HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-03-17 City Council (20)City of Palo Alto
Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
MARCH 17, 1997 CMR:174:97
400 Emerson Street: Application to rezone property from PC
~lanned Community) District to CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial
Pedestrian Combining) District. File No.: 96-ZC-12.
REQUEST
The City Council is requested to approve a zone change in order to allow the approximately
2,600-square-foot third floor of an existing building to be converted from residential use to
financial service use.
RECOMMENDATIONS
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the attached draft
ordinance (Attachment #1) approving the requested zone change. Staff recommends denial
of the request as discussed below under AiIgd:llliiL~.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The requested zone change from PC to CD-C(P) should be determined to be in accord with
the purposes of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Comprehensive Plan
The Planning Commission found that the requested rezoning is in accord with the
Comprehensive Plan for the following reasons: .
The site is designated as Regional/Community Commercial in the Comprehensive
Plan. The proposed financial service use is allowed within this Comprehensive Plan
designation.
The loss of one market:rate residential unit downtown is not, in and of. itself,
significant in terms of the purposes of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
CMR:174:97 Page 1 of 8
fmancial services use is equally desirable as one market-rate apartment unit because
it would contribute to the vitality of the downtown.
Zonin~ Ordinance
The CD-C zoning regulations allow for conversion from residential to commerciai use, if
housing mitigation fees are paid and parking requirements are satisfied. When only one
residential unit is lost, a housing mitigation fee is not required. The applicant would pay an
in-lieu parking fee pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of the PAMC to meet the requirement for
9 additional parking spaces.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Pro_iect Description
Approval of the requested zone change would allow the applicant to convert the
approximately 2,600-square-foot third floor from a residential unit to the corporate office for
Cupertino National Bank, which currently occupies the first and second floors of the
building. No physical changes to the site or exterior of the building are proposed; although
interior changes would be required for the third floor conversion. Information regarding the
project history, review process and the subject property !s contained in the staff report for the
January 29, 1997 Planning Commission meeting (see Attachment #3).
Public Benefit Requirements
When the project was approved.in 1994 (see Attachment #8, minutes from the September 19,
1994 City, Council meeting), a PC zone change was necessary because the applicant proposed
to pay in-lieu parking fee prior to the City’s adoption of an in-lieu parking ordinance..Under
Ordinance No. 4238 (Attachment #4), the.project was found to provide the following public
benefits, which were made conditions of the PC zone in order to support the public benefit
findings:
Residential use.. In approving Ordinance No. 4238, the Council found the residential
unit to be a public benefit primarily because they reasoned the precedent might
stimulate more mixed-use proposals, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and
Urban Design Guide.
Status: .The required residential unit has been partially constructed on the third floor
of the building but remains vacant pending the outcome of the zone change request.
_Publicdrinkin~ fountain and art niche. The project included provision of a public
drinking fountain and a public art niche consistent with the Urban Design Guide.
These features provided pedestrian visibility to the comer, and the owner would
maintain and service the drinking fountain for 24 hour public use.
CMR: 174:97 Page 2 of 8
Status: Although niches for the drinking fountain and public art have been installed
in the building wall facing Lytton Avenue, the required drinking fountain and public
art have not been installed. The applicant’s current proposal for the drinking fountain
and public art was unanimously approved by the Public Art Commission (PAC) on
February 26, 1997 (see Attachment #10, letter from Judith Wasserman dated Fbbruary
28, 1997). The drinking fountain and public art are scheduled for review by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) on March 20, 1997.
Summary of Planning Commission Review
On January 29, 1997, the Planning Commission, with Commissioners Beecham and Ojakian
absent, unanimously recommended approval of the requested zone change (see Attachment
#3 Planning Commission minutes). Regarding the proposed conversion of the third floor
from residential to financial service us, e, the Commissioners noted that the residential unit
was not considered to be a major loss, because it was not designed to be an affordable unit.
The Commission noted that the CD-C zoning regulations allow conversion from residential
to commercial use, if housing mitigation is paid and parking requirements are met. When
only one unit is lost, no mitigation payment is required. The applicant intends to provide in-
lieu parking payment.
The Commission unanimously supported the proposed rezoning, which would allow the
conversion of the third floor from residential to financial service use. The Commission
found that the requested rezoning was not inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that
the residential unit was only one market-rate apartment unit, and the proposed financial
service use is consistent with the Regional/Community Commercial Comprehensive Plan
land use designation and is equally .desirable as one market-rate apartment unit.
Regarding the art niche and drinking fountain, the commissioners indicated that although
the public benefits are not yet installed, the City should accept the applicant’s good intentions
to date, including the provision of a Certificate of Deposit (CD) for their completion. Staff
had indicated in their analysis that approval of the zone change, from PC to CD-C(P) would
have the negative result of relieving the project from its public benefit requirements,
including the provision of the public art niche and the property owner’s responsibility to
install and service the drinking fountain and make it available for public use 24 hours per
day. In response to a question by the applicant, the Planning Commission asked staff to
research whether the art niche and drinking fountain were conditions of the ARB approval,
and if so, whether ARB conditions could be the mechanism for obtaining and requiring
maintenance of the art and fountain; could they be enforced even if the PC zone were
eliminated, relieving the applicant of the public benefit obligations (see the discussion below
under ARB Conditions of Ap ro~_q.x~l).
CMR: 174:97 Page 3 of 8
Finally, the Commission expressed concerns that a zone change was being requested before
the improvements which were promised by the developer were actually completed. The
Commission asked whether there were any Code compliance issues that were not addressed
in the staff report for the January 29, 1997 .meeting. Staff indicated that, although t.he first
and second floors are occupied, the building permits have expired and the project was never
granted occupancy by the City (see Attachment #9, letter from Building Inspection
Supervisor dated February 3, 1997). The building was not approved for occupancy because:
1) it lacks Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval of the art niche and drinking
fountain; 2) it does not comply with the requirements of the City’s recycling ordinance; and
3) there are still some Uniform Building Code (UBC) requirements that must be satisfied.
According to Building Division staff, the unmet UBC requirements do not pose health/safety
concerns. However, the property owner must re-activate the building permits and complete
the necessary work before occupancy can be granted by the City. The Commission
suggested that the applicant complete the outstanding work on the building before proceeding
to the City Council.
Other than the applicant’s comments, no public testimony was provided at the meeting. The
Planning Commission meeting minutes are included as Attachment #3 to this report.
ARB Conditions ~of Approval
In response to a question by the applicant at the Planning Commission meeting on January
29, 1997, the Commission asked staffto research whether the art niche and drinking fountain
were conditions of the ARB approval, and if so, whether the ARB conditions could be
enforced even if the requested zone change were approved~ The ARB approval includes the
following condition regarding the art niche and drinking fountain:
"Applicant shall consult with the Public Art Commission (PAC) before
submitting fmal details of the art niche and water fountain for ARB
review and approval. All PAC comments shall be submitted as part of
the final site development plans for ARB review. If the art object(s) is
City-owned art, the owner shall enter a hold harmless agreement with~
the City. The Public Art Commission shall have the authority to
require dedication of an art object for the art niche."
The only .substantive difference between the PC ordinance requirements and the ARB
condition is that the ARB condition does not require that the "owner of the subject property
will maintain and service a drinking fountain that will be available for use 24 hours per day."
The attached letter from the applicant states that: 1) the ARB condition of approval allows
the PAC authority to ~equire dedication of the art to be located in the art niche, but remains
silent as to the water fountain; and 2) if the art is dedicated to the City, maintenance
obligations are to be subject to PAMC Section 2.26.050(b) (see Attachment #6, letter from
CMR: 174:97 Page 4 of 8
Jim Baer dated February 3, 1997). However, in approving the applicant’s proposal on
February 26, 1997, the PAC did not require dedication of the art niche.
The requirement to maintain and service the drinking fountain and make it available for use
24 hours per day would be.eliminated if the rezoning request is approved (see the discussion
below under Alternative). Since the Zoning Ordinance does not allow the City to require
conditions of approval for a zone change from PC to CD-C(P), the City does not have the
authority under the applicant’s current request to require that the property owner maintain
and service the drinking fountain and make it available for use 24 hours per day. Therefore,
at the ARB meeting on March20, 1997, staff will recommend the following condition of
approval for the art niche and drinking fountain:
"The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the City, in accordance
with Section 2.26.050(b) of the PAMC, to service and maintain the drinking
fountain and make it available 24 hours per day."
ALTERNATIVE
The City Council could decide to deny the applicant’s request based upon the following:
1) to approve a zone change, the City must find that it is in accord with the purposes of the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance; and 2) the requirement that the
property owner maintain and service the drinking fountain and make it available for use 24
hours per day would be eliminated. :Thus, staffrecommen’ds that the City Council deny the
requested zone change, based upon the following findings:
The proposal to convert the approved residential unit to non-residential use is not in
accord with the following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs:
Housing Element, Policy 6 - "Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family
rental units while working to increase the overall supply of rental housing." The
proposed zone change would allow the elimination of an approved residential (rental)
unit. No housing mitigation fee would be charged pursuant to Section 16.47.020(c)
of the PAMC (i.e., a fee would be required if two or more residential units were
converted to non-residential use).
Housing Element Progam 10 - "The City shouM discourage conversion of lands
designated as residential to non,residential uses." The requested zone change would
allow the conversion of an approved residential unit to non-residential (i.e.,
commercial) use.
Housing Element, Policy 14 - "Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial
and industrial areas." The building, which is located in a commercial area (i.e.,
CMR: 174:97 Page 5 of 8
downtown), currently contains .a mix of uses (i.e., a residential unit and financial
service use). The proposed zone change would allow the elimination of this mix of
uses.
Employment Element. Objective - "Enlist the help of business and ind~try in
providing housing along with commercial and industrial construction." The building,
which is located in a commercial area (i.e., downtown), currently contains a
residential unit which could be eliminated if the requested zone change is approved.
Employment Element. Policy 2 - "Encourage the construction of more housing
primarily on or near industrial and commercial sites." The site, which is designated
Regional/Community Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan, currently contains a
residential unit. Approval of the zone change would allow the conversion of the
existing residential unit into commercial use.
Environmental Resources Policy. Program 43 - "Mitigate the impact of air quality
problems due to stationary and vehicular sources, lmplement programs to reduce
total transportation emissions through the development of additional housing close
to employment centers." The existing project is consistent-with thi~ program because
it provides a residential unit downtown. The requested zone change is not in accord
with this policy because it would allow the elimination of an existing residential unit.
The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18)is to protect the public health, safety,
peace morals, comfort, convenience, and general welfare, including the following
(Zoning Ordinance Section 18.01.020):
"To further, promote, and accomplish the objectives, and programs of the Pale Alto
Comprehensive Plan." The requested zone change’s compliance with the objectives
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan is discussed above.
"To lessen congestion and assure convenience of access; to secure safety from fire,
flood, and other dangers; to provide adequate public health, sanitation, .and general
welfare; to provide for adequate light, air, sunlight, and environmental amenities; to
promote and encourage, conservation of scarce resources; to prevent overcrowding
of land and undue concentration of population, to facilitate the creation of a
convenient, attractive and harmonious community; to attain a desirable balance of
residential and employment opportunities; and to expedite the provision of adequate
and essential public services to the community." With the exception of the purpose
of attaining "a desirable balance of residential and employment opportunities", the
requested zone change is in accord with the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The
requested zone change does not "promote a balance of residential and employment
CMR: 174:97 Page 6 of 8
opportunities" because it would allow for the conversion of a mixed-use project (i.e.,
residential and financial services) into a project occupied entirely by non-residential
¯ uses.
Staff agrees with the applicant that, if the requested rezoning is appr6ved, a
requirement to Complete the installation of the art niche and drinking fountain would
tern/tin. However, the requirement that the property owner maintain and service the
drinking fountain and make it available for use 24 hours per day would be eliminated
(see discussion above regarding ARB Conditions of Approval). Since the Zoning
Ordinance does not allow the City to require conditions of approval for a zone change
from PC to CD-C(P), the City does not have the authority under the applicant’s
current request to require that the prop’erty owner maintain and service the drinking
fountain and make it available for use 24 hours per day. Therefore, at the ARB
meeting on March 20, 1997, staffwill recommend that a condition of approval for the
art niche and drinking fountain requiring the property owner to enter into an
agreement with the City, in accordance with Section 2.26.050(b) of the PAMC, to
service and maintain the drinking fountain and make it available 24 hours per day.
FISCAL IMPACT
The zone change will not have a significant fiscal impact on the City.
subject to the full cost recovery fee schedule.
This application is
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The zone change is Categorically Exempt
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
under Section 15303(b)of the California
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
Following City Council approval of the requested rezoning, the applicant would develop
construction drawings and apply for a building permit to convert the third floor from
residential to fmancial service use.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment # 1:
Attachment #2:
Attachment #3:
Attachment #4:
Attachment #5:
Attachment #6:
Attachment #7:
Draft Ordinance approving the rezoning
Planning Commission Staff Report, January 29, 1997
attachments)
Minutes from January 29, 1997 Planning Commission meeting
Ordinance No. 4238
Letter from Jim Baer dated January 23, 1997
Letter from Jim Baer dated February 3, 1997
Letter from Contract Planner dated January 14, 1997
(without
CMR:174:97 Page 7 of 8
Attachment #8: Minutes from September 19, 1994 City Council meeting
Attachment #9: Letter from Building Inspection Supervisor dated February 3, 1997
Attachment #10: Letter from Judith Wasserman and Natalie Wells, Co-Chairs of the Public
Art Commission, dated February 28, 1997.
Project Plans (City Council Members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Architectural Review Board
Planning Commission
Public Art Commission
John Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ed Storm, Storm Land Company, 20725 Valley Green Drive, #200, Cupertino, CA 95014
PREPARED BY: Robert Schubert, Contract Project Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
City Manager
CMR: 174:97 Page 8 of 8
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08. 040 OF THE PALO . ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASS IFICATION OF THE PROPERTY KNOWN AS 400
EMERSON STREET FROM PC (4238)TO CD-C(P)
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i.
A.The Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held January 29, 1997, has recommended that section
18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be
amended as hereinafter set forth; and
B.The City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendation, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare.
SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning~Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
that certain property known as 400 Emerson Street (the "subject
property) from "PC-Planned Conmm!nity District (Ord. 4238)" to "CD-
C(P) Downtown Commercial Pedestrian Combining District." The
subject property is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 3. The Council finds that this project will not
have a significant environmental effect.
//
//
//
//
II
II
II
II
IIii.
II
II
II
II
tl
II
970114 lao 0080443
SECTION 4. This ordinance shall be effective
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
on the
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Senior Asst. City Attorney
City Manager
Director of Planning and
Community Environment
2970114 la¢ 0080443
PLANNING COMMISSION
TO:PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM:Bob Schubert, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning
AGENDA DATE: January 29, 1997
SUBJECT:400 Emerson Street: Application to rezone property from PC
(Planned Community) District to CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial
Pedestrian Combining) District in order to allow the approximately
2,600 square-foot third floor of an existing btfilding to be converted
from residential use to f’mancial service use. File No.: 96-ZC-12.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council denial of the
requested zone change. Staffhas included a draft ordinance (Attachment #2), should the Planning
Commission recommend approval of the zone change.
BACKGROUND/PROJECT INFORMATION
¯ Approval of the requested zone change would allow the applicant to convert the approximately 2,600
square foot third floor from a residential unit to the corporate office for Cupertino National Bank
which currently occupies the first and second floors of the building. No physical changes to the site
or exterior of the building are proposed; although interior changes would be required for the third
floor conversion. The loss of one residential unit would result. Information regarding the project
history, review process, the subject property and the proposed project are presented below.
In 1994, the property owner applied for a zone change from CD-C(P) to PC in order to construct
an 8,100 square foot 3-story mixed-use building on the site. The project included a residential unit
S: [ PLAN [ PLADIV [ PSCRI4OOEmer. sr
01-29-97
Page I
on the building’s third floor and commercial uses on the first and second floors. A PC zone change
was requested because the developer proposed to provide only 10 of the required 25 parking spaces
in the project and the in-lieu parking ordinance had not yet been adopted by the City (see the
discussion below under Parking). No additional floor area was proposed above the maximum
allowed FAR (1:1) in the CD-C(P) District.
On July 13, 1994, the Planning Commission conceptually approved the proposed project (see the
attached minutes). The Commission recommended City Council approval of the project on August
31, 1994 (see the attached minutes). On October 11, 1994, the City Council adopted Ordinance No.
4238 (attached) which rezoned the property from CD-C(P) to PC. The ordinance requires that the
third floor be used exclusively as a residential unit because the mixed residential/commercial use
was considered a public benefit in approving the project. The first and second floors may be used
for any of the commercial uses which are allowed in the CD-C(P) District. The proposed project
also included a public drinking fountain and art niche which were found to be public benefits of the
project and are therefore required under Ordinance No. 4238. The property owner is required to
maintain and service the drinking fountain and make it available for public use 24 hours per day.
In April 1995, the property owner completed negotiations with Cupertino National Bank to occupy
the first and second floors of the building (see the attached statement from the applicant). In June
1996, prior to occupancy of the building, Cupertino National Bank announced its merger with Mid-
Peninsula Bank. The applicant has indicated that, due. to the merger, the third floor is needed for
office space.
On September 6, 1996, the applicant applied for a PC Amendment to allow the conversion of the
third floor to financial service use.’ On October 25, 1996, the applicant withdrew the PC Amendment
application and applied instead for a zone change from PC to CD-C(P). Financial services are
permitted uses in the CD-C(P) District.
Review Process
The zone change process involves a review and recommendation by the Planning Commission
before submittal to the City Council for final action. The City Council hearing on the zone change
request is tentatively scheduled for February 17, 1997.
Site Description
The property has 43 feet of frontage on Emerson Street and 125 feet along Lytton Avenue. It is
occupied by a 3-story building with approximately 8,100 square feet of floor area, including
approximately 2,600 square feet of vacant space on the third floor. The first and second floors are
occupied by Cupertino National Bank. Adjacent to the rear of the building is a parking lot with 12
spaces enclosed by a decorative wall. Access to the parking lot is from Lytton Avenue.
S: I PLAN 1PLAD1V [ PSI2R 1400Emer.sr
01-29-97
Page 2
Project Information
Information regarding the applicant, owner, assessor parcel number, Comprehensive
designation, zoning district, existing land use, and parcel size is shown below in Table 1.
TABLE 1: PROJECT INFORMATION
Plan
Applicant:
Owner:
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers:
Comprehensive Plan Designation:
Zone District:
Jim Baer
Premier Properties
172 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ed Storm
Storm Land Company
20725 Valley Green Drive, #200
Cupertino, CA 95014
120-26-04
Regional!Community Commercial
PC 4238
Existing Land Use:Cupertino National Bank (first and second floors) and
vacant floor area (third floor)
Surrounding Land Uses:
Parcel Size:
North: Lytton Avenue
South: Restaurant
East: Emerson Street
.West: Bicycle Repair Shop
0.16 acre (6,875 square feet)
Dates:Application received: 10/25/96
Application complete: ~
Mandatory action deadline: ]hLq~
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The requested zone change from PC to CD-C(P) should be determined to be in accord with the
S: [ PLAN [ PLADIV I PSCRl400Emer.sr
01-29-97
Page 3
purposes of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance.
Comprehensive Plan
The site is designated as Regional/Community Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan. The
proposed financial service use is allowed within this Comprehensive Plan designation. However,
the proposal to convert the approved residential unit to non-residential use is not in accord with the
following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies and programs:
Housing Element. Policy 6 - "Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family rental
units while working to increase the overall supply of rental housing." The proposed zone
change would allow the elimination of an approved residential (rental) unit. No housing
mitigation fee would be charged pursuant to Section 16.47.020(c) of the PAMC (i.e., a fee
would be required if two or more residential units were converted to non-residential use).
Housing Element Program 10 - "The City should discourage conversion of lands designated
as residential to non-residential uses." The requested zone change would allow the
conversion of an approved residential unit to non-residential (i.e., commercial) use.
Housing Element. Policy 14 - "Support the mixing of residential uses in commercial and
industrial areas." The building, which is located in a commercial area (i.e., downtown),
currently contains a mix of uses (i.e., a residential trait and fmancial service use). The
proposed zone change would allow the elimination of this mix of uses.
Employment Element. Objective - "Enlist the help of business and industry in providing
housing along with commercial and industrial construction." The building, which is located
in a commercial area (i.e., downtown), currently contains a residential unit which could be
eliminated if the requested zone change is approved.
Employment Element. Policy 2 - "Encourage the construction of more housing primarily
on or near industrial and commercial sites., The site, which is designated Regional/
COmmunity Commercial in the Comprehensive Plan, currently contains a residential unit.
Approval of the zone change would allow the conversion of the existing residential unit into
commercial use.
Environmental Resources Policy, Program 43 - "Mitigate the impact of air quality problems
due to stationary and vehicular sources, lmplement programs to reduce total transportation
emissions through the development of additional housing close to employment centers." The
existing project is consistent with this pr.ogram because it provides a residential unit
downtown. The requested zone change is not in accord with this policy because it would
allow the elimination of an existing residential unit.
S: [ PLAN I PLADIV I PSCR [ 400Emer.sr
01-29-97
Page 4
Zoning Ordinance
The purposes of the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18) is to protect the public health, safety, peace-morals,
comfort, convenience, and general welfare, including the following more specified purposes (Zoning
Ordinance Section 18.01.020):
"To further, promote, and accomplish the objectives, and programs of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan." The requested zone change’s compliance with the objectives and
policies of the Comprehensive Plan is discussed above.
"To lessen congestion and assure convenience of access; to secure safety from fire, flood,
and other dangers; to provide adequate public health, sanitation, and general welfare; to
provide for adequate light, air, sunlight, and environmental amenities; to promote and
encourage conservation of scarce resources; to prevent overcrowding of land and undue
concentration of population, to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and
harmonious community; to attain a desirable balance of residential and employment
opportunities," and to expedite the provision of adequate and essential public services to the
community." With the exception of the purpose of attaining "a desirable balance of
residential and employment opportunities", the. requested zone change is in accord with the
purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. The requested zone change does not "promote a balance
of residential and employment opportunities" because it would allow for the eonversion0f
a mixed-use project (i.e., residential and financial services) into a project occupied entirely
by non-residential uses.
The CD-C zoning regulations allow for conversion from residential to commercial use, when
housing mitigation fees are paid and parking requirements are satisfied. When only one
residential unit is lost, a housing mitigation fee is not required. However, the applicant
proposes to pay a housing mitigation fee .even though it is not required.
DISCUSSION
Issues and Analysis
The staff analysis for the requested zone change relates to public benefit requirements, housing
mitigation fee, Code Compliance and architectural design issues.
Public Benefit Reauirements
~: [ PLAN I PLADIV I PSCR 1400Emer.sr
01:29-97
Page 5
When the project was approved in 1994, a PC zone change was necessary only because the applicant
proposed to pay in-lieu parking fee prior to the City’s adoption of an in-lieu parking ordinance.
Under Ordinance No. 4238, the project is required t’o provide the following public benefits:
Residential Use. In approving Ordinance No. 4238, the Council found the residential ~unit to be
a public benefit primarily because the Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Guide support
mixed use projects, which are often difficult to achieve under the existing CD District
regulations. The required residential unit has been partially constructed on the third floor of the
building but remains vacant pending the outcome of the zone change request.
o Public drinking fountain and art niche. The project is required to provide a public drinking
fountain and a public art niche. Although niches for the drinking fountain and public art have
been installed in the building wall facing Lytton Avenue, the required drinking fountain and
public art have not been installed. Proposals for the drinking fountain and public art must be
reviewed by the Public Art Commission (PAC) and approved by the Architectural Review Board
(ARB). To date the proposals have been reviewed by the PAC and must return for final review
before proceeding to the ARB for final review and approval. The drinking fountain and public ~
art also need to be installed in the existing niches before they can constitute the "public benefit"
described in Ordinance No. 4238. The ordinance also requires the property owner to maintain
and service the drinking fountain and make it available for public use 24 hours per day.
Although the applicant has indicated that the public art will be installed regardless of the outcome
of the rezoning request, approval of the zone change from PC to CD-C(P) would relieve the project
from its public benefit requirements, including the provision of the public art niche and the property
owner’s responsibility to install and service the drinking fountain and make it available for public
use 24 hours per day. Since the Zoning Ordinance does not allow the City to require conditions of
approval for azone change from PC to CD-C(P), the City does not have the authority under the
applicant’s current request to requirea new public benefit(s) which would replace the public benefits
that would be eliminated.
Housing Mitigation Fee
To mitigate the loss of a residential unit in the downtown, the property owner has volunteered to
pay a housing in-lieu fee. At the current rate of $3.55 per square foot the fee would be
approximately $9,200. The City has no mechanism to require this payment as a condition to
approval of the rezoning.
Code Compliance
The requested conversion of the third floor from a residential unit to financial service use has been
reviewed for compliance with the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18). The Zoning Ordinance permits the
S: I PLAN I PLADIVJ PSCR [400Emer.sr
01-29-97
Page 6
conversion of residential to nonresidential use provided that the parking requirements are satisfied
and the housing mitigation fee is paid (see the discussion below under Housing Mitigation Fee).
Vehicular Parking: The original project complied with the parking requirement of 25 spaces by
providing 10 spaces on-site for the building and making an in-lieu payment for the remaining spaces.
In addition, there are two existing parking spaces located on the site which are reserved for the
adjacent building at 412 Emerson Street, which results in a total of 12 existing parking spaces on-
site.
Of the 25 required parking spaces, 2 parking spaces were required for the residential use on the third
floor. In approving the project, the City provided the developer with credit for 1 parking space due
to the shared use of parking between the residential and commercial uses. Thus, one parking space
was provided for the residential unit.
The proposed office use on the third floor requires 10 parking spaces based upon one space per 250
square feet of floor area. If the third floor is converted from residential to commercial use, a total
of 31 parking spaces would be required for the building (based on 1 space per 250 square feet for
the 8,110 square foot building and 1 space credited for the existing bicycle parking spaces) compared
to 10 existing parking spaces which are provided on-site for the building. With only 32% of the
required number of spaces provided in the project (compared to 42% of the required number of
spaces provided on-site with residential use on the third floor), the proposed project would increase
the parking demand in the immediate vicinity. To meet the requirement for 9 additional parking.
spaces (i.e., 10 required spaces minus 1 space currently provided for the third floor use), the
applicant proposes to pay an in-lieu parking fee pursuant to Chapter 16.57 of the PAMC.
Bicycle Parking: Chapter 18.83 of the PANIC requires bicycle parking spaces based on 10% of the
required number of automobile spaces. Thus, the applicant will be required to provide 1 additional
bicycle parking space.
Aspects of Project Not in Compliance with Ordinance No, 4238
The applicant has been notified that there are two aspects of the project which are not in compliance
with Ordinance No. 4238 (see the attached letter from the ?Contract Project Planner dated January
13, 1997). As discussed above, the public drinking fountain and art niche need to be installed before
they constitute the "’public benefit" described in Ordinance No. 4238. Second, as required by the
conditions of project approval, two Camphor street trees were planted. The Planning Arborist has
inspected the trees and determined that they must be replaced because they are broken off at the tops.
According to the Planning Arbodst, the trees were improperly planted which contributed to their
failure (i.e., the nursery stakes were not removed and the tree ties were poorly placed).
S: I PLAN I PLADIV I PSCR[4OOEmer. sr
01-29-97
Pag~ 7
Architectural Design Issues
Pursuant to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC), structural changes to the interior
of the building will be required to accommodate the change in floor load associated, with the
proposal to convert the third floor from residential to commercial use. However, the Chief Building
Official has indicated that no changes to the exterior of the building would be necessary to comply
with the UBC requirements. Commercial use of the third floor would be consistent with the design
of the exterior of the building. The building materials include a stone base, piaster on the second and
third floors and a mission tile roof. The building also has third floor balconies facing Lytton Avenue
and Emerson Street.
Conclusions
Staff concludes that the zone change should be denied for the following reasons:
1. The request is inconsistent with six policies and programs in the Comprehensive Plan;
The request would result in the loss of obligation to construct and maintain a public drinking
fountain; and
3. The request would result in the loss of obligation for public art at this property.
The proposal is, however, consistent with the provisions of CDC Zoning Ordinance, and the
Planning Commission may choose to approve the zone change request on that basis. The project
will not exceed anyaspect of the zoning regulations if the zone change was approved, and the loss
of a single unit does not require mitigation payment under the housing mitigation ordinance.
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ’
Property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property were mailed a public hearing
notice.
ALTERNATIVE
The Planning Commission could recommend approval of the attached draft ordinance approving the
requested zone change from PC to CD(C(P). If the Commission decides to reeornmend approval,
direction should be provided to staff regarding how the required zone change findings can be made,
S: l PLAN l PLADIV l PSCR 1400Emer.sr
01-29-97
Page 8
the recommendation should include the Commission’s recommendation regarding the manner in
which the project is in accord with the purposes of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Zoning
Ordinance (see the discussion above under Policy Implications).
FISCAL IMPACT
The zone change will not have a significant fiscal impact on the City. This application is subject to
the full cost recovery fee schedule.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The zone change is Categorically Exempt under Section 15303(b) of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA).
STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL
The Planning Commission recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council. The City
Council heating on the rezoning request is tentatively scheduled for February 17, 1997.
ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS:
Attachment #1: Location Map
Attachment #2: Draft ordinance approving the rezoning
Attachment #3: Ordinance No. 4238
Attachment #4: Applicant’s Statement for Zone Change
Attachment #5: Letter from Contract Project Planner dated January 13, 1997
Attachment #6: Minutes from July 13, 1994 Planning Commission meeting
Attachment #7: Minutes from August 31, 1994 Planning Commission meeting
Project Plans (Planning Commission members only)
COURTESY COPIES:
Jim Baer,.Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Ed Storm, Storm Land Company, 20725 Valley.Green Drive, #200, Cupertino, CA 95014
Architectural Review Board
Public Art Commission
Leon Kaplan
Prepared by: Robert Schubert, Contract Project Planner
Division/Department Head Approval: ~ ~ /~
Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official
S: I PLAN I PLADIV I PSCRl400Emer.sr
01-29-97
Page 9
ATTACHMENT 3
o 400 EMERSON STREET: Application to rezone property from PC (Planned
Community District) to CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown Pedestrian Shopping
Combining District) in order to allow the existing 2,594-square-foot third floor of the
building to be converted from residential use to financial service use. Environmental
Assessment: Project categorically exempt from the provisions of the Califorrfi~a.
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). File Nos. 96-ZC-12.
Nancy, would you like to introduce staff?.
~: Yes, let me introduce Bob Schubert, the contract planner who has processed this
zoning change request.
Mr. Schubert: I would like to briefly review the history of the project and then summarize
the applicant’s current proposal~ In 1994, the property was rezoned from CD-C to PC in
order to construct an 8,100-square-foot, three-story, mixed use building. A PC zone change
was requested beea’use the developer proposed to provide only 12 of the required 25 parking
spaces in the project. The in-lieu parking ordinance had not been adopted at that time by the
city. No additional floor area was proposed by the applicant above the maximum FAR
allowed. The PC ordinance that was adopted by the City Council requires that the third floor
be used exclusively for residential use, because it was considered a public benefit in
approving the project. It has been constructed, but it remains vacant pending the outcome of
the zone change request. The project also included a public drinking fountain and art niche
on the elevation facing Lytton Avenue, which are required as public benefits but have not yet
been ins. tailed. To date, the art proposal has been reviewed by the Public Art Commission
and must return for their final review before proceeding to the ARB for its final review and
approval. Recently, the applicant applied for a zone change from the PC district back to a
CD to allow theeonversion of the third floor to financial service use, which is the current use
On the first and second floors. Although the applicant has indicated that the public art will be
installed, regardless of the outcome of the zoning request, the commission should note that
approval of the zone change would relieve the project of its public benefit requirements,
including the requirement that the drinking fountain be made available to the public for use
24 hours a day. The city does not have a mechanism, under the applicant’s current request, to
require new public benefits which would replace the public benefits that would be eliminated.
In conclusion, staff believes that the proposal is not in accord with the Comprehensive Plan
policies which are listed in the staff report, and it recommends that the commission
recommend denial of the zone change. If you decide to recommend approval, there is a draft
ordinance which is attached to the staff report.
~: Debbie, would you explain ~e difference between this item and the last
item in terms of one being legislative andone is quasi-judicial.
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.rain Page
01o29-97
Ms. Cauble: As the Chair has indicated, the last two items involving, in one case, a map and
in the other case, a use permit, are quasi-judicial items wherein the commission, and
ultimately the council, needs to evaluate a project based on very specific, multiple, detailed
findings in the municipal code and in the subdivision map act, as in the case of the last
application. In the application before you for rezoning to a conventional zone district, ~e
council will be acting in a legislative capacity, and it has a great deal more flexibility
considering the matters that it thinks are relevant in evaluating the zone change application,
as does the commission in recommending. I would note, however, that our zoning ordinance
does specifically call out the obligation of the Planning Commission to evaluate the
application in light of the Comprehensive Plan. That is why the. staff analysis emphasizes it
so heavily. That is really the one thing you are required to look at and give the council your
recommendation.
Commissioner Byrd: We have just been told that if the zone change is made, there is no
mechanism available to continue the requirement that the public art and drinking fountain be
installed. Debbie, ~vould a development agreement or any other mechanism be available for
achieving that end if the zone change occurred? In other words, can we enter into an
agreement that says, we will change the zoning, but in return, you will promise to install the
art and fountain?
~: That is an interesting question. As you know, a development agreement does
not give approvals in exchange for what a developer does. It vests approvals that have
already been given, essentially, in exchange for what a developer might do. Given that the
buildingis already in existence, I am not sure what the motivation would be for a developer
in this particular case to propose a development agreement, because they do have some
interior improvements that the building official has indicated would be required to meet the
load standards to use the third floor for office. I do not see that as the kind of thing that will
take five years or more, which is when developers start looking at wanting to vest their fights
with the development agreement. So a development agreement, in some instances, might be
a way for the city to obtain public benefits outside of the context of the PC, buta
development agreement is a voluntary thing on the part of both the city and the developer.
We cannot make a developer do one nor can a developer make us do one. It has to be
mutual, and there is no application for that here. It is hard to imagine why a developer would
feel the need to vest approvals. So I am at a loss as to what mechanism could be used. The
staff report indicates that, based on the proposal as I understand it, there quite possibly will
be no need for amended ARB review. Under some eireurnstanees, ARB review might be a
means to get at some of these issues, but the building is there, so I do not believe we have
those alternatives here.
~chmi~: Can a zone change be conditioned to occur after the completion of
the public benefits, such as the art niche, if complete?
A:IPCMINS4IPC0129.rain Page 36
01-29o97
Ms. Cauble: The city could do part.of that indirectly by not approving the zone change,
indicating that until the property was in compliance with its current zoning requirements, the
city was not interested in entertaining a zone change. That might be an indirect way to get a
provision of an art area and a drinking fountain. I do not think that it gets at the long-term
maintenance issue of the drinking fountain, however.
_Commissioner Schink: Let me come at it from a slightly different direction. If the Planning
Commission looked favorably upon a zone change only if the drinking fountain were in
place, then it would seem to me that by the time it got to the City Council, that our
recommendation would only be positive if the drinking fountain were in place, and maybe it
could be negative if the drinking fountain were not in place. Then it would be up to the
applicant to get the work done before it got to the City Council. Is that a conceivable route?
Ms. Cauble: You cannot condition your approval, so if you are saying, "We would
recommend to the council, and the alternative is that we cannot find that the zoning is in the
public interest ifth~ current project is notin conformance to zoning, but we can find that the
proposal is in the public interest if, when the project gets to council, the eun’ent project is in
conformance to zoning," you might be able to structure it that way, but you cannot say, "We
condition this upon your doing certain things." A straight zone is a straight zone, and once
you have rezoned, you need to conform to the requirements of that zone.
.~: Are there other issues, code requirements, building structure
requirements that have not been Completed at this point as we go on with this projec~t?
]!~,~_~].~: Yes, there are. The building division has indicated that the building permits
(and there are two of them on this project) both expired about six months ago. The project
was never granted occupancy by the city; There were three reasons why it was not given
occupancy. As I mentioned, it does not have all of the ARB approvals, specifically the art
niche and drinking fountain. Secondly, it does not comply with the city’s recycling
ordinance, and third, there are some technical building code requirements that still need to be
met. The building division said that although the unmet UBC requirements do not pose
public health and safety concerns, the property owner still needs to reactivate the building
permits and proceed with the inspection process.
Commissioner Sehmidt: It is noted in the staff report that there were original discussions
about amending the PC. Then staffreeommended that the applicant request a zone change.
Do you have any other discussion about that, going back and approaching it in that way,
therefore keeping public benefits such as the drinking fountain?
h~L.Yllg: The difficulty with this application is that a PC zone amendment, like a PC zone,
requires a public benefit to be part of the project. That is where I think the conversations
stopped with staff. With the zone change, you would not havethe burden of the public
A:IPCMINS4IPC0129.rain Page 37
01-29-97
benefit finding in making a revision like this. The tradeoff, however, is that you obviously
are going to have no ability to enforce the current public benefits on the property. So that
recommendation was made, and the applicants followed suit.
Commissioner Schmidt: So an additional public benefit would have to be created in order to
go back to --
Ms. L_vtle: The change would have to have a finding of public benefit. We ran into a road
block in that a use conversion from housing to office was a public benefit. It became a
difficult thing for us to say that there was an inherent public benefit in the change.
Commissioner Schirlk: If we go the route of the zone change from PC to CD, will you be
able to help us make the findings?
~: You would not need to make findings.
Ms. Cauble: You don’t need to make the kind of findings that you need to make for a PC
zone. As I indicated before, under the ordinance, part of your specific recommendation tothe
council needs to be how the proposed zone relates to the Comprehensive Plan and the CD
zoning district.
Commissioner Sehiok: That was my question, about the findings being in conformance with
the Comprehensive Plan. Do you see that as being possible?
~: We have tested that, and we were unable to develop a rationale. The closest we
could come was in the downtown study. When the conversion of housing tocommercial was
discussed, it apparently was decided in the CD regulations that we would not prevent that
from happening, but that there would be a mitigation payment available for people. The
threshold for mitigation was set at two units or more. So you could start to develop that,
saying that in the policy in our current zoning ordinance, we cannot fred anything about this
in the Comprehensive Plan, but our current zoning ordinance allows conversion in the
downtown land. use designation area, and perhaps talk about that land use designation as
being primarily a commercial designation. In general, we had a difficult time trying to
develop that rationale. The Comprehensive Plan, for our purposes, led us to the
recommendation that you see when we added up the policies.
will now open the public hearing.
: In the audience tonight are Ed Storm, developer
of the project, and John Gaddo, Chairman of the Cupertino National Bank presently
occupying the first and second floor of the building, and would occupy the third floor. Thank
you to staff for a diligent job. I am going toask a series of questions, too, that follow onto
A:IPCMINS4IPC0129.min Page 38
01-29-97
some of the questions that commissioners asked. It seems as if we are in a conundrum.
Thank you also to the commissioners that have spoken with me over the last several days.
There is not disagreement between staff and the applicant about a fundamental fact. in this
.application. That is that at the time this project proceeded in 1994, it developed 8,110.s.quare
feet, an FAR that would have been allowed under the CD-C. So the sole purpose for the PC
zone at that time was that there was not yet an in-lieu ordinance, and we are in agreement
with that. Had the applicant been strategic about the contmdrum that would occur by making
a use for the third floor a specific one in the PC, the PC application could have gone forward
as, ~’all those uses consistent with the CD-C zone." That would have allowed retail,
commercial, financial services or residential. The applicant instead said, I plan on using this
as my second home, and therefore, I will endure some of the discomfort of Fanny and
Alexander’s, particularly since it won’t be my weekend home. This is a second home
possibility. It is a 2,200 to 2,400-square-foot, two-bedroom residence, making it quite
luxurious in size.
So the commdrum is that we volunteered-a use which formed the basis for lengthy
discussions in the staff report and the city manager’s report in 1994, not about thepublic
benefit of the housing but that the housing was in compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.
So there is lots of stuff in the 1994 decision about housing and how good that is,. adding to
the consistency of the Comprehensive Plan. But it is an additibn in the public benefit
paragraph, which I have attached in the materials provided to commissioners. Public benefit
was reported by staff as being very minor, but the relief sought from the CD ordinance is
very minor. It is coming out ahead of an in-lieu ordinance which was then in draft. Now, we
find ourselves in the situation that the housing is being held as the raison d’etre of this
project’s coming about through the PC rather than a footnote.
So we have the housing issue as one that we need to diseuss.a~a~ d be responsible for. Housing
is an important policy for the city, both eitywide and in transit corridors and in downtown
areas, such as this building. But the second is, let’s see if we can’t get out of that problem,
which is that we, and tonight is the first that I have heard about, apologies that I was not able
to be more diligent on the permit issues. A bond has been placed with the city for completion
of the art niche. That is not uncommon, although it will no longer be.allowed for PCs where
art is an element of the project. They are now required to be approved before you get the
building permit so that this kind of a problem would not occur again, but there is a bond in
place for completion of that work.
The question that the applicant would like to ask is, if the ARB made a condition of its
approval the art niche and the drinking fountain, is that an independent requirement of the
Architectural Review Board, independent of the PC? In that ease, the Architectural Review
Board approval and the permit, which included a drawing approved by the Architectural
Review Board for which a bond is still in existence, won’t the completion of the art niche and
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.min
the drinking fountain continue without the PC as a requirement of the Architectural Review
Board? That is one question.
A second questio ~n is, you would certainly have this applicant committing that we would ask
not to be calendared immediately to the’City Council upon our approval of the zone ch .ange
by the Planning Commission tonight so that we could complete the art niche and the drinking
fountain, or certainly have the Public Art Commission and ARB having approved those with
the bond in place for its completion. So you get that one question, which is one of the
reasons why we are resisting a zone change, which is that we lose the benefit of an
architectural element. We are here to say, help us out of that. We will certainly complete the.
architectural element.
Now let’s get to the problem that I think planning staffand the city attomey’s office are
uncomfortable with with the Planning Commission and the City Council. That is, how did
we evolve to a zone change from a PC? I think it has to do with the discomfort with PCS
sometimes being misapplied as zoning for sale. So in ameeting, we applied for a PC zone
amendment, and left the public benefit to be discussed. What we got was a response saying,
you have an incomplete application by not having defined the public benefit. We.said, we
need your guidance on what is an appropriate public benefit, given that we did not exceed
FAR. In the October 10th meeting with Bob Schubert and Ken Sehreiber, the
recommendation to go to a zone change had less to do with findings than ithad to do with,
we are uncomfortable with putting the plaani’ng staff and the applicant in a position of
bartering over benefits which may have an extorative element. I may be overstating that
word, but the point is that there is a level of tension inhow PCs are to be reviewed, and that
tension between planning staff, the city attorney and applicants about what is appropriate,
how much should be site-specific, and how much should be a grab bag of goodies is a
delicate line. So we were willing to come in and say, we will do a PC amendment and make
a housing mitigation payment that we are not required to make under 1647 because we are
f~wer than two units, but that was uncomfortable for staff, so the recommendation was, come
back as a zone change.
It was certainly not our expectation that ~e staff recommendation would be for failure to
Comprehensive Plan objectives, that we would then be rejected. At the same time, I am in
complete understanding of it, and I think that the quality of the staff analysis and the quality
of the staff presentation tonight is consistent with the issues that the applicant has understood
and has been made aware of by staff.
But now, to bring that into focus, we would like a mechanism to move forward with
recapturing what was volunteereed unstrategieally, which was to commit that that housing be
by ordinance and forever after be retained as housing on the third floor. The cost for the
conversion is consistent with the costs that would be assessed under the CD to the Laning
Chateau. There are four or five smaller projects in the President Apartments, and it was
A:IPCMINS4IPC0129.min Page 40
. ¯01-29-97
specifically put in the CD ordinance as a barrier to conversion of residential to non-
residential uses.
I hope I have not added more confusion,’ but we are seeking a way of saying, there are two
issues. One of them is, help us through this either by determining that the Architectural
Review Board conditions of the PC would stand, even with removal of the PC, but th~ ARB
required those as part of the building. Alternatively, if that doesn’t work, we would commit
that we will not return to the City Council until that art work is completed. This record
would certainly lead the City Council to reject us if we came in prematurely.
The second issue is to look at the housing. We are here to say that we see three alternatives.
One is rejection, as the planning staff has proposed, one is acceptance of the zone change,
and the intermediate step is one that causes only a minor delay, which is that if you thought it
was necessary to receive housing mitigation for this to be an equitable outcome, then a PC
amendment, and we could apply and ask that you hear us right away. That would both
preserve a drinking ’fountain, and if you thought, it necessary, some housing mitigation
payments. Again, that is an area where we felt there was some disengagement from staff and
the applicant on how to negotiate a mitigation when the ordinance already provides for
residential conversion and does not demand mitigation for fewer than two units. Ed Storm,
John Gaddo and I will be glad to answer any questions.
Ed Storm. 20725 Valley Grec, ll.Ddve.Cupertino: Members of the commission, I was the
developer of this project. The reason I am asking to speak is that I feel a little bit of a need to
defend myself here. I don’t know what I did in my prior life to deserve this art niche
controversy that I have gotten myself into, but I did have an artist that I engaged. I went to
the Public Art Commission, met with the art histodam, had a full-scale moekup built, got it
approved, took it to the ARB, got it approved, built the building, and asked the artist to
complete the art work. He refused!
I was then in an awkward situation. He felt that the building really did not fit his art work as
he saw itl after the building was constructed. So I was forced to choose between either not
complying with the ordinance or killing the artist. Then I would be tried for murder, so I was
caught between two different problems. I might have made the wrong decision as I sit here
tonight, but as it stands now, I have interviewed two more artists. I actually had him go back,
he reapplied, and he built another full-scale moekup which the Public Art Commission
justifiably turned down. So now I had to go back and interview three more mists. I have a
full-time job besides this, too, but I have finally found-somebody that has a design that is
going to work. We have talked to people at the Public Art Commission, and they seem to
like it, but I couldn’t get on their calendar this month, so I am trying.
I would be glad to sign any agreement. I have posted the bond, and I would be glad to
increase the bond, so I think there is a little bit of a red herring here.that said, I was not
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.min Page 41
01-29~97
completing this building. The other items that were brought up about not getting our permits
until signed off really has mostly to do with a bike locker and a couple of U-shaped bike
spaces fortying down bikes. I have tried for six months to resolve this issue. I have tried
everything.. I have a full-time architect working on it at DES, and I have tried to get someone
out there to to tell us what they want us to do, and I will be glad to do it. It is not a monetary
issue. It is impossible. I can’t get it done. I spend two days a week making phone calls on
this, and I cannot get a decision. One of the requirements is that I place a bike locker outside
the property on the SP property. The SP says they don’t want it. So where am I going to put
it? I don’t know. So here I am in limbo.
. I think we have built a beautiful building. I didn’t spare any expense. I tried like heek to do
this right. You will make your decision based on.the facts, but I did want to say that I have
been acting responsibly all along, and I feel that we have a good tenant. We have maintained
the building well, and I don’t have any apologies except for the fact that I have not gotten it
completed. That is the bottom line. I don’t have any apologies about the project and the
effort I have put forth to make this everything it was supposed to be. I am sorry that staff
takes a little different view of that. Thank you very much.
Chaimerson Cassel: With that, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the
commission. Are there any other questions of stat~.
Commissioner Sehink: Mr. Baer raised an interesting question that this building would be
controlled by the fact that it has ARB review. Do you have any comments.on that?
~: We sent Bob Schubert up to get the record So that we could review the way the
condition of that approval reads. I know that the plans show a niche, so the rtiehe would be
somethingwe could enforce from the plans;but they don’t show the art. So what we need to
read is how. the conditions of the ARB decision actually are worded. We need to have a few
moments for him to return. ’ ’
Commissioner Sehink: There has been a bond put in place, and I assume it takes the place of
a piece of art. If the PC goes away, does the bond requirement then go away? Is the bond
basically worthless if the PC zone change goes through?
~: I am sorry that I am at a loss to answer that, because I am not aware of the bond
and am not sure about the authority under which the bond was taken and what the bond
provides. Typically, when we accept bonds, they are performance bonds to get guaranteed
performance of a legal obligation tO the city.. I have not seen this and was unaware that it was
out there. If it is there, I assume it is.to guarantee performance of a requirement. Once the
requirement goes away, the party presumably w~uld be able to say, "Release my bond. I am
no longer required to do it.’;. The bond is not the contract to do the action. It is the contract
to guarantee that which is otherwise required. I am sorry that I do not have more information
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.min Page 42
01-~9-97
on that.
Commissioner Schink: Could you ask the applicant if he could provide you with some
further information about the bond so that you could then render an opinion?
Ms. Cauble: Yes, I will try to get some more information.
r.~: The types of bonds, and they are usually cash deposits, for small projects. I
imagine that in the research park, if it is a major project, then it is a major performance bond,
and it is handled by a bond. But if landscaping is incomplete, or if a bike locker has not
arrived, those are the kinds of issues on which the building depamnent is very cooperative,
understanding the urgencies of getting occupancy. In a zero vacancy market, when the tenant
is waiting to get in and there are technical, non-life-safety issues, the building department and
public works will frequently say, give us a timetable as to when you are going to complete
this, and give us a cashier’s check, which is then deposited. It is returned when those items
are fulfilled. Thosd are commonly items such as landscaping, bike lockers and completion of
art details that are part of an Architectural Review Board approval.
~: I cannot give an answer about the ARB approval because the file has been
converted to optical disc. Neither Bob or I are familiar enough with that system to be able to
call it up for you tonight. I can say that it would not be normal for us to have a separdte
condition about that in the ARB approval, but without reviewing the record, I could not
answer that definitively. I know the plan did not include the art, because we did not have an
art proposal. We labeled it as a niche.
~~I1_~..~_~: We can now begin discussion.
~: We have a whole lot of issues here. In one sense, I feel better about
this application than I do about the noise application and the other things because at least, this
application makes me feel like this is the reason for having a Planning Commission. The
rules just don’t work in all situations, and sometimes you need a group of people to sit here
and sort out the facts and look at all thestrange rules and figure out what is fight. So thank
God we are notmediating a neighborhood dispute. We get to look at a lot of well intentioned
people who have to sort out an ordinance.
Let me express my opinion about a couple of policy issues. I will start with the small issue
of the art and compliance with the art. In looking at the information provided us by Mr.
Baer, they include a series of letters from Mr. Donahue, etc., and it becomes really apparent
to me that the developer here tried really hard to get good quality art associated with .this
project. He ran into the artistic temperament. It just didn’t come out the way he wanted it
when he wanted it. I can imagine him trying to convince some of these artists that he has a
real deadline, while they have a Michelangelo impression of themselves. Sometimes it takes
A:]PCMINS4[PC0129.rain Page 43
01-29-97
years to create great art, and they just don’t work under developer type schedules. If we, in
the long run, expect to have quality art involved in these types of projects, we might as well
expect these incidents to occur in the future. If we are just too hard about these things, when
the developer falls down, the developers are going to really resist things like art in projects.
From a practical standpoint, we need to show flexibility and the understanding that thes.e
things happen. The guy has gone and posted a cashier’s check to guarantee that it will be
complete, so we should accept his good intentions and not be too suspicious of that problem.
Then it comes down to the policy issue for me. Is this a serious situation where we are losing
one housing unit? As I stated when we reviewed .this project, originally, I was not
particularly moved by the inclusion of a residential unit at this location. I didn’t think the
downtown benefited greatly by having one affluent unit. I had hoped to see numerous, more
affordable units. I thought that was more in keeping with what we were trying to achieve in
the Comprehensive Plan. I see as equal benefits to the commercial space as I do to an
expensive unit. I think we all recognize now, after having gone through a number of
meetings on the Q Billiards item, about the real problems of having high end units adjacent to
night club type uses. So this is an opportunity to avoid a problem in the future by going
ahead and letting them convert to an office use. So I would support an office use. I feel it is
consistent with the downtown, and I feel that the most practical approach for us to take is to
follow what staff has called their alternative on Page 8, that "The Planning Commission
recommend approval of the attached draft ordinance approving the requested zone change
from PC to CD(C(P)," and that we then go forwardand ask staff to help us draft findings to
support that. That is my position on this item.
.C~: My problem isn’t that it is one unit up or down. We had originally
hoped to have three units. I am sure you could three units up there. My problem is not with
the art, because I am sure something can be worked out there. My problem is that I did not
really want to see this be a PC in the fn’st place, because it was.a matter of waiting a little
while, for the ordinance that was going to take place and the ordinance that was wanted in the
first place, It was just a matter of waiting a little while. I know that means a lot of money to
people, but we were doing a lot of playing around to make it possible to do something that
the ordinance was going to make possible anyway, and then give the owner the flexibility of
having what he wanted.
Now, before the project is completed, we are going through the process of trying to undo the
process. So I would have felt a whole lot more comfortable if one of two things had
happened -- either the project had not been a PC in the first place but had gone on, simply by
waiting a little while, or that this project was finished and then we went back and said, oh
good, this project is finished, but it is incomplete, it isn’t working, something else is going to
happen, and we undo the project. So I am having problems with this neither being here nor
there in order to make the change. We know now that we have a problem with art projects as
an approval for a PC in the process that we did before, and we learned that from this, among
A:IPCMINS4IPC0129.min Page 44
01-29-97
other projects. We have fixed that problem, we hope. My sense is that what was promised
was not completed before we started to undo it.
I am concerned about policy, Jon. What would we say to other people who putin their
housing and put up their PC, and have gotten their benefits they wanted, and now they. .come
back to us and say, well, I don’t want it anymore.
Commissioner Sehink: The policy is that we are reasonable, rational people who can look at
the facts. Things change, and this is a reasonable proposal.
Commissioner Sehmidt: I basically support the gist of Commissioner Schink’s comments. It
does not please me to see this project re.turn so quickly because the owner-developer did not
have appropriate foresight to retain flexibility at the beginning of the process. I feel that it
behooves developers to try to think about different situations at the beginning of the process
rather than coming back to make changes. As we all know, it is a complex and often
expensive process tb go through these kinds of things. It would be nice to try to think more
broadly at the beginning rather than coming back in such a short period of time and say, I
would like to make a change.
Regarding the scale of this, one single unit, I am always happy to see some sort of mixed use,
but with one single unit, it seems like it is not that big a deal to change that to eommereiai.
In this particular location, trying to do a luxurious unit adjacent to a current use that is a noise
producer is not necessarily the best relationship even though they are both owned by the
same person.at the present time. So I would like us to be able to find a way to make this
change. It is a fairy small change, and I would think there would be some statements, in the
Comprehensive Plan that would support it. There certainly will be in the new
Comprehensive Plan, and I would hope there would be something in the current plan that
does that also.
Commissioner B_’vl’d: I think what we have here is an unfortunate conflict between good
planning and good government. I would like us to not put form over substance, and to pursue
good planning principles, not at the expense of the government, but if there is a way to
achieve good planning under our existing system, I think we should do it. I am sympathetic
to the concerns that Phyllis has raised about the tirnhag of the request and its nature, but on
balance, when you strip away a lot of those somewhat artificial constructions and you look at
this building and where it sits and what the use should be, this is not the most appropriate site
for a housing Unit. It is not the type of housing unit that we are the most committed to
creating or preserving. It seems reasonable to add additional office use there.
Onlbalance, I think that those planning considerations should eontrol;.and for that reason, I
am sympathetic to what Jon has suggested, that we pursue the alternative proposal of staff
that "The Planning Commission recommend approval of the attached draft ordinance
A:IPCMINS4[PC0129.min Page 45
01-29-97
approving the requested zone change from PC to CD(C(P)," and that we then go forward and
ask staff to help us draft findings to support that. I agree with the statement that it seems that
the applicant is operating here in good faith to finish the original project as proposed. I
would like to seethat done speedily, and as the applicant has suggested, perhaps holding off
going to council until those items have been completed makes the most sense.
Then we are really left with what should this building be? On this comex:, at this scale, with
that adjacent use, this building to me should be of-flee use. For that reason, I would like to
see us pursue the staff alternative.
Chairperson Cassel: I would not like to see the record saying that this is a bad planning use
to put the housing unit there. We made a decision in the first place that it was a good use to
put housing there. Planning-wise, it may be a neutral issue, because it is okay to have a
housing unit there and it okay not to have a housing unit there. For me, if we are going to
have infill units, and have in.fill~units downtown, and have.mixed use downtown, then this
unit has got to be okay on that site if someone wants to build a unit for himself on that site. I
earmot see that that is necessarily bad. We put a little house right smack in the middle of
downtown on an alley and said it was okay, and we made excuses for it to be okay, so in that
case, this has got to be okay where it is. We went through some effort, and I went through
two hearings. This is the third hearing on this building that I have sat through, so we have
made some effort justifying the placing of this housing unit here. I am willing to sit here and
say, it is one unit, and one unit doesn’t make any difference one way or the other, but ! do not
want to sit here and have the record say that it is an inappropriate place to put housing. We
made some effort to say that it is an okay place to put housing.
¯ -Commissioner $chmidt: I would support that notion that even though there is a potential
eortfliet.with noise next door,, we talked about that at the time, and still said that it is an
appropriate place for a residential unit. We even talked about trying to put in four residential
units there. I am a strong believer in being able to do mixed use in many locations, and I
would support the notion of Phyllis’ comments that it is an equally appropriate use to have
the housing unit or the office use there..Either.one could be acceptable, and it is now the
owner’s request to change to office, and that is an acceptable use also.
Commissioner B_vr&" I would respond and remind my fellow commissioners that through the
Q Cafe debate and elsewhere, I certainly signaled a strong preference for infill housing and
hou.sing downtown and housing near transit. I did not enjoy the benefit of going through the
process of this project approval as a planning commissioner the fn’st time, so this is a ease of
first impression for me. !t is impossible to go back and say what would have been done at
the time, but certainly, through the experience we have gone through recently with noise
disputes, it is not dear to me at this point, speaking just for myself, that it is appropriate to
put housing immediately adjacent to a night dub use. So whatever the basis is for our
making a decision tonight to go forward with zone change or not, I am expressing my
A:IPCMINS41PC0129.rain Page 46
01-29-97
personal opinion that we. should try to pursue infill housing at every reasonable opportunity.
To me personally, on balance, .this one is not our best possible downtown infill residential
site.
Commissioner Schink: This is a provocative subject, and I would hope we could get i~t on
one of our agendas soon so that we could spend a good bit of time on the subject. Hopefully
at that time, we will use this as an example of how you probably should not do the residential
in the downtown area. We. can talk about better models of higher density, smaller units, no
parking requirements, things like that. It would be a great debate, and we should have it
sometime soon. In regard to this projeet~ it is pretty clear in my mind that it is not the right
place for housing northe right type of housing for downtown.
MOTION: Commissioner Sehirlk: I move that the Planning Commission recommend
approval of the attached draft ordinance, approving the requested zone change from PC to
CD(C(P), and ask staff’to draft zone.change findings for the Planning Commission which
Support this ordinan’ee in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan.
SECOND: By Commissioner Byrd.
Chairp_ ers~3n Cassel: Staff said they could not do that. Can you do it? They have said they
earmot make those findings.
did not get the impression from staff that they could not do that:
~: Procedurally, it needs to be a part of your motion unless you want to defer it
and let staff work something out. The ordinance says that part of your recommendation is
how it relates to the ComprehensiVe Plan. The predominant thing I have heard
commissioners talk about tonight is that you feel that the loss of one unit does hot.implicate
the Comprehensive Plan policies that staffhas outlined in the staff report in any meaningful
way. I don’t know if that is the basis of your motion, but what we need isfor the commission
to include as part of its motion, in some simple way, a recommendation as to how this relates
to the Comprehensive Plan., if the commission wishes to recommend approval. Then staff
can "gussie i.t up" if you like, but we need that direction from you.
.~: Let me share a couple.of impressions with you, and then you can
point out to us if you see some consistent language in the Comprehensive Plan. I believe we
have all stated that the loss of a residential unit, in and of itself, is not significant, so I will
not dwell on that. The addition, now,. of the commercial space is consistent with the retail
vitality of the downtown area. Having this space occupied with office workers would be
consistent and beneficial to the. University Avenue downtown core.
~d~.I~: In additi0n,.it is my understanding from the application that the
A:IPCMINS4]PC0129.min Page 47
01-29-97
applicant has expressed the willingness to make a housing in-lieu payment. Can we fashion
something around that willingness that says that we have in the Comprehensive Plan a desire
to maintainat least the present number of units and that the housing mitigation fee in this
instance provides us with an opportunity to pursue that goal?
~: Since we have no basis to require or enforce that, I don’t think that can l~e taken
into account in your deciding whether to recommend or approval or not. You need to focus
on the inherent project in the way that Commissioner Sehink is trying to do in his comments.
.Commissioner Sehink: Did I give you enough about retail vitality downtown?
Ms. L~le: I would add that it is consistent with the description of the land use designation
for downtown Palo Alto, as well.
Commissioner Sehink: I have a motion on the floor that is complete. Do you feel
comfortable interpreting my rambling motion?
Ms. Cauble: What I heard you say is that your motion is based on your recommendation that
the project is in accord with the Comprehensive Plan, because the loss of one unit is not, in
and of itself, significant, and that the commercial space would be desirable and would
contribute to policies regarding vitality in the downtown, and that the use itself is consistent
with the commercial land use designation in the Comprehensive Plan. I understand that to be
your recommendation, which I think makes it sufficiently specific to move forward. "
Cgzmmissioaer Sehink: I believe that that properly summarizes my motion..
~Byrd: That is agreeable to me as the seconder.
.Cdl~gg~l..C,~g~: Is there any further discussion on this motion7 The only other comment
I would like to make is that when this went in in the ftrst place, I was concerned that this was
a PC, because I am concerned about very small projects becoming PC zones. There is a lot
of time and effort involved, and my sense of a Planned Community zone is that it should be
something large and more involved. It shouldn’t be like an exception to the site or to the
width or height of a piece of property. It should have something involved greater than one
little piece of property. I think that is partially what happened.here. We have a small site
that was done j~t to meet a very limited need, and that limited need went away, and
therefore, the desire for the PC zone.
~: The legislative history on planned community zoning, at least in the interpretation
that we were given for downtown, is that the PlUmed Community zone process should be
available for both large and small sites. The public benefit should be proportionate to it.
A:IPCMINS4IPC0129.min Page 48
01-29-97
Chairperson Cassel: I realize that that is the policy, but my sense is that with very little sites,
it creates this kind of problem. It becomes very rigid, but I will vote in favor of the motion.
Commissioner Schink: It became apparent inour review, and certainly from reading the staff
report, that a lot of time and energy went into this, and we squirmed around a lot over the
incomplete items. I would encourage everyone to follow Mr. Baer’s commitment tha~t ~ese
loose ends be resolved before it gets to council. It sure seems like it would be easier for
everyone to focus on the policy issues if the art was taken care of and all of the little code
compliance things were done. So I encourage everyone to get moving and get that stuff
taken care of. I think you will benefit greatly in the end by having those issues resolved.
Chairperson Cassel: And obviously, while we like to pass items and have the City Council
follow our recommendations, and while we earmot put it in the ordinance, I would really
hope that they don’t do it unless all of the work is done. We cannot write it into the
ordinance, but they can read the minutes.
MOTION PASSES: Chaimerson C~ssel: Is there any further discussion on this motion? All
those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 4-0 with Commissioners
Beecham and Ojakian absent
A:IPCMINS4IPC0129.min Page 49
01-29-97
~TTACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO.4238
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO
MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWNAS 400 EMERSON
STREET FROM CD-C(P) TO PC
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after duly noticed public
hearing held August 31, 1994, and the Architectural Review Board
("ARB"), upon consideration at its meeting of July 21, 1994, have
recommended that Section 18.08.040 [the Zoning Map] of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth; and
WHEREAS, the City Council, after due consideration of the
recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public
interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION i. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of
certain property known as 400 Emerson Street, (the "subject
property") from "CD-C(P) Downtown Commercial Pedestrian Combining"
to "PC Planned Community." The subject properSy is shown on the
map labeled Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by
reference.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds with respect to
the subject property that:
(a) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for
the site are such that the application of general districts or
combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to
allow the proposed development. Neither the CD-C(P) district nor
any other district will provide the flexibility to construct an
8,110osquare-foot mixed use building with the required number of
parking~spaces (27) on site.~
(b) Development of the’site under the Planned Community
(PC) district results in public benefits not otherwise attainable
by application of the regulations of general districts or combining
districts..Public benefits that the applicant is providing
include:
(±)One residential unit is provided in
addition to the commercial use. The
Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design
Guidelines support mixed use. This
94101:~ tac 0031015
(ii)
precedent may stimulate more mixed use
proposals in downtown.
A public drinking fountain and art niche,
which are consistent with the Urban
Design Guidelines because they provide
pedestrian visibility to this corner.
The owner.of the subject property will
maintain and service a drinking fountain
that will be available for use 24 hours
per day. T~is is a service that the City
would not likely be able to duplicate.
(c) The uses permitted, and the site development
regulations applicable within the district are consistent with the
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and with existing and allowable uses
in adjoining sites and within the general vicinity. The project is~
consistent with Housing Poligy 6, Housing Policy 14, Employment
Policy 2, and Environmental Resources Policy 13, Program 43.
SECTION 3. T~ose certain plans prepared by DES Architects
& Engineers, entitled "400 Emerson Street," dated March 24, 1994
and revised August 3, 1994, and approved by the Architectural
Review Board on July 20, 1994, a copy of which plans is on file in
the Planning Division office, and to which copy referenceis hereby
made zoncerning the full particulars thereof, are hereby approved
as the collective Development Plan for the subject property,
pursuant to Section 18.68 120. Said Development Plan is approved
for the following, uses, and subject to the following conditions:
(a) Permitted Uses. The use shall be limited to one
residential unit and approximately 5/833 square feet of commercial
uses. The allowable uses shall be those allowed in the CD-C(P)
District.
(b) Conditional Uses. The allowable conditional uses
shall be those conditional uses allowed in the CD-C(P) District.
(c) Site Development Regulations. The site development
regulations shall be in accordance with the Development Plan.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements. The loading
requirements shall be as shown in .the Development Plano The
parking requirements shall be as follows:
(i)A total of 12 on’site parking spaces
shall be required, including one space
specifically reserved for the residential
unit, one space to be shared between the
residential and commercial uses on the
941013 tac 0031015
(ii)
(iii)
subject property, and two spaces (#4 and
#5), to be signed and specifically
reserved for the ~exclusive use at all
times by occupants of the adjacent
property,known as 412-414 Emerson
Street.Five of the spaces -may be
compact spaces. The owner of the subject
property shall grant to the real property
at 412-414 Emerson Street, in a form
satisfactory to the City Attorney, the
right of access to, and the excSusive use
of, two designated parking spaces located
on the subject property.
As part of the parking requirement for
this project, the owner of the subject
property shall provide ten Class I
bicycle lockers, two of which shall be
located on-site and the others placed in
the downtown area, as determined
appropriate by the Transportation
Division. Final design of the lockers
shall be submitted for approval by the
Transportation Division. and ARB prior to
building permit application. Actual
prowision of the lockers shall, be
completed prio~ to occupancy of the
project.The owner shall consult with
the Transportation Division and shall
provide the maximum-feasible number of
additional bicycle racks at 400 Emerson
Street, with a minimum of 2 and a maximum
of 8.
In accordance with standard parking
requirements of one parking space per 250
square feet of commercial space in the
downtown area, two spaces for each
residential unit, the normal required
parking for the project, based on an
estimated 5,833 square feet of commercial
gross floor area, would be 25 spaces°
(The two additional spaces for 412-414
Emerson are required due to a lot line
adjustment between the two properties.)
The owner, of the subject property shall
be credited with two parking spaces, as
follows: one for the bicycle lockers and
one for the shared residential/commercial
space. For the remaining required
941013 tac 0031015
3
,(e)
941013 tac 0031015
spaces, which is estimated to be 13
spaces, based on the estimated commercial
square footage, the owner of the subject
property, shall be required to pay, prior
to issuance of a building permit, an in-
lieu.parking fee of $23,000 per--space,
for a total of $299,000. This amount may
vary based on final construction
measurements. In the event .the City
adopts an ordinance within one year after
occupancy of the project, which
establishes an in-lieu parking fee that
is higher than $23,000 per space, the
owner shall pay the difference between
$23,000 per space and the amount estab-
lished by the ordinance. If the fee
established by the ordinance is lower
than $23,000 per space, the City will
refund the difference between the $23,000
per space and the amount established by
the ordinance. In the event that the In.
Lieu Fee ordinance hereafter adopted by
the City Council contains provisions that
conflict with this condition of approval,.
those ordinance provisions shall apply.
Special Requirements.
Prior to applying for a building permit,
the owner of the subject property shall
apply to the Public Works Department for
a Certificate of Compliance .to evidence
the proposed lot line adjustment between
the subject property and the property at
412-414.Emerson Street. AS a condition
to the lot line adjustment, the owner of-
the subject property shall grant to the
real property at 412-414 Emerson Street,
in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney, a right of access to and across
the subject property for ~trash removal,
deliveries and emergency access to the
real property at 412-414 Emerson, as well
as for the right to parking spaces, as
set .forth in subsection (d) (i) of this
Section 3~ As another condition to the
lot line adjustment, the owner shall
apply for an amendment to the existing
Use Permit for 412-414 Emerson Street, to
address the following issues: change in
property dimensions and the grant of
access and parking rights to the rear of
400 Emerson Street.
(ii)Prior to building permit application,
details of the Development Plan- herein
approved shall be submitted to the ARB
for final approva!, including the
following:noise reduction plan,
signage, lighting, north and south wall
facade changes, color palette, and roof
material. The parking lot decorative
wall shall be constructed, to the extent
structurally feasible, to permit
visibility all the way to the far wall,
where the south stairwell is located.
(iii)The owner shall consult with the Publi’c
Art Commission prior to submitting final
details’ of the art niche and water
fountain for ARB review and approval.
The Public Art Commission shall have
authority t~ require dedication of an art
object for the art niche. All PAC
comments shall be submitted as part of
the final site development plans for ARB
review. If the art object(s) is City-
owned art, the owner shall enter into an
agreement with the City in accordance
with subsection 2.26.050(b) of the palo
Alto Municipal Code.
94101~ [ac 0031015
(iv)Prior to building permit application~ a
final landscape plan shall be submitted
for approval by the following: Utility
Energy Services Division, Planning
Division, Public Works Department, and
ARB. The planter at the parking lot east
exit shall be installed to permit an
unobstructed view for drivers @xiting
onto Lytton Avenue. The plan shall
include a complete plant listing
indicating quantity, locations, type and
size of plants and trees, irrigation
schedule, fence locations and lattice
details. Prior to submitting the plan, a
street tree plan shall have been
submitted to and approved by the City
Arborist. The plan shall include trees
along Lytton Avenue.
(v)
(vi)
(vii)
(viii)
(ix)
(x)
Prior to building permit application, a
final grading and drainage plan shall be
submitted for approval by the Public
Works Department.
Prior to issuance of building permit,
utility load sheets shall be submitted
for approval by the Water, Gas,
Wastewater Engineering Division and the
¯ City’s Cross Connection Control
Inspector~
An Encroachment Permit and a Street Work
Pezinit shall be obtained from the Public
Works Department prior to any work in the
public right-of-way.
Prior to issuance of building permit,.
improvement plans for all utility
construction shall be submitted for
approval by. the Utilities Department,
Public Works Department and the
InspectionServices Division. The plans
shall .include a separate water service
and meter, a new. gas service line and a
separat~ sewer ~ateral to serve the
residential unit. The water utility
point of service, shall be at the
sidewalk. Backflow prevention into the
public water supply shall be provided°
The sewer lateral point of service shall
be approved by the Public Works
Department and the Inspection Services
Division.
Prior to Occupancy, the parking lot entry
gate shall be electronically operated,
and equipped with a Knox Box to allow
Fire and Police services to access both
the subject property and the 412-414
Emerson Street property at any time. The
parking lot entry gate shall remain open,
at a minimum, during normal business
hours of 8 a.mo to 5 pomo
~Prior to occupancy the owner shall
install, maintain and service a drinking
fountain that will be available for
public use at all times.
941013 tac 0031015
6
(xi)Prior to occupancy the owner shall show
proof of the Santa Clara Valley Water
District’s acceptance that the proposed
development and construction will not
affect any site remediation for removal
of an underground storage tank that
occurred in 1986 and removal of 2 oil-
assisted hydraulic hoists in the existing
structure on the site.
(f) Development Schedule. Construction of the project
shall be completed on or before September I, 1995.
SECTION 4. ~he Council finds that this project will not
have a significant environmental.effect.
SECTION 5. This ordinance~ shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED: September 19, 1994
.PASSED: October Ii, 1994
"AYES:ANDERSEN, FAZZINO, HUBER; KNISS, MCCOWN, ROSENBAUM, SCHNEIDER, SIMITIAN,
WHEELER
NOES :
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT :
APPROVED AS T
Senior Asst. City Attorney
941013 tac 0031015
7
P
SITE LOCATION P
400 Emerson St 397z
FIRE
STA !
EMERSON
OUTHERN PACIFIC R.R. STATION
Staff’Report File No: 94-ARB-52; 94-EIA-8; 94-ZC-9 ~
Project
.~Proposed Zone Change from Commercial
Downtown (CD-C(P)). to Pla~med Community (PC)North
PROPERTIES
M E N ~’
ATTACHMENT 5
RECEIVED
January 23, 1997
Members of Palo Alto Planning Commission
City of Palo Alto
JAN 24 1997~
Oepar[me~l of Planningand
Community Environrhent
~enda - 400 Emerson Street Zone Change--PC to CD~
Dear Planning Commissioners:
The purpose of this letter is to provide background information with respect to
the application submitted by 400 Emerson for the requested zone change from
the PC Zone adopted October 11, 1994, to the CDC(P) Zone, which is the
underlying zone for the district’in which 400 Emerson is located.
I. The 1994 PC Application’
In 1994, the owner of the property, Ed Storm, submitted a PC Zone Application
with DES as project architect. The project application consisted of 8,110 square
feet in a 3-story building (Exhibit 1). This 8,110 square feet qualified "the new
building under the existing downtown commercial zoning regulations
limitations on floor area ratio," as stated in the Ci~ Manager’s report to the City
Council dated September 14, 1994. In brief, 400 Emerson does not exceed the 1:1
FAR. allowed for a project under the CDC Zoning Ordinance.
The three-story building was planned for financial service uses on the first and
second floor now occupied by Cupertino National Bank. The third floor was
planned for one two-bedroom residential unit of 2,277 square feet, which has
never been completed or occupied. It had been anticipated that the developer of
the project, Ed Storm, would use the third floor residence as an occasional
weekday home, secondary to his principal residence which is out of the S.anta
Clara County area. The.CDC Zoning Ordinance permits financial services uses
for the entire building, the third floor residential use is not a requirement of the
CDC Zone.
If 400 Emerson complied with the FAR requirements of the CDC Zone, and if
400 Emerson satisfies the permitted uses of the CDC Zone, even without any
third floor residential use, why then did 400 Emerson seek a PC Zone rather
than develop,within the parameters of the CDC Zone?
172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, California 94301 4.1 5 ¯ 3 2 5 ° 7 7 8 7 Fax: 4 1 5 ° 3 2 5 ¯ 4 3 6 4
Page Two
The reason 400 Emerson pursued a PC Zone in 1994 is stated clearly in the
September 19, 1994 City Manager’s Report: ’~’he primary reason for a PGZone is
the payment of an appropriate in-lieu parking fee allowing for off-site
construction of the remaining required parking spaces downtown." By late 1994,
the City was in the process of finalizing an in,lieu parking ordinance which was
subsequently adopted in early 1995 (Ordinance 4256). In-lieu parking provisions
have been included in the CD Zoning Ordinance Since 1986 [Ordinance
18.49.100(c)], but these provisions required a calculation for the cost of a parking
space which was not workable; the City was developing Ordinance 4256 so that
in-lieu parking fees and policies could be clarified.
Had the in-lieu parking ordinance been codified in 1994, no PC Zone would
have been required for 400 Emerson.
Because the 1994 PC Zone Application for 400 Emerson did not involve increased
FAR or relief from permitted uses orother zoning restrictions, the project offered
minor public benefit which included a public art niche and public drinking
fountain (both of which are to be located on Lytton Avenue) and a caricature
painted by Greg Brown on the western face of the building. As stated in the
September 19,1994 City Manager’s Report: "the proposed public benefit is
.relatively minor.... However, Staff believes it to be sufficient because the request
for variation from the CD regulations is very minor." (Exhibit 2)
Had the 400 Emerson PC Application identified the uses of the building as being
consistent with the underlying CDC Zone, residential or commerdal uses would
have been allowed for the third floor without any increased public benefit.
II. ~ne Urban De_sign Public Benefit__s Will Be ~
City-Staff has expressed frustration that the Zone Change Application has been
submitted before providing certain of the public benefits required under¯ the PC
Zone Ordinance. While the Greg Brown caricature was completed shortly after
completion of the building in mid-1996, the drinking fountain and art niche have
¯ not been completed. Ed Storm explains that the incompleteness of these items is
not without considerable effort. Ed Storm has appeared before.the Public Arts
Commission with a single artist on two occasions with both of these art proposals
rejected. A second local artist recommended by a member of the Public Arts
Commission was retained who was unable to provide suitable art. A third
artist/sculptor, Scott Donahue, has now prepared detailed plans for a sculptural
drinking fountain and art niche which may also involve further work by Greg
Page Three
Brown. Scott has performed extraordinary bronze work for 505 Hamilton, 529
Bryant and 250 University, and his recent proposal for 390 Lytton was greatly
appreciated by the Public Arts Commission. Judith Wasserman of the Public
Arts Commission, and Scot~ Donahue, have discussed his proposal. A Public
Arts Commission meeting is scheduled in February. The public art and drinking
fountain will be completed before the effective date of any zone change for the
project. Correspondence and a preliminary drawing are provided at Exhibit 3.
III. The CD Zone Allows Conversion of
Residential Uses for Non-Residential Uses
Existing zoning ordinances provide mechanisms for converting residential uses
to non-residential uses. §18.49.100(a) of the.CD Zone requires that a residential
project must pay a substantial parking mitigation fee. Correspondence dated
October 2, 1996 (Exhibit 4) from the City indicates that a parking fee of $142,784
would be necessary to convert the third floor of 400 Emerson from a single
residential unit to a commercial use. This same policy Would apply to the
conversion by the President Apartments, Lanning Chateau, orany other
residential use in the CD Zone to a non-residential use.
In addition, Munidpal Code16.47 (Exhibit S) requires that a housing mitigation
payment be made if two or more housing units are converted to a non-residential
use. Were this housing mitigation applicable to 400 Emerson, a fee of $3.55 per
square foot or $9,209 would be required.
There are building code issues involved with converting any residential use to a
non-residential use. With respect to 400 Emerson there are two building code
issues, both of which have been resolved. First, floor loading strength for a non-
residential use is greater than for a residential use. Second, stair configurations
¯ change for a non-residential use. Both of these problems have been resolvedby
DES and will not involve any modifications to the exterior of the building. (See
Exhibit 6)
IV. Policy..Considerations for Allowing a Zone Change From PC to
The Staff Report presents a series of Comprehensive Plan housing polities which
encourage residential uses in, commercial areas. These policies are long-standing
and well-conceived. However, none of these goals or polities are compulsory
when applied to properties located within the boundaries of the CD Zone. Even
where residential uses exist, neither the Comprehensive Plan nor Zoning¯ ~
Ordinances prohibit the conversion of such residential uses to non-residential
Page Four
uses. Instead, parking mitigation payments and housing mitigations are codified
to allow conversion of residential units to non-residential uses, but at great
expense. It would cost about $3,000,000 to convert the President Apartments to a
non-residential use, just as it will cost 400 Emerson about $150,000 to convert one
two-bedroom luxury unit to a commercial use.
The two policy questions for which we seek your direction are as follows:
1. Given the existing provision governing the CDC Zone, and
substantial costs imposed on the conversion of residential uses to
commercial uses, we request that 400 Emerson be changed fron~ a PC
Zone to a CDC Zone. Thereafter, the same burdens that apply to other
¯ residential properties in the CDC Zone would apply to 400 Emerson,
which for 400 Emerson would be about $150,000. Why should 400
Emerson be treated differently than President Apartments, Lanning
Chateau, or any of the other 6 or 8 residential properties in the CDC Zone?
Treating 400 Emerson differently would be harsh, particularly since 400
Emerson did not seek or receive any increased FAR under its 1994 PC
Application and it did not take advantage of increased density that is
allowed under the CDC Zone for a mixed use project.
2. If the Planning Commission desires to treat 400 Emerson differently
than other properties in the CDC Zone because that opportunity exists as
a result of 400 Emerson being a PC Zone (due to the in-lieu parking issues
raised by 400 Emerson in 1994), what are the equitable requirements to
permit 400 Emerson to amend its PC Zone to change the third floor
residential use? The housing mitigation fee set forth in §16.47 applies
throughout the City of Palo Alto. Wouldn’t this established standard be
the only appropriate standard applicable for 400 Emerson?
V. The 1996 Application Process
September 5, 1996 PC Zone Amendment Application was
submitted.
October 2, 1996 PC Zone Amendment Application rejected as an
incomplete Application because our request for policy direction
for the pubic benefit component wasnot accepted .by City Staff.
Page Five
October 10, 1996 meeting with Ken Schreiber, Robert Schubei"t~
Jim Baer and John Baer, to discuss possible approaches for the 400
Emerson application. We were advised to submit a Zone Change
Application rather than a PC Zone Amendment.
October 24,1996 Zone Change Application submitted in accordance
with October 10 meeting. (See Exhibit 7)
January 10,1997 meeting with Nancy Lytle, Jim Baer and Warren
Thoits.
January 21,1997 meeting with Jim Baer and Robert Schubert.
January 28,1997 scheduled conference with Jim Baer and Robert
Schubert.
Sincerely yours,
James E. Baer
¯ ,n~ .~ra.usportauon wiv, ., ~ prep,a.rmg me m-l~eu p~mng lee ~~~s expectea to
c~ore Ne Co~gsion ~ f~l 1994. Co~equenfly, ~~n for ~e in-lieu
p~ng ~unt hm not been established. ~ inte~ of $]3,~ per net new
space h~ been ~d ~d w~ include~~m~g Cohesion o[d~ce for merecent 531 o.per S~ee~nt doe I not_~clude ~e COSt of_~e l~d..
I ~e p~k~g
s k~g space be
requi~~ ~ou~t f~ly adopted ~ ~e upcom~g or~ is l~wer
PUBLIC BENEFIT
In compliance with the requirement for providing public benefit the applicant states that the
proposal is consistent with the Urban Design Guide by providing pedestrian viability to this
corner and it will provide publicly viewable art and a drinking fountain. The applicant has
amended the site plan to relocate the drinking fountain and the viewable art to an exterior
niche of the building, on Lytton Street. Pedestrians will be able to use the drinking fountain
and view the art niche from the street. The fountain ~’ill be available to the p.uhlic 24 hours
per day.
Staff considers the provision of the residential unit in a commercial project an additional
public benefit. The Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design Guide support mixed use,
which is difficult to achieve under existing regulations and which is proposed in this
proposal. This precedent would help stimulate more mixed use proposals.
The proposed public benefit is relatively minor, however, staff believes it to be sufficient
because the request for variation from the CD regulations is very minor. The primary reason
for a 15C Zone is the payment of an appropriate in-lieu parking fee allowing for off-site
construction of the remaining required parking spaces downtown. The applicant was not
willing to wait until the City’s initiated ordinance modifications was processed in order to
proceed with the project and it is uncertain whether this project would qualify since the
ordinance is still being studied..
PLAN COMPLIANCE
The uses development regulations within the PC district must be determined.to be
c6nsistent with ~rehensive Plan. Although only one unit is pr.opos~’d~the project is
consistent with the objectives of the C~an"~’on~idered most pertinent
to this proposal:
1.Housing Policy 6
"Maintain at least the"
. " Working to overall supply
y .rental units while
housing." H 31
9941 a:\4b0emr~n 7-8-!
Page 8
GREGORY Lo HARPER 5184288455 po ~
SCOTT DONAHUE ’°
1420-45TH STREET, EMERYVILLE, CALIFORNIA 9460~ TELEPHONE: 510 65~-51~2 FACSIMILE: 510 420-17~4
Ed S~orm
Storm L~nd Co.
:20725 Valley Green Drive
Cupertino, CA 9S014-1703
.408 287-8402
408 9%-830.1 fax
January 18, 1~97
Dear Ed,
I want you to know about the progress on getu.’ng my proposed water fount~n niche approved
by the Art Commission as well as my dls6ussion wlth GPe~g’BFown, artist, about doing an
additional painting In the small niche to the right of my proposal.
I have spoken with Judith Wasserman of the Art Comml~lon about my proposal. She seems to
be very posldve about It- Judith will distribute my project description and drawing to the other
members of the commission prior to the meeting so that I might get some feedback if there¯are golng to be any major problems.
I have spoken with Gre~Brown about responding to my drinking foun~n niche proposal with
a painting of his In the small niche. He likes the idea of a walst up format that this niche offers
and will be speaking with both of us soon. I mendonedto Judith, the idea of Gre,g’s paindng
tieing in to my niche design, and she was. excked,
Slncerel)~
Scot~ Donahue
PAGE I OF 2 SCOTT DONAHUE
1420-45TH STREET, £M£RWJLLE, CALIFORNIA 94608 TELEPHONE: 510 658-51&2 FACSIMILE: 510 420JT&4
Ed Storm
Storm L~nd ~o.
20725 Valley Green Drive
Cupertino, CA 95014.1703
408 287-8462
408 996.8425 fax
January e, 1997
RE: Contract per our meeting on 1/7/97 -- Drinking Fountain Artwork, 400 Emerson Street
This is o contract between Ed Storm, owner of 400 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, an~ Sco~c Donahue,
sculptor, who will design, fabrlca~e and install a drinkJng foun~6in niche for 400 Emerson St. Palo Alto.
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
This cast sculpture niche, as depicted in the enclosed drawing and ~s seen in the clay maquette,
will fit Into a pre-existing niche at 400 Emerson Street. The niche will consist of four ~stings:
I The top part depicts a waterfall surrounded by architectural forms. The wafer’will be
cast of bronze powder in Forton-modified gypsum. The color will be a green patina wlth
raised areas polished to a dull bronze color. The architectural form will have a stone
look, dull terraco~a color and be cast In glass-reinforced calcium aluminate concrete. On
top of this part will be ceramic trees glazed to an appropriate realistic ~olor. Mounted
inside ol~ ~is part will be a low voltage light fixture. The outside edges will have ~ stucco
flange.
2. The central area at the back of the niche depicts the surface of water. At the top It Is
lake-like, then as it flows down and around the drinking fountain it becomes more river-
like. Boats are floating in the rivers. The lake and river area will be cast of bronze powder
In Formn-modified gypsum and fiberglass~ The color will be a green patina with raised
areas polished to a dull bronze color. The boats will be of the same material with the
exception of steel powder Instead of bronze.
& 4 These cast side wails to the niche will have a tree relief pa=ern in the circular top
sections and change to s city, building relief pattern in the lower v~rtical sections. The
material will be pigmented, cast calcium alumlnate concrete and fiberglass, and have a dull
terracota color slmllar to the tile work on the second floor of this building.
The drinking fountain Itself will be of commercial quality meeting allof the code requirement.
WHAT WILL BE EXPERIENCED:
This niche will compel pedes~ians to touch is, and beckon Hem to have a drink. The womb- ~
like shap6 v~iII d~w people In, but at the same time, from a distance, this niche integrates well
into the rest of the building, relating to it in style and scale.The color also follows the logic of
the rest. of the building. The pattern, narrative and smaller scale of de~l are appropriate to
thisIntimate space because this is the part of the building you are expected to touch. A¢ night
a lowvoltage light tucked into the Waterfall will illuminate the water pa~tern and drinking
fountain, making this area appealing and also discouraging.unwanted bodily functions.
Cityof Palo Alto
Department of Plq.nning and
Community Envircmment
October 2, 1996
Mr. John Baer
Premier Properties
172 University Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: 400 Emerson Street - Planned Community (PC) Zone Change (96-ZC-12)
Dear Mr. Baer:
Staff has conducted a preliminary review of the subject application. Ordinance No.
4238 which rezoned the property at 400 Emerson Street from. CD-C(P) to PC includes
the following public benefits: 1) a residential unit is included in the project; and 2) a
public drinking fountain and art niche are provided. Since the current proposal is to
change the residential unit to office use, an alternate public benefit should be
provided. The application is incomplete.because an alternate public benefit is not
proposed in the Development Statement. Please submit a revised Development
Statement with a proposed alternate public benefit. The project will be scheduled for
Planning Commission review after staffhas reviewed the revised Development
Statement.
In addition, as indicated in the Development Statement, the Code requires 8
additional parking spaces’for the proposed change in use. Thus, an in-lieu parking fee
of...~$142,784 (8 spaces @ $17,84~/spaee) will be required prior to issuance of a
building permit (see the attached’ memorandum from the Transportation Division
dated September 24, 1996). Finally, structural improvements to the buildingwill be
required for the proposed change in use (see the attached memorandum from the
Building Division dated September 13, 1996). .,
Feel t’ree to call me at (415) 586-2266 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert Schubert, AICP
Contract P, rpject Planner
250HamiltonAvenue
P.O.Box10250
Palo Alto, CA943f13
415.3"29.2’441
415.329.2240Fax
PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE18.49.100
Maximum Gross
Use Floor Area
Personal Services 232 square, meters
(2,500 square feet)
Retail Services, except
Grocery Stores
1,394 square meters
(15,000 square feet)
Grocery Stores 1,858 square meters
(20,000 square fee!)
Eating and drink-465 square meters
ing services (5,000 square feet)
(Ord. 4016 §32, 1991: Ord. 3807 §13, 1988:
Ord. 3696 §1, (part), 1986)
18.49.100 Parking regulations.
The provisions of Chapter 18.83 regarding
loading requirements, bicycle facility
requirements, parking requirements for residential
uses, and parking requirements for nonresidential
uses outside a parking assessment district, formed
and assessed under Bond Plan G financing
pursuant to Title 13, shall apply in the CD district.
However, with respect to on-site and off-site
parking space requirements for nonresidential
uses within an assessment district wherein
properties are assessed under a Bond Plan G
financing pursuant to Title 13, the following
requirements shall apply in the CD district in lieu
of the requirements of Chapter 18.83:
/" (a) On-site parking. Any new development,
any addition or enlargement of existing
development, or any use .of any floor area that has
never been assessed under any Bond Plan G
financing pursuant to Title 13, shall provide one
parking space for each two hundred fifty gross
square feet of rio.or area, except as may be exempt
~’rom such requirement by the provisions of
mbseetion (b) of this section. The purpose of this
~ubseetion is tO regulate the number of parking
paces required. Requirements for the size and
~ther design criteria for parking spaces shall
:ontinue to be gover, n~d by the provisions of
.’hapter 18.83.
(b) Exceptions. The requirement for on-site
parking provided in subsection (a) of this section
shall not apply in the following instances:
(1) Square footage for:
(A) Handicapped access which does not
increase the usable floor area, as determined
pursuant to Section 18.49.060(b)( 1 );
03) An increase in square footage in
conjunction with seismic rehabilitation, pursuant
to Section 18.49.060(b)(2);
(C) Historic structures in Categories 1
and 2. Each historic structure in Categories 1 and
2 may take advantage of the following exceptions
during the life of the building:
(i) An increase in square footage of a
historic building in Categories 1 and 2, pursuant
to Section 18.49.060(b)(3) and
(ii) A conversion to commercial use of
a historic building in Categories 1 and 2 that is
fifty feet or less in height and that has most
recently been in residential use, if such
conversionis done in conjunction with exterior
historic rehabilitation approved by the director of
planning and community environment upon the
recommendation of the architectural review board
in consultation with the historic resources board.
Such conversion must not eliminate any existing
on-site parking;
(19) A minor increase of two hundred
square feet or less, pursuant to Section
18.49.060(b)(4);
(E) At or above grade parkifig~ though
included in the FAR calculations, as set forth in
Section 18.49.060(a) shall not be subject to the
on-site parking regulations,of subsection (a) of
this section.
(2) Vacant parcels shall be exempt from the
requirements of subsection (a) of this section at
the time when development occurs as provided
herein. Such development shall be exempt to the
extent of parking spaces for every one thousand
square feet of site area, .provided that such parcels
were at some time assessed for parking under a
Bond Plan E financing pursuant to Chapter 13.16
or were subject to other ad v~10re’m assessments
for parking.
1892 Rev. Ord. Supp. 3/95
ZONING 18.49.100
(3) No new parking spaces will be required
for a site in conjunction with the development or
replacement of the amount of floor area used for
nonresidential use equal to the amount of adjusted
square footage for the site shown on the
engineer’s report for fiscal year 1986-87 for the
latest bond plan G financing for parking
acquisition or improvements in that certain area of
the city delineated on the map of the University
Avenue. parking assessment district entitled,
"l~roposed BOundaries of University Avenue
Off-Street Parking Project # 75-63 Assessment
District, City of Palo Alto, County of Sant.a Clara,
State of California," dated October 30, 1978, and
"on file with the city clerk. However, square
footage which was developed for nonresidential
purposes or which has been used for
nonresidential purposes but which is not used for
such purposes due to vacancy at the tim~ of the
engineer’s report shall be included in the amount
of floor area qualifying for this exemption. No"]
exemption parking requirements shall be availhble/
where a residential use changes to a nonresidentialI
use, except pursuant to subdivision (1)(C) of thi~
subsection.
(c) Off-site parking. Parking required by this
chapter may be provided by off-site parking,
provided that sueli off-site parking is within a
reasonable distance of the site using it or, if the
site is within an assessment district, within a
reasonable distance of the assessment district
boundary and approved in writing by the director
of planning and community environment. The
director shall assure that sufficient covenants and
guarantees are provided to .ensure use and
maintenance of such parking facilitieS, including
an enforceable agreement that any deyelopment
occurring on the site where parking is provided
shall not result in a net reduction of parking
space.s provided, considering both the parking
previously provided and the parking required by
the proposed use.
(d) In-lieu parking provisions. In connection
with any expansion of the supply of public
parking spaces within the CD commercial
downtown district, the city shall allocate a number
of spaces for use as "in-lieu parking" spaces to
allow dev.elopment to occur on sites which would
otherwise be precluded from development dueto
parking constt:aint~ imposed by- this chapter. Off-
site parking on such sites may be provided" by
payment of an in-lieu monetary contribution to the
city to defray the cost of providihg such parking.
Contributions for each required parking space
shall equal the incremental cost of providing a net.
new parking space in an assessment district
project plus cost for the admi.nistration of the
program, all as determined pursuant to Chapter
16.57 of Title 16 of this code, by the director of
planning ~nd community’ environment, whose
decision shall be final. Only sites satisfying one
or more of the following criteria, as determined
by the director of planning and community
environment, shall be. eligible to participate in the
in-lieu parking program:
(1) Construction of on-site parking would
necessitate destruction or substantial demolition of
a designated historic structure;
(2) ’The site area is less than ten thousand
square feet and it would not be physically .feasible
to provide the required on-site parking;
(3) The site is greater than ten thousand
square feet, but of such an unusual configuration
that it would not be physically feasible to provide
the required on-site parking;
(4) The site is located in an area where city
policy precludes curb cuts or otherwise prevents
use of the site for on-site-parking;
(5) The site has other physical constraints,
such as a high groundwater table, which preclude
provision of on-site parking without
extraordinary expense.
(e) Underground parking. Underground
parking deeper than two levels below grade shall
¯ be prohibited unless a soils report Or engineering
analysis demonstrates that regular pumping of
subsurface water will not be required.
(Ord. 4256 § 2, 1995: Ord. 3896 §5, 1989: Ord.
3736 §§1, 2, 1987: Ord. 3696 §l (part), 1986)
1893 Rev. Ord. Supp. 3/95
APPROVAL OF PROJECTS 16.47.010-16.47.020
Chapter 16.47
APPROVAL OF PROJECTS WITH IMPACTS ON HOUSING
Sections:
16.47.010
16.47.020
16.47.030
16.47.040
16.47.050
16.47.060
Declaration of goal and purpose.
Applicability.
Exemptibns.
Housing requirement.
Penalties.
SeverabilRy.
16.47.010 Decla.ration of goal and purpose. The goal and purpose of this
chapter is to lessen the shortage of low-income and moderzte-income
housing, in Palo Alto by requiring developers of large commercial and
industrial projects, as a condition of using land for the privilege of develop-
ment, to co.ntribute to programs that increase the city’s low-income and
moderate-income hou .sj.ng stock. (Ord. 35.60[} I (part), 1984).
16.47.020 Applicability. This chapter shall apply to the following
developments, except those exempt under Section 16.47.030:
(a) Any new gross square footage of two thousand five hundred gross
square feet or greater on a site once the gross square, footage Of nonexempt
uses on a site has reached twenty thousand gi’oss square feet:
(b) Any gross square footage of two thousand five hundred gross
square feet or greater on a site that is converted from an exempt use to a
nonexempt use once the gross square footage of nonexempt uses on a site
has reached twenty thousand gross square feet:.
~d
’" (c) Any new gross squa_~e footage .in ~a development, or gross square.
footage that is converted from an exempt use to.a nonexempt use, if such
evelopment removes from the city’s housing stock two or morelegal dwell-
ing units that have last been used for housmg:~. -¯ (d) New gross square footage .that replaces nonexempt uses shall not be
considered gross square footage for the purlSoses of the ordinance codified in
this chapter.. "’Replaces" means that the new gross square footage receives
design" approval pursuant to Chapter 16.48 within one year of the previous
nonexempt uses being demolished; .. ..
(e) New gross square footage in a development used for (1) an 0n-site
cafeteria, recreational facility, and/or day care facility, to be provided for
employees and/or their children, and not open to the general public, or (2) a
hazardous materi~s storage facility shall be exempted from the requirements
of this chapter. If any square footage’exempted under this subsection (e) is
-convened to a nonexempt use, the entire amount of gross square footage
converted must meet the requirements of this chapter, regardless of the
number of square feet converted. (Oral. 3597 § 1, 1985: Ord. 3560 § 1
(part), 1984). "
M A N A G E
Express Memo
PROPERTIES
M E N T
To:Fred Herman
At:CPA Building Dept
From:.John Baer
Regarding: Structural Calcs and Drawings - 400 Emerson 3rd Fir
Date: 11/5/96
Cals and Drawings for the 3rd floor at 400 Emerson where we are
requesting to convert the use from residential to commercial office. This
change of use will require some adjustment to the loads carried
by the structure. Please call Jim Baer orme with any questions you
may have. Thank you.
Premier Properties:Phone: 415/325-7787 Facsimile: 415/325-4364
3Q9 BRADFORD STREET
RI~DWOOD CITY. CA q40e,3
PI-It:I~E 41 ~ 364-6433
F-\\ 41-~ 3,~4.261S
22 August, 1996
DES
ARCHITECTS
ENGINEER5
Mr. John Baer
Premier Properties
172 University Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94063
400 Emerson St.; Palo Alto, CA
Project No. 8266.02
Partial Structural Review for 3~ Floor Office Loading
Dear Mr. Baer:
At your request, a partial structural review of the above referenced project was performed
to determine the effects of converting.the third floor from residential space to office space.
This review was performed in conjunction with the structural calculations prepared, by
Adamo & Associates, dated June 9, 1995.
’ The following design loads were used in this review:
Dead Load Live Load Movable Partition
Roof 20 psf 20 psf -
3!~ Fir. Office 25 psf 50 psf 20 psf
3Im Fir. Patio 70 psf 50 psf -
2Nv Fir. Office 25 psf 80 psf 20 psi"
Seismic Roof 20 psf --
Seismic Firs.25 psf -10 psf
Seismic Patio 30 psf*.--
*. per Adamo & Assoc. eales.
Conclusions:
Following are our conclusions regarding the conversion of the third floor to office space.
Please refer to the attached structural calculations for more specific information.
Primary Framing: (Girders and Columns)
The pfirh~ry framing members (girders and columns) were found to be adequate
under the revised loading. See attached calculations.
2. Floor Joists: (Third Floor. only, see attached sketch 3B 1) .
The floor joists are overstressed in two locations at the third floor under the
revised loading..The first location is between B-Line and C-Line, below the
proposed board room. The second location is between C-Line and D-Line, below
the Lobby, the toilets and part of the employee lounge.
Strengthening these areas will require the following:
,Kemove existing floor covering and plywood.
,Install nailer blocks between flanges of W-beams.
,Install 1314 x 18 TJI ® Micro=Lam ® LVL (or equal) members between each
existing 18" TJL ® joist.. New joists are installed in face-mount hangers
(Simpson HHU-type).
Replace plywood and floor covering.
3. ~eismic Loads:
The effect of the revised loading has a negligible impact on the seismic 16ads
associated with this structure. The seismic base shear we calculated is actually
slightly lower than the original base shear calculation. The difference comes from
the use of a full 20 psf dead load for movable partitions in the original cales. The
code allows this dead load to be reduced to 10 psfin seismic base shear
calculations.
4. Foundations:
The loads to the footings on C-Line are slightly higher (-5% at ~xid 3/C and -3%
at Grid 5.9/C) than originally calculated. The new soil bearing pressures are still
less than 2500 psf,
Using live load reductions allowed by code, we find that the original design loads
were somewhat conservative: Except for the aforementioned column loads, we
found that our calculated column loads are lower than the original calculated
column loads.
Please do not hesitate to contact us if you have any further questions.
’ Sincerely,
DES Architects + Engineers.
Project Engineer
co:Keith Bautista, DES
C. T. Gilman, DES
Curtis Hume, S.E.
Structural Engineer, Senior Assoc.
attachments.
R L~TV~EL. V4.0 -Floor Map
’ "aBase: STORM
~ding Code: UBCI
Floor Type: 3RD
3
08/21/96 19:17:08
®
II
82
80
79
78
¯74 /
,=
72
71
61
59
57
56
55
54 93
53
.Statement For Zone Change For
,400 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, California
The purpose of this statement is to provide information regarding the proposed
zone change from PC back to CDC for the recently completed development
project at 400 Emerson Street in Downtown Palo Alto. This statement consists of
four sections:
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
Description of the Project
What are the adjusted Parking Requirements for this Project
What are the housing mitigation requirements for the Project
Required Zone Change Determinations
(1) Description of the ProJect
On October llth, 1994 The Palo Alto City Council approved the planned
community zone ordinance #4238 granting a zone change to the owners of the
parcel located at 400 Emerson Street. This zone change allowed the owners to
construct a new three story, 8110 square foot building on the existing 7743
square foot parcel. The 8110 square feet of the project could have been approved
under the CDC Zoning as the allowed square footage is as follows:
1:1 FAR =7,743 Sq. Ft.
18.49.060(b)4 Bonus =200 Sq. Ft.
18.49.030(b)1 Bonus =167 Sq. Ft.
TOTAL =8110 Sq. Ft.
~The PC zone change was required because the in-lieu parking ordinance
had not yet been adopted. Therefore, the PC process was the only. mechanism by
which parking mitigation for this project could be addressed. Under the PC
approval, the applicant offered that the third floor Of the building, consisting of
2,227 square feet, be reserved.as a residential use. The PC Zone Change would
¯ have been approved without this condition because no extra area was being
added.
In April, 1995, the owners of 400 Emerson completed negotiations ~vith
Cupertino National Bank to occupy thelst and 2nd floor commercial space. In
June~ !996, just prior to their occupancy of the completed project, Cupertino
National Bank announced its merger with Mid-Peninsula Bank. Because of this
merger, the .third floor is now required as the corporate office for the merged
bank. Accordingly, the owner is.submitting to the City of Palo Alto a request for.
a zone change back to the original underlying CDC Zoning thereby removing the
restriction that the third floor be reserved as a residential use in order to
accomm, odate a full building commercial tenant.
(2) What are the adjusted parking requirements for this project:
The existing building, under the approved ordinance #4238, complied
with the parking requirement for 25 spaces by providing 12 spaces on site and
making an in-lieu payment for the remaining 13 spaces.
2277 square feet for the proposed commercial use of the third floor
requires nine (9) parking spaces based on one parking space per 250 square feet
of commercial office use. The current residential use was required to provide
two (2) parking spaces but was given a credit for (1) space due to a shared
parking provision between the residential and commercial uses. Therefore, one
(1) space has already been provided for the third floor use.
As a result, eight (8) net spaces... (nine (9) required parking,spaces less the
one (1) space already provided).., must be mitigated for the zone change and
conversion from residential to non-residential use.
(3) What are the housing loss mitigation requirements for the Project
Conditions of the October, 1994 PC approval required that the third floor
of the building, consisting of 2,227 square feet, be reserved as a residential use.
This requested zone change will eliminate this residential restriction for the third
floor and allow conversion of the entire 2,227 square feet to commercial office
use. To mitigate the loss of this housing in the Downtown, the Owner is required
to pay, at the current rate of $3.55 per square foot, a housing in-lieu fee of
$7,905.85.
(4) Zone Change Determinations
Following are the determinations required for the zone change back to. original
underlying CDC zoning. "
(i) A ZONE CHANGE APPLICATION IS NECESSARY:
Because the underlying Zoning for the site is a PC Zone stipulating that
the 3rd floor remain residential, a Zone Change from PC Zoning back to the ~
original CDC Zoning is necessary to accommoda.te the proposed conversion from
residen, fial to commercial office.
~ii) NATURE OF USES WITH]]Xl THE CDC DISTRICT:
The’uses within the CDC.District will be identical to those of the present
CDC Zone which would have been applicable if a PC Zone had not been put in
place. No special conditions or characteristics of use will be necessary for the
reversion to the underlying CDC Zone.
(iii) CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN:
The uses and site development regulations within the proposed .PC
District shall be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and shall be compatible
with uses on adjoining sites and within the general vicinity.
The design and uses of the proposed project have been conceived with
great care in order to be compatible with and complimentary to the objectives of
the Comprehensive Plan, the Downtown Summary Report published in January,
1988, and the Downtown Urban Design Guide of 1992, which identifies the
importance of advancing Lytton Avenue through contemporary designs that
¯ enhance the pedestrian and neighborhood experience. . ~
(iv) CONVERSION OF RESIDENTIAL TO NON RESIDENTIAL USE
This Zone change to CDC is requested to allow for the conversion of the
3rd floor of 400 Emerson from residential to commercial use. While the 3rd floor
residential use was identified as a public benefitin the original PC Zone
approval, a zone change back to the original CDC Zoning is allowable without
consideration of any public benefit since no new net square footage has been
added by 400 Emerson above what would have been allowed under existing
CDC Zoning condition of a 1:1 FAR.
The CDC Zone permits conversion of residential tonon residential use
provided parking is provided or an in lieu payment is made and a payment is
also made for. established housing, mitigation.
While loss of the residential use of the 3rd floor frustrates the admirable
vision of mixed uses in downtown Palo Alto, had the inqieu parking ordinance
been in effect at the time that 400 Emerson submitted its original PC application
in October, 1994, there would have been no required public benefit for net new
square footage over the 1:1 FAR and the third floor would not have been
reserved for residential use. Further, were the site currently in the CDC Zone,
the proposed conversion from residential to non residential use could be
accomplished with a staff approval.
~IES
M A N A G ~M |~~’
ATTACHMENT 6
HAND DELIVER
February 3, 1997
Ms. Nancy Lytle
Planning Department
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Polo Alto, C~lffornia 94301
Ms. Debra Cauble
City Attorney’s Office
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
400 Emerson Zone Chance/Art Niche and Water_Fountain
Dear Nancy & Debra:
The purpose of this. letter is to review the issues raised by the Planning
Commission during its hearing, and unahimousrecommendation approving a.
Zone Change from PC to CDC(P) for 400 Emerson Street relating to the art niche
and water fountain.
During the public hearing Ms. Lytle advocated that the Zone Change be denied
because were the PC Zone eliminated, the drinking fountain and art niche would
not have to be completed. The Planning Commission a .sked Staff to research
whether the art niche an.d drinking fountain were conditions of the Architectural
R~view Board ("ARB") and, if so, could the ARB conditions be enforced even if
the PC Zone were changed to CD-C(P)?
Ms. Lytle also cautioned that even if the ARB conditions required the art niche
and water fountain, that maintenance obligations of these items could not be ¯
enforced except through the PC Ordinance. ~
PC Ordinance #4238, Section 3(e) Special Requirements (iii) provides: "the owner
shall consult with the Public Art Commission (’TAC") prior to submitting final
details of the art niche and water fountain for ARB review and approval. The
PAC shall have authority to require dedicalion of an art object for.the art niche.
All PAC comments shall be submitted as part of the final site development plans
for ARB review. If theart object(s) is City-owned art, the Owner shall enter into
an agreement with the City in accordan .ce with §2.26.050(b) of the Palo Alto
Munidpal Code."
172UniversityAvenue, PaloAlto, Ca|iforaia94301 415.325o7787 Fax:415.325*4364
S]IJ~3dO~d ~3IH3~d Hd90:~0 ~6, ~0 ~H
Ms. Nancy Lytle
Ms. Debra Cauble
February 3, 1997
Page Two
At the meetings~i~’ the A.RB occurring on July 21,1994, and November 3,1994,
the ARB imposed conditions of approval for theproject which we believe remain
as conditions which may be enforced by the ARB whether 400 Emerson is
governed by PC Zone Ordinance #4238, or by the CDC(P) Zone.
At the luly 21, 1994 ARB hearing, 400 Emerson was approved subject to
conditions among which was "elaboration of treatment of the art niche a~d any
other suggested art work."
At the November 3,’1994 hearing, the ARB imposed continuing conditions
among which was Condition #8: "Applicant shall consult with the Public Arts
Commission before submitting final details of the art niche and water fountain
for ARBreview.and approval. All PAC comments shall be submitted as part of
the final site development plans for ARB review. If the art object(s) is City-
owned art, the Owner shall enter into a ".hold harmless" agreement with the City.
The PAC shall have the authority to req .uire dedication of an art object for the art
We believe that the two concerns raised by Ms. Lytle at the Public Hearing on
January 29, concerning completion of the ~rt niche and water fountain, and
maintenance of art if the PAC requests dedication of art to the City, endure a
Zone Change from PC to CDC(P).
The ARB has far-reaching powers with respect to the approval of the design of
properties located in the CDC, even properties which are not subjected to the
rigors of the PC Zone approval process.
The ARB actions and conditions, independent of PC Ordinance #4238, impose on
the Applicant the obligation to complete a water fountain and ~ art niche, both
of which must be reviewed and approved by the PAC and the ARBo This
requirement has been bonded by a "cash" deposit by the Applicant of $21,200
with the City of Palo Alto. Further, the Applicant will have met with Judith
Wasse_rman, Chair of the PAC, on Monday, February 3, for the purpose of
reviewing the water fountain and art niche proposals preliminary to scheduling a
PAC hearing on ,February 26 and a final ARB review.
Ms, Nancy Lytle
Ms. Debra Cauble
February 3, 1997
Page Three
The art niche and water fountain detail being reserved as items for review by the
PAC and ARB are powers which remain with the ARB and PAC, even upon
termination of the PC Ordinance. Just .as the ARB has the power to review and
require expensive custom-made light fixtures, handmade flies, hand-craf~l
signage, elaborate window, door, wall and roof treatments, the ARB can requi~e
that an art niche be [reaK, d with art to be approved by the PAC.
With respect to maintenance, both PC Ordinance #4238 and ARB Condition #8
allows the PAC to require dedication, of the art to be located in the art niche, but
are silent as to the water fountain. If the art is dedicated to the City,
maintenance obligations are to be subject to Pal0 Alto Municipal Code
2.26.050(b). Accordingly, m. aintenance which applies only to the art niche and
not the water fountain can be satisfied other than through PC Ordinance #4238.
The Applicant is willing to complete the art niche and water fountain foIlowing
review by the PAC and the ARB, as is consistent with the requirements of the
ARB. If, in its review, the PAC requires dedication of the art to the City, the
Applicant will execute an agreement in accordance with Palo Alto Municipal
Code 2.26.050(b). ~
We hope that the City Attorney’s Office and Planning Department will concur
with our analysis that completion of the’ water fountain and the art niche, and
maintenance of the art, if dedicated to the City, are durable conditions of the ARB
approval. ,
This should eliminate the concerns expr.essed by Ms. Lytle about mechanisms for
completion of the art niche and water fountain.
Sincerely yours,
James E. Baer
Ed Storm
Warren Thoits
Duncan Matteson
John Gatto
Ken SchreJber
Cit7 of Palo Alto
Department o~Plqnning and
Community Environment
ATTACHMENT 7
January 14, 1997
Planning Division
Mr. Ed Storm
Storm Land Company
20725 Valley Green Drive #200
Cupertino, CA 95014
Subject: 400 Emerson Street - Zone Change Application (96-ZC-12)
Dear Mr. Storm:
There are two items which staff finds are not in compliance with Ordinance No. 4238
which rezoned your property from CD-C(P) to PC. First, a public drinking fountain and
art niche were required as a public benefit. The public art proposal must be reviewed by
the Public Art Commission (PAC) and approved by the Architectural’Review Board
(ARB). To date the proposal has been reviewed by the PAC and must return for final
review before proceeding to the ARB for final review and approval. It also needs to be
installed before it can constitute the "public benefit" described in Ordinance No. 4238.
Second, as required by the conditions of project approval, two Camphor street trees were
planted along Lytton Avenue. The Planning Arborist has inspected the trees and
determined that they must be replaced because they are broken off at the tops. According
to the Planning Arborist, the trees were improperly planted which contributed to their
failure (i.e., the nursery stakes were not removed and the tree ties were poorly placed).
Attached are tree planting guidelines which should be followed when the replacement
trees are planted.
Staff recommends that plans for the art work be submitted for PAC approval immediately
and installed as soon as possible following final review and approval by the ARB. The
two street trees must be replaced immediately.
Feel free to call me at (415) 586-2266 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Robert Schubert, AICP
Contract Project Planner
250 Hamillx3nAvenue
P.O.Box 10250.
PaloAlto, CA 94303
415. 329. 2441
415. 329. 2240 Fax
Attachment: Tree Installation Guidelines
CO:John Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
Lisa Grote
Dave Dockter
Leon Kaplan
Ken Schreiber
Nancy Lytle
Lisa Grote
Debra Cauble
94301
AERATION I!~,~TREE WELL
TUBES -- ~ "~ ~BEP-,M - DO
~ ~_ ~...~ i~ 3 NOT REM~E
.-~. ,- -- ~, ...~ ~.,
~ ¯ ~.~ f~" T~EEWELL
WATER TREE WELL
BY SOAKING THOROUGHLY -
2-3 TIMES PER WEEK (SPR]NGISUM~ER)
I TIME PER WEEK (FALL~]~ER)
ATTACHMENT 8
PUBLIC HEARINGS
-- C_ ’. ~-- ~ : Planning Commission and Architectural Review
Board recommend to the City Council approval of the applica-
tion by Storm Land Company for a change in zoning from
Downtown Commercial (CD-C(P) to Planned Community (PC) for
property located at 400 Emerson Street, in order to construct
a 8,100 square foot, three-story, mixed-use structure, and
acceptance of an in-lieu parking fee for 13 parking spaces
required.~
Director of Planning and Community Environment Ken schreiber
explained that the Council’s packet did not contain the elevations
09/19/94
that were reviewed bythe Architectural Review Board (ARB) and the
Planning Commission. Staff alerted the Council of that fact and
copies of the plans were at the Council’s places that evening. The
item received unanimous support from the Planning Commission and
ARB, as well as a strong staff recommendation for approval.
Mayor Kniss said there was concern about the elevations not being
contained in the packet that evening, and she asked whether any
Council Member wished to speak to that issue.
Zoning Administrator ~Lisa Grote said the major issues in the
project had been the parking lot design, payment of parking in-lieu
fee for vehicle spaces not provided on the site, bicycle parking
spaces, number of residential units, public benefit, including the
design of the public art niche, and also access to the trash
enclosure and parking spaces for the adjoining restaurant use.
After discussion of the issues, both the ARB and the Planning
Commission recommended approval of the project with the conditions.
outlined in the staff report (CMR:453:94). The conditions included
one residential unit, eight offsite bicycle parking spaces, a
minimum of two onsite bicycle racks, review of the art piece by the
Public Art Commission (PAC), and an in-lieu parking fee for 13
parking spaces not provided onsite to be subject to the provisions
of an approved parking in-lieu ordinance.
Architectural Review Board Member Julie Maser said the ARB was very
enthusiastic about the project from a design standpoint.. The ARB
favored one unit for the residential, portion. There were a few
minor comments about architectural detailing which would returnto
the ARB as well as a few items that were omitted ~hat were required
to be submitted to the ARB.
Plannfng Commissioner Victor Ojakian said Planning Commission was
enthusiastic about the mixed use aspect of the project, i.e.,
office, retail, and housingtogether .in the Downtown area. The
main issue from the Planning Commission was around the in-lieu
parking. The Planning Commission planned to present the in-lieu
parking fee concept to the Council soon so that was tied into the
project and no set fee per se was required. The fee would come
from the Council’s approval of the in-lieu parking fee ordinance.
Council Member McCown referred to Item No. 4, Attachment A of the
staff report (CMR:435:94) that stated "The applicant shall work
with the Transportation Division to provide additional bicycle
racks (approximately 2 to 8) at 400 Emerson Street." She asked
what it meant by the statement to work with the applicant and
whether it could be zero if it did not work out or whether it was
mandatory.
Ms. Grote said it was considered to be a mandatory condition that
the applicant coordinate with the Transportation Division to decide
on the location of the two bicycle racks.
Council Member McCown said the. statement said two to eight.
Ms. Grote said the amount was left open and depended on where there
was room for the bicycle racks.
Council Member McCown clarified it would be up to the discretion of
staff as to whether it turned out to be two, five, seven, or eight~
Contract Project Planner Joyce August clarified there would be two
lockers onsite, and the Planning Commission requested that there be
additional bicycle racks onsite rather than the eight additional
bicycle lockers shown on the site plan.
Council Member McCown clarified the recommendations was for eight
bicycle lockers offsite and additional bicycle racks as opposed to
lockers onsite. ~
Ms. August said that was correct.
Council Member McCown asked who decided whether it was two or eight
bicycle racks..
Ms. August said the applicant would confer with the Senior Planner
Gayle Likens in~the Transportation Division and would attempt to
fit as many bicycle racks as possible on the site near the entrance
to the first floor use.
Council Member McCown was uncomfortable with the vagueness of
whether there would be. two or eight bicycle racks. She asked
~hether staff could pick a number that was feasible for the
applicant.
Ms. August said the applicant was asked to speak with Ms. Likens
before August 31, 1994, but that did not occur. The applicant was
not fully aware of the requirements for the placement of the
bicycle lockers. At the present time, Ms. Likens had not drawn up
a plan for the applicant, and it was the. applicant’s role to
propose. She asked the Council to request that the applicant
propose the number of bicycle racks that would be onsite.
Council Member McCown asked whether the Council could pick the
number.
City Attorney Ariel Calonne suggested the word "work" be deleted
and the word "consult" be inserted;after "Transportation Division"
delete the word "to" and insert the words "and shall;~- after
"provide" insert the words "the maximum feasible number of;" delete
the parenthetical "(approximately 2 to. 8)" at the end of the
sentence; and add the words "with .a minimum of 2 and a maximum of
8." The sentence would read: "The applicant shall consult with
the Transportation Division and shall provide the maximum feasible
number of additional bicycle racks at 400 Emerson Street with a
minimum of two and a maximum of eight."
Council Member McCown would prefer an exact number and asked the
applicant to respond to what would be a feasible number.
Ed Storm, Storm Land Company, propertY owner, 399 Bradford Street,
Redwood City, said four bicycle racks would be workable on the
site, and anything in excess of that number might make the entry
area look overshadowed by bicycle racks.
Vice Mayor Simitian clarified the property was currently in a CD-
C(P) Downtown Commercial Pedestrian Combining zone and he asked
what the zone currently allowed.
Ms. Grote said it would allow the same types of retail and
Commercial uses; however, it would require additional parking.
Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether it would allow the proposed
residential.use.
Ms. Grote said yes.
Vice Mayor Simitian referred to page 4, Attachment C, Planning
Commission staff report dated July 8, 1994, and the issue of public
benefit which was required for a Planned Community (PC) and he
understood that the only reason the project needed to be a PC
rather than to work within the existing zoning was because of the
inability of the applicant to.provide the parking onsiteo
Ms. Grote said that was~the primary reason for the PC.
Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether there was anything else other
than the parking issue that would not be allowed under the current
zoning for the project.
09/19/94
Ms. Grote said no.
Vice Mayor Simitian referred to the comparison chart on page 4 and
asked whether the allowable square feet was ~7,700 square feet of
commercial space plus 7,700 squarefeet of residential space. He
said the proposal was for approximately 8,400 square feet of
commercial and residential together. He asked whether that would
exceed the 7,700 square feet allowed or whether .it was less than
the 15,400 square feet of the two combined.
Ms..August said the total was a combination of 7,700 square.feet.
The applicant had originally proposed to enlarge the corner parcel
to approximately 7,700 square feet, but he had revised the proposal
and the total parcel configuration would be 6,875 square feet.
Vice Mayor Simitian clarified under the proposed floor area square
footage for the combined commercial/residential development, the
current proposal’s total square footage was less than the 7,700
square feet, which had been approved by the ARB and the Planning
Commission.
Mr. Storm said the proposal was for 0.8 Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
based on the commercial square footage, and he understood the
residential square footage did not count.
Vice Mayor Simitian asked why the residential square footage did
not count when the chart on page 4 stated there was a maximum of
7,700 square feet for both commercial and residential.
Council Member McCown referred to page 7 of the Analysis which
stated the FAR of mixed use projects could be cumulative, which
meant that if it could be done as a mixed use in a CD zone, it
could be added together if the parking were provided.
Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether that
requirements were met, there could, be
residential and commercial development.
meant if the parking
15,400 square feet of
Ms. August said.yes. The residential units were not counted as
part of the’ FAR calculation; and therefore, an applicant to
continue to add residential units without affecting the allowed
amount of square footage permitted for commercial uses.
Vice Mayor Simitian clarified residential square footage was not
counted against the allowable square footage within that existing
zone.
Ms. August said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Simitian referred to the chart on page 4 and the 1.0 FAR
for commercial and residential, and he said there was not a cap on
the residential FAR and the 1.0 FAR was a cap for the commercial
only.
Ms. August said the cap applied to the commercial with the caveat
that there should be sufficient parking provided onsite.
Vice Mayor~Simitian asked for reassurance that as a result of the
PC, the City was not allowing any additional floor area commercial
and residential square footage than woul~ have been allowed under
the existing zoning. He wanted to be clear about how much variance
there was since staff had commented that there was not much
variance so there was not much public benefit.
Mr. Schreiber~said the building proposal could be approved under
the CD-C(P) zoning without a PC zone, but the issue was the
parking.
Vice Mayor Simitian referred to the chart on page 4 which stated
the proposed height was approximately 47.5 feet, and he.asked why
the building had an approximate height of 47.5 feet.
Ms. August said the architect had shown on the elevations the point
of measurement for the height of thebuilding at 47.5 square feet
which was the approximate midpoint of the.roofline.
Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the staff agreed with and
accepted the architect’s selection of a measurement point.
Mr. Schreiber said yes. It was the difference between the initial
site plan and the final building permit application. There might
be a slight change.
Vice Mayor Simitian said the public benefit described in the
Planning Commission’s staff report dated July 8, 1994, was a
drinking fountain and the viewable art.°in the art niche and also
the staff considered the provision of the residential unit in a
commercial project. He did not view the residential unit as a
incremental addition to the public benefit since the residential
.unit was allowed under the existing zoning. He did not see the art
niche clearly defined on the plans.
Ms. Grote said the art niche was to the left of the drinking
fountain on the elevation. There was a gate between the two.
Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether it was an ornamental gate.
Ms. Grote said that was correct.
Vice Mayor Simitian asked for a description of an art niche.
Ms. August said it was a small alcove on which a piece of art could
be placed. The design of the art niche had not been decided yet.
The ARB and the Planning Commission had requested that the proposed
art niche and the art object be presented to the Public Art
Commission (PAC) prior to returning to the ARB for final review.
Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the conditions reflected that
requirement.
Ms. August said Condition No. 8 on page 9 of Attachment F, Planning
Commission staff report dated August 31, 1994, reflected that
requirement.
Vice Mayor Simitian said page 1 of Attachment A indicated different
wording.
Ms. August said the wording was slightly different.
Vice Mayor Simitian asked whether the staff and City Attorney were
comfortable that the City would be assured of the public benefit
attached to the project.
Ms. August said the new language in Attachment A was stronger
because a member of the PAC requested that the PAC oversee the
development of the art niche and also requested that it be linked
to thedesign of the water fountain as well.
Council Member Andersen asked~how the Council conveyed an interest
in getting additional housing units to a property owner and asked
whether the Council had any leverage in that kind of situation to
make certain that there were more than one unit created. It was a
creative project, but there was an opportunity to build at least
~two units on the property. The one unit was 2,200 square feet.
Architectural Review Board Member Maser said the ARB asked the same
question. The designer of the project pointed out that because of
the size and access to thei units, it would be difficult to provide
09/19/94
a dual access, and the circulation of the upper floor level would
become inefficient. The ARB felt that although there was a need
for greater density of housing in the Downtown area, there was also
a place for more luxurious rental accommodations. The ARB was open
to the diversity of different types of housing in the Downtown
area. The ARB was excited about the mixed use of the project and
believed the one unit was appropriate for the building..
Planning Commissioner Ojakian said when the Planning Commission
considered the conceptual phase of the project, .it suggested that
additional units be considered. There was a trade-off between some
minimal public benefit and the in-lieu parking. Most of the
Planning Commissioners were willing not to pursue the need for
additional units and felt it was an unfair set of circumstances to
apply to the situation since if the applicant would have waited
several weeks, the PC would have not been required. The Planning
Commission was also concerned about trying to maximize the number
of mixed variety units in the Downtown area.
Council Member Huber said~there was a lot of discussion about the
in-lieu fees and the ordinance that would be considered by the
Planning Commission in September 1994. He asked what the costs
looked like in the ordinance.
Planning Commissioner Ojakian said the Planning Commission made a
recommendation on the in-lieu fees at its previous meeting which
would be brought to the Council.
Mr. Schreiber said the .item would reach the Council in late~October
or early November 1994.
Mayor Kniss declared the Public Hearing open. Receiving no
requests from the public to speak, she declared the Public Hearing
closed.
MOTION: council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Schneider, to
approve the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board
recommendations and conditions of approval with. the following"
findings, amended as shown in Attachment A to CMR:435:94:
Sites The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the
site are such that the application of the general and the
combining district CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown Community,
Pedestrian combining district) does not provide the flexibili-
09/19/94
o
ty to construct an 8,110 square foot mixed use building with
the required number of on-site parking spaces (27 spaces).
Public Benefit. Development of the site under the Planned
Community district results in public benefits not otherwise
attainable. Public benefits that the applicant is pr~iding
include (i) one residential unit on the third floor, (2) a
public drinking fountain, and (3) a secured public art niche,
both on the Lytton Avenue facade.Below are the staff
recommended~public benefit findings:
ao One residential unit is provided in addition to the
commercial uses. The Comprehensive Plan and the Urban
Design Guide support mixed use. This precedent .may
stimulate more mixed use proposals in the downtown area.
The public drinking fountain and art niche are consistent
with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines because they
provide pedestrian viability to this corner. The
applicant will maintain and service a drinking fountain
that will be available for use 24 hours per day. This is
a service that City staff would.not likely be able to
duplicate.
Comprehensive Plan Goals. The site development regulations
applicable, including office, retail, and residential.uses in
a mixed use structure are consistent with the following
Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan goals:
a.Housing Policy 6
"Maintain at least the present number of multiple-family
rentalunits while working to increase the overall supply
of rental housing."
b. HousingPolicy 14
"Support the.mixing of residential uses in commercial and
industrial areas."
Program 33: offer incentives and mitigate disincentives.
c.Employment Policy 2
"Encourage the construction of more housing primarily on
or near industrial and commercial sites."
d.Environmental Resources PolicY 13, Program 43
"Mitigate impact of air quality problems due to station-
ary and vehicular sources. Implement programs to reduce
total transportation related emissions through the
development of additional housing close to empl-oyment
centers."
Recommendation and Conditions of Approval
i.The following Conditions of Approval;
o The environmental assessment attached to the staff report
dated August 31, 1994, recommending a negative declaration;
and
The ordinance amending section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code to change the Zoning Map designation for 400
Emerson Street from "CD-C(P) Downtown Commercial Pedestrian
Combining" to "PC Planned Community."
Prior to Submittal for Building Permit
A Certificate of Compliance showing the lot line adjustment
shall be submitted for approval to the Public Works Depart-
ment. A condition to the lot line adjustment shall include
language permitting permanent access across 400 Emerson to the
rear of 412-414 Emerson Street, that shall be submitted for
approval to the~ City Attorney before the Certificate of
Compliance is granted. The access~ shall be granted to the
parcel at 412-414 Emerson Street to reach 2 parking spaces,
permit deliveries and trash removal, and for emergency access.
The applicant shall apply for an amendment to the existing Use
Permit ~for 412-414 Emerson Street through a Zoning Administra-
tor hearing addressing ~the following issues: change in
property dimensions, permanent access across the rear of 400
Emerson Street toreach the rear of 412-414 Emerson, on-site
parking spaces, trash enclosures,.and to provide police and
fire emergency access.
o Applicant shall show proof of Santa Clara Valley Water
District’s acceptance that the proposed~ development and
construction will not affect any site remediation for removal
of an underground storage tank that occurred in 1986 and will
09/19/94 73-400
o
o
assume removal of 2 oil-assisted hydraulic hoists in the
existing structure on the site.
Twelve parking spaces (of the 27 requiredparking spaces) and
2 bicycle lockers shall be provided on-site. One residential
parking space may be shared; one equivalent parking ~gpace
shall be in the form of 8 bicycle lockers located offhsite;
and 13 additional parking spaces are subject to an in-lieu
parking fee to be paid to the City. The applicant shall work
with the Transportation Division to provide additional bicycle
racks (approximately 2 to 8).at 400 Emerson Street.
Applicant shall coordinate~ with the City’s Transportation
Division to designate the location of 8 (of the i0) bicycle
lockers where appropriate in the downtown area. Final design
of the-bicycle lockers shall be submitted for approval by the
Transportation Division and the ARB.
Details of development plans shall be submitted for approval
~by the ARB, including the following: noise reduction plan,
signage, lighting, north and south wall facade changes, color
palette, and roof material.
The parking lot decorative wall shall~be constructed, to the
extent structurally feasible, to permit visibility all the way
to the far wall, where the south stairwell is located.
Applicant shall consult with. the Public Arts Commission (PAC)
before submitting.final details of the art niche and water
fountain for ARB review and approval. Ail PAC comments shall
be submitted as part of the final site development plans for
ARB review. If the art object(s) is City-owned art, the owner
shall enter a hold harmless agreement with the City.
Applicant shall provide space on-site for a padmount trans-
former first verifying the location of the electric vault with
the Utilities Department. The finaldesign shall be submitted
to ARB for approval.
A final landscape plan shall be submitted for approval by the
Utility Energy Services Division, Planning Division, Public
Works Department and ARB.
So The planter at the parking lot’s east exi~ shall be
installed to permit an unobstructed view for drivers
exiting onto Lytton Avenue at all times.
The final landscape plan shall include a complete plant
listing indicating quantity, locations, type and size of
plants and trees, irrigation schedule, fence locations,
and lattice details.
ii.A. streetscape plan showing all proposed plantings; tree
irrigation, street lighting changes, and any other changes
shall be submitted to ARB for approval.
12.
The street tree plan shall first be submitted to the City
Arborist for approval, before the final landscape plan is
circulated for City departmental review and ARB review
and approval.
Any street lighting changes shall be submitted to
Utilities, Public Works, and the Planning Departments,
prior to ARB review and approval.
A final grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for
approval by the Public Works Department~.
Prior to Issuance of Building Permit
13.Applicant shall pay the City an in-lieu parking fee of $23,000
pe~ space,-based on the number~of parking spaces required, at
a rate of 1 parking space for each 250 square feet of gross
floor area. The total fee is estimated to be $299,000 based
on the 13 spaces that cannot be provided on-site. This.amount
may vary based on final construction measurements. In .the
event the City adopts an ordinance within one year after
occupancy of the project, which establishes an in-lieu parking
fee that is higher than $23,000 per space, the owner shall pay
~he difference between $23,000~per space and the amount estab-
lished by the ordinance. If the fee established by the
ordinance is lower than $23,000 per space, the City will
refund the difference between the $23,000 and the amount
established by the ordinance. In the event that the In-Lieu
Fee ordinance hereafter adopted by the City Council contains
provisions that conflict with this.°condition, those ordinance
provisions shall apply.
A construction.plan shall be submitted for approval by the
Public Works Department and Transportation Division that
addresses the location of construction staging areas, travel
routes for construction vehicles, fencing of the construction
site, a plan for keeping the streets and sidewalks free of
09/ 9/94 v3-402
15.
17.
dirt and other construction debris as well as all other issues
deemed necessary by the City to provide for the public safety
and to reduce impacts of construction on the surrounding area.
The plan shall include provisions to keep the streets open for
vehicles and pedestrians.
Utility load sheets shall be submitted for approval b~ the
Utilities Department’s Water-Gas- Wastewater Engineering
Division and the City’s Cross. Connection Control Inspector.
An Encroachment Permit .and Street Work Permit shall be
obtained from the Public Works Department prior to any work in
the public right-of-wa~.
Improvement plans for all utility construction shall be
submitted for approval by the Utilities Department, Public
Works Department and the Inspection Service Division. The
plans shall include a separate water service and meter, a new
gas service line and a separate sewer lateral to serve the
residential unit. The water utility point of service shall be
at the sidewalk. Backflow prevention into the public water
supply shall be provided. The sewer lateral point of service
shall be approved by the PublicWorks Department and Inspec-
tion Service Division.
18.In order to reduce dust levels during construction, exposed
earth surfaces shall be watered frequently, with reclaimed
water, during the late morning and~at the end of the day, with
frequency of watering increasing on windy days. Spillage
resulting from hauling operations along or across any public
or private .property shall be removed immediately at the
expense of the owner. Dust nuisances originating from the
construction operations, either inside or outside of the
right-of-way shall be controlled at the developer’s expense.
The Inspection Services Division shall monitor the developer’s
dust control operations with respect to work on private
property;.and the Public Works Department shall monitor the
developer’s dust control operations with respect to work on
public property.
19.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best
management practices (BMP’s) for stormwater pollution preven-
tion in all construction operations, in conformance with the
Santa Clara ValleyNonpoint Source Pollution ControlProgram.
The Inspection Services Division shall determine BMP’s with
respect to the developer’s construction activities on private
property; and the Public Works Department shall determine
BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities
on public property.
Prior to Occupancy
20.The parking lot entry gate shall be electronically operated,
and equipped with a Knox Key Switch to allow Fire and Police
services to a~cess both 400 and 412-414 Emerson Street at any
time. The parking lot entry gate shall remain open during
normal business hours of 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Parking spaces #4
and #5 shall be signed and permanently made available at all
hours of the day and night for use by the occupants of 412-414
Emerson Street.
21.
22.
Bike lockers shall be installed, with 2 on-site bicycle
lockers and 8 off-site bicycle lockers, as designated by the
Transportation Division, preferably at the Caltrain Station in
Palo Alto.
The applicant shall provide closure documentation to the City
from Santa Clara Valley Water District related to the under-
ground storage tank and removal of the ~2 oil-assisted hydrau-
lic hoists.
’ entitled "Ordinance of the Council of
the City of Palo Alto Amending Section 18.08.040 ofthe Palo
Alto Municipal Code (the Zoning Map) to Change the Classifica-
tion of Property Known as 400 Emerson Street from CD-C(P) to
PC"
Council Member Fazzino appreciated the work done by the Planning
Commission, ARB, and staff on the.project. It was a wonderful use
for the site and was an exciting, attractive structure and a nice
gateway to the Downtown. He was excited about the residential
unit. It was one of the first creative reuses of amortized
property. Mr. Storm was owed a great deal of credit for his
intriguing and creative proposal to take an amortized property and
make it into something which was consistent with the Urban Design
Plan.
Council Member Schneider said it.had been an extraordinary project,
and she was delighted to see the project in the Downtown area. She
was glad that the developer would be working with the PAC. It was
09/19/94 V3-404
the first project before the Council where the PAC would be
consulted, and she hoped it would set a precedent for future
projects developed in the Downtown. She also hoped in the future
that similar projects would have additional units.
Council Member Huber said Mr. Storm brought the project to his
office approximately a year and a half before it was submit[ed to
the City. He supported the project and could find the public
benefit. He believed similar projects that the City wanted to see
in the Downtown should not have to go through the PC process to get
a good project.
Council Member McCown suggested the motion include the wording
provided by the City Attorney with respect to the maximum feasible
number of additional bicycle racks.
MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that on
page 3 of the Ordinance, Section 3(d) (ii) a sentence be added to
the end of the section to read as follows: "The owner shall
consult with the Transportation Division and shall provide the
maximum feasible number of additional bicycle racks at 400 Emerson
Street, with a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 8."
Vice Mayor Simitian said he had also met with Mr. Storm sometime
before to look at a project proposal. He liked the project and
believed it was a nice addition to the Corner. It would define the
corner in a way that was beneficial. The City needed to think
about why a project like that needed to go through the PC process
because it forced the Council to stretch its imagination on the
public benefit issue. He could not find.that a single unit of
housinglon the site constituted public benefit. If’there had been
a multiplicity of units, there might have been a case that the
willingness to do that constituted a public benefit. He suggested
that additional language be included in the Condition of Approval
No. 8 as amended and as set forth on Attachment A, page i, and in
the ordinance that the art niche be filled with an art object.
Architectural Review Board Member Maser said Public Art Commis-
sioner Sandy Eakins felt it might be possible that the fountain
would be such a beautiful object that it could serve as an art
object.
Vice.Mayor Simitian did not want the project to end up with one
nice looking drinking fountain and no display of art at the second
location.
’09/19/94 73-405
Mr. Storm said he understood his obligation to work with the PAC to
do something that was beneficial to the community.
MAKER AND SECONDER AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MOTION that page
5 of the Ordinance, Section 3(e) (iii) be revised to insert a
sentence after the first sentence to read as follows: "The’Public
Art Commission shall have authority to require dedication of an art
object for the art niche."
Council Member Andersen concurred with the comments of Vice Mayor
Simitian and Council Member Huber on the issues that related to the
PC process.
Mayor Kniss concurred with the comments made ~by Council Member
Huber regarding the issue of the PC process. It was an area the
Council needed to reconsider.She congratulated Mr. Storm on his
project and perseverance.
MOTION PASSED 9-0.
73 -406
ATTACHMENT
Cityof Palo Alto
Department of Planning mwl
Community Environrnent
February 3, 1997
Mr. Edward D. Storm
Storm Land Company
20725 Valley Green Dr., Suite 200
Cupertino, CA 95014-1703
SUBJECT: 400 Emerson Street, Building Permits95-424 and 95’3342
Dear Mr. Storm:
/
During a recent discussion between City staff, regarding the 400 Emerson Street project,
it was noted that the building permits for the shell and tenant improvements have expired.
The permit for the building shell construction (95-424) expired on December 8, 1996 and
the permit for the Cupertino National Bank improvements expired on December 1, 1996.
It should be pointed out that, to date, no occupancy approval has been granted.
You will need to reactivate the permits in order to complete the construction, secure
inspections and receive final inspection and occupancy approval.
Please feel free .to contact me at 329-2445 to discuss the reactivation process whenever
you are prepared to proceed with the project, or if you have any other questions regarding
this matter.
Sincerely,
MICHAEL BAIRD
Supervisor, Building Inspection
250 HamiltonAvenue
P.O. Box 10250
Palo Alto, CA 94303
415.329.2496
415.329.2240Fax
Edward D. Storm
February 3, 1997
page 2 ’
cc~Walsh Building Contractor, Inc.
Toeniskoeter & Breeding, Inc.
Cu, pertino National Bank
Fred Herman? Chief Building Official
Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator
Bob Schubert, Contract Planner
ATTACHMENT
City of Palo Alto
Department of Community Services
10
February 28, 1997
Divisionof
Arts&Culture
PublicArtCommission
Robert Schubert, AICP
Contract Project Planner
Planning Division
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Subject: 400 Emerson Street - Zone Change Application (96-ZC-12)
Dear Mr. Schubert:
At its regular meeting of February 26, 1997 the Public An Commission unanimously
approved the proposed artwork for the water fountain and niche located at 400
Emerson Street. It is the Commission’s conclusion that the proposed design is far
superior to the previous proposals. The artist approved to design the artwork is Scott
Donahue.
On behalf of the Public Art Commission we are expressing our delight at the proposal
brought forward by Ed Storm, the project applicant.
Sincerely,
/
Judith Wasserman
Co-Chair
Natalie Wells
Co-Chair
Ed Storm
Planning Commission
Architecture Review Board
Public An Commission
Palo Alto Cultural Center
1313 Newell Road
Palo Alto, CA94303
4i5.329.2227