HomeMy WebLinkAbout0371.091I
f
I
o '~ -.,t
,
• • ~,~ '." ,~);':'
-
July IS, 1991
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, Calif~rnia
850 WfBSTfR SHEn. PI.~NNED COMMUNITY ZONE DISTRICT AMENDMENT AND ~A8lANC€
Members {If the Council:
Report in Brjef
Tbis report and attachme~ts rei ate to a request by Channing House~ a senior
residence ~ocated at 850 Webster Street, for an amendment to tMe e~isting
Planntd Community (PC} lone and a height ~ariance to a110w seismic upgrading
and tn2 addition of a service elevator.
Backaround
This item was originally scheduled fer conceptual Planning Commlssio~ review
on March 27, 1991. It was continued at the applicant's reQuest to a110w time
for the applicant to ~orK ~lth residents of Channing Ho~se who were concerned
about the construction impacts of the proposed seismiC upgrading. The
applicant returned to the Commission on May B, 1991, with a revised seismic
upgrading plan which would cause Ir,uch less d)sruption to the r~sidents. The
original proposal (described jn the March 22, 1991 staff report) involved the
addition of interior shear ~ali5 and the enlargement of building columns. Tne
modified ~roposal is for a -base isolation-system (described in tne May 3~
1991 staff report), which allows most of the construction wor~ to be fOCU5~d
in the basement and around the exterior perimeter of the bui1ding. Additional
bac~grcund information can be found in the three attached Planning Ccmm;ssion
staff reports, dated March 22, 1991, May 3, 1991, and June 21, 1991.
Planning Commission and AtchJtectural Review Board Actio,.,
The Planning Commission conceptua11y approved the PC lone amendment and
~ariance for the base iso1ation seismic upgrading and elevator addition at its
meeting of May 8, 1991. The Architectura1 Review Board. then re~ie-wed He
proposa.1 on June 6. 1991. and unanimously recommended approval (Maser absent}.
The application returned to the Phnning Commission, 'With details regarding
short-term parking, construction noise and tree protection measures, for final
review at it5 meeting of June 26. 1991. The CommiSSion voted 5-0-0-2 (Marsh
and Hirsch absent) to recommend that the City Council approve the PC Zone
C~R:371:!1
•
i
I
I
I
L
o
amendment and height warhncf', with i. reco11r.1>anded c.hange to Cond,ticn of
Approv.l 15. as follows:
S. To reduce any potential problems of maneuverability in the garage
a~ea, the par~in9 ga~age shall be redesigned as follows:
i. The columns in the preliminary plans dated 6/6/91 were sho,""n in a
sqiJ'are configuration of ipproximate1y fjye fed per side. The
columns shall be re~haped and/D~ Tvtated to eliminate the square
configufit,on w~ich will provide both additional width and ease of
access to tne parking stalls;
b. Stall number 2 is an end space and is completely open on one side.
This space \5 currently l~ feet, 6 inches by 20 feet and fo11ow;ng
modification of tne single column adjacent to this space, it
should still be at leas! B feet by 20 feet or possibly larger.
Restrlping cf the end s!ction c~uld )150 a~d additional space if
necessary. Used by l mid-sized automobile at present, t~is usage
should continue.
c. Access to stall number II will be improved si9n~ficantly by the
modification of the column design al'owin9 nonmal tr~ffic usage.
Should it be necessary? a compact automobile cou1d be assigned to
this space.
d. The compact spaces ~~si9nated numbers 55 through 51 were located
in the incorrect position on the £/6/91 drawings and s,",al1 be
reTocated to the area shown on the drawi~gs as space numbers 44
and ~51 which wi)l provide a minimum parking space of 7 feet, a ~nches or larger.
Recorrrnendatiop
The ~rc~ite~tural Review Beard and Plann1~9 Commission recommend that the
Council appro .... e the proposed Planned Community Zone amendment and app~o:.,re tMe
req~ested variance to allow the ser .... fce ele¥ator to exceed the ~eight limit,
subject to the fOllowing fiodings and the conditions as listed in the attached
ordinanc.e:
FINDINGS FOR PC ZONE CHANGf:
1. The existing senior housing develcpment, because it ~as criginal1y
developed under a Planned Community lone, is of such c~aracteristics that
the application of genera1 districts or tombining districts will not
prcvide sufficient fl~xibility to a110w the seismic upgrading a~d service
eleva~or additiD~.
2. The proposed seismic upgrading and service elevator addition will result
in public benefits not otherllllise attainable by applic.ation of the
regulations of general districts or combining districts, in that the
senior housing development wiil be voluntarily upgraded to reduce
potential harm to life and property as a resuTt of seismic acti¥ity. ihe
C)oIR:3i! :91
p:\cmr\8S0.ebst.ljt
L
7/18/9J
Page 2
•
, I
1
•
-
se-:-vi-ct eleva.tor -.-ill prC!vide additin:la) seismic bracing it the south end
of the bul1dtng and wnl a110w staff and Qther personnel to avoid the
disruptive use of the fror1t elevator 10bby for emergency and ather service
USE.
3. The proposed seis~ic upgrading and service ele~atcr addition are
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with
e~1sting and potential uses on adjoining sltes and within the general
vicinity, in that the project will increase the seismic safety of beth the
residents of the senior facility and adjacent residential de~elopment, and
will generally remain within the parameters of the existing Planned
Communlty zone and site development regulations.
F1NDIN.S FOn HEIGHT VARIANCE:
1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions
.pplicable to the property in,olved th.t do not apply g,ner.l1y to
pr~perty in the same district, in that t~e existing building exceeds the
current hefght 1imit. which 'Was not in effect when the bui1ding was
originally constructed. It would not be possible to construct an exterior
emergency and service ~se ele~atcr without exceeding the current ~eight
limit.
2~ The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and
enjoyment of a SUbstantial prc~erty right of the applicant, and to prevent
unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardsnlp, in that the elevator
is neaded for emergency personnel, health care, and etner ser~ice use, and
would only provide service to those floors located below sn feet if
reQuired to comply ~ith the current height limit. Additionally,
constructing an interior elevator would present a hardship due to t~e need
to eliminate existing residential llving space.
3. The granting of the appllcation ~ill not be detrimental or 1nJurious to
property or improvements in the vicinity, 1n that heigM of the elevator
addition will be less than t~e overall height of the existing building, a
setback at least as great as that required by the adjacent multiple
family zone district .... ill be maintained, and existing matur02 trees 1II~lll
~e1p to screen the new addition.
Respectfully submitted,
// ~, '}q_ 1~:y/
LORI J. TOPlEY I
P er
v "P;,"· ~,"/:d{ 71 Ad:eth~.
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Direc.tor of Pl ann iilg and
Community Environment
7/18/91
P.ge l
.r~ ---
" ".
I
I
1
• ,
!
I
d
J , I
1
i ..
I
1
Attachments: Ordinance
letter from Fred Seal, Channing House Administrator, dated
June 24, IS91
Planning CCO'ITIlssion staff report dat€'o June 21, 199], with
the follow~ng attachments:
I. lecatlon Map
l. ~velopment Program State1T'.ent from applicar,t? dated
February 22, 1~91
3. letter in support of Variance findin;s from
appl tcant. dated February 22, 1991
4. letter from Stephen Player amending Development
Program Statement, dated M~y J, 1991
S. letter frQ~ Fred Seal, Channing House
Administrator, dated JIJne )0. 1991
6. Planning Cummission Staff Report dated May 3, 1991
(without attachments)
7. Planning Commission Staff Rep~rt dated March 22 •
1991 ,without attachment.) e. Excerpt Summary ~inutes of Architectural Review
Board meet1 ng, Jurli! 6, 1~9J
9. Excerpt minutes of Planning Commission ID€eting,
Mal 8. 1991
cc: Fred Se:=-_~, Channing HDuse kfministrator, eso Webster Street. P.alo Alto,
94301
Steve PlaYEr, Christ, Griffith, Schultz & Born, SSO Hamilton A~enue,
Pal. Alto, 94301
Arthur Ru'e, 850 Web.t.r Street, Apt. 728, Palo Alto, 94301
Hr. and Mrs. leiner, 850 Webster Street, Apt. 635, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Emery Rogers, 218 lowell Avenue, Palo Alto, 94301
Thom Neikirk, 850 Webster Street, Apt. 600, Palo Alto, 94301
Thoma. Carter, 850 Webster Street, Apt. 621, Palo Alto, 94301
Ralp~ Eliassen, 8S0 Webster Street. Palo ATto, 94301
Don MacQuivey, 850 Webster Str.et, Palo Alto, 94301
Allan 8rown, 467 Goy. Road, Portola Vallel, 94028
CHR;371 ;91
p;\cmr\850webst.ljt
7/18/91
Page 4
•
•
r
i
..... '. '.
-
o
OiUlINANCE NO,--==~=
ORDINANCE OF THE CCt/NCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
l>MD<D!NG SECTION l8. 08,040 OF THE FALO ALTO MUNIC
IPAL COPE (THE ZONING MAP) BY AMENDING THE
EXISTING PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONING DESIGNATION OF
THE PROPERT~ KNOWN AS 850 WEBSTER STREET TO
PROVIDE FOR SEISMIC UPGRADING AND A SERVICE
ELEVATOR (CHANNING HOUSE)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the ·Zoning Map·, is hereby amend~Q by amendinq the £xistinq
.pc Planned Community" zoning designation Cit certain property known
as sse Webster street (the ·sUbject property-) to allow for the
construction and maintenance of certain hereinafter described
iltlprovements on the subj eat property ~ The subject property is
shown on a map attached hereto as Exhibit -A" and incorporated
herein by reference. The existing PC zoning designation of the
sul:lject property was enacted pursuant to ordinance No~ 2007,
adapted March 13, 1961. The development plan for t,he subject
property was adopted pursuant to Ordinance No. 200'7, and was
amended by Re.solution No. 3461" adopte:d December 11, 1961 and by
Resolution No~ 3690, adopted November 12, 1963.
SECTION 24 The City council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
Ca) The existing senior housing development, because it
yas oriqinally developed under a Planned community
zone, is of sucb characteristics that the applicatio~
of general districts or combining districts will not
provide sufficient fle~ibility to allo~ th~ seismic
upqrading and service elevator aadition~
(0) The proposed seis~ic upgrading and service elevator
addition will result in public benefits not otherwise
attainable by application of the regulations of
general districts or combining districts, in that the
senior housing develop~ent will be voluntarily
upgraded to reduce potential harm to 1 i fe and property
as a result of seismic activity. The service ele.vat.or
will provide additional seismic bracing at the south
end of the Du"ilding and will alloW' staff and other
personnel to avcid the disruptive use of the front
elevator lobby for emergency and other service use.
eeJ The proposed seismic upgrading and service elevator
addition are consistent 'With the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with existing
and potential uses on adjoining sites and within the
qeneral vicinity, in that the project ... ill increase
the seismic safety of both the residents of the senior
1
91 010 I bdc: 00003<l'I"
L
•
I
•
~~:=,'
111;:·"
}~:{:>"
~~f
-
facility and adjacent resic1ential developme'nt., and
will q:s:nerally remain 'Within the parameters of the
e~isting Planned Community zone and site development
requlations.
SECTION 3. Those certain plans, entitled ·Channing House
Seis~ic Upgrade, prepared by B.H. Bocook, Architect, IhC~, given
Archi tectural Review Board approval on Jur.e 6, 1991, a copy of
which is on file in the Planning Department. and to which copy
reference is hereby made concerning the full particulars thereof,
ar~ hereby collectively approved as an a~endment to the Development
Plan >for the subject property pursuant to Section 15.6B.120. Said
amendment to the Development Plan is approved .for the following
uses, and subject to the following conditions:
(.a) Permitted Uses~ No change
(bJ Conditional Uses. No change
{e) site Development RE!qulations. No change except as
specifically changed by the amendnlent approved by this
ordinance.
{d) Parking and leading Requirements. The parking and
loading requirements governing the subject property
shall be in accordance with the Development Plan as
amended.
(e) Special Requirements. The follo~ing conditions are
made special requirements conditioning the approval
granted by this ordinance:
9 L070L bel.: tmQ'}05
-L
(1) All tree protection measures contained in the
arborist report prepared by S.P. McClenahan
Company, dated June 3~ 1991~ shall be
implemented. Specifically~ the following
measures shall be taken:
til Prior to initiation of construction
activity~ temporary barricades shall be
installed around all trees in the
construction area, as indicated in the
arborist report~ The barricades may be
placed around individual trees or groups
of trees, as needed. The barricades
shall he at least six feet in height,
shall enclose the entire area under the
dripline (except where the arborist
report indicates drip line excavation is
required) and shall bE! made visible by
means of a paint or fabric strip along
the top edge. The barricades shall
remain in place until final construction
op~rations are completed.
2
>
I
I
!
I
I
I
'-
(2 )
(3)
910701 bd<; o:aoJ.QS
o
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
No materials or excavated soils shall be
stored within any tree enclosure are~.
During and upon completion of any
trenchinq/qrading operation within a
tree's dripline, sho'.lld any roots greater
than two inches in ~iameter be damaged,
broken or severed, timely root pruning
shall be accQmpl1shed under supervision
ot a qualified arborist.
All tree~ impacted by construction shall
be fertilized by means of 1I deep root
soil injection in spring and summer.
This fertilization program shall begin
prior to the st~rt of constructior..
(V) All trees impacted by construction shall
be irrigated at regular four week
intervals durinq the period May 1 through
October 31. Irrigation shall be
accomplished as recommended in the
arborist report.
(Yi) Above ground surface
directed into tree
aajacent areas ..
runoff shall not be
canopy areas from
To avoid lifting of the pavement, a root barrier
shall be constructed along the edge of the new
service elevator walkway.
A temporary parking plan, as cutl ined in the
June 10, 1991 letter from Fred H. Seal, shall be
i~plementeQ during the entire construction
period, and shall include the minimum following
me.asures:
{i} The employee parking lot located on Homer
Avenue shall be reserved for use by
Channing House residents 'Whose pa=-kinq
spaces are u-~available due to
construction wcrk.
(ii) Channing House shall %!lake arrangements
for employees to park in off-site lots,
and provide shuttle service for these
employees.
(iii) The contractor shall establish an
acceptable otf-site parking location for
construction of employees who cannot be
accommodated within designated on-site
construction areas, and provide shuttle
3
:------.. ' ..... i .... I"'~"':~-..... ~'-,'
-..:..
1110701 lick OOJQlOS
service to brinq them to and from the
site.
(iv) A final parking plan inaicating the off
site parking locations for both employee
and contractor parking shall be submitted
for staff a~proval prior to issuance of a
buildinq permit.
(4) All construction activities shall be subjEct to
compliance with the provisions of the city of
Palo Alto Noise Ordinance (Chapter S.10 of the
Palo Alto MUnicipal Code). In addition~ noise
measures detailed in the .June 10, 1991 letter
from Fred H. Seal, including the following,
shall be implemented durinq project
construction:
(i) The basement area shall be used as much
as possible for construction activities.
(ii) Should any construction activities create
siqnificant noise problems for residents,
such construction activities shall be
limi ted to no more than six hours per
clay.
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
The use of
sub&.tituted
jackhammers,
quieter equipment
ror impact tools
whenever feasibla.
shall
such
be
as
During removal of the concrete slab under
the skilled nursing wing, patients shall
be relocated to 3. quiE'_ter area of the
building. All subsequent work in the
area of the skilled nursing wing shall be
monitored to ensure patients are not
negatively impacted.
All access to the 'Work area~ with tbe
exception of ground level construction
and storage areas, shall b~ directly into
the basement area, and all materials
shall be delivered directly to the work
area.
r 5) To reduce any potential probl ems of
maneuverability l.n the garage area, the parking
garage shall be redesigned as follows:
(i) The columns in the preliminary plans
dated 6/6/91 were shown in a square
configuration of approximately five feet
per side. The columns shall be reshaped
and/or rotated to eliminate the square
. '. •
•
•
t ,
t
I
•
J
1
!
1
.... _. L
o
configuration which ~ill provide both
additional width, and ease of access to
the parking st,alls~
(ii) Parking space "2 is an end space and is
compl~tely open on one side. This space
is cur~ently 10'6-by 20' and following
modification of the single coluzn
adjacent to this space, it should still
be at least 8' by 20' or possibly larger.
P.estrip1ng of the end section could also
add additional space if necessary. Used
:by a mid-sized automobile ~t present}
this usage should continue.
(iii) Acce.s to parking space III will be
improved significantly by the
modification of the column design
allowing normal traffic usage. Should it
be necessary, a compact automobile could
be assigned to this space.
(lv) 'rhe compact spaces designated #55" 156
and -#57 were located in the incorrect
position of the 6/6/91 dra~ings and shall
be relocated to the space shoY!} on the
drawings as space '44 and space #45 which
will provioe a minimum parking space of
7'a-or larger~ In the nev location the
smaller support column is in the miodle
of the parking space rather-than at the
end of the space, whi~h improves access
significantly~
(6} To reduce dust levels during construction"
exposed e.arth surfaces shall be watered
frequently during the late morni~g and the end
of the day, with the frequency of watering
increa.sing on windy days. If necessary, all
streets and haul routes shall be cleaned daily.
Spillage resulting from any hauling operations
alof1<} or across any public or private property
shall be re:cloved i:lC.lIlediately and paid for by the
contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the
contractor's operations, ei t.her inside or
outside the right-of-way, shall be controlled at
the contractor's expense.
(f) Development Schedul e. construction of all work to be
done pursuant to the amendment adopted by this
ordinance shall be completed by Octobar 31" 1993.
SECTION C. The City Council hereby finds that this project
is categorically exempt from the r.equireItents of the California
5
I
i , ,.
f , ,
,
o o
Envirorurental Quality Act ("CEQA-), pursu.ant to Section 15301{e) (2)
of the CEQA guidelines.
SECTION 5~
commencement of ~;e
adoption.
rIlTROOOCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
Al'TEST:
city Clerk
MPRDVED AS TO FORM:
This ordinance sh.all be
thirty-first day after
MPRDVED:
Hayor
city Manager
effective on
the date of
Se~ior Asst. City Attorney
6
Directo:r:' of Planning and
community Environment
the
its
•
•
i
EXHIBIT A.
R
• 6AAPHl C ATT ACH/1£NT ~DA~Tc:'.:.: _~3!.c12~2'!..1::9 J~---Jr.,,;:;~:;:;;.l:;.E :;...;1:.,·..;.:..:;2::;:OO;:,',..._"'!""! __ ..
TO STAFF R£PORT FILE HO. 90-Ze-l. 90-'-4. 90-AU.-13 ~ .•
PROJECT: SSC Webster Street: Seismic U r3din ~nd
height vari80ce reques:, Planned Community Zon~ a~ecd-
L
' .
..
\
!
c.· •• ·
r 1
fj
, I , ,
I
I
I
l
I ,
-
o
City of Palo Alto
Planning commission
250 Hamilton Avenue,
Palo Alto, C~~ 94301
Re: Channing House Seismic Project
Dear Planning commission Members;
,June 24, 1991
channing House finds it necessary to object to item 15 as
shown in the list of conditions contained in the June 21, 199.1
staff report ~
Condition IS 'Would place an additional and unnecessary expense
upon the residents' of channing House. Channing House believes
that when the modifications outlined below, are incorporated into
the parking design, they viII significantly ~ed~ce any potential
probl£l1lS of maneuverabili ty in the ga.rage area, thereby eliminating
the need for condition 15.
CORRECTIONS TO PARKING GARAGE DESIGN
1. The columns in the preliminary plans dated 6/6/91 ~ere
sbown in a square configuration of approximately five feet
per side~ Subsequent discussion with the struct~ral
engineers has indicated that the columns will be reshaped
and/or rotated to eliminate the square configuration which
will provide both additional width, and ease 0= access
to the parking stalls.
2. Parking space #2 is an end space and is completely open
on one side. This space is currently 10' 6-by 20'and
following modification of the single column adjacent to
this space# it should still be at least 8 1 by 20' or
possibly larger. Restripinq of the end section could also
add additional space if necessary. Used by a mid-sized
automobile at present this usage should continue.
3. Access to parkinq space #11 will be improved significantly
by the modification of the column design allo~ing normal
traffic usage~ Should it be necessary# a compact
automobile could be assigned to this space.
•
j ,
.1
\ ,
I
I
I
\
• .• _ ~ .. ..,"',_ .. Z!l!!! WIIItLI1UI1IB.· a..:..
o
4. The compact spaces designated #55, 156 and #57 were
located in the incorrect position of the 6/6/91 dra~ings
and will be relocated to the space shown on the drawings
as space #44 and space #45 which will provide a mini~um
parkinq space of 718~ or larger4 In the new location the
smaller support column is in the middle of the parking
space rather than at the end of the space, which improves
acc~ss significantly. This same configuration has been
in use in other areas of the garage for several years
without a probl~.
Thank you for consideration of this information.
~~).o
Fred H. Seal
Adminis.trator
cc: Kr. Bill Bocook
Hr. steve W. Player
--"-'-'<' .... _"' ..... ,"-".-... , .. , ............... " ..... '..-_.
>
o
, .. -, .... -'-
TO: PALO ALTO PlJIINlNG COIVIISSION
FILE NO.: SO-lC-2, SO-V-4, SO-ARB-Il
PREPARED BY: lori Topley
DATE: June 21, 1991
pRQJm INFQR/WIPH
locatjpni
Aplll1cant:
Property awn,rj
ReQuested Act jon:
PROJm SU!II!AJ!Y
8SC Webster Stre.t
P.10 Alto, CA 94301
B.H. Boccok, Architect. lnc.
4041 E1 Camino ~.Y
P.10 Alto, CA 94306
Cnanning House, Fred Seal, Administrator
850 Webster Street
P.10 Alto, CA 94301
flanned Co~n1ty Zone AmeNdment and Variance to
height limit
Tne applicant proposes to ~nd the existing PC zone for this property to
.1low seismic structo,.l "pgr.ding of the .xi,tlns building .nd the addition
of • service elevator at the Channing Ayen~e side of the building. The
elevator addltion requires approval of I variance to exceed the current 35-
foot height liait by 6B.5 feet. Th. total height of t~o elevator is 118.5
feet. The existing building, including the exfst1ng elevitor equfpment
housfng, is 138 feet in neight (142 feet including tne chimney stac<).
RECOMPIEHOED ACT!!)Jj
Staff rec~nds that tht Planning Co~issfon recommen~ tnat the City Council
approve the proposed Planned Community Zone C~ange~ ind appro~e t~e requested
variance to .110w tne servfce elevator t~ exceed tne height l;rn;t~ based O~
findings and conditions listed later in tnis report.
SITE I IWltwTl PH
Parcel She;
Assessor's parcel Number:
Existina lonina:
CQjTlpr~hensjy, Pl an
Desianatign:
112,ooe square feet (three parcel,)
120-05-002, 003, and 027
Pl.nned Community (Ordinance No. 2492)
Multiple-family Residenti,l
6121/91
Page 1
'.
" , .
~
"
-
Dtr!si!y:
Ix'st1"? Land Use;
Surroundina Land Usc;
Hhtory:
Environmental [mpact
Assusment:
WlYSIS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
125 units per acre (e.I.tl'9)
C~.nnin9 House Retirement Center
Hart" (Webster St.): Church, Multlple-fao;ly
South (Cowper St.): Multiple-family
East (Ch.nnlng AYe.): Multiple-fomlly
West (H~r Aye.): Single .,d ~"ltlple-fa~11y
Preli.inary review by Plannfng Commission on ~ay
8, 19~1
Final T!view by Architectural Review Soard on
June 6, 1991
Th. ap.llc.tlon was filed on February 21, 1991
and was deemed c~l.t. on March 8, 1991_ Tne
Pl.nnlng Comml.sion held I public hearing within
90 days of that date, .s required by or1in.nce.
Tne Pl.nnlng Com&lsslDn .cted favorably in Its
1.ltl.l review of the Plannod CGOrnynity
amendment application, Ind referred the
development plan to the Architectur.l Reyiew
Board for re~few. The development plan was
approved by the Arc~itectural Review Board, and
Is now being returned to the Planning Coomls.ion
for fln.l review and recommend.tion to the City
Councll_ Subject to the recent Zoning Ordinance
~ndments adopted by the City Council in
Febru.ry 1991, the Vlrl.nce Is being processed
concurrently and in the same ~anner as the
.Planned tonmunity amendrnent request..
This project has been determined to be
categorically ex~mpt fram tne requirements of
Callfornli En>ironmenhl Qual ity "tt (HQA).
Class Ie exemption -additions to existing
buildings of less than 10,000 square feet, which
ire not located in in enVironmentally sensitive
area and where III public services Ind
facilities are available.
The applicant is proposing to seismlcall, upgrade the exi.ting Channing Hou,.
and to add a ser~ice ele~itor it the C~anning Avenue Side Df the building.
T~e se1s.ic upgradlng technique proposed is ca1Ted -base isolation.-This
p;\1t\85Owebst.lr2 6121191
Page 2
•
l , ,
l-
I
•
method essentl,lly separ,tes the building fro~ the ground around It, thereoy
reducing the (crees tr~nsferred from the gr~und to th! ~u;lding durlng a~
earthquake. Most of the struetura1 work is focused in the basement
(enlargement of columns ind addition of jsol~tors) and at ground le~el aro~nd
the perimeter of the building. The only visible ch.ng. to the exte,ior of the
building ~ould be the .ddition of isol.tors to the two celumns th.t support
the front entry ove~hang. The seismic up~rading requires that a 12-inch-wide
air space b! constructed Jround the perimeter of the building tc -jsolate· tne
building fTom the ground. Th. "r space will be located immediat.ly adj.cent
to the bu11d1ng) and wilt be covertd in ~ manner which will be safe for
pedestrians to walt oveT_ Tne ipplicint proposes to restripe the basement
parking area to accommodate enlarged columns, resulting in no net loss of
spices but In increased number of compact sp~ces {most just at or slightl)
larger than the min1m~~ size l'lGw~d). I~ addition, the existing surface
parking on Webster Street whicn contains 54 spaces (one of whicn is
handicapped) would be Testrlped to .ccommodate thr._ addition,l handicapped
spaces for. total of four handlcapped spaces and 50 regular spaces, also
resu1ting in no net loss of spaces.
The service elevator would be located on the Channing Avenue side of the
building, approximately 9 f~t deep and 31 feet wide. However, the ~inimum
building setback would ~nlJ be reduced from 30.5 f •• t to 15 feet, due to the
.ngle of the eXistin9 buIlding and the placement of the new addition. The
e1e~atDr would extend only to the tenth floor, so t~at the elevator equipment
housing can be located at the eleventh floor level, thus keeping the overall
height of the .1evitDr s~.ft equal to the building height .t this oide Df the
building. Each floor of the elevitor is approximately 280 square feet in
size, for an averill floor area lncrease of l,800 square feet.
The eTev&tor is propDsed for emergency personnel and health care use, building
service, supp1ies. move-ins. et~., and is located adjacent to the present
service area. However, tne new elevator structure is also planned to be
~t,liled as part of th! se)smic ~pgrad)n9 for the south end Df the building.
hrj aDce RegtJest
Although the existing bunding height of 138 feet was allowed under the
original PC zone when ("arming House .. as bun t in tht earl), 1960s, tn!
11S.S-foot-high elevator addition would !xceed the current 3S-foot max1murn
height lill\lt by 83 .• f.et. Tto. 35-foot he;ght limit applies te structures
loc.ated adjacent to aP"l,)' RM zone be-s ides RM-30 or RH-40 (otherwise, the maximum
height limit i5 SO feet). As car. be seen on th! attached locatlon map, this
site is adjacent to an RH-lS zone On both the Cha~~ing Av~nue and Webster
Avenue sides. The applicant has applied fer a varja~ct in conjunction with
the PC amendment to allow this increased hei9ht. Ho~ever, since Secticn
18.BB.100 anDWS a hei9ht exception of 150 feet for e:1evitor eql.lipment~ the
variance requeit is to exceed tne height limit by 68.5 feet ratner than 83.5
feet.
p:\ltI.850webst.$r2
""->-----_ ..
r .. L
612' /9'
Page 3
•
--:"')1
.. ' ........ ' ....... j .!'"---'
•
. -.'"
~'-. r . -
i
f
"
-
-
Development Schedyle
Th. applicant .stimate. that construction would start in the f.ll of 1991, and
,II construction would be cOGpI.ted within 12 months froo the start date.
BACKGROONO
A. fuyiDus planning Comlssion .&.iWl
At the pr.limln.ry Planning Commission r.viow on Hay 8, 1991, tn.
C~ission respond!d favorab1y to the proposal, unanimously recommending
conceptual approval (Glazl.r .nd Hirsch .bs.nt). Th. Commissio,
c~nded the applicant on t~e improvement to the proposal, and the
decreis~d fmpacts to Cha~n!r.9 House residents, IS I resu1t of utll?zing
the bas. isolation system r.th.r than the pr.viously proposed
conventional system of addfog sh •• r walls and .nlarging the structural
columns. The Commission reQuest.d the applicant to provide .ddition.l
iofonoation rel.ted to t.mporary noise and parking impacts, tr ••
protection and finanCing. NOise, parKing and tree protection are
addressed below under -Issues of Concern-. T~e applicant wilT present
fin.nclng fnfonolt!on .t the June 26, 1991 h.aring.
8. Architectural Rgview Board RtGQmMen~tt;Rn
At the Architectur.l Revl.w Board (ARE) ~eting on June 6, 199J, the
Soard was generally very s~ppDrtfve and un~nimou51y recommended ipproval
(Maser abs.nt) of the project. Th. applicant pr.sent.d the r.sults of
the arborist report, and t~e Board stressed the need to ensure tnat tne
tree protection ~~a5ur~s proposed are followed.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Parking
lODg-Term Parking: The original PC ordinance approved for t~j5 project in
1~61 required I min1~um of 123 on-site parkin9 spaces. 73 co~ered and 50
uncovered. In 1969, the propi!rttes at 520 ind S3Z Homer Alienue were added to
this PC district to allow for ~dditional Channing House parking. A use permit
~as issu.d for the parking lot (o9-UP-6) and It is currentlj developed with 36
spaces. Tnere are 73 covered spaces located in tn! basement garage, and ~4
uncovered spaces located i~ the Webster Street surface lot.
The garage parking IltUst be restriped to ac.colTlTlodah the widening of strlJctL'ra'
col~s in the basement. The plans indicate tnat, fallowing the restr1ping,
there would still be a total of 73 spaces. However, the number gf compact
spac.s would be incr •••• d from 15 to 32 (25 p.rcent of total on-site spaces,
but 44 percent of garage spacesi up to 50 percent compact spaces ire allowed
by ordinance). Of the 3l compac.t spaces. almost hi1f are at or near the
miniDUD width allowed of 7 fe.t, 6 inch.s. Additionally, it appears that
stall number 56 is less than the minirnu~ 7 feet, 6 inches width required~
Staff is ils~ concerned about the usability of compact spaces located next to
p:\tt\8SO w ebsut2
.. "L
6121191
Page 4
•
! r
t
I
I
! t ,
,
,
\. ,
t
,
I!
i
I
.... j
I
\
I
I
I
o
col u.n. ( .. st notably stall number. 2, II, 55, Ind 57). Tnes. spaces ~.y b,
too difficult to use except by tn, s .... nest of cars or tne IIOr, skillful
drivers. Since the garage spices ire I$$fgn~ to specifit r-es1derlts, tn~se
whose SpIC •• aay be difficult to negotlat' could be glv,n v.let assistance by
Chinning House employees.
!emponrv CGnstrIJction Park;";: Channin!il House will ex-perience I temporar1
10s5 of parking spaces due to the proposed constructiDn. At various times,
.pprcxi .. tely 20·25 sp.ces I. the parking garage and 13-15 spaces !n the
Web.ter Street surf.ce lot will be "nav.!lable. In response to staff and
Planning Commission requests, Ch.nnlng House has submitted, parking plan to
ensure that displaced parking does not overflow to the adjoining
neighborhoods. and Channing House residents ~re not overly inconvenienced~
The parking phn is outHned in the attached letteT from fred Se.l, Channing
House Administrator, dated June 10. 1991. E~sent1111YI the pTan involves tne
following:
I. Use of the employee parking lot (the Homer Avenue surf.ce lotl for
reSidence parking;
2. The relocation of ellP10yee parking to nriOLIS off-sitt! parking
lots, and the use of • shuttle between the off·.ite lots and
Chinning House; and
3. ProviSion of on-site construction contractor equipment yarking,
and an agreement with t~e contractor to shuttle additional
emp10yees to C~a~n1ng House from off-site parking locations, wn!n
necessary.
Staff believes t~e temporary parking pl.n Is reasonable and feasible and has
incl~ded f~lemen!atlon of the plan as I condition of project approval.
landscapjng
The site cOlltains. lIany liature ind hutthy Red~oodt Japillii!Se Maple and ou'er
varieties of trees.. Along the Channing Avenue and Homer Avenue elevations,
the tree. help to scre.n this rather large bu;T~ing. An arborist report,
which ass.esses potential impacts to all the trees on the site, nas been
submitted by the appllcant. The report, prepared by S.P. KeClenah.n Compiny,
indicates that only fOLlr Itinor trees w~uld be removed is a result of
constr~ction. Trees to be removed include an 8-inch Bay, i 3-i~ch MagnoJia, I
J6-inch Poplar, and a 7-inch Cedar. A fifth tree, I small G~ngkD, will be
relocated to another arei of tn!, site. ConstructiDn will also nece-ssihte the
removal of several larg! shrubs. To ivnid extensive damage to the root
systems of tne trees closest to the construction area~ espeCially the
redWOOds, the arborist has indicat~d areas w~ere vertical excavation will be
necessary, and has recommended specific tree protection measures. The tree
protection ~.sures have been included IS conditions of project approval.
O:\JtIB5OweI»t.ar2 6121191
Page 5
~······-L
-
f •
? ~----.
I
I
I
• I
I
,
I,
l
--
-
•
Construct1on "plse tmRacts
In response to stiff and Commission concern~. Cnannfng House nas svbmitted •
t~orough plin to a~dress construction noise impact~ ~n Channfng House
re,ldent, and the adjacent neighborhood. 1he detail. of the pl.n are ~rovided
i. the Jun. 10, 1991 letter from Fro~ Seal (attached), and Include the
following provl,ions:
I. The basement will be used for as much construction ~ork is
possible;
2. Th~ amount of time impact tools are in US! will be minimized, and
core drilling and saw cutting equipment, instead of implct drills
and hammers will be used as ~u,~ IS possible;
1. Patients 10 t~. ,.111ed nur'ln~ wins will be relocated for the
,hart period of time needed to remo~e the concrete slab patlo
under the unit;
4. The work will bo phased to eliminate the need fo" tho u'e of a
l&rge n~r of trUCKS and equfpment at 2ny one time, a~d to
concentrate construction efforts on one area of the building at a
till8i and
5. ~ll of the City's restrictions rel,ted to construction hours and
noise limits will bo observod.
Construction is expected to be completed on a section by sect jon basis, so
that not all the affected areas ~ill bt under const~uction it one time, Also,
a ~ajority of the seismic up~r&din9 construction .ill take place in the
basement Irea. Staff bflieves the measures proposed by the Jpplicant to
~inim1le construction noise impacts irt acceptable and havr included t~ese
meas~res as conditioM$ of project approval,
PUBLIC BENEFIT
The objective and pri~ary public benefit of this proposed project is
increasing occupant safety by bringing the building up to • ~igher life Safety
level (the building was constructed in 1961). The proposed service eleYator,
in addition to contributins to the seismic structural upgT,dinS of the south
sid. of th. b"ilding, will allow staff and other pET,onne1 to avoid the
disruptive use of the front elevator lobby for emergency and other service
use~ It sho~ld bf noted that this is a voluntary sti~mic upgrade and not
mandated by City ordinance.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE
The uses and site devt10pment regu1ations .ithin the PC Planne~ Community
distrfet Du.st be detennined to b.e tOf'l.Sistent with the Campr~hensi\le Plifl.. The
objective of the Cooprenenslve Plan considered most pertinent to this propos. 1
is the following:
p:\tt\85Oweb$\,sr2 6/21191
Page 6
•
I
J . __ ~~.;. I
•
!~~" ,
~
I
(
\
,
f
\
I
I
!
>
\ . . ~
'\
.... J
I
I
I
j
I
1
I
I
-
fny1ronecnt., BesQurtt: Red~ce t~e potentia' for injury and lo~s of life and
the possibility of property d •• age (through remodels to current code and
sels~ic retrofit).
1!£C!l!I!OOItIlOH
Staff roco_nds thot the Phnning CO!\'lllt .. lcn roco""e"d that the City Co"ocil
approve the proposed Plann~d Community Zone Change, and approve the requested
Yiriance to .llow the service elevator to exceed the heignt l;~it. subject to
the finding. and condition. ll.ted below.
F1NDI!16S
FINDINGS FOR PC IOH[ CHANGE
I.
2.
3.
Tnt ~xistin9 senior housing development, because it WiS originally
developed under i Planned Community l~~e. is of suc~ characteristics
that the applicaticr, of geoenl district. or cQ",binlng district ... ill
not provide sufficient flexibility to .llow the ,eismlc upgrading and
service elevator addition.
The proposed seilDtC upgrading and service t1tvator addit,on will result
in public benefit. not otherwise ittainabl. by application of the
regulations of general districts Dr combining districts, in that the
senior housing development .. ,11 be voluntarily upgraded to reduce
potential hano to llf. and property as • result of seismiC activity. The
service elevator will provide additional seismic braCing at the south
end of the building and will .llow staff and other personnel to ayoid
the disruptive use of the front el.vator lobby fcr emergency .nd other
service use.
The proposed seismic upgrading and service elevitor addition are
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Pl.n and are compatible .ith
existing and potential yses on ldjoining sites and witnfn the general
vicinfty. in that tnt project will f~crease the seismic safety of botn
tht resi~ents of the senjor fac,1ity and adjacent residential
de~elQpme~t~ and will generally remain within the parameters of the
existing Planned CDmmunity zane and site deveTopmen~ regulations.
FINDlNGS FOR H[IGHl VARlANCE
I. There are exceptlcnal or extraordinary circumstanc!s or conditions
applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to
property in the same district) 1n that the exi~ting Duildi~g ex'~eds the
current neight limit. wnich was not in effect when the bui1ding was
originally constru,ted. It ~ou1d not be possible to construct an
exterior emergenc~ and service use elevator without exceeding the
current height limit.
2~ The granting Df tne application is necessar> for the prfservation and
enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to
p: \l1\S5Owabst.sr2 6/21/l! 1
Pa"e 7
•
,-'
f-·
--;-,'.
,
-
3.
prevent u"re~sonlb'e property 10s$ or unnecessary ~ardsh1pt in that the
elevatDr is needed fD~ ~r~~nt) personnel, hea1th tare, and other
se~~fct Gse s and w~u'd only provide service te those floors lD~ated
below 50 feet if required to c~ly ~ftn the ,urrent height limit.
Additionally, ,onstrutting an interior e1evator ~ould present, hardship
due to the .eed t •• ll.i •• t, existing resldenti.l living space.
The granting of the applicltion will not be detrimental or injurious to
property or i~ro.eoent. in the Vicinity, in th,t height of the ele.ator
addition will bt 1.ss than the •• eroll height of the exi.ting building,
I setback at least IS great IS that required by the adjacent multiple
family lone district will be maf~ta~ned, I~d existing ~iture trees will
help to streen the new addition.
CONDIT!O!!S
1. All tree protection 1Ie""res conhlned in the arborist report prep.red
by S.P. McCl.nah,n tompany, dated June 3, 1991, shall be implemented.
Specifically, the fa110win9 Dea,ure, .hall be taken:
&.
b.
d.
e.
Prior to 1nit1atfon of construction activity, temporary barricades
shall be installed around III trees in the constru,tion area, is
indicated in the arborist report. The barricades ~.y be plaoed
Iround individual trees or grD~ps of trees, is needed. The
barricades shall be ot le.st s;x feet in height, shall enclose the
entire area under the drlpline (except Where the arborist report
Indicate, drlpll •• exca.ation is re~uired) and s~all be made
vl$ible by ..... s of. paint or fab,·ic strip .long the top edge.
The barricades shall remain in place until final constructior.
Dperations are completed.
No lJaterials or excavated .soils shall be stored with'in any tree
enclosure arei.
During ind upon cQmp'eti~n of any t~nching/9rading operation
within a tree's dripl;ne, should any r~ots greater than two inches
in diameter be damaged, broken or sev2red. timely root pruni~g
shall be a,(ompljs~ed under supervision Qf a qualified arborist.
All trees Impacted by construction shall be fertilized by means of
I deep root soil injection in spri~g and summer. Tnis
fert;lizatiQn program shall begin prior to th~ start of
con.struction.
All trees impacted by construction shall be irrigated it regular
four week intervals during the period May 1 through October 31.
Irrigation shall be accomplished is T'tcommended In tnt arborist
repDrt.
f. Above ground surface runoff shall not be directed into tree canopy
iTeas from adjacent areas.
p:Ut\SSOwabst . .s.r2 6/21/jj1
Pilge 8
; '\ .'
•
,
1_·'0 .
I~-
I .
I
I'
I
f
j
j
t
I
!
I •
I
I
-
o
2. To ivold lifting of the pavement, i root barrier shall be constructed
along the edge Df the new service elentor walkwiY_
3. A teaporary parking plan, is Dutlined in tne June la, 1991 letter frDm
Fred Sea', shall be implemented during the entire construction p~riod,
ond shall Include the ml,I." foll •• lng meosures:
i. The employe .. parking lot located on Homer Avenu. shall b.
reserved f~r use by Chinning Ho~se residents whose parking spaces
Ire univi11able due to cnnstructfon work.
b.
c.
Channing House shall ~ake arrangements fer employees to park in
off-site lots, and provide shuttle service for these employees.
The c,ntractor shall establish an acceptable off-sitE parking
location for constrwction employees who cannot be accommodated
withf~ designated on-site construction areas, and provide shuttle
service to bring t~em to and from t~e site.
d. A f~"al parking plan Indicating the off-site p.rki,g loc.ticns for
both employee and contractor parking, sh." be submitted for staff
.pprov~l prier to issuanc~ of I building pe~it.
4. All construction ictlYiti,s sh,11 b. subject to compli.n,e ~ith the
proYislons of the titl of P,'o Alto Noise Ordin.nce (C~apter 9_10 of the
p"o Alto Kunicipal Code). In odditlon, nol,o measures detoiled in the
June 10, 1991 letter fro. Fred Seal, includi'g the following, shall be
1aple.ented during project construction:
I. The blsement area shall be used as much is possib1e for
construction activitiesj
b.
c.
d.
Sho~ld any constructi~n actiYiti~s create significant noise
prob1ems for residents. such construction activities s~al1 be
It.ited to no DOre than six hours per day;
The use of quieter eqUipment sh.l1 be substituted for imp.ct tools
such as jatk~ammers. wnenever feasiblei
During removal of t~e cor,crete slab unde; the skilled nursing
-nng, patients shall be relocate~ to i quieter area cf the
building. All subsequent work in t~e area of the skilled nur~fng
wing shall be monitored to ensure patients are net negative1y
ilDpiictedi and
e. All access to the work area. with the exceptton of ground level
construction and storage areas, shall be directly into the
basement area. and all ~aterji15 shall be directly delivered to
the work: are;.
p:\lt\B50webs't.lr.2 6/21/91
Pag:e 9
l ,
-
• i
I
S. To offset the reduced maneuverability of garage ~arking spaces due to
enlargeaent of c~lumns and restrip1ng. Cha~nin9 House shali offer
regula~ parking Issistance for persons Issfgned difficult spaces,
including but not limited te st.ll numbe", 2, II, 55, 56 and 57 (as
shown on the app'"oved projett pla)'l,s dated "Rev. 6/6/91-),
6. To reduce dust levels during construction, it shall be required that
expose~ earth surfaces be watered frequently during the late morning and
the end of the day with freque~cy of watering increasing on windy days.
If necessary •• 11 streets and haul routes 3hall be cleaned daily.
Spillage resulting from any hauling operations along Dr across any
public Dr priviti property sha" be removed fmmediate1y and paid for by
the contractar. D~st nUlsances criginating fram the contractor's
operatfons, eitner i~5;de or outsi~e the right-of-way. s~all be
contrcl1ed at the contractor'~ expense.
A iT AC!11!EI!I S
9 .. Ali""'",''''' ~~f/(,'371,'fl t '01."a"ee J
location Map
Oev.lopment Program Statement from applicant, dated February 22, 1991
letter in support of Variance ffnd1ngs from applicant, dated febr~ary 22, lS91
letter from Stephen Player amending Development Program Statem!nt, dated
May I, 1991
letter from Fred Seal. Chann~n9 House Administrator, dated Jone 10, 1~91
Planning Comolssion St.ff Report dated M.y 3, 1991 (without ,ttachments)
Plannlng Ccamission St.ff Report dated Harch 22, 1991 (without attachments)
Excerpt summarj minutes of Architectural Revlew Board meeting, June 6, 199)
Excerpt minutes of Planning Cammission meeting, May a~ 1991
Proj€ct Plans (Commission Members only)
corns SENT TO
Arcnitectural Revi~w Board
Channing House. Fred Se.l, Ad.inistr,tor, 8S0 Webster Street, P.l0 Alto. 94301
Steve Phyer~ Christ, Griffith. Schultz l Born. 550 Hamilton A',Ienue. Pa10
Alto, 94301
Arthur Rule, 850 Webster Street, Apt. 728, Polo ~lto, 94301
Mr. and Mrs. leiner, 850 Webster Street, Apt. 6JS, Pole Alto, CA 94301
Emery Rogers, 218 lowell Avenue, P.l0 Alto, 94301
Th .. Neikirk, 850 Webster Street, Apt. 600, P,10 Alto, 94301
Thomas Carter, 850 Webster Street, Apt. 621, Palo Alto, 94301
Ralph [liassen, 850 Webster Street, Palo Alto, 9430l
Don HacQuivey, 850 Webster Street, P,10 A1te, 94301
All.n Brown, 467 Goya Road, Portoh ~alley
p:\tt\850~b$1.sr2
L
6/211.91
PaQE '0
•
" .
','
.GRAPHIC ATIACKKENT DATE: 3/22/91 I SCALE: I" • 200'
TO STAFF REPORT FlLE NO. 90-'<-2. 90-V-'. 90-AU-lJ
PROJECT: 850 ~ebs'tl!r St:ree.~: S~ism.ie. U'O~adit,~ arid
beis~t v~rianee te~ueSt. Flanned Commucity Zone a~ecd
: ment
L
EXHIBIT A
,
~
NORTH
.~
I
\
/.
I
J
I
j
24 February 1991
[[8:;]1991
Ms .. Na.ncy Lytle.
Zoninq Administrator
city of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto. CA 94301
1""~""'~~I.1fI\" tJr ".,/!f'iWi\I;i
~, :..--__ --'--_'-_ ~ ,j LJ
"11-V-Y, 'tf-MS-13,
ql-<,-C-;;::
Re: Channing House Development Program Statement fer
Seismic Upqrade and Service Elevater
Dear Nancy:
~lease find the following applications and SUbmittal documents
attached:
12 sets of drawinos
... Application. fOr~
Project Review Checklist
Cbeck:
Minor A.RB
Major PC
Variance (height)
Variance letter
Address labels ..
S 250
55,400
S 675
56,325
The above submittals. alonq with this Development Program
State~ent. comprise the necessary documents for a Major PC
revision Which will enable Channing Bouse to gain planning
approvals for the following work:
Seismic upgrade of the builainq structure
Service elevator
Expanded fire sprinkler system4
We request placement of this item on the earliest ARB agenda.
Altbou~h Channinq House is not listed in the City's three
categories of DuildiDgs reQ~iring seismic upgrading. the
increased level of safety to the elderly oc:::upants resultiniil
from this work is of utmost importance to the Channing HOUSe
Board of Trustees4
B H Boeook AlA A.rchltec::1 404 1 EI Camino WS)! Palo Alto Ca 94306 41585E. 9510 FAX 4",5 ass B504
-
\
I
I
I
· :~.~~:i~.~
'-;-1~~=:( --
""-"'';:,-,.. ~
'Jfll~~ __
-
22 PeJ>nuory 1991
Ka. Raney Lytle
Cit7 oL Palo Alto
Re: Dev~~opment Pl.-~roUl Statement -Cb.Annif"~g House
-Page 2 of t
Sei.smic Upgrade
The building will be brought up to the 197J Life Safety level.
Interior shear walls and flovc connec~ors will be gdded.
Exterior colUlllIls at certain locations will be eniarqed to 8
feet ..,ide which will necessitate removal of approximately J
feet of glass 0.0 either side of columns the t are enlarged.
Miscellaneous attachments. strenqthenioo of buildino elements.
and enlarged foundations a~d tootioQs viII be added.
Tbe engineering will be provided by kinne a Peterson~ a P.lo
.u to structural consul tinQ' tina. Al though their report is
not part of the ARB submittal .. we are makinq a copy of the
prelt-iLary engineering details available for staff review.
Service Elevator
A service elevator is being' proposed for emerqenc7 personnel
use. building service. move-ins ~ etc.. and. will be located
adjacent to tbe present. southwest service area. Supplies I
housekeeping, emergency bealth care. will also utilize this
elevator. As seen from tbe plans and elevations. ma~erials.
~-olors and de-sign have been proposed to blend wi th the
existing structure~ The addition is within the required side
yard setbacks. and will be partially screened by existin;
redwood trees~ The structure fer the elevator will be
utilized as part of the seismic upgradinq fer the south end of
the builcHnq_
Parking
Because the structural upg:-ade viII require enlarqement of
certain colu'lhns at the basement parking. restripinq of some
spaces will be necessary_ While these improvements 3.re being
made l it was decided to also add four handicap stalls an~
ramps to the maiD parkiDq lot at str~et level~
The original PC ordinance requires 73 covered and 50 uncovered
stalls_ With the prop~~ed restriping and added handicap
stalls. ~lus some c~rpor~ spaces. 123 net rE~uired t.otal
spaces will be provided. The required additional "reserve"
area Lor parkinq across the alley west of ChanninQ Bouse
remains unchang'ed.
;r.;.;.: P_-, =-,~-;":'-'
L
'--
L
J
i
f .
, '-,>
,~
"
--
.-
,-
I
\
-
i ,
o
:l2 February 1991
Ms. Hancy Lyt.le
Cit7 of Palo Alto
.Ie: D~velo'pment Proqram stato?ment -ChanninQ Bouse
Page l of ,
Fire Protection
An expanded fire sprinkler system will be added
comply with the Palo Alto bioh rise ordinance
department requirements.
acd
.nd
will
fire
The e.levator addition has heen desioned to blend with the
existing south elevation~ and th~ enlarged columns at the
front and back will :argely be screened from 7~ew by the
existing: balconies and railS. Some glass is olllitted. but in
most cases. no more than OLe glass panel will ~~ lost for ~ach
resident. Ample room for movement is provided on the balcony.
as can be seen from t~e photograph inclUded in [be jrav1ngs.
Ve believe these desiqn changes will have a mini~al effect on
the existing architectural facade treatment and the
surrounding neighborhood. but at the same time, viII provide
added safety tor the occupants and staff.
Majer PC Revision
Because a height variance is required. we understand a :najor
PC revision application is necessary. Since Channing House is
a.lready :in ;;a PC District. it is r~dundant to further
"demonstrate the comp1iance of the proposed development" by
addressing the three required determinations necessary as
lis~ed on Page 1 of the PC Zone Chanqe Guidelines.
~evelopment Sch~d~~
Construction is ~sti~ated to start within: or l Qocths after
final city approval. which is expectE:d approA:imat.E:ly in June
of 1991. With construction starting by ;'uqust or September
1991~ the work is expected to be complete within ~wc years of
starting work.
Please also refer to the attached separate letter referring to
the variance request:. It is our understanding tha.t this
variance will be reqoired because some of tbe ~xterior columns
beinq enlarged. and the service eleva~or exceed the present.
city heioht limit.
\
2:/ hl>ru1lr7 19, 1
Ks. Xaney Lytle
City of Palo Alto
o
Re: Develcpment FrOQra= Statement -Channinq House
Pa"ge , ot ,
Thank ]'ou tor the opportunity to review these proPOsed new
safety features with staff. ARI! and tbe community. We look
forward to the review and request your favorable endorsemen.t
of tnis applica~ion.
Sinccr~17 •
B. H. BOCOOK. AP.CHITECT. INC.
BBB;pb
Enclosures
20PY: Fred Seal
St-;ve Play-er
[
f
1
.. _------. ?On . J.l1
I
t
\
!
I
I
I
o
44 Februery 1991
Ms. Nancy Lytle.
Zonino Administrat,!;)r
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Pal~ Alto. CA 94301
Re: Channing House -Variaoce Request
Dear Nancy:
This letter is in support of the CbanninQ House request for
variance sub~itted herewith. Ccncurrent with the applicant's
submittal. tor a PC: .R.evision of this date. this variance
re'Q"Uest is submitted because the buildinq exterior shell is
heiot; affected by the seisllic upgrade and service elevator.
and we have been advised that a variance viI.! be required to
allow these structural elements to exceed the city hei~ht
li.m.i L
In earlier ~eetings with 20ur office an~ the building
department. we reviewed zoning and building reQuirements
associated ;.;i th these improvements. J..t your suggestion. ARB
and variance dravings and applications are being suD!IIitted
together as one packaqe.
Neither the added structu.ral colu.m.o.s ot' elev-ator viII extend
as high as the existing buildinq. Cha~niDq House hasl in
fact, decided not to exten4 elev-ator service to the top floor
because elevator roof equipment would extend above the roof
much like the existing elevator penthouse. You will nete from
the drawinqs that the upper m~st part of the new service
elevator structure will be in line with the existing roof and
well below the presen~ penthouse.
rt should also be noted that "new· structural columns are not
beiD.',i1 added but that existinq columns are bein<;l enl arged and
strengthened. The present buildinq God structure, as approved
and built in 1964 (prior to tbe city hei~ht lLmit)~ are beinq
structurally upgraded to provide added safety to the
~esidents. staff. and surr~undin9 neighborhood.
B.H Bocook.AlA Atehilect . 4041 EI Camino W.y . Plio All0 Ca 9430El "'5856 9510 FA.)( "'5 856 8504
-•
..1. t
~\
-.
/
j
I
i
1
I
I
II
-
.... " ...
o
;u Pebruary 1791
!b •• ancy Lytle
City of Palo Alto
Re: Channing Hous~ -Variance
Page :l of J
The submittal includ.es site plans. floor plans. elevations.
and preliminary sections and details which illustrate the
scope of work. including the variance items. Once tbe
proposal has reeeiv~d city desiqc approvals. construction
drawings aDd detili.ls will be provided for a building per.mit
and cODstruction.
The followiDQ conditions validate approval of the variance
request:
A. Exceptions and extraord.inary circumstances and
conditions apply to this property that do not generally
apply to surrounding property in the same district.
B.
Channing Bouse is ac elev~n ~loor senior
completad in 1364 u~der a P.c. ~oDing
structure and building h~ioht m~~
ordinances at the construction date.
housing facility
appr c ~al . The
all codes and
The structural upgrade and service elevator could not be
built without ad~ing elements wbich will be above the
city's present beiqht li~it.
These conditions. i.e. heiqht limitations. did not
prevai I at the time of oriqinal building .:-onstruction"
and do not genel"ally apply to other properties in the
district.
The qranting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the owner and residents~ and to .,revent
unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship.
Engineerin~ stUdies undertaken subsequent to the 1989
ear~hquake demonstrated the need for certain seismic
improvement~ i~ ord~r to prct~ct ~be :ut~~rity of the
buil~iL.g.
The proposed service elevator ~ill allOW staff and
outside personnel. movers. aDd delivery personnel to
avoid the froot entry lobby aLd el~vators during
emergencie s ~ del i ve r i e s. et c . ~ thereby preven t ing
unnecessary hardship to the occupants 3nd disruption to
the normal operation of the building. The elevator will
be served from the existinQ dinioQ and service driveway
at the southwest corner of the site .
.....r-,,-_. -....... -...
'i t
(
f~ , ,
~f
". j
I
i
I
I
o '"',
:U February 1991
Ks ~ Naney Lyt.le
City of Palo Alto
Re: ChanninQ Rouse -Var~anc~
PaO'e J of 3
C4 The q%"aDtiD9 of the application ""ill not ~e detri::lent.al
or injurious to property cr i:np.rovemE::lts in t.he · ... ·icini ty ~
and .ill not be detri~ental to the public healt~. ~afsty
~nd general ~elfare ~r con7eniencE.
Most. ~f the const~~~ti~n ~ll: b€ ~nd€r~a~~u _nsi~.
Channing House and all ~~eps ~ill be ta~en to carefullY
coordinate construction activities to ~ini~i~e disr~ption
of the general neiqhborhood as veIl as occupant5 of
Channi.cQ House.
Exterior construction will be ~n;!erta);;eD :;,;;l COI:l~17 with
all city and safety requlations re9ardi~q ~ours of
work. construction fences. barricad.es. traffic and dust
control. etc. One way traffic streets ec ~ither siae at
Channinq and Hemer will facilitate c~nstructi~n traffi=.
and a rear alley will afford construction activity closer
access to tbe construction site4
Upon completion, the improve~ents will net change tbe
configuration of Channino House except to the ,,;xt;::ct of '">:.he
;;:;inor Ciddi tien of the ;;ervic~ 'elEvatcr a.s. repre:se;nted in the
dra.wings. The improved str;J.cture. fire prot€~ti::Jn, dDt::
service elevator-n.eaXEr t.he sel"vic; drive will increase
baaltb. safat7 ~nd ie~~r31 ~e~!~r2 :~ t~~ ce1;h~~r~00~.
Thank you for ycu~ assistance in :his matter. PleaSe =cntact
our office if yOLI need additional :<Iaterial or dr.J"'i:~gs.
Sincerely.
e. H. BOCOOK. ARCHITECT, rnc.
BBE:pb
r·nclo$ures
Copy: Fred Seal
StevIE' Player
t~2~
,---;-:;,;/.-<
-
~;~~;:~':,
L~~~~r_.,:., _____ .... _ .. _, .'..,....
I
I
I
\
I
JOI'" • G"",~~rr .....
~'" c ""uo.z
_lOll"i' .... ~ ..
51"1:_""" iO'\.A"'C,,"
o
LAW O,'flC£.S
C1US'I, G-.RIFYITRS, SCl£CL2 8r; BIORN
... ,.....,f"!lI,'S'Ott ..... COft;,""O", ... 'I'~"
""0 : ....... '. TC:~" "'Vl:"ut J>JITt;,Oo
-'"'''G~''-S
~.5" O."'CI: 10' a>Q
.." .. 0 o..l,.TQ. U,l..l~OIl."'\" _.,)O~
""'.S"U:~ I.. -.0",,1: T1E:'-£l;Q""C"
.. 0 ........ U..... "',!':U.-,z"o-o
Planning Commission
City of Palo Alto
city Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
May 1.. 1991
Palo Alto, California 94301-C862
R-e: Channing; Bouse
Planned c~ity Zone Amendment and Variance
to Height Limit
File No~: 90-ZC-2 1 90-V-4, 90-ARB-13
Dear Kemb~rs of the Planning Commi~slon:
,.~ .. " .. U ",,"''T, J.
O~ COUf<l!.U
no.... .. u:t ("..,1.,., ''''
"'Z"T"I.otO
The above-referenced application was su~mitted by S.H.
Bocook, Architect, on behalf Df Channing House on February 22,
1991, wherein Channing House proposed to amend the exi5ting PC
zone to allow ~or seismic structural upqra~ing of its building r
the addition of a service elevator at the Channing Avenue side o~
the building, an~, as part of the project, the expansion of its
axistinq fire sprink1er system to co~ply with require~ents of the
City of Palo Alto.
City staff, in its report to the Commission dated March 22,
1991, recommended conceptual approval of the prcpose~ Planned
Co~unity Zone Amendment and Height Variance and the addressing
o~ any policy questions raised in the proposal and that the
application be forward~d to the Architectural Reviev Board. The
matter vas originally set fo~ hearing on Karch 21, ~991J but at
the request o~ the applicant j Channing House, it was rescheduled
to Kay 8, 1991-
The undersiqned herewith submits the fcllQving ~odification
of the above application to propose a base isolation system
seismic upgrading of Channing House, in lieu of the original
concept of colUmn strenqthening and addition of interior shear
Vails and floor connectors. The base isolation method will
~inimize the amount of disruption to Channing Bouse residents and
the impact of construction to the neighborhood. construction
will take place in the basement of the building with some work at
either end of the building to strenghthen those sections.
·".
C1US"t, OJlI7PlTH5, SCHULZ. BXQO
Planning comaiaaion
Kay 1, 1991
Page 2
Channing Bouse had been reviewing the i601ation method at
the time of s~mittal o! it. initial application and specifically
requested its enqineers to continue to do re5earch and
calculations in order to determine its feasibility to Channing
House~ Chsnning House has retained the firm of ~inne , Peterson,
and Hr. Donald Peterson in conjunction vith Dynamic Isolation
systems, Inc., the leading company in isolation work, has
concluded that the iBoletion method is the best solution tor
seismic strengthening of the buildinq. A memoran4~ from Donald
Peter-.son to Stephen w. Player dated April 30, 1991.~ sUlDD1arizing
the need tor seismic strengthenin9 and the construction which
will be required to implement the isolation syste~ at Channing
Bouse, 1s attache~ as Exhibit -A-.
The isolation ~ethod proposed has been independently
reviewed by Or. Gary C~ Bart, Professor of Civil Enqineerinq at
UCLA and Pre&ic.ent of' Englekirk., Bart' Sabol, Consulting
Enginee.rs, Inc. Dr. Rart has conc\UTed with the recommendation
of Hr. Peterson &5 set forth in his letter dated April 24, 1991,
attached as Exhibit -B" ~
The seismio isolation method has been presented to the
residents of Channinq Bouse and has bean reviewed and supporte~
by a group of five structural enqineers, residents of Ch~nnin9
House~ Attached hereto as Exhibit "C· is the engineers'
memorandum to the r~sidents. In addition, Channing House has
distributed to its residents a memorandum date~ April 16, 1991, a
copy of vhich is attached hereto as Exhibit -V~, Which 5ets forth
in detail thiE base isolation system alternative, and its impact
on affected areas, parking, construction noise and disruption.
The project i~5elf, as indicated above, voulQ still require
a variance for the service elevator as previously requested.
Channing Bouse continues its request for such a variance .as
previously sUbmitted. 1ne service elevator will continue to be
an integral part of tbe seismic improvements as set forth in Don
Peterson's memorandum.
Channing House is sul:olLitting re".,ise.d drawings which
illustrate the changes made to the application due to the seismic
isolatior. system. In summary, the. impact above. the basement
level ~ill be minimal, except for work ~hich may be required to
stren9the~, either end of the building, and 'With appropriate
restripeinq ~~e project sho~ld not result in any loss of parking
spaces. The isolation method will also have a negative impact on
the landsoaping with removal of only one tree presently being
contemplated. construction utilizing the seismic isolation
met~od will t&ke approximately ~2 months from the start of actual
L
\
\
! :
r
\\C::", ,.. ..
-,
~'
.\ , . \.:
\ .,
I
'''"'."
J
I I , ~.lU5:T, om:P'tTrBS, SCJJtJU .. BJO.p~
Planning co.ai •• ion
May 1, U9l
Page 3
construction until completion. Xt is the goal of Channinq Heuse
that engineerinq be completed and permits obtained to all~w
construction 'to start in th~ Fall ot 1991.
Channing House feel. th~t this new method will address many
of the conoerns raised by the residents. Residents will not be
relocated trom thei~ eXistinq apartments, and extensive
aft!qation efforts, as set forth in a memorandum of April IE,
1991, to deal with the construction noiee ana disruption viII be
undertaken.
The .Board of Trustees of Channinq House is concerned 'With
the safety and with the comfort of its residents and feels that
this propos~d method will achieve both. Channing-House is
grateful for the eoope~~tion and assistance of City staff
throughout this application procesB. Tbe proposed solution comes
as close as possible to ans~erinq the questions and the concerns
raised by staff and the cowmunity, and Channinq House is excited
about ~tilizing this new concept on it. building.
cbanninq Bouse appreciates your consideration of this
modified application and urges your approval of the proposed
Planned Community Zone Amendment and Varianc~ to Height Limit and
your recommending forwarding o~ this application to the
Architectural Review Board.
Thank you tor your consideration of this r~quest.
SWPjdkt
Enclosures
•
&./30/11 03:.2 RINNE. .PEn:JtSO!roi
-
IUIHI; &-PETERSON
smucn.M.. ~ .' 42B); e. CJ,WIIC:l RE.tl..
Steve Plarer:
'April SO, 1S.91
caAJllITNG l!()"0SE SElSllIC il5i. lUTIG,\~ION
(Fo~ Palo Alto Planning Co&mis~icDl
Tllree 5e:pa.raU stt'Uet.ll~al en,u.~~l~ Unll ha.ve u.dt! se.i .. ,k studies of Chalml.1l'a;
House. All l"!'.P¢'rts h,,"e round eiglliCiC4.!lt d .. .ucie:u::!u ill the QVlI'ra.l.l rtrte1:gtb
for resiBt&Dce to earthqua.k:e forces and nell. ba:: ncc"~1ld~ &eisllie
8~ to u.terbll1 1a,pr-ove the pn>t.eti011 or Ufe-wet,..
'!'Yo of the tlL.-ee .troctt.:lr.a.l C"1l8"i.neeriDg tiro p%"Oceed-=d to deTelop p.rel1JUa.e:q
aeisalt: r....reDlthe:otnt &cllues. fieae acbe.el ile:-e CQ:;rrentlOll4l __ tJ1od& L"l:! 1I"'OO.ld:
.P~ ocnsicie.l;'&hle diarupt.ioc. e.nd. r.eqe.&.s.1u.t"! the re.loca.tiou or the oceupe.nts
• 118&Z" the 9011strueUcEO. wor-k~
A thiri $ChQ8 utUb,iDa se-laic 1:;ase isoli.ticu 'hu beet:. stllQ.ied it! ~tl.t loOI!:W •
.\ seismie bue isola.tion sptn lot the base of the bllildi."lg 1fou.ld prevent lIIost
or the ·.e.rtb4.l:l.8l:e hol'i.aont.&.l aovyents t'roll bdns ~tted: to the buildint 2.-.;Jd
would, zoc..s.ult in 6igniliea.ut. nockctiona ill ,.ie-lent da.&&.ging sb.&kiD:, tela
• .rrecti:n!ly ilJct'dUu.., protection "to tbe boilding. its contents, and. the ,pecplc
IMIde.
The. iaoatiO!l sy-$tu. .,.cul.d be in..c:rt.&11.d in. Ule bu~l1t or th'O b'Ui.l:d.U.g. All
coluns &O.d atMletur ... l vut. would be eut B4d lqer.:c. rubber &.nd: .. tl:'e:l pad.i; l(itb
l~ c:Dre iscl&-tcn: inserted. 'l'he.~ isolators IIrnUU allow tor up to S" or :!lcre
of la.tert.1 mov.etleIl.t,· I>u..""'iIlI t.hls lateral ao"eJlt:lI.t. sign! tiC:iUlt alIOun.ts of
ea::rthrt-we ene.ty i.e; absorbed. a.nd .c.iuip&.ted. Tb buUding feels .auch less force
and SO'f'es aore tmifcraIy ill • slover eontr-olld fashloc.. rual tin: ill
BQbstantl&11:v ra&3o.cod o.uqe to tlae 5tMl'c.:t.D~ loUd contents. as lieU &.S increasing
tlte prot.eetio¥l Q! the oecu~t.s.
!c allo" for the B" or l&te.r&l. IlOVgeDt &lid il1Sertioc. .or the hol&to:s l certain
oou.t Netior. 1oiould. be tl8C6SSe.r,.-ttJ .. 1.101i" !O~ us.-..
1 ~ Around tl:c e:xterior of the bai!di.JJg fro" the-bueHIlt level uf to the
P"OlXDd surta.ce, ... !Space of 12.'" ~ ~ be madtl .... ~c:b .. ould require
e.on.s:t:ruc;tion of .. sel;QDd:».rr ret.a.iDina: wall .
.....
•
QlOO%
I
i r.
!
t
r
I
\
I
-
ClWiI!BG IIJOSl!
SiI!lllIC IWm IjITIQATI~"
P.age'Tlro
RINNE I.~.
To claw .fot' thie ".O"lUtmt OI!. Ue 1i'eb&ter Street .aide of the i::r.:ildl.n8', the
root s.l.ab Qf the ba.sam811~ p.a.rki!l8' would. hAve to UTe a. 12"" .... ide. slot ... .ah~
cut GI.1t.5ide cf the .u.iII. bulld..i..ng. l'bil alot u:d the 12~ apace a.rotmd the
reat 01 the b1i11~ IfOllld 1:>e COTe.red .,ltb CO"Ver-pla.tes U&t 'C&U a.llow fer
~8IIIect.a
3. lD. the haseae:nt along th!: Webster street dde , 1Ie"il eol: .. uuua would be
.required: Ott eacn :5ide or the new j.oint. 'I'hese coltl~5 'IOC'U.ld b@ pl~d to
.la1.1£@ the ef~.ets CD parkiD, .
. toO I:a tM baa$ent, tl. dEe ot the u.b. eoltmDS that &l.I.P.POrt the W.bste:
Stre.t side ot the builfu: '!foul:::! ht.. .. e to be i~cre&3l1!:d to apprc.:d.aa.tely 4
to S toet SQU,l.re. Thae co!..umls (:()uld be shAped to ... :f..n1.he tb.E etleets
on pu .. !J\t.
5. In tbe bueeeot in the portlotl of the: gU&ge nearest Ye'bstu Street, De"
COJl-:::rete wub WQult:J: be needed t.., be .pla.ced pe:."ltendl eUlu to hbshr
S'b-eet. fb81N1 wo'cld be loca.ted. t.cl aln1.iu t.U etfects on p&l"kil1! ..
6.. '%ben-are tou.r colmms &Ild: ... et&1nray outside the Cilaiat l"Oom ClD the
MOU'th..-onat side m:u!er tbe .skUled I'H1rsin( wing:. Since ther-e is 110
'baa«lent Imder then .. laeots .. tbl! ilola.tou voale! have to he 1.:Dstel.lcd i.lI.
Uet:e .1u.enu.t :reqtd.r1n, IU1"er collnlQ5 and moditic&t10c. to the stAir
base.
,.. !'he Zk'!'Ii'. dCTater a-tT1lctura at the Chanz:llnr Street etld: lfOc..l.cl be coll5\:.:rocted
to aeco-.c.od&.te tlIe !aol .. tca"s and be d~igped t.c rein!orce: the end wAll
arcnmd -tU l1eOil' and c:btu.. ope:tl;lngs.
8. . The" eJ:d w&lb of the u.U bull~1l1l WO"Q.ld bioTIC" c:e$il wall sect1~c.. at tbe
eut and Rest cornl!:rs to fiU in between the tint e.nd seeotd floo!"s wbere
the bttlld1ns: 1i.aJ.l uotches bacl:. a,wrodaa.t.el:; liTe het. Nev. d"e'!:!~
!em:uiation beuts vould be Jl,e~ U'Oll&" tbese end $0&.115 &tid $iI¢uld ~end
beyond t.h.e COl":lera o! th .. &&.in Ouildilli.
9. Xluor uoucu or .treugtbS!l.!.n= u.y be .D1!Cft:S1IU":r t.t the Belter Street end of
the bgild1.nl e.t the openjl1gs i%l th@-first wd toll lloo~.
The BoLl'"! of ~~ cr Ch~in8' Bouse hu oIwro'l'ed the base .1aol&tlon eo:.:ept
for'selalit tlllgradin:: the bulldtng iz:I j:l.ace of the convt!lItiou.l IIp,-ra.dlng
PnT louaI, PlV.PQsed. l'hEt 1.ll.-t6l1t. ti OIl 0 f' the bela. t1 0:%1 • ,,"ste..r:. ...,.111 b. sreatl$
leu. disruptiD,g ,to the: cccu;aants and the ceigbbc,rs around Cha.nldllg BOl4s&, 1.$ well
oN perton ~u l8tlp.erior dul-1n: .. a~or ae!.sUe ~veot.
L
Q:003
J
I
d
i
I
\
,
I
j
-
April 24, '991
Mr. oan Pet_on
Rinne and Peterson
426D EI Camino Real
Palo Alto, California 94303
Aegaro.ng: ChaMing House
Dear Mr. Peterson:
~J Ora;.CL'~
I'k:IOoI!1F_Et(1lOU1o..,U:'
G.ItJ. C, fW1.. c.£-
'T'l-~'" s..txt,ll
I have reviewed your propoSed base isolation C<lrlCeptuai design for the ChaMing
~e. As pan oItha! review, I read the March.25, 1991, memorandum from Dr.
Roo Mayes \0 you. h Is my opinion that your proposed base isolalion solution Is
feasible. WI1h seismic strengthening ~ seems thaI each buucling has ijs besl
solution and I be6eve 1ha1 yoo have IoUnd the besl solution for this bu1lOIng.
I feel confident lila! lIle lMJoturai engineering aspects of your proposed solution are
well wlthinyoor professional experllse. They will require yoor experienc9 10 be used
b1J! I cannot sea any hlllh risk struotural aspects 10 your concept design.
Please do 00\ hesha1e 10 contact me U I can be 01 further assistance.
Veri bes! regards,
C:/:;~~INC.
GaryC. Ha
Principal
EXHIBIT II Bn
""-
, '
i
i
\
'n' -,
!"";.;o.o \.. .C" . .";.,p..,. ';'\'.' ,,;;,"-, , "T" ... "2..~"l r-~'((.. w~issb«.,X3
.-.:t::>:c. s
, I.ocdon ;n.. etq.
.Ft.t' i~' •
_____ . _________ .t\1toro",n~,"'.()nJAlllt'\i:I-...
Dr, Clry HAJf, Pmldenl
En,Jeklrl<, HI" & Sabol
1116 ArIiD(IOn Avenue
Los AnC.Jet, CA 900lS
Tel. (1ll) 733 -1640
FAX (113) 13) • 868l
Professor, UClA Depatrment Q! Civil Engineering
President, Englelcirk, Hart ... Sabol
Member of SEAOC State Seismology Committee
Chairman of State Seismic Isolation Committee at the time the USC $eismic
mlation requirement. were drafted ""~ adopted
Principal-in-Charse on the RockweD Intemationa; seismic Isoiation retroBt
Peer reviewer for tlle San Bernardino Co. Law &< Justice Center, the firs!
seismican-; iso!t.ted bUIlding in the US.
Current peer leviewer for K.aisu Permanente'l Corona Regiona1 Data Center
'.
.. . -'f ....... "" . ~
·;~tj·V
"r • c ,
;: ..
•
,~.'
· .... --1
-.
, "'-';;...-",7.",,! __ , .....
.. ",.:
'i> .~,
~;
• .>;;
~.
-
-: .
Qi6WwG H?"'6E RESIDENTS ''''''-SEISMIC BASE ISOLATION.
The Bo«d Q( Trustees has approved, 'Sase Isol.ation Syste:n {or sci..str.k t;lpgrading o( Cha...~g. House i.n ptace
of the c:cnw:nt:i~ upgrading previousty. proposed.This memorandum briefly de5C'l"bc:s the bts5c fe4tures of tlte
two m<tI>ods 01 cppding
TIlt conventional tlpgrading would have required extensive ronstt'Uction we rk. from the foundations up to
tl"U! top of the buildi.""'Ig.. to strengthen the present reinforced cor.crete structure to the· life.! safety criteria of
the 1973 Uniform Building Code·.T'h.is would have left it fu:tn!y anchored to the ground and earthquake
.hcriz..orual ground :movements would h.a:Ye: been transmit1:~ directly to the strllt:tute and general e lateral
farces. that amplify as you move up the height of the buildir:og."· .
Sketch ~ nus would have c:aused building moVen'lents indudi. .. g ~jfOQr
acct1.mUicms· that_ vary fum floc! 'I.e floor; building side-sway and
"irttemcrry 4rift'j.e. di:ften:!ntial movements between floors; and
deformation of columns.and beams whlch fottn the structural frame of
the building. Sudl movements could cause Rricw damage to the struc:t
w.ura.me. nGn-SI1'UCttlnl building elements, !adllties, and coments. 2S
weU as hazards to people.
In cont:rast. ;a.seismic" base isolation system at the base of the building
wou1<1 ~ U\ost. <O( the earthqua.kf; horil.ontal movements being
troms:mJtted to the building. and result in sig:nifkanl reductions in floo-r
i2Cce!tratiCllls and j,ner.s:tory 4rijt, thus effectively increasing
pr:nection to the building. its contents, and most importantly the
_pie in~. See Sketch 2
The key ele1J'limts of a 'ba.5€ isolati,;m system are the isolation
bearings thai must be placed at or Mar the basE of load bearing
colwnns.A satis£actoty bearing must be able to carry the v-ertka!
weight of the tnillaing,. and also e!f~ve1y absorb most or the-·
sideways movements and energy of the earthquake ground
movements.tNt with rig:d building foundations would pass on to the
l>uilding
fl is only durmg the last decade that advilnCPS ill rubber technology.
design methods, and manufacturing techniques, have led: to the
production 01 adequate h.ase isolation bearinGS. A skeldt of one type of
isolation 'bearing is shown in Sketcll 3. It consists of .. blod. of an
elastomer ( rubber or a. rubb£rlike materia!) reinfot'C1!d with a $eries c,f
thin steel plates atlrl N.s 2; lead c.ore. More lec-e-n1iy, elasto.rners with
special ploperties have been produced and have aLs;o led to thE'
production of s.atis£actory bearings withow lead cores.
Retrofit tneas:-..l1"'eS to enhance earthquake s.afl?ty of an existing
building always require careful consideration of any co:n.stnl.nlS that
Dla)' be inhe:ent: in the structure; the pL:..-pose for which it was built its
present usap. and the present fouruiation ground. o:m.ditions..
Any rnaj:l:t COTl5tnlJion work 10 an eJcistir&g building must caLISE' some
di!>1:u:ba:nce to people wb 0(1 livE' Of work in or neal" the bu!l mng . It is
Vl!r y reassuring that the Trustees have chosen the seisrr-.ic-uFg:ading
method that will w:!uce to a minimum any ~ch disturbance .
Gvil Enj;ineering Group.
'iXHIBIT .C"
L
SKETCH 1.
Vl!lr"tl~ load
from Buiiding
SKETCH 3
S~YMic ISOIJ,iCi
eean~s
•
·T1
11
t
:--
I
I
I
I
i ,
I
-
o
April 16 1 1991
SEISMIC PROJECT
~E ISOLhTION SYSTEM ALTERNATIVE
General comments:
At the present time the review and design of ~ base isolation
system for the Channing House building has not been completed. The
study thus far "has been directed to the lIla)or components and
problem areas to determine if this approach is feasible and cost
et~ective. At this t~e there does not appear to be any major or
insur-~untable problem with this type of approach. While it is
expected that further stud.y and review .... ill develop lrLany additional
problems, the qeneral approach should continue to be valid.
The operational. plan that is being developed. to deal. with the
various pr~blems associated with the project has been Dased on the
information currently available and will be further ~odi~ied and
certainly be expanded ~s more information is obtained.
Scope of project:
The ~jority of the planned seismic work will be done in the
basement areas and at the first. {,Iocr levels outside the building.
The lnost extensive alrlounts of .... ark ",~il1. be in are~s that 2Te
-restricted areas and 'Will not interfere with the nOrmal activitJ,..§
of the residents. Even in those few basement areas used by
residents where 'Work will be required, the 1ength of the disr'..lption
'Will not be extensive and t.he are.as are not critical to normal
operations ..
bJl,ZAS 'fRAT WILL NOT BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED:
1. Tbere will ~e NO disruption to any of the apartments on t~e.
3rd through lOt.~ floors,
2. ~l food services opErations 'Will continue without
interruption.
:3. All me.dica.l se.rvices including the Skilled. Nursing Facility and
Personal Care units will continue vithout interruption.
4. There. will be no, changes in any of the services offered .to the
resider,ts such as housekeeping, maintenance and administration~
S. With the exception of one or two apartme~ts that might be
reserved as day, centers for residents, there would be no
impact on new admissions to Channinq House.
EXHmrr II D"
•
""".-
-
Sase Isolation System -cont~
E. The use of the 'C3ue.st rooms, lO;J.nges, auc'itc:-i'.l1t., TV room ar;<3.
the 11th floor would be made available st;ould residents be
ar~ected by construction noise~
1. There ~ould be no changes to any of the resident prosra~s,
special events ~r ot~er activities.
AREbS THhT WILL BE AfFECTED BY THE; PROJECT;
1. DUring various periods of the project, portion~ of both t~e
parking ~arage and the front parking lot will be taken out of
service. The remaininq portions of the parking spaces will
r~ain in operation with complete access as usual~ To replace
this parking the employees parking lot will be restricted to
resident parking only and the e~ployee$ will use off-site
parking in various lots with a sb.uttle service provided by
Channing House~ It is not expected that there will be an}~
reduction in the total nUmber of parking spaces available
a~ter the construction is completed.
2~ At various timas access to the Workshop, Exercise Room and
Resident Lockers will be restricted. It is possible that an
alternate site 1I'Iay be aeveloped for the Exercisg Room depending
on the time it is expected to be unavailable.
34 It will be necessary to ~ake some modifications at both ends
of the building4 The Channing side will also be involved with
the in.stallatior. of t.he new freight elevator and tha.t area 'Will
ba restricted for ~ period of several mon+-hs~ It is expected
that there will ~e very little impact to the apartments at
either end of the building.
44 There viiI be temporary disruptions of utility services as
various equipment is modified, moved or replacedr It is
very likely that some type of temporary structures vill be
required outside of the building to house temporary utilities
such as electrical transformers, etc ..
•
-
Disruption Planning:
PA1yq;W~
It is expected that approxi:mately 25-50% of the Webster street
parking lot will be r~quired during the construction period.
In addition} grou~s of approximately 25 cars will be
reassigned from the parking garage to the surface parking
areas tor various periods.
1. Additional parking space will be cre.ated for the resider..ts
by using the rear (employee) parking lot. To accommodate
staff parking .,e are negotiating ..,ith sevaral independe:1.t
paxking lots to lease approxi~ately SO parking spaces
during the construction period. A shuttle service will
be set up to pick-up and return the staff to their cars.
2. With the various changes required by the construction
·it will be ~ecessary to re-stripe the parking spaces
in the parking garage and in the front lots. THEP.E WILL
NOT BE ANY LOSS OF FARKING SPACES FROM THE SEISMIC
FROJECT AND A FEW ADDITIONAL SPACES MAY BE ADDED.
CONSTRUCTiON; NOISE NCD DISRuPTION
1. Based on Drior ~ork in the basement. construction ~oise
has not created problems in the building ~ith the
exception of impa-::t ha.!illners. Mu.ch of the plaT.ned work
will be done using concrete sawc~ttinq and co~e drilling
which should not even be heard at the first floor level.
In those areas where jackhammering is necessary, the hours
of the day and duration ( such as 4-6 hours/day) will be
controlled to reduce the impact on the zesidents and the
staff.
2. All of the construction noise from sawing of lumber,
making forms I braces} etc., will be confined in ~he
basement reducing noise to the outside.
3. All access to the project ..,ill be from the outside
directly into the basement area and will not interfere
with any of the normal resident activities. With the
exception of the wyrk at the ends of the building no
construction ~orkers should be in the building.
4. The construction schedule will be planed on a ~ystematic
schedule moving from one small area to the next ,so that
large portions of the basement are not disrupted at the
same time. This process reduces the number of workers __ on
site, helps to control noise levels and provides better
control of the project. In addition, this approach
requires less area for construction equipment and supplies
treeing up additional parking spaces for the residents.
•
.,:-..:.:--
Disruption" Planning -cont.
S. By limitinq the a~ount of construction ~ork in progress
at anyone time ~ limit is also placed on the a~c~nt of
street and site traffic. A large number of trucks will
not be necessary tor this project. Most of the time,
if tnere is L~y traffic at all, it would be limited to a sil"..qle. truck.
•
". -
-"""""1&'( Ii ] ,Ii
Iri " :"~.1t~~t .. '~<
.' ::~~~:'~~-:
~-,--~--.-....... --.~ .. r -.---
,
1
I
I
I
I
o
E'9~t hundred and fifty Webster Street Te",ephooe (415) 327-0950
-
City of Palo Alto
Plartninq commission
250 Hamilton ~venuQ,
Palo Alto, Ca4 94301
Re: Channing House Seismic Project
Dear Planning co~ission Membersi
June 10, 1991
~is letter is in response to the letter of May 28, 1991 from
Lori J. Tapley to Mr. Bill Bocook, the Channi~ House architect~
which sets forth the additional information requested by the
Planning Commission prior to their final revieW' of the Channing
House Seismic OpgraQe project.
1. CONSTRUCTION NOISE IMPACTS
The following: steps will be undertaken during the construction
period in order to mitigate construction noise impacts within
Channing House and also in the surrounding neighborhood!
1. All of the equipment used at the site will meet or exceed the
noise level stanaards established by the City of Palo Alto.
2. All of the Palo Alto restrictions on 'Work days and working
hours will be carefully observed. In addition, should any of the
work create noise problems for the residents or staff, such work
will be limited both as to the length of the work period (not over
six hours per day) and as to the time of the day the work is
performed.
3. The majority of the work will be located in the basement areas
and the contractor believes that most of the general construction
noise will be contained therein, thus mitigating the impact into
the surrounding area. In addition, as much as possible. the
basement area will be used for the saw-ing of lumber, making of
forms etc. further reducing the noise in the neighborhood.
I -
4. The use ot core drilllng and saw cutting e·~ipl%le.nt in lieu e·t
impact drills a.nd hammers. will be used ext-e.nsive.ly to further
minimize noiae~ In addition, where impact tools are determined to
be necessa.ryl th~ contractor will use larqer hydraulic equipped
equipment which is less intrusive and reduce the total time
necessary to perform the work.
5. At the time it is necessary to remove the concrete slab from
the patio area 'Under the Skilled }I'.lrsing Facilit.-y, the patients
will be relocated if necessar)' for the 3-4 hour period that would
be ~equired to complete the concrete removal. To help reduce the
noise relati:J.9 to the removal of the concrete, the. slab which is
already cracked, will be saw cut and then removed in large pi~ces.
Although a =inimal amount of jackhammering may be necessary, the
remaining work in that area is not expected to gener4te high noise
levels and ell work will be closely Elonitored to insure patieT.t
comfort.
6. The majority of the construction work will occur in the
baseme.nt areas and dust wil.l be controlled by wood 01" plastic
barriers as necessary. To protect the remaining cars in the
parking area, car covers 'Will be distri!:louted. The use of core.
drilling and saw cutting will sha~ly reduce the dust level. In
those areas where excavation is necessary, special care ~ill be
exercised to protect the surroundinq grounds and to eliminate any
unne.cessary dust. Should it he necessaryl Channing House is
licensed to and will ~se reclaimed water to control the
construction dust.
7. To lI.itiqate the impact to the surrounding neighborhood all
access to the work site will be directly into the basement ~rea
with the exception of 9Xound level construction parkinq and storage
areas. All materials shall be delivered directly to the work area~
The project vill be phased to eliminate the need for the use of a
larqe number of trucks or other construction equipment at anyone
time~ Access to all of the actual work locations shall be wit~in
the Channing House property, thus there sh':'-uld be little, it any,
i~pact on any neighborhood properties.
8. DUe to the rel~tively complex nature of this construction the
work will be done on a section by section basis and not a~l
affected areas will be under construction at the same time. This
process will substantially reduce the overall impact on the
residents and allot the area around Channing House.
Channing House intends to carefully ~onitor the ccnstruction
process and will take whatever actions as may be necessary from
tiMe to time to insure that the impact of construction noise is
mitigated.
Channing House helieves that W'ith the proper selection ot
construction eguip:me.nt l use of special construction methods to
reduce noise levels l and the observance of all noise restrictions,
-2-
I
l
!
I
>
I
. ' .
•
'.
1
!
!
I
I
I
I
I
-
the overall impact on both our residents an~ the neighborhood will
be maintained at B reasonable level.
2, paRIING PLAN
'l'be following parking plan is proposed to address Channing
Rouses' temporary loss of parking 6p~ces during construction and
any impact from the restriping of certain sp~ces.
(A) channing House intends to convert the use of its present
employees' parking lot into a temporary parking area (55 spaces)
for the residents and quests of Channing House. This parking lot
is currently us~d by an average of 25-30 cars per day of which 2-
5 cars belong to residents.
(BJ Tbe original parking plan esti~ated that it would be necessary
to remove from service about sot (27 spaces) of the parking spaces
in front of the building. Channing House has new determined that
only 2St of that parking space will actually :be needed for
cons~ction purposes and other areas of the builainq and qrounQs
will be used to accommod.ate the contractors work space
requirements. This change reduces the total number of resident
cars that will be displaced at anyone time £rom approximately SO
cars to 3:5 ears. The employe.es parkiflq lot will easily accommodate
that number of resident cars and some employees may be able to
continue parking in their present places.
TO provide parking fer Channing House employees that will no
longer be able to park in the employee parking lot, Channing House
is presently neqotiating for use of the following offsite spaces:
Minimum
Spaces
Available
525 University Parking Garage
Cowper/University-City of Palo
Alto PUblic Garage
Palo Alto First Presbyterian
Church* -cowper and Lincoln
Cowper/University Private parkinq
Carage
TOTAL AVAILABLE SPACES
10
10
5
10
35
Maximum
spaces
Available
12
15
10
15
52
*Subject to Church staff approval and Use Permit review.
-3-
-
Due to the extended planning period for the project, .... hlch is
about .ix months, and the length of the project itself, which will
be just over a ye.ar, it may be nec-essary to modify the above
arranqements. Channing House vill continue to explore al~ernative
sites and. will ma):e any adjustments necessary to :IIlaintain the
necessary offsite parking for the employees.
(0) Two transportation companies have been contacted by Channing
House to supplE=ment, as necessary, the Channinq House van and
assist with the transportation of Channing House employees from the
various parkinq lots to Channing House.
(£) The contractor will be provided with the spaces necessary tor
th~ vehicles it requires to ~ on site. Construction work .... ill be
phased on a systematic basis and their will not be large numbers
of workers on the location at &ny one time. The contr~c~or has
aqreed to establi&h oftsite parking locations for all of his
Yorkers and yill use a shuttle system to bring them to the work
site.
Based on the foregoing it is the position of Channing Bouse
that the project will not hava a negative impact on the overa~l
parkinq in the naiqhborhood.
3. TREE PROTjrCTION pW AND LNfpSCA?ING DISTURBANCE
A copy of a letter date June 3, 1991 trom S.P. McClenahan Co.
Inc. I Arboriculturists to Jones/Peterson Associates, Inc., tile
Chann1n9 Bouse Landscape Architect, together witil a site plan
shoving the location of the trees has been attached to the drawings
previously submitted to the Commission~ This letter sets forth the
present condition of the all trees on the premises and includes
recommendations for tree preservatioI'l which will be follo'Wed by
Channing Bouse.
Thar~ you for your consideration of this information~
~~
Fred Il. Seal
AtIlIliniootrator
CC: Mr. 1Ii11 Bocook
Mr. St.ve W. Player
L
(-
~-)
.. -
.... ~
~l
t, c:=E~. -, .
_ ...... ' ...... '0 .. "· .....
1IIfAI.."'-.L UWfIIIlNClI:
~c..~.J ....
a..yJ;~
DIoV'lO III: IIiIIC'OOQ:
I
[
I
-
S. P. McCL£:NAHAN CO., INC.
" .. aCAlCUL.'TU.lt.STS
.1 ~JtO 'to.o.C. ~Ut YA.LJ..t"r • .:,.o.-..oz.I
TE1...£PHONE \4'51326-8781
FA)( (A'~) 854-US?
Jones/l'l:te!=n Associates, 1nc.
465 Fairchild Drive, Suite 121 A
Mountain View, CA 94043
ATTENTION: Mr. Robert Peterson
RE: Owming House
hIoAlto.CA
GenUem ere
June 3,1991
As requested. we have inspected trees at the above referenced sfte to
deterrntrle pt1!Ser1t condition, Impad of setSmlc upgrade Improvements and
provide recommendations for tree preservation.
Tree numb"", as referenced in lit! S report Wll espond to those 01 the Plot Plan
and Numerical Tree Itsl provided by )onesl Peterson.
In determining tree condition. several fadors have been considered which
includeo
(1) Rate 01 gro ... 1h over se .... era; seasons;
(2) Structural decays or weaknesses;
(3) Presence of disease or insects; and
(4) life expectancy.
The following guide for mterpretation 01 Tree Condition as relaled to Ufe
Expectancy Is submitted for Y01..T inlonnatian
o
5
10
15
20 +
5 Years
10 Years
15 Years
20 Years
Years
Poor
Poor to Fair
Fair
Fair to Good.
Good
The faDowing are the results of OUT tree survey Please note that trees
numbered one tIu'o>.lglt eighl 11-8), on the north side, will be preserved
i .,.;~., ' .• r-... .. ~ ~-, o~ ." f.' ... :2····
I
I
I
-
o
Jones/Pelerscn Asond ....... 1nc.
Page -2-
by utilizing vertical excavation. Trees numbered nine through twenty-sIx
(~261. on the north side, can be preserved by excavation al a two (2) 10 one (!)
slope. Trees numbenod twomty-5eVen (27] to sixty (60), on the south side,
should be ~ by 'Jtilizmg vertical excavation to minimize functional
root injuly to establiShe c! Redwood trees
1. Spede 'isptct. """'P""'irens (Coast RedWood)
DBli Rlleen and three fourtll inches (1$-3/4")
Condition: Good.
Observations,
Foliage is 0( uniform size, vigor and colorabon. UiJliZ1T1g vertical
excavation. min'iJ'nat impact to funchonal root area is antldpated.
With adoption 0( preservation measures, prognosis is considered
good.
2. Spede: Seqpg;a "'""V"'i""DS (Coast Redwood)
DBli Sel/l!n and three fourth inches (7-3/4"1
Condition: Good
Observations,
Foliage Is typical 01 the species. Vertical ",,,,,, .. oon wiTI e"croach no
closer than within seven feet ("7') of t..,. trunk and no adverse effect
as a result 0( COnstruction is anticipated.
3. Specie: Sequnia sempennrens (Coast Redwood)
DBli Twenty inches (20"1
Conditione Good
Observations.
Foliage 1ndi cates normal tree vigor. No impact as a f'eSuh Of
construction is anticipal.d.
4. Sped.. Seqpoja sempervmms (Coast Redwood)
DBH: Fifteen inches on
Cendi tion: Good
Observations·
Foliage ind,cotes normal.tree vigor. No lmpact as • result 0(
construct on is M.tlcipat ed
5. Spede: Seqpcia sempetYians (Coasl Redwood)
DBH: Twenty·four and one-half inches (24-1/2")
Cond,tion: Goor.l
Observations
Foliage indlca\e5 normal tree vigor. Encroachment to within three
fee! (3') 0( the trunk wm impact approxirTw!teJy thirty-five percenl
L
-
o
)onesfhto!san Associates, Inc.
Page -3-
5. Spede: S«p!oja sempervtrens (Coast Redwood) conttnued
Observation"
(35'-') 0( funcbonal root area With adoption of prese!Voltlon
measures the prognOSis is considered gooo.
6. Sped.. SeqJ!oja S!:!I!p""Yirrs (Coast Redwood)
DBR Five and one fourth inches (5-1/(")
Condi tio", Good
Observations,
Foliage tndicates normal tree vigor. TreE is beyond 1mmediate
construction area and no impact 'Will result from excavatlon..
7_ Sped.. SeqwiasgmpetYinm$ (Coast Redwood)
D~R Twenty-six inches (26")
Condition, Good
Observat:ons,
. Foliage irldicates normal tree Vigor. Tree is beyond 1mmediate
a:mstnJction area and no impact \Nil! result from excavation.
8. Spede Acerpalmahan (Japanese Maple)
DBH, Eight inches (8")
Condi tio", Good
Observati ons,
Fonage is of unilorm sIZe, coloration and Vigor Tree stTtlcture is
sound and natural grade has been maintained at the n;x:,t CT'01Nn...
Tree :is beyond immediate constnJctjon area and no adverse effect
as a result of excavation 'is antidpated.
9. Specie: CarneOiajaponic.a (Camenia)
DBR Two inches (2")
Condition: Fair.
Observations:
Foliage is siightly yenowed and lacks vigor. I'Iant is located beyond
immediate construCUon area and no adverse effect as a result of
construction 'is anticipated.
10. Sped.. Aa:r palmalmD (japanese Maple)
DBR Four inches 1(")
Condition: Good
Observations,
Fobage is of untform stze, colocation and vigor. Tree structure is
sound and naMaT grade has been matntatned at the root O"Q\,\TI. Tree
is beyond immediate c:onstructiOll area a nd no adverse effect as a
•
I
l ,
-
10. Specie: Ag:r paJrnatum (japane ... Maple) continued
Observations,
result a excavation is an!icipated.
11. Specie: ~ palmatum (japanese Maple)
DBH: Ten inches (10")
CondItio,." Good
Observations,
Foliage is of uniform size, coloration and Vigor. Tree structure
is sound and natural grade h .. been maintained at the root crown.
Tree is beyond immediate constructiOn area and no adverse effect
as a result or extaVation is anticipated A weak: crotch fort'r1ation
at tru~ bifurcation Will require eventual bracing.
1 Z. Specie: Ag:r palmatum (japanese Maple)
DBH: Eleven inche:s (111
Condition: Good
Observations:
Foliage is of uniform size, ooloration and Vigor. Tree structure
Is sound and natural grade has been maintained at the root crown.
Tree is beyond immediate constructiOn area and no adverse effect
as a Tes-.nt of excavation is anticipated.
13. Specie: Ag:r palmatum (japanese Maple)
DBH: Three and one fourth inches (~1/4·)
Condition.: Good.
Observations
Fobage is of uniform size, coloration and "'igor. Tree str.Jchrre
is scr .. md and natura1 grade has been maintained at the TOOt CfO'Nn.
Tree is beyond immediate a:mstruct:ion area and no adverse effect
as ill re$ll1t ~ excavation is anticipated.
H. Spede Ag:r palmah"" (japanese Maple)
DBH: fIVe inches (5")
Condi tiOIC Good.
Observations.
Foliage is of uniform size, ooloration and vigor. Tree structure
'is sound and natural grade has been maintained at the root crown.
Tree is beyond immediate construction area and no adverse effect
as a result of excavation is anticipated.
15. Specie: ~pa!rn.tum (japanese Maple)
DBR Seven and one-half inches (7·1/2")
Condition: Fair.
"-
•
•• ,. ";. JlfJ!l'!iat .
. . 's>
,
'"0 :i-j<
"
.
-
. '
o
J<roes/l'eI2!'son Associate. Inc.
Page -5-
IS.Specie Aa=rpalma= (japanese Maple) continued
Obset"Y3tions,
FoUage is typical 01 the spedes, Low trunlc scar has encompassed
sixly percent (~) 0/ trunk circumference, how~r, a caDcus
closure was observed Tree is located beyond immediate a>r.struction
area and no impact as a result 01 e"""",bon is antidpaled,
16. Specie Aa=rpalmalum (japanese Maple)
DBfi Nme Inches (9")
Condition, Good
Observati "".'
Foliage is of unlform size, coloration and vigOr, Tree structure
is sound and natural grade has been maintained at the root crown.
Tree is beyond immediate construction area and no advlme effect
as a result of excavation is antidpated.
17, Specie Ar:gr palma!ym <Japanese Maple)
DBfi Six inches (6")
Conditicm Poor,
Observation"
Severe stnlclural decay was noted at the root C!'O',"", Tree IS located
'NeD beyond construction area and no ad'.terse effect as a result of
constr"ction IS antlCipate,I
18.Specie Arcrpalmalum (japanese Maple)
DBfi Six and ene fourth inches (6-1/4j
Cond; lion: GoocI
Ob5ervatlons,
FCflage is of uniform size, coloration and Vigor. Tree structure is
sound and natural grade has been maintained at the: -root crown..
Tnee is beyond immediate construction area and no advene effect
as a resuh 0( exca ..... ation is anticipated.
19, Specie Acer Palm_tum (japanese Maple)
DBH Four and three fcurtl'>s incites (4-3/4")
Condition: Good
Observations'
FOliage is of uniform size, coloration and vigor. Tree structure is
sound and natural grade has been matntained at the root CTO\o\tn.
Tree is beyond immediate construction area and no adve~ effect
as a result of excavation is anticipated
•
•
",'lit
.
""' .. ':,,: ..•. ~'
"
. \
,', "", --
,
l
:.-<::--.'
,~
-.~. FJ __ ··_~,_.-c_-.~ ... -~-"'-
~/ I'eIEI "'" ""->dale;, Inc:
Page -6-
20. SpeCe: A=pahnatmn (Japanese Maple)
DBK Ten inches (10")
Conc!itio," Good
Observations,
Foliage is of unlform size. QO]oration and vigor Ire<! struc!TJre
is sound and natura! gnode has been maintained at the root crown.
Tree Is beyond immediate construction area and no adverse effect
as a result 0( excavation Is anticipated.
21. Spede: Sequoia ~. (Coast Redwood]
DBK Six and one urth mches (6-1/4")
Condttion: fair.
Observations,
Tree Is a stump sprout and located ....,n beyond immediate
construction area No adverse effect as • result 0( =avation Will
occur.
22. Specie Seq!!gI. sempetYirms (Coast Redwood)
DBH, Thirteen inches (13")
Condition, Good
Observations,
Fa/age Indicates normal tree Vigor. No tmpact ~s • result of
construction Is anticipated.
23. Spede: Sequoa 5C'II'J!l""'i (Coast Redwood]
DBH, Twenty-seven inches (27")
Conditio,," Good
Observations,
Fcliage iru:hc.ates normai tree 'vigor. No impact as .a resuit of
construction Is anticipated.
24. Spede-. Seqyg!. semperilIJmS (Coast Redwood)
DBH, Fourteen and one fourth ,nches (14-1/4")
r
Cond, tion: Good
Observation s,
Foliage Indicates normal tre-e Vigor. No Impact .s • result of
construction is anticipated.
L
•
,--'
~~, -.~
-
o
jones/PeteiSUIl Associate;. Inc:.
Page -7-
25_ Spede: Scqutia smnpenrtrrns (Coast RedWood)
OBH Nt"",,,,,,, and one-half inches (19-1/2"l
Ccmdi tion: Good
Observations:
,." --.......
Fohage indicates normal tree "gor_ No impact as a result of
constnu:t:ion is antidpated.
26. Sped.. Sequgia """'P""""s (Coast Redwood)
DBH: Twenty-one and one fO<Jrth inches (21-1/4")
ConditiOrt Good
ObservatiOlls:
Foliage indicates normal tree vigor. No impact as a result 01
construction is antidpate<l_
27. Spede $eq"nja sempetYitVDs (Coast ReGwood)
DBK Twenty-three InChes (23")
Condition: Good
Observations:
Foliage is 01 uniform size and coloration indicating normal tree vig"'"_
Excavation will encroach to wrthin tet'\ feet (10') of the trunk,
however, minimal injury to the tunctior.al root system is anticipated
28. Sped.. 5eqJ'Pia sempetYirens (Coast Redwood)
DBK Fourteen and one-half inches (14-1/2"l
ConditiOrt Good
Obser..-ation,:
FoF..age is typical 01 the species indicating nonnal vigor. Excavation
wiD encroach to within five f~ (5' of the tnmI< and encompass
app;uximatel) twenty pen::ent (20") 01 the functional root area
With adoption of preservation measures to include irrigatiOn and
fertilizatiOn, prognosis is good.
29_ Specie: 5eqJlria semp.,.yjnms (Coast Redwood)
DBK Twenty-four and one-half inches (24-1/2"l
Condition: Good
Observations
Foliag~ is typical of t.~. species indicating normal vigor. Excavation
win er,croach to within twelve feet (12') of the trunlc Minimal
injuly to functional root, is anticipat ed.
L
I
-
30. Spede: SeqJIri. semperyinms (Coast Redwood)
DBH: Twenty-loUT .nd one-half inc!1es (24-1/21
Condition: Good
Observations,
FoUase IS typical of the species indicating normal Vigor. Ex!:avation
WiD enaoac:h to wttl'in six feet (6' of the trunk and encompass
approXImately twenty-five pen:em (25'1;) of the fUnctional root area.
With acloption of preservation measures the prognosis IS considered
good.
31. Spede: Sequoia semperyinms (Coast Redwoodl
DBH: Twent"j-one inc!1es (21"1
Condition: Good
Observations,
Foliage Is typical of the species indicating norm~l vigor. E=vation
... 10 encroach to within twelve feet (12') of the trunk, how ...... r,
&.nimal injury to functional roots is antidpate ci
32. SpEcie: CameJ!i. j;qxmic.a (Camellia 1
DBH: Three inches (51
Conditiono Good
Observation.,
Plant to be removed for constT'llation
33. Specie: Rhgdodendmn species (Rhododendron I
DBH: Multi-trun1<eclc Two inches (2""~ two inche:s (21 and one
inc!1 WI
Condition: PooT.
Oooervations'
Considered a poor specimen. Plant has no low laterals, has become
very woody and fotiage has been Injured by thnp infestation.
Removal is recommended.
34. Spede: Rhgdodendmn species (Rhododendron I
DBH: Multi-tnmked, Two inches (2'1 one inc!1 (I") and ooe inch (I")
;-~
Conditione Good.
Observationsc
Foliage is of unifonn me, Vigor and coloration Plant WiD not be
impacted by construction.
L
,
'~~ I ·;~!-
, ,
I
!
! ,
I
r~~l·-'_.··· ... ---....... _, ... o~~· __ · __ · __ ·
,!
f ,
I
35. Spede: U)tpILH1cl!a j;Iponi... (Uyptomeria)
OBK T""lve inches (12")
Condltion: FaiT.
Observations:
FoGage is attnbuted to shaded canopy and interior dead woccl is
I}picaJ of the spedes. !'fo impact as' resuJt of <:onstruction WiD occur.
36. Sped", f)aagm!ba " " i .. "" (Pyracantha)
OBH: Multi-trunkeci Two and one-forth lnches (2·1/4"), two inches
(2") and one and one-half lnches (1·112")
Condition: Fair.
Observations:
Foliage is t;pi,::a1 of the Spedes and infested w;'.h wooly aphid. I"oant
is b:ated beyond scope of construction.
37" Spede: Dex aquifPljum «English Holly)
OBK Three inches (3")
Observations:
Tree has been removed
38. Sped", Laurus Dnbf!js (Sweet Bay)
OBK Eight inch ... (8")
Condition: Good
Observations:
T~ is located at edge of proposed excavation and should be removed
39. Spede' Otni$spedeS ICitrus)
OBK Three inches (3")
Observations:
Tree has been removed
40. Spede ~a j;Iponica (CryptomeriaJ
DBA: Thirteen and one half \flches (13-1/2")
Condi tion: Fair to Good.
Observations:
Browned fOliage is attributed 10 shaded canopy and interior dead wood
is !)pica1 0( the species. Nu impact .s a resull of construction will
occur.
------,.-~---"L
. :..r ',;;'
.. .;;;:;'ii;~:;~~~,~ '. ..
;~~.~J! . .f;~-.'.
41. Spede: ncx acprttolium (English Holly)
DBti: Mul\\-trunJ<:ed Three Inches (3") and two inch"" (2")
Condition: Good
Observations,
Foliage is considered typical 0/ the spedes. Shrub is beyond
cx>ilStruction are a and no impact wiD. re51J 1t from construction
42. Spede ncx aqWfPlillm (English Holly)
OBH: Two Inch.,. (2")
Condition: Good.
Observations,
Foliage is considered typical 0/ the e;pedes. Shrub is beyond
con:stnJctjon area and no impact Will result from construction
43. Spede: IIa aquifglimn (English Holly)
DBH: n.-ee inches (3")
Observations,
Tree has been removed.
44. Spede: "ex aqPifP!ium (EngHsh Holly)
DBH: One and one-half Inches (1-1/2")
Conditio'" Good
Observations,
Fobage is considered typical 0/ the species. Shrub is beyond
COnstNction area and no impad "WiD result from construction
45. Sped.. "ex aQJ!j!g1jum (EngUsh nolly)
DBH: Five inches (5'}
Condi tion: Good
Observations,
Fobage is considered typical 0/ the species. Shrub is beyond
construc:bOn area and no 1rnpact "",11 result from constructlon..
46. Spede AesgJbI< c:amea (Horse O1estn\Jt)
DBH: Two and one-half inches (2-1/2")
Condition.: Fair.
Observations,
Fohge is sparse and lac:ks vigor. Located beyond constrcction area
and no impact from construction is anticipated.
47. Spede Oex aquifohwn (EngHsh Holly)
DeH: 11-.-and one-half mches (3--1/2")
Conditiono Good
"--.' .L·-·--··--:-·
. : .
-
•
-
o
Jao-/PeIei." ...... IOdaI .... Inc.
Page -II
47. Specie: l!t:x aqyi!Pl!um (English Holly) continued
Observations,
Foliage is considered typical at the species. Shrub Is beyond
construction and and no Impact win , ..... 11 from C,",lStruction.
48 Specie: MasnoHuou1angiana (Saucer Magno11a)
DBH: MuIt!-\:!\lnJ<ec1 Three inches (3") and two and une-halt
inches (H /2")
Condition, Fair.
Observations,
Slight di ebad< at branch ends was noted. Tree WiD be removed lor
construction.
49. Specie: AMO'b" QII"IlN (Horse Olestnut)
DBIt Three and thnee-fourth inches (3-3/4")
Condition: Fair.
Observation"
Foliage is sparse and lacks Vigor. Located beyond construction area
and 110 impad from construction is antiC paled
50. Specie Oex "qnjfgljum (EngEsh Holly)
DBIt One and one-half inches (1-1/21
Condition: Poor.
Observation s:
Canopy is stunted and consists at waler spTO<rts Shrub is Joc.ated
weD beyond ccnstruction area .nd no impact to tree health as a
result at excavatiOn is anticipated.
51. Specie: AcgrnlOOa (Red Maple)
DBIt Two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4")
Condition: FaiT.
Observations:
Foliage is slighUy sparse and law Vigor. No impact as a result
at construction is anticipated.
52. Specie: SnpJoj. sempenan:ns (Coast Redwood)
DBH: Fourteen and one·half Inches (14·1/2")
Condition Fair to Good
.-;fo ,
-
o ,r-
Page -12-
52. Sped"' 5n;pmia:sempctYiren:< (Coast Redwood) continlJed
Observations,
Foliage is eX unifonn siZ1!, however, tree lacks Vigor. Iry is present
In low trunlt Construction will encroach to within five feet (51 and
encompass less tNr, ~ty percent (2!l't) of tI1e functional root area
W:th adoptiOn of preseTVation measures, prognosis is considered
good
53. Spede IImrrubra (Red r&ple)
OBit Two and one-fourth inches (2-1/4")
Condition: Vet)' Poor.
Observations:
Thee Is in severe declin~ and should be removed. Construction is
wen beyond tree envirtJoment and no impact is anticipated.
54. Sped", SequcU sempervuens (Coast Redwood)
OBit 5e .... nteen and one-half inches (17·1/2")
Condj lion: Good
Observati ons:
Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal VigD!'. No
impact from construction will OCClJr.
55. Spede Smpna sempcrvin:n5 (Coast Redwood)
DBH: Twenty-seven and one-half inches (27·1/2")
Condition: Good
Observations:
Foliage is typical for the species and indicates normal Vigor. No
tnpad from constnJctiotl wi1I occur.
56. Spede Prunus CC!'i!5jfera (WUd Plum)
OBH: Eight inch.,. (8")
Condj tion: Fair to Good
Observation s:
Tnee is heavily suckered and is considered an undesirable specimen
Thee is beyond scope of con struction, however, removal is
recommended.
57. Sped'" Seq"gja sempervimO$ (Coast Redwood)
OBit Thirteen inches (13")
Condition: Good
ObseTVations
Foliage is typical of the species and indicates normal Vigor.
impad from constn.:dkm will occur.
L
No
>
..J
}t7tes/1'etena'l Assx:iates, Inc.
Page -I~
58 Speci e: I!rit h dlya jap<YKa (Loq\Jo t)
DIlH. Four inches (4")
Condl tion: Cood
Observationso
.,
Fotiage ;s typical for the spedes Tree is Icx:ated weD beyond the
scope 0( construction.
59. Specie: Seqpnia scmpervmms (Coast Redwood)
DBK Nineteen inches (19")
Condition: Good
ObservatiOl'.So
Foliage is typical 0( the species and indicates normal vigO!". No
impad from construction will occur.
60. Spede: I Xp1idambar styrariflua (Sweet Gum)
DBK Two and one-half inches (2-1/2")
Conc!ltion; Fair.
Observations,
Foliage was stunted and· sparse inc&ating a lack 0( vigO!". Tree i5
Ioc;ated weD beyond the scope of co".struction
61 through 70 Omitted from this survey
?! Sped... Pqpub,s nigra 'Italj",,' (LOJ"nbardy Poplar)
DBH: 5txIe-en inches (16;
Condition: Fair.
Observation"
Foliage is typical 0( the spedes. T~ee Will be rem"".<i' for consiTuction.
Qnl<goNQb;; (Ginkgo)
MuJti-tnmked Three and one-half inches and three and one
half inches (3·1/2")
Cond,tio", Good.
Observa bon"
Foliage is typical of the spedes Secondary leader is a suaer and
should be remO\ed. This tree will be remO\led' for construction.
ho-wever, such a specimen should be considered for relocation.
i
1 -~
I
-
-,---,..~ .•••
73. Sped.. limeN",. decnmmo; (Incense Cedar)
DBIt Seven and one-fourth incl1e. (7-1/~'J
Condi bon: Fair to Good
Obs ervation.:
Foliage is typical of the .pede. although low branching has
been cut bac:l< for wa1lcway dearanee. This tt'ee Will be removed
for construction.
The following preservation measures are provided to protect the trees during
the construction phase and to enhance the growing condition within eacl1
tree's enVironm ent.
BARlUCADES
Friar to in!tia1:ian of constNctlOn actiVity, temporary barncades should be
installed around aD tree. in the construction area. These barricades Will be
placed around indMllual trees and I or groups of trees •• the existmg
environment dictates.
The temporaJy barricades WIll .."...., to protect trunks, roots and branches
from mechanical injuries, WIll inhibit stockpiling of construction materials or
debris within the sensitive 'dripline' areas and wiD prevent sal compaction
for increased vehicular/pedestrian traffic. These barricades should remain in
pi ace until completion of project.
ROOT PRUNING
Dunng 3l1d upon completion of any trencl1ing/grading operation Withln •
tree's 'dripline', .hould any roots greater that two Inches (2") in diameter be
damaged. broKen or severed. timely root pruning to indude flush ClJtting and
sealing of ""J'OSed roots .hould be accomplis.ied under the supervision of a
qualified arborist to minimize root deteriO!"ation beyond the soil line.
FERTILIZATION
A program of fertilization by means of deep root .oiI injection Is
recornmende<1 With applications in Spnng and Summer for those tree. to be
impacted by construction.
,
I
"''''''~.''.'"'. 'F_~
'-".-,,~
-'
•
. i
!
I
I
i
j
1
I
!
I
I
I
-
FERTILIZATION continUed
Sudl fertilization wtI1 serve te stimulale feeder root development, offset
shod</stre5s as related to construction and/or environmen!al factors,
en~ vigor, alleviate soii compaction and corr.pensate for any
encroachment 01 natural feedIng root areas"
Inreption 01 this fertiliziJ1g program is recomm""Aed pnor to the :nmabon of
construction activlty
IRRIGATION
A ptogIalli of supplemental irrigation is recommended for aD species to be
impacted by construct:io,," lrrigation app~c:a\Y)ns shoold be accornplislted at
regulaT four (C) wee!< intervals <lIlring the periOd May 1st through October
31st"
Irrigation is ro be appli ed at or about the 'dripline' In an amount sufficient to
S<lpp1y approxtmately twenty (20) ganons of water for each inch in cfb!1"
ThIs program snowd be implemented arnruaDy er at lust until project
completion or the return of normal Tainfai1 and weather patterns over
several consecutiVe years"
Irrigation can be provided by means of a soil needle, 'soaker' or permeable
hose. When using 'soaker" or penneabIe hoses, water is to be i..r.1. at low
pressure, avoiding r..moff /puddHng a!!oIMng the needed mOisture to
penetrate \he soil to feeder root depths
It Is our hope this information WiD be of assistance in your tree preservation
concerns. We thank you for this opportunity to be of service.
JMMc:pm
Ve,)druly yours,
I S" P MCCLErrrft. INC
" 'IQt~
By J me. M" McOenahan
ident
Consulting Arbonst, Registration No" 249, ASCA
•
•
. ..-: ,i.e;,>
-
May 3, 1991
PLAHNING COMMISSION
f.l. Alto, C.llf."i.
o
850 WEBSTER STREET, APPLICATION FOR PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE
A~ENQMENT ANn VARIANCE. fILE NOS. 91·ZC-2. 91·V·4. 91·ARB·I)
Kembers of the Co..is,lon:
BACKS RO\JlIIl
ThIs It .. was origln.lly scheduled for the Planning Commission meeting of
Harth 27, 1991~ It was c~n~inued, at th~ applicant's request, to th! meeting
of Kay 8, 1991 to .110. time for the applioant to work with concerned
residents of Channing Hcu.se4 Tn::!! applicar,t is now propOSing SOi!le revisilUls to
tne request for building aodificatl0ns in conjunction with seismic upgrading.
Attac~ed you will find. detailed description of the ch.nges and the s.is.ie
upgrading teekniQue now proposed to be used to $tre~gthen the Channing House
building, IS well as revised plans. The orlgin.l st.ff roport .nd pl.n, were
distributed to the Planning Commission in the M.cch 27, 1991 .. etlng packet;
if YDU need inother COp! of either, please contict Cathy Sims It 329-,440.
REVISED SEISMIC UPGRADING PROPOSAL
T"~ sefs.ic upgrading technique proposed is called -bast 1so1atio~~· This
method essentially separates tht building frem the ground around it, thereby
reducing the forces transferr~d frD~ the ground to tne building du~ing an
eirthQ~ake. Most of the struct~ral work is focused in the basement and on the
base of the columns wh~ch currently supp~rt the bullding. The ~od;f1cation5
to the building exterf~r, is I result of the previously proposed column
enlargements, would not be necessary. H~ever, the new seryice elevator
remains part of the propos.l .
. Staff's concerns regarding construction impacts on the residents of Channing
House are greatly reduced t~roygh this ilternative. However, staff continues
to be concerned about parking.· both during construction and long-tenn , and
about the potential loss of landscaping. espeoially since the proposed base
isolation technique reQuires trenching around the perimeter of the building.
The ,"vised pl.ns ,ubmitted by tne applicant w.re not received in time for
staff review prior to th! preparation of this DemO. HDwever~ based on
info~tion presented fn th~ appliclnt's letter. it appears that th~$e tS$ues
tin be adequately addressed prior to final Plann~ng Commission review.
L
: .
•.. .n .......... __ ~~~ .. ________ ~~ , ... -. ---~ " '--..
!
r i
. !
-
o
St&ff bel 1 eyes It would be .pproprlate for the Cooalsslon to act on the
request for conceptual approyal for the PC a .. ndDent and the .ariance, and
, .. tinues to rec .... nd approval. More detailed plans will then be forwarded
t. the ArchItectural Reyiew Board. The final plans would return to the
Plann1ng Commission, with I.reco=menclation from t~e Architectural Review
Board, for final review and recommend.tion to the City Council.
RECOIII£HOA TIOII
St.ff rec .... nds that the Pl.n.lng
the proposal, conceptullTy approve
amendment and ~efght variance, and
Reylew Board review.
Commissfo~ address In1 po"cy Que$tfons af
the proposed Planned Community Zone
forward the appll<otion for Architectural
~~(!~ ZONI~~~\HISTRATOR
LJT/cs
Attaclw"ts. MI) 1, 1991 lette. f. eM Staph!" W. 'll'}et
Ph ••
ce: Architectural Review Soard
Fred Herman, Chief Building Officiol
Channing House, fred Seal, Administrator, 8S0 Webster Street, Palo Alto.
94301
Steve Player , Crilt, Griffiths. Schulz I Bjorn, 550 Hamilton Avenue,
Pilo Alto, 94301
Bill Boc.ok, Ar,hltect, 404] £1 Ca.!no Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Arthur Rule, B50 Webster Street, Apt. 728 Palo Alto, 94301
Mr. and Mr •. Lein.r, 8SC Webster Street, Apt. 635, Polo Alto 9430]
I
o -,
TO: PALO ALTO HAHIWIG eoilMISSIOH
FIll HD.: 90-Zt-Z, 90-V-4, 90-ARB-11
PREPARED 8Y: lori Topley
DATE: March 22, 1991
PRQJECT (NFORMATION
lpq.tloD i
APD] Scant:
property Owner;
PRQJEtJ SU!!MAl!y
850 lIebster Street
Palo AHo, CA 94101
B.H. Bocook, Archlte<t, Inc.
4041 £1 Camino lIay
'ale Alto, CA 94306
Channing House, Fred Seal. Admi~istritor
850 lIebster Street
Pile Alto, eA 94301
Planned Community Zone Amendment and Yarfance to
height If.it
The applicant propos.s to amend the existing PC zone for this property to
illow •• Is.ie structural upgrading of the ',isting building and the addition
of I service elevatGr at the Cnanning Avenue side of tne building. The
elevator addition requires app~va' of I Yirfance to exceed the current 35-
foot height limit by 6B.5 f •• t. The total h,lght of the ,l,vater i. lIB.S
feet. The existing building, including the existing elevator eQulpmont
hOUSing, is 138 feet in height (142 feet inclUding the chimney stack).
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Staff recomme-nd.s that t~e Planning C01II!Iis.sion address any policy questtor,s of
this proposll, conceptually approye the proposed Planned Community Zo~e
Amendment arod Height Variance. Ind forward the Ipplicltion for Architecturil
Rev1ew Board review.
SITE INF08I!ATlDH
parcel Size;
Asses$Qr's Parte) Num~@r:
Existfnq 19n1ng:
<~" •
~,::'';''
112,000 'Quare feet (three parcels).
120-05-002, 003, and 027_
Planned Community (Ordinance No. 2492}.
3/22/91
Page 1
•
r ,
i
j
tQlPT1bens1YI "an
PcSfqDJtign:
Densitv:
Eli sting lInd UiC;
SutrQynd1ca land V;e:
lHstoTY:
Mandatpry Act1Dn Datefs};
EnyjrDmme~tll Impact
Assessment;
A!!ALXSIS
PROJECT OESCRIPTIO~
Multlpl. family Residential.
IZS units per acrt (exlstln9).
Ch,nolns House Retlreoent Center.
North (Web.ter St.); Church, Multlple·famlly
South (Cooper St.): Multlple·famlly
East [Channing Ave.}: Multlple·fa&lly
West (Homer Aye.): Singl. lnd Multlple·famlly
Orlgln.1 PC approyed lIarch U61, III nor
..... ndments to PC approved Oecember 1961,
February 196Z, .nd March 1969.
The application was filed on Febr.ary 21, 1991,
and was deemed compl.te on March B, 1991. Th.
Planning Cooml.,lon must hold a public h.arlng
within 90 days of th.t date. If the Planning
Commission acts fa,oribly In Its Initl.1 r.ylew
of the Planned Cooownity amendment application,
the development pl.n will be submitted to the
Architectural Review Board for review. The
development pl.n, as approved by the
Archlte<tural Review Board, Is then returned to
the Planning Commission for fln'l review and
recCimendatlon to the City Council for fln'l
action. Subject to the recent Zoning Ordinance
a .. ndments adopted by the City Council In
F.bruary 1~91, the Variance Will be processed
concurrently and in the SAme manner as the
Planned Comaunlty ..... ndm.nt request.
Thi, project has be.n detenoined to bo
categorlc.lly .x.mpt from tne r'Quiremonts of
tEQA. Cl.ss 10 exemptio, .• dditlons to
existing buildings of Ie,s than 10,000 SQ. ft.
which Ire not located ;n In en'lo'iTDnmental1y
sensitiy! area and where all public services and
facilitIes are a~ii1lble4
The applicant is proposing to s!is=;cal1, upgrade t~e existing Channing House
and to .dd • service .leyator .t the Channing Avenue side of the building.
Tf'le sef.Sllic: upgrade "nvalves adding interior shear" walls and floor CDnnettDr.s~
p:\It\85O-NoWt .... 3122191
PaQe2
~.
0. the • .terlor Df the buIlding. column. at c~rtlin locltlon •• as Ideotlfied
on the pl.n •• ~uld be enlarged to eight f.et wide. Th •• nlargement of these
tolu.n. will necosslt.t. th~. chlnges: 1) removal of a three·foot·wide pinel
of ~h .. froe 'lC~ unit adjacent to I col_. reducing t~e nu=ber of glass
panel. froe four to three in .ost units; Z). reduction In the amount of
balcony spice Iv.llabl. for .ach .ffected unit (approxlm.tlly 12 sq. ft. per
col ... ); however. no balcony would be reduced to 1 ••• than the SO s~. ft.
~qulred by the zoning ordinance; Ind 3) re.triplng of the b.s.ment parkIng
arei to acca.modate enlarged columns, rfsultfng in no net loss of 5pacrs but
an Increased number of compact spaces, zest just .t or slightly larger than
the .infmu. $ile allowed. Ir. additfon, the existing surface parking on
Vebster Street whIch contains 54 spaces (one of whlch Is handicapped) would be
restriped to accommodate three additional han~lc.pp.d space. for a total of
four handicapped spaces and SO regullr spaces, .1so resulting in no net 10s5
of s~ac:e$.
lhe service elevitor would be loc.ted an the Channing ~yenue side of the
building, apprDxi~ate11 9 feet deep 2nd 3) feet wide. However, the ~;nimum
building setback would only b. reduced from 30.5 feet to 25 feet, due to the
lngl. of the existing building and t~e placement of the new .d~itio". Th.
ele.ator would extend only to the tenth floor, so toat the elevator equIpment
housing can b! located it t~e elevent~ floor level. thus kee?ing the overill
height of the e1ev.tor .haft equal to the building height at this side of the
building. Each floor of the elevator is .pproxi~.tely 280 squae, feet in
size. for In oyerall floor .rea increase of ~.eoo square feet.
The elentoT 15 proposed fOT eNrgency personnel and health car-! use. blJildfng
serYic~, sup~lies, move·;"s. etc .• and is located adjatent to the present
service aTel. However, the new e1evitor structure is also planned to be
uti11zed as part of tne seisqic upgrading for the south end of the building.
DeVelopmgnt Schedule
Tn~ applicant estimates that construction would start in AU9ust or September
1991, if City approvills ire finaHzed by June-. .!on '-1ir'I::'Lr\,ldion would then
be complete~ ~itnin two years from the start date.
Although the existing building height of 138 feet W4S complying when thanning
House was bul't in the e.r1y !PSO' •• the l1B.5 foot high .1evator additIon
would exceed the currently .1lowed l'·foot max;mum height limit by 83.~ feet.
Tne 35·foot helght limit applies to structures located adjacent to any R~ IDne
beside. RM·30 or RH·40 (otherwise. mlxlm .. height .'lowed is 50 feet). As can
be seen on the attached location ~apt this site is adjacent to an RM·15 zone
en both the th~n~lng Avenue and W~bsttr ~ye~ue Sl~!s. The applicant has
appl1ed for, variance in conjunction ~ith the PC amendment to Illow this
increased height. However, since Section 18.88.100 Allows i neight exception
Df 15 feet for elevator eqUipment, the variante reQuest is to exceed the
height 11,lt by only 68.S feet rither than 83.5 f •• t.
p:1ItI8S0websur
L
3122191
Pal)e 3
;
--~
•
:.:;,,;.,,;
i~~l
-
The Pl.nned toomunity 20n. aaendlent application i, r.~uired t. follow a
procoss Whereby It Is gl •• n prell_Inary re.low by t~e PlannIng Comoission.
The public hearing sc~eduled for Karch 27, 1991, Is Intended for tnls purpose
and I. the subject of this report. Should the Ccanls,i •• let flVOribl] at
thiS In!tlal review, the plan. will be referred to the ARB for its
rec_ndatlon.. The 'e.eiDpooent plan, .. approved by the AAlI, is th.n
returned to the Pl.nnlng tmomlsslon for Its fl •• l review and recommendation
before suo-Ittal to the City Council for fln.l action.
Prior to making. final recooaendatlon to tne City CouncIl. the 'oomlsslon is
required to .. to specIfic detenoln.tlons Ibout tne project .nd to IpprDye an
enYironae~t.l determination, speclffc program statement, development plan, and
develop.ont schedule tnat will bee ... the b.sis for the amendment to the sit.,
specific regulations applied within this existing PC Zone district.
[n .ost 1n5tances, a PC a.endaent Df this scope .ould be processed as a .t~or
PC uendEnt Ind hilndled It the ARB level. However .. because I Variance 1$
also required, the application must be processed IS • major PC a~ndment, thus
requiring both Planning Commission and City Council revle~.
ISSUES OF CONCERN
Potd,ing
The original PC ordinance approved far th\s project ift 19£1 re~uired 1 ~i~imum
of 123 Dn,.fte parking space., 73 covered and SO uncovered. In 1969. the
propertle.at 520 and 532 H .... r Avenue were added to this PC district to 0110.
for additional Channing House parking. A use peMiit was issued fo~ the
plrklng lot (69·UP·6) and It is cHrrently deyeloped witn 36 spaces.' There are
73 covered spaces lDcated in the bas~~nt garage, ilnd S4 uncovered spaces
loc.ted fn the Webster Street surf.ce lot.
Tne garage parking must be restriped to accommodate the widening of structural
cvluams. The plans indicate that, following the restriping. t~ere would still
be a total of 73 spaCES. Ho~ever* the nu~r of compact spaces would be
Increased from 15 to 32 (25 percent of total on-site spaces, but 44 percent of
garage spaces). Of the 32 compact spices, almost half are at ar near the
.ini~ width ~llow.d of 7'6" feet_ Addition.lly, it .ppears that stail
nu~r 56 il less than the mi~imw. 7 /6-width required. Staff is ilsa
concerned about the ~sab1llty of compact spaces located next to cDlumns (most
notably .tall numbers 2, 11, 55, and 51). Tbes. spates "'1 be too difficult
to use except by the smallest of Cars or the more skfllful drivers.
There .. , be .everal ~.ys t. help offs.t the Teductfon in u •• bility of g.r.ge
spaces. Sfnce the garage spaces art assigned to spec1f~c residents, those
Whose spaces may be difficult to negotiate could be given •• let •• sfstance by
thinning House employe.s. Also. it may be possible to require that addition.l
parking spaces be added to the surface parking l~t located on Homer A~enue.
p:\tt\850weblt.lr
L
3122191
P.~e "
.:.>
,
-.--:-~
,
i
~
,
r
I
i -I
j
i
I
f
I
I
i
r-
o
It fs st.ff's understandIng thlt .11 of the Chinning House p.rking .rels Ire
.. 11 used. Staff is currently con~ut\ln9 • random sur •• y of the parking
sltuatfon to .erlfy t,ls and will report the findings to the Commis,'on at the
"'r(~ 27, 1991 helrfng.
The e'evlt1Dn~ indic.te t~e locltfon of the ~nl'rged CQTumns on the exterior
of the bulldfng. The columns would be loclted behind the ,xistfng bllcony
rails, wh't~ will offer some screening. As a result of enlirging t~e calumnl,
some glass .~st be D~;tted. The architect indicates t~at in ~st ClStS, this
result. fn the 'oss of only one three foot wide gllss panel per unit affected.
Additlonilly, • s .. ll -=aunt of outdoor balconj space would be lost to the
enllrged columns. -The photographs Ind floor pllns found on sheet A4 of the
~lin sets illustrate the extent of wi~do. and balceny space loss~ As noted
previously, no balcony wc·uld be reduced to less than the SO so.. ft. reQuir!d
by the zoning ordinance.
L1D~SCi'P~n9
The v~etatfon ,long t~e C~anni~9 Avenue side of the b~ilc;ng, i~ the location
of the proposed service elevat~r, includes several redwood ~nd ~tner conifer
trees which htlp to screen the txist,ng bu'lding. The new elevltor idd,tion
will project from tne b"ilding .n Iddition.l 9 feet, .pproxi~.t.1y tn.
distlnce ~f the existing s;dewalk~ A new sidewalk 4 to 5 feet in width is
proposed tD be cDnstructed around the new Iddition. It appears that t~is ne~
constructfon would necessitate the removal of one S-t~ lO-inch diameter bay
tree~ The rem~1ning screen trees would not need to be removed to allow for
the addition, but could be damaged d~ring ,onstruction~ Because of the
valuable screening they provide, conditions must be deve10ped for tnis prDject
to ensure preservation of these trees durin9 construction. Additionally.
beca~i the new sidewalk would be located nearer to the root~ of thes! lArge
trees, 1iftl"g of the sidew.1k could occur. To help •• oid this dangero",
situatfon, a roci barrier shou1d be constructed along the edge of th~ wal~ay.
tDnst~uctipn Impact}
WhiTe staff is s~pportive of al' efforts to seismically upgrade buildings
located in Pale Alto. especi~l1y those whfch house large numbers of people,
bot~ s~ort~term a~~ long· term impacts to the residents ire expected a~ a
result of the proposed constr~ction. Long-term impacts include the reduction
of Dutdoor balcony space f~r almost all of tne units Il~n9 the Webster Street
side of t~e b~ildin9, and the reduction in the size and usability of some
garage plrking spaces. Staff is also concerned abo~t t~e sh~rt-term effects
of constr~ction on residents of Cnanning House. from the plans submitted. it
.ppears that DOre than 75 percent of tne units would be directly affected by
construct;Qn~ All of the residents would be subject to the noise and
incon~enience of such a 1 irge sCile ,onstr~ction project. Staff ",as not been
presented with det.ils of the development ,chedule, except for tne over.11 two
year ti .. period expected for completion of .11 work. Staff beli.v.s thit
~cause the work involved will effect the liyability of some ~nits. t~mp~rlry
p:\h\85Owebst.sr 3Jlll5'
Page 5
(. :
:?
,-~~
~--
-\
i
,-,
I
l
"
j
,1
i~
I
j
;
·1
II
ij
-
C' •• "
o
relocation .f theo. resldont ... y be necessary. Addltion,lly, there .ay be
.... I~acts on plrklng l.all.bllity If the garage spices Ire "n.,allable lnd
I portlDn of the Vebster Street .urflee lot Is .,.d ror construction staging.
The applicant ShDUld be required to submit I temporary plrking pIa. Indicating
how parking need. will be addressed during the construction period.
PUBLIC BENEfIT
The obJectl,e and prl .. ry public boneflt of this proposed project Is
Increasing occupant Slf.ty by bringing the building up to H13 L1 f. Safety
le.eh (the building was con.tT'Jeted In 1961). The proposed .ervlce .levator,
in addition t. contributing t. the selsolc struct"r.l upgrading of the south
side of the building, will .llow staff and other personnel to avoid the
disruptive use of the front elevator lobby for emergency and other service
use. It should be noted th.t this 10 a yoluntary selssic upgr.de and nDt
mandated by City ordinance.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPll~CE
The uses and site de.elopment regulations within the pt Planned Community
district .. sl be deter.ined to be con,istent with the Ccmprehenslve Plan. The
objective of the Cocprehenslye Plan con.ldered most pertinent to this propos.l
Is the f.llowing:
Environment,' Resource' ~edyce the potential fDr injury and loss of lif~ ind
the possibility Df property damage (through remodels to current code ond
seismic retrofit}.
Stlf~ recoamends tnat the Planning Commission address any policy QuestiDns of
this propos.l, conceptually approve the propo.ed Planned Community Zone
amendment and height Yarlance, and fo .. ocd the application for Architectural
Re~iew Board rev~ew.
flI!PIH2S
Not applicable fo~ an initial reyie~.
CO!/IlITTPI!S
Recommended conditfons will be provided for the Co~iss1on it final review of
the 'pplieotion.
p:\tt\850Mlbst.1l 3122191
Page 6
•
\ "
.; -, .
. ;
-
<>
ro. Stat_nt
letter in """PO
Locot Ion !lip
Projoct Pi "nS n
CoPIES sm TO
Architectural Rovl.w Board
fro. applicAnt, dat.d reb ,~-
findings fr n , dated rebru .. y 22, 1991
.. Only)
Chan"lng Houso, rred Soal, Administrator, 850 Webster St ... t, Palo Alto, 94301
Steve Player, Crist, 'rlffiths, Schulz I Biorn, 550 Hamilton Avenue, Palo
Alto, 94301
Arthur Rule, 850 Webster Street, APt. 728, PlIo Alto, 94301
Mr. and Mrs. leiner, 850 Webster Stre.t, APt. 635, Palo Alto, CA 94301
m ?, J ....,.... ..... ;
3122191
~,
'.
'I
I ,
z.
.-;
-. .:. ' "<'",--~ ,"
JUlIE J, lUI
[)(CERPT SUlllWtY
ARCHITECTURAL REVIE'II BOW MINUTES
850 WEBSTER STREET
850 \lUSTER STREET •
Channing House
91-ARB-13
91-ZC-2
91-V-4
Seismic structural y~gTidin9 lnd addition cf service e1evato~ to
existing senior residential complex.
No public comment_
ARCHITECTURAl REVIEW BOARD ACTION: APPROVED, 4-0-0-1, Julie M.,er
absent, with th~ follo~ing stiff conditions:
CONDITIONS
Staff recommends that the ARB ~eeommend approvAl of tne PC zone
amendment to t~e City Council, with the following conditions.
Add1tional conditions may ~ recommended witn the ordinance at the
Planning Commission final review.
1. #0. tree protection plil!"., pre~ared by I c.e'l"t~fied IrbDT'ist, shall
be submitted for staff approval prior to issuance of a building
permit. The plan shall specifically address measures to
protect the conifer tre!s located .leng the Channing Avenue
side Qf th! building, and iny Qther trees ~1ch may be iffected
by the seis~ic upgrading ccnstruction.
2. A landscape p1an and/or statement shall be submitted fo~ staff
approval prior to issuance of a building permit. Such plan or
statement shall detail landscaping which will be removed or
damaged by construction, and the nature of rep'acem~nt
landscaping.
EIIll nF EXt ERPT
!<
,~J
::' -
•
.'
1
I
":""
-
AG fNDA ITEM I
o
nAY t, 1991
[J(CERl'T
PLANHIH& COMMISSIOH MINUTES
850 WE8STER STAEET
850 WEBSTER STREET: Applicatio, for (I) k"endment to a
Planned Community zont .t 850 Webster Stre!t (Cnanning
House) t.o al1 ow for se'ism1c tlpgrad ing through en12rge.'1'1ent
of EXisting structural celurnns and addition of a service
elevitor it the east (C~anning Avenue) side of the
building; and (2) a variance to a'lo~ a ne~ 1]9-foot·~igh
service elevator to exceed the city's maximum neignt
"mit of 35 feet. Environmental Assessment: This
project has been determined to be Categorically Exempt
frtHO the-requirements ~f CEQA. Z{I!'I.e D;ztrict: F-lanned
Community. file Nos. 91-ZC-2, 9J·V-4, 9!-ARB-13.
Continued from the planning commlsslon meeting of March
27, 1991.
No staff comments.
("airman Marsh; Are there any Questions for the staff?
CommjssiDner Cullen: Has Fred Herr.an reviewed this proposal before us
tcrdght?
Ms. Top1@y'; Yes. he has.
Commissioner Cul1~n: Does it meet with his approval?
Ms. Topley; Yes.
Chairman Marsh: We will now open the pubiic hearing and hear fro~ t~e
representative of the app1iCint.
Stephen W. Pli¥@T. 1874 Gui~da, Pale AltQ~ {fntroduces persons present
fer this item). I have submitted to you in written form i Tetter dated
May J I 1991 which fairly succinctly sets forth our apphcation. It
represents I change frorn our original application submitted in February,
which utilizes a system ca11ed the seismic isolation method. This;s a
method ~hicn I will ~ot attempt to even begin to explain. That is why we
i
I
"
t
i
I
I -
have the experts here to explain. The board feels t~a~ it will answ~r i
Tot of t~e questions and c~ncerns t~at ~aye been raised by the residents
of Cnanning HOU5! about the impacts of any seismic up9rade on their li~ing
ccnditions and Dn tne buil~;ng as d whole. I am also a member cf the
Board gf Trustees Of Channing ~ouse. Since the lorna Prieta eart~q~ake, we
have moved wit~ some diligence and concern about the buildin9 and the
safety Df ~ur building fOT ~ur residents. As submitted to you, ~e have
conducted prior investigations about He structural integrity of He
building and have determined, after extensiYe consideration, that there is
1 need for dramatic seismic repairs t~ avoid any possible seriouS loss of
life Dr injury to the building in the event of an earthquake similar to
the 1906 earthQuake, or i more severe one. We haie been very ap~reciati~e
cof the cooperatiorl we have had from the city. to t::ate, and ire looking
forward to working with tne city to complete a very creative soiution to a
very difficult problem.
As indicated, this inv~st igat ion Wf ~ave lmdertaken cornmerlced ..... itn the
loma Prieta earthquake. Once we concluded that we needed to go forward
~1th a seismiC upgrade, we have completed the fInancing and the issuance
of some tax-free revenue bonds, which was (1osed on January IS, 1991.
These b<lnds are insl.,Ted b~ Cal Mortgage, a state agency, and will be
utilized by Channing House to pay for these repairs. P.~ I have indicated
1" the letter in the staff report, we are requesting an a.me~dment to our
major revision Df ~ur PC zone to allow us to do the seism1c upgrade and
a1so to add the serv}ce elevator. We are a.lso asking, as p~rt of this'
application, for a variance to allow this service ele~ator to exce~d the
e.'(isting height limit in that zone. In addition, as set forU in my
letter, we are going to be utilizing some of the funds at tne s&me time to
complete an expansion of our sprinkler system and other fire s~fety
e1ements within th! building to comply with th! City of Palo ATto codes
and the retrofit ordinance for high·rise structures in the City of P~lo
Alto.
JPe fef!l that when it is completed, we, as a buard, will have exercised i
responsibility t~ Dur residents to ensure tneir comfort and safety to mak!
Channing House i viable place to ljve for future residents of Channing
House, albeIt any construction project is goi~g to ~a~e some disr~~tion
and some concerns. We feel that t~is new met~od w~ich we are utilizing
(and wny .... e have changed our application) is going to answer as IT'.ar.y of
those is we c;an. There rr.i:ly be some of our T~sidents \>1110 5t111 are
concerned and may not agree that this needs to be done, hut we hope we can
\>Iork towards trying to resolve as ~any of those differences as po~sible.
I w~uld no .... like to introduce Emery Rogers who has a brief stateme~t to
make.
Emeq H. Rosers. 218 lowell Avenue. Palo ~,1to: For the past 14 years.
~ave resided at the abo~e address. My volunteer o~ tne Channi~g Hou~e
Board of Trustees began a decade ago, and I have been t~e elected
president of tnat governing body for the past se~eral years. It is a
Singular privilege fer me to serve the fine residents and employees of
Channing House, as well is to pay personal respect to the honored Memory
of the late Dr. Russe'l Lee, the founder of such an Exceptional
institution for aging and elderly persons. It is my thesis that all of u.s
who have been touched so positively by tnis uniq~el} contributing and
creative indi~idual o~e him the simple return debt of gratitude by
05/08!91
-3-
"'~,
~;
-,:~
I
!
-
ensur~n9 the vigorous contfnuatiDr. intt the f~ture of the dream which he
and his coworkers turned so laboriousl~ into a thoroughly successfu1 re.' Ity.
Vhen the October 17, lS89 lama Prieta earth~uake occurred, everyo~e
r!siding in or ~orling for or responsible to (hanning House was deeply
relieved to observe how stoutly the 21-year-old building ~itnstcod
nature's heavy blow. In spite of this solid test, ho~e~er. I am oroud to
report that the Board of Trustees dec,d~d unanimo~sly ~ot to settle for
breathfng a big sigh cf relief, puttir.g the subject behind us, and moving
on to other matters. The prevai1ing attit'Jde in the aft!nnatn of this
medium sized geologic:' event was a col1ecti~e e~pression of ·wonderful,·
The building was net rendere~ unsafe at all for continued occupancy by tne
effects of the 7.1 earthquake. But ~hat if someth~ng much higger or
closer had happened? After all. Channing House was built to the best of
the prevailing codes in the 1960s, but wouldn't it be prudpnt to take a
new, updated engineering look as we enter the 1990s. He several
independent tecnnica1 reports that came bac\ in rEspons~ to these
Questions ~ere anything b~t comforting. The Board of Trustees then had no
choice but to spring into vigorous action. Teams of residents,
administrators, staff, bo~rd members and inside and outsid~ professiona1s
took form &nd idvanced the project strongl~. Financ~ng was secuTed at 1
propitious time, and it Favorable interest rites. The iist of heroes is
too long tD do justice to each name here. The by13\.,1s of Crlanning HOl~sf
c'early state that -The business and affairs of the corporation shall b~
managed and all corporate powers shall be exercised by or under tne
direction of the Boar.:! of Trustees.-Th~ authority rESponsible for
reaching the deciSions in this major ~atter ~as clear. On the other hand,
every board member also felt quite strongly that while safety of residents
is !bsolutely paramount) disruption of the lives of current residents
during seismic upgrading was also a crucially important consideration.
Clear1y, w!" on the board .... ould not and (ould not evade our funda'TIental1y
compelling responsibility to act always in the long-term interests of
Channing House as a permanent, ongoing institution. But we made up our
minds from the start to pay simultaneous, str1ct attention tc the comfort
and well being of residents and to the staff which serves them. Chan~ing
House ~ants and needs free exp~ession in order to face challenges
knowledgeably and eff('ti~ely. Happily, the h~use t~at ~uss tee built is
filTed .. i.V, an exception.al array of talents an,j experiencE.. OT'derl~
procedur'2s are in pTace to ensure invaluilble open inpl,jt to the trlIst€eS
frOID residents .. Of COLlrse, no one expect free peopl e to agree on
everytning. Having been in the middle of t~i~ preSSing matter since the
first RWhat if-question was asked in the autumn of 1989. not a single day
has gone by without my experiencing an over~he1m;ng sense of gratitude fer
the impressive spectrum of talented, selfless and courageous people from a
~id~ variety of positions and opinion who have ~il1ingly dedicated
themselves to a difficult subject.
Now 9 thanks to the unfJa9gin9 interests and efforts of these many taTents,
both inside and outside of Cnanning House, an advance solution to the
technical challenge of seismic upgrading has been found, re~iewed
clrefijlly by professionals. and approved. This is the Seismic Base
Isolation Method. Not only is seismic reinforcing accomplished more
effectiwely, but its implementation (an be Carried out far less
disruptively in human terms.
Q5j08/91
-4·
l.
l.,;.,
-::;..>
•
~:
~~C
1. . ~ .
i~
I
I
i
L
In a democracy. ,final dEcisions must be made by constitutional me~~ani5ms
after rtasonablt periods of consideration Qf the pros and cons of any
91ven complex situation. Inside Channing House, the bylaws of ovr
institution provide the u1timate framework for decision-making. In the
instance of the prDposed seismic upgrading, the Board of Tru$tees has
~ainstakinglJ listened, learned, cGnsidered, reviewed, and then
~nanlmously approved Icti~n. As summarized genera1'y b~t blunt1y by a top
seism~logist in last nightTs ~ational PBS television special edition of
Na'la an bay area earthquak.es, any neglect of ;rlevitable geological
patterns would ha~e indeed been re~rehensible.
We now proceed externally to the next step, commendin~ for your ear1y
consideration approval of our proposed action dir~cted at achieving a
prompt, landmark so1ution to the seismic prohlfm for the benefit of
todayTs a~d tomorrow's citizens of Pale Alto ~ho are, and will be,
residents of Channing House. T~an~ you for your k,nd attentlon.
T~Qm Neiki~lt 850 V!bster Street. '60C. Palo A1to; 1 have been i resident
of Pilo Alto since 1919, and have lived in Channing House for the past
three years. I am currently the pr~sident of th~ Channing Ho~se
Residents~ CounCil, and as such J attend a11 of the board meeti~gs of the
Board of Trustees. I have revt!wed their de1iberations on the seismic
~pgrading. with considerable attention to their comments and objections.
eecaus~ of tnat, I believe wholeheartedly in the work of the seismic
upgrading and if'l tn.e work. of tne board ir. getting it arranged, and be""!'Je
it will bring great peace of m1nd to tne residents, both present and
future. Tnaf'lk you.
Thomas J. Carter, 8S0 Webster Street. ~621: I have been a resident of
Channing House for three-and-i-half years, and have lived in our city for
the past 3n years. Some six months ago, I was asked to chai~ a committee
on the seismfc ~pgradin9. This was a (ommittee of the reSidents to
consider ~hat ~iS be1n9 proposed and to ict as a liiison bet~een the board
and the residents. We nave had some difficult times, early on, wnen th~
f1rst program .as proposed. We now find that the new program el ;mir.ates
most of the problems that .... e had anticipat~d, and z.lso, for me personally,
it ~as important thct either p~ograrn be do~e. because we feel t~is is a
most important tning for the li~es and safety of all of us li~ing at
Channing House. Tnank you.
Ralph Eliassen. 850 Webster Street. Palo Alto: I have lived in PaTo Alto
for 30 years as a prafessar and a retired consulting en;ineer. We have
lived at Channing House fo~ eight years. One of the things ~e want to
talk about tOf'lignt is how we arrived at the conclusion that we snou1d nave
tnis base isolation method. Among the reside~ts of C~anning House are
four retired professors of c;~il engineering fr~m Stanford Uni~ersity.
There is also an outstanding civil Engineering consultant ~no is an expert '0 this f,eld of construction. We ~ere d,sturbed by the plans adopted by
the Board of Trustees which were presented previcusTJ to you. The plans
were presented to tne residents as the only ~a~ to go. These plans
inc1uded the p7acin~ of structural steel ir, virtually ever~ residence, and
concrete walls were to be built in a number of residences, with ma.ssive
col~mns to be extended at the E~d rooms. This meant upsetting the lives
of practlcilly all of the resicents for a .lear or more, writh phf'1s for
taking them for sb: weeks to other locatiorls. I offered to tak.e my wi Fe
and !l'lyself to a hotel in Boston and send the btll to Mr. Seal, but they
L
05/08/91
-5-
•
,
--
\
-'.'. I
.. ~,.
·"
did not like t~.t.
Boston.
Ha~ing been a professor at M.I.T., we had ties in
A significant num:tH~r, over a 100, signed strenlJOU5 ccmphints \If'hich were
passed on to your commisslon. At that pOint, the engineers' group he1d a
~eting and decided to call Frank Ludato, the member of the Soard of
TrlJstet!s in charge of the building cOl1l'llittee. We aske-d for a meeti~9 with
our gro~p to discuss the ~1ans which were disturbing the residents so muc~
and to consider possible alternatives. This meeting was held or. March
25th, and it was very productive. Our group agreed that the p1ans for
strengther.ing the bwi1di"lJ represe~ted one way to go, but they led to so
~uch irrational opposition from the reSidents on all ~~ars. that
alternative methods of eart;'\luiike protection sl,ould be sought. We
suggested t~at the board and its c~nsult~nts co~sid~r the base isolation
method as a possible alternative. Technlca1 details ~ere discussed.
including the need for extensive work in the basement and en the first
floor. Most af the work would not take p1ace on the second to tenth
f)oors. That was a great blessing to many members of the board. The
board members agreed to authorize their ergineers to study the base
iso1ation technique and its possible application to (ha~nin9 House. Our
9TOUP was requested to prepare a. report to the residents on the resI.Jl t of
the meetlng. On April 3. OuT group submitted its letter to the board to
check with their findings. The administrator ~as directed to prepare
duplicate copies tc be sent immediately to eac~ resident and the next
morning. we heard Many signs of relief from the residents when they heird
they were not gOing to be displaced. We submit this from the Char.nir.g
HQuse engineers group. Tha~k you.
Fred Seal, 630 lakeview Way, Redwood City:. I am tr.e admi nlstr,ater of
Channing House. ~ith the cnange from the original Phil A tn .hat is known
as Plan B. we were ab1e to reduce significantly both the disr~ption
internally to tne residents and also externally to the n~ighbcrhood and to
the praparty. There are still two areas I would like to discuss tonight.
One is park1ng and the other is noise mitigation~
The parxing areas at Channing House, there are four of them -the twa
small lots in front that hold 26 cars apiece. and thete is a large ~arKing
area in the garage that holds 75 cars, and th~re is a parking are~ i~ tne
rear ~nich is currently for emp1oyees. h01ding about 55 cars. The plans
for t"is construction work mean that we are going to ha'.'f to gi .... e up a
portion or all of one of those front parking lots, at least tempcrarily,
and at various times. we will t!ave to give up an.;rwhere from 15 to 2lJ cars
in the garage. We should not ha .... e to close the garage down at any
particular point in time, and tnat means. W~ ~a~e to deal ~ith
approximately 40-45 cars. Our plans currently (and we ha .... e been looking
Throughout Palo AHo and l'1ave found some places to parK cars) are to turr,
the employee parKing lot over to the current residents and guest parking.
We would lease parking areas from the city and from Stanford that "ould
a1low us to run shuttles for our employees and bring them on site. The
o .... era'l effect would basica1ly not change fro~ the present situation.
when we are tnrough with the proj!ct. and the project will require doing
some restriping, partly because of the handicap needs ~f the city and also
because Df the columns in the garage, we will ~ind up ~;th the same number
or possibly even additional parking spaces. The current parKing spaces?
especially in the 9arage. are large, and in several instanc€s, we can
redI.Jce them fro~ two large spaces to three standard size spa~es, remaining
05/08/91
·6·
....
. " i
, ......... ';;f. .... . --",--,-~:"---:.-
. ," . ' . ::
within t~. regulations for parking.
The second area ;s rooi!! miti;,ation. With PTan 8. aill'1Dst all of the
construction, ~ith the except~on of the tlevitor lnd some of th~
addit~onal retiining walls, wil' be in the basement area. We will have
access to the biosement area a.nd .. ill have 111 the cor-tractor> lftorKir-.g do~.
there. We will maintain areas for cutting and sho~ing. all those tnfngs
that lore. notsy .. will be in tne basement area. The project is planned aver
a OI1! year period of t-:me. fn that time f we will rot be Sn all of the
areas of the building simu1taneou:sl.Y~ rt will be iI slow. organized
process so t~at we can contr~l the rumber of workers on site, the trucks,
et!. We will not have to stage a lot of materials on site, and .... e should
be abl~ to g€t by with relative1y little impact on t~e local area.
Commissioner Christensen; Hive you worked wit~ the residents' council on
\/tor-king out a time schedu1e as regards the time of day t~e work. would be
dOMi!?
~al: We ha~e not wor~ed out the time schedule with the res1dents,
but ~e have. and that is part of our preplanning, because we are in the
early design stages, and the contTictoT has not be~n able to te11 us what
his requirements might be, we have not been able to do that. But we
certainly ~ould limit the times of day for ncis~ acti~ities. its durlt~on
in those time periods, and again. FDrest Anderson was the individual who
wor~ed here at the city hall, and t~is wa~ in operit~o~ ~hen they ~ere·
doing the retrofitting here, so he knows the problems of people and is
,,'ery acco;nrnodating in tha.t area. We definitely want to contain it. and we.
are going to do a lot of thi~gs like saw c~tting and core drilling instead
{If jack. harrrners and impact tools wneneller we can to reduce tMe noise.
Commjssioner Huber: In this Umporary parking situation, I take it your
intent is to pro~ide off·site parking not on the streets in the area for
displaced employees? (Yes) ~hat about contractor employee parking?
Mr. Seal: We need to deal with the co~tractor parking. Some of tMe areas
we are designatlng in that l6-spa~e sit! can be used for contractor
parking.
CommiSS;OMer Huber: Do yo~ have any idea how much parking ~~11 be
required it this point?
Mr. Seal: t~ot at this P01r.1. That gets. baCK to the stagir.9 i3.l"1d tirnin9_
Forest Anderson could probably answer that Question better.
Cgrrm;ssioner Culle,,: ] have a Questiol'l for staff. This is an amendment
to a PC. Does it have to meet the same requirements of the origina1 PC?
Are we approving tonight the concept, and it ~ill come back to us ~ith the
details?
Ms. 1ytle: Yes, the process is just the same. After you review It
conceptually this evening, should you recommend app~~~al. it ~ould go on
to the Architectural R~~ie ... Board (ARB) for more detailed design relliellrl.
Then it would return to you for your final recommendation to the city
councjl with an ordinance attac~ed.
COlTlTlissioner Cunen: Think you. There ar-e so many loose ends thit I
05/08/91
·7·
~ '"~~-.~-----:--~"-"L
-
•
•
--'
"
'3':<', , '
<;., ""
\
, I , i
> --,,:' ~'i-·'" '
o
wanted to be s~re we wo~ld see ;t again.
Mr. ")ye~: I ~ou1d na~ like to lnt~oduce 8,1' BvcGo~, our lr:nitect, who
will go over the drawings and revie_ parking. landscaping. EtC.
Bill Bpcook. 4041 El Ca.mi!'1O Way, Palo Alto: I have lived and practiced ;:'1
Pa10 ~1to for l~ years. I would li~e to addres~ the a~ch'tectura'
elements or the plan that are affected. As Fred Seal ~entioned. p3iking
downstairs. there are no parking places lcst. In fact, right now W~ Mave
70-12 spaces, ilnd we ue going to be pr~v~ding 73. T:'i~ reasO!'l for that is
that the original PC required 73 spaces downstairs. Probably, o~er the
years. one of th! spac.es that was originally sliown downstairs was Tost.
There are some ha~dicap and compact stalls required at the lower le~el
because some of the columns ari! enlargec!. Mad'am Chairman, you mentioned
that we il"'! not having the lal"ger c.olumns. "They are not .s l~rge as Oil
the previous plan. ~ut we still have same lal"ge tolumns~ and we &1so ha~e
same a~ded co1~mns i~ the basement. As a re~ult of that, we do have to do
some restriping. Regarding the parking on the street l~vel, rig~t now
there ~re 54 cars, but there is only one handicap stall and is not a
totally legal one. The new plan will pro~ide for four handicap spaces
with two banditap ramps, and the rest of the spaces are for sta~dard sized
cars. So there 'Will not be any compact stalls at the street le~e1. That
is really where yau ~ant the la~e stalls ~nyway. because of the
visitors. So that fut~re parking will be 54 spaces~ is it is no~, a~d
that was reQ~ired by the origina1 PC.
The elevator is being added on one end af the building. We have been
discussing it for sev~ral years, and now seems to be the right time to add
it w~ile the work is being done for the seismic upgrading. That elevator
will be right next to the present service ar~a of the b~ilding so that
trucks. fOQd~ and deli~eries wi', be fight next to t~at Elevator.
PrinCipally, it wil' serve emer~ency needs: ~oving i~, and also for the
seismic bracing. As lang as it is going to be added, the structural
engineer will take advar.tage of thE structural elements of the elevator~
and it will be used for that. R'ght now~ there are o~1y two elevators~
and they are right in the cente;-of the buildir-g. For emergencies and
moving in, that is inconveni€nt. We would like very ~uch to be able to
add the e1e~ator at ttle end of the building to make it ~uch more
convenient to service wehicles~ It ~eEts tbe setback standards required
by the city. The one thing it does not meet is t~e height standard. If
it had been installed when the building was built, there would Mot ha~e
been a problem, but since that time, the city has imposed a ~elght
standard a.nd it ;s now too h.igh for it. Troa.t 1S where the lIar'lance
request comes in.
When Don Peterson tells you a little abo~t the seismic isolation, he ~ill
spea.\: a.bout lawer le~el .. alls th.at are bein.g added. In essence, 'lfe are
separating the building from the ground in the basemer-t so that the ground
does not push against the building, and vice Vf~sa. That comes up to the
su~face of the ground. What then happens is tnat there is a 12-1nch gap
almost all the ~a.y around the building. That gap needs to be deilt with
cosmetically at ground le\.'el .. here people walL It is iI seismic joint.
for all p~act;cal purposes. Buildings all over tOWl'l have seismic joints.
A lot of p~ople do not realize they are there because usually t~ey are
tretted il"ch~tectural1y. You walt on them, yo~ 100l it them, and they
~~pear to be a part of the building. Where that seismic joint crosses i
L
05/08/91
-8-
•
\
\ ,-\'.
~~~,
..... -e;~~~~
pedestrian path, ft will be treated such that it wi1l not be i tripper
element. It will be ble~ded in with the walks. In same cises t the ~alks
will have to be repoured so that they a~e flush with tnat plate. If it
gr>!S to the lar.dscaping, it "il1 be a seismic: phte, but the flr'lish wou1d
not have to be as nice as it would at the front dOQr.
All of the seismic work will be frern the ground d'own~ You will see none
of it except for the e~e~ato~ ~n the end and it two locat;~n5. The front
can~py has two columns supportin9 it. Those columns will be slightly
enlarged and is~lated to do the iso1.tion simply because _e ca~not deal
with that in the garage. On the back side. under the skl11~d nursing
center, next to t~e alley. there are four columns. They will be slightly
enlarged, and the stairs will be isolated, as well as those-four columns.
The isolation is basically a steel and neoprene hard rubber spacing. And
again, i~chitecturally, it will be treated so that it is not
objecti<:mable. So thDse four c~'lJmns in the back and the t .... o columns in
t~e front a~e the only colum~s that you will see two years fr0m now when
you pass by and wonder what was done for seismic bracing, When ~~ go
before the ARB, we will have specific details and elevations sho~ing how
that will ~ treated architecturillYJ as well as the finish for the cover
plates.
We are a1so adding fire sprin~lers to the entire b~11din9, and that wi11
be done in ac,ordance 'With the requirements of the f'lre department.
r~obod'y has said it yet, but it needs to be said that this building is !Tot
re-Quired to be seismically upgraded by the City of Palo Alto. 1t is not
on any list. rt is being done by the board due to their concerns over
safety ~f th~ reSidents, the e~?loye~s there, and the su~rounding
neighborhood.
Commissfoner Cullen; If you are adding sprinklers to all of the units.
how can that b~ dane without disrupt~~9 t~e residents?
Mr. Bocook: The corridors will have sprinklers, and there ~,1' be one
lateral coming off of the If,air. which goes int~ the door of each llnit.
They will not halle to work within the unit, other than tne U'treshold of
the door.
Commissioner Cullen: So it 15 net what 'fie wellld cor.~id-er as completel,.
sprillk.lered, if it were tleing built today.
Mr. Player: I ~ould like to introduce Don PetErson of Rinne & Peterson,
~ho will discuss the seismic isolation method,
Don Peterson. 4260 El Camino Real. Pa10 Alto: ! am Don Peterson,
structural engineer, and r have lived and ~ork~d in Falo Alto for 30 years
just like Bill Botook. Our firm practices structural engineering? which
means 'fie design buildings to make them stand up, resist earthquake forces,
resist live load vibration, and make tliern so that the contractor can take
our dra~ings and documents a~d build them. We submitted our plans and
cilcu1ations to the city for their re~iew. With this project, it is going
to be reviewed at many different levels~ because there is a new section in
the code that has bee~ developed 5p~rif)Ci11y for base is~lation. The
1991 code is the first code that has t~ese provisions in it. The code
reQuires peer review and a second party plan check of all the wor(, all
the-data, all the ~istol"'Y and research that goes into V,ese base isoiation
05/08/91
·9·
.
•
~ '-.
,
c
\
\
~:
~
!
. ~
I
I
,
UM;ts~ So it will be very carefully reviewed a~d studied Ind
comp"t~r-mod.ll~, t~n doeumented so that it ean be built .
Tne ~istorl that has been alluded to by ~r. Rogers. There ~ere reports by
three firms. One of them was ours, saying that the building had
significant defects when compared to current building code standards, and
that it was advfsable to consider seismic strengthening. You have heard
what tne board has done since them. After those earlier repQrts, two
studies were made as to how you could strengthen the bUilding. They were
conventional r.ethods made by two different firms using different
approaches. At the early stages. however, base isolation was not
considered because it was new, a~d base isolation is a very difficult
system to retrofit an e.isting bui1ding. You have to do a t~emendous
amount of cutting and working around existing utilities and mechanical
systems, stairways, .etc. After the study of the con .... enti~r,al system \O'as
done, and the pricing ~f it~ it became very apparent that the disruption
to the tenants as going to be ~nacceptable. That was or.e of the charg~s
earlier on. The retrofitting .as to be done with the least amount of
disruption to tenants. There were systems going outsid~ of the building
tr.at would' have been very disruptive to the tenants and to the
neighborhol)d. So the base isohtio'l method was studied, ar,d it was
determin!d in the early stages that we WOUld still have to do so~e
strength!ning up above. The preliminary costs ~ere quite nigr., given the
costs after some further studies~ ground ~ecords were shown that the
bu; lding did saf!ly sustain Ue shaking of the lama Prieta earthquake. 'and
that that WOUld b~ used as test loading as to no~ well thE building would
do. Studies were made to snow that the building, if it were put on base
iSOlators, wDuld not receive any greater shaking than it has a1ready
received. There a.re still margins of safety in the bt,.'iJding before it
creates life safety conditions within the b'Jndirl~.
'Vou ~,ave had before you some brief descriptions of the base iso~ation
system, but to expound {In it, YO'J have to cut the building comj:lletely free
from the gnll.md , whicr, mean;; gDing through and cutting all the walls. alT
the columns, anytnir.g that connects to the ground. Then, large rwbber,
lead core, steel reinforced isolators t~at are about 18 fncnes high and
the sizes of tne columns, rough1y 24-26 inches square, are slipped into
place and the loads are transferr~d back do~n onto these isolators.
During a major earthquake, they ~ill deflect 1at~ral1y approximately e
inches. Twel~e inches is needed to be kept clear all around the building
by the code. ~ou have to have a SO percent margin for overrun. That
r.ecessitates the cutting of Slots and the creatlng of air space at t""-e
ends of the bul1dir.gs and around the back for the b!.;ilding to mOVE. The
building will be cut prir.ctpal1y through the basement level, and it can be
cut at different levels, depending on whether it 1S a wall or a column or
in the medlan;cal room. It wi,ll then float back. and forth. The co"lumrls
~ave to get larger in most of the basement areas because the isolators
create horizontal forces. In order to deflect the iso1ator. the iso1ators
do exert forces on the columns that U1ey were not designed for. so they
must be strengthened to take care of those forces. We now cut the garage
across the front of the building parallel to Webster Street. TMere is a
saw cut made, and 12 inches of concrete is taken out, as Bill Bocook
mentioned. That creates two buildings. The garage that is left that ,~
not isolated has to have some additional sheer walls put inta it. That is
in the garage below that wlll be put in so that it will not interfere with
the park.ing. There will be parallel parking stal h. Alor1g the saw cut of
05/08/91
-10-
•
'.
! ,
\
!
i
... ~ \
-I ;--~~;.:
.''-''
,,-,
<
.. -,.,
. ~~:'~~~~?-.. iiIirIII .... __ ._" __ ,, ___ ,0,
j
I
1
!
i
-
the new expBnsion jo,~ts, there have to be new columns put 'n. These are
to soppor! the slab t~.t is cut, They are minor columns. but the still
have t~ go in. Tn~y wou1d be put in at t~e heads of ~irs i~d it tne
division points between cars. So they, in addition. would not iffect the
number of cars being parked.
ine-old colurilns that .,.,ere 01"1 the outside of the bund1ng, the massive
columns t~at were referred to, will no longer be there. It was thought
early en, with the base isolation, tnat those columns would still be
de~ired. This system is ~1~9 modeled after a building under construct1on
in Seal Beach, Cali'fornfa f"r Rockwell Jnternatio:")al. They ,",anted
absolute safety in that but1ding for continued operation, ~ven after an
earthquake. Therefore. that building waS base isolated? and in addition,
reinfDrced on the Dutside of the buildi~9 as W~ ~erc pl1nni~9 on doing
earlier on with this building. There aie limitations on what you can dOi
therefDre, ~ith the studies t~at were made, it ~ai dete~lned that the
building had sufflcler.t strength up abo~e, once 1t is put on isolators,
although n~t as much strength as the RocKwell Internationa1 people would
1 i •• ,
Commissioner C~ll~n: In add;t;~n to the Rockwell b~ilding. can you cit~
any other example, partiCUlarly of a retrofitted buildfng that uses
lso1a.tors?
Mr. Ptterspp: The Salt Li~e City ~a11 is one. Oakland City Hai1 is under
study and getting close to desfqn. It is probably a little further ahead
tkan t~is on.e.
CO!1lT!lssioner Cu1Tel'l~ When was the Salt Lake City Hall retrofitted?
Mr. Peterspn: witnin the last three to four years. It is a historical
buildirtg. There is just iI handful of buildi1'19S in this country that are
base isolated. Trere is a new one in Sa~ Bernardino County. i government
building. T~ere iTe some small structures that a~e not build'ng~. The
Stanford Linear Accelerator has a massive piece of eQuipment en isoTators
tnat ~ent through the lorna ?rieta earthQua(! very fine. There i~ a bridge
south of Ca.ndlesticK Park that is on isoiators .,.,t-deh )!lent through the
sha!dr.g. There ir~ numerous b'Jnd~ngs i.broad in New Zealand arvj Ja;:.an
where heavy research has been done on tne system, mostly within the last
decade. A lot of studies and tests have taken pTace ~n universities here
of models on s~aking tables to see how th~ forces de ~ot get into the
structure. Just briefly, how t~is works is that the isolator changes the
period of the building so tnat it transmits forces into tne building at
two· second intervals, which is much slower than the shaking that takes
place in this local'fty, whith is probably less than half a second. So if
you saw SOmE pictures of how this would work from some of the testing
models, you would see the table gOing back and forth, with the structure
up atHlve Sitting there and 'IIibrating slowly. The bllilding will feel i!'l
earthquake of ~,ncr propc~tions the same is it is right no_, because the
js~1ators have a certain amo~nt of strength thit ~ill transmit low forces
into the building, as tkey do right "aw. But once you get to the se~ere.
5.C sf'l.aldng, that starts yielding the lead in the 1sorators, absorbing the
energy and therefore not transferr-"ing it into the buiTding.
CQlMliSS10~er Huber: Is there a life expectancy to these iso1ators?
05/08/91
-11-
•
.,
.\
T
\
, .... '\;;';
, .
, " ..
1"':"
Hr PeterSQn~ They have had bridge bearir.gs for 30 years or more, and
t~y havt had ether bridge belr10gs .~,rds of 80 years. lh. research is
going on and on tfl,at proves there wi 1 1 be a very long 1 i fe. tfJ t~ese
bearings. They will ilsQ be left so t~at the~ ~an be inspected, ind even
replaced', if necessary.
Mr. Playe~; That concludes our formal presentation. Ou~ contractor is
p~esent tonight, is well as othe~ members of the board and many residents
of C~~nning ~ouse. J appretiate your time and consideritio~. Our concept
of t~is is a very unique concept and 15 a forward-thinking, forward
looking concept for Palo Alto. It wi11 ~, something that will be looked
at by many experts in the field as som2thing that can be studied as a
framework for futur! seismic rehab. We hope that you ~ill appro~e it in
concept and illlow us to go fONard.
Den Macpuivey. 850 ~ebster Street. P310 Alto: I am a trained engine~r in
electrDnics, but the bisic engineering is there. There are two points J
wish to make. One is that I wo~ld like to characteriZe t~is project as
rolling with the punches. It appeals to me as an engineer~ They respond
to the seismic impulse, r~11ing with the punches instead of resisting
t~em. That is a very sound engineering conc~pt that I ~ould li~e to see
used more generally here. The Dthe~ point is that this is a bellwether,
landmark project~ r 1ike that idea because the contractor ~a5 told us of
some of his other prcjects. The fact that ~e is trying to do a good job
for us bere encourages me that we will have a good project. ] wouid lfke
to compliment our board of trustees for being courageous and undertaking
this project.
Arthur R. R~le. 85Q Web~ter Street. Palo Alto; It was I, along with my
wife, Jane H. Rule, who wrote the letter to the Cha~ning Kouse Board of
Trystees date~ February 28, ·1991 protesting the seismic reinforcement as
originally presented for the re~sons stated in that letter. J was not
elected to represent anyone, and therefore -cannot speak. for other thil.r.
ou~selves. My follOWing statement. however. does agree witn the thinking
of t~o-thirds of the Chinning HQti~e resi~ents ~ho have expressed t~eir
opinipns in the several polls t~at were taken after the first announcement
of the original plan. We st111 do not think. Uve origiflll p"ran was
necessary, and we a1so fee1 that tne present proposal is unnecessary_
HO"WE'veT'. the pT'ese-nt proposed pia;: does elimina.te most of the objectior:s
we raised in our letter. Therefore, if Channing House proceeds with the
latest plan for seismic base i~olit'on without substantial mDdifications,
we withdraw our objections to the project. If there are substantial
changes in tMe pres~nt plzn, we reserve the right to protest and use ani
means availabTe to uS to prevent the program from being carried out.
Thank you.
Allan Brown. 467 toya Road. Portola Valle.,.: J was born and raised irj PaTo
Altc. where! spent my entire working career as a contractor. J na¥e been
on the Channing House Soard of Trustees fer 2S years. There are at least
two others who have spent as much time, or more. on the board, and we ~ave
struggled with a myriad af problems o¥er those years. Belie~e me, in cur
later y!ars on the board. ~e did not T!lish the thought of undertaking
suCh an extensive project as this seismic retrofitting of the building.
However. 1 want to conv!y to you what has motivated us. None of us knows
when the next big quake will come, and 1 wanted to convey to you ou~ sense
of urgency. E",,'en though it may seem to you that we ha· ... e mo .... ed slo .. 1y. it
L
OS/08/91
-12-.-
, ,
•
has been because of the comp',Icltloo and difficulty of the problem.
Actua11y. we ~~ye moved as ripidly IS we cou1d, I~d we have come to this
point. We eouid hi~e used another fe~ weeks to prepare. but have rU5he~
U becalJse Clf our sense of l!l"'gency. I wanted to convey that to you. We
fetl that this project is essential~ and we urge your approval.
Chairman Marsh: Seeing no Qt~er speakers, I will !lose the public hearing
and return this ite~ to the p1annfng commission.
Co:rmissioner Cul1eD: In the mfl,mo to Steve Player from Donald Peterson of
Rinne' Peterson, Item '6, there is discussion of the ·fo~r co1umns ~nd a
stairway Dutside the d~n1n9 Team on the south~est side under tte skilled
nursing wing. Since there is no basemer.t under the-se elements, tMe
is-olators would ha'w'e to be insta1led in then e1ements t requiring 1arger
colUmns and ~odific~tion to the stair base.-My question is, are you
going to move out the resldents in the skilled nursing wing While tnis
goes on? From some of the presentation, it seemed that nobody ~ould ha~e
to be moved. J am having difficu1ty in rec~ncilin9 that wit~ Item '6.
Mr. Seal: The plan would be to do the same jacking up and sL!spension of
all of the co1umns in place. This is an area th¢t is on i patiO. There
is free access to it, and w€ wotlld not, is far is we know now, impact the
residents in the Slill~G nursing facility on t~at up?er flc~r. If, in
fact, it was necessary and there was going to be any negative impact on
those residents t they ~ou1d be tran~ferred to _nother sk,11ed nursing 4
facility immediat.ly.
Commissioner Cullen: The next time we see this ~e wou1d be 100king for
some cOrllnent on tr.at.
Chairman Marsh: let us break the item into two 5ecti~ns, the first
section being the revised seismic upgrading and the second section being
the varianc! for the height exception as requested for the addition of an
elevitor. We ~,11 go on the basis Df tonsensu~.
Commissioner Beecham: I would l;te to express my strong support for t~e
upgrading as proposed. We never de know ~hen the next b:g o~e will hit.
Esti~ates are for one percent a year, sometime in tne next 3D y€ars,
perr.aps~ so it is very admirible to undertake this Exper,siv~ undertaki~g
VOluntarily t~ upgrade this building. The work tnat ~as been done to
minimize the parking impacts, the noise iltpacts and itnpacts on the
reSidents is very successful. So 1 will support this aspect.
Commissiontr Christ€nsen: J would echo the same tning~ One of the tnings
I w,ll be look1ng for whe~ t~,s does tom€ back is a schedu1e of no~ to
deal with the noise impacts, ",itr. a little more careful detail about
that. They have done i ~ond~rfui job of responding to the concerns raised
by the reSidents of Channing House~ rt is an exciting project.
Commissigner Cullen: It is wonderful to see compromise work. Often there
is a lot of confrontation whic.h has to come before compromise. It is good
to see this, and I am glad that the base isolation system has came into
place in time for this project. r remem~er that in the previous
submittal l there was i fair amount of objection by the residents to tne
ffnancing system. We do not have documented for us, aside from tne
t,,?stimony tQ!'\.i9~.t, the financin.9 of t.his \!!Qr~ .. INhen it comes. back.,
OSjC8j91
,13·
•
... J
j .
I
j
-
V~ij'd like to see that in ~riting. 1 ~"derstand YD~ are taking out scm!
tu·.fre'!! t.or1ds, but I aID c~"cerned about t"'e discl/SSion list tf~e of
transfers out of one fund ~ntD inDth~r, and additional assessment~. ~e
have to be sure that the financing for this is a150 in place. But it is
great to see a solut\on to something_
Comm{ss\Q"er Huber: I ~i11 join in ~ith eve~yone e1se, particularly
C.o:rrl1asioner Ctrllen~s remarks. It is a compromise ir, one sense that it
deals with the res,dents' concerns, but is not a compromise in terms of
seismic safety. So it is a perfect fit.
Cbainman Marsh: I certainly will support t~e cpplication.
The sec~nd issue we have to look at is the variance fer the height of the
ser~ice elevator to be added.
(o~issiqner Cnri5te~sen; I thin~ it is i very sensible request and see
no problem with supporting it. Adding the service elevator is probably
something that s~ould nave been done a long time ago. The fact that the
building exceeds our hEight limit should not bar us from doing something
that ;s needed_
Chairman ·MaP"':?h: rs there general agre-emertt with that statement? (Yes)
Then J would lik.e to have a fonni:l IrlOt;o~ tr.l approlle the application wi.th
both se=tions, conceptual119 and then we will send it on to the
architectural review board, looking for it to return to the planning
commission at some point in the future.
~; Commissioner Beecbam: I move the staff recommendation that we
conceptua11y approve the proposed Planned Commun~ty zone amendment and
~eignt variance. and forward the application to the ARB.
~: By Conrnissioner Cullen.
Chairman Marsh: Along with that, we have had com~ent5 indicating that
~en it re~urns to us, ~e would like to see a schedu1e in terms ~f the
ncise impacts, and also some fjnanciTl9 information supporting the
project. ~'so information on parling of cc~structi~n vehicles and d2tiils
on the parking for employees, the how and the where.
MOTION PASSES~ Chairman Marsh; All those in favor. say Aye? All
o?pcse~? ThAt passes on a unanimous vote of 5-0, ~ith Comrn,ss1ane~s
GlaZier and Hfrsch absent.
Ctla'frman Mars~: Thanks to all of you wno attended tonlght. The item .,ill
~o~ trlyel to the architectural revie~ board, where the final specifics of
the design will be discussed. At some point after that, it will return to
the planning c~mmission for another look at tne application. The final
step will be taken when the planning commission forwards the application,
is I expect we will, to review by the city council.
Ms. Topley; This ite~ is scheduied for ARB revie~ on June 6t~, providing
tha.t the applicant can turn the details around soon enougt1.
END OF E.}t.CERP'I
05/08/9l
-14-
•
i ,-
!
r
i
<1_' ... ' i ,."'::., '. ,
~ . .... . .. -1
. I
-,
I
I