HomeMy WebLinkAbout0536.094TO:
City of Palo Alto
Ci!y !\:!a~n~ager's Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: ~D.iDg aDd
Commllult)' Eln';roamtat
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJF.CT:
REOUEST
DECEMBER 12, 1994 CIIR :536: 94
SopplemtliltlJ Informatitm rt-prding Proposed AmtDdmtllf to
DOWDtOl'lo"J] Zouing, Rf'gtJl:otion:s. ~CD z.on~) to Allo~' Jncenti,'f!'1,
for Sioi~mic Up~nld( lind Historic Prlfsernlnoo to be Combine-d
(94-ZC-6. 94-FiA-7} §lod fnforrn'll.lio!1 n:-gardic:g Tr.:n.'ifc-r of
DfHlopooent Righh {TDRs) ror UownrQ~ n Hil;ttH"i.-: Buildings;
This statfreport supplement" a Oeve-mber ). 1l}9~ c.1atfre}'l)I1 (C\fR'5::2:94) regarding
a proposed arn~"'11dment to d(!,"nto~n zc.ning R'gi.!!aii<"113 {CD Zone') to allo·.·; in.:entlH."S
for seismic upgrades and hi.s.tonc pT~~rvation to t--e c0rnbined.
RECOMMENDATION
Stall' reaftirms the recommendiWuns !n the December 5 staff report that the;: City
Council:
1 . Approve the attached rt\ised miti gated negative deciaralion and adopt th.!!
proposed ordinance allowing seismic and historic preservation floor area
incentives to be combined; and
2. Consider the fullowing a!ttTTl21i\'e5 rega.rding transfer of development rights
(IDR3) for historic buddings downtov.n
s. Retain the Cit)"'s exi,"ting TDR program; 0;
b. Dimt staff to prepare a re\"ise<J TDR program for considcration by the
Historic Resources Board (BRA}. Ar.:hitcctural Review Board (ARB) and
the Planning Commission and <'!gTce to till,' future appropriation uf S \ 2.000
for contract planner assistance in dcn-loping and implememing a revised
TIll'. program.
-----------------~~--~-
CMR:S36:"
•
1
--... -
•
. "'"V"#oJ"", ~$-j •• 11, "'w .. ·'
If Council wishes to consider this item a.fter complctiof, of the ievicw process for t.lJ:e
Vmity Theatre project, staff I"':comrnends that Council continue this public hearing tu
Mal I, 1995,
[-OLleY IMPLJCA TIONS
CD Text Amen~
The proposed CD text 3l1lendlnent consistency with Comprchens.ivc Plan p()licies is
discussed in the Planning Commission staff report dated Mal' 20, 1994 and attached 10
the December 5, 1994 Cit)' Council staff report.
IDR Program
The December 5. 1994 staff rC:JXlrt n:$ponds to tile Cit} Council a.';sign.'TH!nt (0
investigate current and poteB1ial trdIlsfer of development nghb (TDR) rw¥rarn~~
Implementation of a revised TOR program \'xnuld iT\\"ol\"e adCip!ing .1 ;;Crctra.:,~
amendment \0 the Zoning Ordinance. The po!ic~' impii>:J1ion<; of ,] r;.'\'i~ed fDR
piOgram "i\'olltd depend upon th~ p.lrtic-llar prLwi~iens. c,f Ih.: [t;\ is"d rwgram In
general, TORs fer his-tolic. buildings \,,'ill piumote t},elf hi'St(lr~I.'_ pr,,;:x'l":~\i('!n, ·.·.iLh the
addi1ional option ofpermlttillg Lbt' incerlt.i ... ·c square foola~(.· iD bi:.· !r.1rl~t(;frcd to Jlwlh.:r
site.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.
On December 5, 1994, the City Coun(;il clmed thl: public heating and contiflu"d this
item to December 12, \994.
Tbls it~m was continued bccam,e three of tile six Jetters cont31ning comments on the
revised mitigated negative declaration, attached to the Decemrn:r 5 staff report. \\ ere n~
included :l.i the Council pack.;t (see the attached leiters from Marda Tanner, Natalie P.
Wells and Winter Ddlenbach). In addition, since the hearing. revisions were made to
the environmental 3S'K:SSment, December 5 staff report, and Tabie j attached to that
report containing infonnation for each cf the nine buildings \\·hich are both Seismic
Categcry 1, n or [ll and Hlstoric-Category lor 2. Tois repon also provides inf ... ")rmation
requested by Council Member Huber a1 t."Je meeting.
Comments on _Rev.i.:i~t __ Mitigated Neeative Declaration
Issues raised in the letters from .rvtan::j~ Tanner and Natalie P. \VcHs arc addres.scd in
the December 5, 1994 staff rept..ln. The letter ITem Winter Dellt'nbach contains
comments regarding the structure of the environmental assessment, trank and parking,
cultural resources and mandatory findings of significanc~" ·nl.C letter also statC':s that the
environmental assessment is incomplete, flav,."ed and does not contJ.in a reliable
assessment of cumulative impacts,
C~lR:536:94 Pag!.' 2 O(!'
I
I • 1
I
I " i
I ,
.-.",
The conclusion of the environmental a<:.sessment is that effects of the text change are
"lticipated to be minor because I) while the p<ltential deficit increase of 105 parking
spaces may sound substantial, it would be gradual and distributed geographically; 2) the
downto"n parking deficit bas d""reased since 1986; 3) the City has recently taken
action to improve parking downto"n; and 4) the potential impacls (0 historic buildings
would be mitigated by requiring compliance with the U.S Secretary of the Interior's
Standards "[Rehabilitation and Guidelines forjl.ehabili!"ting Historic Buildings, Thus,
there would be no significant cumulative impacts. The conclusion also states that since
the size, location, oombination ofuses and design will "at)' from one project to Mother,
en>ironmentaJ reviews will be completed on a project-by-project basis.
Finany, Ms, Delienbach states that there are blanks on the environmental review
checklist. Staff could not fmd any blanks on the chec!:list
Re"islQt1S to T~1!~, 1. EnvirQmnen!.al A~se"~smcnt and CMR for Oc~~mb_~L~LJ9_9.4
Meeting
Following the December 5, 1994, Tabh: I. containing information for ~'\1ch of the nine
buildings 'shieh are Seismic Category I, II or III and Historic Cate-gory 1 or 2, """'as
re"ised to correct the information for the property ..1t 525 Horner (set th~: attached
revise.a table}. Since the building has been seismically reiwfmed, the potential new
square footage would. be limited to one FAR exception (Le., 2,:500 square feet, not 5,000
square feet as snoYor'jl on the original Table I), The towl potential square footage ()fthe
nine buildings was revised accordIngly (it was decreased from 32,168 in the original
table to 29,668 in the revised table),
·lbe reduced potential square footage at 525 Homer (Le., 2,500 square feet) required
revisions to the par.dng section contain~d Ln the environmental assessment (see the
attached revised environmental assessment explanatton of item n,b. Parking). The
potential parking deficit increase was revised to 105 spaces (the pre,iollS environmental
assessment incorrectly stated that the deficit was tOl spaces). This minimal change in
the additional parking derni!Jld means that there is no change in u,e potontial impact
analysis in the ErA. Of note is that the difference between Table 1's square footage
(29,668) and the ElA'. ~ text square footage (26,206) is that 232 Homer would
be eligible for the double bonus, but is ou1Side of the Downtown Parking Assessment
District and thus would hu\'e to provide the required parking,
Information Requested,
Council Member Huber asked how much additional square footage could be added Ie
the eight buildings on Table 1 under the existing ordinance, A total of 15,733 square
feet could be added under the existing program, compared to 29,668 ,meier the proposed
revised in\:entive program Thus, there would be a total pntemial 1ncrea~e of 13,955
square feet under the proposed revised in~enti\'e program.
CMR,5~:94 Page 3 of 5
;' ,.
I
,1
1
, --
FiMlI)', it 5hould be notea tJ-,at the last sentence in the fourth paragraph on page 7 of
the CMR for the December 5, 1994 meeting should be revised to read as fallows: "A
to«a! of 132,724 squ= reet of development potential exists .t the 53 buildings under
the proposed revised incentive program." A total of 118.769 "'luare reet of development
potentiaJ e.xist5 at the 53 buildi.. ... gs under the existing incenti .... e program.
FISCAL IMPMI
g;uSl'l-A~t
The proposed CD text amendment would not have a fiscal impact 00 the City. Speci fIe
pmjet.."tS requesting double-rncentives could genernte additional sales or other taxes,
depending U?O"1 u..~, and would be subject to City processing fees.
TPJLl'r=m
If !...1e Council decides to direct staff to prepare a revised 11JR program. preparing and
prcxC"S5in.g: the n\~w regulations \\jJl require the usc-of ;;;. '..:untract planner. Thus. as
elat,.ofJok(J '.11:1 in t.he D~l.:ember 5 ~,tafr repOrl, City funding of $12,000 will be required
fOT t.:Dl1trdr:l p!aJm~r as~istaJH;e,
F N\'IRO;'; ,\1 [NT A L ..... S5 E~.S~H;NI.
.CP ____ I_~_~1 _____ A}1:tt;:n9Jr._';;Jl.~
The propo~ed te;o.;{ change wili no~ have a significant impact on tht: environment. An
environmentaJ assessment, Iel:ommending adoption of a mitigated negative i.icclaration,
was attachf{) to the December 5 staff rep<1Tt St~ff recommends adoption of the
mitigated negatiye declaration \\'ith thoe abol((,.~-mentlcned modifications to the Parking
impact aria lysis and Table i.
IDR Program
lhe enviroomental impacl, of a revised 'fiR program would be evaluated during the
development of a draft 'fiR ordinance.
PREPARED BY: Robert Schubert, Contract Project Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAll REVIEW, KfM;fI?i.":cx-f,,"":C"'
n
. ___ _
KENNETII R. SCHREIBER
Director 0 f Pl ann ing an d
Community Environment
CiTY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~v\VlJ'.J.1Y\:~
BERNARD M. STRO~'
Assistant City Manager
CMR~536:94 Page 4 of 5
•
f ,
.-"
ATIACBMEl'fIS
A. Rc\'iscd Paning Impaci ""-'tion of the Mitigated Negative Decl!lTllticn a.'1ache<l
to the 1215194 S tl! ff P"T'<'rt
B. R"";-SCCi Table I . Information for E.a<:h of the 9 Buildings
C. U:tter from Marcia Ta.. ... .r.er dated August 12, 1994
D. idler from Natalie W<1/s dale<l AUgust 12, 1994
E. idter from Wint'" Dellenbach dated August 'I I. 1994
CC: Planning Commission
Arcl!iI<cnIraI Rmew Board
Historic Resoo.u= Boanl
Dennis Backlund
Mart V r:rr;;i Uoo
Ger..ro M.r;ulio
Marcia TZf1.ner
Natali.: Wel):;'
\\"tote> Detl;:r,b'3<.:h
Chari~ Ker:n~ri
Rii:ha.n) .R{'5e~ilh~l
R0:'1 R...1.iney
Pagt 5 or S
I·'.' ,
J
.j
t: , ' , ,
Attachment A -R.v~S8d parxi~q Impact section of the Xeq_tive
D.el*ratiaD tor 20ninq Ordinance Text Aa.ndaent ('.-EIA~7)
12.b. Parking
IllPacta: Parking is an issue because addit lor-al f loot" area
pursuant to seismic and historic P;;'R incentives is exempt [roll!
parking requirements {Le., thp additior'.al floor area does not
trigger a requirement to construct additional par).-.,i ng spaces).
Seven 'Of th~ eight buildings which would qualify for a double
incentive under the proposed text CQd~ amendment ~re located within
the downtown aS~essment district (232 Homer is not loc~ted within
the district and 'Would therefore be required to provide. additior.al
parking for an expansion) .
A parKing rate c.'f 4 spaces/1,ooO sq'ware feet of f loar dred is
~Fplied to the do"nto\oln tJ.rea regardless of use. Tt1e unifor~
parking requiremen~ tor uses dowr\to~n ~~s appro\·ed b)' the Cit)' in
1986 in ord~r to allow changes in the use of do~nto~n b~ildings
without the need to adjust th~ nu~ber of reqJired par~in9 sp3ces.
Below is the estimated par~ing deGdnd for pat~Dti21 additions to
the sevs:n buildings.
.;,jditionctl :·.orji t lDr,,-:ll
Use f::.l9QJ:::. __ ~rea 12..?>-.. r.h..i.r.-'3. r.:::f>"',and _
401 Florence Office 2,500 "g. ft. 10 .=;p]C"es
~56 University Theatre 7,486 sq, ft. 10 spaces
6.$1 Bryant Church 5 r 560 sg. ft. 22 spaces
520 Ramona Retail{OfficE" '2,5,JO sq. ft. 10 spaces
205 Hamilton Retail/Office 3,160 sq. f' 13 SPdC$S
~'29 Alma Retail 2,5(10 sq. ft. jO spaces
52~ Alma Retail/OfficE" £...2..0...Q sq. ft. lQ spact?s
'Total 26,206 sq. it. 105 sp~ce5
Whi le the potential deC iei t increase of lOS spaces !::ZI)' SoounrJ
substantial, it is worth noting several points. First, the actual
il"_crease in parking de1rJ21 nd, if and .... 'hen it occurred, ·,.:ould be
expected to be gradual and to be distributed geographically.
Second, the 1966 Downtown Plan instituted il reonitoring program for
parking exemptions. A perfo:nnance llleasure .... as establ ished at. a
cUI1I.ulative impact of ~25 parking space exceptions (one-half of that
deemed necessary for construction of a new public parking garage) I
at which point the exception reglllatiQns ',.rould ce r'2-evaluated r
andlor construction of a parXing g~rage would be consldered. A
total of 59 parking spaces have been p.xp~pted to date.
Third, an intent of the 1986 Downtown Plan is to insure that the
parking deficit does not increasp beyond the beyond 1,590 spaces
calCUlated in 19~6. The parking deficit has actually decrea~ed to
1,490 spaces since the Oowntown Plan was dpproved. In addition,
during this period, the actual squace-!ootagc added to the downto....-n
has been considerably less thdn ... 'hat .... '.3S anticip~ted --46,000
square feet constructed versus 350,000 square feet r"aximun allo'Wed;
•
"-----_.111.
..~ . ,', :.'
$
including 14,000 square feet of exempt construction, ...... ersus 75,000
square feet allowable.
Finally, the city has recently taken .e.ction to improve parking
downtown. In January 1994, the City Council approved a program of
12" parking streategi.es t'or aownto .... 'n, crafted jcintly by the Palo
Alto Chamber of CO'!llll1E!:rce and city staff. On Ma}' 2, 1994, the City
Council approved a downtown parking plan. Th-e. priro.ery purpose of
these acticns is to increase the nu~ber of parking spaces and make
all public par .... ing easier to use.
In conclusion, the impact of the additional potential parldng
exemptions fro!!'. the proposed text amendment wO'Jld not be
e.iqniticant. A tII,e'nitoring program is already in place to insure
that the number of parking space exemptions does: not exceed 225
~paces without a review of the exemption regulations and/or 3n
incr"!-ase in the p'..:blic parKing supply.
Kitigation Heasyres: Non~ requlr~d,
\
;';.L,~;;;..~n'J\I:~::::: DW .. iMJiJ4lRi ,I~'>
I
I r
i ,
Rnited T"hl~ 1: I.forma,foa For Each of thr 9 au~ld'q",
aH('ACIJ\L.li·ZONED ~R(l('(Rl![S ~rCri NI! 00!l-I 5[I$/I\I': G4T(GOHY J 11. ():I ill AHJ ,'1::;~ORlc ,:.l,rp:G,)t>l I (lI ?
k~\'~~or~ ?rOj:lf'l"ty :>1tp Ell' ~,t1'lq :,~l,;,TIlC Hl',tor1( ;:"1 '.t1n9
Pa"'c~1 , Addrt'~~. 7r;rlng 'T<' U~C !:.Jh")I.'ry (,Jt,,,qr·r_'J ::;'lrt ([)
lZQ·15-0Ct, 40: Flort"lce Ql., 3.400 Ofh\~f' S.127
12C-lS·ll69 AS6 UI'I1vf'r'.lty CLI-e 20.411(. '1',l''Ir''e-" J4_~72
1([]-15"O/'1 .:80 Unnersity CD·(: 9.47.5 "(,Y,,,, 11/i1.I:';:'.d('n~ ~a 1 II " 55.3fi2
12'H6·034 66J Br;tal1t 'D·e 15.625 Cho.Jl"c h II 11.121
lZO"Z6·06~ SZc R~lIIma \ll,' 3. C~O ~rt,,1~fOti1<'.:~ 6_205
120.26-074 7.0~ H"",iltor, CD·, 10. ODD ft\'t,111 :D(tlCp II 2b &'10
.... ,0-26-092 S2'i A\T.OI CO·e 6.250 \'(t't,l':~ san
120-26-093 S25 A111'!3 w·e 6. ;'50 1( ... ::",l/()fi)cI' 1.(i'Jl
120-28-0:1 2~"t Horo~t' CD·' l: .,160 P.~v.11 :,.~~
TorAl.~
*PCit~tlal u~der prCl!='o~"'" Zo.~l~g tf>xt dr.l!!fl~t 1<It\1cn wCiuld lliOrol FAA t'){C'.'Pt,O'l~ for ~(>l:rnl~ "'t'~db,,1tdtlCiIl or i'lls';or-1c
rrt~:;('r ;latHll' to t ... ~dC1 t i lit' (~" COC sqft 1 ncru~t' or 511 of ... .I;E.t 1"9 bul ~ d, n9 . ..nlC"lt"H·r 1 '. q",_',)t~r)
A-p;",opt'rty r,~~ iI ~ re-~.;1y Jt·, 11 led tfll" r~ f'xc'1lt 10f'1 ~nd/or .. ~~ b~N' ~t" ~.Im C,J 11)" !"fila1 r'!d
e-property ,~ ]t or (-)((i'M1n;J IM'>:I~ i11'o.."dhl@ FAA, :;0 I!:XC:"?tl'.1"l ~t'C'V1::1Corl~ iI~{' not. W;;t' d:~b;,'
c-[\" sql.i~re f'oI)t.-l'1e l~ ilmit(;'<j by a II'\;IxlnJll Ell{ of 3.0 ,,"0 1 ,11 thf,' CD-'::
D-!"1t'W :;qu<lre f00tagfo 1$ h7<Ht'G by <1 ma:--.1m1AP1 FAA of 2 0 ':0 : 1r": th.] CD-S
j ____ "C \COMlN\(>j"O"r; ""
<-
"PotM Neo.< Tot') $QFt
SqFt (!') (f) .. ~P) Footnote!.
Z5110 7 627 A , .... 22,458
SS.J6l
5.560 11:'-',81
2500 8.705 A
J,16O JC.!)OO C
2. so.) 8.:123 A
2.500 11l.192 A
3,,,", ".920 0
29,66f!
ReV1SM 12i6/~
.,
~.-,/
•
--,
_.,.,<-
i>iARCI!\ T:\NNER
12 AUgust 1994
Robec-t .;;chubert
DeplLrt .. n.t of Planblnq
PAlo AltO Clty MAlL rUth floor
'45('1 &..milton AV~:n"ll!'
P.lc AltO, CA 9-4.)0.1
ra%:" "15-31'9-2'240
:U:. \XI!I!IJ!! ct! "!TIe&u' NIWITIYE DJ:Cl.Al1.'.Tlc!! ZaHIIG ORDINAl/a: TEXT
1J'::E:'rL...~ (rile I 94-EIA-7. 9.::-ZC···76j FlPiY.HJY Period 7/22.··9i12!94
ibF. }ett~r upr~./5!'!f-S r!!'; s~.rv,.g OpHliCl!'j tJ:.llt t~e "double
'(Qr:t" 'J.l';~· pIor,,:,.!:~d .ID tb ... ~Hig~tlorl 1'[.c."IS\l.i:'~ ot the N'e-qatlye
C'-e=.l4:-~~~.\"'~ 10r th~ Z';'::1.c9 OrdH:.lP'l.':::'-'! 7'!'xt !r:'>~4~1'lt l.hould P-2.l CE"
~p?:-ov/"d 0",. n.~ CHy C-::ur;.cil I,.!ILh.:::" toe &xtrz. 2r/.~ squ~.re footagp. 1S
rh":pn.!~:i to ~ o::izlte. l.!l 1'1: nc,[~-h)".,I;¢rlc b-Jtl';l.n~, th.rc:'lgh the
TCA..U-Ihr of Deyelo~nt Ihght!!l (TDR) p.n~g.rAa,j
l'ty j-..:.~~.u't i B Need 00, the lr"adequ~O't af yeur l'LHiqation
i"!:eal'J.:e, "~'\l::,h fl.ppll •• only to "ltxt:n~cr-oollcilng -!l!OO~fl.(lAtionl!" on
the Ya.r,ity 7b.-..atce, -.hcZJ1! orner hAs appHed fer th. d.cubl.e
lOC~rHl"/e, a.M, wO'Jld affeCt; elght otheI' .b.16r.onc .b.lllci.in9'~ In Falo
Alt.:> As ~st of 1.:.8 ltlvoh'e-d I1rt now lII1'are, current etat¢
enVlr¢tl.lH'ctAl tall' uM.er CEQ ...... ext.nde to l.fI.teo,o.c a1te.r.1tl.ona on 3-
b~3toric~11y ,iqnifi~nt buil~D9 yheL tboae ~ould ~dv.r8ely impact
the -overall ~6tor~~ ch&~.ct~r of the Oulldio9,· and ~hu. degrade
the evviIo~ot.
n .. pro-postJd sdditJ.oru: to the 1Dur i~r aqua.r$ footAge of the
V4rl~~Y Y~ld ~ev.relf compr~St both tbe architectural integrlty
and hl.stozlc characttr ~t the building, pot lQ mention its $t&tu~ as
~ cultural ~k and tre • .ur. Yhee~ r.vitalizAtlon '3 a tbeatr,
i~ iapo.rtLnt to the people of thie c~ty, I hope the EIn now
under way Y111 corroborate the •• cLAt... Tbe trR thauld al.o point
cut cb. Albendlleile I!!I woefully Ul.Ild~ate &tte.ot.ion to tbeo impact on
trattic ~nd pl~k~ng of ~~ K~~na~'. proposed P.QJRct,
P~l~ AltP's re#pcn.ibiI4t~.8 as a Certifi~ Lceal Goyernment
ill th .. HatlO!a&l Hi,tor.ic Pr.,erYauon Pn)gra.m ,require-that you
~$UrVey loc.1 hlstor~c propert~e6, entorc8 Stat~ or IOCbl
pre-s.rvaciac. .u:.v~, land perfoB) otheL fUllC'tioM delegAted or
r~'fJ.ireod. by the State, !!uch .a~ th~ ... na.ct!l)ll!nt (If D.1EtOrlC
pLUHv.Hion ordinances or .?'.? .. '1.iD9" rt!str.J'c(J"(U)s (.IC)' HaLl.eel -It is
thl!'retore Tell .J.l:Un the scope .of you.r .rU?)nsl,blhtles Il..Q .. t to
a.aetl.d 7.on.i.D9 layS tCJ prov~cl.e-positi'Ve incentives to developers .hose
llo'tlon .of "h.lGto,rle preserv4tion· resembles cuUtary doublethHlk
(-W~ had to boab tbe • ... illage to saVe l.t .... )
;::. r, ·iI,·'U.·."l.· ,,('.-1.['" ..... ~!::,:'-.) ;.'.n: ·C:.\· ~<:',
n-\...~·.o...:=-·r .... '\ ~:" l~r.·-
\
I uxge yoo to de:mcut.r.at. your CQIB:1t_nt t [) tb.et PIAlUliDq
Offioe's tole AS cQn:~ientious 8t~&rd of Pdl~ Alto', built
envirocaut. ~i.n. I 1'l.8.l1: ,.00 to amte the-City Cou.ncll ~ to
apptov. the -double ie~.ntjve· unle~8 the ~xtra 2~' ~e Iootag~
l! rtql.li:".o to bto ue:e(f offute. In a nOll-hi_toe io build.i.nq, th.rouqh
tbt 'l'DP. proqru ThAnk yCl\l tor your CQU6.id.eoI"at.i;;n
Si:ceerely,
cc-b'c·p r~yor Liz r:~l ~~ ~l:d ~_...1-er.,<: .;If p~ io A~to (1',:::' (\,:.w:::-i 1
Ad"l Calon'l~
Robert Sc,'Iubert
Department of Planning
City of Palo Al to
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
AU1.l151994
Natalie P. '\-Vells
3259 Alma Str.-.t
ralo Alto, CA 94306
August ]2, 1994
RE: Mitigated Negative Dedarc.tlon lor the Zontng Text Al.lll~ndment
File No. 94·EIA-7, 94·2C·'76
Dear Mr. Schubert:
1 wish to -:-omment on the inadequades of the t-Aitigated Neg~ti\'.e
Declaratiorl for the following T€'(1s.ons:
1). My first ·:once-IT: ~s TQr;arding the s.ropc of th~s wnf: oyd~n<!n~f',
change amendment. \Vhile th,=, d.ocument states that nine buildings are
induded in this proposal, in ((jet, only om' property O ..... "ner has .'lpplied for
the Zoning change. n,ere is atso confusing infom'latlon pres.entPri on page
one of the 'lnltial Shldy" in ill.
Of the nine stn:ctures, four have been upgraded using nne of the
bonuses;. .. With th~ exception of the properties at 456 University and
66111ryant, the existing buildings are built-out to the propt'rty lines.
How many buildings could actually be impact?d by this zoning
char.ge? Please explain.
2.) There are questions related to this Zoning change wruch conc.;rn
TOR's. rue historic buildings the best type of structure-to utiHze a fiR? Are
the increases in square footage compatible with the Secretary of Interior
Standards regarding massing? f.n the section, AlterationslAoJition for th.e
New Use, the following language defines changes NOT re>..:s>mmJ!nded in the
Secretary of the Interior Standards:
Introducing new construction onto the building sHt' which is visually
L'lcompatible in terms of size, scale, design, materials, wlor and texture
or which destroys hisforic relationships on the site.
•
.
. ';~-~:"~.~~ .. , ----.. ---~--
-2-
The above would seeD:'! to apply both to th,e current structure .at 456
University Avenue as w~ll as any other historic buUding on the list where the
TDR could be used. After a careful rereading of the th.ree paragraphs under
18.. b & i:. Cc1tura! Reso11J'Ce$, I still do not undeiStand what your conclusions
are because some sentences are contradictory, For example, at the end of
paragraph nYO, it states:
It is the construction of additional stories which could }u.ve potential to
advoersely impact the historical character .of buildings on the invenfory.
However, it appears that the pro~)0rt)' owner of 456 UnivHSi!y A\'enl.le .... ants
to apply an ac1o.itlonaJ 2.5% to th? same bmlding. using the TOR. Thjs is a
majm r.:ontn~ction to me, Can you dari(v this?
On th-e Folto"wing page you. continu€, your di3C1.!~S10n of the TOR prugranl by
saying tt
would assist in prese:rvaHon of historic buildings by alloYring the
additional floor are;). perndtled under the-double incentive' to be
uansfened to a building(s) which do not hav~ historic significance.
My roncJusion on this Mitigated Negative Declaration is th.lt thEre aTe
no dearly define-d mHigation..<; for potential impacts on either th{' exterior or
interior of the buildings on the tist, Lr'J. particular r 456 Un; versity Avenue,
Cifu,g th, Secrebry of Interior's Standard as a ','y to protect the buiidings is
srmply too vague. The pri.'1cipai problem foeer.ts to 'be in the app1icatio!l of
the double bonus to 456 Unh.'ersity Avenue property and other historic
properties that are ~ither already built out or would lose their historic
integrity if (second floor) additions were made.
I protoest the Mitigated Negative Declaration because it is inadequatE',
incomplete and does not clearly follow the Historic Pr€'SeTVation guidelines
that dties agree to adhere to when they become Certified Local Govemmf.'nt'5,
Sincer€'ly~
~tPU'd&z-
\ i
• . t
,'.:
\
,~ '~,-:'
, ,
Bob lIChuboort
Pl&nJ\!"'l ~t
City of ~.10 Alto
250 a..tIton Av •.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Auqu.,t 11, 199.-
ae: co.a.nt. on Znviro~t.l A ....... nt,
File Ho.: 94-EIA-7, ,e-1C-76
'trYstur. pt th' lny!rQnaental !····· .. ntj
The ~vir~ntal Aa ... ~t (tA) au.t !ncl~6~ tact-baaed
.tJ\alya1. ot rel.vllnt IB15UIUi which could bet adver8flltly Il~tgct.d. by
thi. aIMndlI:oant.
In tJ:.I... EA, :;>7 cateqorias were ch.c~e!i iI'Ino" ioIIithcllt .. xpJanz-.tion.
!la' u9is tor l! neaativ~ dete:ndn.tio!'1 \>:_.:-« not .tllted, thfl
801,,1rc_ lUatar1011111 for such A d..term.1netic,'I'. ""sr. riot c.ttArt. and. 'the
.. aasons ",dlich 'ltculd Sl.tpr;ort t.tl.lIS 57 cor ... ~lu=-i.Qns "",re :hot givan.
'Tner-e are J :Ola.nxa: on the. che;::.kliat./ 2 ot which ooncern fi,dv~rij.
L.paots en parkinq and traffic An~ are & .i~nitjo~nt ov.r&i~ht in
this ~ •••• 8 •• nt.
Unsupported co~olu&ion. a~~ inooaplet. in!oraation canno~ be
.~tltuted for toct-b4.od Ar.aly~i •. Thl. !A in it. vary
structura l. flawed and doe. net provide s reliable ~ ••• 8&~ent of
potential &dv.rs@ «ffact& which ~eulQ r •• ult fro~ the proposed
tilHtt aa-ndzI!e:J"I.t.
Cgnclu&lcm·
Thi_ Env1ronD$ntal Aas ..... nt sbould be r.writt~n to include tha
abcv. And recirculat6d tor public comment.
tr.rrip And PArking;
A &horttall or over a bundred parking apac •• will result trom the
proPoa~ QOUbl. il'l~ntiv.. Thi. pctantial shortfall of apace!! is
contr~ry to tha .t~teQ purpcGe of the cIty:
Th. pri~ry pu%pQ.. of th •• e aotion. i. to Increa8e the
nu.ber or parkinq apac •• and a5xa all public perxinq ••• ier
to u ... { .. e EA 12 b~ paraqraph 8)
Finally. 2 par~1n9 and traffic iQsueS are left blank as not.d
above (see Str~cturl!l ~f the SA).
__ . ...,ti~
..--~
Conc:lu.iQOj
To cit. on tb& on. h~nd the •• ~~ur.s tbe City is ta~inq t~
L.prov. th. ~tr.inad pa~~ln9 .itu«tiQn vhil. on the ot.~.r hand
1.J.1)d~ninq those .easl.lr •• by addin9 to thl problell is
.iqnir1cant. A r!n4inq o! ~o 81gnificant i~pact 1. not
approprlata qiv.n that no ind.icatLon i. <;liven or w.hat the City
will do to l,ptoy. th. traffic and yarxinq probl~ do~nto~,
~'l '.surR' J
Soae ot the hi.tor1~ b-.. lildinqa ..-hie:"l wl')uld be liubject to thi.
axen~nt will b4 deva8t.t.d by 4 3C' incr~ •• in _qUAre tootage.
':i'h.re · ... ould allo ~ .iql'li.f.s.cant a.dv.fI:re:e i.pAct en t.~l. unique
cultural '/1.1uea .in our-coltt",\Jnity i ... regard to SlO::* o! t.he;:e
huilclinql ~uch a~ th~ Varsity The~ter.
It !... not l'Ii -:tatter o( "'~.!:yb~.!r; a~ ind~r:'!'I!t@:d in th€ E.A. It ill. ~
:ll&tt,.:r or Gi!tplll! ('o~on $sn.~ ('"You don1t ne.d ." 'irI'e~th.er men to
)(110"," 'tft",ich "w1J'1 th-e ... ind I::lcb".",\"
The !.A tind. n~ c\ilI;\llativ. i-mpaot. No jJllttticat.ion, reason or
diac\.l3;l.icn i. pre5.nt:.d rt>tq«rdii".go th. cuaulative i=tpact of !.!!i 50'
incrD~ •• in tlocr .pac •.
Th.rc are pot.ntially e hiatoric buildinq., plus po •• ibly other.
in ~~a futura. whicn viII be subject to the proviaions of a 50t
1ncr .... in aqu&r6 foota98. Th.reto~ •• not only tho sinqul&r
.tte:t on individy.l buildinqa Ahould be con.idareQr but aleo the
c~ulat1v •• tract on all the hi.toric .tructuras.
Giv.n th.t a 50' incr ... 6 in floor space (1ns.rtaa floor. ~ithin
the footprint or added ."'-ori •• ) could advor •• ly impact to t.he
point of ruin th« h1.to~ic and cult~ral eh.r.ct~ristica of m4ny
or these structures j the iIpact O~ the entire downto~n area witl
be cUJlHJlAt.ively Bi.,nit'ioant,
As to 8iqnit1eant advor •• Lapact to hUaan beings, oncu .qain a
concl~si~l is drl~ v1th~ut citing the specific tact8 trom which
it walt c!.ariv.d.
"
~ I
!
tnCQD.1stancy w1th Gen.tal Plan
The dOcuPnt .tat •• that con.eitltel1cy with the Coapre.her,live Pl&n
will be required. However, the docuatnt li.itl applicatio~ or th •
• iti9~t1on -'&.urea to the exteriorl/ not interior., of hiator!~
buU(\1ng", thu. trustrati1l<j the appllcation 0: til .. <ery
.itiqatian m8a8ure6 cited (Bee Sec. of Interiors' Guidelinea) ,
rt i. incredible to b.lieve hl~toric. ~rchit.ctur~l and cult~r~l
value .. will not be adverlel)" i1lpl.ct .. d by only conaiderinq the
ah.ll and not th. heart of th. Itructut"e •. Rather .a if a doctor
only coneidared tn. ~k1n of ~ cardiac patl~t vhil. i9n~rin9 th.
patient'. insideA to the patient£a detri.ent.
If the .rtaricr. wer. only oonlid_red, the propose'! dJ:l:end::l.nt::
would authorize a1c;ni.ticdnt ~xpanElions ot" historic bu~ldings. ttlAt
dr. incofl.Elatent with tl" •• Gf!.:"Iera! Plan (lie. progri!.lIt lOb),
'1'0 IInact thii'S .\tIIetnW:--~nt 15 to de8~roy hi&'tctic bui)din9~ jn crdg!""
to a.va the;:,;. ThiF is as bi::i'H're ~ l1otion in this l:onte;.:t . .!'!.s it
W~i wh$n tirat articulated durinq th~ y~~tna~ Wdr. hlt8rn~~lve5
..... t be found · .. hich both orll!Jlerv!' "nd .airl'ttdn r:l~toric
l'1R.,eOurOel. This Jtlt'!<!IIsur-e a04.,. not suppor-t tn ••• qO&l::>, 3nd .,hculd
not be e.nacted.
Winter O.llanbach
~57 XJ.nqalay
PalO Alto CA
•
-------
!
!