HomeMy WebLinkAbout0392.000-
June 28, 1~90
HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
PROposAL FOR THE PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT AND LEASE OF TWO ADDITIONAL
FLOORS OF PARKING TO THE WESSTER-COWPER PARKING GARAGE
Members of the council;
The purpose of this staff report is: (1) to advise Council of a
p~oposal by James E. Baer, on behalf of Premier Properties, for the
private development and lease of two additional floors of parking
to. the Webster-Cowper Garage, (2) to seek Council direction and
guidance regarding whether or not staff should proceed .. ith the
neqotiation of a suitable lease agreement for further consideration
and action by Council, and (J} to determine wnether the Council
wishes to permit Hr. Baer to file an application to amend the
Webster-Cowper Parking Garage Planned Community {PC) Zone.
Staff supports the principal concepts embodied in the proposal#
albeit not all of the specific terms and conditions .. and recommends
that the City pursue negc.tiation of an agreement liith Premier
Properties. Execution of any final agreement 'Would require further
Council review and formal authorization~ Staff also recommends
that the council authorize )[r .. Baer to file an application to amend
the PC Zone under which the existing garage was approved.
BACKGRWNQ
The Webster-Cowper Parking Garage is an existing five-level parking
structure (basement, qround .. and three elevated floors) located on
a site internal to the block surrounded by University Avenue.
CO'Wper street. Hamilton Avenue .. and Webster street. It is the
previous site of Parking Lot J~ Vehicle access to the garage is
from Cowper and Webster Streets. Pedestrian access is from all
four streets. The immediately adjacent surrounding development is
retail.. residential and office type activities. The parking
structure itself is zoned as a Planned Community ~istrict.
The Webster-Cowper Parking Garaqe was built ~y the City of Palo
Alto and financed through the fonnation of a new University Aven,ue
Assessment District (Project 82-))). Bonds were issued in 1ge4,
in the amount of $5.43 million at 8.84 percent interest I for a
period of 30 years. This bond issue 'Was refunded in December 1989#
CMR:392:0
•
I
I
->
,
~-,.'
:"~1 . _ ,:1-6
.-.~ ,
.. ~.:
"
-
in order to iBSU.4dit.iOnal bonds to fUnd~i5ition of
public parki~ portion of the 2S0 University Avenue project
under construction.
the
now
The parking 9~rage ~as completed in 1985. It contains 418 total
spaces: 158 spaces (:basement and qround floor) are Qsed tor short
tera (3 hour II.it) public parkl~ available to anyone, a~ 260
.paces are used for permit parking (unli.ited time) available only
to dOwntown employees who have a valid parki~ permit. parki~
peraits are available to cSo..ntown employees on a first-come, first
aerve baais. at a cost of $200 for an annual permit and $60 for a
quarterly per.it. The parking spaces in the qaraqe are reasonably
~ell utl11~ed. The publIc spaces on the ground floor are always
in use. while substantial ~se of the basement tends to occur only
around the noon-till" peak period. fi'o floors of permit parki~ are
always yell utilized. While the roof continues to be significantly
under utilized on a regular bas1s~
During the earlier design, development, and construction of the
existinq structure, decisions and actions ~ere taken to include
provisions for t.he possible addition of up to two I!!IIddltional floors
of parking, as a vertical extension of the eXisting structure ..
should council 50 decide at some poInt in the future. For example ..
in conjunction witb the preparl!!lltfon of 9Qnstruction drawinqs for
the existing five floors .. t.he engineering design consultant also
prepared documentation (not construction drawings and bid
documents) on bow ths extension and connection yould be made for
the additional two leve.ls. I.n addition. provision for the
extension was included into the desiqn and construction of t.he
existing structure tou·ndations and support-s, as 'Well as t.he
connections for the extension at the top level ~ The Planned
CommW"lity Zone, 1'lowever.. Is only for the exIsting five level
s.truct:ure~
The design related provisIons that have already been established
for Levels 6 and 7 (foundations, su·pports. a.nd.. connections) are
based upon I!!II design tbl!!llt 1DOO~rates a 25-foot setback for Level
7. along both the aast and 'West sides of the structure. with a
corresponding red·uction in available space for parkinq~ Therefore ..
the total additional parking fGr the two levels is 161 spaces, 88
spaces on Level 6 and 73 spaces on Level 7~
CURREN7 PROPOSAL
The proposl!!IIl, as presented by Premier Pr~rties. is described in
a letter fro. Jaaes E. Saer to the City Manager, dated May 16 .. 1990
{Attachment A).. A sumzaary description of the proposal, interpreted
by sta"ff and &upple:mented 'With 1111ited staff comment.s. is as
follows:
1. Build Levels 6 And 7 of the Cowper-Webster Parking Garoge.
o Developer pays all costs for the deSign.. engineering,
permits .. tees. financing .. and actual const.ruction (Estimated
cost Is in excess of $ 2,000 .. C~)~
CMR:392:0 6/28/90
Pl!!llqe 2
•
\
\
\ l .
\ , ., -,\,
o
o
Developer <=tIl use the previously ~rove~ (.'isting)
design# as well as the same engineering consultant firm(s)#
tor further desiqn work and construction supervision.
NO bonds or property owner assessments 'Would be involved for
Levels 6 and 1 ..
2. S.ismic Upgrade of Existing structure.
o Developer vill pay costs related to upgradinq the existing
structure from 1982 to 1988 code requirements. Because the
code chanqes have not been significant, the value of this
Is small and of limited consequence M ~~t it will need to be
done whenever additional levels are construct~d.
3. pay Maintenance costs.
o Developer will pay for all maintenance costs for the entire
structure (all seven levels) I for the full period of the
lease. staff estimates that the current. expenditure for
these types of costs. as they relate to the e~istinq five
levels. is $31.000 per year for utilities. sweepingr
janitorial, electrical and mechanical contract services, as
'Well as Public Works staff time to provide. some basic
maintenance. site condition. investigation, and contract
administrat. ion ~
o PaYiDent for such maintenance could be done as a
reimbursement. to the City, or by having the developer
contract for services th3t meet City specifications. If
payment is provided as a reimbursement t.o the City,
additional Pu·blic Works staff time will be required for the
expande~ basic maintenance 6 site condition investigation 6
and COD tract administration.
4. Build civic center Plaza Improvements.
o Developer ili11 see to the completion and design of the major
Civic Center Plaza Improvements. which had previously
evolved from the work of Roberts Associates and the Civic
Center Plaza Design committee.
o Developer will pay for and supervise construction of these
improvements (hardscape--not plant. materi~ls. irrigation.
or furnit.ure). Earlier cost estimat.es for such improvements
were in tbe range of $)5-0.0'·0-0 to $5.010.000. and risinq4
s. 25 Year Use of Leyels 6 and , bv the Developer
o Developer Would have exclusive (private) use of Levels 6 and
7 for a period of 25 years.
CMR:392:0 6/28/90
Paqe 3
'~*l; ". -'
. "
\
. \",. :::. ".;",
1
1
!
o
o
<>
• Developer would mak~ Levels , and 7 available for general
publlc use during weekday evenings and weekends. DUe to the
antIcipated lack of any puhlic parking demand for these two
levels, during the specified perIods, this is of little or
no benefit.
No annual lease payment 1. proposed by the developer~
city would ta.ka over use emd coatl'ol of Levels. 6 a.nd 1. a.nd
assume responsibility tor the ~lntenance of all levels~ at
the end of the lease per1od.
6. Expediti9U§ Rtyfew. Approval. and Imple~entati9n.
o The developer bas a pressinq interest in pur-suing the
review, approval. and constructIon of the t~o additional
levels of parking In an expeditious manner. This 'Would
require some special cons1~eration reqardinq City pollcles J
as well as special efforts affecting the overall process J
City staff work priorities., and City council.. PlannlJl9
commissIon, and Architectural Review Board review and
approvals.
o The developer's proposal that the two additional levels of
parking confor. directly to design issues and det~ils tha~
bave previously been developed and approved,. plos the:
commitment to prepare draft docUments and other items that
would otherwise require staff time,. are positive measures
th~t ooul~ help expedite the review, approval, and
implementation steps. However, establishelS procet!ures,
legal requirements, and existIng staff priorities suggest
that there are practical limits regarding t.he deqree of
expediency that can be realistically achieve".
I $SUES AND COlICEBNS
Sta.ff has made a pr-eliDinary review of the subject proposal and bas
concludecS t.hat,. "bile there are a number of issues tha.-t need
further definition and resolution as ~ell as concerns that must be
addressed, the proposal has sUlficient merit to ~arrant further
consideration. The primary iS5ues and concerns are categorized as
follo",.,
CMR:)92:0
1. Parki"9
2 ... civic Center Plaza Improvements
3. General
4. Value
s. Approval Process
6/28/90
Page 4
_lrlll,'C •• -_ III. lIJIIIiIlIif ... l .... ''''''._~~ .. '., ---"-'-4
~ti'
. -"",-
-," '. ~-'~-"'::
I.
·',"0 r '
~.'
•
\
:~~~t:
.::.~-
~-''''''",'
-?
o
1.. Porking
o There 1. an ongo1ll9 neeci for additional parkIng that is
likely to increase over tlme~
o Parking is the designated Qse~ and only pract~cal use, of
the air r19hts above this particular structure.
o Additional parkIng tor qeneral use ~ould be better located
elsewh~re within the downtO'tin area. However~ its
implementation would also tie much Elore complex. The
proposal Is for the private use of what could~ potentially,
be characterized as the worst spaces in the downtown area,
within the foreseeable future.
o The combined effects of private developm~ntl a design that
is already established, the use of previous firms involved
in design and ~struction of the existing parking
st.ructure, and avoiding the issuance of bonds and the
formation of an assessment district l have the potential for
significant. benefits in terms of lower costs and red·uced
time.
o The additional parking spaces should not be used to satisfy
the parking require~ents for future 4evelopment projects.
o The City (via the parking assessment district) may want to
use the subject air rights at some time in the future~ to
construct the additional parking spaces as a means to: (a)
reduce an increaSing parking deficit~ or (b) meet (through
in-lieu payments) the parking needs for small developments~
tor ,.,hlch physical const.raints and/or resulting consequences
effectively preclude the provision of required parking in
some other manner.
o Durinq tile period of construction~ the parking spaces on the
existing roof, as well as a limited number of additional
spaces on ot1ler levels, will be unavailable for use by
perait bolders.. Temporary alternate arrangements for their
parking needs will be required ..
2 .. Ciyic center Plaza Improvements
o The ~ajor Civic Center Plaza improvements are problematic,
at best. There Is no current consensus regarding what
should be done~ there are unresolved concerns about tie
effects on the civic Center parking qaraqe under the civic
Center Plaza~ and there are uncertain cost elements that are
more likely to result in SUbsequent cost increases rather
than decreases.. Considerable time and vork would be needed
to complete the definition l design, and approval process.
CHR:392:0 6/28/90
Page 5
•
\
'{)
-~.
•
\ ,
\
. \
o As an alternative, more moderate Civic Center Plaza
improvementl that appear to have some qeneral support and
about ><bich JOOst people ,",ould likely not disaqree (rouqh
cost estimate in the range of $lSO,G~O to $2GO,OOO), ~ay be
a better course of actlon~
o Statf b.li~ves that it Is approprIate to use some portion
of the propose~ lease payment for improvements to the Civic
Center Plaza, however. it would be better to disassociate
specific Civic Center Plaza improvements from the content
of both tbe proposed lease and the Planned Community Zone~
This can be done by negotiating an appropriate equivalent
dollar value (in the tora of lump sum, annual, or periodic
payments) to be used tor anyone of a number of alternative
possible uses including: Cal Civic center Plaza Improvements
(if and wben decided upon) I (b) improvements to other
downtoVlJ plazas .. (c) implementation of amenities and related
urban desiqn .features iA the downtown area., {d} reo·uction
of ex15ting parkin9 assessments, and (e) establishment of
a -parking trust fund-for future provision of additional
parkinq.
3. General
o Tbe City would torego tuture parking revenue tor 161 parking
spaces, "Ii' and ONLY WHEN the City actually built the
additional parking. Potential revenue for 161 spaces at
$200 per year plus 30 percent oversell Is $42,~OO per year~
o Initial indications are that there would be no effect or
problem with the existing parking assessment district
(Project 82-33) due to the private development and use of
the additional levels of parking.
o The Planned COlll!lunity Zone for the existing qarage will have
to be amended, with or without the linltage to any Civic
Ce~ter Plaza improvements.
o The Public Works Department does not have adequate staff
resources to pursue either the parking 9arage addition or
the Civic Center Plaza improvements. In order to proceed
with the parking qarage additlOll, the City would require one
full time ~tract engineer throuqbout the project and one
full time inspector during the actual construction 'Work,. in
order to ensure tbat "the design and construction is
perl'onted to City standards. The cost of these services
should approprIately be borne by the deve-loper. In
addition, staff administration of the contract positions
will cause some delay to existing projects.
o At the tille that the agreement
project was discussed and
understanding by staff was that
CHR,]92,0
for the Lot 0 air rights
finalized, the qeneral
subsequent,. 5i_llar type,
6/28/9<>
Page 6
•
\
•
,
' .. -~
\ .
\. \ -
\ -\
\
,.
',: .
i.
air ri9htS:>prOjects would norm'll~ pursued as a
competitive bid type process. Policy and Procedure 1-11
(Attachment Bl, which provides for the leased use of City
land and facilIties, specifies the need for open competitive
and/or bid processes~ The subject proposal does not confon
to such understandings~ policies, and procedures, in this
partIcular instance.
o Apart from planning and development issues, the city has a
responsibility to ensure that the terms and conditions of
any agreement for the use of ti:le subject air rights reflects
responsible ste.ardship of public assets and resources.
o Staff has. JIIade a preliminary financial assessment of the
subject proposal, based upon a number of assumptions
(including an initial $SOO,OOO lump sum payment in lieu of
any Civic Center Plaza impI"ovements). and a number of
factors '(including the remaining (after depreciation) value
of the two levels of parking at the end of the lease
period). OUr conclusion is the folloving:
a. A 25 year lease period is too long, without additional
financial payment to the City~
b.. A 20 year lease period appears to represent a reasc-nable
return to the City for the value of the city's asset
(air riqbts), and
CoO A 15 year lease period 'Would represent a substantial
(financial) public benefit ..
5.. Approval Process
o Council approval of both t.he lease agreement and the Planned:
community Zone amendment is required in order for this
project. to proceed ..
o Mr. Saar bas requested that council review and approve the
lease agreement l prior to council approval of the PC zone
amendment I with the lease agreement conditioned on council
approval of the zone change.. staff concurs with the
sequence of approvals I especially qiven t.he very limitec1
flexibility in designing the addition to the existing
qaraqe.
o Given the unique status of the Webst.er-COW'per Parking Garage
air rights (i.e'l the qaraqe is constructed. the design for
the two additional floors is already established l the use
of the air rights is already determined)1 staff believes
that there is a reasonable basis for the council to waive
the provisions of Policy and Procedures 11-1, in this
particular situation ..
CMR:l9':0 6/28/90
Page 1
•
1
o
o An ~chlevable. albeit optimistIc, schedule for review and
approval of the PC I"one a2llendJDent would be as follows:
•• Application filed: July 9th
b. Planning commission: Auqust 22nd
c. Architectural Review BoareS: september 6th
d. Planning commission: September 12th
e. City councU: october 1st
o N~tiatlon of a final lease aqreement for revieW' and action
by the Council at the Augus~ 13th Council ~eetin9 ~iqht be
possible. However, qiven the need to define, clarify, and
aqree upon a number of terms and conditIons about 'Which both
parties are likely to have. somewhat differing views, as well
as required ",taft tille for onqoing work ass!qnments, a more
realIstic date would be the September 17th Council meeting.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The recommendations in this staff report constitute the beginning
of tbe lease preparation and z.one change processes" and, thus .. are
not projects undar the California Environmental Quality Act~ An
Environmental Assessment of the lease and the zone change yill be
undertaken. if council decides to pursue Mr. Baer's proposal.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that Council adopt a motion that would:
1. Direct staff to p['"ocee~ with the negotiation of a lease
aqreement with Premier Properties for the private
development and use of two additional levels of parkinq ror
the Webster-Cowper Parking Garage,
2 .. Prov.lcS:e guidance concerning terms and conditions of interest
and concern to the council regarding the lease agreement,
(i.e. linkage with Civic Center Plaza Improvements,
financIal oompens&tlon, length of lease, use of additional
spaces as credit ~or other parking requirements), and
3 .. Authoriz.e Mr .. Baer to file an application to amend the
Planne~ Community Zone for the Webster-Cowper Parking
Garaqe.
CHR:392:0 6/28/90
Page 8
'"~~~:·~i/
. ':'
-
.,
::~
.~~
-.1 .... ~ ...
, , , o
Respectfully submitted,
MARVIN L. OVERWAY
Chief Transportation Official
o
~;?4 f.~d~7'
KENNETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Pla~inq and
community Environment
Attachments: A -Letter fro~ James Baer to city Manager William
Zaner (elated May 16, 1990) oescribing proposal
for private development and use of two levels
of additional parking for the Cowper-Webster
Parking Garage.
B City of Palo Alto, Policy and Procedure 1-11
C Correspondence
~: Architectural Review Board
Planning Commission
James Baer, Premier Properties
Edie Oorosin, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Downtown North Neighborhood Association
University Park Neighborhood Association
C)(R,]92:0 6/28/90
Page 9
•
-....
~
:.-~
o
ATTACHMENT A
Letter from James Baer to City Manager William
Zaner (dated Hay 16 1 1990}. includinq:
o CMR:603:3 (December 1. 1983) and
o Ordinance No 3499.
-----....
-
./) ;(
_4tJ5$"ud?R.RTrES
• .. • .... .. I .. •
'."
i
Mr. William Zaoer
City Manager
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue
Palo Alto, California 94301
May 16. 1990
Re, Lease of Floors 6 and 7 k> be adde4 10 Parking lDt 1 and Development
of Qty HaD Pla.za
Dear Bill:
The purpo<e of this letter is to introduce. propo<al for the private development
and lease of two additional floor. of parking at 1..0< lloca.ed between University,
Hamilton, Webster aDd Cowper.
By way of ba(kground as 10 the present condition of L..i\( 1. we have ~ndosed a
~opy of the Staff Report dated December I, 1983 and Ordinance No. 3449 dated
December 19, 1983 by which the dev<loprnent of lDt J and its Planned Community
District were appcoved.
lDt J Parking Garage is • five·SlO<)" structure which consists of 416 .tans. One
slOI)' is subsurface and four are above ground. A P1anned Community Disuict was
necessary for .he configuration of .he garage. At the tim. of developmen. of the
garage it was engineered and buih so as SO accomrn<Xfate NO additional floors
providing 176 more parking spaces. The ~ .. rage was cardully designed so tha. !loon 6
aDd 1 ~ould be added without .«<camg the Oty's beigh' fimit of fifty ket
My group dcsiret 10 develop, ., our expense, and to lea .. for a 25-year period
floors 6 aDd 1 of lDt J ~onsistin& of 176 parking spaces.
Berore presenting the benefits of the proposed lease for the City and the
Down.""", community iI is important to desaibe the terms of the lease we propose.
. , •
\
,
.'.
--.I ..
_0-;-' . "!J<\
Mr. William Zaner
May 16, 1990
Page 2
o c
PROPOSED LI'A5E TERMS
1. Development At Tenant', Expense or Floors 6 And 7. ne Tenant will
pay aa costs of desjg~ engineering. permitting. fees,. financing costs and hard
construction costs foc construction of Floors 6 and 7. It is a~tic~pated that the costs for
these floors ",m exceed 52,000,000.
2. Seismic Upgrade Of R~mainder Q( Parlcing Stru.::lure By Tenant. ]n
conjunction witl! development of FIoon 6 and 7. the Tenant wm upgrade the existing
structure I!Ct comply with newly adopted 1988 Building Code seismic standards which
are more rigorous tllan tile 1982 standards in effect at the time the structure was built.
3. Maintenance Costs For Entire StnJcture Paid By Tenant. The Tenant
wiI1 .reimburse the City foe reasonable and ordInary mainlenan<:e costs foe the entire 7·
story stnJcture incluomg lignts., elevators" cleaning and striping. We do not know the
Cit,.-$ budget for maintaining the current stnlct1Jrc .. but .... e believe S20.000 is a
reasonable estimate. These costs are not paid for by the assessment district but are a
cOS! assumed atrectly by tlle City.
(. em Han Plaza To Be DeveMd At Tenanes Expense. Plans f.or
upgra.rmg City Han Plaza previously approved by the City CouDd have DO( bee.
implemented because the costs for repairing the P1au were. determIned to be LlCcessive.
The Tenant wm coordinate completion of the design of the approved plan subject 10
ARB final approval and will pay for and supervise construction of these improvements.
The cost estimates received b)' the City Cound were between 5350.,.(.100 and S5OO,000.
The Tenanl"s work. will include hardsc.ape, not plant materials,. irrigation, Of furniture.
S. 2S-Year Use By Tenant. The Tenanl wiD be granted a 25-yeor lease foc
Floors 6 aDd 1~ Weekends and weekday evenings after 6:00 p.rn.. the 6th aod 7th
Floors ... HI be availabfe for public parldng. AI the end of 25 years. the entire structure
will be returned 10 City use and cootrol
Analysis of Down!own Parking Need and
Benefits of the ~d • ease
ne parking problem in the Down.own is nO( merely a problem of perception.
Even since tbe adoption in 1986 ol the CDC down-zoning ordinan<:cs and the reiatively
minor growth sin<:e ]986. parkIng demands have increased signiflCantJy. Buildings. have.
•
\
; -'\c-_, '
";?
,_,..-1
'1"-~ I
.1
"
j :
-
---
Mr _ W~liam Za ner
May 16. 199()
Page 3
o
become more intensrve!y utilized with more employees per square foot than in 19S36~
and office vacancies in !lie coce Downlown·...m be less .han 1% by Ibe end 0( 1990.
For !hose who o/lice in buDoLngs which do nO( provide .he .. OWl! parking, it is
.. ell known thai mucb 0( !be parkIng problem is Ihc Jack 0( r.served or perm;, space.
avanable for employ.... AI this writing only Lot Q has permit spaces avanable, •• .d .
on most occasions no permit spaces are available.
Lot J .. hicb is !be most peripberal 0( City parking lots has now become .. 'CD
utilized, and with the completion and leasing of 50S Hamillon, Lot ] will be nearly f uD
on aD levels by the end ol 1990. One Counc~ m.mber bas repealeclly commen,ed
about how emp!] Lot J appears from his off",e window a' 525 University; in 1990 this
is no longer true.
Exaee rbating Ih. parking probl.m in 1990 will he rcn",'aoon and occupancy of
!lie 45,000 foot building at 529 Bryan, SlI •• , (the old phone comp'"y bUUOlllg) which
bas been vacant for over ten years. My group has commenced construction on this
proj.ct and bave arrang.d for occupancy 0( the building by the end ol 1990 by • majo<
~t""'" ernJ>k>y.r.
In order 10 .neviat. !lie parking d.mand cr.at.d by occupancy of 529 Bryan~
.. e propose developm<DI ol Floors 6 and 7 at Lot J. Th. user al 529 Bryant is a
technology user and, therefore. requires parking SOc employees, not for visitOfS as is
more typical of financial scmu users. By furt1ler dev.loping Lot J, parking could be
avaHable in the 1st Quaner ol 1991 shortly after occupancy ol 529 Bryan. thereby
minimizing th<o n.gativ. parking impact.
By having employe .. park in • peripheral 10< sueb 85 loI J, traffic and parking
cong.soon al the core ol Downtown is avoided, Pedestrian trips so and from Lot J so
the Bryanl Str •• , facility will enhance r.ta~ vitaEIy.
Public Benefits are summarized as rono .... 'S:
J. The Parking Deficil is r.duced by 176 spaces with neither the City nor
the .Assessment Dlstricl incurring 8[]Y expense.
2. Private ckvelopmeDt of the. two garage floors resurts in sigruf>eanl cost
savings by the strenglh oC the developer's relationships with engineers and contractors.
•
\
, .
.-" .
. ~
". >
"
••
-
Mr. William Zaner
May 16, 1990
Page 4
o
".-r
o
~. Priv",,: ckve\opmenl of II><: two garage fJoon saves the Cily significant
staff tim<:. Th.: cksign ftrm resporu.ible for supervising previous construction of Lo< J
will be relained 10 supervise construction on behalf of tb<: Cily.
4. Bond issuance costs are avoided throu~'l privat~ de.velopment of the: twD
garage floors.
S. The entire. Lot J stT\lCturc will be lIpgr.:lded in accordance with t1Jrrent
seismic and building codes.
6. The tenant will. assume financial responsibility for maintenance of the
entire. structlJre thereby saving the at)' signif>canl maintenance costs and enabling aty
resources 10 hi:: reanocated to other Qty priorities..
7. The two new floort of the ,arage will be open 10 Ille public on weekends
and cverungs..
8. Control of tb<: two new floort will return 10 the City and tb<: Assessment
District in 2S years.
9. The garage was designed k) accommodate two additional fl<:>cxs wtthoUl
exceeding tb<: I><:ight inti! of SO feet.
]Ct. Retail and pedestrian vitality are enbanced as IJsers of the: garage Vw'2Ik to
central DOwtHOWI> office locations.
11. Traffic and parking congestion in the OowntO\i.'D core are aVcHded by LIse
of peripheral parking.
12. The alternative 10 provi<fmg this parking 8! private expense is 10 issue
assessment crlStrlct bonds .... hich requires expense of grea! ell)' staff tUm, difficul!
relations with DovmtOWll building owners and merchants, significantly greater costs in
constructing 1M: larage .. and ,great time delay between the commencement of the
parking need and completion of nC'ol' parking space.. Because this a!!emative imposes
costs on building O'MDCrs and merchants, businesses within the Assessment Districl favor
lbe private ckvclopment of tb<:se two parking levels.
13. PriVa!.: ckvelopmeot of City Han Plaza saves grea! City .!aff time,
enhances City morale. and reduces COSIS of Plaza ckvelopmenL
. . ---L-
•
'\
-... .,..
-~
•
'-...
I
j
.. .
Mr. William Zaner
May 16. 1990
Plge S
-" _ ..
•
14. Development 0( City Hall Plaza wil! enhance pedestrian and retail vitaTIty
and ,.,;n (reate an important lathering place f<x public and cultural events.
15. City Han Plaz.a wil! be beautiful .nd fun.
Assistance With Defining the City Approwl Pf9!!'1!'
Our hope is Ibat parking can be made ava~ablc near in rime 10 occupancy 0(
S29 Bryant Strut wbich will be the 4th Quarkr 1990. To acbieve this result. efficient
management by our group 0( Ibe City planning process wil! be neces .. !),.
Approval 0( development 0( F100rs 6 .~.d 1 0( Lot J requires amendment 0( the
Planned Community Ordinance for Lot J as set forth in Ibe .ttacbed Ordinance for
Lot J. The Planned Community Zone Ord"mance (18.68) requires submission '0
Plannlng Commissio.." thea ARB, the 0 Planning Commission again, and finaOJ City
Council. Plans for the previous structweJ of course, 'Were fully debated and our design
foDows precisely the approved design. The process outlined • boYe takes close 10 six
months.. Is there any W3J that the amendment can involve a shortened process? The
process for amending a Planned Community ocdinance is no( ~t fonb by ordInance.
Can' an ordinance be amended by Cound action alone?
Approval by Ctty Councij 0( • lease involves a process distinct from the Planned
Community Ordinance Amendment. We propose tbat Ibe lease be submitted soon for
adoption by City Councij subject to the subsequent adoption 0( the Planned
Community amendment for Lot J.
Our hope is lhat City staff time can be minimized by: (i) our drafting the lease
for review by the City Attorney and Du-ect« 0( Rear Estate; (m) the Planned
Community Amend@ent sbould be straigbtforword (lbe original ordinance is only two
pages) requiring filtle Planning Staff analysis; (iiI) by retaining tbe ftrm previously
retained by the City for design and supervision 0( tbe structure, the BuilcJjng. Public
Works, and TranspotUltion Departments need DO( be overburdened.
If it. were possible 10 receive •• rly resper ... from City Cou nc~ as 10 the
desirability 0( Ibis proposal, and if process effICiencies could be considered by City Staff
and Counctlmembers, we wil! be prepared 10 scbedule construction for completion in
early 1991.
.; _ .
•
\
· .
Mr. Wdtiam Zaner
May 16. 1990
Page 6
o
J 'Io'ill call in a lew days.
o
Sincerely yours.
-
• . .
"n~~RARL~ CITY r.nUNCll
PaTo ~lto. Cali forni,
. .
tot ~ Parkf~g ~arage: (11 _ppro~al of PC ~Tan and
{11 SlI!'gt1est for [lire-ctlal'< on CalTlpTeting fine1 Oe'Sfgn
Metnhers. of the COllnCn ~
o
rile P1 anning COI'!W\'I;SS i or, ~,",d A.rcI'lHec-hiral 'R:eliiew AOdrd (ARR} have revip..,pd the
pla~s for , fiye-1e~el pariiog garage on ~owntown P~r\i~g tot J and recommen~
t~~t t~e 'ltJ Council approve them. A ~raft ordinance cM~ngin9 the zanlng of
t~e site from Pf {Public Facl1it11 to PC [Planned Cammunft,l a~d thereby
apprcv1Dg the plans is attacheda The ~R~ ~as ~a~e its ~pproval contingent on
~Rq reviev of final landscape and irrigatfon pTans~ perimeter and fnter;o~
lig~ting. an~ fence dp.t"'fng~
ihe attache~ Plannfng r.O~f55fon staff repart of October 28. 19 qJ. describes
the plans ro~ t~e parking garage. ~dditional imfor~ation on loading zones. the
<ost of tflf 'parting rgar.3g!. and alternatfve approa<;f)es to <Of'1plet1ng tI'Ie fir.a1
<0"5trll(.tioo dra";"gs are presentee! bE1ow. (Il"lforlf1atio<1 0" repTacerne:'lt park.irlg
du~in9 t~e construction of the parking garage is provided in a separate
repo~t. tMQ:611:3}.
It s.hou1>1 he elTl,pnasind tl'1at the ;-( pians. provfde f')r a ,clfl-spac.e. five-Te .. el
garage. wnicb 'WOuTcI be designed s(. tflat two mo-re lelfels call be added. if
dpsirea. i~ the future. The prQv~sfans fo~ two mo-re leve1s are reflected i~
t~.f.' strlJcturol' s,Ystp.m ll the resp..rvHfon of space for a seconcf e1f!vatt:lr. a:'ld ..
relate~ to t~at. eight fewer partlog sp~ces t~~~ ~ straf9htf~rward ffv~-1e~el
9arage "\o'Ou1d req.uire. "decfsiol'l to actuall.1 build those two arlditfonal lev'!!l;
wO'J1tf requfre an amenrunent to t~i!. pr; plan.
h lClP:2. the (H, Council Ipprove(J a canc~Pttial tfe~.ign fnr a ffve~level ga!"age
~it,. a"hout .. " S'p~c.u. one·P'!alf lr-.-el ur'Idergrountf Inrf .a "'eig~t of 4,l fpet. As
the dpsi9~ ~f the p~eliminar1 plans (or t~e garage 'has pr09ressed Qver the past
ii. ~ntf:ls. there lias been gro .... in~ interest ;a und"f·rgroundfng it least one
1 tv!!l ;., o~der to reduce t'l'lt height of tf1e garag~~ r" In October 15 .. lQ8,3.
f~ro~atio" staff repo~t {C~:540:) attacnedl. t~e (ouncil ~as ap~ri~d of the
Planning rommi5sio~·s and A~S's r~,onmentfation that the 9ar~ge ~ave one le .. el
unrlergrouruj and' the dechion to min'! (oNard wit" 1.'hat design.
,-...... , "
, .
•
-'-' .
:~,)
5~~>.
•
r: ' .. ....
·• 0
Tne NJOt" benerrts of under-grounding (lr1l! level Ire (1 ~ reduced tu:!igH (31
feet)~ ~n~ {l~ potenti.l for two additfQnal leve*s if. ;. the f~ture. it is
"eterll'\lned tJotal I Y.-ft10t building h sltitab1e fll" t"is lOCo1.ltion ..
loading Zones
TMe prl)pos~d parkinq gar.ge voultf utend into U'll~ 'portion of the parking lot
~;ch ~as tee~ used IS an unQfff(fal alley. (le~al1,. it is not I public
alley .. ) ~arbage trvc.s anct larger deli~ery tructs ~ill not be able to dr-iye
thrlJugh t~e buildin~ because of the lo~ ceiling ~i9~t a~~. therefore. cannot
~~ the site u s.erw~ the bullding'5 fro..,t ing on 'iniversitJ' Avenue.
In response to concerms txp~!ssed during the ~q8 review on November 3. the
fran ... .Portation Division has prep·oared iI 1111 an for -aading zones on Cowper ind
~bster Strp.ets tse~ .tt~cned ~lan}. AdditiDnal loadicg zones could be
proVl~ert on Dni¥erslt, Avenue and Tasso Street i~ the zane5 o~ Co~per a~d
~bster prowe ina~equate.
lr>al'fing fr"olll (11r"b'5.ife zones is less c.onvet1ient t'l the b'JsineSSfS than 1S
loarl'ing (rom the pr"~5t!nt partin!J lot. I'!owever". -.'he separatfon of large truc.e
~v~~nts fr"om pe~estrfan acti_it, around the ga~age 1S necessar"y for the
s~fetJ and secudt, or tfle pedestr-fans. Enhance~'lent of petfestrlan access fs
one of tne (;t, Council's approved parameters (or design of the g~rage.
Costs
The arc~itects (or the par"kiMg gar"age estimate t~at the garage ~;l1 cost S4.4
~illion to build. ~iti t'he cost per" sta11 being (10.579. A ffve-le¥~l garage
bUltt entirel, above ground ia the same configuration as t~e one propos~d ~o'Jld
h.a;ve <-nst ahOIJt ~ •• l1l1ln1ion. or SQ .. 7S.0 per spa~e. {An earl! estimate (0" a
garagll! ... itll ~n~ 1evel ur'lcferground 'Was 54.3 lIIilliQn [see Htache·1 Octoller 6
staff rE':>c,rtl. but that est\rn.!te di4f not intlude the provisions for addfng twc
more levelL)
The s"n.nnn increase rrc~ ~C.l1 ~;"f~n (the It·gra~~ ~esig~) to 54.4 million
{thp t)r"lp.:.level·undergr"otmd desfgn) incluces. bot" the ~dditional structural
costs fr~ ~nrlp.rgroundlng B~~ the cost of buildi1g lQ t~e provisin~s for two
more floors.
"lellgn Costs
The c~nt~.'t ~it~ t~ design ff~ Df Parsens Bri1<\e~hoff for t~is project
provided for e~penrlitures up t~ S4~9 .. 330. Of thlt amount. Slq.QOa was set
~~lde fer una"ticipated desi;~ <osts. 1~ or"~er t. complete the preliminary
ti}i1lnfO~ B garagt .it_ ant l~~tl undergrQund. it ba~ beeo necessar1 to spend
.. ' of th:e ~".ant1dpaled c1'esfgf1 C.OSU .. hav1"tg 1 balanc.e ill the fund f'lf
~.570. Thert ~ll 1'50 ht additional <osts (or completfng the construction
cfrawings becBtJs..!' Of tfle c!ec1s1M tt) go undergrou1d and beciluse of tt".e
prOY1510nS for id~itional lrvels. The amount Qr additional costs ~uld be
aP'lout "16 .. SiJt'J or ab.olJt S~.noO. dependlng on. ,,"hf.:.' of two approac'hes ls ta\en.
1211/81
1
\ ,
• .-
o
Onder t~p. first approach. costing S16~SOO. the consaTtants would prepare the
construction drawi~9s for five levels On1,. T~ere would be documentation on
lIo-r the f!,Xtensions and" cotH'lections wou'd be madl=-for the I~ditional tlolO le~'e1s~
I r iI the future the d'ec:fsfon is Nd"e to add tPfe two lellels ... consul ting firm
would ~aye to prepare t~e construction dra~ngs and bj, pac~age.
Under t~e second approac~~ costf~g $38.000. t~e con5~ltants would prepare
construction ckawi'ngs for a'l sevel3 lelfels. If at some pailt a dec.ision is
ma!!e to add two levels .. it "Would bl! a reiatflle1f simple matter to rev;e .... the
~lans and go out to bid.
If the Council wislles tr) leep open the option t) !:Ilj;' <1 I seven le\l'e1 garage.
the decision to build iA the provf~fons for the two f~ture lewe's must be md~e
now~ fhe cost of building in tho$J~ pt"ovisions is perhaps SlOO.OOO, a
5fgniffcant financial c'lmmitment. By comtlarlsol'l. the cost of com~leting the
constr~ctio" driNings rOf" a11 ~ve'l levels r~cond approadl] DOW" is small at
S3B.OOO~ Howe'ller. H f'i not neees'jary to lIal;e tne ("ommitmer:lt te acttlall,1
buildi~~ those t~ levels. ~ic~ F·~~aration of tn~fr final ~t"awings at tnlS
time l1i9ht signal~ There ilre cirC'lmstar'lces arguing for delayfng tnat
(feci 'So i on:
0] .A s.evel'l-level ~arag~ would be ;0 feet fligh. The purDos.e of und€r-ground'n~
ene level o,f the five-level garage -was to reduc~ the heigl'lt of tne builtlf!'l9 il!l
relatfol'll to its surrourdfngs. ni i relationsl!.,-p is unl ikel,. to c.,ange ir'l the
near fwtun'~ f2}.Altho<Jg1I t'fle neet fOr additional parking spaces dOWTltown has
beer. fill l~ documer:1ted' .. the 1 itel" level of ~s-e of 592 spaces (the number
provided i~ a se'llen-level garage) i~ t~is 1ocation ~as not been ascertaine~"
The envfronme~tal impacts-of the 176 additional spaces {S92 ~inus 416 is 176)
has not been assesse~.
Assuming that the ,':ouncil d1oo~s the first approac"'. construction drawin9s
.. ill co~t $16 .. 500 more than was a"ticipated. Alt~ougn the."e is S6.S7'O
remafaing fof' unanUcipater! desi9n, costs, staff prefers that tilose funds. ~
reserved for Uleir irltended pU1"pos!' Of .,eeting ·unanticipated" costs. The
516.500 ca" be obtained from the contingency funds whic'" ~re estdb1isftet1 for
Ui'S prOject. Pay,ne~t to the archit!l;'ct wilt be authof'ized' tnrough a contract
cllar.ge or!!er. Because H,e C<lntingenc, funds "'j!.lIe been appropriated b'y the
Council~ a budget adwanee is not required~
Reeommendatfon:
Staff recomm~nd's that the CH.1 (ounci l:
1. At'fopt the ilttacned Ot"dinanct appro\ling the change of lone district of
Par-ifng let J (rolll iJF to PC; and
1. Cirect staff to fmp1emeDt • contract change order .mic} adds up to Sl£.~DD
to tne contract with Parsons Brinc.erhcff so that t~e final c<lnstruct;on
duW'ings call enco~ass .. five-lewel garage "';tllt on'! level underg1"ound and
vit~ ,provis;cn.s for an additional t ... "O 1e'llel s~
C~P';503;3 1211183
3
•
, ,
•
o
v . I~ ,
(Jl!f»1"'(u I Ytd.U1A1--' /14" L<L~ S (..;"'[.c.,
LY~'IE 'Il'l~NA
F.xec~tfw! Assistant
JllNE fLE"'l Nr"
~ssistant Cft~ ~nagp.r
k[.NET~ t. S(KREIR(~
Director of ~lannin~ an~
(oll'.1Ii..'nit" {A'WfrMl?Ient
AttacP'urlent 5~ Draft Or~inan,e Cha~9in9 Zcrre District from Pf to PC
~p I~entifying toadlng Zones
St.ff Report.: October 6, lQA3 (C~,54D:31
!Plans
cc: Jeff o.ut~erford
r/ic. ... ard" Penningt,on
Mal'lel'1r1ra HenU
.'olln .. Peggy WadlelalStf
JIIjcl'lael "one"
JarJ\E!5 It .. Oicl:son
nrl!'P)s Alltler
Te:! Jllrtge
Th01'l.1 5 Forbll!S
Laurtl rwtt~~a~
001'1 Sur-aU
Ll;&th:r Fergusnn
Sy~ <;,nit'
Steve Jal"'Yls
~i 11 e."yxb-ee
(Fluel(; r. hmey
Warre n t'"-o H s
nQ~nt~wn ~ito Alto~ [nc ..
na .... id JtJr".1
(l'llJei; Ed'l!lsteh
Eloise 'Swit"
J')e 1 Se CC I)
t I"'p.ne .. iii Iii ar-Sal flens
r. .. lathr~1l
(lwi5 , ~ut_ Fr~pwell
laura Fucci
,1~udi~ Reajamll
non Va,.
tail Rradle),
Etfg<1,. rJg! ,.te
Tetf Noguc1l1
("":~n]:~
nttober 2~. 1983 (ptannf"g (ammTssio~)
1>1113) •
--,,'-
'J,»"
:~~
:t
:~. -.:
r
f , i ..
f ' 'ie,;
~ :
~:
, , • t
f ,
i ,
f r , i;;' , ~
f
I
I
t
_fbLY
o o ORIGINAL,
UitOINANCt:: NO.. 3C'=1Oj
U«OINMCt: Ut" T~t:; COUNCIL 'Of' TtlI:': CITr Of PALo ALTU
Mt:"NDHH,i; St::C"flUN lB. Ott. 04u (JF '1111:: PAW AL.1'U I1lJNI C [
PAL cvoe (Tt::Il:: ZONING MP) TO CHANtiE THE t:"LASSU·IC .... -
T1Ulli OF PRUP£ttTY I(NU'WN kj PARKING Wf .J (JI'IITE/UUR
OF aLOCX BOUNOI:'::D !lor lmIVI:;KS1"I'f" tiMILTUN ... COWP.t:}(
AND WEl:J.ST£R) FROM. fF TO .PC
The COt.Jncil Qf th~ City of Palo Alto cbo!s u.kDAIN DS foJIollis:
SECTION J .. Section 18 .. 0tL040 of t.he Palo Alto lIu'nicipal Cod..:,. tho::
·zonln..,}1'I.ap· ... is n~r-eb1' amen-ded by Cha:n·lJin<J the z.oninIJ of certain lJcOol.J
ert7 'known DS Packing Lot J tintecio.c of block lJound\!'d by Universitjl ..
Mamilton,. COlo/pee an-d w~bster:-l from H" tPlJblic t'acilit)' Oi:stcicl' to PC
(Planned Comll .. J .... ity District) .. Said prol>ect)' is ~tH:l''''n on 31-d\.;ip at.tached
~ereto as Exhibit ·A· and incorpocatect h€rein ~y r~t~rence.
S£~TION 2.. Tbe City Council hereby tLnds ~it~ respect to the sub
ject property that:
•• The site is so situated# and ~he u~e ~ro-
posed fo-r the site is ot su·ch a Chara.cteriStic that
the CIIp";)lica'tion of general districts -oc combir1.ifl<,}
-distcicts .-ill nOt provide sufficient tle.dbilily
to alloW" t.he proposed developm-=ot in. that a lI1t.Jlti
sto·('y parking ~araIJe,. .... hich has beell id<r2'nti t iilC"d as
it major pYblic need OiJIHtlto...-r..o .. cannot ~ constcuct.:!,j
.. ithin. t.hi! restrictions .of other z-onin·~ clas:si.t:i.ca
tioos.
b. De'Velo~ment or t.he sit"" unuer lht! p,ovi.-
sions of the Plann..:d Community District ..,il1 r-E:sult
in VUb1ic benefits not ot.herwist' attainabl~ bY' dlJ
plicatior') of 'the celJulations of 9<r2'neral d'i:5tricts
or combinin.g districts in. that it providt!s rna:J:ilOum
public re ... ie..., of t.he do::osigr') ,Pcoc.:!ss fo[" tt.e pack ing
garage .. a project ~bicb needs car~ful attention to
th~ ~ay in ~bich its design is i~te~rated into its
5ur-rou.ndiny-s.
C.. Tbe use .. and lh~ site fkv~lo'1)ml!nt r-e'JuIa-
tiC>fl.s applicable within the distl'ict is consist.ent
'I,dtho the Palo AIlC\ Com~reh.anslve ,plan,. and is co,n
pi!tihle 'Witl'l. e .. isti.r'k) and vo·tenth.l 'Uses on o5djo1,,
inq sites oc ... ittlin the ~eneral \llc:Inity ill that it
... ill 'prollid~ lA'tolic parkinQ foe thIS' commercial use
1m. the area and its heLI~ht Clnd bulk ""ill be n\JI
9r~atec than that a1JO' .... ed on tl"le adjacent 1Jro~r
tiltS.
"----------, -~---
•
: ;-
''1'>-,
',~
.-
• d.. The
the i?llbl ic
welfol['e.
Chan\,ie of
intere.6t ..
oistricl is
convetll~l"'I..¢~
Q
r~ ... uirerj tor
ano ~en.~c41
•
S~t,::·UUN l. The ""lar. entitled -Lot IJI Parldn~ Gar,,'::IIc-attdchel1
hereto "5 £ .. hiDi!:. -a l COnst itytes the dl3:yel~lr'Ient. k'l&n· and is inC'o·r
p<>t'.t~C1 hecein by c¥terence. Said d~\lelop",crJt ~lar. is 'V.t-'cQvt.-d 1-'ur
sI,u:nt to Section 18.68 .. 120 of tf.e fal~ Alt.o "l.In.i:cipal Coae .. 5ubjt!ct to
the fol1owin,'1 C"on-ditions:
4. ~
Allo~abla U$~S shall ~ limited t.o public
parle in9"
lmprov~m~nts consist of • fi\le-le~el
parkin~ 9ara'Je and site iltlprOVerllellts (o1utO and
pedestc illr. cl ["culation, lan4scapi 1'\9. 1 ight i n'.l.
bicycle parkir,g). All improvem~nt.s and delo'elo'ym-.:nt
shall be subst~nt.ial11 in accottJance """ittt ttl-=-a.~-
pro",e~ developrnenl;. plan, ___ ith all a.,..plicable codots
arKS ccdinances, and ""itt! the cequicements or the
Director of: P\l.blic wo,,\.sJk::n~inee['.f.nr~~ t.t'\~ Uirecto["
oi Utilities .. and the Cbi'e:!f of the Palo Alto ."ir-a
Oe~artlrl~ot ..
.c.. CteVI:'! lopment Sl:-hedule
ConstCl.lctio.ll shall beyin
l'!lS~ aM be COrn .... leted .. ithin two
date ..
b¥ JCinudry f.
yellrS of that.
SEC-HON .f.. Th~ Council find:; that this project -wi.11 ha .... e no
significant adverse e~~ironjn~ntal impact.
:)1::C'rloo ~. This ocdinan,ce shall become effective up.o~ the COjO
~encement of the thl~ty-ficst day aft~r the dat-a of its passJ~~~
PAS~~D~ Det~mbeT 19, 1983
AlES: eet~tel. Cebb .. fletcber. lleia, l~.,. Rtft2t). Witht~spoo~
'N~"'S; lIofte
ASs'I£N'TIU'N:i: E),erl"
A~SENT: rlzzi~o
2.
:
-._j-'
"'-'
I
I
1
o o
1.
" ..
". "
o o
ATTACHMENT B
City of Palo Alto Policy and Procedure 1-11
'. '
, ,
o o
\
"
EFfECTIVE: io,ember 24, iggl
POlICf MD PRocrDU!ES 1-11
Page 1 of 5
Nowem"bfr" .. 1981
LEASED USE OF (ITY LAND/fACiliTIES
POlleT STATEI£lr
A. p",r-post! of Tl!lis I'olic),: The pUl"'pose of tlth pol ic,. is to ensure that deci
SiOrlS regardfng "'51! of (;t1 propert1 are made in tne b~st fntere!.ts 0·( the
citfzens and ta~paJer5 of Palo Alto~
B~ Polfc1 Statement: DeyeTopment and operation of factlities ay othErs (profit
and/or nOll-profit entities on Cit1-owmed propert, ts apprO'pdil~e onl.1 ~en
SUc~ d'e'olelopment and operatfon ... i]1 further public '!,lSi! or prcyid~ 3 public
benefit.. Suel::l facilities Inc! operations must be conSlstent wit" existing eft" poHcfes. plans. services and/Of" procec1ul"'es. Open (ompetfthe and/or
Ilid processes. Wi 11 be used' to soHc it proposals Of" provide oppodunities to
others ~rfo~ to awarding an Opt~on to Leasea T~is palie1 s~al1 nat apply to
short term interim Yeases where ~o signfffcant ~~ange in use is propo~eda
lII'lEllEnATlOII fJf POLICY STATEMl:IT/amUIA fOR PERIIInJ~G USE fJf (Ill PROPERTY
BY OWRS,
Aa The proposed' 1ease use must bf co~atibte wit~. jncidental to. 11"\.1(0"-S'';,Da
porthe of. tP1e primary public wse af the C;t.1-0wned propert.11 eag. a snack
s.tand ira I District pari:. the pro-s.hop and ~offee s.hop at the SoH Course.
et~. ]~ the event of Park dedicated land, the_p~oposed wse shall be cafisfs
tent with ttle provision.s ()f the Pari: Dedication requfrements set fortn ill
Article rIll of the (hortfr .od PI10 Alto l'!u"iCip.1 Code (PAMel Sections
22.04 and' 22.08 eta seq • ..tIfeR requirES tfrlat uses. of park ded'icated land be
part, playground. retreatfon conservation related' wses.
B. 1m all cases where there are signiffcant Ippf"oval requfrements (signlfica:'1t
tenant construction and/or rehabilitation). financfng: requirement5 (fund
rahing drives. obhiAing fftlar,cfng from lend1"ng institkltion5 etc .. ) .. 01'"
ctJler tenant pre-operation conditions. the CouncH shall award an ODtion to
lease settfn9 fOf"'t-'t all pre-construction!operation ccndftfons is pre-cand'i
tfans to the ter_antls obtafillfng the Tease. The option term s"'all onl, be
for J reasonable period of time consistent ~t~ the naturf of the conditions
of the ap,tion.
C. AppH'cations for suell wse s'hall provide tt'le fcllowing f!:lfof"R'1atfan. I~ addi
tfon. prior to awarding an Option to lease fOf" I speciffc wse. consfderati~n
5nall be given to thes.e ite1f1S (s.pecific epplicatfon and the relative impOf"
tancE of eacl!l of the folla'Wing eonsfderitions. ~i11 war)' fralt site to site
and hI speci'ft ~ses purposed).
"L
the extent to 'If;fch tfle prQ,posed lelSf use u.tfsffes I public {;at! ••
sfgn1ffcant rll.lITlber of '.10 Alta residentrs ar,d tax"jy~r's} need for the
proposed ~rwices and/or wses;
,-~--"-_._-
•
.",-, -,-
--:-'.'
, .
"
..
t ~
,I
1
I
1
.1
, .,
l
,
I ·:]i~0"··
•
EFFECTIVE: Nov~er 24, 1981
o
1'01l tv ANO I'ROCEDURE S 1-11
P.g" 2 of 5
November, 1981
. ' \..,
; ,
• conslstenc, of the p.-opo,.d .S! wit~ e,f,tlog CHi go.ls ard objectives
(s.t fort~ I. the Compreheosfv" Plan. Zonfog Ordln.nce, MIInlclp.l Code.
and !ilenerll JIIunf(.fpll services 'Objectfves);
.. conSistenc1 of the proposed US!! wit'" existfng Fhns for the property or
fatllitl (e.g. an Ij>p.-oved JIIast., Phn};
.. t"e filpact of the proposed wse {compatible servfcu and' uses. traffic
fmpacts. ,"~fse iapltts. ener91 conserratfon. etc.) en:
o the fmmedlate nefg~borhood
o the community generally. and
o ttle envfrorur.ent (ttle proposed" Tenal'lt shall. durin; the Option period.
satfsf, t~e CftlrS Environment a' review process)
.. the degree of public access. including Cit1 shared' use of the faeilitJ or
co-sponsorsPlf, of programs anrJ/or services. i.e •• the r:umbers. of peDple.
espechll1 '010 Alto resfdents ard taxpayers, that will be served ~J' t~e
propo~ed use andlor senfce (ft fs the general fntent of the Cfty to ma.f
lIile ,Public access to-fts facilitfes and s.ery',es ... espe{;fall, if park.
land Is fnvolved);
-the fee. that will be charged to fllo Alto citizen. (It Is the fntent of
the Citl to provide pubU< atcess to its "cllitle. It p.-foe. and!or fee.
that are fafr and' reas.onable to the pLlbl Ie. [a the cue of park'lnd's. 11'1,
fees and c.harge'S slIoulrI be mir;fmlJi'l1 and should' be consistent ..,tPJ tfle fees
end charges of comparable Cit1 provfded servIces.);
• the .cnetar1 constder.tion t~ be provided to the (it1;
• the \fstor, and assessment af tfle proposed group"S abflttJ to carr, out
the construction. if any. Ind operation af the facl1lty and servkes as
proposed •
• five-1!ar prc-for~a financial analYlfs of the proposed wse settfng fcrth
the project revenues and e~pen~s for thfs ~rlQd of time~
D. Prior to .~ardfng an nptfon to lease (or Leese If t~ere are no pre-construc
tion or pre-operatfon coru1itfons). the Cit" slull provil1e I reasonable and'
I..pp"oprhte opport~m1tl to otfler group'S or entitfes to respond to possible
use of Cit~ facilitfes. Such relsonable a~a appropriate opport~nitfes s~a1l
tlke Doe of the followfng f~,:
1. A Rotfee Df IDte~t to Award an Vptfon to lease (or lelse if there ar€ no
~t-tonstructfon of operation cond;tions) gener.ll" outlieIng the condi
tions of ttle (lptton end luse. ~aH 'be published dan, for one wee< in
the Peofo •• " n .... Trib"oo and twice 10 t~e hID Alto ""okl,. Tne
lIIot;,! sh.11 provide at Jeast 30 da]'s notice to the public pr;o~ to a
public hearing for Council .cHon to award' tfle Optfon to lease.. hi
Iddit1on. cDpfes of the noHee s1l111 be lIal lea to resfdentfal propert,
~:i.i:; ; lIt n 'r::P
I •
,
-
•
l
!
•
\.,
i·
o
[FfECTlVE:: No,ember 24, ~81
POLICY AND PROCEDURES 1·11
Page 3 of S
_o~emb~r. 1961
,
.""ers f. "fcord..". wltll Section 18.90.20 of the IIunlcipal Co~e.
6ener-a1l1. thh Flotice and" Plearing process Shill be itse~ when Ue 'pro-_
posed' user h I. non-profit group .Pr-oposl~g I spec1ffc USI! pr-oviding a
significant· pubHc benefit and' -.fl.en ft APpears that tfl.!·re are no (lt~er
competing users. ~ For 111 sihitfons. the 'o110,.-1n9 process ~hall be
used ..
z... A Request For Proposah. will be sent t~ gro~ps or entities lHel] to
~a~e an interest i~ subm~tt{n9 a proposal sutsequent tD • publfc hearfng
Inc! Notice of Intent to .'l:eQues.t Proposals being publishEd' in tt1e appro
priate medh.. At I IIlfNfmum. the Notice Df Re~uest for Proposals st1a11
be annou~ed (~ t~e Penf~s~la Times TTibune Ind the Pa10 Alto WeellJ and
caples of the notice mailed to resfdential propertJ owners fn accor~ance
wit~ SecHoo 18.90.20 of the ~"nrclp.l Code. Tne Notice s~.l1 l"'o,ide
at lust 30 days notice to the public pdor to a pubHc hearing for
Council action approving solicitation of proposals.
The costs of complyfng witlll the above not fce proced'ures shall be borne by
the suc:cessflll proposer and such sum sf'la1} be due and payable upon tne
e'lilardfrtg of the Option of lease (or lease. if there are no 'Significant ,,,"e·
operation conditfons to be satfsffEd' bJ the Pr'opOSf:!r]. The public not fce
procedure is outlined i~ [x~ib\t A.
(. ConstrLK:tion of tenant improvements shall onl, take pt~ce after l1avln;
re.ceived (ouncH . approval (as well IS PI !Inning C01T!l11ssf,on and ARB approval
wflen -otherw1se req.uired by eft1 procedures) if plans fer suclll tenant pro·
pos.ed (.onstructfon.. Jill the event of pari dedi,cated lands. CO\lnc:H approval
shall be '.1 Ordinance subject to referendum (PAHC Section 22.08.005 and
22.oe.OO6}.
f.. Tenant sJlal1: be req1Jlred to provide eft" wit'" adequate compens~t ion for t~e
rfgl'1ts granted bJ Citl to thE tenant. Oetenrl'fnation of lPPf'Opriate consi-
deratfon s),all begfrll 'With the estfmate~ flfT l1arket rental '''lue of tf'le !
lease premfses for the lIs.ed pf'<:lposed. Consideration s'f'lall. Mwever. ~e ~
given t~ non-monetar, benefits to be pro~1ded ~1 the tenant. Thes.e propo~d .
non-~neter1 ,pu'blfc benefUs lIu-St be Clelrl'f artfCII1arted and l'W!it provfde a:'lf. f'.
ec:tu-!I t benefit to I significant porHon 0 the eft lens and taxpayers 0 f
,.10 Alta.
6. T~e felse term s~al1 be the ~imim\lm perIod of the time req.uired to:
-amor\fze tenantts investment in anI permitted' end appf""c\led tenant con
strlKtion; and
be consfstent wit~ the nature of the prop~sed tenant operation.
t:I. 6eneri1t,. improvements to the real property shall become the property of
the (H,. upon terlllP\atfon Of the lease. Tenant provided f\lt~res shall
remaf. the propert1 of tne Tenant.
r·
•
, .
. .... ,' ..
.-.J
1
I
-
I,
,.
o
•
o
'Cl.ICY AIIO PROCEOUI!ES 1-11
'.g. C of S
[ffECTIYE, No.ember 24. 19B1 lo.embe,. 19BI
PUBlIC .oTIC{ PROCEDURE/PROI'DSAl.S rd! lEASU USE Of CITT lAHOffAClllTnS
On No,emb'T 23. 1981. ~. C1t1 Council Idopted • pollc, regarding le.sed 'so of
(Il, hnd/facllitles_ TO!. polICI requires I public h .. ,lng and public notifi
Cltlon of sud heartng h ICcorlfonce wlt~ SoctfO" 18.90.20 of t~e ~",jcip.l
Colfe. Folloofng Is t~e procedure to 'he followed for such notlffe.tlo" •.
I. Applicant must pro.lde the Citl Re.l (st.te 01.I,!on with!
A. A Zon~ of Interest ~p'showtng the propert! p~opos~d to be leased b] the
applicant/proposer 1114 showin; 111 parcels or propel"'tfes w1t!lt'i~ I c1is
tance of 90 meters (300 f.et) frC!l the exterIor bound"i .. of the su~
jeel propert,. TO!s map can be obtaIned from the Department of Publi,
'Wtx"h .. Engineering D;,hion. at titie Center. 250 Hamiltor!: Avenue.. If
.nore thlr'\ 1 lIap is required to 5'how tne lOfle of Sr:ltel"'est. applicar1t!
proposer l'IU'St combfne the maps into one lIIap of not II'Ore t~II!f'l IS* I 30"
s'ze.
8. A 1f51 of street ,ddresses. by ~lock. for .1' properties .nt~~~ t~e zone
of interest. fof' ex a.m.,1 e:
Street Warne
BrYtmt Stree-t
Hami lton Avenue
Addresse~ Zip Co~e
100 thTou9~ 251
20 3 thro u9~ 373
94301
94301
In the eve~t that tne eft1 is the proje~t propo~ent of $u~h leased use.
the sponsorfng' Cit,1 cJepartment/lShh'on. e.g. Department of 5o<:fll1 and
COfllllunU, Serv'c.es. w111 pro~icfe t"'15 1nformatfon to tfle Real Estate
Dhfsfon.
c. The n&~s 'nd addresses. {ncludin~ lf~ codes for eac~ parcel or property
owner wit~i. the 90 ~ete' (300 feet) ,on •• f fnte,e,t properl, typed on
&dhes'vt ~a'lfng labels. Tne IRspectfonal Ser~ices Division can provide
a so~ce for suc~ ad~re5ses.
Jr. To ensure that notices lrll1 be ~ailed to tenants I~ well 1$ owners. the Real
[state niwisfon ~11 provide Dati Processing wit~ the liS\ of Idd~ess~s p~o
rHfed ill I.B. abo..,e and re~u!st .,ai1fng labels for all wtilitJ ICCOunts
c~lrged to these addresses.
UHISIl A.
•
•
o
EfFECTIVE: Novemeer 2e, ISSI
o
jlq.ICl MD l'1IOC£DIJIl£S 1-11
loge 5 of S
Novem~.r, 1981
\
III. T~e ftllling lIsts s"ner.ted by f. an4 IJ. tbo •• .nl! ~e •• &mlned for ",cuc·
tc;, and to eH .. I •• t. lfupHc.tlon. An¢ notice. the .... Iled ly the Real Estote
Dlvlsfon. fa the e,ent th.e the proje~t f.l1$ vlt~l. the j.rtsdictlon of an
operltlng clepartmeot, the operating (ity deparbllent/4hhlo •• e.9. Oepart·
Mnt of Sochl 10" C_unltJ Services. for recreational ·project., ";11 per
fona these fu.ctlan ••
If. The newspaper a6vertlsment ,ono""clng the public ~ •• rln9 sh.l1 be preparea
and placed bJ the •• al £st.t. Cf.I$IOO vit~ the .,sistance of the oper.ting
~.parboent. If on1. Involved with the proj.,t.
,. COlts of (.Oltljlllin9 ";t~ this p"bllc not ke proct'du'e shall ~. ~o.ne by the
sUCCesst.1 0»911,00t ex,tgt ""en the Cltl Is toe projetl prO!,CM"t I • .ml'~
ease tnf sponsO~rn9 department s~all 6e~r $UC~ co~t$.
UHIIIl A
•
,
o
ATTACHMENT C
Related Correspondence
o
i
t r
!
, ,
-
o Chapm~ & Wilson, Inc.
1350 TREAT BllID . 'SU~TE ~
WALIIIUl CREE':. CA &<1596
TtL ~'Si 933·14050
fAA \415) 5133·1404
.June 19, 1990
Mr. ~ Sdu:eiJJer
Dizectct"
Department of Pi~ an:! Url>an Envit<nnent
City of Palo Alto
250 !!amil tm AvenJe
Palo Alto .. CA 94301
RE: tease of FlOO1"§ 6 and 7. ParkfM lot jJ
Dear Hr. Sdlrelller:
REAt. ESTATE t'NVESTI.!ENT!l DEIl'ELOf'i.oIENT
I am me of the partners of tile partnan;hlp which """'" the I11ilding
locate:S at JOO Onive.rsity AverlUe in the ~ pa:rki.Ig as sxrent
district.
J;:a Baer has descril:>ed to us his ~ fa: ~~lng floors 6 an:! 1
of tile Parlcinl [Dt. J (~ to 176 adiiticnal stalls} at his e><penSe.
We umexstord that in adiiticn to p3yirg foe these uwer floors and
lIBintain1ng all seven floors of the pa:rki.Ig o;tructure, Hr. llaer will
provide significant capital illprove!rents to City Hall Plaza. Foe these
benefits, the City is asked to provide a 25-year lease of the """ floocs
6 an:! J of [Dt. J.
We ~ the City to ~ this qenerous proposal. With the
anticipate::! renovaticn and ocaJpOnCy of the 45,000 feet of 529 B<yant
Street after ten years' vacarq. Kr. Baer's prop:osal to alleviate the
increased parldnq danard is creative on:!,.,. ">ry. If the City does noc
ao::Ept. this parldnq lease ~, the b.mIen a'I pa:rki.Ig in the core of
the ~ near B<yant su-t an:! thiversity Averue will be<x»e
intolerable, daJzIagirq retail and offioe owners and users.
S:iro!rel.y,
QC: Mr. Janoes E. Baer
-Cc'L -----" --:----""" ---" -"'-"
•
i
,
!
'. ':'~
r
I
i
t
1
1
.. _. . .
;-.
~'E. MacGREGOR & cD
.June 19,. 1990
!f...r~ kennetb Scbreiber
209 CO'«'1'Dl"$l"1l1.:ET
PAJ..CI.4J.."JO..CA ~l
(4") 32U3()5
Director,. Department of Planning
City of Palo Alto
250 Bam1lton Avenue
Palo Alto .. CA. 94)Q1
RE: Baer Proposal on parking Lot J
Dear Hr. Scbreiber:
I am a ~o-owner of 42Q Florence Street in t~e downtown parking
distr[~t. Jim Baer has explainEd to me his proposal to lease Parking
Lot 3. constru~t floors I) and 7. and provide funds for ~apital i.mpro\'e
!Dents to tbe City Hall Plaza. I believe bIs proposal bas merit and
can vor~ to tbe publlc~s ~enefit. It deserves tbe City'S full cou
sideration.
$lnc.erely.
#..f?--
Steven •• Pierc.e
~~: Jlm!.aer
•