Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-21 City Council (19)TO: FROM: City of Palo Alto City Manager’s Repo HONORABLE_ CITY COUNCIL CITY MANAGER DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT DATE: SUBJECT: SEPTEMBER 21, 1999 CMR:365:99 800 HIGH STREET: REVIEW OF AN APPLICATION FOR A ZONE CHANGE FROM THE DOWNTOWN COMMERCIAL (SERVICE) PEDESTRIAN OVERLAY (CD-S) (P) DISTRICT TO THE PLANNED COMMUNITY (PC) ZONE, TO ALLOW THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 17,632-SQUARE-FOOT MANUFACTURING BUILDING AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 48-FOOT-HIGH, THREE-STORY MIXED USE BUILDING, INCLUDING 26 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 48,030 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE, 2,379 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE, A SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE AND RELATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS; AND A VARIANCE FOR A PORTION OF THE THIRD FLOOR RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT EXCEEDS THE CITY’ S HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: A FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT HAS BEEN PREPARED. FILE NOS: 97-ZC-9; 97-ARB-122, 98-DPR- 1; 98-EIA-17 RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends that the City Council: 1.Review and comment on the attached Resolution (Attachment C) regarding the adequacy of the Final Environmental Impact Report and comment on the program for mitigation, monitoring and reporting for the project at 800 High Street. Direct staff to finalize the Resolution and mitigation monitoring program and return to Council to adopt the Resolution and monitoring program and make findings thereon pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act; Approve a variance from Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.150 (b) to allow a structure over 35 feet within 150 feet of a residential neighborhood, for reasons set forth in the attached Variance Findings (Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment C); and CMR:365:99 Page 1 of 6 o Direct staff to finalize the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance for adoption, including preparation of necessary agreements for parking and other matters, and return to Council for introduction and adoption of the Ordinance to approve the proposed project for construction of a new 48-foot-high, three-story mixed use building including 26 residential units, approximately 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; based on the attached findings (Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment C) and conditions (Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment E). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a new three-story, 48-foot-maximum-height mixed use building including 26 residential units (27,375 square feet), approximately 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, 1,964 square feet of stair towers and elevators, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. The three floors located above.ground would yield 79,748 square feet of habitable floor area and the two floors underground would yield 90,580 square feet of parking garage space. The project would result in an overall residential density of 26.97 units per acre and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.9 to 1. Although the applicant describes the ground floor studio loft apartments as "live-work" units, it should be noted that the City considers them to be rental apartments for residential use and has calculated the parking requirement based on residential use. The site consists of three parcels which would be merged for a total of 42,000 square feet or .96 acres on the block bounded by High Street, Homer Avenue, Channing Avenue and the alley (Lane 8 West) between High Street and Alma Street. The proposed building footprint (15,237 square feet) results in 36 percent building coverage. The proposed building setbacks on the three floors would range from two to 28 feet along High Street, 20 to 48 feet along Channing Avenue, eight to 11 feet along Lane 8 West (the rear alley), and four to 60 feet along Homer Avenue. Parking would be on two subterranean levels (248 parking spaces) as well as at grade behind the building along Lane 8 West (27 spaces) for a total of 275 parking spaces. The parking levels would extend approximately 20 feet below grade. Vehicular access to the site would be provided from a single, two-way driveway on Channing Avenue that connects to the parking garage, as well as from parking spaces on the four streets surrounding the site. Pedestrian access to the offices and retail space would be provided from a courtyard at the corner of Homer Avenue and High Street. Separate pedestrian entries are proposed to each of the studios along High Street as well as separate entries adjacent to the surface parking along the rear alley. Transit access would be provided from existing bus stops on Hamilton Avenue and the nearby Caltrain station. Bicycle access would be provided by an existing bike path located along Bryant Street. CMR:365:99 Page 2 of 6 The building architecture is contemporary and features an industrial design theme to reflect the historic use and character of the area. Building materials and features proposed include: colored stucco and stone facades, crafted steel gates and rails and a stone base on the first level; matching stucco and metal panel siding with colored metal grills and colored aluminum window frames on the second and third floor; and a standing seam metal roof. The project proposal requires a variance from Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.150 (b) to allow a siructure over 35 feet within 150 feet of a residential neighborhood, for reasons set forth in the attached Variance Findings (Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment C). The only change to the proposed building plans is staff’s recommendation to delete the applicant’s proposal to convert the 800 block of High Street from the existing one-way (southbound) configuration to two-way, as described below. Also attached is a revised Below Market Rate (BMR) housing agreement. This agreement is written to require preparation and signature of the applicant of the recordable, final agreement prior to second reading of the Planned Community (PC) Ordinance. Please refer to the attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment A) and applicant’s written description (Planning Commission Staff Report Attachment D) and plans for further details regarding the project. Photographs and additional display materials will be presented at the meeting. BOARD/COMMISSION REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS Historic Resources Board Review The Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the project on June 16, 1999. HRB members generally agreed that the loss of an historic building would be regrettable. However, they noted that the poor condition of the building appeared to make renov.ation of the building as costly as demolition and replacement and would not provide the same level of public benefit as the proposed project. HRB members generally supported the applicant’s proposal for a new building because of the public benefits that would be provided. HRB members also supported the design of the building, the mix of uses, and the provision of pedestrian amenities, as called for in Comprehensive Plan policies. Architectural Review Board Review The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project on June 24, 1999. ARB members generally supported the mix of uses, architectural design, building materials, public benefits and pedestrian amenities that would be provided by the project. The ARB expressed some concerns regarding several aspects of the building design: 1) the perceived mass of the second and third stories; 2) the design of the atrium above the CMR:365:99 Page 3 of 6 public plaza; 3) the building articulation along the rear alley; 4) the possible use of the landscaped area at High Street and Homer Avenue for public use; and 5) the possibility of breakout spaces or balconies adjacent to the apartments proposed for the second and third floors along Channing Avenue. ARB members also expressed an interest in reviewing more detail on the proposed public plaza and public art at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue as well as the landscaped area at the comer of High Street and Channing Avenue. ARB members unanimously supported the use of zinc rather than copper for the building facade to better reflect the industrial design of the building without creating glare or contaminated runoff that may result from the use of copper. Staff agrees with the use of zinc as a building material. In response to the ARB’s comments and staff’s concems about the building design, the applicant has included in the most recent plans several design revisions including: 1) removing the third story of the first and second vertical elements along High Street; 2) replacing the atrium skylight with an all glass roof; 3) replacing several of the windows and a portion of the facade on the second and third floor facing Homer Avenue and High Street with an open air frame over a portion of the plaza area; 4) adding a trellis at the top of the first story of the atrium; 5) adding a steel awning along the second and third floor along the rear alley with an undulating accent ribbon across the entire length of the building; 6) adding benches to the sitting area at the comer of Channing Avenue and High Street; and 7) adding a balcony for each of the upper floor housing units. The ARB voted 4 to 0 to approve the project. Board members Alfonso, Bellomo, Lippert and Piha voted in favor to approve the project. Board member Peterson did not participate because of a conflict of interest. Planning Commission The Planning Commission reviewed the project on August 25, 1999. Planning Commissioners were generally supportive of the project, indicating it was a good mix of uses at an appropriate scale and density for this location. Commissioners cited the unique characteristics of the site (a half block long parcel close to Alma Street, transit options, and adjacent electrical substation) and substantial public benefits as justifications for the high density of the project. Commissioners generally supported the design of the project, noting the high quality of the materials, the pedestrian scale of the first floor and streetscape, and the creative building design. Commissioners supported the intrinsic public benefits of nine BMR units and 104 public parking spaces as well as at least $350,000 for a South of Forest-Avenue (SOFA) park. Commissioners concurred with the revisions made to the project in response to comments provided by the ARB, Planning Commission and neighbors at previous public hearings and by the City Council at its preliminary review. Commissioners agreed that the mix of uses at this location was consistent with Comprehensive Plan policies. Several neighbors and property owners spoke at the hearing, including four opposing the project and six in support of the project. See attached Planning Commission Staff Report (Attachment A) and verbatim minutes CMR:365:99 Page 4 of 6 (Attachment B) for more detailed discussion of these issues. Commissioners voted 5 to 0 in favor of the project. Commissioner Schink did not participate due to a conflict of interest and Commissioner Byrd was absent. Included in the Commissioners’ motion to approve the project were several recommendations to the City Council: 1) that the retail space be utilized for neighborhood serving uses; 2) that staff review the possibility of short-term (30- to 60-minute) parking zones in the vicinity of the project; 3) that staff review the appropriateness of two-way traffic on High Street; and 4) that the term of the public parking spaces be extended to the life of the building. Staff will evaluate the 30- to 60-minute parking zones after occupancy of the building and is currently evaluating the feasibility of changing High Street to two-way traffic. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Approval of the project, as proposed, would result in a significant impact on historical resources that cannot be mitigated. The existing building has been identified by the City as potentially eligible for the California Historic Register. As such, any proposal that results in demolition of the existing building is a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The only alternative that would avoid this significant impact would be a project that renovated the existing building. This alternative is examined in the Draft EIR. Any significant impact that cannot be mitigated requires that a finding of overriding consideration be made by the City Council prior to approval of a project. Staff is recommending that such a finding can be made for several reasons: 1) the building, although eligible for the California Historic Register, lacks any perceptible architectural distinction and is in a dilapidated state; 2) the feasibility of the proposed project (both architecturally and economically) depends on the efficient use of the entire site (consisting of one half-block parcel) in order to provide the mix of uses, below-market rate housing, and underground parking called for in City policies while preservation of the existing building would compromise the utility of the site for achieving these amenities; 3) the existing building does not meet many of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed SOFA Coordinated Area Plan, whereas the proposed project is generally consistent with these policies; and 4) the public benefits proposed for the project provide significant contributions to identified public needs in the area; including replacement of the dilapidated manufacturing building, public parking (up to 104 spaces), provision of nine BMR rental apartments, public art, a public plaza, street trees and contributions toward funding a park in the PAMF/SOFA area. ALTERNATIVES The City Council may: 1) modify and approve the project, 2) approve an alternative to the project or 3) deny the project. The Draft EIR includes two alternatives to the project: a "no project" alternative, which would entail a lesser level of development consistent with existing zoning; and a "retain creamery building" alternative which would entail rehabilitation of a portion of the existing creamery building and redevelopment of the CMR:365:99 Page 5 of 6 remainder of the site. Although the EIR has determined that the "retain creamery building" alternative would be the environmentally superior alternative, neither this alternative nor the "no project" alternative would be likely to provide the same level of public benefit as the proposed project. The City .Council also has the option of not certifying the EIR. ATTACHMENTS A. Planning Commission Staff Report dated August 25, 1999 (with attachments) B. Planning Commission minutes for meeting of August 25, 1999 C. Letters received at or after Planning Commission meeting D. Resolution certifying adequacy of the Final EIR E. Revised PC Ordinance F. Revised BMR Agreement Final EIR (previously distributed: Council Members only) Plans (Council Members only) PREPARED BY: Chandler Lee, Contract Planner DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW: CITY MANAGER APPROVAL: G. EDWARD GAWF Director of Planning and Community Environment Roxy Rapp, PO Box 1672, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Shreck Brown & Associates, 550 Montgomery Street #900, San Francisco, CA 94111 Peterson Architects, 57 E1 Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Elaine Meyer, University South Neighborhood Group, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real #410, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest, Palo Alto, CA 94301 David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 330 Town & Country Village, Palo Alto, CA 94301 James and Barbara Newton, 216 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 CMR:365:99 Page 6 of 6 Attachment A PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM TO:PLANNING COMMISSION FROM:Chandler Lee, Planner DEPARTMENT: Planning AGENDA DATE: August 25, 1999 SUBJECT:800 High Street, 97-ZC-9; 97-ARB-122, 98-DPR-1; 98-EIA-17; - Review of an application for a Zone Change from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) District to the Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48 foot high, three story mixed use building ¯ including 26 residential units, 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; and a variance for a portion of the third floor residential area that exceeds the City’s height requirement. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. REPORT IN BRIEF The Planning Commission reviewed a previous version of this project in August of 1997. In response to City concerns, the applicant has increased the number of residential units (from 16 to 26), decreased the amount of office floor area (from 62,000 to 48,030 square feet), reduced the height of the third story at the south end of the building, improved the public benefit package, and made other minor revisions to the project. Although there are still some concerns with specific design elements, staff is recommending approval of the project for several reasons which are summarized as follows. The proposed public benefit package includes significant contributions to Below Market Rate Housing (nine BMR rental apartments instead of the 2.6 units required), public parking (up to 104 public parking spaces), a public plaza, agreement to actively support and contribute $350,000 to a future park in the area, and a pedestrian friendly streetscape in a location that 8-25-99 S: [Plan l Ptadiv t PCSR ] high800.pc2 Page 1 is substantially lacking in all of these aspects. The project proposes a well designed building with a complementary mix of uses (residential, office and retail) as called for in the Comprehensive Plan and proposed South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP). Although the SOFA CAP is not complete, the essential policies for the area have been established. The project would set a high standard of good design, quality materials, and pedestrian-oriented street improvements for future projects in the SOFA area. The project does have a greater proportion of office-to-residential use than would normally be envisioned for the SOFA area, although this specific site is an appropriate location for a larger amount of office space. The project location is unique in the PAMF/SOFA area and appropriate for higher density development due to its proximity to the Alma Street traffic corridor, its proximity to various public transit services, new higher density structures (901 and 753 Alma Street), and the visually obtrusive electrical substation. The project site itself is unique in that it is perhaps the only site in the SOFA area on which an existing building covers an entire half block and provides an unusual opportunity to locate parking underground. This combination of factors not only supports the location of a higher density building at this location but also reduces the likelihood of setting a precedent for similarly high density buildings being constructed in other locations within the SOFA area. The height and mass of the building have been significantly reduced by building articulation and setbacks, a variety of high quality materials, a pedestrian-oriented streetscape design and landscaping. However, the project is a large development located in an area of existing smaller scale parcels and buildings. To address this issue, the project is designed to create a strong sense of pedestrian interest and activity including locating most of the apartments at ground level with ample fenestration, patio alcoves and entryways along the High Street frontage and locating a large public plaza as a focal point of local serving retail and pedestrian activity at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street. These urban design features will serve to extend the existing streetscape and pedestrian scale that exists along Homer Avenue but currently stops at High Street. The existing streetscape along the west side of High Street currently lacks pedestrian interest whereas the project would create a building facade with rich visual interest at ground level and a series of pedestrian-oriented features along the street frontage including the public plaza, an improved sidewalk, a perimeter of landscaping and a row of street trees. As noted in the Draft EIR, the visual effect of these building articulations and building setbacks is to create the impression of a series of similar yet distinct buildings. 8-25-99 S: [Plan [ Pladiv [ PCSR [ high800.pc2 Page 2 The revised plans satisfy staff’s concerns regarding two specific design issues: 1) the need to better complement the existing character of the immediate neighborhood, especially the perceived bulk of the atrium above the public plaza on Homer Avenue, and 2) the need to maintain the pedestrian scale of the building as it relates to the smaller size of lots and buildings along High Street. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: 1.Review and comment on the Draft Env.ironmental Impact Report; and Recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project, subject to the plan revisions dated August 17, 1999, for construction of a three story, 48 foot maximum height mixed use building including 26 residential units (27,375 square feet), 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, a two level subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; and a variance for a portion of the third floor residential area that exceeds the City’s maximum height requirement, based on the attached findings and conditions. PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is proposing to construct a new three story, 48 foot maximum height mixed use building including 26 residential units (27,375 square feet), 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, 1,964 square feet of stair towers and elevators, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. The three floors located above ground would yield 79,748 square feet of habitable floor area and the two floors underground would yield 90,580 square feet of parking garage space. The project would result in an overall residential density of 26.97 units per acre and a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 1.9. Although the applicant describes the ground floor studio loft apartments as "live-work" units, it should be noted that the City considers them to be rental apartments for residential use only. The site consists of three parcels which would be merged for a total of 42,000 square feet or .96 acres on the block bounded by High Street, Homer Avenue, Channing Avenue and the alley (Lane 8 West) between High Street and Alma Street. The proposed building footprint (15,237 square feet) results in 36 percent building coverage. The proposed building setbacks on the three floors would range from two to 28 feet along High Street, 20 to 48 feet along Channing Avenue, eight to 11 feet along Lane 8 West (the rear alley), and four to 60 feet 8-25-99 S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSRI high800.pc2 Page 3 along Homer Avenue. Parking would be on two subterranean levels (248 parking spaces) as well as at grade behind the building along Lane 8 West (27 spaces) for a total of 275 parking spaces. The parking levels would extend approximately 20 feet below grade. Vehicular access to the site would be provided from a single, two-way driveway on Channing Avenue that connects to the parking garage as well as from parking spaces on the four streets surrounding the site. Pedestrian access to the offices and retail space would be provided from a courtyard at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street. Separate pedestrian entries are proposed to each of the studios along High Street as well as separate entries adjacent to the surface parking along the rear alley. Transit access would be provided from existing bus stops on Hamilton Avenue and the nearby Caltrain station. Bicycle access would be provided by an existing bike path located along Bryant Street. The building architecture is contemporary and features an industrial design theme to reflect the historic use and character of the area. Building materials and features proposed include: Colored stucco and stone facades, crafted steel gates and rails and a stone base on the first level; matching stucco and metal panel siding with colored metal grills and colored aluminum window frames on the second and third floor; and a standing seam metal roof. Please refer to the applicant’s written description and plans for further details regarding the project. Photographs and plans will be presented at the meeting. BOARD REVIEW Historic Resources Board Review The Historic Resources Board (HRB) reviewed the project on June 16, 1999. HRB members generally agreed that the loss of an historic building would be regrettable. However, they noted that the poor condition of the building appeared to make rehabilitation economically infeasible. HRB members generally supported the applicant’s proposal for a new building because of the public benefits that would be provided. HRB members also supported the design of the building, the mix of uses, and the provision of pedestrian amenities, as called for in Comprehensive Plan policies. Architectural Review Board Review The Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the project on June 24, 1999. ARB members generally supported the mix of uses, architectural design, building materials, public benefits and pedestrian amenities that would be provided by the project. The ARB expressed 8-25-99 S: [ Plan [ Pladiv [ PCSR [ highS00.pc2 Page 4 some concems regarding several aspects of the building design; 1) the perceived mass of the second and third stories, 2) the design of the atrium above the public plaza, 3) the building articulation along the rear alley, 4) the possible use of the landscaped area at High Street and Homer Avenue for public use, and 5) the possibility of breakout spaces or balconies adjacent to the apartments proposed for the second and third floors along Channing Avenue. ARB members also expressed an interest in reviewing more detail on the proposed public plaza and public art at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue as well as the landscaped area at the comer of High Street and Channing Avenue. ARB members unanimously supported the use of zinc rather than copper for the building facade to better reflect the industrial design of the building without creating glare or contaminated runoff that may result from the use of copper. Staff agrees with the use of zinc as a building material. In response to the ARB’s comments and staffs concerns about the building design, the applicant has proposed several design revisions. The revised building plans respond to the bulk and mass of the building along the High Street frontage by removing the third story of the first and second vertical element. By removing the third floor at these two locations, both the vertical and horizontal mass of the building is perceptibly reduced. In addition, three balconies will be created for office tenants, further increasing visual interest at the third floor elevation. Staff believes that this design solution improves the building articulation and the perceived mass of the facade while retaining the architectural integrity of the building along this frontage. °The revised building plans respond to concerns about the design and mass of the atrium above the plaza by replacing the skylight with an all glass roof, replacing several of the windows and a portion of the facade on the second and third floor facing Homer Avenue and High Street with an open air frame, and adding a trellis at the top of the first story. The atrium plaza has been further defined by raising it three steps above the street level and adding a series of landscape elements and areas for the inclusion of public art. The all glass roof provides a greater degree of light and air than the previous design. The open-air frame creates greater transparency than the previous proposal. The trellis creates additional visual interest to pedestrians both inside and within view of the public plaza. In addition, a portion of the third story element at the corner of Homer Avenue and the rear alley has been removed and the two story element along Homer Avenue has been extended down the alley to provide an additional balcony and a reduction of the upper level mass of the building along Homer Avenue. Staff believes that this design solution addresses the concerns of the ARB and creates a more visually interesting and 8-25-99 S: [Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I highS00.pc2 Page 5 inviting public space. The revised building plans respond to concerns about the lack of facade definition along the rear alley by adding a steel awning along the second and third floor with an undulating accent ribbon across the entire length of the building. This awning adds greater articulation and visual interest to the alley compared with the previous plans. A series of six vine-covered columns, eight inches high, is proposed along the building (east) side of the pedestrian alley to identify and emphasize the pedestrian scale of the passage. Staff believes that this design solution addresses the concerns of the ARB and creates a more inviting public space in the rear alley. The revised building plans include a sitting pocket park with benches at the comer of Channing Avenue and High Street. The plans retain the dense layer of landscaping between the public benches and the south facade and windows of the adjacent apartment unit. Staff believes that this approach provides adequate opportunities for public use without intruding into the privacy of the apartment unit. The revised building plans include a balcony for each of the upper floor housing units. The project architect originally did not include balconies at this location because of concerns expressed by the owner of the adjacent hardware store. His concerns involved noise generated by truck deliveries to nearby industrial and commercial businesses that could cause conflicts between renters using the balconies and the successful operation of these businesses. The upper units are designated as BMR units and, as such, should be provided with amenities similar to the market rate units in the building. Staff believes that residents use of balconies would not be significantly affected by the relatively short duration of truck deliveries and that balconies should be provided for the eight upper floor apartments along the southern end of the building. The provision of balconies for the upper units has been included as a condition of project approval. The location, size and design of the balconies will be reviewed by the ARB when building plans, landscaping and other project details are finalized. Public Comment at ARB Meeting Elaine Meyer, representing the University South Neighborhood, spoke in opposition to the project. Ms. Meyer stated that the size and design of the building was out of place with the surrounding neighborhood. She stated the neighborhood’s opposition to a three story building and to a building with such a large FAR (1.9:1). She indicated that the City’s review of the proposed project should wait until the conclusion of the SOFA CAP. Larry Hassett, the 8-25-99 S: [ Plan [ Pladiv [ PCSR [ high800.pc2 Page 6 owner of Palo Alto Hardware, stated his concem with the seemingly incompatible nature of his business, which is located immediately to the west of the project on Homer Avenue, and the proposed mixed use project. He mentioned the potential conflicts between residential uses at the project site and the noise generated by delivery trucks during early morning and nighttime hours. He also noted that his business relies on the availability of on-street parking. He stated his opposition to the proposed left turn lane on Alma Street that would turn east onto Homer Avenue and displace needed on-street parking in the vicinity. Steve Player, representing the property owners - the Santana family, spoke in support of the project. BACKGROUND Site Description The site is presently occupied by a single story manufacturing building of 17,632 square feet and related site improvements. The existing building was built in the 1930s and is currently obsolete. The existing site slopes from the center of the site to the front, side and rear frontages. The site is surrounded by commercial uses (across High Street), the Peninsula Creamery Retail building (across Channing Avenue), an automotive repair facility (across Homer Street), and the Palo Alto Hardware store and electrical substation across the rear alley. The site is within walking distance of Downtown services and public transit. Project History The site is occupied by the Peninsula Creamery manufacturing and distribution facility, an aging, cast in place concrete building. The existing facility is used for refrigeration, storage and distribution. The ice cream manufacturing functions previously located on-site were relocated to another county approximately five years ago. The site is located in an area of existing commercial buildings and the recently approved mixed use buildings located at 901 and 753 Alma Street. The ARB reviewed a preliminary application for a previous version of this project on July 17, 1997 (see Attachment G) and the current project on June 24, 1999 (see Attachment H). The Planning Commission reviewed the previous project on August 13, 1997 (see Attachment I). The City Council reviewed the previous project on May 26, 1998 (see Attachment J) at a development project preliminary review (prescreening). The HRB reviewed the current project on June 16, 1999 (see Attachment K). Minutes from these meetings are attached. Changes from the previous proposal include the following: the applicant has increased the number of residential units (from 16 to 26), decreased the amount of office floor area (from 62,000 to 48,030 square feet), modified the height of the third story at the south end of the building, revised the public benefit package, and made other minor revisions to the project. POLICY IMPLICATIONS 8-25-99 S: [Plan [ Pladiv [PCSR t high800.pc2 Page 7 The project must be determined to be consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and Architectural Review Ordinance Standards for Review. The following Comprehensive Plan objectives, policies, and programs are relevant to this project: Comprehensive Plan Compliance The project is consistent with the following policies: Local Land Use Program L-8: "Limit new non-residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square feet, or 10 percent above the amount of development existing or approved as of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non-residential development approvals reach 235, 000 square feet of floor area." Consistency Review: The proposed addition of 32,777 square feet of new non- residential floor area (50,409 of proposed office and retail minus 17,632 existing) would fall within the Downtown floor area limit, and would constitute nine percent of the total allocation of 350,000 square feet. The proposed addition would constitute 12 percent of the remaining square footage (266,975 square feet as of August 1, 1998). Policy L-9: "Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed-use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed-use development. " Consistency Review: The project proposes a mix of residential, office, retail and public uses. Policy L-25: ’Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed-use area. " Consistency Review: The project proposes a mix of uses including residential, office, retail and public uses, as well as a public plaza, public art, street trees, and pedestrian amenities (street trees, improved sidewalk, and landscaping) at ground level. Policy H-4: ’Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality. " Consistency Review: The project includes 26 apartment units that will increase opportunities for scarce rental housing in the area. Policy B-21: ’WIaintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the 8-25-99 S: [ Plan I Pladiv [ PCSR I high800.pc2 Page 8 Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive service uses, and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods. " Consistency Review: The project provides 26 rental housing units close to Downtown services, offices near transit, and local serving retail use providing services to nearby residents. See the Draft Environmental Impact Report (pages 4-3 through 4-15) for a detailed evaluation of consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. SOFA Coordinated Area Plan ,The project is located within the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) study area. Staff has proposed that the CAP be divided into two phases. This phasing proposal at the present time has not been endorsed by the City Council and is a proposal to allow additional analysis to be completed on that portion of the study area adjacent to Alma Street. The first phase is currently scheduled for City Council review and includes the areas presently occupied by the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF). The second phase will begin upon completion of Phase One (September 1999). The project is located in the Phase Two portion of the SOFA area. Preliminary recommendations provided by the Working Group Draft Plan (dated June 9, 1999) provide policies and development regulations pertaining to the site. The project is consistent with the draft policies, however the project is not consistent with several of the proposed development regulations (MU-2 zoning district). The Draft CAP, as currently written, is a product of the SOFA Working Group and may be revised pending further City review upon completion of Phase One. A comparison of the project with the preliminary MU-2 regulations of the Draft SOFA CAP is shown in the following table. Staff review of the project with the proposed SOFA CAP policies is as follows: Policy L-2:"Provide adequate open space through development of a new neighborhood park within the area currently occupied by PAMF facilities to serve the neighborhood and downtown. " Consistency Review: The project proposes to contribute to the acquisition of the proposed SOFA park as a public benefit. Policy L-6:"Recognize the SOFA Coordinated Plan Area as a growth area that, if developed to its highest potential, will use a substantial portion of the non- residential development allowed by the downtown development cap. " 8-25-99 S: [ Plan I Pladiv [ PCSR ] high800.pc2 Page 9 Cbnsistency Review: The project proposes 50,409 square feet of commercial floor area, representing nine percent of the downtown cap. However, to date 24 percent of the cap has been utilized in the past 15 years. Policy L-8:"Preserve and enhance the historically mixed-use development pattern of the South of Forest Area including residential uses. This mixed-use development shall include mutually compatible uses that provide both vitality and convenience for residents, businesses and visitors. " Consistency Review: The project proposes a mix of uses including office, residential and retail. The proposed local serving retail use will provide convenient services for residents and businesses while the ground floor apartments will provide vitality at the street level. Policy H-1: "Provide up to 300 or more units of new housing throughout the plan area. Consistency Review: The project provides 26 new rental apartment units. However, as noted in the evaluation of development standards, the project would be required to provide 52 units (50 units per acre). Policy H-6: "Housing types in the plan area should include a range of densities, and should be suitable for various ages, household sizes, lifestyles and incomes. " Consistency Review: The project provides 20 studio, four one-bedroom, and two two- bedroom apartments. Nine of the units are proposed to be BMR units in accordance with Program H-2 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Policy T-3:"Pursuant to the 1998-2010 Comprehensive plan, encourage transit-oriented development by allowing higher commercial floor area and housing density in the MU-2 district... " Consistency Review: The project proposes an FAR of 1.9 within walking distance of Caltrain and several bus routes. Policy T-7:"Decrease the adverse visual impacts of surface parking and street level parking garages by encouraging a minimum of 80 percent of parking for mixed uses to be underground or otherwise not visible from adjacent 8-25-99 S: ]Plan] Pladiv ] PCSR [ high800.pc2 Page 10 roadways. Consistency Review: The project proposes 275 parking spaces of which 248 (90 percent) would be underground and the remaining 27 (10 percent) would be located along the rear alley and not visible from major streets. Policy CF-6: "Encourage the construction of a chiM care center...within the Plan area .... Consistency Review: The project proposes to dedicate 12 of the surplus parking spaces for use by the proposed child care center. Policy DC-3: "Any new development.., shall include replacement of any "~nissing"street Consistency Review: The project proposes 19 new street trees in bulbouts at intervals greater than 25 feet to maximize usable sidewalk width and minimize the number of parking spaces lost. Policy DC-26: "Adopt at a future date development standards that require new developments in the MU districts to provide public art. " Consistency Review: The project proposes a public art piece to be located in the public plaza at the corner of Homer Avenue and High Street. Project Comparison With Preliminary Draft MU-2 Requirements Staff analysis of the proposed development standards is as follows (items shaded are not consistent with the proposed standards). It should be noted that the following regulations have not been adopted and may be revised pending further City review later this year. The following analysis has been conducted as a means of testing the project with the proposed regulations. 8-25-99 S: I Plan]Pladiv ] PCSR ] high800.pc2 Page 11 Minimum density (for all projects) Minimum site area Front Setback Proposed MU-2 Requirement for Mixed Use Developments 14 units per acre 10,000 square feet residential = 10 feet non-residential = 0 feet Proposed Project 27 units per acre 42,000 square feet residential-- 17-25 feet non-residential = 1’ 9" Site Coverage 75 percent (maximum)36 percent Parking Residential = 1.5 spaces/unit Office = 4 spaces/I,000 s.f. Retail = 4 spaces/I,000 s.f. Residential=l.5 spaces/unit Office = 4 spaces/I,000 s.f. Retail = 4 spaces/I,000 s.f. Minimum Density: The project meets and exceeds this requirement. Minimum Residential Units: The project includes 26 residential units whereas the proposed standards require a minimum of 52 units (50 units per acre for a structure of this size). Therefore, the project does not meet this requirement. The draft SOFA CAP regulations indicate that 50 units per acre are required for this project because it includes a non- 8-25-99 S: ] Plan ] Pladiv I PCSR ] high800.pc2 Page 12 residential FAR of 1.2. Staff has reviewed the SOFA policy of adding 300 housing units to the area (Policy L-l) and has analyzed the holding capacity of the SOFA area. The proposed MU district (the area located generally west of Ramona Street) is approximately 16 acres including about eight acres that it is reasonable to assume could be redeveloped in the future. The mid-range residential holding capacity of this area is roughly 180 housing units. This translates into an average density of 22 units per acre. The project proposes 27 units per acre. Staffbelieves that this density is sufficient to meet the SOFA objective of providing 300 new housing units in the area. Although the project does not meet the specific requirements for minimum density in the MU-2 regulations, it achieves the intent of the SOFA policy. Minimum Site Area: The project meets this requirement. Front Setback: The project meets the residential requirement. There is no non-residential requirement. Street Side Setback: The project meets this requirement for the Channing Avenue setback (20 feet) but not for the approximately 30 foot portion of the building dedicated for retail use along Homer Avenue (4 feet). Rear Setback: The project proposes eight feet along the approximately 65-foot portion of the building dedicated for retail use along the rear alley whereas the regulations require ten feet. Therefore, the project does not meet this requirement. Height: The project meets this requirement at the roof peak. The project ranges from 32 to 48 feet at the roof eave whereas the regulations require 45 feet. The three-story portions of the building within 15 feet of the street stepback line are proposed to be 48 feet in height whereas the regulations require 35 feet along all four street frontages. Therefore, the project does not meet this requirement. FAR: The project meets the FAR requirement for non-residential use but not for total FAR. The base FAR for mixed-use projects is 1.0:1 with incentives for the provision of certain amenities. The proposed regulations permit an additional .02 FAR for each residential unit per acre provided above the minimum threshold of 14 units per acre. It should be noted that the draft SOFA CAP inadvertently states this incentive as .01. Since the project provides 27 units per acre, the maximum FAR allowed is .26 over the base FAR or 1.26:1. The project proposes a total FAR of 1.9:1. Therefore the project exceeds that allowed under this regulation by .64 FAR or 26,880 square feet. 8-25-99 S: [PlanlPtadiv [ PCSRlhigh800.pc2 Page 13 Parking: The project meets this requirement for residential, office and retail uses. Downtown Urban Design Guide The Downtown Urban Design Guide is considered an incentive and guide for redevelopment, rather than policy. It calls for maintaining the eclectic character and scale of the area, improving landscaping and green spaces, encouraging private investment, and creating usable open spaces and a gathering spot for the district. The proposed project is generally consistent with the Urban Design Guide. See the Draft Environmental Impact Report for a detailed evaluation of consistency with the Downtown Urban Design Guide. Zoning Ordinance Compliance The following table compares the project to the existing CD-S Downtown Commercial (service) (Pedestrian Overlay) District and the proposed PC Plarmed Community District regulations. 8-25 -99S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I high800.pc2 Page 14 Project Comparison with Current and Proposed Ordinance Requirements Floor Area (sq.fi.) -Office -Retail -Residential -Stairwells/Elevators Floor Area Ratio Maximum Height Site Coverage Automobile Parking -Resident Parking -Office Parking -Retail Parking Total Parking Bicycle Parking -Resident Parking -Retail Parking -Office Parking Total spaces -Class I -Class II -Class III Setbacks *** - High Street - Homer Avenue - Channing Avenue - Rear Alley Proposed Project 79,748 s.f. (Total) 48,030 s.f. 2,379 s.f. 27,375 s.f. 1,964 s.f. 1.9:1 48 feet 36.3% 39 spaces 192 spaces 12 spaces 32 spaces 275 spaces 33 spaces 1 space 19 spaces 53 total spaces 45 Class I 5 Class II 3 Class III 1 foot 9 inches 4 feet 2 inches 20 feet 3 inches 8 feet 3 inches CD-S (Existing) 32,632 s.f.* 0.4: l=commercial 0.6:1--residential 50 feet n/a 39 spaces 192 spaces 12 spaces 243 spaces 29 spaces 1 space 19 spaces 49 total spaces 37 Class I 9 Class II 3 Class III laJa n/a rda PC n/a 3.0:1 in the downtown area 50 (35 feet)** rl/a 39 spaces 192 spaces 12 spaces 243 spaces 29 spaces 1 space 19 spaces 49 total spaces 37 Class I 9 Class II 3 Class III nfa n/a rda n/a Loading Zone 1 (540 sf)1 (540 sf)1 (540 sf) Recycling Provided Required Required # Dwelling Units 26 38 n/a BMR Units nine units (35%)10% of units 10% of units Employee Showers 8 2 n!a The CD-S district limits non-residential construction to 15,000 sfplus existing (17,632 sf) 8-25-99 S: I Plan[ Pladiv l PCSR I high800.pc2 Page 15 ** The site is within 150 feet of a residential zoning district and is subject to a 35 foot height limit for portions of the building in the southwestern comer of the site. *** Setbacks are measured from the point of the building closest to the property line. Actual setbacks vary along each frontage carrying through the articulation of the buiIding facade to the ground level. The proposal does not meet the development regulations of the CD-S zoning district for floor area and FAR and, therefore, the applicant is requesting rezoning to the Planned Community (PC) District. The project meets all requirements of the Off-Street Parking Ordinance. Floor Area and FAR: The total 79,748 square feet of project floor area (1.9 FAR) exceeds the 42,000 square feet (1.0 FAR) allowed within the CD-S district by 37,748 square feet. Proposed new non-residential floor area totals 32,777 square feet (50,409 proposed minus 17,632 existing). The CD district limits non-residential construction to 15,000 square feet plus existing non-residential square footage (17,632 sf) or a maximum of 25,000 square feet, whichever is greater (18.49.040 of the PAMC) provided that maximum FAR is not exceeded. In this case, the maximum non-residential square footage that would be allowed is 32,632 and the maximum FAR allowed is 42,000 (1:1.0 FAR) whereas the project is proposing 50,409 square feet. A Planned Community Zone is required to allow additional FAR. The approximately 33,609 square feet (50,409 minus 16,800) of proposed non-residential building area that exceeds that allowed by the 0.4 FAR limit in the CD-S district must be off- set in a required public benefit package. Downtown Growth Limits: The proposed addition of 32,777 square feet of new non- residential floor area (50,409 proposed minus 17,632 existing) would fall within the Downtown floor area limit, and would constitute nine percent of the total allocation of 350,000 square feet. The proposed addition would constitute 12 percent of the remaining square footage (266,975 square feet as of August 1, 1998). The Central issue in this case is the large amount of square footage being allocated to a single, large project rather than dispersing future square footage among many projects and locations. A central focus of the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines is to encourage pedestrian scale building and activities. On one hand, this proposal dramatically improves the pedestrian environment within this part of Downtown. On the other hand, the 32,777 square feet of new space at this location reduces the opportunity of other property owners to add smaller amounts of square feet within the Downtown growth limit. Staff believes that this additional floor area is appropriate at this location as discussed below. The latest Downtown Monitoring Report prepared in January of 1999 inventories building activity within the CD (Commercial Downtown) District from mid-1984 through mid-1998. S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I high800.pc2 8-25-99 Page 16 During that period, there was a net addition of 83,025 square feet within the CD District compared to the 350,000-square-foot limit. Of the 42 construction!demolition projects in the lhst 14 years, only two (250 University and 245 Lytton) exceeded 20,000 square feet of new space. The majority of projects added 5,000 square feet or less. Excluding the two years of the Downtown Moratorium from September 1984 through September 1986, building activity averaged about 8,300 square feet per.year. At this rate, the remaining Downtown allocation of 266,975 square feet would last 32 years. Even at a heightened pace of 10,000 square feet per year, the remaining Downtown allocation represents a 27-year supply. The main policy issue posed by this project is: Should one project consume 12 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? Staff believes that the addition of 32,777 square feet of new space at this location is supported by a number of factors. 1) The proposed public benefit package includes significant contributions to Below Market Rate Housing (nine BMR rental apartments instead of the 2.6 units required), public parking (104 additional parking spaces), and open space (contribution to a future park assessment district) in a location that is substantially lacking in all of these aspects. 2) The project location is unique in the PAMF/SOFA area due to its proximity to the Alma Street traffic corridor, new higher density structures (901 and 753 Alma Street), and the visually obtrusive electrical substation. The project site itself is unique in that it is perhaps the only site in the SOFA area on which an existing building covers an entire half block. This combination of factors not only supports the location of a higher density building at this location but also reduces the potential for a precedent to be set for higher density buildings being constructed in other locations within the SOFA area. Also, the MU-2 district proposed in the SOFA CAP is relatively small in extent (about four square blocks) and further reduces the possibility that other buildings with a similar FAR will be built in the SOFA area. 3) The perceived height and mass of the building have been significantly reduced by building articulation and setbacks, a variety of materials, and landscaping. 4) A strong sense of pedestrian interest and activity is created by the design of the project which includes locating most of the apartments at ground level with fenestration, patio alcoves and entryways along the High Street frontage and locating a large public plaza as a focal point of local serving retail and pedestrian activity at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street. These two urban design features will serve to extend the existing streetscape and pedestrian scale that currently exists along Homer Avenue but stops at High Street. The existing streetscape along the west side of High Street currently lacks pedestrian interest whereas the project would create a building facade with rich visual interest at ground level and a series of pedestrian-oriented features along the street frontage including the public plaza, an improved sidewalk, a perimeter of landscaping and a row of street trees. S: I Plan I Pladiv [PCSR [ high800.pc2 8-25-99 Page 17 Height: The majority of the building is 48 feet in height with diagonal setbacks at two sections on the third floor along High Street and a setback along the entire third floor frontage of Channing Avenue. The plaza at the comer of Homer Avenue and High Street also provides a substantial building setback from the street and is mostly open air with a canopy over the doorway. The maximum height limit in both the CD-S district and the PC district is 50 feet. However, the site is within 150 feet of the mixed-use building at 901 Alma Street and is, therefore, subject to a 35-foot height limit in the PC district due to its proximity to residential units. The 901 Alma Street project contains four residential units and is 50 feet in height. A residential building located at 753 Alma is also 50 feet in height. The proposed project meets the 50 foot height limit in the existing CD-S district and is compatible with newer buildings in the area but does not meet the 35-foot height limit in a small portion of the southwest comer of the building imposed by the proximity of the one nearby mixed- use/residential building. A variance is proposed for this portion of the building along Channing Avenue that does not meet this 35-foot height limit. Staff can support the applicant’s request for a height variance at this location, as indicated in the findings in Attachment B. The site is located in close proximity to three existing structures that are 50 feet in height, and is located in an area where Comprehensive Plan policies call for an increase in mixed use projects that include housing. The increase in the height in a small portion of the southwest comer of the building would permit the construction of two rental apartments that otherwise would be omitted if the variance for height were not granted, the encroachment is minor (approximately 25 foot intrusion into the 150 distance requirement), and would permit heights in keeping with an area that provides a transition from two and three story buildings on Alma Street and Homer Avenue to the single family residences further south along High Street. The proposed setback at the third floor would be adequate to provide and maintain privacy, light, air, and natural screening for future residents of the development as well as existing residents of the mixed use building located at 901 Alma Street. Also, the increase in height would not cause impacts to the adjacent developed properties in that the four residential units at 901 Alma Street are located on the Alma Street side of the building the nearest portion of which is greater than 150 from the proposed project at 800 High Street. All other residential properties are greater than 150 feet from the project. Since the project does not share a lot line with a neighboring residential project, it is not subject to daylight plane regulations. 8-25-99 S: ] Plan] Pladiv ] PCSR ] high800.pc2 Page 18 Setbacks: The project meets all the setback requirements established by the CD-S and PC districts. Parking: Parking would be on two subterranean levels (248 parking spaces) as well as at grade behind the building along Lane 8 West (27 spaces) for a total of 275 parking spaces. The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83) requires 1.25 spaces for studio units (1.25 x 20 = 25 spaces), 1.5 spaces for one bedroom units (1.5 x 4 = 6 spaces) and 2.0 spaces for two-bedroom units (2 x 2 = 4 spaces), in addition to 1 space plus 10 percent of the number of units for guest parking (1 + 2.6 = 4) for a total of 39 units. The Ordinance also requires 1 space for 250 square feet of office (48,030/250 = 192 spaces) and 1 space for 200 feet of retail (2,379/200 = 12). The total number of required parking spaces is 243 (39+192+12) while the project proposes 275 spaces - a surplus of 32 spaces. The applicant originally proposed the extra 32 spaces as part of the public benefit package. The applicants originally proposed a 248 space private parking garage including 32 spaces reserved for public use. An additional 27 spaces would be provided at grade for a total of 275 spaces. City staff met with the applicant and proposed a hybrid facility that would optimize parking usage by private tenants and public users in the SOFA neighborhood. The hybrid facility would be owned and maintained by the building owners and would be subject to a parking permit system, between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday - Friday, which would be administered and enforced by the City. The parking permit system would be similar to, but somewhat different than, the system currently in place at the City Hall garage at 250 Hamilton Avenue. There would be a total of 275 parking spaces in this facility, 27 at-grade spaces offthe alley and 248 spaces in the garage. Of the 27 at-grade parking spaces, 17 would be reserved for residential tenants and would not be subject to City monitoring or enforcement and ten would be two-hour public spaces enforced by the City. Of the 248 spaces in the garage, 5 spaces on Level A would be assigned to building tenants and would not be subject to City monitoring or enforcement. Of the remaining 243 spaces, 40 spaces on Level A would be assigned as free, 2-hour spaces for customers and visitors and 194 for permit parking. Assuming a 25 percent oversell of permits, up to 242 permits would be sold by the City at a nominal fee (current cost of $90 per quarter or $280 per year). Of the 242 permits, 140 permits would be sold to building tenants (124 office tenants, 12 residential, and 4 retail) and the revenue from those permit sales would be paid to the owners. In addition, 102 permits (or a lesser amount in the beginning) would be sold to the general public, including 34 permits to Whole Foods Market and 12 to the child care center. Revenues from the sale of these permits would be retained by the City to help offset expenses. The distribution of S: I Plan ] Pladiv [ PCSR I high800.pc2 8-25-99 Page 19 parking spaces is summarized in the following table. All three groups of building tenants (office, retail, and residential) would be able to purchase parking permits from City Hall. The permits would be sold to the tenants for a nominal amount ($280 per year or $90 per quarter) to ensure that permits would not be given away to non-tenants. The City would sell up to 124 permits to the office tenants based on 3 spaces per 1,000 square feet of office space, minus 20 spaces for visitors which would be accommodated in short-term 2-hour public spaces. The 3 spaces per 1000 requirement is based on several research reports reviewed by the Transportation Division. A rigorous TDM program that would be included in an agreement between the building owner and the City may further reduce employee parking requirements. Distribution of Parking Spaces and Permits - 800 High Street Type of Space Number of Description Spaces Total Project 275 Total spaces underground and at grade At Grade - 27 17 spaces for ground floor apartments (assigned to market rate apartments) + 10 two-hour public spaces Total garage 248 121 spaces on upper level + 127 spaces on lower level Public two-hour -40 50 two-hour spaces located adjacent to entry Tenant Assigned -5 5 spaces reserved for office tenants BMR Assigned 9 One space assigned to each of the nine BMR units Permit Spaces 194 Total number of permits for public and private spaces Oversell (25%)+48 Up to 25% can be oversold due to daily absences Total permits 242 Total number of permits available, including oversell Office permits -124 Number of permits allocated to office tenants Resident permits - 12 26 apartments require 39 spaces minus 17 assigned spaces at-grade for market rate units minus 9 assigned spaces in garage for BMR units = 12 remaining spaces Retail permits 4 Four retail employees; customers park in 2-hour spaces Total public permits 102 Total parking permits available to sell to the public (assumes 12 for child care ’center+34 for Whole Foods) Two-hour Public Spaces +50 40 spaces in garage + 10 at-grade = 50 two-hour spaces Total public 152 Includes 54 public permit spaces + 50 two hour public spaces =104 public permits/spaces spaces + 48 oversell public permits S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I high800.pc2 8-25-99 Page 20 In addition to office tenants, residential and retail tenants may purchase parking permits. The PAMC requires 39 spaces for the apartments and 12 spaces for the retail floor area. Of the 39 spaces for the residential tenants, the applicant desires to have only one space per unit assigned (17 live/work and 9 Below Market Rate). Of these 26 spaces, 17 spaces would be at grade (in the rear alley) and nine spaces would be in the garage. Of the 12 spaces required for the retail space, it is estimated that the two retail spaces (totaling about 2,300 square feet) would require two employee spaces each and the rest for customers. The four retail employees would be provided parking permits and the eight spaces for customers would be provided within the 40 spaces provided for 2-hour public parking on Level A. It is proposed that 40 spaces be designated for free, 2-hour parking located immediately adjacent to the entry ramp on Level A. Visitors and customers of the office, retail, and residential tenants would park in the 40 spaces. An additional ten spaces would be provided in the rear alley for use by customers of the Palo Alto Hardware Store and the general public. These spaces would not require parking permits. Five spaces on Level A would be designated as "reserved" for building tenants as desired by the applicant and would not be subject to the permit system. It is estimated that approximately 102 permits would be sold to the general public. The availability of the 102 permits assumes that the City oversells the number of total permits in the building (194) by 25 percent (48 spaces). The City regularly oversells permits based on experience and the belief that, on any given day, a certain number of employees and visitors are absent from the building due to vacation, illness, field work, etc.. In practice, the City begins overselling permits by approximately 10 percent and increases the oversell percentage over time, as actual demand is monitored. Of the 102 permits, it is assumed that 12 permits would be reserved for the child care center and 34 permits for Whole Food employees. The City would allocate the remaining 56 permits annually on a first-come-first served basis using an approach similar to the waiting list now in use at City Hall. Preference would be given to businesses and employees in the immediate vicinity of the garage. The garage would be open 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. every day. The garage would be open to the public for two hour and permit parking between 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. A roll down security gate would be installed at the garage entry on Channing Avenue. Residential and commercial tenants would receive an electronic card that would provide access after hours. Vehicles would be able to exit the garage at any time. S: ] Plan [ Pladiv [ PCSR [ highS00.pc2 8-25-99 Page 21 The building owners would own and maintain the parking garage and all parking spaces within it. The owners would be responsible for the provision of utilities, cleaning, striping, signing, security, insurance, etc. The owners would be responsible for entering into an agreement with the City to provide hold harmless provisions, as well as conditions for termination and assignment (in the event the building is sold). The agreement would include a provision that the owners provide, maintain and insure the 50 two hour spaces and the 194 permit spaces for a term of not less than 35 years. The City would monitor and enforce the 50 two hour spaces as well as the 194 permit spaces. Revenue from the sale of up to 140 permits (124 office + 12 residential + 4 retail) would be paid directly to the building owners. Revenue from the sale of the permits to the general public, as well as any permits sold to building tenants above and beyond 140 permits, would be retained by the City to help offset the City’s expense in administering the permit system and enforcing the two hour and permit parking spaces. In addition to the 248 spaces in the underground garage, there would be 27 parking spaces located at grade along the east side of the rear alley. Of these 27 spaces, 17 would be assigned to the 17 market rate studios located on the ground floor and ten spaces to two-hour public parking. The City would not enforce parking limits for the 17 spaces assigned to the apartments but would enforce the two-hour limit for the remaining ten spaces. Bicycle Parking: The Off-Street Parking Ordinance (PAMC Chapter 18.83) requires one Class I space per unit (26 spaces) plus one Class III bike rack for each ten units (3 racks) for guest parking. The Ordinance also requires 10% of auto parking spaces for office use (11 Class I + 8 Class I! = 19 spaces) and 10% of auto parking spaces for retail (1 space) for a total of 49 bike spaces. The project proposes 53 bike spaces (45 Class I, 5 Class II, and 3 Class III) and meets the requirements for bicycle parking. Open Space: The CD-S zoning refers to the open space requirements of the RM-30 district. The proposed project provides approximately 12,600 square feet (30%) of open space such as plazas, walkways, and landscaped areas whereas the RM-30 district requires a minimum of (30%) of common open space. Neither the CD-S (Downtown Commercial - service) nor the PC (Planned Community) zoning district establishes limits for open space. Therefore, the project would meet these provisions of the RM-30 District as well as the PC District, if the site were to be rezoned to PC. In addition, each ground floor dwelling unit is required to provide an 80 square foot patio and each upper unit is required to provide a 50 square foot balcony. The project proposes patios ranging in size from 119 to 278 square feet. Balconies are provided for each of the upper floor units, ranging in size 8-25-99 S: I Plan ] Pladiv I PCSR I high800.pc2 Page 22 from 74 to 110 square feet. Therefore, the project would meet the private open space requirement. The project architect originally did not include balconies at this location because of concerns expressed by the owner of the adjacent hardware store. His concerns involved noise generated by truck deliveries to nearby industrial and commercial businesses that could cause conflicts between renters using the balconies and the successful operation of these businesses. Staff believes that the noise issue can be adequately addressed by requiring the applicant to include a notification in the residefltial leases that nearby businesses generate noise that may cause annoyances during periods of track deliveries. The requirement for balconies and a lease notification have been included as conditions of project approval. The location, size and design of the balconies will be reviewed by the ARB when building plans, landscaping and other project details are finalized. BMR Units: Mixed use projects are required to provide either: 1) 10 percent of total units as Below Market Rate (BMR), or 2) pay an in-lieu housing fee for the commercial and industrial floor area, whichever value is greater. Under the BMR formula, the 26 apartments would be required to provide two BMR units and pay an in-lieu fee equivalent to the additional six-tenths of a unit. The total floor area of the 26 units would be 27,375 square feet. Assuming a rough estimate of market value of approximately $200 per square foot, the market value of all 26 units would be approximately $5,475,000. The BMR regulations use 5 percent as an estimation of the value of the BMR contribution. Therefore, the value of the BMR contribution would be $273,750. Under the commercial and industrial in-lieu fee formula, the project would be subject to a housing in-lieu fee based on the amount of new office and retail floor area minus existing commercial floor area (50,409 - 17,632 = 32,777 square feet). The fee as of April 30, 1998 was $3.87 per square foot for a total fee of $126,846.99. The actual fee will be based on the square footage rate in effect at the time the building permit is issued. Therefore, the value of the BMR contribution is greater than the in-lieu fee. The project is required include two BMR units plus an in-lieu fee equivalent to the additional six-tenths of a unit. The applicant is proposing to dedicate nine BMR units. These units would be located at the south end of the building and would include three studios, four one-bedroom, and two two-bedroom apartments (see Attachment P). Public Benefit: A PC zone change will be required for this project because none of the City’s conventional zoning districts accommodate the proposed square footage, FAR, and building 8-25-99 S: I Plan I Pladiv ] PCSR I high800.pc2 Page 23 height. Approval of the requested PC zone change would require that public benefit findings be made. Public policy in PC Zone change approvals has generally included the assumption that benefits should be proportional with the request to exceed normal regulatory requirements. In this case, the applicant is requesting a project of 50,409 square feet of non- residential use. This results in 33,609 square feet of non-residential floor area over the normal development allowance (50,409 minus 16,800). The applicant has proposed a public benefits package to accompany the PC zone change application. As proposed, the project includes the following public benefits: An inherent public benefit of the project is the replacement of the dilapidated manufacturing building with a new, contemporary design residential/office complex in a mixed use area that is within walking distance of the University Avenue Business District. Such a use is called for in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Underutilized buildings such as the Creamery often cause health and safety hazards, provoke neighborhood concern, and result in code enforcement complaints. An additional inherent public benefit is the provision of Below Market Rate Housing Units. Although the provision of BMR units is required by zoning, City policy encourages provision of such units, especially in mixed use neighborhoods near commercial areas such as this. The project is required include two BMR units plus an in- lieu fee equivalent to the additional six-tenths of a unit. The applicant is proposing to dedicate nine BMR units. These units would be located at the south end of the building and would include three studios, four one-bedroom, and two two-bedroom apartments. It should be noted that the applicant is proposing a larger proportion of BMR units relative to market rate units than any recent project in the City. An additional public benefit beyond that required by zoning is the provision of public art and a 3,800 square foot public plaza at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue. The public plaza would feature several public amenities such as seating, landscaping, special paving and a substantial setback from the property line. The plaza is intended to extend the existing historic retail corridor along Homer Avenue. The public art must be viewable form the public right-of-way to qualify as a public benefit. All public art proposals will need to be reviewed and approved by the Arts Commission. Another public benefit beyond that required by zoning is the provision of six street trees on the opposite (east) side of High Street. (The nine trees on the west side of High Street and two each on Homer and Channing Avenues would be required as a standard condition of approval). S: [ Plan I Pladiv [ PCSR [ high800.pc2 8-25-99 Page 24 Another proposed public benefit is the provision of up to 104 public parking spaces including 50 two-hour public spaces and 101 public permit spaces. The City is currently completing preliminary analysis for the possible location of a proposed child care center for the vacant lot at Channing Avenue and Ramona Street. This site was identified as a site via the relocation of the PAMF to its new location on E1 Camino Real. The child care center is expected to require 19 parking spaces for employees. The applicant has offered to provide 12 of the surplus spaces for use by the child care center. As proposed, the public spaces dedicated to the City, or neighboring businesses for fifteen years. After fifteen years, the spaces would be leased at market rates. The parking garage would be privately owned and maintained. Staff believes that the City’s interests would be better served by extending the duration of the public parking spaces to 35 years - the proposed duration of the PAMF ground lease with the City for the proposed site of the child care center. Staff and the applicant have since revised the parking proposal such that the facility would be owned and maintained by the building owner but subject to a permit parking system which would be administered and enforced by the City. This revised parking program is discussed above under Zoning Ordinance Compliance. Another public benefit is the applicant’s contribution to and active support of an assessment district to fund a proposed park in the PAMF/SOFA area or a contribution of $350,000 to this park, whichever value is greater. The applicant’s public benefit package is included in Attachment C. It should be noted that the applicant’s proposed public benefit package has been revised since the publication of the Draft EIR. The proposed operation of the parking garage has been revised since the original public benefit package was submitted. SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ISSUES Significant iss.ues for this project relate to site planning, landscaping, architectural design, environmental issues, departmental comments, and Architectural Review Ordinance Standards. Site Planning: The site should be designed to provide a high quality living and working environment for residents and employees and to be compatible with existing and proposed uses in the vicinity. The site plan calls for the studio apartments and a small retail space to be located on the ground floor with a mix of offices and apartments on the second and third floors. Parking is located mostly below grade with a row of spaces along the rear alley. The ground floor 8-25-99 S: [ Plan ] Pladiv ] PCSR [ high800.pc2 Page 25 studios will have main entryways fronting onto High Street and rear entries connecting to the parking spaces along the alley. The patios facing High Street serve as private open space for the residential units while the entry courtyard located on the comer of High and Homer serves as common open space for the entire building. The studio units provide staggered building setbacks from 17 to 25 feet from the property line along High Street and an 11 foot setback in the rear along the alley. Setbacks on Homer Avenue range from four feet along the building face to 60 feet at the plaza. Setbacks on Charming Avenue range from 20 feet on the first floor, 32 feet on the second floor and 48 feet on the third floor. All three perimeter areas will be landscaped to provide visual interest along the street frontages. Overall project density is about 27 units per acre for the residential portion of the project and 1:1.9 floor area ratio (FAR) for the entire building. The FAR and mass of the proposed project exceeds that of most buildings in the vicinity. However, it is similar to newer projects located nearby including the mixed use project at 901 Alma Street and the single room occupancy residential project at 753 Alma Street. Both of these projects are three story, high density structures. The project is located one half block from Alma Street which is a logical location for higher density buildings with greater FARs than those areas located closer to single family residential neighborhoods located further east of Alma Street. Another factor supporting greater FAR at this location is the existing electric substation which is located across Lane 8 West, the alley at the rear of the project. The substation structure itself is about 35 feet in height and the transmission line poles located in the alley are about 60 feet in height. In order to protect views from buildings located to the east of the project as well as for pedestrians traveling along adjacent streets, a building with a larger height and mass may be desirable at this location. Thus, the project site contains more constraints that justify a larger building and higher FAR than other sites in the SOFA area. Since the site consists of three separate parcels, a certificate of compliance will be required to remove interior lot lines and combine the parcels into one. Landscaping: The landscape plan proposes a mix of perimeter landscape screening and a landscaped exterior courtyard at the comer of High Street and Channing Avenue. The High Street frontage would feature new street trees ("Fraxinus Uhdei) and a variety of plants and ground cover between the patios and the sidewalk. The High Street frontage would feature nine street trees on the west side and six on the east side. There are currently three street trees (Sophia Japonica) in this block which are approved for removal by the Planning and Public Works Arborists. Two street trees would be provided on both the Homer Avenue and Channing Avenue frontages. There are currently two street trees (Fraxinus "Raywood") in S: I Plan [ Pladiv [ PCSR [ high800.pc2 8-25-99 Page 26 this block which also are approved for removal by the City arborists. All street trees are proposed to be located in confined planter wells within the street right-of-way and protected by bulbouts in the sidewalk paving (along Homer and Channing Avenues and at each end of High Street) or special bollards (along High Street). The project proposes a public plaza at the coruer of High Street and Homer Avenue. The plaza features decorative paving, public art, hanging plants, seating and landscaping. The plaza is intended for use both by building users and the public. A Landscape Concept Statement and Plant List is included in the attached Program Development Statement (Attachment C). The Planning Arborist recommends that the selected species of street tree for the right-of- way shall be of the Maple (Acer) species (36 inch box) and that structural soil be used as a planter area beneath the sidewalk. The applicant has agreed to these two conditions. A final landscape plan and irrigation plan will be required as a condition of approval. Architectural Design: The building provides a dramatic architectural statement featuring a contemporary interpretation of industrial design. The building transitions gracefully from the residential components of ground floor apartments to the offices and apartments above. All three street frontages provide pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, patio alcoves and entryways on the ground floor and varied materials, window openings and building articulation on the upper floors. The second floor extends over the first floor studios and overhangs the outdoor patios facing High Street. The third floor is setback on a diagonal axis providing further building articulation and visual interest on High Street. Building materials and features include: Integral colored stucco and stone facades, crafted steel gates and rails and a stone base on the first level; matching stucco and copper panel metal siding with colored metal grills and colored aluminum window frames on the second and third floor; and a standing seam metal roof. The architectural themes are designed to provide a contemporary interpretation of the industrial look of nearby buildings. The scale, mass and height of the proposed building is greater than many of the older, existing buildings in the area. However, the scale of the building is larger than usual because is covers an entire half block. The perceived mass and height have been softened in several ways by the design and layout of the building on the lot. Although the site is 42,000 square feet (almost one acre) the building footprint is only 15,237 square feet resulting in a lot coverage of 36 percent. Most of the site at ground level along the three major pedestrian streets (High Street, Homer and Channing Avenues) is dedicated to public and private open space (the public plaza and courtyard as well as the private patios), landscaping (in the public spaces as well as along the perimeter of the site and the edges of the patios), and walkways (the public plaza area and entries to the ground floor apartments). 8-25-99 S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR I high800.pc2 Page 27 All three street frontages provide pedestrian interest with ample fenestration, patio alcoves and entryways on the ground floor and varied materials, window openings and building articulation on the upper floors. The building design emphasizes pedestrian activity by locating most of the apartments at ground level as opposed to most mixed use buildings which locate residences on upper floors. The Draft EIR states that the building "would appear larger than the one-story buildings across High Street, but cannot be considered overwhelming due to the design that breaks up the line and form, and the variety of color and texture." The Draft EIR also notes that "the building provides a segmented facade along High Street, breaking up the form and line of the building and reducing its dominance. The visual effect is that of a series of similar but distinct buildings which have been joined together." A variety of building materials also help soften the perceived mass of the building. The Draft EIR indicates that "the colored stucco and stone facades provide a subdued color and chroma (the brightness of a color). These earth tones would allow the building to retreat somewhat into the scene, unlike bright colors that appear to advance and are more dominant." The site plan also provides a variety of vertical elements to enhance visual interest and reduce the perceived size of the building. The patios and public spaces are at ground level. The first floor apartments are segmented by the doorways and stone planters at ground level and stone facades and windows at the loft elevations. The second story of the building is setback 28 feet to accommodate the public plaza at the comer of High Street and Homer Avenue and about 35 feet at the southern end of the building along Channing Avenue. The third floor is also setback 28 feet at the public plaza and about 48 feet along Channing Avenue and provides two diagonal recessed areas along the High Street facade ranging from about eight to 20 feet in depth. As noted in the Draft EIR, the visual effect of these building articulations and building setbacks is to create the impression of a series of similar yet distinct buildings. This design approach achieves the intent of many of the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and SOFA CAP to provide more human scale buildings and to enhance pedestrian interest and amenities in the SOFA area. The Planning Commission may wish to discuss several issues affecting the design of the building as it relates to the existing character of the neighborhood. These issues include the scale, mass and height of the building relative to existing buildings in the area; building articulation, materials, landscaping and other features that soften the perceived scale of the building by residents and pedestrians; and the size and transparency of the enclosed atrium proposed to cover a portion of the public plaza at the comer of Homer Avenue and High S: I Plan I Pladiv ]PCSR I high800.pc2 8-25-99 Page 28 Street. A model and color rendering of the building will be available at the meeting. An Architectural Concept Statement is included with the attached Program Development Statement (Attachment C). Transportation: The Transportation Division is in the process of reviewing, as part of the SOFA CAP, the feasibility of the proposed conversion of High Street to two-way traffic between Homer and Channing Avenue. A southbound left-turn lane and traffic signal will be required for the southbound Alma Street to eastbound Channing Avenue movement in the year 2010. The applicant will be responsible for his proportionate cost of the left-turn land and traffic signal. The applicant will be required to design the parking spaces and pedestrian walkway along the rear alley, the street bulbouts, and the bicycle parking in a configuration acceptable to the Transportation Division. These recommendations have been included as conditions of project approval. Noise: Concerns have been raised by neighboring businesses regarding possible conflicts between renters in the apartment units and noise generated by commercial and industrial uses in the vicinity. The Draft EIR stipulates minimum STC rated building materials to meet the City’s indoor noise standards. Staff is recommending that balconies be provided for the eight upper apartments. To address possible noise conflicts, staff recommends that all apartment leases contain a disclosure notice that adequately informs future renters that the apartments are located in a mixed use commercial/industrial neighborhood and that noise from early morning and late night truck deliveries, as well as noise and activity from the office users in the building, should be expected. This requirement has been included in the conditions of project approval. TIMELINE Following Planning Commission review, the project is tentatively scheduled for City Council review on September 21, 1999. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The project is subject to environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared for the project. Copies of the Draft EIR are available for public review in the Planning Department on the Fifth Floor of City Hall. The Draft EIR was available for a 30- day public review period from May 26 through June 25, 1999. Staffreceived comment letters from the Califomia Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and from the Valley Transportation Authority. Neither letter raised significant environmental issues. The City will prepare written responses to all comments received related to environmental issues and 8-25-99 S: I Plan I Pladiv I PCSR [ high800.pc2 Page 29 publish the comments and responses together with the revised Draft EIR in the form of a Final EIR. The City Council is required to review and certify the Final EIR prior to taking action on the project. The Draft EIR lists several impacts that are potentially significant unless mitigated. These impacts include: land use and planning, air quality, transportation and circulation, biological resources, noise, utilities and services, aesthetics, and cultural/historical resources. All of these impacts, with the exception of historical resources, can be mitigated to less-than- significant levels. Mitigations to reduce these impacts to less-than-significant levels will be included as conditions of approval when the Final EIR has been published. A complete discussion of all environmental impacts is contained in the Draft EIR. Approval of the project would result in a significant impact on historical resources that cannot be mitigated. The existing building has been identified by the City as potentially eligible for the California Historic Register. As such, any proposal that results in demolition of the existing building is a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The only alternative that would avoid this significant impact would be a project that renovated the existing building. This alternative is examined in the Draft EIR. Although this alternative is physically possible, a structural engineers report prepared for the building concludes that renovation of the building would cost as much as demolition and replacement. Any significant impact that cannot be mitigated requires that a fending of overriding consideration be made by the City Council prior to approval of a project. Staff is recommending that such a fending can be made for several reasons: 1) the building, although eligible for the California Historic Register, lacks any perceptible architectural distinction and is in a dilapidated state, 2) the building is in need of such substantial structural rehabilitation that renovation appears to be economically infeasible, 3) the existing building does not meet many of the goals and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed SOFA CAP, whereas the proposed project is generally consistent with these policies 4) demolition of the existing building and construction of a new building would create no significant impacts, other than historical, that could not be mitigated to less-than-significant levels, and 5) the public benefit package proposed for the project provides significant contributions to identified public needs in the area including replacement of the dilapidated manufacturing building, public parking (up to 104 spaces), provision of nine Below Market Rate rental apartments, public art, a public plaza, street trees and contributions toward funding a park in the PAMF/SOFA area. ATTACHMENTS/EXHIBITS Attachment #A: Location Map 8-25-99 S: ] Plan I Pladiv [ PCSR [ high800.pc2 Page 30 Attachment #B: PC Zoning Ordinance Attachment #C: Variance Findings Attachment #D: Program Development Statement (including Public Benefit Statement, Landscape Concept Statement and Plant List) Attachment #E: Conditions of Approval Attachment #F: Draft EIR Mitigation Measures Attachment #G: Minutes from ARB meeting of July 17, 1997 Attachment #H: Minutes from ARB meeting of June 24, 1999 Attachment #I: Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of August 13, 1997 Attachment #J: Minutes from City Council meeting of May 26, 1998 Attachment #K: Minutes from HRB meeting of June 16, 1999 Attachment #L: Letter from Irwin Yarin dated May 8, 1999 Attachment #M: Letter from the California Department of Transportation dated June 22, 1999 Attachment #N: Letter from the Valley Transportation Authority dated June 25, 1999 Attachment #O: Letter from John Roberts and Susan Nightingale, Watercourse Way, dated July 19, 1999 Attachment #P: Draft BMR Agreement dated August 11, 1999 Plans (Planning Commissioners members only) Draft EIR (Previously distributed to Planning Commissioners) COURTESY COPIES: Roxy Rapp, PO Box 1672, Palo Alto, CA 94302 Shreck Brown & Associates, 550 Montgomery Street #900, San Francisco, CA 94111 Peterson Architects, 57 E1 Camino Real, Menlo Park, CA 94025 Elaine Meyer, University South Neighborhood Group, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 Steve Player, 2600 E1 Camino Real #410, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest, Palo Alto, CA 94301 David Jury, Palo Alto Medical Foundation, 330 Town & Country Village, Palo Alto, CA 94301 James and Barbara Newton, 216 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 PREPARED BY:Planner DIVISION HEAD APPROVAL: Eric Riel, Jr; Chief Planning 8-25-99 S: I Plan I Pladiv [ PCSR t high800.pc2 Page 31 Attachment A 800 High Street Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: 2-18-99 Scale: 1" = 200’ A~achment B ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 800 HIGH STREET FROM CD-S(P) TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION I. (a) Application has been made to the City for approval of the demolition of an existing 17,600± square foot manufacturing building at 800 High Street, the Peninsula Creamery, and its replacement with a 79,750± square foot mixed-use building including housing, 48,000± square feet of office space, 2380± square feet of retail space, and a subterranean parking garage (the "Project"). (b) The Architectural Review Board at its meeting of June 24, 1999 considered the Project and recommended its approval, subject to certain conditions. (c) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held August __, 1999, recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth to permit construction of the Project. (d) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 800 High Street (the "subject property") from "CD-S(P) Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay" to "PC Planned Community." The subject property, consisting of approximately .96 acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development in that none of the City’s conventional zoning districts could accommodate 990816 lac 0090317 the proposed square footage, floor area ratio, and building height unless variances were granted. (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District wil! result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts in that the project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the project and above those required by city zoning districts: (i) The Project will replace a deteriorated, partially empty manufacturing building with a well-designed structure built to contemporary building and safety standards using materials of very high quality. An underutilized and obsolete manufacturing building will be replaced with a residential/retail/office complex in a mixed use area that is within walking distance of the University Avenue Business District and in close proximity to public transit. Such a use is called for in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (ii) The Peninsula Creamery is a historic resource eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. However, its dilapidated condition, its lack of architectural distinction, and its low suitability for conversion to more appropriate uses make its loss acceptable given the high quality of the proposed replacement structure and the public benefits inherent in the proposed uses of the replacement structure. In addition, the site is unusual in that it is an entire half-block, surrounded on all sides by public rights-of-way and backing up to an electrical substation. By redeveloping the entire site, instead of working around the shell of the existing historic building, a more efficient design permitting more below market rate housing and public parking is possible. (iii) The Project will provide nine Below Market Rate Housing Units where only two, and the payment of fees for a fractional unit, would be required by the City’s housing programs. These units will be located at the south end of the building and will include three studio, four one-bedroom, and two two-bedroom apartments. The Project’s owner has executed an Agreement to Provide Be!ow Market Rate Housing with City dated , 1999 which must be recorded prior to i~suance of the first building permit for the Project. (iv) The Project will provide public art and a plaza accessible to the public at the corner of High Street and Homer Avenue. The plaza will feature several public amenities including seating, landscaping and a substantial setback from the property line beyond that required by City’s zoning districts. The public art will be viewable from the public right-of-way and 990816 lac 0090317 2 reviewed by the Arts Commission and by the Architectural Review Board and subject to approval by the City. (v)The Project will provide, in addition to the required street trees adjacent to its property, six street trees on the opposite side of High Street. (vi) The Project will provide additional public parking above that required by zoning in an area where additional parking is needed. One hundred and four (104) garage spaces will be available for public parking for a period of thirty-five years. The spaces will either be two-hour spaces for the use of the genera! public or permit spaces for those holding parking permits issued by the City. Project’s owner has executed a license and operating agreement with the City for the use of parking spaces dated ,1999 which will be recorded prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project. The parking garage will be privately owned and maintained. (c)The council further finds that these public benefits are of sufficient importance to make approval of 33,600 square feet of commercial development over that which the existing zoning would permit. (d) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (i)Local Land Use Program L-8: "Limit new non- residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square feet, or i0 percent above the amount of development existing or approved as of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non- residential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area." The proposed addition of 32,777 square feet of new non-residential floor area (50,409 proposed minus 17,632 existing) falls within the Downtown floor area limit constitutes nine percent of the total allocation of 350,000 square feet. The proposed addition constitutes 12 percent of the remaining square footage as of August i, 1998 (266,975 square feet). (ii) Policy L-9:"Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development." in that the project proposes a mix of residential, office, retail and public uses. (iii) Policy L-25: "Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area," in that the 990816 lac 0090317 3 project proposes a mix of uses, as well as a public plaza, public art, street trees, and pedestrian amenities at ground level. Piecemeal development would probably produce a pattern of equally tall buildings interspersed with surface parking lots, resulting in multiple driveways and curb cuts, fewer design amenities, and a less pedestrian-friendly development. (iv) Policy H-4: "Encourage mixed use projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality," in that the project includes 26 apartment units that will increase opportunities for rental housing, which is scarce in the area. (v)Policy B-21: ~Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district, allow for the continued operation of automotive services uses, and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods," in that the project provides rental housing close to Downtown services, offices near transit, and local serving retail to provide services to nearby residents. SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "Santana Building- -800 High Street, Palo Alto, CA" prepared by Peterson Architects dated , 1999, copy on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the following conditions: (a) as follows: Permitted Uses.The permitted uses shall be limited (i) Multiple Family Residential Use: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as "rental housing units" or "rental units," multiple-family uses and uses customarily incidental to mhltiple-family uses. All units shall be rental units. In any individual unit, home occupations accessory to the residential use of that unit are permitted subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions regulating home occupations. (ii) Office: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as "Office Space," medical, professional and general business offices, administrative offices, general business services, and private educational facilities. (iii) Retail: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as "Retail," neighborhood serving eating and drinking services, persona! services, and retail services. 990816 lac 00903 !7 4 (iv) Parking Garage: The parking garage shall be owned and operated by the owner of the Project. Five (5) spaces are reserved for the use of building tenants, as shown on the Plans, and shall be allocated by the owner of the Project. The balance of the parking spaces shall be managed as public parking for the neighborhood by the City under a license and operating agreement. Forty (40) spaces shall be designated for free, two- hour parking. The remaining one hundred and ninety four (194) spaces shall be permit spaces, in which holders of parking permits issued by the City may park during posted hours. After permit hours, the general public may use the spaces while the garage is open. The garage shall be open to the public between 7 a.m. and Ii p.m. daily. The City and the owner of the Project may by mutual agreement modify the allocation of public parking spaces with an amendment to the license and operating agreement. These modifications must be consistent with the goal of providing parking for residents, workers, and customers in the neighborhood. (b) Conditional Uses.. No conditional uses shall be permitted in the residentia! units. (c) Site Development Regulations. All improvements and deve!opment shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan and the Conditions of Project Approval adopted by the Council in conjunction with approval of this ordinance. The following are site deve!opment regulations which establish rules for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used shal! be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (i) Final plans, including materials and colors, complete lighting and photometric plans, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site planting areas, and signs shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board ("ARB") prior to issuance of building permits. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, electric panel switchboards, and any other required utilities shall be shown on the final plans, which shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials, and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. (ii) Any other exterior changes to the buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.99 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 990816 lac 0090317 5 (iii) The approved Development Plan permits some tree remova! and requires the preservation and protection of specified new trees within the development. No future development or improvement proposed for the subject property following initial construction authorized by Architectural Review Approval shal! result in the removal or destruction of trees without the approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements The parking for the Project shall be in accordance with the approved Development Plan. (e)Special Conditions. (i) Public Art. Projec[ will incorporate original art, visible to the public, as a public benefit of the Project, in or in the vicinity of the publicly-accessible plaza at Homer Avenue and High Street. The Project owner’s public art proposal must be submitted to and approved by Director of Community Development, after review by the Public Art Commission, applying the standards set forth in PAMC 2.26.040 and by the Architectural Review Board, prior to issuance of the first building permit for the project. The art must be fully installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project. (ii) Street Trees. Project will include six new street trees in addition to the thirteen street trees required adjacent to the Project. The location as the trees shall be as shown on the Development Plan; the design and construction of the sidewalk, curb and gutter modifications necessary to accommodate the trees shall be part of Project, at the expense of the Project’s owner. The design and work, and the variety and size of the trees planted, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Division and Department of Public Works. Fifteen of the street trees shall be located on High Street, two on Channing, and two on Homer. If the proposed location of any tree is determined to be infeasible, owner of the Project shall install, or pay for the installation, at the election of City, of a comparable street tree in the vicinity of the Project. (iii) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement. The project shall provide three (3) studios, four (4) one-bedroom and two (2) two-bedroom units to be included in the City’s Below Market Rate ("BMR")program. This is a larger number of BMR units than is required by the City’s the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements (Program #20, Housing Element, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan). The nine units shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR program and subject to the restrictions applicable to rental units placed in the BMR program. The units shall be the unit "C" on the first floor, units #19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 on the 990816 lac 0090317 second floor and units #24, 25 and 26 on the third floor, as specified on the approved plans. The exact location of the units is shown on the final plans. The design, construction, materials, finishes, windows, hardware, light fixtures, landscaping, irrigation, appliances and like features of the BMR units shall be comparable to all other units in the project. The renters of the BMR units shal! have access to all facilities, amenities, parking and storage as provided to other owners in the project. The initial rental price of each of the studio units shall be $808.00 per month, the initial rental price for the one-bedroom units shall be $922 per month, and the initial rental price for two-bedroom unit shall be $1,139 per month. These prices were determined utilizing the City of Palo Alto current Housing Price Guidelines (effective May i, 1999). The price list is adjusted annually. The greater of the rental prices set forth above or the applicable prices in effect the first building permit is issued for the project shall be the initial rental price of the BMR units. The provisions of this condition e.(iii) have been agreed to by the Project’s owner and are set forth in an Agreement Regarding Provision of Below Market Rate Housing which shall be executed and recorded prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Project. The zoning for the Project does not permit conversion of the residential units to condominiums. If an amendment to the zoning is sought to permit such a conversion, a new BMR agreement must be negotiated with the City prior to such amendment. (iv) Public Park. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Project’s owner shall pay to the City the larger of Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00) to be used for the acquisition or improvement, or both, of a public park within the South of Forest neighborhood. Provided, if at the time that the first building permit is issued, the City has established developer fees for parks or an assessment district for that purpose, and the Project’s fee or assessment would be greater than $350,000, the owner shall pay the larger sum. (f) Development......$chedule. Construction of the project shall commence on or before July i, 2000, and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before December 31, 2001. (g) Mitigation Measures. The "Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program for 800 High Street" dated , 1999 is hereby approved and adopted. The mitigation measures set forth in 990816 lac 0090317 7 that document are conditions of approval of this Project and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 5. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents and records: "Historic Preservation Ordinance Final Environmental Impact Report, May, 1999," and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, ~a!ong with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approval the various actions related to the Project. The City Council hereby finds that the Fina! EIR reflects // // // // // // // // // // // // 990816 lac 0090317 8 the independent judgment of the City as lead agency. The Council finds that this project, as mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect. SECTION 6. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 990816 lac 0090317 9 800 High Street Graphic Attachment to Staff Report Date: 2-18-99 Scale: !" = 200’ Attachment C VARIANCE FINDINGS FOR HEIGHT 800 HIGH STREET FINDINGS 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the site is located at the intersection of Homer Avenue and High Street which is an area in need of pedestrian improvements and an extension of the activity levels existing within the Homer Avenue retail corridor immediately east of the site. The site also is in close proximity to three existing structures that are 50 feet in height and is located in an area where Comprehensive Plan policies call for an increase in mixed use projects that include housing. 2. The granting of the application for an increase in the height of the building in a small portion of the southwest corner of the building is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant, and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardship in that it would allow a higher housing density that is called for in City policies, it would permit the construction of two rental apartments that otherwise would be omitted if the variance for height were not granted, the encroachment is minor (approximately 25 foot intrusion into the 150 distance requirement), will enhance the design of the building, is needed to preserve the quality of living spaces within the building, would preserve stairway access to the third floor apartments and offices, and would permit heights in keeping with an area that provides a transition from two and three story buildings on Alma Street and Homer Avenue to the single family residences further south along High Street. 3. The granting of the application for an increase in the height of the building will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the proposed height in a small portion of the southwest comer of the building would be adequate to provide and maintain privacy, light, air, and natural screening for future residents of the development as well as existing residents of the mixed use building located at 901 Alma Street. Furthermore, privacy, light, and air would not be compromised given that the height intrusions are created by only a portion of two apartments as well as a stairwell. Lastly, the increase in height would not cause impacts to the adjacent developed properties in that a) the existing building setbacks for 901 Alma Street are adequate to maintain light, air and privacy and b) the four residential units at 901 Alma Street are located on the Alma Street side of the building the nearest portion of which is greater than 150 from the proposed project at 800 High Street. Attachment D Robert Peterson Architects, Inc. 57 E! Cammo Real Menlo Park, C~. 94025 650 327 i16! Fax 650.327.2512 ~w PetcrsonArchltects corn November 12,-1998 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SANTANA BUILDING @ 800 HIGH STREET This proposed integrated mixed-use redevelopment has grown out of the belief that a balanced project can support housing, parking and other pedestrian amenities. The specific goals of the project are as follows: A. Respond to the need for live-work rental housing as well as the expansion of current business uses with a project that will reflect a return to a more traditional housing/jobs balance. B. Implement SOFA goals,¯Transition housing to fit between high-density downtown projects and the single family neighborhoods. ¯Develop the perception of entry from Alma Street into the SOFA area at Forest and Channing Avenues.¯Provide more open space and improved design of the streetscape.¯Recognize and define the Emerson Street and Homer Avenue activity node. ¯Provide additional parking for SOFA business ¯Improve the alley¯Underground utilities¯Establish street tree program *Screen electrical substation C. Provide opportunities for public art. This project is intended to act as a transition development on a number of levels. 1.A historical transition from the former industrial/manufacturing use to the current housing and office needs. 2. A transition in character from industrial scale and materials to a pedestrian street fabric with finer scale materials, pedestrian amenities and street furniture. 3.A transition from downtown commercial uses to family housing neighborhood. The project accomplishes these transitions by establishing a new residential city block on High Street with housing at street level to provide activity not only during the day but during the evening and week-ends. The inclusion of a complete street tree program on both sides of High Street as well as landscape and hardscape elements at the residential porches and public plaza help accomplish transition, along with public improvements at the intersections adjacent to the project site. These improvements will extend pedestrian amenities similar to those proposed for the downtown, to the SOFA area and encourage similar improvements for future developments. The existing Lane 8 West (alley) will be enhanced with new paving and landscaping on the project site. These improvements along with new street lighting on the building and the landscape screening of the City of Palo Alto electrical substation will encourage pedestrian use and provide an additional link to Palo Altos growing alley system. The building itself establishes a rich and varied pedestrian character at the street level, moving to an intermediate scale in form and fenestration at the second floor and some of the third floor elements and culminates with a simple commercial form for the remainder of the third floor. The materials echo the building forms with rich colored and pedestrian scaled slate and hand-crafted metal work at the street level. The second floor is finished with integral colored stucco walls, larger scaled windows with stone sills and wallcaps and building mounted street lights. These building forms provide a pattern and texture which contrasts to the simple commercial form of the third floor and its warm-toned copper panels and larger scale fenestration. I believe this project will achieve our goals, the SOFA goals, and provide a vibrant and desirable use to this redeveloping neighborhood. 800 High Street: The Santana Building Project Description and Program Development Statement Ptoject Summary The project involves the redevelopment of the half block bounded by High Street, Homer Street, Channing Street and the alley located in the south western portion of downtown Palo Alto. The Peninsula Creamery currently occupies the site as a warehouse, refrigeration and trucking facility. It is intended that the existing warehouse commercial facility, be demolished and a new three (3) story mixed-use building with retail, live-work housing and commercial office space be built in its place. The proposed project used the local-area-planning concept. First, we presented the University South Neighborhood Group with a mixed-use development concept to elicit comments and discussion. In response to the discussions and comments we modified the design development in three major ways. First, to create an active pedestrian oriented street environment the live/work lofts were placed on the ground floor and a public plaza was created at the Homer and High street corner. Next, we replaced the 3-story element at the Channing side of the building with one and two story dements stepped back 20 feet and 30 feet respectively. Additionally along High Street, we have added a third story onto the two story elements to reduce the apparent length of the upper office element, which is also stepped back from the second floor. Finally, we changed the zinc cladding of the third story (which descends to the plaza level at the Homer Avenue side of the building and at the end of the office component on High Street) to copper cladding. The next step in the local-area-planning process was a pre-screening with the City Council. The Council screening provided a mix of responses with a majority indicating that they would like to see more housing. We have changed the design significantly in response to the comments offered by the City Council. We have added 10 more housing units, reduced the office space by 13,200 square feet and added 1,550 square feet of retail space at the plaza. The underground parking garage remained the same size, which creates 34 surplus parking spaces due to the reduction in office space. The building has on-site parking in excess of current regulations. We propose supplying two hundred seventy-seven parking spaces, 250 spaces below grade and 27 spaces above grade. The required parking ratio’s are: for commercial space, four (4) per 1000 square feet, for residential units, 1.25 spaces per unit and for retail, five (5) per 1000 square feet. The proposed parking for the building using these ratios creates a surplus of 34 parking spaces. The parking garage entry is on Channing Street. D:\Project~ (Stzve’*)kOpen Project*kCreirnery\Development Stitement 5-24-99.doc, 5/24/99 FROM : 0[’I I LANG ASSOC I ATES PHONE NO, : 4153898438 Ma~. 14 1999 ~8;14RM P2 OLA Landscape Narrative for the Saxitana Building Palo Alto, California Specimen street trees on both sides of High Street between Channing and Homer, and the use of interlocking pavers along the sidewalk, together with the planting of full shrubs in planters fronting the entrances to the residential units will introduce an attractive pedestrian element to High street and this block of the neighborhood. The landscape treatment for the outdoor area at the intersection of Homer and High Streets will create an attractive street comer with seating, artwork, plantings, and flowers. Plan materials around the Santana Building will be selected, based upon, but not limited to, the following criteria: plants adapted to specific site conditions, drought tolerant plants, and plants as required by the City of Palo Alto for this neighborhood. Aesthetic considerations include, form texture, color and horticultural compatibility. The in-igation system will be designed in accordance with water conservation practices and comply with the Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto. All landscape areas will be irrigated by a fully automatic system. A combination of drip and conventional spray system shall be used. Proposed trees, shrubs and ground covers are as follows: Trees:36" box specimen Acer species to be determined by the City _Arborist. Sti ubs:15 gallon & 5 gallon can. Nandina domestica Pittosporum tobira variegata Raphiolepis indica rosea Azaleas, sp. Vines:15 gallon can Ficus pumila Wisteria sinensis Oral Lang Associates Inc. Landscape Architects 1201Arutersen Dnvc Suit~O S-ant",,~f~:l CA Voi~e: (415)482-82% Site Plamaers Fax: (4!5)482.8398 Urban Designers MAY-14-19~9 89:15 41b-3898438 93%P.02 Santana Building PLANT LIST Quant. Size Botanical Name Common Name Remarks Trees: 1 8 36"BoxI Shrubs: Acer species Maple ITo be determined by the City Arborist 20 1 5 5G.C. 4O 5 G.C. 20 115 G.C. 225 5 G.C. 138 5G.C. Azalea ’California Sunset’ Azalea ’Rose Queen’ Nandina Domestica ’Compacta’ Pittosporum Tobira Pittosporum Tobira Variegata’ Rhapiolepis Indica Rosea Heavenly Bamboo Tobira Tobira India Hawthorn 5 per planter 5 per planter 5 per planter Standard Form Plant 24" O.C. Plant 48" O.C. Ground Cover: 194 ! 1 G.c. I Lantana Monteuidensis I No name given I Plant 24" O.C. Vines: 1 0 ! 5 G.C. I Wisteria Sinensis Chinese Wisteria 800 High Street Public ~ ~B~n,.~It Statement The proposed project provides 34 surplus par’king spaces. Twenty-two of the surplus parking spaces shall be leased to the City of Palo Alto or neighboring businesses for $1.00 per year for a period often years. Following the imtial ten-year term the surplus parking spaces will be leased at market rates. The parking garage will be privately owned and maintained. Tenants arid other approved users will access the garage with a security card through a gated entry. Parking will generally be first come first serve (the tenants may have some rese~ed parking spaces’). 2.Twelve of the 34 surplus parking spaces shall be provided to the proposed SOFA davcare center. The p~ojecr is required to filrnish 2.6 BMR units or pay an in-lieu fee. The proiect proposes to offer the City 9 BMR units. 7~c project will supports the creation of an assessment district to pay for the proposed park m SOFA study or contribute $350,000 whichever is greater. The project includes provision of public art and a 3,600 sf public plaza at the corner of Higla Street and Homer Avenue. The public plaza will feature several public amenities such as seating, landscaping and a substantial setback from the prope_rty line. The public art will be viewab!e from the public right-of-way. All pubhc a~ proposals will be reviewed and ~pprored by the Arts Commission before subsequent review by t_he ARt3. The project prowdes nineteen new street trees (15 on High Street and two (2) each on Homer and Channing Avenues). The project includes public amenities, such as; stxeet lightinN an integrated umt paved sidewalk system, and re-paving of the alley behind the building. _The alley work will inciude building a 38-fooz high by 108-foo~ wide sound and sight scree,. at the electrical sub-station. D:\Proleats (Steve’s;\.Open Pmlecm\Creame~,\Public ~enefit 5-28-.C9.doc ATTACHMENT E DRAFT CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL (Note: Final mitigations from the EIR will be added to these conditions at the time of the Final EIR) 800 HIGH STREET General The project shall be in substantial conformance with the plans dated August 17, 1999. A final site plan shall be prepared and approved by the Planning Division which reflects any modifications by the ARB, Planning Commission and City Council. The revised site plan shall reflect the following conditions: a) The public art proposal shall be reviewed and approved by the Public Art Commission. b) The applicant shall be required to submit to the Planning Division a mitigation monitoring report indicating compliance with all the mitigations contained in the EIR prepared for the project prior to issuance of a demolition permit, c) Balconies or other private open space should be made available to the eight upper floor apartments along the southern end of the building wherever feasible. The location, size and design of the balconies shall be reviewed by the ARB when building plans, landscaping and other project details are finalized. d) The applicant shall include in all apartment leases a disclosure notice that adequately informs future renters that the apartments are located in a mixed use commercial/industrial neighborhood and that noise from early morning and late night truck deliveries, as well as noise and activity from the office users in the building, should be expected, e) The proposed conversion of High Street to two-way traffic between Homer and Channing Avenue shall be deleted A southbound left-turn lane and signal will be required for the southbound Alma Street to eastbound Channing Avenue movement in the year 2010. The applicant will be responsible for the proportionate cost of the left-ram land and traffic signal. The applicant is required to design the parking spaces and pedestrian walkavay along the rear alley, the street bulbouts, and the bicycle parking, in a configuration acceptable to the Transportation Division. The applicant shall be required to inventory actual parking occupancy of the 243 spaces allocated to the project and provide the City with a periodic report. If actual parking occupancy is significantly less than that required, the City may elect to increase the number of parking spaces dedicated for public use. f) The selected species of street tree for the right-of-way shall be of the Maple (Acer) species (36 inch box) and that structural soil be used as a planter area beneath the sidewalk. The planter shall be at least 36 inches deep and equal 800 cubic feet of volume for each tree planted. Trees on the opposite side of High Street also shall be planted in similar conditions. g) The applicant shall be required to enter into an agreement with the City that stipulates the following. The building owners would own and maintain the parking garage and all parking spaces within it. The owners would be responsible for the provision of utilities, cleaning, striping, signing, security, insurance etc. The owners would be responsible providing hold harmless provisions, as well as conditions for termination and assignment (in the event the building is sold). The agreement would include a provision that the owners provide, maintain and insure the 50 two hour spaces and the 193 permit spaces for a term of not less than 35 years. The City would monitor and enforce the 50 two hour spaces as well as the 193 permit spaces. Revenue from the sale of up to 140 tenant permits (124 office + 12 residential + 4 retail) would be paid directly to the building owners. Revenue from the sale of the permits to the general public as well as any permits sold to building tenants above and beyond 140 permits would be retained by the City to help offset the City’s expense in administering the permit system and enforcing the two hour and permit parking spaces. Prior to Issuance of Demolition Permit Utilities Electric The Permit-tee shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the Permittee shall contact Undergrolmd Service Alert @ (800) 642-2444, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. 3.The new electrical service for the project shall be underground. 4.The applicant will be required to provide a public utility easement for installing padmount equipment and associated substructure 5. The applicant shall provide electrical load details for sizing the transformer. Public Works Operations 6.PAMC Sec. 8-04-070 shall apply to all public trees to be retained. All trees to be retained, as shown on the approved tree inventory or landscape plan shall be protected during construction. The following tree protection measures shall be approved by the City Arborist and included in construction/demolition plans and contracts. Any modifications to these requirements must be approved, in writing, by the Planning Arborist. The Planning Arborist shall be in receipt of a statement from the developer or project arborist verifying that the tree fencing is in place before demolition and constructionperrnit issuance unless otherwise approved. The following tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: a. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with six-foot-high chain link fences. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least 2-feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. The fences shall enclose the entire area under the dripline of the trees. If the sidewalk will be blocked by the above, the entire planting strip may be fenced off to allow pedestrian traffic to use the sidewalk. The fences shall be erected before construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the building permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans to be done under the trees to be protected. (See Public Works Department’s standard specification detail #505). b.No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. c. The ground around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. d.Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Utilities/Water-G as-Wastewater The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. The form is available at the Building Department. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. Prior to Issuance of a Building Permit Utilities Electric This project requires a padmount transformer. The applicant shall provide an easement for installing the padmounted equipment and associated substructure. The location of the padmount transformer shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Planning Department and the Architectural Review Board. The tentative map shall be submitted to the Utilities Department for establishing the location and dimensions of the required easement. Fire Hazardous Materials 10.A hazardous materials closure permit shall be obtained from the Fire Depamnent for the existing building to ensure that construction does not interfere with any extraction or monitoring wells on-site that would be part of the on-going clean up of the area. Fire Department 11.The applicant shall submit final plans for review and approval by the Fire Department that include the following: (a) automatic sprinkler system is required (NFPA-13R modified). Plans and permits required on underground fire service line and automatic sprinkler system (b) Fire/Life safety construction permits shall be obtained per CBC Article 87, © on-site fire hydrant shall be placed per PAMC Title 15 (d) elevator gurney access is required to be large enough to accommodate a gurney 24" by 82" and emergency personnel, d) Site accessibility shall be consistent with CBC Article 9. Planning/Zoning 12.The approved building materials and color scheme shall be shown on building permit drawings for all buildings, patios, fences, utilitarian enclosures and other landscape features. 13.Final landscape and irrigation plans encompassing on- and off-site plan table areas out to the curb must be submitted to and approved by the Utility Marketing Services Division. A Landscape Water Use statement, water use calculations, a grading plan, and a statement of design intent shall be submitted for each project. These plans should be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and qualified irrigation consultant. Landscape and irrigation plans shall include: a.All existing trees identified both to be retained and removed including private and public street trees. b.Complete plant list indicating tree and plant species, quantity, size, and locations. c.Irrigation schedule and plan. d.Fence locations. eo Lighting plan with photometric data. The existing lighting plan shall be revised to reduce illumination so as not to exceed 1.5 foot candles. All lighting must be shielded in a manner to prevent visibility of the light source, eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. The lighting plan, photometric and specification sheets should be revised to meet these guidelines and submitted to Planning staff for review and approval. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. Signs (not included in this proposal) require a separate ARB application. The project shall include an enclosed trash and recycling area which complies with the design guidelines adopted by the ARB and approved by the City Council pursuant to Section 16.48.070 (PAMC). The trash!recycling facilities shall be approved by the City of Palo Alto Recycling Division prior to issuance of a building permit. Public Works Engineering 16.The applicant shall submit a final grading and drainage plan to Public Works Engineering, including drainage patterns on site and from adjacent properties. The plan shall demonstrate that pre-existing drainage patterns to and from adjacent properties are not altered. 17.The proposed development will resuk in a change in the impervious area of the property. The applicant shall provide calculations showing the adjusted impervious area with the building permit application. A storm drainage fee adjustment will take place in the month following the final approval of the construction by the Building Inspection Division. 18.Permittee must obtain a grading permit from the City of Palo Alto Building Inspection Division if excavation exceeds 100 cubic yards. 19.The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit or temporary lease from Public Works Engineering for the proposed construction which will impact the use of the sidewalk, street, alley or on property in which the City holds an interest. 20.The applicant shall submit a construction logistics plan to Public Works Engineering. This plan shall address, at minimum parking, truck routes and staging, materials storage, and the provision of pedestrian and vehicular traffic adjacent to the construction site. All truck routes shall conform with the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the attached route map which outlines truck routes available throughout the City of Palo Alto. 21.No closure of any roadway or alley will be allowed without the prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 22.Lane 8 West, the alley to the west of the project, shall be resurface (removed and replaced in kind) and the other three streets along the perimeter of the site be slurry sealed. This shall occur after completion of the project. 23.The applicant shall work with Public Works Engineering to develop an agreement to maintain the noise/screening wall along lane 8 West. 24.The applicant shall submit a conceptual drainage plan and Storm water Pollution Prevention Plan (SPPP) for the site. 25. The street bulbouts must be designed with a minimum six foot curb radius. 26. The applicant shall post a performance bond for the work within the public right-of-way. 27.The applicant shall submit a maintenance agreement for paving, landings, and islands within the City’s right-of-way. Transportation 28.Signage and landscaping shall meet the sight distance requirements of PAMC 18.83.080, applicable to project frontages where driveways are present, and in parking lots. Landscaping shall be specifically identified in the landscape plan as meeting these height requirements. 29.Bicycle parking shall be provided in the amount, type, and location specified in PAMC 18.83 and submitted for review and approval by the Transportation Division prior to submittal of a Building Permit. Guest bicycle parking shall be Class III. Utilities Electric 30.All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required utilities, shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. 31 Applicant shall maintain ingress-egress for entrance to substation on lane 8 West. 32. Noise/screening wall must meet all clearances to existing facilities Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 33.The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed in private property located at the site for City use prior to issuance of a building permit 34.The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 35.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 36.The applicant shall submit a completed WATER-GAS-WASTEWATER SERVICE CONNECTION APPLICATION - LOAD SHEET for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in G.P.M., gas in B.T.U.P.H., and sewer in G.P.D.). 37. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for " water, gas and wastewater. 38.Each unit, parcel or place of business shall have its own water, gas meters and sewer lateral connection 39.The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any water well, or auxiliary water supply. 40.The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing water and sewer mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes the design and all the cost associated with the construction for the installation/upgrade of the water and sewer mains and/or services. Planning/Zoning 41.In compliance with Program 13 of the Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the project shall meet the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirement by dedicating nine BMR units within the project. These units shall be located at the south end of the building and shall include three studios, four one-bedroom, and two two-bedroom apartments. The applicant shall provide a Letter of Agreement with the Director of Planning and Community Environment stipulating the conditions of the BMR requirements. In addition to other conditions, the Letter of Agreement requires that an Agreement, satisfactory to the City Attorney, be prepared and executed by the owner and by the City and that the Agreement be recorded in the office of the Santa Clara County Recorder prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Public Works Engineering 42.The applicant shall obtain a Permit for Construction in a Public Street from Public Works Engineering for construction proposed in the City right-of-way. 43.Two underlying lot lines exists on the property. The developer/applicant is required to apply for a Certificate of Compliance to remove the underlying lot lines from this parcel. 44.A detailed site-specific soil report must be submitted which includes information on water table and basement construction issues. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 45.The applicant’s engineer shall submit flow calculations which show that the off-site and on-site water and sanitary sewer mains will provide the domestic water, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak load. Field testing may be required to determine current flows and water pressures on existing main. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer. 46.The applicant’s engineer shall submit a complete sewer system capacity study to determine that the on-site and off-site sewer mains have the capacity to accommodate the sewer flows from the proposed development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Calculations must be stamped by a registered civil engineer. 47. 48. 49. 50. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the Senior Wastewater Engineer. The study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW Engineering Division. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. The applicant shall submit to the WGW Engineering Division of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and sewer utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the Utilities Department Design Criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The approved relocation of service, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person requesting the relocation. A separate water meter shall be installed to irrigate the approved landscape plan. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account and no other water service will be billed on the account. 51.A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. For service connections of 4- inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant’s contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the Utilities Standard Detail. 52. 53. 54. 55. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. An approved Reduce Pressure Principal Assembly (Backflow Preventor Device) shall be installed for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Reduce Pressure Principle Assembly shall be installed on the owner’s property and directly behind the water meter. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. An approved Detector Check Valve shall be installed for the existing or new water connections for the fire system to comply with requirements of California Administrative Code, Title 17, Sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The Double Check Detector Check Valve shall be installed on the owner’s property adjacent to the property line. Inspection by the Utilities Cross Connection Inspector is required for the supply pipe between the city connection and the assembly. 56.A new gas service line installation is required to furnish customer’s demand specified in the load sheet presented with this project. 57. A new sewer lateral installation is required. 58.The applicant shall install a new sewer manhole and install a new sewer lateral per Utilities requirements. During Construction Building Inspection 59.To reduce dust levels, it shall be required that exposed earth surfaces be watered as necessary. Spillage resulting fi’om hauling operations along or across any public or private property shall be removed immediately and paid for by the contractor. Dust nuisances originating from the contractor’s operations, either inside or outside of the right-of-way shall be controlled at the contractor’s expense. Utilities Electric 60.All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 61. All new underground service conduits and substructures shall be inspected before backfilling. 62.Contractors and developers shall obtain a street opening permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. Planning/Zoning 63.All street trees shall receive monthly watering. A written log of each application shall be kept updated at the site construction office. The log shall be forwarded to the Planning Arborist before final sign off is approved. Police 64.All non-residential construction activities shall be subject to the requirements of the City’s Noise Ordinance, Chapter 9.10 PAMC, which requires, among other things, that a sign be posted and that construction times be limited as follows: 8:00 AM to 8:00 PM Monday thru Friday 9:00 AM to 8:00 PM Saturday 10:00 AM to 6:00 PM Sunday. Public Works Engineering 65.The contractor must contact the CPA Public Works Inspector at (415) 496-6929 prior to any work performed in the public fight-of-way. 66.No storage of construction materials is permitted in the street or on the sidewalk without prior approval of Public Works Engineering. 67.The developer shall require its contractor to incorporate best management practices (BMP’s) for Storm water pollution prevention in all construction operations, in conformance with the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program. The Inspection Services Division shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on private property; and the Public Works Department shall monitor BMP’s with respect to the developer’s construction activities on public property. It is unlawful to discharge any construction debris (soil, asphalt, sawcut slurry, paint, chemicals, etc.) or other waste materials into gutters or storm drains. The applicant also will be required to paint a "No Dumping/Flows into the Bay" logo near all drainage inlets. 68.All construction within the City right-of-way, easements or other property under City jurisdiction shall conform to Standard Specifications of the Public Works and Utility Departments. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 69. 70. 71. The applicant shall obtain a Construction Permit from Santa Clara County Valley Water District for the gas service line to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant shall pay the connection fees associated for the installation of the new water service/s to be installed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant shall pay all costs associated with required improvements to on-site and off-site gas mains and services. All improvements to the gas system will be by the City of Palo Alto or their contractor. 72.Utility service connections will be installed between 30 to 45 days following receipt of full payment. Large developments must allow sufficient lead time (6 weeks minimum) for utility construction performed by the City of Palo Alto Utilities. Prior to Finalization Planning/Zoning 73.The landscape architect shall certify in writing and submit to Planning Division, and call for inspection, that the landscaping has been installed in accordance with all aspects of the approved landscape plans, that the irrigation has been installed and that irrigation has been tested for timing and function, and all plants including street trees are healthy. Public Works Engineering 74.All sidewalks bordering the project shall be repaired and!or removed and replaced in compliance with Public Works approved standards. 75.The Public Works Inspector shall sign off the building permit prior to the finalization of this permit. All off-site improvements shall be finished prior to this sign-off. After Construction Public Works Water Quality Control 76.No wastewater (including equipment cleaning wash water, vehicle wash water, cooling water, air conditioner condensate, and floor cleaning washwater) shall be discharged to the storm drain system, the street or gutter. Utilities/Water-Gas-Wastewater 77.The customer shall give the City written notice of any material changes in size, character, or extent of the equipment or operations for which the City is supplying utility service before making any such change. 78.Project construction shall include installation of irrigation supply to all street trees. Details shall specify an in line loop of drip tubing placed around the top of the rootball at a point one-third of rootball diameter. All tree irrigation shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover as required in Landscape Water Efficiency Standards for the City of Palo Alto (V-C)(o). (S APLAN~PLADIV\PC SR\HIGHS00.CND) ATTACHMENT F- DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT MITIGATION MEASURES Impact 4.1-2 Compatibility with Land Uses Noise and aesthetic impacts could create compatibility impacts. This is potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 The following mitigation would reduce impacts involving compatibility with land use impacts: Same as Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 (for noise impacts), Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 (for aesthetic impacts), and Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 (for light and glare impacts). Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.1-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.2-1 Air Quality Standards Construction could create dust, a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.2-1 The BAAQMD basic control measures should be used to reduce the impact of construction dust: 1 ¯Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. °Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved accessroads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. Significance After Mitigation This mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.3-1 Increased Vehicle Trips or Traffic Congestion Project traffic, combined with other future projects, would impair the function of the Alma Street/ Channing Avenue intersection. This is a potentially significant cumulative impact. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(a) The following mitigation would reduce construction period traffic impacts: 1 In BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996. The City of Palo Alto should agree to a before and after evaluation program of pavement along the construction truck traffic route in order to determine if project-generated truck traffic causes pavement deterioration. The applicant would be responsible for repairing deteriorated pavement attributable to the project. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1(b) The following mitigation would reduce cumulative traffic impacts under the Existing and Proposed Project traffic systems: Mitigation under the Existing or Proposed Project traffic systems would require the provision of a southbound exclusive left-turn lane (mitigation 1 below) to mitigate the impact to southbound through traffic flow, and signalization of the Alma Street/Channing Street intersection (mitigation 2 below) to reduce delay to southbound left turns to an acceptable level, and designating alleyway parking as public use during the day (mitigation 3 below). 1)Restriping of Alma Street. Provision of a southbound exclusive left turn lane would mitigate the impact to southbound through traffic flow. The City Transportation Division hasgiven a preliminary indication that a left-turn lane could be provided within the existing curb-to-curb width with removd of on-street parking on the east side of Alma Street and adjustment to existing lane widths. As many as 18 on-street parking spaces would be removed with this mitigation (at most, six to the south of Channing Avenue and 12 to the north). This secondary impact of loss of parking due to this mitigation is discussed and mitigated below. Note that widening of the west side of Alma Street was considered. Wideningofthe west side would require extensive grading, the potential removal of many trees (trees along the west side of Alma Street include tall Tree of Heaven (50-60 feet tall, in front of intersection with Channing Avenue), California Pepper, Black Acacia, and Coast Live Oak (in front of the substation)), the relocation of electrical lines leading into the Alma Street substation, and potential maintenance problems of remaining trees. The Coast Live Oaks that could be destroyed or damaged are considered Protected Species under the City’s tree ordinance. This ordinance allows the removal of Oak trees under certain conditions, provided no other current options exist. In this case, the option of restriping exists. Due to these difficulties and significant environmental imt~cts, widening of the west side of Alma Street is considered infeasible. 2)Signalization of the Alma Street/Channing Street intersection would be required to reduce delay to southbound left turns to an acceptable level. Although based upon Caltrans methodology a signal is not considered warranted, 2 jurisdictions sometimes determine that a signal is desirable, anyway. A signal would stop northbound traffic, allowing southbound traffic on Alma Street a protected opportunity to turn left onto Channing Avenue, but would have no impacton southbound through traffic. The resultant level of service would be LOS A during the AM and PMpeak hours for either roadway system alternative, and thus reduce cumulative impacts to a less-than significant level. As experienced by the driver waiting to turn left, delay could be significant (depending upon signal cycle length) even though overall intersection level of service would be at a theoretizally acceptable level. 2 Under Caltrans #11 Peak Hour Urban signal warrant standard. (Note that some degree of mitigation could be achieved for these roadway systems by adding just the southbound left-turn lane (1) without adding a signal (2). However, this would still result in an unacceptable left-turn movement during the AM Peak Hour.) SECONDARY ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALMA STREET RESTRIPING Mitigation 4.3-1(b)(1) above would result in the loss of parking on the east side of Alma Street. The project would provide 34 off-street spaces for local area employees who are now parking on-street in the nearby neighborhoods. As at most 18 spaces would be lost along Alma Street, the project would still result in more neighborhood parking. However, spaces lost are for customers and some employees, while spaces provided by the project are for employees only. Observations indicatethat the 12 on-street parking spaces located on the east side of Alma Street between Homer and Channing Avenues are the spaces most often occupied during the business day, presumably used by customers of the hardware store and auto repair business. (Note that in any case, the loss of a maximum of 18 spaces due to restriping of Alma Street would not be entirely attributable to the proposed project. The project would contribute onlya portion of the total traffic on Alma Street that would require provision of a left-turn lane). This is considered a significant impact. The following mitigation would reduce secondary impacts due to restriping Alma Street: 3)Designate twelve (12) of the project’s alleyway parking spaces for two-hour limit public use. Provide signs directing customers of the Alma Street hardware and auto repair businesses to the designated parking, and sign the parking spaces for public use, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. Mitigation Measure 4.3-1© The following mitigation would reducecumulative traffic impacts under the PAMF/SOFA Proposed System: Mitigation under the PAMF/SOFA Proposed traffic system assumes provision of a signal at the Alma Street / Channing Avenue intersection but no left-turn lane on the southbound Alma Street intersection approach. However, if monitoring of the intersection revealed the need for provision of this lane, the following mitigation would be required: The traffic study for the PAMT’/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan could mitigate cumulative impacts created by the project by the provision of a separate southbound left turn lane. Mitigation for the (800 High Street) project applicant would be to provide a fairshare contribution toward the provision of a southbound left turn lane at the Alma Street / Channing Avenue intersection. Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.3-1 (a) would reduce construction period impacts to a less-than-significant impact. Either Mitigation 4.3-1 (b) or © would reduce cumulative traffic impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.3.2 Hazards to Safety from Design Features The width of Lane 8 West and placement of pedestfian walkway could create hazards, a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.3-2 The following mitigation would reduce hazards impacts: Sign and strip the alley for one-way northbound flow. Parking spaces should be angled to accommodate (and reinforce) the northbound directional flow. City Transportation Division staff indicate that the proposed 15-foot wide alley would be acceptable for one-way travel to/from the project parking area, if no parking oi" loading is allowed in the alley. 3 Thus, the alley should be posted "No Stopping, No Loading". The existing businesses accessed by the alley (auto repair and hardware store) both have parking areas behind their stores that are indented, and outside the alleyway. Thus, posting the alley as indicated should pose no problems for the existing businesses. Remove the pedestrian walkway from the project site plan. Significance After Mitigation This mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.4-1 Locally Designated Species The project would result in mismatched street trees, and new street trees would be of a species not acceptable to the City. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.4-1 The following mitigation would reduce impacts: The applicant would need to select a new species of street tree to be used for the project. The Planning and Public Works arborists recommend that the selected species of street me for the right- of-way shall be most likely London Plane, (Platanus a. ’Yarwood) or Maple species, of 36-inch box size. Both the Planning and Public Works Arborists would need to approve this selection. Additional or replacement street trees would be required on the south side of Channing Avenue and the north side of Homer Avenue, in order to match proposed street trees proposed by the applicant. The applicant should revise the Landscape Plan to include new trees, where space locations are feasible. Replacement street trees would need to conform to preferred City planting methods, such as use of Palo Alto Structural Soil Mix, and providing 800 cubic feet of rooting sP4ace per tree. The final landscape plan would need to be approved by the City Planning Arborist. Significance After Mitigation This mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. 3 Interview with Carl Stoffel, City of Palo Alto Transportation Division, May 17, 1999.4 See Palo Alto Structural Soil Mix for Urban Tree Plantings - Specificat.ions, Planning / Public Works Joint Research Project Memorandum, June 12th 1998. Impact 4.5-1 Severe Noise Levels Sound levels of greater than 80 dBA could be generated at the building fagade when trucks are being unloaded. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.5-1 The following mitigation would reduce noise impacts: Windows in the building should have an STC (sound transmission class) rating of 28, except for those overlooking the Palo Alto Hardware Store loading dock which should be 40 STC: in Units 21, 22, 25, and 26. If the landscaping screen / noise barrier along the substation on the southwest side of Lane 8 West is not constructed, windows in residential units along Lane 8 West would need to have an STC rating of 34 to reduce noise impacts to a less-than-significant level. Significance After Mitigation This mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.6-1 Power or Natural Gas Planned streetlights would not be feasible, a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 The following mitigation would reduce utility impacts: The applicant would need to revise project plans to include lighting for Lane 8 West on the wall of the building itself. The Utilities Department would need to approve a photometric plan. During construction of the building, no lighting would be available for Lane 8 West. The applicant should install temporary lighting during construction along Lane 8 West for the use of currentresidents and visitors of the alley after dark. The applicant would be responsible for new lighting. The Utilities Department would need to approve plans for the screening fence, proposed tree wells, and curb modifications to ensure that no conflicts would occur with electric lines. If necessary, locations of some project elements might need to be relocated a small amount to avoid lines. This relocation would be paid for by the applicant. A padmount transformer is required on-site for this project. As a standard condition of approval, an utilities easement would be required for installing the transformer at this location, installing the primary conduits for designated service point, and extending the primary conduit to the new transformer location. Future access to the transformer for maintenance may become a problem should any portion of the property that is now used for parking be developed. Should this occur, the owner of the proposed project would be required to relocate the transformer when needed. Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.6-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4. 7-1 Negative Aesthetic Effects The light color of the intake/exhaust vent stands out and does not appear similar to anything in the surrounding area. This is a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.7-1 The following mitigation would reduce visual impacts: The applicant would need to select a color for the intake/exhaust vents of the project that would not "stand out" and contrast with the colors and materials selected for the project. Darker colors which would blend in, such as brown hues, would be preferable. The color selected for the vents would need to be approved by the Planning Department during review of the project. Significance After Mitigation This mitigation would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.7-2 Light and Glare Nighttime lighting could create light and g/are problems, a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure ~.7-2 The following mitigation would reduce light and glare impacts: Shield or focus outdoor night lighting downward to minimize upward reflected light. Recess lighting elements within fixtures to prevent glare. Avoid placing lights too close to objects to prevent reflected glare. Avoid high-angle high-candela distribution. Select lighting features which can be shielded after installation, if a problem is identified. Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.7-2 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.8-1 Paleontological or Archeological Resources Excavation could uncover unknown archeo/ogica/ resources, a potentially significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 The following mitigation would reduce paleontological and archeological resource impacts: After demolition of the existing buildings, but before any grading occurs on site, the site shall be tested by underground probing by an archeologist paid for by the applicant. This archeologist shall be under direction of the City. The City would determine the extent of underground probing required. If cultural deposits are encountered, the applicant shall halt construction in the vicinity and consult a qualified archeologist and the Native American community. The archeologist shall conduct independent review of the find, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt evaluations should be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action acceptable to all concerned parties should be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may include excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the California Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 would reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.8-2 Historical Resources The project would involve demolition of the Creamery Building (140 Homer Avenue), which is considered eligible for the State Historic list. This is a significant impact. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 The following mitigation would reduce historic impacts: a)To reduce historic impacts due to CRHR criterion "a" above (is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage), a complete written history should be undertaken documenting the laundry basiness within Palo Alto and of the families who founded those businesses. A full history of the Peninsula Creamery should also be conducted. The building at 140 Homer, other laundry buildings, and other Peninsula Creamery buildings should be photographed as part of these histories. b)To reduce historic impacts due to CRHR criterion "c" above (embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction), the following measures could be adopted: 1)Revise the design of the proposed project to reflect the industrial and commercial characteristics of the existing building. 2)Photograph the building using Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards prior to demolition. Significance After Mitigation Mitigation Measure 4.8-1 (a) would reduce impacts due to CRHR criterion "a" to a less-than-significant level. Mitigation Measure 4.8-1(b) would reduce but not eliminate impacts due to CRHR criterion "c". Therefore, this would remain a significant and unavoidable impact. Asfor all other mitigation in this EIR, the City Council would need to decide if mitigations proposed under 4.8-l(b) are feasible. Note that Section 5.2 of this EIR outlines an alternative that would retain 140 Homer Street, and would therefore not result in a significant and unavoidable impact. Attachment G ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING July 17, 1997 800 High Street High Street Creamery Associates, LLC 97-ARB-122 97-ZC-9 Review of a preliminary Architectural Review Board application for the demolition of an existing 17,632-square-foot manufacturing building and construction of a new, three-story mixed use building, including 16 residential units, 62,000 square feet of office space, 1,450 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. Bob Peterson: I have a major conflict of interest on this item and will not particip.ate. Chairman Ross: I will remind everyone that preliminary reviews are frequently conducted a little less formally than normal reviews. We will not be taking any action at the end of the item. We will simply be making comments for the benefit of the applicant. Are there any staff comments? Chandler Lee: Because this is a preliminary review, as you said, we are looking for your direction and guidance on several specific issues. There are three uses proposed, office, retail and residential, and their fitting into this particular location is an issue we would like discussed, as well as the architectural design of the building. You have a model in front of you superimposed on the site plan for your discussion. Staff does have some current concerns about the traffic generation, although it will not exceed Level of Service standards at any of the nearby intersections, but the project would generate a significant amount of traffic, and that certainly is an issue for the neighbors. The floor area ratio and the floor area itself does exceed the normal allowances for this zoning district, as does the height, because it is within 150 feet of an under construction, residential, mixed use project. Finally, there is the issue of public benefit and to what extent the offered benefits are commensurate with the project. Chairman Ross: Are there any questions of staff?. Mr. McFall: Regarding the 150 foot distance to residential, being the project at the comer of Alma and Channing, what is the zoning of that property? Ms. Grote: It is a PC, as well, a planned community zone. Mr. McFall: How does the ordinance read in terms of that 150 feet? Does it say it is a residential zone, or commercial. Ms. Grote: It is for any residential use, including multiple-family, and single-family. So it A:lARBVerbMinsl800High.min Page 1 07-17-97 specifically includes any kind of residential use. Mr. McFall: For the record, I would like to note that I did meet with the applicant. I have a couple of questions on the staff report. It mentions several times a single use,. a massive single use. It also describes it as a mixed use building. It was not clear to me whether it is considered to be a single use. Ms. Grote: I believe the single-use reference was in regard to the Comprehensive Plan policies that discourage massive singles uses, meaning single buildings, not necessarily only one use going on in a massive, single entity. Mr. McFall: Regarding the utility lines, which are a part of the proposed public benefit, what are the possibilities of undergrounding them, as opposed to their relocation? Mr. Lee: My understanding, from talking to the utilities department, is that although that is structurally feasible, the one would obviously be more expensive, and the larger issue to the utilities department is that they have a difficult time maintaining those lines, should there be a problem. When they are underground, you have to dig for them. So the utilities department, as I understand it, prefers to have them above ground, as they are configured now, but they would be relocated to a different location. Mr. McFall: And from their perspective, relocation to Alma Street is not necessarily aesthetically desirable, but functionally, it would be desirable. Ms. Grote: I think the applicant has had some additional conversations with the utilities department. The last time we talked with them, they were were skeptical which may be too strong a word, but they had not decided that that could really be done, and what would be entailed. I think the applicant has more recent information on that. Mr. McFall: One of the proposed public benefits is rental housing. Has the city accepted rental housing as a public benefit before this? Ms. Grote: We have accepted additional below-market-rate units over and above what would ordinarily be required as a part of the project. This project, I do not believe, is proposing more than its minimum requirement of below-market-rate housing. So just supplying rental units is not, in and of itself, a public benefit. Mr. Lee: But additional below-market-rate units are. Mr. McFall: To my knowledge, architecture has not been used as a public benefit. Chairman Ross: It has not been accepted as one. A:lARBVerbMinsl800High.min Page 2 07-17-97 Ms. Grote: We expect good architecture. It is not a public benefit. We expect it as part of any project. Ms. Piha: I found some parts of the report to be contradictory, Chandler. The Attachment #1, ARB findings for denial. Mr. Lee: Actually, we are not seeking your recommendation at this time. Our next step is to go to the Planning Commission. At that time, we will be submitting findings for denial of the project, because it does exceed the floor area and height elements. Ms. Piha: I was really confused about this Attachment #1. There are probably 15 findings here, and more than half of them are in favor of the project. Mr. Lee: Yes, it is a project that has both good and bad findings. My understanding is that every item in your ARB standards does not need to be found in non-conformance in order to come out with a finding for denial. Because the large issues of floor area and height were the most prominent, that is why I am making the finding for denial. Ms. Piha: So that is the staff’s position? Ms. Grote: Yes, it is. There is also a section in the report, Policy Implications and Inconsistencies with the existing Comprehensive Plan. That is another large part of the recommendation for denial at this point. It is a tentative recommendation that that be forwarded to the Planning Commission. Ms. Piha: What were our comments? Is that something you want us to respond to? Ms. Grote: Not specifically. You can talk about the elements of the project as they relate to your denial standards. If you wanted to go as far as making a preliminary recommendation, you can do that, although that is certainly not required, and is not usually part of a preliminary review. Ms. Piha: That does not mean a denial from staff is part of a preliminary review either. Ms. Grote: That is more for your information. That is how we would be forwarding our recommendation to the Planning Commission. Ms. Piha: I don’t think I have ever seen staff make that kind of recommendation in a preliminary review. That is interesting. Ms. Grote: There are serious Comprehensive Plan issues involved. Ms. Piha: Could you highlight that? A:lARBVerbMinslS00High.min Page 3 07-17-97 Ms. Grote: Yes, they are pretty well summarized on Pages 3 an 4 of the staff report. Most of them have to do with the single massive entity or use in one location. Ms. Piha: It is not a single use. It is a single structure. Ms. Grote: Right, it is a single structure. In the Comprehensive Plan policy, the word "use" has been related to entities or structures. It is not that there is only one use occurring. It is a facility or entity. Chairman Ross: It is a different use of the word "use." Yes, it is an interpretation. Ms. Piha: It is a pretty strong interpretation. Ms. Grote: It also has to do with the amount of the original floor area that this is enough of remainder of the downtown cap, making a 16% bite into that remaining floor area. That is a lot for a single project. It also has to do with the height limit on this one comer. Ms.Piha: Is it just the comer? Ms.Grote: It is the portion of the building that would be at that far end. Mr.Lee: Yes, it would probably be somewhere around there. Ms.Piha: Is that the only height problem? Ms. Grote: Yes, the height limit is 35 feet, and this goes up to 50 feet, so that would have to be changed, or it would take a variance. Mr. McFall: Is that a requirement of the PC also, so regardless of the PC designation, it would take a variance to do that? Ms. Grote: Yes. Then there are the environmental issues having to do with traffic, and possibly the relocation of the transformer what that would do not only on this site, but any effect it might have on the PAMF site, which is adjacent to the railroad track on the other side. I think the applicant has spoken with PAMF, but any interference in the relocation of that transformer might have on the PAMF site. Then there are also noise issues. That would have to be reviewed as a part of this. Mr. McFal!: Specifically, what kind of noise are you referring to? Mr. Lee: From the electrical transformers at the back, the substation. Our tentative assessment is that they are within the 65 decibel outdoor noise level, but they are real close. A:lARBVerbMins1800High.rain Page 4 07-17-97 Ms. Piha: Don’t those exceed that limit? Mr. Lee: Yes, it is an interesting noise phenomenon where the current creamery operation and distribution facility has a lot of noise that creates kind of an ambient noise level in the neighborhood. When you take that away, the noise from the transformers are perceived to be louder, even though the ambient level is actually the same. Chairman Ross: So the noise level you are talkingabout is that you are not allowed to build housing near noisy locations. Mr. Lee: As long as the outdoor living space does not exceed 65 db. Ms. Grote: And that, in comparison with the FAR issue and the square footage taking up the remainder of downtown cap, is probably not as important as the other two issues. The size of the project is the principle issue, and the fact that they would be combining three lots into one. We also have policies against that in the downtown area. It does not contribute to the pedestrian feel of a neighborhood, or lack of it, at least, that is traditionally how it has been applied. There are certain things you can do with architecture to make up for that, but it is in direct contradiction to some of our policies. Ms. Piha: So combining three lots into one is against a Comprehensive Plan policy? Ms. Grote: Yes, discouraging the merging of smaller lots into larger ones. Chairman Ross: I have a few comments. I would note for the record that I met with the applicant and reviewed some of the specification materials. Ms. Piha: I need to add that to the record, as well. Chairman Ross: Do I have this correct on the height restriction that it is a timing issue? In other words, if this project had been approved earlier, it would have prevented the other project from being approved? Ms. Grote: It would have raised the same issues for the other project. Chairman Ross: And then, it would have required a variance? (Yes) On the issue of combining the lots, does the existing use rec.ognize those property lines? In other words, is the purpose of the Comprehensive Plan to avoid consolidation because of that issue? My walk-by sense of this is that I would never would have known that there are three parcels there. It appears as one big USe. Ms. Grote: The existing use was probably built long before the Comprehensive Plan policy was being talked about. It has been here for years and years. It may even have a building over a A:lARBVerbMins!800High.min Page 5 07-17-97 property line. Chairman Ross: So from a functional point of view, it has been consolidated. There is a legal issue about property lines. Ms. Grote: It has functioned as one site, however, in redeveloping it, we do not necessarily encourage it to continue to function as one site. Chairman Ross: In order not to lose the existing pedestrian-friendly nature of it. Ms. Grote: The potential of it. Chairman Ross: Do you happen to have available a map of the boundary of the 1986 downtown study that defined the area in which the 350,000-square-foot cap applies? Ms. Grote: I can get that. It is in the zoning ordinance. Chairman Ross: My recollection was that it was outside of it, but I am sure you have looked at the map. Ms. Grote: Yes, it is inside that boundary. Chairman.Ross: I certainly do not think of this as being part of the downtown, although the downtown is certainly growing. Ms. Grote: I think that it also is something that the applicant can count on to begin with, that this is going to be attributed to the downtown cap. .Chairman Ross: If you have checked that out, I am satisfied that that is the case. On the subject of findings, as Cheryl said, I also do not recall seeing actual findings made during a preliminary review. So I want to make sure that as this goes forward, this does not come to be thought of as the board’s product. In other words, usually the findings in any kind of staff report are offered to the board members as a piece of analysis. When the board takes action, it usually has the jurisdiction to contravene or enhance those findings in any way we might see fit. In this case, since we are not going to be taking action, these will not be specifically included as part of what we did. We will make comments about them, but I want to make sure that they will perhaps be calling them draft findings or suggested findings, etc. Ms. Grote: They should have been called draft findings. Chairman Ross: Something like that to distinguish them a bit from the kind of findings that are more formal as in other applications where we take action. I want to distinguish these a bit. A:lARBVerbMinsJ 800High.min Page 6 07-17-97 Also, on Page 15 of the staff report, Chandler, you make the statement that the findings are attached but that conditions of approval will be developed. I am curious about that. Is that just a terminology thing that we are going to have findings for denial but conditions of approval? Mr. Lee: Yes, it is a matter terminology. Chairman Ross: This may not be fair to ask you, but would I be correct in assessing that staff is conflicted on this project? In other words, there is contradictory.stuff. There is much positive and some negative to say about it, and the ultimate finding or suggestion from staff is for denial. However, I get the impression that there is a lot of appreciation and positive results in the staff report. I am not trying to balance positives against negatives, and you are coming forward with a denial, but it does seen schizophrenic. Ms. Piha: Very much so. I would reiterate that. I really thought that was a typo for denial. Ms. Grote: There actually is no ambiguity about the staff recommendation. It is for denial. When you look at some of the individual findings that the Architectural Review Board will potentially have to make, there are some that can be made, and there are others that cannot be. In order to approve a project, you have to be able to make all of the findings. What staff is saying is that all of those findings cannot be made. There may be some very good things about the project as far as materials, architecture and how it relates within itself, but there are other items that we still recommend denial on. Ms. Piha: I think those findings are a matter of interpretation, however. You are saying that some of those findings cannot be made, and I feel that it is a matter of interpretation, especially in terms of the way you have interpreted the word "use." Ms. Grote: You can certainly make those comments as a part of your comments on the project. Chairman Ross: On the traffic issue, I saw a trip generation compilation that was made. Does staff have any basis for evaluating the difference between a mixed use project and any other type of project, or was it basically called the trip generation that this number of residential units would cause plus trip generation for this amount of commercial or office, plus the trip generation for retail added together? Mr. Lee: That is typically how it is done. In other projects when there is a mix of residential and office use, you can discount a certain amount of trip generation for people who theoretically live in the building and also work there, although that percentage is statistically rather small. In this case, I think the positive benefit of the use is the live/work situation where you do not have to leave your living unit in order to conduct your business, thereby saving several trips a day that you would ordinarily generate. A:lARBVerbMins!800High.min Page 7 07-17-97 Chairman Ross: But has that been taken into account yet? Mr. Lee: I believe they did standard trip generation for the project. Frankly, the reason is that they are trying to be conservative in that we cannot guarantee that the person who lives in that unit is also going to live there and not generate some trips. Chairman Ross: So this trip generation is a theoretical exercise. On the issue of the use of a major chunk of the development cap, did you go back to any of the discussions leading up to that master plan to see whether the drafters of it had a sense of how quickly that cap might be met? In other words, they must have had some standards about limiting growth either during some time period or some at some rate. There is a little bit of commentary about that in your staff report. The reason I ask is that my general sense, in talking with people, is that there has not been as much development as quickly as was anticipated in 1987. Mr. Lee: Although I was not here, the downtown cap was instituted in 1985 or 1986 when there was a big real estate boom. I think the cap probably captured that. Our assessment in the downtown monitoring report indicates that there has been something like four to five thousand square feet actually built every year. At that rate, it would take 60 years to use up the cap. Chairman Ross: That is an average, obviously. There could be 20,000 one year and none the next. Mr. Lee: Yes, and that is one of staff’s concerns. We have been proceeding along a line of absorbing roughly 5,000 square feet a year, and this comes in at 45,000 additional square feet. That is a big chunk of what we have normally done. Chairman Ross: And that concern is based on what? I am asking whether there has been a codification of the 5,000 square foot average per year and this violates that, and that is their concern? Ms. Grote: No, it has not been that. I think the concern is that it concentrates that much square footage in one area. The thinking was that it would be spread out over the entire downtown, therefore~ traffic impacts would be spread out. All of those impacts that come along with the additional square footage would be spread out over a much larger area, whereas this concentrates it all in one spot. I don’t think that was envisioned. Chairman Ross: If there are no more questions, we are ready for the presentation. It is preliminary, but it is a major one, so you will have ten minutes. Roxy Rapp, 375 University. Avenue, Palo Alto: I am really excited about this project. I want to A:lARBVerbMinslS00High.min Page 8 07-17-97 answer your questions before I turn this over to Guy who is going to get into the architectural aspects and the whole feeling of the project. I was fortunate enough in 1986 to sit on that committee on the downtown study and the buildout. Basically, the reason was that there was a lot of construction going on, as mentioned earlier. There was the Wells Fargo Building where Cornish &Carey is, located. There was the Alma Street Building, and Hamilton was being built up, plus a few other buildings at the same time. So they felt that there should be a study to determine how-much buildout there could be. We looked at the whole CD area, and we felt that there was 3,500,000 square feet, I believe. From that, we took 10%, which gave a cap of 350,000 square feet left to build. So in the last eleven years, we have built out about 55,000 square feet of that. My question that I would like you to think about, because one of the big questions about this project is the massing and the 2:1 FAR, and is it fight in this location. Here is what I want you to think about. We have 295,000 square feet left. In my estimation, we cannot put it on University Avenue. We cannot park it. Parking is one of the biggest problems downtown. We cannot put it on Hamilton. Hamilton is getting built out. There is a little bit of space left there. And there is a little bit of space left on Lytton. So to me, what the people on that committee were really thinking, as city fathers, was that you would use it where it should be used. I think if you close your eyes and look at the whole CD district and where it should be used, it should be used in this area on Alma Street. This area needs to be developed, to which I think you all agree, especiaily if you walked this area. It should not be used on University Avenue. We can park this project 100%, which is oneofthe great things about it. That is very important. What I love about this is that it is so close to transportation. It is so close to the bus depot, to the train station, and also it has easy access to get there. So I don’t think the traffic impact, especially with the Palo Alto Medical Foundation moving across the tracks, will cause a big change in SOFA. I personally feel and honestly believe that this is right, that the massing is right, the density is right, and it is a weak objection that it will use 16%. If we are going to use 16%, then this is the area to use it! That is my point on that. The next point I would like to comment on is James’ question about the electrical lines. I have had at least five meetings with the utilities department. It is a serious problem for us. No. 1 is that they informed me that they did have a problem with Web TV, that they moved into a building that were underneath these 60 kv lines, and actually had to move out because there was flickering on the screens. They were too close to them. This is a very expensive building to build. We are actually building another whole building underground which you do not see here. We cannot have the liability of renting to a high-end tenant and having these lines going through the alley, and then have this flickering of the screens. Also, it has never been proven, but we do not want the liability of putting housing underneath these 60 kvs. So we looked into putting them underground, which would be great, but the problem with that is that they are so hot that you have to keep oil going back and forth over the lines at all times to keep them cool. That runs into tremendous maintenance problems, and the utilities department really does not want that. So they are already out on Alma Street, and we are suggesting that they be over by the railroad A:lARBVerbMins1800High.min Page 9 07-17-97 tracks, not on the west side but on the east side of the railroad tracks. There is an easement there, and we feel we can come fight down there and come right into the electrical substation here in this area. I will mm this over now to Guy. Guy Frizzene, Peterson Architects: We are the project designers for this proposal. You all know where the site is, but I would like to point out a few of the uses around it. Probably most of you know Palo Alto Hardware, and this is the new SRO mixed use project, and the other mixed use project of this dimension mentioned earlier. Whole Foods is over here, also Watercourse Way, plus some auto repair shops. In looking at this site for possible development, we realized that it is very transitional between the more dense downtown area and the less dense residential area. So we were thinking in terms of what would be good for the neighborhood as well as for this development. We reached the conclusion that the site would support a mixed use project -- some retail, some housing, some office. Upon further study, we felt that in order to.enhance or preserve the pedestrian character of the area, the vitality of the residential and the retail should be at ground level. In looking at this site plan, I will explain what we have done. Along High Street, a rather long block at this point, we have oriented the residential units with outdoor patios and landscaping out in front to give them some setback from the street. At the Homer Street end, we have created a public plaza for use by residents in the area and tenants in the building. Part of that plaza is covered with a skylight and open structure to provide protection from weather. It creates sort of an outdoor lobby for the offices above. Adjacent to that fronting on Homer is a retail space that we anticipate would help enhance the use of the plaza, and also continue the neighborhood retail use of Homer farther up the block. On the Channing Street end, we have pulled the building back to begin to transition to other uses across the way, and also hopefully help define the entrance to the garage which is underground and provides the majority of the parking for the project. In acknowledgment of the residential units, we have provided parking that would be for the residents of the loft studios. We have a rear entrance for that parking. This further illustrates some of the items I have mentioned, plus some other issues that have been mentioned, notably, these towers that handle the high voltage lines behind us. Hopefully we would move these to the other side of Alma Street against the tracks, as Roxy mentioned. There are two levels of parking underground. That is just about as far as we possibly can go to get in as much parking as we can. At ground level and raised a few steps above street level, we have the entrance to the lofts, which will be very tall spaces. They even have an upper level, a mezzanine. Above that are two levels of office space. Looking next at the elevations, we have worked hard at trying to make the grade level pedestrian- friendly with nice, textural materials and softening with landscaping, also fairly generous setbacks of 15 to 20 feet to the front of these loft apartments. The plaza opens up at the comer of Homer and High. We have stubbed back the majority of the building on the Channing side so that we do not loom over anything that might be built on the other side or kitty-comer. Regarding the materials, we are thinking of slate and stone for the planters and the column bases. The two-story elements that project on the street fagade would be an integral stucco, plus a metal A:lARBVerbMinsl800High.min Page 10 07-17-97 roof with copper gutters and downspouts, which will help give a rich, residential feel along this streetscape. At either end, the lighter commercial element t6 the building comes down at each comer, tending to anchor the whole thing, unifying it even though there is a good articulation, we believe, along the street level. We have a rendering that illustrates the feeling at the plaza -- an open hole around large skylights so that there is always going to be plenty of light in this area, even if it is covered. There will be seating and landscaping, things like that to encourage people to meet there, have their lunch there, bring their coffee there. Chairman Ross: Thank you. We are now ready for questions. Mr. McFall: By my approximate calculations, you have about 10% retail, 16% live/work and the remainder office space. How do you come up with those numbers? I am thinking specifically about the retail component. _Q_u_y_: Well, it was a function of design and of economics to some degree. We felt that on High Street, the residential use was more appropriate and that the Homer frontage was more appropriate for retail and the open space, so to continue the activity down the street from Whole Foods. But the character of Homer Street and up the block still has a small amount of retail use, so we felt that that retail was in keeping here. The percentage of office is really economically the way to build the garage, put in the amenities, and have the residential. In other words, it takes a certain amount of commercial space to support all of these other things that we felt were important and are trying to do. That is how the percentages came about. Mr. McFall: Did you look at any retail on the Channing Street side? _Q_u_y_: Not very long, if at all. Mr. McFall: Did you write the development statement? __Q~: That was a team effort. Mr. McFall: There was no identification, so I was just curious about that. Do you know the approximate height of the existing building on this comer? _Q_~y_: It is probably _+20 feet, and maybe higher in the center. Ms. Piha: What are the building materials? A:lARBVerbMinsl800High.min Page 11 07-17-97 ..Qg.y_: This is not all of the materials. These some that we would like to use. These are examples of the slate that we have been using for pavers in the residential patios. This is an example of a finish that we would like to use on the upper levels. It is not necessarily the configuration or the color, but in this range of commercial light. Other things we are thinking about in the plaza and the sidewalks, virtually all around the site, are concrete pavers which create an interesting texture. I understand that the city will allow that. Also, we had some discussions, as part of our art program, that it might be nice to do something decorative in the plaza in terms of the pavement with tile or something like that. The integral color stucco on the residential and two-story elements, with a colored metal roof. We are adding street trees on both sides of High Street, and we propose to maintain those ourselves to alleviate any concerns of the city on that issue. There is landscaping in the plaza in from of the residential units on the comer of Channing. There are some vine pockets along the alley to help soften that impact. Ms. Piha: What about the window material? _Q_~: We will be using metal frame windows probably with color at the lower levels, something that goes with the material at the upper levels. Ms. Piha: Would that be the same as the office lights? G_Q_u~: It would be a different type of fenestration patterns, and probably a different color to differentiate one from the other. Ms. Piha: The elevation shows them as being the same. _Q_~y_: Here, the same as the residential. Depending upon how the whole element goes together, that you see up here, a more commercial look. Chairman Ross: Could you speak a little about the design philosophy of the commercial piece here and what you are doing here? It is very interesting with this wedge-shaped piece. It looks like you are doing a lot of things to try and differentiate it from the housing. Can you just tell us a little about the thinking behind that? .Q~: Well, the form is largely driven by our desire to help reduce the apparent visual mass of the building. So that from street level, for example on High Street, you will not really be able to see the third floor except at the comers. Your angle of view is going to be cut offby the eave of the sloped roof. However, this is a transitional area between commercial, some light industrial and other mixed uses and residential uses farther on south, so we felt it was appropriate to A:lARBVerbMinsl800High.min Page 12 07-17-97 acknowledge not necessarily the history but the things that will continue to go on in that area for a few more years. Also, the so-called industrial form and shape materials also gave us the opportunity, we believe this feels a little lighter than the stone and the concrete and the stucco that anchor the streetscape. We put this lighter material on top, thereby diminishing the apparent weight. It was also appropriate to anchor those comers using that same material so that although there is some architectural difference between the elements, this tends to unite into one element of one coherent building. Mr. McFall: Do you happen to know the height of the Palo Alto Storage building that is catty- comer from this? _Q_u~: It is at least 50 feet. I believe this drawing illustrates it as being approximately the same height as ours. By the same token, the towers that hold the electrical lines in the alley are about 65 feet, so they are actually taller than what we are proposing here. Also, the mixed use across the street on Channing is going to be 55 feet, plus the other new development on Alma, the SRO, is at the 50-foot realm also, I believe. Unknown Man: It is supposed to go up to 54 feet. Ms. Grote: That may be for mechanical screening. The PC that was approved for Channing is at 50 feet. A mechanical screen can go up 15 feet beyond that, and that may also be the case on Alma. _Q_u_.2: That is the case here, too. What we are showing is the top of our parapet, and it will be for mechanical screening. Chairman Ross: So this being the top of the parapet, then the roof level is down a few feet below that. ._Q.~: Yes. This is a hastily put together massing study model that we have done during the last few days to help us see and to help others see where we are going. Chairman Ross: I guess the sidewalk is effectively screened from the outdoor patio areas that are in front of the residences, or is that kind of a wander-through area there? _Q9_.2: It is not. It is private. It is intended to be private. This model does not show the change in elevation nor the planters, but the intent there is that each patio and each living unit is up at least 18 inches above sidewalk level with another 24-inch planter in front of that. It gives the units some privacy, and access to the patio is through an iron gate. Each gate will be an individually crafted piece so that there is a unit identity there. Chairman Ross: This rendering does not show the commercial portion. A:lARBVerbMins[800High.min Page 13 07-17-97 __Q_u_.Y: That is correct. Chairman Ross: So it stops at the residential. Gu__~v: Yes. That is actually a blowup of the two-story element. This is what we used for our display. It illustrates that the cave line is at about 30 to 32 feet, and the height of this bay that is open’above each patios is in the neighborhood of 18 to 20 feet. There is plenty of light to get in. Chairman Ross: Is there some provision for parking for use by others? Is that part of the plan? _G_u_5:: Yes, we have some access parking. Since our intent was to have adequate parking for the residents, that is mostly where the surplus shows up. It is perfect for people at the hardware store or some of the employees in the neighborhood to park at that Channing end at the rear. That was our thought there. Chairman Ross: Would that be in the form of an easement so that some parking is given over to commercial use? Ms. Grote: There is a question about how many parking spaces are being provided over and above what is required for the project. Our calculation shows about six. The applicant has mentioned about 30, so we need to look at that further. Another thing they have talked about is making the parking under the building be for after hours. That would create some additional parking. Chairman Ross: Thank you. I believe that is all the questions we have on the architecture. Regarding my question for staff, the Comprehensive Plan that is in effect now is the 1980 plan? Is that the approximately date of it? Mr. Lee: It was written in 1976 and revised in 1980? Chairman Ross: There is a limitation in there of 25,000 square feet for a single development. How many projects have exceeded that since the time this plan was adopted? Ms. Grote: That exceeded 25,000 square feet in one project? Chairman Ross: Yes, I know of at least two. Mr. Lee: Yes, two is the count I have. Ms. Grote: One was the building at 525 University Avenue. That went through a prescreening and was an addition to an existing building. A:lARBVerbMins1800High.min Page 14 07-17-97 Chairman Ross: 250 University Avenue, Plaza Ramona, is roughly 45,000 square feet. The 245 Lytton project is greater than that, although it replaced a larger building, so there was probably some finding having to do with grandfathering on that one. I just wondered if there were any others that I did not recall. Mr. Lee: I only see two. There is a list in the Downtown Monitoring Report. Chairman Ross: That is for downtown. I was thinking more of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to the entire city limits. We think of downtown as being the city, but in fact, there is a lot of other land area. Ms. Grote: The 45,000-square-foot limit, however, applies only to the downtown. Chairman Ross: All fight. So only those two buildings. That completes my questions. I will now open the public hearing. Carter Ward, CJW Architecture: I am here representing some neighbors across the street that are contemplating some improvements to their property. The improvements that Roxy is proposing are of intense interest to them for setting the tone in the neighborhood. The neighbors which I can name specifically are Watercourse Way, Don Young’s property across the street and the Ackermans’ property across the street. These people support Roxy’s improvements at 800 High Street and a mixed use development of the approximate density that is proposed. We would hope that the board and the city would look to this development to set the tone for the area for improvements of similar properties. Similarly, we would hope that the board will express their opinions and desires regarding this project specifically on the density proposed, the proportion of the uses relative to the commercial, the retail and the residential. Also the massing and the height issues. The first- come first-served on the 50-foot height limit seems a little strange. We would like to understand your feelings about the architectural character, and we are very much interested in the degree of public benefit. I know that you are not the deciding body on whether the public benefit is adequate or not, but whether this board feels that the public benefit is adequate to warrant the 2:1 ratio. Again, we do support Roxy’s project and hope that it moves along quickly. Steve Player, Guinda Street. Palo Alto: I am an attorney here on behalf of the owners of Peninsula Creamery. I have represented the Peninsula Creamery since I started practicing law, and I won’t tell you how many years ago that was. The creamery has been here a long time before that. This is a major, major change for the creamery, and a very important step for them. They have looked very carefully at this project and how they would like to have this property developed. I would like to tell you how very much the creamery does support this particular project. They feel that it will replace in a very positive way the use that has been there -- the ice cream plant, the refrigerator, the many trucks that go in and out -- the things that have been their A:lARBVerbMinsl800High.min Page 15 07-17-97 trademarks throughout the years. This will be a very positive development which will bring in mixed use and which will really be in line with the policies that the Comprehensive Plan are getting at, which is the live/work spaces and a walkability, a usability for the pedestrians in the area. You will see trees on both sides of High Street, making a very nice introduction into the downtown area so that neighbors can walk down High Street in a beautiful setting in order to get downtown. I would like to say that I want.to be sure to be added to the correspondence list so that I will get copies of the staff reports as the representative of the owner. Again, I would just say that it is a major step for the Santana family. They are very flattered that it will be called the Santana Building. As such, they are proud to put their name to it. I feel personally that it will be a real positive addition to this area, and a real positive step toward how we would like to see that whole area ultimately developed. So I am anxious to hear your comments. Chairman Ross: Seeing no one else who wishes to speak, I will close the public hearing and return this item to the board. I do have one last question. On the floor area ratio issue, is this site one of those candidates where the commercial zoning and the residential zoning can be combined for a greater floor area ratio? Ms. Grote: It can go up to a 1 :I floor area ratio under the current zoning if you have 60% residential, i.e. 0.4 commercial and 0.6 residential. Chairman Ross: So in terms of the massing of the site, the current proposal is approximately twice what would be allowed, given a somewhat different percentage of residential and commercial. Ms. Grote: One of the additional concerns that staffhas, in which you may or may not be interested as an architectural board, is that the balance of housing to commercial is skewed in what we would consider to be in the wrong direction. There is too much commercial, not enough housing. Under the existing zoning, they could get more than 16 units of residential, so we would support something that has a different balance, maybe not this much FAR, but something that has more housing than commercial or some other balance than what is currently proposed. The other concem for staff, which again is an aspect that the board may not be as interested in, is that we do have a coordinated area plan being developed, which has just started. This project precedes that. We would like to see the area plan move forward, with this site being part of that area plan, and not necessarily preceding it. Again, that is a staff concern in the long-range planning aspect. Ms. Piha: What is the coordinated area plan? Ms. Grote: It will look at the whole SoFA/PAMF area, and as PAMF leaves the area, what kinds A:lARBVerbMinslS00High.rnin Page 16 07-17-97 of uses will take its place. It looks at a more comprehensive view of the area, and this is a part of that area. Ms. Piha: But it is also part of the downtown. Ms. Grote: Yes, it is part of the downtown, and it is part of the SoFA district within the downtown. That SoFA/PAMF area plan incorporates this site as part of its study area. Ms. Piha: Is it right at the boundary? Ms. Grote: It is well within it, so that again is a concern for staff. Chairman Ross: Cheryl, would you like to make your final comments? Ms. Piha: Yes. I guess one of the most troubling things for me is that I am really baffled by the staff report. I think in my entire tenure of four-and-a-half years on this board, I have never seen this kind of an approach taken of denial of a preliminary review. I found the report to be very contradictory. I think that to me, the crux of the contradiction is over the word "use." I think there has been an interpretation by staff of the word "use." I really do classify this project as a mixed use project. It may be the ratios of the mixed use in terms of the percentages of housing versus commercial that I think that where you are finding inconsistences with policy is the way you are using the word "use." I really do not consider this to be a large, single use. It is a single structure that I think is architecturally articulated very well to support the mixed uses that are occurring. So I think that is part of the crux of what I find troubling about some of the contradiction. I don’t know that I could agree with your interpretations of policy, because I think it is over the word "use." I find the project to be very appropriate for this site. This is a very transitional area, and I think the mixed use development and the enhancement of High Street that would occur by the residential development occurring at the street level will greatly enhance the walkability and the environment. If we look at what is there currently, there is kind of a dilapidated storage facility, and much of the site is for parking. I think this would really add to the vitality of this transitional area. I do feel that it is very consistent with what is happening almost directly adjacent. One of the biggest advantages of this single structure development is the ability to place the parking underground. If you look at some of the other development in that area, such as the Whole Foods Market, it is definitely an enhancement, but you ldok at an entire block across the street from that being allocated to parking. I think that is unfortunate. If this were to remain as three single parcels and be developed individually, you would end up with parking lots instead of vital, usable space just because of the parking ratios that we require. I think the only way that parking could successfully be put below grade is to combine the economics of a single structure of a mixed use nature. So I think that is a big benefit that does need to be considered carefully. A:lARBVerbMinslS00High.min Page 17 07-17-97 Those are some of the things that Chandler asked us to specifically comment upon, and I think I have addressed them. I am very much in support of this proposed use on this site in the city. I really support Roxy’s views on looking at where the square footage is being added in the downtown. This is an appropriate location for 16% of it to be allocated. It has the parking to support it. It is close to public transportation. It is close to access on Alma Street and is not going to cause congestion on University Avenue and Hamilton and Lytton. I do believe strongly that this is the right kind of development to occur. The second thing you asked us to comment upon was architectural design. I think what is being proposed here is very exciting. I think the use of materials and the extent of quality materials on the project are wonderful. I think the massing and the articulation and the stepping back of the mass are very appropriate. If I had one comment for the team when I met with them previously, I did not have the benefit of seeing the model. Hopefully, in moving this project forward, I would encourage you to make a stronger investment in the model. This appears to be a pretty crude study model, and although this board has the ability to understand your drawings and can interpret them against the model, in further reviews, you might not have the benefit of this same kind of audience. It is not helping the actual scale of the fenestration that we like in the massing. Your model is reading a little heavier than what you are showing on the elevations. So I would encourage your looking at that. Regarding traffic generation, I would like to see some compensation being given the developer in termsof trips per day for the true mixed use nature of this site. I think it is overly conservative. Also, the underground parking is really commendable. That is the direction we would like to see more development go in the downtown. Some of the recent studies have made that recommendation, and it is really commendable that this project can provide that. So I do not see the traffic generation as being a problem. Regarding the FAR and the height, I think that one of the members of the public put it very well. Something does seem to be wrong about the 50-foot height limit being on a first come, first served basis. I think the 50-foot height is only in violation in a small coruer of the building, and I think there could be some strong exceptions found to support that. I think even possibly the architectural team could look at some compromise there, as it is truly only a small coruer of the building, so I think there is a solution there to solve that problem. Regarding the public benefit, I do think they are substantial in terms of the support here. I think the contribution towards the underground pedestrian walkway to PAMF is an important one. I think the addition of the street trees, the public art program, I think those are all significant and feel they are in support of this scale and size of project. So I am very much in support of the development. I wish you good luck in bringing this forward. I just really continue to be baffled by the staff’s position on this project. Mr. McFall: I will try not to be redundant. Cheryl has already said some things, which I will A:lARBVerbMins1800High.min Page 18 07-17-97 only cover briefly. I, too, find it surprising to get findings in a preliminary review, which I do not rec.all having occurred previously. Being a preliminary review, certainly our focus has always been on the architecture and the appropriateness. The staff report wanders into areas that I do find surprising at this point in time. Rgarding the planning issues, I have taken another look at the Comprehensive Plan, and I also tend to disagree with the interpretation of the word "use" in this context. From my reading of the original intent in the late 1970s, it seems to me that it is talking .about a single "use" as opposed to a single project or development. So I also tend to disagree with staff’s interpretation of the intent of the Comprehensive Plan in that regard. I certainly find a mixed use here appropriate and welcome. It does many things, most of which I find very good. Regarding the allocation of square footage in the downtown area, we had a project come in sometime ago at 525 University Avenue which was asking for a fairly good sized piece of additional area. I would say that the reception was not good, in large part due to a concern about the concentration of new square footage on University Avenue. This is at the other end of the downtown. To me, it is appropriate to take a significant part of that allocation of square footage and use it somewhere else so that the traffic is distributed. It spreads the activity around, which is certainly the city’s intent, and I support that. It seems to me to be appropriate to take some of that building area and put it here or some other place that is somewhat removed from the focus of the traffic that is along University and adjacent streets. So I think it is appropriate to take some of that square footage and put it on this site or nearby. Regarding the size of the project, one of the benefits that Cheryl touched upon is the fact that with a new project, you can take advantage of the physical area and put the parking underground. That is one of the many pluses here, that they are able to provide the required parking plus additional parking, and it is out of sight. You are able to use the surface area for the things that are important -- the residential aspects, the uses -- you are able to create a pedestrian-friendly area and a certain ambiance that is not there now. Regarding the architecture, I think it is appropriate. There is a little bit more of an industrial feel in that area, which is reflected in the design, and I like that. I especially like the splayed form that defines the third floor. That really adds some interest that is subtle, but I think it will be readable. I think there are things that can be done with the building that will make it more readable, specifically, the three-story elements that come out to the High Street frontage. I would suggest that there may be ways to modify those so that you read this splayed or wedge-shaped form more readily. It is going to add interest to the project. I like the comer treatment at High and Homer, opening that up to create a pedestrian space. It is a very good idea, and I support that. I have a little bit of concern about that in conjunction with the 50-foot-high form that is on that same comer. I will be interested in seeing how that is developed in a way that really does not A:iARBVerbMinsl800High.min Page 19 07-17-97 create an abrupt ending to this pedestrian space to the building. I think there are ways to soften that juncture a little bit. One other caution would be regarding the materials. I like everything you have talked about, including the use of copper in some of the wall surfaces. I would just note that as the design is developed, a careful eye be given to the quantity of materials. Quality I do not feel is an issue. It is apparent that the materials will be of a high quality, but regarding the quantity, my concern is that there may perhaps be too many. -Their use should be reviewed to make sure that they are used in the right places and in the right quantities, which I think will happen. The last item I would like to comment upon is the benefit package. I digress a bit here from Cheryl in that I find it to be lacking, specifically some of the suggested benefits, as we heard earlier from Lisa, with which I would concur. The architecture we certainly expect to be top rate, regardless of a PC application or not. It is inherent in the city process that it be first quality, which is where you are headed. But I would not call that a benefit. I would call it a necessity. The art package is a good idea. I am pleased that you are proposing that. Regarding the utilities, I do not see the public benefiting in taking it from one location to another. It may be more visible, I do not know. I have not walked along the tracks to look at the location. It is not clear to me exactly where it is, but my concern is that it may be more visible on Alma than it currently is. If that is the case, then it certainly is not a benefit. I hope there is some technical means to put them underground, which I hope can still be pursued in some fashion. I am. not convinced that moving them from one location to another overhead location is a benefit. If the parking is six spaces, that is a benefit, although a very minor one. The one benefit that was mentioned that I particularly like is the idea of contributing hopefully significantly to an access subway ramp to get across the tracks to the PAMF site west of Alma Street. I can see that as a really important and very much needed public benefit. This board talked about that when we reviewed the PAMF project. I would really push to see if that could be made viable. That completes my comments. Chairman Ross: I do not have very much to add to my colleagues, but I will say a few things. One is that I find the architecture to be both very fitting to the site in the neighborhood and compelling in and of itself. It is sort of a colliding galaxies model of architecture where you have two very distinct uses and two very distinct uses, thinking of this as primarily housing and office. The retail is there to enhance people’s experience with the building and possibly cut down on a few short car trips, but primarily, you have a reference to light industrial and commercial history in this neighborhood and continuing uses and design style for it. On the other hand, you have housing which, in this context, is multiple-family but is broken in a scale that feels more like a townhouse than an apartment building. So these things kind of crash together both in use and in architecture. I actually appreciate that. I find it a really nice way to approach this sort of thing. You are not trying to disguise one from the other or protect one from the other. You are incorporating them all into a single project but with some visible distinction, A:lARBVerbMinsl800High.min Page 20 07-17-97 and I find it to be just the right approach. The hard and softscape ideas here are lush, and I would not expect anything less, both for a project of this scale and also from this team. I am sure that as the architectural details evolve on this, we will continue to see an enriching of texture without, I hope, what Jim is concerned about, a scattering of focus with too many different materials. But I think the materials are right and the design concept is good. On the zoning issues, I tend to agree with the applicant in a couple of areas. I am not personally concerned at all by any single development that might use as much as 15 or 20% of the original total development amount. I believe that if this project got approved, it would then trigger the required study, which was conditioned at 100,000 square feet back when the downtown cap was introduced of 350,000 square feet. I believe that after 100,000 square feet were built, there was to be a restudy. I think the original group expected there would be a restudy in two or three years. They probably thought that the 100,000-square-foot cap would be used up right away, and here we are at 55,000 square feet eleven years later. For me, the trend of an average of 5,000 square feet per year does not establish anything. It does not create a concern. It does not create a precedent or set a pattern. My guess is that if anything, this project would be a blip on that scale. There just are not many areas of town where it is appropriate to do a project of this size, and there are not many sites where it is even possible to do so. So I am not particularly concerned about how much of the cap is being used here. I would be more concerned (and this also relates to the overall size and mass of the project) if we had had a larger turnout from a hostile neighborhood. This neighborhood has historically been very, very active and has expressed their concerns about many projects, including some very small ones that fit within our density requirements but created concerns about traffic and parking. Maybe it is just because of an excellent outage job, but I do not see here today any numbers of people, although they may come out to future meetings, and that will be a guide for how the neighborhood feels about it. I can recall ARB meetings at this level where we had neighborhood opposition to a restaurant use where Palo Alto Hardware now is. That is a good example of the reuse of an exi A:lARBVerbMinsI800Higb.min Page 21 07-17-97 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING Special Meeting Draft Verbatim Minutes June 24, 1999 Attachment H BM Alfonso: The next item on the agenda is Item number two. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. Public Hearings (Major) o 800 High Street [97-ARB-122; 97-ZC-9; 98-EIA-17]: Review of an application for a Zone Change from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) District to the Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48 foot high, three story mixed use building including 26 residential units, 48,03 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; a height variance for a portion of the third floor residential area that exceeds the City’s height requirement. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. BM Alfonso: Can we have some Staff recommendations? Mr. Chandler Lee, Planner: Thank you for coming and welcome to your new space. The Staff report as you know is rather large and we have tried to summarize the major issues in the report in brief in the first two pages for your convenience. With me today, I want to introduce Scott MacPherson with the farm of Nichols Berman, he is the preparer of the Draft Environmental Impact Report and is here to answer any questions you might have about the EIR. This project was first submitted about two and a half years ago. The project was reviewed by the ARB as a preliminary review in July of 1997, by the Planning Commission in August of 1997, and by the City Council in May of 1998. Based on City Council direction, the applicant has reduced the amount of office space in the project, increased the number of dwelling units in the project, reduced the height and mass of the third floor, and has improved the public benefit package. The current project was submitted in November of 1998. A Draft EIR was issued on May 26th and the 30-day public review period ends tomorrow on June 25th. We should note that no comments have been received on the EIR to date. The HRB reviewed the project last week and although they regretted the loss of the historic building, they acknowledged the economic infeasibility of rehabilitating the building and were generally supportive of the project as proposed. In addition to your review of the project today Staff is seeking your recommendation on two specific design issues. The first has to do with the perceived bulk of the atrium located above the plaza at Homer Avenue and High Street. The second design issue relates to the need to maintain the pedestrian scale of the building as it relates to the smaller size lots and buildings across High Street. Staff is recommending approval of the project based on City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 the refinements to the atrium and the High Street frontage and the findings and conditions contained in the Staff report. There is one minor correction that I’d like to call your attention. In the middle of copying the Staff report apparently the copy machine broke down in the middle of the variance findings. So we have provided at your places the complete text of those variance findings. Staff is here to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. BM Alfonso: Thank you. Is the applicant here? Would you like to make a presentation? You have ten minutes. 6 7 8 9 10 Mr. Guy Frazee, Peterson Architects: Good morning. We are the architects for the applicant on this 11 project. I’d like to start out the presentation with the general area, then the site, then we’ll talk about 12 the building. I think you are generally familiar with the site. We are on High Street bounded on 13 either end by Homer and Channing. In the neighborhood there are mostly businesses immediately 14 surrounding the site. There is a three story building here, a three story storage building here, and a 15 new mixed use three story on the comer adjacent to our property. In addition there is an electrical 16 substation relay across the alley to our east between us and Alma Street. This is the site planning 17 and also has rendered elevations of the project. A number of the things that we wanted to do in site 18 planning was to extend the Homer retail character on down towards Alma Street, across High Street 19 where it currently is. We wanted to create a walkable pedestrian friendly environment all around 20 the project and especially on High Street and Homer. We wanted to improve the alley and make it 21 also more pedestrian friendly. The project itself at Homer and High provides a 3,800 square foot 22 public plaza surrounded on either side by small retail service areas. On High Street we have created 23 loft apartments that go all the way down High Street from the pedestrian plaza. We did this to create 24 a friendly environment of small scale pedestrian environment where we could bring small scale 25 finishes and quality materials to the street experience. On Channing we’ve modified from the 26 previous project the height and setbacks of the building by pulling the first story setback back 20 feet 27 from the street, second story about 30 feet, andabout 40 feet for the fourth story. So it dropped that 28 whole elevation down there in response to comments we heard from the public and the City. In 29 addition to reducing the height and increasing the setback we also added nine more apartments on 30 the second and third floor at that end of the building. We feel that both the addition of the living 31 units and the reduction in height and size of the building at this end responds to potential furore 32 development to the south and east of the site. The remainder of the second and third floor is office 33 space, about 48,000 square feet. In terms of materials and forms we tried to use some very warm 34 colors to define the various forms of the building. Stucco on the accent elements that go from street 35 level on up into the third level in most cases. At the third level we’ve wrapped the form in copper 36 cladding, at this point for this proposal, in an attempt to recall the commercial use of the area and 37 articulate those forms in response to sort of an historic character of the neighborhood. At the 38 pedestrian level we’ve focused a lot of attention on the detail materials and forms used there to create 39 an interesting visual experience to encourage activity to occur. I think that with the apartments on 40 the lower level we are going to have activity going on evenings and weekends where the traditional 41 situation where we have office at the lower level that wouldn’t be occurring. We’ve paved the 42 walk-ways around the entire site with concrete pavers to provide an interesting surface there and help 43 define circulation spaces. In general concept we’ve tried to provide an interesting environment at 44 the pedestrian level, create walkable streetscapes, and then respond to the nature of both the site and City of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 the surrounding areas with a semi-industrial commercial-looking appearance recalling some of the elements of the building that would be demolished for this project. That is sort of a snap-shot of the project as it is now. We’re here to discuss it with you and respond to your comments and suggestions. Thank you. BM Alfonso: Thank you. Lee, do you have any questions? BM Lippert: I’d like to begin with some questions for Staff. In reading through the Draft EIR there is a section 4, 4-45 is the page that I’m looking at, Aesthetics, Impacts and Mitigation Measures, here the beginning starts off by describing a demonstrated negative aesthetic impact and what that is. Is in fact this report or this part of the Draft EIR saying that there is a negative aesthetic impact or is it just pointing up what the definition of that would be and then mitigation measures in there? Mr. Lee: I believe the EIR starts out with a definition of what a demonstrable negative impact would be and then discusses that that is in fact potentially significant in this case but with the mitigation measures would be reduced to a level of less than significance. BM Lippert: In reading through most of the findings in this EIR they are negligible and most of them can be mitigated. Mr. Lee: That’s correct. In fact all of the potentially significant impacts can be reduced to a less than significant level with one exception and that is the loss of the historic building. The mere demolition and replacement of that building according CEQA is legally required to be a significant impact and we have no control over that. That was the basic reason that the EIR was prepared in the first place. BM Lippert: Okay. I’d like to ask you to very briefly outline or go over the public benefits package. Mr. Lee: There is an attachment to the Staff report which was provided by the applicant that lists those public benefits. If you have any questions of the applicant please feel free to say so. Probably the major public benefit is the 34 public parking spaces. As you know they are providing 34 spaces above and beyond what zoning would require. The applicant is proposing to dedicate those spaces to the public basically at the City Council’s choice as to how they are to be allocated. They would be gifted to the City for a dollar per year for up to ten years. Staff is recommending that the duration of that period be extended to 35 years which is the term of the ground lease for the PAMF site for the child care center so that those spaces would be guaranteed. The applicant has volunteered to dedicate 12 of those spaces to the child care center. The other major public benefit is the provision of nine below market rate rental apartment units. The BMR ordinance requires 2.6 units, the applicant has gone way above and beyond that in proposing nine rental aparmaent units in a part of town that is seriously in need of that type of housing. There is a public plaza. There is a contribution to the public park that you saw in the PAMF study. There is public art proposed, street trees, and a number of pedestrian amenities. BM Lippert: How would those parking spaces be managed or controlled or administered by the City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 City? Mr. Lee: Good question. This was a big issue that came up at both the Planning Commission and the City Council a couple of years ago. The applicant’s proposal, and again it is the applicant’s responsibility to make a proposal for public benefit and we react to it, his proposal is to have the spaces privately managed so that the City would have no responsibility or liability for that. The garage would have a gate and the entry to the gate would be with an electronic card. So essentially the City Council would decide who among the public, let’s say the employees of the day care center, would get those cards and have access to the parking garage via that electronic entry system. The maintenance, the striping, the lighting and everything else would be privately maintained. BM Lippert: What would prevent the eventual building owner to at some point in the future take a New York City approach and rent those spaces at a incredible rental rate when parking becomes very difficult in this area? Mr. Lee: The way the public benefit is offered currently, after ten years that is exactly what would happen. Those spaces would be rented at market rates. Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: If I could interject, it is the Staff recommendation that the Staff recommendation that that length of time be extended to 3 5 years. There would also need to be a monitoring program that the City would be involved in on a period basis to ensure that the spaces are still being utilized the way that the Council directs ultimately. So there would have to be some on-going monitoring. BM Lippert: If this area is supposed to develop the way it is, in terms of the plan that we’ve seen in Phase II of the SOFA plan, wouldn’t it be worth considering making these spaces, time spaces at large, similar to the public spaces that you find on the first underground level at Plaza Ramona? Ms. Grote: So there would be an hourly limit as to how long people could park there? BM Lippert: It could be an hourly limit or put on a timed meter. Ms. Grote: We have not discussed that. That may be something that you’d want to raise with the applicant as well, but that is something to consider. We’ve not yet discussed that. Mr. Lee: I think that’s an interesting idea and I see where you’re going. I think the concept that the applicant is proposing is basically to address the existing need for employee parking. Take those employees that are theoretically parking on the street and put them underground so the surface space would in fact be available to the public and be subject to those limits. But there is a demonstrable need for basically all-day parking. BM Lippert: Okay. Moving on to the BMR units. In the Staff report it compares this PC to an MU- 2 profile. I guess the reason for doing that is to have some basis of comparison, since these are still draft guidelines we just have to look at it and say that it comes close. In there it talks specifically Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 about it falling under the number of housing units that the City would normally ask be developed if it went to the MU-2 zoning. Can you elaborate on that? Mr. Lee: Basically you have to look at the MU-2 regulations and kind of read between the lines in order to get to where we got to. As I understand it from talking to Eric and to Phil the MU-2 regulations contain minimum residential densities according to the FAR proposed for a project for non-residential development. This particular project has an FAR of 1.2 for the commercial component. At that level the PAMF plan in the MU-2 regulations, as I understand it, asks for a minimum of 50 units per acre. So this project, if it were to come in at 1.2 FAR which is proposed, the minimum residential density would be 50 units per acre. Interestingly enough the maximum is also 50 so you are basically looking at a project that is up to the limit in terms of what the MU-2 would allow. Ms. Grote: I would like to add that that’s the specific regulation. In the MU area it consists of about 16 acres, eight of which are in the near future could reasonably redevelop. If you take an average of 180 units of the 300 total proposed in the MU district and assign those 180 units to an eight acre area it would come out to be about 22 units acre. This project is proposed at 27 units per acre. So it does meet the overall intent of adding the appropriate number of units in the overall area. Mr. Lee: That is an excellent point. Let me just elaborate by saying that’s the interesting thing about this project. It is basically the first test case that you have seen for what the PAMF/SOFA policies and regulations will allow. I think you are going to see that there are some real world examples where those policies work and some real world examples where the regulations may not work. This is a case in point. BM Lippert: I have one last question for Staff and then I can either go on to asking questions of the applicant or Frank, if you want to have other Board Members that have questions for Staff take a turn, I can yield. BM Alfonso: You can go ahead. BM Lippert: Okay. My last question for Staff is with regard to the amount of space available for office development in the Downtown area. I had watched the preliminary hearing and in there it had talked about in term of this building taking up about 16% of the 350,000 square feet allowed in the Downtown as new office space. In this report it reduces it down to 12%. Mr. Lee: That’s correct. Basically the amount of office space has been reduced since the previously proposed project so that the amount of that cap that the project takes up is less. BM Lippert: Okay great. I have a couple of questions for the applicant. Before I begin I have to reveal that I did meet with applicant at his office and did review the project. One of the comments that Staffhas made is regarding the overhang or covering on the plaza area, saying that it was a little big, a little overpowering. Have you looked at any other studies for that area? City of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. Frazee: We have heard of the concem and we have discussed it. We are going to look at ways to either lighten it up visually and physically so it doesn’t read as part of the mass of the building necessarily. We believe that the coveting is important for protection of part of the plaza area below. As you may note there are large grilled openings in the size of that mass, one thing we might do is increase the size of those. There is also a large skylight in the roof over that portion of the plaza that is covered by the structure. We are doing all of that to get light down to the plaza. In response to the concerns we’re hearing we are going to take a look at it with the applicant and come up with something that might we acceptable to everybody to take care of the perceived bulk there. BM Lippert: Can you describe a couple of alternatives that might be taken if that was removed? Mr. Frazee: Actually one idea came out of the HRB meeting last week. That was when some of the HRB members made comments about existing trusses in the building that we might save and incorporate in our project somehow. The thought came that if we remove the paneling or cut down on the size of the overhang that maybe some recall of the trusses used in the Creamer Building that are there now might be a possibility. That was one thought. We’ve talked about lowering the height of it as another alternative to lighten it up, and lower the perceived height. So those are a couple of things that we’ve talked about at this point. We really haven’t had enough time in the interim to come up with a solid proposal that would address this issue. BM Lippert: Another concem of Staff is the feel at the pedestrian level, the pedestrian scale of the building. Has your group looked any more at how to address those concerns? Mr. Frazee: I’m assuming you are referring to the height of some of the elements along High Street. We had talked about it. Again, we haven’t had time to really do much about it since these issues were raised last week. We have spent considerable effort and time trying to make the pedestrian level experience on High Street one that is pedestrian friendly. I think we’ve achieved that. The overhead issue is something that is possibly debateable but we will indeed study the issue and come back with some sort of response to it. BM Lippert: Okay. Can you briefly talk a little bit about the materials of the building? I don’t know if we are being asked to approve materials and colors today. Mr. Frazee: I’m not sure that you are, we will probably come back to you after we go through the rest of the process. Basically in suggesting the materials for this project we’ve done it in several ways. One is the articulated forms of the building we want to stand alone so that we are using different materials at different forms to accentuate those forms and help articulate the building. The third floor level which is the largest form in the building is clad in copper panels with this proposal. Other elements that go up to the three story that start from the ground are done in stucco with stone column bases where they’re just columns and then those stucco forms rise up and become part or help to articulate the metal form of the building. At the pedestrian level we are using natural materials such as slate tile. We have some examples of the types of things we are thinking of using. Tile walls at the entry to the loft apartments. Planters that would have tile facing and natural stone caps. Probably stone steps up to the patios of the units. For the sidewalks and the plaza we are City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 going to use concrete pavers in a color that is warm and compliments the rest of the palette of the building. At the plaza the retail would have normal type store front window situations and entrance ways. There would be a colored metal that would be part of the color pallet for the project. BM Lippert: Would you please talk a little bit about the back of the building? Right now the back of the building doesn’t have the undulation or the feeling that the front of the building has. Mr. Frazee: Well, the model is really not a good example of where the project has come since that project was designed. If you look at the rendered elevations on the easel over there you’ll see that the alley elevation of the building has been articulated using the similar from street to third stucco elements that we see on High and Homer Stre(t. So we have made an attempt to break up the linear aspect that the original scheme was proposing. At ground level off the alley is where we’re providing parking for the ground level apartment residents as well as the surplus spaces going to local businesses. At the alley level the view out that direction is not very attractive. We’re looking at a substation where we will be building a sound and visual wall to screen the building, the back of the hardware store and the back of a auto repair garage. So it is a fairly utilitarian strip and although we’ve paved the sidewalk and probably plan to add some planters, we did add planters at the front of the parking stalls to help soften it and liven it up, it is a utility area in that sense. We feel that we’ve done a good job in making it friendlier and improving it. BM Lippert: There is the alleyway but then there is-a part of the building that really come up above the utility yard as well as the hardware store and the project that we reviewed last week. What will the top of that building be like viewed from Alma Street and what will be done to give it some feeling or character relief?. Mr. Frazee: Again I will refer you to the drawing over there. We have used the similar two and three story stucco elements as on High Street, brought them up and integrated them in an articulated fashion with the copper clad portions of the office section on the second and third floor that recreates some of the articulation from the other three elevations. BM Lippert: Okay. I don’t have any further questions at this point. BM Alfonso: Thank you. Cheryl? BM Piha: Originally the third story element was zinc? Mr.Frazee: Correct. BM Piha: So you’ve abandoned that and you’re proposing the copper element? Mr. Frazee: We are willing to talk about that. We’d like to get your reaction that. The copper was suggested as a warmer color and material than the soft gray of the zinc. So we incorporated it into this proposal for that reason but some us like the zinc still. We’d be willing to work on that and see some of the other issues of articulation and whatnot if that might not be an acceptable altemative. City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 We’d like to get your opinion on that. BM Piha: Who’s issue was that, Staff or neighborhood? Mr. Frazee: Mostly it came fi:om the neighborhood as I recall. There was a reaction to a corrugated tin building in the backyard so to speak. So in response to concerns from the neighbors we took this step to mitigate that concern. BM Piha: I guess the other Staff concern about the pedestrian scale at High Street, I think I’ve heard you say you haven’t had time to really take that into consideration yet. Mr. Frazee: In terms of the specific concern related to the three story height of certain elements, that’s correct. We haven’t really had a good oppommity to take a look at what could be done about that. We feel that the loss story apartments do a great deal to address the pedestrian level quality of the project and possibly that from that side of the street the three stories above really aren’t that perceptible. Does that answer your question? BM Piha: That’s it. Thanks. BM Alfonso: Thanks Cheryl. BM Bellomo: A quick question for Staff. The open space criteria, has that been in your opinions, properly addressed with this applications with regard to residential open space? Mr. Lee: You mean private open space? Yes, the ground floor apartments do have rather large patios that exceed the minimum requirement in the code. BM Bellomo: Specifically covered open space, can that be covered? Ms. Grote: Yes it can as long as it is not substantially enclosed. So if it’s a covered a patio that’s still considered open space. BM Bellomo: And your opinion is this suffices? Ms. Grote: That’s correct. BM Bellomo: It is within the open space criteria as far as square footage? Mr. Lee: Yes it is. BM Bellomo: A couple questions for the applicant in regards to the architecture. Stepping back and talking about the bulk of the plaza area, was there any design options or schemes that would offer lowering it and possibly a break out space plaza at a second floor level at that space that the offices might entertain with more of a transparent deck, something that is a double layer so to speak? City of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. Frazee: That goes to the same sort of issue that Lee was talking about earlier. As I said, we are looking at options. Those would be one of them. A deck has come up. BM Bellomo: The deck has come up7 Mr. Frazee: It has come up in the discussions so we are looking at it. We hear the concerns and we do intend to respond. BM Bellomo: Also going back to the other side of the building, Channing side, the model doesn’t show a shed roof, correct? That’s changed. Mr. Frazee: That’s a major changed. If you look at the elevation you can see a dashed line where this proposal is shown in the model. BM Bellomo: Got it. It’s pretty clear. On the other end has there been any design schemes that would incorporate office breakout space again at that end? Mr. Frazee: No, there hasn’t been at this point but it’s an interesting suggestion. In our look at that overall mass issue at this corner I think that would be something to include in that review. BM Bellomo: Okay. Getting to the issue of office space, the quality of light, is it intended to be a double loaded type of situation at the second and third floors or you don’t know that yet? Mr. Frazee: We haven’t spent any time on the internal workings of this yet other than to make sure we have our core. BM Bellomo: Okay. What I’m leading to is the question of the quality of light. At office spaces we see a lot of developments come in and that is an issue that we talk about, breakout spaces, operable windows, floor to window heights. I notice here that there are some horizontal bands of windows and what I’m alluding to is just the quality of those office spaces. I’ll leave this for more comments but I guess there are no proposals of any breakout spaces on the second and third floor as proposed. Mr. Frazee: Outdoor breakout spaces is what you mean? BM Bellomo: Yes. Mr. Frazee: Not as it currently stands, no. BM Bellomo: Operable windows? Mr. Frazee: We will always consider that. important in our design ethic. We will be using skylights certainly.That is very City of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 BM Bellomo: Good. I’ll talk about Channing access for the subterranean parking lot. Safety issues have come up. Would you discuss number one, safety issues about egress/ingress into the parking structure - how that is handled, and also in the event of Channing turning into two-way, what effects to do foresee if any? Mr. Frazee: Let me answer the second part first. I don’t think it would make a great deal of difference if Channing became two-way in terms of the entrance and egress to the garage. On the first issue of safety, the Transportation Department here in Palo Alto has some pretty good requirements for addressing those issues. For example, there is some length at the top of the ramp that has to be vixtually flat so the angle is up at surface to that it can be seen by pedestrians and other motorists. The parking or streetside parking has to be kept away from the driveway in an amount sufficient to provide good visibility too. Those things will be incorporated. BM Bellomo: And there is a security gate at the entrance to the parking? Mr.Frazee: Yes, it will be gated. BM Bellomo: So you have an apron so backup isn’t an issue there with cars backing up? Mr. Frazee: I don’t think so. The gate is likely to be down at that actual entry into the garage level and that’s tens of feet away from the sidewalk. BM Bellomo: So it’s 30 feet away? Mr. Frazee: At least. BM Bellomo: The three car length. So at a high peak hour you don’t foresee a backup of any sort out to the street? Mr.Frazee: Well, there could be a line but I think that will take care of itself quickly. BM Bellomo: Around that area you have a mechanical exhaust system there? Mr.Frazee: That’s correct. BM Bellomo: That’s been acoustically looked at it and maybe an environmental report or maybe not? Mr.Frazee: I don’t recall if that issue is specifically addressed or not. BM Bellomo: Is that the only one? Mr.Frazee: No. The system consists of two intakes and two exhausts.The exhausts are the City of Palo Alto Page 10 1 noisiest. In both cases we have elevated those above the pedestrian level so that the sound and the 2 air are 10 to 12 feet in the air. 3 4 BM Bellomo: I think there is a UBC requirement that it is 10 feet. Has the issue of noise been 5 addressed? 6 7 Mr. Frazee: We are aware of it and as the plans proceed we will address it, yes. 8 9 BM Bellomo: Okay. Lighting, go over the general scheme at the back alley in particular. 10 11 Mr. Frazee: Okay. What we have done around the entire building is provide lighting mounted to 12 the building. I actually have some product literature cuts if you’d be interested in seeing the type of 13 lighting that we’re talking about. 14 15 BM Bellomo: Specifically, you’re proposing zero cut-off light entirely around the building? 16 17 Mr. Frazee: We haven’t gotten that deep into the photometrics but the fixture would probably not 18 provide a general street light level of illumination. Something more similar to what you’d find 19 perhaps at Stanford Shopping Center. We propose to mount these on three sides of the building 20 where the building is adjacent to the sidewalk so that light is provided on High Street, on Homer 21 Street, and down the alley side. Additionally the apartment units and the parking areas for them 22 would be lit with some all night security lighting and then the bulk of it, especially on the High 23 Street side, controlled by the residents themselves. 24 25 BM Bellomo: So down the alley would also be obviously well lit. 26 27 Mr. Frazee: Yes, that was the desire. 28 29 BM Bellomo: Then just quickly regarding the landscaping at the High Street elevations, those 30 planters are approximately three feet? 31 32 Mr. Frazee: They are probably three or four feet high from the sidewalk level. 33 34 BM Bellomo: Three or four feet high. 35 36 Mr. Frazee: Right. 37 38 BM Bellomo: And you step up three feet to the unit? 39 40 Mr. Frazee: Well there are steps in between the planters that go to each individual patio and entry 41 way so that on the patio side the planters would vary from 12 to 18 to 24 inches high depending the 42 elevation. There is a slight slope. 43 44 BM Bellomo: I understand. Would you be able to sit on them? City of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 Mr. Frazee: Mr. Frazee: Mr. Frazee: Yes, from the patios. From the patios but not from the sidewalk? Correct.6 7 8 BM Bellomo: How would you mitigate people sitting on the planters? 9 10 Mr. Frazee: From the sidewalk side? 11 12 BM Bellomo: Yes. 13 14 Mr. Frazee: I think they’d be too high. 15 16 BM Bellomo: Too high because they are four feet. 17 18 Mr. Frazee: That would certainly be our intent. We want to create a little privacy for the individual 19 patios. 20 21 BM Bellomo: Does the patio gate start before the steps or after the steps? 22 23 Mr. Frazee: At the top of the steps. 24 25 BM Bellomo: The longest step width would be? 26 27 Mr. Frazee: I’d have to refer to the plan, about six or seven feet. So they are generous openings. 28 29 BM Bellomo: Okay, and right at the top is the gate. 30 31 Mr. Frazee: Yes. 32 33 BM Bellomo: So people could sit down on the steps. 34 35 Mr. Frazee: They could. 36 37 BM Bellomo: Okay. Thank you. 38 39 BM Alfonso: Thank you Joe. I have some questions. I also should disclose that I met with the 40 applicant at their office to have them show me their project. I’ll start by asking some questions of 41 Staff. Are there any issues that we know of regarding the high voltage line in proximity to the office 42 spaces? 43 44 Mr. Lee: Not that we’re aware of. City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 BM Alfonso: Okay. Could you just summarize for me the need for a PC? I know that there was a square footage issue, is that strictly it? Mr. Lee: Yes, basically it is floor area and floor area ratio. The existing commercial Downtown service zoning district allows a maximum of 1.0 FAR. The current proposal is for a 1.9 FAR. So the PC zone change is required. BM Alfonso: Okay. Could the applicant describe for us the basic vision for these outdoor spaces? I know some of them seem obvious but I want to hear from you what your vision is for how these various are going to occur all the around the building. Mr. Frazee: Alright let’s start with the plaza at the comer. That we perceive as being a node created to encourage pedestrian activity. One of the modifications we made from the previous plan was to add a section of retail adjacent to the plaza where previously it had been apartment. So we have a plaza with retail on two sides of it. Ideally those retail spaces would a coffee shop, newsstand, something like that, that would supplement activity on the plaza. People could buy a paper, a cup of coffee, and go sit down in the plaza while they are waiting for the bus to come by or something like that. So we see it as a pedestrian activity generator. As you move down High Street, because we’ve widened the sidewalk slightly and created these open spaces back from the sidewalk, we think that’s more friendly for walking, for pedestrians getting to and fro, and we would hope that the residents would use those patios in the moming. Again, reading the paper as an example or sitting out after work in the evening with a beer or something. That is how we hope those open spaces would be used. So by making the height of the covering two stories they will be a very nice place to be at most any time of the year unless it is very cold. Moving around to the Channing side, by setting the building back we’ve addressed a concem that we heard from the residents but by landscaping it, it will feel more open and possibly more residential in nature which would hope to address future development in that direction. In the alley we’ve set the building back from the actual limit of the alley such that it provides a pedestrian means of travel from north to south. The landscaping back there would help also in making that a nicer space in the alley. Then finally on the Homer side where one of the retail spaces is almost out at the sidewalk we believe that is a furtherance of the retail character, commercial character, further on up Homer Street. BM Alfonso: Along the comer of Channing and High the modified proposal here is to have what looks like some sort of greenscape along that comer. Mr.Frazee: That is correct. BM Alfonso: That is no longer under this sort of cover as it is shown on the model. Mr.Frazee: That is correct. BM Alfonso: It’s also shown to be fully landscaped. It is rendered somewhat as if it’s not an accessible place for pedestrians, around that outlet. Is that correct? City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 Mr. Frazee: It is a slightly raised planter area. We need to raise it to create a planter area just because of the structural deck underneath. If it were deemed to be a good pedestrian place we could do some lawn there with some step stones or something like that to make it more inviting. But mainly, as it is shown now, it is just green space. BM Alfonso: Is there any merit or possibilities for that because of its southern exposure? Mr. Frazee: Merits in terms of?. BM Alfonso: In terms of usable outdoor space. Mr. Frazee: Yes, because it is a southern exposure it would be quite warm during the summer months but it could be used perhaps some other features for shading could be included to make it more usable. BM Alfonso: So would it be possible say to have a couple of benches or something? Mr. Frazee: Yes, that is possible and we’ll look at that while we’re looking at some of these other issues. BM Alfonso: Okay. Going along the alley area as a pedestrian coming from either the Alma direction or from the east, and I come across that alley, what am I going to see? Is it essentially a rhythm of column? Mr. Frazee: At Homer there is a length of wall of the retail space with bollards that separate the sidewalk to the alley and then from there down you would see a rhythm of the columns and then another mass down at the other end. On the right hand side adjacent to the substation you’ll see this new screen wall which would be heavily planted with climbing vines. Otherwise you get the existing buildings on the left side of the alley. BM Alfonso: Are there any possibilities for further landscaping at the entry points such as along the Homer entry point and the Channing entry point? Not necessarily along the span, I understand that you’ve got parking underneath and the lot line is right there before the little road comes in. Mr. Frazee: There are some possibilities of doing it, certainly. There is a street tree at either end currently shown on the plan. There is a small planter on the retail end but those could be increased to provide some more substantial planting. BM Alfonso: Along the lane you’re original model and drawings, as I recall, don’t have an undulating mass that is shown in your rendering now. Mr. Frazee: That’s correct. CiO~ of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 BM Alfonso: Can you talk about why that was changed? Mr. Frazee: Let me go back and perhaps explain the original just briefly. That was this elevation since it fronts on commercial uses, Alma Street, and the railroad tracks, it was felt to be a pretty commercial/industrial high-noise, high-activity sort of area. A more commercial response to that sort of thing is typical and appropriate. The modifications that were made to attempt to articulate it were in response to the linear aspect of the original proposal that some deemed undesirable. So we attempted to articulate it in a manner that resembled the elements and the articulation that occur on the other three elevations of the building. That’s how we got there. As I said earlier, we felt that perhaps the response design in the original proposal is an appropriate one but again, we listen to what we hear and try and respond to concerns. If you have some feelings on the issue we’d be happy to listen and perhaps respond also. That’s one of the reasons we are here today is to hear what you all have to say. BM Alfonso: I have a questions regarding the relationship to this public plaza. Have you gone as far as doing any kind of shadow study of what will actually happen there given it’s exposure? Mr. Frazee: Not a detailed one yet, no. BM Alfonso: With respect to office breakout spaces, have you looked at where possibly they could occur along High Street? There seemed to be a couple of spots that are good possibilities but I’m wondering if you looked at them. Mr. Frazee: We haven’t yet. We are planning to do that. BM Alfonso: Those are all my questions. Thank you. Joe? BM Bellomo: The entry to the office spaces are as shown at the ground floor, basically you come to a door of a stair. Once you come underneath the plaza area am I correct to say you basically just come to two doors and an elevator door? Mr. Frazee: That’s correct. There is a small lobby at the plaza entry where there are elevators and stairs going up to the second and third floors. That’s the main pedestrian entry to the office levels. BM Bellomo: But there is no lobby at the ground floor? Mr.Frazee: Not a formal one, no. BM Bellomo: So you come to your exit doors from the fire escape stairs? Mr.Frazee: Right. Yes. That’s the way it is shown at this point. BM Bellomo: Okay. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 BM Lippert: I have a question for Staff. In evaluating this building in relationship to the MU-2 standards, in the MU-2 it talks about commercial space shouldn’t overhang a residential space by more than eight feet. In this case here though we’ve got a two story outside space. Is that proportional? In other words, this is two stories above that outdoor area for each of the residents, is it 16 feet or is it deeper than that? Ms. Grote: Along the entire High frontage? I would need to look at that. I don’t know fight off hand. BM Lippert: Does the architect know off hand? Mr. Frazee: ! believe it varies from approximately 12 to maybe 16 or 20 feet deep from either the back of the sidewalk or I’d have to 10ok exactly where the building line above occurs in relationship to the front of the apartments. BM Lippert: I take it the reason for that eight foot setback, no deeper than eight feet, is for daylight considerations. So in this case if it was two stories tall they could go deeper. Would that not be true? Mr.Lee: Yes. BM Lippert: Thank you. BM Alfonso: Could staff explain the City’s requirement for balconies. Mr. Lee: Normally, balconies are required for all residential units and they have to be a certain square footage, 50 or 80. The current proposal does not specify balconies up there. That is one of the concerns that we’ve relayed to the applicant. I think that would be one of the ways that you could in fact solve some of the other problems that you’ve been talking about in terms of breakouts. BM Alfonso: Thank you. Are there any other questions? BM Piha: I too need to state for the record that I met with the applicant. BM Alfonso: We have one card here from Elaine Meyer. Would you come forward please. Ms. Elaine Meyer, President, University South Neighborhoods Group: I speak for the folks who live in the neighborhood and who will be impacted considerably by such a large project. University South is very familiar with the Creamery project. Roxy began to talk to us about his plans early in 1997. We have a committee that met with Roxy and part of every monthly Board Meeting was devoted to a discussion of the project. Roxy sometimes came to talk to us and also a number of his associates. On one occasion they brought a model of the project and we spent a long time looking at it and talking about it. We also hosted a very large outdoor meeting on the site where Roxy raised a huge painting, maybe 40 or 50 feet high, of the project so that the neighborhood would see what City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DD 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 he was planning. Roxy deserves a lot of credit for trying to work with us. He showed us what he was planning to build. We thought we would be able to influence him to change his design. He must of thought that he was convincing us to approve of it. We were both mislead. We ended up disillusioned by the process. So much of our time and of course his and not a great deal to show for it. We thought he was listening to us. We still have the same reservations we had then about the size, about the design which seems to us to be out of place, and some of us are concerned about the public benefits. I will talk about that later. The University South Board issued a statement in 1997 asking that the project wait until the cap process is complete. I have some copies of it and I’ll give them to you if you wish. Two weeks ago the Board reaffirmed our commitment to this statement. If there was one sentiment I heard over and over at our Board it was, we don’t want three story monolithic buildings in the neighborhood. It is understandable that Roxy wants to get this show on the road but our concerns have not been addressed. The new Staff report is far from addressing them. Despite the laudatory language in the new Staff report, two awkward facts remain unchanged. Fact one, strange but true, the project is the same size it was when it began, 80,000 square feet. It went up to 84,000 for a long time and now it is back to the original 80,000. Just a reduction of 250 square feet. The chairs on the deck of this big ship have been rearranged. A few feet added here and a few fe.et subtracted there but its basic size has not changed. Awkward fact number two, the FAR is 1.9. Before it was presently reduced it was 2.0. This structure should not be allowed to slip through the cap before the cap is completed for the west of Ramona area by saying that it has really changed. Phase II of the cap will be completed in the near future. Allowing this project to go through before the cap is completed completely subverts the cap process. Yes, the cap process is long and inefficient and frustrating. But for all its defects, it is our only defense against uncontrolled development. If you are concerned that Phase II won’t allow such developments and so it’s being pushed through now, I suggest that it is wrong to do that. It is the same project. It is still too big and adding below market rate units doesn’t make it any smaller. A word about live/work. It has been said many times that there is no way to enforce live/work arrangements. That the City’s experience with this is not very good. If you look at the pictures of the project you can see that the big windows on the first floor are very easily converted to store fronts. It is not a good omen. If you are to give a premium benefit of a high FAR to the project we need more than verbal assurance that the apartments will remain residential. Palo Alto needs more housing, not more commercial development. Now I would like to say a word about the public benefits. The real benefits in the project are the contribution to the park, and to a Downtown Traffic Manager. These are really items that will benefit a large number of people. The landscaping, lighting, sidewalks, they are all finishing elements of the project itself. They add to the value of the project and we all know this but they are listed as benefits anyway. The net increase in parking is less than it appeared to me in the Staff report because approximately eight spaces on the street will be eliminated because of the design of the streetscape. The extra parking spaces are for private distribution by the developer not for public use. Maybe we should call this a trickle down theory of public benefits. The developer gives his supporters a valuable gift and the benefit eventually trickles down to the public, A real benefit would be to create street level parking that everyone can use. So our statement still stands. We ask that the project be delayed until the cap process works its laborious way through the process. We hope that the cap will reaffirm the sentiment that we don’t want high density commercial development in the neighborhood. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 DD 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 BM Alfonso: Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to speak? Mr. Larry Hassett, 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto: I am the owner of Palo Alto Hardware. I am immediately behind Roxy’s project and adjacent to it and share the alley with the project. I’m probably going to be one of the most affected by what goes on here and what is allowed and what is not allowed. I have two issues. I’ve expressed both of these to Roxy and his design team. One is compatibility. I originally fully supported the initial project which was a higher level of office and didn’.t have the eight additional units which were all added to the Channing Street side, or the area right behind the Hardware store. I just want to share with you my concerns about those units and my business. My business is not without nuisance. I would like to describe for you what will happen this Saturday morning at 6:00 a.m., and every Saturday, and what will probably happen at 4:00 a.m. or 10:00 p.m. or midnight in the furore. We will have a 48 foot tractor trailer pull up, air breaks released, pull into the alley right behind 901 Alma. It will back up with its beeping backup signal until it reaches my roll up door. The roll up door would have been opened probably around 5:30 in anticipation of that truck. It is not a quiet door. Once the truck gets to its stopping point it will once again release the air breaks and there is a swooshing, sound that can be heard in a canyon a mile away, will also occur again. The driver will get out and a tailgate will be dropped down which is a fairly noisy large metal triple platform device and for the next hour a crew will unload that truck. Forklifts will be driven back and forth. You will hear tremendous noises of different kinds. I thought we would be fairly compatible with the day use office area. I’m concerned that I will be the airport and that the development that will take place around me will eventually cause severe limitations on my ability to conduct my business. In talking with Roxy, he has assured me that he is willing to write in that those nuisances are existing and the residents will have to live with this, but I want you to be aware very clearly that we are not a business that is run without these nuisances. In fact, as you’ve seen grocery stores change from eight to twelve hour operations to 24- hour operations you will also see the hardware stores in the area, particularly the larger stores going to the same thing. I’ve already been informed that my Tuesday delivery, which occurs at 10:00 a.m. every Tuesday, they are having so much difficulty getting in and out now that they’d like to switch that to a night-time delivery. We are probably looking at that store operating 18 to 24 hours a day within the next two to four years and night-time delivery will be the norm. I just want to make sure that this Commission is aware of that. That the impacts will be heard in that alleyway. There is just no way to avoid that. The second issue I’d like to address is that my business is considered, in a very positive light in Palo Alto, one of the essential neighborhood serving businesses. It has been extremely successful. It relies heavily on the street parking that is around the building presently. I have five official parking spaces inside my area but the street parking along Alma, Channing and even High Street, I have to rely on heavily. This project will eliminate a couple of spaces on Channing due to the egress of the parking garage, so I’m down two. I need to share with you also when you gate a parking structure like that. I was a beneficiary of the PC unit at 901 Alma which also has a gated parking area. It was supposed to be self-parked. Indeed it probably could be but what happens is that all of the visitors, clients of the businesses there, tend to park on the street even though there may be four, five, up to ten spaces available within the public area or the gated area. We have a two hour time zone there but that two hour time zone is often ignored. What happens instead of that unit being self-parked it actually ends up that what we’ll frequently see are their clients coming over and parking in my five spaces so that they can avoid the two hour time zone. City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 We’ve tried to work with Roxy, he’s been very open. It’s been more my fault we haven’t been more in touch in the last month or two. What I’d like to see is my concerns about needing that street parking addressed in the plan. With the addition of the residential units on that end of the building my concern is the guests of those residents, particularly on weekends, the clients of the offices, the retail that is there, none of that goes into the underground parking area that is considered "public." Just from my correlation with the 901 building it just doesn’t happen. They park on the street. I really require, for my business, a large portion of that. One last thing. My business is in severe if the left hand turn lane on Alma has to come into effect because it is eliminating 18 spaces right along Alma that ! desperately need. My concern once again, the plan calls for those 18 spaces to be replaced in the alley. To me that’s kind of a shell game. You’re going to have these spaces allocated for the residential units that are planned and ten years from now you are going to take those away and somehow give them back. I just think that’s not going happen. So I’m really concerned about that. Roxy has expressed a desire to continue to work with our business and I hope that I can work with Staff and Roxy to develop some protections so that my business can continue to operate in the future. Thank you. BM Alfonso: Thank you. Are there any other members of the public to speak on this item? Mr. Steve Player, 1874 Gwinda, Palo Alto: I’m here on behalf of the owners, the Santana Family, of the Peninsula Creamery and the property on which Roxy’s development is going to occur. For the record, I would like to express the support of the owners for what Roxy has proposed and our appreciation for his willingness to listen and be responsive to the input that has been given by the agencies, the Council, the HRB, the ARB, and the Planning Commission. I know he has tried his hardest to be responsive to the neighbors. I know he will work closely with Larry to address some of his concerns. Historically in looking at this property, as family owned property, when the Peninsula Creamery went out of business there was considerable concern about how it would be developed and by whom it would be developed and what legacy would be left for the City. Roxy was chosen because of the quality of work he has done in other portions of the City and his sensitivity to the area and the input. From the owner’s perspective this has been going on for several years. I would urge that the process be allowed to continue. We are trying to and ask Roxy to be as responsive as he can be to what is "proposed" for that area. What actually will be proposed is probably still up to conjecture but I think to hold it up further would be considerably difficult for my client as well as for Roxy who’s worked very long and hard on this. So I just wanted, for the record, to support what he is doing. We’ve been working closely with him and will continue to do so throughout the process. Thanks a lot. BM Alfonso: Thank you. Anyone else to speak on this item. Seeing none, we will close the public hearing. BM Lippert: When it comes to the parking for this building is this close enough to public transit that the parking reduction would apply? Ms. Grote: For a parking reduction to apply the spaces that aren’t provided need to be put into landscape reserve. So I don’t believe there is an oppommity on this site to have a landscape reserve City of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 area. So I think it would be difficult to apply the reductions that are allowed in the zoning ordinance. BM Lippert: Could it be put into a subterranean landscape reserve? Ms. Grote: I don’t think that would work real well. BM Lippert: Could it be put into additional public spaces? Ms. Grote: We would need to evaluate that per the public benefit and also as part of the PC I suppose we could consider something like that. We have not to date but we could certainly look at that. BM Lippert: If that was entertained, we’re looking at a 10% reduction so that would provide an additional how many spaces? Mr. Lee: Roughly 25. Ms. Grote: The other thing that I would caution is that we would need to be assured that the remaining parking spaces would be enough for the commerc.ial square footage. BM Piha: I want to clarify a Staff question too. I think I’m understanding that the PC zone change that this application is asking for is currently consistent with the Coordinated Area Plan that’s being proposed for Phase II. I think that is what you went through some explanations of. Mr. Lee: The Staff analysis in the Staff reports concludes that the project as proposed is in fact consistent with the policies that are in the proposed SOFA CAP and for most of the development regulations in the MU-2 district except for minimum residential density, side setbacks, rear setbacks, and that portion of the building that would intrude into the 15 foot stepback. Those four pieces. BM Alfonso: Anyone else have any questions? Okay, I’ll bring this back to the Board for comments. Joe would you like to start? BM Bellomo: I didn’t have the oppommity to see this the first time through. I wasn’t on the Board. In general I want to say that I like what I see. Having said that I’m going to go through a list of my concerns architecturally. That’s primary on my mind at this point. First of all in regard to the bulk at, I’ll call it, the Whole Foods comer. I believe that plaza location is appropriate in respect to Whole Foods, Pete’s, etc. It is a busy comer there is no question about it. I think it will bring a lot of vitality to have a plaza there, art work, etc. I am concerned regarding the edge. I believe and the applicant stated that they are in the process of looking at the comer. When I saw this at the applicant’s office I mentioned a concern. It makes sense when I look at it here but I believe that it, doesn’t need to go away, I believe it could be exposed structurally, the bulk could remain, the transparency could come. I brought up the notion of a breakout space for a second floor use, a double level plaza in a sense. I think there are a lot of ways of softening that comer. I believe that could help the experience in that space. Going into the plaza area I’m just mindfifl in looking at that City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 entry and how in fact is there a lobby to the building or is it just a card keyed elevator and some stair 2 doors. I would like that to be blown up, at a later time, to look at how it all works together -- the 3 public and the blending into the space itself. I think I’ll stay on these outbreak spaces and move over 4 to Channing Avenue and High Street. I look at the shed roof there and I notice that that is a portion 5 of the building where residential units are proposed. I heard one speaker speak of deliveries. I work 6 on University Avenue adjacent to Alma and the velocity of the railroad train service is much stronger 7 than any tracks. I’m sure the applicant will pay close attention to acoustics at those points. I would 8 like to see reviewed and looked at breakout spaces for the residential as well as the office spaces. 9 Looking at them all I know that comer changed but I think that could soften comers. I think the 10 experience of second or third floor balconies could be very nice at those points. Going around to 11 the alley side of the building I think the ground level is appropriate. I do think there could possibly 12 be more playfulness, not necessarily with bays but just with diagonal roofing. Just some playfulness 13 that I see happening and some movement that happens along High Street. It doesn’t need to happen 14 contiguously but it could be just dotted on the top edge of these projections. I think there are some 15 sunlight issues I see. It could be sun screening diagonally placed, thinning in a diagonally gesture. 16 I think there are lots of possibilities to not only mitigate some of the intensity of sun at that elevation 17 but also in a sense have the roof line dance a bit over the top of the electrical substation and the 18 hardware store buildings. So I think those are possibilities and I think those would address some of 19 the concerns. Coming around to High Street I like these high spaces. I like these high residential 20 spaces. They are intriguing, the loft area. They’ll be somewhat dark but they are appropriate and 21 I like the step up. I like what is happening there. So I think there is a lot of opportunity there. I am 22 concerned with the experience at the office space above and how those floor window heights are 23 developed. I think the applicant mentioned that they are interested in operable windows and 24 skylighting and I really recommend that to go further. As far as materials I think they are good. I 25 would like to see zinc. Copper to me doesn’t feel as appropriate as the zinc and the gray working 26 with the stone materials. The patina obviously on a copper would help but I’d like to see it go back 27 to zinc. I think that takes care of what I needed to talk as far as the architecture. I again go back to 28 the plaza area. I’d like to see where the placement of the art will be. Is it a fountain? What is it? 29 How does it relate to the transition to the inside of the building? Can we see more glazing? What 30 happens at that front? So I’d be very interested to see how that develops. The parking, I mentioned 31 my concern of acoustic noise from the exhaust systems seems like it has been thought through and 32 will be thought through further which is great. Rooftop screening, it looks like it has been taken care 33 of and handled. I hope that those materials blend in with the same materials on the siding of the 34 building which would hopefully be zinc. I also want to talk about the bay windows. I think I saw 35 some 45 degree bay window application alongside the Alma elevation and I really think that things 36 should stay consistent and square. I wouldn’t really encourage that things go back to kind of a 37 residential bay window. I like the movement towards an industrial style here. I want to emphasize 38 that. I think that’s really good. I think you’re melting in nicely with the residential approach. The 39 below level parking I think is very good. I think Lee brought up how you police it and how you 40 monitor it. Hopefully marking and signage will help. Anything you can do to keep those viable 41 parking spaces for the child care use will be well received. So having said all that I’ll bring it back 42 to my other Board Members. I do appreciate the work and the effort that has gone into this project. 43 It is very good and I will look forward to seeing it continue to grow. I appreciate it. Thank you. 44 City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 BM Alfonso: Thank you Joe. Cheryl. BM Piha: I too really appreciate seeing this project continue to return before us. I just want to state that I’m very much in support of the project and what’s been presented. I don’t have the impression that this is being rushed through the process. I think there has been a lot of careful conscientious planning that has gone into this project. I think it is timely that it comes before us on our agenda today in conjunction with the PAMF/SOFA plan. I think I’m personally convinced that this project is in alignment with the concepts in that plan and therefore can feel comfortable about support its moving forward in advance of the SOFA/CAP being completed for Phase II of the project. That’s my position on that. I do feel that this is appropriate to support. I actually feel it would be a wonderful architectural solution to have set some precedents for this area and set some precedents for the work that is going to be done in Phase II of the SOFA plan. Those are my important thoughts on that subject. Architecturally in terms of the building materials I very much favor the zinc material as well. I wouldn’t take offense to the copper material but I just think the zinc material was a better overall solution. I think if you could have a true metal material the zinc is more representative of that. I think the copper material tends to add some glitz or something that is not really of asset in this project. I think there is a lot of strength in your model and in the zinc material that was originally presented. So that is where I would support that position although I wouldn’t be opposed to the copper material. However, asked for a preference it would be for the zinc. The opportunities that I see in the plaza area and the High Street elevation are maybe to take a little bit more care in the public benefit if we are incorporating public art. Instead of limiting the public art to being a statue on a pedestal maybe incorporate the art in that plaza area in more of the architectural forms and allow for a little bit more the playfulness that Joe was alluding to, a little bit more whimsier, a little bit more creative integration of the art and the architecture rather than leaving them as two separate elements. That might be your solution. That would work. Even if some of that carried down the High Street elevation where bits of that were incorporated into some of those elements that touch at the pedestrian level you might be able to tie it all together in a real constructive way in that regard. I think those were the key points that you’ve asked for us to comment on. I feel very good about the project and very much support it moving forward at this point. I think you are almost there. BM Alfonso: Thank you Cheryl. Lee? BM Lippert: I just want to say that I want to thank Roxy for coming forward with this project. I think it is a very bold expression and use to have the forethought of doing a mixed use building I think should be applauded in this case. I’m very enthusiastic about the approach that you’ve taken here. I think that it really is an oppommity for this building to take a leadership role in the redevelopment of Phase II of the SOFA area. I do have some concems with the building and I’ve expressed them to you during our meeting. I still feel the same way. I think that where the building falls short a little bit is in the massing. I think that’s been called out really in the Staff report in terms of they like the concept, they like the direction, but when it compares to the MU-2 what you propose here I see that it could be an overpowering building. I use that term because of the height of the building in certain areas and its relationship to the pedestrian level. Specifically what I’m talking about is in the plaza area I really am not in support of the proposed overhang over the plaza. I think City of Palo Alto Page 22 1 that at the height it is right now is very similar in scale and form and feeling to the storage building 2 that is diagonally across the corner. I think that can overpower or in some ways intimidate people 3 in terms of the use of that plaza. I would encourage that you really look at a way of covering that 4 area but do it in a little simpler, maybe scaled down approach. I don’t know if the lattice approach 5 that Guy described here will work but I’m willing to keep an open mind and take a look at that 6 approach as well. I think my other two colleagues mentioned about the materials and zinc. I also 7 am in support of that. I think that your initial approach with the zinc siding is an appropriate 8 material. It does call to the industrial quality of that neighborhood a little bit. You are softening it 9 with contrasting materials of stone and stucco and other materials. I think that’s also to be 10 commended here. I want to talk a little bit more about massing in terms of reducing the size of the 11 building. One of the concerns that I have is that all of the commercial space has really been elevated 12 or pulled up to the second and third levels. In some ways, with the overhand and the residential units 13 being put underneath the building with the overhangs and all that is really giving the illusion or 14 appearance of much more mass or bulk there on the upper levels. If there was some way to either 15 rearrange some of the residential spaces on the ground floor, taking some of that mass from up above 16 and bringing it back down to the ground level or redistributed on the second level in some way. The 17 areas that I’m thinking of, is it really necessary for instance to have the surface parking on the 18 alleyway for the residences there? Is there a way that that parking might be able to become 19 accommodated in the subterranean parking garage? That’s where I started coming to the questions 20 regarding the 10% reduction in the amount of parking spaces. Generally a lot of those people living 21 there will be gone during the daytime, business people could come in and use those spaces. So I 22 think what I’m calling for is an innovative look at how to double use those spaces or have all those 23 spaces used continually by traffic that is moving in and out of the building. I don’t see that 24 necessarily a gated, at the entry way, entrance. That gate will be constantly going up and down 25 throughout the day. You’ve got a couple hundred people going in and out of the building. That 26 maybe better controlled underground. I just did a little thing here with my highlighter. If you look 27 at the public benefit parking what it really represents is five surface parking spaces. Basically the 28 parking that is at the south end of the building would be allocated to the public benefit parking, that 29 is 30 space. Diagrammatically what you could do is actually gate or put lift gates here, and then on 30 the return as you go down stairs put lift gates there. Nobody is going to drive through two sets of 31 lift gates. The idea is that these spaces here would be free for public benefit however they are 32 managed. They might be managed with parking meters. They could be left with a time limit and a 33 meter maid comes through. The idea is not to put the lift gate there. Maybe at the end of the day, 34 at 6:00 o’clock, all the gates go up as in your other building at Plaza Ramona and all the parking is 35 available to the public in general, from 6:00 in the evening until 6:00 the next morning. With regard 36 to materials on the building, I think that it’s important that we do review the materials. I do have 37 some concerns with the complexity of the materials that you’ve selected, not necessarily the quality 38 or character of those materials. In looking at the plans and the number of colors I think the pallet 39 might be a little bit chaotic. This is a large building, it can support a number of different materials 40 but maybe there are different zones that take place throughout the length of the building to create a 41 feeling of a variety of different buildings as you walk down this street. That again, would help 42 breakdown the feeling of mass to this building. Generally, I’m in support of the project. I do think 43 that there are a number of issues that still need to be resolved. I would hope that this project would 44 come back before us. City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 2 BM Alfonso: Thank you Lee. I’d like to make some brief comments as well. I like to second what 3 Cheryl had mentioned regarding the compatibility of this project to the overall Coordinated Area 4 Plan. I actually think this kind of project is going to be an important prototype for this area to 5 review, study, and to learn what can be done here. I do think it is consistent with what can 6 eventually be developed. So I am certainly in support of this in light of its place in the Phase II 7 portion of the plan. I’d like to go over the sense of this architecture and try to go through the various 8 specifics of it. I view this project architecturally as almost a dialogue between lightness and 9 heaviness. It seems to me the choice of materials and the choice of the forms that are intruding into 10 this backdrop material is an architectural device that is working for me. The light material I view 11 as that which is the backdrop or shrouds where the office will be as it comes around the building in 12 general. Off of which these heavier components rendered in stucco would come forward and create 13 undulation along High Street and create interest, etc. I think that’s an appropriate architectural 14 strategy to create what’s been said. Where it falls apart for me however, is on the alleyway side. I 15 think that the alleyway is just that - it’s an alleyway. The elevation treatment with the protruding 16 stucco pieces, primarily in the middle two rather than the end two, I think are unnecessary and 17 actually weaken the elevation along that side. So I would much rather suggest that what I’ll call the 18 lighter material be extended throughout the back, and I’m specifically referring to the lower-most 19 elevation on the colored renderings over there, that they seem rather haphazard. I don’t think that 20 they are working. I think they weaken the general concept of what’s been proposed. Along with that 21 I find that the zinc material is going to be a far more successful material to bring off this general 22 architectural concept. I think that the color of the zinc product is going to be much more consistent 23 throughout its elevation, its texture is going to be softer in feel, it’s going to less reflective, and the 24 color base will allow these protruding masses to really show a lot better because it is an appropriate 25 sort of backdrop color and form. So for that reason I too would support the zinc. I think it is more 26 consistent with your overall architectural strategy. This lighter component, it is intended to degrade 27 at the plaza level so that one can accommodate light and so forth. I think that is appropriate as well. 28 On the comers of Homer and High Street you have essentially, as I see it, two basic ways to think 29 of this comer. One as a hollowed out part of this large lighter building part which is what you’ve 30 rendered here more or less, carving out window fenestration and so on. Or you can think of it as 31 exposing and internal structural network. So you take off the skin in that part of the building and 32 expose it in some other fashion. I think that there are tremendous opporttmifies for what can be done 33 in this particular comer plaza. One thing I would highly encourage you is not to dilute the original 34 architectural integrity of this. Meaning that backdrop form is really sort of what is making this a 35 unified scheme. So I would be more compelled to try to keep some of that but allow the openings 36 on either side and also the heaviness of the column as it comes down to take some variance from 37 what you have now. Perhaps motifs that can be recalled in the flatwork underneath can be recalled 38 in the openings. Perhaps rather than thinking of a clear skylight above that area you consider an 39 overall lexan form that can create more defused light and brighten the area rather than giving glare 40 and sun. The opposite direction is to have a play of light with sculptural forms either pendant forms, 41 etc. So there is an awful lot that can be done there. I personally would not go the direction of a 42 balcony in that area. I think that the height is one of the strong spacial potentials for this plaza. I 43 think if you’re going to do balconies from the second floor there should be intrusions into the volume 44 rather than engulfing the whole volume. Also there is a change that has been made in the original City of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22,, 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 model from what’s been proposed here. That is, as I read it, on High Street these elements are two story elements. That the end two are three story elements and the two are two story, elements. In the new proposal you’ve got some three story elements that dot the elevation. I think that works but where it doesn’t work for me is in the back along the alleyway. I still find that these sort of tacked on stucco parts on the alleyway are just not working. Then I’d like to make some specific suggestions on what could be done in the alleyway. I think it is really important that the pedestrian experience as you cross that alleyway along both Homer and Channing be a pleasant one. I’m sure you are in agreement with that. By that specifically I mean that there needs to be something else added to these columns either some sort of a vine pocket where within which an inventive means of creating a pendant fixture or an overhead fixture that can light this area, but then intensify that in some fashion at the entry points. Not necessarily all the way through but where the retail occurs along Homer or where the exhaust area is in this other parking back flow device area is and so forth. So that as you come to these points of intersection there is somewhat of a softening of those entry points. I think you are doing that at the center area to some extent with the screen and the landscaping that will occur on the screening. Which brings me to this other thought that is that screening that you are providing on the utility end in a way is now in conflict with these two pieces that are projecting along the alley on the building itself. I think it would be a cleaner and more consistent approach if you just had the screening on that alleyway side be somewhat of the feature at the center span of the alley and not have to attach something to the building. Some of the things that I think need to have some work on here is the actual design of the plaza at ground level. It needs to be a little bit better articulated I think. The circular forms grow out of some function, I’m sure, but it seems a little bit haphazard at the moment. I think that plant massing need to be looked at more carefully. I would encourage you to consider intensifying plant massing where the large columns hit the ground to perhaps mitigate some of that weight and give some significance to those points. I would also encourage you to see if there are opportunities, as Cheryl mentioned, for public art in such flatwork areas. Either recalling the history of the site in some fashion or whatever else an artist may come up with. I think it is important to consider that on the opposite end along the Channing Avenue area, I think that corner where the exhaust piece is there needs to be a little bit more work done there in terms of landscaping of what can occur for a pedestrian at that point. So I think that is an important thing to consider. I too would support the longer term parking time line for the public benefit as suggested by Staff. I think that would be appropriate in this particular project. In general, I find this a really very nice project. It is very convincing to me as to how it will work along High Street, along Channing, and Homer as well. I find it is going to be an important precedent for the rest of the area. So I can find many reasons to support such a project. It is a very elegant proposal. Those are my comments. Now, our charge is to make a recommendation. Anyone willing to make a motion? Okay. I would move to approve the project with the Staff conditions and some added conditions that it return to the Board for further review. Those being the public plaza design, that would include hardscape, landscape, and building canopy strategy, as well as the public art program or suggested areas where public art would occur keeping in mind the incorporation of the architecture and the art. The improved landscaping along the entry points to the alley both along Channing and Homer keeping in mind some inventive ways of incorporating vine-work and lighting along those two points. Providing more pedestrian accessible landscape area on the corners of High and Channing. The restudy of what can occur along the alleyway with the building itself so that there is more consistency to the building mass along the alley side. The applicants return to the City of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 Board with a full materials and color palette for what would be proposed on the building keeping in mind our comments today. Those are all of my suggested conditions. Ms. Grote: Just for two points of clarifications. Staff is also recommending that you recommend certification or approval of the Draft EIR. Then also, just for clarification on the motion, do you want this to go ahead to the Planning Commission and these elements that you have called out would return to you at a later date after Planning Commission and City Council take action on the overall PC approval? BM Alfonso: I’m okay with that. We are in support of the PC. BM Bellomo: Do you have any thoughts in your motion with regard to the parking? BM Alfonso: No. Would you like to amend something. BM Bellomo: I think it is important that how that parking is managed is integral to the use of the building and the quality and character with regard to its pedestrian friendliness or vehicular access. BM Alfonso: I would be amenable to adding a condition that that be restudied and re-proposed in some fashion and come back to us as part of their re-submittal. Would that be okay? BM Bellomo: Okay. BM Piha: I’ll second the motion. BM Alfonso: Okay. We have a motion and a second. All in favor? (ayes) All opposed? Motion passes. BM Piha: Will there be verbatim minutes? Ms.Grote: Verbatim minutes will go on to the Planning Commission and City Council. BM Alfonso: We are adjourned. City of Palo Alto Page 26 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 1~ Wednesday, August 13, 1997 Regular Meeting Attachment I ORAL COMMUNICATIONS AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approval of minutes of July 9, 1997. UNFINISHED BUSINESS LOS TRANCOS(LANDS OF ARRILAGA, APN #182-46-010): Review the Draft Environment Impact Report (DEIR) prepared to assess the environmental effects of a proposed 8-lot, single-family residential subdivision. The subject property proposed for subdivision consists of 151+ acres of undeveloped hillside. Consistent with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the DEIR was subject to a 45-day public review period running from June 9, 1997 to July 28, 1997. File Nos. 94-SUB-5, 94-EIA-31. 425-435 SHE~DAN..AVENUE.....(440 PAGE MILL ROAD): Public hearing and review of an application for a zone change to the Planned Community(PC) zone to allow the demolition of an existing 26,000-square-foot laboratory building and construction of a new, 35-unit, three-story condominium complex, subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. Environmental Assessment: A mitigated negative declaration has been prepared. File Nos. 97-ARB-97, 97-ZC-8, 97-EIA-10. A:lPCMins7[Min0813.reg Page 1 08-13-97 800 HIGH STREET: Public hearing and review of an application for a zone change from Downtown Commercial Service Subdistrict (CD-S) to a Planned Community zone (PC) to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632-square-foot manufacturing building and construction of a new, three-story mixed use building, including 16 live/work studios, 62,000 square feet of office space, 1,450 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage for 254 cars, surface parking for 30 cars, and related site improvements. Chairman Schink: I will not be participating in this item. My family owns property with Mr. Rapp, the applicant on this project. Commissioner Byrd will chair the item. Vice Chair Byrd: We will now take up Agenda Item 4. Would staff like to make a presentation? Mr. Schreiber: A few opening comments, thank you. As the commission is well aware, the task in the first review of a Planned Community zone is to focus on an initial question, and that is whether the project is consistent with city policies. In the item that you just completed, you had a housing proposal on land designated for housing. You had a housing proposal on land that the city, in fact, has gone out of its way to designate for housing and to strongly encourage, with legal mechanisms, the termination of the non- residential use. You had higher density housing in an area with transit and reasonably close proximity for walking to the train station. That meets a whole variety of city policy objectives. Regarding the project that is proposed for 800 High Street, when staff entered its review of that project, we found that we could not make that type of finding. We could not make the finding that the proj(ct was consistent with city policies. The conclusion is that the project is too large in terms of its general location, and regarding the mix of uses, especially the large amount of office space, we could not find a basis in city policy to recommend approval for this type of project in this type of location. Having reached that point, our recommendation is then for the commission to deny the project. Under the city’s procedures for a Planned Community zone, if you do recommend denial, the project will go on to the City Council rather than the Architectural Review Board. The council will then decide whether they wish to sustain the denial of the application, or if they feel that there is a policy basis for approval, they will return the project to the Architectural Review Board, and then on to the Planning Commission prior to any additional council consideration and final council action. Having made that decision, under the California Environmental Quality Act, jurisdiction A:lPCMins7lMin08 ! 3.reg Page 31 08-13-97 does not need to do an environmental review for a project that is being denied. We decided to make the denial recommendation and not do an environmental assessment, feeling that an environmental assessment would take time and money, the applicant’s money and the applicant’s time, as well as an amount of staff resources, some of which would be reimbursed through the cost recovery process, but still a substantial amount of staff resources. Thus, the situation is that if the Planning Commission concurs with staff and recommends denial, it will go on to the council on September 22nd. If the Planning Commission disagrees with staff and recommends that the project should go through design review at the ARB and then return to the Planning Commission, the date for ARB review is quite uncertain, because we will need to undertake the environmental review that normally would have been done prior to this item’s reaching the Planning Commission. With that set of opening comments, Chandler Lee has prepared the staff report, and the four staffpeople present have all had a major hand in this, and we will be pleased to respond to questions. David Ross is here from the Architectural Review Board, where there was a preliminary review by the ARB of the project. At this point in time, good design and/or a good public benefit package is not enough, on and of itself, to overcome problems with consistency with city policies. So the initial question for the commission is consistency with city policy. Thank you. Vice Chair Byrd: I would like to invite Mr. Ross to make any presentation he wishes. Mr. Ross: Thank you, Vice Chair Byrd. As Ken mentioned, we saw this as a preliminary review on July 17th, so it was fairly recently. Of course, no action was taken. The applicant was seeking board member input in a preliminary design phase, which is the purpose of that review. I would characterize the board’s response to the project as enthusiastic, keeping in mind that we are primarily interested in quality of design and appropriateness of projects in their context. While our purview does not really extend to policy issues, this being Palo Alto, we took the opportunity to discuss those anyway. In our minds, not being experts, there were some policy issues where we disagreed with staff as a discussion item. The ARB is very interested in hearing the Planning Commission’s views on the project. We will really dig into this if you refer it to us. In the minutes of our meeting, there is a kind of synopsis of our comments there. Commissioner Cassel: The minutes were on our desk, but I would appreciate heating whatever comments Mr. Ross has to make. Mr. Ross: Then let me start out by saying that there were three members of the board A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 32 08-13-97 reviewing this project, with one member absent and one member conflicted. I would say that the consensus among the board members present was that the design of the project is very contextual. This is a transitional neighborhood and is somewhat of a buffer between single-family residential areas, particularly the Professorville area, and the downtown. It has historically been kind of an industrial light manufacturing area. This design responds both to the surroundings in terms of architecture and in a sense, also, to the history of the area as an industrial area. The board viewed this as a delightful mix of residential vitality at the pedestrian level with very appropriate sort of modern industrial references in the office design. The creation of a public plaza on the corner was felt to be a huge amenity in that particular part of town, which is becoming more and more of a pedestrian area. The placement of this project felt appropriate to board members because it is so close to Alma Street and also helps to create kind of a hard edged buffer between Alma and the remainder of the neighborhood. Also, the richness of the landscaping was a significant discussion item. Moving on past architectural issues a bit, probably the largest discussion item was the size of the project. Part of that is the way the size of the project relates to the existing downtown development cap established in 1986, I believe. There was a concern on the part of staff that this project uses a significant portion of that cap, something like 15 or 17% of the remaining space available under that cap. I feel that ARB members were not moved by staff concerns that the cap would be gobbled up at a rate faster than desirable. In other words, a trend may have been established over the years for a rather modest use of that cap, something like 5,000 square feet per year, but that was not really a precedent- setting issue. We felt that it was probably anticipated by the drafters of that cap that development would occur much more quickly than that. There probably would have been some surprise that we had not reached it already. So the fact that this one single project was using a large amount of the available space under that cap was not a concern to the board. We noted in our discussion that there are very. few places in town where such a use is possible within that downtown area. Of all of the locations that we could think of downtown within that cap area, this is probably the best area in which to use it, rather than spreading it around. There was an issue about the height of the project. A recent project that incorporates a residential use is under construction nearby now, and because it appeared before this project appeared, it creates a requirement to lower the height of this project. That was viewed by board members as an unintended consequence of that zoning requirement, and A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 33 08- t 3-97 therefore, is a rather minor issue. I think the board was surprised that staff had gone to the extent they had to make findings for denial. Again, we are not really in a position to make official policy disagreements with staff, but it was unprecedented in our experience to have any findings at all presented during a preliminary review, so I would call it a more comprehensive look by staff under the circumstances of a preliminary review than we had seen before. So in a sense, maybe the toughest questions were directed at staff rather than at the applicant. In summary, the board is enthusiastic about the project but obviously will listen to the Planning Commission and Council and staff on policy issues. If it comes to us, we will do our job with it, and we await your discussion. Vice Chair Byrd: Chandler, do you have anything you would like to add at this time? Mr. Lee: No, Mr. Ross has done an excellent job in summarizing the events of the ARB hearing, with perhaps the lone exception that the board members did disagree with staff’s recommendation for denial and recommended that it continue through the regular review process. Vice Chair Byrd: Do commissioners have any questions for staff at this time? Vice Chair Byrd: First, I want to comment, since this is a quasi-judicial matter and we should provide full disclosure, my preference is to do that up front. I did meet with the applicant and his architect last Friday. Commissioner Beecham was at that meeting also. I did review the tape of the ARB meeting, and I have received a letter from one of the neighbors in the neighborhood, Susie Richardson, which I have with me, and I also had a conversation with Pat Burke who is the president of the Neighborhood South Association. Vice Chair Byrd: Before going further, may I invite the city attorney to advise us on whether we need this disclosure. Ms. Cauble: Thank you, Vice Chair Byrd. Yes, this is a PC zoning application which is a legislative action. So technically, the policy that the commission has adopted in its rules regarding legislative action. So technically, the policy that the commission has adopted in its rules regarding quasi-judicial matters does not apply here. That is not to discourage any commission from putting anything on the record they choose to regarding their outside contacts. A:lPCMinsTIMin0813.reg Page 34 08-13-97 Commissioner Byrd: Does anyone have questions for staff about the project? Commissioner Beecham: I have a simple question that is more about the schedule. You mentioned that if we recommend denial, this is due to go to the City Council on September 22. If we recommend approval, you indicated that you would then need to do the environmental analysis. What was your time frame on that? Mr. Schreiber: We do not havea time frame on that right now. We would need to do the full initial assessment and then whatever environmental documentation needs to be done. Ms. Cauble: And for the record, a commission recommendation of approval would not be appropriate tonight, because you do not have the environmental assessment. The options to the commission are to recommend denial or to recommend that the project move through the process for further consideration. I am sure that is what Commissioner Beecham meant. Commissioner Beecham: And in recommending that it go further through the process, after the EA is done, would it then come back to us for review again before going to the ARB? Mr. Schreiber: Yes, that course of action will follow the basic procedure for reviewing Planned Community zones, that is, tonight’s review by this commission, then the Architectural Review Board, then the Planning Commission, then the City Council. Commissioner Beecham: I would like to comment to the applicant that when you get up here, you may want to let us know your feelings on the potential schedules. ¯ Commissioner Bialson: Since staff has given their negative recommendation on this, can I ask what staff would see as an appropriate use of this particular area? Mr. Schreiber: Staff would certainly be supportive of a use consistent with the zoning. The zoning allows a 0.4 floor area ratio for office and retail. It allows an additional 0.6 floor area ratio for residential. You can go all the way up to 1 to 1, in fact, for residential. So if the project were to be higher density, we certainly would be supportive of a predominantly residential project. A major part of our concern is the amount of office space proposed as part of this project and the sense that that is not consistent with what the city wants. But certainly something consistent with the zoning, even a Planned Community zone, in other words, a proposal that went beyond the zoning but was much more heavily loaded toward the residential side, would obtain staff support. Within that A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 35 08-13-97 context, as we undertake the PAMF/SOFA coordinated area plan that the council authorized last Monday night, I would expect that in that process, this area and also this property off Alma and the transition farther back into both the commercial and residential area will receive rather close scrutiny. Coming out of that, there may well be a different policy direction than we have right now, which may mean higher density or change in land use. At this point in time, we have no way of knowing what will come out of that process. Commissioner Bialson: Are there many other parcels of this size along the area we are talking about, High Street or Alma Street? This does seem like one of the few large parcels there. Mr. Schreiber: The project is on three parcels. If you wish to start assembling land, I think there are a number of other options for creating larger sized parcels in this area. Commissioner Bialson: I appreciate the comments. I am just going to staff’s concerns with regard to the scale of this project, looking at the size of the property involved. I had a bit of a question whether that concern was valid. Thank you. Commissioner Schmidt: A further question along the line of scheduling. If we were to recommend denial, and this went on to the City Council, and then the City Council says it does not disagree with city policies, then it would go back into the standard course, and there would be the time necessary for preparation of the environmental impact information. What you would in essence be doing if it goes to the City Council and they want to support the project is adding a month or two to the project review process. Is that correct? Mr. Schreiber: It essentially adds about five weeks to the process -- the time between now and September 22nd. Commissioner Schmidt: Is there a timeline for the preparation of the South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan? Mr. Schreiber: Work is to start quite soon. A working committee is to be appointed by the Vice Mayor and a committed of council members. I would anticipate that occurring fairly early in September. The objective, then, is to complete the coordinated area plan within about 12 to 13 months, basically October of 1998. Commissioner Cassel: Is it possible to refer this to the City Council not with a denial but A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 36 08-13-97 simply with issues that need to be resolved that we would like them to hear, with neither a positive or a negative response, but just the message that these are some issues that need to be resolved before a lot of money is put into it? Ms. Cauble: Let me take another look at the language in the code. Basically, your charge in reviewing proposals to amend the zoning for a particular parcel is to come up with a recommendation for the City Council either supporting the application or recommending denial. We could probably wordsmith your recommendation, if you get to that point, because certainly, you may not feel that you are in a position to say what you would do with further information. Let me pull the relevant material from the code. (Pause) Basically, there are two parts of the code covering this. One is the PC zoning section, and in addition, the general requirements for dealing with rezoning applications provide that your choices are to find that the change would be in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the zoning ordinance. Therefore, you are recommending approval, or, and we have pointed out at this point that you are not in a position to do that because of the environmental assessment, your recommendation is to go forward to the ARB. The alternative recommendation is to find that the change of zoning would not be in accord with the zoning or the Comprehensive Plan and that you recommend against it. So let’s see how it develops, and we can try to work with you to achieve whatever result you want to achieve tonight. Commissioner Beecham: I assume that in practice, we could deny this, but with the intent and purpose of sending it on to council, even if we happen to feel that it is an appropriate project to go forward, making the additional comments in the minutes for the council to understand that consideration. Commissioner Byrd: If there are no further questions for staff, I would like to open the public hearing. I will invite the applicant to come forward. You have 15 minutes to make a presentation. Roxy Rapp:.. 373 University. Avenue. Palo Alto: I would like to be called back at the end to give my comments on what Ken Schreiber was referring to. Right now, I want to change the feeling to a more upbeat feeling, because I think we have a really exciting project here tonight. We have put together a great team that I would like to introduce you to. First is Bob Peterson, the architect that will be speaking tonight. Secondly, we have with us Charlie Shrenck, if you have any questions we can answer in regard to financing. Also we have Steve Brown here for construction, and Eric Doyle here for leasing. One of the key associates I have with me is Mr. Ken Alsman, a long-time friend, lives in the neighborhood, a planner from Mountain View now doing outside consulting work, whom A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 37 08-13-97 I have respec.ted very much over the years. I think he will be able to answer a lot of your questions tonight. Without further delay, I would like to turn this over to Bob Peterson, and I will come back later and give you my comments on Mr. Schreiber’s comments. Bob Peterson. Webster Street. Palo Alto: First, I want to thank Dave Ross who did a great job, and probably took most of my presentation away. First of all, we have the model here for you to see. It is at eye level because it is important that you see it at eye level. That gives you a much better feel for the scale of the project, rather than looking down on it from a bird’s eye view. I want to quickly run through some basic slides to orient you on the site. You can see the excavation that was under ~vay when this photograph was taken for the PAMF site. This is Homer Avenue, Channing, and High Street changes to two directions here. That is an important issue that was raised by the neighbors. Their desire, and ours also, is to change High Street to two-way in this direction. I will get to that later as we discuss the parking garage. The proposed underground access to the new PAMF site would be at the end of Homer Avenue. The new SRO is under construction at this point, about 50 feet away. There is a mixed use under construction here that is 55 feet. Whole Foods is here, and slightly off in this direction is the historic retail that is on Homer which has been there for many, many years. It is something that has been brought to our attention by some of the residents, and we are trying to connect to that. Two other items here is that this is the electrical substation for the City of Palo Alto, and it is something that you might not be aware of unless you live in the area. There are high- intensity power lines that go down the alley and all the way to Embarcadero and on out to the Bayshore. That is one of the main lines that brings prover into the City of Palo Alto. They come into the substation from do~vn that alley. That is also a major issue both for us and for the residents themselves. This slide shows the site plan of our proposed project. As outlined in the staff report, this is a mixed use project. We are really interested in trying to respond with a project that we feel makes sense for the area and that the neighbors feel makes sense for the area. One of the primary things we think is both viable and desirable for this area is to have housing here. So we are doing what we really could to characterize it as kind of an upside-down project. It is very usual to put offices and commercial on the lower level and put housing on top. We are turning this upside down, and we are doing it intentionally. We would like to have the housing on the bottom where we can maintain the vitality and the activity A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 38 08-13-97 on the pedestrian level not only during the day but in the evenings and on the weekends. As you know, when you have offices on the lower levels, they are dark in the evenings and on the weekends, and it is really deadly to the pedestrian experience. We are proposing that we create a new residential street. We have put as many residential units as we can get on High Street so that we really do establish a residential block in this area. We would create a plaza on this end which would relate to the kind of activity node that is all down Homer Avenue and related to Whole Foods. These housing units are at street level but are about 18 inches off of the street so that you get what we feel is probably an ideal combination of some privacy from the street but very close to the street so that you maintain that interaction between the residential units and the pedestrian experience on the street itself. We have provided parking for these units in the back at grade, so it is a somewhat conventional arrangement where the housing tenants can come and park at grade, go in their back door, and it works very well just as a traditional housing development. Our parking garage entry, both in and out, is off of Channing. There has been some discussion over the years with both Channing and Homer Avenues being converted back to two directions. That will work fine with our project, and would have no effect on it, one way or the other. I think the neighbors’ desire for High Street being converted back to two-way traffic really makes sense. As you can imagine, with any traffic coming out of our project, if they cannot turn left and go along High Street, they have a tendency to wander into the neighborhood, adding extra traffic and confusion to the residential neighborhoods. If this is two-way, they can come out and go down High, turn and go down to the signal at Alma, and they are out of the neighborhood very quickly and do not have any major impacts. As part of the project, we will have two layers of parking underground. We will be replacing all of the sidewalks. We will also be paving and redoing the alley. The alley now is one-way officially, but in fact, it is two-way most of the time, even though it is very narrow. We are going to set our column line of the building back another ten feet so that that alleyway is actually wide enough that any obstruction from loading or unloading at the commercial buildings would not obstruct traffic. The automobiles would be able to go around them, so that would work very nicely here. As you can see, this parking at grade here relates directly to the housing. This project is actually over parked. We have some extra parking down below, and we have extra parking at grade level. We would be able to provide about four to six spaces on this end A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 39 08-13-97 which could be used by merchants who may be under parked in the area now, such as the hardware store. Now, Ken will address some of the policy issues. Ken Alsman As Ken Schreiber pointed out earlier, one of the bases of your action tonight has to do with an understanding of how this works with city policy. Policy is one of those things that can often have some interpretations. It might come as no surprise that we have a different interpretation of what the policy might be for the appropriate use of this site. First of all, we have already had some discussion about the downtown cap. We tend to feel that this project is not in violation of that policy, but really wholeheartedly is a part of that policy, and meets the intent of that policy as originally adopted. It is using some 13% of the overall cap that ws established eleven years ago. I don’t know where it was established or suggested that the cap should be sort of divvied out over a 30-year period or so, as suggested in the staff report. This is wholly within a very conservative cap, and we think it is appropriate rather than in violation of that cap in any way. Most of the references in the staff report dealt primarily with the 1976 Comprehensive Plan and its amendments. It deals with issues such as "Protect and enhance those qualities which make Palo Alto neighborhoods especially desirable." I think this policy was primarily intended for residential neighborhoods, not necessarily a heavy commercial area such as this, but nonetheless, we think that very definitely, this removal and transition of a blighted site and the creation of a lot of amenities within this area is going to be beneficial not only to this mixed use area but also to adjoining neighborhoods. Another thing that I think is particularly important is the public benefit that deals with parking. There is the ability, with the parking program and the excess parking here, to provide parking to adjacent uses which do not currently have it, relieving probably six to seven blocks of on-street residential parking that is currently taking place within this area. The only way that can happen is with a project that deals with a fairly large piece of property and is able to consolidate the parking in the way that is being talked about here. This is a mixed use area. This is a mixed use project. We feel it is certainly in accord with that policy of the Comprehensive Plan. There are other policies that call for the encouragement and foster the development of new and existing housing. We are providing housing. It is not a requirement, however, there is a strong and very important and innovative housing element to this project. Staff refers to issues dealing with the urban design element, to "promote the orderly and harmonious development of the city and the attainment of the most desirable land use and A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 40 08-13-97 improvements through the review of a new development." We fully well expect to go through the review. We have begun it, and as David said earlier, the initial review by the ARB was very enthusiastic. I think that will continue. One other policy that I think is particularly important is the coordinated area plan. One component of that ordinance that was just adopted is that planning in the city should work in conjunction with the marketplace. It should not oppose the marketplace. We are in a very unique and special market right now, and this project, which has been under way for the last year, in terms of initial preparation, is ready to proceed. I think where this plan really has its policy support is in the Comprehensive Plan document. Within the first three or four chapters, there are at least 25 or 30 references that are in direct support of this project. It is in those areas that as we look into the next century; this is a project for the next century, much as this Comprehensive Plan is a document for the next century. Vice Chair Byrd: I will invite any questions that commissioners may have now, although I hope we can hold the bulk of them for after the public hearing is closed. Commissioner Beecham: I do have one question on public benefits. I believe all of my colleagues have this information at their places from Roxy Rapp’s office. It indicates a little bit different information on the public benefit, in particular, for parking. I would like to get a better understanding of what your intent is with that. Mr. Rapp: Thank you. I think the parking is probably one of the best public benefits we are giving here. This project is going to be built to code, which is four parking spaces for every thousand square feet. Actually, ! think we have six extra spaces, according to Lisa Grote. If you look at Redwood Shores or Foster City or down in Mountain View, the maximum that they are allowed to build is three per thousand. About three weeks ago, I was fortunate enough to have a meeting with some of the homeowners in SOFA and with townyoung fellows from Stanford University that have degrees in planning, and we were going over the public benefits. I was being educated about parking and transportation, and they say that even in certain buildings, it is really 2.2 per thousand. If you would agree that three per thousand is sufficient, we will have a tenant in the office building sign in his lease that that is what he will agree to, three per thousand. We are able to give all of those other parking spaces to the employers for their employees in the surrounding area. We are also proposing to put in townfull-time valet people from seven in the morning until seven at night, and we had Watry redo this parking lot to see exactly how many we could get in with stacking. It was 39 extras. So if you were an employee that worked at Whole Foods, you would really love to be able to put your car in this garage instead of having to put it way out in the neighborhood and have sap fall on it or the A:IPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 41 08-13-97 chance of having it broken in or rained on. It stays cool during the summer when they can put it underneath. So I think that to be able to park 109 cars guaranteed, that means we can pull 109 cars out of the residential area into the garage. There is a possibility of even more. We will find out about that from the TDM person who will be aboard. They will be able to watch this, plus the valet people. It is just a shame that there are some garages downtov~n that stay empty half the time because they are gated. All you have to do is to walk down to the Wells Fargo building and take a peek, and you will see that. So we are not going to be gated. It will be open., and I think it is a great public benefit and great for the neighborhood to be able to pull 109 cars, roughly around seven blocks. Thank you. Commissioner Bialson: I have a question regarding parking. You mentioned that it would be 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Would the garage also be available for evening use? Mr. Rapp: Yes, it would. We would probably put another valet company in there to watch it, because what we would like to do is to try and get the restaurants in the area to at least put their employees there. A restaurant is heavily employed between the people in the back room plus all of the waiters and waitresses, especially Emerson Street, which has really taken off with some excellent restaurants. I think it is great. All of those employees right now who have to come in early to start their shift and do all of the preparatory work are parking in the neighborhood or taking up customer parking. We would hope to get them in there and work with the restaurants and be able to put signs out or work with some valet service. We are going to have almost a 300-car empty garage in the evenings. So I am not proposing that as one of our public benefits, but yes, we will be open. Commissioner Bialson: So it would be open only through the valet service? Mr. Rapp: No, it would be open to anyone who wants to drive in there and park. Vice Chair Byrd: Seeing no further questions for the applicant, I will now open the public hearing. Kerry. Yarkin. 135 Churchill Avenue. Palo Alto: My family owns the property that is directly across the street from the project at 801 and 815 High Street. Although we generally favor the development plans for this 800 High Street project, we are opposed to the trees that the developer is proposing placing on the narrow sidewalk abutting our property. When we remodeled our building in 1988, the Architectural Review Board studied this site and decided then that there was not sufficient sidewalk width for any A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 42 08-13-97 trees on this side of our building. With increased development in the area, there is more pedestrian traffic on the street than in the past, and the wisdom of the ARB decision becomes more and more apparent. Although.we are not opposed to having trees in our community, we think that to place trees in this very narrow sidewalk area would be a mistake, and we therefore respectfully request that they be removed from the developer’s plans. Michael Griffin. 344 Poe Street. Palo Alto: I am the secretary of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association, and I have a few points I would like to share with you this evening. First of all, the Downtown North Neighborhood Association has already demonstrated to the City Council just this past May our dissatisfaction with the PC superzone process that is having the effect of circumventing the existing and adequate (in our opinion) downtown commercial zoning that is currently in effect. Secondly, the proposed project is, in our opinion, yet another example of property owners trying to jam overdevelopment into the downtown district prior to the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. Thirdly, the project is over height, oversized, and over scaled for the neighborhood, and will be a net traffic generator. I really like this scale model over here. If you look at it, you can allow yourself to be overwhelmed by the massiveness of the structure. Fourthly, we generally support two-story buildings, not three, as proposed. We strongly support the existing FAR requirements of one, not two, as proposed by the applicants. Fifthly, we strongly endorse the city staff’s negative findings for this project. Ken, it was nicely done. Lastly, again, the Downtown North Neighborhood Association is opposed to PC superzones in the downtown Palo Alto area, and that includes specifically 800 High Street. We ask that you deny the applicants in their attempt to profit in this manner to the detriment of the downtown neighbors. Thank you. Dan Lorimer. 565 Hawthorne Avenue. Palo Alto: I am President of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association. I think you can predict from Mike’s comments what I am going to say here tonight. We have been opposed consistently to buildings that are overscaled. This one is certainly about the biggest one we have seen proposed. Actually, as I was going through this staff report, I realized that it pretty much said I want to say. If you look at the policy inconsistencies here, we have Urban Design Element Policy 1, Program 1. "Discourage massive single uses through limitations on height and density to project’s surrounding uses and community values." The proposed project would add to the height and density of an existing large-scale single use. So right there is the biggest single problem. It goes on later to say that the downtown commercial regulations limit the size of any single, non-residential project to 25,000 square feet or 15,000 square feet A:lPCMins71Min08 ! 3.reg Page 43 08-13-97 above the existing floor area, whichever is greater, provided the FAR limitations are not exceeded. This project size regulation resulted from a policy developed during the Downtown Study adopted in 1986. This study and the resultant downzoning accomplished three very important things for the downtown area which have been instrumental in its success. First, the traditional human scale and historic lotting pattern of the downtown were preserved by discouraging consolidation of parcels and limiting the building sizes through project size limits. It goes on in this vein, and basically, it is very clear that the report here is saying exactly what we would say. I want to get into one specific issue on this that has not been addressed at any length, which is something that we have seen happen over and over again with these PCs. That is, you get an outrageous project which is then followed by a ridiculously small PC benefit. So here we have seven public benefits listed. The first benefit is the inherent benefit of replacing the dilapidated manufacturing building with a new building. So he is saying that the building is its own benefit. We should be happy that he is putting it there. The second benefit is below-market housing. He is required to put in below-market housing. The third benefit is public art. Once again, this is another benefit where the building is providing something that enhances the saleability of the space or leasability of the space, and we are supposed to look at that as a public benefit. Then we have 15 street trees. Once again, he is landscaping his own building. As you go on through it, you get the same thing. We have seen this happen over and over again. The public would like to see a zoning process where you have an established zoning for a parcel, and they can dependably look at that as a guideline for what will actually be built there. The PC process so effectively circumvents this that you look at the zoning and you think one thing is going to be built, and people come in with projects that have no relationship whatsoever to the actual zoning of the project. Darlene Markovich. 724 Ramona Street, Palo Alto: I live between here and Whole Foods. I think I can speak to this issue from two perspectives. I like the project. Personally, I have worked in Palo Alto for 23 years, and I have lived here as a resident for 18 years, with ten of those in the condominium I own just down the street. I have been looking for a more unique living space and a somewhat larger and unusual space, but very much in the same neighborhood. So I was very excited to hear about this project and this plan. Secondly, as a Human Resources coordinator for a large pharmaceutical company in Palo Alto that has 1,700 employees, most of whom work in Palo Alto, I am responsible for recruiting and relocating people to this area. Most of them come from very sophisticated urban centers, some regentrified communities, and some of them even live in lo~s. A lot of the questions I get are, what kind of unusual and provocative housing A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 44 08-13-97 options do you have for people out here. I would like to be able to say that we have a model of that in something like this. So finally, I am very proud to be living here. I love living here. I hope to live here for the rest of my life, and I have a strong desire to protect this community and at the same time find ways to help it to develop in smart and diverse ways. This is my first visual introduction to Mr. Rapp and the others here, and knowing about some of their projects and seeing what they have done in the past, with your help and the help of the ARB and others, I think we could make that happen. Susan Stulz. 480 Palo Alto Avenue, Palo Alto: I, too, am a member of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association, but I am here to speak in support of this project. One of the things I like about it is the parking, especially at night. I walk to downtown, but I have a hard time getting friends to meet me down here because it is so hard to find parking. So I think this going to be a real benefit. I also like the idea of the mixed use. This is kind of a transitional part of the city, and it has something different going for it. I think this is a good thing for Palo Alto to try out and see how it works out. I also like the idea that the living is on the ground floor and the offices are above. It will feel safer to walk by here at night. I must tell the architect that this is really cool architecture. It is really neat to look at, and it is really different. Living on the north side of Palo Alto, some of the new developments on Lytton have all been sort of in the same mold. Palo Alto has a chance to get away from being boring, and I think this is really cool architecture. I also like the idea of the big plaza that is planned. It would be neat if Care Berona or something comes in where you can sit out there. Menlo Park has that neat space, and it would be a cool space to hang out at. I wish this had gone in instead of some of the things that did to in on Lytton Avenue. Thank you. William F. Kay. 302 Lowell Avenue, Palo Alto: Members of the commission and staff, I have three interests, and I want to make sure you understand that I have no interest businesswise or otherwise with Mr. Rapp. I met him for the first time when I went to the outdoor presentation that he made. My interests are threefold. No. 1, as a resident, I am interested in making sure that Palo Alto develops properly and in terms of the knowledge worker that we are looking at and hoping to attract to this community. The live/work concept is important. Second of all, I am a business owner and a principal in our business offices at 101 A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 45 08-13-97 University Avenue, a twain member law firm, and I have those interests there. A third interest is just someone who, in the past ten years, is dearly connected to the downtown. My wife and I, also a principal in the law firm, walk downtown from our house at least once a week, and sometimes three to four times a week just to visit downtown and go back, even though we work on University Avenue. I support the project for two principal reasons. No. 1 is the live/work concept, and I think it is extremely important that you give this project consideration and support it, because we need the support of live/work. My wife and I come as close as we can to live/work in terms of living close to our work, and I think that is very convenient, but we have to look at the human size of what we are developing for our housing and working, and this is a very important project in that sense. The second reason we support it is because of the transition. Maybe it is just because we walk to the downtown and we walk back, but for the past ten years in that walking, we frequently talk about the transition and how well Palo Alto may or may not work out that transition, especially in this very difficult neighborhood. This project appears to be just right on target from our perspective. In terms of the public benefit, I think that is very important, and it speaks to another interest I have. I hope to continue to havegood walking and mobile access to the medical facility. That is where I get my medical care, and that is where many members of the community do, and I think the contribution of $100,000 will help to bring that to reality. The second public benefit is in terms of parking, and obviously next to housing, it is the No. 1 issue we deal with with employees. It is no news to you, it is a headache. If this is worked properly, that public benefit will be a benefit, not just a usury. Finally, I do like the idea of the suggestion of the public benefit and contribution toward downtown traffic. My own observation over the last 15 years downtown is that downtown has changed, but the patterning of the traffic has not. My own observation over the last 15 years in downtown is that downtown has changed, but the patterning of the traffic has not. I think the study that is recommended here and some of the things that are suggested will help in that area. I want to commend the staff both as hardworking public employees and having to focus on a very difficult decision, that is, applying this project to your existing standards. I know it was not an easy decision. I just want to say, without getting into details, that I think the project size, when you consider all of the factors -- economic, the mix of live/work, the transition, and actually a very difficult site in terms of where we are thinking about it as residential only or commercial only -- it is a project that fits. I do think you have to put in the proper time and A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 46 08-13-97 work. If the Planning Commission and staff works with this developer, I would like to see it come to fruition. Thank you. Marilyn Calabres. 707 Bryant Street. Palo Alto: I live at the comer of Forest and Bryant, and I also work downtown. I don’t think I can be any more articulate than the others who have spoken for the project before me. I would like to echo my approval. I know that you always have to look at the pros and cons of something that is unique and different, but considering everything, I see a lot of public benefit. -I think it is beautiful. I certainly have experienced personally the parking problems that continue downtown, and I think that providing a lot of parking for employees in the downtown area would be very beneficial to residents, as well as to the businesses themselves. I hope you will consider this and give it your approval. Thank you. Sally Ann Rudd. 204 Cowper Street, Palo Alto: Before living at this address, I lived at 725 Cowper Street, so I am familiar with the area of this project. First of all, congratulations to the planning department for doing an excellent job of city planning. There is one thing I do not like about this project. One thing that the Planning Commission really has to come to terms with is the fact that it is a three-story building, another three-story building in an area which is predominantly an area of one- and two-story buildings. There are a lot of three-story buildings either being built at the moment in downtown Palo Alto or are in the pipeline. I really think this is affecting the style of Palo Alto and is really a detriment to the downtown area. When you have buildings that are significantly bigger than the street trees, it really affects the quality of light that comes down onto the street. You don’t get the sunshine and it is not of human scale. I really think this is something that the Planning Commission should consider seriously. The next thing I want to talk about is the development cap downtown. I think given the level of congestion and the parking problems we have, it should be obvious by now that the development cap is too high. It is not a practical cap, and I hope that is something that is considered at some time, definitely when thinking about the traffic impacts of this project. I want to make one small point about the public benefit. It has been mentioned by several speakers that this project is six parking spaces over parked, which is a big difference from most projects in Palo Alto, but I cannot see that as a public benefit in any way, given that the same developer has purchased many in-lieu parking spaces in other parts of downtown, so on a net basis, I doubt very much whether this is adding to the number of spaces in Palo Alto. The last thing is that there has been a lot of discussion about the live/work element of this project. I would particularly like to point out that professional who spoke earlier, because this developer does not have a terrific track record where live/work is concerned. There was another building at the comer of Cowper and University Avenue Which was supposed to be live/work, and there were a lot of in-lieu parking spaces given on that basis for that project. The live element of that project has mysteriously disappeared. I know the Council was not particularly pleased about that, and I hope the Planning Commission was not particularly pleased about that, A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 47 08-I3-97 either. Personally, I won’t believe that there is any residential with this project until I actually see it built. I hope the Planning Commission will remember what happened the last time and take the appropriate precautions. Steve Player. 1874 Guinda Street. Palo Alto: I am an attorney here in Palo Alto, and I represent Peninsula Creamery, the owner of this property. I find it ironic that a creamery, which has been in this community since 1923, is now in the position of being involved with the development of a parcel that is really going to begin to embrace the new century, which is the theme of our new Comprehensive Plan. As you know, the creamery has been a solid citizen member of this community. The Santana family, whom I represent, has operated the creamery at that particular site since her grandfather started it back in 1923. Roxy Rapp is a native Palo Altan who has proven to be a quality developer in this community. The family considered this very, very carefully when they thought about what it would be, and who it would be to develop their particular parcel. As you know, when you make any kind of a change, it is a difficult thing to do, especially in this case when you have been at this one location all of your life, and all of your family’s life, and have had this creamery operating as a single use on this site for that many years. So when you make that transition, how you make it and in what direction you go with it is something that is very carefully considered and weighed. In deciding on Roxy and the developer team that he has put together, all those factors, his record, his qualifications, his relationship to Palo Alto, were all considered. The Santana family is very happy with what he has come up with. Let me talk a little bit about what we are facing here. Staff and I have had some very real disagreements on interpreting the application of this particular site. This really is not inconsistent with the land policies as stated. Bear in mind that this is a single purpose parcel and has been so since 1923. Yes, there are three parcels there, but those parcels are all owned by the same owner. They have been an ice cream plant. Right now they are in the process of a refrigeration plant and a distribution center for ice cream since its inception. We are now moving from that to a mixed use development which is going to have retail, it is going to have housing, and it is going to have commercial. So I believe that it really is not inconsistent with policy in the sense that the staff has applied it. Also, it is an appropriate place for this project. It is very close, within easy walking distance, of the railroad station. It is within a close distance to Alma Street, which is a major transportation thoroughfare for public transportation. There are going to be opportunities here for people to come to this site with an aggressive TDM program not in their car, which is what the whole new future is about, but to utilize the common A:lPCMins7[Min0813.reg Page 48 08-13-97 transportation systems that are being developed and that we are really working on in this community. I would also like to talk about the fact that this is the future we are talking about here. If you look at the Comprehensive Plan, and Ken has talked about it already, there are words like "mixed use brings vitality," "dynamism," "the SOFA area --this particular location" which is very interesting. It is on the fringes of the SOFA area. It is zoned CS, which is the downtown zone, so it really has been viewed at one point as the fringes of the downtown as opposed to an inherent part of the SOFA area. So as we look at this concept, we need to look at it and remember it and understand that this was viewed as part of the downtown. Then you look at the whole question of the appropriateness of this type of development at this particular location. I think you have to view it in that context. In terms of the benefits of the site, the parking, the various aspects of it which have been spoken to much more eloquently than I can, I think it fits. It fits in many contexts. I also think that if you drive through that area at this point and you look at the context in which it is now, if you drive by the new SRO, if you look at the comer development, it is appropriate and does fit in with what is in that area. Let me close by saying, this project is like any other project, and it needs to be treated like any other project. It should be put through the system in an appropriate and expeditious manner. What I have heard tonight is the possibility for further delay. If you are in favor of and support the creative project that is before you, then let it be moved on to the ARB. All I want for this project is that it stay in the system and move it along so that we do not lose the opportunity of the type of things, the creative approach to this use, that we are going to bring here. The Santana family thanks you, and I thank you very much. Richard Rathbun. 575 Kellogg Avenue. Palo Alto: I am speaking this evening as a board member and on behalf of the University South Neighborhood Group. Our board has engaged extensively in conversations about this project, both amongst ourselves and our membership and with the development team. We would like to say this evening that we are somewhat in the middle of the road on this project at this time. We would like to commend the development team for their early and proactive response in terms of dialogue with the neighborhood group and with the neighbors. We believe they have been sincerely interested in that dialogue and have engaged in it with sincerity in a very responsive way. We are impressed by their responsiveness to the public benefits package and were especially intrigued with the Traffic Management possibilities for this project. A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 49 08-13-97 We are also intrigued by the housing component of this project. It is a unique possible contribution to the area in terms of having that housing at the street level. However, we still have some unresolved issues in our conversations. One of the unresolved issues is our concern about this project being put ahead of the Coordinated Area Plan. We would have the hesitation that this project not create precedents that are then incorporated into that Coordinated Area Plan. We also have some concerns about the scale and design of the project and some concerns about the enforceability of those live/work spaces. But because the dialogue has been very productive thus far, although we neither support nor object to this project, we would like to see it proceed through the review process, because we think the continued dialogue has the possibility of resolving some of our current concerns. So because we have had extensive conversations, we would recommend that the process proceed, and possibly we can resolve some of those unresolved questions as it goes through that process. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Byrd: Mr. Rathbun, does your group have any specific structure in mind for how this project’s review should relate to the Coordinated Area Plan for SOFA? Mr. Rathbun: Well, we have had discussions about that. We do not have any formal proposals, but we thought that a project like this which engages both the neighborhood and the development team in an active conversation could perhaps set some of the tenor for the Coordinated Area Plan’s process as it proceeds, but no formal ideas about that. Jim Henning. 1320 Webster Street. Palo Alto: I live with my family at this address. My wife, Doris, is a marketing strategist. She lives and works at home. My father-in-law, who also lives with us, is an educational psychologist who also lives and works at home. My four-year-old daughter just lives at home. (Laughter) We see this project as a metaphor for how we are living our lives these days. We left a beautiful but fairly remote house in Los Altos Hills in large part to be near the vitality and the work that ensues here in Palo Alto. So I do stand in favor of this project. I think it is carefully thought out. I think it is an appealing and appropriate project for the site. It is one that highlights great design, in my mind, smart function, and also buffers the city from the industrial nature of the area. It would be very nice to have a public plaza adjacent to Whole Foods and lovely to bring trees into an area that is otherwise fairly industrial. It would serve all of us to have added parking and the other planned amenities that are included in the project. We believe this plan has high integrity and that it will add needed life, vitality and beauty to the area. So A:IPCMins7IMin0813.reg Page 50 08-13-97 we welcome it. Thank you. Randy Scott. 312 Coleridge. Palo Alto: I have been a resident of Palo Alto for the last 31 years, and I have worked within downtown Palo Alto for the past 15 years. I am very interested in this project, having driven by, jogged and biked by the area and know the area very well. I come from a little different twist. I am in the real estate business although not affiliated with this particular group. I do watch the projects as they are planned and developed, taking a part interest in them. I do support the project for the four following reasons. One, it certainly would be an improvement to the area, as earlier stated. Currently existing there is a very bland and industrial feel. Second, I do believe that it is attractive architecture. We talked about mixed use and the live/work ideas. I personally receive and our company receives many calls about rental and live-in work style units. There is a tremendous demand for them, and we cannot fill them at all. Additionally, the third area would be parking. Typically, parking downtown, as every one knows, is very, very scarce, particularly with office-associated businesses. The average is between one and two parking spaces per thousand square feet of leasing, and there are very few exceptions to that. So talking about three or more parking spaces per thousand square feet is a great improvement. In addition, I do not want to diminish the effect not only during the day but at nighttime with the overflow from the downtown, which I think is a tremendous attribute. Finally, the demand and, to some degree, retail, is very, very strong. Palo Alto is a desirable area to be in. The vacancy rate, as people know, is under one percent. It is really the center of everything from software to life sciences, earlier addressed. I would like to keep those types of companies interested in keeping Palo Alto in the forefront as opposed to looking at other areas. Thank you. Larry. Hassett. 875 Alma Street. Palo Alto: I am the owner of Palo Alto Hardware and also the owner of the existing building in the lower right hand comer of your screen that houses Palo Alto Hardware in close proximity to the development. I want to comment Roxy on his openness and his willingness to come forward and discuss problems of compatibility associated with this project and my business. He came to me fairly early on, and we have hashed out and ironed out a lot of the issues. A lot of the public benefits go a long way towards improving the area and towards improving problems with the existing situations there. One of the main benefits that I foresee is the widening of the alley. The alley has been a problem ever since we moved in there. It is truly only wide enough for one vehicle to pass at a time, and with delivery tracks there fairly regularly, it becomes a bottleneck, so having a wider alley will certainly improve the situation for our A:IPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 51 08-13-97 business. In addition to that, the discussions I have had with Roxy have centered around some of the nuisances associated with a commercial business like my own hardware store, which operates from 7:30 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Normally, that is what most people think of when they think about businesses being there, but it is truly a very early morning situation where we may have trucks at 4:00 or 5:00 a.m., or we may have trucks delivering real late in the evening, ten and twelve at night. So it is kind of a 24-hour business, and we have discussed issues regarding the nuisance that that might be for his project. We have pretty much come to terms on that, and I do not really feel that I will be "airported out" where the community kind of grows around the airport, and then the airport is gone, so I am very happy with that. One of the main benefits that I see is parking in this area. I find it very critical that in this particular lot, we have an opportunity, if the numbers all work out, to create that as a public benefit. The problem with this area is that we are not in a parking assessment district as we speak, so it is very difficult to get a parking structure or anything like that built unless the property owners in the area agree to form an assessment district. The likelihood of that happening in today’s climate is really rare, so any opportunity that we have right now to possibly alleviate the parking problem I would welcome. Currently, I know that I have approximately five or six, sometimes up to eight people who park in the neighborhoods two and three blocks away. I know that the situation is really exasperated (!) by Whole Foods and Reach and some of the other businesses that are really under parked. I find this building fairly attractive, and I like the mixed use. I just think it is a very compatible building in a very tough transitional area, so I am in support of his project. Cris Schiebold, 480 Palo Alto Avenue. Palo Alto:" I could have used the building tonight. I am parked out at the Palo Alto Medical Center! I live in north Palo Alto and have an office in downtown Palo Alto. I have had the opportunity to watch this project through the planning phase. In light of the architecture, in light of the parking and in light of what is there now, as a Palo Altan, I would recommend this project strongly. Mark Anderson. 790 High Street. Palo Alto: I have been a businessman in Palo Alto, owning my own design business for 20 years. Before that, I worked for another design firm named Hisada Design. Historically, as I think back when I came to Palo Alto 25 years ago and I saw this city then, and I see what it is now, I cannot believe the change. My disappointment was at times in the early years quite high in Palo Alto, but a key thing A:]PCMins71Min0813.reg Page 52 08-13-97 happened, and my work for the firm did that, and I think Roxy is at that stage in this project, which is making a statement that this city needs to move on to a new level. You can see that in downtown Palo Alto. When you walk down University Avenue, there is excitement. I have a background in design from working for the City of Dallas Planning Department, and I understand city planning. My background is quite diverse, and when I saw this project across the street from my property, I was very excited. The point I want to go back to is the Gatehouse Restaurant project 20 years ago. Before that time, there weren’t any restaurants of any substance. That restaurant at that end of town opened up a whole new vision to what this town has become. That part of town is full, and I think there is another end of town. The energy that this project can bring is the same energy that The Gatehouse brought when there was nothing there. I myself want to restore the history of the Pontiac showroom which was built in the 1930s, which is the building I am in. I have a lot of ideas I would like to share with you people later. I am at a very high level of excitement for this project. I know there have been a lot of differences of opinion voiced tonight, but I think that if you add them all up, whether it is parking or architectural appearance, there are so many of them because there is so much of a mixture and depth to this project that you’ve got to think about that. I think there is a lot here for everybody. I am very disappointed about the project going in right behind the building I am in. It is a four-story, low-income housing project, basically crammed in. I am questioning that intensity, and I am questioning the alleyway to service the parking behind there. There are a lot of questions there. This project has answered some of those questions that were presented. And that project passed?? This project at least has a lot of positive things that should continue in the process. Hopefully, ifRoxy wants to talk and cooperate with the city and the neighbors, I would be happy to be on his committee and your committee to make something like this at least be understood better. If it has to be slowed down a little to focus in on some things, maybe that’s right, but it should not be stopped because of information that is unclear at this stage, because there is plenty of information. Thank you for your time. Steve Niethammer. 435 Marion Avenue. Palo Alto: I am not necessarily pro- development, but I am pro quality development. If something like this isn’t going to happen, what would be there? I would hate to see a pink stucco strip center with a Taco Bell and a 7-11 there. One thing this developer has done has been to build quality, high end projects. One of the key benefits that I like is the underpass going through and the $100,000 contribution to help put that into the clinic. I think one thing that it is going to do is to create less traffic on Embarcadero and University. People say that this is going to bring a lot of traffic in. I think that off of Alma, it is so easy to get off Alma, and by making High Street two-way, the traffic does not even get into the neighborhood like it A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 53 08-13-97 does now because High Street is one-way. So I think it is a quality development, and I hope that it goes through. Doug Ross. 901 Alma Street, Palo Alto: Given the lateness of the hour, I will be brief. I am developing the parcel on the corner of Alma and Channing. The project has some similar components, but I would like to endorse the project. I believe the mixed use housing is a real benefit to the city. The parking that the developer is proposing is a unique opportunity to mitigate a lot of the parking problems in the city. This is one of the few areas that is underdeveloped, and it will be developed more as time continues, and parking will become a critical component to the area, no matter how the balance of the properties are developed. The project is nicely designed, as stated by the ARB, and it will act as a catalyst to revitalize this part of town. I think Roxy has a proven track record, and contrary to the earlier speaker, I think the PC process is an important part of the way the city responds to unique projects. It enables people to do things that are somewhat special, and I think the project should be approved. Thank you. Loren Brown. 633 Kellogg Avenue, Palo Alto: I have been a resident here for 13 years. I think this is a tremendous opportunity to have something done with this particular parcel. This parcel has been sitting around for a long, long time and is really a blight there. Opportunities like this come along for the quality development that is proposed. I endorse the project and think the architecture is nice and the use is well planned. Thank you. Vice Chair Byrd: Seeing no other speakers, I will close the public hearing. It is now appropriate for the applicant to return for five minutes and sum up his presentation. Mr. Rapp: Thank you all who came tonight and spoke. This is my third PC. The first one, which I am very proud of, was with Jim Baer at 250 University Avenue. I think you will all agree that it is a tremendous entrance now for Ramona Street, compared to the old Crocker Bank Building that used to be there. The second PC I did was at 499 Cowper at University. To that young lady who lives on Cowper Street who spoke earlier, I want to say that the live/work space was never part of the PC. I never promised to have live/work space there. Early in the planning stage, after the approval, I had a client come in and rent the whole building. That is why I never did the live/work space there. But I did go to the expense to pipe it all, and maybe someday, when that client moves out, I can put in live/work space there. This project will definitely have to be live/work space. It is a part of the PC, and it will be there. You will have to live there, but you do not have to work there, so anyone that will be renting here will have to make this their residence. The neat thing is that you can work here and you can live here. We already have a live/work space A:[PCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 54 08-13-97 ordinance written by Lorraine Weiss, I believe, so we can just start right in with that. I would like to see this sent on to the Board, and I would like to keep the process going. It will give Ken time to start the EIA. He made the decision right at the beginning when I paid my $6,000 entry fee and he cashed the check to not put me through the process and give me a negative at that time. I would like to keep the process going and hope that he sees his way clear and that staff does and that the Planning Commission and City Council will see what a wonderful project this is. It gives us time to work with the neighbors, the whole SOFA area and the Board, and that has been a wonderful experience for me. They have been very open, and all of the meetings have been tremendously productive. I see us getting closer and closer in coming to a great solution for this. What it actually does is that Ken has really done me a service here. He has bought me some time to get closer to the board and the SOFA residents. I think we are going to end up four months from now with a great project, and I think you are going to be proud of it, as you are my other projects. Thank you so much. Vice Chair Byrd: Thank you, Mr. Rapp. Are there any followup questions? Commissioner Schmidt: I have several questions. I wondered if you considered a different ratio of housing on this site, with more housing and less office space? Mr. Rapp: I wish we could do that, Kathy, but the problem with adding more housing, yes, we could add a couple more units. We could make the units smaller and probably do something down at that far end by putting another unit in there, but the problem is the parking. When you go to underground parking, it is very, very expensive. The underground parking is almost $5 million. It is really the office component that pays for the project and subsidizes the housing. Of course, the retail which is very small here carries itself. As Doug said at the Architectural Review Board meeting, it has been a long time since you have seen a project come before you that is self-parked. That is one of the great things about this project. That is why we cannot add a lot of housing. Commissioner Schmidt: Also, I believe in your earlier comments, in your description of the parking public benefit, you said that you could get tenants to agree to using three spaces per thousand rather than four, and I am assuming that that is something you can do as part of the lease. It is not anything that the city requires. Mr. Rapp: Right, we will have that in the lease, and the city will have access to those leases. A:tPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 55 08-13-97 Commissioner Schmidt: So you would have control over what parking you can provide for others and what parking -- Mr. Rapp: Eric could probably talk to that really well. Eric is probably the leading commercial real estate broker on the entire peninsula. He has won many awards for renting more square footage than anyone else, so I think he could answer that very confidently, and I think his answer would probably be that three per one thousand is more than enough. Commissioner Beecham: Even if you have it in the lease about the tbxee spaces per thousand, that only puts them on notice that they will have that many spaces down in the garage. For anybody else they have beyond that requirement, those people would be on the street, basically. Is that correct? Mr. Rapp: Yes, unless we had a mechanism to police it. But you are absolutely right. However, I don’t think they would sign a lease if it is were a high-end tenant paying $2.75 per square-foot and couldn’t get the parking that they required, that they would want it. Commissioner Bialson: Do you have a single-user tenant for this building? Mr. Rapp: Actually, we are having a meeting tomorrow morning with a great user who will probably use less than two. This is a major design firm, and I would say that over 20% of their employees come from San Francisco and another 5% from down on the peninsula. They will use the train. It would be just great for them. Also there is a lot of other interest. There is a law firm and a large consulting firm is interested. But until we get approval, we cannot really market it. Commissioner Bialson: So you do see a single user. Mr. Rapp: It is actually designed that we could break it up into four, but yes, I could see a single user taking it all. If the market should change, it could be broken up into four users. Commissioner Beecham: At this point, I am surprised that you still want this to go to the ARB, given that there would be a delay for the environmental assessment, and also, there may be some significant questions as to whether it would be approved in the end by the council. I would think you would want to get a preliminary review by the council at this point. A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 56 08-13-97 Mr. Rapp: I prefer that it go to the ARB. As I said earlier, I think it is important for me to have this time to work with SOFA. It also gives Ken more time to start the EIA, and it gives me more time to work with Ken and Chandler and Lisa. I think it would be in my best interest to do that, and my partners are with me on that 100%. Commissioner Schmidt: I have a question regarding the architecture. Since the ARB likes to talk about planning issues, I want to ask one architectural question! The residential units face on High Street, and that is what I would characterize as the dark side of the street. Mr. Rapp: The less sunny side. Commissioner Schmidt: It is a northeast-facing fagade. There are large overhangs at the residences. Is there any way that you are planning to bring daylight through to that side of the building? Mr. Peterson: Well, you have put your finger on a difficult issue that is inherent in this lot, just by its orientation. We certainly did recognize that, and that is one of the reasons why the live/work space is so high. It is really a 17-foot height at the porches, so there will be plenty of light, but it will get sun early in the morning only. You won’t get it the rest of the day, but it will still be very light. If you will notice in the model, the windows on those live/work units are a full height, so they go all the way up the 17 feet. There will be plenty of light, with sun early in the morning. Chairman Schink: Seeing no other speakers, I will now close the public hearing and return this item to the commission. Are there any additional questions for staff at this time? Commissioner Cassel: I called Chandler Lee this aftemoon and asked him some questions about the substation. There are several transformers in the substation, and one of them is quite new and makes very little noise. Another one, which is fairly near the project, is quite old and makes a lot of noise. I wanted to know how old the old one is and what the city has in its plans to replace it. I believe they are replaced on some sort of schedule. Mr. Lee: I talked to the utilities department this afternoon, and although they did not know the exact age of the old transformers, they do have a plan to replace the two old ones with two new ones within the next two to three years. A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 57 08-13-97 Commissioner Cassel: That’s good, and the new ones do not make much noise. Mr. Lee: That is correct. Commissioner Cassel: I also want to ask about undergrounding those lines instead of taking them out to Alma. I wanted to know what the problems are with undergrounding them. I understand that can be done and is done in lots of places in town. Mr. Lee: It certainly is technically feasible. In conversations with the utilities department, again my understanding is that it is a 60 kv line, which is one of the largest that is made. In order to keep the utility lines cool, it requires some oil coils or something underneath that would periodically require maintenance. The utilities department would be opposed to undergrounding because of those maintenance issues. Mr. Schreiber: To follow up on that, in talking to utilities staff about the project, they stressed that any consideration of undergrounding the 60 kv was technically very, very difficult, and would be extremely expensive. It would be so expensive that the city would never undertake it, and they could not imagine how a private developer could undertake undergrounding 60 kv. The problem of cooling the cables, because of the amount of energy in them, is a very difficult and expensive process. So essentially, they do not see it as feasible in this environment. Commissioner Cassel: I get different opinions from my own personal consultant that I have on that subject. Mr. Schreiber: There are places where it is done. It can be done, if you are willing to spend a lot of money. I am sure there may be places in San Francisco where there is no alternative but to put 60 kv or something similar in size underground. The observation is that technically, it can be done, but it is very difficult and very, very expensive. Certainly the city would not undertake it, so it would totally be the responsibility of the developer, and you would be talking about far more money than the relocation cost. Commissioner Cassel: The relocation costs are expensive. Mr. Schreiber: I think the estimate is $300,000, and apparently rather small compared to the cost of undergrounding. Commissioner Cassel: But you have to do something. You cannot do this project because of the way the lines are located. You simply cannot do this project unless those A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 58 08-13-97 lines are moved. Mr. Schreiber: That is why I think Mr. Rapp is proposing to relocate the lines! Commissioner Beecham: In relocating the lines over to Alma, between Alma and the tracks, basically, I do not now recall how many lines there are, but there is a set of towers holding up the lines as they go down. Would it be a similar configuration, or would there would be single poles or fewer lines in the new configuration? Mr. Schreiber: I do not have any specific information on the configuration. Certainly, if the project goes forward, a very notable issue in terms of both the staff analysis and in the environmental assessment would be the relocation of the lines. You have a whole variety of issues, not the least of which is the visual impact of swinging those lines over Alma and down that side. Right now, you have a somewhat natural landscape buffer on that side of Alma and the tracks. I am not sure how much of that would be lost. That type of visual analysis certainly would have to be done, as well as a technical analysis. Commissioner Cassel: Another question on that issue. Could you not run a more attractive line down that same alley? What we have now is a fairly large line that starts quite far apart on one end and comes closer together. There is a smaller pole, and it puts the lines closer together as it moves down the line towards the station itself. This is a substation on this end, and the lines are actually spread farther apart on this end than on the other end. There are the other kinds of attractive poles out. Mr. Schreiber: I don’t believe it is an issue of attractiveness within the alley. You may wish to direct that question to the applicant, because I believe he has some very specific reasons for wanting to relocate those lines. Commissioner Cassel: It is now a double pole. Mr. Rapp: Yes, there are three lines going down the alley. They run for three-and-a-half blocks. It was brought to my attention in one of my first meetings with the utilities department that Web TV was leasing space out on Embarcadero, and they actually had to break the lease because they were underneath one of their lines. Their CRT screens would flicker. In building a building like this, you cannot have these lines right next to the office space. We really would not want the liability. That is what makes this site bad for housing. That is why I think this is a great public benefit. I really feel that farther south of this project, you are going to see more and more housing and the fact that we are taking out these lines for three-and-a-half blocks, moving them over to Alma Street on the A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 59 08-13-97 railroad track side. It will be one pole, as you describe, with three lines coming off the pole. We are trying to find a nice, attractive pole. We are working on that. The reason why there are two poles in the alleyway is mostly for safety. Cars going through the alleyway could whack one, and the pole could fall and hit a building and start a fire. That is why they have two poles. In a second meeting with Utilities, they are saying they would like to have the lines out of the alleyway because it is easier to work on them. There would be fewer poles to maintain, etc. Commissioner Ojakian: Would staff like to comment on the list of public benefits that some of us received today which are different from what is in the staff report? Mr. Schreiber: The list I am working from is the information that I believe was FAXed to you. It is somewhat similar to the staff report, but you are right, there are some differences. The applicant has talked about the parking garage and the fact that there would be, by code, six more spaces. They are proposing to provide valet parking at the lower level, which increases the parking by 39 spaces. Then, their hope is that the actual use of the parking garage by tenants will be less than the four per thousand. At this point in time, from staff’s standpoint, this is still a rather speculative public benefit. The first speculation is that the actual use of the building will not take up all of the parking. The second is that a mechanism can be found to integrate public parking, valet parking, etc., with the private parking on the site. A lot of tenants do not really want to have public parking and private parking intermixed. We have seen that at the Plaza Ramona project where the tenant, Digital Equipment, had concerns about security, etc., with the mix of public and private parking. So we would need a lot more detail in terms of how that would actually work. The contribution toward the proposed underground pedestrian tunnel is $100,000. The next step in that process is to do a feasibility study and to have a city decision made as to whether there is even any interest in having an underground tunnel. I know there is interest, but that is interest based on limited technical information and very limited cost information. As part of the PAMF/SOFA area plan, we will be engaging the services of a civil engineer and others to do a much more thorough analysis of that concept. My sense is that the $100,000 will be a relatively small amount toward the total construction costs. It could easily be a million-and-a-half or more. Regarding providing startup funding for a downtown traffic manager CalTrain bicycle A:IPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 60 08-13-97 program, $100,000, when Mr. Rapp and his team and I talked earlier this week, I told him that I didn’t think that providing startup funding for a program that did not have funding at the present time, in my mind, was that good of a public benefit. If there were a way for them to come up with funding for an ongoing funding program, that would be more intriguing. One of the concerns that we would have is that a startup program of one year or one-and-a-half years, or so, just sort of gets going with TDM. You need an awful lot of startup time to get that type of program up and running, then get the word out, and then the program would disappear. Regarding the art program, $50,000, would be a public benefit. We have talked about the relocation of the 60 kva line, the transmission line. From staff’s standpoint, there is a variety of technical and financial issues related to that, as I have indicated, not the least of which is the visual impact on Alma Street in terms of potential loss of vegetation, as well as the lines out close to the public right-of-way. The next on the list is "Incorporating into its site design many public amenities, such as an open air plaza, extensive landscaping, seating, street lighting, an integrated unit paved sidewalk system, street t~ees on both sides of High Street, widening of the alley behind the building." Really, all of that, with the possible exception of widening the alley, is work that would be expected as part of a project like this. It is site-improvement type work. We have generally not placed much public benefit value on these types of work. Last on the list are the 16 live/work spaces. As we indicated in the staff report, while housing is certainly valuable, this is a notably smaller amount of housing than the zoning allows. I think it can be considered to be a public benefit, but I am not sure that it is an overwhelming public benefit. Commissioner Bialson: How could we ensure enforcement of the representations made tonight about the parking availability for the public during the day and at night? Does the PC mechanism assure us of that? Ms. Cauble: There are a couple of elements involved. If this project were to go forward and be approved with a component that involved some amount of parking to be available to the public, then certainly, a condition of the PC zoning would require that a certain number of spaces be available. Going hand in hand with that, the commission and council would want to be sure that the design of the parking lent itself to ensuring that the public would have access at the hours you expected. Ken mentioned the Digital building, so there needs to be two things that go hand in hand. It needs to be designed in a way that A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 6 t 08-13-97 the public realistically can use it so that our condition is not a hollow condition. And then we would have a condition to implement it. Mr. Schreiber: To add onto that, the essence of that is that we would need both a physical plan and an operational plan that would show how that could work over an extended period of time and how it would be enforced by the property owner. At this point in time, we do not have any of that. That certainly raises our concern about the viability of that proposal. We know that in providing a mix of public and private parking, in using code- required private parking for public purposes, probably "the devil is in the details" on that in terms of, again, both physically and operationally. Having a private garage used for underground parking during the evening, for example, or for employees involves an awful lot of operational issues that need to be thought through by the applicant. What we would need is a clear, detailed proposal as to how it would actually work, rather than the general concept we have had thus far. Commissioner Bialson: But it would seem like it is doable, from what you are saying. Mr. Schreiber: I think it is doable. I think it would probably be something that, to every extent possible, should be self-enforcing in some way or another. If you got down to the point in the future where it was not working, then no matter what you said in the PC zone, it probably would be very difficult for the city to come in and try to enforce a mix of parking during the day and force someone to leave a parking garage open at night. Leaving it open at night is not going to accomplish a whole lot unless it is left open in a manner that people feel is a safe manner, with adequate access through elevator access or stairwell access, etc. People need to feel comfortable with it. In this building, we have had our history of making changes to try and encourage the public to use the parking under City Hall. The cleaning of it, the painting of it, etc., are all part of that effort to try and make people feel comfortable. Most people are uncomfortable with underground parking in the evening. So you have to have some strategies, some plans, some things you are going to do on an ongoing basis, not just at the beginning of the project, but year after year after year, to make sure that that parking would be used in that way, once it is made available. Commissioner Beecham: Can you advise us of your forecast on changing Channing and Homer to two-way streets? Mr. Schreiber: It is certainly something that staff wants to pursue in the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. We think there are a lot of benefits to restoring the two-way traffic on both streets. Personally, I think it is an action that is consistent with restoring A :lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 62 08-13-97 the fabric of the neighborhood as the medical foundation leaves that area. As new, predominantly residential uses take over that land, the one-way streets become less and less consistent with having a neighborhood. At the same time, I don’t want to underestimate some of the problems. It would be a significant change, and sometimes, people do not care to undergo change even if the existing situation is less than desirable. I would see that issue as being worked out through the Coordinated Area Plan process. My hope would be that we will end up with two-way streets. Vice Chair Byrd: If there are no further questions for staff, let’s bring this to our discussion. We have a process issue tonight in front of us that we can only answer by reference to substance. Staff has recommended denial and that the project go straight to council based on the size of the project, its mix of uses and its public benefit package. What I would like us to consider in our comments is whether we could speak to the process issue, as that is what is in front of us, and do that by reference to the substance about how we feel about the project, staying focused on the task in front of us, which is to decide where this thing goes next. Commissioner Cassel: I am not sure where I want it to go, so I am interested in other people’s comments. There is an issue or two that I think we need to consider as we put this together. One of the unique things about this site is the substation. It does put some constraints on what can go on this site and what happens to it. They really cannot build a building with those high tension lines there. There are some distance rules between a high tension substation such as this and habitable space. I do not know exactly what those numbers are. I presume they have checked that out. When the noise issues on the present site go away o- and it is quite noisy -- I was over there last night walking around with some friends who live in that general area. There was a great deal of noise from very large trucks going in and out of the site. We were there in the evening, after 7 p.m., so it was not during normal business hours. When that noise goes, our staff report indicates that we will then hear the noise of the substation, which is why I asked the question. One of the notable things last night was that the new transformers did not make anywhere near the amount of noise that the old one did. We have this strange report that indicates that once we take the noise out of the site from the Peninsula Creamery, it becomes the responsibility of the people who put up the new site to buffer the noise from the city’s transformer. They clearly cannot put something on the site until they deal with the noise issue. If they put something up that is taller, it will buffer the noise into the neighborhood. So this is something that should be addressed when the EIA is done. That does make this site unique that other sites do not deal with, A:[PCMins7[Min0813.reg Page 63 08-13-97 so if we proceed with the project and you look at this site and you think about what the alternatives are, whatever goes in there is going to have to deal with this extra noise issue. It will limit what we can do with it. I think that is an issue that we have not talked about that I really wanted us to look at. Commissioner Beecham: Without saying anything about where I want to go, as I am as yet unsure, let me run through a couple of issues and give my feelings on them. One is the question of the study for SOFA and whether that should wait. Staff indicates that the study hopefully will be done in a year plus a few months. As we normally find, that is optimistic, but I hope it has a better ability to keep to a schedule than the Comprehensive Plan did. It is not a certain thing, in any case. I don’t think the prospect of having a SOFA Coordinated Area Plan implies a moratorium, so I do not see it as a reason to stop, however, it would certainly be very nice if we knew what the SOFA plan was to give us guidance here. Nonetheless, I don’t think we can say at this point that it is, in fact, a moratorium because it is coming down the pike. The biggest set of issues I feel involve the massiveness of this. That ties in with the using up of a fair amount of the downtown cap, as well as consolidating parcels. Those are large issues. The applicant offers to balance them by public benefits, as listed in the revised FAX that we received today. ! have a lot of concems about those public benefits and whether they really work. The primary potential public benefit is providing an extra 100 spaces that would truly be useful for the neighborhood. We did meet last Friday and talked in some detail about those, and I do have a lot of concern as to whether that is really practical. Those concerns echo a lot of what Ken said earlier. One benefit would be if the parking could be used by the restaurants a little closer to downtown where there is a real parking problem, and it does impinge on the residents in that area. My personal opinion is that that is just a little too far away. I think that for people who would use it even if using a valet service, they probably don’t mind leaving it with the valet as they walk into the restaurant, but then, if they have a 10-minute wait to get it back, I think that would prove to be unworkable for them. But at the moment, I am willing to be an optimist in that there may be some ways to work that out, but I have a lot of reservations about that at this point. Regarding the other public benefits, funding the downtown traffic manager, I understand what Ken says about paying money to start something but there is no continuation of it. That also goes with the valet parking, as well. I don’t know how that would guarantee to be funded in the long run. Offering funding for the tunnel to the medical foundation is a great idea. I give that about A:IPCMins71Min0813oreg Page 64 08-13-97 a 50% or less probability of its really happening. I would hope that the applicant could guarantee that that money is available even if the tunnel does not go through. On the 60 kva transmission lines, at this point, it is a toss-up on how much of a public benefit that is. Certainly, I can understand that it is very necessary for the project as proposed. There would be some benefit to the people who now live on the alleyway, and there is more residential as you get closer to Embarcadero, but until we find out what it would look like on Alma, we do not know what the balance is in terms of those aesthetics. The alleyway is probably inherent in doing the project, and the primary beneficiary is the project itself, so I do not see a lot of benefit to the city, but it certainly is a nice thing to do. The 16 live/work spaces I feel is a public benefit. Yes, it is less than what could be allowed by the zoning, but the zoning is not RM in this location. It is CS, so there is no guarantee whatsoever that what would go in here would be any kind of residential, so I do see that as a public benefit, and also the BMR is a benefit, as that also would not happen. So that is where I am at the moment. Commissioner Schmidt: I also am unsure where I want it to go, either. I would agree with a lot of Bem’s comments about the public benefits. They are intriguing. The idea of providing good parking in that part of town is a great idea. If it works, it would be an excellent benefit. I want to address a bit the size and the mix of uses there. I do think that the size is compatible in that location. It is a large use. I think that is a part of town that has some other large uses, other large buildings that set a tone. This building is larger, but the storage building catty-comer across on Homer is a building of that height, with no windows, just a large, blocky building that was remodeled from board-form concrete to an attractive building that anchors the comer and is part of the active life on that street. The new SRO going in not far away is another large building. A lot of the other buildings there were former auto dealers were essentially large spaces. They are not the small, downtown fagades that we have on University Avenue. So I think this building’s use is appropriate, and the/architecture is going a long way to make a wonderful, much smaller scale, articulated street fagade. It would really enliven the street in a part of the city that has essentially nothing going on there fight now of any pedestrian vitality at all. It is also reasonable to take that percentage of the cap in this location. We have seen over A:lPCMins7lMin0813.reg Page 65 08-13-97 the last eleven years that only small pieces of the cap have been used. They have been used on University Avenue, and it has been pointed out that there isn’t much space for additional parking down there. This puts a big chunk of that cap where they can provide parking, and it has been noted that this actually provides all parking on site that is required by the floor area. So putting it in this location, providing the parking, and using up that percentage of the cap is a reasonable thing to do. .Commissioner Bialson: I am generally in favor of the project’s being handled in a manner that the project developer would like, that is, refer it to the Architectural Review Board. I do see a problem with the public benefits not being as greatas I would like to see. I do agree with Ken that there is a problem with ensuring that the parking, which we all have been somewhat impressed by and a lot of the speakers have used as the reason why they feel there is sufficient public benefit, just may evaporate before our very eyes as this project is operated. I do think the scale is understandable, given the existence of the substation right behind it. I think the moving of the power lines can be accomplished in a sensitive way, perhaps to enhance the Alma Street prospect we have now, which does have some natural screening, but those trees could be made to look a little nicer. Perhaps that is where the project could place some of the trees that they are proposing to put on High Street. I do think there is some problem with the bulbouts that are being proposed. The existence of street trees on the street may not be workable. I do not feel strongly one way or the other, but instead, am somewhat conflicted on this project, as the rest of the commission seems to be. I am bending towards the side of referring this on to the ARB. Commissioner Ojakian: With everyone else having covered several points, I will be a little more to the point. My feeling is that this should go on to the council. In looking at this project, it sort of reflected back on when we had a project a little earlier this year at 525 University Avenue, and that particular project, though it got some support from the Planning Commission, when it when to the council, it didn’t have support. The main thing ! remember from that project is Mayor Joe Huber speaking more in his role as a member of that downtown study that was done in 1986, emphasizing the fact that in the downtown area, the intent for the square footage was not to concentrate it at particular sites. That was the basis for his vote and the votes of several other council members at that time. So I guess to me, this is a policy question. I think the staffhas made the right interpretation, and I am more comfortable in sending it on to council and having them confirm what they have said before again before the process keeps going on. That is a A:lPCMins71Min08 ! 3.reg Page 66 08-13-97 detriment to all parties concerned, although I think Mr. Rapp does not feel that way. Having said that, just a couple of other quick comments. I have nothing but the highest regard for the applicant in this case. He has proven in the past that he does bring good projects to the city. A good example of that is the one that we had awhile back for 99 University Avenue which turned out to be, at least in terms of design, a very well developed project, and one that I was happy to support at the time, and one that turned out just the way I hoped it would. I am intrigued by the architect. I think he hs done a great job here. Obviously, he is an experienced, seasoned person in our processes, and he has done a good job of trying to put a structure in that fits into the area that it is in. Just like Commissioner Beecham and maybe Commissioner Bialson, I have some concerns about the public benefit. If this project were to go forward, which is not to downplay several of the aspects that are in there, I am one of those people who off the record has talked very supportively about having some sort of a traffic coordinator in the downtown as part of a piece in a larger puzzle to deal with our whole traffic and parking issues. In terms of looking at parking, I think if that ends up being an aspect of this project if this project goes forward, that will end up being a benefit more to the businesses that are off going into the downtown, but less so to the neighborhood, in my opinion, especially as you get into the evening hours. Since this is my neighborhood and I have lived in it 21 years, I pretty much know every square inch of it, and I travel it every day. The parking is a daytime phenomenon, basically a spillover from the downtown partly aggravated with the color zones that went in that parking isn’t an issue going around 4:30 or 5 o’clock. Mr. Ross could probably confirm that, since his business is sitting in that area. At 5 o’clock, pretty much all the cars disappear. On the weekends, they are pretty much not there. For somebody who travels the area every day, I can tell you that is, in fact, a fact. So those are my comments. I am more comfortable sending it on to council. I think the staffhas done the right thing in identifying what is the overriding policy issue, and I think they have done that, knowing some of the history of past policy making and realize that that is the best route to go. Commissioner Cassel: There are two other issues that I think need to be discussed. One is the two-way road on High Street, which this project is dependent upon with its entry into the parking. That is an issue we have not really discussed, and it might be an issue better discussed at the City Council. The other issue is this inverted building. We have approximately 35% of the site coverage, which is what we normally cover on a site. It is approximately 80 to 90% of the site covered if you look up or from the top down. I like A:[PCMins71Min0813.reg Page 67 08-13-97 this building. I find it exciting, although I have a sense of wanting to shrink it about 10% on a Xerox machine. That is not a lot, just a little bit. I like the feeling of looking through it, but I am concerned about the light that Kathy is concerned about. I find that it shields the noise into the neighborhood, but it really is a major decision to make a change in the shift of the street. The inverted building means that we have to find this building satisfactory in such a way that the next developer who comes in doesn’t say, "Aha, I have solved the problem of 3 5% site coverage by inverting the building and putting it upside down." That is a policy issue, and I have not come totally to grips with that, and am wondering how others feel about it. MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I agree with what Vic said in terms of passing this on to the council. In other circumstances I probably would, but in this case, I will move to pass it on to the ARB for several reasons. One, I think the applicant should know my opinion of whether or not I would approve the project as written. I would not. I have great concerns, as I mentioned, about the public benefits, etc. But having it go on to the ARB will give us the environmental assessment, which makes for further consideration. Also, as the applicant indicated, it would give him more time to further develop the public benefits which are not adequate, I feel. Also, I would certainly hope he could find ways to reduce the current massiveness of the building. The third floor is now set back, which does help some. The first story now is quite tall, so even though on the streetscape, it is only two floors, it is still pretty large. Then on the ends, you have the full buildings, for the most part. Also, as I indicated before to the applicant, I do not especially like the architecture. In my opinion, it is not harmonious, but that is one person’s opinion at this point. Also the other reason why I am making this motion is that the applicant desires it. If I were in his shoes, I probably would want to go to the council and find out their opinion, however, the applicant is willing to fund the environmental assessment, which will help us in our final decision making. That is why I am making the motion. SECOND: By Commissioner Bialson. Vice Chair Byrd: There is a motion and second to send this project on to the ARB for further review. Bern, do you have anything further to add? Commissioner Beecham: No, except to check in with our staff counsel that in fact, this is the correct motion to make if we wanted to, since you have to go back and do your EA, A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 68 08-13-97 etc. Ms. Cauble: Yes. Vice Chair,,,,, Byrd: Are there other comments? Commissioner Schmidt: I will support the motion primarily because the applicant wants to go on to the ARB. I, too, would tend to go to the City Council at this point, but if the applicant wants to go on to the ARB, that will indeed give us more information through the environmental assessment. Therefore, the council will ultimately have more information. I want to commend the applicant for several things. First, for having been proactive with the neighbors. The neighbors have noted and appreciated that, and it is something we have asked for repeatedly on projects. Those applicants who have not talked with neighbors before hand have run into significant road blocks. I would also like to commend the architectural design of the project. It is rare to hear members of the public commenting on the design and saying that it is something new and different. I will add the comment I often add that it is not Spanish. We have had project after project and apparently, most developers think that it must be a pseudo-Spanish or Mediterranean style in order to pass through all of our processes. I personally disagree with that. I like to see some variety, and it is nice to hear that the public likes to see some variety. They have an excellent architect involved, and I know this will continue to be a better building as it goes on. I would like to see a few more residential units in the project, if possible. I think that more in this location would be better. Also, we have already mentioned the idea of waiting for the SOFA study. I agree with what Bern said earlier, and that was also brought up with the SRO project when it was said, in that case, that we didn’t feel that we needed to wait for the Coordinated Area Plan. I would still agree that we do not need to wait for it. The process should go on, as we do not know how long it will take to complete the SOFA study even though there is a target set for it. The last small comment I would like to make is to thank the applicant for supplying small drawings instead of the large sets of drawings that we usually get. It is better for the environment and easier for everyone to manage. Commissioner Cassel: I think everything has been said. A:lPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 69 08-13-97 Vice Chair Byrd: I, too, will support the motion. I believe this project should proceed to the Architectural Review Board. I was especially impressed by the comments of the representative from the neighborhood group who clearly stated that they were neither in support of nor opposed to the project, and they did think that the process was constructive. I think that is important. I think it will perhaps inform the Coordinated Area Plan process if this process is allowed to play out for a time, and see where it goes. It could establish a healthy, working precedent for that. I do not think it is appropriate to hold one project, even a large one, hostage to a process that is not yet under way. Despite our best intentions, it may not go as quickly as we hope. Having said that, on the public benefit package, I hope that the applicant can go back and sharpen the pencil on the contribution to the tunnel. There may be technical challenges in the future, but we need that tunnel, and we will never solve the technical challenges if we don’t have the money. I, too, would like to see more housing in the project. In addition, I would like to see a mix of unit types. I think the project could accommodate some one- perhaps even some two-bedroom units. I realize that that presents parking challenges, and there may be a way to work with the applicant to resolve those parking challenges. I think the more variety we have in the housing unit type, the more of a public benefit providing that rental becomes. I see the rationale behind Vic’s comment that if it were he, he would like to go to council right now. I think if it were me, I would, too. But if the applicant wants to keep going down this road and the neighborhood wants to work with him, that is the process we have in place, and that is what I think should play out. MOTION PASSES: Vice Chair Byrd: Seeing no further comments, we have a motion by Commissioner Beecham, seconded by Commissioner Bialson, to recommend that the project continue on for review to the Architectural Review Board. All in favor, say aye. All opposed? That passes on a vote of 5-1 with Commissioner Ojakian opposed and Chairman Schink not participating. Thank you all for your participation in this item. Does staff have any further comments? Mr. Schreiber: Only to observe, since we usually indicate something about schedule at this point in the discussion, that at this time, staff does not have an idea as to when this will go to the ARB. Staff has not yet decided whether this project will need an environmental impact report or can be accomplished with a negative declaration. There are a variety of technical issues involving utilities and other parts of the city organization that we need to work with. At a minimum, we will be bringing on an environmental consultant to assist in the environmental evaluation. So it certainly will not be going to A:IPCMins71Min0813.reg Page 70 08-13-97 the ARB for the next couple of months. We will just have to sort out in the next few weeks the nature of the environmental process that we will need to follow on this. Commissioner Cassel: I want to express appreciation for the work done by staff. I can understand why they made the decision they made, and why it came to us the way it did. I think this debate is important to be held. A:]PCMins71Min0813.reg Page 71 08-13-97 Attachment J CITY COUNCIL MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 AND BROADCAST ON KZSU, 90~1 FM. Special Meeting May 26, 1998 Interviews for Historic Resources Board ......86-307 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 6:58 p.m ...... ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ................... 86-307 86-308 Contract between the City of Palo Alto and O’Grady Paving Inc. For the 1998 Street Resurfacing Program ...... 86-308 Second Amendment to Agency Agreement for a Countywide AB939 Implementation Fee ................. 86-308 Contract between the City of Pa!o Alto and Casto Roofing, Inc. For the Mitchell Park Recreation Center and Mitchell Park Library Re-Roof Project - CIP 19514 ........ 86-308 Amendment No. 1 to Lease between City of Palo Alto and Friends of the Children’s Theatre for Phase 2 of the Project to Improve the Theatre ................ 86-308 Evaluation of Proposal to Establish an Advisory Body for the Libraries ..................... 86-308 o PUBLIC HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Development Project Preliminary Review Application (Prescreening) for a proposed zone change for property !ocated at 800 High Street from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) District to the Planned Community (PC) Zone ................ 86-313 o Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $650,000 for Capital Improvement Project 19406, Rinconada Pool Site Improvements ...... 86-327 Mayor Rosenbaum and Council Members Eakins and Wheeler re Proposed Delay of Historic Ordinance and Related Directions to Staff ....................... 86-331 05/26/98 86-305 Mayor Huber re Cancellation of the Monday, June I, 1998, City Council Meeting .................. 86-341 ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m .....86-341 05/26/98 86-306 .energy and need for such a~ bo~y would dictate the longevity o~ its ~stence. / Coun.~il Member Eakins said it would be appropriate fo~r/a library commi~on to focus on policy and long-range plannin~4~it would be appropriate, but she questioned having the Library Commission responsive for raising funds since none of the/6ther commissions were given~he same charge. A "reaccreditatio/~condition," rather th_an a suns~lause, much like universities//and colleges had, was a better prec~ent established for boards/~nd commissions but not required by la~ There had to be a ~t~ting place. The Library Commission was n~being singled oust was a beginning point. / Council Member Whee~r asked whe~er a mandatory review would beacceptable rather thane suns~/clause. back of duct some type of review~ -~-~" " by rary the ; 2) e to able number~meetings of the Commission each ye~ d to o~ boards and commissions.~OTION AS AMENDED PASSED 9-0.~ o PUBLIC ..HEARING: The Palo Alto City Council will consider a Development Project Preliminary Review Application (Prescreening) for a proposed zone change for property located at 800 High Street from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) District to the Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48 foot high, three-story mixed use building including 16 live/work studios, 62,000 square feet of office space, 1,450 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements. (Continued from May 4, 1998) Zoning Administrator Lisa Grote said, in addition to the project description contained in the staff report (CMR:209:98), the applicant proposed to combine the three existing parcels on the site into one parcel. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the project would be approximately 2:1 and two levels of subterranean parking would be provided in addition to 30 parking spaces at grade on the 05/26/98 86-313 site. The public benefit for the proposal currently included the potential relocation of the high tension wires running along the alley behind the site, monetary contributions to improvements including the public park area and the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan (CAP) area, a Downtown traffic manager, a potential art piece in the plaza, and pedestrian tunne! contributions linking the new PAMF site with Alma Street. The applicant proposed a reduction in the parking rate allocating 68 parking spaces for public use. Staff had encouraged the applicant to apply for the pre-screening because of the proposed concentration of square footage in one location, since the urban design element of the Comprehensive Plan called for greater distribution and discouraged single uses from being located in just one area. In addition, a number of proposed housing units failed to meet minimum allowances under the existing Zoning Ordinance. Only 16 housing units were proposed, but 24 could be provided under the existing zoning, a proposal which would not encourage affordable housing called for in the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission Chairperson Bern Beecham said the Planning Commission had recommended passing the application on to the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for review but not approval. Half of the Planning Commissioners at the meeting did not approve the application as presented. Regarding the. issues raised by staff, the Planning Commission thought the proposal might fit into the neighborhood. Staff had expressed concern the project would use up to 16 percent of the remaining Downtown FAR limit, but the Planning Commission had not seen any specific prohibition against doing so. The Planning Commission was satisfied with the amount of housing proposed for the project, although a few Commissioners indicated the desire for more housing. The Planning Commission agreed with staff on the issue of public benefit, particularly making parking available for the public. The applicant had discussed making valet parking available for Downtown restaurants, but the Planning Commission considered the plan unrealistic and unworkable. The Planning Commission thought moving high voltage lines to Alma Street might not be a benefit to the general public, although desirable for the project. The remaining benefits, primarily financial, were considered inadequate for the project as presented. Council Member Mossar disclosed having followed the project for over a year, had met with Roxy Rapp on several occasions, and more recently had a conversation with Ken Alsman and Steve Player about the project. She lived reasonably close to the project and had an intimate knowledge of the current use at the site. She asked whether staff had evaluated existing conditions, such as the lack of parking and the fact the current use encouraged large vehicles in an area the infrastructure could not support. She also asked whether staff had considered an alternate use because of the problems with the current use. 05/26/98 86-314 Ms. Grote said the primary analysis had been compared to what could be built on the site, recognizing that whatever currently existed on the site would eventually disappear and be redeveloped in some manner. The comparison had been to what existing zoning would allow rather than the existing use. Council Member Mossar said she asked whether any broad-brush economic analysis had been done about the feasibility of building 38 units and what the present zoning would actually yield. Ms. Grote said the reference to 38 units had been if the entire site was residentia! without an office or retail component. The 24 units related to a mixed-use project. No economic analysis had been conducted of the project. Council Member Mossar asked whether it was possible to built a specific number of housing units, although no guarantee existed for that to occur, given the right set of economics and the right zoning on the .96 acre lot. Ms. Grote replied yes. Council Member Mossar said one of the proposed benefits was partial funding for a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program Downtown. She asked whether it was legally possible for the Council to condition all new development projects from that point forward to pay into a fund to support such a service and whether it could be extended to include the other train station on California Avenue. City Attorney Ariel Calonne replied yes, but a number of steps would be necessary to develop and support such an impact fee, beginning with good Comprehensive Plan pblicies, a study to demonstrate how such a development contributed, i.e., traffic demand. A coordinating position would be a rationally connected mitigation for the impact being created. It was not a condition easily incorporated but would take a substantial amount of thinking and work to put the prerequisites in place to support legally. Council Member Mossar asked whether it was logical to say that one project would contribute when others in a similar area might not. Mr. Calonne had, for many years, advised caution in terms of how public benefits were used and considered in connection with specific applications and the extent of Council’s. authority with respect to conditioning a planned community (PC) zoning district. PC zones were not set up in the ordinance as a mitigation or as an offset. No formula could be used to balance the amount of square footage being sought with the amount of public benefit. The ordinance was designed to ensure public benefit initially through the qualities of the site design that the relaxation or change of development standards was necessary in order to provide unusual 05/26/98 86-315 intrinsic benefit on the site. Having established some intrinsic benefit existed in the difference in development standards proposed by a PC as opposed to standard zoning; nothing could stop an applicant from proposing additional benefits. He became concerned when the applicant’s proposal turned into what was perceived as a negotiation or tradeoff. A case currently pending in the California Supreme Court in some respects bore out his worst fears about PC zoning potential. The case involved a somewhat similar situation in San Francisco where, unfortunately, a very clear record had been made. If not for the applicant’s reluctance to "contribute" $600,000 for replacement housing, the application would have been approved. No rea! guidance could be given on the logic, but the ad hoc conditioning process was not what the PC zoning process was about. PC zoning was about achieving an intrinsically better project than could be achieved under the development standards. After that was achieved, nothing could stop an applicant from proposing additional benefits. However, it was not a negotiation or quid pro quo, as the ordinance was written. Vice Mayor Schneider asked whether the current application was only the second time the prescreening process had been used. Ms. Grote replied yes. Vice Mayor Schneider said even though the PAMF/SOFA CAP was currently under review, the City was still able to use prescreening. Ms. Grote replied yes. The Council was not making a decision but providing comment and general direction to the applicant. Council Member Kniss asked whether the FAR was consistent with something the City had already discussed doing, as referenced in the staff report (CMR:250:98) which mentioned preliminary "CAP develop scenario," but which she thought was not where the City actually was at the current time. Ms. Grote said the staff report (CMR:250:98) summarized the preliminary information from the PAMF/SOFA study. Council Member Kniss asked about the process at the current time. Senior Planner Brian Dolan said staff had recently presented the Council with a mid-point report on the PAMF/SOFA study. Since that time, staff had attempted to come up with one plan incorporating the best elements of the three scenarios presented by the working group as well as the Counci!’s comments voiced that evening. Staff would take the compilation back to the working group on June 4, 1998. Staff had hesitated making the comparison but thought the prescreening should not go by without at least providing a preliminary view of the direction towards which the plan was evolving. 05/26/98 86-316 Council Member Kniss asked about the proposed FAR which, given the current FAR of .4, was five times greater. Mr. Dolan said the current commercial FAR was .4, but additional residential FAR would be allowed as an additive, i.e., in addition to the .4 commercial FAR, either .6 or 1.0 additional residential would be.provided, if it could work. No applications for such development had been presented. The only applications for the area were PC applications. Staff was under the impression that the current usage was not necessarily working. Council Member Kniss thought examining the financial aspects of a project was not under the City’s purview or charge. Ms. Grote said Council Member Kniss was correct. would not conduct a financial analysis. Staff typically Council Member Kniss said frequently developers would claim a project would not "pencil out" unless the City had done so, however, it was not a Council issue. Council Member Eakins had received a telephone call late that afternoon from someone comparing the size of the proposa! to City Hall, claiming City Hall was the same size as the proposal. She asked about the square footage of City Hall. Mayor Rosenbaum said City Hall was eight stories times 8,000 square feet per floor, not including the Police building. Council Member Fazzino said Mr. Beecham had alluded to a discussion of the Planning Commission regarding the fact the proposal, if approved, would constitute a large percentage of the total square footage allowed under the Downtown cap. He asked for the pros and cons of doing so. The building would have significant impacts, but since the Planning Commission was concerned about incrementalism, he asked about allowing growth to be concentrated in a few projects as oppssed to a more wide-spread disbursement. The issue had been important in the Stanford Research Park over the past few years because of the resultant significant traffic problems in the area. Mr. Beecham thought the answer could be found in Council Member Fazzino’.s example of the Stanford Research Park. Allowing 5,000 square feet on one parcel would cause large problems for the surrounding facilities such as inadequate parking and not fitting in. A large project could be built where other larger buildings were located. Whether the percentage was 16 or any other number might be less important than whether or not the project matched with the proposed site. Council Member Wheeler asked about the parking element of the public benefit package. The applicant had suggested a public benefit of daytime use of 68 parking spaces as a public use, i.e., 05/26/98 86-317 set aside for people employed in other businesses off the site but in the vicinity by under-parking the facility itself. She asked what staff saw as the potential problems in doing so or how the City could enforce such parking as promised. Ms. Grote said other PC zone projects had made a case for a reduced parking rate based on the unique configuration of uses within the building. A good deal of study would be necessary to verify such would occur as well as an analysis of other communities with similar characteristics as to how~it might work. A parking deficit already existed in the Downtown area. To under-park a site would take a great deal of justification in order to confidently say it would work. Some of the benefits stated by the applicant included close proximity to public transit, bus lines, Ca!Train station, other uses Downtown for more walking between sites, etc., but the issue would have to be studied and verified to ensure it transpired. Council Member Wheeler asked whether the City would be involved in operating the 68 spaces for public use. Ms. Grote said staff had not discussed such a process, and she anticipated staff would not be interested in doing so. Council Member Huber asked about the current FAR zoning of .4. Ms. Grote said current zoning was .4 for the commercial portion and an additional .6 was possible with residential. A mixed-use project could use a I:i FAR. Vice Mayor Schneider asked how many square feet remained in the Downtown cap. Ms. Grote thought approximately 250,000 square feet remained in the Downtown cap. Vice Mayor Schneider asked how many square feet the proposed project would use of the Downtown cap. Ms. Grote said the project would use 64,000 square feet. Mayor Rosenbaum asked whether staff wanted each Council Me ~mber to disclose contact with the applicant and whether the time allowed for the applicant, public, and rebutta! were the same as a formal application. Mr. Calonne said the time rules applied only when a public hearing was required by law. Prescreenings were treated as though the applicant was the underlying application so there.was no question about whether everyone had an opportunity to speak. The Council should disclose any contacts. The formality or detail of the current application was notably, different from other prescreenings 05/26/98 86-318 the Council had seen, and the Council was not required to respond in kind to the detai! presented, under ordinance. Mayor Rosenbaum disclosed a meeting with the applicant on the day of the flood. Council Member Ojakian disclosed a recent conversation with Ken Alsman about the project. While he was a Planning Commissioner, the application had first come through the City, at which time he had conversations with Mr. Peterson and Mr. Rapp. Council Member Kniss disclosed meetings with the applicant, Steve Player, and Bob Peterson. Council Member Huber disclosed meetings with a number of individuals including Mr. Rapp at Mr. Peterson’s office. Over time he had discussions or had been contacted by any number of people. Vice Mayor Schneider could not recall a specific discussion with the applicant about the project but had probably met with him. Council Member Wheeler disclosed meetings with the applicant, "Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Player, and phone conversations with Mr. Player and Mr. Alsman. Council Member Fazzino disclosed a meeting with the applicant, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Player, and discussions with several neighbors about the project over the prior few months. Council Member Eakins disclosed one meeting with Mr. Peterson and the applicant, a phone conversation with Mr.Alsman,and discussions with a number of neighbors. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Bob Peterson, Peterson Architects, 57 E1 Camino Real, Menlo Park, spoke about proposed changes made to the project since Council’s review pursuant to neighbors’ input: I) the overall height of the building had been reduced to 48 feet; 2) the setback had been changed along Channing to about 48 feet resulting in a low-scale pedestrian view; and 3) a change was considered in the materials on the uppsr level from a vertical zinc panel to a horizontal copper panel. The premise of the project was to establish a residential street, therefore, residential units had been proposed for the street level. Because of the limited amount of rental housing in Palo Alto, rental housing was proposed as a good transition builder to the surrounding neighborhood. The maximum number of residential units was proposed with a high quality level. Rental housing primarily failed in the past because of the inability to "pay its way." Without subsidized help from the Federal government or public agency, the element of office space had been included in the project as a subsidy to pay for the housing. 05/26/98 86-319 Charlie Shreck, of Roxy Rapp’s staff, spoke regarding the development process, the evaluation which was based on knowledge of Palo Alto, the existing conditions, surroundings, economic environment, meetings with the University South Neighborhood Group, and long discussions with the architect to establish a framework for the architectural vision. The first objective was the creation of rental housing and the second was to create a pedestrian- friendly environment by: I) minimizing the negative impacts, using the building to shield the new street scape from the electrical substation, put the housing on the ground floor to create vitality at the street level, and build housing that had succeeded in similar environments; and 2) using high-quality construction, adding width to the sidewalk, using interesting paving stone, planting trees along the street, adding a plaza as a gathering place for neighbors, and anchoring the project to the Homer Street shopping area. High quality materials would be used and underground parking provided, creating a rich, new environment, with the use of greatly needed office space in the project. Some contended offices would exacerbate traffic and parking problems already existing Downtown, however, the negative impacts associated with office were mitigated with the underground parking. Since the site was located close to a major traffic artery and away from the congested Downtown core, the traffic impacts were minimal. The project was located within walking distance to CalTrans. The office component allowed the project to supply surplus parking to neighbors and businesses currently lacking sufficient employee parking. Katherine Pering, 388 Everett Avenue, spoke in opposition to the proposal. The project was too large and would breach density and size zoning limits in the Downtown area. The developer was urged to revise the project to conform with existing zoning or the zoning developed by the SOFA CAP process. Mike Midolo, Channing Avenue, referenced and supported the letter from Tina Peak of May 24, 1998, in opposition to the proposed project as not fitting in with the neighborhood and would result in increased noise, pollution, and traffic. Housing densities should not be allowed to increase in the area. The Council was urged to represent the neighbors in protecting the neighborhood from the excessive development. Meyer Scher, 939 University Avenue, spoke in support of Roxy Rapp’s projects which were a credit to Palo Alto. The neighbors should be thankful for Mr. Rapp’s willingness to improve a "blighted" area. The Council was urged to allow Mr. Rapp to make the City more beautiful with the proposed project. Ken Alsman, 1057 Ramona Street, spoke in support of the project as being the right thing to do with the area which supported the philosophy of the Comprehensive Plan. Appropriately located for a mixed-use, the project was near transit, less traffic than other 05/26/98 86-320 areas, would create a funenvironment, and most importantly would provide more parking. Peter Lockhart, 405 Olive Avenue, spoke about how the spirit of the builder made the difference in a project. As a persona! friend, Roxy Rapp had proven himself to be a quality person who would provide a quality project. Kris Biorn, [no address given], spoke about the need for the site to be rejuvenated. The proposed project blended well in a difficult area and would be engaging for pedestrians. The project would also provide a great benefit to the neighborhood with the additional parking. Steve W. Player, 1874 Guinda Street, representative of the Peninsula Creamery, current owner of the property under question, spoke of the Creamery’s responsible citizenship in the community since 1923 in its operations. The Creamery had made the serious decision to cease operations at the site, taking into consideration the impact on surrounding property owners. Support was given to the proposed project as being of a very high quality. Property owners immediately adjacent to the property were I00 percen~ in favor of the project. The City was urged to encourage debate at an early stage and carefully read the most- recent project summary. Areas best suited for higher intensity usage were areas in closer proximity to public transportation, which the project represented. Council Member Ojakian asked about the current use on the site. Mr. Player said currently a refrigeration plant and distribution center was located on the site. Marcus Wood, 196 Colorado Avenue, spoke in support of the project which was of an appropriate scale and location. The building would act as a sound barrier against the trains, cutting noise at a cost less than freeway walls. Cleaning up the site and the addition of other public amenities made the project a good one for Palo Alto. Susan Stulz, 480 Palo Alto Avenue, spoke in support of the project because: I) the mixed use was appropriate for the site; 2) parking access, especially at night; 3) the plaza would be a good addition to the neighborhood; and 4) the architecture was different and attractive. Chris Schiebold, 480 Palo Alto Avenue, spoke about the need to ensure that the development over the next five years preserved the character of the area, i.e., distinct districts instead of one big Downtown area. The project was consistent with that philosophy, therefore, he supported the project. Yinka Bogdan-Salimone, Whole Foods Market, 774 Emerson Street, spoke in support of the project primarily because of the lack of 05/26/98 86-321 parking for Whole Foods employees in the area. The project would also provide beauty and walking and seating to the area. Cheri Ellison, 2447 High Street, spoke on behalf of her father, Buzz Ellison, and herself in support of the development. Although her father disliked change, if he could hand-pick one person to set the stage and tone of the development, it would be someone with the taste of Roxy Rapp. Palo Alto was fortunate that someone with his caliber had an interest and the wherewithal to place a project on the site to launch the area. The combination of residential and parking was favorable. Irvin David, 753 Alma Street, #126, spoke in favor of keeping the alley parallel to High and Alma Streets, behind Olsens and Palo Alto Hardware, for bicyclists. As Sierra Club Chairperson, he spoke regarding the parking problem and long-term solutions. An increase in the parking supply would solve the problem on a short- term basis. The City was encouraged to utilize a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) approach to the parking problem, taking the subsidy out of driving and making people pay for parking. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, spoke in support of "the design and construction of the proposed project and Mr. Rapp’s open communication with neighborhood groups. The nature of the SOFA area and the decision about a 2.0 FAR in the area was the Council’s burden. The idea of vitality and density without cars was positive. Although the project would provide parking, no permit parking in the neighborhood had been proposed and might result in more parking in the neighborhood. Additional employment would result in more demand for residential housing, schooling impacts, parking, etc. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. RECESS: 9:25 P.M. - 9:43 P.M. Council Member Eakins said much discussion had centered around the public benefit and PC zones, but a project should stand on its own. Public benefit should not sel! or defeat a project. The quandary with the proposed project was what density made sense on the site. The numbers could be argued but the important aspect was what made sense. The dilemma was the amount of parking, which made the City think the project was safe. To get into each parking space, however, a trip had to be made, i.e., trips were being attracted. The applicant had said two levels of parking was expensive, forcing the balance toward office rather than residential. She questioned whether so much parking was good idea. The project was complicated and contained contradictions. Council Member Mossar acknowledged the general problems impacting residents living closest to the area. The project attempted to address some of the problems. Parking was an issue. She was a 05/26/98 86-322 strong advocate of alternative transportation. Barring the City purchasing land and building parking structures, no one had come up with a plan or pathway to begin to solve the parking .problems in the commercial area. Currently, the only vehicle available for solving parking pr~Dlems was on a project-by-project basis. It was important to note that the way the regulations were written, if the City relied on the existing zoning, any new structures could have the parking deficit legally grandfathered into projects. Project after project ~had been developed in the area with inadequate pa.~ ~ing. Transition was a big issue. On one side was an R-I neighborhood. The area was very noisy, there was agreat deal of traffic and parking, and was visually incompatible. The connection from the residential areas to the Downtown area fromthe residents’ point of view was pedestrian and bicycle friendly. People presence because residents traveled to and from Downtown on foot and bicycle. Going through the commercial area as a pedestrian or on a bicycle was currently unpleasant. The existing commercia! use on the site was legal, as any number of commercial uses would be legal. Diesel trucks parked and ran engines for hours at a time during the night. Air pollution, particularly during the summer, could be unpleasant. The street infrastructure was unable to deal with the size of the trucks coming in and out of the project. ~he had been forced to back her vehicle to avoid being hit by one of the large trucks trying to turn a corner. The City had no leverage to disapprove a project because of the size of trucks serving it, but in the current case, it might have been appropriate. The project provided housing. Many people had expressed concern that although live/work units were included, there were no guarantees the units would be used as residences. There was concern about having more housing. She encouraged the developer to be clear with the community about the fact of whether or not more housing could be proposed. And if there could be, maybe there should be. She supported housing densities near transit, which the proposed site represented. The flip side was that if people could work near transit, they could also get to work by train and bus. The neighborhood was not described as low-density, but had a great dea! of housing tucked away in little places. No public gathering spaces were in that area, which the project recognized, the fact that PCs came with public benefits was highly contested and controversial. She shared the public’s concern about the PC and understood why it was being used more and more. In some areas, PCs were not working. Applications for projects were not being received using existing zoning, for which she hoped solutions would be forthcoming. The community had been approving projects where portions of funding for a package were approved for a PC, but there was no guarantee the result would ever be reached. Approval of funding for a TDM was no guarantee it would work. She was also concerned about issues of enforcement. Because a project was approved and a public benefit was declared, she was uncertain the City had a mechanism to track the project from beginning to end to ensure the benefit was built. The benefits as part of the approval process should actually be something the community could enjoy at 05/26/98 86-323 the end of the project. The concept in the proposed project had favorable benefits for the area. The issues the community had raised about density, scale, parking, and traffic were legitimate, it was possible to find a project that ultimately worked. It was critically important that the end project be compatible with the findings of the SOFA study. Council Member Wheeler said most of what she would have said had been expressed by the two previous speakers. Ms. Ellison had mentioned her father’s reluctance to change, but even Mr. Ellison saw that the neighborhood, particularly the site in question, could not remain status quo. No one thought the current use of the land was optimal. Clearly something would need to happen on the land. The question was whether the proposed project should occur. The project was attractively designed for the proposed uses and was well thought out from an architectural standpoint and from the standpoint-of interfacing with the various surrounding uses. ’She expressed concern about the parking situation. Currently, the neighborhood was underparked. In some respects, the proposal attempted to address the underparking issue. She was concerned about the proposa! because if the City was not careful about the way the reduction in the daytime parking requirement Was implemented, the result could be as bad as the current situation. The proposal to have additional public or employee parking provided by a private development was intriguing and should be examined further. It was unlikely the area would ever have the kind of landlord/tenant mix and base to form and support a public parking assessment district. Therefore, it was .worth considering a proposal by a private developer to address the need of employees and people visiting the district. She shared the concerns expressed by Council Member Eakins about the guarantee of the live/work space being used in that way. The City had not had in general much success in the area previously. One of the things that made the project attractive was the promise it held for providing some residential space which would weigh heavily in ultimate approva! of the project. Housing would be seen as a true benefit to the community, particularly rental housing. A problem would result if there was no way was provided to ensure the space was used for rental housing. The one caution with the residential component was that the City then had to be very careful about the nighttime uses of the property. Other mixed-use projects constructed in the Downtown, sooner or later, experienced problems with the people living in the project having difficulties with the surrounding active night life. The developer would need to consider such a problem.One of her major concerns with the project was the fact the City was at a juncture with the CAP process which would be presented to the Council by the end of summer or early fall, and she would not want the two to be separated. Courtesy was due the planning process in attempting to meld the time line of the project in with the deliberations. The project would be a good study~ for the committee to examine, since it concerned many of the same issues. An opportunity would be 05/26/98 86-324 given to the committee to see how some of the initial policy discussions it had related to mixed use penciled out in the real world. A decision might have to be made about the tradeoffs. The team who brought the project was thanked. She hoped the project could be folded into the CAP process. Council Member Kniss commended Mr. Rapp on coming forward with the project which was clearly appealing. She agreed the faGade was attractive. One of the areas in which she was particularly interested was the live/work issue, for which the City had not had a great track record to date. She asked how the units would actually be used, i.e., the kind of unit an artist would be interested in using, realistic for one to live and work, etc. Roxy Rapp said an actual legal document/lease would be presented requiring the renter to live on-site.If the renter failed to live on-site, the lease would be broken. Council Member Kniss asked how the lease would be enforced. Mr. Rapp said a property manager would be on-site, and neighbors would be able to indicate if a renter failed to live on-site." A legal document would indicate the requirement of living on the premises or the lease would be broken.- Nothing would require working on the site. Council Member Kniss asked how the project actually worked. Mr. Rapp said the downstairs area had a rear entry where cars could be parked and the front area had a porch. A kitchen, bathroom, and downstairs could be used as an office. The upstairs could be used as a living space. The opposite could also be done, using the downstairs as the living space and the upstairs as the office. Council Member Kniss asked whether the upstairs had any natural light. ~ Mr. Rapp said a window in the back opened. The ceiling was 18 feet with all glass in the front which allowed a great deal of light. Council Member Kniss asked whether anything in the Bay Area existed similar to the proposed project which had set a precedent. Steve Brown, co-worker on the project with Mr. Rapp, had lived in a live/work loft in San Francisco with his wife. Most residents were professionals with advertising businesses or services on the ground level, and they slept in the loft area. Many others just lived, not worked, in the units. Council Member Kniss asked the City Attorney whether such a legal document could be enforced. 05/26/98 86-325 Mr. Calonne replied yes. An ordinance could be written to require residential zoning uses; however, an application could not amend the PC, once approved. Council Member Kniss thought the mix was light on residential and heavy on office space. She would be far more favorable toward the. project if the mix was altered somewhat, particularly because of the City’s desire for more residentia! units in the area. Council Member Huber was not prepared to consider the project until the SOFA CAP process was completed. The cart was being put before the horse for any project coming through for the CAP. The CAP was the City’s first attempt and it should not try to jump ahead of the process. Once started, the process should be taken to its final course. The group could consider the project, but he would not be in a position of approving a project until the plan was completed. Vice Mayor Schneider said with only 250,000 square feet left in the Downtown cap, she was not troubled by the size of the proposed amount of square feet in the proposed project. However, the project was too big for the site and was overwhelming in relation to other buildings in the area, even though the SRO was large "and the office building with upstairs housing was nearby. She knew how successful such a mixed use had been in the City and any number of people had expressed the desire for a warehouse in which they could live with loft space. She was delighted with the type of housing but was overwhelmed by the size. Mr. Rapp clarified the Downtown cap had been established in 1984 at 350,000 square feet. Currently 54,576 square feet had been used, leaving 295,000 square feet. The proposed project would use 16 percent of the 295,000 square feet. He had been part of the committee involved in establishing the cap, and he had studied the area wel!. When considering where the 295,000 square feet could be placed in the Downtown area as a whole, University Avenue was already built out, Lytton Avenue was nearly built out, and Hamilton Avenue was close to being built out. The area in which the project was located was the area needing redevelopment. Council Member Fazzino liked the concept of housing, parking, economics, pedestrian oriented, and some of the public benefits of the project. He agreed with the concentration of additional square footage on one site as opposed to spreading it throughout Downtown. He was concerned about "creeping incrementalism" and the traffic, parking, and associated costs. He preferred concentrating greater growth on one site to control uses and impacts. The design was generally good. The site was the gateway to an area, and the design was critically important. One of the greatest mistakes in the City’s history occurred with the building at the corner of California Avenue and E1 Camino Real in 1983 which was~the gateway to California Avenue. He would not want to repeat the same mistake with other gateway projects. Suggested improvements for the 05/26/98 86-326 project included more housing, guarantees for housing, better appreciation for the design and more retail office space. He applauded the objective of additiona! parking, but the garage would not remove cars from the street unless the City found disincentives. People still found it difficult to park underground. He was a strong supporter of permit parking for neighborhoods surrounding Downtown. Only with such incentives would employees be encouraged to stay off neighborhood streets. It was very important to address the concomitant issue of traffic and parking incentives and disincentives in moving forward. Council Member Ojakian agreed with the staff comments. He was concerned with the size and massing of the project on the property and the concentration of the square footage at the location. His understanding of the Downtown cap was to allow building to continue so some of the smaller, older buildings would still have the opportunity to add on, leaving some flexibility without necessarily stimulating or encouraging development Downtown. The fact the square footage had.not been used was not justification for saying it should be used. No timetable or clock had been placed on the cap. He would more seriously consider the project if additional housing was involved, not necessarily rental housing if it w6uld not pencil out. The location was ideal for housing. He agreed with comments about the difficulties in the area with parking. Separate from finding disincentives, office spaces providing incentives for people to get out of cars tended to work. Employees subsidized with as little as $40 per month would not drive. Given the particular area of the project, incentives would probably work. The amount of public benefit would depend upon the amount of housing possible in the project. Mayor Rosenbaum expressed concerned about the size of a project only three or four blocks from University Avenue. His vision for the area did not include buildings of the sort proposed. The proposed density was off by a factor of at least two. If the City was interested in housing, the work/live concept was not an issue. Housing should simply be built, then there would not be an issue. He took little comfort in the staff report showing a preliminary cap development scenario of 80,000 to I00,000 square feet. He would not support an office project of such size at that location. No action taken. ORDINANCES 7. Ordinance of the Coun~l o~e City of malo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal ~ar 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $65~,0~<~for Capita! Improvement Project 19406, Rinconada ~ Site ~rovements 05/26/98 86-327 Council Member Fazzino asked why the City was being forced to cl~ the Rinconada Pool during the summer months and whether staff w~hld ~able to deal with all of the resultant angry telephone c~is. /Di~tor of Community Services Paul Thiltgen said staff~ould be able, to respond to the telephone calls. The children’ipoo! was clear~ not usable, since it was cracked and unable toi~old water7 Use in ~997 had been reduced primarily because the c~idren’s pool could no~ be used. Alternative sites had been fiund for usersdu~ing th~ummer. . Counci~ Nemb~Fazzino asked about the mainMr. Thiltgen s~d the main poo! would be a~ilable for use until construction beg~n, which was scheduled yor the ~irst of July. Service at other p~is had been expanded/ ./Council Member Fazzi~ asked whether t~e project had ..... been delayed because of the rains.\ ~ i // Director of Public Works~Glenn Rolerts said- the project had bgen delayed in part because of~the rains. However, the summer was hhe best and o~ly viable time f~ sw~4nming pool construction. The City not viable to build swimmin~ols during the winter season. tom a contractor just worried about water. 05/26/98 86-328 Council Member Fazzino asked whether the work could be conducted in September after children were in school. Mr. Roberts said if the work began in September, the City ran the risk of being unable to complete the work unti! after the following rainy season, which was a much less desirable situation. Staff’s best advice to the Council was to conduct work during the heart of one summer to ensure adequate construction time for completion. Council Member Fazzino asked whether staff had adequate pool capacity using other pools to meet the needs of the community. Mr. Thiltgen replied yes. Jane Lathrop, Jordan, and Gunn pools would be used. Swim times had been expanded as well as the free swim time. The lesson program had been transferred from Rinconada to the other three pools, fitting into the new schedule. Council Member Fazzino asked how staff would communitate with the public. Mr. Thiltgen said staff had already begun the communication process. Fliers were distributed at the pool and information w6uld be included in the summer brochure. "Some notice had already been included in the spring brochure. City Manager June Fleming said there was no way to make everyone happy. The City would handle complaints that were received. Staff had made arrangements to move sites as best as possible. It would be inconvenient, but the pool was to be closed for the least amount of time and the work scheduled at the best period. Mr. Thiltgen said the problem with the winter closing was the lack of alternatives for shifting programs. The pool was booked from 6:30 a.m. to 9:30 p.m. every day of the week, and schools used their pools during the winter months. For the majority of the use, summer was the best time to find alternatives. Council Member Fazzino asked whether adequate pool space and time for free swimming was planned as opposed to exclusive use by organized programs. Mr. Thiltgen said staff made sure that free swim was accommodated care of first. Some organized use had been switched to pools other than the City’s three pools because priority had been given to the general user rather than organized use. Council Member Fazzino said communication was extremely important before and during the summer. He hoped the City would not have a number of people showing up at Rinconada Pool without knowing where to go or what the alternatives were. 05/26/98 86-329 Mr. Thiltgen said the information would not only be sent out prior to the closure but posted at the pool as well. Council Member Ojakian thought people with children already knew about the pool construction and thought some of the PAC programs associated with swirmaing would not be doing so during the summer. Council Member Wheeler said the City had been working with the organized groups, and programs had been adjusted accordingly. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the reference to the four- month time f~ame and the vague reference in the report about the contractors’ unwillingness to accept a bid based on the time frame indicated the time frame was too short or too long. Mr. Roberts said the contractors were concerned about the short time frame and the ability to complete the project, which might also be the reason for the increased bid prices to obtain adequate staff and resources. Council Member Ojakian asked whether the cost might be less if the time frame was longer. Mr. Roberts said although the price might.be potentially less, the delay might affect winter programs as well. Council Member Ojakian asked whether staff could quantify the dollar amount. Mr. Roberts said staff had examined the issue conceptually, discussing with contractors somewhat, but staff had no exact number. Staff guessed the difference was approximately $I00,000. Council Member Eakins asked whether the brochure would be mailed. Mr. Thiltgen said the brochure would be distributed primarily to the organized groups and handed out at the pool. The same information would be contained in the summer brochure. Council Member Eakins agreed with her colleagues about the importance of publicity. Most people would say the City had not warned them about the construction the day they arrived to swim. She asked whether the information could also be included in the Utility flier. Mr. Thiltgen said the information might already be slated for the Utility flier, but he was unsure. Council Member Eakins said the more the information distributed, the less phone calls staff would receive. was 05/26/98 86-330 MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Ojakian, to approve the staff recommendation as follows: Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance in the amount of $650,000 from the Budget Stabilization Reserve to provide the necessary funding for the construction phase of the Rinconada Pool Site Improvements Project, CIP 19406. Approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract with Nadar, Inc. in the amount of $1,347,000 for the Rinconada Poo! Site Improvements Project CIP 19406. °Authorize the City Manager or her designee to negotiate and execute one or more change orders to the contract with Nadar, Inc. for related additional but unforseen work which may develop during the project, the total value of which shall not exceed $203,000. Ordinance 4504 entitled "Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year 1997-98 to Provide an Additional Appropriation of $650,000 for Capita! Improvement Project 19406, Rinconada Pool Site Improvemehts" Contract between the City of Palo Alto and Nadar, Inc. For Rinconada Poo! Site Improvements Project CIP 19406 MOTION PASSED 9-0. COUNCIL MATTERS Mayor Rosenbaum and Council Members Eakins and Wheeler re Proposed Delay of Historic Ordinance and Related Directions to Staff Council Member Huber would not participate due to a conflict of interest because of the location of his home. Council Member Eakins said she, Mayor Rosenbaum, and Council Member Wheeler were asking their colleagues for a delay in consideration of the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. In listening to members of the public and the number of telephone calls received, she realized many people were upset at what was perceived as problems with the new ordinance. Objections from people criticizing the ordinance and the heightened emotional climate convinced her that the climate had to cool before people could make reason which able decisions. During the additional time, confusions which resulted because of mistakes, worry, anxiety, distress, discomfort, etc., arising from concerns about changes in regulatory conditions could be clarified. The rhetoric through e- mail, etc., had achieved a high pitch and it was time to back away, from the heat and proceed in a more orderly fashion. Uncertainty was upsetting to people. Absence of total clarity, particularly 05/26/98 86-331 about someone’s own home, was very troubling. As much certainty and clarity as possible should be found, having to do with timing, process, distinctions, extent, amount of regulation, strictness in interpretation, etc., which were all starting points for refining the draft Historic Preservation Ordinance. Recommendations for additions to the historic inventory in 1998-99 should be as close to the fina! list as possible by the time the new ordinance was ready for adoption. Criteria f~r inclusion on the historic inventory should be as clear as possible. More education and information was necessary. Individuals wanted to know how the ordinance would affect their property. Many property owners wanted to do thei~ own due diligence right away and she had directed people to Steve Steiger to get started. Much concern was focused on what many speakers had referred to as the problem of small homes on large lots, an issue which had to be resolved. Understandable incentives and benefits for properties on the historic inventory were necessary for current and future owners. Many of the incentives and benefits would most logically be placed or written in other sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Everyone should see and examine the incentives and benefits as part of the total process. Many speakers had discussed issues of fairness. Because someone owned an historic house, they had asked why they should be subjected to design standards when the rest of town was not. Others had blamed all the problems on speculative builders. She would add an item 4(a) to the memo as follows: "Have the City Attorney research both legislative and case law for regulating commercial builders in any way differently than homeowners." She urged her colleagues to support the direction of the memo to delay and enhance the process for adopting Palo Alto’s newest Historic Preservation Ordinance. Final adoption should be delayed unti! all or most of the issues and details of the new ordinance were completely developed and the nomination for the historic inventory were complete. The last paragraph of an E-mai! from Judith Wasserman stated, "A preservation ordinance is imperative, which is why it must be well-written or it will be rejected by the citizenry as unreasonable. If you have to, extend the interim ordinance and do the job right. Don’t be pressured into rushing through it." MOTION: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to provide direction to staff as fol!ows: Delay adoption of the new Historic Ordinance until staff and consultants have developed a proposed Historic Inventory. This will cause a tremendous reduction in the number of properties affected by the process; Provide information with respect to completion of studies for both lists one and two, including schedules and required resources for both; Extend the Interim Historic Ordinance to complete (I) and (2), provide information about considerations including 05/26/98 86-332 but not necessarily limited to potential loss of additional historic resources, California Environmental Quality Act requirements, and need for additional resources; Develop and publish the program of incentives as directed by the City Council earlier this year; 4a.Provide legislation which distinguishes between commercia! developers and others; and Cancel the currently scheduled June I, 1998, public hearing on the proposed ordinance. Council Member Wheeler said several of the items, most notably items 2 and 3, asked for some responses from staff. Given the time frames under which the City would be operating, some of the requirements were for a fairly quick response, particularly if the interim regulations were extended, e.g., an extension of the contract for the historic preservation specialist would be necessary. She asked when the reports would return to the Council, what form, and how the Council would deal with them. City Attorney Ariel Calonne said the interim ordinance was set to expire at the end of August 1998, so working backwards from that was necessary to determine the correct time frame. He wanted to return to the Council in June with a revision to the existing interim regulations. Given it was a regularly enacted ordinance, six weeks would be necessary for introduction prior to becoming effective. At the latest, it should return mid-July. He preferred one or two weeks for delays, if necessary. It would not represent a major work effort. Chief Planning Official Eric Riel thought staff could return within 30 to 45 days, when the ordinance came back, to complete studies for both historic inventory lists. Council Member Wheeler asked about the extension of the contract or negotiation of a new contract with an historic preservation specialist. Mr. Riel-said the item could return on the Consent Calendar as soon as the contract was negotiated with the consultant. Council Member Wheeler said the Council had made three promises to the community in the transition from interim to permanent regulations, referred to as the three "C’s": I) Clarity--the Council had promised the permanent regulations would contain clarity, the ordinance language would be easy to understand, it might read differently than other ordinances, one should be able to pick up the ordinance and understand how a particular property might be affected by the ordinance and, if the ordinance applied to the 05/26/98 86-333 property, what process would be required to get plans approved. A good start had been made with the proposed regulations, but from the questions and concerns raised by members of the public, the City could do better; 2) Certainty--Many people over the past months had indicated that what had bothered them about the interim regulations was the inability to understand whether the regulations applied to a particular property or not, which the Council had said would not occur for the permanent regulations. In order to make that true for the permanent regulations, the 3,300 properties had to be honed down to a size much closer to how the final inventory would appear; and 3) Carrots-During the interim process, the public had asked, and the Council had promised, that the permanent regulations would contain incentives to make people glad to be on the inventory and help them overcome any of the additional constraints regulation might put upon them. As part of the preliminary discussions, the Council had talked about a number of incentives which were sent back to staff. Given the limited time staff had during the interim, incentives had not been fully developed. Until the incentives were published, it seemed an empty promise on the part of the Counci! to say there would be incentives. Good faith with the community was important, to ensure incentives would accompany the regulations.She urged her colleagues to endorse the motion as presented. Mr. Calonne said five of the directions were consistent with the Council’s earlier policy direction and the change was a matter of synchronizing preparation of the inventory and incentives with the regulatory piece of the ordinance. The research assignment on regulating commercial builders differently from homeowners might require more direction, particularly the objectives sought to be served therefor. If the Council was unable to have the directive wel!-formulated, including direction to examine reasons why the City might want to do so, it was not immediately apparent what the reasons might be, and he would not want to substitute his judgment for the Council’s. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing open. Ned Gallagher, 440 Melville Avenue, thanked Mayor Rosenbaum for participating in, and other Council Members for attending, the town hal! meeting at Cubberley during which time the City’s proposed ordinance was presented and Palo Alto homeowners were helped to understand the contents therein. He encouraged all homeowners to read the ordinance in its entirety. Craig Woods, thanked the sponsors and participants in the town hall meeting. The Palo Alto Homeowners’ Association had felt for some time that the proposed ordinance raised concerns for individual homeowners, neighborhoods, and the community. The success of the town meeting showed the broad concerns of the community across all neighborhoods. Video copies of the meeting were presented to the Council. Many issues around the ordinance deserved close 05/26/98 86-334 attention. Preservation handled fairly, completely, and predictably was supported, which was not seen in the interim ordinance. Any ordinance that failed to address the balance and alienated homeowners would ultimately fail to achieve its goa!. Carroll Harrington, 830 Melville Avenue, spoke in support of the motion to delay the June I, 1998, meeting. The Council was urged to send the ordinance back to the Planning Department for restudy and with a recontmendation for more community involvement in the rewriting of the ordinance. The Council was asked to facilitate more participation in the development of what-all hoped was an ordinance that was fair and effective and preserved the vitality of the community as well as its true historic resources. Emily Renzel, 1056 Forest Avenue, spoke about the highly publicized and very accurate and useful meetings which had been held about the regarding the proposed ordinance, but which very few members of the public had attended. Not much was heard about scraping and demolition, but the undercurrent was not aboutbeing able to add a room but whether historic houses could be scraped and sold. The motion made sense to have a better refinement of which houses were being considered historic and to address some of the concerns. Mayor Rosenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Council Member Fazzino supported the proposal but time should be devoted to improving the ordinance and making the process as streamline and predictable as possible. The ordinance should not be allowed to sit on the shelf for six months. The delay should not result in the City "punting" on the issue because of the politica! situation. Non-historic homes needed to be removed from the inventory list, which had created a huge problem. The mailing of an overly legalistic communication to homeowners was a big mistake. It was also very important to develop a set of incentives. Focus on the process came across as overly bureaucratic until the critically important issue of incentives was addressed. The City had failed to use the Mills Act or other incentives as it should have in order to preserve homes. Most important, the Council, staff, and the community had to work together to achieve historic preservation objectives, not to create a bureaucracy which undercut the ability to meet the initial goals of the program. Righteous anger had been expressed on both sides of the issue. Many people in the community were very angry about scraping homes, demolition, and the changing character of the community. The other half of the community, many of whom had paid large amounts of money for homes, were very concerned about not having the ability to install a new kitchen cabinet or window because of the bureaucracy. A way had to be found to address legitimate concerns on both ends of the spectrum or the community would be divided, creating a polarized situation which no one wanted to see. He had been in the midst of many polarized campaigns both formal and informal and did not want to repeat the 05/26/98 86-335 experience. It was very important to work together over the next few months to achieve the objectives. It was also important to communicate effectively with the public and itself about the actions. He had been disappointed no one from City staff had attended the town hall meeting. The City had to change the way in which it communicated with the public over the next few months if it was to be successful. Mayor Rosenbaum had done an outstanding job of representing the City at the town hall meeting. Council Member Ojakian said although some work was necessary in terms of sprucing up the ordinance, he hoped the Council would receive the "whole package." Many had talked about incentives, which he wanted to see along with the ordinance. Many people had been upset about the process. When the ordinance returned, the timing of the staff process should be addressed. He wanted to see something such as a single, one-stop shopping process, i.e., not making people go from an historic review to a zoning ordinance process, but melding the two together. The whole’fee schedule should also be examined to determine how it could fit in and relate to fees for not just historic but zoning in one package. People would then know exactly what would happen. He felt~a sense of responsibility in the area of communication. Staff had communicated in some of the normal procedures. In addition to Council Member Wheeler’s three "C’s," he would add "communication." Somewhere in the process, the Council’s involvement should be addressed in communications, perhaps even setting up a subconunittee to discuss how such items could be handled. The Counci! should be the one to determine what was released. Staff was not blamed for anything that had been put out, but wanted the Council to take responsibility. Council Member Kniss said re-making decisions was always difficult. While the Council would not be re-making a decision, clearly a group had responded to the community which had not only been concerned but challenged by a sense of unfairness. The memo had identified the issues nicely. When something happened and had not turned out right, the Council was willing to take a time out and move in the right direction. The historic resource~ ordinance was the first new issue for the Council in many years, and it was a very unusual one. The community was probably less concerned about what came down as with what was going up around town. It had taken the City.a long time to determine where it was going. She agreed with Council Member Ojakian about the need for more communication in addition to Council Member Wheeler’s three "C’s." Council Member Mossar supported the memorandum, but expressed some confusion. She endorsed Council Member Wheeler’s comments about clarity and writing the ordinance more clearly. The communication element was also important. The Council needed to be involved. Much of the angst in the community was the result of poor communication, for which she took responsibility. She wanted to see something in the motion deal with an effort to make the 05/26/98 86-336 ordinance more clearly readable. Speakers had talked about making the ordinance more available to the public. If communication was to be better, a mechanism should be found to make the ordinanc~ more clear, more readable, less legalese, etc. She was also concerned about the communication aspect, for which nothing had been included to direct anyone to pay attention. Vice Mayor Schneider said one of the best things about serving on the Council in Palo Alto was communication. The community had spoken loudly and clearly on the historic resources issue. Earlier in the evening, the Council had heard from some very bright preservationists interested in serving on the historic resources committee, all of whom had a variety of views on historic preservation, just as the Council had different views on historic preservation. While many considered "the issue divisive, she thought it would bring the community closer together. All were headed in the same direction but were on different paths. While she had been the sole dissenting vote on many elements of the proposed historic ordinance, she was happy to join her colleagues in supporting a delay in the historic ordinance and looked forward to the next few months of putting together something of which the entire community could be happy. Mr. Calonne wanted to make sure all pieces of the Council’s direction were included in the action. Many Council Members had discussed issues not included in the six points. Regarding the clarity component, it was certainly appropriate to redraft the ordinance in a¯ simpler, more direct format. However, the problem was more than just a simple English problem. Some of the clarity issues the Council alluded to might be inherent in the kinds of standards which were necessary for determining whether one’s home was a landmark resource or not. He sought specific direction in terms of drafting. If the Council wanted a simple English version, that would be appropriate, but it might identify clarity problems, not drafting issues and might result in another round of policy steering issues. When the Council discussed communication, he would need some means for that communication to translate into direction to modify the previous direction. AMENDMENT: Council Member Mossar moved to instruct the City Attorney to prepare a simpler revised draft of the historic preservation ordinance which would become the working document for the Council’s deliberations. Council Member Eakins supported the spirit of the amendment but adding to the first set of directions could be overly complicating. She asked whether Council Member Mossar had suggested changing policy directions. Council Member Mossar replied no. 05/26/98 86-337 Council Member Eakins said a plain English version would be fine but questioned the necessity of adding it to the motion. Mayor Rosenbaum said if the Council wanted staff to provide such a document, staff required direction from the Council to do so7 Mr. Calonne said the public reaction required some dialogue. No member of the public had commented on the draft ordinance or possible changes. If the Council wanted something clearer, which was a good product of public debate; dialogue should be invited. He sought some means to invite such communication. The existing ordinance was on the web site, Virginia Warheit had provided him with a set of three changes to address mistakes made in drafting, but how it was moved to the next step in public dialogue was of concern. The way it had been planned, a public hearing would occur on June 1 on the draft ordinance where comments could be made. The Council had indicated such a hearing was not adequate in communicating and involving the community. Staff required some direction for the next step. AMENDMENT INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER as (6) Instruct the City Attorney to prepare a simpler revised draft of the historic preservation ordinance and which would become the working document for the Council’s deliberations. Vice Mayor Schneider said the issue was fo~ further public involvement and not cutting off debate. The draft ordinance was obviously not satisfactory to a large number of people in the community. In the process of making the draft ordinance in clear English, she wanted to make sure further debate was not being eliminated. In order to take the next step, the communication had to continue. Council Member Kniss was concerned about the plain English piece of the ordinance simply because lawyers would have a difficult time making anything sound plain and would require some interpretation. She asked what the maker and seconder of the motion saw as the next steps, e.g., proposed inventory, looking back at lists one and two, incentives, etc. The public needed to know what was in it for them which was not presently clear enough. Possibly the plain English would explain how the ordinance would work. City Manager June Fleming said plain English was fine. The concern she had tried to share with Mr. Calonne was that if it was put in plain English, it would see the light of day in a way it had not seen it before. After the draft plain English ordinance was completed, the Counci! then wanted public response. She was concerned how the response would be handled. She supported having the ordinance in plain English. Staff would work with Mr. Calonne, but she needed some direction about the public response. Once the ordinance was written in a way which the public could understand, 05/26/98 86-338 it would probably raise new issues. what to do with the new issues. Staff needed direction about Council Member Kniss agreed with Ms. Fleming. Keeping the dialogue open was good but the end product required some definition. If the dialogue was continued, would that mean changes would be made along the way and, if so, what the benchmarks would be. Council Member Mossar said the expectation was for a revised draft ordinance. Council Member Kniss asked about the time schedule... Council Member Mossar thought it best to leave the time schedule to staff. Council Member Kniss understood the opportunity would be given for dialogue with the public with a version somewhat" plainer but incorporated some critical pieces having to do with inventory and incentives, which was the critical piece. Council Member Wheeler thought the Council visualized staff returning to the Counci! with a report including a time line. The Council had asked some questions, °asking for additional professional help in speeding the inventory process, how much it would cost, and how long it would take to finally have a better view of inventory. The Council was dependent upon some answers returning after which further discussion could occur when the time line answers were received. At some point, the Council could discuss the communications aspect. Not much was available to communicate which was different. The City would be better served if things were handled in a more .positive fashion than had previously occurred. The Finance Committee had discussed a proposed change in the City’s public information component and organizational change. It was conceivable the new organization would be used to good effect. Council Member Fazzino had supported the proposal because he was convinced his three colleagues were genuinely committed to continued dialogue over the subject, which was the purpose of putting the proposed ordinance in whatever form of English the City Attorney was capable of producing. He was convinced Mr. Calonne could produce a document a lay person was able to understand. It could be a very helpful tool through the process in addressing real policy alternatives. His view of the entire issue was open. The City needed to engage in dialogue and communication with the community and improve the ordinance. Council Member Mossar said the ordinance needed to be written in plain English. The ordinance needed to be as readable as possible. She was most interested in the revised draft, including all of the improvements called out in the memo, in plain English. However, 05/26/98 86-339 having the current draft in plain English would not be a problem either. If only the revised draft was in plain English, that would be fine. Mayor Rosenbaum said nothing in the memo in and of itself revised the ordinance. Council Member Mossar said Council Member Wheeler’s comments assumed the process included a revised draft. Some assumptions had been made that the Counci! would receive a rimetable from staff. The next public product should be readable and understandable with the hope of improved communications. Council Member Eakins said Mr. Calonne wanted to know the purpose of item 4(a). Mr. Calonne replied yes. Such discussion was not always clean and neat but was essential to communicate. It was the way the City would end up with a better product. He appreciated the Council’s efforts to provide staff with some direction. He was unsure it was immediately intuitive that commercial builders were somehow different from homeowners in their ability or motivations or results of their products. If the idea was that somehow bad commercial builders were blighting the town, and that good old homeowners did good things, he needed some help with that. That seemed to be the concept presented. Council Member Eakins said that was not her intent in her request, which was not based on that kind of prejudice. She had heard repeatedly about ways to do it, along with some inventive suggestions. It had become part of the dialogue with the community which was why the information was needed. Mr. Calonne clarified the assignment was more open-ended to determine ways it could be done and what would be lawful purposes for doing so. Council Member Eakins replied yes. MOTION RESTATED: Council Member Eakins moved, seconded by Wheeler, to provide direction to staff as follows: Delay adoption of the new Historic Ordinance until staff and consultants have developed a proposed Historic Inventory. This will cause a tremendous reduction in the number of properties affected by the process; Provide information with respect to completion of studies for both lists one and two, including schedules and required resources for both; 05/26/98 86-340 Extend the Interim Historic Ordinance to complete (i) and (2), provide information about considerations including but not necessarily limited to potential loss of additional historic resources, California Environmental Quality. Act requirements, and need f>r additional resources; Develop and publish the program of incentives as directed by the City Council earlier this year; 4a.Provide ways in which to distinguish between commercial developers and homeowners; Cancel the currently scheduled June I, 1998, public hearing on the proposed ordinance; and Instruct the City Attorney to prepare a simpler revised draft of the historic preservation ordinance which will become the working document for the Council "s deliberations. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber not participating. MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, s~conded by Kniss, to add item 9A, Possible Cancellation of June I, 1998, City Council Meeting. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. Mayor Huber re Cancellation of the Monday, June I, 1998, City Council Meeting MOTION: Council Member Fazzino moved, seconded by Kniss, to cancel the Council meeting of June I, 1998. MOTION PASSED 8-0, Huber absent. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting adjourned at 11:45 p.m. ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor NOTE: Sense minutes (synopsis) are prepared in accordance with Palo Alto Municipa! Code Sections 2.04.180(a) and (b). The City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are made solely for the purpose of facilitating the preparation of the minutes of the meetings. City Council and Standing Committee meeting tapes are 05/26/98 86-341 recycled 90 days from the date of the meeting. The tapes are available for members of the public to listen to during regular office hours. 05/26/98 86-342 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16 June 16, 1999 REGULAR MEETING - 8:00 AM City Council Chambers Civic Center, 1st Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Attachment K 800 High Street: [File Nos. 97-ZC-9; 97-ARB-122; 98-DPR-1; 98-EIA-17] - Review of an application for a Zone Change from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) District to the Planned Community ~C) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48 foot high, three story mixed use building including 26 residential units, 49,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; and a variance for a portion of the third floor residential area that exceeds the City’s height requirement. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. This item is for Board review and comment only. The HRB should comment on the adequacy of the project and the Draft EIR and the comments on this project will be forwarded to the ARB. 29 30 31 Good morning Staff. We have Lisa Grote and Chandler Lee and Amy French with us. Lisa would you like to come forth with a little bit of Staff information? 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: Thank you very much. As you mentioned, this is an information item for the Board. Your comments will be forwarded to the Architectural Review Board for their consideration on the PC application. Your comments should be focused on the historic nature of the existing building on the site and then the adequacy of the historic impact sections in the Draft EIR. Those comments will be forwarded on to the Architectural Review Board. Chandler Lee is here to go over more detail about the project and about the Draft Environmental Impact Report. The applicants are also here to give you a brief presentation on that. With that I will turn it over to Chandler. 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Mr. Chandler Lee: Thank you for having us this morning. I have a brief Staff introduction. This project was initiated about two and one-half years ago. At that time the building was not listed on any City list of historic buildings or the State Register, or the Federal Register. Since then, as you know, Dames and Moore has conducted a city-wide survey of historic buildings and determined that 800 High Street, based on a windshield survey was potentially eligible for the California Register. Because of that determination the City commissioned the Architectural Resources Group to conduct a detailed survey of the building. ARG basically confirrned Dames and Moore’s findings that it was potentially eligible for the State Register. Because of that determination the City under CEQA is required to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report, excerpts of which are in your packets. The EIR concluded that the project would have no significant impacts on any other resources other than historical. The demolition of the building in and of itself is a significant impact under CEQA and is noted in the Environmental Impact Report. Although the rehab of the building is certainly physically possible, the applicant has commissioned a structural report that has determined that rehabilitation would essentially cost as much as demolishing and replacing the building and footing of the new one. Staff concurs with the timings in the EIR for several key reasons. One is that it is really only a small portion of the building itself that is significant and it is described in detail in the appendix in the EIR. The architectural survey has determined that there are four components of the building that are significant and they include the stucco finish and multi-paned windows which frankly are rather common place in the industrial buildings throughout California. Although the individual components of the building are potentially significant, the building as a whole lacks a cohesive sense of architectural distinction, at least to the lay-person. The building is in a dilapidated state. It requires substantial structural rehabilitation and renovation and appears to be economically infeasible for all of those reasons. Even if the building were to be rehabilitated, the cost of doing so would probably be so high that the provision of other public benefits, which the applicant is proposing in his new building, probably would be prohibitive. Those public benefits include 34 public parking spaces, nine below market rate rental apartment units, street trees, landscaping, and a host of other things that probably would not be able to be included in a rehabilitated building because of the cost of doing that rehabilitation. Finally, the building as currently stands does not meet the policies of the Comprehensive Plan or of the proposed SOFA plan which you just reviewed in terms of creating a pedestrian friendly streetscape and a human scale environment along the High Street frontage. So basically what we are asking of you this morning is to review the historic significance of the building and provide comments for us that will forward to the Architectural Review Board. Thank you. BM Kohler: Thank you. At the beginning of this item I neglected to comment that I’ve had various discussions with the City Attorney about a possible conflict I might have had with this project. It has been determined that I do not have any conflict. Just want you to know that I went through a lot of research and it has been determined. Dennis has to leave. He is by himself and if the store doesn’t open he doesn’t get income. So he had to leave unfortunately. So he will not be here to comment on this. 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 That concludes Staff. Are there any questions for Staff at the moment? Martin. BM Bemstein: Thanks Chandler. For clarification for the record, the potential California Register property is listed at 140 Homer. So is 140 Homer and 800 High really the same? Mr. Lee: It is the same, yes. The site take up an entire half a block. So I think the original address was 140 Homer but we refer to it as 800 High because the majority of the building fronts on High Street. BM Bernstein: Thank you. BM Kohler: I guess Martin, you and I ought to disclose that we separately met with the applicant and reviewed their drawings and models. Correct? BM Bernstein: I’d like to say that I’ve met with Robert Peterson, Guy Frazzi, and Roxy Rapp and discussed this project. _ . BM Kohler: Did any other Board Members do that? BM Murden: I should disclose that I spoke to Robert Peterson, the architect, on the telephone. BM Mario: As did I. BM Kohler: Okay. Any questions for Staff?. I have just a few. The variance if for the height? Not that I’m sure we’re supposed to talk about that. I just want to briefly disclose that in past history of the Board, we have discussed items where the zoning has not been totally clear and we’ve gotten into some major trouble with that. So when these projects come before us, even though we’re not necessarily discussing that I just like to clarify that the ordinances are noticed and if there are any problems we are aware of them. We had that problem on the house on Forest where our ruling was overturned by the Director based on the fact that we were reviewing a project without complete zoning information. So I’m very conscious of this kind of project as well as single family homes. When they come before the Board we are reviewing those with full knowledge of all the zoning ordinances and that it has all been resolved so that for one thing we are not wasting out time, that the project might have to come back to us for a redesign or something like that. So inyour eyes this complies. It is a PC but there is a variance involved and it’s for the height? Ms. Grote: There is a variance involved. It is for a very small portion of the building. It has to do with the fact that it exceeds 35 feet in height within a 150 foot distance of another residential project. So it is a very small portion of the building that would exceed that 35 foot height limit in that particular area. That actually isn’t before you for comment today. BM Kohler: I understand that. Ms. Grote: There is a small portion of the building that exceeds the height limit. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 BM Kohler: Staff, when they started this project was there any discussion at all of trying to save a portion or reuse part of the existing structure. Mr. Lee: Not in my recollection, no. As I recall two and one-half years ago we did go through the process of looking for any potential significance on any local lists and the building was not so listed. So we basically did not go beyond that point at that time. BM Kohler: Okay. Are there any other questions for Staff?. Okay, we will open the public hearing. At this time we will have. a presentation by the architect. Mr. Bob Peterson, Architect, 57 E1 Camino Real, Menlo Park: I’m a resident of Palo Alto. Let me just briefly touch on some of the issues which Staff has raised. I think the fundamental one is the condition of the existing building. As was noted, we did have a structural analysis done of that and the condition of both the structure and the surfaces are so poor that to attempt to preserve those materials we would essentially have to deconstruct the building. When we do that and put it back together again we have a new building. So we are essentially unable to save those materials because of the condition of the building. Rebar is exposed and rusted. It is just in terrible condition. So I think the fact is we can’t really preserve it even though we might try to do that. The cost of course is equal to or maybe exceeding the cost of doing a new building. I would like to touch on two or three things. One is to talk about those things that we are doing. The first one is, on this end of the building on Channing Street, we have in contrast to what’s shown on the original model - and I might just say what we have is a plan and elevation of the proposal and then we have the model which was done a year and a half ago. The substantial changes are made at this end of the building adjacent to Channing. We have stepped the building down adjacent to Channing Avenue with both the height and setback. We have a setback of roughly 20, 30 and 40 feet on that end. The 20 feet for the one story element, the 30 feet for a two story element, and 40 feet fora three story element. What that does is get it down to scale and size that makes it, I believe, harmonious with the building across the street which maybe a significant building. That’s the Creamery Store which is right there. So we are doing that in this proposal. The second thing we are doing, and was there from the beginning, is providing plaza and retail on Homer. That’s in this area. The intent from the very beginning was to extend the existing historic retail node on Homer beyond the Whole Foods and carry it on down toward Alma. That is something that was integral to the project from the beginning and I think will be very helpful in preserving and extending that sense of retail on that street. The third one, which again is something we did from the very beginning, is to try and capture a kind of manufacturing and industrial character to this building which would recall the kind of area that was there originally. I think that’s an important piece of what we’re doing here. We have a couple of questions related to that, that we would appreciate your comments on. One is the material itself. On the upper floors of this building they are intended to be a metal material, originally we showed a zinc material on the model here you can see it is kind of a gray material, and on the current proposal we are showing copper. Either one of those are satisfactory with the applicant. We would be interested to hear your comments as to which of those you might prefer or any other comments on that material. We have samples which I’ll set up for you to take a look at of the copper and the zinc. The zinc is a very soft non-glossy, matte, warm gray color. 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 The copper, as you know, in this climate rams brown and continues to turn darker brown for about 30 or 40 years and then it starts to get a very deep green patina on it. In both cases those metal materials would be in horizontal panels not vertical as is shown in the model. But we would be interested in your reaction to those materials. The second issue is on the south-facing walls that face Alma, the model shows it as a fairly uniform form, very similar to an industrial building. On the application as a alternative, and it doesn’t show in that drawing but it does show in the drawings you have in your packet, it shows a more articulated elevation which brings some of the residential type elements that are shown on Homer street around to that side. We would be interested to know whether you have a reaction one way or the other on that. I will tell you as an architect I prefer the original. It looks more industrial and I think that’s more appropriate here but either one would be acceptable. The other element we would like your comment is it was suggested that some of the mitigations for the removal of this historic structure would be the preparation of the history of this. That would certainly be acceptable to the applicant. The other one was the inclusion of the metal type windows that are there now. That was our intent from the beginning, that there would be metal windows that would be industrial type. That would be our intent there. We have always planned that those would be metal whether they are aluminum or steel, I think either one would be satisfactory to us. We would appreciate your comments on that. I would be happy to go into greater detail to explain the building if that’s important to you. But let me stop here and ask if you have any questions? BM Kohler: Okay, thank you. I don’t have any questions of the architect at the.moment. BM Mario: I’d like a clarification of what the model is. The model is not that. Mr. Peterson: The model is that with the exception of this one end. IfI could step over and point it out. The form is essentially the same except that we have cut down this whole end. It’s setback another 20 feet. The two story section another 10 feet. So this whole end comes way down here. We have more landscaping. Then we have introduced two more of these elements along here. BM Kohler: So the wall unit actually is not very long anymore. The long unit is not really very long. I have a feeling that in the future you are going to have to get the model corrected or do something different. Mr.Peterson: The only other element is the upper stories which show the gray zinc. BM Kohler: So it mounts horizontally like this? Mr.Peterson: Horizontal. BM Kohler: I guess one of the questions I’m sure the Board is going to be curious about is the fact that you’ve mentioned about the existing building, that it would be very difficult to retrofit 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 it, was there any discussion about possibly leaving the one fagade wall and building behind it? Not that I’m sure that is a great idea, I’m just questioning if there was any discussion of that. Mr. Peterson: There certainly has been discussion of that. The issue is that we can’t just build behind it. The surfaces are integral with the smacture itself and to retrofit those would mean we essentially have to destroy them to put them back together again. We wouldn’t end up with the original. We could fake it but it wouldn’t be the same. BM Kohler: Any other questions for the architect? This is your time to do that. Martin. BM Bemstein: Thank you Mr. Peterson. I’d like to have a description on, and this relates to the economic feasibility of the Draft Environmental Impact Report alternative 5.2 which is restoring and rehabilitating the existing structure. There have been a few projects Downtown that where the projects have been installed with independent structural frames so that all the seismic and wind floating and safety issues are taken by a new structure inside the shell of the existing one. Would you be able to explain some of the economic feasibility of that approach with regard to the historic resource and the economic impact that would have on your project? Mr. Peterson: I think there are two fundamental issues there. One, let’s just assume for the moment that we could safe the existing frame just the way it is, I don’t think we can but let’s just assume we could. Then you could put a structural frame behind that.and essentially back it up. That’s done fairly often with brick buildings and other buildings of that nature. What that would do is probably preclude the project we have in mind, which would then take away the possibility of underground parking and those issues. That would probably make most of this infeasible from an economic point of view. I think the real issue here is that even to do that, we couldn’t just leave the frame as it is now and back it up with something else because there is rebar in there and the concrete is all falling off. So you would have to stabilize that in some way. At this point we don’t think we can stabilize it any other way than to take it apart and put it back together and we’re back to where we were before. We don’t have the original left. BM Kohler: Any other questions? Is there anyone else here who would like to speak to this item? I see people in the audience and no one is jumping up. Martin. BM Bernstein: I have a question for Staff, ifI may. BM Kohler: Sure. I’m going to leave the public heating open for a little while just make sure that we don’t get into conflict with that. BM Bernstein: Okay. In the Draft Environmental Impact Report it makes comment that no formal study of a district along Homer Avenue has been conducted. Is there a process underway where there is exploring the possibility of that becoming a district? Maybe some Board Members have comments on that too. Mr. Lee: To my knowledge there is no movement underway to conduct that historic district survey. It would require a lot of time and money quite frankly. BM Kohler: I think if it was to occur some of it would have to come from us as well as community groups. 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 ~6 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 BM Mario: It has been mentioned as a possibility, I know that. Other than that? BM Murden: Either that or as an overlay on Homer Avenue. BM Bemstein: Sounds like it is not happening right now as far as a formal project. For any project such as a district formation that sounds like it’s a pretty long-term process. BM Murden: A lot of research has been done on buildings on Homer Avenue because there are a lot of historic buildings there. As far as I know, anyway, as far as formally putting together a district, no. Although a lot of the background research I would think has been done. BM Bernstein: Thank you. BM Kohler: How does this plan interact with South of Forest Project? Ms. Grote: There is an analysis being done on how this is consistent with the policies, at least the draft policies, in the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. Chandler may want to go into more detail but we have done that kind of analysis. So it has been evaluated against it. Mr. Lee: We would normally include in your packet a copy of the ARB Staff report which analyzes conformance with the Comp Plan and zoning ordinance and SOFA plan but the ARB meeting has been postponed and so that analysis is not complete. My preliminary review has indicated that the project basicallydoes conform to the draft policies in the SOFA Plan. That is, it encourages pedestrian activity in that area, it provides local-serving retail, it provides rental apartment units on the ground floor, it has a lot of building articulation, and it frankly meets the overall intent, I think of SOFA, of redeveloping that area to provide for those types of uses. There are several individual building regulations within the MU-2 zone most of which the proposed building conforms with but a couple of them it does not. BM Murden: Doesn’t the SOFA Plan say that PC zones are not going to be recommended in there? Mr. Lee: That language, as I understand it, has evolved over time and it is still preliminary. My understanding is that when the Working Group first published the SOFA Plan it did say we don’t want PCs anymore. That language has been modified as I read it, to say we generally don’t want PCs but there may be instances in which they are appropriate. That’s my reading of the way it is written now, but that may change also. BM Kohler: I guess if there is no one else that would like to speak to us we will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Board for our discussion. As I read the agenda, this is for review and comment only. So there is no vote taken. Well we should just go ahead and go down the Board here. Martin do you want to go first? BM Bernstein: Okay, thanks. I want to start with going over some of the Comprehensive Plan objectives and then we can compare this proposed project with Comprehensive Plan goals and objectives. The first item is Program L-10. It says, create and apply the following to mixed use zoning standards a live/work designation that permits individuals to live on the same site where 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 they work. My comment would be that this project starts complying with that program. I have several others that I’ve keyed in. Goal L-6 about buildings fitting in with their surroundings. So part of my discussion would be including the architecture of the proposed new development and how that does fit in with and support existing character. Program L-48, promote high-quality creative design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. So I’ll have comments about that. Program L-49, in areas of the City having an historic design character, design new development to maintain and support the existing character. The applicant has commented several times on some of the industrial nature of the architecture and that can be expanded on to how that might support existing character. Goal L-7, Historic Character. Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit. That will be discussed further in my discussion about the Environmental Impact Report. Policy L-57, develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation of buildings with historic merit in all zones. Program L-64, encourage and assist owners of historic buildings in finding ways to adapt and restore these buildings including participation in state and federal tax relief programs. Finally, Policy L-58, promote adaptive reuse of old buildings. Shall I continue with more commentary on each of these items? BM Kohler: All we are going to be doing is commenting today so I don’t even think that Staff, you’re expecting us to come to a group of clear-cut decisions. You just want to hear comments of each Board Member? Ms. Grote: We want comments from each Board Member, yes. You don’t need to come to a consensus or take a vote. - " BM Kohler: Then Martin, I would suggest that you are doing so well that you go ahead and proceed. BM Bemstein: Okay. The first item, Program L-10, I think this project is in compliance with the recommendation that we develop live/work spaces. So that’s a positive aspect of this project. Under the Incentives, that’s Policy L-57, develop incentives for the retention and rehabilitation. I listened to the City Council discussion last night on the proposed Historic Ordinance. My recollection is that projects that become on the Palo Alto Register would be able to qualify for significant property and sale of property financial benefits. Because this property is not 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 proposed to be on the Palo Alto Register it seems that those incentives would not be available. So it looks like that issue disappears from this project. As far as Policy L-58, promoting the adaptive reuse of old buildings, the applicant has already responded to what it would take for that to happen. That goes back to the concern of economic feasibility. The CEQA regulations allow a project not to be rehabilitated if in the City Council, in particular in Palo Alto the City Council makes the following determination of the feasibility of that or how important economic feasibility would be, the Council can elect to consider economic feasibility as a major overriding reason not to promote or require adaptive reuse of that building. Another comment I have is I cheered through the windows of the project last week and the building at 140 Homer, architecturally, light-wise, volume-wise, massive-wlse it is a fantastic space. To use that space again and bring it back to life I think would be a great contribution to the City. Also looking at one of the plans, this is in the historic resources in the plan area of SOFA, I could see a pattern of historic properties marching all the way down Homer street and 140 Homer is right at the beginning or end of that street. So if it ever were to become a district I think that could be a great contributor supporting that district. As we already discussed, the district is not formal and it is not even under a formal process of being formed or explored. So I think it is a loss to the community if that structure is demolished and not rehabilitated. However, looking at the Comprehensive Guidelines including economic feasibility which is listed in the Comprehensive Plan I’m sad to say that it looks to me like there is no regulation that I can point to say let’s save this building. So it is really up to the applicant to come up with a plan to do that. The applicant has explored it economically and it looks like the feasibility is such that the building can’t be saved to meet the objectives of the applicant, which is from an objective point of view, objectives of an applicant on a project is deserving to get serious respect from the City Council. Those are my comments for now. BM Kohter: Thank you Martin. Millie? BM Mario: I concur with Martin that it is a shame that the Creamery is going to be demolished but at this point in time there is no way that we can discourage that or help to encourage that. We have nothing to give to the applicant to encourage him to keep that. Having said that, I totally encourage having living space intermixed with retail space. As we know, the cities are coming back because of that. People will walk in areas that are not totally empty like a lot of large cities are, everything empties out at night. Palo Alto is very lucky that we don’t have that because we do have mixed uses such as this building. I think that it possibly looks too industrial. The way the new improved plan is, I prefer the older one but that’s just a matter of aesthetics. I really can’t say that you should or shouldn’t do that. That’s something that is not in our purview. I think the industrial concept is a very good one but I think this carries it too far. I also like the copper instead of the zinc which we were asked to comment on. That’s it. BM Kohler: Thank you. Carol? BM Murden: First of all I agree With Marty that this building at the moment is not on the Palo Alto Register but it is potentially California Register eligible. Any property that is California 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Register eligible can be put on the Palo Alto Register which would then mean that incentives given by the City would be available. It’s on a Register so federal incentives should also be available to that building. I really am going to concentrate on where we’ve been asked to comment on the historic value of the existing building. That is what I’m going to address my remarks to. As it has been said it is potentially eligible for the California Register. Three different people have said that, Dames and Moore, ARG, and Nicholes Berman also mentions that in their report. I think the building does still convey its historic character. I don’t think anyone is questioning that. The building adds to the immediate context historically. There is a Berg Clark design building across the street from it on the comer of Homer and High. That is the building that was designed to sell Pontiac cars. It was a shoe store for a long time and I’m not sure what it is now. The BMW building on the comer of Homer and Alma which was originally a Pringle gas station and which is on the Palo Alto Register. The Berg Clark building I believe is eligible. It will be on the resource list. The building behind the Creamery is Olay’s Car Shop which is California Register eligible. So there is right on that comer a complex of buildings that do have historic value. Then going on to a much larger scale, this building, I think, contributes a great deal to Homer. I know there is no district proposed there but that doesn’t take away from the fact that there are a lot of historic buildings on Homer. I think most people do recognize that. Homer Avenue as it developed, particularly from early times and in the 1930s, an industrial commercial complex developed down near Homer. As you go up Homer and get up around Emerson/Homer area you get this combination of mixed use which the City is intending to preserve. Then going further up again you go into the residential areas of Homer. This configuration of use is something that I think is going to be used in the SOFA Area Plan. This building, 140 Homer or 800 High, very much contributes to that historic configuration of that street. So to me, just addressing the historic aspects of the building, I think it is very important, and I think it contributes a great deal both to its immediate environment and also to the environment in context of Homer Avenue in general. BM Kohler: Thank you. I obviously think, as all Board Members have said, the existing building has some merit. If there were some way to incorporate that into the project it would be a tremendous asset to the City and to the project. I also know from the practical standpoint it is very difficult to retrofit these old buildings. I guess I too think the model fagade that facing High Street is a preferred facade from its relationship to the existing buildings on High Street. It is not quite as tall and imposing. The current plan, which we don’t have the model of, has quite a few more four story elements. 10 Attachment L Attachment M STATE OF CALIFORNIA--BUSINESS. TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION P. O. BOX 23660 OAKLAND, CA 94623-0660 (510) 286-4444 TDD (510) 286-4454 June 22,1999 SCL-82-25.71 SCH# 99032075 SCL082279 GRAY DAVIS Governor Mr. Chandler Lee City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue, P.O. Box 7540 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Dear Mr. Lee: 800 High Street - Peninsula Creamery Project Draft Environmental Impact Report. Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in the environmental review process for the Peninsula Creamery Project at 800 High Street in Palo Alto. We have examined the above-mentioned Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and would like to offer the following comment: Although the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines do not require an analysis of the E1 Camino Real / Embarcadero Road intersection because it does not meet the 100 peak hour trips threshold, we would still like to see the level-of- service (LOS) calculations for this intersection. We appreciate the opportunity to work with you on this project. If you have any questions, please contact Abbe Hoenscheid of my staff at (510) 622-1643. Sincerely, HARRY Y. YAHATA District Director JEAN C.R. FINNEY District Branch Chief IGR/CEQA c: LGrote MBoyd, SCH ~/1~~~~ S A H T A C L A R AValley Transportation Authority Attachment N June 25, 1999 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Development P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attention: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Subject:800 High Street - Peninsula Creamery Project Draft Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Grote: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the project referenced above for a new mixed-use development at 800 High Street on-the block bounded by Alma Street, Channing Avenue, High Street and Homer Avenue. VTA comments follow, and are separated into Transit Service and Congestion Management Program issues to reflect our dual role in reviewing this project. On March 10, 1999, VTA staff commented on the DEIR for the Palo Alto Medical Foundation (PAMF) and South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan. This project is within the SOFA, and the Coordinated Area Plan provides planning policies, development standards and design guidelines for the area. Comments made in the March 1999 letter also apply to this current project and are restated below: Transit Service ~rA staff are excited to see plans to create a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly environment in an area that is well served by transit. Goals to reinforce the neighborhood as a walkable area and to promote increased transit and bicycle use are strongly supported by VTA. In additio.n, VTA staff strongly support placing housing development with higher densities closer to the Caltrain Station. VTA’s recent Transit Based Housing Survey illustrates that transit use is substantially greater for residents within one-half mile of light rail stations than countywide. Residents along the existing Guadalupe Corridor Light Rail Transit line use transit as their predominant confute mode more than 5 times as often as residents countywide. All of this reinforces the potential for these future developments to increase transit ridership, reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality. The mix of uses in this area also reinforces a pedeStri.an and transit oriented environment. 3331 North First Street ¯ San Jose, CA 95134-1906 ¯ Administration 408.321.5555 ¯ Customer Service 408.321.2300 City of Palo Alto Page 2 June 25, 1999 Congestion Management Program The Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed according to the Congestion Management Program (CMP) guidelines. For additional information about the TIA or CMP, please call (408) 321-5716. We appreciate the opportunity to review this project and look forward to reviewing more detailed plans of this and other projects in the area. If you have any questions, please call Lauren Bobadilla of my staff at (408) 321-5776. ~ed Senior Environmental Analyst RM:LGB:kh Watercou rse Way July 19,1999 Attachment 0 City of Palo Alto Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator And Planning Commission 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, California 94301 Dear Lisa and Commissioners, We would like to give you our feedback regarding the proposed building at 800 High Street. We have operated our business, Watercourse Way, at 165 Channing Ave for 19 years. Our comments are as long dine business owners in this neighborhood. It is our feeling that the proposed building is much too large for this neighborhood. 5 stories and 80,000 square feet will dwarf all the surrounding buildings, including ours which will be in constant shadow. We wish Roxy Rapp and his partners every success but we must express our feelings about the scope of this particular project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, John Roberts Susan Nightingale Watercourse Way 165 Channing Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Phone: (650) 462-2000 FAX: (650) 462-2020 Eugust 11, 1999 DRAFT Attachment P Mr. Roxy Rapp High Street Creamery Associates LLC P.O. Box 1672 Palo Alto, CA 94302 {Owners} RE: Below Market Rate (BMR) Letter of Agreement for 800 High Street Mixed- Use Project (97-ZC-9; 97-ARB-122) Dear Mr. Rapp: High Street Creamery Associates LLC ("High Street") has made application to the City for the approval of for a Planned Community Zone Change for a mixed-use building at 800 High Street, Palo Alto (the "Project") that includes 26 residential rental units as well as retail and office space. High Street is acting as the authorized agent of Santana Family ("the Owner"), the owners of the property on which the Project would be developed. This letter summarizes the proposed agreement between High Street and the Owner on the one hand, and the City on the other, regarding provision of Below Market Rate ("BMR") housing units. You and the Department of Planning and Development have discussed and negotiated the terms of this agreement, and your signatures.on this letter confirms that they are agreeable to High Street and the Owner. Page 1 \\CH_ASD_ADMIN~UB LIC\PLAN~BMR800HI-WS F3 .DOC l. DRAFT I BMR Agreement to Be Recorded: If the Project is approved, the general terms of this letter will be incorporated into the Project’s conditions of approval and the Planned Community Zone ordinance. In addition, a detailed BMR regulatory agreement, in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney, will be prepared. The Owners must execute the regulatory agreement prior to issuance of a building permit for the project. The agreement will then be executed by the City and recorded against the property prior to issuance of any building permit for the Project. The agreement will be a contractual obligation of the Owners and their successors in interest and shall run with the land. 2.6 BMR Units Required and Additional 6.4 BMR Units Proposed as Public Benefit: All residential rental projects with five or more units must meet the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate Program described in Program H-20 of the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Because this project includes office and retail space, it is also subject to housing impact mitigation requirements under Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code - Approval of Projects With Impacts on Housing. However, Section 16.47.040 (h) provides that a mixed-use project need not meet the BMR requirements for both the commercial and residential portions of the project. Instead, it must satisfy the larger of the two. Staff has determined the Program H-20 requirement of 10 percent of the 26-units, a total of 2.6 BMR units, is the greater requirement. Therefore, no housing mitigation under Chapter 16.47 is required for the office/retail portion of the project. Page 2 \\CH_ASD_ADMIN~PUBLICkPLANkBMR800HI-WSF3 .DOC IDRAFT You have requested City Council approval for a zone change from Commercial Service ~ (CS) to Planned Community (PC) Zone for the Project. This zone change requires a provision of public benefits. You have offered to provide an additional 6.4 BMR units, for a total of 9.0 BMR units in the Project as a portion of your proposed public benefit package. Term of Agreement: The term of the BMR regulatory agreement shall be 59 years from the date the first shell building permit is issued for any portion of the Project. The date of the first shell building permit is referred to as the "Start Date". Designation of BMR Units and Initial Rents: The nine BMR units shall be designated as such on the final, approved Project plans. They must be comparable in all aspects to all other residential units including, but not limited to, construction quality, appearance, finish, amenities, storage, provision of parking space, as well as access to any other project facilities and amenities. We have agreed that the following units will be designated as the nine BMR units: Table 1 800 High Street - Below Market Rate Units Unit Number Unit Type Location Square Footage Base BMR Rents as of 7/28/99 Unit. C Studio with Loft 1 st. Floor 1,096 $922.00* Unit 19 Studio 2nd. Floor 713 $808.00 Unit 20 2 Bedroom 2nd. Floor 1,291 $1,139.00 Unit 21 1 Bedroom 2nd. Floor 964 $922.00 Page 3 \\CH_ASD_ADM IN~PUBLIC\PLANkBMR800HI-WSF3 .DOC DRAFT Unit 22 1 Bedroom 2nd. Floor 964 $922.00 Unit 23 1 Bedroom 2nd. Floor 835 $922.00 Unit 24 2 Bedroom 3rd. Floor 1,277 $1,139.00 Unit 25 1 Bedroom 3rd. Floor 885 $922.00 Unit 26 Studio 3rd. Floor 489 $808.00 *Unit C is considered 1 bedroom unit given square footage BMR rents are total monthly charges for occupancy of the units, including any and all charges for parking, storage or other amenities. Utilities may be billed separately. The BMR Rent at initial occupancy of the first tenant of each BMR unit shall be the rent which is the greater of: 1.The Base BMR Rent shown in Table 1, above (which is the U. S. Department of HUD Section 8 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for each unit type published on October 1, 1998), or 2.The applicable HUD Section 8 FMR in effect as of the Start Date. The City and High Street Associates may agree to reconfigure some units to provide revised floor plans and/or additional bedrooms prior to PC Zoning approval. Rent Increases: On July 1St of each year after the Start Date, the maximum BMR Rent for each unit type will be increased by an amount equal to one-half of the increase in Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, Rent Residential, San Francisco-Oakland area (CPI) from the CPI figure used to establish the previous maximum BMR Rent. However, a least six (6) months Page 4 \\CH_AS D_ADMIN~PUBLICkPLANkBMR800HI-WSF3 .DOG DRAFT shall pass before the first rental increase. The City will calculate the adjustment in the maximum BMR rent only once each calendar year. The increased rents may be charged by Owners as leases expire or new tenants move-in to the BMR units over the 12 month period following the effective date of the rent adjustment. No cap is placed on the amount of the annual rent adjustment and no negative adjustments are required. The Owners shall submit new proposed rents to City for approval at least 90 days prior to the proposed effective date of the rent adjustment. If the City does not approve or disapprove proposed rents within 30 days of receipt by City, the proposed rents shall be considered approved. Tenants must be notified at least sixty (60) days in advance of a rent increase. The Owners may charge less than the maximum BMR rent. The rent for BMR tenants may not be increased more than once in any 12 month period whether the tenant is renting under a month-to- month rental agreement or an annual lease. All applicable State and local laws and ordinances affecting the operation of rental housing apply to the operation of the BMR units at the Project. In addition, notwithstanding any language to the contrary in Section 9.68.020(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), the provisions of PAMC Chapter 9.68, including the requirement to offer tenants a one year lease, shall apply to all the units in the project, including the BMR units. Owners’ Operation Obligations for BMR Program: Owner shall be responsible for maintaining a waiting list for BMR units, providing information to prospective BMR applicants, renting the Page 5 \\CH_ASD_ADMIN~PUBLIC\PLANkBMR800HI-WSF3 .DOC correct number and type of BMR units, the BMR regulatory agreement. any time. I UKAI- I and maintaining records to demonstrate compliance with City shall have the right to review and audit Owner’s records at Eligible Households: To be eligible for initial rental ofa BMR unit, a household must have been certified by the City as having a gross annual household income below 80 per cent of the then- current HUD median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for household size. The Owners shall give priority to households which have at least one member who lives or works within the city limits of Palo Alto. Each BMR tenant’s household income must be recertified annually according to the procedures of the HUD Section 8 rental assistance program, or successor program. The Owners shall have applicants and tenants prepare documentation of income for review by City. The City will review and approve the documentation of the income certifications and annual recertifications and make the final determination of eligibility. The Owners shall be responsible for the actual selection of BMR tenants, including conducting the Owners normal tenant screening process, and enforcement of the terms of the tenancy or lease. Tenants Who Become Ineligible Because of Increased Household Income: BMR tenants whose incomes upon recertification exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the then-current median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for family size, will no longer qualify to pay BMR Rent or occupy~. BMR unit. The Owners shall give such tenants sixty (60) days written notification to that effect, advising the tenant that (1) the rent will be increased in a specified amount (to be determined by the Owners but not exceeding the rents for comparable market-rate units in the Page 6 \\CH_ASD_ADMINkPUB LICK~LANkBMR800H1-WSF3 .DOC vicinity) and (2) that the tenants must vacate the unit within twelve (12) months of the date the City determined that they were ineligible. The City may require payment of a fee, not exceeding the amount of the rent charged above the BMR maximum rent, for each month that a BMR unit is rented to an ineligible household. Informational Materials: Owner shall provide information in writing to interested households and to prospective BMR tenants at the time of submittal of an application for tenancy regarding the conditions and restrictions applicable to occupancy of BMR units. The information shall include the current BMR Rent, the formula for calculation of annual rent increases, minimum and maximum occupancy standards for BMR units, the qualifying income limits and the requirement for an initial and annual income certification, the offer of a one-year lease, the priority for Palo Alto households and the Owners’ waiting list procedures and standards for tenant screening, and other relevant information. Penalties for noncompliance with the BMR program rules and requirements during the household’s tenancy shall be explained in the informational materials provided by Owner. Owner shall submit all informational materials and forms of its rental agreements and leases for BMR units to the City for approval prior to use. Reporting: Owner shall prepare and submit to the City an annual report in a form specified by City on the occupancy and rents for the BMR units and compliance with the requirements of the BMR program and the Regulatory Agreement. Page 7 \\CH_ASD_ADMIN~PUBLIC~LAN~BMR800HI-WSF3.DOC City’s Program Administrator: The BMR program is administered by the Department of ~ Planning and Community Development. The City’s contract program administrator for the BMR program is currently the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The City may assign any or all of the administrative duties including review, approval and monitoring functions described in this letter to its program administrator. Enforcement of the BMR Agreement and Penalties for Noncompliance: The recorded Regulatory Agreement will include procedures by which the Owners shall enforce tenant compliance with the requirements for occupancy of BMR units. The Regulatory Agreement will also contain penalties and enforcement provisions that the City may use to enforce compliance by Owners with the rent and occupancy restrictions of the Regulatory Agreement. Guidelines, Administrative Procedures and Interpretations : The City may from time to time during the term of the Regulatory Agreement adopt or approve guidelines, procedures and interpretations affecting the implementation of the BMR rental program in general and its implementation in the Project in particular. The Owners shall follow such revised guidelines, procedures and instructions from City except that the calculation of the maximum BMR Rent shall not be changed without an amendment to the Regulatory Agreement which shall require the consent of, Owners and City. Page 8 \\CH_ASD_ADMIN~PUB LICkPLANkB MR800HI-WSF3 .DOC Please sign this letter as shown below and return the original to me, indicating that we have reached agreement regarding the BMR contribution for the 800 High Street project. Thank you for you cooperation and your contribution to meeting the affordable housing needs of the City of Palo Alto. Sincerely, Ed Gawf, Director of Planning and Community Environment CC:Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Ray Hashimoto, Assistant Planning Official Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation Page 9 \\CH_ASD_ADMIN~UBLIC\PLANkBMR800HI-WSF3.DOC We agree to provide a Below Market Rate component in the 26-unit mixed use project at 800 High Street as described in this Letter of Agreement dated August 11, 1999. Applicant: Name:Date: Title: Owners: Name~ Title: Page i0 \\CH_AS D_ADMINLPUBLICWLANkBMR800HI-WSF3 .DOC 2 :MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 16" Attachment B 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 August 25, 1999 REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM City Council Chambers Room Civic Center, Ist Floor 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 ROLL CALL." Meeting called to order at 7.’00 P.M. Commissioners: Owen Byrd, Chair - absent Kathy Schmidt, Vice-Chair Bern Beecham Annette Bialson Phyllis Cassel John Schink Patrick Burt Ed Gm4f Planning Director Ariel Calonne, City Attorney Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Chandler Lee, Consultant Planner Vice Chair Schmidt: I’d like to call the Planning Commission meeting for August 25, 1999 to order. Would the Secretary please call the role? Six present. The first item on the agenda is Oral Communications and at this time members of the public may speak to any item that is not on tonight’s agenda and there’s a limit of three minutes. Is there anyone who has an item to speak to that is not on tonight’s agenda? Seeing no one, I will move on to the next item and that is Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: I would like to propose that we move forward on the agenda the presentation by Mr. Trumbull for Stanford. I believe that’s presently an unnumbered item, Reports from Officials. I’d like to have that heard prior to the item number one. City of Palo Alto Page 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 Vice Chair Schmidt: Okay, is there a second to that motion? SECOND: Commissioner Beecham: Second. Vice Chair Schmidt: It’s been moved by Annette, seconded by Bern, to move the presentation about Stanford’s land use plan prior to item one. All those in favor? (ayes) That passes on a 6-0, "Mth Commissioner Byrd absent. The next item on the agenda is Approval of Minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES. We have three sets of minutes: June 23, 1999, July 14, 1999, and July 28, 1999. I’m quite sure we had different people attending each of those meetings. Are there any motions or recommendations for changes or corrections to any of these minutes? Commissioner Bialson: I move that they be approved. Vice Chair Schmidt: I think we’ll have to do them separately because we have different people attending. MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: I move that the Minutes of June 23, 1999 be approved. SECOND: Commissioner Beecham: Second. Vice Chair Schmidt: It’s been moved by Annette, seconded by Bern, to approve the minutes of June 23, 1999. At that meeting, Jon Schink was absent. Any discussion? All those in favor? (ayes) All those opposed? That passes on a 5-0 vote, with Commissioner Schink abstaining because he was not present and Commissioner Byrd not present tonight. The next one is the minutes from July 14, 1999 and we have Jon Schink was absent and Chairman Byrd and Commissioner Beecham did not participate in items one and two. Do I have a motion? MOTION: Commissioner Cassel: So moved. SECOND: Commissioner Bialson: Second. Vice Chair Schmidt: It’s been moved by Phyllis and seconded by Annette to approve the minutes of July 14, 1999. Any discussion? Commissioner Beecham: My vote will not apply to one and two. Vice Chair Schmidt: All those in favor. (ayes). All those opposed. That also passes 5-0 with Commissioner Schink abstaini.ng because he was absent, Commissioner Byrd not present, and Commissioner Beecham not voting on items one and two. Next is minutes Cir. of Palo Alto Page 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 from July 28, 1999. Commissioner Byrd had a conflict as did Commissioner Beecham and Commissioner Schink. Is there a motion? MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: So moved. SECOND: Commissioner Cassel: Second. Vice Chair Schmidt: It’s been moved by Commissioner Bialson and seconded by Commissioner Cassel to approve the minutes of July 28, 1999. Any discussion? All those in favor? (ayes) All those opposed. That passes with four in favor and Commissioners Beecham and Schink not participating because they had a conflict and Commissioner Byrd absent. The next item on the agenda is unfinished business and there is none. UNFINISHED BUSINESS. None. NEW BUSINESS. It is at this time that we will take the item, Reports from Officials, and that will be a presentation by Terry Trumbull, Chairman of the Santa Clara County Planning Commission on an update of development of the Stanford Land Use Plan. I just note that Chairman Trumbull has been scheduled numerous times to come and speak to us and has been put off many times, so I’m happy to move you forward so you can talk to us tonight. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. ¯Update of Development of the Stanford Land Use Plan. Mr. Terry Trumbull, Chairman of the Santa Clara County Planning Commission: Thank you very much. I appreciate the chance to appear before the commission and I’m very pleased to see that your commission will be hearing, in a very quick turn around I might add, the Stanford Plan within a few days, roughly a week, after it’s tamed in by Stanford on September 20t~. So I’m pleased to see the handout that everybody picked up when they came into the meeting, that you’ll be reviewing it so quickly. To reiterate, my name is Terry Trumbull, resident of Palo Alto. I’m the County Planning Commissioner for the area from Palo Alto to Saratoga. Our rules are markedly different than yours. Commissioners are appointed by County Supervisors from areas and, more significantly, the individual County Supervisor really has complete land use control over his area. So the fact that we’re now doing a land use plan for Stanford, the first one is really a credit for Joe Simitian’s commitment to process and being a planning professional himself. City of Palo Alto Page 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 lO 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Stanford lands cover 8,000 acres in six different jurisdictions, Palo Alto and Santa Clara County, and our county, and three cities in San Mateo County. Key factors on the Stanford Plan; these are ideas I would like to have you think about because they are all up in the air at this point. Historically, in 1978, when I first served on the County Planning Commission, we changed our rules and said to avoid urban sprawl, the County is in the business only of agriculture and open space, we’re not in the business of doing urban- style development. As a result of that change has meant that the one exception to that rule, Stanford now has become 60 to 70% of our land-deve!opment activity. So the one exception to the rule that the County solely does ag[riculture] and open space is Stanford. Similarly, our rule is that each city develops a five-year urban service area line and no development can occur outside of that line and inside the line, we’re totally deferential to the needs and demands of the individual city. By the 1985 agreement between the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County, also signed by Stanford, we don’t follow those rules for the 4,000 acres of Stanford academic lands. So that’s the one exception for us in the 338,000 acres of land that we cover. We’re now in the process of doing the first-ever plan. In 1962, Stanford was put under a use permit and in 1989, the first significant use permit came into place. We do not have a general plan in place in terms you’re used to thinking of. Our general plan basically says Stanford is 4,400 acres of educational land and that’s it. So a major factor that is going to be coming out is that you’ll actually see zoning on the plan that Stanford will prepare on September 20th. The purpose of our September 2nd meeting, which will be held here in these Chambers, the County Planning Commission will meet to try to come up with some overall standards. What I mean by overall standards is to not throw out the kind of good things that we’ve found in the 1989 permit. It says Stanford is not allowed to do development that results in new housing spaces on campus, that does not result in addition to the number of vehicle trips going to the campus, set a ceiling of 2.1 million new square feet of building in said number of 2000 new people on campus during the day. That raised Stanford up to 34,000 people on campus during the day now. Roughly 10,000 students and the rest employees. What is up in the air is the 1985 agreement, do we want to stick with that, is there a need for change in the rules, putting together zoning traditional general plan and then following that up with a general use permit that accurately reflects it. Our September 2na meeting is trying to get these overall rules, do we want to keep a limit on no new net trips, the limit on parking, what’s an appropriate limit on the amount of construction on campus, those types of factors. In addition, a number of cities and jurisdictions as well as the six public hearings we’ve had since we decided to have a plan have suggested other options. An example of those is the city of Menlo Park has suggested on the transportation side of things that we should reorient the access to the campus so that the Alpine/280 exit is the way that you get on the campus rather than cutting through Palo Alto and Menlo Park. Similarly, the transportation component our staff has proposed consideration of a by-pass of the Willow Road corridor going through County territory to eliminate the perceived bottleneck there. There are some major issues that need to be considered on that side of things. City of Pa!o Alto Page 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 In Palo Alto, the high attention area has been in open space where the City has made it very clear that they want some commitment to permanent open space. Without saying where it will be, which will happen later in the process, County staff is proposing a three- tiered system: academic development within a core where building would be allowed to occur in the 10 to 15 year lifetime of the general plan, a second area where no development would occur but it would not be protected permanently, and then finally an area which would be permanent open space, designated for that purpose, perhaps deeded in some way, shape or fashion that would cater to open space district. Similarly, a major theme we had was housing. Housing proponents, some were suggesting we have rules that might, for example, say that Stanford cannot do additional development of jobs on campus until they house any student who wishes to have a home on campus. Other groups are raising the issue of how much of a dent should Stanford put into the inability of its low-income, below-market rate employees to find housing, and what should Stanford’s obligation be in that area. So, those are all factors that the commission will decide or, if not, you will have in front of you when you review this item and will have to ultimately come up with. Last March, your City Council unanimously praised the County for doing the plan and committed to having Palo Alto run the shadow process. I think the letter today is a good start towards doing that that indicates the three upcoming review meetings that are happening. If all of this goes perfectly, we will have in front of the Board of Supervisors in November of the year 2000, a community plan to use the terminology that we were referring to with the general permit. The major dilemma is there will be a change in supervisors roughly a month thereafter and we’re on an extraordinarily tight schedule. Then, I think after that occurs, we still need to move into a regional dialogue to get the six different jurisdictions talking about what they want to do with Stanford lands as a whole. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Schmidt: Are there questions for Terry? Commissioner Burt: Terry, could you just tell us a little bit more again about the urban boundary or urban service area; what’s included and excluded, where Palo Alto’s service area is. Mr. Trumbull: Palo Alto’s urban service area line runs along Junipero Serra so that the academic corridor is essentially between Junipero Serra and E1 Camino Real on Stanford lands. The question largely would be, I think, is what areas to the west of that, or south if you look at a map carefully, are actually going to be permanent open space as County officials have said they would like to see and the public has said, and which areas would kind of be held in reserve, that would not be used in the 10 to 15 year lifetime of this plan but that would also not have a permanent, long-term commitment associated with them. Stanford has also suggested that they might designate some areas, for example, as permanent open space, like the old Arboretum areas that logically you’re going to keep that way in any case. All of this is really up in the air, certainly for our commission quite Cir. of Palo Alto Page 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 different than what we’re used to dealing with which is largely agriculture and bucolic issues than this. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you very much. We’ll look for~ward to seeing the proposed plan and having the opportunity to review it. Thank you. The next item on the agenda is a public hearing. One of the hearings is 555 College Avenue and that has been withdrawn. It was an appeal of Zoning Administrator’s denial of the conditional use permit and the appellant has withdrawn the appeal. NEW BUSINESS. Public Hearings: 1.555 College Avenue: Withdrawn. The next item is 800 High Street that is a draft Environmental Impact Report for 800 High Street, and Planning Commission discussion and recommendation on the EIR prepared for 800 High Street. The public comment period on the DEIR ended on June 25, 1999 and the second part of this is review of an application for a Zone Change. o 800 High Street, Review of an application for a Zone Change from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S)(P) District to the Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48 foot high, three story mixed use building including 26 residential units, 48,030 square feet of office space, 2,379 square feet of retail space, a subterranean parking garage and related site improvements; and a variance for a portion of the third floor residential area that exceeds the City’s height requirement. Environmental Assessment: A Draft Environmental Impact Report has been prepared. This item has been tentatively scheduled for public hearing with the City Council on Monday, September 21st. This is a quasi-judicial item, subject to Council disclosure policies, so it’s a good time for members of the Commission to note if they have talked with the Applicant. Commissioner Schink: I will be abstaining on this item because I have business dealings with the managing partner of this application and could possibly have some conflict of interest. Commissioner Beecham: I met with the Applicant to review the I think now obsolete 3- D model and also to discuss the public benefits. Commissioner Bialson: I also met with the Applicant and his architect to discuss the project. Commissioner Cassel: So have I. City of Palo Alto Page 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: I met with the Applicant and his architect with members of the neighborhood and with Jim Murons. Vice Chair Schmidt: I also met with the Applicant and his architect to review the project. Let us go to the Staff. Edward Gawf, Planning Director: Thank you. Let me introduce it with a few comments and then I’m going to turn it over to Chandler Lee, who has been the project planner on this item. As I looked at this proposal, there are two basic questions that I think you and we need to address. The first question is the traditional requirements that we apply to any new building development, any new development that includes a commercial building, and that is typical requirements like intensity, building design, massing, set backs, the basic building blocks if you will of any building. But because this is a Planned Community Zone request, there is also a requirement for public benefit. I will let Chandler Lee in a couple of minutes just talk about how we evaluated the building in terms of the design elements of the intensity, etc. But I thought I’d take a minute or two and just talk about the other part of it, and that is the public benefit, because I think that’s a very important part of any proposal, but it’s only important, and I should emphasize this, it’s only important if you find the building acceptable both in intensity and design, etc. That’s the first test. If it meets that test, then I think you look at the public benefit component. As we looked at it and worked on it over the last few months as Staff, we wanted to make sure that there was a public benefit for both the community and the neighborhood. So we identified things that we think will be of benefit again to the community and to the neighborhood. I won’t go through all the public benefit items that they’re proposing, but I’m going to try to touch on three or four of what I think are the main ones, the key oneg. First for me, very important, was the proposal to provide nine low-market rate units. As you know from the staff report, the requirement is 2.6 BMR units. We feel that in this area, as we talked about the SOFA Plan and just in general in the community, that one of our needs in this community is affordable housing. Below- market rate housing is important and we push very hard to provide that kind of housing that’s needed in this particular project. A second public benefit as we looked at it, one of the oppommities I think we have with this site, it is different than, at least I think it’s different than other sites in the SOFA area, the Lester/Ramona area if you will. It’s different because of its proximity to Alma, I think, and to some other factors, the utility substation, Alma Street, some of the higher intensity, higher density uses along Alma. But I think it’s also unique in the sense that it’s a halfa block. It’s not the only large parcel in this area. In fact, I do not see that this is a precedent for other land use combinations in the rest of the SOFA area. In fact, I think this has a unique role. I know we’re going to set up a working committee and we’re really going to look more closely at the requirements and the SOFA Plan vision for this particular area. But I see more emphasis on housing in the rest of the area, especially the MU-2 area as you get closer to the residential area. One of the opportunities I think though that we have with this site is parking. Parking for not only the use itself, which is important and required, but also to provide additional City of Palo Alto Page 7 1 parking opportunities for the South of Forest Area, this neighborhood. And we’ve done 2 this, what I think is certainly a different way of doing it, is we analyzed the issuance or at 3 least thought about it. What we said was, instead of having the developer just provide 4 parking for the development, let’s step back and look at it as a public parking facility, 5 very similar to this building, if you will. That is, the main tenant or the tenant in this 6 building, has so many permanent parking permits for this parking area, the underground 7 parking area. But in addition to that, there are public parking spaces and in addition to 8 that there are also other permit parking spaces available to employees in the Downtown 9 area. So we saw a very similar kind of concept here, that is a certain number of permit 10 parking being allocated to the development but another percent being allocated to 11 employees in the SOFA area, not in the larger Downtown, but in the SOFA area. In 12 addition to that, we also saw the opportunity to provide short-term parking for the 13 immediate area as well. So a percent would be allocated for two or three-hour parking, 14 trying to provide again a parking area, if you wilt, for the SOFA, west of Ramona SOFA 15 area. By treating it as a public lot, one of the things we can accomplish is that in effect 16 we can make greater use of the parking facility than if it were privately operated. That is, 17 for public lots we basically over-sell the permits because we know that we can sell 20 or 18 30% more permits for a permit parking lot than in the actual number of stalls you have 19 and it actually works because people are sick, on vacation, or whatever. Twenty percent 20 is pretty conservative, 30% is being aggressive, so we use 25% here. In addition, the 21 other thing that we’ve required the developer to do is to have a very active transportation 22 demand management program so that not only will they provide parking for this larger 23 area but they will also work very hard, for a couple of reasons. One is they will have 24 fewer guaranteed permits. But secondly, as a requirement, we are requiring them to 25 adopt and implement a transportation demand management program. That’s two public 26 benefits that we saw that were particularly important. Two others that I’ll mention. The 27 third one is contribution to a public park. As you know, one of the issues that we 28 discussed with the SOFA Plan was the creation of a park in this particular area and we 29 believe that all people that develop in this area should contribute to that. The public 3o benefit will be a cash amount or an agreement to joint an assessment district, whichever 31 is larger. That is trying to get at the park issue. The final one that I’ll mention, there are 32 several others but these are the key ones, is improving the alley that runs the length of it. 33 Obviously, it helps their property but the proposal is to improve the full width of the alley 34 SO it improves the entire alley, not just their portion of the alley. Again, how you decide 35 or what you decide on the basic question of: is this a building that’s appropriate for this 36 location? That’s one question. As Staff, we feel comfortable in recommending approval 37 of that part of it but we also think that a very important question is: is there a public 38 benefit in doing this and, if so, that public benefit should truly be a public benefit to the 39 community and to the neighborhood and we’ve at least tried to achieve that. 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Chandler Lee, Consultant Planner: Thank you. Before I begin, I’d like to introduce Scott McPhearson and Bob Berman, who are sitting in the front row, who are with the firm ofNicholes Berman, the environmental firm that prepared the Environmental Impact Report and they are here to answer any questions you might have. Ci& of Palo Alto Page 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 44 45 The project before you was submitted about two and a half years ago. It was initially reviewed by the ARB as a prelim in July of 1997, it was reviewed by your Planning Commission in August of 1997, and by the City Council in May of 1998. Based on the City Council’s direction, the Applicant has reduced the amount of office space significantly from 62,000 to 48,000 square feet, he has increased the number of housing units from 16 to 26, reduced the height and mass of the third floor of the building, and significantly improved the public benefit package. The current project was submitted in November of 1998, a draft EIR was issued on May 26 and the 30-day review period ended on June 25th of this year. Two comments were submitted on the EIR, they are in your packet and do not raise, in Staff’s opinion, any significant issues. The HRB also reviewed the project in June of this year and although they regretted the loss of the historic structure, basically agreed that the replacement project would be iri keeping with the neighborhood and that it would be economically infeasible to rehabilitate the existing structure. In addition to the project before you, Staff has a couple of things that I think would be important to focus on. The first is the design in the pedestrian orientation of the building and the Applicant will describe that in more detail. The second, as Ed said, is the public benefit package. Based on the findings and conditions in the staff reports, Staff is recommending approval of the project for several reasons. First, the size and scale of the building we believe is appropriate for this particular location. The site, as Ed said, is unique in the SOFA area and is suitable for a high-density building of this sort. The public benefit package includes three particular amenities that are greatly needed in the SOFA area. They include nine below-market rent apartment units, 104 public parking spaces, and a $350,000 contribution to a parking area. Fourthly, the building design we believe is a positive contribution to the area. It provides a public atrium and a pedestrian-scale streetscape. Lastly, and probably most importantly, the project we believe is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and proposed SOFA cap. Therefore, Staff is recommending approval and we are here to answer any questions. Thank you. Vice Chair Schmidt: I believe we should go next to the Applicant. The next part of this public hearing will be the Applicant. The Applicant has 15 minutes to do a presentation. Mr. Roxy Rapp, 375 University Avenue, Palo Alto: It has been a long time, two years, since I’ve been here before you and we’ve made quite a few changes. Just real quickly I’d like to tell you about them. In our many meetings with the SOFA group that one of the major changes is that the Channing end of the project, at Channing and High, we set back the building quite a bit, 30 feet on the first floor and then the first floor back to the second floor goes 20 feet, and another 20 feet back to the third floor. Then also with my many meetings with Ed Gawf and Staff, that we looked at the Plaza and sort of made the Plaza much more comfortable, usable area. We added much more planters, we raised the Plaza, and also came up with the idea of lowering the oversight of the building that was originally three floors back by the alley, and we lowered that to two floors. And then working with Bob and Ed, we looked at the High Street side and we also lowered two elements that were originally, since you’ve seen it last, three floors we lowered those to two floors. Those are probably the major changes that we’ve made to the building. Bob Cir. of Palo Alto Page 9 1 2 3 4 5 is going to talk about the different elements that will make up the building, the exciting parts of it. So I’d like to turn it over to Bob. Mr. Bob Peterson, Architect, 335 Webster Street, Palo Alto: We wanted to show you two things. Because we’ve met with all of you, I think you’re adequately familiar with the 6 basics of the project. I wanted to first talk about the materials and I’ll hold them up, and 7 then I’d like to pass them down so you can get a sense of the quality that we’re after here 8 and I think that makes a-major impact on this neighborhood. Secondly, we have a video 9 for you and I’ll say a little more about that after we look at the materials. I wanted to 10 introduce the materials to you so when you look at the video you can maybe make a 11 connection and know what you’re seeing there in terms of the quality level. So without 12 seeing anything first, let me talk about those materials. First, we were adding on all 13 streets, on three streets, we’re putting in new sidewalks and lighting the sidewalk on High 14 Street, and putting in a granite top, which is really a beautiful piece of material. Our 15 intent is to lay those as you would lay an interlocking, all the way around so that we need 16 tO have a material that if and when there’s any need for repairing water damage, we can 17 just pick them up. This is a lovely material. It’s going to be about two or three inches 18 thick and is going to be 30 by 30, so these are big pieces and they go all over the 19 sidewalks, they go up onto the Plaza at the atrium. Then, nmning all along the street 2o level on the housing level as well as the atrium,.there are two fundamental materials. 21 One is the sandstone, which will be the caps to all the planting areas and the second 22 would be two or three kinds of slate that will be used in combination with the sandstone 23 and on the live/work units it runs up the full level of the walls on all those units. The 24 third main element that you see on the building is the upper level, which has a metal skin 25 on it, and we’re proposing a zinc material. As you know, we had looked at both copper 26 and zinc and there is a fundamental problem with copper--pollution in the Bay. Our first 27 preference was zinc to begin with. That’s not a problem in the Bay and it’s our 28 preference anyway. It’s a natural material. When it’s brand new it’s very dull but it is a 29 slightly white color. Within about a year it starts to dull down and gets to be a very soft, 3o gray color. All of these you will see in the video to give you an idea of how they feel. 31 Then we have two or three other elements. The living unit elements, which are the first 32 level that run all the way down High Street, are a combination of those dome materials 33 with stucco above. That’s an integral color, stucco, and will be in two colors which is a 34 gray and a terra cotta color. I’I1 pass those around. These are very rich colors. We used 35 them before and were able to match those virtually exactly as those colors and they look 36 very rich and handsome. Then, all of the windows, all the fenestration, our trellis, on 37 both the Plaza level and around down the alley is done in this kind of soft green color, 38 which works very well with those. Then we have an accent that actually the trellis and 39 the trellis support down Alma in a couple of column caps have a full rich purple color, 4o like a pinstripe. So we don’t get a lot of it, but it adds a little zest to what’s going on. 41 Now one of the main issues that we’ve been dealing with, and is a reflection of what 42 we’ve heard from the public too, is one of how large is this building, what is the 43 perception of mass in it. We’ve done a lot of changes since the model was done, since 44 we submitted it a couple of years ago. After the review of the ARB, we did quite a bit of 45 additional work and the video we have will show you and I’ll point out what we have 46 changed significantly. I’m going to ask Terry to run through that video once; it’s not Ct& of Palo Alto Page 10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 very long. We’ll just let it go and then make a few comments. We’ll run it straight through and then I’ll have him run it once more and we’ll pause and stop so we can make comments as you see it. Robert Peterson, Architect: This is at the comer of High and Homer as you approach the atrium element. This does give you a good idea of the kind of volume and openness. And this is moving down High Street where you can see the living units, the live/work units on the street, to get a sense of.the volume and the terraces. We’re very proud of our hand-wrought gates that we plan to put, different on each entry. This is the approach toward the entry to the parking garage, which is obviously there where the car is coming out, and shows you the property line is out here. You can see the setback for each of these elements. This gives you a sense of the pedestrian level down High Street. This is coming up a one-way street down from Alma. This is why Mr. Jon Schink cannot talk tonight. You may not know that Jon is a famous male model and here he is right here. This shows one of the views from the ERI, existing fading into the new, to give you a sense of those changes. Okay, we’ll run through it again. Why don’t you stop right there. There’s a couple of elements here. Obviously one of the major issues is the transparency here. We felt for the completion of the sense of the building, we needed to carry this form out. What we’re doing, instead of having a very large skylight in the roof of this atrium up here, we’ve made the entire roof a skylight, so it is all glazed. But these sides are completely open; that’s just an open frame so that there is complete transparency and this material, which is on the upper levels, is just stripped off as we come to the comer. Then we’ve added this trellis element which I think will do a very good job of bringing the scale down so that you feel really comfortable in that space. That’s one of the things that was very important to us, we wanted this to work at pedestrian level. This is the level you really experience when you’re on the street and it really does work. We’ve also raised this terrace level up three risers so we get a sense of separation from the street yet it’s very open, so I think it will work very well as a comfortable space to be in. We have a ramp area here, so it works for handicapped as well. Mr. Rapp: Also, Bob, why don’t you point out the two areas that we lowered from three- story to two-story. Mr. Peterson: This element is to the start of that element that runs down High Street and then we have a similar element over here. They were up to the top here in both cases. We’ve taken a level off those and those are breakout spaces from the offices, so they’re open terraces, they’ll have umbrellas and just a general open, outdoor space available to the offices. The other thing we’ve done over here is this line used to go down parallel to this unit. We’ve turned it right here and gone back at a 45-degrees to the alley and you’ll see that in the other view. That reduces the sense of both greatly here. Mr. Rapp: Okay, why don’t we pause there. This gives you the sense of volume and airiness in here. We wanted to have an outdoor plaza that was covered so you could use it even in inclement weather. We’ve done this in other projects and it’s very, very helpful because then it has vitality all year round. As you know, the climate is sufficiently good Ct~. of Palo Alto Page 11 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 here that even when it’s raining you get warm enough weather that you can sit out there and utilize it, so we wanted to do that, as well as opening up that sense of volume. So you’ll get that combination of enclosure with no mass involved with it. This is a combination of ~andstone and slate that runs all around this project, so it’s a high-quality level. The integral color stucco is on these upper levels. We have stone sills on each of these windows and that was the window color in both this and the window. It will be a very rich area and it also, these materials are resistant to wear, which is the whole idea, that within 20 or 30 years, it still looks very good, the quality level is there, you don’t get dings and bangs because they’re really tough materials. Okay, Terry. Okay, let’s pause there for a moment. The terrace has retail on this leg and on the opposite leg over there so that the terrace in the atrium has that retail vitality. But then it makes a transition into the housing areas and these are out at street level and this one has the opportunity for two entries. They can come off the street here, go upstairs on the inside, which is only three risers, and then they go up here. Then this is the start of the live/work units, each of which has a specially designed gate and a metal separation between each of the terraces. Each of the doors will be individually designed and we did discuss this and show this to the Public Arts Commission two weeks ago and they were very encouraging and delighted that we were going to have a significant art program here and they w.ill be involved in that. You get a sense of the scale here. This feels very airy and light and this gives you a good idea of the perception at the pedestrian level. I’m not going to kid you that this doesn’t exist up there, because it does. But you really don’t feel that and I think this is the experience you have and it’s the one we want that we think is so crucial to making this work and being such a good improvement on the street itself. Mr. Rapp: Excuse me, Bob, why don’t you point out the sidewalk lights, because this is a real dark side of the street. Mr. Peterson: Yes, we are integrating lights all down the building so they will be integrated with the building and give good lighting here. I might point out that this is all the granite peaver[?] that runs down there and up on the terrace itself and these again are the two materials, the slate and sandstone. Vice Chair Schmidt: I just wanted to note that the 15 minutes quietly expired here, but why don’t you finish going through this. Mr. Peterson: That’s actually the purple accent color, which occurs in three places. Mr. Rapp: At this level there will be 10 parking spaces for two hours, or whatever Ashok feels, two hours and 24 minutes, that will be used by the Palo Alto Hardware and anyone that is running over for a quick massage at Watercourse Way, or whatever. Mr. Peterson: Right. And this is a new aisle lane, the improvements. I wanted to point out this sunscreen which is a somewhat playful element. We have a steel ribbon that goes down there which is that purple color and then a semi-transparent grid over that City of Palo Alto Page 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ¯ 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 which will shade all these windows at both levels for the sun and add a playful sense on that element of the building. And it returns on this side, too. Mr. Rapp: Excuse me, Bob, the alley also will be very well lit as one of the problems in Palo Alto, I think, is that we’re really under-lit in a lot of our neighborhoods and certain alleys, so we’re going to put lights all the way down the alley because we feel this alley, there is backdoors for all the live/work space. Go ahead. Mr. Peterson: With the setback of this end of the building, we’ve created a little seating park here with seating on both sides of this and foliage. This is one of the BMR units; we want to have adequate foliage. It’s going to be more foliage than this, but that will give you an idea of the separation between the two. We are adding landscaping on both sides of the street here and maintaining it. And this is coming from Alma. You see this unit here, with the outdoor area on the upper level, bicycle parking here. Mr. Rapp: Terry, could you stop it a little more. Right there. This week there’s a letter from Pearl and Joe Larkin that own the building across the street fight there and I met with Pearl and Joe. They pointed out something really interesting to me that I go along with that he would really not like to have a tree there for two reasons. Number one is the sidewalk is very narrow when you make the turn around along there and also for parking and also making the turn safe. So, I agreed on this on not putting in the two trees right there. Watercourse Way would like the trees further on down, though. The other thing is that Joe didn’t really have a chance to see the new model and how the setbacks and openness of the Plaza. He likes it very much now. Mr. Peterson: Here comes our famous model. And we will have artwork there, as well as a number of other places. Why don’t you stop it there just for a moment. I think this gives you the feel for what we’re trying to do. Even though this is a long building, I think on the pedestrian level you’re going to get the sense that it’s a series of units of individual developments as you go down the street and this is one large unit on the other side, but you really will perceive primarily this breakup of individual pieces as you go down the street. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Okay, I think it’s time for questions of Staff and of the Applicant. Then we will move on to comments from the public. If you want to speak to this agenda item, please turn in a card. I have about eight cards here. Anyone else who wants to speak, please turn in a card. I’d like to start with questions. Anyone like to begin? Bern. Commissioner Beecham: Well, actually I have a question of a speaker who I see coming up, Larry Hassett. I’d like to get specifically his comment, if he would, on a mitigation measure 4.3-2 that talks about no stopping and no loading in the alleyway and how that might affect his business. Mr. Larry Hassett, 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto: Owner of Palo Alto Hardware. Bern, I was unaware that that statement was in the thing. It would have dramatic impact or affect City of Palo Alto Page 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 ,.33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 on our ability to conduct business. We’d end up double parking similar to Whole Foods on Channing. Sometimes unloading of trucks can take upwards of an hour. If there was, indeed, that clause in there, I was unaware of it. Mr. Rapp: The way the building is designed, there’s really no reason for that clause because Larry could have a truck there, one of his big trucks, and we are actually right in the alleyway so there would be room for a car to pass the truck while it is unloading, especially someday if streets ever go back to two-way. Vice Chair Schmidt: Other questions? Pat. Commissioner Burt: Can the Staff clarify under current zoning what the allowable square footage of construction and the types of construction. Mr. Lee: The existing zoning, as you know, is Service/Commercial. It allows both residential and non-residential uses, including office retail and the types being proposed. The maximum allowable commercial square footage that is allowed in the zone under existing zoning is .4 FAR which translates into, I’m going to have to search for it here, 32,000 square feet. What is being proposed then, if you subtract what is being proposed from what existing zoning allows, the project would add roughly 33,000 square feet above and beyond existing zoning. Vice Chair Schmidt: Annette, do you have a question? Phyllis, do you have any questions? Commissioner Cassel: That answer confused me. I thought you were allowed 4., a certain amount plus so much for the housing. Mr. Lee: That’s correct. The housing is above and beyond that. That’s just the commercial component of it. They’re actually lower in FAR than what the existing zoning allows for the residential portion. Commissioner Beecham: There is a table on page 15 that helps clarify that some. Ms. Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator: IfI could interject. There is a one-to-one FAR allowed in the CDS zoning district if it’s a mixed use, which includes.residential. So you could get .6 FAR for the residential component and then .4, as Chandler mentioned, for the commercial component. Vice Chair Schmidt: Other questions? I assume we can ask more questions after the public comments, also. Let us move on to comments from the public. Each person will have five minutes. The first speaker is Michael Griffin, to be followed by Joette Farrand. Mr. Michael Griffin, 344 Poe Street, Palo Alto: I’m on the steering committee of the Downtown North Neighborhood Association. Rather than discussing the pros and cons of this application, I’ll get to the bottom line which is, in my opinion, that the citizens of Ctty of Palo Alto Page 14 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2o 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3o 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Palo Alto are giving up more than they’re getting here. Despite some configuration changes, this project is simply still too big; huge, in fact. No amount of tweaking is going to alter that fact, nor will the public benefits reduce the traffic impacts of the project on the community. The increase in all those new car trips will have to be absorbed somehow, regardless of parking spaces and public art. Not only absorbed by the core commercial district, but also by the neighborhoods because that’s what’s between Highway 101 and Downtown, is residential neighborhoods. The Applicant proposes the use-of PC zoning in order to permit his monolithic structure. The voters, the residents, the taxpayers of this town are being asked to allow an exemption to existing and reasonable zoning regulations. By granting the right to exceed the rules covering square footage, FAR, and building height, the developer and his owners stand to realize a great!y magnified profit potential. This exemption to the CDS Commercial Zone gives the property owners what is, in effect, a windfall profit opportunity. I mean, that’s what it is, a windfall profit. Why are we citizens granting them the fight to turbo-charge their profits? Certainly not, I hope, to obtain the modest list of benefits on page 24 of the report. Parking, housing, sidewalk art, trees, $350,000 to a park. That’s what Palo Alto taxpayers get in the way of so-called public benefits? It’s lacking. The owners get to increase the size and the magnitude of their building by 90%, almost double what is allowed, get the right to obtain a much-enhanced stream of revenue income into the future in exchange for ... no, it’s simply not enough. And the project is simply too big, regardless of the traffic generated. The ARB and Planning Commission have already said that Phase 2 of the SOFA cap needs further study because of the high density envisioned. This project before us now moves toward that density before the study of the whole area is completed. The project also sets a negative precedent, which is sure to be followed by projects in the pipeline. Projects coming on Lytton Street, north High Street, and as each one of these things goes up, it becomes a precedent for the one that follows. That’s the way it works in the development world. I think the Planning Commission should find this project to be too big a building and too little a benefit. Allowing them to double the size of the structure while contributing only $350,000 toward the neighborhood park, to me it just can’t be justified and I hope you feel the same way. Thank you. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. The next speaker is Joette Farrand, to be followed by Elaine Meyer. Ms. Joette Farrand, 724 Bryant Street, Palo Alto: I live in the Victorian next to the library and I’ve addressed many of you before and I’m also for the park. I’ve lived in Palo Alto for a long time, almost 30 years, and I plan to die here. I’ve followed this project from the very beginning and I do want to say, I commend Roxy for trying to make changes, involve the neighborhood, and involve the neighbors, but the biggest concern of the neighbors, and myself, from day one has been that this building is very big. I know you get excited about all the granite, ivy on the pillars, and the flowers, but for me, I’m just overwhelmed with the size of it. When I come down Homer Street, I drive down, I see open space. I see sky. I was thinking the other day that it’s going to come to an end. I know somebody else would build there, but I still think this project is just too big and too massive and ! think will impact the neighborhood and other buildings around it by City of Palo Alto Page 15 1 2 3 4 5 setting a precedent. Not many of us are happy with the SRO and the building across from Ace Hardware. It seems out of scale and is too big. I’d like to see Palo Alto not go that direction. Thank you. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Elaine Meyer, to be followed by Yoriko Kishimoto. 6 7 Ms. Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto: Hello, I’m Elaine Meyer, President 8 of the University South Neighborhoods Group. We’ve been following the plans for the 9 Creamery project almost since its beginnings and we have always appreciated Roxy’s 10 desire to talk to us and we’ve responded warmly. We hope we can continue to influence 11 the development of this project. Specifically, we’re pleased that a number of our 12 suggestions have been adopted. We’ve had some influence on the setbacks on Channing 13 Avenue, on the Channing Avenue side, on the number of parking spaces and better access 14 to them, and there were changes made to the alley parking. We like the wider sidewalks 15 and we like the public plaza. We hope it doesn’t create any problems at all for the 16 hardware store. So there are plenty of aspects of the project that we like. Here comes the 17 "but." Still, one crucial aspect of the development has not changed--it’s size. There are 18 more numbers in the staff report than one can digest. But you have to search diligently to 19 find the size of the project, which is buried in the middle of a paragraph and not on page 2o one, where you’d expect it. It remains unchanged since its inception; it’s still about 21 80,000 square feet. We haven’t been able to convince Roxy to reduce its size and we 22 hope you’ll be more successful. We’ve seen pictures of the setbacks and the wider 23 sidewalks but magically the size of the building hasn’t changed. Where has that extra 24 footage gone? We haven’t seen a model of the actual project. The problem with its 25 exceptional size is that it combines three parcels, a unique circumstance that requires 26 special permissions. It needs a height variance to 48 feet and its 1.9 FAR is twice that 27 allowed under the current zoning. Almost every development and zoning restriction is 28 being pushed beyond its limits. This is a decision you’re being asked to approve that 29 creates a precedent for the whole area. It preempts the west of Ramona coordinated area 3o plan discussions that are meant to begin soon. If you approve a development of this size, 31 it most certainly will be followed by similar applications. The two 50-foot buildings 32 nearby are used as justification for this one, even though one of those buildings is all 33 housing and therefore should not be considered a precedent, but it is. In this case, the 34 jobs/housing imbalance is increased. We don’t need an additional 50,000 square feet of 35 office space. Are you saying this third exception is so desirable that you won’t make 36 another exception across the street on Alma? If you need to change the zoning for the 37 area between Emerson and Alma to allow 50-foot buildings and FARs of 1.9, you should 38 say so explicitly and not allow one PC after another to erode the rules and then call it a 39 public benefit. We don’t admire some of the other buildings that have been permitted on 4o Lytton Avenue and we’re glad you didn’t let that happen in University South. The 41 architectural improvements and below-market units cannot be used to disguise the size of 42 the project or the convertible street-level windows that are supposed to be residential but 43 look like store fronts. The possibility remains to convert them to commercial in a couple 44 of years or by the next owner. The FAR granted for these residential units is permanent, 45 it’s a permanent financial benefit and so the housing should be too. It’s ludicrous to 46 suggest that the City will send inspectors into private dwellings to check on whether City of Palo Alto Page 16 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 people sleep there--a kind of reverse bed check. You want to make sure the people are sleeping there. By the way, I wanted to mention there’s a mistake on Attachment D that implies that we, University South, suggested that the residential units be on the ground floor. In the very first presentation that I heard, the residences on the ground floor were described to us as a new and exciting idea. The architect also talks about it in the 1997 ARB minutes in the packet. I didn’t think that it was a good idea to reverse the usual arrangement of housing above commercial space but I hardly consider myself an expert in those matters. So if the City is serious about the "live" part of live/work, so that you’re willing to allow a large monolithic structure to be built, this requirement needs to be a legal requirement so that the ground-floor units don’t become a commercial windfall in a couple of years or when the property is sold. Roxy told us, told me, that he had no objection to such a requirement. At our last general meeting of our organization.., thank you. Vice Chair Schmidt: Yoriko Kishimoto to be followed by Cheri Ellison. Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto: I serve on the Board of University South Neighborhood Groups and I’m also a recently appointed member of the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. I’d also like to start by giving credit to Mr. Rapp and his team for kind of reaching out early to the neighbors and talking to us, including us in discussions, and also for designing a beautiful and pedestrian-friendly streetscape. I know that alone would be a great improvement to High. I also give credit to the City and Mr. Rapp for kind of coming up with the idea of contracting out the parking as a City- managed parking facility. That makes a lot of sense, combined with a TDM program. However, I guess I also have some points to raise. It will probably be three points. I guess one is the parking agreement with the City. I notice there was some discussion about restricting it to 10 years or 35 years and I don’t see any rationale for doing any less than the lifetime of the building since the impact of the building will be there for that time. I understand that Mr. Rapp doesn’t object to that. Second is actually kind of a more serious one, which is the relationship to the cap process. As you remember, the cap process was broken into two phases for a very clear reason, which was that the proposed densities and picture for the Alma/High section of it was extremely controversial. The FARs were way too high for a lot of people and we thought there was way too much office there. That was the explicit reason why we decided...that was Phase 2, nobody had decided anything on it. So I have to say I was very surprised to see the staff report quoting page 9 this L-6 about "Recognize the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan as a growth area" to absorb development cap of Downtown. I thought we explicitly took that out. Also, on page 12, the table co~paring it to the MU-2 proposed standards, which should have no standing at all with the Planning Commission because they were not approved at all. So ! would almost ask that that be eliminated from your considerations because we may decide for the average density in that area to be not 1.5 or 1.9 but 1.0. We don’t know since we haven’t discussed it. We also may decide that we want it to become much more residential even though it be mixed use. So, 800 High is an important chunk of that Phase 2, so I would rather see us finish Phase 2 and I’d love for this project to fit within the new Phase 2 standards without needing a PC process to accommodate it. I guess the third subject that I’ll raise has to do with that, which is, I’d really see actually knowing City of Palo Alto Page 17 1 absolutely no policy rationale for adding a single new net new job to Palo Alto. So, 2 48,000 square feet for additional office space is a big, big cliunk of office space to be 3 added. I’m sure we’re creating many more jobs than housing. If we’re going to assume 4 Palo Alto’s going to allow a lot more office, it makes sense to have a new transit. But 5 again, I don’t see any rational reason for adding a lot of office space. We’ve seen a lot of changes already in that project and I look forward to seeing more. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Cheri Ellison to be followed by Steve Epidendio. 6 7 8 9 10 11 Ms. Cheri Ellison, 2447 High Street, Palo Alto: I’m here speaking as an advocate of the 12 Santana Project. I’ve been following it for the last two years myself very closely and 13 being a co-owner of Ellison’s Towing and having just attended a meeting with the 14 Assistant Chief of Police this last week on the parking shortage in Palo Alto that we 15 experience every day by getting calls from Whole Foods, who has 170 employees and 16 they’re challenged to find parking places for them. It’s a significant concern for Palo 17 Alto and apparently they have millions of dollars in discussing about alleviating that 18 problem and I think it has been brilliantly addressed here by Roxy and very much need 19 because just the other night we towed nine cars from Whole Foods of people in the 2o community, mostly women at night, who were trying to find a place to park. So the 21 parking issue is a very real one. We’re really in the business to help people that break 22 down due to emergency, being an emergency roadside company. But the private 23 property issue is becoming an increasingly challenging problem of which it’s two-fold 24 here. I’d much rather see the parking problem alleviated than to provide the service. 25 That’s how strongly I feel that Roxy has addressed this in a brilliant way. In the meeting, 26 they said the City has no plans for creating a new parking structure south of Forest that 27 they knew of at this time. My focus in being an advocate of this is two-fold. One is, I 28 have the utmost respect for Roxy and I know just in personal dealings for many years that 29 doing three times the below-market housing is not just a ploy. It’s a sincere interest in 3o providing a mixed-use property that creates a wonderful statement for the community in 31 which we will be providing the business, the retail, the parking, and the housing. I see a 32 genius at work when I see the before and after pictures, kind of like a makeup artist. You 33 see the before picture and then you see the after and you go, wow, look how he dealt with 34 all of the issues that we heard about two years ago. The type of creativity, commitment 35 and fortitude--I’m thrilled to have a person... A developer often times has a connotation 36 when it’s brought up of this person coming into a market to take over. I see that Roxy 37 has a proven track record in his ability to listen intently to the concerns of the community 38 and respond brilliantly. The way that he handled the three-story down to the two-story 39 tier and the openness, those are ingenious ways of making a property work that I find 40 intriguingly wonderful. To have somebody of his caliber that has the financial feasibility 41 to take on a project of this magnitude and eliminate and problem that I just attended a 42 meeting on or not eliminate but certainly lessen the ability. Having 104 parking spaces 43 designated for employee and 50 for 2-hour parking will certainly effect Ellison’s Towing 44 business and we won’t be doing nearly as many private property towings. But that 45 doesn’t bother me as much as I see the disgruntled people coming into the office because 46 we towed their vehicle. Our preference is to be here to serve the community when you City of Palo Alto Page 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 break down and you really need our services because your car is disabled, not because you can’t find adequate parking in this area. Having seen the project before and knowing the concerns and then seeing the after effect of seeing what has been done, I’m very much in support of this project. Thank you. Vice Chair Schmidt: Steve Epipendio to be followed by Stephen Player. Mr. Steve Epipendio, 774 Emerson, Palo Alto: I’m store manager of Whole Foods Market. I’d like to commend Roxy on the design of the building. It’s a beautiful building. But first and foremost I’m here because of the parking issue. I have 170 employees plus at Whole Foods. Ten years ago, when Whole Foods opened, no one thought it would be that successful. The community has accepted it and as business has grown, we’ve had to have more and more employees. I guarantee it, business will keep growing and I’ll have to have more and more employees. Where do 170 employees park in that area? I park two blocks away and often ask myself the question: ifI had a house on this street I wouldn’t be happy. I would never be able to park in front of my house. There’s rows and rows and rows of cars on residential streets. I think Roxy has addressed the issue of, at least for my employees, a safe place to park. I feel it for my employees at night only when I’m walking the streets of Palo Alto. It’s a safe city in some aspects, but it would sure be nice if they had a secure place to park. As you can tell, I’m very supportive of this project. I think we needed to bring it to the City of Palo Alto and, in my case, it’s for employee parking. I hope you take this into consideration and the neighbors in the area that need their houses back. Thank you. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Stephen Player to be followed by Larry Hassett. Mr. Stephen Player, 1874 Guinda Street, Palo Alto: I’m here on behalf of the landowner, the Peninsula Creamery. I’ve represented the Peninsula Creamery since I started practicing law in Palo Alto and the Peninsula Creamery has been a major asset to this community for almost 50 years. This is the first time as the community has begun to phase out its operations that it is an opportunity to take this existing piece of property and develop it in a way that we hope as owners of that property, it will either be a beneficial legacy to this particular area. As a long time participant and neighbor of this particular area, we do have some real concerns for those businesses and residents around us. I’d like to congratulate Staff and Roxy for their partnership in working together to try to come up with some imaginative solutions to some very real problems, which have been raised by people here. But as a long-time resident myself of Palo Alto, and especially since I represented the Creamery, being very familiar with the neighborhood in which it operates. I’ve seen the increase in parking. I’ve seen the increase in traffic through this particular neighborhood and I do fully believe that the solution is being offered by Roxy in cooperation with the City of Palo Alto will be a very real benefit to the particular SOFA area. The parking in the area to move traffic off the streets into a Downtown garage, not surface parking, but a below-surface garage which is non-surface parking, in a building which I firmly believe, after looking at it and seeing the changes that have been made tonight, is going to add a vibrancy to this neighborhood. It is going to provide a walkable corridor between the neighborhood and the Downtown area. I believe will be Ctty of Palo Alto Page 19 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 4! 42 43 45 46 a real asset. It will take people out of their cars, not put people into cars. The City has been very responsive and very clear in their message to Roxy that we would like a full TDM program. He has responded to that by saying he will provide a firm TDM program. We’re talking about a ratio of cars to persons in this particular building, which is somewhat lower than has been before. We think we can achieve that. We also feel that the location of the building, which is within easy walking distance of a major planned transportation corridor with the present SP Depot, and is a very, very real plus. I watched my son who used to live in San Francisco and commuted down here to work. He could take the train, walk from the train to his particular place of work. He left his car at home many a day and taken this. I feel this is the type of individual we want to attract to this particular project. In addition to the parking and in addition to the removal of unneeded cars from other than being towed off the streets, we can now put them in our parking garage. There’s two other major components today. The nine BMR units is badly needed housing which would allow individuals who can’t othe .rwise afford to live in this City such as teachers, firemen, policemen, to have an opportunity to live within walking distance of City Hall. The $350,000 contribution to the park is a major step toward the park that’s going to help increase the livability of the SOFA area. Also remember, that this particular parcel, we’re not talking about putting it on the Palo Alto Medical Foundation site. We’re talking about a strip of land, which is one-half a block from Alma, the major corridor connecting us to adjoining cities. This is, in talking with Ed, you came up with a very good idea. The fact this is a positive thing for the neighborhood in the sense that it would take cars off, cut off cars, cause them not to be going through the neighborhood, but be going from Alma right to this particular parking garage, only one-half a block, not going through the SOFA area. The Creamery has been working on Wing to develop this project for almost three years. I’ve watched throughout this period of time and know his attitude about working with the SOFA study, his willingness to wait, his willingness to try to make it as compliant with the intent of SOFA study has been, as could possibly be. We’re here almost, I won’t say a year overdue on what the SOFA study was supposed to do or where we’re supposed to be, but we are still not anywhere near the final completion. This is based on what we know. This is based on where we’re going. I think it should go forward and I thoroughly support the project and the Peninsula Creamery asks that you would now move it forward. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Larry Hassett to be followed by Earl Schmidt. Mr. Hassett: I’m owner of Palo Alto Hardware, 875 Alma Street, and the last time I spoke about this project was at the ARB hearing and I raised two issues mainly. One was my concern about how the parking was actually going to impact street parking. The original plan called for a gated parking lot and I was very concerned about that. The other was about protection of my business from its nuisances and being chased out of Palo Alto like the airport that got chased out by residents which kind of filled in around the airport later on. I want to say on both those issues that after they were raised, I did meet with Roxy and with Planning Staff and City Council Members and a lot of issues were really hashed out. I think some good solutions were brought forward. I’m particularly pleased with the solution that came out regarding the parking and how the City of Palo Alto Page 20 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 parking garage will be managed. I was seriously looking at having that store not remain as a viable location if it continued the way it was presented at the ARB heating. But I’m very, very pleased to say that after meeting with Roxy and hashing these issues out, I’m very pleased with the results and I’m very happy that staff got involved in this and worked through the issues. I’m also pleased with the way the alley improvements may help out. The Dream Team really looked at Alma corridor a few years ago and encouraged the opening up of the alleys for more uses, more pedestrian-friendly things, and things like that. In this case, I think R0xy’s plan truly does encourage that. We’re really looking at being able to eliminate our recycling bins and dumpsters and things like that from the alley, possibly making our building more pedestrian-friendly by creating an entrance to our store off the alley. If there was improvements on the other side, I could easily see our building changing itsform slightly to encourage that kind of an access. I was unaware, Bern, of the issue that you brought before me, but in talking with Roxy, we had always just talked about the widening of the alley to allow for track parking and cars to pass on the side. It was kind of a back-of-mind issue for me. I didn’t really see that in the document itself, but I’m sure we will be able to resolve that as well. I know that many people in the City would like to encourage our business to stay around and I appreciate that and I appreciate the support from the neighbors, too. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Earl Schmidt followed by Joe Yarkin and Joe is the last card that I have so if there’s anyone else who wishes to speak, please tum in a card. Mr. Earl F. Schmidt, 201 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto: I live at the comer of Homer and. Emerson. My wife and I and our family own six properties in the immediate vicinity of the property in question. We own and live in the closest residential property to the property that’s being planned and I want to say that we totally support the way in which this has been planned. We’ve been watching it from the very beginning. Mr. Rapp, his architect and other people have been very sensitive to the community’s needs. I’m shocked that outsiders from north of University and from two people here who presumed to represent University South, because we’re the heart of University South and we’ve been planned and re-planned for so long. I hate to think of coming up to meet two people again to look out for our interests directly. But we will be looking at the new building. We’re very pleased with what we see. They offer a great many advantages to the area. We have worked very closely with our neighbors of Whole Foods. They’ve been good neighbors as have other commercial people in the area and I’m saying this as a resident living right on the comer of Homer and Emerson. We and our tenants find no problem at all living with the kind of representation we’ve seen from the business properties in the area. I feel quite confident that the plan that’s been presented, as it’s been finally worked down, is going to be a real asset to this community and may help us eventually in redevelopment many years down the pipeline for us tO turn around and meet you same people and ask to do something with our property, whether we dig three stories under the garage or not, we’ll find out. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Our last speaker is Joe Yarkin. City of Palo Alto Page 21 1 2 3 4 5 6 "7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Joe Yarkin, 801/805 High Street, Palo Alto: I own the property across the street from the property proposed for development. I do admire the fortitude of the developer in going through all the stages and steps, and meeting all the people in the neighborhood. I also am impressed with the architect and his rendition of development, particularly the Plaza open space, which would be fight across from my building. I accept the fact that there will be a big building across from me. It’s got to happen sooner or later. This is probably as good or maybe even better than I would have expected. I have one small change, which I would urge you to consider in. approving, if you approve this plan. In remodeling my building across the street, we had to go through a zoning process [similar] to what you see here, particularly the ARB. Because of the narrowness of the sidewalk, there were no trees required. We did a little landscaping for one half of the building but basically, there were no trees required because it’s a very narrow sidewalk and three, possibly four people can walk abreast and that’s it. If you start putting trees in there, you’re going to either create some problems with parking or make the pedestrian walk on the sidewalk that much more narrow. So I would ask that the first two trees that come down High Street be eliminated. The developer who put them in is agreeable to take them out. I don’t want them. It’s not going to add anything to the total effect on the project. Please, if you do approve the project, eliminate the two trees that come in from Homer to High. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Schmidt: It’s Roxy’s turn again. The Applicant has three minutes to summarize. Mr. Rapp: Thank you so much. First, I want to thank everyone for all the nice things they said about me and my nice group and architect. I would like to address just a couple of things. Elaine was a little worried about the housing taming into office space. Once we make the agreement with the City, any deed, so some day when I’m dead and gone and my partners are dead and gone and the building is sold to someone else, it will actually say in the deed of the property that this place has to remain livable space, rentable space, for living space. Also, the BMRs will say that and also our agreement with the City in regards to the parking. The parking will also be in the deed and the agreement with the City. There is no way that in two years or three years we would sell it, which we plan not to, that it would ever change over to office use. It will always be maintained as living space, not office space. Again, I have to thank the Staff for working with me. It’s been really a pleasure and I think we’ve done a great job and it’s something I’m really proud of and it’s something that if you approve and send us on, and we get our approval, I’m going to really not disappoint all of you and really do a beautiful job of building a gorgeous building. Thank you. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Before I close the public hearing, does anyone have any questions for the Applicant? Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Yes. Would you kindly explain to people the daylight plane for this building on the east side of the building. I know it’s not a requirement to have the daylight plane listed, but I was concerned about shadowing and I’ve heard that concern expressed by other people, whether that will shadow and make the street dark. Ctty of Palo Alto Page 22 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Peterson: Let me answer that. We have not done the shadow study of this. We could do that. The building itself sits back, as you probably remember, so that the housing elements are about 30 feet high and the upper office goes at a shallow diagonal anywhere from about six feet to around 30 feet back. In the summertime, you get virtually no shadowing or get shadowing on the sidewalk in front. None of it will reach across the street, since it’s almost directly overhead from morning until late in the afternoon. In the wintertime, there will be no shadowing from the building coming from the south and the east. There probably will, and as I said we haven’t done the study, but there would be some shadowing maybe in the afternoon, 3 or 3:30 on. On part of it, though, the house part is over the atrium and it’s all open on the side, so it would be open, probably 80% open, 20% shadow. So there will be very little shadowing because the building sits back so far. I don’t have anything to show you. Mr. Rapp: We did our presentation, if you remember, when I was in my milk uniform. Everyone was sitting right in this area looking at the big canvas that I had of the building and Bob was saying that the sun rises over here during the summer and sets over here. So this will always be in the sun. As winter comes, the sun moves from this area over here over to this area here, so there would be a little bit of shadow as it comes across here. Is that clear? And, as it gets into winter, it moves slowly and the fi~hest it gets over is probably in that area. Vice Chair Schmidt: Any other questions for the Applicant? I have a couple of questions. How many people do you think might be working in this building? Mr. Rapp: Kathy, that’s really hard to say, but let me just tell you how I feel about it. First thing, the parking ratio is figured on building square footage, not rentable square footage. Where we’re building the parking structure, including on each floor the elevator shaft, all the air duct shafts, all the stairwell shafts, all the patios, is all included in the ratio that we arrive for the parking. The actual, usable rental square footage is much less. I feel it really depends on who you rent to. If you were to rent to a real estate office, you’d have a problem. A real estate office, as you know, uses a lot of employees per square foot. If we were to rent to a legal firm, we would have less of a problem because they have lots of conference rooms, lots of library, lots of storage area. It’d be less intense. Same with a venture capital firm. Same with a design firm, they use a lot of conference rooms, a lot of project building areas, and would be less intense. We’ll be very aware of that and will try to, the people we interview for leases, and we have no one right now because we don’t know if we have a project yet, we will be very sensitive to that. That’s all I can promise you. Does that answer your question? Vice Chair Schmidt: Generally, yes. Another question, would it be possible for let’s say a single tenant has office space or half the space, would it be possible for that tenant to also lease or rent the market rate apartment units and use those for workers and work as well? Mr. Rapp: That certainly is a possibility but they have to live there. They sign a very tough, and you’ll see that where we’ll have an attorney that draws up a letter or rental City of Palo Alto Page 23 1 agreement. It’s very explicit that you have to live there and you have to accept that it’s in 2 a commercial area with the noise. One thing I forgot to tell you also is that the way we 3 plan to use triple-pane windows, which will cut down on the noise for deliveries, which 4 Larry has. 5 6 7 8 9 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice Chair Schmidt: Then it would be possible for a single party to lease a lot or all... Mr. Rapp: As long as they live there, that’s fine. You don’t have to work there. Mr. Peterson: In some cases that’s actually an advantage. If they live there, they go upstairs and work, they don’t have a car and it’s less traffic. It really is a potential advantage. Vice Chair Schmidt: This might be both a question for Staff and the Applicant. I believe that it’s mentioned in the staff report on page 21 that the garage would be open for public 2-hour and permit parking between 8 am and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Is that the only time that the parking would be open to the public? Would it not be open in the evenings? Mr. Lee: I believe the proposal is to keep the parking garage open until 11 p.m. at night, but the permit parking regulations only applied from 8 to 5. Mr. Gawf: It would be operated similar, again, to Civic Center parking. I think there is a time limit of 10 or 11 o’clock at night. But after 5:00, it’s open to Whole Foods, employees, or customers. It’s a public lot. Vice Chair Schmidt: Great. I just wanted to make it clear that it is useable in the evening. Commissioner Cassel: This is something that has been changing very rapidly, this particular proposal, is that not correct? In other words, you’ve been working on this this week. Mr. Gawf: Yes. No, actually, probably the last four to five weeks. Commissioner Cassel: But you’ve been continuing to work on it. Mr. Gawf: Yes. Commissioner Cassel: Because it’s been changing and that’s whether or not ... Mr. Gawf: The basic concept is important, that is, and through the breakthrough from Staff’s standpoint was the concept of trying to treat it as a public parking lot, not a private lot, skated. How we distribute between short-term parking and permit parking, we still need to sort of work out and test in the field. In some ways it seems like during the day we may have too many 2-hour parking spaces and may want more permit parking. But Ci.ty of Palo Alto Page 24 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 we have the flexibility to sort of go back and forth, I think. For me, the concept is that we provide a public parking facility to that part of the Downtown. Vice Chair Schmidt: Any more questions for the Applicant? Seeing none, I will close the public hearing. What is the Commission’s will? Do you want to take a short break or ask questions of Staff right now. We’ll take a 5 to 10-minute break and be back with questions for staff. Thank you. Vice Chair Schmidt: I’d like to call the meeting back to order. I will take questions for Staff. I’m sure there must be questions for Staff on this project. Who would like to start? Pat, the only one looking up, would you like to start? Commissioner Burt: Kathy had asked a question of the Applicant about how many jobs we would expect to created by the proposed commercial square footage. Based upon Staff’s best estimate of a typical usage of office space, or based upon the parking requirements, how many jobs would we expect to be created by this square footage of commercial space? Mr. Lee: It would be roughly between three and four employees per 1,000 square feet, between three and four employees per 1,000 square feet. If it went up to as many as four per 1,000 square feet, we believe that the TDM program and the optimization of the parking spaces would still allow us to provide sufficient parking spaces. Commissioner Burt: So, we anticipate three to four employees per 1,000 but we require four parking spaces per 1,000? Ms. Grote: In our Zoning Ordinance, we don’t actually differentiate between the employee parking and the visitor parking. Our parking ratio is four per 1,000, four parking spaces per each 1,000 square feet. We don’t try to estimate how many of those might be taken up by employees versus clients or patrons of the business. Commissioner Burt: ? Mr. Gawf: I don’t have a number either for you on how many people are going to work here because no one knows. It depends upon who occupies the space. But let me say in discussing parking for the tenants, one of the things the Applicant has asked for was 150 permits. That’s probably a fairly good indication of some number of employees because his concem was having permits for all the employees so they have a convenient place to park. What we end up doing is setting aside 124 permits for employees with them having the fight of first sort of priority for additional permits from the public pool. The goal was twofold. One is to make sure there were not tmused permits by the tenants, that is, they really only need 120, but they had 150 reserved for it. The second was to put more emphasis on altemative modes, so it wasn’t easy to just take the parking altemative. I don’t know if that’s a good number to use from an employee standpoint, but it seems to me they have some concept of the number of employees or parking need, if you will, in that area. Cir. of Palo Alto Page 25 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Burt: The permits that would be issued, would those be sold by the City? Mr. Gawf: Yes. Chandler, help me a little bit because we went back and forth on one part of it. I think it’s important that the permits are purchased because we treat thin.gs differently whether it’s free or whether it’s purchased. The permits are purchased, areto be purchased, and a certain portion of it, basically the public portion, would be used to pay for the cost of monitoring the lot, the enforcement and things like this. The intent, and we will make sure we achieve that, is that it’s cost-recovery, I guess is the right phrase. That it doesn’t cost the City money to do this. Vice Chair Schmidt: Other questions? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: This is sort of a general question related to the parking concept that Staff’s come up with and I’m very impressed by it. I think your analogy to treating this as a public lot or something like something we have in the Civic Center is just great. It opened up for me a lot of the public benefit, so to speak, so it was a little more tangible. I notice that the, and this sort of goes to the dollars we impose on in lieu fee, they seem very low to me compared to what we’ve been dealing with recently in the cost of Downtown parking structures per space, etc. Has that been reviewed recently? Ms. Grote: The in lieu fee in the Downtown area is currently $32,250, roughly per space. Yes, that was recently reviewed and that had increased from about an $18,000 cost per space. That was reviewed within the last year. Commissioner Bialson: May I ask one more question? Would a building of less height and scale effectively block the electric substation from view for people on High Street? At what point do we effectively use the structure as a screening effect for that substation? Mr. Lee: It really depends on where you’re standing. The substation structure is awful tall. Commissioner Bialson: Just give me the worse case... Mr. Lee: It would be a block or two back, I can’t tell you exactly where. At some point, past High Street, you’d be able to see those towers if, for example, you took offthe third story. Commissioner Bialson: So you’re saying the third story blocks it for High Street. If we didn’t have a third story the substation would be visible? Mr. Lee: Well, no. The closer you are to the building, obviously, the less you see behind it. If you went further away than a block or so and you did not have a third story, then you would start to see the substation behind it, roughly. Vice Chair Schmidt: Phyllis. City of Palo Alto Page 26 1 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissioner Cassel: I’d like you to review the traffic flow around the building, particularly as it relates to people who are parking in the garage, and how they would get in and out and how they would move around exit site. Mr. Lee: There’s only one entry and exit point to the parking garage and that is directly on Channing Avenue right near the comer of High Street. You can see it on the plans. It’s right near the sitting area that Mr. Peterson referred to. Basically, the down ramp and up ramp are on the same location. Commissioner Cassel: My question isn’t, "where is it?" Where’s the entrance and exit, I know that. What I want you to review is how the traffic, how the cars that are coming to the site get down Alma into that and out of that and around if they’re going north and south. Some are coming from the south up Alma; some are coming from the north down Alma. You go into the garage which way on the two-way streets? Are you planning to keep it one-way? What happens if it’s two-way? And are you changing High Street? It’s that traffic flow in order to get in and out of the garage. Does that make sense? Mr. Lee: It does make sense and I think I understand the issue. There was a proposal at one time to look at changing High Street from one-way to two-way. This project had a proposal for that. As I understand it, that’s still being discussed in the SOFA plan and I frankly don’t know where that issue stands. This project would defer to whatever was agreed to in the SOFA plan for that one and two-way configuration. Commissioner Cassel: I guess I wanted you to walk us through, and people who were watching, with how cars... It’s one-way going down Channing and it’s another way going back down Homer. It’s one-way going down High Street and you’re going to be entering and exiting for the purpose of people who are not reading this document, how are cars getting in and out of this parking garage from a one-way street with a one-way street coming the other direction. Ms. Grote: Scott McPhearson, from the environmental consulting firm, will go over the three different options that were studied within the draft environmental document. Scott McPhearson, Environmental Consultant: We looked at a traffic model from three different scenarios, because we weren’t quite sure what the final street alignment was going to be. That’s on page 4-21 of the Draft EIR. The first is the existing street system, which is right there with Homer and Channing as one-way couplets and High Street is one-way fronting the project. We also looked at it from the proposed system on the PAMF/SOFA plan or at least the proposed plan right now. Under that scenario, Homer and Channing would convert two-way flow, Alma and Channing intersection would be single lines, and High Street would convert to two-way traffic flow. We also looked at it from a third way, which was originally proposed by the Applicant which would have Homer and Channing as one-way and High Street going to two-way. Unfortunately, I don’t have an exhibit showing all the different... It would probably be helpful if you had three different exhibits for that, just to see. It’s probably enough to visualize at this point. Ctty of Palo Alto Page 27 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 Commissioner Cassel: I kind of made this too complicated, I guess. You come into the 2 garage coming down Alma from the north, you go down Channing Street, you enter the 3 garage. Easy. Now, you want to exit. It’s 5:00 at night, you’re going home. You come 4 out of the garage on Channing Street and you want to go north. You must go down 5 Channing to Palo Alto Medical Foundation and then get around somehow or another, but you can’t go north on High Street. Mr. Rapp: ...right on High.Street, go around the block on Addison, head north down Alma. We’re asking that this street go two ways so you come out of the garage... Let’s say you wmat to go north. There’s two options here. As you come out of...and this stays one-way, Channing one-way. You come out of the garage and we hope that the traffic will consider, we had the traffic engineer look at it and it is feasible to change this part of High Street to two ways so as you come out, you would turn left, go down High Street, catch the one-way on Homer, come down to Alma, catch the light and go north. The other possible way if it would stay one-way is you would come out of the garage, go over to High Street, turn right, make another fight down Addison, and another fight on Alma and go north. If you want to go south, you would do like I said the first way, come out, go down the two-way street which we converted High Street, come this way, come out onto the light, and go south. The other way would be, if it stayed the same and this stayed one-way, is to go here and then mrn fight onto High Street, go down Addison Street, and then go south. You could go up to Emerson, but this saves you to catch 101. Probably, if it stayed one-way, you would go up to Emerson Street, catch Embarcadero, and then go out to 101. Vice Chair Schmidt: Just wanted to confirm that the draft conditions for the project include deleting a proposed conversion of High Street to two-way traffic. That is on the first page of the conditions on Attachment E and it’s item number 1-E. "The first conversion of High Street to two-way traffic between Homer and Channing should be deleted." At the present time, the Staff is not recommending that that be considered, is that correct? Ms. Grote: That’s correct at this time. This project wouldn’t warrant those kinds of changes. Let me review the condition one more time, but at this time... Vice Chair Schmidt: Pat, do you have another question? Commissioner Burt: Follow-up question on the traffic flow pattern for the environmental consultant. What we just heard was that if Channing did not revert to two-way, stayed one-way, those exiting from the underground parking of 200 and something spaces would typically need to immediately cross over two lanes in order to make a fight on High Street and head south one block in order to either go north on Alma or south on Alma. The other alternative would be for those people to go up to Emerson and go through the residential neighborhoods out to Embarcadero. Are those the traffic flow patterns that would exist if we did not revert to two ways? Mr. McPhearson: If you did not revert to two-way traffic flow. City of Palo Alto Page 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Commissioner Burt: Under which situations would Homer and Channing remain... Mr. McPhearson: If Homer and Channing remained as they are now, one-way streets. Commissioner Burt: Would all of the exiting vehicles who are attempting to get back out to Alma to either go north or south on Alma, would they have to within it looks like 50 feet or so get across both lanes of Channing in order to make a right turn heading south on High Street, as Roxy described? Mr. McPhearson: Potentially, yes. As part of the traffic analysis we also looked at, the traffic consultant looked at, the site distance and turning requirements and nothing adverse was found at that point, if that’s what I’m understanding you correctly. Commissioner Burt: What’s the distance between the exit of the parking garage and the comer of High and Channing? Mr. McPhearson: Without looking at a map, I would be uncertain right now, but we could probably figure it out, given a few minutes. Commissioner Burt: It looks like maybe 50 feet and that’s a two-lane street on Channing. If it stays one-way, the vehicle would have to, within 50 feet, cross both lanes to get over in the right-turn lane on Channing in order to head south on High Street, is that correct? Mr. McPhearson: That would seem to be correct, yes. Commissioner Burt: And that’s not a traffic safety concem? Mr. McPhearson: Not having personally done the traffic analysis, I cannot say that it is or isn’t, but that was looked at in the traffic analysis and the traffic consultant did not find any movement problems. Commissioner Burt: Do you have any comments on that? Ms. Grote: Our traffic consultant did review that traffic analysis and determined that, given the current capacity of the street, the current volumes on Channing Street, that during the peak hour that maneuver could be safely made, that you could exit the garage and then make the right-hand turn on High Street within that distance. Commissioner Butt: Thank you. Mr. McPhearson: I would like to add too that part of the scenario, including the PAMF/SOFA plan which would convert some of that around, would wind up with the Alma!Channing intersection being signalized, which would facilitate that. City of Palo Alto Page 29 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Ms. Grote: IfI could also go back to Commissioner Schmidt’s question, yes, in the conditions of approval, 1-E does state that the proposal to convert High Street to a two- way traffic flow at this time is not needed, that the project does not require or does not result in the need for that kind of a change. In 2010, if the PAMF/SOFA plan is fully implemented, then there may be the need for that kind of change in traffic flow and the left-hand turn lane, as Scott was just mentioning. So, at this time it’s not required. Vice Chair Schmidt: _Might also be reviewed in Phase 2 of SOFA, but just at this time... Ms. Grote: Right. Steve Rand, ...: I’m part of the development team and there’s some confusion on this issue. You can also always go down Emerson Street, come out on Channing go down to Emerson, turn left, turn left again on Homer to where there’s a light going onto Alma Street and either go north or south, if High Street remains one way. If High Street is two ways, of course, you come out on High Street. There’s no need to have to turn fight and go down to Addison. There’s several loops. People will kind of go where the light is to cross Alma Street. At Addison there is no light, so that would probably not be a very actively used route. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Mr. Gawf: If I might just make a clarification. I think this is the period of time for the Planning Commission as your questions and we should only respond if you directly ask us a question. Vice Chair Schmidt: I have a couple of questions in regard to changes from the previous submittal when we saw this two years ago. This is for Staff and the first question is: At that time, the Staff expressed the desire to have substantially larger proportion of housing in this project, perhaps even 50% of it being housing. The Applicant has added more housing but it’s certainly not 50%. I was wondering what the Staff’s response to the change is in that before Staff had proposed denial of what was proposed. Ms, Grote: Staff’s recommendation is approval because the housing component has increased substantially. It’s not 50% of the project but with the additional BMR component and the additional ten units for a total of 26, that was seen as a substantial increase and could be supported. The BMR component, especially, helped in that recommendation. Vice Chair Schmidt: Also at that time, and I should have probably asked the Applicant but didn’t, there was concern about the overhead electrical wires in the alley and the possibility of moving them or undergrounding them or moving them to Alma Street and I don’t think that was mentioned this time around. Are they going to be moved or has that problem been taken care of?. Ctty of Palo Alto Page 30 Mr. Lee: We did look at trying to move those wires and because of the route that you would have to take along Alma, you take out a lot of trees and a lot of landscaping and basically it would create more environmental impacts than it would solve, so we had to leave the wires there in the alley. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 Vice Chair Schmidt: But they’re not a concern any longer? I thought there was even a... Mr. Lee: It used to be a double pole, transmission tower, and the City has consolidated that into a single pole so the visual effect is somewhat less. The poles are still remaining in the alley, that’s correct. Vice Chair Schmidt: I thought there was even a concern for operation of computers and computer screens and so on that were certainly likely to be in the office building. Mr. Lee: We believe that there is sufficient setback between those power lines and the interior of the building so that that would not be a problem. Vice Chair Schmidt: Okay, thank you. Pat, do you have anymore questions? Commissioner Burt: Yes, I have a couple of categories of them. One has to do with some of the guarantees that might exist in the development agreement. I don’t know whether Ariel is the best one to answer this or what. The live/work units, there were discussions about these being mandatory residence units for the life of the property. Is that something that would be part of the development agreement? We heard that the developer was volunteering to provide those guarantees. Mr. Lee: We’ve actually included that in the PC ordinance so that is residential use is the required use in those units. Commissioner Burt: We’ve heard comments from the public and really over the last couple of years with concems with other live/work units that have reverted to being work only. What kind of enforcement can there be of these kinds of circumstances. Mr. ~ee: I think there’s probably a number of different answers to that question but let me start by saying that the City does not consider these to be live/work units. In San Francisco they have a different name for them which is "lifestyle loft." That’s a living preference that people have. In the PC ordinance and in the conditions of approval, these are treated as rental apartments and so they can in no way, shape, or form ever convert to an office because that use is not allowed. Ms. Grote: The only way that it would be possible to convert is if the Applicant came forward with a PC zone amendment and requested which would go through both the Planning Commission and the City Council and requested an amendment to the PC to convert the units. City of Palo Alto Page 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Commissione~: Burt: Great. And regarding the parking, is the proposal to have this a City administered lot, is there any sunsetting to that and what sort of guarantees are there that that would stay in that circumstance. Mr. Lee: The conditions of approval call for an agreement to be signed, which is like a contract between the City and the Applicant. The Applicant has offered a 15-year period for those public-parking spaces. Staff is recommending that the term of those public- parking spaces be 35 years to coincide for the ground lease for the PAMF parcel that PAMF is leasing to us. That is Staff’s recommendation is to be 35 years and that would be codified in a contract form. Vice Chair Schmidt: Following up on that question, one of the members of the public commented about making it a lifetime or for the lifetime of the building for the parking agreement. Is that something that the City would consider to be reasonable or is the 35- year the most reasonable way to go. Mr. Gawf: Could you repeat the first part of that question. Vice Chair Schmidt: One of the members of the public commented about the term of the parking agreement and suggested that it should be the lifetime of the building versus any specific period of years. Mr. Gawf: As I perceive it and see it, I think it should be for the lifetime of the building. There needs to be some type of provision that if either the City decides it’s not in the best interest to operate that as a public garage, that we can back off. But, the comment was made and I accept that, that is the cars are going to be there, the building’s going to be there, etc. The concept is that we’re creating a public parking lot that’s going to be shared with the SOFA area. Vice Chair Schmidt: Thank you. Any other questions? Phyllis? Commissioner Cassel: If I can find it amongst all the questions that have been answered or tried to be answered. Right up here in the front. The live/work spaces, you’ve talked about them being living spaces, does that also mean there will be restrictions on being able to put signs up in front to indicate that that was a business, like we do in our homes and single-family residential zones, you can put discrete little signs out but you can’t really have a business sign. Mr. Lee: They’d be treated the same as a regular apartment, same restrictions. Mr. Ariel Calonne, City Attorney: That’s actually a good question in terms of how the sign ordinance will apply in the zoning district. ! don’t know the answer off the top. I’ll try to sort it out here. Commissioner Cassel: It may need to be part of the conditions. City of Palo Alto Page 32 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Mr. Calonne: I think that’d be prudent given the sign ordinance. Mr. Gawf: I think the intent is basically not to have signs there. I’m not sure what our R- 1 home occupation sign allowance is, but I assume it’s one square foot or very small. It’s either that or nothing, no signs. Vice Chair Schmidt: Pat, do you have anymore questions? Commissioner Burt: Yes. I had several related to how this project relates to the Phase 2 plans for the SOFA Coordinated Area Plan. In the staff report dated the 25th, we had comparisons of the project to the Draft MU-2 requirements in the Phase 2, which my understanding, those draft standards were basically set aside. Yet the project was compared to those. Then we received a supplemental memo from Eric Riel on the same date, the 25t~, which went into quite a bit more detail. As I would summarize it, basically it indicated that the MU-2 requirements in the draft plan were not really the basis for a comparison of this project and the conclusion being that we should not be concerned that this project would set a precedent for the balance of that MU-2 area. Can you shed some light on this whole concept, Ed, where you think it’s going and also whether you have any feedback from the working group which has the primary policy setting responsibility for Phase 2 as I understand it, and not us nor Staff having that responsibility. Mr. Gawf: A few comments. One is, the staff report was actually prepared over a period of time because it’s been used for the ARB and I think many parts of it for the HRB earlier than that when it was originally prepared. That was when I think the full plan was going forward. We debated whether to edit that out or not. We decided to keep it in just because if you edit it out, someone’s going to ask a question, "Well, how does this compare with..." I think the point that was made tonight is correct and that is, it was set aside and it’s not the basis for saying it’s good or bad. It’s information for you as a commission to have. I asked Eric to, because I knew there were issues, and one of the concerns we had was, are we doing something that’s going to make it very difficult for us to say something different or in the furore on other parcels, is this the same as every other parcel in the south of Forest area and, if so, why are we going ahead with this. A couple of thoughts came to mind, one is, this is a project that has been in the pipeline for some time, so it is different than other projects. But the other, I think is, we tried to analyze the other properties in the south of Forest area and say, "Are there other properties that will have similar type circumstances?" Our general conclusion was no, there wasn’t. Eric, I think, tried to put together some of that thought process into this memo. We just wanted to share it with you since he could not be here tonight. The key in my mind as I sort of thought about this is the proximity of this property to what I think is an adverse factor and that is the electrical substation for residential. The proximity of this property to the more high-density corridor along Alma, the traffic corridor. And the size of it, make it somewhat different than some of the other properties. I also think, and this is where the parking, as we analyzed it, the parking became more important is, well. If this is unique, what benefit is there from having a unique property? The one benefit I could think of, because others can provide money for a park or provide BMR units, the one benefit that I think this property can do that I’m not sure any other property in SOFA Ctty of Palo Alto Page 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 can do is to provide public parking. That’s how we sort of came up with the concept of that as a public benefit. You’re right. The easy thing is to say, "Let’s not act on this and let’s wait until we finish Phase 2 of the SOFA plan." But we felt it was enough unique things about this, it had been in process for some time, we also thought there was some benefit in this that may come to play as we begin to deal with the rest of this SOFA area. In regard to the working committee in the SOFA area, we see a more narrow sort of working committee for just this sort of west of Ramona area, I guess. That includes, in my mind at least, some of the property owners in that area as well as property owners from the neighborhoods, too. This is an area that’s kind of related to the residential area. You can’t separate the two. We would see members from both groups being part of this working group that looks at Phase 2. Commissioner Burt: I didn’t appreciate that your intention for a working group to advise on the Phase 2 area would be different from the Council-appointed working group and have a composition that’s different. That was a very carefully sculpted stake holder group that was appointed by Council and that the ordinance required a certain composition. Or is it your plan to go back to Council to have the ordinance amended7 Mr. Gawf: You’re right. I’m not quite sure which way to proceed on it. People have thoughts. Feel free to give them to me on it. Either way, I think there needs to be a group that’s more focused on what it means to have commercial and residential development, how you achieve it, if you will, almost a technical group. Whether that replaces the old working group or that becomes an advisory, I mean, they produce something that then goes to the working group as advice from people who know how to sort of the technical aspects of producing housing. I’m not sure. Commissioner Burt: I would certainly recommend the latter version and the responsibility of the working group remain as Council had set it. Mr. Gawf: Probably, as I sort of think out loud on this, that’s probably more consistent with the direction of the Council. My only point is, I think it’s also important to involve some people who may not be on the working committee that have some knowledge on how we can actually produce the residential housing in this area. Again, it could be advice to Staff and the working group. Commissioner Burr: The next question out of that concept of what might come about from the Phase 2 and how this project as it’s currently proposed would gel with a vague anticipation of what we think is the direction of the Phase 2 component. Certainly the comments that we’ve heard are that the Phase 2 proposal may need to be scaled down in the FAR and may need to have a greater emphasis on residential over commercial. This project has a high FAR and predominant commercial. A lot of the driving for the public benefit that we’re getting is the necessity to build a second level of the garage that was driven by the proportion of the commercial that’s in the building and the four spaces per 1,000 requirement of parking. If this project were predominantly residential, or wholly residential, would the calculation of the parking requirement still necessitate a second City of Palo Alto Page 34 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 level of the garage? I appreciate that that may mean that we would have a diminishment or perhaps an elimination of the public benefit of surplus parking spaces. Mr. Gawf: I haven’t done any kind of analysis so I can’t give you sort of a thought- through reflective. That hasn’t stopped me in the past, so let me proceed on that. Thinking it through, clearly it does. If you go to housing, you’re not going to have the same parking level. I’m trying to envision how many units you can get. If you estimate two parking spaces per .unit for the 26 _we’re talking about 52 spaces. If you have double that or triple that, you’re talking about 100 or 150 spaces at two to one. It could vary from that. Clearly you could arrange it so that the second level under ground was not required or needed, I should say, for residential. Commissioner Burt: Has Staff anticipated that if in the Phase 2 plan we end up with a concept of more residential than commercial space that’s created, is there a potential that if a project like this were approved with a predominantly commercial space, we could look at the Phase 2 area in aggregate as a predominantly residential zone. Is that doable? If this project were approved, can we make it up further along the line in other Phase 2 projects having more residential proportion? Mr. Gawf: Yes. One of the things I’ve sort of come away with from the initial effort on the SOFA plan for the west of Ramona area, is the thought that not every property has to be a mixed-use property. What we want is an area that has a mixture of uses. The question is not whether each property has so many housing units and so many square feet of non-residential use, but whether the overall area has a certain type of use, diversity of uses. As I look at the area, and I’ve walked around the area many times over the last several months both as part of this project and SOFA, trying to look at the area, I do see differences in MU-1, MU-2. I see great potential for all residential kind of uses so what we have is a mixture of uses in that area, not just each property having a mixture. I also look at streets like Homer where frankly I don’t want it to be redeveloped. I want it to stay sort of the way it is with the one-story commercial buildings. That’s the commercial use that provides the mixed use in that area. Trying to get residential on that... In some ways tearing down some of the buildings so that you can do that mixed use destroys another what I think is a key point of the SOFA plan, and that is trying to retain that sort of historic character along Homer. I think that’s one of the real assets to that west of Ramona area. Let me say, I know I’m rambling a little bit on this, but the idea is that on the SOFA west of Ramona area, it wasn’t that every point or policy or recommendation was wrong. What I sense from the comments of the ARB and the Planning Commission is that we didn’t have it quite right. There’s still a lot of time on it but maybe we missed some key issues such as the one ybu’ve just raised about, "Can we get more residential in parts of it. Can we make it all residential rather than mixed use?" Maybe we don’t need as high an intensity level as the use by right to achieve some of these things. I think that’s also true. Commissioner Burt: You’ve made it clear that that’s your design and planning vision for that area. Are you envisioning that Phase 2 would be able to achieve that through more City of Palo Alto Page 35 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 specific zoning by parcels or through incentives or what means? What I’m trying to get at is, is this something that we would hope would happen or prescribe happening? Mr. Gawf: I think it can be a combination, but I was not precluding the prescribing, especially on the residential component given the strong office demand that we have. Vice Chair Schmidt: Does anyone have anymore questions? I think we can go into our comments here. Who would like to begin? Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I am in favor of this project. I think that it is not, while it feels large, I think the scale, given the uniqueness of the site, the uses that it’s being put to, the parking that it will generate for the City, is appropriate. I have to commend the Applicant and the design and architecture team for designing what I think is a building that does not seem overwhelming. We have buildings of this sort of bulk in nearby communities, I can think of Menlo Park for one, in which if you maintain a pedestrian scale on the first floor, seems to fit in well and work well. I am concerned about the number of trips that will be generated. I hope that most people will enter into the garage and use the parking down there as they either go to work at or visit the businesses that use this site. I am concerned about on-street parking and the impact on residential and commercial neighbors with regard to both the on-street parking and traffic to and from the site. I don’t think this sets a precedent for further large-scale buildings because it is somewhat of a unique site. The proximity of the substation has got to be considered in the size of this building, perhaps as a benefit in a way. I like the use and improvement of the alley and I just want to make sure that the commercial neighbors such as Palo Alto Hardware are not impacted. I would see it desirable to convert this section of High Street to two-way in order to avoid having possible spillover of cars into residential areas. I think it does expedite movement of cars to Homer and their ability to exit from this area. With regard to the term of the parking agreement, I’d certainly like to see the arrangement that has been very creatively put together by Staff to last the lifetime of the building. About the only thing I don’t like about it is I could visualize skateboarders in that public park area as we spoke. Vice Chair Schmidt: Okay, Bern. Commissioner Beecham: Well, I think I can agree with a lot of what Annette said on one condition. To me this is a critical and difficult subject to get into, in spite of the advice of Staff, I think this does heavily depend on the outcome or the probable outcome of the zoning for MU-1 and MU-2. The reason I believe this is that while I do think this is an attractive project, I think it will be an attractive building and will look good in many places. Whether it should go here is heavily dependent on the surrounding environment that we expect in the future. Staff says that there’s no precedent here and, strictly speaking, that’s correct. But as we say that, we point to other buildings that are 50 feet City of Palo Alto Page 36 1 2 3 4 ’5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 and say, "Oh, because those are there, this one’s not so bad." So there is a de facto present that’s implicit here. Right now the MU-1 and MU-2 that are in the draft in whatever form are sufficiently dense that ! think this project would fit in. At this point, I can no longer participate on those discussions on MU-1 and MU-2 because of a conflict that arose recently. But in a previous meeting when I could participate, my opinion was that those are too dense and my opinion at the time was that they should be reduced. But that decision is now sitting with the rest of my colleagues and the Council. I think we do have to make an anticipation of where that’s going to go in order to do the appropriate job here. If there’s a reasonable presumption of possibility that those densities will be reduced, then this building I think is going to be much less consistent with that future environment. I don’t know quite how to get a handle on that but I think, to me, that’s the key issue. How this fit into this neighborhood in ten years or 15 years. With that being said as to me the biggest issue, a number of other aspects... I think the parking arrangement is innovative. If this occurs, I’d like to see it here and elsewhere. I think it’s an excellent way to take advantage of what probably are surplus spaces around town that are not being used. On the live/work, on one hand, we all agree they’re desirable. They have many benefits if they work. We are all just real suspect on whether people will actually live there. The Applicant I think is doing the utmost possible on their behalf to ensure this happens but nonetheless there’s uncertainty on how this would work out in the end. Another subject is protection of surrounding commercial uses. Larry Hassett has talked about some potentially favorable impacts of this project on his efforts at the hardware. One concern I have is on noise. I understand that in the leases, there’d be cautions basically that you’re living in a commercial zone. My concern is that our noise ordinance isn’t so well tuned, I expect. We saw a great difficulty in evaluating the tennis courts recently. Implementing the noise ordinance is not easy and I’m concerned that in spite of a well-written lease, that the noise ordinance with complaints could be used as an inappropriate lever, inappropriate in that I believe we need to accommodate commercial services and their requirements in this area. Also a comment on the housing here. We are getting more housing, and that’s a benefit. We’re getting more BMR units, and that’s a benefit. There’s kind of a global question on what is the net effect of having these additional housing units and, as we’ve talked about before and others have mentioned, of having more commercial space at this site. I do have a global concern on that. In this case the underlying zoning is CD, it is not housing, and that makes me a little more tolerant to that at this point. That’s all I have to say at this point, but this is still going to be a very difficult issue to resolve for me, again, because we’ve got to foresee the future. Vice Chair Schmidt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: Someday we’ll get an easy issue at this job. I want to talk at first about the site. This is a site that is currently generating a great deal of noise and it’s a site that currently is not in very good condition. It immediately sits next to this transformer Ci~ of Palo Alto Page 37 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2! 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 and we’ve all mentioned it. We’re trying to picture here what we would put, I think, next to a transformer in the center of the City and who would live next to it. We haven’t discussed the train noise, which we discussed on the housing units that were on Alma, because it’s set just a little bit farther back. In the public benefits, it lists as number one "cleaning up this site as a public benefit." I think that needs to be taken out because any site that you work on supposedly cleans up the old site and that isn’t a public benefit. It is my understanding that PC zone is not supposed to be used as a precedent for the next PC zone. That was my understanding. So I have some problems with using previous PC zones in this site for that. I think what’s so hard about this, and we’ve mentioned it over and over, is that I like the look of the building. I think it’s fun. We’re all trying to deal with the height issue on the backside of this building. It’s difficult. The backside of the building actually provides some break from that noise from the road, I think, into the neighborhood. I’m making a judgment here. It’s a difficult judgment. I think that it provides some backdrop, some ¯ sound protection for people in the neighborhoods. I think it will actually break up the sound level that’s 1. coming off the road; 2. from the transformer; and 3. from the site itself, which is really very noisy. I’ve been there a couple of times and I never cease to be amazed at the noise coming off the site itself. The creative parking I agree with. It’s been discussed. Traffic is different than parking, so we hit a balance. If we park cars and they stay there all day, they’re not moving around, they aren’t creating traffic. But if we have more jobs, we have more cars to put someplace in the first place. BMR units are clearly a benefit. I think the site itself is unique in the sense that it’s protecting the transformer site from the neighborhood. The size of it blends down from the high point at the back to the lower 3 5 feet to the front. What surprised me the most was the ARB comments. They like this project and in reference back to the MU-2, remember they didn’t like the MU-2 at all. They handed it back and it came to us with "don’t touch this." Here they like this project which is even more dense than the projects they weren’t sure they would like on the MU-2 project proposals and the MU-1 proposals. They couldn’t see how this would fit and how it would work and here they like this one. So I’m a little baffled by that review. Basically, I like this project but I’m concerned about the height. I think I’ll leave any future comments to the rest of you who make comments. Vice Chair Schmidt: Pat. Commissioner Burt: A few smaller comments and then I’d like to make some broader issue ones. One is, it would be important to me that the public parking spaces be for the lifetime of the building. Second, that I think there are problems with on-street parking in the area even when we provide off-street parking. If there’s on-street parking available, the tenants and even office dwellers such as at the Ross Building at the corner of City of Palo Alto Page 38 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Channing and Alma are tending to park on Channing and using spaces that have been de facto 30-minute spaces for the hardware store. This is a real problem as we increase density in these areas, even if we provide off-street parking. We have issues for local merchants that have to have trade coming in and out. The simple cure for that is to increase the number of 30-minute or whatever parking spots on the street and they become those really fast turnover spots. Also, I was pleased to see this little pocket park on the comer of Channing and High in this project. I don’t know if "pocket park" is stretching it, but I’d like to see that little public gathering space expanded and made more of a public gathering space. The renderings we saw just showed kind of some concrete benches separated. I think there might be some creative approaches to make it more valuable space, especially given the potential future development of the Peninsula Creamery property across Channing from this one and diagonal from it. There will be an increased need for public gathering space in that intersection. Also, on the retail area, I would like to see that, if it isn’t already, that as a condition of approval, that that be a neighborhood serving commercial and not just any retail. In the broader concept, I found that I was weighing three different aspects: 1) the positive aspects to the program (which are both aspects that are inherent in the design and the public benefits; those are not necessarily the same thing); 2) the detriments to the project; and 3) the special circumstances. The positive aspects for this project, I really think, are commendable. I think that both Staff and the developer deserve a lot of credit for sculpting a project that provides a lot of positives. Frankly, I think that if they hadn’t done that, this project wouldn’t have gotten as favorable a response as it has to this date. There are many aspects inherent in the building design, not only the quality of design and the materials, but the public plaza, retail, treatment of the alley, shielding of the substation, are all very positive aspects to what the building does itself. The public benefit package I think is the best public benefit package that I’ve been aware of for any project in this City. The additional BMR units more than triple the required BMRs, 100 parking spaces to the public which if we translate at $30,000 a spot is a $3 million benefit, the TDM program, and even... I meant to commend the switch to zinc in the architectural design, which has been a very long overdue architectural design change and this is an excellent precedent. The detriments are the size and mass of the building~ We’re all straggling with how it fits within the additional future development as well as what’s there now. The traffic impacts, but really our Comp Plan wants to locate our density, whether residential or commercial density, in this corridor adjacent to the transit depot. So that’s probably less of a concern than it would be if this project were just a couple of blocks further away from the transit depot. City of Palo Alto Page 39 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 46 And, finally, the issue of this jobs/housing relationship. I feel very strongly that we need to have the Phase 2 SOFA area, not just SOFA as a whole, but Phase 2, have no net increase in jobs over housing. If anything, we use that space to reduce our jobs/housing imbalance and that we not exaggerate that problem. After three years of reviewing this project, it’s been really quite a struggle to try and balance an otherwise excellent proposal with some remaining significant unknowns with Phase 2 and some inherent problems with the size of it and the comparative lack of housing, even though it’s more than what was there before. Vice Chair Schmidt: Although I would love to see more housing in this project, I think the Applicant has gone to efforts certainly to increase the amount of housing in it and I think that we’re getting something that we’ve been talking about and asking for in Palo Alto for several years. We have a mixed-use project before us. We have had missed opportunities. For example, the old Times Tribune site was another or maybe the last large parcel that was an entire block and many of us thought a mixed-use project would have been an exciting way to develop that site, only it was done as two separate kinds of projects. Here we have before us an extremely well-designed mix of uses. Although I would really like to see more housing there, I think that the total package of things proposed is a good project. Several of the other Commissioners have mentioned many of the good points about it. I think it’s an exciting design and it’s really wonderful to see the video to be able to walk around the building and really get a feeling for the spaces. I think it’s also fairly unique and nice that I think comments from the public, comments from the ARB, comments from Staff, were all incorporated into a good project by an excellent architect and the project is even better incorporating all those things, or a lot of those things. The quality of materials, the pedestrian environment have all been mentioned. People have said that this is not a precedent in that it’s a large building, but I think it’s a great example of excellent design to inspire others to rebuild and redevelop in this area that we would like to see more redevelopment activity. I think the public benefits are very good. The parking proposal is really quite unique. I’m really happy to see. This is a private/public proposal here that might even help to eliminate the need for the second parking garage that the City’s proposing down at this end of town. We need parking, we need people to use transit, we need all kinds of approaches to solving how people get . around and deal with their vehicles and move themselves around in Palo Alto. I think this will certainly help. It will be a great benefit to have public parking and I recommend that this garage and all of our other garages be well signed to make sure that the public is aware that these facilities are available. I’m very happy to see nine BMR units in this project. Although when one looks at the prices that the BMR units will go for, it’s still somewhat shocking but that’s the millennium, I guess. All the other public benefits are really nice for the project, the street trees, the public plaza and open space, I think that will really be a vital area. Many people have mentioned the size of the building. I think that the size of the building in this location is appropriate. We have talked about having larger buildings near Alma Street. Cir. of Palo Alto Page 40 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4O 41 42 43 44 45 This is not on Alma Street but it’s near Alma Street. Density near transit corridors is appropriate in this location. I think that it is not extremely likely that there will be combinations of other parcels to allow other large projects to get built in this area. I’m again not concerned that this will set a precedent in that area. I will support this project. Again, I would love it if there were more housing or if more housing appeared on the way to Council. But I think the developer should be commended for all the work he’s done to really make this project work for the neighborhood and for the City and to make it a vital, attractive place. Are there other comments? I would just like to remind people that we have two things that we need to do. One is that we need to make comments on the Draft EIR and then the second is our review comments on the project. So when we get to it, we need two motions to approve or disapprove of these things. Commissioner Cassel: Do you want a comment now on the EIR? Vice Chair Schmidt: Sure. Commissioner Cassel: One of my concerns about the EIR was that the alternative proposal was very weak. I don’t know how we can get.., the last couple that have come in, I feel the same way. It would seem to me that one of the alternative proposals could have been half the FAR with some assumptions on it. I felt that it was not really giving us a good alternative and that when we do this the next time we need to make sure that that happens. In fact, you may want to beef that up before it goes to Council and look at what we’ve talked about tonight.., what would happen if this was 1.0. We’re going to lose the 100 parking spaces, it’s going to be so many housing units, some kind of estimate that gives you something to work with with this altemative size. We’ve toyed with these numbers tonight, but I think it would be helpful. Vice Chair Schmidt: Okay, Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I don’t have comments. I’d like to move the matter, make the motion to, is that, would that be appropriate now? Kathy? Vice Chair Schmidt: Yes, it would be appropriate. We can still make comments even with a motion on the floor. MOTION: Commissioner Bialson: I’d like to move that we accept the Draft Environmental Impact Report and recommend that it be accepted. Vice Chair Schmidt: Is there a second to that motion? SECOND: Commissioner Beecham: I’ll second ~hat and I’d like to find out if Pat wants to add some of his points about neighborhood serving in the ground-floor retail, 30- City of Palo Alto Page 41 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 minute parking, and based on other comments I suggest the Staff review two-way on High Street. Vice Chair Schmidt: We’re just talking about the EIR. Commissioner Beecham: Oh, sorry. -Vice Chair Schmidt: So, you’ll second the EIR recommendation? Commissioner Beecham: I’m happy to do that. Vice Chair Schmidt: It has been moved by Annette and seconded by Bern that the EIR with comments is adequate. Are there any other comments on the EIR? I would comment that I too felt that the alternatives were a little bit weak and agree with Phyllis’s comment. If there are no comments on that particular matter, then let’s take a vote on the Draft EIR. MOTION PASSED: All those in favor of the Draft EIR with comments, please say "aye." (ayes) Those opposed, say "no." (no’s) That passes unanimously with Commissioner Schink not participating and Commissioner Byrd absent. We would also need a motion on the project, if we’re ready for a motion. Commissioner Bialson: I understand Bem is going to make that motion. MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: Well, since I thought I was helping with that before... I recommend approval to Council of this project, with additional notes. For neighborhood serving commercial or retail underground floor to retail, that the Staff review using 30-minute parking especially in those areas near the hardware store. The Staff also review again two-way on High Street in that area. And did someone else have a recommendation I missed? Commissioner Cassel: It’s been suggested that the parking agreement be for the life of the building. Commissioner Beecham: Yes, that was it. Commissioner Bialson (Cassel?): My suggestion is that that be made 30 minutes to an hour, depending on what’s negotiated with the businesses. I’m not sure...we haven’t checked with them to see if they wanted 30 minutes. Commissioner Beecham: Well, it’s flexible in the motion to have Staff review it. That implies, I think, working with the surrounding uses. SECOND: Commissioner Bialson: I would like to second the motion. City of Palo Alto Page 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Vice Chair Schmidt: I have a question for Staff. What is specifically neighborhood serving retail, how is that defined? Ms. Grote: Neighborhood serving retail are businesses that primarily get their customer base from the neighborhoods themselves. The Comp Plan does give a few examples and I can look those up and read those to you. They’re mostly small and they’re oriented toward neighborhoods. Let me look those up and give you a more exact answer. Commissioner Burt: Doesn’t the existing zoning code define neighborhood serving retail business? Ms. Grote: It doesn’t really define neighborhood serving in the definition section of the ordinance. It does under the purposes section, particularly CN and CS zones, what the intent of those zones are for neighborhood serving and then service commercial as well. So that’s where you get the closest thing that the Zoning Ordinance has to a definition. The Comprehensive Plan gives a more general definition for each of those types of land uses. Commissioner Cassel: It isn’t neighborhood/commercial that we’re working towards? Neighborhood/Commercial is not the zoning definition we want? Ms. Grote: It’s not in the definition section, it’s in the purposes section of the Neighborhood/Commercial Zone. You can glean a definition from there, but it’s not in the definition section. Mr. Lee: If I could also add, in the PC Ordinance we do restrict the retail uses to neighborhood serving retail. Vice Chair Schmidt: So, Jim, what you’re saying is the PC Ordinance would already restrict this to neighborhood serving. Mr. Lee: That’s correct. Vice Chair Schmidt: Does it eliminate, I know the Applicant has talked about a newsstand, news shop, coffee place, something like that. Are those kinds of things eliminated or... Mr. Lee: Those would be included in that category. Vice Chair Schmidt: They would be allowable? Mr. Lee: Yes, they would. Mr. Calonne: Two comments. You should define what you want by way of neighborhood serving uses or what you don’t want, if that’s more important. Second thing is a follow-up back to Commissioner Burt. The default sign regulations are those Ct& of Palo Alto Page 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 applicable to the residential district, so you don’t need to do anything with respect to that. But you should define neighborhood serving if you have a specific preference, or else maybe direct Staff to do that. Mr. Gawf: If you have some thoughts tonight, that would be great. I think what we’ll also do before this goes to Council is try to list some examples of neighborhood serving uses so five years from now or in the future there’s not confusion about what we mean by that phrase. Ms. Grote: In the Zoning Ordinance it does list things like, I’m sorry, in the Comp Plan it does list things such as bakeries, drug stores, variety stores, barbershops, restaurants, dry cleaners, hardware stores as being neighborhood commercial in nature. Under community commercial it talks more about apparel shops, toy stores, furniture stores, bookstores, things that might have a larger draw to them. We can come up with some examples of neighborhood serving. Commissioner Beecham: Is that satisfactory for Staff as clarification of what we think we mean? Vice Chair Schmidt: I would just comment that I would like to see enough flexibility in neighborhood serving so that it can be an active place, that the plaza is intended to be a social place. I think we want to be inclusive enough to make sure we allow uses in those retail areas that ensure that it is a social and active place and the neighborhood it would be serving, too, would be the people who are working in the building. Bern. Commissioner Beecham: I’ve got one final comment before I vote and that is to make sure on the record that Council understands that my support for this is strongly dependent on the Council anticipating that the MU-1 and MU-2 zones are sufficiently dense around this so that this is not a real aberration. That is what the last proposal that I saw. If the Council might intend to reduce those densities, then I think this isn’t going to be effective. Vice Chair Schmidt: Are we ready to vote? Commissioner Burt: Interestingly, I have a different take from Bern on whether my support for this project would be based on an anticipation that the balance of the build- out areas in this zone would not be of as high a density as this project and that it’s the special circumstances of this project that would be the only ones that would allow me to support it. It’s a half-block project and consequently perhaps the only one that could economically support two levels of underground parking because of the incremental cost increases, the smaller we have of underground parking structures. The fact that this surrounds the substation is probably the strongest reason why I would not insist upon a predominantly residential component to this project. I don’t think I could support that for other properties in the area. Finally, that it’s a major property within a halfa block of Alma. On the other side of High Street I anticipate and hope and would support a Cir), of Palo Alto Page 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 declining density as we move away from Alma and from Forrest, that the density needs to decline and throughout that Phase 2 area it needs to be majority residential. Vice Chair Schmidt: Phyllis. Commissioner Cassel: I would agree with Burt. The intent here of pushing the height down as we get to the edge of the road is so that you can indeed have lower height buildings across the street and not have to have them so tall. We want to look for more density in housing here in this neighborhood and move away. Vice Chair Schmidt: Annette. Commissioner Bialson: I agree with Pat and Phyllis. I think one of the things to keep in mind, though, is I’m not looking for density of either type because I think that’s what generates traffic and that’s the problem we’ve got to deal with. Vice Chair Schmidt: I’d like to see more housing in the area and I think SOFA Phase 2 will figure out an appropriate mix and density for the rest of the area and this will be an anchor in the area to work with. Are we ready to vote? MOTION PASSED: It has been moved by Bern, and seconded by Annette, the Staff recommendation with a couple of added conditions: That there be neighborhood serving retail as we all discussed and Staff will elucidate as it goes to the Council, on-street parking 30 minute to one hour would be reviewed, and added to this that High Street would be reviewed as a two-way possibility and not so that the condition 1-E would be " modified, and that the parking agreement will extend for the life of the building but the City will have the opportunity to change it if necessary. All those in favor of the motion, please say "aye." (ayes) All those opposed say "no." (no’s) That passes with 5 in favor, Commissioner Schink not participating, and Commissioner Byrd absent. I want to thank the Applicant and architect for a lot of good work and the City Staff also for a lot of creative work with the Applicant. Good luck at City Council and this is tentatively scheduled for going to City Council on Monday, September 21, 1999. Ms. Grote: It’s actually a Tuesday, September 21st because Monday is a holiday. REPORTS FROM COMMITTEES: Vice Chair Schmidt: The next item on the agenda is Reports From Committees and there are none. REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS: Next is Reports From Officials, but we’ve already had the presentation by Terry Trumbull. C~ty of Palo Alto Page 45 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 ..3,.3 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 1 The item following that is a discussion to hold a special meeting on October 6th to review 2 the Stanford Community Plan. The Staff has proposed that we indeed review the plan on 3 that date and we’ve had some earlier discussion to the effect that at least a couple of us 4 will be unavailable on the 6th and Phyllis will not be able to participate because it is a 5 Stanford project. So we’re not sure. I understand Jon Schink can participate on that date but we don’t know about Owen because he’s out of town. Mr. Gawf: I think, sorry, we checked to see if there was at least a quorum for that date and do you recall who indicated that they could make it? Vice Chair Schmidt: Bem and Pat and Jon, and Owen did say he was supposed to be in town. Mr. Gawf: So there is a quorum. If you’d like me to look at another date, I will do that as well. I mean, I’ll try to find another date but the timing is very tough. Commissioner Beecham: I would certainly support that. That’s an important comment period that the whole commission should participate in. Vice Chair Schmidt: We’d only be able to have six at any time since Phyllis cannot participate. Annette I know is more available than I am. I’m going to be out of town for two weeks from October 3ra to October 18th. Mr. Gawf’: The difficulty is that on September 29t~, the County Planning Commission is having a heating here in Palo Alto on Stanford draft community plans and that’s the night of our normal Planning Commission meeting. If it’s all tight if we could move it to the 6th tonight but tomorrow I’ll look at other alternatives and see what I can do to see ifI can get more of the six members that can participate at the meeting. Vice Chair Schmidt: That sounds reasonable. I don’t see any objections to that. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS & ANNOUNCEMENTS: ¯Election of Chair and Vice Chair The next item Commissioner Questions, Comments and Announcements item is election of Chair and Vice Chair. We do the election at the first August meeting of every year, as required by our by-laws. So this is our first August meeting. Bern. MOTION: Commissioner Beecham: I’d certainly like to nominate Kathy for Chair. She’s done a splendid job as Vice Chair this past year but nonetheless we know that in the past as she has been Chair she’s done a wonderful job. I certainly look forward to having her serve us again in such a capacity. SECOND: Commissioner Burt: I’d like to second that motion. City of Palo Alto Page 46 1 Vice Chair Schmidt: Can we all second it? Are there any other nominations? 2 3 Commissioner Beecham: Then I move by acclamation that Kathy’s the new Chair. 4 5 Vice Chair Schmidt: I assume that’s legal. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 Mr. Gawf: I was going to say "yes," until I saw Ariel walk in the room, but I think it is. I think you need to, by acclamation, vote on that. Yes, so if you’ll vote on the motion made by Commissioner Beecham that will be done by acclamation. MOTION PASSED: All those in favor say "aye." (ayes) All opposed say "no." (no’s) That vote of acclamation is 5-0 with Commissioner Schink and Commissioner Byrd absent. Thank you very much. I look forward to being Chair. It’s been a long time since I’ve actually been Chair. I’m happy to be doing that for the coming year and look forward to doing work of the Planning and Transportation Commission. MOTION: The next is election of Vice Chair and I would like to nominate Annette Bialson to be Vice Chair. She would do a terrific job and would like to see her in that position. SECOND: Commissioner Burt: I’d like to second that. Vice Chair Schmidt: Are there any other nominations? We can either move another acclamation or vote on the election, it doesn’t make any difference. Okay, let’s vote. MOTION PASSED: All those in favor of Annette for Vice Chair say "aye." (ayes) All those opposed say "no." (no’s) And that also passes on a 5-0 vote with Commissioners Schink and Byrd absent. Congratulations. Commissioner Bialson: Thank you, my fellow Commissioners. Commission Representation on Committees Vice Chair Schmidt: The next item on the agenda is in regard to selection of committee representatives for various committees that we have and there was a sheet in our packet that was very old. I had a discussion with Eric a couple of days ago saying that I think it would be preferable to review the list and make a new list for probably for the next agendized meeting if possible or the one following that. I made the list and gave to Lisa of some other possible representations we might have including someone to be representative for Zoning Ordinance update. I can’t think what other items I put in there. Ms. Grote: The other items you had on the list were Historic Resources Board liaison, single-family home design review issues, and then Stanford Community Plan and ongoing planning process. City of Palo Alto Page 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3O 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Vice Chair Schmidt: There were also a couple of things missing from that original list that Phyllis mentioned, that she’s the representative to the Shuttle Committee and Annette is the representative to the parking/traffic calming. Also, I’m currently the representative for the Public Safety Building and I put that on that list also. There are a number of things. Once we have a list, if people can express interest in particular committees, then we can go through the appointments. Commissioner Burt: Kathy, you mentioned I think single-story design, do we mean residential design. Vice Chair Schmidt: Yes, single-family is what it should be. IfI said single-story, it should be...whatever comes up; I’m not sure what this will be. These are just suggestions for Staff. These are not...these are things Staff needs to think about and whether we need representation or not. Commission Representation at Council Meetings The next item is Commission Representation at Council Meetings. We’re getting a little short on representation here. Pat has been the representative for August, I’m the representative for September, and if people can at this point take October, November, and December... Commissioner Cassel: Can I take November? October would be difficult. Commissioner Bialson: I could take December. Commissioner Burt: I think I already have responsibility for the SOFA before Council which is October 18th and then the garages are rescheduled for what date? Mr. Gawf: September 27t~, 28th, whatever that... Vice Chair Schmidt: So Pat has miscellaneous representation for specific projects. Then I think we will talk with Owen and Jon about October since we’re...unless Bern probably doesn’t want to take October. So, if we could just add Phyllis for November and Annette for December at this time, we’ll fill in October next time. Commissioner Burt: I might be able to take October. August wasn’t a very heavy load. Vice Chair Schmidt: Okay, then we’ll have Pat for October. That is it for the agenda tonight. Our next meeting is September 8th and the meeting is adjourned. ADJOURNED: 11:00 PM Cir. of Palo Alto Page 48 .Watercourse PAGE Attachment C Way 02 August 25, 1999 City of Palo Alto Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator And Planning Commission 250 Hamilton Palo Alto, California 94301 Re: Letter from ~uly 19, 1999 Dear Lisa and Commissioners, This is in regards to our previous letter, stating an objection to the Roxy Rapp project at 800 High Street. Based on recent, correct information received about this project, we retract our objection. We were under the wrong impression that the building was to be 5 stories and flush against High Street. After meeting with Roxy and discussing and reviewing his plans, we were able to reconcile his project with our concern for the neighborhood. This letter expresses o~ full support of Roxy’s project. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this issue. Sincerely, John Roberts Susan Nightingale Watercourse Way 165 Channing Avenue Pile Alto. CA 94301 Phone: (6~0) 462-2000 FAX: (650) 462-20g0 Transportation Authority September i0, 1999 SEP 1 g 1999 ~/~nt of p! City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Development P.O. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 Attention: Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Subject: 800 High Sreet Peninsula Creamery Environmental Impact Report Dear Ms. Grote: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) staff have reviewed the September 9, 1999 Environmental Impact Report (ERR) for the 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery Project, a mixed-use development in the block bounded by Alma Street, Channing Avenue, High Street and Homer Avenue. Comments made by VTA staff in the June 25, 1999 letter to the City regarding the Draft ErR for this project have been addressed in the ErR. Thank you for your support of transit in the City of Palo Alto. A project like this helps to promote increased transit and bicycle use and helps to create a mixed-use, pedestrian friendly environment. If you have any questions, please call Lauren Bobadilla of my staff at (408) 321-5776. Sincerely, Roy M( Senior Environmental Analyst RM:LGB:kh cc: Derek Kantar, VTA Environmental Pro~am Manager 3331 Florlh Firsl Streel ¯ San Jose, CA 95134-1906 ¯ Administration 408.321.5555 ¯ Customer Service 408.321.2300 Attachment D RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE 800 HIGH STREET PENINSULA CREAMERY FINAL EIR AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT The Council of the City of Palo Alto does RESOLVE as fol!ows: SECTION i. Background.The City Council of the City of Palo Alto "City Council") finds, determines, and declares as follows: A.High Street Creamery Associates LLP has made application to the City of Palo Alto ("City") for the 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery Project ("Project"). The Project consists of an application for a Zone Change from the Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay (CD-S) (P) to a Planned Community (PC) Zone, to allow the demolition of an existing 17,632 square foot manufacturing building and construction of a new 48 foot high, three story mixed use building; and a variance for a portion of the third floor residential area that exceeds the City’s height limit for that area. B.The City as the lead agency for the Project has prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents and records: "800 High Street Peninsula Creamery Draft EIR, May 1999"; "800 High Street Peninsula Creamery Final EIR, September 1999", and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, e__t se~. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et se~. The Fina! EIR is on file in the offices of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. C. The initial Notice of Preparation was distributed in March 1999. The Draft EIR was circulated for public review between May 26 and June 25, 1999. The Historic Resources Board reviewed the project on June 16, 1999. The Architectural Resources Board reviewed the project on June 24, 1999. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on August 25, 1999. D.The City Council, in conjunction with this resolution, is also approving a reporting and monitoring program pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21081.6, which program is 990914 lac 0090345 1 designed to ensure compliance with Project changes and mitigation measures imposed to avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects identified in the Final EIR, and described in detail in Exhibit A which is attached to this resolution and a part of it. E. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR and record of proceedings. SECTION 2. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, oral and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approval the various actions related to the 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery project. SECTION 3. SiGnificant Impacts Which Can Be Mitigated To A Less Than Significant Le..~l. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies potentially significant environmenta! effects of the Project in regard to Land Use and Planning; Biological Resources; Aesthetics; Cultural Resources; Noise; Air Quality; Transportation and Circulation; and Utilities and Service Systems. The City Council finds that, in response to each significant effect listed in this Section 3, all feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR as summarized below. Each of the Mitigation Measures summarized below is more fully described in the EIR and in the attached Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program. Land Use and Planning Impact 4.1-2 concerns potential noise and visual impacts created by incompatible land uses. These impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level by Mitigation Measures 4.5-1 (sound-reducing glazing on windows), 4.7-1 (use of suitable colors for intake/exhaust vents), and 4.7-2 (selection and placement of exterior lights to reduce light and glare impacts). B.Air Quality Impact 4.2-1 concerns air quality standard impacts created by construction. Mitigation Measure 4.2.-1 (compliance with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) basic control measures) will reduce this impact to a less-than significant level. 990914 lac 0090345 2 Transportation and Circulation Impact 4.3-1 concerns traffic operation impacts. Project traffic, along with other future projects, would impair the function of the Alma Street / Channing Avenue intersection unless mitigated. In addition, construction period traffic would impact roadways. Mitigation measures 4.3-1 (a), (b) and (c), (repair of existing pavement damaged by construction, combination of restriping, signalization, and creation of public parking areas) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Impact 4.3-2 concerns safety hazards design features. The width of Lane 8 West and placement of the pedestrian walkway could create hazards, such as automobiles failing to see pedestrians. Mitigation measure 4.3-2, (striping and signing the alley for one- way flow from Channing Avenue to Homer Avenue and removing the proposed pedestrian path from the Project,) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Do Biological Resources Impact 4.4-1 concerns potential impacts from the addition of new street trees of unsuitable species. Mitigation measure 4.4- 1 (selection of a tree acceptable to City) wil! reduce this impact to a less-than significant level. E.Noise Impact 4.5-1 concerns severe noise levels. Sound levels of greater than 80 dBA could be generated at the building fagade when trucks are being unloaded. Mitigation measure 4.5-1 (sound- reducing glazing for certain windows) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Utilities and Service Systems Impact 4.6-1 concerns adverse impacts on utilities from planned streetlights which could not be installed without interfering with utility facilities. Mitigation measure 4.6-1, (substitution of wall-mounted fixtures on Land 8 West, review and modification of screening fence to avoid interference with utility facilities, installation of a padmount transformer) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. G.Aesthetics Impact 4.7-1 concerns negative aesthetic effects from the light color of the proposed intake/exhaust vent. Mitigation measure 4.7-1 (substitution of another color acceptable to the City that does not contrast with other colors and materials) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. 990914 lac 0090345 3 Impact 4.7-2 concerns potential light and glare issues from nighttime lighting. Mitigation measure 4.7-2 (selection and placement of exterior lights to reduce light and glare impacts) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant level. Ho Cultural Resources Impact 4.8-1 concerns impacts to archeological resources. Excavation could uncover unknown archeological resources. Mitigation measure 4.8-1 (archeological .monitoring and, in the event cultural deposits are encountered, delaying further work until a feasible plan for avoidance or excavation is created and implemented) will reduce this impact to a less-than-significant .level. SECTION 4. Significant Impacts Which Cannot Be Fully Mitigated. The City Council finds that the Final EIR identifies a significant environmental effect of the Project with respect to Cultural Resources, namely the demolition of the Peninsula Creamery Ice Cream Plant, originally known as the Family Service Laundry and built in 1930. The building, while much modified and in unsound condition, is potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. The major character-defining architectural features of the building have been identified as the multi-paned windows, the stepped-parapet, the gabled roof monitor, and the stucco finish. Its historic significance also lies in its location within the former laundry district and its association with two prominent local businesses, the Family Service Laundry and the Peninsula Creamery. Mi[igation measure 4.8-1, which requires documentation of the building and its history, and preparation of a photographic records meeting the standards of the Historic American Building Survey, will not reduce the impacts to a less-than significant level. However, the proposed building has been designed to recall the industrial design of the existing building as well as the industrial character of the surrounding neighborhood. Stucco, the material used on the exterior walls of the original building, has been used on the vertical elements of the exterior of the proposed building. Metal panel siding, steel grates and rails, a standing seam metal roof and steel sunshades have been used in the proposed building to reflect the metal materials commonly found in historic industrial areas. Finally, small multi-paned windows, a feature of the existing building, have been incorporated throughout the proposed building. The City Council finds with regard to the significant effect of the demolition of the Peninsula Creamery building, while all identified feasible changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the Project which would lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the Final EIR, 990914 lac 0090345 4 these effects cannot be totally avoided or reduced to a level of insignificance if the Project is implemented. Section 5 below describes the infeasibility of an alternative project that would preserve and rehabilitate the Peninsula Creamery Building. SECTION 5. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR describes a reasonable range of alternatives to the Project, or to its location, which could feasibly obtain the basic objectives of the Project, and that the City Council has evaluated the comparative merits of the alternatives and rejected them in favor of the proposed Project as summarized below: No Project Alternative. This alternative assumes no rezoning of the site, with any future development on the site consistent with existing zoning. The current zoning at the site allows a variety of commercial, office, and residential uses. However, less total square footage of development would be allowed than under the Project. Under current zoning, the amount of non-residential construction (both retail and office space) would be limited to 16,800 square feet, and residential development would be limited to 27 units. This is compared with the Proposed Project with 26 residential units, 48,030 square feet of office space, and 2,379 square feet of retail space. Therefore, this alternative would allow roughly the same number of residential units but only about one-third of the commercial and office square footage, compared with the Proposed Project. This alternative would be expected to create a smaller amount of parking. This alternative is not desirable for the City because, although it might permit a project which rehabilitated the Peninsula Creamery Building, any alternative project which retained that building would be unable to meet the Project goals for the reasons set forth in Section 5 B below. This alternative is infeasible because it precludes satisfaction of two of the project goals, provision of a significant number of affordable housing units and a significant contribution to the alleviation of parking shortages in the area. Bo Retain Creamery Bui!di.~g Alternative It is assumed for this alternative that the Creamery Building would be rehabilitated under The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring and Reconstructing Historic Buildings (Standards). The Standards are the primary document used to plan and evaluate the treatment of historic buildings. A historic architect would review proposed project plans for compatibility with the Standards. Other project 990914 lac 0090345 5 elements would be similar to the Proposed Project, but as the Creamery Building would be maintained, the total deve!opment on the site would be reduced. This is the environmentally superior alternative. The adaptive reuse of the Creamery Building, with seismic upgrading, remova! of later additions which mask the original character of the building, and replacement of much of the structure, is difficult and expensive but not impossible. Height limits would preclude transferring the unused floor area ratio allowance from the Creamery Building area to the balance of the site. It is neither desirable nor feasible to alter these height limits, which were adopted to protect existing properties, including existing residences in the vicinity, from the adverse effects of very tall buildings on the light, air, and privacy of other properties and the aesthetics of the neighborhood. At the same time, an underground parking garage on a smaller portion of the site would provide far fewer spaces than those proposed under the Project. The amount of residential, office, and retail space also be reduced under this alternative. Meeting the Project goals requires the use of underground parking to provide approximately 248 spaces. This, in turn, requires a large enough area to use two levels of underground parking rather than three levels. If the Creamery Building were retained, only about 180 spaces could be provided on the two levels. A third level of underground parking would invade the water table and require special construction techniques that are substantially more expensive. It is not possible to retain and reuse the Peninsula Creamery Building and at the sime time achieve a density of development on the site which would make feasible the construction of subterranean parking. Without subterranean parking, the Project goals of additional affordable housing and public parking, both of which are encouraged by the City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan, cannot be obtained. In addition, the use of surface parking in such a development would eliminate the new plaza accessible to the public and lead to greater lot coverage. It would contradict the City’s adopted goals of encouraging pedestrian-friendly development at higher densities in this area, which is close to transit facilities and the City’s downtown commercial district. It would also not provide a more attractive neighbor for the adjoining residential areas. The City Council determines that this alternative is infeasible because the technical and economic limits on the development of this site under this alternative, as described above, by reducing the intensity of development over a large portion of the site, make it impossible to obtain the Project goals, which are also the City’s goals, of providing new public parking and affordable housing, together with market rate housing, on this site. 990914 lac 0090345 6 SECTION 6. Statement of Overriding Considerations. The City Council finds that the unavoidable environmental impact of the Project, described in Section 4 of this Resolution, is acceptable when balanced against the benefits of the Project, even after giving greater weight to its duty to avoid the environmental impacts, and to protect the environment to the maximum extent feasible. This determination is made based upon the following factors and public benefits which are identified in the Final EIR and record of proceedings: A. The Project is in an area that lacks public parking to support existing development, including a supermarket which is vital to the health of the surrounding neighborhoods. The City has a shortage of both affordable and market-rate housing. Local residents have asked that the City establish a new park in the neighborhood. The City wishes to provide one, but it has lacked the funds to acquire and develop such a facility. The imminent relocation of the principal Palo Alto Medical Foundation facilities from the neighborhood to a new campus has made land available for redevelopment for new uses, including a park. B. The Project will provide at least 78 and up to 104 public parking spaces, nine affordable rental apartments, 17 market-rate apartments, public art, a plaza accessible to the public, and a major financial contribution towards funding a park in the area. C. The existing building, although eligible for the California Register of Historic Places, is not unique as a surviving laundry building in this area. Its distinctive architecture has been largely obscured for many years. It is in disrepair and does not meet current seismic safety standards. It has not been fully used in recent years for industrial purposes. D.The Project will replace the existing industrial building and storage and parking areas with a new building which meets current seismic, energy efficiency and accessibility standards. By providing underground parking, the Project will increase the density of development in a transportation corridor while minimizing the aesthetic impacts on the neighborhood. Because the Project is designed with small gardens and interesting architectural features on the High Street frontage, together with a plaza accessible to the public and neighborhood serving retail uses, it will strengthen the neighborhood as an attractive place to live, work, and walk. Because it is well designed and will be constructed of high-quality materials, it will be an architecturally significant building in its own right. The City Council finds that each of the overriding considerations set forth above constitutes a separate and independent grounds for finding that the benefits of the Project 990914 lac 0090345 7 outweigh its significant adverse environmental impact and is an overriding consideration warranting approval of the Project. SECTION 7. Impacts Found Not To Be Significant The City finds that the Final EIR neither expressly identifies, nor contains any substantial evidence identifying, significant environmental effects of the Project with respect to any of the environmental impacts dismissed through the scoping process with "no" responses on the initial Environmenta! Assessment (contained in Section 7.1 of the Draft EIR) and with respect to the following potential impacts identified as not significant in Section 3.7 of the Draft EIR: conflict with Comprehensive Plan designations or zoning; conflict with environmental plans and policies. SECTION 8. Substantial evidence supporting each and every finding made herein is contained in the Final EIR and records of proceedings. S..ECTION 9. The Council finds that there is no substantial evidence~ to support a conclusion that significant new information has been added to the Fina! EIR so as to warrant recirculation of the EIR pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21092.1 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15088.5. This finding is based upon all the information presented in the Final EIR and record of proceedings. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 990914 lac 0090345 8 Mitigation Measure Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (page 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery [ Implementation Procedure IM°nit°ringResponsibility [ Monitoring and Reporting Action [Monitor Schedule 4.2-1 4.3-1a The BAAQMD basic control measures shall be used to reduce the impact of construction dust: 1 Water all active construction areas at least twice daily. Cover all truc’ks hauling soil, sand, and other loose materials or require all trucks to maintain at least two feet of freeboard. Pave, apply water three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep daily (with water sweepers) all paved access roads, parking areas and staging areas at construction sites. Sweep streets daily (with water sweepers) if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent public streets. The City of Palo Alto shall agree to a before and after evaluation program of pavement along the construction truck traffic route in order to determine if project-generated truck traffic causes pavement deterioration.The applicant shall be responsible for repairing deteriorated pavement attributable to the project. 1. City requires mitigation as a condition of approval. 2. Applicant places mitigation into the contracts of all subsequent contractors involved in site preparation and development activities. City will require as condition of grading permit. 3. Applicant would implement during construction. 1. City requires mitigation as a condition of approval. 2. Applicant develops an evaluation program, surveys truck traffic route for existing conditions. 3. Applicant would review damage after construction and repair deteriorated pavement 1. DPCE 2. PW 3. PW 1. DPCE 2. PW 3. PW 1. Draft and incorporate intoproject approval. 2. Review materials for submittal of grading permit. 3. City inspects property during construction. 1. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 2. Review materials for submittal of grading permit. 3. City inspects property after construction. 2. GP 2. GP 3. PCM 1 In BAAQMD CEQA Guidelines, April 1996. 990915 sdl 0090357 EXHIBIT "A" Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (page 2) 800 Hi~h Street Peninsula Creamew MonitoringMitigation Measure [ Implementation Procedure Responsihilit~ I Monito~g and Repo~g ActionI Monitor Schedule Note: only one of the following two mitigations [4.3-1(b) or 4.3-1(c)] would be implemented. This would depend on the ultimate configuration of the road system around the project site, which is unknown at this time. 4.3-Ib Note, either 4.3-1(b) or 4.3-1(c) would be implemented, not both. The following mitigation would reduce cumulative tra.ff~c impacts under the Existing and Proposed Project traffic systems: Existing System This assumes that the existing road system would be maintained around the project. This includes both Homer and Channing Avenues as one-way couplets, and High Street as a one-way street fronting the project. Proposed Project System This analysis assumes a roadway plan as envisioned by the project, with Homer and Channing Avenues functioning as one-way couplets, and High Street as a two-way street fronting the project. Mitigation under the Existing or Proposed Project traffic systems would require the following mitigations: 1) Restriping of Alma Street. Provision of a southbound exclusive left rum lane would mitigate the impact to southbound through traffic flow. 2)Signalization of the Alma Street/Channing Street intersection shall be required to reduce delay to southbound lef~ turns to an acceptable level. 3)Designate ten (10) of the project’s alleyway parking spaces for two-hour limit public use. Provide signs directing customers of the Alma Street hardware and auto repair businesses to the designated parking, and sign the parking spaces for public use, 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM, Monday through Friday. 1. City requires fair share mitigation and designating parking spaces as conditions of approval. 2. City to implement mitigation. 3. Applicant would be responsible for designating alleyway parking spaces on revised plans, guaranteeing access and providing maintenance. 4. Applicant would implement parking requirements. I. DPCE 2. DPCE/PW 3. PW 4. PW 1. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 2. City to implement. 3. City would review revise plans. 4. City would inspect after construction. 2. On-going program 3. GP 4. PCM 990915 sdl 0090357 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation Measure Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (page 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery I implementation Procedure IM°nit°ringResponsibility [ M°nit°ring and Rep°t~dng Acti°n Monitor Schedule 4.3-Ic 4.3-2 Note, either 4.3-I(b) implemented, not both. or 4.3-1(c) would be The following mitigation will reduce cumulative traffic impacts under the PAMF/SOFA Proposed System: PAMFiSOFA CAP Proposed System This analysis assumes a traffic plan developed for the upcoming PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan would be adopted. Under this scenario, Homer and Channing Avenues would convert to two-way traffic flow, the Alma Street / Channing Avenue intersection would be signalized, and High Street fronting the project would convert to two-way traffic flow. Mitigation under the PAMF/SOFA Proposed traffic system assumes provision of a signal at the Alma Street / Channing Avenue intersection but no left-turn lane on the southbound Alma Street intersection approach. However, if monitoring of the intersection reveals the need for provision of this lane, the following mitigation will be required: The traffic study for the PAMF/SOFA Coordinated Area Plan could mitigate cumulative impacts created by the project by the provision of a separate southbound left turn lane. Mitigation for the (800 High Street) project applicant shall be to provide a fair share contribution toward the provision of a southbound left turn lane at the Alma Street / Channing Avenue intersection. 1. City requires fair share mitigation as a condition of approval. 2. City to implement mitigation. 1. DPCE 1. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 2. DPCE/ PW City to implement. The following mitigation will reduce hazards impacts: Sign and stripe the alley for one-way northbound flow. Parking spaces shall be angled to accommodate (and reinforce) the northbound directional flow. ¯Remove the pedestrian walk-way from the project site plan. I. City requires mitigation as a condition of design approval. 2. Applicant revises site plans. 1. DPCE 2. PW 1. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 2. City reviews plans. 2. Ongoing Program 2. GP 990915 sdl 0090357 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation Measure Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (page 4) 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery Monitoring] Implementation Procedure Responsibility I M°nit°ring and ep°r g Acti°nI Monitor Schedule 4.4-1 4.5-I 4.6-I The applicant shall select a new species of street tree to be used for the project acceptable to City. New trees shall meet the specifications of the City. Additional or replacement street trees shall be required on the south side of Channing Avenue and the north side of Homer Avenue, in order to match proposed street trees proposed by the applicant. The applicant shall revise the Landscape Plan to include new trees, where space locations are feasible. The City shall determine if new locations are acceptable. Replacement street trees shall conform to preferred City planting methods. 2 Windows in the building shall have an STC (sound transmission class) rating of at least 28, except for those overlooking the Palo Alto Hardware Store loading dock which shall be at least 40 STC: in Units 21, 22, 25, and 26. If the landscaping screen / noise barrier along the substation on the southwest side of Lane 8 West is not constructed, windows in residential units along Lane 8 West shall have an STC rating of at least 34 to reduce noise impacts to a less-than- significant level. The applicant shall revise project plans to include lighting for Lane 8 West on the wall of the building itself. The Utilities Department would need to approve the photometric plan. During construction of the building, no lighting would be available for Lane 8 West. The applicant shall install temporary lighting during construction along Lane 8 West for the use of current residents and visitors of the alley after dark. The applicant shall be responsible for new lighting. The Utilities Department must approve plans for the screening fence, proposed tree wells, and curb modifications to ensure that no conflicts would occur with electric lines. If necessary, locations of some project elements might need to be relocated a small amount to avoid lines. This relocation shall be paid for by the applicant. A padmount transformer is required on- site for this project. As a standard condition of approval, an utilities easement 1. City requires mitigation as a condition of design review. 2. Applicant revises landscape plan including specifying types and locations of trees, and describing planting methods. 1. City requires mitigation as a condition of design review. 2. Applicant would revise project plans. 1. City requires mitigation as a condition of design review. 2. Applicant revises project plans. 1. DPCE 2. DPCE! PW (arborists) 1. DPCE 2. PW 1. DPCE 2. PW (Utilities) 1. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 2. City reviews revised plans. t. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 2. City would review plans. 1. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 2. Utilities Department reviews plans. 2. GP 2. GP 2. DP 2 See Palo Alto Structural Soil Mix for Urban Tree Plantings - Specificanons, Planning / Public Wor "ks Joint Research Project Memorandum, June 12t~ 1998. 990915 sdl 0090357 4 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation Measure Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (page 5) 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery I Implementation Procedure [ MonitoringResponsibility [ M°nit°ring and Rep°rting Acti°nI Monitor Schedule 4.7-1 4.8-1 shall be required for installing the transformer at this location, installing the primary conduits for designated service point, and extending the primary conduit to the new transformer location. Future access to the transformer for maintenance may become a problem should any portion of the property that is now used for parking be developed. Should this occur, the owner of the proposed project shall be required to relocate the transformer when needed. The applicant shall select a color for the intake/exhaust vents, of the project that would not "stand out" and contrast with the colors and materials selected for the project. Darker colors which would blend in, such as brown hues, would be preferable. The color selected for the vents would need to be approved by the Planning Department during review of the project. Shield or focus outdoor night lighting downward to minimize upward reflected light. Recess lighting elements within fixtures to prevent glare. Avoid placing lights too close to objects to prevent reflected glare. Avoid high-angle high-candela distribution. Select lighting features which can be shielded after installation, if a problem is identified. After demolition of the existing buildings, but before any grading occurs on site, the site shall be tested by underground probing by an archeologist paid for by the applicant. This archeologist shall be under direction of the City. The City shall determine the extent of underground pro.bing required. If cultural deposits are encountered, the applicant shall halt construction in the vicinity and consult a qualified archeologist and the Native American community. The archeologist shall conduct independent review of the find, with authorization of and under direction of the City. Prompt evaluations shall be made regarding the significance and importance of the finds and a course of action acceptable to all concerned parties shall be adopted. If mitigation is required, the first priority shall be for avoidance and preservation of the resource. If avoidance is not feasible an alternative plan that may 1. City requires mitigation as a condition of design review. 2. Applicant revises project. 1. City requires mitigation as a condition of design review. 2. Applicant will be responsible for implementing mitigations into construction or lighting plans. I. City requires mitigation as a condition of desiLm review. 2, City requires as condition of grading permit. 3. Applicant wil! implement duringconstruction. 1. DPCE 2. DPCE i". DPCE 2, PW I. DPCE 2, PW 3, PW !. DraR and incorporate into project approval. 2. City reviews color scheme. 1. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 2. Review materials. I. DraR and incorporate into project approval. 2. Review material for gradingpermit. 3. City inspects property during construction. 2. DP 2. GP 2. GP 990915 sdl 0090357 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation Measure Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (page 6) 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery I ,Implementation Procedure I Monitoring I Monitoring and Reporting ActionResponsibilityI MonitorSchedule include excavation shall be prepared. All archaeological excavation and monitoring activities shall be conducted in accordance with prevailing professional standards as outlined in the State CEQA Guidelines and by the Califomia Office of Historic Preservation. The Native American community shall be consulted on all aspects of the mitigation program. 990915 sdl 0090357 EXHIBIT "A" Mitigation Measure Draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (.page 7) 800 High Street Peninsula Creamery Monitoring Monitoring and Reporting Action Implementation Proeedure Responsibility Monitor Schedule 4.8-2a 4.8-2b a) Note: b) To reduce historic impacts due to CRHR criterion "a" above (is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of California’s history and cultural heritage), a complete written history shall be undertaken documenting the laundry business within Palo Alto and of the families who founded those businesses. A full history of the Peninsula Creamery shall also be conducted. The building at 140 Homer, other laundry buildings, and other Peninsula Creamery buildings shall be photographed as part of these histories. these mitigations may or may not be implemented, depending on the conditions of project approval and feasibility. To reduce historic impacts due to CRHR criterion "c" above (embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction), the following measures could be adopted: I) Revise the design of the proposed project to reflect the industrial and commercial characteristics of the existing building. 2) Photograph the building using Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards prior to demolition. 1. City requires mitigation as a condition of design approval. 2. Applicant selects historian. 3. Applicant implements mitigation. 1. DPCE 2. DPCE 3. DPCE 1. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 1. City requires mitigation as a condition of design approval. 2. Applicant would photograph building. 3. Applicant would revise current design of proposed project. 1. DPCE 2 DPCE 3. DPCE 2. DPCE accepts or rejects historian. 3. DPCE receives report. 1. Draft and incorporate into project approval. 2. City would receive photographs. 3. City would review project plans to ensure they adequately revise the design of the proposed project to reflect the industrial and commercial characteristics of the existing building. 2. DP 3. PCM 2. DP 3. DP 990915 sdl 0090357 EXHIBIT "A" Attachment E ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP)TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY KNOWN AS 800 HIGH STREET FROM CD-S(P) TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION i. (a) Application has been made to the City for approval of the demolition of an existing 17,600± square foot manufacturing building at 800 High Street, the Peninsula Creamery, and its replacement with a 79,750± square foot mixed-use building including housing, 48,000± square feet of office space, 2380± square feet of retail space, and a subterranean parking garage (the "Project"). (b) The Architectural Review Board at its meeting of June 24, 1999 considered the Project and recommended its approval, subject to certain conditions. (c) The Planning Commission, after a duly noticed public hearing held August 25, 1999, recommended that Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code be amended as hereinafter set forth to permit construction of the Project. (d) The Council, after due consideration of the recommendations, finds that the proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. SECTION 2. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map," is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property known as 800 High Street (the "subject property") from ~CD-S(P) Downtown Commercial (Service) Pedestrian Overlay" to "PC Planned Community." The subject property, consisting of approximately .96 acres, is shown on the map labeled Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the subject property that: (a) The site is so situated and the uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development in that none of the City’s conventional zoning districts could accommodate the proposed square footage, floor area ratio, and building height unless variances were granted. (b) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC Planned Community District will result in public benefits not 990915 lac 0090317 otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or Combining districts in that the Project includes the following public benefits that are inherent to the Project and above those required by city zoning districts: (I)The Project will replace a deteriorated, partially empty manufacturing building with a well-designed structure built to contemporary building and safety standards using materials of very high quality. An underutilized and obsolete manufacturing building will be replaced with a residential/retail/office complex in a mixed use area that is within walking distance of the University Avenue Business District and in close proximity to public transit. Such a use is called for in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance. (ii) The Peninsula Creamery is a historic resource eligible for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources. However, its dilapidated condition, its lack of architectural distinction, and its low suitability for conversion to more appropriate uses make its loss acceptable given the high quality of the proposed replacement structure and the public benefits inherent in the proposed uses of the replacement structure. In addition, the site is unusual in that it is an entire half-block, surrounded on all sides by public rights-of-way and backing up to an electrical substation. By redeveloping the entire site, instead of working around the shell of the existing historic building, a more efficient design permitting more below market rate housing and public parking is possible. (iii) The Project will provide nine Below Market Rate Housing Units where only two, and the payment of fees for a fractional unit, would be required by the City’s housing programs. These units will be located at the south end of the building and will include studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom apartments. The Project’s owner has executed an Agreement to Provide Below Market Rate Housing with City dated September 9, 1999 which will be recorded upon final passage of this ordinance. (iv) The Project will provide public art and a plaza accessible to the public at the corner of High Street and Homer Avenue. The plaza will feature several public amenities including seating, landscaping and a substantial setback from the property line beyond that required by City’s zoning districts. The public art will be viewable from the public right-of-way and reviewed by the Arts Commission and by the Architectural Review Board and subject to approval by the City. (v)The Project will provide, in addition to the required street trees adjacent to its property, street trees on the opposite side of High Street. (vi) The Project will provide additional public parking above that required by zoning in an area where additional parking is needed. Approximately one hundred and four (104) garage spaces wil! be available for public parking for the life of the 2 990915 lac 0090317 building. The spaces will either be short term (two-hour, for example) spaces for the use of the general public or permit spaces for those holding parking permits issued by the City. Project’s owner has executed a license and operating agreement with the City for the use of parking spaces dated ,1999 which wil! be recorded upon final passage of this ordinance. The parking garage will be privately owned and maintained. (c) The council further finds that these public benefits are of sufficient importance to make the Project as a whole, which includes 33,600 square feet of commercial development over that which the existing zoning would permit, one with substantial public benefit. (d) The uses permitted and the site development regulations applicable within the District are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and are compatible with the existing and potential uses on the adjoining sites or within the general vicinity in that the Project would be consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan policies: (I)Local Land Use Program L-8: "Limit new non- residential development in the Downtown area to 350,000 square feet, or I0 percent above the amount of development existing or approved as of May 1986. Reevaluate this limit when non- residential development approvals reach 235,000 square feet of floor area." The proposed addition of 32,777 square feet of new non-residential floor area (50,409 proposed minus 17,632 existing) falls within the Downtown floor area limit. It constitutes nine percent of the total allocation of 350,000 square feet. It constitutes 12 percent of the remaining square footage as of August i, 1998 (266,975 square feet). (ii) Policy L-9 :"Enhance desirable characteristics in mixed use areas. Use the planning and zoning process to create opportunities for new mixed use development." The Project is a mix of residential, office, retail and public uses. (iii) Policy L-25: ~Enhance the character of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) as a mixed use area." The Project includes a mix of uses, as well as a plaza accessible to the public, public art, street trees, and pedestrian amenities at ground level. Piecemeal development would probably produce a pattern of equally tall buildings interspersed with surface parking lots, resulting in multiple driveways and curb cuts, fewer design amenities, and a less pedestrian-friendly development. (iv) Policy H-4: ~Encourage mixed use Projects as a means of increasing the housing supply while promoting diversity and neighborhood vitality." The Project includes 26 apartment units that will increase the supply of rental housing, which is scarce in the area. (v) Policy B-21: "Maintain uses in the South of Forest Area (SOFA) that complement the Downtown business district, 3 990915 lac 0090317 allow for the continued operation of automotive services uses, and serve the needs of nearby neighborhoods.~ The Project provides rental housing close to Downtown services, offices near transit, and local serving retail to provide services to nearby residents. Its design improves parking for customers and employees of local businesses, and it makes use of design and materials to accommodate the high levels of noise that are generated from time to time by truck loading and other activities in the area. It includes neighborhood-serving retail space. SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "Santana Building- -800 High Street, Palo Alto, CA" prepared by Peterson Architects dated August 16, 1999, copy on file in the Planning Division office, and to which copy reference is hereby made, are hereby approved as the Development Plan for the subject property, pursuant to Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.68.120. Said Development Plan is approved for the following uses, and subject to the following conditions: (a)Permitted Uses. The permitted uses shall be limited as follows: (I)Multiple Family Residential Use: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as ~rental housing units" or ~rental units," multiple-family uses and uses customarily incidental to multiple-family uses. All units shall be rental units. In any individual unit, home occupations accessory to the residential use of that unit are permitted subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code provisions regulating home occupations. (ii) Office: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as ~Office Space," medical, professional and general business offices, administrative offices, general business services, and private educational facilities. (iii) Retail: In those areas designated on the Development Plan as ~Retail," neighborhood-serving eating and drinking services, personal services, and retail services. (iv) Parking Garage: The parking garage shall be owned and operated by the owner of the Project. Five (5) spaces are reserved for the use of building tenants, as shown on the Plans, and shall be allocated by the owner of the Project. The balance of the parking spaces shall be managed as public parking for the neighborhood by the City under a license and operating agreement. Forty (40) spaces sha~l bedesignated for free, short- term parking designed for customers and visitors. The remaining one hundred and ninety four (194) spaces shal! be permit spaces, in which holders of parking permits issued by the City may park during posted hours. After permit hours, the general public may use the spaces while the garage is open. The garage shall be open to the public between 7 a.m. and ii p.m. daily. The City and the owner of the Project may by mutual agreement modify the allocation of public parking spaces with an amendment to the license and operating agreement.. These modifications must be consistent with the goal of providing parking for residents, workers, and customers in the 990915 lac 0090317 4 neighborhood. In addition, if final configuration of below market housing units, as approved by the City, requires additional parking spaces reserved for those units because of increase in number or units or number of bedrooms, the necessary number of parking spaces may be removed from the public parking allocation. (b) Conditional Uses. Child care facilities may be allowed with a conditional use permit. (c) Site Development Regulations. All improvements and development shall be substantially in accordance with the approved Development Plan and Mitigation and Monitoring Plan adopted by the Council in conjunction with approva! of this ordinance. The following are site development regulations which establish rules for modifications or additions to any building, accessory structure or landscaping on the subject property. Definitions of terms used shall be in accordance with Chapter 18.04 (Definitions) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (I)Final plans, including materials and colors, complete lighting and photometric plans, detailed landscaping and irrigation plans encompassing on: and off-site planting areas, and signs shal! be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment after review and recommendation by the Architectural Review Board (~ARB") prior to issuance of building permits. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, electric panel switchboards, and any other required utilities shall be shown on the final plans, which shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials, and shall be screened in a manner which respects the building design and setback requirements. (ii) Any other exterior changes to the buildings or any new construction not specifically permitted by the Development Plan or by these site development regulations shall require an amendment to this Planned Community Zone or, if eligible, approval under Chapter 18.99 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. (iii) The approved Development Plan permits some tree removal and requires the preservation and protection of specified new trees within the development. No future development or improvement proposed for the subject property following initial construction authorized by Architectural Review Approval shall result in the removal or destruction of trees without the approval of the City of Palo Alto in accordance with applicable procedures. (d) Parking and Loading Requirements. The parking for the Project shall be in accordance with the approved Development Plan. The Project shall include 248 parking spaces in the garage and 17 spaces on the alley. (e)Special Conditions. 5 990915 lac 0090317 (I) Public Art. Project will incorporate original art, visible to the public, as a public benefit of the Project, in or in the vicinity of the publicly-accessible plaza at Homer Avenue and High Street. The Project owner’s public art proposa! must be submitted to and approved by Director of Planning and Community Environment, after review by the Public Art Commission, applying the standards set forth in PAMC 2.26.040 and by the Architectural Review Board, prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project. The art must be fully installed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the Project. (ii) Street Trees. Project will include six new street trees in addition to the thirteen street trees required adjacent to the Project. The location as the trees shall be as shown on the Development Plan; the design and construction of the sidewalk, curb and gutter modifications necessary to accommodate the trees shall be part of Project, at the expense of the Project’s owner. The design and work, and the variety and size of the trees planted, shall be subject to the approval of the Planning Division and Department of Public Works. Fifteen of the street trees shall be located on High Street, two on Channing, and two on Homer. If the proposed location of any tree is determined to be infeasible, owner of the Project shall install, or pay for the installation, at the election of City, of a comparable street tree in the vicinity of the Project. The trees shall be of a species acceptable to the Director of Planning and Community Environment. (iii) Below Market Rate (BMR) Housing Requirement. The Project shall provide three (3) studios, four (4) one-bedroom and two (2) two-bedroom units to be included in the City’s Below Market Rate (~BMR")program. This is a larger number of BMR units than is required by the City’s the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) requirements (Program #20, Housing Element, Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan). At least three of the units shall be comparable in size to the market rate units in the project. The nine units shall be in conformance with the City’s BMR program and subject to the restrictions applicable to rental units placed in the BMR program. The units shall be the unit ~C" on the first floor, units #19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 on the second floor and units #24, 25 and 26 on the third f!oor, as specified on the approved plans. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the Project, the Project Owner and the City Manager determine and agree that the goals of the City’s below-market rate housing program are better met if the space allocated to BMR units is reconfigured to provide more units or a different allocation of bedrooms, they may do so by amending the Agreement Regarding Provision of Below Market Rate Housing described below. The provisions of this condition e.(iii) have been agreed to by the Project’s owner and are set forth in an Agreement Regarding Provision of Below Market Rate Housing which shall be executed and recorded prior to the final passage of this ordinance. The zoning for the Project does not permit conversion of the residential units to condominiums. If an amendment to the 6 990915 lac 0090317 zoning is sought to permit such a conversion, a new BMR agreement must be negotiated with the City prior to such amendment. (iv) Public Park. Prior to the issuance of the first building permit for the Project, the Project’s owner shall pay to the City Three Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($350,000.00) to be used for the acquisition or improvement, or both, of a public park within the South of Forest Avenue neighborhood. Provided, if at the time that the first building permit is issued, the City has established developer fees for parks or an assessment district for that purpose, and the Project’s fee or assessment would be greater than $350,000, the owner shall pay the larger sum. (v) Transportation Demand Management Program Project’s owner shall implement a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program to reduce the number of parking spaces used by individuals working in the office and retail portions of this site. Reducing parking space demand will indirectly reduce driving trips as well. The owner shall enter into an agreement with City describing the methods for reducing demand, requiring the appointment by the owner of a TDM manager/commute coordinator, providing for the monitoring of parking space use by individuals working at 800 High Street, and establishing performance standards and action to be taken if the goals of the TDM are not met. The agreement shall be approved by the Director of Planning and Community Environment and executed and recorded prior to issuance of the first building permit for the Project. (vi) Public Parking Agreement. Project’s owner and City have entered into an agreement for use of 104 spaces in the parking garage and i0 spaces on the alley for public parking consistent with the provisions of Section 4 (a) (iv.) above. Compliance with that agreement is a requirement of this PC zoning district. (f) Development Schedule. Construction of the Project shall commence on or before July i, 2000, and shall be completed and ready for occupancy on or before December 31, 2001. (g) Mitigation Measures. The "Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program for 800 High Street" dated, 1999 is hereby approved and adopted. The mitigation measures set forth in that document are conditions of approval of this Project and incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 5. The City as the lead agency for the Project has caused to be prepared a Final Environmental Impact Report ("Final EIR"). Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15132, the Final EIR consists of the following documents and records: ~Historic Preservation Ordinance Final Environmental Impact Report, May, 1999," and the planning and other City records, minutes, and files constituting the record of proceedings. The Final EIR was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code section 21000, et seq. ("CEQA"), and the State CEQA 7 990915 lac 0090317 Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15000, et seq. The Final EIR is on file in the office of the Director of Planning and Community Environment and, along with the planning and other City records, minutes and files constituting the record of proceedings, is incorporated herein by this reference. SECTION 6. Certification. The City Council certifies that the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environment~l Quality Act. The Final EIR was presented to the City Council and the City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final EIR, staff reports, ora! and written testimony given at public hearings on the proposed Project, and all other matters deemed material and relevant before considering for approval the various actions related to the Project. The City Council hereby finds that the Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City as lead agency. The Council finds that this project, as mitigated, will not have a significant environmental effect. SECTION 7. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: ATTEST:APPROVED: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior Asst. City Attorney Mayor City Manager Director of Planning and Community Environment 8 990915 lac 0090317 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment September 15, 1999 Attachment F Planning Division Mr. Roxy Rapp High Street Creamery Associates LLC P.O. Box 1672 Palo Alto, CA 94302 Santana Family c/o Peninsula Creamery John Santana P. O. Box 419 Palo Alto, CA 94302 RE:Below Market Rate 0]MR) Letter of Agreement for 800 High Street Mixed- Use Project (97-ZC-9; 97-ARB-122) Dear Mr. Rapp: High Street Creamery Associates LLC ("High Street") has made application to the City for the approval of for a Planned Community Zone Change for a mixed-use building at 800 High Street, Palo Alto (the "Project") that includes 26 residential rental units as well as retail and office space. High Street made the application as the authorized agent of John Santana, Robert T. Bettencourt, and Peninsula Creamery, a California corporation, ("the Owners"), the record owners of the property on which the Project would be developed. High Street has an option to purchase the property. This letter summarizes the proposed agreement between High Street and the Owners, on the one hand, and the City on the other, regarding provision of Below Market Rate ("BMR") housing units. You and the Department of" Planning and DeveloPment have discussed and negotiated the terms of this agreement, and your signatures on this letter confirms that they are agreeable to High Street and the Owners. BMR Agreement to Be Recorded: If the Project is approved by Council, the general terms of this letter will be incorporated into the Project’s conditions of approval and the Planned Community Zone ordinance. In addition, a detailed BMR regulatory agreement, in a form satisfi~ctory to the City Attorney, will be prepared prior to final passage of the zoning ordinance for the Project. The Owners must execute the regulatory 250 Hamilton Avenue EO. Box 10250 Palo Alto, CA 94303 650.329.2441 650.329.2154 fax Roxy Rapp John Santana Robert T. Bettencourt September 15, 1999 Page 2 agreement prior to final passage of the ordinance. The agreement will then be executed by the City and recorded against the property upon final passage of the ordinance. The agreement will be a contractual obligation of the Owners and their successors in interest and shall run with the land. 2.6 BMR Units Required and Additional 6.4 BMR Units Proposed as Public Benefit: All residential rental projects with five or more units must meet the requirements of the City of Palo Alto Below Market Rate Program described in Program H-20 of the Housing Element of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. Because this project includes office and retail space, it is also subject to housing impact mitigation requirements under Chapter 16.47 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code - Approval of Projects With Impacts on Housing. However, Section 16.47.040 (h) provides that a mixed-use project need not meet the BMR requirements for both the commercial and residential portions of the project. Instead, it must satisfy the larger of the two. Staff has determined the Program H-20 requirement of 10 percent of the 26-units, a total of 2.6 BMR units, is the greater requirement. Therefore, no housing mitigation under Chapter 16.47 is required for the office/retail portion of the project. You have requested City Council approval for a zone change from Commercial Service (CS) to Planned Community (PC) Zone for the Project. This zone change requires a provision of public benefits. You have offered to provide an additional 6.4 BMR units, for a total of 9.0 BMR units in the Project as a portion of your proposed public benefit package. Term of Agreement: The term of the BMR regulatory agreement shall be 59 years from the date the first shell building permit is issued for any portion of the Project. The date of the first shell building permit is referred to as the "Start Date". Designation of BMR Units, Improvements, and Initial Rents: The nine BMR units shall be designated as such on the final, approved Project plans. The BMR units shall have good quality, residential apartment type finishes, fixtures and appliances comparable to those provided in the market rate units, or if the market rate units are finished by the tenants, determined by the Director of Planning and Community Environment (the "Director") to be comparable to those provided in new units in the City with similar market rental rates. No building permit application for the Project will be accepted by the City until the Owners have provided, and the Director has received, a description and specifications for the BMR unit finishes, fixtures and appliances. Prior to issuance of the first building permit on the project, the Director shall approve the proposed description and specifications if the Director determines, in his reasonable discretion, that they meet the standards of this paragraph. Project facilities and amenities, including vehicle Roxy Rapp John Santana Robert T. Bettencourt September 15, 1999 Page 3 parking and storage, shall be provided to BMR tenants on a comparable basis as provided, or made available, to the market rate residential tenants. At least three of the BMR units shall be at lea-st as large as the market rate units. If theDirector and Owner determine that shared laundry facilities for BMR units provide a better unit floor plan and comparable convenience and quality to individual laundry facilities, the Director may approve shared laundry facilities. We have agreed that the following units will be designated as the nine BMR units unless modified by mutual agreement by the Director and Owner as indicated below: Table 1 800 High Street - Below Market Rate Units Unit Number Unit C Unit 19 Unit 20 Unit 21 Unit 22 Unit 23 Unit 24 Unit 25 Unit 26 Unit Type Studio with Loft Studio 2 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 1 Bedroom Studio Location 1 st. Floor 2nd. Floor 2nd. Floor 2nd. Floor 2nd. Floor 2nd. Floor 3rd. Floor 3rd. Floor 3rd. Floor Square Footage 1,096 713 1,291 964 964 835 1,277 885 489 Base BMR Rents as of 7/28/99 $922.00* $808.00 $1,139.00 $922.00 $922.00 $922.00 $1,139.00 $922.00 $808.00 *Unit C is considered 1 bedroom unit because of square footage Roxy Rapp John Santana Robert T. Bettencourt September 15, 1999 Page 4 BMR rents are total monthly charges for occupancy of the units, including any and all charges for parking, storage or other amenities. Utilities may be billed separately. The BMR Rent at initial occupancy of the first tenant of each BMR unit shall be the rent which is the greater of: 1. The Base BMR Rent shown in Table 1, above (which is the U. S. Department of HUD Section 8 Fair Market Rents (FMRs) for each unit type published on October 1, 1998), or 2.The applicable HUD Section 8 FMR in effect as of the Start Date. The Director and Owners may agree to reconfigure some units to provide revised floor plans, additional bedrooms, and/or additional BMR units, Subject to the terms of the PC District for 800 High Street. In such cases, rents will be adjusted as necessary to reflect increases or decreases in size and number of bedrooms, and the recorded BMR agreement shall be amended. Rent Increases: On July 1st of each year after the Start Date, the maximum BMR Rent for each unit type will be increased by an amount equal to one-half of the increase in Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers, Rent Residential, San Francisco- Oakland area (CPI) from the CPI figure used to establish the previous maximum BMR Rent. However, a least six (6) months shall pass before the first rental increase. The City will calculate the adjustment in the maximum BMR rent only once each calendar year. The increased rents may be charged by Owners as leases expire or new tenants move-in to the BMR units over the 12 month period following the effective date of the rent adjustment. No cap is placed on the amount of the annual rent adjustment and no negative adjustments are required. The Owners shall submit new proposed rents to City for approval at least 90 days prior to the proposed effective date of the rent adjustment. If the City does not approve or disapprove proposed rents within 30 days of receipt by City, the proposed rents shall be considered approved. Tenants must be notified at least sixty (60) days in advance of a rent increase. The Owners may charge less than the maximum BMR rent. The rent for BMR tenants may not beincreased more than once in any 12 month period whether the tenant is renting under a month-to-month rental agreement or an annual lease. All applicable State and local laws and ordinances affecting the operation of rental housing apply to the operation of the BMR units at the Project. In addition, notwithstanding any language to the contrary in Section 9.68.020(d) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), the provisions of PAMC Chapter 9.68, including the Roxy Rapp John Santana Robert T. Bettencourt September 15, 1999 Page 5 requirement to offer tenants a one year lease, shall apply to all the units in the project, including the BMR units. Owners’ Operation Obligations for BMR Program: Owners shall be responsible for maintaining a waiting list for BMR units, providing information to prospective BMR applicants, renting the coi’rect number and type of BMR units, and maintaining records to demonstrate compliance with the BMR regulatory agreement. City shall have the right to review and audit Owners’ records at any time. Eligible Households: To be eligible for initial rental of a BMR unit, a household must have been certified by the City as having a gross annual household income below 80 per cent of the then-current HUD median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for household size. The Owners shall give priority to households which have at least one member who lives or works within the city limits of Palo Alto. Each BMR tenant’s household income must be recertified annually according to the procedures of the HUD Section 8 rental assistance program, or successor program. The Owners shall have applicants and tenants prepare documentation of income for review by City. The City will review and approve the documentation of the income certifications and annual recertifications and make the final determination of eligibility. The Owners shall be responsible for the actual selection of BMR tenants, including conducting the Owners’ normal tenant screening process, and enforcement of the terms of the tenancy or lease. Tenants Who Become Ineligible Because of Increased Household Income: BMR tenants whose incomes upon recertification exceed one hundred percent (100%) of the then- current median income for Santa Clara County, adjusted for family size, will no longer qualify to pay BMR Rent or occupy a BMR unit. The Owners shall give such tenants sixty (60) days written notification to that effect, advising the tenant that (1) the rent will be increased in a specified amount (to be determined by the Owners but not exceeding the rents for comparable market-rate units in the vicinity) and (2) that the tenants must vacate the unit within twelve (12) months of the date the City determined that they were ineligible. The Owners shall pay a fee for each month that a BMR unit is rented to an income ineligible household equal to fifty (50) percent of the difference between the BMR rent and the amount of rent charged by Owners for the unit. Informational Materials: Owner shall provide information in writing to interested households and to prospective BMR tenants at the time of submittal of an application for tenancy regarding the conditions and restrictions applicable to occupancy of BMR units. The information shall include the current BMR Rent, the formula for calculation of Roxy Rapp John Santana Robert T. Bettencourt September 15, 1999 Page 6 annual rent increases, minimum and maximum occupancy standards for-BMR units, the qualifying income limits and the requirement for an initial and annual income certification, the offer of a one-year lease, the priority for Palo Alto households and the Owners’ waiting list procedures and standards for tenant screening, and other relevant information. Penalties for noncompliance with the BMR program rules and requirements during the household’s tenancy shall be explained in the informational materials provided by Owners. Owners shall submit all informational materials and forms of its rental agreements and leases for BMR units to the City for approval prior to use. Reporting: Owners shall prepare and submit to the City an annual report in a form specified by City on the occupancy and rents for the BMR units and compliance with the requirements of the BMR program and the Regulatory Agreement. City’s Program Administrator: The BMR program is administered by the Department of Planning and Community Development. The City’s contract program administrator for the BMR program is currently the Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The City may assign any or all of the administrative duties including review, approval and monitoring functions described in this letter to its program administrator. Enforcement of the BMR Agreement and Penalties for Noncompliance: The recorded Regulatory Agreement will include procedures by which the Owners shall enforce tenant compliance with the requirements for occupancy of BMR units. The Regulatory Agreement will also contain penalties and enforcement provisions that the City may use to enforce compliance by Owners with the rent and occupancy restrictions of the Regulatory Agreement. Guidelines, Administrative Procedures and Interpretations : The City may from time to time during the term of the Regulatory Agreement adopt or approve guidelines, procedures and interpretations affecting the implementation of the BMR rental program in general and its implementation in the Project in particular. The Owners shall follow such revised guidelines, procedures and instructions from City except that the calculation of the maximum BMR Rent shall not be changed without an amendment to the Regulatory Agreement which shall require the consent of Owners and City. Please sign this letter as shown below and return the original to me, indicating that we have reached agreement regarding the BMR contribution for the 800 High Street project. Roxy Rapp John Santana Robert T. Bettencourt September 15, 1999 Page 7 Thank you for you cooperation and your contribution to meeting the affordable housing needs of the City of Palo Alto. Ed Gawf --- Director of Planning and Community Environment Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official Lisa Grote, Zoning Administrator Ray Hashimoto, Assistant Planning Official Catherine Siegel, Housing Coordinator Chandler Lee, Contract Planner Wynne Furth, Senior Assistant City Attorney Marlene Prendergast, Executive Director, Palo Alto Housing Corporation We agree to provide a Below Market Rate component in the 26-unit mixed use project at 800 High Street as described in this Letter of Agreement dated September 14, 1999. Applicant: High Street Creamery Associates LLP By: Naine: Title: Date: Roxy Rapp John Santana Robert T. Bettencourt September 15, 1999 Page 8 Owners: --. Peninsula Creamery A California Corporation By: John Santana, Jr., President John Santana, Jr. Trust under Agreement dated May 19, 1998 By: John Santana, Jr., Trustee Santana Family Trust created under A~eemem dated May 19, 1998 By: John Santana, Jr., Co-Trustee By: Doris C. Santana, Co-Trustee Bettencourt Revocable Trust established under Declaration of Trust dated April 15, 1982 By: Robert T. Bettencourt, Trustee Roxy Rapp John Santana Robert T. Bettencourt September 15, 1999 Page 9 Bettencourt Family Trust established under Declaration of trust dated May 25, 1983 By: John S. Bettencourt, Co-Trustee By: Carole A. Bettencourt, Co-Trustee Santana Living Trust creiited under Agreement dated January 8, 1987 By: George R. Santana, Co-Trustee By: Adrienne C. Santana, Co-Trustee