garages?
Ms. Bengard: Most of those parking spaces that we are talldng about are not in areas of high
demand. The areas of high demand, the greatest shortage, is near Lot R, near the Bldckbuster site.
These_would be a walk. People want to park at Cal Train they have to cross Alma and come into
town and shop. They are not in the high demand locations. Again, the property owners may or may
not want to rent them to us long term.
Commissioner Burt: How does their location compare to what in essence is the current location of
where a high percentage of employees Downtown park which is out in the neighborhoods up to ten
blocks away?
Ms...Bengard: I guess I’m thinking of long term permit parking. It’d be a permit parking we could
shift permit parking from one area to another. We’d have to sell permits to employers.
Commissioner Burt: I don’t "know if you’re aware of it, one of the discussions within the possibility
of permit parking in the residential neighborhoods is to actually, through a transitional period, sell
permits to employers to allow continuation of a limited number and a gradually declining number of
employees parking in neighborhoods. So I guess I’m going back to if two layers of the Cowper Street
garage might be available and the area that the medical clinic is leasing by Cal Trans, those seem to
be greater proximity to the desired location than the outlying areas of the neighborhoods currently
are. Has there been an evaluation of the within the EIR or within the program of why we could not
partially reduce the need for the structures by taking greater advantage of available, under utilized
parking spaces that exist Downtown with various incentives and creative approaches? I heard it said a
number of times that on a Saturday night there is no shortage of parking spaces in Downtown Palo
Alto. There are thousands of empty spaces, they are just not available to the public. So that’s one
real concern that I would have is are we adequately pursuing those options.
Ms. Ben~ard: Those options were not pursued as far as this EIR and in fact, they would help address
some of the shortfall but we would still, if we’re adding 700 new spaces we can locate in these
outlying areas maybe 200 spaces assuming they would be rented to us. So that would give us 900
spaces. We still have a 1500 space deficit. Yes, that is a possible part of the solution but I think that
would work in tandem with the parking garages, with the shuttle, and with these sorts of solutions.
City of Palo Alto Page 29
59
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Burt: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmid.!;: Phyllis, question.
Commissioner Cassel: In working with the shuttle system one of the problems it probably will have
is parking the buses some place. Could buses enter one of these garages for parking? Are they too
high or too low inside?
Ms. Bengard: A standard bus could not.
Commissioner Cassel,: Short buses like they are using at the Shopping Center, they would not?
Mr. Towey: The inse~ to that is that the structures are both designed to accommodate the handicap
van requirement which is 8’2" and 8’2" can accommodate some of the very small buses that look kind
of like large vans. They are extra height vehicles but they are not true normal city buses.
Commissioner Cassel: Okay, a related question. There are a lot of very large vehicles and they are
getting larger and larger. How are these going to be slotted into these parking structures? We’ve
been slotting smaller and smaller spaces because we’ve been using smaller cars and we’ve been
compacting more people into less space.
Mr. Towey: Both of these structures are designed using the uni-stall system. So there are no
compact and standard spaces because very often a large car will take whatever space it can find be it
large or small. So these are all uni-stall spaces and they are 8’6" wide with the idea that if you have a
normal random grouping of large and small there should be at least reasonable adequate space
between cars.
Commissioner Schmidt: Would you just say what the compact spaces are and the standard spaces are
for comparison?
Mr. Towey: It can vary by locality. Compact spaces normally are 7’6" wide which is a foot
narrower than these. Standard spaces are usually 8’6" which is what we are designing for. Some
standard spaces are up to 9 feet wide.
Commissioner Cassel: I take it that there is no enforcement of compact spaces and that’s why they
don’t work. .- -
Mr. Towey: Right.
Commissioner Cassel:
enforce them.
.Mr. Towev:
Cir2; of Palo Alto
So there is no way to enforce them. You put them in and there is no way to
I don’t think there is an absolute definition of what a compact vehicle is so you have to
page 30
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
start there with a list.
.Commissioner Schmidt: Annette.
Commissi0ner.Bialson: I have sort of design issues. Number one is the lack of a pedestrian access in
the parking structure intended for Lot S/L. In the main entrance and exit, right across from the
entrance to the senior center, I assume that was looked at and for some reason rejected. Could you
explain why please?
Mr. Towey: Yes. We located the entry and exit point on each side of the street in this straight line
because it is not a good idea to have entries near comers. When cars are doing maneuvers around
comers, blind corners are very bad for traffic reasons. So having the mid-block is a good idea and
that is very close to where the existing curb cut is for those same reasons. Also putting them in a line
with each other created good opportunities for traffic flow, coming in from this will be a straight
ramp down, coming in from this side can use a straight up. That will help to speed people coming in
and out of the building and reduce congestion around the entry. Also there isn’t any parking at 90
degrees anywhere near the entry so that people would be slowed" down as they tried to pull in. So
that’s why the drive entries are here. Now it is not a good safety thing to have the pedestrians right
near the cars. But what we did do is we put the entry and exit to the structures right where all the
pedestrian activity is. These are the two elevators for the-building. So if you’re on an upper level
and choose to take the stairs or the elevators, you’ll come down in this corner and you won’t have an
option of going anywhere else because that’s where the stairs and elevators are. That is your primary
exit here. It is at a comer which is good and it allows you to put this cross walk at the comer.
Crosswalks mid-block are sometimes unsafe because cars don’t expect them so often mid-block. So
sometimes that’s not a good idea to have crosswalks mid-block. They are really, really good at the
corners. Again, these bulb-outs will help to reduce the travel distance across for the seniors. Again,
if the seniors parking in the disabled spaces or anywhere on the upper level and is taking the elevator
down, this will be the shortest route. The only time this won’t be the shortest route is if someone’s
parking on the ground level itself. So that is one out of seven levels only would they be tempted to
perhaps walk out the drive entry instead. If they’re parking in this area we have it’s own set of stairs
and own exit from the ground floor through the pedestrian mini park area. So really we’re talking
about a very limited number of stalls, off hand I’d say maybe 35 out of the 650 stalls, that you’d be
tempted to short circuit through this area here. We’ve really worked to collect people at the comers
of both Florence and Bryant and help people get to University quicker. We do have pedestrian access
points at those locations.
.Commissioner Schmidt: Are you saying that there is pedestrian access point there?
Mr. Towey: Yes, and there is a stair there too so that people in this area can collect and come out
here.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay, so that anyone on the first floor could also exit from that.
Ci.tv of Palo Alto Page31
63.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
,-,~
3
24
25
26
30
31
32
33-
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Mr. Towey: Absolutely. And it was done for that very reason, to provide pedestrian points on both
sides of the drive entry but not at the drive entry.
Commissioner Cassel: The comer point you’re talking about is the comer of the alley..
Mr. Towey: Yes.
Commissioner Bials0n: I assume those pedestrian points will be well signed and otherwise very
visible, so I take your response as adequate to meet my needs.
Mr. Towey: I can also help you if you look at this one view here. You can see the pedestrian access
points for the main elevator tower and stair tower right here on the comer.
Commissioner Bialson: My next question goes to whether or not there had been some investigation
done of use of underground levels rather than building up.
Mr. Towey: This structure S/L has two underground levels which is as far down below grade as we
can go without being under water. Not that you can’t build under water but costs really start to
sk3’rocket when we go under water. So these two are below grade. We did look at that for Lot R as
well but because the site is so small and because there are a lot of utilities in the area it would be
very, very expensive to go below ground on Lot R. So what we’ve done, as we were commissioned
to by the Council, was to put as many stalls in there as we feasibly could. This did include going
down two levels over here.
Commissioner Bialson: I would suggest that you indicate how much rather than saying very, very
expensive. It might be appreciated more.
Mr. Towey: It would be more than double what it would cost to build one in the air to go one level
down on Lot R.
Commissioner Schmidt: And what is the cost.’?
Mr. Towey: Typical cost is about 20% more than an above ground stall to go below grade. It gets
successively more expensive each level down we go. So that if we were paying let’s say $30.00 a
square foot to build an in the air square foot, it would be $45.00 for the first level down and it might
be $55.00 a square foot for a level below that. . ..
Commissioner Bialson: Okay, I can appreciate that. The next question is the impact on the victorian
located on Florence. What did you do to try to minimize the impact?
Mr. Towey: I’m glad you asked that question. We colored this drawing to try to help read the
perimeter of the building but we made a mistake. That is that the building actually is notched right
here. That was one of the things that we did to try to help the views at an angle of the entry to the
City of Palo Alto Page 32
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
victorian. So we did notch the building back here to try to open that up. I can’t deny that views of
this building from the surrounding area are going to be blocked. The only thing that I could add
though is that even a one story building would block those views. Because of the distances involved
and from a pedestrian point of view, maybe if you were blocks away it would make a difference how
tall this was, but from standing across the street right here it wouldn’t make a difference. We are
going to block views in this direction, of course in this direction we aren’t going to block any views.
Commissioner Bialson: I see.
C0mmi~sioner Schmidt: Let me ask a question along that line also. I can see a very unique parallel
double loading access there for parking. Did you look at any plans that held the parking structure
further away from both the victorian and the building on Lytton?
Mr..Towey: Yes. Pulling this back?
Commissioner Schmidt: That building has windows on a couple of floors the full length of the
building.
Mr. Towey: Right. Almost the full length, this little piece here is blank. We did pull this away
about five feet from the adjacent property line and we did look at schemes that pulled it further away
and that reduced the amount of the building that we could park it back from the street. So that was
sort of a compromise. When we did the feasibility study we looked at a couple of different options
and the general consensus was that this was a very important element on Bryant to be able to pull
back the full mass of the building and then have a lower mass and then have this notching in front.
So that was sort of a compromise because this will be much more heavily viewed than the backside of
that building. It also is pulled back a little from the property line so there will be about ten feet
between the buildings.
Commissioner Schmidt: Is that a solid wall?
Mr. Towey: This is not a solid wall. In fact, these three bays are fully open and these bays here
we’re actually keeping open, we’re too close to have these open with the fire code but we’re going to
be providing roll-down shutters so that they can actually be open unless there is a fire. In case of a
fire they would roll down and shut. So we’re actually keeping the entire building as open as we
possibly can. That also helps for light, air and a feeling of safety.
Commissioner Schmidt: What about keeping it away from the victorian?
Mr. Towey: Keeping it away from the victorian. Parallel parking is necessary for this parking
scheme because we are ramping here and we’re going up but people have to come back down the
same way. So we have to be at 90 degrees because we tiave a two-way drive isle. The only thing we
could do to pull this away is to eliminate the light court. Again, through the public comment and
through the working with the parking study group we presented those options and everyone felt it was
City of Palo Alto Page 33
63
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
_3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
.43
much more important to try to get ligl{t aM air into the parking s.tructure, again, to try to keep it from
being dark. This was a very important feature so that kind of worked through the process. Our
choice was between the light well and pulling back a little bit from th~ victorian here. This side of
the victorian where we are extremely close, I think is completely blank. So it is this part of" the
victorian that would really be the issue and it is pulled a little bit back.
C0mmis~ioner Bialson: I have no further questions.
Commissioner Schmidt: Are there any more design questions?
Commissioner Burt: On the Lot R structure there is an entrance from Alma Street and an exit onto
Alma. That presently is one of the more hazardous areas in the Downtown from a traffic standpoint.
People whip around the overpass at University and it is a somewhat blind intersection. There is a lot
of movement from different lanes and pretty high speeds that go on there. Where we’re looking at
increasing the amount of car movement at that juncture. I saw from one of the schematics that it
indicated that there was a r!ght turn only coming out of the lot intending to be a change, presently a
left turn is allowed onto Alma from the Lot R. Is that intended to be changed?
Mr. T0wey: Yes, we’re intending a right turn only.
Commissioner Butt: Okay. And what about the issue of potential back ups on Alma from people
trying to enter that lot?
Mr. Towey: To talk about the specific traffic conditions I could turn you over to Gary Black who is a
traffic specialist. Gary, do you want to answer that?
Mr. Gary_ Black, Traffic Engineer: Thank you. My name is Gary Black, Traffic Engineer that
prepared the documentation in the EIR. We did look at the issue of back ups at the driveway and we
concluded that given the size of the par’king structures as compared to the number of driveways and
the typical turn over, also the design such that they emphasize pulling the cars off of the street before
they need to make any decisions about where they are going to go would eliminate the concern about
back ups onto the street. So we expect that the cars will move right on into the parking structures.
Commissioner Butt: With just a single level presently there, on crowded evenings there is back up
that occurs on Alma right now..
Mr. Towey" I might just want to add one point. The present lotcirculates, they circulate on the
street to a certain degree. So we are going to be eliminating a lot people who are pulling around on
and off the lots by only having a single, in and out.
Mr. Black: I was going to say that and also our observations are that part of the problem besides
circulation, you have to circulate back onto the street, but this Lot R is a preferred location. As you
know it is very popular demand lot and anything that would increase the number of spaces there
Cir. of Palo Alto P~ge34
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
would reduce the amount of circulation.that occurs because we see cars come in and go out, and come
in and go out, and come in and go out, and they are bound and determined to drive around and
around that lot until somebody moves their car.
Commissioner Butt: Right now there are 40-something spots there, in the new lot there would be
200-something. And you’re saying that the number of car trips from circulating, and that’s a pretty
short distance, people come out of there, they go on Alma, they briefly go on University, and they go
back in that lot again. That’s the general pattern circulating there. Are you saying that the number of
car trips in the circulation is presently more than we would have in traffic from 200 actively used
spaces in that lot?
Mr. Black: No, I wasn’t ma’king that statement. I was simply making the statement that the
circulating, anything that is done to increase the number of parking spaces would decrease the
circulating of cars that are failing to find spaces. I think your question was what about the total
number of cars involved. The total number of car trips would increase at this particular spot because
of the concentration of more spaces. However, if the cars come into the parking garage and find a
space then that’s not creating a problem. It’s the cars that don’t find spaces and have to circulate back
out onto the street. "
Commissioner Butt: So in essence though ones that are circulating we should subtract those from the
total increase in car trips that would occur in that area and that the net would be the difference
between those two approximately.
Mr. BlacK: Yes, that’s correct.
Commissioner Burt: One other question as long as you are up here. Someone brought up earlier the
concern that Florence is one of the narrower streets in the City. Can you explain just how that is
going to work as far as having one of the entrances to a large garage on Florence?
Mr. Black: Yes, we did look at that. We looked at the traffic volume on Florence. We estimated the
traffic that would added by this parking garage. It was our determination that the Bryant Street
entrance would be more utilized than the Florence Street because Florence doesn’t connect across
University. So it has a much lower traffic volume. Florence is a narrower street but it doesn’t have
on street parking like Bryant does.
Commissioner Bun: It’s one sided?
Mr. Black: It’s one sided and Bryant has parking on both sides.
[off-mike person]
Mr. Black: Anyway, the comparison of the traffic volume on Florence to the cross section is such
that. there is an extremely low traffic volume on Florence so we are not anticipating. I could look up
the actual numbers if you would like, they are in the EIR.
City of Palo Alto Page 33
65
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Burr: Thank you.
Mr. Towey: Just as an adjunct to tha.t I could add that that’s one of the reasons why the lower levels
are accessed, you Can get to an}, level from any side of the building but the most convenient access for
the lower floors is off of Florence and the most convenient access for the upper levels is off of Bryant
because there are more levels in the air. than there are below. It is anticipated that if the monthly
parkers which are typically segregated to certain levels of the bu.ilding and usually not the most
accdssible levels that the merchants would rather have people use, that when the people in the know
so to speak.who have their permits they would then know to go to Florence to go down .and that will
really help traffic because you are not backing up people, they know where they are going and they
h~ive an assigned space. So traffic typically wouldn’t back up there.
Commissioner Schmidt: Question about how the circulation works. The kind of left hand part of the
L, I believe in each level is essentially a dead end.
Mr. T0wey: Yes.
Commissioner Schmidt: So that if someone drives down there and does not find a parking place they
have to turn around?
Mr. Towey: There is a blocked off space here that creates space for a T-turn. You can pull into it,
back up and then go back out again. So that if it is completely full there is still a pla~e where no body
can put a car, it’s a reduced depth so no body can think they can put a car there and make it really
hard for other people to come in and not find a space.
Commissioner Cassel: A question about bicycles. Can you explain more about where the bicycles
are going?
Mr. Towey: Oh yes, I really should explain that. We do have bicycle lockers and bicycle racks in "
both structures. As well I might add, we’re planning to incorporate electrical for City owned
electrical vehicles and private electrical vehicles into both structures. So we have several opportunities
for bike storage. Right now we are indicating bike racks and lockers in this area adjacent to the entry
for this structure. We’re indicating bicycle racks and lockers under the ramp area, the high part
under the ramp, in this area for Lot R.
Commissioner Cassel: Why do you think anyone on a bi@cle would put bother to go all the way
back to that back corner?
Mr. Towey: Well, I guess it depends on where they came from.
Commissioner Cassel: You don’t usually bike in off Alma.
19It. T0wey: I guess the answer to that is the bike racks could be put at another location but then they
City of Palo Alto Page 36
66
1
2
3
4
5
6.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~_5
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
¢0
~,2
~,3
would displace parking. Because parking is so valuable we put them in a place where parking can’t
be.
Commissioner Cassel: I’d like to suggest that bicycle parking is at least as important or maybe more
important than parking. It needs to be close to places where people can get shopping because if it
isn’t we aren’t going to encourage people to use bicycles instead of cars.
Mr. Towey: That could be done.
Commissioner Casse!: Your attitud~ that the car is more important than the bicycle, that doesn’t
work.
Mr. Towey: I should clarify that. I don’t think that the bicycles are less important than the cars.
Just that in terms of our commission to put in as many spaces as feasible that led us away from doing
that. But at any time that can be changed.
Commissioner Schmidt: One more point. How was it determined how many bicycle spaces to
provide? It seems like there is a fairly small number of bicycle spaces in each.
Mr. T0wey: Again, that is sort of a policy thing and that could be increased. Todd, did you want to
speak to the exact number? It came from Staff.
Mr. D01an: We don’t really have a hard and fast parking requirement for a parking structure. So we
are in the process of making one up. Transportation Division has made a comment which I believe
was indicated to you that they want to continue to discuss the location and the number but we haven’t
figured out exactly what the requirement will be. It will be resolved as the process moves forward
and definitely prior to the project returning to you at the next scheduled meeting.
Commissioner Burr: Question. Approximately how many bicycles can be parked in the space to park
one car, especially if you include the vehicle access proportions?
Mr. Towey: If we talked about just the raw square footage that would be a different number than
how many you could put in necessarily in the building if you still have to maintain the car access to
get to them.
Commissioner Butt: For the moment let’s talk raw square footage.
Mr. Towey: Well, if we assume the car overall was taking up about 350 square feet, the bike and the
bike circulation might take up 15.
Commissioner Butt: So 20 bikes for one car space?
Mr. Towey: Yes, maybe I’ve underestimated the circulation required to get the bikes in and out.
City of Palo Alto Page 3 7
67
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"’2
.3
24
25
~7
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
4O
41
42
43
Commissioner Burr: Well, when you say the 350 square foot is that including the car circulation?
Mr. Towey: Yes.
Corru’nissioner Butt: Okay. So 15 to 20 bikes per car space.
Mr. Towey: It’s not per.space, it’s per the square feet including the circulation.
Commissioner Cassel: When we’ve done trade offs before, you know a car space for a bicycle space,
we’ve been able to show about 6 to 8 in a small project. You know, can we put in a lot of bicycle
spaces instead of one car. We’ve been allowed 6 to 8.
commissioner Schmidt: I have a general design question. I can see that you have g6ne to a lot of
effort to design the facade of these buildings to have them look like Dow.ntown Palo Alto buildings
and that’s what the EIR says, to blend into the established areas. There is an existing parking garage
at Cowper and Webster that to me says more I’m a parking garage. Did you do any alternatives in
terms of designs that looked more at how can we make it an outstanding design that is more parking
garage-like and less building-like? Either of these buildings could look like an office building, bank
or something like that, put grass around it and no one would know that they are for cars.
Mr. Roberts: Frankly, that was direction that the consultant team received very specifically from
Staff because Staff received that direction very specifically from the City Council at the time that the
concept was approved. They directed us to ensure that these structures did not appear as parking
garages whether they were architecturally designed to appear as buildings and camouflaging the
parking garage use and appearance. That was directed to us in very great terms.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. So it could still be requested that some alternative was looked at. It
was not done because of Council request.
Mr....R0bCrts: Exactly.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. Various people have noted that the S/L one is particularly a large
Downtown building/presence.
Mr. Roberts: Yes, and all I can tell you is that that’s by intent because of the Council’s policy
direction.. ¯ ¯ ¯ -
Commissioner Schmidt: I tinderstand. Pat.
Commissioner Butt: Would the square footage of these garages count against the Downtown cap?
Mr. Dolan: I don’t know. That’s a very good question. We will try and find out.
Cir. of Palo Alto Page
68
1
2
3-
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
_.?.4
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Commissioner Butt: They together would exceed the remaining allotment of the Downtown cap. I’m
very surprised this issue hasn’t been addressed. Downtown cap is commercial development. I don’t
know, maybe if these are structures owned by the assessment district I.don’t know whether that
qualifies them as commercial development or not.
M,r. Dolan: The cap addresses non-residential which does create an interesting question.
Commissioner Butt: Is it possible that we could get an answer on that before we adjourn tonight?
Mr. Dolan: We’ll give it a try.
Cgmmissioncr Burt: Great. Next question. Some members of the public and frankly probably some
of us could use a little more explanation on how the assessment district is structured and how it is
voted upon. Who votes and in what proportion do they vote?
Mr. Roberts: I’m going to take a cut at that but I’m going to ask the City Attorney to closely monitor
what I say and correct me if I should misspeak. The basic tenants of how this is done now will be
dictated by a Proposition 218 requirement. And recent state law in that regard has changed the
manner in which we must enact these kinds of financing mechanisms. In fact it’s not even necessarily
an assessment district per se any more in the same terms that we used to know it. It’s now more
almost of a special tax if you will that is voted on by the property owners. We will prepare cost
estimates and there will be a ballot election by mail. Excuse me, I’m getting ahead of myself. We’ll
prepare cost estimates. We’ll spread those cost estimates across the different properties of Downtown
using a benefit formula that will be determined by the joint efforts of the City Attorneys office, the
Public Works Department and the Administrative Services Department using consultant services from
an assessment engineer and also from a plans advisor and bonds council. We will look very closely at
the existing benefit formula which currently spreads the costs based upon an average parking demand
of four spaces per 1000 square feet of space. It is likely that we will consider the use of that benefit
formula for this new assessment as well although it is not so determined yet. In any event, once that
benefit formula is determined this cost will be spread using whatever it turns out to be and we will
prepare a calculation of the cost per parcel. That cost per parcel will go out in information statements
first to the property owners. They will then have the opportunity to vote on that and whether they
want to impose that assessment on themselves. The vote will be a weighted vote by size of the
assessment in essence, which is driven again by their acreage and their buildout and their, parking
demand and all that, a formula that essentially comes down to the size of the assessment exactly.
Then those ballots will be returned by mail and tabulated by the City Clerk. That Will detei-mine
whether or not there will be an assessment.
Commissioner Butt: So it is voted on by the property owners in some proportion to their square
footage and some other factors?
Ms. Furth: It is voted in exact proportion to the size of their assessment. So what else it relates to
depends upon the assessment formula which is presented in an engineers report. They have to have
City of Palo Alto Page 39
69
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
,43
50% plus one of the weighted votes in’favor of the project for it to proceed. Because these are for
bonds, once it is passed it can’t be rescinded until the bonds are paid.
Commissioner’. Cassel: This is state law?
Ms. Furth: This is Proposition 218.
.Commissioner Cassel: Does this not give the large land owners greater weight than the small ones?
Ms. Furth: Yes it does.
Commissioner Cassel: There is no equalization in that.
Ms. Furthi This is correct.
Commissioner. Burt: It’s the vote of the people.
Ms. Furth: It’s the Tax Payer’s Association’s belief and it is shared by the bulk of the voters who
voted on the matter as to how things should be done. There also is one other minor issue which is
that this law is very specific that those parts of the project that don’t benefit private property cannot
be paid for by assessments. So to the extent that we are either benefiting the Post Office or other
federally owned businesses or buildings that part of the cost has to be born out of the General Fund or
some other revenue source. It is not going be a big issue in this project. You don’t happen to have
an army base in the town but those types of government facilities that aren’t subject to our tax powers
have to be picked up from another revenue source.
Right, and the City would pay for its share of the benefit. Its share as a property owner.
Commissioner Burr: About two years ago there was a presentation on this at the senior center by the
architects and the City Staff. One of the important statements, that was very important to me at the
time, was I believe it was Susan Frank that said, I can’t remember the percentage but a very high
percentage of the spaces were going to be devoted to permit parking. My memory is that it was
above 50% for both lots which gets to the heart of the issue of whether these lots are predominantly
designed to alleviate existing problems or are they to create new opportunities for parking Downtown
and essentially provide for new customers. Tonight I heard that, I don’t know if it was Susan Frank
or someone,, said that the S/L Lot was going to be approximately 50% permit and then there was no
mention of the R Lot. Can we get a clarification on that?
Mr. Roberts: I can give you clarification to the extent that one exists. I can tell you that that decision
has not yet been made. What is clear is an intent to work very closely between the City Staff and the
Chamber and the Parking Committee to arrive at an allocation that will strike a balance between
permit parking and open public parking. We will do that and it is likely that it will be around a 50%
split. That is a matter yet to be determined and yet to be approved by the City Council. So there is
City of Palo Alto Page 40
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
no final number at this time in that regard. I think it is also important to remember that a lot of the
parking demand is at night and the weekends for the restaurant and shop activity. And of course,
after 5:00 p.m. itisall open to the public and the permit restrictions don’t apply. So the peak usage
is somewhat independent of that ratio.
,Commissioner Burt: Is the weekday lunchtime the greatest peak? Is that accurate?
Mr. Roberts: I don’t know that for a certainty myself. I’ve heard that from[Ashook] previously but
I don’t know that personally.
Commissioner Butt: You’re saying that issue is yet to be determined as to what percentage would be
permit. For me that is a real crucial aspect of our decision-making. What are the objectives of these
structures and would theimplementation plan meet those objectives? In the absence of defining the
portion of the parking that would go to alleviating existing problems in the neighborhoods which is
what Chop said tonight was the primary objective of these structures. Then a majority of the spaces
would need to go toward permit parking. And in the absence of information on that I find it real
difficult to be making an informed decision or a recommendation on, from a planning stand point,
what we should do.
Mr. Roberts: We’re open to any point and we hear your concern and we will carry that forward as
we develop that policy position.
Commissioner Butt: Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: Is there consideration of ~rying metered parking in a portion of the garages?
Mr. Roberts: Not that I’m aware of.
Commissioner Schmidt: The City has not recently thought about doing any sort of metered parking.
I know in the Comp Plan we suggested that some may need to be thought about but it is something
that needs to be thought about regionally or at least with neighborhood communities because nobody
else has that.
Mr. Roberts: I think that’s correct and there are two key points. First is that it would really need to
be looked at on a Downtown-wide basis if you wanted to look at it at all, not just for these structures.
Secondly,- all th~ discussions that we’ve ever had with the Chamber and the Downtown merchants and
the Parking Subcommittee have been clearly in the context of free parking.
Commissioner Cassel: It was suggested in one of the letters that came in that one might look at
parking, permit parking costs money to someone, but all day parking is at a premium. One of the
suggestions was that some of the parking spaces could be metered parking for all day. If the person is
going to stay there all day then they could get in. One of the problems now is if people who come in
need to be here all day but can’t stay any place all day because we don’t allow for that. Maybe that is
City of Palo Alto Page 41
71
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
an interim step. It probably wouldn’t work over by the train station unless there is a demand over
there because people could put their coins in and stay all day and we lose the person from Downtown,
we wouldn’t accomplish our goal, but in SIL that might help. Right now we’re using [daylight] to try
to deal with that problem.
Commissioner Schmid..~: There might be some place where you could experiment with a portion of it
and not look at the rest of the City.
Mr. Roberts: We can certainly take that into consideration.
Commissioner Burt: The purposes that the assessment district funds or can be allocated to are defined
by what, the bylaws of the assessment district? How is that limited? Basically this goes to questions
that have been put forward, are building $30,000 parking spaces the most cost effective ways to create
parking av.ailability for customers and employees Downtown and we have all these other alternatives.
So are there ways in which assessment district funds could be utilized for a common trip or commute
coordinator or something like that that would serve the assessment district?
Mr. Roberts: I think there are a couple key points here and the attorney may wi~h to comment also.
First of all to state the obvious, what are the voters willing to tax themselves to pay for and what are
they willing to vote for. Secondly, when you do an assessment district you can do a number of
different kinds. What we are talking about here is debt financing. That opens it up into a second area
if you wil!, that using tax exempt bonds there are limited purposes for which those can used. I won’t
go into all that detail but I think what you are spea "king to is a second type of assessment district,
other than debt financing here. You are talking about some kind of operation or maintenance
assessment if you will..Yes, those are possible as well. In fact, we are simultaneously engaged in
discussion with the Chamber over the possibility of a joint effort for increased Downtown
maintenance in the form of cleanliness if you will, that kind of maintenance. That might potentially
involve a separate assessment for that as well. So, those things are possible, yes.
Commissioner Burr: When you mentioned that certainly the voters of that assessment district would
have to approve of it. In order for that to be persuasive to them there would have to be some analysis
that would evaluate the comparative benefits to them of alternative approaches. I didn’t see any of
that as part of the EIR. Is there a reason that the cost effectiveness of alternatives, which I thought
would be p~irt of the EIR analysis, were not presented?
Mr. Roberts: It goes back to what I said in my introductory comments. In essence that those other
programs are being considered as a separate activity and spin-off from all of the Downtown plan
initiation. This EIR was prepared in the context of addressing this project and its implementation
impact.
Commissioner Bum. Related to that, we have parking in lieu funds. How may dollars are in that in
lieu pool, parking in lieu fund, and are those dollars are going to be allocated toward these garages?
What is the plan for those funds?
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 42
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
Ms. Bengard: I believe there is approximately $750,000 in the in lieu fee. That money has been
fronted to pay for the design effort to the 50 % plan stage. Now if the assessment district is not
formed by the property owners the in lieu fee would need to be reimbursed by the City. If the
assessment district is formed that in lieu fee would just go toward the construction, toward tile design
effort.
Commissioner Burt: Why, necessarily would those in lieu fees go toward the construction? Are
those in lieu fees bound to go for that purpose? Is there a Council option?
Ms. Furth: I think the short answer is that they have been allocated ~nd committed and spent for
design. The point aboutreimbtirsement is that because these are to be used to provide parking in lieu
of the on-site parking which was not required if this project isn’t successful and no spaces are built
then the General Fund will have to replenish that amount because they won’t yield parking. So they
are spent. I cannot answer your question about how broadly the City defines the use of in lieu
parking fees. Somebody else here may be able to do that.
Commissioner Burt: I don’t think to date we have had a discussion about other purposes and uses for
the in lieu fees. Conceivably the in lieu refers right now to building parking stalls elsewhere in lieu
of parking stalls on-site. Another in lieu might be that we mitigate the need for parking Downtown.
Ms. Furth: That is something you could consider prospectively. That is not something you could do
with the money we’ve already collected.
Commissioner’......Burt: So none of the money that has been collected could conceivably be redirected?
Ms. Furth: We hold that money subject to a trust, to use it for the purposes for which we collected
it.
Commissioner..Burt: Okay. Thank you.
C0mmissioner......Schmidt: Are there other questions? Phyllis.
Commissioner.. Cassel: I had another question on bicycles. Has anyone done an analysis of whether
people are using bicycle lockers or not, and if so, what the demand is? Do we have some idea? And
what is the difference between who uses bicycle lockers and who is using just free standing spaces?
The reason-for that is that we have a standard formula we use for how many bicycle lockers need to
be on a space and how many free standing ones need to be on a space. But it would seem to me that
certain kinds of spaces need more free standing ones and other kinds of spaces need more locker type
of spaces. A parking structure might need more locker type than free standing.
Mr. Roberts: Unfortunately the people with the best information to answer your question are not with
us here tonight. That would be the Transportation Staff themselves.
City of Palo Alto Page 43
73
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17-
18
19
20
Commissioner Cassel: I would accept’a delayed answer.
Mr. Roberts: We could get back to you on that.
Commissioner Butt: Earlier there were a couple of speakers who gave differing opinions and
perspectives on the ownership of .the property that these lots reside on, i.e., whether it is City owned,
is it essentially assessment district owned, one person asked whether for instance the Performing Arts
Center could be built on top of something like this. I have no idea of the legal basis. Can we get a
clarification of the comments made by the public?
Mr. Roberts: Let me start if I might, then again, turn it over to the attorney if she wishes. Mr.
Keenan’s comments were essentially correct. To the best of my knowledge these lots, which title is
in fact vested in the citY of Palo Alto, were bought and paid for by the Parking District. The costs
there were born by the Downtown merchants. So we hold them in trust for the Parking District. I do
not believe that the City could, in any way, unilaterally make alternative use of these lots. It might be
theoretically possible to negotiate some joint use, or air right use, or something of that nature on a
cooperative basis should both parties agre.e. I think it is pretty clear that the first call on the use of
these lots is in fact for parking purposes.
CommissioBer Butt: So they paid not only for the improvements but for the land as well?
Mr. Roberts: That is correct.
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Commissioner Schrnidt: Any other questions?
Commissioner Butt: One other, there was discussion about whether the structures could be
constructed sequentially versus in parallel. I heard that there were technical reasons that favored
constructing them in parallel. Can you explain that?
Mr. Roberts: Again, that is an issue that has not yet been finally decided and will be the subject of a
Staff recommendation to the City Council at the time of the final project approval. There are
arguments of equal merit on both sides of the issue. Some would argue, that it is better to do them
sequentially and minimize those interim impacts with the EIR speaks to about loss of parking. Others
would argue that it’s better to suffer all that more intense pain for a shorter periqd of time. I think
the key issue will be how we arrive at the interim parking ,management plan that Karen Bengard spoke
to earlier.. And how successful we are at finding alternative spaces and developing that plan. If we
are able to develop adequate parking in the interim in that plan I think the weight would fall towards
doing them simultaneously and getting on with it. On the other hand if we fred that there is not
adequate parking available to mitigate the impact of doing both simultaneously we may wish to
consider doing them sequentially. We do not have a final answer on that yet.
Mr. Smith: I have some more information on that if you are interested.
City of Palo Alto Page 44
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
.Commissioner Burt: Yes, please.
Mr. Smith: There are more considerations other than just the disruption that you should know about.
One of the things that we looked at was the financial impact of an extended construction period versus
a simultaneous. So the anticipated time for building Lot R is about 12 months maybe a little longer
and Lot S/L, because of two stories below grade, is about 18 months. Part of the reason that the time
is a little longer than a typical parking garage is because of the facade treatments. There are two
factors. If you do them the same you get a savings from the contractor in terms of the amount of time
he runs his overhead. Also there is a matter of just general cost of construction as opposed to doing
the whole enchilada in a year and a half as opposed to two and a half doing it sequentially. So we did
a little cost study analysis .of this and the long and short of it is doing it sequentially costs about
$250,000 more and we don’t deliver the needed parking spaces until 2002 as opposed to sooner. That
is something you should take into consideration.
Commissioner Burt: As part of that cost analysis is there a counter balancing evaluation of the
financial impact on marginally surviving businesses Downtown? Part of our concern is for the locally
owned businesses that are already in difficult competitive constraints. If they have a significant
impact it can put some of these businesses over the edge. So when we talk about $250,000 total
increase cost to the whole assessment district one business going under because of not being able to
survive two Christmas seasons without parking would be potentially a greater impact on that single
business than to the assessment district as a whole. I hope that we’re looking at those impacts as
well.
Mr. Smith: Actually we are. What you should know is that we are working closely with the
Chamber of Commerce on those specific issues. They’ve planned a study workshop to look at the
alternative parking and the impact of it. If the project were built simultaneously you’d be looking at
one Christmas season whereas if it were built sequentially you’d be looking at at least two.
Commissioner Bur’t: That Christmas season would have a net increase in parking spaces over what
had formerly been the case?
Mr. Smith: Here’s what happens. The current plan would be to build Lot R first because that is
where the highest need is. So what happens is when you build Lot R and put it into service it just
about replaces what you take away when you take Lot S/L out of service. So basically until the
whole project is done you don’t gain a big increase. You don’t get any increase, in fact.
Commissioner Butt: Lot R currently has 41 ground spaces and would have 228 after construction, is
that correct?
Mr. Smith: That sounds right.
Commissioner Butt: So the net gain of about 180.
City of Palo Alto Page 45
75
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
"43
Mr. Smith: Yes,-about 180 now that we are at four stories.
Commissioner Butt: Lot S/L?
Mr. Smith: Currently is 175 1 }_hink.
Okay, I take it back then. There is a net gain then of about 90 spaces.
Commissioner Butt: About 90 spaces. Okay, so if it went sequentially, then that second Christmas
season the entire Downtown area would have 90 more spaces than they did before the new garage was
built on Lot R.
Mr. Smith: If it went sequentially. But if we did all at one time the second Christmas season they’d
have 700 more spaces.
Commissioner Butt: Right, but the first Christmas season where some of these businesses might go
under they’d be having a negative of 138 spacesl
Mr. Smith: Right. Just in timing-wise that was originally set to happen between Thanksgiving and
Christmas and the Chamber postponed that. They’re trying to put it on the agenda in the next month
or two. In fact, before we come back to you it is very possible that we’ll have met with them. I
don’t know that for sure because a date hasn’t been set but that’s the plan.
Commissioner Butt: I think most small b{asinesses would rather spread smaller pain over a longer
period than a real hard one over a shorter.
Commissioner Schmidt: Are there other questions? I’ve got a couple of questions here. A couple of
times it’s been referred to that there’s a greater need around Lot R. In a couple of places in the Staff
report it says in the two block radius around Lot R there is a deficit of 1,621 spaces, a couple blocks
around Lot S/L the deficit is 2,145 spaces. I was just wondering about it because it sounds
contradictory to me.
In answer to that, a couple people have referred to a greater need around Lot R and in the Staff report
the numbers say that there is a greater deficit around Lot S/L. If you could just check on that for us
for future reference.
Another question. It sounds like from your cost assessment you are thinking of a single contractor to
do both parking garages. Is that correct?
Mr. Smith: If they were done concurrently you’d probably do it that way. If they were done
sequentially it’s not necessary to do it that way.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. I know that we know how to build buildings in all kinds of unusual
City of Palo Alto Page 46
76
1
2
3
4
5
7
8
9
10
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
~_8
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
~8
~9
~.0
~2
#3
circumstances. They are going to be digging big holes on Lot S/L and also a hole I believe on the
Lot R location to get rid of old messy fill. Since I worked in the building next to Lot R many years
ago I know that part of it is a pre 1906 building with unreinforced masonry as is the victorian around
Lot S/L. I know that shoring is done to prevent anything from happening to those structures. Are we
certain that we won’t have any problems with those because we know how to build things these days
and not have any problems?
,Ms Bengard: We have done some additional soil boring at Lot R in particular because of the age of
the adjacent building and we have accommodated that in our design to disrupt the soil in that area as
little as possible.
The change in design, pulling it back from the Blockbuster side would certainly impact that side less.
We wouldn’t be building right up to it. That’s were we have looked at that as a particularly sensitive
area.
Commissioner Schmidt: Also there’s an entrance on that side.
Ms. Bengard: This is a courtesy entrance and we have notified them that that will be closed off. It is
just an additional access, it’s not a fire or code requirement.
,Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. Any more questions from anyone here? Brian, by any chance were
you able to figure out whether you could get an answer to Pat’s question about whether this square
footage would impact the Downtown cap?
Mr. Dolan: We didn’t find the language in the Comp Plan. The language used there refers to non-
residential so we want to look into that a little bit further and get back to you. I can tell you that in
no conversation, since I’ve been here, have we made the assumption that the parking structure square
footage would count towards the cap but I would not want to guess as to what the interpretation by
Council and others of that specific language would be until we get a chance to look into it a little bit
more.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. I guess we are done with the Public Hearing. We will close the
Public Hearing. I don’t know if we have any more Staff questions separate from the Public Hearing
questions. If we do not, we can go right to comments. Again, tonight we are at an early step in the
submittal for a PC granting for both of these projects. It is a combined EIR to address these two lots.
Tonight we. are commenting on the EIR and I guess there is a question as to whether we officially
need to extend the EIR review period or if that is something that is done by the City and Staff. Brian
mentioned that in comment.
Mr. Dolan: The Director of Planning can extend the period.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. The Planning Commission requested it in a previous situation. So
we need to comment on the EIR and comment on the project. Our comments would then go with the
City of Palo Alto Page 47
77
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
..,~
.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
,43
project to ARB then come back to us, then go on to the Council, following the procedure for a PC
application. Does anyone want to start comments? Annette.
Commissioner Bialson: As I re.view these projects it came to my mind as well it seems most of the
public that we needed to keep our eye on what alternative transportation programs would net us. I
still feel these projects, using the plural, are necessary. I think they’ve been well thought out. There
are aspects of them that I am not totally in favor of and I will go into that. I do not think that they
will impact negatively. The City is continuing to pursue what alternatives are available to us. I think
between the City Staff and the Chamber all 13 points that constitute our alternative transportation
programs will be pursued very aggressively. I just do not see these garages meeting the needs we
have presently or the ones that are going to be created in the future for the transportation needs in the
Downtown area. I, in looking at these projects, sort of derived some sense of what these projects
might do from what we saw the Cowper Street garage accomplish and also the garages surrounding
the California Avenue. I think that in those areas they have been quite a benefit to the surrounding
community. They have reduced the amount of parking in the surrounding neighborhoods and I think
they have reduced the amount traffic which circulates around these areas looking for parking spaces.
So I think that garages are called for and these seem relatively well designed. I have some problems
with some of the design but I think the ARB can address a lot of the concerns some of which we have
stated here and some issues with regard to reducing the sense of bulk especially on Lot S/L. I think
that referring these projects to the HRB as has been suggested by members of the public would not
accomplish what is appropriate. We need to have ARB take a look at this in terms of what these
structures accomplish, what they don’t accomplish and how they can be made better in and of
themselves but also their appropriateness to neighboring structures. In that regard I refer specifically
to the victorian located on Florence. I think that is a valuable resource that the community has and
some more effort should be put into trying to maintain visibility and sight lines to that victorian.
I’m also concerned about the amount of bicycle parking that is called for in these structures, i think
that we’ve got to make the structures more bicycle user friendly. I think we’ve got to make them
attractive and provide some incentive for people to use bicycles.
I have a concern about the ability of certain businesses Downtown to afford the assessment that will
be imposed. I’m very sensitive to that fact and I think that in ways of looking at this, in terms of
wanting to reduce the bulk, I would prefer some underground levels in Lot R. But .countervailing that
is the additional cost that would be born by those businesses that we are so concerned about. So I am
. assuming.that the two times cost for an underground versu’s an above ground level for Lot R is correct
in that regard. I think that both above ground is acceptable considering the alternative pressures that
we have.
In general I think we need to get Downtown addressing some of the traffic and parking needs. I think
we are, to a certain extent, in competition now a days with some other downtowns nearby and there
are a number of people who do not visit our Downtown because of the traffic situation and parking
situation. I believe that a lot of the parking is caused by people looking for parking places. And
City of Palo Alto Page 43
78
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
~8
39
~.0
~.1
~.2
~3
while some of us may have our favorite parking areas that we think are usually available, I for one an-.
finding that they are less and less available. I do think it is important to have a vibrant Downtown for
a number of reasons not the least of which is the sales tax revenue that. it generates. In fact, I think it
d6es attract some people to the community.
Again, on an anecdotal basis, I think University Avenue Railroad Station has become the second
largest or busiest on the railroad sections from San Jose to San Francisco. Judging from my own
experience, and those of employees in the business in which I work, a lot of the use of the railroads
for purposes of commuting into Downtown or into Palo Alto is not so much an issue related to
whether or not they can find parking once they come here but rather to avoid the traffic between
where they live, often times in effect people from San Francisco down to San Jose, it’s the avoidance
of traffic that gets them into the alternative transportation mode not the existence or lack of existence
of parking in their ultimate destination. I think that covers the comments I wanted to make.
_Commissioner Cassel: I want to support what Annette’s already said. Lot R we reviewed when the
issues of which sites to look at came before the Planning Commi,ssion before. At that time, if my
i’ecollection is right, one of the reasons for not going underground was concern about the support of
the brick wall that we are now so close to. That was part of that consideration, not just how much it
costs, but they weren’t sure they could maintain that wall properly.
I would be interested in the comments back on bicycles and how those get supported or not supported.
I think we don’t tend to look at what works best to encourage bicycles, even though we are do some
in town and we think we are doing a lot, that is still very much an open issue. I don’t go shopping.
If I come Downtown to go shopping to look at something in general I don’t attempt to take a bicycle
because I don’t know how much I’m carrying home. I can go and get some small groceries, I can’t
do my main grocery shopping. So bicycles work for some things and they don’t work for other
things. The other thingsI sometimes have to take a car to transport. That’s difficult at the moment.
It is even harder to take a bus for those things. Bathrooms are really important and we kind of
skipped over them. We’ve been talking about how to get some bathrooms in Downtown Palo Alto.
This is the opportunity. This is where we need to put them. I don’t know how the costs come out in
terms of the assessment district but we’ve been trying very hard to get public bathrooms and this is an
opportunity. We may not want them open 24 hours a day for safety kinds of reasons but certainly
during business time.
In your addressing some of these questions I’m sure you’ll address the question of crime going up. I
thought it was coming down, .I may be wrong.
We’re working with two parking garages and we still have to work with the issues of what price" we
pay for parking versus other kinds of transportation. In my experience it isn’t the dollar that I pay
when I get on the bus that’s the problem that discourages me from using the bus but rather the timing
and frequency with which I take it. Certainly if it was balanced with the cost of parking costs so that
they were more equal, you would have a more equal feeling when you got Downtown. It’s going to
cost you a dollar to go Downtown and park, and it’s going to cost you a dollar to take the bus, if the
Cio’ of Palo Alto Page 49
79
2
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"2
.3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
bus went frequently you might be able to take it.
Having had to take the bus recently and not be able to drive has been an interesting eye-opener about
when we really take the bus an.d when we really take our bike-. There are a few people who are verb’,
very good about always taking a bicycle and doing it very consistently and very frequently. Getting
us out of the habit of using our cars all the time is no small task. Right now I can’t wait to get back
in and drive a car. I know better. But I can’t bike and the bus only goes every half hour. And it
doesn’t always go where you’re going and it still won’t when we’re done. So we’re going to need
some parking. The question is where and how much. We’re going to need some way to get some of
these cars off these side streets. So I think this has to work in balance with a lot of other things and it
isn’t going to be all the answers and we can’t just keep building parking garages as a solution because
it isn’t going to be a long term solution.
What I do like about where these are placed is the fact that we now have a balance of places in the
Downtown rather than all over Downtown. The last time we worked on this issue I said, this is it.
We’ve got these two we are looking at but we shouldn’t be coming back with any more. Now you
could say well maybe you shouldn’t come back with this one. You’re arguing up and down both
sides. You certainly can’t come back with any more. What struck me was it takes more-space to
park the car than it does to park the person just sitting in an office. That’s what tells you that
although we need some parking spaces we’ve got to have more effective other means of getting
ourselves Downtown.
Most of us don’t know what the other options are. I can tell you where the 88 goes and I can tell you
whe{-e the 35 goes. One takes me to work and one takes me down to City Hall. I can’t tell you
where the 86 goes and I have figure out how to get the directions to do it too. When you’re in a car,
you’re in the habit in the car of getting in the car and going. If you stay five minutes longer, so
what? You take a bus and you stay five minutes longer, you wait another half an hour for the next
bus.
I’m still concerned about the public benefit the way it is worded. This is probably more important
than anything else to say. It says here the Public Benefit reduces the shortage of Downtown parking
spaces. I think there is a better way of putting it. I’m not sure that "provides additional parking
spaces at this facility," counts at all unless we put a lot more parking spaces in it than we’re putting in
it. The numbers we’re talking about are insignifi.cant.
If it provided bus parking for shuttle buses that would hav~ been neat but it won’t. If it can increase
the long term parking bicycle spaces that would be neat. I think we can add that in but I don’t think
the few spaces we are talking about are significant. I think I re-worded this top one. Provide a
compact facility which will increase parking in central locations near the University business and
retail district..I’m not sure how much of the shortage it is going to cut. I still don’t have the number
that tell me how much this is going to cut versus how many people are going to come in. We’re
trying to make those estimates but I think it is difficult. I was just trying to word it a little differently.
I think the fact that it is going to produce parking spaces is indeed the basic public benefit but I think
Cir.’ of Palo Alto Page 50.
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
2O
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
~.1
42
~.3
there may be a more positive way of wording that, that focus on the fact that they are Staying in the
center of town rather than out in a periphery area. I guess that’s enough.
I too am a little concerned about the building design. Some people liked one and I liked the-other.
So there you get into aesthetic and I’m not sure who you please. I hope that it can feel a little lighter
when it’s done. I think I made the other comments on the way.
Commissioner Schmidt: Pat.
.Commissioner Bum I think that the focus that we need to take is on the public benefits as well. This
is a PC and basically at the center of this proposal is a need that is defined in the 13 point parking
program. That is that when we implemented the color zone Downtown we basically drove employee
parking into outlying areas in the neighborhoods. As representatives of the Chamber stated tonight
that’s not the sole basis for the structures but I take them at face value that it’s the primary reason for.
needing these structures. So the look again is okay. We’re looking at building from the very large
structures Downtown that would get rid of close to half of the present shortage in available parking
for Downtown employees and visitors. That’s very sizable. I "know that for people in the
neighborhoods that are very heavily impacted by non-resident parking, that come home from work
and have bags of groceries or kids to unload and many of our older neighborhoods that don’t have
off-street, parking as part of the home design, when they have to walk half a block to get to their front
door that is a major issue in their quality of life. There are many people who feel that this will be a
valuable benefit. There are also those who are concerned with the potential that we won’t have a long
term decrease in the need employee parking. That eventually these lots will be filled up by new
patrons Downtown. So at the center of that issue what percentage of the spots would go to meeting
this objective which that was stated which is to find parking for employees. For me that’s the core of
the issue. I think that it needs to be a plurality of the spaces in both lots in order for these structures
to achieve the primary objective that was stated as the purpose for their construction. So I really
think we need to address that issue.
I also had concerns with whether we are looking broadly enough at environmental impacts and other
portions of the public benefits that may come about. In the report on the impact or the consistency
with the Comp Plan, it says that it is consistent with the Comp Plan because there is an element L-78
that commits these structures. There is also the 13 point parking program and I’d like to clarify this
as alluded to earlier as the 13 point alternative transportation program. It is actually a 13 point
program called a parking program. Twelve points having to do with parking, one having to do with
alternative.transportation. I think it indicates as well intentioned as the sizable efforts have been of
the Chamber of Commerce and willingness of the merchants to put their very valuable dollars behind
addressing these issues, I think it is somewhat mis-guided. Why do independent business owners
choose to spend their money in the direction that may not be the direction that is most in their own
self interest? Often it is because it is not clear to them what is the most cost effective way to spend
their money in their own self interest. I spent 15 years in the industrial environmental sector involved
in pollution prevention. We have spent 15 years trying to convey to businesses the economic and
environmental reasons why it is their best interest to adopt pollution prevention measures, alternative
Cir), of Palo Alto Page 51
2
3
4
5
-6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
"2
.-’3
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
4.3
approaches in their manufacturing, instead of spending three times as much money treating pollutants
that they generate. Ironically, that is a very difficult sell. Why is that? It makes common sense that
they should choose to do that. Our City has adopted that program and it has been very successful.
We ended up through out pol!u.tion control plan adopting one of the most aggressive and successful
source reduction programs for industrial dischargers. So taking something that at first looks it like
you can’t make that horse drink when you take it to water, well, you have to sell them on the water.
We, so far, haven’t done that.
Our next agenda item of a Comp Plan implementation program the proposal from the Planning
Commission does add to the transportation element that we need to have some real cost benefit
analysis. I think we’ve done too little of that. Here we are willing to spend, or our merchants are
willing to spend, and we’re willing to participate in that, $20 million for parking spots at $30,000 a
pop. Are we really looking at whether we can spend $5,000 in another area and achieve the same
objective. What is the benefit of a Downtown Commute Coordinator? How much need for parking
spots would be reduced by a real aggressive program of a Downtown Trip Coordinator? I think we
are wasting millions of dollars, needlessly. That is going to be ultimately the decision of the
assessment district members but I think the City needs to do a far more thorough, aggressive job at
evaluating the costs and the benefits of alternative proposals.
Going back specifically here, it is crucial to me that the percentage of spaces that are dedicated to the
permits be a plurality of the spaces in both lots. I’d just like to point out a couple of Comp Plan
elements that aren’t mentioned in the Staff report. We are basically told that this project is consistent
with the Comp Plan because we selected a couple of specific elements of the Comp Plan that it is
consistent with. I’d like to see the Staff reports laid out in a way, in the furore, that almost invariably
we have some aspects of a project that is consistent with the Comp Plan and some that aren’t, and
let’s put them side by side and weight it. It is a difficult decision. We may end up with the same
decision but I’d like to have both the pros and the cons laid out. We have our over-riding theme of
enhancing the community character, where we’d have development patterns where people walk,
bicycle or take public transit rather than drive. Well, building new parking spaces doesn’t really
address that "rather than drive," aspect. Policy T-3 talks about reducing [model] use. Policy L-5
talks maintaining the scale and character of the City in avoiding land uses that are overwhelming or
unacceptable due to their size and scale. These are a couple of the largest, most overwhelming
structures that are going to be Downtown. Policy L-23 talks about maintaining and enhancing
University Avenue promoting the quality design, it recognizes regional and historic importance of the
area and reinforce the pedestrian character. Arguably, these garages don’t support that objective.
Program .T.-49 talks about implementing a comprehensive i~rogram of parking .supply and demand
management strategies for Downtown. Well, the .13 point parking program is basically one of
increasing supply it doesn’t address the demand half of the equation. A supply and demand strategy
really needs to be balanced equally between those aspects. We have an out of balance approach, I
believe. Policy T-46 talks about minimizing the need for all day parking in the University Avenue
business districts. It doesn’t say accommodate it, it says minimizing its need. So I think there are
some very strong aspects of the Comprehensive Plan that causes us question whether as much of a
focus as we’ re putting on these garages, even though they may very well be needed aspects of what
Cir.’ of Palo Alto page 5z
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
we’re doing, it is an out of balance focus in my mind. We need to have a far greater focus on the
other elements.
.Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. I agree with a lot of the comments that have been made by the
rest of the Commission. I think there is just the basic problem of we can’t solve all of the
transportation problems just by adding parking lots. I think that that issue is flesh in our minds
because we have been talking about this with the Comprehensive Plan implementation which is our
next agenda item. We have again reiterated that getting people out of single occupancy vehicles or
getting people out of automobiles in a major goal of the Comprehensive Plan. This project by itself
doesn’t do it at all. We’re providing more space for vehicles. On the other hand I think it will help
some in getting parking out of neighborhoods. I think that has been a problem for a long time. I
think anyone who didn’t want to move their cars every two hours has done that for years anyway.
That problem wasn’t just created by the color zone. I think the idea of having two additional parking
garages Downtown, I think it will initially attract more cars. I think people will pe.rceive that there is
more parking and it will bring more people into Palo Alto.
So we’re just dealing with the problem and as everyone else has said we need look at what other
alternatives we can use and not just provide parking spaces. I know when we reviewed this a couple
of years ago, I’m fairly sure I said let’s build it as fast as we can. Now that I see it here these are
large buildings and I really hope that we can put other monies toward looking at how to change the
demand, get people out of their cars, etc.
I would hope that some of the things that we’ve mentioned will come back as conditions for this
project. We might think about adding space in the lobbies of these facilities that are information
kiosks or locations where we talk about all of the other transportation alternatives that the City is
working on, working on with its neighbors, working on regionally to help get people thinking about
not always having to sit in traffic, and drive my car, and drive up to the fifth level to find a parking
space. I personally believe it just takes a lot of repetition and sitting in your car on the freeway for a
lot of hours before people start looking at these alternatives. And better alternatives have to be there.
I would also like to see some thought to putting some paid parking in this facility. I think it would be
a interesting experiment that might give more parking alternatives and get some people thinking about
getting out of their cars too. As I recall, Stanford’s experience was that each time you increase the
cost of parking it gets more people out Of their cars, when they’ve increased parking fees over there.
I also have a concern about the appearance of the structures. As mentioned they are large. I
appreciate that the architects have done what the City Council has asked and made them look like
buildings. I think people have the images in their brain that a parking garage looks like this, it’s just
ugly slabs of concrete and you see a bunch of cars in it, and that a building looks like that with
window-like openings and that looks good and a parking garage looks bad. I think good design can
come up with something that is an attractive facility that perhaps has less bulk in either of those Cases.
They are next to smaller buildings on many sides, across the street in many locations, and I hate to
think that one of the largest maybe more memorable buildings in the City would be Lot S/L parking
CiO’ of Palo Alto Page 53
83
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
3-7.
38
39
40
41
42
43
garage. However I’m glad to see there is a building as part of it. That does soften whatever is done
there. I think it is a good use to put retail and the teen center and to put a real people use on the
corner. I would hope that there could be some work on possible other looks for both buildings, that
would minimize the bulk of them.
I would also like to see more bike parking as part of the alternative transportation modes that we are
emphasizing with this.
A couple of other things. I too am concerned about the assessments that would potentially come up
for the small property owners Downtown and what will that do to their businesses. Then the last
thing that will be interesting to find out is how this really works with the cap on the Downtown Floor
Area, whether it is going to be part of it or not. That is all I had to comment on.
Do we need to move that we forward our comments to the ARB, to say that we think that this project
is worth continuing through this review process?
Mr. Gawf: Yes, that’s what I’d recommend. If you go the first page of the Staff report and look at
our recommendation that is in fact what we do recommend.
MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: Kathy, I so move that.we forward this project to the ARB for
design review and consideration of our comments.
Commissioner Schmidt: Okay. Is there a second?
SECOND: Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second it.
MOTION PASSED: Commissioner $cb_rnidt: Okay, it has been moved by Annette and seconded by
Phyllis that we forward our comments and the projects to the ARB. Is there any discussion? Okay,
all in favor say aye. (ayes) All opposed? That passes on a 4-0 vote with Commissioners Byrd,
Beecham and Schink not participating and absent.
Would Staff like to tell us what the schedule is of the dates for this?
Mr, D.olan: I think the schedule is February 4 ARB, March 10 back to the Planning Commission,
and tentatively to the City Council on April 5.
Commissioner Schmidt: Thank you. And thank you all for all your time in answering all our
questions.
Okay we still have a couple more items on our agenda that we can probably finish up this evening.
understand we havea fulI meeting agendas for the next couple of meetings. The next item on our
agenda is now to move back t6 Item 1"
City of Palo Alto Page 54
84
COMMENTS 6.1 -6.3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Planning Commission
7:00 PM, July 28, 1999
City Council Chambers
City Hall
Draft Verbatim Minutes
Chairperson Schmidt: Would the Secretary please call the Roll?
Thank you. This is a continued meeting from July 21 which ~vas a continued meeting from July
14th and the topic tonight which we would get to later is the Parking Garages. First we have
Oral Communications and at this time any member of the public may speak on any item not on
the agenda ~vith limitation of 3 minutes per speaker. Anyone xvho wishes to speak on any item
not on the agenda? Seeing no one I will move on to Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions.
I will mention that we had a notice in our packet that part of our agenda tonight, Reports from
Officials will be continued to I believe it is now August 25, and those two items are a
presentation regarding Santa Clara County Planning Commission - an Update on Development
of the Stanford Land Use Plan and presentation by Joe Teresi from Public Works on
Incorporating Storm Water Quality Protection Measures into Land.Development.
Any other Agenda Changes, Additions or Deletions? Next item is approval of Minutes. We
have none. So I ~vill move on to Unfinished Business. The two items on our agenda tonight.
They are both the Parking Garages on 445 Bryant Street, Lots S/L and 528 High Street, Lot R.
We had the public hearing two ~veeks ago and that was closed on that date so there is no
additional public input tonight and tonight I believe we will start out with questions on these two
items. Is there any other comments from staff at this point?
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official: No, not at this time.
Chairperson Schmidt: There were a number of questions that were raised last time and we
might want to have the people who brought them up before address them or ask them again
tonight or if we want to answer’them?
Mr. Riel: I can attempt to summarize Commissioner Burt’s questions. I don’t "know whether he
has them ~r whether he would like to do that? IfI am wrong on any of them please let me know.
There were four questions at the end of the meeting two ~veeks ago where I asked whether there
was anything that staff could research. ;The first question ~vas regarding the VTA within their
comments on the draft EIR, had indicated that they felt that the parking garages could generate
additional trips therefore a TIA would redluire.
I don’t kno;v whether you want me to go through the 4 questions because we have various staff
members that will answer each one. Let me just go through the 4. The second question was can
in-lieu parking fees be directed towards funding alternate transportation? The third question was
if the Draft EIR indicates mitigation loss of spaces during construction can be accommodated by
other options such as private lots in the area. \Vhy can’t, in the terms that Commissioner Burt
Page ICiO’ of Palo Alto 8 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Bialson: Would We al~o want to have a vote saying that we rejected the findings
that staff proposed, would that be helpful as a direction to Council?
Ms. Case: Well, I think as they were explained to you, maybe you, one of the really radidally
different wording, I think that sentiment in those was probably similar to what you had agreed to.
Chairperson Schmidt: The next is Item 5, comment on the adequacy of the draft EIR and
recommend to the City Council find that the DEIR has been prepared in compliance with
California Environmental Quality Act and adequately analyzes the potential impacts of the
project and related mitigation measures, Attachment C. A motion or comments? That is the
DEIR that we received several months ago when we first reviewed the plan, that was when we
had to comment on the.DEIR and this version with this packet was the exact same version that
we had before.
Ms. Case: That is correct. As per a typical protocol, there will be a final EIR that includes all
the responses to comments and any additional stuff that staff wants to add and that ~vill go to the
City Council but this is just on the DEIR.
Commissioner Cassel: Well, we do have in front of us some of those additional comments.
Looks like because of the time we are pretty close to the end of...
Ms. Case: That is for your information but the DEIR is the document that you are typically
approving. If there is anything in there that you want to specifically comment one way or
another, you can but what you are specifically being requested to act on is the draft EIR.
Commissioner Cassel: But what I was commenting on is that if the draft EIR had comments in
it and we didn’t get a copy of those comments so we weren’t commenting on, it co~aldn’t be
complete. Is that true, I mean how do you comment on the adequacy of the DEIR if half of the
journal isn’t there.
Ms. Case: Under the City’s CEQA procedures, your purview" is with the draft EIR and this
process as you gather has taken a while and so some of the initial response to comments would
have caught up with you and you’re certainly welcomed to comment on those as well but
typically-the final will go to the City Council. - ¯
6.1.1
Commissioner Burr: Well, one area that I would like to comment on is the, I believe its page 46,
talks about the regulatory and policy framework and references the applicable Comp. Plan goals,
policies and programs and lists the number of programs and policies that are oriented towards the
project as proposed and studied in the DEIR, there are a number of other relevant Comp. Plan
policies and programs which have been-mentioned tonight that I think are important parts of
consideration. Policy T-3 which is the reduction in auto use, Policy L-5, maintaining the scale
and character and avoiding land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due to the size and
scale, Policy L-23 which recognize the historic importance of the area and to reinforce the
pedestrian character, Program T-49, which is implementation of a supply and demand
Ci.ty of Palo Alto 8 6 Page 39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
management strategy for do~vntown, an~d Policy T-46, which talks about minimizing the need for
all-day employee parking in the University Avenue district. So I would like to make sure that
those applicable programs and policies are included.
Chairperson Schmidt: Okay is there a motion or further discussion?6.1.2
Commissioner Cassel: I had some concern with other alternatives considered but rejected. I
didn’t find the ’answers to these, very satisfactory. It is something to do xvith the fact of sole
reliance of the TDM program rather than constructing the proposed parking garages would not be
consistent with applicable goals and the ones above it sole reliance in the TDM program would
not meet the first project objective of constructing a garage. Somehow, if you are looking at
alternatives, and that’s an alternative, simply say that it isn’t dozens of alternatives because
someone state that we need 700-850 garage, doesn’t work. They ought to be some kind of an
analysis of why that doesn’t ~vork. I am not sure that xve do have a TDM program that we are
enforcing, I think the State Law flew that out on us, I am not sure.
Commissioner Burt: I agree with Phyllis on that and my concern was that the only alternatives
that were looked at were sole reliance on the alternatives as opposed to a combination. We’ve
talked about xvhether would be strong TDM program, we might not need the second garage and I
think that’s an analysis that need to be performed in order to really make the determination
whether a second garage is needed, if we do go forward with the aggressive implementation of
the TDM program, that we are planning on pursuing.
6.1.3Commissioner Bialson: I agree xvith both Phyllis and Pat and I think this goes to some o~
questions I raised with regard to member of the public asking ~vhether there was an alternate
possibility of using parking lots at the foot of the Embarcadero. We have a shuttle that is going
to be used to take the people from the foot of the Embarcadero to Stanford Industrial Research
Park and yet that hadn’t been investigated at all so I’d like to look at what can we do to get some
of these parking out of downtown. I think that the EIR should address some of that.
Ms. Case: For a point of clarification, you are not limiting it to the Baylands, I take it.
Commissioner Bialson: No, not at all, anywhere, whether it be the foot of the Embarcadero or
down towards anywhere, not Foothills. "
Ms. Case: Thank you.
Chairperson Schmidt: For point of clarification, even though the DEIR review period is done, is
over, is it still appropriate for us to be adding request for information that gets addressed on the
final.
Ms. Case: Well, we are asking you for your recommendation on the DEIR, so this is part of
them.
Chairperson Schmidt: Thank you. I agree with the comments of my colleagues.
Cir." of Palo Alto 8 7 Page 40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
Commissioner Burt: Just one follow-up comment to the subject of satellite parking. I would like
to encourage staff to look at where underutilized parking exists in the City and that would place
particular emphasis on land that is already constructed for parking" ptirposes but is significantly
underutilized as opposed to paving over new land and in somewhat sensitive areas for par-king.
Chairperson.Schmidt: Any other comment? Then so I want to make a motion for the approval
of the DEIR with the additional comments that were just made.
Commissioner Burt: So moved.
Chairperson Schmidt: Is there a second?
Commissioner Cassel: I’ll second it.
Chairperson Schmidt: So it has been moved by Pat and seconded by Phyllis, we’ve commented
on the adequacy of the DEIR and recommend that City Council .find that it has been prepared in
compliance with CEQA and adequately analyses .the potential impacts of the project and related
mitigated measures with the addition of the comments that we have just madel All those in favor
of that please say aye (Ayes), all those opposed, say no and that passes unanimously. The last
item, Item 6, is that recommend that City Council make a statement of overriding consideration
for one finding of significance and unavoidable short term impact that is temporary loss of
parking. Since we have not approved some of the other things, is it appropriate to approve that, I
guess it goes with the DEIR.
Ms. ~ase: I can certainly understand the question and I guess the certainly we would not expect
you to do it saying that there should be overriding considerations to building structures that you
saw before you that you didn’t like but I think that the draft EIR was not relating to the design
that you saw in front of you. I think that essentially told you that we would have just because the
parking structures ~vere going to be built, they were going to take out the surface parking that
was there, so you could probably still not feel like you’ve gone against your vote by making this
finding that’s relating to taking a~vay that surface parking for a period of time.
Commissioner Cassel" I’ll move the overriding consideration if they do something with those
spaces.
Chairperson Schmidt: Okay. Pat.
Commissioner Burt: I am still not yet being convinced that it has been determined that there is
an unavoidable impact. Staff has told us that these issues are still being explored and being
negotiated with the potential as to mit!gating this impact so I am uncomfortable with making a
determination that it is in fact unavoidable. It may be unavoidable but I don’t have that
information yet so I don’t "know whether anyone, Commission or Staff can help me work through
that concern.
Cir. of Palo Alto 8 8 Page 41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
3O
31
32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Ms. Grote: I believe that even if a certain number of outside spaces can be found, it will only be
a partial mitigation at best and you wot~ld still have some loss 0fparking in the short term. There
still would be an unavoidable adverse impact because even if one or two lots are found, that we
can have some kind of interim parking on, there would be overall loss,even in the short term.
Chairperson Schmidt: We could look at that in the evenings, that its not going to be a program
for ma’king sure that everyone who’s out there in the evenings have an alternative place to park
so its an unavoidable short term impact.
Commissioner Burr: I guess I would be more comfortable with the statement that xvould say that
there is potential of an unavoidable short term impact and if that impact xvere unavoidable than it
would be an overriding consideration. That is ~vhat I am struggling with and that to me ~vould be
a statement that would reflect our present understanding of the circumstances. Maybe I am being
to fine in distinctions on that.
Ms. Case: But the matter of protocol, you have a motion without a second and it ~vould be
better if you got a second.
Chairperson Schmidt: We actually had a motion and a second and I believe Annette was the
second so we do have a motion on the floor. Does anyone xvants to modify it or vote on the
existing motion.
Commissioner Burt: Would the Commissioner making the motion be receptive to an
interjection of the xvord potential prior to unavoidable.
Commissioner Cassel: Is that agreeable to the seconder? Then we’ll go ahead.
Chairperson Schmidt: We have a motion by Phyllis and second by Annette and ~vith a friendly
amendment by Pat, to recommend that the City Council make a statement of overriding
consideration for the finding of significance and potential unavoidable short term impact that is
temporary loss of parking. All those in favor, please say aye (Ayes), all those opposed please say
no, and that passes unanimously. Okay so we are done with S and L. Before we get away from
S and L, I just want to make one other small comment, pollution related comment. One of the
alternatives that was shown to us, Alternative C, the architect had suggested using the copper
roofing and copper design elements, and I would like to point out that the city tries to take copper
out of the wastewater outflow and architectural copper contributes to 9. source copper lode that
gets into the San Francisco Bay and so that is kind of opposing .~vhat they are doing at the
attribute facility so I would hope that any city-sponsored building would not have architectural
copper on them. Okay, we have Lot R with almost the same list of items, slight differences.
Can we use essentially the same wordings on this, do we need to take votes on each separate
items here?
Ms. Case: Yes, but I would assume your vote will be a little faster this time.
Cir. of Palo .41to 8 9 Page 42
Attachment D
RESOLUTION NO.
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE
DOWNTOWN LOTS S/L AND R PARKING GARAGE PROJECTS,
AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as
follows:
SECTION I. Background.
The City Council finds, determines and declares as follows:
A. In July 1986, the City Council approved the Downtown
Study that made significant changes to the policies and regulations
for the Commercial Downtown area for the purpose of moderating
future traffic-generating growth. Included in those changes, the
Council:
established more restrictive floor area ratios (FAR’s) in
the downtown area, with FAR and parking exemptions for
seismic and historic structures;
established a maximum 350,000 square foot cap on the
development of new square footage in the downtown;
established a blended parking rate of one space per 250
square feet of floor area;
formally acknowledged and set the parking deficit in the
downtown area at 1,600 spaces, and approved an obligation
to evaluate the downtown FAR and parking exemption
regulations if the unmet need reached one-half (225) of the
450 spaces necessary for a new parking structure;
created a Ground Floor (GF) Combining zoning district,
allowing only uses, such as retail, eating and drinking and
other service-oriented commercial development uses on the
ground floor, which would be less likely than other uses,
such as office use, to generate peak hour traffic;
directed staff to undertake a site and feasibility study
to evaluate an additional public parking structure
downtown;
approved PC-Planned Community zoning as an appropriate zone
for parking structures;
990921 sdl 0032247
adopted a Twelve-Point Parking Program to ease congestion
and increase the efficiency of existing parking;
prohibited new traffic signals on portions of Alma Street
and Middlefield Road and prohibited a direct connecti::n
from Sand Hill Road to Palo Alto/Alma Street;
directed staff and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to
consider the possibility of an Urban Design Plan for
downtown; and
established a temporary Design and Amenities Committee to
develop an incentive program for private developers to
provide public amenities in the downtown area.
B. In October 1993, the City Council adopted the Downtown
Urban Design Guide, which addresses a variety of transportation,
pedestrian and parking issues, including consideration of Lots S/L
and Lot R as sites for potential parking structures.
C. In March 1994, the City Council approved a
comprehensive parking plan for downtown including consideration of
one or more new parking structures within the University Avenue
Parking Assessment District. Subsequently, the City Counci!
approved a Capital Improvement Program for fiscal year 1994-95 for
purposes of undertaking a Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility
Study. In July 1996, the Planning Commission and ARB reviewed and
commented on the results of the Feasibility Study and the
preliminary design concepts for the two recommended structures. In
July 1997, the City Council directed staff to proceed with
additional steps leading to construction of two parking structures.
In January 1998, the City Council authorized the design of two
parking structures to a 50% completion stage, for purposes of
submitting the projects to assessment proceedings for funding of
the projects.
D. In September 1998, the Department of Public Works
submitted applications for approval of the Lots S/L garage
project(File Nos. 98-ZC-II, 98-ARB-159,-98-EIA-23, and 98-SUB-5)
and the Lot R garage project (File Nos. 98-ZC-12, 98-ARB-180, 98-
EIA-25, and 98-SUB-6).
E. The City issued a Notice of Preparation for the
Environmental Impact Report for the Downtown Parking Garages
projects in August 1998, and duly filed the Notice of Preparation
with the State Clearinghouse on August 3, 1998. Comments on the
NOP were received from interested public agencies for a 30-day
period. Copies of this notice were duly mailed to all identified
responsible agencies, trustee agencies and other public agencies
known to’ be interested in the projects.
990921 sdl 0032247
2
F. The DEIR was released for public review on November
25, 1998. A notice of the availability of the Draft EIR was
published in the Palo Alto Weekly on November 25, 1998. Notices of
availability and/or copies of the DEIR were also mailed to the
State Clearinghouse, to all responsible agencies and to all other
persons who requested notice of the DEIR. A 60-day period {or
public review and .comments on the DEIR was also commenced on
December 9, 1998, and closed on March I0, 1999. Copies of the DEIR
were also made available for public review at the Palo Alto
Planning Department, Palo Alto Public Libraries, and the Palo Alto
Public Works Department.
G. The City Planning Commission conducted a public~
hearing to review the Draft EIR and to receive public Comments on
the DEIR on January 13, 1999. The Planning Commission conducted
further deliberations on the proposed projects and on the DEIR on
July 14 and July 28, 1999. At the recommendation-of the Planning
Commission the subsequently prepared Final EIR ("FEIR") was
expanded to include further evaluation of possible alternatives and
other information concerning the projects.
H. During the public comment period the City received
written and oral comments on the DEIR and on the projects. The
City prepared written responses to all written and oral comments
received during the public comment period on the Draft EIR. These
written responses appear in the FEIR. These responses to comments
address and fully respond to all significant environmental issues
raised in comments on the DEIR.
I. The FEIR was completed and released for public review
on September 13, 1999. Pursuant to Public Resources Code section
21092.5, the City provided copies of the City’s responses to
comments to each public agency which commented on the DEIR.
J. The City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on
the projects and on the EIR on September 27, 1999.The Council
received oral testimony and written comments.
SECTION 2. Certification
Having fully reviewed the information contained in the EIR
and considered the EIR in light of all additional information
received during public hearings on the proposed projects, including
staff reports, oral and written testimony received from other
public agencies and members of the public, additional information
known from reports, studies, proceedings and other matters of
record included or referenced in the administrative record of these
proceedings, the Council hereby finds, declares and certifies that:
A. The Final EIR ("EIR") consists of and includes the
following documents:
990921 sdl 0032247
I. The focused Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR),
dated November 1998, which~consists of the analysis of earth and
geotechnical; biological resources; transportation, parking and
circulation; air quality; noise; and aesthetics and light and glare
Impacts and Mitigations; and
2. The Final Environmental Impact~Report (FEIR), dated
September 1999, which consists of text changes to the DEIR, a list
of individuals, agencies and commissions commenting on the DEIR,
and responses to all relevant ora! and written comments on the
DEIR.
A. The EIR is intended to and does constitute the full
and complete EIR for each of the two individual projects evaluated
in the EIR, including:
Lots S/L, and
Parking Structure located on City owned Parking
Lot R.
Parking Structure located on City owned Parking
B. The EIR is intended for use in all discretionary
approvals granted by the City of Palo Alto and any other agency
having regulatory jurisdiction over the projects.
C. The Draft and Final EIR. were prepared by City staff
and City consultants and have at all times reflected the
independent review and judgment of the City on all matters stated
in the Draft EIR and Final EIR.
D. The EIR has been completed in compliance with all
applicable provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act.
SECTION 3. Consideration of Environmental Impacts,
Mitigation Measures and Alternatives.
I. Review and Considerati.~n of Impacts.
The Council has considered all information contained in the
EIR, as well as all other relevant information received in the
course of evaluation and review of the proposed projects,
concerning all significant and potentially significant
environmental impacts and cumulative impacts of the two proposed
downtown parking garage projects.
2. Mit.~gation Measures.
In reviewing the proposed downtown parking garage projects
and granting discretionary approvals for each project the Counci!
has also fully considered and adopted each of the mitigation
990921 sdl 0032247
measures identified for the significant and potentially
environmental impacts of the projects and has considered each of
the project alternatives identified in the EIR. Pursuant to Public
Resources Code section 21081(a), the Council hereby makes specific
findings concerning the mitigation measures, which have all been
incorporated into or imposed as conditions of approval on the
projects.
4.1 Earth and Geotechnical
4.1.1 Short term soil erosion. Construction of the proposed
projects could result in significant quantities of soil being
eroded off of the sites.
Mitigation Measure 4.1.1 requires implementation of an
erosion and sedimentation plan and use of Best Management Practices
(BMP’s) during construction to reduce the potential for soil
erosion and secondary water quality’degradation. The Council finds
that adoption of this measure will reduce the~ impacts to less than
significant.
4.1.2 .~oildisturbance. Construction of the project would result
in soil disturbance and excavation of approximately 30,000 cubic
yards of earthen material.Some amount of fill material is also
anticipated to be needed.
Mitigation Measure 4.1.2 requires the contractor for the
projects to follow all specific excavation and shoring requirements
contained in the "Geotechnical Investigation" report prepared by
Lowney Associates and attached as an Appendix to the DEIR. The
Council finds that adoption of this measure will reduce the
potential impacts to less than significant.
4.3 Transportation, Parking and Circulation
4.3.1 Short term pa~king loss. A parking shortage of
approximately 180 public parking spaces would occur during the time
required to construct the proposed structures on both project
sites.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.1 requires the City Engineer to
develop and implement, for each of the garages, a short-term
parking management plan for reducing the impacts of loss of the
existing surface parking on Lots R and S/L during construction.
Such plan could include, but not be limited to, identification of
alternate sites for parking, shuttle buses, and construction
phasing. The Council finds that, although the best possible
mitigation would be to find available alternative parking during
construction of the projects, the availability of alternative
parking locations at the time the projects~ are constructed is
990921 sdl 0032247
5
uncertain and speculative, due to the rapidly changing real estate
market in downtown Palo Alto and elsewhere. Therefore, the Council
cannot find with certainty that the identified mitigation measure
will fully mitigate this potential impact, and finds that it
remains significant. A statement of overriding ~onsiderations has
been prepared for this impact. See paragraph 4 of this Section ~.
4.3.2 .~edestrian crossing (S/L Project). Construction of the
proposed garage S/L could increase the amount of pedestrian traffic
between the proposed garage and the City’s Senior Center
immediately west of the site and across Bryant Street. A larger
than average percentage of these pedestrians could be expected to
be physically handicapped, requiring a longer than normal length of
time to cross Bryant Street.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2 requires that traffic calming
devices, such as bu!bouts, special pavement treatments, speed
humps, or some combination of these be installed at the crosswalk
on Bryant Street~ between Garage S/L and the Senior Center. The
mitigation measure requires that the Public Works Department do a
more refined engineering analysis based on the final configuration
of the garage structure, and from that analysis, determine which
specific traffic calming device would be more appropriate. The
Counci! finds that implementation of traffic calming devices will
lessen the effect of this potential impact to less than
significant.
4.4 Air Oualitv.
4.4.1 The construction of the projects could increase dust and
locally elevate levels of PMI0 downwind of construction activity.
Construction dust could create a nuisance at nearby properties.
Mitigation Measure 4.4.1 requires the incorporation of nine
specifically identified measures into the project, which the
Council finds will mitigate the potential impact to less than
significant.
4.5 Nois____~e.
4.5.1 Mechanical noise. Significant noise levels could be
generated from mechanical equipment from the parking structures,
including vent blowers and similar equipment. Impacts could be most
significant to office and retail occupants of the two commercial
buildings located northeast of Lot S/L.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.1 requires that final construction
documents, including plans and specifications, be reviewed and
approved by a qualified acoustical engineer to certify that future
noise levels from vents and mechanical equipment comply with City
990921 sdl 0032247
6
noise standards. The Council finds that implementation of this
measure will reduce the effects of this potential impact to less
than significant.
4.5.2 Operational Noise. Significant noise levels could be
generated from cleaning and operational activities of the two
garages, especially since both facilities are planned to be open to
the public on a 24-hour-a-day basis.
Mitigation Measure 4.5.2 requires that maintenance and
cleaning equipment used in the constructed garages be limited to a
maximum noise exposure level of 75dB at a distance of 25 feet
between the hours of i0:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday to Friday.
The Council finds that this wil! protect the nearby residents from
unreasonable noise from maintenance of the garages, and will reduce
the effects of this potentia! impact to less than significant.
4.6 Aesthetics and Light and,Glare.
4.6.2 Views and Vistas. Construction of Garage S/L would impact
the two existing office and commercial buildings immediately
northeast of the project site by blocking existing views, reducing
the amount of light entering the buildings and creating shade-and
shadow patterns over these buildings.
Mitigation Measure 4.6.2 requires that the Garage S/L
design incorporate certain identified architectural features and
building materials in order to provide a human scale to the
structure. The Council finds that such features will reduce the
effects of the impact to less than significant.
4.6.3 Light and Glare. Construction of both parking structures
could increase the amount of light and glare generated on both
sites.
Mitigation 4.6.3 requires that all lighting be in
conformance with the recommendations of the Illuminating
Engineering Society, to enhance security inside the structures,
without having the inside lighting spill unreasonably on the
outside. The Council finds that implementation of this measure
will reduce the effects of this potential impact to less than
significant.
The Council finds that the mitigation measures and
conditions of approval adopted in connection with the approved
projects avoid or mitigate the adverse environmental impacts of
each of the projects to the maximum extent feasible.
990921 sdl 0032247
7
3.Alternatives Considered.
The Council also finds that the EIR has evaluated a
reasonable range of alternatives for the proposed downtown parking
garage projects. The Council has considered the information in
Section 5 of the DEIR, comments on the Draft EIR and the responses~
to those comments contained in the FEIR, and additional information
received during City review and evaluation of the proposed projects
or known from reports, studies, proceedings and other matters of
record included or referenced in the administrative record of these
proceedings. The Council concludes that the EIR evaluates a range
of reasonable alternatives to the projects, or the location of the
projects, which would feasibly accomplish most of the basic
objectives of the projects. The Council further finds that there
are no additional feasible alternatives to any of the proposed
projects which were unreasonably excluded from consideration in the
EIR.
With regard, specifically, to the "No .Project" alternative,
the Council finds that it is not environmentally superior to the
projects. As identified in Section 1 of this resolution, the City
of Palo Alto has, for many years, studied the issue of downtown and
near-downtown traffic congestion, as exemplified by the parking
deficit, and has implemented policies in furtherance of reducing
that deficit. The studies uniformly conclude that additional
parking structures are needed as one part of the solution, along
with other measures identified in the EIR, such as appointment of
a downtown commute coordinator, neighborhood permit parking, and a
downtown shuttle bus. The Council finds that other alternatives
alone, such as a TDM Program, cannot feasibly reduce the downtown
parking deficit, but should be encouraged in conjunction with the
parking garages.
4. Statement of Overriding Considerations.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 2!081(b), the
Council has further considered the potentially significant
environmental impact of the projects, Impact 4.3.1, loss of short
term parking during construction, which cannot be reduced to less
than a significant level by the mitigation measures and conditions
of approval adopted in connection with the projects. The Council
has further balanced this remaining significant adverse impact of
each project against the potential public, social, economic and
other benefits of the project and determined that the significant
environmental effect is acceptable in light of specific overriding
benefits which justify approval of each of the projects on the
terms and conditions approved by the Counci!. As stated in
paragraph 3 above, the projects were identified by the City Council
several years ago, as a result of continuing studies on the matter,
and identified in the recently adopted Comprehensive Plan, to be
necessary and desirable components of a comprehensive
990921 sdl 0032247
transportation program for the City. Unfortunately, because
sites determined to be the most feasible for constructing the
parking structures are currently used for surface parking} the
temporary loss of parking during construction of each garage is
unavoidable. And because the availability of lind that could be
used for temporary alternate parking at the time of construction is
presently unknown, and speculative, no feasible mitigation measure
is available to fully mitigate this potential short term loss.
However, the Council finds that the construction of the projects
will be as short as reasonably possible and will ultimately result
in an increase in the number of available spaces, which outweighs
the temporary reduction in spaces during construction.
The Council further finds, declares and certifies that this finding
is based on substantia! evidence contained or referenced in the
administrative record and reflects the considered judgment of the
Council.
5. Enz.irQ~ental Effects Found Less .Than Significant.
The Council has also considered the information contained
in the EIR and all other information received during evaluation and
consideration of the projects with respect to any asserted
additional environmental effects of the projects not evaluated in
the EIR. The Council finds that based on all evidence received,
there are no additional significant or potentially significant
adverse environmental effects which may result from any of the
projects which have not been identified and evaiuated in the EIR.
The Council has further considered the evaluation in the EIR of
additional potential environmental impacts which were determined
not to be significant or potentially significant, and finds that
these impacts were correctly analyzed and determined to be less
than significant in the EIR. The Council has not received any
substantial evidence warranting a change in the conclusions stated
in the EIR with respect to any of the impacts identified as less
than significant in the EIR.
In particular, the Council has considered comments
concerning various old and historic buildings located in the
vicinity of the projects, and the historic context of the project
sites. The Council finds that the projects will not significantly
affect any historic structure nor any historic district. Although
there are, indeed, historic structures in the vicinity of the
projects, some quite close by, the eclectic mix of architectural
styles and new and old buildings throughout the downtown area
allows the proposed parking garages to fit compatibly in their
urban context.
990921 sdl 0032247
SECTION 4.
Review Process.
New Information Received During the Public
In the course of continuing environmental review of the
proposed projects, the City has been presen{ed with various
information which was not contained in the DEIR for the proposed
projects and which has been contended by some commentors to
constitute significant new information constituting grounds for
revising and recirculating the EIR for further public review and
comment pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA
Guidelines section 15088.5. The Council has considered all new or
additional information, and all information alleged to be
significant new information received since preparation and
circulation of the DEIR, including all comments and responses to
comments on the DEIR, various changes made to the projects, and all
comments and other information since release of the responses to
comments, and finds that none of the new or allegedly new
information warrants further revision of the EIR or recirculation
of the EIR for further public review and comment. None of the new
or additional information appearing after preparation of the DEIR
indicates that: (i) new significant environmental impacts not
previously considered in the DEIR would result from any of the
projects; (2) there will be a substantial increase in severity of
any impact previously evaluated in the DEIR; (3) new feasible
mitigation measures or alternatives considerably different than
those analyzed in the DEIR has become available and has not been
adopted by the applicant; or (4) the DEIR was so fundamentally
inadequate or conclusory that meaningful public comment was
precluded.
SECTION 5. Comprehensive Plan Consistency.
This Council has reziewed and considered the information
and evidence in the record relating to the consistency of the
projects with the goals, policies and other provisions of the
Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, the discussion
of consistency issues set forth in the EIR, the written and oral
reports provided by staff, and written and oral comments on the
issue, and having also considered the contents of the Comprehensive
Plan, and the reports, studies and proceedings related thereto,
this Council, as the body charged withadopting, interpreting and
applying the goals, policies and provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan, finds that each project as conditioned and approved is fully
consistent with al! applicable goals, policies and other provisions
of the Comprehensive Plan as amended.
SECTION 6. Record of Proceedings.
The documents comprising the record of proceedings in this
matter are located in the offices of the City of Pa!o Alto
Department of Planning and Community Environment. The custodian of
these documents is the Director of Planning and Community
990921 sdl 0032247
10
Environment, 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor, Palo Alto, California,
or his designee.
SECTION 7. Mitigation Monitoring.
The Council hereby directs that the mitigation measures
identified in the EIR and adopted by this Council shall be
monitored by appropriate staff to ensure their implementation and
inclusion in the approved projects. The Council further directs
staff to publish in a separate document for final Council approval,
a list of all mitigation measures and the departments or staff
position(s) so identified to monitor each measure and ensure its
implementation.
SECTION 8. This resolution shall be effective upon the
date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
990921 sdl 0032247
11
Attachment E
Addendum to the FEIR
December 1999
Introduction and Project Location
The Addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) responds to the design
changes that were made to the proposed parking garage at Lots S/L. The scope of
changes includes the relocation of a stair and elevator tower to the middle of the project
site on Bryant Street and a new exterior building design.
445 Bryant Street, Lots S/L: The parking structure is located on approximately
40,400 square feet of land (0.93 acre) with an irregular shape, occupying
approximately one-half of the block bounded by Bryant Street, Lytton Avenue,
Florence Avenue and University Avenue. The parking structure would consist of
seven parking levels; five above ground and two below ground. Approximately
653 vehicle-parking stalls would be located within the garage with a total floor
area of approximately 213,300 square feet.
Other features of the project include a landscaped plaza located on the Bryant
Street side of structure; a light well in the center of the structure to provide light
and air circulation; bicycle lockers and racks; and electric vehicle
hookups/recharging stations. In addition to parking, the structure is proposed to
include space, unusable for parking which would accommodate uses such as a
teen center, offices, retail and/or a minipark. The project budget also includes one
percent (1%) for public art.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) was prepared by staff. It consisted of
responses to all oral and written comments presented during the public review period as
well as text changes made to the DEIR as a result of the staff and public review of the
DEIR and Planning Commission Recommendations on the DEIR. The FEIR was made
available for public review beginning September 13, 1999. A DEIR was prepared as part
of the PC zoning application and was presented to the Planning Commission and ARB.
The DEIR was made available for a 30-day public review period that started on
December 9, 1998 and ended on January 8, 1999. The written comment period was
extended to March 10, 1999.
Addendum to the FEIR
The following Addendum to the FEIR is hereby made and incorporated by reference into
the FEIR document.
4.3- Environmental Setting
The following section is to be added after Pedestrian and bicycle facilities section
on page 40.
Pedestrian and bicycle safety
The alternative design for the. parking garage at Lots S/L relocates the stair and
elevator tower to the middle of the project site on Bryant Street. The tower was
relocated to improve the aesthetics of the building by visually reducing the
massing on the comer of the building. The new location of the tower potentially
impacts the pedestrian and bicycle safety on the site because of the close
proximity to the driveway entrance. However, the proposal incorporates a design
that includes adequate space between the tower and driveway entrance to allow
for pedestrian and bicycle safety. Also, the proposal incorporates a different
pavement pattern to delineate the tower and driveway entrance.
Page 50, Environmental Impact 4.3.2, Pedestrian circulation,
The following mitigation measure will be fulfilled by providing a bulbout from the
project site across to the Senior Center, and will continue to adequately mitigate the
impact to a level of insignificance.
Mitigation Measure 4.3.2., Bulbouts. Bulbouts and!or special pavement will be
considered for an at-grade crosswalk on Bryant Street in order to serve the Senior
Center. Bulbouts and/or special pavement materials would slow automobile
traffic along Bryant Street by reducing the total distance from one side of the
street to the other. Any bulbouts must be constructed in such a way as not to
disrupt drainage on BryantStreet or to be unsafe for bicyclists.
4.6 Aesthetics and Light and Glare
Aesthetics impacts would include obstruction of views and vistas or the creation of an
aesthetically offensive view to the public.
Page 71, Environmental Impact 4.6.1, On-site aesthetics, is revised (revision in Italics).
Environmental Impact 4.6.1, On site aesthetics. Construction of the proposed
parking garages would result in a significant change to the visual character of the
two sites and the immediate areas surrounding the sites. Existing surface parking
lots would be converted to multi-story parking garages. This impact is considered
significant although not adverse due to the incorporation of architectural features
and landscaping to make the two structures visually attractive. Existing trash
durnpsters on the surface parking lots would be relocated to standardized trash
enclosures to match the design of the parking garages. The proposed alternative
design significantly reduces the visual impacts on the subject property and the
surrounding area. The alternative design incorporates changes to the exterior
architecture that reduce the potential impacts of bulk, height and scale; ensure
that the new design is in context with its surrounding," and "blend" with the
existing offices and retail buildings in downtown Palo Alto. The exterior
treatment of the garages would be consistent in materials, colors and details with
the existing buildings in the downtown area. This impact is considered not
significant due to the incorporation of architectural features and landscaping to
make the two structures visu.ally attractive.
No mitigation measures are required.
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08. 040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 445 BRYANT
STREET (PARKING LOTS S/L) FROM PF AND CD-C (P) TO PC
Attachment
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i
(a) The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing, and the Architectural Review Board, after duly noticed
public hearing, 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 duly noticed public hearing,
and upon due consideration of the recommendations and of all
testimony offered upon the matter, 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 445 Bryant Street (the "subject
property") from "PF Public Facility" and ~CD-C(P)Commercial
District (Community), Pedestrian Combining" to "PC Planned
Community." The subject property is shown on hhe 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:
The site is so situated, and the use proposed for
the site is of such a characteristic that the
application of general districts or combining
districts will not provide sufficient flexibility
to allow the proposed development. The proposed
use is a multistory parking garage, which has been-
identified as a major public need in the downtown
area, and such a use cannot be feasibly constructed
within the available space under any other existing
zoning classification.
990708 sdl 0032195
Development of the site under the provisions of the
PC Planned Community district will result in public
benefits not otherwise attainable by application of
the regulations of general districts or combining
districts. The primary purpose and the majpr
public benefit of the deve!opment is to provide
much needed public parking, which wil! reduce the
current parking deficit in the downtown area.
Other public benefits of the project include a
landscape plaza on Bryant Street, electrical
connections fox electric vehicles and incorporation
of public art.
(c)The use permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
as detailed in the Staff Report to the Planning
Commission for the Agenda of July 14, 1999. The
permitted uses and site development regulations are
compatible with existing and potentia! uses on
adjoining sites or in the genera! vicinity, as
follows: i) the parking structure will provide
public parking to support commercia! uses in the
area; 2) the leased space will be one or more of
the following: (i) a ground floor retail or other
pedestrian-oriented use; (ii) a teen center; and
(iii) office use. Either a retail or other
pedestrian-oriented use would be similar to other
ground floor uses in the vicinity, and a teen
center would merely replace an existing teen center
use, which has operated compatibly with surrounding
uses. Office use above the ground floor is also
similar to many surrounding uses.
SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled ~445 Bryant Street
(parking lots S/L)" prepared by The Watry Design Group and
Komorous-Towey Architects, dated March 5, 1999, a copy of which is
on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy
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 Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited
to a multistory parking facility, with auto and pedestrian
circulation, auto and bicycle parking, landscaping, lighting and
990708 sdl 0032195
accessory uses, including bathrooms and storage. Other uses
may be made from space deemed unusable for parking, include one or
more of the following uses in addition to parking: (a) retail or
other pedestrian-oriented ground floor use; a teen center; and
office use above the ground floor.
that~
permitted.
Conditional Uses.No conditional uses shall be
(c) Site Development Regulations. All improvements and
development shall be substantiallyin accordance with the approved
Deve!opment Plan, which shall be amended as required to comply with
the Special Requirements set forth in subparagraph (e), and with
all applicable codes and ordinances, and with the requirements of
the Director of Public Works, the Director of Utilities, and the
Fire Chief.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements The parking
governing the subject property shall be in accordance with the
Development Plan, which shall be amended as required to comply with
the Special Requirements set forth in subparagraph (e).
(e) Special Requirements. The Conditions of Approval
adopted by the City Council in approving this ordinance, attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference, are
hereby approved as the special requirements of the PC zone
established by this ordinance, as are the Mitigation Measures
described in the Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigations,
Draft Environmental Impact Report (98-EIA-23), prepared by Jerry
Haag, dated November, 1998. To the extent of a conflict between
the Development Plan and these special requirements, these special
requirements shall apply.
(f) Development Schedule. Construction shall commence on
or before January I, 2001 and shall be completed and ready for
occupancy on or before January I, 2008.
SECTION 5. The City Council adopts this ordinance in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
findings adopted by Resolution No.
//
//
//
990708 sdl 0032195
3
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective upon 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
4
990708 sdl 0032195
EXHIBIT "A"
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
File #: 98-ZC-II;98-ARB-159;98-EIA-23;98-SUB-5 Scale: 1" = 300’
EXHIBIT "B"
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PC ZONE CHANGE
445 Bryant Street (Lots.S/L)
File Nos. 98-ZC-11, 98-ARB-159, 98-EIA-23 and 98-SUB-5
Prior to Demolition
1. Construction plans shall
materials through:
include specific steps in recovering recyclable "
Recovery of concrete, asphalt, and other inert solids;
¯Rec.overy of scrap metals;
¯Siting container at the construction site for cardboard,
container, wood, and other recylable materials.
¯Recovery of concrete, asphalt, and other inert solids;
beverage
Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the
Building Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in place
before demolition or grading or building permit will be issued, unless
otherwise approved by the City Planning Arborist..
Protective Tree Fencing: All trees to be retained, as shown on tl~e approved
plans shall be protected during construction to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply to all
trees to be retained.
All existing trees to be retained shall be protected with five-foot high
chain link fences enclosing the entire dripline under the trees.* Each
tree shall be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts,
driven into the ground every 10 feet to a depth of at least 2-feet. The
fences shall be erected before construction begins and shall remain in
place until final inspection, except during work specifically required in
the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (As
shown on Public Workg Standard Specification Detail #505, which
shall appear on the plans.)
For trees situated within a narrow planting strip, only the planting
strip should be enclosed with the required protective fencing in
order to keep the sidewalk and street open for public use.
Trees situated in a small tree well or sidewalkplanter pit, shall be
wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing from the ground
No
to the first branch with 2-inch thick wooden slats bound securely
with additional orange plastic fencing (which shall not be allowed
to dig into the bark). During installation of the plastic fencing,
caution shall be used to avoid damaging any branches. Major
scaffold limbsmay also require plastic fencing as directed by the
City Planning Arborist.
~: A "Warning" sign shall be prominently displayed on each tree
protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-inches square and
shall state: "PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING - This fence shall not be
removed without approval. Violators will be prosecuted and are subject
t6 fine pursuant Section 8.10.110 of the PAMC."
Prior to Ass,essment District Preceedings
4. Preliminary review and comments by the Public Arts Commission on the
proposed public art.
o Final design plans for Architectural Review Board review and approval
including:
Exterior lighting plan designed to eliminate glareand spillover beyond the
perimeter of the development. Lighting shall be in conformance with
recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering Society. All street
lighting must be as previously approved by ARB for street light poles and
fixtures;
¯Longitudinal and cross sections for the site and structu}es including sections
through the ramps indicating that the ramp slope does not exceed 7 percent;
¯Final design details including exterior walls, awnings, railings, rain leaders,
trellises, etc.;
Initial proposal for the public art proposed within the project;
Final building materials and colors including a color and materials board;
Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site
plantable areas out to the curb. A Landscape Water Use statement, water
use calculations and a statement of design intent. These 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: 1) the City. of Palo Alto Landscape Plan Checklist;
and 2) the Water-Conservation Guidelines. The plan shall include:
a.All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed
b.Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and
locations
c.Irrigation schedule and plan including locations and screening of
backflow preventers.
d.A dedicated irrigation water meter is required, and a Maximum Water
Allowance will be applied.
Minimum sight distance triangles must be provided at each vehicular exit
from each garage, in accordance with PAMC 18.83.110, Figure 6. Proposed
plans must provide a detail for each exit to show that this requirement is
met;
Minimum sight distance triangles must be provided at each end of the alley
on the south east side of the.parking structure;
Final plans must show the interface between the public alley and the
structure, especially where the alley meets Florence and Bryant;
Provide pedestrian entrances on Bryant and Florence to serve people
heading to/from the north (Lytton Avenue area);.
.The bicycle parking location shall be relocated or redesigned to eliminate
the exposure to vehicular movements and direct pedestrian access provided
without using the vehicular entry; and
Details must be provided for the curb extensions (bulbouts) for Bryant
Street midblock crosswalk.
6.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be replaced in accordance with Public
works approved standards.
7.Complete and submit an electric load sheet along with a single line diagram
and a site plan to Utilities Engineering for determination of service needs and
if required, the size of transformers needed to provide the service.
8.The site plan must indicate adequate space to accommodate the recyclables
generated by the proposed retail and/or office space or Teen Center uses.
Revised plans should show enclosure with space for: 2-cubic yard container
for cardboard;.~o, 95-gallon bins for newspaper and white paper; four, 64-
gallon containers-for glass~ plastic bottles, aluminum cans, mixed paper; and
a trash container. A Solid Waste Management and Recycling Plan must also
be submitted, which shows plans to recover demolition and construction
materials.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
9. As part of the approval of detailed construction plans, plans shall have to be -
prepared for the modification of the parking T’s and parking signage along
the ful! block face on both frontages.
10.A storin water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be incorporated into
the project plans. The SWPPP shall include both temporary Best
Management Practices (BMP’s)to be implemented during construction and
permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water
quality.
11.A construction logistics plan shall b.e provided, addressing at a minimum
parking, truck routes and staging, materials delivery and storage, and the
provision for pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction
site. All truck routes shall conform with the City ofPalo Alto’s Truck Route
Ordinance, and the route map which outlines truck routes available
throughout the City of Palo Alto.
12.Automatic fire .sprinklers shall be provided in accordance with NFPA 13
(1996 Ed.) and Chapter 9 of the California Building Code. Fire Department
access, water supply and hydrants shall be accordance with Article 9 of the
California Fire Code. Class 1 stand pipes shall be provided with connections
within 300 feet of any interior portion of the structure. The elevators shall
be gumey-accessible. Fire hydrant(s) shall be placed in accordance with
Chapter 15 of the PAMC.
13.Finalization of the proposed public art feature(s) as approved by the Public
Arts Commission and the ARB.
During Construction
14. The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any
publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction,
pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
15.The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained
(See Public Works Tree Protection Drawing #505):
No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles o~: equipment shall be permitted
within the tree enclosure area.
b. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered.
16.
Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as
necessary to ensure survival.
All new trees shall be planted as per Public Works Standard Tree Well
Diagram #504 and have the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the
root ball. This diagram shall be shown on the landscape plan.
Attachment G
STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL
445 Bryant Street .(Lots S/l),
File Nos. 98-ZC-11, 98-ARB-159, 98-EIA-23 and 98-SUB-5
ARB Standards per Chapter 16.48.120 of the PAMC.
The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s
comprehensive plan (Standard #al) The proposed project is consistent and compatible
with the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed
development conforms to the development standards for the Planned Community
designation. The project is consistent with the Policies and Programs of the adopted
1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan specifically: Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in
the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address
long-range needs; Program T-50: Continue wbrking with merchants, the Chamber of
Commerce, neighbors, and a parking consultant to explore options for constructing new
parking facilities or using existing parking more efficiently; and point 10 of the adopted
13-Point Parking Program: Pursue a new parking structure forLots S and L and. any
other feasible sites (including consideration of removing the former Palo Alto Board of
Realtors structure in order to facilitate construction on Lots S and L).
The design, is compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard #a2) The
project design and proposed improvements are compatible with the immediate
environment and the surrounding environment in that the proposal is similar in scope and
scale to existing development in the Downtown Area of University Avenue and High
Street, is consistent with the proposed zoning and addresses a need for additional parking
for the surrounding environment.
The design is appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3) The proposed
design is appropriate to the function of the project in that it incorporates features to
reduce the impacts of the parking structures, provides pedestrian amenities and
incorporates a landscaped plaza.
Whether the design is compatible with character in areas that have a unified design
character or historical character (Standard #a4). The site is not located in an area which
has a unified design or historical character.
The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale and character in areas between
different designated land uses (Standard #a5). The proposed project design promotes
harmonious transitions in scale between the differently designated land uses in that the
structure have been designed to provide setbacks, notches in upper floors, articulation of
facades and building height variations.
The design is compatible with improvements both on and off the site (Standard #a6) The
design is compatible with approved improvements both on- and off-site in that the
architectural improvements are generally consistent with the scale and design of buildings
in the vicinity, and the access is appropriately located.
The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
internal sense of order and providea desirable environment for occupants, visitors and
the general community (Standard #a7). The planning and siting of the proposed parking
garage creates an internal sense of order and provides a desirable environment for users,
visitors, and the community in that the project includes exterior architectural features that
compliment a commercial/office look, a landscaped plaza of outdoor public space that
would provide oppommities for socialization, increased parking in the downtown, and
an improved pedestrian environment through the block.
The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the
function of the structures (Standard #a8). The proposed amount and arrangement of open
space provided by the landscaped plaza, the pedestrian connection through the block.and
ancillary landscaped areas is appropriate to the design and function of the project and
consistent with requirements in the zone district.
Sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the project
and whether the same are compatible with the project’s design concept (Standard #a9).
The proposed project will improve the ancillary functions of the project vicinity by
providing increased off-street parking spaces and bicycle parking in the downtown.
The access to the property and circulation theron are safe and convenient for
pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles. (Standard #al O). Access to the property and circulation
for both drivers and pedestrians would be provided in a safe and convenient manner.
Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated with the project (Standard
#all). Natural features are appropriately integrated into the project in that the landscape
plan provides for a total of 13 street trees along portions of the three street frontages, and
two additional trees and hardscape in the. landscaped plaza. Landscaping in elevated
planters are also shown near the vehicular entrances.
The materials, texture, colors, and details construction and plant material are
appropriate expression to the design and function (Standard#a12). The proposed
architecture and building materials are appropriate for the building type and are
compatible with the mix of architecture styles found in the downtown area.
The landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant masses,
open space, scale, plant forms an.d foliage textures and colors create a desirable and
functional environment and the landscape concept depicts an appropriate unity with the
various building on the site (Standard #a13). The proposed landsc.ape design offers visual
relief from the building fagade, adds visual interest, and helps by providing some human
scale along the project perimeter. The plaza on the west side adds visual interest, and is
an aesthetically pleasing place. The project will incorporate public artwork, all of which
adds to the desirability and functionality of the projects’ environment.
Whether plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
maintain on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance (Standard #a14). The
proposed plant material is suitable and adaptable to the region and the site and can be
properly maintained on the site. The proposed plantings are appropriate for outdoor use
and include a mix of trees and box plantings, suitable for commercial developments in
the downtown area.
The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements
(Standard #a 15). The proposed structure is designed to be energy efficient by using an
open plan and preclude mechanical ventilation on upper floors, will include energy
efficient lighting and include features to meet building code requirements for energy
efficiency.
Attachment H
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP
445 Bryant Street (Lots S/L)
File Nos. 98-ZC-11, 98-ARB-159, 98-EIA-23 and 98-SUB-5
The proposed Tentative Map, design and improvements of the
subdivision is consistentwith the applicable general and specifie plan.
The proposed subdivision and development of a parking structure on the
site is consistent with the Policies and Programs of the adopted 1998-
2010 Comprehensive Plan, specifically: Policy T-45: Provide sufficient
parking in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue
business districts to address long-range needs; Program T-50: Continue
working with merchants, the Chamber of Commerce, neighbors, and a
parking consultant to explore options for constr’ueting new parking
facilities or using existing parking more efficiently; point 10 of the
adopted 13-Point Parking Program: Pursue a new parking structure for
Lots S and L and any other feasible sites (including consideration of
removing the former Palo Alto Board Of Realtors structure in order to
facilitate construction on Lots S and L); and Program L-78: Encourage
the use of Planned Community (PC)zOning for parking structures
Downtown and in the California Avenue area.
The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is
physically suitable for the project parking structure because the site was
identified in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-201Oas a potential
parcel for the construction of a parking structure.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the
development. The proposed density of the development is consistent
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Program L-78: Encourage the
use of Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures
Downtown and in the California Avenue area. This program recognizes
that parking structures located in downtown would not conform to
existing zoning. The proposal will be rezoned as a PC Planned
Community District that allows flexibility in height, setbacks and other
typical development regulations. The specific regulations required for
the proposed parking structure are substantially similar to those of other
developments in a PC Zone District.
The design of the subd~, ision and the proposed improvements will not
cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. There are environmental impacts
associated with the project, but all can be mitigated except the
unavoidable temporary loss of parking spaces. Refer to the DEIR for
further analysis (see Attachment C).
6.
The design of the subdivision or improvement will cause serious health
problems. The design of the new subdivision and proposed parking
structure will not result in serious public health problems, in that, all
necessary public services including public utilities are available and will
be provided to the site.
The designof the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict
with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or
use of property within the proposed subdivision. The new lot pattern
and proposed parking structure do not conflict with existing public
easement for access through the use of the property. The resulting lot
has accessto a public street and the required cross-access easement will
assure access to the parking structure and driveways for the life of the
use.
Attachment I
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. FOR
TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP
445 Bryant Street (Lots S/L)
File Nos. 98-ZC-11, 98-ARB-159, 98-EIA-23 and 98-SUB-5
All conditions of approval as listed below shall be incorporated as a
part of this approval.
The applicant shall apply for a Tract Map Number from the County
Recording office.
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 shall demonstrate that pre-existing
drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered.
Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto
Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards.
The property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary
lease t}om 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. PAMC, Section
12.12.010.
A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at
minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and
provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the
construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo
Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the
attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout
the City of Palo Alto.
The applicant shall obtain a permit for Construction in a Public Street
from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City
right-of-way. Sec. 12.08.010.
o The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works
Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during
construction.
A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes
information on water-table and basement construction issues.
10.
11.
To reduce dust levels, it shaI1 be required that exposed earth surfaces
be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations
along or across any public or 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.
The Contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at 496-
6929 prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way.
Sectionl2.08.060.
12.
13.
No storage of.construction materials is permitted in the street or on the
sidewalk, without prior approval of Public Works Engineering.
The developer shall require its contractor to .incorporate best
management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater 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 developer’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, sawcut slurry, paintl chemicals,
etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains.
14.
15.
All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other
property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard
Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments.
All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed
and replaced in compliance with the Public Works approved standards.
16.The Public Works Inspector shall sign offthe building permit prior to
the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvement shall be
finished prior to this sign-off.
Prior to submittal of final M~p
17. The applicant shall arrange a meeting to discuss the improvement
plans necessary for the project with Public Works Engineering,
Planning, Fire and Transportation departments. These improvement
plans must be completed and approved by the City prior to submittal
of a final map.
18.All construction within the City right-or-way, easements or other
property under the City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard
specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments.
Attachment J
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 528 HIGH
STREET (PARKING LOT R)FROM PF TO PC
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION I.
(a) The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing, and theArchitectural Review Board, after duly noticed
public hearing, 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 duly noticed public hearing,
and upon due consideration of the recommendations and of all
testimony offered upon the matter, 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 528 High Street (the "subject property)
from "PF Public Facility" 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 use proposed for
the site is of such a characteristic that the
application of general districts or combining
districts will not provide sufficient flexibility
to allow the proposed development. The proposed
use is a multistory parking garage, which has been
identified as a major public need in the downtown
area, and such a use cannot be feasibly constructed
within the available space under any other existing
zoning classification.
(b)Development of the site under the provisions of the
PC Planned Community district will result in public
benefits not otherwise attainable by application of
the regulation~ of general districts or combining
1
990708 sdl 0032194
(c)
districts. The primary purpose and the major
public benefit of the development is to provide
much neededpublic parking, which will reduce the
current parking deficit in the. downtown area.
Other public benefits of the project include a
landscape plaza and pedestrian access through the
block; electrical connections for electric
vehicles; and incorporation of public art.
The use permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
as detailed in the Staff Report to the Planning
Commission for the Agenda of July 14, 1999. The
permitted use and site development regulations are
compatible with existing and potential uses on
adjoining sites or in the general vicinity, because
it wil! provide public parking to support the
commercial uses in the area.
SECTION 4. Those certain plans for Scheme "B", entitled
~528 High Street (Lot R)" prepared by The Watry Design Group and
Komorous-Towey Architects, dated March 5, 1999 a copy of which is
on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy
reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development
Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipa! Code
section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the
following uses, and subject to. the following conditions:
(a) Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited
to a multistory public parking facility that includes auto and
bicycle parking; auto and pedestrian circulation; landscaping and
lighting; and accessory uses, such as bathrooms and storage.
(b)
permitted.
Conditional Uses.No conditional uses shall be
(c) Site Development Regulations. All improvements and
development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved
Development Plan, which shall be amended as required to comply with
the Special Requirements set forth in subparagraph (e), and with
al! applicable codes and ordinances, and with the requirements of
the Director of Public Works, the Director of Utilities and the
Fire Chief.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements. The parking
governing the subject -property shall be in accordance with the
Development Plan, which shall be amended as required to comply with
the Special Requirements set forth in subparagraph (e).
990708 s~ 0032194
(e) Special Requirements. The Conditions of Approval
adopted by the City Council. in approving this ordinance, attached
hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference, are
hereby approved as the special requirements of the PC zone
established by this ordinance as are the Mitigation Measur@s
identified in the Summary of Environmental Impacts and Mitigations,
Draft Environmenta! Impact Report (98-EIA-23), prepared by Jerry
Haag, dated November, 1998. 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. To the extent of a conflict between the
Development Plan and these special requirements, these special
requirements shal! apply.
(f) Development Schedule. Construction shall c~mmence
on or before January I, 2001 and shall be completed and readyfor
occupancy on or before January i, 2008.
SECT.I.ON 5. The City Council adopts this ordinance in
accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA")
findings adopted by Resolution No.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective upon 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
3
990708 s~ 0032194
EXHIBIT "A"
PF
Project: 528 High Street (lot R)
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
Date:-7-14-99 File #: 98-ZC-12;98-ARB-180;98-EIA-25;98-SUB-6 Scale: 1"= 300’
North
EXHIBIT "B"
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR A PC ZONE CHANGE
528 High street (Lot R)
File Nos. 98-ZC-12, 98-ARB-180, 98-EIA-25
Prior to Demolition
1. Construction plans shall include specific steps in recovering recyclable
materials through:
¯" Recovery of concrete, asphalt, and other inert solids;
¯Recovery of scrap metals;
¯Salvage of building fixtures and other re-useable items; and
¯Siting containers at the construction~site for cardboard, beverage
containers, wood, and other recyclable materials.
Tree Protection Statement: A written statement shall be provided to the
Building Department verifying that protective fencing for the trees is in
place before demolition or grading or building permit will be issued, unless
otherwise approved by the City Planning Arborist.
o Protective Tree Fencing: All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved
plans shall be protected during construction to the satisfaction of the City
Planning Arborist. The following tree preservation measures apply to all
trees to be retained.
ao All existing trees to be retained shall be protected with five-foot
high chain link fences enclosing the entire dripline under the
trees.* Each tree shall be mounted on two-inch diameter
galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground every 10 feet to a
depth of at least 2-feet. The fences shall be erected before
construction begins and shall remain in place until final
inspection, except during work specifically required in the
approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (As
shown on Public Works Standard Specification Detail #505,
which shall appear on the plans.)
For trees situated within a narrow planting strip, only the
planting strip should be enclosed with the required
protective fencing in order to keep the sidewalk and street
open for public use.
Trees situated in a small tree well orsidewalkplanter
shall be wrapped with 2-inches of orange plastic fencing
fromthe ground to the first branch with 2-inch thick
wooden slats bound securely with additional orange plastic
fencing (which shall not be allowed to dig into the bark).
During installation of the plastic fencing, caution shall be
used to avoid damaging any branches. Major scaffold
limbs may also require plastic fencing as directed by the
City Planning Arborist.
Signs: A "Warning" sign shall be prominently displayed on
each tree protection fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 18-
inches square and shall state: "PROTECTIVE TREEFENCING
- This fence shall not be removed without approval. Violators
will be prosecuted and are subject to fine pursuant Section ’
8.10.110 of the PAMC."
Prior to Assessment District Proceedings.
4. FormalReview and comments by the Public Arts Commission on the
proposed public art.
Final design plans for Architectural Review Board review and approval
including:
Exterior lighting plan designed to eliminate glare and spillover
beyond the perimeter of the development. Lighting shall be in
conformance with recommendations of the Illuminating Engineering
Society. All street lighting must be as previously approved by ARB
for street light poles and fixtures;
Final design details including exterior walls, awnings, railings, rain
leaders, trellises, etc.;
Final building materials and colors including a color and materials
board;
Initial proposal for the public art proposed within the project;
Detailed landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-
site plantable areas out to the curb. A Landscape Water Use
statement, water use calculations and a statement of design intent.
These 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: 1) the City. of Palo
Alto Landscape Plan Checklist; and 2) the Water-Conservation
Guidelines. The plan shall include:
ao All existing trees identified both to be retained and
removed
No Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species,
quantity, size, and locations
Co Irrigation schedule and plan including locations and
screening of backflow preventers.
d°A dedicated irrigation water meter is required, and a
Maximum Water Allowance will be applied.
Minimum sight distance triangles must be provided at each vehicular
exit, in accordance with PAMC 18.83.110, Figure 6. Proposed plans
must provide a detail for each exit to show that this requirement is
met;
Provide pedestrian entrances on Alma and High Streets to serve
people heading to/from the south (Hamilton Avenue area);
Show the Blockbuster installed bike rack on the plans. Some of the
project bike racks should be relocated to the northeasterly side of the
project, preferably near the plaza; and
The design and interface of the storage area and bicycle parking
location shall be clarified or redesigned to eliminate the conflict
between vehicular and pedestrian movements.
o
All sidewalks bordering the project shall be replaced in accordance with
Public works approved standards.
Complete and submit an electric load sheet along with a single line diagram
and a site plan to Utilities Engineering for determination of service needs
and if required, the size of transformers needed to provide the service.
The site plan must indicate adequate space to acco~, odatethe recyclables
generated by the proposed retail and/or office-space or Teen Center uses.-
Revised plans should show enclosure with space for: 2-cubic yard container
for cardboard; two, 95-gallon bins for newspaper and white paper; four 64-
gallon containers for glass, plastic bottles, aluminum cans, mixed paper;
and a trash container. A Solid Waster Management and Recycling Plan
must also be submitted, which shows plans to recover demolition and
construction materials.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
9. As part of the approval of detailed construction plans, plans will have to be
prepared for the modification of the parking T’s and parking signage along
the full block face on both frontages.
10.A storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) shall be incorporated
into the project plans. The SWPPP shall include both temporary Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) to be implemented during construction and
permanent BMP’s to be incorporated into the project to protect storm water
quality.
11.A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at a minimum
parking, truck routes and staging, materials delivery and storage, and the
provision for pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction
site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Truck Route
Ordinance, Chapter 1048, and the route map which outlines truck routes
available throughout the City of Palo Alto.
12.Automatic fire sprinklers shall be provided in accordance with NFPA 13
(1996 Ed.) and Chapter 9 of the California Building Code. Fire Department
access, water supply and hydrants shall be accordance with Article 9 of the
California Fire Code. Class 1 stand pipes shall be provided with
connections within 300 feet of any interior portion of the structure. The
elevators shall be gurney-accessible. Fire hydrant(s) shall be placed in
accordance with Chapter 15 of the PAMC.
Finalization of the proposed public art feature(s) as approved by the Public
Arts Commission and the ARB.
During Construction
14. All neighbors trees that overhang the project site shall be protected from
impact of any kind.
15.The applicant shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any
publicly owned trees that are damaged during the course of construction,.
pursuant to Section 8.04.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
16.The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained
(See Public Works Tree Protection Drawing #505):
No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be
permitted within the tree enclosure area.
No The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be
altered, i,
Co Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as
necessary to ensure survival.
17.All new trees shall be planted as per Public Works Standard Tree Well
Diagram #504 and have the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the "
root ball. This diagram shall be shown on the landscape plan.
Attachment K
STAFF PROPOSED FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL
528 High Street (Lot..R)
File Nos. 98-ZC-12, 98-ARB-180, 98-EIA-25 and 98-SUB-6
ARB Standards per Chapter 16.48.120 of the PAMC.
The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the city’s
comprehensive plan (Standard #al) The proposed project is consistent and compatible
with the applicable elements of the City’s Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed
development conforms to the development standards for the Planned Community
designation. The project is consistent with the Policies and Programs of the adopted
1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan specifically: Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in
the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address
long-range needs; Program T-50: Continue working with merchants, the Chamber of
Commerce, neighbors, and a parking consultant to explore options for constructing new
parkingfacilities or using existing parking more efficiently," and point 10 of.the adopted
13-Point Parking Program: Pursue a new parking structure for Lots S and L and any
. other feasible sites (including consideration of removing the former Palo Alto Board of
Realtors structure in order to facilitate construction on Lots S and L).
The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard #a2) The
project design and proposed improvements are compatible with the immediate
environment and the surrounding environment in that the proposal is similar in scope and
scale to existing development in the Downtown Area of University Avenue and High
Street, is consistent with the proposed zoning and addresses a need for additional parking
for the surrounding environment.
The design is appropriate to the function of the project (Standard #a3) The proposed
design is appropriate to the function of the project in that it incorporates features to
reduce the impacts of the parking structures, provides pedestrian amenities and
incorporates a landscaped plaza.
Whether the design is compatible with character in areas that have a unified design
character or historical character (Standard #a4). The site is not located in an area which
has a unified design or historical character.
S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:528high.pw
The design promotes harmonious transitions in scale’and character in areas between
different designated land uses (Standard #a5). The proposed project design promotes
harmonious transitions in scale between the differently designated land uses in that the
structure have been designed to provide setbacks, notches in upper floors, articulation of
facades and building height variations.
The design is compatible with improvements both on and off the site (Standard #a6) The
design is not compatible with approved improvements both on- and off-site in that the
architectural improvements are generally consistent with the scale and design of buildings
in the vicinity, and the access is appropriately located.
The planning and siting of the various functions and buildings on the site create an
internal sense of order and provide a desirable environment for occupants, visitors and
the general community (Standard #a7). The planning and siting of the proposed parking
garage creates an internal sense of order and provides a desirable environment for users,
visitors, and the community in that the project includes exterior architectural features that
compliment a commercial/office 10ok, increased parking in the downtown, a landscaped
plaza of outdoor public space that would provide opportunities for socialization, and an
improved pedestrian environment through the block.
The amount and arrangement of open space are appropriate to the design and the
function of the structures (Standard #a8). The proposed amount and arrangement of open
space provided by the landscaped plaza, the pedestrian connection through the block and
ancillary landscaped areas is appropriate to the design and function of the project and
consistent with requirements in the zone district.
The sufficient ancillary functions are provided to support the main functions of the
project and whether the same are compatible with the project’s design concept
(Standard #a9). The proposed project will improve the ancillary functions of the project
vicinity by providing increased off-street parking spaces and bicycle parking in the
downtown.
The access to the property and circulation theron are safe and convenient for
pedestrians, cyclist and vehicles. (Standard #al O). Access to the property and circulation
for both drivers and pedestrians would be provided in a safe and convenient manner.
That natural features area appropriatbly preserved and integrated with the project
(Standard #all). Natural features are appropriately integrated into the project in that the
landscape plan provides for a total of 4 street trees along portions of the two street
frontages, and two additional trees and hardscape in the landscaped plaza. Landscaping
S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:528high.pw
in elevated planters are also shown near the vehicular entrances on Alma and High
Streets.
The materials, texture, colors, and details construction and plant material are
appropriate expression to the design and function (Standard#al2). The proposed
architecture and building materials are appropriate for the building type and are
compatible with the mix of architecture styles found in the downtown area.
Whether the landscape design concept for the site, as shown by the relationship of plant
masses, open space, scale, plant forms and foliage textures and colors create a desirable
and functional environment and whether the landscape concept depicts an appropriate
unity with the various building on the site (Standard #a13). The proposed landscape
design offers visual-relief fi’om the building fagade, adds visual interest, and helps by
providing some human scale along the project perimeter. The plaza on the north side adds
visual interest, provides access through the block and is an aesthetically pleasing place.
The project will incorporate public artwork, all of which adds to the desirability and
functionality of the projects’ environment.
Whether plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly
maintain on the site, and is of a variety which would tend to be drought-resistant and to
reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance (Standard #a14). The
proposed plant material is suitable and adaptable to the region and the site and can be
properly maintained on the site. The proposed plantings are appropriate for outdoor use
and include a mix of trees and box plantings, suitable for commercial developments in
the downtown area.
The design is energy efficient and incorporates renewable energy design elements
(Standard #a 15). The proposed structure is designed to be energy efficient by using an
open plan and preclude mechanical ventilation on upper floors, will include energy
efficient lighting and include features to meet building code requirements for energy
efficiency.
S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:528high.pw
Attachment L
DRAFT FINDINGS FOR TENTATIVE SUBDMSION MAP
528 High. Street .(Lot R)
File Nos. 98-ZC-12, 98-ARB-180, 98-EIA-25 and 98-SUB-6 .
The proposed Tentative Map, design and improvements of the subdivision is "
consistent with the applicable general and specific plan. The proposed
subdivision and development of a parking structure on the site is consistent
with the Policies and Programs of the adopted 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan,
specifically: Policy T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University
Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue business districts to address long-
range needs; Program T-50: Continue working with merchants, the Chamber of
Commerce, neighbors, and aparking consultant to explore options for
constructing new parking facilities or using existing parking more efficiently,"
point 10 of the adopted 13-Point Parking Program: Pursue a newparking
structure for Lots S and L and any other feasible sites (including consideration
of removing the former Palo Alto Board of Realtors structure in order to
facilitate construction on Lots S and L); and Program L-78: Encourage the use
of Planned Community (PC) zoning for parking structures Downtown and in
the California Avenue area.
.The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is
physically suitable for the project parking structure because the site was
identified in the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 1998-2010 as a potential parcel
for the construction of a parking structure.
The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of the development.
The proposed density of the development is consistent with the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan Program L-78: Encourage the use of Planned Community
(PC) zoning for parking structures Downtown and in the California Avenue
area. This program recognizes that parking structures located in downtown
would not conform to existing zoning. The proposal will be rezoned as a PC
Planned Community District that allows flexibility in height, setbacks and
other typical development regulations. The specific regulations required for
the proposed parking structure are substantially similar to those of other
developments in a PC Zone District.
S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:528high.pw
o The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or
wildlife or their habitat. There are environmental impacts associated with the
project, but all can be mitigated except the unavoidable temporary loss of
parking spaces. Refer to the DEIR for further analysis (see Attachment C).
The design of the subdivision or improvement will cause serious health
problems. The design of the new subdivision and proposed parking structure
will not result in serious public health problems, in that, all necessary public
services including public utilities are available and will be provided to the site.
The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of
property within the proposed subdivision. The new lot pattern and proposed
parking structure do not conflict with existing public easement for access
through the use of the property. The resulting lot has access to a public street
and the required cross-access easement will assure access to the parking
structure and driveways for the life of the use.
S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:528high.pw
Attachment M
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL OF SUBDIVISION
528 High Street .(Lot R)
File Nos. 98-ZC-12, 98-ARB-180, 98-EIA-25 and 98-SUB-6
All conditions of approval as listed below shall be incorporated as a part of this
approval.
The applicant shall apply for a Tract Map Number from the County Recording
office.
o
The applicant shall submit a fmal grading and drainage plan to Public Works
Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties.
The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patternsto and from
adjacent properties are not altered.
Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Pal. Alto Building
Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 1 O0 cubic yards.
The property owner 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. PAMC, Section 12.12.010.
A construction logistics plan shall be provided, addressing at minimum
parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and provision 0fpedestrian
and vehicular traffic adjacent to the Construction site. All truck routes shall
conform with the City of Pal. Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance,
Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available
throughout the City of Pal. Alto.
The applicant shall obtain a permit for Construction in a Public Street from
Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way.
Sec. 12.08.010.
8.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works
Engineering for pedestrian protection on the public sidewalk during
S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:528high.pw
construction.
9.A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes
information on water-table and basement construction issues.
10.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be
watered as necessary. Spillage resulting from hauling operations along or
across any public or 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.
11.The Contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at 496-6929
prior to any work performed in the public right-of-way. Sectionl2.08.060.
12.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the
sidewalk, without prior approval of Public Works ~ngineering.
13.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management
practices ~MP’s) for stormwater 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 developer’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, sawcut slurry,
paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains.
14.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property
under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the
Public Works and Utility Departments.
15.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and/or removed and
replaced in compliance with the Public Works approved standards.
16.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the
finalization of this permit. All off-site improvement shall be finished prior
to this sign-off.
Prior to submittal of final Map
S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:528high.pw
17.The applicant shall arrange a meeting to discuss the improvement plans
necessary for the project with Public Works Engineering, Planning, Fire and
Transportation departments. These improvement plans must be completed
and approved by the City prior to submittal of a final map.
18.All constmc[ion within the City right-or-way, easements or other property
under the City’s jurisdiction shall conform to standard specifications of the
Public Works and Utility Departments.
S:Plan:Pladiv:PCSR:528high.pw