The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1996-11-12 City Council (13)City of Polo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 10 FROM:CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment AGENDA DATE: November 12, 1996 CMR:463:96 SUBJECT:Development Project Preliminary Review Application at 525 University Avenue for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, a Zone Change from the CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to a Planned Community (PC) District, and construction of an approximately 52,400-square-foot office/commercial space addition, and relocation of another approximately 22,200 square feet of basement retail above grade, to an existing office/commercial building and related site improvements. File Nos.: 96-DPR-1, 96-EIA-21. REQUEST This application was reviewed by the City, Council on July 22, 1996. At that meeting, the City Council referred the application to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board for review and comment at public study sessions prior to returning to the City Council. The Planning Commission reviewed the application on September 25, 1996, and the Architectural Review Board reviewed the application on October 3, 1996. Comments from both bodies are summarized below. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a "public study session" as identified in Chapter 18.97 (Development Project Preliminary Review Procedures) of the City’s zoning regulations, with the results of the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board study sessions to be reviewed and discussed by City Council. No formal action will be taken by the City. Comments and feedback to the applicant will be summarized and presented in the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Board, and City Council minutes. CMR:463:96 Page 1 of 7 POLICY .IMPLICATIONS The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The major policy issues pertinent to the proposal are summarized in the attached City Manager’s Report dated July 22, 1996 (CMR:350:96). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY At the two public study sessions, the following significant issues were raised: Planning Commission Commissioners addressed their comments to the eight questions posed in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated September 11, 1996, as follows: Policy Conflicts: To what extent is the project consistent or inconsistent with existing Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Guideline policies? Although the existing scale and mass of the building conflict with adopted policies, Commissioners felt that the intent of the project to create a more pedestrian-friendly streetscape was consistent with City policies for the Downtown area. Commissioners, however, thought that additional pedestrian improvements at the street level were warranted. Other Downtown Properties: To what extent will other Downtown property owners (both commercial and residential) be affected by the large share (17 percent) of future Downtown growth taken by this project? Commissioners felt that the project would absorb a large amount (and percentage) of future growth Downtown, but noted that very little of the square footage limit has been used over the last decade. Commissioners thought that the deciding factor is whether a healthy cross section of neighbors, businesses, and property owners would support the proposed public benefit package. Architectural Design and Mass: How effective are the proposed design and massing scheme in making the existing building more pedestrian oriented and human scale? Commissioners expressed the need for a wind study of the plaza area. They also felt that the Cowper Street frontage would benefit from additional improvements, such as a conversion to retail use on the ground floor. Restudy of the use of arcades was encouraged, since they may shadow" and discourage pedestrian activity rather than encourage it. Overall, Commissioners generally expressed approval of the proposed architecture, with encouragement to improve the pedestrian aspects of the design. CMR:463:96 Page 2 of 7 Public Benefit: Is the proposed public benefit commensurate with the amount of additional space being proposed? What is the focus of the proposed public benefit package? Commissioners agreed that the proposed public benefit package needed more benefit, focus and clarification. They suggested three areas of focus: 1) traffic, including transportation alternatives, and parking improvements; 2) pedestrian-scale improvements which link the project with the rest of Downtown; and 3) additional possibilities for public use of the atrium. Commissioners referred to the list of additional publi~ benefits listed in the Planning Commission staff report, as well as suggestions developed by the Downtown Urban Design Steering Committee and Downtown neighbors, businesses, and property owners. Connection to Downtown: How effective is the proposal in connecting the eastern end of Downtown with the rest of the Downtown area? Commissioners expressed concerns about the ability of the improvements to connect to the rest of Downtown and suggested making the atrium and the first floor improvements more of a draw to the east end of University Avenue. Commissioners also suggested the need to have each of the four building frontages complementing the adjacent streetscape. m Proposed Public Art: Do the proposed pyramids contribute to the pedestrian environment around the site? Commissioners were impressed with the enthusiasm of the artist who designed the pyramids and with the quality of materials and the ideas about light and refraction. Commissioners expressed concerns about whether the public sidewalk was the best location for the public art, whether there was sufficient space to accomplish the art and provide ample pedestrian circulation, and whether the Public Art Commission had sufficient resources to administer the proposed art gallery. Parking and Traffic: When does a healthy and vibrant Downtown become too congested, and can the proposed new square footage be accommodated without significantly impacting existing parking and traffic levels? Is the "valet-assisted" parking proposal realistic? Should the proposal include public parking during evening hours? Can the project, including the atrium, meet its own parking requirements? Can alternative transportation measures be improved? Commissioners expressed interest in additional proposals from the applicant to make the project function better in terms of traffic congestion and parking. Commissioners were concerned with potential traffic impacts on adjacent neighbors, the inability of the proposed CMR:463:96 Page 3 of 7 project to provide parking for the atrium, the concentration of traffic and circulation at the subject site, the procedures needed to provide an effective valet parking system, and the need for additional and creative approaches to alternative transportation modes. Project Size: What is the minimal amount of square footage needed to "humanize" the existing building? Commissioners felt that any additional square footage added to the existing building should result in improvement of the human scale and architectural design. Rather than specify a minimum square footage reqtiired, Commissioners expressed a desire to humanize the building as much as possible and determine how much square footage is required to accomplish this. Commissioners specifically mentioned further improvements to the street level design of the three sides of the building other than University Avenue. Overall, Commissioners felt that it was important for the applicant to talk with neighbors, business owners, and property owners and seek their suggestions for additional improvements and identification of public benefits of the project. Commissioners appeared to be pleased with the proposal as a first attempt, while expressing the need for additional improvements to justify the scale of the project. The Commissioners expressed an interest in having the project move forward to the next round of City review and public involvement. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are attached. Architectural Review Board Board members addressed their comments to the eight issue areas posed in the attached Planning Commission staff report dated September 11, 1996, as follows: Policy Conflicts: Board members generally expressed that the proposed improvements were consistent with City policy. Other Downtown Properties: Some members expressed concerns with the concentration of growth at one location, while others indicated that this location could absorb additional development without significant impacts. Architectural Design and Mass: Board members responded positively to the architectural design of the proposed improvements. Some members expressed a concern about losing the existing public spaces on the street to the proposed arcade and recommended that the arcade be set back further, leaving more room for the public right-of-way. Board members also suggested opening up the entry, to the atrium from the street frontage by removing doors and walls, improving sight lines, and making the access way more like the open air paseos and alleys in other parts of CMR:463:96 Page 4 of 7 Downtown. Some members suggested improving the atrium by opening up the sides, while leaving the roof on to protect against the wind. Public Benefit: Board members generally expressed support of the public art proposals and suggested that the pyramids be extended around the corners to the side streets off of University Avenue and, possibly, into the atrium. They also suggested that clear glass be used on the side street facades to appeal to pedestrians. Connection to Downtown: Board members suggested that the project would benefit from improvements to the other corners of the block to the same extent as is proposed at the Cowper/University corner. This would help extend the flow of pedestrian traffic to the under-utilized block east of the project. Proposed Public Art: Board members expressed support of the design of the pyramids. They shared concerns of the Planning Commission regarding the ability of the Public Art Commission to administer the proposed gallery. Parking and Traffic: Board members supported the use of the parking garage during the evening hours to encourage nighttime activity in the vicinity. Some members who worked in the vicinity did not find existing parking to be a problem in this area. Project Size: Some Board members expressed concerns about the total size of the project and the large proportion of new square footage proposed, while others thought that this location was appropriate for the proposed amount of building. Verbatim minutes of the Architectural Review Board meeting are attached. FISCAL IMPACT Should the applicant pursue project applications following the preliminary review process, the costs of processing the applications will be subject to the full cost recovery fee schedule and will not result in any fiscal impact on the City. A fiscal analysis will be prepared for the project, since it requires a significant zone change and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. An outline of the issues to be covered in the fiscal assessment is included in the Fiscal Impact Section of the attached City Manager’s Report, dated July 22, 1996. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Should the applicant pursue project applications, a focussed EIR wilt be required by staff. The EIR will evaluate the cumulative traffic and circulation impacts, that result from a CMR:463:96 Page 5 of 7 concentration of floor area in this portion of Downtown Palo Alto, with other grov~da expected in the area, updating assumptions that were used in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study EIR. Visual and shadow impact assessment are among other topics to be covered. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL If. following the preliminary review process, the applicant chooses to proceed, a zone change from CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to the Planned Community (PC) District would be required. Staff recommends that a Comprehensive Plan text amendment is likely to be required for this proposal, as well as a focussed environmental impact report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Planning Commission Staff Report dated September 11, 1996 including City Manager’s Report dated July 22, 1996 2. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of September 25, 1996 3. Minutes of the Architectural Review Board meeting of October 3, 1996 PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: cJ CC:Architectural Review Board Planning Commission Henry. Gaw, 525 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real #410, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Julie Maser, Hoover Associates, 1900 Embarcadero Road #200, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Roxy Rapp, P.O. Box 1672, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR:463:96 Page 6 of 7 Downtown North Neighborhood Association, Tony Badger. 381 Hawthorne, Palo Alto, CA 94306 University Park Association, Susan Ball, 1055 Cowper, Palo Alto, CA 94301 University South Neighborhoods Group, Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, Catherine Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Downtown Urban Design Steering Committee Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study Steering Committee CMR:463:96 Page 7 of 7 Attachment 1 BOARD/COMMISSION STAFF REPORT TO:Planning Commission Architectural Review Board FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: Chandler Lee-, Contract Planner September 11, 1996 September 19, 1996 525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE DEPARTMENT:Planning REQUEST/PROJECT DESCRIPTION The attached City Manager’s Report (CMR:350:96) summarizes the issues involved in a proposed development project preliminary review application (prescreening) for 525 University Avenue.- The City Council referred the application to the Planning Commission and Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review and comment prior to returning to the City Council. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the Planning Commission and ARB conduct a public study session, review the following issues related to the project, and forward comments for review by the City Council. Staff will forward Planning Commission and ARB comments to the City Council for their review of this prescreening application at a meeting tentatively scheduled for October 21, 1996. pOLICY IMPLICATIONS See attached City Manager’s Report. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City Council’s comments focused on the type of information and review that they would expect from the Commission and Board. Items 1, 3, and 7 would also be topics analyzed in California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review should an entitlement application later be fried for this project. 1..Policy Conflicts: To what extent is the project consistent or inconsistent with existing Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design GuideIine policies? 2.Other Downtown Properties: To what extent will other Downtown property owners (both commercial and resSdential) be affected by the large share (17%) of future Downtown growth taken by this project? 3.Architectural Design and Mass: How effective is the proposed design and massing scheme in making the existing building more pedestrian-oriented and human scale? 4.Public Benefit: Is the proposed public benefit commensurate with the amount of additional space being proposed? What is the focus of the proposed public benefit package? 5.Connection to Downtown: How effective is the proposal in connecting the eastern end of Downtown with the rest of the Downtown area? 6.Proposed Public Art: Do the proposed pyramids contribute to the pedestrian environment around the site? Parking and Traffic: When does a healthy and vibrant Downtown become too congested and can the proposed new square footage be accommodated without significantly impacting existing parking and traffic levels? Is the "valet assisted" parking proposal realistic? Should the proposal include public parking during evening hours? Can the project, including the atrium, meet its own parking requirements? Can alternative transportation measures be improved? 8.Project Size: What is the minimal amount of square footage needed to "humanize" the existing building? FISCAL IMPACT See attached City Manager’s Report. 9-11-96 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT See attached City Manager’s Report. ATTACIIMENTS/EXtIIBrrs: City Manager’s Report (CMR:350:96) dated July 22, 1996 Letter from S. Wilson dated August 5, 1996 COURTESY COPIES: Henry Gaw, 525 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real #410, Palo Alto CA~94306 Julie Maser, Hoover Associates, 1900 Embarcadero Road #200, Palo Alto CA 94303 Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Downtown North Neighborhood Association, Tony Badger, 381 Hawthorne, Palo Alto CA 94306 University Park Association, Susan Ball, 1055 Cowper, Palo Alto CA 94301 University South Neighborhoods Group, Patrick Burt, 1249 Harriet Street, Palo Alto CA 94301 Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, Catherine Lehrberg, 1085 University Avenue, Palo Alto CA 94301 Downtown Urban Design Steering Committee Downtown Parking Structure Feasibility Study Steering Committee Roxy Rapp, P.O. Box 1672, Palo Alto CA 94301 Prepared by: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Division/Department Head Approval: ~ ~i/k].~/~ Nancy Maddox Lytle, Chief Planning Official P:WCSR~525UNIV.911 9-11-96 Page 3 CitT of Palo Alto City Manager’s Report TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL FROM: AGENDA DATE: SUBJECT: CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: Planning and Community Environment July 22, 1996 CMR:350:96 Development Project Preliminary Review Application at 525 University Avenue for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, a Zone Change from the CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to a Planned Community (PC) District, and construction of an approximately 52,400-square-foot office/commercial space addition, and relocation of another approximately 22,200 square feet of basement retail above grade, to an existing office/commercial building and related site improvements. File Nos.: 96-DPR-1, 96-EIA-21. ~OUEST This application is a Development Project Preliminary Review Application at 525 University Avenue for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Urb~ha-Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, a Zone Change from the CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to a Planned Community (PC) District, and a major addition to an existing office/commercial building. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that.the City Council take either of the two following actions, depending upon whether or not Council finds that the application would benefit by a preliminary review and public study session: 1.Decline to initiate the preliminary review and public study:session; or Initiate the preliminary review process by referring the application for Development Project Preliminary Keview to the Planning Commission and the Architectural CMR:350:96 Page 1 of 21 Review Board for "public study sessions" as identified in Chapter 18.97 (Development Project .Preliminary Review Procedures) of.the City’s zoning regulations, with the results of the study sessions to be reviewed by City Council in a study session. POLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The major policy issues pertinent to the proposal are as follows: Comprehensive P,lan. - The site is designated for Regional Community Commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan, which provides for restaurants, specialty stores, and non-retail services such as offices, banks, and professional services. The proposed uses of retail and office are allowed within this Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed project appears consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies, and programs: Policy Consistency Urban Design Element, Policy 1, "Maintain the.present scale of the City, but modify those elements which by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable." The proposed project would modify the perception of massiveness, by improving pedestrian amenities, and providing human-scale architectural features at the ground level. Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new development." The site is designated Regional Community Commercial and is well suited for this use. The site is surrounded by similar and compatible retail and office uses and is well served by public parking in the Downtown area. Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, ".Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting, landscaped areas, and removal of visually disruptive elements of major City streets." The project proposes to replace existing unhealthy trees along the Cowper Street public fight-of-way, and will improve the relationship between the ground floor architecture of this office complex with the pedestrian public realm. Urban Design Element, Policy 5: "Encourage rehabilitation of aging retail areas to keep them economically healthy." The addition of Class A office space, building improvements, and public amenities would improve the economic vitality of office and retail uses in the downtown area. CM1~350:96 P~ge 2 of 21 Urban Design Element, Program 20: "Require street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in shopping districts." This building is one of the most inhospitable to pedestrians in all of Downtown Palo Alto. Although not within a ground floor retail (GF) district, the project is bordered by ground floor retail areas to the south and west. First floor street frontages would benefit from the list of architectural improvements that comprise the project description, including architectural retrofitting to add human scale features to the base of the building, with such measures as substitution of opaque paneling (on the Cowper frontage) and solar fllm windows (on the Tasso frontage) with clear windows to improve pedestrian visibility and visual interest. B. Policy Inconsistency The project is inconsistent or potentially inconsistent with the following policies: Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, "Discourage massive .single uses through limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and community values." The proposed project would add to the height and density of an existing massive single use. Comprehensive Plan policy would discourage the building additions that add more mass, height or density to a use which is already inconsistent with this policy. Staff funds that the office space addition portion of this proposal should be discouraged under this policy. Urban Design Element, Policy 6B: "Limit nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to ten percent (350, 000 square feet of floor area) above the amount of development existing or approved in May 1986." The proposed addition of 52,396 square feet (44,639 square feet of building plus 7,757 square feet of atrium) and the intensification of use that would result from the conversion 22,200 square feet of basement retail to ground floor retail would still fall well within the Downtown floor area limit, but would constitute a large percentage (15 percent) of the total allocation of 350,000 square feet. The proposed addition would constitute an even larger percentage (17 percentage) of the remaining square footage (312,282 square feet as of August 31, 1995). Transportation Element, Policy 10: "ln the Downtown Area, new development should not increase the total weekday peak parking deficit beyond that expected from development existing and approved through May 1986." Parking is at a premium in ¯ the Downtown area, and the proposed addition would be deficient in on-site parking because it declines to include 31 spaces attributable to the atrium by the zoning ordinance. Also, the project relies entirely on valet parking, which raises questions about the intensity of this parking use, the number of ears that will be assigned parking at one particular location in Downtown Palo Alto, and the amount of local congestion and circulation difficulties that could result. Without providing further in- CMP,.:350:96 Page 3 of 21 lieu fees, the project would be inconsistent with this policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Element, City Council t(esolution 7151: "The standards for building intensity for non-residential designated lands are derived from the floor area ratios allowed in underlying zoning districts and represent an expectation of the intensity of future development. Actual floor area ratios on individual sites vary." The existing zoning for the subject property is the Commercial Downtown District which limits floor area ratios (TARs) to a maximum of 1.0, with allowances for existing and bonus square footage, not to exceed 3.0. Ifrezoned to the PC (Planned Community) District, the FAR limit-does not apply, but the Comprehensive Plan standard does. The property is rare in Palo Alto in that it currently exceeds 3.0 FAR. It will exhibit an FAR of 4.3 with the proposed building addition. The Comprehensive Plan allows that project sites will vary above and below this standard. But, considered together with other policies, it is clear that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to discourage large, massive single uses. Project size limitations, CD-C, Commercial Downtown Regulations: "The Downtown regulations, per section 18.49. 040, limit the size of any single nonresidential project to 25,000 square feet or 15,000 square.feet above the existingfloor area, whichever is greater, provided the 1.0 and 3. 0 FAR limitations are not exceeded." This project size regulation resulted from policy developed during the Downtown Study, adopted in 1986. This study and resultant downzoning accomplished three very important things for Downtown Palo Alto which have been instrumental in its success. First, the traditional and human scale of the historic lotting pattern of Downtown was preserved by discouraging consolidation of parcels and limiting the building sizes through project size limits. Properties, such as 525 University, had already been consolidated from several smaller parcels into a single large parcell The buildings constructed on the resultant large lots are inconsistent with the scale and pattern of the Downtown and are "unfriendly" to pedestrians. The Downtown regulations were revised to discourage further scale changes of this magrtitude by limiting project size, encouraging retention of the traditional pattern. The other two regulatory interventions that have been most successful in causing Palo Alto’s Downtown to become a thriving place are the imposition of ground floor use restrictions and the downzoning to 1.0 FAt(, which resulted in the preservation of many of the original buildings and architecture. Urban Design Guide While the Downtown Urban Design Guide is considered an incentive and guide for redevelopment, rather than policy, it calls for strengthening pedestrian activity and uses in the vicinity of the project. One of the goals of the Cowper Center District directly applies CMK:350:96 Page 4 of 21 to this project: promote lively and active destination points utilizing the Palo Alto Office Center Plaza. Specific recommendations call for redeveloping the ground floor with retail or restaurant uses that open onto the s~’eet, providing wind and weather protection, and improving the pedestrian character of the ground floor plaza. Other suggestions include humanizing the scale of the building through use of awnings and canopies and adding color, vendors, kiosks and other pedestrian activities to the plaza. The applicant’s proposal responds.to many of the suggestions made in the Urban Design Guide. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY If public study sessions on the preliminary review application are to be held, the significant issues staff recommends to be addressed at the hearing are the following: Public Benefit: Is the public benefit (some of which can be quantified in terms of dollar value and some of which are intangible) commensurate with the scope of the project? Floor Area: Is it consistent with Downtown policies and equitable to other property owners to allow 52,396 additional square feet and an FAR of 4.3 on this site compared to other sites within the Downtown area? o Downtown .Growth Limits: Should one project consume 17 percent of the remaining Downtown allocation, or should the allocation be distributed more uniformly among a greater number of projects and distributed among various Downtown locations? o Traffic: The proposed addition would generate 838 new trips per day in the Downtown area and could potentially add cut-through traffic on nearby residential streets. These increases alone would not be significant or discemable to residents, according to the traffic analysis and Transportation Division staff. However, City monitoring of the University Avenue corridor has experienced traffic increases which exceed the predictions in the 1989 Citywide EIK, while the floor area added Downtown has fallen short of the growth curve predicted. Until the Comprehensive Plan EIR is released and adopted, a recent evaluation of cumulative Waffle impacts in the corridor is not available. Staff recommends that if this project proceeds to the formal application phase, a focussed EIR be prepared to address the potential significant cumulative traffic impacts issue. CMP,2350:96 Page 5 of 21 o Parking: The desirability of relying on valet parking and a method for ensuring an adequate number of parking attendants should be discussed. Also, the property owner is required to pay an in-lieu parking fee to compensate for not provided parking for the on-site atrium. Not complying is inconsistent with. City zoning regulations. FISCAL IMPACT Should the applicant pursue project applications following the preliminary review process, the costs of processing the applications will be subject to the full cost recovery fee schedule and will not result in any fiscal impact on the City. A fiscal analysis will be prepared for the project since it requires a significant zone change and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. An outline of the issues to be covered in the fiscal assessment is included in the attached long-form CMR., Fiscal Impact Section. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Should the applicant pursue project applications, a focussedEIR will be required by staff. The EIR will evaluate the cumulative traffic and circulation impacts that result from a concentration of floor area in this portion of Downtown Palo Alto with other growth expected in the area, updating assumptions as to what was modeled in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study EI[R, Visual and shadow impact assessment are other topics to be covered. PREPARED BY: KENNETH R. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: City Manager CMR:350:96 Page 6 of 21 City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Summary Report SUBJECT:Development Project Preliminary Review Application at 525 University Avenue for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Urban Design Element, Policy 1,.Program1, a Zone Change from the CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to a Planned Community (PC) District, and construction of an approximately 5-2,400-square-foot office/commercial space addition, and relocation of another approximately 22,200 square feet of basement retail above grade, to an existing office/commercial building and related site improvements. File Nos.: 96-DPR-1, 96-EIA-21. REOUEST This application is a Development Project Preliminary Review Application at 525 University Avenue for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, a Zone Change from the CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to a Planned Community (PC) District, and a major addition to an existing office/commercial building. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council take either of the two following actions, depending upon whether or not Council finds that the application would benefit by a preliminary review and public study session: 1.Decline to initiate the preliminary review and public study session; or Initiate the preliminary review process by referring the application for Development Project Preliminary Review to the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board for "public study sessions" as identified in Chapter 18.97 (Development Project Preliminary Keview Procedures) of the City’s zoning regulations, with the results of the study sessions to be reviewed by City Council in a study session. BACKGROUND CMR:350:96 Page 7 Of 21 The project site is located at 525 University and is one of the most prominent buildings in Palo Alto. The site is presently occupied by three office/commercial buildings (one 15-story and two 2-story office buildings) totaling 202,600 square feet. The adjac~ent Bank of America building is on a separately owned parcel and is not part of the project. The site is surrounded by streets and commercial buildings within the Downtown area. The site is level and bordered on the north by the Bank of America building and Lytton Street; on the south by University Avenue; on the east by Tasso Street; and on the west by Cowper Street. The property is designated as "Regional/Community Commercial" in the existing Comprehensive Plan and is zoned "Commercial Downtown District & Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (CD-C (P))". The applicant is applying to rezone the property to the Planned Community (PC) zoning district, which is required since the proposed addition to the existing structure would exceed the CD-C maximum allowable floor area ratio of 3.0. The proposed FAR is 4.3. The downtown commercial limit of 350,000 square feet of floor area over and above that which then existed was adopted by the City Council on July 14, 1986. The majority of the Downtown area is zoned CD-C and is subject to the square footage limit. Additional properties in the Downtown area are zoned PC, PF, or RM and are also subject to the limit. PQLICY IMPLICATIONS The proposed project has been reviewed for consistency with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and the Downtown Urban Design Guide. The major policy issues pertinent to the proposal are as follows: Comprehensive Plan The site is designated for Regional Community Commercial use in the Comprehensive Plan, which provides for restaurants, specialty stores, and non-retail services such as offices, banks, and professional services. The proposed uses of retail and office are allowed within this Comprehensive Plan designation. The proposed project appears consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies, and programs: Policy Consistency Urban Design Element~ Policy 1, "Maintain the preseniscale of the City, but modify those elements which by their massiveness are overwhelming and unacceptable." The proposed project would modify the perception " of massiveness, by improving pedestrian amenities, and providing human-scale architectural features at the ground level. Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote the orderly and harmonious development of the City and the attainment of the most desirable land use and improvements through the review of new development." The site is designated CMR:350:96 Page 8 of 21 Regional Community Commercial and is well suited for this use. The site is surrounded by similar and compatible retail and office uses and is well served by public parking in the Downtown area. Urban Design Element, Objective, page 42, "Promote visual aesthetics through tree planting,, landscaped areas, and removal of visually disruptive elements of major City ¯ streets." The project proposes to replace existing unhealthy trees along the Cowper Street public right-of-way, and will improve the relationship between the ground floor architecture of this office complex with the pedestrian public realm. Urban Design Element, Policy 5: "Encourage rehabilitation of aging retail areas to keep them economically healthy." The addition of Class A office space, building improvements, and public amenities would improve the economic vitality of office and retail uses in the downtown area. Urban Design Element, Program 20: "Require street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in shopping districts." This building is one of the most inhospitable to pedestrians in all of Downtown Palo Alto. Although not within a ground floor retail (GF) district, the project is bordered by ground floor retail areas to the south and west. First floor street frontages would benefit from the list of architectural improvements that comprise the project description including, architectural retrofitting to add human scale features to the base of the building with such measures as substitution of opaque panelling (on the Cowper frontage) and solar film windows (on the Tasso frontage) with clear windows to improve pedestrian visibility and visual interest. B. Policy Inconsistency The project is inconsistent or potentially inconsistent with the following policies: Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program 1, "Discourage massive Jingle uses through limitations on height and density to protect surrounding uses and community values." The proposed project would add to the height and density of an existing massive single use. Comprehensive Plan policy would discourage the building additions that add more mass, height or density to a use which is already inconsistent with this policy. Staff finds that the office space addition portion of this proposal should be discouraged under this policy. Urban Design Element, Policy 6B: ’Zimit nonresidential development in the Downtown Area to ten percent (350, 000 square feet of floor area) above the amount of development existing or approved in May 1986." The proposed addition of 52,396 square feet (44,639 square feet of building plus 7,757 square feet of atrium) and the intensification of use that would result from the conversion 22,200 square feet of CMK:350:96 Page 9 of 21 basement retail to ground floor retail would still fall well within the Downtown floor area limit, but would constitute a large percentage (15 percent) of the total allocation of 350,000 square feet. The proposed addition would constitute and even larger percentage (17 percentage) oft he remaining square footage (312,282 square feet as of August 31, 1995). Transportation Element, Policy 1 O: ’Tn the Downtown Area, new development should not increase the total weekday peak parking deficit beyond that expected from development existing and a)Cproved through May 1986." Parking is at a premium in the Downtown area and the proposed addition would be deficient in on-site parking because it declines to include 31 spaces attributable to the atrium by the zoning ordinance. Also, the project relies entirely on valet parking, which raises questions about the intensity of this parking use, the number of cars that will be assigned parking at one particular location in Downtown Palo Alto, and the amount of local congestion and circulation difficulties that could result. Without providing further in- lieu fees, the project would be inconsistent with this policy in the Comprehensive Plan. Land Use Element, City Council Resolution 7151: "The standards for building intensity for non-residential designated lands are derived frora the floor area ratios allowed in underlying zoning districts and represent an expectation of the intensity of future development. Actual floor area ratios on individual sites vary." The existing zoning for the subject property is the Commercial Downtown District which limits floor area ratios (TARs) to a maximum of 1.0, with allowances for existing and bonus square footage, not to exceed 3.0. Ifrezoned to the PC (’Planned Community) District, the FAR limit does not apply, but the Comprehensive Plan standard does. The property is rare in Palo Alto.in that it currently exceeds 3.0 FAR. It will exlaibit an FAR of 4.3 with the proposed building addition. The Comprehensive Plan allows that project sites will vary above and below this standard. But, considered together with other policies, it is clear that the intent of the Comprehensive Plan was to discourage large, massive singleuses. Project size limitations, CD-C, Commercial Downtown Regulations: The Downtown regulations, per section 18.49.040, limit the size of any single nonresidential project to 25, 000 square feet or 15, 000 square feet above the existingfloor area, whichever is greater, provided the 1.0 and 3.0 FAR limitations are not exceeded. This project size regulation resulted from policy developed during the Downtown Study, adopted in 1986. This study and resultant downzoning accomplished three very important things for Downtown Palo Alto which have been insmmaental in its success. First, the traditional and human scale of the historic lotting pattern of Downtown was preserved by discouraging consolidation of parcels and limiting the building sizes CIV1~350:96 Page 10 of 21 through project size limits. Properties such as 525 University had already been consolidated from several smaller parcels into a single large parcel. The buildings constructed on the resultant large lots are inconsistent with the scale and pattern of the Downtown and are "unfriendly" to pedestrians. The Downtown regulations were revised to discourage further scale changes of this magnitude by limiting project size, encouraging retention of the traditional pattern. The other two regulatory interventions that have been most successful in causing Palo Alto’s Downtown to become a thriving place ar~e the imposition of ground floor-use restrictions and the downzoning to 1.0 FAR, which resulted in the preservation of many of the original buildings and architecture. Urban Design Guide While the Downtown Urban Design Guide is considered an incentive and guide for redevelopment, rather than policy, it calls for strengthening pedestrian activity and uses in the vicinity of the project. One of the goals of the Cowper Center District directly applies to this project: promote lively and active destination points utilizing the Palo Alto Office Center Plaza. Specific recommendations call for redeveloping the ground floor with retail or restaurant uses that open onto the street, providing wind and weather protection and improving the pedestrian character of the ground floor plaza. Other suggestions include humanizing the scale of the building through use of awnings and canopies and adding color, vendors, kiosks and other pedestrian activities to the plaza.. The applicant’s proposal responds to many of the suggestions made in the Urban Design Guide. DISCUSSION Existing Conditions The existing three buildings were constructed in 1964 on a parcel comprising the entire block. The parcel was subdivided in 1972 to allow construction of the three-story Bank of America building, which was completed in 1974. No major improvements have been made to the subject parcel since then, with the exception of planter boxes which were added along the University Street frontage in 1991. The existing buildings contain mostly office tenants and a few retail and personal service tenants, e.g., a small care and barber shop on Level A of the parking structure located under the buildings. The building is 99 percent occupied and there is a waiting list for space. The property is level and bordered on the north by the Bank of America building and Lytton Street; on the south by University Avenue; on the east by Tasso Street; and on the west by Cowper Street. A new mixed office/retail building is currently under construction at 483 University, directly across Cowper Street from the project. CMPc350:96 Page 11 of 21 Proposed Use The proposed addition to the Palo Alto Office Center is intended to meet the demand for more Class A office space in Downtown Palo Alto, while creating a more pedestrian-friendly facade. The project will also add public activity to the undemtilized plaza area by creating an enclosed atrium space and adding a large restaurant facility. The project also includes monetary contributions to Downtown parking and urban design improvements as public benefits. The specific features of the proposal are described in the applicant’s project narrative, and are summarized as follows: o o Add a third floor to each of the two existing, two-story wings which flank the ¯ main 15-story tower and construct a new three-story structure connecting the two existing wings; Create an enclosed; three-story atrium in place of the current outdoor plaza; ¯Add two arcades on either side of the office tower in place of the existing open¯spaces along the University frontage; Relocate the existing side entrances of the tower to front onto University Avenue and add canopies over each entry; Replace the existing tenants beneath the tower with galleries on either side for the display of art; Locate art, in the form of four cast glass pyramids, on the sidewalk in front of the tower; o Provide a comer element at the University/Cowper intersection; Replace the opaque facade with five art display windows on the Cowper Street frontage; Provide a columned arcade as an entryway to the atrium from each of the side streets; 10. 11. Construct a split level restaurant which will open up onto the ground floor of the atrium; Add parking to serve the. 44,639 square feet of new space (the proposal does not provide parking for the 7,757 square foot atrium) with the addition of 46 CMK:350:96 Page 12 of 21 new self-parking spaces and 137 valet spaces for a total of 628 spaces, of which 526 (84 percent) would be valet parking only; 12.Construct street furniture, paving and other improvements to the Tasso and Cowper street intersections; 13.Contribute $150,000 to the Palo Alto Downtown Urban Design Improvement Project for the University/Cowper intersection; 14.Contribute $100,_000 to the Downtown Parking Assessment District; and 15.Contribute toward the development of a shuttle bus service, such as the Marguerite shuttle system, and prov!de a bus stop. The result of these improvements is the relocation of 22,120 square feet of office/retail space from below ground to above ground, the construction of-34,544 square feet of new office space, the construction of a 10,095-square-foot restaurant, and the addition of a 7,757-square- foot atrium, two 1,832-square-foot galleries, and two open air arcades. The total square footage to be added above ground is 74,516 square feet. Rezoning to PC _(Planned Communi _ty District~ and Statement of Public Benefit Since the subject project involves a rezoning from the CD-C to the PC District, the project applicant is required to present a statement identifying the proposed uses, the development schedule and the public benefits of the project. The project description presented by the prqiect sponsor proposes a permitted, use of retai!!office. The construction schedule states that development would begin in August 1997, with completion by December 1998. Public Benefit Package A PC zone is required for this project because.none of the City’s conventional zoning districts accommodate the existing and proposed square footage on the site, unless a significant variance were granted. Approval of the requested PC zone change would require that public benefit findings be made. The public benefits should go beyond the minimum zoning ordinance requirements and compliance with the Comprehensive Plan. Public policy in PC Zone change approvals has generally included the assumption that benefits should be commensurate or proportional with the request to exceed normal regulatory requirements. In this case, the applicant is requesting an additional 52,396 square feet above the existing square footage. The public benefit, according to the applicant, includes the following: The inherent public benefit of the project is the.transformation of the underutilized plaza area by creating an enclosed atrium space and adding a large restaurant facility. Such a provision is called for in the Downtown Urban Design Guide. This benefit has CMR:350:96 Page 13 of 21 both an economic component (the tax revenues accruing to the City from the restaurant) and an intangible benefit (the use of the atrium for public functions and the multiplier effect of increased activity at the eastern end of the Downtown area). An additional inherent public benefit is’ the retrofit of an existing automobile-oriented building with architectural features that provide greater pedestrian appeal (retail store fronts, art gallery space, display windows, pedestrian arcade, street-facing entry). The project also includes monetary contributions to the Downtown Parking Assessment District and to Downtown Urban Design improvements. The public benefit package offered by the applicant can be broken down into component parts and analyzed in a future study, as follows:. Value of the Atrium: The applicant estimates that the cost of adding the covered atrium is $300,000 and estimates that the value of public use of the space for 17 events per year is $408,000 over a ten-year period. There is also the intangible value of eliminating the wind tunnel effect in. the existing plaza and providing an inviting space that will attract activities to this underutilized area. Value of the Restaurant: The cost of the restaurant improvements would be more than offset by the future revenue stream to the applicant. However, the City would benefit from increased sales tax revenue from the restaurant and from the intangible value of increasing activities in the east end of the Downtown area. Value of Converting Ground Floor Space to Retail: The costs of converting the ground floor of this large building designed for office use into ground floor retail space is considerable as is the value to the owner of lease payments for the new office space. Some of the.conversion of ground floor space from office to retail use would constitute a public benefit and some of the space appears to be logical retail space, with its retail use having less public benefit value. In order to maximize the potential public benefit, in exchange for all or a portion of the new office space, the property owner may wish to provide incentives (such as reduced rents) to encourage certain publicly desirable uses that are lacking in this part of Downtown to locate in this building. On the revenue side, retail uses generally would generate greater tax revenues to the City than would office uses. As with the restaurant, flae City would benefit from increased sales tax revenue from the retail uses and CMRz350:96 Page 14 of 21 o o from the intangible value of increasing activities in the east end of the Downtown area. Value of New Office Space: The applicant states that the cumulative value of public benefits generated by the project adequately compensates for the added private benefit gained from the lease value of the new office space. Conceivably, a similar public benefit package could be supported with the addition of less new space. The less the square footage added at this site, the more remains for other projects to build within the 350,000 square foot Downtown limit. Value of Ground Floor Pedestrian Improvements: The applicant estimates that the cost of providing 4,000 square feet of art gallery space that could otherwise be rented is $1.4 million over a ten-year period.The cost of the four glass pyramids is estimated at $180,000. With these improvements, the City would benefit from the. intangible value of improving the pedestrian environment in this part of the Downtown area. Value of contribution to Downtown Parking Assessment District: The applicant is proposing to contribute $100,000 toward the Downtown Parking Assessment District. The $100,000 is proposed to be paid in yearly installments of $10,000. The net present value of this income stream is less than $100,000 in current dollars. This public benefit does not meet the in-lieu parking fees for the atrium space. In-lieu fees are required to be paid in one lump sum prior to the issuance of a building permit. If the valet parking proposals were determined to be unacceptable in this location or at this intensity, the parking deficit and normal in-lieu contribution would be sizable. Value of contribution to the Downtown Urban Design Improvement. Project: The applicant is proposing to contribute $150,000 to the Palo Alto Downtown Urban Design Improvement Project for the University/Cowper intersection. The $150,000 is proposed to be paid in yearly installments of $15,000. The net present value of this income stream is less than $150,000 in current dollars. If this application is pursued by the applicant, staff recommends that the project does not provide sufficient benefit. The possibility of providing additional public benefits should be considered by the applicant. These additional public benefits might include such items as: 1. Opening up part of the parking garage for public use during evening hours. CMR:350:96 Page 15 of 21 Donating the use of the atrium for public events on more than 17 occasions per year. 3.Requiring retail uses on all or part of the ground floor space. Subsidizing ground floor rents for certain uses that are lac "king in the area. Changing the type of Ground Floor Pedestrian Improvements to be consistent with the upcoming Downtown Improvement Committee recommendations. Increasing the contribution to the Downtown Parking Assessment Distric~ to reflect net present value and to pay an in-lieu fee to compensate for the parking spaces required for the atrium. Providing on-going funding for shuttle bus service between the University Avenue CalTrain station and the Downtown. o Increasing the contribution toward Palo Alto Downtown Urban Design Improvement Project for the University/Cowper intersection to reflect net present value and to be consistent with the upcoming Downtown Improvement Committee recommendations. o Improve the existing method of freight loading (see attached memo from Carl Stoffel). Staffhas inventoried all the major PC (Planned Community) projects that have been adopted~ by the City over the past ten years in order to assess the relationship between square footage added and public benefit produced. The results of this study are summarized in Table 1. Generally, the greater the square footage added, the more significant the public benefit offered by the applicant. However, because of the varied nature of the projects that have been rezoned to PC and the variety of public benefits produced, it is difficult to make a statistical correlation between square footage and public benefit. Floor Area Precedent The proposed FAR of 4.3 is 43 percent above the CD Zone FAR limit of 3.0. Conceivably, the precedent set by this increase in FAR could encourage other property owners to seek rezonings to the PC district at higher FAR~. The cumulative effect of this precedent, given the Downtown square footage limit, could be a perceived or real shift in policy toward concentrating future building activity within a few large projects at the expense of numerous smaller projects in the Downtown area. CMR:350:96 Page 16 of 21 Downtown Growth Limits The proposed addition of 52,396 square feet (44,639 square feet of building plus 7,757 square feet of atrium) would be well within the Downtown floor area limit but would constitute a large percentage (15 percent) of the total allocation and an even larger percentage (17 percent) of the remaining square footage. The central issue here is the large amount of square footage being allocated to a single, large project rather than dispersing future square footage among many projects and locations. A central focus of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines is to encourage pedestrian scale building and activities. On on_e hand, this proposal dramatically improves the pedestrian environment within this part of Downtown. On the other hand, the 52,396 square feet of new space at this location reduces the opportunity of other property owners to add smaller amounts of square feet within the Downtown growthlimit. The latest Downtown Monitoring Report prepared in December of 1995 inventories building activity within the CD (Commercial Downtown) District from mid-1986 through mid-1995. During. that period, there was a net addition of 37,718 square feet within the CD District compared to the 350,000-square-foot limit. Of the 32 construction a?nd demolition projects, only two (250 University and 245 Lytton) exceeded 20,000 square feet of new space. The majority of projects added 5,000 square feet or less. Excluding the two years of the Downtown Moratorium from September 1984 through S eptemb er 1986, building activity averaged about 4,200 square feet per year. At this rate, the remaining Downtown allocation- of 312,282 square feet would last 62 years. Even at a heightened pace of 10,000 square feet per year, the remaining Downtown allocation represents a 30-year supply. The main policy issue posed by.this project is: Should one project consume 17 percent of the remaining Downtown allocation or should the allocation be distributed more uniformly among a greater number of projects and distributed among various Downtown locations? Traffic and Circulation This project is within the study area of the Downtown Study and Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study Environmental Impact Reports. These reports evaluated impacts and mitigations for traffic impacts up to 350,000 square feet of development in the Downtown area. This project fits within the 350,000-square-foot cap in the Downtown area. But traffic monitoring for the University/Middlefield intersection shows that the counts for University Avenue fall slightly above those assumed in the Citywide EIR. On the other hand, the floor area monitoring for nonresidential development shows that added floor area is considerably below what was anticipated in the growth projections. Because the proposed project will add 15 percent of the allowable floor area to the Downtown, it raises questions that smaller projects have not raised about the datedness of assumptions in the Citywide Study EIR for cumulative growth impacts along the University Avenue corridor. Staff finds that a more current environmental evaluation and model should be utilized in a focussed environmental CMP.:350:96 Page 17 of 21 impact report fo;r this project, or the project can be delayed until after the Sand Hill and Comprehensive Plan EIRs are adopted and the project proposal can rely on that updated traffic model for Downtown. The primary issue is not that of the impacts of this single project, which staff concludes are not significant, but the cumulative impacts of this project and others that will affect the University Avenue corridor through time. A traffic study was prepared by the applicant to identify traffic impacts of the project and should be evaluated in a focussed EIR prior to any consideration of this project. The applicant’s traffic study estimates that the current office building generates about 2,393 trips per day, whereas the proposed addition would generate 83.8 trips per day for a total of 3,231 trips. Peak hour trips Would increase from 331 to 379 in the morning and from 313 to 393 in the afternoon. The study concluded that there is the potential for increased cut-through traffic on nearby residential streets, such as Everett and Hawthorne, north of the site; Webster and Cowper, north and south of the site; and Lytton and Guinda, east of the site. If as much as 50 percent of predicted traffic from this project were to leave the arterials and use the above streets, daily traffic volumes ranging from 80 to 100 vehicles would be added to the existing traffic volumes on these streets, which currently range from approximately 1,100 to 1,400 vehicles per day. According to the analysis in the study, the TIRE index (a measure of subjective impact of traffic flows on residents of residential streets), these increases would not be discernible to residents. The potential traffic impacts of the 7,757-square-foot atrium were not analyzed in the traftSc study as it is difficult to estimate, prior to City review, when and how this facility will be used. Parking The traffic study also evaluates the need for additional parking generated by the building addition. Currently, there are 445 spaces allocated to the three buildings on three levels located underground (an additional 82 spaces are leased to Bank of America). The applicant calculates that 44,639 square feet of additional space (at one space per 250 square foot) generates the need for 179 additional spaces, minus 10 for shared parking, for a total of 169 spaces. The proposal suggests two alternate schemes for meeting this requirement, both of which rely heavily on valet parking. Alternative 1 provides 183 new spaces and requires no more than three autos to be moved in front of a given space. Alternative 2 provides 191 spaces in a more orderly configuration, but requires four or five ears to be moved in front of a given space. In either case, over 84 percent of spaces are valet spaces and the remainder are self-park. Level A1 would remain a self-park area and the remaining floors will be a mix of valet and self-parking spaces. Although valet parking is currently used in a few facilities in Palo Alto (e.g., the Garden Court Hotel), the traffic consultants could not find a facility in the City that relied as CMIt350:96 Page 18 of 21 extensively on this scheme as the project proposal. Interviews were conducted with valet parking providers in San Francisco and determined that parking for 526 (or 534 in Alternative B) is feasible and works well in other cities. The additional time required to retrieve the car is compensated for by the convenience of being able to park within the building, rather than off-site. An issue not addressed by the study is the potential need to provide parking for the 7,757 square feet of atrium space. The Off-Street Parking Regulations require all uses within the Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment Area to provide parking at the ratio of 1 per 250 square feet. The 7,757 square feet of atrium space, therefore, would require an additional 31 spaces above thai provided in the application. Although the current proposal provides 14 spaces (in Alternative 1) or 22 spaces (Alternative 2) above that required for the office space, the additional spaces required to provide parking on-site for the atrium could not feasibly be accommodated within the existing structure, according to the applicant. Currently, the property owner is credited with providing 452 parking spaces on-site (of the 790 spaces required) and pays into the Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District for the remaining 338 vehicles or 85,500 square feet of building floor area. The zoning ordinance requires that the applicant either provide the parking on-site or pay an in- lieu parking fee of $302,600 rather than the $100,000 that.is included in the application. The parking fee would be applied toward the construction of additional off-site parking instead of providing the parking on-site, pursuant to Chapter 16.57, In-Lieu Parking Fee for New Nonresidential Development in the Commercial Downtown (CD) Zoning District, of the Palo Alto Mt~cipal Code (PAMC). Of note is that meeting the requirements of City regulations is not considered as part of the public benefit for a planned community zone. Currently, 16 Class III bicycle racks are provided in the parking garage. The Off-Street Parking Ordinance requires the provision of bicycle parking equal to 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces required or’61 bicycle spaces, of which 25 percent can be deferred. Of these, 40 percent shall be Class I and 60 percent shall be Class IIl racks. The number of spaces proposed is considerably less or will have to be increased to meet the required number. Most Class II and II parking should be distributed at the various public entrances on the ground level. Class I parking (lockers) may be located in the garage. ALTERNATIVES The alternatives to the two presented in the staffrecommendation, per Section 18.97.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, are that the City Council: Direct that the application remm to the City Council for a public study session, without prior Planning Commission and/or Architectural Review Board review; or CMR:350:96 Page .19 of 21 Direct that the application return to the City Council for a joint public study session with the Planning Commission and/or any other City board, commission or committee whose participation is deemed desirable by the City Council. FISCAL IMPACT Should the applicant pursue project applications following the preliminary review process, the costs of processing the applications will be subject to the full cost recovery fee schedule and will not result in any fiscal impact on the City. A fiscal analysis will be prepared for the project since it requires a significant zone change and amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. An outline of the issues to be covered in the fiscal assessment is included in the attached long2form CMR, Fiscal Impact Section. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Should the applicant pursue project applications, a focussed EIR will be required by staff. The EIR will evaluate the cumulative lraffic and circulation impacts that result from a concentration of floor area in this portion of Downtown Palo Alto with other growth expected in the area, updating assumptions as to what was modeled in the Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study EI~ Visual and shadow impact assessment are other topics to be covered. STEPS FOLLOWING APPROVAL If the Council elects to initiate the preliminary review process, staff recommends that the application be scheduled for a noticed public study session with the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board. Following completion of the public study sessions, the application Will be scheduled for a study session by the City Council. No formal action will be taken by the City. City comments and feedback to the applicant will be summarized and presented in the Planning Commission and City Council minutes. If, following the pre "hminary review process, the applicant chooses to proceed, a zone change from CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown District & Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to the Planned Community (PC) District would be required. Staff recommends that a Comprehensive Plan text amendment would also be required for this proposal, as well as a focussed environmental impact report. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS 2. 3. 4. Site Location Map Memo from Carl Stoffel, Transportation Division, dated June 28, 1996 Table 1: Summary of Non-Residential PC Projects Site Plan and Application Submittal Materials (Council Members only) CMR:350:96 Page 20 of 21 CC:Architectural Review Board Planning Commission Henry Gaw, 525 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real #410, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Julie Maser, Hoover Associates, 1900 Embarcadero Road #200, Palo Alto, CA 94303 Chamber of Conimerce Downtown North Neighborhood Association University Park Assdciation University South Neighborhoods Group Crescent Park Neighborhood Association Downtown Urban Design Steering Committee Downtown Par’king Structure Feasibility Study Steering Committee CMK:350:96 Page 21 of 21 F¥oje~: 525 Univerei~y Avenue Development ProJect Preliminary Review (Prescreening) for ~ possible ~omp. ~1~ Amea~meet, ~oae cheese from Commercial Downto~ & Ped~trian Shopping Dist~ct (CD-C(P)) to Planned Communi~ ~C) & =onstruction of approx. 52,400sq.ft. o~ce/com- mercial space addition & relocation of 22~00sq.ft of basement retail above grade to an exiting o~ce/commercial building & related sffe improvement. 3437 PC PC-3499 File #: 96-DF’R-1; 9G-EIA-21 Da~: 7-22-96 200 Scale: 1 inch = 200 f-r, Nort, h 400 f-t, ~ IVi E MO RAN D U IVi June 28, 1996 TO: FROM: Chandler Lee/Planning Division Carl Stoffel@ransportation Division SUBJECT: Project Review Comments for 525 Universi .ty Bicycle parking is required at the rate of ten percent of the total number of parking spaces required, or 61 spaces, of which 25 percent can be deferred. The number of spaces proposed is considerably less. Most Class II and III parking should be distributed at the various public entrances on the ground level. Class I parking (lockers) may be located in the garage. Some of the Class I and II parking might be able to be located in public areas along nearby street frontages, where space is available, in order to serve other nearby businesses. The public benefit of funding extension of the noontime Marguerite service is a ¯ valuable offering. Some issues that need further analysis as part of possible implementation of this proposal are: locating a bus stop, matching the cost of extending the se~rvice to the amount the applicant will provide, and working with the operator (Stanford University) to verify that such an extension is workable and is beneficial to them. There are other shuttle-related options that might be desirable (for example, a shuttle to/fi’om the CalTrain station or the Stanford Shopping Center), but these would likely cost more than extension of the existing midday Marguerite service. The location of the existing freight elevator on Tasso creates problems both for the elevator user(s) and the public street users. As part of this project, a desirable public benefit would be to have the applicant design an improved way to load and unload freight. One possibility that involves changes only in the public right-of- way, is to have the applicant work with the City to fund and install a new parking and loading zone arrangement on Tasso Stn’eet, whereby a large loading zone would be created on tSe west side of Tasso next to the elevator. Another option 525 University Expansion June 28, 1996 Page 2 would be for the applicant to move the elevator to another more accessible location. If feasible, ADA-standard curb ramps are needed on the comer of Tasso and University, and perhaps other locations. o This project is within the study area of the Downtown Study and Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study EIRs, which evaluated and considered impacts and mitigations for traffic impacts of up to 350,000 square feet 0f development in the downtown area. This project fits within the 350,000 square-foot envelope and, therefore, requires no further environmental traffic analysis. Nevertheless, a traffic study was done to identify traffic impacts of the project. No significant impacts were found, either at intersections or on nearby residential streets. The study concluded that there is the potential for increased cut-through traffic on nearby residential streets, such as Everett and Hawthorne north of the site, Webster and Cowper north and south of the site, and Lytton and Guinda east of the site. If as much as 50 percent of predicted traffic from this project were to leave the arterials and use the above streets, daily traffic volumes ranging from 80 to 100 vehicles would be added to the existing traffic volumes on these streets, which currently range from approximately I I00 to 4000 vehicles per day. According to the analysis in the study, using the TIRE index (a measure of the. subjective impact of traffic flows on residents of residential streets), these increases would not be discemable to residents. Valet parking is proposed to increase the parking capacity of the garage, and thus provide the required amount of parking. As valet parking is not permitted by the zoning ordinance, special approval will be required. Valet parking has the advantage that it can substantially increase the number of parked cars in a given space. A.disadvantage is that it is difficult for the City to be sure that the re~luired number of spaces are actually being provided. Also, some people may not wish to park in a valet facility due to c~ncems about cost and security of the vehicle. These and a number of other issues, will need to be discussed among staff and with the applicant regarding this approach, before valet parking for this project can be finalized and approved: The success of this approach depends, in part, on having the proper number of valet parking attendants present. The applicant will have to work.out an 525 University Expansion June 28, 1996 Page 3 agreement with the City that will insure that this occms. The agreement will include a monitoring program and reporting procedure to be conducted by a traffic engineer. The purpose of this program is to insure that all the parking spaces proposed and required are, in fact, available. Co do Two valet parking Schemes are offered. Upon this first review, it appears that both are workable, and the final decision should be made once further discussion takes place on the valet parking issue. The applicant needs to show how the number of self-park spaces on Level A1 can be so greatly increased (from 56 to 102, without valet parking). A drawing is needed that clearly shows the existing and proposed parking layouts onthis level. The traffic study provides data showing that the parking demand of the existing office center is substantially less than what is required by the City code (page 23). Thus, without monitoring by the City, it is possible that the applicant could provide only the number of valet attendants sufficient to park the Office Center demand, but not to make available the remainder of the required spaces. It is in the City’s and punic’s interests to have all the required spaces available for use, even if they are not used by the Office Center, in order for the unused portion to be rented out to the public for short or long term parking. Pay parking, whether by a set fee charged, or through tipping of valet attendants, is a desirable way to discourage driving, and is generally supported by the City. However, some employees and customers of the Office Center may be buying permits in City lots because it is cheaper to. park there, and others may choose to park free in residential areas..Future valet parking may als0 discourage some people from parking in the Office Center garage. This is another reason that it is important that all required spaces be accessible by having a properly-operated valet faciIity--other downtown employees and customers who may have difficulty finding spaces on-street or in City lots, could make use of the unused Office Center spaces, thus offsetting the impact of Office Center parkers not parking in their own facility. CS Table 1: Summary of Non-Residential PC Projects, Square Footage Added, and Public Benefit Received 1986 - 1996 Project 483 University (PC4296) "former Cottonworks" Passed: October 2, 1995 400 Emerson (PC4238) Passed: October 11, 1994 4156-4160 & 4164 E1 Camino Real (PC4190) ’.’Townhouse Motel" Passed: December 13, 1993 625 E1 Camino Real Holiday Inn (PC4182) Passed: November 8, !993 531 Cowper (PC4052) Passed: September 3, 1991 Square Footage Added 16,305 total s.f. 9,950_exist s.f. 6,305 new s.f. 3,467 s.f. above CD-C zoning 8,110 total s.f. (5,833 new s.f. plus one residential unit) All of the square footage would be allowed in the CD Zone 15 new motel units Retention of 343 motel units; No new s.f. added 15,942 total s.f. 7,508 existing 7,917 s.f. above CD zone Public Benefit Received 1. Architectural statement on comer of University/Cowper 2. Sidewalk brick pavers along Cowper frontage 3. $100,000 to University/Cowper intersection street furniture 4. Art work on building exterior 1. Addition of one residential unit in a mixed use building 2. Public drinking fountain and art niche 1. Parcel merger improves site 2. Retains MF zoning for future housing 3. Closing the driveway .improves traffic flow 1.Tax revenue 2.13 kitchenettes worth $1,900 3.Multiplier effect to adjacent businesses 4.Public parking for downtown 1. Upgrading of Cowper Street entry to garage 2. $150,000 to Child Care Trust fund Table 1: Summary of Non-Residential PC Projects, Square Footage Added, and Public Benefit Received 1986 - 1996 529 Bryant & 251 University "Fidelity Building" (PC3974) 45,600 total s.f. 43,100 existing 2,520 new s.f. ¯ 2,520 s.f 1. Improvements to Civic Center Plaza 2. Preservation of two historic buildings 3. Elimination of 3,300 sfoffloor area at 251 University Passed: August 6, 1990 250,262, 266 University (PC3872) "Plaza Ramona" Passed: May 15, 1989 above CD-C zoning 41,500 total s.f. 20,000 new s.f. 8,500 s.f. above CD-C zoning 3. Street trees, tree grates and alley improvements 4. Recycling containers for downtown businesses 1. Addition of 23 public parking spaces in the Downtown area above that required 2.62 space underground public parking level 3. Upgrading Ramona!Bryant/Hamilton alleys with pedestrian amenities (paving, lighting, landscaping) 4. Central public plaza at intersection of the alleys 5. Spanish Colonial Revival project consistent with Ramona Street Architectural District 7 96 &U~ - 6 Dear Members of ~e Ci~ Council: W ON- sos -ro, PH 2:~8~ugust 1996 ~U~ ~e Pl~g ~p~~t s~t me ~e cu~t P. C. propos~ for moP, caNons to ~e prope~ at $2S U~v~si~ Av~ue. As I ~ be out of to~ on ~e ~c~ion of ~e August 12~ Council mee~g at w~ ~s is ~g ~scussed, I ~ send~g you my r~ec~ons ~ ~g. First I want to encourage you to do what you can to promote improvements at this site; it is a pivotal location in the downtown and needs maj or improvements to bring it into the desired pedestrian ambiance sought in this district. However, I must tell you that the proposal before you is desperately wanting in addressing urban planning and architectural issues necessary to achieve the goals set forth in the "Downtown Urban Design Guide". Some specific issues: THE PLAZA This space must have a "public" feeling. It should be visible and inviting from University Avenue as well as Cowper and Tasso. The current plan allows no direct visual or physical penetration of the space. A large restaurant is not a public benefit. In this plan it is a barrier to the space. No large restaurant has flourished in the downtown. The key to this space being successful is that it feels open to the public and that the ground floor uses around it generate pedistrian traffic into it and across it.( See accompanying diagram ) UNIVERSITY AVE. FRONTAGE It is critical that this frontage be energized by retail uses at the ground floor and that obstructions which cut down on pedestrian street use be minimized. The art proposed is not very artistic. The side walk space should be for people. The corner is perfect for gathering and should work with the improvements occurring to the ° west across Cowper. £gfort should be focused at humanizing the scale of this harsh building.. The current design proposal is out of scale and hard edged in its character. Please refer to sketches in the Urban Design Guide on page 42 enclosed. The frontage design which would be the greatest public benefit would establish an attractive, urbane canopy between the pilasters between the first and second floors which would keep the eye down at street level and obscure the superstructure of the tower. This should also help with wind control. While an entry to the tower may work well, retail would be better for the street. Either solution could be made to work. The ultimate goal should be to develop retail frontage to support that existing across the street. The property across the street ( Cotton Works, Togo’s, etc. )is under developed at present and will no doubt be improved in the future. It will then have more mass and hopefully an additional access to parking lot J of similar quality to the one from Cowper Street. ( See diagram ) ISSUES OF MASS AND, ,,,, FAR The issues of mass and FAR are ones more open to interpretation in a P. C. application and are best dealt with subjectively. What is most important here is probably, that the lower architectural elements of the 525 site not exceed the height of the current project under construction on Cowper and University so that there is good afternoon light penetration to the intersection. It is simultaneously important that strong building masses shape the intersection and that reasonable transitions are made amongst the varying building heights in this space, inevitably, when the one story property across the street is developed, it will come in at about fifty feet, so maintaining this height seems reasonable. Basic to such a design problem is the juxtaposition of mass and density with open space. It is the open space which makes the mass livable. Needless to say issues of parking and traffic are implicated here and must be studied and addressed. These are my greastest concerns about this project in its current stage. I hope that ff you forward the project to the Planning Commission for consideration that you will also forward my notes for their consideration. I look forward to the process creating a wonderful core for the Cowper Center District. It can be done and probably for less money than the owners are considering spending at the moment. Yours truly, Shirley Wilson ¯ Change ground floor uses to be more compatible with active public use of plaza ¯ Provide wind and weather protection PALO ALTO OFFICE CENTER PLAZA ¯ Humanize ~ ~.,,,=,, the scale of bu.ilding through use of awnings and canopies ¯ Improve the pedestrian character of the plaza by opening ground floor spaces to the street Add color, vendors, kiosks and other pedestrian activities and uses to plaza PALO ALTO OFFICE CENTER - 42 -Cower Center District UNFINISHED BUSINESS Attachment 2 Excerpt Planning Commission Minutes of September 25, 1996 AGENDA ITEM 3 525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE: City Council referral for a public study’ session of a preliminary review of an approximately 52,400-square-fore office/commercial space addition, and relocation of another approximately’ 22,200 square feet of basement retail above grade and related site improvements to an existing office/commercial building. The development proposal would require a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Urban Design Element, Policy 1, Program .1 and a zone change from the CD-C(P) Commercial Downtown District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District to a Planned Community (PC) District. Enviroftmental Assessment: Will be required if a subsequent application is filed. File Nos. 96-DPR-1. Chairperson Cassel: We will have a public hearing, listen to what is being said, ask questions, and then make our comments. In the staff report, there is a list of eight questions, so after some general questions, I thought we might go through these eight questions. They are the questions that the City, Council asked us to review. Are there any questions of staff at this time? Ms. Lytle: We would just remind the commission that this is a prescreening preliminary review application, so you are to comment on it as the cover memo describes. In terms of a motion, there would not be one for this, just comments on the project. I feel that the staff report is fairly thorough. The project has been developed beyond what we anticipated seeing developed for preliminary prescreening applications. That is why the report is a little longer than you might have expected for this type of early stage review. The applicant is here to present the project, and if you have any questions, we are here to respond. Also, at some point, you should address the eight questions that the council referred to you fairly specifically. We feel that they cover the range of policy issues quite nicely. Stephen W. Player, 1874 Guinda Street, Palo Alto: Members of the Planning Commission, I welcome the oppommity to come before you and finally unveil our plans for 525 University" Avenue. We are utilizing the preliminary review process. We have encountered some scheduling difficulties. We went before the ARB, but they did not have a quorum, so we are before you for the first time this evening, and you have the opportunity to get your comments in fresh and without any previous screening on it. We have utilized the preliminary screening process because we do feel that this building at 525 University is probably the most prominent building downtown. It is one that we feel needs the kind of project that we are proposing. It is ironic that the 525 University project was the poster girl of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines when they said, this is not a pedestrian-friendly building. They used it as an example. What we have tried to bring before you tonight and what we have tried to accomplish in this project is a pedestrian-friendly, open, welcoming building, A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 10-04-9 one that can be utilized in a way that it has not been utilized since its conception. CM Capital has owned and operated 525 Universi~" for approximately 18 years. This particular project has been in evolution for a certain number of years, and it brings together a certain amount of a combination of architectural public benefit, pedestrian-friendly, many ideas which we think have culminated in an outstanding project. We have present today from CM Capital the owners -- Lloyd Mort, our Manager of Real Estate and Suzanne Hartmann, the project coordinator for this project for CM Capital. HeW Gaw, Vice President in Charge of Real Estate, unfortunately is ill this evening. Also present is Brent Cottong, who has been doing our landscaping, our street art. He wil! be talking about some of the public art that we are proposing.. Also David Jury who is part of our development team and Dick Campbell, from Hoover & Associates, our architect, whom I will be introducing in a few minutes. We welcome your comments. Because of the importance of this particular building to the downtown area as an entrance to the downtown, it has been developed somewhat further than some other similar projects under a preliminary process. That is because of the concern that has been expressed by CM Capita! and a responsibility they have taken in making the kind of improvements that they feel will really be a positive addition to the downtown. I will be available to answer questions as we proceed, but without further ado, I would like to introduce Dick Campbell from Hoover& Associates, the architect who will walk you through the project and answer further questions. Richard B. Campbe.ll,.. 1900 Embarcad~r0.. Road, Palo Alto: Hoover & Associates have practiced in Palo Alto since 1961. This building has an interesting architectural history. The.project was designed in 1964 by a very prominent architect of the time, Tow3, Mall. In 1965, this building received a very prestigious design award, a national award from the American Institute of Architects. At the time, it was widely published and was considered to be a very fine addition to the City of Palo Alto. But that was in 1965. A lot has changed over the last 30 years, and this building has been pretty commonly perceived as a project with a lot of problems. Some of the things it has been criticized for I will explain with a slide. Some of the criticisms that have been leveled against this project is, one, it really does not have a presence on University Avenue. The entrances to the building are on the sides. They are somewhat hidden from University Avenue. They are in an area that is extremely windy due to the wind patterns that develop around this project. So one of the major problems that we see is that there is no presence on University Avenue. A second problem is that at street level, there are very few amenities and it is very uninviting. The term "pedestrian-unfriendly" has been commonly used to describe this building, and we would certainly agree with that. In fact, the part of the building that faces toward the rest of downtown Palo Alto really turns its back on the rest of the community by putting two very blank walls along Cowper Streetand a somewhat blank wall along University Avenue. We think the plaza is also a problem. It is not very visible from University Avenue, and it is not very appealing. It is very windy back there, and usually if I walk through that plaza., I am the only person there. There is seldom anyone in the plaza except to be racing to get through it. So A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 10-04-~ those are some of the kinds of issues that we, as architects, saw with this building. I think those issues are pretty commonly shared by everyone in Palo Alto. It is not hard to identi~’ the problems, but where people may differ somewhat is how to address the issues. We have addressed the issues in what we feel is an appropriate way. There may be those who would differ with that. I would like to explain to you how we have addressed some of the problems and some of the features that we think this building offers to the community. The first thing I would like to mention is that in working with CM Capital on this project, their interest in the project is to provide additional assignable space. They have tenants in the building that want to expand, and there is a high demand for office space in dovmtown Palo Alto. Of course, if it were not for that, some of these other features would not be possible financially. I do want to say that in working with CM Capital, they have been verb.’ receptive to suggestions we have made on how this project could be made a much better neighbor for this part of Palo Alto. In addition to some of the slides I will show, I would also invite your attention to two models that we brought in. The first model, the larger one, shows the project as proposed. There is not much detail; it is mostly a massing study to show how this project relates to buildings in its neighborhood. The smaller model is a more detailed study of the comer of the project, the comer that faces on University and Cowper Avenues. We also have the presentation boards on the wall for you. What we are proposing to do with this project, first of all, as far as addressing the problem of a presence on University Avenue, we are proposing to move the doors from the side of the building out to the front of the building, placing two doors on either side facing on University, with a decorative canopy above the doors. We also intend to take the office space which pretty much fills up the first floor of this building and open it up into "galleries" which we could use for art exhibits. Primarily, it is intended to make a transparency from University Avenue right back into the atrium which we are proposing. So for the presence on University Avenue, we are trying to bring the street frontage out and make it much more appealing. Rather than walking along University Avenue and looking into office space, you will be looking into some transparent space back into the atrium. As far as bringing some amenities down to street level, we are proposing to construct an arcade along the front of the building to give it some shadow effect, some interest, a layering effect, a place where pedestrians can walk and feel like there is a path being provided for them. What exists right there now is a planter and some bicycle racks. It is a little bit of an obstacle course even to go along there. So it is intended to bring the effect that you often see with canopies or awnings, to bring the scale of the building down and to provide an interesting space, a more inviting space to approach the building. The arcades also extend out to the comer of University and Cowper, as we are trying to make that comer, in particular, more inviting for someone walking along University Avenue. That is what this smaller model is intended to illustrate. Another thing we are suggesting depends a little bit on what happens to the tenant in this space. A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 14 10-04-96 The owner can address this better than ] can. Right nov,’, it is a bank. but it appears that it is a bank acquired by Wells Fargo, and it is quite likely that they will terminate their lease early. If that property is vacated, it is our suggestion to make that into retail space and bring glass down onto the street level. I know that the owner feels the same way about that. The atrium that we are proposing is to take a space which right now is very uninviting, almost unusable, certainly in bad weather unusable, but even when the weather is not that bad, the wind currents around this building create a real wind tunnel effect behind the building. The intent with this atrium is to provide certainly a very nice space for the tenants of this building, but even more than that, it is to provide something for the community of Palo Alto. I know the owner has been in discussion with the city about this space being used for public everits. The nice thing about it is that it is a space that has underground parking, depending upon whether or not there is valet parking. There are about 500 or so par’king spaces below this atrium, so for community events such as a black and white ball, a lecture series or a concert, all kinds of events could be scheduled here. The owner has committed to that. The parking is not only close by, it is in the same building and protected, so whatever happens in this atrium space, it will not put a lot. of cars out on the city streets. The parking is provided right there. In the back, we are suggesting a restaurant to use the atrium space. In the second floor, we are just filIing in around the atrium. There is a second story over the restaurant which will be office space. We are also proposing the addition of a third floor which would be all office space. It would be an additional floor over the existing flanking two-story buildings with a third story on the building behind. The space that is being added to this project is about 44,000 square feet of new construction. The atrium space is about 7,700 square feet of new construction. The mass of the tower is very difficult to do anything with, but at the street level, the existing building with the vertical elements and no layering, no shadow effect, almost accentuates the vertical feeling of the structure. We are proposing the addition of a third floor with more horizontal lines to try and bring the scale down. This elevation gives a little more detail, showing the two new entrances being provided. For a pedestrian in front of those two entrances, you would look directly through into the atrium, and you will be very aware of the fact that there is a space there that is open to the public which we feel will be very inviting. It is protected, and we plan to have retail around the perimeter of the atrium with the restaurant. We hope this will be ayery lively space. It is our hope and design intent to make this as friendly and inviting as possible. Since the bank will be vacating their site, we will have glass along their location. This is the elevation from Cowper, and there will be retail along the lower floor. We have introduced the, feeling of an arcade here although we cannot come out to the street. On this side, the building is up against the property line, and we cannot develop an arcade there. We have tried to develop that effect by using a decorative metal grill to give a feeling of depth and a layering effect, again, to make it more interesting. The area in the back has an entrance which would also have a canopy to accentuate the entrance. That goes back into the atrium as well. A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page That completes the presentation. Commissioner Schmidt: Have you done any kind of wind analysis to know what wind actions might be expected around the new arcade in front and around the entrances into the new restaurant or atrium space? ¯Mr. Campbell: A good question. We have not done any wind analyses around the arcade. We have looked into a number of different schemes before arriving at this one. In all of them where we looked at the atrium, the plaza,, etc., the wind was always a major concern. Our final conclusion was that rather than trying to understand the wind currents: which are hard to predict even in test situations sometimes, we would just enclose the atrium and solve the problem in thin way. I don’t think that the arcade in front would add to any kind of wind problems. It is the wind that is hitting the building, coming down the building and swirling around particularly between the building and the flanking buildings, and then swirling back into the plaza. I have been there many times on windy days, and it’s a matter of"Hold onto your hat." Commissioner Schmidt: What about looking at sun on the front of the building, particularly on the comer of Cowper and University. Avenue? Mr. Campbell: What we are try. ing to do with the arcade and with the metal grill work, one thing that it achieves is that you get very. interesting shadow patterns. One of the things we are counting on is the way the sun plays on this building and moves across the building, creating interesting shadows. Commissioner Schmidt: I often see people sitting in the sun on that comer. Are you covering part of the area that currently has sun and has no overhang? Mr. Campbell: There is still quite a wide street area in front of the arcade. We do not feel we are taking away the opportunity for someone to enjoy the sunlight with some benches in that area. What we want to do is to create a pathway, an inviting and interesting pathway, to the building. We feel that the arcade does that. Commissioner Byrd: Some of the drawings include these long, skinny, pyramid-like structures on University Avenue, . and some do not. Are they currently part of your thinking? Mr. Campbell: I would like to let Brent respond to that. Brent Cottong, Cottong & Taniguchi, Landscape Architects, 1105 Burlingame Avenue.. Burlingame: I am the father of the four sensidal sculptures, and I will be addressing those. What we wanted to do was to put art on the street to mark and demarcate the approach to the downtown. We are working with the Public Art Commission which is going to house a downtown location here in the lobby. We wanted something that was really special, really A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 16 10-04-96 unique, something that is timeless, something that had to fit within the fabric of the city as well as stand on its own. That is always a difficult task, given al! of those parameters. We have been involved in this project since the fall of 1992, when we were looking at the intersections as the nodal points for our accents. The focus has shifted over the last two years to look at this whole block as a demarcation and an announcement to the downtown area. What we came up with were these four very slender, verb’ elegant sculptures made of glass similar to the process that was invented for the lighthouse glass in France in the 1800s. These sculptures are really going to be alive. That was one of the elements we were trying to achieve. Originall),, we even looked at kinetic forms. These elements aregoing to be alive in and of themselves, because they will change with the daylight as sunlight passes over them. As people pass by them, the)" will create shadows. They will change with the seasons; they will change with the dropping of leaves. We hope that they will be intemal~y illuminated at night so that we will have an after life at night. Just driving into. town tonight, I realized how dark and important that edge is when you hit Tasso and continue on to Cowper, and how magical these elements will be. There are some other options we can also engrave on the inside of these elements to refract the light in different prismatic ways. They could even be cut with different messages -- historical messages, dates -- which we have not developed any further. What is interesting about this is that you only see them from an angle. The moment you move off the direct path, it disappears and it wipes off. So it is something we are verb’ excited about. We feel it is a very special element that we would like to see happen as a part of this project. (He displays a piece of the material) The idea is that this would be cast in panels, triangular pieces that would be narrower at the top, wider at the bottom. They would be fitting onto a stainless steel frame and cast in individual panels, probably a little larger than this. They are extremely thick, heavy and durable. These ribs will be on the inside, and is a part of what creates the magic in terms of the refraction of light. I wish it were possible to show this to the commission in the sunlight. What happens is very interesting. It changes when a.person passes by it, going from shadow to light. These sculptures catch the light and shoot it down at prescribed angles. Commissi.oner....Schmidt: Is there a particular reason why they are a pointed element? In the rendering on the wall, they look rather knife-like, creating a somewhat hostile appearance since the)’ are so pointed. I w6ndered if there is a reason for that. Mr. Cottong: It is often difficult to explain a creative endeavor. A lot of it is just intuitive. I was trying to create something that was very strong in. its form and architecture. A triangle is about as strong and simple element you can get. I am Surprised as I have never heard it described as threatening. I see it more as uplifting and inspirational. I think this building is less than friendly, which I consider a diplomatic comment. It really needs this energy; it needs something that is powerful. We do not have a lot of real estate in which to work, so they are slender. Commissioner....Schmidt: You spoke about the light that goes into this glass being aimed down. A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page I 10-04-9 When you think about this further, I wondered if there would be any concern about light flashing into drivers’ eyes. Mr. Cot-tong: Yes, we have looked into that. It was one of the first concerns of our client. The light here is not intensified. It is softened, and these angles would be put down. The lighting at night would be up through the center and would be more of a glow. It would not be as powerfu! as sunlight, but there will be color scattered on the sidewalk during the da~ime. CQrnmissioner Eakins: Why did you choose the sidewalk location? Mr. Cot-tong: We looked at a lot of different options. We looked at things hanging off the building. We looked at projections. We looked at bridging across the road. We spent months and months on this. We have been involved in this since 1992, as I said, and over the last two years, we have shifted our focus to this block. This didn’t happen overnight. There have just been a lot of things that have evolved, working with different property owners. Bridging the street was not a viable option, given fire access and clearances, etc. It just boiled down to something that needed to fit within the fabric of the building that did not compete with other elements, yet stood on its own and had its own kind of presence. This is what it came down to. Chairperson Cassel: If that completes questions on the art, are there other questions of the applicant? Commissioner Schink: I have a question for the architect. In loo "king at the model and in looking at the last two elevations you showed us, the model does not look like the elevations. Are they the same? You showed a three-story elevation, but this looks like two stories. Mr. Campbell: It is three stories. The heavy, horizontal band you see is two stories up. There are two stories below that band. That pretty much represents the present roof line. What we tried to do with the third story is to make it just a ribbon window so that it sort of floats above the two-story element. We are trying not to call that much attention to it. It should be the same as the drawings. It is a two-story arcade. That horizontal line is approximately where the present roof line is right now. Commissioner Schink: So if you were to do a second story, would you just add it inside? Mr. Campbell: The second story exists. The two flanking buildings are presently two stories. What is interesting about the existing building is that we have gone through the structural drawings and actually talked to the structural engineer that designed it. The two side flanking buildings that are two stories actually have sufficient capacity to take a third story. We are not sure if that was the original intent, or perh.aps it might have been intended as a roof garden. Those roofs, however, are designed for 200 pounds per square foot, which is more than the rest of the building. A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 10-04-96 Commissioner Schmidt: Approximately how many feet of additiona! height would you be adding with that story? Mr...Campbell: We are adding about 13 feet. The roof of this building will be at 48-1/2 feet to stay under the 50-foot cap. CommissionCr....Schink: Could you run through the square footages for us again? You made reference in your comments to 44,000 square feet of new construction. The staff report makes reference to 54,000 square feet, and there are 7,000 for the atrium. There are a lot of bails in the air here and I am trying to figure it out. How much square footage is being moved around from one part of the building, and how much is new? Mr. Campbell: The new construction, space that does not exist on the property right now, is roughly 44,000 square feet. The atrium is about 7,700 square feet, so you will see a figure of about 54,000 square feet of new space. Also, there is space at one of the garage levels, space that is used for storage. There is a barber shop, a small cafeteria, functions like that. We are moving 22,000 square feet of existing space from below grade up to the atrium level. So in terms of new space, it is new construction, but it is not adding more space. It has been moved from the basement. It is confusing. Chairperson_Cassel: I am more confused than ever. I think the question was, if you do not count what you are moving around, what is the additional square footage? Mr. Campbell: It is 54,000 square feet of new space. Commissioner Schink: And 22,000 square feet of space that is being moved from one place to another? (Yes) Mr. Schreiber: To become a little more precise, the new square footage is 52,400, not 54,000. Then you have 22,000 square feet of existing space that is being moved from underground to above ground office space. Commissi.oner....Schink: During your presentation, you commented that these improvements would be of a benefit to the building, the current tenants, and to the community. If you were not allowed to add the extra office space, would you still go forward with just the atrium concept and the new arcade, considering that it is beneficial to the building and to the tenants? Mr. Campbell: It is hard for me to answer for the owner, but I am sure they would not. It is a matter of economics, at least, I suspect that would be the case. Tricia Dolkas,.......412 Everett Stre~t,....Pa!o..Alto: I will start my comments with the same comment I made to the City Council about this. It is really a rhetorical question. At what point does a A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 1 10-04-c~ vibrant downtown become frenetic? What we are doing here with this project is taking an area that right nov,’ is very quiet in terms of general retail activi~, and people walking around. I understand the benefits and the nice things about making it more pedestrian-friendly, but at the same time, there has to be acknowledgment that you are going to be creating ano~er hub of activity, I am just very nervous about that. If you look at that area, yes, you have a veD, massive building, but it drops off veD~ quickly to small buildings with residential very close by on Tasso. I think there is going to be a huge potential for a lot of spillover of intensification in that general area that has to be considered. When you consider approving this project, you have to look at that, because you are opening the door to that whole section being intensified. Also, it is pretty much a boundary between the commercial downtown and the residential downtown at that distance down University. I think it is critical that you look at the surrounding blocks and that you walk that area, because it i-s going to be a massive change to that area, I think. I really question whether we need another activity hub in dovmtown. It is really getting to be ridiculous, the level of activit-y. Yourselves, in your infrastructure discussion, there were questions of whether the level of activity is outpacing the ability to maintain downtown. That has to figure in, I think. Parking and traffic are two of my favorite topics in Palo Alto. Valet par’king does not work. Downtown North has painfully been the butt of the experiment at Stars. It does not work. Again, the parking is woefully inadequate in this project. With the ability nov,’ to transfer parking rights, along with development rights and all of the other things that are going on, it has to stop somewhere. At the meeting where the community talked about the parking permit program, there was a lot of discussion on the part of the residents saying they were just fed up with developers continuing to suggest proposals that do not have adequate parking, then spilling over to having discussions about a residential parking permit system. It has to stop somewhere. Similarly, with the traffic. There is an acknowledgment of an increase in traffic in the residential area, according to the traffic study, and it is just getting to be tOO much. My last comment is that I really hope, through the approval process, that the developer makes some approach toward the neighborhood to at least involve them in the process. As negative as my comments do appear, there is some value here. It would be wonderful to make that area a little more human in scale, a little bit friendlier, and not so ghostly, not get an eerie feeling when you walk through there, so there are some real issues that would be nice to address, but not to the detriment of these other factors. Thank you. Robert Warming, 426 Webster Street, Palo Alto: I would like to agree completely with the last speaker. I live in the condominiums called Webster Court. It is a small, nine-unit condominium complex, and I am on the back side. So I am about 100 feet from Tasso. The way I look at this building, I agree, it is rather unsightly or ugly, but to me, it has been a buffer between the downtown area and the residential area. In fact, in the staff report on Page 14, it mentions the intangible value of increasing activities in the east end of the downtown area. It talks about the multiplier effect. From my point of view, that is exactly what I don’t want, bringing more people into that area. We have had a few experiences with that. In the six years I have lived there, we A:/PC3\9-25.Min Page 20 10-04-96 have had two or three public gatherings in that plaza with live bands. Your entire evening is disrupted if you have a band. After the band stops, there are 100 people milling around, and can certainly hear that where I live. So I am not loo "king forward to an increase in pedestrian traffic in that area. I had some other concerns, but maybe they have been alleviated as I look at the design. Is the atrium designed in such a way, acoustically, so that if you have a concert there, we would not hear it in the neighborhood? So that we are not building our own Shoreline in the downtov, aa? The loading zone in that building has been a problem. I have been awakened at night when they use that elevator on Tasso to bring up scrap from remodeling in the high-rise building, throwing it into dumpsters from ten to two o’clock in the morning. I notice in the staff report that the?’ mention that loading zone problem. Another problem I would be concerned about is the heating and air conditioning. We get a lot of noise from the bank building: There are two heating and air conditioning units on the top floor, so where would that go in? Would we be impacted by that? Certainly another thing I am concerned about is the construction noise. I live 100 feet from that and am certainly not looking forward to that. My wife is home all day. Those are my main concerns. Thank you. Chairperson Cassel: Thank you for offering your ideas. That closes the public hearing. I will return this item to the commission. Are there other questions for staff?. Commissioner Schink: Could staff review for us what the normal policy is for using basement square footage and moving that up to different levels? I vaguely remember that issue coming forward on the Times Tribune site. I wondered if there were some precedent set there. Ms. Lytle: The basement square footage that has been ara’ibuted through the assessment district and accounted for through time is allowed to be reconfigured. So we do allow" that to occur. Commissioner Schink: So in a sense, in a project like this, they might be able to move that square footage by right? Ms....L_vtle: No, not through normal zoning, but we have allowed it through a Planned Community zone. If you can stay’ within the zoning caps and do it through regular zoning, you can do that. Through a PC zone, we allow people to do it even if they are beyond the FAR limitation. Commissioner Schink: My next question may be taxing your memory, but it is my recollection that when the city approved the special parking arrangements for Digital when they built the spaces in Lot 3, there was also a requirement for Digital to insist that their employees park in those spaces, in the new spaces, or something to that effect. I wondered if there had ever been some monitoring of that? I am asking that because there may be some relevance here for asking A:kPC3\9-25.Min Pag~ 10"0": them to require the new people to park only in their spaces. Mr. Schreiber: I would have to check back to be absolutely certain, but I think the stipulation was that Digital employees would not be eligible for parking permits, and they should park in that area. As far as whether that has ever been monitored, I really am not sure. I am not aware of ever seeing an assessment of that. .~ommissiQner Schmidt: I would like a little more information on the valet parking than what was at our places tonight. It stated that valet parking operations serving over 500 vehicles are common in the bay area. I would like a little more explanation of how well it works. I have seen it on our streets and in some other current valet situations where cars were lined up, blocking traffic in the middle of the day ~for a small valet operation. I am curious as to how valet parking would work out on those fairly narrow streets and not have long lines waiting for a giant operation like that, how well it might work. Mr. Schreiber: We have not done any type of in-depth evaluation of that. It is staff’s sense that certainly in San Francisco, that type of parking arrangement is not unusua! at all, oftentimes with streets that are relatively narrow, such as the downtown area or the financial district. What that says to staff is that, one, there are areas where it certainly appears to be working. Our anecdotal evidence is that it is working. Secondly, there are operators in the bay area that are used to making it work. Beyond that, we have not gone out and done a field check on specific garages, etc. Chairperson Cassel: Particularly at this preliminary review level. Mr, Schreiber: Exactly. If we get into an actual application and further analysis, we will investigate that substantially more, but not at this point in the process. Commissioner Ojakian: Looking at the public benefit at this, in the past when we have had PCs, staffhas commented on the adequacy of the benefits provided. In this particular case, you did not. Is that because it is a preliminary review? Mr.. Schreiber: Actually, I believe we did. Steve Player just mentioned that the traffic consultant for the applicant is in the audience tonight~ If you wish to pursue the valet parking issue further, we do have a traffic engineer in the audience who has investigated that for the applicant. As far as the proposed public benefit package, it is identified on Page 13-16 of the staff report. Staff notes at the bottom of Page 15 that if this application is pursued by the applicant, staff recommends that the project does not provide sufficient benefit. The possibility for additional benefit should be considered, and then we identify some items on Pages 15 and 16 that would be possible areas for public benefit. I might add that Mr. Player, and also I believe Mr. Campbell noted that this project, to get to this point, has been relatively long in its development stage. One of the frustrations for city staff in this process has been that, on the one hand, we acknowledge AAPC3\9-25.Min Page 22 10-04-96 that both the plaza area and the front of the building especially are a bleak pedestrian environment, at best. We would certainly like to see that cleaned up and made more pedestrian- friendly, etc. However, if the way of doing that is to add the amount of square footage that the applicant proposes, then there is a need for public benefit, and we have not seen a public benefit package that we would be comfortable with. Commissioner Ojakian: Ken, I stand corrected. In reading through these, I guess I was not left with a feeling that these are sufficient. Mr. Schreiber: Which in itself can be good feedback. The first question regarding public benefit for the commission, in commenting in that area, is whether what the applicant has proposed in the ballpark? You cannot say yes, I accept it, or no, I cannot. You cannot give them that type of direct decision type of comment, but is it certainly within the ballpark?. If not, then what kind of additional public benefit should possibly be considered. We have identified a variety of nine points on those two pages, but there certainly are many other things that could be done. So if you have additional suggestions, I am sure the council and the applicant would appreciate that. Chairperson Cassel: What I am proposing to do is to have a general discussion, and then comment on each item. I will summarize them as we go along. We are not supposed to vote on each item, as this is a general forwarding of our ideas to the City Council. Who would like to begin the discussion? Commissioner Schink: I would suggest that as we go down the list, we might make our comments on Questions 1 and 2 together, as they are closely entwined. Commissioner Ojakian: I have some general comments to make. What I did after reading the staff report was to make up a list of pros and cons for me, looking at the project generally. By doing that, some of the eight questions are indirectly addressed by the list that I have put together. On the pro side, I looked at it and said, it is obviously a better utilization of the space by filling in the plaza area and some of the other things that are being suggested by the applicant. Some other pros I saw were some of the public amenities and some of the public benefit being suggested in the project. Also, some of the services or additions being provided provide some needs for the community that are not currently addressed, and obviously, the public art. Frankly, I was impressed by the presentation tonight. I think that the public art that is being suggested out front is a positive. On the negative side, I put down things such as I feel like it is too high a concentration of square footage in one particular area. I have some concerns about the traffic flow that is going to be created and concentrated in this particular area. Also, I have some concerns about parking that I do not feel are addressed necessarily by the valet parking. I am not sure if adding some of the amenities necessarily make this, makes it a more pedestrian-friendly area, but I think it would be difficult to make it an absolutely pedestrian-friendly area, given the scale of the building that A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 22 l 0-04-9~ currently exists there. Having said that, I guess in general, I look at this, and felt the need to say that I still support some of the limitations in square footage that we put in in the downtown study of 1986. That leads towards why I have some concern about such a concentration of square footage in this particular building. In fact, loo "king at it, when you think of some of the projects that have been approved recently, and you look at that particular area and realize some of the buildings that could be built out, I feel like we are going to end up with too.much of an emphasis down at that end of University Avenue which is closer to the residential areas than I feel comfortable with. Frankly, I would rather see the square footage, if we remain within the cap, spread out a little more generally over the area and/or placed a little closer towards the AtmafI-Iigh Street area. Those are my general comments. Commissioner Schink: I share many of Vic’s concerns. Let me start out by initially saying that I was enthusiastic when I saw who the team was that you have put together for this project. I know that Steve Player’s dedication to the community gives you a lot of strength in understanding what you need to do to put together the public benefits. Hoover & Associates have a great dea! of experience in doing good buildings in our community, so I was excited by that. I was especially impressed this evening by the landscape architect’s wonderful enthusiasm. It is amazing how uplifting it is when you see someone so dedicated to some art that they have created. I was moved to believe that that will be a wonderful contribution. I do agree in general with Vic’s comments that we have a long ways to go on the public benefit. In general, what I would be looking for is this room filled with people that you had convinced that this was to their benefit to approve this project. It needs to be a cross-section. It needs to be retailers working downtown, as well as residents of the nearby neighborhood. I think we have a wonderful oppommity here. It is a chance for improvement. You just have to convince the people who live nearby that it is in their best interests, as well as the other people who own property, and run businesses downtown. Those are my general comments, and I feel it is important to go through the eight questions item by item. Commissioner Byrd: I can speak from some personal experience on this one in that I work in this building. I live five blocks away, so I live in what could be in an impacted neighborhood. I am not conflicted out on this one. I checked with the city attorney. Being an employee of the building did not conflict me out. Ms. Cauble: I would like to clarify that. When Commissioner Byrd mentioned that he could be impacted, he means that he could be impacted below the financial threshold that would cause a conflict of interest. Commissioner Byrd: Yes, and thank you for that clarification. I was speaking more generally in response to the concerns expressed about the impact of the project on that neighborhood. In A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 24 10-04-96 general. I am very enthusiastic about the underlying intent of the project. I walk through the atrium twice a day right now, and it doesn’t work. It is windy; it is barren and sterile. It needs to be improved. The streetscape surrounding the building, while it bustles mid-day, mid-week because there are a lot of office workers in the area, does not have that same look and feel at night. There is no textural connection between the streetscape of this building and the buildings across the street in three different directions. So I think what the applicant is trying to achieve here is needed and commendable. The concerns raised about intensification on this end of University do not concern me. They excite me. I would like to see the vibrancy of our urban downtown extended this additional block. It clearly should not go past this, but we have an underutilized section of our downtown that could stand a jolt of energy’. This project could provide it. I do share Vic’s concern that we are using up a significant portion of our square footage on the far end if we are to stay under the existing cap when we still have opportunities to do additional compact development closer to the transit station. I do not want to express a final opinion on that yet, but we certainly have to look at the relative percentages there. My concerns with this project are primarily around the particulars of its design. My initial response to the design as it has been presented is that I would like to see more work done to make the street scale even more pedestrian-oriented and more vibrant, and perhaps including additional retail in the design at the street level. Yes, it is a big office building, but it need not be so at the street level. I am open minded about the public art as presented. I think we and the community need to look further at it, although tonight’s presentation certainly was compelling. Finally, on the parking, I just think we need to make sure that the parking demand generated by the project can be satisfied in the commercial areas of downtown and by the project itself without a significant impact on the neighborhood so that we are not improving the downtown at the expense of downtown residents. Commissioner Schmidt: As with everyone else here and probably everyone else who has ever been in downtown Palo Alto, we welcome the opportunity to make improvements to the pedestrian level of that building. As others have said, I feel there is a ways to go, both in the design and in the public benefits mentioned here this evening. I, too, am concerned about the traffic and parking solutions. I welcome the oppommity to talk more specifically about the several questions we have before us. Commis.~iQ.ner Eakins: I think the intrinsic problem is that we are starting with something that is already awfully big. An architect told me once that there is no paint color called out. It is just verb’ hard to make something that is big and overwhelming go away. So my attention goes to the A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 2. 10-04.-9 street level. That is where I think everyone has expressed concern. In general. I am not satisfied that these ideas and these treatments are going to make it friendlier. I think retail behind an arcade is hard to see and hard to relate to. I realize that only parts of it will be behind the arcade. but that is a problem, to give an example of the street level situation. My motto is that there is no such thing as too much art, but sometimes, there can be too much art in a tiny space. The sidewalk is narrow here. I hope the design team has talked to the downtown improvemem consultant people and has gotten a feeling for how much pedestrian circulation and ease of circulation needs to be protected. As I have walked up and down along side those ground floor buttresses, I do not know if different cladding is being suggested. The project probably is not at that stage yet, but a nicer material on those buttresses would impress me more than the public art. Maybe we should tiave both at that level. The feeling of those shapes is fine. It is the surface treatment. They are big, impressive shapes, but it is like wal "king around a temple or ruins when you go on a vacation. You go and visit the ruins, and there are these great, massive shapes, and you feel a sense of another presence. If that cladding were different, I would probably feel happy about that presence at the street level. To sum up, I am really concerned about the street level presence. That is where changes really need to be made. As far as adding additional activity, noise from HVACs, parking problems, all those things, I really feel that Tricia Ward-Dolkas is fight. You must work with the neighbors. You really have to have that outreach and that kind of communication and feedback. .Chairperson Cassel: My gut feeling was that if this is to go ahead, besides the wind problem that exists in the front of the building, not just the back, the really striking problem is how would the parking take place. How would the traffic from people coming in and out of the area happen? How would it be parked? Could something creative be done, since there are so many parking spaces in such a severe, large amount of money involved in the in-lieu payment that would need to happen because of all of the cars that are parked. Perhaps something in terms of public transportation might take place in a very severe, strong, intense parking demand management plan if anything were to happen here, so that you would not need the parking spots and not need as many cars coming in to service that site in that area. That was the general feeling that hit me when I read this. Each of the other problems could be resolved, but that is a really hard problem. Now we need to go through the questions from the City Council. Jon is suggesting that we combine Questions 1 and 2 together. Question #1: Policy Conflicts: To what extent is the project consistent or inconsistent with existing Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Guidelines policies? Question #2: Other Downtown Properties: To what extent will other downtown property owners, both commercial and residential, be affected by the large share (17%) of future downtown growth taken up by this project? Commissioner Schmidt: The staff report definitely points out the policies that are either A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 26 10-04-96 supported or not supported with this project. We have all commented on modi~,ing the elements which, by their massiveness, are overwhelming and unacceptable. As we have all said, this would be an improvement to do something of a pedestrian scale here. On the opposite side of that is, "Discourage massive single uses." This is already a massive single use. Adding another 50,000 square feet at that level will make it even more massive. Sandy gave a good description that this is a large building and it is very hard to redesign the base of it in relationship to the rest of Palo Alto to make it more pedestrian-friendly. That, too, is one of my basic concerns. Certainly, in looking at massing and in looking at the model, it is an improved building, but the detail of how it relates to people is.extremely important. That we see-part of here, but it is something to be developed much further. Just by adding transparency, as Sandy said, does not necessarily make it more human and inviting. It needs some real people things on the street. The items listed in the staff report Ireally talk about the consistency and inconsistency. As for the second question about using up a large share of the square footage cap, it certainly is a large mount, but on the other hand, as the staff report notes and as we have reviewed in the downtown every year, not much of that cap has been used up in the last decade. At the current rate, it would take about 60 years to use it up. So it does seem, in a way, unfair for one user to take that large a chunk, but on the other hand, buildings that have been added have not taken large increments of that amount. So I am less concerned about using it all in one swel! foop in terms of just that particular item. Commissioner. Schink: When I address the question of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design Guidelines, my perspective is of the addition or the improvements. I am not looking at this in its totality, because what we have here distresses everyone. So I am evaluating Item 1 as the benefit of what you are bringing forward. If you look at it from that perspective, it is entirely consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and with the Urban Design Guidelines. You are improving the situation. You are making it more pedestrian-friendly. Granted, there are further steps that we can go, and I hope that you take those steps. I think you can truly fulfill the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan and the Urban Design Guidelines by going further with your public benefits, carrying those up and down the street so that you can make the strong argument that you have enhanced the retail character of the downtown core with the other improvements and benefits that you could offer. On the second question, to what extent should you be allowed to take such a big slice of the cake, in my mind, if you can convince your neighbors through the public benefits and get them here to support you, I think it is entirely justified. If it is a lonely group of us here in the chambers the next time we meet, I would look closer at that issue. In my mind, it is something for which you have to get support to convince me that it is okay. I do think that Kathy’s comments regarding the pace at which we are using square footage is somewhat compelling. Chairperson Cgssel: Do we all basically feel the same as Jon and Kathy on these two items? A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 10-04-~ Commissioner Ojakian: My only concern, when I heard Kathy’s comments, is that when I look at some of the other properties in this particular area, I could easily see the addition of this amount of square footage and type of activities that are being suggested acting as a stimulus for development of some of the other buildings. Again, frankly, I don’t think that is the best use of the 200,000 or 300,000 square feet that would still be available to us. Question #3: Architectural Design and Mass: How effective is the proposed design and massing scheme in making the existing building more pedestrian-oriented and human in scale7 .Commissioner Schmidt: We have made a lot of comments about this point. I would like to emphasize that whatever is done, I do hope that the wind effects are looked at. There are often wind effects around tall buildirrgs no matter how much enclosure is done. So I would hope those would be looked at, and also to make sure that not only the sun makes nice patterns on the building, but that we do not have just shadow?’, cold places. The building is often dark, looming, and creating long shadows. I hope that we can have some sunny spots on that corner to keep a little brightness and warmth in that part of downtown Palo Alto. Chairperson Cassel: Sandy, you have already talked about the fact that one cannot make the building disappear. Is there anything else you would like to add? Commissioner Eakins: I would like to pick up on what Kathy said about the wind studies. I think that the applicant should have real wind studies done. Possibly the planning department Should select the consultant for doing that. This is going to affect everyone, not just the use on the site. Ms. Lvtle: We have recommended an environment impact analysis. We had anticipated that it would be a part of that study, if the project proceeds. Commissioner Byrd: I want to speak especially to the design and massing along Cowper. While it is true that the building is currently built out to the lot line, I don’t think that should provide an absolute barrier to some sort of re-creation of that face of the building to perhaps allow for some street front retail there. Yes, it will be massive because this goes to the lot line, but the treatment could be improved beyond simply the design that has been proposed, and actually go to a reuse of that first floor there. See if it can relate to the other side of the street which is becoming busier all the time. Commissioner Schink: I would agree with Owen’s comments, but I would like to focus my comments on the bigger picture. I commend the applicant on the approach you have taken. I believe that your architectural style is genuine to the building and is appropriate. The use of the metal tracery has done a good job in bringing the scale of the building down, giving it a nice, elegant feel. The new elements I believe will actually help mask the mass of the building better by using the three-story elements. In general, I think the architecture is very good, with the slight A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 28 10-04-96 exception of a need for some retail vitality improvements. In general, I commend you. Chairperson Casse!: I don’t hear anyone saying, "Dump this." Commissioner Ojakian: Maybe not in terms of the architect and the mass. 1 agree with A:lPC3\9-25.Min Page 29 10-04-96 the comments that Jon and Kathy have made. I would not contest this project based on the general things that are being proposed architecturally. Chairperson Cassel: We seem to have consensus on that item. Question #4: Public Benefit: Is the proposed public benefit commensurate with the amount of additional space being proposed? What is the focus of the proposed public benefit package? Commissioner Schmidt: I would agree with staff’s comments that the public benefits proposed are not commensurate with the scope of the project and the impact that I think it might have. The staff report suggests many things that sound like very useful public benefits to include. It mentions a focus for a benefit ]oackage. For me, a potential focus would be on traffic and transportation. That is something I am concerned about. There are suggestions for possible shuttles, etc. A highly detailed look at how much par-king is going to be provided, an analysis of traffic and transportation in the EIR which comes a little later, but traffic and transportation might be an emphasis of the public benefit package. Also, Jon has mentioned more pedestrian- scale things possibly linking further down University Avenue could be a second focus of the public benefit package. Commissioner B_.vrd: I agree entirely with what Kathy said. I do think that the package right nov,, needs focus, and transportation is an obvious point to focus on. An additional possibility for me is to have the applicant work as hard as it can on the design and use of that atrium. There is clearly an intent there to create an useful public space, but I feel there are additional possibilities there, not just in its design but in the specifics of the intended public use. To have the applicant come back and say, "We intend to look at providing such and such activities here on such and such a regular schedule for the community, and we would bear some or all of the cost for that" would be appropriate in this case. There really is not a public space exactly like what is being proposed here an.vwhere else downtown, so the possibilities are very exciting. It would be interesting to see those possibilities fleshed out. Commissioner Eakins: I agree that the public benefits need to be strengthened. On the one hand, I feel it is not appropriate to tie public benefits to what we feel is already wrong with the building. But I have to keep reminding myself that it has to do with the proposed additions. Now, the atrium as a public benefit and making it available does have some public benefit, but it does have to be specified more. The value of the restaurant is associated mostly with potential sales tax revenue. Shirley Wilson’s comments about big restaurants not doing that well in Palo Alto made me stop and think. Just now, I realized, what have people lamented most? It was losing Liddicoat’s. Maybe having a food court public atrium would be the most exciting thing to do there. That would attract the pedestrians at noontime. I know that the cafeteria is used, but not that much. I think most people don’t know it is there. My son-in-law worked in that building for three years, and my daughter never knew where the cafeteria was. So something more available and open would be accessible. Then the atrium might be fun. That is what I A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 30 10-04-96 think Owen is saying. Let’s make it more fun. The parking and traffic is the big question. Making a more substantial contribution to the par’king assessment district and!or public transit is very, very appropriate, as well as the exterior improvements..Ion said, more than the block. Yes, the building casts a big, long shadow. Adding more to it, trying to maintain this division between what is already there and what is proposed as an addition makes it appropriate that the proposed addition would require a great deal more of a contribution to the downtown revitalization. Commissioner Ojakian: I would agree with what my colleagues have said. When I looked at the staff report, some of the other public benefits they proposed on Pages 15 and 16, the ones that stood out to me were #1, 2, 6, 7 and 8. So although I have not spoken very’ favorably about this project, I guess a case could be made that if some of those public benefits and/or others that addressed traffic and parking were to come forward, then it makes maybe the argument for the project a little more compelling. So I can understand where my colleagues are coming from, and I think I am in a similar position to them. Commissioner Schink: I agree with what has been said so far regarding pu.blic benefit. The only thing I would add is a clarification of my opinion. Several of my colleagues have mentioned a bigger contribution to the public benefit. My conception is that it is not generally good to present the public benefit in dollar terms. I would be much comfortable if you came back and said to us, there is this really exciting urban design improvement plan that is being developed and we want to take the responsibility for implementing it from Alma to our project, .something along those lines, or a new par’king structure on one of the parking lots. I get really uncomfortable when we start getting staff reports indicating that the applicant has proposed to give the downtown group $500,000 or $100,000. That is not the way I like to see public benefit presented. Finally, at a previous PC hearing a couple of weeks ago, one of the neighbors came forward and made some very interesting comments to us about Public benefits that they understood needed to be made in the downtown area. I would encourage you to reach out again to the neighbors. Listen to them. They know the neighborhood and what needs to be done. Try to respond to what they want when coming up with your basket of public benefits. Question #5: Connection to Downtown: How effective is the proposal in connecting the eastern end of downtown with the rest of the downtown area? Commissioner Schrnidt: This is a difficult question. We have talked about a lot of things, but connecting to the rest of downtown, making something that both Owen and Sandy have suggested, making the atrium space and the whole first floor more of a draw, bringing people down there is the real connection. So I think that is really an important thing. Also in terms of a physical connection, physically making it more a part of the downtown, I am a little concerned in A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 3 10-04-9 loo "king at the model that ihe comer at Universi~’ and Co’~per has an emphasis to it on the lower levels. The comer at University and Tasso does not have the same sort of treatment. It looks like it reaches out in one direction and is not thinking about the rest of the street. I realize that that level is asymmetrical, but that is a possible concern. Chairperson Cassel: Are you saying that you are concerned that the three different streetscapes all relate to the neighbors across the street on all three sides? Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, we have talked about Cowper Street, and I am saying it should relate to Universit)’, as well. ,Chairperson Cassel: And because it is a separate parcel to the back, it does not really relate to L.vtton either. Commissioner Schmidt: Yes, and I did not even mention that. It needs to relate appropriately on that side, too. At the moment, I am talking about this comer that we see on the podium level having a different treatment than the comer at University and Cowper. Chairperson Cassel: I see what you are saying. It only has one side of its mouth. I think this question also relates to the question we had in terms of, if this is going to connect downtown, is the activity level going to be too high? I think that is the question that neighbors are asking here. Question #6: Proposed Public Art: Do the proposed pyramids contribute to the pedestrian environment around the site? Commissioner Byrd: I am intrigued by the material, but I am not sure about the shape. I do think that the shape is severe and open to interpretations that include unfriendly interpretations. I am wondering if the applicant would at least be willing to take a fresh look at the use of this same interesting material in additional shapes beyond the stiletto pyramids that are being proposed. Chairperson Cassel: I assume that this still goes before the Public Art Commission. What they must do is to take this before them, work with them, and they will then give us a recommendation pro or con, and it will come back to us. Commissioner Eakins: I have spoken to the Chair of the Public Art Commission, and she said they welcome all the suggestions and questions that we have. While they expect to take the lead on this, they want plenty of discussion. Commissioner Schmidt: I would agree with Owen’s comments. I very much appreciate the designer’s enthusiastic presentation, and there are some wonderful ideas there, but I am A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 32 10-04-96 somewhat concerned about the shape too, that in that particular location, the.v might be wonderful shapes elsev,,here, but at the moment, the?, do not appeal to me in that location. I would be concerned that the?, might get a nic -kname like "the banker’s heart" in San Francisco at the Bank of America building. I am sure people could come up with things to call these. It has wonderfu! ideas about light and refraction, making this a very active kind of sculpture. Those are wonderful ideas that I would like to see explored further. Commissioner S..chi~: I really struggle with this. I am sitting here thinking about what the definition is of public art. It strikes me that I guess public art is something that we all design and tell you to go and execute. That is kind of what is coming across to me. I know that is a cynical comment, but with all of our comments, I would nov,; call this a "public thing." If we want it to be public art, we should say this is your space, this is your canvas. You create it. I am at a point where I am impressed with his passion for doing this well, and with obvious, quality material. I would say, go for it, and we should get out of the way. If we want a public thing, then I guess it would be our public thing. Commissioner Ojakian: I am going to support Jon’s comments. The one word I wrote down after hearing the presentation tonight was, "impressed." I was impressed with what I heard and the enthusiasm of the person from the design team. Again, Jon has stated it beautifully. Chairperson Cassel: I will say here that I would like this to go forward to the Public Art Commission. They have done some nice work. Commissioner Eakins: Jon, we are not about to teil people what to do, but I at least want to comment on where it goes. I don’t want to argue with an artist about the shapes. But I think that the public sidewalk is not the best place for this. MaybeI do not understand the drawings, but it looked to me like they were going to infringe upon the public use of the sidewalk. We want to have more people there, which is part of making it more pedestrian-friendly. So I am concerned about that potential conflict. Also, as regards the gallery, the idea of the Public Art Commission administering the gallery. I think that is a little optimistic. As I understand it, they do not have the staff or the volunteer time to do that. That does not mean it is not a good idea to have a galleD’ with changing exhibits and that they should be juried, but there will probably have to be another way to set it up. I want to support the idea, but make sure that it is understood that it is not a given that the Public Art Commission would be able to run it on their existing resources. Question #7: Parking and Traffic: When does a healthy and vibrant downtown become too congested? Can the proposed new square footage be accommodated without significantly impacting existing parking and traffic levels? Is the "valet assisted" parking proposal realistic? Should the proposal include public parking during evening hours? Can the project, including the atrium, meet its own parking requirements? Can alternative transportation measures be improved? A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 3 10-04-9 Commissioner Schink: I am not going to try and address the traffic issue, because it is a subject that we bought into when we agreed upon what the growth limits were going to be downtown. I will speak to the parking issue. This is a real challenge. When you consider valet par’king, you realize that you have to take the valet parking experiment on a rather large scale. We are going forward, recognizing that this is, to a certain degree, an experiment. The only way valet parking can possibly succeed is when it is done on a very large scale. You are taking a pretty good sized risk. I think that it is obvious in our future that it will be essential that we begin making these kinds of experiments, and I cannot think of a better place to try it. So I can support the concept of valet parking here. The one suggestion I would have, which I would hope staff could explore further with the applicant, is the idea that all of the employees in the building surrender their .parking permits so that they are forced to use the valet parking in that building. In that way, you will ensure that the valet parkirig will, in fact, work. What happens, if we do not have that requirement, if it is not working, is that the employees simply overburden the existing parking spaces. So I feel that will be an essential requirement. With that requirement, I would support the concept. Commissioner Byrd: I would like to take a stab at the larger issue posed by the first part of the first question. That was, when does a healthy and vibrant downtown become too congested? I am not sure of the answer, but I can tell you that unhealthy, no vibrant downtowns are not congested. They are boarded up and boring, and no one is around. So congestion may just be part of the price of having a healthy and vibrant downtown. It is certainly not something that we want to encourage or exacerbate, but it is not, for me, congestion downtown, if that speaks to traffic. I don’t think it is as significant an issue as perhaps other people do. I do think the parking problem remains significant. I would prefer to see it addressed in this and other projects by significant demand management programs and promotion of alternatives. But in general, the notion of making this a more compact area of town necessarily means that more people can live and work there and get out of their cars. At the end of the day, we know we are succeeding in our downtown planning when lots of people want to be there. Bringing those people there necessarily involves a certain amount of congestion. I am not sure that that is such a bad thing. Commissioner 0jakian: Again, I have deep concerns about the parking, and without getting into al! the details of why, I will just say they are based on the knowledge I have gained from sitting on the committee that is looking at the downtown parking structures. In terms of valet parking, I am not sure if I agree with Jon’s comments. I am not sure we can evaluate how realistic an approach this is. I almost think the shoe is on the other foot. I think somebody would have to come back to us and show us how this could absolutely work in no unequivocal way. For anybody to say this is a valid method to use regardless of whether it works in a highly urban downtown San Francisco, I would still have to be convinced that it is something that is going to have to work here, because this is a different setting. You’ve got A:~PC3\9-25.Min Page 34 10-04-96 residential neighborhoods, as the commissioner to my left has alluded to earlier and the fact that he lives not too far from here. I live about six blocks in the other direction, so I am not convinced that it is a valid method in our particular setting. Somebody would have to show us that. In terms of the third question on here, should the proposal include public parking during the evening hours, I guess my answer to that is yes. It is that simple. Can the project, including the atrium, meet its own parking requirements? Well, the staff report has already told us that it cannot do that. It is short, and these particular types of uses that we are talking about are uses that usually require a large amount of parking, so I don’t think it can meet its parking requirement. Can alternative transportation measures be improved? I guess the answer to that is yes, also, but I would like to see the applicant come back to us and give us a list of ways where they think they again can make this project work without impacting the area in terms of traffic congestion and in terms of parking, in particular. Commissioner Schmidt: I think this end of town is, indeed, becoming more vibrant, so it is important to even things out a bit. Much of downtown is very active, with the addition of Border’s Books and with the planning of a large new restaurant about a block away, the Garden Court, several buildings within a few steps that are already impacting parking or will continue to impact parking and traffic. I think the vibrancy is good and important, and I believe we have all said that transportation and parking are big issues on which I will look forward to seeing more analysis if this project goes further. Chairperson Cassel: I have made comments on parking and traffic. I was so struck when we did this study on the downtown parking garage that it takes 250 square feet to put the person in and 300 + square feet to put the car in. This doesn’t work. We are not going to be able to keep on doing that and keep the downtown functioning. It is not just a problem for this ci~,. It is a problem eve .rywhere. Looking for other alternatives, if we are going to put a large mass at one point, there is nothing in the downtown guidelines that states where this 300,000 increased square footage is supposed to go and how fast it is supposed to develop. It was just, "Let’s see where it comes." In this case, it is not an automatic right to build it. They are asking for a PC development that is already fairly heavily impacted, but I do not see that we have limits in that sense, except as the PC limits it. I am really concerned about the sudden impacts of the traffic. And the last Question #8: Project Size: What is the minimal amount of square footage needed to "humanize" the existing building? Commissioner Ojakian: The first thing that pops into my head are Sandy’s comments earlier. It is a little hard getting the size of the building that is there out of your mind. To think about what would humanize what is currently there, putting a building at 48 feet going around two-thirds of a block strikes me as a large construction. Whether that can create a humanized effect I am not sure if I can comment upon. We have seen some interesting things in the design tonight, and A:kPC3~ 9-25.Min Page I 0-04-’ commissioners have commented upon some other ways of maybe improving that. It is a difficult question to answer. I am going to leave my comments there. I am not sure if you can approach this by tal "king about a minimum amount of square footage needed. CommissiQ.ner Eakins: Exactly. I think the question needs to be turned around. Whatever is added needs to be humanized. So every square foot of this project should be earned by improving just what we have been talking about -- the human scale and attractiveness. Commissioner Byrd: With all respect to the council, I think Sandy isright that this may not be the right question. The better approach would be to ask how do we best humanize this building environment and then do it as best we can, and see how many square feet that takes. Commissioner Schink: We are all coming up with a little bit different take on ihis question. I think this question points out what the applicant understood. The mass of this building supports adding considerable mass around it. Byu adding more building around it, you end up with a better building, strangely enough, from an architectural and a humanizing perspective. The problem we are struggling with is, how do we justify all of the impacts of adding that square footage. That is the big question. At this point, I think he has done a relatively good job of balancing the additional mass and architecture with an attempt to make the building more human, so I feel you are in the right place from that perspective. The struggle we still have is, how do you come up with the public benefits for all of the other incumbent impacts that go along with the humanizing architecture. Commissioner Schmidt: We have looked at the model and the drawings, and we see a building that has a better scale, but it still does not guarantee that it is humanized. It is really the detail and the thought that goes into the execution of what is really next to people. I look forward to seeing that developed. It might even include some arcade effects or some recesses on any side of the building, not just on the University Avenue side, if there are going to be some tenant changes. You may not have to work with keeping the face ofthe building on the side streets right on the sidewalk. You may be able to make some changes on those sides also that might give it some additional human scale, because there will be a 48-foot-high building around the entire base of it. It is still a fairly tall building from a person’s point of view. ..Chairperson Cassel: Does anyone want to make any further overall comments that summarizes how you feel? (None) Now I will make an attempt at summarizing, a difficult task. What we need to do is to take all of these comments and forward them. I was trying to get a sense of whether we have a range of people who are saying, this is a project that we really should not have and people who are saying it is a project we really should have. What I am getting is a sense that we are interested in looking at another level of discussion. Is that correct? With a number of the issues we have been talking about, one was better public benefit, a real concern about transportation issues, some real concern about how we keep this very big building humanized. Are there ways to do that? Are there ways to relate to the neighborhood? Is this A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 36 10-04-96 applicant going to go out into the neighborhood, talk to the neighbors and see what the?" want and see how this building can relate to them? Are those all issues that we have fairly well agreed upon in varying ways and degrees? Commissioner Eakins: I think you have done an admirable job. What I think I heard everybody saying is that the tradeoff for the benefit of improvements looks to be an appropriate tradeoff and that there are possibilities there and not to quash the project because it is adding more to something that is already big. Council member Simitian said (and I am paraphrasing), "Are you tzlling me that to make something.big better, we have to make it bigger?" It looks like the irony of it is that you do. ChairPerson Cassel: We are n~t saying it is too big. Commissioner Ojakian: I believe I did. I had some real concems, and I have listed them off already, but one qualifier I put in there is that I would imagine that if the public benefit was sufficient enough, it would be a project worth taking another look at. Other than that, I listed a series of concerns that made me feel it is a little too large. I do not need to restate all of those reasons why. I do appreciate several of the comments made by colleagues tonight. It is beneficial to go .out and speak with people in the neighborhood and get their feedback. I think it is important to talk with some of the people that are property owners and have businesses in the downtown to see what they have to say. It is a little difficult tonight getting any sense of what the public opinion is on this particular project, because as Jon has pointed out, there is really nobody here from the public other than Tficia Ward-Dolkas who is very active in that neighborhood and has a good feel for some of the issues that could be raised by a project like this in her neighborhood. There needs to be more leg work, etc. The emphasis right now has just been on how can the building be improved from a visual aesthetic point of view and how can the applicant make this work for them so that it works out financially and maybe otherwise in terms of providing additional space for tenants who feel like they need it. So I have a feel for that. I think we all do, but at this stage, I have a lot of concerns. Commissioner Byrd: My comments will be more enthusiastic than Vic’s. I think this is a location that cries out for improvement, and I am very excited that the owner wants to try and make improvements. There is still significant work to be done on the design and benefit package and the overall shape of the project. It is still very much in clay, but I certainly want to encourage the applicant in the strongest possible terms to move forward and work with the city and work with the neighbors and come back with something that is improved. I am very excited about the possibilities of improvements at this location. Commissioner Schink: I agree entirely with Owen. I feel that the property owners should be commended for wanting to improve their property and for wanting to improve the downtown. That is not to diminish the challenges that you will face in putting together the public benefits, but at this point, you deserve to be commended on the efforts you have made. A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 10-O4-9~ .Chairperson Cassel: We now need a motion to forward these comments to the City Council. MOTION: Commissioner Eakins: I so move. SECOND: By Commissioner Schink. MOTION PASSES: Chairperson Casse!: Are there any further comments? All those in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes unanimously on a vote Of 6-0, with Commissioner Beecham absent. Thank you vet3.’ much for coming forward to us. We appreciate your time. A:kPC3\9-25.Min Page 38 10-04-96 Attachment 3 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING OCTOBER 3, 1996 525 UNIVERSITY AVENUE CM Capital Corporation 96-DPR-I Application for a development project preliminary review for a Comprehensive Plan amendment to the Urban Design element, Policy 1, Program I, a zone change from CD-C(P) (Commercial Downtown District and Pedestrian Shopping Combining District) to a Planned Community (PC) District and a major addition to an existing office/commercial building at 525 University Avenue. (Mr. Ross leaves the hearing for this item. Ms. Maser also leaves, both due to a conflict of interest. Ms. Piha chairs the item.) Ms. Piha: Are there additional staff comments? (None) Are there board members questions of staff? Mr. McFall: I want to clarify what our action today should be. Ms. Grote: Your action today is to make comments and give general direction to the City Council. You will not be taking an action. You will not be approving or disapproving the project with your comments. Mr.McFall: About the architecture and public benefits, etc. Ms.Grote: Right. Ms.P.iha: Is it a preliminary hearing? Ms.Grote: Yes, it is a prescreening, which is similar to a preliminary hearing. Ms. Piha: Are there any summary comments from the City Council or Planning Commission at this time? Ms. Grote: You should have in your packet a summary memo summarizing both the Planning Commission and City Council comments. There were no changes to that. Ms. Piha: Any questions of staff2 (None). With that, we will begin the applicant’s presentation. You have 15 minutes. A:LARBMins\525Univ.min Page 1 10-24-96 Steve Player: I am here to introduce the applicant. I represent CM Capital Corporation. As you can see, this was a joint study session, or actually kind of a bifurcated joint study session. The City Council has asked the Planning Commission and the Architectural Review Board to look at our plans for 525 University Avenue on a preliminary screening basis. In the audience, we have available to answer any questions Henry Gaw, Vice President of CM Capital Corporation in charge of Real Estate, Lloyd Mott, Real Estate Manager, Suzanne Hardman, our project coordinator, and also David Jury who is part of staffteam working on this particular project. We are excited about what we are trying to do. It is a building that you are familiar with. It is probably the most prominent building in Palo Alto, and there have been some very mixed reactions to the building. We feel that we have put together a project which will be of tremendous help to that building and will be of real service to the downtown. I would like to introduce Dick Campbell from Hoover Associates who will give you a formal presentation about it. We welcome your thoughts on this project. Richard Campbell. Hoover Associates. 1900 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto: This project has a somewhat interesting architectural history. The building was designed in 1964 by a prominent San Francisco architect, since deceased, whose name was Tally Moll. In 1965, the building received a very prestigious design award from the AIA. a national design award. It was widely published and recognizedin the architectural community, as a very fine building. I lived in Palo Alto at the time, and at one time it was probably a welcome addition to downtown Palo Alto. But that was 31 years ago, and attitudes have changed a lot about this building. There are some issues about it, such as its size, which cannot be changed, but there are some community concerns about this building which can be changed and which we think should be changed. This is a good opportunity to do that. This is the existing floor plan. Some of the issues that we see (and I am sure that anyone who has studied this building would have the same concerns) is that its presence on University Avenue is very weak. The entrances to the building are on the side. It is very hard to even see the entrances until you are almost upon them. The University Avenue frontage, which has a nice glass frontage, is all tenant space really turning its back on University Avenue. So the building has no presence on University Avenue. That is one issue that we see. A second issue is somewhat related to that. It is not a very inviting project to enter, the way that entrances are located. The other major issues is the plaza and the wind configurations around the building. It is always very windy here. Very seldom do you see anyone in the plaza. It is visible from University Avenue as you walk by, but it is not very inviting. A lot of terms have been associated with this building. Pedestrian-unfriendly is one that you hear a lot. Basically, at the ground level, this building has very few amenities for pedestrians. In fact, a major elevation of the building as you came along University Avenue from the retail area is this completely blank wall, also relatively blank wall here with a door that is just flat in the face of it. There is no articulation; there is no interest at the pedestrian level. So those are some of A:\ARBMins\525Univ.min Page 2 10-24-96 the design problems that we saw as really crying out to be addressed on this project. At this point, I want to talk about how we approached some of those issues. Certainly, we realized that identifying problems is the first step in solving them. The ways of solving them are many. We have gone in a certain direction, which I will present. We also welcome any of your comments, and actually comments from anyone in the community. We have gotten several letters on design issues from people in Palo Alto, and we welcome those comments. We certainly would take those into consideration as the design of this project would continue. To explain our design, we have a couple of things to use. This is a model of the existing tower, and this shows the base we are proposing with very little detail. I will start with the floor plan we are proposing. What we are suggesting for this project is to bring the entrances to the lobby on University Avenue which will have arcades and a treatment which will really call attention to the fact that this really is the entrance to the building and that it does face on University Avenue. These entrances will lead into open gallery spaces where we are suggesting a place for display of public art. The Public Art Commission is quite interested in this. What we are trying to do is to create two verb’ inviting entrances and a complete transparency back into what is now an atrium, rather than a courtyard. We have tried to make the building more inviting and bring some amenities down to the pedestrian level by introducing an arcade along the front of this building. What we are trying to do is to create an element here that is a focal element for people coming from the retail area. We are also try. ing to introduce this arcade down at the pedestrian level. We are using this metal tracery, this grillwork, to try and get an interesting sort of layering here. There has been some comment that this appears to reduce the width of the sidewalk, but in effect, it really does not. It is an arcade intended for people to flow in and out. It also provides an inviting and kind of symbolic entrance to the building here on Cowper Street rather than way in the back. For the plaza, which has proven to be a very unpopular place (there is seldom anyone in it), we are suggesting adding some space to the building. We are adding one floor here, and a floor here, and we are adding a building here. That is the space that is being added. It is 44,000 square feet. The atrium is roughly 7,000 square feet. What this does is to create the four sides with the existing building and these buildings over which we intend to put a glass roof. The idea is to make this not only an amenity for people in the building, which we certainly think it will be, but also we are trying to provide a space for the community for community use, particularly in the evenings, for perhaps the Black and White Ball, for a lecture series, for concerts, any number of reasons. The owner is very supportive of this. It is one of the benefits that might be talked about later. It is a space that really does not exist anywhere in Palo Alto at the present time. Another advantage of this is the fact that this building has parking, depending upon whether you have a valet configuration or just a regular configuration. Under a regular configuration, it parks close to 500 cars. So the nice thing is that if you have an event here, you are not asking people to park on the streets in the neighborhood to go to that event. There are spaces in the building. With a valet configuration, the number of parking spaces goes up to around 650 cars. People can A:LkRBMins\525Univ.min Page 3 10-24-96 go to the event from the par-king garage and back down again without ever having to leave the site. So we feel that this project can offer a really valuable amenity to the community of Palo Alto. This shows the comparison between the existing building and what is being proposed. The existing building has very flat elements here and here, two wind tunnels going back into the plaza. There is no articulation at all except for some vertical elements which we think are the wrong scale for this. What we have tried to do is to introduce horizontal elements, bringing the scale down and using the arcades to introduce a layering effect, to introduce interesting shadows, etc. as the sun passes over during the day. One thing we hope will happen is that there an interest in the community and also with the owner to convert the bank area to retail. Right now, it is a blank wall. The bank that was there was bought out by Wells Fargo and will no longer be a bank, so it appears that there may now be an opportunity to do that. That is what this sketch represents, opening up the ground floor for retail. To quickly go through what these spaces might look like, this is a proposed conception of the atrium space. There are a lot of design details still to be worked out. We are taking these three stories and putting in the glass roof. trying to create a large atrium which we hope would be very important part of this project and would have a lot of interest, a lot of vitality. This is a view looking along University Avenue toward the retail area. This is the way the comer looks now -- a very flat facade with two little openings for doors and very little interest. We are trying to create something at the comers and in the arcades, sort of a layering effect. This is the image from University Avenue. You cannot see the door. It is around the comer. Right now there are bike racks and planters, and it is a bit of an obstacle course to get into the building. What we want to do is to bring the apparent entrance to the building down to the comer, creating a more inviting entry into the building. These are the sidewalk features and the canopies for the entry doors. This is a view on Cowper Street showing a second entrance that goes back into the atrium from Cowper. It is matched on Tasso Street. as well. With that, I will stop and let Brent talk about some of the landscape features. Brent Cottong. Cottong & Taniguchi. Landscape Architects, 1105 Burlingame Avenue, Burlingame: I have been a consultant to the applicant since the fall of 1992. At that time, our charge was to look at the intersections as nodal points for public improvements. For the last two years, our focus has shifted to the block between Tasso and Cowper. Our original charge was to create a gateway to the downtown. We studied the idea for months. A gateway, by concept, implies perhaps an overhead or some kind of clock tower, traditionally. That obviously does not work here. We wanted to create something that would fit into the fabric of the downtown and would not disrupt the elements that were there. These elements had to be unique in and of themselves. They had to stand alone. What we designed and created was public art on the street that defined the approach to the downtown. Psychologically, the feeling of entering the A:k~d~13Mins\525Univ.min Page 4 10-24-96 downtown, coming from Highway 101, although it may not be precisely the beginning of the commercial downtown, it really feels that way with this .building in terms of its size and its setback. You feel like you have arrived in the commercial part of the downtown. What we wanted to do was to capture that whole block by using these four sentinels. We wanted something that was unique. We wanted something that was interesting in and of themselves that would attract you to them. We did not want it to be trendy. We wanted it to be classic in terms of its form. We wanted something that was ever changing. At one point, we even looked at kinetic sculptures. What we settled on was the use of glass, because glass is magical in and of itself. So we are working with a glass sculptor named John Lewis in Oakland. The techniques that we are using are actually old world techniques, techniques that were developed for the glass used in lighthouses during the nineteenth century and invented in France. We wanted to create glass sculptures. These elements would line the downtown and slip between existing trees and features, capturing this whole block. They really are quite magical in the sense that they are ever changing. They change with the time of day; they change with the seasons. When you walk by them, there are shadows that are cast. They will have a prismatic effect in terms of breaking down the light into colors, showering the sidewalk with them. At night, they will have a whole new life because they will be lit from below, eternally lit. I brought a sample of the glass. This is a typical piece. They would be cast in panels and set up a lot like stone is set up on an office building in a stainless steel structure. They are incredibly thick and incredibly durable. The serrations that you see would be on the inside, refracting the light in different ways. This smooth side would be on the outside. We are also playing with the idea of inscripting or incising different messages, dates, historical elements, on the inside. We are not sure yet. You see it at just one point as you pass it. Immediately as you pass it, it disappears. You only see that for a brief second. Mr. Peterson: Is that solid? Mr. Cottong: Yes, it is solid. This piece weighs about 60 pounds. We are very excited about these elements. We think they would be a nice addition to the downtown. We think they would be a nice focal point for the Public Art Commission which plans on locating some of its art work in this lower lobby. We would like your support. Mr. Peterson: Could you talk about landscaping? Is that part of your charge? Mr. Cottong: Yes. For landscaping in general, you will see the intersection improvements as another element that is important to the whole vocabulary. I know that the city has a plan now for that. We hope that some of those improvements would take place at these intersections. There are other elements that are not fully resolved. We also hope to enrich the pedestrian environment within this arcade in terms of seating and the existing trees are to remain. The Cowper elevation is in need of landscaping, and that will be relandscaped more in the fashion of University. Avenue in terms of simple trees. A:kARBMins\525Univ.min Page 5 10-24-96 Mr. Peterson: What about the hardscape? Are you involved in that, and if so, what kind Of material do you propose?. Mr. Cgttong: Yes, we will be involved in that. In terms of have we picked a final material? we have not. Due to the construction, we would see a large part of this, if not most of it, as needing to be redone, hopefully, at an enriched level. No, Ms. Piha: Could you describe the base of the sentinels? How are they secured at the base? Mr. Cottong: There is a stainless steel base, and it is part of the internal framework. One of the strongest forms is a triangle. So it is a triangular base tied together with steel structures. They would be bolted to the ground and anchored to the concrete, lit from below. These pieces are little decorative grommets, some type of fastener that we have yet to figure out. exactly what they will be, but they will be a part of the vocabulary that will be in these parcels. Ms. Piha: What is the size of the sentinels? Mr. Cottong: They are three feet on each face. They are very narrow, very slender, and roughly 16 feet high. Ms. Piha: ts that in the planted area or at the sidewalk? Mr. Cottong: No, they are on the sidewalk. They are really meant to be something that you interact with, something to touch, something to walk around. Ms. Piha: How do you feel about continuing them down to the Cowper elevation, and what about the other side of the street, the balance. Mr. Cottong: Right now, we are thinking that they are a family of four, and they work quite effectively, given the size of the real estate that we have on this side of University and the setbacks and the presence of that building. There is a lot going on this side in terms of awnings and projections, much narrower sidewalks, a lot more articulation in terms of the number of tenants. We looked at that at one point and decided it really was appropriate to have it on one side. Ms. Piha: What about when returning down Cowper? Mr. Cgttong: We have not talked about it on Cowper. There is another whole interesting fenestration that the architect is doing with the building to show off the art. Mr. Campbell: The situation on Cowper is that there is much less space. We have a building that is right on the property line there, so we cannot project. What we are trying to do here is more of A:kARBMins\525Univ.min Page 6 10-24-96 a cosmetic approach, trying to recall the arcade so that the building does turn the corner, and we are using this metal tracery also to bring the feeling around. The fact is that here, we have quite a bit of space. Mr. Cottong: You also had some art displays. Mr. Campb~ll: There are still a lot of suggestions here. At one time, it looked like the bank might not be leaving. They had a long-term lease. This is a blank wall, and we have suggested art displays or something on the wall. This model is built as if the bank had left and we have opened up those blank walls, creating retail space. We realize that this is retail space, so whatever type of space it is, there will be some interest there. What we have done here is very preliminary. Ms.Piha: Where will the sentinels be on this model? Mr.Cottong: They are just past this intersection, between the third and fourth columns. Ms.Piha: About how far out? Mr. Cot-tong: They are right along the edge. They line the edge, so they have a clean path for the pedestrian. Ms. Piha: So they are placed between the trees but not necessarily in alignment with any of the architectural features of the building? Mr. Cottong: this is correct. That was in an internal discussion that we had, whether they should align with the building. We really felt that they were a part of the fabric of the downtown and they should address the street and not align with the columns. Ms..piha: Has the Public Art Commission reviewed them at all? Mr. Cottong: No, not yet. We have met with a couple of members, and they seemed very excited about locating them here. We have not made an official presentation to the board. Mr. Peters0n: I have some questions about the building. The designs show alternative elevations for University and Cowper. Could you address those? Mr. Campbell: The reason for the alternatives is that the one shows the lower floor remaining as a bank with no fenestrations. The second one shows the bank having vacated the property, enabling the ground floor to be opened up. Mr. Peterson: Is this what you are proposing now with the bank? A:kARBMins\525Univ.min Page 7 10-24-96 Mr. Campbel!: The owner would have to address the situation with the bank. The reason we did two alternatives was to show everyone what.the building could look like with the bank converted to retail or some other use, and what would happen if the owner were not able to do that. Mr. Peterson: Is this alternative reflected in the model? Mr. Campbell: Yes it is. This reflects opening up of the lower floor. Mr. Peterson: Do you have the building heights of the new corner elements proposed or simply existing? Mr. Campbell: First of all, we are observing the 50-foot height limit with this element. This is about 46-t/2 feet. I am not sure exactly where we have placed this parapet. This level is a new flow. We are adding around 13 feet to the existing building. Mr. Peterson: So that line is probably existing. Mr. Campbell: This is pretty much an existing parapet which is not a cell height for the new third story. Mr. Peterson: One of the renderings shows the atrium open and being used. Is it intended to be open during the day? Mr. Campbell: Yes, in fact, the hope is that the atrium becomes a very vibrant space with a lot of activib,. It is too early in the leasing scheme to know exactly what would be developed there, but what we would hope is that the restaurant would be a very active place at the rear of the atrium. Also, that the other atrium face would be retail and that we would draw a lot of people there. There has even been talk of noontime concerts, things like that. It is certainly in the owner’s interest to make that a very inviting and very heavily used space, and also for the city,. I think the interests are the same for both. Mr. Peterson: You have at least two different canopy treatments, one being at the corner and the other canopy at the tower entry on Cowper and Tasso sides. Could you address the thinking of the two different types? Mr. Campbell: These canopies here are intended to really accent the entrances into the building and to give some interest right at the doors of the building, whereas this is really an element which is conceived as a part of the arcade system. As we see it, it is a different concept. Mr. Peterson: I have a question about materials above the two canopies and also in general. Mr. Campbell: These will be a metal canopy, probably stainless steel, something like that. There A:\ARBMins\525Univ.min Page 8 10-24-96 is still a lot of design detail to be done on this. We hope for a lot of input as we proceed with this. The intent is that these be stainless steel, something rather light. The rest of the materials are the materials that you see now, the spandrel glass, clear glass and precast concrete. Mr. Peterson: So the building elements are precast concrete? (Yes) You obviously have a canopy at this end. What goes at the other end? That is one question. The other is, it seems like there are two basic approaches to getting a.relationship with the street. One which you have done is to come out and bring the entry out. The other obviously is to accentuate going back in the other direction. Could you address both of those? Mr. Campbell: As far as this canopy, there were several reasons for doing it this way. One is that the building does not balance on the site. There are four boys on this side and three on this side. That is as it exists, so we would not get a balance. The other one is that the feeling was that this canopy should be the way this building interfaces with downtown Palo Alto, more so than people coming from the residential areas. So this was a feature, and the idea was that as you walk up University. Avenue from the retail to this retail, if that is what ends up here, that this is sort of an inviting element. It is kind of a signature for the building right on the comer. It is to relate to the rest of the retail area. That was the thinking. Mr. Peterson: What about the idea of going in the other direction back in? Mr. Campbell: That issue, Bob, is one that has come up in other forms. For instance, would the owner be willing to do these kinds of improvements without adding space? Of course, as you well know, you eventually get to a financial evaluation on this. The fact is that if the owner is going to make these kinds of improvements, he really needs to justify it on the basis of increased space. Anytime you decrease the space, it works against the economics of this. This is something we could look at, but it is more than design. It is economics, as I am sure you can appreciate. Mr. Peterson: Somewhat related to that is the question of access to the inner plaza. Would there be public access at all hours, off hours? Mr. Campbell: The intent was that the plaza will be open during normal hours. I don’t know what time of night that would be, but if there is a public event scheduled there, then certainly well into the night. Perhaps for business hours, I don’t think it is anything that has been completely settled. The idea is to keep this open. The plaza can be entered from Cowper and from Tasso, as well as University with two entrances. It is really intended to be a public space, a place that is very inviting, very appealing, a place where someone can come to a noontime concert if they are downtown in the retail area, or for lunch, for retail, etc. Mr. Peterson: Was there any thought given to adding retail along Tasso Street? You have already addressed the distinct possibility along Cowper? A:~d~BMins\525Univ.min Page 9 10-24-96 Mr..Campbell: It is a leasing issue? Mr...Peterson: Is there any intent to add landscaping along Tasso? Mr. Campbell: I am sure we would. I don’t know ifBrent has looked at that yet, but anything like that to soften the building. The building pretty much turns its back on the rest of the city, and that is one of the major things we are try. ing to correct. I am sure that as we go into more detailed designs, there will be landscaping and nice amenities all around the building. Ms. Piha: Are you proposing any of this additional layer and grillwork that you spoke of on Universits.’ and Cowper to extend over to the Lytton elevation to complete the project on all four sides? Mr. Campbell: Yes, we do have elevations of all four sides of the project. We are intending to treat this alley, even though it is not visible. We are carrying the tracery back along Cowper, and this would be the entrance again with a similar canopy back into the atrium space .inside. This is the elevation from Tasso, and we are carrying it all around. Ms. Piha: Did you consider an open air atrium at all? Mr. Campbell: We talked a lot about the atrium. We have looked at a lot of different schemes. The concern we have is that when you put something this tall up into the windstream, the wind just comes down the face of this building, and I have been in the atrium and in the passageway even on days when it did not appear to be all that windy, and it would take your hat off. We have had people suggest wind runnel tests, etc. and we think the safest thing to really make this a space that could be used all year round in nice weather bad weather, if you schedule a public event here and it is open, you do not want to run the risk of bad weather. This was studied a lot, and we really think that it really needs to be covered to be the kind of space that we envision for it. Ms. Piha: I have a question about parking. Can the project, including the atrium space as proposed, be supported by the parking? Mr. Campbell: Just a couple of comments about the parking for this project. This project parks around 500 cars. The fact is that when this project was constructed, it did not meet the four per thousand requirement, so the owner of this project is participating in the assessment district. In reality, this project does more than provide the parking for the people in the building, and it even provides public parking. It also provides leased parking to some other businesses in the area, so I think it is one of the few projects in Palo Alto that provides more than all of the necessary parking on site. For the space that we are adding, we are adding cars at the rate of four per thousand to meet the current code. That is actually going to improve the situation significantly. This project right new has parking on site for 465 cars and it is 202,000 square feet, so that is a A:\ARBMins\525Univ.min Page 10 10-24-96 little over two per thousand. By adding four per thousand for the average space, we are adding about 50% to the parking and about 205 to the area of the building, so we are taking a situation which works now and making it much better. Ms. Piha: How are you adding the parking? Mr. Campbell: By a combination of things. We are taking a space which presently exists in the basement of the building, which is about 22,000 square feet. We are converting that space to parking. I think we are adding 50 cars or some number like that. The other way we are increasing the parking is to go to a valet parking concept. The valet parking concept meets the parking required by code, but again, in fact, because of the !ow parking level in this building, the valet parking we are proposing may never have to come to that extent. The valet parking will more thanmeet the requirement for the code. From a practical standpoint, I am not even sure that much valet parking will be required. Mr. Peterson: The valet parking allows you to park more densely? Mr. Campbell: Absolutely. There would still be visitor parking, etc., without valet, but it is very. typical of what you find if you try. and park anywhere in San Francisco. You pull your car in, you leave it, and you pick it up later in the day. It will not be all valet parking. Mr. Player: Let me address that. During the daytime, roughly half of the parking spaces will be valet, and the other half will be regular parking. In the evening when public events are taking place, just single parking will be needed. Ms. Piha: I have a question about the public benefits. Could you highlight those? Mr. Player: I can talk a little about the public benefit package. What we have tried to do at this point is to put together a combination of various factors which would add up to a public benefit. It consists of utilization of the atrium for public events. We have offered 16 or 17 nights -- Ms. Piha: We have that in our packets. I just wondered if you could highlight the public benefit. Mr. Player: What we were concerned with in developing a public benefit package was trying to look at where the most effective use of dollars could be made in terms of assisting in the downtown area. We are a downtown resident, and we are going to continue to be a component there. So we have tried to address assisting in the downtown improvements in our dollar benefits. We are looking at the Cowper/University intersection, working with the parking assessment district to assist over a period of time in building a downtown parking structure. We also looked at the issue of transportation. We feel that one of the things that is necessary is to begin to develop a way to move people other than in their cars. So we have offered to fund a A:kA.RBMins\525Univ.min Page 11 10-24-96 study for a two-year period on a Marguerite shuttle, try, ing to have the Marguerite come along Lytton to High and University and to a stop at our particular building. We are also working closely and will be working more closely in limited discussions with the art commission on public art space so that as people enter into the building, there will be areas for public art to be on display. We will bring the concept of art into the downtown area. We feel that the atrium site we are proposing will also provide, as Dick as indicated to you, a focal point in that particular area. There is no area like that in the downtown. ! envision it as a way of meeting when we have the Mayor’s State of the City Address, rather than in the Council Chambers when you are behind a post and cannot see what is going on. This would be a wonderful time to have a reception and a public gathering there. Events similar to that would be made available in this atrium space. So those are the highlights of what we are trying to do. Mr. Peterson: Is valet parking currently happening downtown? Ms. Grote: Yes, it has been used at MacArthur Park. Mr, Player: It also utilized by Stars and by one of the banks downtown. Carl Schmidt, when they were the University bank, he called it dense park, but it was an oppommity to use valet parking for their employees. Mr. Peterson: Was that part of the requirement package? Ms. Warheit: That particular case I believe was accepted as meeting the parking requirement. I don’t think we required it, but it was accepted as a solution. Mr.Player: It was accepted as a way to meet the parking with a dense park approach. Mr.Peterson: But that ended up not being utilized, because the demand was not there. Ms.Grote: I don’t know. Mr. Peterson: Regarding the improvements at the intersection of University and Cowper, I believe it is #499 -- Mr. Campbe!.l.: The new building down the street also had money for intersection improvements. Ms. Grote: That is correct. There is some money dedicated, and there is capital improvement project for the entire downtown area being developed, so it is conceivable that this money, if not used right at that intersection, would be used elsewhere downtown. Mr. Campbel!: I envision that as this evolves, we will be working closer with the downtown A:~kRBMins\525Univ.min Page 12 10-24-96 improvements. We do feel that it is important that we not operate in a vacuum here. There are other forces that are working seriously on downtown improvements. Ms. Piha: If there are no further questions, I will open the public hearing. Lynn Chiapella, 637 Colorado Avenue. Palo Alto: I have some questions. It seems to me that this is Alternative #2 to have that open. The real building looks like what you see on the floor. It is a very inhospitable street, basically in the winter or the summer. It is not very attractive. I believe the applicant is asking for about 52,000 square feet in addition to whatever is there, which is quire enormous. It seems to me that it would be possible to set back or have a wider sidewalk area in the front to make it feel not so crowded, as well as coming around the comer and actually open that up slightly and have it recessed so that this is a more open feeling. Right now, you do not have a very open feeling on that street. Looking at the model, when you are out there, it feels completely closed off. It really feels fairly hostile. It is quite lonely if you are walking down there at nighttime sometimes in that area because there is just nothing but walls hemming you in. So I would hope that they might examine the fact that they are asking for 52,000 extra square feet and that it could be made more hospitable by having a design continue around the comer to pull people into that building. Coming down the street on University Avenue, basically, activity just stops dead before you get to that building. I really don’t like to go that far anymore. There are a few businesses toward Bayshore. So that is one thought I had on the building. I think that the parking is very problematic because the parking problem downtown is due to the number of employees that have nowhere to park. I suspect that if you asked him how many people work in that building, you would find that there are far more people working in that building than the spaces that he actually has for parking right now. This will only be exacerbated. A third issue I want to bring up is related to this building and all of the buildings downtown, Midtown, etc. When you bring all of these buildings up to the street, you containerize all of the street trees. Street trees that are containerized are trees that live basically in a big container, just as you containerize your house plants. These street trees are supposed to be maintained by the city, yet the property, owners have containerized them to the degree where there is no air, no soil, and no water. So they need to be treated as containerized trees, and that needs to be built into all projects that do not have setbacks and which come up to the sidewalk or have a limited amount of soil volume. They need to be treated, and it needs to be conditioned that they are responsible for that maintenance, for that watering. There is no way that the city has the funds to do a weekly maintenance of the nature required for these containerized trees. All of downtown reflects that. If you look at the street trees, there are many streets where the street trees are in dire condition. Thank you. Judith Wasserman. 751 Southampton Drive, Palo Alto: I am with the Public Art Commission, A:\ARBMins\525Univ.min Page 13 10-24-96 and I have had two members of the public express their opinions about this building. I will just repeat what they said for your information. One said that this is an opportuniD, to cut the building in half as a condition, that it was too tall. The other person said that it was an opportunity, as a condition, to screen the stuff on the top of the building, which they considered to be ugly. So that is my report as a dutiful citizen. As a public art commissioner, Susan Wetzel and I did see this presentation, and we were intrigued by it. The possibility of the public art gallery is one that some commissioners are very interested in. I understand that the applicant has also spoken to Linda Craighead at the Cultural Center. The Cultural center is also interested. By interested, I mean exactly that. Nothing concrete has been proposed, but there is a lot of negotiation and figuring out of who is going to staff it, what the securit), issues are, who is going to install the art work, etc. There are many issues that have not even been raised. As a concept, everyone is intrigued with it. That completes any comments. Ms. Piha: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the board for board comments. As identified by staff, we will not be taking any action or voting on the project. We will respond with comments, as we do with a preliminary review for the City. Council’s reference. The CiD’ Council has asked us to comment on eight different areas which are in our packets. If boardmembers could reflect upon those, it would be helpful. Mr. peterson: First of all, I live just a block-and-a-half from this project, so this is really in my front yard. So I am very familiar with the site, and obviously, that colors my reaction to it to some degree. I am in complete support of doing something hee. It is just a question of how we do it, so I am very,, much in support of the direction in which this is going. I will make a couple of general comments. One is on the parking. I pass this project at least once a day, if not two or three times a day. I have never found a parking problem there. I do not find the traffic excessive. It seems to flow very well, works very well, so I have no particular concerns about the parking. Obviously, the increased square footage will add to the parking demand, but it appears to me that it ought to function well. So I have no big problem with that. The other side of that is. of course, the tussle that is going on in San Francisco where they are reducing the amount of parking that a tenant can put in because they want to discourage cars from coming in. They want to encourage mass transit use. So that coiors my feelings, too, as I feel that is a good idea. I think that is a good thing to do. On balance, I think the parking as it is proposed will work well. Encouraging the use of mass transit is also valid, so I find this to be a good balance. The sentinel sculptures I think are wonderful. I think they would be attractive both day and night, I think they make a wonderful sense of entry, as you come in here. They look large enough to make an impact, and they look tough enough that they will hold up. It just seems like A:\ARBMins\525Univ.min Page 14 10-24-96 a very, very nice idea. Whether or not it should extend elsewhere or be echoed on the other side of the street by somebody else, or go around the corners on Cowper or Tasso will develop as time goes on. I am certainly in support of those. My biggest concern has to do with the atrium and plaza area now. The downtown design consultant identified what he identified as the Paseo idea that goes through the entire downtown, which is a whole series of what I call "alleys" that have been developed for public use. Even though the current plaza at the back of this building is inhospitable and unattractive and cold and windy and miserable, it still is an opportunity to extend that idea. That is what appeals to me most, not to close it up, as this plan does, but to pen it up so that it could be used both day and night by the general public. It is certainly not a perfect analogy or perfect example, but there is the outside atrium at Stanford Shopping Center that is lined with retail. It has a canopy over the to and it is used for all kinds of special events. Also, ever?,; day, all day, it is used by people to go back and forth underneath it. It is a wonderful space, and I can see that sort of thing happening here. So covering that space is absolutely essential. The realities of the wind runnel effect are undeniable. It occurs on all sides, not just back there. As you walk down Universit3, Avenue, it will take your hat off, too. So covering it is really important, but it is an oppommity to open this up. I do recognize the economic problem here to pay for this. That is really what we are asking, that this developer pay for some of these public amenities. It is worth giving the developer the incentive to do that. I don’t think we would have to take very much away and balance it off by adding a little bit someplace else. Specifically, I think going back in here is the thing to do rather than coming out. I can see cutting corners of buildings off so that it opens it up more. That takes space away, and we ought to give it back to him someplace else. So that is the primary problem I had with coming our, because even though I feel that architecturally, that is very attractive and what has been proposed is proportionately right and does good things for the building, it fills up this corner. I think they are right in feeling that that is kind of a receiving portion of what happens in the downtown. I would like to see it get bigger and larger, and I would like to have the sense that the entry here is more obvious. I feel that closing this up, even though this is open with glass, really closes it up, and anyone coming along hee would not be able to see it. They would not be are that this was here. The way it is now, you can just come through here or here and highly desirable. So the development of this as a retail court that is open would seem like something really worthwhile looking at and examining. The other problem I have with the arcade is that I think architecturally, it comes out and crowds the base of this building. I think it is a good building; I think it is an attractive building. One ~reason it reads so well is that it is coming out far enough that the base reads and really comes through. So to some degree, this arcade coming out crowds that. So that, in combination with my feeling that I would like to see it more open, I would certainly like the architect to take a look at that and see if that could be accommodated. I think that the minimum amount of landscaping that is around that building now is a real problem. It is obviously a problem because it is a structure all the way down, so it is an ongoing A:kARBMins\525Univ.min Page 15 10-24-96 problem. I fell that Lynn’s suggestion is a ve~ good one. There should be a maintenance program, and that could be part of the amenity provided by this developer that they do institute a maintenance program for street trees and structure trees all the way around. Even though I think Cowper and University are quite unattractive at the pedestrian level, it doesn’t hold a candle to Tasso, which is absolutely repellant. It is harder than hard. So it is really important that we do something here, but it is equally important that we do something around Tasso. I would like to see the whole concept pulled right on around. That completes my comments. Mr. McFall: Regarding the eight items, Item #I is policy issues, and staff had some concerns about the traffic, and that this project would take 17% of the growth cap downtown at one specific site. I do share some of those concerns that there is a concentration growth at one location as opposed to spreading out in the downtown. That covers Items 1 and 2. Item #3, architectural design and mass, going down the eight items, I am very pleased with the architecture we have seen here in the drawings and the corner model. I see that as being a significant improvement to the project. I share Bob’s concerns regarding the extent to which it moves out toward University Avenue, the mass there. One of the pluses of the site is the fact that there are plaza areas at the corners of University and Cowper and University and Tasso. I do see those being used in contrast to the large plaza, which receives very little, if any, public use. So I have a concern that we are losing those public spaces at the street level where you can see them and use them. I would also echo Bob’s comment regarding the arcade. While I think it is agood idea, it really does bring the building presence out to the front of the arcade, so despite the fact that the first and second floor walls are set back, perceptually, I don’t think you will get that feeling. You will see the building out at the front of the arcade. So I would agree that there would be some benefit from a massing standpoint and architecturally to set the arcade back somewhat. It will allow the integrity of the tower to remain intact also. The idea that better access to the large, public atrium in the rear is a good idea. It would be nice to have improved access. Right now, you can see glimpses of it. With this proposal, it will be entirely hidden unless you know" it is there, so some means to provide better public access would benefit the project. Regarding Item #4, public benefit, I am pleased that the idea of encouraging and promoting alternative transportation is included. Traffic is a big problem, and this would be one way to help reduce that issue, so I support that portion of the public benefit. Planning for downtown improvements certainly would be something that is useful, and I like the idea of the art elements, the sentinels. I was very unsure about them from reading the information that we received. The sample certainly piques my curiosity. I see these as potentially a very nice addition to the block. If there is a way to get them to turn the corners, I would like that. Right now, Tasso and Cowper are very uninviting. Pedestrian access is not encouraged, which would again support the notion A:\ARBMins\525Univ.min Page 16 10-24-96 that glass along both walls is very desirable, regardless of what tenant is in there. The alternative elevations show glazing, and I would very much encourage that. Regarding Item #5, the connection to downtown, I would disagree with the contention (and we have heard it before) that this is really the eastern terminus to the downtown block. Thee are numerous businesses and entities that are farther east which also would disagree with that point. I do not see this as the end of downtown, and I would like to encourage the concept that the downtown really extends farther towards Middlefield Road, maybe not all the way but farther in that direction. That would support the idea, going back to the architecture briefly, that perhaps the corner element which is not there really should be something not unlike what is on the Cowper/University corner. I think the other corner needs some attention to really end this project and not ignore everything east of Cowper and University. As for Item #6, proposed public art, I think the pyramids are a very innovative, creative and exciting idea. I will be interested in hearing what the Public Art Commission has to say about them when they see them. Also the concept of some public gallery space I find intriguing. The mechanics of making that happen obviously are not in place, so I will be interested in hearing about that, because that is certainly a large undertaking that will need to be addressed if this is realized. Item #7, parking and traffic, obviously the more space you put in a building, the more traffic. If you build it, they will come and they will fill up the space. We have seen that elsewhere downtown, and it will happen here. That is why the owner wants to do this addition. That reflects upon the initial comment that we are still looking at one-sixth of the growth cap at this one site. There will be somewhat of a focus of traffic here. I do have some concerns about that. As for the traffic issues, valet parking is done, and I think that could happen successfully. I am not particularly concerned about that. The idea of public use of the parking area in the evening hours is a good one. I would definitely encourage that so that we can see the parking area used at all hours. The last item, project size, the question it asks is, what is the minimal amount of square footage needed to "humanize" the existing building? I am not prepared to answer that, and I amnot sure who can. That is a pretty broad question. I agree with Bob that covering the atrium is a good idea to make it usable on an anytime basis rather than a no-time basis, having it accessible for 16 or 17 events. That number should be flexible. I do have some concerns about the total square footage, not the minimum that is needed. I think adding square footage will benefit the project and the public,but again, the total size is significant, and I do have some concerns about that much square footage on the site. That’s it. Ms. Piha: I will try not to be redundant, and just add my thoughts. I am really excited about the A:kARBMins\525Univ.min Page 17 10-24-96 project. I think you have done an excellent job in assessing the challenges with the project. You have explored lots of opportunities to try and solve those problems. Your drawings and elevations and your studies and the presentation of them with the models have been very helpful, all the information that you brought forward. So I want to compliment the team. Regarding Item #1, policy conflicts, I think this project is most consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan and Urban Design Guideline policies. On Item #2, concentration of growth and the added square footage, I think this is appropriate for this type of growth and added square footage in our downtown. I think the site can withstand it, and I think this is an appropriate place for that kind of growth to occur in our downtown area. I feel that other parts of the downtown could not support this kind of growth, and I feel that this site is appropriate. So I am in support of the square footage increase and the concentration on this site. Item #3, architectural design and massing, I think what you are proposing here is very. nice. The added layering effects that you are doing to the building to create some additional interest at the street level are helpful. I think bringing an entry, out to the University street elevation is appropriate. I would share my boardmembers’ concerns about the atrium space, completely closing that in and limiting access from the street. I think Bob made some excellent points and observations about some of the interesting elements that are downtown having alleyways and thoroughfares that cut through. My one thought is that Palo Alto is not Minneapolis, Minnesota, and I think we have a very special climate here. We have almost year-round accessibility to good weather, so it tends to break my heart to see us enclosing space. This is not harsh weather here. Part of what makes Northern California special are the opportunities to be able to enjoy the outdoors on an almost year-round basis. I think you have a challenge here with the wind tunnel. I don’t know if there is a way to cut off the wind at the roof and leave more of the open air at the side. That might do something to create more openness closer to this atrium without having to go through doors and walls. So that would be what I would challenge you to think about. It may need a roof, but it may not need enclosed walls on all four sides. That is my suggestion. Item #4, the public benefit, I feel you have met the challenge there, and I am in support of what you are proposing as the public benefit. Item #5, the connection to downtown, I feel that is very effective. The arcade elements and the things you are proposing are really wonderful. Item #6, proposed public art, the art concepts are terrific. I think the sentinels will be wonderful. I, too, encourage that somehow’, there not be such a prominence only on University Avenue but somehow be somewhat of a connection along Cowper and Tasso, even into the atrium. If there were a way to tie that element, maybe not at the same scale and the same level of prominence, but that the building is complete on all four sides so that there is a cohesiveness there, and not too much attention given to the .frontage street. That kind of makes for a false facade. I would encourage you to continue to work with the Public Art Commission. You have opened up some A:kARBMins\525Univ.min Page 18 10-24-96 doors there, and I find you to be receptive. I would really encourage that. Item #7, parking and traffic, I, too, have had occasion to visit a tenant in this building frequently, and I never found parking to be a problem. I am a big fan of valet parking. I think it is a wonderful use of space. It maximizes your parking opportunities, minimizes the asphalt, provides jobs for people, and it is convenient for tenants and visitors to be building. So that is a wonderful solution and very appropriate. It works well in many large cities and in not so large cities. Item #8, project size, I have already commented upon. I am supportive of the square footage increase at the site. Thank you. Thatcompletes this item. A:\ARBMins\525Univ.min Page 19 10-24-96