HomeMy WebLinkAbout0435.094..
City of Palo Alto
City Manager's Report ---------------------------
•
TO: HONORABU: CITY COUNCIL
DEPARTMENT: FROM: CITY MANAGER PL~NNrNG 9
AGENDA DATE: SEPTEMBER 19, 1994 CMR:435:94
SUBJECT: 400 EMERSON STREET
REOUEST
Cit)' Council ~s requested io approve the propossl fOT a Plarult"d C(lI'mnunity 7(lDe change
at 400 Emerson Street and to accept payment of an in·lieu PJrking ft..: for addili,)T'.31
?ar}r-Jng spaces requLred but not able io be (';omtructed on site, The propost.'\.' d~\ einrrrknl
is a B,lOO square foot, t1lr~e story. mixed-use srmcture. including comll1erdal U,)i' (11\ tjl(
lirst and second floon; and on.: r~s;denti31 unit on the third tloor.
RECO~fMENDATlONS
Planning Commission, the Architeclural Rtvic\\' 8oord, <'md staffrC',,:x111Imend that lhe ('ity
Council approve:
1) 1be Conditions of Approval in the staff report to the Planlling Commiss.ion dated
August 31, 1994 and amended as shO\\n ill AtB.ehmeni A to this repon,
2) The environmental assessment attached to the staff report dated August 31, 1994.
recommending a negative declaration.
3) Tne attached ordinance amending Section 18,08,040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code to chat1ge the Zoning Map designation for 400 Emerson Street from "CD
C(PJ Do"mtown Commercial Pedestrian Combining" to "PC Planned Community,"
POUI;:Y IMPLICATIONS
In-Lieu Parking regulations, when adopted, shaH apply to this project in downtown.
EXECUTIVE SUiVI~lARY
This staff report fon.nrds the Planning Commission and the ARB recommendations to
approve the application for replacing all amortized automoth'e service repair buitding at
the corner of Emerson Street and Lytton Avenue with a 8,l10 square foot mixed use
structure that will contain 5,833 square feCi of conunercial space 8.nd one rental rcsidentiai
unit. The property Dwncr, ~fr. Ed Storm, proposes to expand the comer lo! at 400
Emerson Street by removing the 1,500 square foot (12 feet x 125 feet) driv<w.y that
CM1l:43S:94 Pagt lor.:f
./
\
separates the parcel from the adjoining lot at 412-412 Emerson Street. whkh he also owns.
A total of 27 parking spaces are required !o accommodate the proposed commercial and
residential uses, and to retain the two existing parking spaces at 412-414 Emerson. "Ibe
proposal to build a thr ... story "uilding, providing less than half the required parking
spaces on-site. and removing access 10 the adjacent parcel, creates the following parking
pro,\-isi(ln and access issues.
First. the project size generates a dl!mand fOT 27 parking spaces, ollly 12 of which ca."!; be
accommodated on-site, I 'Ibe Planning Commission recommends that the applicant:
(aJ pay an In-Lieu Parking fee for 13 of the additional parking spaces reguired; (b)
substitute eight bicycle lookers off-site in place of another reqllired parking space, and CeJ
be al1owe.d to share one parking space for residential and commercial users, The applicant
must pro-vide at least t\\'O bicycle tockers on-site, and has accepted Planning Commission's
recommendation to add a.<;. many bicycle racks as feasible near the commercial rcar
entrance to reduct the demand for vehicle parking. The PlaIUling Commi.s.sion
recommended agaim;t the applic.Jnl's request to ha\'e two {2} parking ~paces (required for
the residential u.i1it) be shared with commercial users, 50 that h~ {'ould reduce the" number
of spaces subject to payment of in-lieu fees. '1llC Commission rliscussed the i5sue at bDth
public hearings, arJd recomm~ndcd that only one (I) residential space may he sha.red. For
the applicant, the primary issul! is one of economic cost to d~velop the site. Some
Planning Commission Members propos~d to delay psymrnt of the in-licu fees until just
prior to occupancy. Ultimately, the Planning Commission approved a motion to modify
Condition # 13, that specifics payment beforc issuanc';! of a building permit, at a rate of
$23,000 per .spare, and 13 spaces subject to the fee. so that the recommended condition
now reflect') the tinal provisions of the In-Lit!'u Parking Ordinanc~. ~
Se\:ond, acce35 to the rear of Fanny and Alexander's commercia! usc at 412-414 Emerson
Street mmt be provided. The proposed corner lot expansion \"ill remove the driveway that
currently provides access to the rear of the adjoining lot. The O~'l1er shalt provide J!;:cess
across the parking lot at 400 Emerson Street to the rear of412-414 Emerson Street through
the Certificate of Compliance procedure. A pennanent access agreement is propos.ed to
be prepared and recorded prior to submittal for a building permit.
The Planning Commission approved the plan conceptually at its July 13, 1994 public
hearing, requesting that there be from one to fLvc residential units in t..he building and
minor changes 10 the parking lot. The Architectura.l R~vie' .... BO(1!J approved the plan
conceptually on July 21, 1994, accepting proposed changes to the parking lot and a single
residential unit. The ARB requested that design changes including signage, lighting,
1 S;!e' chart titled "Parking Re'luired" in Staff Report dated August 31, 1994, page 4.
1 Planning Comrn..issi{)n reviewed the proposed In-Lieu Parking Ordinance at thE
September l4. 1994 meeting.
CMR:435:94 Pag~ 2 of 4
'_ .. ' .
. .
treatment of the north and south facades, the color pal ene, and roof material come back
(0 them again for final review, (See the Jul)' 21 ARB minutes, attached,)
The Planning Comm.l&sion ~ie\\-'ed the par:king issues at its second public hearing for the
project 0!1 August 31, 1994. It ",as moved, and adopted, that pa)ment be made in
""C~ ·"ith the pTl)mions of the soon to-he-adopted In-Lieu Parking Ordinance (See
Attachm<nt A. Condition #13). Attachment A lists tho modifications made by the
P!a.nnL.T1g Commission to the Conditions of Approval on August 31, 1994. Full conditions
of BppfovaJ are inciuded in the repon to the Planning C()mrnission dated August 3 i. ] 994.
fISCAL IMPACT
The proj~ct would not ha\ e a signifLcant fiscal impact upon the City. This application is
'it:~je....""1: to the full c·('."$1 reC{)YCfY fet" s::-hedule.
E:!'>'~:um~.,~U;JHAL ASS!:SS;\1Ei'iT
[1 i.~ n:~l'TT1!TlI.·n(kd thilt a NegJotiye DedardtiuD be adopted (attached te the Planning
C(1i:1Qi~~ion ~l3ff rr:p.:>r1 <JC'Jed Augus.t 11. 1994).
A l'arti"I [g)\DITlO;-"S OF APPROVAL. as modified by the Planning Commission
on ~13Ii9-~
B. Draft Ordinanco
C. Staff Repm1 to Planning Commission, July 8, ]994
D. L .... capt minutes of the Jui)' 13, 1994 Planning Commission 'Meeting
F. StalTRepon to ARB, July 2i, 1994
F. S14tf Repon to Planning Commission, Augtl~t 3l, 1994, w/anachmcnts:
I. Environmental impact Assessment
2. Ordinancc
3, Location Map
4, Exeapt ARB Minutes 7/20/94
5. Transportation D;"i,ion Memo date 8122/94
G. Plans (COImcil Members onl»
PREPARED BY: JOYCE AUGUST, CONlT-ACT PROJECT PLANNER
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KEN],'ETIl R. SCHREIBER
Director of Pla£lning and
Community Enviror.menl
•
Page 3 of"
\
\
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL\;lj~ , BERl.~m:')
As..'iist3l'H City ~anag.er
CC: P1aruring Commission
Art:hi=tunl R", jew !3ca.<d
Public Arts Commtssioo
Mr. Tom Gilm.a..i, DES An"nitccts, 31.i9 Brddlard Str.:'et. ::300, Redwood City
CA. q4~)
~fr. Ed S!Oml, 'I.om Ld.Ild C(,mp,:!.T'\:-, tL~ Park ('.:-T11("[ PI3..l..a... Sa.'1 ;os~ Ct\ 95113
~1.r. i).:mi j'~1a~3is.e. P.O. BCI\. 5iN~. Red~il.-"".,"1 Cit) CA 9.WA.'
Santa Clara Vc::I~e': 'l\;at~:r Distrin; 5")~U ,\trmdcn F\r~\:.~">-',jy. San JO'5C (,,\ 95118
Sandf3 F...alirl:', :~ i93 Gr~i' R.:d, F.tL) \it,) C\ 9-Ui"::1
H\)'usin~ Aclirln (\'~~iliC',~ .... -'(, S.ln:,;l CL,rJ. ('(:11'11: ~I1.i_1UL'.d'..ir;'!g Gro'Jp.
5201 (];':31 Amecl..;.,1 f'J.Tk\\.",.,, SUlk 421:-. S::.!11;l ('!H.I (',.\ 9."\05";
CMIN3!\.'94 I'll&< 4 014
ATTACHMENT A
CONTI!TlONS OF APPRQV &.
(Underlined text recommended by stan~ ba.\Cd on Plar'..nLng Commission conditions of
approval, August 31, 1994).
Prior to Submittal (or Building Permit
4. Twelve parking spaces (of the 27 requrre,j parli.ng 5paces) and 2 bicyck \ock~ shall
be provided on-site. One residential parking space rna) be shared~ one equivalent
parking space shall be in the ronn of 8 big·de lockers h.x:al::d otT-Sill"; and !J
additional parklug spaces are subject to an in~lieu parking fC"l: TO h<-rmid IOlhe City.
The applicant shall work with the Tran.~portaliQn Division l() r.rr·\ ide __ ~Q~itiowl
bicycle racks (approximately ? to 8) at 400 EmC"~.Q..r.l ... 5.tJ:~.~.:.
7. The parking iot decorative wall shall be cCJn-struCit'd. lQ....ili.r:.. .. ~.j.(( rll_"ln:;. Ud..r.:,\ . .u.J.:.. . ..l.~.4::.i~11 t:: c
to pennit \'isibility all the \'\"3)' il.l !ht: !3r \\a!L nh~r" l\",<;" <;()Uin '-.Elir"l',d! i~ ! .. '-... -::ted
8. Strike origina l tcx1:
~ eftt-li:! td"t 8iehe &Iitj-the-~~~-fl..:.-~tJt.;c:_: !i't-~ .. 1"t'tJ.~r.'l"tl.B:
9) tfie Ptt."lie lL""'t5 Ceffl1fllisJie8 (PAC), ana lflt j"h~ddlt' f(lr·+~ ... :'~t:t+1 (-.e. ~~
iu tfte tiftct! site tie. el ... rHflel'll rIsl'D .;~fllf'lineJ.-tfr·~he-"ARB-:--·tftfte-i:':ft-·~~,**-h·t-Tt;r
()"rHea fi:F" .... the 8A'ftef--AAatt--emef-.1 ~6hl hflffl11e:;:. fl~::e"'t'Rl 'I ia. eRe! C~7"'
Replace with tex1. that follow.:.:
.~rulr;ant shall ,onsuit ~ith th.: Public Arts Commission (PAC) ~fore sk'b!T}ju.iog
final details of !he art niche and water fountain for ARB r~vi~_ anJ_L!;?r'.f9.\?l.L._...'~n
PAC comments shall be submitte<l as part of the ti.nE1Lsite dC'Y~lQP.m.~t plans for ARB
review. If the 811 objeet(s) is CjJY:Q\\lled gh.Jl:t~ ... 9\.\ner shall enter;] h0]d harmles..c.
a greement with the Ci.t)::.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permir
13. Applicant shall pay the City an in-li"u parking rce of S23.0(JO per 'pace. based on Ille
number of parking spaces requITed... at a rate of I park.in~ space for each 250 ~uare
feet of gross floor arca. Thc total fee is estimated to be $299.000 based On the I J
spaces that carmot be provided on-site. ThiS amount may \"aT)' based on ii.nal
constru\;tion measurements. In the ('Vl."flt lh..;-City adopts, ::',n ordinan-::c within !.)nc ~ ear
after occupancy of the project, which l"swblishcs an in-lieu palkUlg ree li1Jt is highr-r
than $23,000 per 'pace, the 0\\1Ier sh,1I pay the difference belw<'e11 513 .0(,,) per space
. -->··.··~>lM. _______ ~ __ ··
•
II UiJ; .• _---:.... __
o
and the amount established by the ordinance. If the fee established by the ordinance
is lower than $23,~'OO per 'pace, the City "ill refund the ditTerence between the
$23,000 Wld the amount established by the ordinance"
In the event that the In~Um...E.C.£_ oTdj!1...!Ilc~ hereafter adopt~JJ ___ .by the CiW CQWlcjl
CQI)ff!ins provisions that-.£2P.f1ict with this con~llion. those ordinance l'ro\'isions~
~
2
"" .
--
DATE:
TO:
PREPARED BY:
.~ttachr;[ent C
-~ ---._. ------
PLA1'INING COMMISSION
July g, 1994
PALO ALTO PLANNING COMMISSJON
Joyce August
STAFF REPORT
REPORT IN BRIEF: 400 Emmon Scree" ApplioatioD for a Planne<! Community (PC)
woe chang" and reques' '" accep' payment of in-lieu parking fee 00 allow:
L Demolition of a former automotive repair building;
2 ConsrructlOf) of an approl;imately 8,lO(lsquare foot 3-s!or:v mixed-use structure,
inciuaiL.g i residential unit;
3. Provi.sion of 12-·14 parkJng sp<i::es. on-lit!:, including one shared space, aud paymenl
of rrl-lieu parking fees for 11·13 ac!dltiona1 r.;quircd space,) off-site; and
4. A lot line adju:icment between 400 Emerson Streel and 414 Emerson Street to
accommodate the proposed new building and parking.
En\'ironm~tal Assessment: An Environmental Assessment rtrop.J.IDending a Mitigated
Negative Decla.~tion l!I~ See 8/31/9'~ P1anning Coo;ni::sion staff report.
ZQrx; D i:;.q:jc!:
file Nos.:
APPLICATION JNFORMATION
Applicant:
lG: I 9904 j a: \4OOemrsn
CD-C(I')
94-ARB-52, 94-ElA-8, 94-ZC-9
DES Archi""lS & Engineers
399 Bradford Street, #300
Redwood City, CA 94063
Phone (415) 364-6453
7-g-94
Page I
--------
,
I
Type of AppI,catlOtl:
0....:
PI<I.IlDe<I Commuruty (PC) ZoD< Change
Lot Line Adjustment
Request to permit paymeot of in--lieu parking fee
and ODC' shared parking space to rn eet requirements
(or 27 parbng spaces, with 12·}4 spaces oD-site,
A!>~IICa!Jo, rett,,,ed MWh 24 1994:
R~" i$ed apphcatiOD received May 6 ]994:
M.I.!ldarory action dearlliDe ~(legislative
a..."tIoU) .
~ The Planoed Community Zone Cha:r:.ge pr-oces.s includes. .! preliminar)1 review by
tlx' p~ Com..-"nisstoD. SbO' .. dd th~ CommtsSlcn act favorably at this initial review, the
pmjec, plans ~e f')~"i!ded to t~~ ,~n:!iite.::ru;--.J ReYi~'i.\' B..'"l(I;d (ARB} for re~om1Jlendation,
TOt' d~",eio?:T,-e::;; p:~n. a.s ap~r.:1\'/!j by th~ ARB. i:; lt~er.: r.eT1.!I~d to the Planning
Corr..r:-,=s.s:o:\ t{l~ f.::;.1.l re','l::".' a::.:C rcco:'iliJ::'r:c..,w;);-] bt:fo~(: submittal ~o lbe City CounciJ for
fl~ ~:'~HX,
P;fO~ iL) r,L~ .. b~:; ~ fi~.·,,;l 2;'-;"1,,':"'-.11 rr':(IIT1m:'~:t.2lj(;!l :,) t)v: ('g) CCl!lnciJ. '1]( Pla .. ,"'mi:1g
CJrn;:lisSiD:1 '::' req"ire.j :.> JL,~"e s.r~!f;c d~~e;mir..:J.ti[}m, rCbolrdilJg th~ pIojen in::luding a
rmdm,g d pi;.!J:i; Lv.:i::-f~t rs..nd r.O o:.pr:orrwe an I:'nvlroj]ml:'nLa.1 cel..:rml.r...arjoo, development
program Si.2.tem-eC:I, developmeol plan and de ... elopm~m ~hwu:k t.hal ..... iiJ become the bilSis
ior the s.i!.t'-spe.(.iflc regl.!latl(l;.s [0 be applied within the PC zone di.srrict. An es'irr.oited
tjmelL~ for pioct'..»ir:..~ the applicatIOn l.s as fDUO~-S (t~es.e date.i are tentative ~nding
5ubmissio~ oi re-~·i:s.e.d piaJ'l..5 !f1 res.po~ to CNnrr.ents. by the Plannmb Comrnls:.!on.and the
,ARB):
Jvly D. 1m
July 21. 1m
AUO",,·31,1994
SITE INfORMATION
Property Ov.'Mr:
Jf.tllW ?i.anning Commission re\'i~w
ARB re\'~'
F irWil ?!a.'1ning CommlSSico review
Cil), Council Review
Ed StCom1 .
Storm l...nd Company
104 Par, Cent<:r Pl=
s.n Jose. CA 95113
','-._-._---
7-8-94
Page 2
Compreheosive Plan De,ignation:
Existing Land U .. :
Su.'Tolln<hng Land Us<:
Par",,1 Size:
PBOTI&JIHFORMATION
Regiona.li'Cornmunll)' CommeI"cLal
Nor'.b:
F.asl:
Scum'
West:
CommerciaJ Off~ct
M unictpal Par~ inr, 1..0\
Res (2 u..'AIll
B.ic);;:I~ Repair 5bop
.12 acre
Sa!;kgrpund: The site is D(riIrI" vacanl. F~r!y it \\0l.S occ""P~ by indepcooeo~ BMW, ~
autoJll()(j.,."f repair s.ervicc-usc, The: rtpalr servl'Ct \~led the prtr.:lS:!'S iJ1 svrruner 1993 in
2.C\."Ordance with a City luitiated oon-'"..onformi.r::g u.s.! a.mo~uulic~ $Ct;:d:..;le. In No\'et!'lber
1993, MI. Ed Storm of ttl:: StOim L:.od Comj)a.'i~· pwrctt!5-:-6 !..he p~C'?!rry.
Site Deo:crip!lOrr
The 400 Em:T.\.on Su-eet s.:~e is ,13 l-:'~l '" iC~ hy 1::5 k:: l"e~p . ..; .. 2:...':1",; ,;,CE:=~~'.("1;)' t, II S.
squaJe foot cOllunelci:iJ bu~!dtr:g \l, [c.J.l tv. 0 \~h~r:, h:.·, t)nJ;~:":; ('~I [:-:--'~r:,'y, S:rec-i is
prC-Sf',ntly en the 10:. rn~ c~rn!r pucel ~: 4((1 c!T.c-n·Q:-: ~s S.q.a.rcl~'::; iT·::'m tbe rc-~tJ12raEI 0!'J
the adjoining 414 Erners'Cn Str~! PC"'!c~: w the '50'J[" h:. 3 1 ::'·f('l.~' CII', ~W.2y lh."l rTo' .. ;d~s.
access to L'le interior of thaI pa;ctl. Or; lhe rea.: pro;--erry h,.,~ i~ l:':o: rear wail cd· [he CO;"',,:'ie[e
block s.tructure Lh.a; hO'.lS:5 3 bicycle re~atr s.hop 0:1 Hi~h S:r~~1
Tbe applica111 proposes to d~m')itsh me e:tiSl!;lC, I. i 18 sq\J.J.!"t 100: st."'1Jcw.rc a.'Y.l coru.;;n.;c': an
approxitmlteJ)' 8,100 square: foot tllR:C:·S!N} suuc:r.Jre. TIlt ne.",· b~ildiDg's f~rsl flcx")! will
measure 2,594 square feel for commerl.':i.aj re!.liJ U!.C, a 3.239 s.q~'(: ({JQ{ second !lc.or for
offICe use, and 2.277 square feet OD the third f1~ ;0 be: 3 s~:e residtc.[.i;aJ uniL Adjacent
to the rear of the new building a 14 spa.:e pariir.g lot ~'ill be constr'U'..-""tal and eociosed ""'jtb a
proposed IS-foot bigh decorative W311 ,,-ill! iii WTO'.Jgh! tjOrl galt frOD~ittg. on Lyr'.on Avenue.
'The blJilding afcbiteenlre is somewhat reminis.c.ent of the forma ~Toel building It
529 Bryant Street Mared.i.ls; include a. slOne ~. StaDe quo lm al the corner, plaster on Lht
2nd and 3rd floors. cast slOne accents, crrnaroc::u.taJ mew trim. and r::il~ion til~ roof. An art
nicbe and drinking fOUI1laID are proposed alon~ ti';e Lytw:1 A' .. eo~e ',~.;.lj A!tbougr. thi50
comer is not sho,,",'TI to receivf' addit.'nn.aJ massing if} Lhe Urw .[:)esign Guide, tlus project is
consisteDt with tht Urban Design Gukie in thai it orings retail and pedestrian activities to the
corner, provides a corner focus for a designated WNrty node inlenection a:.nd adds to the
activity and vibrancy on tIle side street tu~c.;ds. University A\o'enu:.
JO ~ 19941 a:WOOemr-sn
i
i'
----~-~-~--.--~''''=---
""' Tbe appiic.ant plans to s'. )It an application w subdi .... ide the PT~iY t() lCi.-.ea5t lhe SIU (J!
400 Erne",," Street by t3Xi,,& approximattly 2,396 square fe<1 n..11 the p",u:1 ..
414 Emerson Street Ttle subdivi.sion application will come before the Pla.!lrlin8 Commis.!.ion
It the .second pubHc bearing OD this PC application. The shih in IOi area is proposed m
order to accommodate the DeW build Lng under the existing dowcLOV.,' [l com.mercial zoning
reg'~lation limits on floor area ratio (FAR), &lid to inctuse the flfSt floor footprint ADd
Emerson Street !ramage.
?rpject Comparjson With Current Ord;narx:; ReuyjrCjments:
PROPOSED ALLOWED' EXiSTING
(Required)
Floor Area
('G, ft,)
Commerc.ial 6,139" (appro,_ ) J.j 18
Residential 2.277 (approx.) 7.700
FAR
COmIDerc iaJ ,80 (6.139 s.f.)" 1.0 1 0 .21 f Residentiai .30 (2,277 s.f.)
1
10 ----+---'----'--+------+-\ -' ----.-. ---
Maximum Approx. 47.5 fe~t I ,0 ftt'l .....
Height
Park.ir~ I
400 Emerson 14 hl 414 Emerson 0
I ,
14 to1ai 27 total
~~-'.~"' Ref., to CD·C
-zorung PO!llllts regulatioM {anacherl.)
Include.< ~~. proposed lot lin. adjustment
1'6 fee'_
I
6
2
8 lata)
Al.!tomoLive Scr\' ice
• •• ... Ccmmcrdal FAR includes 306 s.f. of coyered at·grade parJ:ing space .
Th. maJlimum height ailowed in • PC district is SO feet.
Except for the par-king requirement, the project <:o;lplies: with the provisions of the CD~C
zone.
10 I 1994 la:\4OOcmnn
•
------
7-8-94
Pas,4
'--:-" ..
The applicant proposes to commence constnlction this faU, complete the structure by spring
1995, and have tenants installed by summer 1995, The proposed construction schedule 15
attacl!od.
ISSUES
HazardQUS Materials
The Santa Clara Water Quality District I isIS the removal of an underground fuel tank In 1986
as an opeD case. The owner indicates that he bas contacted the County agency and
coordinated ~1th the Palo Alto Fire Departmect to resolve this issue. A closiIl,g Sl.3.tement
will be oteded. prior to fu:ta.l izing the eDVtrOnmentaJ documentation.
A protection plan and proposal for replacement or add;Iion of public rrees is required. ir.
addition, staff recomo!tnds that further srudy be d:-!'le of the site and Ihe parking let to
increase the landscaping with Lhe possibility of ino-oduciog additir:m.a.l {Tees. Th~ app!i-eant
$bouJd consider adding trees in the proprJsed parking JOI similar to tbos-e b the parking lot a!
tile re:u of 700 Emerson Street. These mooiflcaticms could be accomplished under t..bl!
p ropo~ed PC zoning.
Constn..:ction of the project is er.pected to begin in October 199'~. The length of cOIl5truction
Ls estimated at B months, The COIl\tr\lction will impact the sidewalks. and parking adjacent to
tL'1e site, although the proposed parking area at the rear or the site will be av .. ilab!e fC'r
storage and staglng of materials during construction (s.ee attached st .. uement from the
appiiC4Il') .
The project construction may coincide wiLh redevelopment of the Stars Restaurant and the
project 00 the former Peninsula Times-Tribune site (see attached timing chart). A uUiD.ber of
issues related to construction activities and O'affic management during construction nud to be
resolved. Careful planning, staging and coordination of the consO"Jction activities will be
f""...quired: between the projects and the s',mounding neighbors.
Parcel M.p
400 Emerson So-eel m~.sures 43 x 125 feet. for an exLst;.ng total area of 5,375 squlJ"e feet
The owner proposes to expand Ihe IOta! area 10 apjlfoximatel, 7,710 square feel, by a
c"rresponding rodue"on (approximately 2335 square feet) from 414 Emerson. The proposed
lot Hoe adj LtSL"neDt would remove the r.xisting driveway and 2 parking spaces at 414 Emerson
Street. The driveway i.s currently used to access the 2 parking spaces, me trash receptades,
and. the patio al tllC rear of 414 Emerson Street.
}Gll994I:1:\4OOcr.:um 7-8.94-
PageS
_ Hrlr:' ""
\
•
The prop"JSe.d pro;;erry ',-----. adjlJ..l.trnenl p,e:;enu a Dumbe ... of LSn:cciuding: (a) lack of
Street JC;CeSl 10 t.~~ rea.-Portlon of 414 Emerson Streel for cmert'!'flC)' acctss and trash
remov&.!; (b) reduction to UfO parking spaces for 414 Emerson; (-c:) the creation of all
irrqular lot line: aod (d) a recluction in the opportunity for future developmem of
414 Em:noD Street. The :apphcant is proposing an easement across the new parking lot at
~ Emeno1l Strttt to ac<:<:lS tbt rear portion of 414 Ernerson. Staff does nOl gelltrally
""""'" !lie """,non of irreguior 10' lines and ~ ""Deemed abou, fulUre problems that may
CXXUT s.bould either property be sold to a separate owner.
1'be: use pennit for the commerclal us: at 414 Emerson Street will become subj~t to review
aDd • DeW use permi' rnust be app I ied for due 10 lI>e CMOll' til access, parking and
opemiooal dw>.!es for the tc!WllS .. 4i4 Emerson Streel. This appU .. 'ion rnust be made to
:he City pOOr '" so::ood review by the Planning Commission, so they can be considered
~v , .
PJrl;lGg and In=UelJ Fee
A~ ct1!"T'"ently proposed. a to~l of 25 parkmg spaces would lX: required by code for the new
C:('Immen:L~llrt$ld~n[iaJ hulldinE al 400 Emerwn Street The comblned comm!rciaJ space of
5,833 Sq"J.art fe:i at one space per 250 square feel of floor area equaJs 23 space.! plus two
s-paoe-,S for tb~ resid-::nttal, to~s 25 spaces.. Howe','er, sr..aff recommends reducing lile parking
requ,rem!D! for t.h~ l1l.i~e.d·I..LSt:; pro:tl:L ODe of the res:idemiaJ sp~es call be utilize.d for the
C0:L>r-J~rcj.:U ~E.r~:.mg di.Hing; i1',~ day, b:cauy. in all likelihood the residemial tena..rlt wil1 001
'.!t'ci [',.>',~1 paJ~lr,; S~?,~..es. during G~': v.ork week. In addition, u~e dose proxlmil)' of mass
U'a.tiS!! aro:.l s~r\,jce" will rej:.Ke dep!ndence on the amorr.obile. 11m reduces f . .''ie required
pa.rk:1"l,g for th:::. 400 Emenon Street p.ucel to 25 Spil.ces.
!be p~ Jot line cb.a.nge ehminates access to the two parking spaces on the adjacent
parcel at 414 Emerson Street. The~ two spaces must be replae«l ar.d rn.ade available for the
be-nt:fH and u-;e of L.1e adj.a.::.en1 tenant and buildi:ug. This brings. th~ Iota! required parking on
lilt IW0 parcels Ie 26 spaces.
The appl:icanl Prcpos.e'i to pro'/we 14 parking spaces on-site and request payment of aD io
ltel! parkinj: fee co the City for ro05-tnlC1ion of additional spact in a public lot instead of
providing all required sp.act's on the site tsee additionaJ discussion on the in-lieu parking fe(:
in t..~ Ara!ysis section).
ran: iQi Lot Des ign
Planciog and Transporution have several w.ues (elated to the design and layout of the
parling lot includmg:
I. The I5-fOOl high waH tota, defLnes lI>e Lytton-Street side of the parking iot, crcates a
dangerous blind .spot for drive~ who eXit at Lytton Street. \l,thich .is the only exit
point $e,'en! 50Iutwru are available including widening of the gale .and the addition
of a low barrier to prevent c:~iting autoroOOl1es from ntm'lng to close to the wall thus
increa.:;ing visibiliry, or additional openings at driver eye-level in the proposed wall.
-------
.""----~-.,
7-8-94
Page 6
• r
2, Parhng ~?g...es r--.. r.~ IT; I'equ!r.:-{h"l ,-~h:c:k: l"(it.:Sl 1:-.<;(' 'it to n:t th-: rark1ng io~.
--The: rumlll£: r:lcil __ is t.o<) narrow to pe:rrnil he<>doJI C)'II o;i,'H.GClUt 5~veral maneuvers.,
Turn arouDd v..wld be difflCUlt uoJess o:..ber sp.;sces in the lot are available. This can
create "dd:tio~ wet)' o.':)::eIT15 at tb: gate. sid:l2I'alk and ~treet.
3. Bikt-r...-...b by W tr"JS.h CC'O~ln""..T$ j1.re inaccessIble. Bik~ racks mus' be relocated near
the bulldmg emnro:
4. 1be a.pph-:.ant S:1~ thaI the parb~ 10: shall be &air.e-d. fix uafflC: x.fet)' reasons.. tile
gate sb.a.!l be ope-:iIble electrOn.t.::.a!j~· from tb!" \·ebl::-le.
ANAl YSI~
l.m I jnr; AdjU$tment
The apphc3..D! had cr.ig:irnJl~· prO?osed tho:-fN II1l:e .1d.IUS~r.t In ord~: to ~eep the total FAR
of the building be!01" I: i Md tD aJlo~ ic-t an i~cre~ buLldUlg footprint and srreet froDtage,
How~~'er, Sln....~ t+'~ FAR Q; rt!1xt' .. i U-.-~ pr~.!e-c:s carL t,!, .::umul&IIYC', lh-= appllcanl could
propos: .a riil..:.:h ~::l.a..ll~r ie-h~ ".:!,i·.1s~~:"'·. u'c.:.: ,\<-.;:1 :\1 cr('~;,r,:' <' lot of cl k.ast 6.13Si sqi.lue
feel. whi..:::h tS ~:-~o:r~n:;!:..::-,-I f> ... .', a;~
Slaff rC"'...co!T1'r)~:,j~ tr'"i::1 if '" ;':::: ]i.!:-~ ,dji.!s:r,:r.'. r:: pursw:.,j [,';.;a: t1:~ ILl: ii(;e ';;'Jir~:::ld~ wilh !-be
n'Ja.h\\·e~\ \l.,-:;,.:l "f it"te-t"!.l:>i'l1",,i. t-<'-,\:c'::~ (,~, t:"! ~i':' Err:~7Svn stgel pl.rccl iF; a ~"J:aiglll IIfje
fro:-n the :ru:~: l~; tJ~e f~.: c,f u~~ ~'~(·.t:-s. I: <;(,'.:~,j '::';':; c;e.;,,'~ ~,5S f...).~< \ i25 (~"}Jtlo: al ~I}:J
[mcno:l S'U.eet '" ;U\.Q :..::~; ~:,): ar~ c:" 6.S:~ sq'LJ.!( :'e~: Tr,,-, ~,,',JJid t;[e-a!~ a ,"ommercial
rloor area ro.oo of .~. a::Dwlr.~ fo: u-:~ PiO;:X:I5-,;J i:!"·"'" b:Jildlr;b foorprir.t, and-pmvide .!: solid
scree! wall V;J Em!:rson Street.
Thh rccom_ . .-nended H·~'i:.\:(1'f'l would ;lcwl'T'.mod.a!.e tt:~ FfopoY...e.d b:.uldwg but .. ",..ouid require a
redesign of tIll! parjjng jot II is !ikely :h.a! lWO ci lh~ ?Topos.ed parking 3races ","'ould have
to tY.: elimLnat.eJ (spa.;t: #5 and ,tg), HO\l\ e\'l!i elirnnu.tion (If 11!~SC spa.c~s could res.olve Otb~f
problems with th: park!!lg 10\ Jocludu:.g prov:dir.g dlre:-t.a.c.:.es.s to 4J~ Emerson Scree! for
trash and delr .... .eries al &-.e location of Ul: propos.od p.a!k:C.l.g ipace #5, t..~e placem~n! of the
[,"""''0 required parking $pa.ce1 for 41 .. E."Derson Screet on the 414 Emerson Street parcel (with
an access easem~nl aaos.; the 400 Eme!>O_r'J street pa.rcel). and tbe addition of I:xrra SP.1C-f for
sp..acc:s 19-#1~ that ~"OUld allow (or more ckan..ro,cc Ii !.he gJ.:e. A redesigned parking lot
would ~m.moda1e only 12 ~king s:p3CCS and wO''':Jd. OOt res.olve the bacl:-up issu~ (0;
patting spaces #6 and n. The reduct."" '" number of 'paces providtd .. 'ouJd resuil in an
increase in the number of ~ 5.l:b~ to an m-h:.u parking fee -payment to 14.
In-I jey Ere Prop-igl
The appl!c.a.nt is. reque.illll.g a zoo:: cha.llgc: from C O-_C(p) 1.O PC. A PC process is nec(:ssary,
because the applicant proposes to prov~ in-lieu parking fees for 12 of the required 26
parking spaces, rather than p!'o\,jdi~ aJl parking on-site:: or reduce the building floor area.
PAMC Section 18A9.100 speaks to the abiilly of projects to pay an in-lieu parking fee
ioste2!l of providing parkmg. HO·,4I:'."er. it is uncertain wh,ti:e: this projeci would mec! any
of L1e five pro.,.isi"n_~ of th".! zoning senjon.
7·8·94
Page 7
l .. ·. r
1\"
[ ,
,.
f
The rra~porta!ion DivO is pr~panng the: irJ-ileu r.a.rk..l:!i fel'/.-· ...... \In.ar.~ l..tJ .. t ,5. npe.::td to
come before the Commission in faJl 1994. Consequently, the c.tn:i.llatio:'l (or the in-lieu
parking fee amOUDI bas DOt been estabH;;hed. An ioterim fLgure of $23,(0) per nee ~ ....
space bas been established and was included in the Pia.n~ COrIlm.lss)oO ordin.mct (or tb~
receilt 531 Covwper Street project. The aIIlount does DOt include tbt: cost of ilit Land.
If the Commission eon<:eprually Rl'PfQ\'e> the idea of an in-lieu paruog (ee fOf the parlur.;;
spaces DOt provided, staff recommeDds that a fee of S13,Q"'() per uwrt"'dded p.ark'ir:..g ~ b!
r~, or the amount fJ.D.a11y adopted in the upcoming ordinar~ whi:rrt:\'er :.s jo~er.
PUBUCBENEW
In compliance with the requiremen, fOf pr",'idiJl8 public ~oeflt lb: '!'Piicon1 stat<> lh>1 !he
proposal is consistent with the Urban De5lgn Guide by providml: ped<3IrWl \'iabiJitj' to thz>
CCR"l'ler and it will provide pubHcly "je9Pwle art a."1d a drinkmg i('un~iD. The apphC2.nt has
ameMed the site plan \0 rt.lcca1e the drioking fmmta.in u.d the .... ·~\l,"lb!e a.ri. to iJ\ eJ;tenex
nr..ne of the building, (In Lytton Street. Pedestrians wlll be able to use L~:" drlID:ing iC'un~in
and view the an ruche from the .street. The fO!.Jn:2i!1 wllllx ~Y.J:i;2.~!t to &~ p<.;)L,:: 2.: k1L;H
per d;,y.
Staff cOflSlders the provi.stOCl of UJe re~ider,ll;;d UT!i! in;:; ..:rl :11"'!',:":.i 9:.:'.:,:,.:t :.i.'1 2;j!i ;':':2i
public b!!.t1eflt. The Comprchensi\'e Flar; ar:J tll: Uibar: Dt.,l.ig~ G:J"Jt' ~':~~-:-,;r !"'i'"!!"r.td \J~=,
which is difficult to achleve urdei e"LWng r'gular:c1n_, aif{! ;. 1-;::11 L' P:'C';'":X"~J. '" ~.'<'
proposal. TtlLS precedent would heip ~lirTHi~21~ rr,lxe :-rme;d l.";-rr(?:,S-2.h
The proposed public D,o;nefit is relatively mino;, howeyer. SLaff bel::,.,~ II 1(.' t>e 5'Jfii.::en;
because the request for variation from the CD regutilriom IS YCr)" rmr..o'L Th-e p!tt!'.J.."')' r~Tl
for a PC Zone il the payment of an approprlJlt' in-lieu p.1.c-).'ing iee ~Jj(n.""~ for o~f-s:~e
constrUCt jon of the remaining required parking !.pi1.ces (k~"'TliOW~, Th~ applica.111 ~.A.' ~o:
willing to wail until the City's initiated ordinanCt. mooiflc_in:!J!lS ..... .a,s process.ed tTl Qr,j~r !O
proceed with th~ proje:;[ and i~ is uncertain whether LhlS projeci wQ\,;ld qu..aJifr si:1Ct lht
ordL'IaIlCO is .till being ,,"died.
CQMPBEHENSPfE PLAN COMf'UANCE
The uses and site development regulations ~'ithi!l the ?C dis.crict must be determined to be
coDSiscent wi.th the ComprehensIve Plan. Allbaugh onl)' one uru. L' propos«j the pro)eCt is
consistent witb the follOViring objectives of the Comprehensive PlAn consKic1ed most pertlneni
10 this proposal;
"Malntain at least the present nu!!'.~ .... of multiple-famLly rental unIts wh!le
working 10 iocr-ease the overall supply of n:ntal housrng." H 31
2,
~
·Support the mixing of residential uses in commerci.al and
Progra."Il 3.3: offer i:ncentives and mitigate disincentives
industrial areas.·
H 52
3. EmplQymgDt policy 2
-Encourage the CODStrlJctiOD of more housing primanJy Oll or near iodustrial
and commercial si~ ...
4, Environmental Re$OU[ccs Pol jcy 13 Program 41
"Mitigate impact of air quality problems due to stationaT)' and vehicular
scurces. Implement programs to reduce totaJ transpOrtation re!ated emissions
throug.h the development of additKmaJ housing close to employment centers. "
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommend~ that thr: PlannIng Commhsioll conceptually appwve the pmposaJ with s:t.aff
recommended revLsirln30 and rorn'ard L'fJe proposal to ARB for review,
FINDINGS
Findings and conditions will be prepared at tfle time of second Plannil1g Comrnissio:1 [('vie .... -,
Attacllmen'ts:
Location Map
•
\
~),I~Q;:jmenwIJ.;u.pac.t..As.sei.smeru :-3€€ 8/31/94 Plannin.g C.);:clissicn stafi repDrt.
CD·C Permitted & Conditional Uses
Constr.Jction J mpact S tztement
Construction Timing Schedule
Plans (for Planning Commission only)
!aO: Applicant
Propen)' Owner
7·8·94
Page 9
ORDINANCB NO. ==""'='"
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMEND!NG SECTION 18.08.040 elF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE {THE ZONING ~-1AP) TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIPICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 400 EMERSON
STREET FROM CD-C{PJ TO PC
WHEREAS, the Planning commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held August 31, 1994, and the Architectural Review Board
(-ARB-) , upon consideration at its meeting of July 21, 1994. have
recomnended that. Section 18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter se-.t forth; and
W-dERE.~, the City Council, after due consideration of t.he
recorrmendations. finc'!s that the proposed amendment is in the public
inter.est and will promote the public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORD~IN as follows:
~ON 1. Sp.ction 18.08. 04{J of tbe Palo Al to Municipal
Code, the ~Zoning ~..ap, It' is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
ce:rtain propertj.' knO'i'nl as 400 8lT'.erson Stre:et, (the "subj ect
property~) from PCO·C(P) Downtown Con~ercial Pedestrian COIT~ining~
to II!'PC PlaillJed Corrrnuoity.~ The subject property is shown on the
map labeled Exhibit "A~. attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for
the site are such that the application of general districts or
combining districts will Dot provide sufficient flexibility to
allow the proposed development. Neither the CO·C(P) district nor
any ot.her district will provide the tlexibility to construct an
S.llO~squ.are·foot mixed use building wit.h the required number of
parking spaces (27) on site.
{b) Development of the site under the Planned Community
{PC) district results in public benefits not otherwise attainable
by application of the regulations of general districts or combining
districts. Public benefits that the applicant is providing
include:
(iJ
~I)" OO3H)I.5
One residential unit is provided i.n
addition to the commercial use. The
Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design
Guidelines support mixed use. This
1
precedent may sti.rmllate more mixed use
proposals in downtown.
{ii) A public drinking fountain and art niche,
which are consistent with the Urban
Design Guide-lines because they provide
pedest.rian visibility to this corner,
The owner ot the subject property will
t:caint.ain and service a drinking fountain
that will be a'l"ailable for use 24 hours
per day. This is a ser~ice that the City
'Would not lik.ely be able to duplicat,e.
(C) The uses pem.ie-ted, and t.he 9itf! development
regulatiC'!1S applica.bl~ '.ithin the dietl-ict are consistent with the
Pc:lo A]to C~rer;ensivE' Plan a,ad ;""ith exi9ting ar,,i ':!,llowable uses
in a1joini~9 sites and ~{thin the general vicInity. The project is
CC:;,,)..siBte!'~t~ ;.,'l'C.ll H8:lS-i.l~'J ~-O]icr I.i, Housing PoLLey 14, E!r:ployment
PCllic-y 2, ar,-j Snvlrcr.:'""ental Resources Policy 13, program 43.
~s...7I(,;~; _}. 'rhos£' -c~rtai!l plans prep,.-:lrcd by DES Arch.itects
!i.. ~r.;ineers, e:ltit~ej "'!.(;O f::~rs0n St.reet," dat~d 1,~;;;,t'ch 24, 199-1
ar.a revised hUg\1st 3, 19'H, arld apprOVed t·y the Architectural
Review BoaLd on Ju})' 20, -~S94., a cOP'! of which plans is on file in
the-?lan.."1inq Division office. and to which ~opy referencE! is hereby
made concerning the. full particulars thereof, are hereby approved
as the collective Developrn·:mt ?lan for the subject property,
pursuant to S€'ction 18. 6E:l 120. Said Development Plan is approved
to!' the fol':'owing uses, and 8lJt1ject to the follo .... ing conditions:
(al f..e..t'n.l~t"'d TJsgs. The use shall be limited to one
residential unit and a?prox~tely 5,S33 square ieee of commercial
use8. 'I'he allcvable uses shall be those allowed in the CD-C (P)
District.
(b) Cgndit;iQMl Use", The allowable conditional uses
shall be those conditional uses allowed in the CD-C(P) District.
(c} lit.e DeveloDIIient Regulat.ions. The site development
regulations sha1) be in accordance with ttl€?: Development Plan.
{d) Parking .~._ Lqadino Reqyirem""nts. The loading
Plar.. The Teq'.lirementB shall be a.s sho'iIl in the Development
parking reT.liretteDts sr~ll be as followa:
(i I A total 0f 12 on-site parking spaces
shall be required, including one space
specifically reserved fo!' the residential
unit, one space to be shal.'ed between the
residential and commercial uses on the
2
-.--.~-
•
\
subject property, and tvo spaces (., and
"5), t{) be signed and spe'Cifically
reserved for the exclu5 ive use-at all
times by occupants of ~he adjacent
property, knovn as 412~~1~ Emerson
Street. Five of tr.e spaces lJ'dy be
cOl'I:!pact spaces. The OWtler c-t the subject
property st'..all grant to the real property
at -'12·41-\ Emerson Street, in a ferm
&atiefactory to the City Attorney. tl".e
right of Access to, and the exclusive use
of, tvo designated: pari'Cing spaC'es located
on the s'..iliject property.
{iii As part ':l'f U-,e par:'(ing requlre:~€nt for
rhi. s ~l~Oj i?,::, the cwr.€!: of t be subj f::'ct
r:n,-cF€rty s:aall prov:;';i.~· ten Class 1
bj,C"j'c}':: lc'::.=<:!2'!S, t.",o u~ ... hleb shall b~
locat~d en site a~j t~e others placed in
liii)
the as
a~prc~rjare hy tt~ 1'ra~spo~raticrL
Div.:ls:"c" Fi.r:,'il clesign C'f cr,·:> loc~"'.:-r'3
sl>.aL'L b., .::uo:-:-itt-ed fer-app.rov,;l.l by the
TraDs.pOI"ldtion Division anj AE.B prior. to
buiJ.d:,nq pern.it appllcat.iQ;--.. .~ctual
provisic·r; of th-e 1 a c')c€:r-s shall be
complete:i ?r~or t.o ccc::up::mcy of t~.e
project. I~e owner shall 'Work with the
Tl"aDBpon.atioo Division 1::0 provide
additional bicycl~ racks (app~Qxima~ely 2
to S) on site.
In accordance vith standard parking
requirements of one parking space per 250
square teet of conmercial space in the
dovutown area, two spaces for each
residential unit, the r.orm31 required
parking for the project, ba8~d on an
es::,l.<'r.ated 'i, 833 square feet of cormercial
gross flc::r area, WQuld be 25 spac(:s.
\The t \li0 additional spaces for 11:;: -414
EmerBon are req'..Iired due to a lot line
adjustment between the two properties.J
The owner of the subject pro~~rty shall
be .cl"edited with two parking s~ace9, as
follc· ... s: one to:r tLe bicycle lockers and
one for tj~e shared res ident ial/ corrur.ercial
spaCE". For the re........aining required
spaces, ",hich is estimated to be 13
spaces, based on the est.lm3.ted commercial
)
•
~13lK 001101$
(H)
til iJ
_ d
o
access and parking rjghts to the rear of
400 Emerson Street.
Prior to building ~rmit application,
details of the DevElopment Plan herein
approved shall be submitted to the ARB
for final approval, inc} uding the
following: noise reduc~ion plan,
signage, lighting, north and sO'..lth wall
facade changes, color palette, and Toof
material. The parking lot decor-ative
wall shall be constructed, to the e~ent
structurally feasible, to pe~it
visibility all the .... ay to the far wall,
"lfihere the sOllth st.airwell is lccat",rt.
The owner shall consult ... It.h trle Fublic
ArtB C'::;II"!rdssion pl-ir;,y to i3u.b.~itling fir.3..1
detai18 of the a'-~ niche and ~at8!
fountain foT. ARB r.('·lie .... · dl:,j approv,) i >
All P}!I,(" COIT!f1,ents sr·..-tlt b-: sur}:T'itte:J J.S
part of the final site d~velo~~ent r1aos
for ARB review. Ii the art cbject (s) is
City· owned art, the OWJ1.er ahall enter
into an agr~ement with t tle Cit]' in
accor.dance with subsection 2.26.050 [b) of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code.
(iv) Prior to building permit applicn.tion, a
final landscape plan shall be 9ubrnit(~d
for approval by the falloving: Utility
Bnergy Services Division, Planning
Division, Public works Department, and
ARB. The planter at the parking lot east
exit shall be installed to permit an
unobstructed view for drivers exiting
onto Lytton Avenue. The plan shall
include a complete plant listing
indicating ~~antity, locations. type and
size of planr.s and trees, il"rigation
schedule, fence locations and lattic~
details. Prior to submitting the plaL, a
street tree plan shall have been
submitted to and approved by the City
Arborist. The plan shall include t=ees
along Lytton Ayenue.
[v) Prior to building permit. appl i.cation, a
final grading and drainage plan shall be
5
square footage, the owner of the subject
property shall be required to pay, pri~r
to issuance of a building permit, an in
lieu parking fee of $2.3,000 per apace,
for a total of $299,000, This amount may
vary based on final construction
measurements. In the event the City
adopts an ordinance within one year after
occupancy ot tile proj ect, which
establishes an in-lieu parking fee that
is higher than $23,000 per space, the
owner shall pay the difference between
$23,000 per space and the amount estab
lished by the ordinance~ If the fee
established by the ordinance is lower
than $23,000 pet' space, the City will
refund the difference between the $23,000
per space and the amount established by
the ordinance. In the ~vent that the In
Lieu Fe~ ordinance herea!'ter adopted by
th:8 City council contains provisicns that
cc·nflict with this condit.i.on of approval,
those ordinance provigions shall apply.
{e) Special Requirements.
90i091316e 003101:5
(i) Prior to applyin.g for a building perrnit,
the owner of the subject property shall
apply to the Public WOTks Department for
a Certificate of Compliance to evidence
the proposed lot line adjustment between
the subject property and the property at
412-414 Emerson Stl'eet. As a condition
to the lot line adjuBtreent, the owner of
the subject property shall grant to the
real property at 412·414 Emerson Street,
in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney. a right of access ~o and across
the subject property for trash re..~oval,
deliveries and emergency ac~eS:8 to the
real property at 412~414 Emerson, as well
as for the right to park.ing spaces, as
set forth in subsection (d) (1) of t-his
Section 3. As another condition to the
lot line adjustment. the owner sp~ll
apply for an amend."nent to the existing
Use Permit for 412-414 Emerson Street, to
address the following issues: change in
property dimensions and the grant of
4
-. -
_______ ~"':"' • .L~~'~
(vi)
{vii)
(vi] i)
(ix)
(x)
(xi)
()
submitted for approval by '..:.he Public
Wor~~ Department.
Prior to issuance of building permit J
utility load sheet~ shall be submitted
for approval by the Water, Gas,
Wastewater Engineering Division and the
City's Cross connection Control
Inspector,
An Encroachment Permit and a Street Work
Permit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department prior to any work in the
public right·of-way.
Prior to issuance of building pern'.ic.,
improv€j:lent plans for aJ.l utility
ccnstru,-;tion shall be su.b:nitted for
approval by the Utilities Department,
Public Work!:! Department and the
Inspect ion Se-r..rices Di ...... ision. The plans
shal1 include a sp.parac.e water sCL';-ice
and meter, a new gas ser .... ·i ce line and a
separate sewer lateral to serve the
residential unit. T1.e "'ater utility
point of service shall be at the
sidewalk. Backflo'W prevention into the
public water supply shall be provided.
The sewer lateral point of service shall
be approved by the Public Works
Department and the Inspection Services
Division.
Prior to occupancy, the parking lot entry
gat€ shall be electronically operated,
and equipped with a Knox Box to allow
Fire ~~ Police services to a~ceBS both
the subject property and the 412-414
Emerson Street property at any time. The
parking lot entry gate shall remain open,
at a rnini~. duriag normal business
hours of B a.m. to 5 p.m.
Prior to occupancy the owner shall
install, maintain and service a drinking
fountain that will be available for
public use at all Limes,
Prior to occupancy the owner shall show
proof of the Santa Clara Valley Water
6
.----.--~--
District'g acceptance that the proposed
development and construction will not
affect any site remedia.tion for rezr,oval
of an underground storage tank that
occurred in 1986 and re..:noval of 2 oil
assisted tydraulic hoists in the exiscing
structure on the site.
(fi Deve.l_~llL __ £cll~~. Construction of the project
shall be ccmpleted on 0:' ~fore September 1. 1995.
SRC1IQ~. The Council tinds that this project will not
ha'\o"€. a siqnifica..nt environmental effect.
ShcrIC:N =;. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thircy·first day atter tte date sf its adoption.
IN''I'RC[J';.1-::''h.0 :
AYES:
NOES:
AESE.:!IT :
1..TTRST:
City CleTIt
APPROVED '-_=: TO FOR)!:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
MOIII!. b.;. 0(lJ IOU
7
A.PPROVh"D =
=::::-------~~-~~~ Mayor
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
. -:.
•
\
."'.~.""""'>"' .
...
,
... ~
, i::
~
Nonil
L
~. I
.35'l
~?
~~;~
........ Ii') .. ,,:::?oh .... :t
Ii:
rR:OPOSED PROJECT
~~~~~~';;~WO EMERSON STREET
ALTO, CA
sOUTHERN· PACIFIC R.R. STATION '1"
ZONING MAP
\ ,
i ---
--~---
~\
r,
ZONING
USES CD-C CD·S
A=>sory bQ1i1ics
md .... 0USICIDaIily _10 pcnni!Ied ..... , Pemlito:<l ~
~oflSce
..mcz ... limil<d by
Secri= 18.~9.080(d) NotAIlowed -
Amb."i!OCf suvice:s: Oooditiooal CoodiIic<W
Anim>I em. bot
exdpdir)g boanfuq:
andlo:m>dt: Perm.itIed -AniIIW=,
iI>:lOOing boaroing
mdk=lels: Not Allow.d Cooditiooal
~00ve services;: Net Allo""e.j Cmlitioo.a.l
.~obi1e se:¥ice
-. subjet,1 to
!lite and design rrn E:W
in acc::c.n1aD% ~i!:h tr.e
P"'";Wom of CllJp1er
lii.82: Conditi"",1 Cm:Iitionai
Busm.o. aul <lade
o:bools, f-.mlltt<J PetmiOl:4
0r.Irc:hc0 and
~-: I'e!mitted -Cwuuacial
RQt:aXa:t: Coroilioo:ol Oooditi_
C".cI:rvaltsa: f:IciliJ:ies: --Doycare_ ..... da, em bomes.
omaIIdaycan:_
RId resid<mW care -!\:ImiliW Petmia.d
Drive-in services or ~ :-
_~ scrviocs,
assod,,01 with
p:nninPrl USI:5, so
""" as drive-up
1883
lU9.OS0
USES
-~ .... ~
rill oc::as .. pooSc$
:ria 8111 bic)<:Iim.
A ' oI .... JDd:I __ btpctCil·
lOG _104.J-.
(l J1XJ _III! e&clI "'" __ "" __ .5.7
--fl'O foe<)_ :.a:..a.:r.
Eo!qlll!~
~ ......
dri"f~ Ift1 tIU-«!
teni::c::&:
F&m'r.t'S' m.m:...""tt:
~!e..""\;~
e:.r..cep:: o..m·.i;o
St:i'r~
Cmen! bcliroa:s
""""'=
Home q • --""""""" '" ~""'" --_: -----"""......" --~ IIootIsbaill_
~ 5. 19l1'. bIvIrc " __ 01 .,..,._iIII_
Li<plr """'"
~
--.-"$~,-''''.'''''''''''''''--
.. PALO ALTO MUNIClPAL CODE o
CD·C CD·S
18S<!
------------"
USES
0WI00r' ..... _
Rn"i:;es:
PDiIlg os • prizxipol
use:
Per>cml >orvic=
Pdv ... ~ lodl"S
,"lffmenu] o:p .. '~:
Pli\'-a1e~
rfidb~
~ ,""""""
madliocs
~=
SiDgIe-tmm1y =.
two famil)' ~ 1Ill;l
multiple·!&mlly we>.
T~bo=ymd
.-:acc:i~ IaYice
fIdIilico. wbc:n
ope<..s-
'" • J"DI'iII<d ....a
oervic:e or II>oppiDj; ..... "","",
lloc>f_oI_ -12>iny_r"",
ZONlh;G
C!l·C
f'eImilted
~
CIDIiIiorlOl
~ -
~~
Po:=:::.-,j
Cra1i~oc;t.l
P,,,,Jo:(j
Pt..'!!:i.ZlO:i -
Pcrnliot<l
'As _ by _ 11 . .f9.0t0:dl bclaw.
"As limiI:d by _ 11.49.090(<1) _.
-Exdndinlliquor SIt'Ca., wbidJ 1ft c:omma::w uses..
11&5
CD·S
I"tmi~ -
C'rn!fticm!
.. .·I ........ i
~
Pt=,1!ej
Pt~~
G...'"'niici nJ
~rrr.iJ:d -No!~
Penn._
,';"
t!.4?05D F ALO ALTO MUNlClP AL CODE ,.....,
USES
TOIIJIlC'3!Y JIIItinJ
hdlit!es. pmvided 1Im __
.shaD rmwn DO more
tbanJM:yt:m:
Ti aaq:ottr:ic»:: -U1iIiI!es_
.......w~~
of II!iliIy ..m:... t.tt
.... h'C!mg_
or:l!!>"lO' yartIs, mam. ' __ or
oorporation yWs;
9-t .. ~1IOd
CD·C
<listrit.J!io:l: Not AlJo..-ol
(Ord. 3751 f 1"1, 1987: oro. :l69611 (ptri), \986).
-
CD.S
DES
-~--~" .. -.-.-----
F.?
JJ; !1l'\:'-""~·~7'.tc;
"~t"'d ".>" ,~, f" ":+~
hH~t i:; J~'.~';'
Corurtnrrnoo PlM for 400 Emmon
CCllSInIetioo of the projea w:ill be manaaed io tbrce basic Slages: delllolitioo,
lIU\iar buiJdioB COlI.!mlCtiOD, and ,i_eli.
During the initial demolitioD p~ of the wor'<. the .i!. will be fenced and tilt
existing buiJdio • .00 paved pukiDg lot will be removed. This initir.l phase
will take approximalel)" 1-2 w .. ks.
TM SCt;ol'ld phast of [he wort will be t.~ major ba.ilding CO;\S[!\1":!..ion a:!d ,>\'ill
include roofing and core slab wort. Nslc building frame Uld utility snterrLS,
and final bci!.di.ri.g slli and fiahbes.. This ph.;:.se of the work will t.EJ:t'
apprqximately six IDOl'1.tl::.s, The final p~ will iDdude the constrocti on Gf all
she woI± and grolJDd lev.el fmi5h work. Thi~ will tai:.e aprrox..i.rrulTely thrce:
w~k.".
I>.mn~ the ';;On5ltUction of the pf(lject, we FJJt.i~ip .. tl' the need to fen.:-e (.:;.r.d
utilize) the sidr.waik area aloug both the Emerson fronta8'e and Lh~ Litton
Avenue trontf!.ge.
During this ti.mc:, sidewalk.access alOllg Lytton will need to be protected lr. &
sidewalk canopy aJOIl8 lbe Durer bat! of the •• dewalk of L),tton A venue, Tilil
would occur along the Emerson: Streef fr~e. as w~ll, ex.cept wut::J"t; lm: u.u::
street tree occun:. At this JOCOttion, ti:e wa.fkway canopy will jl\$. cut ~ d
arollDd the =, Existing par'-"\og elO!1$ Lytton lind Emet1Ol> will 001 be
displaced .=PI whe ... abe ="l'Y j<>gs around the Emman Streel _, As
.uoh, scaffoldiog tar abe ,,",,,,,,,,lion above will be DOlled, per Cil)'
requiremenu.
CODstnlct.LOO n:latcd trafIk wooJd """"'" tbc &ile vla Lytton Avenue. from
either Alma Street or MilkIJefieId Roarl, As tbc ptejocI has no b ... meD~ we
Ile nOl II!lticipale • signlficant off haul of material,
.owing the majotJty o! the consl:.l'UCtiOI) of ilic: project. cUe ou~sj:e co.nstnJ~tio.!l
offie< and the stagiIIg of material!; will occur on the we.;r.m half uf the site (the
parking lot for the project). During the final 3 wteks, the project of ike will be
moved ioto the buUding. and tbe parkin~ lot work wlU be completed,
'.":
Construction workers will be ellC-ouraged to pad; in the City owned parking lot,
directly across the su-oe! • ., the comer of Emcrsoo and LyttOn.
Every cart wi] l be taL:en to coordJnale COnstruCtiQIl methods and ~chedules.
with other projc:ru within th~-~ Ie: "Moznl"f' project acro~~ Lytton, i:\nd (he
"Shin" pn>jccL, UJle bl0Ck east O.u Lyuon.
Pleas:: see auached proje<t schedule.
\.
..~
•
I
,:.I ~ ,
I /.
l
>\ ;,1
I
I
/1
._-------------
400 EMERSON ST. PRQ.JECT
---'---, ~--~.-.-~ '* I 0-"." llHM~T 0'1, 19'!i5 OIr2 1~5 .41l..I!.EM!,!!~O~_.' 1_.L\A:.oilS.¥~~~ ....., .; '[1.
--" ---.. ------"-~.--'
IJ .... omfl
1
2 OEMOtiTION
-.~.-.~.-,,-. -.-... ,---.-.-.-----.. ----~----.--.~-~-~---.,
3 BUILDING COIofSTAUcTJOO
-.~.--.-.. --~,-~--.----~.-~-.--.------.-,.-.-.-.-
• I SITE CONS1RlICTKl~ , : r~~t1~~~~~~~~~=~~~~~=
• I1oiTiM.~~iiii~~~~!~Q:i~~!::==::=:
11 DEMO
.~ 1 ... EXCAVA,TlCm
til GARAGE
....................................... -······ .. ·_······1
SKCNlBlOG COMPLETION ,..-.. --.. ~-,-,.~----.--.-.. -.. -,--.... --, .. -,-.--_._---
lNTfRIQR
e?l
_~' 7I111D!Il'~_"_
I •
nc 7
QIr I, 1011 t ~ ... IilM I ~ So, 0<. I No.1 0.. J,o"
'. '.
( \
l I'
. J
,0,&,\ :,:'~~I'
,':::;,:"
-'-" •
EnvirorMental Docuoent, -City Of Palo Alto
Project QescriptlocfTitle:
, f n i
£NY! RtM!ITA!. ASSESS!£NT
f i ..... r lr
f' . (c;.t r " h
LoutimlMdress: 400 [mea"" Street Palo Alto C6..
ni+-
Spcnsor-i IlS lIgeocy I ftW I i tant .
CtPlJIoy
pfS Architect$ ar.d Engineers tor Storm land
Address and Telephone of ~l icant: 39S Bradford Strerr
~ C1ty CA 94063
~3".~j l,..r.-..;, re ,'H",." Of tl"-e-~i"'F"..:t f 11 0:>'>. tr,f l,;:"j-e:'.'-lgned c··,:?c-..)er-' of H:f: Pl anni ng [}I:p~rt~nt ri3S c.'X,.::luded. -.
111 tteGU'i't't ®'iar~tir'r, The prO.,l€'"ct hdS no significant enl,'ircnme-ntal i"1)act, No
En .... ",.,..TlIefH.al 1~C't R:e'Po~ is re-~".i1rej. The rE'a~o.'1S fer a Mitigated r-Jegat;ve
Declaration ne:
1:1 The pro~~ Ny have a significant er1virOl'Tlelta1 it1)act, ,v, trlvirCf'Jhefital
! ~ct """"rt 0.111 be Prep.! red
PJanrirng Oe\>.lr+...m Official: .jgKP .:\uqU5t
PJannil1Cj Director: ~C~
TI'>€ project 1' .. , been <lefIied.
Date:
Date:
file No.: 94-EIA-8
----------1'.--...-, ---
"-o
\
"
(NYIRtNl£HTAl OOCIJl1f1HS -P.oJ..O .oJ.. TO
iNITIAL 5TUDr* u
L Project iitle/hkJress. 400 ERrs"" Street. ?10 Alto. CA
II. Project Description: The aP\llic.ant pro;>",es
J)
2)
defoolitiOfl of autcmnive r-ep.d~ r Dul1dl r;g _ and C('y'lstru:::t iOfl of O"l d~ro'(l!!t!:telj
e,llO-square-foot structure Wlttl one reslderlt1ilF l,.j1nt and 14 on-SH€' paM:,lng
spaces.
adjust the lot lir're to expar"j ;:>-ar-cel !20-26·0~ by 2.798 feet by redu:ing parcel
lZO-26-24 by the s~oe a~t
3) construct an appro;s::ilMtely B.IOO-sq.Jdre-fcl(jt rY:.";-.' st-0cture, CO"l~1SUr.q of the
fall ow' e.g:
1he six (6) existing par~lr:,;; 5:-'3(e5 c' .... ~ tr',e :-,Hn p:::r(e'l c~:i t.....-c· U; .:; ... ~stH!~ 0;') the
adjolning pai"Ce'l III"Oi)rcl b~' r:-,plnt~1ns1. ar,c Ul cCjlt~C·~31 ~-r:. park'r~; sp,~::es W'2>Jld ~
added.
iiI. EnVlrol"ll'!'lefltal Set't'ir,g: Tne l2 dCTe s'te lS 4~' 5 fe-et ,.'1Coe by 12~ f~t
deep. It is occc;:';))e-j by a 'i:ing're :;tGn' 1.11£ s~' .. arf f.:Y.lt I'd{:.ant
autOl'i'iOtive rep':!i, tlL!ildmg Ci1 [.-~r::o~1 Street at l)'1:tOiI Strf't't. Tr:e
pr~rty is cJrrently J{'cesslble thr'~:J,;t1 a dr1l;eo.tdj that l~ part of the
adJacent parcel at 41~ £;",rsoo Street. T"" let", ,,,,rto property line 15
at the sid&aH 00 l)1.tco Street. A 3-stor_ .. c(Nl!('iciai cff,ce structure
;s located across the street on lytt01. To tt:-e e:JSt. on the southeast
corner of Emerson at l)ttC1l is an ~t·9;ade 1TU"'1,c1p.al ~ri.H'''~ lot that
serves the eX1st,ng retail disrnct. {)) trtf SC<JUI side IS the drlVeway of
the ildjoinH19 parcel, TIllS parcel ha! a rtstaurant u;e and t·.., part.ing
spaces in the rear. accesslble tnr"'-"lh the dr"eway 00 thls 1>1. Tne
parcel is ,iso ~ by the ,wHca"t. West t>e/1ird the par-cel and
adjoinin;; it is d c"""rete block bicycle rep." shop.
The grade S iopes Jppro1.imately a to..lard t~ streoet 'rt;ere surface drainage
takes the rur;off to Lyttof] Stre-Et
.-.'
p:ICONiPLANI!S-400E.JA 94-(JA-8
2
_ .. _----,--
• J
IV. tn·,ri ro~tc 1 I rr,pa, tr.ecK'ri st [Exp 1 J nrl t i on of 'Y(:5 '/~-'\Swers 're '" 5ect ion y)
l. .Em.b. Will the propo5al result in: ill ~.AYru:
a. Unstable earth conditions or changes
in geologic sllilstructure,'
b. Disruptions. disp1ac~ts. c~c.
tion or overeovering of the SOl _X_
e. Change in topography or ground
surface re1ief features?
d. The destruction. covering or modi·
fication of any unique geologic or
Physical features'
e. Any increase in wind or water eroston
of soils. sHher on or off t* ~lt€?
f. Exposure of people or property to
1eo:~it; hazaras such as ~arthqt.Ja~e~,
ands.idE'$, r,'!,J(jsl1des. ground failure
or simi lor hazar'ds? L
g. (flanges jrLSlltat)On. depo5it i orl, or
erO$1Cn I>.tnch may rodify the ch]i1T1e:
of d ri vei' or U!f:: bed of a bay Dr'
inlet?
* Adapted from Apper,dj;y, L California G~.ijdeiines for Implenentatlcn of
C£QA, December 14, 1976 .
.. Updated May 1982. Jon€ 1983
p: \CONTPLM'\ IS ·400L JA
1Q
-L
-L
_1_
....L
-L
94-flA-8
3
•
·._-,;....---.... _----
2.
I"",
8ic. Will ~ proposal result in:
a. Substantial dir en11SS10ns or de·
terioration of alibient air quality?
O. The creation of objectionable odors'
c. Alteration of ajr movement. moisture
terrperatuf'e. or any change in eli
mate, either locally 0" regional?
3. ~. will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in absorption rates, dralnage
patterns, or the rate and amount of
surface water r~~off?
b. Alterations to the cc~rse or flow of
flO0d waters?
c. Discharge 1nto surface waters. or in
any alteiation of surface watel'
quality, including but not li';ted to
temperature. dlssohed oxygen or
turbidit)'?
d. Alteration of tJl€ direction or rate
of flo-,.,' of ground waters?
e. Expo,ure of people or property to
water reiateo hazards such as flOod·
Ing or tidal ,ave?
f. Change in the quantity of grol.md
waters. el ther through di rect
add1 tions or witr.df-lwals. or through
Interceptions of an aqulfer by cuts
or excavations?
4. plant Life. Wi 11 the proposal result in:
a, Change in the di'ersity of species, or
number of .ny species of plants (in
cluding trees, shrubs, grass, crops,
mlcroflora and .qtl.tlC plants)?
b. Reouction of the numbers of any
uniaue, rare or end~ngered specles
of plants? ~~
c. Introduction of new specles of
p:\CONTPLAN\[S-400E.JA
_x_
_x_.
_x_
_x_
94·EJA-B
-4
plants into dn drea, or in a barrier
to the normal re?lenishTent of
eXIsting species?
d Reduct i 0f1 1 n acreage 01 limy
agncultura 1 crop?
5" Anilllill LHe" Wlll the proposal result in:
a" Chi!ngt' in t"" dlVerslty of species.
or mll't>er of any sp::cles of animals
(birds. land anj~ls including
~tiles. fish and shellfish. benthic
organisms, insects or microfaUfla)?
b, Re6uction of th€ rlurID€rs of any
lCli~!J!? rarr:> or e:-:da!'1gei€,1 speCiE-'S
of .:!nil"d1s?
c. Ir"ltrC-:'J:tl C'1 of ne ... ' spe(~e$ ot
.anl:"'~ls lnto an area. nr result in
c. 0.:!rrier to the rligratiorl 0" 17<>.e·
r:ren~ of drnr C ,jls?
d [;..:?tericrctli/) lf~ existlri9 flSh or
.. i ldl i fe r1abl t3t?
6. ~ h'lli the prop'Dsal result In:
a. Increases lr. existing m)1<;e levels? L
_x_
_x_
b. Expos'Jre of pe.c;.--le to seVE"rp nOiSE"
levels? L
7 L~ant and Glare. ~ill the proposal
proct.Jce new 11ght glare? _I_
S. Land Use. ~111 the propos.) result in
a substantl~1 alteration of the present
or planned land use of an area? -X-
9. Erertly/Natl,Jra' Re<:ources. wi 11 the
proposal result 1n:
a. Use of substantia 1 amounts of fuel
or e:1erg)':
b. Substantial increase in demand upon
ex;st'ng sources of energy. or
p:ICOHTPlANI1S-400E"JA
,."0"
94·EIA-8
5
10.
req'J1 re the oe,,~lo>~nt Of ~
sources or e~rgy?
c. increa'S~ in th€ rate of use of d:1y
~tural r~5ources?
C!, $.ubstdntlai depietloo of '=1)' nYire
!"\Ii!Wab 1 e rratl,;ra 1 res o;.:rc e?
Ri sk of Upset, Coes the propJSd 1 .
in't'ol"e-a r1sk of air e-1CP10!'10~. or tnt'
reiease of r~lar00u5 slJtrstan::es: (H'p
ciUf.l1no. txJt not 11S'lted to. ('.11.
pestici1es. d'Ie!:I:lcals or ra,jlatlM) H1
the fVet1t of an a::Cldent C~ l..::,set 7
a \.i')\' ~r~ ~-.:~.'::'j} c:ter' :':" ic,::·~t1C·'1.
rJl,,,,tr,t·:..:t\,~-,, C~~Sl~,)'. c~ ,;-,~.",:r. nt·:;
c·f :r:'2" r~"",:r' ~·~'~>i12:' ",(i '~IT ~ .. ! ~~2'3 t
c" 'rI'jll F~ ~~(·:-:-,~:.1 ~ff€:-: "~·.::·tlr:;:
~,:",J::lr:'J ',:,~ r(f".>' ,-,~-:;-; ... ~; f,,:
c,j::i' t 1 c' '" 1 J _ ~ ';. ';
)2, Trdr.~c-~:--t;jt ,r·,:,' 1",-;":"'" :':':': :"1 ~ 1 tr,.-,
j::ro~sal resi...1t If"<
a. G€n-erot1G~1 of sL.i~stantlei c~j,t:(.~al
... '-ehl("'.I1~r n:.'",'t-""rent't _:._._
b. [fffctS 0:1 €:o.'S.tl:-",:; pa''(:f,? f~c,1i·
til'S. or deLand fCf ' ... p,,'tln,' L
c. Alt~raticr.5 to ~resl:"nt C3tterm of
circuldtlO'l or "'(WE"!'e'm iJ1 p·e0ple
andfor goo:!s? . L
d. Increase In trc::fflc hilzuds to rrotor
vPhlcies. b1cyclists or po=d-estnans? _X_
13. Publ;c *r,,~ces k'111 the prO¥~sal have
an effect upoo. or result In a r::?~j for new
or a-:terc:J g:',f~rr':-:'.::il se:-,;\ces lrL c:.y of
the fol1~1ng are3S.
",-
a. Fire prote-.:tion?
p: IC<WTPLANIJS·400£. JA 94·EIA·8
6
•
b. Police protection'
c. Schools?
d. Parks or other recreat i OOd 1
faci 1 ities'
e. Maintenance of public facilities.
inc 1uding rOods?
f. Other goverm>e!1ta 1 seT> 1 ces'
14. Utilities. Will the pr~s'l result 1n a
need for new systems, or substantlal
.1teratiO!1s to the foll",";", utli!tles:
a. Pawer' or natural gas?
d. Se-Her or sePtic tlint'?
f. Solid ...... 21ste and dlSP05.Jl'l
15. HL.man Health. ~i 1J th€ pro~csdl result
in:
a. Creat)ort 01 u~y health hazdrd or
potenti.al health hazud (exclujirl'.;I
mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potentlal
he, 1 tn hazards?
16. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result
in the obstruction of any SC~lC ¥1sta
or view open to the pUIli1C. or .·ill the
proposal result in the creatioo of an
aesthetically offensi''1e Site open to
public view?
17. Recreation. Will the pro;lCsal r.suH
in an impact upon the Q=.Jal1ty or q1iafltity
of exi sting recreati on.l opportumties'
p:\CDNTPlAN\IS-400E.JA
" "
-~-.
.L
_,
....L
1
94·UA-8
7
i
~
eJU! 11. r
C'I 0 ill MAY8E
18.
19.
~~l!~ri 1 R~~Qur~~s .
a. Will the proposal result in the
alteration of/or the destruction
of a prehistoric or historic
archaeological site'
b. Will the proposal result 1n ad-
yerse physical or aesthetic effects
to a prehistor;,: or historic
building. st.nKture; or object?
c. Does the propesal haYe the potenti al
to caus~ a physlcal change wIllCh
.~uld affect unique cultural Yalues'
d. Will the proposal restrictexlsting
religious or sacred uses wlthln the
potenti.l impact area?
Man~:hJtQrv rinding~ Qf Slgnlflcon:::~.
a. o.....""'eS the project have the ps-tential to
dtgrade the qUdrlty of the .envir0:1!1"'2nt.
subst.ntldlly reduce the habit.t 0f •
fish or .,.;lldlife sp'2cies. couse a.fish
or ...... ihifHe populatIOn to drop beJ~ ...
self-sustaining levels. threaten to
eliminate a plant Dr anlmal c;,..~uT1ity,
reduce the number or restrlct the
rarrge of a rare or -em:langered plant or
animal or elimindte import~nt examples
of the major periods of California:
history or prehlstory'
b. Does the project haYe the potential
to ac::hleve short-term, to the di s
advantage of long-term. ec'irrn>~"tal
goals? {A short-term impact en the
environment 1S one which occurs in a
relatively brief. definltive period
of time ~'hi1e long-tenn lmpacts will
endure well into the futurel
c. DO€s the project have i rnpacts Vlrhi c:h
are individually limited, but
cumulatiyely considerable' {A'pro
jeet may impact Oil two or more
separate resources where the impact
p:\CQNTPLAN\IS-400E.JA
!lQ
L
_X_
_x_
L
•
94-EIA-8
8
d.
•
______ ~ ________ '~_"6.~_-' __ _
~ each resource is relatively
smail, but where the effect of the
total of those lmpacts on the
environment is Significant.)
Does the project have emi ronmenta 1
effects which will cause substantl.l
ad',I.erse effects on human bel ngs.
either di reetly or indi rectly?
V, Explanation of "yes" answers ,n environmental checklist,
\
1, ilr1h, As part of this app1ication, the applicant proposes to reme',e one
existi09 structure and parking area, and replace that wlth a new 8,]]0 square
foot structure and rear park,ng lot, Construct10n of the project will.not
increase the impervious surface on tile 51t€'. Tne demo11tlcn of the e.xlst1ng
structure and front parking area '.-.I-in disrupt Site soils. and result 4n .')nly
mH~lJr changes to site toplJgraph..\'. Site 5011 rrod11;cations are not expected to
result in sigfl;f~cant adverse el1vironmental impacts. A final grading plan
including a p1an to r'dintaln drainJge patterns from adjace~t propertles win be
SuDject to re',llew by the De-partrr:ent of hr'D11C Wo:ks prlor to ls:;vilnce of any
o;raai ng 01' bui ldll-:Jg perrmts,
The sHe is 10·:.ated in a i'rcderate seismic r·is~. ared, subject to very strong
gr'cJnd $ hak i ng 1 n the event of an ea rUlqui:tke. All new construct i on will be
s0,bje,::t to the provisions of the ITtfJstcl}rrent Unifom B1Ji"lding Code (USc).
portions of wnicn are direct~d at ~lnlmizlng seismic rls~ and preventing 10ss of
life and property 1n the e~re:'1t of an earU'Ql.lake.
'2. Air. ConstructiO!l of the project wnl temporarily result in an increase in dust
€tTIi$SiOns over eX1sting ambient (ondilion$. The follOffilig dust control
mitigation shan be reqlJired to redu.:::€ the unpact to an acceptable 1evel',
To reduce dust levels during construction, it shall be required that e>q»sed
earth surfdces be watered frequently. duriny the late morning and at the end
of the day, with frequency of watering increasing on windy days, Spillage
resulting from hauling operations along or across any public or private
property shan be removed l!l1ll€diately and paid for by the contractor, Dust
n~iSdrKes origlnating from the contractor's operations. either insid~ or
oo..'tside of the Cl?ht·of-way, shall be controlled at the contractor's expense.
3. (el l!Utt, Ru1loff frOO' the site flo.'s to the San Francisco Bay with no treatment.
Nonpoint source pollution is , serious prOblem for wildlife dependent on the
waterways amj for people whD live ne.3r polh,ted streams. or bay)ands,
Coostruction debris (soll, concrete. asphalt. sawcut slurry. paint. chemicals,
etc,) are a source of th15 pollution. Th.~ontractor shall incorporate best
management practices (aMP's) for stormwater pollution prevention into all
construction operaticns, Typical BMp·s are outlined in a series of brochures
published by the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Program and are available
frm the City of Palo Alto Publ ic Works Engineering office, Implementation of
typical BHP's wlll mlr:Jmiz€ impacts on water resources to an acceptable leveL
6. !!Qig, Constructlcn of the project ,.,11 result in temporary increases in
ant>ient noise levels. All demoiition and construction acti'ities will be
p:ICONTPLANIIS·400EJA 94·EIA·8
9
7.
•
subJoct to the P,lo Alto No"e Ordin.nce. Ch'pter 9.10 of the PAMC. Re51dents
wll ~ be subJ€'Ct to no,se In;:Jacts froo downtown trafflc The project has been
designed to .imlt11Ze r.OiS€ '~cts on the lnterior rooms
~iant Ina Gl.rt. The proposed three· story structure will produce additional
igttt and glare ExterlOr light'ng shall be de$lgned for safety. and w111 avoid
In!l''''Ojt)Cl,''Ig ~E'ssary 1 Jght and gldre. The prOJ.ect lS subject to rE-Vle'oo1 by
the ArO\'tectural Re""" Board (A.'lBl. 'riinch .,11 '"rther min1mize any 111l"CtS.
B. Land Use. Tnt:' applicc!'1t requests a zone crtar1gefor the entire site from the
current CD·C(P) to PC. 10e CD·C(P) zomng pernl1ts the types of land use
PN+'OS~. cc:.erCl81 r2ta,i. oHlce. and housh1g. ())e a&Jltlona,1 unH of
housH19 ..ruld be proYlOed, tt:us increasing the City's housing stoc~ by that
iMDITt. as no r-WSlI'19 presently ex.lsts on t.~e site. The PC zone change is
~ted in {]r~1" to dcccmr:.xiate the ~rr.lng as proposE'<:!. See the disCI.Jssion
:..nder Tra.f'..spor-tc.t lei'; 300 Per\::. ing
12. (a.D.cd} iri!r<::N",~ati~ & ~.ar~J __ Qg. There ore 6 total of B par~ing spaces on
t~ ccctnnf;.J p;c·~.:.s':?'.j .site. 6 pr~H~~ spaces at 400 E~rso!1 Street (APN 126·26-
( .... 4) ~~::J 2 toe;~l\:.j t".~ 3'.j]OlnH"/;J parc€l at 4l.:1 E~.t;;rsc-r: (APN 126-26.·24), All B
p~r(1;:.;' sp:e-; arc V':·;::I:5e.~ C-2' r·;::l..air,{:j A total of 26 parking SP3C~$ are
req'J}re--j f:c~ U:-eo VGJ2.::t. as calc-.,"iatej .here:
2)·?·: ·c·~ fr.
j~~.~ v: f:
:.,)j..' ~·1 ' L..
-16.4S
-f 2 D~
l.s.t f1c~~ (C·T--=rcial
.in·.i ~ Ie:':' :.:c-:-~'r':id 1
p3r~lr;<;r spaces
resiC(;';lt ia 1
e~lstiilg spaces !_...u.o
26,0:2 • 25 r!3:r;~lr,;! spaces r€\~i.Jlred 04 provided}
th;jer ttl€' pdrUr.-g re~1.Jl.at;ol1s of the Zoning Ordinance, removal of the
spaces ;s not permltt~. ~Jt l~ $~bJect to a variance in the CD-C district
and PC approval for t~,e pro,.,"Osed residential rezoning. The entire parcel
1S subject to the r€'Ql.llrerent::> of. the University Ayenue Parking Assessment
D,str'~. Ur~r asse5s~nt d1strlct reguldtions. removal of the existing
space~ 1~ legally perrnlsslble and results 1n an increase in the property
QWr.er s assessment
The applicant proposed to proVlde 12·14 p"ting spaces, Through the
P],r;no(j u-mity 2""" process, ce pro:x>ses to pro,ide a fee to the
AssesSJelt D1Strlct rii·heu of prml1dlng the addltional 12-14 spaces. The
fei a:rount lS sllbJect to City CO:Jncl1 appro.'al. A fee in a sufficient
a!t'O..D1t to. coyer th-e (ost of replaCin;· tJ~ .3ddltl0nal 12·14 spaces on
another SitE'. ccm be mtigate tnls m.pact to an acceptable level. The fee
is to be dete",ined b), the C, ty Counc1 !. based on t~~ best currently
.,all.ble data. The Tr,nsportat1on D1"$100 has deten11ined that the
Hlcreased floor drea " wi th1n the caps as set oy the City of Palo Alto's
p \CCmTfLAA\ lS~~OJE .J;, 94· E1A·8
10
_.'\.. _~ .... '~'c.: •..... ~
1986 Do.mtM"r Study and wl11 Mye rr.lnHMl li,pact on intersectiOOS. sueet
and traffic in t~ area
The increased Slle of t~ ",,"Cl"9 lot and the ,cci€<l traffle could lq>act
. tile Mid·bloc' drea of lytton A',en"" ,rod the blxe pcths. Design of the
driveway, revTe"'W by thE' Tr~r.sportatl0'1 DWislry") and approval by the ARB
will minimize the potennal COOfi1Ct
Bicycle racks will be prclo'lded N1 s~te Tt-;e slte 15 in the 'w'lcimty of
retail goods am! se'Vlces. 10;.a1 y.:-:-s ana" th-e Uni;lers1t . .,... Public transit
and other forms of transportat:m are a .... ailable for thOse .. 00 ..,11 use the
servlces and i1ous1ll9 on-51te
i)1e of the two parking spclCe:; r~ .... lf"e-j fo:"' H"R 5lngle resHiential (1"1.it may
be shared with the cOW!Ierclai use. Tne reslCien~ial use c~lenents tne
surT'(U)(ling dOwnt~ rete; 1 .tiY.l offIce wses. sir,:€ srr:;p,..""ers and off.1..:e
users t'\a,)' r~ parr.lr>g d~"',n;" tr-,J2-C~:i ~r,:J r-esl~ts r:-2!i USof; the pan:1ng at
night.
During co."str~::tic" of tl~e ~:0,_~t-:-'-___ 2:::"'~::P-::~ 5tre-?~S ,J::j pa:-!::.lr,;, !n
tl':€ are~ r"'.,)).' t'e aT1ectO::'j lr 2~::\:' -,.., cc,·,~::-'-~~tlC~ at 2.55 l_rttc-~' {Stars
Restaurant)· anJ dt 2~:, l)'~:c, ,~u-,;, ;::.';--~r :='e:-,lr<':'.:la Ti -r:-~s. -TriD.i".e s,; te}
rroay proouce cI.ro.Jl-5tl,'e tc-'~':;2I/ u ... ~st;...:::-tlCI l:-C,::1,:ts Tr,o: .a.pllOr:t :-.jst
prf.-Pdrt? d (Clr,5tn~:-:tl«; r":s~r? i):,,;1 i:"l (C·-;~f'" ,."th :r,;;" iiti-~: t .... ') ~r"I')Io..~:
prOJeccs in t~,~ aft-c_ Tt,:,:" ;,':,::-, ,,1"" t-? '';;',-):;':: w rE,'lf:"'l'l' a:-<:'I G~~~rU'.-al by
fjre. Ped,c-e, F\.;blr( :"':~-~s., 2r,:l:-'.'r<'-tJUC, ~r,":; r'la:';Hr;o :.;.e.~!drti""!:?~-Its -,,:i"nch
'''''ill ensure that cc-::stn ... .::1C-; l~':::'_s ere ~:tHBl€'d to an Clcu~>.~tat,)e
1 e,el . .
16_ AgSthetlCZ. CurremlY ~ $~,;ll :'-'e -':-:..-.\ :str~::tIJ~~ ar'j il "aCarit pri::.1F1g
surface occupy th£> 10L H:f' C'''-r)~2s'?J J ::,tc"-/ 5tru.:tu~e .... , n C'OStr0Ct it.€,
\fiN that is prE-sent-,), d\'':'11at'11e, t",~~','['r', tJ",'::: \'1~' 1$ fE'ldtiv('l)'
limited. DeCJUSe (lone stc,;,;, cc.",:rr~? D;v:~ 5trtJ-::tt;re '!s situa'teo
imeciiatel), to the-swt,~ c!rlG di·J~n~r i)r'r~-stor]' concrete block structure
lies at the west property lln€ of trH? lot. 1he co:-ner rot "'1'111 contlnue
to provlde a ."ista to tho30~ 10-:~H"]g bJth north dnd east frCl'!'i the property
1 ine. Future occupants of the second dnj thl rd f1 oors !lay, In fact. obt.ain
iq>roved aesthetlc .... 1&'5 tMn are preserlt:y a','('!l1abie at gr"'CUld level_
Thfc ~roject is subject to re\llE.'W by the Arctllte-ctura 1 Review Board, wtnch
sho,Jld ensure a deSlgn ttl at i$ ae5,th€tlca~ly pleaslng and cCllPc1tlble With
its surroundH~~s.
'.
p; ICONTPlANI I S ·400E . JA 94-E1A-8
II
At t ac hiJlfmtmmD
Excerpt Planning ~
MiDnteo; or JuI, 13. 1994
AUENOA ITEM 2 4QO-414 EMERSQIj STBErT: (former Independ.,t BI'tII~uto
sErvice): Preli.inary review of an application fo~ a
Planned Coomunit,)' zont cna;nge to allow: (I) th~
demolition of a former aut~t}ve repair b~ilding and
froot parking lot: (2) construction of an apprQxi~ately
8,lOQ·square-foot, thne-story ~ixed usp. building
consisting of first floor (omrerc.ial retail space, secc~d
floor corrmercial offic.e space, and a thir.j floor r;r,tal
res1de~tia) unit: and (3) prOYiS10n of 12-14 on-site
piirKlng spaces and pd),merlt of an in-li~(J f~e for the
r~mai"ing 11·13 required parking spac@s. A lot lj~p
iildjustnl!llt betwe2n 400 E,,'erson :,tr~et and ~!~ ~-',~rs(1:i
Str€€t is "ls{) propos€d. Envir('lr,:'"u-r~al A(-:se~:;5"'~r,t; .;
mitigate neg~t1ve declaration ~as Df~n prepared for this
project. file Nos. 9~·fIA-8, 94-ARB-52, 94-ZC-9.
Mr. Gilliland: I would like to ifitroduct' Joyce AlJglJst. th~ contract
planner wno has. worked on this ';)"foject. Soth of us are-Q'Jailable to
answer questions,
Cnairpe..r:.~_on Schmidt: Are l,~ere qU€st ions for staff pri or to the publ i c:
hei.ri ng? (None) 1 wi} J then open the pub 1 i c near; ng. WE' will hea r firs: t
from the applicant or representath·2.
Ed Storm. 399 Bradford Street. Redwood City: the project ~ing pro~os~d
tonight is currently a vacent lot. r a~ sure you are aware of tn~
location_ As a matter of background, I do own the adjacent prop~rty which
is occupied by Fanny and Alexander's. As an oveiview, the project is ~
very s~all one in terms of its footprint. It is only ab~ut 3,000 square
feet, in round numbers. on the ground floor, so it ;s import~nt to keep in
perspectl'J2" the size of the project. In looKing ,at drawings, it SOIIi!t':JleS
takes on a larger ;~age than it really is. There are many fcur~bedrooa
houses in town that are 3, COO square feet I so as a footpri nt, it j s not a
big project. What I mean is big in scale.
The d~sign and concept w~s a result of our putting in a lot of thought and
review of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. I sat t~rou3h a ~umber of
those ~etin9s and read through the output that came out of t~at, the
9~idelines, This project does finish Jff Eu~rson Street; it do~& present
a nice visual completeness to the street. We ~re proposing to close off
the existing drh'eway on EmETSOrf Street, thereby r::"king 1t man;
pedestrian-friendly. We can get more into the detail, of that if you
wish. but 1 think it does all of the things you would hope it would do to
finish off this block. It also creates a transition that you are lo!ik.lng
fer between Lytton Street and the reSidential area beyond in that it does
07/13/94
-4-
--_._----
':;i;:
•
pr~~lde a single residential unit. It at least insinuates some
residentlals beglnnwg, and it also lets you know you are moving a\ltay fro~
i heav)' coamerc;al area into a different format.
For the MOst part. I ~g~ee with the staff's comments. There are about six
issues] would 1 i~e to bring up and see if we c.an resolve most (If them
tonight. Th. first on. Is th.t st.ff has asked th,t we rna,. th. lot 11"e
adjustment at the rear straight. That is something 1 have not run into
with other developments in most c1 tles, where that is not a reqlii rement.
]f we were to do thatl W~ would lose two parking spaces. ....e would 1 ih to
",ave staff allow us to use both of the R-l spaces as s~ared spaces, nct
just on. of th .. but both of them, to offset the 10.' of the two.spaces.
Also, we wolJld 1 ike to drop the re'/iew of the use permi t for Fanny .and
Ale~ander's. I cannot put them in jeopardy of 10sin9 any of their f;q~ts
due to what I am d.o'ing next door. We do r10t think. ther! is any real
reason to review the use permit for Fanny and Alexinder's in that nothing
is really changing. Their parking is being maintained; their trash i$
being maintained; thEir use i.s. the same. The only real chang€ is that
their access is now going to co~e off of Lytton A~enu~ versus ccming off
of Emerson Street. $0 we think that is rlOt 11 ",-ell founded criterion or
condition to this approval.
We will re~iew our ~all design to provide better slght lines at the
exiting of our parking lot. That is so~ethin9 we can work aut wltn staff
wit~o~t ~ny problem. We will relocate the bike racks to an acceptable
locatio~, beth fer ourselves and the staff. That should not be a
problem. Staff h~d a question about Spales 6 and 7 in the site pla~ as to
how t~ey are aligned in tMe parking lot. Tnat is best left for us to
resolve with staff.
lastly, 1 ",'ould like to discuss: .... ·ith staff and others a lHtlt! about the
cost of the spaces_ I do not want to try and resolve that tonight, but
when I ,orne back for you after ARB review, that will be olie of the
issues. I know that would be precedent-setting. iMd I would like the
chance to 100' at that and not commit to the 123,000 per spac. this
evening. That concludes my cOr!Jl!ents. Ne>:t r 'Would like to have Tom
Gil~an give you a brief ~verview of the project itself, both the site plan
and the elevations.
Tom Gilman. 399 8radford Street. Red~Qgd City: Just brieflYt I will give
you a litt1e better sense of the project. You have probabiy had a chance
to look at the site plan. but I will give you an oVfrview of the
arrangement of thp. building. (Viewgraphs are shown) The building
footprint at the first floor is in this area, with the Fanny and Alexander
building to the south. The prop€rty line that Ed noted is the one that
currently runs in this location, but we are relocattng it to the wall
between the twc buildings. Current1y, the prop~rty line, as we have
indicated it, jogs in and around the proposed parking spaces:. The
realignment referred to in the staff report would just co~e straight down.
In terms of the site plan itself, we do Ma'o'e a wall that Ed referred to
which scr •• ns the parking lot from the street to give the building and the
entire site a little bit mor€ of an urban quality and to prcvide a little
stronger architectural edge along lytton Ayenue itself. Within that.
there would be a gate tnat WGuld actually be motorlzed and would have
, '
07/13/94
-5-
t
t
".
re.ote controls fer the various users ~f the building. There would be a deccrati~e iron gate. and another iron gate h~re that would typically lay
open against this s~rface $0 that it might ha~e an arch1tect~ral motif
that ""uld be c_.tibl. with the building.
We are also showing the use of accent paving within this area, creating a
little bit of i courtyard quallty as one enters the s;t~. The entire
first flo-t)r ...,ill be retail space a little under 3.000 square feet or very
close to that, with an elevator aCcesS that would carry up to the second
.nd third floor$,
Til<! basic concept of the building is that It is all retail on the first
floor. The second f1o~r would be offlce use, and the third floor would be
it residential lh1nQ unit. I wtluld like to go o\ler the elevations. This
orawi~ is the tlevation on Emerson Street, showing the retail space on
the first fJoor, office on th~ second floor and residential on the third
flc\\r. T!"re building's motif is of Spanish character, with the use of
d~corat've $~one ~aterlals on the first floor to give a little more
texture to the b~ilding. ~ strong base, and really to use mare natural
kir,ds of r,alt;"rials ilt gr-:!IJnd level n:!u pedestrians.
The up~er p()rtions. of the tlLlilding lorii1l pl·obably be either a dry .... it or a
plast~r ~jnd of fini~h with Spanish tile at the reof line. The drawing on
th~ riQ~t is tne e1ey~tion as see~ fro~ Lytton A~enue. You can see how
the b~ildin9 extend~ back, with th~ g~te into the courtyard area. There
is ~n elevatc~ an1 the el~vator shaft is behind here. The wall extends
t~ycnd th~ buildiog and just beyond the dri~eway. as ~ell.
Ihls lS th€ area w~ere the Transportation Department had a concern for
sight lines for someone sjtting in a car and pulling aut onto the street,
not seeil"lg pedestrians. I see no difficulty at all in terms of
redesig:,ing that area to pl'o\'jde that. visual access.
Thi~ eJe'o'ation looks frorr. the parking lot toward the building. Here you
Sl!'e th.tt if~ the lowest level. the buildIng steps out over iii couple of the
spices t so the first level is actually a little smaller than the second
f1!X1r. Then you see the third level above, whid wnl ha~e a 1 ittle bit
of an outdoor area directly outside the living unit.
That was a quick sketch to 13he a sense of the massing of the building.
There is an entrance into the parking area just to the rear of the
building.
C~;$Sion!i"r Glazier: That, to me) looks like a four-story building.
Does that mean that th~ resiJE!'nce is a two-story res',dence or: the top
fl cor?
Mr. iilmn: Ho. it is a single-floor residence. That fourth noor is
si~ly an attic area. The residential unit is one floor. It might hava
some yol~ ceilings, but the int~nt is tD oot have it ~re than one
floor. The roof pHd its~lf is Simply an architectural statement to spall
the "idth of the tJ,Jilding. In terms of the Might of the building. as
.... "red by the zoning ordinance. I belie" it is 47-l/2 feet.
CQ!I!!issiQner (ll1..U: I want you to explaln somethlng about the blcycle
spi!.ces. Are these two spac.es a Class 1 or 2 or 3? P.re they bicycle racks
07(13/94
-6-
.<
1
Dr are t~ey enclosed ccnt.i~ers?
Mr. Gil .. n: I ~ not surp If the containers are ~ctual1y required in thls
situitio(l. j de not believ~ l".t they are. r do not believe that the two
bicycle ::s.polces are cont.-.inH types in this case.
H,... Q\."pn.tln: If Carl Stoffel were Mere, ~e could answer tne question, but
r di:i not ~ the inswr.
(PMdssiqnfr illill: ! UI Hking h~ .,any bh:ycles does the applicant
in!end to pirk in these plices]
",.., Gilav-: C.UrTe'f"Uy, 'ft shOlif two bic ..... ele sp.ices at that point to hold
two biclcle~. I thi"~ th.it W.lS b.ased on the table. If Wi! nave rOO1!l, we
COf.l:ld prob.lb~y )!ro~l.oe IIOre, if needed, as long isS they are not the
contil iner tY:H".
CO!!lBlgr,{"r Os.sti: Ir. ter~s of designir:g the ba::k of the property so
t~lt Fanny ~nd Aie~I~~er'5 ~as ad€~~3te access for safety, etc .. h~d you
thD~;ht of cc~~!n!~~ t~e t~J lots tc~etller for a cc-~j~ed PC? Wou}d that
r~s\:h'~ t~-=-~·,cbl e-'?
I":r,_M.L:.l!l: G-,t: of U:o:' l!""t.l.al I:'.::':-i~n (':r'C~;,t} "'"-S tv tr'l' 3r'1~ ~<Jint"in
sep3r.at,=,,,,,. l~ ~hjs pir". In f.2.,:t~ .. e ',",:'.-1,::; ~'i' cr:~.:tlr.o a ..... 0111 to f(ln~~
a dj',;i5iv-, t.n'''"';?''':-I ~r:' 1)00': .c.;;>:;: .. T~;; b!:~i;: cc!".(eot )00'.3<; to not nix the
two uso:s Tr,?y ':'..~I h"f.' ? ~.::.tio ~t tl"1e rei!(, as )'D~ ~r;o\ol'.
~--:l.is.)MtU.i __ ~ __ s_:a __ l: o.it thel' als(J n~e:j "ccess i~ for supplies arid
equi~"tt irtd safet)' oar.j fire· e.xiU, etc.
Mr. StCr.'1' Just to c1crlfy, ,,'15 H~ pro'r'idir1g the.":: .a po::r~anent easerccnt
fr~ Lytton il'lto t~,eir propert)', 'So UH~Y do not havl: any change in
~ccess. lhit is prcbib1y i better iccess, becausE right ~ow. they have a
very nirr~ .... dri't'ewiY and IW@' ire widening that te, .. et current codes. So
they wil' hi¥e b€tter .cce~s for trash col)~ction ind d~liyeries. I do
not Went to iU~.e the prope-rUes !H'l~, r.owe'l'er, for financing purposes.
CQ!!isslgngr Qjikiin:
c~nt. "The subject
three· lnd four·stcr~
In t~e writeup we received fro,-:\ you,
site is also in an ~rei that js be'ng
buildings,~ From where do you deri'l'~
you mak~ the
encourage-a for
that?
Mr. Stars:: Tnt!' Urban [}e.sign GlJidt>lines,. On pig-e 23, Figure 6 is _hat I
used .15 i reference point. It 5.11011'1'5 the e:<isUng taller buildings: where
they enroura;e t~0· a~d three-and four-story building$, It does not
actuil1y sholl'l' this s.ite IS i p3rt of that en~elope, but it is in a pattern
tnat shows where they i.re errcolJragiog H. It is basically transitional
edges 110ng lytton, and thdt i~ where the taller buildings are, too. So
we thought it w~s approprilte to use that ~s a refere~ce.
Cl'1airy€rsQn S('I'~idt: I t!u~ so:one Qwest ions about thF; pHkirlg area at the
rear. There is reference mad~ t~ a crlnki~g fourltain and s.o~e public
.art. WlIere II'I'Duld tll~y be located?
Mr. Gil~an: Right ~o~. tl'1e dra~jng shows those to be in this location.
07/13/94
-7 -
\
-----
•
__ ";' __ ~''''M'_~ .. ______ ~, .. _-_
1n our discussions with staff, we ha ... '€' talked about relcc.a.ting that to
etther sld~ of this opening.
Chairperson Schmidt: So they would be on the street?
Hr. Gilnyn: Yes. on the .str~et. This is the Lytton elelo'ation. One of
these r.-;ches would be the ut niche arld H,e ot~,er "ould bE the drl1"!,Ung
fount.ln nic~e •. right off the 'id .... n on lytton.
ChairpersQn Schmidt: The parldng iTN, because it is qate-!l Cir.;:! there is. a
person 9ate there also, wvuld net be available for pubiic us.e? Would it
be only for peopl~ who wor~ or lt~e there?
!r Storm: OUT preference is to ke~p it .are O~ le11 for the people using
the building, but we would pr(l[}iibly lE'ilve it open dunr'tg the dn. If it
becaJI3E 3 problem, we would prob.ably na ... '.;-to pol iCE-tnat. At r'lTg~t, 'oII'e
want to hall! the-aJdlit,)' to close it off I:ecavse of ti;e res.ider:tial l.:.r.it
upstairs. We do not want it to ~e a co11ector for cars ~l ni9ht,
Chaj.r~_er'''QIL~.ctl:'T1idJ: T/"H! .,.;all, as sha""" j, 1:, r-u~t ;,igr-" l~'.' ~l,-2
talked about doinq 5(.l!r.et.i1ing to j-;,ro'.-" ~).,f Sl<;~.;; lj,,,s fDr ~'i:.',lcJ-=-S, 5.L:cn
as making t~e ope~ipg larger.
Mr, Gil.r.:an: 1 belie',e threl" ie~t ,,'~~ P,f~ :-~',:-._-l.h2t t~i' :r"'i"·~.H·t,~tl,~"
Oepart~€nt recomended i n t1i~ an:'~ ,:1\ t"e s' i<:~t 11 r.2, :; 1 ~ t",'2 : t ::; J')
area that extends back abollt s.ix f.cC't fr,:-t~2 E::!z;e 01 Pie tnffic "i!:~e-.
So we would probably hJrldle tbis Hc l,itectloroi tr~ns.iti:":-l ~ 1:tt112
differently, steppillg it down farth~r in that la:.t six feet. !.';; ~jghl
even incorporate a little landscapi~g there, as ~t!;.
ChairpersQn Schmjdt: Would it ju~t h~ppen on ene sid~?
~i1~an: Yes, probably just on or,e s.ide. Ii·.' nicht 1(!ok ~t he;,., to
complement that one rharacter on the oUre. s;ice of t'-~,€ dri"I? .. 'o.J'.
Chairperson Schmidt: OtheNise, that stone .. ill C{l,1tlfWes olt l~ fed
high?
Hr. GilmarJ: y~s~ Tra.nsportat~or,'S conc.ern ..-u th.a.t .a persQn in a. c.a.r ilt
Uris point is IKlre biocke-d Ulan her:: bt>cilPJse you do ha',if;-He othe-r drive
lane to give visibility.
ChairpErson Schmidt; How ~any feet r,jgh would the gate be?
Mr. Gilman: It would be a transparent gate, probably irQri~~rk. 1t
probably ~ould have some s~ape to it, and! see it ~ors in th~ @ight to
ten foot range, It would not be H rligh as the wail.
Commissioner Oiakian: Why don't you e.xplain just briefly some-ttlir.g at:out
the residentia1 unit <-ho~ many bedrooms, ~tc,
Mr. Gilman: The r~sidential unit ~ould probably h~~p two b2drco~s. It
mlght have a den, and it would ~~~e a living area that would probably look
onto this upp~r outdoor area. It ~il1 contain a kitchen and separate
dining area.
07/13/94
·8·
.. __ .. _-------
--' ..
•
o
Crmm~sdj90tr Oiak1an: Will it b~ a renta1 unit?
tit Gilman: Yes,
Commissipner QiaKian: There 1~ mentlon mad~ in here about tre~~. Would
you talk a little about the lindscaping7
Hr. GilMan: There are a couple of things. Currently. there are very fe-w
street trees. r Delieve there is one tree existing, but r ~lieve it is
just beyond the property ljn •. The thought would b. to .dd ,tre.t tree,
along lytton Avenue. On Emerson Street, there is one street tree here,
and we would probably be adding one additional street tree on Emerson
Street. On the property, there was so~~ co~nt from staff regarding
incorporating some phfltil'lg 'IIIithin. the pc.rldng area. itself. 1t1at h
sOlM!thing that we intend taking a look at with staff. The Qf1e sensith·it.¥
that we had regarding landscaping in the parking area is an appropriate
placem~nt 50 that W~ do not have a maintenance lssue with tars backing
over or short cutti~g oyer a planting area.
[orrrnissioner Casm: I .... ould 1 H:e to know how that w.an \ohere you shel'oW
the tree and two people in the parking area, how does that w~11 transition
into the other building on that side? Is it as tall as the other
bu11d1ng, or is it taller?
/iL-1!ilman: The willl is. about threE' feet lO'I"!\'"' th~;'1 the beigrit of the
adjlcent buildir.g.
CO!TlTljssioner Glazier: ",ould like to explore the building height .a
little more. As far as I can see in the Urban Design Plan, it really does
not specific~lly encourage three-and four-story buildings in that
location. In areas somewhat close to it. there is some designation tc
t~at effect, but in the specific part W~ are ta)king abo~t. as far as 1
Ciln se-e, it does not specifica1ly ercourage three-and four"stDry
building •.
In locking at this bui1ding , It does not seem that that fourth floor eyei
reany.adds ail that much, arditectllrally speaking. To mf!, it looks fr~
the ene-drawing that the slope is pretty steep_ One ,ould argue ,that it
would be better to have a 35-or <'0-foot bui lding in that area, {iiven that
there are homes not too far distant. COUld you help me with wh,V.
buildingwise or whatev~r, you really have to have a roof that goes that
high, adding that much e~tra space, taklng it up to 47-1/2 feet? from
what 1 can see, you could probably do a 40-foot building and !>till achieve
the same effect in terms of residential Uving space.
Mr, Gilman: I would like to point out a couple of ~xa~ple$ of ~imilal
styles of architecture. A building that has same very similar
characteristics to this is the building that ~e did a couple of years ago
at 529 Bryant $tr€~t. It is the bu;ldlng between University A~enue and
.f1amilton Avenue, the huilding that Digital Equipment is in. That building
has a similar roof profile in terms of the pitch of the roof. In
addition, 1 might poir.t out tl1e Plaza Rall!ona building at 250 Univers.ity
l\yenlJ€.. It is d $(I(1',€-'foIh.a.t similar architectural sty1.e. I Ul1t\~ that
having studied thet style of architecture a bit, I can j'Jst say tnat this
pitch of roof is one that is common to that style of architecture. When
the roof pitc~ is much flatter than this, it starts to give the building a
07/13/94
-9-
'.
;~---,...:..-. •
j
\
-..• ---_ ..
different kind of character.
Another aspect, also; Is tnat with t~e roof pitch being lower, one
visually loses the texture and the color that the roof can provid~ when
the roof itself is up two or three floors aboye the pedestrian ground
plan~ in a downtown area. ]n many cases, you cannot get back that far or
hay! many vantage points where you can see the roof when it ;s flatter,
CQlpigioner G1Jl;er: I am not sure! ",ould agret witt'. U\at entlrely .. As
you look around tne downtown areal you see many Spantsh style buildings
with var;o~s pitches to the roof. I could stand corrected, but it seems
to .. that there are several ty~es of pitches, ,11 of which work. One
thing 1 would corrtDent on, however, is that 529 Bryant Str€et and the other
buildings that you mentioned are all right in the core of downtown 1
whereas this building really begins to get into ~nat ! would cal' the
periphery of downtown. It begins to encroach an some of the resfdential
areas. That is why I ~m somewhat sensitive to a 47-foot building there,
especially since, from a functional perspec.tlve, it ;s; not char to me
that it adds all that much.
CommissiQner $chink: I wanted to ask staff, we ar~ referring this project
to the. Architectural Re\'ie~ 8oard, and ... e ar.'.::! not aoing so. 'lo<ith any Kind
of approval now on the architecture, etc., so we will haYe the benefit of
their thinking, won't we? So if they say it i~ out of $c~le or doesn't
work, when it comE'S bad to us, ..... e can agree with them at thal t il71e.
~G.il1.i.1.Arl.d.: Yes, i", tn':! process, this is the first review by the
Planning Comrnissicn of the PC zOl""!e. H will go from here to the
Architectural Review Board and come back to you. As with any PC, we
strongly encourage you to make your coments abtJut the architecture ai'1d
the design of th~ bui1ding 50 that the Architectura1 Review Board has th€
o€nefi t of that.
CommiSSioner Srhink; Hr. Gilman, you naye only indicdteo one residential
unit. Is there some reason why you are nat dividing up that space into
more residential units?
Mr. Storm: The space we wanted to create up there ~as one that would be a
littl~ bit of a landmark in the downtown. We were not trying to creatf
t.o or three small cubby holes. We wanted to credle a statement up there
so that people, in my mind, could see what you could do with a downtown
unit of 2,500 square feet, which 15 not a small space. It has an outside
deck and is a very liveable space. That was our intent. It i~ II small
project, and I wante-d to make a strong statement upstairs.
With regard to the height of the ceiling, it is less expensive for us to
build i 10wer scale ceiling, but we think that in terms of looking at
Bryant Street, it ~as kind of the signature we looked at to t&Ke eff
from. As! looked at dHferent buildings downtown, that seemed to have
tne strongest fee1ing for me. That is why the roof pitch is where it is.
We haye no ~ested interest in that, other than that it seemed
architecturally correct and pleasing. It is a matter of taste. You may
have a totally different taste, and the ARB may have still another kind of
taste. With the residential unit, 1 wanted to do something up there that
~as a really strong statement, rather than building a bunch of small
un; ts. I th ink. that has been done a 1 ct. I wanted to see if we could
07/13/94
-10·
,
f ,
!
f
l
~.
---""-"' .... '---
o ,"-"1
de~l with a really hi9M quality unit dow~to~.
Hr. Gilliland: let ~ respond to the bicycle parking question, now that
hoa.'e hid I Chi nee to look .t n. As a single-family res1denti.ill unit,
tl'!er.e is no iequire&ent for bicycle parking for the residential portion.
The c~rcii.l/retilll has a total parking reQllirement of 23 spaces. The
bicycle par~i~g is lC perce~t of that, or two bicycle parking spaces
rt4Uired. ~p of those ~ust be a Class 1 space, which is the locker that
ycu are thinking of. and the other Cin be a Class 3,
Chlrperson 5cnejdt: Seeing no other speak.ers, I win clos.e the publi<:
~~rtion of the hearing and bring it back to the commission.
Chairperspn Sc~idt: A~ there additional questions for staff?
C._i )S'~M" Sen; ro.k: M1i)'be st .. ff <:oul d expan.d or. .,..tty it is a problem to
"a,'e .J. cOuple of rigt1t 3.r1g1es. in a property line. I am not ver)'
s~'thetic ~ith t~~t concern.
~r. G(1)ilan.J : 1 ... il1 not $-!Y t~.at it is. ar. overly 5tron~ concern on our
part. ~e ~o I~in~ th~t in general, doi~g projects. WE find it better jf
tl',us ~~ 3 s:tr-lig~t lot 1 ine. !n tryir.g t.O do futurf! devt>lcplfI,.:nt on th~
~it~ i!rd f~Jt:_'r.: sahs d it. ·",e h?ve ~·,)und, over ti~e, and r"ost of the
p1a[1rj\~9 dO':l·-.;:-]t ... ticr., 800ks, etc .• reC()""~,-2nd that if 'yOU h<l:',e ~ore of a
~tr~,~h[ lot 110E, it dQi\ ~Dr~ optter. But r would not say Ollf conc~rn
15 o~Erl) 5tro~g.
~i..ss.Jor}_~r tiLuier; I thol]uht tnat we had different parking
rt:quif-:em;;;r-tt~ for Office .3nti fer retail. i1ere it says, one for every
250 SQu.are feet of space. Is my understanding incorrect?
~J. Gil1ilar~6: BeoLlst' it is in the dOll'nto .... n CO district, th~ CD has a
bl~nded rate. ~nythi~g that y~w do dc~nto~n is one per 250 SQuare feet,
exce-pt fOT res ident j a}.
ComtiSSlO_n.ll Glazjer: If there is. going to be an iron gate blocking off
t,~ par'kl~ nea., and ilssuming some part of this parking is dedicated to
typi,cal rt'tiil use, peo~1e 'Will COMe in He middle of the day and will
nte-.:l to lel\{e. Ho ... 101; 11 th3t ",ork with this gate? Wi 11 it remain open at
~11 t:8eS wt1ilt the retail establishment is open? Will there be some
requirement for that? 1t is easy for the office use, but for the retail
use, I 9~te is awkward, ~t best ..
Mr ~tlliland: 1 think the apolicant indicated that it was their
intention to leave it op~n durlng the daytirre. Certainly that is part of
whit we W0ldd be looking toward ttle Planning C:mmission to address.
'Q!!issior.er Glazier: lastly, on these parking spaces 6C and 7C, do we
have i substlnda.rd parking space ordinance requ1rement? ! can s~e how
th,s cDuld be a disaster waltlng to happen with those two spaces. If it
is full and people have to back out, ~nd scm~one is not looking, etc .• do
we allo~ these kinds of ~paces?
fir. Gillihpd; Tiley meet the ardir,ance. They do net meet some of the
policy and transpartation-reiatE'd guidelines that we have. It does
rtquire, thoug~, that those spaces, in order to meet our regulations, we
07/lJ/94
-11-
\
would conside~ them as backing out across t~e sid~alk in order for them
to be usea. They W(ltjld not tum around 'in t~e par','.ing lot its-elf. That
would be difficult to do, alth:)ugn I .... , sute soet ~opl~ might try to do
that.
~J..L(!ner Gl.a __ :z.J.~ __ r: C<IIn we qet cOllr'lS!l frOl!1 !l':Jr transportatio~ expert
that that is potent i it! 11 ii s i g,;; I fi C OInt tn f fi c h<iza rd?
Hr. Overwa ... : J think you nave riise-d .a p;)ir.t that reQuires so~ fvrther
discuss ior. ill'ld design development. It is;: concern for us. W€' would nat
perwit Uu.t in i }HJb'ic poiTlt;r~ lot. It ;also de~ends sCIQIIE! .. -tlat on the
intended use. If it is tr.tend~ to be .a clos~ lot ~er! the S~ people
ialre i..I~1r\g it iIIOre or less Ii$ reserved SpoIC-eS \!Inert> they ha~e iutomatic
openers, ttt::., yey IrE' duling .ith l clientele U'!oIt i~ r./sed to using
that. Tnat is dlffer~nt fro. ~at you would expect, co=ing to ~ retail
k.ind of function. But overall, in the fHth:"r desi~r. of this., we wo:.Jld be
l<lOKing it tr),inq to corre'Ct. scoe of Uut.
~sicr.Er Gluier: ;'s ,k:-, qjd. t~1s. j~ ;',,]t E"nhH~'~ .. '" Uf gOl1ig to
taH;:"" ab:lut tonight, tJt It is. s·:-· ... ~ttllr i ",e )Oii!': \'~.'~ to tjl:;, a.bcClt tr_!:
nEXt ti;o;:e it j:, t>efore-us.
l"r. Gil1iJ._<!...f',.~: if:t \:i.! ,~lr i'_~'"'' ... ':t~, )'('0';.;. :.,':.; ... ~C'. r,\"",,",j to "ddre-5S, it
ton;g~lt. ;'.S-st3ff s::--i'~ bed .?-,;j .... :Jr~,~ ~dU. tl"';:-,:r::5 2:S t~,:, ,;r,:-hjp:>(tural
R~'Jie~' ?c·ard wClrh ""iF: the"', if ',he-:' i~ g"n,q t,) r~· ;; (C':'1't,fT,t'lon SI) H:21t
th~ proj~ct cc~ld not be aDprG~~J, for exa-~~~. ~e nee-d to k~o~ that.
CO:n"llssio'nt'r GLuier: frN°' r:) sti\,.,·j~oint. It is, :';0 r l'Ii11 lCJok forward
to seeing th~t again.
CO~iSS1Ni~r S.:t"ll'1k.: !f Hey ",,,rtr:-:) to r,o.vot: ((,;.0:. re~.i,:j",ntia~ unit:; on the
top flcor, wou1J th~t incre~~~ the p~r~inq re~~ir~~~~:?
Mr. Gillilan&: ,'i;S, it would. T'lto peT ur;it -,culd be roe.quirE'd.
CQ!!!!issloner Oial<1.ln: ! ill'! 1301ng to sU;lpar-t .... hat (c.r:r.is.s.iJ::lner Glazier '""01<;
saying earlier tha.t we do not want to get int·:) the bwslness of putting i~
parking spaces t~~t .He dysfu1"1ctio."iil1 I frar'!"'.v fr.Q1(fl on tnel'!! when I a~
invo1ved with theo in thf! city, itnd I hop!!' Hut when the ARB gets this,
piddng up off of ~it is 901rl9 to CGofIe to thea froo. C'Jr mlnutes., th.ey
will take a serious look ilt t~zt 1M try to COSl)!' up ",itn ;a design that
a1lCh's for fi.mctionillity of ali of the p;ark.i,"';g spa.:!s.
In tentS of the 350,000 square-foot b~ijdinq CG~ dO\i;'1'[o\Jj:l, I am assuming
tholt beth the (etad 'ind cO:;:~Hci_G.l )jHt:. d tt-,i;: ~r."jj;:;.(t fall u!",der
that. Is that corrEct?
Mr. Gillilcnd: T~ilt is cor-reet. We are not iliilYilfhen close to reaching
tho building cap.
CQl!I'I!lssioner OjaUan: In ter~s. oi ~(JrHtr:.1ctioii im~a(ts, ! r.ctlce that one
of the things you hav~ jn(l~ded in tne staff report i~ a chart
highlighting two or three cf the main DTojects going en dQwnto~n. [have
a question about construction, because ill '"Y t .... ·o years on tile PlaMlng
COlm'isslon, we halle ne .... er .gotten into a d\SCLiSiion about .hether the
Planning (omission has some control over construction time fl"'.HIles. Do W~
0) /13/94
-12 -
-,
or do we not?
Mr. 9j11111nd~ We wou1d not b~ ti1king so ~~ch ~t~~t canstruclion ti.e
frames. What lite fio need is coordination of COi1stT(~ctjon, because there
are three projects going on in the 1nned-tate area. I would uk. Ms.. Case
regarding how illUcn authority you have to tontrol construction tl~ir'9·
Ms. Cur: Construction ti~ has, In the past, bl!en di scussed in terns of
environmental impact reports. In thi s instir,ce, st.1ff has proposed ..
negath'e declaration thil.t does not show c.onst,.-uction as bejn9 a
s'9l',ificant i.cti'Yity or causin9 significant ill?act'i. TMs ~s the ti. to
IliKf! coaents an that, because of the tiai n9 imrolvecf.
k2!!~jDner Qjak1an: So you are siYlng that wt hi¥£ some latitude iM
r.mnentin-g on tnat. I am not nec.e.ssari1y sa.ying, fer the a~p.l iCl.rlt, tt1.iH
I want to c~nt on their particular project.
Ms. Case: The noise ordinance dces address tiriing of c.o'lstn.:ti')rr
s"mewhat. l.t 1ei.st as far as. -..:hat days )'QU (",rI (li'\.j can["rJJt c;,ent.;., 'Io;ith
certain hours. If )'OU are talJdng about tilif;'~S that are 5t'a~o:"1al 3d
other types cf restrictions, those are not othtr~ls~ addre~5~j In t~p cit)
cede.
Corrrnission€r QiakiaQ: khat I a~' trying to fig'Jr<' G:""t 1<;' ju-st 02-';:.[:'(, r,:",
much latitude we do have. Isn't it tru~ tbat b~sjde; t~e~e t~re~ projects
on t~e chart. we have some other (onstruction [h~t does ~ot co~e t~fo;e
the P1i!.fi!'\\r;g COl'M\lS$\Or. or City Ccune;,l b1;UIJSI? it is tl1o.o.;aole. .,iUd-:-1 the
zoning. etc .• that is going on downt(.1lt(n? For instancE', there is SO"};;'
renovation, in addition t.o the bUildir'!9. that i~ on Ui€, corr-H of E!t'>erson
Street and University Avenue, the one that houses the c~ndy store, j~~elrl
store ar.d s.ev.eral other 5~OpS. We f1a'le se'~eral c'.n1clr,gs. 1 \~,€ th-e
building ~nere the Cottom,"orks is (J1l t~€ other er.d of U!11w'Hslt)' ':,'.e.,..:e
that is also potentially under construct inn, So ,,'12 ~iave .se'~E'rai site.'
that wi 1 1 be under construction dO\oll'1to .... n.
Ms. Caa: There are same sites over tNnjch yOl.' Mavl!' r-c control whatsoever
because they dQ not come to you, ~~arding sites that do C~ to you, the
I}nly control you havi! over their construction s,t,E:dules are things you Cin
address as part of thi! lS$es.sment of the lmpact~ of those projects, !\ther
. ciJlflUlatively or individua11y. However, .VC'J Coilllnot deal \oiith Pist projects
exc!pt in the furm of c~~ulative impacts. ! would urg~ you to not get
into thOSE! isslJes Llnles5 you fino' that there wn1 ~ ~ ~)9nHiC.Jnt iapact
on $ciiething that is c.o'Je'red under tnt ta.1ifornii Erl'-Jironmer.tai (llJll1t:i
Act (C[QA) by the cumul.tlYe impacls; Certainly off tho "top of your
head,· it is not a v!ry good idea to deal ~ith this. It is sc~~t~j~q th~t
the staff can note and look at before the next time it 'Q~es before ;O~ to
5e~ whether they do need a reasses.s~nt of their e~~iron~entol l~~act
report. Otherwise? you have a pretty limited scope to look at.
C.o!!!Dissiorter Qjakian: Fran~ly, I am not s.ure I do .. ant to get into it.
and 1 do not wilnt to get ~nto it in rehtior, to this. project. 5.0 1 do nc.t
want the applicant to become concerned. [r~isEj the issue partly because
I wondered why yall incl uded the chart in our p';i:~et?
Mr. Gilliland: 8ecause as a part of the er~virof'lment41 assessmert that has
to be prepared for the project, the construction i~pacts are an issue that
07/13/94
; 13;
•
,
._--.;.,,-
Mas to be addressed. The cumulative ir.;pacts of the th~'ee projects that we
know of, plus the fourth that y~u mentioned, could be slgnificant in terms
of a.ll Qf t~em. simultaneously being under construction. Tha.t chart, b J'
the way, was prepared by the applicant at our request.
Comm issiQner Q1akian: In and af itself, tMis particular project doe5 not
pose a stgnificant effect in terms of construction impacts on the
aOWlltown.
In terms of putting in conditions on pes, Ls. it ac.ceptable to put in a
condition that restricts the h~urs of business that a retail or commerci~l
area could undertake? Could we put in defined ti~eSI saying the hours
will be from X to 11
Ms. Case: Again, that wou1d be a condition that would have t.o relate very
directly to impacts caused by the development that needed addresslnq.
Just ~U't of some soc i a 1 concerns, you ",au 1 d not have t hat abil it 'I . .
Mr. Gillila,..d: j might add that the use permit proce~s is sC't IJP, and
many of the uses are sometimes controlled by time. particu13rly if it
;nyolves alcohol. If some us~ going in here created thet kind of a need
to go tnrClugh the USE permit precess, it might be applied at that ti~e,
do net know of any time tInt we tlave put a tir.:e r.on:;traint Or'1 a project ~s
a part of a PC Ot, ally other zoning.
Ms. CaL~: I would add that in this cas.e, W€ ar.e not creating ur1usual
uses. We are basically suggesting that the uses be the same as would
flormal1y be allowed in th€ zone as it 1S zoned for now. In that caSl3,
there would be a heightened leyel of scrutiny on any kind of con.dition you
would put in that yoOU would not put on an),one el se in th'e di strict.
Commissioner Qjak;~n: So for example, in that co~er(ial sp~ce on the
second floor of this project, I have been known to remain in He
coll1'itercia1 building where I work until 7 p.m., 8 p.m .• maybe even 10 p.m.
Are we saying in this partic~lar operation that someone could stay there
until 3 a.m. if they felt like it? There is no conditioning that?
Hs t Cue: That is probably correct. Of course, Uere is going to be a
r!sidential unit there, and you r~n into the old airport problem. y~u
have a duty not to create a nuiSance. I assume tnat since it is ,going to
be a rental, not owner occupied, thai there will ~ same incentive for the
owner to manage all the uses so that they are compatible ~ith each other.
Corrmissioner Cassel ~
mitigate some of the
ever been done'?
I am trying to work out a way that we Cin perhaps
parking with bicycle spaces. Has anything like that
Mr. Gilliland:
be 1 i e'ie you can
space.
Yes, the ordinanc~ specifically allows for that. I
sub5titute eight bicycle parking spaces for one vehicle
Comrn...ii,sien..,gr Ca$sel~ Can you tell me how that works?
Hr. Gilln.nd: Not very well. Specifically, if the director. the person
who can make that deCiSion, decides that additional bicycle parking spaces
would be advantageous, you can substitute eight bicycle spaces for Of1€
07/13/94
-14 -
•
o
rtq'u-l red venltl e sprier:-. Ine only "instance I can think of where that was
cktne re-cently ; s the Xercx bui ldi n9 in StanfOI"d Research Park., where they
hive Ii 519"1 ricant number of people who cO:mlute .by bicycle. It does not
do a lot in te~s of sa¥ing space, because eight lockers take up about the
S~ ~unt of room as onE parking space.
COIPjssjDnrr CiSH.]; But then would they not be required to put in the
UJ,OOO in 1 ieu of that space? In other words, if they had 13 s:pac~.!.
t~re instel!d of 14 spaces, you woula" not make them do an in-lieu space in
zdditfon to that, would you?
Mr, Gilliland: 1 think )leu wouid have to shtlw a need for that many
bicycle parking spaces.
CQ!!lssigngr Cassel: This is an office use downtown near the train
station, and it is going to be a~ e~closed !rea where most of the use
would be by people in the office and other place5. One of th~ problems in
trying to bike to 'pjork 1s the need for safe bicycle storage wl1en ·you are
at W'ork '50 U~at it is not out on the street all day, It I<o'Cri.lld be in the
bac~ :o,rc. S.o~,e of tr>~s.e spaces may help out with s.Jcme of tllis
; .... ()..a.rdn;:>:ss they are havif"lg.
~:iL ____ O)-'i..ry~~_l:: On~ of tho;> t~jl1gs. ..... € have done in other places. is, rather
tha~ p~t aight on tl,at particul;T property, to try ~nd locate somewhere
else wh~re we tllOUght it might be a suitable use. In ~nother instance in
reli3t~on to another development, SOr:le of ti1e U·r.acks. were put on
University ~.Yenue "here they w!':!re f1eed~d. They were not ali needed at th~
partic\Jlar site where the project was being done. So if we were going to
cOl'lsider that kind of thing, we might t;.'arlt to look beyond Hat particular
ge':lgraphic lot to use some of those bicycle facilities.
~..QmiuJ..ruJ.g~lier: My understanding of the S2.1,OCO figure is that it
is our current "best estimate~ of what W~ think the average cost to build
an extri space, a combination of surface parking and u~derground parking,
will be. That is why W~ are thinking about charging $23,000 per in·lieu
space.
""r. Oven/ay: Es.sentially, that is true. It is a holding number that was
estilblisnfd by what the city paid to lnother developer for sOllie spaces
thit were ~Jilt in the downtown ar:l. We are in the precess of
inalytica11y looking at refinement of that number. It is a good holding
na..ber.
COIRlssioner Glazier: Given ttjat that h our best estimate at this point,
1 ~uld ~ot see ~ny particular reason for us to negotlate with any
p~lential developer on t~al figure. There is an independent procfss that
is determining that. and is not SOlely driven by the Planning COlTI'nission.
Given that r have said that, there might be some interestJng possibilities
ind some flexihi1ity on my part if th~r~ were pe~haps so~e interest by the
develo~r in rethinking the residential unit on top. Instead of one unit,
which might be the nicest residential unit in all of downtown Pal~ Alto at
2.200 square feet, if perhaps there were some interest on the part of th~
app1iCGnt in exploring two or thre-e or more units, thHe mi9ht be some
give on my part fer that. I do not know if tonight is the night to talk
.about th.a.t, but; tis something I wanted to pl ant in the ear f'lf the
applicant. We haye been taiking about mixed use for a long, long time,
07/13/94
. 15·
-------
-' .. ' ,-~
f
~ .. /
._--...... -----,,_ ..
.."
,1nd we have not seen ~a1'ly proposal $, for it.
It is grut tn<lt WE' <lr-e s~ing this propo:;al, but one big, luxurious unit
~s prob.ibly o.)t _+\,)t we were thinl:.ing about when 'We t1avp. talked about
.ixed lJse. 1 c,an undentimd why it Eight bs attract lye, but 1 think there
.ight ~ ~re sociai ben~fit ~ith eore units. When we think about pes, we
iIIlnys think about p'l.iblic benefit. Here I'llight bi! more publlc benefit if
t}~re ~rf MOrt tha" ont unit. pernips three units targeted at a different
fotol'tOllic s.t.at1JS for fO-lks wI'Io would '.unt to live dOwntOOffl. I ilPl no1 sure I
~ulj wtnt to s~nd S2,SOO per month to live next to a beer garden.
Co.isslQMr Qi;tl;iar.: I ~uld lik.e to have staff respond to some of the
(~nts .. de ear1ier by t~e lppli(a~t about char.gi~g the lot line to
a(.::~at~ whIt stiff s~csted i!'1 th-e r-epcrt I about the R-l shari r.g of
parking Sp iii CI!"S , .tb<lut dr<JPP \~ the use perr,; t rev; eo ... proce~s on the beer
gareefl wh;c~ ~s bHO!!!:i~g infia~':J5 tor;jc;"t, about relocHiof, of the bike
rack, redesi9"i~g af t~e wall for j~crovej visibility co~i~g out of the
9atP-d He~. j!:r"ld .!ls0 Sl}~i: (t~~"int O,r the C')S.t of H,e parking $paCE!S.
! do lr~. fr0~ _~~~ ~e dld t~e par~i~o lot in the C~lifornia ~yenue area
t!ia.t H.e ((J.st~ ""Ere t~F.n esti::'.!ted at-abo:Jt $20,000 per space, and
(c~~tir;, Sc t~~ r,.~-~~r t~i·C.' OJl tG~j9ht see~s pretty reasonable to
~e. Th~: i\ a 1ist oi sc-e Jf ~he thinJ5 th~/ ~rougllt up. Would you c~re
tel ((-.-=-rit c,rl t:",E-?
~,.., GI ).ul.a.r"~: I ,10 "ot ha',e 2:r;i 'It:f'j specific cc:~ents, other Ulan in
He :;t<lff n;.["·rt, '"~ ha ... e rer.cT€rtded t~at at l€a:;.t one of th~ R·} space)
be cOi1sid.;,-ed tv t:-e shned. j thin~. "'~ \ltC'uld lo:J~( f(Jr your-Con'''1'1ents as to
_heth~r you thin~ toth of the~ (ould be.
r have ~pE'(Hic.iilly talked to 1\an..::y litle, t~e Zoning P.d~inistrator, about
the use perr.:it. ~he ft'ers \'ery strc.:gly that it 1s 11 cnange ·rn Hie use-of
the property. It ~culd be co~slstent with previous ~ctiops and that 1t
wou1d requiT(, tl1J.t the use pe~it be re'l'is~.j or amended. It is not to say
t~.lt it is " fe",'OCilio r , of t~'e i.B.e per.:llt. J do not want anyone to get
O"t i~ression. it is just an 3~.er.dment to the USE permit, a review of
it I and Nancy' h.t::: s.id t~3:t.
Wr s;id in the st~ff report that SpacEs 6 and 7 aloe questiondble in the
p.lrki~ lot, l!"ld w still 19ree with that.
As far as the let lint ~djust~nl gQing thrDugh there, that is som~thing
thit staff and the-ipplinnt need La review further.
[ eel ie1'e I am h-earir;g frc,m you :;'0 far uc.t yOll na .... e a stronger concen
~~out Spaces 6 and 7 tnan !taff aid .n the staff report. TMat is what we
lik.e to near-from you .-he .. j"JU feel about it.
As for the bic)cl~ parking
and €~its to th€ b~ilding.
ordi~a~ce is clear on that
space:!., they do r.€.ed to be closer
We ~oid fairlj strongly to tl'1at.
r cd r:t ,
to entrances
The
COimlissione-r Oja~iii'1; Ji~, it saunds like WE: are going to get some
landscaping on the streetscape through the addition of street trees, at
ieast. 1s there so,"ne rE~ason .. hy that did riOt get included as part of tnt'
publ ic benefit?
. ,
07/JJ/94
. 16-
~,---. -, .
Mr. Gilljlilnd~ That is sooettllng we would u-pccl of in)" pl·oject.
COCII!Iissioner S.~hink: is it .ithin clJr power, in rE'vle1(ing this, to say to
the applicant, in:s.tud of having only one unit, 'It.~ w,u:t j'<J~ to d;Yide )'our
2~ZOC sqQue feet into five urdts.? We feel ttu.t would be a r€;al benefit
to the cOfIIIUnity, and we will not reqL;ire an)' .dditlOn.li p .. r~'ng? We
think it is reas~nable tnit your 14 coaaerci.1 spac!s would be ide~uite to
be shired with the residentta' sP~Ct~.
!Sr, Ginjlil'ld~ Ye.!., you hive tne right to make tt',~t kind of ;(
recosme~.t1on. {e~tatnly, if you ~re goi~ to 90 that fir, we ~uld
~ant to iddress it ~t the ~tiff le~el, beciuse th~r~ ~re ctn~r
considerattons, plus the efff'c-t it vculd hHe Or1 other i1$SeS s.men,t di strict
properties dQ'llffltown, Yell nee-d to be a.are of a let of On,!r i$sues thit
revolve around thiit recO!IfI(!ndaUon.. )'cu can !lili(e Jt, ht if th~ .apoljca~t
did not want to go along .. i HI ; t, ycur reccur-s'1 'IoI'olJld C>i' t~ c-t!cc""J!':e,d
denial of t~B project. Then you ~culd h~ye to ~i(€ t~e ~~ri~~s finjj~~5
to do that. That is Of ... .a} ,;of s3:_.'ir~9 r ,,'::"uld u:.;~ici1 ~':."..2 <!\ r,i) k-... f.ar
you would want to p;c!:~elj c-r. 5t.":i"1 ... rt'::C~€j"!'ja.~iC'~i.
Com1ssioner __ jcnjr.'J;: Haw fu "O:.t'iQ y,:;'J t;C, 2$ far Ii", 5~.2F't:·j ,-n,t~g
sp~ces? Would thr~e unit) be r~J~o~~)i~ treri!
Nr. G:1lilillld: !It tf,i~ ti;-:".2, q~ff i;; ·"',.'r,. c:--f'ld2~·1,,· '~iU; u,~' ~:~.;_.
sha.re-d parking spa.:~ for HE' re~ld~rlti~l <J~lt .. r.d r2t;;,:.rlr-i:':~ t.har. or,e
remain. There is not a lot of ~tudy en that. j ca~n~t 9~~e jt~ a lot of
basis for that, but our feelir.g i~ thet the r.;>s.i,ji'r1Ual ur.1t 1-s gOin<) to
nave a car that will be p.rKej theU:' ,. .... Js.t c,f t~e tl"":-t'. Especia11), o~;e (}f
thi$ size. yo~ might consider that one of the C~T~ ~i9~t go ~~~y dur1ng
the day to so~ jcb, but the other c'"~e is. !Hely to be there. "lso, !
could argue the other ~ide pretty e~sily and Sl)" th~t "€ ~re next to mass.
transit, ar.d retail servlces .are 'fer}, dose. Jt could bE" fer two people
who do not nave cars at .. n.
COI!!1$slQner Schink: That was .y next Q~estlon" '"ou Silld you need fc-ur
units there, but only one is gOing to ha"tE par;;lr~g spiCes.
Mr. Qyerway: Using the experience of Abitar~ o~er the Q gar.ge, it IS ~J
understanding that each one of thos~ units has. parking spice, plus s~
shared overflow with tne pe~nent spots in the public portion. So they
eac~ have on~, plus S~ sh~red use of e~(e~i spices. We do periodic.lly
get calls from pp.ople who, 'in theory, IJndersti!'!.d that -..1l.ero thE-Y rent thO'se
units, but they have two cars arid the), .",.ant to l(~'jW ..... nne th\?)' can pad:.
their car. Our answer to th~~ is that tMere IS ~o Ql~:e for the~ to oark
their car during the daytime. r do not lo:nnw now many .. nits are there~ bLAt
it is evident to us that each ene of those units, on iver;ge. needs
slightly ~re than ~ne parking place.
Tne ether c~mment 1 w~uld .ake is that in ~orkin9 ~lth the parking
cOFllnittee of the Chamber (Jf Co~er(J:·. th-ere is a s!ro,_~ CC:K_ern ar"j
interest in gaining as ~any spaCES is they possiDly C2~ a~d in protect1ng
a.S lIlany spaces as H~ey presently have. Hey ue He people 'who get
(.~arged for building additional spaces. If there were going to be four
residential u.nits, I think there would fla'ie t-o be a. filrl . .,,· strong,
convincing argulil€nt that those four tenants .. r.uld, indHd, be gone durlng
07/13/9~
-17 -
'~~~': .
.,..f
tn! day and their cars would not be there. If they .are g01ng to be there,
tnat causes a spillover ripple that somebody i~ parkir.g in so~~ other
spaces. That would be the concern that the other people downtc..m would
have.
tOMiss;oner Glujer: In my mi nd, I couid pretty easily make t~e ar9Lmertt
that if you have someone 1,v'~9 ,n a 2,200·square·foot apartment, lt is
liKely that it would be a couple or a famny or SOMoM: .blt tc afford two
cars. If YDU had mu1tiple, SOO-sQuare-foot units, it would probably house
$ingle peopl~, ~r couples just starting out in t~eir careers, who ~uld
probably only have one car and would drive It to work. So the need for
~'t1ple parking spots during high Gse hours would be reduced. ts that a
compelling argument?
Mr. OvPrwiV: We do not have scient; f ic prMf of any of that. You
certain1y are headed 1!'1 th.e right direction, but I cO'lld easi1y Soay that
since they are close to the train station. the)' could co:r;;:..t.e to S.lr'r
francisco d~riT1g the day ?nd leavE' th~ one car they have at ~,C':":~. $c\'C'e
other one of those five tenants m~y have two cars, and so~e ~ay not h~,'e
any car at all.
Ch~.trD!!"sJtn Schmidt: Regarding ttle parking, o. lac:': t~ert:ci, th"t Joie ~ut
in for the project in the alley on 8ryant StrEet, the By:tbee Hcuse, ~hich
had several small unit$, there H'as no ~.ark1ng.
fommissioner Ojayian: 1f J rer.:e~be ... right, we-put in six !Jlllts n.en.
"rhe house itself was gojng to be divided into two unit~ and th?y ~er~
gOipg to put in a b~i)ding, which is currently under construction, that
will have four other units. They averag-e 4QO or 500 sqLJare feet Nch, ar:'d
it is true, ther~ is no parking for them. 1 felt that we m~de a
sign'ficant exception there due partly to the histnric lnterest in that
hause. Jt was a unique concept, a~d it will be interesting to see how
that al1 plays out. We did raise a 10t of c.ono~rns abcut thE' park:\(1g "h'!:'n
we confirmed that. We had addition.l interests 11'1 mif1d there, .. hid is.
that the Byxbee Hause ~as been there a long time aM ~a:. s.o,""e historic
't'allJ!.
Corrmissioner Glazier: It seems that behind the Fanny and Alexa~der
property. there ~ight be some extra roo~ if we moyed it over 3,000 or
3,500 square feet. Jnstead of just moving the lot line oyer 2,2nO $q~are
faet, it looKs liKe there \S room beh~nd th~t property. It says, wood
fence a.nd dirt.. Ooes the c.:.urrent prop{)sa1 move it all the way OVf:r to a
brick patiO which .seems to be behind part of this? Is. thert! iiny dirt or
empty area not being utilized there that could be used for additional
parking spaces?
Hr. Storm: Right now, the proposed line takes it T19ht up to where they
have a finished patiO. There is no longer any raw dirt there available.
1 should mention that I have to protect th~ir fight to cp~rate. I ca~~ot
say for sure about the gate.
Commiss:iQrler Grazier: Ye::., and we fully appreciate that..
~bairperslln Schmidt: If that is tl1e r;:st qLlestion, we car. move into our
comments. This is the preliminary re¥iew of this application. We are
commenting on its conceptual stage and conceptl..lally appro\ling or
07/13/94
-18-
o
disappro\ling it, sending it on with conments to the Architector.al. ~e\liew
Bo .... !.
Commissioner Cassel; I would 11Ke to begin because r want to bring up the
bicycle subject. The big issue here that is facing us her~, whether we
iT9ue about tne apartment upstairs or n~t. is whether to appr~\le a prQj~ct
tnat Mas too few parking spaces. Since it is only one space, I was
h~ndering today if anyo~e is interested in offering the opportun,ty to
negotiate one of those spaces in exchange for lOre bicycle parking
spaces. Ob~lDus1YI we ~re not gOing to negotiate ill of the spate~.
because it is not a one for one equal parking need for bicycles and tars
It this time, but obviously, we are going in tnat direction in th~ f~ture,
to more bicycles. One of the problems in using bicycles is having
adequate, safe space when you ~o to work and remain there. People who are
e~lcyed are ~re apt to use them, if they ha¥~ reasonable spaces. So I
wondered how the rEst of you feel about that.
Comissione-r Sc;binx: I would agree with ['rlyllis on that one issue. Also,
I like this project, and I think it will be a good addit10n to downtown.
I would like to see it work. Let me touch on a couple of pOints that J
think are simple. r feel WF; should :;;mply allow the01 to make the 10t line
adjustment, considering He nigh value of ~roperty liowntown. TMis is the
sort of thing we would expect .. a few additional right angles here and
there. But for the sinip'licity of paperwork, it 5~ems unreasor\,abh for us
not to ailew ~,im to IT,Olle l"Iis lot line. $(1 I 'nculd \?l'\cowrage £'Ier),on-e to
support the irregularly shaped lot line.
I think the real public benefjt here is the residential unlt. 1 am almost
'Uncomfortab1e with the idea of the drinking ft:tH1tain and the art. 1 have
not re,oncileo in my mind wheHler those should even be inclliced, because
in some ways, they sl')rt of thu!':'1b their nose at the praceS!.. ! r.now we
need to include public ban~fit, so maybe we are just jncl~din9 those and
ca11in-g them pubnc benefit. Sut I $ef' tne rea'] benefit as being tne
resident ill unit.
I am strugglin9 mQr~ with how b'2f1dicial it is to have Just the one unit.
I would prefer to see it as ;nore uni ts. I ctin approve the project Hoe way
it is proposed, but I would be happier seeing it with four or fl~e units.
! would be so happy to see that that I wouid not rec:llJire them to provide
park.in.g far those units, That is the direction in which I 'fIould"like to
see us proceed. The package, wh~n c~mplete, will have a greater public
benefit. If we ar~ going to take action as far as encouraging housing in
our urban core areas, we are going to have to make parking concessions.
That part of downtown Pll0 Alto could handle it. That 1S the d)r~ct10n
would lik€ to see us go in.
CQmissioner Glazier: I agree with almost el/erytnir,9 Jon has said. 1
like the mixed l.lS-2 concept. 1 like th~ mix of uses n.erf!, and I like the
design, by ~nd large. But the whole issue of public benefit. as Jon says,
is one that is easy to struggle ~ith. In the context of just one
2,2<lO-square-foot unit, 1 would say, I donJt like the parking problems; I
don't 1 ike Spices 6 and 7; I am not sure 1 liKe a H~foot·tall building,
But if it were to come back as a two or thr€e or four or five unit
residential proposal, I think many of those concerns, weighed against the
benefit of five units ~erSUi thos~ other issues, a decision would perhaps
be ~n favor of the project,
07/13/94
·19·
{
,
,
• .1
/
... ---......... ~
Sl~f wt ITt not ipprovtng anything specific tonight. just a 9~neral
eonetpt, I would encourage the appllcant to work with staff to c~e bac~
wjth S~ creative Ippraacnes to this issue. ·Jon's proposal represents
one &p~roIC~" il;M there a.re ?roba.bly cthf'.rs that Jim and s.ta.ff ca.n thifl~
of. Creati¥}ty is encouraged, but I would be glad to support a motion to
i~prove thi 5 at a c{lnCeptui' level.
~: CQ!ni$stoner G]jz~~r: ! th~refore move th~t we appro~e
conce~tually the request for a PC zone change, and along with that, a
request to accept pay.ent of tn~lieu parking fees of 523,000 per space,
consistent wit~ the report ,s presented to us by staff.
~: By Coaa1ssioner Schinx. 1 will second th~ motion if we can
in,1ude th.t they be .11~d to ~a;nta1n the lot lines as shuwn in their
oIppl ic:at ion.
Chi!i)""c",sol"J~;:_:,;_t-'=i-ctt: Ms.. C~';e, the$t: are just caments. He motici'l \oPouid
t'f fDr-clJr,':-eptr.:,al appr(,v2Il .,nth co~ents.
~$. _(<'lSI':: That is c(}n'"12Ct. The r:'JP will officially be in front of the
..:c.,~,jss.ion at t~e r,en hearing.
Chiirper~on Sc~~idt: So tMere can be co~sellSUS or no consensuS on
c~nts.
~~~; That is correct I and you are 9iving very goed direction to the
stiff ind, I assu!Tlt', to the applicant.
("missioner Ojakia(1' t would concur \o:1U .... hat both Comissioners Schink
and Glazier rfave-:Sajd i11 terms of lhe mi:c:a:J us.e concept. The-only thing I
~~ia Gdd to that , from a conceptual point cf Y;ew, that I like about this
project 15 its lo,aticn. It is not .a. particularly attractive area of the
downtown. so the fact that we have the potential for doing sOlile building
there to enhance that c~ea is important to mention.
T~ hit on i f~ of ihe ~tnar things that were brought uP. the key issue
here that we S~ t~ be grappling with is the publiC benefit $l~e uf this
PC. and included in that is looking at the whole parking issue. That is a
difficult issue to me. I can hear where Jon is corning frDm, because W~
irt lookin£ for some added public benefit, and maybe that public benefit
is ~kin9 svr.e sma 11ei u~its, so we would have Mare than one unit, a"d
they ~ould be a little ~ore cost effective. It add~ something to the
dO",,-ntOfffl.
1 would 11$0 hope that a part of looking at this is that w(! 10nk at the
l.ndscaping and streetscape. not just in the area of the trees that they
are pro'tidin5. but ant other things we can do to enhance that area. I
.ou1d hope that the ARB would keep that in mind when they get this before
thE~, along ~ith locking at the architelture of the project, making som~
recor.mend.tio11S on the lands.caping.
I U'I grappling with tr,€ parking aspect of it. We bave gone through
s~vera) discussions here, ower a period of time. Everyone knows there is
07/13/94
·20·
~ .....
o
,J pillrkir:g prt'bl'l!'ll' dOWTltown, Staff!iolS 011 so c~r.ted on the f.lct that or
~OUTse, we hive ion iSSeSSI'oent oj stri ct, ilnd those peoplP who arE' i pi!rt of
thlt usess.ent distrlct hav" concerns lIbout ~ pro';ect thilt goes in which
does n~t ~i.ve s~ff,cjent pillrk1~. I ~ not sur~ wr.at the ~nS~er is. I
suspect t~re is i. c~ln.ti~n .n~~r herE' tnillt SiYS, rot only is there a
fee bvt thilt the i.pplicilnt hioS s~thi~ thlt gUlrant~es that they have
parkirl9 sp~ces for-the OC:CUPIl'"its .of tl'1e bUliding so!:'",ewt1e-re dOWfltOwn. J am
not quite sure ha-y~ would do thilt. ~j concern i~ tnat ~e do not nave
enough parking, especiilly with ~o-e of th~ bui1ding we ha~e '~rr~nt1y
901"9 on ctowntcvn. Given tht: loc.a.Uon of tnis ~ilding, Sor.li' of thCiS.e
~ple will Plrt in the resi~ntil1 r.eigh~rhood because it lS
con¥enient. It would not cost th~ .nyt~in9. ind it is ~ithin reasonable
wil~lng d'~t.~e,
So r hopp th,t wh.~ we 9ft t~is b,c(, we .re not just going to look at t~e
fee end of it. f ~,ope trrolt ~ of1'set H~it '9a:inst :!'om.e guardntee that the
occi..ipanu ~f this building h,He SO!!oP. p-H~i,.,g s.Q~.t;er'~.
Cb"icU51y, sc·.":'-ethir.s ras to h ·,~,-',~.2 ' • .-i~~ ~;·~,:>:,s ~ ar:-j 7, cC'ca-..Ise
(tjrre:;'tly, 1 CJ r:.:::t fi;;~ t~,1:'"" .a.::.::-;.t..:;,b1'E'_ j a-SL1r"t th~ M~8 i<;in c-o:-;r;l2nt
on that. h'::;~';:>(wl iy, .... <: can d.] Si-. .f[~I;rS' ,,:-:o,_,!,. tc"n C.::fcre \o!'" (c-p7et.e
this pro::€~:s.
S~-,e P:C,p·l" cr::,T"Jrltej 0'1 I.~~ r,C'·..in of P'i' Q,;tin~ of tJlis ,H;,,~. t;"lin~ 'piE.
)I"iJ~ld tao:.::-eo ur~f'..Jl 1C':-·~.:.t th<!t, -l~H\::~~~, I j:) r·ol ~:;r~t ~o se-t ~rlY
t.1l'"~s. em tr.a.t r\g:"lt r.c", (,_,t H 51' .. .::.:10 t." ;s~eth\r.'9 f"'::3so~2.b~e $0 tt:ilt ,,)1
ot the-users of the 5.-,t~ Fe -!(~:::C~·c:!Clit€<~. H',[,s€ are i'r' !:'air; concerns. t
do liks this proJ~ct in ~ lot of ~Jys. so hopefully. we' can work something
out ~nd :;H it c.0'ICE to fruitiDn. i .'111 SUPDOTt tfle rrotion.
{J~::m\ssir;..n!i'r (esse!; SHin]l)', j 11/:;? th~ proj€ct. ~hl$ is In a
trar.sitio'l zone CC'lIo(nto,.f'l_ Ur:der tl1e UrbJ.l! DE~lgn G.uid~lln~s, a~)'
indicate this ~rea as i pred~min~nt h£ight ~rea of t~o stories. 1 wc~ld
rJot na'll'! beet! I.:r.nappy if n,h; tl,Jd C~ 1;1 ~s tilll'(! stories, but H has come
in as three storie~1 ~nd th~y h~~e tne right to do th~t. It indicates
that I phntit)g setbici:: alo:"li) lytton k"enue «light be iPtlropriate. That is:
somet~in9 1 think one .ignt (o~s:ider. In ioo~in9 it the other buildings
that ire going to be Ulree :Stories, 1 belle.'e Uoerr is sc.rr:e-setback from
the streft on that. lht hti9ht is ther~, $0 this ~uld be the third
building of .a:pproxla1lte-ly the SUl'i! hp.ight ",'S tva other bui ldi ngs 'currently
on th.t corner. So that .igr.t be looked at,
Interestingly enough, 1 hid th.t Sl.e ':<!Iic.ern tlu.t e'ier)'one else. did ibout
the aputment on tM€, top floor, a~.d grappled filth that" I wer,t down and
v~sited the site ye$terd~y ~fter~CC~J, ! ~ilked around. ViSlt~d th~ beer
garden. went to the back and dl$CQ'.el'"(j no .... ~uc:h $pdCe h; bad. there-.
Then I .ent back it 11 p.Rr_ to -"isit tile ~H garden, 'pjhich ... ·t!.s fu.n. I
wanted to t"tear the sound, and they do, 1 ndel!'d have a bal1d, T1'1ey a1 so. h.av-e
a lot of fun. and I would not .... a.nt to do a:nyth ing to jeopardize the fun at
this site. At this Ulle. it no.-has lots of parking space arou'id it, so
wher. you get OiJt of your or an-,j yet..! hear thE band, it feels good. If I
were 1 )1'10g iT! U,at apartii:ent, r l~1 root sure-fie)'" gO.:l·:j it lrIould feel.
r w.s thinking of Jon's (omQent ~nen ~e put in the ~ther six units in th~
i!.l1ey, and M1S cO:M"ients about H,e Mise at night. and thought, this is
going to be Ij'jore nOise than that. So 1 ,"'.as a I ittl!? cOflcerr'led about a
07(13/S4
~ 2 i -
•
,
i
f.
!
I
-.
large, single unit up thrre for that reason. pr~sume it is a single
story, although it Is a larg.e sizt, because H,er.e ire so~ a-.::cess proble-ss
and some safety prol:lle.s in naYing two or three i.il'1its upstairs.. Yo ... have
to get up and down the sUi rs and you IINst holve flre exits, so )'OIJ lose do
'ot of space in c\>irv:l that, l W'Juld presutte. But it is 4l~ int~··estin9
concept, and J am not for throwin9 it out, dnd I wa~ not thln~ing in terms
of three or four-units.
I am interest!d i~ explorir.~ the ,dea of excrlangTng sose of ttrE oarkir'19
for sorrte b\cyc 1 e spacE's. lit It; ght .a: t lea'S t ~e t S~ people perked, one
way or another, that WiY. There lIIight be S~ cOflgensatl on .
I do not see any reason for not iddir.g the public fountain as part of th~
p"bl;c bonefit.
r a9ree with Jon about even one residential unlt being some pub11c
beilefit. but I would rather have tw{l. ~aybe the Public Art Co~i!>sjor,
might hil"le some ideas as to ho .... to handle th:!:t ~utll ic Ht sp.:-t.
Ql.d.iroers.Q.L?_(h.JD.Lq!: I like th pr·)ject, ind ..l9rC:'e ... ·ith .! l'Jt Df t~?
comments t1"lat hCl'/€ been madB!. One thinq of sigrllfJc.:;r,:.: HilL i d·:-. ~[.~
b-elie'lle has b~'&n rrentionC'd is. th.n this-is a r.roj-z·:_t th~t \5 l.~'''H·,;! n':;
place of a piece of property that wJ$ a-~rti72j. Tr~ ~C(VP2~~ ltft ~~~
property ~bout a year Jgo, ~nd ! a-happy fo ~e~ t~~t ~c 3re ~e~1 I~O s.~-~
new) energetic projects I).ac~: en these propcrtit!$ th~t "'-::-h2.· • .:-"trc'J9ht to
'~a!;.anc)' ,
It is gra~t to see projects that do support concepts of our recently
adopted Urban Design Plin, WI,en I first lco~ed at the dra~in;s, t~e
project by itself is an attractive project, but 1:'0 thinUfl9 iibou t• it ir1
context) lOOK1ng at elevations, it sE"eli,S li~e \t ~~gi"(t bl? a-. little:-t211.
In driving around and ~31kin9 around the area, : do not th'nk th~~ 15
true. Ther~ are a lot of other two-a~d three-story bui!d!~;s In the
vi<:inHy, even though the imlE-diately Idjacent building.s ire lO)rOt>r,
Across Lytton Allenu!? there is ill large, t ... o-story building. Across
Emerson Street and across the parking lot is t;,€ Unh-ersity NaUo"liill eilr11.:.
wliich is at least a three-story building. There .are l!IuHiple story
buildings acrosS Emerson Street, as .... ell, Htt?re will be ill ne""
multiple-story bui1/ling diagonally iterass Lyttcn A',enue. So I a.m not
conct:!rne<l about the scale. and wou] c' agree wlth the iirchitect'.'l cOCIIJents
that when you see it in perspecti¥e from the street, it looKs different
than what you see on a paper ele .... alion. Indeed, you need to dCl SOGC
thlngs like possibly make the roof slope steeper to l~ep the b~ilding
looking good from the an91e at lthich most people yie.,. it. I .a:l~o .ou1d
like to say th"t J will leave those-Kinds of cc~ents. (;i' to U;i'
Architectural Review 80ard to disc.uss further.
I like seeing some public benefits put in like the art and fountain_
Tnese are things suggested in the Urban Design Guidelines. r would like
to see these public use features appear more in Palo Alto. These are the
kinds of thlngs that occur in urban and suburban ~ettin9s in Europe and
other large cities in the Unittd States. 1h~se ~r~ nicetie~ to h~~e in
the downtown, and there aren1t many, if any, public dri~King fount~ins
that 1 can think of downt<Jwn. 1t would be nlce to be Coble to get a drin'"
of water some~here.
07/13/94
-12-
o
I agree that ttl! parking area neli!ds to be looked at. Staff and the
Ipp~1cant can work out whatever' is appropriate, wheth~r the lot 1 ine
beca.es straight or as propo~ell by tnt!' applicartt. Thn-e is 5ti i1 the
necessity to nave access to the second property~ so something needs to be
worked out there to allow that access,
Lastly, I am verjl happy to see tha residenli.al use there. It wouid be
n'lce to see DXlTe residential units, as many others have suggested. 1.
toc, would be happy to .<c.pt littl. or no parking for additional units.
We have donE that before w;t~ the Byxbee House project. Also. it is
supportive af some of the things that are being reco~nded and discussed
in the Compren!ns1ve P1an, that is, to reduce some of the parking
requirements that we place on projects. These things can be dealt with.
It is reasonable to try them cut in a small project. I will be happy to
support co~ceptua' approval of this project.
HOTTON PASSES: Chairperson S·:hmidt: Is there any further discussion on
this motion? We "ave a motion b,Y COlT':!lissionu Ojakian, seconded by
COl'!fJlissione-r" Glazier, to conceptually lIpprOV€ this project, ~enoin9 it (Hi
to the Architectur-al R-eview Beard with a number of ccr:rnents, as foll{."s:
consider e.x::.har.ging auto space for additioF)al blcycle parking; ';orrsidH
1~iv1ng the lot line as they ~re proposing; consider adding more
residentic;l units to encourage hOtIsing, and tl"1l$ could bE! dorl': 101 it ho I..'l
additional parking requirements; look at the landscaping and
stn:.:tscaping; look at how the gating of the area "ill be ~:anc:ged;
pD~sib"ly look at the height of the building; consider noise from ~ext
door; consider doing something different with Sp~ces 6 and 7; the jn-lieu
to be as suggested in the staff report of S2"3,OOO, stin to I::e furt.'"ler
defined by the Transportatlon Department At a later date, but at the
present time, S22.,OOO is the amount of an in-lieU" fee for parking spaces
not provide-d. Al-I those in favor. say Aye? All opposed? That passes on
i\ vote of 5-0 with CommiSSioners Clrrasco and Beecham absent.
This item will next go forward to the ARB on July 21. retu~n to the
Phnning Car.rnission on August 31st, .and go or; to the City Council on
Sept",,""" 19th.
t]
i
2.
."
INFORMATIONAL ~~RANDUM
AACHITECTUAAL RE"tIEll aOAJU)
July 21, li~4
400-414 !ler$~n St··
DES Archttects l Engln~ers
94·ARB·S2
94-EIA-S
94-Zr.-9
f!1anneti Coamunity zone change to allow: 1) the demolition of a
fonmer autQlOtive repair buiiding and construction of an
approximately B,lGll squire fODt 3-stor.¥ mixed use bullding,
consisting of first floor commercial retail space, s!cQnd floor
cOIIIIE!rcial office space, and a thtrd f1 oor rental residential
unit; .and 2) pro'tision of 12-14 on-sHe parking spaces.
D[SCRIPTION
Please rd~r to the Plann-ing Commission staff report inc1ud€d in
your packet for a description of the project: the issues and
analysis.
At th.;; rlanni.ng Corrrnisslon rT'ieeting of .July 13, the Planning
Corm:isslon ex~ress€'d strong support for th€' project, particularly
th~ mixed-use co~cept. They felt that this was a good project j~
a good location. Primary co~cerns includ~d parking ~nd the public
benefit proposal. The COrTmission felt that residential in a mixed
use project could be considered as pubic benefit, but was
concerned as to the sufficiency of the water founhln and art.
On. c. !' to 0 vote wHh Corrrnisslorters Carrasco and Beecham absent
conceptui!lly approlled the pr-cject with the follOWing
recommendations for the ARB and staff to consider:
1. Consider additional biKe par~ing. p~ss1bly in other
locations in the downtown area, instud of proyidinS all the
required parking spaces.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
b: info-memo. 721
Allow the applicant to r,ursue a lot l;ne adjustment with
irr!gular lot lines.
Provide 1 to 4 additional dwelling units on-site with no
additional par.king required.
Prov'de additional street trees and on-site landscaping.
further review of the parking entry gate design and the
times at which the gate would be Closed.
Rev; ew the height of the buil dlng with the intent of
lowerlng tl1e overall he; ght if possibl e.
---.-''''~ .... ---
Page 5
,
o
7. Sf .illl.art!' of the nOl se issue from the adjacent commerci ii'
t.!5r. plrt1cuhrly .ilt niQht, and review the project design to
,..fleet the ""t"ti.l CDnf1icts.
8. hrking sp~ce '6 100 '7 are nvt acceptable: due to the
rt'Q4,,Ii;-e<! back-up to the street.
9. An in·ll~u fee of S23 1 000 for parking spaces not provided is
iccept.1ble.
AlW.YSIS
TM pl iU'S included 1Fl your pld!t are UtE' Silmt! as those reviewed
by the Pl~~ning coe.iss1on. The applicant has indicated that they
w111 be rPV'Slng the plans in consideration of P1anning Commission
c~nt5..
st;jlff r£>::'~i'1ds th.at th~ f~Q.8 cor.rnerlt. on thE' areas as indicated b,Y
thE Ph~n\r,g f.~i$sicl'l and other o.re~s of concern to the ,a.RB~ and
contlr.1.li' the proposai ~o the A,~gU5t 18, 1994 ME'eting to allow the i!.pphC~llt ~ddit ional ti~,e to prepare a re ..... iSed proposal and for
staff h' r,;','le'" thl? rl2'ii~€d propo:;.a;I.
b:inf_.121 Page G
•
)
.....
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
.,-,~".;; .. --------------------------
PLANNING COMY.JSSION
Palo Alto, California
MEEn;';G DATE, August 31. 1994
~ERSON STREET PL4,N~""ED COMMU~Tn' 20~F CHANGE
REPORT IN DRIEF
This repo-rt adJr':5~':" .3 rr"f' ~Jl ((,.r 2. P1Ji'J:cJ Cr.';!,;-;-;:!il!l., /._';~~ (.h .. u;,.:.-= :.:.~,j rt~'':':':~l tl) OlCJ:ep!
pay/l!efl; of an Lf1·1'~u ~',l[Kin . .: fv; iL" J.t~,::, ... , th:.' fl'!\H:':",!!:
2) Constructiun of an appro'imalcly B.ll)) squm: ((,-0{ 3-'-ti_lry ml\t"d-'u.!'.oe ;,1rucrure, iocludUlg
1 residemial unil;
3) Provision of 12 on-site pani.ng SPA':/!$., iocl~ding 1\1,0 ~;t--lrcd spac.es f{)i the:: proposed
residential unit. .substilct-Ion of 8 bic)'ck Jod.!!r5 (ex one pari:in, sp.1Ce. tOO parment of in
lieu p3rkjng fees for 12 additional required ['W'king ~ DO! !'<"'\);,'ided; MId
4) A Certiflc.« uf Complim:< to >OJ'''' !hi: ,0< Ime be<w= 400 Emer><Jn S= and 412-414
Emcrwn Strtt, to accollllDOdJ" the p'op.-.sol DeW buil<Ilng and p>rkiDg.
APPUCATION INFORMATION
Applicant:
Type of Application:
CES ArclUt¢;tS & EngiDCCt"S
399 Br.tdfonl Sum. ,tJ300
.k.cdwood Cit)' > CA 94·063
(415) 364-6453
• P larmed Commu nil)' (PC) 7.0"" Change
•
SITE INFORMATION
Property Ow!!'!r:
Assessor's Parcel Nl1mber;
Comprehensive Plan Des.igl18.tion:
E.~isting Land uSC':
Surrounding LaOO Use,
Parcel Size:
PreYious Planning Commission Action
..;-~~.-" ... --.-
'-
• Request to permil paymcn< of in lieu pa.~ f~
and one: sh.a."Cd ~ sp= 10 meet mpliretne<t<!
for 27 parting ~. ~ith 12414 L"D-:;nc parking
spaces.
Applicalion received MaJcli 24 199:4;
Revised IWlicatior. received May 6 1924'hWD&
Lo! ~"jsed A1Jgys;~,
Mandatory lCIioo deadline NQllL(legislAthe action).
Ed Storm
Storm Land ComFany
104 Park Center Plaza
Sail Jose, CA 95113
120·26·04 and 120-:6·]·1
RegiQnalICornrr.unit)· Ccrnm-::-n:j,,1
North: Commercial Office
East: MUnlcipal Parking Lot
South: Restawanl
West: Bicycle Repair Sbop
.12 acre
This application was conceptually approved by !be Planning Cot1IJtlisiion 00 • 542 yoce
(Commissioners Carrasco and Bee<halll absent) on July 13, 1994. The majori!), position of !be
PIaJ.ming Commission was to support the rrojcci based upon the publ~ benefits re--f-.ewed In ibc
staff repon; namely the one residential unit, a public drinking fountain. and an a.rT n kOe. The
Commission li.ccepled that the applicant provide 12 on-s.itc-parli...'1g 5p~S and :2 bicycle ~pa.ce<;
(of !be 27 parking spaces required and lbe 2 bicycle spaces). The Commi>sico suggested that
!be applicant pro"ide 8 additiorull Class I bicycle spaces (lockers) 1Il place of one: of !be
remaining 13 required parking spaces; staff recommended me 8 additional lockers: be off-site in
\
P:\PCSRW-OOE.SRJ.JA
8.131/94
Page 2
,
I
i
I
:1
1
I ,
•
'\
--~-----....
the downtown area. Corrunission accepted the staff m:ommend.acit.n that the applicant pa)' an
in-lieu parting fee of approximately $23,OCIO for each remaining parking space requittd. Aiso,
the CQmmission recommended that the applicant considl!:f adding one to four units. of housing '0 the: proje<::t, without requiring additional parking for the residential units, (See the July 13
Planning Commission Minutes Ln packet.)
Architectural Review Bo~nL Meeting
On July 21, 1994, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) =mmended Planning Commission
and City Coundl approval of the 400 Eml'rson Street plans, and the amendment to the Planned
C01IlIl1W1lty rone, 'The ARB recommended that the project include Daly one res:idenrial unit, that
some miner design changes he incorpcrated, and that the parking lot be redesigned. The design
chatlges include signage, lighting, treatment of the north and SC'.lth facades. the color palette.
and roof materiaL The ARB reviewed and accepted a revised parking lot design. but did 'lOt
di.scuss the specific ali,gnmenl of the proposed new rot line, Tr.e architecl submin-cd a parking
lot re--dcsign at ule ARB meeting, whii:h WJS appro"l"ed. Sl.lb.:;equC'n~ly. the applicant submitted
the revi~J site plan dated S/3f94 that refllXlS the pJan approved by [he ARB on Ju:y 21, 1994.
(See the July 21 ARB Mim.Hes attached.)
ANALYSIS
As e:\p:ained m the previous Planning Corrur..is~ion staff report and in the table below, this
project generates a requirement for 27 parking spaces. Two spaces would be retained ae the rear
of the subject site for use by the commercial facility at 412-414 Emerson Street.
The appllcam piflpos:es to provide-8 bicycle ]o.:kers i.n~li('u of providing 1 of the 27 required
parli'1g spaces. In the revised plan w.led 8/3194, the applicaru: added the 8 bicycle lockers or,
the 4(X) Emerson Stree! site, for a total of 10 on-site lockers. Staff reconunends, and belie"l"cs
that it was the intent of the Commission, that the 8 bicycle lockers be l{)Uoted downtown,
preferably ae the Caltrain Station (see August 2200 memo from Transportation Division
attached). The Transponalion Division has indicated tJ'I..at 8 off-site bicycle lockers can be
disbursed in the downtown area. This would reduce the number of required parking spaces at
400 Emerson Street by one. Ilo addition to the 8 off-silt bicycle parking spaces. 2 on-site
bicycle parking spaces <:ire required.
The Planning Commiss.ion also discuss.ed reducing the o .... erall parking requirement by allowing
1 or both required rC5idemi;.1 parking spact!s to be shared with the commercial parking spaces
because the need for ming the spa~e would occur at differeD( times.. Staff, however,
recommends pennittiog onl.y 1 residential parking space to be shared with me commercial use.
We believe-thai: th~ res.idential unit will require at least 1 space during the daytime hours. [f
P:IJ'C$R\400E.SR3.;A
8/31194
Page 3
f
/
/
•
o
only 1 parkl ~ gpace is cons idered a shared space for the residential use. then a total of 13
spaces mus< 1'< ,ovcreJ by the prupo>e<l in-lieu fee. 1 r2 parkinjj ,paces are considered shared
~. then the total number of spaces subject to an in-lieu fee would be 12.
The Commission recommended approval of an in-lieu fee of approtirru;rely $23,000 per required
parking space. Staff recc-rmmend..:;; that if the project is approved, language be tncluded in the
coodirions of .appmvaJ [hat allows (or adjustment of the in~lieu fee based on subsequent adoption
of. 4cwntown in-lieu parking ordi:n3.nce by Cit)' Council. In the event that the City adopts an
ord.imDce within one: year after occupancy of the project, which establishes an in-lieu parting
fee Ib&t i5 higber ~""n $23,000 per space, !he owner will be obliged to pay the difference
~ $2.~,OOO per ,'pace 1nd!be amount establisbcd by tIuIt ordi""""" If!be fee establi5bcd
by <be ordillan<% is lower tIuIn $13,000 per space, the City would refund the difference between
the $2.3,000 and the amount esublisbcd by the ordir-ance. The fmal antC'Wl! paid would depend
em the uwnhtr of parking SPlC;:-S requi!ed and the in-lieu fee establiilied by oroina.I):(:, For 13
parlir~ sp.aces, t.l)e toUl in-lieu pa.rbng fee to be paid to the elty would equal approximately
S:99.0C'(1 b.:({"R' the bu!lding permit for this project would be issued.
PARKING REQUIRED
'.-------I Staff's i PARKI1\G YARLIBLES
---r--Applicant's
, Pro.,ooal I R€'Commeodation
Tot.al Commercial S.F. 5.833·1 23
Re&id<DLiaISpac'" 2 per d.u. 2
1:.12-414 F.me"".'.~ I 2·" 2"
---------+---------
Suhtotal Rcquired 27
.---
mi."ULS shoud Te$idenJia/ -2
I mil'WS 8 bike ioeJ:.uJ -I
Roquind Parking 24
lParldDg Oo-Site 12
TOTAL ItEMAINJJE R 12
• Parbllg reql.lirC'rne!u.~.l.H 1 p::tcl\jr • .;: ~-p:l.;:e per 250 sJ. commer.:i:!l spa.ce in Lht downto'ili'Tl a~ea
.. Per l~m di~rict r~qOJiHr;,=;]H. 1 parl;.ing ~a.::cs mList he: maim.a.iroed for use by
oo.--upanl3 of'lbc pr()pcn~' aI411-414 Emerson StroeL
23
2
2"
27
-I
-1
25
12
13
\
P ;'cPCS.R"'400E. S RJ.! A
8131194
Page 4
•
, -i"-
'::~.i!,,'
. <
;.,"-
I
I
i
----_ ...... _---_.-, '--
TIle apphcam has re"i..s.ed the part.i~ ~ LayOO! &.nd show:) a rt' .... ised lot line to allow the 412-
414 Emerson S'ltt' p,,,,:<I.o rnainUm two porting ~ The proposed 101 lin< jogs east 35
feet 011 the 1a.S1 17 feet of the south property line to ilCWmmodate pad:iTl8 space tn. Since the
additlooai iand are;, i~ rK~ re-qui:red for lot C0\-'erllgc: or t-AR cakuJations. staff recommends that
the lOT line be ~jgtll lhrl"l\Jgh IDe middle of ~ sp.KC tfJ, Adju')tment of the lot line can
be made-through the Certificate Df (ompJ LaD;(: procedure. wd iii pennanenl accus agreement
prepared AnJ ["C(onkJ th.1t al1o'l1l'S Ki:-C"SS \0 "12----414 E.mersoXl: and the sh.a.ring of parking space
16. The CenjrlCJtc of Comp:i.aIlCe proc.e..<;:~ must he completed prior 10 submittal for a buiiding
permit
The-aprkant rTl .... r • .-,~~ n: '.'THile \C'h;~'lc r3rtin~ spsces Of the 12 spac-.es., j would be
cemr;;''':-I, t,!.'h'?rc 1h:, ·_'t,1t1':~r.-:e .. Nl!.1 ,:rl!.~w 1~,.,Jy 2..c;c;: .. (If :l. s:ra..:e'S. \0 be <:ompact.
Ir.l' C\lrNni:-:;i\',~ h~' '~J~,J ~h_ct \!-.-: -,p'k-:!1i \.<.'m~J;;:r poviding mort' hOIlS.lng units. at a
1::5-:-c: ~'-1u;::re It', '.;!.,~, 0:;. :, ,1\.',] if;,; ,-,:~,; L'r~'~ ',21,:[ r'r,_·{,.-.,;~,L n'L: Cumlnl:siOfl [Ioteii the need
feT ~d,jii:kl!l.;d !1,.',:J'in.~ l.J~i", J.C'".J lr:.;,? !1l!1L,~J "jJe"j rar"lIlf: reqi..ltr.:mem. rr,~ / ... RB recommenCed
thaI the: projeLl ill..:hiJt' l:r)c j .. ~~JcnliJI UIll: The ARB re>..-('IT"li'T1t!ooatit'n wa..;; based on Ir.e need
to rco-de5ign (I.'mrr.~)n arC".1S (Hdtr',n:!ls 4.00 t ... Jlways) , the dt"~ire for up-scale units in the
dO'o\n((l·"'[l lTca uJd (he ir~r~J...<.eJ defi:::t-en.:)' tfl p4T);ing !.i14! would accrue to added. residential
Unlts. The app!ic:m! hj~ t':~;rtes.$¢d a slrt"ng dc~irc tl) have only one residential unit. Because
of the in.:'rC'"3~J P..l";';;-Li! n·".:Fllro::mwt t.'1a1 Can~)l ~ mel if mort hOlls.ing un'B v,ere added, staff
rec .. )mmo?oos !h;1l tl1e Pt\jt'(! In.:-NT"'Jr<lte (iDly (,ne resiJc-n!ia: unjt.
The-puNk an ruche G. prop<..>5Cd !O dis:p1J.y a .... t ob}ec!.s. in conjunction with the Public Arts
Commi~ion TIl(-3pp1i':;UH s.h.all ~bm;t <k4'..llls (}( t~ ruche. which s:hall be de-signed to provide
secu;iry for the a..'1 obje-":I(s) Ji...::plil)'ed f{1f public ... ·le ... ' to the Publk At1s CQrnmlssioc and ARB
for ~\'icw and 2pprm·.al"
The re\"is.::d pl~~n in.:.h'::.ile, a planrcr or, e.ach sidr: of the p.2rking 1m entry to enhance on-site
lAndscaping and pr~)\=Je an unobS.LructeJ ,'~ew for dri."ers. exiring onto Lytton Avenue at all
times. TIle July 8, 1m s.tatf repon: remarked tN.! the proposa:J decorative wall between parking
syact10 #1 and f/2 cL~IJ br.! a s..JfeiY prutll:fIl. bec.aLlS(: i! acts as a visual barrier. Staff
8/3Ii94
Page j
•
'0
recommends dmt the par'king lot decorative wall Ix ,.onstructed to permit Y~ibij[ty .all the ~~)'
to t!.>e far wall, where the sooth stz.ir"Ne II is Ioc..ned.
Pianning Commission and ARB also re\.!uc:s1ed that the: ilppl~m plant strut 1I-ee5 .Jc:mg: LJ'ttOn
Averrue. As a condition of approval, a compkte laralsc.a.pc: p;W to; the ~it': .ll'}j fer 5U"Oet ~
21cng Lytton A'\Ienl.le must be submitted before flmi appro,,&! by \he ARB ls gn.nteO Tht-1\mJ
plan will return to the ARB to Tevi("w the app!~'s on--site I1ndscaping,wd street U't'!CS
The applicant m1,.:st apply for :MI ameodruc:Cl 10 the: we permit for F.t.n.'1)' and Aleu...odcr's
restaurant at 412--414 FmefS<2'n Street. Access i~ s.luil be re .. JC1I\>ed b) tbe Zon:ing
Administnl£or. due 10 rht:-appl kant's proJect at 400 F.mt:'f"Y.In lbe new prl)jo:t \':h&r.ges thrt
property dimensions a! 412· .. H4 Emers.JrJ Stret:t. crearing a I1eI!d fe·r 01 n£-ht (If .:KtC$.~ acfOS.'$ the
rear of 400 Emerson Street f'.lT ;u.:cess (0 &..e rear of the 'Site. l;')(> 1 rari.:ing .;r.a..:.ei, U"ash
ef1(;io~nm:., as well as police ?r;ti file eJl1.er~nlCy ;i;;-.;e~~ Prl{.lf!d i:,-:>uar~:~ of J B'.!i~JLr.~ Permit,
the applicant will ~ required [0 arr.!"(tU tn.: CT,lstLr.g lr~ PCIT:lil fl~r ~ 12 ~ 14 Eni':~-"'Jn S:.ret'1
through <i ZCfl1ng t\<iministral;..\r h.;:;..r\r::,; ;l.~ijrc:,sm~ \-·r.\, t~ :l.1:--;>H \~~I":~~
The applicant proposes to cnmIr.er...::e c:)n5-tru..::~ioi1 this. Jail. cl1mpkt.:: rhe ~i:JI.i';::Urt: by 5"prirl~
1995, and have tenants oc(,':upying the 'QIJilding DJ end cf st..:.n1lT\C'r 1~5. Demo1ilicil (,)[ lhe
existing structure is scheduled co occur in Nmen1x-r [994, foUoy"eJ urur~j.a.td)" by building
Construcilon lhrough mid-Mil)' 1995. Con.struction should be complete tl~· Sc-r~em'""cT 1, 199.5
1be detailed proposeC: c(mstructic:n ~hedu1e 'nilS submi1tcd with the July 13 Planr-.mg
Commi~ion Mal'l repr.ln.
Environmental As~_~,~m_c:!.iJJ
Tbe attached environmental assess.m.-:nt prep.ared for mi.'\; projet'1 fjnds I...t:..il il will flO( rewh in
any signiflCaDt impaClS. Staff recommends adcptkm of a rteglti'lt! dccta..""1IloG.
FINDINGS
Approval of tl"'.e requested Planned Commu..n.ity Z01le' change requlft:S that the following tindings
be made.
L Site. The site i~ so situated and the uses. prop<..lseJ. for the: _~iT_C are ~l..Ich tha, the application
of the general and the combinmg disuict CD·C(P) (Corrune~ial Dov.1],[OYlon Community,
\
P:\PCSR\4{.(JE .;") .. ..3 JA
8dli94
Page 6
.. -'~
r
I
)
--............... _,"' ... _ ........ _ ..... _ .. __ ... ~m_
Pedestrian 'Combining district) does not pro,,;de Ihe flexibility to comtruct an 8,110 square
foot mixed use building wiL'l tlle required nu",be, of on-site parking spaces (27 ~s).
2. Public BeWit. Development of the site under the Planned Community district n:sW~ in
pubtic benefits not ot.~rwise attainable. Public beoefLts that the applicant is pr"Oyidio,g
include (1) one residential uDit on the third fioor, (2) 3 public drinking founLai.:J. a.nd (31 a
secured public art nicbe. born on tlle Lytton Avenue facade. Below an: the sW'f
recommended public benefit findings:
a. One resIdential ur,-i( is provided in addition to the colIlIIrT't;ial 1J.SeS. Tb:
Comprehensive Plan and <he Urban Design Guide support mixed use. This preccdenI
may stimu:ale more mixed use proposals in che downtown area.
b. The public drinking fountain and art nkhe aTe consistent with the Do\\'1"1J:OVt."T1 Urban
Design Guidelines bOC:lUse the)' provide pedestrian viability to this ·:-OTTlf'f. 'The
appiicanl will maintain and service a drinkillg foumain that will be available for lbe
24 hours per day, This is a service that City ~uff would not !u.:ely t'>l: able to
du.plicate.
3. Comoreheo1'.ive Plan Qoals. The: site dei'elopment regulations applicable. iJ1(;~ucting office.
retan, and residenti.al uses in a mLxed use structure ar~ CIlrLSlqerV wiLl) the f .. ,!lO·,:,'I.Eg
Palo Alto Cornprerlcn:sive Plan gO<lh:
"Maintain at lea:;! the present number of multiple-family reiltal un.its. \\!hije wor'bng to
lJ'.crea.s.e the overall sUPJ')ly of rental housing."
"Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and indusulal 1lI>"..4S ...
Pmgram 33: offer incentives and mitigate disincentives.
c. EmptQymerit Policy 2
~Encourage the construction of more housing primarily on OJ near UJdu..qri,a] and
commercial sites.'
P:\.PCSR\400E.SRlJA
8131194
Page 7
........
o
d. Em:.imnmcmal Re$OYrce~ Policy 13. Program 43
~Mitig.ale impact of air quality problems due to stationary and vehicular sources.
Implement programs to reduce total transportation related emissions through the
development of add ieional housing close to employment centers. "
Planning Commissjon Action
Per the requ~ments of the Planned Conununlty district regulations, in making a
retOlI1llleMa';OO to the City Coo",,;1 on the proposed Planned Communi!) designation, the
P1a.nni:ni Commission is required to make specific. determinations regarding the project in
suppon of the zone change an::! to revIeW:
an environmental detl"nnmalion;
a s~if:c-development program ~tat.emelJt;
a development plan; and
dl!velopmen! schedulc.
Tnese documents along wllh '[he recommended conditions of approval form the tasi.s for the site
~pc-ciii\': n:gulations to be applied 'Y:ilhin the propo~d Planned Community zone district.
Docun:ents th;at are incomr!ele are cited in illt,: COndiLklOS of approval. The environmental
detennination is attached. The devdopmem ~hedu.le is alta'..:hcd to lhe July S staff report,
RECOMMENDATION and CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Staff n:c.oUlinends (hal the Planning Commission approve the approximately 8.100 square foot.
3·stof)' mixed use shucrure :>ubject to the fOliowing corxiitions:
1. A Cenlflcate of Compliance r;howing tt')e lot line adjustment shall be submitted for approval
to the Public Works Deparunent. A condition to the lot line adjustment shall include
language permilting pennanent access across 400 Emerson to the rear of 412-414 Emerson
Street, that shall be submitted for approval to the Ci.y Attorney before the Certificate of
Compliaoc.c is granted. The access .shall be granted to the parcel at 412-414 :E.menon
Street to reach 2 parking spaces, permit deliveries and trash removal, and for emergency
access.
P:\PCSR\400LS R3.J A
'-
-~-"''''''---'''" ~ .... '".-. ~.------.. .,.....-.. ----
2. TIll: apphcan: Wli apply for ~ amendment to fbe existing Use Pennit for 412-414
E..mersoll Stn!e1 tJuoogh iI Zoning Administrator hearing addressing the foliowing issues:
~ ill property di.nltrt'iioRS, pernunent access across the rear of 400 Emerson Street to
reach tl),e rear (..It 412·4 14 Emerson, on-site parting spaces, trash enclosures. and to prov Kie
police and n re emergency access.
3. Appb:.m: ,b.all ,!>ow proof of s..nr. Clara Valle)' Wale, Distric"s a=~ thaI !he
proposed development aBd construction ",;1! not affect any :site remediation for removal of
an underground storage tank. that oaurred in 1986 am will &.SSUIne feIIY.)val of 2 oil
assisb:d hydtaul;C hoists. in the existing st:J'UCture on the sUe.
•. T..-e1¥< paricing sr'''' (of tho 27 required parking spaces) and 2 t, :yele lockers sball be
pro,r!ded on-slie. On:: residential p.arklng space may be shared; ODt; equivalent: parking
~.e wI! be if] [he form cf 8 bjC)'.:le lockers located off-site; and 13 additional parking
~c"e;'.:He 9.lh.ie-~llLI an in-iieu p.arl:.ing fee!O be paid to the City.
) AprJ1-:.a,,: _-1):;.11 ":I'<'r~iin,~!e ¥. ilh the City':; Tramp,)ft2tion Di\'15ioo to designate the location
,,'" g I,cf !f.t' ](I} r<c'~'~le l,"-=ker~ where appropiiatl! in ti'le downlO\Yn area, Fir.:a! design of
the h..::",:k 1, ;'\:<':[, C:d: l--e ,utlm1,teJ fll[ approval by the Tmn .. <;;portatlon Division and the
.\RB.
6, [)",[ai! .. ; ,'If de~tk'~ri1,'~r;t pl.;ms s~.211 t-e submin\!1J for approval by tbe Aim, i.ocll1ding the
f~'l1o,,,, .. iTi~: rr0ix-reJu":-lir)n rl<tn. sign,age, ligh~ing, north and .south wail facade changes,
co1cJr pak-nC', ;lod Hl<Jr material
7. The parking lot {i.;coralivt! 'o'\'ail s.r-.aJ1 be constructed to pennit vi:.;;joiliry all the way to the
fa; -",,'::ill. \/where' Ihe south stair.\'el! i50 IOQted,
S Detail!; (:1" the an nid\C and me proposed an shall be-SUbject to review and approval by the
P-.ilili<: Arts Cummi:..siu[J (PAC), and the schedule for review shall be-included in the final
~ilc: dewiopme:11 plam .... ubmltted to the ARB. If Lbe art object(s) is Ciry-owned an, the
Ollr-neT sr.all enLer 3 Ilo.kj harmless agreement with the City.
9, Appl i:car:I! stu; It pronde space on-sire fOT a padmount transformer fIrst verifying the location
or the eleclTic ,'aull with the Utilities Department The flnal design shall be submitted to
ARB for appro",':'!.
10. A fL'1.a1 l3lldsc:l~ pbn shall be submitted for approval l:Jy the Utility Energy Services
Di\'lSiOTI. Pllr.j'1jn~ Division, Public Works Department aIXI ARB,
a. TIle plant~f at the parking lot's east exit shall be inscalled to permit an uoobstructed
,,"'iew for drivers t.·:l;.iling onto Lytton Avenue at all tlmes.
____ ._,_,. ...... "'''''".'' ...... I_~_, ____ ,_
b. The frna"i lan<.1,\cape plan sh.all ia::ludc a c-omp!ttc PWlI Jls'ting indj,Q,ting qu.a:ntlty.
location'i, type and size of plmts ilnd trees. l..ITit:I!.k..""'I(i ~hedule. fence loc.atlons. and
~ details.
1 L A streetscape plan showing i!tl proposed plamifliS., tree irriP.lOO. street lighting cha:nges,
aod any other dlallges snail De s-ubmltted to ARB for 'Wro ... ·aJ
a. 'The .streei tree 'PLan shall fl.ISl be su~ined tt) [he City :'rborist for ~ppm .. 'al. before
the fiozi W!ds.capc: pliUl i'l. c:~ for CifY depl.rtmenu.1 rev~w m.:I ARB review
and approval.
b. Any ~ lighting: ctung.e-s ~l be submined to Vtilities. Public '\l.tooo, and tile
Planning [)(panrm-nls. prior to ,WE l'\"yie'llo' 1M 'ppro'" ill_
12. A fmal giddlng and drairupe rur: ¢.a!l he $"cIrmi[L.~ for arr['\1~-ar by the Public W~rks
Der"mrnen<
13. Applie<.i1l ~r::o!! f'.l:. n--;.> c,;, .ir! :r·i·~:-:,i j'l!I-,Ji ,:.. k, '.':-~n.r))J i ... 'r ~f'a~c, based on t.hc
nu.'11coer (If r\:Hkir,~ ~f',":'> rt.',.(.mt'~1. ';1 :! i';:C i,i I r'.,r':i~:.: ~r,k( f·)f ,:_:t . .:i1 25D :...l.LL-HC feet
of gnJ~~ tl(.-xJf an:J.. ll;·:, leLi] fto: j" r:~i~m<itN \;lll\': SlW,())J r..>.s.eJ (~n (M 13 spaces IhJt
cannot be pHl\:dc-J "jj-site. Tni~ am;.:,u,nt iTl.(. \'oHy t~"'fJ (In linal ccnHNCtlon
mea5'..J.n:menl'i. !n th~' ~' .. cn! Lhi: Cit) aJ0pi.5 iIi ordiaaoc..r: "'lthin ODC'}CU after occupaoc)'
of::he project. "'hich t:"S12bh<;t'.e,~ an il"J-i:ieu p.;.rk.i~ fee th.lt i_I, hi.~tleT than -S13,OC)(} per
space, the owner sh:lll P3Y t~ diff:;,l't1');(' be!':.4ecn S23J),») F"!r spac-e and the amount
established hy rhe ordll~:.n.:e If the ret r:sta~l!~hc'd t,.\' the ordin.loce is lower than .s:n,lXXl
per spa!;;~, the CilY \;'ill rcfur.d Ihe differtnce be,ween the sn.OJJ ?oo lhe amount
established by the ordil\auce.
14. A constr'Jction plan ~h311 be submitted for aJ-"rm'-a.l by tbc: P..Jblic Won.s I.)epartG:icnt and
Transportation Dj~'isil)n tl"'.aI addresses the 100000tion of e.o-nsttu<.:UOn saging areas, tr.i\'el
rootes fur constru.:rion vehicles, fencing of the ccns(J'ucL,<:-n site, Jl pJ.an for keeping t.be
street·;; and sidewalk!> fret: (J f din a.'1d l~ cv~ioo debris as vreU 2.S all other iSSt.JeS
deemed necessary by the Clry to provide: for tbr pubi~ s.a.f~)' and to rMace impaI:ts of
construction on ll)e surrounding a.-ru. The plan sha.U ilXtude provisx>m to k.cep the streets
open for yehie les a.")jj pedestrians.,
15. UtiHty \0<1.0, ~l'li!(l~ ::.hal1 be ':-'Jbl.li~\terl fm appr;y,al by the I.'\lihtle~ Dep<\l"tl!Xnt's Water-Gas.
WastewareI Engineerin£ OivLSion and the:: Cit)"~ Cross Connec(lon Comrol Inspector.
P;\PCSRI4OOLS fU. J h
8131194
Page 10
I
!
• ,
16. An Encf();j~hIllo:nt PI..,---1l and Street Work PCilllit st-.. a.H IX o .. ~ from tho: t"'ubl~
Wori:.s Dep.artment prior to any work in the public right-Of.way.
17. lmprovemeoc plans for all utility conruuction shall be submit'~ fOT approVIl by the
Utilities Depanmenl. Public Works Depanment and the Inspection Service Dn"""".
The plans shall inc tude a separate water serv ice ;;.nd meter. a he"",' gas s.,.'"T'\'")c:e line and
a separate s,e',ver lateral to serve the residential unit. 'The water utility poinr: of sen1ce
shall be at the sidewalk. Backflow prevention into the public Vl7I1er supply shall be
pro'\lKied. The sewer lateral poifli of service .\haH be ilppro\led by lhI: Publ'ic Woru
Depanmenr and Insper.:1 ion Sert'ice Division.
Dwing Co."lSlruction
18. Tn order to reduce dust level:\' during constru.;tion, e~posed e3rth surf~ mati be-wmred
frequently. with reclaimed water. during the late morrung a.nd at the enj of tile dly. "'im
frequency of watering Increasing on wi:ndy days. SpitJage resulting from hzu1in& open:tJ;crm
aloug or ~cross any public iJT private prorem.' shall be remQ\'ed i:mmo:hl-te!Y.1t the expense
of the OW!l(,'L Dust IIuisances originating from tlH: cnnsLlKticm or<-r.uieru. either mskk
or out~jde ~)f Ihe rlghH):-WiiY shall he c,mi.Iolk-d at the d::-vel['fr-er",~ ':lpenr,(', T'h;o jn..~1 fC"!i
Services Division ~ha!l monitor the d~ye!ore(s aUSI control opo;'fiiti,)~ '':'''ilr.'1 r0~( j0 ".,xl:
on prlY'3tc propcrr,"; and &If Public Works Department sh2:l1 rn::n:!'Jr tJ""': r!~ ... ;:iC!rer'~ du..~
control operations wi\h ff:!:spect!O .,:,ork (tTl public prop<:rty.
19. The developer ~halt require il~ contractor 10 in;':Grp0nk be.-! rT:a.fL??t'mer.! rra~tk('s;
{BMP's) for slormwaler polh.Hion pre,'emion in all constnJct!o!1 OpeTlt!Of.S, in ~~on.formanc..=
with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoin! Suun;t'· PolhHlon Concrol PrograITl. Tnt'In.spe.i.ion
Services Division shall detel'ITline BMP's will) le .. ~-e.;1 to Ltx: dt:-,.doper's c.orlStJUCtion
activities. on private property; a,n-j the Public Works Departrr'..:nt shall OetermirllC:' B~iP·s.
wiLl respect w (he developer'; construction actjvities on puh!i::: pruperty.
Priar to Occununc;y
20. The parking 101 entry gate shall be electrotlli;.al!y operated, and eq>.lipped with a Kno~ Key
Switch to aHow Fire and Police services to access 00th 4OO.and 412--414 Emerson Street
at any time. The parKing lot entry gate shall remain open durin8 oormai bwines! Oours
of 8 a, m, to 5 p. m, Parking spaces 114 and #5 sha I) be signed and perm1llt!J1ly rn.aQe
available at .11 hours of the day and nighl for use by the ocruparllS of 412 -414 Emcnot!
Street.
21, Bike lockers shall be insfalled, wifh 2 on-site bicycle lockers and 8 off· site bicycle lockers,
as de5igruHeO by the Transpcrtatilm Division, preferably .11 the CalL'"2.tn S(.aticn ~n
Palo AllO.
22. The applicant shall provide clo~ure docu.mentation to the City from Santa Clara Vaney
Wattr District related to the underground. storage: tauk. and removal of the '2 oiJ.-assi:sltri
hydrautic hoisis..
P:\PCSR\400E.SR3 JA
8131/94
Page II
ad 7
16. Arl Encroachment Pt.:")t and Street Work IJ1;rrnit slull be o'"~d in.HIl ll)e Public
Works o......,anmenl prior to any work in the public nght-of-w·ay.
17. ImproVeJnelll plans for all utility construction shall be submitted for appro..,·al by the
Utilities De::'3rtment, PublK: Works Department and the Inspection Service Division.
The plans shall include a separate water service and meter, a new gas serJice line and
a sepante sewer lateral to serve the residential unit. The water utility point of service
shall be at the s.idew<ilk. Backt10w prevention into the put.lic water supply sball be:
provided. The sewer laTeral point of service shall be approved by the Public Work..i1i
Department and Inspection Service Division.
l8. In order to reduce dusl levels during C()Ostnlction, exposed earth surfaces shaU be watered
frequently, with reclaimed w:lter, during the late mor.Ung and al tile end of tile day. with
freque ocy uf watering increasing 011 Yo'indy days. Spillage reSllitrng from hauling operations
along .or acros~ any pubHc or private property shaH be removed irr.mediately at the expense
of the owner. Dust nuisance!l originating from the construetioo operatioIlS, either ilL'iide
or outside of the right·l)f~wa)' shali be controlled at the developer's r:-xpe:nse. 'Il1e Insp;:ctioD
Services. Division shall monitor t"e developer's dust control opo.!nltions with rupeet to work
on private property; ::nd the Public \Vorks Departrr:ent shall moniwr Lhe developer's dust
control operations with respeet to work on public property.
19. The developer shall requile liS contractor to im:orJlorate best IT1.anagement practices
(BMP's) tor 5tOrTn'A'ater pollution pre .... ention in all con.structlon operations, in conformance
with the Santa Clam Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection
Service$ Di','ision shall determine EMF's with respect to the developer'S construction
activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall detennine BMP's
with respect lu tile d\!veluper's construction activities on pl.lblk property.
Pn"or 10 Oc,'upa!JD.'
20, The parking lot entry gate ,hall be electronically operateO, and ~ipped with a Knox Key
Switch LO allow Fire and Police services to access both 400 and 412-414 Emerson Street
at any time. TI:c parking lot entry gate shan remain open during nomnal business bout'S
of 8 a,m, to 5 p,m, Parking spa"'" 84 and #5 ,hall be signed and permanently nwle
available at all hours of tile day and night for use by tile occ'Upants of 412-414 Emer<on
S~!.
21. Bike lockers shall be installed, with 2 on-·site bicycle lockers aod 8 off-site bicycle lockers,
as de.s.ignated by the Tran.sportatioll Division, preferably al the Calrrain Station i:n
Palo Alto.
22. The a.pplicant shall provide closure documentation to the City from Santa Clara Valley
Water DL..,[rict related to the underground storage tank and removal of the 2 oil-assisted
hyJr.~'Jtic hOLSIS.
P :\PCSR\400E.sID JA
o 0
Report Prepam:! b,: Joyce August, Coutract Project Planner
Divi<ioo Hood Appro".I: JIM GILLILAND, Assistant Planning Oflkial and
LISA GROTE, 1..onlng Administrator for
NANCY L VTLE, ewer Planning Official
EnvLrumnenta.I Impact As . .r,essment
Groinln<:e
Loc&tioo Map
Excerpt ARB Minutes 7120/94
Tramportatiotl D!\'"ision Memo date 8/22/94
Planning Commission Scaff Report date 7/8194 (Planning Commission members onty}
Pi.ins (Plan. .... ing Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
\
cc: Mr. Tem GilrnaiL U;-i.S Architects, 399 BnH:Jforu Sl"fft. #300, Re>dwood City CA 94063
~k Ed Storm, Sturm Land Company, 104 Park Center Plaza, San loS( CA 95113
Mr. Doni Mal:~i~. P.U. B.:>x .~097, RedwO()(j City CA 94063
Sant~ Clara V,1Ik), Wt:i1i:'r Di~!rict. 5750 Almaden Expressway. San Jos~ CA 95118
Li~ Grote, CiLY of Palo Alto, J.!lanning Divis-ion
Jim Harrington, City of Palo Alto., Public Work.s Engineering
Dave Soemdage, City Amorist
Marvin Q",er\l,'ay. City of Palo Alto, Transportation Divisio!l
City cf Palo Alto, Utilities Water-Gas-Wastewatcr Division
Fred Herman. City of Palo Alto, Inspection Service Divi&ion
Dorh M<'oei:. City of ralo Alia, Fire Departmeol
Ph]J Constantino. Cit)' of Palel Alto, FiR Department
Public Arts Commission
Arcruccctllra! Revi",\li Bcal"d
P:\PCSR'.400E.SR3.JA
8131/94
Page 12
-----.....
". "
•
ORDIJl.\.."iCE NO ..
ORDINANCE OF TKB COtJNCIIJ "O"F'"""THS='-Ci"TY OF PALO ALTO
AMRNDING SBcrION 18 .DS .~, .. O Ot<' THE PALO ALTO
MUNIer PAL CODE (TIig ZOlHro MAP) TO C"rtANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY lrnOWN AS 400 EMERSON
STRRA--r FR~ CD·C\P) TO PC
WHEREAS, the Pla..n.ning CQM'ro.ise ion, after duly noticed public
heoriog held August 31, 19~4, artd the Architectural Review Board
(·ARB8), uoon consideration ~t its meeting of July 21, 1994. have
rec~nded that Section 18.09.040 (the Zoning Map] of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code be ~cded as hereinaft~r set forth; and
W"tiERBAS, the City Council. after ,jue conside:t"ation of the
rec::.Jll:::iendatl;Jl1s, finds that thE: prcpo:3e-d 3:.."'!'end"nent is in the public
ilit~re5t_ o.;":.j ;.·i~l pr~_.:)te tl-.-e p ... bll.c r.ealth. safety and welfare.
~~~~W, ~:-:·:;'?E?~_H<'.~, th,~ CC"..lncil 0£ the City of 20.10 Alto does
C}RDAI:'i ?,:;: t c'L~()' .. s:
.S: __ ~_'';:::::.tC:_~i __ i. 8::-cticn 18.iJB.{J';(1 'Jf th.e Palo A!to ~'~unicipal
Cc::," , ~~bE? '~:"2r,ir"3" :--~;a.p," .~~ r·eTE'~ly .?i_;"'endt::j by ch2!nging t}H·" zOIlin9 of
Ce!-:",li.r, prq::c'fl), knc .. "'l ~s .;;uo 2r'"·e:rson StI·e.=-t, (the "subject
prOp'Tty') f"fr)7"" aCD-C'(Pl .L.'c)"'7JtO"JI1.l C-c.::-;:ne:r-ciai Pedestrian Corrbin:i.ng"
to ~FC f1an.p--e-d Co:z:-;-,..mity. ~ The subject property i9 sho-wn on the
map labeled S'x..n:ibit ok-, at.tached h~reto and incorporated h=:reil1 by
reference.
SEC-rIi-:N.2, The Ciqr r:cllf\cil hereby !inds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The 9 ito: is so situated a..i;d tIle uses proposed tor
the site are such tha.t: e-he application of general districts o!'
ccmbining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to
allow the proposed d2velapment. Neither the CD-C(P) distL'ict nor
any other district vill pr0"Vide the flexibility to construct an
8.lle-square-foot mixed use building wi~h the required number of
parlting spaces (2'1l on site.
(0) Developcnent of the site under the Planned COD"u:r.unity
(PC) district l:esults in public benefits not otherwise attainable
by ap.plication of t.he regulations of general districts or combining
dis-crict~,. Publ :i.e b&nefits t.l~at the appl icant is providing
include:
(i) One residential unit is provided in
add.ition to the cormnercial use. The
CClI'ripreb.ensive plan and the Urban Design
Guidelines support mixed use, 'J'his
precedent rr.3ly sLimulate more mixed use
prop~salB in do~~town,
(ii) A public drinking fountain and art niche,
~hich are consistent ~ith the Urban
1
•
\
--"~--"--,>~---... -----..,;
.. '
;:'
o
------.-.. -..
Design Guide].. ines be<:ause they pro-vide
pedestrian visibility to this corner.
The owner of the subj eet property 'lti 11
maintain and service ~ dri~~ing fountain
that vill be available for use 24 hours
per day. Thj 9 ia a sen.-ice that tbe City
would not li~ely ~ able to d~plica~e.
(e) The uses permitted, and the site development
regulations appli.cable withill the district are consi"t~nt ~ith the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and with existing and allo~ble uses
in adjoining sites and within the general vIcinity. The project is
consistent with Housing policy 6, Housi:cg Pol icy 14. s:cployment
Policy 2, and Bnviron~~ntal Resources Policy 13, Progr~ 4!.
SBC1ION.-.J.. Those certain plane prepared by DES krchite('t~
51: Bng.iueers, entitled ~4QO RmersDn Str(,l'.'t,' date:'! "'.arch 21,;, U9t..
and revised Ao...:gUBl 3, 199~, :_H·~,j appro-..-e,j: by t~if: J._!"-:!iii_-2ctura_l
Review Board on JU1:' 2(:, 199';', a. (,.:p)-, ot .. hich p~ans is c;~ filt~ _in
the Planning Divi~ion office, and to which ccoy refer~i:c8 is here~y
tnade concernir.g trle full parti:::'Jl:'l.cs rhen<.'f, oir--:? 'r:e:-<;'t.y arprO'.'€o
as the collective Develcp:-'"'enl Pian fe'I-thE sub:;c:t [~:-'::~~':;,t-ty,
pu:rsua~')t to Sect ir.)n 18.68 12,-). $·"id ['''-~vE'l,::!=,_-"",t r-'~.fIn i:::: ap;:;o'.'~ci
for the-foli'Ow:i.r.S \lSeS, ana. s-ubj<:ct to t'r,,:' !1)_; __ L,:"",i';'J cc·,~1itic:,:-l.s:
(a) PennittSc::i~. Th~ use sr.all be lir:,il.ed to on~
residential unit and approxil!!.ately 5,83-3 square feet of c~rciaJ
uses. The allO\iable u.ses shall b.e these a~lowe,j in thE" C"D-C(:?,
District.
(b) .Q.Ql]Qitioual Uses. TI-,€ al1o'll'",ble CC:1dic.':");-laJ usec'J
S'hall be those conditional UAe::; allo",ej in thE' CD-elf) Dist.:rict.
{c) S.:it~ Df;velQ[)(!t!!nt Reg:~l~t.i..Qllil. The site develo~nt
reg'..llatioDs shall be in ac.cordance -wiCh the De-v(:~lopm€nr Pla_fl.
(d) Parking and Load1!19 fi;"'q-Ldrements, The load.ing
Pla..a. Th2 requirements shall be as shown in the r>e...-elopment
paT-king requirements shall be as follcW1!l:
iil A total of 12 on-site parking spaces
shall be recr.lired < including one space
specifically reserved tor the residential
unit, one space to be shared between the
resident ial and Co~:n: .. ial uses on the
subject property, and two spaces {.4 and
'15). to be signeU and specifically
reserved for the exclusive use at all
times by occupants of th~ ~djacent
property, known .;l.S 412 -0114 merson
Street, Fi.ve of the spaces !Tal' oe
COI!'~ct spaces. The vWIler of the subject
property shall gra.nt to the :.:eal property
at 412-41-4 Emerson Street, l.n a torr"
satisfactory to the City Attorney, the
2
•
(ii)
(iii)
.. ' .. j~'.
right of access to, and che exclusive use
of, two designated parkiog spaces located
on the subject property.
As part of the parking requirernent ~o:r
thie pI."oject, the o-.mer of the subject
property shall provide ten Class I
bicycle lockers, two of whicb shall be
located on-site and the 0therB placed in
the downtown area, as determined
appropriate by tne Tra .. 19portation
Division. Final design of the lockers
shall be submitted for approval by the
Transportation Division and ARB prior to
building permit application. AC'.tual
provision of the lockers f;1hall b€
completed prior to occupancy I:)t the
project.
In accordance .... ith standaI.-d 'C"irkir.g
requirements of one parking spac.;~ p€'r 251)
square feet of co:m.erci.,l space .in t.hE
dOW'Tltown area, two spaces fo:r '23..ch
residenU.al unit. the noo:rral !.-equi "tej
p~rking for chs pt"oject, base.::l on an
estimated 5,833 square feet of commercial
gross floor area, would be 2S spaces.
{The two additional spaCE'S for 412-4.14
Emerson are required due to a lot line
adjustment between the two propertiE's.)
The owner of the subject property shall
be cradited .... ith two parking spaces, as
follows: one for the bicycle lockers and
aIle for t,he shared residential/ccmmercial
space. For the remaining required
spaces, which is estimated to be 13
apaces, based on the estimated commercial
square footage, the owner of the subject
property shall be required to pay, prior
to issuance of a building permit, an in
lieu par.king fee of $23, COO per apace,
for a total of $299 J 000. This amount may
vary based on final const=uctian
tr.easurements. In the event the ("j ty
adopts an ordinance within one year after
occupancy of the proj ect" which
establishes an in-lieu parking fee that
.is higher tha.n $23,000 per BpaC~. the
owner shall pay the difference bet-ween
$23,000 per space and the arr.o"J.nt estab
liahed by the ordinance. If the tee
established by the ordinance is lower
than $23,000 per apace, the City will
refund the diffel.-ence between the $23,OeO
3
o o
per space and the amount established by
t.he ordinance~
(e) Spec ia 1 Requi rement,B .
( ij
(ii)
(iii}
(iv)
Prior to applying for a building permit,
the owner of the ~ubject property shall
apply to the Public Works Department for
a Certificate of Compliance to evidence
the proposed lot line adjustment between
the subject property and the property at
412-414 Rrnerson Street. Ao a condition
to the lot line adjustment, the owner of
the subject property shall grant to the
real property at 412-414 Emergan Street,
in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney. a right of access to and across
the subject property for trash removal,
deliveries and P,!Tlergency access to the
real property at 412-414 EI1\erson, as well
a8 for the right to parx:ing spaces, as
set fo.t'th in subsection (I) \1) of this
Section 3. A.3 another condit ion to the
lot line adjustment, the owner shall
apply for c,n amendment to the existing
Uee Pennit for 412-414 Emenwn Street. to
address the following iSBues: change in
property dimensions and the grant of
aCC~B8 and parking rightB to the rear of
400 EmerBon Street.
Prior to building pennit application,
details of the Develooment Plan herein
approved shall be B~tted to the ARB
for final approval, including the
fOllowing: noise reduction plan,
signage, lighting, north and south wall
facade changes~ color palette. and roof
material. The parking lot decorative
wall shall be constructed to permit
visibility all the way to the far wall,
where the south stairwell is located.
Details of the art niche and the proposed
work of art shall be submItted for review
and approval by the Public Arts
Coamission prior to submittal of the
Development Plan to the ARB for final
approval.
Prior to building permit application, a
final landscape plan shall be submitted
for approval by the following: Utility
BDer~y S~rv1ces Division, Planning
Division, Public Works Department, and
4
. :-
.... , .'
(v)
(vi)
{vii}
(viii)
lix)
ARB. The planter at the parking lot east
exiL shall be installed to permit an
uocbstructed view for drivers exiting
onto Lytton Avenue. The plan shall
include a complete plant listing
indicating quantity, locationa j type and
size of plante and trees, irrigation
schedule, fence locations and lattice
details. Prior to subnUtting the plan, a
street tree plan shall have been
su.bm.i t ted to and approved by the Ci ty
Arborist. The plan shall include trees
along Lytton Avenue.
Prior to building permit application, a
fif'...al grading and drainage plan shall be
submit~ed for approval by the Public
Wor).:s DepartmeIlt.
Frior to iSi:3uance of building permit,
utility load sheets ,shall be submitted
for approval by the Water, Gas,
Wastewater Engineer lng Division and the
Ci t.y' S Cross Conn.8ction Control
Inspector.
An Bncroact".Jl".ent Permit and a Street Work.
Permit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department prior to any worJ.: in the
public right·of-way.
Frior to iasuance of building pern,it r
improv~~nt plans for all utility
construction shall be submitted for
approval by the Utilities Department,
~~lic Works Department and the
Inspection Services Division. The plans
shall include d. separate water service
and meter, a new gas service line and a
separate sewer lateral to serve the
residential unit. The wat.er utility
point of sel.vice shall be at the
sidewalk. Backflow prevention into the
public water supply shall be provided.
The sewer lateral point of sel~ice shall
be approved by the Public Works
Department and the Inspection Services
Division.
Prior to occupancy. the parking lot entry
gate a!-..all be electronically operated,
and equipped with a Knox Box to allow
Fire and Police services to access both
the subject property and the 412-414
Emerson Street property at any time. The
5
par~ing lot entry gate s~~ll remain open,
at a uQnimum, duri~g normal business
hr.>ura of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
(XI Prior to occupancy the mmer ehall
install" maintain an;:! service a drinking
fountain that will be available for
public use at all t~8.
Ixi) Prior. t.o QCCl.lpi1::H:Y the owner shall show
procf of the Santa Clara Valley Water
Di8tric't.· 8 acce-pt.ance that the proposed
deve1 opraent a.nd COD5!tructioll will not
~ffect any ~ite r~iation for removal
ot an underground storage tank that
oc(;urre:j in 2-9€6 and 'rerr'.Dval of :2 oil·
a~sisted hydraulic hoists in th~ existing
1:lt.':1.Jct'.Jre :.;r. tr.e site.
(f) ~.;;JQx;:eor ~(;I-;,;-~·jul"". Ccnstru,::tion ':of th.e project.
sha.ll ce ccrr:pli':'tc,j ,m or bet()~.f· S'.:"'C::.e.""':::e': 1, 1995.
s..EITllli_.':i. 7";":'2' C-')'~;-"c 11 f"ir:js t:[,at Ul is PFli ect ' .. 01 11 not
have 3 .9-i;1nificant elYv':'.rc,_".:'.ent.31 ct[ect.
s..A.C".cIQlL_~.. This crdina.r,ce s)-:~ll D'= effective on the
thirty-first day a,t<:er the datto v! its .ldept-ion.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES;
NOKS:
A.BS'I'm.'TIONS :
ABSBIIT:
A'I"I'EST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
senior Asst.. City Attorney
APPROVED:
City Mandger
Director of Planning and
comnrunity Er.vironIl'.enl
·
,
\ '.
",.-',-.
..
"
Ue,'iew 1-1' r ~An:"itedlh III ~-i c.evnt-
Hoard ,'U •• 'e. -----"", ,,-----------------------------
MIHUTES
A. BOll CAll
Board Membtrs Present: JUlie Maser
Cher,l Piha
David Ross
Shirley Wilson
Thur,d." July 21, 1994
8:00 AM
Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
P.lo Alto, California
eoard Members Absent: Aino Vieira da Rosa
staff Members PresEnt: Jim Gilliland
Lisa Grote
lorraim~ Weiss
Joyce A~gust for Ite~ iI.2
B~b Schubert for Items II,J & 11.4
8, 6PPBCVAl OF ~U!IJTES OF JULY 01, )994
Approved )-0·2-0 is c.orrected,
C. OMl Cot!!!UNICATlOHS:
Hone.
D. AiE!I!A ITEMS
APPROVALS: The Architectur.l Review Board (ARB) decision on the design
of the project is i recommen~at1on to the Director of Planning and
Community Enyironment (t~e Dtrector), who makes t~e final decision.
Unless otherwise statl!d by th! ARB or tht Director, project appro ... ·als
;ncorporatt', Projec.t Review CCllI!1ittee conditions. as mailed to the
appl; c.ants and staff cond; tions as recorrmel1ded in the Infonnat ion
Memorandums,
CK>~GES: Any change to an approved des1gh plan must be resubmitted to
the City for approval. Resubmittal of a project may be necessary if
changes are mandated as a result of complying with other City
department reqUirements, or any other applicable codes, or ordinance
requ I rements or other regl.:1at()I·Y agencies,
Page 1
',,: -.
•
o
'-'PPEALS: All major and mlr10r pro,jt!ct approval s are subject to an appeal
period, wnich allows for the applicant or members of the public to file
.n .pp •• 1 from the d.cl,lon of t ... Director on the project. The appeal
period for ~ajor projects (deSignated with an asterisk .*") is el~ven
{II} workiR9 days following the date of the ARB's recommendation on the
prcjett. The appeal period for minor projects is seven (7) .orklng d~ys
following the dat~ of the ARB's recommendation on the project. Appeals
of .inor stte and design and lTIinor lone changes are subject to Chapter
18.93 of the Palo Alto ~Jn!cipal Code.
If you wish to appeal any item on this agenda; contact the Planning
DIvision (319-1441) ~.rdlng tlme and fe.. If you challenge this Jand
use deci~ion in co~rt, you may be llmited to raising only those issues
you or someone else raised at th~ pub1ic hearing d!scribed in this
notice. or in lIlritteT1 t~rrl?SPQndfnte de1ivered to the City of Palo Alto
ilt or prior to, the publ1c hearing.
ENVI~ONMENTAl IMP.~CTS: All major projects oot ide"tified 01 an EIA file
n~~ber follo~ing the proj~~t address have been determined to be
Categl)ri<:ally E)'.empt from CEQA review. All minor projects have bee..,
determined to be Categoric..:ally Exempt from CEQA l'eview.
TIME LIi'lTT: Project appr.J'I-' a 1 is valid for o1:E'(l) year from the original
date of approval. The ti~e period for a project may, upon application.
be extendEd once by the Director for an additional year.
EXPiRA1ION: in the event the buildlng permit for a project ;s not
secu-red within the above specified time limits, the i!.pproval of the
project will expire and be of no further force and effect.
COIiSDIT ~EllDAR
1. lSOJUMINO !!fA!.. mo 94·ARB-1I6
Hordstrom;-,-.l.zc, ."
install tEn new.,,30-f.-;:.ot high light fixturf,s·'to replace seven
exlsting 11gM p~.es 10 the parking lot .. ,", front of Nordstrom
t " ' SON!. ""--/'
'"./' " ./ ARCHITECTURAl REVIEW BOARD ~TION~ppro'.d as submitted (4-0-1-0 '
Vieira dil ~osa absent). / "-",_,
/// -'",-
2. ReV1~ed
94-ARB·15
531 C!lWPfR ST!!EET /
California Pi~a/Kitcnen
Re\'ised sic;pri,ge per previous ARB re'iiew for'Tlew restaurant .
./
This item w...s pulled for discussion by the Board.
i
S:\at1J\l'I'II.r21 Page 1
. .
z. 4!Ijl =114 EZQSqI! ST·
DrS Arc~lte<ts l ~~lneers
94·AR8-52
94·EI.A-8
94·ZC-9
P1anned c~1ty lone chinge to allow: !) the demolition of a
for.er aut~t1ye repllr building and construction of an
approxiaittly 8.100 square foot 3·story mixed use building,
CQft5tsting of flr$t floor Co.sercll1 retljl space, second floor
'oa.erci~l office SPiCt, and i third floor r~ntal residential
unit; a~ 2) provision of 12-14 on·~ite parking spaces.
~EtT REPR(SENTATI~ES: To. Gil_In. DES Architects and Engine~rs.
projKt arc:hitet:t, l:tN!sl!'nt~ the proposoll.
~Bll( TES Tr POlY , None .
. UCHlrECfUit.AJ. ~EVIE\f SOARD ACTIa..: David Res:'i abstained from this item.
~pprof~d 3·;)-1-1 (','ie-irA d<i Rosa ~'Dsent ar.d Ro::.s did not participate'
~jth cClndltions t~at the fol1c~in9 return to the Board:
1)
~ !
J I
s i 9'1 .. gO? (:r-qra-;
lit)hting plan:
ehbora1:icn ot tieat!r:t::nt of art niclie and any ctl1er .suggested
ilrt-.-or-Ks;
4) ~study the ~cut~ ~le¥ition bor-de~ing fanny & Alexander to provide
Mre interest;
S) recDnsid~ration lnd more definition of how the triple arch window
on north fl~~~tio~ il desi9~ed and hew the break in the building
\ljill1 is: de1ii'li:ctEd;
6) detail of t)'pic.:a1 wlndO'll' specifically to look at size of ,"irtdo,.,
c.pel'1ingi; lind
1) t'eC;)nsider co'ior palette olin<! roof moilterial.
3.
T~e SQard felt thJt the revised parking layout as presented at
~t;ng WIS Icceptlble.
245 lJIION, 305·337 DQ$lW ST .•
(Peninsula Tiaes Tribune)
94·ARB·121
94·EIA-10
Construction of three-stcrj, 54,90n square-foot, office buiiding
And rtlated impro\le.rrents.
The ARB heird the pres~ntiitions. ~sked questions and took public
testimony far both Items II.3 & 4 p~jor to takin~ acttan on the
pr-oje-cts.
B:\L-tI\.IIIllI,n1 Pige 4
•
•
o
PROJECT REPRESENTATlVES: ToO Korth, project .rc~it.ct: O',id G.tes,
hndscape archHHt. arxl HHe-"i hon. pro.,lect delft!' 1oper. presented
the propo .. ' ,
PUBLJC TESTI~V: Jie Godd~rd, 341 R~~i, co.pli.ented t~e archit~ct
lnd de'lE'loper or. Ii project thit ,.'\11 t>P ;(f'. enh.af1~e!ftent. to the
ne19"borhood, Hf exp~s5ed cvn~trn about thf alternzte proposal
to hIVe t~e garAge exit em Ruont. 1Oo"Y Cilr-rHeo 'reQl..iestM that
h15 ~~"t5 ~ added for th~ T@COrd. ~I~~~~ ~ilson ~ntion~
that TGny CUri5CO I!'ncourlge-d th.e ARB to consicl!r sore 'iuiet)' in
the nts~d.nthl 6esl~ sptCific"i1,r ir. its. .rchHtctuul style .. nd
lIIiSS.
The &ird cOII!iIIIenteod is follows:
JlJl ie Maser: S~e stated Hat t.hE! rE1Ii.s~d project is a Hst i!'t!pro"'e!Mnt
o ... er t~e oriQlnal propos.al i:r1d tnat the re~derings \!tHe b€illutif'Jlly
drawn. She was lH"!cO:"!foThble .jth th!:' il: .. :~:l'ii.r· "irdo .... fn;::"-i' lr.d jail
de-tans; the S19rtol9E.' .tIS ,>hr.··om ~r; W too 1'119' .. r,d o',j not );C'rr. ''''ton with
ttle building; tIle lcbbj ~i5 still t~o constricted· 12 was I@ss !han
desired; and tile garage turrtHGl!r,.j pAS (,ka'., if t!',.eo s.par:.;:-s ri?'"'a\ne-d
vacant til aIle· .... Cilirs t.') exH .. ~. siq:".el .at the-e~ltt-a'!"irE: h r-eeded to
note wh~r'! the o)i!rage ;s h:l1. Sr-:e fe-H t~Ht p.,€, hi:-.iD;-;(.?l ;ef~r~r"l'.;e to
Palo AltD'S lrist(lT"y If, t.he-lc:tt'l' ~':)\.!\O t,? ~~1iQHh.;\. Sh" ·';\.~\l1d lq.,<!
to ~ee iccess from' th~ 9ard~n t~ the residentiil proj~ct. Th~ glass
\fII'indows as pro~osed are fin-e, The 9,Hk.ing ir!g~e.,~/t';1f"(-'S.S. \o';1·Jld l1i'r'.e
been better as two one-wa.y,> b\;t she could oefror the propos.l as.
presented.
Cheryl Piha st .. ted HIlt she hold r.et "lliHh a~p1icant prior to the T:'\eetirrg.
She edoed Jlil101 I s c~nt~. She wO'Jld 1ike to s-e~ the Pub'~ic Arts.
Coanissiort re\liN ~00'f propoHis if¥.! ideas; fer iii g .. rQt>n :>(ulpture.
perl'laps carrying throll9t1 t~!" r'll~WSpiper theN, She was sorry tv see su.ch
, n~rr~ lobby. S~@ WQuld s~pport the pl~c~"t ~f tne trin~fo~r lM
tht glragE JlRd she would hue prefl'rrr--d .or~ IJs£,I.ble bil-co~jes, She
supports flagstone surface on t~ public rlght-of-~.y,
David RQss: He supported the flagstone in tht p~~lic r~ght-of'WiY. He
s.tated th.at tote apprKhted the incorporation of SE<h-ilr,lcal penthol.lst's in
the roof well, Ht WI5 disAppointed with t~e ~rD~~~ed S~pirated garige
ramps which WQ~ld not iaprove 9,rige traffl~ flow Ind, therefore, did
not belie~e that a cha~ WiS jU1tif;ed. He encD~rag~ i trell1s
feature over the 9ara~ r~. ~s I res1dt~t of P!lo ~lto ar.d if he
thought about being a resident of tni s project, hE 'JtO!Jld r,ot fI'.a.nt to
see arl iiCCf!SS froo the garden to the residerlces. H~ ft:-lt that the
transformer should be pLlced 1 n t~e 9ira.ge and thlt the 9hss .indows.
weTe fine.
Shirley Wilson: She stited that ~he aet with Oa.vid Gates ~rlor to the
ARB meeting. She liked the building, although she expressed some
concerns about the wir.do" fra.'T'i' :;.ash. She felt trtat the glass -""imiaws.
B: \arl>VlU. nt Page 5
selecte<f were okay. She stated that two driveways wi 1 1 net s<llve
interior circulation, so she sup~orts one driyeway, The Lytto~ Ave~u~
landscapin9 should con$ider foundation planters. She supported a
trellis o~~r tne arch area over the glrage rimp, placement of the
transfuner in ttle garage, flagstone, ir. the publ ic righl-of,wlIY .and a
histor1c display in the bu11ding lobby.
AROIITECTUIW. REVIEW lOAn!) Ae1l0ll: Appro'ed ~ith cc'nditions '-0-)-0
(~i:elra da Rosa absent). ihe ARB ga .... € strong support for t~e fcilo.ing
and requested that staff follnw-up; 1) request that tne Transportation
Oivislon seek out additional sites for parking to offset the loss of t~e
temporory porking lots: 2) flogsotne in public right-of-wlj; 3) the
transfcnmer location in garage; 4} encouraged the P~blic Arts Comr.is~ion
involvem!nt for art in the garden; and S) the l')bby should niillve more
tTansparency to the garden.
1 )
2)
3)
4)
5)
8: \tor"bVChl. n,
The following shall return to th~ Board for final reYle~ prior to
issuance of building p~rnjt:
A) re-study aJlrmirn .. 't.1 wi ncoI'!' fr3;'~,es. sho ... ing wir1ch:ni s(i:;."rl ~r;)iTIf'
and material;
8} detail of wood balcony r~ils ~ith ~or~ substance;
C) restudy location of sh~ii'1~; and
0) trellis design ove-r garage !:ntry ramp as. part of litrJdscav.=
pl ar:.
A five-foot, Six-inch .~treet dedication shall be pr!>'Jtded alor:g
Ramona Stre~t.
Prior to the applic_ation for a building pf!rt?lH, phns S'~i!ill be
submi tted for and re'o'iew arId approval by the Tr&r.sporhtlcn
Division and Phrm1ng Division dl!!mOnstrating Uu,t the ex,t rlf!tJ:'
frPm the underground park1~9 provides adequ.te si9ht distance ~t
the sidewa".
Prior to the application for a building permit, detiils of t~e
proposed ucurity gate shall b-e subt'1itted for N!\liew .nd appro\,-al
tly the Transportation Dhision and Pli.nnirlig Oh'ision. jf the
security gate is planned to be locat!d at th~ top of the r~. it
Shill be of the wireless-controlled type of activation. If the
gate i.s to be I;f the card·reader type ()f dcti ... atlcn, it shall be
loc.ted .t the bottom of the ramp.
Prior to the application for a ~jld;n9 permit, the proposed
handicap van-accessible space in the undergr~und garage snall bE
redesigned as a normal handicap space and th~ van-accessible space
Shill be relocated to the satisfa~tjon of th~ Transportation
Division and Planning Division.
Page 6
'...::::.--------,-''"-~~------------.
6)
1)
8)
~)
_ i ...
o
Prt or to thp appl; cat 1 on for a bui 1 d1 n9 penn) t ~ the proposed
turnaround space in the underground parktng garage shall be
revised to include a space perpendicuiar t~ the a1$le (e.g., one
of the parking spaces) to the satisfaction ~f the Transportation
Division and the Planning Division. The ~lans s~all be revised to
snow the turna.round are& to be si9'nN 2nd/or striped accordingly.
Tne applicint shall obtain an entroacnment permlt from the Public
Works Engtneertng Oepartment for ~ed~str;an protection during
construchon.
All .ideo.l., bordering the project 'hall b. r~ved and replaced
in c.-plianc. with ,t.ndard. apprc,ed by the Public Work.
Engineering DepartMent.
An constNlct1-on within the City right-af-way shan conform to
standard specifications of the Public Works and Util1ti~s
Depart...nt,_
10) Tne corltra.ctor shall contact the Pi.Jbl1c Worr.s Inspector prior to
any wljr~ performed in th~ public right·of·way,
11) ,.., ccnstruction log1st1cs plan sMall be subnitted for review arlo
approva'i by the ?=Jblic Works Eng1r,e~ring OepartmErlt. All truc~
rout'!!i. s./'ia" con fO!fi1 with the City of Pa i 0 Alto J s True ks and Truck
Route Ordinance, Chaptar ]0.48, and the route map which outnnes
truck routes available throughout the Ciiy of Palo Alto,
Construction of the project shall be toordinated with the proposed
projects at 400 Emerson Street and 265 Lytton Avenue, to the
$at1sfact1on of th~ Publ~c Works Engine~r1ng Depart~nt. At a
minimum t~e plan shall address the fo11cwing:
Park1~ for construction workers;
rdentif;tat;~n of proposed constru,tion access points and truck
routes and staging areas;
-Site(s} fer st~rage of construction equipment and s~pp'ies~
Snoring fOT underground garage:
Construction Qf teMporary waikways, barricades ~"d fenc~s;
Provision of ped€strian and vehicular trlffic adjacent to the
construction 51tt,
Construct1on of t~rlry barricades ind fences;
Restoration of City streets impatted by tonstruction activitiesi
Replacement of Ctty sldewalks in adjacent to the site in
accordance with City standards; and
PubliC relations .plan direc.ted at resolving the concerns of
adjacent residents and businesse'_
12) A det.iled site-specific scil report shall be submitted .nich
includes information on water·table and basement construction
issues.
Page 7
•
",
13 )
14)
15)
16)
17)
Ie)
191
Dettolished materials shall be recycled, as feulble. (Staff was
glven UU! 'Opt"ion-to .. or~ with the applicint to revlse or delete
tills <onOitl.n),
Prior to 1S5UI.nce of any grading ilnd bullding pernits, the
Ipp11e,nt shill s~bmit a preliminary gradlng and drainage plan to
tht Public Works o.partment, including drainage pat~erns on site
and from adjacp.nt praperties. The plan shall demonstrate that
pre.existirt9 drainage pattems to and from adjacent prope-rties are
no t a 1t ere<l
To red~~e dust levels during construction, exposed tarth surfaces
shall ~ watered freGue~tly. with reclaimed water, during the late
sorning and at the end of the day, with frequency of watering
increasing on _indy days. This requirement, may be modified when
ilpprCyed in writing by the Public Works ~partment. Reclaimed
water, in accortlanca w! th Pub 1 i c lrIorks Department pol icy I s ha 11 be
used for this purpos~. Oust !1U1SaFlCes or-iginOl"Cing frol':1 the
cDnstruction operations shall be controlled at th.e contractor's
expense. The City of Pa.lo Alto Public \!larks Department shall
~Jnjtar th~ contrdctor's dust control operations.
Splllag~ r-es.ulting frori1 haulif19 (l~lerations Jlong or .'lcross .any
public-or Pl'jV.atc! property shall be rer;'1o'led irli'"'ediate'ry at the
exper1S1a' of the developer. If rC.';1uired by the Public Works
Oepart~fr1t. streets shall b~ cleaned on a daily Dr weekly basis.
Overfilling of trucks by the Contractor shall be prohibited,
TrUCKS shall be co-"ered dur;f19 the transportation of excavated and
d~~lisnej m~ter;als from the sit~.
The de'w'e1oper shall prepare a stormM'ater" Pollution Prevention Plan
(SIiPPPj in;:orpor.,ting best management practices (BJIIIP's) for
stor8Wat~r pollution pre~~ntion in all construction operations.
The swppp ,h." be suboitted for review and approva' by tn. City
of Palo Alto ~blic Wor~s Engineering Divislon.
20) An arborist's report shall be submltt~d to insure that th~
~xlsting street trees on the offie! site are preser~ed durin9
constr-Jction witholJt d.aaagir.g the form of the trees,
Hec~ndations to insure adequate root 'Iolume for sutcessful
growth and developr.ent of the street trees adjacent to the
proposed u~der9round parking garage shall be provided, If
neCi'!5:sary. the wall fer the underground garage shall be mo-,red
towird the interior of the site to insure adequate root ~olume for
the street trees.
21)
6:\vb\lllllij.nl
Prior to subm1ttal of final landscape plans, a tree protection
plan, prepartd by a certified arborist, shall bf submitted for
revie~ and approval by the Planr.ing Oepartment and implemented
prior to demolition and thrQughout pr0ject construction. The plan
Page 8
•
-.------'.-~~--
,,,",,, -
shill intlude ider.tiflcltion of ill trees to be protected ~nd
include ~is~res for their pr'te~tion during constructi~n.
ill(:luding iI tetlpOru)' construction f~r,t:e to be err.~·cted around eat'h
tree which is to be savta. It snl11 c~nsjst of portible cyc'o~e
fen<: ir.g , or win! _sn SKul"'t!ly attachtd to ..etil posts driven into
~ qround or an 11ternat;~e fencing apprn¥ed jn writlng by tne
Pll.Ml~ Departllfrlt. ThE ~HJr-pose of the fi!r1cin9 is to keep all
cOfl3troctioF'l Icth1ty and stol"'age whiGe the drip] ine of the
trees. It sh.ll be erected before Iny construction ~chinery
enters t~ site, end shJII r.~t be ~ved until the final site
l&ndsc~ 9rlding is c~leted.
~2) Prior to t~ 1SSUI~ce of iI building p~rmit. f;n~l landscape plans
lind iM"~g.1t1tm phns wt1icl'l ~t thfo ~ulree1E"nts of t~e CHyis
ll~sc,ape "".hr Effie; e~'y St.JrKhnhi IN required f(ll"" submittal
fOT revih' ilnd app~ul by tP'le Ard1itecttJril Review Board, City
Arbclrist, Iltilitif!s En~rgy ~~r"i\:i!$. D'''''ision arid Planning staff,
Eac~ t~ to ~ ~yed ~ill he r~Quir~d as A condition of
apprr,Ip'iI} of tht' re~iGe,.,tiill proji"d to ~ replitce-d .... ith ~t 1east
tote i'1!"II tre-e~. TMe r.e;,; trees s:-'ould b.:.: !ocO-t.ed to SIHd.e pa"ir.g
li",d to i~cflJc(> HIE" r.ee-o for .! j r cono it. 1 Ci r) j ng.
?3} l!,"H rr,:-,tectic·r; ~iE.a:;wre$, lnc-ll..Jding wrappir.g ':'1 ~il.jor limbs for
C!'rote·:tlo:: of ~tr~~t t:--ees durin8 co!utruct ion, 3S detr;n"1ined by
th~ City A:·borist .~d Plann;ng Division, shall b~ in place prior
tc c~~n('€'!'J€;lt <Jf any constr"Uction .:!ctil!ities.
24) The deyeli:lper sMall (""4'1, _ito t~e requirl!,~nts of n~~ Palo Alto
NQis~ Ordin.nee, CM~pter 9.10 ?~.
2S) I-tufflers uo.d ~;ol.l~il1gs sh~P bE: pro'Jide-d or. constructu:in .... enjc1es
a.nd eGui pl'IE'nt.
26) Ene-rior 1ig-MiP.9 shal; ~ desig~ed for safety. and shall avoid
1ntroduc-ing UTlI\t-:!!'Hlr.v ligM anod glue. A dehile1J )1ghting phn
sensitive to e)tstl~ I~jactnt l~~ U$e~ shall be submitted is
part of thE final pl~ns to return to thE Architectural Review
Board fer ~'i;ew ~nd ~pro~.l.
27) Ouring tht stlrt af ~onstruction on the off}c! project! the
dtyeioper Shill keep &pproxj~tely ~alf of the teaporafY City
p~rking let open to public park1R9 until after the Christm~s
Sf"ilSO'" (Staff Wil~ 9H'"en the opt;on to work with the appl iClnt to
~'Win or delete-this condition,.
28) ~·street signage directing pedestrians to th! proper route around
tne tellpDr.l.rlly dOSM sidl!lllilk.s shall be provided.
29) The dE~eloper sha11 i~l~nt a ~ubl'c outreach ptogr&~ to ~eep
area. residents updated on the construction schedule and the use of
tt'le adjicent stre~ts for constructior_ acce:c.s.
------_.
' ..
30) The dev.loper s,all l"",lement the foll""ln9 ... ,,""
a. Stlndlrd construction IT!. signs, subject to review ~nd
approval of the Clty of Pale ~lto TransportJtion Divlsio".
s~lll be posted Ilcn9 Lytton Avtn~e, ~r~cn Street. Ev~rett
Street. RUIOn~ Stnet. ilM other stre-et~, 11> !1eCHsny. to
warn the public of th'E! Iln-goirrq c-onstructio;, triffic.
b. Contractor worker plrking shall confo~ wlth plans tpproved
by tnt Tra1'isport,tiol'l Div1s.ion and Public "arks. DeiJilrtJllleJ1t.
c. Storlg! of equipaent or .ater'als shall cor.forw with pl~s
approved by the Trlnspcrtltion Deplrbrent and Publ1c WorKS
Departftilt.
d. E~rgency veh1cle access shal! bf ~lint.in~ .t al} ti~s.
3i) Prior to issua~ce of a bunding P-HT.lit. the olppliz.int sr,:.111 5ul:<"·it
a It!tter fr"O(f1 ttle Santa. Clara Valley ... ·~teT' Oi~tjid l"1di(~tinq
that the project will not interferp. ... itb all./' fut'.'re 'I"€""",,;:11 iI.'l -
clean'up act1~itie5. (Staff was 9i~en th~ ~ptio~ to ~Jr~ ~1th the
oipplic-ilnt to rayise 0,' df.:lete this (C~::nti.on).
32) The applicarit shal i i:'!'plFent the f0:1o",lnj:
33)
34 )
8:\ub\JIllI,nl
~. There s~culd be Toutine. occ~sian~l T~,~valuation of agency
records of .rndergrC'iind stora9€' link ~iIoHrd:nls-SUt.<;tii'1":;:;S
rel~ases with!~ o~e·half 5ilE of the site jn ord~r to assess
groundwater c.ontamir'lation thit (ould ;:Dp.!ft t'1e sHe.
b. A ('ol1tinger:(y plan .hould be prepared In.;1 sublr:1tted to tt'1~
Fire Department to acc(!unt for conti!:1i"lolnts j.n the :;'011. jf
any are encountered during e~cavition for the underground
parking stl"'utture, Soil giS IICnitoril'l9 shOUld eta conducted
to evaluate whether there ar~ ¥Idose l~n~ CQnt~;nl~ts. If
groundwater lIIay be encountered, or if ~c indic.ated by the
~s~lts of Yldose lene ~nitoring: grou~lter testlng
snould be conducted to aSless potential for groundwater
cont.aJlinatiofl.
(Staff was given the option to work with th~ .applicant to reyis~
or deletf this CGndition).
A fire sprlnkl!r system shall be pro .. dde<l witliir; tl'le buildi!lg. to
the saUsfactior, of the Fjrt=! Cepart'N!nL
Th~ location of the required pad-MOunted transformer shall ~
SUbjfct to reviE!'lo' and approlr'al 1::, the Arc.hitectural Review BOi.rrl
and the Utilities Otpartment.
Page 10
..
\
...
Augus! 22. 1994
TO: Joyce A1..Igus.t
FROM: Gayle Likens0_
/
CITY OF PALO ALTO
MEMORANDUM
\,
SUBJECT: 400 Emerson Str&Elt in-Lieu Bicvcle Parking Spaces
••• .. • ••••• • ............ ~ ••• .e ..... I-.I' •• O ••••
This is in response to your JtJly 27th memo. J apoiogfze for not (espolldrng 'to you
more promptly.
Chapter 18.83 120 (8) 01 the Zoning Ordinance sHows for the substitution of 3 Class
I bicycle parking spaces (bike lockers Of the equi\fa~ent) in addHior. to 1he minirn~lm
bicycle requirement up Lo i:l maximum of 5% oi the '.,Iehic'~ stalls fl3=quireo, A1thOlJQh
tn,s is a PC sut)!TIitt8I, staff would recommend that the same Class I bike pa!king br.
appifed to any subSli1Ution of vehicle parking spaces for thjs project under the
Planning Comm,sssion's plan.
The hIghest need for long-term. high sec1'!'city bike lockers is at lhe Pa:c A\to Caltrain
station. Calt/ain has a vacant sp~ce for bike lockers on a concrete pad in th8 pmk.jng
lot .at AlmD and Lytton. Staff would recommend that if the P'an.ning Cornrn:ssjon
wishes to pursue this off·site, in-Heu pian, that the developer be required to purchase
and install a bike lockers (4 double lockers) and reach agreeement with CaiHain to
have them in.'Stalied at the Caltrain statiOn for use by lrafn commuters.
It is likely that it wili take time to work out the details with Caltrain. Sraff would be
willing to facilitate the discussions, but the de .... eloper should taKe the lead (ole.
The COSt of such bike lockers typically ranges from $650 to $1700 for each 2·bike
unit, plus sales taxes, shipping and installMion costs. At a maximum of $2000 tor
each double un.it, the total cost would be no more than .$8,000 compared to the
.$23,000 in-lieu cost for one vehic:e parking space.
if you have any questions, p~ease cali me at 329~2136.
co; Carl Stoffel
RECEIVED
OEPAATh~~,\":·" 0, .... !.Ar>r..tl~
/!JriU CO:.':.;',\UNITY 02iEWPJaiT