Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutID-3189-27-university City of Palo Alto (ID # 3189) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/3/2012 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24) Title: Request for Council to (1) Review Revised Arts and Innovation (A&I) District Master Plan Concept (including 27 University), a Revised Letter of Intent with TheatreWorks, Preliminary Traffic Assessment, and Draft Timeline for Master Plan; and (2) Direct the City Attorney to Draft Ballot Measure Language for Council Consideration for the June election. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Review and comment on the revised Arts and Innovation (A&I) District Master Plan concept; 2) Review and authorize staff to execute the attached revised Letter of Intent with TheatreWorks to collaborate on a Theater Arts Performance Center in the Arts and Innovation District; 3) Direct the City Attorney to draft an advisory measure for the June election to ask voters whether (1) the City Council should initiate a change in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to facilitate the master plan, and (2) the City Council should exchange the unused “panhandle” portion of El Camino Park for more usable portion of adjacent land to facilitate better site planning for the master plan; 4) Review summary of outreach to Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board for the master plan; 5) Review summary of outreach to Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board for the city-side height limit; 6) Review draft timeline for the master plan; and 7) Review the preliminary traffic assessment 10 Packet Pg. 239 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Executive Summary The concept for the Arts and Innovation District, first presented to the City Council on September 24, 2012, has been revised. The revisions address comments made by the Council and members and the public that evening, as well as comments made by commissioners, board members and the public at subsequent meetings. The primary revisions to the master plan concept are the reduction of the height and floor area of the office buildings, and the reduction of the height of the theater fly tower. In addition, the historic Julia Morgan Hostess House building is shown relocated to El Camino Park. The Hostess House would face El Camino Real with its entrance aligned with the entrance to Stanford Shopping Center. Attachments A and B describe the revisions to the master plan concept that have been made since it was presented to the Council in September. Highlights include:  Reduction in office floor area  Reduction in office building height  Modification to building massing of offices and theater  Pedestrian and bicycle circulation to and through the site  Integration with El Camino Park The Arts and Innovation District master planning effort is being led by the City of Palo Alto. The planning was anticipated in the Stanford Hospital Projects approval, in which the City sought funding in the Development Agreement to plan for future uses and improve connections between Downtown, Stanford, and the Stanford Shopping Center and better utilization and integration of the Transit Center. In the context of a concept proposed by developer and philanthropist John Arrillaga for use of Stanford lands, the City thought it was an opportune time to initiate planning for this area, especially if Mr. Arrillaga proceeds with a development application on the site. The master plan concept is for a non-profit project, with contributions to a new transit center, a new performing arts theater for TheatreWorks, and relocation of the historic Julia Morgan Hostess House to be a part of El Camino Park. A set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) has been prepared to provide an overview of key master plan elements and issues. Whereas this report is a follow-up to the September 24th Council meeting and addresses specific issues raised in that meeting, the FAQs provide a more narrative, broader overview of the master plan. The FAQs will also be continually updated. The FAQs are included as Attachment C, and on November 21st the FAQs were posted on the City’s website. 10 Packet Pg. 240 City of Palo Alto Page 3 The FAQs provide an overview of the master plan and provides information on:  Master Plan History  Land Use and Architecture  Traffic Impacts  Economic Benefits  El Camino Park  Community Input and Public Vote The City Council review of the master plan concept on September 24, 2012 resulted in Council questions and comments, cited in the Background section of this report. A summary matrix of comments from the meeting is included as Attachment D. Following Council feedback, staff engaged the Planning and Transportation (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in public meetings as described in this report and reflected in attached meeting minutes (Attachments E, H, I, J, and O). Associated PTC and ARB staff reports are also provided (Attachments F, M, N, and R). Commissioner questions and staff answers for the 10/24/12 meeting are included (Attachment L). Letters of support from transit agencies are included (Attachment S) as well as a revised Letter of Intent (LOI) with TheatreWorks (Attachment T). There has also been significant community feedback and commentary on the master plan and project concept that was presented on September 24. Further public outreach is essential and is planned as discussed in this report. The Discussion section of this report provides responses to Council questions and comments, and summarizes the feedback obtained from PTC. Council has been provided a preliminary traffic assessment for the master plan concept (Attachment G). Preliminarily, up to 3,000 new vehicle trips per day may be realized by the project between the proposed office and theatre uses, prior to any reductions from Transportation Demand Management solutions. This traffic would include 310 new trips during the AM commute period and another 328 trips during the PM peak period. Potential new roadway improvements include an extension of Quarry Road east of El Camino Real into the site as well as improvements to the existing Mitchell Lane and the circular road around University Avenue. Significant Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures would be incorporated as a critical feature of the plan, together with mitigating traffic impacts. A complete traffic analysis would be prepared as part of an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process. 10 Packet Pg. 241 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Background On September 24, 2012, the City Council reviewed the master plan concept and gave staff direction to return to Council no later than the second meeting in November* with the following:  a plan for Boards and Commissions review of proposal,  a plan for a traffic study,  community outreach,  a draft revised letter of intent with TheatreWorks, and  a summary of height limit considerations with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board. *(Please note: this item was moved to December 3rd because of Councilmembers’ schedules and sequencing numerous agenda items on the Council’s fall/winter schedule) The Council also directed the City Attorney to develop options for an advisory measure to bring back at an appropriate time to ask voters whether or not: (1) the City Council should initiate a change in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to facilitate the Master Plan and subsequent Project, and (2) the City Council should exchange the unused “panhandle” portion of El Camino Park for more usable portion of adjacent land to facilitate better site planning for the Arts and Innovation District.) Follow-Up to Council Comments The purpose of this meeting is to provide Council with information on those items requested in September. Council comments on September 24, 2012 listed in Attachment D are noted and addressed in this report where feasible; other responses to comments and questions are found within the FAQ document. Process Council Comment 1: “Process lacks transparency and needs review by commissions and boards to inform Council decision making. Explain the process.” Environmental Review Process The first step of the formal review process is the initiation of environmental review. Given the potential for potentially significant impacts in the area of historic resources, traffic and possibly other areas, a full Environmental Impact Report would be prepared and circulated for public 10 Packet Pg. 242 City of Palo Alto Page 5 review and comment. The EIR process would be kicked off by a public scoping meeting which would allow the public to comment on any issues it believes should be further studied in the EIR. The EIR will discuss the project analyzed in the Master Plan as well as other feasible project alternatives. Land Use The PTC and ARB staff reports of October 24, 2012 and November 1, 2012 provide a summary of the processes for making changes in land use designations to accommodate the master plan concept. The master plan would involve changing the site’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations, currently Public Facilities (the area of the Depot and Bus Transit Station) and Public Parks (the remaining area from University Avenue including the parkland leased by the City of Palo Alto from Stanford, as well as the area that is not leased by the City for parkland – the area of the Julia Morgan Hostess House and the American Red Cross building). The Comprehensive Plan is Palo Alto’s General Plan. The process for a Comprehensive Plan Amendment is PTC review and recommendation followed by City Council action; in this case, the re-designation on the map could be bundled with the creation of a new zone district, rezoning of the master plan site, and the subsequent development project itself. However, the land use designation needed for the master plan envisioned is not on the current “standard menu” of designations listed in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Regional/Community Commercial is the closest fit but may not match exactly, depending on the master plan characteristics. Therefore, along with the creation of a new Arts and Innovation Zone District, the Council may be involved in the creation of a new Arts and Innovation Land Use Designation to include in the City’s Comprehensive Plan text and on the associated Land Use and Circulation Map. This effort could take place in conjunction with the full review of the development project, but would need to occur after the Environmental Review process is complete. Arts and Innovation Zone, Development and Environmental Review Process To allow for the project, the site would require a rezoning from the existing zone districts, Public Facilities and Planned Community (PC) Zoning to a non-standard zone (Arts and Innovation District). Initiation of a new Arts and Innovation (A&I) zone district chapter within the PAMC, and a map change for the site to the A&I Zone would likely begin with the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). The rezone process could either be supplemented by an ARB process, or could include a Site and Design Review process, with ARB and PTC review, to accommodate the particular project. Given the historic resource(s) and parkland use of the site, the HRB and PRC would also hold public hearings on the development project as well. Following release of a Draft EIR, all PTC, ARB, HRB and PRC hearings would serve as public hearings on the draft EIR prepared for the Comprehensive Plan re-designation, re-zoning and development project. Comments by the public and boards and commissions on the Draft EIR would be reviewed by staff and the EIR consultant, and responses to comments would be included in a final EIR for Council adoption in conjunction with the re-designation, re-zoning and 10 Packet Pg. 243 City of Palo Alto Page 6 project. PTC review of the ordinance and final review of the development project could follow PRC, ARB and HRB reviews of the project. The recommendations of the boards and commissions would be provided to the Council for consideration prior to any action on the development project. The ordinance for the rezoning in this case could (1) establish the new Arts and Innovation zone district within PAMC Title 18 and (2) rezone the site to the new A&I zone, which could set forth the particulars (lot coverage, FAR, height, open space, permitted and conditionally permitted uses). Council could act on both the ordinance and the project in a public hearing(s), unless the Council indicates a preference to first act on the ordinance and rezoning, and subsequently consider the development project details following multiple public hearings with the ARB, HRB, PRC and PTC. Community Outreach Council Comment 2: “Need neighorhood/community outreach plan and input on intermodal terminal and master plan” The City has prepared informational materials such as Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs). The FAQs have been posted to the City’s website and are included with this report as Attachment C. Additional public outreach would be designed following Council direction. Public hearings by the boards and commissions anticipated to be involved (PTC, ARB, HRB, PRC) in reviewing the project application would be scheduled sequentially and each meeting would provide the public an opportunity to speak. Additional meetings could be scheduled to address particular topics of interest. A communtiy workshop is envisioned for January. Commissions and Boards Sessions on Conceptual Master Plan The following outreach meetings/study sessions are tentatively scheduled to take place with the Historic Resources Board and Parks and Recreation Commission before and after the 12/3/12 Council meeting: - 11/27 Parks and Recreation Commission meeting - 12/5 Historic Resources Board meeting The following meetings were recently held to present the master plan concept. Meeting minutes are attached to this report for Council review: - 10/24 Joint ARB/PTC Meeting (Minutes, Attachment I) - 10/24 PTC Meeting (Minutes, also Attachment J) - 11/1 ARB Meeting (Summary Minutes, Attachment O) Only one member of the public attended and spoke at the 10/24/12 sessions. Mr. Moss noted 10 Packet Pg. 244 City of Palo Alto Page 7 his concerns about violation of 1970’s El Camino Real Guidelines, about the Comprehensive Plan’s focus on providing housing density near transit and potential for exacerbation of the jobs-housing imbalance. He noted his preference that the height be shortened to 50 or 60 feet to be more in scale. He also stated he did not like the huge theater wall facing the park, questioned the circulation, and encouraged an evaluation of traffic impacts. Ten speakers spoke to the ARB on November 1, 2012. An 11th speaker left but had provided written comments. Attachment O includes the summary minutes of the 11/1/12 ARB study session, as well as the written comments provided. Attachments P and Q contain additional correspondence received via email. The staff reports for these meetings are also provided (Attachments M & R). Commissioner questions and staff answers for the 10/24/12 meeting are included (Attachment K). The handouts from the 11/1/12 ARB meeting were refined for Council and are provided as Attachment N. Joint ARB/PTC ARB Study Session on Master Plan – October 24, 2012 The PTC and ARB reviewed the master plan concept in a joint meeting on October 24, 2012. The discussion is summarized in Attachment I. Highlights included:  Potential impacts on traffic, housing, schools  Public benefits  Design of theater fly tower  Retention/relocation of Julia Morgan Hostess House  Building heights and massing  Amount of parking, design of parking entrance  Connections between Downtown and Stanford Shopping Mall  Active ground floor uses  Community uses in theater ARB Study Session on Master Plan – November 1, 2012 The ARB reviewed the master plan concept in its meeting on November 1, 2012. Summary of the discussion is provided as Attachment O, and the staff report of the session is included as provided as Attachment R. Letters to the ARB before and after the study session are provided as Attachments P and Q. Summary of ARB comments in 11/1/12 master plan study session:  Clarify process – clear process needs to be established  View of theater fly from park is troublesome  Plaza needs to be active – if it faced University it could serve transit center during daytime 10 Packet Pg. 245 City of Palo Alto Page 8  Massing is challenging  Courtyard seems dark, bridges make buildings seem more massive  Avoid shading park  Provide connections to downtown, including linkage at Everertt  Parking concerns – resolve with Caltrain parking demand Height Limit Council Comment 4: Need to affirm Council commitment to 50 foot height limit citywide and address downtown application issues for minor adjustments to 50 foot limit. Board and Commission Sessions on City Height limit There have been two study sessions since September 24, 2012 Council meeting regarding the City’s height limit, and minutes are attached to this report. Additional comments on height were made during sessions on the master plan concept. - 10/4 ARB Meeting (Minutes, Attachment E, Report Attachment F) - 10/10 PTC Meeting (Minutes, Attachment H, Power point presentation is attached to ARB 11/1 Report, Attachment R) The recent outreach to ARB and PTC on the 50 foot height limit has resulted in interest in continuing discussion on the height limit. Staff has committed to holding future meetings with the ARB and PTC on the topic of height in general. As reflected in meeting minutes for the height study sessions, there is interest in exploring where additional height might be acceptable, given existing context and planning documents for housing growth. At the same time, there have been expressions of concern about increased height from other community members. Additional public outreach is thus envisioned. The process to change the text in the Comprehensive Plan regarding height, and the height limit in any particular zone district, would involve reviews and actions by the ARB, PTC and Council. The height of the proposed project is an identified concern. Ultimate height limits will follow an open and involved public review process that will inform and advise the Council’s decision, assuming the Arrillaga proposal is submitted as a development proposal. Summary of ARB comments in 10/4/12 height study session:  Look at how visible, and effects on neighbors  Deal with ground floor level – need activity  Properly sited & well designed: 7 to 10 floors  El Camino Real opportunity for more height 10 Packet Pg. 246 City of Palo Alto Page 9  Senior/intergenerational housing atop commercial  Ground Floor retail or residential to allow over 50’  Must deal with parking; use PC for over 50’  Story limit vs. height limit for flexibility Summary of PTC comments in 10/10/12 height study session:  History – growth control vs. scale/aesthetics.  Expand comparison analysis of other communities.  Indirect impacts of greater height, such as population growth, traffic, parking, tax base, jobs, energy use.  El Camino Real may be appropriate for height where not adjacent to R-1.  Number of stories vs. height.  Trade-off between taller building height and increased ground level open space.  Height and density relationship.  Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) vs. taller building height.  Different solutions for different locations, and different uses.  Height for greater ground floor height, more interesting roofline articulation.  Height to encourage diversity of industries.  Uses – encourage offices or residential.  What types of locations would be appropriate. Discussion Advisory Measure Given the Council feedback at the last meeting, staff recommends that the advisory measure be placed on the June 2013 ballot, rather than the March ballot. A community meeting could be held by the Planning and Transportation Commission in January 2013. Then, if directed by Council, the City Attorney will prepare ballot measure language for the June 2013 ballot that will be brought back for Council consideration in Febraury or March 2013. This delay will allow more time for the further refinement of the master plan to take into account the comments received by Council and the public, to perform additional traffic analysis and to implement a 10 Packet Pg. 247 City of Palo Alto Page 10 more comprehensive community outreach plan. The disadvantage to postponing the election is that the additional studies and consultant work will require more funding and staff resources, which may not have been expended had the advisory measure been placed on the March ballot and the residents expressed a strong preference not to pursue the master plan at all. Changes in Master Plan Concepts The revised master plan incorporates substantial changes in response to comments heard at the 9/24/12 City Council meeting, 10/24/12 Joint Planning and Transportation Commission and Architectural Review Board study session, 10/24/12 Planning and Transportation Commission hearing and 11/1/12 Architectural Review Board hearing. Revised master plan concepts are illustrated in Attachment A and revised building concepts are illustrated in Attachment B: Exhibit A: Revised Master Plan Concepts  Existing Site Context & Project Area  Illustrative Plan  Illustrative Plan Detail – Arts & Innovation District  Existing Property Ownership and Leases  Proposed Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation  Proposed Revised Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation  Proposed District Boundaries Over Existing Zoning Plan  Proposed Transit Routes  Proposed Pedestrian Network  Proposed Bicycle Routes  Proposed Automobile Site Access  Proposed Public Spaces  Compatibility With Future Rail Corridor Changes Exhibit B: Revised Building Concepts  Building Massing Studies: NE  Building Massing Studies: NW  Building Massing Studies: SE  Building Height Comparison 10 Packet Pg. 248 City of Palo Alto Page 11  FAR Map  Revised Sections of Office & Theater  Revised Floor Plans of Office & Theater  Scale Comparisons  Revised Perspective – New Transit Center at University Avenue  Revised Perspective – Urban Lane at the Caltrain Depot  Revised Perspective – Theater in the Park  Revised Perspective – El Camino Real as Grand Boulevard Reduced Office Floor Area In the revised master plan, the floor area of the office buildings has been reduced by approximately 50,000 square feet, from 260,000 to 210,300 square feet. The two office buildings have been reconfigured as four smaller office buildings. The north and south pairs of office buildings are linked together by pedestrian bridges at the third and fifth floors, while the ground floor would remain open as part of the plaza and pedestrian network. In the revised plan the office FAR would be 1.78 assuming 118,106 square feet for office land, and theater FAR is 1.11 assuming 71,867 square feet for theater site. Reduced Building Height and Massing Building height and massing has been reduced as follows:  Office building facing University Avenue: - West tower has been reduced from 10 stories to 7 stories, from 161’-6” tall down to 103’-6.” - East tower has been reduced from 9 stories to 6 stories, from 147’ tall down to 89’-0.”  Office building facing theater plaza: - West tower height is unchanged but number of stories has increased from 6 stories to 7 stories at 103’-6”. - East tower has been reduced from 7 stories to 6 stories, from 118’ tall down to 89’-0.” The floor to floor height has been reduced for the ground floor, from 20’-0” to 16’-6”. The typical office floor to floor height is unchanged at 14’-6.” 10 Packet Pg. 249 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Julia Morgan “Hostess House” is located in El Camino Park In the revised master plan the historic Julia Morgan Hostess House (currently occupied by the MacArthur Park Restaurant) is shown relocated to El Camino Park between the soccer and softball fields. The building would face El Camino Real with its entrance aligned with the entrance to Stanford Shopping Center. The adjacency to the soccer field would support pedestrian access to events from the building without crossing parking. The soccer field has been moved north. Some existing trees at the north of the field would be impacted to provide sufficient room for the Hostess House and soccer field. Future use of the building has not yet been determined, but given the location in the park a community-oriented use has been suggested. The master plan concept provides approximately 100 parking spaces; the actual number of spaces will depend on the type of use for the building. A separate planning process will be needed to engage the Park and Recreation Commission, the community and potential users to recommend the best use of the building and the final site planning. New Pedestrian and Bicycle Underpass at Lytton Avenue The master plan concept includes a new pedestrian and bike underpass beneath the Caltrain right-of-way, at the terminus of Lytton Avenue north of the existing Caltrain cross-platform tunnel. The underpass adds a direct connection between Downtown, the Arts and Innovation District and Stanford Shopping Center. The existing Caltrain ramps on the east side would need minor modifications to allow a symmetrical alignment of the underpass with Lytton Avenue. New Dedicated Bike Route Connects through the Transit Station A new two-way, 10-foot wide dedicated bike route has been added to connect the proposed Class 1 bike route north of the Caltrain station to the existing Class 1 bike route south of the station. This would create a continuous bicycle network linking local and regional destinations, as well as directly linking bikes to transit. The design of the bike route is based on successful European examples found in Copenhagen and Rome to integrate pedestrians, bikes and transit. The bike lanes would be between the sidewalk and median for passenger drop-off. Bike lanes would be differentiated from the sidewalk by a slight change in level, a different color, or both. Bike lanes would be striped and rise to sidewalk level at pedestrian crossings with bollards separating bike lanes. Reconfigured Parkland Swap The boundaries of the parkland swap have been reconfigured to have a more coherent shape and relationship to park use. The existing parkland along the El Camino would be swapped for 10 Packet Pg. 250 City of Palo Alto Page 13 part of the lands currently leased to the City for the transit center and the Red Cross. The theater building is now included in the parkland area in the revised master plan, as shown in Attachments A and B. Feasible Ground Floor Retail Staff met with several different retail development experts, including key people in the redevelopment of Town & Country as well as the Oxbow Public Market and Ferry Building in San Francisco, to discuss the potential for the ground floor uses at the site. The key findings from interviews were:  The site, in concept, could support a destination restaurant of up to 10,000 square feet, with some additional retail serving office, theater and transit users;  The site cannot support retail throughout the entire ground floor;  The lack of visibility and access of the office courtyard is not conducive for retail;  Limited surface parking in front of retail reduces ease of car access to shops; and  The best location for retail is along the street frontage facing the depot, with the restaurant located at the southeast corner of office building facing the transit center. Site Plan Integration of the Theater into the Park The revised master plan better integrates the theater into the park as follows:  A new meadow along El Camino Real would feature the redwood trees planted in the 1980s to honor Palo Alto Olympic medal winners. The large size, shape and orientation of the meadow would create a new public place visible from El Camino Real and Quarry Roads. The size of the meadow would provide space for recognition of future Olympians, and would form the entrance to El Camino Park and the Arts and Innovation District. Parking would serve both the park and theater. The theater forecourt would extend across the Quarry Road extension to include the Olympic Grove, connecting the theater and grove together as the pedestrian and bicycle entrance point from Stanford Shopping Center.  Quarry Road extension would be realigned to shape a new green for passive use between the theater and the softball field. Parking would be reconfigured along the Quarry Road extension to form landscape area to plant tall trees to screen views of the theater fly tower, and better serve as patron drop-off.  Pedestrian and bicycle paths would be reconfigured to create a continuous network of tree- lined walks and riding paths through the park. People could walk or ride bikes from the El Camino Real and Quarry Road intersection, to Olympic Grove meadow the new multi-use path, the Lytton Avenue underpass and the new transit center bike path to destinations south of the area. 10 Packet Pg. 251 City of Palo Alto Page 14 The open space in front of the theater would be redesigned to:  Create a forecourt for the theater, as a setting within the park, scaled for 650 people, and designed to for theater patrons to comfortably gather outdoors yet feel separate from other park users and activities.  Orient the entrance to the theater to El Camino Real.  Provide a pedestrian "ramblas", or tree-lined walk, surrounding the forecourt to the theater, creating a walking path from the Lytton underpass to El Camino Park. Seat walls, benches and stepped seating in the landscape would provide shady places to stop, gather in small groups or people watch.  Provide stair access from below grade parking exits at both the south and north ends of the plaza would providing direct access to the theater and El Camino Park.  Create an orchard canopy for shading the café and black box theater outdoor gathering area south of the main entrance.  Provide a specialty food kiosk located along the south side of the theater with outdoor seating along the walk from the train station, to create activity visible from the Depot across from the Lytton underpass. Landscape of Transit Streets In the revised master plan, Canary Island Date Palms are shown planted along the three sides of the Transit Ring Road to create an attractive arrival experience to the transit center and downtown Palo Alto. Palms would be in front of the office buildings, the Caltrain station and in the median in front of the hotel. The oak grove within the Transit Ring Road would be planted with additional oaks and oak savannah grasses. The street section along the Sheraton Hotel would be modified to have a palm-lined median, wider sidewalk and landscape buffer with seating along the hotel parking. Oak trees surrounded by palms would create an identity similar to, yet in contrast to, Palm Drive, which has palms surrounded by oak trees. The depot plaza at the new Lytton underpass would be planted as an orchard of colorful flowering trees. This would extend the shaded tree-lined walks of El Camino Park to the depot. The seat walls, benches and steps would provide public gathering places. Traffic Traffic circulation is a primary focus of the master plan, specifically transit operations as the master plan concept proposes to replace the existing Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Transmit Mall with an expanded on-street transit mall that is incorporated into the University Loop. The VTA and other transit operations including Stanford Marguerite and Samtrans have participated in the design of the proposed site circulation plan to ensure that near-term and 10 Packet Pg. 252 City of Palo Alto Page 15 future long-term transit expansion opportunities are satisfied. The master plan concept proposes 32 new transit stops, an increase of 11 stops over the existing 21. Future transit expansion opportunities are preserved along Urban Lane. Traffic circulation includes an Extension of Quarry Road east of El Camino Real providing vehicular and transit access around the proposed site. The existing northbound on-ramp from University Avenue to northbound El Camino Real will be transformed to an access road for the site providing full vehicular access to new underground parking from both the east- and west- sides of the site. Improvements to the on-ramp include converting it to a two-way street at University Avenue allowing for full-access to University Avenue from the University Loop. A preliminary traffic assessment for the master plan has been prepared (Attachment M). The preliminary traffic assessment was intended to identify any immediate potential flaws to the surround transportation infrastructure. The study shows that up to 3,000 new vehicle trips per day may be realized between the proposed office and theatre uses, prior to any reductions from Transportation Demand Management solutions. This traffic would include 310 new trips during the AM commute period and another 328 trips during the PM peak period. Potential new roadway improvements include an extension of Quarry Road east of El Camino Real into the site as well as improvements to the existing Mitchell Lane and the circular road around University Avenue. Significant Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures will be incorporated as a critical will be a critical feature in this project (see examples of dramatic Stanford reductions in vehicle trips in recent years) and mitigating traffic impacts will be a key requirement of the plan. This only a preliminary finding and full Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) needs to be completed. The City anticipates the cost of the TIA up to $85,000. Quotes from on-call consultants are currently being solicited and the City anticipates TIA development to start immediately next calendar year. When development of the TIA begins, input from the community and adjacent communities will be solicited during the scoping phase of the EIR/TIA to ensure that the master plan is properly evaluated. Master Plan Compatibility with Potential Future Changes to the Rail Corridor The urban design of the master plan would be compatible with potential future changes contemplated in Rail Corridor Study. Attachment A illustrates how the design of the master plan could advance city objectives for the rail corridor and not preclude opportunities to reduce the barrier of the tracks, increase cross-corridor connectivity, and shape attractive places. While it is unknown what specific future infrastructure improvements will be, the exhibit makes the following assumptions: 10 Packet Pg. 253 City of Palo Alto Page 16  Trenching of rail infrastructure would be below grade with adjustments to horizontal alignment;  Trench covers would extend for four city blocks from Everett Avenue to Forest Avenue;  University Avenue would be brought up to-grade;  A new Caltrain station would be below grade with elevator, escalator and stair access to the station and ventilation structures;  The existing historic depot could be adaptively reused;  There could be opportunities for joint development on the rail right-of-way;  Development along rail corridor could be divided into city blocks and open spaces that align with the downtown street and block pattern;  Pedestrian and bicycle circulation across the corridor would be at grade and align with existing downtown streets. The design of the master plan would be compatible with the Rail Corridor Study because:  The street and block pattern of the Arts and Innovation District would be in scale with and aligns with downtown and rail corridor open space and city block pattern.  The district pedestrian and bicycle network would connect directly to contemplated rail corridor routes, further interconnecting these networks.  District streets would form a grid that could connect to changes in the street network to support expansion of future bus transit services. The transit center could expand bus stops and layovers by moving to a new location on the rail right of way, to a new parking structure at a future redevelopment site, or to an expanded network of on-street bus stops and layovers.  If the transit center were to move in the more distant future, the Transit Ring Road area could be redeveloped with new buildings, designed in scale and character with downtown, extending University Avenue to El Camino Real. Trees The assessments include the Draft Traffic Assessment, dated July 9, 2012, and Initial Tree Assessment, dated April 16, 2012. However the tree assessment was prepared prior to changes to the transit center. The report will need to be expanded in scope if the transit center is included in the master plan. Infrastructure costs Infrastructure costs have not yet been estimated because there has only been a focus on 10 Packet Pg. 254 City of Palo Alto Page 17 preparing concepts for the master plan. Because of some significant improvements on site additional input from other sub consultants will be needed once a project is initiated such as a parking garage contractor, bridge construction, electrical reroute and major we utility reroutes. Parkland swap The master plan envisions a parkland swap to remove the narrow, unusable “panhandle” swath fronting El Camino Boulevard with some newly dedicated parkland adjacent to El Camino Park to allow better site planning and an extension of Quarry Road through the master plan area and better parking access. The change in park dedication areas would entail changes to the parkland boundaries, but would not result in a change to net park area. The parkland swap would involve a revised plan for the El Camino Park Restoration that moves the northerly field farther north, reconfigure the parking lot, and to make way for the Julia Morgan Hostess House building between fields. The revised plan would retain nearly all parking spaces approved by council previously, and shrink the dog park area at northern end. Council would need to authorize negotiations with Stanford to initiate a separate contract with Siegfried Engineering to integrate the Arts and Innovation Master Plan with the El Camino Park Restoration efforts. Finally, a Park Improvement Ordinance for El Camino Park would be required. Other real estate issues, such as extending and/or modifying all or a portion of the El Camino Park lease with Stanford to accommodate the project. Red Cross Building and Mitchell Lane The Red Cross Chapter House and Mitchell Lane have historic merit that may be a consideration in a master plan. The Red Cross building, designed by architect Birge Clark, was constructed in 1947-48 to house year-round Red Cross activities. It was built by gifts of friends and members of the organization and was one of the few chapters in the state owned by its chapter. The building was dedicated to the men and women who served in the world wars. Mitchell Lane was named in 1947 to honor Lydia Mitchell (Mrs. John W., 1854-1958) the first managing director of the Palo Alto Chapter of the American Red Cross. She served the organization for forty years. The street leads to the Red Cross Chapter House and runs between the Julia Morgan Hostess House building and the railroad right-of-way. The master plan shows a street in this approximate location; it could retain the name Mitchell Lane in honor of Mrs. Mitchell. 10 Packet Pg. 255 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Revised Letter of Intent (LOI) with TheatreWorks At the Council’s direction, City and TheatreWorks staff met to discuss the public programming opportunities for the proposed theater. As TheatreWorks mission is to provide a series of theater-based programming to benefit the local community, the parties’ interests are very much aligned. In response to the Council’s inquiry, a summary of the TheatreWorks current programming vision for the space is now included as an attachment to the Letter of Intent and a revised Letter of Intent is included as Attachment T. It is important to note that the overall details of this programming will change over time, due to a variety of factors. As a threshold matter, the final design plans are not completed, and while the current plans anticipate a total of 91,000 net usable square feet, the precise square footage, configuration, and use allocations are subject to change. Further, once the design plans are complete, TheatreWorks expects its programming needs to vary from year to year depending on the type and scheduling of its performances. In addition, over time, TheatreWorks plans to not only modify but grow its community outreach programs and these efforts will also impact use. For these reasons, the current Letter of Intent has identified the programming issue as an important one, but one which will take a significant amount of time to develop. In fact, it is likely that the final Public/Private Partnership will attempt to set up a process for cooperative joint programming over time, rather than a specific schedule. This process will codify the parties’ long term relationship and mutual goals of community access and allow for a fluid and iterative programming that is driven by priorities that both parties acknowledge will change over time. To codify this expressly iterative approach to programming, Paragraph 5 of the Letter of Intent provides: “TheatreWorks will not pay rent to the City but, in lieu thereof, TheatreWorks will make portions of the Theater available to the City on terms and conditions to be decided (including, on a space available basis, to community non-profit organizations), which terms and conditions shall not impede TheatreWorks’ customary production schedule or the New Works Festival.” Further Paragraph 12 of the Letter of Intent expressly provides that it is not binding on either party but it simply intended to facilitate a discussion of a public/private partnership. For this reason, City Staff believes the City is better served by retaining the broad language in Paragraph 5 at this juncture and deferring more detailed programming discussions until a later time in the process. Resource Impact 10 Packet Pg. 256 City of Palo Alto Page 19 If the Arts and Innovation District proceeds, the City can expect incremental revenues and expenses. The following impacts represent preliminary and rough estimates. As with other significant projects, the developer will be asked to conduct a more thorough fiscal analysis in an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Estimates: Sales tax from retail space = $80,000 Sales tax from employees/theater patrons = 79,000 Transient Occupancy tax from business visits = 46,000 Utility Users tax from occupancies = 37,000 Property tax = 131,000 Total incremental and annual revenue (est.) = $373,000 Since the current property is owned and will continue to be owned by Stanford, no documentary transfer tax is anticipated. Unlike the lease arrangement at the Stanford Shopping Center with Simon Properties, long-term leases that could potentially generate transfer taxes are not foreseen. Since the proposed project will house commercial activity, additional property taxes should be realized. Ongoing and incremental City services such as those provided by public safety, public works, planning, and other City departments will be provided to the developed site. While some of the City’s costs due to the project will be recovered through the City’s fee structures, other incremental and ongoing general service costs need further evaluation. Staff recommends that a fiscal or economic impact analysis be incorporated in the EIR. With modeling capability, a consultant will be able to more finely hone staff’s revenue estimates and new City cost burdens. It is suggested that other impacts such as ABAG housing requirements and potential Palo Alto Unified School District needs be explored in the fiscal study. Draft Traffic Assessment – July 9, 2012 Initial Tree Assessment – April 16, 2012 The cost for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is estimated to be $250,000. 10 Packet Pg. 257 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Environmental Review The conceptual master plan is not considered a “project” under CEQA. However, if the master plan is approved and a project application is submitted, CEQA would require environmental view at that time. An Environmental Impact Report would need to be prepared for a project of this magnitude. Next Steps An extensive community outreach process will continue prior to a public vote in June 2013 (if Council determines that date is appropriate), and substantial further community input and board and commission review would follow if the Council moves forward after the advisory vote. Attachments:  : Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (PDF)  : Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (PDF)  : Attachment C: Arts & Innovation District FAQ (PDF)  : Attachment D: Matrix of Responses to Council (PDF)  : Attachment E: Minutes of Height Session ARB 10 04 12 (PDF)  : Attachment F: Staff Report for ARB 10 04 12 (PDF)  : Attachment G: 27 University Ave Draft Preliminary Traffic Assessment (PDF)  : Attachment H: Minutes PTC Height Session October 10 (PDF)  : Attachment I: 10-24-12_PTC-ARB_Summary (PDF)  : Attachment J: October 24 Verbatim of ARB-PTC and PTC (PDF)  : Attachment K: Commissioner Questions and Staff Responses 10 24 12 (PDF)  : Attachment L: PTC Follow-up Questions 10 24 12 (PDF)  : Attachment M: PTC 10 24 Report (PDF)  : Attachment N: PTC 10 24 12 report attachments (PDF)  : Attachment O: Summary November 1 ARB (PDF)  : Attachment P: Public correspondence to ARB prior to ARB 11 1 12 (PDF)  : Attachment Q: Public correspondence to ARB post 11 1 12 meeting (PDF)  : Attachment R: ARB 11 1 12 report (PDF)  : Attachment S: Letters of Support (PDF)  : Attachment T: Updated TheatreWorks Letter of Intent (LOI) (PDF) 10 Packet Pg. 258 City of Palo Alto Page 21  : Attachment U: Final Council Approved Minutes from 09-24-12 meeting (PDF)  : Attachment V: Public Correspondence Post Early Packet (PDF) 10 Packet Pg. 259 FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012, 2012 R E V I S E D U R B A N D E S I G N M A S T E R P L A N A R T S & I N N O V A T I O N D I S T R I C T 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 0 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 EXISTING SITE CONTEXT & PROJECT AREA El Camino Real Un i v e r s i t y Av e n u e Pal m D r i v e Alma Street Qu a r r y R o a d Palo A l t o A v e n u e El Camino Park Transit Center StanfordShoppingCenter Sheration MacArthurPark Westin Arboreteum Lyt t o n Av e n u e Ha m i l t o n Av e n u e El Palo Alto Urban Lane Un i v e r s i t y Av e n u e RedCross CaltrainDepot OlympicGrove Palo Alto Medical Foundation PROJECT AREA 0 100’ 500’ N 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 1 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) 0.00 00024681.0 El Palo Alto ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 Alma Street Theater Mixed-Use Office Palo Alto Station Stanford Shopping Center El Camino Park Sheraton Hotel Lyt t o n A v e n u e Un i v e r s i t y A v e n u e El Camino Real Pa l m D r i v e Qu a r r y R o a d Mixed-Use Office Mixed-Use Office Mixed-Use Office Julia Morgan Hostess House San Francisquito Creek Ha w t h o r n e A v e n u e Ev e r e t t A v e n u e Palo A l t o A v e n u e Arboretum New Public Places and Connections: 1. University Grove 2. Transit Ring Road 3. Depot Orchard and Underpass 4. Theater Forecourt and Green 5. Olympic Glade 6. Boulevard Place 7. Urban Forest Walk 8. Boulevard Pathway 9. Continuous Bikeway Sa n d H i l l R o a d 11 2 3 45 6 7 8 9 0 100’REVISED URBAN DESIGN MASTER PLAN--ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN Scale: 1”=40’ ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN DETAIL--ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 3 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 Park Parcels leased to the City of Palo Alto by Stanford Peninsula CorridorJoint Powers Board State Highway City Streets Leased to Sheraton Hotel by Stanford Palo Alto Medical Founda-tion of Health EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERSHIP & LEASES Pacific Hotel DevelopmentVenture LLC Leased to the American Red Cross by Stanford Leased to Macarthur Parkby Stanford Depot Parcel sublease by City of Palo Alto to “VTA”, (owned by Stanford) Owned by Stanford Parking Lease Agreement from the City of Palo Alto to the Pacific Hotel Develop-ment Venture 1 1 2 3 4 5 7 8 9 6 11 10 12 1 1 1 2 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 6 6 6 7 8 9 10 10 1111 11 12 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 4 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 Public Park Regional/CommunityCommercial Major Institution/Special Facilities Service Commercial Major Institution/UniversityLands/Academic Reserve &Open Space EXISTING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Multiple Family Residential Streamside Open Space Streets & Highways Railroad Tracks Creeks 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 1 3 3 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 5 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 Public Park Regional/CommunityCommercial Major Institution/Special Facilities Service Commercial Major Institution/UniversityLands/Academic Reserve &Open Space REVISED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION Multiple Family Residential Streamside Open Space Streets & Highways Railroad Tracks Creeks EXISTING DESIGNATIONS Arts & Innovation District NEW DISTRICT DESIGNATION A&I 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 2 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 4 4 5 5 6 7 8 9 1 3 3 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 6 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 District Boundaries Stanford Lands Public Facilities BOUNDARY OF REVISED ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT OVER EXISTING ZONING Major Arterial Special Setback Multi-modal Transit Center Arts & Innovation District NEW DISTRICT DESIGNATION EXISTING DESIGNATIONS A&I 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 7 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 REVISED TRANSIT ROUTES VTA Marguerite Samtrans V M S VM S V M S 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 8 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 REVISED PEDESTRIAN NETWORK Street Level Pedestrian Network Below Grade Pedestrian Connections 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 6 9 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 REVISED BICYCLE ROUTES Bike Lanes Bike Paths Below Grade Bicycle Connection Existing Existing Bike Bike LanesLanes Existing Existing Bike Bike LanesLanes Existing Bike PathExisting Bike Path New Bike & New Bike & Pedestrian Pedestrian TunnelTunnel NewNewBike Bike PathsPaths 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 0 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 REVISED AUTOMOBILE SITE ACCESS Drop off/Pick up Parking Access * * ** * 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 1 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 1. University Grove 2. Transit Ring Road 3. Entry Grove 4. Theater Green & Palm Plaza 5. Olympic Meadow & Grove 6. Boulevard Place REVISED PUBLIC PLACES 44 3 15 2 6 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 2 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 ILLUSTRATION OF MASTER PLAN COMPATIBILITY WITH FUTURE CHANGES TO THE RAIL CORRIDOR Assumptions•Trenching of rail corridor below grade with adjustment to horizontal alignment•Trench covers four city blocks from Everett Avenue to Forest Avenue•University Avenue is at grade•New Caltrain station below grade with elevator, escalator and stair access to station and ventilation structures•Potential re-use of existing historic depot•Potential joint development opportunities on rail right of way•Joint development along rail corridor is divided into city blocks and open spaces that align with the downtown street and block pattern•Through pedestrian and bicycle circulation across the rail corridor is at grade and aligns with existing downtown streets Compatibility•Arts and Innovation District streets align with rail corridor open space and development block pattern•Transit along the Transit Center Ring Road can move to a new transit center located either on the rail right of way or at the first level of a new parking structure at a redeveloped hotel site•New buildings can replace the Transit Ring Road, designed in scale and character with downtown, extending University Avenue to El Camino Real •Rail corridor pedestrian and bicycle routes connect directly to district routes 10 . a Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 3 Attachment: Attachment A: Revised Master Plan Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) FERGUS GARBER YOUNG ARCHITECTS FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN SANDIS ENGINEERING R E V I S E D B U I L D I N G C O N C E P T S A R T S & I N N O V A T I O N D I S T R I C T R E V I S E D U R B A N D E S I G N M A S T E R P L A N D e c e m b e r 3 , 2 0 1 2 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 4 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 2 of 22 Summary The building concepts, first presented to the City Council on September 24, 2012, have been revised. These revisions address many of the comments made by the Council members and the public that evening. These revisions also address the comments made by the Commissioners, Board Members and the public at the Joint Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session on October 24, 2012, and the following Planning and Transportation Commission hearing later that same evening and they address the comments made at the Architectural Review Board Study Session on November 1, 2012. The primary revisions to the building concepts under discussion are the reduction of the height and area of the office buildings and the reduction of the height of the theater’s fly tower. The following is included in this report; • Palo Alto Buildings that exceed 50 feet • Building a Base Case for Floor Area Ratio • Footprint comparisons to other buildings • Why placing the office use along University Avenue and the theater along El Camino Park is recommended • Why orienting the theater’s Fly Tower towards El Camino Park is recommended • Revised Building Area Calculations • Revised FAR Calculation Scenarios • Revisions to the Office Building Concept • Revisions to the Theater Building Concept • Revised Aerial Views of the Building Concepts • View of Theater Plaza Concept • Revised Parkland Swap Map • Existing Ownership and Lease Map Summary Existing September 24, 2012 December 03, 2012 12/3 v 9/24 Site Size: 179,301 195,053 189,973 (5,080) Commercial Square Footage (gross): 19,200 262,580 210,300 (52,280) Hostess House 10,000 0 0 0 Red Cross 9,200 0 0 0 Office Ground Floor 0 23,080 24,600 1,520 Office Floors Above Grade 0 239,500 185,700 (53,800) Office Number of Buildings: 0 2 4 2 Office Height(s): roof/mech roof/mech University Ave & Mitchell Lane Tower 0 136'-0" / 147'-0" 89'-0" / 99'-0" (47'-0") / (48'-0") University Ave & El Camino Tower 0 150'-6" / 161'-6" 103'-6" / 113'-6" (47'-0") / (48'-0") Quarry & El Camino Tower 0 92'-6" / 103'-6" 103'-6" / 113'-6" 11'-0" / 10'-0" Quarry & Mitchell Lane Tower 0 107'-0" / 118'-0" 89'-0" / 99'-0" (18'-0") / (19'-0") Office Number of Floors: University Ave & Mitchell Lane Tower 0 9 6 (3) University Ave & El Camino Tower 0 10 7 (3) Quarry & El Camino Tower 0 6 7 1 Quarry & Mitchell Lane Tower 0 7 6 (1) Theater Square Footage (gross): 0 80,000 80,000 0 Ground Floor 0 35,000 35,000 0 Floors Above Grade 0 45,000 45,000 0 Fly Tower Height: 0 100 95 (5) Total Open Space 160,101 136,973 130,373 (6,600) Open Space: 160,101 96,161 91,840 (4,321) Plaza Area: 0 40,812 38,533 (2,279) Building Foot Print (ground floor) 19,200 58,080 59,600 1,520 Hostess House Community Center (possible) - - 10,000 10,000 Parking Spaces: 81 883 to 933 978 to 1,128 95 at existing Hostess House 62 - - - at existing Red Cross 19 - - - at El Camino Park, center parking lot ? - - - Adjacent to new 27 University Site - 13 5 (8) Adjacent to Renovated El Camino Park Site - 20 22 2 at (possible new) Hostess House Location - - 101 101 New Underground Garage 850 to 900 850 to 900 0 Transit Bus Stops and layovers 21 32 32 0 Notes: 1) The existing site area is calculated by summing the leased areas of the Transit Center, MacArthur Park and the Red Cross buildings 2) The Dec 3rd site area is less than the Sep 24th site because of revisions to Quarry Road and Mitchell Lane and bike lane revisions. 3) The Dec 3rd Illustrative Plan shows the Hostess House possibly located in El Camino Park 4) The areas of the Hostess House and the Red Cross buildings are approximations based on measurements taken from Google Earth 5) The Hostess House appears twice because it changes uses from commercial today to possible a community center later 6) Open Space is defined as Site Area minus the Footprints of the Theater, Office Hostess House and Red Cross buildings 7) The number of parking spaces that were in the center El Camino Parking Lot prior to the Reservoir work is not known 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 5 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 3 of 22 Palo Alto Buildings that exceed 50 feet Several of Palo Alto’s buildings exceed 50 feet, sixteen of which, shown in time, are shown on the chart to the left. This chart includes some of Palo Alto’s future buildings that are under construction now. The horizontal gray dashed line indicates the height of the office building concepts that were presented to the City Council September 24th, 2012. At that time the height of the tallest office tower being discussed was 150 feet to the roof. If the mechanical floor is included in the calculation, the height was 161 feet 6 inches. For the December 3rd discussion the massing of the office buildings have been revised. Whereas the previous concept was to articulate two tower masses to appear as four, the December 3rd concept is revised to be four independent towers. The two towers closer to El Camino are taller than the two towers that face Mitchell Lane. The height of the tallest pair of office towers is now 103 feet 6 inches to the roof. If the mechanical floor is included in the calculation, the height is 113 feet 6 inches. The height of the shorter pair of towers is 89 feet. If the mechanical floor is included in the calculation, the height is 99 feet. TALLER - September 24, 2012 27 University Tallest Building was 150 ‘-6” (Roof Screen was 161’-6”) LOWER – DECEMBER 3, 2012 27 University 2 Taller Buildings are 103’-6” (Roof Screen is 113’-6”) 2 Shorter Buildings are 89’-0” (Roof Screen is 99’-0”) 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 6 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 4 of 22 Floor Area Ratio or FAR means the maximum ratio of gross floor area on a site to the total site area where "site" means a parcel of land consisting of a single lot of record, used or intended for use as one site for a use or group of uses. (Palo Alto Zoning Ordinance, 18.04.030 “Definitions”, subsections (57) and (84)). Floor area ratios are used as a measure of the intensity of the site being developed. Building a ‘Base Case’ forFloor Area Ratio The question was asked in the October 24, 2012 Planning and Transportation Commission hearing, “what was the FAR of the project”. The answer is not straight forward because the proposed location for the Arts and Innovation District is a small portion of a much larger site that is wholly owned by “The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University”. Recognizing this, the Planning and Transportation Commission asked Staff to construct a “base case” for the calculation of a FAR for the master plan area. The Commission was interested in seeing how much area would be generated using a FAR of 2.0, the highest FAR found in Palo Alto’s Zoning Code - regardless of the actual use of the land. Multiplying the entire site (bounded by University Avenue, Palo Alto Avenue the Caltrain tracks and El Camino Real) is not reasonable because dedicated park land cannot be used for commercial office use. Staff suggests that using the leased areas of the site as though they were legally separate sites may be a more productive way to build a base case to compare a proposed amount of buildable area to. In August of 2011, Mr. Arrillaga discussed sketches with City staff showing a single building combining office and theater uses that ran across both the MacArthur Park ‘site’ and the Red Cross ‘site’ totaling 250,000. Utilizing Scenario #3, that concept would have exceeded a 2.0 FAR by 108,255 sf, inversely the concept would have generated a FAR of 3.5. The office and theater buildings being discussed at the December 3 Council meeting total 290,300 sf and utilize the MacArthur Park, Red Cross and the transit Center ‘sites’ illustrated in Scenario #2. In this scenario the ‘base case’ FAR is 1.53.The concept produces67,302 sf less sf than a project with a FAR of 2.0. Existing Leased Areas Scenario 1 - Entire Area Total MacArthur Park Red Cross Transit Center Park Land Site Area 602,456 46,879 23,998 108,424 423,155 FAR @ 2.0 1,204,912 93,758 47,996 216,848 846,310 Parking @ 4:1000sf 4,820 375 192 867 3,385 Parking If 20% transit Reduction 3,856 300 154 694 2,708 Scenario 2 - No Parkland Area Total MacArthur Park Red Cross Transit Center Park Land Site Area 179,301 46,879 23,998 108,424 FAR @ 2.0 358,602 93,758 47,996 216,848 Parking @ 4:1000sf 1,434 375 192 867 Parking If 20% transit Reduction 1,148 300 154 694 Scenario 3 - Red Cross & MacArthur Park Total MacArthur Park Red Cross Transit Center Park Land Site Area 70,877 46,879 23,998 FAR @ 2.0 141,754 93,758 47,996 Parking @ 4:1000sf 567 375 192 Parking If 20% transit Reduction 454 300 154 BASE CASE FAR 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 7 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 5 of 22 Foot print comparisons to other buildings These exhibits were prepared in response to a request made during the Joint Planning and Transportation Commission Study Session on October 24, 2012, and then shared with the Architectural Review Board at the Study Session on November 1, 2012. The buildings being compared to the Arts and Innovation District concept are shown in red and overlaid at the same scale and orientation as the underlying 27 University concepts. The only difference is that these underlying 27 University concepts have been updated to show the concepts being discussed at the December 3rd Council meeting. These overlays are approximations traced from Google maps and are not based on surveyed field conditions. 525 University Avenue.These buildings sit on a city block which is a similar size as the block concept for the offices in 27 University office block. The low rise office (left side) and the tower (right top) have foot prints that are larger than the office foot prints being discussed for 27 University. 3000 El Camino, Palo Alto Square. Thesebuildings have a site larger than 27 University. Thefoot prints of these buildings are larger than the office foot prints being discussed for 27 University. Palo Alto Medical Foundation.These buildings have a site larger than 27 University. The foot prints of these buildings are larger than the office foot prints being discussed for 27 University. Although not a tall as the office buildings, PAMF with a FAR above 2.0, is a more intensive site than what 27 University is being discussed as being. City Hall.These buildings sit on a city block which is a similar size as the block concept for the offices in 27 University office block. The low rise office (right side) has a footprint larger than the office foot prints being discussed for 27 University. The tower has a smaller foot print. 525 University Site Area : Same as office block Building footprint: 525 Tower is similar to office bldgs in one direction, less in the other 3000 El Camino. Palo Alto Square Site Area : Larger than A&I District Concept Building footprints: Larger than the office bldgs Palo Alto Medical Foundation Site Area : Larger than A&I District Concept Building footprints: Larger than office and theater bldgs 250 Hamilton, City Hall Site Area : Same as office block Building footprints: City Tower is smaller than office bldgs 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 8 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 6 of 22 Bing Concert Hall.This building is larger than the theater concept that is being discussed for 27 University. Mountain View Center for the Performing Arts & City Hall. The area of the foot print of the Center for the Performing Arts is similar to the theater concept being discussed for 27 University. The plaza of the Performing Arts and City Hall is smaller than the plaza concept being discussed for 27 University. Lucie Stern Community Center.The footprint of the Lucie Stern Community Center is larger than the theater being discussed for 27 University; the Community Center is an assembly of many smaller buildings. The courtyard space in front of the Community Center’s theater is smaller than the plaza area being discussed for 27 University. Sheraton and Westin Hotels. The footprints of the three-story Sheraton and the four-story Westin hotels are much larger than the 27 University concept being discussed. Bing Concert Hall Site Area : Larger than A&I District Concept Building footprint: Larger than theater Mountain View Performing Arts Center & City Hall Site Area : Larger than the theater block, smaller than A&I District Concept Building footprint: Performing Arts Center is similar to theater Lucie Stern Community Center Site Area : Similar to A&I District Concept Building footprint: Larger Sheraton & Westin Hotels Site Area : Larger than A&I District Concept Building footprint: Larger 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 7 9 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 7 of 22 These comparisons look at buildings and spaces that are not in Palo Alto; they were not part of the discussion at the Architectural Review Board Study Session on November 1, 2012. They overlay buildings and blocks in San Francisco and on Manhattan in New York City. Transamerica Tower, San Francisco.This building is larger than the office concept that is being discussed for 27 University. The city block is slightly larger than the block concept being discussed for 27 University. Union Square Park, San Francisco.The area of this park is roughly equal to three-quarters of the area of the 27 University site being discussed. Empire State Building, New York City. The typical New York City block is longer than the 27 University site and about as wide. The footprint of theEmpire State Building is roughly the same size as the entire office block concept for 27 University. The FAR of the Empire State Building is over 60.0. Rockefeller Center & Plaza.Rockefeller Center is a complex of 19 buildings covering nearly 22 acres in New York City. Only the Plaza block is shown here. The rectangle between the buildings is the ice skating rink which is about the same size as the footprint of one of the office towers being discussed as part of the 27 University concept. Transamerica Tower, San Francisco Site Area : Similar to office block Building footprint: Larger Union Square Park, San Francisco Site Area : Park area is smaller than A&I District Concept Building footprint: Park area is larger than the office or theater blocks Empire State Building, New York City Site Area : Similar to A&I District Concept Building footprint: Larger Rockefeller Center & Plaza, New York City Site Area : Similar to A&I District Concept Building footprint: Larger 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 0 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 8 of 22 Why placing the office use along University Avenue and the theater along El Camino Park is recommended. At the policy level the City’s Comprehensive Plan speaks to this area but there is no zoning underlying whole of the site that structures future expectation of use for this area. Prior to 1982 the portion of the site that the Hostess House was on was designated as zone PF; Public Facilities. By 1980 its use as a community facility had declined, and “it had deteriorated physically and had become a candidate for demolition” (Historic Resources Inventory Detail dated January 25, 1995, page 2). The City changed the site to a Planned Community zone in 1982 to allow a restaurant use in the Hostess House so the structure could be occupied by and revitalized by the MacArthur Park restaurant. This diagram shows a map of the existing use of the lands adjacent to the site, with the Public Facility (Intermodal Transit Center), restaurant (MacArthur Park) and office (Blue Cross) uses taken out. The diagram also assumes that the transit center use has moved to the area around University Avenue. The diagram is roughly proportional to the actual sizes of site and the surrounding lands. To keep this discussion at a high level the lands have been divided into three uses: Commercial (Blue), Residential (Brown), and Open Space (Green). This is not a diagram of lease lines or property ownership. The argument for placing the theater use on University Avenue, instead of the office, can be compelling. A theater can be a very civic use representing the aspirations and interests of the entire city and present the ideals of our community at this important entry in to Palo Alto in an architecturally exciting building. The argument continues that if the theater isn’t placed adjacent to University Avenue, the Community loses this remarkable opportunity for new civic identity; and the property is subjugated to the interests of the property owner and or their agents. Placing the office building on University Avenue presents the property owner and their agents with advantages; the office gets a University Address and sits in a dramatic and very important location in the City. And shouldn’t that be resisted so that a public good can be realized and better shared among all? It is a difficult argument to resist. Reconciling the desired civic outcome with the both the existing uses adjacent to the site and the physical requirements of the project, force the solution from an ideal path. Adjacency and the convenience it provides, is at the root of zoning and place-making. Placing the theater on University Avenue is only one of many possible starting points to understand the various adjacency issues that constrain any planning solution. ADJACENT USES DIAGRAM 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 1 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 9 of 22 ADJACENT USES Office at University Avenue and Theater & Plaza at the Park AFFINITY ANALYSIS NOT RECOMMENDED There are four primary reasons why staff does not recommend putting the theater use on University Avenue. 1 –Better support Downtown North Residential Neighborhood’s pedestrian and bicycle connections to El Camino Park.As part of this master plan concept, the City is committed to creating an access under the Caltrain tracks, similar to the Homer Avenue Underpass, so the that the Downtown North residential neighborhood can better access El Camino Park, the Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Hospital via foot and bike. If the theater is placed on University Avenue, the office buildings would then need to be located on the northerly or park side of the site – closer to the proposed Lytton underpass. Placing the office use adjacent to the park interrupts this chain of related adjacencies between the residential neighborhood and the park. Additionally, the office use will likely be populated by many hundreds of people arriving and departing the buildings each day. At the beginning and end of the day the office population will by and large park in the new underground garage or walk, while passing the theater, to and from the transit center. The closer the Office Buildings are to the Lytton underpass the more attractive the Downtown North neighborhood will be as a place to park for office workers who are looking for an alternative to the underground parking. The opposite argument can also be made; that placing a theater closer to the Downtown North Residential Neighborhood means that someone wanting to avoid parking in the garage could, with the easy access provided by the proposed underground Lytton tunnel, be tempted to park in the Downtown North Residential Neighborhood. However, this is less likely because the theater’s population is smaller than the office building and the greatest demand for theater parking will be when parking space in the proposed garage will be most abundant. 2 – Not blocking the views from the Downtown North Residential Neighborhood. The northerly portion of the site sits between the southerly end of the Downtown North residential neighborhood and the foothills to the west. The office buildings will always have larger visual mass than the fly tower of a theater. If the theater is on University Avenue and the office buildings are placed adjacent to the park, the office buildings will have a much larger visual impact on the more sensitive neighborhood. Placing the office use on University Avenue avoids this. 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 2 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 10 of 22 ADJACENT USES Office at University Avenue and Theater & Plaza at the Park AFFINITY ANALYSIS RECOMMENDED 3 – Better Support the University Avenue Business District. Although the theater is intended to provide programming during the day in addition to the traditional evening performances, its population during the day will be significantly less than the office buildings. If the office use is located at the park, it will not have as strong a role supporting the University Avenue business district as it would if the use were located on University Avenue. It is true that there is a secondary benefit that could be realized if the office buildings are located behind a theater that is located on University Avenue. During the day the area of the theater will be activated by the office foot traffic between the office buildings and University Avenue. However, it is City policy to find ways to activate and support the businesses along University Avenue (Comprehensive Plan Policy L-23, among others) . At lunch times the office buildings being adjacent to El Camino Park will be within very easy walking distance to the Stanford Shopping Center and further from the Downtown University Business District, thus less likely to visit these businesses. To be sure, support of the Shopping Center is a good thing, but on the balance the preference should be to give the advantage to University Avenue 4 –Better support of Public Space. Office buildings adjacent to El Camino Park would certainly benefit the office workers. But is that adjacency best for the park and public? There is greater affinity between the park’s public open space and the public plaza and the adjacent theater use.The opportunity and flexibility for public plaza programming increases if it is adjacent to the park.Pedestrian and bike connections between the Downtown North neighborhood and the Shopping Center and the connections between the Shopping Center and the train are also better supported in this scenario. The December 3rd presentation to Council also introduces potential concepts for the Olympic Grove and the Hostess House in El Camino Park which benefit from this synergy as well. Locating the office use closer to University Avenue and the theater and public plaza closer to the Park better supports the Downtown North Neighborhood’s connections and protects their views, better supports the University Avenue business district and the use and utility of the proposed public plaza space. 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 3 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 11 of 22 Why orienting the theater’s Fly Tower towards El Camino Park is recommended Before focusing on the theater’s orientation, it is important to understand the program that the theater concept is answering to and how that program is organized to address the various site opportunities. Theater Program.The essence of a theater’s program of spaces is an exterior forecourt (green dashed rectangle), a lobby (white rectangle), a house where one watches the performance (white circle), a stage (blue rectangle) with the fly tower above it, and support spaces (grey rectangle). The lobby is roughly sized to house the same number of people in the house but standing, and the stage is roughly twice as wide as the actual performance area. Diagram #1 shows this configuration. This is how the Lucie Stern Theater is organized, for instance. The lobby is smaller than one would expectat Lucie Stern, but including the covered area outside the lobby the combined area works. The single lobby is a gathering area for all the theater-goers and is a strategy that strongly supports the identity of the theater. A standard variant of the single lobbyis what is often seen on Broadway in New York City where the support spaces and the lobby have to be adjacent to the street to allow access into them (Diagram #2). The area needed for the lobbies have nearly always been sacrificed to save the area for the house and stage which results in the quintessential New York theater experience where if you are not sitting down inside, you are standing on the sidewalk. The common way to organize more than one theatersis to line them up along the lobby which has been elongated to accommodate the strategy (Diagram #3). In the 27 University theater conceptthe second theater is a smaller intimate “black box theater” (blue circle). Depending on the site constraints and opportunities, the lobby is used to link exterior entrances and stages together in a variety of ways (Diagram #4). Note how the lobby increases in length to accommodate this strategy. For example The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington DC utilizes this long lobby strategy albeit at a much larger scale. As effective as the long lobby strategy is,it works against creating a common identity for the theatergoer’s experience; it is difficult to create a single gathering without making more lobby area which both adds to the amount of square foot area and can further attenuate the theatergoer’s experience. The way around this is to keep the single lobby by adding the theaters around it (Diagram #5). The Thrust and Roda theaters of the Berkeley Rep are basically organized in this way; the outside area between them is the lobby for them both. Diagram #1 Single Lobby Diagram #2 Single Lobby Variant Diagram #3 Long Lobby Diagram #4 Long Lobby Variant Diagram #5 Single Lobby w/ 2 Theaters 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 4 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 12 of 22 The single lobby strategy is highly preferred because it allows all the critical elements of the theater’s mission (main stage, black box stage, costume shop, educational class rooms, and administrative areas) to be displayed around a single lobby - sharing the all the work of the theater with the public. This anchors the identity of institution in that space. The lobby becomes the central experience of the theater’s identity. Site Considerations.Lobbies, as a programmatic element, can accommodate many permutations of shape and size and still function, by degrees, effectively. The program element that has the least amount of flexibility in its size and shape is the stage and its fly tower. Locating the stage and its fly tower is the largest constraint to how the rest of the theater’s program is laid out. It also has the largest visual impact on the exterior of the theater. The 27 University site being discussed has no “back” to place the stage and fly tower against. The explorations of the theater concept started by placing the fly tower in the center of the theater’s mass to avoid any single building face beingburdened by the tall fly tower; the other programmatic pieces of the theater would be used to build mass around the tower (Diagram #6). However, one critical issue among many kept this plan scenario from being pursued further; the area of the floor plan grew unacceptably large to accommodate the long lobby. Several schemes were explored placing the stage against the train tracks (Diagram #7&#8). These were eventually rejected because the broad side of the tower is less desirable when seen from the Downtown North neighborhood and likely to present noise reflections from the trains that would be difficult to mitigate. Placing the stage and the fly tower on the side of the public plaza was not considered. Turning the stage and fly tower 90 degrees presents the narrow side of the fly tower to the neighborhood - more preferable than the broad side. The view towards the theater down Mitchell Lane is the only view of the theater that can be had from the Transit Center at University Avenue (Diagram #9). The side of the building facing the Transit Center should therefore present programmatic spaces that can be shared visually with the public. The fly tower could be seen beyond but the clear preference was not to place the fly tower directly on Mitchell Lane. How to place the fly tower on the Park(Diagram #10)? There are two ways to see tall things; near to it and far from it. The full impact of a tall wall is best had near to it. But if the height of that wall is obscured the height may never be fully perceived. From far away the impact of height can be mitigated by foreground composition. The strategy (as presented in the concepts at the September 24thCouncil meeting)is to develop a building concept where the side of the building facing El Camino Park steps up to the full height of the tower; the tower does not come fully down to the street, use the area in front of that side for pedestrian, bicycle and automobile passage to the largest extent possible. The reservoir pump house and the trash enclosure areas being located across QuarryRoad help support this strategy. And to the degree possible, utilize landscape trees on both sides of Quarry Road to reduce upward views. The Illustrative Site Plan that will be discussed at the December 3rdCouncil meeting further develops these strategies. Diagram #6 – Buried Fly Tower Diagram #7 –Fly Tower against tracks Diagram #8 – Fly Tower against tracks Diagram #9 – Fly Tower facing University Avenue Diagram #10 – Fly Tower facing Park 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 5 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 13 of 22 Revised Building Area Calculations In response to Council, Commission and Board comments, the applicant has reduced the amount of area of the office functions. The top table shows the area of the December 3rd buildings concepts. The middle table shows the difference between the area of the December 3rd building concepts and the September 24th building concepts shown in the table at the bottom. The project scenario that is now being presented for discussion is just over 52,000 square feet less than before. All of this area is taken out of the office function; the area of the theater has not changed. The current design concept of the office is slightly different than before. The total area on the ground floor of the office has increased slightly by 1,620 sf. The floor plates have been reshaped and the enclosed connections between the towers have been eliminated; each tower is independent of the other. The total area of the typical floor is only slightly larger than before, except where they have been eliminated. December 3, 2012 The building concept is less area than it was on September 24th FAR Area Dec 3, 2012 Theater Office A (at U Ave & at El Cam) Office C (at U Ave & near Mitchell) Office D (near Quarry & near Mitchell) Office B (near Quarry & at El Cam) Total OFFICE Ground Floor 35,000 6,150 6,150 6,150 6,150 24,600 Mezzanine 16,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 2nd Floor 18,000 6,150 6,150 6,150 6,150 24,600 3rd Floor 11,000 8,950 8,950 8,950 8,950 35,800 4th Floor 0 8,950 8,950 8,950 8,950 35,800 5th Floor 0 8,950 8,950 8,950 8,950 35,800 6th Floor 0 8,950 8,950 8,950 8,950 35,800 7th Floor 0 8,950 0 0 8,950 17,900 8th Floor 0 0 0 0 0 0 9th Floor 0 0 0 0 0 0 10th Floor 0 0 0 0 0 0 total 80,000 57,050 48,100 48,100 57,050 210,300 FAR AREA Difference As of Dec 3, 2012 Theater Office A (at U Ave & at El Cam) Office C (at U Ave & near Alma) Office D (near Quarry & near Alma) Office B (near Quarry & at El Cam) Total OFFICE Ground Floor 35,000 -5,390 6,150 -5,390 6,150 1,520 Mezzanine 16,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 2nd Floor 18,000 -5,980 6,150 -5,980 6,150 340 3rd Floor 11,000 -8,790 8,950 -8,790 8,950 320 4th Floor 0 -8,790 8,950 -8,790 8,950 320 5th Floor 0 -8,790 8,950 -8,790 8,950 320 6th Floor 0 -8,790 8,950 -8,790 8,950 320 7th Floor 0 -8,790 0 -10,050 8,950 -9,890 8th Floor 0 -17,740 0 0 0 -17,740 9th Floor 0 -17,740 0 0 0 -17,740 10th Floor 0 -10,050 0 0 0 -10,050 total - -100,850 48,100 -56,580 57,050 -52,280 No Change Less More Less More Less FAR Area Sept 24, 2012 Theater Office A.1 (at U Ave & at El Cam) Office A.2 (at U Ave & near Mitchell) Office B.1 (near Quarry & near Mitchell) Office B.2 (near Quarry & at El Cam) Total OFFICE Ground Floor 35,000 11,540 in office A.1 number 11,540 in office B.1 number 23,080 Mezzanine 16,000 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0 2nd Floor 18,000 12,130 in office A.1 number 12,130 in office B.1 number 24,260 3rd Floor 11,000 17,740 in office A.1 number 17,740 in office B.1 number 35,480 4th Floor 0 17,740 in office A.1 number 17,740 in office B.1 number 35,480 5th Floor 0 17,740 in office A.1 number 17,740 in office B.1 number 35,480 6th Floor 0 17,740 in office A.1 number 17,740 in office B.1 number 35,480 7th Floor 0 17,740 in office A.1 number 10,050 0 27,790 8th Floor 0 17,740 in office A.1 number 0 0 17,740 9th Floor 0 17,740 in office A.1 number 0 0 17,740 10th Floor 0 10,050 0 0 0 10,050 total 80,000 157,900 0 104,680 0 262,580 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 6 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 14 of 22 Revised FAR Calculation Scenarios FAR Scenario 1 – Existing Leased Area. This hypothetical scenario uses the assumption of the FAR Base Case described above; that the site area is composed of the existing Transit Center, MacArthur Park and Red Cross leased areas compared to the December 3rd revised building areas. In this scenario the FAR of the project is 1.62. FAR Scenario 2 –Revised Dec 3rd Site. This scenario uses the revised December 3rd site area shown in the Illustrative Plan. In this scenario the FAR of the project is 1.53. FAR Scenario 3 –Parkland Swap Boundaries. This scenario uses the proposed boundaries of the revised Parkland Swap Exhibit. The theater’s site is assumed to then be the portion of the proposed revised parkland boundary that overlays the revised December 3rd site. The office site is then the remaining area in the revised December 3rd site. In this scenario the FAR of the theater site is 1.11 and the FAR of the office site is 1.78. FAR Scenario 1 – Existing Leased Area FAR Scenario 2 – December 3rd Site FAR Scenario 3 – Parkland Swap Boundaries FAR Scenario 6 - Parkland Swap Total Site Theater Office Site Area 189,972.50 70,292.00 119,680.50 Theater FAR Area 80,000.00 80,000.00 Office FAR Area 210,300.00 210,300.00 Calculated FAR 1.53 1.14 1.76 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 7 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 15 of 22 m Revisions to the Office Building Concept The office building height and massing is reduced as follows: Office buildings facing University Avenue: • West tower reduced from 10 stories at 161’-6” to 7 stories at 103’-6.” • East tower reduced from 9 stories at 147’ to 6 stories at 89’-0.” Office building facing theater plaza: • West tower height unchanged but number of stories increased, from 6 stories at 103’-6” to 7 stories at 103’-6.” • East tower reduced from 7 stories at 118’ to 6 stories at 89’-0.” Floor to floor height is reduced for the ground floor, • from 20’-0” to 16’-6”, Typical office floor to floor height is unchanged at 14’-6” Mechanical floor height has been reduced • from 11’-0” to 10’-0”. Ground Floor Typical Floor Section B Section C September 24th September 24th September 24th September 24th 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 8 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 16 of 22 Revisions to the Theater Building Concept The height of the fly tower of the theater is reduced by 5 feet, the tower is now 95 feet high. The garage elevator has been eliminated and replaced by public garage elevators located in the Theater Plaza. Ground Floor Mezzanine 2nd Floor 3rd Floor Section A Main Stage House Lobby Black Box Theater Costume Shop Main Stage Balcony Education Black Box Balcony Rehearsal Dance Rehearsal Administration Roof Garden Administration Fly Tower House Lobby Rehearsal Black Box Theater September 24th 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 8 9 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 17 of 22 Revised Aerial Views of the Building Concepts VIEW FROM THE NORTH WEST 101 LYTTON THEATER THEATERPLAZA OFFICES OLYMPIC GROVE EL CAMINO REAL UNIVERSITY AVE ALMA QUARRY ROAD SHERATON HOTEL STANFORD ARBORETUM TALLER green volumes show the buildingconcepts discussedat the September 24, 2012 City Council Meeting LOWER December 3, 2012 LOWER 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 9 0 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 18 of 22 Revised Aerial Views of the Building Concepts TALLER green volumes show the buildingconcepts discussedat the September 24, 2012 City Council Meeting LOWER December 3, 2012 VIEW FROM THE NORTH EAST TRAIN DEPOT THEATER OFFICES 101 LYTTON UNIVERSITY ALMA QUARRY STANFORD ARBORETUM MITCHELL LANE Caltrain Tracks PALM DR LOWER 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 9 1 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 19 of 22 ` Revised Aerial Views of the Building Concepts VIEW FROM THE SOUTHEAST LYTTON UNDERPASS QUARRY 101 LYTTON EL CAMINO PARK TRAIN DEPOT THEATER PLAZA OFFICES TALLER green volumes show the buildingconcepts discussedat the September 24, 2012 City Council Meeting LOWER December 3, 2012 UNIVERSITY ALMA STANFORD ARBORETUM MITCHELL LANE Caltrain Tracks UNIVERSITY EL CAMINO REAL ALMA TRANSIT RING ROAD TRANSIT RING ROAD TRANSIT RING RD THEATER LOWER 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 9 2 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 20 of 22 Views of Theater Plaza Concept ` TALLER green volumes show the building concepts discussedat the September 24, 2012 City Council Meeting LOWER December 3, 2012 Sep 24 volumes overlaid by Dec 3 volumes 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 9 3 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 21 of 22 ` Revised Parkland Swap Map In response to Council, Commission and Board comments, the proposed parkland swap has been revised to make the boundary more regular. The area of the parkland has not changed; only the boundary has been reconfigured. In this revision a portion of the theater plaza is in the parkland and the entire theater is in the parkland. 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 9 4 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) Arts & Innovation District - Revised Building Concepts December 3, 2012 Page 22 of 22 ` Existing Ownership and Lease Map No revisions to this document have been made. It is provided for your information. 10 . b Pa c k e t P g . 2 9 5 Attachment: Attachment B: Revised Building Concepts (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) 1 PROPOSED ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT MASTER PLAN INFORMATION AND FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS (FAQ) Introduction__________________________________________________________________ The master plan for a potential Arts and Innovation District along El Camino Real and University Avenue, between Downtown Palo Alto and the main entrance to Stanford University is in its early stages. The plan is an opportunity to shape the project concept as proposed by developer and philanthropist John Arrillaga and address the City’s long-term needs to identify uses and enhance connections to Downtown, Stanford, and the Stanford Shopping Center, as anticipated and funded in the Stanford Hospital Projects Development Agreement. The City recognizes this is a unique moment to initiate planning for this area, especially if Mr. Arrillaga proceeds with a development application on the site. This plan and any associated projects will be subject to an open, public, and thorough review as they go forward, including an advisory vote by the Palo Alto electorate that is now planned for June 2013, early in the review process. When initially presented to Council in September, a vote in a March 2013, was suggested. It is clear that schedule would be too soon to allow enough initial public review. The concepts and plans for the Arts and Innovation District will evolve significantly with city commissions, city advisory boards and community input. This is an extremely important location in Palo Alto and there are many different objectives, opportunities, and impacts that must be reconciled appropriately. This is a prime location with the possibility to create a legacy project. The plan will need to be right for Palo Alto and the City’s future, if it is to occur. Recent Project Changes The initial Arts and Innovation District Master Plan concept was presented to the City Council on September 24th. Following Council feedback, staff engaged the Planning and Transportation (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) in public meetings and received additional community feedback in October and November. At the December 3, 2012 Council meeting, a number of changes to the original concept and Draft Master Plan will be presented. That will include new building heights, massing, and site layout plans and potential. That plan review and discussion will likely initiate analysis of additional ideas and perspectives. Additional details are provided in the FAQ section below and will be presented at the December 3rd City Council meeting. Key revisions are as follows: Reduced Office Building Heights and Mass: The previous version featured two larger office buildings, each of which had two towers. The current proposal reduces and separates the footprints of these office towers, only linking the buildings through pedestrian bridges. Building orientation has remained the same, with two towers facing University Avenue and two facing Theater Plaza. There are significant reductions to the height and mass of all buildings, with the exception of the western building facing Theater Plaza, which has been increased in height by 11’. The following table compares the version of the office buildings which was presented to the Council in September, with the current version that will be reviewed on December 3rd. University Ave. West Tower University Ave. East Tower Theater Plaza West Tower Theater Plaza East Tower 9/24 Version 10 stories (150.5') 9 stories (136') 6 stories (92.5') 7 stories (107') 12/3 Version 7 stories (103.5') 6 stories (89') 7 stories (103') 6 stories (89') 10.c Packet Pg. 296 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 2 Reduced Overall Office Square Footage: The overall amount floor area of the office buildings has been reduced from 260,000 to 210,300 square feet. This has been achieved by significantly reducing the footprints and/or heights of the buildings. Julia Morgan Hostess House Building in El Camino Park: In the revised master plan the historic Julia Morgan Hostess House is proposed to be relocated to El Camino Park between the soccer and softball fields. Future use of the Julia Morgan Hostess House building has not yet been determined, but the location in the park suggests a community-oriented use. New Lytton Bike and Pedestrian Underpass: The revised master plan concept includes a new pedestrian and bike underpass beneath the Caltrain right-of-way, at the terminus of Lytton Avenue (just north of the existing tunnel). This underpass adds a direct connection between Downtown, the Arts and Innovation District and Stanford Shopping Center. Dedicated Bike Route Connection: A new two-way, 10-foot wide dedicated bike route has been added to connect the proposed bike route north of the Caltrain station to the existing bike route south of the station. This would create a continuous bicycle network linking local and regional destinations, as well as directly linking bikes to transit. In addition to the revisions above, there have also been significant changes made to the configuration of dedicated parkland, to the relationship and integration between the theater and park, and to the overall landscaping plan. Additional research related to potential retail at the site has also been completed. All aspects of this new proposal will be elaborated upon at the December 3 City Council meeting. The following FAQ’s were requested by Council at their last meeting and are being assembled and made public by City staff to support understanding of the plan and respond to many of the questions being asked. The FAQs are not likely to cover all the questions about the project, and will be an evolving document, updated as the plan and the process move forward. More information about the project can be found on the City’s website: http://cityofpaloalto.org/artsandinnovation A. Master Plan Overview and Purpose 1. What is the purpose of the Arts and Innovation District? An Arts and Innovation District has been proposed for a key site that sits between Downtown Palo Alto and Stanford University. The site is approximately 4.3 acres in size and is owned by Stanford University. Bounded by University Avenue, El Camino Real, Alma Street and the rail corridor, and El Camino Real, the site has a history of master planning that goes back decades. The location is unique in Palo Alto in its commercial, cultural, transportation, economic, and social opportunities. The proposed master plan concept responds to a number of needs and opportunities that are inherent in the site:  A desire to improve the pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular linkages between Stanford University, Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford Hospital and the downtown business and residential areas of Palo Alto;  A need to modernize the transportation center to accommodate current and future demand and to facilitate easier and effective transit use that reduces auto traffic;  A desire to accommodate employment uses that spur innovation, in state-of-the-art facilities adjacent to transit, in a signature location in Silicon Valley; 10.c Packet Pg. 297 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 3  An opportunity to provide a performing arts theater (TheatreWorks) as a complement to Downtown. The Arrillaga proposal is philanthropically motivated, therefore it gives the City more latitude to explore creative opportunities and identify public benefits than would be possible with a typical development. This is a rare opportunity that the City may not encounter again for many years and merits consideration through the planning and review effort that is beginning to unfold. The preliminary concepts that have been prepared for the master plan envision a cohesive district with the performing arts theater, a collection of mid-rise office buildings, and ground floor commercial uses, a variety of open spaces, and a redesigned transit center. The proposed building program reflects the unique nature of the site, and would not be considered appropriate for any other location in Palo Alto. Preparing a master plan for the site allows the City to balance the range of elements and potential trade-offs in a comprehensive manner. The initial building heights proposed in the master plan reflect the financial yield to incent a wide range of possible public uses and benefits, as well as the functional requirements of the theater, along with the initial square footage Mr. Arrillaga was suggesting for the site. In exchange, the increased height allows a greater proportion of the site to be retained for open spaces and plazas. The ultimate height and form of the buildings in the district, however, will be further refined through the community input process. Transportation will be an important aspect of the master plan. While the project would be fully parked per zoning code requirement and would allow parking to be shared between uses, aggressive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures would be incorporated, to take advantage of the transit-rich location and to reduce and manage project impacts. A significant amount of parking could potentially be utilized by surrounding uses in Downtown as part of shared parking agreement negotiations with the property owner. The master plan process is ongoing, and will continue to be shaped by community input. These Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) provide information on key elements of the proposed plan and the review process. B. Site and Project History and Plan Description 1. What planning efforts for this area have preceded this effort? This site has been the focus of planning efforts nearly continuously since 1880. Three recent efforts are particularly important to the development of this master plan: (1) Multi-Modal Transit Station studies in 1993, 2002, and 2007, (2) a Performing Arts Initiative in 2000, and (3) the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement in 2011. These plans are posted on the City’s website. The transit and theater studies were not implemented, but provided valuable ideas and concepts to consider. The SUMC Development Agreement provided substantial impetus and funding to improve the bicycle and pedestrian connections from Downtown through the site and on to Stanford Shopping Center and the Medical Center and campus. The master plan incorporates the purposes and objectives of these efforts and addresses the deficiencies of the existing Intermodal Transit Station, but produces an alternative solution to those investigated by the Multi-Modal Transit Station Project Implementation Plan. 10.c Packet Pg. 298 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 4 This master planning process is different than prior efforts in that a potential plan for implementation (The Arrillaga proposal) could unfold in conjunction with the plan. Other plans, despite their ambitions, have “sat on the shelf” with little potential for real life implementation. 2. How was the current planning effort for this area initiated? In August of 2011, Mr. John Arrillaga, a well-known local developer and patron of many public and private community projects, who has built and donated over 90 buildings to Stanford and other schools and communities, approached the City to discuss the possibility of developing an office building at 27 University Avenue. Staff responded that this was a critical piece of land that should satisfy key community needs, such as facilitating connectivity, providing a community “sense of place,” and perhaps a live performance theater, given past interest and studies. The theater emerged as a potential key component of the proposal concept, and considerable work ensued to define the nature of public spaces and theater needs that may make the project viable. In March of 2012, the City Council authorized the use of Intermodal Transit Funds set aside in the Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement to initiate the study of a master plan concept for the areas around 27 University Avenue to understand how this area can better serve the City. The City embarked on a comprehensive master plan effort, with weekly meetings of staff, consultants and key players. City staff and consultants have been collaborating extensively with staff of the major public transit agencies, and with Stanford’s Marguerite planners, to create long-term, sustainable transit solutions serving Palo Alto, Stanford and the region. Representatives from TheatreWorks and the patron/developer have been involved to contribute to a full and accurate understanding of needs and opportunities for various uses. The City Council reviewed master plan concepts in a study session on September 24, 2012 and provided direction to staff to meet with boards and commissions. The Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and the Architectural Review Board (ARB) reviewed the master plan in a joint meeting and separate meetings. Also, in response to Council’s direction, the PTC and the ARB discussed height limits of buildings in Palo Alto in separate study sessions. Additional sessions are planned to present the concepts to and receive feedback from the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Historic Resources Board, as well as the broader community. There has been some criticism of the initial process employed by the City, as it worked to develop the foundation for a plan to present to the Council. The plan, however, has been intended only as the beginning point for the public review, dialogue, and discussion that is now unfolding. It was important that a starting point be established, as staff and consultant worked “behind the scenes” to generate ideas, recognizing they could not perfect the starting draft proposal. This was unavoidable, as the process included not only a master planning component but a simultaneous reaction to and consideration of a potential development proposal on the site. The plans will change and adapt as they move forward through the public process. The master plan concepts have continued to evolve to consider input from the public meetings. In response to input from the public, City Council, PTC and ARB, the most recent plan concepts will be presented at its December 3, 2012 City Council meeting, and will explore reducing the amount of office floor area and building height, refining the open space concepts, and further developing the connectivity network for pedestrians, bicycles, autos, and transit. The plans will also consider the relocation of Julia Morgan Hostess House building to El Camino Park and potential programming and uses at that location. 10.c Packet Pg. 299 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 5 3. What are the boundaries of this Master Plan? Why is this project commonly referred to as “27 University”? The initial development proposal only included office buildings on the 27 University Avenue site, and that site has been referred to as the site address for notification purposes. While the original proposal from Mr. Arrillaga focused primarily on the 27 University site, the City has now expanded the scope of the potential Arts & Innovation District planning effort to include the multimodal transit center, El Camino Park to the North and Urban Lane to the South. 4. What exactly is being proposed as part of this project (height of buildings, etc.)? And how does the current version of the Master Plan compare to the version presented to the City council in September? Below is a table that outlines the details key site data for both the September and December versions of the project. A more detailed description of the entire Master Plan can be found in the City Council staff report and will be presented to the City Council on December 3rd. September 24, 2012 December 03, 2012 Commercial Square Footage (gross): 262,580 210,300 Office Ground Floor 23,080 24,600 Office Floors Above Grade 239,500 185,700 Office Height(s): roof/mech roof/mech University Ave & Mitchell Lane Tower 136'-0" / 147'-0" 89'-0" / 99'-0" University Ave & El Camino Tower 150'-6" / 161'-6" 103'-6" / 113'-6" Quarry & El Camino Tower 92'-6" / 103'-6" 103'-6" / 113'-6" Quarry & Mitchell Lane Tower 107'-0" / 118'-0" 89'-0" / 99'-0" Office Number of Floors: University Ave & Mitchell Lane Tower 9 6 University Ave & El Camino Tower 10 7 Quarry & El Camino Tower 6 7 Quarry & Mitchell Lane Tower 7 6 Theater Square Footage (gross): 80,000 80,000 Ground Floor 35,000 35,000 Floors Above Grade 45,000 45,000 Fly Tower Height: 100 95 10.c Packet Pg. 300 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 6 C. Land Uses, Intensity, and Design 1. What are comparative building heights for existing buildings in Palo Alto? Yr Bldg Roof Highest Point 1929 480 University , President Hotel 80 ft - 1930 360 Forest , Casa Real 70 ft - 1931 Hoover Pavilion 50 ft 105 ft 1941 Hoover Tower 285 ft - 1942 Lucille Packard Children’s Hospital 98ft 114 ft 1943 Main Stanford Hospital 153 ft 180 ft 1958 101 Alma 123 ft 143 ft 1962 850 Webster , Channing House 142 ft - 1965 501 Forest, The Marc 152 ft - 1966 525 University - Bldg 237 ft - 1970 250 Hamilton , City Hall 122 ft - 1972 3000 El Camino Real Palo Alto Square 132 ft 143 ft 1975 180 Hamilton, Casa Olga/Hotel 76 ft - 2006 2050 University EPA ** Four Seasons 113 ft - 2013 101 Lytton 50 ft 70 ft 2013 Palo Alto HS Theater Fly Tower 80 ft - 2. How does the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for this project compare to other Palo Alto projects? Floor Area Ratio is a commonly used metric that compares building floor area to total lot area. In Palo Alto, non-residential development is allowed up to 2.0:1 FAR in certain commercial areas. However, many buildings shown in the table above were constructed decades ago with FARs that significantly exceed 2.0. Although the exact FAR will be determined as the project is refined through the public input process, it is expected that the overall Master Plan FAR will be approximately 2.0. 3. What will happen to the historic Julia Morgan Hostess House building? The building will be preserved and relocated to a new site in Palo Alto. John Arrillaga has indicated that he would move the building at his expense to a location of the City’s choosing. The City’s Parks and Recreation Commission formed an ad hoc committee to review relocating the Julia Morgan Hostess House building to several possible nearby locations. The Commission is scheduled to receive the presentation and discuss the concepts and concerns at its November 27, 2012 meeting. City staff is evaluating options that could move the building to El Camino Park, retaining the soccer and ball-fields and giving the building road frontage on El Camino Real. This relocation could allow for various not-for-profit, youth and community activities to occur in this building. Numerous ideas for programming at the site are being suggested by community members. 10.c Packet Pg. 301 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 7 4. What type of open/plaza space is being proposed? The signature open space would be a theater plaza designed as a vibrant public place, providing a setting for a new performing arts center and office buildings. It would be intended as a new downtown civic destination for visitors and the Palo Alto community in the downtown, visible from El Camino Real, El Camino Park and Stanford Shopping Center, and would incorporate outdoor seating, landscaping, and other pedestrian amenities adjacent to ground floor retail and service space. A new meadow is proposed to feature the redwood trees that celebrate Palo Alto Olympians facing El Camino Real. The Transit Ring Road would shape a pair of symmetrical landscaped parks forming the terminus of Palm Drive and entrance to Downtown, and roadways would be lined with shade trees and wide sidewalks. A new depot plaza is envisioned north of the existing historic train depot, where the proposed pedestrian and bicycle tunnel connects the project to Lytton Avenue. 5. Why is Office use being proposed, rather than Residential? Office and Residential uses both benefit from proximity to transit, though studies show that office users are more likely to use transit when nearby than residents. Many employers are seeking locations close to transit so that employees do not need to drive to work, thereby minimizing traffic impacts. Office use is being proposed in the Arts and Innovation District in order to accommodate demand in Palo Alto for state-of-the-art office space. Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Economics Element Goal B-3 encourages “new business(es) that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the City’s physical environment.” The intention is to provide office space that can accommodate innovative new businesses, and/or allow existing Palo Alto employers to grow and remain in town, adjacent to transit. Neither Stanford or Mr. Arrillaga have indicated a willingness to build housing on the site. 6. Why are the buildings being proposed at this height? Given the objectives to maximize open space, increase transit center capacity and have a state- of-the-art performing arts theater, the developer has proposed constructing buildings that exceed the City’s height standards. The increased height allows for smaller building footprints and more room for open space, the transit center and theater. The ultimate building heights, however, remain under consideration and will be refined through the community input process. This is a unique site in that it is relatively large, and therefore buildings can be set back farther from the street than many other infill developments. Being adjacent to El Camino Real, a roadway much wider than other Palo Alto roadways, also creates a design context that can support greater building heights. Staff does not expect to support other new buildings in Palo Alto exceeding 5 stories in height, since they do not share the distinctive size and locational attributes that this site has, in addition to the public benefits that could accrue. 7. What are the implications of building more office space on complying with Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) mandates? ABAG’s housing and employment projections are based on regional and sub-regional estimates, and already assume substantial employment growth in the City through 2040, sufficient to accommodate what is proposed on this and other sites. It is unlikely that ABAG’s projected housing needs would change based on office growth in Palo Alto. For example, currently ABAG projects 29,000 new jobs in Palo Alto by 2040, whereas this project is estimated to generate about 1,000-1,500 jobs. Housing projections are based on the employment estimates, so they would not increase based on this project. 10.c Packet Pg. 302 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 8 8. If this proposal were to be denied, would the property remain undeveloped moving forward? The location makes this a very attractive potential development site. Therefore it is highly improbable that the land would remain unchanged for an extensive period. However, the type of development that could be proposed on this site in the future is not known and would depend on market conditions at the time. The site is owned by Stanford University and its representatives have not indicated intent for development in the near future. Any development that proceeds would necessarily be a Stanford endorsed and supported development. The current proposal is not a typical development proposal, however, as it includes philanthropic components, including the theater, the bike/pedestrian connections, realignment of the transit hub, and open space areas, as well as an intent to donate lease revenue to the University. As a cooperative venture, there is potential in this possible proposal, as the City could meet more community valued objectives in this proposal than are likely to be offered in future proposals. 9. How does this relate to the Citywide and Downtown development cap? This project site falls outside the official Downtown Commercial Study Area, and therefore does not “count against” the Downtown development cap as described in the Municipal Code. However, the downtown development cap study, which will begin in early 2013, will take this project into consideration of parking and traffic impacts in the area. Any environmental document associated with this development will take existing and proposed downtown development into consideration, too. Finally, this project must be factored into the Citywide development cap as established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. D. Traffic Impacts 1. Have any traffic studies been prepared for the Plan? What were the results? A Preliminary Traffic Assessment has been prepared to estimate potential traffic and transportation-related impacts associated with the master plan concept. A complete traffic analysis would be prepared as part of an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process. Preliminarily, up to 3,000 new vehicle trips per day may be realized by the project between the proposed office and theatre uses, prior to any reductions from Transportation Demand Management solutions. This traffic would include 310 new trips during the AM commute period and another 328 trips during the PM peak period. Potential new roadway improvements include an extension of Quarry Road east of El Camino Real into the site as well as improvements to the existing Mitchell Lane and the circular road around University Avenue. Significant Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures will be incorporated as a critical will be a critical feature in this project (see examples of dramatic Stanford reductions in vehicle trips in recent years) and mitigating traffic impacts will be a key requirement of the plan. 2. What percentage of site users is expected to drive to this area, as compared to taking alternative modes of transportation? The master plan includes expanded Transportation Demand Management (TDM) elements for the project to promote the use of alternative transportation modes, such as transit and bicycling. While a large percentage of people will still drive, the anticipated total alternative mode shift for the project is estimated to range from 25-40%, reflecting transit use, walking and biking, and carpool use (based on data available from nearby Stanford University and the Stanford University Medical Center developments). The higher end of the range of alternative transportation usage is expected given the proximity to the transit center. In general, the closer 10.c Packet Pg. 303 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 9 employees are to a transit station, the more likely they are to take transit. Several large office users in the Palo Alto-Mountain View area are now reporting alternative mode use of 30-40% for their employees, with integrated TDM programs. 3. How much parking will be provided? Will the project be “fully parked”? The master plan concept includes three levels of underground parking accommodating more than 850-900 automobiles. Additional surface and drop-off parking adjacent to the theater for performances is also proposed. The project is expected to meet the parking requirements set for in the Municipal Code, and in fact, may exceed the required parking requirements. In addition, aggressive Transportation Demand Management requirements would be placed on the project in order to reduce the demand for parking spaces by increasing alternative transportation use. Given the proximity to the transit center, it is expected that a higher percentage of commuters will use transit, especially if given incentives (for example, free transit passes). Unused spaces could potentially be used by surrounding downtown uses through negotiations with the developer. 4. Most Palo Alto residents do not use transit. How would an expanded transit center benefit the Palo Alto majority who drive to work and shop? Thousands of people use the Palo Alto Transit Center every day. In fact, Caltrain use in Palo Alto has expanded by 15% over the past year and will continue to expand over the coming decades. If the Palo Alto station cannot accommodate demand, local roadways will be further impacted, as the percentage of people driving will increase. This would result in longer wait times on roadways and stoplights. The traffic study that will be required for this project will estimate the number of car trips and vehicle miles travelled that will be reduced because of transit. Staff expects, however (and the traffic study will evaluate), that improvements to the transit center will enhance transit use not only for trips to and from the project site, but also to many trips unrelated to the development proposal. E. Transit, Bicycle and Pedestrian Opportunities and Impacts 1. How many daily riders utilize Caltrain, bus transfers, and Marguerite at the Downtown Palo Alto multimodal station? The University Avenue Caltrain station has the highest volume of any stop on the Caltrain line, with the exception of the terminus in San Francisco. Over 4,600 Caltrain riders board or unload from the station on an average weekday, a 15% increase over the past year (Source: February 2012 Caltrain Annual Passenger Counts). Over 2,500 Marguerite riders use the station on an average weekday, providing connections with Caltrain and other public transit facilities such as the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) and Samtrans. 2. What is the growth capacity of the transit services at the Downtown Palo Alto multimodal station in the short-term and long-term? The existing VTA transit mall and University Loop is not sufficient to meet current transit demand. This Master Plan expands existing capacity from 21 bus stops and layovers to 32 stops and layovers. This provides 12 for Marguerite shuttles and 20 for the transit agencies, per Stanford, VTA and Samtrans requests for near-term capacity. Long-term, additional bus capacity can be accommodated along Urban Lane with bus stops and layovers extending adjacent to the Caltrain tracks. 10.c Packet Pg. 304 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10 3. What is the expected cost for building out the transit center without the Arts and Innovation projects? The March 2007 Multi-Modal Transit Station Project Implementation Plan estimated the cost to produce the solution identified in that report as $281 million dollars. The concept of the transit center is significantly different from the 2007 version, however. The estimated cost of this new effort apart from the rest of the development is not known at this time but is expected to be significantly less. 4. What options are available for providing enhanced bicycle and pedestrian opportunities through the site? The master plan is intended to improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity between the Stanford Shopping Center and Downtown Palo Alto by providing new continuous sidewalk connections, trail elements, and an expanded tunnel between the project site and Downtown. The trails could provide for off-street bicycle and pedestrian facilities along with share-the-road treatments. The master plan proposes a new pedestrian and bicycle underpass under the Caltrain tracks at Lytton Avenue The plan anticipates a wider tunnel than the existing cross platform tunnel to improve accessibility under the tracks. Continuity of the bicycle lane through the transit center area of the concept plan was identified as an issue at the September 24, 2012 City Council meeting. Connection of the bike trail to the trail that runs from the Homer tunnel to Palo Alto High School and to the bike trail that heads west up Sand Hill Road at El Camino Real is included in the revised master plan. This opportunity has been studied further and will be presented again to the City Council at its December 3, 2012 meeting. F. Economic Benefits 1. How would the Plan/project affect the City’s property tax base from increased assessments for the extensive office use? Several impacts to revenues are anticipated if the concepts outlined become an actual project. The improvements to the site would generate approximately $100,000-$150,000 annually to the City in additional property tax. If the project proceeds, an economic impact analysis would accompany the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to sharpen these estimates and to include an estimate for Utility Users Tax and multipliers such as transient-occupancy tax and additional sales tax generated by theater patrons, employees, and transit users. Such a study would also calculate the increased costs related to City services needed to serve the project. 2. What benefits might be realized based on economic multipliers received from theater patrons? What economic impact could this project have on the surrounding area? According to a recent national study by Americans for the Arts, “the typical arts attendee spends $27.79 per person, per event (not including the cost of admission) on items such as meals, parking, shopping, and babysitters.” A more local-specific multiplier would be calculated as part of an economic impact analysis. By making the space attractive for users, a unique connection can be made between Downtown, Stanford and the Shopping Center. The creation of such a space can benefit the City in several ways. Employees populating the offices and theater at the Arts & Innovation District would vitalize the space through their regular daytime presence. Events and performances will bring the nighttime visitors. They all have the potential to become consumers for the products and services offered by the ground floor uses, as well as to the Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center. Given the proximity to transit, there are most likely 10.c Packet Pg. 305 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 11 less impacts (e.g., traffic, parking) necessary to create benefits for the City (e.g., additional vitality and tax revenues). 3. What is the potential tax revenue benefit for retail uses on the site? Based on rough estimates compiled using data from nearby retail, staff estimates that sales tax from 23,000 square feet of gross retail space could generate between $80,000-$100,000 per year for the City. 4. What are the philanthropic and not-for-profit aspects of the proposal? The theater would be constructed to accommodate a non-profit theater company, a major benefit to the City and the regional community, and the Plaza would become public property. While the theater would be in use by TheatreWorks for many days during the year, their model also includes important educational programming and opportunities for other uses of the theater. In addition, the space freed up at Lucie Stern Community Center, if TheatreWorks moves to this site, could provide valuable space for performances and other uses at Lucie Stern for other educational, arts, and recreational users. The Theater could cost as much as $100 million. The lease revenues from the office buildings would be dedicated to Stanford University, in Mr. Arrillaga’s intial proposal. 5. How would the project be leveraged for enhanced investment in the transit center? The project design offers several opportunities to make significant improvements to the transit center capacity and flow, and to pedestrian/ bicycle network and connections envisioned as part of the project and part of the Stanford University Medical Center commitment. G. El Camino Park 1. What is the history of El Camino Park? What efforts have been made to integrate the park with the theater plaza and project? El Camino Park is Palo Alto’s oldest park and was established in 1914, when City leaders wanted an open and attractive entryway into town at the southern gateway of El Camino Real. The park is on Stanford property. Palo Alto signed a lease with the University in 1915 and to this day continues to lease the land from Stanford. (Source: City of Palo Alto website at: http://archive.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/csd/news/details.asp?NewsID=105&TargetID=14) The City passed a Parkland ordinance that resulted in the current boundaries of the park. Approximately a half acre area of this parkland is configured in a narrow area (landscape strip) that stretches south along El Camino Real and has not been used for park uses for the past 98 years. As part of the presentation to the City Council on September 24, 2012, the reconfiguration of the narrow area was proposed to allow office functions to reside in that area and better utilize the resulting consolidated parkland area. The theater is proposed to encroach into the Park area, but is considered compatible with the parkland. At the September 24, 2012 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to identify possible synergies between the 27 University Master Plan concepts and the plans for the renovation and improvement of El Camino Park. The possible integration concepts will be presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission on November 27, 2012, and the City Council on December 3, 2012. 10.c Packet Pg. 306 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 12 2. Why is a modification to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance required? A portion of El Camino Park would be “undedicated” to accommodate the driveway access from Quarry Road across the landscape strip and barren land, and the landscape strip will now be incorporated into the office project. Neither of those areas currently provides recreational or cultural opportunities, and the theater and plaza areas would more than compensate for the lost area. H. Review and Approval Process, Community Input and Public Vote 1. What approval steps will be involved with the plan and project? How and when will environmental review take place? The plan and project will require, at a minimum, the following reviews and approvals:  Public vote on the project/plan concept (advisory) and the parkland “undedication”  Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to be prepared if the project proceeds following the vote, which will require public review, recommendation by the Planning and Transportation Commission, and City Council  Rezoning of the site to the Arts & Innovation District, requiring public review, recommendations from various boards and commissions, and the Planning and Transportation Commission, prior to final action by the City Council  Design review by the Architectural Review Board, prior to zoning review and approval by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council 2. Why would this plan have a public vote? An advisory vote would gauge the community's support for this significant project, prior to more detailed analysis and architecture. This is a large and complex project that will require departures from existing land use policy, and Council and staff acknowledge the need to solicit community input through the vote, formalizing community participation well beyond the various meetings and review sessions that must occur. The advisory vote will help the Council and other stakeholders determine whether or not the community perceives that the public benefits from the potential project would outweigh the resulting land use impacts. 3. How is input from the community being gathered for this plan? A number of public meetings have been held to review and provide input on the master plan concept:  City Council Meeting – April 9, 2012  City Council Meeting – September 24, 2012  Joint ARB/PTC Meeting – October 24, 2012  PTC Meeting – October 24, 2012  ARB Meeting – November 1, 2012  Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting – November 27, 2012  Historic Resources Board Meeting – December 5, 2012 These are all preliminary meetings. The City Council will meet on December 3, 2012, to consider the evolving master plan concepts, developed in response to public meetings thus far. An extensive community outreach process will continue prior to the public vote in June 2013 (if Council determines that date is appropriate) and substantial further community input and board 10.c Packet Pg. 307 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 13 and commission review would follow (as outlined in #1 above) if the Council moves forward after the advisory vote. 4. What would the public be voting on? The public would be asked to consider whether the City Council should: (1) initiate a change in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to facilitate the potential project and (2) exchange the unused "panhandle" portion of El Camino Park for more usable portion of adjacent land to facilitate better site planning for the potential project. An advisory vote is not binding on the City Council, but the Council will consider the results before taking major actions. 5. If the public votes yes on this project, would it be automatically approved? No. In addition to the public vote, there will be community meetings, workshops and public hearings in front of boards, commissions and the Council. In addition, a full scale environmental impact report and associated entitlements will need to be examined and scheduled for public hearings. The vote would simply advise the Council whether the community wishes to proceed with the formal review process. 10.c Packet Pg. 308 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t C : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t F A Q ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM 9/24/12 COUNCIL MEETING – ARTS AND ENTERNTAINMENT DISTRICT 1 Comment Response 1. The process lacks transparency and needs review by city commissions and boards (Planning and Transportation Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, ARB, etc.) to inform Council decision-making. Explain the process. Pages 4-9 of the City Manager Report (CMR) describes the review by the city commissions and boards to date, and the additional review that is anticipated. 2. Need neighborhood/community outreach plan and input on intermodal terminal and master plan Members of the community are encouraged to attend commission and board meetings where the master plan is being reviewed. In addition, a community workshop is envisioned in January. The “Open Town Hall” feature on the City’s website could provide an additional forum for community input. 3. Need to address building heights – try taking top floor office that is smaller in area off, reduce floor-to-floor heights, increase building mass 10- 20% to reduce number of floors. Describe building footprint v. building height. The massing and building heights in the master plan continues to evolve in response to community input. Pages 10-12 of the CMR describes the most recent revisions to the master plan concept including massing and building heights. 4. Need to affirm council commitment to 50-foot height limit citywide (and address downtown application issues for minor adjustments to 50 foot limit), and have this before council before revisiting the project This issue of the 50-foot citywide building height is related to the Arts & Innovation District Master Plan concept, but it is also a larger community issue that extends beyond the master plan. Discussion of the citywide building heights is ongoing as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update. Recent board and commission meetings that have discussed the issue are summarized on pages 8-9 of the CMR. 5. Park swap need discussion, doesn’t seem equal if trading park land for streets, plaza not same as park The parkland swap is discussed on pages 13 and 18 of the CMR. 6. Relocate Julia Morgan in El Camino Park (if teen center, not isolated, public comment -- special needs pediatric care center?) The potential relocation of the Julia Morgan building is discussed on page 12 of the CMR. 7. Present project for what it is, it is not in scale/compatible with downtown The first step to determining what type of development is appropriate for any location is referring to Comprehensive Plan policies. There are a number of applicable policies, however several policies have particular relevance and are listed in Attachment K: Commissioner Questions and Staff Responses 10 24 12. In addition, this site has a history of master planning that goes back decades. Any proposed development for the site needs to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the spirit of the master planning efforts. 8. Public needs more information to weigh concrete benefits and impacts The City has prepared Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) that outlines key aspects of the proposed master plan concept. 9. What are city resource impacts, revenue impacts? Page 20 of the CMR provide an overview of potential city resource impacts and revenue impacts. 10. What are the direct/indirect economic development benefits? The FAQ provides a discussion of potential direct and indirect economic development benefits of the proposed master plan. 11. What are the timeline and costs and cost allocations? The FAQ, as well as page 10 of the CMR, provide discussions of the timeline for the master plan. 10.d Packet Pg. 309 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : M a t r i x o f R e s p o n s e s t o C o u n c i l ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM 9/24/12 COUNCIL MEETING – ARTS AND ENTERNTAINMENT DISTRICT 2 12. Need traffic analysis before the advisory measure. The FAQ, as well as pages 15-16 of the CMR describes the preliminary traffic assessment for the master plan has been prepared. A Complete Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) would be prepared as part of an Environmental Impact Review (EIR) process. 13. Need parking study – sufficient parking, if use Caltrain parking will Caltrain demand spill over into downtown, avoid neighborhood impacts Parking is discussed in the FAQ. The master plan concept includes three levels of underground parking accommodate between 850 to 900 automobiles. The master plan concept anticipates sharing parking between compatible uses where peak parking demands are at different times. Parking would be evaluated as part of the EIR process. 14. TheatreWorks LOI need to revisit language in more general way re: have availability for public use without impacting performance The TheatreWorks Letter of Intent (LOI) continues to be refined along with the master plan concept. A Draft LOI is included with the CMR as Attachment T. 15. Downtown development cap – what is impact on cap, how to reconcile the scale of this project? This site falls outside the official Downtown Commercial Study Area, and therefore does not “count against” the Downtown development cap as described in the Municipal Code. However, the downtown development cap study, which will begin in early 2013, will take this project into consideration of parking and traffic impacts in the area. Any environmental document associated with this development will take existing and proposed downtown development into consideration, too. Finally, this project must be factored into the Citywide development cap as established in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. 16. Need define type of retail tenants in master plan, how it will be managed/designed? Need to think of it like shopping center to support placemaking Study of the retail component is ongoing. Staff recently met with three different retail development experts to discuss the potential for the ground floor uses at the site. The findings are described in the FAQ. 17. Redesign pedestrian/bike Lytton tunnel to be like Homer tunnel Pedestrian and bicycle paths are discussed on pages 12-13 of the CMR, as well as the FAQ. 18. Close gap in bike routes through transit center The master plan concept has been revised to provide a continuous bike route through the transit center. It is discussed on pages 12-13 of the CMR, as well as the FAQ. 19. Revisit surface parking impacts at El Camino Park The El Camino Park plan would be revised in coordination with the Arts and Innovation District Master Plan. The current concept for El Camino Park including its surface parking is discussed on pages 12 and 18 of the CMR, as well as the FAQ. 20. Revisit design for walking connection from downtown to project Pedestrian and bicycle paths are discussed on pages 12-13 of the CMR, as well as the FAQ. 21. Include TDM in project mitigations The master plan includes expanded Transportation Demand Management (TDM) elements to promote the use of alternative transportation modes, such as transit and bicycling. TDM is discussed in the FAQ. 22. Consider amenities attractive to 20-30 year old techies, such as roof top terraces The current master plan uses and amenities are described on pages 11-15 of the CMR. The master plan is evolving, and amenities would continue to evolve if a development project is submitted under the master plan. 23. Improve existing Caltrain ramps and tunnels, existing is so undesirable Pedestrian and bicycle paths are discussed on pages 12-13 of the CMR, as well as the FAQ. 10.d Packet Pg. 310 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : M a t r i x o f R e s p o n s e s t o C o u n c i l ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM 9/24/12 COUNCIL MEETING – ARTS AND ENTERNTAINMENT DISTRICT 3 24. Resolve transit operations and capacity with agencies and Stanford Transit operations are discussed in the FAQ. The current master plan concept expands existing capacity from 21 bus stops and layovers to 32 stops and layovers. This provides 12 for Marguerite shuttles and 20 for the transit agencies, per Stanford, VTA and Samtrans request for near-term capacity. 25. Address loss of significant trees The CMR discusses landscape concepts on pages 14-15. The master plan will include a landscape plan, which would address existing trees on the site as well as new trees and landscaping. Any project submitted under the master plan would also be required to have a landscape plan. 26. Consider how to create broader Arts District that links to Stanford’s facilities, such as the Bing Center Path and roadway connections to Stanford are discussed on pages 12-13 of the CMR. 27. Explore how to leverage dollars to create connections across the tracks The FAQ includes discussion of funding sources and strategies for transportation site improvements. 28. Want fly over animation like Stanford Medical Center The Stanford Medical Center proposal was a project submittal, whereas the Arts and Innovation Master Plan is a planning effort and is more conceptual. The master plan puts less emphasis on the specific building architecture than would be found with a project submittal. However, a project subsequently submitted under the master plan would be expected to utilize a range of visual tools as it undergoes design review, possibly including fly-over animation. 29. Clarify no indirect ABAG impact by project that will increase housing allocation The FAQ discusses the ABAG mandates. ABAG’s housing and employment projections are based on regional and sub-regional estimates, and already assume substantial employment growth in the City through 2040, sufficient to accommodate what is proposed on this and other sites. It is unlikely that ABAG’s projected housing needs would change based on office growth in Palo Alto. 30. How will theater lease work with Stanford so no concern of loosing lease Stanford and TheatreWorks will be responsible for an agreement for the theater lease. TheatreWorks has indicated it would need to have an agreement in place to secure funding for its capital campaign. 31. Expect to see revisions to master plan with input from boards and commissions at next council session on this topic The master plan concept has been revised to reflect input from the Council, boards, commissions, and community member correspondence. The revisions are described on pages 10-15 of the CMR. 32. Focus on "Hostess House" and include it in the Master Plan Siting of the Julia Morgan Hostess House is ongoing, with coordination between the master plan and the El Camino Real Park planning. A concept to relocate the building to El Camino Park is described in page 12 of the CMR, and will be further considered by the Historic Resources Board at its December 5th meeting. 33. What have we done to ensure that the retail will be utilized and full of activity? Staff recently met with three different retail development experts to discuss the potential for the ground floor uses at the site. The findings are described on page 13 of the CMR. 10.d Packet Pg. 311 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : M a t r i x o f R e s p o n s e s t o C o u n c i l ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) SUMMARY OF COMMENTS FROM 9/24/12 COUNCIL MEETING – ARTS AND ENTERNTAINMENT DISTRICT 4 34. This is a great opportunity to create something of historic proportions The master plan process is intended to recognize the importance of the site and opportunities. 35. Concern of conflicts of interest Conflict of interest protocols apply to the master plan, as it would any other project submittal or planning process. 36. Why weren't the neighborhoods involved in meetings? Council, commission, and board meetings have been the primary engagement venues for the planning process to date. A communtiy workshop is envisioned for January. 37. Please think bigger -- a bond issue to match Mr. Arrillaga's contribution to underground the tracks. The master plan encompasses the Stanford lands, El Camino Park, and the transit center. Undergrounding the rail tracks would be part of an overall rail corridor strategy that would extend beyond the master plan boundaries. The Council and community could consider a bond issue for rail corridor improvements independently, but the master plan is not contingent upon rail corridor improvements. 38. Why is there no housing in the Master Plan? Office and Residential uses both benefit from proximity to transit, though studies show that office users are more likely to use transit when nearby than residents. Office use is being proposed in the Arts and Innovation District in order to accommodate demand in Palo Alto for state-of- the-art office space. 39. What is the process between now and the election? The FAQ, as well as page 10 of the CMR, provide discussions of the timeline for the Advisory Measure. 40. When is the citywide height limit going to be discussed with Council? There have been two study sessions since September 24, 2012 Council meeting regarding the City’s height limit. There is interest in exploring where additional height might be acceptable, given existing context and planning documents for housing growth. Additional public outreach is envisioned. The process to change the text in the Comprehensive Plan regarding height, and the height limit in any particular zone district, would involve reviews and actions by the ARB, PTC and Council. 41. Who is paying for the different parts of this project? The master plan is being funded through the use of Intermodal Transit Funds set aside in the Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement. The processing of any project application submitted under the master plan would be funded by application fees. 42. Describe the parking. Will it be available to the public? The FAQ discusses parking for the master plan. 43. Better describe the parkland swap. Include the map. Be clear about the uses on the parkland and the plaza. Diagrams of the parkland swap are included in Attachments A and B. Proposed uses of the parkland and plazas are described on pages 14-15 of the CMR, and in the FAQ. 10.d Packet Pg. 312 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t D : M a t r i x o f R e s p o n s e s t o C o u n c i l ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 1 of 14 Thursday, October 4, 2012 1 REGULAR MEETING – 8:30 A.M. 2 City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 3 250 Hamilton Avenue 4 Palo Alto, California 94301 5 6 ROLL CALL: 7 Board members: Staff Liaison: 8 Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner 9 Alexander Lew 10 Randy Popp Staff: 11 Lee Lippert Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 12 Naseem Alizadeh Amy French, Chief Planning Official 13 Jason Nortz, Planner 14 15 STUDY SESSION: 16 1. Preliminary Consideration of the City’s Building Height Limit: This is a 17 preliminary discussion intended to meet Council’s directive for ARB 18 consideration of the City’s limitation on building height, particularly the 50 foot 19 limit of several zone districts and as noted in Comprehensive Plan Program L-3: 20 “Maintain and periodically review height and density limits to discourage single 21 uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to surrounding uses.” 22 23 Chair Malone Prichard: This is a Preliminary Consideration of the City’s Building Height Limit. 24 This is a preliminary discussion intended to meet Council’s directive for ARB consideration of 25 the City’s limitation on building height, particularly the 50 foot limit of several zone districts and 26 as noted in Comprehensive Plan Program L-3: “Maintain and periodically review height and 27 density limits to discourage single uses that are inappropriate in size and scale to surrounding 28 uses.” Amy do you have anything to kick this off? 29 30 Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes. I’d like to let you know, and I think I did 31 describe this in a cover memo that would have come to you about the 27 University project; just 32 to be clear: we’re not today discussing the 27 University project. The direction from the Council, 33 when they were looking at the project, was for both the ARB and Planning and Transportation 34 Commission to consider the City wide height limit, which is 50 feet. There are many zones that 35 allow 50 feet, and then many that don’t allow 40 feet. The ones that don’t allow that height are 36 generally next to residential neighborhoods. And even though we have some next to residential 37 neighborhoods, such as the CS district along El Camino, when it is within 150 feet of residential 38 it’s brought down to 35 feet. So I would direct you to the two maps on the wall. The one on the 39 left is all of the zones except for the PF or Public Facility zones that allow for a 50 foot height 40 limit. The map on the right is with PF or Public Facility zones added, so you can see that quite a 41 bit of the City is zoned Public Facility - the largest area being the Baylands, which is also Public 42 Facilities with a D overlay. 43 10.e Packet Pg. 313 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 2 of 14 So that was just a bit of background. You did receive the 27 University CMR to the Council 1 which did note that downtown does have buildings taller than 50 feet, most approved in the 60s 2 and early 70s. And so I did notate in that report the approximate height or number of stories. And 3 so I’ll tell you that last night that came up with the Planning and Transportation Commission and 4 I was requested to come up with a map and elevations showing those buildings side by side as if 5 they were in a streetscape together so it could be seen in relative heights; so we’ll see how I do 6 with that with maybe Google street view or something. 7 8 Unfortunately, I don’t have the time to get that together for today but I did request if Judith could 9 help me out a bit with a presentation tonight. I haven’t had a chance to speak with her but she 10 did come today. I also want to call attention to the article I sent, which you probably saw when it 11 came out in 2004, but it’s a nice reminder of the intersection of building code and planning code. 12 The ARB has had discussions in the past about is 50 feet really this number, the thing we should 13 care about, or should we be looking at number of stories, and should we consider the quality of 14 the ceiling heights and all that? I thought that would be helpful to bring that part into focus. 15 16 So again, not a lot of presentation on my behalf but I know you’re up to the task of discussing 17 height and we do have a field trip at 10:00 with the Planning and Transportation Commission so 18 you have nearly an hour to go over this as you might. I don’t know if there’s anyone in the 19 public to bring this up. Aaron would you like to comment on your experience? For instance, I 20 was hearing lately that Burlingame adjusted their height limit up to 55 feet and that kind of goes 21 along with what was in this article about how once you have to put a concrete floor in it goes up 22 to 55 feet but I don’t know if, with your experience… 23 24 Mr. Aaron Aknin: I think a lot of cities are going through the same issues. They are trying to 25 align their zoning codes with building codes just to have smarter design and better design. At the 26 ARB retreat we spoke about street width and what does that play into building height and how 27 do we look at a relationship between street width and building height so there are a number of 28 great issues we can dive into today and communicate back to the City Council. 29 30 Chair Malone Prichard: Are there any members of the public to speak about this item? 31 32 Ms. French: [Former ARB Chair] Judith Wasserman did send me a Power Point presentation I’d 33 like to find and load up. This is one of the things that I was interested in, because we have quite 34 a history about the 50 foot height limit in this town, and I know Judith’s been around a while 35 living here… 36 37 Ms. Judith Wasserman: This is a Study Session isn’t it? So I’m not making presentations. I’m 38 just having a little chat. When I looked the Staff Report for 27 University included a list of 39 addresses of all of the over 50 foot buildings in town and I Googled the ones that were all around 40 here. I left out Palo Alto Square because it didn’t seem relevant but one thing I noticed as I went 41 through them and they had dates about when they were built is as the buildings got more recent, 42 they generally got uglier which made me think about the history of the IR Ordinance which was 43 10.e Packet Pg. 314 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 3 of 14 generated on what we call “Monster Houses” and we’ve been instructed to not call them 1 “Monster Houses” because each one had a happy owner. 2 3 But the conclusion that we came to was small and ugly was better than big and ugly and if we 4 weren’t going to be able to legislate aesthetics on houses we should at least keep them to a 5 decent size so I think that the Height Ordinance was not a reaction to a height problem but a 6 reaction to a perceived ugliness problem. Also there was a huge project in the works for where 7 PAMF was going to move out. PAMF was originally going to build an enormous medical 8 building where it was. I think they were going to build it on the parking lot and then take the old 9 building down or something. The outcry over that, because it was in a residential neighborhood, 10 was so great that not only did they give up on the idea but they moved out of there entirely, sold 11 their properties, built the less than wonderful project on El Camino and generated the SOFA 12 process, and Lee can tell you the history of that one. It was very long and very acrimonious. So 13 the height limit was kind of coming out of that original plan that the medical foundation had so I 14 think that in the grand old John Northway tradition, we need to identify the problem before we 15 go ahead and solve it. 16 17 If the problem is defined as the Manhattanization of Palo Alto, I think some people ought to visit 18 Manhattan but if everybody says okay, we just don’t want the city to really grow tall. I think this 19 article from San Francisco was really excellent in that it pointed out the unintended 20 consequences of an arbitrary number. It seems to me that there are two ways that you can 21 address that problem. One is the way he described which is a story limit because the technology 22 building has increased the interstitial spaces between ceilings and floors. If you go back as 23 recently as the 50s and 60s, the old Stanford Hospital was built without air conditioning. The 24 floor to floor heights are 11 feet and you can’t fit anything in the interstitial spaces. There’s no 25 space there so we don’t do that anymore. 26 27 We just had a project, I can talk about it right? Because I’m not on the Board. Chop Keenan’s 28 project, where he needed height for his retail space and the article speaks to that, that we like 29 retail spaces that are tall. We like tall ceilings and if we’re going to have a floor area ratio that 30 governs how many square feet you can have on your floor plate, how many people are going to 31 do a ten by ten building that’s 100 feet high? Not too many. So the FAR governs pretty much 32 how high things are going to get. Maybe the project will be a little bit narrower and taller in 33 order to have some nice pedestrian plaza space or something but we’re not going to get into giant 34 buildings on the basis of just not having a magic number. 35 36 The PowerPoint I had sent Amy just showed all these buildings around here kind of in 37 chronological order I think starting with the President Hotel or something and ending up with 38 this which is not my favorite building; the thing down on Cowper and University. It’s not 39 anything new. Everyone has seen these buildings, 101 Alma. I couldn’t get pictures of 101 40 Alma because it’s hidden behind the trees. Nobody knows how tall that building is. It’s set back 41 and it’s got trees around it. Nobody even thinks about it when they think about tall buildings in 42 Palo Alto. They think about this one and they think about the one down there. Even Casa Olga 43 nobody cares about. Nobody says tear it down. So I think you have to look at how visible it is, 44 10.e Packet Pg. 315 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 4 of 14 how ugly it is and what effect it has on its surroundings. Is it casting horrible shadows? Stuff 1 that’s on your list of things to think about. 2 3 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. I have a question for Amy. Amy, can you give us an idea 4 of what the maximum floor area ratio is, just off the top of your head. I know we’ve got one to 5 one in a lot of the downtown area which certainly limits how tall anyone would build. Are there 6 areas where we have more than one to one floor area ratio? 7 8 Ms. French: Yes. In the downtown we allow three to one (3.0:1) FAR but it’s hard to get there 9 because it needs to be accomplished by providing the parking on site which is hard to do for 10 most sites, transferable development rights which carries up to 5,000 square feet with no 11 associated parking requirement and a grandfathered building that never provided the parking or 12 was assessed for parking, etc., so this is a tough nut to get to three to one downtown so that’s the 13 maximum; otherwise its two to one downtown achieved with bonuses, etc. 14 15 Board Member Popp: The three to one, does that include one to one for housing or two to one 16 for commercial and one to one for housing or is it fully three to one for commercial? 17 18 Ms. French: There are some buildings downtown that are already three to one. New construction 19 I would say, the easier way to get there would be to provide housing, because you do get a one to 20 one for housing and a one to one for commercial. So the downtown zoning C-D district allows 21 for that three to one. So then we have the Comprehensive Plan that actually sets FAR; one of 22 those Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations is mixed use that says you could get up to 23 three to one in certain areas that can accommodate such a larger area. 24 25 One of the things that brings up FAR is parking as always; so that’s another limiting factor to 26 how high buildings can get even though you do have a height limit. Even though you do have an 27 FAR and parking, it’s difficult to actually get to taller heights and the floor area associated with 28 it. 29 30 Chair Malone Prichard: Any Board Members have comments, questions, observations? 31 32 Board Member Lew: I would start, I started making my own list of buildings even beyond Palo 33 Alto since some of you were saying the 27 University Avenue list and if we look at the ones in 34 Palo Alto they really do, the buildings from the late 60s and early 70s really do suffer on the 35 street level, the pedestrian realm. They really are sort of islands to themselves and they really 36 aren’t very active for anything around the downtown area but I’ve decided to start looking 37 around because I think there may be examples of more successful buildings than those. I don’t 38 think we should limit ourselves to just those because I don’t think they work very well but I 39 don’t have anything comprehensive at the moment. But it does seem like seven story 40 commercial, ten story residential is fairly common these days in some of the neighboring cities 41 but I think that the projects are still struggling with that perimeter. I think Palo Alto may be 42 better off because since the prices are relatively high we can do underground parking but other 43 cities usually end up with the big parking garage next to the 100 foot height building and that 44 10.e Packet Pg. 316 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 5 of 14 doesn’t really help anything but I really think we should broaden the search for examples that 1 might work better in a downtown situation so that’s what I have to say. 2 3 One other thought too which I’ve mentioned before. We mentioned the 55 foot height in some 4 cities and so in looking at the housing element a lot of cities have argued for four stories of 5 residential over fifteen foot high ground floor retail and that’s a very specific mix. They’re not 6 saying 55 feet you can build however much commercial office space you want. They’re saying 7 we want more residential and we want the ground floor retail and if you do that… San Francisco 8 did this in some neighborhoods. You’ll get 55 on certain streets and certain blocks that are wider 9 streets will allow you to do the 55 feet if you do all of these things. If you just want to do office 10 we’re not going to give you the bonus height. Then you can get housing in the housing element 11 and then the quality retail. 12 13 If you have a multifamily housing developer their main business is multifamily housing. They 14 don’t want to put the retail in. It’s a headache for them. We saw it here at 801 Alma. They had 15 a hardware store in there and they took that out because they wanted to build their housing units. 16 They have a certain economy of scale. They don’t really want to build generally less than 50 17 units. They have their own overhead to manage their projects. They’re happy to give up the 18 retail. Then what we have are bedrooms on the first floor facing Alma Street. Who would want 19 to live there? If you’re walking down the street you don’t want to look at any of that. So there 20 are places in the downtown area or even El Camino that would be worth considering. 21 22 Board Member Popp: First of all Judith thank you for coming this morning. I really appreciate 23 you being here and I think your experience being on the Board and your wisdom is very valuable 24 to all of us so thank you for all the comments you brought. 25 26 I agree with you Judith about the older buildings in town being such a poor indicator of what is 27 possible. The brutality of these buildings is really so challenging in terms of where we want to 28 go potentially. I balance that with the idea of bringing in a skilled architect who has experience 29 with high rise construction and is capable of crafting really elegant taller building and how 30 successful that can be and as Alex has said in looking outside the walls of Palo Alto for this is 31 the most important thing we can do. The local examples we have are quite challenging I think. 32 There really are so many examples of seven or ten or taller buildings that are very nice and are 33 properly cited and have care in their construction and their detailing and materials and add 34 tremendously to the fabric of the community in which they sit. 35 36 I’ll contrast that with some experience of mine. This building that I was Project Director for, the 37 JCC, and Campus for Jewish Life really is quite tall. The tallest piece of this at the mechanical 38 penthouse currently is at about 78 feet. I’m going to risk labeling myself as the tower guy but 39 there was a tower that was approved for that project that was to be 98 feet tall and part of the 40 criteria for that was that it’s only twelve by twelve. Just the mass of that relative to the height is 41 not very challenging from a perspective of where it sits on the site, how far back it is from the 42 street, what visibility it has and in the same way that we’re looking at the Wall Street Journal site 43 on Page Mill and I was pushing for a taller signature element on that project that would identify 44 10.e Packet Pg. 317 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 6 of 14 entryway in a more clear manner it because a no starter because they just didn’t want to go 1 through the process of having to get that a little bit taller. 2 3 But going back to the JCC is one of the things that is very clear when you stand on the fourth 4 floor deck overlooking the corner of Charleston and San Antonio is that the canopy in Palo Alto 5 is predominant. It’s really spectacular. When you stand up there and look out across the city it’s 6 just beautiful. You see this green carpet of trees and various colors. Once in a while you see a 7 building that pops up in a few different places. What I draw from that is controlling height in the 8 right places is important to do and our zoning regulations are very successful in a lot of ways in 9 managing that and I’ve appreciated that in my years here and that includes more than 20 at this 10 point and so I really am an advocate for controlling height in the right ways but at the same time 11 I think that if we look at the description of height limit in our zoning regulations its challenging 12 and I’ll disclose that I had a discussion with Curtis Williams as a result of meeting with Chuck 13 Keenan and Jim Baer this week over the 135 Hamilton project. They were talking to me about 14 how they had arrived at this height that they were at and how they were saying that they were 15 within the height limit and could Staff go back and study this a little bit and Curtis I think was 16 evolving a definition of how height to that 50 feet should be measured and it had to do with an 17 understanding that there are different types of roofing materials and there are other things that 18 need to go on and recognize the realities of building construction and trying to incorporate that 19 into the language in a way that allows some flexibility and variation so we don’t end up with the 20 same thing all of the time which is very important. 21 22 I like similarity but I don’t like sameness and I think that in some ways what we’re headed 23 toward in that discussion is really coordinating our zoning regulations with what the building 24 code recognizes and I’ll go back to this comment that Alex made about the four over one 25 projects that are at 55 feet and I’ll just state my concern that if 55 feet becomes the height limit 26 you have no roof articulation. In my career I’ve been fortunate enough to do tens of thousands 27 of housing units at this point and I can tell you in some cities you’re able to craft a really 28 beautiful building and articulate the roof forms and alter massing and have really an interesting 29 building that is very successful. In other cities, you are so limited by this kind of sacrosanct 30 height limit that creates an unpleasant architecture. One is so counter to the other that it becomes 31 very challenging to do anything valuable that gets up to the kind of height and mass… 32 33 When we look at the maps you brought in Amy, there’s a clarity to me of the focal points were 34 there can be extra density. Certainly the downtown area I would say a corner of downtown and 35 El Camino is a place where we really should be thinking about the validity of extra height. We 36 talked a little bit about that in the meetings we’ve had in the past and there are other areas as well 37 out at the periphery and a tall building is not going to create shadow on other sites and we don’t 38 have to have some big parking lot next to the building because that doesn’t help the aesthetic but 39 I think that there are real challenges with the way the language is written currently and as a clear 40 statement I’ll say I’m in favor of us trying to find a different way to manage this and create an 41 opportunity for additional height where mass, scale and aesthetic can be balanced appropriately 42 in recognition of neighborhood concerns and in recognition of the cost of development in the 43 city. 44 10.e Packet Pg. 318 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 7 of 14 1 Something I brought up in a previous meeting, we’re really trying to encourage people to 2 redevelop sites that are right now challenging to look at and not as economically valuable as they 3 should be. Encourage that as we give people an opportunity to do something that is financially 4 viable and in order to do that we need to look at our zoning regulation and we need to understand 5 what impact our height limits have on individual parcels and study that in a broader sense. What 6 happens along El Camino? What happens in these nodes where we have opportunity for height? 7 8 Chair Malone Prichard: Naseem do you have anything to say? 9 10 Board Member Alizadeh: Sure. Thanks to both of you Alexander and Randy for the comments. 11 That was helpful in terms of my own thinking and Judith that was helpful and also Amy this was 12 helpful. I think part of what I liked about it is the images they’re showing are urban infill 13 projects and so then when I was thinking about what you were saying, that actually the projects 14 here tend to be towers on prints and so they are so inactive in terms of the streetscape and so its 15 kind of like this model is attractive and then the reality is unattractive and how do we switch to 16 that? I don’t know if that’s a zoning thing, an FAR thing, a Master Plan thing. Do we look at it 17 and say this is where we’re really tall and then slowly move down in the intersection of these two 18 streets? 19 20 That would be my comments. If going higher helps with sprawl I’m in favor, if it helps reduce 21 the housing demand I’m totally in favor so I definitely think its great to go high as long as we are 22 looking at where the building is sitting in relation to its neighbors, maybe this parking issue as 23 well, the entire juggernaut of this element. Thanks. 24 25 Chair Malone Prichard: Lee. 26 27 Board Member Lippert: I want to thank Judith for going the extra mile here. There is no need 28 for you to come back but it’s a real delight to see you again and to have you speak before us 29 without having to swear on the Constitution of the United States. I agree pretty much with what 30 my colleagues have said here. I look at it a little differently. I look at height as being a way of 31 doing some additional problem solving in the City. 32 33 There has been a lot of legislation in the last three to five years that allows for density bonuses 34 and what it is it’s responding to constraints that are being placed on this state in terms of how 35 we’re going to grow regionally as well as within simply the Bay Area. I know that the 36 difficulties are ones of that we have a growing population and in addition to that if you don’t deal 37 with providing places for this growth in population, what you’re looking at is being burdened on 38 the flip side with additional traffic. So when I think of increasing height or density, and I think it 39 can be dealt with from the quality and character point of view very easily through our design 40 review process, the rub is it’s the use in zoning and really what we need to do is look at how we 41 encourage more mixed use development. How do we get buildings that are more responsive to 42 the needs of the community? 43 44 10.e Packet Pg. 319 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 8 of 14 Just off the top of my head I’m thinking about the Housing Bonus Density Law. We need to 1 provide more low, very low, and moderate income housing. The way of doing that is by placing 2 that on the top of perhaps some other commercial developments. Difficulty for a lot of the low 3 income housing associations is the cost of the land. It’s not necessarily building a project. So I 4 look at that as a way of solving, its just one problem there. We have an aging population, we 5 have a graying population. The R1 and R2 zones are located far away from where we have the 6 services in this city. Is there an opportunity here to build more senior housing in the downtown? 7 Again, rewarding that kind of density and that kind of height by having mixed use building for 8 seniors and making it easy for them to be able to move out of their houses, move downtown, 9 smaller units, and have all the services and amenities right there for them. 10 11 The flip side of that is that we have a pretty robust transit system here. We are very lucky. We 12 have the second highest ridership to San Francisco for Cal Train at the downtown train station. 13 Who knows if high speed rail will ever get built but with the electrification of the rail system, 14 this becomes a much more important destination for workers coming from San Jose and San 15 Francisco and if we want to remain on the cutting edge of being the center of technology for 16 Silicon Valley we are a very important destination for businesses. When I say for businesses, I 17 don’t mean just employees coming here, I’m talking about people flying into San Francisco, 18 flying into San Jose, hopping on a train, coming to downtown Palo Alto. 19 20 So, in some ways I think that it’s worth exploring and looking at increasing height limit and 21 density around transit centers in particular. Let me talk a little bit about mixed use. I think that 22 that’s the lynchpin here and if somebody wanted to come in and build a 50 foot high office 23 building I might have great difficulty with that. But looking at how we look at mixed use 24 buildings in Palo Alto where we have a split I think that’s definitely something worth looking at 25 and exploring. There are some hard fast requirements that would probably go along with that 26 ground floor retail. We’re creating ground floor public spaces and are particularly important 27 because you want to provide amenities and services for the people on the upper floors. 28 Restaurants, cafes, even shops, convenience stores, dry cleaners. I think they are particularly 29 important to servicing those buildings. Another way of looking at it is by increasing or allowing 30 for that additional height, why not create ground floor public spaces. In New York, they have 31 winter gardens. There is no reason why we could not have ground floor public spaces that would 32 function as public facilities in some ways and meeting spaces where the community could get 33 together and have some regular events. We could even bring another library or perhaps a smaller 34 downtown museum to Palo Alto. There are opportunities here. Our development center is at the 35 ground floor. That brings plenty of life and traffic to the corner across the street. I would 36 welcome another public agency with some sort of facility like that. 37 38 So I think there are opportunities here to look at here. The one caveat or caution that I have is 39 I’m a Philly boy. I’m very proud of Philadelphia and when I moved away from Philadelphia, I 40 wasn’t so proud of Philadelphia. They had a height limit. The height limit was, there was a 41 statue of William Penn and it was William Penn’s hand. Shortly after I left they removed the 42 height limit and you cannot find William Penn today. It’s been obscured. Philadelphia had one 43 of the most beautiful skylines up to that point. Here you saw the city rise, the PSFS building 44 10.e Packet Pg. 320 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 9 of 14 which was a mid century modern building, Penn Plaza, just wonderful magnificent mid century 1 modern buildings. The height limit was broken by Helmut Jahn by one of his abysmal towers 2 and ever since then I feel as though anything taller than William Penn’s hand is just a violation 3 on that city. Those are my comments. 4 5 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you Lee. Judith it’s lovely to see you again. Thank you for 6 giving us your thoughts. I’m of the mind to not have a height limit anymore. The reason being 7 that we have so much in the way of floor area limits and parking limits that nobody is going to 8 build 100 foot tall building, they’re not going to be able to meet all the other requirements. That 9 being said, I know there is a lot of fear in this town of tall buildings. I don’t know if that’s going 10 to fly. 11 12 I would propose that we have some concessions, not in the same way as the concession law for 13 providing certain things that the city wants, we want ground floor amenities. If you provide 14 ground floor amenities then you should be allowed to have more height. We want more housing. 15 If you have more housing you should be allowed more height. It is really a balancing act and 16 having arbitrary height limit is an issue but I understand that some developers will come through 17 and say okay, if the city has a 75 foot height limit then that’s what I’m going to build. They feel 18 an entitlement and that’s an issue. It’s a balancing act. We need to look at what it is we want to 19 achieve and use those as carrots by providing more height when you give us those things that 20 we’re looking for so those are by two cents. Any other follow up? Alex. 21 22 Board Member Lew: I think we saw this a little bit on the Alma and Lytton project. If you have 23 a taller building its steel frame with the curtain wall skin. It’s going to have a certain kind of 24 aesthetic. If you go to Mission Bay in San Francisco you see that aesthetic in the entire 25 neighborhood. There are only a couple of buildings that depart from the standard aesthetic. The 26 standard aesthetic is pretty flat, pretty unarticulated and pretty ugly. It’s not great. That’s just 27 the way that the buildings are built, it’s the seismic code. So I think we have to recognize that. 28 There are beautiful taller buildings in New York and Boston and what not made out of masonry 29 or cast iron or what not but we’re not going to get that so we do have to also recognize that there 30 is a contemporary curtain wall aesthetic that can be done nicely but I think is kind of rare. 31 32 I think that if there are buildings that go up higher they actually need to be designed at a very 33 high level. I would not accept any of the current among buildings like the one we’re in, a 34 hundred feet of modern monstrosity or whatever you call it. I don’t think it is palatable to 35 anyone in Palo Alto and I don’t think we need to revisit that again. So thank you. 36 37 Board Member Popp: So Clare I’m interested in what you were saying about not having a limit 38 at all and just allowing for FAR and coverage to manage what’s possible. I’m intrigued by that 39 and I’d like to study that and see where that might lead. My initial reaction is that I’m very 40 concerned about that. I think there are people that would abuse that and to a degree regulations 41 are important because it does control the extremes if you will. Alex, when we talk about this 42 building in particular, I don’t know if this is actually true but the story that I’ve heard is that this 43 particular Edward Durell Stone design is sort of a standard City Hall and it exists all over the 44 10.e Packet Pg. 321 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 10 of 14 country and they would just make as many floors as they needed to make so its at all kinds of 1 different heights all over the place but it’s the exact same building all over the place. 2 3 That kind of stuff frightens me. You can just say how high do you need to be? And off you go. 4 This building did look better when it had the arcade and the fountain. 5 6 Board Member Lew: It has not fared well with the removal of the colony. 7 8 Board Member Popp: That severity is what I was talking about when I talked about the severity 9 of the buildings that exist around here and I really appreciated Naseem’s comments about sprawl 10 and being concerned about that. I think that if we have limitations, then everything is going to 11 fill up to the limit and we’ll just feel tight and full and that in itself is very unpleasant so I do 12 really feel that if we can create some urban intensity in the right places in the city, that if we start 13 to create pedestrian spaces at the ground level and we in some ways regulate the need for 14 opportunities for mixed use and the needs that that brings, the dry cleaners and the place where 15 you can buy a bottle of aspirin late at night. 16 17 That creates a vibrancy in the community, an interesting intensity and something that many 18 would find very valuable. We certainly have enough R1 in Palo Alto to give everybody their 19 own piece of land if they wanted with nobody too tall next to them and all those things but in 20 places where people want more intensity, where we have this opportunity to be this center of 21 tech development and software development, all of these things that make Palo Alto so 22 interesting, that we’re attracting certain individuals as a result of that who are very comfortable 23 with the San Francisco aesthetic or Manhattan aesthetic and to create a place where we have a 24 Palo Alto version of that, whatever that might end up being. It seems totally appropriate to me. 25 26 The thing that I guess I get very concerned about is the parking. I’ll say clearly that the 27 mathematics of some projects that we’ve seen recently in regard to how much parking they are 28 required to provide on site versus the Density Bonuses they are granted and the way they are able 29 to create square footage without parking because they are going to rely on other infrastructure 30 within the city of that people are going to create bike to work programs that may or may not be 31 valid, those things make me quite concerned and when we talk about infrastructure and we talk 32 about how we are serving these buildings, the need for parking is present. While we may be one 33 of these main focal points for transit and hopefully it will get even better as time goes on and all 34 of this encourages that, the fact is that lots of people drive cars and we need someplace to put 35 those things. They take up a lot of space and they are very hard to manage. Aesthetically it is 36 often unpleasant and I really want to urge all of us to think about how we balance the desire for 37 more dense development, if that’s what we desire individually, with the demands of the realities, 38 parking and other components of it. 39 40 I do really believe that encouraging uses is something we can easily achieve and having senior 41 housing, which is very low impact to the community but brings dollars into our town and a 42 vibrancy, I’m a big proponent of the generational aspects of a city and the youngest to the oldest 43 all intertwined rather than having some senior development off in a field outside the city 44 10.e Packet Pg. 322 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 11 of 14 someplace. I really like having those things integrated and the same thing is true with the lower 1 cost housing. There are lots and lots very high quality low income housing developers in the 2 area who are just dying to get a hold of a project that they can sink their teeth into that financially 3 works for them. Lee is absolutely right. The cost of land is the roadblock for them. If they can 4 combine with another project and find a way to have a very synergistic relationship, those things 5 are really spectacular when they work right. That creates an energy and a vibrancy all on its 6 own. 7 8 So those are areas I think if we really put our heads together about this we can find a way to 9 develop that kind of growth in the right ways with the right height and the right aesthetic that not 10 everyone is going to be in favor of. It’s a big city but the majority would start to look at that and 11 say this is a good direction for Palo Alto to head in. 12 13 Chair Malone Prichard: Another thing we’ve talked about at other meetings is to not look at 14 height specifically in number of feet but just to look at number of stories which is similar to the 15 article that Amy sent us looking at some stories want to be taller than others and our height is 16 squashing that ability so it probably would be good to have another sort of visioning session such 17 as we did at our retreat, to look at what areas really should be two story, three story, four story, 18 maybe more. 19 20 Board Member Lew: I don’t really understand the argument for that because they are different 21 building types and so like in a hundred feet you could do like six or seven floors of commercial 22 or ten floors of residential so I don’t really quite understand the argument for that because it 23 seems too open ended. 24 25 Chair Malone Prichard: It works both ways. If you set a fifty foot height people will say you 26 can squeeze four stories into that, if we set it to fifty five or sixty they’ll squeeze five stories in 27 and we’ll be squeezed again so there has to be some balancing of story height with overall 28 building height and I’m thinking if you were to say we don’t want any more than four stories or 29 five stories and forget about the height it gives more flexibility of design. 30 31 Board Member Popp: Clare the other thing I would bring up is that if we do have floor area 32 limits that’s going to manage not having seven stories inside a building that should really be five 33 or that concern that Alex was bringing up I think is limited by FAR in some ways as well. 34 35 Board Member Lew: If you look at the R1 zone, you put in the second floor equivalent and third 36 floor equivalent floor areas because people were building high, tall buildings that were dwarfing 37 their neighbors so we’ve added something to help reduce that kind of incentive to the monster 38 steroid mansion and I think the same thing happens in commercial zones. We see it now today 39 with all of these two story high glass lobbies and stuff and two story stairwells in all the office 40 buildings. If we use the number of stories versus actual height I don’t really see what’s going to 41 prevent people from building even bigger buildings. 42 43 10.e Packet Pg. 323 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 12 of 14 Board Member Lippert: I wanted to respond to the car issue. I believe there are ways of dealing 1 with the car and transportation issues. One of them is a real transportation demand management 2 program in which the developer or the tenants pay into for instance transit passes so that it 3 encourages whoever is working in that building or living in that building to actually get out of 4 the car and not be driving to that location. It’s a very successful program and could work only 5 because we happen to have a transit hub here in Palo Alto. I think there are ways of definitely 6 sort of solving that problem. 7 8 Also in thinking about his, maybe one way to look at this is that any buildings over the fifty foot 9 height limit regardless of whether its one foot or twenty five feet or another hundred feet that it’s 10 subject to the PC process. So in other words, we are definitely looking at use, zoning, and the 11 quality and character issues and it gets the support of the City Council as well so there is a much 12 more rigorous process to it. It’s an integrated building. It’s not just building with the 13 development regulations of the underlying zoning and so what happens is if you build a building 14 that is say, fifty five feet instead of fifty feet, it would trigger that review process. It would also 15 require that you meet the development standards for a true mixed use building so that extra five 16 feet you get but you have to provide a diverse building. It’s not just building something that is 17 homogenous throughout. 18 19 So I think there are some opportunities there. The last thing I wanted to mention is that, for 20 those of us that have traveled to Europe and Italy, one of the most impressive cities is Lucca. 21 Lucca was founded on the olive oil industry. That’s what technology has become, industry. The 22 towers throughout that city, every family built their tower. They built their little compound and 23 they built a tower and you had actually families and family businesses that competed against 24 each other for these towers, these icons. Once we begin to do something like that, we have the 25 opportunity to bring back the next generation or the next Google or Facebook or whatever the 26 new cutting edge technology is because they would want an edifice here, an icon, in downtown 27 Palo Alto that they can hang their name on. 28 29 Right now, Amazon has taken just about all of the Carriage House, not the Carriage House, the 30 Gate House building over on Lytton. They want a presence here in Palo Alto and it’s important 31 for them to be here. That’s the search engine for Amazon. 32 33 Chair Malone Prichard: We have a member of the public who wants to make a comment. 34 35 Ms. Wasserman: Thank you. I find this discussion very encouraging because what I’m hearing 36 is a lot of creative thinking about how to approach this problem and I agree with everybody. I 37 think that what you need to do is zone for what you want and not as Ken Schreiber said to me 38 when I asked about the housing zoning, I said why did you make it so big and he said I never 39 thought I’d max it out. People are going to max it out. 40 41 One thing we did in the IR Ordinance was we said that a two story entryway. Anything over 42 twelve feet would be counted double and the next morning nobody built anymore of those. So I 43 mean, you can really use your zoning and I worry a little bit about Lee’s suggestion for using the 44 10.e Packet Pg. 324 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 13 of 14 PC process because last time we tried that the Council shot it down. Everything you’ve been 1 talking about, everything we asked for, housing on the top, small units, using the PC process… 2 the Council shot it down. I think they may need some education as to first of all what a 3 penthouse really is but also just in the unintended consequences of flat height, any kind of one 4 size fits all kind of zoning. I think form code is helpful. I think the trick is to really decide what 5 you want, solve your problem and then write the rules around that. So good luck you guys. 6 You’ve got hot stuff coming. 7 8 Board Member Popp: Just a follow up to Lee. I’ll go quickly. I appreciate the idea of, and I’m 9 going to go back to parking again because it’s a sticky thing for me. I work downtown in Palo 10 Alto. My office is right on High Street. What I’m experiencing right now is really awful 11 planning. What happens right now is that by 7:30 in the morning, every single space on every 12 street around my office is completely full because people who take the train are unwilling to pay 13 the daily fee to use the lot. They park in the neighborhood essentially using up all of the parking 14 for my clients and other employees in the area and we struggle all day long to park in that area. 15 We’re moving our cars constantly within the two hour zones and it’s a nightmare because people 16 are getting on the train in Palo Alto and going other places. 17 18 The thing that I’m trying to just quickly evolve and add to our conversation here is we need to 19 consider the domino effect of whatever we put in place as well and try to look forward. It’s the 20 old issue of cut through traffic. If you design it this way people are going to cut through that 21 way. You need to evaluate at a high level what you’re doing and make sure to the best of your 22 ability there’s not going to be other effects that are unpleasant. Managing the parking is 23 paramount in this decision. 24 25 Board Member Lew: If you provide free parking people are going to use it. 26 27 Board Member Lippert: The city should be implementing a market rate parking program where 28 there are opportunities for people to pay and park convenient to where they are located. I use to 29 work in Manhattan and driving to Manhattan is not an option. Taking the train is but I’d have to 30 pay for my parking in Connecticut to go into Manhattan so as long as they are able to provide the 31 parking for the transportation I think it makes it a viable option. That is being short sighted on 32 the part of Cal Train. It’s not a fault of the city. But I’d much rather have those cars here in Palo 33 Alto and people not driving to San Francisco or San Jose than driving there. 34 35 Board Member Popp: Finding a way to manage that is critical, whether it is a six hour parking 36 limit, whatever it is I’m sure our transportation guys will figure it out eventually. 37 38 Chair Malone Prichard: I’m sure they will. We need to wrap this up because it is time to move 39 on to our next event. 40 41 Ms. French: I was going to add that November 1st we’re targeting as the meeting for the 27 42 University project discussion with the ARB and I would be happy to put again on there the 43 10.e Packet Pg. 325 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) City of Palo Alto October 4, 2012 Page 14 of 14 continuation of the height and if there is anything specific you would like to see staff prepare for 1 that please let me know. We can brainstorm again and have further discussion. 2 3 Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. 4 5 6 7 10.e Packet Pg. 326 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t E : M i n u t e s o f H e i g h t S e s s i o n A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report Agenda Date:October 4, 2012 To:Architectural Review Board From:Amy French, Chief Planning Official Department: Planning and Community Environment Subject:Informational Report on 27 University Avenue Project The City Council received a presentation and the attached staff report on September 24, 2012, during a public hearing regarding the potential project at 27 University Avenue. No application for rezoning or development has been submitted for formal or preliminary review by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The City Council requested that staff provide public outreach, and touch base with the ARB and Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC)on the potential project and the city’s height limitation, prior to the November 12, 2012 City Council meeting. A joint ARB and PTC two-hour study session is tentatively scheduled for October 24, 2012, from 4 pm to 6 pm, to allow for a single presentation of the potential project and serve as a second opportunity for the public to view the project and provide comments. On October 24, 2012, there may be time for the ARB and PTC members to ask questions about the project and to jointly discuss the City’s general 50 foot height limit. The ARB and public will have an opportunity to discuss the 27 University Avenue project at the regular ARB meeting of November 1, 2012. That discussion could include a conversation about the heights of buildings shown in concept plans,with respect to both the 27 University Avenue site’s context near downtown and the City’s general height limit of 50 feet. The plans and CMR were distributed well in advance of the October 24, 2012 meeting to allow the ARB and PTC members to familiarize themselves with the project. The ARB study session on October 4, 2012 is intended to be a general discussion of the City- wide height limit, not associated with the 27 University Avenue project. This discussion has occurred previously in ARB retreats and related to projects before the ARB. Though there has been no rezone or prescreening application submitted to date, the ARB’s discussion on October 4, 2012 should focus on the City-wide height limit,rather than on the conceptual building heights at 27 University Avenue. Prepared By:Amy French AICP, Chief Planning Official 10.f Packet Pg. 327 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t F : S t a f f R e p o r t f o r A R B 1 0 0 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) DRAFT PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FOR: THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE 27 UNIVERSITY SITE WITH A THEATER, AND MIXED USE OFFICE / RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON STRUCTURED PARKING. PREPARED FOR: THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PREPARED BY: SANDIS JULY 9, 2012 10.g Packet Pg. 328 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) DRAFT PRELIMINARY TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT FOR THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT OF THE 27 UNIVERSITY SITE WITH A THEATER, AND MIXED USE OFFICE / RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ON STRUCTURED PARKING. PREPARED FOR: THE CITY OF PALO ALTO PREPARED BY: SANDIS 936 EAST DUNNE AVENUE SUNNYVALE, CA 94085 JULY 9, 2012 10.g Packet Pg. 329 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) i TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY 1 2.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS 1 2.1 Traffic Study Area 4 2.2 Study Area Intersections 4 2.3 Freeway Segments 4 2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service (Los) 5 2.4.1 Signalized Intersections 5 2.5 Existing Transit Service 10 2.5.1 Bus Service 11 2.5.2 Commuter Rail Service 12 2.6 Transportation Demand Management 12 2.7 Applicable Plans and Policies 13 3.0 PROJECT TRAVEL DEMAND ANALYSIS 14 3.1 Trip Generation 14 3.2 Trip Distribution 16 4.0 POTENTIAL TRANSPORTATION RELATED IMPACTS 16 4.1 Roadway Operating Characteristics 16 4.1.1 Intersection Traffic Signal Operations 17 4.2 Urban/ Mitchell Lane Loop 23 APPENDICES APPENDIX A - LEVEL OF SERVICE CALCULATIONS A-1 10.g Packet Pg. 330 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ii LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 1 Project Location and Study Area 2 2 Proposed Site Plan 3 3 Existing Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 7 4 Lane Configurations and Intersection Traffic Controls 8 5A Project Site Inbound Trip Distribution 17 5B Project Site Outbound Trip Distribution 18 6 Base Year 2025 Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 19 7 Project Related Peak Hour Traffic Volumes 20 LIST OF TABLES Table Page 1 Study Intersections 5 2 Level of Service Thresholds for Freeway Segments 5 3 Existing Freeway Levels of Service 6 4 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Thresholds 9 5 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service 10 6 Project Trip Generation 15 7 Cumulative Year 2025 Base Signalized Intersection Level of Service 21 8 Cumulative Year 2025 Plus Project Signalized Intersection Level of Service 22 10.g Packet Pg. 331 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 1 1.0 Introduction/Summary The following study has been prepared to provide a preliminary assessment of potential traffic and transportation related impacts associated with redevelopment of the MacArthur Park Restaurant and Red Cross Dispensary site in the City of Palo Alto. The project site is located on the easterly edge of the Stanford Campus between El Camino Real and the Caltrain Commuter Rail Line adjacent to the main Palo Alto Train Station (Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station (PAITS) as indicated in Figure 1. The station is a primary stop along the Peninsula route with numerous passengers commuting to the University and Downtown area. Numerous buses operated by a variety of venders including Marguerite (Stanford) VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit, and Union City Transit provide service to the station throughout the day. Access to the site (MacArthur Park Restaurant, Red Cross and Caltrain Station) currently requires use of Urban Lane or loop which is part of a grade separated intersection of University Avenue and El Camino Real located immediately west of and against the Caltrain Commuter tracks. The intersection of El Camino and University has a basic diamond configuration. The rail platform is accessed using Urban/ Mitchell Lane Loop within the large diamond arrangement as indicated in Figure 2. The Proposed Project would consist of a theater and four office buildings varying in height spread across the site as indicted in Figure 2. The existing MacArthur Restaurant and Red Cross site would be expanded to incorporate the current bus drop-off /parking area adjacent to the westerly side of the Caltrain tracks and station as part of the theater site. This in turn will require relocating the bus drop-off area to a reconfigured Urban/ Mitchell Lane loop road as indicated in Figure 2. The office buildings, as currently proposed, would vary in height between four and nine stories with a total of 290,000 gross square feet (250,000 net square feet) of floor space. Approximately 260,000 gross square feet would be devoted to office and the remaining 30,000 gross square feet in the ground floor would be utilized as retail related space. The theater, located in a separate building at the northwest corner of the site, would have approximately 71,630 square feet of floor area with 800 seats. Parking would be provided under the office buildings and theater with 875 spaces. The subsurface parking garage would have two primary points of access, one linked directly to the extension of Quarry Road and the other to the northbound on-ramp from University to El Camino, as indicated in Figure 2. The Project transportation assessment has been divided into two areas with one focusing on traffic related impacts to the surrounding roadway network. The second focuses on the reconfiguration of Urban Loop and the intersection of the northbound ramps at University Avenue relative to accommodating increased bus traffic and loading associated with the relocation of the current bus parking area. In summary, the Project is forecast to result in a limited impact to the surrounding roadway network. It is forecast to generate approximately 3,066 new vehicle trips per day of which approximately 310 would occur during the morning peak hour and another 328 during the evening peak hour. There would be a significant increase in traffic on Urban Loop with corresponding increases in delay dependent upon the final configuration of site access and bus drop-off areas. 10.g Packet Pg. 332 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10 . g Pa c k e t P g . 3 3 3 Attachment: Attachment G: 27 University Ave Draft Preliminary Traffic Assessment (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) 10 . g Pa c k e t P g . 3 3 4 Attachment: Attachment G: 27 University Ave Draft Preliminary Traffic Assessment (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) 4 The intersection of Quarry Road and El Camino would be reconfigured to extend Quarry Road into the site but is forecast to continue to operate acceptably during peak commute periods. The easterly side of the intersection of University Avenue and El Camino Real would also be reconfigured. This intersection is forecast to operate at an LOS E by 2025 regardless of the Project making it important that the reconfiguration be carefully implemented to improve operations. 2.0 Existing Conditions As indicated in Figure 1, the proposed project site is located between the Caltrain Commuter Rail tracks, El Camino Real, the extension of Quarry Road, and University Avenue. Access to the site will be provided from an extension of Quarry Road east from El Camino Real into the site, a driveway from Urban Loop Road, and a driveway from the northbound on-ramp from University Avenue to El Camino Real. Continuous two- way circulation may be included through the site from the extension of Quarry Road to Urban Lane. Access to the subsurface parking garage as currently proposed, will be provided with driveways to the northbound ramp to El Camino Real and the on-site extension of Quarry Road. 2.1 Traffic Study Area: The following assessment focuses on the more immediate Project area where potential impacts are most likely to occur and be at their most intense level. Key areas are access to the project, reconfiguration of the intersection of Quarry Road with El Camino Real and the northbound on-ramp from University to allow the extension of Quarry Road into the site, and overall access and circulation through the Urban Lane Loop. Other key locations are primary intersections on El Camino Real between Sand Hill Road and Page Mill Road, on Embarcadero Road, on University Avenue east to Middlefield and U.S. 101, and on Sand Hill Road west to I-280. The overall area analyzed as part of this study is shown in Figure 1. Table 1 provides a list of the intersections evaluated. 2.2 Study Area Intersections: The initial traffic assessment focused on a total of nine intersections, all of which are signalized. The intersections were selected as those considered to be most representative of potential impacts associated with the Proposed Project. They are expected to accommodate the majority of Project related traffic as commuters travel to and from work with incidental trips/ linked trips to other uses. Intersections shown in Table 1 are all located within the jurisdiction of the City of Palo Alto. The reader is referred to Figure 1 - Project Location and Study Area, for the relative locations of intersections analyzed. 2.3 Freeway Segments: Santa Clara County uses vehicle density to evaluate freeway LOS. This is expressed in passenger cars per mile per lane (pcpmpl). The analysis procedure used is based on the 2010 HCM, with several modifications being made to conform to the LOS density thresholds defined by Santa Clara County. Table 2 provides a summary of LOS thresholds for freeway segments. Table 3 provides existing freeway segment LOS in the Project vicinity. 10.g Packet Pg. 335 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 5 Review of the Average Annual Daily Traffic (AADT) for the six freeway segments summarized in Table 3 will show three segments were identified to be operating at an LOS F. The northbound and southbound segments of US 101 north of Embarcadero Road up to the limit of the study operate at an LOS F during both the AM and PM peak periods. The segment of U.S. 101 south of Embarcadero Road operates at a LOS F in both the northbound and southbound directions during the PM peak period. Table 1 Study Intersections # Intersections City/Jurisdiction 1. Sand Hill Road at El Camino Real Palo Alto 2. El Camino Real at Quarry Road Palo Alto 3. El Camino Real at University Avenue/Palm Drive Palo Alto 4. El Camino Real at Embarcadero Road/Galvez Palo Alto 5. University Avenue at Middlefield Road Palo Alto 6. Middlefield Road at Embarcadero Road Palo Alto 7. Sand Hill at Pasteur Drive Palo Alto 8. Sand Hill Road at Arboretum Drive Palo Alto 9. Quarry Road at Arboretum Drive Palo Alto Table 2 Level of Service Thresholds for Freeway Segments Level of Service Density Speed (passenger cars/mile/lane) (miles/hour) A density < 11.0 67.0 < speed B 11.0 < density < 18.0 66.5 < speed < 67.0 C 18.0 < density < 26.0 66.0 < speed < 66.5 D 26.0 < density < 46.0 46.0 < speed < 66.0 E 46.0 < density < 58.0 35.0 < speed < 46.0 F 58.0 < density speed < 35.0 Source: Traffic Level of Service Analysis Guidelines, VTA, June 2003. 2.4 Existing Traffic Volumes and Levels of Service (LOS) The evaluation of traffic related impacts to the surrounding roadway network focused on the weekday peak commute periods when Project related office and retail traffic would peak concurrent with peak levels of traffic on surrounding streets. Critical or the most congested periods of roadway and intersection operation on a weekday typically occur during the peak commute periods of 7:00 AM - 9:00 AM and 4:00 PM – 6:00 PM. 10.g Packet Pg. 336 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 6 Counts of existing traffic volumes utilized in this analysis and assessment were obtained from the SUMC EIR recently certified by the City of Palo Alto (Palo Alto, 2011) which have been supplemented with current counts at the intersection of University and El Camino Real. The SUMC EIR counts were used to maximize consistency with the SUMC analysis and minimize the influence of temporary fluctuations in volumes which could affect new counts completed during construction of the hospital improvements (City of Palo Alto, 2012). Table 3 Freeway Segment Level of Service LOS LOS Freeway Segment Direction AADT (AM) (PM) US 101 North of University NB 192,000 F F SB F F US 101 South of University NB 200,000 F F SB F F US 101 South of Embarcadero/ NB 202,000 E F Oregon Expressway SB D F I-280 north of Sand Hill Road NB 102,000 D D SB D D I-280 south of Alpine Road NB 103,000 C C SB D C I-80 south of Page Mill Road NB 109,000 D C SB C D Source: City of Palo Alto, 2011, Caltrans 2006 Counts, 2007 San Mateo CMP and 2006 Santa Clara CMP. Note: Freeway segments determined to be operating at a LOS F are indicated in italics. Existing traffic volumes for each of the analyzed intersections are summarized in Figure 3. Existing Peak Hour traffic volumes were utilized together with existing lane configurations and signal phasing (for signalized intersections) as the basis for Level of Service (LOS) calculations to evaluate current roadway operations. The existing intersection lane configurations and traffic control devices (stop signs or traffic signals) are shown in Figure 4. Current procedures adopted for intersection operational analysis in the City of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County are from the Highway Capacity Manual (HCM) 2000. HCM 2000 analysis methods were applied using the TRAFFIX software package (version 8.0) per the requirements of the Santa Clara County Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), the designated Congestion Management Agency (CMA) for Santa Clara County. This methodology measures the operational performance of signalized intersections in terms of four measures: average control delay, critical volume to capacity ratio, average critical delay, and level of service (LOS). TRAFFIX simulates the HCM 2000 analysis 10.g Packet Pg. 337 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10.g Packet Pg. 338 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10.g Packet Pg. 339 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 9 methodology. TRAFFIX evaluates intersection operations based on both average vehicle delay and critical movement delay. The Santa Clara County CMA and the City of Palo Alto require the use of TRAFFIX and the evaluation of operations using critical movement delay. In addition to calculating expected vehicle delay on which level of service is based, TRAFFIX also calculates optimal signal cycle length and intersection queuing.  Control delay includes initial deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and acceleration delay. Average control delay weights the delay per movement according to the traffic volumes for that movement. Level of service for signalized intersections is defined in terms of control delay (see Table 4).  The critical volume to capacity (V/C) ratio is an approximate indicator of the overall level of congestion at an intersection. The critical V/C ratio depends on the conflicting critical lane flow rates and the signal phasing. V/C is equal to 1.0 when the flow rate equals capacity. When volumes exceed capacity, stop-and- go conditions result and operations are designated as LOS F.  Average critical delay weights the delay for the critical (conflicting) movements based on the traffic volume for that movement. Table 4 Signalized Intersection Level of Service Thresholds LOS Average Control Delay (seconds/vehicle) A delay < 10.0 B+ 10.0 < delay < 12.0 B 12.0 < delay < 18.0 B- 18.0 < delay < 20.0 C+ 20.0 < delay < 23.0 C 23.0 < delay < 32.0 C- 32.0 < delay < 35.0 D+ 35.0 < delay < 39.0 D 39.0 < delay < 51.0 D- 51.0 < delay < 55.0 E+ 55.0 < delay < 60.0 E 60.0 < delay < 75.0 E- 75.0 < delay < 80.0 F delay > 80.0 Source: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority Congestion Management Program, Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, March 2009. Review of Table 5 will show the nine intersections evaluated all currently operate at an LOS D+ or better during both the morning and evening peak commute periods. The four intersections of Sand Hill Road with Arboretum and Pasteur, Quarry with Arboretum, and University with Middlefield operate at an LOS C during both peak periods. The intersections of El Camino Real with Sand Hill and University both operate at an LOS C during the morning peak and LOS D during the evening peak. The intersections of Embarcadero Road with El Camino and Middlefield operate at an LOS D during both peak periods and the intersection of El Camino with Quarry Road currently operates at an LOS B in the morning and LOS C during the evening peak hour. 10.g Packet Pg. 340 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10 Table 5 Existing Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service AM PM Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit # Intersection LOS Delay V/C Delay LOS Delay V/C Delay 1. Sand Hill Road/ C 24.1 0.567 34.2 D+ 35.5 0.618 42.3 El Camino Real 2 El Camino Real/ B 13.7 0.369 18.5 C 23 0.478 13 Quarry 3. El Camino Real/ C 30.1 0.714 33.4 D+ 37.6 0.79 41.6 University 4. El Camino Real/ D 44.7 0.729 47.5 D 45.4 0.753 48.1 Embarcadero 5. University Avenue/ C 26.1 0.462 27 C 27.7 0.527 30 Middlefield 6 Embarcadero/ D+ 37.3 0.572 39.2 D+ 35.7 0.62 38.1 Middlefield 7. Sand Hill Road/ C+ 20.4 0.585 22 C+ 22.5 0.534 22.8 Pasteur 8. Sand Hill Road/ C+ 20.4 0.443 22 C 24.8 0.601 27.8 Arboretum 9. Quarry Road/ C 31.5 0.513 31.2 C 28.6 0.604 31.4 Arboretum Source: Sandis, 2012, Stanford University Medical Center EIR, City of Palo Alto, 2011. 2.5 Existing Transit Service: The Palo Alto/ Stanford area is currently served by a series of transit providers, including San Mateo County Transit District (SamTrans), Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA), Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (AC Transit), Stanford University Marguerite shuttle routes, City of Palo Alto shuttle service, City of Menlo Park shuttle service, and Caltrain. Both fixed route bus service and commuter rail service are available within walking distance of the Project site. The Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station (PAITS), located adjacent to the Project site at the intersection of El Camino Real and University Avenue, is an intermodal hub served by Santa Clara VTA, SamTrans, Stanford University Marguerite shuttles, AC Transit, and Union City Transit. Other concentrations of bus lines exist at the Stanford Shopping Center located across Sand Hill Road from the site about one-quarter of a mile northwest of PAITS. 10.g Packet Pg. 341 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 11 2.5.1 Bus Service: Bus service in the City of Palo Alto and Stanford areas is provided by SamTrans, Santa Clara VTA, AC Transit, Stanford University, Palo Alto, and Menlo Park. SamTrans. SamTrans currently serves PAITS with local lines 280, 281, express route KX, BART/Caltrain connector routes 297 and 390. Connection to the Stanford Shopping Center is provided by local routes 280, 281 and express RX/PX. Three SamTrans bus layover locations are adjacent to the Stanford Shopping Center. Santa Clara VTA. VTA operates commuter/express and local routes through the Study Area, connecting the City of Palo Alto to other Bay Area cities. VTA serves PAITS with local routes 22 and 35, and the limited-stop Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) Route 522. AC Transit. AC Transit operates the Dumbarton Express, which provides service from the Union City BART station to Palo Alto utilizing the Dumbarton Toll Bridge. It also serves the California Avenue Caltrain Station, North Santa Clara County Offices, the Santa Clara County Municipal Court, and the Stanford Research Park. AC Transit also operates the Stanford U Line bus service from the East Bay and Stanford provides funding for this service. Stanford University Marguerite Shuttle. Stanford University operates the Marguerite Shuttle, which provides free service to many locations on the main campus and Palo Alto, such as the Medical Center, Stanford Shopping Center, Stanford Linear Accelerator (SLAC), PAITS, and downtown Palo Alto. All of the shuttle lines, except for the Downtown Express are wheelchair accessible. The shuttle operates weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., except during University holidays. Marguerite's A and B lines meet most trains at the PAITS weekdays from 6:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. to serve commuters. Line A connects Escondido Village and Rains student housing to the main campus and Medical Center. Line B serves Rains and the East Residences, as well as several central campus locations such as Tresidder Memorial Union, Terman Engineering Center, and the Law School. It runs to and from the PAITS by way of Town and Country Village. Line C serves the California Avenue Caltrain Station, the main campus, Medical Center and the Stanford West Apartments. Other routes include the Stanford Linear Accelerator Center (SLAC) shuttle, the Midnight Express, an evening and weekend service that operates from September through June, linking the campus to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and the Shopping Express which operates daily during the academic year from September through June, linking the SUMC and residential areas of Stanford University to the business districts in Palo Alto (downtown, California Avenue, and Town & Country Village) and Mountain View (San Antonio Shopping Center). 10.g Packet Pg. 342 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 12 City of Palo Alto Shuttle. The City operates two shuttle routes: the Crosstown Shuttle and the Embarcadero Shuttle. On weekdays, both routes serve the University Avenue Caltrain Station and Palo Alto Transit Center. The Palo Alto Shuttle is free and open to the general public. Bus stops are marked with a "Palo Alto Shuttle" sign, a sticker on a regular VTA bus stop sign, or a shuttle decal on a stop sign pole.  The Crosstown Shuttle runs every half-hour from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. It connects residential neighborhoods, senior residences and services, libraries, recreation centers, commercial districts.  The Embarcadero Shuttle runs during the morning, noon and evening commute hours at 15-minute intervals. It is coordinated with the Caltrain schedule, serving employers in the East Bayshore area, residents in the Embarcadero Road corridor and students at Palo Alto High School. City of Menlo Park Midday Shuttle Service. The Midday Shuttle Service is a free community service route open to the general public. It is especially popular with senior citizens. Its key stops include the Menlo Park Library, Belle Haven Library, Menlo Park Senior Center, downtown Menlo Park, Menlo Park Caltrain station, Menlo Medical Clinic, Stanford Shopping Center and SUMC. Hourly service is provided Monday through Friday between 9:30 a.m. and 3:30 p.m. This service is funded by the City of Menlo Park and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) Transportation Fund for Clean Air. 2.5.2 Commuter Rail Service: The Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) rail service, Caltrain, runs along the Peninsula, from San Francisco in the north to San Jose and Gilroy in the south. Caltrain is managed by SamTrans, and operates under the jurisdiction of the JPB. The travel time between San Jose and San Francisco is approximately one hour and 20 minutes. The closest Caltrain Station serving the Project site and Stanford University area is the Palo Alto Transit Center (adjacent to the Project site at El Camino Real and University Avenue). On weekdays, trains run every 5 to 30 minutes during the morning and afternoon commute hours and hourly during off-peak times. Hours of operation are from 5:01 a.m. to 11:04 p.m. for northbound service and from 5:51 a.m. to 12:57 a.m. for southbound service. Service is also provided on Saturdays. The hours of operation are from 7:31 a.m. to 11:01 p.m. for northbound trains, and from 9:02 a.m. to 1:03 a.m. for southbound trains Caltrain’s Baby Bullet Express skips several of the stops, such as California Avenue, and is able to travel between San Francisco and San Jose in under an hour. Twenty two train trips are provided during AM and PM Peak Hours. 2.6 Transportation Demand Management: Transportation demand management (TDM) refers to policies and programs that are designed to reduce the number of vehicle trips that are made, especially during the peak time periods of the day when congestion on roadways is at its worst. The concept refers to a wide array of measures, from telecommuting programs that allow employees to work from home; to carpool and vanpool programs that encourage two or more people to share their commute to work; to incentives to encourage people to leave their cars at home and instead use public transit, or bicycle or walk to work. 10.g Packet Pg. 343 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 13 2.7 Applicable Plans and Policies There are no relevant federal or State transportation policies applicable to the implementation of the Project. Relevant traffic and transportation related policies in the City’s Comprehensive Plan and Municipal Code are listed below and the Project is reviewed for consistency with them in the following sections. City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. The City of Palo Alto’s basic parking regulations are described in Title 18 of the Municipal Code.8  Parking Required. Off-street parking, loading, and bicycle facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed and for any new use established, for any addition or enlargement of an existing building or use, and for any change in the occupancy of any building or the manner in which any use is conducted that would result in additional spaces being required, subject to the provisions of this chapter.  Parking Requirements. In each district, off-street parking, loading, and bicycle facilities for each use shall be provided in accordance with Table 3.4-9 and Table 3.4-10. The requirement for any use not specifically listed shall be determined by the director on the basis of requirements for similar uses, and on the basis of evidence of actual demand created by similar uses in Palo Alto and elsewhere, and such other traffic engineering or planning data as may be available and appropriate to the establishment of a minimum requirement. Minimum Off-Street Parking Requirements; Vehicle Parking Requirement, Bicycle Parking Requirement, Use – Spaces; Spaces Long Term (LT) and Short Term (ST) General Business Office - 1 vehicle parking space per 300 gross square feet of floor area, 1 bicycle space per 3,000 gross square feet of floor area, and 60% long term and 40% short term bicycle parking spaces. Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. Minimum Off-Street Loading Requirements Use Gross Floor Area Loading Spaces Required General Business Office - greater than 200,000 gross sq. ft = 3 loading spaces Source: City of Palo Alto Municipal Code. 8 City of Palo Alto. Zoning Code Chapter 18.52: Parking and Loading Requirements. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/depts/pln/planning_forms.asp#Zoning%20Code. Impacts and Mitigation Measures Standards of Significance Significance criteria for project impacts were determined based on City of Palo Alto significance criteria. 10.g Packet Pg. 344 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 14 City of Palo Alto Standards of Significance. Traffic impacts would be considered significant if the Project would:  Cause a local (City of Palo Alto) intersection to deteriorate below LOS D;  Causes a local intersection already operating at LOS E or F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements by four seconds or more, and the critical V/C ratio value to increase by 0.01 or more;  Cause a regional intersection to deteriorate from LOS E or better to LOS F;  Cause a regional intersection already operating at LOS F to deteriorate in the average control delay for the critical movements to increase by four seconds or more, and the critical V/C to increase by 0.01 or more;  Result in increased traffic volumes at an unsignalized intersection, and meet traffic signal warrants;  Cause queuing impacts based on a comparison of the demand queue length and the available queue storage capacity for intersections and access points in the immediate vicinity of the project;  Cause a freeway segment (for each direction of traffic) to operate at LOS F, or contribute traffic in excess of 1 percent of segment capacity to a freeway segment already operating at LOS F;  Result in increased traffic related hazards to pedestrians and bicyclists as a result of increased congestion;  Impede the operation of a transit system as a result of a significant increase in ridership;  Result in inadequate on-site parking supply;  Create an operational safety hazard;  Result in inadequate emergency access; or  Cause any change in traffic that would increase the TIRE index by 0.1 or more on a local or collector residential street. 3.0 Project Travel Demand Analysis: 3.1 Trip Generation Table 6 provides a summary of trip generation estimates for the proposed Project assuming a mixed use development with primarily office, a limited amount of retail space, and a theater. The trip generation forecasts focus on peak weekday morning and evening commute conditions to provide a worst case type analysis when adjacent roadways are operating with peak traffic volumes. The trip generation estimates are based upon Institute of Transportation Engineers standard trip generation rates for proposed uses but include an 10.g Packet Pg. 345 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 15 allowance for the close proximity of multimodal transit service. As described earlier, the office buildings as currently proposed would vary in height between four and nine stories with a total of 290,000 gross square feet (250,000 net square feet) of floor space. Approximately 260,000 square feet would be devoted to office and the remaining 30,000 gross square feet in the ground floor would be for retail. The theater, located in a separate building at the northwest corner of the site, would have approximately 71,630 square feet of floor area with 800 seats. Parking would be provided under the office buildings and theatre with 875 spaces on three floors covering the majority of the site. Table 6 Project Trip Generation Forecasts Use Size Daily Traffic AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Factor Trips Factor Trips Factor Trips Office 260,000 GSF(1) (2) 2784 (3) 355/48 (4) 63/307 Use of Alternative Modes of Travel @22.9% (5) (638) (81/11 (14/70) Net Office Trips 2,146 274/37 46/225 Theatre 800 seats 0.02/seat(6) 8/8 Retail 30,000 GSF (1) 42.04 TE/KSF 1261 Min Min 2.81/2.21 TE/KSF 84/66 Capture of Internal Trips from Site Office Space @ 27% (7) (341) - - (23/18) Net Retail Trips 920 - 61/48 Net Project Trips External to Site on a Typical Weekday 3066 274/37 72/256 1) Assumes 250,000 net square feet with a load factor of 1.158 yielding 290,000 gross square feet of floor area for the Project Exclusive of the theater. Assume ground floor or 30,000 gross square feet of retail with balance of 260,000 gross square feet of office. 2) Ln(t) = 0.77Ln(x) + 3.65, ITE, Trip Generation 8th Edition, 2008 3) Ln(t) = 0.80Ln(x) + 1.55, 88% in/12% outbound, ITE, Trip Generation 8th Edition, 2008 4) T = 1.12(x) + 78.81, 17% in/83% outbound, ITE, Trip Generation 8th Edition, 2008 5) Travel by Alternative mode including Transit, walk, Ride Bike, carpool, SUMC EIR, 2011 (Does not include use of “Go Passes” ) 6) Trips per Seat, 50% inbound, 50% outbound 7) Table C.4 Internal Trip Capture, Page 125, Trip Generation, 8th Edition, ITE, 2008 Source: Sandis, 2012, Review of the Table 6 will indicate the proposed project is forecast to generate approximately 3,066 new vehicle trips per day of which approximately 310 would occur during the morning peak hour and another 328 during the evening peak hour. 10.g Packet Pg. 346 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 16 3.2 Trip Distribution Trip forecasts for the Project were distributed to the roadway network using the same basic distribution assumed for SUMC related employee traffic in terms of both local and regional trip origins and destinations, (City of Palo Alto, 2011, 2012). A summary of the inbound and outbound distribution relative to the roadway network is summarized in Figures 5A and 5B respectively. 4.0 Potential Transportation Related Impacts The transportation related evaluation focused on two key areas. The first was potential impacts associated with increased traffic levels and the second was potential impacts associated with the proposed relocation of the existing Marguerite/ VTA bus drop-off and parking area to the loop road. The traffic evaluation assumes Year 2025 conditions with versus without the Project. Year 2025 Baseline conditions (without the Project) assume other projects in the surrounding area expected to be completed by 2025 including the Stanford Medical Center improvements together with required transportation related measures. Potential Project related impacts are identified and evaluated using a comparison of Baseline conditions to Baseline plus Project conditions. 4.1 Roadway Operating Characteristics. As discussed earlier, the evaluation of potential project related impacts to the roadway network for this project focused on the nine intersections listed in Table 1. Project conditions were evaluated and then compared using a peak hour intersection LOS analysis as described below. 4.1.1 Intersection Traffic Signal Operations: The addition of cumulative Year 2025 base case traffic volumes to existing volumes are forecast to not create a significant adverse impact at the majority of the study intersections. The cumulative Year 2025 increase in traffic volumes include buildout of the recently approved SUMC facility as well as all transportation related mitigation measures associated with the project (Caltrain Go Pass, improved Marguerite service, etc). Background Year 2025 Baseline Peak Hour Traffic volumes are summarized in Figure 6. Project peak hour traffic volumes at the nine intersections are summarized in Figure 7. Base Year 2025 without Project: The results of the peak hour LOS analysis of the increased traffic volumes associated with Year 2025 background conditions are summarized in Table 7. Review of the table will indicate six intersections are forecast to operate at an LOS A-D which is acceptable based upon City of Palo Alto Standards. However, the intersection of El Camino Real with University Avenue is forecast to operate at an LOS F during the morning peak and LOS E during the evening peak and the intersection of El Camino Real with Embarcadero Road are forecast to operate at an LOS E during the evening peak period. 10.g Packet Pg. 347 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10 . g Pa c k e t P g . 3 4 8 Attachment: Attachment G: 27 University Ave Draft Preliminary Traffic Assessment (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) 10 . g Pa c k e t P g . 3 4 9 Attachment: Attachment G: 27 University Ave Draft Preliminary Traffic Assessment (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) (cntd from 9/24)) 10.g Packet Pg. 350 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10.g Packet Pg. 351 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 21 Table 7 Base Year 2025 Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service AM PM Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit # Intersection LOS Delay V/C Delay LOS Delay V/C Delay 1. Sand Hill Road/ C 28.3 0.617 36.2 D+ 38.3 0.754 46.2 El Camino Real 2 El Camino Real/ B 16.1 0.546 21 C 25.7 0.627 15.6 Quarry 3. El Camino Real/ F 95.8 1.165 120.9 E 71 1.017 79.8 University 4. El Camino Real/ D- 51.2 0.875 56.9 E+ 57 0.948 65.3 Embarcadero 5. University Avenue/ C 28.9 0.618 31.2 C- 33.8 0.83 39.5 Middlefield 6 Embarcadero/ D 41.2 0.679 43.5 D+ 38.7 0.684 41.3 Middlefield 7. Sand Hill Road/ C+ 20.7 0.631 23.3 C 29.3 0.698 34.4 Pasteur 8. Sand Hill Road/ C+ 22.2 0.591 26.1 C- 34 0.716 45.1 Arboretum 9. Quarry Road/ C- 33 0.589 33.8 C 29.2 0.657 33.3 Arboretum Source: Sandis, 2012, Stanford University Medical Center EIR, City of Palo Alto, 2011. Year 2025 with Project: Review of Table 8 and comparison to the results in Table 7 will indicate completion of the project is forecast to have a significant impact assuming cumulative Year 2025 conditions at two of the nine locations reviewed. These include the intersections of El Camino with University Avenue and Embarcadero Road. The Proposed Project will not cause peak hour operating conditions at the remaining seven intersections to deteriorate below LOS D or the minimum level acceptable to the City of Palo Alto. The intersection of El Camino Real with University Avenue is a grade separated interchange with El Camino dipping under University and the extension of Palm Drive into Stanford. The interchange has a basic diamond configuration with interconnected signalized ramp junctures. The basic diamond configuration is further complicated by the presence of the Urban Lane/ Mitchell Lane Loop which provides access to the 10.g Packet Pg. 352 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 22 Caltrain Station and the 27 University site. Currently the Loop intersects both sides of the northbound ramp juncture with most movements limited to right turns. However, the westbound exit from the loop to westbound University is controlled by the signals. This is unique to this location and does impact the overall capacity of the interchange because additional green signal time has to be allocated to this movement. Traffic forecasts of Year 2025 conditions completed for the SUMC Project indicated this intersection is forecast to operate at an LOS F in the morning and LOS E in the evening peak commute periods regardless of the Proposed Project. Potential impacts associated with the Project will vary dependent upon how access is finally provided to the Project garages (will access be allowed from the Urban Lane Mitchell Drive Loop) and if/ how the Loop is reconfigured as discussed below. Table 8 Year 2025 Plus Project Peak Hour Intersection Level of Service AM PM Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit Avg Crit # Intersection LOS Delay V/C Delay LOS Delay V/C Delay 1. Sand Hill Road/ C 28.5 0.618 36.2 D 39.0 0.761 46.3 El Camino Real 2 El Camino Real/ B 16.1 0.546 21 D 39.6 0.837 40.9 Quarry 3. El Camino Real/ F 115.4 1.221 144.5 E 71.3 1.031 80.4 University 4. El Camino Real/ D- 52.6 0.893 58.7 E 60.9 0.981 73.1 Embarcadero 5. University Avenue/ C 29.3 0.645 31.7 D+ 35.6 0.855 41.5 Middlefield 6 Embarcadero/ D 42.2 0.698 44.4 D 39.7 0.701 42.2 Middlefield 7. Sand Hill Road/ C 21.5 0.654 24.6 D 32.2 0.720 39.2 Pasteur 8. Sand Hill Road/ C 22.7 0.638 27.5 D 37.5 0.740 51.8 Arboretum 9. Quarry Road/ C- 33.3 0.594 34.0 C 29.2 0.658 33.4 Arboretum Source: Sandis, 2012, Stanford University Medical Center EIR, City of Palo Alto, 2011. The intersection of El Camino Real with Quarry Road is currently a tee intersection with Quarry Road ending at El Camino. The Project includes extending Quarry into the site as a primary means of access as indicated in Figure 2. The intersection currently serves as the juncture point for the northbound on-ramp from University with the ramp extending into the intersection slightly and movements from the ramp being limited to 10.g Packet Pg. 353 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 23 continuing northbound on El Camino Real. Vehicles on the ramp are not allowed to turn left and are controlled with the same signal indications as northbound El Camino. Assuming this basic configuration with the ramp is maintained would mean traffic cannot turn right from the northbound through lanes across the on-ramp which in turn means traffic attempting to enter the site northbound on El Camino Real will be required to exit at University, cross University to the on-ramp and use the driveway from the ramp into the garage. A preferred way may be to provide a separate signal phase for the ramp which would allow vehicles to turn left into westbound Quarry from the ramp and allow right turns from northbound El Camino in to the site. The concern is initial review of traffic forecasts for the Project indicates signal operations at the intersection may not be able to accommodate all the movements and will deteriorate to an LOS F. It is forecast to operate at an LOS D with the Project if the current configuration is maintained. This should be further evaluated as the Project continues to be refined in terms of size and access. 4.2 Urban Lane/ Mitchell Lane Loop As described earlier, the Project site is adjacent to the Palo Alto Intermodal Transit Station (PAITS) and includes relocation of the current bus loading and parking area to accommodate a new theater and subsurface parking. The current plan is to relocate the bus area to a combination of the Urban/ Mitchell Lane Loop and the extension of Urban Lane towards the Palo Alto Medical Foundation complex. Figure 2 shows a potential realignment of the Urban Lane/ Mitchell Lane Loop with the northbound El Camino Real ramps at University Avenue. As discussed previously, access to and from the loop is partially controlled currently with westbound traffic from the loop being signalized. Maneuvers from both off ramps are controlled by the signals. Physically separating the loop road from the ramp junctures at University is being considered to add capacity for bus loading to the loop road. Review of Figure 2 will show the curb being squared and extended to lengthen space available for bus use. The loop roadway will remain two-way and would also be widened to allow use of the curb in both directions. The reconfiguration is continuing to be refined but current estimates indicate being able to provide approximately 30 bus loading/ layover spaces between the loop and the extension of Urban Lane. The reconfiguration will require a series of modifications to the existing bridge structure and existing traffic signal layout and timing dependent upon the final design. As indicated in Figure 2, the squaring/ straightening of the Loop could shift the intersection of the ends of the Loop away from the ramp junctures approximately 100 to 200 feet. They would intersect the ramps directly, back from University. This will require a sophisticated vehicle detection system and signal timing plan specifically tailored to the roadway conditions be developed once the transit agencies determine their access and circulation patterns. The current plan is also considering the use of two short segments of two-way traffic between University and the relocated Loop Road intersections to facilitate improved bus circulation through the site. This is still under evaluation dependent upon transit operator needs but will require continued refinement of allowable movement and associated lane requirements The geometrics of the design to date demonstrate what will be needed to accommodate bus turning and parking maneuvering. Further operational evaluation will be needed as 10.g Packet Pg. 354 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 24 transit agencies provide continued input regarding their needs. The proposed plan alternatives should now be reviewed by transit providers relative to meeting each agency’s drop-off and circulation needs. Some queue/ storage areas are limited (northbound ECR off-ramp left turn at University, etc) which could impact transit operations. These aspects will need to be further evaluated and refined once transit users have determined how the overall concept could work for them. A key part of the final solution will be developing a means of ensuring queue lengths don’t exceed storage areas at entry points to the loop road. Vehicles eastbound on Palm Drive turning into the loop road (Marguerite) in a counterclockwise direction will need to be able to do so without being blocked by northbound off-ramp traffic waiting to turn left towards Stanford. Similarly, buses circulating in a clockwise direction attempting to turn left onto westbound University/ Palm may need to be metered to limit queues. 10.g Packet Pg. 355 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t G : 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e D r a f t P r e l i m i n a r y T r a f f i c A s s e s s m e n t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 1 of 20 PLANNING& TRANSPORTATION 1 COMMISSION 2 MINUTES (EXCERPT)3 4 ==================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26====================== Wednesday, October 10, 2012 Meeting5 6:00 PM, Council Chambers6 1st Floor, Civic Center7 250 Hamilton Avenue8 Palo Alto, California 943019 10 ROLE CALL:6:05 PM11 12 Commissioners:Staff:13 Eduardo Martinez –Chair14 Samir Tuma Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director15 Arthur Keller -Absent Amy French, Chief Planning Official16 Greg Tanaka Steven Turner, Advance Planning Manager17 Mark Michael-Vice-Chair Peter Jensen, Landscape Architect, Public Works18 Alex Panelli Robin Ellner, Administrative Assoc. III19 Michael Alcheck20 21 22 23 Study Session: Height Discussion24 25 Chair Martinez: The first item is a study session and our initial Commission discussions on 26 building heights in Palo Alto. Assistant Director Aknin, please.27 28 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Thank you and good evening Chair and Planning Commission. 29 As noted in the memo to the Planning, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) at the 30 September 24th City Council Hearing,the City Council considered a proposal for a project at 27 31 University. And part of the discussion was whether or not to move this forward to an advisory 32 ballot for the entire City to consider. The Council did not take action on this item that night,and 33 asked staff to engage in discussion with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) as well as the 34 PTC on two subjects. 35 36 The first subject was heights in general within the City of Palo Alto. As the Commission knows 37 about 40 years ago a 50 foot height limit was placed within the City of Palo Alto on all buildings 38 and the Chief Planning Official will go more into the history of that. And there’ve been very few 39 exceptions to this height limit since, but due to a number of things,there have been proposals 40 over the last few months and last few years that proposed to exceed this height limit. So they 41 wanted an overall discussion to see how applicable this height limit still is in 2012. 42 43 They also wanted the staff to engage the ARB as well as the PTC in a discussion of 27 44 University. And we will have this discussion two weeks from now both with the ARB in a joint 45 study session and then a more detailed discussion with the PTC immediately following that. So 46 10.h Packet Pg. 356 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 2 of 20 for tonight’s discussion,please keep your comments to overall height limits in general. The 1 Chief Planning Official,Amy French,will go more into that discussion and provide more 2 background and then in two weeks we can discuss the 27 University project. So at this point I’ll 3 turn it over to Amy. 4 5 Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good evening. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, put 6 together a little something for you. The Comprehensive Plan does have a statement about how,7 in the 1970’s,we adopted a height limit of 50 feet citywide. There are some zones that allow 8 that,and many zones that do not. So there’ve only been a few exceptions,as our Assistant 9 Director noted. We have some fun views of buildings in the slide presentation. We do have the 10 statement in Program L3 that talks about how we want to “periodically review height and density 11 limits to discourage single uses inappropriate in size and scale to surrounding uses.” So I think 12 that’s interesting;you know, we do have some projects come through that are mixed use,and it 13 specifically says single uses. 14 15 Looking at the Comp Plan Aaron got a hold of from our former Director Natalie Knox, the 1963 16 Comprehensive Plan that projected a hundred thousand people as noted,and there were buildings 17 that were 1960’s that were reflecting that -the taller buildings, many residential buildings among 18 them. And in 1974,the Comp Plan stated that most Palo Altans do not support this population 19 projection. In the mid-70’s (1977 I think)the 50 foot height limit was established and it was 20 seen as helping to limit further growth. And then I can show you many of the buildings that 21 were around there. Quite a few 10-story buildings in town;you have a list there, and I’ll show 22 the images. 23 24 Not on the list, I didn’t get on there, are Crowne Plaza Cabana over on El Camino Real -that’s 25 an eight-story building,built in 1969. Also the Tan Plaza built in 1964, eight stories as well over 26 on Arastradero. So the Fire Department keeps a list of these. They’re mostly residential. There 27 are three among those listed that are office: City Hall, the office building at 525 University, and 28 3000 El Camino known as Palo Alto Square. And we have the seven-story buildings and a lot of 29 those are the older 1930’s residential buildings. 30 31 So I’m going to go ahead and just show the slideshow. Got that one, 101 Alma -the ARB noted 32 that that one was back behind trees and setback from Alma and so it really doesn’t have a lot of 33 impact from the street. Channing House. Forest Towers,called “The Mark.” This is the one 34 (525 University) that set things in motion as far as the height limit. It was not a Planned 35 Community (PC). The rest of those were PC’s. This is 1966. Then we have the older buildings, 36 the seven stories, charming,older buildings from an earlier era. Then, Casa Olga which was 37 built originally as a hotel but then it was residential for many years and now going back to hotel 38 with the new hotel provider, under construction. Then there’s City Hall,of course. 39 40 Then we have the downtown buildings,many examples of four-story buildings downtown,and a41 range in Floor Area Ratio (FAR). There’s a whole range of FAR’s. There’re some that are on 42 very large sites. There’re some that are on small sites, infill sites, and corner sites. So I just put 43 a few of them up there;as you can see some of these are taller than 50 feet and only three stories. 44 Some of them are five stories and still under 70 feet;but it’s hard to do a five-story building in 45 50 feet. Impossible really, if you’re going to have anything on the ground floor that is retail,or 46 anything. 47 48 10.h Packet Pg. 357 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 3 of 20 So then we have some recently approved projects that are under construction. We’ve got the 1 Lytton Gateway -and all of these are around 50 feet -the 801 Alma, which is the housing project 2 that was going to be a PC and then they removed the retail and it just became an ARB process; 3 278 University, which is retail and office;and then the 317-323 University,which is retail and 4 office as well.5 6 And then these are some of the outlying buildings already discussed, but we have had some taller 7 buildings built in recent years,and one of those is in East Palo Alto. So it’s not really Palo Alto, 8 but it’s on this side of the freeway so one absorbs the height when one is coming off the freeway. 9 And then we have Taube Koret CJL project down on San Antonio,where you see the theater10 building right there on the corner. And then we had a few -these are the most recent,large 11 projects that we’ve had: the two Hilton projects on El Camino. Those are four stories under 50 12 feet. And then a couple of mixed use projects. Mr. Hohback had come through the process with 13 a three-story building,and a four-story building. So those were both under the 50 feet limit,for 14 the most part.15 16 And, Clare Malone Prichard,the ARB Chair is here tonight to meet up with you and observe as 17 well. So the ARB, this is the feedback: ARB was talking last week about some of the things that 18 interested them about the height in Palo Alto. I can go back to this slide for her when she is 19 speaking, but it was quite a lively conversation, a very interesting conversation.20 21 And then we have zoning districts that allow the 50 feet. So we have quite a few of them that do 22 allow 50 feet. And then we get to the subject matter of the David Baker article that I provided 23 via e-mail last week,and it is at places and at the back table. It talks about ground floor and 24 urban design, the kind of heights that we used to see built back in the day and feel good for retail 25 spaces with tall ceilings. And then what do you do on the upper floors? You’re squishing things 26 or you’re giving heights that you can live in,and it’s either a three-story, four-story, or five-story27 building. Again, hard to get five stories unless…well, you can’t do it in less than 50 feet. 28 29 So,we went through and looked at a couple of different cities, neighboring cities to see what 30 their height limits are. Menlo Park:60 feet for four-story or five-story residential,or residential 31 mixed use,and 48 feet for three-story mixed use,or four-story residential. Then we got East 32 Palo Alto, they’ve got six stories. Mountain View,they’ve got a few areas now six stories or 86 33 feet,whichever is less. So it’s interesting as you know you talk about stories, you talk about 34 height, and you can talk about both or one or the other,as far as a limiting factor. Palo Alto 35 doesn’t have a downtown precise plan as other cities do, more recently prepared. We have here36 San Mateo:55 to 75 feet. I have links on this too I can send it out,and those can go in their 37 spare time, look at those cities. Downtown Redwood City,of course,is quite a bit higher, 12-38 story, 10-story, going down to, you know, the standard is eight-story. I guess it’s the most 39 common area in their downtown,eight-story allowed. 40 41 So basically this is the content. Our Chair was interested in these topics where building heights 42 could be looked at from, you know, planning values including urban design and other values that 43 buildings are allowed to exceed the height limit. Sometimes they are done to make buildings 44 better. Sometimes height allows to have a land use such as residential on the top, adding floor to 45 ceiling heights, and basically just so everyone’s aware that downtown has the Regional 46 Community Commercial land use designation. It’s not Neighborhood Commercial and so it is a 47 place where additional heights can be handled;you just have to look at the edge conditions. 48 10.h Packet Pg. 358 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 4 of 20 1 So other areas to think about are growth,and putting density near transit. This has been a topic. 2 I just threw in here the mixed use definition:it allows up to three, three to one FAR where the 3 area is resistant to revitalization. So,some cities,like larger cities, San Jose or south of Market 4 in San Francisco,do have higher density districts. The concept of opportunity development 5 where the City is presented with an opportunity,and then actively looking for key opportunity 6 sites,where you might have minor increases or major increases in height. 7 8 And of course all of this is a kick-off meeting with the Planning Commission,as we’ve had with 9 the ARB;it leads to other things,like public outreach and additional meetings and further 10 discussion. So, I just threw in the typical stakeholders in the public process that would want to 11 be involved. So, with that,we’ll entertain questions. I know Clare’s here to present the ARB, so 12 I can roll back to that slide. 13 14 Chair Martinez: Ok, Commissioners, why don’t we begin with if you have questions about what 15 either Assistant Director Aknin or the Chief Planning Official presented. Do you have questions 16 regarding that? Why don’t we ask those and then we’ll open the public hearing. 17 Commissioners? Anyone, questions? Ok, Commissioner Panelli. 18 19 Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Chairman. I wanted to go back to the, to the comments on the 20 history. You talked about the 1963 Comp Plan projecting a Palo Alto population of 100,000 21 people. Was there a time horizon associated with that or was that more of a when we get to 22 100,000 we’re sort of done? What, can you shed some light?23 24 Mr. Aknin: No, I have to look into it more. It wasn’t a pretty. It appeared to be a pretty 25 aggressive growth projection so I don’t think it was this is a 100 year plan. I think there were26 actually time expectations that were more minimal than that. I actually have a copy of the 1974 27 plan that refers back to the 1963 plan and basically says, “In the 1963 plan there was a Palo Alto 28 population projection up to 100,000. At this point and time most Palo Altans do not agree with 29 that population projection so we are relooking at our policies.” 30 31 Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Tuma.32 33 Commissioner Tuma: So I want to stay with the question on history. From this presentation the 34 one statement that I see here that talks about what the history was, was the idea that we would 35 use this in order to limit future growth. I have heard in the community over the course of the last 36 couple of weeks various different theories or justifications or thoughts on why we have this 50 37 foot height limit. Can you shed some more light on the historical, other than to limit future 38 growth? And specifically one of the, one of the statements that I heard which is intriguing is that 39 it had something to do with the notion, the planning notion that 50 feet was about as high as you 40 wanted to go in order to retain a scale that “felt good,” whatever that means. That was walkable, 41 that didn’t feel urban, I don’t know exactly what it means, but I think we’re at a point in this 42 whole discussion in the community where I’m seeing a ramp up of different theories of why we 43 got here. And I see a lot of it tied to a person’s predisposition to think a certain way about the 44 height limit. 45 46 So to the extent that we can get some more clarity, and it may happen tonight or it may just 47 happen as you move forward on why is, why was this put in place historically? And those 48 10.h Packet Pg. 359 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 5 of 20 historical contexts:do they still make sense as you said before in the context of 2012? So, I was 1 hoping we’d have more discussion tonight about the context and history. 2 3 Chair Martinez: Can I add a follow up to that? I’m assuming that we’re, this is the first of many 4 conversations that we will have on building height. It might be a good idea to ask a member of 5 the Historic Resources Board (HRB) to come speak to us on that subject because I think it’s a 6 fascinating topic and it would really shed light on the thinking of the time and how it compares 7 to where we are now. I appreciate that thought Commissioner.8 9 Commissioner Tuma: So I was wondering if they have any sort of response to it.10 11 Mr. Aknin: So I think it’s gonna take more time to really go back and talk to a number of people. 12 I’ve had initial discussion,as Amy noted,with the Planning Director during that time and he said 13 the same thing. He said there were a lot of different opinions at the time, that people probably 14 remember what came together at the time that resulted in this 50 foot height limit from whatever 15 perspective they were coming at the time. The most logical conclusion you could draw just from 16 reading the plan and seeing what the ’63 plan proposed of, a larger population projections and 17 then the end result was a 50 foot height limit. The immediate result was,just from reading it,is 18 that it was there to limit growth, but it could have been different things. It could have been 19 looking, the ARB pointed out that many of the buildings that were designed during this 1960’s 20 period aren’t of the best design. It could have been a design issue for many people that we had 21 these larger buildings looming over existing buildings that,in their opinion had better 22 architecture. So there was the urban design aspect of it. There was a population aspect of it. So 23 I think you’re right, I think there were many opinions that came together at the time. But more 24 research is going to be necessary in order to really find out all the different angles. 25 26 Commissioner Tuma: Okay, and just two follow up thoughts. One is that I do think the historic 27 context is relevant, but certainly not determinative. And I think the other conversation that needs 28 to be had is the second half of that which is, is this right for today’s world in 2012? The other 29 thing that I think we need to be careful about or talk about and I wish legal counsel was here to, 30 to answer this question, but something for you guys to take away, in the, in the era of 31 Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) regulations that explicitly put in place an order 32 to limit future growth, I’m not so sure that those couldn’t be challenged. And so if we’re going 33 to have whatever the outcome here is, I think it needs to be based on justifications that would 34 survive legal scrutiny. And we’ve seen cases in the not too distant past where certain restrictions 35 were overturned because they were specifically designed to limit growth. So I think we want to 36 be careful about in this discussion, that may have been the historical context but as we go 37 forward whatever direction we go I think we need to have justifications that are legally 38 defensible. 39 40 Chair Martinez: Chair, Vice-Chair.41 42 Vice-Chair Michaels: Yeah, just to continue on the exploration of what we learned from the 43 history. It appears that in 1974 there was this strong support to put in place a height limit that 44 might have the effect of limiting growth. And we’ll learn more about that as we have more 45 opportunity. There’s also as recently as 2012,the number one policy in the Housing Element is 46 to, if I can quote this directly, “preserve the character of existing…” And when I saw that I 47 abstained from either approving or opposing the draft Housing Element. And the reason was that 48 10.h Packet Pg. 360 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 6 of 20 struck me as a synonym for somehow hoping that there would be no change, which strikes me as 1 infeasible. Also from an analytic standpoint I’m not sure I know what “character” is. I mean 2 it’s, I walk down any street and I look in one direction, I look in another direction and every 3 direction I look at it’s sort of eclectic. So what exactly is it in some objective way are we saying 4 that is this character? 5 6 Now, Palo Alto is an exceptional community. It’s a very nice place. But I saw in the paper 7 today that the number one community in the United States to start up a business is Freemont. 8 And we’re seeing in the presentation from Ms. French some of the things that are going on in 9 other cities, other communities, some of which may be relevant to us and others maybe not so 10 much. But I think that if we are stuck in the past and we’re suffering a belief that we can sort of 11 suspend any change,then I think that the essential character of the City, the community that 12 many of us have enjoyed profoundly will probably deteriorate. And so in that spirit,I’m very 13 open to the discussion that will follow and the possibility that some of the complexities of all this 14 can be fully explored. And with sufficient community outreach maybe we can evolve a more 15 modern, more competitive, more appropriate point of view.16 17 Chair Martinez: Yes, Commissioner Alcheck.18 19 Commissioner Alcheck:Good evening. First I want to just say that I think this report is a great 20 start. I want to encourage, I know you guys are really busy, I want to encourage you to attempt, I 21 don’t know if that’s the right word, but attempt to try to get these things to us earlier. I think I 22 would’ve liked to review this during the week and kind of taken more time. I don’t mind 23 homework. So, to the extent that it’s feasible,I know you guys are always kind of working 24 towards timelines but getting this sort of stuff out earlier,so I can kind of send comments and 25 say, “Oh, I wonder if you could expand on this topic?” I think would be very helpful.26 27 My specific question about the presentation -I don’t know if this qualifies as a question or a 28 recommendation -but I’d love to sort of see you expand the analysis on our neighbors. I think 29 that this discussion could really benefit from a very analytical table and I think we should,if 30 you’re going to incorporate Menlo Park or Mountain View or East Palo Alto,I think you pick a 31 population size and then every city that has a population of that size and more that’s within 100 32 miles I’d like to know. I think we should include Foster City. I think we should include 33 Campbell. Let’s spread it out so that we -and it doesn’t have to be so in depth -but just to know 34 what is their max? And the reason I say that is because the examples we have, the five examples 35 we were given here are all cities that have higher height limits than we do. You know, I know 36 Los Altos which is a neighbor has a lower, imagine has a lower height limit since there’s nothing 37 there that’s taller than me. So, I only say that because I think it’s important that we see both 38 sides of that range. And it would help me because I could say, “Well, Palo Alto, is it more 39 similar to this city or this city?” And what are we, where are we trying, I think even including 40 San Jose. So that’s my kind of response to the presentation.41 42 Chair Martinez: I want to get in a few comments before I go to Commissioner Tanaka. First, I 43 want to acknowledge that our Chief Planning Official spent her Sunday transcribing the meeting 44 notes from the ARB meeting. So in this case,she’s not always so perfect, but in this case she 45 really did extra work to try to get these done for us. And again this is our first meeting and I 46 hope monthly or as quickly as we can get a new set of data together that we’ll be continuing this 47 conversation.48 10.h Packet Pg. 361 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 7 of 20 1 I have a slightly different request from Commissioner Alcheck and,rather than going to similar 2 size communities, I think the phenomena of growth and building height in our City is different. I 3 think it’s being pushed by what we see, not by the Residentialists and the, I forget what they 4 were called, the other side of the ‘60’s. I think it’s being pushed by economic forces; by the 5 unique circumstances of Palo Alto in the 21st Century. And I would like to see what the height 6 limit, the growth strategies are of other cities that are experiencing similar phenomena. 7 8 And the only one that I can think of off the top of my head is San Francisco and that’s totally 9 inappropriate if you look at only the size of the city and sort of what they’re dealing with. But 10 they are dealing with it in a fairly unique way. For example in South of Market they are looking 11 at building height on a parcel by parcel basis and they vary from 105 to 120. In the Mission 12 District it’s the same way and the maximum height can be 68 feet,with other kinds of conditions 13 that they’re placing on development. So,I’d like to see cities, I don’t know if it’s Santa Monica 14 or Pasadena or Austin or Ann Arbor or Freemont, I don’t know, that really are experiencing 15 growth in a similar way or the pressure for growth that we are. 16 17 Because I don’t think it’s first an urban and a design phenomena that we have to consider that,18 like the David Baker argument,that really it’s giving the bottom floor a little bit more air space 19 to make urban design better that is pushing growth. Urban design is a factor,but I don’t think 20 it’s our highest priority factor in Palo Alto and hopefully we’ll have the chance to talk about 21 some of these other things as we go forward. But I’d like to see this really analysis focus on 22 really the other aspects of height and growth and how the City can grow and preserve its 23 character. Because we all know what it is when we see it, right? And carry this discussion really 24 to a level that it deserves because it’s more than aesthetics, it’s more than an architectural design. 25 It’s a sense of our history,as Commissioner Tuma alluded to, but also as he said,it’s more than 26 that.27 28 Commissioner Tanaka. Comments? 29 30 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes, first of all thank you for putting this together; I thought it was very 31 helpful. My question is more around kind of like scenario analysis and I know this is probably 32 maybe too much to do right now, but maybe in future sessions it would be interesting to know, 33 do some “what if” analysis. So if let’s say in the pedestrian oriented areas we actually do as 34 Council directed, actually have higher building heights. What does that do in terms of our 35 population projection, traffic, parking, even our tax base? It would be interesting to see different 36 scenarios of, of heights. Right, so and this is kind of hard, cause it’s kind of open ended but 37 probably there would be some sort of set of analysis done based on different scenarios and that 38 way we could actually know what the impact is gonna be on the City. Because I think this is a 39 good survey of kind of what’s out there. And my fellow Commissioners have already spoken 40 about trying to get that more complete, but and I think that’s kind of more external, but I think 41 internally within the City it would be good to know what does this mean for the City in terms of 42 nuts and bolts? And so I don’t know if there’s a way for you guys to do this easily, but perhaps 43 if this analysis can be done I think it might be very enlightening to everyone.44 45 The other thing I was wondering about is I know that Palo Alto does surveys every year. Kind of 46 like on what people’s thoughts are. I don’t know if there was a question this year or in previous 47 years on what people think about density and the heights and stuff like that, but if not perhaps 48 10.h Packet Pg. 362 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 8 of 20 this kind of question can be entered into the annual survey. I know I recently got a postcard to, 1 to do a survey for the City, but it would be interesting to hear what our residents think. So those 2 are my, my comments. Thanks.3 4 Chair Martinez: Do you have a suggested scenario Commissioner Tanaka?5 6 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah, I would say that looking at raising the height limit in the 7 pedestrian oriented districts makes a lot of sense because that’s kind of like what the standing 8 thought is right now. Obviously some buildings have just been built and are not going to be 9 bulldozed anytime soon, but maybe some of those other buildings are older or maybe 10 underutilized and those may turn over. So it would be interesting to see, well if we actually had 11 buildings higher than 50 feet in these areas,what does it actually mean in terms of density, in 12 terms of population, parking, tax base? [Unintelligible]the City would be really interesting to 13 see all that and that we kind of know what the results of this decision is, more than aesthetically. 14 I think aesthetically we can all look at it and figure that out too, but I think knowing the longer 15 term impacts of what happens I think would be good too and that way it’s easier for people to 16 judge, “Well is this a good thing or bad thing?” It may be a good thing. Maybe it’s going to 17 increase our tax base [unintelligible]it’s going to make the City much more vibrant and more of 18 an economic leader perhaps. It could also be a big parking issue, right? So there’s a lot of ways 19 it could play out, but I think having some accurate models and scenarios that we could look at 20 that are somewhat plausible I think would be a good thing. 21 22 Chair Martinez: Ok, I’d like to open the public hearing. We don’t see any speaker cards. We 23 have one? We do. Ok. Vice-Chair. 24 25 Vice-Chair Michael: Bob Moss. 26 27 Robert Moss: Thank you Chair Martinez and Commissioners. I gather none of you were living 28 here in ’74 or ’75 as I was and I just say briefly that the thing that triggered the height limit was 29 Casa Olga and if you want I can go into more detail later. The 1963 estimates for population as I 30 recall were based on the assumption that we’re gonna be building extensively in the foothills. 31 And a report came out in 1971 at the request of the City Council, Livingston Blaney Report, 32 which killed that. And that’s the reason that the population in Palo Alto is significantly lower. If 33 you want to know why Livingston Blaney killed it I can get into that too. 34 35 Some comments about the Staff report. First of all where they suggest the El Camino is a good 36 place for additional high buildings, no way. That’s why I created the CN zone because we have 37 residential directly against the commercial along El Camino. And the last thing you want is to 38 put taller buildings. The CN zone has a 35 foot height limit because we’re trying to make the 39 buildings along El Camino compatible with the housing. So with rare exceptions you do not 40 want taller buildings along El Camino. If you want to see what a ghastly project tall buildings 41 along El Camino create, go down to San Antonio. We were there again today. Every time we 42 drive by there,my wife looks at me and says, “My God, what are they doing there?” 43 44 Second, looking at the heights in other cities, I could care less what the height limit is in 45 Mountain View or Menlo Park or Redwood City. We’re in Palo Alto and we want to do what’s 46 best for Palo Alto. And the 50 foot height limit maintains the scale, scope, and most important 47 development density and intensity. Build it taller and especially if you look where all the tall 48 10.h Packet Pg. 363 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 9 of 20 buildings are with rare exceptions, Palo Alto Square is the only really one in town, they’re 1 downtown. Most of them are residential buildings. Some of them are unique, 101 Alma for 2 example. The reason it’s there and the reason it’s so big is because it was put in intentionally to 3 block cars going from 101 to Stanford. And that’s why it’s a tall building. Almost all the other 4 buildings, there’s only four buildings in Palo Alto that are 100 feet or more and 101 Alma’s the 5 tallest. 140 feet.6 7 The intent is to keep Palo Alto low scale and the reason that you’re seeing a lot of requests for 8 tall buildings, now bear this in mind, the City Council made a policy statement several years ago 9 that they were willing to accept taller buildings near the centers where we have transit, 10 particularly the train stations at California and University. And the intent was to have residential 11 buildings there and what they said was if we had tall residential buildings we’ll have more 12 housing there,and that’s where people can take the train and that makes things much nicer. 13 14 The buildings that are actually coming in are commercial buildings and the reason they want to 15 put commercial buildings in is because they make money. Are you aware of the fact that during 16 the Dot Com boom office rents in Palo Alto were the highest in the entire world? They were 17 higher than downtown Manhattan or downtown Tokyo. And even today after the Dot Com bust 18 they’re still among the highest in the world. We’re only a few dollars a month lower for office 19 rents than Manhattan. So obviously if they can build tall office buildings they can make a lot of 20 money. The problem we’ve got is the jobs/housing imbalance and the more tall office buildings 21 you allow, the more jobs and therefore the more pressure to build more housing. 22 23 So, getting back to the reasons why we put in the 50 foot height limit, parking downtown was 24 getting to be a mess; we didn’t have the parking garages we have today. Spill over into the 25 neighborhoods was awful. Traffic was awful and we could see more of it coming. Casa Olga26 was also identified as something that’s gonna be shadowing the homes behind, the buildings 27 behind it and we didn’t want any more of that. We wanted to keep the City low scale. We didn’t 28 want to encourage big jump in the job/housing imbalance and we didn’t want to make the City 29 something which was designed for outside developers and not for the people that live here. 30 Those were the primary reasons. There were some other reasons when we put it in, but we did 31 not want to make Palo Alto basically the home for high density development. 32 33 And one other thing you ought to be aware of, maybe you’re aware of this, but multi-family 34 housing costs the City more than single family housing to service than you get in taxes. And this 35 has been true for decades. When I helped incorporate Rancho Palos Verdes I did a study and it 36 turns out that low and behold that multi-family areas were costing about $1,200. This was in 37 1971 dollars, whereas single family was costing about $800. Today it’s about $1,500 and about 38 $2,000. The more tall multi-family buildings you build the higher the impact on the City 39 finances. You want to be very careful about that.40 41 And one last comment, when they talk about worrying about the heights of the floors, if you 42 want to put in more floor height, that’s fine. Have fewer total floors. Stay within the 50 foot 43 height limit.44 45 Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Moss. I’d like to hear from Chair Malone Prichard. Thank you 46 for coming.47 48 10.h Packet Pg. 364 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 10 of 20 Clare Malone Prichard, Chair ARB: And thank you for inviting me. Clare Malone Prichard, 1 Chair of the Architectural Review Board. So Amy actually gave a very good synopsis of what 2 was said at the meeting. I’ll give you a little more detail. Generally all of the Board Members 3 were open to the idea of allowing more height, but there were some serious concerns raised that 4 need to be considered. The first is the need to protect the R1 homes. As Mr. Moss mentioned 5 R1 homes are behind a lot of the commercial districts. You don’t want to allow very tall 6 buildings where they are going to be shadowing and impacting those homes. Parking is 7 definitely an issue. There are a lot of overflow parking problems and we don’t want to make that 8 any worse than it currently is. 9 10 Most of the Members felt that additional height may be appropriate in certain locations and that 11 it would be wise to do a study to determine what those locations might be. To look at what the 12 impacts are, what is nearby? What are the services? Is it close to a train or a bus line? There 13 was also discussion of using the height limit in order to encourage things that we want rather 14 than just saying let’s allow higher buildings. Maybe we keep the height limit where it is but we 15 say if you do these things that we identify that we want in the City then perhaps you get more 16 height. Topics that came up were more residential units,or a higher ground floor retail,or 17 ground floor pedestrian spaces, plazas, that sort of thing. 18 19 And there was also a discussion about whether the 50 feet is the magic number that should be 20 followed or whether we should be looking at the number of stories. And nobody really knew 21 exactly what that number of stories should be, but it’s something that is worth studying. Do we 22 want three-story, four-story, five-story character? And if so couldn’t we just say that that’s the 23 number of stories we allow and then use the architectural design process to determine whether or 24 not their designing building is too big for that particular location. So those are the major topics 25 that we handled and I’m sure there will be much more interesting and lively discussion.26 27 Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioners, questions to the Chair? Yes, Vice-Chair Michael.28 29 Vice-Chair Michael: So, so Chair Malone Prichard, I wonder if we, if we saw a change in the 30 height limit where it was sort of overall or just in certain locations, what, what sort of impact do 31 you think that the ARB would be able to have regarding the quality of higher buildings? You 32 know, the how attractive they would be, what sort of roofline? I think one of the issues that 33 we’ve seen is that, from many places in Palo Alto, you can see the skyline of the Santa Cruz 34 Mountains. But if you begin to have a small sort of urban skyline in Palo Alto that was either, 35 aesthetically pleasing or not, that might be something that would be affected by the site and 36 design review, the ARB, and what you do. Did you have any discussion along those lines? 37 38 Ms. Malone Prichard: Yes, there was one Member who was very much interested in not making 39 the height limit too high for that very reason. That if you start to have clusters of very tall 40 buildings,you change the character of the City. There was another Board Member who said 41 because our height limit is so low we’re not getting interesting buildings because their, the 42 developers are squeezing whatever they can into the floors and there’s no room left at the top for 43 any kind of interesting articulation. So it sort of cuts both ways. 44 45 As far as what impact the ARB might have on that with any project we try to make projects 46 better, but you can’t take a not so good project and make it perfect. So, I’ve always felt that 47 what we’re doing is improving the projects that come in. 48 10.h Packet Pg. 365 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 11 of 20 1 Chair Martinez: I have a question for you. When we talked on the bus the other day you talked 2 about having more flexibility. Can you elaborate on that?3 4 Ms. Malone Prichard: Yeah, the flexibility was really linked to the discussion of looking at 5 numbers of stories versus height. If you say randomly that three or four stories is the number of 6 stories you will allow you’re allowing the designer of the building the latitude to decide whether 7 their bottom story wants to be 12, 14, 16 feet and look at their proportions as best they can. 8 Whereas with the 50 foot height limit that we currently have you’re really squashed if your 9 developer wants you to do three stories or four stories. You don’t have that much design 10 latitude.11 12 Chair Martinez: Yes, Vice-Chair Michael.13 14 Vice-Chair Michael: So, I had a couple of other questions and maybe this is something you could 15 comment on. One is the relationship between you talked about, well in doing a PC application 16 we look at public benefit and sometimes it’s, that’s hard to define and it’s questioned whether 17 it’s really benefiting the public or some small part of the public or even sort of private benefit. 18 But if you, I believe in the Menlo Park plan that was recently approved after a long period of 19 discussion, controversy, and study what they’re contemplating is they’ve raised their height limit 20 along El Camino and Santa Cruz Avenue with achieving some control over parking with parking 21 structures which are now surface parking lots is the creation some of, some surface public plaza 22 and park space in a pleasing way with the taller buildings. So I’m, I’m curious about the 23 possibility of if we foresee a situation in which certain buildings, certain locations would go 24 higher, whether this would be a way to incorporate more attractive surface spaces for the public. 25 26 And the other thing is,a related question about as I go around to other cities which I find either 27 examples of what to do or what not to do. It appears that the daylight plane and the width of the 28 street is a factor that affects how wide the sidewalks can be for pedestrian uses and ground floor 29 retail attractiveness and I’m not sure that we have enough really wide boulevards in Palo Alto to 30 go crazy on changing the height limit. But that might suggest that say along El Camino which is 31 a broader street that would be notwithstanding the comments by Mr. Moss, something we might 32 want to sort of move towards or, but the daylight plane and then the public benefit on the surface, 33 opening of the surface by going up. 34 35 Ms. Malone Prichard: So, I’m starting with the surfaces. That was actually something that we 36 discussed that given that we have a limit on floor area what will happen if you allow a higher 37 height is that the floor plates will become smaller. Your buildings will get taller and that gives 38 you more ground floor space that can be utilized for plazas and that sort of thing. So that is a 39 benefit to allowing that greater height. And as far as the daylight plane issue, ARB actually 40 discussed that at our retreat a month or two ago. And we actually pulled out a zoning map and 41 found that along El Camino we all thought that everything that backs up to El Camino was R1 42 and we found actually there were quite a few areas where that was not the case. So there may be 43 sections of El Camino where it does make sense to have a higher height limit and you’re not 44 really impacting R1 zones.45 46 Chair Martinez: Ok, one last question. In applying the David Baker model, which it seems that 47 most of your Board Members supported, we’re talking about raising building heights a little bit. 48 10.h Packet Pg. 366 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 12 of 20 So, that in itself could be handled the way you handle Design Enhancement Exception’s (DEE), 1 right? That it’s something you have the discretion to recommend to, to make the architecture 2 and urban design better. Why would we need to change building heights for that?3 4 Ms. Malone Prichard: I believe,and Amy can correct me if I’m wrong on that, ARB doesn’t 5 have the ability to allow higher than 50 foot height through DEE. Is that correct?6 7 Ms. French: Yes, that’s a very sensitive topic -to have the ARB approving over 50 feet. When 8 we have architectural features, the DEE cannot be used to approve additional floor area. And so 9 by pushing up the floor, if the floor starts at 45 feet and the ceiling is at 53 feet, then you’re 10 violating the allowance of how and why you can use the DEE. You can’t use the Design 11 Enhancement Exception to increase the amount of floor area in a building. So, we wouldn’t be 12 able to make the findings if you’re doing it for the volume of space over 50 feet. Just for 13 architectural features:a roof, a roof or a detail,an architectural feature is what the ARB is 14 reviewing. 15 16 Chair Martinez: Ok, I get it. Thank you very much.17 18 Ms. Malone Prichard: Thank you.19 20 Chair Martinez: Can -changing courses a bit -can we read Commissioner Keller’s comments?21 22 Mr. Aknin: Gladly. Commissioner Keller is out of town right now so he asked that his 23 comments be read into the record. “Increasing height can have impacts on traffic and on 24 adjacent properties, in particular smaller scale residential properties. A detailed traffic impact 25 study should accompany any analysis of potentially increasing building heights. I assume a 26 traffic study is being performed as part of the downtown non-residential density study being 27 commenced as a result of reaching the development cap. 28 29 Point two, to the extent we consider raising height limits along El Camino Real we should, we 30 need to consider the impact on residential properties behind these properties in particular R1 31 and R2 properties. Currently the height limit in certain zoning districts is lower near residential 32 zones. It is often said that increased density is necessary for increased transit service; however, 33 it is unlikely that any amount of increased density will result in increased bus service by Santa 34 Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) within Palo Alto. Although there may be 35 increases in intercity bus service such as the 22 and 522 bus lines. Part of any study should 36 consider if the height limits were to be raised and corresponding floor limit imposed whether 37 that be justification for prohibiting design enhancement exceptions for height other than truly 38 small architectural features. We should consider the extent to which there’s evidence that the 39 existing height limits are a problem and should be increased.”40 41 Here’s a question, “Is there a scope of any study to consider increasing height limits and 42 imposing limits on floors but retaining FAR limits if increasing, if increasing FAR limit 43 requires far more extensive study? Any study should consider the impact of raising the height 44 limit on commercial square footage limits around the City, such as downtown.”45 46 Chair Martinez: Great, thank you. So Commissioner Keller is actually looking at building 47 heights from the other side. Rather than, rather than we’re considering building heights he’s 48 10.h Packet Pg. 367 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 13 of 20 saying well, if we’re going to consider building heights let’s first consider impacts on 1 neighborhood and traffic, transportation. Yes, Commissioner Tuma.2 3 Commissioner Tuma: I have a question, procedural question here and again, we don’t have our 4 City Attorney with us. We have a long history of not allowing Commissioners to participate in 5 meetings if they’re not physically present. I for one have been a proponent of being able to do 6 that, but we keep getting shot down by counsel because of Brown Act issues and that sort of 7 thing. And so I’m a little bit uncomfortable with Commissioner Keller’s comments even being 8 presented tonight. I get even more uncomfortable if we get into a discussion about them. So I 9 don’t know if we can get some clarity from counsel or if you guys have even talked about this 10 in advance of these being presented, but we’ve always been sort of not only dissuaded but 11 frankly told we couldn’t do it in the past. So I kind of wanted to get some clarity on that if we 12 could. 13 14 Mr. Aknin: It’s my understanding as long as the comments are presented to the public and 15 presented to the Commission that you can discuss them in the same manner that if a member of 16 the public submitted a letter for your consideration you’d be able to discuss those comments as 17 well. We, I will touch base with the City Attorney’s office and report back with this. That’s 18 always been my understanding in other cities as well.19 20 Chair Martinez: But Commissioner Tuma’s comments and concerns are important and I don’t 21 think we necessarily have to continue with responding or commenting on his, his submitted 22 comments. So why don’t we table that for now and you can report back to us on what our City 23 Attorney has to say. 24 25 Ok, I am closing the public hearing since we have no more speakers. This is a hot topic for the 26 City. I do encourage members of the public to submit e-mail responses, to speak at our next 27 session in two weeks. Let us know. Continue this conversation. 28 29 I’d like to hear from Commissioners on their initial thoughts about the 50 foot height limit and 30 sort of how they view it at this point and time. It’s sort of a hard question to just sort of toss on 31 you, but I think it’s important to kind of begin to formulate our thinking and express some ideas 32 about our feelings. I,for one,feel sort of protective of it. So, and I find it surprisingly, 33 surprising of myself as an architect to sort of not want to build, build, build. But I also see a 34 sense of history and a sense of sort of what our downtown is and the scale of this community as 35 being important. I’m not saying I’m not interested in exploring those. I’m saying that I am 36 going to be coming from a point that I really have to be convinced that this is something that the 37 City should pursue although the City whether by choice or by fact we are pursuing it is 38 happening. It’s being requested of us all the time and it’s something I think that we have to take 39 on. And I commend the Council and Staff for taking this on. It’s not the easiest thing to 40 pursue. Commissioners? Yes, we’ll go down the line. Commissioner Panelli.41 42 Commissioner Panelli: Thank you Chairman. I’d like to think that I’m good at getting to the 43 heart of the matter and weeding out maybe all the stuff that’s peripheral or secondary and 44 getting to the primary concern or conflict. And for this specific topic I think I understand, first 45 of all I understand why there was pushback back in the ’70’s against the kind of growth that’s 46 represented by some of the buildings that you had in your presentation. But unfortunately I 47 think that too many of us, and I have been guilty of this in the past as well, too many of us 48 10.h Packet Pg. 368 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 14 of 20 conflate height and density. I can point out plenty of buildings in this City that are below the 50 1 foot height limit that are, in my opinion, eyesores. And there are examples, perhaps maybe not 2 in this City, but other neighboring cities of, other neighboring cities that are of similar size and 3 scope to Palo Alto that have buildings that are much higher than 50 feet that are better. So I 4 really think that we need to, to somehow separate these two issues and evaluate height limits 5 within the context of the existing Floor Area Ratio governance that we have today. Is an eight 6 story building with a lot more open space better than a four story building that’s built sidewalk 7 to sidewalk, road to road? I don’t know, but there are tradeoffs and I think we need to talk 8 about those tradeoffs.9 10 The other thing,as I was doing some research -and I don’t have any absolute proof or evidence 11 of this, right? I don’t believe everything I read on the internet -but from what I’ve read it says 12 that taller buildings are actually more energy efficient because of the insulation factor between 13 floors. So if you were to take eight one story buildings or one eight story building the eight 14 story building would effectively have, would be a greener building. I don’t know that for a fact, 15 but I think that should be a part of this discussion.16 17 And then going back to, let’s see, yeah, what our friends on the ARB talked about, which is, I 18 think it’s perfectly reasonable to say are there times when we’re willing to give something to get 19 something. And if the benefits, and I think that gets back to this, this issue of public benefits, if 20 the benefit that we’re getting is much greater than, is great or tangible and the downside is 21 mitigated in some way to me it seems like a reasonable thing to put on the table for discussion. 22 23 And then lastly without talking specifically about projects I’m actually looking forward to a 24 potential future ballot proposition. And the reason I say that, or ballot measure I should call it. 25 The reason I say that is, you know, Commissioner Tanaka asked about a survey. What better 26 survey is there than an actual election about an actual project? And I think that more than 27 anything will give us great insight into what the community thinks we should be for the next 30 28 years. Thank you. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Vice-Chair Michael.31 32 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you Chair Martinez. So, I, I agree with Commissioner Panelli 33 this is gonna be a very useful and hopefully productive discussion with the entire community 34 maybe culminating in a vote. I think that any, any action that the community endorses should 35 be based hopefully on an analysis of the situation and what was the situation in 1974 is certainly 36 different from what the situation is today. And different again from what it will be in some 37 future tomorrow situation. So I think that to some degree reviewing the policy and the 38 likelihood of change may be very healthy discussion if not being able to predict the outcome.39 40 I think what happened in 1974 was the adoption of a, of a simple solution just to cap at 50 feet 41 although there have been, you know, occasions when an exception could arise. But I’m a 42 believer that one size doesn’t fit all usually and what we may contemplate rather than changing 43 it from one simple solution to another simple solution like 55 feet instead of 50 or, you know, 44 some number of stories is, is really try to introduce some respect for the complexity of the 45 situation and consider whether a variety of solutions may be amenable to different locations. 46 Different types of adjacencies of commercial versus residential versus transit, etcetera. 47 48 10.h Packet Pg. 369 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 15 of 20 The other thing is because the height limit has been in place for as long as it has and has been 1 positive in many ways it really is a pervasive thread throughout virtually the entire 2 Comprehensive Plan. I think Commissioner Tanaka sort of earlier made this point, but I think 3 that if, if you try to evaluate potential impact adverse or beneficial of changing the height limit 4 and how does it affect the schools, how does it affect traffic, how does it affect the natural 5 environment, how does it affect culture? What is it allow for in terms of demographic shifts in 6 the population increases in total population? Infrastructure, for those of us who served on the 7 Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Commission (IBRC)? Jobs, the possibility of attracting employers 8 or being a place for startups may be nurtured with all the talent that we have? How does it 9 affect the City’s budget and the tax base? So I don’t think this is in any way a simple 10 proposition and I think if you, if you make certain changes there’s gonna be some [puts and 11 takes]and hopefully, you know, that can be a complex discussion that will ultimately be 12 fruitful.13 14 The other thing is,if you look back at Palo Alto from the hills, which I do fairly often, what you 15 see is just, you see trees and a few tall buildings sticking above. So the notion that Palo Alto is 16 somewhat visually defined by the tree canopy and, you know, as I could estimate a lot of these 17 trees are 60 and 70 foot trees, and which is why the 50 foot building height is below the canopy. 18 But that if you’re interested in like solar energy you might want to have some possibility of 19 buildings that are above the tree canopy so that they have access to sunlight for that reason. 20 And, but generally I think that this is fascinating because of its complexity. I think if we, if we 21 evolve towards another sort of simple solution that might not be the right way to go.22 23 Chair Martinez: Others? Commissioner Tuma.24 25 Commissioner Tuma: So the way Vice-Chair Michael finished that up is a perfect segue way 26 into what I want to talk about which is in many ways also the complexity and recognize the 27 complexity. And I’ll just go through a number of ways in addition to what Mr. Michael had to 28 say in terms of the complexity that I see.29 30 So I see two height discussions here potentially. One may be easier, one may be harder. And 31 that is what I call the 50 plus a few,or 50 plus a handful type discussion. Where I think there is, 32 I feel much more, to get to what the Chair had asked us to sort of tip our hands as to how we’re 33 thinking about these things. I am -where you’re talking about 51, 2, 3, 4, 5, some number like 34 that -I’m pretty solidly in favor of something that allows that,and for a number of reasons. 35 One is that,between the fact that you can get a more interesting, attractive ground floor that’s 36 vital, that you know, creates more interest by having an extra three or four feet, I think that 37 that’s especially in how we live today.I think that’s important. 38 39 The other thing that I think is interesting,what Chair Malone Prichard had said, which was 40 some of the interest in an articulation and other things that we can do with the buildings,if you 41 have a few more feet. Because there’s what makes the environment interesting and enjoyable to 42 us isn’t just a matter of height and mass, but it’s also about our interest with the buildings. And 43 the ability to do different things I think is important. When you get to sort of the next level of 44 expanding the height limit or a discussion about it I think it becomes harder because it’s -sorry, 45 the one other thing I wanted to say was,on the 50 plus a few, is I don’t feel like you’re really -46 again, we don’t know what the character is,but you know it when you see it. But it doesn’t feel 47 to me as if those few feet will begin to truly change the character of even a block or a 48 10.h Packet Pg. 370 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 16 of 20 neighborhood or something like that. Now some would argue it’s a slippery slope and that once 1 you go to a few then where does that stop? But I think given construction techniques, given a 2 good argument for a ground floor that’s higher, there’s a lot of reasons why a handful. 3 4 The other sort of complexity here that I see is almost a matrix of some of the things that Mr. 5 Michael referred to which had to do with location; proximity to transit, proximity to 6 neighborhoods, and adjacency of uses as one sort of set of criteria or blocks in the matrix if you 7 will. And then the other one is the actual proposed uses of the building. You know if this is all 8 about limiting growth in residential then there’s no reason to have a height limit for commercial. 9 I’m being a bit, you know, flip about that but depending on what the actual use is and in its 10 given location and the surrounding uses. So I think there’re a lot of things you have to look at. 11 Council sort of opened the door with this by saying, well,proximity to fixed rail. Ok -that’s a 12 good, interesting component to look at, but there’s a lot of other components that I think should 13 go into the discussion. And to some extent our, our code already reflects some of that in that we 14 have 35 foot height limits in some places, 50 foot in other places. So there’s some recognition 15 of that, but I do think that it’s even more complex than that. And I think looking at these 16 different factors is, is important because it’ll just, I think it will give us ultimately a more 17 interesting building scape over time.18 19 A question that I had,which I had forgotten to ask before which is,there’s gonna be a lot of 20 discussion about heights in the context of particular project that’s coming up, which I’m not 21 even I think allowed to say out loud because of my conflict. But, I think, I’m curious as to 22 whether, what Planning’s thoughts are on continuing a stand-alone discussion on height 23 irrespective of the discussions that go on in the context of a particular project. And for a couple 24 of reasons, the primary reason is because I think if you had the context about height and the 25 context or the discussion about height and the context of a particular project you sometimes 26 don’t make necessarily the right global decision. And so did they put this in place because of 27 Casa Olga? Maybe they did. Was that the right thing because one building sort of stuck up and 28 said, “Oh my God this is terrible!” So I don’t think we should as a City,I don’t think it 29 behooves us to analyze this topic in the context of a single controversial project. And so…30 31 Chair Martinez: You should stop there. No, I don’t mean in your comments,in that particular 32 direction.33 34 Commissioner Tuma: Yeah, so I do think a broader discussion where you’re looking, because of 35 the complexity, because of all the different factors you need to look at, location, use, et cetera. 36 Talking about it, having a stand-alone discussion about it is going to,if we want to come up 37 with something that’s going to cover the whole City and not a one project,that to me is a better 38 route to go. 39 40 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck.41 42 Commissioner Alcheck: I would like to start by saying that I share Chair Martinez’ sentiments 43 about feeling protective about the height limit. And I think there’re a few reasons for that. The 44 first is that I just moved here. I’m probably the newest member of this community on this, as 45 well as being the newest member of this Commission, and there is something very specific 46 about Palo Alto that attracted me here. And I can assure you that the discussion about where to 47 settle between me and my wife was extremely detailed and Palo Alto possessed so many 48 10.h Packet Pg. 371 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 17 of 20 qualities that appealed to us that it shined overwhelmingly compared to all of the other options 1 in this, on this peninsula. So I take the investment I made very seriously in this community and, 2 and so the notion of a radical change is, I don’t fear it, but I just like to suggest that I kind of 3 tread cautiously there because there’s a success here. There’s a success story in Palo Alto that’s 4 not shared in the same way as the communities that surround it that have made the real estate 5 values here so high. It’s a demand issue and there’s tremendous demand to want to be a part of 6 this community because of its success story. And so the notion of changing certain 7 development limitations is an important one.8 9 That being said:is the success of this community is this success story, you know, did it occur 10 despite the limit on height? I mean is, would it have been even greater? I feel very strongly 11 that what was the case in 1974 with respect to growth strategies and development philosophies 12 is not the case today. I think we’ve learned a lot in the last 30, 40 years about what is 13 environmentally friendly, what is transit oriented, what is smart growth. Smart growth is not 14 what it was 15 years ago and I think that we should not avoid taking risks. I think the idea of 15 not encouraging development that is based on the philosophies that are current would be a 16 mistake. 17 18 So, I am new and so I’m cautious because I want to know what the community thinks. I know 19 that the Palo Alto Weekly is always listening to our meetings. I think that they have a 20 tremendous opportunity here. Don’t just walk and ask eight people on the street a poll about 21 what they think about height. I think we should be encouraging editorials about what the future 22 of Palo Alto should look like in 10 or 15 years. 23 24 I know we’ve had discussions about El Camino and the grand boulevard. We had a resident 25 today talk about how the commercial real estate in this area is more expensive than Manhattan 26 or has been. I believe that, but there are parts of El Camino where rent must be very low 27 because I don’t understand how certain businesses are operating on El Camino despite their 28 extremely low traffic or what appears to be low traffic. It can’t be that every office and 29 commercial space in Palo Alto’s expensive because there seems to be some serious 30 underdeveloped space that fronts El Camino. And I wonder if those parcels will ever be 31 invested in if we don’t encourage dramatic ideas or, you know, and I’m thinking of those one 32 story small stores all along El Camino that it’s not very pedestrian friendly. I don’t know if in 33 10 years people are going to be walking down El Camino and shopping from store to store and 34 do we want that? And if we do, how do we encourage it? And that’s where I think we need 35 more input and we need intelligent analysis of this. 36 37 I don’t know if Google-plex style commercial spaces are the right sort of thing for Palo Alto. 38 That being said,if we don’t solve a supply issue here we will push out all of the small 39 companies that are attempting to change the world and we will replace them with professional 40 service companies that can afford only the most expensive rents. And we’ll have offices all 41 over Palo Alto that will have lawyers and potentially plastic surgeons and you can think of the 42 highest per hour revenue generators. And I have nothing against that. I’m an attorney myself, 43 but my point is,that I think we’ve had a tremendous diversity of industry in downtown Palo 44 Alto despite the insane rents and I don’t know if it’s realistic to think that if we don’t provide 45 greater commercial availability that that’ll remain. I think that we’ll lose that and we’re not 46 gonna lose it to Manhattan, we’re gonna lose it to Menlo Park and Redwood City and Mountain 47 View. I mean we already are competing with them and they’re growing in interesting ways. 48 10.h Packet Pg. 372 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 18 of 20 1 So, I heard this, I know this is long winded and I apologize, but my last comment is that I heard 2 Neil Tyson Degrasse speak last year and he sort of made this comment about how if you went 3 back to the ’60’s magazine covers were all about the cities of the future. The cars, there are 4 flying cars and jets and everything was so the vision about the future and today you don’t see 5 that. You don’t see magazine covers about the future and, well you do, but they present a future 6 that is bleak and it’s Armageddon and the skies are red and we’ve run out of water and 7 everything is horrible and we’re all dying. You know, so again I sort of hope Palo Alto Weekly 8 is watching. I hope they take this opportunity to try to encourage our residents to opine and 9 discuss the future of Palo Alto. And I say this because Chair Martinez mentioned that there’s an 10 economic component to this and I think that’s totally true. The economics of this community’s 11 development is everything. How do we create a community that will continue to be, will 12 continue to have the vitality that attracted me to it while also being careful not to make a change 13 that would destroy the aspects of Palo Alto that, you know, attracted me to it. So, that’s what I 14 have to say.15 16 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka, last comment.17 18 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes, so Commissioner Alcheck said a lot of what I was thinking in 19 terms of you look at Palo Alto and you look at how Facebook got one of their big starts here and 20 a variety of other companies and how a lot of them unfortunately weren’t able to stay and had to 21 move on. And I think, you know, Palo Alto’s kind of known as being one of the incubators or 22 starts of all these great companies and a lot of them are no longer here. Goggle is in Mountain 23 View. Facebook’s in Menlo Park. So I think Commissioner Alcheck’s hit the nail on the head. 24 I think being able to keep innovative companies in the City I think is a good idea. So I’m not 25 going to belabor that but I think Commissioner Alcheck already said that very well.26 27 I’m just kind of gonna go through a little list here of stuff that I was thinking. So one of the first 28 ones, I think the idea of having a number of stories versus height is actually a good concept. 29 And so I think what the ARB has been thinking about is not a bad suggestion to think about. 30 That way gives people more incentive to make the space more interesting, more useful. So I 31 think that’s something that we should definitely deliberate more. I think that concept of having 32 taller spaces -I mean taller buildings -so you have more public spaces,seems to make a lot of 33 sense. But we should understand the impact of that,and what does that mean? I think at the 34 same time I think you don’t want to overshadow R1 neighborhoods. That doesn’t make a lot of 35 sense. So I think it has to be done carefully. So I think this suggestion on the ARB feedback of 36 let’s deal with parking, use PC over 50 feet seems to make a lot of sense. So I think the ARB 37 did a good job in having this deliberation. 38 39 I also agree that, that a variety of solutions is probably needed. So I don’t think it’s gonna be a 40 simple one number change and we’re done. I think that it’s gonna be kind of a complicated 41 discussion. We’re gonna have to figure out what really makes sense. And I,really, I’m a big 42 believer of simulation or scenario analysis. I think that we should be doing it on all the aspects 43 that I think the other Commissioners have mentioned,from schools to economics to parking, 44 traffic, et cetera; to look to the long list of stuff that you could try to analyze.45 46 And I also agree about having, you know, if we do increase the height this is almost like an up 47 zoning for some properties. So having,reflecting that in terms of some sort of use that we want 48 10.h Packet Pg. 373 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 19 of 20 to encourage,like for instance,maybe we want to encourage more retail in a certain area so it’s 1 not a bunch of dead streets with parking lots or offices that don’t really add to an area. So 2 maybe that’s something to think about. Or a hotel where it boosts economic tax base for the 3 City. So I think that is definitely something we should think about because this is kind of a nice 4 incentive for people. It’s certainly gonna be up-zoning for some people, so we should think 5 about that as well.6 7 And then my last thought here is,everyone talks about the job/housing imbalance,but I think 8 this Commission has at many times,and there’s a lot of articles on it, but one of the greenest 9 places on Earth is actually Manhattan. It’s not because they have a bunch of residential there, 10 it’s because they have great transit into the City,and there’re a lot of jobs there. So Manhattan 11 is very, very -you have probably the worst job/housing imbalance ever -but they have probably 12 the greenest place on Earth because everyone goes there for their jobs. So, I’m actually, I think 13 that’s something we should also think about in terms of:is it housing that’s next to transit,or is 14 it jobs next to transit? And it seems to me jobs near transit makes a lot more sense,because if 15 you’re trying to go to work if you don’t have a car at your destination,it’s gonna be a big 16 problem. Now there’s Bike Shares and other stuff that’s happening, but in general I think that 17 may be a better strategy and also has less impact on our schools, which I believe many people, 18 probably Commissioner Alcheck and others, move to Palo Alto for the great schools. So, 19 anyways,I think that’s something we should be thinking about in terms of what is the use of 20 these buildings that are perhaps higher than 50 feet. Thanks.21 22 Chair Martinez: Thank you. I think Commissioner Tuma, as he does, raises the bar for us in 23 that we have to move this discussion from abstract, abstractly thinking about how high is high 24 to really specifics of how we utilize building heights. The idea that we can utilize it to make 25 buildings better is an important point and where we do that is also important. But also when we 26 come to looking at buildings that want to be higher to look, to look at them one off is probably a 27 disservice to our City. And, and I would like to see the next round really be looking at where it 28 would make sense to consider a change to building heights whether it’s a downtown district 29 where there’s still many one building, one story buildings and perhaps like we did on the 30 housing sites inventory do an inventory of that to look at where it’s possible to consider higher 31 buildings, multistory buildings to really put some specifics into our consideration of building 32 heights so that it’s not alarmist about building in the open space or building against R1’s but it’s 33 building in a way in which our considerations for good planning and good architecture come 34 together. So, it’s, I’m not sure that’s in the program for Planning Staff to do, but it makes a lot 35 of sense for the next stage of our consideration of that to be more about a specific path forward 36 with ideas of how much and where and what we’re trying to achieve by doing this.37 38 Ok, I’m going to conclude this unless Staff has any last things to say?39 40 Mr. Aknin: I’d just like to thank the whole Commission for a great discussion. I think this is 41 exactly what we were looking for in terms of the kick off meeting. It’s something that we can 42 communicate back to the City Council. And I agree with everyone’s comment (interrupted)43 44 Chair Martinez: And thanks Clare.45 46 Mr. Aknin: And I agree with everyone, this is an ongoing conversation. This is something that 47 we’ll have many more meetings about.48 10.h Packet Pg. 374 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 20 of 20 1 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Let’s take a 10 minute break and we’ll regroup.2 10.h Packet Pg. 375 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t H : M i n u t e s P T C H e i g h t S e s s i o n O c t o b e r 1 0 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 24, 2012 Page 1 of 5 Draft Joint Planning and Transportation Commission/Architectural Review Board October 24, 2012 MEETING SUMMARY The comments/questions have been organized by the consultant into 16 topics, below: Process 1.Best Palo Alto process in terms of transparency by considering project before an application Evaluating the Proposal 1.Does approving this project preclude other desirable development downtown by using up street, park and school capacity? 2.Increasing density = more traffic = more ABAG housing = more school growth = unacceptable impact for most people? 3.Consider competing designer options, project is a campaign, show what can happen under current zoning and design guidelines 4.Model what 50 foot height across site looks like with city’s guidelines for comparison to project 5.What is delta when you compare CC zoning with AID zone, what are the additional public benefits 6.Need to complete discussion on future of El Camino Real, and city wide height with PTC/ARB to evaluate the project 7.What is justification for significantly higher building heights here? Divisive community issue. 8.Is division NIMBY or historical? Need to persuade why only 15 feet above residential is good idea, so many different places are Palo Alto, downtown more suitable for higher buildings, proposal is midrise, not high-rise, not want to see miss opportunity because of reactions to a few bad 70’s buildings 9.Not dissuaded from proposal, incredible opportunity Site Plan 1.Why not switch office and theater, have theater in prominent location on University Avenue? 2.Mistake to have theater where it is 3.See value separating transit and theater plazas 4.Need to soften fly tower with trees along park edge 5.Respect city’s history, keep Julia Morgan where it is, reduce building heights in scale with Julia Morgan and historic depot 6.Consider moving Julia Morgan to Arboretum, since Stanford is the primary beneficiary, see if a nexus with Stanford Shopping Center, City 7.Don’t move Julia Morgan very far away, better if incorporated into El Camino Park 8.Consider moving transit center out of University Circle to other underutilized sites, such as the Caltrain parking on Alma Street 10.i Packet Pg. 376 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : 1 0 - 2 4 - 1 2 _ P T C - A R B _ S u m m a r y ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 24, 2012 Page 2 of 5 9.Not seeing holistic approach to planning for the site 10.Plan for best guess covered trench Caltrain alternative 11.Consider how to better integrate Historic depot into design 12.Assuming the undergrounding of the Caltrain tracks, how would that change the design or create new opportunities? 13.Density 14.Don’t conflagrate density with height CC district’s 2.0 FAR is appropriate 15.This site is part of downtown per policy L-8, being a separate “subarea” is not following legislative intent 16.Need to calculate FAR properly, and not include park space, however consider theater in park OK like Lucie Stern, vs. gerrymandering 17.Excellent site for project, dis-service not planning for growth, fail to compete with neighboring cities, density downtown benefits the public –7 yogurt shops 18.Height 19.Offices are way too tall and out of scale 20.Why not build theater below grade to reduce height? 21.OK with higher buildings at this site 22.No better location in city for density and height, have transit, transitional area, theater exciting opportunity 23.Want height numbers for tallest buildings in PA –525 University, 101 Alma etc 24.Concern city is getting full with build out with height limits, rather see significant height where feels to be possible, city can tolerate it in some places, stay low in residential areas, want to see explored further 25.Tall building here makes sense as punctuation of ends of University Avenue, 525 on one end, 27 on the other, like university circle 26.Project to high, don’t want Manhattan 27.Height needs to solve problems, reward height with mixed-use, want to really buy something that we can’t achieve with a little more height with buildings downtown 28.Open minded on height, tall can be beautiful architecture, suburban city is an oxymoron, need view corridors, open space, don’t want suffocated city 29.Transit 30.Look at SF temp bus circulation to avoid pedestrian crossing problems 31.Fix transit route powerpoint slide, has route from bridge, left turn onto Quarry Road 32.Transit center design mixed with cars seems like black diamond ski run Traffic/Access/Parking 1.Vehicular entrance to site divides site 2.Need to completely mitigate traffic impacts, project will attract incremental traffic and parking 3.Can boundary of parking footprint be extended to have more parking 4.PAMF entrance to below grade parking is not nice, not want to see that here, needs to be special 5.Over build subterranean parking to minimize neighborhood parking impacts 6.Generally agree less parking at transit stop, however need to alleviate some of the parking deficit 7.Need adequate parking, including parking for visitors 8.Move parking access north 9.Auto access from University Ave.? 10.i Packet Pg. 377 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : 1 0 - 2 4 - 1 2 _ P T C - A R B _ S u m m a r y ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 24, 2012 Page 3 of 5 10.Need to mitigate intra-city travel Connectivity 1.Consider how to connect other side of Alma Street, extend retail along Alma and Lytton? 2.Connect to Stanford Shopping Mall with a meaningful walking experience, not want dead ground floor space 3.Will this be a barrier or will it be better for cyclists, for both local and regional bike trips? 4.Improve pedestrian network connection to Stanford Shopping Center 5.Want to see pedestrian bridge across El Camino Real Public Space 1.How to make park/plaza lively? 2.Need great civic space oriented to the downtown Massing 1.Put fly in middle of building so massing and building uses surround fly 2.Can we see other building massing studies, lower adjacent to depot, higher along el Camino? Views 1.View project on all 4 sides --design needs to consider view from Alma Street, not block views to hills, not be wall, have view corridors, step massing up from Caltrain depot and 50 foot tall buildings to see what you can, can’t see with tallest buildings on El Camino Real 2.Don’t want to see blank fly tower wall from park and entrance to city from Menlo Park 3.Consider view corridors to see views, sculpting buildings to have view corridor spaces from downtown to hills 4.Need 3-d views, need view from Alma Street Parkland 1.Park land dedication is gerrymandered, if reducing park land say that is what you are doing, Zuccotti Park is not what we want, building setbacks are not park space 2.Existing park in not that great, not significant issue to reduce or replace, want public spaces like the Highline in NY, space where people can contemplate, gather, explore outdoors and connect to nature in urban area 3.Want a popular walk Use 1.Consider mixed-use as public benefit, where retail is semi-public space 2.Ground floor uses at office need to be active pedestrian uses 3.Jobs near transit makes sense, can trade flat for tall 4.Consider top floor of office buildings have a semi-public use, such as restaurant 5.Project not big enough to be a campus, most likely multiple tenants, need design to reflect that 6.HQ building concept wrong concept, need multiple tenant building 7.Multi-tenant building better for innovation 8.Need tech space 10.i Packet Pg. 378 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : 1 0 - 2 4 - 1 2 _ P T C - A R B _ S u m m a r y ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 24, 2012 Page 4 of 5 9.Need to include retail with restaurants, café in retail space in the ground floor office space between transit and the theater plaza Aesthetics 1.Need to go forward, not back with roof/skyline design, not flat roofs, more curved, see difference between SF downtown and South of Market 2.Sculpture density, no better location with transit and along El Camino Real to have this 3.PA named after twin redwood trees, do we want PA named after twin towers? 4.Reach for stars on aesthetics Theater 1.Consider Santa Barbara theater entrance sequence of courtyard, lobby and seating, people ready for experience by time sitting down 2.Can theater be used for convention and community uses? 3.Consider theater roof for events, such as movies projected onto the fly tower 4.Have theater serve multiple community uses 5.Fly space as big blank wall, mural of 2 redwood trees? 6.Worried that theater is too ambitious in size, over reaching not good for city 7.Need transition plan for Robert Kelley Wind 1.Study wind impacts so outdoor space is comfortable and usable Follow-up Questions Following the PTC meeting of October 24, 2012, PTC member Panelli forwarded these additional questions: 1.Could the Theatre be a compatible use in the PF district? It does not seem to be incompatible, but it was not clear to me from reading the code whether it is or is not. Also, such a designation could alleviate the perception of parkland gerrymandering to make the numbers work. 2.Can you explain the push to create a new Arts and Innovation district? If we used an existing designation for the office portion of the parcel, it seems that we could accommodate most of what the applicant will likely request. The rest (primarily the height) could be handled through the variance process. 3.If we delineated the parkland portion as everything north of underground garage entrances, what would be the remaining parcel size? And therefore what would the maximum allowable density be for this portion of the parcel based on a 2.0 FAR? 4.Are there any provisions in the existing code to provide density bonuses in exchange for including publicly available parking, over and above the minimum amount of parking required by the code for the designated uses? Regarding above questions, Commissioner Keller noted: “It is worthwhile to see whether the office parcel would be eligible for a variance under the standard criteria.To the extent that the 50-foot height limit is kept elsewhere in the City, and the 10.i Packet Pg. 379 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : 1 0 - 2 4 - 1 2 _ P T C - A R B _ S u m m a r y ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 24, 2012 Page 5 of 5 proposed project exceeds the 50-foot height limit, then it is important to have explicit and clear distinctions between this project and other projects that would not get to exceed the 50-foot height limit.It is not clear to me that the variance process provides sufficient distinction to avoid replication elsewhere.” 10.i Packet Pg. 380 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t I : 1 0 - 2 4 - 1 2 _ P T C - A R B _ S u m m a r y ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 1 of 48 1 Draft2 Planning and Transportation Commission3 Verbatim Minutes4 October 24, 20125 6 EXCERPT7 8 9 Chair Martinez: We are going to take a break and reconvene at 6:00. Oh yes. Commissioner 10 Tuma has the floor.11 12 Commissioner Tuma: Before we take a break I just want to put on the record that I will not be 13 coming back after the break. That is due to the fact that my wife is an employee of Stanford 14 University. The next two items relate to a project that would potentially be built on Stanford 15 land and as a result I am not able to participate. Thank you.16 17 THE COMMISSION TOOK A BREAK18 19 Study Session20 21 27 University Avenue:(6:00 –8:00 p.m.) Two Hour Joint Study Session of the Planning and 22 Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board/27 University Avenue 23 Public Meeting The group will receive public comments and a presentation on the site planning 24 and urban design concepts Council reviewed on September 24, 2012 for the area bounded by El 25 Camino Real, University Avenue, the improved areas of El Camino Park and the Caltrain Station 26 and Right of Way, the potential site of a new Arts and Innovation District. Included in the 27 concepts are the relocation of the Intermodal Transit Center from Mitchell Lane to a transit circle 28 at University Avenue and Urban Lane to enhance transit accessibility and capacity, improved 29 connections across the site, and provision of an urban destination including a performing arts 30 theater and contemporary office space. Questions from Board members and Commissioners will 31 be received. Board member comments on various components, particularly height and urban 32 design aspects of the potential project, may be made during the joint session if time allows.33 34 Chair Martinez: Ok. We are going to, excuse me, resume our hearing. Welcome back to the 35 October 24, 2012, hearing of the Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). I’d 36 like to welcome members of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) to our joint study session. 37 And Secretary Ellner, do you want to call the roll?38 39 Robin Ellner, Administrative Assoc. III: Commissioner Alcheck, Commissioner Keller, Chair 40 Martinez, Vice-Chair Michael, Commissioner Panelli, Commissioner Tanaka, Commissioner 41 Tuma. For the Board Members, Vice-Chair Lippert, Board Member Lew, Board Member Popp. 42 Eight present. Sorry, I had to think about that. 43 44 Chair Martinez: Ok, you’re not gonna call the rest of the Board? Or are we just going to make 45 the assumption they’re not here? Nine? Ok. Nine present for the record. 46 47 10.j Packet Pg. 381 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 2 of 48 Ok we are going to undertake a joint study session with the Architectural Review Board for the 1 consideration of a project to be proposed at 27 University and we’re going to begin with a Staff 2 report. Ms. French.3 4 Amy French, Chief Planning Official:Hello, good evening, Amy French, Chief Planning 5 Official. You received a brief report we pulled together last week as a cover memo for a few 6 things that we thought you would want to have for this review. We do have a PowerPoint 7 presentation to present to you. We have members of our project team and staff from the 8 Transportation Division. And so we’re here for your questions and discussion. We’re eager to 9 have some focus on urban design given the parties assembled up there on the dais, but there is no 10 need to limit the conversation to urban design. Given the time we have we will be ending at 11 8:00. So without further conversation,I would see if our consultant number one, Bruce, would 12 like to present. Okay,Bruce Fukuji.13 14 Bruce Fukuji, Consultant: Good evening Architectural Review Board Members and City 15 Planning, City Transportation, Planning and Transportation Commission and Chairman. It’s 16 really a pleasure to be here this evening. We’re gonna have a fairly concise presentation we’re 17 gonna be making that really talks about the project. You know this is really an opportunity. 18 Council’s direction is really to seek your advisory input about what you think about this project 19 proposal. 20 21 The consultant role in this, myself, Bruce Fukuji of Fukuji Planning and Design and Dan Garber 22 briefly is really, we’re hired by the City to really look at how to come in and we really did some 23 design review and then looked at how to work collaboratively with the project proposer on how 24 to reshape that plan in a way to really advance the City’s goals. And I think this is a project in 25 process and in order to show you how far we’ve been able to advance that, but the main thing we 26 got from the direction from Council is that by doing a master plan we really can kind of frame 27 the opportunity of what this project can mean for the City and to think comprehensively about 28 the site in its context. And the role the site has,both locally and regionally,and look at how to 29 shape an appropriate vision to realize the potential of the site and how it can contribute to the 30 quality of life of the people here in Palo Alto and contribute to the vitality of the City.31 32 So with that we have about 10 slides we’re going to go through. And I’m going to present; 33 Jaime Rodriguez is also going to present and so is Dan, Dan Garber. So our first slide here is the 34 existing context, so this is the Caltrain right of way, excuse me, little shaky here. This is El 35 Camino Real. Here’s the arboretum and then Palm Drive and University Avenue right through 36 here. And the original proposal is looking at the MacArthur Park and Julia Morgan relocating 37 that and taking out the Red Cross building and looking at how to develop this site right here that 38 really spans really from the Olympic Grove all the way to the circle around University Avenue. 39 And what we looked at was a slightly larger area where we looked at both the existing transit 40 center, historic transit depot there, the whole circle that’s around University Avenue on both 41 sides, part of the front of the Sheraton property on the Urban Lane and part of El Camino 42 through here and along El Camino Park, right in through here. So that’s really the, kind of the 43 project area. 44 45 And what we’re thinking about this site is really how can the site really be an area that is 46 transforming really kind of a non-place realm in a way, transitional area between the downtown 47 and Stanford University along El Camino, which is a very long regional boulevard. How can 48 10.j Packet Pg. 382 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 3 of 48 that be done in such a way as to really create an attractive sense of arrival and destination for 1 people arriving both by Caltrain and also by Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) via Santa Clara Valley 2 Transportation Authority (VTA) or San Mateo County Transit (SamTrans) and also when you 3 arrive to the station area as an entrance to both the downtown and to Stanford University. So we 4 looked at that and there’s several sort of assets and kind of liabilities and, you know, in a way 5 with this site where assets and challenges with the site and certain unique opportunities I think 6 that as we get into our conversation this evening we can kind of get into that more detailed 7 without going through all that. All of you I’m sure know the area quite well.8 9 Go to the next slide. So, this, this exhibit is the illustrative plan and it’s a vision for the area 10 based on how to accommodate the 250,000 square foot, which is slightly larger too in its net 11 square foot office program, some retail, and the theatre program. But when we looked at this 12 project what we started out doing was really looking at how to plan for the future of transit and 13 how to do that in such a way as to not preclude opportunities for being able to expand bus transit 14 service and transit connectivity and bus transit connectivity to Caltrain. And then how do we lay 15 out kind of a walkable well connected district that meets a lot of the vision that was in the dream 16 team plan and also was a result of the Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement around 17 looking at how to do bicycle pedestrian connectivity in this area. So we looked at that and we 18 looked at how do you really configure the building massing and height and orientation in order to 19 really shape public spaces because one of the things the site really creates an opportunity for is 20 how to create new public spaces and a new attractive destination arrival public space for 21 downtown. And at the same time create a very walkable neighborhood or walkable district. And 22 this also set the stage for creating designing sustainable architecture. 23 24 So I’m just going to identify the main features in the plan and then Jaime will be able to talk a 25 little about the transit planning. The main features of the plan is that with, look at relocating the 26 transit center that was right here along the Caltrain tracks, actually to creating a transit ring road 27 where you’d actually have stops for buses on both the inside of the loop and the outside of the 28 loop having a double sort of row, a median for stops and another row of stops here. That’s kind 29 of the key feature for relocating the transit centers, utilizing the underutilized area at the inside of 30 that loop, expanding it and redesigning the intersections here to remove some of the sort of slip 31 ramps to make for a much more coherent street circulation pattern. We have a two way streets 32 that go through there two lanes with two continuous bus stops on either side. We extend an 33 urban lane north and extend Quarry Road up towards the tracks and link those together to create 34 a new street connection in through here. You have the El Camino ramp access right here and up 35 by the major project access to below grade parking with four lanes entering here and three 36 entering and exiting here. And then a pedestrian bridge above that, but really creating two 37 districts. Two blocks, an urban block which has two office buildings that are designed to sort of 38 two towers for each building; I’ll talk about that more. And then a sort of theatre in the park 39 block where you have the theatre in a major public theatre plaza here on this side right here.40 41 The other features that we’re looking at,with the plan,is that this is really kind of a pedestrian 42 oriented sort of bicycle and slow street. It’s much more urban street in terms of its design; it’s 43 not designed as a typical street section. And also we looked at how to increase connectivity to 44 the downtown by having a, expanding the existing crosswalk platform connection that you have 45 here for pedestrians, to widen that to be able to accommodate bicycles. So we looked at having a 46 bicycle path here that would go from Quarry Road and the El Camino intersection connect up to 47 the existing paths that are in El Camino Park, run along the tracks right here and then from this 48 10.j Packet Pg. 383 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 4 of 48 place you can ramp down and connect up to your bicycle lanes that are on the other side. And it 1 allows another way to get from downtown into the project area. While it’s not kind of an at 2 grade crossing, which would be sort of desirable. I think everyone would like to be able to walk 3 right at grade. It is a below grade connection that’s in there.4 5 So those are sort of the major elements of the design without getting into more detail on that and 6 I’m gonna let Jaime talk about transit. 7 8 Jaime Rodriguez, Chief Transportation Official: Thank you Bruce. Bruce talked a lot already 9 about little details of the actual site plan as it relates to transit and transportation, but really one 10 of the nice benefits of the concept plan that we have before us today is that it actually took transit 11 into consideration before the site. And that’s really, that’s an unusual opportunity that we’re 12 usually presented with from a transportation perspective in that the transit agencies that we work 13 with were very appreciative because if you look at the existing transit mall for example they kind 14 of fit it in where it was that there was space available. And we thought it was very important to 15 make sure that we take a different approach with this unique opportunity in trying to make sure 16 that transit was gonna work first and foremost to meet the demands of the existing uses and we 17 also wanted to also plan for the demands of transit uses in the future. 18 19 So one of the ways that we got to this layout here first is actually we worked very closely with 20 the major transit partners in the area that are using the transit mall today so that involved regular 21 meetings with the Stanford Marguerite staff, which is by far the greatest transit user in that area 22 providing shuttling services to the Medical Center, to the University, and to other areas around 23 town at the Research Park. We also worked with the Valley Transportation Authority that 24 actually built the current transit mall that’s located behind or at the site of the existing, of the 25 proposed theatre. And we also worked with SamTrans who, you know, is a big user of that 26 connecting San Mateo County to the north, but has historically had minimal opportunity to take 27 advantage of the transit spaces because they couldn’t really take what they can get after Stanford 28 and the VTA has used up their particular stops. 29 30 So with the existing site we have about kind of 17 stops along with some kind of unofficial areas 31 are used by transit. And then with the proposed site we end up to about 30 plus transit stops to 32 meet the demands of the growth that the transit agencies foresee in the foreseeable future. But at 33 the same time we also preserve opportunities to expand transit beyond that for say the next 20 to 34 30 to 50 years and that’s one of the reasons why Urban Lane today is left as open as it is now and 35 not made additional changes for transit because that’s the growth area for the future.36 37 So like Bruce mentioned, you know, the proposed relocation of the transit facility around a 38 widened urban or University loop allows those transit agencies to take advantage of transit 39 capacity from both sides of the road. That doesn’t happen today. We have a wide inner loop, 40 but it doesn’t get any transit use. And at the same time that we take advantage of that space to 41 connect pedestrians, bicycler users across the site and for a lot of the Council Members in the 42 past, members of the PTC and Parks and Recs Commission has been a long standing concern of 43 the community that you kind of get lost coming out of the transit mall. You don’t really know 44 which way to go to go to downtown. This solves a lot of those problems. And so with that 45 Bruce did mention the connectivity to the downtown with the expanded or improved connection 46 through the tunnel underneath the Caltrain tracks toward Lytton Avenue as well as the 47 connections to the University tunnel from the transit mall. So again, a lot of great transit 48 10.j Packet Pg. 384 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 5 of 48 improvements that will benefit the site. So with that I’ll hand it back to Bruce to guide you 1 through the rest of the presentation. 2 3 Mr. Fukuji: Can we go to the next slide? Ok. So, this next slide is talking about the, it’s called 4 a kind of parkland swap, which is really kind of four points I want to make about this. One is 5 that there was a 2000 preforming arts theatre study that was done with the City and in that it had 6 identified the area really kind of this area really right here. And on this map here, it’s the same 7 orientation, here’s the Caltrain line and here’s El Camino and the transit center and this is the 8 office component and the theatre component. And then I’ll explain the kind of coloration of 9 what that map is, but the preforming arts theatre study located a theatre and said it should be in 10 the El Camino Park north of Quarry Road to look at relocating some of the parking that’s in there 11 and moving the ball field north, the softball field north to be able to do that. Because they 12 thought it would be a good, prominent, visible, transit adjacent location that could link Stanford 13 and downtown and support downtown business through retail sales and restaurants and cafés and 14 things like that. 15 16 So when looking at this project and looking at the project area, you know, the, this issue about 17 why would there be a need for a parkland swap and part of it is this boundary right here, the 18 yellow here and the red is the existing area that’s defined by leases of parkland that the City is 19 leasing from Stanford University. And in looking at that configuration you have a very narrow 20 strip here along El Camino ramp [that’s Oaks Savannah, Riparian],kind of remnant landscape 21 that’s in that area. And that extends north really right along through here, where the Olympic 22 Grove is right here and here’s where the ball fields are. So you have this active use to the north 23 and have this sort of unimproved passive Oak remnant landscape open space area. 24 25 And so looking at this proposal it was decided that it would be appropriate to look at 26 reconfiguring this boundary in such a way so that more urban development can happen actually 27 at this very prominent location along University Avenue. And to take the underutilized parkland 28 area, this really kind of remnant landscape and look at how it could be reconfigured to make 29 more usable public space and to allow leasing to take place for the theatre and office in order for 30 the intent of the Arts and Innovation District to be advanced. So what you have is the red area 31 here is about 38,000 square feet of land that will be taken out of the lease area right here and then 32 this green area right here would be added back in so there would be an equal area. and the 33 reason for having it be an equal area is that Stanford in their leases to the City did not want to 34 increase the amount of parkland that they’re currently leasing it will have more land under 35 parkland restrictions. 36 37 So in looking at that we said, well, you know, if you use sort of standards from like crime 38 prevention to environmental design and other things there’s some things about that area that are 39 not necessarily safe or ideal in existing conditions especially around the bus transit center. And 40 then we look at examples for privately owned public space and Manhattan has a lot of examples. 41 I’m not saying that Manhattan has the right density for here; I’m just saying that they have a 42 program where they’ve looked at how you create attractive public space even though it’s 43 privately owned. And we use some of the, kind of lessons learned from that to look at what to do 44 and one of the main ones is that if you’re creating new public space and that you want it to be 45 active and vibrant it really needs to be part of the street environment. 46 47 10.j Packet Pg. 385 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 6 of 48 So what we did is we looked the selection of what would be appropriate area to be included in 1 park as being sort of the most attractive, pedestrian oriented, most vibrant places that are going to 2 be part of this district. But we didn’t include all of them. We only included as much as was 3 necessary in order to balance it out. And originally we had the theatre included in that area. 4 Here’s the theatre right here. But it was felt that for the City to have more flexibility in its 5 leasing arrangements with Stanford and to have it independent from the Park regulations and 6 park standards so we took that out. So that’s why it has a very unusual configuration. It’s 7 conceptual and if you have suggestions about other ways to do that I would like to be able to 8 hear that. So, next.9 10 So, the next three slides are really looking at the issue about building massing and, you know, 11 basically the floor area that we’re looking at here there’s several ways of being able to calculate 12 that. We haven’t landed on the exact way to calculate it. Dan has provided some exhibits to 13 show different ways of doing it. But it’s kind of in the 2.0 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) range, which 14 basically consists with your regional community commercial zoning that you already have in 15 place that would be appropriate for an area like that. I’m not saying that that’s the appropriate 16 plan use for the area, but it’s a density that’s already accepted for areas such as this in the area. 17 and then you actually have higher densities in areas permitted in this area also if it has housing 18 for example. But what we looked at doing is that instead of having kind of lower rise 19 development across the entire site, we looked at how do we actually have taller buildings to be 20 able to have more open space that’s usable on the site. For example, for transit use, for public 21 plaza use, sort of plaza for the theatre, things like that. And also given that it’s a transit oriented 22 location it’s a regional center, it’s in a unique transitory location we thought that it would be 23 appropriate to have the higher building heights and masses along University Avenue and along 24 El Camino. 25 26 So there’s some subtle things about what’s happening with the heights and I just want to quickly 27 go over those. So basically we looked at instead of having one large building, which was what 28 was originally proposed, we looked at having two buildings. And then instead of just doing each 29 building as one large mass we look at how to break the building massing up. Here’s one 30 building L shaped like this. It faces onto, across the depot in front of the University Avenue 31 along El Camino with the highest height, sort of 10 stories along El Camino, then steps down to 32 9 along the depot at Mitchell sort of extension of Urban Lane on this side and then that it’s sort 33 of 7, 6 on the other side right here. And here’s the theatre here, which is basically about 50 feet 34 high and then has its fly tower which is 100 feet. So we thought that by doing this configuration 35 higher here and it gets down lower we did some sun studies to make sure the public plaza in the 36 back here that’s over on El Camino and we can go to the next slide. It has that, has a better view 37 of it. Yes. 38 39 So that this is looking at it really from above. Stanford Shopping Center, here’s El Camino/ 40 University Avenue the Caltrain tracks, here’s the theatre and the 100 foot high fly space for that 41 and Dan can explain more about the theatre massing, but this is the entrance right in through 42 here. And there’s a back, back of houses faces out along the Caltrain tracks. So it steps down 43 and these buildings step down also to make sure there’s enough sunlight that comes in 44 throughout the day on this public, public plaza. And then given the shape of the plaza and size 45 of the plaza we, we looked at what’s an appropriate for the building heights for the size public 46 space. And that is an appropriate height for this width space so you can actually in it be able to 47 observe and see all the architectural features and not feel like it’s too tall or overshadowing you. 48 10.j Packet Pg. 386 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 7 of 48 And that for a longer, narrower space, especially something can be seen from El Camino Park, 1 that’s where we had the taller, taller building massing on that. Can we go to the last one?2 3 This slide, again to look at it from a slight different view here’s a Caltrain tracks, here’s Alma, 4 here’s the theatre, you know, part of why we turn the axis of the fly space east/west to the 5 north/south is to help minimize its visibility from the downtown and also increase its visibility 6 along El Camino because part of the theatre design by being on El Camino it has to be able to be 7 accessible both when you’re entering from Menlo Park and you’re going along El Camino. And 8 that then you can see how the building massing steps up six, seven, you know, nine, ten stories 9 along that. Again, it looks like four buildings instead of one building. So that was a basic 10 strategy which we employed in terms of the building massing.11 12 So from here I’m gonna have, give it off to Dan. Dan’s gonna talk more specifically about 13 building heights and a little more about some of the architectural on this. Here’s the, yeah.14 15 Dan Garber, Consultant: So these are the sections of the office buildings here. This is the, the 16 office building mass it’s along University Avenue. The 10 stories is built up through a ground 17 floor at 20 feet and then remaining floors are 14 foot 6, with a mechanical room or level on top 18 of 11 feet. The slightly shorter mass, the nine story mass is 147 feet built up in the exact same 19 way. Yes, thank you for the reminder. And below that there are three levels of below grade 20 parking. And then the section for the other, the other two, are built up in the exact same way but 21 obviously they go to 7 and 6 floors.22 23 The concept section for the theatre operates as you see it here with the primary main stage on the 24 left, which would seat approximately 600 to 650 people on a ground floor and a mezzanine or 25 balcony area. A lobby space in the center and then the black box space with a rehearsal floors 26 above that and the other administrative floors above that, although you don’t see them 27 specifically in this drawing. What’s important about the way that this has been laid out is that 28 the lobby really operates as a showcase for the mission of the theatre, which is to display both its 29 main stage as well as its new works functionality in the black box as well as to be able to see up 30 into the administrative areas and on the mezzanine level there’s a, there’s a costume shop and the 31 rehearsal space is all the way at the top. 32 33 There’s both a public lobby on the ground floor which really operates as an extension of the 34 ground floor plaza and is large enough to accommodate gatherings of both the populations of the 35 theatre for regular theatre going events, but also for larger events that are not specifically theatre 36 related be they large parties if it’s rented out, if it’s used by large organizations in the City, 37 etcetera. There’s then a secondary lobby on that second floor, which allows the public to access 38 the, the rehearsal spaces which are also imagined to be utilized or made, provide access to the 39 public when the theatre isn’t using them and for other events that the theatre has that are not 40 utilizing the two ground floor spaces. But all that is really centralized around this, this lobby. 41 And that’s the current concept of that. Bruce did you want to talk?42 43 Mr. Fukuji: We, there’s several rendering views. We thought we should just focus on one view. 44 We spent quite a bit of time looking at what’s the eye level, ground level experience for the 45 pedestrian. This view is looking from El Camino Park, this is the extension of Quarry Road 46 looking south and seeing here’s the preforming arts theatre, here’s the fly space, here’s the 47 theatre plaza designed really as a park which is heavily landscaped especially along the edge 48 10.j Packet Pg. 387 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 8 of 48 along El Camino and the landscaping of El Camino as a boulevard. And here are the office 1 buildings with ground floor active uses. I think that one of the things we were looking at is a 2 space like this is a forecourt for the theatre could have anywhere from 600 to, you know, 700 3 people who can be in it during the peak. And we looked at peak times both during the sort of 4 noon hour and also especially on Friday, Saturday, Saturday early evening before performances 5 because you have both the black box theatre and you have the main theatre together. So we 6 looked at how do you create a park like setting for doing that. And we can answer more 7 questions about design issues around how we’ve accomplished that.8 9 Mr. Garber: I’ll simply add that we have a variety of backup slides depending on what sorts of 10 discussions you want to get into. We can, as well as the rest of the presentation that was made to 11 Council, but we’ve, they’ve asked us to shorten it up so we can focus on your questions rather 12 than the presentation at the moment.13 14 Ms. French: I just want to add one thing too is there were some questions I neglected to mention 15 earlier from two of the Planning and Transportation Commission Members and those have been 16 provided, a answers via e-mail and at places at the back table as well.17 18 Chair Martinez: Ok. Excuse me. I think I’m not gonna be able to say very much, but Assistant 19 Planning Director do you have anything that you want to add at this point? 20 21 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: Yeah, I just wanted to add one comment, something that Chair 22 Martinez and I spoke beforehand is that this is a great, the Council sent this back to the ARB as 23 well as the PTC because they really wanted to hear from you. And so as you’re looking at this I 24 agree that we should probably focus on urban design issues as a joint commission and committee 25 because we are here for, you know, another hour and a half and the Commission as well as the 26 Board are each gonna get another shot at providing comments. But rather than saying, you 27 know, I like this or I don’t like this please do describe aspects of each component that you do 28 like or don’t like so that could provide better direction both to Staff and to the Council as we 29 move forward. 30 31 Chair Martinez: Good. I couldn’t have said it better myself. Let’s open the public hearing. We 32 don’t have any speaker cards or do we? If there’s anybody from the public cares to speak you 33 will have three minutes. And if you can give us a card after? 34 35 Bob Moss: I’ll give you a card. Interesting looking at the proposal and the justifications for it, 36 but as I’ve said several times before it’s completely out of scale, not only with this portion of 37 Palo Alto but Palo Alto in general. It, it totally violates the El Camino design guidelines which 38 I’m familiar with because I’m one of the people who created it, the design guidelines in the 39 ‘70’s. And the normal justification for asking for increased density and increased height is a 40 developer can make money and in this case the profit would offset building the theatre, but the 41 developer, Arrillaga, has already said that when the buildings are built he’s going to donate them 42 to Stanford. So the only financial benefit to him is the tax write off he gets from donating 43 whatever is built. So he can’t argue that he would have to have something of this scale in order 44 to justify building the theatre. 45 46 Second, when we put in the Comprehensive Plan a goal to have higher density near transit, it was 47 supposed to be focused on higher density housing not higher density commercial or office space. 48 10.j Packet Pg. 388 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 9 of 48 And so this violates the original intent of higher density near transit stations. And because of the 1 size of the project it would generate thousands of jobs, which is going to exacerbate the 2 jobs/housing imbalance. And you know of the fight we’re having right now with Association of 3 Bay Area Governments (ABAG) about how many housing units they want us to build in Palo 4 Alto something like this goes in and they’ll say, “Oh, you got that many more jobs you got to put 5 in more housing.” And be back up to 12 or 15 or 18,000 housing units, which we’ll have to fight 6 them on. So, to quote what some of the Council Members said when this first came up, shorten 7 the height of each floor. You don’t need a 14 foot floor. 10 or 11 is plenty. Reduce the scale 8 and the size of the buildings and reduce in that case the demand for parking and traffic impacts. 9 That intersection is very heavily impacted by traffic.10 11 So what we should be doing is scaling it down to perhaps 50 or 60 feet, reducing total area 12 appropriately. That would reduce the need for parking and reduce the traffic and it would put it 13 more in scale with the rest of the City. There are only four buildings in Palo Alto that are over 14 140, over 100 feet tall. Only one, 101 Alma, is over 140 feet. We don’t need this.15 16 Chair Martinez: Thank you. There are no more speakers. Commissioners and Board Members 17 can, can you hear me at all? So following the Assistant Planning Director’s suggestion why 18 don’t we see if we can have a conversation around urban design issues. I’m not gonna say that it 19 should be limited, but for the PTC we have a follow up meeting where we can talk about zoning 20 and traffic, regional planning issues that may not be the greatest opportunity. So if we want to 21 open it right now let’s begin our conversation about the site plan, the building height, circulation, 22 preservation, things that we share a common focus on and if that’s not too limiting let’s see 23 where it takes us. And we’re just gonna allow each Board Member/Commissioner three minutes. 24 Ask a question, make a comment. If there’s a follow up by anyone else we will continue on the 25 line of that question and then we’ll move on down the line. So what we’re going with Board 26 Member Lew. Three minutes. 27 28 Board Member Lew: So thank you for the presentation. I know it’s a very complicated site. I 29 think my first question would be was, was there an option of locating the theatre where the office 30 buildings are currently proposed? I guess my, in the back of my head I’m thinking that that’s 31 gonna get the more public use and that would be the more prominent so it would be also sort of 32 more in keeping with the use of the Hostess House, which was sort of theater kind of use 33 initially. And, and if the theatre were located sort of closer to the circle it would sort of maintain 34 that, you know, the historic use on that site.35 36 Mr. Fukuji:Shall I respond to that question?37 38 Chair Martinez: Yes, please. 39 Mr. Fukuji: Yes we, we looked at that. The main reason for having the theatre separate and not 40 on University Avenue is that there’s so much traffic, pedestrian, transit, and circulation 41 movements that are happening in that space throughout the day that to try to have a public space 42 that can be organized for different events that might be theatre related or other civic events that 43 you have some competition around that and that in many cities they’ve actually looked at 44 designing their public space separate from the transit center and the public space related to the 45 transit center so there’s sort of a protected space for how they want to manage the operations 46 they want to have. City operations.47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 389 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 10 of 48 Board Member Lew: Then the, I think I read in the Staff report that I think you’re envisioning 1 that the theatre is sort of connected to, you know, visually connected to Quarry Road. And I was 2 wondering how that could be connected to like the public? So say like I know that a Quarry 3 extension, right, but it’s the kind of thing that like, that intersection of Quarry is very sort of hard 4 to, hard to navigate. Like even with extension that’s being proposed I think that it’s still confuse, 5 would be confusing to people. And so I’m thinking like the, that you may see the theatre and 6 sort of know that you need to get there, but just in the current configuration of the existing 7 underpass and everything like that I’m not sure that I would be able to figure out where I need to 8 go and where I need to park and how do I get to the front door. And so, anyway that was why I 9 was thinking that maybe the theatre would be located better, you know, on the, you know, closer 10 to the circle, but possibly if that, if the, if that plaza in front of the theater is, you know, really 11 prominent and you know, design, you know, and has a beautiful design then maybe that creates 12 enough of a, a, you know, enough of a space and so I think that’s it. Is that the timer?13 14 Chair Martinez: You can finish.15 16 Board Member Lew: I’ll finish. That’s ok, I’m done.17 18 Chair Martinez: I had a follow up because I had the same concern that the highest building is 19 next to the lowest building and that’s the transit station. And if you switch positions it would 20 give you the opportunity for more scale. And I also had shared the concern that the civic 21 building, which is the theater and the way that I look at it is more of a, of sort of the public place. 22 And that the plaza, the theatre, and the tower turned at 90 degrees wouldn’t give the tower more 23 opportunity to have more space for addressing the issues of scale. So my concern was obviously 24 the placement of buildings and is there the opportunity to look at it that way?25 26 Mr. Fukuji: I think that we can certainly look at different ways of configuring the site and seeing 27 what the pros and cons are of those different configurations. I think the only other thought we 28 had, and I understand the scale issue about you has the depots existing, you have the theatre it’s 29 slightly, it’s less in height. Why not have that near it because then it’s more compatible in 30 height? And some ways you can orient the fly tower in order to help mitigate that.31 32 Also we thought though that having the theatre on the park side would be a better more 33 compatible use with the park than to have the office building adjacent to the park. So I thought 34 that that, that’s the other reason that we had in thinking about doing that. So I don’t know if you 35 had some…36 37 Mr. Garber: Yeah, I think those are all part of the reasons. I also think there is a strong desire on 38 behalf the Applicant to have the most prominent address be the office tower frankly, but I think 39 the other thing that when we had initially looked at that it was prior to moving the transit center 40 into the location it is now. Because it allowed, you know, we didn’t have all of the transit 41 activity occurring in the front. And the symmetry between having the, a theatre in the park to 42 use the metaphor, but also adjacent to and seen from the Stanford Mall because there would be 43 restaurants and opportunities there and synergy there and also add to the very good draw to be 44 able to get people to be, to be able to act as a bridge between Stanford Mall and University 45 Avenue. So ultimately we ended up pursuing this for, for those reasons. There’s also the 46 connection, the pedestrian connection that goes underneath the tracks and rather than having that, 47 you know, that connection back to University North sort of go underneath the tracks and enter 48 10.j Packet Pg. 390 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 11 of 48 into the offices or the office portion it would essentially enter into the intersection with the 1 theatre there and the park, etcetera. So there’s, there’s some we thought there was, you know 2 when we sort of backed out of our initial thought of it we thought that there was some synergy to 3 placing it where, where it’s ended up or where we’re currently proposing it be considered. Is 4 that fair?5 6 Chair Martinez: Ok. Commissioner Keller.7 8 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So I’m gonna continue with this line of discussion. I will ask 9 this question rhetorically; I don’t expect you to answer. But the question is, of the uses for this 10 district, who will take transit and when? And the answer is the transit users will be the office 11 building users because by the time the theatre lets out at 10:00 or 10:30 or 11:00 at night transit 12 is not a viable option to get home. People will drive. And so you really, so on that basis you 13 want the transit to be, you want the office building to be adjacent to transit because people will 14 get to the theatre most likely by driving to the theatre or by bicycling; relatively few people from 15 walking. Those who live close enough, but most people will not take transit to this location.16 17 But on the other hand you want the theatre to be located in such a way that it is safe and alive 18 because in some sense the park at night is dark and uninviting and unsafe. And so that adjacency 19 is a little scary in some sense; so thinking about how to make that lively if it makes interesting. 20 I’m willing to bet dollars to doughnuts or maybe sandwiches and dinners that the, that that’s the 21 retail that will be located at the bottom of the office building will be food related. Other retail is 22 just not really viable at that location but there’s a great demand for food from the buildings 23 unless they provide their own cafeteria as Google does. And also it’s a great demand for eating 24 from the theatre. So I think that that’s the kind of thing that you need to think about in terms of 25 that.26 27 I think that the office buildings are way too tall and I will talk about FAR in the next discussion 28 about why they are too tall for various reasons. It seems to me that there’s a little mistake in the 29 design of TheatreWorks theatre. And the mistake is if you look at the, can you get back to the 30 diagram where you show the profile of, of it? Yes. If you look on there, there’s a lobby that 31 goes up to get into the auditorium. And that seems to be a mistake. You really need to depress 32 so that you walk into the top of the auditorium and then come down and that means that the 33 auditorium goes down below grade and, and the stage may be above grade. So you actually dig a 34 little bit down below. But because the parking lot entrance would be more on the University 35 Avenue side and parking lots can sort of go around and they’re not level like an elevator down 36 unlike somebody else’s elevator for cars, but the issue is that you actually go around ramps and 37 ramps. The ramp level below the theatre would actually be slightly lower than the ramp level 38 there so you can accommodate that depression that way.39 40 Mr. Garber: May I respond briefly? 41 42 Chair Martinez: Go ahead.43 44 Mr. Garber: Excellent points all Commissioner Keller. Related to the section, the section has 45 been looked at extensively because obviously that is one of the critical things that needs to be 46 solved with any theatre. And actually we did look at lowering the main theatre down a level 47 such that it would be at the same level as the first level of parking. The real issue there though is 48 10.j Packet Pg. 391 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 12 of 48 that as soon as you do that you have to get very large materials from grade down to that lower 1 level and you end up with a service ramp, excuse me, a service elevator that’s probably 10 feet 2 by 20 feet at least. That also then has an impact in terms of operations because you are having to 3 move then that same material from the same dock back up across from the lower level and then 4 back up to the top and then over to the other theatre, etcetera. So we looked at it not only in 5 terms of its geographical locations if you will, but also in terms of its operational impacts. The 6 reality is that by the time you do that and by the time you add the additional elevator, etcetera, 7 you’ve added something like half a million dollars to the actual infrastructure of the building and 8 somewhere between $300,000 and $500,000 a year in operational costs. 9 10 So what you’re not seeing unfortunately because the section is just two dimensions is that the 11 theatre actually is or excuse me, the seating actually is depressed three feet. And the lobby level 12 comes in and you enter the auditorium in the center of the auditorium so that the auditorium 13 seating goes up six feet and goes down three feet, which is the current modern way of managing 14 or organizing a theatre stage. That allows you to have the maximum number of people entering 15 into the center of the theatre and shortens the exits and entranceways up and down the theatre 16 steps. And, importantly it leaves the main stage at the ground level, which is the same level as 17 the other theatre so you can eliminate a lot of the mechanicals that have to happen in the theatre. 18 So, long way around, great observation. There’s your explanation.19 20 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Panelli.21 22 Commissioner Panelli: So the, I want to continue on this element. In fact I took some notes and 23 one of my questions to ask here was, was there some thought to build some of the theatre below 24 grade. Because if you did so, I mean you could effectively lower the, the height of the entire 25 property and perhaps (interrupted)26 27 Mr. Garber: Believe me; the project Applicant was very interested in that solution.28 29 Commissioner Panelli: Yeah, I mean just adding up the numbers you’d actually, if you went one 30 floor down you’d be effectively below 50 feet for everything except for the fly tower. So that 31 was something that came up off the top of my head.32 33 Now when I, when I look at the site and I think about what does this look like from each angle 34 and you gave us an illustration from the park looking south. Is that? I got that right? From 35 looking from Quarry Road (interrupted)36 37 Mr. Garber: The rendering that was just up there?38 39 Commissioner Panelli: Yeah.40 41 Mr. Garber: Yeah, you are on the north looking south across Quarry. Yes. 42 43 Commissioner Panelli: but, but I think about it from all four sides. I’m less concerned about the 44 El Camino side because El Camino’s kind of a broad boulevard and it seemed it probably could 45 handle the kind of height that’s being illustrated kind of the same thing with University/Palm 46 Drive. It’s more of a utilitarian corridor right there. But the one that sort of I’m most sensitive 47 10.j Packet Pg. 392 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 13 of 48 to is from Alma and a number of residences and offices on that side. In fact I sent just a quick 1 diagram asking some questions. I know you may not have had time to address it, but…2 3 Mr. Garber: I, Ms. French had sent me your, your sketch. I did try and come up with something, 4 let me, but I need to bring it up on the screen. This is the section, yes? Your section diagram? 5 6 Commissioner Panelli: Well what I was trying to get at with my diagram is trying to understand 7 if I’m standing on the sidewalk on the east side of Alma, I’m trying to compare what that 8 viewpoint is if we had sort of a typical community commercial property with a height limit of 40 9 feet, 50 feet up to the edge of the parcel versus, you know, if you have buildings sort of setback 10 closer to El Camino do we, do we have a, yeah. Exactly, exactly. So what, you know what I 11 need time, I would need time to look at it to have some subsequent questions so I’m gonna, I’ll 12 pass along. 13 14 Mr. Garber: Ok.15 16 Commissioner Panelli: Yeah, thank you.17 18 Chair Martinez: Board Member Popp. 19 20 Mr. Garber: Do I? How do I, do I just leave it like that? Ok. 21 22 Commissioner Panelli: If you wouldn’t mind just leaving it up for a bit. I appreciate it. Just, is 23 that ok? 24 25 Board Member Popp: Shall I begin? Shall I begin? Great, thank you very much for the26 presentation. Really helps me to understand some of the nuances that I was struggling with a 27 little bit and I really appreciate the time to have this dialogue.28 29 I will echo some of the comments that others have made tonight and just leave it at that quickly, 30 but I really do think it’s important to study flipping the site around. I’m quite concerned about 31 the imagery of Palo Alto coming from Menlo Park on El Camino and the first object that you see 32 that’s so significant will be the backside of the theatre sort of very difficult to fenestrate and 33 articulate. And one of the things that I might offer as a suggestion is perhaps even studying 34 reorganizing the internal, interior of the building. I know you got this interesting concept around 35 the centralized lobby, but perhaps there’s a way to put the fly in the middle and have things 36 around and work around it in some way. You know there may be enough site area to start to do 37 that so you get active edges all around the building and I don’t know the realities of that and 38 whether it’s even possible but sitting here in a moment it seems like that might be worth study.39 40 I’d also like to ask to have a little bit of discussion perhaps about the vehicular entrance to the 41 garage being centered in the site. To me that feels a little like a barrier in the middle of the site 42 really dividing one from the other and I’m concerned about how that feels to have the site really 43 bisected by cars where the, you know, the clear imagery that we’re being shown is that you’re 44 trying to create parkland in the middle and really have that be this very pleasant park space, but 45 with these two big holes that the cars are going in and out of seems like its detracting that, from 46 that in a way. You know, again I don’t know how to manage this and it’s not my job to design it, 47 but I’d like to ask that maybe we have some dialogue about why that choice was made and 48 10.j Packet Pg. 393 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 14 of 48 maybe start to understand a little bit more about that. That’s, that’s really, I’d like to maybe just 1 open it up to some conversation rather than using up all the time. 2 3 Mr. Fukuji: I’d like to just respond just for a second.4 5 Chair Martinez: Go ahead. 6 7 Mr. Fukuji: Yeah we, you know, the vehicular access to the site was a bit of a conundrum for us. 8 We had looked at a lot of different ways of doing it. We don’t have the site plan. Put the site 9 plan up? You know we looked at there’s, there’s kind of three things really driving our decision 10 making around what to do. One was how do you access the theatre and what’s the sequence for 11 arrival at the theatre? We thought that if you’re off Quarry Road you come off El Camino, you 12 know drop off, from there people can walk to the plaza and find the entrance to the theatre and 13 then people can drive around to the back of the theatre. They can drop off again if they want to 14 in the back instead of go into parking. And that, that move I think was a good move for how to 15 organize that. We couldn’t really do it in front of the theatre. There wasn’t really enough room 16 to do that. 17 18 And then looking at how do you provide access to below grade parking for the office. Primarily 19 people are going to be coming really along the El Camino ramp from University Avenue or Palm 20 Drive or from El Camino and along that way that had to provide access for doing it from there. 21 So then that set really the two main points for access. We actually thought about having more 22 points of access to below grade parking, but in looking at parking structures of this size, 850 to 23 900 spaces both on the Stanford campus and other places we found that many of them only have 24 one entrance as opposed to two. And, but the way they handle that is that they look at what to do 25 for peak loading coming in and out and Mr. Arrillaga’s a fan of having it be open when you drive 26 into a parking structure. So he really wanted it to be, you know, four lanes. Two lanes in, two 27 lanes out. We said that’s going to be a little wide on the side by Caltrain, why don’t we have it 28 be three lanes? You have one in two out. And so we came to the conclusion that was the way to 29 do it. 30 31 He proposed, we originally had you drive that, that was a street. That you can just drive through 32 and from that you would go from that to access to the sites to the theatre or to the office. He 33 suggested actually having it go below grade from there to more direct and then have a very wide 34 pedestrian bridge that links the two together so you separate pedestrian and vehicular traffic 35 through the main part of the site. We thought that was a good idea so that’s how we arrived at 36 the proposal. We said it wouldn’t make sense to have driveway access where you’re having bus 37 circulation so we removed it from those areas in front along University Avenue in front of the 38 depot. That’s the thinking behind that. 39 40 Board Member Popp: Ok well I can certainly follow along with that and that’s rational. I just I 41 think in light of what you’re hearing perhaps there’s other organizational options that might be 42 available even maybe taking those two and pulling them apart to corners. It certainly occurs to 43 me that it’s easy for the car to travel and more difficult for the pedestrian, bike, and others. And 44 so having the vehicular entrances farther away and, you know, maybe some centralized element 45 that you come up out of the garage within. You know I’m looking for a pleasant way to 46 visualize that park area in the center and really maximize the bang we’re gonna get out of that. 47 10.j Packet Pg. 394 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 15 of 48 And so in light of the things you’re hearing I think maybe that’s a, that’s something that’s worth 1 studying. 2 3 But I’ll say that I’m not, I’m not challenged too much by the height. I think we’re far enough 4 away and these things seem workable to me. And I think that buildings that are articulated in the 5 right way and, you know, I’m jumping into probably a can of worms here, but I think that the 6 (interrupted)7 8 Chair Martinez: We need to move on.9 10 Board Member Popp: Ok. I’ll let you go on. Thanks.11 12 Chair Martinez: I’m gonna try to follow up. No I’m gonna wait see if I can… well I’m gonna try 13 to follow up if I can. Any of us who have traveled have used the ramp at the Palo Alto Medical 14 Foundation know how terrible of an entry to a clinic that is and we’re kind of faced with the 15 same kind of entrance to something that should be very special. 16 17 Now I have, I’m designing a much more modest preforming arts theatre and one of the people 18 I’m working with is singer Linda Ronstadt. And she described the best place that she liked to 19 perform at and that was the Santa Barbara Preforming Arts Theatre I think it’s called. And she 20 described people arriving in a courtyard, in a garden, and then walking through a courtyard into 21 the lobby and then into the seating area. And she said by the time they were there they were 22 ready. They build up the experience of, of, of that procession really made the anticipation of the 23 theatre that much more exciting. And I don’t see that in driving down, coming out through an 24 elevator up and into the building. You, you don’t arrive walking along El Camino into the 25 courtyard into the building. You arrive through the side or the back and I think that’s a great 26 mistake for any kind of a performance theatre. And I think the comments that especially Board 27 Member Popp had just said really speak to the point of that experience of the theatre. I could, 28 I’ll say a little more about that in our next session, but we need to move on to Commissioner 29 Tanaka.30 31 Commissioner Tanaka: So I just wanted to ask about the theatre uses and is this only going to be 32 used for theatre? Do you think there’s convention center uses? I don’t know if Dan you could 33 speak about that?34 35 Mr. Garber: Yeah I think the intent is for the City and TheatreWorks to come to an agreement as 36 to how both the City and the theatre can, can utilize the space. The idea is and TheatreWorks is 37 very much supportive to try and find ways for, for this to become a community resource and to 38 act in a responsible way for that and to find ways to program not only the spaces that occur 39 inside the building but outside the building as well and take responsibility for that. You know 40 what those, you know what those programs are, what they actually can be I think is, you know, 41 we’re still a long way away from. But relative to the design of the building in terms of the 42 concepts that we’ve been trying to forward here is to create opportunities for the public to enter 43 the building and participate in it. And will not having sort of a losing TheatreWorks, you know, 44 opportunity to have its own administrative spaces, its own storage spaces, etcetera. But to 45 recognize that it has a very significant public function as well. I mean every theatre does, but in 46 this case more so. 47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 395 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 16 of 48 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. Well I guess the reason I mention that is I, I think certainly there’s 1 a need for a theatre but also in this area there’s not a lot of convention center space except if you 2 go to (interrupted)3 4 Mr. Garber: A lot of what? I’m sorry.5 6 Commissioner Tanaka: Convention center. And so I was just trying to see a kind of prop stool 7 use of the space. 8 9 Mr. Garber: Are you looking for a response or is that a comment?10 11 Commissioner Tanaka: It’s more of a comment, but if you can respond that’s also good. 12 13 Mr. Garber: Yeah, I think the thing to keep in mind is that one of the primary reasons that 14 TheatreWorks has been searching for a new home for, you know, more than 10 years now or 12 15 years is because it has programs which preclude it, you know, truly sharing. So there is a 16 number of opportunities that were investigated back in the year 2000 as part of the feasibility 17 study that was done with Stanford and the City and Stanford recognized that when, you know, 18 TheatreWorks which provides over 280 days of programming every evening in addition to its 19 educational programs, outreach programs, new works, festivals, etcetera, etcetera. You know 20 you can’t have another theatre company in there. Which isn’t to say that there aren’t down times 21 for some of the spaces,and that there’s obviously great utility in that. So conventions, 22 convention center,is a completely different use that has a much different requirement for large 23 gathering spaces. And, you know, I think there is a large opportunity for convention that would 24 occur as a result of this project that can be pursued in other projects. I think, I suspect that it 25 would be hard to try and do both inside this one theatre building. Is that helpful?26 27 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck.28 29 Commissioner Alcheck: Thank you for your presentation tonight. This is actually my second sit 30 through; I was present when you made this presentation to City Council as well. I in general 31 can’t imagine a more apt location for the sort of height and density you’re seeking especially in 32 the commercial context. And I think that the theatre is a very exciting opportunity and in hearing 33 my fellow dais members speaking today about the adjustment of the positioning of these 34 buildings I think there may be something to say for a theatre plaza being far away or far enough 35 away from a bus depot if you will. So I do think that there is a, maybe a value to have that 36 segregation and I identify the theatre plaza as being a public space and although the retail level 37 of the first floor of this building is going to be privately owned I always consider retail to be 38 semi-public in its invitation to the public and so if in fact Commissioner Keller is right that 90 39 percent of the space will be, you know, public, you know, restaurants available to the public to 40 some extent I consider the transitionary area between the hub and the theatre including that retail 41 space. And to some extent I can imagine cafés full of people and as you transition through that 42 maybe there is sort of that element.43 44 So in, in general I, I, I think there’s some tremendous need for this space. It’s not just Facebook 45 I know that, you know, smaller companies have left. I just heard that Speck, there’s a tech 46 company called Speck, they just moved to Mountain View or Sunnyvale because the five small 47 buildings they were looking at were not as appealing as the one larger building they could get. 48 10.j Packet Pg. 396 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 17 of 48 Although they did leave their retail space here, they’re going to sublease the rest. So I think 1 there’s a tremendous need for commercial space and I believe that the mixed use adjacent to the 2 transit center is important.3 4 My only question, and I’ll finish with this is the outer loop/inner loop concept for this transit 5 depot reminds me of the current temporarily hub, bus hub in San Francisco. It has sort of an 6 interior out, it’s probably not as large but it has an interior and exterior kind of loop thing. And 7 I’m wondering if there are other examples in other cities of this sort of configuration? Whether 8 it would be smart maybe to have a study of the San Francisco temporary bus depot,to see if there 9 are issues there. One of the issues that I sort of have seen in the San Francisco temporary hub is 10 that if you are crossing this thoroughfare of buses it’s sort of scary because you look like an ant 11 next to, you know, double length and single length buses. And so my only question is how did 12 we come to this design and how did you study it and to what extent are we evaluating similar 13 designs like this and whether or not they work or not?14 15 Mr. Rodriguez: Thank you very much. The way we actually came to the design of the transit 16 ring road was again through that consensus building with the various transit agencies the VTA, 17 Marguerite, and SamTrans staff and actually one of the things that kind of helped us kind of 18 model the concept for this was actually operations of the Mountain View Transit Center 19 operating sort of similar, just a much smaller capacity. And in discussions we’ve had with the 20 VTA, I think how their envisioning this working is for the, for the short term drop off you kind 21 of just come in, drop off, unload the people at the bus, maybe forward some people. All that 22 happens kind of on the outer edge of the ring road and then more layover activities begin to 23 happen kind of in the center portion of the, of the ring where they’ll be less people dropping and 24 boarding or de-boarding from the busses. And so the activity where the pedestrians would be 25 kind of getting off the bus happens on the outer perimeter going straight to the Caltrain station or 26 to the other office uses or adjacent land uses. And so there’s a less of an interaction for 27 pedestrians to have to kind of [unintelligible]right across the street for lack of a better term. But 28 it is a good point. Definitely if you’re aware of some locations or if anyone else is we’d love to 29 have some site visits. I was looking for a reason to go to San Francisco and so that sounds like a 30 good one.31 32 Chair Martinez: Ok. Vice-Chair Michael your comments.33 34 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you very much. This is a very interesting and provocative 35 proposal and I’ve got a number of comments. One is on the plan that you’ve got up now the, the 36 backside of the fly tower is both the very tall and also very wide and just very flat and its, it’s not 37 softened by any tree planting that I can see or other something just to soften that. And I just 38 drove past the Menlo-Atherton theatre with the fly tower and I think this is a defect in the layout. 39 So if you could plant some trees that would be fabulous. 40 41 Also I had a chance I was in San Francisco today and you approach the city you look at the 42 skyline, you see the older part of the city a lot of the buildings are sort of square, rectangular, 43 flat, right angles. You look south at Market and it gets quite a bit more interesting and what 44 you’ve got here is sort of rectilinear block shapes with flat roofs on what we’re seeing and I’m 45 very curious about the option for different treatments of the, the skyline kind of qualities, more 46 graceful, more curvilinear, which I think particularly given the sensitivity to the height impact 47 the blocky, flat, rectangular as you being using the entry to San Francisco as an example it’s 48 10.j Packet Pg. 397 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 18 of 48 really lovely in the new area and very dated and we’re instantly going back if we keep the 1 blocks. 2 3 So and another comment the, just to enumerate the public benefits which are substantial and 4 significant: the theatre, the transit improvements, the intermodal transit center, all of that. I’m 5 wondering to the extent that within the, the mixed use and the office buildings there might be an 6 additional sort of public space dedicated in the design of one of the office buildings that might be 7 sort of auditorium like that might be available for certain events or meetings or whatnot that 8 could be public/private sharing which would be quite useful and balance out the, the space. 9 10 And finally to the extent that the TheatreWorks is gonna be so active but may not be here forever 11 in terms of the design of the theatre to what extent does the design accommodate other 12 modalities of ballet or musical performances or other activities in addition to or maybe after 13 TheatreWorks is finished? And that’s most of my three minutes but if you want to comment to 14 any of those or just take those as observations. Thanks.15 16 Mr. Garber: Hi, I can comment relative to the TheatreWorks or the theatre building. If you were 17 just designing a space for ballet or concerts or something of that sort you wouldn’t need frankly 18 as much infrastructure as you have in this theatre now. Can it be used for those sorts of 19 functions? The answer is yes frankly because they have less functional requirements. Perhaps 20 less so for ballet in that you would have the same, you know, you can have the same amount of 21 scenery, you have large casts, or you can have the opportunity for large casts and so you need 22 rehearsal rooms and green rooms, etcetera. 23 24 So there’s a lot of opportunity to utilize the space for a lot of different things versus for instance 25 like the Bing Concert Hall. You would be very difficult to put on a performance there because it 26 doesn’t have a lot of the infrastructure, it does not have a fly space, it doesn’t have a 27 [unintelligible], it does not have the rehearsal rooms, etcetera that you would have to have for 28 this sort of thing. So there’s a lot of flexibility for what the spaces can be, can be used for. One 29 of the large, there are two very large rehearsal rooms that are programed one of which essentially 30 reproduces the size of the main stage. And then there’s also the second one that is also very 31 large is a, is in fact a dance rehearsal room and those can be used actually for, you know, 32 informal performances or a smaller scale performances as well and that works well with the 33 lobby, the upper level lobby that’s, that’s there. 34 35 Chair Martinez: Acting Board Chair Lippert. 36 37 Acting Board Chair Lippert: Thank you. I think the interesting thing is that just as San 38 Francisco’s completed their review of the tallest building in San Francisco we’re just beginning 39 our review of what could be the tallest building in Palo Alto. Can you just very quickly explain 40 what the relevance or nexus is of Urban Lane on this site? Please just be brief on it. You know.41 42 Mr. Fukuji: I think that as Jaime mentioned earlier for existing Urban Lane the only thing we’re 43 proposing is a bus turnaround at the end by Palo Alto Medical Foundation to help support transit 44 movements through there.45 46 Acting Board Chair Lippert: Is it part of the site?47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 398 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 19 of 48 Mr. Fukuji: It’s not part of the site. That’s property that’s owned by Palo Alto Medical 1 Foundation it’s also Stanford land that’s been leased.2 3 Acting Board Chair Lippert: Ok. Did you look at all the dream team scheme for the University 4 Circle area there? University Avenue where the terminus is?5 6 Mr. Fukuji: Yes, yes we did. I think that in a sense the dream team was very visionary but very 7 difficult to implement. But the key things that came out of that were how to enhance 8 pedestrian/bicycle connectivity and look at how to redesign transit circulation and that gave a lot 9 of very creative thinking into how to do that. And we learned from what that could teach us and 10 then we based most of our decision making on that and our collaboration with our transit 11 providers.12 13 Acting Board Chair Lippert: Ok that’s what I was looking for exactly. Ok the connectivity and 14 also when you’re trying to piece together pieces of Salvage Park, you know, it also expanded that 15 element as well in the dream team scheme. So I certainly take a look at that.16 17 With regards to built heights of tall buildings in Palo Alto, 525 University in the City Council 18 Staff report it’s only given in terms of stories it’s not really given as height. Where do we fit in 19 terms of the height of this building and that?20 21 Mr. Garber: You know we don’t, I don’t know why we don’t know the height of that building. 22 Well, it sounds like Ms. French knows. Please inform us.23 24 Ms. French: That’s what I found in the means that I could in our online electronic resources. 25 Everything that I put there was what I found. I could not find the height of that building.26 27 Acting Chair Lippert: Ok as far as watermark is concerned it’s important I think to understand 28 what the context is or what the height of the building is in this proposal versus the one at 525 29 University.30 31 Mr. Garber: So, if you, let’s make an assumption. There’s 15 stories (interrupted)32 33 Acting Chair Lippert: No, I don’t want to make an assumption.I want the number, ok? I want 34 to know whether this building is coming up to or topping 525 University. I want to know where 35 it’s coming up to or topping Palo Alto Square. I want to know where it’s coming up to on, on 36 101 Alma. Because those are the most significant tallest buildings in Palo Alto and this is gonna 37 be one of the tallest buildings in Palo Alto. And so we want to have an idea as to context wise 38 where it’s gonna be. 39 40 Chair Martinez: Ok. And I want to thank the Chief Planning Official for the tea. Let’s see if it 41 works overtime. When I travel I carry around with me a checklist of what makes a great city. I 42 wanted to talk about a great civics base, but I think I’m going to take this time to talk about a 43 great sense of history and really put it on the line why isn’t the Julia Morgan included in the 44 project? Why isn’t it there? A response, please.45 46 Mr. Fukuji: We’re, there’s a couple of things. We’re looking at several different locations for it. 47 It wasn’t initially proposed to be in the project. the direction that we’ve gotten from Council is 48 10.j Packet Pg. 399 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 20 of 48 to really look at how to include that in El Camino Park and in the response that we’re putting 1 together for City Council in November we’re looking at how that can be done in a way that helps 2 create a more holistic environment for that building, the park, and the project. So we can look at 3 how that could work together.4 5 Chair Martinez: Ok, but we all know that because of the sighting of the tower there was no place 6 for that building and it also compromises the transit station because of it’s out of scale 7 relationship. So what I’m suggesting, move the tower, create a civics base, put the Julia Morgan 8 back, recognize the significance of the history, not just of the building but the people who to this 9 day continue to use that building. Place it as part of what’s important, what makes Palo Alto a 10 great city our sense of history. Our sense of who the people are that have come before us. Who 11 the people are that are using this building. Honor the memorials that are there. It wouldn’t be 12 that hard. Perhaps you need to look at the architectural program for the site. Maybe there isn’t 13 room for a theatre that that’s ambitious. Maybe the towers need to have a different relationship14 and be more modest. If that can be introduced into this planning process, but it has to be taken 15 more seriously that it has been there for almost 100 years and it needs to be included in the plan. 16 Not at the golf course, not at the other end of El Camino Park, not at the VA Center, but there 17 where it’s been for almost 100 years.18 19 I am going to turn over the mike to the Vice-Chair Michael who has a better voice than me 20 tonight for the next round.21 22 Vice-Chair Michael: So thank you Chair Martinez. Enjoy the tea and for the second round let’s 23 go back to Board Member Lew for three minutes. 24 25 Board Member Lew: So I have a question about the, the office buildings. So like many of the 26 other high tech tenants that have come to the ARB have told us that their employees require like 27 outdoor amenity areas. Their sports, whatever recreation, terraces, patio dining, and they’re all 28 private to their employees. They are not really public at all. And so I was curious as to about 29 this project because it’s a very different kind of site. You don’t really have the same kind of area 30 and how those kinds of amenities would be provided on this site.31 32 Mr. Fukuji: I think that we hear that. I mean I think it’s not an isolated campus. It’ll have a 33 cafeteria where every need will be met. Several of the interviews that we’ve done major 34 technology companies have all said that there’s sort of more urban environments that have 35 amenities that are part of a downtown are really attractive to their employees and they like to see 36 that. That creates a lot of space for how to look at how you manage the ground floor use. I think 37 that’s the City’s choice to think about how we’d like to manage the ground floor. What uses and 38 activities should be there and to help really make sure that is enabled for that.39 40 Board Member Lew: And is there anything in the proposed zoning change that would like, say 41 restrict other office tenants? Say if it was like predominantly lawyer offices or is this really 42 intended to be technology driven innovation district? 43 44 Mr. Fukuji: We haven’t quite gotten to that place yet. We’re really trying to get the big picture 45 vision but that’s gonna be a negotiation topic.46 47 Board Member Lew: Ok. Thank you.48 10.j Packet Pg. 400 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 21 of 48 1 Vice-Chair Michael: Commissioner Keller.2 3 Commissioner Keller: So firstly let me indicate that the park appears to be in shape to be what I 4 would refer to as gerrymandered around the space to sort of shoehorned in. And I think that the 5 reference to Zuccotti Park is not apt because I don’t think you want the Occupy Palo Alto people 6 standing there and protesting the big industrial behemoth that happens to be in the office building 7 adjacent. So I don’t think that that’s the, that’s the image that we would like to continue.8 9 I think that what you’re really doing is reducing the effective size of the park and if that’s what 10 you’re doing, that’s ok. That’s not necessarily, not necessarily the right thing to do, but if that’s 11 what you’re really doing and I think that’s what you’re doing then say so. And instead of trying 12 to indicate that this certain amount of square footage goes somewhere in this weird place all 13 around in front of the building that’s really part of the setback of the building not really part of 14 the park. So I think that, you know, while you may rationalize a little bit more of the space in 15 front of the theatre as being part of the park this, the bridge over the roadway, the space on the 16 other side of Urban Lane that’s right it’s stuck against the Caltrain depot is not a park. I’m sorry 17 it’s not.18 19 In terms of opportunities that you might consider you have this wonderful site opportunity this 20 50 or 60 or some odd feet on top of the theatre and then a tall slab of 40 feet above that and I’m 21 wondering if there, you know, for the, for the theatre. I’m wondering if there’s a use for that in 22 some sense? A gathering space? You know some towns have outdoor movies and you can sort 23 of show outdoor movies on top of this. You know think of, take an opportunity to use that space 24 it’s got a great view. It’s sort of a wasted opportunity as unused up there and I’m not sure 25 exactly what you’d do with it, but think of a use for it.26 27 Also I would hope that in the life of this project that the train tracks would be undergrounded for 28 Caltrain or high speed rail or whatever it is. And I think that you should plan this project around 29 the ability to accommodate undergrounding Caltrain. And although I certainly do think that it is 30 not appropriate to have four tracks around south of say Churchill, it is quite possible that some 31 day there will be four tracks at the Palo Alto station in an underground configuration underneath 32 the current platform and that you’ll basically have access over the train tracks to be it for 33 pedestrian/bicycle path. And I don’t know what that does to University Avenue and I don’t, you 34 know, but in some sense some consideration of that transition needs to be thought about because 35 I think that that in the next 50 or 100 years or however long this complex is gonna be there that’s 36 hopefully gonna happen and separate the, the, the we have this sort of wall in some sense, the 37 rolling wall of the train separating two parts of Palo Alto. That’s gonna hopefully go away and 38 with Caltrain increasing more and more it’s gonna become more of a problem so think about 39 that. Thank you. 40 41 Vice-Chair Michael: Commissioner Panelli.42 43 Commissioner Panelli: I’m gonna pick up where I left off and by the way thank you for putting 44 that slide up. I’m gonna need more time to study it so if you could send it to me that would be 45 great. But it does, it does help coalesce my, my thought and the point I was trying to make 46 which is if I’m standing on the sidewalk on the east side of Alma directly across the street from 47 the depot station it’s a much, the sense I think I would get is much different than if I’m standing 48 10.j Packet Pg. 401 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 22 of 48 in the middle of theatre plaza or in the courtyard between the two office buildings. If I’m in 1 either of those two locations there’s some pretty decent sort of view plains. But if I’m standing 2 directly across the street my,my concern is that, that both the office towers, especially with the 3 two L’s sort of interlocking and then the broad side of the theatre it’s effectively, the sense is the 4 further away I am from the site the more of a sense of a wall that there is. And I’m wondering is 5 it, was there any consideration to, to sort of directionally sort of turning them 90 degrees and 6 having everything sort of perpendicular to El Camino and Alma so you’re sort of more preserve 7 those sight plains? 8 9 Mr. Fukuji: I think that’s been a really tough design problem to look at what to do and how to do 10 that. I think we’ve had some success in doing that. I don’t think it’s quite completely there and 11 we can talk about some of the things that our strategies have done to address that. One thing we 12 did do with the theatre is that because it, and I know you want to talk about the theatre but I just 13 want a point about it is that, you know, it’s kind of a blank box. But if you have the service 14 spaces facing the Alma side then you can have windows glazing at all kinds of articulation on the 15 building on that side that you wouldn’t have on other sides. We felt that at least when you’re on 16 the Alma side you look and you actually would see a fenestration of a building as opposed to a 17 blank wall. We thought that would be the better of the four sides that would be an appropriate 18 side. 19 20 We looked at how to align the streets so that you had new corridors. One of the things we did 21 was like with Everett for example is when you look down that you now continue to see open 22 space. We literally tried to do that with Lytton. It was a little more difficult to accomplish with 23 doing that, but this becomes an architectural design issue. There are many streets that terminate 24 and buildings that can be done well. This is a little more bleak in terms of how you’d be looking 25 at it. You’d be seeing part of the building but there is a space between the theatre and the office 26 buildings that you would partially see if you looked down the length of it. So it does some of it, 27 it doesn’t quite do everything in terms of that. 28 29 Commissioner Panelli: Well, let me just quickly follow up to that. So what about a minor 30 reconfiguration such that at least between the office buildings you have a clear shot, which right 31 now you don’t unless your actually sort of inside the courtyard. 32 33 Mr. Fukuji: I think that’s a good, it’s a really good idea. We’re gonna see what we can do about 34 that kind of thing. 35 36 Vice-Chair Michael: Board Member Popp.37 38 Board Member Popp: I’m essentially gonna follow the comments that others have been saying 39 here. It’s the same tact that I’m interested in understanding as well and I really am focused on 40 trying to find a way to enhance the connection between what is on the other side of Alma with 41 this site. Really knit it into a feeling so that it’s part of downtown and find a way to maybe not 42 rigorously extend the grid across the street, but one of the things that I do think really is valuable 43 is as you’re moving along the streets as a pedestrian or in a vehicle that you do have this view of 44 the hills. It’s beautiful and finding a way to allow the Lytton access and maybe, you know, I 45 don’t know what the solution is and I’m not ready to start proposing things for you. It’s really 46 your job to do that. 47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 402 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 23 of 48 We’ll talk about it, but I think the things that I’m looking for are not taking away the view of the 1 mountains and really trying to find a way to integrate the downtown and this new area. And 2 maybe it is a reconfiguration of the shape of these buildings. And we’ve said a bunch about this 3 now so I won’t belabor that but I do also want to really encourage you to think about these 4 buildings in a sculptural way so that when we get to the ARB, you’re skilled, right? And we’ll 5 look forward to having all of that come to the table for us, but I’m, I’m intrigued by the site plan 6 and the way the buildings are organized and shaped in a way, but I’d like to see that translated 7 three dimensionally more. And so starting to think about how these buildings reach up to the sky 8 and what those look like and maybe, you know, voids the pull in and out a little bit to help 9 enhance the view might be something that would provide a good tact and a good approach. So, 10 my two cents.11 12 Vice-Chair Michael: Commissioner Tanaka.13 14 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah I actually had the same line of thought as well as my, as, for my 15 second round here which is I think this space here provides the opportunity to not just connect 16 downtown but also the Stanford shopping mall and I think there’s that kind of intent. And so 17 thinking about how can this connect to all, you know, connect downtown with the Stanford 18 Shopping Mall I think would be a really, really good goal to do somehow. I’m not prepared to 19 tell you how to do it through, but if you could figure that out I think that would be a really, really 20 powerful (interrupted)21 22 Mr. Garber: Forgive me. Just spend another sentence or two telling me what you’re imagining or 23 thinking about relative to this site and Stanford again because I think is missed something there if 24 you would just repeat that? 25 26 Commissioner Tanaka: Sure. I guess what I’m thinking is, you know, we have kind of one of the 27 premiere shopping centers, Stanford Mall, we have downtown which is also a really nice 28 shopping area and we have this spot, which is kind of in the middle. And I think it provides an 29 opportunity to kind of bridge the two together. Perhaps even a way where you could walk from 30 Stanford Shopping Mall and have a meaningful experience all the way to downtown and vice-31 versa. And I think if that could be done somehow, I was actually looking at how you were doing 32 the pedestrian routes and still like I’m not sure if it’s there yet right now. But if you could think 33 about how that could be done I think that would be quite powerful. And I think in order to also 34 enable this besides, you know, the right kind of routes is to also have, have the right kind of uses 35 on the bottom to make it kind of a, a, a, you know, meaningful experience. If it’s kind of dead or 36 if it’s not, you know, if there are not enough things going on when people are going in between 37 these it doesn’t really act as that bridge. So I think that’s, that’s something that could be thought 38 of more of how to make this kind of strong connection because I think this is a really nice 39 opportunity to do that where this can, I guess it also depends on what happens at the Stanford 40 Shopping Center. So we don’t know those plans yet, but I assume that’s gonna also expand one 41 day and thinking about how that all kind of comes together I think would really be nice.42 43 So and just back to my other previous comment which was the theatre and I understand the need 44 to be focused on the theatre. I guess my only concern is just it’s hard to predict the future so 45 having, you know, having a building that could serve multiple purposes is actually a good thing 46 and I think one of the needs right now is the convention center or something like that. So it’s 47 just something which can perhaps be thought about as part of this plan. Thanks.48 10.j Packet Pg. 403 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 24 of 48 1 Vice-Chair Michael: Commissioner Alcheck.2 3 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok, so, you know, my comments are directed at you but also directed to 4 the Council since I know that they’re going to be looking at this and our input. I’m gonna just 5 kind of quickly respond to as many things as I can. I’ll start with Commissioner Keller’s 6 comments. I don’t think the existing park along El Camino Real or the space that’s currently 7 designated as existing park is, is a good use of park space so to the extent that you’re moving that 8 park over here and not, you know, using it, I don’t think that’s an important issue. I do think to 9 some extent if we’re gonna be honest about whether or not we’re decreasing park space or 10 increasing park space we should, but in this particular instance I don’t think the reduction of park 11 space along that El Camino strip is really a significant issue. And, and I also want to highlight 12 something, you know, I’m a huge fan of the High Line in New York and we, parks are not just 13 places where you can run to ultimate Frisbee matches. Parks can be extremely unique spaces 14 where we can contemplate and we can gather socially or we can even experience the outdoors 15 individually in an extremely urban area.16 17 So I want to just elevate or highlight the comment by Commissioner Tanaka, which is I really 18 think that the idea of connecting Stanford to this space and, Stanford Shopping Center, to this 19 space and maybe even Stanford to this space and this space to our downtown in a way where it 20 feels like even if you were doing nothing related to the facilities at this site it would still be a 21 popular walk, if you will. I think that’s a very interesting idea because that would allow us to 22 enjoy that space in a unique way and I also want to kind of comment on Commissioner 23 Michael’s note and say that I think that there is this and also Commissioner, Board Member 24 Popp this, this sculptural opportunity here that these buildings can be gorgeous, you know, to 25 name a preforming arts hall in L.A., the Disney Hall or whatever, that is really it’s the new Bay 26 Bridge. It’s a sight that will always remain iconic.27 28 And look I’m, I’ll be very forthright with you and I hope the City Council is listening. There is 29 no location that is closer to transit, closer to El Camino, that’s more apt for the tallest building 30 we’d ever consider. Whether it should be as tall as you like, I’m not going to venture to say that 31 yet, but there isn’t a better location for this sort of mass that we’re talking about. So if we’re 32 going to do it, it ought to be,we ought to shoot for the stars here and so the, that’s all the time I 33 have but those are my comments and I encourage you to really reach for it. 34 35 Vice-Chair Michael: So I’ll take my turn next. Just have two, two areas just to explore briefly. 36 One is when the Planning Commission reviewed the Bicycle Pedestrian Plan one of the things I 37 really enjoyed about that was relating my own personal experience as a cyclist and so once that 38 came up I decided to more seducely use the Homer Tunnel when I ride my bike from my home 39 and the community center out to the hills and so this area that you’re talking about here is 40 something I’ve been, been transiting quite a bit recently. And so I’m just kind of curious 41 whether what you’re proposing here is going to enhance my, you know, personal selfish 42 experience in getting from my home out to the hills more easily or whether it’s actually gonna 43 get sort of preempted by all the, you know, the occupants of the, the space and I’ll have to go 44 back to riding past Palo Alto High School and that’s not so good. But anyway I, it doesn’t seem 45 to me that it’s gonna be a good sort of regional cycling kind of transit area. It’s going to be more 46 localized. So I think that’ll be for me a little bit of a negative. Just put it out there.47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 404 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 25 of 48 The other thing is the concern about the, the status of the Julia Morgan building and where it 1 might be moved to the extent that it has to be moved. I have a, an odd idea and it’s perhaps, you 2 know, not at all practical, but the primary beneficiary of this philanthropic effort by the 3 Applicant isn’t the City,it’s the University. And I think that’s a great thing for the University 4 and, and I think that to the extent that there’s that benefit to the University it’s probably also 5 good for the City, but I wondered if maybe there’s a way that the Julia Morgan building might be 6 moved not so far, but across El Camino into what’s now sort of part of the arboretum area sort of 7 adjacent to Quarry Road so that, you know, right now that’s not utilized other than there’s trees 8 and trees are lovely and it’s, you know, sort of an undisturbed block of, you know, eucalyptus 9 forest, but you might do something quite nice with that in that space. With this it’s a nice 10 building, it’s a nice area and it might also go to further Commissioner Tanaka’s suggestion 11 which I’ve been thinking about is there really is sort of a nexus between the shopping center and 12 this, this development and the City. And that would be sort of on the pathway of that nexus and 13 would, would add considerable interest and it might be utilized in a way that would promote, you 14 know, a good experience.15 16 Acting Board Chair Lippert: Thank you. The first thing I wanted to say is that I think probably 17 the site for the office building there is, there is precedent for it being located close to the, the 18 train depot. And that is that 525 is located at the other end of University Avenue. As you walk 19 down University Avenue it’s visible. It punctuates the street even though it’s not centered on the 20 street and the same thing could very well happen here as you head down University Avenue. It 21 punctuates the other end of University Avenue. And that goes to other tall buildings that 22 punctuate University Avenue I’m thinking University Circle in East Palo Alto. Again, you 23 know, it’s along this route. 24 25 However we can’t continue the discussion of height until both the Planning and Transportation 26 Commission and the ARB finishes their discussion regarding building height and understand 27 what that means in Palo Alto as well as revisions to the El Camino Real Guidelines. Because 28 we’ve had a retreat on that and we’ve talked about that as well. And those are two very 29 important pieces that need to be completed before we can really begin to have a discussion on 30 height for this building.31 32 I think that, that Vice-Chair Michael raised a very important point which is the MacArthur Park 33 building or the Julia Morgan building. And that maybe that shouldn’t be moved very far. And 34 one thought is that, you know, we do have El Camino Park there and maybe it could be located 35 in El Camino Park in the parking area and that parking area could be incorporated with the other 36 underground parking and therefore it could act as a secondary rec building. You know, maybe a 37 field house for El Camino Park staying within the environs of Palo Alto.38 39 I think the University Avenue and the Circle, the transit center that happens there is particularly 40 important, but it does not have to happen in the Circle itself. There are lots of underutilized sites 41 adjacent to that area and one of them is, is just right in front of the transit center across the 42 railroad tracks. Again it’s surface parking that could be incorporated into some of the 43 underground parking or into the complex of buildings itself as well as the strip along Urban 44 Lane. We’re ignoring Urban Lane as Commissioner Keller I think indicated by not using this as 45 an opportunity to maybe underground Caltrans, Caltrains and utilizing the land above it and 46 perhaps since Stanford does have ownership of that land. Ownership of that land and they lease 47 it they could not, there’s no reason why they could not be renegotiated and have portions of the 48 10.j Packet Pg. 405 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 26 of 48 tower structures happen there thereby reinforcing Alma Street and the downtown. Taking the 1 parking that’s there and incorporating it into other parking that happens. It could very well be 2 that we, that negotiators work, negotiation is worked out with the Sheraton and there’s multilevel 3 structured parking that happens on the Sheraton lot that accommodates that. So I think there’s 4 ample opportunities but what’s not happening here is we’re not looking at a holistic plan in terms 5 of how it’s going to work with the other parts of the City.6 7 Vice-Chair Michael: Chair Martinez.8 9 Chair Martinez: Let’s say I did want to talk about circulation, but I’m gonna save that for the 10 next hour. I, I think I’m going to with the time that we have left initiate maybe a lighting round 11 so we can continue quickly, maybe a minute each the discussion about building heights. I think 12 Board Vice-Chair Lippert raises an important point about the future discussions, but this project 13 also gives us the opportunity to talk about why. Why does the City want to raise its building 14 height? Why does it want to raise it in such an extreme way or to such an extent? What, what 15 are the factors? It’s not only about or even about urban design. It’s not about the location and 16 the distance from the streets and, and what’s around it. It’s about other factors like what is our 17 economic development plan, you know, is there a need for the City to grow this way? It’s about 18 our tradition. This is a fairly low density suburban city. Is new high-rise sort of fit what Palo 19 Alto wants to be? 20 21 I think the discussion about why, why we want to build higher and I mean significantly higher. 22 I’m not talking about 10 feet higher to allow better architecture. I think that’s a discussion that 23 this project allows us to have and I think we should continue that argument using this project as 24 the vehicle for what is, what is good building height or why are we going in this direction or why 25 we should not go because it’s a divisive issue in the City. It’s one that’s going to put, you know, 26 many of our neighbors opposing it. So we, we need to look at strongly not just yeah this is a 27 good site, it’s a great opportunity, but why should we be going in this direction? And if we can 28 just, you know, one minute each as, as sort of our parting comments each of our members to talk 29 about height issue from their own perspective. And we’ll start with Board Member Lew.30 31 Board Member Lew: so I think my question about height was how, what other options were there 32 for massing of the office buildings? So I was thinking like is it possible to have one tower that’s 33 even taller and then you have another bar or something that’s lower and more in keeping with, 34 you know, the rest of Palo Alto. And so I think maybe going forward with other meetings and 35 stuff I’d like to see other studies and stuff that the design team has done.36 37 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller.38 39 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So the first thing is the office buildings being proposed are 40 way too high. I grew up in New York if I wanted to live there I would. I want to live in Palo 41 Alto. Palo Alto’s not New York and the people in Palo Alto made a deliberate step not to have 42 Palo Alto be Manhattanized. So I think that that it, it’s too high. Thank you.43 44 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Panelli.45 46 Commissioner Panelli: I’m probably gonna sound like a broken record here but I’m gonna say it 47 over and over and over probably for the next several years. We need to be careful not to conflate 48 10.j Packet Pg. 406 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 27 of 48 density and height. We have districts in fact in your Staff answers to my questions you, you 1 mentioned, you know, the CC district which is actually the conclusion I came to independently 2 which has a, a density a FAR that’s already established in the code. So the question is do we 3 want squat, flat, uninteresting buildings that take up a bulk of the site or do we want to increase 4 the amount of open space on a site in exchange for more height? I think that is sort of the 5 seminal discussion that we’re gonna have on this topic.6 7 Chair Martinez: And then Board Member Popp.8 9 Board Member Popp: So like Commissioner Panelli I think I’ll, I’ll repeat some comments that I 10 had made at the Architectural Review Board which is I, I’m concerned about the City getting 11 full. If we just stick with the zoning that we got, we let everything fill up to the FAR that it can 12 get to we’re gonna feel like we’re full. And I’d really much rather see us consider significant 13 height in places where it feels tolerable. And I’m not sure this is the right height, I’m not sure 14 it’s the right organization of buildings yet, but I think that there are places in this City where we 15 can tolerate significant height. And there are places where we really don’t want it. And we want 16 to make sure it stays low and comfortable and residential and calm. And I think that the, the 17 opportunity here is interesting and I’d like to see it explored further and the height does not 18 frighten me at all. I’d just like to see how it’s going to evolve. Thank you.19 20 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Tanaka.21 22 Commissioner Tanaka: So I’m, I’m gonna align my comments along to, along with 23 Commissioner Panelli which I think it’s kind of a trade between flat low buildings that fill up the 24 whole lot or tall buildings. Open space versus not having open space. So I think those are 25 interesting tradeoffs that we have to consider and think about. This site is near transit; having 26 jobs near transit makes a lot of sense. So I think we have to think about that carefully. Thanks.27 28 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck.29 30 Commissioner Alcheck: I think that this, these issues are divisive because they are issues related 31 to individuals who don’t want this happening in their backyard and there are issues related to 32 kind of the historical record here. Frankly I need to be persuaded why we need to build only 15 33 feet above our two story residential homes. Our homes go up to 35 feet that means we have 15 34 feet above them for our commercial spaces. I need to be persuaded why that’s an intelligent 35 decision and Palo Alto is not Palo Alto. There is downtown Palo Alto, there’s south, there’s so 36 many different areas and I think we have to investigate each one of them and decide which ones 37 are more suitable for height. Downtown is more suitable for height. 38 39 I don’t believe I would not call this high-rise. This is mid-rise and I, I really I’m not suggesting 40 that I’m willing to approve or suggest approval of 200 foot or 150 foot buildings or 100 foot 41 buildings without better review, but I believe we need to be persuaded. And if I could just 42 quickly finish I understand that they conflict with design guidelines we have in place, but those 43 aren’t written in stone. And I, I seem, I’m under the impression that those exist because a few 44 awful looking buildings got built in the ‘70’s. And just because some awful looking buildings 45 got built in the ‘70’s doesn’t mean we can’t trust ourselves and this process to come up with a 46 better, a better design aesthetic. So I’m, I’m not in charge of design but I do believe it’s possible 47 and so I think we need to be persuaded and I don’t think we have been yet.48 10.j Packet Pg. 407 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 28 of 48 1 Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Michael.2 3 Vice-Chair Michael: So I’m a big fan of Palo Alto and I’ve had a lot of, I come to the height 4 limit with an open mind. I don’t have any objection to tall architecture particularly if it’s 5 beautiful. And driving around San Francisco today I found a lot to like about tall buildings and 6 many buildings not to like. I think suburban city is an oxymoron. It worries me. I think if this 7 height limit sort of issue may lead to entropy and could sort of suffocate sort of the future 8 evolution of the City in ways that would otherwise be very dynamic and interesting. I think 9 going up as long as you have open spaces and setbacks and view corridors I think a view of the 10 mountains is lovely. I ride my bike to the mountains, you know, three, four times a week, but 11 having a view of beautiful architecture is also inspiring.12 13 Chair Martinez: And Vice-Chair Lippert.14 15 Acting Board Chair Lippert: Yeah, I, I am not in any way dissuaded from this proposal 16 whatsoever. You know I think it’s a really incredible opportunity we have here and it really 17 needs to be treated very seriously. With regard to the height, height needs to be the solution to 18 solving a number of problems. A number of very important problems; number one, does it really 19 buy us something that we can’t achieve by adding a little extra height to all the buildings in 20 downtown? Number two, is it gonna create additional problems with regard to traffic impacts in 21 the City? Will people wind up be parking, you know, parking in the neighborhoods to avoid 22 parking in the building? And just concluding I’d say I think the, I think mixed use is also a way 23 to reward height and density.24 25 Chair Martinez: Ok. I’d like to thank Members of the Architectural Review Board for coming 26 tonight. We’re going to take a five minute break before we go on to the next round on this 27 project. Ok, thank you. Any comments from Staff first before we part?28 29 Ms. French: Just thank you for doing this as a joint board. It was very, very interesting to have 30 the joint group. Thank you.31 32 Chair Martinez: Ok, thank you very much. 33 34 Commission Action:No action taken35 36 27 University Avenue:(PTC only 8:00 p.m.)Commission study session regarding general land 37 use issues and design concepts related to the potential project presented as Item #2.This study 38 session is being scheduled to allow the Commission and public an additional and more detailed 39 opportunity to provide comments in advance of City Council consideration.40 41 Chair Martinez: Ok let’s, let’s continue everyone. Excuse me again. We are continuing with 42 agenda item number three which is a study session with the Planning and Transportation 43 Commission (PTC) only regarding planning issues related to the 27 University Avenue project. 44 And I think I’m going to ask our City Attorney to let us know what brings us here. Thank you. 45 46 Molly Stump, City Attorney: Thank you Chair Martinez. Molly Stump, City Attorney. 47 Appreciate the Commission’s opportunity to be with you this evening and to talk about this 48 10.j Packet Pg. 408 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 29 of 48 important project. You’re here tonight for an opportunity to have input and to provide some 1 advice and direction and counsel to the City Council as it considers the very early stages of 2 looking at this quite substantial master plan on this site. The Council very much wanted to be 3 informed by its Planning Commission and its Architectural Review Board (ARB) even though 4 the project is very much at the conceptual stage and it’s not the typical type of matter that you’ll 5 see. There isn’t a proposed zone change before you. There’s not a project application that’s 6 been filed, but it is an opportunity and an important one to have some early input into the 7 direction on this, this major piece of planning work that may go forward.8 9 Chair Martinez: Thank you. And in that regard I, I’m not gonna make long speeches tonight. I 10 view this as the very best of the Palo Alto process in that here’s a project that’s being considered 11 there’s no sort of agreement as to that it is this. It’s, you know, in a very conceptual phase being 12 asked for the public and the Commission and our boards to have input. To talk about whether 13 this is a good idea. And, and I think that sort of goes to the transparency that we like to see. 14 That we like to know that we’re thinking about something that we’re a long ways before 15 deciding what that is and to really put out a forum in which it can be discussed and which a wide 16 variety of opinions can weigh into the issues. So I’m very pleased that we have this opportunity 17 and that it really shows that this is a City that cares about public input even though I don’t think 18 there’s any of us here on this panel that sort of agrees with each other. That’s, that’s part of the 19 Palo Alto, that’s part of the Palo Alto process. 20 21 I assume that Staff you have no additional report? Or is there something additional you want to 22 say? Assistant Planning Director. 23 24 Aaron Aknin, Assistant Director: No. I think that we covered everything in the last presentation 25 and I think you covered it in your introduction remarks that it’s a somewhat wider discussion 26 now though we touched on a number of issues during the joint commission committee meeting, 27 but we can open it up again for discussion to see if there’s any other guidance you could give the 28 Council. 29 30 Chair Martinez: Ok. The City Attorney’s not gonna want to hear this,but I forgot Oral 31 Communications earlier. So first I’m gonna go to Oral Communications the opportunity for 32 members of the public to speak on anything else except 27 University. I, we have no speaker 33 cards. Yes. So I’m gonna close Oral Communications and open the public hearing. And we 34 have one speaker card and that’s Mr. Bob Moss. You’ll have three minutes. Thank you.35 36 ORAL COMMUNICATIONS37 38 Bob Moss: Thank you Chair Martinez. It was very interesting listening to your discussion earlier 39 with the ARB and getting some sense of how you’re looking at this. I would have to agree that 40 this has never happened before there’s never been a project which isn’t legally a project. You 41 don’t have an official proposal before you that you’ve been asked and the ARB and the Council 42 have been asked to review and discuss. So this is unusual.43 44 So let me just discuss some of the details of the project as it’s laid out. First of all the more I 45 look at it the more concerned I am about the location of the theatre because what you end up 46 with is this huge wall facing park. And that’s not the way parks should be configured. Another 47 thing that puzzles me is that in the report that came out this March about what Stanford was 48 10.j Packet Pg. 409 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 30 of 48 thinking about for a theater they said that the proscenium only had to be 70 feet, you know, 35 1 feet for the stage and 35 feet for the workstation and this ended up being 100 feet. And I wonder 2 why if 35 feet is enough for a Broadway quality stage why do we need 50 feet? So I think the 3 height of the theatre building should be reduced. 4 5 Some of the comments that you made about not, about not being appropriate to go into a garage 6 in a tunnel and then come up through an elevator to go into a theatre rather than walking across a 7 plaza I think are very appropriate. And so we should be reconfiguring the site so there’s some 8 surface parking. And if that means reducing the scale and the footprint of the buildings, so be it. 9 Also the more I look at it and look at the circulation the less appealing it is. I mean you’re 10 driving down the street and the first thing you do is go into a tunnel and so your view of the site 11 really is under, is in an underground garage as much as three levels down. And that doesn’t 12 strike me as terribly appealing.13 14 One of the basic points that I think has been overlooked is traffic because if you look at the 15 traffic on this, in this location the traffic we have today is not the traffic we’re going to have 10 16 years from now because Stanford Hospital after going through years of discussion was found to 17 have a very significant traffic impact. Impacts as far as Atherton, Middlefield, and as far down 18 as El Camino and Page Mill. So if you combine this size project with Stanford Hospital and 19 Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital you’re gonna find the traffic on El Camino and University is 20 totally clogged. So when you look at traffic impacts you should consider what’s been approved 21 but not yet built in order to have a true evaluation of the impacts otherwise you’ll be much, much 22 underestimating what the problems are.23 24 Chair Martinez: Thank you Mr. Moss. Commissioners you can continue our discussion about 25 the site, the design, but this is also our opportunity to talk about the transportation circulation and 26 traffic on El Camino and policies, implications for the downtown and really the strategy for 27 growth for the City. In many ways it’s much broader than the project itself but I would like us to 28 try to keep it in context of this project as long as we have the consultant team here. I’m gonna 29 start with Commissioner Keller.30 31 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. So my first comments have to do with Comprehensive Plan 32 Policy L8. I didn’t expect a two third, three quarters of a page answer; I expected the answer yes 33 or no. And it seems to me that the spirits of the Comp Plan policy is that the answer should be 34 definitely yes and that this should be considered part of the downtown area regardless of the 35 actual boundaries of the downtown area. Because when the 1989 study was done it was not 36 contemplated that anybody would be building a tall office building over here and a theatre. So 37 the idea that this somehow falls between the cracks even though it’s somewhere on the order of 38 eight or so percent of the total citywide cap and exceeds the amount of development downtown 39 that has occurred since 1989 means that this definitely should be considered within the spirits of 40 Comp Plan Policy L8. And if you’re gonna basically go down to the idea that it’s not within the 41 sub area I think that that’s, that’s not following the legislative intent and although I’m not a 42 lawyer and I don’t understand the additional, additional about originalists and whatever that’s 43 currently en vogue in the Supreme Court the issue is that it’s pretty clear the legislative, what the 44 legislative intent was. And I understand that there was an argument for the Stanford Hospital not 45 including it in 3.25 million square feet, but I don’t really see an argument for excluding this 46 development from that 3.25, 3.26 million square feet. So I’d expect the answer to be definitively 47 yes, not simply a repeat of what’s in the Staff report.48 10.j Packet Pg. 410 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 31 of 48 1 The second issue is that Palo Alto was named after a twin tower of redwood trees and after the 2 development of railroad trestle, a railroad trestle and widening the railroad trestle over San 3 Francisquito Creek one of those twin trees came down and then subsequently another one of the 4 twin trees was cut short because of lightening. And I’m wondering if it is the intent and this may 5 be something I should’ve brought up at the last issue, but I’m wondering if it’s the intent that 6 these two, four, whatever number of tall buildings become the iconic tall structure for El 7 Camino, for El, for Palo Alto instead of, instead of trees. And it seems to me that that’s what’ll 8 happen. These will be the tallest buildings as proposed between San Francisco and San Joe and 9 I’m not sure that these are the buildings that we want to be known for in terms of, of, of twin 10 towers as opposed to twin redwood trees. Thank you.11 12 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Panelli.13 14 Commissioner Panelli: So the way I’m thinking of this is there are three predominately 15 contentious issues here: traffic, parking, and height. I’m gonna just briefly touch on the traffic. 16 Clearly there are some impacts here. The way I look at it though is for this project to move 17 forward the traffic impacts will have to be mitigated and if they’re not mitigated the project 18 would not be able to move forward as planned. So it’s too early to talk about that one other than 19 it is one of the three, to me, most salient concerns, parking. 20 21 I understand that, you know, we have rules about parking. My concern if we sort of try to adapt 22 an existing parking requirement, you know, sort of borrow it from another zoning designation 23 and try to adapt it for this purpose I think we’re gonna, we’re gonna miss something because if 24 this project truly does become a centerpiece and a beacon for the City it’s going to attract 25 incremental traffic. That’s not necessarily associated with the use of this as an arts and/or 26 innovation center. And I don’t know how w accommodate that, but that is a concern is that the 27 parking won’t be sufficient and I’m, I actually would like to just touch on real quickly what 28 Vice-Chair Lippert mentioned before, which is are there other sort of areas that we can extend 29 this parking footprint, multilevel subterranean parking footprint beyond the boundaries of this 30 site?31 32 And then the last thing, you know, going back to the height. I, I think I’ve said my peace in the 33 last, in the last session that we had. Now the way I’m thinking about this is the Council wants 34 our input predominantly to help them sort of decide how and whether and when to put this on the 35 ballot for an advisory measure, right? And so the way I’m thinking about this is what we need to 36 do here is clearly compare what a common zoning designation would be in this case, that would 37 likely be for this site. So if it’s CC, fine. If it’s something else, fine. But whatever this would 38 likely be, what that is, what the proposed A&I characteristics are for height, Floor Area Ratio 39 (FAR), everything else and then say, ok, here’s the delta between those two. Here are the public 40 benefits between those two. That way we can, you know, whether people are for it or against it 41 we’re all objectively, we’re all using the same objective data to make our, to formulate our 42 opinions. I think that’s critical for this process. Thanks.43 44 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck.45 46 Dan Garber, Consultant: Excuse me, Chair? Chair? May I ask a question of the Commissioner?47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 411 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 32 of 48 Chair Martinez: Sure.1 2 Mr. Garber: I would be interested in some discussion not only from you but from the rest of you. 3 The project being immediately adjacent to a transit both bus hub and station would normally 4 generate, you know, it would be eligible for benefits to reduce the parking in it. And those have 5 been in large part the Applicant in the way that the project had been conceived have sort of been 6 ignored to be able to provide it to be parked fully. Which other communities are trying to find 7 ways to get parking out to reduce those impacts because you’re compensating with the transit. 8 And it has been pointed out before that there’s a certain irony that Palo Alto both wants to reduce 9 its traffic and parking impacts and yet it wants all the parking which generates that. I would be 10 interested in some discussion from the Commissioners on, you know, those two topics or that 11 single topic and those two issues that arise.12 13 Chair Martinez: You care to respond? Yes,Commissioner Panelli.14 15 Commissioner Panelli: I understand what you’re saying. I have two quick comments. One is 16 I’ve heard, you know, the approach where people say well if we don’t build it they won’t come. 17 Doesn’t work, if it’s a desirable place they’ll still come it’ll just be messier and uglier and 18 everything else. I would much rather see us overbuild subterranean parking and have it go 19 somewhat unused than have the opposite problem which is not enough and we have horrible 20 traffic impacts on surface streets in neighborhoods in Downtown North and other adjacent 21 neighborhoods. So, that’s my take.22 23 But the point I was trying to make though is that if this truly becomes this wonderful centerpiece 24 it’s going to perhaps attract more local traffic. And I’m, you know, I live in South Palo Alto. 25 It’s pretty unlikely that I’m gonna go to the San Antonio train station or the California Avenue 26 train station to come downtown. So that’s the kind of traffic I’m talking about, not commuter 27 traffic. 28 29 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck.30 31 Commissioner Alcheck: So again I limit my comments and viewpoints on this to the position 32 that I hold, which is from the Planning and Transportation perspective. I’ve said earlier that I 33 think on a personal level I’d love to see you guys reach for the stars here, create an aesthetic and 34 there’s design issues. I sort of want to stay away from those as a Planning Commissioner, but 35 again I know I’ve said this already but this is an excellent site for the sort of development you’re 36 considering. And I think we’re doing a disservice to this process to some extent by not really 37 appreciating the notion that there is a tremendous demand for growth not just in Palo Alto, all 38 over. I, I don’t want to mention statistics because I’ll probably quote them wrong, but you know, 39 the population growth in this area is going to continue to explode. It’s gonna continue to be too 40 expensive for everyone and there’s not gonna be enough office space in the places people want 41 to work and they’ll be plenty of office space off 237.42 43 There are six or seven yogurt shops in downtown Palo Alto, which is unbelievable. It’s an 44 unbelievable thing that there are six or seven different yogurt shops. And I bet you that if you 45 poll a number of people they’ll each have a different one they’d like to choose. That, that, that 46 offering exists because of the density we have here from the workforce. It is not because the 47 residential density downtown is so high. It exists because there are young people at Stanford 48 10.j Packet Pg. 412 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 33 of 48 who spend a significant amount of time in downtown Palo Alto. And, and that offering is of 1 tremendous benefit to the residents of Palo Alto because we come to downtown to eat excellent 2 food, to shop in interesting shops, and to try out seven different kinds of yogurt. 3 4 I only mention this because I am a little worried that we are going to fail to compete space wise 5 with our neighbors. We are going to fail to provide commercial space opportunity that, that 6 exists at a much, much lower cost relative to downtown Palo Alto elsewhere and then it won’t be 7 the downtown that we all, it’s not just we, it’s everybody in the peninsula, ok? Everybody in the 8 peninsula, every City in the peninsula wishes their downtown was as thriving as downtown Palo 9 Alto’s and I think that this notion of accommodating growth we’re sort of ignoring it. If you 10 don’t build this, this won’t even address probably the growth needs that we have. It’s just one 11 effort. 12 13 And I know I’m a little over if I could just have 30 more seconds. There was this notion that 14 maybe we should just increase height on every building by a story or two. That’s not the way 15 development occurs. We need to create, you know, opportunities. Nobody’s knocking down 16 buildings or adding a story at a time. So, I just want to conclude with this idea that we have to 17 continue to preserve this sort of economic vitality, this density. It benefits us; it benefits the 18 public to have that. So I want to throw that, in this first round I want to throw that out there 19 because that’s really what we’re trying to, you know, deal with.20 21 Chair Martinez: Ok, but you only get a minute in the next round.22 23 Commissioner Alcheck: Ok. 24 25 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka.26 27 Commissioner Tanaka: Yes, so I actually agree with a lot of the comments of my fellow 28 Commissioners. So I’ll just talk a bit about the parking issue first. So I think in general I agree 29 with the concept that because this is near transit you don’t need as much parking, but I think 30 having enough parking on the site is going to be important because it is near transit and it also 31 works the other way where maybe people want to go to use, you know, drive from home to a 32 Caltrain station and then go to San Francisco. So it could work the other way as well and having 33 enough parking for that makes a lot of sense.34 35 Also in general it does appear that Palo Alto is at a deficit for parking, especially in the 36 downtown area, Downtown North area and this could certainly help alleviate some of that. So I 37 think, and I’m not quite sure by looking at these diagrams if parking is already under all the 38 buildings like the whole entire site or are the just under the footprint of the building? I don’t 39 know if, it looked from the picture it looked like it was just under the footprint of the building.40 41 Mr. Garber: Well, it’s, it’s actually under, oh here let me use the diagram. So the parking if you 42 follow the green light there is along this edge here. So it’s underneath all the office, the plaza 43 space. Where it’s not is it’s not under the theatre, which is actually a huge benefit to the theatre 44 and the seismic and noise issues that it needs to absorb. And there are three stories.45 46 Commissioner Tanaka: So you’re saying that not having a garage underneath helps?47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 413 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 34 of 48 Mr. Garber: Tremendously so. Yeah.1 2 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok.3 4 Mr. Garber: Yeah, it allows the, the foundation of the theatre to float free of the other structure 5 such that it can be isolated which would otherwise if you didn’t do that you end up with some 6 significant costs to try and isolate that structure not in the ground basically.7 8 Commissioner Tanaka: Ok. So also just to touch on Commissioner Alcheck’s comment about 9 density and vibrancy in downtown. I agree with a lot of those comments. It makes a lot of sense 10 so I’m not going to repeat it, but thank you.11 12 Chair Martinez: Vice-Chair Michael.13 14 Vice-Chair Michael: So three minutes isn’t really enough to get into all the questions that I have. 15 I, I was invited to give a short talk to the Venture Capital Private Equity Roundtable a couple 16 weeks ago about risks in emerging markets, which I had to study up on to make it interesting, but 17 I caught their attention. One of the other speakers came back from China and China he told that 18 they were building a 4,000,000 square foot industrial park to attract a particular type of desirable 19 arts and innovations center. And the amazing thing as an amenity they copied University 20 Avenue. Blew me away, they copied University Avenue. So something about University 21 Avenue is world class. Although I’m kind of proponent of thinking about change in a positive 22 way it really is special kind of what, what there is. 23 24 One of the concerns I guess going to Commissioner Keller’s concept or question about the 25 overall development cap in the City and maybe the downtown area is to the extent that we’re 26 gonna have various impacts which will be the subject of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 27 and other analysis to the extent that we build a large project on this site, to what extent do we 28 sort of usurp opportunities for development elsewhere that we would otherwise see as very 29 desirable? And I think that I tend to be very favorable towards this project, but I’m concerned 30 about the fact that we just use up the whole nine yards right here when nothing is left that would 31 be supported by our streets and schools and parks and whatnot. So that’s one thing.32 33 On the question about adequacy of parking I think depending on the tenant for the building you 34 may have a lot of visitors. So you might have the issue of occupants of the building, but also 35 how many people are coming; clients, customers, meetings, negotiations, whatnot. So I 36 definitely would park it as close to or even in excess of 100 percent. [Unintelligible]there was, 37 you know, whatever just max out the parking and use it because there’s a shortage of parking this 38 would be a great thing to do.39 40 I think that the somehow anticipating what’s likely to happen, best guess on the rail corridor, 41 high speed rail, Caltrain, you know, underground trench, electrification and all that is really 42 integral to what you’re presenting in terms of concept. And I think you would really serve us all 43 by kind of making a bet as to what you think can happen or should happen or will happen and 44 sort of plan accordingly because that might really enhance if there’s a covered trench what does 45 this do for this property? It opens it up towards the City and might be really even quite a bit 46 more interesting that way. I’ll stop and yield my time.47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 414 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 35 of 48 Chair Martinez: Let’s see how I do. I wanted to talk about circulation on the site. The, the bus 1 loop is shared by private cars, correct?2 3 Bruce Fukuji, Consultant: Yes.4 5 Chair Martinez: So cars coming out of the hotels and then cars in the perimeter road in front of 6 the train station? 7 8 Mr. Fukuji:Yes.9 10 Chair Martinez: Ok. So that’s gonna make it a little more complicated. And then the perimeter 11 road that goes in front of the train station other than for emergency vehicles, can you say what its 12 purpose is?13 14 Mr. Fukuji:You’re speaking about the street that’s in between the depot and the office buildings 15 as it goes around?16 17 Chair Martinez: You referred to it as a comp street or?18 19 Mr. Fukuji:Oh right, yeah. That will have several purposes in front of the historic depot will be 20 space for drop off,so it could be for Marguerite shuttles or kiss and ride looking at how to 21 allocate that space and then it’s gonna be for thru vehicle movement through that. But we’ve 22 also been looking at how to design that street so that, you know, in that, you could actually 23 bollard off or close this section of the street from here to here and have it be completely 24 pedestrian oriented because the way the circulation is designed on the site it allows movement 25 for people coming from the theatre can come directly in or from the office they can come out or 26 they can come out through here and all the bus circulation can happen though here so you don’t 27 have to have that always be open. So you can close that for certain events. We’ve looked at that 28 as a potential street, it can be designed to be more pedestrian oriented in terms of how it’s paved 29 and landscaped and treated.30 31 Chair Martinez: Seems to me that would be preferable because the way it is now it’s the, you 32 step off of the curb and you’re gonna get hit by a bus. And to make it a stronger pedestrian 33 connection would really make it a much better use of the depot and, and of the connections to the 34 buildings that are being placed there. 35 36 In regard to I think one of the Board Members mentioned the underground ramp access and the 37 way it splits the site. And I think I would like you to consider moving it to the north at the edge 38 and look at whether you can make it work and make the connection between buildings much 39 stronger than it is now. 40 41 And then later, maybe next round I’d like to talk about sort of the some of the traffic issues on El 42 Camino, University and elsewhere. But let’s go to another round with Commissioner Keller. 43 The same.44 45 Commissioner Keller: So first let me say that I agree with the idea of having parking particularly 46 since there will be need for more Caltrain parking and not space to put it. Secondly, I understand 47 that one of the important reasons of isolating the theatre is so that there’s not vibration when 48 10.j Packet Pg. 415 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 36 of 48 Caltrain goes by. That’s a significant source of vibration. Thirdly I think that the increased 1 amount of density and will not only result in increased traffic, which we can talk about later, but 2 also there’ll be more pressure from the point of view of Association of Bay Area Governments 3 (ABAG)for us to have housing and I think that there is a significant preference not to have a lot 4 more housing in Palo Alto and particularly as it affects; I know that one of the Commissioners 5 doesn’t live in the Palo Alto Unified School District (PAUSD), but most of the people who live 6 in Palo Alto are in the Palo Alto Unified School District and don’t want the Palo Alto Unified 7 School District to continue to grow ad infinitum when there’s no land for buildings. You can 8 maybe have two story house, a two story buildings in schools, but you can’t have two story 9 playgrounds. At least not very easily.10 11 In terms of the FAR you can’t double count. You can’t count parkland as part of the land for 12 which you calculate FAR. That’s just crazy. On the other hand I could imagine that if you think 13 about the theatre sort of like Lucie Stern, which may, I’m not sure if Lucie Stern is considered 14 dedicated parkland or not, but to the extent that Lucie Stern is considered part of dedicated 15 parkland and that can be found out that may be justification for the theatre here being considered 16 parkland. And that would be much better from my point of view than gerrymandering the park 17 in a shoehorned in space around Urban Lane. So that’s an issue that should be investigated. To 18 me that makes a lot more sense to me than doing the other thing. Because in some sense it is a, it 19 is a, it is a community amenity in that way.20 21 Now if you took the section on, on, the calculation D, there’s the calculation site plan D. that 22 gives you about 91,000 square feet. If you took 2.0, if you calculate the office buildings as 23 263,000 square feet that’s a 3.88 FAR. If you reduce that to 2.0 FAR that would be 182,000 24 square feet. It turns out that if you lop off the top four floors, floors 10, 9, 8, and 7, bring it down 25 to 6, not sure, I’m just giving rough calculations. That reduces it by 673,000 square feet while 26 the other one is in excess of 80,000 square feet. So, you know, if you get closer to 2.0 FAR you 27 can actually reduce the height of the buildings and get them more manageable. And in the next 28 round I’ll talk about what, what kind of office tenants you really want.29 30 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Panelli.31 32 Commissioner Panelli: Yeah. I, I think the heights when I take a look at some of the different 33 angles, the 3-D views and I’m gonna want to take a look at more of these it seems to me that 34 pushing the height closer to El Camino as much as possible is, is idea. And what that right 35 height is, I don’t, I don’t know. I’m not as other Commissioners and Board Members have said, 36 I’m not afraid of height, but I’m not, I’m not blessing it as it is today. Because the way it seems 37 to me is that, the way that the office buildings are configured there’s actually some height that’s 38 pushed closer to the depot and the railroad tracks. It just seems to me that the right place for it is 39 as far back as possible. I should say as far west as possible closest to El Camino where it has the 40 least impact. And maybe something that’s a little bit more scaled gradually back so that it’s 41 shorter in front, and when I say in front, the view from Alma looking toward, toward the 42 mountains.43 44 If we are going to have this potential 10th floor that’s the highest floor in the City it seems a 45 shame that it would be in the hands of only those who could afford to pay the rents there. and 46 I’m wondering if there was any thought given to making that top floor, which would be the 47 highest manmade point in the City some kind of a semi-public use, whether it’s a restaurant or 48 10.j Packet Pg. 416 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 37 of 48 something of that nature that everyone in Palo Alto could enjoy. Just something to consider, as a 1 child my parents loved to go up to the Sheraton in San Francisco and have a nice, well, I should 2 say an average meal with a nice view at the top of the Sheraton. So, you know, maybe that if we 3 were gonna do something like that it seems like it would be nice to have that accessible to the 4 public. Anyway I’m gonna pass along the rest of my time to the next Commissioner.5 6 Assistant Director Aknin:To the Chair? Can I, can I make one comment on the previous 7 comment made by Commissioner Keller related to the jobs and housing balance and the fact that 8 a project like this size would bring in a significant amount of jobs and ABAG may make us 9 create more housing because of that. The Director and I looked into this somewhat and the way 10 that ABAG does it they don’t really do it on a city by city basis. What they do is project job 11 growth on a regional basis. So if jobs aren’t produced here but they’re produced in Menlo Park, 12 they’re produced in Redwood City or Mountain View it would still create the same demand for 13 housing within Palo Alto, which would, which would equate to additional housing numbers that 14 ABAG gives us. So they don’t really look at it on a city by city basis, but they look on a regional 15 basis.16 17 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Alcheck.18 19 Commissioner Alcheck: This is like designed by democracy, which is dangerous because, I 20 mean, I won’t speak for my fellow Commissioners. I’m not confident or comfortable with the 21 notion that I can come up with the best ideas in three minutes every 25 minutes. If I was the 22 Applicant, and don’t take this the wrong way, but if I was the Applicant I would’ve, and he’s a 23 famous Applicant, I would’ve thrown it to like 30 architectural firms. I’d say listen, here’s your 24 chance. They have a transit hub, they’ve got an entry, gateway, I want this, I want to see 25 options. Had they did that they had options and I’m not suggesting that you guys aren’t the right 26 choice, that’s not what I’m suggesting, but there were and I know there’s a dream team so I’m 27 lacking some context here but I remember when they were looking at options in downtown San 28 Francisco for their transit terminal hub whatever. 29 30 I only mention options because I think it would help your campaign. It’s a campaign now. I 31 think you should know that. I think the City Council or whoever came up with the idea to 32 approach the public was smart because this is going to be very controversial and there’s so many 33 ideas that are floating around. Again I will say again that I think this is the right site to get 34 developed. I think you should’ve, you should’ve designed the design that showed you exactly 35 what you could do under the current zoning or whatever the current zoning of downtown is you36 should’ve shown us a box that’s four stories tall that occupies the majority of the site with 37 parking around it that gave, you know, just the whole thing from the theatre to the front. We 38 should see what our current design guidelines are suggesting we do. Because I have a feeling no 39 one would want that either, but at least they’ll know. At least they’ll know why you’re asking 40 for a change. 41 42 Again, I think that we’ve heard so many good ideas here. I’m sitting here and I’m thinking there 43 should be an entrance to the parking lot that comes off the underpass. I mean there’s a million 44 things here and I’m not, I’m not skilled enough to know what the best way to make this site is 45 and I can keep kind of shooting ideas and by tomorrow I’ll have 15 more. I think it would make 46 sense for there to be a few more renderings. Different mock ups because you’re letting the 47 public weigh in in a major way. You’re having a meeting on a site that you’re not really actually 48 10.j Packet Pg. 417 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 38 of 48 asking to build yet. And you’re gonna keep getting these comments about well I think this is 1 important and this is important. It’s our job to review projects and see how they affect our, you 2 know, if they’re meeting our goals in terms of planning and whether they’re affecting our 3 transportation and our traffic and are addressing the concerns that our citizens have. 4 Unfortunately this is such a unique location that it’s attracting, it seems to be attracting 5 tremendous ideas and I sort of wish I had a couple sites and I could say, “Oh I like this on this 6 one and I like this on the other,” and you know. 7 8 Mr. Garber:Chair? I think it’s important that I respond to a couple of things. And Bruce can 9 mop up behind me as he needs to. It’s important to recognize that we’re not; the City isn’t really 10 designing these. The reason that Bruce and I are here is first of all to actually take more of a 11 design role with the underlying master plan or a specific plan or however you want to refer to it 12 at. And that we do take a lot of responsibly for. The design of the building themselves is 13 ultimately in Mr. Arrillaga’s hands and he does think of himself as a designer. He has actually 14 gone out to several, 2 architects I should say, not 30, but 2 to get some ideas on how to approach 15 the office buildings. But he has incorporated those in his own hand and ultimately has come up 16 with the concepts, you know, that are being displayed here. We have a little more knowledge 17 than he does on how to put together a theatre and so there’s, you know, he looks to us to, you 18 know,pull together some of those concepts to a greater degree but ultimately he is gonna be, you 19 know, he will end up hiring the architect of record and will guide their hand as he desires. Part 20 of our role here is to hopefully better ensure that the outcome meets the City’s goals as well. Do 21 you want to help me out here Bruce?22 23 Mr.Fukuji: You know just two brief points. We’ve been in a competition already. Besides his 24 opinions, which are pretty well developed about what he likes and doesn’t like and based on his 25 experience there’s been two other architects we’ve had to compete with in terms of what we’re 26 doing. So that’s, you know, we have done that we should talk to him about how we do that or 27 what we do about that. 28 29 The other, the other part is, is that we if a design idea isn’t a good idea we really hear about it. I 30 mean we, we’ve gone through a pretty rigorous design process. I think that’s based on what a 31 market driven and a philanthropist is willing to do and I think that’s been a very informative 32 process for us. But I think you’re right, I think some other alternatives to look at would be very 33 informative for the public in terms of how to evaluate something like this and compare what 34 would happen under current guidelines and what is or isn’t beneficial about that and why this 35 might be beneficial, for what reason would be helpful. It’s a great suggestion. Thank you.36 37 Mr. Garber:Yeah, I will simply add I did have a sidebar conversation with Steve Emslie and the 38 number of iterations that we’ve gone through are probably equal to the number of weeks we’ve 39 been involved. The project has taken different shapes almost weekly.And, you know, for us to 40 walk through all those different things would take significantly more hours, but maybe I was 41 talking with Steve and maybe there’s some way that we can find a way to display them or find 42 some way of sharing those so that people can see the amount of effort that’s gone into various 43 things that have lead us to here. Not that this is the final, this is just a snapshot in time because it 44 continues to evolve. 45 46 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka.47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 418 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 39 of 48 Commissioner Tanaka: Yeah so I was actually thinking about access. I was thinking about the 1 Chair’s question about automotive access and thinking about where that might go and I think 2 Commissioner Alcheck actually had an interesting idea if it actually came off of the under, the 3 current underpass. That’s actually kind of clever. Maybe that’s a good idea. I don’t know.4 5 One other thought I had was just I was looking at the, and this is a very good picture right now. 6 Looking at the historic depot and just how it relates to the project itself and, you know, I was just 7 trying to think if there was a way to better integrate it. I don’t quite know how but I just, maybe 8 just cause it’s a different color. I don’t know. But if there’s a way to incorporate into the project 9 somehow more, more thoroughly than it is and maybe you can’t because it is what it is.10 11 And I was also thinking about one of the comments that a member of the public made about the 12 fly space and how it’s kind of a big blank wall and it’s actually kind of a big blank wall on both 13 sides and maybe on the side from the train, the station side you don’t quite see it but its only 14 from El Camino Park and I think something, something should be done about that. Maybe it’s a 15 gigantic mural of two trees. I don’t know, but to have it just a big blank wall there facing the 16 park, something should be done with it.17 18 And then, you know, I was looking at the pedestrian network and thinking about my earlier 19 comment about how do you integrate that with, you know, how do you kind of provide kind of 20 like a corridor or some sort of transition from the shopping mall to the, to the downtown area? 21 And I don’t know if some sort of corridor makes sense but it looks like I guess a lot of the retail 22 stuff would be on the bottom floor of the office buildings and so, you know, if you were making 23 a path from the shopping center to downtown you’re not really walking past any of that. It’s 24 kind of, you really have to make an effort and go some sort of circuitous route to get there. so I 25 don’t know if that can be changed somehow to kind of give it a more contiguous feel as you go 26 shopping from let’s say Stanford Shopping Mall, which, you know, walking down to downtown 27 it’s really kind of bridge both sides. But I’m sure you guys will figure it out. Thank you. 28 29 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Vice-Chair Michael. Only three minutes.30 31 Vice-Chair Michael: ok, so in a, in a past life I was an executive with a large high tech company 32 which is one of the 10 largest companies in Silicon Valley and we at the height of our glory had 33 facilities several million square feet and I think we bought the land from Peery Arrillaga for our 34 headquarters in Santa Clara and built something not unlike what you have on the concept plan 35 here, which was I think about 350,000 square foot, which as we grew that was sort of a drop in 36 the bucket of what we needed. So my sense is just in terms of what you’re going to find when 37 you stress test the market for tenants. This is not really big enough or good enough for the 38 headquarters, the world headquarters of a top tier growth company. Just not big enough. 39 40 So what you’re really going to get is you’re gonna get a number of smaller tenants which may 41 not be a bad thing. You know you’re going to get a combination of some, you know, innovative 42 type businesses, professional firms, accounting firms, financial services, venture capitalists, 43 which might be totally ideal. But I don’t think this is going to be sort of a corporate campus. It’s 44 just not big enough as far as I can tell. So I think part of the design should maybe reflect the 45 heterogeneous nature of the occupancy and the visitors to the site rather than thinking that its 46 going to be just taken up by one ideal, the next Facebook or something. 47 48 10.j Packet Pg. 419 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 40 of 48 But when we built our corporate campus it was bought from Mr. Arrillaga in Santa Clara and we 1 put up the 350,000 square feet in the four buildings. The orientation of the buildings was not 2 unlike what you have here and my sense was there hadn’t been a study of sort of the weather and 3 the wind. And they wanted to use the outdoor spaces in the summer for coming to meetings and 4 the wind would come up in the afternoon be, you know, 20 miles per hour and it was freezing 5 cold and really, really quite unpleasant. It was amazing that that hadn’t been thought through. 6 And the Venturi effect from the having the buildings close together was nice because you could 7 have the passageways and the, but I wonder if maybe you want to think about the year round 8 metrological conditions and maybe space things sufficiently such that you don’t amplify things 9 like wind or whatnot and that I think would probably ameliorate some of the massing because 10 right now with all the buildings together in one spot it’s like it’s a much bigger bulk. And if you 11 spread them out then you can have your sight lines between the buildings.12 13 Chair Martinez: Ok, I’m probably going to drive our City Attorney to drinking.14 15 Ms. Stump: Right here at the meeting.16 17 Chair Martinez: I want her to weigh in on something that’s probably not my business and that’s 18 I’m kind of worried about TheatreWorks. I’m, here’s a small theatre company that’s going to 19 grow into a massively large theatre company with a theatre that seats 650 people when there are 20 gonna be times when they’re gonna have a small audience. And nothing’s worse than to preform 21 before a small audience like this. So, so I’m worried about that. And you know usually 22 providing a black box it’s usually done in a warehouse somewhere. I’ve rarely seen theatres 23 build a black box in a prominent expensive site that maybe it might be more useful to build a 24 smaller theater and that way to be able to fulfill your promise to local theatre companies to have 25 a place to share. Because there’s not any that I can think of that would have the demand for a 26 650 seat theatre. They’re probably looking at 200 or 225 in that range. 27 28 And then the issue that is our concern is that black box is literally a black box. There is nothing 29 on the outside that attracts anybody in that courtyard or around it that sort of makes it sort of a 30 inside out experience and I guess theatres are like that. I’m, I fear that the TheatreWorks is 31 overreaching for something that may not be good for them, may not be good for us, and doesn’t 32 really be that public benefit that ultimately we’re gonna be talking about. So, I don’t expect Mr. 33 Garber to respond, but I just want to put it out there as something to think about as you move 34 towards design to really look at the program for TheatreWorks and really have a much more 35 realistic vision for what it can be. Thank you.36 37 Mr. Garber: I’d actually be happy to respond to a couple of those things if you’d like.38 39 Chair Martinez: I’m afraid. Go ahead. 40 41 Mr. Garber: Is that, would you like me to or?42 43 Chair Martinez: Of course.44 45 Mr. Garber: I’m trying to get to a plan here of the theatre. Here we go. See if we can bring this 46 up. So the size of the theatre has been under scrutiny for about 12 years and actually the 47 feasibility study that was done in 2000 anticipated a theatre that should be around 1,000 to 1,200 48 10.j Packet Pg. 420 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 41 of 48 seats. The current theatre at Mountain View is 600-650 seats depending on the arrangement of 1 them. There really is zero expectation that, the real expectation is, are there too few seats as 2 opposed to too many? And this isn’t this has been a topic that has not been just vetted with 3 TheatreWorks but they the same theatre consultant that was used for the feasibility study has also 4 been consulted to help confirm the programming that we’ve taken to Arrillaga to be satisfied in 5 this particular case.6 7 Regarding black box theatres, the concept of the black box theatre is that you have a flat floor 8 such that it can be configured in any number of different ways. And I can sit here and name 9 probably three dozen different theatres in Chicago, San Francisco, Los Angeles, New York that 10 have black box theatres that are right downtown. In fact I’d say the most prominent one that was 11 finished that’s on top of Lincoln Center it was built because they didn’t have one and that’s the 12 Claire Tow Theater that was completed about three months ago. But they are as you say they are 13 small and that allows for, you know, much smaller audiences much more intimate sorts of things 14 and that’s much the same concept that would happen here.15 16 I wanted to bring up the plan because you’re absolutely right that you end up with, just as you do 17 on the main stage, blank walls because you can’t obviously have windows into those areas. But 18 there is an attempt in the plan you will notice to have an interstitial space between the black box 19 and the plaza there that would end up being occupied most likely by a small café or meeting 20 spaces and things of that sort so that there is a sense of permeability and entry between the plaza 21 and the building. And again these are just essentially line drawings, concepts, but we, you know, 22 are very sensitive to trying to make sure that TheatreWorks finds ways to interact with the 23 ground floor so that there’s a sense of pedestrian participation in the activities of the theatre 24 itself.25 26 Chair Martinez: Yeah, that’s really my point that this isn’t Lincoln Center. You know it’s a 27 small community with a small theatre company and I’ve seen too many institutions fail because 28 they’ve overbuilt. And I’m not saying I expect you to fail. I don’t expect that and I know 29 you’ve done your homework, but this is a real concern and the City is betting on you. So I, I’m 30 glad you’ve done the study and, you know, I want it to succeed because if it doesn’t it really it 31 doesn’t serve anyone. But I also want a better community usage of this. I would like to see 32 others have a space that they can use, not just when, you know, you’re out of town, but when 33 TheatreWorks is actually sharing space and teaching and, you know, making this gift available to 34 the community. And I don’t see it in the program that’s there now.35 36 Mr. Garber: I did not spend much time going through the program which we can do. I think your 37 points are very important. There is actually classroom space in this program in addition to the 38 significant amount of spaces that can be leased or rented. The other important thing to recognize 39 though is that what will happen as a result of TheatreWorks moving in here is that there’s 40 significant space in the theatre marketplace that opens up and allows for significant growth in 41 that marketplace that cannot occur right now because there are venues that don’t exist. 42 43 Interestingly, the Bay Area has something on the order of 400 theatres the largest of which the 44 top three are ACT is the largest, Berkley Rep, and then TheatreWorks and then you jump down 45 to San Jose Rep and then you end up with literally hundreds of theatres which are anywhere 46 between 26 seats and, you know, 150 seats. And it’s one of the densest places for theatre in the 47 entire country. And there’s a tremendous demand for space for performance. There’s a lot of 48 10.j Packet Pg. 421 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 42 of 48 demand that TheatreWorks gets both from the City of Mountain View and the other preforming 1 art ensembles and that utilize that space in Mountain View, you know, asking for any additional 2 time that TheatreWorks can give up, which it can’t because it has a program. But that space 3 suddenly becomes available and there are lots of other arts organizations that would love to be 4 able to take advantage of that space. 5 6 Same thing happens with Lucie Stern, which unlike Mountain View which has been a successful 7 venue for TheatreWorks and is 600 seats for the last 15 years I guess or something in that sort. 8 Lucie Stern is in the mid 300’s, 360 I think, 325, 360 something of that sort. So it’s a different, 9 you know, stratus or level in the marketplace and it appeals to a different type of theatre and 10 potentially one that’s working its way up to that. But so in addition to the space that is made 11 available new that will be used mostly presumably by TheatreWorks and yes there will be other 12 opportunities for other organizations and not just our sort of organization but other community 13 sorts of uses there. The, the result is that the tide if you will of theatre usage becomes greater as 14 a result.15 16 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Keller.17 18 Commissioner Keller: Thank you. I noticed that Director, Artistic Director Robert Kelley has 19 been essentially the founder of TheatreWorks. He’s been there for the 40 some odd years that 20 TheatreWorks has existed. I’ve been subscribing for more than half that amount of time and I 21 hope that when you, TheatreWorks makes a commitment to move to this stage, this, this facility 22 that there is thought about transition plan of what you do when Robert Kelley is unable to 23 continue in that role for one reason or another and I’m not gonna go further. But just I think 24 that’s a concern that the City has to have as well. Thank you.25 26 There was a, I want to follow up on something Vice-Chair Michael said because it’s something I 27 was gonna talk about which is what kind of tenant we want. And it seems to me that part of the 28 reason we were told, that the City Council was told and those of us in the audience were also told 29 that this, we want a quarter of a million square feet in this is for a headquarters building. And it 30 seems to me that that as just as Vice-Chair Michael pointed out, this is the wrong plan. It’s the 31 wrong concept. 32 33 The right concept is that when you have a company that is distributed around downtown Palo 34 Alto and wishes to consolidate into a space and grow out, grow into a bigger space that you need 35 some way of doing that. And so it’s really a consolidation within downtown as opposed to 36 having to move to California Avenue area which is what Facebook did or move to Mountain 37 View which is what Google did. In particular if you look at the history in the last 20, 30, 20 or 38 so years we’ve had some big tenants in downtown Palo Alto. We’ve had Digital Equipment, 39 we’ve had Google, we’ve had Facebook, we now have Palantir here and there’s a wave of each 40 one of these moving on to next space. And it seems to me that what’s really needed is space for 41 these companies to consolidate and, and be, stay downtown. And if the idea is instead to have a 42 big office building or complex that is used by one tenant when that tenant goes away, and it will, 43 ok. Remember how big Sun was? Remember how big SGI was? SGI is no longer anything and 44 Sun is a mere shadow of itself and bought by Oracle, ok. Big office, big buildings they get 45 acquired, you know, big companies they get acquired, they move, they do all kinds of other stuff. 46 That’s gonna create that bimodal distribution of small space and a big tenant is gonna create a 47 10.j Packet Pg. 422 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 43 of 48 big problem with downtown a booming bus cycle if it goes away. When that tenant comes, that 1 tenant goes it’s gonna really destroy retail. 2 3 So instead what you really need to have is a complex of something for companies as they grow 4 to have a place for them to move into. A smaller space, that’s the kind of thing you need to do. 5 And also in terms of that if you think about this being an activated space that is connected to 6 downtown it means that you need to expand the footprint of retail space downtown to connect 7 with it and in particular that means expanding the footprint of retail on Lytton and on Alma and 8 connecting around. And in reversing the thing we did a couple of years ago about removing 9 retail space. We really need to put it back. We really need to connect the retail space downtown 10 or it’s gonna, or it’s not gonna flow to the rest of downtown. 11 12 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Panelli.13 14 Commissioner Panelli: I’m gonna touch on something that Commissioner Keller just mentioned 15 and I’m not quite certain whether you’re advocating for a large tenant or, or many smaller 16 tenants.17 18 Commissioner Keller: Many smaller ones is what I’m advocating for.19 20 Commissioner Panelli: Ok, which I think is and I agree with you then. Which I think is more 21 consistent with what I would consider an innovation district. To me you want to have we want, 22 we should aspire to have many tenants that have enough room to grow into reasonably sizable 23 companies. I think one of the problems we have today is companies form they find some office 24 space somewhere around town and then when they get to the 10 to 50 range is when they really 25 see the growing pains. So having, having an office area where they can grow to 200 before they 26 have to seek new digs is, is great, but building off of what Commissioner Keller was saying 27 when you have a company of 100, 200 if they were to leave they don’t leave this giant gap. 28 What, what I’ve noticed in the commercial real estate market is if, if you have a single tenant 29 who occupies a large amount of space when they do leave the vacancy, the time of vacancy is 30 exceptionally long compared to when you have a number of smaller spaces. Those seem to turn 31 over much more quickly so I actually like the idea of several companies occupying or sharing, 32 sharing the space. 33 34 I wanted to touch on another thing that Commissioner Keller talked about earlier going back to 35 the, the FAR comment. He’s absolutely right and I think it’s gonna require more time of study 36 and more understanding from, from you all what that right denominator is for that FAR 37 calculation. I can understand under all those scenarios that we documented A, B, C, D, I can 38 understand justifications for all of them. But I think we need to figure out which one is the right 39 one and I don’t know yet, but I think that’s gonna require more study.40 41 Chair Martinez: Thank you. Commissioner Alcheck.42 43 Commissioner Alcheck: I’m not gonna respond to the tenant mix because I think those are 44 market driven. If it’s an innovation district should there be some requirements? I don’t know, 45 I’m not sure that’s, I’m not sure we’re there yet. I’ll say that I think the public will benefit if the 46 space isn’t utilized by a single company because a single company may seem put offish, you 47 know, to the general public. They may use their, the space on the ground floor whether it’s 48 10.j Packet Pg. 423 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 44 of 48 restaurant or not in a unique way and everybody will feel like it’s somebody’s space as opposed 1 to multiple people’s spaces. So I’ll just throw that out there but I think yeah I don’t know if I 2 want to comment on tenant mix really. 3 4 I think my, I don’t know if this is my final comment, but I think my final comment is that I don’t 5 think this plan addresses the opportunity for transit oriented development. And what I mean by 6 transit oriented development I really mean the transit development as well as it could. In 50 7 years, maybe that’s too long. I’ll still be here in 50 years, but I don’t know if everybody will still 8 be here in 50 years so I’ll scale back. In 25 years I don’t know if you’ll be able to tell the 9 difference between Redwood City and Menlo Park and Palo Alto and Atherton and Los Altos, 10 right? As it is everybody’s like they’re so close there’s barely any division you just go from one 11 to the next. I think what we’re gonna see is tremendous growth in this area and it’s just gonna be 12 like, you know when you’re in places in San Francisco did you cross into Noe? Are you in Glen 13 Park? Is it Upper Noe? Are you in the Mission? 14 15 I mean it’s a, there’s a part of me that thinks we’re gonna see such tremendous overlap that, that 16 they’ll almost be indistinguishable from each other and in this particular instance we’re talking 17 about a major transit center opportunity. Maybe a train pulls into a station. I’m thinking about 18 the ferry building and how central that is to downtown Palo Alto and I think we’re, personally I 19 have a lot of issues with the plan but I really don’t think that this little don’t take it the wrong 20 way, but the inner circle and outer circle and when you asked the question about whether car 21 traffic shares that space. I don’t know in 25 years if we’re gonna look back and go what? Did 22 we just create a black diamond mogul run in this area that we should’ve created something 23 better? I anticipate that we will be using the train more. Tremendously more in the future. 24 25 So my last little comment I want to make is about the theatre. I want to respond a little bit. I 26 don’t think 600 is small; I don’t think 600 is large. I think its small. I sort of experienced the 27 development of the Mondavi Center in Davis. Davis is tiny. Davis is a speck and the Mondavi 28 Center is an amazing facility. I actually happen to think it’s a gorgeous building. People might 29 differ on that opinion because it’s very modern. But that place sits 1,800 in its main theatre and 30 250 in its side stage and this 600 seat place is supposed to have Broadway shows? So, I’d be 31 really excited if I could go see the future Avenue Q in my local town because I think they’ll be 32 enough demand for that. But I don’t think 600 is too small and I just want to throw that out 33 there. I don’t know how tall Mondavi is. I don’t know if you guys know, but?34 35 Chair Martinez: Commissioner Tanaka.36 37 Commissioner Tanaka: I think for the most part I said a lot of my comments already so I just will 38 comment quickly on the tenant mix. I, I think pretty much the market’s gonna decide. I think 39 probably Vice-Chair Michael and others are probably right that it’s probably not gonna be one 40 single tenant and that’s ok I think smaller tenants are good too. I think it provides a good mix. 41 But I do think it’s important to kind of activate the ground floor and not just have it office. I 42 think it needs to be some sort of retail use, shopping, restaurants, something like that that 43 actually makes the place interesting. But I think that’s kind of the intent right now anyway so, 44 but I do, I do like the idea that you’re also trying to do some of that on the theatre site as well 45 which I think is a great idea. And that’s all I had. Thank you. 46 47 10.j Packet Pg. 424 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 45 of 48 Mr. Garber:Chair? It occurred to me in the previous comment that I needed to correct Mr. Moss 1 when he was speaking. The numbers I was using when I was asked about how the height of the 2 fly was calculated when we were making the presentation to City Council I did not use the 3 number 35 feet. I used the number 45 feet. So the height to the proscenium is 45 feet. You 4 double that to be able to get the, to be able to hide everything you rise up into the flight and then 5 you have 10 feet essentially for structural space. So you get, you know, 45, 45 that’s 90, 10 feet 6 for structural you’re at 100. That’s where that came from. 7 8 Chair Martinez: Yeah, I heard that so I’ll, I’ll support what you just said. Vice-Chair Michael.9 10 Vice-Chair Michael: Well after all the hours of study session on this topic my head is spinning 11 and kind of humble about the, the quality of the feedback we give you. In this format it’s, you 12 know, the old joke about what’s a camel as a horse designed by a committee. And I’m not sure 13 how coherent these ideas are but perhaps there’s a few that are useful. 14 15 In our excitement about the zoning and the height and whatnot I think the whole notion of the 16 traffic impact has hasn’t really gotten a whole lot of attention and I think that, I think that at 17 times during the day the traffic on University Avenue is, is fully saturated and at times during the 18 day the traffic at El Camino is fully saturated. And so this is gonna be additive to that. I’m not, 19 so I think it’s going to be very important when the traffic study is done to figure out to what 20 extent that can be mitigated. I don’t know that it’s mitigated simply by giving people, you know, 21 passes to use the buses and trains and so forth. 22 23 I think one of the conceptual difficulties I’ve had with trying to understand traffic and 24 transportation issues is because in Palo Alto the main problem seems to be that people who live 25 elsewhere kind of commute here to work for their jobs and then they commute back home, you 26 know, at the end of the workday. But my personal situation is I’m no longer a commuter so my 27 traffic within the City is intracity and a lot of the traffic solutions don’t address intracity 28 activities, you know, coming from my home to attend the Planning Commission meeting for 29 example and transit, you know, doesn’t really support that so I drive. 30 31 And I think that the, the inexorable sort of rate of growth sort of in this whole region and, you 32 know, with what’s going on at Stanford and so forth is gonna put increasing capacity demands 33 on all the existing arteries and I think that the traffic study should somehow lead the community 34 and the Council to a better understanding of this is a big enough project that it’s gonna maybe be 35 the sort of the tipping point and if you have to get people from you know 101 and 280, you 36 know, into their, their office and then back out at the end of the day, but all those there’s a 37 limited number of ways to, to get from there to here. So I’m looking forward to that because it 38 was not clear to me how, it’s not an easy problem. And I think that the intracity transit issue to 39 me is, is I think shouldn’t be overlooked. I think it’s important particularly there’s more location 40 independent working, you know, home consulting and so on so that’s part of our economic 41 development. 42 43 Chair Martinez: Ok. A couple things I wanted to just finish with. One is that what this project 44 needs a great civics base. I said that at the beginning. I want to finish with that. The civics base 45 is really the missing piece and it should be really the connection to the City oriented to 46 downtown not to the shopping center. But considering the shopping center I think it would be 47 great if we had a bridge from PF Chang’s, not from there, but you know, from around there 48 10.j Packet Pg. 425 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 46 of 48 across. I think the connection across Quarry is still fragile and I think we should be proposing a 1 futuristic bridge as part of this arts and innovation to really build a stronger connection. So I 2 would really like to see us explore that. 3 4 And then finally I have one other question and that is does anybody know what the final score 5 was? Alright. We won, right? Yeah right, thank you.6 7 Commissioners if you don’t have any, yes. One minute. People want to go home. Yeah I just 8 want to see if you agree first. Commissioner Keller.9 10 Commissioner Keller: Alright thank you. So the first thing is that the 260,000 square feet of plan 11 is faulty that the ration off of that so if you reduce the square footage you can reduce the height. 12 First thing. Second thing, the theatre is 800 seats not 600 seats. Third thing the last divisive 13 thing we had in terms of land use, in terms of building structure was 800 High and people looked 14 at the drawings for 800 High and then when they got the building they said this doesn’t seem to 15 match what the drawings were, the drawings somehow looked smaller than the building. So 16 that’s the kind, expect the divisive thing that happened with 800 High to happen here. 17 18 In terms of traffic, could you please turn to slide 28? 27, sorry, keep going, keep going, it’s the 19 one with the proposed transit routes. Ok. No, go back one, so if you see that there’s a route that 20 goes around the red route that goes around on Marguerite and then makes a left turn down there 21 down to Quarry. That left turn is not possible. It doesn’t exist and I can tell you that a lot of the 22 cars exiting this thing will want to go that way. So, also the other red line happens to go across 23 the bridge and fall onto the roadway in the north, in the southbound direction onto El Camino, 24 which doesn’t make any sense either.25 26 So I think the traffic circulation is just not really feasible. I think you need to do an analysis of 27 not just the intersection but you need to do an analysis of the capacities, various routes, 28 especially the service road entrance ramp onto northbound El Camino from University Avenue. 29 That is gonna be the biggest bottleneck and it’ll back up and cause problems in all different 30 directions.31 32 In terms of transit people, the average commute length into Palo Alto is 11 miles. Somewhere in 33 the order of over a third, somewhere 35 percent somewhere roughly of Palo Altan’s, of people 34 who work in, live in Palo Alto work in Palo Alto. A sixth of the people who work in Palo Alto 35 work in Palo Alto. A lot of people come close and those people are gonna drive. There are some 36 people who come from far away. The people who take transit are basically those people who 37 live in San Francisco and take Caltrain. There is very little other transit use into Palo Alto other 38 than Caltrain and the people who work in this office building are not gonna take the 22 bus or the 39 522 bus likely. They’re gonna take Caltrain. That’s what’s going on here and that means people 40 living in San Francisco. People living in Menlo Park are gonna drive, people living in Mountain 41 View are gonna drive, people living in Sunnyvale are gonna drive, and people living in San Jose 42 are gonna drive unless they live near the Caltrain station downtown. But if you’re gonna live 43 downtown you’re gonna live in San Francisco not in San Jose. Ok? Seriously. So I think that 44 that’s you need to think about exactly how people will go and therefore that needs to affect your 45 transit use.46 47 10.j Packet Pg. 426 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 47 of 48 The hospital has a completely different type of structure in terms of where people live and how 1 dispersed they are and, and how much they make. So I wouldn’t, I wouldn’t think that that’s 2 comparable. And I’ll close by saying that I endorse the bridge idea over El Camino to connect 3 with Stanford Shopping Center with this arts and innovation district. I think that that’s an 4 excellent idea and it is really effective to connect them because otherwise you have people just 5 trying to get across a essentially seven lane road, maybe it’s eight or nine with left turns or 6 whatever and that’s pretty, pretty hard.7 8 Mr. Garber: Chair,may I ask for just to make sure I understood what I heard? 9 10 Chair Martinez: Yeah sure of course. 11 12 Mr. Garber: Your first two comments you were saying the 268,000 square feet for the office 13 make that less in order to reduce height and make it more appropriate for the marketplace that 14 you’re imagining should go in there? And I’m sorry did you give, did you actually specify a 15 number of where you thought it should be? 16 17 Commissioner Keller: Well earlier I was talking about if you had a 2.0 FAR and that piece would 18 be 180 square, 180,000 square feet. So somewhere in the range of 150,000 to 180,000 square 19 feet is a reasonable range for appropriate buildings that would give you appropriate height. And 20 that, and because 260,000 square feet is an artificial number for a market that doesn’t make 21 sense.22 23 Mr. Garber: And then you’re suggesting an 800 seat theatre instead of a 600 seat?24 25 Commissioner Keller: It already is an 800 seat theatre. That’s what the program says.26 27 Mr. Garber: Oh that’s, yes, between the two theatres.28 29 Commissioner Keller: Oh it’s between two theatres?30 31 Mr. Garber: Yes.32 33 Commissioner Keller: Ah. That should be explained because I didn’t understand that from the 34 write up.35 36 Mr. Garber: Ah. Ok.37 38 Commissioner Keller: Ok, I saw it says 800 I was looking at the traffic study it said 800 seat 39 theatre. Sorry about that. 40 41 Mr. Garber: Yes, they were looking at the impact of both theatres if they were both, sorry.42 43 Commissioner Keller: Ok, thanks for the clarification. Please explain, please put that more 44 clearly in your write up. Thank you.45 46 10.j Packet Pg. 427 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) _____________________________________________________________________ City of Palo Alto October 10, 2012 Page 48 of 48 Chair Martinez: Anything else? Commissioners any final comments? Ok, we shall close the 1 public hearing and this agenda item. And thank you all very much. Thank you Bruce and Dan 2 for a great presentation. 3 4 Commission Action:No action taken5 6 10.j Packet Pg. 428 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t J : O c t o b e r 2 4 V e r b a t i m o f A R B - P T C a n d P T C ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) Commissioner Questions and Staff Answers October 24, 2012 PTC Study Session Commissioner Panelli Q1:(a) If this proposal was for a private parcel (not Stanford), how would staff evaluate it? (b) Specifically, what zoning designation would staff likely recommend? (c) And consequently, what density would be permitted under current rules? Part A: Evaluation Process The first step to determining what type of development is appropriate for any location is referring to Comprehensive Plan policies. There are a number of applicable policies, however several policies have particular relevance and are listed below. In addition, this site has a history of master planning that goes back decades. Staff needs to ensure that any proposed development is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the spirit of the master planning efforts: Sample of Relevant Comp Plan Policies: ·Pursue development of the University Avenue Multi-modal Transit Station conceptual plan based on the 1993-1994 design study. ·Program T-3: “Locate higher density development along transit corridors and near multi-modal transit stations” ·Program T-1: “Transit stations and bus routes present opportunities for higher density development, and Palo Alto will promote a land use pattern that supports walking, bicycling and reduced dependence on cars.” ·Economics Element Goal B-3 encourages “new business that provide needed local services and municipal revenues, contribute to economic vitality, and enhance the City’s physical environment. Related Program B-3 notes a need for public investment in infrastructure and modification of land use regulations. Given the ownership, parkland requirements and existing easements onsite, any development would require a partnership between multiple agencies and the private developer, and review by multiple bodies. This includes ARB, PTC, PRC and Council review and approval of Comprehensive Plan Amendments, Zoning Code Amendments and related planning entitlements. Full environmental review would be required, too. Part B & C: Given the goals above, site complexities, and the proximity to transit, the most appropriate zoning designation from the “existing menu” of designations would most likely be the Community Commercial (CC). CC Zoningwould allow a theater via Conditional Use Permit (and a Variance would be required to allow the theater fly space to exceed 50 feet). No offices could be located at the ground unless the existing amount of retail/person service floor area 10.k Packet Pg. 429 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t K : C o m m i s s i o n e r Q u e s t i o n s a n d S t a f f R e s p o n s e s 1 0 2 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) (MacArthur Park restaurant and Red Cross) is preserved at the ground floor of the new building. The office use permitted in the CC zone is professional and general business offices; administrative office services and research and development uses are not allowed. Administrative office services are headquarters, regional or other level management and administrative services for firms and institutions. For this site, FAR in the CC(2) zone may be up to 2.0:1. Q2:What is the City's maximum allowable FAR, in the most permissive zoning designation, if there is no residential included in the project? (my recollection is 2.0, but please confirm) A2: Non-residential development is allowed up to 2.0:1 FAR in the Regional/Community Commercial land use designation and Community Commercial zone district. Q3:Do we have any benchmarks from other bay area cities for "A&I" type developments (whether or not they are close to transit)? It would be helpful to understand what the comps are. A3:Walnut Creek, Uptown Oakland, and San Jose are some benchmark centers near rail stations. Staff can do additional research into development density/intensity at these centers. Commissioner Keller Q1: What are the reasons for a time-constrained review of this project, including an early public vote? A1:The vote is more occur June, rather than March. Staff is proposing to have the vote early on in the process in order to have community input, and gauge the community’s support for the project, prior to proceeding with full procedural and environmental review of the project. Q2: How many workers are expected to occupy the 260,000 sq ft of office space? A2:Based on existing zoning assumptions, 1,040 employees. However, if the City proceeds with a full environmental review, a detailed examination into current workplace practices will help refine this expectation. Q3: Idon't understand Table 6, Page 15, Direct Traffic Assessment, for Theatre. How do we account for the people who arrive early for a 7:30pm weeknight performance in order to eat dinner near the Theatre? Will only 8 cars of people do that? A3:It is important to note that this is a preliminary traffic analysis, and a much more detailed and comprehensive analysis would occur during prior to or during the 10.k Packet Pg. 430 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t K : C o m m i s s i o n e r Q u e s t i o n s a n d S t a f f R e s p o n s e s 1 0 2 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) environmental review phase. That said, the referenced table will be clarified to identify egress trips from office against ingress trips from Theatre use during both the AM/PM peak periods.Theatre trips will arrive at various times during an event but the table assumes a worst case scenario over one hour.Theatre trips arriving to the site earlier to take advantage of retail space (dining) would benefit the trip generation table by reducing the actual number of trips in the peak hour approaching an event start time. As a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is prepared a theatre program will be developed to better estimate trip generation throughout a typical day. Q4: We have had major tenants of downtown leave before (e.g., Digital), and those arrivals and departures resulted in a boom and bust cycle with downtown retail. How will arrival and departure of tenants in a new 260,000 sq ft office complex affect downtown retail? A4:There are multiple factors for retail vacancy downtown. The recession hit Palo Alto retail at the same time as it hit other cities in the Bay Area. Industry changes (i.e. closure of Borders) have also impacted retail vacancy downtown. Palo Alto has a robust office demand, especially near transit nodes. It is possible thatbecause of the proposed development, some existing ground floor office users in older downtown buildings may vacate and move to the newer, larger buildings. This would then free up additional space for downtown retail. Facebook is one recent example of a company that vacated smaller, downtown office space, because they needed a larger, more modern facility. An increase in employees near downtown and transit would help provide additional retail customers both daytime and evening. Q5: To what extent is building a theatre for the primary use of TheatreWorks a public benefit or a private benefit? A5:The scope of the project is large and includes a substantial public gift (i.e. Theater) which is an atypical public benefit.The Commission's thoughts and insights on this will help inform the Council as a determination is made on this point. From a land use standpoint, the concepts being explored are not likely to utilize a Planned Community Zone that requires a specific public benefit. However, because of the potentially large scope and impact of a project of this sort would have on the community the Council wants to consider the larger benefits and impacts these concepts being discussed could or should have. Regarding other Planned Community applications, it is unusual for the benefit being offered to be a benefit to the entire community. There are exceptions of course, such as street and road improvements. However, it is much more common for a project of this sort to benefit some sub-set of the general public; a Senior Assisted Living facility serves only seniors and may have subsidized services for some seniors; not all seniors. The question the Commission should help answer is what these benefits are or could be that the community will value. 10.k Packet Pg. 431 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t K : C o m m i s s i o n e r Q u e s t i o n s a n d S t a f f R e s p o n s e s 1 0 2 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) A good, broader question to try and answer would be: Compared to PC projects, does this “benefit” address more or less of the community?Are there“extra” community benefits serving the broader community or region? Q6:Would this new proposed development count towards the cap of 3.2 million square feet of new non-residential development? A6:Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 includes a maximum city wide development limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-8 reads: “Maintain a limit of 3,257,900 square feet of new non-residential development for the nine planning areas evaluated in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study, with the understanding that the City Council may make modifications for specific properties that allow modest additional growth. Such additional growth will count towards the 3,257,900 maximum.”In addition, Comprehensive Plan Program L-7 reads: “Establish a system to monitor the rate of non-residential development and traffic conditions related to both residential and non-residential development at key intersections including those identified in the 1989 Citywide Study and additional intersections identified in the Comprehensive Plan EIR.If the rate of growth reaches the point where the citywide development maximum might be reached, the City will reevaluate development policies and regulations.” These two provisions of the Comprehensive Plan coupled with the legislative history surrounding adoption of the Plan, appear to support a 3-pronged approach to finding that development complies with the growth limit in the Comp Plan. If any one of the three below conditions applies, the development would comply with Policy L-8: 1.The proposed development falls within the applicable sub-area allowance specified in the 1989 Citywide Land Use and Transportation Study (1989 Study) and the total citywide cap of 3.2 Million square feet is not exceeded; or 2.The proposed development would cause the sub-area allowance to exceed the levels specified in the 1989 Study but the total citywide cap of 3.2 Million square feet would not be exceeded and the City Council approves the project with a finding that it represents “modest additional growth.”This finding can only be made by the Council and thus would only apply to projects that are approved by Council. This would thus primarily apply to projects that require a zone change; or 3.The proposed development would cause the sub-area allowance to exceed the levels specified in the 1989 Study but the total citywide cap of 3.2 Million would not be exceeded, the project can comply with the growth limits if a traffic study shows that the project will not cause any of the 11 key intersections identified in the 1989 Study to exceed the Levels of Service identified in the Comp Plan build-out levels identified in the 1989 Study. 10.k Packet Pg. 432 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t K : C o m m i s s i o n e r Q u e s t i o n s a n d S t a f f R e s p o n s e s 1 0 2 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) The project review and EIR will include an assessment of these criteria for the 27 University Avenue site and will be timely with the ongoing revisions to the Comprehensive Plan and the updated citywide traffic model. The project’s parking and traffic impacts would be fully analyzed in an EIR that would be prepared for the project. Q7:How would the layout of bus stops affect inter-bus-line transfers? (Note that the Dumbarton Bridge bus does not appear to be mentioned, but I believe one or more routes stop at the station.) A7:The designation of bus stops to transit agencies is still pending. Outreach in the development of the improved transit mall as currently shown was with the three major transit operators: Valley Transportation Authority, Stanford Marguerite, and Samtrans/Caltrain. The improved transit mall significantly increases transit capacity over the current operations and accommodations and plan also retains future transit capacity along Urban Lane. Dumbarton Express route operators will be contacted for input. Q8:No left turn is currently allowed from the El Camino Real northbound on-ramp to Quarry Road.Is this proposed to be changed, per Proposed Transit Routes map in the City Managers Report?(The Marguerite route onto southbound El Camino Real veers off the overpass onto roadway below in a manner not physically possible, and should probably follow the VTA path.) A8:The University Loop NB on-ramp to El Camino Real currently does not allow left turn movements onto Quarry Road. There is no proposed change to this operation. Transit operators may use Quarry Road Extension around the rear of the theatre as a route to Quarry Road/Stanford University Medical Center as a preferred alternative or use University Avenue to Arboretum Road. Q9:Why is there a mention of VMware founding in the timeline of Attachment E of the City Managers Report?Why is there no mention of the 50-foot high limit establishment in this timeline?Should the 1940 reference to "Train Overpass (bridge) over el (sic) Camino built" remove mention of "Train" as no trains traverse this bridge? A9:The timeline included in the Council’s CMR is not yet complete. VMware was included because it was and remains one of Palo Alto’s larger employers; however it is not the only one. The year of the 50-foot high limit was not included because at the time of the publishing of the CMR, the actual date of the ordinance had not been verified. Thank you for the correction of the 1940 Overpass reference. Q10:There is reference to the proposal completing Olmstead's plan; however, no graphics showing Olmstead's plan for the area is provided. 10.k Packet Pg. 433 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t K : C o m m i s s i o n e r Q u e s t i o n s a n d S t a f f R e s p o n s e s 1 0 2 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) A10:The Olmsted plan was shown on the presentation boards that were on display in the Council Chambers during the September 24th, 2012 Council Hearing. Staff will provide an 8 ½ x 11 of the plan at places. 10.k Packet Pg. 434 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t K : C o m m i s s i o n e r Q u e s t i o n s a n d S t a f f R e s p o n s e s 1 0 2 4 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 1 27 UNIVERSITY PLANNING & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION OCTOBER 24, 2012 FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS Following the PTC meeting of October 24, 2012, PTC member Panelli forwarded these additional questions: 1.Could the Theatre be a compatible use in the PF district? It does not seem to be incompatible, but it was not clear to me from reading the code whether it is or is not. Also, such a designation could alleviate the perception of parkland gerrymandering to make the numbers work. Section 18.28.040 (Table 1) of the Zoning Ordinance outlines the permitted (P) and conditionally permitted (CUP) land uses for the PF District. While a variety of assembly uses, public uses, and quasi-public uses are permitted or conditionally permitted, a theater use is not explicitly listed as an allowed use. Community Centers are a Conditionally Permitted Use provided the use is on property that is owned by a governmental agency and leased for the Community Center. The Lucie Stern Theater is on PF zoned property owned by the City of Palo Alto and leased to Theatreworks and other theater groups. The 27 University Avenue property is owned by Stanford University, which is not a governmental agency. Similarly, “Art, dance, gymnastic, exercise or music studios or classes” is a conditionally permitted use, provided the use is on governmentally owned property. There is also a provision for “other uses which, in the opinion of the director, are similar to those listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses” as long as the use is on governmentally owned property. In short, the land is owned by a non-governmental agency, and while some interpretations might suggest that a theater center designed to serve the community could be a compatible, conditionally permitted use in the PF district, the land ownership is an issue in this instance. 2.Can you explain the push to create a new Arts and Innovation district? If we used an existing designation for the office portion of the parcel, it seems that we could accommodate most of what the applicant will likely request. The rest (primarily the height) could be handled through the variance process. The Arts and Innovation zoning district would provide a mechanism for the building heights, transit- oriented density, mix of uses, and series of public spaces anticipated in the master plan. The City does not currently have an existing zoning district classification that would allow the particular combination of uses and building forms in the master plan. Community Commercial is the closest zoning district having the most similar range of uses and intensity to the desired land uses and intensity. Variances are intended to provide a way for a site with special physical constraints, resulting from natural or built features, to be used in ways similar to other sites in the same vicinity and zoning district. It is unlikely the findings for a variance could be made for increased building height, since the impetus for the increased height is related to the land use program and desire for transit- oriented density rather than physical constraints or hardships unique to the site. Similarly, a Height Exception (as described in 18.40.090) would not be applicable for the increased heights proposed in the master plan. Height exceptions are intended for architectural, utility, or mechanical features that exceed the height limit by no more than fifteen feet, and that are not used for habitable space. 10.l Packet Pg. 435 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P T C F o l l o w - u p Q u e s t i o n s 1 0 2 4 1 2 [ R e v i s i o n 1 ] ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 2 3.If we delineated the parkland portion as everything north of underground garage entrances, what would be the remaining parcel size? And therefore what would the maximum allowable density be for this portion of the parcel based on a 2.0 FAR? The parkland would need to retain the same amount of parkland as currently exists, but with modified boundaries. The most recent parkland swap exhibit (included with the December 3, 2012 CMR) indicates an FAR of 1.11 for the theater site and 1.78 for the office site. 4.Are there any provisions in the existing code to provide density bonuses in exchange for including publicly available parking, over and above the minimum amount of parking required by the code for the designated uses? There are no incentives in the Zoning Code for providing publicly available parking above the parking required for the uses on the site. Offerings of public parking spaces above the minimum needed for the uses on site have been associated with Planned Community (PC) public benefits in the past, including the 800 High Street PC project. 10.l Packet Pg. 436 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t L : P T C F o l l o w - u p Q u e s t i o n s 1 0 2 4 1 2 [ R e v i s i o n 1 ] ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 10.m Packet Pg. 437 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t M : P T C 1 0 2 4 R e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.m Packet Pg. 438 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t M : P T C 1 0 2 4 R e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.m Packet Pg. 439 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t M : P T C 1 0 2 4 R e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.n Packet Pg. 440 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P T C 1 0 2 4 1 2 r e p o r t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.n Packet Pg. 441 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P T C 1 0 2 4 1 2 r e p o r t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.n Packet Pg. 442 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P T C 1 0 2 4 1 2 r e p o r t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.n Packet Pg. 443 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P T C 1 0 2 4 1 2 r e p o r t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.n Packet Pg. 444 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P T C 1 0 2 4 1 2 r e p o r t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.n Packet Pg. 445 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P T C 1 0 2 4 1 2 r e p o r t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.n Packet Pg. 446 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P T C 1 0 2 4 1 2 r e p o r t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.n Packet Pg. 447 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P T C 1 0 2 4 1 2 r e p o r t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.n Packet Pg. 448 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t N : P T C 1 0 2 4 1 2 r e p o r t a t t a c h m e n t s ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) Summary: ARB session November 1, 2012 27 University Ave Potential Project ARB members:Staff: Alexander Lew Amy French, Chief Planning Official Lee Lippert, Acting (Vice) Chair Russ Reich, Senior Planner/ARB Liaison Randy Popp Steve Emslie, Deputy City Manager Bruce Fukuji, Consultant to Staff Dan Garber, Consultant to Staff Staff and Consultants Presentation Amy French, Chief Planning Official,addressed the ARB members, noting the topics of the staff report and the goal of receiving additional comments from both the ARB and the public on the potential project, following the presentation to ARB/PTC on October 24, 2012. She noted public comments received via email were put at places, and a speaker that had to leave the meeting had provided written comments for ARB to view. She noted consultants Bruce Fukuji and Dan Garber were going to present the potential project. Bruce Fukuji, Consultant, presented the main features of the potential project. Dan Garber, Consultant, presented power point slides showing information regarding existing tall buildings in Palo Alto, as to their heights and footprints in comparison with the proposed project. Public Speakers Mark Weiss, noted he had attended the October 24, 2012 meeting; stated he thought it to be a convoluted process, without all of the information needed on the process; stated that in August 2011, around the same time as process began, the City had an opportunity to utilize the Varsity Theater for theater productions. Mary Carlstead, noted that there were few members of the public present, and that there is an uproar in the neighborhoods about the project; noted a recall of Council is possible if the project is not put to a vote; noted she feels betrayed and there is rage; stated she feels project is in the wrong place; noted Palo Alto could have been the Santa Barbara of the North but now there are ugly buildings, prison buildings; hopes City consider’s feelings of the neighborhoods Beth Bunnenberg, as an individual, not as an HRB member,because no study session has been conducted yet with the HRB.Gave a summary of the situation, noting that Hostess House is a category 1 structure, the highest category on the Palo Alto Inventory and that HRB is to report to the ARB on category 1 buildings; noted the history of the Hostess House, the first community center in 1919 in the United States; stated that it is known as Landmark 895, on the National Register of Historic Places; requested the ordinance process happen with the HRB involved. 10.o Packet Pg. 449 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t O : S u m m a r y N o v e m b e r 1 A R B ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) Carla MacLeod, born and raised in Palo Alto, noted her remembrance of when the height limit was instituted, noted she was in Theatreworks shows, remembers fights about statues on Embarcadero and fountains on California Avenue; noted that we are not talking about the Manhattan-ization of Palo Alto as it is just a small area; stated the project will provide public benefits and will provide lovely public open spaces, excellent solutions and good there is an opportunity to vote on it; noted the City should take the chance and appreciate the benefits. Carol Kenyan, noted concern about traffic congestion in an area already congested; noted issue with parkland; noted using theater as incentive for office is wrong way to go. Stated that we are looking at this only to create more office space, which is not the right way to go; especiallyconcerned that moving a historic building will create a lot of anguish. Stated she is hoping it is just the beginning of discussion of a project that will truly affect livability. Elaine Meyer, can only guess at hidden improprieties of public officials; noted that to read the agenda, one would not know there is no project, no traffic study or EIR; public wouldn’t know MacArthur Park building is to be moved. Stated that this is most unusual, scheduling reviews while the community is engaged in the national vote and said, “just because a bully millionaire says jump,you don’t have to say how high.” Libby Lucas, Los Altos resident, noted she considers this site to be a community resource; FEMA and Red Cross in San Jose are in a flood plain and stated that this location is still important. Noted that she wants to know how much right of way is there for the train and for Stanford, noted the vista to Stanford from downtown Palo Alto may have been important in the original plan, and that the traffic to the hospital by emergency vehicles is a concern. Noted the concept of theater and plaza is another hazard; thatshould not clog traffic with people casually walking across University Avenue. Noted she wonders about sound of train impacting theater productions, and high speed rail taking four rails, which should be considered. Jennifer Landisman, noted the location and height are hugely symbolic,that she has lived here 10 years, spent time in Vienna, grew up in many urban cities worldwide and has travelled widely; noted that she encounters people abroad who say they want to live in Palo Alto, since theCity manages to combine progress along with a relatively small and green town; noted that the 50 foot limit makes Palo Alto what it is. Lenora Simes, grew up in New York, noted Palo Alto is not a city but a large town; stated the project is too big, urbanization won’t work, it is congested, crowded, and tall buildings would eliminate views of the hills; noted it is meaningless to construct at the train station; the area doesn’t have space for the project. Stated she truly hopes for transparency in the process. Noted the Edgewood Center issue, that the developer did not do what he agreed too.Cited recent buildings constructed close to sidewalk (e.g. Alma Plaza) and noted the CJL is the ugliest building. Bob Moss,noted that this is the most bizarre project he has been involved in for the past 40 years. Stated his first question is why the ARB is discussing a project that isn’t a project. Noted 10.o Packet Pg. 450 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t O : S u m m a r y N o v e m b e r 1 A R B ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) this is an attempt by Arrillaga not to pay for the ballot and project reviews. Noted the developer is in public pocket, the project is out of scale, scope and context; other than that,it is a fine project. Noted his submittal, that only 9 buildings are near 100 feet. Most were built before 1965. Discussed the public revolution that included setting the 50 foot height limit, now in place more than 35 years.Asked “why can’t Arrillaga live with it?”Noted that we have an arts center, have for decades (the Art Center).Noted we have Innovation Centers on West Bayshore, Stanford Research Park, Embarcadero. Advised proposing only one building of no more than 70 feet on this site, to make it rational. ARB comments andquestions of staff: Alex Lew: Requested staff clarification on process. Amy French: Noted the status of project as not a filed application, and planning further outreach. Alex Lew: Asked consultant Garber to clarify the 2000 theater study. Dan Garber: Described the partnership in 2000 with Stanford on a study about need for theater venues in the area, for performing arts, dance center, concert hall; Stanford was considering re- purposing existing facilities. At that time,the theater was shown on top of where the reservoir is now located, in the study. Theatreworks programming was such that Stanford was studying other venues on Stanford campus. El Camino Park was not considered due to the asset of the playing fields. Bruce Fukuji: Described why the theater and offices are located where they are in the concept (and not the reverse). Noted he could prepare an exhibit to explain better. Dan Garber:Noted putting the office next to park issue –plaza next to park enhances the park setting, helped connect dots between shopping center and downtown. Noted Transit Ring will be very active and the current center would not meet capacity and that there is a tremendous need that would need to be addressed. Alex Lew:Noted if theater was where office is now, only a 50 foot tall building (primarily) would be viewed down the corridor of University; it is a Palm Drive issue, doesn’t like a building that tall next to the historic train depot. Concerned about the fly space facing El Camino Park; perceived benefit is downgraded by a big blank box looking down Quarry road. Not crazy about site lines. Back alley behind theater, the road around theater –don’t see the description of the road in the plan. Likes access to the theater plaza but plaza is not quite fitting in here. Plaza in front of city hall is empty in Mountain View most of the time. If the theater is next to University, Caltrain traffic at commute time, plaza could serve as transit center during daytime and serve the theater crowd at night. He likes sharing parking among uses and likes Palm trees to make concept cohesive. Consider additional height in specific places.Committee for Green Foothills concept –increase height and density to reduce sprawl and density; supports that but 10.o Packet Pg. 451 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t O : S u m m a r y N o v e m b e r 1 A R B ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) doesn’t like any of the massing he sees so far. Axonometric views are not flattering, inherently, but the project raises so many issues, it would be hard to meet compatibility findings for ARB as is. Randy Popp: Has four areas discussed in last week’s joint meeting, restating for the record. First is site organization; views from El Camino from Menlo Park and from the South and from downtown –this is an iconic gateway project with significant opportunity and responsibility too. Level of graphics, bird’s eye view;watercolors are helpful,but seeing the theater from park site is a concern. Internal views are comfortable,but massing of the buildings is challenging. Relative to site organization, he is struggling to accept the position of office not being on the park and theater not being on University. The theater fly is divisive, would separate the park. Opportunity is for the office to look across the park. This is not the right set up. Moving MacArthur Park –what is being done –what is the future of the building? Connectivity –how does it connect to downtown? Study whether Lytton Avenue can extend through the site; not advocating rigorously extending downtown grid to El Camino Real,but some connection as the site feels apart. Shopping Center extending to the site –Bloomingdales coming to ARB -need to strengthen the connection. Challenge of traffic; look at how to mitigate demands –look at parking entry on site –better to put on the end rather than the middle –put on the corners, more spread out and therefore doesn’t break up the site. Height –site organization, how office buildings placed makes dark internal courtyard. Let southern exposure into project, light go through the project. This is a tremendous opportunity to do something interesting; skill and knowledge to create sustainable, set the character for this part of town. Building design –in favor of pushing up and preserving open space, just in the right places on the site. Lee Lippert: Thanked the public for speaking to the board,noted purview today is giving feedback to Council. How process will go? Issues here are more than site specific. Regardless, Development Agreement is the more appropriate process. Must look at impacts to El Camino Real and Downtown. Opportunity should not be overlooked; question is whether this is asset or blemish –trade-offs:height and mass in return for theater. Process needs to be established. Layout is appropriate; office/mixed use next to transit makes appealing to commuters from SF and SJ. Arrillaga’s plan to turn over to Stanford –great opportunity for Stanford to locate their offices under one roof –good nexus for business functions in Palo Alto. Stanford as a tenant can enforce a TDM program that will have employees taking public transit. Not a proponent of height; office architecture doesn’t punctuate University Avenue well; courtyard and bridges make building one large mass. Eliminate bridges to see through plates and see the courtyard. Or push masses together to eliminate courtyard. Fill in courtyard to reduce mass and height of building and reduce visual impacts. Theater fly –why not increase capacity in the theater, disguising fly, maybe have one theater on top of another, put dance studios above theater,to play with the building mass. Royal Albert Hall on edge of Hyde Park, surrounded by open space; attractive theater in England, with housing around it. Project needs to rise to that level/expectation. He is not dissuaded by height. This is only a little bit above 101 Alma, less than Forest Towers, like Palo Alto Square –we don’t see them as blemishes or detrimental to 10.o Packet Pg. 452 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t O : S u m m a r y N o v e m b e r 1 A R B ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) community. Architecturally, this building needs to exceed level and quality of those projects if that height. Circulation plan –not supportive –ingress/egress of underground parking is of concern. Bringing Quarry Road across and into facility –have parking come from Quarry; don’t look at Urban Lane as continuation. Keep impacts of traffic off University Avenue. Relocation of Julia Morgan Building; HRB input is important,but he is encouraged to know it is not the original site of the building, feels better about moving to a new site. As a civic building, preserve and use again as a civic structure in Palo Alto. Rinconada Park –looking at replacing building there –a possibility. Surface parking for El Camino Park –put into the underground parking of this development, put Julia Morgan where existing parking is in the park,so it becomes a field house for the park. Alex Lew: San Francisco regulations about shading public parks –other city standards? Bruce Fukuji: Shadow studies already done;will come back with that, and further study. Lee Lippert:Urban Lane -reclaim look at underground parking there and maybe some of the office uses proposed at this site. El Camino Park, underground pedestrian linkage at Everett should be considered as part of the project. Randy Popp: Terrible parking problem downtown; not enough CalTrain parking available, so folks park in the neighborhoods. Seeking Council discussion around obligating, a study, of how to alleviate parking problem resulting from CalTrain parking demand; looking at the domino effect; just noting this for Council discussion. Lee Lippert: Nexus between parking downtown and transit center; if processed as a development agreement, maybe parking for transit will become part of the project. 10.o Packet Pg. 453 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t O : S u m m a r y N o v e m b e r 1 A R B ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.p Packet Pg. 454 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.p Packet Pg. 455 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.p Packet Pg. 456 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.p Packet Pg. 457 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.p Packet Pg. 458 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.p Packet Pg. 459 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.p Packet Pg. 460 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.p Packet Pg. 461 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.p Packet Pg. 462 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.p Packet Pg. 463 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t P : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p r i o r t o A R B 1 1 1 1 2 ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 464 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 465 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 466 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 467 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 468 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 469 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 470 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 471 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 472 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 473 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 474 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 475 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 476 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 477 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 478 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 479 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 480 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 481 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 482 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 483 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.q Packet Pg. 484 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t Q : P u b l i c c o r r e s p o n d e n c e t o A R B p o s t 1 1 1 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d 10.r Packet Pg. 485 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 486 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 487 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 488 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 489 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 490 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 491 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 492 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 493 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 494 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 495 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 496 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 497 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 498 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 499 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 500 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 501 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 502 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 503 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 504 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 505 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 506 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 507 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 508 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 509 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 510 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 511 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 512 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 513 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 514 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 515 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 516 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 517 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.r Packet Pg. 518 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t R : A R B 1 1 1 1 2 r e p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10 . s Pa c k e t P g . 5 1 9 Attachment: Attachment S: Letters of Support (3189 : Arts & Innovation District (27 University Avenue) September 20,2012 The Honorable Greg Scharff Vice Mayor,City ofPalo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto,CA 94301 RE:Palo Alto Transit Center and Proposed 27 University Avenue Project Dear Vice Mayor Scharff: Earlier this year,the City of Palo Alto (City)staffengaged the Santa Clara Valley Transpoliation Authority (VTA)on exploring the design ofa new transit center in Palo Alto that would be funded and constructed as part of a larger development project being proposed by Mr.John Arrillaga on Stanford University owned property.As we understand it,the project would construct new office buildings and a performing arts theater on property currently used by VTA, SamTrans and Stanford buses,including VTA's Palo Alto Transit Center. Overall,VTA is SUpp0l1ive of the project concept as it provides an opportunity to improve multi~ modal transit connectivity as well as enhance pedestrian and bicycle access to downtown Palo Alto,Stanford University and the Stanford Medical Center.The proposed development presents an opp011unity for a high transit usage given the wealth ofavailable bus and rail options.VTA suggests the City explore the application oftransit impact fees to the development given the expected significant impact on traffic and transit. A replacement transit center is vital for VTA and SamTrans bus operations.Palo Alto is the n01ihern and southern terminus of operations for our agencies,respectively.This hub is also Stanford's Marguerite Shuttle's busiest location and one ofthe highest ridership Caltrain stations.As such,the design needs to accommodate current and future needs for transit access and capacity.The proposed development,along with other area plans such as the Stanford Hospital expansion,will increase transit demand.VTA is also planning a Bus Rapid Transit line that will have its northern terminus at Palo Alto Transit Center. While we have been encouraged by the planning efforts to date,there are many design and construction elements that need to be fmiher developed to ensure safe,efficient bus circulation and operations,plus provide a high level ofamenities for transit patrons.We support plan options that include the use of Urban Lane for bus layover and turnwarounds. Ofcritical importance to both the City and VTA is resolution ofthe City's master lease with Stanford and our current sublease with the City of Palo Alto for the current transit center and depot site.Stanford and the City need to agree to an amendment oflease documents as soon as possible that recognizes the value of the transit center to Palo Alto and Stanford.Such an amendment must ensure VTA will have both an interim use ofthe existing transit center as well as permanent use of the relocated facility on economically viable terms for VTA. 3331 tJorth First Street·Son Jose,CA 95134-1927'Administration 408.321.5555 •Customer Service 408.321.2300 10.s Packet Pg. 520 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t S : L e t t e r s o f S u p p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) The Honorable Greg Scharff September 20,2012 Page 2 of2 We look forward to more discussion on this exciting project.We will be scheduling time with City staffto present this project to the VTA Board ofDirectors,whose approval will be required for VTA to move forward with the pat1ies.Thank you for considering our comments as the City Council proceeds with its review ofthis unique proposal. Sincerely, Michael T.Burns General Manager c:VTA Board of Directors Palo Alto City Council James Keene,City Manager Jaime Rodriguez,ChiefTransportation Official 10.s Packet Pg. 521 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t S : L e t t e r s o f S u p p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.s Packet Pg. 522 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t S : L e t t e r s o f S u p p o r t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.t Packet Pg. 523 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t T : U p d a t e d T h e a t r e W o r k s L e t t e r o f I n t e n t ( L O I ) [ R e v i s i o n 1 ] ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10.t Packet Pg. 524 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t T : U p d a t e d T h e a t r e W o r k s L e t t e r o f I n t e n t ( L O I ) [ R e v i s i o n 1 ] ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10.t Packet Pg. 525 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t T : U p d a t e d T h e a t r e W o r k s L e t t e r o f I n t e n t ( L O I ) [ R e v i s i o n 1 ] ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10.t Packet Pg. 526 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t T : U p d a t e d T h e a t r e W o r k s L e t t e r o f I n t e n t ( L O I ) [ R e v i s i o n 1 ] ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10.t Packet Pg. 527 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t T : U p d a t e d T h e a t r e W o r k s L e t t e r o f I n t e n t ( L O I ) [ R e v i s i o n 1 ] ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10.t Packet Pg. 528 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t T : U p d a t e d T h e a t r e W o r k s L e t t e r o f I n t e n t ( L O I ) [ R e v i s i o n 1 ] ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Special Meeting September 24, 2012   8. Request for Council to Review Site Plan and Massing Concepts for 27 University Avenue, to Direct Staff to Execute Letter of Intent with TheatreWorks, and to Authorize Staff to Prepare Advisory Ballot Measure Language for Council Consideration. Council Member Klein advised he would not participate in this Item as his wife was a faculty member of Stanford University. He left the meeting at 8:22 P.M. Mayor Yeh advised he would not participate in this Item as his wife graduated from Stanford University in the prior 12 months. He left the meeting at 8:22 P.M. Stephen Emslie, Deputy City Manager reported on connectivity and the proposed Master Plan for the 27 University Avenue (commonly known as the MacArthur Park Restaurant) project. The project was an unprecedented opportunity to transform a centrally-located, transitional area between Downtown and Stanford University. It was a public-private partnership involving several parties, and provided several significant public benefits. One public benefit was improved access to the City's intermodal transit center. Secondly, the project would improve critical pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular linkages between Stanford University and Downtown businesses and residential areas. A third public benefit was construction of a shell building for a performing arts center. Through a Letter of Intent, TheatreWorks expressed interest in raising funds to complete interior improvements and in managing the center. The Hostess House/MacArthur Park Restaurant building, designed by Julia Morgan, would be relocated at no expense to the City to a site of the City's choosing and would be managed by the City. To realize these goals and to pursue other opportunities, Staff drafted a Master Plan. Staff worked with consultants to identify site improvements for multiple users, engaged major public transportation agencies to create a transit solution, and engaged the project benefactor and a TheatreWorks representative to understand the needs of the users of the site. The Master Plan was intended to assist Staff in evaluating future applications for uses in the area to ensure good planning and connectivity. This project would assist the City in achieving its goals of 10.u Packet Pg. 529 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   creating a new arts and innovation district; blending the Downtown and University areas; advancing the common purpose of supporting shared creative and entrepreneurial leadership; creating a permanent home for TheatreWorks in Palo Alto; offering prominent and contemporary office space for premier Silicon Valley technology companies; creating a vibrant urban destination; and, redesigning transit accessibility for long-term and sustainable transportation for Palo Alto, Stanford, and other users of the transit center. The intent of the presentation was to familiarize the Council and the public with the Master Plan; to provide an opportunity for the City Council and community to provide meaningful input on the Master Plan; and to guide Staff in preparing ballot language for the Advisory Ballot Measure planned for the March 2013 election. Bruce Fukuji, Fukuji Planning presented the vision for the Master Plan area. He understood the Council's direction was not to limit the vision to the project as it was originally proposed, but to look at the area comprehensively and to determine the potential of the site. Because of the tracks and El Camino Real, the project area was a non-place realm, meaning it was not part of Downtown, but could be part of an extended boulevard. There was an opportunity to create a unique area. The site had assets which presented both opportunities and challenges. Opportunities included a central location, good multi-modal accessibility, a historic depot, adjacency to El Camino Park, and the potential to become a gateway to Downtown and Stanford. The challenges were confusing circulation, isolation, no public space, no entrance, and no spatial definition. The team met with transit agencies to determine how to create connectivity, because providing public transit was the foundation for the design work. They identified long-term needs for the City and region, determined transit capacity and operational needs, and considered characteristics for an arts and innovation district. The project area would be two blocks: one consisting of an urban, mixed-use development facing the transit ring road and one consisting of a park, theater and public plaza. The team next considered the design of streets for cyclists and pedestrians rather than cars. They extended and redesigned roads to create a new route to Stanford Shopping Center and Medical Center from University Avenue without having to travel through the intersection. Pedestrian routes from University Avenue contained stairs to the theater or the plaza. To connect to Downtown, the team included a wider pedestrian tunnel for bikes. To increase pedestrian connectivity to parks, they created mid-block crossings in Downtown. Site access for cars was below-grade parking with 850-900 spaces underneath the plaza and office buildings, drop-off spaces, and perpendicular street 10.u Packet Pg. 530 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   parking. The transit ring road would be two-lane with continuous bus stops along both sides. To meet the long-term needs for transit, Urban Lane would be a bus turn-around; however, this idea was reserved for the next step. The theater plaza space needed to be large to accommodate large number of people and to allow for appreciation of architecture. It would have raised planting areas to create a protective edge from traffic; trees and sitting areas; and public art or a water feature as a focus. The floor area ratio (FAR) for the theater and mixed-use offices would be consistent with current zoning. The strategy was to make two office buildings look as they were four buildings, using bridges and ground-floor connectivity for pedestrians. There would be higher heights at El Camino Real and University Avenue, and lower heights at theater plaza. From Palm Drive into Downtown, they envisioned trees and grassy areas in the median and along both sides of street and possibly public art at stairways. From the transit center to the theater, streets were designed for slow traffic and accessibility, with trees, bollards, and lighting to separate pedestrian areas. From Downtown to the arts and innovation district, there would be raised intersections, bollards, pedestrian paving, access to below-grade parking, and ground-floor activities at office buildings. From El Camino Park toward the theater, raised landscaping and street paving would create enclosure within the park setting. Access along El Camino Real needed to be redesigned for a grand boulevard concept. The access road and median would be lined with trees, and the building facades curved to provide more public space and landscaping. Dan Garber, Fergus Garber Young Consultants reported the proposal was to move transit functions to meet capacity requirements for the next 30 years, to clean up the entire University Avenue area, to allow the linkages between Downtown and Stanford, and to introduce theater and office uses. Planning actually began in 1993 and continued with a feasibility study in 2000. These prior efforts allowed the consultants to work rapidly in designing the proposed Master Plan. Specific buildings were not part of the Master Plan, however they would follow the Master Plan guidelines. Creating the Master Plan first allowed them to evaluate the impacts of buildings. Redesigning the transit area provided the opportunity to merge the identities of Downtown and Stanford University through the use of landscaping and architectural elements to create an entryway. The office buildings were an important part of the project, because they were the impetus for the applicant's interest. The issue was finding ways to preserve the ground plan 10.u Packet Pg. 531 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   for the pedestrian experience and to express the values of Palo Alto. He encouraged the developer to build office space vertically to preserve the ground plane for pedestrians and below-grade parking. The applicant wanted to house slightly more than 260,000 square feet of office space. That amount of space was reasonable in this area for a prominent, headquarters-type tenant. The applicant agreed to place the theater on solid ground to isolate vibration and noise from the theater. Ultimately, the applicant was responsible for the design of all projects. TheatreWorks had assisted in developing the concept of the theater. The challenge was meeting the needs of the prospective tenant while designing a building that the community would embrace and utilize. The theater differed from many other theaters, because it would have: 1) a main stage, a large lobby, and a black box theater; 2) a relationship with the theater plaza; and, 3) rehearsal areas containing large meeting rooms. A large lobby was needed to support the populations of the main stage and Black Box Theater. The theater was a backdrop to the plaza and directly connected to the plaza through the lobby. In contrast to the office space, the theater was a sculptural object in the park. Mr. Emslie recommended the Council review and comment but not take any action on the proposed Master Plan. Staff recommended the Council authorize Staff to execute the TheatreWorks Letter of Intent to establish a formal relationship with TheatreWorks as a potential tenant for the theater building. Finally, Staff sought Council direction to draft an Advisory Ballot Measure for the March 2013 election to ask the voters to provide their advice on: 1) whether or not to initiate a zoning change to create the arts and innovation district; and 2) the exchange of the panhandle portion of El Camino Park (portion fronting El Camino Real) for a more usable portion of land adjacent to the theater and theater plaza. The deadline to submit language for the ballot would be in December 2012, 88 days before the March 2013 election. That timeframe allowed further review and input by the Council on specific language for the Advisory Ballot Measure. Council Member Espinosa asked Staff to address the public's concern about the lack of transparency in the process. Mr. Emslie stated the project was a bold step forward and was proposed on a philanthropic basis. In seeking the advice of the voters, Staff would provide enough information for the public to reach a decision to proceed with 10.u Packet Pg. 532 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   the project. This was only the beginning of the process. It was a rare opportunity for the public to influence the future of the City. Council Member Espinosa inquired about further development of the Master Plan between the current time and March 2013 if the Council accepted Staff's recommendation for a March vote. Mr. Emslie indicated moving the project forward would require significant engineering and architectural drawings. The applicant wanted to have public input before incurring those expenses; therefore, Staff proposed placing the measure on the March 2013 ballot. Council Member Espinosa asked whether the City could implement the Master Plan and develop the project without this applicant's proposal. Mr. Emslie reported no improvements had been made in the area since planning began 20 years ago. Without this proposal, obtaining funds and improving the transit center would take a very long time. Council Member Espinosa asked Staff to comment on the likelihood of the proposal moving forward if the office space was scaled back. Mr. Emslie stated the total square footage for the office building was a clearly defined project goal and a significant issue for the applicant. There could be flexibility in the arrangement of the square footage. Mr. Garber believed the applicant's expectations had moved towards embracing Palo Alto's needs since the proposal was first made. The applicant supported changes to the original design; however, the applicant had not indicated he would be willing to decrease the total square footage from 250,000-260,000. Council Member Espinosa inquired whether Staff would have drafted the proposed Master Plan if the applicant had not requested the office space and provided the opportunities for transit improvements and a theater. Mr. Emslie answered no. The Stanford Medical Center Development Agreement allocated $2 million to construct pedestrian improvements through the proposed site. It did not anticipate marrying a project of this magnitude with pedestrian improvements. 10.u Packet Pg. 533 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Council Member Shepherd recalled the Council directed the Planning and Transportation Commission (P&TC) to explore greater height limits, and inquired when that matter would return to the Council for discussion. Curtis Williams, Director of Planning & Community Environment reported the (P&TC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) had only begun discussions. The context for the Council's direction concerned housing around transit. The Council could consider tonight's proposal in terms of height limit and appropriate trade-offs outside of that process. The P&TC and ARB discussion would not return to the Council prior to the March 2013 ballot. Council Member Shepherd asked for an explanation of the theater's need for height limits greater than 50 feet. Mr. Garber explained a professional theater required a fly space, the space above the stage where scenery was stored during a performance. TheatreWorks had evolved into a professional and influential company with productions on Broadway and in London. Its productions required true fly spaces of 80-100 feet. Council Member Shepherd asked how failure of the measure for exchange of park lands and approval of the measure for height limit would affect the Master Plan. Cara Silver, Senior Assistant City Attorney reported the Advisory Ballot Measure as envisioned was meant to gauge community sentiment and was not binding. If the measure failed, the Council had the option of initiating the zoning change. Council Member Shepherd requested a fly-by presentation of the project. Mr. Garber indicated that would occur in the future. Council Member Holman referenced the Staff Report's mention of economic development, and asked when resource impacts would be determined and how the project would advance economic development for the City. Mr. Emslie acknowledged Staff did not know all the costs and allocations yet. They wanted to obtain the Council's direction before determining costs. If the Council directed Staff to proceed, then Staff anticipated determining pre- development costs prior to the Council reviewing the ballot language in early 10.u Packet Pg. 534 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   December 2012. Staff expected patrons of TheatreWorks' productions would also patronize Downtown and Stanford Shopping Center, which would have a direct economic impact. Providing modern office space in Downtown and close to transit would allow Palo Alto to compete with growing technology resources in other cities. Council Member Holman was unsure whether the community would view those activities as economic development. She asked how transit improvements would be funded and when they would occur in the construction timeline. Mr. Emslie reported construction phasing was in the future. Construction of the transit center, office building, and parking structure had to occur simultaneously. All costs had not been allocated; however, Staff anticipated many costs would be supported by the project. Transit improvements were considered an amenity that would support the overall Master Plan. Mr. Garber indicated the amount of improvements needed to make the project feasible extended beyond transit improvements. Significant infrastructure improvements would be made as part of the project. Council Member Holman inquired when Staff could provide clarification regarding traffic analysis, building heights, and square footage. Mr. Garber stated the highest point in the theater, the fly, was 100 feet tall. The office building located on University Avenue had a height of 161 feet, 6 inches. The office building located between the theater and the building at University Avenue was 118 feet. Mr. Emslie noted page 184 provided the total office square footage of 263,000 square feet. The number of floors in the office buildings was not a good indicator of height. Exhibits to the Staff Report mentioned the dimension heights. Staff could provide additional details regarding project parameters. Staff hoped for a broad discussion and would then return with responses to specific concerns. Council Member Price asked Staff to describe the original proposal concepts. Mr. Emslie reported the original concept was a single building, monolithic with an oval shape that occupied the MacArthur Park and Red Cross sites. A 10.u Packet Pg. 535 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   theater was attached to the building. The original concept did not have the depth and articulation of the current building concept. Mr. Fukuji explained the original proposal was an eight- or nine-story building of 210,000-220,000 square feet, approximately 80-90 feet wide by 180-200 feet long. A smaller, 40,000-square-foot, three-story building was a foundation of retail and small office. The original theater was approximately 40,000 square feet. The first change was from one office building to multiple buildings. They developed a concept of three buildings surrounding a small campus green off El Camino Real. The placement of the theater was limited on the north by the reservoir and playing fields. That resulted in a three-story building being located in front of the theater. Because this concept did not make sense for a public space, they considered other designs. To create the plaza in front of the theater, they considered creating two blocks and increasing building heights. Council Member Price inquired whether underground parking at the site was feasible, acknowledging geologic studies had not been performed. Mr. Garber reported an engineering firm had been involved with the project and had not indicated any reason not to construct underground parking. Council Member Price suggested proposals specifically mention ongoing transportation and planning studies that complemented the goals articulated in the proposed Master Plan. Council Member Burt inquired about the future process for public and P&TC participation if the Council did not approve placing the measure on the ballot in March 2013. Mr. Emslie explained the election cycle would allow fairly broad input from the P&TC before the Council had to take action in early December 2012. More discussion and comment would move the measure to the next election cycle in June 2014, which would allow for in-depth study and comment by the P&TC. Staff could meet with the P&TC once or twice before the December 2012 deadline. Council Member Burt asked whether the project benefited the developer or was a philanthropic project in all regards. 10.u Packet Pg. 536 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Mr. Emslie noted the office buildings were philanthropic in that they would be gifted to Stanford University for the support of the endowment. The developer would not gain a profit. Council Member Burt inquired if the City's gifts were the theater, the intermodal transit center, and use of the MacArthur Park Restaurant building. Mr. Emslie answered yes. Those were the major gifts for the City. Council Member Burt asked whether the Council would have an opportunity to reaffirm in principle the 50-foot height limit in parallel with consideration of this project. Mr. Emslie answered yes. Staff could determine a method for the Council to engage in that discussion. Council Member Burt asked if approximately one third of the top floor would house office space, one third would contain mechanical operations, and the remaining one third would be open space. Mr. Garber answered yes. The center portion, which was open space, represented approximately 15 percent of the total area. Council Member Burt noted the drawings did not show a continuous bike path across Quarry Road toward the train station. Mr. Fukuji explained the team looked at bike connectivity from El Camino Park along the Caltrain line to connect to Downtown. Council Member Burt wanted to focus on the south bike path. Mr. Fukuji would review that concern. Vice Mayor Scharff felt the discussion had not included the retail space, and asked for plans concerning the retail space. Mr. Garber stated the goal was to bring the district to life with street activity. He impressed on the applicant the necessity of this goal. 10.u Packet Pg. 537 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Mr. Fukuji indicated the applicant supported the concept of active, ground- floor retail uses. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired if consultants had met with retailers to ensure the retail space would be useful and modern. Mr. Garber explained the project needed enough square footage to create venues for people to gather, and that could happen in this project. The space underneath the towers was valuable in that it could be used in a number of different ways. Vice Mayor Scharff asked if there would be approximately 40,000 square feet of retail space. Mr. Garber indicated it would be 20,000-25,000 square feet. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether the public garage would be open to the public in the evenings and provide more parking for Downtown. Mr. Emslie stated the uses were complementary regarding parking. This would be one of the few locations in Palo Alto with direct access to parking. Robert Kelley, TheatreWorks Artistic Director related some achievements of TheatreWorks. This project would celebrate TheatreWorks' values and benefit the City, but would require commitment and leadership from a forward thinking City Council. TheatreWorks would have a home that ensured outstanding theater productions for years to come. Phil Santora, TheatreWorks Managing Director explained the theater would be used to develop new productions and to educate through classes and lectures. It would be a vibrant, cultural hub open to all from morning to evening. This facility would elevate TheatreWorks' ability to deliver its mission to the community. He encouraged the Council to consider the transformational qualities a cultural center would have on the community. Robin Kennedy, TheatreWorks Board Chair stated TheatreWorks needed a permanent home. Annual performances were currently divided between the Mountain View Center for Performing Arts and the Lucie Stern Theatre. TheatreWorks' new home would celebrate the community. 10.u Packet Pg. 538 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Barb Larkin, American Red Cross indicated the Red Cross had a long relationship with the City of Palo Alto and Stanford University. She hoped to continue providing training to the community in emergency preparedness. J. Sheridan said the building would be located at the worst intersection in Palo Alto, University Avenue and El Camino Real. Both streets were congested with traffic for one to two hours each evening. The traffic problems created by the new Stanford University buildings had not been resolved. The Council should consider the thousands of car trips created by this project. Martin Sommer created the online petition to stop construction of high-rise buildings and to remove City Council Members who did not follow the 50-foot height limit. He noted the possible decrease in value of condominium units across the street from the project. Bob Moss felt the proposal was appalling. The Staff Report concealed more than it revealed. He suggested the Council recommend the project be scaled back. If the developer did not agree to scale back the project, the Council should deny approval. Developing this project would negate the City's claim to the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) that it had no room to construct new housing. Clement Chen, Sheridan Hotel, originally believed existing streets could not accommodate the additional traffic for the project. The proposed project had the potential to solve traffic congestion and transform the area. He urged the Council to investigate the proposal further. Donald Barr requested the Council include the Hostess House in the Master Plan and encouraged the Council to consider the Hostess House as a family care center for children with special healthcare needs. Neva Yarkin suggested no more money be spent until the community understood the project and planning associated with the project. She supported the 50-foot height limit. Aaron Gershenberg, TheatreWorks Board Member supported the project and construction of a theater. Herb Borock opposed an advisory vote, because voters would not have a final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The project primarily concerned 10.u Packet Pg. 539 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   the office space. Mr. Garber had a potential conflict of interest because of his connection with TheatreWorks. Cathie Lehrberg felt the neighborhoods affected by the project were not involved in the process. She expressed concern about the increase in commercial space. The project had several issues and requested additional information for the public before an election. Mark Verstel, TheatreWorks Board Member believed the Advisory Ballot Measure was an opportunity for the residents of Palo Alto to review the economic and cultural benefits of the project. Lisa Webster, TheatreWorks Board Member supported having an area that promoted the arts and transportation. She urged the Council to have an Advisory Ballot Measure and to support TheatreWorks. Nadia Naik felt the project was an opportunity to begin alleviating traffic congestion throughout the City. Aram James stated the project did not consider humanity. He suggested one or two buildings be set aside for an endowment for housing with funds going to mental health services. Council Member Holman asked if two of the locations for the MacArthur Park Restaurant building included the Olympic Grove. Mr. Emslie answered yes. Location 1 saved the Olympic Grove and Location 2 interfered with the Olympic Grove. Location 3 was at the parking lot and Location 4 was next to Alma Street. Council Member Holman recalled Council discussions regarding incorporating the MacArthur Park Restaurant Building into the project site. She inquired about the vision to link the Downtown with Stanford University. Mr. Fukuji explained the vision was to have a large, public open space at the end of Palm Drive with three blocks from University Avenue to San Francisquito Creek divided by a mid-block pedestrian walk way. Council Member Holman inquired whether Staff had considered an overpass for pedestrians and bicycles across El Camino Real. 10.u Packet Pg. 540 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Mr. Fukuji felt it was better to keep pedestrians at grade than to have an overcrossing. The places for improvements were the intersection at Quarry Road and the Palm Drive/University Avenue Bridge crossing El Camino Real. Council Member Holman asked Staff to explain the intention of the statement on page 174 of the Staff Report regarding evaluation of future applications for uses in the area. Mr. Emslie explained the intention was for the current site only. It was not meant to influence any project outside the proposed arts and innovation district. Council Member Holman felt the project did not complement the scale and character of Downtown as stated in the Staff Report. A considerable amount of study and analysis was needed before presenting the project to the public for a vote. The public needed additional information and time to consider whether the improvements were worth the trade-offs. She wanted to determine the likelihood that public benefits would occur. Council Member Shepherd was interested in the community's interests for Palo Alto. She asked if Staff expected ABAG to increase the allocation of housing units. Mr. Williams answered no. This project would not skew ABAG's projections for housing and employment. Council Member Shepherd explained ABAG reviewed national job increases and the percentage of job increases for the Bay Area to determine the allocation. Mr. Williams agreed that was the basis of ABAG's formula. Council Member Shepherd asked if Staff could determine traffic impacts prior to performing an EIR. Mr. Emslie reported Staff could perform a traffic study independent of the EIR to inform the public. Council Member Shepherd asked whether the public could have access to that information prior to an Advisory Ballot Measure. 10.u Packet Pg. 541 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Mr. Emslie answered yes. Council Member Shepherd inquired whether this process would begin outreach to area neighborhoods. Mr. Emslie indicated this was intended to initiate the process of review. Council Member Shepherd asked if Staff had plans for outreach to neighborhoods possibly affected by the project. Mr. Emslie believed Staff had the ability and resources to organize outreach. Council Member Burt wanted a higher level view of how the Comprehensive Plan addressed the area. He preferred retaining the MacArthur Park Restaurant building on the El Camino Park site. There were many possibilities for collaboration with TheatreWorks, and he encouraged exploration of those possibilities. The Council should provide comments regarding the project and the future process for the community and P&TC to provide input. He asked how the Council could modify the Letter of Intent with TheatreWorks. Molly Stump, City Attorney stated the Letter of Intent was a preliminary document and not a binding contractual agreement. It was subject to modification. Council Member Burt wanted to ensure that the theater had a minority of its time available for other public uses. The Advisory Ballot Measure would be binding on his decision on the project. Ms. Stump explained Staff conceived the process as a preliminary opportunity for the public to provide input on the overall vision. If the Advisory Ballot Measure occurred and the Council moved forward after that to pursue the vision, it would require many additional actions involving formal work of various Boards and Commissions and further public input through those processes. Council Member Burt asked if the project would continue if the voters did not approve the Advisory Ballot Measure. 10.u Packet Pg. 542 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Ms. Stump indicated the Council could pursue the project after the Advisory Ballot Measure through its normal process. Council Member Burt would abide by the community's vote. This project had enormous community benefits. The theater and plaza would be the most significant public building in the City and would be a great asset. The redesign of the intermodal center was extremely important for the City. He assumed the project would require transportation demand management (TDM). He suggested the 50-foot height limit return to the Council for reaffirmation and endorsement in principle prior to the entire project returning to the Council. The site and development would necessarily be above the height limit; however, heights of the buildings could be reduced by modestly increasing building footprints. Council Member Schmid supported the vision as a whole. The transit circle was an effective solution to the movement of people from Caltrain to local transit systems. The theater and plaza would be a good addition to cultural life. Transit connections through the area would bring vitality to an isolated area. All material mentioned office space but not retail space. The Master Plan needed a magnet to draw people into the area. He suggested the Letter of Intent be revised to indicate the City had some influence over use of the theater space. He favored the Homer underpass over the Lytton underpass. Discussion of benefits should include economic benefits to the City as well as to the community. The project needed an analysis of parking and how it fit into Downtown parking studies. He expressed concern that the proposed park land contained pathways, trails, and parking exits and entrances. Council Member Espinosa believed the opportunities for transit and TheatreWorks were significant. He was excited by the opportunity for a connection between Downtown and Stanford University. He asked Staff to discuss long-term planning for rail connectivity needs. Mr. Emslie reported the Master Plan reflected consultation with all transit agencies and addressed the long-term growth potential in the area. High Speed Rail (HSR) had not indicated a conflict with the Master Plan. Phase II of the Master Plan included 30-50 years of capacity. Council Member Espinosa inquired whether a traffic study would include potential parking impacts within the neighborhood. 10.u Packet Pg. 543 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Mr. Emslie understood a parking study had been initiated for Downtown. Any parking impacts of this project would benefit from information being collected in the Downtown parking study. Council Member Espinosa asked if Staff had discussed leveraging the gift to rally gifts for other project needs. Mr. Emslie stated that conversation had not occurred. Staff could consider a way to leverage the gift and report to the Council. Council Member Espinosa agreed with further study of footprint versus height. If the MacArthur Park Restaurant building remained on the site, an arts district could create an opportunity for connectivity. He asked Staff to comment on possible timelines for Board and Commission review, a traffic study, neighborhood and community outreach, discussion of the height limit with P&TC and ARB, and revision of the Letter of Intent with TheatreWorks. Mr. Emslie suggested Staff needed time to consider a timeline and to prepare a discussion item for the Council in October or November 2012. He believed Staff could provide draft ballot language along with a report on actions already taken and to be taken. MOTION: Council Member Espinosa moved, seconded by Council Member Price to direct Staff to: 1) return to Council no later than the second meeting in November with a) a plan for Boards and Commissions review of proposal, b) a plan for a traffic study, c) a plan for neighborhood and community outreach, d) a draft revised Letter of Intent with TheatreWorks to collaborate on a Theater Arts Performance Center at 27 University, and e) height limit consideration with the Planning and Transportation Commission and the Architectural Review Board. In addition, direct the City Attorney to develop options for an Advisory Ballot Measure to bring back at an appropriate time to ask voters whether (1) the City Council should initiate a change in the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code to facilitate the Project, and (2) the City Council should exchange the unused “panhandle” portion of El Camino Park for a more usable portion of adjacent land to facilitate better site planning for the project. Council Member Espinosa asked Mr. Williams if the return date was feasible for a discussion with the P&TC and ARB. 10.u Packet Pg. 544 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Mr. Williams felt it was possible. He inquired if the Board and Commission review should be more general than the current project. Council Member Espinosa answered yes. Mr. Williams would communicate the information to the P&TC and ARB. Council Member Espinosa stated the project provided incredible opportunities as well as some serious issues. Receiving responses to Council questions and comments would allow the Council to draft language for an Advisory Ballot Measure and determine if it wanted to move forward. Council Member Price noted the site was challenging and complex. The developer had considered massing and location. This was an example of public-private partnerships succeeding. The idea of linking Downtown and Stanford University was important. The project was a creative solution to a site with many challenges. Council Member Espinosa clarified the Motion was to return with a draft of the TheatreWorks Letter of Intent. The goal was to provide answers and draft ballot language by the November 2012 Council Meeting. Ms. Stump suggested the Council not execute the draft Letter of Intent included in the Council Packet. Staff would return with amendments to the Letter of Intent. She did not believe Staff could prepare and review an actual agreement. Rather than executing and then revising the Letter of Intent, the Council should not execute the Letter of Intent at the current time. She suggested the Motion language be "return no later than the second meeting in November" to provide flexibility for Staff to return to the Council sooner. Vice Mayor Scharff suggested Staff should plan for coffee shops and restaurants to use the plaza for seating areas. He requested Staff consider an entertainment venue or a lounge as technology workers had indicated a desire for that. He would support a TDM program for the project. The Council should ensure parking would not impact area neighborhoods. Council Member Schmid felt language of the Motion directed Staff to proceed with the exchange of park land, and asked if that was the intention of the Motion. 10.u Packet Pg. 545 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Council Member Espinosa inquired whether removing the part of the Motion regarding the exchange of the park land would hamper the process for Staff. Vice Mayor Scharff suggested following the language of the Staff recommendation. Council Member Burt inquired about the process for exchanging the park land. Ms. Stump explained the City Charter provided the legislative body could convey a minor portion of a park in exchange for an equal or greater area or value without an election. The process included notice and public hearing, a determination that the exchange was in the public interest, and adoption of a Resolution of Discontinuance. Council Member Burt asked for the date at which the Council would need to provide approval to Staff for a measure to go on the March 2013 ballot. Mr. Emslie indicated the deadline for the March 2013 ballot was 88 days prior to the election, or the first Council meeting in December 2012. Beth Minor, Assistant City Clerk stated the deadline would be December 3, 2012. Council Member Burt inquired how long Staff would need to prepare an Advisory Ballot Measure. Ms. Stump reported the preparation of the language was not a lengthy process, but Staff would want Council review of the language. Council Member Burt believed the Motion directed Staff to prepare language for the Advisory Ballot Measure. He envisioned the Council would provide comments, Staff would return with revisions, and then the Council would decide on an Advisory Ballot Measure. Council Member Espinosa confirmed that Staff could draft the Advisory Ballot Measure language quickly. Council Member Price inquired how a revised draft measure would be different from the current draft measure. 10.u Packet Pg. 546 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Council Member Burt explained Staff would prepare revisions to the Master Plan to reflect Council comments and the applicant's responses. The Council could review the revised Master Plan before reviewing ballot language. Council Member Price clarified that he was suggesting an interim step rather than moving straight to draft language which would incorporate Council comments. Council Member Burt answered yes. Council Member Price expressed concern about the expediency of an interim step. Vice Mayor Scharff was concerned that the Council would not have time to review proposed language for the Advisory Ballot Measure prior to the December 2012 deadline. Council Member Burt explained proposed language would return to the Council at the latest on November 12, 2012. The Council would have two meetings, November 19, 2012 and December 3, 2012, to review the language. Vice Mayor Scharff inquired whether Staff would have sufficient time to draft the language under that timeline. Ms. Stump believed the Council would not want to review the language for the first time on December 3, 2012. Staff could work under that timeline. Council Member Shepherd supported the Motion. Better access was needed for pedestrians and bicyclists. The MacArthur Park Restaurant Building could be located in another area. Council Member Espinosa asked Staff to suggest wording for the beginning of the Motion. Ms. Stump suggested "direct the City Attorney to develop options for an Advisory Ballot Measure to bring back at the appropriate time." Council Member Holman felt the new language implied Council approval. The timeframe suggested by the Motion was unrealistic. 10.u Packet Pg. 547 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL   Council Member Espinosa recalled Staff indicated they could prepare the information by the end of October or beginning of November. Council Member Holman felt the timeline would not allow the Council sufficient time to gather and review information. Ms. Stump suggested reversing the order of the items in the Motion to indicate the Council's priority. Council Member Holman supported comments of Council Member Burt and Council Member Schmid. The MacArthur Park Restaurant needed to remain on site and be a part of the theater district. She noted the theater would be located on Stanford land and inquired about a lease and terms of a lease. Council Member Schmid asked if the reason for outreach was the Council's need for information prior to deciding when to hold the election. Council Member Espinosa felt the Council needed as much information as possible before making a decision. MOTION PASSED: 7-0 Klein, Yeh not participating     10.u Packet Pg. 548 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t U : F i n a l C o u n c i l A p p r o v e d M i n u t e s f r o m 0 9 - 2 4 - 1 2 m e e t i n g ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) 10.v Packet Pg. 549 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 550 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 551 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 552 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 553 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 554 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 555 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 556 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 557 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 558 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 559 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 560 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 561 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 562 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 563 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 564 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 565 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 566 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 567 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 568 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 569 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 570 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 571 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 572 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 573 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 574 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 575 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 576 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 577 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 578 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 579 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 580 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 581 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 582 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 583 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 584 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 585 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 586 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 587 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 588 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 589 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) ) 10.v Packet Pg. 590 At t a c h m e n t : A t t a c h m e n t V : P u b l i c C o r r e s p o n d e n c e P o s t E a r l y P a c k e t ( 3 1 8 9 : A r t s & I n n o v a t i o n D i s t r i c t ( 2 7 U n i v e r s i t y A v e n u e ) ( c n t d f r o m 9 / 2 4 ) )