HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-05-04 City Council (10)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL"
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
DATE:MAY 4, 1998 CMR:209:98
SUBJECT:800 HIGH STREET: DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
PRELIMINARY REVIEW APPLICATION (PRESCREENING)
FOR A PROPOSED ZONE CHANGE FROM THE DOWNTOWN
COMMERCIAL (SERVICE) PEDESTRIAN OVERLAY (CD-S)
(P) DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE,
TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 17,632-
SQUARE-FOOT MANUFACTURING BUILDING AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 48-FOOT HIGH, THREE-STORY
MIXED ~USE BUILDING, INCLUDING 16 LFV’E/WORK
STUDIOS, 62,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, 1,450
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, A SUBTERRANEAN
PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS
File Nos. 98-DPR-1; 97-ARB-122; 97-ZC-9
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council provide comments and policy direction to the
applicant regarding the suitability o.fthe project and the proposed public benefit package.
The project has had preliminary review by both the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and
the Planning Commission and does not require additional public study sessions from these
bodies. Summary comments from these sessions are provided in this report and minutes
from each meeting are attached. Since the applicant already has applied for a PC Zone
Change, Council need only provide comments sufficient to allow the applicant to decide
whether to continue with the formal application process.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Roxy Rapp, requests rezoning of the project site from the Downtown
Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S (P) District to the Planned Community (PC)
CMR:209:98 Page 1 of 5
Zone. The applicant is proposing to construct an 84,000-square-foot, three-story mixed use
building, including 16 live/work studios, 62,000 square feet of office space, 1,450 square feet
of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. The total
building area, including underground parking, is proposed to be 176,000 square feet. The
project would yield an overall residential density of 16.67 units per acre and 84,000 total
square feet of habitable space, yielding a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0. A total of 284
parking spaces would be located on site: 254 spaces in the underground garage and 30
spacesabove grade.
Since the Planning Commission meeting on August 13, 1997, the applicant has revised the
project in an attempt to address City and neighbor concerns. Although the mix of uses and
square footage of the project have not changed significantly, the following revisions have
been proposed (see letter from Roxy Rapp to Anne Moore dated April 7, 1998, including
revised Project Description and Program Development Statement - Attachment 5)!
The previously proposed three-story portion of the building along Channing Avenue
within 150 feet of the residential units at 753 Alma Street has been replaced with one-
and two-story elements that are set back 20 and 30 feet respectively from Channing
Avenue.
A third story has been added along High Street to reduce the perceived length of the
building.
The second floor along the alley has been extended to the third floor line to eliminate
the building overhang that was proposed in the previous design.
Additional street trees have been placed on High Street and reconfigured within the
curb to allow street cleaning.
The building height has been reduced from 50 feet to 48 feet, exclusive of mechanical
equipment.
A small landscaped area has been added to the comer of Channing Avenue and High
Street.
The parking garage will provide 68 spaces for public use as a result of a proposed
reduction in parking standards from the City’s existing 4 spaces per 1,000 square feet
to 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet.
The project will contribute $350,000 as a public benefit towards the funding of the
following four items:
CMR:209:98 Page 2 of 5
A public park as recommended by the PAMF/SOFA Study;
The proposed pedestrian tunnel linking PAW to Alma Street;
A Downtown Traffic Manager to coordinate, public/private traffic and parking
-solutions; and
d. A public art piece in the proposed plaza area.
The applicant is studying the feasibility of relocating the existing 60 KV electrical
lines in the alley behind the project to the west side of Alma Street. As an alternative,
the applicant will study replacing the existing power poles with a single, taller
standard in the alley. The Utilities Department is reviewing both options and believes
that either alternative is potentially feasible.
Please refer to the attached Planning Commission staff report (Attachment 1), applicant’s
written description (Attachment 5 and Attachment 6).and plansfor further details regarding
the project. Photographs and plans will be presented at the meeting.
BOARD/COMMISSION. PdgVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Planning Commission Comments
On August 13, 1997, the Planning COmmission reviewed the proposed project.
Commissioners thought that the 16 housing units would stimulate pedestrian activity on the
street and would be a benefit as housing is not required in the CS zoning district. However,
some Commissioners inquired about the possibility of including more housing in the project.
Commissioners generally supported the design of the project and thought that the height and
scale was in keeplng with newer buildings in the area, including the mixed use building
located at 901 Alma Street, the single-room occupancy facility at 753 Alma Street and the
storage building at the comer of High and Forest Streets. Some Commissioners felt that the
project should be reduced slightly in scale and mass. Commissioners noted that providing
two levels of underground parking is expensive and requires significant development to
support. Commissioners recommended that the applicant’s lower parking ratio of 3 spaces
per 1,000 square feet could be made a condition of building occupancy in individual tenant
leases. Commissioners wanted the proposed public parking spaces, Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) program and valet parking program offered by the applicant to be self-
regulating and on-going. Access to these public spaces should be made appealing for both
pedestrians and automobiles by using lighting, signage, and other amenities used in public
garages elsewhere in Downtown Palo Alto. Commissioners indicated that conversion of
traffic flow on High Street from one-way to two-way would probably work, given the
reduction in daytime traffic as the former PAMF properties are converted to residential uses.
CMR:209:98 Page 3 of 5
At the meeting, staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend denial and
forward the application to the City Council. The recommendation for denial was based on
three major issues: 1) the size of the project is too large to be compatible with the
surrounding neighborhood, 2) the proposed mix of uses, which includes a large amount of
office space and relatively little housing, is not justified .given the surrounding land uses and
densities; and 3) the proposed public benefits do not appear sufficient to justify the large
scale of the project. Planning Commissioners did not agree with the staff recommendation
for denial and recommended that the project continue through the regular review process.
Commissioners recommended that the public benefit package include more detail and greater
guarantees, that additional housing be considered, and that a reduction in the building mass
be investigated.
Architectural Review Board Comments
On July 17, 1997, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a preliminary review
of the project. The ARB members supported the project. Board members supported the mix
of housing, office and retail uses and.thought the project was in an appropriate location for
these uses. Members noted that the size of the project enabled the placement of parking
underground, whereas smaller developments on the existing three lots could not support the
spatial requirements of underground parking. Members supported the building articulation
and pedestrian interest provided by the architectural design, use of quality building materials,
and varied setbacks. Board members thought these features effectively reduced the apparent
mass of the building. ARB members thought the 50-foot height was reasonable for the area,
especially considering that the 35-foot height limit was only recently established by the
approval of the mixed use building at 901 Alma Street. Board members did not think that
the project consumed too great a share of the Downtown FAR cap in one location because
not many locations in the Downtown area could physically accommodate a use of this size.
Although traffic and noise were a concern, Board members expressed a need for more
housing in locations such as this in the Downtown area. The ARB expressed concerns about
staffs interpretation of"massive single use" as contained in Urban Design Policy 1, Program
1 of the Comprehensive Plan. The ARB thought that a mixed use project such as this did not
qualify as a "massive single use." Staffbelieves that the policy refers to large single projects,
regardless of the mix of uses contained within them. Therefore, staff continues to maintain
that the project at 800 High is inconsistent with this policy because of the large size, scale,
and mass of the structure compared with surrounding buildings. The ARB generally
supported the public benefit package. Board members did not agree with the staff
recommendation for denial and recommended that, when the PC application was made, it
continue through the regular review process and not be recommended for denial.
PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan
The project is located within the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Plan Study area. On April 6 and
April 13, 1998, the City Council discussed the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Plan. The drafting
of the Plan is very preliminary and recommendations are not expected for several months.
CMR:209:98 Page 4 of 5
At the time Plan results and findings are available, staff will include them in the review of
the proposed project at 800 High Street.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Planning Commission StaffReport dated ~ugust 13, 1997 (with attachments)
Attachment 2: Planning Commission minutes (excerpt) of the meeting of August 13, 1997
Attachment 3: ARB Staff Report dated July 17, 1997 (with attachments)
Attachment 4: ARB minutes (excerpt) of the meeting of July 17, 1997
Attachment 5: Letter from Roxy Rapp to Anne Moore dated April 7, 1998, including revised
Project Description and Program Development Statement’
Attachment 6: Letter from Bob Peterson to Anne Moore dated April 3, 1998 with attached
letter from Roxy Rapp to Ken Schreiber dated October 16, 1997
Plans (City Council Members only)
CO:Architectural Review Board
Planning Commission
Roxy Rapp, PO Box 1672, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Shreck Brown & Associates, 550 Montgomery Street #900, San Francisco, CA 94111
Peterson Architects, 57 E1 Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Patrick Burt, University South Neighborhood Group, 1249 Harriet Street, Palo Alto,
CA 94301
Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real #410, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest, Palo Alto, CA 94301
David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 300 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
James and Barbara Newton, 216 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
ANNE MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: ~~. /~A_~~
EMIL SON
Assistant City Manager
CMR:209:98 Page 5 of 5
TO:
Attachment 1
PLANNING COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Chandler Lee, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE: August 13, 1997
SUBJECT:800 High Street: Review of Zone Change from the Downtown Commercial
(Service) Pedestrian Overlay. (CD-S) (P) District to the Planned
Community (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square
foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 50 foot high, three
story mixed use building including 16 live/work studios, 62,000 square feet
of office space, 1,450 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking
garage and related site improvements. File Nos. 97-ARB-122; 97-ZC-9
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review and comment on the project,
recommend denial and forward the application to the City Council. The recommendation for
denial is based on three major issues: 1) the size of the project is too large to be compatible
with the surrounding neighborhood, 2) the proposed mix of uses, which includes a large
amount of office space and relatively little housing, is not justified given the surrounding
land uses and densities; and 3) the proposed public benefits do not appear sufficient to justify
the large scale of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant, Roxy Rapp, requests rezoning of the project site from the Downtown
Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S (P) District to the Planned Community (PC)
Zone. The applicant is proposing to construct an 84,000 square foot, three story mixed use
building including 16 live/work studios, 62,000 square feet of office space, 1,450 square feet
of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. The total
building area, including underground parking, is proposed to be 176,000 square feet. The
project would yield an overall residential density of 16.67 units per acre and 84,000 total
S: [Plan[ Pladiv I PCSR [ highS00.pcl
8-13-97
Page 1
square feet 0fhabitable space yielding a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0.
The site consists of three parcels which would be merged to total 42,000 square feet or .96
acres on the block bounded by High Street, Homer Avenue, Channing Avenue and the alley
between High Street and Alma Street (see Attachment # 1: Location Map). The proposed
building footprint is 15,400 square feet at grade resulting in a coverage of 37 percent. The
proposed building is setback 6 feet from the alley and has no setbacks on High Street, Homer
Avenue or Channing Avenue.
Parking is on two subterranean levels, providing 254 parking spaces, plus 30 spaces at
ground level behind the studios. The parking levels would extend about 20 feet below grade.
Vehicular access to the site would be provided from a single, two-way driveway on
Channing Avenue that connects to the parking garage. Pedestrian access to the offices and
retail space would be provided from a courtyard at the comer of Homer Avenue and High
Street. Separate entries to each of the studios would be provided along High Street as well
as separate entries adjacent to the surface parking along the rear alley. Transit access would
be provided from existing bus stops on Hamilton.Avenue and the nearby Caltrain station.
Bicycle access would be provided by an existing bike path located along Bryant Street.
The building architecture would be contemporary and features an industrial design.theme.
Building materials and features include: Colored stucco and stone facades, cratted steel gates
and rails and a stone base on the first level; matching stucco and gray metal siding with
colored metal grills and colored aluminum window frames on the second and third floor; and
a standing seam metal roof. The architecturalthemes are designed to provide a contemporary
interpretation of the industrial look of nearby buildings.
Please refer to the applicant’s written description (Attachment #3) and plans for further
details regarding the project. Photographs and plans will be presented at the meeting.
Project History_ .
The site is currently occupied by the Peninsula Creamery manufacturing and distribution
facility, an aging, cast in place concrete building. The existing facility currently is used for
refrigeration, storage and distribution. The ice cream manufacturing functions previously
located on-site were relocated to another county about four years ago. Therefore, the building
and site are currently underutilized. The site is located in an area of existing commercial
buildings and the recently approved mixed use building located at 901 Alma Street and the
single-room occupancy facility at 753 Alma Street.
8-13-97
S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I highS00.pcl Page 2
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The following discussion summarizes issues staff has identified regarding Comprehensive
Plan objectives, policies, and programs that are relevant to this project:
Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s
neighborhoods especially desirable." This project is located in a distinctive neighborhood
that features a mix of single and multiple family residences and commercial activity and is
in close proximity to the University Avenue Business District. The proposed project would
provide additional housing and office opportunities within walking distance to commercial
services in the area but would be out of scale with existing buildings and uses in the
neighborhood. Most of the surrounding retail/commercial uses are located on small to mid-
size parcels. This would be the only development in the area that would be located on an
entire block. Traditionally, one of the characteristics that has contributed to the desirability
of Palo Alto neighborhoods is a smaller scale and pedestrian orientation.
Housing Element Policy #7: "Endourage and foster the development of new and existing
housing units affordable to the low, moderate, and middle-income households, especially
those with children. "Although unit costs are not yet proposed, the project will be required
to contribute to the supply of affordable housing. However, the Project proposes fewer units
(16) than are allowed under existing CD-S zoning (38) and therefore would be providing
fewer Below Market Rate units than could be obtained under current zoning.
Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements
through the review of new development." The site is designated Service Commercial and is
surrounded by small scale office/commercial and residential uses. The large scale of the
,project is inconsistent with the scale of the existing neighborhood and does not provide a
harmonious transition to the residential uses located just east of the site including the
Professorville historic residential neighborhood.
Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, "Discourage massive single uses through
limitations on l~eight and density to protect surrounding uses and community values." Staff
believes that this policy refers to large single projects, regardless of the mix of uses contained
within them. The proposed project would create one single building at this location.
Although it would incorporate a number of different uses, it would result in a massive single
structure along one entire block which is contrary to the policy of discouraging massive
single uses. Therefore, staffmaintains that the project is inconsistent with this policy because
of its large size and scale compared with surrounding buildings.
8-13-97
S: I Plan l Pladiv IPCSR I highS00.pcl Page 3
Urban Design Element, Policy 6B: "Limit nonresidentialdevelopment in the Downtown Area
to ten percent (350, 000 square feet of floor area) above the amount of development existing
or approved in May 1986." The proposed addition of 46,368 square feet of new non-
residential square footage of building would fall within the Downtown floor area limit, but.
would constitute a large percentage (13 percent) of the total allocation of 350,000 square feet.
The proposed addition would constitute an even larger percentage (16 percent) of the
remaining square footage (295,000 square feet as of August 31, 1996). This percentage is
important not simply because of its numericalvalue but because it concentrates development
impacts in one location which is contrary to the purpose of the Downtown cap. The cap was
intended to spread impacts of development throughout a large area and avoid burdening one
area with disproportionate impacts.
Land Use Element, City Council Resolution 7151: "The standards for building intensity for
non-residentialdesignated lands are derived from the floor area ratios allowed in underlying
zoning districts and represent an expectation of the intensity of future development. Actual
floor area ratios on individual sites vary." The subject property is located within the
Commercial Downtown District which limits floor area ratios (FARs) to a maximum of 1.0,
with allowances for existing and bonus square footage, not to exceed 3.0. The specific
zoning is CD-S (P) (Commercial Downtown) (Service) (Pedestrian CombiningDistrict)/GF1
(Non-Conforming Use Granted an Exemption) which limits FAR to 1:0 for a mixed use
project. Ifrezoned to the PC (Planned Community) District, the FAR limit does not apply,
but the Comprehensive Plan standard does. The propertY will generate an FAR of 2.0 with
the proposed building. The ComprehensivePlan allows that project sites will vary above and
below this standard. But, considered together with.other policies, it is clear that the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan was to discourage a large, massive single structure and encourage
projects that use underlying or surrounding zoning as a general, guide to the intensity of any
particular project. The proposed project dges not use the surrounding zoning and
development pattern as a guide to its commercial intensity or residential density.
Downtown Urban Design Guidelines
The Downtown Urban Design Guidelines are considered an incentive and guide for
redevelopment~rather than policy. It includes the following goals: 1) maintaining the eclectic
character and scale of the area, 2) improving landscaping and green spaces, 3) encouraging
private investment, and 4) creating usable open spaces and a gathering spot for the district.
The project is inconsistent with the goal of maintaining the scale of the area. The project
would be 50 feet high with an FAR of 2.0 and would result in a massive structure along one
entire block contrary to Goal 1 of maintaining the scale of the area. The project would
provide some additional landscaping and a public plaza although not an actual green space
8-13-97
S: [ Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I highS00.pcl Page 4
as called for in Goal 2. The project would provide private investment in the area as called for
in Goal 3. The project would provide a public plaza which could serve as a gathering place
as called for in Goal 4.
Proposed South of Forest Area (SOFA)/Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Coordinated
Area Plan
Staff is concerned that the project would be proceeding prior to the South of Forest Area
(SOFA)/Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) process that
is scheduled to begin shortly. The SOFA/PAMF CAP is expected to result in use and design
guidelines, along with approaches to addressing traffic and parking in the entire SOFA area.
Proceeding with the proposed project at this time would preclude any further discussion
about how the project fits in with the surrounding area and what uses and/or scale of project
might best fit.
DISCUSSION
Site Description
The site is a rectangular shape and consists of three parcels of land totaling .96 acres (42,000
square feet) with a 400 foot frontage along High Street and a 105 foot depth along Homer
and Channing. The site is presently occupied by a single story manufacturing building of
17,632 square feet and related site improvements. The existing building was built in the
1930s and is currently obsolete. The existing site slopes from the center of the site to the
front, side and rear frontages. The site is surrounded by commercial uses (across High
Street), the Peninsula Creamery Retail building (across Channing Avenue), an automotive
repair facility (across Homer Street), and the Palo Alto Hardware store and City electrical
substation across the rear alley. The site is within the Downtown area and walking distance
of University Avenue and other Downtown services.
An Environmental Assessment was not completed for the project since the recommendation
is for denial. Should the Planning Commission refer the project to the ARB or the City
Council decide not to deny the project and instead refer it back to the ARB and Planning
Commi.ssion, an EnvironmentalAssessment will be completed prior to ARB review. Issues
which would be analyzed in the assessment would include potential traffic, noise and visual
impacts of the project.
Project Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive Plan
8-13-97
S: I Plan I Piadiv I PCSR I highS00.pc 1 Page 5
designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size in shown below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
¯Applicant:
Owner:
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
High street Creamery Associates, LLC
Roxy Rapp & High Street Creamery Associates
120-28-002, 043, and 044
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District: .
Surrounding Land Use:
Parcel Size:
Service Commercial
CD-S (P) (Commercial Downtown) (Service)
(Pedestrian Combining District)/GF1 (Non-
Conforming Use Granted an Exemption)
East: General Commercial
West: Substation & Palo Alto Hardware
South: Peninsula Creamery Retail building and
single family residential past Addison Street
North: Automotive rePair facility
42,000 s.f. or .96 acres
Issues and Analysis
The staff analysis for this project relates to site planning, landscaping, traffic, noise, utilities,
architectural design, zoning compliance, and City departmental comments.
Site Planning: The site should be designed to provide a high quality living and working
environment for residents and er~ployees and to be compatible with existing uses in the
vicinity.
The site plan calls for the live/work studios and a small retail space to be located on the
ground floor with offices on the second and third floors. Parking is located mostly below
grade with a row of spaces along the rear alley. The studios will have main entryways
fronting onto High Street and rear entries connecting to the parking spaces along the alley.
The patios facing High Street serve as private open space for the residential units while the
8-13-97
S: I Pian l Pladiv I PCSR I highS00.pcl Page 6
entry courtyard located on the comer of High and Homer serves as common open space for
the entire building. The studio units provide staggered building setbacks from 11 to 16 feet
fromthe propertyline along High Street and a six foot setback in the rear along the alley.
There are no setbacks on either the Homer Avenue or Channing Avenue frontages. All three
perimeter areas would be landscaped to provide visual interest along the street frontages.
Overall project density is about 16 units per acre for residential and 2.0 floor area ratio
(FAR) for the entire building. Although the uses proposed in the project (residential, office
and retail) are consistent with existing uses in the area, the scale of the project is much larger
than existing uses. The floor area (2.0), mass (one entire block) and height (50 feet) of the
project would be greater than existing buildings in the area.
Because the site consists of three separate parcels, a certificate of compliance would be
required to remove interior lot lines and combine the parcels into one.
Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes a mix of perimeter landscape screening and a
landscaped exterior courtyard at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue. The High
Street frontage features new street trees (species would be determlned later) and a variety of
plants and groundcover between the patios and the sidewalk. The High Street frontage
features six street trees on the west side and five on the east side. There are currently three
street trees (Sophia Japonica) in this block which are approved for removal by the Planning
and Public works arborists. Two street trees are provided on both the Homer Avenue and
Channing Avenue frontages. There are currently two street trees (Fraxinus "Raywood")in
this block which also are approved for removal by the City arborists. All street trees are
proposed to be located in confined planter wells within the street right-of-way and protected
by bulbouts in the sidewalk paving (Homer and Channing) or special bollards (High Street).
The project proposes a public plaza at the comer of High and Homer. The plaza features
decorative paving, public art, hanging plants, seating and landscaping. The plaza is intended
for use both by building users and the public. A preliminary Landscape Concept Statement
is included in the attached Program Development Statement (Attachment 3).
The bulbouts would reduce on-street parking by approximately six spaces. This is discussed
in further detail in the "parking" subsection. Staff is concerned that the proposed street
bulbouts would interfere with street cleaning and would need to be redesigned to provide a
minimum 6 foot curb radius. Also, the proposed paving material must meet the City’s paving
standards and must be structurally separated from underground structures. If the proposed
project is ultimately approved in some form, the Planning and Public Works arborists
recommends that the selected species of street tree for the right-of-way shall be London
Plane, (Platanus a. ’Yarwood’) of 36-inch box size: The arbodsts are also requesting more
8-13-97
S: I Pianl Pladiv I PCSR I highS00.pc 1 Page 7
details of the proposed tree locations, planting wells, aeration system, staking, root barrier,
soil dedicated to the trees, irrigation system, and tree grates for all trees.
Traffic: A traffic study by Abrahms Associates (June. 11, 1997) analyzed the impact of the
project on adjacent street traffic, parking and intersection Levels of. Service. The study
determined that the project would generate 1,178 trips per day with 154 trips during the PM
peak hour and 149 trips during the AM peak hour. The project would generate sufficient
traffic to exceed the thresholds of significance established by the Santa Clara County
Congestion Management Program. Because the project generates more than 100 peak hour
trips, the traffic analysis has been forwarded to the Santa Clara County Congestion
Management Agency for review. The study also found that the project would not
significantly affect existing or future Levels of Service at nearby intersections. These
intersections include Alma Street/HomerAvenue, MiddlefieldRoad/UniversityAvenue, and
Middlefield Road/Embarcadero Road. These intersections currently operate at LOS D or
better.
Staff has some concerns about the amount of traffic generated by this large a project.
Although level of service standards can be met, a large number of new traffic trips will be
generated on nearby streets. The projected 1,178 trips per day will significantly add to
existing traffic volumes and decrease the available capacity on adjacent streets. This will
leave little .room for additional projects in the area to develop within acceptable Level of
Service standards.
Noise_." The patios facing High-Street are considered outdoor living space and are subject to
the City’s outdoor noise standard of 65 dBA (L10). A noise study conducted by Charles
Salter and Associates (June 4, 1997) indicates that future noise levels will not exceed 64 dBA
(L10) along High Street or 65 dBA at the rear of the site near the electrical substation.
Therefore, the outdoor living areas meet the City’s noise standards.
The report recommends acoustically rated windows to reduce indoor noise to acceptable
levels of 45 dB~A. In order to meet this standard, windows should have an STC rating of 28
along High Street, 31 at the end units on High Street, 34 along the rear alley, and 34 along
Channing and Homer Avenues.
Another noise issue involves the removal of the existing creamery operation. The demolition
of the creamery building will reduce ambient noise levels in the neighborhood due to the
cessation of creamery distribution activities. The existing facility generates noise from cold
8-13-97
S: I Plan [ Pladiv [ PCSR I highS00.pcl Page 8
storage compressors and air handlers. Although the removal of these facilities would
normally have a positive noise effect on surrounding uses, it would make more noticeable
the existing noise emanating from the electrical substation transformers located behind the
existing creamery. The creamery effectively creates a "white noise" that masks the noise
generated by the substation. The applicant is exploring a new technology (negative noise
waves) that may cancel the noise from the electrical transformers. Otherwise, the applicant
is proposing a soundwall between the transformers and the project which will reduce noise
~ impacts on building occupants. If the project is not denied and moves forward for further
review, the applicant will be required to assess the noise impacts on the neighborhood and
the new PAMF facility as a result of removing the existing creamery building and equipment.
Utilities: The applicant has been discussing With the City’s Utilities Department relocation
of the existing 60 foot high powerline that runs along the alley to the rear of the site.
Although the relocation would benefit the visual appearance of the alley and the view from
nearby streets, the visual impact would shift to another location, along a City easement
between Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks. If the project is not denied and moves forward
for further review, the applicant will be required to demonstrate that there are no significant
adverse impacts of the proposed relocation.
Utilities and Planning staff have not been able to confirm the feasibility of the proposed
relocation. Planning staff has concerns that the relocation of the powerline will shift an
existing visual impact from a relatively low profile location (the rear alley) to a relatively
high profile location. (the existing City easement located between Alma Street and the
Caltrain tracks). Although the proposed relocation would certainly benefit the area
surrounding the site, a greater number of people may be exposed to the visual intrusion of
the powerline in its proposed location along a busy arterial and the well travelled Caltrain
tracks. Also, moving the high tension lines to the southwest side of Alma Street may create
a conflict with medical testing equipment at the new Medical Foundation campus. These
issues would need to be explored in detail if the project is not denied and instead moves
forward for further review.
Architectural Design: The building provides a dramatic architectural statement featuring a
contemporary interpretationofindustrial design. The building transitions from the residential
components of the live/work space to the offices above. All three street frontages provide
pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, patio alcoves and entryways on the ground floor
and varied materials, window openings and building articulation on the upper floors. The
second floor extends over the first floor studios and overhangs the outdoor patios facing High
Street. The third floor is setback on a diagonal axis providing further building articulation
8-13-97
S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I highS00.pcl Page 9
and visual interest on High Street. Building materials and features include: colored stucco
and stone facades, crafted steel gates and rails and a stone base on the first level; matching
stucco and gray metal siding with colored metal grills and colored aluminum window frames
on the second and third floor; and a standing seam metal roof. The architectural themes are
designed to provide a contemporary interpretation of the industrial look of nearby buildings.
A model and color rendering of the building will be available at the meeting. An
Architectural Concept Statement is included with the attached Program Development
Statement (Attachment 3).
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The following table compares the project to the existing CD-S(P) Downtown Commercial
(service) (Pedestrian Overlay) District and the proposed PC Planned Community District
regulations.
8-13-97
S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I highS00.pcl Page 10
Project Comparison With Current and Proposed Ordinance Requirements
Floor Area (sq.ft.)
Floor Area Ratio
Maximum Height
Site Coverage
Automobile Parking
-Resident Parking
-Office Parking
-Retail Parking
Total Parking
Bicycle Parking ’
Total spaces
Setbacks
- High Street
-Homer Avenue
-Channing Avenue
-Rear Alley
# Dwelling Units
BMR Units
Employee Shbwers
PROJECT
84,000 s.f.
2.0:1
50 feet
37%
23 spaces
254 spaces
7 st~aces
284 spaces
15 Class I
11 Class II
4 Class III
30 total spaces
0 feet
0 feet
0 feet
6 feet
16
10% of units
8
CD-S(P) (Existing)
16,800 s.f.*
0.4:1
(1:1 with
residential)
35 feet**
n/a
23 spaces
248 spaces
7 spaces
278 spaces
15 Class I
11 Class II
4. Class III
¯ 30 total spaces
n/a
n/a
n/a
38
10% of units
4
PC (Proposed)
n/a
n/a
35 feet**
n/a
23 spaces
248 spaces
7 st~aces
278 spaces
15 Class I
11 Class II
4 Class III
30 total spaces
rl/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
1.0% of units
* The CD-S district limits non-residential construction to 15,000 sfplus existing
(17,632 if) = 32,632 or .4 FAR (16,800 sf).
** The height limit is normally 50 feet. However, a portion of the site is within 150 feet of
a residential zoning district and that portion is subject to a 35 foot height limit.
8-13-97
S: IPianlPladivlPI2SRlhighS00.pcl Page 11
The proposal does not meet the developmentregulations of the CD-S zoning district for floor
area and FAR and, therefore, the applicant is requesting rezoning to the PC Planned
Community District. The project meets all re,quirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance.
Floor Area and FAR: The total 84,000 square feet of project floor area (2.00 FAR) exceeds
the 16,800 square feet (0.4 FAR) allowed within the CD-S district by 67,200 square feet or
500 percent. Proposed new non-residential floor area totals 46,368 square feet (64,000
proposed minus 17,632 existing). In comparison, the project proposed at 525 University
Avenue proposed an addition of 52,400-square-foot of office/commercial space. The CD-S
district limits non-residential construction to 15,000 square feet plus existing non-residential
square footage (17,632 sf) for a total of 32,632 allowable square feet. In this case, the more
restrictive FAR limit (.4 FAR) would apply under existing zoning and allow only i6,800
square feet. The PC Planned Community zoning district does not establish limits for either
floor area or FAR. Therefore, the project would meet these provisions of the PC District, if
the site were to be rezoned. There is approximately 47,200 square feet (64,000 square feet
minus 16,800 square feet allowed by zoning) of proposed non-residential building area that
exceeds that allowed by the 0.4 FAR limit in the CD-s district. Public benefits must be
provided with the project that are not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations
of general zoning districts.
The Downtown Commercial regulations, per section 18.49.040, limit the size of any single
nonresidential project to 25,000 square feet or .15,000 square feet above the existing floor
area, whichever is greater, provided the FAR limitations are not exceeded. This project size
regulation resulted from policy developed during the Downtown Study, adopted in 1986.
This study and resultant downzoning accomplished three very important things for
Downtown Palo Alto. First, the traditional and human scale of the historic lotting pattern of
Downtown was preserved by discouraging consolidation of parcels and limiting the building
sizes through project size limits. Properties, .such as 800 High Street, would require
consolidation of several smaller parcels (in this case, three) into a single large parcel. The
buildings constructed on the resultant large lots are inconsistent with the scale ~and pattern
of the Downtown and do not encourage pedestrian use. The Downtown regulations were
revised to discourage further scale changes of this magnitude by limiting project size,
encouraging retention of the traditional pattern. The other two regulatory interventions that
have been most successful in causing Palo Alto’s Downtown to become a thriving place are
the imposition of ground floor use restrictions and the downzoning of FARs, which resulted
in the preservation of many of the original buildings and architecture.
8-13-97
S: I Plan [ PiadivI PCSR I highS00.pc 1 Page 12
The project proposes only 16 residential units. The CD-S zoning district allows up to 38 units
per acre. The City’s attempts to locate more housing near Downtown would be better served
by increasing the number of residential units and reducing the amount of office space at this
location. As proposed, staff cannot support the mix of residential and office space.
Downtown Growth Limits
The proposed addition of 46,368 square feet of new non-residential space would be within
the Downtown floor area limit but would constitute a large percentage (13 percent) of the
total allocation and an even larger percentage (16 percent) of the remaining square footage.
The central issue in this case is thelarge amount of square footage being allocated to a single,
large project in one location rather than dispersing future square footage among many
projects and locations. The 46,368 square feet of new space at this location reduces the
opportunity of other property owners to add square footage throughout the Downtown area.
The latest Downtown Monitoring Report prepared in April of 1997 inventories building
activity within the CD (Commercial Downtown) District from mid- 1984 through mid- 1996.
During that period, there was a net addition of 54,576 square feet within the CD District
compared to the 350,000-square-footlimit. Of the 36 construction and demolition projects,
only two (250 University and 245 Lytton) exceeded 20,000 square feet of new space. The
majority of projects added 5,000 square feet or. less. Excluding the two years of the
Downtown Moratorium from September 1984 through September 1986, building activity
averaged about 4,900 square feet per year. At this rate, the remaining Downtown allocation
of 295,000 square feet would last 60 years. Even at a heightened pace of 10,000 square feet
per year, the remaining Downtown allocation represents a 30-year supply. A major policy
issue posed by this project is: Should one project consume 16 percent of the remaining
Downtown allocation and concentrate building mass .and related impacts in one place or
should the allocation be distributed among a greater number of projects and distributed
among various Downtown locations?
As proposed, s~affbelieves that the project proposes too much office space in one locationl
Height: The majority of the building is 50 feet in height with diagonal setbacks on the third
floor along High Street and the back comer along Channing Avenue. The plaza at the comer
of Homer Avenue and High Street also provides a substantial building setback from the street
and is mostly open air with a skylit canopy over the doorway. The typical height limit in both
the CD-S district and the PC district is 50 feet. However, a portion of the Site is within 150
8-13-97
S: I PlanlPladiv I PCSRlhighS00.pcl Page 13
feet of the mixed use building at 901 Alma Street and that portion of the site is subject to a
special 35 foot height limit in the PC district due to its proximity to residential units. The 901
Alma Street project contains four residential units and is 50 feet in height. The new building
located at 753 Alma is also 50 feet in height. Therefore, while the proposed project meets the
50 foot height limit in the existing CD-S district and is compatible with newer buildings in
the area, it does not meet the 35 foot height limit in the PC district imposed by the proximity
of the one nearby mixed use/residential building.
Since the project does not share a lot line with a neighboring residential project, it is not
subject to daylight plane regulations.
The PC district regulations allows an exceptionto the 35 foot height limit in situations where
the proposed project includes 60 percent or more square footage of residential use.A
reduction in the amount of office space and an increase in the amount of residential space
would be needed to qualify the project for this exception.
As the project is currentlydesigned and configured, a variance would be required to exceed
the 35 foot height limit for the area within 150 feet of residential zoning. The applicant
would need to address the.three required findings including demonstrating that-there are
extraordinary conditions relating to the subject property, and that there would be no
detrimental impact on the surrounding area as a result 0fthe additional height. To date, no
variance application has been made.
An altemative would be to redesign the project so that the third floor nearest the comer of
Channing Avenue and the alley would be reduced in height and able to meet the 35 foot
height limit within 150 feet of the residential project at 901 Alma Street.
Setbacks: The project meets all the setback requirements established by the CD-S and PC
districts.
Parking: The project proposes a total of 284 spaces including 254 parking spaces to be
located on the subterranean levels and 30 spaces at grade behind the residential units. The
Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83) requires 1.25 spaces for studio units
(1.25 x 16 = 20 spaces) in addition to 1 space plus 10 percent of the number of units for guest
parking (1 .+ 1.6 = 3) for a total of 23 units. The Ordinance also requires 1 space for 250
square feet of office (62,000/250 = 248 spaces) and 1 space for 200 feet of retail (1450 / 200
= 7). The total number of required parking spaces is 278 (23+248+7) while the project
proposes 284 spaces - a surplus of 6 spaces. However, the project would also result in the
8-13-97
S: l Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I highS00.pcl Page 14
loss of about six on-street spaces because of the street trees located within the bulbou~s. Even
if the six new on-site spaces were made available to the public, they would simply off-set the
loss of the on-street spaces.
Staff is concerned with the provision of only six spaces as a notable public benefit. If the
amount of office space were to be reduced, additional parking spaces could be made
available for public use during the daytime.
Bicycle Parking: The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83) requires one
Class I space per unit (2 spaces) plus one Class III bike rack for each ten units (2 racks) for
guest parking. The Ordinance also requires 10% of auto parking spaces for office use (15
Class I + 10 Class II = 25 spaces) and 10% of auto parking spaces for retail (1 space) for a
total of 30 bike spaces. The project proposes 30 bike spaces (15 Class I, 11 Class II, and 4
Class II) and meets.the requirements for bicycle parking.
BMR Units: The project would be required to set aside 10% of total units as Below Market
Rate (BMR). The applicant proposes to meet the requirement but has not specified whether
the project will include 2 BMR units or one unit and pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the
additional one-half unit).
Public Benefit: A PC zone change is required for this project because none ofthe City’s
conventional zoning districts accommodate the proposed square footage, FAR, and building
height unless variances are granted. Approval ofthe requested PC zone change would require
that public benefit findings be made. The public benefits should go beyond the minimum
zoning ordinance requirements and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Public policy
in PC Zone change approvals has generally included the assumption that benefits should be
commensurate or proportional with the request to exceed normal regulatory requirements.
In this case, the applicant is requesting a project of 64,000 of non-residential square feet
which is 47,200 square feet over what zoning would allow ( 16,800 square feet at 0.4:1 FAR).
The applicant has submitted a public benefits statement to accompany the PC zone change
application (Attachment #3). The project states that the project offers the following public
benefits:
Replacement of the dilapidated manufacturing building with a new, contemporary design
residential/office complex in a mixed use area that is within walking distance of the
University Avenue Business District. Such a use is called for in the Comprehensive Plan
and Zoning Ordinance. Underutilized buildings such as the Creamery often cause health
and safety hazards, provoke neighborhood concern, and result in code enforcement
8-13-97
S: ] Pianl Pladiv I PCSR ] highS00.pc I Page 15
o
complaints.
Provision of Below Market Rate Housing Units. Although the provision of BMR units
is required by zoning, City policy encourages provision of such units, especially in mixed
use neighborhoods near commercial areas such as this. The project proposes to include
either 2 BMR units or 1 BMR unit and pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the additional one-
half unit.
Provision of public art and a public plaza at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue.
The public plaza would feature several public amenities such as seating, landscaping and
a substantial setback from the property line. The public art must be viewable from the
public right-of-way to qualify as a public benefit. All public art proposals will need to be
reviewed and approved by the Arts Commission prior to subsequent review by the ARB.
Provision of fifteen street trees (eleven on High Street and two each on Homer and
Channing). Staff would need to determine whether there is sufficient room for tree root
growth between the parking garage (located under the sidewalk) and the planter wells
proposed within the street right-of-way for street trees in each of these locations.
o Contribution of funds to the proposed pedestrian passageway connecting Downtown to
the new PAMF site. The amount of the proposed contribution has yet to be determined
by the applicant.
o Relocation of the 60 foot high powerline that currently runs along the rear alley to Alma
Street. Although the relocation would benefit the visual appearance of the alley and the
view from nearby streets, the visual impact would shift to another location.
Provision of six parking spaces above that required by zoning. Although the provision of
extra parking, per se, could be a public benefit, the number of spaces is not substantial
and may not qualify as a public benefit.
The public ber~efits proposed at this location do not appear to justify the large size of the
project (an FAR of 2.0 where 1.0 is normally allowed) and the proportion of office space
(which is limited by City .policy in the Downtown area) to residential use (which is
encouragedin the Downtown area). In this case, the project proposes approximately 47,200
square feet of non-residential building area that exceeds that allowed by the 0.4 FAR limit
in the CD-S district. Therefore, staff has included findings for denial based on insufficient
public benefit.
8-13-97
S: I Plan 1Pladiv ]PCSR I highS00.pcl Page 16
Large projects of this nature in the Downtown area could include items such as a public.
restroom in the public plaza area, additional public parking, and/or contributions to the
Downtown Urban Design Improvements.
Department Comments
Preliminary comments from City Departments in addition to those described above, include
the following:
Building: The lofts above the first floor of the studios may be subject to ADA requirements
for accessibility to disabled persons.
Public Works;, The proposed street bulbouts interfere with street cleaning and should be
redesigned to provide a minimum 6 foot curb radius. Paving material must meet the City’s
paving standards and must be structurally separated from underground structures. Public
Works does not permit underground structures within the travelled right-of-way of the rear
alley.
Transportation: The Transportation Division comments that the alley would need to be
reconfigured for two way traffic or the parking spaces be reconfigured for diagonal parking
to accommodate back up maneuvers for the 30 spaces located at the rear of the residential
units. A two-way alley must be 20 feet wide plus seven feet for a loading zone. This width
is provided in the current proposal. The ownership of the alley is currently under
investigation. The best location for loading would be on the west side of the alley. The
proposed loading zone on Homer Avenue probably would need meet the warrants established
by the Transportation Division. The Transportation Division has some concerns regarding
the tree planters on High Street. The planters result in a loss of on-street parking spaces, they
may impede street cleaning, and wheel stops should be provided to prevent damage to the
bollards. An alternate design for street tree bulbouts is being built on portions of Park
Boulevard south of California Avenue and could be considered along High Street as well.
Additional detail should be shown for bicycle parking. Typical parking space dimensions in
the parking gar.age should be included. Comments on the traffic study are forthcoming.
Utilities: The applicant has been discussing with the City’s Utilities Department the
applicants proposal to relocate the existing 60 foot high powerline that runs along the alley
to the rear of the site. Staff has not been able to confirm the feasibility of the proposed
relocation. Staff has concems that therelocation of the powerline will shift an existing visual
impact from a relatively low profile location (the rear alley) to a relatively high profile
location (the existing City easement located between Alma Street and the Caltrain tracks).
8-13-97
S: ] Plan] Pladiv ] PCSR I highS00.pc 1 Page 17
If the project is not denied and moves forward for further review, the applicant will be
required to demonstrate that there are no significant adverse visual and noise impacts of the
proposed relocation.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION .
Notice of this Planning Commission review was provided by publication of the agenda in a
local newspaper of general circulation. In addition, property owners and utility customers
within 300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
Architectural Review Board Comments
On July 17, 1997, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conducted a preliminary review
of the project. The ARB members supported the project. Board members supported the mix
of housing, office and retail uses and thought the project was in an appropriate location for
these uses. Members noted that the size of the project enabled the placement of parking
underground whereas smaller developments .on the existing three lots could not support the
spatial requirements of underground parking. Members supported the building articulation
and pedestrian interest provided by the architectural design, use of quality building materials,
and varied setbacks. Board members thought these features effectively reduced the apparent
mass of the building. ARB members thought the 50 foot height was reasonable for the area,
especially considering that the 35 foot height limit was ~only recently established by the
approval of the mixed use building at 901 Alma Street. Board members did not think that the
project consumed too great a share of the Downtown cap in one location because not many
locations in the Downtown area could physically accommodate a use of this size. Although
traffic and noise were a concern, Board members expressed a need for more housing in
locations such as this in the Downtown area. The ARB expressed concerns about staffs
interpretation of"massive single use" as contained in Urban Design Policy 1, Program 1 of
the Comprehensive Plan. The ARB thought that a mixed use project such as this .did not
qualify as a "massive single use." Staffbelieves that the policy refers to large single projects,
regardless of the mix of uses contained within them. Therefore, staff continues to maintain
that the project at 800 High is inconsistent with this policy because of the large size, scale,
and mass of the structure comPared with surrounding buildings. The ARB generally.
supported the public benefit package. Board members did not agree with the staff
recommendation for denial and recommended that when the PC application was made, that
it continue through the regular review process and not be recommended for denial.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
Draft findings for denial of the Zone Change (Attachment #2) are attached.
recommending denial, no project conditions are included.
Since staff is
S: I Plan [ Piadiv I PCSRI highS00.pc 1
8-13-97
Page 18
ALTERNATIVES
The Planning Commission could refer the project to the ARB.
FISCAL IMPACT .-
There will be no significant fiscal impact on the City due to this project.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
This application is not accompanied by an environmental assessment because of the
recommendation for denial. Should the Planning Commission recommend or the City
Council decide to proceed with further review, the project will be subject to environmental
review under provisions of the Caiifomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
NEXT STEPS
Following the Planning Commission public hearing, the project is tentatively scheduled to
be considered by the City Council at a public hearing on September 22, 1997. "
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
Attachment # 1: Location Map
Attachment #2: Findings for Denial of Zone Change
Attachment #3: Program Development Statement
Plans (Planning. Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Roxy Rapp, PO Box 1672, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Shrenck Brown & Associates, 550 Montgomery Street #900, San Francisco, CA 94111
Peterson Architects, 57 E1 Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Patrick Burt, University South Neighborhood Group, 1249 Harriet Street, Palo Alto, CA
94301
Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real #410, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce,.325 Forest, Palo Alto, CA 94301
David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 300 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
S: I Plan ]Pladiv ] PCSR ] highS00.pcl
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
Kenneth Schreiber, Director of
Community Environment
Planning and
8-13-97
Page 19
2967
HIGH ST Z
Project,: 800 High 51;feet,
Zone Chan~ae from Commercial Pownt, own
(CD-5(P)) t,o Planne~l Communi%/(PC)
Graphic Attachment
to Staff Report
Date: August 13, 1997
File #: 97-ZC-9; 97-ARB-122
Scale: 1 inch = 200 FT
North
ATTACHMENT #2
ZONE CHANGE AND PUBLIC BENEFIT FINDINGS
800 HIGH STREET
Recommended Findings for Denial of Zone Change
1..The proposed Zone Change from the CS (Service Commercial) zoning district to the PC (Planned
Community) zoning district does not meet the purposes of Title 18 ( Zoning Regulations) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code in that the project exceeds the typical requirements of the City’s conventional
zoning districts in terms of square footage, FAR, and building height and development of the site and
under the provisions of the PC district will not result in public benefits commensurate with the square
footage, FAR and height that exceeds that allowable by conventional zoning. Specifically, the project
does not propose a Below Market requirement above that required by zoning; the proposed street
trees may not have sufficient room for tree root growth between the parking garage (located under
the sidewalk) and the planter wells proposed within the street right-of-way; the contribution of funds
to the proposed pedestrian passage.way connecting Downtown to the new PAMF site has not been
specified; the proposed relocation of the 60 foot high powerline that currently runs along the rear
alley to Alma Street would not eliminate but, rather, shill the visual impact to another location; the
provision of extra parking, 6 spaces, is not substantial; and, therefore, the public benefits proposed
at this location do not appear to justify the large size of the project (an FAR of 2.0 where 1.0 is
normally allowed),, and the relative proportion of office space (which is limited by City policy in the
Downtown area) to residential use (which is encouraged in the Downtown area).
2. The proposed Zone Change from the CS (Service Commercial) zoning district to the PC (Planned
Community) zoning district is inconsistent or partially inconsistent with the following Comprehensive
Plan policies:
Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s
neighborhoods especially desirable. "This project is located in a distinctive neighborhood
that features a mix of single and multiple family residences and commercial activity and is
in close proximity to the University Avenue Business District. The proposed project would
provide additional housing and office opportunities within walking distance to commercial
services in thel area but would be out of scale with existing buildings and uses in the
neighborhood. Most of the surrounding retail/commercial uses are located on small to mid-
size parcels. This would be the only parcel in the area that would be located on an entire
block. Traditionally, one of the characteristics that has contributed to the desirability of Palo
Alto neighborhoods is a smaller scale and pedestrian orientation.
Housing Element Policy #7: "Encourage and foster the development of new and existing
housing units affordable to the low, moderate, and middle-income households, especially
those with children. ’! Although unit costs are not yet proposed, the project will be required
to contribute to the supply of affordable housing. However, the project proposes fewer units
(16) than are allowed under existing CD-S zoning (38) and therefore would be providing
fewer Below Market Rate units than could be obtained under current zoning.
Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements
through the review of new development. "The site is designated Service Commercial and is
surrounded by small scale office/commercial and residential uses. The large scale of the
project is inconsistent with the scale of the existing neighborhood and does not provide a
harmonious transition to the residential uses located just east of the site including the
Professorville historic residential neighborhood.
Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, "Discourage massive single uses through
limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and community values." Staff
believes that this policy refers to large single projects, regardless of the mix of uses contained
within them. The proposed project would create one single building at this location.
Although it would incorporate a number of different uses, it would result in a massive single
structure along one entire block which would be out of scale compared with surrounding
buildings and contrary to the policy of discouraging massive single uses.
Urban Design Element, Policy 6B: "Limit nonresidential development in the Downtown Area
to ten percent (350, 000 square feet of floor area) above the amount of deve!opment existing ’
or approved in May 1986." The proposed addition of 46,368 square feet of’new non-
residential square footage of building would fall .within the Downtown floor area limit, but
would constitute a large percentage (13 percent) of the total allocation of 350,000 square
feet. The proposed addition would constitute an even larger percentage (16 percent) of the
remaining square footage (295,000 square feet as of August 31, 1996). This percentage is
important not simply because of its numerical value but because it concentrates development
impacts in one location which is Contrary to the purpose of the Downtown cap. The cap was
intended to spread impacts of development throughout a large area and avoid burdening one
area with disproportionate impacts.
Land Use Elemeht, City Council Resolution 7151: "The standards for building intensity for
non-residential designated lands are derived from the floor area ratios allowed in underlying
zoning districts and represent an expectation of the intensity of fitture development. Actual
floor area ratios on individual sites vary." The.subject property is located within the
Commercial Downtown District which limits floor area ratios (FARs) to a maximum of 1.0,
with allowances for existing and bonus square footage, not to exceed 3.0. The specific
zoning is CD-S (P) (Commercial Downtown) (Service) (Pedestrian Combining Distdct)/GF 1
(Non-Conforming Use Granted an Exemption) which limits FAR to 1:0 for a mixed use
project. If rezoned to the PC (Planned Community) District, the FAR limit does not apply,
but the Comprehensive Plan standard does. The property will generate an FAR of 2.0 with
the proposed building. The Comprehensive Plan allows that project sites will vary above and
below this standard. But, considered together with other policies, it is clear that the intent
of the Comprehensive Plan was to discourage a large, massive single structure and encourage
projects that use imderlying or surrounding zoning as a general guide to the intensity of any
particular project. The proposed project does not use the surrounding zoning and
development pattern as a guide to its commercial intensity or residential density..
S:\plan\pladiv\pcsrkhighS00.FND)
800 High Street
Creamery Project
Project DeScription and Program
Development Statement
Proiect Summary
The project involves the redevelopment of the entire block bounded by High
Street, Homer Street, Channing Street and the alley located in the south western
portion of downtown Palo Alto. Currently the site is occupied by the Penir~sula
Creamery as a warehouse, refrigeration, manufactiaring and trucking facility. It
is intended that the existing warehouse commercial facility, be demolished and a
new 3 story, 84,000 sq. ft. steel frame structure with two level underground
garage be constructed in its place. The new building ground floor will be mixed
use with retail and 16 live-work units of approximately. 1,250 square feet each
and will be oriented toward. High Street. The second and third floors will be
general commercial office use. The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) is 2.0.
A total of 284 parking spaces are to be provided 254 below grade and 30 above
grade. The parking ratio fo.r the commercial space will be 4 to 1 and 1.25 to 1 for
the residential. The parking garage entry would be from Channing Street on the
s~uth side of the building.
Necessity for PC District -.Required Determinations
1) Current CD-g district does not allow sufficient flexibility to allow the
proposed mixed use development of live-work and general office. The live-work
model has been found to be a very desirable in or near downtown cores. As more
people "telecomute" the demand for live-work space has increased dramatically.
Live-work in this site would work well due to its proximity to the Caltrans station,
the Palo Alto workplace and civic amenities.
2) Current zoning and applicable Floor Area Ratios do not provide the
flexibility to construct a three-story mixed use commercial building, nor would
any other general zone district apply. A higher building volume is needed at this
location due to its close proximity to the Emerson Street and Homer
Avenue activity.nodes. Existing zoning of .04 to 1 would limit the floor area to a
single story design. A three-story structure under existing zon!ng would leave a
majority of the lot vacant. It is also important to have a more appropriate FAR for.
Page 1
800 High Street
Creamery Project
this site so as. to create a prominent architectural statement that would be a
cohesive element in this transitional and gateway area. Further, there is a large
demand in Palo Alto to provide commercial office and design space for local
downtown companies that are experiencing growth. A great number of these firms
are unable to find floor plates of sufficient size to meet their needs. Many
of these companies will either have to divide into multiple locations or consider
moving out of Palo Alto.
Public Benefit
Development of the site under the provisions of the Pianned Community zone will
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by the application of any other
general districts.-
1) The building is design.ed to create a strong architectural statement that will
continue to enhance the design trends in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) area for
retail, office and general business services.
2) The project will increase the rental housing available in Palo Alto. Currently
there is a housing shortage in the mid-peninsula area. We are proposing 16 units of
live-work space. This space will be in close proximity to the Caltran station, civic
amenities, shopping and work locations. In addition, the current use of the site is
inconsistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive General Plan. Our proposed
redevelopment, meets the increased demand for both more housing and larger
office floor plates in the downtown area.
3) The project proposes in partnership with the Palo AltoUtility Department to
move the e.xisting 60 foot high 60,000 KV powerline that currently runs behind the
subject site in the alley t6 the west side of Alma Street.
4) The project intends to incorporate into its site design many public amenities,
such as an open air plaza, extensive landscaping, seating, street trees on both sides
of High Sti’eet, street lighting, an integrated pave~ sidewalk system and a sound
wall to attenuate the noise from the adjacent transforming station.
5) The project will be able to provide extra parking to local business t9 remove
employee cars from the street. Nighttime access will also be available for local
restaurant valet services and the public.
Page 2
800 High Street
Creamery Project
6) As this site housed the Peninsula Creamery for many years, we propose to
provide art which will be in keeping with the site’s history. Our current thoughts
are to create a contemporary statue which will promote pedestrian interest in the
piece and the plaza area. In addition to promoting an interesting visual attraction
we inted to commission a piece that will be linked to the site’s heritage and former
ues.
7) The project wilt provide the required number of Below-Market-Rate .Rental
Units. ~
8) The project potentially will provide a direct dollar Contribution to the
underground pedestrian passageway between downtown and the new PAMF site.
Use
The use or uses permitted (~ffice, retail, eating and drinking establishments and
live-work units) and the site development regulations applicable Within the district
are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and are compatible with
existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.
1) Urban Design Objective: "Preserve Palo Alto as a creative environment
where.people can work and Live."
2) Urban Design Objectivd: "Promote tl~e orderly and harmonious development
of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements
through the review of new development."
3) Urban Design.Objective: "Promote visual environments which are of high
aesthetic qiaality and variety, and considerate of each other."
4) Land Use and Community Design Program L-9: "Create and apply the
following zone standards. A Live/Work designation that permits housing, office
retail, and light industrial uses toco-exist in the same building space where certain
conditions and performances standards are met."
5) Land Use and Community Design Program L-23: "Enhance the character of
the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area."
Pgge 3
800 High Street
Creamery Project
Project Schedule
Item
Application Submittal
Planning CommissiOn Heating (First)
ARB Hearing
Planning Commission (Second)
City Council Hearing (First)
Design Approval
Start Construction Documents
City Council Heating (Second)
PC Zone Change ApproVed
Construction Documents to Vance Brown
Demolition
Start Construction
End Construction’ Substantial Completion
Date
6/6/97
8/27/97
9/18/97
10/29/97
11/17/97
1/1/98
1/1/98
4/1/98
3/1/99
Robert Pe{erson
Architects. In*:.
Menlo ~rk, CA
94025
F~x 415.327.2512
June 6, 1997
ARCHITECTURAL PROGRAM STATEMENT
This proposed integrated mixed-use redevelopment has grown out of the belief
that a balanced project can support housing,, parking and other pedestrian
amenities.
The specific goals of the project are as follows:
A. Resp6nd to the need for live-work rental housing as well as the
expansion of current business uses with a project thatwill
reflect a return to a more traditional housing/jobs balance.
B. Implement SOFA goals,
¯ Transition housing to fit between high-density downtown
projects and the single family neighborhoods.
¯Develop the perception of entry from Alma Street into
the SOFA area at Forest and Channing Avenues.
° Provide more open space and improved design of the
streetscape.
° Recognize and define the Emerson Street and Homer
Avenue activity node.
¯Provide additional p~rking for SOFA business
° Improve the alley
° Undergro[md utilities
¯ ;Establish street tree program
° Screen electrical substation
C. Provide opportunities for public art.
This project is intended to act as a transition development on a number of levels.
1.A historical transition from the former industrial/manufacturing
use to the current housing and office needs.
2. A transition in character from industrial scale and materials to a
pedestrian street fabric with finer scale materials, pedestrian
amenities and street furniture.
3. A transition from downtown commercial uses to family housing
neighborhood.
The project accomplishes these transitions by establishing a new residential city-
block on High Street with housing at street level to provide activity not only
during the day but during the evening and week-ends. The inclusion of a
complete street tree program on both sides of High Street as well as landscape
and hardscape elements at the residential porches and public plaza help
accomplish transition, along with public improvements at the intersections
adjacent to the project site. These impi’ovements will extend pedestrian
amenities similar to those proposed for the downtown, to the SOFA area and
encourage similar improvements for future developments. The ex.isting Lane 8
West (alley) will be enhanced with new paving on the proje.ct site. These
improvements along with the removal Of the existing high voltage standards and
the landscape screening of the City of Palo Alto electrical substation will
encourage pedestrian use and provide an additional link to Palo Altos growing
alley system.
The building itself establishes a rich and varied pedestrian character at the
street level, moving to an intermediate scale in form and fenestration at the
second floor and some of the third floor elements and culminates with a simple
industrial form for the remainder of the third floor.
The materials echo the building forms with rich colored and pedestrian scaled
slate and hand-crafted metal work at the street level. The-second floor is
finished with integral colored stucco walls, larger scaled windows with stone Sills
and wallcaps and building mounted street lights. These buildin.g forms provide a
pattern and texture which contrasts to the simple industrial form of the third
floor and its soft gray z!nc finished panels and larger scale fenestration.
I believe this project will achieve our goals, the SOFA goals, and provide
vibrant and desirable use to this redeveloping neighborhood.
OLA
Landscape Narrative for the Santana Bui.lding
Palo Alto, California
Attractive specimen trees on both sides of High Street between
Channing and Homer, and the use of interlocking pavers along the
sidewalk, together with the planting of full shrubs in planter
boxes fronting the entrances to the residential units will
introduce an attractive pedestrian element to High street and
this block of the neighborhood. The landscape treatment for the
outdoor area at the intersection of Homer and High Streets will
create an attractive street corner with seating, artwork,
suspended plantings and flowers.
Plant materials around the Santana Building will be selected;
based upon, but not limited to, the following criteria: plants
adapted to specific site conditions, drought tolerant plants, and
plants as required by the City of Palo Alto for this
neighborhood. Aesthetic considerations include, form, texture,
color and horticultural compatibility.
The irrigation system will be designed in accordance with water
conservation practices and comply with the Landscape Water
Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto. All landscape
areas will be irrigated by a fully automatic system. A
combination of drip and conventional spray system shall be used.
Proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers are as follows:
Trees: 36" box specimen
Fraxinus Uhdei
Platanus Acerlfolia ~yardwood"
Shrubs: 15 gallon can
Nandina domestica
Pitto~porum tobira variegata
Raphiolepis indica rosea
Cissus antartica
Asparagus densiflorus ’meyers’
Azaleas, sp.
Gr0undcover: flats
Arctotheca calendula
Euonymus ~colorata’
Vines: 15 gallon can
Ficus pumila
Wisteria species
Orni Lang Associates Inc. 70 Lomita Drive Mill Valley CA 94941 Tel (415) 389-8438 Fax (4!5) 389.8017
Excerpt of City of Palo Alto Planning Commission
minutes of the meeting 6fAugust 13, 1997
Attachment 2
The Planning Commission met in a regular meeting on Wednesday, August 13, 1997 at 7
p.m. in the Council Chambers with Chairman Schink presiding.
Present:Commissioners Beecham, Bialson, Byrd, Cassel, Ojakian, Schink and
Schmidt
None
Debra Cauble, Senior Assistant City Attorney
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Paul Jensen, Contract Planner
Chandler Lee, Contract Planner
David Ross, Chairman, Architectural Review Board
Kenneth R. Sehreiber, Director of Plannir~.g and Community Environment ¯
Consultant Present: Scott MacPherson, Nichols Berman Environmental Planning
This is the time on our agenda where we allow for oral
;. If there is a member of the public who wishes to address us on an item
which is not covered on the agenda, you have five minutes to speak. Seeing
no one, I will close Communications portion and go on to Agenda Changes,
Additions and
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Approval of minutes of July 9, 1997.
MOTION: Commissioner O_iakian: I make a motion to
Wednesday, July 9, 1997.
~: By Commissioner Schmidt.
the minutes of
¯": I will abstain from voting as I was absent at that
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 3
08-13-97
[~00 HIGH STREET: Public hearing and review of an application for a zone
change from Downtown Commercial Service Subdistrict (CD-S) to a Planned
Community zone (PC) to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632-square-foot
manufacturing building and construction of a new, three-story mixed use building,
¯ including 16 live/work studios, 62,000 square feet of office space, 1,450 square
feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage for 254 cars, surface parking for
30 cars, and related site improvements.
Chairman Sehink: I will not be participating in this item. My family owns property with
Mr. Rapp, the applicant on this project. Commissioner Byrd will chair the item.
Vice Chair Byrd: We will now take up Agenda Item 4. Would stafflike to make a
presentation?
l~.~,5.~al:~h~: A few opening comments, th~nk you. As the commission is well aware,
the task in the first review of a Planned Community zone is to foens on an initial question,
and that is whether the projeetis consistent with city policies. In the item that you just
complete.d, you.had a housing proposal on land designated for housing. You had a
housing proposal on land that the city, in fact, has gone out of its way to designate for
housing and to stronglyencourage, with legal mechanisms, the termination oft,he non-
residential use. You had higher density housing in an area with transit and.reasonably .
close proximity for walking to the train station. That meets a whole variety of city policy
objectives. "-
Regarding the project that is proposed for 800 High Street, when .staff entered its review
of that project, we found that we could not make that type of ftnding. We could not make
the finding that the project was consistent with city policies. The conclusion is that the
project is too large in terms of its general location, and regarding the mix ofnses,
especially the large amount of ottice space, we could not find a basis in city policy to
recommend approval for this type of project in this type of location. Having reached that
point, our recommendation is then for the commission to deny the project. Under the
city’s procedures for a Planned Community zone, if you do recommend denial, the
project will go on to the City Council rather than the Architectural Review Board. The
Council will then decide whether they wish to sustain the denial of the application, or if
they feel that there is a policy basis for approval, they will return the project to the
Architectural Review Board, and then on to the Planning Commission prior to any
additional council consideration and final council action.
¯ Having made that decision, under the California Environmental Quality Ae.t, jurisdiction
A:lPCMins7iMin0813.reg Page 3 !
08-13-97
does not need to do an environmental review for a project that is being denied. We
decided to make the denial recommendation and not do an environmental assessment,
feeling that an environmental assessment would take time and money, the applicant’s
money and the applicant’s time, as well as an amount of staffresourees, some of which
would be reimbursed through the cost recovery process,, but still a substantial amount of
staffresourees. Thus, the situation is that if the Planning Commission concurs with staff
and recommends denial, it will go on to the council on September 22nd. If the Planning
Commission disagrees with staffand recommends that the project should go through
design review at the ARB and then return to the Planning Commission, the date for ARB
review is quite uncertain, because we will need to undertake the environmental review
that normally would have been done prior to this item’s reaching the Planning
Commission.
With that set of opening comments, Chandler Lee has prepared the staff report, and the
four staff people present have all had a major hand in this, and we will be pleased to
respond to questions. David Ross is here from.the Architectural Review Board, where
there was a preliminaiy review by the ARBofthe project. At this point in time, good
design and/or a good public benefit package is not enough,, on and of itself, to overcome
problems with consistency with city policies. So the initial question for the commission
is consistency with city policy. Thank you.
Vice Chair Byrd: I would like to invite Mr. Ross to make any presentation he wishes.
Mr. Ross: Thank you, Vice Chair Byrd. As Ken mentioned, we saw this as a preliminary.
review on July 17thi so it was fairly recently. Of course, no action.was taken. The
applicant was seeking board member input in a preliminary design phase, which is the
purpose of that review. I would characterize the board’s response to the project as
enthusiastic, keeping in mind that we are primarily interested in quality of design and
appropriateness of projects in their context. While our purview does not really extend to
policy issues, this being Pale Alto, we took the opportunity to discuss those anyway. ;In
our minds, not being experts, there were some policy issues where we disagreed with staff
as a discussion item. The ARB is-very interested in hearing the Planning Commission’s
views on the project. We will really dig into this if you refer it to us. In the minutes of
our meeting, there is a kind of synopsis of our comments there.
¯ " ; The minutes were on our desk, but I would appreciate hearing
whatever comments Mr. Ross has to make.
Then let me start out by saying that there were three members of the board
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg ¯Page 32
08-13-97
reviewing this project, with one member absent and one member conflicted. I would say
that the consensus among the board members present was that the design of the project is
very contextual. This is a transitional neighborhood and is somewhat of a buffer between
single-family residential areas, particularly the Professorville area, and the downtown. It
has historically been kind of an industrial light manufacturingarea. This design responds
both to the surroundings in terms of architecture and in a sense, also, to the history of the
area as an industrial area.
The board viewed this as a delightful mix of residential vitality at the pedestrian level
with very appropriate sort of modem.industrial references in the office design. The
creation of a public plaza on the comer was felt to be a huge .amenity in that particular
part of town, which is becoming more and more of a pedestrian area. The placement of
this project felt appropriate to board members because it is so close to ALma Street and
also helps to create kind of a hard edged buffer between Alma and the remainder of the
neighborhood.
Also, the richness of the landscaping was a significant discussion item. "
Moving on past architectural issues a bit, probably the largest discussion item was the
size of the project. Part of that is the way the size of the project relates to the existing
downtown development cap established in 1986, I believe. There was a concern on the
part of staffthat this project uses a significant portion of that cap, sometldng like 15 or
17% of the remaining space available under that:cap. I feel that ARB members wore not
moved by staff concerns that the cap Would be gobbled up at a rate faster than desirable.
In other words, a trend may have been established over the years for. a rather modest use
of that cap, something like 5,000 square feet per year, but that was not really a precedent-
setting issue. We felt that it was probably anticipated by the drafters of that cap that
development would occur much more quickly than that. There probably would have been
some surprise that we had not reached it already. So the fact that this one single project
was using a large amount oftheavailable space under that cap was not a concern to the
board. We noted in our discussion that there are very few places in town where such a
use is possible within that downtown area. Of all of the locationsthat we could think of
downtown within that cap.area, this is probably the best area in which to use it, rather
than spreading it around.
There was an issue about the height of the project. A recent project that incorporates a
residential use is under construction nearby now, and because it appeared before this
project appeared, it creates a requirement to lower the height of this project. That was
viewed by board members as an unintended consequence of that zoning requirement, and
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 33
08-13-97
therefore, is a rather minor issue.
I think the board was surprised that staff had gone to the extent they had tomake findings
for denial. Again, we are not really in a position to make official policy disagreements
with staff, but it was unprecedented in our experience .to have any findings at all
presented during a preliminary review, so I would call it a more comprehensive look by
staff under the circumstances of a preliminary review than we had seen before.- So in a
sense, maybe the toughest questions were directed at staff rather than at the.applicant.
In summary, the board is enthusiastic about the project but obviously will listen to the
Planning Commission and Council and staffon policy issues. If it com~s to us, we will
do our job with it, and we await your discussion.
Vice Chair Byrd: Chandler, do you have anything you would like to add at this time?
Mr. Lee: No, Mr. Ross has done an excellent job in summarizing the events of the ARB
hearing, with perhaps the lone exception that the board members did disagree with staff’s
recommendation for denial and recommended that it continue through the regular review
process.
Vice Chair Byrd: Do commissioners have any questions for staffat this time?
Vice Chair Byrd: First, I want to comment, since thisis a quasi-judicial matter and we
should provide full disclosure, my preference is to do that up front. I did meet with the
applicant and his architect last Friday. Commissioner Beecham w.as at that meeting also.
I did review the tape of the ARB meeting, and I have received a letter from one of the
¯ neighbors in the neighborhood, Susie Richardson, which I have with me, and I also had a
conversation with Pat Burke who is the president of the Neighborhood South Association.
Vice Chair Byrd: Before going further, may I invite the city attorney to advise us on
Whether we need this disclosure.
Ms. Cauble:. Thank you, Vice Chair Byrd.. Yes, this is a PC zoning application which is a
legislative action. So technically,, the policy that the commission has adopted in its rules
regarding legislative action. So technically, the policy that the commission has adopted
in its rules regarding quasi-judicial matters does not apply here. That is not to discourage
any commission from putting anything on the record they choose to regarding their
outside contacts.
A:ll~MinsT[Min0813.reg Page 34
08-13-97
Commissioner B_.vrd: Does anyone have questions, for staff about the project?
Commissioner Beecham: I have a simple question that is.more about the schedule. You
mentioned that if we recommend denial, this is due to go to the City Council on
September 22. If we recommend approval, you indieat.ed that you would then need to do
the environmental analysis. What was your time frame on that?
]~dL..i~dll~J~: We do not have a time frame on that right now. We would need to do the
full initial assessment and then whatever, environmental documentation needs to be done.
Ms. Cauble: And for the record, a commission recommendation of approval would not be
appropriate tonight, because you do not have the environmental assessment. The options
to the commission are to recommend denial or to recommend that the project move
through the process for further consideration. I am sure that is what Commissioner
Beecham .meant.
Commissioner Beeehiim: And ill recommending that it go further through the process,
after the EA is done, would it then come back to us for review again before going to the
ARB?
HaT~S.OJal:gib~: Yes, that course of action will follow the basic pr0eedure, for reviewing
Planned Community zones, that is, tonight’s review by this commission, then the
Architectural Review Board, then the Planning Commission, then the City Council.
Commissioner Beecham: I would like to comment to the applicant., that when you get up
here, you may want to let us know your feelings on the potential schedules.
Commissioner Bialson: Since staffhas given their negative recommendation on this,.ean
I ask what staffwould see as an appropriate use of this particular area?
]~uT~S.cJl[c.ib~: Staffwould c.ertainly be supportive of a use consistent with the zoning.-
The zoning allows a 0.4 floor area ratio for office and retail. It allows an additional 0.6
floor area ratio for residential. You can go all the way up to I to 1, in fact, for residential.
sO if the project were to be higher density, we certainly would be supportive of a ¯
predominantly residential project. A major part of our concern is the amount ofoftiee
space proposed as part of this project and the sense that that is not consistent with what
the city wants. But certainly something consistent with the zoning, even a.Planned
Community zone, in other words, a proposal that went beyond the zoning but was much
more heavily loaded toward the residential side, would obtain staff support. Within that
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 35
08-13-97
context, as we undertake the PAMF/SOFA coordinated area plan that the council
authorized last Monday night, I would expect that in that process, this area and also this "
property offAlma and the transition farther back into both the commercial and residential
area will receive rather close scrutiny. Coming out of that, there may well be a different
policy direction than we have right now, which may mean higher density or change in
land use. At this point in time, we have no way of knowing what will come out of that
process.
Commissioner Bialson: Are ~ere many other parcels of this size along the area we are
talking about, High Street or Alma Street? This does seem like one of the few large
parcels there.
]~,q.chI~~l~: The project is on three parcels. If you wish to start assembling land, I
think there are anumber of other options for creating larger sized parcels in this area.
Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate the comments. I am just going to staff’s concerns
with regard to the scale of this project, looking at the size of the property involved. Lhad
a bit of a question whether that concern was valid.. Thank you.
Commissioner Schmidt: A timber question along the line of scheduling. If we were to
recommend denial, and this went. on to the City Council, and then the City Council says it
does not disagree with city policies, then it would go back into the standard Course, and
there would be the time necessary for preparatiot~ of the.environmental impact
information. What you would in essence be doing if it goes to the City Council and they
want to support the project is adding a month or two to the project..review process. Is that
correct?
~S.ghly, i]~: It essentially adds about five weeks to the process - the time between
now and September 22nd.
Commissioner Schmid[: Is there a timeline for the preparation oftbe South of Forest
Coordinated Area Plan?
]~,~glgl~cJ.~: Work is to start quite soon. A working committee is to be appointed by
the Vice Mayor and a commiRed of council members. I would anticipate that occurring
fairly early in September. The objective, then, is to complete the coordinated area plan
within.about 12 to 13 months, basically October of 1998.
~: Is it possible to refer this tO the City Council not with a denial but
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 36
08-13-97
simply with issues that need to be resolved that we would like them to hear, with neither a
positive or a negative response, but just the message that these are some issues that need
to be resolved before a lot of money is put into it?
Iris. Cauble: Let me take another look at the language in the code. Basically, your charge
in reviewing proposals to amend the zoning for a particular parcel is to come up with a
recommendation for the City Council either supporting the application or recommending
denial. We could probably wordsmith your recommendation, if you get to that point,.
because certainly, you may not feel that you are i.,~ a position to say what you would.do
with further information. Let me pull the relevant material from the code. (Pause)
Basically, there are two parts of the code covering this. One is the PC zoning section, and
in addition, the general requirements for dealing with rezoning applications provide that
your choices are to fred that the change would be in~ocord with the Comprehensive Plan
and the purposes of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, you are recommending approval,
or, and we have pointed out at this point that you are not in a position to do that because
of the environmental assessment, your recommendation is to go forward to the ARB. The
alternative recommendation is to find that the change of zoning would not be in accord
with the zoning or the Comprehensive Plan and that you recommend against it. So let’s
see how it develops, and we can try to work with you to achieve whatever result you want
=to achieve tonight.
Commissioner Beecham: I assume that in practice, we could deny this~ but with the
intent, and purpose of sending it on to c0uncil,"even if we happen to feel that it is an
appropriate project to go forward, making the additional comments in the minutes for the
council to understand that consideration. ’
Commissioner Byrd: If there are no further questions for staff, I would like to open the
public hearing. I will invite the applicant to come forward. You have 15 minutes to
make a presentation.
Roxv Rapp. 373 University Avenue. Palo Alto: I would like to be called backat the end
to give my comments on what Ken Schreiber was referring to. Righi now, I want to
change the feeling to a more upbeat feeling, because I think we have a really exciting
project.here tonight. We have put together a great team that I would like to introduce you
to. First is Bob Peterson, the architect that will be speaddng tonight. Secondly, we have
with us Charlie Shrenck, if you have any questions we can answer in regard to financing.
Also we have Steve Brown here for construction, and Eric Doyle here for leasing. One of
¯ the key associates I have with me is Mr. Ken Alsman, a long-time mend, lives in the
neighborhood, a planner from Mountain View now doing outside consulting work, whom
A:[PCMinsT[Min0813 .r~g Page 37
08-13-97
I have respected very much over the years. I think he will be able to answer a lot of your
questions tonight. Without further delay, I would like to turn this over to Bob Peterson,_
and I will come back lat~r’~and give you my comments on Mr. Sehreiber’s comments.
Bob Peterson. Webster Street. Palo Alto: First, I want.to thank Dave Ross who did a
great job, and probably.took most of my presentation away. First of all, we have the
model here for you to see. It is at eye level because it is important that you see it at eye
.level. That gives you a much better feel for the scale of the project, rather than looking
down on it from a bird’s eye view.
I want to quickly run through some basic slides to orient you on the site. You can see the
excavation that was under way when this photograph was taken for the PAMF site. This
is Homer Avenue, Channing, and High Street changes to two directions here. That is an
important issue that was raised by the neighbors. Their desire, and ours also, is to change
High Street to two-way in this direction. I will get to that later as we discuss the parking
garage.
The proposed underground access to the new PAMF site would be at the end of Homer
Avenue. The new SRO is under construction at this point, about 50 feet away. There is a
mixed use under construction here that is 55 feet. Whole Foods is here, and slightly offin
this direeti0n is the historic retail that is on Homer which.has been there for many, many
years. It is something that has been brought to our attention by some of the residents, and
we are trying to connect to that. -’
Two other items here is that this. is the electrical substation for the City of Palo Alto, and
it is something that you might not be aware of unless you live in the area. There are high-
intensity power lines that So down the alley and all the way to Embarcadero and on out to
the Bayshore. That is one of the main lines that brings power into the City of Palo Alto.
They come into the substation from down that alley. That is also a major issue both for
us and for the residents thernselves~
This slide shows the site plan of our proposed project. As outlined in the staff report, this
is a mixed use project. We are really interested in trying to respond with a project that we
feel makes sense for the area and that the neighbors feel makes sense for the area. Olle of
the primary things we think is both viable and desirable for this area is to have housing
here. So we are doing what we really could to characterize it as kind of ~ upside-down
project. It is very usual to put offices and commercial on the lower level and put housing
on top. We are turning this upside down, and we are doing it intentionally. We would
like to have the housing on the bottom where we can maintain the vitality and the activity
A:lPCMinsTIMin0813.r~g Page 38
08-13-97
on the pedestrian level not only during the day but in the evenings and on the weekends.
As you know, when you have offices on the lower levels, they are dark in the evenings
and on the weekends, and it is really deadly to the pedestrian experience.
We are proposing that we create a new residential street, we have put as many
residential units as we can get on High Street so that we really do establish a residential
block in this area. We would create a plaza on this end which would relate to the kind of
activity node that is all down Homer Avenue and related to Whole Foods. These housing.
units are at street level but are about 18 inches offofthe street so that you get what we
feel is probably an ideal combination of some privacy from the street but very close to the
street so that you maintain that interaction between the residential units and the pedestrian
experience on the street itself.
We have provided parking for these units in the back at grade, so it is a somewhat
conventional arrangement where the housing tenants can come and park at grade, go in
their back door, and it works very well just as a traditional housing development.
Our parking garage entry, both in and out, is off of Channing. There has been’some
discussion over the years with both Channing and Homer Avenues being converted back
to two directions. That will work fine with our project, and would have no effect on it,
one way or the other. I think theneighbors’ desire for High Street being converted back
to two-way traffic really makes sense. As you can imagine, with any traffic coming out
of our project, if they cannot turn left and go along High Street, they have a tendency to
wander into the neighborhood, adding extra traffic and confusion to the residential
neighborhoods. If this is two-way, they can come out and go down High, turn and go
down to the signal at Alma, and they are out of the neighborhoodvery quickly and do not
have any major impacts.
As part of the project, we will have two layers of parking underground. We will be
replacing all of the sidewalks. We will also be paving and redoing the alley. The alley
now is one-way officially, but in fact, it is two-way most of the time, even though it is
very narrow. We are going to set our column line of the building back another ten feet so
that that alleyway is actually wide enough that any obstruction from loading or unloading
at the commercial buildings would not obstruct traffic. The automobiles would be able to
go around them, so that would work very nicely here.
As you can see, this parking at grade here relates directly to the housing.. This project is
actually over parked. We have some extra parking down below, and we have extra
parking at grade level. We would be able to provide about four to six spaces on this end
A:lPCMins7[Min0813 .r~g Page 39
08-13-97
which could be used by merchants who may be under parked in the area now, such as the
hardware store. Now, Ken will address some of the policy issues.
~ As Ken Schreiber pointed out earlier, one of the bases of your action tonight
has to do with an understanding of how this works with city policy. Policy is one of those
things that can often have some interpretations. It might come as no surprise that we have
a different interpretation of what the policy might be for the appropriate use of this site.
First of all, we have alre.ady had some discussion about the downtown cap. We tend to
feel that this project is not in violation of that policy, but really wholeheartedly is a part of
that policy, and meets the intent of that policy as originally adopted. It is using some
13% of the overall cap that ws established eleven years ago. I don’t know where it was
established or suggested that the cap should be sort of divvied out over a 30-year period
or so, as suggested in the staff report. This is wholly within a very conservative cap, and
we think it is appropriate rather than in violation of that cap in any way.
Most of the references in the staffreport dealt primarily with the 1976 Comprehensive
Plan and its amendments. It deals with issues such as "Protect and enhancethose
qualities which make Pale Alto.neighborhoods especially desirable." I think this policy
was primarily intended for residential neighborhoods, not necessarily a heavy commercial
area such as this, but nonetheless, we think that very definitely, this removal and
transition era blighted site and the creation 0fa lot of amenities within this area is going
to be beneficial not only to this mixed use area but also to adjoining neighborhoods.
Another thing that I think is particularly important is the public benefit that deals with
parking. There is the ability, with the parking program and the excess parking here, to
provide parking to adjacent uses which do not currently have it, relieving probably six to
seven blocks of on-street residential parking that is currently taking place within this area.
The only way that can happen is with a project that deals with a fairly large piece of
property and is able to consolidate the parking in the way that is being talked about here.
This is a mixed use area. This is a mixed use project. We feel it is certainly in accord
with that policy of the Comprehensive Plan.
There are other policies that call for the encouragement and foster the development of
new and existing housing. We are providing housing. It is not a requirement, however,
there is a strong and very important and innovative housing element to this project.
Staffrefers to issues dealing with the urban design element, to "promote the orderly and
harmonious development of the city and the attainment of the most desirable land use and
A:[PCMins7[Min0813.r~g Page40
0~13~7
improvements through the review of a new development." We fully well expect to go
through the review. We have begun it, and as David said earlier, the initial review by the
ARB was very enthusiastic. I think that will continue.
One other policy that I think is particularly important ~is the coordinated area plan. One
component of that ordinance that was just adopted is that planning in the city should work
in conjunction.with the marketplace. It shouldnot oppose the marketplace. We are in a
very unique and special market right now, and this project, which has been under way for
the last year, in terms of initial preparation, is ready to proceed. I think where this plan
really has its policy support is in the Comprehensive Plan document, Within the first
three or four chapters, there are at least 25 or 30 references that are in direct Support of
this project. It is in those are~ that as we look into the next century; this is a project for
the next century, much as this Comprehensive Plan is a document for the next century.
Vice Chair Byrd: I will invite any questions that commissioners, may have now, although
I hope we can hold the bulk of them for after the public heating is closed.
Commissioner Beecham: I do have one que~on on public benefits. I believeall of my
colleagues have this information at their places from Roxy Rapp’s office. It indicates a
little bit different information on the public benefit, in particular, for parking. I would
like to get a better understanding of what your intent is with that. ~ ,
~: Thank you. I think the parking is probably one of the best public benefits we
are giving here. This project is going to be built to code, which is four parking spaces for
every thousand square feet. Actually, I think we have six extra spaces, according to Lisa
Grote. If you look at Redwood Shores or Foster City or down in Mountain View, the
maximum that they are allowed to build is three per thousand. About three weeks ago, I
was fortunate enough to have a meeting with some of the homeowners in SOFA and with
t0wnyoung fellows from Stanford University that have degrees in planning, and we were
going over the public benefits. I was being educated about parking and transportation,
and they say that even in certain b.uildings, it is really 2.2 per thousand. If you would
agree that three per thousand is~sufficient, we will have a tenant in the office building sign
in his lease that that is what he will agree to, three per thousand. We are able to give all
of those other parking spaces to the employers for their, employees in the surrounding
area. We are also proposing to put in townfull-time valet people from seven in the
morning until seven at night, and we had Watry redo this parking lot to see exactly how
many we could get in with stacking. It was 39 extras. So if you were an employee that
worked at Whole Foods, you would really love to be able to.put your car in this garage
instead of having to put it way out in the neighborhood and have sap fall on it or the
A:[PCMinsT]Min0813.reg Page
08-13-97
chance ofhaving it broken in or rained on. !t stays cool during the summer when they
can put it underneath. So I think that to be able to park 109 cars guaranteed, that means
we can pull 109 cars out of the residential area into the garage. There is a possibility of.
even more. We will find out about that from the TDM person who will be aboard. They
will be able to watch this, plus the valet people. It is just a shame that there are some
garages downtown that stay empty half the time be.cause they are gated. All you have to
do is to walk down to the Wells Fargo building and take a peek, and you will see that. So
we are not going to be gated. It will be open., and I think it is a great public benefit and
great for the neighborhood to be able to pull 109 cars, roughly around seven blocks.
Thank you.
Commissioner Bialson: I have a question regarding parking. You mentioned that it
would be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Would the garage also be available for evening use.’?
H~Rap~: Yes, it would. We would probably put anothervalet company in there to
watch it, because what we would like to do is to try and get the restaurants in the area to
at least put their employees there. A restaurant is heavily employed between the people,
in the back room plus all of the waiters and waitresses, especially Emerson Street, which
has really taken off with some excellent restaurants. I think it is great. All of those
employees right now who have to come in early to start their shift and do all of the
preparatory work are parking in the neighborhood or taking up customer parking. We
would hope to get them in there and work with the restaurants andbe able to put signs out
or work with some valet service. We are going to have almost a 300-car empty garage in
the evenings. So I am not proposing that as one of our public benefits, but yes, we will be
open.
Commissioner Bialson: So it would be open only.through the valet service7
No, it would be open to anyone who wants to drive in there and park.
Vice Chair Byrd: Seeing no furt.h, er questions for the applicant, I will now open the
public hearing.. -
Kerry_ Yarkin. 135 Churchill Avenue. Palo Alto: My family.owns the property that is
directly across the street from the project at 801 and 815 High Street. Although we
generally favor the development plans for this 800 High Street project, we areopposed to
the trees that the ddveloper is proposing.placing on the narrow sidewalk abutting our
property. When we remodeled our building in 1988, the Axehiteetural Review Board
studied this site and decided then that there was not sufficient sidewalk width for any
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 42
08..13-97
treeson this side of our building. With increased development in the area, there is more
pedestrian traffic on the street than in the past, and the wisdom of the ARB decision
becomes more and more apparent. Although we are not opposed to having trees in our
community, we think that to place trees in this very narrow sidewalk area would be a
mistake, and we therefore respectfully request that they be removed from the developer’s
plans.
Michael Griffin. 344 Poe Street. P~lo Alto: I am the secretary oftheDowntown North
Neighborhood Association, and I have a few points I would like to share with you this
evening. First of all, the Downtown North Neighborhood Association has already
demonstrated to the City Council just this past May our dissatisfaction with the PC
superzone process that is having the effect of circumventing the existing and adequate (in
our opinion) downtown commercial zoning that is currently in effect. Secondly, the
proposed project is, in our opinion, yet another example of property owners trying to jam
overdevelopment into the downtown district prior to the implementation of the
Comprehensive Plan. - ¯
.Thirdly, the project is over height, oversized, and over scaled for the neighborhood, and
will be a net t~affic generator. I really like this scale model over here. If you look at it,
you can allow yourself to be overwhelmed by the massiveness of the structure. Fourthly,
we generally support two-story buildings, not three, as proposed. Westrongly support the
.existing FAR requirements of one, not two, as proposed by the applicants. Fifahly, we
strongly endorse the city staff’s negative findings.for this project. Ken, it was nicely
done. Lastly, again, the Downtown North Neighborhood Association is opposed to PC
superzones in the downtown Palo Alto area, and that includes specifically 800 High
Street. We ask that you deny the applicants in their attempt to pr0fi{ in this manner to the
detriment of the downtown neighbors. Thank you.
Dan Lorimer. 565 Hawthorne Avenue. Palo Alto: I am President of the Downtown North
Neighborhood Association. I think you can predict from Mike’s comments what I am
going to say here tonight. We have been opposed consistently to buildings that are
overscaled. This one is certainly about the biggest one we have seen proposed. Actually,
as I was going through this staffreport, I realized that it pretty much said I want to say. If
you look at the policy inconsistencies here, we have Urban Design Element Policy 1,
Program 1. "Discourage massive single uses through limitations on height and.density to
project’s surrounding uses and community values." The proposed project would add to
the height and density Of an existing large-scale single use. So right there is the biggest
single problem. It goes on later to say that the downtown commercial regulations limit
the size of any single, non-residential project to 25,000 square feet or 15,000 square feet
A:lPCMins7[Min0813.reg Page 43
08-13-97
above the existing floor area, whichever is greater, provided the FAR limitations are not
exceeded. This project size regulation resulted from a policy developed during the
Downtown Study adopted in 1986. This study and the resultant downzoning
accomplished three very important things for the downtown area which have been
instrumental in its success. First, the traditional human scale and historic lotting pattern
of the downtown were preserved by discouraging consolidation of parcels and limiting
the building sizes through project size limits. It goes on in this vein, and basically, it is
very clear that the report here is saying exactly what we would say.
I want to get into one specific issue on this that has not been addressed at any length,
which is something that we have seen happen over and over again with these PCs. That
is, you get an outrageous project which is then followed bY a ridiculously small PC
benefit. So here we have seven public benefits listed. The first benefit is the inherent
benefit of replacing the dilapidated manufacturing building with a new building. So he is
saying that the building is its own benefit. We should be happy that he is putting it there.
The second benefit is below-market housing. He is required to put in below-market
housing. The third benefit is public art. Once again, this is another benefit where the
building is providing something that enhances the saleability of thespace or leasability of
the space, and we are supposed to look at that as a public benefit. Then we have 15 street
trees. Once again, he is landscaping his own building. As you go on .through it, youget
the same thing. We have seen this happen over and over again. The public would like to
see a zoning process where you have an established zoning for a parcel, and they can
dependably look at that as a guideline for what will actually be built there. The.PC
process so effectively circumvents this that you look at the zoning and you think one
thing is going to be built, and people come in with projects that have no relationship
whatsoever to the actual zoning of the project.
Darlene Markovich. 724 Ramona Street. Palo Alto: I live between here and Whole
Foods. I think I can speak to this issue from twO perspectives. I like the project.
Personally, I have worked in Palo Alto for 23 years, and I have lived here as a resident for
18 years, with ten of those in the condominium I own just down the street. I have been
looking for a more unique living space and a somewhat larger and unusual space, but very
much in the same neighborhood. $o I was very excited to hear about this project and this
plan. Secondly, as a Human Resources coordinator for a large pharmaceutical company
in Palo Alto that has. 1,700 employees, most of whom work in Palo Alto, I am responsible
for recruiting and r~locating people to this area. Most of them come from very
sophisticated urban centers, some regentrified communities, and some of them even live
in loft. A lot of the questions I get are, what kind of unusual and provocative housing
A:ll~MinsTIMin0813 .reg Page 44
08-13.97
options do you have for people out here. I would like to be able to say that we have a
model of that in something like this.
So finally, I am very proud to be living here. I love living here. I hope to live here for
the rest of my life, and I have a strong desire to protect this community and at the same
time find ways to help it t6 develop in smart and diverse ways. This is my first visual
introduction to Mr. Rapp and the others here, and knowing about some of their projects
and seeing what they have done in the past, with your help and the help of the ARB and
others, I think we could make that happen.
Susan Stulz. 480 Palo Alto Avenue. Palo Alto: I, too, am a member of the Downtown
North Neighborhood Association, but I am here to speak in support of this project. One
of the things I like about it is the parking, especially at night. I walk to downtown, but I
have a hard time getting fi’iends to meet me down here because it is so hard to find
parking. So I think this going to be a real benefit. I also like the idea of the mixed use.
This is kind of a transitional part of the city, and it has something different going for it. I
think this is a good thing for Palo Alto to try out and see how it works out.
I also like the idea that the living is on the ground floor and the offices are above. It will
feel safer to walk by here at night. I must tell the architect that this is really cool
architecture. It is really neat to look at, and it is really different. Living oethe north side
of Palo Alto, some of the new developments on Lytton have all been sort of in the same
mold. Palo Alto has a chance to get awaY from l~ing boring, and I think this is really.
cool architecture.
I also like the idea of the big p|aza that is planned. It would be neaiif Cafe Berona or
something comes in where you can sit out there. Menlo Park has that neat space, and it
would be a cool space to hang out at. I wish this had gone in instead of some of the
things .that did to in on Lytton Avenue..Thank you.
William F. Kay. 302 Lowell Avenue. Palo Alto: Members of the commission and staff, I
have three interest, and I want to make sure you understand that I have no interest
businesswise or otherwise with Mr. Rapp. I met him for the first time wh~ ! went to the
outdoor presentation that he made. My interests are threefold. No. 1, as a.resident, I am
interested in making sure that Palo Alto develops properly and in terms of the knowledge ¯
worker that we are looking at and hoping tO attract to this community. The live/work
concept is important.
Second of all, I am a business owner and a principal in our business offices at 101
A:ll’CMinsTlMin0813.~g Page 45
08-13-97
University Avenue, a twain member law fn’rn, and I have those interests there. A third
interest is just someone who, in the past ten years, is dearly connected to the downtown.
My wife and I, also a principal in the law firm, walk downtown from our house at least
once a week, and sometimes three to four times a week just to visit downtown and go
back, even though we work on University Avenue. ..
I support the project for two principal reasons: No. 1 is the live/work concept, and I think
it is extremely important that you give this project consideration and support it, because
we need the support of live/work. My wife and I come as close as we can to live/work in
terms of living close tO our work, and I think that is very convenient, but we have to look
at the human size of what we are developing for our housing and working, and this is a
very important project in that sense. The second reason we support it is because of the
transition. Maybe it is just because we walk to the downtown and we walk back, but for
the past ten years in that walking, we frequently talk about the transition and how well
Pale Alto may or may not work out that transition, especially in this very difficult
neighborhood. This project appears to be just right on target from our perspective.
In terms of the public benefit, I think that is very important, and it speaks to another
interest I have. I hope to continue to have good walking and mobile access to the medical
facility. That is where I get my medical care, and that is where many members of the
community do, and I think the contribution of $100,O00 will help to bring that to reality.
The second public benefit is in terms of parking, and obviously next to.housing, it is the
No. 1 issue we deal with with employees. It is no news to you, it is a headache. If this is.
worked properly, that public benefit will be a benefit, not just a u~.urY.
Finally, I do like the idea of the suggestion of the public benefit and contribution toward
downtown traffic. My own observation over the last 15 years downtown is that
downtown has changed, but the patterning of the Waffic has not.
My own observation over the last 15 years in downtown is that downtown has changed, but the
patterning of the traffic has not. I think the study that is recommended here and some of the
things that are suggested will help in that area.
I want to commend the staffboth as hardworking public employees and havingto focus on a
very difficult decision, that is, applying this project to your existing standards. I know it was not
an easy decision. I just want to say, without getting into details, that I think the project size,
when you consider all of the factors -- economic, the mix ofliveJwork, the transition, anti
actually a very difficult site in terms of where we are thinking about it as residential only or
commercial only - it’is a project that fits. I do think you have to put in the proper time and
A:lPCMins7[Min0813.r~g Page 46
08-13-97 ~.
work. If the Planning Commission and staff’works with this developer, I would like to see it
come to fruition. Thank you.
Marilyn Calabres. 707 Bryant Street. Pale Alto: I live at the comer of Forest and Bryant, and I
also work downtown. I don’t think Ican be any more articulate than the others who have spoken
for the project before me. I would like to echo my approval: I know that you always haveto
look at the pros and cons of something that is unique and different, but considering everything, I
see a lot of public benefit. I think it is beautiful. I certainly.have experienced personally the
parking problems that continue downtown, and I think that providing a lot of parking for
¯ employees in the downtown area would be very beneficial o residents, as well as to the
businesses then’~elves. I hope you will consider this and give it your approval. Thank you.
Sall~ Ann Rudd. 204 Cowr~er Street. Pale Alto: Before living at this address, I lived at 725
Cowper Street, so I am familiar with the area of this project. First of all, congratulations to the
planning department for doing an excellent job of city planning. There is one thing I do not like
about this project. One thing that the Planning Commission really has to come to terms with is
the fact that it is a three-story building, another three-story building in an area which is
predominantly an area of one- and two-story buildings. There are a lot ofthr~-story buildings
either being built at the moment in downtown Pale Alto or are in the.pipeline. I really think this
is affecting the style of Palo Alto and is really a detriment to the downtown area. When you have
buildings that are significantly bigger than the street trees, it really affects the quality of fight that
comes down onto the street. You don’t get the sunshine and it is not of human scale. I reaflly
think this is something that the Planning Commission should consider seriously..
The next thing I want to talk about is the developmeh~ cap downtown. I think given the level of
congestion and the par .ldng problems we have, it should be obvious by now that the development
cap is too high. It is not a practica!, cap, and I hope that is something that is considered at some
time, definitely when thinking about the Waffle impacts of this project.
I want to make one small point about the public benefit. It has. been mentioned by several
speakers that this project is six parking spaces over parked, which is a big difference from most
projects in Pale Alto, but I cannot see that as a public benefit in any way, given that the same
developer has purchased many in=lieu parking spaces in other parts of downtown, so on a net
basis, I doubt very much whether this is .adding to the number of spaces in Pale Alto. .~ ~
The last thing is that there has been a lot of discussion about the live/work element of this
project. I would particularly like to point out that professional who spoke earlier, because this
developer does not have a terrific track record where live/work is concerned. There was another
building at the corner of Cowper and Univers.ity Avenue which was supposed to be live/work,
and there were a lot of in’lieu parking spaces given on that basis for that project. The live
element of that project has mysteriously disappeared. I know the Council was not particularly
pleased about that, and I hope the Planning Commission was not particularly pleased about that,
A:[PCMins7[Min0813 Page 47
08-13-97
either. Personally, I won’t believe that there is any residential with this project until I actually
see it built. I hope the Planning Commission will remember what happened the last time and
take the appropriate precautions.
Steve Player. 1874 Guinda Street. Palo Alto: I am an attorney here in Palo Alto, and I
represent Peninsula Creamery, the owner of this property. I fred it ironic that a creamery,
which has bern in this community since 1923, is now in the position 0fbeing involved
with the development of a parcel that is really going to begin to embrace the new century,
which is the theme of our new Comprehensive Plan. As you know, the creamery has
been a solid citizen member of this community. The Santana family, whom I represent, .
has operated the creamery at that particular site since her grandfather started it back in
1923. Roxy Rapp is a native Palo Altan who has proven to be a quality developer in this
community. The family considered this very, very carefully when they thought about
¯ what it would be, and who it would-be to develop their particular parcel.
As you know, when you’make any kind of a change, it is a difficult thing to do, especially
in this case when you have been at this one location all of your life, and all of your
family’s life, and have had this creamery operating as. a single use on this site for that
many years. So when you make that transition, how you make it and in what direction
you go With it is something that is very carefully considered and weighed. In deciding on.
Roxy and the developer team that he.h~ put together, all those factors, his record, his
qualifications, his relationship to Palo Alto, were all considered. The Sani~ma family is
very happy with what he has come up with. ..
Let me talk a little bit about what we are facing here. Staff and I have had some very real
disagreements on interpreting the application of this particular Site.~" This really is not
inconsistent with the land policies as stated. Bear in mind that this is a single purpose
parcel and has been so since 1923. Yes, there are three parcels there, but those parcels are
all owned by the same owner. They have been an ice cream plant. Right now they are in
the process of a refrigeration plant and a distribution center for ice cream since its
inception. We are now moving from that to a mixed use development which is going to
have retail, it is go’.mg to have housing, and it is going to have commercial. So I believe
that it really is not inconsistent with policy in the sense that the staffhas applied it.
Also, it is an appropriate place for this project. It is very close, within easy walking
distance, of the railroad station. It is within a close distance to Alma Street, which is a
major transportation ttioroughfare for public transportation. There are going to be
opportunities here for people to come to this site with an aggressive TDM program not in
their car, which is what the whole new future is about, but to utilize the common
A:lPCMinsT]Min0813.reg Page 48
08-13-97
transportation systems that are being developed and that we are really working on in this
community.
I would also like to talk about the fact that this is the future we are talking about here. If
you look at the Comprehensive Plan, and Ken has talked about it already, there are words
like "mixed use brings vitality," "dynamism," "the SOFA area :-this particular location"
which is very interesting. It is on the fi’inges of the SOFA area. It is zoned CS, which is
the downtown zone, so it really has been viewed at one point as’the fi’inges of the
downtown as opposed to an inherent part Of the SOFA area. So as we look at this
concept, we need to look at it and remember it andunderstand that this was viewed as
part of the downtown. Then you look at the whole question of the appropriateness of this
type of development at this particular location. I think you have to view it in that context.
In terms of the benefits of the site, the parking, the various aspects of it which have been
spoken to much more eloquently thani can, I think it fits. It fits in many contexts. I also
think that if you drive through that area at this point and you look at the context in which
it is now, if you drive by the new SRO, if you look at the comer development, it is
appropriate and does fit in with what is.in that area.
Let me close by saying, this project is like any other project, and it needs to be treated like
any other project. It should be put through the system in an appropriate and expeditious
mannei. What I have heard tonight is the possibility for further delay. If yOu are in favor
of and support the creative project that is before you, then let it be. moved on to the ARB.
All I want for this project is that it stay in the system and move i~t. along so that we do not
lose the opportunity of the type of things, the creative approach to this use, that we are
going to bring here. The Santana family thanks you, and I thank you very much.
Richard Rathbun. 575 Kellogg Avenue. Palo Alt0: I am speaking this evening as a board
member and on behalf of the University South Neighborhood Group: Our board has
engaged extensively in conversations about this project, both amongst ourselves and our
membership and with the development team. We would like to say this evening that we
are somewhat in the middle of the road on this project at this time. We would like to
commend the development team for their early and proacf!’ve response in termsof
dialogue with the neighborhood group and with the neighbors. We believe they have
been sincerely interested in that dialogue, and have engaged in it with sincerity in a very
responsive way. We are impressed by their responsiveness to the public benefits package
and were especially .intrigued with the Traffic Management possibilities for this project.
A:[PCMins7[Min0813 .reg Page 49
08-13-97
We are also intrigued by the housing component of this project. It is a unique possible
contribution to the area in terms of having that housing at the street level. However, we
still have someunresolved issues in our conversations. One of the unresolved issues is
our concern about this project being put ahead of the Coordinated Area Plan. We would
have the hesitation that this project not create precedents that are then incorporated into
that Coordinated Area Plan.
We also have some concerns about the scale and design of the project and some concerns
about the enforceability of those live/work spaces. But because the dialogue has been
very productive thus far, although we neither support nor object to this project, we would
like to see it proceed through the review process, because we think the continued dialogue
has the possibility of resolving some of our current concerns. So because we have had
extensive conversations, we would recommend that the process proceed, and possibly we
can resolve some of those unresolved questions as it goes through that process. Thank
you very much.
Vice Chair B~d: .Mr. Rathbun, does YOur group have any specific structure in mind for
how this project’s review should relate to the Coordinated Area Plan for SOFA7
~,L.~ggIl: Well, we have had discussions about that. We do not have any formal
proposals, but we thought that a project like this which .engages both the neighborhood
and the development team in an active conversation could perhaps set some of the tenor
for the Coordinated Area Plan’s process as it proceeds, but no formal ideas about that.
Jim Henning. 1320 Webster Street. Palo Air0: I live wi~ my family at this address. My
wife, Doris, is a marketing strategist. She lives and works at home. My father-in-law,
who also lives with us, is an educational psychologist who also lives and works at home.
My four-year-old daughter just lives at home. (Laughter) We see this project as a
metaphor for how we are living Our lives these days. We left a beautiful but fairly remote
house in Los Altos Hills in large part to be near the vitality and the work that ensues here
~in Palo Alto. So I do stand in favor of this project. I think it is ¢.arefully thought out. I
think it is an appealing and appropriate project for the site. It is one that highlights great
design, in my mind, smart function, and also buffers the city from the industrial nature of
the area.
It would be very nice .to have a public plaza adjacent to Whole Foods and lovely to bring
trees into an area that i~ otherwise fairly industrial. It would serve all of us to have added
parking and the other planned amenities that are included in the project. We believe this
plan has high integrity and that it will add needed life, vitality and beauty to the area. So
A:lPCMinsT~Min0813 .r~g Page 50 ¯
08-13-97
we welcome it. Thank you.
Randy. Scott.312 Coleridge. Palo Alto: I have been a resident of Palo Alto for the last 31
years, and I have worked within downtown Palo Alto for the past 15 years. I am very
interested in this project, having driven by, jogged and biked by the area and know the ~
area very well. I come from a little different twist. I am in the real estate business
although not affiliated with this particular group. I do watch the projects as they are
planned and developed, taking a part interest in them. I do support the project for the four
following reasons. One, it certainly would be an improvement to the area, as earlier
stated. Currently existing there is a very bland and industrial feel. Second, I do believe
that it is attractive architecture. We talked about mixed use and the live/work ideas. I
personally receive and our company receives many calls about rental and live-in work
style units. There is a tremendous demand for them, and we cannot fill them at all.
Additionally, the third area would be parking. Typically, parking downtown, as every
one knows, is very, very scarce, particularly with office-associated businesses. The
average is between one and two parking spaces per thousand Square feet of leas’.mg, and
there are very few exceptions to that. So talking about three or more parking spaces per
thousand square feet is a great improvement. In addition, I do not want to diminish the
effect not only during the day but at nighttime with the overflow from the downtown,
which I think is a tremendous attribute.
Finally, the demand and, to some degree, retail,.is very, very strong. Palo Alt~ is a
desirable area to be in. The vacancy rate, as people know, is under one percent. It is
really the center of everything from sot~are to life sciences, earli .er addressed. I would
like to keep those types of companies interested in keeping Palo Alto in the forefront as
opposed to looking at other areas. Thank you.
Larry_ Hassett. 875 Alma Street. Palo Altn: I am the owner of Palo Alto Hardware and
also the owner of the existing building in the lower right hand corner of your screen that
houses Palo Alto Hardware in close proximity.to the development. I want to comment
Roxy on his openness and his willingness to come forward and discuss problems of
compatibility associated with this project and my business. He came to me fairly early
on, and we have hashed out and ironed out a lot of~e issues. A lot of the public benefits
go a long way towards improving the area andtowards improving problems with the
existing situations there. One of the main benefits that I foresee is the widening of the
alley. The alley has been a problem ever since we moved in there. It is truly only wide
enough for one vehicle to pass at a time, and with delivery trucks there fairly regularly,’ it
becomes a bottleneck, so having a wider alley will certainly improve the situation for our
A:ll’CMins71Min0813 .reg Page
08-13-97
business.
In addition to that, the discussions I have had with Roxy have centered around some of
the nuisances associated with a commercial business like my own hardware store, which
operates from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Normally, that is.what most people think of when
they think about businesses being there, but it is truly a very early morning situation
where we may have trucks at 4:00 or 5:00 a.m.~ or we may have trucks delivering real late
in the evening, ten and twelve at night. So it is kind of a 24-hour business; and we have
discussed issues regarding the nuisance that that might be for his project. We have pretty
much come to terms on that, and I do not really feel that I will be "airported out" where
the community kind of grows around the airport, and then the airport is gone, so I am
very happy with that.
One of the main benefits that I See is parking in this area. I find it very critical that in this
particular lot, we have an opportunity, if the numbers all work out, to create that as a
public benefit. The problem with this area is that we are not in a parking assessment "
district as we speak, sb it is very difficult to get a parking structure or anything like that
built unless the property owners in the area agree to form an assessment district. The
likelihood of that happet~Ang in today’s climate is really rare, so any opportunity that we
haveright now to possibly alleviate the parking problem I would welcome. Currently, I
know that I have approximately five or six, sometimes up to eight people..who park in the
neighborhoods two and three blocks away. I know that the situation is really exasperated
(!) by Whole Foods and Reach.and some of the other businesses that are really under
parked.
I find this building fairly attractive, and I like the mixed use. I justthink it is a very
compatible building in a very tough mmsitional area, so I am in support ofhis project.
Cris Schiebold. 480 Palo Alto Avenue. Palo Alto: I couldhave used the building tonight.
I am parked out at the Palo Alto Medical Center! I live in north Palo Alto and have an
officein downtown Palo Alto. I have had the opportunity to watch this project through
the planning phase. In light of the architecture, in light oftheparking and in light of what
is there now, as a Palo Altan, I would recommend this project, s~xongly.
Mark Anderson. 790 High Street. Palo Alto: I have been a businessman in Palo Alto,
owning my own design business for 20 years. Before that, I worked for another design
firm named Hisada Design. Historically, as I think back when I came to Palo Alto 25
years ago and I saw this city then, and I see what it is now, I cannot believe the change.
My disappointment wasat times in the early years quite high in Palo Alto, but a key thing
A:ll~MinsTlMin0813.reg Page 52
08-13-97
happened, and my work for the firm did that, and I think Roxy is at that stage in this
project, which is making a statement that this city nee& to move on to a new level. You
can see that in downtown Palo Alto. When you walk down University Avenue, there is
excitement. I have a background in design from working for the City of Dallas Planning
Department, and I understand city planning. My background is quite diverse, and when I
saw this project across the street from my property, I was very excited.
The point I want to go ba~k to is the Gatehouse Restaurant project 20 years ago. Before
that time, there weren’t any restaurants of any substance. That restaurant at that end of
town opened up a whole new vision to what this town has become. That part of town is
full, and I think there is another end of town. The energy that this project can bring is the
same energy that The Gatehouse brought when there was nothing there. I myself want to
restore the history of the Pontiac showroom which was built in the 1930s, which is the
building I am in. I have a lot of ideas I would like to share with you people later. I am at
a very high level of excitement for this project. I know there have been a lot of
differences of opinion voiced tonight, but I think that if you add them all up, whether it is
parking or architectural appearance, there are so many of them because there is so much
of a mixture and depth to this project that you’v.egot to think about that. I think there is~a
lot here for everybody. I am very disappointed about the project going in right behind the
building I am in. It is a four-story, low-income housing project, basically crammed in. I
am questioning that intensity, and I am questioning the alleyway to servi~e the parking
behind there.. There are a lot of questions there. This project has answered some of those
questions that were presented. And that project passed?? This project at least has a lot of
positive things that should continue in the process. Hopefully, ifRoxy wants to talk and
cooperate with the city and the neighbors, I would be happy to be ~n his committee and
your committee to make something like this at least be understood better. If it has to be
slowed down a little to focus in on some things, maybe that’s.right, but it should not be
stopped because of information that is unclear at this stage, because there is plenty of
information. Thank you for your time.
Steve Niethammer. 435 Marion Avenue. Palo Alto: I am not necessarily pro-
development, but I am pro quality development. If something like this isn’t going to
happen, what would be there? I would hate to see a pink stucco strip center with a Taco
Bell and a 7-11 there. One thing this developer has done has been to build quality, high
end projects. One of the key benefits that I like is the underpass going through and the
$100,000 contribution to help put that into the clinic. I think one thing that it is going to
do is to create less waffic on Embarcadero and University. People’ say ~at this is going to
bring a lot of traffic in. t think that offofAlma, it is so easy to get offAlma, and by
making High S~reet two-way, the traffic does not even get into the neighborhood like it
A:[l~Mins7[Min0813.reg Page 53
08-13-97
does now because High Street is one-way. So I think it is a quality development, and I
hope that it goes through.
Doue Ross, 901 Alma Street. Pale Alto: Given the lateness of the hour, I will be brief. I
am.developing the parcel on the comer of Alma and Channing. The project has some
similar components, but I would like to endorse the project. I believe the mixed use
housing is a real benefit to the city. The parking that the developer is proposing is a
unique opportunity to mitigate a lot of the parking problems in the city. This is one of the
few areas that is underdeveloped, and it will be developed more as time continues, and
parking will become a critical component to the area, no matter how the balance of the
properties are developed. The project is nicely designed, as stated by the ARB, and it will
act as a catalyst to revitalize this part of town. I think Roxy has a proven track record,
and Contrary to the earlier speaker, I think the PC process is an important part of the way
the city responds to unique projects. It enables people to do things that are somewhat
special, and I think the project should be approved. Thank you.
Loren Brown. 633 Kellogg Avenue. Pale Alto: I have been a resident here for 13 years. I
think this is a tremendous opportunity to have something done with this particular parcel:
This parcel has been siring around for a long, long time and is really a blight there.
Opportunities like this come along for the quality development that is proposed. I
endorse the project and think the architecture is nice and the use is well pl.anned. Thank
you..
Vice Chair Byrd: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public hearing. R is now
appropriate for the applicant to return for five minutes and sum up..his presentation.
~: Thank you all who came tonight and spoke. This is my third PC. The first
one, which I am very proud of, was with Jim Baer at 250 University Avenue. I think you
will all agree that it is a tremendous entrance now for Ramona Street, compared to theold
Crocker Bank Building that used to be there. The second PC I did was at 499 Cowper at
University. To that young lady who lives on Cowper Street who spoke earlier, I want to
say that the live/work space was never part of the PC. I never promised to have live/work
space there. Early in the planning stage, after the approval, I had a client come in and
rent the whole building. That is why I never did the live/work space there. But I did go
to the expense to pipe it all, and maybe someday, when that client moves out, I can put in
live/work space there.. This project will definitely have to be live/work space. It is a part
of the PC, and it will be there. You will have to live there, but you do not have to Work
there, so anyone that will be renting here will have to make this their residence. Th~ neat
thing is that you can work here and you can live here. We already have a live/work space
A:IPCMinsTIMin0g l’3.reg Page 54
08-13-97
ordinance written by Lorraine Weiss, I believe, so we can just start fight in with that.
I would like to see this sent on to the Board, and I would like to keep the process going.
It will give Ken time to start the EIA. He made the decision right at the beginning when I
paid my $6,000 entry fee and he cashed the Check to not put me through the process and
give me a negative at that time. I would like to keep the process going and hope that he
sees his way clear .and that staffdoes and that the Planning Commission and City Council
will see what a wonderful project.this is. It gives us time to work with.the neighbors, the
whole SOFA area and the Board, and that has been a wonderful experience for me. They
have been very open, and all of the meetings have been tremendously productive. I see us
getting closer and closer in coming toagreat solution for this. What it actually does is
that Ken has really done me a service here. He has bought me some time to get closer to
the board and the SOFA residents. I think we are going to end up four months from now
with a great project, and I think you are going to be proud of it, as you are my other
projects. Thank you so much.
Vice Chair Byrd: Thank you, Mr. Rapp. Are there any followup question?
Commissioner Schmidt: I have several questions. I wondered if you considered a
different ratio of housing on this site, with more housing and less office space?
~: I wish we could do that, Kathy, but the problem with adding more housing,
yes, we could add a couple more units. We could make the units smaller and probably do
something down at that far end by putting another unit in there, but the problem is the
parking. When you go to underground parking, it is very, very e~xpensive. The
underground parking is almost $5 million. It is really the office component that pays for
the project and subsidizes the housing. Of course, the retail which is very small here
carries itself. As Doug said at the Architectural Review Board meeting, it has been a long
time since you have seen a project come before you that is self-parked. That is one of the
great things about this project. That is why we cannot add a lot of housing.
Commissioner Schmidt: Also,.I believe in your earlier comments, in your description of
the parking pubiic benefit, you said that you could get tenants to agree to using three
~paces per thousand rather than four, and I am assuming that that is something you can do
as part of the lease. It is not anything that the city requires.
~: Right, we will havethat in the lease, and the city will have access to those
leases.
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 55
08-13-97
Commissioner Schmidt: So you would have control over what parking you can provide
for others and what parking --
~: Eric could probably talk to that really well. Eric is probably 1.he leading
commercial real estate broker on the entire peninsula. He has won many awards for
renting more square footage than anyone else, so I think he could answer that very
confidently, and I think.his answer would probably be that three per one thousand is more
than enough.
.CommissioIl~r Beecham: Even if you have it in the lease about the three spaces per
thousand, that only puts them on notice that they will have that many spaces down in the
garage. For anybody else .they have beyond that requirement, those people would be on
the street, basically. Is that correct?
H~?~: Yes, unless we had a mechanism to police it..But you are absolutely right.
However, I don’t think they would sign a lease if it is were a high-end tenant paying
$2.75 per square-foot and couldn’t get the parking that they required, that they would
want it.
Commissioner Bialson: Do you have.a single-user tenant for this building?
~: Actually, we are having a meeting tomorrow morning with a great user who
will probably use less than two. This is a major design firm, and I would say that Over
20% of their employees come from San Francisco and another 5% from down on the
peninsula. They will use the train.. It would be just great for them. Also there is a lot of
other interest. There is a law firm and a large consulting firm is interested. But until we
get approval, we cannot really market it.
Commissioner Bialson: So you do see a single user.
~: It is actually designed that we could break it up into four, but yes, I could see
a single user taking.it all. If the market should change, it couldbe broken up into four
Commissioner Beecham: At this point, I am surprised,that you still want this to go to the
ARB, given that there .would be a delay for the environmental assessment, and also, there
may be some significant questions as to whether it would be approved in the end by the
council. I would think you would want to get a preliminary reviewby the council at this
point.
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 56
08-13-97
~: I prefer that it go to the ARB. As I said earlier, I think it is important for me
to have this time to work with SOFA. It also gives Ken more time to start the EIA, and it
gives me more time to work with Ken and Chandler and Lisa. I think it would be in my
best interest to do that, and my partners are with me on that 100%.
Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question regarding the architecture. Since the ARB
likes to talk about planning issues, I want to ask one architectural question! The
residential units face on High Street, and that is what I would characterize as the dark side
of the street.
The less sunny side.
Cdmmissioner SchmiOt: It is a northeast-facing faCade. There are large overhangs at the
residences. Is there any way that you are planning to bring daylight through to that side
of the building?
]~.~1~: Well, you have.put your finger on a difficult issuethat is inherent in this
lot, just by its orientation. We certainly did recognize that, and that is one of the reasons
why the live/work space is so high. It is really a 17-foot height at the porches, so there
will be plenty of light, but it will get sun early in the morning only. You won’t get-it the
rest of the day, but it will still be very light. If you will notice in the model, the windows ~
on those live/work units are a full height, so they go all the way up the 17 feet. There will
be. plenty of light, with sun early in the morning.
Chairman Schink: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public hearing and
return this item to the commission. Are there any additional questions for staffat this
time?
Commissioner Cassel: I called Chandler Lee this afternoon and asked him some
questions about the substation. There are several transformers in the substation, and one
of them is quite new and makes very little noise. Another one, which is fairly near the
project, is quite old and makes a lot of noise. I wanted to know how old the old one is
and what the city has in its plans to replace it. I believe they are replaced on some sort.of
Schedule.
~: I talked to..the utilities department this afternoon, and although they did not
know the exact age of the old transformers, they do have a plan to replace the two old
ones with two new ones within the next two to three years.
A:lPCMinsTIMin0813.r~g Page 57
08-13-97
Commissioner Cassel:That’s good, and the new ones do not make much noise.
That is correct.
Commissioner Cassel: I also want to ask about undergrounding those lines insteadof
taking them out. to Alma. I wanted to know what the problems are with undergrounding
them. I understand that can be done and is done in lots of places in town.
~: It certainly is technically feasible. In conversations with the utilities
department, again.my understanding is that it is a 60 kv line, which is one of the largest
that is made. In order to keep the utility lines cool, it requires some oil coils or something
underneath that would periodically require maintenance. The utilities department would
be opposed to undergrounding because of those maintenance issues.
]~L.~,g~: To follow up on that, in talking to utilities staffabout the project, they
stressed that any ~onsideration of undergrounding the 60 kv was technically very, very
difficult, and would be extremely expensive. It would be so expensive that the city
would never undertake it, and they could not imagine how a private developer could
undertake undergrounding 60 kv. The problem of cooling the cables, because of the
amount of energy in them, is a very difficult and expensive process. So essentially, they
do not see it as feasible in this environment.
Commissioner Cassel: I get different opinion~from my own personal consultant that I
have on that subject.
h~L.S.c~y,J]~: There are places where it is done. It can be done, if you are willing to
spend a lot of money. I am sure there may be places in San Francisco where there is no
alternative but to put 60 kv or something similar in size underground. The observation is
that technically, it can be done, but it is very difficult and very, very expensive. Certainly
the city would not undertake it, so it would totally be the responsibility of the developer,
and you would be talking about far more money than the relocation cost.
Commissioner Casse[: The relocation costs are expensive.
¯M.L.~c~til2~: I think the estimate is $300,000, and apparently rather small compai’ed to
the cost ofundergro.unding. ’
Commissioner Cassel: But you have to do something. You cannot do this project
because of the way the lines are located. You simply cannot do this project unless those
A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg-Page 58
08-13-97
lines are moved.
That is why I think Mr. Rapp is proposing to relocate the lines!
Commissioner Beecham: In relocating the lines over tO Alma, between Alma and the
tracks, basically, I do not now recall how many lines there are, but there is a set of towers
holding up the lines as they go down. Would it be a similar configuration, or would there
would be single poles or fewer lines in the new configuration?
]~~..e~: I do not have any specific information on the configuration. Certainly, if
the project goes forward, a very notable issue in terms of both the staff analysis and in the
environmental assessment would be the relocation of the lines..You have a whole variety
of issues, not the least of which is the visual impact of swinging those lines over Alma
and down that side. Rightnow, you have a somewhat natural landscape buffer on that
side of Alma and the tracks. I am not sure how much of that would be lost. That type of
visual analysis certain~ y would have to be done, as well as a technical analysis. ¯
Commissioner Cas}el: Another question on that issue. Could you not run a more
attractive line down that same alley? What we have now is a fairly large line that starts
quite far apart on one end and comes closer together. There is a smaller pole, and it puts
the lines closer together as it moves down the line towards the station itself. This is a
substation on this end, and the lines are actually spread farther apart on this end than on
the other end. There are the other kinds of attractive poles out.
h~L.~hly, ih~: I don’t believe it is an issue of attractiveness within the alley. You may
wish to direct that question to the applicant, because I believe he has some very specific
reasons for wanting to relocate those lines. .~
Commissioner Cassel: It is now a double pole.
~: Yes, there are three lines going down the alley. They run for three-and-a-half
blocks. It was brought to my attention in one of my first meetings with the utilities
department that Web TV was leasing space out on Embarcadero, and they actually had to
break the lease because they were underneath one of their lines. Their CRT screens
would flicker. In building a building like this, you cannot have these lines right next to
the office space. We really would not want the liability. That is what makes this site bad
for housing. That is why I think this is a great public benefit. I really feel that farther
south of this project, you are going to see more and more housing and the fact that we are
taking out these lines for three-and-a-half blocks, moving them over to Alma Street on the
A:lPCMinsTIMin0813.reg Page 59
08-13-97
railroad track side. It will be one pole, as you describe, with three lines coming offthe
pole. We are trying tO fmda nice, attractive pole. We are working on that. The reason
why there are two poles in the alleyway is mostly for safety. Cars going through the
alleyway could whack one, and the pole could fall and hit a building and start a fire. That
is why they have two poles. ~.
In a second meeting with Utilities, they are saying they would like to have the lines Out of
the alleyway because it is easier to work on them. There would be fewer poles to
maintain, etc.
Commissioner Qiakian: Would stafflike to comment on the list of public benefits that
some of us received today which are-different from what is in the staff report? - .
]~~r_~: The list I am working from is the information that I believe was FAXed to
you. It is somewhat similar to the staff report, but ~ou are right, there are some
differences. The applicant has talked about the parking garage and the fact that there
would be, by code, six more spaces. They are proposing to provide valet parking at the
lower level, which increases the parking by 39 spaces. Then, their hope is that the actual
use of the parking garage by tenants will be less than the fourper thousand. At this point
in time, from staff’s standpoint, this is still a rather speculative public benefit. The first
speculation is that the actual use of the building .will not take up all ofthe~.parking:
The second is that a mechanism can be found to-integrate public parking, valet parking,
etc., with the private parking on the site. A lot of tenants do not really want to have
public parking and private parking intermixed. We have seen that at the Plaza Ramona
project where the. tenant, Digital Equipment, had concerns about s~urity, etc., with the
mix of public and private parking. So we would need a lot more detail in terms of how
that would actually work.
The contribution toward the proposed underground pedestrian tunnel is $100,000. The
next step in that process is to do a feasibility study and to have a city decision made as to
whether there is even any interest in having an underground tunnel. I know there is
.interest, but that is interest based on limited technical information and very limited cost
information. As part of the PAMF/SOFA area plan, we will be engaging the services of a
civil engineer and others to do a much more thorough analysis of that concept. My sense
is that the $100,000 wi’ll be a relatively small amount toward the total construction costs.
It could easily be a m~tlion-and-a-half or more.
Regarding providing startup funding for a downtown traffic manager CalTrain bicycle
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 60
program, $100,000, when Mr. Rapp and his team and I talked earlier this week, I told him
that I didn’t think that providing starmp funding for a program that did not have funding
at.the present time, in my mind, was that good of a public benefit. If there were a way for
them to come up with funding for an ongoing funding program, that would be more
intriguing. One of the concerns that we would have isthat a startup program of one year
or one-and-a-half years, or so, just sort of gets going with TDM. You need an awful lot
of startup time to get that type of program up and running, then get the word out, and then
the program would disappear.
Regarding the art program, $50,000, would be a public benefit.
We have talked about the relocation of the 60 kva line, the transmission line. From staff’s
standpoint, there is a.variety of technical and financial issues related tO that, as I have
indicated, not the least of which is the visual impacton Alma Street in terms of potential
loss of vegetation, as well as the lines out close, to the public fight-of-way..
The next on the list is "Incorporating into its site design many public amenities, such as
an open air plaza, extensive landscaping, seating, street lighting, an integrated unit paved
sidewalk system, street trees on both sides of.High Street, widening of the alley behind
the building." Really, all of that, with the possible exception of widening the alley, is
work that would be expected as part of a project like this. It is site-improvement type
work. We have generally not placed, much public benefit value on these ~ypes of work.
Last on the list are the 16 live/work spaces. As we indicated in .the staff report, while
housing is certainly valuable, this is a notably smaller amount of housing than the zoning
allows. I think it can be considered to be a public benefit, but I am not sure that it is an
overwhelming public benefit.
Commissioner Bials0n: How Could we ensure enforcement of the representations made
tonight about ~e parking availability for the public during the day and at night? Does the
PC mechanism assure us of that?
Ms. Caub!¢: There are a couple of elements involved. If this project were to go forward
and be approved with a component that involved some amount of parking tO be available
to the public, then certainly, a condition of the PC zoning would require that a certain
number of spaces be. available. Going hand in hand with that, the commission and
council would want to be sure that the design of the parking lent itself t0 ensuring that the
public would have access at the hours you expected. Ken mentioned the Digital building,
so there needs to be two things that go hand in hand. It needs to be designed in a way that
A:lPCMins7lMin08 ! 3.reg Page 61
08-13-97
the public realistically can use it so that our condition is not a hollow condition. And then
we would have a condition to implement it.
~,£,.a,~:~l:: To add onto that, the essence of that is that we would need both a physical
plan and an operational plan that would show how that could work over an extended "
period of time and how it would be enforced by the property owner. At this point in time,
we do not have any of that. That certainly raises our concern about the viability of that
proposal. We know that in providing a mix of public and private parking, in using code-
required private parking for public purposes; probably "the devil is in the details" on that
in terms of, again, both physically and operationally. Having a private garage used for
underground parking during the evening, for example, or for employees involves an awful
lot of operational issues that need to be thought through by the applicant. What we would
need is a clear, detailed proposal as to how it would actually work, rather than the general
concept we have had thus far.
Commissioner Bialson: But it would seem like it is doable, from what you are saying.
~L.~5~?~l:: I think it is doable. I think it would probably be something that,.to every
extent possible, should be self-enforcing in some way or.another. If you got down to the
point in the future where it was not .working, then no matter what you said in the PC zone,
it probably would be very difficult for the city to come in and try to enforce a mix of~
parking during the day and force someone to leave a parking garage open at night.
Leaving it open at night is not going to accomplish a whole lot unless it is left open in a
manner that people feel is a safe manner, with adequate access through elevator access or
stairwell access, etc. People need to feel comfortable with it. In this building, we have
had our history of making changes to try and encourage the public" to use the parking
under City Hall. The cleaning of it, the painting of it, etc., are all part of that effort to try
and make people feel comfortable. Most people are uncomfortable with underground
parking in the evening. So you have to have some strategies, some plans, some things
you are going to do on an ongoing basis, not just at the beginning of the project, but year
after year after year, to make sure that that parking wouldbe used in that way, once it is
made available. ¯
Commissioner Beecham: Can you advise us of your forecast on changing Channing and
Homer to two-way streets?
]~.~.5.¢,hl:f~l~: It is certainly something that staffwants to pursue in the PAIV[F/SOFA
Coordinated Area Plan. We think there are a lot of benefits to restoring the two-way
traffic on both streets. Personally, I think it is. an action that is consistent with restoring
A:[PCMinsT]Min0gl 3.reg l~ge 62
08-13-97
the fabric of the neighborhood as the medical foundation leaves that area. As new,
predominantly residential uses take over that land, the one-way streets become less and
less consistent with having a neighborhood. At the same time, I don’t want to
underestimate some of the problems. It would be a significant change, and sometimes,
people do not care to undergo change even if the existing situation is less than desirable.
I would see that issue as being worked out through the Coordinated Area Plan process.
My hope would be that we will end up with two-way streets.
Vice Chair Byrd: If there are no furt.her questions for staff, let’s bring this to our
discussion. We have a process issue tonight in front of us that we can only answer by
reference to substance. Staffhas recommended denial and that the project go straight to
council based on the size of the project, its mix of uses and its public benefit package.
What I would like us to consider in our comments is whether we could speak to the
process issue, as that is what is in front.of us, and do that by reference to the substance
about how we feel about the project, staying focused on the task in front of us, which is to
decide where this thing goes next.
Commissioner Cassel: I am not sure where I want it to go, so ! am interested in other
people’s comments. There is an issue or two that I think we need to consider as we put
this together. One of the unique things about this site is the substation. It does put some
constraints on what can go on this site and what happens to it. They really cannot build a
building with those high tension lines there. There are some distance rules between a
high tension substation such as this and habitabl~ space. I do not know exactly what
those numbers are. I presume they have checked that out.
When the noise issues on the present site go away - and it is quitenoisy -- I was over
there last night walking around with some friends who live in that general area. There
was a great deal of noise from Very large true’Ks going in and out of the site. We were~
there in the evening,.afler 7 p.m., so it was not during normal business hours. When that
noise goes, our staff report indicates that we will then hear the. noise of the substation,
which is why I asked the question. One of the notable things last night was that the new
transformers did-not make anywhere near the amount of noise that the old one did.
We have this strange report that indicates that once we take the noise out of the site from
the Peninsula Creamery, it becomes the responsibility of the people who put up the new
siteto buffer the noise from the city’s transformer. They clearly cannot put something on
the site until they deai with the noise issue. If they put something up that is taller, it will
buffer the noise into the neighborhood. So this is something that should be addressed
when the EIA is done. That does make this site unique that other Sites do not deal with,
A:[PCMinsTlMin0813.r~g Page 63
08-13-97
so if we proceed with the project and you look at this site and you think about what the
alternatives are, whatever goes in there is going to have to deal with this extra noise issue.
It will limit what we can do with it. I think that is an issue that we have not talked about
that I really wanted us to look at.
Commissioner Beecham: Without saying anything about where I want to go, as I am as
yet unsure, let me run through a couple of issues and give my feelings on them. One is
the question of the study for SOFA and whether that should wait. Staffindieates that the
study hopefully will be done in a-year plus a few months. As we normally find, that is~
optimistic, but I hope it has a better ability to keep to a schedule than the Comprehensive
Plan did. It is not a certain thing, in any case. I don’t think the prospect of having a
SOFA Coordinated Area Plan implies a moratorium, so I do not see it as a reason to stop,
however, it would certainly be very nice if we knew what the SOFA plan was to give us
guidance here. Nonetheless, I don’t think we can say at this point that it is, in fact, a
moratorium because it is coming down the pike.
The biggest.set of isSues I feel involvethe massiveness of this. That ties in with the using
up of a fair amount of the downtown cap, as well as consolidating parcels. Those are
large issues. The applicant offers to balance them by public benefits, as listed in the
revised FAX that we received today. I have a lot of concerns about those public benefits
and whether they really work. The primary potential public benefit is p~oviding an extra
100 spaces that would truly be useful for the neighborhood. We did meet.last Friday and
talked in some detail about those, and I do have a lot of concern as t6 whetherthat is
really practical. Those concerns echo a lot of what Ken said earlier. One benefit would
be if the parking could be used by the restaurants a little closer to downtown where there
is a real parking problem, and it does impinge on the residents in ~hat area. My personal
opinion is that that is just a little too far away. I think that for people who would use it
even if using a valet service, they probably don’t mind leaving it with the valet as they
walk into the restaurant, but then, if they have a 10-minute wait to get it back, I think that
would prove to be unworkable for them. But at the moment, I am willing to bean
optimist in that there.may be some.ways to work that out, but I have a lot of reservations
about that at this point.
Regarding the other public benefits, funding the downtown traffic manager, I understand
what Ken says about paying money to start something but there is no continuation of it.
That also goes with .the valet parking, as well. I don’t know how that would guarantee to
be funded in the long run.
Offering funding for the tunnel to the medical four~dation is a great idea. I give that about
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg P~ge 64
08-13-97
a 50% or less probability of its really happening. I would hope that the applicant could
guarantee that that money is .available even if the tunnel does not go through.
On the 60 kva transmission lines, at this point, it is a toss-up on how much’ofa public
benefit that is. Certainly, I can understand that it is very necessary for the project as
proposed. There would be some benefit to the people who now live on the. alleyway, and
there is more residential as you get closer to Embarcadero, but until we fred out what it
would 10ok like on Alma, we do not know what the balance is in terms of those
aesthetics.
The alleyway is probably inherent in doing the project, and the primary beneficiary is the
project itself, so I do not see a lot of benefit to the city, but it certainly is a nice thing to
do.
The 16 live/work spaces I feel is a public benefit. Yes, it is less than what could be
allowed by the zoning, but the zoning is not RaM in this location. It is CS, so there is no
guarantee whatsoever that what would go in here would beany kind of residential, so I do
see that as a public benefit, and also the BMR is a benefit, as that also would not happen.
So that is where I am at the moment.
Commissioner Schmidt: I also am unsure where I want it to go, either. I would agree
with a lotofBem’s comments about the public benefits. They are intriguing. The idea of
providing good parking in that part of town is a’great idea. If it works, it would be an
excellent benefit.
I want to address a bit the size and the mix of uses there. I do think that the size is
compatible in that location-- It is a large use. I think that is a part of town that has some
other large uses, other large buildings that set a tone. This building is larger, but the
storage building catty-comer across on Homer is a building of that height, with no
windows, just a large, blocky building ~hat was remodeled f~om board-form concrete to
an attractive building that anchors the comer and is part of the active life on that street.
The new SRO going in not far away is another large building. A lot of the other buildings
there were former auto dealers were essentially large spaces. They are not the small,
downtown facades that we have on University Avenue. So I think this building’s use is
appropriate, and the architecture is going a long way to make a wonderful, much smaller
scale, articulated street facade. It would really enliven the street in a part of the city that
has essentially nothing going on there right now of any pedestrian vitality at all.
It is also reasonable to take that percentage of the cap in this location. We have seen over
A:[PCMinsT[Min0813.r~g Page 65
08-13.97
the last eleven years that only small pieces of the cap have been used. They have been
used on University Avenue, and it has been pointed out that there isn’t much space for
additional parking down there. This puts a big chunkofthat cap where they can provide
parking, and it has been noted that this actually provides all parking on site that is
required by the floor area. So putting it in this location, providing the parking, and using
up that percentage of the cap is.a reasonable thing to do.
Commissioner Bialson: I am generally in favor of the project’s being handled in a
manner that the project developer would like, that is, refer it to the Architectural Review
Board. I do see a problem with the public benefits not being as great as I would like to
see. I do agree with Ken that there is a problem with ensuring that the parking, which we
all have been somewhat impressed by and a lot of the speakers have used as-the reason
why they feel there is sufficient public benefit, just .may evaporate before our very eyes as
this project is operated.
I do think the scale is understandable, given the existence of the substation right behind it.
I think the moving of the power lines can be accomplished in a sensitive way, perhaps to
enhance the Alma ’ Street prospect we have now, which does have some natural screening,.
but those trees could be made to look a little nicer. Perhaps that is where the project
could place some of the trees that they are proposing to put on High Street.: I do think
there is some problem with the bulbouts that are being proposed. The existence of street
trees on the street may not be workable.
I do not feel strongly one way or the 0th.er, but instead;am somewhat conflicted on this
project, as the rest of the commi.’ssion seems to be. I am bending,t0wards the sid~ of
referring this on to the ARB.
Commissioner O_iakian: With everyone else having covered several points, I will be a
little more to the point. My feeling is that this should go on to the council. In looking at
this project, it sort of reflected back on when we had a project a little earlier this year at
525 University Avenue, and that particular project, though it got some support from the
Planning Commission, when it when to the council, it didn’t have support. The main
thing I remember from that project is Mayor Joe Huber speaking more in his role as a
member of that downtown study that was done in 1986, emphasizing the fact that in the
downtown area, the intent for the square footage was not to concentrate it at particular
sites. That was the basis for his vote and the votes of several other council members at
that time. So I guess to me, this is a policy question. I think the staffhas made the right
interpretation, and I am more comfortable in sending it on to council and having them
confirm what they have said before again before the process keeps going on. That is a
A:[PCMinsT[Min0813.reg Page 66
08-13-97
de~ment to all parties concerned, although I think Mr. Rapp does not feel that way.
Having said that, just a couple of other quick comments. I have nothing but the highest
regard for the applicant in this case. He has proven in the past that he does bring good
projects to the city. A good example of that is the one that we had awhile back for 99
University Avenue which turned out to be, at least in terms of design, a very well
developed project, and one that I was happy to support at the time, and one that turned out
just the way I hoped it would. I am intrigued by the architect. I think he hs done a great
job here. Obviously, he is an experienced, seasoned person in our processes, and he has
done a good job of trying to put a structure in that fits ~to the area that it is in.
Just like Commissioner Beecham and maybe Commissioner Bialson, I have some
concerns about the public benefit. If this project were to go forward, which is not to
downplay several of the aspects that are in there, I am one of those people who offthe
record has talked very supportively about having some sort of a traffic coordinator in the
downtown as part of a piece in a larger puzzle to deal with our whole traffic and parking
issues. " ¯
In terms of looking at parking, I think if that ends up being an aspect of this project if this
project goes forward, that will end up being a benefit more to the businesses that are off.
going into the downtown, but less so to the neighborhood, in my opinion, .especially as
you get into the evening hours. Since this is my neighborhood and I have lived in it 21
years, I pretty much know every square inch of-it, and I travel it every day. The parking
is a daytime phenomenon, basically a spill0ver from the downtown partly aggravated
with the color zones that went in that parking isn’t an issue going ~ound 4:30 or
5 o’clock. Mr. Ross could probably confirm that, since his business is si .tfing in that area.
At 5 o’clock, pretty much all the cars disappear. On the weekends, they are pretty much
not there. For somebody who travels the area every day, I can tell you that is, in fact, a
fact. So those are my comments. I am more comfortable sending it on to council. I think
the staffhas done the right thing in identifying what is the overriding policy issue, and I
think they have done that, knowing some of the history of past policy making and realize
that that is the best route to go.
Commissioner Cassel: There are two other issues that I think need to be discussed. One
is the two-way road on High Street, which this project is dependent upon with its entry
into the parking. That. is an issue we have not really discussed, and it might be an issue
better discussed at the City Council. The other issue is this inverted building. We have
approximately 35% of the site coverage, which is what we normally borer on a site. It is
approximately 80 to 90% 0fthe site covered if you look up or from the top down. I like
A:lPCMinsT~Min0813.rcg Page 67
08-13-97
this building. I find it exciting, although I have a sense of wanting to shrink it about 10%
on a Xerox machine. That is not a lot, just a little bit.
I like the feeling of looking through it, but I am concerned about ~he light that Kathy is
concerned about. I fred that it shields the noise into .the neighborhood, but it really is a
major decision t° make a change in the shift of the street. The inverted building means
that we have to find this building satisfactory in such a way that the next developer who
comes in doesn’t say, "Aha, I have solved the problem of 35% site coverage by inverting
the building and putting it upside down." That is a policy issue, and I have not come
totally to grips with that, and am wondering how others feel about it.
MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I agree with what Vic said in terms of passing this
on to the council. In other circumstances I probably would, but in this case, I will move
to pass it on to the ARB for several reasons. One, I think the applicant shouid know my
opinion of whether or not I would approve the project as written. I Would not. I have
great concerns, as I mentioned, about the public benefits, etc. But having it go on to the
ARB will give us the environmental assessment, which makes for further consideration.
Also, as the applicant indicated, it would give him more time to further develop the public
benefits which are not adequate, I feel.
Also~ I would c~zinly hope he could find ways to reduce the current massiveness of the
bu!lding. The third floor is now set back, which does help some. The first story now is
quite tall, so even though on the streetscape, if’is only two floors, it is still pretty large.
Then on the ends, you have the full buildings,-for the most part. Also, as I indicated
before to the applicant, I do not especially like the architecture. .In my opinion, it is not
harmonious, but that is one person’s opinion at this point. "
Also the other reason why I am making this motion is that the applicant desires it. If I
were in his shoes, I probably would want to go to the council and find out their opinion,
however, the applicant is willing to fund the environmental assessment~ which will help
us in our final decision making; That is why I am making the motion¯
~Q.QJ~: By commissioner Bialson.
Vice Chair Byrd: There is a motion and second to send this project on to the ARB for
further review. Bern., do you have anything further tO add?.
¯ " : No, exqept to check "m with our staff counsel that in fact, this is
the correct motion to make if we wanted to, since you have to go back and do your EA,
A:[PCMins7[Min0813.~g Page 68.
08-13-97
etc.
Ms. Caubl~: Yes.
Vice Chair Byrd: Are there other comments?
Commissioner Schrnidt: I will support the motion primarily because the applicant wants
to go on to the ARB. I, too, would tend to go to the City Council at this point, but if the
applicant wants to go on to the ARB, that will indeed give us more information through
the environmental assessment. Therefore, the council will ultimately have more
information.
I want to commend the applicant for several things, First, for having been proactiv.e with
the neighbors. The neighbors have noted and appreciated that, and it is something we
have asked for repeatedly on projects. Those applicants who have not faiked with
neighbors before hand have run into significant road blocks.
I would also like to commend the architectural design of the project. It is rare to hear
members of the public commenting.on the design and saying that it is something new and
different. I will add the comment I often add that it is not Spanish. We have had project
after project and apparently, most developers think that it must be a pseudo-Spanish or
Mediterranean style in order tO pass through all of our processes. I personally disagree
with that. I like to see some variety, and it is nic~ to hearthat the public likes to see some
variety. They have an excellent architect involved, and I know this will continue to be a
better building as it goes on.
I would like to see a few more residential units in the project, if possible. I think that
more in this location would be better. Also, we have already mentioned the idea of
waiting for the SOFA study. I agree with what Bern said earlier, and that was also
brought up with the SRO project when it was said, in that case, that we didn’t feel that we
needed to wait for the Coordinated Area Plan. I would still agree that wedo not needto
wait for it. The process should g6 on, as we do not know how long it will take to
complete the SOFA study even though there is a target set for it.
The last small comment I would like to make is to thank the applicant fdr supplying small
drawings instead of the large sets of drawings that we usually get. It is better for the
environment and easier for everyone to manage.
: I think everything has been said.
A:lPCMinsTlMin0813.r~g Page 69
08-13-97
Vice Chair B_vrd: I, too, will support the motion. I believe this project should proceed to
the Architectural Review Board. I was especially impressed by the comments of the
representative from the neighborhood group who clearly stated that they were neither in
support of nor opposed to the project, and they did think that the process was
constructive. I think that is important. I think it will perhaps inform the Coordinated
Area Plan process if this process is allowed to play out for a time, and see where it goes.
It could establish a healthy, working precedent for that. I do not think it is appropriate to
hold one project, even a large one, hostage to a process that is not yet under way. Despite
our best intentions, it may not go as quickly as we hope.
Having said that, on the public benefit package, I hopethat the applicant can go back and
sharpen the pencil on the contribution to the tunnel. There may be technical challenges in
the future, but we need that tunnel, and we will never solve the technical challenges if we
don’t have the money.
I, too, would like to see more housing in the project. In addition, I would! like to see a
mix of unit types. I think the project could accommodate some one: perhaps even some
two-bedroom units. I realize that that presents parking challenges, and there may be a
way to work with the applicant to resolve those parking challenges. I think the more
variety we have in the housing unit type, the more of a public benefit providing that rental
becomes. Isee the rationale behind Vic’s comment that if it were he, h.e would like to go
to council right now. I think if it were me, I would, too. But if the applicantwants to
keep going down this road and the neighborhood wants to work with him, that is the
process we have in place, and that is what I think should play out.
MOTION PASSES: Vice Chair B~I: Seeing no further comments, we have a motion by
Commissioner Beecham, seconded by Commissioner Bialson, to recommend that the
project continue on for review to the Architectural Review Board. All in favor, say aye.
All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-i with Commissioner Ojaldan opposed and
¯ Chairman Schink not participating. Thank you all for your participation in this item.
Does staffhave any further comments?
]~Lr.,_~;.h,r.gJl~: Only to observe, since we usually indicate something about schedule at
this point in the discussion, that at this time, staffdoes not have an idea as to when this
will go to the ARB. Staffhas not yet decided whether this project will need an
environmental impact report or can be accomplished with a negative declaration. There
are a variety of technical issues involving utilities and other parts of the city organization
that we need to work with. At a minimum, we will be bringing on an environmental
consultant to assist in the environmental evaluation., So it certainly will not be going to
A:lPCMinsT[Min0813.reg Page 70
08-13-97
the ARB for the next couple of months. We Will just have to sort out in the next few
weeks the nature of the environmental-process that we will need to follow on this.
Commissioner Cassel: I want to express appreciation for the work done by staff. I can
understand why they made the decision they made, and why it came to us the way it did.
I think this debate is important to be held.
A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 7 i
08-13-97
Attachment 3
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Item No. II.7
Agenda Date: July 17, 1997
To:Architectural Review Board
From:
Subject:.
Chandler Lee, Planner Department:
800 High Street " File No.:
High Street Creamery Associates, LLC
Planning
97-ZC-9; 97-ARB-122
REQUEST
Review of preliminary ArchitecturalReview Board application, which precedes ~ full Zone
Change to the Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632
square foot manufacturingbuilding and construction of a new three story mixed use building
including 16 live/work studios, 62,000 square feet of office space, 1,450 square feet of retail
space, a subtcrraneanparking garage and related site improvements. File Nos. 97-ARB-122;
97-ZC-9
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The applicant is proposing to construct an 84,000 square foot, three story mixed use building
including 16 live/work studios, 62,00~ square feet of office space, 1,450 square feet of retail
space, a subterraneanparking garage and related site improvements. The total building area,
including underground parking, is proposed to be 176,000 square feet. The project would
yield an overall residential density of 16.67 units per acre and 84,000 total square feet of
habitable space yielding a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 2.0.
The site consists of three parcels which would be merged to total 42,000 square feet or .96
acres on the block bounded by High Street, Homer Avenue, Channing Avenue and the alley
between High Street and Alma Street. The proposed building footprint is 15,400 square feet
at grade resulting in a coverage of 37 percent. The proposed building is setback 6 feet from
the alley and has no setbacks on High Street, Homer Avenue or Channing Avenue.
P;\ARBkb.ighS00.AR 1 Page 1
Parking is on two subterranean levels, providing 254 parking spaces, plus 30 spaces at
ground level behind the studios. The parking level extends about 20 feet below grade.
Vehicular access to the site will be provided from a single, two-way driveway on Channing
Avenue that connects to the parking garage. Pedestrian access to the offices and retail space
is provided from a courtyard at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street. Separate
entries to each of the studios is provided along High Street as well as separate entries
adjacent to the surface parking along the rear alley. Transit access will be provided from
existing bus stops on Hamilton Avenue and the nearby Caltrain station. Bicycle access is
provided by an existing bike path located along Bryant Street.
The building architecture is contemporary and features an industrial design theme. Building
materials and features include: Color stucco and stone facades, crafted steel gates and rails
and a stone base on the first level; matching stucco and gray metal siding with colored metal
grills and colored aluminum window frames on the second and third floor; and a standing
seam metal roof. The architectural themes are designed to provide a contemporary
interpretation of the industrial look of nearby buildings.
Please refer to the applicant’s written description and plans for further details regarding the
project. Photographs and plans will be presented at the meeting.
RECOMMENDATION
As this is a preliminary ARB review, a recommendation is not made, however, the Board
should provide comments to the applicant for direction on the design of the project.
Project History_
The site (currently three lots) is currently occupied by the Peninsula Creamery manufacturing
and distribution facility, an aging, cast in place concrete-building. The existing facility
currently is used for refrigeration, storage and distribution. The ice cream manufacturing
functions previously located on-site were relocated to ax~other county about four years ago.
Therefore, the building and site are currently underutilized. The site is located in an area of
existing commercial buildings and the recently approved mixed use building located at 901
and the single-room occupancy facility at 753 Alma Street.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
PAARB~highS00.AR 1 Page 2
The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and Architectural Review Board Ordinance. The following
Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies, and programs are relevant to this project:
A. Policy Consistency
The project is consistent or generally consistent with the following policies:
Housing Element Policy #3: "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto’s
neighborhoods especially desirable." This project is located in a unique neighborhood that
_ features a mix of single and multiple family residences andcommercial activity and is in
close proximity to the University Avenue Business District. The proposed project will
provide additional housing and office opportunities within walking distance to commercial
services in the area.
Housing Element Policy #7: "Encourage and foster the development of new and existing
housing units affordable to the low, moderate, and middle-income households, especially
those with children. "Although unit costs are not yet proposed, the project should be required
to contribute to the supply of affordable housing.
Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the City and the attainment of themost desirable land use and improvements
through the review of new development." The site is designated Service Commercial and is
well suited for this use. The site is surrounded by and compatible with similar
office/commercial and residential uses in the vicinity, although the scale of the project is
generally larger than existing buildings.
B. Policy Inconsistency
The project is inconsistent or potentially inconsistent with the following policies:
Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, "Discourage massive single uses through
limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and community values." The
proposed project would add to the height and density of an existing large single use.
Comprehensive Plan policy would discourage the building additions that add more mass,
height or density to a use which is already inconsistent with this policy.
Urban Design Element, Policy 6B: "Limit nonresidential development in the Downtown Area
to ten percent (350, 000 square feet offloor area) above the amount of development existing
or approved in May 1986." The proposed addition of 46,368 square feet of new non--
PAARB~highS00.AR I Page 3
residential square footage of building would fall within the Downtown floor area limit, but
would constitute a large percentage (13 percent) of the total allocation of 350,000 square feet.
The proposed addition would constitute .an even larger percentage (16 percent) of the
remaining square footage (295,000 square feet as of August 31, 1996).
Land Use Element, City Council Resolution 7151: "The standards for building intensity for
non-residential designated lands are derived from the floor area ratios allowed in underlying
zoning distriets and represent an expectation of the intensity of future development. Actual
floor area ratios on individualsites vary." The existing zoning for the subject property is the
Commercial Downtown District which limits floor area ratios (FARs) to a maximum of 1.0,
with allowances for existing and bonus square footage, not to exceed 3.0. T_he property will
generate an FAR of 2.0 with the proposed building. The Comprehensive Plan allows that
¯ project Rites will vary above and below this standard. But, considered together with other
policies, it is clear that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to discourage large,
massive single uses.
Urban Design Guide
The Downtown Urban Design Guide is considered an incentive and guide for redevelopment;
rather than policy. It calls for maintaining the eclectic character and scale of the south of
Forest area, improving landscaping and green spaces, encouraging private investment, and
creating usable open spaces and a gathering spot for the district.
DISCUSSION
Site Description
The site is a rectangular shape and consists of three parcels of land totaling .96 acres (42,000
square feet) with a 400 foot frontage along High Street and a 105 foot depth along Homer
and Channing. The site is presently occupied by a single story manufacturing building of
17,632 square feet and related site improvements. The existing building was built in the
1930s and is currently obsolete. The existing site slopes from the center of the site to the
front, side and rear frontages. The site is surrounded by commercial uses (across High
Street), the Peninsula Creamery Retail building (across Channing Avenue), an automotive
repair facility (across Homer Street), and the Palo Alto Hardware store and PG&E substation
across the rear alley. The site is within walking distance of Downtown services.
Project Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor’s parcel number, Comprehensive Plan
P:\ARB~ighS00.ARI Page 4
designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size in shown below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION "
Applicant:
Owner:
Assessor’s Parcel Number:
High Street Creamery Associates, LLC
Roxy Rapp & High Street Creamery Associates
120-28-002, 043, and 044
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zoning District:
Surrounding Land Use:
Service Commercial
CD-S (P) ’ (Commercial Downtown) (Service)
(Pedestrian Combining District)/GF1 (Non-
Conforming Use Granted an Exemption)
Retail, Office and General Commercial;
Residential
Parcel Size:42,000 s.£ or .96 acres
Issues and Analysis
The staff analysis for this project relates to site planning, landscaping, architectural design,
traffic, noise, utilities, Architectural Review Ordinance Standards, zoning compliance, and
City departmental comments.
Site Planning: The site should be designed to provide a high quality living and working
environment for residents and employees and to be compatible wi.th existing and proposed
uses in the vicinity.
The site plan calls for the live/work studios and a small retail space to be located on the
ground floor with offices on the second and third floors. Parking is located mostly below
grade with a row of spaces along the rear alley. The studios will have main entryways
fronting onto High Street and rear entries connecting to the parking spaces along the alley.
The patios facing High Street serve as private open space for the residential units while the
entry courtyard located on the comer o.fHigh and Homer serves as common open space for
the entire building. The studio units provide staggered building setbacks from 11 to 16 feet
from the property line along High Street and a six foot setback in the rear along the alley.
There are no setbacks on either the Homer Avenue or Channing Avenue frontages. All three
P:~ARB~highS00.AR I Page 5
perimeter areas will be landscaped to provide visual interest along the street frontages.
Overall project density is about 16 units per acre for residential and 2.0 floor area ratio
(FAR) for the entire building. -
Because the site consists of three separate parcels, a certificate of compliance will be
required to remove interior lot lines and combine the parcels into one.
Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes a mix of perimeter landscape screening and a
landscaped exterior courtyard at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue. The High
Street frontage features new street trees (species to be determined) and a variety of plants and
groundcover between the patios and the sidewalk. The High Street frontage features six
street trees on the west side and five on the east side. There are currently three street trees
(Sophia Japonica) in this block which are approved for removal by the Planning and Public
Works arborists. Two street trees are provided on both the Homer Avenue and Channing
Avenue frontages. There are currently two street trees (Fraxinus "Raywood") in this block
which also are approved for removal by the City arborists. All street trees are proposed to be
located in confined planter wells within the street right-of-way and protected by bulbouts in
the sidewalk paving (Homer and Channing) or special bollards (High Street). The project
proposes a public plaza at the comer of High and Homer. The plaza features decorative
paving, public art, hanging plants, seating and landscaping. The plaza is intended for use both
by building users and the public. A preliminary Landscape Concept Statement is included
in the attached Program Development Statement (Attachment 3).
The Planning and Public Works arborists r~commends that the selected species of street tree
for the right-of-way shall be London Plane, (Platanus a. ’Yarwood’) of 36-inch box size. The
arborists are also requesting more details of the proposed tree locations, planting wells,
aeration system, staking, root barrier, soil dedicated to the trees, irrigation system, and tree
grates for all trees.
A final landscape plan and irrigation plan will be required as a condition ofapproval. A 2:1
tree replacement ratio is required for removal and/or major damage as a result of accidental
damage to trees during construction.
Architectural Design: The building provides a dramatic architectural statement featuringa
contemporary interpretation of industrial design. The building transitions gracefully from the
residential components of the live/work space to the offices above. All three street frontages
provide pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, patio alcoves and entryways on the
ground floor and varied materials, window openings and building articulation on the upper
floors. The second floor extends over the first floor studios and overhangs the outdoor patios
facing High Street. The third floor is setback on a diagonal axis providing further building
P:~ARB~highS00.ARI Page
articulation and visual interest on High Street. Building materials and features include: Color
stucco and stone facades, crat~ed steel gates and rails and a stone base on the first level;
matching stucco and gray metal siding with colored metal grills-and colored aluminum
window frames on the second and third floor; and a standing seam metal roof. The
architectural themes are designed to provide a contemporary interpretation of the industrial
look of nearby buildings. A model and color rendering of the building will be available at the
meeting. An Architectural Concept Statement is included with the attached Program
Development Statement (Attachment 3).
Traffic: A traffic study by Abrahams Associates (June 11, 1997) analyzed the impact of the
project on adjacent street traffic, parking and intersection Levels of Service. The study
determined that the project would generate 1,178 trips per day with 154 trips during the PM
peak hour and 149 trips during the AM peak hour. The project would generate sufficient
traffic to exceed the thresholds of significance established by the Santa Clara County
Congestion Management. Program. The study also found that the project would not
significantly affect existing or future Levels of Service at nearby intersections. These
intersections include Alma Street/HomerAvenue, Middlefield Road/University Avenue, and
Middlefield Road/Embarcadero Road. These intersections currently operate at LOS D or
better. The 284 parking spaces proposed on-site would be more than adequate to
accommodate project demand, according to the requirements of the city’s Off-Street parking
ordinance.
Noise: The patios facing High Street are considered outdoor living space and are subject to
the City’s outdoor noise standard of 65 d.b.a. (L10). A noise study conducted by Charles
Salter and Associates (June 4, 1997) indicates that future noise levels will not exceed 64
d.b.a. (L 10) along High Street or 65 d.b.a, at the rear of the site near the PG&E substation.
Therefore, the outdoor living areas meet the City’s noise standards.
The report recommends acoustically rated windows to reduce indoor noise to acceptable
levels of 45 d.b.a.. In order to meet this standard, windows should have an STC rating of 28
along High Street, 31 at the end units on High Street, 34 along the rear alley, and 34 along
Channing and Homer Avenues.
Another noise issue involves the removal of the existing creamery operation. The demolitiOn
of the creamery building will reduce ambient noise levels in the neighborhood due to the
cessation of creamery manufacturing and distribution activities. The existing facility
generates noise from cold storage compressors and air handlers. Although the removal of
these facilities would normally have a positive noise effect on surrounding uses, it would
make more noticeable the existing noise emanating from the electrical substation
transformers located behind the existing creamery. The creamery effectively creates a "white
P:~RB~highgOO.AR 1 Page
noise" that masks the noise generated by the substation. The applicant is working to
incorporate a new technology (negative noise waves) that may cancel the noise from the
electrical transformers. Otherwise,~ the applicant is proposing a soundwall between the
¯ transformers and the project.
.Utilities: The applicant is working with the City’s Utilities Department to relocate the
existing 60 foot high powerline that runs along the alley to the rear of the site. Although the
relocation would benefit the visual appearance of the alley and the view from nearby streets,
the visual impact would shift to another location, along Alma Street. The applicant will be
required to demonstrate that the visual and sound benefits of the proposed relocation are
justified.
¯ Architectural Review Ordinance Standards for Review
The project must be consistent with the Architectural Review Ordinance, Chapter 16.48 of
the PAMC. The conceptual design of this project does not meet the goals and purposes of the
Architectural Review Ordinance as described in the Draft Architectural Review Ordinance
Findings that are attached to this staff report (Attachment 1). Findings for denial are based
on the high proportion of office use compared with residential use, the exceedence of the 35
foot height limit, the large percentage of the Downtown cap that the project would consume,
and the large mass and scale of the project compared with existing uses in the vicinity.
Zoning Ordinance Compliance
The following table compares the project to the existing CD-S Downtown Commercial
(service) (Pedestrian Overlay) District and the proposed .PC Planned Community District
regulations.
P:~ARB~highS00.ARI.Page 8
Project Comparison With Current and Proposed Ordinance Requirements
Floor Area (sq.il.)
Floor Area Ratio
Maximum Height
Site Coverage
Automobile Parking
-Resident Parking
-Office Parking
-Retail Parking
Total Parking
Bicycle Parking
Total spaces
Setbacks
- High Street
- Homer Avenue
- Channing Avenue
- Rear Alley
# Dwelling Units
BMR Units
Employee Showers
PROJECT CD-S (Existing)PC
84,000 s.f.32,632 s.f.*n/a
2.0:1 0.4:1 n/a
50 feet 50 feet 35 feet**
37%n/a n/a
23 spaces
254 spaces
7 st~aces
284 spaces
15 Class I
11 Class II
4 Class III
30 total spaces
0 feet
0 feet
0 feet
6 feet
16
23 spaces
248 spaces
7 spaces
278 spaces
15 Class I
11 Class II
4 Class III
30 total spaces
n/a
n/a
rga
n/a
38
23 spaces~
248spaces
7 spaces
278 spaces
15 Class I
11 Class II
4 Class III
30 total spaces
n]a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
10% of units 10%of units 10% of units
8 4 n/a
* The CD-S districtiimits non-residential construction to 15,000 sfplus existing.
(17,632 sf)
** The site is within 150 feet ofa residentialzoning district and is subject to a 35 foot height
limit.
The proposal does not meet the development regulations of the CD-S zoning district for floor
area and FAR and, therefore, the applicant will be requesting rezoning to the PC Planned
Community District. The project meets all requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance.
PAARB~highS00.ARI Page 9 " "
Floor Area and FAR: The total 84,000 square feet of project floor area (2.00 FAR) exceeds
the-16,800 square feet (0.4 FAR) allowed within the CD-S district by 67,200 square feet or
500 percent. Proposed new non-residential floor area totals 46,368 square feet, (64,000
proposed minus 17,632 existing). The CD-S district limits non-residential construction to
15,000 square feet plus existing non-residential square footage (17,632 sf) for a total of
32,632 allowable square feet. In this case, the more restrictive FAR limit would apply under
existing zoning. The PC Planned Community zoning district does not establish limits for
either floor area or FAR. Therefore, the project would meet these provisions of the PC
District, if the site were to be rezoned. The approximately 29,568 square feet of proposed
non-residential building area that exceeds that allowed by the 0.4 FAR limit in the CD-S
district must be compensated for in a required public benefit package.
The Downtown Commercial regulations, per section 18.49.040, limit the size of any single
nonresidential project to 25,000 square feet or 15,000 square feet above the existing floor
area, whichever is greater, provided the FAR limitations are not exceeded. This project size
regulation resulted from policy developed during the Downtown Study, adopted in 1986.
This study and resultant downzoning accomplished three very important things for
Downtown Palo Alto which have been instrumental in its success. First, the traditional and
human scale of the historic lotting pattem of Downtown was preserved by discouraging
consolidation of parcels and limiting the building sizes through project size limits.
Properties, such as 800 High Street, would require consolidation from several smallerparcels
into a single large parcel. The buildings constructed on the resultant large lots are
inconsistent with the scale and pattem of the Downtown and are "unfriendly" to pedestrians.
The Downtown regulations were revised to discourage further scale changes of this
magnitude by limiting project size, encouragingretention of the traditional pattern. The other
two regulatory interventions that have been most successful in causing Palo Alto’s
Downtown to become a thriving place are the imposition of ground floor use restrictions and
the downzoning of FARs, which resulted in the preservation of many of the original
buildings and architecture.
The project proposes only 16 residential uses. The CD-S zoning district allows up to 38 units
per acre. The City’s attempts to locate more housing near Downtown would be better served
by increasing the number of residential units and reducing the amount of office space at this
location.
Downtown Growth Limits
The proposed addition of 64,000 square feetof n0n-residential space (62,000 square feet of
office and 2,000 square feet of retail) would be well within the Downtown floor area limit
but would constitute a large percentage (18 percent) of the total allocation and an even larger
P:~RB~highS00.AR I Page 10
percentage (21 percent) of the remaining square footage.
The central issue in this case is the large amount of square footage being allocated to a single,
large project rather than dispersing future square footage among many projects and locations.
A central focus of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines is to encourage pedestrian scale
building and activities. On one hand, this proposal dramatically improves the pedestrian
environmentwithin this part of Downtown. On the other hand, the 46,368 square feet of new
space at this location reduces the opportunity of other property owners to add smaller
amounts of square feet within the Downtown growth limit.
The latest Downtown Monitoring Report prepared in April of 1997 inventories building
activity within the CD (Commercial Downtown) District from mid- 1984 through mid- 1996.¯During that period, there was a net addition of 54,576 square feet within the CD District
compared to the 350,000-square-footlimit. Of the 36 construction and demolition projects,
only two (250 University and 245 Lytton) exceeded 20,000 square feet of new space. The
majority of projects added 5,000 square feet or less. Excluding the two years of the
Downtown Moratorium from September 1984 through September 1986, building activity
averaged about 4,900 square feet per year. At this rate, the remaining Downtown allocation
of 295,000 square feet would last 60 years. Even at a heightened pace of 10,000 square feet
per year, the remaining Downtown allocation represents a 30-year supply. The main policy
issue posed by this project is: Should one project consume 16 percent of the remaining
Downtown allocation or should the allocation be distributed more uniformly among a greater
number of projects and distributed among various Downtown locations?
~ The majority of the building is 50 feet in height with diagonal setbacks on the third
floor along High Street and the back comer along Channing Avenue. The plaza at the comer
of Homer Avenue and High Street also provides a substantial building setback from the street
and is mostly open air with a canopy over the doorway. The typical height limit in both the
CD-S district and the PC district is 50 feet. However, the site is within 150 feet of the mixed’
use building at 901 Alma Street and is, therefore, subject to a 35 foot height limit in the PC
district due to its proximity to residential units. The 901 Alma Street project contains four
residential units and is 50 feet in height. A similar building located at 753 Alma is also 50
feet in height. Therefore, the proposed project meets the 50 foot height limit in the existing
CD-S district and is compatible with newer buildings in the area but does not meet the 35
foot height limit in the PC district imposed by .the proximity of the one nearby mixed
use/residential building.
Since the project does not share a lot line with a neighboring residential project, it is not
subject to daylight plane regulations.
P:~ARB~ighSOO.ARI Page 11 ;
The PC district regulations allows an exception to the 35 foot height limit in situations where
the proposed project includes 60 percent or more square footage of residential use. A
reduction in the amount of office space and an increase in the amount of residential space
may qualify the project for this exception.
There appears to be no recent precedence for obtaining a variance from the 35 foot height
requirements of the PC. or any other zoning district. On one hand, the purpose of the PC
district is to provide flexibility in height, setbacks, and other typical development regulations
On the other hand, the 35 foot height limit is a special requirement that applies in most
residential areas and guarantees the fundamental human needs of air and daylight. The
applicant has conducted preliminary height studies of how the proposed.building design
affects the building at 901 Alma Street. These studies will be brought to the meeting of July
¯ 17, 1997.
ARB members may wish to discuss the proposed building design in order to address the issue
of building size and height.
Setbacks: The project meets all the setback requirements established by the CD-S and PC
districts.
Parking: The project proposes a total of 284 spaces including 254 parking spaces to be
located on the subterranean levels and 30 spaces at grade behind the residential units. The
Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83) requires 1.25 spaces for studio units
(1.25 x 16 = 20 spaces) in addition to 1 space plus 10 percent of the number of units for guest
parking (1 + 1.6 = 3) for a total of 23 units. The Ordinance also requires 1 space for 250
square feet of office (62,000/250 = 248 spaces) and 1 space for 200 feet of retail (1450 / 200
= 7). The total number of required parking spaces is 278 (23+248+7) while the project
proposes 284 spaces - a surplus of 6 spaces. The applicant is proposing the extra six spaces
as part of the public benefit package.
Bicycle Parking: The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83) requires one
Class I space per unit (2 spaces) plus one Class III bike rack for each ten units (2 racks) for
guest parking. The Ordinance also requires 10% of auto parking spaces for office use (15
Class I + 10 Class II = 25 spaces) and 10% of auto parking spaces for retail (1 space) for a
total of 30 bike spaces. The project proposes 30 bike spaces (15 Class I, 11 Class II, and 4
Class II) and meets the requirements for bicycle parking.
BMR Units; The project is required to set aside 10% of total units as Below Market Rate
(BMR). The applicant proposes to meet the requirement but has not specified whether the
project will include 2 BMR units or one unit and pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the
P:\ARB~ighS00.AR I Page 12
additional one-half unit). Staffsupports the.inclusion of 2 BMR units. Either way, the project
will meet this requirement.
Public Benefit: A PC zone change will be required for this project because none of the City’s
conventional zoning districts accommodate the proposed square footage, FAR, and building
height unless variances were granted. Approval of the requested PC zone change would
require that public benefi~ findings be made. The public benefits should go beyond the
minimum zoning ordinance requirements and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
Public policy in PC Zone change approvals has generally included the assumption that
benefits should be commensurate or proportional with the request to exceed normal
regulatory requirements. In this case, the applicant is requesting a project of 46,368 new
non-residential square feet which is 29,568 square feet over what zoning would allow
(16,800 square feet at 0.4:1 FAR) in addition to exceedence of the 35 foot building height.
The applicant has proposed a public benefits package to accompany a forthcoming PC zone
change application. As a preliminary proposal, the project includes the following public
benefits:
1.An inherent public benefit of the project is the replacement of the dilapidated
manufacturing building with a new, contemporary design residential/office complex in
a mixed use area that is within walking distance of the University Avenue Business
District. Such a use is called for in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Underutilized buildings such as the Creamery often cause health and safety hazards,
provoke neighborhood concern, and result in code enforcement complaints.
2.An additional inherent public benefit is the provision of Below Market Rate Housing
Units. Although the provision of BMR units is-required by. zoning, City policy
encourages provision of such units, especially in mixed use neighborhoods near
commercial areas such as this. The project proposes to include either 2 BMR units or 1
BMR unit and pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the additional one-half unit.
o An additional public benefit beyond that required by zoning is the provision of public art
and a public plaza at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue. The public plaza
would feature several public amenities such as seating, landscaping and a substantial
setback from the property line. The public art must be viewable form the public right-of-
¯ way to qualify as a public benefit. All public art proposals will need to be reviewed and
approved by the Arts Commission prior to subsequent review by the ARB.
Another public benefit beyond that required by zoning is the provision of fifteen street
trees (eleven on High Street and two each on Homer and Channing). Staff will need to
determine whether there is sufficient room for tree root growth between the parking
P:\ARB~highS00.ARI Page 13
o
garage (located under the sidewalk) and the planter wells proposed within the street right-
of-way for street trees in each of these locations.
Another public benefit beyond that required by zoning that is being considered is the
contribution of funds to the proposed pedestrian passageway connecting Downtown to
the new PAMF site. The amount of the contribution has yet to be determined.
Another public benefit beyond that required by zoning is the relocation of the 60 foot
high powerline that currently runs along the rear alley to Alma Street. Although the
relocation would benefit the visual appearance of the alley and the view from nearby
streets, the visual impact would shift to another location.
7 Another proposed public benefit is the provision of six parking spaces above that required
by zoning. Although the provision of extra parking, per se, could be a public benefit, the
number of spaces is not substantial and may not qualify as a public benefit.
Additional public benefits that the applicant may wish to consider include a public restroom
in the public plaza area, additional public parking, and/or contributions to the Downtown
Urban Design Improvements. Staff will evaluate the final public benefit package at the time
the application of the PC zone change is received.
Department Comments
Building: The lofts above the first floor of the studios may be subject to ADA requirements
for accessibility to the disabled.
Public Works: The proposed street bulbouts interfere with street cleaning and shouldbe
redesigned to provide a minimum 6 foot curb radius. Paving material must meet the City’s
paving standards and must be structurally separated from underground structures. Public
Works does not permit underground structures within the traveled right-of-way of the rear
alley.
Transportation: The Transportation Division is requiring a two way alley to accommodate
back up maneuvers for the 30 spaces located at the rear of the residential units. A two-way
alley must be 20 feet wide plus seven feet for a loading zone. This width is provided in the
current proposal. The ownership of the alley is currently under investigation. The best
location for loading would be on the west side of the alley. The proposed loading zone on
Homer Avenue probably would need meet the warrants established by the Transportation
Division. The TransportationDivision has some concerns regardingthe tree planters on High
Street. The planters result in a loss of on-street parking spaces, they may impede street
P:kARB~highS00.ARI Page 14 " ’
cleaning, and wheel stops should be provided to prevent damage to the bollards. An alternate
design for street tree bulbouts is being built on portions, of Park Boulevard south of
California Avenue and could be considered along High Street as-well. Additional detail
should be shown for bicycle parking. Typical parking space dimensions in the parking garage
should be included. Comments on the traffic study are forthcoming.
FINDINGS AND CONDITIONS
ARB findings (Attachment 1) are attached. Conditions of project approval will be developed
at the subsequent stage of ARB review.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Notice of this preliminaryARB review was provided by publication of the agenda in a local
newspaper of general circulation. !n addition, property owners and utility customers within
300 feet of the project site were mailed a notice card.
TIMING ACTION LIMITS
Following preliminary review, the project is tentatively scheduled for the following
dates.
Date project received:
Date application deemed complete:
7/6/97
Action time limit:
10/21/97
(105 days after project deemed complete)
Optional extension upon applicant’s request:
(90 days after action date)
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
6/6/97
1/21/98
The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Following preliminary review and project submittal,
an environmental impact assessment will be prepared for the project.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS
PAARB~highS00.AR I Page 15 ;
Attachment # 1: Findings for Architectural Review Denial
Attachment #2: Program Development Statement
Plans (Architectural Review Board members only)
COURTESY COPIES:,
¯Roxy Rapp, PO Box 1672, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Shrenck Brown & Associates, 550 Montgomery Street #900, San Francisco, CA 94111
Peterson Architects, 57 E1 Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Patrick Burt, University South Neighborhood Group, 1249 Harriet Street, Palo Alto, CA
94301
Prepared By:Chandler Lee. Contract Planner
Manager Review:Lisa Grote. Zoning Administrator
P:XARB~highS00.ARI Page 16 " °
ATTACHMENT #1
FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DENIAL
800 HIGH STREET
The following findings for the Standards for Architectural Review have been prepared by staff in
support of denial of the proposal:
1. The project .is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan (Standard
#1) in that it is a office/residential use and but it is inconsistent with the density and height
allowable on the site.
2. The design is incompatible with the immediate environment of the site (Standard #2) in that the
site is surrounded by existing commercial and mixed use buildings that are a smaller scale (FAR
of 1.0 oi: less) than the proposed building (FAR of 2.0) and a lesser height (35 feet or less) than
the proposed project (50 feet).
3. The building would function well for residential use (Standard #3) in that the design provides
a healthy, safe, and comfortable living environment including outdoor patios, loft space, and a
public plaza.
4. The subject property is not located in an area which has a unified design or a historical
character (Standard #a4). However, the project is much larger in mass and height than existing
buildings.
5. The proposed project does not promote harmonious transitions in scale and character to the
surrounding neighborhood (Standard #a5) in that the project height and density are greater than
existing neighboring projects.
6. The design is incompatible with approved improvements both on- and off-site in that the
residential units and office space and associated architectural improvements present a building
height, bulk and scale that is noticeably larger than existing and-adjacent buildings in the vicinity.
(Standard #a6).
7. The planning and siting of the proposed residential units, office space, on-site parking,
circulation and landscaping would create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable
environment for occupants, visitors, and the community in that project includes ample
landscaping, a public plaza, and subterranean parking, on-site.
8. The pioposed amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design anal function
of the project in that the site plan and landscape plan maximize the amount of landscaping on the
site (Standard #a8).
9. The retail space, subterranean garage, and public plaza provide sufficient ancillary functions
compatible with and supportive of the main function of the project’s design concept (Standard
#a9).
10. Access to the property and circulation for both drivers and pedestrians would be provided in
a safe and convenient manner in that vehicular access is limited to one driveway off Channing
Avenue and pedestrian access is provided to individual units along High Street and to office space
at the public plaza at High Street and Homer Avenue and pedestrian walkways are provided
throughout the development. (Standard #al0). ~
11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project in that the
landscape plan provides a mix of perimeter landscape screening and a public plaza, new on-site
trees, plantings and groundcover and new street trees. (Standard #al 1).
12. The proposed contemporary architecture and building materials are an appropriate expression
for this building style and are compatible with other projects in this area (Standard #12).
13: The proposed landscape design provides a desirable and functional environment and pleasant
outdoor space and is appropriate to a mixed use building in that the landscape scheme provides
pleasant walkways, perimeter landscaping, and an outdoor public plaza conducive to pedestrian
use (Standard #a13).
14. The proposed plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site and can be properly
maintained on the site and the plantings are appropriate for outdbor use and includes a mix of
trees, shrubs and groundcover suitable for this type of development (Standard #a14).
15. The building design incorporates energy efficient features such as dual glazing and insulation
(Standard #a15.)
ATTACHMENT//1
FINDINGS FOR ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW DENIAL
800 HIGH STREET
The following findings for the Standards for Architectural Review have been prepared by staff in
support of denial of the proposal:
1. The project is consistent with the land use designation of the Comprehensive Plan (Standard
#1) in that it is a office/residential use and but it is inconsistent with the density and height
allowable on the site.
2. The design is incompatible with the immediate environriaent of the site (Standard #2) in that the
site is surrounded by existing commercial and mixed use buildings that are a smaller scale (FAR
of 1.0 or less) than the proposed building (FAR of 2.0) and a lesser height (35 feet or less) than
the proposed project (50 feet).
3. The building would function well for residential use (Standard #3) in that the design provides
a healthy, safe, and comfortable living environment including outdoor patios, loft space, and a
public plaza.
4. The subject property is not located in an area which has a unified design or a historical
character (Standard #a4). However, the project is much larger in mass and height than existing
buildings.
5. The proposed project does not promote harmonious transitions in scale and character to the
surrounding neighborhood (Standard #a5) in that the project height and density are greater than
existing neighboring projects.
6. The design is incompatible with approved improvements both on- and off-site in that the
residential units and office space and associated architectural improvements present a building
height, bulk and scale that is-noticeably larger than existing and adjacent buildings in the vicinity.
(Standard #a6).
7. The planning and siting of the proposed residential units, office space, on-site parking;
circulation and landscaping would create an internal sense of order and provide a desirable
environment for occupants, visitors, and the Community in that project includes ample
landscaping, a public plaza, and subterranean parking, on-site.
8. The proposed amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and function
of the project in that the site plan and landscape plan maximize the amount of landscaping on the
site (Standard #a8).
9. The retail space, subterranean garage, and public plaza provide sufficient ancillary functions
compatible with and supportive of the main function of the project’s design concept (Standard
#a9).
10. Access to the property and circulation for both drivers and pedestrians would be provided in
a safe and convenient manner in that vehicular access is limited to one driveway off Channing
Avenue and, pedestrian access is provided to individual units along High Street and to office space
at the public plaza at High Street and Homer Avenue and pedestrian walkways are provided
throughout the development. (Standard #al0).
11. Natural features are appropriately preserved and integrated into the project in that the
landscape plan provides a mix of perimeter landscape screening and a public plaza, new on-site
trees, plantings and groundcover and new street trees. (Standard #al 1).
"12. The proposed contemporary architecture and building materials are an appropriate ,expression
for this building style and are compatible with other projects in this area (Standard #12).
13. The proposed landscape design provides a desirable and functional environment and pleasant
outdoor space and is appropriate to a mixed use building in that the landscape scheme provides
pleasant walkways, perimeter landscaping, and an outdoor public plaza conducive to pedestrian
use (Standard #a13).
14. The proposed plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site and can be properly
maintained on the site and the plantings are appropriate for outdoor use and includes a mix of
trees, shrubs and groundcover suitable for this type of development (Standard #a14),
15. The building design incorporates energy efficient features such as dual glazing and insulation
(Standard #a15.)
800 High Street
Creamery Project
Project Description and Program
Development Statement
Project Summaw
The project involves the redevelopment of the entire block bounded by High
Street, Homer Street, Channing Street and the alley located in the south western
portion of downtown Palo Alto. Currently the site is occupied by the Peninsula
Creamery as a warehouse, refrigeration, manufacturing and trucking facility. It
is intended that the existing warehouse commercial facility, be demolished and a
new 3 story, 84,000 sq. ft. steel frame structure with two level underground
garage be constructed in its place. The new building ground floor will be mixed
use with retail and 16 live-work units of approximately 1,250 square feet each
and will be oriented toward High Street. The second and third floors will be
general commercial office use. The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) is 2.0.
A total of 284 parking spaces are to be provided 254 below grade and 30 above
grade. The parking ratio for the commercial space will be 4 to 1 and 1.25 to 1 for
the residential. The parking garage entry would be from Channing Street on the
south side of the building.
Necessity for PC District - Required Determinations
1) Current CD-S district does not allow sufficient flexibility to allow the
proposed mixed use development of live-work and general office. The live-work
model has been found to be a very desirable in or near downtown cores. As more
people "telecomute" the demand for live-work space has increased dramatically.
Live-work in this site would work well due to its proximity to the Caltrans station,
the Palo Alto workplace and civic amenities.
2) Current zoning and applicable Floor Area Ratios do not provide the
flexibility to construct a three-story mixed use commercial building, nor would
any other general zone district apply. A higher building volume is needed at this
location due to its close proximity to the Emerson Street and Homer
Avenue activity nodes. Existing zoning of .04 to 1 would limit the floor area to a
single story design. A three-story structure under existing zoning would leave a
majority of the lot vacant. It is also important to have a more appropriate FAR for
Page 1
800 High Street
Creamery Project
this site so as to create a prominent architectural statement that would be a
cohesive element in this transitional and gateway area. Further, there is a large
demand in Palo Alto to provide commercial office and design space for local
downtown companies that are experiencing growth. A great number of these firms
are unable to find floor plates of sufficient size to meet their needs. Many
of these companies will either have to divide into multiple locations or consider
moving out of Palo Alto.
Public Benefit
Development of the site under the provisions of the Planned Community zone will
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by the application of any other
general districts.
1) The building is designed to create a strong architectural statement that will
continue to enhance the design trends in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) area for
retail, office and general business services.
2) The project will increase the rental housing available in Palo Alto. Currently
there is a housing shortage in the mid-peninsula area. We are proposing 16 units of.
live-work space. This space will be in close proximity to the Caltran station, civic
amenities, shopping and work locations. In addition, the current use of the site is
inconsistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive General Plan. Our proposed
redevelopment meets the increased demand for both more housing and larger
office floor plates in the downtown area.
3) The project proposes in partnershipwith the Palo Alto Utility Del~artment to
move the existing 60 foot high 60,000 KV powedine that currently runs behind the
subject site in the alley to the west side of Alma Street.
4) The project intends to incorporate into its site design many public amenities,
such as an open air plaza, extensive landscaping, seating, street trees on both sides
of High Street, street lighting, an integrated paver Sidewalk system and a sound
wall to attenuate the noise from the adjacent transforming station.
5) The project will be able to provide extra parking to local business to remove
employee cars from the street. Nighttime access will also be available for local
restaurant valet services and the public.
Page 2
800 High Street
Creamery Project
6) As this site housed the Peninsula Creamery for many years, we propose to
provide art which will be in keeping with the site’s .history. Our current thoughts
are to create a contemporary statue which will promote pedestrian interest in the
piece and the plaza area. In addition to promoting an interesting visual attraction
we inted to commission a piece that will be linked to the site’s heritage and former
ues.
7) The project will provide the required number of Below-Market-Rate Rental
Units.
8) The project potentially will provide a direct dollar contribution to the
underground pedestrian passageway between downtown.and the new PAMF site.
Use
The use or uses permitted (office, retail, eating and drinking establishments and
live-work units) and the site development regulations applicable.within the district
are consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and are compatible with
existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.
1) Urban Design Objective: "Preserve Palo Alto as a creative environment
where people can work and Live."
2) Urban Design Objective: "Promote the orderly and harmonious development
of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements
through the review of new development."
3) Urban Design Objective: "Promote visual environments which are of high
aesthetic quality and variety, and considerate of each other."
4) Land Use and Community Design Program L-9: "Create and apply the
following zone standards. A Live/Work designation that permits housing, office
retail, and light industrial uses to co-exist in the same building space where certain
conditions and performances standards are met."
5) Land Use and Community Design Program L-23: "Enhance the character of
the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area."
Page 3
800 High Street
Creamery Project
Project Schedule
Item
Application Submittal
Planning Commission Heating (First)
ARB Hearing
Planning Commission (Second)
City Council Heating (First)
Design Approval
Start Construction Documents
City Council Hearing (Second)
PC Zone Change Approved
Construction Documents to Vance Brown
Demolition
Start Construction
End Construction Substantial Completion
Date
6/6/97
8/27/97
9/18/97
10/29/97
11/17/97
1/1/98
1~1/98
4/1/98
3/1/99
City of Palo Alto
DRAFT MINUTES
Attachment 4
Minnuule
Thursday, July 17, 1997
8:00 AM
Council Conference Room
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California
Ao ROLL CALL:
Board Members Present:
Board Members Absent:
Jim McFall
Dave Ross
Bob Peterson
Cheryl Piha
Frank Alfonso
Staff Members Present:Lisa Grote
Chandler Lee (Contract Planner for Item 11.7).
Bob Schubert (Contract Planner for Item IL 1, and II.2)
George White
Phillip Woods
t
B.~~ COMMUNICATIONS:
None. ~ .
C.AGENDA CItANGE~DELETIONS AND ADDITIONS:
Do
A:ARB :MIN0717.
Item II.2.has been continued to~A~st 21, 1997. Item II.5 has been continued to a specialmeeting for 9:00 a.m. on July 24, l~was moved in front of Item 11.7.
AGENDA ITEMS: ~" " ’
APPROVALS: The Architectural ..... Review Board (ARB) de-’~n on the design of the
project is a recommendation to th~ Planning and Comm~i~Environment (the
Director), who makes the final decision. Unless otherwise stated b~d;~ ARB or theDirector, project approvals generally incorporate Project Review Committ~ons
Page 1
7.800 High Street*97-ARB-122
97-ZC-9
Review of a preliminary Architecturai Review Board application for the demolition
of an existing 17,632 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new
three story mixed use building including 16 residential units, 62,000 square feet of
office space, 1,450 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and
related site improvements.
PROJECT REPRESENTATIVES: Roxy Rapp, 375 University Avenue, presented concept
of proposal. Guy Frazee, Project architect presented the architectural concepts.
PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Carter Wavr, 150 Portola Road, is in support of project; it will
set the tone for neighborhood. The density, proportions, massing, height is
appropriate. Steve Player, Attorney for the Ice Creamery was in support of
project; It is a positive development and will be in line with current policies.
ARCH!TECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ACTION: No action, preliminary review
Peterson stepped down, due to conflict of interest.
Cheryl Piha - Stated that she had a problem with the staff’report because in her four and half
year tenure she has not seen a recommended denial for a Preliminary Review of a project.
The concept of "use" in the report is inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan policy. The
proposed mixed-use of residential/commercial is appropriate for the site. The proposal
would enhance High Street by increasing the viability of the street. The economics of the
site would encourage a mixed-use structure that locates parking underground. The site
supports the mixed-use because of the close proximity to Alma street and public
transportation. The architectural design is excellent because the massing and materials are
appropriate to theproject. The architectural model presented appears to be very heavy and
it is recommended the applica.nt to provide a new model. The proposed public benefits are
adequate.
Jim McFall - He was surprise’that there was denial findings in a Preliminary Review report.
He disagrees with the original language of use with the intent to the Comprehensive Plan.
The proposed mixed-use of residential and commercial is appropriate. The proposed square
footage is more appropriate in this area because of high concentration of square footage on
University Avenue. The large project offers the advantage of locating parking in an
underground facility; this allows a pedestrian friendly area on the ground level. The splayed
third floor form is a nice architectural element. He was concerned about the 50-foot height
on the comer of the building. Also, he was concerned about the number of building
materials proposed. The public benefits package is not adequate; the architecture of the
proposed building is not a public benefit; the relocation of the transformer equipment would
A:ARB:MIN0717.Page. 10
probably benefit the proposed building. He suggested the applicant to look into the
possibility of locating an access ramp to PAMF.
Dave Ross - The architecture of the building fits the site; the density proposed is appropr.iate.
The proposed distinct uses break the scale of the building. The hard and soft landscape
elements are very important for this project. He liked the rich textures created by the use of
building materials. He was not concerned that the project was going to set a precedent for
large projects in the immediate area surrounding the proposal. He was not concerned about
the height and would support a variance. The proposal locates parking in an underground
parking area which would no~ be feasible for a much smaller project. He is glad there is
public art proposed for the public benefits.
8.3070 Louis Road 96-ARB-136
Chabad of Greater S. Bay 96-EIA-29
Application for Architectural Review Board review and recommendation to
the Director of Planning and Community Environment of revised plans to
allow the demolition of an existing religious facility and the construction of
new approximately 6,700 square foot religious facility, and associated
and landscaping.
PROJECT
Youself Levin
PUBLIC TESTIMONY:
proposal; it is a very
Stan Field, Project architect presented proposal. Rabbi
led additional information.
Wasserman, 751 South Hampton Drive was support of
building for the Jewish Community.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
RECOMMENDATION WITH STAFF
CONDITIONS
Prior to Issuance of Grading or Demolition Permit
Approved, (4-0-1-0). Alfonso Absent.
The proposed sign is not approved and shall return on the ARB
Provide a redwood fence at the children’s play area; subject to review and
Install two medium-sized trees in the landscaped area on each side of the circle
one matching tree on the right side of the main driveway. The trees should be
size. ...
calendar.
by staff.
and
lOX
A:ARB:MIN0717.Page 11
Attachment 5
Robert Peterson
Architects, Inc.
57 El Camino Real
Menlo Park, CA 94025
650.327.1161
April 3, 1998
Anne Moore
Director of Planning & Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Fax650.327.2512 Subject: Santana Building - Mixed-Use Project at 800 High Street
www.PetetsonArchltects.com
Dear Ms. Moore:
We want to briefly recap the design status of the Santana Building.
Prior to the application to and hearing before the Planning Commission last
October, modifications and clarifications were made to the project in response to
community and staff concerns expressed in on-going discussions.
The height of the building has been lowered to 48’ from 50’. This does not include
mechanical eqtiipment or its screening.
The third-story element at Channing and High has been removed and replaced by
one- and two-story stucco elements. The original stucco three-story element at
the alley remained 30’ from Channing. This modification substantially reduced
the mass at the Channing/High corner. The original mass is indicated on the
High Street Elevation on Sheet A6 with a dashed line.
The design of the sound wall in the alley adjacent to the substation was completed
and included in the drawings.
Street-tree installation’and location was reviewed and modified to be in
compliance with the Arborist’s recommendations.
Additional information regarding these and other elements of the project can be
found in the letter of October 16, 1997 to Ken Schreiber.
Sincerely,
Robert C. Peterson, AIA
October 16, 1997
Kenneth R. Schreiber
Director of Planning & Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
Subject: Application for a Live/Work, Office and Retail Project at 800 High
Street (97-ZC-9)
Dear Ken:
With this letter and the accompanying drawings and documents, we are
responding to the Planning Commissions Actions of August 13, 1997, as well as
your letter of September 10, 1997.
Our response to your specific concerns are as follows:
1. Visual Impacts of the Substation and Transmission Lines
For aesthetic and EMF interference considerations the applicant proposes to move
existing 60 KV power lines in the alley between Lincoln Avenue and Homer
Avenue to the west side of the Alma Street right of way.
On-going discussions with the Electric Utilities Department indicate that the
plan is not only feasible but desirable because: it will remove the unsightly lines
and pairs of poles from their objectionable 2 1/2 block long alley location and place
them in the Alma Street right-of-way, partially screened by existing vegetation,
and safely away from existing homes and businesses; provide upgraded new
equipment requiring less maintenance; reduce the total number of poles requiring
maintenance. The proposed location of these lines is further from the PAMF site
than existing C.P.A. utility lines on the west side of the S.P. right-of-way and
therefore less of an impact than those existing lines. An aerial plan contained in
the submittal package diagrams a likely scheme for the proposed relocation.
New poles will be tapered steel, approximately 60’ high, and spaced 150’-200’
apart, as recommended by the Utilities Department. Elevations and sections
contained in the drawings of the submittal package illustrate pole locations and
appearance.
The locations and equipment have been worked out preliminarily with the
Utilities Department. Installation and maintenance issue resolution and
coordination with other utility structures a~d other agencies is anticipated.
Formal planning and detailed engineering will not commence until this project
goes forward.
2. Visual Impacts. of the Building Height and Mass
In response to continuing discussions with the SOFA neighborhood association
and other individual neighborhood residents, the project has been revised to have
an overall building height of 48’, exclusive of the mechanical equipment roof
screens which will be reduced proportionally.
In addition the three-story building element at the High Street/Channing
Avenue elevation has been set back from Channing Avenue approximately 50’
from the original submitted design. That elevation is now composed of one- and
two-story elements, except for the original three-story element at the alley face
which remains, and is set back 30’ from Channing Avenue.
Additional information on the proposed soundwall is shown on drawing sheet A7.
3. Noise Impacts on Project Residents and Neighbors
See attached memorandum from Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. dated
10/09/97.
Traffic and Parking Impacts
See attached letter from Abrams Associates, dated 10/13/97.
5. Street Trees
The proposed street trees on the North side of High Street will be similar in their
sidewalk location to the City’s conventional installations. The project will
provide sidewalk grates, irrigation and conform to your Arborist’s
recommendations. We would prefer to install the maximum number of trees that
can be accommodated on this side but we have received a request from one
property owner not to install a new tree adjacent to his property. We would look
for your guidance on this issue.
The proposed street trees on the South side of the High Street will be installed
outside of our below grade parking structure and planted in accordance with the
City Arborist’s recommendations. Tree locations will be adjusted to accommodate
parking. These adjustments along with the elimination of existing curb cuts on
High Street will provide 2 parking spaces more than currently exist. The tree
well curbs will be designed to accommodate street cleaning
The proposed street trees on Homer and Ch~nning Avenues will be installed
outside of our below grade parking structure and planted in accordance with the
City Agborist’s recommendations.
The sidewalk is designed as a separate surface from the parking structure to
facilitate maintenance, to enrich the character and appearance of this project and
to set a precedent for the quality of future development in the neighborhood.
6. Land Use
"The objective regarding live/work is to facilitate additional living units in the
downtown and other commercial districts and to encourage combined studio/shop
space for artists, craftsmen, and professionals that might otherwise not be able to
locate in Downtown or other areas of Palo Alto."
This project would use the objective (above) and the definition of live/work units
as developed by the Palo Alto Planning Staff in July 1995 as follows:
"live/work refers to a use classification that requires residential occupancy of a
unit in which the resident conducts his/her livelihood. The "work" portion of the
definition includes uses such as: professional office; personal service; and art-
making/design studios including visual arts, dramatic arts, music, and dance
which do not involve the use of hazardous materials exceeding the threshold
which would require permit under Title 17 (Hazardous Materials Permit
Ordinance). Each live/work space must include residential amenities for sleeping
eating, cooking, and sanitation facilities. Each live/work unit would allow one
additional employee beyond the on-site resident(s). Parking is required at the
same rate as the multiple-family regulations. On-site sales would be permitted."
This live/work language will become part of each lease for these residential units.
If any additional issues arise from your further review please let us-know.
enc: Attached with letter is a list of the Public Benefits to be provided by our
project.
October 16, 1997
PUBLIC BENEFIT
We propose to offer the following "Public Benefit" package:
The building’s underground parking garage can accommodate four cars per
thousand square feet of office space. This requirement is per the City of Palo
Alto’s guidelines. Other peninsula municipalities require only three spaces
per thousand based upon their own parking studies. We propose to build four
spaces per thousand and limit our tenants to three spaces per thousand square
feet (attached is a proposed lease clause that will be a mandatory clause in our
leases and a study of potential tenant employee parking loads and user type
parking load samples). We will provide 60 spaces to surrounding businesses
that do not have adequate employee parking. Market value: $1,440,000.
Contribution towards the proposed underground pedestrian tunnel between
the new Palo Alto Medical Foundation site and Alma Street at Homer
Avenue. Contribution amount: $100,000.
Provide start-up funding for a Downtown Traffic Manager (DTM). The
DTM will coordinate public and private efforts to improve traffic and parking
problems downtown. The DTM will work with local business to organize ride
sharing programs, bicycle programs, public transportation programs, shuttle
services, etc...
Funding of an Art Program. We will commission an artist to create a major
piece of sculpture that will be linked to the heritage and former use of the site.
The art will promote pedestrian interest in the plaza area. Contribution
amount: $50,000.
The project intends to incorporate into its site design many public amenities,
such as an open air plaza, extensive landscaping, seating, street lighting, an
integrated unit paved sidewalk system, street trees on both sides of High
Street, re-paving the alley and providing a pedestrian way alongside of it. The
alley work will include building a sound and site screen at the electrical sub-
station. Approximate value: $125,000.
Relocation of 2 and one-half blocks of 60 KVA Electrical Transmission lines.
The lines are currently located in the alley between Alma Street and High
and travel 2 and one-half blocks from Lincoln Avenue to the sub-station
between Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue. We are proposing to pay for
the rerouting of these lines, starting at Lincoln Avenue even though the first
two blocks of this work have no relationship ~o our project site. They will be re-
routed to the western side of Alma Street. Approximate cost: $300,000.
The project will increase the rental housing in the area. We are proposing 16
units of live/work space. The current industrial use at the site is inconsistent
with the Palo Alto Comprehensive General Plan. Our proposed redevelopment
will be a Planned Community development that addresses the increased demand
for both more housing and larger office floor plates in the downtown area. Our
project will help to offset the loss of customers to local businesses created by the
PAMF move to E1 Camino Real.
The Creamery Project
Project Description and Program Development Statement
Project Summary
The project involves the redevelopment of the half block bounded by High Street, Homer
Street, Channing Street and the alley located in the south western portion of downtown Palo
Alto. The Peninsula Creamery currently occupies the site as a warehouse, refrigeration and
trucking facility. It is intended that the existing warehouse commercial facility, be demolished
and a new three (3) story mixed-use building with retail, live-work housing and commercial
office space be built in its place.
The proposed project used the local-area-planning concept. First, we presented the
University South Neighborhood Group with a mixed-use development concept to elicit
comments and discussion. In response to the discussions and comments we modified the
design development in three major ways. First, to create an active pedestrian oriented street
environment the live/work lofts were placed on the ground floor and a public plaza was
created at the Homer and High street comer. Next, we replaced the 3-story element at the
Channing side of the building with one and two story elements stepped back 20 feet and 30
feet respectively. Additionally along High Street, we have added a third story onto the two
story elements to reduce the apparent length of the upper office element, which is also
stepped back from the second floor. Third and finally, to soften the "feel" of the building
we have changed the zinc cladding of the third story (which descends to the plaza level at
the Homer Avenue side of the building~ to copper cladding.
The building is fully parked on site in complete accordance with current regulations. Two
hundred eighty-four parking spaces are provided, 254 below grade and 30 above grade. The
parking ratio used for the commercial space is four per 1000 square feet, the parking ratio
for the residential space is 1.25 per unit and the parking ratio for the retail space is five per
1000 square feet. The parking garage entry is on Channing Street.
Necessity for PC District - Required Determimttions
Current CD-S district does not allow sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed mixed-use
development of live/work, retail and general office. The live/work model is emerging as a
desirable option in or near downtown districts. As more people "telecommute" the demand
for live/work space has increased dramatically. Live/work housing is designed specifically for
this type of site. Due to the commercial setting and adjacency to the electrical substation and
commercial service businesses, the site is undesirable for traditional multi-family and single
family residential housing. The live/work units are an important component for our mixed
use development as they bring life, vitality, street interest and a residential feel to the
development. However, it is the commercial space that allows the rental housing to be
produced at a quality level. A higher FAR for this site will allow the project to create an
architectural statement that will be a cohesive element in this transitional and gateway area.
Page I
The proposed FAR for the site is 2.0 which allows for a development with a human scale
and a quality design that will enhance the character and feel of the local area. There is a large
demand in Palo Alto to provide commercial office and design space for local downtown and
other companies that are experiencing growth. A great number of these firms are unable to
find floor plates of sufficient size to meet their needs. This site is large enough to make
underground parking feasible for the office component and is located outside of the
downtown core area where any impact on traffic can be mitigated. The ability to create
exciting new housing and street vitality with office space unburdened by the negative impacts
of traffic and parking is precisely the type of project the PC Zone was created to foster.
Additionally, the fact that the project will be able to absorb employee parking from
neighboring businesses, parking that is currently on the street, is an example of a public
benefit for which the PC Zone was adopted.
Public Benefit
The building’s underground parking garage can accommodate four cars per thousand
square feet of office space. This requirement is per the City of Palo Alto guidelines.
Other peninsula municipalities require only three spaces per thousand based upon their
own parking studies. We propose to build four spaces per thousand and limit our tenants
to three spaces per thousand square feet. At three spaces per thousand we will provide
68 spaces to surrounding businesses that do not have adequate employee parking. Market
value: $1,632,000.
The project intends to incorporate into its site design many public amenities, such as an
open air plaza, extensive landscaping, seating, street lighting, an integrated unit paved
sidewalk system, street trees on both sides of High Street, re-paving and widening of the
alley behind the building. The alley work will include building a sound and site screen at
the electrical sub-station. Approximate value: $200,000.
We are studying the feasibility of relocating three and one-half blocks of 60 KVA
Electrical Transmission lines. The lines are currently located in the alley between Alma
Street and High and travel three and one-half blocks from Lincoln Avenue to the sub-
station between Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue. We are proposing to pay for the
rerouting of these lines, starting at Lincoln Avenue. Theywill be re-routed to the
western side of Alma Street. As an alternative proposal we will study the impact of
replacing the power powers with a single taller standard. Approximate cost: $200,00 to
$300,000.
The development team having met numerous times with City Staff, local homeowner’s
and the SOFA group have developed the following list of potential public benefit items.
The funding amount will be $350,000.
Provide funding for the PAMF park.
Contribute funds to the proposed underground pedestrian tunnel between the new
Palo Alto Medical Foundation site and Alma Street at Homer Avenue.
Page 2
Provide start-up funding for a Downtown Traffic Manager (DTM).The DTM will
coordinate public and private efforts to improve traffic and parking problems
downtown. The DTM will work with local business to.organize ride sharing
programs, bicycle programs, public transportation._programs, shuttle services etc...
Funding of an Art Program. We will commission an artist to create a major piece of
sculpture that will be linked to the heritage and former use of the site. The art will
promote pedestrian interest in the plaza area.
The use or uses permitted (office, retail, eating and drinking establishment and live-work
units) and the site development regulation applicable within the district are consistent with
the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and are compatible with existing and potential uses on
adjoining sites or within the general vicinity.
1)Urban Design Objective: "Preserve Palo Alto as a creative environment where people
can work and live."
2)Urban Design Objective: "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the
City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the
review of new development."
3)Urban Design Objective: ’’Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic
quality and variety, and considerate of each other."
4) I.and Use and Community Design Program I_,9: "Create and apply; the following zone
standards. A Live/work designation that permits housing, office retail, and light
industrial uses to co-exist in the same building space where certain conditions and
performances standards are met."
5)Land Use and Community Design Program 1-23: "Enhance the character of the South
of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed-use area."
Parking Statement
The Creamery project will be completely parked onsite and will provide as required under
current policy 284 parking spaces. Of the 284 spaces 254 will be below grade and 30 above
grade. As required, the parking ratio for the commercial portion will be 1 space per 250
square feet (s.f.) of office, 1.25 spaces per residential unit and 7 retail spaces. The residential
parking would be at grade, covered and be located directly behind the resident’s live/work
unit. The parking garage entry would be from Channing Street on the south side of the
building.
This project would like to offera partial solution to the local employee street parking
problem in the SOFA area, This project would request that the Staff recommend and City
Council approve that the existing commercial parking requirement of 1 space per 250 s.f. be
relaxed to 1 space per 333 s.f. of commercial space with the stipulation that we build the 284
Page 3
spaces and offer the excess parking to employees of local and neighboring businesses. If
approved and implemented this project would then be able to offer 68 spaces to employees
of local businesses. The value of the parking at $24,000 per space would be $1,632,000.
Many experts believe that the I per 250 s.f. parking requirement is excessive ~for a building
that is located so closely to a downtown core, CalTrain ~d bus stations. Many local cities
have decreased their central business commercial parking requirement to I per 333 s.f.
including Mountain View and Redwood City. We have spoken with potential tenants and
have been informed that they would not require a 1 per 250 s.f. parking requirement.
This project has obtained 100% approval from the neighboring businesses for this parking
plan, as they are acutely aware of their employees’ negative impact on the local parking
situation. Staff has heard during the SOFA meetings that parking for employees is a critical
problem, and we believe this is an innovative and creative approach to the problem.
The parking garage will be privately owned and maintained. Tenants and other approved
users will access the garage through a security card gated entry. Parking space use will be
accessed on an non-assigned fast come first serve basis. All vehicles will be assigned a
numbered sticker, which will correspond to the proper vehicle and security card. All parking
rights and use will be nontransferable. Payment for non-tenant users will be free of charge
for the first ten years, except for a nominal deposit for the security card.
Development Statmnent 4/7/98
Page 4
The Creamery Project
Project Schedule
Item
Applicatiori Submittal
Planning Commission Hearing (First)
ARB Hearing
Planning Commission Hearing (Second)
City Council Hearing (First)
Design Approval Start Construction
Documents
City Council Hearing (Second)
PC Zone Change Approved
Construction Documents to Vance Brown
Demolition
Start Construction
End Construction Substantial Completion
3/9/98
6/24/98
7/16/98
8/26/98
8/17/98
9/21/98
10/1/98
11/1/98
3/1/00
ROXY RRPP 1~011111111 TEL NO, "Qpr 28,98 14:11
Attachment 6
Director o~ Planning ~ Community ~nvLmnmem
Ci~ of P~to Alto
P.O, ~x 10250
’l~t~ ~.,,, t.tte~ i~ tot mtmmSri~,e thc~t¢~,isions made to the design of the proposed
.qantana B~tilding Proiect, We have made these tcvtstom a...e ourARB m~,.e.rinl~ ind Planning C;ommtsston m=~dtig, at~d M~o as .~ rrs.lt of our
going meetings with neighborhood r~stdent$,
At tb.e oznta of Hi$k ~ttd ~hannln& the 3-story office element has ~en
r~pL~d with ~xe and two sra~ element~ ste~ped ~k 20’ and ~O’ respecUvely,
from ~anning. ~e third sto~ is ~t back 50’, At ~anning and the alld~,
&e pt~viuus 3 ato~ bulldin~ .bment r~im.
2.Alor~ High Bert:el, w~ havo add, d a third srnry ot’,to two two story ~l¢m¢,’,r~ to
reduce the app~i::, l¢t~$th of th, upper o~ce element and the building in
general.
3. Along the alley, the second floor h~s heen extended out ~o th~ d,l,d ~1~ It,,o,wh~r¢ prev|u~,~ly tt was ,.~v~.rh,,,~ by tke rhird floor.
We lave increased the number of street trees on High Street, contained them
within.a curb’configured to ~lluw ~,tte.t sw¢¢pirt/ ,quipmenr to he 0scd. The
tree~, l~v, b~en opaced ro.prosdd~ a net ~ain Of two parking spaces on this block.
The nvctaLl building height has been reduced to arB’ (previousL~ 50’) exclusive
of the mechanical equipment and screening.
Axid!tinna,|ly, we have ine, htded Information nut p,t¢iouel¥ ~huwn, bat ht~w.provtd~’d In response to comments from st~ff, such as:
Proposed relocation of electrical lines
well elar|fi~atiot~
PHONI I~115} 32A 1.’~29 tAC’Si~Ir 14 I,~) 32,1 0759
RO×Y RRPP ~.40I:1111111 TEL NO. " "Rpr 28,98 14:12 P .03
We hnp~, rhis d=seription wilt hdp you with this next review of th~ d~m=nts.
!