Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutID-3189-Part-A City of Palo Alto (ID # 3189) City Council Staff Report Report Type: Action ItemsMeeting 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.” 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 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. 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 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: 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 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. 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 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. 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) 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) FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 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 FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 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 FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN 1. Existing Site Context & Project Area 2. Illustrative Plan 3. Illustrative Plan AI District 4. Existing Ownership & Leases 5. Existing Comprehensive Plan 6. Revised Comprehensive Plan 7. Revised District Boundaries Over Zoning Plan 8. Revised Transit Routes 9. Revised Pedestrian Network 10. Revised Bicycle Routes 11. Revised Automobile Site Access 12. Revised Public Places 13. Compatibility With Future Rail Corridor Changes EXHIBITS 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 Arboretum 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 REVISED PEDESTRIAN NETWORK Street Level Pedestrian Network Below Grade Pedestrian Connections 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 NewNewBikeBikePathsPaths ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 REVISED AUTOMOBILE SITE ACCESS Drop off/Pick up Parking Access * * ** * ARTS & INNOVATION DISTRICT FUKUJI PLANNING & DESIGN--FGY ARCHITECTS--SANDIS ENGINEERS DECEMBER 3, 2012 1. University Grove 2. Transit Ring Road 3. Depot Orchard & Underpass 4. Theater Forecourt & Green 5. Olympic Glade 6. Boulevard Place 7. Urban Forest Walk 8. Bourlevard Pathway 9. Continuous Bikeway REVISED PUBLIC PLACES 44 3 15 2 6 7 8 9 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 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 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 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”) 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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. 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.