HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-10-18 City Council (12)City of Palo Alto
City Manager’s Report
TO:
FROM:
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
"’CITY M_A=NAGER .... DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS/
PLANNING AND COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
6
DATE:OCTOBER 18, 1999 CMR:391:99
SUBJECT:SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION RELATED
DOWNTOWN PARKING STRUCTURES
TO THE
REPORT IN BRIEF
The purpose of the report is to provide additional information related to design, cost and
scheduling issues related to the Downtown Parking Structures. This report also includes
alternatives to the staff recommendation. Detailed information was presented on
September 27, 1999, in CMR:341:99 (Public Works) and CMR:370:99 (Planning
Department). To assist in the decision and administrative process, the recommendations
from these two past reports have been compiled into this CMR and supplement those two
reports.
CMR:391:99 Page 1 of 16
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommendation that the City Council:
(Public Works CMR:341:99)
Direct staff to proceed with the design of Lot SiL as presented in the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This would consist of a "building style"
exterior, with ~even 16vel~ (’two levels below-grade, one level at~grade and four
parking levels above-grade).
Direct staff to proceed with the design of Lot R as presented in the EIR. This
would consist of a "building style" exterior with five levels (no levels below-
grade, one level at-grade and four parking levels above-grade).
Approve proceeding with the design of two floors for office and Teen Center use
in the non-parking area adjoining the garage at the comer of Bryant/Lytton
Avenues. The property would be paid for by the City General Fund, and lease
proceeds from a long-term office rental would be used to offset the construction
cost of the Teen Center portion of the building.
o Approve the concept of providing areas for potential Automatic Public Toilets
(APTs) at each garage. Staffwill re-assess the need for two additional APTs at the
garage locations prior to construction of the garages.
o Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $70,000 for
additional design-related services (CMR:341:99, Attachment A).
Approve and authorize the Mayor or his representative to increase the contract
change order authority with Watry Design Group for contract C6076145 from
$34,100 to $119,100. This increase is for design from Watry Design Group and
for legal services related to additional foundation investigations at Lot R, for
surveying and title reports needed for the preparation of Tentative Subdivision
Maps at both sites, and for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. This
work would be funded by means of the BAO plus a contract change order to
deduct $15,000 from contract C8103688 with Turner Construction.
(Planning Department CMR:370:99)
Adopt the attached resolution certifying the adequacy of the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) for both parking structures and making the required California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings, including a Statement ,of Overriding
Consideration for one finding of significance and potential unavoidable short term
CMR:391:99 Page 2 of 16
impact, that is, temporary loss of parking for both parking structures (see
CMR:370:99, Attachment A).
Approve the parking garage at 445 Bryant Stree.t (Lots S/L), including:
ao Adopt the attached Planned Community (PC) Ordinance, including 1) draft
findings and conditions, 2) rezoning the property from (PF) Public Facilities
and CD-C (P) Commercial Downtown District with Pedestrian Shopping
Combining District to PC District (see CMR:370:99, Attachment B) and 3)
request for a waiver of required parking for the new square footage of the
proposed Teen Center;
bo Approve the attached proposed staff findings for Architectural Review
Standards (see CMR:370:99, Attachment C);
Co Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map based on the draft findings (see
CMR:370:99, Attachment D) and draft conditions (see CMR:370:99,
Attachment E); and
°
d. Approve the architectural design "Scheme B."
Approve the parking garage at 528 High Street (Lot R) to include the following:
ao
b°
Adopt the attached PC Ordinance, including draft findings and conditions,
rezoning the property from PF (Public Facilities) to PC (Planned
Community) Zone (see CMR:370:99, Attachment F);
Approve the attached proposed staff findings for Architectural Review
Standards (see CMR:370:99, Attachment G);
C°Approve the Tentative Subdivision Map based on the draft findings (see
Attachment H) and draft conditions (see CMR:370:99, Attachment I);
and
d. Approve the architectural design "Scheme B."
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The project is an application for two parking structures to be located in Downtown Palo
Alto. The application includes a Planned Community Zone Application, a Tentative
Subdivision Map and a Certification of Final Environmental Report. Information on the
application can be found in CMR:370:99.
CMR:391:99 Page 3 of 16
BACKGROUND
At the September 27, 1999 Council meeting, public testimony and Council questions
were completed. Based upon various issues discussed, staff is requesting further policy
direction in order that the project may proceed. Two p.roposed design options, Schemes B
and C, were presented by staff to Council with the background information for each
contained in CMR:341:99.
At the meeting; Mr:"Chop Keenan presented several other designs concepts that were
developed pro-bono by other architectural firms. Four of these designs for Lot R indicate
a four-level structure, instead of the five levels as proposed by staff. These designs offer
several alternative exterior architectural designs. However, it is important to note that
changes in the exterior design should maintain to the greatest extent possible the interior
structural layout to maintain optimum circulation patterns and parking supply. The
project architect, Watry Design Group has provided preliminary comments on the
alternatives presented by Mr. Keenan (see Attachment A).
DISCUSSION
Several issues or questions were identified at.the September 27, 1999 meeting.
below is a synopsis of the issues and responses to each identified issue.
Listed
Downtown Parking Demand
The Downtown Study (adopted by the Council in July 1986) established a parking deficit
of 1,600 spaces in the Downtown area. The Commercial Downtown Monitoring Report
includes an analysis on the change in the number of parking spaces since 1986 due to
construction of new projects. As of August 31, 1999, the parking deficit is approximately
1,500 spaces.
The latest survey of parking intrusion into adjoining neighborhoods north and south of
University Avenue, which was conducted April 27, 1999 at 10:00 a.m., indicates that
approximately 1,600 non-neighborhood-resident vehicles were parked in the
neighborhoods. This figure includes Downtown employees, Palo Alto Medical
Foundation (PAMF) employees, and employees of businesses in the south of Forest
Avenue area. At which time PAMF moves, a reduction of approximately 100 employee
vehicles is anticipated, leaving an approximate deficit of 1,400 spaces in the Downtown
area.
Members of the Downtown Marketing Committee and Parking Committee of the
Chamber of Commerce, as well as property, owners, have voiced serious concerns
regarding the parking deficit. Due to the ghortage of parking Downtown, employee
parking permits for public parking are sold on a first-come, first-served basis. These
permits are sold quarterly for a particular lot, based on vacancies created by turnover of
employees. Currently, 1,500 people are on the waiting list.
CMR:391:99 Page 4 of 16
Based on the above information, it is staff’s conclusion that: . 1) there is a need for
additional parking in the Downtown, and (2) while the problem of actual number of
parking spaces needed may vary according to one’s perspective of the problem, the net
increase is in the order of 700 additional spaces for a total of 880 (180 existing spaces on
lots 1L S and L + 700 additional spaces = 880 spaces). Therefore, the proposed Parking
garages will satisfy only approximately 50 percent of the parking deficiency.
Downtown Transportation and Parking Management-
Several questions arose relative to the future of overall transportation management in the
Downtown. Staff notes parking constraints and traffic congestion require a strategic
approach to accessing Downtown Palo Alto. This approach should include managing
supply as well as demand. On the supply side, this entails ensuring optimal use of
existing parking capacity, for both the public and private sectors. On the demand side,
this means reducing demand for parking and street space through development and
promotion of alternative transportation modes, as well as more optimal parking pricing.
The City’s new Commute Coordinator will focus on demand management. This position
could also supplement existing staff,resources and devote time towards the management
of Downtown parking.
Council had several questions regarding parking requirements for various uses within the
Downtown area, specifically parking requirements for restaurant uses. Staff notes there
has been an increase in eating and drinking establishments in Downtown and the demand
for parking that is associated with this use. The Downtown Parking Assessment
regulations require that new buildings or additions that create additional square footage
provide the required parking on site or pay an in lieu fee. The parking requirement for the
Commercial Downtown District is a "blended rate" that requires 1 parking space per 250
(or 4 spaces per 1,000) square feet of floor area. The blended rate does not distinguish
the intensity of different uses. Typically; restaurant uses are the most intensive parking
users and therefore have the highest parking requirements.
Residential Permit Parking
The proposed residential parking permit program is tentatively scheduled for City
Council referral in November to the Planning Commission for consideration on
November 10, 1999. Implementation of a residential permit parking system is expected
to reduce on-street parking availability for non-neighborhood residents without a
corresponding increase in parking supply or reduction in demand for parking, through
development and implementation of an aggressive transportation demand management
program. The residential permit parking system is an essential compliment to the parking
structures and will provide a meaningful benefit to the residents by managing parking
intrusion into the neighborhood. All available options, including the construction of the
parking structures, is critical to comprehensive management of traffic and parking. Staff
is in the process of developing estimated yearly expenses and revenues for such a
CMR:391:99 Page 5 of 16
program, implementation of the program requires a significant City subsidy and would
not achieve cost recovery.
Reduction of floors relative to cost and loss of spaces. -
Reducing the height of either of the parking garages is feasible; however, the increase in
the per-added-stall price makes construction of the garages marginal ~om an economic
viewpoint. While the overall construction cost for each facility would be less if a floor
was removed, the cost per added stall (i.e., the number of stalls that would be provided
beyond the parking lot stalls that are already existing) would increase. Specific cost
estimates for the reduction in one floor are provided on Attachment B. The incremental
cost of removing an additional floor is relatively inexpensive compared to the fixed cost
of mobilizing the contractor’s equipment to the site, excavating for the foundation, etc.
The cost estimates per space for construction of a 5-level garage on Lot 4 and a 7-level
garage on Lots S/L in comparison to cost estimates per space with restriction in number
of levels is shown on Attachment B. These costs will increase with the removal of above-
ground floors and/or the addition of more basement levels. For comparison purposes, an
article in the September 29, 1999, issue of the Wall Street Joumal states that the average
cost per garage space in Northern California is $7,500 to $9,500.
Redesign of StruCtures
As was identified in previous staff reports, the ARB and Planning Commission had
concerns relative to the height, bulk, and scale, and recommended the further examination
of the exterior architectural characteristics. In addition, they recommended further
examination of the existing surrounding architecture to ensure the new design is in
context with its surroundings. The basis for the promotion of high quality design and a
"blending" is specifically supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Polices within
the Land Use and Community Design Element (see Attachment C.)
If Council directs any redesign, staff recommends the opportunity for staff, consultants
and a small working group or the Downtown Parking Garage Study Group to further
evaluate other exterior design alternatives and ground floor amenities/uses to determine if
the potential impacts of an above-ground, five-level structure can be mitigated. Staff is of
the opinion, various other design opportunities exist with the assistance of an urban
design architect that could create a design that achieves a balance of providing the
maximum number of spaces and provides an aesthetically pleasing design. In summary,
staff requests the flexibility to either retain the top floor (5th floor) of each garage" or
remove one floor in balance with maximizing spaces and providing an aesthetically
pleasing design be determined during the redesign process.
Staff also suggests the structures be redesigned to emphasize architectural characteristics
of the existing office or retail buildings in Downtown Palo Alto. The desired outcome
would be structures that "blend" with the surrounding uses and reduc~ the visual
prominence of the parking garage. Features that promote the desired "blending" could
CMP,:391:99 Page 6 of 16
include the following: incorporation of additional architectural fagade elements (i.e.
additional articulation to include soffscape additions such as landscaping, planter boxes,
etc on each floor to break up the plane of the fagade); additional pedestrian street level
amenities (i.e. public art, benches, trees, shrubs, lighting, increased sidewalk widths,
planter boxes, landscape bulbouts within the street, pavement treatments, paver bloc.ks,
overhangs/awnings, pedestrian kiosk, etc.); incorporation of activity inducing uses on the
ground/first level of each structure (i.e. pedestrian plazas, inclusion of retail!commercial
uses at ground level within the’structures that are .downtown serving uses that result in
minimal traffic generation); and breaking the physical scale and mass of the building by
creating distinctive architectural volumes in building facades whereby the volume of the
front fagade from a pedestrian view is minimized (specifically on Lots S and L).
If Council determines that redesign of each of the parking structures is necessary, staff
has outlined four possible options (Options 1 through 4) for the completion of the
redesign process. Option 1 is an expedited review and recommendation to Council.
Options 2 through 4 involve a more intensive and comprehensive board and commission
review. Staff would note if further redesign is recommended, Council must defer final
action on the.EIR and Tentative Parcel Map Application. The final design is a component
of the "development plan." Therefore, the final design and the appllication for PC Zone
Change must occur at the same time.
Options 1 through 4 are outlined in chart form on Attachment C. Attachment D includes
a timeline for completion and total cost for each option. The four options include:
Option 1:
Convene a small "working group," made up of one or two representatives of the
Downtown Parking Garage Study Group with the addition of a representative from the
Planning Commission, with the assistance of an urban design architect, the Watry Design
Group and City staff, to create another exterior architectural design of both parking
structures. The working group would provide a final design recommendation for Council
review and approval. The final product would include colored exterior building
elevations and perspectives.
Option 2:
Reconvene the Downtown Parking Garage Study Group to complete further study, to
create another exterior architectural design of both parking structures. The Study Group
with the addition of a representative from the Planning Commission and Historic
Resources Board, and with the assistance of an urban design architect, the Watry
Design Group and City staff, will complete further study on the design of both parking
structures. The f’mal recommendation from the .Study Group will be presented to the
HRB for review and comment and public hearing review by the Architec,tural Review
Board and Planning Commission. The f’mal plan would then be forwarded to City
CMR:391:99 Page 7 of 16
Council for final review and approval. The fmal design product would include color
exterior building elevations and perspectives.
Option 3:
In addition to the items listed in option number 2 above, this option includes the
construction of a three-dimensional "white board" scale model of the garages and
surrounding properties. Construction of a three-dimensional "white board" model will
delineate the scal(, mass; bulkandheight of the proposed parking garages in relationship
to existing surrounding structures. This model would include those structures adjacent to
and within approximately one block of each proposed garage location. This "white
board" model is only a representation of scale and height of buildings and will not include
any detailing of types or styles of architecture, landscaping, etc.
Option 4:
In addition to the items listed in option 3 above, this option includes the creation of a
three-dimensional computer model of the garages and surrounding properties. A three-
dimensional computer model utilizes digital photography to provide an accurate
representation of the parking garages and surrounding buildings.- The level of detail
provided in a computer model is as comprehensive as would be represented in
photographic images; however, on a three dimensional scale. The fmalized design of
each garage in one-dimension form (i.e. color building elevations, perspectives) would be
manipulated into a three-dimensional form and incorporated in the model. This computer
modeling would provide a clear identification of scale, bulk, mass, height, architectural
style, context and landscaping to the level of detailed typically provide in a photographic
image.
Whatever option is sele.cted, staff will encapsulate Council’s direction on October 18,
1999, in the form of a policy framework or "baseline" to guide the Study Group in its
efforts on the redesign.
Elevator towers
Staff would note that the redesign of the structures should avoid major changes to the
interior layout and design of the structures. Exterior design changes that result in
changes to the interior portions of the garage could require reengineering of the interior
portions of the garage and this would be costly and time consuming.
The relocation of the elevator towers could result in the reengineering of the interior
portions of the structures. The elevator towers are located to permit easy pedestrian
access to and from the garage. At Lot S/L, for example, the elevator tower shown in
Schemes B and C is located nearest University Avenue, the primary pedestrian
destination. This location provides the greatest level of safety, as pedestrians do not need
to walk in front of the driveway where vehicles are entering or exiting the garage. The
CMR:391:99 Page 8 of 16
glass elevator panes also provide more security from a comer (or frontage street) location
because riders are more visible than they would be from a more internal or alley location.
If the elevator tower was to be relocated, the above safety issues would have to be
balanced against aesthetic concerns. Moving the tower would also likely result in greater
design and construction costs, as well as additional parking spaces lost due to circulation
inefficiencies.
Environmental Review
Major design changes could require commensurate changes to the Environmental Impact
Report (EIR). Depending upon whether the changes created greater or additional
impacts, this could require additional time for revising and public review, as well as
additional funding.
Direction Needed From Council
Council direction is needed on the following issues as they relate to finalization of the
project, specifically the following design-related direction is needed:
What is the desired exterior building design?
a. Scheme B ("Building style" as provided in staff’s recommendation).
b. Scheme C ("Modified style" as provided by the ARB’s recommendation).
c. Other designs (presented by Mr. Chop Keenan).
d. Redesign of the garages to allow the opportunity for the further examination of
other design alternatives to mitigate the perceived visual impacts.
What is the desired height?
a. Maximize parking by keeping the recommended 5 level above-ground height at
both sites (Scheme B or C).
b. Reduce both garages by one floor level.
c. Reduce only Lot L by one floor, but replace with one or more underground levels.
d. Allow the flexibility ofstaffto either retain the top floor (5th floor) of each garage
or remove one floor in balance with the intent of maximizing spaces and providing
an aesthetically pleasing design during the redesign process.
What type of land uses should be located at the comer of Lytton/Bryant on Lot S/L?
a. Providing for two or three floors of retail and office uses at the comer. Staff
recommends this site be developed as 3,500 gross square feet (gsf) for a Teen
Center and remaining gsf retail or office use for a total 9,000 gsf. The EIR allows
for a maximum of 3 floors at 13,500 gsf. Should this area be maximized so as to
provide additional revenue space for the City?
b. Should the remaining portion of the building be leased for commercial use, so as to
offset the cost of constructing the building. This area could also be leased as retail,
CMR:391:99 Page 9 of 16
which might provide more activity at the comer, but may result in an increased
parking demand.
c. Allow the Study Group to examine this issue in the context of the entire structure.
Should public restrooms be installed at each parking structure?
a. If desired, what type of facility is desired? Automatic Pay Toilets could be
pro~,ided at one or both of the new garages at a cost of approximately $60,000 per
year each or installation of built-in restrooms (BIRs) at one or both garages. The
initial construction-cost for BIRs is lower; however,-maintenance costs are higher
than for APTs. Two automatic pay toilets (APTs) will soon be installed
Downtown as part of a separate CIP. Staff is recommending that the need for two
additional toilet Downtown be re-assessed prior to completion of the fmal
construction plans.
Detailed background discussion on each of the’ above issues can be found in
CMR:341:99.
ALTERNATIVE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS
The Alternative Staff Recommendations correlate to the options outlined in the
"Discussion Section" of this report. Staff has identified two alternative staff
recommendations. The first alternative staff recommendation provided below is outlined
as Option 1, which includes a very intensive review process with no board and
commission review in a compressed time schedule. The second alternative includes
either Options 2, 3 or 4, which involves a more comprehensive review process with board
and commission review in an extended time schedule.
First Alternative StaffRecommendation (Option 1)
If Option 1 is the desired option, staff recommends that the City Council recommend:
A small working group of the Downtown Parking Structure Project Study Group,
ARB and Planning Commissioner representative, with the assistance of an urban
design architect, Watry Design Group and City staff would be formed. The working
group would create and recommend a final exterior architectural design to City
Council in mid-December. The working group would utilize the following policy
direction in the completion of the redesign:
Allow the flexibility of staffto either retain the top floor (5th floor) of each garage
or remove one floor in balance with the intent of maximizing spaces and providing
an aesthetically pleasing design during the redesign process.
¯Complete further examination of the exterior architectural characteristics with the
emphasis of reducing the potential impacts of bulk, height and scale and
CMR:391:99 Page 10 of 16
examination of existing surrounding architecture to ensure the new design is in
context with its surroundings. ~
Redesign the exteriors of the structures to emphasize architectural characteristics
that "blend" with the existing office or retail buildings in Downtown Pal. Alto.
The final product would be presented in the form of color exterior building elevations
and perspectives.
Direct the Planning Commission to appoint one member to participate in the working
group.
Direct staff to retain the services of a local urban design/architectural firm to assist
City staff, Watry Design Group and the Study Group in the redesign process and
formulation of the exterior design of the structures.
Approve proceeding with the design of two floors for office and Teen Center use in
the non-parking area adjoining the garage at the comer of Bryant/Lytton Avenues.
The property would be paid for by the City General Fund, and lease proceeds from a
long-term office rental would be used to offset the construction cost of the Teen
Center portion of the building.
Approve the concept of providing areas for potential Automatic Public Toilets (APTs)
at each garage. Staff will re-assess the need for two additional APTs at the garage
locations prior to construction of the garages.
Approve a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) in the amount of $70,000 for
additional design-related services (CMR:341:99, Attachment A).
Approve and authorize the Mayor or his representative to increase the contract
change order authority with Watry Design Group for contract C6076145 from
$34,100 to $119,100. This increase is for design and legal services related to
additional foundation investigations at Lot R, for surveying and title reports needed
for the preparation of Tentative Subdivision Maps at both sites, and for preparation of
an Environmental Impact Report. This work would be funded by means of the BAO
plus a contract change order to deduct $15,000 from contract C8103688 with Turner
Construction.
o Defer the adoption of the attached resolution certifying the adequacy of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for both parking structures and making the
required California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) fmdings, including a
Statement of Overriding Consideration for one finding of significance and potential
CMR:391:99 Page 11 of 16
unavoidable short term impact, that is, temporary loss of parking for both parking
structures (see CMR:370:99, Attachment A).
10.Reiterate general support for a parking garage, at 445 Bryant Street (Lots S/L),
including the use of a PC zone; incorporation of uses such as a teen center, retail and
office; and a waiver of required parking for the new square footage of the proposed
Teen Center;
11.Reiterate general support for a parking garage at 528 High Street (Lot R) to include
the use of a PC zone.
Second Alternative Staff Recommendation (Option 4)
If Council desires to recommend a more comprehensive redesign process, staff
recommends all of the available Options 2 through 4. Option 4 is the recommended
option. If Option 4 is the desired option, staff re6ommends that the City Council take the
following steps:
Reconvening the previously formed Downtown Parking Garage Study Group with a
Planning Commissioner representative, assistance of an urban design architect, Watry
Design Group and City staff to complete further study on the exterior design of both
parking structures. The Study Group would recommend a design proposal to the HRB
for informational review and public hearing review by the ARB and Planning
Commission. The f’mal plan would then be forwarded to City Council for final review.
The Study Group would utilize the policy direction noted in option 1 above for
completion of the redesign:
The final design product for Council review would include a) colored elevation
drawings, perspectives, b) a three-dimensional "white board" scale model, and c) three
dimensional computer models of the garages and surrounding properties.
3.Direct the Planning Commission and HRB to appoint one member to participate in
the Study Group.
Direct staff to encapsulate Council’s direction on October 18, 1999, in the form of a
policy framework or "baseline" to guide the Study Group in its efforts on the exterior
redesign.
5.Recommend the inclusion of items 4 through 11 noted above on the First Alternative
StaffRecommendation (Option 1).
RESOURCE IMPACT
The Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO) for $70,000 is a one-time expense to
reimburse the design funds for costs related to additional environmental, legal and design
CMR:391:99 Page 12 of 16
work already completed (CMR:341:99). If Council approves either Scheme B or Scheme
C at the height and exterior appearance recommended, no additional design fees will be
needed.
If redesign of both structures is recommended, additional monies will be needed to
complete the process. Based the services required by the Watry Design Group and
additional architectural assistance and the processing of the applications, staff preliminary
estimates the costs for each redesign option to be as follows:
Option 1:
Architectural Services from the Watry Design Group $ 25,000
Architectural Services for additional urban design/architectural assistance $ 50,000
Estimated Cost $ 75,000
Option 2:
Architectural Services from the Watry Design Group $ 25,000
Architectural Services for additional urban design/architectural assistance $ 60,000
Estimated Cost $ 85,000
Option 3:
Architectural Services from the Watry Design Group $ 25,000
Architectural Services for additional urban design/architectural assistance $ 60,000
Construction ofa 3-d "white board" model $ 15,000
Estimated Cost $100,000
Option 4:
Architectural Services from the Watry Design Group $ 25,000
Architectural Services for additional urban design/architectural assistance $ 60,000
Construction of a 3-d "white board" model $ 15,000
Creation ofa 3-d computer model $ 35,000
Estimated Cost $135,000
This would not include other possiblecost for futher EIR work. Staff would note that the
above estimated costs for the acquisition of an urban design architect is based upon four
estimates obtained from local architectural firms.
Whichever option is selected, staff recommends Council authorize the use of existing
design monies within the existing Capital Improvements Project (CIP 19530) to cover the
above costs until such time staff can return to Council with at a future date with a BAO.
CMR:391:99 Page 13 of 16
TIMELINE
If Council approves either Scheme B or C as presented, or with some modifications,
proceedings to form an assessment district could be held in the spring of 2000.
Construction could then begin in the spring of 2001.
Depending upon the design direction selected by Council, there are several associated
timelines and cost implications. The least costly in terms of time and money would be
to proceed with the current design, or the current " design with minor modifications. If
Council desires to make significant changes to either Scheme B or C, or redesign the
exterior portion of the structures entirely this would result in additional costs and delay
in construction. Timelines associated with Alternative Staff Recommendation and the
four design options are shown in Attachment C.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Comments from Watry Design Group
designs
Attachment B: Cost options
Attachment C: Alternate Design Options
Attachment D: 1998-2010 Comprehensive Plan Policies
on Mr. Keenan’s altemative
PREPARED BY:Karen Bengard, Senior Engineer, Public Works
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
Philip Woods, Senior Planner
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
GLENN S. ROBERTS
Director of Public Works
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
and
~ ~Community
JUNE
City Manager
CMR:391:99 Page 14 of 16
COURTESY COPIES:
The Watry Design Group, 815 Hamilton Sireet, Redwood City, CA 94063
Greg Smith, Consulting Engineer, 777 Turner Drive, San Jose, CA 95128-2629
Thomas Towey, Komorous-Towey Architects, 1355 Market Street, Suite 326,
San Francisco, CA 94103
City of Menlo Park, Don de la Pefia, Director of Community Development,
701 Laurel Street, Menlo Park, CA 94025
Downtown Marketing Committee, c/o Palo Alto (2hamber of Commerce, 325A Forest
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association, Attn: Catherine Lehrberg, 1085 University
Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Roxy Rapp, P.O. Box 1762, Palo Alto, CA 94302
Chop Keenan, Keenan Land Company, 700 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Georgie Gleim, Gleim Jewelers, 322 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Rick Tipton, P.O. Box 1281, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Lot R Tenant Representative: Joseph Bellomo, 102 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA
94301
Architectural Review Board Representative: Bob Peterson, 57 E1 Camino Real,
Menlo Park, CA 94025
Public Arts Commission Representative: Judith Wasserman, 751 Southampton, Palo Alto,
CA 94303
University South Representative: Yoriko Kishimoto, 251 Embarcadero Road,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Downtown North Representative: Mark Nanewicz, 228 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA
94303
Downtown North Alternate: Michael Griffm, 344 Poe Street, Palo Alto, CA 94303
Downtown North Alternate: Sally Ann Rudd, 204 Cowper Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
John S. Ervin, 420 Palm Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Earl Nicholas Selby, Attorney at Law, 418 Florence Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Mr. Michael Weed, Aufrnuth, Fox, Weed & LeBlanc, 314 Lytton, Suite 200, Palo Alto,
CA, 94301
M. Wagner and R. Ferguson, Atm: Rich Ferguson (Lot S/L), 301 University Avenue,
#480, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Herb McLaughlin (property at 124 University Avenue), c/o Kaplan McLaughlin Diaz,
222 Vallejo Street, San Francisco, CA 94111
Susan Frank, Chamber of Commerce, 325 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Kathi Gwynn, 450 Bryant, Palo Alto CA 94301
Shulamith Rubinfien, 501 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Elaine Meyer, 609 Kingsley Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jeff Brown, 660 Lincoln Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dorothy Bender, 591 Military Way, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Pria Graves, 2130 Yale Avenue; Palo Alto CA 94306
Lorilee Houston, 520 Cowper Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:391:99 Page 15 of 16
Karen Holman, 725 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Katherine Pering, 388 Everett Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Phyllis Munsey, 2361 Santa Ana, Palo Alto, CA 94303
John Hackmann, 235 Embarcadero Road, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Kathy Jordan, 685 High Street, #5C, Palo Alto, CA 94301
Bill McCann, President Palo Alto Plaza Homeowners Association, 685 High Street, #2F,
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Jim Baer, Premier Properties, 172 University Avenue,.Palo Alto, CA 94301
CMR:391:99 Page 16 of 16
DESIGN GROUP
ARCHITECTS & ENGINEE~RS
September 27, 1998
City Council Members
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Palo Alto Downtown Parking Structures
WDG#9533.312
Principals
C. Nicholas Watry, ArchitecO’Engineer
Michelle Wendler, Architect
Elisabeth Blanton, MBA
John D. Purinton, S.E.
David LoCoco
Associates
Genaro Morales, Architect
Raymond A. Bligh~, S.E.
Brent Forslin, S.E.
Jose Oseguera
Hiep H. Ho
Dear City Council Members:
In addition to the work generated by our firm you have before you the volunteer efforts of three other design
professionals. Every architectural design is a compromise between o~ten contradictory aims and desires. The
table below is an attempt to illustrate some of the impacts of the design decisions made in these options.
Carra~oo Ae~ooiat, e~ - Lo~; 5/L
Feature Pro Con
Building broken down into three Helps building fit into the scale of none
dements, Lot S, Lot L, and Teen other buildings downtown
.Center/Retail
Elevator located mid block Good composition of building masses.
Tallest element, elevator, set back
from street.
Number of ground floor columns Increases visibility and daylight on
reduced,ground floor.
One level of L moved to basement.Reduces mass of building on corner of
Lytton and Bryant.
Retail on corner cut back preserves existing tree which hdps to
screen building.
Basement level stair at Bryant / Alley Increases parking spaces in basement
corner moved below stair above,by six.
Building faoade of metal mesh Opportunity for artistic expression.
(building of names)
Historical Building fa~ade.(Elmore
version)
Uses familiar architectural forms.
Creates pedestrian conflicts with
vehicle traffic at entry/exit. Increased
travel distance for seniors. Reduced
visibiliW of elevators reduces security.
Significandy increases costs for
structure.
Increases costs by about $171,000 or
increases cost of those stalls by $7,800
each.
Reduce~ visibility of corner for retail
tennant.
Requires fiarther development - Code
requires stair to exit directly to
exterior.
May increase building cost. May be
subject to impact damage and
vandalism. May not meet code
requirements for an open parking
structure.
Building will not meet requirements
for an open parking structure. Will
require enclosed stairs, as shown, and
mechanical ventilation. Increased
COSt.
~Main Of Iice:815 Hamilton Street, Redwood City, CA 94063
~Sa~-~hT~ D--ffice: 7015 Momingside Dr~v-~-, G~a~,~5-650
Te1:650~298-8150 Fax:650-298,8151 1
~r e-~E-." 9 l--6g~ - F-~S. 9-f -69797~20-5-4 - 1
WATRY DESIGN GROUP ¯
Page 2
Kaplin MoLau~hlin Diaz - Lot,
Feature
Surface Parking at Lytton and Bryant
Variable Floor ~o" F168r’I~igffts .........
Reconfigured Stair / Elevator
Revised Parking Layout
Carra~oo A~sociat, e~ - Lot, g
Feature *e ~
IB uilding mass reduced by one floor.
(Both versions)
Joseph 15ellomo - Lot, g
Feature
One floor of building transferred to ¾
basement
Variable Floor to Floor Heights
Stainless steel louvers at openings
Stainless steel exterior facade
Pro
Eliminates buildingmass at:cbrner.
-R~-~haces 0~¢eralbaheight-of building .....
May allow for additional parking
space on each floor.
.More parking spaces per floor
Pro
Building mass more compatible with
adjacent buildings.
Pro
Building mass more compatible with
adjacent buildings.
JA basement has natural light and
ventilation.
Reduces overall height of building.
Reduces spill light at night
Low maintenance material with
modem feel.
Con
Does not conform to specific plan for
Bryant Street. Dead end par-king lot
potential for traffic backups.
Entrance to lot too close to corner.
--Forces.all disabled parking to be on
ground floor - 5 shown but 13
required. Inefficient to place all
disabled spaces together. Also
potential for damage to vehicles that
clear entry level but are too tall for
other levels.
Stairs and elevators lose relationship to
street. When stairs and elevators are
not visible to street opportunity for
crime increases.
Arrangement of stalls requires
expensive long span girders, cost of
structure increased.
Con
Loses 46 parking spaces or 20%
Con
Significant increase to building cost
due to adjacent brick buildings.
Forces all disabled parking to be on
ground floor Inefficient to place all
disabled spaces together. Also
potential for damage to vehicles that
clear entry level but are too tall for
other levels.
Reduces daylight in the structure.
Potential significant increase in costs.
May not meet code requirements for
an open parking structure.
Potential significant increase in costs.
Very truly yours,
THE WATRy DESIGN GROUP //~.~___,
Todd Hansen
~Project Manager
Joseph Bellomo, Tony Carrasco, Herb Mc Laughlin, Chop Keenan, Karen Bengard, File
¯ \khamilton~adminkprojects\9533kmemosX092799 resp to alt d~sgn.doc
o o
_I
+.,J
Attachment C
Comprehensive Plan Policies Supporting HighQuality Design and
Construction of the Parking Structures
Land Use and Community Design Element Policies:
¯ L-48: Promote high quality, creative design and site Planning that is
compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.
¯L-49: Design buildings to revitalize streets and public spaces and to
enhance a sense of community and personal safety. Provide an ordered
variety of entries, porches, windows, bays and balconies along public
ways where it is consistent with neighborhood character; avoid blank or
solid walls at street level; and include human-scale details and massing.
¯L-20: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all
Centers. Reinforce street corners with buildings that come up to the
sidewalk or that form corner plazas.
¯L-21: Provide all Centers with centrally located gathering spaces that
create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization.
Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks,
restrooms and public art.
¯L-22: Enhance the appearance of streets and sidewalks within all Centers
through an aggressive maintenance, repair and cleaning program; street
improvements; and the use of a variety of paving materials and
landscaping.
¯L-23: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downto.wn area as
the central business district of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic,
cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that
recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and
reinforces its pedestrian character.
¯L-24: Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly
and supports bicycle use. Use public art and other amenities to create an
environment that is inviting to pedestrians.
¯L-63: Encourage small-scale local-serving retail services, such as small
cafes, delicatessens, and coffee carts, in Civic Centers.
¯L-64: Seek potential new sites for art and cultural facilities, public
spaces, open space, and community gardens that encourage and support
pedestrian and bicycle travel and person-to-person contact, particularly in
neighborhoods that lack these amenities.
¯L-66: Maintain an aesthetically pleasing street network that helps frame
¯ and define the community while meeting the needs of pedestrians,
bicyclists, and motorists.
¯L-70: Enhance the appearance of streets and other public spaces by
expanding-and maintainingopalo-Alto’s street tree system.
¯L-73: Consider public art and cultural facilities as a public benefit in
connection with new development projects. Consider incentives for
including public art in large development projects.
¯L-79: Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility
structures,, parking garages and parking lots to meet high quality urban
design standards. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the
design of public infra- structure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing
infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive.
¯T-23: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks,
street trees, on-street parking, public spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture,
art, and interesting architectural details.
¯T-1: Make land use decisions that encourage walking, bicycling, and
public transit use.
Transportation and Business and Economics Policies:
¯ T-3: Support the development and expansion of comprehensive,
effective programs to reduce auto use at both local and regional levels.
¯T-45: Provide sufficient parking in the University Avenue/Downtown
and California Avenue business districts to address long-range needs.
¯T-47: Protect residential areas from the parking impacts of nearby
business districts.
¯B-4: Nurture and support established businesses as well as new
businesses.
¯B-20: Support and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a
vital mixed use area containing retail, personal service, office, restaurant,
and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail
mix, including small local businesses, to the continued vitality of
Downtown.
Transportation and Business and Economics Elements Programs."
T-49: Implement a comprehensive program of parking supply and
demand management strategies for Downtown Palo Alto.
T-50: Continue working with merchants, the Chamber of Commerce,
neighbors, and a parking consultant to explore options for constructing
new parking facilities or using existing parking more efficiently.
T-51" Work with-merchants,to designate-dedicated employee parking
areas.
¯T-52: Evaluate options to ensure maximum use of the City parking
structures in the University Avenue/Downtown and California Avenue~
areas.
Alternate Design Options
Jul 00’
Jun 00’
May 00’
Apr 00’
Mar 00’
Feb 00’
Jan 00’
Dec 99’
Nov 99’
$135,000
City Council
Review &
approval
$85,000
City Council
Review &
approval
$100,000
City Council
Review &
approval
Review by
ARB, HRB,
Planning
Commission
Review by
ARB, HRB,
P~nning
Commiss~n
Review by
ARB, HRB,
P~nning
Commission
$75,000
City Council
Review &
approval
Convene
Working
Group with a
Planning
Commission
representative
/additional
architect
assistance
Reconvene
Study Group/
additional
architect
assistance
Reconvene
Study Group/
additional
architect
assistance/
complete
white board
model
Reconvene
Study Group/
additional
architect
assistance/
complete
white board/
3D model
Option
1
Option
2
Option
3
Option
4
Jul 00’
Jun 00’
May 00’
Apr 00’
Mar 00’
Feb 00’
Jan 00’
Dec 99’
Nov 99’
Planning Division
October 14, 1999