The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0250.095TO: FROM: \~: - .".i' -;. .-' -,.-, -,.-'.:<' -~ -". - NOTE: This staff report I, beIng place4 t. the Councl1 packet Ol'll!' week earl,. fa crder t~ allow ~ore tfme f~r review. Ci.ty of Palo Alto City Manager's Report HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: May 22, 1995 CMR:250:95 SllBJEC'J': Certifkation of. F"maJ Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Appro.1II of aD Application for Interior and Exterior Renovations of the Varsity Theatre at 4S6 University Aven"" REOIjEST Cenmcaliro of a F"maJ ErR and approval of an ..... RB application foc interior and exterioc renavations, including • seismic upgrade, historic preservation and SO percent expansion, 10 allow • (W~story retail use within d1e existing !beater space and • CAfe in d1e existing lobby of !be Varsity Theatre al 456 University Avenue. RFmMMENDADONS The Planning CrmmiS$ion, Architectural Review Boord (ARB), JI"!Storic Resources Board (HRB) and staff recommend !hat !he Cily Council: I. AOOpI the attached Resolution (Attachment 2) "'rtifying lhal the rlI"oal Emiromn<:Dtal Impact Report (ElR) has been completed in compliance ... m !he California Enviromnemal Q.JaIity Acl (CEQA); and 2. Awcove the major Arclrl~11lraI R .... ie-,v Board (ARB) application will> !he attacbed findings (AlClc1nnenr 3) and cooditioru; (Attacbment 4). royCY IMPIJCUlONS Pol~ changes related 10 review of !he interior 0( significant hisloric building. and double bonu, incentives for renovating hisloric buildinss were r"-" .. wed with the Downtown Crmmercial (CD) District lex! amendments (see Alta<:bmenI. 8, staff report dated ...,.lofl ~" · .'. December S, 1994 and Attachment 9, stlOff report dated February 13, 1995). The propooed proj«! 60cs not represent any change 10 uisting City land use policies. Cum:nI City policy does not comrol !he Iocatioo IlC number of cooditiooal uses or DOnlmlly permitted uset downtown, wilh !he excq:6:n of akOOolk be\>erage licenses, raU-ouI restaurants and adult uses. Project coosisll:OCy .. ·ith Comprehensive Plan poIkies is as !oIlows: I. !Too Desi&" fkmrnt PQli<;y 2. Enccurage privl1U pr. ser1lluilm of bui/Jings wIIl'clt htrve hisrori<: or arc1IiucnuaI _riJ or bolII. The project represents privah: preservation of • building which is his'.oricalIy and .rcbi~turally significant. The modified project. wilh !he re<OI'l!'lCIlded mitigatioo measures, would DO! result in significant adv.= impacts 10 historic and arcIrltec!UI31 resoorces (see Draft EI.R, pages 191 -226). 2. Urban Deiign 6gpqy Pol.iQ:.l. &!courage reJuibilitatio. of aging re/(u7 areas JO ttep them economicall)i hea11ky. The project would rebabil itate an old buiJlfmg in !he down!O\\1l area. II is presumed thaI this project would bave a positive impact on !he overall vitality of !he down/OMl area (see Draft EI.R, page 188). 3. fnyirO!!Ille!lla! ResourCQ FJement Policy II. EMU. compliance witll existing noise laws and protection of reside1Us from IWIl!cessary noise. 1be Draft EIR (pages 116 o i 11) recommends measures 10 ensure reduction of <XlIlStnlCOoo period noise impacts '" !eM than significant levels. -to Fnyjmrmv:nra! Rescwg:s EIemen! Policy 14. Met1S/l. .... 10 IEssell rollo .Ituman lifo and property should joaLr upon idOltifiM area.< ofpapu1ation cOllCe1Uration and teyed 10 area.! of greatest 1IOlIUal htJzard and tvea.s of bwwrI {X $!/bsequenr structural Iw.zaTd. The project include< measures 10 lessen risk 10 iIur"..an life and property in a Nikling wbkh cuneotly contains sttuctural bazanIs (see Draft EI.R, pages 119 0 (45). 5. Employment Policy 3. Requir. planr.ed tratlSporratioft prOgTan''' by the developer or !!T!Iployer in a;njlUlCtion wit" new development, exp<II!Sinn. or inleruification. 1be appIi<:ant proposes a IOOI.l of cigla bicycle parking spaces, which would facili!ale bicycle use as • means of transpo<t 10 !he project. This couI<I repr .... "Il! an important component of such. tr.msportatioo program (see Draft EI.R, pages 161 0162). 6. Ing:;pgrt.1jgn EIemen! Poli<;y IQ •. I. the DownzOW1l Area, new developrneJll s1rou1d not increase the 1oIa1 weeldr:y peak parking deficit beyond that expected from d~ .. lopment existing and approved waugh May 1986. Tbe project woold not increase 1he weekday peak parking deficit beyond the Ihreshold establisbed by !be City (see Draft EDt. pag.s ISS 0 ISS). haelorl .' -... ...-' .-. - 7. Iransportatjog fJemen! Policy 12. Promote bicyclt! ""'. The project includes eJ&bI bicycle spaees which woold CIlCounge the use 0( bicycles as an alternative II'8nSp<lf1atio IIlOde 10 reach the site (sec Draft EIR. page'S 161 -J 62). UVl'ID'E SUMMARY Tbis report IIIl<I=ses a Fmal E1R and ARB application for interior and exterior rmovatioos, including • ~ismic upgrade, historic preservation and SO percent expansion 10 allow a twlrstory retail u..<e wiihin the existiIJg theater space and • cafe in the existing lobby Q{ lbe Vanity Thealre, 456 University Averrue. The project description, site iafomwion, project history, E1R issues, design issues, alrernatives and the actio...,; 0( the HRB and ARB an: discussed in AtIa<:hmenI I, Planning Commission staff report dated March 29, 1 m. W'rtb the exceplioo 0( (,.oodition l.e.1 (see the discussion OIl page 16 of AItatbment I. Planning Commission staff report dated March 29, 1m), the atw:hed re=rmeOOed cooditions of approval {see Atlachment 4) reflect the rooditioos and revisions recommended by the Planning Commission, ARB and HRB (see Attachment 5, minutes from the Much 1, 1m HRB meet:ing, and Atlacbment 6, minutes of March 2, 1m ARB meeting). Processing 0( the project involved cOIlSiderable interaction between the applicant, citizet1£, Cily staff and the E1R coosultan/. in response 10: I . Concerns expressed 00ring the public scoping session regarding the need for interior as 'Olen as exterio< historic resource preservation measures; 2. The City Council's decision 10 amend the CO (DownIcwn Commerciaf) District zoning regulations 10 permit • combined SO perunl fIooc area increase fur projects "'hich meet both the C'1!j1's historic preservation and seismic upgrade criteria; and 3. Comments made by the City Council in malting the decision 10 .now !he combined SO percent fIooc ar~.a increase, requiring interior as wen as exterior his'<Oric resource preservation measures. This interaction resulted in the applicanl: submitting • substantially mod'l1ied project, identh"ied as Alternative B in the EIR. Staff supports the modified proJ«:t foe the following reaSODS: I. Exterior Architectural Preseryatjog The p<oject p<eserve. virtuaJly all of the exterior hlstcric fea= and attra<:tive views of the building, particularl:; as the building is vje .. 'ed from Universily Avenue. The marquee would be renovated, stabilized s!rUClUraIly. and the neon would be repaired and replaced. At the lobby entrance doors adjacent 10 the furecourt, the facade woold be renovated and repaired to match the existing historic detailing. New entrance doors would be • , ".;;." provided, in. design more compatible frith the design of the the"ter facade. The project also include< installation of a new fountain in the center of the forecowt wbere ale existed historic.ally. 2. lntWor Archl!e!:!Ural Preservation. Wbile cooverting the buil<fmg intc> • bootstore, ~ disc store and cafe, including expansioo of the side walls of the building aDd creatioo of a second fJoor, the ~ project preserves mmy man: iIlIerior features !han the original project, including the lobby, JOOby-1<).. m<:1ZJ11ljne slain, mezzanine, and auditorium-side aisle arcades. 3. $ciani<; Upgrade. The most significant danger !O many histOOc buildings is that they are vulnerable 10 major damage during an eat1hqual:e. Even with extensive architectural preservation, if Ilxrilding collapses during an eartbquale, the his!Oric value ol the building is probably forever lost. Thus, it is extremely importlmI that seismk: upgrade imprO'Vemen15 accompany histvcic presen"lltioo projects. The proposed project includes such an upgrnle and will bring !he: building up ro 1991 UBC seismk: provisions. 4. !mprovement of the Rear Fari"k. The existing, very un3ttra<:trve wall facing the C~ parking kit on the east side of the buildffig constitutes ooe ol the least attractive examples of "architectUre-in downtown Palo Alto. The wall would be demolisbed 10 provide • new facade with large windo", .. and • new entranc<: 10 the rear ol the buil<fmg 10 allow passers-by 10 vicw the retail space from the City parldng lot. The entrance from I...o! H would be defined by a lower eleInenl rellective of the existing lower on the University A venue elevation. 5. Coo!rjl!gjm 10 DowntoWO W.alicy. The Downlown Urban Design Guide highligbts the need for an increased level ol urban vitality in the Univ=ity/Cowper area. The proposed ...... 'ouId coolribute significanU), 10 the vitality ol the downtown and will have substantial spillover effects ",ithin the immediate area. 6. eiCy Rev erue. A.lthough revenue 10 the City from the proposed retail use was • high prioriIy when the Varsity Theatre project was first <flSCllSsed by the City CctmciI, iI has become • much lower prioriIy due 10 • significant decrease in the estimaled revenue. The ErR cooWns • fiscal aoalysj, (see the Draft ErR pages 179 -184), which estimates that !he modified pro~.ct would generate. net fiscal surplus of approximately $67,000 per year "'!he general fund_ However, these tax revenues would oot necessarily represent !he IOtal <:b;mge in City revenues, because the new store could puD sales away from existi'lg store. aod cruJd also attract ad<fltional customers 10 otber downtown rusi!lesses (see discussioo below, Wlder FIscal Impact). hze4all • .. HR.B ARB and PJaMine Cgmmjssjog Actions AI their meeting. 00 Marclt I aOO 2. 1995. respectively, the HRB and ARB WI3lIiIoously ~ 1hat !he City Council certify the EIR and .wove !he project (= AttacJment. S and 6 focmimltes of the meetings}. The actions ofihe HRB &lid ARB are also summarized OIl page 7 of AttaclmleoI I, Planning Commission staff report dated Marclt 29, 1995. Allheir mecting ofMareh 29, 1m, the Plonning C«nmissionv~ unanimously. 5-0-1- 1 (Glazier absent and ~o not participatin,g), that the City Cooncil certify tho ErR and appcove the project (see PIamtlng C<rnmission minutes of Marell 29, 1m, included in the Council packel of May II, 1995). The Commission noted that !he modified project is a vut improvemonl compared 10 !he original projecl, due 10 !he great efforts 10 preserve the bistorie ~ of the tNiIding's inIerior _ In addition, the Commission discussed !he following issues: I. Marquee -The C<rnmis.ion noted that the ARB. 011 a vote of 4-1, encounged the appIkant coosider replacing the existing thea",r marquee with I =quee replicating the original design. The Commission suggested Wt the appticanl.'. proposal to renovate the existing marquee would be • better and moce histOric facade on Univmily Avenue than replacing it "'ith • marquee replicating !he original ooign. 2. M'ZV"'ins l.obby -The original project included the removal of the existing 500- ~-fOQ( mezzanine (lIlCludiIlg the women's restroom) and Iobby-to-mezzanme stairway. Under !be modified project~ the me7.zanioe and stairway would be preserved, However, since the mezzanine would DO( be • usable part of the new relail space, iI would be closed off at the top of the lobby stairway and DO( oca>pied. The C<rnmission encouraged the applicanllo consider ways 10 continue to utilize the mezzanine. 3. J 00by Rear (South) Wall -The original project design included removal of the lobby ceiling. columns, stairway and mezzanine features. The modified project includes the pres=atioo and repair of these features. How'"""', one impact 10 the lobby which would remain Wlder !be modified project is the proposed removal of the existing lobby's rear (south) waD. The ErR iodkates that reloca!i!lg the existing Cburrlgucresque arch on the rear ... "llIJ 10 another waD and carefully detailing the new lobby area would reduce this impact 10 • Jess than significant level. The Olmmission agreed 1hat Ibis is the best alternative. The Cummissioo supported changes 10 !he conditions which were rec<lm!!lellded by staff at the meeting. In aMttion, at the request of the applicant, the Commissioo recoo>mended modifications 10 Conditions} .m. and 3. The modifications 10 Cooditioo I .m. ""ouId allow the applicant 10 replace the ashlar paving in the anter of the forecourt ra,.Sofl ,II: "_" .:. ..•. ' ;: -. . "-:"'. ~'-- . -;:~ , if it bectJmes necessary duriIJg coostructioo. COI"odition 3 was modified 10 provide more flexibility in relntrodudng a ",ide screen pcoscenium, in the event iliat the ruilding is ~ 10 a lbeater use in the future. ChanE" !p the; Cmflliqns of Aw"0VJl The attached conditioos 0( approval cootain cbange, which were made by staff following the HRB, ARB and P1anning Commission meetings. FllSt, the conditioos were revised 10 anow the appflC2lll 10 obIain a d<:moIitioo permit p<ioc 10 the issuance 0( • ruMIIljl pem>it. This is normal permit ~ ~ and ",'ill allow the appIican110 cOmmeoce cooslnlctioo activilies at an earlier eWe. Second, Coodllion I.d was revised 10 allow more iktibility in the design 0( the relocated Cburrigucresque an:h in the lobby. The ARB recommended revising Condition I. d 10 require that if the &reb is relocated, the possibility 0( installing • drinking fountain inside 0( the arch should be allowed (a drinking fountain Wi., located lIIlder the arch before the existing mirror was installed). The applicant c-.urenrly pr1Jp<l5CS 10 relocate llJe arclt 10 the new lobby eXle!lSion side ..,an. such that it is visible from bOOt the new and existing lobbies. The tile ~ woold be relocated ""ili the arch and • dedication plaque .... ould be installed iDside the arch. rather than • drinl.ing:ountain. In order 10 provide the flexibility ID allow a plaque Of" odJer trearment inside 0( the arch instead 0( • drWcing fountain., staff is re<:Oillmellding that Condition I.d be revised 10 req.rlre that, if it is not possible 10 retain the arch in its presellt location, if "",y be relocated 10 another wan, preferably wi1hin the new lobby extension. and • c!rinking founIain and/or dedication plaIj'Je or other treatment subject 10 review by the HRB and approved by the ARB .balI be inst!lled inside 0( 11" ... arclt. The revised condition also states that the design approach sbalI balance the concerns regarding carnp!ia!= with the Secretary 0( In!erior Standards and GWdelines. the functiocal needs 0( the proposed retail use, the benefits 0( OlfCtt and coovenient pedestria!l flow between Lot H and University Avenue, and compliance with applicable buikling codes and odJer regulations. FISCAL IMrA(T The Draft EIR.l'age 184, estimates thaI the mo<flfied project would generate a net fiscal surplus from the project site 0( approximately S6? ,000 per year fc< the Palo Alto general fund. New sales laX revenues would make up !he majocily cf the fiSC21 beneflt. Howev ... these laX revenue projectioos do II(]( include positive aod negative secondary effeclS. The new SIOre could pon sales av.'ay from existing sloees, unless the market area is currently 1IIlderserved, and !be ElR analysis does 00( estimate the net change in to!al boot and music <lOre sales in Palo Alro as a result 0( !his project Conversely, the new Store could aIro.attracI add"1tiooaI customers and patronage 10 other downtown businesses, generating an ",.er:aII net increase in offsitc sales and associated revenues 10 the City. . . ' . .. . ra,. hr • . ~_ . _ .r<_ " C,.:\>._" . " " -.:-; .. - ;' '. WYQ!,ONMENUL ASSJk."iSMZNT A Draft ErR was prepared 'fur !his project and dislributed fur public review on February 10. 1995. Tbe public COOlmCIlt period was open from February 10, 1995 IlJrotigh Much 29,1995. Additiooally, the HRB, ARB and Pllllllliag Commission bold public bearings 00 Marolt}, 1995. MarclI 2, 1m and March 29, J 995, respectively. A Fmal E.IR. respooding 10 pub/jc cOlllllleOlll recei>'ed durin8 the review period and at the public: bearings 00 the Draft E.IR. has been prepared and was distributed on May 5. 1995. Copies of the Final ErR are available for review by the public at City libfaries and at City HaH in the Planning Division. Shruld the City Cooneil decide 10 approve the project. the Fmal ErR must first be certified by a.lop!ing the attached Re.olution (Attachme!It 2). Certification coosists of two steps: I) the Cooncil must find that the ErR has been campleled in compliance wid! CEQA; and 2) the Council must find that the information cootained in the ErR was reviewed and coosidered prior to, appr0vin8 the project. Additionally. finding. specitically stating bow the significant effects identified in the ErR bave been addressed must be adopL"'" These findings are COO!ained in the attached Resolution (Attachrnenl: 2), No signifi<:anl effects were identi.t1ed by !be ErR which canno( be mitigated 10 • less thao sigilif.canl level. Pursuant 10 CEQA Section 21081.6. a Mitigation Monitoring Plan has also been prepared. It includes: I). SWlIIlW'Y of each significanL impact identified in the Fmal ElR; 2) • summary of each mitigation measure identified in the DR whicb is recommended far advp!ion 'IS a coodition of project approval; 3) idenlificatioo of the type of monitlrilg action required; 4) identif'.catioo of Ihe party responsible foe perlorming and verifying the mooitcrlng action; alld S) ldeoIilX.ation of the associ.ted timing requirements. The mitigation monitoring program woold be approved with the adoption of !be attached Resolution (see AttachmenL 2). A'ITACHMEI!jTSi'J\YHIl!ITS: Attacl=nt I: Planning Commission Staff Report dated ln9195. Vito attachments A!Ia<:hmcnl 2: Resolution Certifying the Final ErR Attachment 3: Fmdings for Approval of the SO Percent Flooo: Area In<;entive and Major ARB Application AItaCbmen!.: Cooditioos fur Map ARB Application Attachment S: Excerpt HRB minu'teS of 3/1195 Attachrnenl: 6: Excerpt ARB minutes of 312195 A"ad!men! 1: ExceqJt ARB minutes ol 4/21194 AllaclJmeoI: 8: CMR:522:94 dated 12/5194, ''''0 attaclnnents Attachment 9: CM&: 138:95 dated 2/13195. w!o anacbments Attacbment I (): Memorandum from Carrasco &: Associates dated lll9195 ;' A!lAclIment 11: Diagram from Dennis Bacld>.md Nbmitted 011 3!! 195 Auaclvncnt 12: Lobby Dclllil Attadlment 13: Letter from Carrasco & Associa\eS daled 2128195 Atwbmcnr 14: Letter from kim Wasstaff daled 3110195 PIaos (CouuciI Members ooIy) Draft EIR (~il Members and Libraries ooJy) Fmal EIR (~il Members and LibnIries ooIy) Exhibit A: Mitigation MooItoriDs Plan (Council M'emben and Libr.lriel; ooly) PREPARED BY: Robert Sclwbert" Cootnct Project Planner DEPAR'fMElIo'T HEAD REVIEW: ~-£.Jd~~ KENNETH R. SCHREIBER D1recto< of Plannlng and Canmunity Eavironment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~G~ C' . go. ce: ArchiteC1UraI Revie ... Board Hls!oric Resoorces Board Planning Ccmmi<sion AppticaOl Property o.roer Dennis Backlund Palo Alto Comnwnity Child Care All Saints Eplsropal Church Garden Court Hotcl PresideD! Apartments (ownership) PaJenno Rotisserie Restallr.lIll • TOo BOld: AGENDA DATE: SliB1ECT: '. Attachment 1 PLANNING COMMISSION ME.'-fORANDUM " .... UOIi PU.NNlNG COMMiSSION Nancy Lytle, Chief I'Ianni!lg Offi.::ia! DEI' ARTMENT: I'Ianni!lg March 29. 1995 Dnft Eaviro""",DtaI Impact Report lEIRi and ARB AppIkatioD ror IDtuior and _ reDovatious IDcI1>cIiuz • seismk upgrade, historic preser .. tIon and 50% oxp"';;ou 10 allow • lY....toq ret3iI .... 'Fithia the emdn, theater space and • cafe III the .:dstina lobby or the \' ar.;Ity ne.tre It 45<i U.u.ersity AVeDge (94-ARB-I18, 94-EtA·leI and 94-HlUl-B). RF£QMMF.NQATIQN Staff recommends chat !he P1annins Commission r=oo thai !he City Council: I. Certify ·chat che Draft Environmental Impact Rrpon (ErR) has bee. c:omplered ill c:ompUance ",sr. !he California Eilvironmental QuaI;'y Act (CEQA); aocI 2. Approve the Major Architectural Rrview Board (ARB) ilpplical'ioo wjlil the attacbed fm<fmgs (Attaclunent 1) aocI conditions (Attachment 2). BACKGROUND This report addresses • Draft ElR aocI ARB appfx;ation for interior aocI exterior reoontions lncludlng ... ismic upgrade, bistOOc preservatiou and 50% expansion 10 allow. tw<>SIOCy retail use .. ithin the existing chelIIer spaa and. cafe in tbe exlsting iobby or !he VarsilyThoatre. 456 Univcnily Avence. WIlh!he ~ 0( Condition l.e.1 (see !he discussion below under Mezzanine Lobby aocI Stairway). the a_bed co<lliitions (Attachment 2) reflect !he revisions !eCOIIllIleOl!ed by the H""!ari<: Resources Board (HRBj and AJtil. The report is organized as fOllows: 1': \PCSR\4.56UNJV .EIR. • TABLE OF CONTI:NTS I. BACKGROtJlII1> A. I'rojecI Descr\>IiOO B. Silo lnf<ll1MDon H. PROJECT HlSTORY .... Legislative Chang .. I. CEQA Chanjes ,. Local Orcf""""", Cbanges B. Projec:t Rtvicw Authoril)l J. Historic RIosources Board (HlUI) 2. AIclli1ectural Review Board (ARB) 3. Planning Coounission 4. City eou""il C. Review Proce<s To DaIO I. HRB Rwlmmeodatiou 2. ARB RecommendaDon 1lI. POLICY IMPUC. ... TIONS IV. DISCUSSION A. Zooillg (OO,pliance B. Ell!. Issues 1. Cumulative Projec:t Histofic 1mp;!C1S 2. Parapet ReconstrucDon Bracing in !be Forec::o<L"t Arca<!e Areas 3. FOfewurt FOOD ..... 4. lobby S. Mezzani&e Lobby and SIairwoy 6. Removable Second floor 1. Proscenium ModIficatioos 8. Relocation of Restroo<D.S 9. R<.ar Building Facade 10. Subsurface W<Xk 11. Structural Facton I'. Parldll8 U. Trame Ie. ConstnA.--tion Period Impacts l;'IPCSJt\olS6UNZV .EIR. -. .,.'; M 1 l C 6 6 6 6 1 1 7 1 8 8 8 10 11 12 12 13 n n 14 14 16 t7 17 17 18 19 19 20 21 21 3-29-95 2 C. Design!Jsues I. Building Expansk>o Into Adjacelll ~ 2. Trash Encloouro 3. Bicycle Parkins 4. Utilities S. I ands<oping 6. New BuildI"g Colon 7. Ligbting 8. RoofIop Mocb. njca! EqIlipmeDt 9, Signage D. Finding. and Cooditions V. ALTERNATIVES VI. FISCAL IMPACT VIl. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Ym. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL Pmjrrl IlrsTiptiop 22 22 22 n 23 23 24 24 24 24 24 25 26 26 26 The applii:anl is pt'oposing • reDOYation including' seismic upgrade and e~ion of the Varsily Theatre 10 allow fur • two-sto<)' reid use within the existing lheatre space and • cafe use in the eAisting Jobby. The appflcant lias ma<lc several changes 10 the project since it .... criginaDy submitted. The "iOOCfified project" was prop<JO«! in response 10 concerns eapressed during the aR. public scoping .... ion regarcfiIlg the need for addltlooal interior as well. as exterior historic preservation measures and the Cily Councij'. decision 10 ameod the CO Zoning R.egulatiollS (as cfJSCUSS<id below under Local Ordinance Changes). The modifIed pt'oject is identif"Jeci as Alterna6ve B in the Draft EIR (see the Draft EIR. pages 193 -2(6), and includes. 50$ flooc area expansion. The exisJing building contains 14,970 square feel of flooc ar.... A!Ot2I of 1,990 >qUare feel of new gr00ll1 flooc area would be construcJed and • new lil,700 "f"ate foot secood fJoor would be pt'ovided. The building would !Ot2I 22,910 square feel of spa<%, including .50 square feel whicll. is ... mpt from floor area calculations because it is for the proposed handicap accessibilily improvements. While cooverting the builcfmg into. bookstore, CD store and cafe, inclucfmg expansion of the side "..ns of the building and creation of • secood fJoor. Alternative B would pre.erve mzny more interior featu= tban the OI'iginal project, including the lobby. JobbY'!O-lDezzanine stalrs, menanine. and auditorium-side aisle arcades. M:I result., !:he IoDowlllg historic resouF...es impacts ooted in the Draft ElR (see Draft ElR, pages 203 -204) would be eliminated: ,:-.,pcsK\4~.ElR ' .. , 3-29-95 3 .-.- I t. J'ropo«d removal of Jobtoy ceiling and decora. columns; 2. Proposed removal of lobby stairway and meuaniae; ~. Proposed relOO\'a! of lobby wall and COC$tru<."tioo of ""w c!e,·.tor and .tairwa:r. 4. Propos<:I of 1he IO<ccoun floor .lab; and 6. Proposed removal of .Iopec! floor (.ince the loge floor .. ould be retained under 1he rC\iscd project, this impact would be reduced from signifJ<::On1IO minor). At prescnt. a very I11liIttractivc bl>nk ....n faces the Cily parling lot on 1he east side of the buildmg. A new facade 1IiitfIlar,. window! and • new •• rnnco .... ill be added 10 1he rear of 1he building 10 allow passet>-by 10 view 1he retail space from the Cily parling lot. The e"trance from Lo! H ,.ould be defined by a lOWer element refkc<jvc of the ""istlng !ower on the Universily Aycu~ .te-.. ticn and a canopy in tile IO<m of 1he "..igina! (curver!) Varsity marquee. A new tile roof and cupola would also be oollSl!UCIOd OIl the rear elevation. The e;tisting appearance 0{ Ibe lO<ecoort """,ld be maiIl:ained, ",i/h seismic bracing being adde4 10 the sidewalls at alternating pilasters. To maintain !be symmetrical detaUing of !be arcades. each pilaster would be furred equzIIy, sud IIW aD piiltsters mateo. Existing ligbl fIxtures ",ould be retained and repaired. A foun:aiu would be added in the forecoort. in the Iocatiou wiler. a fountam can be seett in hisl<lric pbo'.os. The apprrcam proposes !O oonduct additional research 10 attempt 10 de lermlne more exacr!y !he style of the original foou:aiu. in order 10 provide 1he IOOSI appropriate desiglL The marquee on the froot 0{ the building (University ! ... eDIle elevation) would be renovated, SlabUized struCIuraDY. and !he neon woold be repaired and replaced. At !be lobby entrance cIoon adjacenl 10 the fo<ecourt, !be facade "ouId be renovated and repalrod 10 march the existing hisloric detailing. The hlgl> ",wer element .. L'>e lheaw-....n beyeDd .... ould also be repaired and renovated with planrer details 10 malCli existing. NeweatraJ>Ce cIoon wouid be pr",ided. in • desigtr more compatible 1Ifilh !be design of !be lheatre facade. Site Information The site is located at 456 Uniyerslty Avenue in the retail .core of Downtow:a Palo Alto. Univenity A",enDe represents the JDilin stree1.a.nd p..'"imary commercw spine in tbe City·, central b>JSi.ness "!Strict. The Varsi:y Theatre is OIl !be south.id< of UniversUy Avenue, approximately midblock betweea Cowper Streel and Woverley StreeL The rbe.itn site i< part of. rontinuous, Ufo-lot·/ine frootage 0{ one-to six·story buildings. The east boundaries of the property are contiguous 10 !be Presi<knt Hore: and Garden Coon Hore! properties; the south booOOary i< contiguous 10 city parking Lo! H off of Cowper Street and the All Saint> Episc<Jpal Churcb Education builamg (school and day car. ceDl"r); and the "eSI and nortIr boundaries are COfitigUQUS !O • privale parking lot off of W.verley Street and adjacent oom..mert:ial buildings aioDg University Avenue. ':\PCSJt:\456UNIV.EIR. 3-29-95 4 ."-,,:.;,~---. . :.'.-"'~ . \. ';, -. I., .... Althouglo the ItniCture is net included in the Naticnal Register of His.".., Places, !be Stale Office of Histnric Preservation lists !be V.,.ity Theatre as a 'Colegory 3' resource, ie., • property tlulllI'P""" eligible for !he Natiollal Register. Tht Vanity Theatre bas also been lis:e4 in die City of Palo Alto Historic ksoorces InvenUlf)" as • 'Ca<egory J' historic resource, i.e .• an • e1CeptiooaI buil<flll8' of pre-eminent ""tiona! or .tate importance. Existing Land U",: SWToUnding Land U",: _ East: Parcel Size: South: ..,Vesc Assessoc', Parcel N<Y. File Nos.: O ... ner: Type of ApprICation: ':'lPCSR.\4.561.JNIV .EII. ReglonallCommunlty ~lCiaJ Designation COC(GF)(p) COllllll<>!CW DownIO"~ Community District "'itlt Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Combining Districts Vacant Univmily Aveoue and commen:iaJ ..... ~I. apartments and beauty salon City parking lot, schoo! and day care center Commercial uses 20,431 square feet (.(1 ar..re) I 2().1 S-69 94-A1UI-128, 94·EIA·20 and 94-HRB-8 Linda Luddea Poncini Camsco &. Associates 120 Hamil"'" ,,"venue Palo Alto CA 94:lO1 (415) 322·2288 Charles K.enao Palo Alto Theatre CoqxJration ?OO Emenon S<reet P2Io AI'.o CA 94:lO I (415) 326-22« Major ARB App!kalioo l-29·% S "r.'!'!'~~~-~--~'-'--"-""----... -. -. ~-··----:"~_ri PRO!F.Cf HISTOlIY I mctadyr CbIQft$ . The proposed prOject represents the flnt time thai the ClIy, including the Planning Commission, has m'iewed the interior, as wen as exterior, of. oon-City-owne<! building. This is due 10 reoent cqoo in the Californla Eovirocmenoo QuaEI)' Ao. (CEQA) and Cily regt>lations. CEOA Cbangcs In 1992, AS 288 I amended CEQA 10 more clearly define historical resources and actions which bave an adverse effect on sud! resour=. CEQA. as amended. prO\ides chat projeclS whicllmay cause. "subsrantialad\"C15e cbange in the signifx:ance of an bisrocic resource," including interior JI>OdiIic>tions. require ell\<iroomenlal revie",. State law does DO! compel City preservation actioos regarding the building intt'rlor, bov.'eYer, proposed interior changes should be considered in evaluating the project. ! rol Ordirumq; PaDges In the past. City ponty, as rollected in!>olb Ille HRB and ARB eoabling ordinances, limited both Boards to coruHieratioll of exterior" mcxfifJCaOOns except whee interilx alterations are externally visible or .ffec.ex.erior strUCtures. The City CouocR, in 1987, endorsed tile HR!l'. use of !be Secretary of Interior", SlaDdards of Reha~itation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings. While the Standards address interior is.ues, !be;" application in Palo Alto bas bee. limited 10 proposed exterior cqes to hislOtic structures. On february 21. 1995, tile City Counc~ approved the first reaQlllIl of an amendment to the Downtowo. Commercial (CD) Dis!rict 10 allow incentives for seismic upgrade and historic presen'Otion 10 be combined ( .... Aaacbment 6, staff report dated 121$194 and Al!a<:bment 7, ,tiff report dosed 2/130195). The OOlll'.ance was adopted on Marck 6, J99S. The amendment allows tile applic:an! to apply for • 50'; floor area ~ion compared to • maximum 2S:II """"",ion which was permitted prior 10 adoption 0( 1I1e Code amendment. In response 10 the HRB recommendation thai the HRB should become the approval body for buildings ",hich apply ~ tile combined bonus II> as,ure histDric expertise in the fioal decision, the Council de<ermined !hat the aulbocity for apprO'Ying Illese prOjeclS should rest .. lib tile City COIOnc~, but that boIII the HRB and ARB would ,eview and terommeod 10 the City Couocil regaIC1ins tile fmal action fa< prOjeclS suck as 1he Varsity Theatre whick propose 10 lIS< the additional 2S $ floor area en site •• discreoo!lat)' appr",1ll process is required. The process requires the Counc~ II> make two fin<flllll' prior 10 appfO"ing !be project: I) !hat the exterior modifications proposed meet the U.S. Secretary of tile Interior"s S<andards, and 2) thai the ""mulative floor area bon", .. ill not be inoonsisrenl "'ill!. historic p.....ervation of the interior or exterior of the buDamg. Acco<dingly" !he City Council Las «tended irs review autbority 10 interior hisU!<ic prese<vatlon mues in funited cir"c\lmstances. P:\PCSIt'l456UNlV .ErR 3-29-95 {j -.. -: .. -. The Dra.1t Em and project have been ,,,viewed by th< HRJl and ARB. Following !he I'I2nni!Ig Commission hearing 011 !he Draft EIR. !he Cily ('.().""'~ will review !he Final ElR llId project. Below Is • dIscussioll of the HRB, .UR, Planning Commission and Cily CoollCil review autbocily for !be project. HisteJrjc RCMMlfY'S Board ruRBl ADy proposal 10 al1el • "sIgniflCaDt building" (Calegocy I and 2) or Ihe t<lerior of • historic structure in the cIowntoWII area is S'Jbject 10 review by Ihe HRB "00 oormaIJy mlII<es recommeDdatk>ns 10 Ihe ARB. Since ltD EIR is required for Ihe project. and the f"mdlngs for utilizing the c!ooble boous oa-.i\e include bistoric presecvarioll f.n<fIng! by Ihe Cily Coonc~, the HRB, in thi:J instance, is advisory 10 1be Cily Counc~. HRB review of Ihe project is based 00 the CiIy', adoptod H"lStoric Preservation OrCIDallC<: and the Secretary of Ihe Interior', StalKlards for Rel!abiJitatioo. ArebjtecturaJ Review bOO (ARB} Any proposal 10 alter !he excerior of a building or site that is either I cbange from I: previous ARB approVal or requires I permI' onder Title 16 (Building regul.tk>ns) must be reviewed and approved 1>1 the ARB prio< !O ro!lStructioc (with 1be excop!loo of most proposals Involving single-family residences and duplexe,). The Varsity Theatre remodel project meets lIIis deftnItioo and Ihe standards f<Jr review in Ihe ARB orcfman;;e. ARB review is governed by the Archittctural Review Board GuIdelines. In reviewing mocf!ficatk>ns 10 the V ..... ity Theatre, the ARB is advis<Jry 10 1be Cily Coo:IC~. Planum, Comm,iuiog Since 1be request is for approval of. Major ARB applicatlon, the Planning Commission woold 00( oormaJly rev'_ 1be project. However, since an EIR was required, Ihe Planning Commission must review 1be project f<Jr recornmeO<!at.;"" to the Cily Cooocil (pursuanl 10 Section 15080 of Ihe Cily of Palo Alto's Procedures f<Jr Ihe Implementation of 1be California. Environmental Quarlly Act). Staff anticipates tllat 1be Planning Commission, at the bearing on MarcIl 29, 1995, ",m rJSteD !O public I<Stimooy regaroing the Draft ElR, In additioc to provi<fmg the:ir OWR comments. The Commission would then make rerommendaoom on ~ Draft ErR.. and 1be project. ~29-9S 1 --.-. '.-:: ,",,: CO Council The City COUId, as the fInal decision-making body, must c.rtify that I) !he FWI EIR bas bee. compleled in compliance with CEQA; and 2) !he informatiou contained i. the EIR was reviewed and considered prior 10 apprc>ving !he project. The City Cou!lC~ ,,;\lSI also make findings based upoD the ElR ",ith respect 10 any significant environmenl3l impa..'tS. No project approwl may be g.-anIed unless the Final EIR is approved. However, the Could rould <boose 10 dell} !be project with or ",itbool approving !he Final E!R. The Council a1so acts on the project _ "" its conformanc< ",ill> ARB slalldards and based upon the request 10 approve the ... ot bOOt seismic and his1<lric floor area bonuses (see Local Ordinance Changes above for a cf,scu .. ioo ot the findings required for approval ot a dooble bonus). Review PrOCCS TO Date Following submittal ot the ARB application, slaft' prepared an environmenl3l initial study ",hieh coneloded that an E!R "'lIS required fo< the project due primarily 10 its status as an histocic landrr..a.l·k ot .r,,1eWide importance. A public scoping meeting . ., outlIne the EIR process and Brve interested persons an uppoITLmity !O provide information related '" potential environmental effect5 ot the pr~ject. w.as held on 0!:100er 19, 1'194. The £lit consultant, .as wen as planning slaft', was in attend.a.nce at the scoping meeting. Th. Dm\ EIR was issued 00 Februaty 10, 1995. A 4S-<lay review period on the Draft E1R, whick eods O!l March 29, 1995, is currently underway. Ally interested persons may submit written comments during this time .. The HRB and ARB reviewed !he prelimlnary application on Apr~ 6 aDd 21, 1'194, respectively. After release ot the Draft E!R. the HRB and .-VtB J>'II1icipa.ed in • jolI1L >our of the V .... ity Theane "" Februaty IS, 1995. The HRB and ARB hearings on the Dm\ Ellt and project were held on March I and 2, 1995, respectively. W5lDIj; 8rnwICeS Boord <HEa) Rcmmmendatjon The HJtJl at its meeting of April 6, 1994, reviewed !he preliminary application. ",blcll "",luded a 2SS floor area OODUS. and geoerally kit that the project was consistent with their stand2rds for revie'N, especially ;r efforts were made 10 aI1cw reve"jb airy of the building interior 10 • 1beater in the future. On Morck I, 1995. the HRB held I public hearing on the Dm\ E!Jt and project. The applicAD! presented a Je<teT requesting mo<!lficaOOllS 10 the cooollions of approval "'hielo ,.ere r=mmen<ied by slaft' (see Atta<:hrnent II, lel!er from Carrasco 8< Associates dated Februaty 28, 1995). On I vote of 4-041 (R Caroline WillIs absent), the HRB approved motions 10 certify the Dm\ £lit as I complete document and recommend approval of the projeci subject ., the findings and conditions r«XJIIImend"ll b) s"'ff, ",ith!he $o!lowing revisions (see Anacbment 3, ExcolJ>I HJtB minutes of ~ 1/95): ''''--'---''---,;,--~--;---.----------. ?~< . , .. ., .. . -.. I. Dele .. C<>!ldition 1 .•. 2 "'hicll required relocation or Ibe pr~ res:roo"", 10 • locatio. ",bert ll>ey would not interfere if Ibe building is returned 10 theater lIS': in Ibe future. The HRB ""Deluded that Condition 1.'.2 ,... IlllIlt'CesSary because !argor restroom> ... ould be required fer • !beater use compared 10 • retail we, aDd Ibe =trooms wou1d have to be rede<igoed aDd possibly re!ocoled bu<d upon Ibe higbee ocet'pancy or • thealer use upon reconversm 2. ltevise Coodition 1 .•. 1 ",hiell required !hal Ibe eKisting 5Wrv.',y in !be IOOb, be reused as an access 10 !be existing SOO square foot mezzanine lobby aDd tbat Ibe proposed DeW floor area be reduced aooora:ngly so that !be 10tal floor area does Il()( exceed Ibe maximum allowed .. ilh a d001>1e !ncentlve. The HRB recommended that Condition 1 .•. 1 be revised 10 reqnjrc Ibe app!ican: 10 apply fer. "floor area exemption" 10 rewe Ibe mezzanine lobby; i.e., itwoold 001 be countod as floor area and the .,,,. floor area would DOt be required to be redoood by SOO square feet. ill !be event '1IC~ an exemptioo is Il()( possible, the Board reoommended !hal !be mezzanine lobby be closed off..,;th an ~. grill or similar malerial nCar the lOp of the stairs ,.,hicll would allow for suffICient air c!rcu1ation 10 mjnjmj:ze dewioration of 1he rrom. 3. Revise C<>ndition I. L 10 require !hat all e.Uting pilasu:n in tb< fcrecourt be furred-oot 10 provide. symmetrical appearance. 4. Revise Condition I.f. 10 require minimal chang« 10 the rear (sooth} .le .... tion 10 avoid false histvr.cism; i .•.. Oe proposed .lement above the w ... eilt!)'way 00 the rear _ should be redesigned 10 be • more figurative and less ~tcr.il imerpretation of the .xisting .lernen'" on the Unlv .... iIy A vence fa<:ade. S. Revise Coodition I.d. 10 require Ibe appli<ant 10 study the possibilily of retaining the existing Churrigucrcsque IT:!> in !be lobby at its prosenl locatico. and using it as • pass:igeway. 6. Revise Condition I.m. to require that !be existing scored concrete under !be covered portion of t!oe forerourt be rep_ in its eutirety raIber than patched following inslanation g( the grade beams fer seismi<: b<acfug. The desiga aDd malerials of tb< new paving ,bould be submitted fer review by the HRB and approval by !be ARB. 1. Revise Coodition 1,.~ requires apadmouDl tr.msfermer at !be rea! of !be property. The cooditioo should be revised 10 allow 1!!e possibil i.'y of locating 1!!e required transfcrmcr in • below·grade vault. 3-29·95 9 • The project was mrie~ 1>y tlle ARB OJ) I prelitnlnar) basis 00 Apr. 21. 1994 (see Attachment S. mlnu!el fi'om 1be Apri 21. 1994 me<:til:g). On Marck 2. 1995. the ARB ,",Id • pul>lic IleariII& GI1!he Oroft ErR ro:l proj«:t. The AAA oc!t4 ~<n'>!y Ofj Ille Draft ErR and modif'ood proFcL They~:$ltd l!Iat the Flnal aIR il!cfu4e I map sro..iIlJ City plans for Ille parlci"B ...... ment district ro:l thal/he estimate<! cost 0( AI_live C '"' verlf1ell. The Boord 1ll>l!Ulnoo5ly approvt<! motio"" .. <:ertif) /he Draft EI:R ti • compltle 6ocum<.lll and """,=nd apprOl'a1 0( /he project 5!lbjecl /0 !be f1!lding. ODd ronditiollO lW>IlIJDeod<ld by staff. with /he fo!!cwio& r .... isioos (see A-r..acbment 4. 6xcerp< ARB mlnula ct .Y.2J9S): I. l!tMse CoI>d'l1lo .. 1 .•.• 1 .•. 2. I .• and I.f. (the ARB coocurred "'jtb the ' .... isions . ",,,,,,,,mendt<! by !be HlU!. in regar<110 lrems I -4 alx>ve llI>der HRB i:ecommendarioo). 1. Revise Conditioo I.d. IS re~ by Ille HPJ> (see lte ... S .oo-.'e under HRB ReconunendationJ. 1JI addition. Condition I.d. should be revise<! 10 r_quiro thor if it is infeasible /0 ret>ln Il>e existing Q.WT~re5<jue atoll in the lobby at its present locatloa, j: should be relocated 10 I lobby W2!l r><ar its present location, and a tlrlnkiug IOuntaIn sboul<l be illstalJed illside the arcl!. :J. l!tMse CoDlliOO!i 110 require HRB review and ARB approval of all ""'" utilily de>ises lhat ",rube visible /0 !be public. 4_ ~ Condioo.. H 10 rtguire lha! a!l.lilstoric ligbti!lg be repairn! and reinsW!ed. This """,1<1 !lOt inclu4e the .. uoo-ligbt> whie!> :are _ eoasi<lered /0 be his!O<k. S. Ad<! a <:CI!lditioo /0 require Il1aI all ~.,. and illwior building colon be subml!led for review by Ille HllB and apprOV>! by the ARB. 6. Ad<! • ooodition requiring dutt the location and screening 0( !be meclwllcaI equipment "" the roof be submir!t4 for r .... iew b, HRB and approval by ARB. ? ~ CoIldioon l.k. 10 require lllat !he existing exposed conduit en the forecoun w-.Ils be re!llOYed. The ARB iJso made the foIlcllling suggestions. versus oooditions 0( opprcrval: I, The applicant ,ooald consider replacing the current DWquee "" Uciversily A .... nue with Ihe original marquee and vertlca! 'Vatsily' .;gl> ( .... Draft EIR. Figure 12). This suggestion IIIIS l'osse<l "". voto ct 4-!M. .. :l-29-9S 10 2. The proposed entrance 10 dle """'00 floor ,booId b¢ larger. ). A ,ate ",ilb panic hardware shoWd b¢ insWltd at the entrance 10 the alley located west and ncrth of dle V""i!y Thean-.. A1thoug11. ,ate is DO! currently proposed. the applicant OIated thai i Cal< is noeded 10 provide """,iIy 10 address problems ",ilb graffiti on the building walls adjacent 10 the aI'.<:y. 4. The existing scored COllCIelO under the covered portion of the fore<:oort sbould b¢ replaced in its entirety rather !han pal<:b¢<I following installation of the grade beams for seismic b<acing. As IflSClased under H1lB Recommendalion 16, the HRB ==eoded thai litis b¢ required as • coodilion of approval. S. The proposed shear ..-all aI the eo""""" 10 the forCCQ\lrt sIl""ld b¢ balanced on both sides 10 provide symmeli')' ( .... Column B Oil Sheet A·9. t in the plans). poucy IMPUCATIONS Policy chang .. related 10 rev;'w of the interior of signif>eanl historic buillfUlg. and double boous incentives for reoovating his!<ric buildings were revlewed with the DowDlOWll Cemmerda! (CD) . District teltt amendments (see Attachment 6, !!4ff report dated Decemb¢, S, 1995 and Attacllment 1, staff repoct dated 2il li9S). A1tboogh the proposed project dees 001 TeprcoeDl auy change 10 existL'Ig Cily laud use policies, it has raised pubrlC policy debate relllled "'. Clty "",,,sighl of the mix and Iypes of uses in Downtown Palo Alia, particularly chain booIc !IOres. Current Cily policy does 00( cootrol the Iocalion 0< number of condilional ose, or oonoalIy permitted IISeS dcwotowD with the exception of alcoborlC b¢verage licenses, take 001 reotallI1llll> and adult DSeS. Project consistency with Comprehensive PLan policies is as follows:. t. Emplqyment Polk.]. kL~ p/tlnn&1 tTa1ISjXJI'tati<m programs by /he tkveWpa or onploy., ill coojunction wim IIf'W tkvelopl1lQlt, apansion, or inzrns!fication-The applicant I'fOlXlOeS • lOCal of 8 bicycle parking .paces "'hick would flIcifltate bicycle use as a me2llS of Iransport 10 the project. This COilId r.-present an imj>ortant compeneD! of suclo. • transponalion program (see Draft EIR. pages 161 -162). 2. Tra~ Elemem Policy JO I. lit 1M DownJG'''''''' Arid. new tkve10pment shiHdd 1IOt ina,ase 1M lOtal w<ekday peok paTting dqidt Myond that expected from tl€velDpmml cisting Q.nd IlJ1PTOWd th!'OMg~ May 19&5. The project would DOl increase the weekday peak p",Ung deflClI !>¢yond tI!t thresbold estab!ished by the tily (see Draft ErR. pages ISS -158). 3. TW<pOOllriog E1emenl POnty 12. Promote bicycle _. The project includes a bicycle spaces ",!:Jell. would encourage the use of bicycles as au alternative transportation mode 10 reael, the site (see Draft ElR. pages 161 -162}. '. ~ ,-,-~ ~ -" '- 3-29-9S II " -, ." ·c··-·-,,;-: -:. -' . 4~ t Jm," E&<.ifD E1emem Pedic! 1. EIlCOuragl privou pnurvation of bui1d1ngs wI-..k-' 1tnve historic or lUC1UIecturaI Ir.eriJ or bctlJ. The project "prese.", private preservation 0( • buillfrng which is histOOcaJJy and arcbitecturaIIy ,ignit:~L The modiI>ed project, with the reoomiDeDd04 mitiption measures, would _ result in significant advene impact5 10 bistoric Mel architectural re>O\lfCOS (see the Dr.ttt BlR. pages 191 -226). s~ tirban De.tigg Bement Policy S. EncolUtJge rehabilitation of Qgfng retail areas to aep tMm lCowmicoOy Malrhy_ The project would rebabilitatl: an old building in the downtowA area. It is pres-oI!DCd lhal1his project ?'OIlld have • po!lWve impoct OIl the ""crall vitality of the downton ma (see Dr.ttt EIR, page 188). 6~ ErorironII}CptaJ RN19"'Tf'S Element Pgrq 11. ErulUt compliance witk existiflg ~ laws and p1t1tecriOll of nnd.n:s from lUlMCE.f.M.ry noi.«. The Dr.ttt EIR (pages 176 -177) recommends measures 10 OilSUll: reductio. of coostruction period noise impacts 10 less th.an signi(1C&ll! levels. 7. EmdcQPIDeptal Re:;.)Urces Elemegb Poticy 14. Measures 10 kssn risk to luunalllif~ Il1IIl propury should focI!s JqJ<!ft ilkntijied 6FtaJ of poP"ratio. CrNIC<",ratio. a.'IJi kty.d ra areas of imz1e.st natIUa1 /uwJ.rd and dTeas of tnow. 01' subsequor/ structural hawrd. The project include< measure> 10 le.s",. Fist 10 buman life and property in • buillfmg known 10 ron!>.in structuralllazards (oe< Draft BlR. pages t:9 -!45). DISCIjSSlON ZoPi, CorpMpnq The proposed project complies with the requirements of the CDC(GF)(P) District. The table below compares the proposal 10 the CDC(GF)(P) requireme .... Project Comparison Willi CDC(Gf)(P) Requirements ~lll. Site ".rea Maximum Floor AI ... Maximum La< Coverage MWmum Bldg. ~igbl (Rur Elevation) Front Yard Rur yard Side Yards Required NlA • NlA SOft. Oft. Oft. Oft. 20,437 sf 14,972 sf 56.7'1 39.5ft. Oft. 27ft. 3 ft .It 11.5 ft 2O,437.f 22,908 sf 60.3510 39.5 ft. (1IIaII) 47ft. (cupola) Oft. 9ft. 3ft&11.5ft • On Marek 6, 1995, the City Council approved an amendmellllO the CD DIstricl which anow, the applicant 10 apply for • SO'" floor area expansioo (up 10 22.45& square feel 0( f.oor area i> allowed, plus floor area for bandicap """essm!. lOilets and .lev,to<). F:\PCS:R.\456UNIV .EIR. 3-29-95 12 ".' . .. The Draft EIR discusses the following irnpaot categories: hisllri:: resource', .truclUl'lll !'acton, parking and Inffl:, coosl:'Uclion period impacts and flSCll impacts. h r.(laWns recommended mluption ~ ill{ each project compooem and cfl3CllSSeS the pr*",'s rel.<iooship ID Comprehensive Plan polk ... and per-.ineO! regiooal plan a1tunatives 10 tI>e proposed I"oject. O1UIluJative impacts, gr"",1h-inducing effects, unavoidable and irreveroil:le adverse effects and .tfecIs faun<! not 10 !>e significant. IU modified 10 include the mitigation measures identified in the Draft EIR. the impacts 0( the proposed I"oject lave bee. rect<lOed 1<> a level 0( inoignifl<:alU. A!Jy further changes in the project whlcll are required by the conditions 0( opproval would be made prior 10 the issnanc< 0( • building permit. Below is • cf"" .... ssion 0( eocll project compooen! and the recommended mitigation measureo. The project utilizes the 1973 and currenl Uniform Bllila1Il8 Cede (UBC) as the code standards !Or the seismic upgrade. Using Illose codes reqtJires rebuilding of the forecourt pa'3pel and cr"mantling and retroflling some 0( the lobby and ".",(()fium columns. IU • mitigation measure, the Draft Elll recommends ,.,. of the S13te Historical Building Code wbicll permits tesling 10 asleSJ the strucrural capacities of existirg malerials, ",hie. in tun! may !esse" the degree of necessary retrofJt impact 10 t!lese hisllri:: features. If, evea wilh the 1ISC 0( Ibis code, fealurel suclr as the load-bearing lobby and audilOrium columns would still require • retrofit, the Draft EIR recommends implemenlatioa of an the following measures 10 reduce the associated historic resource impact 10 • less !han significant level: I. Carefully documeI>! and ,n.manlle Ibese features; 2. Salvage. c:alalogue, store, and reinstall removed ornamenllil plasl<!r (some loss of material ..,wld be lnevilable during Illis I"oce.s); and 3_ Relain a qualified ornameallil pl ...... er. experienced ,.ith restoration. both 10 document and cf",manrle the features and 10 reino!all and repair them. Parapet RrronstructjQf! and Structural Bracing in We Fooo:cun Arcade Arw rn ]rr~ For seismic r.,,<>fit purposes. the project includes replacement of !he existing heavy <<>OCre'" side parapets above the forecowt with righter. replicating stucco-on-metal stud par-..pets. To l>rau the recoostrucC«! par..,et. ne", surface-mounted tubular .reeI columns "",.Id be pla<:ed a!ong_ide every other existing pUastft in the forecoort. The Draft Elll indicates \hat the addition 0( t!lese tubular steel elements woold not be in keeping wid! the cleaa waD forms and S)mmelry of !be Tuscan-style lOrecourt. and ..,ooId have a sub.laDtW adverse visual effect on !he hisllri:: buil<fmg. The Draft EIR. recommends the: following mitig.w:m measures 10 I~CJUce thIs impact 10 a Jess !haD ,ignificanllevel: 1_ Prepnre elevation drawing. 10 srudy the proposed furring of the rOasters; and ~. To insure tl-oat the lUbuhr steel elements are in u.ping with the clean wan forms and symmelry of !he Tllscal'-Slyle forecoort. use more shalInw lUbe se<oons so thai !he new fur-oots c-..n be ='iOd from the ~ of the existing pilaslecs. or use anoIher desig. strategy acceptable 10 the HRB and ARB. Forecourt fountAip ill ~ 3) The projecl includes inslal1aoon of • "",. fooJIjfain in the centcc of the forecourt ... lIere ODe existed historlcally, with • desigo selecticD b>.sed on doc-.m<:nt!ry evidence (old photographs, etc.}_ The D<aft ElR ind.., .... thai if. desigB is sele<:red based on poor ~"""ment!ry evidence, false historicism would re.ult. If. COillemporary desiga is selected instead, the new feature cooId be incompatible ""i<l> the existing histoc'" building. Eitl'",r .ven~Jany could substantili!ly _ from 1M essential form and i"legrily of !he bistoric property_ To reduce potential impacts associated "'idJ £he p~ installation of tbl new rour.tain in the coonyarci 10 less tha.."1 sigruf1CaJ"'l..I kve!s.. (he neil' fountaIn sha...T1 be desigDed: to i!CCuratel)' replicate !he historic foontain, if possible, or the foontain sbalI be designed as a conlempcrary compatible feature of the sam<: size, scale and in the same locat.,n as the <J<iglnal. A replica1ed desigll ohaIl be based upon ade<;ll-'te re""",,~ so thai the foo"OIin can be o==lely recr ... ted_ If sufficient document!ry .vidence "' accurately replicate !be o<iglnal fountal!> is uoavaiJallle, Ihe SecrCt!ry of !nterior's S,.ndl!TCb and Guidelines call for • new desig. thai is C<lmpatible with. but ckarly crlStinct from, !he remaining characler-defining features of Ihe historic lmilciing_ Lobby (H Impact n The ~in.aI proj<ct desiga iDcluded relllO\ial of the lobby ceil lng, columns, sfairway and meu.anine teatu...... The re..-ise<l project includes preservation and repair of these fea..'Ures. The e.<isfu:,g ceiling, ornamental plaster and decorative coIu!llllS would be reUilncd and repalred. TWIO rectangular columns would be reconstructe<:! .., pravide structural support for !he loge stadium structure above, "hiel! ,.,,,,,ld be retained as pan of the new second floor _ The decorative wirrcr and columns at the CO<neTS of !he end of !he lobby "auld be relocated ",ben !he rear of the lobby is opened 10 the parking 101 and a new .n~ is a<!ded. The app!icaru bas incflCared !bat ailTOOby details ha .... bee. photographed 10 facmtate repalr and re-creation of detailing. One impact 10 the lobby which would remain under the r .... ised project is !he proposed relllO''3l of the e<isting TOO!>y rear (sooth) wall. The Draft ElR sfa..,. thai tile fo!Iowing measures ",ou1d reduce this impact to a less rhan signifICant lever: 3-29-95 P,IPCSR"56IJNlV.Elll 14 --------------------~--~'-------. i.' -' -.. - '';'' . .,. .. . :. :,.-: . '. "_.,;;;'-"-'-"_,,:,=-. I, ~fuIl)' deWllbis modifICation to awid either an awkward space, or ODe in which the extended portion appear, falle!y historic; and 2. R.elocu: the Cburrigueresque arch (see Attachment 10, Lobby Deail). along with its raised tile !we, 10 anoIber wall, preferably within the new lobby exlensioo.. ~ existing mllTor will is ooc original, but is compatible with the lobby and may be relocated along .. ill> the lIICh. However, the area behind the mirr<>< shocld be eumined for addItional original features ,,~ depcrxflDg upon the condition, cou!d be relocated with the arch, IJI addition. the Draft EIR includos a mitigation measure ",hick would require the >;>plicant 10 pbolo-documeGl the historic detailing in the lobby prior 10 comtruction. During """,lrUCtion. the historic Iobb, detailing wou!d be prOleeled-in-p!ace, incJrxfmg the plasta'. "here';or possible. Where protectioo-in-pI:Ia is impossible. the cootractor would be required 10 carefully saW<IIt, remove and store ornamental plaster to< reinstallation. Only as a last :esort, the exlsting ornamental p!asw would be replaced "itll ne .... ornamental plasl« 10 mateh the .xisting. AD deWling. pror.ction. removal, storage and rtinstu1atlon; and any rerfi.::ation of his.oric plaster. would be spcclf'...t and monitored by • qualified Archir.ctural Conserva.or or Preservation Architect. An, actual rcIIKWa1~ reinsta!lation, or repTication of ornamental plaster WOl.:!d be perfo<med by a suJ!ed ornamental plasterer ",ith eapcrience in restoration of bis.oric plaster. A1.lIle HRB and ARB hearings CD Marrk I and 2, 1995, Mr. Dennis Backlund, the only publX: speaker, IeStif'led IIlat I!lere is a need '" preserve the existing spacial relatiooships in the lobby and that the rear wall is esseotiaJ 10 such pre.ervation. He suggested that removing the wall as eurrentIy proposed would compromise the .. isting definition and cllaracter 0( the lobby. He also noted IIlat the existing Cburrigueresq .... arch located on the rear lobby wail is one of three sImilar arches wbich are in aIignme1Jt as ODe enters the lbeater from University Ave!:lue (see Draft ErR. Figure M and C)-Mr, Backlund presentAl I diagram shewing. propos.ol to retain the arcIi in vitw III the rear of the lobby while provid'mg a new wide arch wbich would serve as a wider _eway to< customers aod pedestrians {see Attl!cbmelll 9, DilIgram from Dennis Backlund}. In respoo;e 10 Mr. Backlund', <ommen"'. the HRB and ARB recommended rev:'ing C.oodition I.d. (see Armchmen. 2, Con<frtions) 10 re<j1Iire the ;;PP/icanllO study the possibility of retaining -the .xlsting Cbwrigueresque arch in the lobby ar its preseill location and \ISing it as a _eway _ III adOrtioo, the ARB suggested revising the coodltion 10 re'l'Jire LUI if it is infeasible to re<ain the arch at its present location. iI sbooId be relocatAl 10 • lobby ""an nearby. aod a drinking IOunlaill sbould be installed inside the arclL The ARB included this ncommeodation based (On k:stimony at the bearing that a drinking foontain ,.as Iocu:d under the arck befo<e the existing mirror was instaJ!ed, The Builcfmg Division has indkated IIlat the arch could be kept at its preseIll location and used as a _eway because there is aOO!her roure throogb the building, Thus, it would not be DeC<SSaJ')' 10 reloca'" the arcb simply", provide a larger passageway. Accorcfmgly. as ':\PC'S1.\45tiUNN .EIR -, , 3-29-95 IS • recOmmended by the HRB and ARB, Ccodition I.d (see Attactunent 2) has bee_ revised 10 require tile opp!icanl '" study !he p"" ibility of retaining tile arch at iU prose", location and usiDg it as • passageway. The applicant has indicated that uepiDg the arc~ and lobby wall in their p<eSent locations would significantl1 impact the proposed fIooc plan for tile lobby because the wall must be removed 10 accommoda!e the propose;! c1leckoot COUlller. Mc'pnjoe lOObyand' Stairway fH 'IDWG! 5) The original project included fr~ removal of the existing SOO square foot mezzanine (mcluama 111<, womeD 's restroom) and lobby·to-mezzanine ... airway. Under !be revised proj",,'t, !he memnine and sca.iniay would be re~. 'I'Iili;. is {me of the signifICan! historic resource impac1s of lite original project which was eliminated IlllIler !he mocfIkd project (see Draft ElR, page 2(3). Howeve:, since the .,.,zzanine woold DOt be I usable p • .'t of tile ne .. retail space, it would be closed off at the lOp of tile lobby ."'''''''y and DOt OCCIlpied. If !be mezzanine is closed off, lite room ,.,.ooJd~ in s\aff s view. be excludable from the cakutaooD of gross floor area because the enc1csed space would ccnstitute an ank. The existing concrete mezzanine stadium structure woold be retained and enclosed, aDowing it II> be r .... xposed in the future, .hoold the structure be convened back to • theatre. This ipproach would aDo .. preser •• tio" of the existing lobby stair and its elaborate ornamental details, and reinstallation of tile o<iginal o<namental railiDg. Beca"-", the opening at !fie top of the stairwell woold be closed off, the stairway would remain as a oon-fuDctioning ekment. The proposed total fIooc area is the maxlmum aOowed wilb • ""'Jble bonus if the mezzanir!< lobby is cooverted to unusable attic space. Thus, if the room were to be opeo 0< usable, the oppli<:=t would need 10 either reduce tbe new reta~ fIooc area by SOO square feet or obtain approval of I fIooc area variance. The HRB and ARB recommended' tIJat C.ondition I.e. (see Attachment 2, Ccoditions) be revised 10 require !he opplicanl 10 ;q>pIy for a "floor area exemption" '" re-use lbe mezzanine IOOby as r.Oiil space, In the eve'" s'Jcll an exemption is DOl possible, the HRB and ARB recom:nended that me mezzanine lobby be c\o<..ed off ... i!h an opeD grill Ol sUnil", material near !be top of the stain v;hicll would dIow fOr suffldent zir circulation 10 l!lin1mIze deterioration of the room.. Staff bas determined tbat tbis would DOt qualify !be space IS "attic space. " Staff also does net support an "exemption" or variance. Ho.."" .. r.!be Ciry Atto.-ney', 0..'["'" advis<:s tIJat the new CO District 'regulations were intended 10 give !he Council sweepiDg historic preservation powers in tbeoe circumstances. The City Attocney', off"", further advis<:s tbat the code definition of "gross flOOr area" must be interpreted, if at an possible. in I manner consisten< wilb the paramount historic preservation interests of !be City. Accordingly. staff believes tIJat !he mezzanine lobby can be rordoned off , or "grilled". so IS 10 pre>erve its h islDric integriry, pr""'idec! that tbe conditions preclude !he US<: of the space (see Attacbment 2, C<>nditioo I.e). P:\PC~Jt\"56UN1V_EDt '.:' 3-29.95 16 • ; ",,- " ;:. ;j-~ :c , . ; 'C.-,-•• - ....... (!cmgyable 5rom4 floor IH Imp'" ]() TM project inc:ooes a ne", s=od floor .. ithln !be volume of !he e)listing ."dioorium and utem nine space 10 L'Iow aD increase in COIIU'QUCW flooI area. n.e second floor is ilitended ID allow foe possible future reltlOYlll and rctunl of !he building to I tb<ater use. However, !he Draft ErR states !hat !he ability IG remove !he ..."nd floor with mirJmaI disrurbanc<: 10 !be historic: fabric bas oot been clearly c!c1ilO1lStrated. The [)r;u~ Ell!. includeo I mitigation measure requiriq !he applicant ID submit c!cta!ls and spe.oifJ<ations of !be second floor c!csigB !hat ",ould IIiQw dear n"Bluatkm: of iu rev:rsibUity. for review and approvaJ by the Building Dr-tision. f'rgyrnium Mpdiftcatjons <H JwlW! J I) The origiGal tb<atre prc-scenill'" was "idenod in !be past, presumably 10 acccltUllOCla .. I moden wide screen. The project includes r",,!Oration o(!he proscenium opening ID its previous smaller oiu by introduction 0( two side shear walls, as part of !be .. ismic retrofit. The Dralt ElR states !hat this aheration may mm it difficuk in !be future to return 10 the wide scree. conf.guration, reducing !be feasibility of. future retunl to cine",.. use. The Draft EIR includes. mitigation measure requiring !he applicant to submit details and speciflCatioos for !be redesigD of the project retrofit approach to provide !be ne<:eiSDl)' sbear strength while permitting future reintroduction of • wide screea proscenium. for review orA approval by !be Inspection Service DivisioP_ Relocation of ilestrooms The original project p_ the new reltrooms in !be area created by !be removal of !be stage. h !he mocliflOO project. !be proposed restrooDlS would be located 00 !he new se<ood floor in !be aD<fitorium. The Draft ErR,. pages 204 ·205, <taleS Ihat locating !be restrooms ilIeitber kx:ation ~ reduce the feasibilily of • future conversion bock to theatre ..... resulting in • potentiaJly slgnificam a<lVene impact. The Draft EIR recommends implemeo;ation of either of the i>!lowing two alternative mitigation measures to recIuce !his impact 10 • less than "gnif""'" level: I. Retain and use boIh existing resttooms, oMing an adcf,tioo3l, unisex single occupant accessible restroom room in the new lobby extension; ()[" 2. Relocote !be pr<>pOSed , .. trooms ",here they would not need 10 be relocated in case of a retun< of the Sl!UetUre 10 !beater .... The Chief BuildIng OffICial has incflCaled Ihat the fIrSt alternative mitigation measure (above) does not meet ADA requirements. Thus. iI was oot included in !be conditions of apprO'lal presented at !be HRB and ARB hearings. 'p:\lI'CSR\456UNIV .EIR l-29-95 11 • . ~i - -- TheHRB and ARB recommeoded de~tioo. 0( the secood m~igatioo measure (above) because me restrooms woold have 10 be redesig oed and possibly relocat.«! if me buildlng were rerurned .., . a theatre use. Based upon disc1I$kms with the Chief Building Official, the app!icanf. architect and the EIlt architect, i! ...... d"lSCOVered that. duo 10 the higher O<XUpancJI c( a theater use compared 10 • retail ·use, returning the building '" • theawr use In the future would reqdre the oppIicaIion c( signiflCa!ltly dIfferent standards regarding the .i:re, location and access 10 Il>e restroooa. Therefore, the restrooms .-ooJd have '" be fundamentally redesigned if the building is returned '" theater use, regardless of the !ocatiou 0( the restrooms in the builo"". Based 00 this infcnnatioll, 11' .. Dr2ft EIlt cooctU!lioo rogaro"" the res!rooms will be cbaliged in the final ElilIO indicate • minor, rather !han • significant impact regara"" the proposed localloo 0( the restrooms (see AtLa<:bmenI 12, lettl:r from John Wagstaff c!aWd MArch 10, 1995)_ Thus. the attached cooditiollS do DOt include either 0( the mitigation measures recommeuded in the Draft EIlt regarc!i!18 the restrOOClS. Pear BuDdins F'C1"k <H lm£!act 12) The new south WlI1I elevation would include a cLay til. parapel roof similar '" the _, roof's on the two sides of !be University A veau< entrance cupola and atop the forecoort arcades, a DeW !imestooe-clad window wan~ and flfSt :and 5eC()OO story rows of deep-set multi-pane aluminum windo .... and • terra CO!ta stucco wall ftnish. Spanish Revival detailing would be incorporaWd inlO this facade, borrowed from the exi<ling frout theatre facades. The entrance to the S'J1ICture fromlc< H would be marked with. srucco encrance facade "'ith pLaster decoralive de",aing similar 10 the south ~ourt flag lOwer facade. and • metal entrance door canopy would be constructed. in an efiOrt to reflect forms and detailing characteristics in the existing forecourt. The Draft ElR, page 102, sta ... that, while creating a more pleasant coOJmercial .pace. !be introduction of w_~ 00 chis wall would lruIk, conversion of !be space back in.o a theatre in the fulure IDC're diffiCUlt (JI sbouId be noled that H Impacc 12. the Rear Elevation, was inadvertently omitWd from the sullllIWJ' secL"" of !be Draft ElR), The Draft EIR also sta ... that !be proposed new Spanish ReIl8issanoc rear facade desIgn is more ~Iabor.", !han the existing Varsity Thoatre frOD! facades. It incorp<lrates • shaped pediment whick is • direel copy o(!be peauuent oVer the lobby entry. but would be relldcred in finer malerials !!:an the existing facade. The Seer.ea.')' of the Interior', Stlndards recommend against "duptia.nng the exact form. malerial. style. and detliling c( the historic building in the new additions so t.'"" !be new ","ad, appears to be part of !be historic building" a.lId • imitating • histocic style or period of archr~e in new additioDS~ especiall~ for OOII.teDlpOrary uses ... • The proposed desigB 'l"ould be inconsistent with this $landard. As. rerull 0( these two pOO:ntially substandard adver<e effects, the proposed new rear (souch) facade and v.'indow wall desiga rould represent I signifiCanl adverse environmental: impact. .P: \PCSRW.56UNIV .E[I. .-.. '. }'29-95 18 • -- I i ·'.' ,-< -" , . .'. -' The Draft EIIt rerommends I mitigation musure to require !be applicant 10 rwise the rear (>OUlh) elevation to redu.:>e tlle deiTe< of duplicotioo of"'. University AveDue entrance and JOOby entrance facade details, and 10 instead ·sugge"" !be character-def'.nlllg feature. of !be buil<fmg froot and ~ tllrougll use of. 100<0 simplified parapet prom. and omission of Ibe IPJ>lied e<nament. In otber words, 1Ile lOll'" elevation should be redesigJ1ed 10 be 1es3, rather !ban mot~. elaboral: and "bis1oric" rIw> 1Ile Univef!ity Avenue side of the ""~ding. The HRB and ARil suggested r<Vising Condi,ion I.f. to require minimal changes to the rear (south) elevation 10 avoid f2Jse historicism; ie., !be I'ropoted elemeot above !be r= entryway on the rear facade should be redesisned to be I more flgllflltive and Ies3 1i!Ual interpretation of the existing elements OIl !be University Avenue facade. Sl!bslljfp Work IH l!jl!!ict 131 The pro~ would involve subsurface disrurbaoce fo< foundation work. There is a poosibility of eoco;mwillg and .rlSturbing an hisUlric or ""l!ural resource during !be .. excavation activities. The Draft EIIt i.'lCludcs I mitigation mea.cure requiring <he applicant to cooduct ()< request an arcbeological records search at !be State 0( CaIiforcia Historic Resource file Sy>tem No«bwest InfocmaOon_ Center at Soooma SIa!e University 10 ascertain .... hether the projecc sIte is likely 10 be an:haeoIogically sensitive. The arcl!aeological records ""-0. will provide information on !be likelihood of eocounter"'i subsurr.o::e arcbenlogical artifacts. If, as a resul' of this file search, a appears likely that sub-surface artifacts would be ellCOUntered, ad<litionaJ mitigation measure< are required. :>trucIlIraI Fadon is Impacl 1 \ A IOChnical discl:ssion by the EIIt structural engineers, Ru!beriOrd It Cbekene. of !be structural implications 0( !be revised pro~ (Alternative B) is included in Ap;leollix F 0( the Draft E!R. The discussion in<fJCaICS that the revised pro~ .tructur>I concept in tile fcrecourt area remains similar 10 the arig ina! project. No sisnificant structural impacts ,.ere identif.<ed in !be Draft EIR for 1l!e ociginal pr*,,--t. aod DO adcfttiooal impacts would occur in !be for.court area uodor ilie revised proje<.~ desiga approach. In the thcaIer portion 0( the building, bowever, importallI cfrrTerences betw ... the revised pro~ and the proposed pro~ stru..--ruraI retroflt approach _oll impacts "'ere identified in the Draft Etlt. No signifJCallt adverse structural impacts were identifJ<d in the Draft EIR for !be proposed pro~ seismic retrofil awroac1l. altbougll • number of associated signifICalll adverse historic resource impacts were Identified. Conversely, !be revised desiga would ha,. Ies3 impact on historic resoun:es, to\!! would resull in • potential significanl stru<:.uraI impact aod !he need for !be fonowing mitigation measur<: P:\PCSit\olS6lJNlV .EII. 3-29-95 19 -. ,,- . -< I I Revise the structural desig. as roquired by the UBC to strengthen or supplemeru all lobby rohmms • .. bich support the De'" vertical load from the seomd floor. If strengthening or replOC'!menl is coo.ea, the :ecbnique for preservation of I:npoc1ant arcbit:crural details on or connected to the • columns ohaII be specifIed and mooltored by • Qualified Architectural Cooservator cr Presern!tioo Architect. ArJy re""",a!, relnstallJltioll, or '"I'licatioo of ornamental plJlStu sball be preformed by a skilled <>rnamental plasterer with experience in r ... "".oon of histDric plJlSter. The parking impacts olthe proposed project are disctJssed in the Draft ElR, pages 141 • 162. ~'" doWDlOWll commercial buDcmgs .,. ge"" ... Dy required 10 provide four additional spaces per 1 ,000 square feet cf adde<l floor area. If the project were treated as • new building, it woold be required to provide 91 additional spaces fur the SO'l floor .,. ... increase. The proposed expansion alone would require approxlmal.ely 32 spaces fur the 50 '1 floor area incr ..... However, as an exls!lng building, the site is credited with having aiready participated in the University Avenue parking asse<smellt dIStrict. The project is DO! required to pr<Wide additional parking broIuse It.e expansion a..~-aoc.e. is I seismic upgrade and historic presen,a60n incentive. Tl-..e Cily does DO( bave standard parking demand ... reo specifICally for hoc">!:; and mllS ic S!<nS. In order 10 reasonably assess the li1<ely reed ge""",ted by the project, the EIR traffIC engineen ob<..erved parking ooncfitions at several compaI3bJe 1oc:a! boobtores. The Draft EIR, page 156, estimates thai the weekday parking demand would iocrease 10 81 spaces, evenir.g parking demand would iraease to 91 spaces. and Saturday demand would increase to 126 spaces. This level of projected parking demand is greater than the existing avaaable I"'f!<ing {)n the Varsity block during Ill}' time period sur ... yed. Witboot provision of additionl!! parking, some local and ptoject patrollS would need to park ooe to two blocks farther away during these peak periods. While exhting parlting occupancy rates are relative!y high in !he six blocks nearest the Varsity site. the increased parking demancl fr{)m the project could be accommodated by a""Dable pub!ic parking spaces in the viciIU<y. Consi<!ering the city policy iodlCOling ger.era! >c<:epU.'lCe of higli occupancy rates and pcteDtiaJ future increases in available parking, !he projecr-geoerated increased parking demand is oot considered 10 be ~ signifx:ant adverse project impact. The weekday midday time period is ooosidered to be !he most cri<ical due to the Io .. 'est availability of parking during this period. The estimated 8l odditiooal project-reWed parking <paceS needed during the weekday midday period could be provided by the 22 VacanI cu·street spaces, the 23 \"lICa!ll spaces in municipal 5UCface lots within the six-block area. and thai portion of the ]00 spaces available in !be Web<tu-Co1oper parking structure "'hicl! are DOn·permit '1''''''. 3-29-95 20 .' .... Tho Cily Cowx:ij Ilas aoopled. cap 0{ 1,600 OIl !be alloW3ble overall OOwn'owu parking defICit {oompared !<> • currelll estimare 0{ 1,464) and Ilas We indicated !hat a combined L'lCTea:!e in paOOng nee<! 0{ 225 spaces ,boold crigger I f=ibilily stu<!] 0{ III aM,tional pMking structu.'e. The pcoject would not increaso !be downwwn parking defICit beyond !be 1,600 spa<:eS cap, cr reacIt IfIe 225 space Ihreshold. Tho traffIC impacts N !he project ,,= :addressed in !be 1988 Citywide Land U>e and Transportation Study and its ErR. However, fur inforlIl3tiona1 purposes and fur use in ovaIua!ing the proj<>et with respect 10 the COIlnty congestioo managemeDl require"",nt!, !be ~ Iraffic generatioa from !he proj«:t (see the Draft EIR. pages ISS -161). The project is expecled 10 ",oetore approxima",ly 96 vehicle ~ips in !be PM peak bout and about 900 to 1,000 average daily \rips (weekdaY')' This bel 0{ additional daily traffIC would be cflSpOfSOd among 00v.'1l101li. s!reelS and !be increa.", ",ould probably CO( be !lO!lccable to most downto'iIr'D CW;IDmers or employees. The increase woold DOt be expected to cause acy signrrJCant <>perational or sa!'ety impacts on the lccal street S)"te[l!. Cq!l<!n!C!iop Period Impacts rcp Il!l!laCts I -8) The construction period impact! o{!he project ore discusse<l in .. ". Draft ElR (pages 163 -184). Te. parking spaces adjareDl 10 !be project wucrure are proposed '" be rented by the applicaol for loading, unloadIng, and staging during • seven-mcnlh CODStruction period, proposed to <:<>mmence in mid-1m. Two additional spaces located IOwards !he east end 0{ !he pMking lo( would also be ronted 10 allow for easier !rUCk turning movements within !be parking lot. Give. !be high level of use and runjled capacil, 0( Lot H, !be Joss N these spares would represeDl • lemporary lncoQvenieuce for nearby retail and ==iaf service land wes. This lncoQvezlieooe ":ould be magnified if !he construction period exreoded inID !he November-December holiday season. However, suffIC i<nt parking is available within 1i'alking ciistaJlCe N parking Lot H suck thai Ibis short-tum coostraInt would DO< repre>eru • signiflCallt adverse impact. A temporary CO<lStrU<:tion fence would be located dIrecdy odj;n", to I.'" e<istir.g cyclone fence which ellCloses the &y carofprescbool pboy yard. The construction fence .t his location would be supplement..: by an additional barrier to separate the coostruction actlviIy from !he playgrocmd. The lempc<ary COll<lrUCtion feln could adversely affect ulsting businesses wblclt lrtilIze the alley for dellveries, lempo<a."} soorage, ,moge bins. and employee access. The fence would roduce !be available alley width from the existing !o.to-23-feet 10 • consisteD! width N to feel. Thill wiclth reduction would redoI;e the ability of acf;acent uses 10 ulllize the ""'ey for gartag. bins during the COO5truc!ion period (and over !he long-letm fOr those locations where permanenl thea"" ,...n elp>JlSioos are proposed). The applicaol has proposed the location of • refllSe enckw.rre for project-geoerated gorbag •• t the southwest comet of !be building. The applicant bas also stated on in!Om to provide I Delli common area for !be garbage bios behind ~ .;.. , " !he _ directly off parking lA>I H. The fence ..,OWd also CUt off dir':CI pedestrian a«eSS 10 1I1C busillesses which back onto the two alleys. Unleu adequate provisions..,.re made 10 address Chis ~ problem, elimination of rear pedestrian and emergerocy = to chese bus""""'" durin& !he oonstruction period oouJd rep ..... nt I signifICant adverse impact (Jee Draft ElR, page 171). The conditions of approval require the appflcant 10 revise the desiga and location of the prop<>sed C<>r!Stru<cioc fe""" '., allow adequate """ess to existing busines3es. Ourin& <X>flSiruct:ion, clelivery ITaffic l1'OUId eDter and exit !be ~ 101 via Cowper Street and l1'OUId be .rIr<Cled 10 utilize the nearest cily-designated cruet r""te. The estimated three to ten InK:k clelIveries to the site per day throoglo. parking lA>I H would create clelays and incJUSe safely ba .... ds within the parking lot. These adverse imparu 10 coov.nie~ a"d safety within !he lot.,.. coosidered tempora.-y significant adverK impad:J of the project (see the Draft ElR, page 112). The Draft E1R. pages 174 -177. recorru:>enc!s several mitigation measures (0 reduce !he wnstruction period impacts to le&s 1han sigilificant ~ls. The mitigacioc measwu bave bee. inc<orporated into the attached coooltions of approval. Building Expi[)$trm iraq Adjacent Atley "" aIley whiek is utilized by adjacent boJS inesses f()[ deliveries, temporary stonge, garbage bL'lS, and employee a<:<:ess is located OD :he west and DOf1b sides of the!fieatre. Al> existing Io-foot wide ingreoslegress .... ment is locale<! along the alley_The DOf1b wall of the _ would be ".tended 10 !he .:dge of the .. isting .... ment. This would reduce 11" .. width of the aJ!eJ 00 the DOf1b side of the buildin& from approximatclJ 19 fuel. to 10 feet while maiotaining adr..quate space for storage, garbage bins and employee access 10 !he adjacent bllSioesses. TraSh EncJQsure A new five fool big!> trasl> enclosure is proposed at the rear of Ibe buildiag (see Sheet A2.0 in the plans). The trash enclosure ",,,,Jld be 5tucco to mate!! the building. A c()ndicioc of apPfO\'lll requires that the size and details of !he trasl> enclosure be sub~ fur .. view by <be HRB and Pubflc Works OperacionsiRecyclin& Division and approval by !he ARB. A IOIa1 of eight bicycle parking spares are proposed inclu<flDj! two Class n spaces in the lOrecourt, foor Class n spac<:s at the rear of !he building adjaceoc 10 Ibe rear entrance and twe> Class J loci .... io frOll! of the trasl> enclosure at the rear of the builoUlg. '. 3-29-95 22 '. . The Electric Utilities Engineering Division has indicated that the ~ming transformer vault in !be parking let is no< larg. onough II> lICCQIIllllOdate a larger transformer need for LIJe additional eJectric load which would be geoorated by the proposed chang. in usc and .,.paDded building. & I result, the Ekclric Utilities Engineering Division included I condition requiring I padmounl IrallSfunner that will provide .kctric service 10 the buDcfmg (see ~ndition 7 in At'.aclunelll 2). The ttansformer would be located 00 the ,,' ..... nd of the rear (sooth) builamg facade, facing the parking lot. The HRB .xpressed c:ooceno regarding L"" insta1lation of a padrnoun< transformer because it would detract from the appcarazu of the proj<:d and recommended that Ccndition 7 be revised 10 allow the possibility of locating the trm;former in • below·gAlIe vault. Staff s!!aRs the HRB's """"",.,. regordi.g the visual impact of the Iransfo<mer, but does no! support placing in a below·grade vault. The E1ecIric Utillties Engineering Division bas indicated that placing the u-..nsfunner belo"'·gnde would be cons iderably more expensive, is less safe and would reduce !he reliability of the transformer. The pr~ location of the tr3llSformer "'2S careruDy selected so 1$ '" have 00 impact ". the histocic facades of the building. SiDce the transformer would be .<fJ8COnl 10 00< end of the rear (scuth} facade, which will be more mode", in cllaracre" it would have minimal vi<-Jal impact. The proposed location of the transfcrmer was also selected 10 integrate ",.11 with similar functions including the loadiDg area, bicycle lockers, IraSh e[)Closure and access 10 the adjOC!'" ser/ice alley for builaIngs fronting on Unlversity A veu~. The transformer would be 65 incbes wide by 65 incbes long and 50 inches high. Shrubs "'ould be pTBnted '" screen the transformer from view. The AJUl recommended revising Condition 1 10 requite that the location and design of an new lltiIL'Y devices be submitte<l for review by the HRB and approval by the AIUI. I.lp'sapine The Pepper tree 10cared '" the rear of !he property and the street cree in front of !be builamg on University Avenue will be preserved. The ar'JorisC. report describes the Pepper tree '" be beaJtby and iI ca!l be prOl.ected during CO!lStruction. New landscaping woold be instaned a' tile rear of !be buMIng. Three 15'8",100 Crape Myrtle trees would !>e planted adjacent to City Let H. Five new planter boxes .. 'culd be installed at the rear of the builamg, below !be new winclows. Eack of the planters woold contain eight 5-gaJlon Japanese Boxwood shrubs and fla .. of ·Starr.,.." Red Verbena. A condition of approval would ,equire !hat details of the planter boxes be 51lbmittt<! for ,eview and approval by the HRB and ARB. The irrigation would ronsisl of. Rainbird Micro Bubble. SJSl!:m ( .. irrigation pTBn has 001 ~~ submitted). P:\KS&.\456UNlV.£IR -.,.-....... ---:--:------.--"----~--. 3-29-95 23 New concrete paving 1>'ould be installed between !be b011cfmg and Lot H. The ne .... soored concreto fore<:ourt paving patterB would be rep""-ted at the Lot H entrance, and may or may not be COIItinued waugh !be lobby (cafe!cbeclrolli) area 10 fiK:ilita.. Itcroogh pedestrian traffIC l>eiweel! Lot H and University Avenue. The sooth .ide 0( the build'mg woold have scored coocrel< paving. A conditio!! 0( iopp<O"lIl ... ""ld require that dotal1. 0( !be concrel< paving be submitted for review by the HRB and apprO"lll by Ihe ARB. The front of the existing bu ~cfmg is painted white. The main building color woo:.! be changed 10 off-white. Color S2IIlples and ooIored elevations, including !be reor facade. ",ill be presented at the mooring. The ARB recommended I condition req.., iring that an exterior and interior colors be S<.-l>mlrted for review by the HItB and approval by the ARB. IjgbP", New wall-mounted Iigbt fixtures ",oold be installed on the rear facade. I'botometries of !be new exterior TlXtureS are show; on the site pl2ll.. The app\kat'J propo<eS 10 repair and «-lamp the existing historic liibt fIXtures in the rorerourt. The ARB reoommeuded a ccndi60n "'quir ing that all hisroric ligbt fIXtures be repaired and reinstalled. This wooJd not include the sauur figbts. whicl! i1"e not consIdered to be histor: ic. Rooftop MechaniOO Equipment New rooftop mecI:anical equipDleru (IIO! she ..... OIl the pians) will be installed on the roof. The ARB reoommended I roncfttion requiring that tlte location and screening of tbe mechanical equipmen< be submitted for review by the HItB and approval by tbe ARB. Pr'"" to the Planning Commission meetlng, the applicant will revis< the model of the proi= to sbow the proposed rooftop meehanical equipmen< and screeDlng. The location 0( the proposed sigI12ge on the rear 0( Ille build'mg is shown on the east elev-..tion. The COIKfttions 0( appt",,-a! requir~ that delalls regarcfmg the proposed signage be subm!n<:<! for review by tbe HRB and approval by !be ARB. Findings and Can4jtions Fincfmgs and ooodi60ns are attached. ~:---.. " '""~""; -~-,. , ~. 3-29·95 24 :;..'" -"",," --, ALTEBNtl.1D1'S The Draft ElR. 1'1&" 19 i -226, contains !he following alrernativ .. "'hiel, should be consider";: I. Nl'matiye A' No Proiect. The oistinB building would be left in iu prose III vacant condition. 2. AJl.emaL've B' Modjfied Pr«!04 The revised SO percent floor area increase p<oposaI filed by the applicant in February 1m whicl! is dis..-ussed above as the "modified project". 3. Ahernailire C; Diffqept Commercial Use with No Boor Area Expacs.jon. The exisililg building would be ccnvuted 10 I new =mercia! ".., Ihrougll eXlecsive inlcrior mocI"lficatioos similar 10 !he p<op, but with • commercial teDan! <Kher !ban the boot! music store, inclocfmg • combination 0{ specialty retail and offICe activily, and 00 CBange in dIe exls:ing floor area. 4. At6l\atjve OJ Pifferent Commercial Use m' 2S 10 50 Percent Floor Ata Expansion. The existing building would be convene<! 10 " new commercial cse Ihrougll e"le""ive interior modif'.cations similar Ie !he prop, including. floor area incr .... , but "'ilh • COGImerciallenant odIer than the bootfmusic store, iocluding I combination of specialty retail a.1d offICe activiIJ similar 10 Altemative C. s. Alternative E: Community Ibe.a!er Use . TWQ AIXfitpriyms. M proposed by Ehe Save the Van;iIJ Committee, !he existing builcfmg would be renevatecl foc ".., as • !W<> aOOltorium rommanity theater for cinema. and Iiv~ performances; the mai.n auditodum would be retained and renovated fur an 800-seat cinematic and performan;:e veDue, and • small 1(J().1<>-12(kut "bigb-~h film stu<f"," auditorium would be annexed to !he rear of the structure. 6. Altt:rnatM;. F-Cummunjty Theaw Use ~ ThrC'& AgdltqrillIn$ and • P-e:;t2grant. RefleCting. seconcI Save the VarsiIJ Committee propcsal, the existing builcfmg wool<! be reJlO',"ited I<x use as a Ihree·aoclilorium commuolty theater for fil!ll, video, and performing arts ese, plus • restallfaN; !tie orchestra section o{!he m.aln auditoriuDl would be relainecl for use as • 400· .... cinema and perforel= facility, """ Ille existing mezzanine area would be enclosed and cflVided into two additional app<otimately liS-seat cinemas, CEQA Gul<!elines stipulale thaI !he ElR .:wI identify !he "eDVironmentaD~ superiO<" alrernative other !ban !he "00 projecL" Based on !he comparative environmental analysis of these oIiUDatives in !he Draft ElR, pages 191 -226, Alternative E, !he !W<>-venue community thealer. would result in !he least adverso combination 0{ emriroomental impacts and would !her.tore be !he "e!lViroornentally superior" alternative. However, the e.:ooomically important 100-f<>.120- seat "higII tee. film studio" compooent o{!his alternative appears., be physically infeasible in ----~---:---. . . 3-29-95 25 .' " iIs p<oposod 'annex' form (mad<:quate l\"1!iJable exterior area). The enviroomentally superic< a/tematr •• o!her!ban the 'no proj<ct" and A1tunative E WIlld be Alternative B, the "modified project. • It should be noted Illl!l these prefwed a!temaL've cooclusions ck> DOt include <:OoSiderati<>n of such "oon-CEQA' ilsu .. as landow.,... intontioos or comparative economic Rasibility . nscAL iMPACT The Dr .. !'t ElR. page 184. estimates ihat the modified p<oject would ienerate. eel fISCal surplus from the project .\I.e of app<~lIlI.lely $66,694 pet year for the Palo Alia general fund. Nelli soles IlU: revenues ,.O'Jld make up the majorily of the flSCO! benefIt. However, these tal( revenue increases would not .,..,....,iIy represent a substantial net gain to the cily. The .... w sun could pun sah:o ...... , from exiotins stores, unless the mail<et area is currently .nderserved. This analysis does no( measure the net \:hang:e in kXal book and music store sales in Pa!o Alto .. I result of !his project. Coaver.ely. the new .. .ore could also .ttract additional customen and patrooage 10 o!her dOwntown businesses. generating an overall net increase in offsite sales and wociated revenues to the cily. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMEl'!'T Copies of tlJe Draft ElR ... re distr~ on february 10. 1995. Commen!> 0" tlJe Draft ElR "fill be accepted in writU:. form Ihroogh Mard. 29. 1995. and orall£>timooy ... ilI be beard I!l the public bearing 00 March 29, 1995. S1Jl'S FOllOWING APPROVAL Following the PIanoing Commission bearing and close of the pub!ic reyie ... period on March 29, 1995, the EIR oonsul!ant, wrking with sIllJf. ,.ill evaluate and respood in writing to all comments on the Draft Ellt. The Final ElR. incllUfmg rosponses to comments on the Draft E."R., will be forwarded to the Cily Council In addition, the appfIcant Will be ..,hmitting revised plans for review by HRB and approval by ARB in response to the ar.ached conditio",. AJ discussed .bove under Lobby Stair .... y. L~ Ij>jllican! may also be filing ... application fcc • floo< area variance whicl! would be sub,;... ... 10 review and approval by the Zoning Administrator. 3-29-95 26 ., AIDCflMF.NTSJtXHII!ITS: A!1liChmeDt I: Fmdings A!IaC!ui1eIlt 2: Conditions --- AI13dlme .. 3: Excerpt HIU> mum'" of 3J119S Attac/unenl 4: Excerpt AJUJ mmUle! 0( 31219S ~Dt s: Excerpt ARS mlnutts of 4121194 Actacllmenl 6: CMP.:S22:94 dattX! 1215/901 A_ll=J 7: eMIt: 13.8:<}s dated 21J Y9S AttacIImcnI @: M.!!l<l<a!ldum fuxn Oirrasc» &t AssocialeS dated 1119/95 Allaclllnelll 9: Dia&ram fro", Dennis Sack:uDd Submitted 00 31lr% AIIac"-nl 10: Lobby Decail An.ac1lmc:ot I k Le= from Carrasco " Associa1eS dalt<! 2/2g/95 AlIaclllnent 12: Leuu from JOOn Wagstaff datod 3110195 AttlocluDelll J3: Le/tl:C from [!Ill Sacher.,.." dated 2124J95 J>Ians (Commission memller> ooly) COURU'SY COPIES: Arohil«:!ural Review Boon! lflS1<><ic Resources Board Applicant Propony Ow:>er OOPlES WITHOUT A]7ACHM£NTS: Dennis Backlund Palo Alto CommlUllty Cbild Care All Saints Episo:opal CbllIC) Garlle. Court Hotel ~ideDt Apartments (.,..""",hip) hJermo Rotisserie Res_ Prepared by: RoI>ert Schubert, O:mtract Project P!annc< DivisioofI)epastJD<1lI Ikad A~: __ -----(t.~ '--fr -;;.J.;....L-:r '9' -.( ~~ N:I!>Cy Maddox L)'tIe Chief l'IannIIII Official // Attachment 2 The rcsoln1ion unifying .m Vm.al E!R. f<K Ibis pro~ is under review in .m City Attorney's Office and .... m be distributed in tm City Council packet of 511&'95. '. -".: "" , f" ). .{;" .--: ". :.-> . ~ ~ .- Attachment 3 Findings Cor Approval of the 50% Floor Area Incentive and Major ARB AppUcation -4S:6 Uniyersity Avenue Findings are required fO( app<oval 0( !he 5(j" floor uea incentive and !he ARB application l!ld certificatioo of !he Fmal Enviroomental Impact Report (ElR). The City ,-\tI<lmey's office Wi1l prepare !he findings which '11m be presented 10 the City Council meetiDg. Below ar~ 4rafl findings for the floor area incentive and ARB 2pptica!ion, ",1Ikh we~ p.epared by the Planning Division. The fin<fmgs for certifica600 of the Fmal flR wID IIOt be prepared until !he Fmal FlR is submitted. I. Fiil!!jnzs for oWP"" 01 !he SO % Floor Area Inctn!jye Approval of a 50 % floor area increase requires !he City Council 10 make two findings prior to approving !he project: I) !hat !he exterior modifICations proposed meet !he U, S. Secretary o(!he InIerior's Standard', and 2) !hal !he cumulative floor area bonus wID not be inconsistent with historic preserva600 of !he interior or ex:erior ()(!he building. The Secretary of lnIerior's Stalldards state thai they are 10 be applied in • reasonable manner. taking into coosideralioo economic and lechnlcal feasibility. The findings can be made foe !he !oIlawlng reasons: A. A.. modified 10 include !he m.'tigation measures in the Draft EIR. !he proposed imerior and exterior modiiJCaIioos meet the U.S. Secretary of the lnIerior's Standards foe !he following reasoos: I. A prOfJl!rry sIlO!! be 1lSed.for its historic purpose (>T be plJJced ill Q new I<.~ that require.s miflimd clumge /.0 tile defining characteristic of the building and in site aNI mvUonnren!. While still cooverting !he buikfmg into • l>ootstore. CD store and cafe, including expansion 0( the side walls of the building and cr •• 600 of • second floor 0 !he modified project would preserve many more interior features than the or'.giruIl project, including the lobby, lobby·tCHJlezzanine stair., men a ";"" and .uditorium side aisle arcades. M l result. the following historic resources impacts of the origin.ol project would be eliminated: Proposed removal d lobby ceiling and decorative ~olurnns; ~. ". " .. '!, 1. I " ~" ," " ... • "--.. , < " I Proposed rernovaI of Jot,by staL"".y and mezzanine; Proposed removal of lobby wall and construction ol new elevator and stairway. Proposed removal of side aisle arcades in the auditorium; Prop<>sed removal of the fure<:ourt fiooc slab; Proposed remDVaJ of sloped floor (since the Joge floor wC<!ld be retained UIlder the rev'.sed projccl, !his impact would be reduced from sigoific3nl. 10 miooc). The modified proj«l retains [Le., preserves or fCS!OCeS) Ali of!he significant interioc and exterior historic resOurce values of the building with Ibe exceplion of: 1) !be loss of !he seating, stage and sloped auditorium floor; 2) !he bs of the rear wall of the lobby and tl-.e displl!Ce!ll<lll of the prominent Clrurrigueresque arch OIl !he rear willi; 3) c!osmg off of the mezzanine lobby (second floor); 4) parapet reconstruction and structural bracing in the f""ccourt Jr •• de areas; and S) mo(hfication. of !he proscenium (see DI-.ftEIR pages 193.2(6). With the mitigation measures recommeoded in !he Draft Em (pages 7 ·18 and page 2(5), !he impacts 00 the defining physical chara<:leristics of the property would be reduccl 10 a less than signlfican! level. 1bese mitigation me....".e, are included in the proposed cooditioos of app!UVaI. 2. '1M historic chiJrtJIUT if Il property shaU be retained and preserYet!. The ronoval if historic maJoiaIs or altertLrK!1I if !eanues and spacts that character ... "property shall be flWJidM. The modified project retaIns and preserves all of the historic cbarac!er of the property wilh !be exception of: J) the bs of !he seating, stage and sloped auditcrium floor; 2) !he loss of the rear wall of Ihe lobby and the dL<pIa=neol of Ille proruinent C!runiguere;;que arch on the rear wall; 3) chlSing off of !he IIlI!ZZaIline lobby (second floor); 4) parapet recoostruction and structural bracing in the furecourt arcade areas; and S) modificatioos of the proscen.~ (see Draft Em pages 193 . 206). Vlrlth!he mitigation measures recommeoded in !he Draft EIR (pages' .J g and page 2(5), the impacts on the hlstoric character of the property would be reduced 10 • Jess 1han significant level. 1bese mitigation measures are includ<d in the proposed con<fltions of approval. 3. FAcI! property shall be recognized a.s a physical record if its time, piau, and JtSe. OIanges thal aeaU (l j!list se'IM if historical de>'e/opmenI, such 2 ,." as odJjng conjectural /~.alWes '" archiuct1traJ elemenJs from oth£r bui1tfillg .. sMl1not ~ IUllknako.. The modified project ,,'ill allow die property 10 be recognized as I physic.al record of its time, pI~ and former lISe .. I !heater 2S <f .... -ussed in the Draft EIR 193 -206. The project includes pbo!<>-docwner.lation ofhistocic ekmenlS. How ... er, !he Draft EIR (page 1(7) states Chat if • design for !he proposed new forecoun fClUlllllin is se1ee1ed based CID. poor doc~ evidence, it coold result in faIsc historicism. WIIh impI:menta.tioo of !he recommended mitigation I!leaSUfe1, !his impact would be reduced 10 • Jess Ihao significant level. The Draft EIR (page III) also states that !he proposed new Spanish Renaiss:mce rear facade design is more el.borate tJ>.an !he existing Varsily Theatre froot facade<. It incorporates • sIIaped ped"lI!lelIl which is a direct eDpy of the pedimeIII over !he lobby entry, but would be rend.:red in finer materials !han !he existing facade. The Draft EIR recommends I mitigatioo measure 10 J~e !he applicant 10 revise !he rear (SQUib) ekvatioo 10 ri:duce die degree of duplication of !he Universily Avenue eotwlCe and lobby entrance facadedctails, and 10 instead 'suggest" !hecllaracler-<lefining f~ of !he building from and forecoort Ihrough use of. moce Silllplified parapet profile and omission of !he applied omamenL In other words. !he somb elevation sbouId be redesigned 10 be Jess, rllher !han more, el.borate and "historic' !han !he University Avenue side of !he building. 4. Most properties c/laJ1ge over nOme; r~ doAllges rluJJ Iwve IJCquired historic sigrrificance ill rheiJ' OWl! ngh/ shall be retained (JfIf/ JNest!r.'ed. The basic Ihcater layout and archItectural design of !he Varsity Theatre bas . not changed substantially since its coostructioo. in 1927_ The 82·y= history of !he buikfing is S'J!IllIW'ized in the Draft EIR (pages 37 -44). including physic.al modifr..atioos since its original COl1Struction. In addition 10 changes which occurred over time in die Ihea"", auditorium, the physic.al modifications 10 die building over time include removlll of the original marquee and replacement wit.h !he current marquee. removal of • fountain originally located in \he forecourt. rep!acemenl of \he lobby doors. coostrur..tioo of a kitchen in !he lobby and addition of • new cafe in !he lobby and forecoort. The project includes releDtion oflho ;odT[eDI. marquee. a new foontain in 1he f{J("CC<JUrt, replacemecl of the lobby door, and the adQ1lion of • cafe in 1he lobby. s. Oistinctf';e JeaNYeJ. flniSMs. iJnd COltSfn;ctiOIl techniques", t<:l1mple. of ~p thai characterk< II historic property v.mJ ~ prtuned. The dislinctive features of !he property are des<:ribed in die Draft EIR {pages 29-(5). The mod'lflb:J project retains and preserves all of !he di<;tioctiv. features with !he .:<eeption of: I) the loss olll:e >eating, stage and sloped audit<rlum floor; 2} !he loss oldie rear ",all ollhe lobby and !he di<pIaccmeI:l oldie prcminent Orucrigucresque arch on thc rear wall; 3) closing off ol thc mezzanine lobby (s..-cond floor); 4) par>pel n:coostnICOOn and structural bracing in the forc:court arcade area.; and 5) IIlndIfications ollhe pros=Uum (sec Draft El~ pages 193 • 2(6). WIIh!he mitigation measures reeommended in !he Draft FIR (pages 1 ·1 g and page 2(5), the impacts 00 the alSti:lctive features ol the pr~ would be reduced 10 • less !han signifi<anllevel. 'These mitigation measures are included in 1he proposed cooditions ol awr<wal. 6. Deteriorated hi5tori-r I,anue •• !w..7 be repaired rQJW thtvr repTm:ed. Where the severity of dereriorariOfl "'quires Tt!plocem£ni of a distinctive feanue. the .• ~'" feanue shaIl malell lhe old ill design, corer, text/l1'e. and other visual qu<lliti .. and, wheu possibl<!. materials. Repltx:emePJ of missing /eaJUTes >1uJ!J be substantiated by thaunenJary. physical. or picIorid evidence. The appIicaIII propo= to repair deco<ative plaster work, including existing ceilmgs, wan. and columns, as needed. The foontain in the forecourt will be .replaced. based upon additional research 10 detcrmine mo<e exactly !he style of 1he original fountain. The decorative mirror and coIuroru at die rear of !he lobby will be re\oca!ed. The lobby stair ... 'ill be roWned and lis railing ",·iostalIed. 'The applicanl bas photographed all lobby details 10 facilitate repair and re-creation de!amllg, 'The curved uisting luditorium «ilin8 and perimeter detail will be retained and repaired as required 10 meet safety codes. 7. 0remic4l or plrysic<J1 rreatmentJ. sud! fJ.!! sandblasting. thnt cause damo.ge 10 historic materials shall not &£ /lSeIJ. 11Ie surface cleaning of st",cnues. if appropriate. SM!! be lUldenakm JlSillg lhe ge1lJfeJl means poSsible. The .. ~ is not proposing chemical or pbysicallreatments wlllch woold cause damage 10 any hlstoric materials. 4 • A -~ .' .: ~ , ":'~.-.': - 0J'.: I . 8. Signijic4111 4Fc1iae<JlLJgicaJ reso;um affected by" project .lJall be protected ON! prestlVed. If such resources must be distlUbed, "..irigatiofl measwes :s.'Ia1l be iCld'enMell. The projecl involves sub5urnce disturbance for foundation work. The Draft EIR (page ;03) states that there is • possibility of encOllI!!C1iDs and distur!>ing an historic or oulru.-aI resouru durin& !hese excavation ~tivi6es. Ibc Draft EIR recommends I mitigation measure, included in the woditions cf appr<l"al, .. iliclt would reduce this impact 10 • less tlJan ,ignifi<:ml level. 9. New oMition.r, auri« cJuration.r. <N refoted new cOl4"tnta'«;n sh.aJ1 net <kstroJ ~.istoric r.JQ!erids t/w chtuacterize If'.e property. The modified project is identified IS Altmlative B in the Dra.'i EIR (see the Draft ElR. pages 193 -2(6), .. 1th • SO:1O fIoo< area expansion. The etisting buikling cootairu; 14,972 square feet of fIoo< area. A lOW of 1,992 square feel of new ground fIooc area would be cocstrucled and • MW 10,703 square foot secood floor would be P"""ided. The building would total 22,908 square feel of space, including 4SO ..... are feel which is exempt from floo< area calculation, because it is for the proposed handicap ~cessibility improvements, The Draft EIR concludes !hat the modified project, inclu<fmg !he pl"oposed additions a."1d extericr modifications, would reduce the impacts O!l the buil<fmg's chanc\e.4efining fearures 10 I less than significant level, with implementation 0( the recommended mitigation measures which are included in the COIlIfltioos cf approval. 10. The /leW wcri shall be dijftTOl..'iaJed from w old and shall be compar;b~ wiIli 1M mtUsing. me, scale, tJ1Id iUchitecruraJ featlUes ro protect 1M historic inltgri..'y of 1M property tJ1Id its omronmenr. The proposed up_ion Ott the rear of the buikfmg is COOlpatiNe with the massing, size aod scale of the existing buil<lin! because the new wall will be the same height as the existing wall (39.5 feel). A new 47 fuc( high cupola is proposed on one corner of the new rear wall which is coosistenl with the design and beigbls of the existing University Avenue elevations. However. the Dra.'t EIR (page III) staleS that the proposed """'. Spanish Reoai5~ rear fdC3de design is more elaborate than the existing Varsity Theatre froot facades. It incorporates. shaped pediment which is • Oltect ropy cf the pediment oyer the lobby entry. but would be rendered in finer materials than the existing filCAde. The Draft EIR recommends I mitigation s .---~-~------~---~----- '. ,-,---, .... ~ .', .. -.-..,.. 'F ' =re 10 require lllc applicant 10 revU (he rear (south) elevatioo 10 reduce !he degree of duplicatioa of the University Avenue entrance and lobby entrlInce facade detalls, and 10 instead "suggest" the character-dcfining features of !he building frooI and forecowt through use of a lIlOI"e simp!ifi<:d parapet pcotile and omission of !he applied ornament. In other words, !he south elevatioa ohouid be redesigned 10 be less, rathe! than more, elaborate and "his!Dric" than !he Univenity Avenue side of the building. II. New additions and oajDCtN or rdot.a /leW C<HL<tlllCtion slialJ be II11tIotako; ill suclI D mtJlFJ!eT that if remu'l.a i1I the forge, the esseNial form and wegri" of the historic propetty and ils err;i,oOfUnenJ would be wUmpaired. The project iDcludc$ • new secood tloo< ,. ithin Ille "olume of the existing auditorium and mena nine space 10 aJ1.ow an increa.se in cornrnercial 600r area. The second tloo< is intended 10 allow for possible f~ture removal and re!urnof tbe building 10. theater Doe. A mitigation measure. iDcl-dded in \he cooditioos of tpprO'lal. requires (he applicant 10 submit dtrails and sped."'icatioos of !he second tloo< de<igu !hat "'ould allow c!ear evaluation of its reversibility. The stage removal aspect of tbe proposed project is <lescrik<l in the Draft EIR (page Ill} as • minor impact, since the slage could be readily reiDlroduced if \he buikfmg were coovert<:d back 10 a theatre in tbe future. the original project placed !he restrooms in !he area created by \he removal of \he stage. In !be modified p<"oject, the proposed re'!rooms would be IocaIcd 00 \he new second tloo< in !he auditorium. Locating the restrooms in either Iocatioa would reduce !be feasibility of • future conversion bK\; 10 theatre use, resulting in • poo:n!ialIy signific&:t( adverse impacL The cooditioos of approval require relocatioa of the proposed restrooms wbere they would DOt need 10 be relocated in case of • return of the sttocture 10 theater use. B. Project cOOsistency with the Secretary of ID/mor's SIandards is addressed in !he above findings for !be proposed inrerior and exlerior modificatiom. The original and modified p<"oject de<igus include • secood floor desigu approach which is intended lo allow for its future" remoYaJ and potenti>l cooversion of the structure back 10 • theater. The modified projecl would p<"eSef\'e many more interior features compared 10 the original project including !he Iohby, Iobby-!<>-mezzanine stairs, auditorium ceiling, mezzanine, and aDdiloriwn side aisle .rcade<. AJ.. m;wt, the historic resources impa..""tli noIed in the Draft Em for the project would 6 , ...:-: .--:-. . '.-. ---. be elirniNted «reduced. The impacts 00 historic resootC(S can be reduced 10 a level of iasignlfJCallCe upon implementation cl !he recoo:unended mitig.tion measures. All such mitigatioo measures applicable 10 the modified project have been recoIllIIlellde as cooditiO!!s cl prcject approval. II. Fmdinls for A~al clthe ARB Application The standards uscd by the Arcllitectunl Review Board (ARB) in reviewing projects WiIbin its jurlsdlct;on are set (onh in Municipal Code Se.-tion 16.48.120. The project mec(s the standards for !he following rea..<oos: A. W1IeIher the desigtJ is consistm and comparJJ~ wiIII appljcoblL e/eme1'Js of the ciIy', comp;-eMnsivt pFons. ~t cOIl5isteocy ",ill! applicable Comprehensive Plan policies is as follows: I. EmplQymet\t Polity 3. hquire pW<IU!d transponatica programs by 1M developer or employer u. cOnjlPlCtiOll "ilh new deYetopmeN, expansion, or inIl!11Silicatio1l. The appIiclilll proposes • IOU! cl 8 bkyc1e parking sp;Kes which would facilitate Ncyclc lise as • means cl !IanSpOrt to the projecL This could rtpre<eol an imponanI compooenl of such • transportation program (see Draft EIR. pages 161 -162). 2. lraIl$1>QJliltion Fkm!:n!. Policy \Q.3. In the Down/OWII Aren, new development sItould 1101 ina.as.. the IOtIJl ~ekday pe<Jk parl<i1tg dejidl beyond that apecI&J from developmenl existiJlg and approved through May 1986. The project would 110( increase the weekday peak parking deficit beyood the thresbold est.ablisbed by the city (see Draft EIR. pages I S5 - 158). 3. I~tjon F.!qnmt Policy 12:. Promote bicycle l<M. The project includes 8 bicycle spaces which would eocoot1!ge the use cl bicycles as an alternative transpodatioo mode 10 reach the site (see Draft EIR. pages 161- (62). 4. Urnan Desjp FJemept Policy 2. Encourage private preservation c{ builtfings which haye historic or architectural merit or botA. The project rep<esenlS private presen-atioo of a building which is historicaIIy and an:hiteclurally significant. The modified proj"'-"t, with the recommended mitigalioo measures, would 00( result in significant adverse impacts 10 bi1itoric and archl~1Ural re<OOf"'" (see the Draft ElR, pages 191 -226). 1 ---"-..,......---.. -------- - , . :~ " · -~- s. Urban Desip fkmmt. folic)' S. EncOW"lgt rtl>Ahili:arion of aging retln1 artas to keep them econDlr,kaliy healtFry. The project would relt!bilitate an old bundin8 ;n the downtown 0In. II is presumed thaI Ibis project would bave • pooiLlve Impact 011 !he overall vilality of the downlown area. 6. fpyjrngmrnljl R<SOI!II:5 fkmm! PoIic)' II. EMUt cofr!plianct -..i:h existing noiu laws and protec:io. of residenJs from /lMtctSSlU)~. Tbe Draft ElR (pagcs 176 • 177) recommends measures 10 eIlSUR m!uc6on ol coostruetion period noise impact< 10 1m than signific.uu levels. 1. fmrironmrntal R£SOIIll:cs"fkmrnt POOcy 14. MtllSllTes 10 le= rL<k 10 IuunaJt lifo and property should fxMs "POll ide,lfijied areas of populaJi01l concentraJiml and keyed 10 areas of greates; 1'IOIIVa! haQud and areas of brown or s-o/bM!'lUenI struaural hazard. The project includes measures 10 Jessen risk to hwnan life and property in • building blown 10 C<}ntain strucruraJ ha1.ards (sec Draft ElR. p.ges 119 -145). Tbere w-J/ be no significant changes 1<;" the appearance ol!he buikling as ,-jewa'! frooJ University Avenue. Tbe proposed irnprcve=ts '" !he rear facade would make !he but."lWng more rompatibl. wilh development adjacenl 10 !he City parking Ie(. particularly the adjaceol. Garden ew" Hotel (see Draft ElR. Figure 9.d.). At present, • very unattractive blank ... 1iI! faces !he City parIdng lot on the ea.s! side ct lbc building. A new facade "ilb large windows and a new entr"aIltt will be added 10 lbc rear ct!he l>ui.lding 10 allow passen-by 10 view Ihe retail space from Ihe City parking lot. Tbe entrance from Lot H would be defined by • lower demem reflective ollhe el<isliD8 loWer OIl Ihe University Avenue eleva60n and a <:anopy in !he form ollhe origlnal (curved) Varsity marque •. A DeW rile roo( and .:upoIa would also be conslnJ<:'.cl 0II1he rear elevatloo. C. Whether the desig" is appropriate 10 Ihe function of L~ project. The design of !he project is appropriate 10 !he function of the proposed bookstore, CO store and cafe. The side walls of the building would be expan....-led and • n.!W second IIooc will be created 10 aa:ommodate the proposed use. In addition, • new entrance would be provided from the parking lot at the rear of the build"mg whieb ,.·ould prcvide a new pedestrian rmk between Ihe parking lot and University Avenue. 8 " :""~, ... :--~ , .""J;: ::-; . D. /11 Ill'~ ronsidered IIy rk Ixxud o.slulvir.g IZ IUlijied characur 01' historical cMrlXUT, whnMr the usigll is comparibl~ "it!! sucl! cl-.".ac1l:r. The architedlnl styles of the various stocefroot ,!reel facades along the downtown segmcnI. of Unlversity Avenue are mixed. The Varsity Theatre's Unlversity Avenue 'Mission R.,..iva!" cupola C'Il.IrallCe facade is Banked 00 its east and west ,ides by lower boMiD& parapets ol identical heigh! and Spanish tiled roof style. Th<sc symme!ricaIlow~ clemen!.. ltcl!itecturally complemem the hlgher, missioo facack of the Vanity. SiDce the Unlversity Avenue building ~ would be preserved. the project is compatible with these unifying bwJding elements. E. Whd:u 1M tksign promoItf hannoniolLl trQJlSirioIllJ U. leak aN! character in <JFeas be/wee" Ji1!erenl designated IaNIl/SeS. The s~ is DOt located in a transition area between different !and uses. F. Wlrnlr.er L'Ie desig1\ is co,'IIp/ltil>k wWr apprf7YM impro\'em£.'I!s bolh on aN! off W site. Construc!ion of an expansion of me All Saints q,iscopal C!n=h complex, located 00 the corner of W~verley and Hamilton Avenue, began in January, I99S. The expansion plans include demoIitioo of the existing old parish ball on Hamiltoo Ave:me and construction of a mcder9 new parish ball replacement. The proposed new rear facade at the Varsity Theatre, ... ith • more modem design compared 10 the University Av ..... oe fa<:ade. will be c.ompatible with the modem design of the cburth expansion. G. WIrnIr.er the plaMing aird siting of the VariolLl ftmctions and bujltfings on the silt creal. an inlefMl se1IIle of order and provitk " tksiral;ok environment for ocoq><mJS. W.t<Y.3 and t'le gen£TaJ <oourJUliJy. A new facade with large wiDdows and • new entrance would be added \0 create • new mission·style secondary entrance at the rear of the building and \0 allow passers-by 10 view the ri!tail space fonn the City parking \0(. This would create • new ~tria:11ink between the parking lot and University Avenue. The project also includes preservation of the charactJ:r-<lefiniF.g historic elements of me building and inlroductioo of the =sary accessory elements, including new ,""!rooms, a second stairway, elevator, equipment room,. receiving area and refuse area. 9 · .. . '. '"~ H. Wh6ht-r 1M arr,oUN IlIfIf arrangmlOll of ope1I spau are appropriate to t1o~ tksign IlIfIf w ftmctiOil of 1M W14C1uTe •• The &nlOUIIl and arrangement of open spaa is appropriate 10 !be design and functioo of !he buiJdins and adjacent stJUcrurejL An alley whlch is utilized by adj&ccnl businesses for deliveries, 1mlpo<liI"j storage, garbage bins, and employee = is located on !be west and DOr1h sides of !he theatre. An existing l<}'foot wide il>&resslegres. easement is located oloog !he a!ky. The north wall of the !healer would be enended 10 !he edge of the existing easemenL This would reduce the width of !he aIley em the DOr1h side: of !he building from approximalcly 19 feet 10 10 feet while maintaining adequate spaa for storage, garoage bins and employee access 10 the adja--..enl businesses. 1_ WheWr sujficienr tmdllary [unctioru art pro,ided 10 SlIpporI "'~ maIlIjIlnctioru of the pro;ea IUId w1lether 1M same art compc1ibk with 1M p'o;tcr's desig" C!lllCepi. In addition 10 the proposed bookstore and CD 'lO<e, the projecl includes the creation 0( an a.,sociated cafe and espresso bar. The project also includes !he necessary acce8SOf)' .elements, including new restrooms, .a second stan'ay,. e)e,'alor. equipment room, receiving area and refuse are •. J. Whether acce.J to the property IUId cjrCl<!olion IMwm art .aft arlll comment /<N' pedestrians, cyclists IlIfIf .ehicle._ 'The project includes • new entranc<: at !be rear 0( 11'", blriIding which will provide: a safe and COIIVcnieot pedestrian link between the parking Jot and University -.-Avenue. K. Whether 1!t1IiUal featuns art appropriately preser,td and integrated "'ilk tlu! project. 'The oo1y existing tree5 on the site, a Pepper tree located at !he rear of the property and a street tree in froot of !he building 011 University Avenue will be ....... rved and bave been integrared into !he proposed landscaping design. L W/'.erher 1M maurials, textures, coWn (lnd details of consl"'ctim! and plan! malerial are appropriate expression It> the desig" and functi<m and whether 1M smr~ au conrpatible ...ilk 1M a4jocenJ and neighboring SlructltTes, landscape elt>tleJlts and functioru. 10 .' --- , : :-, :- The ~ materials, t..xtur .. , colors and details or: oppropr;.a!e expression to the design and fimctiolL A WI! facade w;m large windows and • new en!Tan<:e will be added to Ihe rear 0( the building I<> a!lQw pas..~rs-by to view the retail SJmc !rem the City partiIl& lot. The enIn!lCe from Lol H would be defined by • lower elerneDl refle<:tive 0( the exi..<ting lOwer on the University A v~'C ele>.,.lioo and I canopy in the form 0( the original (C1U'\'od) Varsity marquee. A new tile roof and cupola. would also be COOSIniCk:d on the rear elevation. The ~xi.<ting appearance of the forecourt would be mainla ined, with seismic bracing being added to the sldewaIl. at altmlatmg pilasters, A foontain would be added in the furecourt, in the location wbert a founta;n can be seen in historic photos. The marquee on the frooI 0( the buildill8 (University A, enue elevation) would be {coova!fld, '!abilized sttucturaIIy. and the oeoo. would be repairo:! and replaced. At Ihe lobby entrance <loon adjatenl 10 the forecoun. the facade would be reno,rated and rq>aired to maIl:b !be existing hlstoric detailing, n." IUgh tower clcmcDL at the IbeaIer wall beyood would also be repaired and renovated with p1~ details 10 marcll existmg, Now entrance dool'S would be provided, in a design more compatible with the design 0( the theatre facade. M, 'Whethe, the !aJldscope des;g. concept for th~ siu, QS shown by t~ reLmoruhip of ptarrllMS£eS, opeo spaa, scalt, p!anJf<>nns andfaliagt tex/lUes and colors creale fl desirabk and ftmctional ,",irl>/lJ7leJ'lt and wherlter the laJldscope concept depicts an appropriDte unity with the various buildi.gs OIl the sire. The Iandscaj>e design coocept would crear.. • desitable and functional environment and it depicts an appropriale unity with the buikfing be= WI! landscaping would be ins!2lled at the rear of the bvMmg, incJuQmg five new planter boxes below Ihe new windows, and new concreIC paviD& would be ins .. an~ between the buDding and Lol H. The new scored coocrecc forecoun paying pattern would be repeated at the Lol H eoIranCe. and may or may not be oontinued through the iooby (caf~checlt"'->Q Mea 10 r""ilitate tbrough pedestrian traffic between Lol H and University Av=. The sooth side 0( the boil<fmg would have scored concrete paving, N. Whether p!anJ maurial is S>Iitabk and adoptabk 10 the siu, capabk of being property mDirrlai1led on the site, and is of G lIariety ,,'McIt would Irnd 10 be ;/rollghl·resistanJ and to reduce consumption of water iJt its ootallati071 and mmnJeMnCe. 'The proposed landscaping is suitable !O the sicc and meets the requir=ts of the City's water conservation guidelines. Three Crape Myrtle trees would be planted II odjaulll t.o Cily Lot H, Each 01 !he five DCW pI:mler. woo!d contain eighl Japanese Boxwood shrubs and flats of "Starfire" Red Verbena. O. 'i' .. haher lite dL<ign is energy qJicien/ and incorporaus r~ energy tksig,. ern.e.rts . . The deslglI is energy efficient and would be required 10 meet 1he requi..-cmerrt5 01 TItk 24. The propcsed project would be similar 10 typic21 comrocrdal projecl$ of 5imi1ar size and would not coosume sub<Un!:ial iDlOUDls 01 finite ",,!lira! J'C5CJIIlUS. 12 _. : .-", Attachment 4 Conditions -456 University Avenue. I. The applicsnt shall Mlmit !be f<>ll<>wing foe re\'iew by !he Histocic Resources Board and approval by !he Archito:cluIlll Review Board: &. b. c. d. E1evaOoos of !be pmposed pilaster! in the focecoul1. To insure that the lUbuIar steel elemenls ore in keeping with the dean wall forms and symmetry of the 1Uscar.-style forecourt, more shallow lUbe ,,,,,lions man be used so !hal the new fur~'ts can be recessed from the ~ of the existing pilasten, or anoIher accepl3'>1e design Slr.lteEY shall be used. All existing pilasters in the focecourt ,ball he turred-oot to prm.ide • S)'IllI""Irlc appea.'1II!Ce; Details of the proposed fountain in the forecourt, showing that it will accurately rep!i<:.ate Ihe histocic fountain. if possible, or it shall be designed as I WDIeIIIpOCary-wmpatible feature of Ihe same size, sc&e and in the same IocaDoo as the original. A rep!i<:.aied design ,ball be based upon adequate researth so !hal the founlain can be accurately r""reaied. if sufficieol do=nemary evidence to accurately replicate the original fountain is unavailable, !he new design .balI be compatible with, but clearly distinct from, IlJe n:ma.ining character-definlng fealUres of1he.hislDric liuilding. Ceiling and waH detUl. of the proposed extension of !be lobby 10 Ibe rear (south), sbowing that the interior design will .void an awkward space, <Ie ODe in whkh !he extended portion appears falsely hisIDric; Details of the C!lurrigueresque arch in the lobby. a100g with its raised tile base. The app!icanI man slUdy the possibmty of retaining the Owrrigueresque arch in the lobby at its present location and using it as • passageway. If iI is not possible to re1ain the arch in its p<esent location, it may be relocated 10 anoIher wo!!, preferably within the new lobby extension, and I drioldng fountain andlor dedication plaque or OCher Ireatmellt wbicll is subject to review by the HRB and awoval by !he ARB ,ball be installed inside of !he arch. The design approach shall balance IlJe concerns regard'mg ~e with the Secretary of lnterio< S<.alKlards and Guidelines, 1he func6oo.ol needs 0( 1he propo<ed r.!aiI use, 1he benefits 0( direct and COIIvenien! pedestrian 110\11 between parking lot H and University Avenue, aM wmpl~~ 'IIilh applic.able building rodes and ocher regulatioos. •. Details sbowing 1he ru=nine lobby closed off with a grille or similar material nrar 1he lop 0( me stairway in • manner which would allow for sufficient air cimllalion 10 minimize deterioration of the room; f. More detailed iIlformatioo oolbe rear (south) elevaDon 10 demcn5trale !hat 1he design • suggests' rather IhaIl • duplicates' the character «filling featum 0( !be bui!alng IrODt and foreCQur1 through 1he use ol a mere simplified panpeI profile (i.e., it should be demonl;tra!ed that tbe ck:v.tion is be less, rather \ban more, el.borate and • historic' than 1he University AvCllllC side 0( 1he building); !. Details 0( tbe proposed securiIy fence/grille 00 the fron! ol tbe building; h. Details 0( tbe proposed CDttance doors \0 the lobby from the forecourt and LotH; i Fmallandscape and irrigation plan including details of ~ proposed planters and special paving at the tear of the buMmg; j. (Dele!ed due 10 duplication); t. Plan showID.g !he removal ol the existing utilities coOO~it which is visible in the fo<ecoun; I. Location and design ol the proposed !il:M= wall under 1lle cupola in lbe fo=ourt; m. Design and materials 0( the proposed paving in the focecoolt. The eJUsting ashlar scored <:ooerete under 1he forecoun arcade roof! and within 1he !COI"eIines which exists aloog the lines 0( the arcade columns sball be replaced in its entirety rather \ban patched following installation of 1he grade beams for seismic bracing. The existing scored coocrete in !he uncovered forecoun between the scorelines aloog the 11>'0 arcade ccloDna<ks may abo be replaced if it is damaged during construction; ... Samples 0( eX1erioc and interioc colors; 2 .,.,:-. :, - c. LocaIioo I!ld scr~ c( proposed mechanical equipment on the roo(; and ". DetlIib showing the projection room c~ off and openings provided ID allow foe sufficienl air cir<:ulatioo ID minimjze delerioration c( the roooL A re:isonabIe means c( mainrmancc access sball be provided for ose in the event c( the need foe "'!"'in (roof Jed, window breakage, elC.). 2. The app!icani ,mn coodoct or ~ an arcbcological records sean:h at the SJ.ate c( California Hitto<ic: Resource File System Northwest Infoonatioo Center at Sonoma &ate University to ascertain wbether the project site is likely to be archaeologically sensltiv.. The arWeologkal records search sbaIl be submiJu:,j foe review and apprOV3l by the Planning Division. If, as a result of this file search, it ~ppears likely !hat sul>-surfacc artifacts would be encouoJ.ercd, the applicaIlI shall also implement the following addjtioo.al measures: •. If warranted by the rc.-.rlts c( the records sean:h, the .ppIicanI sha.il retain .. professional ar<:bacolog'.st hl be oo-o.U during project exC&va6on pbasci m the even! that any archeological matcrilll may be encountered. The archeologist !IbaII conduct I fKCliminary filed inspectioo after portioru 0( the slab are removed and prior 10 excavation for the proposed new faundafiGns I!ld slabs in order 10: (0) derennine the nalure and extent c( previous impacts to the project area; (b) asses. !he catur. and extent 0( poIroliaJ impacts; and (0) derennine the appropriale level and meIbod for fw1her identification or poII!DtiaJ prehistoric. pboIobistorlc and hislOric cultural rcsoorces. The preliminary field fuspection may fiiJd that enougb "'.sible and undisturbed soil. remain ill the projccl to warrant a run survey. or that some form 0( subsurfa<:e II:Sting is necessary, such as the excavation by auger. shovel, or backhoe. The archeologist !IbaII record observations in a permanent log. b. The necessary ex1<:Dl of onsitc monitoring of subsurface coostructioo activities shall be determlned by the archaeologist after portions c( the existing 600r slab< arc removed, and before excavation foe new footings or other excavation wod. ~. A revised WIlSirU<:tion logistics pl .... shall be submitted foe review I!ld approval by the Public Works Departmen! and Transportation Division, addressing at a minjmum parking. truck routes and staging. materials slO<'age, and the pravisioo c( I'fdestrian and vebk:ular traffic adjacent 10 the COllStruction site, includmg the fuIlo'Io1ng: 3 -'-'---'--""-_r: , . , I . . a. Me.asureo Ihat will mitigate the !raffic and construCtion impacts of the project on City Lot H; b. Coostructioc period garbage bin locations (serving University Avenue businesses 00 the • .ffeckd alleys) to rep!"", the ,ruling a1ky garbage bin \ocatiooJ;. made \ess ~ible by project cooslruCtioo; and c. .Revised or rcfia<d design and location of die proposed coosttuction fence 10 allow employee and oth<:r li:USS to existing businesses and other uses affecled by the fence is req>lim! by the Ie!l-foot wide a<:eess ca= held by die properties adjacelli Ie the project site. 4. Theapp1icant shall post • perto<mance bond with the Public Works Depa..-uneru 10 ensur. Il-.at any damage in City Lot H is restored in kind, S. The applicant shall submit • final grafling and dnlnalle plan fo< review and approval by the Pub!jc WOIb OcpartIn..-nl., including dninagc pao.cms on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate tha! pre-e • .istiDg panern< Ie and from adjacent propertios arc DO( altered. 6. . The app!icanJ shall provide p/Hltooo,;umcDlation of the historic detailing in the lobby fur review. approval and retention by the P1ancing Division. Prior \Q Iss J2nrr ofl Bulla-mS Penni! 1.' The appf1C3Ill shall submit det.ails and specificatioos of the seo:ond floor design in !he awfJlOrium 10 provide cle.ar evaluatlon of its reversibility. for review and approval by !he Chief Btriiding OOkial. 11. The applicant shall submit delaiJs and specificatioos 10 dcmonsIrate tllat !he final project design <:an p<ovide the Decessary sbear strength ,..WI<: permilling future reintroduction of. wide screen proocenium, for review and 'ppco"a1 by !he Chlef Building Official. 9. The applicant shall revise !he stnl<:tura1 design as required by the UBC 10 streng1ben or support an lobby columns ",bleh SL'J'PO<1 the new vert..;"a! and lateral loads from !he second tIoor. 10 the satisfaction of !he Chief Building Official. If stteng1heningor repla:= is cbov.:n, !he lechnique for prese", ation of important archl!ecru..--aJ delails 00 or CODne<'!ed 10 !he columns shall. be specified and mooltored by 3 qualified Arcl!itectural Cooser;·ator or I'r:serliation An;hitecL Any 4 • removal, reinstillation, or replication d <>r" •• amental plaster sbaII be revned by fhc His10rie Resources Board, approved by Ihe Architeaural Review Board and performed by a slciJled cmamentaI plast..-rer with experience in reslOCatioo of bistoric plaster. I (). Pbms showio& fhc ~ size and cklails d fhc trash enclosure sball be submilu:d for review by !be Public Wod:s Opcratioos/Recycling Division and lflSlOtic Resources Board and approval by the Architecrur-ol Review Board. The design sbaI! include space for recyclables to !he .. d.<faction d !he Public Worb OperadooslRecycling Division. II . A padrnount t"lllsformer shall be ins!l!lled at the rear of the site. The lI'1IruOfonner shall be screened from v'.ew. The Ioc2tion and design of !he podmouni lI'1IruOfCJmler and an other utility ckvises, including mett:rs, back60w preveruers, fire service ~. sewer cleano\.ts, 00 !he site shall be !!Ubmiaed for review by em IrlS!oric Resources Board and approval by the .-\rcllitec!Un!l Review Board. A public utilities easeIDeDl sha\l be provided for the tr.IIISformer. The \ocatioo and cksign of Ihe padmoon! transformer and ea.sem<:oI sban be subject 10 review and approval by Ihe Electric Utilities Division. 12. Details of fhc required bicycle parking shaI1 be submllle<! for review by the TransporUtioo Division and lfJStoric Resources Boa.-d and approval by the ArchiIe<:!Un!l Review Board. The CWs n and m bicycle raclc5 ,hall meet the manufacture', recommended spacing of each unit from aoo!ber and from walls or other obstructions. A minimum five foot 1IiIi<k access <isle sball be prO\ided between the bicycle lockers and the back60w preventer. The U·Lot 'loop' option is preferable for tbe Clas, !I bicycle rack. B. The project ,ball provide secondary COIlIaimne<Jt foe tbe elevator bydmilic system to the satisfaction d 1M FIf~ DepartmeD!'S Hazardous Materials Division. 14. All !rUCk rootes shall coofonn .... ill> the City of Palo AIto's True .. and Tn",k Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48. and !he route map which outlines !ru<:k rOUles availab1e throughoot the City. IS. The proposed long-term garoage bin Iocafioo{s) fo< !be University Avenue businesses OIl the alley adjacent to \be additioo .ball be submitted for review and approval by P."SCO and \be Planning Division. The cew Earbag~ bin locaticc(s) shall be easily accessible 10 PASCO and shall not block acee .. 10 !he an"y. The 1ong-teIm Jocatioo and design of !he garbage bin p.-ovisioas shaJl also be subject 10 review and comment by the affecied building owners. 5 '.' _ ," . . '- 16. The applicanI shall submit I completM WA TER-OAS-W ASTEW A TER SERVICE CONNECTION APPUCA TION • LOAD SHEET for re-.1e .. · and approval by !he W -0. WW Utilities Engineering Dr.,ision. 11. The opp!ican! ,hall submit improvement plans for utility coostructioo for review and appcoval by !he W.Q-WW Utilities Engineerng Division. The plans sW show ihe size and location ct all undergrOUDd utilities with !he property and !he pubtic right-d·way incMmg meten. b3cidlow preventen. fire servkc roquiremenl5. sewer c1eanouts and any 00ler requked utilities. 18. The applicant shall obtain an eocroaclnnent permit and temporary leas.! from !he Public; Worb Engineetio& DMsion fur !he pr<>p<>Sed use cll"'~.ic parking spa<:eS in Lot H during coo.<troCtion. 19. An encroaclmlen! permit shall be obtained from !he Public Wocks Depal1melll for pedestrian protection ro !he I"'blic; sidewalk during construCOOn and any proposed coostnK:OOn whi<:h would impact !he use of City Lot H. 20. The applicanl sball design and coostruCt ~ protection in froot of !he IheareT on University Avenue 10 comply with UBC Section 4401. The design and coostn>ction cl such pedestrian protection shall be subject 10 review and approval by \be Public Worb DepartmenI. and !he Chief Building Official .. 21, The applicant shall del;ign and coostruCt !he special protective barricade described m !he coostnK:OOn plan fur !he adjacen! daycarerpreschool play area 10 physicaIly and ~iSUa:JY block any roonec6on between the play area and !he coostructioo site. The barricade shall be at Iea.<t I S feet tall. Some trimming cl existing trees may be required or !hel""Tier shall be modified to acrommodate eristi.'lg tree bcancl>es. The barricade .haIl be coostructed ootside cl!he ex.;,mg cyclooe fence. but may be COIlS!ruCted on top cl!he existing wooden retAining waIl SUITOUIlIfmg !he play area ",itb !he approval cl!he property owner. 22. The appIican! shall pr()(ect existing trees within !he p<"ojecl construcOOn zone (mcluding trees near !he marquee on University Avenue and in 1.« H) with 8-fOO(: high chain link fencing, \0 !he satisfaction ct the City Arborist and Planning Division. The fenus shall be mounted on ~'trinch diameter galvanized iron posts. driven imo !he ground 10 • depth of at Jeast two feet a! no more a..an eight fOO( spacing. TIle fences shall enclose sufficient area 10 protect !he tree trunk and 6 .. . ' -" ~ ,-- \ -' . . . , ' . lower I)<ancbcs from eoostruclion acllvlty, but !lOt less than an area equal \0 a circle with I radius from die individual tree trunk \0 its drip line. The fences shall be =ted bcfon: coostruclion begins and shaI! remain in place until final inspection fur the building penni! is complet<:d. except for work spec ificaDy required in die approved plans 10 be dooe UDder die protec~ trees. 23. The app!icanI shall encourage die project COIlStruClion team to secure construclion period parking for all weden wimin private parking lois. Parking sbllll be discouraged 011 public streets or in public parlcing lots. 24. The aWfican! shall provide die Palo A110 Cmtmunity Day Care organization, All Saints q,i.>-:opal Church, Palermo Rc<isserie Rest.aurant, American Beauty Salon and die Garden Court HoIeI with a de!aiI'!d demolition and COI1SltUCtion scbeduIe md inform !lie organl7..atioos of all schedule changes so thallhcy may adjust their ~, or in the case of the day= use, relocate 1heir opemion, during seIec~ periods sbouId dley so &tire. 25. The windows between die courtyard and die American BeauI)' Saloo shall be permanently c·!OSed. 26. The C(lIll!aeIOr sbaIl appoint • member of !be cor.structioo. crew as Noise Distwban<:<: C()()fQmalor. This r;enoo shaI! have detailed knowledge of project constnl<:tion actMties !!XI shalihavc die authority 10 implemen! and monitor all of !be noise related mitigation measures, plus have die authority 10 Siop work 00 the project. The name and pbooe number of thl5 individual sball be a!Slributed \0 all businesses within 300 feel of die site. 21. A qualified Architeclllral Conservator or Preservation Architect sru.rJ be selected and retained by !be City 10 verify lhat Conditions I, S, 28, 29 and 30 have been satisfied. The cooservator O!" architect sbaII submit periodic reports \0 the City, as required by !be DirecIor of P1aD!ling and Community Enviromneot. The applicant shaD pay !be costS foe !be c=rvator or architect. 28. The State Historical BuMmg Code permits resting 10 uses. !be structural capacities of existing materials, wbicl1 in rum may lessen Ibe degree of necessary retrofit impact 10 ibcse historic features. ll, even with the use of thl5 cod<:, features such IS !be Ioad-bearing lobby and auditorium C(h'umns wool<! still require • retrofit, !be applicant shall: 1 ·:1~:-;,< "--- . --_.' -:"." ~. CArefully document and d"mnande Ihe>e (.awes; b. Salvage, catal~, SIDR, and n:in:.ialI removed ornamenW pIAstN (some loss 0( material .. wid be ioeviUble during this proc~s); and c:. Retain • qualified ornamenlaI plasterer, experienced with restoration, boIh 10 document and cf"lSJIWltle the features and 10 reinstall and repair !hem. 29. The historic auditorium ceilin8 and side aisle arcbes and lobby detailing Shall be prOlectl:d-in-placc, including the omamentaI plaster, wherever poosible. Wber. pro!eCtion-in-plac:e is impossible, the cootm:lor shall carefully saw<ut, remove a!ld store omamentaI piaster for reinstalliltion. 001y as a last resort, the existing ornamental plaster shall be replaced v.1m new onwnentaI plaster 10 match the existing. AD detailing, proI«:tion, rem<MIl, storage and reinstallation; a!ld any replir..ation 0( historic pIa..<ter. shall be specified and monitor"" by a qmIified Arcllitectural COOSCTVator or PreserV2tion Ardritect. Any actual removal, reinstallation, or rep&ation of omamentaI plaster sball be performe<l by • skilled ornamental plasterer with experience in restoration of hisforic plaster. 30. All historic light fixtures shall be repai<ed and ,damped (the nisting saucer lig.'lts are DO! coosidered to be historic). 3 J. No storage 0( material is permitkd .. ithin the tree encklsure ar-...a. The trees shall be maintained as necessary 10 em.-ure survival, including watering 01 least mootbIy from May Ibroogh September. 32. The coottaclor shall implement the following measures \() reduce cooslnk:tion period truck movement inlerferenc<: with city Lot H parking operatioos: •. Manage exterior constnKtion operatioos 10 minjm;7(' interfer= with parking lot H driveway operations; and b. To !he maximmn extent feasible, truck mov=nts sbould be scbeduJed at times oilier than the daily AM, midday (luncbtime), and PM peat hours. n. The CODIraCIor shall comply with the requirements of the City 0( Palo Alto Noise Ordinance. The COlllraCIor shall locate ill statiooery noise·generation construction equ.'prn<nt, sucI! as air compressors, as far as praclkal from the daycare!prescbool play area. the church edu<;atiooaJ builcf"mg. the Garden Court Hotel, and adjacent businesses. Such equipment shall be ~y shielded where necessary. The 8 CODtrac:Do' sllall properly muftk and maintain all CO<l5lrucOoo equipmeor. powered by internal combustion cnglnes. 34. The ~ sIW! complete as mud! inlerio< 6<:moIitioo aIld C<JIIStrUction activit;t 15 feasible befOR opeDiug exterior walls, in order !() COOlain noise (and dust) inside Ibe ~ building. $S. The ~ shall knplement lbe follow1ag ~ 10 rtduu project get='&\ed dust: •• Schedule major dust-generating !ICdvitief for \lit earl:;: morning and other boon .... bc:n wind velocities ~ low; 1>. Cover stDr.lge pm. (fill, reuse, roilding mater'.aI, etc.); e. Sweep !he sidewilll< in front cl !he theater reguJ.a'ly (al least daily) 00 University Av~; d. Sweep City Lot H regulmy {illeast da11y) to clean up debris.:aused by project coostructioo and deliveries; e. SpriDkIe wort areas of cbe site w'.tb water as neede<! \() tOOItol dust; and f. Perlonn as moc!I dust generating activi!y .s possible within !be existing building {priDe !() wall aDd roo{ removal). 36. Spl1lage resulting from !lauling cperatioos a100g or acros' any public 0< private property sball be remoYed immediately and paid for by Ille contraclor. 31. The ~ .balI mstalJ • sign{s) at !be cnlranCe 10 Lot H indicating !hat !be publk can use nearby padlng 1013 or structure< during ~oost .. ucrioo olllle proj«t. The Iocarloo and deIalIs of a.e sign(s), mcludh>,g • map and wonfmg, shall be submitted for review and awaval by the PubIX: Work< Department and Transpottalioo. Division. FrioJ 10 0ccJman.--x 33. D.>!ails cl &ll ~ signage, includiIlg the proposed marquee: rennovatioo design, shaD be submitted for .revje,.. by the HRB aDIl awroval by the ARB. 9 ,"-' . '~ '. "-<';~"~ ;..; --; 39. A par!dos and loading plan sha!I be submitted foc review and. approval by the T\'1IllS{>C'IUtlon Division, addressing at • minimum, the ron.,..,ing: I. provide infonnatiro to employees and palrOOS regarding parlcing availabilily beyom the Varsily block; b. eIlCOI!!'lge employee and patroo lJ'an.<it use, (arpooling, and other aJlerllative IPOdcs ollranspOrtatioo; c. sclleduIe deliveries in Lot H during hours with the Ieasl parldog demand and in a IJJlIIlllQ which does not block parldng lot ';'le>; and d. implement <:eforced landowner policy (and sign) prohibiting motors idling near the Palo Alto Ccmmunity Day Care facilky. 10 • ... ~ ~ol1 Call Wedne~~a1~ Mar~h 1# l~~S 1:00 •. m. -lO:~C •. ~. Council (:cnC .. rence .Po-o~ Palo Alto City ~.ll 250 9amiltou Agenue Palo Alto# California Attachment 5 • REelS 1 "!!· ... Ml"N~~S. Board ~rs pr.5e~t: Hont~cme~y Anderson. Eliz.~tb ~itt.~. Mildre~ ~rio~ Ann 8arb! City eouncil Liai'o~: Li~ ~i~, B. A?pro~.l cf Minutea. .ppro~ed ~a amend~d (C-O) .l)~ Age1'1da Items: I. 533-.5:391 Romorull St reet Project Representative: ~~111is ~unsey Public Te~tL~Q1: Done Boardmember Marlo t,l".<!Ir'."ked applic:a.ot. for her c.ffcrt and b·rin;ing in plan~ bEfore all the detail had been decided upoo~ Bo.rd discti~,ed be., w-iruiow.s open and t;be framing, woodwo·rlt .. and. sills around window. MO'2'IOB; BM Ander~cn moved to approve plana witb encouragement to keep vindow and .sill rat~er tnan door_ VO'l'l.: .Ill ilye H-!H 2. 1048 Remona Avent;le __ -'-____________ Cit) of Palo.\ Ito Appliclnt: Peter S~ll!van Public tes~imooy: cone Ci,c~s$ed .side elevation a~ Marl~: a~Ked Why ~indo~3 over transom are ~til1 i~cl~~~. ~lic&nt ~ida~t believe wi~ow detracts fro~ the bi~torle nature e.f the bcu:se. BK Aoo3oc'':!lo~-ha.s be con.sid.en,d .. &ned roof O"'er addition? rbe .ppe-r-.cfage is stil1.'very .pp.=-eot and: doesn't fit ,..-ith ori-gir,"'l stract~re. ~ifie.tion 6oesn~t .ddres.s co~cern.s. HOt IO.ll; B2't Ande:soil loicu1d act. support 2..'x!ition_ Mo,,",eiJ to deay project 5!"lb5ect. to previous commeo'!' . .5 anlj to rest~dy lcundry .. .:e5 lind not $'Jpport. E IE_ 3. 1]34 Emerson Proje~t Repre~entative: wil1ia~ Bacmon ?~blic Zes~imony: Done S~~ry cf liR& Oiscus$io~: Board disc~s~ed vindow$ and rooi. and floor pl«n of bouse. 8M ~~der.5co-needs more fenestration in rear elevation; bettec balan:e among: windows; DO real problem with direct-lor., but Zleed.s f·~rt.ber .study. .May want t.o t;l.~e double h1J:l~ ... indo .. " rather than awning. Di.scu~se~ g~e cf porc~e$. MO'!IO.:: BM: ,kO'jderson recommended conditional ret~rD to spa prior to BIE 4Zs ds.iQB. rear i!nd side ele.ratiol'ls. C-d,otc..<:..c."- 7071: All aye ((-o} 4. varsity rbea~e~ Applicant: Charle.s Xeenan approv",l "'itb. project to ~~t~dy of fene~trBtion of '" 1 ! Public testimony: ~ S~ry of RRB Di.~ussl~n~ Applie'~t gave brief pre~entation about project and CD text amandmeot r89ardin9 the -doubl.-cten.s1tJ' bonus for ~ei.smic upqrcde arid .. late ric presen'at.ion ~ . Arc:'hi'tects:-LineS. Poneir1i COol: C. rrasC"co .N.sCJc..uL-~ "SP'~S'I': give brief p~esent~ioD ef exterior a~d interior of project ~ S.--h-kA -.,.u.. f ~ J'~in~lt from Board about c01~~s on buildlnq-original17 doesnYt . appea:r to be painte-j. '---~ ~+"LI".!::JkJ. (Lkc. .... t"n... "'- Need B~ c:omtI'Ients n9a:td;'Fi founuin, C;l'~n ~("J-'I'b J s,9L~~ '() tI:Ut h£ COp Of SCdISi • t fliP:!> ~ ~ .. ~. "'--l~ PO 0 at fz f itA"-l1ec. in:a 18t:l!. Dennis lae~lcnd-Adela' Antiqu~a. 231 Ramlltor. A?e. "dmires modifie. project very mucb ~ rheate.=s are l::1n'Csual bQilditl.;;s~ Exterior tied .co interior. Kaj¢r c:on-:ern hi "'itl1 item foun<J on page 2:QS c>f EIJIl IDd page , of ARB inf':lEDemo re: reD'O'Val of rez:% lobby wall Co:-exte:nsioll -ef )( 34· ~ Vall betweell a~itQri-..m &r-.!;I lobby bel~q pre~erved_ ~ack raar wall is e3senti~l t~ defi~ing such I large space. l'h~ space .. if expanded, would be ho!rd 'to define~ Lo:5'.s of arch if can Dot be vieloled: &3 one e~ters the l::>bb'y~ Arc.b set'S eff t.he .splice. !Ie ~.anded' O\,lt • posaible solutiQ:::I to the problem. ll-e di'C-u:5':<ed selTeral ~her tneaters tbat. have been CO:lverted. 'l'beat.er .. round Sberrr..an Oek::s was cot'.verted to a bOOkstore, but. DO new floor ~p8C"e~ Gave a ~nnesota elll.ample and thoe f\afae-l Theater in San P.afael. Villiam Glock-.sked tne cost of reconvertin~ the buildinq to thezter ns4!'. Ch.rlea Jllleenan-i.ss .. e ha.s been addressed 1e :ErR" design of new- _ feat~re3 hil?e been bolted rat~er than welded, ~hich vill -John I'lIIg"taff-tIlt .z:ai$~d constraints t.o· recoll\7erting b!Jildin~. ~ f~ci!itate I conver5iOll better. Arcnitect ~y want to addres. thi.s i~ More detail. Board ~~estions: Mildred MArio: ~as i~ ever cc~~ioered to replace o.z:iginal marq-oJee'? ApplIcant: likes original marquee, bill!. :COli exi~tio9 o:ce i, lIistoric. Der~i.s Backlund: old one C~~ d~wn ift 1932~ Mooty Andersoo: curious about back of b~.ti1ding co~cret~_ Any cOllcrete t~~tinq being don~~ ",bieh is all o...~~~ PFCEZ&J.CE Mr. Mas.erve~ l~a,-first tests were done. Found good ~t needs more test points. Koot.7: aloping fl.o.or ia e'!J.ential elemer.t:. Could new floor be buil~ over sl.oping !loor? ~eenan: L~by £100:-at ~Q-neec, to r~tch ~bat l~vel_ ~Ilty: Could wider prosceniu~ be kept? Applic~nt: ye,_ Monty: removal of ceiling? Applicant.: ceiling will be ret.ain6d. MOIlt-!: quest.ion about lr.irrc-r ~nd Mr~ B,;rcklul'"'-'!'s proposal. 8M Ander~on di~cu5sed • third alternative. '-eep arch ia place, rel:-cate mirro.r. create ·pa.s,-t.h.z:ou91':o-. Element would be -- retAined regardles~ ~f its l¢<atlo~, 5-1-alter~ativ~ 3 -.. "-\ >;".i ~. Mked: if te:Ktcres wOt!l~ 'be Ntche-d'. And ~at !lbCut .tched .e:eUin9 i~ !-tai!:way'?" Applie~nt: ye~. 'lizabet~-want$ ~~ .ee ~~ie$ L~~nge ~sed in ~ome ~a7~ .culd ~ b.~y about ;ril~~ be~i~S~ alloW3 .i~ to elr~ullte thro~9h the %ocm. ~~ed to loe~ .t the S~~t~ iistorie 8ul1din~ ~~. Also ~~r.t~ to kno~ _bQ~~ sc~ed~le of rev!~w. ~s. Grote-r~pli~~ ~hat ¢~lJ detalls woel ccme ~ck tor r~view- c.be .Frojec~ .31 .e whole 'Woul<! not A'sled ,I!:-oloJt pot.entiill FI!:iCtJ6.1 Aey:ULEI 51;; :. diTlq. Con~~lt.Dt-Th~re ~y ~ .. proble~ ~it~ the removal of ~e.r lobby _ "",)11 snd c~ant;Joe c! Q;5 •• Boazdmember ~ 1arbee-.esx.d about co!or~ Same palette? Ap~l!eant: f£5~ El!rabetb-~l~r.~ing 00 reFl.~ing eo~t? Applican;;-ye". B&1I'e-c~t d'l!cidet:i yet if .... ill D.s~ -different surhce, There NY be odgi!'1a.l tile D::"ider .carpet t'hat ceuld N ,,-;reserved . .E.lizabet.o-Arcade flooring' itlocld probably end tlp beir.q ne .... J Applicant::: yes Elizabeth-What wo~ld ~pp~opriate soluti~r. be? CO~!!\.lll:ar.t.-would .. ant. to ~eplicilte :)ot...op!Ioht;- aoa~d agre~s .... itb Appli:a~t t~qa:~i~q re5tro~m issue_ l~ New 2~ story rest.roo~ do b~ ~eed t~ be rel~.~ed. 2_ Wa.nts L .. dl:e~ Lc<unge to "be t:i!-ed" ltit.?:io1Jt; e:fCecting: FAil:. If ean~t be ~.sed. should ~ elosed vith a ~cilI~ to allow circ~!atien i~ lh~t ~~ce_ 3. Arch sJ;;crolU".dirlg Ilirr.:l=-t.o r.,..aia in place ilnd possibl.7 cpened up to allow tbrougb circulation~ if po.ssibl~_ .c_ Jl:e":GrA to HAS (or :evie. of pihster !lupports-eve~y column bay should nave same pila$ter si~e. 5. Some paving in co~r~yard nee~~ to be replaced. Conc~e~~ ~o~k i~ co~rtya~d-eo m~tcb e.i~tinq patte~n. 1Ii'~" paving it) arC3I&!-.! .. balancl!' i= forecourt. t.o rerr.al.n_ ,. Cort:icl! e!eme:'lt. a-: r.ear e.r,tranCI! .shoeld be U'>Cre figurati7e an~ less literal io configuraelon tha~ tbe lI'.ail'll entra.pce. '. Pac 1Il0l)Tlt tral'l.sfol.-mer" ltrC!lI"t.ion to ::et'C'rn t.o HM_ If con-pcom!1'latE: 10<;;atiCIl cannot. be fo~nd" '!lnderqrO\lIld vau:;:t « ll"ed. rtt..s'l KO'1'IOW: Ann-Moved to certify t.l'lat the EIR is cOl'T'.p:>.ete E:!'.viront!lectal dvcU!l'.en t . t'"..i 1 drea.-;l nd $ ECONI) MO! I a'S: Mildred-~otio~ to a?pro~e with the following r~C·$; see items .•. -._-----,-.-_. 'C- ., . '. <'~-~" ~ • , . , . ' Attachment 6 ARCHITEC11JRAL IlEVIEW BOAJlD HEAlUNG 45i !1NIYE!!SITY AVENt!l: V .... iry Tbtatre 'lbunday. Marcl! 2, 1m E;ceml Mjouftj$ 94-A.RB-4~ 94-ElA-7 94-HRB-8 94-ZC-6 Flcal ~vlew 0( major ARB application for reoovations. including. seismic upgnd<, historic preservation and SO pe= e>pa!lSion to allow • two-story retail use within the existing theatre and I cafe ill the existing lobby. Ms. Maw. Lee Wi have the l"=ot.atioo 0( the project. Tben "'e will ask question 0( the applicant and the E!R coosuItant. This is • major proj<Ct so you are allowed 10 minutes for your preselllation. !Jv:!r JCrmuon 100 Fmgsog Sttq:t. Palo Alto: As you too,.. last year, "'e wen! Ihroagh the HistDric Resow<es Board (HRB) and ARB and PI2noing Commission prelimicaJy review 0( the .xterio< 0( the buDdIng. W. ,.e", approved by all 0(_ bodies; and subsequent 10 !bat, the City Ccunc~ bas pused _ is c:ommcnly known .. the double: FAR bonus for boIh seismic and his"'ric reblbs. However. the second 2S perceru: is conditioned OD lhe: interior modifications not having an ad\lerse impact on the eA!erior historical c1wacter 0( the building, and meeting geoem cr'.leria 0( bistoric tenD'r"ation on the inside .. as weD. Our presenIaIioo thi& morning is going 10 focus primarily 011 the inside, since you have sees the outside. Frankly, with some mioo< cIcWI questions whkll ,.. can get iJllo Ialer, the outside is as "' .. presemed last year, LiDda is going to make a presimI.otion on the inside, but the significanl i:s.sues are the preservation 0( the lobby, 0( the co!OllIWlc on the interior 0( the awf,torium, the a:iliDj! 0( the auditorium, the stain:ase, which I would say are all 0( the significaDI features 0( the iII!erior, with the exe<ption 0( the sloped floor and I proposed relocation 0( whal we ...m call the fountain to .-ber wall. yesterday, the HRB reviewed thi& and approved it with some modificztioos. One 0( _ was 10 ask as to s:udy the founIain element and sec if we could leave it wbare it is essentia!Iy creating I pa .... through there. We are going to explore !bal. k is. eke _, buI it is in In .""""anI place. ~ .... ",irnUC i:s.sues embr.icing iI. I have 00l even Ihougblaboul the hact side 0( ii, however, we do feel it is • significan< feature !bal "'e 1IIere prepared '" re!ocate. We could leave it there. That migbI be fun. I .. ·ilI IUra thi& over '" linda now. 'inda Pmy;jni. Carrascc ..00 "swciates: I will mainly focus on (be interior of the buil<fmg~ because we cfld give you I presetllalion on the exierior last year. We havo prepared. model'" show yoo bow the bact eleVlitioo 0( the builcfmg appealS. We have. color computer rendering of the back elevation. We have the color board bare, and there are some ph<>Wgrapbs 0( existing conditions, it )'011 have questions. The focus 0( the interior renovation, II thi& point, is on • more historic approach '" the project. Particularly in L'Je lobby, we are now preserving all 0( the lobby, the ceiling, the 312195 ARB Mimlteo DT ,ARB] .... v.RlI,MIN "--'---,~--,-,,",,-.-.... -. --~- . "', ' . ~ '. , . ' . I I ~ .. '. \ dccontiv~ ~Iumns. !be &x:onotlv~ detAiling arouod !be ""iling. We are going 10 .. -instaIJing !be niIing on !be SIlIirway \lla! goes up Il> the existing menan'''' Within !he ,,",in ""vilion. ",e are gom, 10 "" preserving !be triple arcbes on the sid .. of the pavilion. Both of !be .. ne'" approaches 10 dle !clIab of the project hav~ bet. possible by adjusting wbere 11", sccocd floor is placed within the space. W~ ha'" ~ it '" that iI: c!ea. ... !be ICp of !be existing upper loge area which aDows us Ie keep !be dccontlve elements of !be lobby. because this Ioje area is not I'elDQved. It is k..-p< in~. which ~ makes k easier 10 ret1J.t'B .. 10 a thea:1:R in the future. Tho secord floor b&s a1so bet. set 50 that iI misses !be IDpS of !be dccontion of the talIc:sl arches. stiIJ allowing for openings underneath the trim pie<es and !be &coratloo It the base of the high. curved space. So all of !be~ eiliIgs "",-xing together hav~ allowed us 10 malniain aD of ~ ~Iements thai are imp<Xtan! 10 the historic cIecor of !be buiJ<fmg, In !he interior. as we explained in !he walk !brough. 'i'e will be utending the bottom portions of !be higb., arcbes w!lel! Ihis sloped floor comes out. lba! wi1l be f.nisbcd 10 match the ~xisting decoration. Within the lobby it!:elf. all of!be columns and ckcorative motifs wool;! be maintained. Some of the ""lumns wi1I have 10 "" reconstructured. be<aus.: !bey .,. in need of seismk npgrade in ICrms of Ioods thai .... e booing imposed on the columns froG! the secooll floor in cer"",n areas and in oced'mg 10 brace into the upper Stl".lCture. Those panicclar columns a;ong Ihis rm: will all "" taken .part. and as possible. molds wiII boo made of !be de<:onliv~ wad that can.'tOl boo removed. They wi1l be rec .. eat.:<!. once the DeW column are (:onstruc!Ured . . " couple of things we would like 10 address from the suff "'port -there ...... comme'" about simpILtyinl! !be rear elevation. We did have. discussion with the HRB .boot lhat. and the clarification we received from the inul ..,.. that the simplification they wouk! lU:e 10 see is in the deIaiI of Ihis element so thal iI: is not quite suciI I iiler.ll tra1!Sition oflhis 0 ... but that !hi. is 'imprlfied somewhat in detail. We woold IU:e 10 l<ep the rear elevation design as ir is in lerms of its elements. We feel iI is • simple design \lla! complements the ,..,.inller of Ibe bulkfmg ",hiIe oot Irying 10 copy iI or Irying 10 be historic in any .. 'ay. Tbe otber aspect "'as the suggestion that this mezzaoiD< ... hic~ ran. preoy mucb half "'.Y between the fin! floor and the new secord t'Ioor. be utilized. One of the difflCUl~ with lhat is lhat iI is approximately 500 square feet in area. and it is !I()( •• ery us.able retail space. It is omalI; you have 10 limit the number of people who can be up there; tbe .wr. do DOC tne<:t code. There are aspects to iI that male if somewhat difficuh k> use. We are certainly in!erested in mainfajnjog it as :I space. One of tile suggestions is !O put in • gf'Jl so that people can see into it btlt DOt utilize the space. AnoIber suggestlon that came out of the HRB meeting ymero.y "'as that if we could get aD interpreiation from the cily that the area did 001 COOlll ",words the FAR. then the space could be lept open and, it could be use<! !O some extent so Illat iI ,,'00I<I DO! be closed off 10 people. There is • difficulty in having '" count if in the FAIt, os it is I very "lfflCOlt space 10 use in • retail fasbion and 10 lease. In terms of the colon oftbe building .... ~ are trying'" work with. subtle palette ofcolon. On the exterio<. an off-white. and the mullion coloes • teal blucigreeB. Will!. the room tile on the rear portion. we wi1l try 10 malCb the mix of Spanisb tile that exisls on the fro"'. The medallions on the back would be terra =. and the .a"d.,;tone is kind of an off-white wit!> • slight beige color. 312195 ARB Minutes :l.tTiAR8:A. ...... US.MIN 2 . /""" " ... . .............. """"'~=~-".:-::.2~_~-'-'-_ ". ';; , . This sandsUlDe matmaI ~ be on this ._ on !be frool and edges. It is lik. l t1-JcI< slab. Thore Is • smal1 .1iI of &lass here, sepanoting if from !he stucco finish oa !he buikrmg. M.L~: W. have DOl dc!enniDed an oflhat. They ~ be 51""". W. ,,'ere tbinI:ing if """,ld he sfmpkr just to ha.'C • change in color, but IhaI cooId be stone II II:< linte", also. MI Mett Thank yoo, linda. ld:'"1 bear from me HRB representative. MOIIIy Anderson: There was • ~ 00 !be HRB for !he proposal here. W. have reviewed !he exIUior and made: <xJmmel]I> _ 1hat before. In g<nenl, .... were very pleased 1hat !he inImo< is DOW l>eing considered os • port 0( aD of this. and efrons L.., being made 10 preser.< !he i<:oN>y. ThaI is • key defining ._ of Ihe buiJ<rmg. As Unda menOOoed.. Ihe mezzanine was going to be clo5ed cf!. Tbore is ." ornamrnt>l .. .&in:asc IhaI leads <JUt ofll>e lobby &r<a whkl! was going 10 go up and just be waned off. What ..... bad 1roped for was ODe 0( two things. Ei<.lJer stlppon for gains ovo< !he FAR in order 10 find some SOlI of use for IhalIO lilat people C&:> >tin go up Il>ere and see it. aIthougl! we are DO( sure what kinds of isstl .. IhaI raises with tile Building Department. Tho stairs .... DOl to code and Ihere is ob.-iousIy no ~ .... but if somelbing could be explored, ",e woukI suppon thai. If IhaI wos', an op!ioo. !ben instead cf walling off ot Ihe lap of !be sair., "'0 supponcd having &>me SOlI ol grill .. 'oct so \hat you could stiJl view"""" tile space. If if gets closed off, Ihere is 00 lir circulation. L'lIl1l>e area would deteriorate. In die i<:oN>y area, Ihere is III ""'''''''Y whick picks up 00 die an:bes IhaI you start seeing from tile sttt:ct. You ue introduced 10 ibe first "",II out here on tile = and as you come :mlO tile coortyard. !here is • secood an:bway here. As you walk inlo tile lobby, directly in Ihe cen!er of Ihe lobby II die end of it, tllere is anotI!er smaller arch. Tho EIR "")'$ it ~ was • founWn. 1IIhi<:1l Lbop also remembered. Righi OOW. tllere is • mino< on it. Thoir plans ISo cal\ for it be saved IS on .lemeIll, but it ..... going 10 be relocated. We thought if important 10 be on &Xis lIit11 an of tile oIher an:bes, and it was • key defining ._ of the Iobby_ What we bad asked the app!kanI to ISo WlIS to explore &>me way of keeping that m place, pemap. laking "'" !bo _ and anowing people 10 pass Ihroogh. but allowi'lg !bo ekmeDl 10 stay in place. Then an at the arches, inclnding Il>e new arch. would stin be in line "'ith one 1IllOiher_ k is relBtively small, and it is questionable wbe.ber illlas suffICienl beighlto acwany be QSCd is sumo sort of doorw2y. There are doors next to it, and it appears that maybo: the lap at the arch is high eooogil. but as it gets do,..,. 10 !bo side, it may DOC be. b any case. we asI<ed Il>e applicant '" explore wa)'$ of maining it in its CUITe!l! po5Won- Abo in tile courtyard, there is III ashlar concme patttenl in there, whiell is original, but for structural "'.-..s. Ihere bave 10 be • num\)cr of gra.le beams cut betc..,..,n !he columns and !he back "'all, ~ there are columns going up ,long !bo back ... an 10 brace tbe high parapet. We have asI<ed tile applicant 10 e:xplon: way. of creaJing that in ei!bor a panem. perhaps having grade beams at an die columns, 0< some """ of treatment tiler< so thai w!lea if In gets po! back oogetl!er. !bore is """" 312195 ARB Minute' KIT 1 ARB l.A. -\A1tiI.MIN 3 -. son of reasons for L Maybe iI woo't match exactly, but I patte", is crea~ wben: you 0I",,1d OOC hove '" mall:1I it, ... that is loing 10 be very diff!CUlr.. Maybe score rmes wben: d>ey come ill and cIo dle sa ... CUttir-., could follow the panel'l'l of dle oshlar .. bere that coold be rep~ ... iIhooA ""'"Yitil 100 mucll about bow II> rna!::. it. So we asked the "Pl'rlCan! 10 come up with I plan for IhoI .,.... Ms, Muq·. Y"" aze DC( in favo< of removing it all and replacing it? M· ~: I think i< has be<n clIsa!s..oed in the EIR as • possible option. So thai Is aDOtber opIion. We are DC( against that. What we are Iootiog for is that the 1'.naI rest!lt make 5eDSe mI thai .... DOIbav. I parch job in there. There Is I staff cooditioo rega.oding !be utilities, the pla=Dem of _onnen, thai sort oflhing. We aslI: that .. ben that aspect oflh£ projccl is developed, that c come back for revie... ThaI is Slated in tile staff coofrtiOlls. an<! w, support that. There was I question in the EIR about !be relDOVibilily of !be bathrooms which are being p'.aced OIl !be second floor. The questions ",as that of revenibiliry. W. were asked 10 address that. Our feeling was that !be mezzanine is being designed so ;hal if !his were ever retl.1rD<d 10 some sort of theatre use. ~ whole meZlan; oe is designed so that you could literally just tale it out. Because the Ivodlrooms were. part of tile coostructioo of !hat mezzanine level. we felt thar there was DO( really an issue of reversibility with that. If Y"" lake out tile mezunine 10 rerum ;, 10 its Nigiaal nse. Y"" ore going 10 bav, 10 Il:ke out !be l>adlrooms, as weD. The board also wade • motion b ~rtify the EIR IS I comp\e'" docume!>l. That is pr~ much C. Ms. Maser: Thank you. I DOW wan! '" 80 10 board Q'.lestior.s for the applicant and EiR consultant. Mr. Ross: The proscenium ,!·cll. it is suggested in the EIR that will have an impact that sbooId be mhigated if it is narrowed '" its origlllal historic width. I am curious as 10 Ih£ HRB's stance Is OIl its hiitoric pbyskal structure venus !he tiod of ongoing, historic n5e question that Is embod1ed in that issue. Mr. ,. n<I!;nro' The sbear wall. that are being put in at tile proscenr.un take it cIo'IIJI. 10 an older will of wbal Ih£ original SCreeJO was. The question in tile EiR is wbecber or DOl that would proIDbit L A "'ide screen has be<n in ClJere fo< quite some time and is being put back. given tile width that tile proscenium mit will have. We asI:ed Il>e coosullailts about that, mI given tile w\h they are proposing, I wide screen could be put back in, but • super wide screen coold DOt. So "'" ba". no obja:tion 10 !he sUe they were pcopo<ing. Mr. Ross: Mr. Wagstaff. ify"" cooId address that question for me. John Wagstaff: Bre! I iz"Mi' 0( Rllcberford and Cbekcne, SUuctural Engineers, can answer !he question ofwbere \bog sbear panels could be located. tlle alternatives, and bow they migbt be moved out. Also, Nancy Go\denberg. tlle architect historian that asslsred us, can answer questions. We did talk yesterday about aharnative locations of tlle sbear panels. The prujccl structural engineer is ben: also with some ideas, and !be boaOOl fme .... as that it can be demonstrated ihat the wide screen fort!lat can be R:-inll'>duced. I< r~y doe. DO( matter where \bog sbear w-.!Is .... , as long as it can be demonstrated that Ih£ wide scree. <:an be returned. So if tile architect can demoostr.lte that that can ultimat<Jy be achieved, Ihe sbeer walls can be located perhaps ",ben: it is recommended now or whatever is necessary to lIl2ke that viable. 3/2i9S ARB M'lIIlltcs KIT i ARB :Jo_'\.\i<.B. MIN ="C:":.-,~,...,..,~---.----':","-...---'--" .-.cc----.-. -~-~--'O!!i!IiIIid. '':-_", ~,···:;c,'.:,· .. · " • 1 J 1 I < < '> Mr. Ross: .... j'<JU were cvalwiting that ponkuIar item in IhiI oppfx:a..'\oo, is this oort 0( I buill-in c:onflict in !be preservatioc suidelines? h soems 10 me !hot rosIO<'int ~ 10 iIs IWIori<: w»tb iI _ I IWIori<: violatioo. AItItough it may make iI imI'ossible 1C p.~ in I m<>cIena wide screen. I m<>cIena .. ide sCreeD ""ooid be more 0(. historic vX>I.otion that an origiDalpro..;eoium """'14. ! Mr. W •• st1ff; A ,imi1ar que>tion came up OD !be marquee. Do,.. waDI 10 ,0 bacl '" 1110 ~ that is Ille", DO'l', which "'as pedlap< iDsIaIle<I in Ille 1930'., or would ir be __ 10 10 bock '" Ille origiDal _ marquee? Whal would Ille hisIoric preservatioo crirtrla IInp!icaliooo for tbII be' So iI is • si:niI2I' tirHl 0( __ .ion. NjIlICl' GoIdenbe'l. I dOD't Ihlnk !bere is III easy L'lSWer '" it. Our feeling iI that if iI iI soi"C '" be returned '" I illcatre use. you ... lllI '" keep iI fimctiooaI. Eve. if IUrning iI back 10 ill oriaina! detail iI pernaps more historicaIl~ <:<xToct, it may prohibit its ongoing fuDction in lOd.Iy'. world. U Ille sbear ....all _Is in tbelr cunent clesigD an: DO! proIlIbiting • wide oe=D .se, if; SOUDds 1iU Ibm: -ny is DO( I coofIict. Mr. Wa.staff: The OIher thing ... iIl!. Ille wide sc ......... is Ille liability issue. ReturniD, it !O I madera lbealre use would requltl aoaIysis in Ille ElR. Iller< aru DUmber 0( refe= '" t,'BC _, pelllaps backing down in some areas on Ille requirements for strengtbening by .pplying • Icsser staDdard foe that 5Il'eogtbeDing. III some other areas in Ille struclUral comments, Illere ore suggntio<ls for gtealer strenglllcning 0< applying higller _cis. I am curious 10 hear • brief <ommen! QQ !be thinking behind thaL J\,fJ. Wagstaff: Whicb particular areas are you speaking of'! Me. Ross: There is I list 0( sugge<led ideas offered OJ Ille applicant. Mr. WallS!ai'f: The August 1994 applicatiOn involved extensive modificallons 10 !be interioc and removed most c.f mese ornamental features that we are interested in saving. So in aD effon 10 lilciliute • design that could retain diose featl1I<S, w. proposed I DUmber 0( poosibili'Je.. in<ludins _ possible <:Ode applicallons as I sugg<:stion '" Ille applicant for I way 0( lilcilil.tling these preservation goals. Now that we have • revised de..<igu that essentiaDy doeo; tbat, incorporating almost aD o(!be interior decocation, that <:Ode issue became I little less important. There .... oome detaJled aspects o(!be <:Ode question in respect 10 which does apply 10 which portions of !be building 10 avoid cer'.ain adverse impacts that .... d'1scussed yesterday. Brer lizun(fia: I wiIllrY to Eive you I quick overview -of that.. As far as the lower ()[ aItemative staDdard, what was mentiooed in the El1l was nor tile UCBC bee .... lhat would apply 0DIy 10 lI1lIOinfO<Ced masonry (URM) buildings. The L1temativ~ SIanda.."d mentiooed in !be El1l is lC!ualJy FEMA·178. Why was that SIandard mentioned? It is because IS time has gone on, !be 197J UBC that Palo Alto has used .. an evaluation and strengthening standard for ooo-UR!d buildln8s has begun '" be supplemented, Iwoold say, by other standarcls. III my opinion, !be current staDdard is FEMA· 178. or course, as wOe goes on, FEMA-178 will be revised IS .... n. III the ElR. w. use both Ille I9'JJ UBC, ,.1licll is what the applicam', structuru engineer b.s l>cen using, and we usc FEMA-178. One reason foe exploring bot!! standards was 10 more broadly review the need fo< removing !be parapet in !be arcade =. It tu!1lS out that tile parapet would meet !be FEMA· 178 criteria, ,s9'ming 3I2J95 ARB Minutes K1T;ARB 1A:\ARB.ML"'l .r .' 5 -\ i: \. , .. ; .... ... , /""'- !he «bar is comistclll with !he Iimiu!4 [",lei investigation aone ID elate, but !he parapet ",.:>ul<j not meet !he 1!>73 UBC criteru.. Interestingly, !he parapet would meet !he =01 UBC criteru.. In the EIR. .... drus pointe<! "'" that using either oureD! code or FEMA·!78, one might """"Jude that !he parapet is ICCqI(3ble wiibouI "'!nOva! or strengt!leniDg. III IooI<iJJg at !bese' varying resWlS,,.e come ID. grJY area of criteria. ODe code IeDs us ODe thing. aod 1!W.lIer code tells .. .-bet. his 1w1l to argue that """ is better Il-.an tbe other. W. do not reoIIy blow. Who ..... get \0 an issue !ike this, I seDCnIly fall back ID !he pooition that someone has ID take responsibiii<} for ""bIle safety, and that pe""'" is Ihe Slru<turaI engineer who has to stamp !he drawingS fur !he seimlie sttengIhening. In that light. the app!lcant" engineer's desire ID leducc !he ."... o(!be parapet is • reaJOOable IX .. ition. As fill' as Page 145, ",here !here is • list 0( suggestions for tbe design team to coosider, I think. you an besl view those comments DOllS en'\Jironmental impacts but IS sugge:st:ioti that I peer reviewer mjght mue. They arc mainly ways ID improve the design. They ere no! mono stringelll or higller strengt.lvming SWldanls. They are recommendations that, in my opinion, will make !he design • better project. Mr McFall: H.,.. there be<!! any crwogue with the Chief Building Official as ID wbat standard be wants \0 see !be structural work done under'! Ed Meserve. Proiect StructunU Engi.neer: There have bees I lot of comments. I hav: talked with Fred He~ and I bave woded on lhis 'bI.J.i1Qmg 00 an annual basis for dle lasr: fivt years on V2rious scbeme5. His basic agreemeIll1llas that we would do Ihe forecoun 10 tbe 1973 code, imd tbe change 0( usc in !be main build'"mg 10 the cu.-reIll code, 1991 UBC. ThaI is what we have bee. presenting, "" for. Mr. Ross: Specifically in the forecourt on Ihe long 1IIaDs are listed as a po<sible signifiCaIll impact. !be appIleam proposes to remove !bose materials and replace with right gauge framing and stuc.:o '" replicate !be original "an. Does !be ElR team have any comment on !he resolution 0( that conflict, measuring life safety versus Pre>erVlltion 01' historic materWs! Mr. W •• staff; I think !here has bee. general acceptance of !he Meserlie approach 10 reconstn>."t !be parapet in • proper manner. The flagpole issue came up. One 0( tbe concerns "'as with !his . st:ruclIlr3l =1 IUbing that was proposed 10 support !be new parapet and iIs impIlcations for Ihe appearance 01' the pilasters below and bow that might be execw:d in • ",ay that ....... more ~:llSitive 10 !be symmetry 0( !he parapets. There .... ideas 01' il'.at nature described in !be EIR. whicb I rerIe •• have been cooceptually incorporated into the revised design by !be appIlcaDi. M .. Goldenberg; I think !he reason that that "'as flagg'" as • poremialIy adverse impact in the ElR was IS • cumulative impact of loss of historic material. 1bat was ",beu most 0( the in:terio£ ''as going 10 be destroy"'. The current design saves. 10< more buDding material. So as , cumulative impact. I think that ralls .way. A second issue was !he detailing 0( how the flagpole rotupt inlccfaces with !he pilaster detailing '" !be forecourt level. ThaI is something that needs to be stud".ro, but is not neces.sari1y going to become an adverse impact. 'Jl-..e CDDCept DO'" is CO do something that is symmetrical. rather than locate<! '" ... ery OIbee pilaster. 312195 ARB Minutes IIT: ARlI JA;\ARB.MlN ,_ .. .lI ~ t _. 6 .; '.-. ,' ... Mr. Rn ... R2!her thaD altcrnating. I !love & question for Ille HRB. "''bal.boo! bicycle pazkWs? AR dlere any COQCUIlS about it? Mr. Anderson: W. djd no< soc: any plan for it. Maybe there was on tile drawinJ, but we did no( see L Mr. Agslerym· We did not lauch 00 tbat cIWing oar deliberation. Mr. Jtoss: Is bicycle ~ any tind of I hi3IOricaJ is ..... ? Also, wbat is !he SUltus of research 011 the old fountain in !he fo=owt'? On oar wall< lhrough. dlere ..... some dill.."USSlon .boo! furIher JaCaI<:li beinJ needed. Is tbat still oogoiJIi? MI Pppcinj: Yes, tbat is still ongoing. Allllis point, Illis is !he best pbotognIpll we have been able 10 find showing it. No you can see. it is ~ blurry, so !here does ~ I<l be more re=n;h done. It is like • single bowL That is one question that came up just in casual coovccsarion <hat Illis needs to be high enough so that people would no( trip 011 it. Histodcally, it was perhaps only 12 inches big!:.. It is hard 10 tell, !CIIewise, but it should be at least IS inches so people would not tend 10 trip 011 it. The~ are some questions that !II!ed 10 be resolved on that. AI Illis point,WI is Ille best we have~ Mi..~ Coold yoo IOUCh upon padmount >ransforn>ers, electrical connection., eIC.? Wllal are some ollbe co.ociusfullS on those ctir"reJltly' Ms. P_iqj: AI Illis tim<, we biv. DOt explored that wrJl utilities. It was one of the items lisu:d in the staff memo, m:I we have 00< hid I chance 10 get inlo that. Our concern is tbat !be UtiJlties DepartmeDl will want iI placed somewben: that !he MRS and ARB .. ill no( want if ., be. We are going 10 !love a rurly !imite4 area wben: we can put it. We are faced with this &rea bact !Jere. Obviously, iI is not going ., go out front. That ..... ODe of !he staff cooditions, that iI CO!I>O bact for review. but we would hope ., have the flexibility 10 be able 10 wad with Utilities. It is go'.ng 10 be • <lifr1CUi! sitwltion. because it will require • padmoom transformer. So we will have 10 wad .. ;Ih it as best we <:an. Our cIesigD prekrence woold be 10 keep iI away !rom the main .~. We could keep it back this way more, but we also hove the access issues of coming down Ibis easement and getting deliveries ., the back door. That is geinJ 10 be • challenge. Any suggestion!. ",ooJd be wekoroe. WE can """"'I!e 10 ruck it bact:, but w. will have 10 see wbit tlley can !lve u.< in teIms of f1exibi!ity • Mr McFall: Did yoo say tlley will requ~ • padmoontl ,Ms. Poncini: It is happening at DKJSt projc<;ts we are working on righl now. Ml. Piba: It is impoctam that it does rnmill os • ",vo issue fur the board. I was just at I eily CooncB meeting wbere the padmounl ttansfonner ..... an issue. Our input is important in ICrms of helping you wad: out something with utilities. Also, I have a question abooJt the flooring material you are propo<ing for !he forecourt an:a .. 3i2I9S .>.RB Minutes Krt LAllB: A:\ARB.MIN 1 ML Pogcjni: Wbat we were looting at and discussing with !be HRB yesterday is that because 0( !be row.Ja,iolI .otk !hat lw 10 be done, !hose areas "'" going 10 be pretty wen tom up. W. would need III replace !be coocrele in !bere and fm1sh iI in • matching flllish, trying to ".",intam !be pattern. 'lbere is • differeD! p'''''''' under Ibesc ~ <han out in !be main area. his. Iittk more 0( I !tee form pattern out in !be middle, and more ICguIar M tbe sides, '" that ,. .• would try I<> duplicat< that pa!ImI that ;,; !here now """ try 10 replicate !he finisIl. There was also dISCUSsion yestetday about trying 10 match t!lt color. 'I1len is I lot 0( patina in this .,.ea that ev,n with cleaning, this area in !be _ is gcing 10 bav •• diffetenl ~ <han aIJYtbing ""'" that goes in. So !be best approacll is 10 use integTllDy C<)lor=! CO<J<me, reallzing !lJat it is going to have • different rolor UDder Ill""" _ <han out in the main area. The sunlight difference in _ two areas is going 10 belp 10 so1'tea dIaL W ..... going 10 have to do • lot or colo< matching in trying to get wnethi.ng that will ",ork .... 11 ~tb this SO that thoro is DOli higll cootra" •• and to get :he same flDish in !he CQf!Crett. Ms. Pilla: So)'011 ore DO< proposing ""y ne'" matcrials for this center portion1 Ms. PQ1>..ini: AI this point, w. do DOl n:al!y know, but !be direction i bea.-d from !be HRB w .. < !bat cbe!o ...... not • real :strong f~lilIg, ODO 'Ii.y 0< !be other. ~W'2Sjl!ff: Right in IlIe roIumn ~nes. dIere is actually. patte'" that connects tbe!e columns tog<ther. Tbe idea ..-as thot perbaps tI'lat could become wbeIC Ill<: CO!lC.e1e is CU'. yoo could deal with Ill<: new bact thore, and keep tile existing material. It was no< clear, ,.itOOut an of the cklails being wad: QUI, pc", ",baJ is going to bappea in !lJat area and ,.bat opproacb should be takeR. If !be grade has to pby,icany come cut in 10 the courtyard, it is gOing to be more difficult; hot if it em just be ct.. a/oog that line, maybe !lJat is !be answer, just trying 10 marc" along !he si<les and le.aving the middle. Ytstert!a.y wbeD we ,.."" cflliCUSSing this, Pbotograpb A-6 show. that fUl< am tile scoring along tile colomwle. Ms. Pjha: In that lame area. I question about the columns. Are you going 10 maie Ibem S)'IIlm"tricaI, ""bel thao alt£rnate !hem1 Ms. Poo£ini: Yes, the pilasters. Ms. Pilla: What about ;be ex.istlng display boxes at ;be entry. Ms. Fantini: l"ho5e .. 'ill be re!llii!ed and c!eaDec! up and renovated. All o(!hose display cases .. 'ill be. I did DO( clarify !bat the windows i!lIo tile beauty sbop, eIC. do bave 10 be clo5ed off because !!at is • property liN: wan. So those have .., be clo5ed, hot an 0( tile display cases WIll be reUlined and renovated. They will be available ro.: var'.oos type. 0( display_ Ms. Pilla: Any decision about !he ""'" entry doocs? Ms. Poocini; In your packet thoIC is an illustration of the type of dooc we .,.. thinking aboot. We do not bave a fmal desiC" yet. with tile idea being !!at ic would be a wei<!! dooc, probably I c!a..-Jc brocze finish and with • lig/lte>" lIl<'IaI decoration over it. It is • glass dooc but ,,'ould have. metal decoration with .. lighter decoratioo on it as an overlay ~ Mr-Peterson: Going back 10 the marquee, ""bat is your proposal for it1 312195 ARB Minutes KIT (ARB :~o\.·'.ARB.MIN , '", .,-. ,"-". 8 \. ~. ,- . ~ . MI. Poocini: The etisting IDlU1jUU will essemWl)' be slIUClUl2ll) braced so that Ibe bncing will DO( be vioible. The nisti!lg areas ~lJe ... Ibe """" ..... will be J'C!lOvated and the PC01l will be re-insulled. II will essenlially be Iepam:d, bot iI ~ IIC! be cbanged. W. will not be going back 10 Ibe original. Mr. PeWnon; 'o\'bat.bout Ibe easemeDl for the uit .... y? Is lbere """'" sort ol c~ at the portiJI& ]0( side: Ms. PQIICjni: AJ, this POint. we 00 OOIIIaV •• closure. Tho: way it fw>ctioos DOW, for Ibese shops in !be back. they hay. free a.:x:ess Ihrougb there. This is ,an "I"'n alleyway at an time. Thm:..,os DO inII:ntioo to <l",. it off. Mr. l><e!12n: W. have. securily gate Ibe ... 11001, as you mow. Thm: ..... alwJys. graffiti problom, so we cIo secure it at nigh!. But there is an oa.""""DI there. I den', mow "'Ila! the scItIIion is. M:t Pl:!!;r;;pn: I cion', mow "bat the sollllivn is, eilller _ It is obvioosly I potential problem for graffiti .nd se::wiry. Mr KEenan: W. repaiD! at Ie2SI <>= • mooIh, evoa with the securiIy gate there. Mr. Peterson: My W! question <0!lCeI1IS !he auditorium sp~ itSelf. Is the .... ol both diose floors going 10 be an open plan. with bookease displays, etc.? No partitio .. , Mr x.en;;n: There is al !be bacI: where !he .. .age is now, 11 ",,:n be I back room for inveruO<)', etc., bul the res! ol it ,is just an ope:!> plon, Mr. McFan: I have. question for SIaIJ_ CUrreruly, Ibe square footoge numbers .. elude the mc:zzanine area. Is IIlat C«Ie<tJ Mx M<FaIl: Wen., 1IIat __ level en the =ad f1oo<. Ms. Grote: Yes, &hat is correct. Mr. McFan: So th2t 500 square feel is not included. Also, toilets and eleva"'" are not counl<d _ bee.ose !bey are access upgr.tdes, Is tbal cocrect1 Ms. Gro;e: \'es, tbal is cocrect. So !bey "'" not counl<d iDlO the floo< area for the parking requiremelll. Mr-MeFan: Is tballyl'ical in Ibe oily, tI1at we cIo 001 COlIn< tOOse kinds ol impccvemerus' Ms Grote: Yes . .Mr. McFan: 13 new buildings, aiso. ()(' just in etisting renovations? Ms, Grote: I believe it is in both. 312195 ARB Minutes KIT \ ARB: A.:.\AltB.MIN ,. .-. ''-.:.. ' . , , . , ML.M£Ei!lc Now foc some questions 0( tho applicant. You have ID<ChanicaJ units tIuu an: going 10 JO 00 tho nonh side 0( tho aDditorium spo<e on tho roof. Have you don .ny studies as 10 tho visib~ity 0( _ units from Unl, .... ity AvemJe. as wee .. from tho forecowt? ~: We have,,'t done e<kosive &tlId'lOS OIl Oat. Wben you are (l<Jt ;here. thoy need 10 be sitting bact. If thoy are real close 10 Ibis front edge, depeIJdlng 00 how tall it is, thoy could pot£n!iany be seen. So we ...m 10 keep !hem back from that. We 1i'ould have 10 go o..,t there ml vlsuaIIy <""ck Ibis. There is ~ • bi! bk>cl::ing the view. They would DO( be visible from University Avenue. W~ are DOt It a point, yet.. ... ·here ,...e lncw unit dimeQ!ious. Mr MeEiO: As I am = you ~ wen ""'Ire, the City bas adopted tho Secretary 0( the Iruetior'. SlaDdards 1<lr n:bobililation. Can yoo briefly address how the <lesign re.ponds 10 those len standards? Ms PPgcini: We old write I memo I long time ago. I Ihink the key ooe 1<lr Ibis projeci becoo:Jes the iev .... ibility. That aspect we ha,'e addressed in the fact chat tho wbole new S«<lIJd floor is removable. Thi. floor does not bnce tho eltisting =. !be seismlc bracing chat is being done 10 the pavilion itself is independent 0( tho secoIJd floor. If tho second floor aDd stain ate removed, tho paVilion is still sound in tmns 0( tho seismic upgrade 10 the 1991 code. The retain1'1g '>f the hi<lOlic cilaracteI-<lefi~ elements I feel we have improved substantiallY willi d:Us DeW design. We are maintaining the historic charactL!T of the interior elements, in add"ltioD lO the er-..erioc CJemcDts that we are upgrading and renovating. The changes that we are making to the bWldlng do not p=lude its being n:rurned 10 • theotre in tho fut.ue. Specifically. we have moved the elevalO< 10 • location so chat even if tho elevator """ded '" be used for • thoatre US< in tho furure, it would DO< bave 10 be removed. We have placed it so chat it does not inlerlere with an;' sight liDeo. The structure 0( the loge, is bei"l! ;etained so !hat thai could sull be put back in place. In terms 0( buikling a sloped floor, • sloped floor eouId be buill on lOp 0( the DeW floor we are creating. A..y new f.ooc tha. goes in bas kJ be ADA oc any codes .. tho time. Tho mairitaining 0( those art:bed openings and tho amwnt 0( space thai we have outboard in this, about 13 fee< beyoIJd this level, C3JI provide the adequate exiling !hat is requiI<d for • tIIea~. Then: are DOt any elements being put in the middle ol the space which .. 'ouId preclude tho ability 10 silo", 1D,,,,io. in the fu~. So I feel that .... have addre<sed tbose type< ol issues rn tho revised desip aDd have gone. mud. further in terms 0( keeping in c~ .nth aD 0( _ guide!illl:S~ Mr. McFall: Do you have 1 preservatioo. architect OIl your projea team? Ms Poncini: Yes Mr. McF.n: Will he be involved in collSlnlCtion documents' CA 11100.1 What is his role? Ms PonciP.i: They are going 10 be assisting us with the deta!ling aspect"'. pa..-ticularly ",'hen. we have '10, assess v,rhere. it we have 50 remove something. how be5t 10 do that, bow we record it .. hew we n:pIac<: it. Ille ryp" 0( d~ plaster woe!< thai need; to be done, 1IIhere !bere is repair work being done. If we gel into questions as 10 "iII'bea!er we should do ir: this way or that .. 'ay. in terms of "'ocking with a structural detail, something !hat would cause more or less ao effect 00 the historic :lI2195 ARB Minute' XIT : . .t..RB j A -\A1lB.MIN . ' "~ .. ]0 .--_.-< .. , . cIoIailins. !bey would be lbcre in that .,jyisory "",ilion 10 be checking os as w. go along. They will be il!lerfacing 1IIi:h all of that. and thea oontractor for the project bas been speaking wit!: the \'Orson "'00 .rid all the ~ plaster rep>.lr .t the Stanford 'Ibeater. so we do have !bat artisAn 1IIbo will be woc'king on. this project. Mr MoE.n; Reganfmg IDe aaditorium ceilins IJId !he deIailing !IIere. there hzs obviously bee .. some _ d.>m.ge Ih~ has """,med!here. Wbat an: Ille plan.<. as far as ",OOyaring the Cf:iIing IJId deIailing Iller.? Ms. Poncinj; W. do not intend II> remove the telling if we c!oo'l ha, .. 10. The .... would be arcas that willllave '" be Rpired 10 1llJItclt, buJ the intelII is 00( 10 remcve it, certainly. The areas that an: gcI!inS patcbed would be patched in the same IlexlJlre. ML..~; Do you know if there ,.., • docontive painIing scheme ot one time which has ~ bee" ~ MI. Poncjnj; I do OOIlmow. I do OOIlmow if this color scbemc ..... done in the 19'1Os along with !be "'" of it. I would 00( care 10 specula"'. I know that the darker ""rors "' .... put in !be courtyard ccnainly in the early 19105 One of the earlier pbotog.rapbs obo"" Ibe courlyard as 00( having <XlIltraSt paint. It "'as v<ty simp! •• and tbe detailing was just ",.ding by means of ,b3:!cws. that type of llimg. \l'hiel> I thlnk is • Dice approacll Ms.. Maser: Is w;!( what: you wou1d like 10 do? Ms. Ponc~ni~ Yes, we would like 10 have :I: be more of a subtle CODtrast. using the cexru:re to give it mon: of its ebaIacier ... tber than having this dark paint scheme wlth the blue and Ibe red. Mr. McF.llc Do yoo bave an eXt<:rlor scheme for the exrerior? (Yes) !-Lave yOll done any resorn:k or will yoo be doing any f'1e1d wad; in anempting 10 find out the original colors, or are you going to have an entirely differelll scberne? MI Poocini;' We bave 00( really explored that very much. k is not • very difficult process 10 lest for Ibc old paint colors. Darn West Mbitectu!lll Resow<es Group; We can talce • Cfdicl.: look 10 see what !he origina1 color sclIemes were. W. wiD have !bat infonnation for Ibe project archiU!<:t. Me McF.n; My IasI question is about !be signage indicated on !be new S<lUIh .levarion. What is your intention for !he University A venue side? MI. POIlCini: AI this point. we do not kIIow what !he IeIlaDt will waDI 10 do. I would guess that !he) will ""'11 10 use !he marquee. k seems like !be obvious Ihing 10 do. as oppooed 10 adding additioo!! signag.. That part of ;, will bave to come blCk 10 !be board. Ms. Maser: I bav~ • genc!lll question for !he .... ff. whicli is. what lrigg.red the ElRJ Ms. Grote; Changes in CEQA and Ibc environmental quaIi!y .... ;, whick say. II ... his\c.-ic resources and <:ulrural resources are 10 be considered as part of an enviromnenlal review. 3/2/95 ARB Minutes kIT: AAB ~ A;\ARB.MIN II .,. " • Mr. W'.""1i: In 1m, an wembly bill "'as passe<! in C.liforni.lllat re .. mphasiud ~.aJ ani! :><>iN.ed 10 the U.S. Interior staDdar<Is IS I signifi<ance crit.:ria basis whlch is lllOIber rUSOD an EIR is required and 'IIhiclI ac!ually brcughl us into the interior of the bcilding. IS "'en IS the ''''''rio<. So Ibis .nviroomeDlaI rev;'w has been some,,·bat unique. 11 gets into the interior 0( the building IS I r=h of "'01 1m law. Ml. Mpor: Was there ever COD>ideration Biven to an alternative scbeme p""""ing seismic "P!:radc and historic preservation, L'1Chlding the alloW3bJ.e square footage bonus. while maintaining the tbeatcr with ooe aucfttorium1 Mr, W .. .,.ff, III the EiR, there is .>.IIernative E IIlat includes leaving the Iud'rtorium intact IS • Large boose ''I.:! then, corutru.."Iillg I small annex 10 the .rear of the buildin8 10 increa5e the viabiJily of IbaI program.which"''as proposed by the Save the Varsity Commi=. Our EIR biflC.lted lhallllat anne.< would DOt wort in terms of the amount 0( SJlOC" that the", is back there. given the ~,e... So essentially, Alternative E, withoo! the amex. is what you .r. describing. Ms. Maser: ThaI bonus would theu be Irallsferable, 0< there could be lUI increase in FAR by building I Larger bakony. It seemed like such an obvious thing 10 just keep the building as iI is, as ODe of the alternative.. IbaI I wondered ",by iI wasn't incJudecl. Mr. W •• staff: WeD. iI is irx:Judecl. Ms. Maser: Yes. I saw IIlat. bu. Illat does have ao xddcd !hexttr. l! does cru.nge the theater somewhat Mr· W •• suJj'; The EIR does make the pointillat "'iIhoul the an.aex, there is • majoc question of viability 10 be demon.'lIa1ed foc Illat alternative 10 be considered. Ms Maser: I 1I'OIlld think that would eDlJlil the Irallsfer of the develop.".", rights into aOOIber project. The EIR asks if lhat f<>untain in the counyan! is going 10 be • replicattd desigD 0mebody touched briefly on this. but was there serioo. consideration given to restoring the front facxde in lis ociginal desigll as shoWD in Figure 121 Ms. Poncini: Restoring the ociginal marquee! (Yes} r think tha( the cOlIllIleIllli thaI we understood, and as pan of the analysis from the Secretary', standa.'lls. it sta"," Ihat thing. that have been changed on • buildmg 'bat is bisloric. sometime!; those change< become historic IlIemselv... TUing it bad: beyond • certain poin! is sometimes oot historic. The marqu«: thaI is there now is histodc. I believe lhat there was some specul.tion thaI maybe .., old m.uqu«: might exist under ibis !ale< 000, bot I don', believe Ihat is the case. Because of those f2ClOrS. we did not really purrue the idea of tty1ng 10 re-ilivent or reconslr.lct an old marquee. Evezyone really likes it IIld it is haodsome. Going by the sUndan!. as ... e understaod them. since this marqu«: Iw been there aod since it is considered 10 be the bisloric marquee, iI would not be removed in order 10 pilI up • replica. If the old one existtd somewbere, that would be I different question. bur because k) everyooc·, knov,rkdge. it does not exist. trying 10 "'Plica'e it, taking this one off would DOl be appropriatt. 3.'2195 ARB Minutes KIT: .o\R8: A.:\ARB .. MIN 12 -: ..... , .. '-.. ". _. ':- > .... MI <3!Menberc: AJ the an:~;un) historian .. orking on the EIR, I would agroe .,.!tb Ihat. The Secmary of the Interior', standards do DOl ~ you 10 replic.are lbings Ihat arc DOl then: anymore. They jus! req"ln: yOll III preserve historic features tbat an: 1Ilon:. So under lOOse standards. you would no( be rcquln:d 10 put something like the JDaIljU<C baclc in place. AJ Linda was saying. ,me.. IIlis '"'" t ... been !he", for Iwbile, iI actuall, bas m<m inte~ 1han putting up something "" ... in tIIaI location.. even if iI were I «>I'Y of fIOmI:tl\ing that was there originaDy. Ms. M.",r: Did this is._ come up !ocfore !he HRB It all? Nt Anderson; Yes. iI did. and it was fairly unanimous 00 !he HRB that •• ery_ liked the original desiglo better. They found dlemsel ..... in !he fumy position of. this is whal the standards say Inc! this is ""-t is before 1lS. 1 tblnk the originol desip is fa! bettor. MI. Poncini: We woold DOl oecessarlI)I be prohibited from doing that. It juS! does DO( sound 10 me IS though the Secretary of the Inrerlor would prohibit Ihat from happening. [ID! MeFan: The standards do stare tIIaI the <bang .. that are n:quln:d that have signifocance in their 0 ..... righ! shaD be retained. This is roughly 60 years old, Inc! is old eoough 10 be considered historic. David West: We ill go over this yesterday. Inc! in fin< will! what Nancy was saylDg. the standards are pretty specifIC. AIry feature _ has become I par! of the building ac<fUln:s historic signifJCallCe in Inc! of itself. so that the marquee 1II00ld be retained. What Bill Seguya mentioned from Nancy', o!!ice is IIlat if Ihis were • Iotal renovation of the theater bad, 10 iIs original os<, • complete restoration. then it might be coosidered 10 pi)! in the original marquee. but that does oot opply 10 what is happening here. The Secretary of the lnterior 5IIncIanls ..... nsed primarily kl address these types of projec ts. I would also like 10 add that these crileria come into play in Wldng about the fountain. If we were able 10 find • pbotograph of the fountain that clearly showed iIs desiga. that 1IIould be fine 10 .... lieate it. But I 1I"",ld anticipate that 1110 .... DOl @oing 10 fmol that. So wbat we will be doing is 10 put in something that r<:Ca1lI the origlnal desip but is clearly a feature of these items. Ms Maser: When: is the litchen that is associated with !he cafe 10 be Jocated? Mi. Poncln;: It is in this atea. It is jus! a small expresso bar. Ms. Maser: "''bat was the method 1lsed 10 determine the cost of impro.ements in Alternati.e B, IS iiboIlI1I (;0 f.ge 2111 Mr. W.ostaff: The autbor of the docwI:em that infonnation came from the applicont. Mr. Keenan. It came from the C<HJIrnCIOr. DEVCM. Ms. Maser: Did they have the complete plans for what yOIl are proposing under Alternative B? (Yes) Ms. Pip .. : Re<larcfmg the p1aceIDeDl of the interior =10 that the HRB brougbt up as an isrue. whal .... yoor thoughts on it' do yoo feel otrongly about the place ",here you are showing iI? 3.!219S ARB MInutes KIT jA~B J k\ARB.MIN 13 • ;. -- .. \ ... -.: .-"<-.):.. -_.-';"-. . , Ms Poncin;; As Chop mentioned. this ..... broughl up as I qucsOOn }=rda}. We ~ very ... ilIing 10 bIh I look It trying to keep it ",bere it is "" .... "hiclo is 00 cis "'illl the entrance. Questions arise IS '" bo1ll you support it. Yoohave!O be able !O lei Ihroogl!. it and around it from the main entrance on the bact side. So bow it gets ·maim.aiued stnICtuRIIy is • questions. If ... e walk throogll it. ,.hid! I thlnk is I nice ldea. you COIl see I door riglll ~. Thol door is in this area riglll bcrc. I 1m DOt .un: bo ... this is really goms 10 .. oct for ,.>lking throoglL If yoo are careful at>oo.lt bow yool .. 'aIk wough it. your bead will miu the curves. bu! it coold bcrome l1ifflCWJy. We looked II Chis rcsterda}. ODe of the COIlCmlS I hid initially 1IIIS!be existing issue. You will have • lot of people flowing .n:-ougll. and I think that is going 10 be very diffICUlt. Abo, this space back bcrc bc<ooies pn:Uy isoi&<! from !be rest of it. Ilhink the ldea of walking throogh this, or maybe ieeping it ~ is is .,>oJ walking around it, was aootbor intriguing ldea thai was suggested at the meetiug. So 1IIC are prepared 10 look II that and see .. bat ,.e tao do .. ·ith it. FaDing an of tMt, if we UIlDOI male it _. thea relocating it to I wan within !be lobby is our f.alJback position. AI any rate. it "",.J!d certainly DOt be cIeWoye'. h would be reWned in !be space. MLfiIli: Wllat type of bicycle parking ~ you required 10 provide -Class 1. 2 « 3? Ms. POllcini: We have r"'luiremenIs for some 0( each. We hIove some Class I right !bere in the courtyard. wl!ich shows up on the site plan bur: is very smaU. It is in Ibis very last bay wbere -v.'e :reb: it 'VJ'ould be the most coc\lerueIl1 to lhe doors, as oppo5ed to putting: them -""3)1' off here somewhere. The Cla5. 3 spaces are 1herc. There would be some Class 2 spaces bere and the bicycle locker itself is be",. So this is typically;,sed moo: by employ .... The", is the e~ back bere, the loading dock area, so that seemed 10 be the best place 10 put tIui! bicycle locker so that iI does not interfere with any of this. hi'+ Piha: HJ:ve you targeted Ii completion dale? Ms. Poocjni: The end 0( !be year. Ms. Maser: We have no ... asked our questions 0( staff. !be applican< and the E!R people. We have ODe carel from the pubrlC. from Dennis BacUund. !?ennis Backlund 488 Univenity Ave_ Palo Aho: I lID • member of the League 0( irl>loric American Theaters. I wroo: the history 0( the Varsity Theatre that is in the centennial time capsule !bat the city buried. I have been familiar "'ith the Varsity Theatre since about 19S0. I have some answers 10 some que.rions you have raised. before geoing 10 my comments. In the original C<JIoc schemes 0( the thea"". the ceiling was twilight blue. and oot painted with Illy OCIlatc de;igns. ;. was plain. hactly,..hat twilight blue is is bard 10 Sly. What was put up there in !be 1970s. what you see there now. is !heic idea 0( what dial 1IIas. The rest of the coloration inside is only referred 10 on opeoing day as ""btle colo< harmooles. pastz:l shades, bu! they do no! Sly sbades of wbat. They Sly that the stage cur'..ain was lavender, but they do DOl: give the wan colors. As 10 tik: marquee. people wonder about its aesthetic,. of =. It looks very a,,'feren[ ..,,.. !ban it did wbee. iI went up in the early 1930s. Then it was colored kind 0( • rich red and White, !be '''''ity coIots 0( the SUnford leams. Thea ilhad an ornate neon paller!! which Mr. Kee!la1l is proposing !O restore. I remember this marquee from .bou! 50 yean ago. It was much more spectacular. Illlas !be poI<ntiallO i0oi: ,·ery engaglng. The solid blue !hat it is now. without its DC""" does oot i0oi: so !ood. but it can i0oi: very atffemtt. 312/95 ARB Minutes DTl·-\RB lA "\ARB.ML'Il ,~.----..--~:---. ---"----- 14 i , •. / .. , • -. .., .. , ;";' . . ~ ~~.::~k;!;;-- . -'. ... ,. ".' . -'"------,-.,.---"--- Nt Backlund: "es. Also, wbere i! 500ws whit< wbere yoo p<Jt the letters, !hat .,as originally I black background ",ilh "'hitt letters, ",hieh was the usual case at tbat time. So ill was comple .. ly diffemII Illan the .... , .... $« iI """. I brOllgh! !his di.3grarn because it highlights wbat Mollly ADd<:non ",as s:;ying abo<."t the vllue olthe an:h in the lobby. There are three uches. Number One you ..., from the Slreel; Number Y"o as yO<! ent ... the courtyll1d, and the tbi!d similar one as you enI<r the lobby. II is just ODe way in "'hieh all ol the .rdlitecture of this thealel is tied together visually as you proceed through the buikftng. AI<o, the desig.o 011 top olthe mil is !he ideD1ical one thai you find on the po<ter box .. along the courtyard. So ~ are ecOOes and ,.-ecbocs tbrougbout the wbole buildlng sy5lCm. n.t is why we "'liard it .. important 10 teep the arch ",bere ill could be 5eel> .. yO<! eni<r the Iob!>y, 10 continue this original scbcme. Also, I ~ ... v •• pbotognph thai conveys how1llrg. Ibc space is in:bat 1,800-squarc-foot lob!Jy. So 1 suggcsttd yesterday thai with the moova! of tba! end ",all aDd tbe AtOll, • 1llrge space like this would become amorpho> ... and without any clear definition. h need< tbat wall at the end of 6() feel in order to derIDe the space. Iv; yoo can see from this pictun:, it is I very spectacu1llr ac:ceo<. The question is, ol course, wbether the arc1l can code. sort ol eI!IIlIIlOe 10 the interior. So y_y, 1 banded out • layman's sugg.stion foe your coosideration that if i! UllnO( be used IS • walk througll. then 11llrger arel! could be re·introdU<ed in this ",all an<! 1'1....,. over the two doorwloy. so _ it woold i0oi< nice, and then build. kind of art mW<Wn sort ol panel wall several feel througll tile arc1t, and tIleD construct !he baroque =& onto the fron! of tIJat. so WI yoo wooId have good intrx: flow but still have Vislbilily of the arch as Y"'~ enter the l6bIly. One concen; WI was cxl'~ yesterday 'IiIas, to wbat extent would this scheme reduce the usable space in the euension from what it would be without an idea I ike this~ Illat is for yoot c:OO."ideration. The Secretary ol the Interior Stand:ut!s 00 Page 36 does >peat againsl I change in floor plans or inkrior ,paces 10 dirninish the char.icler oldie room. So 1 wooId IiU 10 emphasize WI. Th.anII: you ver:Y mu;.:h... Ms. Maser: Thank yoo. If dlere is 00 one else preseDl 10 >PCak 10 the Varsily Theatre. I will ck»e the public hearing and retunI 10 !he board for board comments. Mr. McFan: W. are re..ny TooliJlg a! two items bcre. One is the COII1p"""ncss ol the draft EIR Ms. Grote: Ye., you sboule! be making two 1llOtion<. One is to take action 00 the dFLfi ElJl and recommend certification. The other is terolllJoenOlDg on the project iI.o;elf. Do we waD! '" include staff conditions or changes 10 staff conditioos_ 11111 would be the second one. Ms. Mo.",,, Let us begin wilh the certification of the draft EIR Mr. MtFa!!: PER !HE CEQA guidelines, the intelll is to provide the dec;';'" makers with needed iofum:tatioo. 10 enable them lO make I decision which takes into IlCCOUDI the environmental C<lIl5eqUences of • given project. In brief, 1 IhlnIc this E!R does WI. It does I tborougll job ol IDa!yzing the issues relative 10 the environment. It is tllorwgb, it is comple!<, and it eli""""", Iltematives in great enough detail Ihat one is able 10 come to decision as to L'leir vil:bilit) _ I wCJllJ.ld IUj1pOft a motion to certify the ElJl as complel<. 312/95 ARB Mmutes kl'!'; -\RB j A:\ARB ,~fIN , \ ' ,~ 1., , 15 MQ1JQN: I move to certi!) II>e dnft EIII. $ID!ND (Ms. Pi!l»: I'll secolld lila!.. "':-, Me Ross: I have ootI!ing to add to ilia!. I am no! an experienced cOCStuner ol E!R.o, but it is cxttaordin.vil, comprebeasive and is v~ ,..0 put togetller. It provided 1 lot ol inIeresting readiq. . ~-.:- M.! Maser: I have I couple ol comment!. I IboUght it ,.as • ,.onderfuJry clear and ,..D ~ cSocumenI. ~ is I tittle bit of redundancy IlIat comes from infonnatioo 1haJ was heing Ii ••• 10 7"" by diffema soun:e1i. Some c<Ii:IDg 0{ some 0{ !be repetitive descrip!iocs o{!be site. etc., ,.ouId probably help in facilitating one'o ttading of k foe !be final EIR.. I ..... "I)' impressed with !be Ib~ of !he C<Jnsultallf to so quickly ia:1ude Al1emotive B and do k so smoorhly 1loitbin !be doc\lmenL It was • mastrn'ul stroI.:e in E!R.o. It probably tool 500lC ocurryin~ around .t !be lAst miDIlte, and iI ..... done very smoochly. The gnphics "ere excellent, os -no Your plans and pboIograpbs we'" ac!lla!ly legible. whie. is something ,",w for me in reading E!R.o. I ..... plt:osed with tIIat. IlboUghI k was an uncommon level 0{ qu>Jily. J bav. 0 no small suggestion. In your parking and trip generation 5<C!ion, ir would be helpful to include r~'" cily plan sbowing tbe daWDIO .... patIting ...,.. in the assessmelll cftslrict. Y 00 talk about _ areas, and many people reMing the EIJI are DO( going to be fami) jar with where _ areas m:. Mt..l!k.f. n, I have one question foe the consultant. It is the I'aIo Alto Cooununity Day Care and not Community Cblld Care_ Mr. Rw·, On Page 201, Al!ernate C, Sect.~n I, Prin:ipaI Characteristics, II .... ~ !hat Alternative C "'OUId .,ilI require seismic upgradinj! for the new occupancy. I wondered if IlIat "'as accurate. As 1 1lJIIferstand it. !be CU""1ll appllcatioo bas • voluntary seisnic upgrade 10 tale advantage of an FAR bonus. I am not sure that simply changing !be use from !beater to retail is actually an occupancy change that woold uigger I mand2to<y seismic upgrade, accord'lll8 10 !be UBC. Mr...lY.lll.;,IDf: My understanding is tIIat !be cily', program is stru<;tured so tr.at ultimately, iI would be required. Mr-Liz" nelia: II is an interesting questioo. SectioD 502 0{ tb< UBC says tIo.at if yoo change 10 1 more "",.rdous 11se, you are required 10 bring !hat structure up 10 code. Ho,. yoil define "more hazardocs" is cl'tc •• judgmental issue. Somclimes iI is simply the occupancy rating on the buDding. A more ..ophisllcaled interpretation 0{ that might be the :rumbet 0{ occupant bour>, so .. !beater may have. I0l of peopk in it at one time, but they arc oot !be .. that 0&0, whereas I retail _ may have • 10....,. nccupancy nting but there is • greater number 0{ oocupanl boors. GcneraOy. it would be left up 10 the olSCreoon of the buil<:iog official as 10 bow he would interpret that. Mr. Ros,; In ~oing from I draft 10 I final, it might be weD 10 cbeet that with !be Chief Planning Official. as it ... auld substantially change !be <OS! evaluation 0{ Alternate C. . 31205 ARB Mm"te. KIT, \P..BjA.. .. \ARB.j\.1N 16 ' .. ~ "-.' MIl. MI."'r: W. have. motion bef<n ... and • seeOl>!. AlIIhose in favor? (S) Opposed (nooe)? Oby, Ill'W ,.. oro going 10 di,eUS!! !be project itself. • Mr. r;!erson; My (1l'3t comment bas 10 do with !be sense 0( spoc< in !be main auditorium. Obviously, but putting in !he second floor, you crlIllinish !be seosc: and impact 0( !be space. My c:oncern is that .... get :he right tiDIf 0( balance :bore. I fear that !be size of !he cpening belwoeJl !be first and '"'coo<! floor might be .., ",strictiv. that from !he r"" lev.I, you might DOl have ony ..".. 0( volume, mostly, in termS O(:he widtl!. Tber:..., two elements then: lbat I .... One is !be stain,.y itself. WbeD you eruer !'rom !be kAA>y into !he auditorium, !be stairway is right in !be .,ay. You cannot real!y loot into that 'P""" in !be Joog direction. If that stairway were DO( Ibeto cc '1m'< moved to some oIber location, you would get a view along !be long axis, or if !be S!&irway weto designed in I very open .. ay, more transparent, so It .. , you could i0oi:: right through it. ThaI proportion is aboot rigbL It could..-or!<. 'IbI: width is !be OlIO that boIhcB me. You are DOl able 10 "'" onI side",ays and get any sense 0( volume. J have seen a m:mber 0( Ibese done in ",nou. other cities, and !be one thing !bey have troubl. wiIll is Io<ing that sense 0( volume. I _ Ibeto ar~ boIh floor area and utili!) issues bere in making that openir-.g bigg<rr. It is. struct\l.-al issue. I would c:erWnly like you 10 i0oi< .. that, though, 10 see it !bere were SOUl:: way 10 widen !be space SO that yoo have. center section that is .. ider and you coWd loot up • little m<>re. Secondly. if !be", .. 'ere """'" way to ma!ce !be transpare!!l, open part 0( !lie railing come down fanbe[ so that yoo could loot Ihl'()ugh that, iI would DOl leave suclt • clo<od in bole. Those are my main points. I ,...:n lOue!> 011 • fe .. · o!llers. We have aJrea4y talked about !be marquee. Reprdless 0( tbc SccTetary 0( the Jruerioc, !here is net question in my mind that the original marquee is muclt rnon: aaracr.i vo. We do not ,oaDy inow what !be ono that is !bert now looI<ed lik< in 1930. Anything we can cIo 10 make t1lat more attractive would be in keeping with the .xisting boilding. I would support an inctease on the FAR 10 allow that mezzanine ro be utilized, !be deadened one. I think allowing }00 extra FAR ro make that _fuI in some SO""" would be very desirable. Regarding the oddition off the paddng lot, I certainJy would support having that not be a repIkation 0( the front in any way. I undemand tba: what yoo are doing is a fairly simplified but related thlng. If that is what you are doing, I support that. M .. Maser: Bob, I beli ••• the HRB is ta!kiag about !he detailing 0( the lOp 0( !his p • .-apet. Righi now. it replicates the derailing II !he lOp of the parapet in !he COIlrtyard. They would like iI simp!ifieJ. Mr. Ande.-.on: Generany,!be de1ai1ing 0( i<, as Bob ... s saying, is kept fairly simple. W. did not have. problem with !he protik SO muclt as that it is relating back 10 !be Varsity from that parking lot. y"" ean i0oi< at that and instantly Imow that that is the Varsity The."'r. 'IbI: detailing needs I<> be simplified down. The arcbe< hav •• lot 0( defInition and the plas'..". wOft and an 0( that, and .... are not trymg to replicate that. 312195 A!1J1 Minutes KIT tARB: A.."\ARB .MI." 17 • ~"-~.-"-'-'- .••• ) c __ .4;' ,"'_.< ~-:--'" .. ~--:--:-. ..",-- Mr hre""q; I would suppon<he appTJUnt'. dcslgD '" clo<e eft !hat .xiI. ".y that goes into !he porting' area in 500le way'" I1<lp cooool grafflli and all <he issues 01 alIey'.iOYS. So if !here is LilY way to pul in • closure !hat is lockable from <he outsille, csable from !be inside, like panic Iwdw~ 01 somo son. I woold cerWnly support \hat. Usdy, til< colon;, I think. ~. vet)' ~ issue here, bO!II inside and (lUt. .. Iasswne that is going '" come back '" lIS. I ,.ould love 10 sec ",hat colo! blue ..... _ going 10 have. MI. Maser: Chop loves 10 tali 10 us about color, don'l you cbop? Mr Keenan: Ob boy! Mr. Ross: This project has had aloog gestaticn, and iI has eoaen better with each passing year. I bop< Ihat is some compensatioo foe <he 1iIne iI has liken 10 bring iI along. Ovcrall, iI is • fabulous job, I am vet)' supportive of ii, particularly with Altcmare B ide~ in tile EIR. II has teally come lver loog way toWard saIisI':Yin8 til< needs and input oIlbe pc<>ple in tile communiI)', bop<fulJy SI.ying "ilb !be program of your poteotiallenaDt and your OWIl needs. I am vet)' supportive of this, aDd complimeJJl you arid the ~. 11Icrc are going '" be .ome things a-.at I ,.ill be cager 10 see the n:solutiOll of, especially the utilities. The padmoonf: tram.former. the gas meter and :hree backflow p!e"cntcI'S are going to have 10 be .. according to Utilily DepartIn<:nl sundar/l., sticking up somewhere pre,,>, obviously in t!,. JIK>St convenient place 10< :hern. So !be resoIutioo betweeo tbem and you an! ... "'ill be • difflCU<1 one. If !bere is some ..... y thaI we can wort.: 00 !hat jointly 10 help solve it in In expedItious manner, I would be harry '" participate in that. Regard'mg !be fountain =1> in !he lOOby intI:rior, it is very importanIlO ",lain it. I "'" 001 as coocerned abo;Jt retaining iI in its current, precise location. F!3DiJy, I don'lthink you are going 10 be able to. I think Ihat WbeD yoo looIc It tbo t!<lsting width r<qUired tbon:, ii .impIy is DOt going to ",ode. h is I "~ard fearure 10< these older theate" to have I very ornate drinJ<:ina founraln, and iI would be great 10 see iI being US&! as • driJting founWn, SO if Iben: is I .... Y 10 ",Ioca~ it to I conver.ie<1l wall ..,.,by. lhat woold be • nice refereDce lO its origma! _. It probably ... m not be the ooIy drinking fountain. because it would be <!ifficullto ton I wbeclclWt up '" it. But iI would be nice to have it \I.$Cd fOc tWit. and tWit would probably mean more 10 Ibc people going tluoogh !here evet)' day. in = of relating thaI inerior 10 the exterior, than its actual physical pla<:emenl, which may only be pe=pnbw through • r<al coocq>rual ... Iuadon 0I1be locatioo and pIacemen! of these 1.1'.,,,,,,, I am oct sure tbat its precise locatioo is all !hat important, Cut its ,..I<:otion an! 1l5e IS I drinking fountain are good. NoOOdy ~.as yet commeOled on !he "",. windows an! conflicl with Ibe windows an! poteDliAl reISe as • !bealer. bull think Ibe windows are cri<lcaIlO the architectUre, and I lID sure <hey are critical 1<> your \eMr\L I am ;>ssuming that if somebody wlDll>l '" convert this to • !beater some<lay. !hey could throw up some drywan and cover that up. I think the elevation facing l.oI H " particularly attractive, and I b<Ji'e that you reduce !hat entty arch only enoogh 10 satisfy the false hisloricism problem and DOt tale a""ay its character in relation 10 the theater. 112195 ARB MimJ.tes m: ARB: A-\ARB, M!N 18 ~ will be some discovery durinJ coDSlnlCtion. 1usI based OIl experience, you ... iiI find some IhiDp lila! you ... i11 ~ 10 keep. • know yoo h.ave tbough! _ this. but • hope you h.ave set aside some -fet contingeDC)" for dealing with thlngs that fOIl UDCO',or that are pan of tbe iili,tonca! fabric of !lie buM"'g, OCoCC you get in !lleR and stan cpeoing iI "p for !lie seismic wed:. That completes my commel1l5. HI Pilla: I, 100, very muck ecbo Da,id'i COOImCIl!S in NppOrt of !be project. I thiDk yoo ba ve cIooe In uceDent job in respooomg 10 the many varied <oncems. • really lppRCiate lhat effort, and abo II!aI the project is s.I11 alive and proceeding with • ccmpIetioo elate pem.p. at !lie end of this )'CU. That is vOl) ",citing. idld I am really excited _ seeing !his .. bolo space being revIlalized, and seelng !be connection !hal yoo are creating with !be parldnj: Iot. and just o:>etllng up !be building wi1I be terrific. . • support all of !be S12.ff recoonnetldatioas, with the exceptioa of two Berns. Item E2 -I really feci II!aI it is _ neces..<ary 10 ;elocaie !be ~ms. I h.ave DO fw1ber comment 00 that, and that w .. abo dillCus<ed at !be HRB. Also,' do DOt feel ihaI you oee<IlO revise !be =r elevation, either. ThaI is Cond'!tiotI F. As David mentioned, only minor modifications at !be I<lS> of that rear entlj' element 10 make sure you don', bave any probletns .... ith bistoricoJ issues. O!betwise,' Ihink it is fine and • am very suppor-ive. Item 0 seems 10 be the other one in question in terms of what "ie do with IIW arclo. If we support ywc RqUOst 10 relocote it oc support !be HRB recommencl&tioos 10 "ad with it in its existing location. I am somewbat open on thal I can see viewpoints from both sides. Basically, I do not have .a pr(lbiem .... ith seeing if: re10caW to make the space function a little clear and mo.~ straigbtforward from an inlerio< perspective. I support David in that I would very muc1llike 10 see the ARB &ad HRB stay involved with the padmoum transformer and ele<."1..oicaI connecticn issues. o..r support will be belpM wlih utilities. It is • vet)' impo<1aDl issue for this board, for the Pianning Commission and for the City Cooncil. i would like ., Ihink that we w.;ld lend support in your best intereot. ",tlJOOr than h.a'ing us excluded, IS you ba vo requested. • mw:h ",efor the original marquee. h is somewhat up 10 !he appllcant as 10 what be would like 10 punue. I L'tink you C2l1 flJ1d support for either scheme from the hi<toricaJ p=edenls. AeslheticaIJy, • _ the originally marquee is much more ~fu1. I, 100, would like 10 see !he e>Osting mezunine area be unliud, if !be", is any ..... y "0 can lend support 10 that in terms of the FAR requjreme ot.<. My thoughts on the fountain eloment are !hat I would n:ber see something De .. and coctemporaI)' .... !ber than ttying 10 replicate what was there before, h doe",'11oot vet)' exciting from that piloto, and it migbl be difficult 10 find in more detail. I suppctt your a>re::tioll with the direction of the subtle color palette in allowing narurallig!lland sIJado .... iO articulate !he archiu:cture. But again. 1 feel that your fInal decisions and final c1evelopment will need 10 come ba<:k 10 !be board. I also support closure 0( the existing alleyway access to try and help with some of the problems that have occurred there in Ille past. As for the bicycle locker>, 1 like your two rear Iocatioos, I den', lmow ... hat is driving the nece:;sity of somet!1 ing in Ille front 0( the buiJamg. If yoo could keep all of !be bicycle locations 10 the rear. chat ... ·<H.J.ld be I. better solution. lbat abouf: C(wers it. 312195 ARB Minutes ur JAkEl \A\ARB ,MIN 19 • • -c.;' -c-_"~ __ ,_--.-____ ._:<-_:>c. ____ Mr MenU: I Ihinl< it is importallIlO note this mornin~ !hat !his is • CakgOQ' I hisioric bUilding in Palo Alto. That;' the I!lOSI rignificant hlstorical bUilding oale~ory IIlaI we have. k is re!lec1<d b, the fact ""'I !his buMing bas beea an important p.!1 of Palo Alto's bislOQ' foe the last 68 years. Unfortunate!y, we cannot ~ the applkonl 10 keep it as I Ibc>ter. So Ibcn we get the issue 0( bow '" best preserve m1 malnWn it_ n.e issue thea cen1e!S on prcsc .... vlUon of the bis10cic r~ and fabric of the building. The .ppIk8ll1 bas undertakJ:n the tafk of obWning bonuses from both the hiotoric p=rr.tioo a.'ld seismic upgr...rlIl@. Wi!b the SWctur.ll wm, we oow hove an opponunlty 10 !Ott an old buildin;; and mcl<e it bettor, '" ""rvivo an eat!lujuake whK:h iI might DOl o<herwise h>vc c!ooo if 110 upgrade wm was do"". So w. are receiving something foe the FAR bonus in IOrms 0( preservation of the sttuclUrC. and I cer..tirdy support illal approoch. iD _ 0( the historic preservation. ti • Category I ooilding, the theate, is cleemcd 10 be on excqJliooal build"lIl@, and iI is certanIly worthy 0( Ibc preservation 0( its historic re"""""" and its an:1!ittoctural quaIities. Icleany, we would wID! 10 restore it 10 its criginal C<J<ldition, I true 1mOr3Iion. We are 00( tllkiDg.bout • _oration !we, W ... ot:!liIking about. rehabilitation. It is goins 10 be • differel!l use, and cbJlDges wi have 10 occur. &Jt "'. ca.r; still JruIke the effort 10 'Iy and mainlaln as mocll or the signif\ca!>l fabric 15 we poosibly can, w. can do IIlal via the SecretaIy «the Inrerior', standards foe rehabilitation. wtuck bas been di.'lC>lS5ed al some length bere lOday. Staff !las addressed i! in I report, and 1 aid my 0 .... review 0( the sta.'ldards. 1 am comfOfUble tllat the a_tion the app£icalion is going is one 'O'hkh can and will meet IIlose 5tanda.'1!s, Altomative B. the design Illat we bave here lOWly, is • big irIproVemetll (lver wbat was criginally propo<ed !as! year. I, J'<'i'-'f14s 10 the community's strong desire 10 see as much «the CKisting sttuclure and an:hiu:aure be proserv"" as poosib!e. The applicant bas clone • good job or addressing _ coocerns and coming up ,..;u, wbat r feel is • successful solution to m.any 0( the problems thaI • building like thiS presents. J am in S\Jpp<>n or Ibe application as it bas beea presented. A few comments lbouI issues that bav. bee. broogllt up. I would concur that the <eat elevatio<l, the curved pediment .. the etl!Iyway, should be simpli!">ed. I don'tlhink it n<:cds 10 be flatIencd ()£ anylhi."1g like thaI, l>UI • slight simplification« wbat yoo have is really an !hat is needed. II Urt.1in!y .. '3IItS to recall wbat is happening on !be front 0( the building. J support !be approaclo ODd minor siroplirK:alion. RegarcflIl@ ~"" fountain in frolll, I would coo;:ur with tbe applicanl" histork archltect Ihilt it wants 10 be. reflec!ion of our lime in !be context «the theatre. I don'llhink yoo bave enough d<Jcumentation 10 tty and copy "bat .... "" there, and in fact, I think if c;mflicts with one 0( the standirds "" tty and do 5(). So I would sui'POO !hat .p;>roaCh there. On the imem. tbe =10 inside, I am interested in seeing ",bat you ccme up with there, r agree that !hat is • vital pLot« the overall <lesiga. and ,.ouId .nppon the H!ffi', feeling Ihat it is someIhing lila! is very iroponanllO preserve. W!!lI some creative clesiga. it can be inlegrared inlo your froD! area 1Ilere. It is important 10 k""P i! .. here iI is because or the siting and the atehitecture 0( the «Iller lines or ll1e other arcbes. r would strongly support the idea !bat the arch 00( be moved. Items !hat need I\utller wm and would be re!Urned -we bave talked about utilities. The ARB is an advocate for your efforlS in woding with utilities 10 make gas mcrers, electric meters~ bacldlow va.'ves as WlOOll'IlSi\'e as possible. That is 0"" reason wby iI .. important 10 bring !his back, because yOOl: desires are going k> be ,,"ery 'Similar 10 ClUI'5 as m !be locations of those lhlngs. So we can he1p you wltl! that 312195 ARB Minutes KIT i ARB :A:\ARB.lIwlIN 20 Ilegan!~ mechanical "'reening, lhat n=!s 10 be addressed, wbetber ir is required or DOt. That sbo<Jc! rome bact s<> Ill'" .... can "'" Wlbat your tboogh15 a.od iipproocb Wlould be .. 10 !bose units. I am somewhat wnoerned Iba! they may be more visible than 'IIlla! w. tint Illoogbl. Th< fountaiD desiy. needs kl come back, a.od.tso colors. I am interested in ... ing !be inlerior colon. W. ",ouId love 10 blow inoro about wlla! "' .. Iberc in 1927, as I am sure we Ill! would, lIId ",ouId .!Upp<>fI1bc approocl! ,hat aJllloogll!bey may 110( be wbal """"""" would choose in 1m, !bey are still apprnpriat. for !Ills bw1dIng lIId ... O!thy c( strong consideration. I would also support !he elimination 0( 1bc mr.rlrement fO[ remo.al '" tdoc"tioo c(!be testrOOlIlS. W. have talked about revenibility. CouoeptuaUy, it roms • k>l 0( 50""", and I think iI is viable in !Ills project But ir is 001 III .&moon', W<lri:.. It would be • significant undertaking, if iI ever was retum<d .. ~ • theater use. As 1"',1 c( Illot NIWO potential project, lIlO\ing Ibe re<trooms is 001 10m, 10 be • significant part of Illy ... "'" dooo at !hat lime. So I concur !hat the tesl100m Iocalion, wbcre presently shown, is a<:<epable. M,i M .... r: In g<neral, !be fact !hat !Ills building is 10 be restored llli."tOricaIJy lIId lIpdated selsmical!y is reaJIy a wonderful benefit 10 !be community. It will be a significant galbering spoil! !Ills end of lawn, mgll! and day. 11w'" is DOl ecooomicaIly practic.al 10 continue it as • !hea"'r It !Ills point is a mojo< ClSappoIn!ment 10 IIWlY people in the w=unity, but Ibis is • viable, interim solution, ar.d I am generally very much in support 0( this appT.k.aooD. Some details· I would stroIl8~ suppon any consideration Illo! yoo mlgbl gI,e 10 restoring the Univen:.y A veDue fr.acIe IS i< was originally designed. It SOIlllds like I am DOl !be ooJy one on !be ARB and fiRB who feeTs !hat way. I am in support of the "'lDoval of Illot fon:court floor slab lIId repIJIcing it with an entIrely DOW <oncrete surface, ocored and colored \0 replicate 1bc original. That is mucll bener than a gialll patch job, wbit" is wbat I'm sure you would end up with. I! is possible !hat if !bere is • pa""'" IflffeTcntial betweea 1he main area in !be coortyard and wbere 1he .. Iumns .... , you might wan! 10 somebow integrOlC tba! Into • patlel1l underneath the fountain, jus< \0 give ir Dl<lR of a sense of place. l! would jus< be • rna""r of ocoring lIId defining that foumain Iocatioo with some kind of hisroric patteB in !be~. Wbatever soIutioo you find you are going 10 use for 1he forecourt p ~asIer, i< should maintain regulariry lIId symmetry. This has not bee" brought up yet, but I personally would prefer balancing the proposed shear willi at grid line B, the""" wbere yro eDler, with. similar one 00 !be oIber .ide. I don"t toow ifyro hav~ coosidered this, but with everythi:lg else so rigidly symmetrlca! in !hat spaa:, I !hint iI is going 10 loot strangely out of pI ... 10 have JUSl !hat one shear w.u on 1bc other side. h is something 10 coooider_ In 1he auditDrium itself, the column on your side aisle arcades whkll are sho,.,,:> elt1ended, due 10 1bc removal of !he sloping floor, I feel !be proportions oflhose columns loot some'.ibat .",kward. h seemed to me maE \\flieR we were 1OU...'"in8 this site 91ith you, you described wanting lO extend those cclumns and ma.cb the fmish 000 thai it was going 10 be kind 0( • Iricky thing \0 do. I woudered if you had considered hul1ding either I plint.~ or a squa..o-e pier underneath the existing columns 10 make !hat transition, ra!ber tJ-.an just exlending the column do..... Do yon know ""hat I am taIIdng about? 312195 ARB Min""', K1T:AAB[A';ARB.~r.t.~ 21 '.>"£". ~~ :-- " ,-;: ',.,-.... . .-, ~~L:.i..:.,~,L. __ .:-· "'~-C:.:'~c_ c', ':':".'"-"~·_'~",,2"---=,,",,>~j'; Ms Ppgclnl: 1!ItinIc iI ;, 0""' 0( \hose 1hiDg. we an: DOt OJ Ibc poinl 0( detaUing yet. That is somethinz ",'e can collaborate willi An:IIit<ctural _ce. "" and get Ibcir suggestions on iI as 10 Ibc appropriate way 10 exttna !hal do_ "bcth<c iI is betl<:r 10 .><Icn<l iI do"", in its =ot coofig\Iratklo or ITj 10 male I transltiol1. ThaI is one 0( \hose details we would t>e ltBppy 10 wodt: on. Ms. M;iser: I wanted !O open up Ibc possibOity for you 0( doing !hat. Tl)'ing 10 match \hose matmaIs exactly is going 10 be difficult. and thai would cimlmv<1lI that issue. I think it migblloct betta, proportiooany. 10 have I .rlgbl chllge t!>ere, lnllSitiooing 10 I squ=. lD genaal. all of !be exposed conduil! thai 'lie ..., 1bono 00'" should be removed. IS !bey really ddract fwm the visual qua/l!y 0( the ~. 1 'lIculd support schemes 10 reta;" the lob.~ arch in its aumJl location, if I =oable and ",odt:able ... :,Mioo CIl> be found. My main co"""m willi Ibc .. bole project tbat this be done ... en willi hlgli qualily maJcrials ond ",odt:maoship. 1 am a li<lle Iikeptic>l !hat the proposed budget ;s adeqlate 10 accomplis!> all thai is inten<led for !his Altcrnative 8. The Samford Theater project. in .. bich Dave Ross and 1 were boIh involved, had many lillIlSU&I and unfom;ecn challenges IS ilunfolded. IS do many projects of Ihls nature. The qualilj was oot sactificed in !hal proje.."t, and IS • nsult. the .",... were COIISlderably greater than originaIly lIlIicipaled. Eno<mous aueOlioo was paid 10 aew;, ~tll3tion O(:be ",rious e!emertt> 0( design and 10 cI!e exceptional workmanship. ThaI is .. ·hat iI really takes 10 ensure qualily. I would bope tluit we cook! toe .. sured 0( !hal in Ihls project. Tbere is scmething tl-.ot 1 have come up with as , suggestion, .. hiell !be rest 0( !be boand members lIllLy 0< may DO( agree with, but II is something I would Iikt to bave us discuss. Because of the WlUSWIl complexily of !his project, wvolving interioc as weD as exterioc modifications. !hal1!Jen: be II Jeast Oil<. ana possibly two added iIh"i>rmatloo rev""" by .. group of Ihree people from the ARB . and the HRR The fIrst review ,-ouJd come ....... completion 0( tbe conlrac! documents, say 90 pen:eDl, and !be second would be • wanHl!IOUg!> 0( Ibc project IS iI oem completion before tlle puncJI list is finalized. Because 0( tbj: complex and highly de!aiJed ... ture 0( the project. coupled willi many &:cisioos tbat are yet to be made, plus 1IJWltic;pa1ed problems IhaJ are liJi:ely to affect the design. the HRB am ARB will be _bk to a<lcqumly ac=s mi. project 'IIltl>oot addilional reviews. AcconfIDj! K> lila GiJlJland. this Iype 0( review has occurred 00 • previoos project. SO !ben: is pr:eaGen: ior this. \\-'bea 1 wroIe this. iI seemed (rom wba! 1 UDdentood from lisa that Ihls was going '" be our flnaI review 0( this proj<ct ana we would DO{ be seeing it again. As !his review has nnfo1ded. it seems like tlle", are many i!tms that ace going 10 come bact 10 us .01"'Y. so this suggestion may be redund2nt and nn ...... 'aI)'. but I would like 10 baY< some input from o!her boanI members as 10 'lIb.t tlley feel about thai con<:epl. (At this point Monty Aodet>on leave<. replaced b, HRB member E!izabeth Kinas.) Mr. Roo: I can see some merit in what yoc are suggesting. 11IIould support it with a couple 0( Iimita60ns 10 it. One would be that !be ""it ... 0( the cIocuments in the preparation stage -1 think we would have to work pretty bard 10 flllhaJ iIao !be Ipplicanl', ",bedule. W. would set iI up SO that tbere is nor I: quorum on this board or on the HRB. but rather I review at their convenience and at lheir location. 312195 ARB Minutes XlTjARBJ A:\AJtB.M!N 22 , .--..... -" '" Ms. M&!er: That is wbat I intended, an in/'onnal ~, ....... '" make sun: !hat .... are currelll! and 01'-10- date '!fIith an !he cbang .. II:a: have takeD pIlIce dIIring !hat p<riod 0( ceating !he collSl!UCtioo cIoaIments. I am sure !here are going 10 be • Io! 0( Ihicg. mol will <bani. ct.aing tI>o<e .... ks ",Me tI>o<e ire being done. Mr Ross: . My 0Iber COIlI;Cra is a 1IlresboId ohilt !hat migbt taU place os we see more and m<n _, pa .. ticularly as !he project becomes complete, "'.at our .q><eta!ions migbt be iDcremen:any raised eacl> tin,. as w. go Ihrough >OmOthiDg, a\Ihoc.Z" I Ihin1:. ..... have vet)' high upectarioos "" .... I wou!dll.', walll! L'>e applicant '" be concerned !hat durins • (mal walk Ihrough, soy II po:n<:b list rime, !hat '1'. might demand rem,,,al 0( an !be plaster ,,'on:. and bl.ve iI replaced 10 • higber sI3DIIard, Of S<Jmething like mot. I can see something Iile !hat c:noating I r.. ... skepless nig!;ts. The impcnIflllg walk d!roog~ oooId keep Ihl.ogs on tr.Ict. If .... do du.t, I would willi! 10 be vel)' careful about !l(){ imposing .dditiooal Rquiremenls. Ms. Maser: I have DO ontlcipatioll that Iben= would be lIDY lMitiooal requiremcms impos<:d on 1lIo project beyond wbal we arc .seeing lOday. My concern is that (I) if be !be Ie •• l 0( qcallty !hat is filling foe !be bIliIding and project, and (2) if Iben= are Ihlngs that are dIscoverod 10 be absolu~ly impractical !hat Ire being proposed lOday. !hat Ibere be Ihe ability Ie In some <reati •• "'ay, backtrack 011 _ particular aspect 0( !be p<oject without being cIetrimenl1! 10 tbe overall project. TbeR may be problems with some of !he suggestions that are beilll! made bert, economic protlems ilia! 00 """ understands .oday, Of Sttu<tural problems ~'IIIl arc unfO«Seen _ may require some change 0( directioo. I Ihink ... e need In be >ognizant 0( tbo5e lhbgs, bopcfully .t significaJ1 points m !he project, so Il'.at we can ""'1 abreast 0( what is goiIll! on. M$.Grote: If I could inteTject from Ihe staff level. ,iDee there aTe so many <lelllils _ will becoming bact 10 YOD foe revie .... any additional reviews 00 lOp of !hat may DOt be DC<CSS8Iy. The changes lhal may (!CCIIr coold be a!SCU5SCd at • rime 'llbeg !be details are coming bact 1<> you. I woold be besitaDl and Wi!)' of attaching additional RViews. Then: are going '" be plenty 0( opportonities 10 sec tbo5e cIwlges is !hey OCC-"'". N will> any project, if somethilll! really chang .. 10 !be exle", chat the exierior C! tbc interior 0( IIle PfOl"'SIl would be different, !hat. Ibca bI.s 10 tome bact. Ms. Maser. I am .... ondering ... hetber on • projtc\ \ike Ibis, wtx:I> is qul\e diff=nt f<l< us, in chat it . does Involve a Io! of <lebil and if Involves !be imetior, bo ... can be assured of !he level of qual'ny !hat I think. we an: antlcipating bore. Ms. Gro!t: I think that would be reviewed as iI COOlCS bact. Ms Maser. But !bey woo't be able 10 be assessed IlDIiIIIle project is """" compldion. That is wby I Ihin1:. fun Gilmand 101d me !hat !his bI.s beeR <loDe befo<e and did DOt feel it was an unreasonable Ihlng 10 .. .t. M. Grote: I do think IIlere are approved plans, IIle build'mg permit. and !bere will be building InspecIors out there comparing. Ms Maser: They will be looting ot Ihicgs in • very different way. 3/2195 ARB Minutes ITIIARBjA-\ARB.MIN 23 I I MI. Groo;: There wi!! also be !be C00>l111aD1 aD board ",ho will be issuing writteJllctters stating !hal !be historic :aspc<:ts and katI=s and cbaIacteristics will be saved. If anything additioaoJ is lIDCOveml. lhat!hal will!>: documc:!ted and dealt wilh. Wad: will be stopped. I do Ihink !here are coodilio<li already In 0< being proposed II suff le""..,1 !hal wc'<!ld covet your ccocerns. Mr. Ross: Jlj(;h Cabrer.l cum:ruIy is responsible fur signing off !be proj<ct in connocrion willi Ihc ARB and, In Ihis ca>e, !be HRB approvals. In Ihis case iI will be for hodt Ihc e.<terioc and interior. I am "'oodcring if what yoo an: suggesting, in a sense, is $Uppltmettting information. k is a 10110 <:OIIlDlunicare TO Riel> IS to wbar be is SIIpI>O<ed to i0oi< It before signing off. Is what you are suggesting supplementing hi. inspection ability? Ms. Maser: Yes, I would say lhat. Mr. Pe .. = I wculd like to make • COtllIIleDI. I cannD( support !hal at an. r feel !hal is getting ns In !be mlddk and IaIdng Over • =POO'ibility !hal !be applicam, IUs architect and consultants have. I feel it is going way overboaId. It is getting in !be 11111 of Ihc elieDl. I cannot support lhat at an. Mr. McfaQ: I would share !hose """"""". Short of having ... ARB puncb rut. ",e have. process in place ";'bere we do see the informadoD before ir: enters coostruction. and ... ~ wiD have items murncd wber. I would hope Ihc appIieaDt is willing 10 provide us willi informaOOn on cbanges IS !hoy occur as part of !hal ",vic",. I am also nncomforub1e with !be oo6on Ihal Ihcy would need 10 rerum <In • perioOlC basis ",;tJ. infonnaOOn. At some POint. "'e have 10 .lIow Ihc applY..&>! 10 do hi, work and hopefully make • good faith effon 10 p~ this. This is • special project. and hopcfuJJy. an the cO<DponelZ members of !be project team are cognium of!hat. They are going 10 be maId.'18 their !>e" effort 10 ensure that it is done in !be highest quaflly f!Shion. It is going 10 t.\kc a 101 of attentioo and a winin,."IlOS< to 1>'" • lillie more !han .... bar you !hint it is going 10 t.\kc. Ms. Maser Tba1 is wbore my maln COIlCenl Sl<ms from. I don'l see how Ihcy are gOing 10 accomplis!!. an Ihc, are intending to willi Ihis badge!. I am very karfuI Ibat Ihere an: going 10 be some shoncuts t.\kca out of necessity. This would !>e one way. and appareruIy 001 • very good way, of!lying 10 """" ",bar goes 00 in • proj<ct !hal may get out of our control after !bey cocnc back with Ihelr <Ieanup items, whick we are going 10 see anyway. I gues.. But so be it. I guess lhat is the W1ly this viorxs. You seem 10 feel this is interfering and is beyood our SC<lpe. The ooJy reason that Ttm Gilliland happened 10 ,""nOOn Ihis, after I spoke obOUI it to him, asking if Ihis is completely unreasonabIc. he said DO. it has beeD. done !>efere, b • .'t ooJy for very UllllSUaI proj......... He said this is In WlIISUal project and 1IIe are going far beyond .. ·t.at we "..wJy do in ICrms of re-iiewing the inIerior. There is. 10110 it. So be cIicI not feel that iI was an nnrearonabIc thing. V."Jth that perspective, I felt iI was .... orth making Ihc suggestion. But I am comfonobIc enough witl> the upwming reviews. We will have 10 see Ihis 21 least ooce more. Wboa Usa and I spoke earlier, iI had .... med like we would DOt see Ihis 11 an. Wen, "'e ",ill be seeing it .gain, so that colors my lhinking • little bit. Ms 1Gttas: I would like TO report a comment that I !hint probably n:ilects !he concerns and interests of the Historic ~s Board. Tba1 is Ihc question of who, in the City suff, 0< wiIllbere be • consul""" thaI Ihc city suff will have available 10 them clurin~ consttu<:oon and II !he punch list Icvel wbo will supply the expertise. My nnderslanding bas a1 .... ys !>eon thaI lhat is part of Ihc job of the . boards, on • volunteer basis, 10 provide that input 10 Ihc city. I don"1 know Ihall am hearing !hal iI is !be .... ff'. in'en6on 10 Dse • cousulllllll ",1>0 is familiar willi historic features, whick I think you are Y219S ARB MInute. KIT II ARB lA\AJI.B.MIN 24 . :~ . . -"-" lIddl=ing. There .... 0Iher concerns "",It IS utilities. If !bey don't feel ~ ",ill have access to 1bat. DCI IS consul .. DIS. llOl IS !be applicanI" consultanI but .. the ~iIy'. ~onsuJtaDl, i: is appropriate f<x !be board to provide some input tG staff. • Ms G= There is I COIKlition right I10'Il thai is part of the recommended ~oll<fitioos thai t>Jks aboot • consul12!ll being at !be sileo mooitoring the project for bisto<ic archl""'tural features. M.!. KittM: Who is paying th&t person1 Mr K"'nan; Me. Mr. Ross: Board members ha~ bees kIlo ...... from time '" time. 10 volunteer'" see what somebody is doing and bring it bact to staff. I don'l !hint iI bas be,,. I foonalized proc=. but going bact 10 !be COOl!llem I made earlier. tbey bav. cIouc ID extnlOrdinary job. I don'l .xpect !hem I<> ~ do..." from bere on. I share Julie', coocem abouI1Ihal happens ",beD clUnd. time comes wilh the budget. It is usually ICward !he end of !he project. and some finishes are still being put in, and decisions have '" l>e "",<Ie. But !be team !bat !he applicant bas assembled is both highly vesI<d ill this project. bas • lot of expertise. a!Id will follow Ihrough. If IlOIhlng else, their professional repuIlIlion will be OIl !he line, and this is an ull"3OnfUllrily visible project. I doubt wbether after a year, anyone ..00 !hies in Palo Aha WOO'I have gone through it. So I !hint tlJey an: very lIIen aWlL"C of that, and I do berle"" thai !he applican< and !he applicant'. team are capable of doing' good job of monitoring. As fa! as tlJe staff condition for I coosultmt being paid for by the applican!, iI may be that !he historic arc~.itect bas already bee .. Cll8aged 10 service thai consultalll, and the applicant is paying for tbaI coDsultanfs time now. Ms. lG!!as: So you would _ that it would be appropriate for !he applicant and for !he staff 10 assist any board membe" in having access 10 !he site during this period? That is critical 10 give them !he opportunity 10 form any wmmems !hey roigbl wanl 10 bring forward themselves 10 !he oily staff. Mr Ro .. ; Just speaking from experience, I don'! think it would be particularly o.sefuIlO me. having been Ihrough I restonitiOn of • historic tbeaIer, to visit it at 1hree or four completioo stages. It would be a1most impo<sible 10 know at thai poinllllhat is going 10 happell !here. I IhinIc I will be satisfied with an occasional, brief report from !he app6cant'. historic preseI\':ruon orchitecl about any decisions that .... e being made 0< need 10 be m.><I<. Since "'< arc respo<siblc fo£ n:v'.ewiDg and opproving !he dcsigIl for !he interio£, as weD IS !he cl1erior. I assume any cbang .. 10 !he approved pI3n will bave 10 be broogbt back here. As .... too.., that is going tG be happening, and 0'" DOt in a position of approving someIhing wr !he f:tCt that we did not tnow aboot, whie. we "ould take • pretty aun view of, J am going 10 be •• Iisiied with !he occasional report. Ms. Maser: All right. I take back my suggestion. Havillg beard everyone talk on !he subj''':'' tl:>at is euctJy ",hat I hope.:! would happen. f will be comfortable with !he fact that !here is • consultant. Ms. Grote: It is Conditio. I2S . You may want 10 look at recoDllllCIJd'mg modifications 10 Illat. It IaIks about IDOOiIoriDg historic auditorium wlllli, ceiling" J<Ie aisles, arcbe., lobby. You _, want 10 exl<nd its purview_Page 29 of !he staff report. 312195 ARB Minutes nT jARB: k\ARB.MIN -. 2S ~.--. Ml:...M£F..!ll; Tho ~y I read this is that the p=o."Vaoo.. archiuoct is simply going 10 be cooF.nning dial .,bere significant details tiee4 modification, be is 10 coofirm that that ",Oft is being dooe ill an approj><i2'" fashion, That is the collCera be~, I believe. 1t!lOUDds fine. • Ms, Maser: If somethlng "'Cre di.!«>vc:ml 10 be unusually expensive thai is being propose<! now, and )'OQ J><OPO" 10 eruninatc it for some rea!OOIl, economic or ,.,hatt>cr reason. !hat .. "ald autOOlllticalJy come bact 10 us woaldo"t &'! (Yeo} I thint the fact dlat we an: going 10 be ""'ing this i'COject again is reossuring. MQllQN; Mr. Roy: I IDeve approval to adopt the staff roncrruons with some modifICations to the staff condition<. Going in on!er down the staff c:<llllfttions, prior 10 submittal for I building permit, staff CODlfitioD 0 calls for DlO'" details on the founIain arch ill the lobby on Page 24. I would like 10 add to that if poss-ible, ret<:1lIion in place. If that simply is !lOt feasible, also add the po<sibilily that it be rcusOO IS • drinl.ing foont!in. Re!c<:ation is .!mIdy called for. ,These art all items that art due for review by both the HRB and the ARB, so evet)' item on this list currer.lly through M, is !O ",tum 10 both boa.-ds. llems E, Parts 1 and 2. I would like 10 make cllanges. Righi now, iI says, "Rrvised Iloo< plan ,bowing 11' .. e!Gsting stairway and lobby reused .. an access 10 the mezzanine lobby" 12 is the proposed ",,~-ooms ",Ioca"'" 10 ",bere they would DOl need 10 be relocated in case of • return 10 theater .".,. I would like 10 cruninate n altogether. It<m I, I .. ould like 10 make th.t requirement only Ie the extent that the mezzanine lobby is actuaIJy lcgaIJy usable. If iI is not IegaIly usable as f'>OOf space, for an e.<t:ptioo 10 be macle ther<, If if is 10 be left open. the. it shaii net count IOw...-d the awnc.n"s FAR. I am guessing dIa! if if is accnsible. ii must be up!O cocle .nd it willllQ( have to be shut ~ in some ..,.y. If ~ CIIl be Jell open.iI silould not COOllI as fAR. That io, just open illd! accessible Ie anyone going up the stairs. Mr" Peterson' WJti!. grill? Mr. Ross: [f iI bas. grill S() that it is visible, !hat is fine. I would SLopport that. Mr. McFaIl: I have a problem elimlmting space as part of the calcuIa!ed floor area if it is encl.:>sed. IIeDl 10 think it is usable in some regard, I could 001 support the idea that that wOllld not be COOIi!ed as part of the floor area. Mr· Ro;s: I mink wbat will happen bere is that !he 'swrs 1m IlQ( up 10 code in height or width 0< Sleep"", and the area itself does oot have a serond..... The chief builcfl1l8 official is probably going 10 say, bring it up 10 cod< or close it off. If iI is clooed off with • gill!< so dlat it is .isible 10 people who ,.batlO sneat up the stairs and looI< at the historic room, that is fine ,.ith me. If, despite irs lack o! Dpgradabilily, it is left op<n and axessible, cbeB I still would IlQ( suppon !he reduction of the "veraii FAR by 500 square feet. I don', thint it is going 10 be particularly useful space for the applicalll, Mr. Mcfan: \Velt~ usefut or ~ ill: is .. closed area and il meets code, so if: should count. Mr. Ross: Oby, I ",iD mate !he motion. 312/95 ARB M'mut<. KIT iARB j A. ~.AR.B.MIN '-' ,--:'-... . ,--.... ",,"-- :> 26 [ -- , - Ms. Kg Wo discu&sed this II out meeting y~y, and w. spoke wi!It the historic coosuItanI on lilt! issIle 01 the DlCZlanine. because OIt would like 10 .... it mnain and used as much IS poa,ible. Od>erwise. the ara c<>UId ~k vet)' rapidly, Our undecst.anding is !bat in the building code. Il>oy allow Ih'lt stlir configuration to stay as it Is. and !bat the room c<>UId F"""b!y be posted foI: occupallCl' so Illat • socood .grns would no( be requimI, After oor cSlso.lSSioo will> them. we were <",,,.mp! !bat ~ ....... po!iSibility tbat it c<>UId be !>liIimS with limited oa:upancy, To etICOW'ilgt that kind of ~ miniInaJ .... g •• we .. Ole ... ining to allow iL Mr Ross' f agree with that ccmment. because r t1linI< ",bat you are tr)'ini 10 do is I<> e""DUng' reIeIlIloc 01 the space, SUba'acting it from the FAR is DC( an OIlCOUBge--""1lI. It is mere likely 10 1<od the apprlCanl to cooperak ill t.Ol}' "'Y. but .. ith ottempts to close it off rather than !lying 10 u.p it ope1t. So _ we find m<allS 01 excluding it from the fAR calculation. the goo! of u.ping it open or visible is no( likely to be RaCbed. W. need to provide an incentive foI: lbem 10 ktq> tbat room opeD 0< viomle and m.i .... ine<l.. If w. rom thtm Ukt Il>at FAR cut 01 their projc<:t """"wbere else~ it wi!! be quite I dismcenti\-"C~ :DOC an incentive. Mr. Pete""", As. proctlcal .,..attn, it does DOt impa.."'1 the bulk 01 the building. It does ll<X chang' its sbape 01' size. Mr· Ross; So in the motion. just to clarify, if 1I'.e mezzanine is used, !hat it not COUllllOward the FAlL A DOle 00 F; that the reduction of the facade detail be Jeq\lUed '" .void false historicism problems. I would like !O add an ITem N. Let me ask if ... are approving tlJis ccl<x palette as submltted as the _ palette foI: the bulIcfllljl. Ms. Maser: We ha .. e DO{ seen the inIerior colors yet. Mr.lWs;;: So final eo!or sekctions OR "'~, J o::tuaIIy "'001<1 be happy 10 put Ihat _ 'prio< 10 issuallCt 01 building pennit" rather than 'prior 10 submissioo of buiIJing pennit". Also under 'Prior 10 issuance 01 Building Ptrntit, I""" 1, r 'Would lilc. to modify it to include ARB RView nf tIle desigD and location 01 an visible utili!)' de,ices. [EI'oTR Y DOORS TO RETURl'<l Signage in a separate appfK:ation. Locatio. and s.."fCtning 01 mc<:banicaI equipment on the ,ooilo be out of sight. w. bave also r=ived some modifications bere 10 Items S, J8 and 3S and)6. They are ba,ically editorial couecOons. ML Grote: We received comme!!15 O!I _ cOOllitiOos from other clepa!"tIn<'nts. 312195 ARB M'1fi\Ite5 CTiARB: .'-... ..ARB.MIN '." . 27 i " -,.' -. Mr. Ro.., IS I<Id lbc W<d 'latoral', 118 conoerns peclestr'.an I'fOIJ'C6on. "hkII may be mfuDdall!, beau ... I balll Chat Pub!lc WO<b .. m require. solid fe," for ~ proIeCtion. 135 is in "'Bard 10 • lipo III lbc eDIr'all<C indif .. ting lhatlbc public can lOse nearty ~ Jo(s. I support IIW ~ Th&I ""ven my Jist. Ms. Maser: W. macIc • mJmller oC ."ggC3tioos ... "1111 ",onder if ",oold like 10 list them. AI< tbese going to be ",erbatim D'I:imltcl, ~YrO!.p: Ves. a:ld !bey will be _ 00 10 lbc Ptanniog Commission. k migl:l be • good idea '" sutnr!1ali7e them, .., Chat !bey ",in be clear, Mr. McF.n, 1 ..... somc: changes 10 cooditioos. C<>ndition 128 Rfen 10 zeinsulliJlgIights in lbc lobby aDd euditorium. Tbey specifictlly m.._ lbc sau= style ....n fixlWCS. Maybe w. can modify that II> say. • including !be hisIoric ceiling pcndam and ,...n futures·. I woold like fJrtlltr claril'icalion DO Number Ie. I wOllld be cOO>fonable ..,r.!> t.l\owing Chat s;>oCC 10 mnain and nat COWl! iI IS floor area if iI is determined IIW code does DOl penni! its use in its C=I>I configuration. I am bard pressed 10 think: it is going 10 .u;y emp!)l rarever. If iI is OO! allowable in its current cor.Jiguration, I ,.oukl DOl argue Il' ... it shoold be coon!ed. We .. ..., o!ready provi<flllg 3,100 square feet oC inccnti"e. Mr. Ross: So if iI is detcnnined nat 10 be .sal>!< S{l3C<'. ;he. it should DO! be: COUll!ed. Ms. M .... " If iI canrlO( be: tlSed, .. should 00< be: C<lWlIed against lbcir FAR. So, if i< is gaing 10 end up !>eing somebody', oI'fia <J< vsable space. !hi=> iI sboUld. Mr. McFall: SO the COOIlition coold read Chat me floor are. shoold be _ acronJin&IJ unless lbc cbid buDcflllg offJC ial delerminc:s !hat the prc:seDl configur>6on does nat me« code requiremeDts. Ms. 1Gttas: In oor discussion will> 1M applicant yesrenlay, be poinJ..-d rut !hat Chat S{l3C<' is isolated from DIller space aDd iI does nat won: within the overall admlnistralivt area. It really bas DO \'lIIue as • real usable area. Mr. P.os>: Since this an item IlIat is r~ '" us, we ,.iIi have oooth<r CI2Ck at iI. In !he inIerim, becsuse oC this cc-ndition, there will !>e • need 10 c!iscuss this. I feel fairly strongly abouI gI;iing !he appIic.a!ll • let oC inccctlve 10 do tlJaL If !bey can preserve it 1>'j aWllcalion oC some exception. I would 111;. 10 see Illcm tt) 10 do tlJaL I carwor see this as being very useful as an administrative office with. oon-wde SlaID;asc i.lld only ODe nit. I feel f-.irly certain IlIat ",ea lllliler 1lle hlsIoric preservation code, it is DOl • good place 10 put an offic<:. 1 woold have lif. safety coocems abo>>t tlJaL So 1 ",oold like 10 stick with it !he way iI is. Ms. Piba: I very much agree with tlJaL Me. R05S: I wanl 10 ruck with !he mo6oo thai I have O1.de. with !be SIrong requiremt:ll Chat it be: left open for exemption from the FAR Ms Maser: Have we su:mmarized our suggestions,? 312195 ARB Minu!£S KIT: ARB: A:\ARlJ.M1N 28 • . --.---.:". ." Mr. Boss; It sow.Is Iikc: w. hi •• .!Ilpport for !he origin>l Cbeater marquee. Mr. McFaH; I do not Ii'"" with lhal I 'WUId IgrtC !bot the original marquee Is .ice< 1ooIdcJ. but ill IemlS of !be cooten aoo the flIct lhaI !be el<isting marquee has bee. tb<'~ ~1most .. """ .. !be original one. it is historicolly signiflCalll. Ms Ma",r: Four au! of fi •• boo.."11 membeR ",ouk\ CllC<l\IIOg •• """,nsideration oflhat, but it is 00( • coodi60n. J ha .. .!Orne a<lditioDaJ DOtes be1'e. Bob Petetsoo is co .... 'uod .. rob !be size of the opening OIl the _ 1'.00<_ w •• o support the closing off of die alleyway. fl.Jottlg 10 be repio=! in tbe furecourt. MAke shear walls aloDg column fiDe B symmetrical. 1",,1ude IS • CO!Iditloo the remo"Bl of aD cxposc<I cooduil. SlDce Iltis part of the tape is ~ lIDClear. !be comments are already wen documented. ED<! of tape). MOTION PASSES lINANIMOUSLY. 312I9S ARB Mlillltes ur tARS 1 k1.Afi.MJ'N 29 IMfDtUll\TI OHAI. 1IE111111A/CM1 ARCHiTECTURAl. Rn'IEV BOAAIl mIl 21. U94 Attachment 7 II. R£&UI.AR A&ElID ... 3. .S§ t~i!,~s'ty Avenue hrs!ty The.tre PrEliminlry Tevl~ of se~s.1c u:pans1~1't. 94-AAI!-49 9(·ZC-6 94-£1 ... ·) 94-MRB·! I hl.tori~ bUildi"9 upgrade .nd ZOIHNG eV·C(GfJI') Commercl,' Oowntown Communit, Oistrl~t .nth Ground floor ,"6 Podestrian Shoppfng Combillog Oi.tri~ts USE CATEGOF.Y: Ret,il HISTORIC STRUCTURE CATEGORY: fi!Y I RONMEIIT AL IMPACt ASSn SHEH1 An e~vironmental impa(t assessment will be prepared at time of final ,ARB review of this project. BAC~GIillUND Tbe Historic ResoY,ce, Bo.r4 {MRS} .t its meeting or April 5, 1994, reviewed the propos.' and gener.ll, f.lt that the pr.j~t W3. good and esp.ci.ll, th.t efforts vere made t •• lla. rever,rbll;tJ or the building foter!or t •• theater I. the fot,re. Tbe Board did "ot like t. see the ,bange of the fro"t ioterior lobby, thou9~, vas ,leased to see ~istoric portiDns of the bollding s •• ed .nd encoo"90d the ARB to retal. the 'I,torlc •• t"r. of the b'll~iog. A representative of t~e MRS will .ttend the ARB meetl'g t. provide comment 0' the HRB decisIon. Of SCRIPTION lb. 'pplicant is proposing I renovitiOD \IKlnding I seismic upgrade it the '.rslt1 lbe.ter to .llow ror I tW"story retlrl .se .nt~'1 the existing theater space and I clfe use 11 the existing lobby. The existing buildio9 is 14,972 square fo.t r. are •• 4,159 square f2et Gf basement &nd mezzanine irea will be demolis~ed. Tb. ground floor ~ill be expanded wit~ l,99~ squ.re feet or De. spaeo and the second floor will have 10,541 square feet of D.W area. Vhil. t~. bulldl.g area will tot.l 22.866 square feet of spaee~ 1.936 sq~are feet is e~empt frc. floor area fvr the pruposed seismic Rod 'jst~ric upgrad! ind for ~andicap access 1 bll1tr. ~' -; .--;,-,: .. """ Page ! P1ei.0 refer to tne .p~li,.nt·s letter d.stri~ing tne project o.d the plans su~;tted for ,petlfle det.fls of the pr~o,.l. Photographs 'nd color ~ero.es .ill be presented It the meeting. AHAnSIS b:\,ftfoW St.ff finds the ~'$19" • ~elc~d Improvement t~ the .Ite esp.ciill} the upgride of the r •• r boildln9 f.ci~e fiClng the ~art!"g let and 'one".s >rtt~ the recommendation of the HRB. Architect"r.! detlil., bicycle pirtlng •• Ignage, lrish .~los"r. area detlils~ color and materill si~les. Jandscape ,nd !rrigation ,I.n, .nd lighting .nIl be required for fin.l ARB r.view of the ~r.ject. rhe 'epper tree locltod It the rear of the prop.Ttl i, noted on the pl,.s for re~v.l, tho"gb tbe appliclnt ~ •• Indicated that the tree ';11 be retifn~d4 The .rbcrjst's report describes the tree to be b •• lthJ .nd can ~ protected during construction. The fin.l plans sball include the tree protectioD me~sures d~rfcg tonstruct~on listed ia the 1rbo~ist's report submitted by James McClenahan, dated ~.rc~ IS, 1994. Th~ .rborist is reQuired to iRspect the tree prctect'~n ind cert1fy t~at the .pprQved protection mSl5Ure$ haye teeD iRstal1ed prior to demolition. gradiDg and buildin~ permit issuance. St.ff sugge,ts that. temporary ,lywood fence be install •• along the edge or the property t. <cr ••• the adjacent ciildc,re faciltt, from noise durj~9 (~nstructfQn activities an~ for safety concerns. m.!ng Tbe proposal does not campl1 with the zooJD9 ordfn.nce for flDor are.. A ZOnE text omendJiE.t h presentl, bel"9 p,"p~ced t. an ... both s_ehmfc and' \1storic pr-eser'iitioll exc:eptfons to f."'.ft. t~ be taten 'o~ l siegle slte. The amendment ~Ql~ .ll~~ the 25 perte~t area increase for sefsmic upgradt to be 3dditive ~ith t~e 25 percent area 'ncrei~e for tistoric re~ibilitltion. The ~one text imendment is tentitiv!l, scheduled for re~iew by the PTanning Commission 08 Ka, II, 19S4 and the Cit, Council en Jun. 13. 1994. P'Jblic Vort.s The Publl, ~or's £n9in.erin9 Department h" revl~d the proJect "no require. the '.11001ng: I. A c.nstructl" impact report shall be submitted to Put1;c Vorks identifying i"oes that will o,tigote the tr.ffic And construction 1 •. pact. of tho City parking lot. Applicant ,1>on ••• t .·it~ Public Voris prior submitting t~e repo.·t. The report 5~ocTd addre~s the issues of temporarl storage and cOH~tructio~ equfpm2~t during construction ac:tfwities. PigO 10 , ; ~ >ccess t. the site through the exlsling p.rkl.g lot .t the rear of the sHe,. n{]1s!, triff1: cfrc.:htfon .. and protection r""" t~e public. Z. The Penoitte, Is required to submit. drli •• ge ,Ian showing exlstf'9 and ~ropc •• d dr" •• go of the site. T~f. ,l.n .hall show lhe 'l~$t\og affected off·slte st ... drll •• ge and proolde c.1c.loti"". showing ho .. Uls syst •• "ill handle the proposed sit, run·off. fbls plan should sho~ spot ,I ••• tlons of exist ins and propo.ed grades sbowing h ... drl;n.g~ pltt.r.s wort. £Klsting dro' •• g. f~ adjoc •• t properties sh.ll be •• Iot"oed. 3. An encr •• cboent pe .. lt must be obtained fro. the '"hllc ~~rls £nglneeriag Department for i~act of the f$! cf I Ctt, parking lot prfcr t. iss.ance of • buI1~:.g penol!. " 4. The 'ppllc",t Is required to post. performance bond prior t. c~r~ln9 "'Y work. Th& bond will ,o,ure t~.t .11 damage 11 the Cits parking lut be restored iD-ti~d. Utilities The Utiliti.es Engineering Oepartment flu reviewed the proposal and bas indicated t~at three phase power is available it the rear ~11ey. loa~ ~iTc~latl0ns ~ust be 5ubm1tted to the Utilities Department to dete~in~ the proper servfce size ~eeded. RECDI'tIENDA TI ON As this is i-prtlillfnary reviw project. the 5Gard does not tal.e .clf ••• t~ougb tn. ARB should comment on the proposal ,,1 idvi5. the lPP 1f cant. I',g. Ii Attachment 8 ~ City of Palo Alto W_-..--:C=:i:.:,ty~M=a=n:..:a.::.2g~er::....' ___ s....:.S_u_m_m_al1---,,-' R_ep~o....,..r_t TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER DEP .<\R.TMENT: P-.. "Dill& 8"" COm .... Dity EBvirollmelll AGEND.o\ DATE: SUBJECT: REQilEST DECEMBER 50 199' Proposed Amo .. dme"t to DomIlo .... ZalliD, ReplaliolU (CD Zoo.) Ttl Alley IDceslives for Seismic Upgnde IDd HIstork I'reservotiD. T. Be CombiDed (94-ZC-6, 94-EIA-7) IlIli IIIf.,.,...&. Regal'''''''' T .... lIsf .. of Developm •• f Rig~ts (TDRs) for Do1I'BI ..... Historic Bllildiags Proposed amendment 10 downtown zoning regulations (CD Zone) Ie alloW ~tivos fur seismi<: upgrade> and historic prese>vation 10 be wmbined. RECOMMENDATION Staff recotnme1Ids that the City ~iI: I. Approve the ouachcd rovised mitigated negative declaration and adopt the atucbed ordinance aIJowing seismic and historic preservation floor area incentives to he combined; and 2. Coosidcr the following al-""",,,lives regarding transfer of development rights (JDRs) for bistorie buildings down!"""" a. Retain the City's existing lDR program; or b. [)ife<:t staff 10 prepare a revised TDR program for coosideranoo by the Historic Resources Boord (HRB), Architectural Review &an:! (ARB) and the PIannlng Commlssioo and agree 10 the future approp<Ution 0: $12,000 for """tract pImmer as.'>istance in developing and implementing a revi5ed lDR program <see Attacfunent G for • breakdo"'l1 of the cost estima:e~ If CounciJ wis!Ies 10 consid<:r this item after completion of the .. ",i..-w process for the Vmily Theatre project. staff recommends thai CounciJ continue this publl<: bcarini! 10 May 1.1995. '. • \. POUCY lMPuc,mONS co text :lmm!mrnt . -.~ - IQR Prpg!1!!l lmplementalioo of a ~ 1DR prosram would involve adoptins a separate ameodmc:uI to the Zoaing ()nIinance. The policy implications 0(. revised TDR program would dq>eIId upon the paI1ieular provisions of the revised program. In general. mRs 10< historic: buildings will promote their hi5loric presorvatioo with the additiot:lal optioII of pormi!tin1l the in=Itive square footage 10 be lraI'.sf~ 10 anod!er s.i1e. EXECU1JYE SUMMARY This report forwards 10 Council ~ by !he Planning Commission, Historic Reso<m:es Board (HRB) and ArdIitectural Review Board (ARB) 10 approve I negative dec!aration and adopt the .ttacbcd ordinance &/I"",ing seismic and histori<: preservation fIQor area in=ltives 10 be combined; and information requested .1 the August B. 1994 City Cotmctl meeting. incluGmg I) an ..... luation of!be success of Ibe current historic and seismjc bonus and fiR JIIOIll8lus, 2) an examinatioo of eliminating !he use o(the Planned Coomtum!y (PC) zoning process in rela!ioo l<l!he TDR program, and 3) !he ramifications of aDowinl an additional 25 per=!! FAR ince!ltivc 10< hisI<lri<: preservation and seismic upgrade projects, if !be additional 25 percent FAR is required . 10 be used as • lDR. co Text Amqu1menc The City Council """ either take action 00 !be propo5ed teXt amendmOlll or GOIllinue !be public bearing. II !he Coonc:il decides 10 !aU action OIl the proposed teXt amen,lment, !be public hearing should be closed iller. public t.cstlmony is COOlPleted. If!he City Coonc:i1 wishes 10 coolinue tbc public bearing OIl the text IIJD<ndrnent until after completion of!be Environmental Impact Repvr. (EIR) and review pr<>ecss fur !he Varsity TheaIn: project, Ihc public bc&Jing should be COIllinued 10 May 1. 1995 (poIentiaJly in coojunctioo ,.ith. revised lDR ordinanc:c:). The City Coonc:il bc&Jing OIl tbc Varsity Theatre project is tentatively ~uled 10< April 10, 1995. TDR Program The City Council could decide 10 either main !be City's existing TDR program or provide direcIioo 10 staff regarding revisWDs that should be made to !he TDR program. If the Council decides to clim;t staff to revise !he fiR program. • draft TDR ordinance and en viroomentaI document will be prepa ... d 10< cOIISideration by the Historic Resources Board (HRB). Architeetural Review Board (ARB). Planning C:xrunission and City CouociL It is estimated that it would !aU 8fPt'Oximately five mooths 10 bring I .... 2 ... 13 t draft revised TDR program befon: the Ci!y Council (following the prcparatioa of a draft 1DR onflll8DGC and bearings before Ibc: HRB, ARB and Planning Commission). Thus, if Ibc: Cooncil desires, I>oIh !be CD lext amendment and revised IDR program could be coosidcred 111 the same meeting (e .•• May I, 1995). fo!Iowing completion of the Yanil)' 11IeatR review process. mea IMPACT CD relit Amepdmm The proposed CD lUI amendment would DOC have a fiscal impact OIl the City. Specifi<: projedS requesting double inceIItive! cculd sencrate additiooaJ sales or other taxes .dep""ding upon \1..,", and would be subject 10 City processing fees. .JDR Promm U!be Council decides 10 cIirect staff 10 p.'"Cp&lC • =ised lDR program. preparing and processing the new rtgulatioas will requi"'e the _ of. contract planner. Thus, City funding .... ill be required for contract planner as,iSWlU (the maximum estima!ed cost is $12.000; see Attachment G for • breakdown of the COO! estimate). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMElq CO reX! Amendment The proposed lUI change will DOt have a significanl. impact 00 the enviror.ment. A r.-vised environmental J.SSeSsmcnt recommending adoption of. mitigated negative declaratioo is anached. TDR Program The e.Mrorunenta/ impacts of & revised lDR program would be evaluated during Ibc: deve10pmcnt of & draft TOR ordinance. PREPARED BY: Robert Schubert, Cootnct Project Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: ~;f /ck~e ICENNETII R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: Assis1an1 City Manager hc<3DtU ,'.,' . . -:. SUBJECT: ~ ..... --. ) .' City Manager's Report (In-Depth) Proposed Ameadment 10 Do .... I""" ZollillC RepbtlODI (CD . Zolle) To Allow Iac •• lives ror Seismic Ujllrade aDd Historic ProservatloD To Be Combined (94-ZC-6, 94-EJA-7) nd IafGrm.tloa ReJ"nfiD, Tramer .rOevelopmeat Right. (TDRs) for Dowato..... Historic BailcJiDp RECOMMENDATIONS S!J.I'f ~ \hat tile City C<lImcil: I. Approve tile III3chcd re.ised mitigated negative decllL"I'tion and aOOpt tile attaclled ordirwK:e allowing seismk and historic p<eSCriotioo floor arta incentives 10 be combined; an<! 2. Coosider the following alternatives regarding lmISeer 0( development rights (fD~) for historic builamgs downto'lJo'll: II. Retain the City'. existing TDR program; <X b. Di.-ecl staff to prepare a revised TOR program for ~onsjd..'Tation by the HiS'.orlc Resou,'c" Board (rlRB), Architectural Rev'.ew Board (ARB) and the Planning Comrnissioc 2nd agree with fulUrt approp,iatioD 0( $12,000 for cotllnd. planner assislanu in developing and implementing" revised TDR prIIgnom (see AI'.AChment G for • breakdown o(!he cost CSlimate). If ~ wisMs to """.sider tlris item I &r completion of Ibe ..... i.w process for the Varsity TbeaIrt p.-oj<:ct. staff =ommends !bat Council <:O<ltinue this public bearing 10 May I. 1995 • . ~ In August 1986. the City adopIed • comprehensive set 0( zoning regulations affecting an commercially zoned properties (CC and CS) in the downloWII area. The regulations <:OIIrained 1he changes lrisinS from t.'>e 1984-1986 DowntoWII Study_ The regulations were intended 10: J) substantially wrtaiI major new devclopmeot OCCUI'Jing within the dowIlIown area; 2) preserve and upgrade bu'Jomgs of historic significance; and 3) prevent v.idespread demolition and red",'elopment 0( the downloWil, maintairrlng its Iraditional scale and character. In add:'lion to restricting new devek>pment, tile regulations addressed ground floor retail uses and associated pedestrian .... "Iivily. bui.fmg seismic upgrade requirements, and hislOric: preservation. A fundamental goal or the regulations was to discoorage new development. thereby cot increasing the substantial existing parking deficit evidenced in 1he downtown. A lOla! new additional .... soru --,.--'" - ." square fo.JI3ge ell' of 350,000 was established. with a 235,000 square foot th:esbold that lriggcrs City Cooocil review of the regulations (p<,licy 6e. Coolprehensive Plan Tnnsportatioo Eicmcnt). To dale, spproximately 31,495 (net) DeW square feet !lave bcCD addc<I in the downto..... ami .mce the May 1986 adoption of the regul&tioos. R:tcntioa of existing ~...; was an important aspect of the regulations, in order to jftSCtVe the sca1e, clwa<:ter and prcpor1lon of the downtown and for hi>"toric preservatioDfambetic JIIl!POS"S-To provide incentives to property owocn of buildIngs in need of seismic or historic upgrade, ~ regulatloos were cral\ed to allow • 2S pe!Un1 illcm!se in IIoot area in conjunction .. ith eilber • seismic upgrade (f9r Seismic Calegory I &: II bwlifings) or bistori<: preservatioo (for Category I or 2 S1JU<:ttIreO). Bmld"mgs Chat fall into beth categories, of which th= are c:urmnly nine io tha downtown """'" cannot take adVllllage of both prov'.siOl'.s in the regulations by increasing existing floor area !!lOR than 25 percent; i.e., the allowance is _ additive. On February 22. 1994, the City Courn:il referred the proposed amendment 1<> the downtown zoning regulations (CD Zone) to the Historic Resources Board (HRB), Architectural Review Beard {.-'.RB) and Planning Commission. On July S, 1994, after hearings before the HRB, ARB and Planning Commission, 1l".e City Council opened the pablic bearing on the proyosed Code amendment and subs"'luentJy continaed the bearing to Dettmbcr 5, 1994 (sec the .ruched CMR:313:94, daled June 30, 1994). On July 21. 1994. staff pre;lared I rev'.sed environmental assessment (anached) for !he proposed text Code amendment which recommends adoption of. mitigated Negative Declsration (the environmental asscssmctl1 was revised 10 include totr.pliance willi the u.s. Secretary of the Interior's Standards of R<l!abilitation or'" Guidelines for Rehabtlitaling tflSlorjc Build"mss IS • mitigation measure). Comments were received from Ihree persoos during the pubflC miew period on !he revised mitigated negative declaration (see !he attached letters &rom Dennis Backlund. ~k Vc:nrulio!> an<! Gerard MarsuDo). On Aug.>St 8, 1994, the City Council requested staff 10 provide I} an ~VaJUatiOU 0[ the success oftha curren! historic and seismic bonus and lDR programs. 2) an examination of eliminating the use of the Planning Community (PC) zoning process in relatioa 10 the TOR program, an<! 3) the ramificatioas of allowlng an addilional 25 percent FAR. in<:eruive for bistori<: preservati9a an<! seismic upgrade projects, if the additiooal 2S perceot FAR. is required to be used IS a TOR POucr IMPUCATIONS CD Tex! Amendment The proposed CD text amendment consistency with Comprehensive Plan policies is discussed in the a\\ached PlanrJng Commission staff report dated May 20, 1994. ,....'0113 : .. • ) • ·' ~:' ."> :. : -:,.- ...,..=·~o"'L . .;Ls.,,; ·;;.;i~~'.:.-:· >,'. ",.,.;._"-~ ~'-",c,-'"",C""-~'" • .c.;c mR J>mram • • ........ ;n Iroplementation of • revised lDR program w"u1d mvclve ~,g • separale amendmeIlt 10 the l.ocin& Ordinmce. The po!icy implicatioos of. revised lDR progrsm woaId depend lIpOO the partieular provisions of the revised prognom. In general, lDRs ,for historic buildings will promoIC !heir historic preservatioo with the adclitiooal option of permitting the incenthoe squMC footage to be tranSferred to aoother site. DISCUSSION CD Text Amepslm!;gt A zoning WXI amen4menI !hat would allow oppIl<:ants 10 toke advantage ofbolh seismic upgrade and hisIorio ~ incentives would currently be applicable to !he ~g J:iM'propeni<s whleh faI1 wi!hin boIh oClhose categories: 401 Florence, 456 University, ~O Univenity. 661 Bryant. 520 Ramona, 205 Hamilton, S29 Alma, 525 Alma and 232 Homer. Tab~ 1 (8IIaCbed to the CMk elated June JO, 1994) ,00"''' !he sile area, cummt use. seismic "Utego<)'. historic category, existing floor area and potential new floor ami under !he proposed zoning \ext amendment fIX each of the nine buildings. The proposed rev'.sion would also be applicable to any adcIiliooal strllCt1Jre5 iDcl:lde<l, OIl the historic inventory as eategory I 0< n <Ir.lC~""" in the filIIIR. Of !he nine structures, one (1M Ptesident Apartments at 480 Universil) Avenue) exceeds !he 3:1 FAR maximU!Il alk>wed in the downtowt:l and could nOl. be funher expanded. Thus. !here are I bw1diDgs which would qualify for !be double incentive. With Ih!' exception oC the prOperties at 456 Univmity .nd 661 B<yant, the existing bwld"mgs are b<~ilt out 10 the property lines. Thus. additioos would either have to occur within !he existing bw1d"mg envelope or by sdcIing additional stories I<> the buildings. It is !he coostruction of adcIitioDal stories which has the greatest potential fa< a<!v""",!y impacting the his'.oric ch8f8C!<:r oC the l,.,rilciings. There are 53 buildings down!ow" whlch qualL'Y for II! J:ast one c-f !he boms •• (_ Tab!. 2 attaCood). A lOla! of 132,724 squa. ... feet oC.se.·eiopm.n1l'0tentialexists III !he 53 blnldlngs under !he exis-Jng incentive program. Since the incentive program was adopIed in 1981, 4 ()f!he 53 proper'.ies have uIlTu.e.I !he incentives sepan!tely. A IOIaI of 12,3S6 square feet of floor area wzs consIrIJcted at !he 4 piopert;es wbich uIlllied the iDcentlves. In summary. a total c-f 4 buildings out of 53 qualified buildings have used !he existing incentive program. AItbough -4 out oC S3 builoiIlJ5 does DOl represent & large proportion (i.e~ approximately I per=>I) oCtile total qualified buildings do-.. mov.n, the mlOvations have been SllCCCSSful and have contributed to tlJe visual upgrading and safety oC the downtown. ,..,.,.Ul ! , , . ,. . "-.~ .. -~' . ,. . , , . . '. ~ Under a Trmsfer of Development Rights (fOR), • City can Il'eat development rights IS a commodity. which can be transrerrcd from ooc site 10 another. Because of this tnmsfer. the City prvenls IIcveIcpmm! OIl • site it wants 10 preserve and gains cIcveIopment on • site which the City Iw determined is aJ>PfO¢ate for that deveI<lpmenL Property owners and developers involved in the transaction are able to llS<; 1beir develcpment rights even lhougb in the process some land bas been preserved for IICIIUSC. Below is infammon regarding IDR programs in 0Ihcr c.ties, critical COIIditions for • successful IDR progntm and elements that might be included in • rrnscd 1DR program for the City of Palo Alto. TDR. Progra"" ill Otller CIties Attaebed arc ar'iic\es' from the Ameri<:an Planning Association (AP A) and • summary of informaOOo from • plJb!k:atioo by Rick Pnletz explaining case studies of 1DR programs in 0Iber cities and desaibing what is involved in ooigning an effe<:live IDR program. 'TDR.! have been 1lSCd by other jurisdictions 10 achieve many land ase benefits. includ'mg historic preservatioo. open space and fannland preservation and as a basic mechanism to control or rcd'uect growth. ID Caftfomia, the cities of San Fnmcis<:o. Los Angeles, Pasadena, San Diego and West H-<>llywood bave enacted IDR "nlin.1ll= for histone preservation (sec Attachment H for • summary ,,[ these proiiJl'lUIlS ). Critical eo.ditio ... F .... A Saccessr.1 TDR Prorram The publications by AP A and Rick Ftuetz suggest thaI the following are cri!icaI coodltions for • successful lDR program: I. Suf!icieul restrictions 011 sencrmg amos '10 give rise to lDR sales. 2. [lesjgnation . of receiving sites "'ith in1i:astructurc capability and sufficient development demand 10 make add'nional density inCreases .ttractive to developers. 3. A 1DR program design tb.ai does I1(J( require complex approvals. •• Cornmitmeot 10 an educatiooa! eflOrt to inform Iandowncrs, <fe\. .. 1opcrs, realtors and a_ys about the program. Palo Alto'. Existiq TDR Program In ()cfobQ 1986. !he City Coun..--iI amended the Comprehensive Plan 10 ad<! • program of density transfer. The program allows !he transfer of development rights for designated buildings of historic or uchiteetural significance (Historic Categories I IiDd 2) wilhin Ill. CD District through the Pianned Community (PC) process. The program stat .. that: . ... •• 011) ,. . -' .-, • A lImISfcr of development rights program would permit InnSfening !he differeoc:e bclweeu the amount of existing development and the maximum perinilled development from Categories I and 2 historic building silCS 10 DOD-hist<ri: receiver sites. Both sites would must be located within !he DowmOWll ro ZOIIing districL The 1'CCC.M:r sileO: I. Shall be at leas! 1 SO fee! from m;idcnliaUy zooed properties; 2. Shall be permiae<o' to =elYe I maximum additiooaI floor area ratio of 0.5 10 1 above ",hal would otherwise be permitted for the site; ). Shall DO! be wi1h SIl\ICIlIreS of historic or archltecIunI signifieancc; and 4. Sball be subje<:t. to spplkable downtOWll proje<:t. siLo Iimits.. AI!hough the existing IDR program is <:UlTClIlly applicabie 10 24 historic properties downtown, to date 110 proje<:lS we utilized !be program. fWy,-ever, the program was never accompanied by an education effort. The PC process is also !be City'" most complex entltlemenl~. A total of 73,608 square f«t of development· rights could poIentiaUy be rransferred from the 24 properties under the existing IDR program. ElomeDI> of A RevIsed TOR Program ror PlIo Alto There are several revisions which could be made 10 !he City's TOR program 10 make it more SlICCCSSfuL Below are m:ommendations for poIential revisions 10 !be City's . existing TOR program, based 011 the four conditions (above) fer • successful TOR program. I. SeDdiD, Silts The existing TOR program res1ricts sending parcels 10 Category I and 2 historic building sites. The requirement of !he proposed CD Text amendment thai building modificatioas comply with !he U.S. Secretary of!be Interior's Standards of Rebabilitatjoo and Guideli!!cs for ll;babiliyttip g Historic BUIldings would .provide additiooaI motlvatioo for arcompIisbing TORs by placing further =trictions 011 sending sites. Thus, no changes to the restrictions on s..-niling sites L-e warranted. 1. R..,.,ivinC Sit .. Under !he existing program, receiver sites must be at 1east ISO fee! from residerKlally zooec:I properties and canna( be occupied with structures of historic or arcbitcclural si~. They are permitted 10 receive I maximum additional floor area ratio of 0.5 10 I above what would 0Iherwise be permitted for !be site. It is =ommended that these rcstrictions remain. hI.tor 13 . "; - , , . i;"-· Last year', adop!ioo of the Downaown Urban Design Guide provides further guic!aIIce on appropriate receiving sites by identifying tbose where .ddi~a1 volume is desirable (i.e~ approximately 70 sites downtown). The lDR program could be revised to require !hat lDRs be coosistenl with the guidelines in the Downto .... Url>:m ~gn Guide. This misioo would encourage improved urban design down\OWll and reduu the chance of the receiver site being publi<:ly rejeacd but could also discoonge lDRs by restricting the number of erigible sites. 3. Approval Proms The· PIan!Ied Commuruty (PC) process required under the e><i5!ing lDR program is complex, which makes iI an impedimeol fur ac<:<>mpIishing lDRs. To simplify the review process, lDlt! could be processed as Majer ARB applications instead of PC appIi<:ations. Under. PC application, a projecl receives on initial review by the Planning CooImission, ARB rtView, • second Planning Commission reVl...-w and then final consideration by the City Council. Major ARB applications are reviewed only by the ARB (unless appea1e4 If lDRs could be processed as Major ARB applications, the review ~s cooId be shortened by ... ,eral monlhs (at \east. three montJ..s). The oeed for publi<: benefit findings would also be eliminated. Both of these changes would make iI more feasible for properly owners and developers to implernem lDRs. Public benefit fmd'ings sbould DO! be required for mRs because the seismic upgrade and/or historic prescrvatioI> components of the project are sufficient public benefit Any further public benefit requimnents could be an imped"nnen\ to accomplishing the !raIISfer. There is me ahemative wbich could be considered. 1be oecond 25 perceDI ~live cooId be n:quired to be used as a lDR to another site (i.e~ the first 25 ~t bonus could either be used at \be bistoric site or ~ld be used as a lDR). This aJtcmalive would reduce the possibility of ac!versely impacting hisIorie bulldings. It would DO( permit any more development at historic sites rompared to the City's existing rcgulatioos. In aMnion, iI would still allow for eccoomies of scale for TOR projects by allowing both in=>tives (up to 50 pcttent, 01' 5,000 square feel, whichever is greater) to be transferred to a rea:ivcr site. 4. CommihDe.t 10 .. Educationl Elfort The lDR c:oocept is complex, andlandownen, developers and reaIto<s need infunnAIion about the program 10 be stimulated to use· it. Thus, the City would Deed a commitment to an educational eftOrt. If. revised lDR program is .dopIed, local rca1tors, developers aM the owners of the 24 potential seeding properties should be contaclcd by the City and infonned of the program. In addilioo, • public handout should be prepared explaining the lDR program The ..... tlollJ ". '-• .' .: '.: ., . -. , , -,--,-~....-:..:..----------- C<JSt <>f developing and printil1g such • b.andout is approximately $),000 and is included in the cost estimate for cootract planner a<sistance (see Attachment G). ALlEtNAID'ES CO Text Amendment The City, Council can either take actioo on IhC pr~ teJ<1 amendment or continue the, public bearing. If the Council J!«:ides 10 take actioo 00 the proposed \ext amendment, the public: hearing sbould be closed &Iter public tcstimocy is completed. If the Ci..')' Council wisl'a 10 continue the publie bearing 011 the !ext ounendmenl until after completloo of !he Enviromncntal Impact ~ (EIR) and review process for the Varsity Theatre proj<'Cl, !he public hearing sbould be cooIinucd 10 May I. 1995 (potentially in r.onjunction with • ~ TDR ordInance). The City Council hearing 011 the Vars;1y Theatre projecI is tentatively scheduled lOr April 10, (995_ IDR Program The City Council could decide to ei~ retain the City's existing IDR program or provide directioo to staff rcgarlfmg revisions !hat should be made to the TDR program. If the Council decides 10 cfirecI staff 10 revise the IDR program. • d.'llft IDR ordinance and envlrorunental document will be prepared lOr consideration b)' the Historic Resources Board (HRB). Architectural Review Board (ARB), Planning Commission and City Council II is estimatcd that it would take approXImately five months 10 bring • draft revised IDR program belOre !he City Council (following the prcpantioo of a draft ordinance and environmental document and hearings before the HRB. ARB and Planning Commission). Thus. if the Council desires. both t.~ CD lext amendment and revised lDR program could be considered at the same meeti,g (e,g, May 1, 1995), following completion <>f the Varsity Theatre review process. FISCAL IMfACf CO rext Amendment The proposed CD !ext amendment would ~ 1:;;e • fiscal impact 00 the City_Projects requesting double incentives ",:idlJ be subject 10 City processing fees. TDR Program If!he Council decides 10 direc1 staff to prepare a ~ TDR prog<a:n, processing will of nccessily me.an the use of. cootract planner_ Thus. City funding ",ill be required for contract planner assis'.an<:e (the maximum Bti.",ated COS! is $12,0(0). ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CD rext Amendment The proposed leX! change will D<Jt have • significant impact 00 the environment. An environmental assessment recommending adoption oi. mitigatecl negative J!«:1aratioo is attached. ..... 110113 i , ' • ,." .~;t , " .. ' -.' -, '.' " i, i- , '.:. IDRPto., .... 'U Tb< environmental impacts of a rrnsed lDR program would be evaluated during de",elopment of. draft lDR ordinanc<:. SIEPS FQIfpWJNG APPROVAL CD 1m Ame!lclm<;!t Following • secood Rading and ad<lption of !he ordinance. projects, including the Varsky 'Ibcalre, coaId apply fur • double cScnsily bonus. TDR Pmmm Tb< City Council carmoc oct upon • :evlsed lDR program 1lZIIl1 • draft onfmance and cnviromnenta! cIocumem arc ",ep.".d and .-rn-ed by the HRB. ARB and Planning Commission. AITACHMENTS A. Revised Mitiga~ Neplive Declaratio!l B. Leaer from Dennis Backlund dated AUgust 3. 1994 C. Leaer from MarIe Vermilion dated Angust 8, 1994 D.. Leaer from Gerard Ma.'SUlio ~ AUgust II. 1994 E. Table 2· Properties in the Commercial 00,.n[0"'11 (CD) Zone Whkh'are Seismk Catego<)' I, n. or m and/or Historic Category 1 or 2 A F. June 30, 1994 CMR:313:94 Regarding Proposed Amendment to Dov.n[OWll Zoning Regulations (CD Zone) To AlJow Incenllvcs lOr Scismi<: Upgrade and Historic Pteservarion To Be Combined, with attaclunenrs: Draft Ordinance Environmental ASSCSsInenl Minutes from 514194 Historic: Resou=s Board meeting • -Minutes of SlI9194 An:bite<:tural Review Board ceeting Memorarnlum from T ransportatiOO Division ~ SI2Oi94 Planning Commission Staff Report da~ SI2OI94 Table I: Information RegardIng the 9 btilldings City Council Staff Report dated 2117194 (CMR:IS7:94) ExCCIpl minutes from 2/22194 City Council meeting ExCCIpI minutes from 3J6I86 Planning Commission meeting ExCCIpI minutes from SfI S!86 and 5119186 City Couccil meetings Articles from Transfarable Development Rights Programs by M A CorrcspoI!dem:e from the Pt:blic G. Cost EstimaJe lOr Contact Planner Assistance H. Informatio!l Regarding mR Programs in Other Cities Poe-U., 13 -\ -. re. Planning eomm;ssion Architectural lte\iew Board HiskJric Resources Board Dccnis Bactlund Matt Vmnilkm Ocmd Marsullo Charles Keerum RicbsrcI Roseathal Roo Rainey !J CD --- Attachment 9 City of Palo Alto City Manager's Report TO:. HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER AGENDA DATE, Febnary I!, 1995 DEPARTME1"1T: PiaDDiog and Comm •• ity F,Bvironmta' CMR:131l,gs SUBJECT: Amendment 10 til. Do1lVlltO,", Commercial (CD) ZcniDg Reg.lations, Section 18.49.06lI, te ADD,., Inoontives ror Seismi< Upgrade IDd Histork Preserv.tiOD to be Combioed (94-ZC-6, 94-EIA· 7) REQUEST ThJs report tra...smits for first reading an ordinance <lraft~ by the City Attorney", Office 10 .. fleet Coundl action OIl December 12, 1994. The ordinance amends the Downtown Commercial District (CD) Regulatioos to aIklw the 2.500 square blt or 25 percent tIoo< a....,. ralio (whicbever is gre.ler) incentives foc seismic upgrades and historic preservation 10 be combined. RfTOMMtNDATIOM Slaff recommends thot the City C<lunciI approve the attached mitigated negative «claration &nd adopt tile attached O!dir>.ance alklwfug seismic aod historic preser ... tion floor area incentives 10 be combined. POLicr IMPLICATIONS The attached oniinance is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies aod programs: •• UrbQJI Dqif?! HemenJ Policy}: Encourage private preservation of buildings wbkh have historic 0< archileclu!'.iI meri( or both. a. Program 6: Allow transfer ~ devekJpment rights for designated bui1<fmgs <>f bistoric or architectural significant (Hisloric Cal'gOOes I and 2) within !lie CD zone throilgh the PC Zone O.ange process. CMR:13I:9S ,..._ 1 0/' 4 b. ProgrtW lOb: Expansions of Downtown bUlldin!!S in historic categories 1 and 2 should RqUire tindin!!S during the desi6ll review process that the character of su<:h building exlerion would not be compromised by the expansions. c. PrOWm Il: Maintain and strengthen the City" design review procedure fur historic: buildings propo-.ed fur e>lerior remodeling or threatened by demolitio<i. 2. Urba1l Design Pelky ~: Eacoorage rehabilitation of aging retall "' ... 1<> keep !hem eCOOOmically healthy. 3. Program 16: Seek innovative ways 10 apply the spirit of curren! codes and ordinances. Assist and encourage developers in tinamg ways 10 rest<>re these bullamgs 10 usefulness. 4. brvironmenIal lIesoW"Cts Policy N: Y&llSW"es to Je.sen risk 10 human iik and property should lO<:us upon identified are .. of population concentration and keye<! 1(. areas of greatesl naMa! hazard and areas of inown 0< suspected structural bazard. The provisions of the attacbed oram"""", wbleh re""iTe Cily COlmcil findings that the use of the second bonus is no(. inconsistent with historic: preservation of the interioc 0< exlerior of the builamgs. represents the firs! instance of the City recognizing interior prestn'aOon of Doo-City-owned buildings as a publk policy. As •• ,ch, this is • cbange in City policy. Implernenfatjoo of Ihls poru:y may require the City securing outside expertise in evaluating, on • use-by-case basis, the quality and appropriateness of interior historic preservation proposals. The attached ordinance indicates lb>! llIe bonuses can be transferred off·site through 111e use of a Planned C<>mmunity zooe process, whicb is existing City policy. Cit)· COlIIl<~ has give. staff an assignment 10 develop • transfer of development rights (TOR) program fix the b<rJdings eligible 10 receive the double bonus. Future ackJption of a TOR program would be III expansion of current City policy. EXECUTIVE SUMMARy On December 12. 1994, 1h<o City Council approved a motion 10 request that staff prep<ore the attacbed ordinance and pursue • revised TOR progra,,-. The Council', discussion focused on the issues raised in the public ilearings by the Historic: Resources Board (HlUl). and in the negative declaration regarding the poIenti.1 impacts of .dditiooal floor area 10 the bisloric integrity of the Categocy I and 11 ooMings located in the Downtown. In response 10 the H..Q.B recommendatl<m that HRB s1loo1d become the Ct.f1l, 138"5 he·loU -:', " . -~-" - "" '.' • ... ' .. ----~) -:-'.- apprO.ru body for buildings whlch apply for Ibc combined bonus to as...... historic Clqicrtisc in Ibc fin.al dedsioo, t'>e Cow>ciI determined that the autl-.ooty for approving theSe projects sbouId rest with the City Council. The Council cOIlcludcd there were benefits in ano ... ing. the double bonus as incentives to preserve hlstoric bullcfmg.<, -particularly if the additional fJoor area (i.e~ the seeood bonus) were IranSferred off-site to • non-historic receiver site. In the case 0( applicants who apply 10 use the additional 25 percent fJoor area OIl-site, • disactlooary approval J"'lCC;S will be requirod. The process will require the Council to make two findings pOOr to approving the project: I) that the cx!erio< modifications proposed -.t the U.S_ Secretary 0( the Interioc's Standards. and 2) mal the cumulative fJoor area bonus ",,11 DO! be oIherwise incoosistent with hlstoric preservation of the interior or .xterior of the bwld"mg_ FISCAL WAC[ The proposed CO !ext amendment ... iIl DO! Ilave a fISCal j",pact on the City_ ENVIRONMENTAL ASSf.5SMENT The proposed !ext change ",,11 no! have a significant impact on the environment A revised environmental assessment rec.ommending adoption 0-[ a mitigated ne.gatIve declaration is attached. ATIACHMENIS Environmental Impact Assessmen~ with Rev'.sed Traffi<: Imp"" sectioo. and Table of Information for Each Builcflllg Draft OrdInance - PREPARED BY, Nancy Maddol< Lytle, Chief Planning Offid.ls DEP ... .RTMENT HEAD REVIEW: Y~;M.yr& S-);~ KENNETII R. SCHREIBER Direclor of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ., . co.: Pl8IlIIing Commissioo An:hitectural Review lk>ard Historic: ROSOU2":e$ Board Dennis Bactlund Mml< Vcrmilioo Gerard MarsuIlo Marcia Tanner Natalie Wells W-mter DeDe!Ibad! OJarles Keerum Richard Rosenthal Roo JWney CARRASCD&A.'&XJAJ1:"S Attachment 10 . ') . ' : :; VARSITY mE.4TER BUlWING. PAW ALTO 1119195 REHASlLIT A 1'lON AND RENOVATION FOR RET.4lL SPACE The historic Varsity Tht.a~ building will be 5elsmicaTI'j upgraded and renovated to aIle.' fur two-story retail use ~'ithin the eristing theater space and Cafe use in the rusting lobby. ThIs \1t;scri:ptioR is base4 \lpon utilizing a "double" FAR. bonus based upor.! both seismic upgrade and historic rehabilitation of the b~Jlding. Historic rehabilitation will consist of reoovatioa of tlle $orecourt area~ retaining the eltisting lobb'j ceiling, columr~ stair and stai ...... elI and repairing the decorative Plaster work as Deeded~ rera!nir.g the pavilion side ;Js!e arches and column cletall, pavili."., ceiling and de!al'. Beglnnin,g with in tbe forecourt area~ t'1e ~lsting appearance will be ma3.ntair...ed. wlth seismic bracing being. added 10 me sidewalls at alternating columo points. To maintain the symmetrical detalling of the 2Icade~ each pila!teT will be fu..-rred equally. 1:UCA that an pilasters matd. Roofmg tIle will be repaired and' replaced. Due to seimil:c foundat.ion work refJ.uired bet ...... een an coTu.mns and pilasters. the courtyard sTab will require exteRsive repair and reprac~ment .. 4Jea3. of new stab will be designed and installed by a ccncr-et.e arti2n~ maintaining the original pattem insofar u possible. Should it be determined 'by l1le Historic Resour<:es Board £hat Ute slab repajr W111 be more disturning tban complete replacement and recreation~ the concrete ~rthan would: create the entire fcrec\)urt in a pattern and tex.ture matching that of the e)(lsting, A fountaio "Wlll be added~ in the location where a fountain can be seen in historic 'photos.. Additio.'1al researc:a will be conducted' 10 attempt to determine more e~tI'i the style of the original fountain,. in order to provide !he most appropriate design. Ex.isting light fixtures will be retained and repaired. A DeW security fe..')Ce[grJJe '\W'ilh exit gates will be provXfed at the street facade, if requ'ired by tm:: tenanl The entire building will be repainted. A major historic feature of the thectter, !he. marquee, will be renovate<!. stabilized strucruraJ]y. and have neon repaired and replaced. The form and desig~ of l11e marquee must remain irHact 10 the satisfaction of tJ1e I£stori<: Resources Boord. "'r!be lobby entrance doors, !be facade .. ill be renovated and repaired 10 match exi<ting hlstocic «!alling. The big~ "lOWer" elemental tile thea:e, wall beyond will !Iso be ,epaired and reDovated will: plaster <letaiJs 10 mate" exlsIing. New entrance doo<> will be provided, ir; , design more campan"ble with the c!>-..sign of !be !heater facade. Moving inside the building, the existing Theater lob~y will be Ir.aintained and' refurbi.med as foilow.i: The ~<tinE ceiling, ornamental plaster de!ailing and decorative columns ",ill be ,,,!ained and repai.ed as needed. Two rectangular columns must be reconstructed 10 prO\ide adequate structural support ror-the "loge" stadium structure above~ whlc\ is. being kept under t.."Ie new 2nd floor, The deco!ative mirror and columns at the .:omen of Ole end of Ibe lobby .. 'ill be relocated w!l." the hac" of Ill. lobby is Dp<:l\£d lO the par1cing lot and I new entrance added. AQ 1ctlby details have been photograpbed to facilitate repair and re--creation of cletailin, . ·' .. -' ".' : --. p .... ? 1.19.95 The lOOb)' stair will be Tewned and ~ railing re-instaIied. As the ex.i~ting meu.anine is klc.aied at a mid levcl between the ftrst and new second floors, .It will be kept in place blit l'I()( repaired. The opening co the mezzanine at the top of d'le Stal r .ril1 be closed. This.."Jl not affect the a.ppearance of thz stai.r\.oIeU arched ceifmg, ... hie" will remaJ.n intact. The appearance 0( the mez.zanine windows from the ex,er.or 'IIr'ill not. cllange. All historic light fixrure:s. kn the lobby, including t.~ cha.ndeliers removed to 'Storage .. ill be repai:ed and reinstaIled; there is presently no plan kJ copy the 2 chandetiers 10 add a third one in the: iast bay of &IC lobby. WithL'l t1Ic eXisting "theater" portion 01 the building, L"e stage and JefeeB "ill be removed, me floor ,..ill be levelecl and • second floo< will be added. The nelll second floo< w!l1 extend above the "loge' stadium concre!e structure", thus anowing that platform 10 stay in p'!ace. This is essentiallo the preseiVa.tion of me lobby ceiling and columns, 0:; the lobby decontion is tied cfuectly to the concrete loge structu",. By tlIking this approacb 10 the <!eWling of the new sec<h"ld ik'OC platform, tlle lobby can be saved. floo< 10 flOor bei~bt w!ll be approximately lj'~". whicb allows fur higb collings en both tl1e f"" and =nd floo<s. The existing basement space under the stage will be abandoned, as the resulting head clearance v. ouid only be . j'.o"_ EJ::pansion on 2 f'Joors will occur at bo'. ... ~ side walls of the pavilion. The ex.isting arched colonnade sidewalls will be retained,. the neVi second structure being designed: to clear t11e lOps of the tallest arch~'S.. Ne~' stecl columns WITI be added lO the back side of L"1e large main columns L"l order 10 strengthen the pal.ilioQ to meet current stn.,lctlJralIearthquake iequireme:nts. Portions of the concrete \Ir'all above the arches.. between the moi'B columns. will. be removed to allow openings at o,e second floor. as wen as to reduce the ~ighl of the pavilion waIls. The lOp of these open~ngs will be below me p'!asrer decoration at the p2lillon ceiling, so t1Ja! detor.ltion can be retained. To meet \~stcric preservatioll criteria., the new second ik."')()[" SO'UCture will 'be designoo and cor. stnJ.cted SUCR that it could be re~ved l!t the future to return Clle spac-e to tJ"leaier use, The new s.e..cooa floor wUlll.ave • large central space opea 10 the first floo<. A generously-,.,kl. stair will connect both levels. and an additional ex';t stair wHl be provided. In tll. main sectioo of the =nd floo<, t1ie curved existing theater ceiling alld perimerer deW! w!ll be retained and repaired as ""Iuired to meet safety codes. This ceIling will remain a dramatic re..rure in the new retan space. and Will be visible from the first floor. The sense of volume will be :etair.ed withfu the pavilion. New portions of the building will b~ve gypsum board or accustkal tile ceiling s. The entiRe building will have an automatic fire sprinkler sySlem added and new HVAC.lighting and power systems 10 accom:mDdate retal' kmant DeedS. For Tenanl Improvements, stub-ins ~ill be provided' Ioc wa.rer~ power. sewer and gas to serve the Cafe area. Outside the building, space fur bicycle parking will be provided. Accessibility will be provi<led .. -ithin the project by .ddlng an elevato.-near the new r= enttance 10 the building. The devator is placed ~ch lh4t it is OUtslde the main pavilion VOlume, thus not interfering 'io'lth any future thealer yse. Public restrooms, funy ac<:essib1e 10 the disabled, are ad<le<l in me area o! Ill. piesent -Vaclcstage-. Ii the builarng is returned 10 theater use .. these .could he removed and replaced v,:ith Ilew facilities in an area consistent widl theater usage. ,; ! -, • ~~~" ~._--1I .:. .• ~~,: ., :.+.;.. .--' At J>re-"'nt. ~ bIar'): wall face, Lot H on the Ea." side of t/>e buMing. Tbe renovation adds a new and acitinC facade with large ,,"inOO\\'S to a!lm .. · passers...oy 10 v}c;w into the reta.Jl space. The entrance from Lot H becomes I strong feature. its f.tcade clad: ~ limesh.me and reflective of L')e sllape and dewl of (he "'kJwer ekmem OQ the Univer.s1ty Avenue side of the. c.xisti!'1g tr.eaLer. A canopy in the form of the origirtai (curv~d) Varsity "'''''quee defines &.e entry from Lot H. New Ia.odscape planters and tree.; along the Lot H face of !be b"~ding provide an urban streetscape feeling, ~ !hAn Ihat 0(. "ba<:k entry". TIl< substantial upgrade 10 !hi, rear elevalioo will bring hght and oclivi!)" Ia au.. part 0( lawn and encourage shopper> 10 "'a]k !hrocgb me new r"tail <lOre or 10 tlle courtyard of <lie Gardea O:Joc"1 Hotel next door. Summary 0( Shen 10 be provided: I. Scismic upgrade 0( eohtin! structo. .... 2. Harnf><:ap accessibility and compfiance ... ilil ADA. 3. Expanded first and secood floor area. ... Renab a.'ld preserve tbe marquee, fo.recourt .. entr.u-..ce facade, -'lOwer-area outside, an.:! tI-.te lobby. lobby stair. side aisle ~.rches and high ceiling of existing t.';eater space. S. F lal floor in "!heater" at rm;! floor. 6~ Second floor with opening doW1! to first floor. Luge stalrcase and pe..~mew decoralive railing at floor opening. 1. Finish 10 inside 0( exterior walls and fin:s.~ ceiling' 10 unde",de 0( =ond floor. AcoosllcalJaj"·in ceLling a1 nr-w building portions of second floor. outside tlJe pavilion volume. S. Restroom. at first floor. 9. Elevator. 10. New roof-moonted HVAC system,S units ",it.~ alOtll 0( 45 lon, capacky. II. Uperaded electrical service. 12. Gas seMce. 13. Roof-mounted ... ~au:;t ran (no grease .,haust). 14. Fire sprlnlders tllroughouL ,.. .:. . .. ;.-.. _.' S~y Of PR01&-'"T FE.-.TURES Page 4 1.19 .• 5 f. Renoo;atioo and prese.1"\Iatioo of ate etist!ng ex:terior and interior hi~'tOtic fea!'J-ieS of the V.iTs:~ Tbeater. Minimize amount of demolition of decor.1t:i .... e and histork d-etail. 2. Seismic upgrade of the forec.>urt 10 1973 USC and of tl'.c blrJdIng 10 1991 USC ,tan<trr<ls. 3. ProvU!e ciisabled =, in complianc< with Title 24 and tl-.e Americar.s ,,-jib Disabilities Act. 4. E>:pansioc oflbe existing bU11cfln& area 10 50lIi FA.11. bonus based upon ""ismil: and historic upgrad«. S. Additional area ""hieve<l by minor expansion of footprInt (appro~. 13' -()" each side wall) and addition of. rernovab~ second floor within l11e ex.istlng pavilioD 'Volume. 6. Design of the additions and seismic rei.nforci.ng sucl:. mat the b\Jl1:frng may be rel\.lrneC to theater:..se in the future: Rew. pavilioo volume (remo-able 20<1 f.'OO<); retain in-plac< (but a1>""OOo) mezzanine, loge platform. projeckX :room~ p!ac~me!l[ of .elevator outside pavilion volume; ret.E..:n sidewall arcbed' arcade, 1. R"""",ar of existing sloping {r.or i. compUan.."e ",Ith ADA) p2Vilioo !Ioor, desig. of DeW ekmn, sucl1 Ibal a sloped floor «mid be added bock in flJture (would have", meet ADA). • • VARSITY THEATER AREA SUMMARY I. EXISTING ENa mEl) AREA BASEMENT GROUND FLOOR MEZZANINE 2. COUlITYARD ENTRY COVERED FORECOURT OPEN FORECOURT 1,235 10,213 .l.lli 14,972 S.F. (pre.enl City Aosessmer.t) 493 887 ---200 2,340 S.f. }. AllOWABLE ADDITlONAL AREA SElSr.!lC + 25" HISTORIC + 25 ',\; He TOILETS, ELEVATORS 4. ACIlJAL [)E5IGNED AREA (E) GROUND FLOOR NEW GROUND FLOOR SECOND FLOOR S. PARKING COMPARISON 3,743 .J.lli 22,458 S.f. ~ 22,908 S.F. 10,213 ...l.221 12,205 .!.2.m 22,908 S.F. AS THEATER: 640 SEATS X 1f4 = 160 CARS AS RETAiL: 22,458' J 250 = 90 CARS • Max. anow.ble minus lOilets '" elevator, (450 s.f.) ---":I.., -.. .'. _:. • . ---:: -, '-".' ~~ . 1119195 "'-'- , I I' , , t---~ . L _J • \ • • ':, -' .- '-~;~ -';: '-'''"~-,~,;.-~::,,::,,:,:,,! ..;.. ":r"->~ .. )~",".,-.. " .. _- --~':", -- e<.\ST\N~ ~~T fi)C:1t( r<e. IN CU rotA ai\fll"iNce. . ", ! \ I I [ ," .,.. . - . , L • .. " -}:-".~: - .'l . ,( , ' . / ,. "0 0 of {j ~ • , ~ ~ < , ~ '~)'- -. \ \ \ -., .. .. " -:-, .... . ,.,0' " • • • I ~'&-rl N.~ CH~t::1a"L1 ER. IN 1.Oe>e'Y ('2--ntV..S) .,-0 , C~I BICYCLE STORAGE LOCKER • .---------,---------.----~--- ••• ________ J _ Two-On·One U-Lok II (T u.o-Bil« S<or.dJ lHDI< I, the _, <L "'" lo. h the .,... 1M ,..".11 r... ~ m. a1temao:....e Ill:) '~:n::H·wbuI bib rada:. In thiI .. 01 riRnI tbefC.. it if -10 KId more RCl,lR: than the 014 frcnt~ rac:i dUIf: there 5 !UD.J nc CltnpaNotl.. \.,;.-l.c;c I bokk two Mes • OIK2.. 0'2 f.adns in the appoflce ~o in COl: comp80 puki"na am. U-Lok I iii widcfy w.ed Ill: -.chooTs. IOV~ otria: ~~r:'lcenren, """loy., pH""" bG. apan.me:u: c-ompb~, lind Pr!v"tc-homc aanres. U-~ II 5; .vailable wtth ::we options. The --pq-~ oor:. indu~es ewe cT.mdtt .....,..&. b U-I..ol ....... ~ .,..".a.JIy~ loeb zn-.:k b this type: of UM. This option -. bc:a 1Ui= 10 p&ce.liU employ ~cen~.ndcG~ G . .'npuses. ~ qcWt5 park in the 5.i.tfIoe locltTon ~ay day_ The '1..~'" option tot U-L.ok I pro\o~ twO ned bl~ !Or the 'be-n& of tbc.'5e qduu who ~ ,~ ~ '"hont: shoe"" lach. (Tbac indudt: Crtadd" and lCrypIona, among ~) ." -: ' ,--j<;, ,--, . :\ f: , ~', .... -:-. Four· On. One U-Lok IV (fiM-Eik.e R".;q T nc \J.tI.;1c N' rKII pt'o vick:: the sarN high ~ec: of ~ 1$ W".odtts 1 U'\d I. ""hUe pc-::ricit.."\g the C'lnl-'tlum eQ::momio in COSt: iil"V:! ~ usaae- TJ-La\. N hoick b.z bievdes It ora. lr is com- pa;"bTe irl price l:D the old fi-onr--whee! rack OIl • cnst· ",,~hd b.m, l'" " lr;: I i:!; En ~d'iI!Cti.'¥C: iI5. thdt d~erent. T~ '"S~.s.ave'" op rion tD U~ ev. sno-wo. in t.~ iruer.-diagram ~ ~ c:he ~ un1i: ~n rn<ln c:xn~ in ~ 1pII-Z utilit.anon. k C050 no more than the bask tJ.-to1I:: I\I"~fet:US0!':5 25'1>1.",,,,,",,,, d: -,---.p= -==""h:. -=4:== ~ ;c ~ ,...--=-= -.. -=-.. -- , I I " \ • A ~c)lcle hitc'hing post provtding simple and secure par~ln9 for two bicyCles • Bicycle -frame and" one Of" bot'" wheETs secured with cycfist's U-!ock. ""'It~ padlOCk and chain oreah:e. Of .... ith pad1oc;1c alone (Model S) • Visuany unobb'usiva yet appealing with .Q( without bicycles; an accommodating piece ~ street fu.'rl"1ui'e seNing man)' unspectfiEod functions as wen • Ho sharp edges or corners; can be placed safely l1ear pedestrran no ... • Heavy guage all werded st~l conslrucUon It/ltl-j M nxwing parts te)ECe~ cl1ains on Model BJ; ... 1rtuafly yanoa:f.proof and mai~tenance-h·'Se • Accepts an sizes and types of U-IOC~s~ padlocks, chains, end cables • Accommodates aN Eiz.es and types of bicllcles, ir1c~uding those witt"J baskets or panni'=fS. • as wen as [fI09'3ds and molorcycles Moor-ted SingTy. in pairs. in ~o ... s, aoo W: man)' other confi9:.:rations RECEIVED • More bicyct~s per \lnit area than most other bic.,c~ rac!<s ------:.::----- '. there's on~ one. (P. ...... ~ Ki-t.c"~ D-eo .... 'PLf!.~) Sbo.'b."."t"N"ed ~o filte. ~ Atle. De..'P..~:.:s: f3,&-e"'!1110,,",cL. M.a...,,",~t.o-2.~ lCj'Cl5 .- 1'1 ~ ~r~· I T P"csc."t., ~ ea.:r ..., ....... ,.. OJ Lo'" ~y- ~ ·-. Attachment 11 { p..1r.¥="'1" 111.C,,,,"S A....".... D""r ,,~-""') New 8u.ilcfi .... ·S 'E,r:t.e. .... s"'oe""l. BthiEFITS 1-(.h. ...... , , .. e .. c.,,\,.e Ard St.i .... r,""" ..... ;~..., e. . .-t. r;:;:; of ~;~ T" •.. it:. t O'blo)f .. 2. PIl..l!!;c.1 ,"O"'ll\.c;~K "WI.~"" ~.,c""".'JIoC!!~.,." .......... ,,- ~~ll .. TJ'~~~~i""" Jo,<12.. , -~ ..... ../-:; . - ! / t,...1!6'f -ot-,-.... II .... V~lrf~~~ -sIGtI ,~ Attachment 12 : ~ . , • Fcb<'.wy 2"-1m Attachment 13 CAR.RA9:O&~ .&PC~ITEC7S"PLAfoIIII.EIS: Historic R.eoowteo Bo8nI ond Architectural Review B.>anI clo City of hIo Alto ~ FWnilIoII A venue hIo Alto, CA. 94301 Re: Voni!y Tbcaler. 456 University A ven ... : 94-"p,B-128 9UJ".ZI 'M-HRPrI Fo!lowing are our comments '"' !he Informational Memorandum dated March 2, 1m, with regards 10 1hi. projecL AT !HE OUISeI, "'" commend tbe Staff fc< producing what ",e think is .." extrcmelylhorougll dr.!ft EIR and Informational Memorandum. We hope th.al tbe City will hep ill min<! one 01' ll1e guidlng principleo 0( CEQ'" 'The "",Its h2.ve looted not for perfectloo but for: adequacy, compleler.ess, and • goo<! faith effort at full disclosure .• With Il'.al introductioc, plea..<e be informed lIlat the Applkant agrees willl all 35 0( tbe conditions set forth in Ill. lnformatioru;J MelTlO<aJ1dum, ,,-ith the ex«plioo of tbe following: Wbetber more sIlalIow tube 5eCtioos can be usod, depend. "IJOO tbe structural design of the prQjecl !hal is ultimately approv'" by the City. Acconflllgly, we request the the fo!Iowing be addod in Ii". 4 of patagT>pIl l.lL •••. fore.court.. :tnOfe shallow tube sections. 10 rbe cxtmt coosism wjJ!J !lu; <!ruc!ural c!esip of the project. shall be used so that. ..• Paragraph Ie· Coocetning lb. reductio" of tbe floor area because 0( !he mezzanine, we bave the following comments: I. Palo At",'. historic preservalioa and seismic retrofit laws are intended 10 encourage presav-.!ioD and seismic retrofitting by incn:asing !I1e a1lowable rentable square fee! of a project 50 th.al additiooal income will be generated 10 bell' pay for .ocTo preservatioa and retrofitting. In revising tbe desip 10 relilJn Ill. existing lobby and stair, the mezzanine is also retained; however, Ihe mezzanine is :JOt lIal!k retail ~ and car.oo( legally ~ more !han )0 people. In addition, tbe staiN-llY 10 the mezzanine docs not meet ADA and the USC. k !<ems inconsistent with Palo A.-to'. historic preservation and seismic retrofitting ordI~ to debit \be IlJTIOUnt 0( !I1e rertable spoce because of!l1e mezzanine, which cannot productively be used. AI the applicant cannot cbarge !I1e \eJWlt for unusable space, we would ./; .• -. -i: .-,/ , .' ~. -~ . '.- appm:iole flexibili~ from die Ci!} 10 NOT coonl die mezzanine as useable space. 2. Also, die desip of Ibe 'doughnut' hoi. in Ibe proposal second floor, !i<lW ,.cds with die grid lines whicll an: the .uuetural bearing and shear li.'lC5. To cbange die sIlape of Ibe doughnut (because of. decrease in die floor ..... Gue 10 coonling Ibe mep;!nine). wooId makI: Ibe !lr\ICIlJraI desiga less efficient. Coocernir" relocating Ibe _. Ibe restrooms are planned 10 be OIl Ibe new (mnovable) ....,."., floor. If die bullGmi is returned 10 a lbeater, Ibe second floor (mcJ'Jdinl \he restroorns) ,.,;n be removed. For funm vse, mud> laIger restroom> '!lloold be needed for I lbealel". and their 1ocatioo cannot be c!eIemIined allhls lime. AccordinilY, we L'ili1k !heR is 00 .-10 relocale Ibe retal.'-siu resItOOm5 !lOW, as !heir location docs not inl>iIli! re!Urning Ibe 5InlCI1lR 10 a theain' use. levlsing !he rear ele>ntion is conlnr) \0 the <fu>:<lion previously i\lvea us by boll> !he HRB and the ARB. The DElR is Ibe first criticism this fac<lde design Jw received. We are ...,kinl HRll and Ibe ARB support for Ibe proposed design, and their m;:ommendalion 10 Coun<:iJ tha, Ibe 'reddig~' requc"''''''"1 be deleled from the DEllI.. Pantgr;wb 3; Providing Ihe nece.\SI1)" shear stmlgIh, ",hile permitting future reintroducf-on of a wide screea proscenium, may be incompatible goals. We r<quest that Ihe fourth and fifth lines of this condition be mocflfied 10 delele Ibe words • for _ and approvlIl' and necessary flexibility 10 allow us 10 <f1SC"55 with !he Chief Suiliftng OffIcial, exa..."1ly bow these incompatible goals taD be accornplist.ed. PJlieraplL!; We ""'" 1M! this project is • :er.ovation of an existing buIkfillg and that the an:I>euloglcal searclI, La sud! • situation, is unpr«:<denled. Nevertheless, we "'" willir.g 10 undertake it. How ...... , La the eve"' that the possibili~ of subs>.af.Ice artifacts ex.."". we wooId appre::iale !he opportunity 10 <fISC .... with !he Staff, !he manner in ,.,hid, iI sbould be addressed. 11 is zr.tic:ipaled IIW !be JeCord seaIClI WO<Jld be cooducled before II'.e Planning Commission h<>Iring. Paragwb 7: We """. received inconsistenl <fIreCtion from the City in the past concerning tranSformers.. If a padmount transformer is required, in lieu of a vault~instal1ed unit, its IocaOOcl needs 10 be worked out ";L't It", Elec!ric Utilities Division and the B\:i1ding Department. II shculd not be broughl bock before the HRB and the ARB. We request that this coodilion be repIlra.sed 10 require that !he padmaunl transfonner be IocaIed and designed as required by die EIec!ric Utilities Divisk>n a.od the Chief Buil<fmg Official. • • ' . . -~--.... ~: .~, _ J" Ppamph s· oompb28: The 'saucer" style wall fixtu"'" ill !he lUditorium .. ere IIOI.ed by IIIIeNIoes II die ~ walt-lhroug. u beini "",,-historic, and an .y........ We USU.lne die c:oaditioo does DO( include 1he 'saucer' fix.'uTes. The wrooght iroo and amber Class fixtures ill !be forecoun and interior and !be c:MndeIieB i. rile lobby, will be reliubUbcd L'ld rdnstarted. Thank )'011 ~ the cwonunity Ie> comment on this matter. cc: Chop KeenaI\ RidI Rosenthal Roo Rainey • "k '" to-, _. ~-] , ",: ," -- Attachment 14 Wagstaff and Associates ---------------- _'0,199$ Mr. Robel! SchuDert 0epaJ1rnenI of PlaMlng """ Cofr.munily ErwirOomer( CiIl' 01 Palo AAo 250 Hamillon, StflI'1oor P.O. 80" 1025G Palo Mo, CA 94303 RE: CHANGE IN VARSITY THEATER DRAFT EIR FINDiNGS REGIJIOING RESTROOMS Dear8ob: As you know. I1>a VatSlly Theatre ProTect Draft Elf! diSCtJssion ol!he comparative inpac!S 0/1he "modirl5<f project aIIemalive' indica!es on pages 204 and 205 !hal 11. prt1pC)S8<f placement or fle lOilel rooms ., 1I1e are. crealed by remo .... 01 fie sIage WOIJId reduce fle feasibiiily of a lulure conversion of 1'1e 1healer bacI< 10 flealer use. resulting in a po'.sntially "s9niflCani adVerse rnpact" We are wriling !o illorm cIly SIal! \l'.al. on t1e basls 0/ new information since release 0/ !he Draft ElF!. we have Changecf our opinion regarding IhiS particula: finding: Based on Draft E IF! review oeriod discussions wilh !he citYs CIlTeI BuTldl"ll Official. !he E IF! _ preservafion archneas. 1Ita appflCafll's arch~ect. t1e Historic Resources 8oarU. and !he Archileclural Reviaw Soard. we have conckJded lhal1l1e "' .. aI Elf! should include a reoision 10 1his Draft Elf! Ilnding 10 incflCa!e lf1a1lhe piacmnel1l ollie toile: rooms in l1e area crealed br 1he stage would resuJt in a "min~ rather !han a "Si(jnifieanf' advetSe rnpacl oaoausa: (I) a MYra conversion of 1I1e s1nK:Iure bacl< 10 a !'leale< use would r9QUire appl'ocalion of &\tts!anlially differenllol1e1 room standards with raspael 10 size. location, and access, due 10 !he dille,ence in occupancy between a !healer use and e retall use; and (2) as a resull. fl. retail restrooms would have !O oa lundamenlany redesigned at _ time 10 compfy with current codes for a cine ma 0( flealer use I regardless 0( whether l1ey are b:ated in l1e current stage a;'ea or in fie Ihoaater lobby area-f.e., l1e toilet: '-~;-"'--';, '.< ""-. '- ". rooms lor". b001<sIOfe. even i ~ted .. 111. Jobb!t. 1II':lI r,oed 10 be substanfially expandoeot II1e standards lor a future re!um to lheale! use. W 1f1erelonll1e IuIufe cost Imp!icalioos belwe&n location in tlo SU!ge versus lobby ..... in I1e curT8IlI design wil no! be so great as .... ~ al tie time !he Drafl E IfI ..... prepared. The 1nl>&<:t ~nding. on DEIR pages 204 and 205 wiiI be revised .. "" Final EiR \0 lnCOIpOraIe I1rs add!Iio<lal Infonnalion and to indicate 1f1at l1is Ioilel room MpeCI woufd ~ an ._ mino< ~ ra!her "an a ·signifoca'" new ""poe!"; and 1f1e miIigalior. reoommencia!ions lor alis "min«' imj)acI (on page 205) will be revised 10 Irdcala tlallhe future redesigned balhrooms s'>ot.J'" be Iocaled in II". .. lobby andlor mezzanine areas in a manner wflicll minimizes fl.it Irrpacts on sosocialed his!otic resouroes. , ''''-,' ,".-