HomeMy WebLinkAbout0533.000Dctob.r 11, 1990
HONORABLE Clry COUNCIL
Pala Alto, Califorafa
o
Planned Community IGne Amendment to Allow for a Two-le~el Vertfcal Expansjo~
to Ue. E .. isting We-bster/Cowoer-bar-age. 520 Webster Stte..gt~ _____ _
Members of the Councfl:
At t~e;r meeting af September 20, 1990, the Architectural Rev;e~ Board
unanimously recommended approval of the PC, PTannei Community Zone Amendment
to allow a two-level vertical expansion to the eXlstlng Webster-Cowper garage.
MiDutes Qf thefT meeting ire attached to t~is report.
~t their meeting of Septemb~r 26, 1990, the Planning Commission unar.imousl,
recommended approval (jf the same PC. Planned Community ZOf'1e Amendment based an
H,e staff recorrrnended findings and conditions, subject to minor modifications.
is noted by italiclzed te~t, below. ~;nutes of this meeting are included in
your (ouncil pacKet of October ]1, 1990.
RECOMMENDATION
Planning Commission recommen~s to t~e (it, Counctl adoption of tne attached
Negative DecTarat~on and Ordi"a~e for PC Zone Amendment~ subject to the
fQllowing findings and conditions:
findings
]. The site is so sittlated and the us.e or uses Pf'opos€d for the sHe
are of such characteristics t that the application of the general
distrjcts or combi~ing districts ~11 not provide sufficlent
flex;bl1it, to allow the proposed development. in that the site 1S
located ~ithil the Downtown and the Universit, Avenue Parking
Assessment D1strict on a parcel on the j~terior of the block
surrounded by ~ebster. Cowper. UniV€rsTty and Hamilton~ Tne
imterfo,r location of the site greatly reduces the impacts
otherwise occ~rring fro~ a l~level parking struct~re, whtle
~rovi~ing ~arii~g im an area Qf documented ~eed. The proposal to
priwately <onstruct i two~1evel vertical addition contai~in9 163
parking spaces, whjc~ wilt re~ert to public parking jm J5 years.
could not be ac~;eved wit~in t~e <onstrcirnts of current zoning nor
is it vithin the ffscal projections ~f the Cit, to develop tne
additional levels.
C1'.R:S33:0
------.----'--.--,---'--
.-
r
2.
3.
CMR:533: 0
'W!:&OW(;C/lil
~," ..
o o
Oeve1opment of the site under the prow15lons of the PC. Plan~ed
Community District will result i~ publ~c benefits not otherwise
attainable by application of the regula!ions of general districts
or combining distrIcts. These benefits include:
I)
2)
The addition ~f two floors Qf parking contalciog parking
spaces withll the Downtown~ to be privately constructed to
the Cit'~5 specifications under a lease agreeme~t with the
Cit~, at an estimated cost to the applicant of approxfmate1y
$1,500.000.00;
The additional parking fadlities will revert to the City
for public parking i~ lS yearsi
3J The maimtenance of the entire garage {all seven levels) by
the appli~ant during tne term of the 15 year leaSE Qf the
new spaces to the applicant;
4} An up-front lease payment of S]5O,OOO.00 ~ich will be vsed
for public amenities and improvements ~t~;~ the Uoi~er5it~
A~enue Parking Assessment District;
SJ lhe upgrad~ of the entire structure to c~rrent seismic
safet~ standar~s; and
6) The use of the new garage spaces for pu~lic purposes 00
evea1ngs and ~eeken~s during t~e lS-year private lease
period.
The use or uses permitted and the ~ite development regulatfons
applicable ~ith;m the distrfct snal1 ~e consistent w;t~ t~e Palo
Alto (omprenensfve Plan, and eXlsting and potentfal uses on
adjoi~fng sites or withia the general wjcinit~, iN t~at the
f}anned (ommunit, District will permit only public parking, the
use now occurring on the s;te~ The level 7 addition to the
structurE has beea set back through use of ]ig~t wells from the
edges of the two most sensitive sides of the property to reduce
wlsu~l and solar effects. The project ~ill reduce em~1oyee and
commuter parking iii res'identi;l neighbo.rhood's (Program 10,
Transportatfon Element) and will help increase the supplJ af
s~ort-term ~ari;Dg by decreasing the ~se of t~fs type of parking
by emp10yees (Program 27, Transport~tion 11e~ent). The addition
of parking In t~fs location promotes the orderlJ and harmani0US
deve10pment of the CitJ and the attainment of the mast deSirable
land ~se and improvemant because it w;11 reduce demand for parking
created by other ~uilding fmpra~ements under construction 1m the
Downtown. ~hic~ ~ave greatl, en~~nced the appearan~e and 'ifalit,
of the Downtown (Objecti'w'e 2 .. Urban Design E1ement}~
10/ll/90
Page 1
•
•
I
---~-
I
f
,
-
"-
, ."
/
o
CQuditians.
The follow1og list conti;~S conditions of approval recommended by warfous Citt
C~partments. An asterisk (~) appears next to those which are also specific
provisions of the lease option.
l.*
3.*
~.
6.'
1.
final design detail s. landscaping, lignt ing,. and flaterial and
coTer sampies shall returm t~ the Arc~itect~ral Review Beard for
approval prior to issuance ~f building permits.
A part-time project eng;~eer to advise the Cit1 during the design
phase and a full-time project engineer/construction inspector for
t~e construction phase snaTl be retained by the City and funded by
the applicant, prior to issuance of the building permit and tG the
satisfaction of the Cit, engineer.
The applicant s~al1 be responsible for t~e ma;~tenance and repair
of tne entire parking structure both during ~onstruction of the
additional levels and duriog the term of tne 15 year Tease. The
terms of t~is ~aiotenance agreement are specified in t~e lease
agreement and shall meet tne satisfaction ~f t~e CitJ Attorney.
~ll bonds and securltfes necessary to assure construction
~omp1etion s~all be prQ~ided t~ the City, as spec~fied in the
leis~ agreement. prior to iss~ance of the building permit. to
satisfaction Qf the (it, Attorney and {it, Engineer.
the
(onstru(tion. traffic tbot~ ~ehic~lar and pedestrian). parking.
and loading contral plan s~all be submitted to tne Transportation
Division a mi~imum of three weeks prfor t~ issuance ~f any
~onstructfon rel.tea permits for their review and appro~al.
The enUre parking structure 5"'a11 be upg·radea to current code
standards for seismic safety to tne satisfaction of the Chief
Buil~iog ~fff(lal. prior to fssuance of building permits.-
The required fire exiting shall be maintalned from all surrounding
structures during the ~ourse of constructl0n~ to tne satisfaction
of the Chfef Bu;ldfD~ Official and the Ffre Department.
8.· Tn~ applfcant shall obtain ill necessary variances to the ~ax;mu~
heig~t and daylight plane pro~isions of the Planned Community Zone
Distri~t prfor to the ~cond rea~ing of the zone <nange o~dinance.
9.* The SlSC~OOO.OO Tea~ payment s~all be established im an account
to be spent by the (ity CO\lncil f~lTowing the adoptfon of the
Urban Design Plan, for purposes lde~tified ia t~at plan as
prioritJ public ame~ities. improve~ents. or maintenance ~ithi~ the
Universit, A~enue Assessment District~
lQ~ Parking separatfoD f~r ~sers of the non·public Tevels~ six and
CHR:S33:0
IIrBCOWCC/NL
-L .. "
10/11/90
Page 3
,
•
•
•
f
I
-
/'
o
s~ven. duriog the term of the 15-year leas~ 5~all be contro11ed b~
a Sited system to te des,g~ed to the ~atlsfi~tion of the
Trans~ortation Division, prior to issuance of building permit.
J1~ the hndscape pJin shaH fncJade additfonal p1antfDgs along the
soutA and east e]ev.ffons fa sorte~ th~ ~rsua1 imp~ct of the
jncreased height of the garage.
:/Z/)127/d
,
IWiCV IlAOOOX llTl£
~lon;~~~
N rlE~[NG
.Ass; tant (ity .. "anager
Atta~hments: Draft Ord;~ance
Negative Declaration
iixACd ;e./dd:l'
KENNETH ~. SCHREIBER
Director Qf Planning and
Comun1ty En~;ronm~nt
~inutes of the September ~C, 1.90 ARS meeling
Zoning Admi&istrator decision an the wariance
September 21~ 1990 Staff Report~ with attachments
Plans (Council ~mbe~s only]
cc: Jirt Baer
~hop (eenan
Ruth and El.i, frap~.11
Steve Jar'r'fs
tMR:S33:0
1I£BCOlo'CC/Nl
(' .. , ,.-~
10/11/90
Page 4
,
\ ,
•
1
1""""'.-.. :
1-
,.
---
.~-~:,-.•
,
o
OP~INANCE NO.~-=~-=~
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING PC ORDINANCE NO. 3499, APPLYING TO PROP
ERTY XNOWN AS 520 WEBSTER STREET (. PARKING LOT J' J
WHEREAS. on December 19, 1983, by Ordinance No. 3499, the
City Council approved a Plann~d Community (PC) zone for certain
property currently known as 520 Webster Street, and also kno~n as
parking Lot J (the ·property-) to allow construction of a multi
story public parking qara9~; and
WHEREAS, a private developer (-Developer W), under lease to
the City, has applied for an amendment to ordinance No~ 3499~ and
to the Development Plan established by Ordinance No. 3499 .. to allo ..
the construction of two additional floors of the garage for use as
private parking for a period of 15 years, and for use as public
parking thereafter; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has recommended that the
PC Ordinance be amended to approve said modificati~ns;
NOW, THEREFORE., the -Council of the city-of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION 1. Ordinance No. 3499 is bereby amended to allo~
the constrUction of two additional ~loors of parking, containing
163 parking spaces, t.o the property. The additional parking
spaces may be used for private parking for a period of 15 years,
and shall revert to pu·blic parking thereafter.
SECTION 2. The City council hereby finds with respect to
the property that:
ta) The site is so situated, and the uses existing and
proposed for the property are of such Characteristics that the
application of qeneral districts or combini~ districts yill not
provide sufficient flexibility to allow the current use or the
proposed modifications, in that the property is located within the
Do'lJntown and the University Avenue Parking Assessment District, on
a parcel on the interior of the block surrounded by Webster,
COTolper, University and Hamilton4 The interior location cf the
property greatly reduces the impacts o·then.rise o<:curring from a
seven level parking structure~ while providing parking in an area
of documented need. The proposal to privately construct a two
level Vertical addition, containing 163 private parking spaces.,.
which will revert to public parking in 15 years, could not be
achieved within the constraints of current zoning, nor is it within
the fiscal projections of the City to develop the additional
levels.
(b) Development of· the property under the provisions of
the Planned Community Districts as amended, will result in public
benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations
1
• \
\
"-....
>,
-
,.
-'-"
Q
of general districts
include:
•
or combining districts. These benefits
(iJ The addition of t.o floors of parking contain
ing 163 parking spaces within the Do~town~ to be privately con
structed to the city's specifications~ under an option agreement
and a lease agreement vith the ci~y, at an estimated cost to the
Developer in excess of Two Million Dollars:
(ii) The reversion ~f the two additional floors of
parking from private to ~~blic parking in 15 years;
(iii) The maintenance ot the entire garage (all
seven floors) by the Developer during the 15 year lease term;
(iv) An up front cash lease payment of '$150" O'O-{L 0'0,
which will be used for public amenities, improvements and mainte
nance within the University Avenue Parking Assessment District~
(v) The upgrade ~f the entire structure to current
seismic safety standards; and
(vi) The ~se of the additional parx1ng spaces for
public purposes on evenings and ~eekends during tbe 15 year lease
t~rm4
(e) The uses per.mitted and the site development
requlations applicable ~ithin the <listric't shall be consistent ·"",ith
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan~ and with existing and potential
uses on adjoining sites or vithin the general vicinity, in that the
'Only uses permitted .... ithin the district -will be public parking and ..
with the amendment, limit&d private parking4 The Levell addition
to the structure has been set back from the edges of the t~o most
sensitive sides of the property to reduce visual and solar effects.
The project will reduce employee and commuter parking in residen
tial neighborhoods (Program lO~ Transportation Element). The
project 'Will also help increase the supply of short-term parking by
decreasing the use of sb~rt-term parking by employees (Program 27,
Transportation Element]. The addition of parking in this location
promotes the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the
attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements because
it will reduce demand for parking created by ~ther building
improvements under construction in the Downtown ...... hich have greatly
enhanced the appearance and vitality of the Downtown (Objective 2#
Orban Design Element).
SECTION 3. 'I'he City Council hereby approves a moditication
to the allowable uses approved by Ordinance N04 3499, by allowing
private parking, in accordance -with the option agreement bet· .. een
the city and Premier Properties .. dated , 1990,
and the lease agreement between the City and Premier Properties
which may subsequently be entered into, copies of which documents
are on file in the Office of the city Clerk, and to ~hich copies
reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof~
2
•
r ,
I
I
I ~,-:,~:-7:;.~:
1'-
" .. -
/'
SECTION 4. The City council hereby approves the modifica
tion of the Development Plan approved by Ordinance No. 3499, by
approval of t~se certain plans, collectively entitled -Webster/
Co~er Street Garage, parking Lot J~ Two Story Addition, palo Alto,
California~, prepared by OES, Architects,Planners and Engineers,
dated September 26, 1990, a copy of ~hich plans are on file in the
office of the Zoning Administrator, and to which copy reference is
made concerning the full particulars thereot. Said modifications
are approved subject to the following ~onditions:
(a} Final -design details, landscaping, lighting and
material and 'Color samples shall return to the Arcbitectural Revis·...
Board for approval prior to issuance of building permits.
(bJ A part-time ,proj ect engineer to advise the City
during the design phase and a full-time project engineer/construc
tion inspector for the construction phase shall be retained by tbe
city and funded by the applicant6 prior to issuance of the building
permit and to the satisfaction of the city Engineer.
(e) The applicant shall be responsible for the mainte
nance and rapair of the entire parking structure both during
construction of the additional levels and during the term of the 15
year lease. The terms of this maintena~e agreement are specified
in the option and lease agreements and sball meet the satisfaction
of tbe City Attorney.
Cd) All bonds and securities necessary to assure
construction completion shall be provided to the City,. as specified
in the option and lease agreements.. prior to issuance of the
building permit .. to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and City
Engineer ..
(e) A construction,. traffic (both vehicular and
pedestrian), parking and loading control plan shall be submitted to
the Transportation Division a minimum of three weeks prior to
issuance of any construction related permits for their review and
approval.
{f) The entire parking stru~ture shall be upgraded to
c'J.rrent code standards for seismic safety to the satisfaction of
the Chief Building Official, prior t:Jo issuance of building permits.
(g} The required exiting snall be maintained from all
surrounding structures during the course of constru~ticnl to the
satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and Fire Department~
(h) The applicant shall ootain all necessary variances
to the maximum height and daylight plane provisions of the Planned
Community Zone District prior to the second reading of the zone
change ordinance.
Ii} The $150,000 lease payment shall be established in
an account to be spent by the City cou'ncil follo-winq the adoption
of the Urban Design Plan ~~r purposes identified in that plan as
J
,
\
•
•
'~ I,
\
\
\
. ",".
r
-
•
priority public ameniti~sl impcovements or ~aintenance ~ithin the
University Avenue Assessment District.
(i) parJtinq separation for users of the non-public
levels si~ and seven during the term of the lS year lease shall be
controlled by a gated system to be designed to the satisfaction of
the Transportation Division~ prior to issuance of building permit.
(JtJ The landscape plan shall include additional
plantings along the south and east elevations to soften the visual
impact of the increased height of the garage.
SECTION 5.
to the Development
folloW's:'
The City Council hereby approves a modification
Schedule approved by Ordinance No. 3499.. as
Construction ~f the additional improvements shall
begin on or about January 12 .. 1991 ... aM shall be completed
within six (EJ months after commenc6~ent thereof.
SECTION 6. The Council find that this project will not
have a significant environmental effect4
SEC1;'ION 7.. ;rhis ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODOCEO:
PASSEO:
AYES:
1I0ES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTES'J::
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. city Attorney
L
:Kayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
community Environment
•
•
•
•
..
,
j
j
o o
lllvlnx . .mental Documents -City of Palo Alto
i'C'.1 j ,-( ,t fl<-'scr ipt ionjTi tIe: _ Cow..f!erf!i_e.E.stpr Gara3.~_J _~_.ct __ ~' ) J ______ ~.:-~ __ ~_t iCtl} __ ~_
h,.t) 1 r~·.rt"l ~~. of f'~ __ !.l(_tI}S
520 ~ebster Stree~
______ .. ______ P:_~J~Alto, -CA 943--6T
:",l.l,-,·ss a"..j Telephone of Applicant: JiR Baer 420 Florence street
___ t!1 __ ~1 __ 325-7787 "-'=-=='---7,p2a"1'=o:=-j. rt Q.~ Cit.. 9430 1
Zone Change,-~rchitectural Review
'Ld}, n'} at Project Location: pc. 349:1
1',I~'~',i UPC-!1 revier.r of the project files, the undersigned r·;)m.cer of tr.e ?l~r:
ninl ~pCl%tm~"'nt b·IS concluded:
1 X: il"'Jdt i './e De~:: l':i.!' .. :~t ion: The proj eet has no significant em/itO"nmental irr.
I"lct~ No E.nvironmental I<npact Report is required. The reasons to::-a
ri0<JativE>. ~claraticn are: in the att,~ch~d initial ~''':'~ ___ A rec? __ l::"_::l ?=
pr0j~~t ___ a __ c_t_ip~ is available for _ revrew~at the Palo. 'Alt_<::I~ __ =PI~_!1ning -je---:
r'l_r~~.(>n_~f_ ~~~ted on the 5th floor of C~}:L~:tL 2~Q_1iandlton Ay'~:~_~_
T',]l2"_ A}!=:<?r _<;~._
The pr-oje~t rr;ay nave a significant environmental iIr~:'act. An Enviro;-'L
rr.·::ntal Impact Report ",il1 be prepared.
l " "ing Deportment Offidal:<C~.J.u.J-... ~ _____ _
~'1.1 ru: 1 r.g Director.: J:;q/4y.,:5ef: .... 1('-' ':cl·d"'!! ~ Date __ 1?'--: __ ~ -i.9~ __ _
"
The project hdS be~n
"I r.~ l 1 coje<::t hIS been
ArrJ1"ldv.:ied August 21, 1990
approved.
denied.
File
Date. ------------------
Date' ------
no. : _ i,.-EJA-4.9 ___
90-EIA-40
1
. -
--.. ,~, -""~ -'&$ ·~~·$.,t.l.·
\
.,(,~ft
',: ,,:,-'
•
,,:, ~-l-
'-.;:' --
\,:
Q o
f-.jI[\: I hON:1ENTAL DOC"U'MENTS -FALO ALTO
!.~ITIAL STUD'll, 2"
1. Project Title/Address:~_O'"'Per/Webster Garage Additfon
II.
rI I .
IV.
Project Description: The project is a :maior Planned community zone
change, option to lease, including variances to heig:h_!;,J_'L.3:Y,!igbt
planes and setbacks in order to constru'ct ~wo additional levels of
F~r~i~~ an existing five level parkIng-garage.
Environmental Setting; The project is located in ~he interior of a~
d:9 ..... nto'W .. ,. urban block bordered on the north, south and vest with
ccmmercfal land uses, and on the east by multiple=family land uses.
Envir _ "':'\ental Impact ChecklIst {Explanation of all "tOes· answers are
in Se,,: :;.on V)
1. Earth. will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Oisruptions l displacements# compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
c. chanqe in topoqraphy or ground sur face
relief features?
d. The dest~~tionl covering or modifica
tion of any uniqua geologic or physical
features?
e. Any increase in wind or vater erosion
of 50115# either on or off the site?
f. Exposure of people or property to
geologic ha~ards such as earthquakes l
landslides, mudslides# ground failure l
'(E5
or similar hazards? ~
g. Changes in Siltation, deposition~ or
erosion which may modify the channel
x
_1f_
x
of a river or the bed of a bay or inlet? X
lAdapted from ~ppendix I, California GuIdelines for Implementation of
CEQA i December 14, 1916.
2Updated May~ 19B2~ June, 1983
EIAFMCK
SC
-
90-EIA-40
2
•
..: \"
_ ;,::c.
t.·
·
I
I
l
f
~.
t ~.
1
•
'.'
,
" I
J':jl
t
~J ~ 0 0
r 2. Ai I> :."ill the propo5~1 result in! .. substantial air emissions or d.eteriora-
tion of ambient air q.uality?
b. The creatio,n of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air ~ovement, moisture
temperature, or any change in climate,
YES MAY!<E NO
X
X
either locally or regional? X
1
J
3. ~.~ __ ~.J:. will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns l or the rate and amount of
surface ~ater runoff?
b. Alterations to the course or flow ot
flood ... aters?
c. Discbarge into surface yaters, or in any
alteratio,n of surface water quality,
including but not limited to temperature~
di5solved oxygen or turbidity?
d. Alteration of the direction of rate of
flow of ground vaters?
e.. Exposure of people o·r property to water
related hazards su~h as flooding or
tidal 'Waves?
f. Change in the quantity o£ ground vaters l
eitner througb direct additions or with
dra~~ls# or through interceptions of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
... P12l.nt Life. Will the proposal result in:
EIAFKCK
SC
21. Change in the diversity of species. or
number of any species of plants (includ
iDg trees l shrubs. grass, crops. micro
flora and aquatic plants]?
b. Reduction ot the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. r~troduct!on of new species of plants
into an areal or in a barrier to the
nQrmal replenishment of eXisting species?
d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural·
crop?
x
x
x
x
x
x
90-EIA-40
3
•
" ----
,
o o
5. ~imal [,ife. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
of any species of a~imal$ (birds, land
animals includin9 reptiles~ fish and
shellfish, benthic orqanisms, insects or
microfauna)?
~. Reduction of the numbers ot any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of ne~ species of animals
into an area, or rasult in a barrier to
the miqration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration in existing fish or vild
life habitat."?
6. ~~is~. Will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
1.. I ... ight and Glare. will the proposal produce
fie· ... 1 ight -glare?
8. ~_nd Use. will the proposal result in a
sUbstantial alteration of the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. ~n~_~_g1£t!atural Resources. will the. proposal
-result in:
a. Use ~f substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development ~f new sources or
energy?
c~ Increase in th~ rate of use of any
natural resources?
d. Substantial depletion of any nonrene~
able natural resource? '
Risk of upset. Does the proposal involve a
risk of an erplosion or the release ~f
bazardous substanc@s {includinq, but n~t
limited to, oil, pesticid~s, chemicals or
radiati~n) in the event of an accident or
upset?
ETAH1C.K
SC
-
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
90-EIA-40
4
..
\
,
(
< •
I
~ i
l
1 • , ,
~
1
I
/
o
11.. ~9P.:u 1 a t i on/Hou 5 ~ __ Ilg ..
a:.. .ill the proposal alter the location ..
distribution~ densitYF or gro~th rate
of the human population of an area!
b. Will the proposdl effect existinq
housing, or create a demand for addi
tional h-ousinq?
n
12. Trans~rtation/C1rculation.. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular zovement?
b. Effects on existinq parking facilities l ~
or demand for new par~inq1
C. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people andj
or goods?
d. Increase in traffic hazards to moto~
vehiCles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. PUblic services. Will the proposal have an
e-ftect-upon. or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
follo~ing areas:
a~ Fire protection?
b. Police prctection?
c~ Schools?
d~ Park.s or o·ther recreational facilities?
e. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
f. Other governmental services?
14~ y"_~ili~ __ te..!. will the proposal result in a need
for ne~ systems, or substantial alterations to the
following utilitIes:
a. Pover or natural gas?
b~ communications systems?
";~~?l;
. .-
MAYBE ~Q
x_
x
_x __
x
_x_
x
x
x
x
x
9D-E!A-40
5
•
\
i
1
I ,
i
.'
o o
c. 'Water?
d. S€wer or septic tank?
e. Storm ~ater drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
15. !!u_lIlan1!ealth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard {excluding
me:-.-. .:} health)?
b. Exposure 0' people to pot~ntial health
haz.ards?
16. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in tbe
obstruction ot any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or ~il1 th~ proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to public view?
17. R~~~~~ion. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of exist
ing re~reatlGnal opportunities?
18. ~~~tural Resources.
a. will the proposal result in the altera
tion of/,r the destruction of a
prehist :lc or historic archaeological
site?
h. will the proposal result in adverse
physical or aesthetic ettects to a
prehistoric or historic b~ildinq,
structure;. ~r object?
c. Does the proposal ha.ve the po·tential
to causes a physical chanqe ~hich ~ould
affect onique ~ultural values?
d. will the proposal restrict eXisting
reliqious or s4cred uses vithin the
potential Impact area?
[fAFMel(
f.C
-
NO
x
~.
X
x
X
_x_
x
x
x
90-EIA-40
6
•
\
,
l' • ~
i ,
t •
I
~
r ,
~. , ,
i
J ... ',;
~.
I
~
•
j
/
o o
19. ~~_nd.~ __ tory FindinQs of Significance.
a. Does the project have the potential to
degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially redu~e the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species. CAuse a fish
or vildlite population to drop belov
self-sustaining levels~ threaten to
eli~inate a plant or ~ni~al community~
reduce the number of restrict the range
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eli~inate important examples ot the ~ajor
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project ha1/e the .PO·tential to
achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term~ e~vironmental geals. {A
short-term i~pact on the environment is
one vhich occurs in a relatively b~iefr
definitive period of time while lonq-term
impacts will endure vell into the future.}
c. Does the project have impacts ~hich ara
individually li.ited, but cumulatively
considerable? {A project .ay impact on
two or more separate resources where the
impact on each resource 1s relatively
$mail, but where the effect of ~he total
¢f those impacts on th& environment is
significa.nt.}
.:1. Does t.he project bave environment.al
effects wbich will cause substantial
adverse effects on human beinqsJ either
directly or indirectly?
E~planation of ~yes· anSWers in environmental checklist.
See attached.
E: I _'fMCK
-~-----. ---
90-EIA-CO
1
•
, ,
~ ....
.-_ .
. ,
1_ r'"r"th Jfj .. The existing parking structure "Was designed to the 19$2
:· .. .d:,,~ic--buliding code~ At that time, the foundation and structure 'Were
<'1,,:; j yncd for an additional two levels. The structural engineering for the
.~,Ju i t i onal t. ..... o levels is noW" being designed per the curren t 1999 sei snde
, • .1' !('. \oIhich a Iso requires that the entire structure be brought up to the
( . .Jrr~_·nt code. Therefore ... there is minimal risk to people or property froi1l
th..-:-t1r-oposed addition.
6 ~ _!'r<))~l~2.. The existing noise. level will be temporarily increased
during construction. construction hours and noise levels .. ill be in
,"('rnpl ian.ce with the City noise ordinllllce. When complete, there 'Will be a:J.
I :Jcn~'mental increase in vebicular nellse; hoW'ever, the .noise is expected to
1:0-ui,ly 51 ightly greater than the current noise levels dtJ.e to the low
'J';"]U!L1f, and distribution ot additional vehicle trips. Therefore,. there is
nn !.~i,;nlficunt noise Impact generated by the project.
7. L~ght <Ina Glare. The root lighting' is trOD 6 poles .... ith. lignt fi:l(tures
\:h-ich Eave d.{rectional 1-:--.5es, sueh that all the liqht is confined to the
1:,1'01 ,",rea. site lightlr.·; is by poles .. vith fixture.s around the 'WalJcways~
TJtt.! ira:rease of the buildlnq height by 19'-0· .... ill raise the source of the
=-:')r 1 ight; ho'Wever. the light viII b6 contained within the root area: and
5pjll into the surrounding site or abutting property~ Therefore .. there
1_· no significant impact from light or qlare ..
T',",r-ing d prelimian!"y rE.':ele .... of the project before the Architectural Revie'J"
Ii'!r'a:rd (ARB} on August 2,. 1990, the applicant presented a shado'''' analysis
d,).(;uTt.,::nting the projectts shadow-impact on adjacent multiple-family and
rommercial properties. Subse.quently, the applicant provided the Department
... ' i. th a more oetailed shadow analysis and a photographic study of visual
imp"cts of the proposed project. The extent of increased shadows on ad-
ic .. ,jnlng properties can be summarized as follows: On the residential prop
d': il':-_~ north and east of the site on Webster stre.et .. the in<::rease'! '51:aO:o'",
. i 11 '~0ver from one-half the site to the entire site during the 2. crnoon.
: the fall and vinter months. On commercial properties west of ~ site
1 University Avenue.,. morning and aid-day sun 'Will be. blocked dur.:.ng the
III and 'Winter months. The commer-cial properties east of the site on
I~jltcn Avenue will receive reduced afternoon sun in the spring and su~~er
'lthc.
,11v the prc,?csed project will increase. shadows and result in diminished
lour~ oE direct sunlight on the adjacent multiple-family and commercial
'rc[...erties along Webster Street, Hamilton Avenue and University Avenue,
-.t:t;se shade.., effeC'ts are not expectea to result in a significant adverse
mp,lct on the environment as defined by CEQA. Ho .... ever, the diminished
,r.,t.:r~; of direct sunlight experienced by the the occupants of these proper
-1es is undesirable, particularly on the residentIal sites. The impact of
''''',€'s-e increased shadoTJS on neighboring properties could be redtJ.ced by
odifications to the design of the proposed garage addition.
L __ V~,b.Jcul at Mo~.'.ement---'!l... There will be an increase in the vehicular
OVClllent around and into the site due to the trips of 176 additio,nal cars.
r:<2 ~~paces 'Wi II be perait stalls .. thlJs the number of trips generated is
5sumc-d to be a factor of 2.25 per day, with 75% of the trips spl it between
r,i" .J. m. and p. Ill. peak periods~ If a traffic incident on a surrounding
[AFMCS:
---,~C-
1
90-EIA-40
S
•
\
I·
t
[
I
!
, I
. , ,
I ,
!
I
•
•
r·
-...
o
~,t teet does occur" there is ample qu.euinq on-site and directio-n op'tfon!3 to
~ajust the flow into the street network. Therefore. there is no
:!:.l(]ni ficant impact trom the minor-increase in vehicular movement.
]2. parki!l:.9' Dema~ .. Tbe addition of 176 p4rking st,311s 'Within the
t~l)l.mtQ;:,n -area--a:e an existing and recognized location Mo'ill reduce the d€rr.and
tur ciCisting space in the parkinq garage free and permit are~5 .. as .... ell as
ttw !:~llrcounding on-street parking.. This in'Cludes a reduction of the delt,and
jn the a1jacent neighborhood on-street parking. Therefore, the project has
!",ijnificant positive iDlpact on parking: in the area~
1)\\1' j ng construction" awro:dmately 25 parking penn it holders 1tIh-o currently
t1,llt: on Level Five will have to be relocated to three-hour parking stallS
on Level One4 Le:vel One is generally not full, and the: appro~iJlately 25
f" l-mi t p<lrkers ca_"1 be acconunodated 'With no significant displacement of
rhn'"c-hour parkersa_
ll. Jnc~~~~3_Traffic Hazards [d). As with the increase in traffic
mc:,vLlnent generated by ~ddi tional car trips, the: potential for increased
tr~ffic hazards is negligible due to the low volume and distribution of the
trips .. the known patters of vehicular lIlovement, and tbe location and
configuration of vehicular pedestrian interface. Therefore, there is no
sirF'lificant impact on traftic hazards because of this project.
1hcre will be temporary short-tera closures of the Webster street access to
th~ garage in order t accommodate construction operations. To the greatest
.:).:tcnt po-r;sible, the access ... ill be kept open d-urinq the peale <of" the garage
(11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.ma)~ As tbere is another major garage access on
Co .... pE'r Street" and tlecause the closures vill be occasional and of short
.fur.Jtion" drivers r.ay experience occasional shQrt periods of increased'
u£ldY and congestion entering and leaving the qaraqe. However, there is
~vt c~pected to be any resultant increase to traffic hazards.
1.6_ Ac:.~t"be_U_~ _____ .L!l.. The iocreased elevation of the building from
.t!;proxill'.ately 31 feet to 50 feet ..-i11 obscure the sIght lines ot the
foothills and other views from tbe upper floors of some buildings in tc.e
immediate vicinity.. The proposed addition viII be visible from nearby
~~tn'ets, since it will be approlCimately t'Wenty to thirty feet taller than
m')..s.t of t_he buildings 'Which surround it.. HO\,'ever, the visual impact of tr.e
rprage as vie"Jed frolll street level is reduced by its location at the
lnt0rior of the block, surrounded on all sides by existing buildings. Frcm
::.;.Qll!C locations .. 'Where surrounding buildi~s are lov ... the new addition W'il1
be quite visible against the skyline and may appear bulky and out of scale
",jth e:.:ist.ing development a This visual impact could be reduced by
lT~n.ji fications to the desIgn of the proposed addition.
Thi~ Qesign ~as developed over two years of extensive staff and community
involvement prior to its adoption in December .. 1983. In addition to
rt:'qular public meetings, a group of neighbors and surrounding business
.;.'eople pdrticipated in the design .. configuration .. and material selection
for the project. Throughout this process, d·ue considerati~n 'Was given to
the height of the final facility. The concept of the initial and future
levels vas unanimously approved at each heari119~
f.IAI'I1CK
~c
-
9C-EIA-' 0
9
t
I
•
.'.
.'. ".' 1 . ..:.J
•
,. . "
\
(;) o ~4rCbifectlll'all . nc,~ie\\'
Umll'fl .\\ililites --------~~yd~A~O----------------__________________________________________ __
Thurscay. September 20. 1990
S,()O A.M.
Civic Center
25~ Hamilton AvenUE
Coun-ci! Conference Room
Palo Alto, California
A. !lOLL CALL
Board Members Present: Karni Barnes
Michael Lyz .. 'a
Jon Schink
Shirley Wilson
Board !-lembers Absent: Jdno daBose
Staff Present: Robert Haley
Virginia ~arheit
B _ APPROVAL OF MIrroTES
It is n~ted that Marni Barnes ~as not present at
September 6. 1990 ARB and. therefore. did not be
participate in the vote.
September 6, 1990 MiDutes -A~provedl 3-0, vitb tbe
folloyi ng cbao9E made bj' Shirley Wi I son: I ten 2 on
.rage 3, 322 University Avenue .. -}!s~ Wilson .... oula like
it noted that it ~as approved as propo~ed aDe ~as con
strocted before it .. as revIe .. ·ed by the A.R.E. Also on
page 6 under lI~evlOld Bllsiness Item 4 .. tbe last sentence
11ias amended to read. -Kr. Lyzwa re?d a letter to tbe
Soard regarding thp parking deficit ..... ~ich viII be
a~dressed to the City CouDcil after furtber d~velopment
and review·
c . ORAL COIIKllIII CATIONS
None
D. AGENDA ITEMS
,~~;t
::";~~,.,". t· -
APPROVALS: The }..rcbi tectual Fevie ..... Board fA!':BJ
aeclslon on tbe design of the project is a rc~c~men
dation to the Cirector of the Planning and Com~u~itJ
En...,ironment (t~e directoc). ... "'he makes tbe fir-al de
cision.
1-9/20/9~
:.
" ",i: 1,
.'
3.
t "
/
"Qi~ce this is a .prelir.ina.ry --review, DO action ldll be
t.~n by the P.oa~d. The Board indicated supyort for
the pneral direction a~d ph~siDg of the project aDd
stat they '"Oil len 'l revie"" the clinic cTe$i~n \"i tbclJ.t
mQre d~stail of the str~cture5.
Board co ~Dts .. ere as folloW's: Hr. Lyzaa ma6'e the
comment tha). tbis proposal vas ~ -as clear as mud.·
He fel t "he len' t malC:e sense of t'he proposa 1 as far
as the f~Dctio laod5caping~ ~uto circclation and
t'etT@strian path ·S~ Fe felt it .'as very important
to establish a st ng planning concept and to be able
to communicate it. ~ . Lyzo,'a felt r.e had a strong
conflict vito the so~ itta! that vas made. therefore,
he could cot C0rn~ent.
M.s. Barnes lr3S very please with the prop<Jsal and felt
the~e bad bee~ tr~mendous i rovemcnts made yith tbe
fc,rcsignt of the Owner to ,.·or· things t'broug"b.. 5be
bad some coocerns about the co -omini~m in th~ back
~it~ the mlni~u~ s~t back and fe t there Deeded to be
il'Ort' octcoor-l ivin.g space ..
}f.1:. Schink was pleased '\lith the pro-pc' 1 and felt the
Ovn~r should be applauded for introdoc
~~its in Palo Alto vben, currentlY~ ther
more living
is such a
s'!-.ortage ..
J'1s. wilson 'W"\s also st::pportive <If the direeti of
t!li~ project,· cut ... ·as not completely cOCl.fortabl 'Witb
tbe material selectiolJ r sta.ting she vas sot'le.'hat ·n
C"vD1fortable yith tbe t:se -of shingles on PI CamiI'.o eat ..
She "Was in agr('eJ!1,ent 'With Jo[s .. Barnes" comment 'With
regards to having more outdoor-living space. Sr.e als
to the ovner of tLc property to the south (Lani
Flo.,ers) and they stated to her tbey ... ere :in slJ,PpOrt
O_f_ .... t:.!: .. ~ .. ~ projEct., __ .' ___ _
520 WEBSTER STREET"
Jim :fi....J.er
------_ .. ,_ .. ,----------'
90-APP.-133'
90-ZC-J5
90-E!~"-10
~dditio,tl.. of t ... o parlc.ing levels to existing coO/peLf
}~eb5ter public parld.og garage.
After detailed discossion, the Board APPROVED# 4-0,
t~is item with the follovieg conditions:
4-9/20/90
\ . :...
0"
\
-
"
/'
-0 o
Approval of thE' basic concept of the additional t~o
stories of garage witb the 150 space minimu~ and ~ith
elevat.ional r.itigations at ""~ebster Street ar:.o
l7!:1h'ersity Avenue slees~ Those desi~c options to be
continced for furt~er ce~fe~ at anotber m~etiDg icclcd
in~ landscaping options, color palate of the structure,
pl~nt materials and other design options including
depth of li;ht yells, container planting, banners,
tensil~ structcres and consideration of all scggestions
made by the Board members ..
Eeard COru:1ents .'erE' as f"ollolJ"s:
r'r .. Schir~k "Was· del ighted "Wi th the fact that tbe
appl i ca.ot had gone sc<:11. a long va}' in address ing the
concerns that WE're I'21ised by the Board ~embers at tbe
previo·us meeting and felt be 'bad come up ""it'b 50Dle
r~al creative solutions concerning the dayli£bt issces
in tbe backyard. Be also felt the applicant wDuld
need to come up with an intricate landscaping plan to
~arry out the enccuraging promise cf the plan ..
z.rs. Barnes state that st.e met 1tith Jim Eaer and
Fl izabeth Gibbons on 9/19/90 aDd walked throogr. the
project. Ms. Barnes lias also delighted '\lith the
project an,d fel t the solation to tne Cnivers i ty }.veDoe
siee vas qaite adeqcate. She would like to see tbe
1 ight veIls cot out on the 6th and 7th floorz be as
!arg.e-as possible. given seismic -constraints.
1'1s. F.-arne-s .as also somewbat coo.cerned with the
dal'lignt plaiIJs on the lo"ebster street sidE'~
Sbe-lIould like to see the trellises ligbtec! tip ,dth
less bUlky ti~bers.
Hr. Lyz-.a had some difficulty 'With the parkin£
str~ctcre as it stands right nov~ He felt the
vebicles needed to be screened and the structure
"'a::; some .. -hat bland and recom!:leneed maybe adcing a
.canopy on the top deck to give the building :more forU!.
H~ also felt that more needs to be done to t~e facade
to make it mare exciting.
Ms~ .ilson coropl imects everyone .. ·ho has participated
in tbis pCE'sentation and the thoro~ghness of the '\Iork
dor..c-and the responsiveness to tbe Boards. comments at
tbe previous meeth:.s:. Ms~ Wilson is ic 5uppc·rt of
adding the t .. ·o flO<)rs.. She sees the landsc<:!ping as
having vivid c~lors so as to add color. life and
spar~le to the strocture. She feels the sbadov
prGblems viII be soroe~hat lessened in the future if
taller baildings are constructed around the garage.
5-9/20/90
,
,\
.0-..
! ,
!
f
I
, ,
". -
4.
' .. '. :
o
Ms. Wilson feels that ~;s. Barnes' s~ggesticn about
rect;cing the sizE: of thE' timbre is too drastic
'\'iE:ually and ecoIlott'ically ar;d felt it ,",ould be much
toe 6ifficull to maintain
tfetrt~rs of the ~oblic::
I .. Steve Jarvis~ 1:22 Ha.:rilto::: Av€!;ue. Palo ]lIte: felt
th~ struct~r~ sbould be of a lighter color and also
Lelt it needed cascading landscaping do~n tee cornerS
of the b~ilding to mitigate tbe acditicn. He a~so
,..ollle! lilee to see trees placed On tee up-per-levels on
tbe ~ebster Street side.
529 BRYANT STREET
DES Archi teet 5
90-1.B:B-133
gO-ZC-3
90-ZC-"l
Arcbi't,ectoal eetails .. colors a~d materials fer
previoosly approved office building.
After pr~sentatioo and brief discussien~ tte Eo~rd
APPROVED. 4-0~ the project. Cooditions of t~€ previo~3
approval are '~epeated here for continuity. ,
1. The ceveloper shall proviee for tlooiO sr,.olo'ers to t-e
installed pricr to·o oc-cup-ancy ..
"'.
2. The convErsion of, the buildic-; tlse from exempt
{fenner poblic facilitr building j to non-exempt
(office) necessitates t~e full payment of the
hoosing II'itigation ff;'e ba~ed on tr.e t.otal of
';;5~ 6·00 sq:cCire feet. The amount of the fee ... ill be
dependent on the fee base a~. tte tioe of tne final
Council apprc,val. The curreJ:.t rate is $2.80 per square
foot. " ", 3.. Developer shall contact. City' s, Tra.oSp<lLtat ion
cepartmect to discuss the pedestri~n ~alk¥ay on Bryant
and traffic ~etouriog requirements p~ior to issud~ce of
a building permit. \"
" 4. Curb and gutt~r alcng Eryant Street rruntaC"e shall
be replaced prior to issuance of an oc-copa~cy Permit.
"
5. 250 RAMILTOlf AVENUE 9Q-}_RB~106
City of Palo Al.to "'\
Publ ie Works Department '\.0,\
StrtloCt'l:lral rnoClificatioc to Hie Police Department ~ing
_~~ ___ . Ci ty Hall. ""
6-9/20/90
"
""
-
• •
' ....
o City of Yalo ~Ito
"' ;:) t~~ '::2:5a
~,,~C .... '1";J. C,l-..,~,.:·~~." ;'.:.:03
Application No. 9C-V-29: 520_Webster Street
Variance 90-V-29 is approved for the location and construction of
a vertical addition of t~o additional levels to an existing five
level parkinq garage structure vith a height of ~o feet ~here 40
teet vould otherwise be the ma~imum permitted and a d~ylight
plane vertical encroachment ot 29.5 feet for a linear distance of
155 feet along the easterly property line as per attached plans
at 520 Webster Street~ Zone District PC 3499. Palo Alto.
California, and is subject to conditions listed belo~.
1. Tnere are excep~ional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved that do
not apply generally to property in the same district in
that the buildable portion of the lot is located
entirely cn the interior of a __ b!_ock bounded by Webster,
COlolper .... university and Hamifton at the rear of all
other lot~ on those block faces. It is currently
developed as a public parking garage ~ithjn the
Downtown Assessment District: and
2.
V9029
nl
The granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant~ and to prevent unreasonable
property loss and unnecessary hardship in that the
City, in the early 1980 f s, conducted a public review
process for constructing a seven-level parking
structure on the property. The seven-level structure
was designed to comply with all zoning requirements in
effect at the time. The seven-level plan ~as
subsequently reduced to five levels because parking
demand at the t.ime did not warrant the entire seven
levels ~ithin fiscal constraints. however the five
level parking garage ~as constructed so that it could
later accommodate the addition and thae potential has
always been included in the cityt s long-range parking
plans for the Downtown. The location ¢f the site on
the interior of the block makes it cne of the unique
sites vithin the Oo~t~wn ~here a sO-Coot-high parking
structure can be gracefully accommodated without the
normally expected impacts ~f a structure so massive.
The parxinq deficit in the Do~ntown is well documented;
and
-,-, ......
1Qj4/90
Page 1
\
,
..
,
•
f
I r
\
I
!
. ...
,
o ()
The granting of the application ~ill not be detrimental
or injurious to property or im~rovements in the
vicinity in that the additional public parking is
needed in the Downtown and the design of the addition
includes light ~ells, insets and landscaping on those
sides where it ~ill be most visually disruptive and
Obvious~ The adjacent residentially zoned parcels have
already planted red~ood trees to screen the stru~ture,
Yhich should provide an adequate buffer at maturity.
1. All requirements of the PC Zone amendment are herein crO$S
referenced.
NANCY I'!AOOOX LYTLE
Zoning Administrator
October 4,. 19"90
This form does not constitute the variance for ~hich application
was made If the application is approved and if no appeal from
~his <iecision is filed by any person firm.-o'r corporation
affected by the deci.sion on or-by October 15 1 19'90, you will
receive a copy of your permit in the mail. If tbis application
is not decided to your satisfaction, the decision may be appealed
to the Planning Commission by filing an appeal application vith
the Planning Department and city Clerk on or-before the above
mentioned date.
cc: James E. Baer l c/o Premier Property, 420 Florence street,
Palo,Alto.-CA 94103
William F~llman, Hanaqer of Real Properties
Marvin OVerway, chief Tcansportation Official
V9029
nl
10/4/9Q
page 2
, \ , • , .
• \
,
f
r.
t ,
. ~~~:~.~:\\
. ,
. c :
./
o o
.. .J ~.J( 'Oi'5Q
" .... ~C "-'D C"':...JF':~~iA ;.lo:'CJ
TO: PI\LO li!'O PLAHIIIBG COJOU88IOB PREPARED ~Y: Naucz Lytle
DATE: September 21# 1990 FILE NOS.: 90-ZC-15, 90-EIA-fO
PIOJIQ1 XIlO,K!,IOI
Applicant:
Property OWners:
Requested Action:
PRQJIC'J smqp"
520 Webster
James Baer
clo Premier Property
420 Florence street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
city of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Approval to amend PC Ordinance 3499 to allow
tor a two-level vertical expansion to an
existinq public parking garaqe.
The applicant prQP05es to privately develop two additional
elevated flcors of parking at the existinq Webster-Cowper parking
garage, a public parkinq facility constructed by the City in the
early 1980s. The application is a (PC) Planned Community Zone
Change. The project includes up to 166 new parking spaces, and
the design is compatible with the architecture of the existing
parking structure.. once constru-cted, the new levels of parking
would be leased by the applicant for private purposes for a
perIod of 1S years, and after the lease expires it would become
public parking. During the tera of the lease, the applIcant
p·ropo5es to pay for the Ilaintenance costs of the entire qaraqe ...
including the existing five levels and the two new levels. The
applicant will, while constructIng the addition ... bring the
e~isting structure up to current seismic safety standards.
Finally, a contribution of $150 ... 000.00 is proposed to be made for
downtown amenities and maintenance and improvements within the
parking assessment district.
PCWEBCOW
NL
9/21/90
Page 1
......
•
\
.•. ~ .
•
\
/
d """ey,';:;;~~~:Cdo~c'" .,-,_~'_, ~ __ ~~ .".._ ... ";<.":'~~~~_~~ .!(.,li!d :zf!IL
o o
UQQ"K'MPID ACTIO'
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend that the
City Council adopt the attached Negative Declaration and the
attached ordinance. based on findinqs contained in this report
and with conditions recommended herein .
• ," 1170'"',10.
larcel Size:
Assessor's parcel Number:
Existing zoning:
Comprehensive Plan
Designation:
Existing Land Use:
Surround i ng La nd Use:
History:
PCWEBCOW
ilL
~.
<~ --:'.~~~~~' ( ;
.' '~~'c'f;"e
'.;:;":!--'. .
61.398 square teet
1~:J-03-03.c
PC 3499
Regional Community commercial
Public Parking
Residential to the Northeast and
Commercial in all other directions
pecember 19B): PC 3499 was adopted
by the city council allowing for
the construction of a five level
public parking garage. The
University Avenue Assessment
District (Project 82-3J) ·.as formed
to finance the constructi:~. Bonds
were Issued in 19S4, in t::e. amO'.l·nt
of $5.43 million at S.' percent
interest, for a period of 30 years.
The bond yas refinanced in 1989 in
conjunction with the 25·0 University
Avenue public parking lot
construction. Ou.ring design,
development and construction of the
Webster/Cowper qarage, decisions
and actions yere taken to include
provisIons for the possible
additIon of up to two additional
floors of parking, as a vertical
extansion cf the existing
structure. Structural previsions
f~r the proposed extension were
made during construction of the
eXisting structure, includinq a
reduced setback for the top level.
9/21/90
Page 2
•
;
-,
o
Mandatory Action Qaters):
Environmental Impact
Assessment!
,p Tl xaI8
PROJECT DESCRIPl'IOIf
-. '.'
/
()
"'._"""
July 6. 1990: project conce~t
reviewed by the City council and
applicant encouraged to proceed
with all required applications for
Planned community ZGne Amendment
(minutes are included in the
Planning Commission packet).
July 20. 1990: 520 Webster street
Application filed tor a Planned
COmmunity Zone Amendment to
construct th~ two-level vertical
addition to the existing parking
structure, including an expanded
area for the top level.
August 2. 1290: Preli.inary Reviev
of the Desiqn before the
Architectural Review Board (minutes
attached) •
August 10, 1~9Q: city Council
conducted a public heari119 and
adopted the negative declaration
and approved the lease opt ion.
September 12. 1990: Planning
Commission conceptually approved
the Planned Community amendment and
refe~red the application to the
Architectural RevIew Board (minutes
attached) •
Not Applicable to a Legislative
Action.
No significant impacts were
deterained to res~lt from the
project and a neqative declaration
'Was prepared.
As of the date of this report. staff has not received revised
plans from those reviewed by the Com-Iss ion on September 12~
1990. In conversations yith the applicant, statf understands
that the following revisions are being inco~rated into the
plans and will be available for packet distribution.
PCWEBCOW
NL
9/21/90
Page :1
f -··-L~;-C:-· .• · ---,.,.:.-.... -.~ .... -
"',
!,~--:'
;Y-
~
li~r~IY
•
-.
I .J
i
I
I
-
-". '~ .
1.
~.
).
4.
" .....
Indentations and light wells from both Webster street
and l1nlversi ty Avenue have been created., tbus red~cing
the number of spaces to 161~ in excess of the 160
minimum set by the Commission in their conceptual
review ..
Landscaping has been ad4ed tOo qarage entries and along
portions of the University Avenue and Webster street
sides of th~ structure.
Lighting has been added to the pedestrian entrances to
the garage ..
The trellis work for the vertical additions has been
reduced for varying dimensions from 4 feet in depth to
1 foot, thereby reducing the bulk of the upper levels ..
BACKGROUND
The subject application was previously reviewed by the Commission
on Sept.ember 12 ... 19"90. At that time the Commission cond,ucted a
public hearing and acted favorably on the project concept,
referrIng it to the Architectural Review Board. The following
questions yere raised and are addressed as follows:
1. commissioners questioned ~hether there are current
security issues related to the Webster/Cowper qarage,
and whether the City contracts tor security over and
above regular police patrol. The Assistant Pollee
Chief has commented that the city does not contract for
security over and above normal patrol fo~ the qarage.
While the~~ have histori:ally been some vandaliSM, auto
bur9larie~ ~ few theft and problems with
skat~boar . tbere i" ~ 9r~ater prOblem than at any
other par~ facility.
2. The question was asked whether or not an applicant for
a parking permit is required to list their place of
business or business address. Parking permit
applications require the name and address of the
business. This intoraation is essential to determine
that the permits are only issued to employers within
the parking assessment district.
! SSUES 0 F CONCERN
It is staff's opinion that the issues presented in the attached
Septeaber 71 1990 staff report have been adequately addressed by
the revised project desiqn as p,resented verbally by the
applicant, plans tor WhIch are to be presented to the
PCWEBCOIoI
ilL
9/21/90
Page -4
•
-
j
o o
Architectural Review Board on SeptembEr 20~ 1990. The results of
the Architectural Review Board m~eting will be presented orally
to the commissIon at their hearinq.
1.
2.
Visual and Solar rllpacts: By including setbacks froll!.
the residentially-zoned side of the structure and from
University Avenue, redu~inq the bulk of the trellis
work~ adding landscapinq, and retaining 16) spaces, the
applicant has provided a desiqn ~hlch balances the
public benefit of providing additional parking with the
need to ~e sensitive to the visual and solar impacts of
the structure on surrounding properties and public
pedestrian ways.
Public Benefit Payment: Staff recommends that the
proposed public benefit package is sufficient to meet
the findings required. The lease requires an advance
payment of $1.50,000.00 to be used within the parking
assessment district. The decision of specific benefits
and amenities to be funded rests with the council.
staff intends to use tbe Orban Design Plan as one
source for potential uses of the $150,000.00. staff
understands that the funds are not to be used for
normal and routine maintenance of public facilities.
3. VarianceS: The public hearing tor the variance will be
cond'ucted on septeml:ler 20, 1990 at 3~OO PM. The
results of tbe bearing will be presented to the
Commission orally at their ~eeting.
staff al;o appreciates comments made at the previous hearing on
this item about the need to complete the Urban Design Plan prior
to reviewing further individual Planned community Zone Chanqe
projects throughout the Downtown, based on concepts which have
yet to be adopted. Staft recommends that a status report on tbe
Urban Design Plan be presented to tbe Commission, under the
Committee Reports section of the OCtober 10, 1990 agenda, to
brief Commissioners on the progress to date and the direction of
the plan~
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt the attached
negative declaration and recommend approval of the proposed PC
Zone Change, subject to t.he following findings and conditions.
PCWEBCOW
NL
\
-,--'-~'"
9/21/90
page 5
•
..
1 ~-
'.
,
:,
-.",
i
i
I
I
•
. ~, --
, .
\
"
'i'
':,.·~i~ ~if ",: :
,,-:.,,::.:.--$3ti;::~4.:r ;-...:.:::~"'" .~,:: ___ ._-:;"" __ ~,,:,,,:, .i-~~.,...:~.,.,_.,.'-7''';:''''''-''''''-:;_'''''';_'''''':~'ii'. ,_","':;:-'-"I!_ ~_-.,.-...~ .. ' '.,. "-'~ __
-
,
Q
IIJI!)IIIG!! _________________ . __ ..
Prior to recommending approval of any PC distrIct application.
the Planning Commission must make a series of findinqs~ per
section 18~68.06G of the Z~ing Ordinance~ Staff recommends that
th~ findings be supported in the following manner.
1. The site is so situated and the use or uses proposed
for the slte are of sucb characteristics, that the
application of the general districts or combining
districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to
allow the proposed development, in that the site is
located within the Downtown and the University Avenue
Parking Assessment District on a parcel on the interior
of the block surrounded by Webster, Cowper~ university
and Hamiltona The interior location of the site
greatly red'uces the impacts otherwise occurring from a
7-level parking structure~ ~hile providing parking in
an area of documented need. The proposal to privately
construct a two-level vertical addition containing 163
parkinq spaces~ which will revert to public parking in
1S years. could not be achieved within the constraints
of current zoning nor is it within the fiscal
projections of the city to develop the additional
levels.
2. Development of the site under the provlslons of the PC,
Planned Community District will result in public
beneflts not otherwise attainable by application of the
regulations ot qenaral districts or combining
districts. These benefits include:
PCWEBCOIoi'
NL
1) The-addition of two floors of parking containing
parking spaces within the Downtown, to be
privately constructed to the City's specifications
under a lease agreement with the city. at an
estimated cost to the applicant of approxi~ately
$l,5-W,COO.OO;
2) The additional parking lacilities vill revert to
the City for public parking in 15 years;
3) The maintenance of the entire garage (all seven
levels) by the applicant during the term of the 15
year lease or the new spaces to the applicant;
.) An u'p-fr-ont lease payment of $150,0'0,0.0,0 which
will be used for public amenities and improvements
within the University Avenue Parking Assessment
District;
9/21/90
page 6
, . -
; .
.,' .
I
f
; .
, -
. ,
~, .' "
"
-
3.
5)
o o
Tbe upgrade of the entire structure to current
seismic safety standards: and
6) The use of the new garage spaces tor public
purposes on evenings and weekends during the 15-
year prl~ate lease period.
The use or uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district shall be
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and
existlnq and potential uses on adjoining sites or
within the general vicinity~ in that the Planned
community District viII per.it ~ly public parking, the
use now occurring on the site. The Level 7 addition to
the structure has been eroded through use of lIght
wells trOD the edges of the two most sensitive sides of
the property to reduce visual and solar eftects~ The
project will reduce employee and commuter parking in
residential neighborhoods (Program 10, Transportation
Element) and yill help plan and develop short-term
parking by decreasing the use of this type of parking
by employees (Program 27, Transportation Element). The
addition of parking in this location promotes the
orderly and harmonious development of the city and the
attainment of the most desirable land use and
improvement because it yill reduce demand for parking
created by other building improvements u,nder
construction in the Downtown, which have qreatly
enhanced the appearance and vitality of the Downtown
{Objective ~, Urban Design Element).
COIIDUXOlfS
The following list contains conditions of approval recommended by
various City Departments. An asterisk (.) appears next to those
which are also specific provisions of the lease option. Any
additional conditions originating fro~ the Architectural Review
Board viII be presented orally at the meeting on September 26,
1990.
l~ Final desi9n details 6 landscaping, lighting, and
material and color samples shall return to the
Architectural ~eview Board for approval prior to
issuance at building peraita.
2~. A part-time project engineer to advise the City during
the design phase and a full-time project
engineer/construction inspector for the construction
phase shall be retained by the City and funded by the
applicant, prIor to issuance of the building permit and
PCWEBCOW
NL
9/21/90
Page J
, , ~"-L" .-. -'.-"
,-,~
-
1.*
4.*
5.
6."
1.
to the satistactio,., of the city enqineec ..
The applicant shall be responsible for the maintenance
and repair of the entire parking structure both d·uring
~9truction of the additional levels and during the
term of the 15 year lease. The terms of this
maIntenance agreement are specified in the le~se
agreement and shall meet the satisfaction of the City
Attorney ..
All bonds and securities necessary to assure
~structlon completion shall be provided to the City,
as specified in the lease aqreement z prior to issuance
of the buildinq perait~ to the satisfaction of the city
Attorney and city Engineer.
C _ .'1structlon .. traffic {both vehicular and pedestrian).
parking, and loading control plan shall be submitted to
the Transportation Division a minimum of three weeks
prior to issuance of any construction related permits
for their review ~~ approval.
The entire parking structure shall be upgraded to
current code standards for seismic safety to the
satIsfaction of the Chief Building Official. prior to
issuance of building permits.
The required fire exiting shall be maintained from all
surrounding structures during the course of
construction l to the satisfaction of the Chief Building
Official and the Eire Depart.ent.
8.* The applIcant shall obtain all necessar}· variances to
the maximum height and daylight plane provisions of the
Planned Community Zone District prior to the second
reading of the zone change ordinance.
9 •• The $lSO,OOO.O~ lease payment shall be establisbed in
an account to be spent by the City Council following
the adoption of the Urban Desiqn Plan, for purposes
identified in that plan as prio~ity public amenities,
improvements, or maintenance.
10. Parking £eparaticn for users of the non-public levels,
six and seven~ during the teem of the lS-year lease
shall be controlled by a gated system to be desiqned to
the satisfactiGn of the Transportation Division, prior
to issuance of building perait.
PCWEBCOW 9j 21/90
NL page S
•
,
• ,
......
t
1
I ,
i
1
I
/.
o
Plans {G"ounctl ~mbus aoly}
ora.ft Ord!nance (M:Cacbed 'to eic., M.anag~c'*s. Report)
Neqative Declaration (Attached to Cit, M.anag.ec~s Report)
september l'~ 1990 Planning CQmDisoion Minutes
septeabe~ 1. 1990 Staff Report
November 9~ 1983 Minutes
9O'X'S '11"1' 1'9
3r. Baer
Chop ~eenan
Ruth. .. nd Elvis
Steve Jarvis
Frap",dl
9)H/90
Page 9
\
•
-.
AGENDA 1m! 3
o
EXCERPT
Plannlng (ommission ~etin9
O~/12/90
n -.
~T[B1COWPER GARAGE: Application for. Planned
Communit1 zone change to allow the verticil additfon of
twa levels ~f parking an4 176 spaces ontG the eXlstfng
Webste-r/Cowper ~arage, wit_ va-riances for lIax;mUTI height
(SO feet where 40 feet is the ma.imUM p<rmitted) and
daylight ,lane. tnvironmental Assessment: No
signifitant impacts ~ere determined to result from the
project, and i negative declaration ~as been prepared~
File Nos_ 90-1.-15 and 9C-£IA-40_ Zone Di.trict PC 3499,
~s~ lytle: I would like to clarify that there are several actions on t~i5
project. One tool ,lace on ~anday fti9~t, the approval of a leise optioD.
On. of the conditions .f that le.s. is that the project must receive .11
appropriate permits. One 0f those permits is before you tonight -the
Planned CoomunitJ lone c~an~e, Anot~er application that has been filed
and is necessary for the project is tile _variance for dayl ight Jllane and
maximum height. The bearing for the rariance fs September 10, so it ~ill
take ~lace prior tl t~e application retur~in9 to the commission for its
flnol review of the PC lone chang._
~s~ (ase: I ~oa1d .1500 like tl ~ake I clarification. The staff report
t.lks about. $150,000 contribution frOill t~e de,eloper as being one of the
public benefits. I ~uld like t~ state t~at the co~tributicn iS t f. fact.
the reotal payment for the le •• e_ Jhe public benefit i. ,. the ose that
the citJ will make of the rent. It is not I separate contrib~tfon for the
PC. [thougbt there mig~t have been some conf~s;on on the poi~t.
(haf~an ~lrs~~ As a fcl1~p question on that. how is the citl going to
decide bow that DOney will be spent?
"., l.tle: Tbe money would be set o.lde fA • speclol .ccount to be spent
by the council. Staff envisIons that it would be fl conjunction with
implementation of the urban de.lgn Flan, Improvements identified II the
urban design Flan ~ould fOri t~e basis for making t~at decision t whic"
wocld be a council decls!on_
Chairman ~ars~; So It thfs pOimt. there is nothlDg t~at constriiAs the
expenditure of those funds by the council?
~. lytle: Other t~an the term t~at they be spent withi, the 05se.smeDt
district. It is • geographIc con.trol.t.
~s. eai!: There fs I sectfon il the lease t~at says~ -lessor agrees to
Ese t~e advance rent payment exc1usivel1 for improvement and/or
mailt~nance of propert1 vithil t~e Unfversltl Avenue assessment dfstrict.-
COmmissioner Hfrsch: Once agail, we see~ te be getting items ift~r they
have gone to the citJ councfl. rits one seems to have go~e ~rett' far.
Can you e.pl.i. the .!story Qf Why we see. td be ~elng this .t s. I.te •
date, and wbat is real11 l.ft for os to do tonight, .ther than
rubbers tamping what councIl decided t. do la.! .igbt and .1 prior
-1-
•
·L --------. . ~--,--.-'~ -",-,,:~ .---... ........ -.,.
" "
. '.
•
,
•
,
"' \
• \-"
.. '
. --,
'.
"'~~ .
'-.:-"" .-".
-
" '
o
.meetings?
"5 (ise: What hiS gone t~ c~uncil ;s the appro~ll of the lease option
ind I JtiSe that is condjtfoned upon the co~~il .1tfmatel, passtog a~
amendment to the PC lone. Considering the fact that the ~ommiSS;OD has i
wery fmportant role fD the PC process. yo~ should not feel constrafned to
rubber.tomp .nyt~lng that the council ~a. done, keepIng i •• ind that the
councIl .01 reverse anythIng that you do, but nonetheless, you defi.itely
~aye i wery r.laable role here, and yo~ ~iye ~o obtfgat;o~ whatsoever to
f.llow anythIng the council has done so far on this item.
Commls.loner HIrsch: What daylIght plane Is applicable to the project
before ~S, the new one Dr the old one?
~s. lytle: The new daylight ,lane Is the one that applies to this
prgject, beCiijSe it is the curre~t ordinance in effect. It is tne RM-40
dayligM phne.
Commissioner e.1leo: Tne agre!ment that the lessee will be r!sponsible
for maintenance of t~e eQtfre structure, if these two additional le~els
are bunt, lIoes t~at include securlt]?
Ms. lytle: Tne applicant Indicates that it does not inclode security.
Commissioner Callen: Was t~fs shown to the police departmeDtr
Ms. Lktle: Tes~ the polfce department ~as reviewed the Flans.
Commissioner Cillen: I understand t~at t~ey ha~e had considerable
securit, res~onslbllltl.s I. the structure.
C~iirman Marsh: ~as t~ere been any additional security purc~ased by the
cit, for t~at parkIng lot, outsIde of regular police protection?
Ms. lytle: I cannot answer that. They ~ere route~ t~ls set of plans;
t~ey made DO unu5~al requests and noted no concerRS about the project. I
can talt t. the. specificall, about it. They were I.,ited to
i~t!rdepartmental neetfngs that we ~ad on the project. and as f recall, nD
repr~sentitfye was sent to those meetfDgs, SB I assume that means they ire
not concerned about the project. But I can speclflcall, pester tn~ about
that before the next set of ~earing$l if the commission ~ould like me to
do so.
tomeissioner C.llen: f woul~ particular), like that t. nappe. before it
comes back ta us.
COmmissioner CbrfsteQ$ee: f ha~e a comment DO Pige 8 Qf the staff report
under ris~al Analysts. Tbere fs I comment about • ... surrounding
develo~ment shoaTd be allowed ta f~crease il the immediate area of the
W=bster-(owper pirk1ng garage, due to Its identtficatioD is i secondary
·ce.s .nt_fn the ~owntown.· I did not understaod that. [als. wonder
r,QW'llfe afe gofng to allow an increase h scaTe wfle-R ~e have t~e 1:1 floor
area. Are they contempl.tlng recommendiog t~at we change the I:} floor
ire a for t~at arei?
~s. tytle: fnere fs, f. fact, I proposal t~at has been reviewed by the
-2-
-----.....;:
•
\
r· I ...
1
1
!
1
-
•
..
\
/
..... ;.,., .... .;.~i.,;......:.;;..,.,"'_ ... ''' .• , .• ''.,~"'' -j' .~ ~~:r,._~ {~c "':""-.r-~_~-?'-~~!-:r.?'"':F.f-~;': ,.~ .... ~~j.Jtt;,..4lj! 11:..-~ "
o 0
ARB prtll.I •• rI17 for the building Immediatel, i. fr()~t of the gar'ge, ot
the eotry t. the garage on the Webster side. rhat building ~ould exceed
the 1:1 rloor .are I ratio. It wOIJ.ld be ilnot~ef' PC lone ilmendment for that
bundlng. II the prell.l.ary design review, It was thought to be a.
appropriate scale and was .hat they thought shoo1d OCcur ,1009 that
frontage.
Commissioner (~rfstensen: What does tt mean by·. secondary access withfm
the downtown-? A secondary aCC!S$ to what?
Ai. lytle; It Is an urban design term. A member of our Urban Design
C0m8ill ••• ay be able t. express t!is betler than I. I a. not the staff
member participating i. t~is. and I am not the most qualified t. answer
the question. but I t~inl you divide th! downtown j~to nodes and axes and
secondary axes. Tlfs is I sign1ficant corridor that t~eJ have defined ~s
being an area that needs te be more heavtl, de~eloped. Ferhaps I can get
the c~lfnman of the Urban Design Committee to e~plai. t~at to you ~re
f~ltl the next tiGe we returA ta you.
Commissioner Chrlstens'n: If we are contemplatfng this partic~lar
proposaT, it seems to me we s~oatd be looking at the entfre area ~t~ that
11 mind, rather than taling the developments IS Pes one at J time and
sayfng, le$~ ~e want. J little ~re denSity, so t_fs one is okay_
~s. lyl1t: W. are not dolog that. The Urban Design Plan is progreSSing,
and it _111 be coming forward to ~OU. We are loQii~g compre~ensfvel, at
the whole arei J and ~ ~ave Dot chosen to call a ~alt to develop;ent i.
the I,teri.. Ve apprec'ot. the fict that prl.ote developers ar. trying t.
participate il that J1anning process and wori with the committee. if they
con, by not ,Iolatlog some of the pr.1lmlnary cooclu.lons dra .. i. the
development .f the plan. I will invite the Chair .f that committee to
present that concept t. yoo.
Commission,r C.lleR: I thfnk it is I policy ~atter that ~as to do wlt~
land use Flannfng. I do not belfeve that comment should even be il ~ere_
Ve are supposed to be gol'g by our present lonio;, and until the planning
co.mfssfon changes the zonfDg or the developme~t regulations, I do nat
tkfnk t_is kind ~f stuff should s~eak is s;dewa~s Decause comments are
.. de .t the ARB or Ihe Urba. Design Committee. 1 feel that those two
sentences are out of ,lace 11 here.
Cgmmj$sioner Hirsc~: I s~are the conctr. about thfs comment. It seems
t~at the proposal before os tODight Is t. reduce the parking deficit. If
I understand t~fs comment made 11 the ARB» it would f~creise the parking
deficit. That Is going im t~e wrong directfon. Any ~ew i~tensit, im
development and sclle i. the downtown area would be averse t~ the downtown
ilterests, and I s~ire the concerAs 'f ARB ne.ber Marli Barnes who said
she did not agree that surrounding buIldings should be allowed to go up
'Igher, as that weald 0.1, increose the parking probl.m.. So this was oot
, .ery balanced statement froo the ARB.
C'ajraan Marsh: I will now open the public hearing and colI upon the
app1 icant.
JameS Baet, 4QQ Hamiltog Avenue, Pilg Alta: I want to be sensiti~e to t~e
cancerAS ;f t~e ,Tanning c~mmfssfon. justifiabl1 expressed ~J Commissioner
... .,.;;-
•
\.
\ -
\
. ,
\ -.. . \: ..
I
i
I
i
;'
--
o 0
Hfrsch. as to ~hl this ~i$ first beeR tl t~e citJ <o~ncil fo~ fwl1 debate
and two public heirf~gs~ fne relsan fo~ t~fs is that it was e~aluated
that the application had no standing to proceed with the us. of
conslderabl, staff time If the cit, council felt that this •• s an
fnappropri.te .s. of a public parking facility. Otherwise,.e would be
going through an .1aborat. PC process with no direction that the cit}
council had 11tl~.t. rights to dispose of the aIr rights and any i.t.rest
il this being an appropri.t. use. So the fd •• was to first go to the city
({lund) and ffnd out. do you "ave an fnterest iI pu.rstllr'lg Ufs~ The
answe~ was, on I g·O vote on Jul, 'nd~ yes, provided t~at ~e get the
approprfat! ARB ind plann1ng commission input as to zoning and desfgn
~atters; secondl,. as long as we come back and get inp~t from the parking
assessment district owners and busfness occupants that this is i pOPQlar,
rather than an unpopuhr, .so of t~B facility. So it really was to try
ind ~dentifl whether we were O~ i wild goose c~ase. largeT, because of t~e
circu~stances at lot S , L. ~here we could imagine many bundreds of staff
hour$ being spent on in unpopular proposal not supported by the cit,
co~ncil. So that is the rtason that we bave been to the citJ council
first. Ve djd not mean to s~ortc~t the planning process issues,
"otwlt~standing that the city council ~as spo~.n very 'trong11 I. the
publfc hearings about planning issues~
I. delivering tc IOU the large ~actage of letters, t~ere is a reason why
that was done. ~ne Df the reasons~ ~f cours!, was to try to demonstrate
tl the Cit, counc11 t~at this is not an unpopular propos;tfon; t~at the
~arkfng proble. fs I genuine one; t~at solution (or private lovestment to
scTwe parking problems is appropriitei but there is more af a reison~
T~fs is not an eas1 job. as an applicant for deveTopmep.ts downtown, ~ere
we have a downzoned environment. Therefore, it seeas tl me that part Gf
~y Job Is to la1k t. lots of properl' owneTs and lots of businesses, and
to demonstrate to tne board and comaission .nd council and staff that
t~ere i •• lot of list.ning going on anytime we do • project, ond frankl,
Ilste.ing at • level t~at Is s ... tlmes vb;l. fro~ a differeot bias, ;s
more regular than the llstenfng that members If commISSions and boards are
ab1. to do regarding the concer.s of downtown. It is to poi,t out that we
are not adver,arial builders. We scour the "elg~bcrboods to bear the
concens. II order h generate Unit lIany Tetters .. 'We hear a lot of people
say. great, solre the parking but be sure ~en you do your next proje(t
t~at you don't tread on my toes, or make sure you don't hav~ some of the
problems we have lIeard of that ""ere aD RUKlna Street. So eve-Ill though Wf!
generate support for specific prop~sats. we generate I lot of iDfo~atfon
about what not to do OD another project~ So it is important. gfven that
we will be regular applicant, before lOY I. 1991, that there I •• lot of
Ilst.ning gOiog 00 by.,. Thes. are not hapbazard propos.ls.
~at I have drawn for you fl this .ap is to show yo~ ~~o ~e ~ave
.fflnnotiv. letters from ,. ,upport of the pr.ject. r a~ stretching it •
little, becau,. three r.sldenti.l properlles at the corner of Hamilton and
~eb'ter ar. owned by El,;s and Ruth frapwel1, when I ~ad an opportunity to
.. et .ith, and whom Nancy and I called, part11 so th.t Nancy could sal
that we understand yoy .re going 10 be il England and cannot .ttend the
p~blfc ~earing. Are you aware of what is gofng on? It is an elderly
couple. £lvfs is 8S, a~d was on the construction crew that built tne
phone company building I. 1928. I .anted tl .at. an honest inQuiry,
asling if they knew it was going to go up t.o stori.s? Did they tno~ it
was going t. lopact their back yard? Do you .ant t. tell us if thl, is
·4·
. .
'.
. '. ~ .
" . i ~ .. '
~ .
t , ,
i!. ,. ,
r
"' ' ,
,
r.C· , "<.' ','
•
-.
l'Iorribh? I ill not suggesting t"'at they say it is without im,pa::.t em t~eir
interests, b~t clearly. they did not say this was i problell. There fs ~~t
I letter from the~. but [ put ia an Iffidavit Df our phon~ conwfrsation.
II whlc_ Nancl participated.
T"s Is not to s'9gest that t~ls tind of • project doe. root ha.e policy
conceros botk I. t~e ab,tract of what is good planning and i' t~e
partfcwlars of what 1$ t~E fmpact on the direct n!fghbors. l~ pirtfc~Tar,
there ar~ t~o neighbors on Unfversity Avenue who are here to speak
tODfght. one of who~ I have met ~it_ on several occisfons. 540 Uniwersit,
Ayenue~ 11 partfcHlar. owned by Steve Jarvis and Aa, Tourzan_ At each mf
t~~ c~uncl1 meetfngs~ I have said, we are gOing to present a problem for
th .. a. we add two floor.. They Ire between 3S and 40 feet set back from
tho rl~ of the structure. It i •• thre.-.tory building that has no
landscaping b,ffer between it and the garage. By the .aJ, on Hamilton
Avenue ind on Vebster, you have mat~re trees. ~en t~e structure was
built. t~ere vere 11read~ mature trees in place~ You ~ave i very
4ifferent landscape eonvfronment for those bu il ding s. Of! the UP) i vers i t,)'
Avenue bact. t~at ~IS always ~ service ~ehicle area ~hen it was surface
par\l~, so it dfd ~ot ~aye landscaping and mature trees. So they ~ave a
very different wfew and view impact by the addition of the twa floors. At
530 Un'versity Avenue, we have I tetter from one of the general partners
supporting t~at there will be added .al," to their project by improving
the parting (frcumstance. Present tonfg~t to speak is John Hackmann who
will st.t. that the Impact on the light on , one-story building is also
significant a~ ~aJ be detr1mental to the fRterests of Quality tenants~
T. get to the point of what I a~ astlog of JOU tonight: we ha.e strong
direction from t~e clt, count;l fl its resolution on JulJ 2 ~hfc~ sai~
that as we proceed through t~e process~ it would be our desire t~ build
the f'll two-story structure consIst log of 176 stalls. rather than .ettlng
baci. unless we deter.ine th.t there is significant neighbor opposition.
or unless .e determine that for the purity of good polley, bot. il ARB and
,lannlng policy. that that Is an inappropriate planniog vehicle. So io
one instance we have a statement that sa~s. we t~;nk tne parking is
seriousl, eno~gh needed to enco~rage .axi~m deyelopme~t of the parking.
00 t~e other ~and. ,lease help •• to do good plannIng. Here, the planning
<oneer. is, if 11 the abstract, good planning is stepped back fro~ the
re.ldenti.l neighbors, therefore let's pull the setback along Vebster
Street is abstract planning. and by using abstract. ~elp me if there is i
better phrase~ ~ere it is not at the impetws of responding to a
nei9hbor~s ,oncerl~ but ,lanniD9 fl general. TheR we ~ave a different
concerl~ ~hfc~ is our two nefghbors at 540 and 530 Unl~ersjts Avenue who
are saJing, t~is is I ~ig, uglJ, unrelfeved structure that you are makfng
bigger and gglier, and what can you do for ws? Wby can~t you set back at
our frontage, rlt~er than It the Webster frontage, or in additioD tl the
Webster frontage? II answer to t~at concera, I ~ll not pretend to you
that the structure is not fl.ancl.llJ feasible by ha,'ng 160 spaces onlJ.
I ~ave never sa1d that to councilor staff. ~ile ve are not indiffereRt
about the develo~nt ~f the fyl1 structure~ ve ire certai.1J not
.. scl.bound and will not take t~e po.itlon that setback. ire i.juriou. t.
the seRsibllit, mf proceedfng with our proposal. HoweY~r, to go below 160
stalls doe. start dipping i,t. a. are. where the co.t of the
iofrastructure Is .0 gre.t that the increased cost per st.ll becomes
burden.ome to a pol,t of being .ery difflc,lt If we reduce the setback
both on UniveTsit, Avenue and on Webster.
-5-
! .. -.-.---~--:---'.> ----_.-
\
" i _
!
I
!
I
!
I
" , I
\ .-,
\
-\
~ . ;.,"
-..
'!t.'--:':~ .
~:~
•
i
-'-
•
r.·.'.· ... ·.·.
r -'--
!
\ i
i "
t-i.~ ,--::crt.~;;~It~IJ,~ __ c.;~' ~._. _,.-:..~:-_~_.,,'"'~~r .. _~_~"_,_~:~:;t'_~,.;:"-.,.,.~"~-~y ... :'"''!-:-1'".~_~.~I~~A~~·~".~2
il Q ~ I!
r];.. There art' other Wi.)tS to approach this. Then [ ... ill sWTlTlarize abolJt the
Questfon I would Isk of you tonig~t. The structure. right now~ is bUl1t
with it fhe-foot trellis systelR. It fs Dlasshe~ The trellises "ang beTo .... . r ~it is it metal deck and concrete floor. Above that are metal safe t , 1 nils. Tney are not so iltrushe,. but the depth of the trellis, five
J feet. is. I understand fro~ the arc~itect of Parsons B~inkerboff,
~i [Bubet" ';~ens, wfto was aha the rroject manager hr the ,project when it
~ ~s built by the cit! ;a 19l through 1985. and therefore. we could have no
~ better eKpert to help advise us OD what were t~e reasons for what we di~
, , ,
"
-~
the. and for what we might do differently n~. J have ju,t learoed
recentl, fro. [liz.beth that we can reduce the trellis froo five feet to
one foot and foIl, .al.t.l. structural i,tegrity. That creates a .,c.
lighter seRse in tne trel1is~ I~ ~dditio~, f8 certaia locations ~e could
pr~babl, create cascading landseapi~g il I fo~r-foot dept~. That wal _e
reduee t~e struct~re from five feet to one foot, and there is an
opportunlt, fA that added space to pr~vide lindscaping, probabl, not trees
because Qf the 5011 a~d mofsture weights which exceed vhat t~e structure
is designed for, but certainT, shrubbery and flowering plants.
No~~ to get to the issue. f ~ould ask that )OU not imagine that reducing
the struct~re by more than 16 stalls is an eas, pill or a necessary pll1~
I ~ould als~ is\ that yo~ understand that I metal and eonc~ete struct~re
wit~ earthquake strength to maintafl~ we cannot pull out si~ stills here
and sil stills t~ere and four stalls ~ere, and is that tne best ~atc~? We
.al be able to dum~ some of that, and we will know better ~he" we retur.
to yo~ next, if t~ere are ways t~ lQse (our stills along Universit, Avenue
and four stalls along Web,ter and all that lind or relief, The pOiot is,
I would guid'ance that VI! e"'il uate the relative merits of where ve set
bact. lI. will uJlore fcr .. hen we retun to you lightening of the
structure at tne upper floors by reducfng the dimensiOD of the.trellis.
~e ~11) expTGre ,1acement of significant lan~scapin9 at the drfveways it
Webster and Cowper and in partjcwl~r. 1. I manner that ~ould be pltasing
to ~. Jarvis and Mr. Tourza~~ ~o are impacted the most at 540 Uni~ers;t,
A~enue. We would further ex,lore .het~er it is possible to set back and
los. some portion of the stalls along thefr frontage. ~y hope is that you
can give ws clear 9uida~ce because. Commissioner tilleR, is you point out,
_e ha~e plann;~g policies occ~rring at .11 levels. Any of YDU ~ho have
read the ARB mfnutes und~rstand that ~anl of the opilions expressed there
~ad to do with zo~fng and ,lanning ~atters. not architectural ~atters. To
t~e ext eAt that we do not get some clear directio~ tonig~t, I am cancer~ed
t~at at the ARB, we will be oegotl.tiog between ARB and ilinniog
coamission policies unresol~~.
John Hackmann. 530 Unfyersit. Avenyt. ,,10 Alto: I a~ an attorney
speakIng tonight for Jerry rlckll., one of the general partners .t 530
Unfverslty Avenue. His aprtnere~ Steve Mandel), has written letters
supporting the need for parking and the concept of the addition of the
sfxt_ lnd seventh floors. What Jerry. il Fartfcwlar, asked me to tilt
about, si~e ~e had t. be out of town tG~ight, is the fact that there is
an i~act on t~e s.aller propert, owners on Unfvers;t, Avenue. II
parlfc.lar, he is cOficerned that increasing t~e ~ass of the structure
,ome.hat is golog to ~a,e an impact on the quality of life of the tenant,
fl this bu'Tding. There is ~orlfng sunllg~t now, after about a a.M. it
certai. times of the year~ he states. ] am not conversant with the
specifics of that, but the tenants do .oJoy that ODd tne walkway on that
-6-
! , ,
i
..
• 1
J
, .,
-
. -
"
side ~f the bu11df~ does have some of t~at a~bfence f~ part Df tne day.
1 agre. wit~ Ji. that a setbact, if there could or should be one, .ight be
~~a appr~prf~te on t~e Universit, A~enue side of t~e structure t~an
elsewhere, to preser~e that. T~fs is .ultt-tfer~ stru(ture is kind of
doafnant. even f. the center of the lot, and on that side. where there is
I lot Df pedestrian traffic l~d ~here we iTe trying to maintain - I 1M
sorry, I a. not f .. lli.r w;t~ all the orban ~1.nnln9 terms. I, this a
nexus. I node, or an axis? It is I walkway. II part;c~lar~ one of
Jerry~s concer., ~icA is not reall, Jia's fault but is some~hat adding
ios.lt to f.jury, Is that when be bought t~is building, it was. 3:1 ritia
for permitted development when he signed the papers to go i,ta escrow. By
the ti.e he closed, it was 1:1, so ~e is ~ot getting the benefit of 'is
bargal'l. but lie Cln 1 tve wit~ that. I: busfneSSfJlel'\ do~ So new, there is I
gr •• t deal of parking gotng on th.t does not benefit him i. the sense that
h. Cinnot expand .ls building. He ~as t. look it it every day and h.ve it
s~ade the offices 00 the first fioor of \fs building. so some
consideritio~ for the imbience l~d the qU11itl gf the tenancy for those
people who are quite clos. to the structure would probo~ll be t, order.
Rav Toyrzan, S4Q Unfversity Aven~e, Palo Alto: ~,Jarwis lnd I cwn 540
Unfversity Avenue. As Jim mentioned, ve ~ave had 1 n~mber Qf meetings
.nth '1m. explafling our concerl. W! would like your assistance iN
hel,ing .s try t •• itlgate so .. of the prob1ems that will be caused by the
two extrl noors. (lne of them would be i: setback on Uni'f'HsitJ Avenue,
because ours Is I three-story bu1ldfng. If you have six ar seven stories
on the back of iI, the offices on the back are going t. look prettI bad.
We have tat.n some pictures t. show the ARB what thel would look like
,fter it is done.
The second t_iDg _e could like to suggest. whic. be has agreed to. is tc
put some sort of • p1a.t 00 the anl.ersitl side. When you look at the
building oow, it is r.ther bare. [t does not look .ice .t all. Also,
have some hangicg ,lants on the bact side. We have the sa~ cancer. is
the 530 owners. T~js js going to be i large structure and is not going to
be very conducl.e to our bull.ing. Ours is the onll building ~hfc_ is
three stories. I woald appreCiate your ~el, f. trying t. resolve t~fs
proble.. Tbant yoa.
Chairman Marsb: Since I ~ave no ~ther cards from ~mber5 of the p~blici
will clos! the public hearing and returl t~is item to the planning
cOlTlTlission ~
Commlssioner Christense~: I ~ave I question for ~. Baer. rt relates to
the certiflcatloo that no employees 0111 ~.ve perolts for other downtown
lots. What I iN ~re i!terested il is , w~at kind of program would be put
i. ,lace to see t~.t the employe.s ve are taIling about will oct.all1 park
I. that parting structur ••
~. eaer, let me addr.ss the oechanfs~ for pallciog that, and why that
was I.traduced. first, f. the le.se agreement whlc. will be between 50S
Ha81Tton Avenue Partners, primarily because thlt fs an entitJ tnat is best
Ible t, absorb tne tax consequences of I fee that ~ receT~e from Dig1tll
~eA the structure fs complete. II Iny event~ the lease between the city
and that entitl states that 529 Bryant Street and the upper floors at 250
UDiverslt1 Avenue, t~e cft, may request t~at we submit emplayees and their
automobile imformatfon and certlf1 that none of them ha'f'e permits. I~
.J.
•
\
I
!' ,
r
•
'"'~" -~~ii{:·.·
: ,
\
\
-'
\
\ . , , ,
i
i
4
j
1
\
I
I
!
I
,I
-,
-
Q
addition, w~en t~is Ttise is assigned for the parking struct~re t) Digital
£quipment. w~ich ~as a1~ays bee~ the ,lan, we hav! the r;g~t, as tne S&E,
ttl require thell to 51;ve us tllat int::»'matfoD. So if the ci tl is fnterested
io policing b<c,u,. the1 t~int that Is not a. appropriate pollc1 for them.
I .. the gU1 ~o is going to have neighbors shouting .t oe if the1 "Y. we
still cannot get permits dQwntown because we are told there are 75 Dig;tal
Equlp .. nt employee, on t~e waiting If,t ahead or ,.. That is brealing the
obligation I ~ trying to meet with downto_n o~ners that ~~ reall, are
trying to create this for relief that we can control by req~irjng Digital
employees in t~ose buildings to part there and ~ot elsewnere ia pe~;t
spaces. I all tertii. ope~ to an,)' sl.tggestions you have as. to how we
further encourage beyond pr~hibition that parkfng take place e'5ew~ere im
the assessment dfstrict, but t~at is t~e mec~anjs~ r1gnt now.
t~iirla" ~ar5~: I ~ave a quest fan for staff. Whe~ j person applies for a
"cking permit, do they ~ave t. put down the busine., for whioh they work?
~sr lytle: I do not know tne answer to t~at. Mr. Overwa, ~;ll be present
at t~~ next meet1ng ind can ans~er it.
(~lifMan ~ar$h: That ~ight be an important pie~e of infor~ation ia trying
to ERforce that (lause.
CQ!I!Ilssjoner (ulleD: I called Ills. lytle today to find out wh", the
prevlous ~in~tes fOT the plannlDg coamtssfon apprQ~al of t~is project ~ad
~ot bee~ included. because there are several enthusiastic stitements ;1
here about ~DW everybody ~as overjoyed wit~ the idea of ~aking prDvision
for two additional levels of parking. W~E. the original approval we.t
through. I guess ] a~ the onl, one Jeft on t~e commissi~D. and I also sat
00 the co~ittee t~at i,teryiewed the con •• ltaRt. t~at selected the
arclitects for the particalar (acilit,. A great co~cerl at the tfme OD
t~e ,lanning comafssfon and of t~e committee t~at did the imterwiewing WaS
t~at t~fs pirtfc~llr structure not be percelved as massive fr~ t~e
street~ After it left the plannfng commlssfoD. where we DDT, JooKed it
five storie •• nd thought t~it ~os prett, big ond were delighted when they
were able to depress ~alf of t~e first story. the ot~er people who got
iovol.ed (oo,tl, merchants downtown) were delightEd to have the additional
stories, if 1t _ere feaslble. They ~ere not Tooifng it ~hat tne planning
commission ~as Joot~ng at, ~;ch was I ,ery se~ere wisual impact fro~ a
mo,.ive garage. I .till have that feeling about t~is .truoture. If you
loot at t~e photoqrap~s ~t~ the dotted lines drawn fa and the view fro~
the street, you are going to see a very massive str~cture. I do know t~at
• e oeed the additional parking, but I am concerned that it not b. quite
,och ,_block is it loois like rfg~t now. I did talt t. the developer
today about ., concer.. OnE or the thing, he ;s repl,ing to is the
setback possibility on two stories~
Commissioner Hjrsc~: I ~aye a QuestioD regarding the true Deed for t~is
expanslon. I was downtown shortly after 10 o'cloct this marRing, and took
t~e opportuntt, tD drive through t~e garage. park ~y car, and waTi around
and toot at the ~umber of 5~aCe$ t~at were vacant. Downstairs there were
68 ~acant spaces. On the first floor. there were eight, and on the top
floor. there vere 42, (or a t~tal of 118 emptJ spaces at about 10;10 t~is
.or.ing. I do not lnow if that is typfcal, but ~y ire ~e idding two more
floors when you ~ave a garage t~at is onlJ partiall, ~sed t~ begi. wit~?
•
t I,
I
I
,
I
I
i
~
:;
,-
•
, ,..;:
-'
,
. -' .
-
. -
.-.
o
Ms. lytl.: TeA .'clock is oat the peak tfme. Two o'clock is probabl, the
tfme you would ~a.e come .nd found the type of .se that fs documented i.
the stoff report. There is • documented oeed for the additional parking,
portic,larl, considering the Bryant Street project, which was recentl,
approved .nd ~os been a .acant buflding i. the area.
Commissjpner H1rs,.: ~at ~ipp~ns it two 9 .•. that does not happen It 10
...... ~?
~. Iinmenain: Tau ~a~e i peak due to the leftover luncheon people ~ho
irt patronfzing the eating and drinking establisnments, and io addition,
yo~ ~aye ~re shoppers f' a reta11 distritt f~ the ~fternoon than )OU do
11 the mor.fD~. Marling time 1n i ret.l1 district, StiC~ as Downtown Pal~
Alt~. is relative!, qUlet, except for those ~o are employed ;1 Qffices.
Mr-Baer: It is not i different circumstance than you have parking on
E~erso~ Street near Burger ling. Parking 1m those lots at tEA 1m the
IOOning is eas,. You Will not find a parking space fr-oll 11 until 6 or
eveR 1 11 the $ummertime~ The first floOf, ~~ich is bourt1 parkingp not
per.it parking. is not fwlll parked until mid-day, and even theR it is not
,Iway. folll p.rke~. All t~e floor. now are foIl except t~e top floor.
The top floor will ',r, from beIng ~alf t. two-thIrd. unused. '0 your
count there is accurate~ fhat probabl, rema;Rs acc~rite ~nether it is 8
11 the mo~fD9 or l~t 2 or S. rt fs because t~at is the least popular,
and It Is t~e onl, parking lot t~at has the abtl it, to issue permits over
t~e counter. right now, becaus~ of 1ts remoteness. T~at is an area of
town that fs not experf!~cfng new development. Part of the reason ye ~ere
trying to encour.ge development .f that lot .n~ ~ave Digit,l e~l.yees
~ark up there was because ve can control and for,! t~e~ to do t~at. We
ca,not get the dent.l office above W,lgr,e.'s t. walt that far. Tbey will
pari on the streets and ~ye thefr cars every two hours before thel Will
park there. That is not true for an engineering concer) where you ~ave i
Single employer controlling. lot of omployees_ r. addition, the par\;ng
structure. the increased ~tiliZition 11 Parking lot J~ has bee A enormous
;, the list 18 IlOnt~s_ At t~at Hme. you woul~ ha.e ~ad no cars 00 the
upper floor an~ half t. two·t_irds .~t, on eac~ of the fourth an~ third
floars as ~ell. The ilteRslffcatlon ~ic~ we are a11 aware of and whfc~
needs ta be addressed IS t~e signiffcant downt~wn proble~ is.
notwithsta~din9 the downzonl~g, parkfng counts increase, parking demands
fDcrels~, a~d t~e people sfgnl~g letters saying parkfng 1S a problem is
ngt done as a favor. Eac~ one of tnes! take i ,isit and i listening, so I
re.ll, bope that t~e sio<erlty of the weIght of the letter. of people who
park .t 10 and Z .nd don't get custo .. rs who can park .t lQ and Z i. the
district is re.ll, well understood.
C~aj,.a" Mars~: As I see it, t~ere are basltal1, t~ree issues on o~r
.gen~a tonfght. One is slmpl, the rele.anc, .f the PC application. Does
it qua1ify .s truly providing public benefft? Tbe second would be •
discussion of t~e setbacks, the level of fill buildout that ~e want to see
on the top level of the structurt~ a~d ~ere those setbacks should occur.
T~eR. anI comments that commissioners have oa t~e ~ariance applfcltion.
The variance is nat accompanying this PC ipplicatfon. but the loning
.~I.istr.tor has Indfcated that if w, ha.e anythIng specific to s.y about
it, she would lfke t. ~ear those COODents now for when she do •• t.~e up
the ~ariance. Those are the t~ree issues I s~e the.. Are there any
comaents on the basfc fssue Df the PC? A PC ob~fousll has t~ pro~ide some
•
\
, ,
~
\
-,
,
t
I ,
1 ,
i
1 •
o
sort of public benefit. We need to address ~ether ~r net t_is
applfcitiDn does t~at f~111 and to our satisfaction.
Cgmm1ssioner C~ristensen: 1 ~ I little concerned about
.arller by sl.ff that the $150,000 payment is nol re,11,
anythf~g. i wonder w~etner it is possible fer us to tie
~re speciffcally t~an tne lease does.
tfle discussion
tied to
it down a little
"5. Lytle; It is ~ithln your abilit1 to recommend t~at it be more
specific~ if yOy care to do SO~
Commlssioner Chrr5te~sen: Just saying that it could be re~sed il
properties wit~il t~e assessment district is anything.
~~: ~ell9 it has to be i public a~nitl or an improvement .ithin
t~at Irea, somet_fng that ~ould be for public purposes or maintenance.
(.orrrnfssioner Chrfste.I'.$ea: rt 'IIIas not clear to me frora what she nad.
Chairman Mar$~: I ~ad an opPosite concerp.. That 1S t I would J ~fer to
see the S150,OOO noted as prov]'.ding an arnenitJ to the downtown ';" eoil. but
not restricted specffi.call, h the parking as.sessment district
boundaries. The greater downtown certaillJ may be more relavant to the
proYlsfon of public benefits t that is. there are public benefits we .ig~t
want te provide for all of downtown that ~appe~ across tht $treet from
~ere the lartiDg assess~nt dlstrict's boundar) is drawn. That is a
f.lrls tigbtl, dr ... boundary.
Ms. Case: By contract~ the Cit} ~as indicated its i~tent to agree that
the none} _ill be spent il that location. so ft .auld probably be oil tot
easier for you to just go along _iU that. Tt1en t working _it.l!h that
framewort, decide what yo~ want to do wit~ the ~on~y.
Chairman ~ars~: We have never been ones to take tne easy WiI] out.
Cornnfssloner 8eecbill'A: Not that [ all swayed b.1 what the council has done
or ma1 do. but] am comfortable ~it~ the if~itatioD t~at the ~onfY be
app1fed wit~i. the .ssessment district. Tbi, is talting about parling.
[t is f~ the do~town area. Parking is the bfggest proble~ iD l~e
downtown area. Tney on11 catch I see }; it is that the ~is~al fmpact
would be localized. 1 would lite t. have sometiing considered about
reducing the vls.a1 impact .s • benefit. On. concept.,l level, applying
the benefit te the assessmfnt district {as the ~ole process ~e are
tilting about is .ffecting Ihe parking proble. i. the downtown} is
appf'"Dpr LIte ~ .
lomm[ssioner Huber: When you say. visual impact, are you referriog t~ the
structure jt~elf? ~sing monies on tMe str~cture itself?
Commissioner Beec~a~: Not necessarilJ us;ng ~one, on the structure~ and]
do not know how It could be done. but for examp1e, 11 looking at the
p~otOSt trees make ill difference. I wonder what ~appe~s fl tne wfnter and
how much more dra.st ; c 'it lIa.y 1001. I am [lot su re liIIhat "can be done, b4Jt it
would cert.I.1] be Ipp,op,i,I. to find somet!ing that can be done, and
address it.
-10-
-"""!~-:' L~' ... ---.. ~.~ .~:-.
C"}"
·1
1
o n
Conmfssjgner Cbristensen: I am perfect1.r acceptab,";-jto the idea of its
being ~sed wft~f~ the assessment district. ~y concer! is that it not be
,s~ for t~lngs t~.t otherwise would be paid for, suc~ as traffic lights.
A trafffc llght is, 1. a sens!. i public benefit. but it can be funded i~
other 'is~fQn5. J would like some guidance to the 'itr council as to how
the funding be spent.
tqmrnfssfoner Cgllen: I certail', second t~at~ It is important to ~ave
somet~ing specifjed that it be an amenit! over and above ~hat would
Donoall, be • budgeted item. I don't want the cit, budget to suddenl, be
the recipient or the 1150,000. It should be for an omenit,.
[ was oriQf~al1J struggling wit~ the question af whether t~i5 PC amendment
or adding the two levels is indeed a public benefit. It seems, on the
face flf it" a printe benefi t. It prl}v;des parklng for a s-pec; fie group
~f employees, but because it does revert from priwate to publfc ownersblp
Ifter IS years. I guess that is a sufficient public benefit for parking
that would not be built at publit expense. I would like to get t~at out
on t~e record. because it is i private benefit. ~reover7 it is not the
developer who fs p.ying fo< it. [t fs the lessee of the buildiog at 5l9.
So we IIave to keep that (1earl, ia mind. I ara .a litt1e concerned about a
lessee who occupfes line downtawn bUildfngs. II.n econolD;c reverse~ lrith
~loyees befng laid off. there mig.t be some effect on the occupanc,
d~town. along with the abi11tl to continue t~ls partic~lar structure.
Is t~Ere a bonding process for this 15 years~ to be sure that we do not
wind up with somebody not beiog able to f.Tfill the financial obligations?
Mr-8aer~ The ~alue to build the structure is roug~lJ 52.2 million. 1m
addition, there is the SI5O,OOO up-front payment. Tne $150,000 occurs
prior to occupancy Df the structure. The $2.2 mlllf~~ will be incurred
wit.11 • If me frame defined by the PC amendment. Right now, it is
projected to be no loter tilin June 20 or next yeO'. After that, the
benefit is that the structure exfs~$. We v1ll be bonding for completion
of the structure. If there _ere j ff"ancfll downt~rl il the lessee of th~
structure, the benefit of the fMll structure being available t~ the city
bappens on any default of t~e lessee. There is no ongol~g fi~anciil
ob1fgation b~ the lessee so that you get a more rapid benefit of the value
of t~e structur •.
Commissipner (,lle": ~at about the ~al&tenance? Are you personally
going to be the one responsible, or your corporat1on. Dr is the lessee
going to be responsib1e ro< it!
~$ eatr: Under the current leas!, we are responiible. The Telse also
provides t~at at .any tfme~ .ere we tc choose to not continue to mai~tai~
the str~twre. it reverts to the city. The ,a1ue Qf the annual
~afotenanc. h currentl, SlO,OOO-2S,DOO. The t~ought that the
Transportation. P~blfc Works and Cit, Attorney's off!(! t~at we have been
worling wit~ [See Is not on t.;s project) is that ~e could predict that if
two years from now, Digital threw up their ~ands and saf~. we do not ~ant
to mal&tail it anymore~ ~e ~11 give ~p our rights. the assessment
district ~uld .elcome the addition of t~ose 160 spaces, if the citJ ~as
~lling to resume its mafmtenance obligation t~ get those parking spates.
Coon;ss;on,r Hlrs<~: ~o"ld all the employees of the lessee the. appl, for
the penlits tm ~ark fl those spaces?
-11-
•
"
."
f·
,
I r ,
t -,
f . ..
! ·c
!
,
r
f
i
!
!
i ,
-'
i ' . .] ..... ,.'·ii
~ ; I
. ~
!
I., ..... "'. •
-~ .• ,;~-
! :.L~-'~\,,::.~~ .'~-.. _ . .. . /'. ~ ,.'
~ ___ i:'-:~~_~",,;,_~_ -~~----=-__ ~~.~-__ >",h"'""'-lt'·~""">~4<_ ~~~~.-~~ .... ~
Q o
~~ Baer: The big question is. is t~e cost of permits greater t~an the
cost Df ~aimter.ance? It is (Tose.
C9mmissfoner Beet~am: I would lite to add to t~e record a differing
comment on public versus priwate benefit of ~avin9 176 or ~owewer many
space aver Ule next 10 or IS years. Regardless of who ,parks t1'lere. as
long IS someone ~arks there. it is t~at many people W~Q are not parking
somewhere else; it is t~at many people who are ~ot on the queue line for
peratts; it is that many people who are not on the resident;.l streets. r
consfder that to be a very clear public benefit. !~ add;tion~ as has bee~
noto4. t~at parkIng lot is t~e least popular since it Is the farthest aWOl
froN downtown~ I do know pecp1e fl the building around the corner from
Valgre,o's that park there and walt to t~eir place of amp10yment, but it
is a little bit coerced. It is not done entire1, free1,. I a. ,leased to
find t~at ~e ~an encourage ind coerce employees workfng in central
downtown Pal. Alto t. park i. that parking lot. I can hard], thin. of a
better _a, of gettiog this process done. ~at _e are see;~g ~eres the
eRtire thing, both for the co~;ng IS years and beyond, will be i large
public benefit.
Com,lssfoner HiTSC~: What 1S the annual permit fee for one parking spot?
Ms. L,tle: SlOO per year, $60 per Quarter.
Chal~an Marsh: tet ~s now move to the di~~ssion of the setbacks and the
bUlldout ~f the top level of the parking 9arage~ Tne issue is, gf course.
the number of spaces that shoul~ be proYide~. If there is a setback. the
question is on whie' side of the structure that setback should occ~r_
Commissjoner Cillen: I thfnk there should be a setback. I a~ ~appy to
hear the developer referring to 160 spaces instead af 116 receRtly. I am
ROst concerned about the shadow on the Unlversft, Avenue sfde. It is the
longest shadow. Tne ot~er ~;de tf the building is t~e s~ort side. Also,
lookf,g at the .bad .. lines by season. it doe. appear to be pretty
prono~nced 00 University Avenue. and may even affect t~e sidewalks. So I
~ould like to see t~e setback c1earll on the Univers;t, Avenue 'ide. It
would be lice if there were some on the other siae, as well, but I do not
believe it is g01ng tQ be possible to ~aKimfze the setback on t~e
University Ayenue side and stil! have somet~ing left oyer for the Vebster
side. looifng it the s~adow patterRS, t~ey do "ot seem to be quite as
affected on t~it side. So I vou1d urge .11 of you to recommend to the
deyeloper t~at we do ~.ve a setback on both leyels on t~e Universit,
Avenue s;de~ ind let lim come back ~ith a ~a1 that works best far the
proSect.
Chajnnan ~arsh~ When we tali about both levels, how ~any spaces are
there?
Cgmmf$$faner Callen: He is tiltfng abo~t 16 spaces. There ~ouT~ be some
on both levels.
Ms. lytle: fhe staff analysis 414 not consider setbacks OD the Uniwersit,
Ayenue side It all. We did tilt about the Vebster and Cowper sides of the
structurf, since t~at ~iS t~e ~ay it ~as orf91~al1J ~es;gned. with 25-foot
setbacks o. both ,ides. The residenti,1 side of the property •• it~ the
-Il-
---........... ----~ -L
-
f ,
! r ,
c
/
• ~.
•
'.
, \
. '-.' .. , "
o
6.ylfght ,I.ne for RK·40, is loc.ted on one of those sides. So we loo~ed
it that other direction, not t~e Univers;t} Avenue direction. since it was
commertial ind less seRsitive~ In our anil1sis, we fo~nd that you could
pull it iG fr~ one direction ind lose 13 spaces, protecting the
resfdectill propertfes to the ftaxfmu~ !~tent. We felt it ~as less
necessary t. de It fro~ the comoerei'! 'ide of the propert~.
Chifm" If.arsh: Vere those U spaces i!:lt on one floor?
~St Lvtle: Tes. the1 all ended up on t~e Webster side. and on1, on t~e
top fl.o~. It w •• not considered to take them off the sixt~ floor.
Cqrnrnlssianer ChrJ$tensen~ What I thought J heard ~. Baer saying was
that, yes. some setback to the 2S feet was possible. and losing 16 spaces
was possible 1S fi~ is f1nanclal feasibility .as concerned. I thoug~t he
was IlsD suggesting that for <ertal! parts of it~ it ~ould be possible to
pull back the trtllfs and create a four-foot setbacl: without changing the
number of park fag spaces, provi~{Dg a ledge on which landscaping could
occur_
~s. lytle: I b •• rd bi •• a, t~at, too, but that is the first time 1 heard
'i~ express t~at concept. It was not i part of our analysis.
(prnmissl0ngr ChrIstensen; I thougnt w~at he was Qfferfng tQ try to work
out soce combination of both things.
(ommfssiorer Becc~am: [think there ire far ~ore people that ~ass along
Universlt1 Avenue every day I. the commerci.1 area that will be Impacted
by this than the number of resfdences. I a~ not sure that the proper
tradeoff is t. ,tve it t~ the resfdentfal area versys the downtown people
who have. lot pore tr.ffic. I wonder about that tradeoff.
Chairman ~arsh: I wish te relfnd all ~f is about how hard we have worked
t. try ind creit@ s~ SOft of lr~n$it,o~ill lOne~ over the last few ye.rs
betweeft residentfal development and commercial development. We ~ave done
that il recognition of the idea that the residential lones ~ave very
specific interests t~at are qUlte different fro~ ilny commercial
dev~'opment that .1ght ad}olD i property. 1 thin\ it 1S imp~rtant fo~ QS
t~ continue cons1dering that here. as well 15 these other comments.
COlTITIlssigner Hirscl!: [tlave it question for 10~. Chair1'lan Mars"'. When lOU:
tl1t about these transitional lDne5~ have~rt the height limititions
typlc.ll, been around 35 feet!
Chairman ~.rsh: The ,t.ff could answer that better. T_irty·fiv. feet ;s
a typical transition betweeA certal. tinds of res;dential and (ommer'lal
development. I an DOt sure what level of residential development it is.
~s. lytl.: I. t~is c.se, you adopt the height of the closest and lowest
r.sidenti.1 zone, which is AM-40. So we have. to-foot height imposed 00
that side adjace,~ t. that Zone.
Commfssioner ~frscl!: But the transftfonal lanes tend to ~imic the height
of whatever it is adjacent to.
~5. LrtTe: Yes. il this case it is adjacent to o~r ~i9~est density
-ll-
"L '----, _. -.
•
..-..-."
I
I
I
I
"
\
I
. -_.
\
/
"',.,,~'"'" •. "-':.,..~_-_ .. ~~_~.~ .. ~ ~ .'JIi'.:.,..,..;;>o...","~~,.;::.~.~~\.~ h£:. .. :"_Ift $ ..
o o
multf,T!-fa~ll, zon!.
Commissipner (Illen: Referring to what Commissioner Seec~am said. this is
I commerefil irea. It is true that it is r~$identlil at that corner, but
t~.! Is the narr .. est section of this buIlding and is where the Impact
will be the le.s! seen. People go up and ~own Universit] Avenue .11 the
trme. T~iS partic.l.r structure is going to impact a lot .f people. If
you 100\ at the dotted Jines j~ these photographs, you can see clearl}
that you ~1]1 spend I l0t of time being ~ery aware of t~is ~a5sive
structure. It is one of t~e very things we yere tryfng to ivoid ~~e~ we
origin.ll, approved the garage for this site. Since t~e owner of the
residentlal propertits at the corner of H~llton and Webster does not seem
ttl be "WorrIed about this structure, ] ~o"'der if he lias some other plan fof"
those propert1es, causing tim not to worry about the height. Currently, I
.ti11 feel t~.t the biggest impact is on the Universit, ~,enue side.
(missipner Huber.: If JIlr. Bur is "Will in9 to do setbacks on the upper
level Clf the property, that is all rigl1t., but frai1klJ~ two more stories is
gOlDQ to be a 2asslve structure, no matter ~hat you do "With t~em. fou can
pallt ita et(~a but it fs still a monster. Tne cit} council clearl1 says,
t~ts is ~hat we are gOing t~ do. I think it is a good eombl~ation Qf
public and prl.ate eenefit. and .ltiaately •• 11 public. frankly. I ~ould
just· as soon see the fill component of parkiDg spaces. -with s.ome
~c~inatjonsJ to .ake it look better on top ~th land$Capinq. etc. What
little you get froo • 25·foot setback .a, not be worth it i. over.11 bult.
ooce t~i. garage Is bullt.
Chairtlan lW:i1!: ... e navi! the gamut cf opinion on thfs J so far.
Cornnfssfoner Gllzier! I wish to support (omnlss;oner Huber~s eomme~ts,
and .1so big~light the faet that when 525 Bry •• t Street comes on lioe. we
ire going to hve ISO parking spac .. needed. If ~e phJ around with
setbacks here and end up creating 140 or ISO spaces J that 1S 30 extra
spaces t~at have to ee provided <o .. where f. the <it,. As I look around
eYery day .. J do ~ot 'kf')OW where we are goil19 til find U-.emr I would' I ike to
see the f.ll complement built.
Nas ftr. Baer's offer Qf land~aping up on top beeR fo~al1J incorporated
llta t~is document yet?
Ms. Lytle: Mo, and it t"is stag~, the applfcant ~sual)1 goes to the
drawing board and more f~ll, develops the <oncepts after recef'lD9
commfssio~ rn;ut, prior to going t! the Architectural Revf~ Boar~.
CQII!hsfo"!!,r (~rtsteRsen: I (.oneur vit .. the n~ .. arts !Df Cl'lairman "arsfl~
~.d the reverse feeling as I looked .long Un!verslt} Avenue fro. the
streetscape. I an not convicced t~.t It will be pirtle.larl, noticeable.
The impact on the buildings r. the rear ~.y be gre.t. "aybe t~e best
thing t. do I. the suggestion .f stepping back the four feet and doing
some softening landscaping t~at hangs down for the .iew out of those rear
windows of the three'story building. I do t!ink ~ ~.ve spent. 1.t of
time deve10ping transitfon zones fQr the residential area. Those peo~le
live there a they are there a great deal ~f tlme, and the1 are the people
~e should t~rn\ about the most sensltivel,. So I ~ould be i. f.vor of the
l5 feet beIng .long the Webster frontage .
• )C.
~''''·'''''·'''-'''-~Er'''-------''·,"",-" . ---. -
-
•
,
., • ,
I ,
r
t
! . .... ,-
!
f l
,
-
': '
o 0
] wanted tl ,ret up on an affer t~it ~. Baer made to do the landscapfng
at the entri~ces, partie.larl, the Cowper entrance. That e~tr~~ce is very
stirk and ugl,. current 1,. The ARB sbould give partlc.lar attention to
t~at entrance in terms ~f landscapl~g ind fmprowiog how that apgears fro~
(""per street.
~. B.er: One ,Iece of help we will need that you can .asiT, provide is
that Public ficrks envisioned that we duplicate the existing floors
precisel, It the upper floors. So t~e clarit, w;t~ wbic~ you sa!, apublic
Vorks. ,lease •• ,lore reducing the flve·foot trellis to a one-foot trelTis
to creat~ a lfg~ter structure a~d create landseapfng· gives unambfguous
guidance. Right now, the sense is that we are going to precise11
duplicate the lower fToors. AT.l those Ilter.attves become .. anable that
otherwise are not, if YGU provide that lfnd of direction to Publ ic Works.
CommiSSioner Beec~am: What 1S the best Mechanis~ for making a strong
statement I. that regard?
thafrman ~arsb: We can incorporate it w~en we get to the point of making
I metfon tl approve the <oncept~al PC. Well) let Commissioner Beec~a~
.make it.
I would like to get some concept.al approvil of the PC. pulling out the
issue uf the setbacks, disc~ssiDg t~at issue sepa~atelJ. [would
entertail a motion regarding approval ~f the PC applicatlon itself.
MOTlON: (_'$SIoner CllleR: I so Inove.
~: By CommISSioner Beecham.
Commissioner Beecbll: I believe t~e commissIon strongl~ feels that to
50fte~ the outlIne of the structure is very Important. ~aYing setbacts is
one way. Changing the appearance of the trel11s Is a seco~ major
element. I. add1tloD. if the trellis caD be struct.red to allow the
cascading landscaping, ~ should include that. How do you want to
lDcorporate that fltl the motion?
Chairman ~rs~: The comment would be to .rge Public Vor's to look at the
,arious setbiCk options for the trellis. Are there any other strong
comme~ts that anyone wants to accompany the concept~al appro~al?
Commissioner Christensen; I ~ant to include I ComMent about trying to be
nore s~eciffc about ~~ the SlSO,OCO woald be spent on ame~ities, some
lloitiog language about bow it would be .sed. Also. do we need t. say
acre abo~t the eRtrances?
Cgmmissfoner Hirsc~: What is the function of the motion? Is it to
concept.all, approve the two-level addltionl (Tes) I am going to break
with the sentl .. ,t up bere and say t~at I will not support the motion. I
a~ little frustrated fl doing sOs after t~e action that the C1t~ counc1)
has tateo. I a~ •• tremel, frwstrated that t~is did not f1rst come t •• s
t. give IS I free shot at it. I do not want in~one to construe that this
is criticiSM of Jim Baer. He does I lot Qf wonderfil projects downtown~
but as r thin. back t. whe, I first joioed the Ila.ning commissioo. there
~as the Sll seve,-story par~iog garage concept. I was the onlJ
conwissioner who voted agaflsl it~ lnd the C1t~ council also v~ted igaiAst
-15-
--------.. -,.--_.
•
\
I ,
" .,'
-
. .
Q
it, 9-0~ II ~eyer ~iS built. I found it to be I weT~ ~assfye struct~re
It that time~ Co~issioner Cul1e~ twice tonfght ~as referred t~ the
Illusiveness of t"f5 structure. Some or the drawings we ~ad funlsf10ed t<l
US~ ~articwlar11 the 'few from Cowper Street and the wiew ffDm Hamilton
Avenue. showed it to be i very ~a55iye structur!. There is no question
t"at life nelMf new puking downto .. n, b{Jt f question whet~er tl'li5 is the
appropriate spot. I lnow that the .nderlyins garage has been built wit~
Ule idea of e.xpansfon. and maybe t~e time has come, but it seems so~tlat
ironic to me that over I period cf time, since we turned down t~e S&l
parklDg garage, since ~e have tightened t~e development standards ind have
p~t certail prctections fa ia t~e fora of trans1tional zones fo~ Dearby
propertfes, t~e ffrst time it comes tl i test, we seem to thrc¥ the~ out.
~1 115;D" ~f downtown and of Palo Alt~ is not seven·story parking
garages. Ve need more parting; we need to find it; I just cannot. in all
good conscienc!. after listening to all the comme~ts tonight, find that I
support this. fo~ t~e reasons just given.
Chairman Marsh: Now let ~s d~al wit~ tne setbaCK issue. We have
expressed t~ree very different _iews on how to deal vith it~
~s. (ase: The vote should be to determine w~ether or not anyt~ing
continues t~ro~gh the pracess. When it comes back to you, it will come
biCk with I staff recommendation. If there are <ommissioners w~o would
not allow it to go forward in the process without specific setbacts. that
is one t~iDg. But if otherwise, th~ commission is generall) comfortable
vith a110w1ng it tQ go forward 1m the process~ then you need not get
terrlbl, ~ung up on t~e warlOUs alternatiyes~ because t~e staff ~11 be
~fnging biC\ i single recommendation.
ChAirman ~ars~: ~1 concera was primariTl because the applicant ~ad asked
for specfflc directioD t. go to t~e ARB.
"S. (ise: [do understand. but [ am taltfng about the parliamentary
portion of it. If you want t& send the three separate alt~rnative
recommendations to the developer. that is all rlg~t.
~. Baer: The direction gfveA , ff I can summarize w~at we ~ave ~eard. one
is t~ look it preserving the transitional area for the residentfat
neighbor.cod; one Is to look at the type of setback that cou1d be ae_ieved
on Vniversit, Avenue. frankT,~ we do not ~ave an engineering soluti~n to
that. As I indicated earller, onl, f~ our discwssl0ns yesterday and today
with the owners of 1540 did _e eve. look .t the possibility of DOvfng
trellise. bact. Ve do not yet know. and do not thin. we can step back'
f.ll 25 feet 110ng Unfversit, Avenue as we co~Td fa a transitional zone.
It is our reque.t that we be abl. t. work with st.ff and come back the
~th engfneerfng possibilities that can be ac~ieyed to show )OU t~at if
all t~e spaces iTe lost along the residential ar~i. if some s;aces are
lost tnere and some art lost on Universit, Avenue, ~e will be able tc do
that for you ~en ~e come back in two weeks. The help we Deed wit~ the
AR8 f. t. S'1. thIs is not goIng t. be , one·story structure. It is going
to be a two-story struct~re~ and we are going t~ li9~ten 1t up wit~ some
Jandscaping. but let's not ~ave ARB debate the ~ppropriiteness Df a
sevent~ floor, w~ich was ~here it ViS contemplated last time. So it would
be s.fffcfent guidance for our purposes if the ARB i. told that we want to
lose )6 s9aces ind ~e ~ant to lighten up the structure. so please, ARB
confine yo~r comme~ts to t~at kind of direction. rat~er tnan ~aving a
·16·
•
,.' >
~ ...
o 0
,1annfDg commfsslon debate is to .hether you like parkiDg or don't like
partIng I. that nelghborhood_ That .is most of the disc.,sion at the ARB
the lost tlme_
Cnajrman ~Jrsh: If the applicant is happy wit~ the tarious alternatives;
he ~ ••• u .. ariled them correctl,_ I counted two yates for building out to
the f.ll maxImum; two for putting the entire setbact along University
Aven~ei two (or puttfng the setba(k along the residentlal side, and one
Nay on .. eryt~lng_
(omrnSssipner Hirsc): The Nay is, ~onetheless, completely im favor of
~etbaci:s; pa~·tfclihrl, rlear the res identf a 1 pro pert i i$.
(hainnan Marsh: It would be helpf.l to address the number of spaces we
expect t. be negotiated during this process_ Vhat we haY. heard is that
the applicant can go back and tllk about setbacks. but it ~ay be helpf.l
(or us to come up .1th a .ilimum number Qf spaces that we e~pect t~ be
accommodated, as I result Df the PC.
COmmissiqner Christensen: ~e do DOt want to get the project below the
number of spaces that is financrall1 feisible~
Chairman ~ar$h: Mr. Baer indicates he ~ould not lile to see the pr~ject
f.1l b.lo~ 160 spaces_ That number has b.,. subject to lots of disc"ssioD
~thi. the ARB. If the ,lanning commission ~as a strDng feeliDg regarding
ho~ much parling .e expect t. see res.ltlng froo this. ve shoo1d .ate that
clear now. so that direction can go back through the process_
(pmrnS$$Ioner Huber: Have ~e not. ria t~e three or four differe~t
scenarfos~ saId that ~ are tiltfng about a figure some~~ere betweeA ]60
Ind 176? I prefer that ve go up the f.ll storf.s. i,stead of setbacks
with lanelscaping. and have the 116 spaces_
ChainPa" Mar$~: from the range cf t~ought expressed. we could <learlJ say
that with!. the conceptual approv.l, although we vant these .arioo,
setback olternatlves t. be explored, we expect that the number of spaces
will not be reduced below 160 as • res.lt of those setbacks_
CQmmi$sio~er Chrijtgnsen; r would agree wit~ that. and ~is~ to add that I
do park fl this garige. J feel that ~hat ftr. Baer has noted is true -the
usage ~15 increased fro~ the da1s wheR no one ever went i~to t~at parking
lot a~ you could always get fmto it. and DOW. between certii! hours. you
<annot .iT'lllays ffnd a spot fl the public portion of t"e l.ot. Le., tile
usage ~as dr~tfcall, increa~ o~er the Jast year. There is a ne~ for
partfDg dawnt~. Ve ~ave a deffc~t and should do ~atever .e ~an t& get
parking off t~e residentiol street._ r vanted t. speak t. the Issue of
Whether Dr not t~ot lot Is .sed approprlatel, or sofflcle"tl, and whether
there Is • need_ r feel they are both true_
Chjinnan ~ars~: I ~ave I comment t~at relates tc an issue rifsed bi
Commissfoner Chrrsten$e~ tonfg~t, the ,fecemell approval of PCs il this
area t~,t conte.-phte development outside .f the regular deveJopment
reguhtlons_ I wou1d not want t. see the approval of this pariing gar,ge
.sed as • justlflcitio. for the .ext application that comes .long that
exceeds height Dr f~_ Until ve ~ave looted ot this area is • whDTe. we
ore <le.rl, not cre.tlng 0 precedent II the .pprov.l of this partIng
-17-
f
•
•
L
o o
garage. Rather. we are app~Dvi~9 a project that is extraordinary and
un!que, but defi.itel, not, precedent for future ,pplic.tlons •• t le.st
unt41 we ~avt had an opportun1tJ to look at t~e mythical Urban Desfgn
Phn.
CommissIoner Hlrsc': 1 support t~.t tot,lly. It Is exc.llently expressed
and Is I ness.ge th.t does b.ve to go out.
MOTION PASSES: Chairman Mar.~: Is there any further dlsc.sslon on t~is
lOti •• ? All th.se 10 f,vor of the appro,,1 of the concept.al PC wit~
JSSocfited comments, say Aye? All opposed? That ~tfQ" (arrfts on I 6-J
vote, with Co~~s$foner Hirsch dissenting.
r~f. Ite. goes to the ARB, with the expect.t!on that it will b. baci t. us
for its ff~al planning commissioD review OQ September Z6.
·18·
•
') .
,.-...
o
TO: PALO ALTO PlANNING C~ISSION PREPAREO BY, Nancy Lytle
lIiIarvl110 Overway
fILE NOS.: 90-l(-15, 9O-£IA·40 OAT£: September 7. 1990
PROJECt 1~~O~~~T~rO~NL-________________________________________ __
tocaHon:
APDl ;c.ant:
Propertr OWners:
Reg~ested ActfQn:
PROJ{tJ SU!!l!A8Y
520 Webster Street
James Baer
c/Q Premier Property
410 florence Street
f,l. Alto, CA 94301
City of P.l. Alt.
'.0. Box 10250
250 ~ •• ilton A,e.
f,10 Alt., CA 94303
Approval of Zone C'.nge fro. PC 3499 to pc. Plannea
CommunitJ Zone, 1110wing a two-level ~!rtlcal
expansion to an exfstlng public parking garage
The applicant propo$es tl prfYatel, deyelop two additional elevlted floors of
parling .t the existing Vebster-Cowper Parling 'ar.g., I public parking
f.cility constructed by the City I. the •• rly 1980s_ The application is a
(PC) Planned Community lone Change. The project Includes up t. 176 new
,pari.icg spa<:!'S .. and the design is compatlble with the arclilitecture of t"'e
existicg ;arling structure~ Once constructed. the new levels Df ~arking _ould
be I.osed by the oppllcant for prj,ote purpos •• for 0 period of 15 years, ana
,rter the 1.,se .x~lr •• it woald become publIc porklng. During the tera of
the I.oso. the opp11cont propose. to pay for the .al,tenance costs .f the
entfre garage , fnc1~d1ng the eXlstfng five levels Ind the two new levels. The
applicant willi while constructiog the addftfon. brfng the erist{ng stru<ture
~p to curre~t seis~'c safetl standards. Final11. I contribution of
'l~.OOO.OO is proposed to be made for do~town ameRitfes and maintenance and
improvements ltHhfl the parting iSses .. ~ent district.
PC WfIl(OI
Nl '/7/90
Poge I
~-. •
\
, .
, .
" . . ,
o Q
The p('oject re -es \'ariil~ces bec.au'$t! it h pro~osed h exces.s of tP\e fleight
l~d da11fg~t ~ ~ requirement ~f the PC district for properties located
adjacent te rEsidentfl1f, loned ire~5.
~EHDED ACTlOII
Staff rec~mmends t~at the Planning C~iss;on address t~e policy questions
r.is&d fl t.'5 repo~t. conc~ptu~'11 approve the proposed Planned Community
Zone (~.ng., .nd forward the application for Arc~itect"r.l Re,ie~ Board
review. Stiff recommends that the $event~ level of the garage be designed to
.ainlai. a ml.lmu~ setback of appro.l.-tel, 2S feet from the Vebster Street
side ef the structure t~ reduce the undesfrable efFects of the project from
the residenti.l parcels t. the northeast. TIIis Vi 1\ result io cre.tion of IB
parlin~ spaces, rather than the 176 spaces proposed.
SUE INFOIUlATlOII
Assessqr~s fjre!) "ymber;
h:1st\ng Zonina:
Comprehensive 'lan
.Qn..lgnat io,,:
EXisting land Use:
SlJrrgund,nq land' Use:
Mistgcr:
PCWfBCOI
Hl
Dec ..... r 1983:
61,398 square feet
120·0),034
PC 3499
Regional tommunitJ Commercial
Public Por\lng
ReSidential to the "orthe.st and Commercial I.
all other directions
PC 3499 w •• adopted by the CIt, Council .11~n9
fer the construction .f • fl.e I •• el public
parking garage. The Unlversit, Avenue
Ass.;sment District {Project 82·J3} Wi' formed
tB ffnance the <onstruttion. Bo~ds were issued
I. 1981. f. the amount of $5.43 ail lion at 8.4
percent flter~st, for I period of 10 ye,rs. fhe
bond was refinanced i. 1989 ia conjunction wit~
the 250 Unl.erslt, Avenue public parking lot
constructfon. During design, development and
construction of the ~eb~ter/{owper Garage,
dectsfons and actions ~er! taken to f~l~de
provisions for the possible addition of up to
9/7/90
Page 2
\
!
•
,.
t .. ,
.t
I
I
•
.,
" . .,"
JuTJ 6, 1990:
Ju1, 20, 1990:
August 2. 1990:
Mandatcrv .A.~tio~ paters}:
Environmental Impact
A~~~ .. u.meQ t :
Project DescrJDtion
o
two additional floaTs of parking? is i vertical
extension of the tx;sting structure~ Structural
provfsions for t~~ proposed extension were made
during construction of the exhl)~g strlJctlJre.
including I reduced area for the top level~
Project concept reviewed by t~e (lt1 Council and
applicant E>eouraged t. proceed with .11
reQuirec app';citi~ns for Planned (ommunit, Zone
Amendment (minutes are included i~ the Planning
Commission packet)~
51Q Wtbster Street Jlppl!c.tion filed for a
Planned Communit, Zone Amendment to construct
the two-le~el vert;c.l addit10n to t~e existing
parking structure iDcludfng an expanded area fer
the top level.
Preli.i"ary Revlew of the Design before t~e
Arc~itectural Review Soard (_fnutes attached)
Not Applicable to i legislative Action
No significant impacts w~re determined tl res~lt
from the project ind i "egatl,e dec1aratloD was
pn'pared~
fhe applicant prDposes a Pllnned C~nitJ Zone Amendment i~ order t~
~ri.at!l, construct two idd;tfon~l levels ~f pa.rking as I ~erlical addition to
the •• isting Vebster-towper Fariing 'orage. The Vebster-Cowper Partlog Garage
is an e.lsting five~level parking structure (basement, ground, and t~ree
e1e •• ted floors) located within the I.terior portio. of the block surrounded
by U~iversit1 ~venue. Cowper Street, Hamilton Avenue. and ~ebster Street.
'ehic~lar access is fr~ Webster and Cowper Streets. Pedestrian access is
fro~ all four surroundiDg streets. fhe Itistfng structure contains '18 total
spaces. The proposal would add another 176 space._
The a.pplica.nt proposes to ~al all costs Df desfgn, engineeriDg, constr~ctio~
f"spectioD .. per.it fees. ffnancfDg, a.nd actual .construction estimated fI
excess ~f S2,ooD.000.00. II returl, t~e City would enter i~t~ a l~ase
arrangement .;t~ the Ipplicant fDr 15 yea.rs, committing the parkIng levels to
priwite ~se for t~at period. The maintenance of the entire pa~tin9 structure
(all seve. levels) vouTd b. p.fd by t~e applicant during the IS year 1e.se.
I'C II!. fl( 0 I
HI.
9/1/90
'age 3
•
')
, !
,
i
! , ,
-
o o
(ijrreQt costs of m~intli.~n9 th~ five·level structijre ire e~timated at
531,000.00 .nnuall,.
The applicant also pr~po5es tm upgrade the e~tire structure tG 1988 seismic
safetJ standards ~htle constructing the additional levels, and offers i
<ontrib~tion ~f 11SO,000.00 tD the (it, for public amenities. fmprovements and
~aiatenan,e ~ithfl the parking assessment district as an addltional public
benefit.
~.cXg£Qun~
The 'Ia"ned CommunIty Zone Change application 15 requ're~ to follow a
proced~re ~hereby it is given preliminary review by the P1annfng Commission.
Should the CommissiDn act favorab11 at t~is iD1tfal re~few. more detailed
design ~lans are then submitted to the ARB for its recommendations. Once the
development Flan is ipproved by the ARB, it is then returned t~ the Planning
Comn'ission for its final re',lfew and recolTlTlendation before being submitted to
the (;t, Council for ffnal action.
Prior to ma\i~g i fi~al approval recommendation to the (it, (oun,il~ the
Plinning COff'l!1lssfon 15 requfred til make specific deterainaticns regarding the
praject and to approve t~e environmental determ;~alfon~ specific development
prograM ,tate00nt, development ,lan, and development schedule that w111 become
the baSis for t~e site-spe<iffc regulltfons to be applied wit_i. t~e proposed
PC lone d;st~fct. The timel;ne for processing the application is as follows:
hlthl .laon'ng COI1I1Ilsslon Review
Arc~jtectural Revtew Board Review
Septemb" 12, 1990
September 20, 1990
September 20, 1990
September 26, 1990
October IS, 1990
ZODing Admillstrator Hearing for warfances
ff~al Planning Commission Review
Citl Counc~l Rewiew
Staff f;nd. that the public benefits proposed by the applicant are
satisfat{ory. and identffies the followiDg issues:
A. Sgtbaci VI. ~o Setback
PCIlt8l:0 I
Nl
A pol fe, Issue was riised by the Cit1 Council il their prelimfnary
constderlt~oD of t~e proposal~ The question th~y raised is
wh.t~er or not t~. structure would be.t serve the public roterest
if It were tG be constructe4 ,s ,rigin,ll, deSigned, .nt~ 2S foot
setbacts ,t level 1 fro. both Vebster and Cowper Streets. Or
~ould it be best t. build t~e structure to its f.ll pot •• tlol of
, "
9/7/90
Pase 4
•
~\
1
I
8.
.... ,
"
o n 'J
176 pi~klng spaces .ithout setbacks it the lighest level, lD line
with tha lower le~els~ thereby ga~Dln9 in addltlonal 26 parkfng
sp&ces~ The applicant's __ current .tlroposal incTlid!s the additional
pariing spaces and no setbacks for le~el 7.
rhe ARB addressed the issue iD their preliminary re~iew of t~e
pr;ject. One adjacent commercial property owner, Steve Jarvis,
testiffed as to t~e impact ~f the project on views from lis
cDlTmer-till property It 540 Universit, Avenue. The ARB ,also
expressed some concer. about fiew and s~lir impacts of the
additional parking levels. and requested fDformation regarding the
affects of the project on surrounding poblic and private
'pro~ertie •. Th. applicant ~ •• compTied with this request and a
view analysis a~d sun angle analysfs are attached to t~lS repo~t
and summarfzed below~
Pariina
1. [xi$tf~g Partfn9 Situatfon
T~e exfstfcg five level ~ar\fng garage <ontains 418 total
spaces: l~ s~aces (basement and g~o~n~ floor) are used for
s~ort tenl (3-hour limit) public parking that is ,v,il,bl.
tD anyone~ and 260 spaces are used for permit parkiog
(unli.ited time) •• ,ilable onlJ to downtown employees w~o
~ave I wili~ pariiD9 permit. Parting per~its are available
t~ downtown employees on a first-come, first-~rve basis, at
• cost of ~200 for an annu.l permit ana S60 for. quarterlJ
,pel"'llit. The publ f( spaces 0", the ground floor are always 111
Ise, .ttle substantial use of t~e basement tends t& occur
oDl, around the noon-time peal period_ Two lewels Gf permit
parking are ,I •• ys ~ell utilized, while the top level (roof)
~ontinues to be sfgnificantl, under .ttlized on i r~gular
basis.
2. Need for Addit !On! 1 fark ing
Tnere is an on-gofng need for additional parking. within the
d~wntown area. Tiis;s lttel, to increase over time IS
redevelopment continues ~t~fl the downtown irei.
~ile current regulations require new deveTopmeRt t~ provide
parking at t~e rate ~f one space ~pr 250 square feet of
floor area. there are exemptfons wllfch provio'e for <:erh;a
fncreases il floor area related to provision of ~andicapped
access, seismic Dr lSstoric rel1abilitatian, one-time .inar
additions (200 square feet or less) and development of
Yicant land prevfousT, assessed fer parking. suc~
exemptions. over a perfod ~f t1me. will incre~se the demand
'J1/90
'age S
•
\ • ,
•
I
j
• ~I
POtESCOI
HL
.s~{f
':lilfir -
.. < .-.--
/
Q
for parkIng ~ilhout any ~orrespondins in~r~.~e i~ the suppl)
of parking.
Th. renovotion of the ~29 Bry.nt Street project, wit~ 4~.OOO
square fe~t. when full, OC(Upifd. will increase the demand
for Firking withia the downtown area by I pote~tiJl 180
spaces. However, due to the e.istlog floor area ~a~fng been
part of tne parting Isse$~nt dfstrlct and the additional
floor area being covered by ~urrentlJ allowable ex€mptions
fro. parting. the project is n~t rfquired to provide any
parkfng~ Without the pro~osed project, the increase il
parting d!mand would exacerbate the existing parking
sit~ation and ~an'fest itself ~artial11 1M the form of
increased on-strEet parking fn resi~ent;al areas surrounding
the downtoWTI.
The pro~osed additional two levels of parking at the
Webster-(owper Park{ng Garage are primarily fmtended as I
volunt.ry effort by the d.v.loper/occupant to provide
soltab1e parking fo' emp10yees who will "ork ;0 the 529
Bryant building. ProviSion bas been included i. the
optlon/le.se whic~ would preclude emp10yees w~o york io the
529 Bryant building frolll eligibility for 0 parting p .... iI. i.
anI (ity-operated p.rking f.cllit,_
[I addition~ teres and conditions are included 11 the
optionJ1ease whidl preclu,de consi',deratfon mf the proposed
additional two levels of parking os a credit toward parking
requ~rements for any fwture development project t~al
etherwise~ ~nder cwrrent regulations, ~ogld be required tQ
provide new parking. Thus, the proposed additlona' parking
is, and vi' 1 reml~l. a Ilea"! of reducing and not increasing
the parking deffci t wiU," the downtown area.
l~ Location pf Additional PiTking
Parting is the deSignated ~se. and on1, prictical ~se. of
the a~r rights above the Webster-Cowper Parking Ga~age.
During the earli~r design. development and constructfon of
the existing structure J decisions and actions ~ere taken tD
include provisions fOT the possible addition of up ta twa
additional levels of parking with I reduced arei for the top
level, as i ~ertfcil extension of the existing structure,
s"'ou111 Councll so decide at some poil! lit the fwture. For
example J prQ~ision for the extenslon ~as included imta the
design and construction of the existi~g structijre
(ounditfons and supports, as well as t~e connections for tne
extension at the top level. Tber~~ore~ it is an appropriate
and, very lit.", aft ine,lt.ble lcedion for addition.'
9/7/90
Page ,
•
\
. . -,
o
park;ng.
IQ terms of the geogf'aphic dispersion of p.andtl9 dem4nd
throug~out t~e dawntowD area, additronal park'"9 sup~l, for
general us-! .0uT.d' ideall, be better !oc.ited elsewhere wiU,,1
the downtown. ilrei. However., its implementatiot'l on other
potenti.l sites ~ould alsD b~ ~uc~ ~ore comple~, ~nd
rell~sticill" nat likel1 to proceed im the near future
Dther than ia conjunction with some currently unspeclffed
building redevelopment.
Since the proposed project is for the priwate ~s-e ~f the
additional spaces by employees of i specified buildiDg wno
will not be eliglble for parking permits is other Cit,
parking ftc.iliti!s. good ~tilfzatio~ of these spates 1S
reisonabl, assured.
4. AmDynt ;f Parking
Tne existing fiv! level parking garage currentl, provides
418 'poc.,. The proposed two .dditlono' le,.l, of parking
V<lul~ provide. tohl of 176 additional s~a,:e, if bot~
levels ire fwlll bu~lt out to the dimensicni of the exfstiog
structure. W;t~. poteotl.l ,.tbocl of the 1t~ floor along
one side (~ebster or Cowper) of the structuee. 13 'pace,
would be ell.lo.ted wit_ • res.ltlog tot.l af 163 additional
s~aces~ If I !tmilar setback is ~ade on two sides {Webster
and Cowper}. 2' spaces wo.ld be elimInated with a ro.oltlng
t.tal of ISO additional spaces_
The addition of 116 parting 'p.ce, at this loc.tion will
ha .... ' the effect c;)f reducing the deman.d for limited parting
spaces O~-5treet Ind in other parking fatilities and should
resalt il some reduced parking im t~e nels~barhood areas
adj.cent to the downtown.
c. Required r;riances
PCIlEBCO)
NL
The preject will require wa~iances to th~ malimu~ be;ght and
dal1fg~t plane a11cwances 11 the PC District for ~ites whic' abut
residential zones. Jhe .aximW2 height allowed is 40 feet. ~ere
the structure is designed to a height of SO feet. The daylight
plane lllowed is the same as allowed fa the RM-4Q zone~ i.e., l~
fe.t it the propertJ lloe abutting the r.,ldenlialdistrict .nd 4$
degrees away fr~ that resfde~ti~l side. Tbere ~re exteptional
and extraordi~ary circumstances and conditions applicable te t~is
propertJ II that it Is • public p.rking structure loc.ted io the
Downtown. it currentl, does not complJ w,th the do,light ,l.ne
requirements, and the proposed project was pre~iouslJ the subject
9/7/90
Page 1
•
[.
POlt8(OI
Nl
. ,;;.:
.~ , ..
"'
~-.:~---
o o
of an extensiv~ design re~lew ~ublfc rocess ia t~e early 1980s.
A1S ~f the seve~ levels tonsidered ir :~at p~ocess rece1ved public
support. "owever the two lliighest leveis were not constructed due
to parking demand a~ b~dgetarj considerations at the time of
constructfoD. The exfsting structur! is ~oncomp,,1ng. and the
addition would encroac~ I ~a.imu~ of 29.S feet verticall! for the
entfre side of the structure_
Solar .Analysts
The proposed addition will increase shadows and result lA
dimllisned hours of direct sunlight and loss ~f indirect sunlight
on the adjacent multi,le-famil, and commercial properties along
~ebster Street. Hamilton Awenue and UniversitJ Ave~ue. These
s~adows are oot expected to result 1ft a sfgnificant ad~erse
impact~ and staff tas spoken w;t~ the owners of the residenttally
zoned properties, ~hich are the most sens1tfve~ about the1r
perceptions Qf impacts t~ their properties. They do not ~QnsideT
the impacts or. thefr propert;es to be adverse~ ~owever. the
diminished bours of direct sunl1g~t e~perfer.ced by the occupants
of these properties is undesirable and could be reduced by
mai.tli.log t~e originall, designed 2S foot setb.ct on t~e Webster
Street side.
'istlill Anah$h
lbe i~reased elevation Df t~e building rro~ approximatel, 31 feet
ta SO feet ~ll obscure the sig~t liaes Qf the expansive yjews
from the upper floors gf some buildings 11 the immediate wlci.it].
The proposed addition ~11 be visible from nearby streets. since
it will be twent, to t_irt, feet tiller than .,ny of the buildings
around it. The applic,nt ~.s provided I photographic ex~ibit
.. hfc' i1 hstrites the thual impact from tf'le Ilajod tJ Df primar),
,iews. However the-wfstial impKt of the garage i_'> riellied from
street level is reduced by its locatIon at the imterior of t~e
blOCK. The ARB fl thefr prelimincrj review of the project and the
Urban Design Committee il t~efr discussfons of the Downtown ~ave
communfcated that surround;~g development should be allowed to
increase f. scale il the immediate area of the Webster-Cowper
Parting Garage due to its fdentiffcatfon as i ~econdarl iII(cess
witllilt the Downtown.
The parking structure desfgn ~as develo~ed through t~o years of
extensfve staff and communit1 jQ~olveme~t prfor t~ its adoptlon im
ISS3. II additfoD to regular public meetings, ill group of
neignbors and surrounding buslnesses particfpated in t~e deSign,
cODfiguTatfoD and materi.l selection of t~e project. Throughout
tils process, consideration w,s given t. the ~-foot height of the
fiftal faciltt,. The concept af the i~;tial and f~ture levels ~as
9/7/90
Page S
•
, , ,
f •
,
f -." ,
f.-. r
t."""·
I
I '" f' ~ "~.
.-
, .
. ; ~
."
/
n
u~a"fmou51s approved at eac~ heariog.
F. Ye~fc.Tar Traffic
Access to an~ fro~ the proposed idditfanal parilD} spaces will be
Vli the exfstfng Cowper ind Webster access drlvewlYs and the
internal circwlation and ramp s~ste~ withi. t~e e~isting parklng
garage.
rebfcwlar traffic will fncrease around and f~to the site due t~
t~e ~eh1cles that will be uSiDg the t76 additional parking spaces.
Since tt.e spaces will be prjlate J permit t1pe, employee spaces.
the aumber of trips (one-way) generated ;s issume~ to be i factor
of 2.25 per day per space, w1t~ 75 percent of the trips split
betweea t~e Nt iilnd PM peak periods. If a traffic incident on a
surroundiDg street does occur, there is ample queuing spacing on
site and mult"le directfo~ options to disperse tr~ffic into the
surroundfng street networi. Therefore. t~ere is no significant
impact from the small fncrease fl ~ebicular traffic attributable
to the proposed additional parking spaces.
f~rthermore, without t~e proposed additional parking spaces, the
increased pressure for the limited ;arking suppl, will resijlt in
increased traffic due tm vebicles cfrcwTation throughout the
downtown and adjacent area. ~arc~in9 for a plice ta pari.
t. Pedestrian Access
Pedestrfan access to t~e pariing garage and ~frc~lation withi. t~e
g.rage will be m.lotafned is It,s It the ~resent time. One
exce~tlon is that stairway access will be .dded for t~e above
Q~o~nd floors im t~e sout~west corner of t~e parki~g garage_ At
present. there is a stairwell. but the actual stairs were on1J
lAstalled td the baseaent level fm this one corDer. T~lS .nll
improve pedestrian access 1m t~e garage and resolve a number of
complaints the Cit, recefves regarding the laCk of stairwa, iccess
tB the above ground floors im t~is one corner cf the existing
parkfn9 structure.
N_ Construction Flan ind Effect on Parking, Traffic and Pedestrians
ptW'[BCOI
NL
-:he construction (tIf the two additional £leon of puking: is
sc~edu1ed ta begi. i. mid-January, and is expect~d to take about
four mont~s to complete. The sc~eduled st.rt of construction ~as
purposef~11, been delayed unt\l mid-Januar~ S~ a~ t~ avoid any
pote~tfll f.terference or disruption to trafffc dnd parking d~ring
t~e ~e.t sho~p;ng perIod th.t traditlonall, occurs during the
Dece~~er ~oljday period.
9/7)90
Page 9
\
,
~
I • I
~
! ,
o o
During the perlod of construction, it wlll be ~ecessarl to
probibit parking on t~e prese~t 5th level Creof}. ~;le there are
sa parttng spaces on t~e 5t~ level, actual uSige is limited to no
more tha~ 25 permit ~oTders. Necessary actommodation for permit
holders will be made temporaril) on the 1st level (basement) where
5ufficre~t ~pace is general11 available.
11 1Jf'd'er to perform the war\. rehted to the seismlC retrofit {If
t~e extstfng pariing structure. it will be necessary to bloc~ off
selected parki~g spaces adjacent to structural mE~bers fer I s~ort
period of time. T~is ~Drk will be performed in a manner S~ is to
mf~fm;ze the number ef spaces that will be blocked off at anyone
time and will n<>t ros.H h He permanent 10" of additional
parking shIh.
All eX1sting pedestrfin access imtG the garage is to be ~al~tiifl~d
is it is it the presont tIme, Tbe pedestrian perimeter •• ltways
on the north and west sides ~'1 remain open, those on the sDutb
and east sfde iTe to be closed during the period of construction.
:. arder to provide elevator access to t~e proposed two additional
levels of t~e partfng garage. tne eXistfng elevator service ~11
be unavI11abTe for one or t~o months during t~e constructfon
perl<>d. . .
Yehic.lar access to and from the parking g.rago wia the (owper
Street drivewa, is lm be maimtained at all times. Periodic~
temporary closures of t~e Webster Street driveway will be
necessary in order tm accomplish the proposed constructioD. The
most notable need "'ill be for the off·loading of the struct.,,!
steel member5 for the proposed additfon~ Closure of the Webster
Street driveway wi 11 on1, be is needed and .'hen ne-eded and will
otherwise remaim ope~ for normal vebfcylar access to the ~arking
~arago. Vhile the perfodlc temporary c'os.re of t~e ~ebster
Street drivewoJ .nIl redirect some additlona' traffic t. the
Cowper Street driveway, the resultant conditions are not e~pected
to create anI si'gnific.ant c'hange fa delay Of' safE'l.J for tTiffic or
pedestrians 1a the area.
t9~rehen~ve 'lan Comelfance
The iseS and sfte development regulatfons wft~fl t~e proposed PC distrfct ~ust
te dete-rmfne-ei to be c.onsistent witJa the c.ompre'f1eAsfve 'hn. Those considered
most pertinent to this proposal are the rDl1o~ng objectives of the Urban
Design and Transportation {lements.
•
PCWfI!(OI
Nl
.-:;:"' •• : <"
'~~~fi~<'
Promote the orderl, and harmonious development of the CitJ and the
attafnment of the oost desirable land .se and i~proveme.ts through
the revfew of new development (ObJectf~e 2, Urban Design Element).
911/90
Page 10
•
t,"-'
\
r
f
I , " t
i
:f-,
,.
f·
!
t <.
~'-
~
~:"" :t:.
;-• ~
/
o
o Reduce em&.11oyee or cOlTl7luter parkf~g ill resfdent1i:'! neighborhoods
(Progra. IC, Trinsportitlon [l ••• nt).
• Rfl, "riA "nd develop sl'lort·term parking {Prog·r-am 27 ..
Transportation Element).
fllIDlNGS
Not applicable for an initial review.
CJ!!mHIQ"'~ _________________________ _
Not apDlfcable for an flitial review.
ATTACHMOITS
!'Iinut .. of ne ARS ... etl'9 of 8/2/90
EnvironmeRtal Assess~nt and Negative Declaration
tetter of 9/3/90 frOll Ruth and [his frapwell
l oed i on MdP
fiseal Analysis (Comniss;on members on1,)
Solar Ana11s;s [Commfssion members only)
Application and Flans ltomm;ssion members Qnl~}
COPIES SENT TO
Architectural Review Board
Jill Baer
Tom 'ilmarl .. -DeS
Steve Janis
(nop (eenan
PCW£BCOI '/7/90
Nt fage II
---.......----. ____ ~_ ._...,_ 4_ ~_, _,«. _
'"
,',
1 '.
, "
.' -"
o ~rdlifedur~
I~evlew
IInnn' ,"llItIfes ---------r..w~~.~ ________________________________________________ ~~~ __
Soard ~mber5 Present:
Board ~mbers Abse~t:
Staff Presen!:
!, N'i'~QYAL OF ~!NUT£S
Thur,da" Augu, t 1, 1990
S:OO A,M,
Council Conferrnce Room
(hic Center
2SO H .. Ilton "enue
Palo Alt., Cal for,i.
"ani Ba.rnes.
Aino daRDu
Mi chae 1 lyzwa
Jon Sc~lot
Shirley lIilson
None
Bob Haley, Planner
Ji~ Harrington. Senior (nlineer
Nancy lytle, Zoning Adml.i,!rl!o,
rfrgilia Va.rbeit~ SeRior Planner
JYDiL1I, 1990 ~inu!'5: Approved 5-0, with the fol10.ing c~ang'5:
ror It .. 11.2 (4120 [1 C ... lna Ro.ijPage "ill land (ompany): "S, Barne. corrocted ber coome,t. on Plge 4, fourth lin~ frOG the
bott .. , to read ' ..... d that bact gate. fro. each un i t ioto the
ceRt~il caa.on area should be provided.-lhe next sentence reads,
-_, ,round window. were Iccephbl., but thlt It looh~ I ite a
.team.hi,,' She meant that onll the RK-]Y facade loa.ed like I
stea..sllli,.
June 7, 1990 ~lnutes: (Not June 6. as st.ted io Agenda) Approyed
5,0. with the following change:
It .. 11.4 (S60 ~.yerlel Street/Blate Boyd-Harvest Restaurant}: "So Wilson ~shed ta iasert -incandescent-i. '2~ to read 'onTI
i~cindesce~t Jights.-
Jun. 22, 199Q .'rbaliN .inytes: Approved 4-0 wit~ Ms_ da Rosa
~~t.i.ing. wlt~ the following c~ange~
IIs_ Barnes corrected tile June 22 verbatim oinote. i I her 'oment' •
• iddle Qf Plge 1 regarding Hil1'ie~ Aven~e. the _o~J ·rowdJ· sho~ld
be ·(ruddy.·
•
. ;
:.
£
/
o
1/ ~ [GUlAl! AljEIIlA
1. CQI!PEWE8$1EB GW,Gt
O.E.S.
90·ARB-I30
Prelil'.ary .evlew of two addilional parting ~ecls o. t~e exlstios
<owperjVebste. parilog ga.age.
~. JI. Saer .. de a presentation. Kr. Steve Jarvis of Il2 H •• Ilton
A.enue expressed op~sitlon t. the project IS being too big and
i.t .. si ••• I.d is bloctlog light and wlews fra. .;s building.
~_ Sc~I"t f.lt it INPorta.t to clarify what they s.e the .e.t ti ..
on Septeober 5. He eoold neither .upport nor rejoct the project at
t.i. Ii... He is gr.atly II faYor of adding 115 parting spaces
downtown_ He WOQI~ lit. t. s •• the .ffect of cwtling .ff the
corners of the building to get the sens. of • stepped-down
building. Also be Winted to s .. Kr_ Jarvis' design concer.,
Iddressed for the portiOn th.t flces .Is building. ~ shadow study
should be done il the f.ll whe. the •• eroge effecl II Ihe
0'/02/90
-4-
•
>-. ,
"
i ,_.
.. -,
,1
i
:1
1
-
'-
. . ", '.
/
\. , ,
•
iii.:.;:':~:.2c::;~~ . .::.... n--s-_._...;_....iz\ ... · ~~~~.,:i:~·-""'!R..,.'f..(~~~~">4"_,, .... '''«'''''..eI!Ii" .... ''1 __ .. ~
neifjl'lborbood is. obUfned. He did not objec.t to tile bUllding hl!ight
of 50 feet i. t~is ~rban 10<.t1on. dod ewen felt r~lt 5~rrounding
b'JHdiDgS should be allowed to go up that "1gk • .ill:; .el t.
~s~ da Rosa is concerned about t~e impact of the ~t uctijre on the
buildings on VebsteT tkat are for~ed int~ a lo~er ctylight ,lane.
She wonder!d , IS Mr. Sc~lnt did, if ther~ 1S some Wl1 tc adju5t the
10n1og for surrounding properties. She felt t~at tJ discuss the
project il tenJils of al'! old daylight ,lane ar,d a neitli d'iylight pline
did not ~ake seR>e. The i.~act of being il tne nek daylight ,lane
is what sflolJld bf considered. She, too. strongly !,jpported any waj'
ta get additionai parilog downtown. but it has to be ia i balanced
and fair WiY. .s the b"ilding gets taller, s~e hoped th.t the
elevator lower on top would be designed so IS ~ot to be as
noticeable as the existing toweT~
~. l,zwa iddrfs~d the philosopby mf parking. and is disturbed
about developments f. P.lo Alto that do not prowidp adeq~ate
parting. The do~town situation is a res~lt of it~ being done 1.
the past. Solutions ~ust be devised to ameliorate the sitijatlon im
the (ulure~ He felt t~at this structure is dark ard massive. and he
~ould not s~pport nore ~f the same un~ess there is substantial
public benefit. t~at is, not j~st the parking ,f c~rs, but some
additional public benefit as welt~ He wants to ~t sun angles. also
the environmental lmpact report on the sixt~ and s~ve~t~ stories,
and site sections 11 all directions, showing the g?rage versus all
the Dther structQres.
"5. Barnes feels that the eXlsting strtJcture is da'" and ominous.
anc:f she feels it 1S unsafe., as. well, 11 the evenia':l.s. hterior
ligbting is ill di"re'Ct conflict with the wishes gf t.fle [1ei9hbors~
lhe line covered arcade makes it even darker. She wil) not approve
the IS additienal spaces 011 the one side. Sne agr,'ed wiU, PIr. lyzwa
that the public benefit sflould include more tkan j'lSt parkirlg:. She
would 1 j te t& :>-!e sun angle studies. ho aerial cfe,Jict ions· one OQ
Dpcember U and one on June 2), sl'lowing lIid-morllil'l'~~ nooll and
.id.a.fternoon slladows. She did not agree that sur:Gundlog ~i1d;ngs
s~ou1d be alTa.ed to go up ~lgher, is t~at .ould onTt i~(rease the
parking probtelDs. An effort should be made to IIlHlga~.e and soften
the str4Jcture, iiilnd she does not want to imtrude ;r,tc the d.a,light
,lane any acre than absolutell necessaTl~
~_ Schinl added that he is iRterested il same retail on the ground
floor, .1Iic. might soften the structure and make p:ople ~ore
<omfo~table about ~slng t~E facility.
"So !arnes ex~ressed l~e additional ~oncerl about nore construction
ups.et (Of" the retal1ers ttlat lIol.11d be impacted~ ar,j .. oiJld strongl1
advis@ that l~at be f~vestigited.
~s. Wilson inquired about disruption tm t~e garage it~elf. ftr~ B4er
s.i~ t~e whole top floor wo"l~ be closed for 3-1/1 months. She
,t.ted that (he block contaillng 525 University ~"'nJe from tyttan
te Haallton has beea deSignated as I ~condarl. c{nm~rcial CrQS5
--'L~ ------____ c_~ __ -" , -
-. -"-
08/02/90
-5-
.. "', _I'
/
"'
o o
axis to UnlversitJ A~enue by the Urba~ Design Committee. There is
greit ilterest im increasing density is t_1S block. Sn! hopes t~at
l~e planning commission ar.d cit, council look at b~ing'ng th~s ~hcle
bloct along " scale, a1Towins ~igher density. She 15 ~et1
sopportl.! of adding t~l, parting t. the downtown. and soggested
l~'t balloons be fl •• ted fro. t~e top of t~e buildin9 to enable
interested pirtits to see haw "9h the proposed struct~re would 90.
Consideraticn Qf the surroundfng b~ildinqs is important.
Elizabeth Gibbons "i~ it I. not possible t. notc_ corners from the
building t •• I\'got, Its I~.ct.
~~ l,ZWI cDrroborat~ t~it corners are the weaiest and ~ost
~ifffc.lt proble. t. ,.1.0, sols.l<oll,. because that is where the
gre.t,s\ forcos .re. But ~e felt that some cr •• ti,lt, s~ould be
f.j~ct.d i.t. the builaing.
~s. Wilsa~ reiterated that the ,1anning commiSSion and c~t1 cou~cil
,~ould loct beyond this buIlding sit. 1. ~.\in9 their dec'slons.
./::11'. Il·i ... n.m~ntal DocIJrnen·ts -City of Palo Al to
E~~IPONMENTAL ASSESSMENr -_._----
P.I,-"'i·,·-t [ .... :.cription/Title: cow~IL!Tebste.r GaragE:!~Lot ': LE a:dditicn of
t \.0.-" ! .'v.'l~; vf P"l_z:.k.l:J9
I., '-.1~ i Dn/Address: 520 Webster street
Telephone of Applicant:
(!J5L g5:1J~ 7
Pre~ier Property
!\i'"Pl iC,lti(1n for: lo-ne Change. Architectural Review
Fee Rec~. ip!: 1;-0 .. : 90-295
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION
i .L:-". .. d llpc·TJ. revi€>'''' of the project files ... the undersigned .r.;\tc-=r of the Plwn
[lln'l il"·l'~rt.mt"'rtt. h·]s concluded:
'"";' I .. -, ~ lI"'J,)t 1V(' Do:",,:=l-3_! .. ~.~Jon: The project has no significant ernlironmeMtal iJ>:
rr ~cC .No Environmental Impact .Pepo.rt is required. Tee reasons fc'r-a
t; ...... Iat i. .... ~ ... ['oc-... -;t..-!Iration are: in the att~.e:::p.~c! initial .... !.t .. tJ .. ~y..... A ... record of
prof.-:ct as:.tic:n is available tor revIew at.~Palo. ~..l.t.2... Pl-an:-J..~ .. !}.g D~~
i'_utm,"'·r.t, 10<:"~ .. "t:.~._on the 5th floor -of City HaIl r 2"~_!i.~lIliltoll._~:Y~.n'.lel"
T'."llo AJto r C!--.
T!:~~ I:J"r"oje.....:t nay have a significant environmental ioI:c-3ct. An En~Jiron-
m·-:ntal Ir,pact Report .... ill be prepared •
. ",ning DBpartment Official :'"~JuJ.. ( Y'6
i.1rCn~r,g Director: ~~~ __ c:d."",-~~_,__ i)ate J.-:.._.4.. .. = .... Jg
lb-c project has been approved ..
TIH..' f.·roj ect has been denie.d.
Date-
Date-
File. No.: 'J C;-EIA.-40
90-EIA-40
1
•
,
\
/
o o
n .. v r RONMENTAL DOCUKEN'TS -PALO ALTO ErA-2a
!NITlAL STUDyl,2
I'roje-ct Title/A.ddress: Co'w'tlerlWebster Garage Addition
It. Project Description: The project is a major Planned Community lor,e
Ch-'3nqe.L~t:;ion to lease, including variances to hej ___ g_~ <iaylight
Eianes and setbacks in order to construct_two additional-levels of
p',!!,ki~ ___ an eXl.stlnq f~ve level parking garage.
I I r. Environmental Se.tting: The project is located in the interi_~ __ ~ ___ g~ ___ ~n
do~.n..!~~ __ \l_z:-_~an I:llock bordered on the north, so~nd_ 'West 'With
cOm....!!:~cial land uses, and on the eas~_by multiple-family land uses.
IV. EnvironmE.."tal Impact Checklist (Explanation of all -res· answers are
in Section V)
1. Ear~~. will the proposal result in:
a. unstable earth condItions or changes
in geologic substructures?
P. Disru?tions, displacem.nts~ compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography or qround surface
relief featUres?
d. The destruction, coverinq or modifica
tion of any unique geologie or physical
fea.tures"?
e. Any increase in wind or water erosion
of solIs, either on or off the site?
g.
Exposure .of people or property to
geologic hazards such as earthquakes,
landslides# mudslides, ground tailure,
or similar bazards?
Changes in siltation, deposition, or
erosIon Which may modi~y the channel
of a river or the bed ot a bay or inlet? x
lAdapted from Appendix I, California Guidelines {or Implementation of
CEQA, December 14, 1976.
2Updated May~ 1982; June .. 1983
EIAf'MCK
SC
90-EIA-40
2
-··-'~,-"f~·c·-;~"L .... -.. ---'---~~ .. " _.
:~?~~~~~ -; ;
-
--.-.
o
2~ ~_~!::~ Will the proposal result in:
d. substantial air emissions or deteriora
tio,n of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture
temperat~rer ~r any change in climate,
either locally or reqional?
3 0 ~~ter~ Will the proposal result in:
a. changes in absorption rates I orainage
patterns l or the rate and amount of
su:t'face 'Wate.r runoff'?
b. Alterations to the c~rse or flOY of
flood 'Waters?
c. Discnarqe. into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface 'Water quality.
including but not limited to t~~perature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
d. ~lteration of the direction of rate of
flo~ of qround waters?
e. Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such a5 flooding or
tidal ... a\Oes1
f. Change in the quantity of qround vaters,
either throuqh direct additions or vith
dra~als, or through interceptions of an
aquifer b J cuts or excavations?
4. plant Life. will the proposal result in!
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number or any species of plants (includ
ing trees I shrubs, grass, crops, ~icro
flora and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction or the n,uDWers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
c. Introduction of new species of plants
into an area~ or in a barrier to the
n~~al replenishment of existir4 species?
d. Reduction in acreage ot any aqricultural
crop?
£JAFJlICK:
SC
YIS
J(
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
90-EIA-40
)
•
\
•
o
5. ~_~~l Life. will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diver~ity of species, or
of any species of animals (birds, 15nd
ani~als includinq reptiles~ fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms, insects or
microfauna]?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique r
rare C~ endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of new species of animals
into an area, or result in a barrier to
the migration or ~ovement of animals?
d. Deterioration in existinq fish or wild
life habitat?
6. !!9_.t~!!. will the proposal result in:
a. Increases in existing noise levels1
b. Exposure of people to severe noise
levels?
x
7. I_~ __ i_9~_~ ____ ~nd Glare.. Will the proposal produce X
new light glare?
s. ~a~ Us~. Will the proposal result in a
substantial alteration ot the present or
planned land use of an area?
9. ,!;n.~{Natural Resources. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
existing sources of energy, or require
the development ot new sources or
l!nerqy?
c. Increase in the rate of use of any
natural resources?
d. Subst~ntial depletion of any nonrenev
able ,~tural resQurce?
10. Risk of wpset. Does the proposal involve a
risk of an explosi~~ or the release of
hazardous substances (InclUdinq, but not
limited to, 011, pesticides~ chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an acci~ent or
upset?
£ [AFMCI(
SC
~ -.' ."
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
90-E1.\-40
(
•
./
II. E_qpulatlon/Hous1nq.
a. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, densitYr or gro~th rate
of the h·uman populat.ion of an area?
b. Will the proposal effect existing
housing. or create a demand for addi
tional housing?
12. T~ __ <!~rtation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of sUbstantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on e~istinq parking facilities~
or demand for new parking?
c. Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or ~ovement ot pecple and/
'Or goods?
d. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
13. Public services. Will the proposal have an
effect-upon, or result in a need for new or
altered 90vernmental services in any ot the
fol1o~ing areas;
a. Fire p·rotectio-n:
b. Police protection?
c. schools?
d. Parks or othe, rec~eational facilities?
e. Maintenance ¢f public facilities,
including roads:
f. Other governmental services?
14. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for nev systems, Qr substantial alterations to the
following utilities:
a. Power Qr natural gas?
h. Co~municati~ns systems?
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
90-EIA-40
5
•
\
15.
f
",
/
0 0
c. water?
d. Se~er or sept-Ie ta.nk?
e. store 'Wate.r drainage?
f. solid waste and d.isposal'?
!l'u.man Re!lth. Will the proposal result in:
~. creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard (e~cluding
mental he31th)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
Hi. ~~~_th~!-ics. Will the proposal result in tbe
obstruction of any scenic vIsta or view
open to the public# or will the proposal
result in the creation ot an aesthetically
.offensive site open to publie view?
1"1* Recreat)on.. Will the proposal result in an
impact upon the quality or quantity of exist
ing recreati~al opportunities?
Ii .. ~ltu~al Resources.
: lArMCi(
c
a.. will the proposal result in the altera
tion of/or the destruction of A
prehistoric or historic archaeoloqical
site?
b. Will the proposal result in adverse
F~ysical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric ~r historic building,
structure;, or object?
c. Ooes the proposal have the potential
to causes a physical changa which would
affect unique cultural values?
d. will the proposal restrict existing
reliqious or sacred uses withIn the
potential impact area?
lli KAYBE !,Q
..L
...!..
2 __
..L
_x_
x
x
x
90-EIA-40
6
•
. '
I
I ,
] , .
•
' ..
/
n
19a ~~~J[ Findings of Significance.
~. Does the project have the potenti~l to
degrade the quality of the environment~
su~stantially redu~e the habitat ot a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish
or vildlite population to drop belov
self-sustaining levels l threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal cOmMunity,
reduce the number of restrict the ranqe
"'--""
of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate i~portant examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
b. Does the project have the potential to
achieve short-ters, to the disadvantage
of lonq~term, environmental goals. {A
snort-term impact ~n the environment is
one which occurs in a relati~ely brief,
definitive period of ti~e while long-term
impacts will end-ure ..,ell into t.he future.}
c~ Does the project hav~ impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may iBpact on
two O~ more separate resources vhere the
impact on each resource 1s relatively
smdll~ bUt ~here the effect of the total
of those impacts on the environment is
significant.)
d. Does the project bave environment!l
effects WhIch will cause sUbstantial
_adverse effelO:ts on human beings, either
cirectly or indirectly?
f:~planation of ·yes· ans'Wers in environmental checklist.
See attached ..
. :J A,F}o!Ci(
.; t~
90-EIA.-40
7
•
• 1 ,
•
i
I
x
'.
~
"
,
i,
o
1 _ t. F.l I-~_~ J~l. The existill9 parking structure vas designed to the 19B2
~ ~',-'i~'lnic building code. At that time" the foundation and structure were
~ d,,~~i'-Jned ~or an additional two levels, The structural engineering for the
~ .~"Id I t i onal t ..... o le .... els is noW' bei:>g designed per the current 1988 seismic
~ "u,I,'~ o.rt1ich also requires that the entire structure be brought up to the
~ c ur!(·nl code.. Therefore ... there is minir.al risk to people or property irorr.
~ th~, rroposl?d addition.
~ t.";. N..,lse ~L. The existing noise lev!!l 'Will be temporarily in<::reased
~ ,-h.ir-{ngconstruction.. Construction hours ~nd noise levels ... i11 be in
in.,mplia:1.ce 'With the City noise. ordinance. When complete, there. 'Will be ar.
i rH.-n"'mC'ntal increase in vehicular noise; however I the noise is expected to
. 1'.> <..1" t 'i slightly greater than the current noise levels due to the 10...,
.-... :q urnf'_ and distribution of additional vehicle trips. Therefore, there is
,n.' .:---; i'Jnificant noise impact generated by the project.
Li.<j9...~, _al2..d __ ~la~. Til. root lighting is trom 6 poles 'With light fixtures
".:hich have directional lenses l su-ch that all the light is confined to the
! r,)-C,t ,'rea.. Site 1 ightlnq is by poles, 'With fixtures around the walJcW'ays.
'It.<-increase of the bulldinq height by 1!i '-0· will raise the source of t.he
~VJt light: however~ the light will be contained 'Within the roof area and
! nnt ~;pil] into the surrounding site or abutting property. Therefore .. there
'j;: n,-, :c.ignificant impact from. light or glare.
:"lrjn'J a prclimianry reveiew of the project before. the Architectural Revie ..
r;,)dt:i. (ARB) on August 2, 13190., the applicant presented a shad-ow analysis
'[,)cllltlcnting t.he project·s shadoW" impact on adjacent multiple-family and
':-l.).:nrr.ercial properties. Subsequently, the applicant provided the Department
'.ith ,'l .morc-detailed shadoW" analysis and: a photographic st~y of visual
i ,:li'"ctS, of the proposed project. The extent of increased shadows on ad
"~njti<J properties can be. -*iummarized as follows: On the residential prop-
, t i'_':"""; north and east of the site on Webster stree.t~ the increased snado'..r
:i i 1 cover from one-balf the site to the entire site during the afternoon
it the fdll and 'Winter :months. en commercial properties .. rest of the site
11 T-niversity Avenue l morning and aid-day sun ,..il1 be blocked during the
,II and ~inter months. The commercial properties east of the site on
:,n~ti 1 ton. A\tenue will receive -reduced afternoon sen in the spring and sunurer
r'r:1th._' •
..;", i 11,' the proposed project .. ill increase sha~ws and result in diminished
"lO-U [-~. of direct sun I ight 0!1 the adjacent mul tiple-family and cOmJ'!".ercial
~rup£,["tie.s along Webster street .... Hamilton Avenue and Unive~sity Avenue ..
:h.~.sF:> shad,a ..... effects are not expected to result in a significant adverse
l!l1rQr.;t. on the environment as defined by CEQA. HOW'ever,. the diminished
·"r.'l:.~~'; of direct sunlight experien.ced by the the occupants of these proper
::~S is undesirable. particularly on the residentIal sites~ The impact of
"_!".ese increased shadows on neighboring properties could be redu,eed by
,:::;d i f ications to the cesIgn of the proposed garage ad-dition ..
2 ... Yphicular Movement Ca).. There .... ill be an increase in the vehicular
.ovement around and into the sit-e due to the trips of 176 ad>ditional cars.
r.c f;f'aces ~ill be permit stalls .. thus the nulZ\be:!" of trips ge!'lerated is
s::;llmcd to be a factor Qt 2.:25 per day~ 'With 75' of the trips split bet· .... een
. i..(' J. m .. and p. m~ peak periods. If a traffic incident on a: surroundinq
r.lr fMcK
l'
-
, .
90 ... E'!A ... .;O
B
•
"
~ ..
i ,
I
i
o
~:t L~,-'l does occur, there is ample queuing on-site and direction option~
.Jdjust the floW" into the street ,networ)c~ Therefore .. there is no
si~nificant impact trom the min¢r increase in vehicular ~ovement.
to
1.' .. Pdr~i nL~ma~. The additicn of 176 parking sti-llls within the
d, '· ... mtnwn arc."\ at an existing' and recognized location 'Will redu'Ce the demand
tPl" ~;.,:h::;ting space in the parking garage free and permit areas, as ..... ell as
th._" !:Llrrounding on-street parlc.ing.. This includes a red'l,;.ction of the demand
in the adjacent neighborhood o-n-street parking. Tberefore, the project has
!~iqnificant positive impact on parking in the area.
;lIlt In,! construction, appro~iD"lately 2S parking permit holders ""ho currently
Pdt 1: on I.€v~l Five viII have to be relocated to three-hour parking stalls
(n Level One~ Level One. is generally not full, and the approximately 25
1>( emIt parkers can be accommodated 'With no significant displacement of
th_n2€ -hour parkers~
12. Incr~ased Traffic Hazar~. As 'With the increase in traffic
IDc,vcmc-iit generated by additional car trIps., the potenti.al for increased'
tr~ffic hazards is negligi~le due to the low volume and distribution of the
trip~1 the known patters of vebicular movement, and the location and
config-uratloo of vehicular pedestrIan interface. Therefore, there is l!o
si1nificant impact on traffic hazards because of this project.
1 her.:: ..... ill be temporary short-term closures of the webster Street access to
th .. q.u'age in order t accommodate construction operations. To the greatest
~'):"t*·nt. po-ssiole, the access 'Will be kept open during the peak of the garage
(11:10 a.m~ to 1:30 p.m~}_ As there is another major garage access on
CC'wpcr street... and because the closures will be occasio-nal and of sh.ort
durcltion l drivers may experience occasIonal sbort periods of increased
del",/" and congestion enterinq and leaving the garage.. HOwever,. there is
n(.,t C'xpected to be any resultant increase to traffic hazards ..
J(.,_ A~?~_~e_tJ:-.~~~ll.. The increased elevation of the building from
il.[.>prox imately 31 feet to 5-0 feet will obscure the sight I ines of the
foo-t.'1ills and other views froD. the upper floors of some buildings in the
immediate vicinity. The proposed addition will be visible from nearby
~tn'€'tsl since it .. ill be appro~imately twenty to thirty feet taller than
fll".l!>t of the buildings 'Which surround it. However I the visuC!ll impact of tce
qdra'lC as vie'Wed from street level is reduced by its locatio-n at the
intvrior of the block., surrounded on all sides by existing buildings. Frcm
son:c locations, 'W"here surrounding buildi1\9& are low .. the r,elJ aOdition W'i I!
L-c quite ..... isible against the skyline and may appear bulky C!lnd out of scale
~it~ existing devel~ment. This visual impact could be reduced by
lr.r..:1ifications to the design of the proposed addition.
This design was developed over two ye.ars of extensive staff and commur,ity
involvement prior to its adoption in December, 1983 ~ In addition to
noqlliar public :reeetings .. a group of neighbors and surrounding business
~eople participated in the deslgn l configuratioo, and material selection
for the praject~ Throughout this process .. due consideration was qiven to
the height of the_final facility. The concept of the initial and future
!cv£'ls 1Jas unanimoUSly approved at each hearing.
'.
-
SO-EIA-40
9
'j ::tl\.'t~lnlJ Loml1lis-=:1.C<1 ..
('It .. -of Pdlo Alto.
• ~. " .
, ,
o
571 Hami ltv
Palo Ai to.
3 Sep t e>mb eor-
cl~ 94!..I)1.
1 ""«?O.
~ c_ : :.,.,} Webster .. "1E~TER./COWf'ER GARr...:3E:
t·"" ~n~ h",',,'e a li3. interest l.fl tHO p.,...c~ertles 1.~1 Ibe area. we
l'p',;r .·t b!:":'in.g t",lonabI!::' to atten.cf the public hE'a,..-.i~ Wednesda)o"
~,,-,:,t~,.tJ>b<'f"" 12,1991) ..
L·) ... ~I_" "=' :;0 <omment-o or 091nion at t.~js timell' t..~·':3t:Js;,e we t-,a.."e
;,,,r I,,,,,,d t"',e op.porlu'rl1ty to heoolr tr-,e opinions -,f -A.hPO""s In
t ) .... -, -t!'?.,; ..
~I!,-, ..,,-Alld Ctppret.j:al~ your-l'I'Iailin;l us a copy ot Lt,~ minutes ut
tf'~ RIPE'tir.q and other papers prepared for-thp putJlic
t'-*'-'dr 1 nq.
51 nee-reI ) ....
~Jt~;~vel
Fi'uth .. 1 r-dJ:well
~-£..~
•
. ,:
• \
",
\
\
" \ , ,
\: -<
" \'
,
" , I
, ,
I I 1
" . .r,
J
I I I ,
1
!
1 "
, , ,
I
\ I ~-=,
f
j
I
~~ ! ~~ 52) [ '-," -~-"
(j)
NGHH
L
o
fi1JVi:1'tB£MBER 9" 193J
~J\:CERP'I PI...A.."O\ING COMXISlOS MIN'iJTES
AeeHut:!:oll <If tba C'it:r It! hto ..tle" t. uend'
~,. 1<1dl!?f o.f eJ .. lbvnc(7loltl Pa.d.t. t.Qt J !.:o.
'r' O"ub.H<:: 7 .. r..iUctu' t. PC (pafUljld eo-Iol11 .. h:y)
ifH' c:l\Il "go" .! lullohl c. rn1L!q "(l'1U:tl:>U.
;dclir 4H 2ttN9I .raeu. The. prQpe-rtt :h
l~ • .td '$.'11. «-1111 \0 O'!\ "loll')( b trnJu r it
~ll~"Q. CO""r _tori W,hcn. Fib
U:::iC-Z2. IJ-Ul-l'lo; aOM IIJ"r!rt.::t Ph , .. lIU.c
~.
~_. ~l$tVi: t Wlllof 11'-t. int;aJ~, ",,-eo..o .~,..::u ot .oll-:t" ".P"'rt
h~tl'll:· 0-"U,l 'k .. ,n .. I\t"UII. d t.~ fb~ ~l' the
*t'e~t_t.t~nl Ita "t r .. n<1fU Jt1: .. 1t.t.rhort.. Itp"1f1o:c.ll), SeOtt
~nold"l)lI 1.Il4 IUu'\lttli tUloou. ... du UYi. lall#, Jt,.~n. fro. tn..
1A1IIIf~. U't;ld.CU-:\I;A .f,lnl 1~""<1~ u' &1Uv.,:t t\l •• t.tCl~. S'lC-IiIMly ..
'rd' ~~u WiU 't"~llt ..... h!o"".u<J. ". '1m", ~ 11111 Prllv:.6~
tll4lott"" .0.,.. &rQIJ:;4 t.~ de .. u· ,ro¥1d' rot Ifd.1-.tilU-.
1l/09i1l
-H-
•
-._'
,
" , .
~
1
l , ,
I ,
• 1 ,
I
!
I
I
I
I
I
I
L.
-
o o
s.:ott balIleiloG'(It ! •• to. prajec~ 't'l:h.1tect: (no. ParsO!\6
in:roerc..rllo.ft ill .&&" 7nnc:r.cgo We haw. c,"-t.ci. wall .. aora
'eta1led d .... loourot ot the IIcll.tlle. tl'lIoI.t 1011 a"pl"<lve<l 1" i:.. "",,uat
aeet[D4i" It 1, Sc.lu!_ JEl vh..f<;.1o. d .. pnll .••• tho! S ate de. clavI!, .. fllll
It_l. pIli. • .I t ... t~ .Q thllt: tt-.e ctt.1 b .. thl "pctc. ot .ddlQi l
tlo.on It: .~ tr .. ia the fut ... re .nd lull hoi".. t~ lul! bulldlr'1&
It the .so f_t ~lal'lC 11aJ.[ or the ,Cone. It fI, ... the _lJI IIIUOI'\I
• .r .... au.l. t'h6t tM tot,l bl!1.r;ht of tba bll.lldtna ... it >fin be ",",Ut
til, t!'d. t1rat .It.,. I. 3l. feet .00". lude. :n... IU!'" ]-ato.Q office
bW:.l.dlq 011 Ilnt .... nlt,. IVIi!IUIa .,ltll tM brick VI!~l!r. tl'1. ~.l."
lN1IdJIII. 1:, 43 teet toO c~ u.p of ·t~ ",,"'pet:. I'he ,,1.11 '10<'.
d.hcl,I.Ud ill; quttl I JUt of If.tail t:/a leat U1ll<l!. !lO "n.l<l!5' 1011. ba~
'0.. ..... I!!.t!ou. t wl1~ -';!V4 ell to hI,hl.18ht.. !h..e ,1avacloll ,...
bI_ worlwd o..t till tu'" of ~.t.ht. •• ,tJ;'".,IC.[\lral 1II,.lIeU .ruf IpK!"
ot tbl atruct .. ral H.boII~l. Th!. 1. thl! ut.t elevatl"", • .11 .e.a r:OGiI
C:O~r. n... "'·hv fro. ;o.::b.tet Ot t~ al!e:r-..1 1o";>1I1d bo! .I.1L11r.
All e~a..r lUJItil\l atael •• 'beea f"o"n4 to 'be ao.IIt ceoat .. f1'ect.t_~
_114 C~QI witll en. ~".~l .. 1» ... ta • tr<loll.la patter" arolL."14 tlle
.",tiB per':_ur. .1Qb1I. .... t,.rt. h (w"" h,,,' loyston. a.n.laoto,
A.ll.,. 1114 Ably to dh·cull til 'etaU the hml..eap<lo plan, • .:. J will
Ju.t touo::ll D1l the lU.J<!r hl,h.U .• h.t,. Th' 1<::.: ••• FQlntl &0 tlltll en.
,1"1' tMG Colowpet IDd' ;o .. &:'tlr. the ped •• trt.", arel, troD
tlrll'W'll nit". 1114 K.ll.llt" a V'O\lld III 'be laruf.~a,pe'::, a:td' • COIloC ~te
pevar 111-.1 fot dill I!r:l:v:t.,. andi the vc:lk.1".. .~d.ce.. We hilW!!
Ioro",ht ...... 1 ... .:.t tho .. rOBC""'t.1 p.".."". ~y Ire \I'~ hi,,,
.t",~d. 1n4 ceat .tflCtivtl .. tlnah. TJwy M"I l\;Jof 11 J'eu. of
Ixperl.nre vit. tr •• ta. Cill.la-I 1:11. I ~Q UEt;te"lt I1r""t!oa vitlill
lot. of .oil IOW .. nt. It bad' Y1rt. ... ll..r '11(1 c.rac"Id:f\I' -n..1 are. ... q
f.:.q.lnl'4l to '1'0' 'kIDoI of lloIl!.'I.Id'.c:. lICl __ nt •• M' t~.)' h.&ve tt.
elll!' 1a-II'Int"e that U J'~ 40 "'_ t.:. 4.:. -.ny .... l>IlJrf."e -rll" .1011
.~I,. HEt t"" wnlt. out, ... 'b tl'lll I"Il'a[r. IDd' ,",,pI.e. t'h!:iI .. '0
t!.n .N e.G Ilnat .. btI1' pat.c'r.. ••• naI Ifr ..... hK:l: to .ny 'kind ot !odell
Or tIle ~ .... r. WI lW. ........ bl~. o.f tM .,pacIHe plan. but .1c'b.a
will t.e .ani "Pro,daea to auwer qv .. tro~ oQ. tho... If .. '!wive
"",na.r'S., O'D. t .... vall 'that sllov thl Ir.f .. ", t~ i'e'hter Strut, I.
that ..... :tt •• tfec.ti .... U 4.-.ollatrat •• Chi qufaC r...itut"1! of' the
,tn.c.tlIni •• 1'1: 'IfOuLf .. ).utlt. 'rhI .l.a.,..ar "'i,_ttl! .ho .... I eor.-t'
of t.r. hf1dl"l Whle' ~Id! .... h1I..t bot'll to the .IIoutl-w .. t .n4'
.000t ....... t cor..rw. .borlnf; pecf.ltrtlo lec.,.. tuta the p.r1t1nc
atrac~lIr"I ."" the 141. of WI.!q the r~vood: treel al _n:iccl
Ic.clilt •• t tlla COl'lllli!:tI. Tho .. an '!lrtll.! h..fihl:fahr.. If 1'ou he .....
CIV p.tIaU'. I win h 1'w,ppJ' to alU""r eM..
eo-I.al_t 'IlrlC'b: I _ t'f)'illl to rece~tt'UCt .. holt .. e dtd' I ... t
~t •• Qof J tbouiht G1.Ir ",C_r4IUOa. It that tI::aa Wil' t. 'have
OM 1M' c flaU It ..... 11 .... 1011 ,nol'.. low 1 ••• tha~ the .tafl u.>'o"
l'fllll:lc.at •• at 1 .... t 0_ 1 .... ] .,..,U be fOloU.1 boIlow Ir.,h:. wlLte" t
tMIlk.l •• l\a.U' tnot" 11K0.".:ta~ vitll. llhat _ dill ~rore • ..t.l.ot.fw:r
plAICI 11111teolen tbllt It ~cf 'bI all. .dd.1UoM,l tva feet below
In.". Ia dw.t c.OQ.lt~t'llot v:Hk O'I.It elrUer rec:o .... ....tatl01l f>l Gt!oOI!:
...... 'half llq]. be]o. ,nor.?
PIa. lle:ler .. ~ 1 _14 lib til "' .... on.! t. t.hoIe. Lut. ""'lust 1'<7\1.
Ioppnlftll' • COlIIClIpt ~blt 'fIaAI OQl I.e..,.I ,pI ..... 2 fe.t hele ... Gralfe. T'h1.
h U .. concept .1 01'.9110,..,.
-eo-t •• to .... r !inc': )I,. 1"'I: .... 1e" of tbl ArrhitlCtu.l"1Il. &.!"hw 100rd
aIaut .. ,bOYa thlt tlla1' taIga _lout d'1'pll!a~l .. t'fllo .t.Nctlin 0_
c..! I twu ltYlh b.lov .n4e, ano! ,_.m.re til tbe: .inu[u of the
~t 3 _UIII, Wi tllkad' lbout tMt .... ll~
ar • .Pnlilan.d~ I ,...,ec-t tr.t 1t h 01: ..... at.foa of .IIIoppy detc.r:tpttaQ.
of ou:.ct 1I'.lna. ". COlIICept tlwt: e .... be.tOA tM ':'0CIII1ss1011 arwt tOa
41.1 vhan ~ '11: •• 1tana.U .. ""' .... !.act,cf val p~boe. l<'td ch·t.llll..r a.
t. n'l .o.~Y-Dl: of ""pr..dQII. I tll1nk it .rl , .."ttl!:r at t .... lt8.C.t
r.fenncl" •• to what thD ... "z..1'111 • ...,.,.If. Th.I.1 "-VI!: Ilva,. •• ~
~hI 01Ul lI' .... I ,.Iu • .z f .. C ~ Ihat ....... DOot ebal\ll!:.r~
11/09/1]
-Jl-
. ,
lit _ .. --.:. "_0._
~ .,.
-
o o
Co_1utellle!" IYre.::l" I,u the helSht I:~p&.d" at .. ll~ or :h 1t atU.t
tha .1I111e a. it _. ill Auau.Jt1
Char~llI!. 1O.,...I.r~ IihJle we an: 011 tfle llu.,lt1)D 01 h<!.tc.l:1t. tr.e
eI.""'tOl" 'flaIt 10010:.. 1.!1te it a t<J be l:oru.~NetO!!It froll the be,trulil\(
.t .. Il!wl that h capllll_ cof hal/tnc: the. CIOI(I ,.tori,u • .:I4e" Oil?
Jl!:r. D!n.hlllo'O: JIIo~ tu:>t quite_ the.e an, 1()J:t\I to Ill!! cable ;>o.:.l.!ed
.I.·vatert a. ClPI'0..,d to b.l'du ... Uc: auvato;... tlnlort ...... ~ .. I" .... he"
.rou. fI.I .... tlw c.1)I ... nd' p..:lleYI. i.t: tl!qulr"ll 'lulU .. h11h ~"tbo ... .;"e
f(ll" (fie, equl;ollU!~. ile .... _. ~ever. lone: to .-:1 Wld'O!!t 1I1"f\i:
elevator 'Io'hI!n tM .... Jor eqLrl.p1Hllt I, QOOftl til tha 2.'U:IIe"t~
OtbalViae the. .le .... tor·p"'nthouH .",\lJ.d __ evt=1I laQ"c .nd" • ..eh _n
.",l.'IoIard 1.11 0 .... 1'.11 ap"urarJea. Il1She: IlDV the he1aht h l~',~ .l>.:l~
tho:! thJnI level .. ani! tt.at 1, the I~.t pon1ble !r-oa .. 'landaI'd:
.... n.u.t.c.tllnr. Thl! Ot:t, Elevator pea;l. did IIOt ruo.,erul 'hytl~ ... Uc.
e .. pecl.U.1 .. ,Ub t~ potential for l' floor.. Ttw.1 uaU&1Iy 60 .p.<)t '<J
bf'lo''': !o..u. ~tNtrv1a, .1011 .let II 10.t of" C"...,1I1tl1~11 a"bO ... ~ ,I.ovtleaa of
t[allel cu.e.
o....tr. .. c. \;'heel_r~ If tfu! iIo"di~!ollal ~vo Ie ..... Ia are co.n,tNCte4, lKN
hiii:1l voul~pentn., .... e be aOO_ .'["&4_'
llr~ llan!eh';m: Toll. voulill add" ro .... hl,. ano.ther .20 f"e.e~~ ot "'~ floor::
t. floOl'~ 10 it voullt ..:t ...... 11y be 1!11 fe.t U",. 'l'he. 13"-4!m..ens!on
_",1.d ,"flllply 'DD~ .. p to tbl: ,event) lI!~l~
COaari.lI;;s:lo1'let' Su.tarl ... : !'be &reh.1tOllCtural kvte", Board !II
.-nUclpaUrJ,I the Einal lanolflleape ~ 1r~$JIt(oll plan., and
",aolu[!oa. 01 ttll reloeatioa. oE chi erl,Uaa 0&11. tr>Lell ,".£l1 ntunt
far \<:I.r<l IIJl?roval~ Did Jay. .... nt til .:a..en.t oa. c~t ",~lllrll'lI"I:"'t1
Ii it uo urly to lat ... IrnDw how ttlilt 1. P["(lIU" .. 1nc.?
Itr. ao~rt,: Th.a iletaUer:! punttq a04 [rdr.cloa pun ... 111 be.
un4'ettaull "'POll a .. p~ .... I. 1 3V1! "vi ..... .! t.~ ,1.&. .... c Iht of .1'o.ru.'boi.
ana t~.c a1teolllv.1,-lfitl; tJ~ cIt]' Italf .. ap..;f Io'I! .re .1.1 1a.
aareeDen.t .. t.~ w'hat ~ a~ ,(11111 ta 'be p1aot!TIC~ The P[W<:!"
location a..a .1p' ba:. n.c~ 'been Goet.raJ~<f ... Iar II" tt'BllJlplan.t1111
the oak enea, .... jwot .aec >rIta. rreO!' tra~laat.r l ... t 'rid'a,., and
1nd1eat1:;H.I .n. that It :te llOaalbl. to. t.n.lUlplant. t:he QC.\:. ttll!lI!l_
l't:l..e el,., UII fIOt IoRlrt1l. tr&rulplan~tnl' It lIIO:luld 'be ~O' 'I~naiw: till
t.unapiant tbell.. ~r. an Ii oal: t-I' .... on the dte, one 01 wh1.cll 1.s
.h -:1:7 poore 1Il!&.~ .. and' fJ •• .P'Oall1~I. tr&nj:punt.. Of thao {(\fe.
f<:>ur af@: IT'OlIIna til .roea, tboat an!! oqulte ~t.rlc-tl!-4 w1~lrI ,p ..... e.-ellt:.
Those .. n UShu~ rt.k t:I"O!. ... tha..1I. tM nne 1n t.he 1.0\oft.t' rllbt conuot'
0-1 tB, Io'hel!!t~ .. q .... a~1oa. that tbe de]' v:l1l ha_ to d'.ter-1~ ill
whet!i.et it VD<Ild: be V'Ort'!i: tha .JqH!na~ of J3,.OOO-.~OOO tn tra1Up1&n:
OM tTll.e ..... ~ 'p",:rcbaa1<lC a __ apeet_n tAa CU&tIIlltead by • auu""r::P
fot about h~ 000.. That' ... yet 1. Ul1".01.....:r..
'Te4 ao.\Kh!: veHud' UILe CO 6 ... 1 wUk chi! {UIOt! .,f t'hoe lo.d1nc
1:0oel· 'IllI.a:: _ lw. ...... atce-.pteiJ til 'h {a. t.lUll o:.han&a :h to prov1d~
a_ aper::U.l:e l".:.tlona fOot d.l1""rtell fot -tbll at'll. bet,,",'!,,:! Co-oper
an.! Ilebaur~ nAn..re ae,","l p1.aeea that C .. 1l be .lrov1de4~ The
lI>oU;au. lo1.t.~e" to. tbe center point. of t.'II1 ... bloc ......... n1ell 1 •• 'bout
520 fet!t. 10", l~ Cowper to ,"'dllter • ..,uld '\oe .&wt 1] e.r
l~th3. .on.. _ul .. haw t<l truck .. ted.! f~ the ]o.dl:TIC :lOt'l.e till
t~ center of that l1IoclL" for a lol,UtIC. of 1] car hu&tna. !bet'!!
ara lIeve['81 .ddJt!ooal po,lI1hll:ltall 0 .. tlni_ratt,. \lhiell lie c!a IWt
:zee~d at tU. ch.. Tr.e,. woul.d 'b4: til. tn.. D<!l,'tl''oorll<x>a' of abou.t
100 feet at" 4 Ot 5 tilt Ieqthll. 'Ih.I! fart'hoest loc.at{OQ :tn the
IInt_ralt,. .a"'anu.e art. wo4d 010 Ta.loo St[1!!et •• 114 t'hat :ta .bou.t 10
ear Ie."t'h,. W, f.el relatIlI'81.1 taafcrtable that en.. a1uro.atJn,
DU Cowpet .. 1'14 lietHIter w:1U pnllrl<fe lIo.JftC!lTIt Io.d11\1 .ft .. tor the
'bualne.a.ea alona tlnI_ .... tt.]' ...... nue.
Ul09iB]
-1')-
•
I
L
L
-
./
o 0
IIr ... iEtohe S&!c'h. 756 tl'nlV1l!r .. lty .l.l'enu. • .Palo AJto~ I a .. COncllr-M4:
llIoY-1; t~ ofeltveO' 11'.(1,.
Kr~ lIo.suc'hl: I'hl lacltloQ.l that WI .0:-1 nCOlll1lM!:o.tlt",c af~ 011-Co~r
lnot W.~t.r. ,,1tbel" of t'hU wo.utf tIoI! -.on thaI! 260 teet froa &rI,f
poht 111. tlat bl()C):. 'the I:entet pol"t of thh bloc.la :, lll-O file:: 1ft,
... tMC 11 the h,",e.c dllt.~1 that •• tllr!11 would ha .... te 'be
t"t'\lt.UQ 1" •
• n. s.ttb~ So tho! ~p111 til the Cllntl!r oC that bloc\ afe .. ,,1na to
hi .... tG I~t .u "r thlllr ut.rid. fcom. CQvper Ot R'.e-bner. [t}d:,1r.
t fie lardacape pta.,. .n .,. r) c.tce, 'but [e .e... quite iap riC t le.l
fot t.!<c pl!<l-91e ta. tt.. c.u.ter of eM lIhel. i.t tn.,. I\&l'e to t~:t
t'h11\11 1m treG. tt-. I1de.. 'that 11 .. real proliX-a ts "'e. If you.,..t
eld. 'OtIC-.n,-lC)Wer~ :1. that .. fur ,.011 ell.Mlt bva Ill.}' drive"" .. ". .cro ••
eM bid,,'
llt-. lIoaueM: that 1. cot't • .:t~ 1'ha t:;d;"'rint Dr tn. 1ru..1ldinc; lIOuld
I:', .. r o .. t to tM! par'd.q .t.':'l.. Tl-_ ~s.,eht of the bul1dJ. .... ill,
a~~eet~ e.Qe:t~ot. et. .Wlity tG If thnUlh f..-o. Colljler ~If
'ie\!lt.lr. thac n.4101:l. fot. that t. IJV.I; ,,~~e .. t tOo prov-L,1e IIW'Ut.rl.u
...edt1!! ... to prodde • II&fllr .llviro .... eQt for ,pf:op!e to j;et ta the
.. lboq thllt Iu,h to t1n,t'll'enJt,. &wr,we· 'nIat YOloS the prt ... 'O'
_,tvatt:o'O. for l!ll.toeni!lna; the footi'rta.t oY-t tCi thllt .rea. £ltr.r
thl, or I(VI! :in tG t'hl 6e11",.ry ... Mell!l.
En. s.ttl.: SQIUo of t'hl .loci' owner. tban I~ conc.ernecl .bout
tld.~ Tou ""Dt tG pr~ta S'ltdl bud .......... na tt1tb tnt • .art of
tlOlII, )'0'lIl .. n lotte t.o be ... ofH:~... Villi! tltfl(.,. 1"'" 1 .. at. brl~
1a. p.opl ... -.,..t v:all .... u'1Q1.p. 7toa. "hi ... to btl", :ill _terlaI,. thl.
11 • nIl 6.t-I~llt.
B,4 :&nbe.e: 1 I. nl'nlnroUIII DoovutOV'Cl. PlaIn Alt,,_ tnc~ AI)'OI<
b.o1r .. DQvutO<ofU Palo oUtlt. lOc~ lor _IQ' ,,'1[11 ,.. ~an .<lvooeltJIII
tl .. ,.""lo,...a.t ~ a .w.ul .... 1 ,",",I. 11. Wit J. We th!M. thh
.n:h!tec:tu.ral e.ooc.apt -[, eJK:.lllru:. :ta tltal of lwIl.h.t H cel;"t. .. 1n.l,
... t. t"-...... "1 coo!o~1t::r of baJ-lhI: l ..... l.ao -t. 'tNl 1_.41atl
DdJ;1lbothPoCl~ lite. nlPKt t. tN 'd""'4J'. 1 ilo toOt thlni. it fa
poa.a1t.J • .co II!-1x .. o.rto.o'bUa. aNf tNcb. Iii. lie" othe-r alIeyw.lY. 111
hlo <O~ 1111: .... trw OM tro. " .. ".rI,. to .:ryant •• 1\.11 .,1"0811-tt ... r'I 1 •
• truel. p.n..a 1l1li that .n.,., .. "., thllAl II QO -1' In .ut,,,.01:l11e. C.III
.ot. ,..t tt.. At. le .. 1. l<I to lS ,e_elK of all .tQ[~. 1'11,. d"OllUtow.
.. IG .I.ltG do not lI& .. !ec'k .rOOr .CC..,III ,to alr.,...,.y.. I'heJ' .... ". ta
n,,:U..,. t.bltr-l006a f~ t'hl at~t. 1'h1 .. tllel..,.! ... n:st","nillt. ani
otha1' typ .. of c~.rc1al .l1li . .reul1 ..etlvltil!'. llot eVlII]' .tDre 11l
tov:Q. he. chit c.Q#."1lI111e1!. I oIJ'p n<:J.ta tllll rae t t!\at hoi rllll an
&l.lo",,! at thl! 'Me:1r. 6oor-t. c:,rt.taly COtlY1!nh,nt. tx.t an
alltra,(lrenolur ~.a o.p.nCl vlthoUot thlt tna of tOtlY'l!n1e~,. li'e 'have.
t .. '0 1061 c(IIIproah1nt: wit ... anj'tbJlII _ dD. 011, tbe wflDl .. , tl\1I! t:.
14' •• t~ .. _ i. r._ tou,J r>a 1. llD ~ t.Mu r.l-.11 tl t.~.t", to ad_reel,.
afflICt the CJpu,.,1oll Df t~ .atra.PreM .... r. oe: trnJ"e"~'-". kevee ...
~II: .DIII liie~tn-· It: -.1 tllte .... tt.e to re.djust~ but Out"
'h'SII'porl .. Uo~ IlaDal.r. Jlr. Jlc:JJ;u..:'h1~ fIa. 'OM In elI'::l!lIeut jQlI (II
world. Olrt .It.r-Mttl.... "ndl l.1Pl-ol .1tern.ttJ:1I'1! (1,1 beJ:rJ,! u.ed
.~"' 1:1 t.'M. t~ .. t¥!: t .bco.il4 t 1"11'* 1t v<:null" lOll rk hfo re ju.H ••
WIll· Iii., thlnk 1t h a.a. .. calJeQt joll, ,,00 al'Chitactuully ~lte:
c..,..t1bl. 'rit'll ..,het "' &0... fa. t.0f(Q. We rec:~n.f that the
,lewna e._l.,lou scd .u.lInqu..tntI], thl!. c:1 11:". C!;)uocU approve the
,I:OJacc. Th.lllk 1'0'1:1.
S. In.vlel. 108 t.:Iow::u. 1.0. Alto.!". CA.:-I .... 'propert". owner "'.t
to t'hl r:tl be: of t"-. v .. lIo._l" t .... ra. Our tllUllI,t J. [hi! I'U IIJOII
~(thr ... 04 'hi..., c:otl.l4era~ll t:rafUc. 1.11 and out.. t f~l it ~ld
-.. .... ry l=oa .... "l.lIot for t~. TbJ. i. ON!! "ate .g&!Nlt re.strlct(tB,;.
thet: t' II'. of t be t nu:k .&e.e... t. t be n. t.
• " .. ,.--, ..... '" '"
\., "--'
H/O~/U
->0-
•
\
.
-
•
\
./ ...::.:.:.:..;, .............. =~~_ ~,,-...,;,;' ..... _ L S v ~~ __ '!:r~,.r.>_ ... ""."...,"'''''''.., ... "..I!'11 ...
o o
ea.uhIonlir Jlgrthwaz: :!Ill'"_ JIoSuc:bJ:, call you e .. pla11l belw ctel.l"erle.1
a:"ll!-MV _4. to that .t .... "I' Iher<!:. .~e w:. lQ~1o:\C eonu .•
I'I.r. """chit That 1111 cllrreer. Curreotl.1 thera are '!ICI Ie,ad:lna
aClIla'_ ,.,.... 1I0l61r. •. uea an tak1", t!w lillertJ' of 101", Into tlwe
p.rldl'ol lot .nd p.rltr~ :h the d:rtVlllW&.1 pcrt.t.,u for Ifelherl,u. I.e
1'1.1. nU"l" 'beet! '-•• .M.t1o..-.f acrint,. .. flue it ha. ~l!tI 101na 011 r.,c
yeu· .. · We at. WII ",co.nhl.,. the 4.1Ive17 1:I.I!~1 of n~t art=. &1'1"
pt'IH'1d'llI apee 181 10.1111\( aofloU.
<:o.a1utOMt JlCH't""'-y: Ft"l;llll .. ptact1cal Jcand,Polnt, it wo..:ld aetJII
]H'I!' thl! ,.., !lcliv1cy lIoulci t01u plac& Ott !:r1l1w.rsit1 A_au .. !no CM:
areal t1wt 1011 hir.ViI: urkJl!i! •• poul':)Ie I vcu1.d 111.l1,Ine chlot people:
.. idOl del.lverle. t. tfwH noru in 'the C-1!1l~er fit chi! block IfilJ
prob&lIl.1 jl.Ilt ~u.ll Into thou thr1!1! pu\:1r>,1 atall_, 10 1.t als:ht 'be
'but til anl!c.iiat. tlw.t tXt. will Mppen~ pI..n for 1t ... n.cI .. l:t· ..... U,
hlil.VI! tl\.t al:"a!!ll on tluIven1tl' be 1044101 .. oneil.
JI.r~ ",01w:.'h.I: t ¥cul' c .... tloa. tbaL tYt..f .u Itl1q tet have, ta ... b •
t.radlOoIt_ rho.e an c", ... Lome.,: p.r1t1t\(! .pac."," tt t~.f aI'",C tM. a,
10,d1q .loae.. VbJc.1I 1. .. ~I..t:t,,",l.f ,bort tiJuo f'r... :fl)t
.el1 .... I"te •• tiw:r will be tr4<!.l::rq; t ..... t olf .edn.t tt. 10" I)f tlM
parldna fClt c: .... t_rl.
Gl-.r •• to~r QplleQ: Sillce thl. CODCern, e .. "'P. an4 ,Ira .... rr.c,,"
at our ea:rller _t1ne aT'<! at thl! ARlI '.Itilll. 1 f,a.vl bua vatch11l1
the oIeUve,r.te .. lovn.t.wa. !kI.t cf' tlza .... to k 111 thl early
acrnJIJ,I ~:fo ... traffk fa ~t,., .0 ~d'. "tb.I! 'b1~1r. eMt h juat w.t
o.! tkt. o~ 'OIl ban • lo.ll41q I:tll'le jlUlt • little .110" • .;;;:hI!
I:l>aa~lI!r. It:l, 1tOt. ~(:lOphcl ao,t of t~ d'ay •• 0 I dct I)Ot .1-.. re thl!
concern. Ib.!. 11 loeb • von4.rflll "a, of cett.1l'11 tho! parldn&
Iir1tncf,lt :l .. pactina: the w"/ltlII II!.l'Ivirollll.nt wir ... ~, JaOt'e .... rift
lodllHna. tholt it. 1 ... tracleoff. rt 11 n.ot the-beat ot all: poadb.!.
wadlf •• 'blOt c: ... rrFotl.f tM •• retalIen 111.,. tCil tr'\ICk the:!:r It..If up
,_ ltep.. Surel, tMt tl 1.oco"..-enienr. I aa. utJ.rt." t'Plat I'!:r.
1Io!llOellf ha.a 1d'l!atU':l.:f II!ve-t.l .0IuUOTII te the P:robll!. if it
'bKOW!. ,,,,,te. I wc..u. nDt tl'ra&ll of bold.1l11 -.p tlLh proj.et 0 .. the
xd. of II couple of 10aa.1111 I:onea.
NJ"rIOI': CO..t ... .l~r CIIlJ.leD: .eve that ..,. appoo-...e the PC
~nd'at!oll.ll-CIIIl pqa 10 oZ t"-.taff rl!port. (.o""t:rw::tioll 01:1
Lot $ VClu.ltll _IJII vithl'D 00 • .1'ar ~t e!t)' .c:ouru::!l .pprov.l .nd boa
c~1I!:tea odtl\i,. tva ,. .. 1'1 f'ro. t'he It.rt. g.l cOll.ltru.c:t!on, and that
it h '1 d'ulan-I II1tll • ~.1a_1 .an ...... loo_ IJIl 1:1. piau, w1tlr.
thl ac!cfitloaal c .. ~t tbat tru. f1 ... 1 larulac:.p1tiI pl.la boa 'pptCIlCd' by
thl .ltc.h1tectllul aevt .... lOAn!.
Co.t,I1.a"",r ktor1 .... : Ther .. al.o 1.. t1. illoIILpater I!fIC!o''-lre atld'
.eee •• .rtu!l;t1cQ.~ !O'-l :l1UiJ:(,ate i.n tl'le Itaff report that la."o
boIlhVE.I it 11111 lIoa -.1=OtlVl!!n!.nt "but ........ ".bl.-: it .w::1lt lo-cati.lo.l
ha ..... reuonabI.-: ."o.:.ea •• ~ '!low 1a that Ihlp1~ 111'1' :i&l)w an .:.lu!y
golna to iI~t i:a1
tta. Me-"tI!n3: l'a1JC_ va .. cOCilcenw!of tMt t ..... .roo .... ('pen'd' 1. auo::.1l, ~ ... .1
t.hat C:'ello_~e_~--ll4 ;.;::: .tv i.,.., iI_pluu. All fat .a 'be .. tll.a.f ..-111 Il!t
tN! "4'-.p.tera til t'toa •• ,,'bal_ tru.c:u. they collld' cO'\K..lvabIj' II!nl .. r
the alIaywaJ .. rt,. i:a t'fJe aornJq. at :f1n 10. thl!! .onrln&. IClt
u:aapll!. 'nw! 0'011 pnbI"" witk that 11 thlt. the Pr •• lclent 8ot.I is
ne4rlll~ v1til aa. .p.rt._Qt butId1r11 011 tlloa otber .lifO!! •• no! tha.n
wCM.Ild lie • no!.e JH-obl_. Lhe onl, Iltl!['tWIt1..-e. t ..... lI. tl f'rn tbe.
ta """.-1 the d.-pateu C'-ll te tM Ioa4illl' z:one.a 0'0 the .rdf!:
.tree-tll'· 'th.!y 40 h&ve te 11'0 tholt !ll IQlIoe locateoN! III P.lo Alto.
ec-fs:o;10 ..... .r-Sutar!WI: nw.t "ould aUlle.1I: that 1f ther. wre
10.,Hna tOall!: ~. all Co.,..lr .r:d IiII!~tar. thlll pote-nt!al edatl
1 U1.":l {I!J
~:21-
-Corre-ction*
Ilj7/BJ
·'
-,
tor nar 600lt 4.1.t .... o;:f troa tho •• I_cll .... *~M.. U !'.IK. eaa ,at •
• ..,.ta1" 111 .owI ooa •• lfaUwll' 'pU'.o1l eel"l" Mill! t.("'.,IO;'k 10 ro , "ar
.001" .
III'. Jla.Jvc:'h.L: th.at ..... tM tn.~.,"t. 'the, WOOl].! to. ,bl, to lIall4 £r\lck
t. eMU rut lJelt~ry af\lnlrIC.lila.
MIo ..... hfl.: 1 would llk.1 to add 00. polnt: abcut the ddh.r1u thet
.1,hI: .. u _MU o~ tM pubHc. f,.X "~t'r. Tlwra lora cartdQ.
kiall, of l:ruc:b t&.t call tllt.r tho! I'~'. 11 tM., .,e 10>1 enoul"'"
'tM uU11II hoIl&hr of thll f.1nt thor h 'h.~lher th.o.~ ,11 III' th
otlwr. ,~ til the. lYa.dlca'p nqu.1~nt •• &0 aoa. of thol __ lIar
t~u e.a lriva 11lu ebl "tale, ,..::k .f14 • .-... dd1~r1: •• t:r-c.a
tMn.
Cha1nu.a he-XIIII': 1. e'her'll a..., otMI' ,U.ec",adoll. on cbJ:, aotlC1ll1
All of t"ho .. :III fa'fOt of tbil .oclo11 tel .p'.' cll.t. :Itt .. on tho! tit,
C.OIOIIlC_U 0.01 ~_...a ... '" ataU. Vit). t~ cOMitIoM that !hD ••
:U:_ 'UI to RI'UnL to eM .l1;"l:h.!.t",::t .. nI "'new Jaard: .ct~ll"
"tIOna to tll.ca tOt fl ... 1 'nro.,.1 "1 aye.
c-! .. .sOMt Q\rl!lCalWlllt I ~I'e ........ tlo ... tar t~ ....... _a.t
III:btnet .f)ovc p.r'k1ll1 lilt.. I hope tlw.t wtdI.. WIt a,""" ,pOllr,d1na atl
1.1\1. __ ,. far pa .. Una 10[, 't-""t _ an • .pe",41:ac a d.Un .~t rtf
_li0ii7 t. H~re t'-,dgte Jarld~ 111 che cJr.r~ Jlhlcll 1 •• "boo..ot <1<11
of the ,.rldT'C 40W11~0V1II. It c:ou.l. k r.,,~4 t"Cilt U .. t'llJIW d ••
o .. I:'1l1Ih1:·
•
i
!
i
..•
,".,;-. -~.;;:, .~ -~,
L
o
Tile Phrlning Co.hsfon naet filii' r~g"tar .eetirlg on We(j'1I!Sclilljo'. OecemtJe1'" 7.1983
.t 7:)0 , ••• hI the Council ellner, .. ith Q,~k./'lll." Wl\eeTer-p1"'lHiding.
Abscrlt ~
Staff PreSilnt:
~t)..L tAU
CotrIIIIfssi"Qners cnristensen. CIll7en. IIIc:Ccwn~ lorU, ... ay ..
~torfus. Wheeler
Br~e FruTilf1d, Otfe1 Planning Offkfill
Sandy Sloan .. hsf$tant Cit,)' Attorn.!Y
Te" "0'911(:111, Ilirector of Tra:n'Sporhtfoli
------------
APPROVAl OF T)(f "I"UITS
Of ltO'o'EMBU: !. 1983
Chatrtan Wheeler: fi.rst HtII fs the approw-ill of tt\e minutes 1>' "o ... Mber '.
lSi:!. Ve hl!vl! It 0"1'" IIlace-s sone lIII"'itten CllTrectfons frora Coftmissfoner ,IHrsdl.
C9ftlf.5!fOrleT 1IIcC~! "es. on p.age 21 t~ere Is • !lOtion INIde by COIIIIfssfonu
CalTet1--thfs is on the lot J J1arting strlOCtUn!!. I lIticfn't find tl1e: secor.d' in
here. To my recoTTectfon it .. as ta.lfssfonu "'eeTL!r.
Coralnfoner Whef!ler: FfMo Are thee ollI1 other correctiOfls1
CoomfUfol\V'" CJo.rt.stensl!n:-On. page.('9 in lily reruri's It till!! top 0' the page'.
tr.e s.entl!fl.Cf! st;~'d read: "1 ?lillie not sel!rl • constlltant ~oduce il J«Irtil.lllle
report.. • There's" part left o .. t of the s..!ntetKl! there. It's the \luy
£t.rst sentt!~e _ "th"t our stilff does u goocr • .roll il5 ilIl.l COlIsult.ant.
liilye Mt seen ... consultar'lt prorfuce a wortllwnl1e report."
Coqafss!oner Wheel~: ..... t! tht!rl .anJl other co.rrl!(;tfQr'ls1 If not r IIQII!
apprav.l of t"e IIlfnutu of 1(.g1lert!1I!T" 5 u-corr~te4.
C~r$Sionll!1' Christensen: Second •
. '