HomeMy WebLinkAbout1997-10-28 City CouncilTO:
City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and
Community Environment
AGENDA DATE: October 28, 1997 CMR:444:97
SUBJECT:COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE -- ISSUES RELATED TO
THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN AND
~ TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS
REOUEST ;
This sta.ffreport transmits comments and several recommended changes to the Land Use and
Community Design and Transportation Elements. The issues raised in this staff report have
been identified by staff after completion of the Planning Commission review of the Draft
Plan.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is recommended that:
The last line of the Open Space/Controlled Development land use definition be
changed to read: %..densities range from 0.1 to 1 dwelling unit per acre, but may rise
to a maximum of two dwelling units per acre where second units are allowed, and
population densities range from 1 to 4 persons per acre."
The third item in Program L-28 be changed toread: "Hewlett-Packard: Uses that are
compatible with the surrounding area and a site plan that facilitates pedestrian use of
Park Boulevard."
¯Program 53A to be changed to read: "Encourage salvage of discarded historic
buddmg materials. .
¯Merge Programs L-64, L-65 and L-68 into a new Program: "To help satisfy present
and future community use needs, coordinate with the School District to educate the
CMR:444:97 Page 1 of 5
public about and plan for the future use of school sites, including providing space for
public gathering places for neighborhoods lacking space."
Program L-78 be changed to delete "..., especially in commercial areas."
The text following Policy T-35 be modified by adding: "When conversion from
rolled to vertical curbs is undertaken, the minimum area should be a street block and
not individual properties."
Program T-54 be changed to read: "Encourage Santa Clara County to relocate the
terminal building away from the Runway 31 clear zone, allowing for construction of
a new terminal." ~
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The Comprehensive Plan will reconfirm existing policies and establish new policies. The
items addressed in this report that are related to Midtown, historic preservation and Caltrain
are part of the policy-setting process. The other items are points of clarification.
DISCUSSION
Land Use and Community Design Element
Page L-9: The dwelling unit and population density range in the Open Space/Controlled
Development land use det’mition needs to provide for the possibility of a second dwelling
unit where allowed by zoning. Consistent with other land use definitions in the
Comprehensive Plan, the population density range has been changed so that it is expressed
in whole numbers.
Page L-21, Program L-28: This program identifies priorities for redevelopment within the
Cal-Ventura area. The third item in the program is:
Hewlett-Packard: Mixed office, residential, and possibly retail uses
that fit with the scale and character of the surrounding area.
The parcel referred to is the 10-acre site owned by Hewlett-Packard (HP) at 395 Page Mill
Road. HP has recently filed a design review application with the City for redevelopment of
the site Consistent with existing zoning. The application is tentatively scheduled to be
reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in December 1997.
In preparing the application, HP conducted the community outreach process described in the
attached October 15, 1997 letter. Given the proposed redevelopment and public outreach
program, staff concludes that the wording in the Draft Plan is too specific, It is
recommended that the reference to the HP site be changed to read:
CMR:444:97 Page 2 of 5
¯Hewlett-Packard: Uses that are compatible with the surrounding area
and a site plan that facilitates pedestrian use of Park Boulevard.
Page L-26, Programs L-36, Lo37 and L-38: These programs refer to the preparation of a
Midtown Plan. On October 2, 1997, the Architectural Review Board approved reuse of the
former Midtown Market for a Long’s Drug Store. Additional landscaping and design details
of the reuse were approved at the October 15 ARB meeting.. Facade and related upgrades
to the Co-op Market are under construction. With the reuse of the former Midtown Market
building and the nearly-completed renovation of the former Bergmann’s building, the private
sector has addressed the vacancies (and most of the building appearance problems) that
triggered the public concern about Midtown in the 1990’s. Further, the addition of notable
commercial floor area to Midtown is very unlikely without development of structured
parking. At this time, there is no identified interest on the part of commercial property
owners to pursue a Midtown Master Plan as desired by the City (and referred by the City
Council to the Planning Commission in July 22, 1996, pending a commitment of fmancial
support from property owners). Much of the content of the Draft Comprehensive Plan
programs is dependent on strong property owner involvement and thus the programs, if
included in the adopted Plan, are likely to have a low implementation priority.
The review of the Long’s application generated substantial concerns by ARB members abbut
pedestrian and vehicle access issues and the appearance of public lands (i.e., street areas and
the City-owned parking lot). It is anticipated that the ARB will be developing a
recommendation to the Council regarding Midtown. This item will likely be on a Council
agenda in December or January.
~Staffdoes not have recommended changes to Programs L-36, L-37 and L-38. However, the
Council may wish to have the programs rewritten to reduce the level of detail (e.g., Program
L-38) and the focus on the 1995 Midtown Workshop, emphasizing a more generalized
planning objective and a clearer focus on public improvements (i.e., item (c) in Program L-
37).
Pages L-32, L-33 and L-34 (white and green pages), Programs L-53, L-53A, L-54, L-57,
L-58, L-59 and L-60: These programs contain historical preservation policy guidance that
relates to the historic regulations that are being worked on and that are anticipated to be
completed by May 1998. As such, the programs (as well as Policies L-48, L-49, L-50, L-52
and L-53) should be discussed as a group, with consideration given to how far the Council
wishes to go at this time in addressing the policy issues. The only change that staff
recommends is to new Program L-53A (green sheet L-32). It is recommended that "for re-use
by the community" be deleted so the Program would read: "Encourage salvage of discarded
historic building materials." Reuse of salvaged materials would involve potential buyers
from areas outside of Palo Alto.
CMR:444:97 ~,Page 3 of 5
Pages L-35 and L-36, Programs L-64, L-65 and L-68: The three programs address the
common issue of community use of school sites. Itis recommended that the programs be
merged to read:
To help satisfy present and future community use needs, c0o~dinate
with the School District to educate the public about and plan for the
future use of school sites, including providing space for public
gathering places for neighborhoods lacking space.
Page L-42, Program L-78: Utilities Department staff note that nearly all utility lines in
commercial areas that are suitable for undergrounding have been undergrounded. It is
recommended that ".:., especially in commercial areas" be deleted from Program L-78.
Transportation Element
Page T-6, Program T-13: The City of Mountain View has indicated that while they support
the extension of the light rail system to Palo Alto, they believe it should follow the existing
Caltrain tracks and not E1 Camino Real, and do not support the possible use of roadways in
Mountain View (Map T-2) as a means for the light rail system to reach E1 Camino. Since
E1 Camino Real is clearly a preferred location for Palo Alto, staff recommends that Council
discuss whether a change to the existing wording is needed.
Page T-6, Program T-14: Given recent decisions regarding Caltrain, staff recommends
Council discussion of the continued appropriateness of Program T-14, "Support Caltrain
electrification and its extension to downtown San Francisco."
Page T-IO, Program T-20: The City of Mountain View has indicated that they do not
support the manner in which the extension of the Bryant Street bicycle boulevard is shown
as extending into Mountain View (Map T-4). Staff recommends that the wording of Program
T-20 be changed from "into Mountain View" to "to Mountain View" and that Map T-4 be
modified to eliminate the representation of the extension into Mountain View.
Page. T-20, Policy T-35." It is recommended that the following sentence be added to the text
following Policy T-35: "When conversion from rolled to vertical curbs is undertaken, the
minimum area should be a street block and not individual properties."
Page T-24, Goal T-8 (Green sheet rev 07/25/97): The reference in the discussion to the cost
of a net new parking space should include the year on which the costs are based (i.e.,
$26,000 (1996 costs) or $30,000 (2000 costs). Staff recommends using $30,000 (2000 costs)
since this is more indicative of what the cost will be the structures are built.
Page T-24, Policy T-46: The text following Policy T-46 is not related to the policy and
would be more appropriate as part of Policy T-45.
CMR:444:97 Page 4 of 5
Page T-28, Program T-54: Add "Encourage Santa Clara County to..." to the beginning of
Program T-54, so that it reads: "Encourage Santa Clara County to relocate the terminal
building away from the Runway 31 clear zone, allowing for construction of a new terminaU’
ALTERNATIVES
The Council, for any of the items in this report, can retain the Planning Commission-
recommended wording or develop other modifications.
FISCAL IMPACT
The items and potential program changes addressed in this report do not contain si#cant
fiscal impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
The items and potential program changes addressed in this report are consistent with the
project and alternatives evaluated in the Environmental Impact Report on the Draft
Comprehensive Plan.
ATTACHMENTS
10/15/97 letter (w/o enclosures) from Bill Roberts, Hewlett-Packard Bay Area Real Estate
Manager
CC:Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
Bill Roberts, Hewlett-Packard
PREPARED BY: Kenneth R. Schreiber, Director of Planning and Community Environment
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:,../~ _~/¢~7’// ~/ "/!.WW~//Z~.~.~ ,,q....~W~.../~¢~_..~,.
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Community
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
CMR:444:97 Page 5 of 5
Hewlett-Packard Company
PO Box 10301
Palo Alto, Cahfornia 94303-0890
H F_.~N LF-TT
PACKARD
October 15, 1997
Mr. Ken Schreiber
Director, Department of Planning
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
RECEIVED
OCT 1 5 1997
Department of Planning and
Community Environment
RE: Redevelopment oft-IP’s 395 Page Mill Road Site
Dear Ken:
Now that Hewlett-Packard has submitted its plans for the redevelopment of our site at 395 Page
Mill Road I thought it would be helpful to recap foryou our public participation process and to
describe how well we think the project supports the city’s planning objectives.
We made the decision to redevelop the property in December 1996. As we thought about what
we wanted for the site we began by reiterating our basic goals for all sites - to fulfill our needs and
to respect and enhance the communities in which we operate. For this site and with your
encouragement we committed to a process of public participation and communication to ensure
our project was a success inside the company and in the community. We selected Jim Creighton
to help structure a community input process. As you know, Jim has a good track record of
bringing parties together to assure mutual success. We also selected DES Architects as the
project designers partly on the basis of their background in leading a number of successful
projects in the city.
We determined early on that we would respect all current zoning and use conditions of the site to
keep the process simple. Our objective was to replace the existing older manufacturing square
footage (about 203 KSF) with an efficient office building of equivalent size for administrative
office and R&D purposes. This redevelopment replaces an obsolete factory with an attractive,
high-quality project, that fits with recent and future developments in the area.
Page Two
Here’s an overview of the process we went through to develop our proposal:
Communications Brochure
Jim Creighton pulled together a brochure that described the site’s history, Hla’s desire to involve
the community, a summary of the Cal-Ventura workshop and our conceptual plans for the site.
This brochure was mailed in late February to all property owners within a 300 foot radius, a
number of neighborhood associations (Ventura, Barron Park, and College Terrace), city planning
staff, council members, ARB members and other influential community leaders.
I’ve attached a copy of this brochure.
Visits to Neighbors
We prepared a one-page announcement of a community meeting to be held at the site. Jim and I
walked to every home in the immediate neighborhood inviting people to the meeting, and leaving
it on their doorstep if they were not home. Later I called on all the businesses in the area. We
also mailed this meeting announcement to all property owners within the area.
First Communit, Meeting
The first community meeting was held at the HP site on a Saturday morning, March 1.
Approximately 25 people were in attendance and as one expects in Palo Alto, very active. We
presented our goals for the site and a variety of conceptual ideas from which to work. The big
issues from the neighbors that stood out were:
Traffic: Minimize any traffic impact upon the neighborhood. Eliminate or move
the entrance on Ash Street. Keep all entrances/exits on Page Mill or Park
Boulevard. Reduce the number of parking spaces if possible.
Landscaping: Increase the amount of landscape buffer, particularly at the end
of Pepper Avenue along Ash Street. Make the site perimeter friendly.
Appearance: Avoid a monolithic look. Don’t build a fortress. Take into account
the view down Pepper Avenue toward the site.
There were some additional concerns such as security on the site, and protecting the
neighborhood from light and noise. I’ve attached a typed-up version of the flip-chart summary
that was kept during the meeting that shows the other issues that were raised. We did discuss the
Cal-Ventura workshop and found that only one of the neighbors in attendance had participated in
that workshop. Several people were aware of it, and they stated that it did not accurately reflect
the neighborhood’s desires and interests.
Page Three
Meeting with Neighborhood Association Leaders
We also sought out other groups -- the Ventura and Barron Park neighborhood associations, and
the California Merchants Association. Will Beckett, president of the Barron Park Association,
had no concerns about the project.. August King and David Leong of the Ventura Association
were concerned about the project’s impact on traffic south of the site and along Park Boulevard.
(The traffic study shows minimal impact.) The California Avenue merchants supported the
project and felt it was a good complement to their commercial area.
Modifications to Site Plan
I-IP reviewed the comments from.the public meeting. We had no objections to moving the
entrances/exits from Ash Street to Page Mill so long as it didn’t interfere with traffic on Page Mill.
We met with the city traffic engineer and he had no objections to the Page Mill and Park
entrances. So we worked with our traffic consukant and architects to identify new entrances on
Page Mill and Park only. We also concluded that buildings should be located closer toward the
corner of Page Mill and Park and thus further away from the residences. We also concluded .that
we could add more landscaping around the site, including a larger concentration of trees along
Olive Avenue and at the terminus of Pepper Avenue.
We reviewed our plans with planning department staff. In these discussions we identified the
option of not creating as many parking spaces as would be required by city regulations so long as
the land was available for parking if it proved to be needed later. This allowed us to further
increase the amount of landscape buffer, with the understanding that some of that land (on the
inside of the buffer) might need to be converted to parking in the future.
City staff raised the issue of housing on the site. We said that HP had no interest in developing
housing on the site, and felt that the neighborhood was so transitionalthat a small area of high
density housing might well be stranded by future development in the neighborhood. But we
agreed to raise the issue with neighbors to assess their attitude toward additional housing on the
H1a site along Olive Avenue.
Second Invitation/Mailing
We prepared a second mailing that summarized our understanding of what the neighbors had told
us, outlined our response to these concerns, and invited people to a second community meeting.
These materials were also sent to city staffand ARB members.
Page Four
Second Community Meeting
The second community meeting was held on April 2. The city traffic engineer attended in case
there were additional questions about traffic. The neighbors were very pleased the traff~c
entrance was removed from Ash Street. They also reacted positively to the reduced number of
parking spaces and enlarged landscape buffers. We presented several plans for positioning of
buildings on the sites. Most of the neighbors preferred a site plan which minimized the views of
the building from Pepper Avenue.. On the issue of housing, the neighbors were quite emphatic
that they preferred the site plan we had worked out rather than additional housing density. The
city traffic engineer said he would relay these sentiments back to planning staff.
Selection of Site Plan
I-]P reviewed these comments, looked at our own needs, and chose the same site plan that was
preferred by the neighbors. We then had our architects begin working on the architectural options
for the building, and on a more detailed landscaping pl.an.
Third Mailing
We sent a third mailing to neighbors recapping the second meeting, announcing which site plan
we had selected, and inviting them to attend a final community meeting to discuss the exterior
design of the building. These materials were also sent to city staff and ARB members.
Third Community Meeting
The third meeting was held on May 22 in one of the neighbors’ studios. By this time the number
of attendees had dropped to about eight and those who attended said that the lower attendance
was because most of the neighbors were satisfied that HP had responded to their concerns, The
questions centered around when HP would submit to the ARB and whether there was anything
the neighbors could do to help. Both building exterior options were acceptable to the neighbors.
Final Preparation
UP then finalized the plans for redevelopment of the site which we have submitted to you. These
plans include all the commitments we made to the neighbors.
Page Five
As a result of this community involvement we have a project that has many attractive features:
Attractive architecture - meets I-IP’s needs, projects a positive image for
the area, and maintains human scale throughout.
Quality materials - commitment to use pre-cast or GFRC wall panels for the
exterior.
Substantial landscaping throughout the project - particular attention along
Olive Avenue and the terminus of Pepper Avenue and along Park Boulevard as a
pedestrian throughway.
Commitment to.build a parking platform (with first floor recessed four feet
below grade) to free up more landscaping around the perimeter.
Reduced number of parking spaces from the city maximum which allows for more
landscaping. I-IP has a substantial TDM project that encourages and subsidizes
the use of transit alternatives. We expect over 35% of the employees at this site to
use transit alternatives.
Biofiltration site drainage system which will clean parking lot storm water
runoff prior to its entering the Bay ecosystem.
Throughout the process we have tried to fulfill the general planning objectives for the city as well
as those specific to the area. The 395 Page Mill Road project responds specifically to many of the
planning goals:
Promotes a gradual transition between the commercial uses around California
Avenue and the residential uses to the south.
Develops a pedestrian-oriented street environment with substantial
landscaping that especially improves the connection along California Avenue.
Provides a transit-oriented development that facilitates connections to the
CalTrain station and bus routes.
Creates a quality architecture that responds to a pedestrian scale.
Page Six
Jim Creighton did a great job facilitating community input. While it took more time and expense
than HP normally spends in outreach to the community, this public participation process worked
well for us.. The changes we made resulted in a better project for HP and for area residents. We
are very pleased that the project can be developed in a way that fits with and enhances the
neighborhood. And, I think DES Architects fulfilled their charter in developing a project that is
well in keeping with the needs and character of Palo Alto.
With the extra time and effort I-[P has spent to gain a high level of neighborhood acceptance, we
are eager to obtain ARB review as soon as possible. It is particularly important that the project
be reviewed on the merits of the site plan and architectural features and not get delayed by the
long-pending Comprehensive Plan amendment process.
I hope this helps you understand the work we’ve done to get the project to this stage. I’m looking
forward to getting a confirmed date for the ARB review. Please give me a call if you have any
questions.
Best regards,
Bill Roberts
Bay Area Real Estat~e Manager
(650) 857-2183
BR:fh
Enclostires:Original communication brochure
Meeting notes from neighbor meetings
Palo Alto Weekly article
Art Schultz, I-~
Joan Tharp,
Susan Eschweiler, DES Architects
Jim Creighton, Creighton & Creighton
Doug Aikins, General CounselAssociates