HomeMy WebLinkAbout0103.093J •
"1 , j , I
\,j
, !
i
;j
. ~
~.
'" ,: '.,." ',',' '
January 14, 1993
HONORABLE CITV COUNcIL
Palo Alto, California
Pla"'rned Communit.Llone Change -275 C,ambrt1.ge Aver!ue. City Par~ing Lot 3
Members of the Council:
9
This report fonwards the recommendations of the Architectural Review Board (ARB)
and Planning Comm1ssion on the Plannrood Community zone change for 275 Cambridge
A~enue, City Parking lot 3. A zone c~ange from PF, Pub1ic Facility and (C(2),
COlTmunity Corrrnerc'ial is recommended for this site to al1ew constr:Jction of a ]66-
space, two-level parking structure with ZEr0 setbacks.
Background
The need for additional parking in Californil Avenue was id<:!r'I.tified in the i9S0
Comprehensive Plan (Comprehensive Phn, Transportation Element page 2B). The
need fur increased park.ing in the California Av~nue Area was again confirmed
during the California .a,venue Zoning Study completed in 1984. In 1985, the City
initiated a process to address this need by purchasing the Keystone parking Tot
(D~rt;on nf Lot 3) located on Cambridge Avenue. The City aT50 hired consultants
(Wilbur Smith Associate:., International Parking Design, arid Angus McOoMld
Associates) to pr~pare a parking structul'e plan. This plan ir.cluded an analysis
of the park~ng supply and dema~d in the area. The analysis concluded that the
existing par-l<ing deficit in the COilifornia Avenue area fWd'S 258 par~ing spaces,
with the greatest deficit occurring in the area north of Ca1ifarnia Avenue. The
study also evaluated the reiative costs and benefits of alternate parking
str~ctlire designs for alternate sites, and concluded with a recommendation to
proceed with a two-'~vel project at Parking lot 3.
On December 2, 1991 the City COlJnctl re'Vie';led t~e parkir.g stru-:ture p1an and
directed stJ.ff to proceed with the design and construction of a parking structure
at Parking Lot 3 and the creation of an assessment district to fund the
COilstruct ion.
CMR;103:93
.•..
Attachme.t 9 (CMR:437:9I, October 3, 1991) of Attachment C provides .... r.
detailed descriptio~ of (he ~fstory of the project. the funding of the structure
t~roU9h creation of an assessment district and the process for public lnput as
well as outreach used ;'1 deveTopmE:nt <Jf the clJrren.t proposa1. The attached
report a.lso sI.l11IIIar1zes the conclusions of the Park.ing StriJctu'i"'e Plan. Copi~s Qf
tht! Parlc1ng Structure Phn are a.ho i'\lat1able for re'oliew at th:e City of
Falo Altars Transportation Division, 6th FToor~ Civic Center.
Pub'lli!!l!Mlll on the PrQ.illi
Public c:onmer.ts in fa'll~r of tne project were primar'i 1y from bU5 iness
representatfves and business owners in the Cal ifornia Avenue area, induding the
C.alifornh Avenue Area Development AssocfaHon, who s!J~por-ted construction of the
project and confirmed the need for additional pa)"'king (see Attachments D. E and
f) .
Public comments opposed to tne project were primarily from psychotherapists and
other small business professionals located at He 230 Calif{lrnla Avenue blJilding.
dfrectly behind the proposed structure, These i~dividuals questioned the need
for additiunal parking, part~cu1arly at this. location, and considered the
potent1 .. , construction noise and acthities to be detrimental tG the need of
their practices for a quiet sllrrotJndir.g. They al so bel ieved that a t ... o-stor1
parking structure would be less safe than the existing s~rface lot, particularly
due to the nearby presence of The Edge n;ghtcl~b. fl!any indicated they 'Wou1d
relocate If the project were approved. Pol ice stathtics on requests for se-rvice
for Lnt 3 and other CalifDrn~a Avenue public p~rking lols were requested to see
how Lot 3 c~pared to otn~r a~ea lots (see also Attachment Fl.
Architectural Review Board Action
The Ardlitectural Review Soard voted undnimol.Osly to recorrmend approval of the
pr(lj£~ct on October 14, 15192. The ARB was pleased with t~e project des~gn and
cansidered it to be well integrated with the archltect~ril character and urban
fabric af tne surrounding area. They were highly complimentary of the
Public Works Department on their apparent priority for good architecture and
aest~et;cs in exec~ting the design. In taking their action the ARB r~commended
additional conditions of approval including:
All lighting fixtures to ha~e i bronze finish;
Use of ceiling paint be studied as a means of i~creisin9 reflective light
in the lower level;
The project's structural engineer address qiJesticns about settlement
potentia1 of the post-tension concrete slab~ and beams;
De~ails be provided of the brick-to·conc~ete transition on the concrete
spandrels;
Phones be provided on b~th parking levels; ind
A se-curity plin for the parking structure be de .... eloped and presentEd to
the Planning Commission and City Council.
CMR:I03:93 1/14/93
Page 2
-
planning Co mm i5s1Qn Action
At thefr meeting tlf September 30, 1992, the Planning C{I!T!'IIisSion 'ioted unanimously
to conteptuall.¥ appron the projoect and forward the project to the ARB for review
1M co:rment.
On November lB. the P1anning Commission ~oted unanimously to recommend appro¥al
of the Phnned COIMHJnity zone dange. In takin? their action the Planning
ConmissiCl'n recornnended minor modification~ to the ccmdHions of approval. These
changes inc'uded I clarification that the phones to be provided be ·security"
phones, reclaimed water be used f~r dust cortrol purposes and the staff s~ould
study painting the garage ceiling a -light reflective c010r'" as opposed to white.
A security program was presented to the Planning Commisslon is req~ested by the
ARB and found to be acceptable. Elements of this plan are incorporated into the
~roject conditions and project design. This plan i~ described o~ pages 2 and 3
of Attacheent C.
Nltntenance and purabilitv af Buildjng Fini~h
During thelr discussion the Phnnl:"19 COrmlission rili"ed Questions about the
durability, maintenance and long-term appearance of the concrete spandrel briCK
fac.ade; the potential settlemer.t of the cOflcretlE! st1"ucture and its p{ltential
effects on the ability of the brick to properly adhere to the concrete spandrel
pane1sj ind undesirable cracking appearance on the painted soffit areas. The
spandrel panel ..,111 be des.igned and c.onstructed to prevent br~cks from "POPP1r.g
loose-and falling. This situatjon has occ~rred on the building at the lytton
Avenue and Alma Street intersection bec.ause the bricks were inadequately attached
by !Deans of an epoxy adhesive. The garage design 'Will utilize either full 1-3/4"
depth br1cks embedded 1-l/8" ~nto mortar fastened to the spandrel panel or 1"
thkk brick Yenet!r cast 5/8" directly into the spandre1 panels. See attached
detail drawings (Attachment HJ. The c{)nsultant will select one of the two
llethods prior to the final design based on further research of huildin9S with
similar construction.
In additfon, deflection of the post-tension concrete beams and slabS will be
minimal, approximately 9/16-and 3/S-respect;~ely as: indicated in the attached
consultant's letter (Attachmt'nt £i}. This minimal deflection is significantly
hss than the Uniform Building Code's (USC) maximum allowable~ and tf'1!refore will
not overstress the concrete spandrel brick facade panels c.ausing brick
di.slodgement.
Furthennore, the minimal beam and slab deflection will limit the size of the
c.oncrete crads. Cracking which does occur .ill be patched )(itn a mi::tching epoxy
cDlor.
CMR:I03:93 1/14/93
JI.1~C>T'O' Page 3
on r 5' '}.~-
•
,
-
Setyritv Phones
The proposed use of security phones nther tnan pubHc phones ca~ fr'llil the
Po11ce Departmer.t at the Planning Commiss1on meeting. Based on furtner
discussions with: the Poltce Department and it's Communications. staff, it is
recommended that a public telephone rithe~ than a security phone be piaLed en
each of the two garage lev~1s. The ccnd1tior.s of approval and Draft Ordinance
reflect tMs re(orrrrendation. Public telephones are 12$$ upensiYe to install and
operate than security phones, and they pro'llide the same access to
enrergem:y/pol1ce-ctllMlunication 'loisterns by dialing 51] (in lif'u of lifting a
receiver off its ~oo').
Althougl't it is possible that a pub' ic telepMne could provide iii reaso" for
loitering tn the garage, police w111 monitor tnt'! pedestr:an activity to
discourage this. Also, the phones ~il1 tl-e ir.odified to prevent call-backs,
thereby deterring ·undesirable-activities, such as drug transactions.
Development program. Development Plan and DevelOPment Sched~
Prior to taking action the Ctty Council must review and approve i Oe\le10pment
Program Statement, speCific: Development P1an~ and a Development Schedule for the
project. The DeYelopaent Prognm Statement and De'llelopment Schedule are provided
as Attachments 6 and 7 of Attachment C. The De'llelopmer.t Plans are attached. All
three naye been found acceptable by the ARB and Planning Commission.
Construtilon of t~e garage is proje~ted to take eig~t to nine m~nths. beginning
in October 1993 and ending In July 1994. The proposed alley improvements are
estImated to taka on. month and be completed by August 1994. Though the total
project is estimaUd to take less than one year~ the DevelopRlent Schedule
specified in the attached PC ordinance .. Hows for a ;naximurn of two years to
accDmlOdate unforeseen construction d&lays.
Envlronmtntal AsseSSment
The Environmental Ass!ss~nt prepared for tnis project finds that it wll1 not
result in any significant negathe env; ronmental i;npacts. and recorrmends adopUon
of a negative declarat~on. A copy of Environmental Assessment is provided as
Attachment B.
Next Step
Staff will r!turn to Council in approximately S months for appro'llal of tne bor.d
counsel and finanthl consultant (undenJrit£r) to assist in fonnatjml of the
assessment district and bond sale. More detailed information will be provided
it tnat time on the timing .fI_nd steps neceSHry to establ ish the assessment
district and issue the bonds. Construction is estimated to start in October
1993.
CMR: 103:9)
L
1/14/93
Page 4
•
-
f1nd1ngs for ADCrQill
I. The site is so situated, and the use pro~osed for the site 15 of such a
chiracteristi~ that the application of general districts or combining
districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to illow the proposed
develcpment in that given the shanew site depth a two-le-vel par~ing
garage cannot be feasibly constructed within tne restrictions of other
zoning clas~ifjcations. The site development regulations of tr.e PF zone
wh~ch ltmit site coverage to 30 percent ~ith a 20-foot front ~etback and
lei-foot side anod rear yard setbacks would reduc~ the net dimer,sion area of
the site sig~ificantly making dfve10pment of I parking structure
infeas1blt.
2. Oevelopment of the site under the provisiorls of the Phnned COIm.mity
D1s.trict will result i:1 public benefits not otherwise -ithinable by
application of ttle regulations of generil districts or c.omb1ning districts
in that it allows for i project d€sign which provides the ma~imum amount
of public parking fUSible on t.he site in a two-level structure. The
overriding need for increased parking in the California Ave~ue BUsiness
District was. documented through an ana1ysi s of parking supply and demand
performed in 1988 as par-t of a f'arking Structure Study, which also
analyzed the relative casts and benefits of alternate parking structure
d&s1gns ind locations. The conclusions of this report were reYlewed and
re<:eiYed <:onceptua1 approval at public me-etings held by the Planning
Commission on June 27, 1990, by tn. ARB on July 19, 1990 and by the City
Council on Dec~~ber 2, 1991.
3. The use and the site development regulati{Jns applicable wit"';n the
district are <:onsistent witi'! the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and' are
<:o.patible with eXisting and potenti.l uses on adjoining sites or within
the generil vicinity in that the project ~s an enlargement of an existing
public p~rkin9 facility? which will inc~ease publlc parking available for
the commercial uses in the area and will help to minimize the Qverflow of
co:I'Rerc:ial parking within area neighbornoO<ls, specHjc goal s of the
Comprehensi ve Plan {Transportation Element Pol i cies 10, lOa, and' 11 and
Programs 27, 28).
Conditions
The follow~r.g are recoiTlTlended <:onditions of approval for the Project is modified
by to. ARB.
Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit the following shall ce accomplished:
1. Hi, final landscape plan shan be submitted to Plannir,g Oepartment staff
fo,.. approval. TI'1e existing Chinese pistache street trees shall be
retafr.ed and new Ghine~e pistacnp. trees shall be planted.
CM~: 103:i3 1/14/93
Pag' 5 p-I...r-.ea... •. CI'I"I'
, ,
-
2. The fin.' lighting plan shall be submitted to Planning Department ,taff
for appro\l~1 and shall include bronze light fixtures for ill exterior
1 ightir,g.
3. Staff 'hill ,tudy the possibility of ~ainting the ceiling' 11gM
reflective calor in lieu of increasing tne internal lfght1ng or to r~duce
the amount of increased lighting.
4. Tne City shall ~nstall i pubHc. telepMne on both levels of the-structure.
S. "Ole structural engineer for the project 5ha1'1 provide a letter" to "the ARB
shting the method used to i'w'oid the possibility of slab deflection
daJla!ging the facade.
S. Detail s of t,hi! brick/concrete transition shall return to the ARB on
consent calendar.
7. No building perlnits shall be issued until a Parcel Map 01" certificate of
complia.m:e, as appropriate. removing: lot lines and ~~ing the fOUT
underlying parcels into one parcel is approved_
8. The final drainage plan shall be des;9ned sc as to prevent drlinage over
the public sidewalk.
9. Improvement plans and specifications f<ll' ail utillt)' constructiOl'l for the
parking structure and' ,1ley improvements shail be reviewed and iypro~ed by
the Util tties EngineerirH~ Divis; or;. The Plans shall show tnl!' proposed
al tgnment of water, gas and sewer mains and ser~ices~ and electriC ser,,-,ce
1 ines within the de ... elorment ind in the publ i c rlght-of-Wi)'. No wark
shall begin until the utilit), improvement plans and load sheets have been
approved by the Water, Sas, vastewater Engineering Di"ision~ the light ind
Power Engineering Dfvision and the CHy's Cross Connection Control
[nspector.
Prior to final Inspection of the Project the following shall be accomplished;
10. Tne required' E:!x;ting shan be-maintained from ill surrou!'lding buildings
during the course of construction, to tne sati.!tfactiot'l ~f the Chief
Build;ng Offlcia1 and Fire Department.
11. The provisions of the project construction management ph" (includiljg
traffiC, vehicular and pedestrian, and loading controls) and inter"tIl
park.ing plan, approved by the P~anning. TransportatioJ1 r:;nd' Public Work.s
Departments shall be incorporated into the construction contracts, wit"
implemefltatlon to be-mon; tor-ed by the Pub' ic Works Oepartm2nt on an
ongoing basis throughout tne construction process.
(MR:I03:~3 1/14/93
Page 6
•
Suc~ Plan shall reflect the followlng:
That Cambridge Ave~ue will be open to two-way traffic at all tjmes.
Nc project related truck traffic \IrIill be permitted on (a~;fornia
Avenue.
Use of the New Mayfield lane and Nogal La~3 will be restricted fer
limited peri~ds of tim~ during construction of the alley
jmprovement~. Alternate loading ~nd ~arbage pickup areas ~ill be
provided during these times.
A11 existing street trei!s to be retained shall be prote.:t::-d dUrillg
construction.
i2. To reduce dust levels during construction the construction contract shall
require ail exposed earth surfaces to be watered frequently using
reClaimed water. during the late mornings and at the end of the day, with
frequency of watefing increas~ng if wind speeds exceed 15 miles per heur.
All streets and haul routes shall be cleaned daily in the ~i(inity of the
project. The contractor $~a11 designate a person{s) to monitor the dust
control program with authority to require increased watering and cleaning
of streets when necessary and/cr upon the request of the Public Works
Department. Spillage reSUltIng from ~auling cperatiGns along or across
any public or privat~ property" shall be removed ilMlediately and paid for
by the contractor. Dust nuisances origjnating from the contractor's
operations either instde or outsid~ of the r'ght-of-~ay shall be
controlled at the contractor's expense.
13. An sidewalks anc unur,ed driveIWays t,crdering the project si-.all be repaired
end/or replaced il1 compliar1(e with Public Wurks approved standards,
including construction of fhre new r.a.ndicap ramps. ATl existinlj street
trees shall be protected during construction and ne~ trees planted as part
of thE landscape plan, to the satisfaction of City staff.
,qecom!endation
Staff recorrmen~s ti1at tile City Ccuncil find that the project will not have any
significant negative environmerltal effects and approlle the prcpo:.ed Planned
COl'll!1ul'1ity Zone (harlg-e subject to thr: above fi:idings and cOT,ditions as sho\lln in
the Draft Ordinance pro~ided as Attachment A.
Respectfully submitted,
d ,/,., /1" . ' ,,,.P~ ~ L , .•. /'"' • " V--ry.:/. "~'-I
SARAH CHENEY I
Senior Pl anner d
/ ," / /' /: __ ~:c~ t<!;:/;-7~-<_.//
/--'t
GEORGE BAGOOI(
Acting Director of
Publ ic \larks
CMR:I03 :93
.
p, ... .diJJc Sc1",,:[ ...
KENNETH a. SCHREIBER
Director of PTanning and
Community [n..-jronment
1\ ~tllt.IJMA ~~ flEMIIIG ~ .. ··7~
City llanager
l/i4/93
Page 7
ATIAClllfHTS:
A. Draft Ordin,nce
B. Environmenta' AssesslDent
C. Planning Coaniss;on Staff Report dated Hovernb." 13, 1991 with
attac"rnents
I. ARB ~emfirindum dated Octcb~r IS, 1992
Z. Minut.s of AR8 Meeti"9 of October is, 1992
3. Use Permit for 260 California Avenue
4. Plannlng C!)fIII!issicn Staff Report dated Septll!mbe-r 25, ]9:92
5. Location Ma~
6. Development Program Statement from Appl icant
7. Devalopm9nt Schedule
8. Traffic/Construet1on Manage~nt Piar; anC: fnterim
Park; fl'9 Pl In
9. OlR:437:91, dated October 3, 1991
10. Excerpt Minutes of AR6 meeting of May 21, i992
D. lette~ from CAADA dated No,..,ber 11, 1992
E. letter frO(ll CMOA Parking Conmittee ::hted November n. 1!J92-
F. letters from Publfc
G. letter frmll fnternational Parkirq:i! Df.s1gn. dated November 19? 1992
H. Sketches Humber 113092·1 and 113092-2, dated November 30, 1992 r. Development Plans (Counei 1 Members Only)
COPIES SENt TO:
eMS onh
California Avenue AN!a Development Association. c/o Ronna Oevencenzi.
eWA President
Oavid Schrom, Evergreen Par~ Neign~r~ood Associiti~n
Piul Kahn, Grant Avenue Condominium OWntrs A5S0ciiti~n
Janice Plumer, Park Central CClnme"cia1 Condominium Association
~ff S~~dhe;m, 420 Florence Street, Palo Alto, California, 94301
Persons submitting Letters concerning rroje(t
PErsons Attending August 21~ 1991 Public Hearing on California Avenue
Parking Structure
Property OWners and Tenants of sites bordering Alley 1mprov~nt Project
Project Consultants
Speakers at Publ1c Hearin9s on The Edge Use Permit
CHR:IQ3:'3 .. :,-~.-
--,....-~------.. '~ ,~'. '''--' ,,'''-'''-,~. <.'
1/14/93
Page 6
\
-'-
P.TT~£HHENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCB OF THE COUNCIL "'O"F'TH=E"CITY OF ;>ALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 19.08. D40 CF THE PALO ALTO MUNIC·
I PAL CODE (T"rlE ZONING MAP} TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 275 CAMBRIDGE
AVENUE, PARKING LOT C-3, FROM PF AND CC(2) T'O PC
WHEREAS. the Planni!l_g Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held November 18, 1992, and the Architectural Review Board,
upon consideration at its m~eting of October 15, 1992, have
recom:n.ended that Section 1.8.013.04Q (the Zoning Mapl of the Palo
Alto MuniCipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and __ . __
WHEREAS~ the City Council~ after due considerdtion of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amen~~eDt is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as foJ..lows:
SECTION 1~ Section 18.DB.040 of the Palo Alto M .. mic.i..pal
Code, the ·Zoning Map·, is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as 275 Cambridge Avenut?, Parking Lot C-3
{the ·subject property"'} from "'~F Public Facility~ and ·CC (2)
Comrrrunity Corr:mercial Combining" to "PC Plan.T'led Community" ~ ihe
subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A". attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds .... ith respect to
the subject property that~
(a) The site is so situated, and the use proposed for
the site is of such a characteristi c that the applicat.ion of
general districts or combining districts will not provide suffi
~ient flgxibility to allow the proposed development in that, given
the shallow site depth, a two-level parking garage can.~Dt be
feasibly constructed within the restric~ions o~ other zoning
classifica~ions_ The site development regulations of the PF zone,
which limit site coverage to 30 percent with a 20-f'OOC front
setback and 10-foot side and rear yard setbacks would reduce the
net dLmension area of the site significancly. making development of
a parking structure infeasible.
(b) Development of the site under the pro-,risions of the
Planned Cot\'imlnity District will re.sult in public benefits not
otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general
districts or combiniDg districts in that it allows for a p=oject
design which providea the maximum amount of public parking feasible
on the site in a two· level structure. The overriding need for
increased parking in the California Avenue Business District was
documented through an analysis of parking supply and demand
performed in 1988 as part of a Parking Structure Study which also
analyzed the relative costs and benefi ts of alternate parking
structure designs and locations. The conclusions of this report
1
_$ L ... ·'· • .
• i~;
:;~;>~i:~':"'
".'-"" -
I. ,.
t ,
-
.~---..
were revie'll'ed and received conceptual appruval at public meetir..gs
held by the Planning C~i8sion en June 27, 1990, by the Architec
tural Review Soard on J"G.ly 19, 199C. and by the City Council on
Dec~ber 2, 1991~
(e) The-use and the sitE> development re£Tulations
~pplicable within the district are consistent with the Pa~Q Alto
Comprehensive Plan. and are compatible with eXisting and potential
uae3 on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the
project is an enlargement of an exist-ing public parking facility,
which will increase publ ic parking available for the commercial
USt::B in the area and will help to minimize the cverflow of
corrtnel."cial parking wit':lin area neighborhoods, specific goals of the
Comprehe~sive Plan (Transportation Element Policies 10, lO~ and 11
and Programs 27 and 2 B: .
SECTION 3. Those cert.ain plans entitled IIICalifornia Avenue
Parking Structurelll~ prepared by International Parking Design Inc.~
approved by the Architectural Review Board October 15, 1992, a copy
of which plans is cn file in the Planning Division office, and to
which copy reference is hereby ma.de concerning the full particulars
thereof, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the
subject property. pursuant to Section 18.68 120. Said Developmeut
Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the
following conditions:
(a)
parking.
(b)
permitted.
Permitted Uses. The use st-..a.~.l be limited to public
No conditional uses shall be
(c) Site Develppment Regulation~. The improvements to
the subject property shall consist of a two-level parking garage
and site imp~ovements (auto and pedestrian circulation, _landscap
in9~ lighting, bicycle parking and alley improvements, including
repaving a~~ lighting}. ~l improveme~ts and development shall be
substantially in accordance with the approved DeVelopment Plan.
(d) Parking and Loading Rell'ttlirement_8.
(1) During construction, the req1.:.ired exiting shall
be maintained from all surrounding buildings, to the satisfaction
of the Chief Building Official and Fire Depart:r,ent.
(2) Thoe provisio!18 of the proj ect constIUction
management plan (including traffic, vehicular and pedestrian, and
loading controls) and interim parking plan, approved by the
Planning. Transportation and Public Works Departments, shall be
incorporated into the construction contracts, ~ith imple~entation
to be monitored by the Public Works Department on an ongoing basis
throughout the constrJction process. Such plan shall reflect the
following!
2
9';1215 lac: 00)0517
•
•
\
I ~
d " ,
,
! ~
"'
I i I
Iii)
(iii)
(iv)
Cambrjdge Avenue ~ill be open to two
way traffic at all tinlE:s.
No project related trul:k traffic will
be permitted on California Avenue.
Use of Ne-w Mayfield Lane and Nogal Lane
will be restricted for limited periods
of time during constt~ction of the
alley improvements. Alternate loading
and garbage pickup areas will be
provided during these times.
All exist.ing
retained shall
construction.
street tr ees
be procectec
to be
du.z."ing
(e) Special Requirement9.
(l) The City sr~ll install a public telephone on
both levels of the parking structure.
(2) No building permits shall be issued for
development of the subject property until a parcel map or certifi
cate of compliance, as appropriate l removing lot lines and merging
the four underlying parcels into one parcel is approved.
{3} The final drainage plan shall be. designed so as
to prevent drainage over the public sidewalk.
{4) The final plans showing proposed alignment of
water, gas and sew~r mains and services and electric lines within
the subject property and in the public right-Qf-way shall be
subject to the approval of the Water, Gas, Wastewater Engineering
Division, and Light and Power Engineering Division an~ the Cress
Connection Control In~pec~or.
(5) ~l side~alks and unused driveways bordering
the subject property shall be repaired and/or replaced in compli
ance with Public works approved standards; including construction
of five new ha:ldicap ramps. All Existing street trees shall be
protected during constr~ction and new trees planted as part of the
landscape ~lan to be approved by Plalli~iog Department statf.
(f)
by November I,
date.
Deyelopm.::nt schpdul""_ COllstructioD shall co:rmence
1993. and be complet.ed within two years of t.hat
~C"TIQN 4. The Counci 1 find that this proj ect will not
have a Significant environmental effect.
SECTION...."s.. This ordinance shall be effective on the
~hirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
IN'I'RODOCRD:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVBi:: AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst~ City Attorney
9'2111:5 _ ocao:sn 4
APPROVED:
Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
•
• .. .
fl t. j
~' I . i
-,
P;:',:"ECi' ____________ ~ __ piANGE' FROM_ Pi' Arm CC:.2'J TC PC ________________ _
._. ---._._ •..... __ .-
L,A':: ·L····
r' ... · . ..J .~:{Jt!
~~~~~-f~;~c-
Al"TACHMPH B
ArTA!;HMENT 1
fnvi,onment.l Documents -City of Palo Alto
~Y!RQUMEffJAL ASSESSMENT
con$truction Qf t two-lev,1 (ground plus deck) ]86 space parkina ctrvcture.
lOC:,ltfon/Address! 27S CambrjDge Avenue, Pub"c ParKfng Lpt J. located
between Bfrth Street and NOgAl Line
SponsDrfng Agency/Appl ical1t~ City of PaJe Alto I Pub] ic !'crles DepaT't~ent
Addns$ and' T~]ephone of Appl !cant: 250 Hamilton Avenue. pil Q ."lto CA
'4303 contact: Scott Wahl It (.lS} 329-2160
App 11 Cit f on f:lr; _"zQl<ln".~ch!JJ.<;n;>g't'=-.,--=-:= __ ;-.,-;_.,-.,-;c-_;-____ _
(e.g., zoning chan9~, s~bdiYision of property, architectural review, use
permit)
Zoning at Preject location: PF & CCt21 Fee Receipt No.:
NOTICE or D'TERM!~T!QN
Based upon review of the project files, the ~ndersigned member of the Planning
Department has concluded;
[I
Negative Dt;,aratigo: The project has no significant environmental
i~act. No Environmental Impact Report is required. The reasons for i
Dec.laration Ire:
1n the Attached I~ititl Study. A record of project act jon ;$ available
for review b@twgen g·GO AM and nopn and 1:00 to 5iOO PM at the Pa10 Alto
plann1"a Department lpcited on the 5th Flpor pf tht Civic Centpr. 250
HI'iltcn AvenUE, Pa1p A1tp.
The project miy nave a slgnific
£nvironmental Impact Report wi
The project has been appro~!d.
The ~roject has been denied.
An
Date:
Date:
Fi le No.; 91-EIA-26
EJANOD 91-EIA-16
-.~]-,
,.'. "",-!O<.'-:>., ,,,, """:';;''-''-
!NrTIAL SJUDr* ••
I. Prol",,1 Tille/.oodr.ss: Ca1ifornfa Avenue Parking Structure
II •
III. Envlr~tel setting: Commercial district
IV. Env I r omen I a ) IlTpBct (ho:kl i.t 1E;<planallon 01 III 'yes" anSI..,,. ere
Seet i on \I) ,. &m!l. WII tl>& proposal res~1t In: jg) ~
I. lh!table earth o:rdi lions or c:l">anges
in geologic subSlrUClure.?
b. Oisruptlons, di$plac~I', cxnpac.
t I"" Or avercoverlop of the sci I X
C. O:1ange In tcpography or grOU"ld
surface rell.f f.alures1
d, The destruction, coverll'lQ Or rrtlO"l·
ficel lor, of any ""QUe geologie Dr
Physical fealures?
e. Ar.j irlCrease in wird Or v.eter Eros-ion
01 soi Is, eilher "" or crf 11>& .'Ie?
1. Exposure 01 peopl. or prDP"rly 10 ~
gee I og i c ha,. rds such es ea r 1 hquakes ,
landslides, Trudslides, grOU"ld failure
Dr simi 18r halards? X
• Jldapted hank>perrlix I. C3lifornis G.;ideflnes for Irrp!8"l"'er)1alion of
an>-. C;clJ1ter 14. 1975 .
.. l,pdared M.'Y 1982. June 1983
f 1KJ<1
-------_. * --., -
92-EIA,·"
1
W
X
X
X
X
•
in
•
-
t • _.~_,,-,"",J . .=... ,.'" ",~,~<.A. ,"'"'-I....,; .. <:.'ti.::~,~t;j t.-':lX f1J:'
. ' ---_ . ..
r
ns ~ I:Q
g. Cha'"9"s In slltotlon. d.poSitlO<l. Of
eros i()'l Wlich trey rrodlfy the chame!
of a river Or the bed of I bay or ~ !nlel?
2. &. W II the Ploposa I result In:
I. &b$lanllal II, snissloos or de-X !erior.llon of aTblant air QUilityl
b. 'Th5 creat ion of cbject!onable odor.? X
c. Allerali()'l of ai, ~!. rroislUre
teTpe,ature. or any Qhange In eli·
mote. e!ther (ocally or regional? x
3. \'Jlli!.. WI I the propoo;el resull In;
•• Olanpes in absorpl Ion tltes, a,alnaQe
patterns. or the file and .-rount of X surlace WI!er runoff?
b. AI t.r eti(lnS to the """rse or I (0/11 of X f IClOd Wlters?
c. Oischerge Into surface .,.1.11, ,,, In
any ., I tarat i()'l of au "ace 1II6t.r
qual fty, Inch.ding but 11)! (m!od to
toJ1'peralu,., dissolved oxygen or
!urbldlty? X
d. Allera! ion of the ':1reetfon or rate X of f ION of grOU"1d Wlte,,?
e. Exposure of people 0: property to
""ter releted hazards S<d\ B3 f lcod· X i'll or t ide I wovel
f. Change In the QUan! Ity of grClU1d
..ters, either through direct
lI<iditions Dr wi!hdraNI", or IhrO\Jg~
Intercept ions of an lQUifer by Cllts X
01 exceva! ions?
4. ~IIOl Ufl!. Wi" the ,propose! result il1:
9. Change in the diversity of species, Or
nV"ber of Bny species of plants lin-
eluding Irees, shrubs, gress. crops, X microflora end aquatic plants)l
El.<O<l 92-ElA 26
2
." -.~" ........ ..,:..+ -"."'.--"0$ U 7
-;,
b. Reduct ion 01 the nvrt>ers 01 any
uniQUe, rara or enc!angerec! 'pecies of planal
c. lntroduct ion 01 1lIW spec 1.$ of
plants Into en .rea, or in a ~r'ie;
to tho no,,",1 :Splenlstm!n! 01
... I$tlng lP8Ciesl
d. Reduct Ion In acreaQe of any
agricultural crop?
5. ....,ml life, Wd I the proposal resu't in:
•. Change I~ the divars Ity. of 'peci~s,
or of any species of at,,,,,,I. (birds,
land 8Oml. Including rep! i los, fi5~ and shellfiSh, benthic organiSTS,
Insects Or microfaLl'lllI1
b. Reduct Ion of tho nuTbers of any
uniQUe, r.re Or Bndongered species of enlmtls?
c. )n1foductlon of /lEW species 01
anirrels into on area, or raSult In
8 barr ler to the mlgrnlon or lTDVe. rreot of anlrrelsl
d. DeterlorBtion in .xl'ting fish or
wi Idl ife Ivlbltat7
6. ~. 1M II tho proposal resul tin:
7.
8.
8. Increases in existing noise revels?
b. Exposure ~f people to sever. noise
level.?
light and GIBre. 1M II the proposal
produce 1lIW light glarel
LPnd lise. Wi II tho proposal resul t in
• subSlanti., alteration 01 the present
or planned land use 01 an .real
x
x
EIA)(1 S2.f1A,L6
3
x
x
x
x
, ,
·'-
YES ~ w , ' 9. Eotr~lt:elH[el Be~[t;as· W) I the
propc.al result In:
•• u'e of slc,tantlal 8'l'OLr1ts ot fuel X o!' enerQV:
b. SubsI8n! lal Increase In da'!IInd ~
existing sources of _rf1'(, or
reQVi,. the devel~t of n&V K sources lIr enerf1'(1
c. increase In the rele of use of 8rYf X nature I resources?
d. &bs t anI iel deptet ion of any nonre-K neh8ble natur.1 resource?
10. e i sk of lbset. [bes t he pr~a I
1".lDlve II risk of an explO&ion or the
rolease of hez.rdous s<i:Jstanc&$ lln-
cluding, but not limited to, oil.
pest ioldes, c:h<mical. or radilt ion) in X the event of an acclclent or IJP$1It1
11. ~IBllgQr~iQg.
a. WII the proposal alter the location.
distribution, density, Or g,~" 'ate
of tlla humn pop.,lletion of an .rea? X
b. 1M II the proposal effect exl5llng
housing, or create II CkJrsnd for X add I 1 I ana I hc>Js I ng?
;2. Tt~~ggrlll itDtc l r~h% II)!). WI J lhe
pr~al result in;
•• Generation 01 substantial additional
ve/1 j CtJ I a r nuvwrent1 X
b. Etfecu on existing parking lacili·
ties, or dltT1lnd lor"",", parking? X
c. "'terations to present patterns of
circulation or m:>v8Tenr of people x and/ol goods?
d. Increase in traffic hitzards to .M"Otor
vehic'es. bfcyclists or pedestrians? X
EI>'O<l 92·£IA·'6
4
. -,-", .. ~~.-~-",. ---~",,",". ---
~ ~ til
13. Bbl jc $ery""" W 11 the proposal have
a~ effect upon. or result In e need (or neN
or ellared 9O"ernranlal services 10 any of
the foll~ng 8reas:
8. Fire protection?
b. Polio. prDlecllon1
C. SeMel.?
d. Parks or DTher recreational
faeilit ies?
e. ~.'''lnlenance of pcbl Ie fatl! Illes,
including roads?
f. Other goverrmlntal a.rvlces?
T4. Utilities. WIJ the proposal result ina
need for MN syst8TS, or stt>stantlal
elleretions 10 lhe .f0IIONing ul i lit Ie$:
8. Por.ar or natura I gas?
b. O:rm\m ieatlOO5 aYSI8'f'&?
c. ''''''Ie r 1
d. se.er Or •• ptlc lank?
e. Storm Wlter drainage?
f. Sol id 1II8$t8 end disposal1
_x_
x
15. tlm!r, tbglth. 1M II the proposal result In:
t. CreaTion 01 any health hazard or
potentiel health hel.rd (excluding
rrental heallh!?
b. Exposure of people to pol.nlial
/lea/th hazards?
16. .....lbe! Ics. W> II lhe proposal result
in the obstruction 01 any scenic ~jst.
or vis. ... apen to the pub I ie, or will the
proposal result in the creal Ion of an
,es1hetically offensive site open \0
pub I ie vi"",? x
ElfO\l 91-E 1.4.·25
5
~_ ..... __ r __ ~.p.
.L
L
L
L
.L
x
x
x
•
t m; ~ t:Q
17. flecre2! iQ!). Will the pri>p<;>sal resui 1 .
In Btl irrpacot upon It· .. qua I I II' or quan! I ly X of ~xi$ting recre;tional ~.tunlties?
,a. QultU'81 Resources.
B. v.I fI the proposal resul t In the
alteration of/or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historIc
Brchaeo log lca I sitel X
b. W II the proposal result in ed·
verse physJ~1 or aesthetIc eflects
to a prehistoric or historic X building. structure; or obJecll
c. D:>es lhe p'oposal have the pot.ntial
to CBUSe" phySical chanQe v.hich X V<)UI~ affect unique cultural values?
d. W II the proposal rest riel exist In9
religious or sacred uses wi Ihin lhe X poten!ial iTp2Ct areal
19. ~UQry ~lndlngs...2! Signjfh;;n'ke.
•• eDes the project have the potent iii 10
. degrade the qual ily of. the erwirement •
• Vbstantlallyreduee the habit.t of a .. fish or wi lellIfe species, cause" fish
Dr wi tdllle populetion to drop belON
selt·sustaining levelS, threaten to
eliminate a planl or Ini", I comuni!y.
< reduce the nu'l'ber or restr ICI the
ra"9" of • tare or ~rd.angered plant or
an irT'8 I or el iminate lrrportMt oxlJT»les
::>1 the tTI)or per ieds 01 QI 1I0r"ia X history.o, prehistory?
b. D:les the project rove tn. polent ial
to Behieve .l>:lrt·tellTl, to the dis·
adva"tage of long· term, envlrom-enral
goalsl tA shart·telT') inpacl on lhe
env! r~nt 1s one Mich occurs in B
relatIvely brief. definilive period
of Ii"" v-hi Ie 10000'lerm irrpaclS wi II I endure ""II Into the future.}
EIAJ(1
~-f
/
c. [be. the p'ojecl h10ve IrrpaCt& Wlich
are Ind ivlcfuiJT Iy limited, but
etmJ I at i Ye I y CQt\s i de ra" Ie? (A pro.
ject ""y lrTpact CK1 tv<> 0 r rro,.
6eparate resources Woor. the lrTpact
on each resource Is relatively
1m! II. but Woor~ the el feCI 01 the
tota 1 01 t!"ose Irrpacts 00 the
e",,1 roment Is slgnl f lean!. J
d. tbes the project h;,-,. envl roment.1
effects Wllch wi" cause Substantial
BeIv.rs. effects CK1 tJ.n-M beings,
either directiv or iroireclly?
V. Explanat ion of "yes" and mybe" 8n91.8rs in env; r<liTrenla: checkl ist,
See et tacMed.
El.I()(l 92EIA.26
7
\.
'.
1. Eot1h Cb.fl
Constrvdlon of the FWlCng ~c1ure will c1srupt site soNs and 118"5l;11 in minOf chang6~
in ,ft. topogrtlphy. Site loa modjlica.t~ons ere n-=>t expected to resua lr. lifgnrfica.,t edvense
er.virOnm&ntaJ tmpacH. GradJng aCtivities to rlu-tall the bulldrng (ound.atfons will include
rcmova1 of approxJma1eiy 2.000 cubrc yard:; of asphalt cone:"'ete maierial ane: addltlon or
approximately 1.soo cubic yards of fill. All of 1118 exc.vat.d ma!er'~ wiii be reeyel.d. A
de~ 9~"''' and chll)8.go repert .hall be 19'1uirod 10 b& ,.viewed and approved by
!hI Pub,c WOfIIs Department pr!or'o issuance of & eurrdlng P.rm~.
The project sJ!e b located In a seismic area cf moderate risk, and would be subject 10
very rJOng ground shakfng lt1 f.h9 avent 01 An earthquake. AIl new construc1iol'l en the
sne wSi buubjod '0 Ille prolrisions 01 tho CAJrrenl Unnorm eu"cfing Code (U Se), ponlens
or which ore cf<ecled .', minimizing seismic risk and preventing loss er life ond prope~y
In 1M ..,..,t 01 an earthquake.
Cons1ruetion of tn. proled will tiilmporanly resurt In en inCfilase ir. dust emissions eyer
e.xlsting amb1enf air conditions. Tne following dust c:ontro\ mel!l5ure~ shan be required
to redu~ Ih e Impact to an acce-plabht IIVtlJ:
To reduci duS1 /.evels during c:onstructIon It shall be required thet the
IKpohd earth surfaces be ¥:atered frlqUlfltiy during the late momin,g end
the end of thoe day, with fr~UMlCY of wate/ing ine~asjn.9 du:irlg winey
<»ndition.. All streelS and haul rout" shall b6 <loan~ daily. The p'ojocl
engineer shall d.'ignate a person,,] to monitor 1he dust control program
with eutnority 10 requost incroeN.o wateri~ and cr.anrng of streets whel"'l
necessary and/or upon th, request of the Public: Works Department.
Spillage resuHing from heurmg op&rJlions along Qr across any public or
private property shan be fllfT'lOVld Immedlatel)! and' paid for by t~8
contractor. Dus: nuisllnc~s orlginatinp from the C'ontraclor',s operations
whether Nice or outsldra the pubJic-righi-of.way shan be C"ontrclled a1 the
eontract()('s expense.
If, in the opinion 01 L~. City Engl"",,', tho ooot'aC!or fail'!e comply wiLl
Bny of the items concernins .pill&~1!1 and dlJ$l wntrc-l, and the contrac1or
15 e;ther unwilling 0( unable 10 remedy t~ deficiency, the City EnglnEIH
.hL'1 tlmploy privale Or pubnc worlt iorce$. and 5'qulpmenf as required !o
correct the deficilinCY at the conlraclo~ eost Such ac1lon taken by the
City shan no~ relieve th8 contrectOf 01 tn. responsibili1', concernJn;g
spillage and dusl contro,'
The parKh'1g structure wiU increase the parKing SL!PI='~Y, mll'King It E'as~er 10 park, 8r>d
U,erebj.' reducing traHlc circulatIng, lookins for a park'ing space, y .. hich resu~ts. ill Cl POs;,live
aJr quality impact.
,
'··'1 .
•
\
t
'. '
~. P\anll~. leJ
Coostruet~on of the parking structure win re:.ul1 in the Hi:noval or fOl..'r trees (tour Uguld
,Amber) end ssveral GnrL!bs. Seven n6W strtl'et trees (Pislacra Chinensis) wfl! be e;dded
to r~race the tra8s 10 be removed. AdditJonallandsce.plng will be provided In plen:ers
bordering the Pi!'rlmeter of the proJect a.:ong Ce,iifomla Avenue, 8! the pedestrian entries
on NIW Mayfierd Lane and In .second &lory planters wong the Cembridge Avenue and
New Ma't1iel'd l.1l;r'l9 facades. Th~ proposed plan I are8S are wen shaded becalJ$e of th.fr
Jocations 10 the-north of the bu[ldlng or under bundll)g overhangs.
Due10 U'w ~n.striC1ed nature or the sfte end the srze 01t1'lll E1ruc1I..T6 J the function of tha
propond plantil1g fs nmfted 10 enricnmg the s:1dewl!llrk 8nd ground it!vel of the gl!~age.
s.iection of plants for 1118$8 areO.$ was based on a nBed for shade 101erance and vlsua!
!nt~lsl ThO:.Jgh lim,1ed j the tandsceplng propo::ld wm help 10 soften Ihe appearance
0' th!' new 11ruC1ute and Improve the strestscape,
TM CITy of Pelo Allo has eSl&blished 8 st!t of rendscape guJderines 10 rltduce the weter
demarld 01 nlltW 1andscaping. Thes& guide-nne! tnclude !. requirement for use of fow
Waler demand plant &p~es, The UtiiWes Department has expressed som9 concem
about the: proposed mixing of low BTld moderale Wat&~ demand 'Species in this project,
and the mainlenanee requirements of the Clivias and Camellias. Concern has elso bEe~,
~.nf'd aoou! the ,,'ia:':'iity or piantlng frl the a:econd leVi!l pran!ers.
Thougl"l the moong of plants with different wa1.r demands fs net recommenced', I.'e
project Lendscape Archftect's (Dillingham As:!=oefa!es) beHeve tnal IMe serecliol"l 01 high
ahtde lolerant plants wW also perform W&n under low 10 modere.l& wale' condltior'1!l
~use of the shade. Roof ar.d facade plsf"llers are known to ba harsh el'lvlronf'nenls
10r plants. Gfven the limited area Bvailable for landscaping on th!s si1~ they lJe
consIdered' 10 provide valuable additional gf'eenery to th€ project
Though the-PUblic Works Department he.s revfewe:d' the Ple!'11 list and Mas noi f"xpreSsed
any m~nienance con~rns. re-Jisions to the pia."1 should be considered fn respons!-fo
the water demand r-ssues raised, A fina! landscape plan whicl1 me~ls the approval or
Plannir.g. LtcHllies Resource Conservation end Public Works Operations Divisions shoiJ:d
be required es It condltror. 0' project approval,
e. Nolse (ll)
Consl.uctior: ot the project wirl result In 'empofary Jncreases in 8:"11bien! nolse levels.
Constl'1"lc1jon. ectivitjes sha~ be s:..rbject 10 1he pro~ision::o: 0: the Palo ,A.lto NOise Ordi'1ance
(Chaplet 9,'0 PAMCJ, Which ~equire$ ccnsHuctlon equipment 10 be riluffled so es nc1 to
exceed e. norse emission 0' 83 decibe's (d8A) at .e. distlll'1Ce Of 25 feet, or 8 noise fe.'e!
exceeding 86 det:.::bels (dBA) ouls1d13 t1'Ie property linG, unless an exceplion is grBilted.
The trallic generated by the project will contr'lbu1e 10 e:mblen! noise le\Jels In IhE erea, b;..!t
this. tn.cr~ase should no1 result 'In e. n.:ll:cEiab-fe d:Herence In traffiC r-oise, v·.re' e~.is:ilg
cona:tIOr'lS
91·EIA26
9
7. Uph' and (?Jere
Th&h\'o e)js.ting parkinij lot [J'ght standards wilr Ow r!!lmo\lsd. UQhling fOf !h'!"lew parking
5\n1ctUft wtll Include wan moumi'd' fi.;hting on the fro""t e.nd ba.cK bui1ch'':g flicades.
rn1f!rior flghtlns !er!he low-er perking level and stairwells, oMd poie end wan mounted
fighting ." the rool lovel o! the 9""'90. The proje<1 wlli also Incbd. ~gfdlng
~roy,ament$ along1he New Mayfield Lane ailey. Two n~w !IJmlneres v/lIJ le?tace those
existing at either side of the Birch Street &rdranc-e to the ailey and one new r'"d'~1 standard
",in b9 .dded whe", New Meyfield Uno end Nogal Lar.. int.rs~cl
Th. Clged 10 prQVide adequate ~ghtin9 (or this project w ... r6i •• d durin~ prelimioaJy
rev'II~'WS as a sa1ety COrlCl:!m. beeaute:1he 9~8ge-wiu be used em a 24 hour baS1s and will
hav@ a main pedestrian access off of an af1sy. The p.rop05ed nghting $hQu:d not pose
BTly nuisance -or CI;ht glere cff$ite as "tn. futt..Jres selected are directiot\al wIth f<ttl.
spruoY,r, .and ther, are no rvs:i!lentlal us., bordiring the site.
The project li.9h~;ng plM mlJ$~ also be e.ppro\<~ by the-Architectural fJ,ell"je.H S06fO.
12. TranseortatkmtCircule.tton (e b c 1l
The proJecl is e. 1Be· .spac~ parking structure en two ~els dedica1ed for p ... br.c use that
wm replace the 9O-s.pace suriaee pArking k>t. The ptoj'ilc' helps e.n~..,iBte f..." estimat-eO
apprl)xima'e :ISO-space short.ge In porking In the area.
The-pro;ec1 add, addlUonal treffic \0 Cambrld08 A.venue. but not to tne eru as a whele.
Th. addition of 96 parking .s.pac.s lilt the project site 16 eslim=led to QI.,.rafe Sr"!
~dditjol\.1 600 average daily !rips {300 tn ",,<I 300 oUl) ""d 1 00 p .. ' Mur trips to
Cambridge Avenue over eJtf$!inp condltions. Howev.r. this lncrease will not have-a
Significant Impact. In add"rtion. as a parking Spica will be easier to locate, 111f! amo"\Jnf or
circulating traffic wm be rtduc-ed, off-$A)ttif"lg 1"''' 6xpecled Increase.
The parking structure does not rasu!t !n M)' sIgnificant permanent ch&nges in tra~!c
conditions. There will be pedestrian Dee-e'n through the 1aeili1}' a:-~d e.!1 d~li\ler1es in 1he
fanes behi . .,d the lacm!y can contin:Je. Th8r~ are, however, 'hoi1~term during ::~.""tstrvdion
Impacts, as discussild below.
Aftertha compll)tlan of t.."G pa:-king structure. New Ma;1l&I-d lane and Nogar UJf"le w:U be
reconstructed and area figh1lng Improvement$ ii'ls~e..-n~d. Thi$ does not 1t"S.U~ If'! t\,..,:;:
permanent changes in ltaffie patterns. but does have st"lort·tE:rm duri(lg consHuctjon
impae!s o.s disC\)ss&d belcw.
Construction Impllela
Inl.r"1m loss of ParkJn,g ~ A 1018.1 of 93 sppces wm be lost while trre 1acilit) Is under
construction -90 spaces in lot:3 and 3 curb spaces. As documented in. tile follow;ng
tabla, !r: survey of alee. parking lots shows that S'\Ien d1.lring 1he period of peak demand
("oon·1 PM) there ts available spece in other City lots nearb)' !o accommodfl!e the
9~·E:4, 26
10
:~t~~l:;C
...... ~ .. -· ...
-:.,.,
-
Qis~aced psrkers curing "'~e construction process, The Park 8ou~evard spaces an; on~
street two·hour $.paces that must be signed to allow pernlt perking.
. .'''j;r~.;;;.i!;:i: \~':30i·10;~O:":ir.'·;,'. 'i~L.:12.j':p:,",' , 2:30.-~:30.l>:in,·
~4>~i;::32i!~p.¢,;: ,tiC:;!:.W.-' ''::)riJ3;;?i~::;;,90;: < .. ";. .', ",'. ,:' .90::'::.:;
Spacl Ava:bbnity In
00 .. LoeaUons
L.ot 5 (2nd F:oor) 45 1 $ 30
Lol6 57 35 79
Lot 7 S5 5 31
L.ot8 ~ 18 U·
Pori< Blvd, 30 21 23
To~a.! 220 198
Tne fo!JO'Ihing measures are proposed by tI"Ie Cfty 10 address the inlerim ross 0: parking,
A month be.fcre cfoslng 0.1 L.ot 3 a letter wm be mailed to aI1 the property owners wno are
Ii5t&d on the Califomia Avenue Business Ois1rict Assessmlmt rons and a~ the exisling
parking permft: holders In the Califomia Aver-tie Business Dis1rfct This lettei wir( inform
them of the pending construct'lon and closure of Lot 3, the expected duration of
eonstruc11on, a.,d JdentTfy lnterim parking areas e.vaIlabll At least t'oNo weeks before
closing of Lot 3, two tempoler'j signs w\jl be "'s!aned on Lot 3 Informing of the pending
dosure of l01 3 and construcUon of !h:e parkin" strtJCture, Tr.ese slgni will also identify
bther interim parking areas avaIlable during the closure. Flyers will also be ~assed out
10 al! the local businesses withln a two blocl: r~dlus of Lot::; informir.g business owner!,
employees and customers or the piinding parklng lot closure and constitJ<;fiorr and
notfryi;"lg ll,em of Inter:m areas available for parking. At leas1 7~ l'iours prior to c:lc;$ure
"No Parking' signs wllf b6 posted throughou1 Lot 3 warnIng of the m,mediate dosure and
consW¢tJon.
Tr.ffie Ind PedestrIan Circulation .nd Acelle! • During cons1rucliofl 0' !he stn.Jc!ure,
ped&striar. access tnrough 1he &'lte 'WIH not be permrtted. The safes! ahemaliye route is
to walk wesl tow8fd Sirch Street 01" ~ast to No£:al L.ane or Park BoUlevard. This detoui
will resurt In no more than an !.ddluona' few minutes in walking tlme,
A temporary construction fence w;11 be Ins1an"d along th e front and back of the structurE/.
The sldewarK end 8 feet of the .liitreet will be fenced off lor the ~ength or the $truc1LJre
along Cambr'dge Avenue. Traffic will bli maJntained in bOlh o1reclions 01'1 Cer'T'lbrldge at
all 'times curing construction. ·Sidewalk Closed Ahead' signs wlll be posled on the
Sidewalk st the nearest c!'Osswark tocations to alert pedestrians, that the sidewalk js
closed, and to allow Iherr. 10 cross Ihe street $a~e~y ~!her, welking a!ong C~rnbridge
I\llsnue, ~. 1empGrary fence .... ,':!I also be erected C:"" the 1\1<::' .... Ma'y'!leld Lene s-:de or the
91 -EIA·26
11
~'·'···t~
. ...........
-,.
parkfng structure, however this will not resuft In closure of the 6!)ey. Ouring cOr'1S1ru.;1ion
cftha parking structure, a minImum clearance of 12' wi~ be maint.alned 10 elTow access
through tho altey.
The tnJc)( route for constructJol"l dtinl/.r~s will be 8 C&rnino Real 10 C-ambridge AVer,u&
only. No other truck routes wW btl aeeept..ble. Sil'1ce thfs 1$ currently 811 8ppr~ved lruck
roule. no adverse Impacts uc expeeled. Conolru<:1inn eontre<:1s sho"ld specil). the
requirement to in10rm arr contractor. IlI'Id subcontractorl.
UpOl\ completion and opening 0' 1M parklng sUuelure, New Mayfleld Lane and Nogal
Lene will be reconst'1Jcted. During thls approximtlte t'No WE!ek period, norma! vehicle
.ee .... pickups .nd donveries 10 tho olley win be permitted on ~ ~mlted b .. i •. C,,", thot
curr .. ,tIy perk In tho olley will be allowed 10 lemporarily us. the parking strvctvre a1 no
cool A lemporary loodiJ19 20ne will be e.t up on Brrch Street H necessary. Pedestrian
.¢Cass 10 the arrey will be malntalned most If net all of the time. Daily access to a f1cw.r
earl. that Is parkod and locked cp on tho olley a! nighl, will be malntalned. rempora>y
ramps end paths wHJ be installed AS nfi.ded to pro .... lde 8s11 ac;:cess for ped$$trians,
garbage plckup. and the flower cart Acces, wm also b. maint!.rned 10 1heloading area
a! the bock of the Post Office. Thi. Is the only loading area lor Ihi. P051 Office and
,ho\Jld be Boc@!:sibfe most it not an 01 the time. Although lome inconvenience to
surrounding bwsinessE's 1'5 expected, tl"te aney reoonstruct'lon and r,ghting jiTIprovements
wJ1J be 41emForary imPAct fastJng from two to fot.r weeks. .
PublIc Outnach Prog~ a Prier to thls repol1 aJJ the bU$lnes~es sl.Jrrol.Jnding Lot 3 were
~ilVen e. 'eHer l"forminQ them or the ccnlwcUon of the parking :structwra a:HI aJrey
rlcons~rucUon. They wer~ also asked 10 respond 10 • ques:tlonnaue by PubIle Worr.:s
Engineoring with qu .. otion. abouI .noy dellverl.. and pickups. garbago pickup.
<::DMbvc1'lon nolse, and Joss o~ parking during constructioo. Response$ to 1M
questionnaire proYidQcJ Staff information on problems associated with the aney closure
dlJrtng reconstruction. A sfmijar outreach program wn! be ¢¢nducted prior to constiUc!iorl
ot both the perking structure e1ley improvements. After flJt:ura communny owtreach
'lJNeys., the proposed construction/'traffic control plan mey be (&vislPd, if necessary, to
bette~ accommodate the needs of local busln8sSis,
At !liast two weeks. prior to closure of the e11ey for reconstruction {after tn9 parking
'tnJC\ure fs o.oened). a~ businesses shutting the elle}' will be notified by flYfilr of the
pending construction and closure. 11 garbage eontaInsn!ii and recycle bins are temporartly
:,eJoeat~ durIng arrey reconstructJon. businesses affected' "",Ui be informed. Public Works
Engineering wi!J work closely with PASCO and busineues owners to estab~sh alternate
prckup iocations. One week prior to the aney reeonstruc1Jon, cars that currinUy parl< in
the alley will bG given lemporary perrnl'ts 10 perk in the parki:lg struc!wre. A1 least 7:2
hours prior to cJOSUfE 01 elley, "No Parklng" lIIigns wilj bs posted throughout the alley
waming of 1he pending dOSlJre due to reeonstruc110f1.
13. Publlo ~kes (el
!hit new par~Jng structure will be maintained by the Clly but is e)Cp:ected to require ono/
I!I h_,gligibte. inereaslln maintMance CQmpared to the existing parkir"lg lot
Mor. mairrtl!!nanoe is rlquired for the nllW landtce-ping, butth. increate 1s marginal, Tne
Lancscape P1«n !nC'1.:des • combination 01 Aspidistra e.od Pittosporum which rQlQuire
m~ wa1er us. and pe:form well ,in shaded areas v ... i1ho~'t excess maintenance.
Mraintenance of th.-Clivla a"'ld Camellias also would be minimal.
14. lJ1Il!t!es (0 II
Ther. win be • naed for water MofrupS for landscaping and a possible spri!'lkler system.
The overall ievel of new demand ls, ho~lter, ,,",significant.
Dur"lng the reoonstrueUon of Mayfield and Ncge-' lanes garbage (;.!kup will either be
maintained In the alley or eon1alners. will b6 mewed In:o the parking s.truoture. Dumping
of garbage into relocated cont~n.f3 wIU take a few additionaJ m inule.s. pickup 01
OO~~lrs b)' PASCO will result In no significant impae1s.
16. AWhoti",
Though e e."tal'\ge from the B)'isting condition (sl.Iriace lof), the projeci "as been designed
10 be compatible wtth the scele and character of surroundIng development Bnd to provide
clltarty ldentifiabr& building entries and an attraet1ve straaiscape,
The deslgn rerrec1s elements of an ·old town' masonry structure wnn ornate comices and
Window elements. The use of brlck mucrvy on the structural portions js proposed to
hefp 10 soften the appearance of this ~ructur. end 10 reflect the newer brick: office
lx.I~dlng on Ihe Opposite side ofCambrldge Av~ue. Stee-! trams work Is also reminiscent
01 old lronwork.. la,..dscape plamers ere provided to relaTe ~des.1 rian traffIC along thE
street 10 the new facility.
This proposal prov'ldes fel1tL;res which wifl compltli'"Mnt the nQi.ghOorhood, relete to the
exJS1lng hjsl,:.~jc bufldings, and herp draw people to this area.
91·EIA·26
13
\.
November 13, 1992
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, Ca1ifornia
Citt' of J'alo )lIto
~ 0 !.tO~ 1')1';.'
f>"lO .\.l.H,. ell 94lii3
ATTACHllENT C
Planned Cognunit'i Zone C~ange Z75 Cambridgt AV'inue, City Parkirlg lot 3
Members of the Commission:
Report in Brief
This report forwards the Archftect~rl1 Review Board's (ARB) recommendation on
the Planned Community zone change for 275 Cambridge Avenue, City parking Lot
3. A zone change from PF, Public Facility and (C{2J. Communlty Commercial
CGSbining Distrlct to PC, Planned Commun1ty Oistrtct is proposed for this site
t~ allow construction of a 18&-space, two-level parking str~cture, with lero
setbocxs.
Background
The Planning Commission previously reviewed this application on September 30~
199L At the meet i ng tt'le Plann; rlg (ol'lJni s s i on ~'oted unan 1 meus 1,)' (5 -0 I 2
absent) to conceptua11y approve the project and forward the appl ieat ion to the
ARB for recommendation. (Planning Commission staff report dated September 25.
1992, provided .s Attachment E.)
Architgctural Review Board Action
At the ARB meeting of October IS. 1992, the ARB voted unanimous1y t~ recomroend
approval of the project subject to conditions recommended by staff as
lIlodified. The Informati.anal Memorandl.:rr1 forwarded to He ARB addressed th~
issue of safety raised by the tenants of 230 California Avenue at the Planning
Commission meeting.
A review of Police statistics fDr the existing parking structure or. Cambridge
Avenue at lot (-5, a ~omparable structure to the proposed project, did not
show a higher incidence of crime than other surface 10ts in the California
Avenue B~sin€ss Distrjct. The Police Department did acknowledge that a
greater number of calls fer ser~lce are recei~ed in the ~icinity of The Edge,
which are beir,g addrf!ssed through a 5~parate Use Permit process {see also ARB
Memo, Attacnment 8;.
··'jl
.:r
11/13/91
Pag€ 1
•
In taking tn!ir a~t;on the ARB considered tne landscape plan and amount of
illumination shewn on the 11ghting pran to be acceptab~e as presented ~nd not
in need of further ARB review, and eliminated a staff recomme~ded condition
that these-plans be revised and returl'.ed for final reviEW' by the ARB. The ARS
did request that the iight fixtures be bronze or painted bronze, and that
painting the ceiling of the lower level be explored to pro\.'ide more re'lected
light, without ne&d to incre~se the Tt~el of illumination.
The ARB also req~est~d a response from the project consultant iddressing the
settlement of t~e proposed post-tension concrete slab and its effect on the
remafnfng $truct~re lfollow~p 1etter to ARB), and a definfd security program
for the structure, including a tel£phone on both parking leye's~ be presented
to the Flanning Commission. PubliC speakers at the ARB meeti~g included
California Avenue Area Develop~nt Association members _~Q ~ere in support of
the project a~d several psythotherapists at 230 California Avenue who
questioned the ~eed for and were o~posed tc the project. and w~re concerned
about safety (see a1sc ARB Minutes, Attac~~ent C).
Security Program
Staff believes tnat the perceived need for a special -security program-for
this parking structure is related to the presence and operation of The Edg!
a~ the reported behavior of s~me of th~ patrons it attracts t~ the area.
Staff believes that tne following actions will help to alleviate tne safety
concerns.
1. long Term Safrty Measures Incorporated ir.to project Design. An oper.
deSign, the provision of adequate light 1evels and a te1ephone on both
parking levels inc.or~{lrate long term safety measures ·into the project
design.
2. Cgntinued Increased Pol fee Patrols jn t~E V1tinity af The Edge. The
Peliee Department has increased their patrols in the area in the
vicinity of The Edge in response to the increased calls for serYlce from
this area. The Police Department will continue to devote spe~ial
attention to this area as long as tne need exists. It shouid b~ noted
that any police patrol wi1l still be operating or, iI. priority response
basis if calls fo~ service elsewhere are recei~ed.
3. Safety Awar~ness Trajning The Pclice Department staff is also
~yaiTable upDn request to pro¥ide Personal Safety Awarness training
through workshops held by the Pol ice Crime Prevent ion Oi .... ; si on. Thi s
program enhantes Cltlzens awaref'l.!SS of suspicious activities and
s~ggests indlvidual behavior modification to increase personal safety.
11(13(92
Page 2
•
.,. r
4. Requirement fo!'" Security Guard at Parking Si.ructure Imposed by the
Zoning Administrat<lr .as i! result of Revocation Hearings on the [;dstil'lg
(onditjoDi1 Use Permit for Cgntinued Operation of "ilie Edge Night Cl~b,
1~e Edge night club operating at 260 California A~enue has been the
subject of substantial neigh~orhood and co~ur.ity cancern and complaints
about its patT':)ns (noise, litteF"if1g, vandaHsm, consumption of alcohol,
disord€,;,,11 behavior etc.). The Edge Use Perm1t was rec.:ntly sch€dllled
for a rt!vocation and review he.aring whfch allowed the imposttion of
addition.l optrational conditions, After severa1 publIc hearinqs the
Zoning Administrator modified the conditicna1 u.se p<E=rmit under w~lfch ihe
Edge operates by adding cooditlons ~f approval directed at resolving th~
neighborhood and C"!M'Hmity concerns (see also copy of conditional use
p.noit pro,ld.d a. Attachrno,t 0).
The c~ndit~orls inc1IJdca estab1ishm~!I"t of a Hmit on the hours of
operatiGn, 2 plan for line ~nd crowd control. a program for litter
cleanup ind i plan for pro~islon of security guards in directing Edge
patrons to the appropriate parking lots and pro~iding additional
sUNeillance Df such lots during the hOllrs The Edge is in ope rat ion.
The secur1ty plan ts to be approved by the Policf!! Depart~nt and Zoning
Administrator and is intended to get Edge patrons ~ut of the
ne19hborhoods and to prevent loitering. vandal ism. consumption of
alcoho~, public urination. e;(cess;~e nOise, fighting and other public
nuisancf!!s and disturbanr.es which were alleged to nave occurred in th~
parking 10ts and v;'init~ of The Edge. As envisioned by the Zoning
Administrator this condition mea~s tnat a security guard will be present
in the new park.ing structure ~~jd other ar-ea par!cing lots.
T~e use permit and conditions recentTy approved by the Zoning
Administrator for The Edge have been appeale~ by ihe Edge operator. The
appeal is tentatively scheduled for a public hearing before the P1anning
Cormrission on December 9, 1992.
Tbe En'-";ronme.nta.1 ~s5e5smer,t prepared for this p.roject find~ thc.t it will net
result in any sig~ificant en~irGnmental impacts, and recommends adoption of a
I\egath'e det1aration. "., copy Df (n.ironmental Assessment is provided as
Attacnment J of Attachment E.
DeveJDpmfnt Program. De.elopment PT~.n.....1_nd Development Sch~du1e
Prior to making a recommendation to the City Council, the Planning Commission
must approve a Development Program Statement, specific Development Plans and a
Development Schedule for the project. All of these items WfrE prc'lided and
a·::!dressed' in the September 25, 1992 Planning Commission !:-taff report prepared
for thi s project lAttachment E). No changes ha~re been made to these CDClJments
. -:~',
1l/11/92
Page 3
-
cr tne project plans since that time, Oup1icate copies of the de~elopment
plans ire available at tne Planning Department liDon reQuest.
£i~
1. The site ;s so situated, and the use proposed for the site ;s of such a
characterist;c tnat the application of general districts or combining
distrlct.s iNi'l not pr(lvide sufficient fle:dbillty to allow the proposed
de~elopment in that given the sn~llow s1te depth a two-1evel parking
garage cannot be feasibly constructed within the restrictions of other
loni!l.g classifi,atl0ns. Tne sHe development regulations of the PF zone
which limit site coverage to' 30 p~rcent 'WitM a 20-folJt front setbaCk and
10~foot side and rear yard setbacks would reduce the Met dlmension area
of the !ite significintly making developm~nt of a parking structure
infeasible_
2. Devel<1pment of the site under the provisions of the Planned C<lrmlunity
01strict will re~u'~ in public benefits nQt otherwise attainable by
application of the regulations ~f general districts or combining
districts in that jt allows for a project design which provides tne
maximum amo~nt of public parklng feasible on the site in a two-Jevel
structure. The o¥erriding need for increased par~ing in the California
Avenue Business Cistrict was documented through an ana1Y51s of pirkfng
supply and demane perfoTm&d in 1988 as part of a Parking Structure study
whi:h a1s.u analyzed the relat;"'e costs and benefits of aTt,,!r"~+~ ~,~r'....;,,'::1
structure designs and locatfons. The conclusiors of this report were
reviewed and recei¥ed cortceptuaT apprnval at publ ic meetings held by the
Planning Commission on JUrte 27, 1990, by the Architectural ~eview Board
on July 19. 1990 and by the Clty Council on October 7. 199~.
3. The use and tne site development reg~Tations applicab1e within the
district are conSistent with the Pale .a.lto Comprehensive Plan~ and are
compatible with existing and potential uses on adjOining sites or within
the general \llc:inity in that the project is an enlargement ;:)f in
existing public parking faci1ity, which w11l increase public parking
available for the commercial uses in the area and will help to minimize
the overflow of commercial parking ~;thln area nei9hborhood~, specific
goals of the Comprehensive Plan (Transportation Element Policies 10,
10 ••• nd II and Programs 27. 28).
Conditions
The following are recommended conditions of approval for the Proj~ct as
modlfled by the Architecturil Review Bo~rd.
Prior to fssuance of a Building Permit th2' following shall be accomplished:
1. The final 1andscape plan shall be subm
for approval. The existing Chinese pi
r-etained and ne ... Cninese pistacne tree
ttF!d to PT annirg Department
tache ~treEt trees shall be
shall be: planted.
staff
Jl\ol~I.: ..... ".2.pc J]/~3/92
Page -4
'1
2.
3.
4.
s.
6.
7.
The final lighting plan ~halT be submitted to Planning Department staff
for approval and shall include bronze light fixtures for a11 exterior
light i ng.
Stiff shall stody th1: possioli11ty of painting the ceiling whHe in lieu
of increasing the internal lighting or to reduce the amount of in~reased
lighting.
Th. City shall install a publ ic t.lephone on both 1 ev.l, of the
structure.
The structural engineer for the project shall provide a letter to the
ARB siating the ~thDd used to avoid the possibility Qf slab deflection
damagi~g the facade.
Details of the brick/concrete transit ion shall return to the ARB On
consent calendar.
No building permits shall be issued until a Parcel Ma~ or certificate of
compliance, as apprcpr;tte, remc~jng lot lines and marging the four
underlying parcels into one pa~cel is a~prcv~d.
S. The final drainage plan shall be designed so .as to prevent drainage OYer
t~e publ ic 'ide.alk..
9. Improvement plans and specifications for all utility construction for
th~ parking structure and alley improvements shall be re~iewed and
approved by the Utilities Engineering Division. The P1a~s shall show
the proposed alignment of water. gas ind sewer mains and services ind
electric servicE line~ within the development and in the public right
of-way. No work shall begin until the utility improvement plans and
load sheets rlave been approved by the Water, Gas, Wastewater Engineering
Civision, the light and PO\liler Engineerii"lg Division if1d the City's Cross
Connection Control Inspector.
Prior to Fina1 Jnspection of the Project the fol1o~ing shall be accompli~hed;
10. The requit-ed exiting shall be maintained from a.ll surrounding buildings
during the tOUrSE of construction, to the satisfaction of the Chief
Building Official and fire Department.
11. The prollisions of the project constrllction managt:inent plan (including
traffic, vehicular and pedestrian, and loading controls) and interim
parking plan~ approved by the Planning. Tra~sPQrtation and Pub1ic Works
Departments shall be incorporated into the construction contracts. with
implementation to be monitored by the Public ~or(s Department on a.n
ongoing baSis throughout the construction process.
Such Plan snall reflect the following:
11/13/92
Page 5
"
That Cam~T;d~e Avenue will be open to two·~ay triffic at all
times.
No project related truck tr.ffic ""ill be permitted on California
Avenue.
Use of New Mayfieid Lane and Nogal lane wi 11 be restricted for
limited periods ~f time during const~uction of !~e alley
improvements~ Alternate loa~in9 and 9arbage pickup areas will be
p,o'id.~ durin9 these times.
All e:dsttng street trees to be retained shall be protected .. ...during
cOl'l'Structiol) •
12. To reduce dust levels during constructi~n the construction contract
shall require all exposed earth surfaces to be ~.t.red frequently durin9
the 'ate ~rnir9s and at the end of the day, .ith frequency of ~atering
increasing ff wind speeds exceed ]5 miles per hour. All streets and
haul routes sna11 be cleaned daily in the vicinity of the project. The
co~tractor tha11 designate a perso~{s} to manitor the dust ,a~tra1
program with autn~rity to n,qufre increased watering and cluning of
streets when necessary and/or upon th~ request of the Public Works
Department. Spillage resylting from hau11ng operations alons or across
a~y public Dr private property shall be removed immediately and paid for
by th! contractor. Dust nuisances originati~g from the Contractor's
op~ratio~s tither inside or outside of the rignt-of-way shall ~
contro11ed at the Contractor's expense.
13. All sidewalks and Llnused driveways borderi ng the project shan be
r~pa ; red ,r,d/or rep' aced ir. cc.mp 11a:1tt "i th rub lie WorKS a.pprovEd
standards, includlng construction af five new handicap ramps. All
existing street trees s~al1 be protected durir.g construction and new
trees p1anted as part of the 1andscape p1an, to the sati~fattion of City
staff.
RecQ!!!M!ndatjQn
Staff recommends tha.t Ue Planning CommiSSion reCOlTFlend the City Council find
tnat the projett will ",at have any significant environmental effects and
appro~e the proposed Planned Community Zone Change subj~ct to the abo~e
findin9s and conditions is 5ho~ in the Draft Ordinance provided as Attacnment
A.
~e.pe. tf .. UllY .u_~mi tted.,
Cjtft'LLk.f;, u:...
ARAH CHENEY ~-
Senior Pl armE!'r ()
NANCY lnl[
Chief Planning Official
1l/13/91
PagE-6
t
• t • I
I ~ ~ ~
~
i
Athehooe.to:
tQ:gji:~ ~~I!t TQ:
";.... . . ..... ' -'.
A.
B.
C.
O.
E,
F.
Ora ft Or~i nanee
Art~itectvrii Re~;ew Board Memorandum dated Octobc~
15, 199~
Minutes of ARB Meeting of October 15. 159Z
U'5e Permit fer 260 California Avenue
~lann;"9 Commission Staff Report dated Septemb!r 25 1
1992 wit, attac'ments
]. Environmental Assessment
2. Locatior. Map
3. Deve10pment Program Stat~ment from applicant
~. o.velopment Senod"le
5. Traffic/Construction ~an~gement Pian and rnterim
Parking PI an -'
6. CMR:431 :91, d.t.d October 3, 1991
7. Excerpt Minutes of Hay 21, 199z ARB meeting
Development Plans were provlded to Planning
Commissieners in Commission pa~ket of 9/25/92
California Avenu~ Area Development Assoc1atlon, c/o Ronna Oev~ncenzi, CAADA
President
David Sc~rom. Ever~reen Park Neighborhood Association
Paul Kahn, Grant Avenue Condominium Owners Association
Janice Pl~r, Park Central Commertial Condominium Assoc)ation
~ff Sundheim, 420 florence Street, Pa10 Alto, California, 94301
Persons A~tendin9 August 2], 1991 Public Hearing on California Avenue Parking
Structure
Property Owners and T~nar.ts of sites bordering Alley Improvement PrDject
Projeot Consultants
Speakers at Public Hearings on The Edge Use Permit
.,'"' ..... ,,~ 11/13/92
Page 7
•
II. REGUlAR AGENDA
"
!NFORI!ATlONAl XEMORANDUM
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
October 15, 1992
275 CIJiBRIOGE AVE. /CALIfORNIA AVE. -Publ ic
City of fa' 0 ft.lto
ATTACHI'£NTC .1
PerKing lot :3
S2-~,RB-lJ9
92-ZC-12
92-EIA-26
Zone change from PF, fublic Facility aod CC(2) Community Commercial
Combining Oistr!ct to Planned Comrnunit.Y to anow cOi1struc:tion of a
two-le~el, 186 space parking structure ~itn zero setb;cks and minor
Encroachments into the public rlght-of-way (sid£walKs).
REQUESTED ACTiON
Approva1 of PC Zone ChangE·
ZONING -
Pr, Public Facilities and CC(l) C"",,,nity COll\'Tlercial Co~bining District
USE CATEGORY: PlJblic Parking
rNVIRONNENTAl IKPACTASSESSMENT
An' lnitial Study recoliillending adoption of c: negative declaration is
attached to the P1anning (owmission Staff R~port dated S~ptember 25, 1992
enc10sed with your packet.
BA(f.G ROUND
A history of the Project and mere d"etailed description .md anii1ysis of the
proj!ct is provided in the Planning {orrunlssion staff report .enclosed in
the pac •• t,
Two alternative designs for the project rece;~ed a preliminary rp.v;ew by
th~ ARB tin Hay 21, 1992. Alternative A, which inc1uded the tJse of bdck
masonrYI concrEte cornices aIld ,'indo' .... el!:ments \r!'cs Ue preferr€J'
alternativ~ and reviewed favorably. Ercerpt minutes of this meeting are
included in the cttachec Plann'rI19 Co;r.mission st.aFf report.
Prior to the P1a:nning (om!l1~ssicr; /i:eeting City st.df met \'l'ith four tenants
M 230 Cal iforni i!. )l,venue wno tlad expressed concerns about the construct ion
impacts of th-e proposed project. Two (if the ten2nt.s were therapists who
bel ieved that the noise from cOIlstructior. , •• iould pre\lent tht'-m from
continuing to practice 2t their CIJrrEnt loccticr:·. T~,EY C;'Je-.stioned the
p:\arb, i""~\ irnel015 page 3
•
-
need for the par.king structure in the proposed l(1cati{ln a:1,j felt H:.at a
parking garage would be less safe than the existing SJrface lot.
Tne neignbornood grrup requested p01 fce statistics of the number of calls
for service for area parking lots and structures including 10t 3~
believing t~.at the presence of the Edge 1'1 ightcl ub incrv.sed cr~lT1e in the
area and presented unique problems. StOlff has requested the iJ1formation.
from the Police Departti1E'nt and a representative from the police departr:H?n.t
will be prese~t .t the meet~n9.
Staff ~as ~150 prepared an interim parKing plan and constructlon
ma.nagement plan (attached to Planning COll2l1issio"l staff Tep-art) to U1inf:nize
inconvenience to surrc:unaing businesses during the (ons.truct ion process
construction process.
PUBlrc HOTICE/REVI~ BY OTHERS
The prcject was reviewed by the Planning Conrnission at a Pub1ic Hearlrjg
held on SEptember 30, lS92 and· is sc~eduled for .1 second Pl anning
Commission Public Hearing on November 18, 1992 and a City Council hearing
on Decemb~r 21, 1992.
Should the project be approved a separate process for approval of i ne~
California Avenue Park1ng Auessment will be initf2_ted to fund
(~nstruct1on of the project.
PlANNING "COMMlSSION ACTrON
ThE: Planning (ormlfssion voted unanimously to conceptualTy approve tnt!
project and forward the project to the ARB. Speakers at tne meeting spoke
.both in -favor and in opposition to ttie parking garage. Those Dpposed were
primarily conc.erned about constr!Jcticn impacts on their bUsinesses.
Severill also questioned the need for i structure in the proposed lot:.ation.
In taking their action the Planning Comission recognized the !lEee' for
increased parking and a(kncwTedged that the hardships and inco~veniences
Endured by 50me businesses were outilleigned by the benefit of providing
increased parking for the California Aver.ue business a~stri(t.
DISCUSS I ON/ An'.L YS 1 S
Desian 1.ssues
Please SEe the enclosed Planning COntr.ission 5t.aff report for a discussion
of He bUilding deSign, building materials, access and Circulation,
Jandscaping 2nd a11e-y impr()~'€ments.
liq~tinCl . ThE need for adeqlJate and appropriate ligMing for the project
~as raiSEd during its earliest reviews. The lighting plan calls for four
basic ty~€S of lighting: 1) Wall mounted f~cade lighting on the East an~
WEst elention5 serving beth a oecorat"ivE end fU:lctioni:l plJrpose, 2)
functional ground level sarage lighting, 3) upper leVEl pclej ... 'all mounted
garage lighting, and 4) interior stairwell lighting. The phn.s call for
pagE' 4
use of metal ~allde ligHir;g. ~,t the time of the Plannlng Co:r.mj~sfon
meeting !.taff was s'uggesting that us€ of high pressure sodluiTI lights be
conside~ed is th~y have s1i9~tly lower ma1nt~~ance cost!.
The level of ill~~ination to be provided en the upper and lower levals of
the parkjng structure in the current lighting plan v2ries from 13 to 11
footca!1dies directly beneath iignt fixtures to J to .6 footcandles between
light fixtures. Secause of the safety concerns expressed abQut use of a
parking structure staff p€rformed a daytime and nighttime lighting survey
of several parking liJts and strl!ctures CLots 3 and 5, Cambridfje Avenue.
Lot J Downtown. Stanfo!"d Shoppirg C~nter, Childrep's Hospital, and
Stanford Ci!.mpus). Th1s survey revealed that the 1evei of nluminatiol'l
G'irectly underne.ath 1 ighting fixtures varfed~ The differences \oIere in the
are3S in between 1 i9flts~ where 1 ight 1e~eTs ... ·aried from 0 to 3+
footcindles. The Police Department had' previously recorr.mended that a
minimum of one footcandJe b~ maintained on all leve1!.
As a result of public concern, staff recommends gOing above t~1s level,
. and is working !tIdth the 1 igflting consuHants to develop a revise.d. ph"
which will achieve a nigher le~~l of ; l1arnination, greater diffusion of
1 jg~tins ;."d majntain a minimum of 2 footcandres Cit any location within
·the strLIc-tur':!. Staff also now favors use of metal h.alide lights because
they provide Tess color distortion and have become en industry trend than
the hi9~ press.ure ~odjJ.JilI li9~ts.
Other design related modifications to the 1 ig!1.ting pl an ,proposed for
consideration by the ARB include:
J. Wall 1'::JU1";ted l ishting ~ T~e same lighting fixture-be used on the
east snd ..... est elevo.tions, wan Us€ of i!. half round fixture
recomrner.ded to be s ub.s t i tuted fo r a full rQund I tc reduc:e 1 f gh t
glare. Add two additional wall mounted 11g~ts to the east
elevction, with one more above eacn pedestricr, entry to provide
better lighting ind a more balanced appearance.
2~ Pole Mounted L~ghtin9 Upper Garage L~vel -C{;r;side-ration should be
given to elimination Df the two perimeter pole, mounted lights clang
the Cambridge AVEr;ue elevation visible: from Cambridge twentH!.
substituting higher Hghting at the center cf tr,e second levlO'l to
compensate for their removal if necessarj.
3. The light f~.xtlJres be black: ritner tnar, white.
MID
At earl ier project reviews, both the JI.RB and Pol ir:e: Department r..ade
r€com:nendaticns-that the project t;ave. ilr, oprn desig,n .,: it r. good \lisibil Hy
and a6equ~te lignt'ng. Th~se recom~e~d2tions ~~VE bE~~ ~efle'tE~ in thE
prClje-:t desig"j to the dEg"'fE fEasible giv~r; the [l2rrO~1 .site iHgth and
width dimensions and ne~d fer a design wh'c~ presents ~ttr~ctive str~et
E'levations.
P:'.o;!;:,\i"f~\;m>c\015 p<lge 5
"> -'-"'-~--"'T""".f"'''''·iI· • ., ... "' ... -.. "'-.-... ......... _-_.,,-_.
In response to i specific request from n2ighhoring te~ants ~ho believe
tPl.at the ne ... parking ~tructu~r h'ili be less safe t~an the existing parking
!ot. the Police Department reviewed police statistics for H:e pc.rking lets
on Cambridge Avenue, including lot 5 (a two·~evel parking :structure).
This revirlC showed no €:Vidence ~hat the E'x1stins par~ing !tructure on
Cambridge AvelU:e is less safe than any of th~ surfac~ lets. ,Ii,Jwever it is
recogniud that st!"eet surveillance of a parking it't is easier tnan ~
parking structure. Tne Police Department has recor.::TIended tnat oil phone be
pra ... id~d in tile strlJcture.
rt is rerognfud V • .o.t the area in the vicinitj of the Edge receives Illore
cans for Police 5"erv;ces than other areas of California Alienue during
hO~lrs when the Edge lS in operatfon, ane illS receivi!d increased Po1 ice
surveillance. These i~sues are bei~9 addrEssed t~rou9h a review ~f tne
cClnc'Hi~na1 use ,pennit under whidl the Edge operate: and the impositi01l of
additional oper~tiona1 conditio~s which include the pr~vision of security
guards f(lF" designated public parking lots. a reduction jn the hOU1'S of
operaHcn. meoilsures ·t<l remove litter, elimfnate ]0:1= entry lines ..
increased restr{!OJ!I aCCESS, and to educate the dub patrons ilS to
conditions under which the use must operate. A copy of the Use Permit is
provided fn the packet. The Zoning Adm~nistratiOil decision 'is currently
b£ing appealed by toe Edge.
Staff does net beHeve that the cperiiticn.al problems .associatEd with a
conditional use should prevent approval of a structure designed to provid'.:!
much needed public pcrk~ng. The addition of increlsed parking close to
the Edge should help to rr.1nir111Ze Ue need for patrorls ttl park 1n
surrounding nEighborhoods. The increased lighting proposed by staff and
sec~rit.Y guards to be require::! as conditions of continued operation of th~
Edgp s~ould hplp to alleviate the safety concerns.
Construction/P~rking Imna(ts
The greatest cOr\.:errls raised reiated to project constrlfction are noise and
the loss of parking. Cor.struction of the parking structure is estimated
tc take seven months. c.onstruction of the il1eJ ;mprovelliEnts is estimated
to take one montn. A Construction Management Plan and Interim.Parking
Plan . identifying me2stl'reS to be taken to rninim12.E: incor1Yenifr.c.e for
businEsses bO!""dering the projEct is included in thE er.c1osi:d PTanr.ir.g
Commissior. staff report ;as Attac~lilent 5.
Though all construction activities will be subjed t~ compliance with t~e
Ciiyl.s Noise OrdinanCE, f10iH fr.om construdio"'l cannot be avoided.
SEvera 1 PSyc;1ctnerap i ns who. OC~liPY 230 (ali fa r1l1 a A ven lJe flav~ s t a ted that
t.~e construction noise win n'.quire ·them to relocate. Measures such ~s
increased use of muffl ins de-vices. anc R'.odifi(",ation of ~ot.:rs of noisiEst
constructior. suggEsted by staff would still be in:;ufficient to meet their
needs.
-,-" -........C-... 0 __ '."'-"-'
\:,',,;,
:~-~!
~~~J.;:
·"L
page e
The Interim P~rking plan identifies alternate parking ireas which Can be
used during construction Qf the project and describes the public ?utreac'l
which ""'ill be used to inform people of the dur~tion of the proJect and
.... here they lIIay finc pa!""kit1g.
RECC"I'IEIWAT ION
Staff Fl:ecorl'lliends that the A.RB recommend approval of the Planr-ed CCrmlllnit)'
Zone ind De:vel opl'T1en t Pl ins subj e c-t to the fo 11 cw·i n9 cend it ions.
CONDITIONS
Prior t~ Issuance of il. Bullding Pennit the fo17owing shall be acc:omplish~d;
1. final lighting and landscaping p1an, includlng street trees $hal1 return
to the Architecturai R!view Board for approva1~
2.. Approval of a Preliminary and fin.al Parcel Map or lot line ad'justm-:nt and
certificate of c:omp1 iance B1er~ing the: four underly~ng parcels into one
percel shall be obt.ined.
3. /J_ detaile9 drainage p1an for the parking structi.!re and a71ey improvements
s~a'l be reviewed and approved by the Public ~orks Department. Drainage
OVEr t;. public sidewalk will not be permitted.
4. Improvement plarls and specifications for all utility cor.struction for the
parking structure and alley imprilvements !:nal1 be r2viewec and appro\lea' by
the Utilities Engineering Division. ihe PTans shall s~ow the proposed
alignment of water, gas ~nd Sf~er mains and services and el~ctric service
1 ;nes within the development and in the publi,: rig,ht-of-way. No work
shall begin until the utility 1mprovement plans and load sheets ~ave been
approved by the Water~ ~as. ~astewat€r Engirleering Oivision, the light and
Power F.:ngfneer-ing Divisior, Clnd the City's Cross C<:lnnecticr. C.ont.rol
Inspector.
5. The required exiting shall be maid.a1ned from ell surrounalng btJnci~;gs
during the: cours; of constructicn, tc the s;:tisf2ction of thE Chief
Building Offi::ul end Fire Department.
6. Th~ proyis;Qns of tne project c:onstruc.tion management plan (including
traffic, veniC':urar end pedestrian, end loading controTs) and interiiii
parking phn, c.ppro .... eJ by the Planning, Transportation and Public ~'orks
Departments shall be incorporat:!d into the construction contracts ..... ·ith
implementation to be :nonitored by the Public Works Department Gn an
ongoing basis Hroughout the construction process.
Such Ph!'": shell reflec.t the fol]{1wing:
that Carbridge Avenue: will be op~n to two-way tr~ffic at ~l] times.
tio projEct related truck traffic \01111 be permitted on (aliforilia
AVE'oue.
pc:ge 7
,
Use of Helll Mayfle1d li1n~ and Nog ... l b.ne wil J be restricted for
limited periods cf time dlJrinl construction of the aUey
improvement~. Alter~i1te leading ind 9drbJge pickup ~rea$ will be
pl·.ovfded during these t fmes.
All uistil'lg street trees to be retained shall be protected C:urir.:]
constructi<ln.
7. Te reduce d\Jst leve1! during construction the con~tl"'u-:Uon contract snall
re~u'ire a'l exposed eil.rt~ surfaces to be w-atered freqUE:lltly during the
late mornings ind at the end of t.ne day, 1,iit~ frequency cf watering
increasing if wind .speeds exceed 15 miles per hour. All streets and haul
rout., ,nall be cleaned daily in the vicinity of tn. project. The
contractor shall designate a person(s) to monitor the dust control program
with authority to require increased watering and ,leaning of stre€ts when
necessary and/or upon t~e request of the Publ ic works Department,
Spnlage resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or
private property' sha11 be removed immediately and paid for by the
contractor~ Dust nuisances orfginating frQm tn~ Ccntractor'! operations
'either insidE or c~tsjde o( the rignt-of-way shall be controlled at tne
Con.tract.or's expense ~
B. A11 sidewalks and unuSi!d' driveways bordering the prcject shail be repaired
and/or replaced in compl ianee with Pub1 ie Warks approved standards,
including construction of five new ~ind;capped ramps, All existlng street
trees shall be protected during construction i!1d !1(" .... trees p1anted as part
of tl'le lindscape pl an, to the satisfaction of the jI.RB. .
p2:ge 8
ARCHlTECTURAl REVIEW BOARD HEARING
October 15. 1992
C~i IFORNIA A'IEN~LPAR~ING GARAGE
(City lot C-3)
ATTAC,;M£NT C.2
92-ARS-1I9
92-ElA·25
92-/C-12
Ms. DaRosa: The first item on our regular agenda today is the Ca1ifornia
Avenue Parking ~arage. Are there additional staff comments?
~eiss: Saran Cheney is the staff member representing this proj~ct.
She ;s present to anSwer any questions that the board may na¥e.
Ms. Cheney: We ~1so have Pat Stone, from the Public Works Department. to
;ntrod~ce the con~ultant5 and other staff members who are also here.
Pat Stone. P:Jblic I'arks Deoartmant, City of Palo Alto: We have Bob Tud.!T
of Hardison. Kom~tsu9 Ivelich and Tucker {HKITj. He is the architect who
has been tt'te designer of the scheme that you see. W€ have Lee Szromba cf
Internaticnal Parking DeSign, the project manager and architect. w~ have
Bob Kavanoki and T!rry Snuchat who are from the California A~enue Area
Develo~nt Association (CAADA). members of the business community. We
also have Torin Fisher and Mark Venabl~ from our police department to
answer any questions r~garding safety or the pol ice SiJrvey that ;5
indicated i n th~ architectural review board (ARB) informational
memorandum. We also have Scott Wa'r-.T, cur project engineer, and believe
we ha~e <H,,Ir e1ectrical 1 jght'fng (onsuHant, Jenny Shaw, and lee
Dillingham, landscape architect. Thank you ~ery much for coming. and we
are glad to answer any of your questions.
Ms. DaRosa: Would you like to mak! a pre~2ntat1on?
Mr. Stone; I will just highlight that we ha'e proceeded from the
previous. preliminary ARB meeting with what was called Alternative A at
that time, and made use of brjck masor.r,)l, the concrete cornices and the
~ind~ ele~ents. Yes, we could go ahead with the presentaticn. Bob or
lee could elaborat! em what they ha~re dane with tl-,at scheme since the
previous ARB meeting. I would like to mention that staff has paid
particu1ar attention to the issues of lighting and safety. We will be
glad to answer any questions you might have.
Mr. Szromba: I donrt know what you want tQ know about this, but this is
the project. Here is the Cambridge Avenue elevation ..... e have modified
this slightly in that at one iime, we had planters along the ground leve1
that were raised planters along the sidewalk. That is no longer there.
We have walls behind and planters are at grade. We de have some low·lev~l
1 ighting along tn€ garage face. It is for highi ight ing the structure, not
really to nluminc.te the sidewalk area. On the back side, on Ne .... · Mayfield
Lane, we have landscaping planters at the top and some inside on both
ends. These are the main areas where people can come to the str~cture
fram the California Avenue shopping district. This one happens to line up
with the pedestrian access to California A~enue parking structure. There
is additional 1ighting here that will ill~minate the allfY. This is all
brick and the spandrels here are concrete ~ith cast·in-place brick, with
concrete at the cornices. This blue materlal is a metal tre1lis. it is
-I·
open .so you can se! t~rou9~ it. Ther'i2' are low walls about two-and-a-half
feet high, and the planters ir~ in frnnt of it.
Ms, Maser: I .... as not here for-the hst r! ... iew of this, so I am going to
ask a Question that refers to the sessions you had with the board
previously. There was discuss;~n abJut stepping sJmething rather than
slaving it. J w~s not sure if that ~as that top parapet al~ng the top,
not the lowEr one.
Mr. Szrqmba: Ther-e was a discuss fen as to whether or net this spandrel
should be stepped.
Ms ~asgr: Did you try any design attempts in that direction?
Mr. SzrQmba: Yes, I ~e1jeve you have it.
H5 MaSQr: J would liKe to know a little more about that. Would the
designer like to respond to th3t?
Mr. Tu(ker: We did lank at the possi~ility of stepping the back side, but
it did not seem to accomplish very much as far as the jagged appearance on t~p. There is also the slope of the security rails to conSider. This
design seemed to work best from our studies at that tfme. D~es that
answer your que~tion?
Ms Maser: Yes, that is fine. J will question th~ board more about that later.
Mr. Lyzwa: What;s the height chaTance throughout the struaure? (eight
f¥etJ. What is the size of this column?
Mr SzrQmb~: It is 16 inches square.
Hr. L~,j!j~ Are you '~mfortable with this dimension?
Mr. Szromb;i; That is correct.
Mr. lvzw~: Ha ... e you worked out carefully with the city all of t~e parking Splces?
Mr. SZTomba; Yes, ~e na ... e.
Mr. iyzwa: My next quest~an is in reglrd to the lightlng le ... els. the foot
candles. What;s the minimum lighting le~el t~at you preser,tly have? In
gOing through this diagr~m, J thought I saw half a foot candle as a
minimum. Is that correct?
Ms. Shaw; The minimum is 0.5 foot candles.
!1L.--1...Lz .. a; You are cnmfortab1e with this minimum level .ithin the
structure itself?
(Ye.)
Mr. tyzwa: As far as the timing meters are concerned, would yOu expTain
to me how that will function? What time wnl the lights tome on?
, ,
•
f
" t
! •
Ms. Shaw; We propose the use of photocells to turn them on automatically.
We have not defined the specific time, but can de~ign the system to meet
whatever the city requests. lnaudible ~nswer .
Mr. tyzwa: Also on the upper deck, do you consider the level of
illumin4tion sufficient?
Mh...Shaw:
throughout
lights.
We have been werk.ing ::m try~ng to get more even ilJuminatilJ;'l
the middle. It is just a little bit low bet",een thesE two
Mr~ Lyzwa: My final question is to the pollee department
r~presp.ntat;ves. I would like to know what is the program for the
security in this garage. and Mow do you intend to patrol the area?
Lt. Fis~er: We patrol the area much like we do any othfr lot. That is on
a cal1s·for-service basis, a~d we_encour~ge the officers to swing through
the lot on their n~nproductive time for h:gn Visibility. The purp~se of
the high visibtJity is to deter anyone from loitering ~n the l~t and take
advantage of any opportunity that might el<:ist. Those would be the primary
ways in whith we wDuld work to deter anyone who wanted to take advantage
of i. sit{Jat ion.
Mr. LY2wa: Thank you. I have an~ther question for the architect. [s
this b{Jf1ding to be of post tension slab c~nstructlon! (Yes) ~ave you
c.ansfdered the potential deflect ion and differenth1 settlemoeni; of this
construction type? What kind of settlement do yo~ expect?
~r. SZramba; W~ expect one-half inch of settlement.
Ms. Maser: have one more question. I wondered .hat is the finish en
the ceiling above the f1rst level of the garage?
Mr. Slromba: rt ; s concrete.
Ms, M'u er : Wi 11 it be painted?
Hr. SZrOmrH! : No,
Ms, Wil san: Will the planters be irrigated?
Mr, Sl.romba: Yes, tney will be irrigated.
Ms. Wilson: At the pedestrian towers and special pedestrian spacEs~ is
there any (hange in tne paving there. or is it all asphalt?
Mr. Szromb~: The ground level, as we undErstand it, will be concrete.
For the pedestrian access and througr.Dut the structure, we normally do a
sweat swirl surfacE ~hich gives a little texture to the slabs and prevents
the cars from squealing when they turon corners.
~Wi'son: J wanted you to address the handicap parking. 1t is all in
one plac!. J ~ondered if that is a conscious deciSion, or did you ~ave
any thoughts about dispersing that? This lot serves two sides of the
bUilding, an.d I am thinking that with it all in one place, some of the
handicapped people will ha~e to go a very long way to use those spaces.
-3·
.'
Mr. Szromba: We have the ha~dicap~ed in this ~rea. It fronts th~ street
side. One of the requirerr,~nts for handicap parking is to ,now these
pfCiple to have public access and not walk beMind 02ny other \rehicles. So
we do h~ve access fo~ them to come out from the structure. Gn this side,
it would be very difficult to do that. because here the floor is going up
and is abuve the New I'layfield Lane elevation. To do that, there wou1d
ha~e to be steep ra~ps. and that is not allowed for ha~d;cap par~ing.
Ms. wilson: I und~rstand. Thank you.
Ms. PaRg sa : Thomas. were you hereo for the be .. ~ir\ning of thls?
Mr. Hise; You had a1ready started tne discussion. J am famil~ar with the
project, however.
H~+ OaRosa; I wlnted to make sure there was nothing substantive that he
missed.
~s. Mas&r: r have another question. Why cid you change from wnite to
black lighting fixture,?
Ms. Cheney; That is not yet a change. That is one that is recommended by
stiff. It ~as the feeling that they wnuld be more attractive.
~s. Maser: Are those the on1y two chcfces that we have?
Ms. Wilson: I saw bronze on one of these specs. I donrt Know if that is
available~ but I would like to know.
Ms. Cheney: Jim Gilliland and J 5at down and reviewed the lighting. What
is in the ARB memorandum is the resuH of our combined recoRillendations for
some changes, incruding some modifications of se?~cted light fixtures,
lncluding co1or. It;s the staff recomendation t.ha~ we go t~ i!. higher
level of lighting in the garage. Perhaps the lighting con,ultant could
answer the question regarding colors available.
Ms. Maser: Is it an aesthetic call on your part that someh~w. you feel
the white wou1d be out of character with the architecture?
Ms. Cheney: y~s.
the brick finish.
reconmendation.
we considered the black fixtures more attract;~e with
There has been no change made. We mad~ a
Ms. Maser: rt misht be interesting to hear from the electrical
consultant. Are there any other finishes that these fixtures tome in as a
standard finish?
~haw: Are you talking about th~ architectural ones on the perimeter
here?
Ms. Maser: ·~es.
Ms. Shaw: Those con~ in black and white.
Ms. Maser: $0 when you cons-idered white 1n the beg1n;ring, you were going
to have that as a special finish. Correct?
·4·
Ms. Shaw: What happens is that the dome fixture is about this big, and it
has a square around it That sqJ..'are waS black. The dome, 'Which is
.acrylic. is white, trans.lucent white, So the border arour;d it is blac.K.
Ms. H3Ser: There ari:~ a nlimbel' of fixtures. so I would expect that you are
901n9 to try and coordinate the finish of all cf the fixtures.
Ms. S"-aw: Some
special colors.
0" bl ack,
of them we can, but some of them are too costly t~ ge!
The interior fiKture~ are bronze, or you can have bronze
Ms. Maser; 15 it an anodized dark bronze finish?
Ms. Shaw; Yes, but in an aluminum housing. It can't scratch. The rnof
lights you can ha ..... e an." color 'you want. "Those CD~ in custom colors.
They ca~ be in black, red, blue. etc. If you have a trim color on the
garage that you wanted to match, we can do that. The stairwell lights are
bronze also to match the interior flxtures. You dDn't r€ally s€e the
int~rior fixtures from the outside.
Tia Tarleton: r am the devel;)per of the property across the street at 250
Cambridge. If] could just offer a comment, 1 have been using the same
lighting fixtur€,S in park.ing lots for 20 year-so Tne bronze anodized, with
the weathering that goes on, 1 think you will be more pleased with the
overall effect of those electroliers that are visible to the pub1ic,
rather tnan trying to maintain a speci31 color. White gets dirty awfuf
fast. YOQ have a lot of fail dust in the air that attaches itself
ferro-magnetically to any meta1 structure. The bronzo:. in our experience
at least, in shopping centers and at industrial sites, ~eathers the best.
Ms. DaRosa: r will be ~all1ng on the public to speak in a moment.
Ms. Maser: Does anyor..a: knew Where tne idea for the white fixt" ... u"'es came
from in the first place? I was not present at the last meeting, $0 I do
nDt know what discussion teak place.
Mr: Stone: Actually, I do not knew where it came from.
~~~: It m3.Y have been a misunderstanding on my part. I Qm looking
a.t. the. lighting information we got from Public. WQrKS prior to packaging
this for the ARB~ we wanted information in the planning departmEnt en
lighting specification sheets_ An arrow was pointing to whit~~ so that
was our assumption that tnat was the (olor selected. Choices were white
or black for the outer portion of t~e light, Our sense was that b1ack was
better.
Mr4 Stone: I would like to make one more corrrnent about the li9hting, We
do have a minimum lighting level of .55 foot candles. as Ms. Shaw
mentioned and ;s shown on the plans. What we did indicat~ in the ARB
infonmationa1 memorandum is tnat staff believes that to be a minimum
JighUng level. "'The police department agrees. We are worling to';flards
providing more 1 ighting Han we currently have here. We are working with
tne consultant, and we are gQing to see what we can do to step up the
minimum light level te at least two foot candles. We will be talk.ing with
Jenny Shaw and Lee Sliomba. We want to g€t as much lightin9 as we can in
the appropriate placE5, at least on a minimum basis. 1 was not sure that
that .. as clear.
-5-
'1 --·tr-d
--
Ms. DaRosa; Are tnese lights appropriately s~ielded so we are not soing
to get ill glaring parking 9a~age?
Mr~ stone: let me aSk either Jenny or Lee about that.
Ms. Shaw: The reof lights are in cut-off fixtures, so the DI..Jlb!:. wtll not
be hanging dowr, at all. ~·ou will be seeing u.~ light as it comes out of
the fixt~re. The botto~ fixtures have a lens so that you can see
75 perc~nt of the light and 25 perc~nt is covered. It giwes you an
o\lerall feeling of safety when in the garage, because everything is lit,
the ceiling is lit, the beams are lit, etc. So it 1S a very safe garage.
Any garage is going to have a glolW from it. That is rea11y hard to get
away from.
Ms. paRQ~a: We will now hear from t~e public. Mr. Tarleton, I don't know
if you have finished your comments.
Tig Tarl?to~: I.m t~e managing general partner at 250 Cambridge, rtght
across the street fro~ the structure. 1 w~uld like to offer a (omment.
think the design is outstandir.g. I would nave one request that you
c~nsider c~an9ing t~e str~et trees from Pistachio Chinensis to Ge1jera
Parviflora (Australian Willow). Th~ Ch;nese ~istachi~ is fine, you are
going to get good color in the fail, but you ~re going to have bare limbs
about six mont~s out of the year. If you Jook around the tamer at Keeble
and Shuchat, witfl the Australian liilTow, we feel it gives an all-y(!ar
~\lergreen appearance, and it will help t~e structure, wnich has a good
mass to it. Thank you very much.
Terry Shuchat; ] have a camera store on Callfornia Avenue, as well as
some other property that I own there. I also represent the C~11fcrnia
Avenue Area DevelfJpment Assochtion (Coop,), a business groujl in the
area. Th:e business group has cor,tinuousljl endorsed this project. You
have one letter from the group which you received someti~ ago. There
will be Qt~er letters forthcoming. The city loves additional letters as
time goes on, so we will keep letting you know that the local ;~oup and
Jircperty owners are benind this prcj~ct. We .. l 1 feel there Is a definite
need for parking. There was a parking sur~ey done by tn! city, with lots
of money spent to indicate that parking is nt!eded. It has also been
stited that parking is needed at that particular location. Vou will find
that some people may speak to you to say tnat parking is n~t needed, but I
think tnat if you shop in the California Avenue area, pa~ticularly between
the hours of 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.? you will certainly finj that at ti~s,
not all th~ time, but certainly at a great number of times, parking is
difflcult to find. As all of us haYe noted, when you go s~oppi"g, you
like to be near where you are shopping. Those of you, like myself, who
wi11 be footing the bin fer this structlJre certainly feel that it is ... ell
worth the money.
There are some people in thls roam who are t2nants of mine in office
bu.ildings that r have who are very concerned about the noise that .. ill be
cre-a ted dl'ring the construct; en period, as well as the possible safety of
the structure I once it ; s completed. '(ou have been very concerned about
the lighting 1e,e1s in the garage and also about safety and speaking with
the police departID€nt 13m sure \tie all agree that ha .... ing a one~level
parking lot w{lu1d be the best thing. Hot.re~rer, property ~alues being what
they are, as well as the tact that there is just t'lot a. lot of lots
,
".' ;"
......
ivaHable to Pilo ,I,.lto, the on1y thing we can jo to achieve additiof,al
PQrking is to go to a second l11i! .... el. Therefore, a two·1evel structure may
not be the most desirab1e, but it is the on1y t~ln9 tnat is practf~il, and
t.he only way to brlng additional par~ing into the area.
Bob I(ayinoky: I am repn:sent'ing the Wesley United Methodist Church. We
are in the ~arldng district and we are a member of CAADA, I havE' been
involved with parking, one way or another, ever since we set out t~ c~ange
the park.ing situation. l¥hy I stay with it. 1 d~n't know, 1 guess I don't
1earl'1.
As r,eighbors, 'We feel it is important to support the entire California
A\'enue distric.t. We nave put in a lot of time to help CAADA wit~ the
parking studlPs. and later with the acquisition of the Keystone lot. We
are in favor of additic:nal parking, bacause being in the district almo~t
every day~ we are aware that there are some real par~ing problems, as
Terry ment7oned. between the hours of ten and three. The formal studies
tnat were made des~gnated the peak hour~ to be between ten and twa.
Outside of that time. there ;s less trauma in find'jng parking. r'lrlotJld
urge you to consider favorably the proposal that is before you.
Ellje (austin: J am a psychotherapist at 230 California A~enue.
actually disagree very strongly wit~ what the last tw~ gentleme~ have
said. J am there e¥ery day, full time. I go out to take a break, .nd J
am there all the time+ r see no n~ed for parking. We have been watching
it very closely. There are sometimes 12 or 15 spaces open. I think that
the study was dane, but it has not been dOMe recently. I would like to
SF.e a m<lre recent cClInt. In the last yelr, there are lots and lots of
spaces. It seems to me a curio~s way to spend i lot of money. So I would
very much urge that you do another count. Not just a count where peDple
SiY~ Dh yes, this a full lot, but a study wnere th~y actually measure,
because I think Y'!lU 'Will flnd t'nat there is not much of a need. That is
from ten to three, nine to four, any Old time. There are lots and l~ts of
spaces. Thank you.
Sherry 8rown: I am also a psychotherap'lst in the 230 California Avenue
building. We came into this project a little late. ] have not been
inllo1ved, as Terry and Bob have, for a long time, Had' we kno\lin this was
in the works. we would t1ave come on very mud'l sooner. M,Y officeP.late al1d
have be!n at our location for e'ie· .. en jears nr.lirt, so .... e are -Y"ery famll~ar
with the parking. We know th~re is not a need. J nave been gDipg out
between the hours of ]1 and 2 and making a list, but I did not br~ng it as
I did not know this was the appropriate time to bring it. I can tell yau
that yesterday at 12 :45, there were 15 spaces. That is the least number
of iva;1able spaces I have counted during that time. There have been 27
many times. I have been checking it ~urin9 tnose hours that the other
speakers nave said it is sa crowded, During the months of November and
December, it will be crowded. It has been that crowded a11 the time
because of the post office. but th~t is just two months. So I thinK it is
rather silly to spend th3t kind of mOrley.
Even though J ha~e a selfish 1nterest for myself a~d my clients not to
have the noise and thf issue about the safet J of the structure? I think
that eV!n some of that might be superseded if I bel ieved there 'Has a
need. B!Jt I don't believe there is a need, So I am concerned about the
need. and I am also concerned about the safety of the building, once it is
-7 -
in, We are told that th~re will be sufficient lighting. and I know that
the city is upping their ~ecommendations 01 the l;ghting. Even se, a
par!(i~g structure. pet' se, in tnat area 1 think is dangerous. When w€
come out now, ther! are people who sort of hang around the area, who are
nemeless, who are Jut in V.at parkin9 area. There is The Edge. Tf,fre is
general traffic, not just from The Edge, but that. of course, complicates
it as well. ~hen I go out. and i do worK some evenings, J am very
cautJous about going out 1n that lot, and J c~eck. but I have a clear vfe~
so I can check and see what is going on. This parking structure wo~ld
eliminate my opportunity to be able to do that.
In cdd;t~on to that, we are to1d that parking for us with permits would be
on the secc:nd level, which again, for the pa1ice scanning, it wou~d be
impossible for t~em to see wh~t is going on ~p there. During the process,
of course. I am very concerned, t~o. We would probably have to move our
~ffices. As I said, we ha~e been ther~ !1even years, and I know that is a
pr~bJem that anybody i$ 9~i"9 to have whenever there is a new structur£,
but 1f there were a need, that would he a different issue. So I
appreciate your seriously considering making another study of the need for
this, but not during November and DecernberJ because that will ske~ the
whoie sampJe. Thank you.
or. Ken Perlmetter: J am a 'psycho~ogi5t. J work. in the same office, and
I am here to support my colleagues, but my main concern is the safety of
my women clients who 1eave the office at night. It is never later than
nine o/clock~ but it is dark by tnat time. r wender if aroy of you would
feel comfortable entering that structlire at that time of nighL There is
M visibility frem the street, and I wonder how 1t will affect their
safety. The people it The Edge are n~t very safe l~oking characters, so
that TS my (oncern.
Dr. Sheila Fisk: I am also a psychologist. J ec~o everything that has
been said. I also h.lve selfish interests. I do ha'lle some figures on
parking. On October 5, at lO:06? there were two vacant handicap and 19
spaces. At 10:45 t~ere were 26 parking spaces and tw~ handicaps. On
Oct~ber 14? there were 26 vacant parking spaces and two handicaps at
11:00. Again, if His were really needed, and I wOllld certainly have ttJ
deai ~fth the fact that my clients n~ed parking spaces, it is $0 amaling
to me n~w empty it is. I rea11y feel we are building a p.rking lot far
Terry Shuchat. first of all, there are v~ry few commercial businesses
besides Keeble and Shuchat tnat do not have t~eir o~n parking lot on that
particular lot. There are a few restaurants that do use it. When I
talked to people, they w~re not Tn favor of it. They thought the park.ing
lot would hurt their business, and c.ertainiy during construction. So when
Terry says that California Avenue is in favor of this. I don't think tnat
is complete1y trua. ~e have had int~rviews with pe~ple who are very
concerned.
I also have a lot of concerns about the safety issue. Certainly the
planning commission has tried to address it, but again, you cannot see
into it from the street. If you read the Palo Alto ~eeklYI almost every
week in the 200 black of Califo~nia Avenue, the po1ice are ca1ied for
batt~ry. J don't kno __ if it is in relation to the parkfng lot, but that
is n~t a safe blotk. Part of it is due to The Edge.
There are also quite a few peop1e uslng the par~ing lot as a bathroom.
-8-
•
-
'.
The P01'CE occasionally patrolling is not 90'"9 tc stop that. Without
vfsibility fro~ the street, the situation could become worse.
~Qii: i will no~ close th~ public hearing.
~s. Wilson: Could thE police comment on battery in !his bloc~?
~~. Fisher. Po1ice O~partment: Th~ iis~e is not that bad. We do hav~
problems in the parking lot, but it is not the parking l~t itself t~at
causes !he problems. When you compare statistics t~ th~ parking 10t
similar to that proposed, whicn is now j~ the 400 block of Cambridge, we
ha~~ relatively few incidents. As, matter of fact, we have ha~ five in
the 1ast 12 months from October to October. Three of these were abandor.ed
vehicles, So w~at we ha~e to do is differentiate the issues associatea
~ith packing lot .nd those of 1he Edge. I can tell you that
stathtically, the park.ing lQt is !",ot 'involved in the cans for ser~ice in
the 400 block of Cambridge. I .ill turn this over to Mark Venable who has
statistics that we can then interject into t~e formula and wil1 allnw you
to reach a decisio~. lhe 400 b10ck of Cambridge includes the two-story
parking garage th=:t is behir:d ~c ... t .. d.i fried Chicken.
Mr~ Hise: And you are saying that it is re1atively crime-free?
Mr. Fishe~: Yes. there were five calls in the last year fr~ October to
October, three of .... hich were abandoned vehk1es. That loti s c10se to tfle
proposed lot. We have not lOOKed at Lot J or other lots becaus~ they are
not as. similar to the p:ropased parking guage.
Ms~ Wilson: just do net understand why tr.e lot is not full.
Ms, Cheney: There are different ¥erceptions Qf it. Several surveys done
in past years have c~nsistent1y shown a high demand for parking in this
area north of Califo;;lia Avenue. Mr, Aggarwal from our transportation
division i$ a~ailable to prcv1de more informatiDn !bout this issue.
Ms. LVt1e: Ashok Aggarwal from the transportation division is on his way
down '
~r. Hise: 1 .... ou1d 1ike to have staff respond to a couple of questions,
One is~ how long has this garage been in the plannin9 process? How many
times h~s :h~ neighborhood been notified that it would be cornirog forth for
publ ic reliie'wol? For s.o.me of these people 'Who are jllst nearing about it for
the first time, wh~re is it normalry noticed? Do they receive mailings?
I know it is always in the paper, but could you speak to that? Flrst of
a11~ how iong has. this garage been in the planning process?
Ms. Cheney: S;nce 1986.
Mr. Hise: Could you gi'J~ me ar, o'lenle:,.: of the proces.s?
Ms. Lytle: ne most recent part of it where public notification was
included t.ook: place over a year-and-3-half ago. ine preliminary revieirlis
were noticed and br~ught to the architectural ~evie~ board.
Mr. Stone; let me also say that Phase I of the parking structure process
tnvolyed a large design study. 1he need study was dune in Phase ~ by the
-9·
..
t
.J
~
I •
-
•
. '--"'
trinsportation div~sion. E,en at that time, which is apout two years ago,
notificatic~~ were sent to the tcmmunity Gn our standard notificat\cn
basis, which 'Was put forth in the same standard way that !<tc notify for any
ARB meeting. wit~in 300 fp.et.
Asholc.. Aggantal: No, that 'is not correct. for the fi rst meet 1n9 that \;I'~
had back 1n 1989, ~e sent out two different ~inds ~f noticps. Actually.
the noti~e was the same. but was sent to t~o different maiTing lists. One
lI1ali"ing list we got from the ilss.essment roles, which gave YS all the
owners in the assessment distT1ct. The second listing was from 80b
Kavanoli, .. ho has been vi!rYt very active in (,lADA. That was, I believe. a
listing uf some af the tenants, basica1ly members of CAADA. That was our
mast~r llst. The nn1y things we changec is we went through th~ project
was from the assessment role. If there was a dlange in tI'lat, then of
COUTse, whatev~r t~at change was we made.
Mr. Hj~e: Then t~e nQrm~l not;ficati~n w~nt into the Pilo Alto Week1y?
Ms. Lyt',: ~ot for this preliminary hearing. Once it came before the
architectural review board, the p1~nnlng department did a 300-foot notice
from the project b~undary. The 300-foot ~oti~e goes to both property
owners and tenar.ts, as obtained from the utilHy listings.
Mr Mjse: Did;t go to the planning commission before coming to tne ARB?
Ms. Cheney: In answer to your questions, let me just review some of tne
history. The project began in 1985 when the cit), initiated a b·o-pna.s~
p.rki"9 study. In 198&, the city purchased the Keystone parking 1ot.
Then in January~ 1989, there was a public hearing at the Wesley United
Methodist Church. 1~ June of 1990? tnere was a preliminary review at the
planning cQrmllssion level. Later, il'l JiJlY, 1990, Uere was a pr-eliminary
re~iew Df alternat~ parking strijctur~ locations and designs by the ARB.
1n October, 1~91, the city council directed staff to proceed with the
proc~ss for construction with the preferred design. rn Hay of tnis year,
there was a prel imi nary review of two oil' teroate desl~M for a str"udure at
Par~ing lot 3.
~J.g: Ashok, the issue is that some of th~ 70ca1 business tenants
haYf be~n dping (€cent surv~ys of parking on this lot. What they are
find i T'\9 is t.'lat t.heie an a. ... o. i 1 abi 11 ty of s.pa::~ there, The bea.rd ; snow
questioning what th~ C1ty is doing in terms of determining tne use of
these parxing lots.
Mr. Aggarwa1: If I could give a little more detail, in going back to
1980, the city's Comprehensive Plan indicated a need far parking in
California Avenue. After )9S3 or 1984. the California A~enue Land Use and
Park.ln9 Study indi{.ateo it that time ii! need for additiona1 pa:rkin9. In
1985. the city council took the first official actio" to increase parKing
by buyi n9 the Keys tone 1 at. WhEn it 'Wa.s bought, a study was in i t i ated to
determine parking supply and demand in the area and t~ evaluate the need
for a parlc.if1g strIJ(,ture. in. the area and alternate d-esign.s and locations?
including a stru~ture on that particular lot or on lot t, ~hich is an
Sherman Avenue. That was the purpose of Pha~e I. Phase 11, which is
where we are now, is to design the project. So after Phase 1 and Phase II
started, ."e got d i r~c ti on from the cit), counc il to hire ccnsu 1 tant s .
Since then, ~e have ~ad planning ccmmission r€~ip.ws. sa in terms of need,
·10-
!
tne need t)a5 been just fied o .... er and o .... er and I)lIe'!'" again. Hlere we .are
r191lt now. We cor-side the current parking suppTy changes to be of a
temporary nature. Bus ness people t)ave moved out because they cannot find
parking s.paces,
Ms. Haser~ r have a question. I would like to ask lee Dilli:"lgham about
the suggestion about the replacem€nt of the trees.
Lee Qi11jngham: Regarding tne suggest ton that the str~et trees be (nanged
to Austral ian wiliow from Pistacne, both of those are acceptdble street
trees in terms of their horticultural suitabil ity and their gt"'c>wth f'labits,
and would work we1l with the parking structure. J believe the P1stache
was chosen because it is the predominant tree on th~ street. The
di fference betw~en the two trees, as pointed out, is that the AustraTIan
willow is ! .... ergreen all year long. The Pistache changes. Some people
lih the pennanence of the evergreen. It tends to look pretty much the
same all year long. Tne Pistache has more co1or and more seasonal
~ariation. They are bare for the winter months. The compensation is that
.)IOU get \o'er,)' brll1iant filll color. I think 1t is i vaTue judgment.
Perhaps the question of the tree's appearance itself is an issue, and the
other is how the tree relates to tne rest of the street.
Ms. paRosa: 1 have a question for the archttect. Car you describe the
use of brick in more detail?)
Mr. Szromba: The main brick throughout the structure will be a brick
called structural brick. It is a full brick. four-and·a-half inches thick
and has spaces in the brick for reinforcement~ both ~ertica1l1 and
norizontally within it. rt 1S net something that is applied to something
el se. It can. in fact, stand by ttse1f.
Hs. DaRosa: How ire iOU plannlng to treat the joints?
Mr. Szromba: The joints wi11 nave a standard raked mortar-joint finish.
Ms. Miser: Of the existing street trees, are any of them remain~ng?
Mr. Di11ingham: I believ2 three of t~em are remaining, three Pistache.
There are also some Pistache on tne oUer side (;If the street, as well. And
there are also some Australian willows there, too.
Ms. paRosa: Would you li~e to begin the comments?
Mr. Hise: The first thing I .... ould 1ike to addres.s is some of the
oppos;tion to this structure, and see if I can be clear as to our role as
the architectul'al re .... ;e ... board in tile decision as to whether there ;s a
need for this garage or not. I am reading the standards for re .... ~ew for
the architectural revlew board in our ordinance which established the
architectura1 revlew board. Th~re are probably only twa out of the 15
standards for re· .. iew that 1 fee1 eVl,;n come close to addressing whether we
s~ould ever. consider whether this building is needed or not. The first is
wnether the d~si9n is compatib1e and consistent with the applicable
elements of tne city Comprehensive Plan amendment. The zoning ordinance
has told us that it is. I don't see dr.ything in here that addresses
whi!ther we should even consider whether this building is needed or not.
That is a planning commission and city council decision. Sa I would like
-lJ-
~ ...•. f ,!
, I
.,
&~
h 4* k
to be ciear about tnat. It is not that it is not a valid issue, aithough
very late ~n the process.
It~ IjD deals ~;tn whether access tQ the property and circulation thereon
are safe and convenlent for pedestrians, blcy,les and ve~ic'es. 1 think
that ha~ 1I'05t1y to do witn the actual circulation, but it couid also be in
regard to pedestrians walking to their cars, etc. Sc based on the
statistics for the lot at 400 Cambrioge, which is a VEry similar lot, as
the police department has indicat~d. there are businesses there that ire
open hter than six. There are offices where peop1e work. later. There is
Kentuck.y fried Chicken, ~r.d it 1 ittle market there that is open ~ntil
Midnight. It has not been that J ong that there •• s a th •• ter there. If
YDU look at t~e lcng-term us!~ in t~at neighborhood, it is very easy to
see that there have been in the past, and thers will be in the future,
later activities. Also I am fairly comfortable that th~ structure will be
safe and t~e 11gnting leve1s will be adequate. Th! problems with The Edge
seem to be getting addr!~s!d. They are 1n the pub11c arena right n~, and
there is plenty of opportunity for ne-ighbors righ! riO". The city arId
pl anrling staff are dOing an outstarldi ng job, along wi th the pol ice
department~ of bringing that si~uation under control. I am just surprised
that it has gene on as long is it nas in Pal a AH{l. I WOL:1d not have
tn{lught it would have taken this long. J don't see that as being the
city's problem, either, tnat it has taken this long. It is just
surprising that they have gotte., away ~ith as Quen as they have.
So I am pretty comfortable that it is not our decision as to whether it is
needed. That is not in our purview today. I feel that the bUllding will
be safe and 1t will be i benefit to that neighborhood in t~e long run, as
our studies have shown.
J am also concerned that there is this much oppOSition cDming ~p t~is late
in the process. I know that the city noticing process 1$ very tn{lrDugh.
This has been going on at 1~ast Since 1983, and probably going back as far
as 1985, this has been in the public view. It bothers me that we are
being asked to c~nsfder that tnis late in the process. As big a concern
as this can be for potential ne;~hbors, it should have been tak!M
seriously much earlier on. Still there is time to express t~ose concerns
at th~ planning commission level and at the city council 1evel. But
frankly, this ~as been in the public eye and is far enou~h in the worKs
tnat I wonder what your chances a~e.
i think the building is very attractive, and! have seen it come through
an evoJution. I am happy "ith the bunding. and will support it. The
comment about the evergreen trees is a good ~dea, but I am satisfied with
thE amount af plantings that is on the building and is being integrated
into tne structure itseif that if thes~ trees ~ere left as t~ey are, i~d
there is a good reason for doing that due to their age. They are
established. r am not necessarily in favor of changing these trees to
have th~m evergreen, especiall) on this frDnt elev~tion ~here we are
seelng a lot of plantings integrated into the building. "Those are my
co~ents, and I would support a motion to approve tn! staff
recommendations.
Ms. Wilson: YOl! have Hid it very well, Thomas, and J agree with you. J
have on'" functional concern, and I vo~:-ed Hi s concern about Parking lot J
wflen that work \!las bei"g dDl1e. Th~t is, 1 thi"k there has to be so~
-12·
. (
1& U·
-
, .
resp~nslbi'lty taken by the employers in the area to know w~ere their
people are parking i:!nd to fncouTil.ge them {IT mClKe it possible for them. if
th~y Ci~not afford 1t, to park in th!se kinds of facilities. These peopJe
should not be parking on the street, taking up retail space. They should
n<lt be parking in the nl!ighborhcod and bother;n~ residents. We stili do
not r.ave a mechanism for e~coura9ing that kind of support. There are many
low-p.aid emp10yees ... ·ho cannet afford the y€arly fees. It behooves
e¥erybody to get them off the street. 1 wish there were some way, perhaps
by just forwarding these comment~ to the city council, to come up with
some method of shared expense or SOrM. kind of support for employees to
ensure that they use the~e facilities. [am very sympatnetic to tne
neighborr,ood needs. Also, people should not be 1eavfng their jobs e\lery
two hours to move their caTS.
Of a11 sites, this site probably has one of the least lmpos;ng light
spill-over problems because Df its location. It really is i good site for
park.ing.
I support bronze f1ni~h for light fixt~res? if that is possible. That is
probably the best. long-term, lQw-mai~tenance choice and will provide a
softer feeling with the prop~sed materials.
I trust the city will take care of the constructi{ln noise problems. These
impacts are always a problem. We cannot stop building. Thjs Question
comes up every tjme there is a prcject, but we cannot stop huilding
because it makes noise. We do the best we can. It 15 a temporary
problem, and if you have to relocate temporarily, or chang! your hours,
they won't be building at night, so your nighttime people will not be
~mpacted. You just need to be flexible for a period of time.
I encourage the provision of a telephone. I d~n't kno~ if it is a done
d •• l, but I think the phone is • good idea.
I am disappointed that the handicap parking 15 sa far away from the retail
uses. These people have the least ability to transport tr.ernselves. The
handicap spaces are the farthest away f~orn the retail area. I ~an tell
from the design of the lot and tile slope tll.t it may not be ,bl e to be
changed, but it is unfortunate that they are all off in one corner. Maybe
you cou1d move it closer tc the p~st office. At least, that might be
something that people may be using on a regular basis.
Getting back to the safety issues, r don't think that the presence of a
business like The Edge should be driving the needs of a whole blJsiness
area. This disttict needs the lot. Just because there is an unfortunate
situation, hopefully it is a temporary one that is gOing to be solved. It
shou1d not be driving the needs Qf a ~hole area,
r am supportive of the archHecture. I tflink. it is a \lery attractive
design.
Ms. Maser: r support everything that Thomas said also. The fact is that
we really are not a good forum for man} of the issues that halie been
raised today? but I am sure you .. ill want to carrj' on some of thf
discussion as this progresses through the planning cOlTlTlission and tity
council.
.]3.
~r~ sp~cif1ca11y. re9ardin~ tne architecture (and I ~lS net present at
the last meetiag to review s.ome-of the issues that werfl raise-d then, and
maybe they h., •• 11 been put to bed), but in looking .ith • frtsh eye .t
these elevations, t dgree that it is a nice structure. it will .be a
tr!mendous additiDn ana a very appropriate neighborhood for it. I find
that the one difficulti. designwise for me, is the conflfct between the
s1Qpe of the upper parapet and H.e stepping of the brick. it Ue lower
le~el on that alley e'e~ation at tne top. It seemed to me, from teading
the minutes, that there was a consensus that the sh'pping was viable, and
poss,b1y a majority of the ~eople on the bOird wanted to look at that. I
don't know if it is too late to raise this issue~ but 1 would l1ke to see
a study of the stepping of the parapet, which I t'ink will make • more
handsome design and a more consistent design. lhe tonflict, in my mind,
could be easi ly resoh·ed t>etween the $lop'ing and $tepping surfaces. Th.!s
tning would be a better 1~ok1n~ structure. but I certainlY could go along
with this if the rest of ttle board m'2m!>ers feel that it ;s an issue that
has been p~t to bed. 1 would liKe to hear from the other members on this
quest'cn.
As far as the fixtures are concerned. I would like to se~ all of the
fixtures consistent. In other words. a11 of them be elthe~ bronze, or
black_ I do think that ~hit. ~ould be out of character with the rest of
the materia1s in t~e building. J am glad that that is beinq put ta rest.
I would prefe~ the bronze. 1 think it wou1d be better with the materials
palette, but in looking at these fixture pi(tures, it d~es not lo~k like
tome of the fixtures being propo5ed fer the exterior, the Will-mounted
fixtures , a~e ava;lab~e in bronze. If that is true, or if it is too ~ch
of an expense to go with bronze, ! could lTve with blaCK. But I think a11
ext!ri~r fixtures should be flnisned similarly.
I •• uld 11k. to suggest to the .lectric.l engineer and to the architect
th.t you look into the possibility of painting the ceiling above the first
floor le~el a whtte or very light (oior, so that you get a higher level of
illumination in th~ garage .ithout hl~ing t? 9Q to higher el~ttr1tal
levels. rt is very effective and a. one-shot Ir<ay of increa.sing the Hght
leve1s. It is an additional expense at the outset~ but I thinK the entrgy
savings o~er the long haul make it worthw"-i1e. r would 1; ke to have that
looked at and bring it back to the ~taff as ~ posslb1e additional measure
to be taken f~r the lighting 1evel prob1em,
Since] am an easterner, I reallY love the change of seasons. r wou1d be
more ;11 favor of the Phtache-than with thi? r-ecoJTiTlendation of the
ever9reen type of tree. r like the shape ~f the Plstache. rt {s a 10~e1y
tree. and it seems to me that it is more in keeping with what ~s ~n that
side of the street, and will work well in the neighborhood.
I think it is i great project.
Mr. lyzwa: I. toc, am iii agreement itl/ith the COlMlents that have-been m'!de
today. Therefore, 1 will not repeat any of those. I thlnk it 'is an
excellent project? and the presentation reflect~ the h1gh en~r9~ 1e~e1
that il~e conslJltants have put f~rth in this particular project.
lher! are four items 1 ~ant to bring to the attention of the board. One
is tne point I raised about tne potential of the s1ab def1ection+ t would
lik~ an answer tc that, whether it occurs on a consent calendar or in a
-14 -
\;. ,
[
letter form, I would fee] muen more comfortable if I knew what that WiS.
i feel tnat in the long run, that could be a concer~ as to ~ow the
$tr~cture 5ettles.
The other i~sue$ are with the photocell metering. I would like to get a
resQlutl0n to that as to e~actly when the lights ~ould be turned on, when
the) would go off. in both the winter and the summer. how thst is to be
worked out. 1 would also like to have a comprehensi .... ! anSllier to the
security problem. I think that t~e California A .... enuE portion of PaTo Alto
has experfenced crime problems. We need to have a well resoliled security
solution to this parking gan.ge, w.'ether it is going to be by security
guards, including djrect tele~hone lines to the pel ice d~pert~nt, or
whether t.here will be a cOlTtllitment by the poTice department so that a
patrol car will drive through the facility one or twice a night. I WOUld
lj~e a specific plan i~stead of just a generil proposal.
I also concur entirely with Jul1a's conrne"ts that the lighting level is
adEquate as being proposed. I do feel tnat raising the lig~ting level to
two foot candles would be enti,ely o .... erdoing a. Jf we hOld to the line
that you presently have designed, at point five and paint the ceiling
white, I thfnk that would be a ~ery reasonable solution.
Aga;n~ I want to compliment you on the thoroughness of your drawings.
They are very clear. Everything is keyed ~:'"I. r was able to answer almost
all of my questions just by 100kinQ at the drawings. I compliment you on
the design, and I am very happy to see that the city nas tak.en the
initiative to do something of quality on California Avenue.
Ms. oaRosa: r support rno'St of the cOrmJents made by mjl colTeaguAs. I know
there is a lot of frustrat;on on the part of some of you who have come
~ere t~ talK about the need lssue. It is i~appropriate for the
architect~ral review board to dlscuss lt, but you will have in opp~rtunity
to talk -about that before the planning commission and city coundl.
As a bo~rd, we are charged to look at th~ design and consider t~e
environme~ta' impact assessment. Part of tnat would be a discussion of
safety and noise, as well as the aesthetics of the building. [am ver~
supp<.lrtive of tf1is park~ng structure. I think that it is so much better
than some of the pa!"'king structures that we see. lie iMked at the
stepping elevation. 1 am trying to remember exactly how ~e felt about
tnat. r belie .... e we were split, but it seems a 1ittl~ bettef. rt involved
some other problems iii making the wal1 s higher to try to accorTlnodate the
slope of the stt:!ps. So r am supporti .... e of th .. ;s elevation as. it has b~en
presented.
In terms of the nOise of construction, it is always fru~trating to be next
door to co~~truction. There is just no quiet way of putting up a
building. Tne city can reduce the n~mber of nours during which
construction can occur. It is an inconvenience that we all have to put up
with.
In terms of the safety, that is a difficult issue to reviaw. We have
received a lot of different input on that. I would leave the issue to the
police department and to the city council to review tl1is. Discussing
anecdotal information really does not help in the rflliew of this project.
-15 -
'\
I
Jncreastng the lighting I don't think is going to do very much in t~rm5 of
increased security of this project. I think th~ biggest problem with this
,parking garage is its locati<on ",,~ar The Edge. That is being dealt ... i~n
specifically .ith The Edge. Other pa~k;n9 structures do not seem to nave
particularly high securit..,. problems. It is just tht lor::atfon of this
particular pariing structure~ and in this case~ the cause of the potential
probhms is being re'o'iewed Cit the same time. I Udnlc. that will be r.3nd1elj'
appropri itely.
~: I make a motion f?r recommendation for approval of this project
with staff condltjons and the following additlona1 conditions that a
telephone be placed on e.ch parking 1 ,vel , that the lighting fi,tures be
the 5a&e throughDut the building, with a pref!rence for bronze, and the
second choice for black; that the eXisting estabHshed trees on the
sic!Walk remain and that the street trees be pjstache; that a study be
made of painting the ceiling white to reflect l~gnt rather than prov;ding
additional lighting, That is .11. This item will be forwarded for
h!arings before tne planning commission and citJ council.
~s. lytle: As fo~ those hearings j staff could prepaie someth1ng about how
to utilize security guards in the structure.
Ms. DaRosa: nat would make sense. rather tnan ha .... 'ing .a p1an that has to
corne back to you. J will include that in my motion. t~at a security pTar,
be prepared for p~!sentation to tne planning commission rather than
returning to tne ARB.
Mr. lytwa: What about the slab construction issue?
~s. DaRosa: A l~tter from t"e applicant describing the issue and its
resolution submitted to the ARB as information is a consent item should be
sliffident,
Ms. Maser: Cou1d j'OU (;lual ify fixtures as fxterior fixturfs? I think tne
interior fixtures will not be seen in conj~nction with the exterior
fixtures. They want to use bronze in the lnterior, b~t thei cannot get
bronze for the e~t!rior. So my feeling is that as long as the exterior
fixtures ire all of a bronze finish, that is is far as I would want to
take tnat. If they want to use bronze in the interior, that is fine.
Ms Wilson: If they paint the ceiling white, I wouldn't thin( tney ~ould
want bronze fixtures.
~: By Ms, Wilson.
Ms. paRosa: Let us open up the motion for discussion.
Ms. Wllson: What J was thinking about the exterior fi~tures is that if
these litt~e brown ones cannot be obtained' in an anodiz.ed bronze finish,
they could be painted a bror.ze color. Those light fixtures paint up
,pretty nicely. I would rather do that t~an go to black. I think the
brown tone is probably better.
~~: j agree.
~ Wilson: So I would encourage the applicant to keep the colors the
,16 -
---.~ . .--. ..,--..-.........
.',
salle. Just make ellery thing bronze, except that it might be bronze colored
in some cases, in!:l:tead of actual anodized bronze.
Ms. Maser.: It l:JIJks like the main fixtures win come in bronze, anyway.
Ms. Wjlson: I was 90in9 to ask ~he board if Condition Il, fina1 lighting
and landscapir.g plan, inc1udes street trees? Are we seeing thls again?
Final lighting and Tartdscaping plan, inc1lJding street ti"eeS, sna1l return
to the arcf1itectu-ral review board for approval. It sounds] ike there is
no ~eed fer these to retur~.
MS. lytle: That condition is no longer required, bec~use you ~ave gotten
to a level of ~eta~l that has already addres~ed these issues.
Ms. DaRou: 50 you C-el"; del ete that poi nt. l wi11 then amend my motion to
delete Condftion '1 of the staff conditions, and tc c~ange the lighting
fi~tures so that all fixtures will be bronze, either anodized bronze or a
bronze c~lor.
Ms. Ma~: r second that.
Ms. Wilson: Just one otner small concern. I faeT that J do not kn~ what
the brick/concrete junction detail is. Did J miss that or has it not been
described yet?
Ms. Maser: 00 you mean the transition between the two?
Ms. liilson: Yes.
Mr. 5zrpmha: r am not sure ~hat you mean.
Ms. Wilson: As you develop the project, just in the course of development
when those details are developed betwe~n the mas~nry and the co~crete, I
think they should come before the board.
Ms, DiRosa: I will amend my motion to include a detai1 of the brick and
concrete junction be prepared, and return to the board on consent.
Ms. Wilson: That is to encourage you to rea'lj think about the details.
Ms. DaRpsa: While we are amending the mction, I would also say that
Shirley madt the recommendation that we sJmehow get employees to really
use tbis lot to get them off the streets. I dc~'t know lf lt should be a
part of the motion. but somehow ~t should be gotten to the city that
something be done to make it easier for employees to use the parking
structure, lEaving the streets and reSidential areas for r.~ighbors and
customers.
~tle; It is a very tough ilssignment to contro1 human behavior on an
indi~idual lell~l. It is a nice idea to think about, but it almost
requires a grass roots ~ducation program. This wouid have to be an
e~tensive Gutreach pr09~am. Clearly, we have an oppo,tun:ty, through the
(omprehensille Plan, to work with the citizens' (ommrttee, who ~ill then
return to their various places in tne community and spread th~ word in
educating folks on a variety of issues. This could be one to bring out in
that way. With the Urban Design Commltt€e, we have tried an outreach
. J7.
progr;;m now under way for th~ downtown, anyway, which will irlvolve an
ability to c:iscuss with merchants and owners of buildings issues related
to ttl!! downtown. This could be brcL!ght up in trat process.
Wt: also tla'll£! reglJ1ar meetings ",itn CAA04 on oil r!:!guhr basiL "e could
make that an agenda item and request U,at (MDA begin to spread the word
throughout their interactions on a daily basis, trying to heighten
awareness a.bout the nee·j for that, iind a desire to corrrnit to ~t. It 15
really sD~thing that you need to educate people on.
Mr. Hise: Couid you go a (oup1e of ~locks away and put a time limit on
parkin~ to get people out of the neighborhood and into the structure?
Ms. I ytle: That could be done. Putting out a permH ~arking system in
place in a neighborhood is actually somet"in; that The Edge has requested
be done. The city 1\as ne .... er unds::rtaken sud iii reg~1ator.)' mo.e to
inconvenience a neighborhood except at that neighborhood's request. Never
has it been don~ for a sDecific busine55~ imposing that kind of control on
an adjacent nefghborhood. But if H,e resfdE'nts of the area were to
approach the city with tnat type of r~Quest, clearly we have been open to
it in the past. We did ft in an area fairly close to the lDcatiDn of the
European Health Spa on rl Camino wnen it was such a prob1~m. So t~at ;s i
final step that c~uld be taken. We usua11y do not impose that on a
neighborhood.
Mr. Aggarwal: First of all, permit par",ng is very ineJl'pel'lsive as
compared to other (ities like San Francisco. Secondly, it is easier for
employers not to have their employe!s going out every two hours to move
their cars. ihird, we could lmplement a permit parking program in the
ne;ghb~rhDod, but that is very, very expensive.
Ms. paRosa: Well, that 1S not a part of t~is motion. What can we de to
make sure this gets discussed? Will it be agendized?
Ms. Chenev: I am thE staff liaison to the Callfon:ia Avenue Area
Development Association. I Cin raise tne issue with the CAADA board of
dlrectors. It is a vehicle whfctl can be used for educating local
employ~r~ and employees about tne issue.
Ms. DaRosa; Okay.
furth~r discussion?
apPl"oved.
Tnare is a motion for approval wtth conditions.
(None) All those in favor? Aye. Project is
-] 8-
Any
· .
liti' of Yolo }{lto MIAcHMENT C.3
p 0 co~ 1(1'50
r .... LO A~!Q, (AUf;~NI"" ,.uc':)J
Application ~c. 73-UP-36: lffi..QLlFORNIA AVENUE
Use Permit 73-UP-36 is hereby amen~ed to allow dancir.g and the playing Gf live
and recorded music. in combination with the on-site sa1e and con.5umption of
liquor, beer and wine in conjunction with the ope-ration of a bona-fide
restaurant, at 260 C.lifornia Avenue, Zone District CC(2)(R)(P), Palo Alto,
California, and is subject to conditions listed belc~.
FINDINGS
]. Tne proposed use at the propos~1 location will nQt be detriment a? or
injurious to property or 1mpr _' ements in the .... icinity. and wi 11 not
be ddr-imental to the pub]lc health, safety, general welf.re cr
convenience in that, tnrpugh this amended ~se permit the existing
eating and drinking facility nas been conditioned to address
comphir:ts from adjacent bUsin(\H owners and residents, and to
mitigate lUter, vandallsm, e:<cesslve l1oi::e, and parking problems
related tc the operation of t~e existing facility.
Z. The proposed use .i11 be located and conducted in a manner i~ accord
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the ~urposes of TTtl~ 18
{If the PaTo A1to Municipal Coae, in tnat thc Retail Shopping
Combining Oistrlct of the CQmmunity Commercial zone, and the
Region.' COITlTllmity Corrrnercial land use designation spec:ifical1y
permit eating and drinking uses in conjunctio11 with the orl-site sale
and consumption of liquor, beer and wine, !wbject to the approval of
a conditional use p~rmit.
CONDlTlQNS
1.
1.
UP7336
nl/dsk
There shail be no operations of ani kind between the nowrs of 2:00 a.m.
and 9:00 a.m. dailYl except for cleaning the premi~ES7 or for ccmpl;anc~
wit;, the provisions [If the iittC!r removal plaT1 establlsh!:d in condition 6.
The serving (If all alcoholic beverages shall terminate at 1:30 a.m. daily,
and shall not be allowed to co~ence until tne following business day.
10_11 patrons shall be vacCited from the building by 2:0(i a.m. at the end of
every business day.
T~e business operator shall subQit a plan ~hich addresses line control,
ar.d the processing and dispersal' of patrons 'Wait'lJ"Ig to enter the faci IHy.
The pl.an shan be reviewed and approved by tl1e Pc:,lic::e Department and
Zo711ng Administrator. Tl1e plan must identify methods for ccntrQlling and
disperSing the crJwd waiting to enter the e5tabli5hm~nt and will inciude
quantitative Dbjectives such as the maximum allowlble length of an outdoor
waiting line before and during events, and a time limit for achieving the
9/24/92
Page I
'.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
B.
UP7336
nl/dsk
t , ....
. ... _--_ ....... --
<lbjective o.1ce a crc.wd ferms. The plan shail be submitted no iater tnoin
15 days after Hie issuanc.e of this use permit ar.d implemented il!l'T:ediCitely
upon appro~il unless otherwise specified.
The biJsfnl!ss operator sTull submit a plan for the util 1zation of security
guards in directing patrons to designated public parking lots for the
purpose of reducf~9 noise Teveis ;end vandal ism in the Cal ifornia A .... enue
distric.t. Thfs plan shall be re .... tew'ed and approved by both the Police
Department a~d Zoning Adminlstrator. The plan snail identify the nu~ber
of S'dards necessary fer specl fic €:Vent types and days of tnt! wed, the
boundaries and specific areas the 9IJards )Wi 1 T patrol, specific publ ic
parking lots to ~hich p~trons ~ill be directed, and the manner in ~h
th<! guards are to approach and direct motorish. All ~uard'.'i. used to
imp~ement this plan shall b. licensed by the State of C.llfornia .nd
uniformed in a manner that satisfies t"e Po11ce Department end also
clnrlY identifies them as guards for the facility and not Palo Alto
Police Officers. The pl.n shall be submitted no 1.ter th.n 15 days .fter
the issuance of this use permit and implemented immediately upon approval
unless otherwise sp!cifled.
The bus1n!ss operator shall submit a temporary sign prog".a.m for the
Cal ifornia A'/enue district that effecthely directs patrons of the
facility to the sp!cific p~b1fc par(ing Jots identified in condition 3.
The placement and wording of the signs, and e~ar.ts and/~r days for which
tfley will be I.Itilized shilll be reviewed and approved by the Transportation
Div;si,n. The phn sh.n be submitted no later th.n 15 days after the
issuance of this use permit -and ill'1plemented iiTll1ediately upon approval
unless otherwise specified.
The sen"ing of alcDfiol1c beverages shall only ~e allowed in conjunction
with the operation of a bona·fide restaurant. The restaurant sha1l be in
operation and easily accessible to and from tne entertainment area during
the times in ~ich alcDhol is sold and consumed on site.
The business shaTl re~ove all litter associated with its ope~ation i~ the
area patrolled by He sect:rity guards, as defiMd 'jrL condition 3. titte't"
removal shali comrr,ence no ezrller than 8:00 a.m. and shan be completed by
9:00 a.m. the ~rning afte't" every business day.
T,~e business opfrator sh,all allow all patrons waiting in nne to have full
access and use of bathroe~ facilities within the building, ~hether or net
that patron has paid the required COVET charge. This service shall be
advertized in ct)nj'IJnction wH~ the education program specified ir:
condition 8.
The busi!'1E'sS operator shall submit a p1an to r:ducate patrons that the use
of the property is only permitted under certain conditions, particularly
respect for the surrounding bu:siness and residential neighborhood. The
education program shall direct patrons to park 1n deSignated publ ic
parking ltlts. to reduc€ noise in the Calif{lrnia Avenue distric.t, to
eliminate lttter .and vandalism, and to be respectful of property and
9124(92
Page 2
,
t
9.
~. --
i'esldel"lts in the California A .. enue distj}ct. The plan shall i:lclude
wording for handbills) to be distributed upon entry to the faci~lty, and
sisn~ wit~ir, the bullding. The education program shall be r~vlewed ~nd
approved by the Police De~artment and the Zoning Admin-istr-ator. The plan
shall be submitted no later than IS days after the issuafice of this US!
permit and implemented immediately upon appro'llal un·less otherwise
.specified.
Comp 1 iance sha 11 be reQui red witI'! a 11 app 1i c.:a.b 1e codes and ordi r.ances J
including Titles 9 (le.ce, Mor.1s .nd S,fety) and 15 (Uniform fire (ea.)
of the Palo Alto H"nicip.1 Cod •.
10. The saTe of alcoholjc beverages under this use permit shall be~deemed in
ilgreement en the p.art cf the applic:a.nt, the owner, their heirs, suct-essors
and assigns to comply with all terms and cCindltions of this use permiL
~~~>.
Zoniog Admlnistr.tor
Sept •• ber 24, 1992
This fOnD does not constitute th~ use permit for whi~h appl ication was made. If
the application f.s approved and if no appeal from thh dec:is ian is fi led by any
person, firm or corporation affected by the decision on Dr by Octo~r 4, 1992,
yOy will recei\lE! iI copy of your permit in the mail. If this applic:ation is not
decfded to your satisfaction, the decision may be appealed to the Planning
C~ission by filing an appeal application with the P16nning Department and City
Clerk on or before t.he abo .... e~mentioned date.
cc: City Council
PlanriTng (onmiss;cri
UP7336
nl/dsk
Sue Case, SeniOi Assistant City Att~rney
lynne Johnson, Assistant PoT ice Chief
Capt. Tom Merson. Police Oepartment
Hark Venable, folice Departm2nt
Rich Cabrera. Ordinance Compliance Inspector
Joseph M. Colonna, Planner
Jacek Rosic:ki. 260 California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Duf Sundheim, 420 Florence Street, Suite 200, Polo Altai CA 9430I
Brad Adams, 360 College Avenue, '8, Palo AHo, 0., 94306
5usy 5.gr., P.O. Bo. 60555, P.lo Alto, CA 94306
Nicol. Isr •• l, 1961 Middlefield Ro.d, F.10 Alto, CA 94301
'dE i.?'~"
9/24/S2
PagE 3
UP7336
nl/dsk
.Qicn Wingarten, 459 iit;.nt ,avenue, Apartment 1. Palo Alto, CA 94306
Todd Mowry, 2BS Coilege Avenue, Apartme~t f, Paio Alte, CA 94306
Andrea Corn.y, 3,0 College Avenue, f6, Palo .ltc, CA 94306
CAAOA, P.O. Box 60583, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Hackner, 355 Callege Avenue, ?alo Alto, CA S4306
Kerry McNefll, 2115 rark Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Jay t. Packard, 315 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
De Tran, 2570 E1 Camino Real West, 1216, :a1ountain View, CA 94040
Julie Makinen, P.O. Box 1610, Palo Alto, CA 94305
Scott Pray, 1200 Pine Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Hark Burton, 427 Oak Court, Henlo Park, CA 94025
E"ge.e McKenney, 304 Oxford Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
rv.tte S. Rudolph, 120 East Creek Or!ve, IS, ~E.lo Park, CA 94025
Stefanie Pomponi, 1179 Noel Drive, Henlo Park, CA 94025
Bern.rd Lozansky, 691 HIll. Roa~, Sacra.ent" CA 95864
CarlDs Barnes, P.O. Box 390873. HOuntil~ View, CA 94039
St.v. Goldberg, 117 C,l ifornfa Avenue, Apartment D-400, Palo Alto, CA 94306
John WoolTolk, 245 lytton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
9/14/92
Page 4
I
DATE: Septe.ber 25. 1~9Z
nt~ of Ynlo jUto
P,C. tOll: IOnO
PALO "I. TO, CA 9U()~
TO: PALO ALTO '1. ... 111111& COf1IIISSION
PREPARED BY: Saroh Cheney
ATT.e.CH}~ENT C.4
R£PGRT IN BRIEF: ZlS COFbrlcl.e Avenu" public Parking lot 3: Applicatlon for
a Z""e Change from PF, Pu~lic focility, and eC(21, Community Commercial
Ccobini". District to .C, Plann~ (oomunity to allow constructlo~of a t~o
level, 186· space parking strycture with zero setbacks and minor encroachm!nts
Into the public right-of-way (sidewalk.).
EDv1rq"IIntal Assessment: An envfronmenta' assessment recommending adoption
of I negat!~e decllrat1~n i5 attached.
ZPne D1.tri,t: PF, Pub1ic Fac1lity, and CC(2). Community Co~rcla1 Combining
OiStrlct.
me Nos,: 92-ZC-12, 9Z-ARB-1l9, 92-ElA-26
APPLICATION INFORMATION
Appl1cant: City of Palo Alto
Oepart.ent of Pub~ic ~orks
250 H .. iltan Avenue
Palo Alto CA 94303
Canhct Scott Wahl (415) 329-2160
Type of Applieatlon:
Oates:
Planned Coomynity lane Change
Application r.calved ~; Applic<tion
complete 9-10-92;
Mandatory Iction deadline None (legislative
acticn)
SITE INfQBMaT1PH
Owner: City of P.lo Alta
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Assessor's Parcel Humber: 124-28-51
COilprehi!nsive Plan Designation: Regionil/Com.unity Commercial
,.'''''''''''''''' 9/15/91
Page 1
Existing l.n~ Uso;
Surrounding land Use:
Existing ZonIng:
Parcel Size:
PBpJECI tHfORMAT1QN
prOitct "'5tory;
November 4, IgaS
1986
January 1989
Juoe 27. I g90
P:"'~·J>e
gO-space Surface Par~ing lot
North: Post Office
East: ret",il stores., night diJb,
professior.al office;)
Soutn: nardware"store
West: offi~es, no~conforming auto servi~e
(tire s.l.s). and public parking lot
pr, Pub'lc Facility. and C~(2). Community
CommerCial Combining District
.63 acro./27. SOO square fe.t
City Initiated tWD-phase prDcess fDr .ddlng parking to
California Avenue Business District; Ph.se I -
purchase of site and parking structure feasib11ity
study. Pha.e II -de.lgn and construction of new
plrking structure and creatinn of new assessment
districts to fund each.
City purchase of prlvite parking lot (Keystone lot)
adjacent tD let 3 funded through parking .ssessment
distrIct for conversion to public use Conlarging lot
3), ind possible future public parklog structure.
A kickoff public .. etlng was held at the Wesley United
MethDdist Church to solicit comments regarding the
par~ing study. Mailed ,1otices .. re sent to .11
property owners and tenants of propertits w1thin the
California A~en~t Business District~ A study group
was created that had tfiree Cilifornia Avenue Area
Develop-.nt Association (CAADA) member,. one Planning
Commission member and staff from t~e City's Planning.
Transportation and Public Works Departments.
Prelimfnary review by P'an~;n9 (omm;ss;on of the site
locatfon and conceptual design options evaluated in
the Parking Study. and the zone change. The parking
study evaluated eight different parking layout options
f~r two different sit~s. three options for lot 3 north
of Cal;f~rnia Avenue. ind fiv~ options for lot 7 south
of California AvenLiP (.see Exhibit 1 and Tables S-l aTid
$-2 in Attachment 6). Commission comments included
acknowledgement of the need for addition~l parking as
9/25/92
Page 2
•
'.
---~~ .. ---~-.--.--....... --. . .. -.-.~
-I,
July 19, 1990
i mean~ to ke!p commercfal parking out ~f the
neighborhood, i preference f~r use of the tot 3 site
for i future structLire, a jlreferenoee-for the Design
alt~rnattve AJ -one pa~kfng le~el at grade and one
level abO'/e grade resulting in grutest number tlf
.spaces .at lent cost. The CClTlllission also did not
expr~ss conce~n over a PC zone change for the project.
Prelimin~ry review by Arch'tectural Review Beard (ARBl
of V.e site location iP',nd conceptual deSign optfons for
parKjn9 lot, 3 and 7. Board member comment, l"cluded
i request for a design which would be well detailed,
with landscaping, good pedestrian circulation, proper
lfghting, and well related to the surrounding urban
context.
October 7, 1991 City Cou~cil directs staff to proceed with design and
con,truction of parKing structure at lot 3 and
creltion af an aS$ess~nt district to fund the
project, IS recommended by staff.
!':ay ll, 199Z Preliminary review by ARB of two alternate designs for
structure at parkjng lot 3. Alternative .~, whjch
included the use Df brick masonry, concrete cornices
and w,nduw elements, was the preferred aiternativ! and
reviewed favGr~b'y. Exce~pt ~lnutes of this meeting
are attached (Attachment 7).
pro1ect Compar1son With CUrrent Qrdinanc~ ~eguirements:
floor Area
(sq.ft.)
FAA
Maximull1
Height
27,400
1:1 1:1 in PF
2: 1 ;n CC(2)
16.5 ft wit" SO fe.t·
facade elements
of Appro>. 32
feet at center of
stru~ture. and 27
feet at east and
west corner
N/A
H/A
9/25/92
Page 3
•
\
. :,
Setbacks
Site
C;)vera e
Use
Fron!:: 0 ' to
mirlus 2"
Sid.: 0'
R~a.r: 0' to
minus 1.S'
100f,
68 stand.n!
92 c""",act
6 handicap
lSi total
Front: 20' in PF
Sid" 10' in PF
Rear: 10' In ?F
H/A in CC(2)
rUSTING
Front: 0'
Side: 0'
Rea.r: 0'
N/A
N/A S6 standard
31 co.pact
3 hanqicap
90 total
PF: ~arkin9 is i pub1ic parking
pet"1Ritt(l~ us..fI .•
(C(2): Parking is
ill conditional use .
• n.c ..na.m. Jaci.pt IIllowcd in • PC diItrict is 50 (",r:t. WlleIl the ate il adJecc:a.t 00 resideatial zone cf.istricu -
-... II>e .... _"" bdp: 0IId day."" p_ limill ,.,...."
~t DesCriptign:
The City of Palo Alto Public Works Departeent has applied for a Planned
COI8Jnity lone 'hans! to &110'lIl for construction cf ill t'ffo-leve1 (gro.und le1t't)
plus one level above grade). IB6~space parking structure _'th zero setbacks
and site co.erage of 100 percent where a front yan! $etbaek of 20 feet.
interioT yard ,.tbacks of 10 feet and site cover'ge of 30 percent would
.anoally be required for t~. PF-zoned portion of t." ,ite. In addition. the
City ;$ reQuestfng approval of minor encroachments into the public right-of
way described below.
The application before tn. Planning Coomfssion includes conceptu.l appro'.l of
the propo$ed PC zone change, including t~e pr~ject design. and appr~~al of tne
additional alley and lighting impro,ements to He. Mayfield Lane and Nogel
Linp, wh1th were rec~nded by City staff curin9 the preliminary desi9n of
the project.
Tne project site is made up of four separate underlying ~arcels whic~ have
dUil zoning. Twa 50-foot wide parcels are toned PF. T~~ other parcels wert
the old ~.ystone lot. These parcels have widths of 100 feet and SO feet
respectively and are zoned Ct{2). A requirement to merge tnese ~ndfrlying
parcels into one parcel ~ou1d ~e necessary for an1 development pr~posal on
tn" site.
9/25/92
Page 4
-
The PC lone change is propos~d because the current fF zoning represents tne
DlQst sisn1ncant sHe constnint , because it limits site coverage to 30% • ..,:;U',
20-foot front setba~~ an~ lO-f~ot side and rear setbacks. These restrictions
would red"lJce tt'e net dimension area of the site Significantly. such Hat a
workable parking desigfl. solution would not be possible. The CC(2) lone dOES
not pr!sent these sHe deOielopment constra7r.ts. but is not cOf1!:;dered the most
appropriate zone for a public parking facility_
~Qu.l\Mnt RePtiests: In order to effectively .2nd efficiently use the site,
the project has been designed to extend t., the outer perimeter of the site
proPErty lfnes. In order to provide the architectural ,nd landscaping
ornamentation recomnended by the ARB it preliminary design reviews ~ithout
loss of parking. small encroachments intD the public rig~t-of-way along
Cambridge Aven~e and ~e~ ~iyfield line will be necessary. These will consist
of approx1mately S·1ncn to B-inch encroi~hments fer the brick co1u~ns and
concrete cornices, I.S·foet en~rolcnments for the second story planter boxes
on both east and west sides of the bt.dlding, and iI 2-foot-wide encroadiment
for grade level landscaping on the west (Cambridge) side of the building
(refer to sectiDns on Plan sheets A2.1 and A7.1 for graphic i11ustration of
encroachments). Adequate sidewalk widths wi?l still remain. As the
!ncroachments will be for a public facilit~, no formal encroach~ent permits
will be required.
Deyglopment SchgdulE: Construction of the parking structure wi 1l be inlt1ated
after approval Df the new parking assessment d1strict. It is antiCipated that
the .assessment district approval process will be ccmp1eted by Aug1.ist of 1993,
Ind cDnstructivn o~ the parking garage car. begin in September 19~3. ihe
structure is estimated to take eight months to complete. Following completion
of thr parki~9 structure the (ity will initiate a separate alley improvement
project (light1ns and paving/drainage) thit will tak.e approximately one mOl"lth
t~ complete. Clearly~ the deSire is to complete both ~lJey and parking
structure projects as early as pDssib,~ to have the structure availab1e t~
serve t~e public and California Avenue mercnants during th~ 1994 hQliday
season.
A~Al YSISIlSSUrs
'ackground
The need for additional rarking in CClliforia Avenue was idt!ntified in the 1980
Comprehensive Plan (Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, TransportatiDn Element page
28). In 1985 the City ",itiated a p~a::ess to addres.s this need by purchasing
the keystone parking lot (portion of lot 3) located on Cambridge A .... enue. and
hired consultants (Wilbur Smith ASSOCiates, International PlrKing Des;g~ and
Angus McDonald Ass.ociates) to prepare a parkin.g .structure plan. This plan
included an ina1ysis of the parking supply and demand in the area. 1he
analysis concluded that the existing parking defjcit in t~e California AV2nu~
area was 258 parking spaces, with the greatest deficit occur;ng in the area
north of California Avenue. The study also evaluated the relative costs and
.. "._.-
9 15/92
P age 5
benefits of alt!rnate parking structure designs for alternate sites t and
toncluded with i recommendation to proceed with ~ two-level project at Parking
Lot 3.
The attached staff report (CHR:437:91, Od.ober 3. 1991) provides. more
detailed descrfption of the hfstory of the project, the funding of the
struct~re through creation of an assessment district and the proc~ss for
publfe input and outreach used in the develop~ent of the current proposa1.
The attached report also summarizes t~e conclusions of the Parktng Structure
Plan. Copies of t~e Par~;n9 Structure ~l~n are also a~ailable (or revie~ at
the City of Pile Alto Transportation Division, 6tn Floor. Ci~ic Center.
PARK! NG IMPACTS
N@t parking Increase -As stated abo~e, based on a 90 percent occupancy rate,
the Clliforn1a Avenue Business D1strict is estimated to have an existing
parking deficit of 258 spaces, with 75 percent of the deficit occuring "Qcth
of California .~venue. This parking structure will reduce this defidt by 96
spilces o
Tile parki"9 structure will be open 24 hours. day .11 year. Tile majority of
the grQund l~vel is planned to provide snort t!rm, two-~our parkf~g, Monday
through Friday, 8:00 AM to 6:00 PH. The second level is planned for a
combination of two-hour parking and permit parking sfmilar tg other City
pirking lots in the Business District.
Short ierl Lgss -Thare will be i s~ort te~ loss of 93 parking spaces during
construction of the project, the 90 spaces in tne surface lot and t~ree spaces
on Cambridge Avenue. An interio parking pT.n proposed by the P"blic Works
Department ar~ Trar.sportation DiviSion and documented in the pr~ject
environmental ass~ss~nt calls for U$e of available spaces in otner distrlct
public lots and converting some on-street, t~-~our parking on Park Boulevard
to allow pe~it parting, to offset this temporary ioss {see Attachment 5, pagE
JeA for Map of proposed locations]. An area survey of available parking
indfcates that suffic1ent spaces are available in these locations to offset
the temporary loss of parking without severe i~cor,v~nience to California
Avenue BUSiness owners and tneir patroris.
As tne alley improvements will not be initiated until the new structure is
completed, 5paces mad! uniiiilabie during construction of the ailey project
{estimated one ~nth duration) can be temporarily provided withln the new
stru.cture.
Cjrc~jJtion lmpacts
Construction of the garage will close the sidewalk along Cambridge for the
duration of construction but will not close any streets. Ac(ess to tne alley
will be restricted for a very limited period. with all service/de1ivery needs
accommodated eit~er in the alley. or in a tempurary loading zone to be creat~d
----,,.....-..,.---~-----'-.~' .....
9/25/92
Page 6
"'-.
•
-
~n Ca.br1dge Avenue and Birch Street. Truck access for demolitfon/construc
ti:::m pUi"'poses will be limited to CoJmbridg~ Avenue.
Oe$ign issW
Building -Tne building has been designed to ma~imize the amount of parking
that can be prov;~ed, for le~st cost. Given standard parking baJ dimension,
and a relatively shallow site, the achievement of this goal has resulted in
two lev21s of parking --one it gride, ane abovi -~ in a structure with zero
setbaok •.
The project will provide 88 standa~d sized parking spaces] 92 compact spaces
and 6 handicap accessible spaces {one ~an accessible) for a total of 186.
Tn~ building is to be of concrete construction with decorat1v! elements added
to blend the str~cture into the surrounding arei a"d respcnd to recommenda
tions from the Architectural Revie. Board.
Structural brick (Higgins Briok, earthtone light) will be provided on the east
and west elevations for the building base and vehicular and pedestrian
entries. The concrete spandrels along the west elevit10n will have a
decorative brick inf;ll to better integrate them with the Ca~bridge Aven"e
facade~ The concrete spandrels on the east elevation will be painted a light
tan (Fuller O'Brian -Brown Mist]. Concrete sills, headers, and cornices]
steel trellises, and grad'e leve-l and second story planters will be provided as
dec~ratiYp elements. The steel railings a~d trellises will be painted a teal
blue (fuller 0'6ri.n -Chri,tina Blue).
Acees} and Circulation ~ Pedestrian and Yehicular entries ar! identified by
entry towers at the four corners of the building. Stairs to the second level
are located within the northerly comer It Cimbridge Avenue and southerly
corner at New Hayfield Lane. The project will have one-way vehicular
circulatfon with the entrance at tne southern end of the Cambridge Avenue
facade, ind exit at the northern end of the Cambridge facade. Direct
pedestrian access to California Avenue will bp. provided V7a the alley, witn
the 5Dutneast ent.ance towt'!r y1.sib1e from (llifornia IWMue.
Laodscaping ~ The amount of landscaping proposed as part of the project is
lI1i."imal and requires encroachment into the puLljc f'ight·of-way. Seven new
Pistac;a chinensis street trees are proposed along Cam~ridge Avenue wh~c~ wi11
help tQ offset the six trees to ~ removed as a result of construction.
Issues related to maintenance requirements of ~ome of the proposed plant
specimens (such as the Ca~illiasJ, and planter areas ~a~e been raised
includfng the long term ~iability of pi ants surviving the harsh conditions in
the second story planters, The primary concern is lang term maintenance and
appearan,! of the planting areas given ~xisting drought conditions and limited
City maintenance resources. However t 9j~en the small area available for
landscaping, and the need to c~eate an attTactive streetscape, staff would not
support elimination of qny of the planting areas. Instead it is recommended
9/15/91
Page )
•
r
t
-
•
ilL. , •.
t~lt the prcject 1.ndscapa architect consider alternate specimens with reduced
water and .a1ntenante requirements.
lin~ttn; -T~~ ne~o for adequate and appropriate lighting for the project was
raised d~r1~g its earliest reviews. Tne lighting plan calls for four basic
types of liglltlng: I) Wall lDOunted facade lighting on the east and .est
ele't:l'itions serving both i decorative and functional pIJrp-ose. 2) func.tional
lower level garage 1191ltln9, 3) upper lev.l pole/ •• l1 mounted g.r.ge lighting,
and 4) lnterior st.i~ell lighting. Suggested reVisions to the lighting _l.n
to be presented to the ARII 1.c"r ude;
I. All 11ghting used to be hlgh-pressure sodium.
2. W.ll Mounted lightlng . Tile same lighting fixture be "sed on the east
.. :nd west elevations, with use of ill ~alf round fixture t'ecorrmended to be
substituted for A full round, to reduce light glare. Add two additional
wall mounted lights to tne last el~yation, wit~ or.e more above each
~estr1an entry to provfde better iightlng and a more balanced
appearance.
3. Pole Mounted L1ghting ll~per 'arage level· Consideration should be given
to ,el1mination Df tne two pDle laDunted lights visible from Cambridge
Avenue, substltuting higher lighting it the center of the second lev.l
to cOIpensate for their remava1 tf neces$ary.
4. The light fixtures be black .. tiler than white.
~ . A separate project is proposed to improve the alley by repaving.
repairing the drainage system a~d adding n~ lighting. This proje,t includes:
I) the rep1acesent of all existing pavlng with new asplla1t concr.te surface
and concrete. drainage swaT •• 2) replaCeMent cf two l~inaires located it
e;t~er side of the Bircn Street Alley access, and 3) i new street llght at tne
other end of the alley where New ~ayfie1d lane intersects with Nogel lan •.
The new wall ICunted lighting to be added to the eastern elevatio. of the
parki~g structure is considered adequate lighting for the remainder of t~e
alley.
PUBLIC SENff IT
The City Is seeking approval of • project deSign wllich would have zero front
and sideyard setbaCKS, and site coverage of lOa percfnt, w~ere a front yard
setback Df 20 feet, interjor yard setbacks of 10 feet and site coyerage of 20
parcent w~uld nonnally be required~ P~rsuit gf a Planned Community Zone was
consldered appropriate for tll;s project because of the public benefit of
providing incre.sed public parking_ The public benefit of the project is to
be I dQubling of existing pub1ic parking (from 90 spaces to 186) in an ar!a
with a demonstrated parking n!ed, combined ~ith additional eff-site alley
improvements.
9/25/92
Page 8
n" -'tlill
;\
',' .
rhe public benefit of doubling the existing amount of pubTic pdrking in.
high-demand area of the Californii A~2nue Business District as documented in i
parking demand and needs a~s!ssment of the area is considered t~ be suffjc~e~t
jl.lstificit;c;n for applic.at;otl of a Plarmed Corrrnunity lone, ev-en without the
additl0nal alley improvements proposed,
C~PREHENSly'E PLAN COMPLfANCE
The uses and site deyelopment regulations witkin tne PC, Planned Community
district must be determined to ~e consistent with the Co~r.he"sive Pl.n, The
objectives of the C~rehensive Plan considered most pertinent to this
proposal are the following:
1. Transportation Policy ]0: Reduce employee or !ommuter parking in
residential neigh~rhoods.
2. Tran:oporU,t1on Policy 1.Q!j: In the Downtown Area, encourage the-Uie of
Pl.nned Community (PCl zoning for parking structures.
-The purpose of this policy is to encourage parking in Do~town
Pilo Alto that meets the needs identified in the 1984-1986
Downtown Study. The Planned Community zone procedures provide
ext~nsive opport~n1ties of the d!sign of parking structures."
3. Transpqrtation Poljci II: Minimize the need for more long-term parking
fac1Tities and encourage short-term shopper parking.
4. TranspprtatiDn Progra~ 27; Help plan and deve10p short-tenl1 park~ng.
5. TranspprtatjRn Program 28: ReserY~ close-in public parking for shcrt
tenn use.
6. Urban Design program 17: PeT'llit buildings and conmerdal usu to
encroach on sidewalk areas only where the visual c.~aracter of the street
would be improved and pedestrian spice would not be unduly con-stl"'icted.
7, Urban Design Prcaram p. Contain bus~ness area parking within the
busihess area.
The prDposed project, resulting tn the addit,on of 96 parking spaces and alley
improvemen!s, meets the objectives of each of tne above policies and programs.
T~e project increases the t~hl parking supply aad short-term parking in a
Bl.Isinpss District, discouraging parking in adjoin1ng neighborhood areas.
Though Transportation Progr .. lOA ~as a result of the Downtown Study and .s
suct! .'Specifically references the DOwntOWTl Area, its obj!c:t;ve to USE the PC
zone to allow greater flexibil,ty to encourige thE provision of parking in
8~siness Oistricts is applicable to tnis project also, The project meets the
object;~e~ of the Urban Design Programs in its provision of pede~t~ian
amenities and architectural elEments. Th~ proposed sidewalk encroachment~ are
minimal, maintain adequate pedestrian access and are ~r~posed $pecifically to
9/Z5/92
Pagt' 9
, .
inprcve the vi sLlal ci'laritter of the streetscape t.~rou9h thE" additton of
land.caplng.
m~
T~e Planned CD~unity Zone Change applicati~n is reqwired to follow a process
whereby it 1.s g!Yen preHminiry review by the Planning COTllJl;sslcn~ The public
hearfng, $ched~led for Sept~er 30, 1~92, ;s intended for this purpose and is
the subject of tnl. report. Should the Commi.sion act favorably .t this
inltl.l reylew, .are detailed desfgn plaos are then submitted to the ARB for
It. recommendation.. The developoent pli .. , ., approved by the ARB, fs then
returned to the Pl~nning Commission for its final revie~ and recommendatlon
before submittal to the City CDuncl1 for ffnal octlon.
Prior to making I fi~al approval recommendation to the City Council, the
Plann1ng C0Im1ssion is required to make specific determinaticns regarding the
project and to approye an environmental determinatfon, specific development
progr~ stateoent, developaent plan and deyelopment sched"le that will become
the basis for the site-specific regulations to be applfed within the proposed
PC Planned Coom~nlty zone district. An estlm.ted timeline for the proce •• in~
of the .ppllcltion fs .s follows:
Sept..oer 3D, 1992 Initial Planning Commission revfew
October 15, 1992 Arct,ltectural Revfew Board review
~veober 25, 1992 Fln.l Planning Commi.slon reylew
Deceober 21, 1992 Cfty Council reviev
St.£f recomoends that the Pl.nnfng Conaf •• ion conceptually approve the
proposed Planned CGlmunity zone change, and forward the application to toe
Architectural Reyiew Board for review.
f! !II \I!!jS
Not applicable for an initial review.
COlI) 1TI Ql!S
A final environmental determination , rec~nded con~itions and in ~rdinance
will be provided for the CommiSSion It final review of tne appliclti~n.
Attachments:
I. Environmental Ass~ssment
2. location Map
3. Development Pr(lgram statement from appl ieant
9/15/92
Pag' 10
•
.. "'
: ,i
I
4. Dey.lopoont Seh.dul.
5. Tr.ff'oc/Co"stru~tle" Management Plan .nd Int.rim Parking Pl.n
6. CMR:43):il, dated October 3, 1991
7. Ex~erpt Minutes of May ll, 1992 ARB meetlng
8. Developoont Plans (C~isslon Members only)
'Opiu Seot To:
California Avenue Area Oeyel~paent Association, c/¢ ~onni Oeyencenzi. CAADA
President
David SChTOll, Evergreen P,'rk Neighborhood Association
Paul Ka~n, Grlnt Avenue Co~doeinfUM Owners Association
Jan1ce Ph,..'r, Park Centnl C.OfIIIerc:1al Condominium ASSOc~ltfon
Persons Attending August lJ, 199) Public He.rlng en 'aliferni. Ayenue Parking
Struc.ture
Property Ooners and Tenlnts of sites bordering Alley Improvement Project
Project Consultants
9/25/92
Page II
r~
I
I ..
\
l_'_'·' ,--" ....... c .. ""'><-,,~---"
L
"""9, t ,
\
i
1 ,
I
1
1
1
c. __
Program DevelQpment Statement
for Planned Community Zon!! Change Submittaf
California A\lenue Parking Structure
C1P # 19213
The city of Palo Alto has initiated design of a two level (ground
plus one story above) pUblic parking structure in the californi~
Avenue Business District€ Presently the designated site, located
on th6 south side of Cambridqe Ave, between Birch street ano
Nogal Lane, is occOJpied by Cit_y pa~king Lot :3. The proposed
parking &tructll.re .... ill be ·=onstructed to the property lines to
allow for th~ maxi~uro amount of parking spaces, this will
require a zone cha~qe from the current PF, Public Facility and
CC(2), Community Co~~ercial, to a PC, Planned community District,
including zero lot line development. The intended and proposed
use of tr,is facility is a parking structure.
The parkiro.g garage will be a <;oncrete str ...... cture 'With three ro ... s
of concrete columns 18 feet on center supporting the second
level. One rm,' of concrete columns .'ill be alon~ CambridgE! Ave,
one along New Mayfield Lane and the t.hird ro .... · of colL!rms will run
down the canter of the building. Concrete beams ~ill span
between the columns supporting the second level concre~e slab
deck. Additionally, there ~ill be a shear ~all along Cambridge
Ave and a shear wall along New Mayfield Lane at the midpoi~t of
the building. ~here the parking structure abuts the post office
and the hardware store, concrete masonry 'Walls .... i11 be
constructed. The proposed exterior of the structure includes
brick Veneer over concrete, landscaped planter boxes, and metal
trellis ~t various loca~!ons~ The exterior facades of thE
structure .. 'ill encroach into the public. right of way. The face
of columns along the fror.t and back of the structure ..... ill be at
the property line. The brick facade propos8d for the exterior
treatnent ...-i11 enc~oach into the public right-of-way, since it is
applied to the face of the columns. This encroachment is
approximately five inches. Besides encroachment of the brick
facade, the planting areas adjacent to ~he building along
Cambridge, encroach into the sidewalk approximately t~o feet from
the face of column. T~e planting areas run almost the entire
length of the structure, along Camb!"idge, apprc.xirr.ately 2:)0 feet
of the proposed 250 foot length. The excepticn is f?r v~hicle
and pede.strian access at"eas ... 'here no planter will be present.
The curre~t City Lot 3 consists of a total of 90 parking spaces
... 'hich includes') handicap, 31 corr.pact, and 56 standard stalls.
The proposed parking st.ru.cture ,.ei 11 .have 186 publ ic parking
spaces of which 88 will be stand~rd, 9' compa=t, and 6 handicap
accessible spaces (includes 1 van a=cessible space). The ground
..... ~,~ .. ".''':: '91:
,,.. D "' .......... '...,., ,
•
. -
.... -
'-.. ,
level will be approximately 27,400 sq ft consisting of 34
standdrd spaces, 40 compact spaces, and 6 handicap accessible
spaces. The second level will also Le approy.imately 27,400 sq it
eon5i~tiny ot 54 standard spaces and 42 compact spaces. The
outside dimensions of the build.ing will be approximately 250' by
111', the total square footage will be approximately 54,964
&qUare feet. The parking structure will be open 24 hours a day
each day o! ~e year. Areas of the ground level are planned to
he only two-hour term parkinq, Monday through Friday, 8am to 6pm.
The remainder of the ground level and the second !evel will be a
combination of two-hour term parking and permit parking. Thi~ is
similar to other city parking lets in the Business District
including the current city Lot J.
The funding fo~ this project will C01!I:e from the sale of bonds.
These bonds will be repaid over time from YE"arly assessme.nts to
property owners in the California Avenue Business District~ This
will require the formation of a California Avenue Parking
Assessment District. The Falo Alto city Council is responsible
for the approval of the asse$sment district and the adoption of
the Enqineer's Report. Various public hearinqs will be held
where property owners can ~xpre5s their support or opposition to
the construction of the parking structur~ and the t~rmation of
this new Bssessment district.
s. .. _ t. Ii,)
... C", __ -.,I
~TTACHHENT C. 7
Project Development Schedule
for Planned Community Zone Change Submittal
California Avenue Parking Structure
CIP # 19213
The californ~a Avenue parking Structure is scheduled to be
advertised .tor construction bids during the: first part of J __ u __ ~_~,
1993. The bids will then be opened 1uring the middle of July,
~99J. The City Council ~il1 adopt the final Engineer's Report
and authorize the issuance of bonds durinq the first part of
Augusts 1993. During the first weex of September the
construction Contract would be awarded, construction would then
ba9in at the end of September or the first part of October, 199J.
The proposed parking structure s~ould be completed in about 6 to
8 months after the start of construction. This would put the
completion~ sometime after April, but before July, 1994. Upon
the opening of the parking structure. the alley reconstruction
and lighting improvements would commence. This is scheduled to
taJc::e about one month to complete. Therefore, the entire project
(perking structure and alley improvements) should be conpleted
before the end of August, 1994~
s.. • .,.,;" •• n -,til;'
'" D .... _ ....... ,"""
ATTACHMENT C.B
CALIFOAA'IA A VENUE PARKING STRUCTURE, CIP 19213
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Table of Contents
1. Questionn3ire Survey Summary Sheet 1
2. Informational Lett.er .2, 2A
3, Questionnaire 3
4. ~astior.naire Survey Sheets 4 _ 14
5. De.tivery~ Gar-bage ana: Recyclinq Access
Mitigation Plan Summary Sheet 15 _ 17
6. Notice of Construction-Interim Parking Plan 18, l8A
with Interim Parking Plan Map
7. Delivery Access Mitigation Plan Orawing 19
8. Garbage and Recycling Access Mitiqation 20
Plan Drawing
CALIFORNIA AVEl..-uE P,JI..'R.KING STRUCTURE AND ALLE':i H1PROVEM.ENTS
CIP # 19213
QUESTICNNAIRE SUrtVEY SUMMARY SHEET
BY: ,LIZABETH AMES DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 19S2
City staft distributed to local business oWf'lers adjacent to the
propose~ project an -Informational Letter~~ oated August 20, ~~2;
~xplaininq the scope of work and the duration of const~uction of
the parking structure i~provernent project and surveyed their
concerns using the attachi2d "Questionnaire'; about the upcoming
construction and what impact it would have on their businesses.
This survey was conducted bet ..... een August 21, 1992 to September 4,
1992.
The owners and/or leaseholders expressed conce~ns about t~e loss of
parkinq during construction; the possible noise disturbance and tt"le
loss of delivery and garbage service. The table below indicates
the number of owners and/or leaseholders citing either moderate or
sUDstantial concern about loss of parking, noise disturbance and
disruption of delivery and pick-up service.
PARKJNG NEED DURING
CONSTRUCTION
NOISE
DISTURBANCE
DEUVERY SERVICE
TABLE 1
,MODERATE
iCONCERN
! 9
I 12
1
6
I SUBSTANTIAL i TOTAL
ICONCERN _......l--;=--I
I 28 I
19
i 16 28
I --
I 9 15
I I YlAALLEY
TRASH AND RECYCLEBINj' 5 J 4
SERVICE VIA AllEY I
9
Alternative park.ing to cffset the loss of parking during
construction ls described in the Interim ParXing Plan. The noise
disturbance ~ill be mitigated by conformance to the City's Noise
Ordinance (Municipal Code Section 9.10.) limiting the noise level
and restrict.ing construction hours. The delivery and garbage
services usinf;J the alley .... 'ill be affected only during the alley
reconstruction. Alternative delivery; garbage, and recycling
access plans are described in the Delivery Mitigation Plan ~nd
Garbage and F.~cycling Access Mitigation Plan.
1
rNFOR~TIONAL LETTER
CALIFORNIA AVENUE PARKING STRUr.TURE IMFROVEM<NT PRDJECT
August 20, 1992
Dear Busjness Owner O~ Landlord:
As part of the upcoming lot 3 California Avenue parking StructurE
Improvenent Project CIP I 1921) on Cambridge Avenue, "the City .·ill
also be rebuilding the alley (NeW' Mayfield Lane and N09a1 Lane)
alongsidE the back of your business or property (see bacK of this
letter). Construction will take approximately 8 to 9 months but
will not begin until middle 1993.
During construction of the parking structure the alley may be
narrowed to accommodate a .... ork area for the contri'_ctor. This will
leave approximately 10 to 12 teet of width (or public a~cess. It
is unlikely the alley will need to be completely closed for any
time periGd during the 8 months of construction =:-n the parking
strueturoe. liowever the alley will need t.o be temporarily closed
during the reconstruction of New Hayfield and Nogal Lane.
Temporary closure should not exceed 5 working days. Every attempt
will be eade to resto~e limited acces~ at th~ end of each day.
I an co~tactlng each business owner and landlord to go over the
project in greater detail. I also am asking ~or your co~ments so
th~t they may be addressed in the p~oject desjgn. This information
'Will be presented in a repo~t t.o the Planning Cor-.mission in late
Septembet. A separate meeting notice vill be sent to you regarding
this. .
If after our m.eeting you
reached at 415-)29-2502,
Engineer at 415-329-2160.
Sincerel:!.
:Eizabet~. Ames
AS5ista::~ Engineer
-.
have any eciditional comments,
or you may call scott Wahl,
I can be
Associate
pilT7.
I
I ! I
i ~ , ,
I
, i
UJ
, i I
• l
[ I
-
.~
~
0 ;.:
"" 0
'" l::
--_ .. ------'
2A
QUESTI ONNAI RE
CALIFORliIA AVENUE PARKING STRUCTt1RE AND ALLEY IMPRDVEl!l:NTS
CIP I 19213
IN'l'ERVI!WEE: :
LOCATION:
DATE:
1~ Are there any delivery vehicles that you require to use the
alley? If yes, hov could the City accommodate your delivery
needs dur ing temporary alley closure'
z~ Do you have any trash or recycle bins in the alley? If yes,
when are they emptied?
3. What ti~e of the day or niqht do you use ~~e alley ~ost?
c. How do you think the nois.e level during construction will
aftect your business?
5. Are there any other COULiDents or concerns regardinq the t'Wo
week tempora.ry closure of the alley?
6. Do you have any concerns regarding the loss of parking during
construction of the parKing structure?
3
~'
CALIFORNIA AVENUE PAFJUNG STRUCTURE AND ALLEY HIPROVEMENTS
CIP I 19213
QUESTIOIIAIRE SUR"'E'"
BY: ELIZABETH AMES DATE, SEPTEMBER 4, 1992
r J IIIDICATES BUILDING NUMBER (SEE ATTACHED PtAI/ DR>.h'IIIG)
IIITERVI Eh'EE: LINNEA ARK ( LEASEHOLDER) [1J
LOCATION: 2307 BIRCH Si'REET CAMBRIDGE HA!lOh'ARE
DATE: 8-25-92
This is a hardware &to~e which has access to Cambridge for their
daliveries~ She has a garbage bin behind the store that is
serviced once a week requiring alley access. The alley is used
daily rrom 9:00 am to 5:30 pm by customers and employees walking to
the parkinq lot. She believes the noise level during constnlction
will be :substanti3.11y disruptive because the daily operatior. of
their machinery in the store ~lso generates noise. Host customers
park in the lot~ and they miqht patroni~e another hardware store
once construction begins if parking becomes more diffjcu)t.
INTERVIEWEE: ART WONG (LEASEHOLDER) ( 21
LOCATION: 2313 BiRCH STREET RAMONA'S TOO
DATE: 8-21-92
This is a pizza parlor. Deliveries are received in the morning
requiring use of the alley. Birch street could be used as an
alternative delivery location by installing il temporary loading
zo~e in front of the store. There is a loading zone on Cambridge;
however, it is usually occupied by delivery vehicles. He has 8
garbage bin behind the store serviced two or three times a week~
The alley is used at lunch time and between 5:00 pm to 11:30 pm by
employees tor pizza take-out deliveries. Art believes the dirt and
noise level Quring the hou~s of construction will be substantially
disruptive because their customers like a quiet setting during
lunch. Also~ he thought a lack of parking in the afternoon will
hurt business sOlT,ewhat; whereas, in the evenin9~ the parking lot
i& usually empty.
';~i .
. :'-~i
--
"
-.,
INTERVIEWEE: PAL'L!NE SLY ( LEASEHOLDER) [3 J
LOCATION: 2323 BIRCH STREET REPEAT PERFORMANCE
DATE: 8-21-92
This is a clothing consiqnment. store not re.quiring alley
deliveries. She has thr~e garbage cans behind the store serviced·
once a week by the qarbage trucks accessing the alley to empty the
c~n8. She believes the noise level during the nine month
construction \iill be a moderate disruption, since the store is
relatively quiet. Most of her customers do not use the d.lley
.because they park on Birch. The customers that drop oft their
clothes would have to walx greater distances because of the lack of
parking during tne parking qaraqe constr".Jction. Also, they 'Will be
affected du:-inq consignJl!E:nt days which .ere the last two 'Weeks of
every month.
INTERVIEWEE: PATTY CAMILLO (BAJ<ER) [4 J
LOCATION: 2333 BIRCH STREET THE COOKIE STOP
DATE: 8-21-92
This is a cookie shop.. Mornin9 deliveries are received in the
alley. Birch street will work as an alternative delivery location.
She has a qarbage bin behind the store serviced daily around 6:00
am to 8:00 am requiring access into the alley. Also, the employees
park in the lot and walk to the store via the alley from 6:00 am to
9:30 am. She believes the noise level dYrinq construction will be
substantially disruptive because it will add more noise to their
ovens and daily traffic on Birch. Their customers currently have
difficulty parking. When the parking structure is under
construction, their customers will have a very hard time parKing it
they have to park even further than they currently do (a few hlocks
.from the store) ..
INTERVI £WEE: &EFT;' SHINK (C/O Pl<OPERTY 124-28-036) [1 to 4J
LOCATION: 2313 BIRCH STREET
DATE, 8-24-92
Betty manages the property covering 2307 Birch to 2353 Birch, and
she feels some tenants may leave because of the lack ot parkinq
during construction.
5
•
INTERVI EWEE: YOUNG CHU ( LEASEHOLDER) [5]
LOCATION: 236) BIRCH STREET FRIMO CLEANERS
DATE: 8-21-92
This is a dry cleanin'~ business~ It do'.E!s no-t: require alley
deliveries becaur.e the front entrance on Birch Street is used. She
has one qarbage can behind the shop along the side street leading
to california Avenue which is &ccessible to garbage trucKs. She
believes the !"Ioise during construction will moderate.ly disrupt
business because the store is otherwise relatively quiet. Mcst of
her customers parK along Birch and do not use the alley~ The loss
of parkinq bec:~usP. of construction will Ci'.use her customers tc
carry their clothes further.
INTERVIEWEE: f'.ASAl(AZ (] MOMMA (LEASEHOLDER) [£ ]
LOCATION: 236) BIRCH STREET
DATE: 8-21-92
This is a sushi restaurant. It receives r.eliveries il"l the alley.
Access through the side street leaain I to Califor-nia Avenue
adjacent to the restaurant will work as t.:.1'l i'.J.t ... 'rnative delivery
location~ He has a three qarbage cans behind the restaurant that
are serviced once a week. Since the cans are not in the al1ey~
they can be serviced on the side ~treet. CUstomers parkinq in the
lot walk through the alley between the h~urs of 12:00 pm to 2:00 pm
and 5:00 pm to 8:00 pm. He has two entrances -one facing the side
street and the other facing Birch. Both entrances lead to the
dining area. He believes the noise and parxing problems ",-ill
greatly affect business j and he feels that he might lose ten to
twelve customers a day~
I NTERVI EWEE:
LOCJ:!.TION:
DATE:
TERPY SH(]CHAT (OWNER 124-28-034) [ 71
290 & 280 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE
PHOTOGRAPHY
6-21-92
KEEBLE & SHUCHhT
This is a photo supply and developing store. It does not require
alley deliveries. Birch street is used for their deliVeries. He
has no 9arb~ge can in the elley, but the alley is used by cust~rners
walking to and from the parking lot between the hours of 5:00 am to
6:00 pm. Terry believes the noise level will only be a moderate
disruption, e.ince the customers enter the store from California
Avenue. Parking would be a problem during construction because the
customers might have to pa~k further away from the store.
IN"1'ERVIEWEE:
LOCJ,-'rION:
DATE:
JACEK ROSISKI
260 N. CALIFORNIA
8-24-92
(MANAGER OF CORPORATION)
THE EDGE
[ B)
This is a night club~ It aoes not require alley deliver~es~ Th~
.ic2e suee"C leading to California AVenue is us-ed. They have a
qarbaqe bin in the alley which is serviced two to three times a
weak. The alley is used mostly between the hours of 9: 00 _pm--to
4:0G am. He believes the noise level during construction ~ill be
no pro.blem tor the customers. Host of the customers use the
parkinq lot, .but there is plenty of other parking available in the
eveninq.
INTERv;rEWEll : LINOA ELLIS (LEAS!':HOLOER) [9)
LOCATION: 240 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE NORGE VILLAGE CL~ERS
DATE: 8-21-92
This is ~ dry cleaning bUsin"!ss. It does net require alley
deliveries as their parking lot, adjacent: to t!1eir business. i.s
used. The qarbagoe bin is not in the alley and can be serviced
throuqh their parkinq lot also. The alley is used throuqhout the
day between 8~00 alii to 6:00 Plll~ Linda believe.s thE no':'se level
during constnlction will greatly affect business because it will
add to noise already existlnq in their stc~e from the operation of
their maehinery~ Construction noise will be even louder because
their doors are left open to help cool the store froa the heat:
gener~ted during the dry cleaning. She i6 concerned that oth~r
people will park in their parking lot during construction.
currently, people do not pay much attention to the "customers onlyn
sign.
INTERVIEWE£:: DR. SHEILA. FISK (LEASEHOLDER) [10]
LOCATION: 230 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE SUITE 108
DATE: 8-24-92
This i3 a therapy office and it does not require alley deliveries.
The qarbaqe bin located in tbe alley is shared by all leaseholders.
Her clients use the p~rking let And alley throughout the day on
the average of onE person per hour b~tween 9:00 am to 7:00 pm. She
believes the noise level during construction will greatly disrupt
her clients, and she might move because she needs a quiet
atmosphere. The lack of parking during construction could also
interfere ~ith her scheduled appoint~ent5.
,
•
,.'-~ .
IN'l'ERVI ElIEE: CI'-ALMERS SMITH (LEASEHOLDER) (10 J
LOCATION: ~30 N. CALIFOFNIA AVENUE SUITE 100
DATE: 8-21-92
Tbi~ i& a law office which does not require all~y deliveries. The
delivery ~cks p~rk on California. The garbage bin is shared by
all leaseholders which is in the alley. He believes the noise
level during construction would be substantially dlsruptive because
he is on the phone or interviewing approximately ten clients a day.
The loss of parking during construction will be terribly
inconvenient especially around Christmas because mos~ of his
clients use the parking lot during the hours between 9; 00 am to
5:00 pm.
INTERVIEWEE: ELLIE CAUSTI II (LEASEHOLDER) (10 J
LOCATION: 230 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE SlJITE 110
DATE: 8-25-92
This is a therapy office. It has no deliveries. The garbage bin
shared by all leaseholders is in the alley. Ellie believes noise
level during construction. -will greatly affect therapy sessions
requiring a quiet setting. Her-cl ients use the parking lot between
the hours. of 9:00 am to 6:00 pm. The lack ot parkinq during
construotion could intertere with her schedul~d
appointments.
IN'l'ERVIEWEE: ~JDITH WASSERMAN (ARCHITECT) [10 1
TINA ISENBERG (OFFICE MANAGER)
LOCAT!ON: 230 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE SUITE 212
DATE: 8-21-92
This is an archi~eetural otficoe. It requir2s aJley deliveries on
the averaqe of three times a day. California Avenue will work as
an alttrnative delivery location. All tenants use the garbaqe bin
in the alley. Juc1ith and Tina believe the noise level during
construction will be a great distraction because their conference
room and office overlooks the parking lot. They ~alk through the
alley to run errands to the post office twice daily bet'Jeen the
hours of 8;30 am to 5:30 pm. Also, they have two clients a day
usinq the parking lot, The lack of parking during construction
will bE! a great problem, and they I'lre cOTlce:t'ned about the sunlight
that could be lost once the garage is built~
s
~~ .. -.
INTERVIEWEE: FRANCIS P.EDENBERG
LOCATION: 230 N. CALIFORNIA AVEmJE
AGENC¥
DATE: 8-21-92
iLEASEfiOLDER) (10)
SUITE.: 207 HELP IN THE HOKE
This is a therepy otfice. It does n~t require alley deliveries.
All ten~t. share the qarbaqe bin in the alley. She uses-the alley
to walk bet~ •• n the lot and her business between the hours of 10:00
aa to 6:00 pm. Fran~is believes the noise level durinq
construction will be substantially disruptive because ahe is on the
pbone II lot. Tbe lack of parkinq during construction will be a
problem for her and her clients because parking is difficult now.
INTERVIEWEE: TERRY SHUCHAT (OWNER 124-28-030) [10 )
LOCATION: 230 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE
DATE: 8-21-92
All deliveries c&n te accommodated using California Avenue. The
qarbage bin could qo without piCk-up for a week. He believes the
dust ari~ noise level during construction ~ill greatly affect his
tenants because most of his tenants like a c~ean and quiet
a t.osphere.
INTERVIEWEE: SHERRY BROWN (LEASEHOLDER) [10]
LQCATION: 230 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE SUITE 110
DATE:
This is ~ psychoth~rapy office Which occasionally requires ~lley
deliver-ies. California Avenue will "Work as an alternative delivery
location~ All tenants share the garb.ege bin in the alley~ S."-e
believes the noise will gr-eatly atte~t her work Yit~ her clients
becau8~ she practices psychothera~y, and she needs a quiet
atmosphere. She miqht move it construction begins. Her clients
use the lot between the hours ot 10:00 am tc 6:30 pm, and she is
concerned about where to park.
•
INTERVIEWEE! SHEILA SNYDER (LEASEHOLDER) [ ill
LOCATION: 2,0 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE SUITE 24:0
DATE:
This is a psychotherapy office which requires alley deliveries only
occasionally. Californie Avenue will work as an alternative
delivery loaation~ All tenants share the garbage hin in the alley.
Sheila believes the noise will qreatlj' affect her work with her
clients because she practices psychotherapy and relaxation
techniques, ana her office overlooks the parking lot. She has an
average of ten clients per d~y who use the parking lot between the
hours of 9:00 am to 6:00 pm.
n'TERVlEi"EE: Pt\TT¥ CALDRON (FLOWER CART OWNER) [11]
LOCATION! BEHIND 220 N. CALIFOFJilA AVEIWE BETTY' 5 FLOWERS
DATE: 9-1-92
Patty sells flowers; at 414 California Avenue usin9 her portatlle
flower cart. She usoes 'the alley to push ~he cart t.o the overnight
&tora7e location behind 220 california Avenue. She has no other
storage available, so she will have to access the alley when she
q*ts the cart at 9:30 am and drops it off at 6:00 pm. Durin9 alley
constru.ction, the contractor can help her push the cart to the
driveway exit leading to Calitornie Avenue. This driveway vill be
ramped for easy access~ She does not use any qarbage can or bin in
the alley. She believes the noise l~el curing construction Yill
have no effect because she is far enough a~ay, and parking wi~l not
be a problem because ShE doe~ not use the lot.
BORIS KELMAN (LEASEHOLDER ) [ 11]
LOCATION: 220 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE SVITE 230 ~Y.ERIC~' PACIFIC
ECONEAST CORP.
DATE: 8-21-92
This is a business dealing with ioreign t.rade and it does not
re.quj,re alley deliveries. The delivery truck uses California
Avenue. All tenants share the garbage :bin in the all ey. The
employees walk through the alley to their office trom the parking
lot between the hours of S: 00 am to 5: 00 pm. He believes the noise
vill be a moderate disruption because he spends most of his time on
the phone and no clients come to the office. Lack of parking is
not a problem, since he has on1r three employees.
10
I
I
i
1
III'l'ERV!EWEE : FAY CAPISTRANO (ADMINISTRAT!VE DIRECTOR) [12J
LOCATION: 210 N. ~AL:FORNrA h\~~E KlRAMONTE
DATE: 8-21-92
This is a job training and mental health center. It requires alley
deliveri .. s~ California Avenue ..,ill work as an altPrrnative delivery
location. They do have a tr&sh bin in the alley. They have many
clients uainq the center between the hours of 9:00 am to 5:00 pm.
She believes the noise during construction will qreatly affect the
clients_ people in the training center and other employees workinq
on the phone. CUrrently, most of the clients and some employees
park in t!' ... e lot.
III'l'ERVI EWEr:: FRED SUAREZ (LEAS:;;HOUlER ) [13 J
LOCATION: 200 N. c.u.rFOJUHA AVENUE STJITE 200
DATE: 8-24-92
l'bis is an insurance. company which requires alley deliveries.
California AVenue will work as an alternative delivery location.
All te.~ants use t.he garbage bin in the Alle~·. Fred bel.!e\"es the
noise level during construction will moderately affect business
because he is on the phone a lot or aeetinq wiL~ clients. Xe has
clients eominq into the office between the hours of 9:00 am to 5:00
p= who park in the lot.
11
INTERVI EWEE: WALTER REYNOLDS (LEASEHOLDER) [llJ
LOCATION: ~oo N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE SUITE 212 TUTSIM
DATE, 8-21-92
This is 8. So.ttware development firm. It rarely requires alley
de-,11veri.a~ California Avenue 'Will .ork as .an alternative de-livet:y
location~ The tenants share the garbage hin in the alley which is
emptied weekly in the morning. He uses the alley t.O walk to the
parking lot when he has midday errands. :He believes the noise
level durinq construction will ~oderately affect pusiness because
he i~ on th~ phone a lot. Loss of parking ~ill not be a problem
because he does not have clients coming ~o the office.
IN'lERVIEWEE,
IJJCATION:
DATE:
TIM F'U"..LER (LEASEHOLDER)
200 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE
ASSOCIATES
8-21-92
SUITE 214
[ 13J
TIM FULLER
This is a management consulting company and it requires alley
deliveries on a daily basis. Califo~nia Avenue will work as an
alternative d.elivery locetion. The garbage bin in the alley is
shared ~y all tenants. The alley is used periodically in Lhe day
by clients. Ti~ believes the noise level during construction will
be a .oderate interference because he is on the phone or meeting
with clients. The lack of parking during construction will put a
lot of pressure on Mollie Stone's parking lot, and he is concerned
about Vehicles with city parking lot permits having no place to
parI<.
IN'rERVIEWEE: KENNETH LEW (LEASEHOLDER)
LOCATION:
DATE:
200 N. CALIFORNIA AVENU)': SUITE;;11
GFOUP
8-21-92
[13 J
ACCULAB PRODUCTS
'this is. a computer products distributing company~ It requiI""es
alley deliveries~ California Avenue ,,"'ill cork as an alternative
delivery location. The garb~qe bin in the aJley is shared by all
tenants. The alley is ~sed between the hours of 7:00 am 4:30 pm by
clients. lie :believes the noise level ',oill not be a problem because
he is far enough away from the lot, ~ost of his clients pa~k on
California, and he ~ould like to heve free long term parkinq for
employees during construction.
12
, ,
INTERVIEWEE: : CHARLES EDELSTEIN (OWNER 124-2S-027) [13 j
LOCATION: 200 ~. CALIFOR~IA AVENUE
DATE: 8-24 -92
Charles feels the delivery trucks can pa~k on California Avenue.
The qarbaqe bin in the alley is serviced. daily. Most of his
tenants use ~e alley between the hours of 8:00 am to 5:00 p~~ and
the janitors take the qar~qe o~t in the evening. There are th~ee
tenants that will be affected by the noise durinq construction
because their office is next to the -alley. tlut he believes the
noise l&vel could be tolerated. Also, he would like II notice
prior to cloSing the alley. Most ot his tenants park in the lot.
He would like guidance or suggestions about· alternative parking
locations with available spaces.
INTERVIEWEE: E. 3. HARRIS (STATION MANAGER) (14 J
LoCATION: 265 CAMBR!DGE AVElroE POST OFFICE
DATE: 8-25-92
Thia is the post office and it requires alley d.~1iveries. They
have twelve trucKs using their lo.aaing zone and the Noqal Lane
alley between the hours of 4~30 az to 6:00 pm~ The loading takes
place from their parking lot adjacent to Nogal Lane. The parking
lost due to this temporary loading ""ill :be mitigated by allowing
parking in the new parking garage. They have a garbage bin which
is servicec1 once a week,. He ~lieve:5 the noise level during
construction will be a great distraction. Most employees do not
use the parking lot because when coming to work parking is
available~ so for them parking will not be a problem.
13
:--'
DAVE BENNIT (LEASEHOLDER) [15)
LOCATION: 164 N. CALIFORNIA AVENUE MOLLLIE STONE'S MARKET
DATE: 9-1-92
This is a grocery store. It does not require alley deliveries. His
parking lot has-1II qarbaqe. and delivery area. Th.ree tCL-!our
p~ploy8.s and maybe some customers use the city parking lot who
valk across the alley betw~en the hours of S: 00 .<!m to 9: 00 pm. He
believes the noise level durinq construction will only moderately
disrupt business because of the distance between his busi~ess and
the. construction site. DaVE is concerned about the parking
problems created during construction because he has the grocery
parking lot and a parking lot across Cambridge that mi9ht not be
used by customer ve~icle5. He teels that a parking problem exists
now, and he might hire someone to watch for ·customers only"
parkinc;.
" ,
CALIFOPRIA AVENUE PAP~ING STRUCTURE, CIP I 19213
DELIVERY, GARBAGE AND RECYCLING ACCFSS MI'l'IGATION PIAN SUIQ'..ARY
SEPTEMBER 14, 1992
I. A~EY AND LlGHTING IMPROVEM~S
A. DELIVERY MITIGATION PlAN (see attached drawing)
Thia seetion suamarizes delivery alternatives to mitigate the
lOBS of current delivery patterns. to businesses adjacent to
tile project because of the alley and ligl".ting impro·Jement
project.
1. Delivery trucks for buildings 1 , 2 ~ili utilize the
exi£tinq loading ~one on Cambridg. ~venue~
2. Delivery trucks for buildings 3 through 7 will utilize the
temporary loadin9 zone on Birch Street. This will replace
the existing loading Zwne in the alley located next to
buildinqs 5 and 6~
3. Delivery trwcKS for byilding S will utilize alley A. The
entrance into the He'li Hayfield alley 'II'ill be blocked, so
trucks will baCK out onto California to exit.
4. Delivery trucks for bu::ldinq 9 .. ill utilize alley B. The
entrance into the New Mayfield alley vill be blocked~ so
trucks will back out onto California to eKit.
5. Delivery trucks for buildin9s 10 throuqh 13 ~ill utilize
california Avenue.
6. Mail truck access to ~ilQin9 14 will be ~aintained by
using their existing parking let off CambriQge ~ve~ue ~s
i!IE loading zone. The 10s5 of pArking ""ill pe miti9"'ted by
providing parking spaces in ~he new parking 9~rage.
1. The flo·.er ea.rt acce$S 'Will be maintained by constructing
sm~ll temporary asphalt ramps, so the cart can De easily
wheel~d to and from L~e storaqe area behind ~uildin9 11
and California Avenue via the walkway between building 10
and H.
8. ~ucks 'Will not be allowed to enter onto Ne·"" May! iela Lane
and/or Nogal Lane between the S:OO am ~o 5!OO pm delivery
hours to avoid interferinq with construction equipment.
15
California Avenue ParKing Structure
Access Mitigation Plan cor.tinued
B. GARBAGE AND RECVCLING ACCESS MITIGATION PLAN (see attached
drawing)
This section s~arizes alternatives to mitigate the loss of
garbage and re:cyclinq access to businesses ~djacent to the
project because of the alley and liqh~ing improvements~
1. Primary garbage truck acca&s for all a~jacent buildings
will be maintained by constructing ramps at the Birch
Street entrance to New May~ield Lane and the exit from
Noqal Lane to Cambridge Avenue.
2_ Alternative garbage truck access for all adjacent
buildings will be maintained by constructing ramps where
alley A and B inte.rsect New Maj'field LAne if the primary
entrance and/or exit is blocked. DUring the co~struction
of the concrete swale in the middle of Nogal Lane~ truCk6
will have to back onto New Mayfield Lane vi~ alley B fo~
qarbaqe service be~ween buildings 10 throu9h 14~
3. The pick-up hours will be bet~een 6:30 am to 7:00 am prior
to the contractors arr-ival, therefore prever.ting conflicts
vith the contractor and his equipment.
4. Garbage bins for buildings 8, 13 and 14 ~ill be
temporarily relocated during the alley and liqhting
improvement project from their present location within the
New Mayfield Lane and Nogal Lane right-of-way to other
locations outside of the alley ri9ht-Qf-WAY~
5. The following table indicates the garbage and recycling
access restrictions during the sep3rate phases of the
alley and lightinq reconstruction proj~ct~
ALLEY AND LIGHTING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
ACCESS IMPACT TABLE
CONSTRUCTION PHASE
DEMOLITION
LIGlfHNG
SUBGRADE/BASEROCK
CON CRETE WaR!(
PAVING
DURATION
I WEEK
:l DAYS
1 WEEK
3 DAYS
4 DAYS
ACCESS RESTRICTION
MOS~LY LIMITED
MOSTLY LIMITED
MOSTLY LIMITED
PARTIALLY LIMITID
MOSTLY LIMITED
Ouration of alley reconstr~ctian ~ill not exceed one month.
16
califo~ia Avenue Parking Structure
~ec ••• Mitiqation Plan contin~ed
11. PARKING STRUCTIIRE IlIl'ROVDlt:NTS.
~livery, garbage and recycling access to all adjacent
~usin~sses will be maintained at All ti~es during the
construction of the parking structure impr~~ements.
17
Public Works Department
Engineering Division
329-2160
August 20, 1993
Notice of Construction of the
California Avenue Parking Structure CIP #19213
and Closure of City Parking Lot 3
Pear PropertylBusiness Owner, Employee, Parking Permit Holder, or customer of the
California A venue 8usiness District:
As you may be aware the proposed cons!rUction of the new California Avenue Parking
Structure at City 1.01 3 is scheduled to begin during the last week in September (see
attached map far location). This will result in the closure of Cit)' 1.01 3 for a period
of 6 to 8 months. The sidewalk &rid street parking fronting this project, on
Cambridge Avenue, will also be closed for U.e duration of construction.
As a reSlJl.t of this closure an interim parking plan has reen developed. Parking is
available in the follow'"g Cit)' parking lots; 1.01 6, 7, 8, and the top level of the
parking garage at Lot 5 (see the attached plan for locations). These lots are open to
permit parking .00 two-hour term parking, jus< like Lot 3. Parking along Park Blvd.
will also be available for permit parking. The City will be installing signs that &!low
permit or tWD-hour term parking along Park Blvd. and some stroet parking adjacent
to the California Avenue Train Statior. (see attached plan for limits). Upon the
completion of this project the pa!'king liong Park Blvd. will be returned to two-hour
term parking.
The City would like to apologize for any inconvenience that this project may cause
you. If you have any questions or concerns please call the Project Engineer, Scott
Wahl at 329-2160
z~ Scott Wahl
Assoc~a[e Engineer
:
:
INTERIM PARKING PLAN FOR CLOSURE OF CITY LOT 3
DURING CONSTRUCTION OF THE
CAUFORNIA AVE. PARKING STRUCTURE CIP 19213
~
~v~ .. I.--~ tQC
L......-.----J
SCALE "'LC~~,F. ~"8LvO·I~~r:::::..~· t:-c' l;iIt _1.1''''0 ',:="''' ::
PARKeLvo ~_,~h. ',""> -1 I . H'/-:/;··':,:··;;L:., ... ~ fIJ INTERIM P"'~KING SITES
:" AVAILABLE OURING CONSTRUCnO~
H ." .. , ~'"''''
PARK
...... .,. '~l '0N --::-:--~ : ~
"i •••• ,.,.!
c:--... E3 ~ t CIT' LOT ..,. ~ SITE OF THE AV' ~ i'-~ Ed --~ I !
: BIRCH
~=
.,; 3 ;DCg > = ui -.,
-III ~ :« " UJ , W uj ---' ---' C> :« 0 -=-9
BOUNDARY OF eU51NESS
,. r-"'!"""''''I':-~I'T ..... ,~~...." ........
,,-.~-
-
1-
I
L
L ,
] "" ''I''nl ,,"r /' ~ ", I h]i" I' ~r:
• ,. , n [11,-'1 ~1 IV ~'1\ HI",·.I;,
j/.' 11I~'" ','J,
1 •• _, '<1 P' II _,-r.
, " )''''1°,,,,,, ,'>'1 I r01l1l I)., /lVf.
;ru I;, '~IIHlIItfl" IIVf:
\
' q ,,0/, 'I /If 11"",.1" AVe
I(J ;>\"" '''!II''Rt<I'' ~\lf
II n" tl '-f! ""HriIA ... 11[.
11 ] In!, (t.! II "II"'''' "",
1 I 1 ,,,"'1 ,~,!! \ ,\\,,, I '" 1\"'1. f 14 )'," ,'"",,,,,,,,,,-Avr.
1" I'd II ,~, I HlIllHA lI"f l A, p n ""'Hh IlY IWIIJ'IW: ~
1\ "LI[. ('«UI'.lll, "VIII'h.G q.
" I., ."',]' 1'''''1,[' I<IGIIT-Of'-II"V
~ .. ~~-
'"
nF'Llv!:"" vntlcl.[5
!Io£RV1CHIG ~lIII,rJINa.'l
If! nIR()l)(i~ II
WH,!, PI\RK HI S1''''U,o;
OR bOUII'." Po\lIl<.
<J.I+ r"t.lfI>IlHU AIIF.
-"~----'
".~.'. "".
r (
'<1' ''/:<''.' '
--_., .... _.
I.
j .1\ ~ .
~
" _I _ ..... ~---
c_""~ .. ,,, -~~·~~~~~-----_4~~~ 20
I
I ,
,
\
October 3,
HONCRABLE C
Palo Alto~ I
Attentiozu l
california
Members of .
REPORT IN Bl
The purpose I
City staft
constructi 01.
assessm-ent Co
on Cambr-id9t
Exhibit 1 il
public parki:
Parking stu
addi tional pc.
the. most aeu j
proximate arl
Avenue Area t
efforts to p.
In 1986, the
adj acent to ]
the land was
district.
tempol'ary :& it.,
structure pic
increment of
District. ThE:
:3 /Keystone s:
Cl'{R: .. D7:91
2:;_"'$ E II
!.X.R I I 1'I 1
!l£1.'1.StD JUtlS 1990 CALIFDRNIA AVENUE
']n~ I'~I~I ~~-~~j~:: PAR~ING :::OTS
_ _ _ _ __ C;" r ... l"" LCTS ~~~~..L~~::~~:;::'::":"::"'::"::"::"::"~I"h .. ':' 0 7r.."rj,l,l ""l1MB~ Of i'A~XJI><G $;ArES ~
I
l
I
--..
-
J
I
I
Cl P,I,itGrVG FA.CIUTY
... j ..... " ....... ", ..... \.. \;)N
:---1 ;;
f--+---1~
.-
Sherman Avenue~
The parkin; structure plan study has now been completed and
includes & reco~~nd~tion to proceed at the present time ~ith the
development of a single level above qrouno parking decK structure
on the eXisting' city parkinq Lot 3. The next appropriate ste:r's
include: Ca) the d9velopmerr!: or a detailed t:!esign, construct':"on
drawings, bid docwr.ents, and a detailed cost estimate for the
project, followed thereaf~er by {b) the formation of a ne~ parking
assessment district to fund the construction of the project. The
boundary ot the naw assessment district ~ill likely be the same as
the existing assessment districts~ Following formation of a new
parking assessment district for this purpose, actual construction
of the project would occur.
Staff recommends that
committee for revie~,
Council.
BACKGROUND
cou..'"1cil refer this r-eport to the Yinance
discussion and a reco:m:mendation to the
In the fall of 1985, Palo Alto initia.ted a t\lr'O phase process
(CHR:.583:5; October 31, 1985) .tor the provision of additional
public parking in the Calitornia Avenue Business District.
Phase :7 inclUded: (a) the purchase of the private parking lot
(Keystone Lot) adjacent to City ~rking Lot 3, (b) temporary
improvements to allow it to be used as a public parking lot, (c)
roraaticn or an assessment district to fund the acquisition of the
property and the imple.mentatiofl of the temporary improvements r and
Cd) the preparation of a parkinq structure plan that would provide
the information necessa.ry for a decision whether or not to pl."oceed
further with the construction of a parking structure.
Phase II was to follov completion of the parking structure plan
(and acquisition of the Keystone parcels) and include the design
and const.I"'l.Jction of one Clr more parking structures ... 1 thin the
California Avenue Business District as well as the fo~ation of a
new parking assessment district to fund th~ construction and
related project costs.
The acquisit!~jl of the Keystone parcels 'Was completed in 1986.
Temporary improvements were made at that time to incorporate the
use of these parcels for public parking as a~ extension to City
parkinq Lot 3 ~ A ne .... · assessment district ",as formed and bonds
Were issued to fund th£ acquisition of the p~rcelsr the completion
of the temporary improvements and the preparation of a Parking
StrJcture Plan. Annual assessments are currently being made each
year to payoff the boncs~ A consultant was hired in 19B8 to
prepare the Parking structure Plan l the work for 'Which has no .. ' been
CMR: 437;91
--..... ,"~ii7'!C,.. ... --.. ··I ....... ""~~~'"' ..
~-~~t~:~
~J~.,; ..
• , ... c".". ,.
:Cjl/31
?a~E: 2
completed.
This section of tho staft" report 'pres~nts the Summary of
Conclusions and Re~ommenaations from the C~litornla AVenue Parking
structure Plan Report, prepared for t~e city ot Palo Alto by the
cor~ultin9 firm ot Wilber smitt, Associates in association with two
otber firms, International Parking 'Oesign and Angus Mcoonalc
AalJociates. A copy of the complete tinal report is attached and is
a150 available from the city of Palo Alto, Transportation Division,
6th floor, Civic center.
The purpose of the st"..:ady was to investigate the overall feasibility
ot the development of & parking structure on one or both of two
sites located within the california Avenue Business District. The
stUdy included: (1) ~n analysis of parking demand and supply, (2}
evaluation ot alternativa desiqns fo? each site, {J} B.ssesslr.ent of
related impacts l and (4) analysis o~ costs to desiqn, construct and
finance a project~ Conclusions and recommendations from the study
include, the ~ollowing:
o Based upon field sur.veys, public parking supply in the study
areas is approxilDately 1.221 parking spaces, .tith pellk
occupancy reachinq 91 percent overall and 97 percent fer the
area north of Cr1.liforni~ Avenue, during the peak. period
(hour) a Peak parking deltanC!, inclusive of present intrusion
into adjacent neighborhood areas, is approximately 1,351
vehicles, with a resultant d:eticit of 136 parking spaces
(assuming a 100 pgrcent paak occupancy rate) a
o Based upon is. more re.alistic and desirable effective capacity
of 90 percent, the exis~ing parking deficit is 2SS parking
spaces.
o The eXisting public parking deficit is most prono'J.nced
(approximately 75 percent of total) in the area north of
California Avenue and to a lesser degree (25 percent o.f
total) i., the area south of California AVenue.
o Eight parking desiqn layout options were evaluated for two
different sites a One location (Site A) is the existing Lot
3 north of California Avenue, and the other location (Sit~
B) is the existing Lot 7 south of California Avenue. Table
S-l compares the e.i9ht options qualitatively.
o The parking design layout options reflect a range of added
spaces '(67 to 1.37J: it range of costs ($1.5 to 2.3 million)
f:Jr desiqn, construction and financing; and a range of
annual asse6smer.ts {$149,OOO to $221,000). T~ble $-2
1 OJ 1 j 91
Pa~e 3
•
'-~"""".'-.'."." . .
,_ o·
' .
Table 5-1
COMPARISON OF PARKJNG STRUCTURE ALTERNATIVES
Califom,i. Avenue Perking Structure Plan
SITEICONCE~T
CAMBRIDGE SITE /lOT 31
A 1: C_ R. mplSloplniO Floor
Enttar>ee anu E><i! of! CI Ca'!1btidge
Avvnue. Sloping dec1< on the alley side,
_ facade "" tho ether skies.
A2.; Spilt Leo.'eI
~ bay near alley depress"" 5' below
9'_. Two 2_ dri>lewoys off CI
~Awnue.
A3: CIrcular End' Ramps
Level facat1fl on a1I $ides wtth internal
dtive-<Jp ramp. Two 2·Way driveway, oI!
of Cambridge Avenue.
SiiE~ sIDe (tOT n
111: Slop"'; Floo,
Entrances on Ash and BiTch. Ramp on
abey slcSe. Level facade along S~nnan.
82": Centeor RamplSloplng Floor
Entrances on Ash a."'K:I Sherman One
way 1ra1f", flow, angle parking,
83: Center R.&mp/Slopfr,!il F~or
Entrances on Ash and Birch. Angle
parlting.
84; Cerrle1 Ramp/S1Gplng F.IoCH'
Entrances on Ash and Sherman Ons
way tnIffic flow, engle panting,
BS: Cent~r Ramp/sjcprng Floor
Entrances on Ash & Sherman, and exits
Of! of Birch .& Sherman.. One-way traffic
now, angle parking.
POSITlVE ... 1TIliBUTES
Greatest Space Yield
UmitCd In/Out conruas
Continuous Sea!"Ct1
Leas: Cost p.,. Stall
Ciood Space Y.ald
Continuous $e.;;rch
Bah Driveways Two-way
Continuous Search
Greatest Space YJefd
Lowes! CostISta1I
Access from Ash & Bi~h
BOltl Driveways. Two-way
Access frOm Ash & Sherma'1
Continuous Search
Ansle Pal1cing
LO'W' Profile
Room lor t.andscaping
Both Drrveways TwCJNaj
Continuous $ea."Ch
Angle P.r' ... ~
Room lor laN:1scaping
AcC"ftSS from Ash & Shermaro
Corninuous Search
Angre parking
Room 'or Larn1scaping
RoclT: for Landscapl"ng
No Dea.d-end Circulation
Angle Par~~n.g
No Street CirculaliOn Required
Contin LJOU5 Search
low Cost/Stall
NEGATlVE ATTIUBUTES
Height of ApprOl( 1 S feet
No Room for Landscaping
Decision POOiI at entty
Possible IJVOut ContlidS
,.~o Room fOf Landscapti'lg
Least Space 'Yield
rfl9hest Cost Per Stall
No Room fv Landscaping
'Dea~nd Circulation
0ecW0n at Ash ErttranCE
StJeet ~n Required
90 Degree Parking
High Profile
No Room for Landscaping
One W~ 1n (Ash)/Ovt (Birch)
Forced 7 .. m al Ash Entrance
leaS'! Space Yfeld
High CostfAdded Stan
,. .
" !
--
limlCllarizes the physical and cost attributes of the eiqht
options ..
o Probal::le environmental effects include: (a) increased street
traffic in the immediate vicinity of the parking structure~
(bJ bettgr accommodation ot parkinq demand 'With reduced
parkinq intrusion into adjacent residential neighborhovds,
(e) displacement of existing parkinq during construction ot
the project, (d) pedestrian and bicycle circulation, ee)
noise and air quality and (t) visua14 None of these effects
were tound to be significant and sta~t does not anticipate
that an Environmental Impact Report will be required ..
o The rec.ommende.d plan is to proceed, at the present time~
with the ~evelop~ent of a single level above ground parking
deck structure (similar to Option 1) on the existing City
Parking Lot 3 (Site AI.
o The recommended plan is expected to yield up to 9S
additional parkinq spaces at a cost of approximately $1.37
million or $~3,900 per added parkinq space.. with the
~ormation of an assessment district to finance the project,
the total J)rojact cost (inclusive of financing costs) is
approx:iliately $L 54 million or $15,700 per added parking
space ..
o Tbe total annual assessment (at 7.5 percent: 20 years) is
estimated to be approximately $1-S2~ 000 per year lorith
individual annuill assessments ave:r.agir.g $0.22 per buildi!1g
square toot {range $O~ 03 to $O~ 90) ~ For comparison, the
current total an.,uiIll .assesSlIIent for the purchase of the
Xeystone Lot is iIlpproximately $132~OOO.
staff supports these conclusions as well as the recommenaation to
procead with ~~e design and construction of a single level above
ground parking deck structure (si~11ar to Option 1) on the e~istin9
City Parking Lot 3 (Site AJ and the formation of a new parking
assessment district to finance. project costs. The CAAOA Board of
Directors has also expressed their interest ana support in
proceeding with these recommendations. A recent letter expressing
the view of the CAADA beard is included as Attachment 1~
Three topics that 'Warrant additional comme.nt, however, relate to
costs, landscaping and zoning. The preliminary cost estimate,
prepared by the consultants, rerlects their professional judgement
an~ experience based upon their pr~llminary understanding of the
project and represents a cost for ~hich a parking structure could
be provided under average conditions".. The specia.l revie"J and
design considerations that typify Palo Alto projects, as well as
unknown site conditions, are mora likely to result in highe~ rather
CMR: 43i:91
10/1/91
Page 4
.$18.
I
, ,{"
lOCATION
SII.A
lUll
S~I SIr_
2"i:'fl(lI.IIOIIHl
~1'tl8
l""
S~. SIre
:)00 ftM.
1:1(1 flf"
0I"I10N
2
3
2
3
•
•
~, .,.'vr"~.r::_OC".:,,"\~;-::T,
T.bl. S·l
rllYSICAL AND COST ATTRtnUTllS OF ALTIlRNATJVIf..8
Callromt. Annue P ... !dng StnlctoN Plln
TOIAlorAtim
. PERCENTAOe OF_ .
-COMPACT STAllS
, .. ....
'" -'57
"'"
>0, .... .... .."
m
"" ... ....
"'" ""
,';,
. NUMllrn OF
ACOI'D
STAllO .. ..
e7
'57 ..
"
'"
"
, " ;'"
SitE (jf!lTmJcruRE
\ _ , m-ICtENCV
80. fT j9TAlL,; •
25:". 110"
2115 6q. rt,
Nllwr
~17 Sq, Ft.
~'Jlln"
:M:J Sq. 1'1.
301' .,30'
MSq.Fl
a',,3l"
320 e~. n..
_.'30'
3178«1. Ft,
308'.'22'
~ Sq,FL
XII'" 910'
297 Sq. Ft
f"ROJECT C09I'B
I. mHO\!! BON!! !!!8U!!
F'RC'JJEI"JT C09TA
~ !!QNO "';'UE
Tot'"
IoOIIiaM
;1.37
",Jte
".~
"03
,t,Te
tt,70
1',70
11,U
I '
p" ..... p ..
Add,d ..... tet., , I Po< .............. PO<
MOod .... ANNV~.
AM@.88MENT '
'J,b I ,ti.800 i 11.54 $8,.2DJ I 115,700 I 1151,000
"',1500 I 117,43.'J I '1.8e 19,500 I "',m I '163,000
.,eDO I 120,012 I ".152 19.100 I m.700 I C14',OM
11,'00 I .'4,800 I IUS ., .... I It ... "", I _,em
11,f'OO I t2'I.l00 I '2,00 ",!IOO I m,500 I "8f,tJ:;Jq
'1,1nt I _,em I S2.1X' "'4C» I 123,000 I ".,,000
"'200 I m.eoo I $:Z,(IQ ".tGo I Re,eoo I " •. 000
'7,300 I t21,400 I 11.111 te,2('II I 124,OOCI I "83,000
.~(
:', .. "< )1r:\;,;,~ .. ",%" .. ' , "j'/'j/J . ,,,~,
, ..
Ir·.·· . . . I .
!
I
~
-
than lower Linel costs.
As the study report points cut, a common constraint for any of the
atructure alternatives on Lot J (Site A),. is the depth of the site
which is minimal.ly sufficient for necessary parking layouts but
lacks adequate space tor la~dscapinq along ~he Cambridge frontage.
Parti~l landscapin9 integrated into the design of the tacility lDay
be possible. AlsO,. the. use of uni-size stall:!',. with their
assoclatad nA-~ower aisle width, may provid~ some opportunity for
landscaping. Further detailed design work will need to address
this issue.
Finally. Lot 3 is currently zone~ ~5 PF (PUblic Facility). While
parkinq is a permitted use, the curre~t PF zoning imposes severe
restrictions in terms of setback requirements and allcwable
buildable area. that render the development ot an ~t.ticient parkinq
structure on that s1 te to be impractical. In order to develop the
proposed parking deck structure, tba statf will be recommending
that the. site be rezoned to Planned community District (PC)
de~iqnation.
Gpn:jBAL cOMMENTs
A Project keview Co=mittee, comprised ~f representatives from th~
California Avenue Business District, the Palo ~to Planninq
Commission and various affected city ~epartments, met periodically
throughout the Phase I work to review and comment on the work of
the consaltant. In addition, the Planning cOlmDission and the
Architectural keview Beard were asked to make a preliminary review
of the Phase I work.
Summary coaments include:
o s~pport tor the provision ot additional parking
o support for Site A (Lot 3) as the ti~5t priority location
o Support for a design concept similar to option 1
o Inte.rest in having a cost efficient, low maintenance, simple
but visually pleasing facility that is easy for people to
use ..
o Concern that the structure .be 'Well deSigned
detailing, landscaping, liqhtinq (daytime
signing, pedestrian and ve.hicular circ41ation
within the existing u=ban context.
in
a~a
al\~
teno.s of
night) •
fit wall
o Concern r'!!gardinq the financial impact of a new parking
assessment on property owners and tenants
C}o!R: 437: 91
L
"._._------~.--" .
10/1/91
Page 5
-
o' Concern .ebout existing parkinq intrusion into the a.djacent
ne.ighborhoods and interest. in measures thoSo-t 'Would reduce its
magnitude
NEXT STEpS
Witll the completion ":)f the Parking Structllre Plan., Phase I of the
two phase process for-the provision ot additional publie parking in
the California Avenue Eusiness District h~s been completed~
Procedurally, Phase-II is comprised of three sequential parts.
Part CA) is the preparation of bid d~ents r.ecessary to ~uild a
project" incluc.inq detailed enqineE-ring design and construction
drAwings, a detailed e.nginee-rls cost e~timate., general require-me.nts
and technical specifications, and other related bid documents ..
Part (B) is the process of :forming an assessment district to
fin~nce the project. Part (CJ is the actual physical construction
of the project..
PhAse II. PArt CAl
Phasa rI{A} ~ould require that the City retain th~ services of
a qualified team ot consultants to de7elop the detailed
en9ineering desiqn and: construction draewings,. detailed
enqineer's cost estimate,. specifications and requlrements# and
ethe.r related tecl).nical ~nd legal documents necessary to
advertise and award a contract to construct e specific project.
'The development of such documents would include the review ~nd
necessary approvals by the City,. including the Planning
commission~ the Architectural Review Beare, various 3ftected
City departments f and the Council, as well as public
information meetings for property owners, tenants and
neighborhood residents.
In ~988, the Fequest For Propo~als and the consultant
evaluation ~na selection process ~ere set up in such a way as
to solicits evaluate, and sel~ct firms based upon their
capability to provide necessarI services for botb Phase 1 and
Pbase II {CKR:391:a: August 4, 1988; pa.ge 2J. This was done t.o
ensure continuity and. consistency between the planning and
~~sibility work and possible subseq~ent design and
construction work. It was also done with the understanding that
it (and only if} Cou~cil £lakes an affirmative decisicn to
proceed with Fhase II work, and subject to the discretion of
the City's project manager regarding the quality of the work
~rformea and continued suitability of the selected firm, the
consultant selected for Phase I ~ould be invited to negotiate
for Phase II work (without going through another consultant
=, ~37:9]
10/1/9l
Page 6
-
se.le.ction process). If !Statf 'Was Ullable to successfully
negotiate a satisfactory contr~ct for Phase II wo~k, a qene~al
solicitation to o~~er consultants, ccnsistent with the city's
established consultant selection procedures, would occur. In
any event, a tinal de,sign contract fer Phase II 'WOll) d go to the
COW"'.cil for their approva.l~
Sta~t is satisfied with the Phase I work done by ths
consultants. believes that they would be suitahle for the Phase
rI wor~, and proposes t~ pursue negotiations vith them for the
Phas~ II work, it the council makes an affirmative decision to
proceed with Phase II~ One change that was discussed at the
time of the oriqir.al contract, and still seems relevant, is the
possible exchange ot roles between Wilber Smith Associates and
International Parking Desiqn. The initial contract for the
Phas~ I work was between th~ City and Wilber Smith Associates,
with International Parking Oesiqn as a &upporting team member
(sub-consultant). With the strength of Wilber Smith Associates
beinq pr~rily in planning and feasi~ility ot parkin9
structUl."I!-S ana the strength of .International Parking Design
beinq in the detaile~ design of parking structures I this was a
desirable and appropriate arranqement tor the Phase I work.
Given the nature ot the Phase II ~ork, a contract bet'Ween the
city and International Pa~kinq DeSign; with Wilber smith
Associates as a supporting team member, is likely to be A ~ore
suitable arrangement.
Phas. II. part (8)
Phase ZI{B), the process of forming a new assessment district
to £inance a project, inclu~es the followinq procedural steps:
o Preparation of an Engineer's Report (based directly upon the
plans, speCifications and cost estimate. for a specific
project, tO~Jeoming from Part A of Phase II).
" Council action on resolutions ::naking certain preliminary
determinations, giving prli=li::inary approval of the
Engineer's Report and setting a time for a public hea~ing
tor protests4
o Public bearing noticing process.
o Council publiC hearing.
o Council action on rssolutions making certain findings and
deten:inations, overruling protests, adopting the Engineer's
Report and ordering the work to be accomplished~
Attachment 2 provices a description of the procedural steps
CMR: 4:)'7:91
10/1/91
Page 7
./,.'L
. ";'-,'-;;"._,'
('"~.~.l;. .
--~';,,-,,, " .
,
i
-
leafiing to the formation of an assessment district for the
purpose of funding the construction of a parking deck ~trLJcture
on City parking Lot 3 in the California Avenue Business
District.
Phase II (:8) would require that the City also :retain the ~ervices of
a bond counsel firm and a tinancial advisory firm: to assist staff
with the legal and proceoural steps related to the formation of an
assessment district and the preparaticn and sale of bo~ds~
Also, as part of Phase II(B) r it will be neeessarJ to establish
the leqal bour.c:laries ot' the neW' assessment district. arid a
proeeedinqs formule to be used to determine the annual
assessments upon the real proparty within the assessme~t
d1&tr!ct~ This will be reviewed and COnSiQ6red at the time of
the preparation at the Enqineer's Reports but at the present
time, staff anticipates that the assessm~nt district boundary
and proceedings formula would be th e sallie as tba t used in
conjunction ~ith the formation ~f the assessment Qistrict tor
the p'~chase of the Keystotle Lot in 1986.
Phase II. Part (el
Phase L!(C) involves the issuance and sale of bonds to raise
the necessary funds to pay for the proj ect and the actual
construction of the parking facility. 'l'he construction 'Work
will involve a.dvertisement a.nd award of a cor,struetion contract
and related items ne'Cessary to construct, manage, and finance
the project.
FtmOING
The Phase I work was co~pleted as part of CIP project 87-21, at a
cost of $44 s 000 with the source of fu~ds being (a) $42,000 from
bond pr~eeds related to the acquisition of the Keystone Lot (elP
86-19), and (b) $2, 000 from the Arabian Horse World mitigaltio!"l
account (CMR:477:S; October 13, ~988; Page 3l~
Tbe portion of Phase II ~ork that requires funding, prior tD the
availability of funds from the formation of a new parking
asse.ssment district and the sale of bonds, is the consultant
services related to th~ preparation of engineering design and
construction drawings, cost estimate, specifications, related bid
documents, and design review coordinati on [Phase II (A) J ~
Approximately $ 2 GO. 000 (subject to change upon .final contract
negotiations) is required for this purpose.
These consultant design services are a necessary precursor to a
final decision regarding the formation of an assessment district.
Therefor-e, f-unds to accomplisn these tasks !tru.st originally be
advanced frorr. non-assessment district SOl.l:-ces. If a new asseSS'!T'.ent
district is successfully fo~ed, proceeds iron the bond sale can be
CMR: 437: 91
10/1/91
Page 8
used to reimburse such monies advanced from other sources. It an
assessment district is: not eventually formed, such costs 'Would not
l:;e reimbursed to the Ci ty •
sta:t.t recommends that the source ot tunding for the consul tant
design serv~ces, required to be performed prior to ~~e decision to
~orm an assass~ent district, be as follows: (a) the first $SB,OOO
to come from. the. rer:lainlng balance in the Arabian Horse World
mitiqatio~ funds cror parkin9 improv~ent5 in the California Avenue
parkinq AssesSlOent District) and (b) the remaining I!lIIOIL'lt to be a
General FUnd expenditure with reimbursement of such costs to the
General Fund from the anticipated neW parkinq assessment district,
when and at such tilne tl"o,&t a new parkinq .assassment district is
tormed and bonds are so~d. This would require a budget am~ndmant
ordinance, Which statt will prepare .for CO'.lncil approval, at an
appropriate future date.
~SO~ recent tax law now~quires that, when a city intends to use
the procee4& from an anticip~ted future bond sale tor r&imbursement
ot some current expense (prior to the bond issue) ~ the council is
required to pass a resolution of Intent To Issue Bonds, prior to
"the expenditure of any such funds. Staff will prepare the
necessary resolution for council adoption prior to award of the
ConsUltant contract.
'lb_ costs related to services of is bond counsel firm and a
financial advisory firm as veIl as actual project construction and
construction m.a.nagement~ are in addition to those identified Zlbove.
They will be incurred only after the actual :to!."1!laticn o~ a neW'
aSBasne."lt district, an:! they \r'ill bf!: fully tunde4 by proceeds from
the sale of bondsa
weLIC MEETING
On August 21~ ~991, & public meeting was held at the Wesley United
Methodist Church for the purpose of sharing information about the
study findinqs and recommendations, receive comments on the st~dy
and respond to questions~
A meetinq notice was sent to approximately 300 property owners a~d
tenants, CAADA and neighborhood representatives, A copy of the
meetinq notice is include.d as Attachmen'C 3. A total of eiqht
persons, in addition to staff, attende.d the meetinq five
represented property owners and three were residents from adjacent
neighborhoo4& •
Issues, concerns and questions that were raised and discussed
included:
o Ho. proposed project assessment will affect and/or limit any
future additional parking in the area.
o Ho'" well the businesses/owners could handl€ the proposed
CMR: 437:91
10/1/91
Page 9
..... II! ... ,.,_~!II"~:,'~_~III~fl!l',:~·~":>!I~:~'~""'''"' .. ·--~.~.".
. :~~ -.~,.;~>."-
;:t~~;l\
-:--',
-.
additional assessment ~~d/or other future assessments.
o What formulA woul~ be used to spread the total assessment
amonq the property owners..
o Residents expressed opposition to any new parking structure
along Sherman and questloned need for any new parking versus
similar investaent in alternative travel modes.
o What ~ons~deration vas given to the Cal train p~rkinq lot at
tl:!e ena o~ California Avenue and the County .tacility parking
lot alonq She~n.
Concern about construction
Birch street and interest:
cOlIlPleted structure erway
possible.
related. tru~k traffic not using
in directing traffic from the
from Birch Street as much as
overall, the participants seemed. to express general support for the
proposal to provide additional parking on Lot 3 and ~ppreciation
for the opportunity to learn more e.l:K>ut it and make comments.
IDlVIRONMENTAL ASSEssXENT
An env.ronmental assessment will be prepared prior to the review
and approval of a parking facility project.
UCOJIIMENDATION
Sta~f recommends that Council:
~. Approve, in principal, and direct staff to proceed-with th&
necessary steps leadinq to, the construction cf a single
level parkinq deck structure ano the formation of a parking
assessment district to fund such a project, o:>n city parking
Lot 3, on Cambridge Avenue, in the California Avenue
Business District, ano
2. Authorize neqctiation or a Phase II design contr-act .... ith the
consultAnt team utilized in Phase I and, if unable to
successfully negotiate a satisfactory Phase II design
contract, pursue a general solicit&tion of other
consultants, consistent with the City's established
consultant selection proc4dures.
CHR: 437: 91
10/1/91
Page 10
•
Future additional steps will include:
a. A resolut.ion expressing t!le Council's intent to use the
proce.eds :from an anticipated future bond sale, for
reiDbursement of Phase :II design consultant services related
to the develop~nt and funding or the p3rking structure and
incurred prior to the bond sale,
b. A budget amendmll1lt ordinance to provide funding tor the
Phase II desiqn consultant services, 'With the source of
runds being" (a) $58,000 from the Arabian Poorse World
lIitig'"Uon ac::c::ount and (bJ the r"",aining' amount trQlL_the
Ge.naral FU.~ witb the understanding that the General Fund is
to be reimbursed from the prcceeds of a bond sale, subject
to the fOrEation ot K new parking assessment district,
c. Avard of' a Phase II design contract :tor preparation of
d.etailed engineering desiqn and construction drawinqs, a
detailec engineer's estimate, general requirements and
technical specifications, end other related bid docum~ts.
d. :rhe services of bone! couneel firm and financial advisory
firm, to be :fUneed trolt the proceeds of the. bond sale,
e. Formation of a new parking assessment district,
t. Sale of bonds, and
q. Construction ot the parking deck structure.
staft rurther recommends that Council rater this staff report to
the Finance COmDUttee for review, discussion and a recommandation
to the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
Ma'Y"''-L. /JYJ.,....-~
AM
MARVIN L. OVERWAY
Chief Transportation Official
FLEMING
Assist&nt City Manager
CMl\: 4J7:9~
--'T:'~~!""----------"""'-'
~df~u<ky
KENNETH R. SCRREIBER
Director of Planninq ana
community Environment
10/1/91
Pas;e 11
•
Attachments:
1. Letter of fro~ CAADA SOard ot Directors
2. Procedural steps For The Formation Of A Parking
Assessment District
3. Au~st 21, 1991 Public Meeting Notice
4 ~ Calit'ornia Ave::nue parking Structure Plan -
Recoltmend Plan
cc: Palo ~t~ Planning Commission
Architectural Review Board
CAADA
David Schrom, Evergreen Park Neighborhood Association
PaUl JCa.bn. Grant Avenue CondolDinium oc.rners Association
Janice Pluzmer, Park Central Commercial condominium
Assc-ciation
Persons attendinq Auqust 21, lS91 public meeting
CMR: <)7: 91
10/1/91
Page 1.2
RECEIVED
S EP 1 r. iSS ~
DIVI8iO:~ OF
TR~~jSPOFlTAT'ON
•
'\
A T!AC1lIIE!!'! 1
CAUfOMIlA AV£NUE AREA DEVElOPMENT ASSOCIATlON
1e<ephone 4'5/322-38C2
PO. BOX 605S3 PALO AlJO. CALJFORNIA 94306
Mr. Marvin Overway
City 01 Palo Al~o
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
S.pt~mber 11, 1991
Dell.r Mr. Overway.
Tbe CAADA Board of Directors recogDizes the need for
new park1nC facilities i~ the California Avenue
B'llsiuess District and the recormnendation to proceed
witb the construction of a p~rklDi structure and
supports formation of a parking assessme~t district
to fund such a project on City Parking Lot ~ along
C&mbrldge Avenue.
Thank you for your work in tbis matter and please let
us knew when we can be of furtber assistaDce.
You.rs truly.
----:> LL' ' ~ -/-f AJU</ l > l/l
Ollila Devinenz1 ~
/
I
,
<.
" . •• :C':c'· ." < .. --:.
PROCEDO~ STEPS
REGARDING
FORMATION OF AN ASSESSHElIT DISTRICT
FOR TlIE PURPQS:E OF fUNDI~G
T!iE CONSTI<UCTION OF A PARKING STRUC'I'URE DECK
ON CITY PARKING LOT J
XN TlIE CALIFORNIA A'lENlJE BUSINESS DISTRICT.
ATTACHMENT 2
1. Preparation of Engineerfs Report inclgding!
8. A "Ov"ECT DESCRIPTION based upon detailed engineering
design and construction drawings and inclusive ot other
non-construction, project related costs.
b. A COST ESTIXATE based upon a detai12d enqineer's estimate
:for the design and construction ot the project plus other
non-construction related costs.
c. PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS including final enqineerinq
design and const~ction drawings, :bid docUlllents ar.d
enqineer's estimate for the project.
d. A DESCRIPTION OF DISTRICT Which incl ucles a legal
description of the boundary line to the proposed
assessment district as well Il& a lIlap showing the location
of the boundary line end each inc)ivid.ual parcel by numl:ler
within the district boundary.
e. An explanation of the METHOD OF ASSESSMENT wharein the
proceedings fOl""Zllul.e. to be used t"or determining tha annual
apportionment of benefits in the levy ot annual
assessments upon real property within the proposed
assessment district is described.
f.. An ASSESSMDn' ROLE indicating an estimated aver.age annual
assessment for each parcel within ~E pLoposed parking
assessment ~istrict ..
2. council ~gtB on two resqlutions
a. RESOUlTION OF PRELIMINARY DETEJIMINATION AND OF INTENTIOS
TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS -resolution declares that Council
prelLmjnarily determines that the public interest,
convenience and necessity require, an~ the COUncil
intends to order, the improvements described therein to
be financed hy assessments within a described district.
The project will include the design and construction of
a parking structure do!ck 011 City parking Lot 3 in the
California Avenue Business District.
I ... b.
...
. -.
_______ , iIIIl'lsli8lfi
RESOLUTION l'RELDIINAlULY APPROVING ENGINEER'S REPORT,
APPOIN'l'ING TIME AND PLACE OF HEAPING PROTESTS AND
DIRECTING NO rICE THEREOF, J.ND DESCRIBING PROPOSED
BOUNDARIES OF ASSESSIIENT DISTRICT AND DIRECTING FILING OF
BOUlfOARY MAP -resolution preliminarily approves t.1-:te
Enqineer i • Peport~ establishes a time and place fer a
pul>lic hearing, directs su.ff to p>"ocoad with proper
h.a~inq notioinq, and describes the specific boundaries
for the proposed parkinq assessment district.
3. PJhlic beoring noticing gr~
ill. A formal legal -)lotte. of Improvement-is aant by first
clasil aail to all property owners 1iith tbe proposed
district.
b.. A formal -Notice cf Improvement-is pUblished once a week
.for at lea~t two weeks in the PeninsUla TilHa Tribune and
the Palo Al to week1y ..
c. A formal -Notice ot ImproveJDenta lll i5 posted at numerous
locations throu9ho~t the proposed district.
d. ~. ~dv.i.:;.:. .. -¥ ilu~ice is hand-delivered to all tenants and
other ~nts within the proposed district ..
e. An informal public information meetin~ is held by staff
at least ona week prior to the Council public hearinq~
Notice of the public inforaation m8etinq is sent to all
property owners, t.enants and other ocC'.Jpants.
4. Council pubJi~ hearing
a~ All persons wishing to ~e heard should have the
opportunity to speak at the public he.ari.nC?~ However,
Section 13.08 .0l.0 of the Palo Alto MUnicipa.l Code
specifies that proteuts are to be in writinq, and the
ri9ht to protest and have such protest counted toward e
possible majority protest comes only from property
ownership. Therefore, written protests rro. others than
those owning real property shoulQ not be counted to~ard
e poss:i.ble me.jority protest.
5. Council acts on tht.e resolutions
a. RESOLUTION FINDING AND DETERMINING THAT THE PUBLIC
CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY REQUIRE PROFOSED IMPROVEMEN'l'S _
resolution formally establishes that the proje~t is in
the public interest anQ is required~ and is based upon an
identified set of considerations.
I • , b.
c.
•
RESOLUTION OVERRULING PROTESTS -resolution establishes
either (il that protests by the owne~6 of more than hall
the area to be assessed have not been duly filea or (ii)
that a maj ori ty protest has been d.uly files, and the
council acts to overrule said protest.
RESOLOTIOlr ADOPTING ENGINEER'S REPORT AND ORDERING THE
WORK TO BE ACCOMPLISHED -resolution gives tinal approval
to th~ Enqin.er'!5 Re.port" orders that the project be
constructed and related work ~ompletea, and'establishe$
the asseSSlDents~
6. Subsequent st@pg include:
a. Bonds are issued to raise the necessary funds.
h. Annu~l assessments are sent to property owners.
c. Contractor is hired to construct the project.
d. construction project 15 begun and ~ully completed.
e. Parkin; structure is opened for public use.
DATE:
TIME:
LOCATION:
J:lM;KGFiOUND
PUBLIC MEETING NOTICE
Discussion 01 the CaJrfomia Avenue
Parking Structure Plan
AugLlSt 21, 1 991
7:00 p.m.
Wesley Unltod Methodist Church,
463 Cellege Ave"ue Palo Alto
Following !he purchase of !he Keystone l.oI and its consofidalion witn Lot 3 on
Cambridge Avenue. !he City retained Wilbur Smith A3S0ciates (WSA). a consutting firm.
10 conduc!!he CaI~omia Averlue Par1<ing Stnv.:\ure Study. The purpose of the study was
10 develop !he f"IEICessary information for !he City CounCIl 10 c:oosider whe!her to proceed
with construction of a parking strliClure(s) on Lot 3 arld/c< possibly on lol 7 (Orl Sherman
A""rlUe) •
WSA held its first pubfic meeting in Ja"""'Y 1 ssg to seek pubflC input at the very
beginning of !he study. Based on !he "'Put re<:eived ., that meeting and working with
repress: :tatives of!he ear~o;nja Avenue Area Development Assodation (CAADA) and City
stall, WSA has completed !he Parking Structure Plan Study. Copies of the siudy are
avaiIaI:>Ie in !he Transportation Division. Sixth FIoo<. City Hall. 250 Hamittcrl Avenue.
PalO Alto.
PURPOSE OF THE MEETING
'. To CiSCUSS the study findings and recommendations
2. To discuss !he next steps:
• Fmance Committee rev'iew, discuss}on and recommendation
to !he City CounCIl
• City Council deciSion on whether to proceed with construcUon
cf !he parking structure (s).
• Preparation of detaiied design plans and bid <locum anls.
• Formation of a new parking assessment district to finance
the design and construction of the new parking stnJC1u r e{s),
for further infC>m"'3Iion please call Ashok Aggarwal al 329·2575.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING
May lJ. 1991
CAl!~ORNIA AVENUE PARKING G~RAGE
City-lnithterl
92-ARe-S7
Preliminary re\iie~ of two-level, leS-space parking garage in the
California Avenue business district.
pat Stong. publiC Wotks Department. City of Pilo AltO': Our presentation
thi$ ~rning will be brief. r would like to give you an overv;€w, ar.d
th~n r woul~ l1ke to have ov~ prime consultant discuss the desig~
e1ements. Then we will have the subconslJ1tant to the prime c~nsu7ta.nL
discuss the architectural schemes that yo~ have here.
First of all, r would liKe to introduce the r2presentat1ves we ~ave
pr!sent today. We have Roland Extrand with the Public Works Department
and Carl Stoffel of the Transportation Department. W~ have our prime
cons~ltantt International Parking Design, Dilip Hagwana, and also lee
Rambaugh. The s~bco~stiltant responsible for Schemes A and B is Hardison,
Komatsu, ]yelich and Tucker t and tnat is Bob Tucker right t~ere. We have
two representatives from the bUSiness rlistrict t Bob Cavanaugh and Terry
_ Shuchat.
We nave this morning t~o conceptual deSigns, Schemes A and B. that you
have taken a look. at. Staff tlas directed the cons!Jltant to i ncorporite
comments from tbe prevlous ARB meeting on July 19, ]990. The preliminary
conceptual design was reyiewed at that time. Also, he was to lncorporate
comnents from the business district during this prelinJinary design
proce;s. These co~nts were things like, it should be wtll detailed.
landscaping sho~lu be used to soften the structure, good pedestria~
circulatlon, goad l1ghting both daytime and nighttime, analyze the
surrounding area, and involye the business community.
Regarding the ARB informational memorandum, staff beiieve$ that it ca~
comp1y witn most of the comments that are contained ~n Pages 18 and 19 of
the informatilJnal memorandum, primarl1y the sHe distanc~ triangles, bike
parking, van acc~ssibi1ity. and more pedestrian-oriented impro~ements on
fi!.ayfield Lane. and more 1andscapfng at a human Je~e~. There are bo items
I would like to briefly ~ntion that could be a problem or that might ha~e
been a problem. Orle .. as that staff bel ieves that (tern 2 on Page 18. in
our discussions with tne Transportation staff after the ARB informational
memorandum was printed, they commented on ltem 2, that the circulation
should perhaps be changed. After further discussion. 1 believe
Tra~sportation will go ahead and refer t~is c~nment to the cons~ltant and
any comments t",t the ARB might "ave_
There is another issue, and t~at is the issue of aiSle ~idth. This may
ne~d A 5mall amount of discussion. ihe lot ~imenSions on which we are
trying to build this parking structure ire very tight. As a result, the
staff is requesting that we build the structure on a zero sett-ack bas;s~
50 the structure would bE built right on the property line. As a res~lt
of the new zoning ordinance, t~e ais1e IN'idths that we have proposed 111
th~s deslgn for the ground le~el and second floor ar~ not quite enough.
There are two ways to resolve that problem. Olle is to decrease the
parking angle, which would decrease the number af spaces, which has jt~
-1-
~ i
we . ___ ... ;s ••
dr~wbacks. T~e other way of dea1jng with that il to ~ncroach slightly
beyond t~e property lIne with the cladding or bric. f.,.de of the columns,
which would De an eight·inc~ encroach~nt. QijT consultant will discuss
th.t • litt1. more.
So to go ahe~d and review thes~ desig~ elements~ the ac(ess and
circulation, landsc;aping !.,d parking configuration, I ,""ould like to
introduce Oi1ip Nagwana f~om l~ternational Parking Design.
Pilip Nigwana: As Pat mentioned, it is a p1ea~ure providing you with some
infonRation so we t::iln some reaction to whether we f)eadfng in the rig"t
direction, or do we need to reU,ink ~hat ~e are doing. In our initia1
study that we did two years ago, in 2990, we had done a conceptual study
to s.~e how many spaces we could get on the sHe w'fth this configuration of
traffic and circulation. ~e made some assumptions on what the structural
element will be and what circulation could be to allow maximum use of the
site~ At that tt.e, we also made ~n assumptinn that there would be a zero
setback to allow maximum use of tne site.
Whit we ire tr.:ring to establ ish at this point is that we ar! sti j 1 u!; ng
t~e Silmf concept and trying to maxillize the nun-,ber of spaces, and this is
ttle configuration that we have come up with. It does not permit us to do
as much land!'clping wiVdn the structure itself , so we are trying to
incorpoTlte s~ of the landscaping in the sidewal~ area 310n9 Cambridge
Avenue ind still maintain a min1mum of five feet of walkway ~t~e~n the
street trees and tnE 1.ndscaping that will occur at the grou~d 1evel of
the parking. T~at would allow us t~ maintain the baslc width of the
aisles ind the structure.
Otner concerns we have which we are trying to g~t some sense ibout frJm
the Irc~itectural review board is in (oncept, is tnis t~e right directicn
in which we are ~eading? Can we do what we want to do to ma.xiD'lile the
parking for the California Aven~e business district? Now J would 11ke to
have Bob Tucker talk about the arc~itectural aspects and tne treat~nt
that we are propo$;nq.
Sgb Tucker: There are two schemes. 1 will talk primarily about S(~eme A
It the top. Scheme B is an opti~n on which J won't spend much time unless
you want to bring it up and discuss it in detail. On the Cambridge Street
elevation at the-top, to your imnediah left in He garage is a post
office. To the immediate right is a hardware store. Tne height of those
buildings is not shown, but ;s probably somewhat lower than those two
corner elements. On the ~tw M~fjeld lane side, the three b~sic elements
tnat appear on both sides, a l~ne on the Mayberry side, the two major
alleys that C~~ off of California Avenue to the left, one major alley
would c.ame into the left side and then t<l a pedestrian entr.:r Element that
occurs on all four corners of the structure. That wi' 1 have a stai r-that
will get you to the second level. In almost thE center-of the parking
garage, there is another m.ajor illey tnat co:nes off of California Avenue,
so the e1ement on the Mayf;el~ side is a central e1ement and ~!ll be a
sig~al or statement that there is i parking gar;ge , an event. which will
pull yo~ into this part of the site. So tnere needs to be some
identification of what is happening back there, and we wilT use those
elements to do it.
Architecturally. we are borrowing from a building that is almost opp~site
\ -· -
the hard~afe store, I bricK masonry buil~in9. We picked m3sonry as an
exterior b~ilding mat~ri~l, hoping to e~tend that int~ also picking up on
some at" the square openlngs in tnat buiJdjng, like some of those at the
mid·point, particularly.
rh~ scale prQblem in , ~arking 9lrage is always a major p~ch1em. There
are ~ery fc'w p~destrian elements that can relate you back to th~ htrrlan
scale. Tne brick does gi~e you some of that scaie. By develQ~ing ~ery
ciear pedestrian entrances, that does begin ta draw you in. That Is one
of the e1ements that is often forgotten in a park1n9 garage, The 2mphasls
is always on the car, and the pedestrian movement is just as important.
So we havE tried to intrnduce t~at in He four corners.
l~ parki~9 garagest there Ire many degrees of dir~ction.
you want t(:l pretend that it ; s not a parking garage. In
g!ts too stark and becDmes too much of a parking garage,
fight the context a1so, This Dne we haye chosen to be i
structure and 1 flirlJ open structure. We wi11 not ha~t
neiYY eleme~tl is s~metimes occur in these stTuctures.
111 some ca.ses?
some cases, if it
it begins to
pr.tty simpl,
as many major
Supplementing the masDnry, and some exposed Goncrete , p~ssibly, we have
ff~ta1 tre11is type ~tructYre$ that ~ill face the building5. Those
elements wl11 give you some climbing potentlal for th~ landscaping out
front.
Ml. P.RDS.' ~ny questions for the applicant?
~WilsQn: 00 you know how many parking spaces you would lose if you
. cnang.d tile angle of the parking?
Mr. Hagwana: I thinK conservat'vely. ~e .Q~1d lose eight to ten spa~~s.
~s~ Wilson: Along that line, does this meet the current ordinance?
Hr. Nlowana: !f we are a1lowed to put the planting Qutside th~ property
line, then we meet tn! ordinance.
Ms. paRpsa: There was a conment that there was a chang~ in tne-ordinance
that was making this project not wnrk.
Ms. L yt 1 e: That change has occ~rred.
Ms. paRpsa: Did this meet thl: previous ordinance?
~r. Stone: During the preliminary design phase. which occurred Over the
last couple of years, it was designed to the previous zoning ordinance. J
don't tielie .... e there t,3S been ~ny change in the ais1e width at al1. It is
just that ,n tn~ conceptual pr~1iminiry d~signs that ~e worked with
previously. it looked like we could develop i parking structure that ~ou1d
haye IB8 sp~ces. As we evo1ved into more of the details of the design
after Oecembei' of 1991. it became apparent that we would 10se four spaces
due to stiirwe11s, sc we were down to 184. Now as we 100k yer1 c1ose11 at
the dimensions of the lot and the dimensions of the colum.'O$ and virtually
everything~ ~e are having the problem, $0 It is a matter of mor~
atte~tio~ to detail that is making us aware of tbe problem of aisle
~idth. loIe WE"re nDt cognizant of that pre'.'iolJs1y.
-3-
Ms. ~jlsQn: It appears to ~ f~om the section that t"1s is s~rt of a
split-level structure. Origin.1ly I Uought there .o"l~ be a grour,d
level, and you would go up to a second leve1.
Mr. Nagwaui: That is the way it is. lhere is one level above it, b~t in
Drd~~ tD get up to the second floor, there is a --
Ms. Wilson: I don't understand this section.
Mr, N.gw'Di: It Is 1ik •• dish. lou go up half a f1fght and then take
the ramp up to the next floor. Then you park on the top deck .nd come
back down the same way, I don't know if that is clear or not.
~$. Wjlson~ I ~ still having trouble understanding this.
Nr, Nagwaoi: I snould have brought ." fsometric,
Mr. Stone: If 1 ~y, tht study that was approved has an isometric, if you
would like to s •• that.
Ms. Wilson; Thank you. Now it is clear.
Mr. Hise: And that haif level is here?
Mr. Nagwana: Yes. exactly.
Ms. DaRola: Any other Questions? Does anyone want to speat from the
publlc?
Steve Jarvis: I O~ the brick buildi~g across tne street. I do not
understand how the Cambridge side ties In with tne one below ft. If this
fs flat on the C-.bridge e1evatlon. and that one is sloped en the back?
Vhat Ire you going to see from the Cambridge side? Are yO" gofng to see
eaTS parked up there?
Mr. Ha9wana: You won't see it from the Cambridge srde, because it will be
behind. Here you Ire at elevation zero, then you go up to plus f1ve, and
then the ramp jn tho middle takes YO" up to plus ten. Plu, ten gees all
tne way up to here, and then you go up to plus fifteen and then down to
plus ten .gain.
Mrt Jaryfs: So you are not going to see that from the street !eve], even
jf you are across the street?
Mr. Hagwana: No. It is set back.
~r. Jaryis~ I like the simpllcity of it very much, and tne openness of it
yer~ much. I think it would be the ntcest parking structure in town. I
would like to see a lot more greenery, especially from the second froor
hanging dOWil, Hke asparagus ferns. The code allows planters to protrude
over the sidewiTk. They could be automatically watered and not be a
maintenance problem. As many trees as possible would soften it. G~een
things hanging down from that second floor~ as well as your entry features
on either side, would help it a Tot.
-~ -
..,',
J.trr-v Shycbat. -290 California AVE"Ue: 1 have Df.'en invo1ved with this from
the start. t am a property Offner am:!' mercnar,t ;n the area.. The .crlt4H"a.
~e mer.tion~d to yvu in our last meeting here were that we are looking for
the greatest nurnbe~ of spaces, obviously to keep the cost per space dcwn.
We .. re lC'Gking for afl exterivr that wi11 be somewhat good lOCKi!lg. yet
keeping in mind tnt ov.erall c'lst. A nllmber.of u.s a.re relatively small
1and owners 1M the area. You are looking at an area that is mad~ u~ ~f
ma~y small landowners. So we ~re Tooking very closely at the cost of
this. We wa~t to see this succeed. yet you need to ~eep the cost pe~
spa.ce down, so you have to start elimina.ting spaces, rather than giving us
the 8-inch encroachment that staff is asking for. That would be a se,icu~
detriment tD this.
We are als~ looking for some kind of structure that wlll be reTatlve1y
inexpensive to maintain. Again, if the money isn't in the arei for the
type of exterior that requires i 10t of maintenance, I think the architect
has C~ up .ith something very geod here that ~ould not be difficult to
maintain. So we are looking for the greatest number of spaces for the
least amount of money, yet have it be a structurp. that will be pl~as;ng to
the eye and fit into the area.
Bob [gvanaugh: I iUIl represer:t1ng another property owner in the district
which is behind the Methodist churc~. We have tried to be good neighbors
to our connerc;a' nei9hbors, and $i.lppt)rt a<!ditll)na1 park.ing which impacts
us Cil rare occi.;;icms. I would like to underscore what Terry just said:
and perhaps ~ut a little different spin on it. This is indeed a City
structure, and we can look at it from several angles. I wou1d like you t~
ke~p in ~ind th~ financial angle. For one th'~9, the mor~ the cost goes
up, the more the parking spaces go down~ and t~e harder this is going to
be to sell to the property o .. ers who have to pay for 1t_ Although it is
a city structure, the tity is net gcing to pay fDr it. If the project
cannot be sold, tnen the beneflt we ire seeing from it. which is more
business, will also deny tne city the additional sales tax revenue that
would come from that business.
Ms .• ilson; Since this an assessment district project, just how does that
work? Are there any monies accumulated so far for this?
Ms. Lvtle: No, the assessment district procee~ings and the Planned
Community zone chang& (as this project will actually be a PC zone change)
have not be~n initiated yet. They will run, at least~ in overla~. None
of the financing for this will ~c,ur until after the benefit of pub1ic
hearings for the assessment district~ although ob .... iou$ly~ a lot of'
fontwork has been done with the property owners and busine~s community out
there. I believe they are using the same fonnula for distributing costs
thilt .. as previol.lsl)1 'ffork.erl t)ut for the CIHfornia. Avenue asseSSIf,ent
district. So everyone is fami1iar witn the boundary map and the do11ars,
essll!ntial1y. This wil1 be dn additional overlay.
Hr. Clvanaugb: Histor~cally~ you need to keep in mil"\d that tr.ere has been
stronq support for locally funded parking. Our district started back in
the mid-fifties j recognizing the need for full parking, whicn this is a
part of, and supported that. I ~ould hasten to add, however, that it has
net been automatic. Ther<e has to be a lot of selling to people who cia not
always rfcagnize, as Terry Shuchat does, that mare parking means more
business. There have been parking schemes propo5~d there which got o~t of
-5-
1
-
hand and were reject~. So we have to ba1a~ce tnese things, recogn,zlng
the need of tile ARB to get something that is pleasant and fHs in wit~ the
local area, but also keepfng in mind that excessp.s ~f either rfducing
ilarrd ng spaces or i ncre,as; ng CCiS t cou 1 d we 11 k. i'i 1 the project. It i S1l / t .a
for"egone conclusion at this point t~at. everyone is going to '.Iote for it.
We have been told by the city that in the final analysis, befor~ the
parking assEssment district is adopted, e\'~ry property owner hu teo be
told what that is go;n; to cost. That is the moment of truth. W. don't
want to go to the people Ind h~ve t~ defend sometning that 15 not easy to
accept.
~5. QaRo§l: Since n~ one els! wishes to speak from the publf~~ this is
now returned to the bo.rd.
Mr. lyzwa: ! think the parki"9 structure should do what a parking
structure 11 s~pposed to do, and that, to park cars. so I am Yery much in
support of the ~aximum number of p.r~lng spaces. I cartolnly am in
support of that. I like Scheme A. I think that arcfliteetura"'y .nd
conceptually, it .or~s quite we' J. I 11 ke the "ale of It, and I think it
on1 fit into t;at lot quite ... 11. I have loo~ed very eoT'.fully at the
Circulation of troe parkin~ garage, and 1 th~nk it is very efficiently laid
out.
I would again "iterate the problems that Hr. Jarr!s made. Th.t is, I
would like to see mere landscapin9 on the structure itself, where~er tnat
is introducod. Oth.r than th.t. I think it is gOing to b •• pl., for that
region, and it certlinly need$ a goQd par,,~g structure.
Ms. Wilspn: J, too, am s~pport;~e of Plan A, baSically, although there
are some things about P1.n B that I like that are happening. On. of the
things I like is the w.y the lights are incorporated into these coluams.
If sODOthing of that nature could be incorporated. it might be nice. I
also like the way this steps. I loYed Michoel 's cOlllllent on that. I feel
BOre comfortable with the stepping than with the ramp. although it is not
q~ite as honest. It Siems to me to ~ I little harmonious with the
buildings so close across the alley from it, and I Toyed your (omment on
that. But I Hke He materi.,s and the basic rendering of SchelTH! A.
! tnink it is important to go a litt'~ furtner contexturally in the
function of tr.is parking garage, and t~ identify it. We k~ow there is
some separation betWEen buildings, but ~at are ~ d~fn9 as we develop
th~s to ~ke that attTacti~e. You could have all the parking in the
world. but if people don't know it is there, it is not VEry successful~
We have had i lot of trouble liKe that with Parking lot J, ind we are
continually trying to raise its visibility to the ped~strians that there
is ~.rking back tnere. There ire ways to do that by slgnals even out on
California Avenue, mare than just a sign. Something wit" landscaping or a
canopy. You might start considering same of these things that would p~11
the whole district t0gether and mak.e it work. I keep mentioning Mountain
View. They ~ave done th'1t '.Ierjl well. So think about whetner you can t~k.e
this a step further and identif~ all those accesses from the neighborhood
to the parking let. That is key to this Uling being succeuflJl.
Anything you can do to enco(!.rage the busil"ifSses on Mayfie1d lane to keep
tne rear of thefr stores painted and neat and tidy to make it more
attracti'.le to the pedestrians to come back and use it and make it a
-
.. -...... ;'""~...".. ' .. '
~ -";'"
,,".'
y->. "
-.
•
.... ,
pleasant place. The~e are all links to the actloi:al re-t:ll1 area .
r w{luld support encroachment permits f{lr planters that overhung, if they
were high ennugh. 1 support the encroachment permit for the ~ight inches,
as well.
Ms. D"IRQa: J really support the direction of going in, starting with
that eight inches we were talking about with a PC, so there would be that
flexibility ~ith the eignt inches. Giving eight inChes to yarn eight or
ten spaces sounds like a marvelous tradeoff. When you are building a
parting structure. J support the maximum numbe~ of cars. So if that is
possible to do, r 5trongly support that.
I really like a 10t of thing! "in this ,parking garagE'. 1 like Scneme A.
like the brick. ~hat the brick does in terms of pedestrian sc~le ;s
~arveTDus. It ties in the buildings in that area. I really like a Tot of
things t~at happen in Scheme A, although r prefer the stepping which
b~aks up the view of thestructure as you are walking along. That is a
minor preference. If it b€comes a cost issue. I think you haVE so much
more in here \t'ith Scheme A that 1 cou1d live with that. There 15 some
benefit to th.t stepping_
I support the maximum am.ount of 1ands.caping that you can get or. here that
does so much to soften the project. However 9 r think the richness of the
brick will carry this a long. Tong way, and we do not haye to rely totally
en landscaping. If you are looking at the project C(lsts , 1 would feel
more comfortable glving up landscaping that overhangs at the top than
los1ng brick. Bric~ is an essentiil element ~ere.
Mr. Hise; 1 wanted to near your comments r because from the hlstory, it
sounds l1ke they had a preliminary reVlew and that you l11 gave some very
strong direction to them. It sounded 1 U;;e most of you wer"e satisfied with
the direction in which this was going~ It;s important to have that
continuity.
The comments I have go back to the basic planning. They are major enough
that r think they probabTy won't be considered, but 1 am 9Qin9 to put them
out anyway~ From my experience 'With that neighborhood, where I us.ed to
have my office and used the post office regularly and dined in that area
regular1y, it seemed ljke most of the parking and foot traffjc moves frc:Tl
that parking area to California Avenue-tD~ards Pr~nter's Ink to the corner
of California and those businesses. Then directly a~ross the street from
that there is a parking are~ with a couple cf office buildings t~at have
their own parking, such as a little second hand store, so there is
actually less traff;c gOing across the street, in my opinion, to those
businesses there, and then it becomes residential. So what 1 see
happening here is that i f t~ls scheme. were campT etely re .... ersed, thi s
fron~age allows a 10t ~f pedestrian access to the Sidewalk and to the
neighborh~od. but there is no business in this direction, to speak of.
What happens here is tnat you get into this parking structure, and most of
the traffic is stili going to be towards Printer's Ink and Keeble and
Shuchat, etc., on Ca.lifornia Avenue. If yol.1 park in here , you ha .... e to
walk through tllis structure and b~ck ~h;s way. I think most of the
traffiC is going to wa~t to come out of this str~cture in this direction
and into the neighborhood, yet this 1s the least friendly peoestrian
acce~s there is. 1 would like to see this thing flipped completely
, -, -
~rQund. ,~d let tn1s bE the Cambridge Avenue elevatfon. where ycu are
either 90jn9 to the post office or the market, or you are 90'jn9 ri9~t into
the oeighborhood, .nd actu,lly have this access to the alleyway. it just
s~ems to make more sens~ from a planning st~ndpoint. rna! is my comment.
Outside of that~ J ~ould support the arch5tecture. along with your
canmer:ts. The on1y thfnss. 1 wrote down are that I would. encourage tf)e
intrease of planttngs inst~ad of railings, perhaps. let tho5~ be planters
th.t over.h'lng and terrace doWTI this building. r was not really ciear on
why t~ere tre several penetrati~n$ here f~r pedestrians. and then none
here. 8~t agai"~ my comment it t~e ~2j~~ ~j,~ of the orientation of this
parking stl':'llt.tur~ t" the Calffornh AvenLie business district. It;s
u.nfriendly, and. I c_ould see that alleyway becoming developed as more of a
pedestrian alleyway. I think it cDes act like th't. People .ill come out
of there. Also, Shirley's comment of lfnking this back to Biren Street,
and have some kind of $imil~r irth~tecture. in archway or sometnfng that
says, there is a structure here. Come intD tne a11ey, ~~ve alley access.
b<o<use people have to sort of 90 .,·ound to the back door to get into this
thing~ with its orfentation toward Cambridge. Unless you are real
f •• iliar with that district, you are not going to go all around there and
then b< forced to walk back Into that neighborhood. So I s.e a basic
plannin9 decision made h~re that I .ould like to have s~en dane
differently.
Ms. ~ilson: I think Thoma, hiS made a .e.y good point.
Ms. lytlo: ene of the problees .i' that !.me the ~p.nlngs now through to
the structure are actu4lly comp1etely on pr~vate praperty~ They are apen
and avai table, and p~~pte use them, but they are not 1 inkages that we can
rely on.
Mr. Hise: The alleyway?
Ms· lytle: No, through to California A'.nue.
Mrt Sto,"e; We have an aerill photograph "'hkh yo.u shQuld have in your
packet. It does show where those accesses are. I ~elte¥e one is a
park{ng area and the other one is i through sidewal~.
Mr. Tucker: There is a ~a1kway between l20 and 230 Caltfornil Avenue.
It is • public easement. It is to tn~ right of the cleaners.
Mr. Hise: That makes a strong case for util€zing the alley as the ~ain
theme. All the traffic wants to go that way. People are going to re'ist
using it •• <ept for long-term par<lng.
Hr. Shuchat: Ther~ is not & lot of access to this office building.
Mr. Hise: But aren't they required to supp1y their own parling? agrte
with the aCC~S$ on both sides.
Mr. Tucker: There is 1,mited underground parking for tenants.
~~R(jsa: ! tli;r.k "Thomas has. rais~d an interesting point, and I would
l~ke tD return to it.
-B-
.....
Ms. Wilson: To me, it is the basis ~f what ] w~s saying, but did not say
It as well ;n my comments about these linkages to California Avenue.
These t~ings go tog~ther, and he is right. it does nep.d to be solved.
Mr. Tucker: Don't you think tnert Is an axill ent~ance to the left side?
Ms. lIilion: Yes, then is.
Mr. Tu~ker: So it is very axial. So there is no lack of entrie~ alang
new Mayfield. I wender if that is really the case. People w; 11 war.der
out jf they are open, but I wonder if tn.y will ent.r there. Th.y"'ill
move right on the aJl!y and u~e the first entrance they come to. Then
they will move into the parking gar~ge~
Mr. Hjse: ]f you figure that half your spaces ire ~ofng tQ be, at best,
oriented toward tnis opening, right? (~ight) Th.n the other h.lf ar.,
and perhaps there is as much demand, but ag~in, tnat is my critiCism of
it. ]f it were a traditional parking garage where there wer~ Just two
leve1s of parking~ then it wou1d not be the same kind of situation,
because you could e~it almost anywhere, and I wou1d encourage you tc poke
more holes into it, rither than lESS. The other park.;ng garaga on down
the street has th~t problem in that it does not hava enough access because
the pri.ary direction people in which are t~cyelling is towards California
Avenue. You end up having to walk a long distance in that garage. 1
think people resist using it because you hi¥! to walk around inside the
garage. ]f you could just park like in a parking 10t and very easily get
out of it and ~se the alleyway, I think people would use it more.
Ms.. Wil50n: The upper 1evel~ espeCially, is daunting.
Mr. Hjse; Vas, so that fs the baSis of my comments. This one is
definitely. front and back kind of garago. I.e' why you are dOing
that. Vou get more spaces from this kind of garage.
Mr. N~: Hut only that. but it provid~s much more continuous
circulatian throug~ the garage. The primary reason w! chose tD put the
level fa~ade on Cimbridge, sloping bac~ to MayF"~rd, is visibility-wise,
Hayfield won;t be that visible, as it is an alley with bu!1dings an the
otner side. But Cambridge Avenu~ is going to be very visib1e. If you put
the sloping fa~ade on the front side, usua11y is not very recepti¥e to
most of the people. Th!y do net want to sec tnt slope. So that is tne
reason we took this approach. Witn the end access and one other one,
leading to the easement that we ~aye available for public access, it
should work fafr1y we1l. vou can waH. either inside the garage or ~n the
alley to get down to one of the two points.
Mr. Lvzwa: The concern 1 have with your argument. Thomas, is that the
e1evation cannot be appreCiated from that ang1e. Cambridge Avenu.e will
appreciate that e1e¥ation. Here it is hidden by other buildings, sa if
that elevation is flipped, you would ne¥er see it. the way it is
rendered.
MrJise; It is not sa much the architecture as it is the pedestrian
actess.
~~: And I agree with you on that paint.
·9·
Mr. Hist: So that ~s more where J am coming from. This elevation and tne
traffic movement within the garage do not lend themselves to the direction
in which people want to go. I am throwins that out ther., and I am not
sure what it does to that ar~hitectur~. It was not $0 much an
;.rchitecturl&ll issue. I find it to be a fairly attnJct;'II! bllildil19 from
~t~ sides. So from tnat standpoint, 1 am not critical of 1t.
~il12n: Is ther! any penmit parking in tMis lot? Is the effort her£
to get people who .or' In the neighborhood to get off the streets so that
the $treets are ~ore available to the octas;onal retail shopper?
Mr. St9ne: That j. certainly part of it, to provide .djitional parking.
I would like to say sOmfthing about naving the entrance on the a11ey. You
hav~ to keep in mind that this alley 1s ~sed for servic=. There ar~
trucks parked there a lot of times~ maxing del;ver1es~ So if you are
going to tUrn it iround, you are going to have people tryfng to enter from
the alley with their cars while there are trucks parked there.
Ms, Witspn: We ire talkin~ about pedestrians only.
Mr, Stone: We havp pedestrians on botn sides.
~s. Wilson: What about permit parking? Do we nav! I concept a~ut how
much of this .ill be permit parking?
Mr. Ston.: I do not know what that would be, but I would imagfne there
omuld be both. I am frankly not that famil,ar with the question.
Boh Cav,naugn Repre~~ntin9 tAPA: 1 tnink t~at CADA's view nas been, is in
ttle ether parking structure. that we encourage permit parking to be !'ither
on the upper le't'el OT as in the ottl!'r park.ing structure, we res.tricted it
to half of tf)e first f1oor. We are trying to be accOllDOdatfve to customer
parking.
If [ could make one other comment to cla~ifJ Kr. NisE'S view about parking
",Qui red'. U nd'er pres-ent c<llie, yes) rl!'W buil dings hav~ to prov j de all of
their parking. But 250 Cambridge and 350 (ambridge, which is Mr. Jarvis'
building, and tne old winery site w?re exempte~ from that. While tney a1l
provided a SUbstantial amount of parking, tney did not provide all the
parking that .as required. So all of these buildings are paying I
substantial contrib~tion into the present distritt t which was the old
Keystone lot. So those buildings .jll benefit from this, as they benefit
now.
Steve Jarvil: ln talKing with Terry, who is a retailer a quartEr of a
blOCK from this parking struct~re, we feel tnat from our own experience
there, about hilf these people are gOing to be going to tne shopping area,
and about half to office buildings not just on that block but o~
Cambridge. So that friend1y access from Cambridge is very tmportant.
Also. ! think that the low profile on Cambridge makes it mucn more
comfortable for everybody, not just tne occupants of b~;ldings, but to
people walking there, peop1e who are driving tneir cars along there, tha~
having the higher fa~ade that is now faCing the alley. The bUildings that
it impacts on the alley are of very, lIeTy smc:ll square footage, in fact,
just the upper fl~(\rs and just two offices on thE second floor cf Nos. 220
-J 0-
.~ .~
and 230 Californit Avenue, wnereas it would nave a lot ~re impact if it
f.,ed the C.mb,ldge side.
Ms. DaRosa: Thank yeu. ha .... e (lne cOlJITIent to make. I rea'ly think t~at
~n the Cambridge Avenue el~vation, right up against the sidewalk, there 7S
no sense of sidewalk. The pedestrian 1S right there. The schem€ that we
are seeing ther~ is much ~ore appropriate in te~s of the vision as you
drive by and as you walk by. On the Kayfie1d lane elevation! it is not
really on the Sidewalk, so you are not pushed up against that building.
It 1S moTe appropriate, if you have to choose the pretty side and the less
attract~ve side, to k~ep that in scale on Cambridge. For that, I would
support the current conce~t.
Ks. Wilson; Would the board supp~rt any simplification of the new
Mayfield elevation, as far as archltecturill embellishments? I am not
saying greenery. ~o much. It seems sort of elaborate to me, if tnere are
cost factors here. 00 you see pot~tial for some simplification?
(Ho answer heard)
~il1Qn: Is it brick tile yo~ are considerlng for facing material? Or
;s itfUTT brick.?
Mr. Naawana: In some pTaces·it will be full brick, an1 in others, face
br;ck.
M~. lvzw~: lnstead of having that, you could have precast concrete, and
not necessarily ~se the bricl itself.
Ms. DaRosa: r thi!1k you can sense that the board is support i .... e of the
concepts and a material tnat gives t~e project a hUman scaTe. I hope we
have given yo~ enough direction. Tnere is general support here, with
possibly lOGking at some 7ncorporation of some of the things that ire
successf~l here in breaking up the scale on the Mayfield side.
Mr, Nagwana; [5 the genera1 direction on tne Mayfield side to 00 with the
stepped spandrel rather than I slopfng spandrel? Is that what i am
hearing?
Ms. DaRosa: The stepped spandrel? I like it.
Mr. l 'INa: I l; kE if-
Mc. Hise: I like the Sloping spandrel.
Ms. Wilsc'n: I would like the stepped Oile a little more, but not enough to
change a schern~ where c~st is a factcr.
Mr. Nagwana: The cost was not a factor for this feature.
Ms Wilson: My pr~ference is for this, but Thomas' is for the other.
Mr. Nagwana: Irfe lliill ellaiuate it and see if we can do 11 with the stepped
spandreJ without escalating the cost. The only otl'ler factor that we h.av-e
conSidered to minimize som~ costs is on Mayfield lane, on t~e certer
element, we could red~ce the ce~ter portion to some degree. That eleme~t
·ll·
•
I. purely architectural, and has nothing to do with the amount of parKing
or anyth1ng ltke that~ When we start adding same more landscaping Qr. t~e
second floor an CUlbridgt! AventJE", It«! mal' be fcrced to 1 essen the ne~ght of
t~1s, or somehow red~cing ft.
Mt& Hise: Are yau tal xing about tar.ing t~;s off? I think that would be a
step in the right dtrection.
~~I lill i2B: 11 would not bother me.
I!!:. I.z,k~r::! What is the consensus, nov, on Cambridge ver!:us Mayv;e,,?
til. QiBSIlU: leave it Ii Ke it is.
~I, WihlUF This is the nicest project tne city has brought forward.
M', lytle: r would like to take onE &Oment and ca.pliment the Public
Works Depare.ent on their attention to previous .rehit.ctur.l review bo.~
c~nts_ They went back and listened to tape.. Something th.t is
particularly deserving of a word of praise is the fact that they had the
constroctlon project manager at this meeting to listen to the
proceedings. That helps very, v.rl much in understanding the intent of
c~nts and dtsc~ssion in 9ivfng I feel for what needs tc be done, the
i~leMentatio" of the project. It ~ill help a gre.t de.l in handing off
frow. one .segllent of the cit), to anotheT. Sa I feel t~ey ",ave done oil very
good job.
Ms. Wjlson: I do, too.
"s, DaRosa: Think you very much.
-12 -
•
November 11~ 1992
Pla~ing Commislion
City lIall
" .'
Palo Alto. California 9.301
Dear Sirl
.,,,,-
ATTACHMENT D
~he CAADA Soaro recognizes th~ great need tor more park~n9 on
california A ..... 'O'J.e. and il in ::omplste .upport of the puking
garaga to be cor~t%ucted on Cambridq. Avenu~. We loox forw&rd
tQ hav.ng more parkini al soon .s po.aibla.
Sincerely, eolLlvt..~I!t! .
Ronna Devin~.nzi
CAAOA Board Preaident
-/
ATTACHMENT E
CAUFORNIA AVE. AREA DEVELOPMENT ASSOC
PARKING COMMITTEE
PO BOX 605e3
F'Al..O "LTO, CA 94305
November 13~ 1992
Ashok Aggarwal, P.E.
city of Palo Alto
Tr~~sportation Dept.
250 Hamilton Ave~
Palo Alto, CA 9430)
Subject: Cal Ave Parking "surplus~~
Dear Ashok:
At ~~e recent ARB hearing on the proposed new parking
structure to he built on Lo~ 3, nearby building occupants alleged
that ~~ere was no need for additional parking because they ~ere
able to find parking as needed through the day.
This is to advise you that during the period in question
thsre was a vacancy of 9000 sq. ft at 250 Cambridge Ave.~ 4300
sq. ft. at 350 Cambridge Ave. and 1300 sq. ft. at 299 California
Ave. for a total of 14,600 sq. ft. At 250 sq. ft. per required
parking space this amounts to almost 50 spaces of demand missing.
As you pcinted out at the meeting, you cannot plan parking
on short term needs and the above data supports that position.
Thank you for pointing that out to the ARB. It is also
interesting to note that those objecting to the parking structure
were estimating that there were 20 or 3C vacant spaces -about
half the missing demand -.... hich seems to confirm thl3 validity of
the conclusions reached in the earljer study done in connection
with the parking structure proj~ct.
Thanks again for trying to ma1ntai~ a proper perspectiv~.
Cordial:!.y,
'" + I': '.,,-,_,\ .':-'--_ \..-__
Terry Shuchat.
Ch~irman.
I
I ~ ~,
KENNETH SEEMAN, M. D.
TE.LEI"110NE 1415i 321-9900
To: Planning Commission,
-~' ..
ATTACHMENT F
2.<:0 CALIFORNIA .. VENUE
SUrTE 10~
PALO AL ,0, CAL_I~O"'1\,IIA 90130e-i912
November 18. 1992
Re: Proposed parking lot addition on california Avenue.
Please be advised that as of April 16, 1992, there have always
been many parking spaces easily available on the lot between
Calif~rnia Avenue and ~bridge Avenue, lying between Birch Street
and Park Boulevard~
Addition of parking facilities would be superfluous, wasteful,
and would making working conditions to practitioners in the
area almost impogsible~ Several of my colleagues plan to
vac.ate their offic.es should work begin on new facilities~
~/~~
Kenne th Seeman, H. D.
(j;,
KENNffil B. I'BJ.MvnD. PHD.
2lO ("'"..AUFQRIoJIA A\IENlIE. s:urn 120
PAW AlT':), CAU~'tA 9-4.306
?L A ('I,\'
___ , _'~ J.
N'-4' ----14 o.,I"l, -\ ...... -c;; ....
, ,
, , (" l..-'"~\.....;.(x. ''J
} , c.' ,~ ~ , :.~ .... c
I
, -, ',"'-, <-
c<~ "~ :, I '-' ".! , >",(;-,l
~(,
' ..... ~ .'
elL/ L-::' c
,
-, 1· ... (
.!---/~ L.., ) , -1 ~ , ":: -\ j , .'-~
, I
--i i.-( I::: J. ~ C -,' l-.i-..r: (.
\ ,
,,-,-
~ i l-,.:-J .... h .. , ~ '-'
" (. --~ , ~ , ~ . ,-~ .. \... ' ...
Planninq commission
City Hall
Palo Alto, CA 94)01
Ladies and Gentlemen:
'.
~AW orr'C£5 0"
LINO M. GVSLA:"!
... .!~ S"E"~A" AI'["UE SIJI~~ .00
f> .. lO .. ~ro C"'.I~UOij'"''' ..... :;0.
I.'~' 0I;;!66<1'O
October 14, 1992
As a property owner in the parking interest, this letter is written
in support of the parking garage facility to be constructed on
Cambridge Avenue. in Palo Alto.
This area is in dire need of parking, and the Parking District
should ~ove forward .ith this project with dispatch.
Very truly yours r
___ " ._£ .... ::. -=0 ~_ T_
Lino M. Guslani
UlG/mt
C01';RAD F. GULLIXSO;\
" ~~'Hl..)1;',,,,II.' lAI'I C.UI~ rlCJ~
~<41 ,"U. V.J()Lt"~l(}
~() .!lOll; ISOStl,
P,.o"LO ,~LTO, ('AUFOR ..... ·V .. !+4,3.j(,
OONaAD F (;VI1.IX~N
.... NIIo ... N, k[AY
Palo Alto Planning Commission
City Hall
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
October 14, 1992
Re: California Avenue Parking
Dear C~issioners:
I aIr'. writing tc. you as a fo:rmer long time property
owner on California Avenue, as a tenant in a professional
practice there, and as a ~ember of the CAADA board.
This office strongly supports the proposed double deck
parking structure on the former Keystone lot. We see a real
need for additional p3rking to benefit businesses and
professionals and their clients ... and to ease the parking
burden in the adjoin.ing residential areas. The benefits of
the proposed project far outweigh any temporary
inconvenience caused by construction. We urge you to move
forward on this proj£,=t ...... hich appears to have been
unnecessarily delayed.
Very truly yours,
ANK:ep
CC: Terry Shuchat, Keeble & Sh~~h~t
•
"
'~"
, .~
· ,
T vJd4-1~;f
/N~ bie--v-7~
'--C5:e/7}c J-v}W ~~ / / Y '1 }-_
/1 Q .If:? /:J A7 . , .
I} CL C7P;;~j; -lf~---
pft...-iA··f'Le..---VY /:.~f~7-<'~
II --I"h-. ;..7 Nip 0 .r--e..A.-. , ' rr~l. rzI~~
ftc" ~ /.~r ,fr-3· Rxi"e,)"\[' t", .
'I 72-A.r1J.;~ Yc..o''C1G'(/ J' k?:~
bjjec:'~'f;~ ~ Lu-.~. tv fZn"\. ( ~~~.z....
( .,
'<C;. J.'lwl L d () fV;-r-' t-I..c.~ 'f-J...d
f ~ Jj;--r . t:iY --e K-i-v-l J ( c~ r-e..p re --
;;~ 4l-pL{~ !pt1::(. 01--wi/liz.,
Si; di:f-n>~.:x,,-~ +0 r-vv;r j0s'f-e.-11.2 ~~7
b-,..A&A.AL-~ v-~'-f-f~-L . ~J ~ /1· IVZ-f>_~(
(cit C::tt /tt .
. ~ J"i"t., W ~L' (l6.f-!'€Jcel;/c€.
6: NJ.J... iD .~ "P L~ i ilL
J;, tAL ! tLqr' l
..b ~ " rr. , r . ./) ~ C".""Cl/.' . ! ,~ V'_ ~"U/\., C'I '--JF ?<~~~ , •• _"
l)J~{
'i 11£'"'-..
(t...,~
j
h'G'L~ cA~ 1 tlv ~JW2, d-.-,A..
~ /tIG cG,'\.~ hw I Uri./1.L M .. *
~ r---t--r-(~I-fL'\._(_ -n) l-c_ (~';:-<~--.;?-f ,"?~~
\
'i JJv..y' (VJ.-z-.~ c:U~ R.~~ Il~-<,J. A-
r.eo.~,,-<-~ ~?Ji> t~-zAJ.
/'\I\./-_ b.,-~~ f\r2.Zd!.4-r,,-<J2.r Cl-nA
S~·· CCcvJ:. ~~'-r k .e( ~
f"-dLA rh +L-.dc-07 I=J.. c6'~~
l~,}(k O:Vc4 T-u.{c.iA0r-; ~ J~~ ~.
:r. whJPl J\rr J:J. ~-=( J'~
~. CZ· ftU~ J!r: /L-'-t-~ ~ RS-fr.O'
~ (V.Hjl ~ k dfR.-AA/44 i!..-~~
k ~ /'V\·L1.A7 IJ.JJ' ctt£ v' I.A.Nd-A./~
FP~ ~L~_ t+u~1 t\ 0.'~A cpbt-lLf
kr W J 1/ ~ ( ~t '.h~ /'YV-.-vz. ~'~~ Y-
A~~.
rt~c etAL-0..1-/~ 020 +~'--"r~t7
I "'-~ ~ ~dAfi/J ti-2.;2.cJJ-~30 ~I~k«
w ( (I b.c riAtLo-«l ~ ~..;( ~ iA..~·
~~? t~~-'l /rr--D~ g~~~
~ , /5 L~m Q-r i~/7. #/ 11\JiP:£~
w'i~_ -7 tVi-'-SL M-~~-<?J /"'Vl. M ~'1'C"""---
~ 1-t-A6.~k J'Ih ? PV J~ (j!j~,-:tL~ ..
. /:-/J /) ~... C Ltu h /1, A .J"J
;",~--...------.. ~.~--..,. .. . I .'
. .
'.
'-:-, .
. ,-_' .. '-'0' •• ~ ,".: • _~.,._
/
\
, ,. ,
t
~
" ,
("\ \:~~~~M / ' )/t(I'
! : i f
(J'
ATTACHMENT G
International Parking DesigCl, Inc" A'chdt=;cfure
F~7,1r'(;crlng
Plonnln.d
No\"emb" 19. 1992
International Parking Dcsign, Inc.
605 20,h S ltCd
Oakland, CA 94612
Atlenlion:
Regardln,g:
Dear Dilip:
Dilip Nandwana
CaEfornia Avenlle Parkit'1g S1r1Jclure
Palo Alto, California
(ret' c:..'. \,~ &..:;c·o,
0':';: i: f'1:;. "';t .• c"'!-;"
J\~,('-';:;,' r,,; lJr:;...x:
This lelt~r is in rC'iponsc to the: concern expr{'sse.d by the City regarding denect~On of (he POSI
tel1sionw s!~b 3nd' beams for the s'lbject proj"~,
As you kl":o· ... ·, it 1'5 not praclical du~ [0 -=-.-.lrel11d) high c:o~!. 10 design 3. .stTU(:tun: ..... ilh ·0·
dene.ction~ Tr..c Uniform Building cod~ (UBC) and American Concret~ Instilute (ACI) hJS
cstab:ished ~('sign crjtena wilh muimum allowable:: defleclions for Ihc~e m~mbers. This crittrj,a
2J111Jic~ 10 C0!h mild 5[t'...el and po.st-tensloned design_ Tr:e pOsl-Lerslone.d slab ar.d be-1m dr'S:gn
[s Ihe rno~t popufar m'"tho6 used in mD~1 of to"'·: lortg SP,ln PJrk.ing srrlJc(c:r1:S tM"-Y due to thO\!
co~t erflcie:-"::Y.2.Ild bene .. control of d~~ectiorJ:S. The follow\ng 15 a summary l::lbulatiort of DBC
allcwable \!'.::f1e:::!ions verses anticipated dc:si~n c!~~eclion for slab a..'1d beams:
s.~-\.2 ~_~_~ __ t.E ___ J)£FI.EC-TIO~S ~ __ ~-r1CTPAT'f-:V l),Ff-LE_C.T~
Lr.'E LQr\n !..Q.l_A.T.-~LQ.ill I rYE Lo,~.\J2 TOTAL 'LOAD
•
lii\ernotiO')of Porking Design, loe.
As it c.an be ~n from the abo .... e: la'Jre l tn(: ;;';ilkipaL~a Jt"fk"::li'Jo LInder lilt! f~!l lo~d' ue )t~T)"
sm:JJI and --"dJ below the aJ~owaNe ..1ef'le.ctlOns al'ld W~H 1'.ave.. very lillIe ~r a.ny, adverse cUcc! on
1he brick wone. ,"VI! hDpe tht5 provjd~s the iMormalion YO'J rc..1I.Jew!d,
Sincerel)"
INTERNATIONAL PARKING DESlG"I, lNe.
Mich,el C. llrood, P.E.
Vkc PrC"s:dC'nt
MCB!jsb
· " . :
HfACHMENT H
-r-----"------
p~<:"ST
,
C()
CON'" 1? e.-r~ SP">-l ?R.(l.
\
r I
l I pl '
,II
Pi WL " I 'I I, ul 01 f-rp-;
LJ )JJ ~ -.
I I L _______ ~
"
'-"~"""'"",',",',' . "