HomeMy WebLinkAbout0411.000. "
• •
~. 10
\
"< "" '. ,
July 12, 1990
HONORABLE CIT~ COUNCIL
Palo Alto, California
PLANNED COHHUNIT~ ZONE CHANGE AT 529 BR~ANT STREET AND 251
UNIVERSITY AVENUE: File Nos. B9-ZC-l , • and 89-ABB-27S
Members of the council:-
Council action is r~quested on the proposed rezoning of two
properties from Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian and Ground
Floor District overlays {{CO-C (GF) (P)J to Planned Community
(PC). The Architectural Review Board on a vote of 5 to 0
recommended approval of the building design elements and the
requested PC zone. The Planning commission on a v~te of 5 to 2
reoommends approval of the zone change.
As described below, this application involves significant policy
issues related to 1) the level of public benefits appropriate to
the zone change and 2) treatment of the through alley on the
south side of 529 B~ant Street.
PROJECT DESCBIP1'I2N:
Premier Properties, represented by Jim Baer and DES Arcbitects~
has proposed rezoning two properties, 251 University Avenue and
529 Bryant Street, to Planned Community (PCJ zoning. The PC
zoning is requeste~ in order to eliminate the ground floor retail
requirement at 529 Bryant Street, and allow the retention of
2,520 square feet of basement area at 529 Bryant street that
would otherwise have to be eliminated since the building already
exceeds a 3 to 1 Floor Area Ratio. Basemen~ floor area of 2,520
square feet will be sealed off at 251 University Avenue and the
building seisDically upgraded as tenants and vacancies permit.
BAg;GROQNO:
• on June 13, 1990, the Planning Co~ission, on a 5 to 2 vote,
recommended approval. with conditions, of the rezoning: of the
properties at 251 University Avenue and 529 Bryant Street to
Planned community zones. On a vote of S to 0 the ARB recommended
CMR:411:0
I ,
r
I
i ,
t ,
•
, , ~-.
w" 11
•
< ,
/ ~~-:'---i~,c~~~-,o:,"""w''''--~~--''':-'l'
approval. with conditions. of the design of the project.
(Attached 15 the staff report to the Planniug Commission dated
5/25/90, vhlch includes the ARB minutes and Information
Xemorandum. )
The Commission specifically eKcluded any condition for additional
public benefits Incilldinq the staff supported recommendation, and
applicant's initial proposal. tor improvements to the Civic
Center Plaza, or the applicant's alternate proposal for recycling
containers. The improvements to the Civic center Plaza ~ould
have provided for construction of steps, planters and seating on
both Bryant and Ramona Street frontages at a cost not to exceed
$150,000. The recycling container proposal. which ~as presented
by the applicant at the second: Planning Commission meeting on
this applicatiOfl, would have provided approximately $40~OOO for
use to purchase recycling trash receptacles for downtown
businesses. (The .inutes of the June lJ~ 1990 Planning
Com.ission meeting are included in the council packet.)
The commission also retained a condition for landscaping in the
alley, vhich staff opposed.
Commissioners Huber and CUllen opposed the motion on the basis
that aQditional public benefits should be required in order to
obtain the PC zoning; that pcls such as this were intended to
incorporate public benefit in the adoption of the City's Downtown
regulations; that the applicant vas in the best position to know
what was -too Jluch-; t.hat it vas a Council, not Commission ...
policy decision as to wbether an applicant vas offering -too
much-public benefit; and that the applicant clearly thought the
project could financially support these benefits or he would not
have offered them.
The project had been previously revieved and recommended for
approval by the Architectural Reviev Soard on April 19 and May 3,
1990. The ARS supported inclusion of improvements to the Civic
Cen~er Plaza and also supported additional landscaping in the
alley_
The ainutes of the Planning commission meeting and the Planning
Commission staff report6 dated Kay 25... 19S0~ are attached and
provide additional information and backq.ound.
ISSUES OF CONCERN:
Provision of Public Benefit:
The primary issue before the Council is what constitutes
acceptable public benefit for this type of project located
JG/1990/AJCHR529BR
CHR:411:0
",.'.'
2
t •
r-' '
t
!
, .
-
, ,
in the downtown area.
Tbe majority of the Planning Commission has differed with
the ARB. statf and the applicant sa to what is appropr-iate
public benefit for this PC rezoning, particularly as it
relates to downtown amenities. The Planning Commission felt
that the provisions to either improve the civic center Plaza
or provide for recycling oonta!ners was onerous and not
commensurate with the approval received by the applicant.
Tbe commIssion thouqht that re-use and retention of the
historic buildinq~ Ybicb bad been vacant for a period of
years. along with the alley improvements, street tree
improvements~ ~nd the removal of future 6quare footage at
the secondary location, vas sufficient public benefit.
Staff believes that the combination of requested actions
removal of qround floor retail. retention of 2 1 520 sq~are
feet of fl~r area, and allowance for the floor area to
exceed the maximum ) to 1 FAR --is sufficient to require
the provision of public benefits beyond conditions that
would otherwise be placed on a conventional ARB-approved
remodel of the building (i.e., preservation of the historic
building facade, alley improvements and street trees). In
particular, staff believes that the original offer of the
developer to make improvements to the Civic Center Plaza
will offset the loss of the qround floor retail, wbile
provIding a nearby amenity for the added employees created
by the rezonIng.
FUrther information is contained in the May 25 r 1990 r
Planning commission Staff Report on pages 2 and 3.
A11ey Improvements~
The extent of the improvements to the alley is directly
related to the issue of whether or not this alley is
considered as a service alley or a pedestrian alley. This
issue has not reached a consensus in the public forum. The
urban Design Committee is studying the alleys and generally
believes that this alley ~ill become more pedestrian
oriented in the future. Staff is concerned that the alley
·is currently a service alley and that the desiqn and
materials should reflect that status. rn addition, as a
service alley, the scope of the illprovements to be
considered as public benefit is reduced.
The applicant has proposed to use materials in the alley
that will be similar to the alley at 25-0 University Avenue.
He also has proposed to take maintenance responsibility for
JGj1990jA/CKR529BR
CMR:Cll:O 1
•
i
.. •
" r ,~ I :>
, , ,
I
:~
-
'1')-
f ,-
1 .
!o 0"
--
-'
ttJe alley as is being done at 250 university Avenue.
Because staff believes that for th~ foreseeable future this
alley will be consIdered as a service alley, st~tf bas
recolUlended that the City continue to maintain the alley.
Therefore, the mat.rials that can be used to surface the
alley would have to come from the list of acceptable
mate.rials approved by the Pu·blic Works Department.
The Planning Commission has also recommended that the
applicant be required to extend the surface improvements in
the alley to a point adjacent to the recently improved
sur~ace behind Long's Oruqs and the city owned parking lot.
This would include the surface area behind the existing
LiMicoats building. Since improve.ments lIIay be forthcoming
to the Llddicoats building that could affect the alley ,the
commission allowed for the applicant to post a bond for 18
months before having to commence construction on that
portion of the alley. Staff does not object to this
requirement.
Alley Landscaping:
Both the ARB and the Planning: Commission recommended that
the design tor the through alley on the south side of the
buildi~ inclade additional landscaping adjacent to the
building. The alley, which is currentty only 15 teet wide,
will be reduced by 6-d.ue to the bulldinq construction. Any
proposed landscaping would further redu~e tbe travel width.
Sta£f is very supportive of any effort to improve and
beauti~y alleys; however, staff does not believe that adding
landscaping to the alley at this time is appropriate due to
safety considerations. The Transportation Division,
Planning Division and Public Works Department are opposed to
any landscaping improvements that yould further decrease the
width of the alley based on the following factors:
1. A five foot landscape island, the minimum
acceptable to allow sufficient root and watering
space, would reduce the alley width to less than
10 feet, While minimum one-way drive yidth
required by the Zoning Ordinance is 12 feet
[18.83.080 (Table 9)1.
2. As stated previously, staff considers this a
service alley and believes that maintenance should
continue to be a City responsibility. The
addition of plants could not be readily maintained
JG/1990/A/CHR529BR
CHR:411:0
--
.-"
--.
i-
""~
--1"""""
j
j
-
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
by the City. In a6ditlon6 landscape island$
create Obstacles tor City ma!nten~nce and street
cleanIng equipment.
The Fire Department also prefers. but does not
re~lrer that the alley remain at the current
width in order not to impede emergency vehicles
and fire-fiqhting apparatus.
Reducing the vidth of the alley in any area vill
require that pedestrians move into the vehicular
travel lane in order to avoid the landscaping.
This alley vill continue to be csed as a service
alley tor the businesses adjacent to the alley
including the 529 Bryant building, Liddicoats and
the PacTal suUcUng.
Reducing the alley width any further vill not
allow any vehicles to pass a parked or stopped
vehicle. This situation is currently creating
problems in the alley adjacent to the Whole Foods
Market, wbicb is also a one-way alley of less than
is fOGt vlc!tb.
Reduction in the width of the alley near Bryant
street ~ould create an unsafe conditlon~ as
exitinq vebicles would be forced to drive nearer
the wall of the jevelry store. further impeding
vision of pedestrians.
The landscaping could possibly be added to the alley if, at
a future date. general vehicular use of the alley were
prOhibited and delivery nse of the alley could be limited to
certain hours~
RECOMKENQATION
staff recommends appnrJ'al. vith conditions, of 1) the
Environmental Impact ~ssessment recommendinq a Negative
Declaration ... 2) the proposed zoninq from Downtown Commercial [CC
C{GF)(P)} to Planned Community (PC) for 251 University Avenue and
529 Bryant Street. and l) the design as recommended for approval
by the ARB. except. tor the proposed alley la.ndscaping ..
Recommended conditIons are as follows:
251 University Avenue:
la The underlying £one uses and resulations shall be as
JG/1990/~CKR529BR
CI'!Il:4U:O
-,. -,'
,~j'?1;~'1.,
f'l
-,
\
\
-~
I
,
.;
-
/
require~ tor the CD-C district including Ground Floor
Retail and Pedeatrlan overlay requlrements~
2. The provisio.ns tor adding square .toot.age to the
property under the -Exceptions to FAR Requlations·
(18.49.060(b)} shall not apply to this property except
tor the Handicap provision [(1S.49.060(b)(1)} or as
allowed through an amendment to the PC zone.
3. Existing basement area totaling 2,520 square feet shall
be sealed off from use to the satisfaction of the Chief
BUilding Official. The area shall be sealed prior to
.occupancy of the bUilding at 529 Bryant street.
529 Bryant street:
1. At applicant expense, applicant shall design and
construct certain improvements to the Civic Center
Plaza in the fora of the construction of steps,
planters and seating areas on both sides of the plaza
fronting Bryant and Ramona Streets. Froj~ct design to
be coordinated with staff, the Orban Design Committee
and the ARB prior to City Council approval.
Engineering desiqn and construction to be coordinated
with the Public Works Department. Cost not to exceed
$150,000.
2. The replacement of all street trees on Bryant between
University and HaDllton Avenue and the provision of
tree grates tor all street trees on Ramona and 8~ant
Streets between University and Hamilton Avenues.
3.
street trees and 9rates subject to approval or the city
Arborist, and a street tree protection plan is required
prior to sUbmitting for Building Permit.
Provisio~ for resurfacing of the alley between Bryant
Street and the recent improvements adjacent to the
City-owned parking lot. The portio.."'l of the alley to be
improved behind the existing Liddicoats building may be
bonded, if no .application for construction that would
illpair that section behind Liddicoats is approved
within 18 months rrom the date of City Council approval
of the PC Ordinance. Alley pavinq materials to be as
approved by the AR8 but to be limited to the approved
list of the PUblic works Department. Detailed plans of
drainaqe~ topoqraphy, elevations of lids and qrates.
flow-lines, materials and cross-sections shall be
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department
JGj1990/A/CMR529BR
CKR:411:0 6
•
I -
~ ..
1
, f,
4.
s.
, .
. ',.
./
prior to submission for a Building Perait.
Payment of the housing .itigatlon fee based on the
after construction total of 45,600 square feet. The
amount of the fee will be dependent upon the tee base
at the time of final Council approval. CUrrent rate is
$2.9( per square foot.
COlors. materIals and architectural details as
specIfied by the ARB shall return for review and
approval prIor to applying for a building permit.
6. Tbe developer shall provide tor two showers to
encourage bicycle commuting and office users to stay on
site.
7. The proposed landscaping improvements shown to occur
within the alley shall be eliminated.
S. CUrb and gutter along Bryant Street frontage shall be
replaced prior to issuance of an occu'pancy perDita
9. PrIor to start of any work in public right-or-way. a
preconstruetion meeting! with developer ... contractor ... and
PUblic wo-:-~~· and Transportation Oivision staff shall be
required. .
FINDINGS
Recommendation for approval is based on the following findings:
1. The 529 Bryant Street site is so situated. and the use
or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics. that the application of the general
districts or combining districts will not provide
SUfficient flexibility to allow the proposed
development, in that the site has a narrow frontage and
a significant depth# as well as interior structural
impe~iments that are not conducive to ground floor
retail uses.
2. Development of the site under the provisions of the
Planned community District will result in public
benefits not otherwise attainable by application ~f the
regulations of general districts or combining
districts. These benefits include:
a. The provision of pedestrian and activity oriented
improvements to the nearby Civic Center Plaza.
JG/199 01 AjCMR529BR
CKR:Cll:O
•
\
.'
'-
-
3.
b.
c.
/
A reduction in the development potential in the
downtown area resulting in less traffic and
parking as a result of the removal of 2,520 square
teet of existing floor area and the eli.ination of
the potential for 3,330 additional square feet of
usable Lloor area at 251 university Avenue.
The provision of street trees, tree qrates and
alley improvements.
The use or uses peraitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district shall be
consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. and
existing and potential uses on adjoining sites or
within the general vicinity, in that the Planned
Community District viII maintain the same permitted and
conditionally permitte~ uses that now apply within the
Downtown Commercial and Pedestrian Combining Districts,
in addition to Ground Floor Retail being retained at
251 University Avenue.
I~ the council deslre& to approve the project, as recommended by
the Planning Commission, conditions 1 and 7 for 529 Bryant Street
should be deleted and finding 2a should read -Re-tlse and.
retention of the vacant historic building .. -'l'he landscaping
improvements Would then be subject to final ARB approval.
The Ordinance attached to this report has been written to reflect
the Planning commission approval.. If necessary, staff will
revise the Ordinance to reflect council action prior to second
readinq by the Council.
Respectfully submitted~
{k,<ac-1-U~/J ~ E. GILLILAND
planning Administrator
v'
Assistant City Manager
JG/Ug 0/ A/CHR5~9BR
CMII.! 411: 0
, .
.'-'
# /./'// / U'/.";u7'4 7( /c-l. it {/-<\)
XENN"ETH R. SCHREIBER
Director of Planning and
Co-mmuni"ty Environment
8
•
~, .,. ,
'~
,
"-',--",-,-. -
Attachment s:
,~ ,
/
staff report to Planning commission of 5/25/90.
with attachments. including revised
Ordinance I amended Environmental I~pact
Asse_~_~J,J!e_nt.. letter from J ia Baer dated
S/18/90. and staff report to Planning
commission dated 3/23/90 vith additional
attachments
Planning commission excerpt minutes 3/28/90
Application and plans l contained in bInder
(Council members only)
oc: Planning COIIIIIission
Architectural Review Board
Tom Gil_an. DES Architects
Ja Baer ... PremIer Properties
Speakers at PC and ARB lI.eetings
Palo Alto civic League
Hoover Park Neighborhood Association
Lois Vanderbeek, 136 Barron Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94306
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron Street, Palo Alto, CA 943G6
John Mock ... 2823 Alma Street .. Palo Alto, CA 9430·6
JGj1990jA/CMR529SR
CMR:411:0
..
9
May 2'5, 1990
PLANNING COMMISSION
Palo Alto, California
", ~
/
~ c' ~.:~ '{,':,)
' ...... 0 A.l:) C .. J,·.:~· •. ., .;..:.<.3
Planned Community Zone change at 251 University Avenue and
529 Bryant street: Filg NQS~ 89-ABB-215 and S9-ZC-l , C
Members o~ the commission:
UQOZSTED A~IO.
Recommend to City council the proposed .t'ezoning of properties
located at 529 Bryant Street and 251 University Avenue from
Downtown Commercial (CO-C(GF)(P)} to Planned Community (PC).
BACItGROtJ1Il)
On March 28, 1990, the Planning Commission, on a 5 to 1 vate,
recommended conceptual approval, with conditions, of the rezoning
of properties at. 529 Bryant Street ana 251 University Avenue to
Planned Commu·nity ZO!'les~ Oetailed information on the proposed
rezoning and the staff recommended conditions are contained in
the at.tached staff report to the Pla~~ing Commission dated March
23, 19'9().. The minutes of the meeting are included in the packet ..
The commission recolllmended modifying the staff recoml'Dendations
and the proposed PC zone cbange in the following Eanner:
1~ Elimination of the public benefit providing for
improvements to the Civic center Plaza.
2. Elimination of the condition that the property at 251
O·niversity Avenue be precluded from utiliaing the
-Exceptions to FAR-allowances in the Commercial
Downtown District regulations.
The majority of the Commission felt that the re-use of the long
time vacant buitdinq, the proposed 5treet trees and the all~y
paving improvements were sufficient public benefits to allow for
remov~l of tbe qround floor retail require~ents and the addition
of 2,520 square feet of floor area at 5Z9 Bryant Street. The
JGj1990/1o/PCB529BR 1
.... -.u.;I$IIIIII!tl~~-----~-'. -.... ~ .. ,., _ ....... ,
L
--
•
,
I
I
/
dissentiD9 Commissioner felt that the PC ~one change and public
benefits were appropriate as proposed.
On April .19 and Ma)' 3, 1990, the project design was reviewed by
the Architectural Review Board [ARB). The: ARB recommend .. d
approval of the design with COnditions and expressed its support
tor the inclusion of improvements to the Civic Center Plaza as a
public benefit for the project. The minutes of the ARB meetings
and the staff Information Memorandums are attached. The
conditions of ARB approval are included in the minutes.
ISSOES OP CONCERII
PROVISION OF PUBLIC BENEFIT:
The provision of public benefits for this project has been
the subject of much discussion and debatg~ particularly the
proposed improvements to the Civic Center Plaza and the
prohibition to adding square footage to the 251 University
Avenue bullding~ Staff does not concur with the March 28
Planning commission recommendation to eliminate the
oriqinally proposed Plaza improvements or the Planning
Commission re~ommendation to allow thir~ floor additions at
251 University Avenue.
The Zoning Ordinance a~ed in 1978 contained signlficantly
expanded requirements that new Planned Community Zones
contain significant public benefits. This action by the
CIty was l in part~ a delayed response to PC zones approved
prior to 1970, that contained little~ if any, public
benefit. A consIstent city policy in implementation of the
zoning regulations has been the importance or the PC zone
public benefit finding.
In 1986. throughout the public hearings and adoption process
for the downtown regulations. it was anticipated that PC
zones would be required for any proposal that was out of the
ordinary or did not fit within the revised downtown CO
zoning regulations. Subsequently, when the city Council, on
June 8. 1987, endorsed the Downt~ Amenities Committee's
recommendations for special benefits from future downtown
projects, it clearly stated that such benefits (and
incentives) would be ~ained through the PC zone change
process. The committee listed -increases in and improved
use of public open space-as a potential benefit and amenity
for future projects requiring minor incentiyes.. Major
incentives for projects ~ith FAR bonuses of greater tban .5
to 1 included on-site cbild care, and mixed use projects
including housinq.
staff believes that in return fer removing the requirement
for ground floor retail at 529 Bryant street, the
JGj1990jA/PCB529BR
-----...,..--~---" ':L
.•.
'f
." -..
-
" , •
, ;,.
1 •
'.:'
'l:'
:;i • ,
•
•
' .
-
Improveaents to civic Center Plaza wou~d provide for the
added Yitality and pe~estrlan orlente~ omenities that have
long been a stated priority for downtown. Such improvements
would compliment the partial improvements already made to
the Civic center Plaza made by the city_
Also listed as a minor incentive in the Committee's
recommendations is the retention and restoration of an
existing historic building; however, this is not considered
a public benefit for this PC rezoninq because the Downtown
Commercial CCD-C) requlations contain provisions for
cateqory 1 and 2 historic structures that allow FAR
increases as an incentive for retention and the applicant is
utilizinq that provision at 529 Bryant Street.
In particular, staff does not consider re-use of an existing
building a public benefit, particularly one which was
voluntarily kept vacant by the previous owner solely to
maintain corporate options for re-use. Should re-use of
vacant buildings become a commonly accepted public benefit~
a substantial number of problem structures could become
eligible for public benefit status, including 975 High
street~ 53l Cowper, the Peninsula Creamery or the European
Health Spa building, to name a few.
The applicant's p~oposal to provide new street trees and
tree qrates is a desirable public benefit. However, this
same proposal I as well as the pr~ed alley improvements~
was initially offered as part of the applicant's first ARB
submittal prior to the requested PC zone cbange~
Subsequent to the cOlDlllission's and ARB's recommendations,
which clearly differed in the area of public benefit, the
applicant proposed an alternative public benefit of
providing recycling trash receptacles for all downtown
businesses in lieu of the previously proposed improvements
to the CivIc Center Plaza~ The a~licant's letter dated May
18, 1990 is attached. Staff finds this proposal to be
laudable, but not directly related to the proposed project~
and not commensurate wIth the potential effects on
pedestri~n vitality that will result with the deletion of
ground floor retail at 529 Bryant Street.
ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS:
Improvements are proposed for the through alley on the south
side of the building and no improvements are proposed tor
the private alley on the north. Improvements will be
limited to resurfacing or the existing alley with a material
from the Public Works OepartEent approved list of sidewalk
and alley treatments. This is necessary because the alley
viii continue to be prImarily a service alley and will be
JGj1990jA/PCB529BR )
. .
.' .'
.-J
'.-' .r.
~ .--:;-~. ~', "-. . ," I ,,~,~~}<,z;" ~
I c~~t.
I " ,;,::,.;,:.,
ijti(::·
" .
-
.alntalned by the city. Thi. was net the case for the alley
at 250 University Avenue~ which Is intended to be pedestrian
oriented and viI) be maintained by the 250 University Avenue
building owners.
PUblIc Works requires only that the alley be resurfaced and
that the surface drainage be acceptable throughout the
alley. utilitIes located yIthIn the alley to be relocated
are required in conjunct.Ion with tbe-building upgr.ade only.,
and are not required In conjunctIon yith the alley
resur~aeing per PublIc works conditions. If engineering
drawIngs so indicate I the surtace treatment could stop at
either the property line between 529 Bryant Street and
LiM.!eoats or between Liddicoats and Lc>ngs Drugs. While a
layer of asphalt ~ould bQ acceptable to Public Works,
Planninq staft supports the aFPllcantls proposal to use
decoratiVe treatment such as a combination of wasbed and
broom finished concrete or a pressed concrete.
Transportation staff does not concur with the ARB
recommendation to narrov the alley for additIonal
landscaping as this yould lImit the abIlity of vehicles to
pass parked vebicles~ and reduce the clear space available
for pedestrians to walk.
ADDITION OF SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 529 BRYANT STREET:
Staff acknowledqes the proposal to add 2~520 square feet to
the 529 Bryant street building is a minimal amount of square
footage when compared to the size of the building; bowever#
to allow the added square footaq~ with little or no public
benefits would set a substantial p~ecedent that could result
In an increased number of PC applications or variance
requests tor projects to Obtain small square footage
increases without having to provide additional parkinq.
Since the building at 529 Bryant already exceeds the maximum
3 to 1 Floor Area Ratio# the proposal to add square footage
should! necessitate a public benefIt that will red,uce the
impact of that squar~ footage. R.equiring only the
elimination of less desirable basement area in the 251
University building does not provide tor a commensurate
public benefit. By also removill7 ~e al101rlance for
additiOl'lal square footage to be a4dec3: to 251 o,niversi1:y# the
long term futura impacts on traffic and parking are clearly
addressed. Moreover, such restrictions would preclude the
constructIon of an additional floor that might not be
aesthetically co~patible with this existing bistoric
building.
JtBCOJIIIEIIDAl'IOB
staff recommends that the Planning Comlldss!on recommend to City
JGj1990jA/PCB529BR 4
•
"-,
,
t,
I ,
I
f
I
l
I ,.
~ ~:-
I ,
c-
, _ .. _-....
, '
. ' .
>
"
"
\
'.
\ c
\
-
,
.:.:""
:< ~
,
"
\ ..
council approval ~ith conditions of 1) the Envlronaental Impact
Assessment recommending a Negative Declara~!on, 2) the Planne~
community lone chanqea and l) the desiqn as reoommende~ for
approval by the ARB~ except for the pro,pose~ alley landscaping.
Recommended conditions are as follows:
251 University Avenue:
1. The underlying zone uses and requlations shall be as
required for the CD-C district includi"9 Ground Floor
Retail and Pedestrian overlay requirements.
The property shall be prohibited frOD utill.ing the
-EXceptions To FAR Requlatl~ns· (1'.49.060(b)] except
through an amendment to the PC t:o-ne.
3. 2,520 square feet of eXisting basement area shall be
sealed off from use to the satisfaction of the Chief
Building Official. The area shall b4 sealed prior to
occupancy of the bUilding at 529 aryant street.
529 Bryant Street:
; ,
1. At applicant expense, applicant shall design and
construct certain improvements to the Civic Center
Plaza in the form of the construction Qf steps,
planters and seating areas on both sides of the plaza
fronting Bryant and Ramona streets.. proj ect design to
be coordinated with staff, the Urban Design Committee
and the ARB. oesi9n and construct.ion to be coordinated
'With the Public 'Works Department.. Cost not t.o excee~
$15G ,1)(l'O.
2. The replacement of all street trees on Bryant between
University and Hamilton Aven,ue and the provision of
~ree grates for all street trees on Ramona and Bryant
streets bet~een University and aa~ilton Avenues.
Street trees and qrates sUbject to approval of the City
Arborist and a street tree protection plan is required
prior to submitting for BUilding Perait.
1. Provision tor resurfacing of the alley betwe~n Bryant
Street arA the recent improve~ents near Longs Drug.
Alley paving materials to be as approved by the ARB but
to be 1i.ited tG ~he approved lis~ of ~he Public Works
Department. Detailed pl~ns of drainaqe l t~rapbYr
elevations of lids and qrates, flow-lines 6 materials
and cross-sections shall be revie~eQ and approved by
the Public Works Department prior to submission for a
Building Pe~it.
JG/:l990/ A/PCB52 9BR
I ..
!
•
4.
s.
6 •
1.
PayDent of the housing mitigation fee based on the
after construction total of 45.600 square teet. The
amount of the fee will be dependent on the fee base at
the time of final Council approval. CUrrent rate is
$1.94 per square foot.
Colors, materials and architectuT41 details as
specified by the ARB shall return for review and
approval prior t:o applyin<j for a l>Uilding pe",it •
The developer sball provide for tvo shovers to
enoouraqe bicycle co~uting and office users to stay on
site.
The propo6e~ landscaping Improvements shOwn t~ occur
witbin the alley shall be eli.inated.
8. CUrb and gutter alonq Bryant Street .frontage shall be
replaced prior to lss~ance of an occupancy permit.
9.
7lllDUG8
Prior to start of any work in public riqht-o!-~ay, a
preconstruct ion meeting yith developer, contractor,
Public Works staff and Transportation Division shall be
required.
Recommendation for approval Is based on the following findings:
1. The 529 Bryant street site is so situated# and the use
or uses proposed tor the site are of such
characteristIcs, that the application of the general
districts or combIning districts will not provide
sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed
development, in that the site has a narrow frontage and
a siqnificant depth~ as well as interior structural
impedi~ents that are not conducive to 9round floor
retail uses ..
2. Development of the site under the provisions of the
Planned Community District will result in public
benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the
regulations of general districts or combining
districts. These benefits include:
a. The provision of pedestria.'P.t and activity oriented
improvements to the nearby Civic Center Plaza.
b. A reduction in the development potential in the
downtown area resulting in le~s traffic and
parking as a result of the removal of 2,520 square
feet of existing floor area and the eli.inatlon of
JG/1990/A/PCB5~9BR 6
•
\
,.
f
i
" '" If
. .
.\
• i
,
I
-
3.
·--
.,
the potential for 3,330 additional square feet of
usable floor area at 251 University Avenue~
c. The provision of street trees, tree grates and
alley l~provement$.
The use Qr uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district sball be
con5istent with the Palo Alto Co~prebensive Plan~ and
eXisting and potential uses on adjoining sites or
within the q~neral vicinity, in that the Planned
community District will maintain the same peraitted and
conditionally permitted uses that now apply within the
Downtown Commercial and Pedestrian COmbining Districts,
in addition to Ground Floor Retail being retained at
251 Oniversity Avenue.
Respec~fully submitted,
~'~~1fjJJ;~
3 S E. GILLILAND Y" anning Admir.istrator
\
Attachments: Ordinance (As revised at 5/13/90 'lannln9 COlTllllssion .,.,etfng.)
Letter from Jim Baer 5/18/90
Staff report to Planning Commission 3/23/90
including Environmental Impact Assessment and
location map eEl,l. amended 1/6/90.)
ARB Excerpt Kinutes 5/3/90
ARB Information Kemorandum 5/3/90
ARB Excerpt: Minutes 4/19/90
cc: 7'011 G i 1l1an
Jill Baer
ARB Information Memorandum 4/~9J90
Excerpt City council Minutes 6/8/81
Executive Summary of the Report on committee
Recommendations of the Temporary Committee on
Downtown Design and Amenities
Revised plans and additional inserts to binders
(Commission members only)
Architectural Review Board
Speakers at PC and ARB meetings
Palo Alt~ civic League
Hoover Park Neighborhood Association
Lois Vanderbeek, 736 Barron Avenue. Palo Alto, CA 94306
Herb Borock, 2731 Byron street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
JOh~ MOck. 2i43 Alma street, Palo Alto, CA 94306
JGj1990/A/PCB529BR
-._, ,..;.,._-, ... -,~,.-
J
..
... ·~I·~.;'·. -':'.' .:;~.,
'.-~ -----~,
,,~
..
cr.
--
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE cITr OF PALO ALTO
A!<ENOING SECTION lS.0S .040 OF THE PAW ALTO KtiNIC
IPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFI
CATION OF PROPEltl'IES KNOWN AS 529 BRYANT STREET
AND 251 VNIVEItSIT~ AVEIltJE, RESPECTIVELY, FItOM CO-C
(GF) (P) TO PC
SECTION }. Section 18.08,040 of the Palo Alto Municipal
Code, the -zoning Map·, is bereby amended to change the zoning of
certain properties known, respectively, as 529 Bryant street and
251 University Avenue (individually and collectively, the ·subject
propertyW) frOD the ·CO-C (GF}(P) Co~ercial Dow~towil-CommunitYI
Ground FloOr/pedestrian Combining District-zone classification to
the .pc Planned Community District-zone classification. Said
properties are shown on a map attached hereto as Exhibit ·A· and
incorporated herein by reference4
SEC1'ION 2. The City Council hereby finds 'With respect to
the subj e<:t property that,
(a) The 52~ Bryant street site is so situated, and the
use or uses proposed for the site are of such
characteristics, that the application of the gener
al districts or combining districts ~ill not pro
vide sufficient fle~ibility to allow the proposed
development, in that the site has a narrow frontage
and a significant depthr as veIl as interior struc
tural impediments that are not conducive to ground
floor retail uses.
(b) Development of the subject property under the
provisions of the Plar~ed Comm~ity District will
result in public benefits not otherwise attainable
by application of the re~ulations of general dis
tricts or combining distcicts~ 'l'hese benefits
include:
(1) The preservation and reuse of a category II
historic building:
(2) A reduction of the development potential in
the downtown area res\Jlting in less traffic
and parking as a result of the removal of
2~520 square feet of existing floor area and
eliaination of the ~~tential for 3~330 addi
tional square feet of usable floor area at 251
University Avenue:
(3J The provision of street trees, tr€e qrates and
alley improvements.
eel The use or uses permitted and the site development
regulations applicable within the district shall be
1
----.....
•
•
21··.···'.<-. "
,.",
,..
-
consistent with the Pal~ Alto comprehensivE Plan,
and existing and potential uses on adjoining sites
or vithin the qeneral vicinity, in that the Planned
Community District will maintain the same permitted
and conditionally permitted uses tbat no'W' apply
Yithin the Downtow~ Commercial and Pedestrian
Combining Dist.ricts with respect to both proper
ties, as well as those use~ that nov apply within
the Ground Floor Retail Combininq District ... -with
respect to 251 University Avenue.
SECTION 3. ThQse ~rtain plans, collectively entitled
-529 B-ryant--Developed by Jim Baer--D.E.S .. Architects' Engineers·,
dated Kay IB, 1990, and -251 University Avenue--Developed by Ji.
eaer--O.E.S. Architects' Engineers-, dated May 29 ... 1990 ... a copy of
each of wbich is on file in the Planning Departme.nt.. and to which
copies ~eference is hereby made concerning the full particulars
thereof... are bereby approved as the Development Plan for the
subject properties, v~rsuant to Section 18.6B~12G~ said Develop
ment Plan is approved for tbe following uses, ~nd subject to the
following conditions:
(a) Permitted Uses.
(I) 251 University Avenue. The uses penaitted
hereby shall be those uses permitted in the
CD-C (GFj (P} zone ... as of the effective date
:hereof.
(2) 529 Bryant street. The uses permitted hereby
shall be those uses permitted in the CD-C (P}
zone, as of the effective date hereof.
(b) Conditional Uses.
(1) 251 university Avenue. The uses which may be
permi t.ted i.n tlle zoninq district established
hereby, subject to .obtaining a use permit
therefor~ are those uses conditionally permit
ted in the CD-C (GF){P) zone, as of the effec
tive date hereof.
(l) 529 'Bryant Street. The uses which Ilay be
permitted in the zoning district established
hereby, subject to-ootaining a use permit
therefor, are those uses conditionally perDit
ted in the CD-C (P) zone, as of the effective
date bereof.
(c] site Deve1~JD~l}t Reg~Ll~..!ions.
(l) 251 University AY~Ulue. The site development
regulations governing the subject property
shall be in accordance with the Development
Plan, and with the site regulations estab-
2
•
\ , ,
-.r·
lished for-the CF-C (GF) (P) tone: provided ..
that in the case of a conflict between the CD
C (GF)(P) regulations and the Oevelopme~t
Plan, the Development Plan shall control.
Notwithstanding section 11.C9.060 (b)~ the
daveloper shall seal off 2,520 square feet of
existing floor area; and no further expansion
of square footage shall be allowed at this
site, excepting only square footage ~hichl in
the judgment of the Chief Buildinq Official,
does not increase the usable floor area 6 but
is necessary to comply ",ith state handicap
access requirements.
(2) 529 Bryant street. The site development
regulations governing the subject property
shall be in accordance 'With the Development
Plan, and with the site requlatIons estab
lished for the CF-C (P) zone; provided, that
in the case of a conflict between the CO-C (Pj
requlat.ions and the Development Plan,. the
Development Plan shall control. Notwithstand
ing section 18.~9.060 (b], the property may be
developed to a maximum building size of 45,600
square feet and a Floor Area Ratio of 3.43:1.
(d) Parking and Loading Requirements.
tll 251 University Avenue. The parking and l~d
ing: requirements governing the subject proper
ty shall be in accordance with the applicable
regulatIons of the CD-C (GF}(P) zone.
(2) 52, Bryant street. The parking and loading
requirements qoverning the 'Subject property
shall be in accordance with the Development
Plan and 'With applicable regulations of the
CO-C (F) z~e; provided, that in the case of a
conflict between the CD-C (P) regulations and
the Development Plan, the Development Plan
shall control.
eel Special Requirements. In addition to all condi
tions set forth in the Report to the PlannillC}
Commission ~ated May 25, 1990 which are not other
wise specifically set forth in full in this ordi
nance, the following conditions are made special
requirements conditioninq the approval granted by
thIs ordinance:
elJ The developer shall, at its own cost, replace
all street trees on Bryant street between
University and Hamilton Avenues: and shall
provIde tree grates for all street trees on
Ramona and Bryant Streets between u.niversity
l
-"
-"
-i ,
•
t
f , r
!
r
t
• I ,
l
!
t
-
.. ~::_ ~;'~. i
1
•
..
""--"":"~--~~:.:=--__ --"'"-"~~ ____________ : _____ =-<'i"","-~~_~';"~~
If)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6}
and H'amiltc-n Avenues. Replacement of t.rees
and provision of grates shall be subject to
the approval of the City Arborist. The devel
oper shall, prior to Building Permit applica
tion, submit a street tree protection plan
satisfactory to the City Arborist.
Developer shall, at its own cost, resurface
the alley adjacent to the subject property ..
Developer shall further be required to resur
faCe the extension of the alley from. its
property to the edge of the public parkill9 lot
behind Long's Drugs,. if a permit to construct
such improvements has not been 9ranted to
another person on or before 18 months Crom the
effective date of this ordinance. Developer
shall file a bond or otl::!er type of security
satisfactory to the City Attorney to ensure
~ompletion of this extension within three (l)
months after said 18 month period has ended.
Alley paving materials sball be as approved by
the ARB, limited to materials on the approved
1 ist of the Public Works Department. Detailed
plans of drainage. topog~apby_ elevations of
lids and gra:tes.. flow-lin-es. materials and
cross-sections shall be reviewed and approved
by the PuI:llic Works Department prior to Build
ing Permit applicati~n.
The required HOQsinq Kitigation Fee shall be
based on construction of 45 .. 600 square feet.
at the rate in effect as of the date of Coun
cil approval of this ordinance.
Colors, materials and architectural details
shall be subject to final ARB approval prier
to Building Permit application.
The developer shall provide for two showers
,.,ithin the 52~ Bryant street development to
encourage pedestrian and bicycle use.
'The developer shall replace curb and qutter
along the Bryant street fronta~e of the 529
Bryant Street property prior to 1ssuance of an
occupancy permi t .
Development Scbedul e. Construct ion of improvements
for 529 Bryant Street shall be completed and the
project ready for occupancy vithin seven (1) months
after commencement thereof. Sealing off of the
basement square footage. at 251 University Avenue
shall be completed prior to occupancy of 529 Bryant
Street. Completion of the resurfacing of the alley
4
,
~ I , ,
• ,
-~ j ,
1/ I '.:.-
' ..
: -~ • I ..
"!' , ~~'-! • l ... ":
< :t
l
:t • ,
• ~ ,
~~
'0-
/
--
, ,
e~enslon shall be in accordance vith subparagraph
(e)(2l of this section.
SECTION t. The city Council hereby finds that this
project vi)} have no significant effect on the environment~
SECTION S. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the day of its adoption.
INTRODU<:ED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSEN'r:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORK:
Sr. Assistant City Attorney
S'Oc/61 18/9 Obdc
5
APPROVED:
Mayor
city .Manager-
Oirector of Planning and
Community Environment
Chief Building Official
. -"""" .--'-" --,-. ~C"-:-'L" , ,
-: "-, , -, ,
"
• \
\
; I
,,-;.
,
•
•
-.'c_
, .
" , I _____ ,_~ _ , ___ ~~-...... ··-,...c_,,,· _ • 0.-\ __ -._
.1,1T;'.Cr:>l}=~T A
sITe
",.,,, -+.
•
•
. ,
. .
\
. '.
I
I
~
-
.. _Cl",~II:.
""'RE 8c FRElt>ENRl<;H
A '.Cl~'.J..ICl'U.'L CO"'''.''fIO
<1000 H .... ri."OOl _E ..... '
P .... LO AL T'O. CItolJPO&I.nA 8430HOOQ
May 18,199G
Mem~n 0( the Planning Commission
CII)' 0( Palo Alto
529 Blyant/2S I Univenil)'
Re: Plitnned Community District
Dear Commiisioner.
.~ ,
• .:c.c .. _
( •• ., 1.1.' ••• '
"'~HOoI'Y
{ •• ~l : .. ?-J. ....
The Planned Community District Apjl!icaoon for SZ9 8<yut/2S1 Univcnity
reviewed by Ibe Plannlns Commission on Marcil 28 will be 011 the May 30 Planning
Commission agenda for final Planning Commissfon aMn. f will be atten4ing the hi&h
sdlool graduation in Or.iOn 0( lb. boj' who would be my li.pIOn wer. J not su1!
'DNnarried.
The purp<l>e 0( this letter. ther.fore, is 10 pt'cscnt the modified publlc ~nefil
package pt'oposed by the AppUcant and 10 rCYiew the policy iss_ related 10 this
Application. Because 00 architectura! issuc1 are outslan4ing (the Apjllication Iw been
reviewed lour tim .. by the ARB and received unanimout and laudatory final 'pp'tMll
011 May 3). the architect for the project will also DOt attend 011 May J().
Review 0( Previous I'ropcoaI
And Planning CoollMrinq &dog
The Application pt'evi0u51y considered by the PIannlnS CommIssion ..... complex
for 5e"eral reasons: (\) the application involves 2 properties; (2) the public be~ii ..
offered under the original application .... r. modified by lb •• pplicanl and planning staff
in the Staff Repon prior 10 the Planning Commi"io", hear",,, and (3) the public
~ r-.-
, ,
•
r
•
':',')--, c""" ,
•
I
-
Pa,. Z
knefits _re DOt inc:Iuded entirely within the ,it. 0( the two ,ubjeCl properties SO that
the nexus 0( the public benefits to the proj.ct is less dir.ct than typical 0( an "
app!icatkm Jar a Planned Community District.
Tbe =ssity for the Planned Community District is unchang.d" Reli.C from
two aspects ol the CDC Zon. are required Jar the proposed de •• lopment ol
S~ Bryanl Stteec (1) refleC from the OF combining district regulations; (2) the
ret.ntion 0( 2,519 square r •• t ol basement space which would OIh.IWise have to be
closed. Tbe Applicant re<:ognizes the requir.ment for prcMdlng significant pubfic
ben.fit in conjunction with a Planned Community District and through this Appfication
strlve5 10 prcMde a public benefit which will enhance downt""'" r.td vitality and
architectural amenitie< 10 offset the removal 0( 529 Bryant from ground f\oor reta~ usc
and prcMdes • reduction in present square rootage and possible future development of
251 University to ofiset the excessive 2,519 square re •• retained at 529 BryanL
I. Oriiinal Appfication. lbe original applicatkm offered the foDowing
amenitie&: (i) improvement 0( the 220 fuo( portion <Jl the public an.y cfIIectly .djacent
and 10 the South 0( 529 Bryant as a beautifuDy finished ancllight.d aney consistent
with the aDey treatment at University and Ramona; (i.) replac.ment 0( streel trees On
Bryanl Street as bas be." done successfuDy on Ramona Stre.t; (m) placem.nt of new
lighl posts; (IV) instaUation 0( iron tree grates on Bryanl and Ramona Streets;
(v) bicycle and trash areas improved near 529 Bryant StreeL The cost to complete
th ... amenities is estimated to be aboul $200,000. Our hope was thaI the .. amenities
would satisfy important compreh.nsive plan objectives.
To balance the increased size 0( 529 Bryanl we proposed 10 close 2,519 square
reet 0( basement space .t 251 University and 10 Jar.go the future seismic upgrade
bonus 0( C,S03 reet aDowed under the CDC Zone Jar 2S 1 Univ.rsity. This results in a
significant reduction rather than increase in square footage which we intended to avoid..
Z. Plan ning Staff Report !O PlanoinK Commission !or March 28 Metti,,!!_
lbe Planning Staff Report modified the original application in .... ral important ways
two 0( ",hic. require explanation.
(i) The upgraded aDey treatment ",as 10 have been eXlended 10 the
Long" building (up 10 an ackfitionaJ 12S reet), to ",hick the Applicant did nOC agree.
Tbe cost Jar this elemenl is e.timated to be aoout $75,000.
tot_ "r_x • ....
•
') ,
•
,
\ ,
\
\
\
"l
~... ~
1
,I
-
(ii) Improvement ol Cily Han Plaza by prtMdL,S ... ps for the Plaza 10
Blyanl and Ramona Streets. This provision was added by agr.ement olll!. App~cant
and Planning Staff because there was concolll that the pub~ ben.fits packag. would
not otherwise be significanl enough 10 oatisfy the requirements for • Planned
Communily ~.
3. Summaa ql Match 28 Planning Comrnlssion M%erinl!:. At the March 28
Planning CommlssioD Meeting by a 5-to-l vote (Joe Huber voting no and Beecham
absent) the Planning CommjssioD approved in concept the Application with the
following majoc cbanges 10 the recommendations ol the Planning Staff Report: (i) City
HaD Plaza improvements would not be required; (ii) improvement cl the public aDey
adjacent 10 529 Bryanl would be improved, but the 125 loot portion ol the pub~ aDey
continuing 10 Long"1 and not adjacent 10 529 Bryant would IlOI be improved; and
(ill) 2519 reet ol presenl basement space at 251 Universily would be closed, but the
~.S03 square which could be dev.loped in the future was not 10 be closed.
Commlssioner Huber indica'e" his support for the proj.ct but .xpr.sse" his
support for accepting the improvem.nts 10 Cily Ha~ Plaza off.r." by the ApplicanL
In a subsequent ARB meeting. Commissioner ClIO. n also off"re" ber support foc
accepting the improvements 10 City Han Plaza.
Other Commissioner", at the March 28 me.ting ex:><=sse" cone.", that 100
mucb was beinS extracted for the relatively minor zoning relief sougbt in conjunction
with development ol 529 Bryant. the upgrade ol 529 Bryant provided sufficient public
benefit 10 stand on its own. the nexus cl the Cily HaD Plaza 10 the proj.ct was
questioned, and the complexity cl future developm.nt restrictions at 251 Ur-iv.rsily was
a a>neern.
It is fair 10 say that members cl the Planning Staff and the Applicant were
s~" by the outcome of the March 28 meeting. We were not clear on the policy
Jessoos 10 leana from the Planning Commission comments and vote ..
The complexily ol the App~ation, and tl>e faci that the Applicant did not have
COlItact with any ol the Planring Commission abou! the Application prior 10 the March
2S meeting contribute" 10 the surprising results ol the Marcil 28 m<:eting,
,
., -
-\
\' ..
~ \>
"
•
, .
•
"-.-;:
-'. -
'9--J'-:j
-'
. -.
-
. ---
Page ..
CUlUlFNI PVINNING STAFF AND APPllCANT PROPOSAlS
I. ~ent PlannjDi Staff Recommendations. I am .. ncling this leiter before
1uMns: bad an opportunil} 10 rev;ew 111e Staff Repon. However, members of the
Plannlng Staff and I have bad several \elcpbone conversations and" meeting.
I\1bsequent 10 March 28 10 discuss 11le Application_
I understand thai Planning Staff is continuing wi<l> 111e reccmmendations it
preJented al 111e Marcil 28 meetics thai City HaD Plaza imprOl<ements be required and
thai funu-e development of 251 University be restricted. I also understand the
important and just policy reasons for the PIannins: Staff position. W. are in ccmple\e
agreement that in conjunction with. Planned Community District, and with incr .... d
square Ioocage, in partkular, ';gni/icant public must be provided. Our departure is in
our sense of the significance and extent of appmpmte public benefits.
2. Ctlrrent Proposal from the AWficanl. The prnpo<a1 which the Applicant
bopes 111e PIanning Commission and City Council will favorably adopt Is as follows;
I. The public alley will be improYed for a I<ngt!l of 220 reel which is
111e portion directly adjacent 10 S29 Btyant and specifically doe. nO( extend &0 Long-•.
2. New ,treel tree. on Bryant Street will be planted.
3. Tree grate. will be provided on Bryant and Ramona Streets.
4. Bicycle and trash enclosure "'Iutions will be created. A bicycle
room foe employees has been designed for 111e basement of S29 Bryant
S. Handicap access has be •• provided at 11le Bryant Street primary
entry in a manner 111at preserves the historical charaCler 0{ that entry.
6. Tbe City Han Plaza imprOl<Cments l!dIIll!l! be provided as an
clement of this Application. The Applicant h .. submitted • so parale propooal 10 the
City foe romplete upgrade of City Han Plaza in conjunction with anQ(ber project
7. 2519 f«t of basement space at 251 University will be closed. This
results in no increased square fooIage in the CD Zone resulting from this Application.
W\MPn .1. --
'2L
• . -\
\ .
\ . \ .
~-: \'-\
,
'.~
,
i
---
1 . -.
Page S
S. lSI University will be restricted in the future from expanding by
!lie 4,soJ feel which would otheIWise be allowcd WIder 18.49.060(b)2 (seismic upgrade
bonus) or IU9.1l6O(b)3 ( upgrade bonus). This does not require aOJ currenl upgrade
of lSI University .. hiek would be financiany prolubitive and Iegany llI1acbievable given
!lie posse&Sion ofunants tlIIdcr long-term lease.. lS 1 Univenity is 001 restric1ed from
!lie future cle\Ielopmenl aDowed llI1der 18.49.1l6O(b)1 (handicap ao<= upgrade) or
18.49'()60(b)4 (or one-lime 200 foot nominal aDowance for aD buildings). The cbaraCler
oflhis building and the Downtown are weD served by restricting the possible addition
of a third floor 10 this beautiful 1908 building.
9. S40,OOO will be contribmed by the Applicant Ie> Ihc Peninsula
Conservation Cenler for use by the Downlown Environmental Action Project (DEAP)
Ie> prOYide funds for recepracles, dumpsters and other items necessary \0 implemenl the
recycling program organized for the Downlown. Of this $40,000, $4500 Ilas already
been provi<led by the Applicant as initial funding for DEAP and about $4000 "",11 be
provided by the Applicant in early Iune. literature aboul DEAP is provided with Ihis
letter. . . . .. . .
I appreciale the care and attention Planning Staff, ARB members and Planning
Commissioner Ilave given 10 this project. The Sllppor1, dialogue and willingness 10
work hard together, eveR Ihoogh disagreements, provided by the planning process of
Palo Alto works 10 creale projects ond policies ol high integrily_
1EB;wp
cc: KeD Schreiber
Carol Jansen
Jame. Gilland
Shirley Wilson
= ....... -~=-''''.
Sincerely yours,
Jame~
··'~~Blf.'
-\:" ,,~': ,;1:"-.
-
.-"-.
•
. :, --. ~ -
•
...
--.,-.
~,:k >-::<.
':,'1' ':
" ~ t"
, '
.--,
/'
P.O 80IC lO~5J
~ ..... c .a.t'f.O ('~r;~"." ~",j:'J
TO: PALO lU.!'O P~ING COXIUBSION PREPARED B¥: JAMES GILLILAND
FILE NO.: 90-ZC-J, 90-ZC-4, 89-ARB-27S DATE: March 23, 1990
PROJECT DESCRIptION
lOCAt.ion;
Applieont;
Property OWners:
R'9ueste~ Action:
PROJECT SDMMlJI.I
529 Bryant Street and 251 University Avenue
DES Architects , E"9Ineering
399 Bradford Street
Re4wood City, CA 94063
Premier Properti~s
c/o Jim Baer
420 Florence Street
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Approval for change 1n zone from commercial
Downtown [CD-C(GFI(PI] to Planned Community
[PC]. Physical changes are aGditi~n of 2,520
square f~et and renovatIon of existing building
at 529 Bryant Street, and a seismic upgrade and
closing of 2,520 square feet of basement area at
251 Vniv.rsity Avenue.
Applicant is pr~sinq to rezone two properties from Commercial
Downtown wIth Ground Fl~r and Pedestrian Combining Districts [CD
C(GF) (P)) to Planned Comm\lnity [PC]. The existing 43,10'0 square
t~t boilding on the historic site at 529 Bryant Street "ill be
renovate~, approximately 2,520 square feet of floor area will be
adde~ and the requirement for qround floor retail will be del~ted.
The historic building at 251 Oniversity Avenue will be seismically
upgraded, 2,520 square feet of ba.ement area aealed off and the
zoning ordinance allowance for exceptions to floor area ratios ~ill
not be utiliE.~ under this application.
I ~ Blc;oMMIiNPEP ACTIOIf
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conceptually approve
the proposed Planned Community zone change troll Commercial Do-...rntown
to Planned Community at both 529 Bryant street and 251 University
Avenue, including the conditions set forth herein, and forward the
application to the Architectural Review Board.
PCS1URY JG 3/2l/90 1
•
\
,
, ,
•
\
:. '.
,
\
\
1\"
\-'"
' .
....J
-
/
,ttl II7QIM·TIOM IS', PRYAM] '18117t
hrse) slr;,;
AII •• spr's PArcel Humber:
Exi.tlng Zoning:
Comprehensjye plan
Qesignat.ion:
Floor Area Rotio;
Existing LAnd o§c;
Surrounding Lond Piei
BiFtery;
13,260 square feet
l2C-15-94
Commercial Downtown with Ground Floor
~etail and Pedestrian Combini~
Districts [CD-C(GF) (P)
Regional/Community commercial
3.25,1 existinq. 3.4),1 propose~
Vacant building that ~as former $ite
of pacific Bell offices ond
comm~nicatlons equip~ent
Commer~ial. retail and restaurants on
ground floor and offices on upper
floors. A single taroily resIdence
zoned Commercial Downtown is located
across the alley.
Thi. buildinq and site ore liste~ as
eotegory II on the city of Palo Alto
historic inventory. The designation
is based on tbe terra cotta facade
(C.1929) and the foct that the site
was th~ location for the first
elementary .choo) for the town
(e.1893).
On October 6. 19S5, the property ~as
rezone~ from PUblic Facilities to
commercial DowntOWDa The rezo-ni.n9 "'-a5
re~~ested by pacific Bell to
facilitate the sale of the property
since jt was no longer needed for
communications equipment. Since a
specific user had not been specifieQ.
t~e property was also .one~ ground
floor retail ond pedestrion shopping
in c:ontormance 'With surrounding
propertiea. Intensification i~pacts
on ~raffic and parking were addressed
in the EnvIronmental I~paet Assessment
prepored with thot application.
'ITI JnORJQ.'rIOW '251 ptiIDRSITY I.YEkVI)
PCS29BRY JG 3}23j90
I
~
-
•
,"-, .
~ "'_,..-:wo~,.~"",_. _ ....,... .... '"'~ ~ ..... _~_-......... _ -,,",,~,~_ ....... ,_,::,.....-.,;.. __ ..,..i"'_ ... ::... .. s",:."J:"'~~_~_
farcel S i Ce ;
&aI.SIOt" parcel Number;
Ixl.ljim zoning;
CgmprehensIve Pl'n
Designation;
llRqr Area RAtio;
ExIsting LAnd use;
Surrounding Land Use;
Hiltpry;
7,000 .quare teet
120-26-100
Commerel.1 Dovntown with Ground Floor
Retail and Pedestr1an Combining
Districts [CD-CIGF}(P))
Re9ional/Community Commercial
1.9:1 existing, 1.55:1 proposed
Retail/Commercial
Commercial, ret.il and restaurants on
qrouM floor and offices on upper
floor.
The building Is des ignited as historic
category IlIon the city of Palo Alto
historic inventory
An Initial Study recommending adoptIon of a Negative Declaration Is
attaelled.
IDLY'X'
PROJECT DESCRIPTlON: The applicant b propos ing two !,roj acts on two
exIstIng buIlding sites in the downtown Palo Alto area:
529 Bryant $trcct~ This existing 4).1~O squire toot building
vill be rezone~ Pla~~ed Community (Fe) and completely renovated
for use as offices. Light vella and terrace6 will be added to
the building that will re6uce the current floor area by 2,359
square feet; bowever the third floor will be expanded by 4,850
square feet to equal the sIze of the first and seeond floors.
The net floor area after completion of the project will be
45,600 .~are feet cr a 3.44 FAR. Under Commercial Downtown
z.onif1CJ req·ulations. the applicant 'Would nonnally be required to
r.~ae. the floor area to equal the existing. Typically this
vould involve sealing off a portion of the basement: however,
througb the PC zone Change the applicant Is pro.posing to retain
the full basement area and expand the third floor.
Ibe architectural style viII complement the hi.torlc facade of
the buildinq but will be different in character in or~er not to
aImic the bistorIc facade. Windows will be added and the north
PC529BR! JG '/23/90 3
\ y
\
\: .
•
,
, .
,
>:
--
r." .•. i ' -' ,-'!,,-~
." -
I.
1
j
L
and aouth elevations rev! •• 6 to provide I more contemporary
faca~.. The ARB bas reviewed the proje~t at 4 preliminary
revl.~ and found the proposed architecture to be acceptable.
\
ARB concern c.nter.~ on the appropriateneas of the deslqn if the
9round floor were to be uaed for retail. The HR8 bas also
reviewed and approved the propo.ed project. The alnutes of both
.. eting. are attached. B.~ause the design of the buildin9 is
not conducive to a retail use, the applicant 1. alao proposing
that the PC zone at ~29 Bryant Stre.t will not have a
requirement tor Ground Floor Retail.
251 U.niv.rsity Ayenue: The existlnq 13. )35 square foot builcHng
is desi9nate~ as historic cateqory III and seismic category II.
The applicant proposes to seismically upgrade the building but
vill not be making any exterior changes to the architecture~ As
a part of this PC zone chanqe application, the applicant has
stated that they vill n~t utilize the exceptions to FAR
regulations which would have allowed an increase of 4,~OQ square
teet to this buildinq, and the applIcant propose. to seal off
2,520 square feet of existing basement area in excbange for
retaining the equIvalent basement area at 529 Bryant street.
These actIons will decrease the traffic and parking impacts as
assessecS the Downtown Study EIR. 0 .... at 25l. Vniv.rsity Aven'lJe
viiI still be lImited to the undorlyInq CD-C(CFJ(PJ zoninq,
including a requirement for 75' of the qround floor area to be
ysecS for retail.
BACKGROUND: The Planned community Zone Chanqe application is
requir.~ to follow • process whereby it is given initial review by
the Planninq CommissIon. The publIc hearIng 8cheduled tor Horch 28,
1990 is for this purpose and i. the subject of this report. Should
the Commission act favorably a~ this initial revie~ on the general
concept of this application, more detailed des!qn plans are then
.u~nltted to the ARB for its recommendations. The development plan l
as approved by the ARB. is then returned to the Planning Commission
for its tinal revIew and recommendation before being submitted to the
City Council for final action. Tentative review dates are as
follows:
March 28. 1990
April a, 1990
Kay 2J, 1990
June/July 1990
ISSUES OF CONCERN:
are to the intarior
.quare footage, the
bullding only:
PC52URlI' JG
Initial Planning CommIssion Review
Architectural Rev1e~ Board reviev
Final Planning commission Reviev
City Council revie~
Because the only chanqe
and a commitment by the
following Issues relate
at 251 University Avenue
applicant to not add
to the 529 Bryant Street
J/2J}90
•
) , ,
I ",
•
\ .-
" ,
;
\
\
\" .-\'
..
i
I
'J ~ ,
1 ,
1 ,
i ,
1
~ I
i
"' ,
~
J • ~ ,;:
i , ",
1
I
I
.
1.
2.
Flpqr Ar., Rltlo: At 3.25:1 the existing ~il~ing exceeds
the .ax!mum allowable FAR of l.C:l as pe~itted ~nder the
exceptiona to FAR requlations for seismic and historic
buildings (11 •• '.060(b)). Tho applicant con. boy.ver.
axpond the third floor of the building under tho excepticns
to FAR regulations prov14e~ that an equal amount of floor
area such as a portion of tbe basement, 1. penDanently
removed from use. Since th. basement area at 529 Bry~nt
street 1. ~ore useable and desirable than the basement at
251 V·niver.ity Avenue" the applicant proposes to retain use
of the full basement at 529 Sryant Street and seal off the
excess square footage (2,520 square feet) at 251 University
Avenue. On the basis of city of Palo Alto regulations and
ordinances this proposal ~lll not result in any net change
in floor area or traffic and parklnq requlremants in the
downtown core area. The final result ~ill be an increase
in the floor area ratio at 529 Bryant Street from 3.25:1 to
3.43:1 and a decrease in FAR at 251 University from 1.9:1
to 1.55: 1.
Sinee the applicant Is al.o proposing to forego any
expansIon of floor area at 251 Unlversity Avenue that ~o~lo
be allowed under the exceptions to FAR provls1ons~ staff
finds the proposal to be consIstent with the goals and
polici •• of the Downtown Study.
Public benefits: The applicant is proposing the following
public benefits:
a. Continuation of the Ramona Plaza alley treatment al~nq
the City alley bordering the .ite to the South,
including new .urfaee and .ubaurface drainaqe. systems
with downspouts Incorpo~at.d into tbe underground
storm system.
b. Replacement of the existing street trees on Bryant
Street bet'Ween U.niversity Avenue and Hamilton Avenue ..
c. The placement of new street ligbts and light posts for
both Ramona street and 5rysnt Street between
university Avenue and Ham1lton Avenue. {At applicant
and City reque.t thi. item i. beinq deleted. See
discussion below.'
d. Installation of tree grates for all new street trees
on Ramona Street and Bryant Street between Vniversity
Avenue and Hamilton Avenue.
e. A ple~e to work with other owners to create a trasb
enclosure area so that dumpsters can be removed from
the alley at 529 Bryant Stroot.
PC52' BP:lt' JG 3/23/90 5
•
3.
f. A pledge to work with other owner. to create a bicycle
enclo5~re area along the alley a~ 529 Bryant Street.
b.
1.
An additional proposal by the appli~ant to provi~e for
Improvements to the Civic Center Plaza such 15 the
construction of steps planters and seating areas on
both .ides of the plaza frontinq Bryant Street and
Ramona Street. (See attached plaza plan)
Tbe conversion of the building USB {rom exempt (fo~er
public facility bul1dinq) to non-exempt (office]
necessitates the full payment of the housing
mitiqation fee based on the total 45-.60'0 square feet.
The a~nt of the tee will b. dependent on th~ tee
base at the time of final Council approval. The
current rat~ Is $2.80 per square toot~
Miscellaneous i~~rovements such as historic
preservation~ seismic uP9r.des~ fire and safety .
!zprovements, and clarification of public owr.ership of
alley ri9ht-of-way.
Staff finds the proposed public benefits acceptable,
particularly the addition of the proposed improvements to
the Civic center Plaza. ThIs 1. a priority item of the
Downtown Urban Design Commltt~. end vould provide tor
better access to the Plaz! ~nd .~~itional seatIng areas.
Staft believes that Plaza improvements ~lll belp increase
the 4owntown vitality that aigbt tie lost by removing the
ground rloor retail requirement.
Staff is concerned that the placement of new street lights
on only these two streets will create problems with
stockpill~. repair and maintenance of a s.parate fixture.
We believe that an overall street lighting program should
be coordinated through the Orban Design Committee and that
this condition should be postponed until that time. The
applicant has also requested deletion of this item in lieu
of the addition of improve~ents to the Civic Center Plaza.
Provision of trl!l5h facilities and bicycle enclosures need
to be further coordinate~ with the Department of Public
Works .nd the Transport.tion Division. staff believes that
access to bicycle facilities lbould be frOD street right
ot-way and not from a narrov_ priBarl1y service alley.
Ground floor Retail: Staff belIeves that the building at
529 Bryant Street Is unique and that removal of the qround
floor retail requirement is acceptable for the folloving
reasons::
a. The design of the bistoric front of the building is
PC529BR't JG 3/23/90 6
. ''--, -.
I
",..~ .
~:~.--L. '+ .
\
\
• \
,", ,\
.J
--, , I
'J"jl
'I
i
i
1
".
i.
\
not conducIve to retail •• les and aarketing due to the
li.ited wIndow ar •• aDd the high windov .ill ••
b. Since the property has a .treat frontage cf or.ly 60
f •• t and • depth of ever 220 feet. the ground floor
area cannot be auitably divided for the .maller retail
.pace. of the current .arket and beve any street
frontaie for the individual businesse5 1 and the
limited wIdth of the property would not allov for a
centrol hallway with shops on either lide. In
addition the exiating interior posts are inhibitor. to
& .ingle retail user.
c. Since the alley will continue to be a service alley
vithout a d.signated pedestrian area, exposure of
retail frontage to the alley is not appropriate.
d. The 2 foot 9rade 4ifferential between the interior of
the building and the exterior alley and .iQe~alk are a
major impediment ~o effective ~erchandising.
COIIPREHENSlVE Pu.N COMPLIANCE
~e uses and site development regulations within the proposed PC
district must be determIned to be consistont with the
Comprehensive Plan. s.etl~n A.S of the applicant' •• ubmittal
provid~s a detailed evalgation of the proposal'. compliance ~ith
Comprehensive Plan objectives. Those consi~.red ~ost pertinent
to this proposal are the folloying:
&. Urban Design: Promote the orderly and harmonious
development of the City and the attainment of the most
desirable land us. and Improvements through the review
of new development.
b. Vrban Desiqn: Promote vis~al environments whiCh are
of high aesthetic qyality aDd variety, and considerate
of each other ..
c. Historic Preservation:
of buildings which have
interest ..
Encourage private preservation
historic or architectural
d. Environaental Resource: A reduction in the potential
for injury and loss of life and the possibility of
property damase (through remodels to current code and
•• ismic retrofit).
UOOIOlll!pMIO'
Staff recommends that the Planning commission conceptually approve
the proposed Planned Community z.one changes, and forward the
PC5aBR'l JG 3/23/90 1
--"c-·. -... __ .
,
j"
•
I
-
application for Architectural Revlev Board revl~~~
rn'PIIlGS
Not applicable for an initial r.vie~.
COXPI,.IONS
The following items should be addressed by the applicant prior to ARB
review:
a. Handieap access should be near the front door of the
building and not off the alley.
b. The applIcant shall prep~re complete detailed architectural
drawings including, elevations, wall sectIons showing
windows, cornice and eaves, d~r and wIndow details, alley
paving, terrace and landscaping elements, colors and
materials for ARB approval.
c. Fire sprinklers are required.
d. Tho li.ited vi~th of the oXisting alley and Bryant Street
sidewalk do not permit the addition of trees, landscaping
and planters, as shown on the plan. and elevations.
e. Additional details on the proposed ~rash enclosure are~ and
the possible bicycle parking area are required.
f. The applicant .hould further study the rear exit from the
boildinq to provide additIonal visibility tor persons
exiting the bUildir~.
h.
street trees and grates are subject to approval of the City
Arborist and a street tree protection plan is required.
If this vas new construction, two showers ~ould be
required. As a conversion of an exempt ~se. staff believes
that showers should be included. rbis viII help to
encourage bicycle commutinq and will enc~raqe office users
t.o stay on site.
the following items sboul~ be addressed prior to submission for a
boUding permit:
h. The developer shall submit plans, showing existing
topogr.pby. including elevations of lids and qrates, and at
as feet intervals of both alleys (City and private) and
si~ewalt on Bryant Street. I~ shall also include the flo~
line elevation at t.he new Long's Drug store. newly
PC529BR¥ JG )/2J/90 B
•
r
l
I
!
I
!
[
I
, l
"
\
\
\
\ . , .
., ,
•
, .
\,
'.
./ -" , ~I<..~~~:"""_~""",='><;-"-~""'"""" ___ ~~. ___ """"",£_""_-_._"""~~"""~T"_""""",,,,,,,,,,,~"~
installed. concl"ete Kwa.le and also the elevatiOt'ls at 'either
end of the oper. apace connectinq the two alleys behi>d the
bullding prior to return to Planning Commission.
L Detailed dravings .hall be .ubmitte~ to ARB and Public
Works Engineer!~ sbowing materials and crosa-sections of
the propo.e~ paving and specialty pavIng for the alleys and
public a!dewalk prior to sUbmission for I buildIng permit~
The propose~ alley l~provem.nts shall extend to the
recently completed improvements at Longs Dru9s in order to
continue the continuity of the alley.
j.
11:.
Developer shall contact City's Transportation Division to
discuss the pedestrian walkway on Bryant and traffic
detouring requirements prior to issuance of a building
penolt.
A pre-construction meeting with Public Works.
Transportation, Utilities, Bul1~ing and Planning i.
required prior to submission for a buildinq permit.
1.
••
Detailed lighting plan subject to. ARB revie",' aDd approval a
A draina~e plan showing roof drains and alley drainage
shall be sUbmitted to Public Works Engineering fer approval
prior to submIssion tor a building permit.
UtAeIIM.ENTs
Application and plans, containe~ in binder (Commission Members only)
Location Map
Environmental Impact Assessment recommending He9ati~. Declaration
Excerpt minutes of the ARB ~eetin9 January 4, 1990
Excerpt minutes of the HRB meetinq OCtober 25, 1989
Sketch proposal for Civic center Pleza improvements
99'IIS IERT 1'0
rom Gilman, DES Architect., 399 Bra~ford Street, Redw~ city, CA Jr. Baer, P.O. Box 1672, Palo Alto, CA
Architectural Review Boar4
PC52~BR:t JG l/2l/90 9
,
• ,
r,
•• I
t
i ,
i
!
,
~,.
,
•
t
[
I
,
•
\ ,
\
",\, ,
-\
4 \-:
. , J i ,:
•
. -_.
SITE LOCATION'
529 BRYANl SlREEl
\
I
I
I
~ sITe LOCATION,
,
I
L
,
",
I
I
" "\
,
I . i
,
.'c-, ii,
' .
\
,.( , • -:,:i~:~~i~"~~~~:~:" ~ ,
. ~ .l~ ~:.~~~~~~.::" _ ~ .. ,
\
"
':=-
.:::' ;'-'
/ .' " , -,:!~~~~: _.'
im."......c~ _______ ._~ ___ ::_ ... _~ _<.~',, _____ ~ __ ._:.;_. ____ • ___ .;....0:
-
£HVIRONMlNTAL IMFA,T ~SSES~NT
251 UNIVERSITY AVENUl AND 52! BRvANt STRtt! lONE CHAN.ES
PRW-CT I)(SCRIPTION
The Ipplfcant (s propo5lDg two projects en two eXlsling ~uilding sites i~ t~e
downtown Palo Alto are.:
S29 &ryant: T~fs ~xlsting 4].100-s~uare-foot bUllding ~11 be rezoned
flanned Comm~nit, (PC) and completel, renoyated~ The building and site
Ire desfgnlted IS 'istoric cltegorl I] based on l~e terr. cotta facade
(c.IIZ9) and t~e f.ct t~.t t~e site ~.s t~e location of the first
elementary sc~oo' for the town (c.1893). Applic.nt propos.s to complete
the 3rd floor of the b"llding. w~lc. >rill .dd Ipproxlm.t.ly 4,859 square
feet of floor are., by vtilfzln9 the exceptio. to floor Ire_ ratio (FAR)
regulltions 11 t~e Commertial Downtown District r!gulatfons
[18.49.060(b)}. Since t~. exl.tlog building exce.~s the •• xlmum 3 te I
fAR~ the total allowable squire foot.g! under curre~t Zoning O~dinance
provisio~s is 43.100 square f~et. II order to complete the third floer.
it ~ould be reQufred t~at 2.5l0 square f!tt af baseme~t area be sealed
pff. I. lieu of cl.slng .ff I portion of the b •• emenl .t 529 8ry.nt
Street. applfcant proposes ta sell off In equal portion ef the basement at
251 VniYersltJ Avenue. Tbl. will fncre.s. the tot.l square f.olage of the
529 Bryant building to 4S.600 squire feet ar I 3.3 to a fAR. Because the
design Df t~e bu11dlD9 fs not cD~due;ve ta I retail layout, t~t applicant
fl .1.0 propos log that the PC zone ot 529 Bry"nt will not h., ••
req~irement fDr Ground rlo~r Retlil.
251 University: T~is ~xi5t;ng J3~33S-squlre·foot building is deSignated
IS ',storiC category []I Ind se'smlc cat!g~1 Ir. As plrt &f this
project, t~e Ippllcant propose. to selsmic.II, upgrade the b"11dlog_ The
Ippllc.nt will not utl1i.e the exception t. fAR regul.tlons Whick would
~ave 1110wed an ;ncrease Df 4,$00 square feet to l~\s building. and lm
ad~itlo" will .0.' off 2,520 square feet of b.sement floor Ire.. The Z.sec squire feet of eQuivalent basement Irel vill be allowed to remal~ in
us. _t the 529 Bryant Street slto. U.es It 251 Unlver,;t, will s\i11 be
lim;ted to the "nd.r1yfng CO-t{6F)(P) zonIng.
e1l9015/jg 90-£IA-IS
2
. , . ,
-.
•
i
(nvlroomeDtal Document. -(Ity of Pa!o Alto
r~VIRONHENTAl ASSESSMENT
PrDJect Oescrjptfo~ftte: The To"eet is reloDfn of twa sites fro~ Downtown
COIfIIIerchl (0-5 SF' tel anned (olTD'llunit C. b He. chan es are a
Sf smlc D ride In or re~cvatfon c t e eXlstin bistorfc bul.din s resu tin
II • ne f ; e fncrusl!' 0 2 20 s uart eet wtllcll (OU d 11 0"" a be con
si ere categoric. J exempt.
locitiortjAddress! SZ9 Brfant Street and 2S1 l1nh'ersity Avenue,
Palo A to, C~ 94303
Sponsoring Ageocy/Applicant: DrS Architects' Engineers
Addr.ss and Telephone of Applicant: 399 Bradford Street
(415) 354-5453 Redwood (it" CA 94063
Application for: zoniDg change, ARB (File Hos a9-ARB-215, 90-«-3, 90-ZC-4)
(e.g.. zoning cflange)! sLlb<ihi.siof') of propert,_ arcldtechroll review~ use
pe",it)
ZonlDg .t Project loc.tloD: CO-C(Gf!!P) fee Receipt No. : ___ _
NOTICE Of OfTERM!N~TION
Based ~pOD review Df t~e prgject files~ the undersfgned ~ember of the Planning
Oepart~ent bas <onclcded:
I~l Ne9atlve Declaration: The projeot ha. no significant environmental impact.
No [fl~ironmentaj Impact Report is required. The reasons for I. ~egative
DeclaratfoD are: il the attached inftfal stQdy. A record of project ac
tfans is available for review at the Palo Alto 'lanning department locat~~
on, the 5ui floot" (If (it, Hall. 250 ~arn;1tol"j Avenue. Pa)o AHo.
1_' The project May ~aye I sfgnjffcant ~nYlronmentil fmpact. An [~virofimental
Impact Report wi 11 be prepare . .'1.;: II
PlannlDg Depart.ent Off; c i.l: .....J'.4t.!<~':.3,...:....,L='I-L'.~!:!~:::::::::=-.:.::e/_. ___ _
'llnn I ng 01 rector: -,h€.a=~~Zkz.;,~~!1!d~ __
The ~rlject ~as beeR approve~.
The project has bee. denied.
Amended July 5, 1990
era9015/5g
., .. -----:-
-'''L'' . . .
O.te: l/rl'll!
Oa te: ___ -..,. __
Date: _____ _
FtJ. No.: 90'[IA-15
90-E1A·15
I
•
I
I 11
l
,
-
[N~IROIIMENTIIl IMPACT ASSESSMENT
lSI UNI~[~Slt' AVENUE ANa S29 BRIANT STREET ZONE CHANGES
PROJECT DESCRlfTION
Th. app11clnt Is proposfng two projects on two existing buildIng sItes ;, the
downtown Pal. Alto are.:
S2!i Br~ant: Tils existing 43,100·squ,re·foot buildIng will be rezoned
Pl.nne Communitl (PC) and completel, renovated. The building and site
Ire desfgnlted is 'lstor;c cate90ry JI based on the terra cctta facade
{c.1929J .nd t~. f.ct t~at the site was the locatIon of the fIrst
.lementar1 school for the town (c.IS93). App11c.nt proposes to complete
the 3rd floor Q( the buildl0g, ~h;ch ~]l Idd Ipproxlmatel, .1859 square
feet of floor area, by utilIzing the exceptIon to floor area ratio (fAR)
regulations fl the Commercial Downtown District regulatfons
IIS.49.060(b)l. Since the existing building exceeds the .axlmum 3 to I
fAR. t~e tot.l allowable square footage under current Zoning Ordinance
provisions Is 43,100 square feet. I. order to complot. the third floor,
it ~ould be required that Z.SlO square feet of basement area be sealed
.ff. II lie. of ~1.slng off. portIon .f the basem.n! at 529 Bryant
Street. ippljca~t proposes to seal ~ff an equal portfo~ of the basement at
~Sl Unfversftl Avenue. This ~ill lncr!as! the total square f~otage of the
529 Bryant building to 4S,600 .quare feet or • 3.3 to I FAR. Becaus. the
design of the building is not co~duciye to I retail layout. the applicant
f5 also propOSing t~at tne PC zone at 529 Bryant ~lJ not bave a
req~frement for Ground 1100r Retai).
~5t University: Ilfs existing J)1315~squarc·foot building 1S designated
as .is!or;c category III .nd selsm!c c.tegor1 II. As part of t~fs
prQject, the Ipplfcant proposes to selsmic.llJ ~pgrade the building. The
applicant -nll not ut~Jize the exception to FAR regulations whfc~ would
have Illowt4 an increase of 4~500 square feet to t~\S building~ In~ fa
addition -nIl seal off 2152~ sQuar! feet of basement floor area. Tne
21 520 square feet of equivalent bise~ent a~ea ~ll be allowed to remaia in
use at t~e 529 Bryant St~eet s~t!. Uses It 25J UniversitJ will still be
lfmited t. t~e undeTlying CD-C(GF)(P) ,o.fng.
eia90lS/jg 90·EI4-IS
2
•
, "
;
t
I
I
!
t , ,-, ,
,
;
#.
:_ J
" ,.-
-~.
,
i
I
t
I ..
I • .,.. ,o;.d" t. ~::\~?~~'~, 'e
o.
.. , .-
, . ' . ,
"
.... ~.iiilf~~£~~~:-;~}"·~;ii:i .. ;t!~';;~~'2-";'-:;.''' . .;;;.;;;.J:._...,;;...._. _.~, =JI. .... ~pf;,.-____ .....,.""'-......... ~."..--::.---_"'." ...-'--,!el~_-__ -~_~~ __ gLlLk2jz& .~
-
El ... ·Z.
INITiAl STUDyl,Z
f. Project Title/Address: lSI ~"fverslt, Avenue/SZ9 Bryant Street zone
cllanges
[I. Project Descrfptlon: See project descrIption above
III. EnVironmental <0+"""
[yo Errvironmenhl Impact Checklist (Explaoatlo, of .11 ·yes· answers are
Section f>
I. Eart~. Will the proposal re,.lt il: YES MAYBE NO
i. Vnstable earth ~onditions Dr c~anges
;1 geoTogic substructures? ..L
b. Disruptions. dis~lacements. compaction
or overcoveri~g of the soil? ..L
<. Change i! topograpby or ground surface
relief features? ..L
d. The destructioD. coverf~g or modiffca-
tiOD of any unique geologic or physical
features? ..L
e. Any increase ia ~nd or ~ter erosion
of so11s 1 Eitner on or eff tne site? ..L
f. Exposure of people Dr propertT to
geclogic ~3zards 5~CR lS earthquakes.
hndsHdes t IlUos1fdes. ground fallure.
or similar ~azards? ..L ---
9· Changes in siltation. deposition. or
eresion ~bfc~ ~ay mod1fJ t~e channel
af I ri~er or the bed Df i ~aJ or illet? ..L
lAdapted froa Appendfz I. Calirorlia ~u)delines (or Implementation of
CEQ"'. December 14. 1976.
IUpdated ft.,. 19aZ; June. 1983
EIAFHC~ei.90IS'"
j9
---...... :-. ,-~ ,-..
;0-[1 ... -15
I
f 10
I' t
k
~ ..
! ,
I
f ,
~
t
.. .,.
~ .
,
"'."
." ~
•
','
.-.:::.
-
:as _&:
2. Air. Will t~e propos,l res.lt fo:
I~ Substlntfal Ifr emlJsfons or deterioTI~
tlon or Imblent aIr qu,lltl?
b. The cr •• tlon or objectionable eracrs?
(~ AlteratioD mf alr DOVtment~ ~'sture
temperature, aT any c~ange t. climate,
either locall, or reg;enaH
3. Vater. Vill th~ proposal res.lt f.:
I. C~a~ge5 f. absorpt;~D rates, drainage
patt!rDs J or the rite and amount of
surflce vater runoff?
b. A1terations to the course or flo~ of
flood 'Witers'!
c~ n)St~lrge i~to surfate ~ters. or fl any
alteration of surface ~lter quality~
includiog but Dot limited to temperature,
dissolved •• yge. Dr turbIdity?
d. Alter.tlon of the direttion or rate .r
fTow of ground ~iters?
e. (lpO$U~e of_peo~Te or propert1 to water
related hazards suc' as f100dinq or
Udal Wives1
f. Change rl t~e ~uantit1 of ground waters.
eit~er t~rou9b direct additions ~r vith~
drawals. Qr through fDter,ept;ons Gf an
aquifer by cwts or exclvatfons?
4. Plant Life. Will t~e propesal res.lt il:
1£5
I. Change fa the ~fversitl of speCies, Dr -!
.umber .f any species of pl.nts (in<lod-
f~g trees. 5~rub$, griSs, crops, mfcrQ~
fl.ra and aquatic ,lants)?
b. Reduction of the numbers af In1 unique,
rare or endangered species of p1ants?
c. lmtroductfoc Df new species of ,1ants
fmt6 an arei~ or i. I barrier to the
no~al repleRfshment of existl~g species?
d. Reductfoll iI acreage of any agricwHuri) _
crop?
IIAFMC~.;.901~A
.!9
.
\
--,----------~ .
~ NO
..!..
..!..
..!..
..!..
..!..
..!..
90·n~-1~
2
•
I
r,.:·.:~:i..~"'··
.-
5. Animal life. Will t~e propo.al res.1t fo,
I~ Chlnge fa t~e di~trs1t, Df s~eCre5~ or
of lny species of .nlm01. thirds, lond
animals fncl"ding reptl1es, f(s~ and
she1lftsn~ benthic organ1sms. i~sects or
.fcro'"U"a)?
b. Rtductfon of the ~umbers of iny unfque.
rlre Of endangered spec{ts of &nl~i's?
c. IntroductfDn of n~ specfes of animals
fntc In are •• or result 11 I barrier t~
the lIi'gration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration f ••• Isting fish Dr wi1dII'. habitat!
6. NoIse. WIll the proposal res.1t I.:
I. Increases i. ext sting ~o'$e levelsl
b. Exp~sure of people t~ severe ~ofse
Jevels?
. ,
7. Light and'l.re. Will the proposa1 produce -!
ne~ lIght glare!
8. land Use. ~il1 t~e proposal result fl • ~.~
substantial alteration of t~e pres eDt or
-
Jllanne" land illS! of an area?
9. EnergyfHatural Resources. ~ill t~e proposal
reslllt h:
I. OS! of substantial amount$ of fuel or
energy?
b. Substantial fncrease fl demand UPOD
existing so~rces of energy, ~r require
t~e development gf new s~urces Dr
energy?
(. Increase fill the rate of use Clf any
~aturil resoyrces1
d. Substantial depletion of any nnnrenev
able natural resource?
10. list of Upset. noes the proposal fovolve I
risk ef an explas;on or the releise of
~azirdo~s substances {in'lud;n~. but not
li~ited to. D;l. pestfcides. che~fcils or
ridiition) 11 the event of an accfde~t or
upsen
UAFlU:K/.h90IS~
)g
90-ElA·15
3
•
\ •
-.. "'""
··;Sj~f·0t£L.,
-
11. rop.,"tron/Hcus!ng. yrs
I. Will t~. proposal alter t~. lOCltloo,
dfstributlon. dens it,. or growth rite
of t~e ~um.n populltlon of an ar.a?
b. Will the propos.l effect •• Isting ~
housfng_ or create a demand for addf·
tlonal houslog?
IZ. Trlnsportltlon/Clrc,l.tlo.. ViII the propos.l
re .. 1t 10;
a. Ge.er.tlo. of substantial additional
veblc.l.r moveme~t?
b. Effects OD exfsting parkl~g facilities.
or deaand for new park'ng?
c. Alteritions to present patteT~s Df
circ~1itiOD Dr ~o~ement of peop1e i~d/
or goods?
d. Jnc~ei$e il traffic hazards to motCT
ve',cles, ttcyclfsts or pedestrians~
13. Publlt Se,""'s. Will the propos.l b •••• n
effect upon~ or resa1t 11 • need fer new cr
a't~red governmental services ia anI of the
follQ~ing areas:
a. fire protecllon?
.~ Pollee protection?
c. SChools?
d. Firks or ether recreational facilities?
~. ~ialenance of public facilities s
including roads?
f. Dt~er governmental s~rvices?
14. Utilities. ~111 the proposal res.lt i •• need
for new systems. or substlntfil Ilteritfons t~ t~e
following .tllitie.:
I. Pewer or natural gas?
b. Communications systems?
(1~~.1.9015A n
_1_
90-El ... ·IS
4
\
•
..
\
\
\
\'
." \
-~ --
-
ill MAYBE HO
c. W.ter? ~
d. Sewer Or .eptic hn~~ ~
ea StoP' water d'ninage-:!
f. Solid w •• te and dispOl.'?
IS. Human Ae.lth. Will the proposal res.lt fl:
I~ Creation or any ~ealth ~llird or
potent i., ~e.lt' hazard (excluding
.... nto I hea 1 th)?
~. Exposure.f people to pclent',l health
'hazards?
16. Yin the proposal re .. ,t ia the
of any seeRl' Y1sta or view
publfc, Dr will the propos.l
creation of an aesthettcall,
OPt~ to public view?
11. Recre.tlon. ViII the proposal res.lt II .n
Impact upon the quality or quantitl of ext st·
in; recreational Opportun1tfes?
18. CaltuTal Res~urtes.
I. Will the propos.l res,Tt f. the ITter •.
tlon of/or the destruction of I
prehistoT}C oy ~istorit Irchaeo1og'cll
$lte?
b. ViII the proposal result I. adverse
pbY$fcal or aesthet{c effects to l
prehistoric or bfstoric bui1diog.
structure;, Dr object?
c. Coe. the propos.l have the pot •• ti.l
ta '.uses a physical c~ang! whjc~ would
affect Ilnfque-C:1I!1t~rll vll~es?
d. Will t~e proposal restrict e.,.tlng
relfgio~s or sacred ~Ses wft~l. t~e
potentfal impact Irea?
flAFMtK/e'.901S~
jg
I
•
." ,
~ -,..-
":.~~ .. -
I,
.'
•
' . .:
, ,
r.
I
~... •.... ,., •. _._ .. ,
<-t....... "."'-" .
.' ,
1
,
\
"
-'~"':~~""-$-"''':''''''1;;:;.~~~$_ ,
I If) E.rth. The project sit. I. loclted i. 0 seIsmic ore a of ~d.rat. risk,
Ind~Qu,a be subject tt ~erl stro~g grDund s~aking f= the event of an
•• rthquak.. The building at 2S1 Unlversit" which Is current), s,l.mlca",
deficient. ~11 be brought to current seismic standards. New'constructioD on
both sites will be subject to the provisions of the current UnifoTli 8ulldir,g
Code. portfons Df wblC~ are directed at ~i.imizl~g seismic rtsk Ind preventiog
loss or life Ind propert, I. the event or an eqrthqu.k •.
C a 11ant life. The Ippllcant propose. to repla,e the street trees on
fYint treet etwee~ Hamilton ind UnfversitJ~ final selection of street
tree. shill require the approval of the Cit! Arborlst. lhe fin.l landscape
Flan $~a'l be required to ret~r. to the Archltectur.l Review Board for
approvil. ~
6 la) W01S!. tonstrvctioD cf the pr~ject ~ll res91t is temporar1 increases
II ambient no~se levels. Construction activities shall be subject to the Pa10
Alto No1se Ordinance l .tl,h requ'res construction e~uipment tc be muffled so
15 not to exceed I noise emission ~f 83 decibels {dBA} It I distlnce of 25
feet. Dr I ~Dlse level exceeding 86 dBA outside the property. unless an
exception is granted~
1 lfght ond Gl.r,. The completlo" of the t~ira floor 0' S29 Sryant will
result il l.ilimal increase l' l;g~t and glare from t~e 51te. but will not
have an adverst fmpact OD surroundi~g ~ses. A detl11ed lig~ting plan w~ic~
add~esses the street and alley treatment s~a" be reviewed by the
Archltecturol R.vle~ Soard. Th. lfght,ng ~l.n s~.ll ".0 oddre,s the •• twrity
ccnce~~s raised by the 'a10 Altc Pclice Oepartment du~in; prDject deSign
revieW".
8** land Use. Removil ~f the ground floor retail re~uirements at 529 Bryant
Street '~;ll resd1t i. I mioo~ c~ange in land use but does not a1ter the
(ompre~eRsfve 'lan designation. The change 11 use from retltl will result ia
a mi.t~al reduction i. traffic and parking requirements.
II (b) Popolation/Hou,inq. lhe bousing impacts .ssociated with the project
~tre adequate11 add~essed f. the Downtown Study EIRl certlffed as complete i~
1~86. The entire 45,600 sqUire feet of dev.'opment i. subjett to the
pravfsions If Fal0 Alto~s Housing "itfgatfon Ordinance. C~apter 15~41~ The
Housing ~itig.ticn Ordinante applie., I. part [I6.41.020(b)l, t. "anj gross
square footage Df two t~ousand five hundred gross square feet or greater on ~
site t~at il converted from an exempt ~se to a nOD-exempt 55! once the gross
square footage of nonexempt uses 00 a site ~as reached twent, thousand gross
square feet.-The amount of the fee s~all be based on the housing .itigation
fee il effect at the ti~e of final CitJ Council appro~al. (The present rate
Is S2.S0 per square foot.) Th. applltant 'hall Fay ~.lf of the mitig.tion fee
prfcr to issuance &f building permits, and tne remailing half shall be ~aid
prior to occupancy.
12 (b~ lransportation/tirculation. The Jroposed changes will not ~ive an1
slgnl Icant impact. cn Farting. The existing properties have been Faying f,ll
pirk~Dg assessments based on all e~lstin9 square footage. As eva1aated 1m t~e
Downtown Study fIR, t~e additional square (oot.g. allowed for selsmlt upgrade.
and \iltoric buildings ~11 not have significant parting impacts. but ~ll
reqt.lire increased ,parking assessments. The dange iI use of the ground floo·r
at 52~ Brlant from retail t~ office and the prpvisJo~ for not ~sing the
[IAFKt~~i09015A
jg
90·[1"'-IS
1
i
I
,
"
,
I
,
\
> .: \
"/~~"
"
'~-. I .
':
I
I
"1
j ,
--
sels.ic 0' .1,to,lc bonus .t 251 University wIll slfg~tly reduce tne parting
demand and trafffc expected to ~ operat!d from these t~o bu'ldings~
II c Trans o~tlt1on C;rculltiQn~ fbe area wide transportltfon impacts
associ. e wit e prQ eet ave been deter.i~ed by stiff review to have beeD
adequatel, address.d I. the Downtown Study Eli 1986 •• pr09r.~ EIR Whic~
ev.I •• ted the effects of f.11 bulldout .f the Downtown Study .rel. No further
enviro~Dtll review of trafffc i~acts is requlr!d. The Transportation
01.1,100 ho. determined that .ite specific clrcul.tion Impact ••• socllted wit~
construction .ctlviti., related to the building .nd olleyway Improvements .a,
res.lt I. potentlol Impacts on elre.latlon I. the Imm,dilte .rel. A
pre·eonslr~ctfoD meeting ~th Publf( Works, Transportltion, Uti1ftfes~
B.unding and' Phnnfng h required pdor to sU~lssfon: for I building ,permit.
The pO$Sl~le inchi;sioPli of landsc.a,ping islands or ,lint Ilaterhls vitflin tf1e
.11., .,' cre.te s.fet~ h.z.r~s due to the narro~lng of the .lle,. The design
Df th! ]indscl~e islands and se1ectioQ of plant ~aterials ~11 be subject t~
Public Vorks and Transportation OiYisioQ review as ~el1 IS ARB apprcval~ This
r.YI.~ .nd opprovol should .ttempt to .ltigate .ny pctentl., impacts.
13 (t) Public Serwices~ The applicant will be providing a new surrac!
treltmtnt for the alley. new street trees and tree grates for Bryant and
Ramona h!tween Unlversitl and ~iml1ton~ and new street lights for Bryant
Street between UOlversitl and Ha~;TtoD. The choice of paving ~aterfa's~
street tree species. and ]j9~t standar4s snal) be to th~ satfsfaction of the
ARB Ind the Cft, Engineer. A stockpile of any non-standard ~aterialsJ
measuring ]0 percent of the total area covered by those r.aterials, shall be
purchased by the applicant ana held by t~e Publit Vorks Department for their
use i~ anI future re;air work.
A performance bond to cover the costs;f all off-site ~o~k~ including the
alley, s~al1 be required prior to issuance of tha building permit~ to the
satisfact10n of t~e Cit, £ngineer in~ City Attorney. The cost of tne bond
shall be no less t~an 100 percent mf constructioQ costs plws 15 percent
c.oDtfngency~
Thr alley shoald be maintained clear of all obstructions and debris during
c:onstructfoD.
App1icint shall donate street trees and grates for the remainder of both sides
cf Bryant Street between Universft, and Hamilton Aven~es, to be lRstal1ed by
the (;ty. T~is c.ondition s~al1 be met prior to occupancy to the satisfaction
of the ,;t~ Arborist. the ARB 'nd the P,blic Works Department.
(IAFM(~.f.901SA
jg
L
90·f lA-IS
8
o.
\
•
-,-.
. \
-\
\
\
\. , ,
,
I
I
l
~
l
!
.~ -....
JANUARY 4. 1 'J190
£XCERl'T
AROilrICTtjRAL RE\Il £\I BOAJU)
MINUTE'
Re~odel and restoration of an approximately .4,040 square-foot
existiD9 historic bUilding
It Is note~ ~at applicant was .e~king conceptual desiqn
approval at this point, and that detaile~ arcbltect~ral
drawings will return at~a later date for ARB review.
on OCtober 25, 1989, the HistorIc Resources Soard unanimo~$ly
approved the revised design and an HRB transmittal indiceting
so bad ~en sent to the ARB.
After detailed discIJssion, the Board CON'l'IN'OED, 3-0, this iter.-.
for further development of architectural detailinq. ihCluding
the compositlon of the north elevation~ the alley and ~lley
cIrculation, quality materials, and for clarification on ~se
(retail or office) and sign age plan, particularly ~n Bry~nt
Street. The Beard aqree~ that the proposal calls tor use of
noble materials, ~hich are elegant and timeless.
In general the Board supported the spirit of the architectural
e~velopel but agreed that the skin is not adequately developed
at this point~ and that the use of the ground floor must be
decided before the Board can 9ive final approval to the
design. (It is suqgested that the architect listen to the
reeordinq of this acsenda item for a reviE: ..... of detailed Soard
CODments. The tapes are available on the ~ifth floor of the
Civic cente.r .. )
END <IF UCEl!.FT
•
"'-'-c~::--
OJ .,
l
;
I
j
......
IIISTORK'
RESOiRCES
BO\RD
2~ Oc\.Ober 1989
The meetirc .... s called \oorde'r tot 1:40 A.H.
MI)\UTES
Members Present: Jon Gifferd. ~~jl Heyden. Jim ~Fall, karen 01~en. Li~ S~~tt
{a!"rh'e'd at conclusion 01 it.em. , II
l"lembers Absen t :
Safe 1.iaison: Ceoree Zimmer.man
Cowlcil Liaison: Cail ... ·oolley
J. 5~ En-alit S't~r:t. Tom Gilman of D.E.S. _o.r-chitccls/£N..-ir~~l.!rs :tm"·SerJh.J 11 ... ;.,
ne\"-desi.tn to t.he Board. (A pre\'ious design "'--as presented on 2/~/13~.l 'l!iC
only IlIOdlfjCIIlion t.o \.flc fllstoric ..... ·est. f"a~ on Bryunt. ~U'L~t. h dn>p~)i.:I::
t.lle sill at south .IIIost ",--j~ to inst.all II dooc. ~inder or buildjr~ t"
use aaterials inch.di~ cement p1a:st.er. and pr·ecast ccmr>,.. ... te. lo l'epl i, -al'
exisl ing .l"\::bil~tw"'8.1 "\o'ocabul&ry.. Building o..ner Jim Bckr nvlt.~ t1, .... Joed::;l
int,4!:nt is t.o. Nlat.e t.o.I and Datel'l. the e>.::istin,e deslan illste:...d of d<;-\:·Joi il,.i-!
a CCQ.pl~trb different. vocabul&r)J foe tlle lOOdified portion of ue ~trvct.Ul·lC'.
&:S was done witlrl the e'arlie'r desien ..
Ccoruenu:
.JOIl CirCorJ &~gI:!5t.ed UiaL lhe .rodified pxtior~ of Ule buildi.r .. ~ r:..>t aq.'f'~~~pt
t.o match exactly the orilinal hist.orie facade materials; t}'pi.·alIy IilJl.. .... l
att.empt.s rail t.e> replicate 'the ori.-inal and look the poorr!'" fot' i-:-. H ....
Ji.&id~ the 5l.>U'lh elevatiCll i .. in need cf some relief and'variation. and tne
nortJr. ele .... H.t.jotl Iillould be lIOre in kH'pll"li: with 'the slylr or 'l.h.~ !'outl'l. H,
appl.~ the design· .. ser.sitive res,iX)f'"~ to tl'le histork facade.
Ji_ Ht.:FlIll .not.ed that the "Lninsition from the existin: f .. C'3de tu \.he
renovated porl.ion needs to bf-aJdre5~ lurtner. ~rhaps II Iflo.:,rl! subslant .al
n~(:IS~ 'Lhwl. that indieatOO on tJle dra~-illi. :He reit.er.ted \J.e l>e.:d for
lIIOd.ification of the south elevation to break up th.! lont. COlltinLOO\,lS facad.-.
Can Woolle;r &14a:elaited t.ne \.ISe of Ilass as the lint.. to difrcn~.l1tj"te l ... ·t..: ... "'i';"!
the hi~tol'"ie and the remainder of the bJildina.
111e d'es;;arn no-t. ",,plicat.e exactly the d~tailint of the ori.ciual
~is~ic .~~e.
~vie'" the hOr"t.h &-l~\".Uon to lhaintain t..he style or .out .. a:-.d "cst
ele\"aUons.
_____________ Cityoi P.lo Alto ____________ _
, .. ,
---1 ..
'~ ..
j , ,
, .
'='.:_ .... -,£~~,~~r-'
---"",'
./
}>ro\'id~ &1'\ ~':ious break in facade, au.t~r.i.J5 ar.c!/i."l'r c'llor Jt
-JiMo
, beb"C"en tdstOf'"ic facade and relbalnder of boJild.int :]t !.(,.r_~
elevat.ion~
b.3Itline the south ~levation to prCl"ide som(,," de.,.>t.h a:.d' \-",rj;:nir.~ ."
'bred: up l'he lof\l'. unintl!'I"'rupted ....,.11.
-. ~ supports reloc.&.tion of base.noerlt sq,u&.re foc,t.aB.£· to 1i'lr= LCIO':"'.
_sed (-0.
2 .. 5"5 Forttst{ (Member Ji. HcF311 d~lincd Plrticipation dw! tl '::c .::onf. :ic:... <;:,f
intere-.t.' John ~~O:rUl IBppe:lTed before tile &Brd to ur&te t:lC"al o:~ hi-pla:' ...
for 54~ Fc.rest. Since Ile h:it !l.ppeared berore the Board !oj %uor,t.t-,.,. 3:;::"', !".C: t..)s,
pursued uven..l alterna.t.hes (or the propertT. one of .... 'bjch has pi'(»o."£.j
Slltlsf~tory. Al$O l1Ie site·. dr!'silna.tion 86 a Catea:.J.T)"" 2. l:,"}t 3~ bJilo.l;::: t . ...I!'
been c18rlCioo. J..>hn It,"oodworth ,.:as joined by Archltect John !'.t.rl.h"'~5-· a.;~
ck'\'elope:r M.(.. ... ·en P.i~rce. John ~·O<::I&lOrth asl~ed ~ether lh~ Board cv:Jid. -S1..~1 t
t1'It" cloc"k-on a Qfle-Y~l:Ir demolition notice or &hCl"ten the pe:-foJ. He alsa
jrlfvR'led Ole Boi:I.rd 'Lhl:lt he 14~ investilatini Il\'in,g Stelen f'i(·r..-e JOss .. t;!-o.i lrl e·f
the S~S Fu~st BuJ].d.lnllt' to be znOved lo • sill!' at Addition arod C'Jill&L_ Th·: iloJ3r..5
enc,oura~ed John Woodworth t.o p..lrsue plans to deliver t.11e bu:ilC!in~ 11.-S'.e\·f::n
Pi era-and t.ook no other lonna] action.
3. l~lJO V~Vfcly Ou~s. Discussed the niSlory of the ~~ll. Ji~ ~cFeil
contacted Phyllil !').JnscY. ~t.o said that 15-2'0 ye3.CS 3:1~ tI,,.: southern pt.rt.h;~
hltd be-en. • .odi (led fOl" a Prop::lsed driv~ay. '-'hich "-'5 not a~'pr, .\·r+'I"f r~-th:"
City. She noted nei.lhborhood sentiment has eotl$istentl) sWPl"'ort<..>d
preservation of tile wall.
eeor.&e Zimmerman not.cd the public "Mouin& for adc2itioo Q1-UK· \'i!) i to T.hr"
description of 100-110 \~aver)ey Caks b soJ'Jeduled for Yo~:~ber 8. 198::1.
4. 8i9 Ramona. Continued t.o tbe !lex"\. aeetina:.
A. Gail \.looll.:'.7 noted 5e'\·eral publications of ir,ter~:$t -:0 the bu:u i:
To be included in thl!!! next. Ileetint:9 s pacXl!'t .
.e. Jon OirCOl"""d noted the City or Escondito offers :1 "\"";irielY 0:
incrnU ... ·es (or h!ltOTic preservation; $Qm(>t.hjJ~ for this BoaroJ tv
.ddn·ils &5 time and li!:ner&y pem \"
c. Ge-orJo!e ZiUltlermM ltai-d the Juana. Briones r·e~.idc!""lC'e has appar(>I\tZ.'
"uf(lr.rr.,;:! 5OIIW: cracld·T14: u a "&vlt of "the ~nt 1-:l1""t.J-.qu:]T,~.
Chh·r BuUC!inc Official Fred Kel'm&n ha...", jns.L;e,~t.rd ,hc b.JUS.j~; no
5 tcone: i ndie& ti on. or ,. ounda. ti on probl e:&::. •
Since-rel,..
-=d,.r\ ~~~,
Ji. McFall
Secretary
-
•
\
,
t.
•
... -.
"
" " \
\
•
,
..
'-'''-.'
.,
-
• , .-;
I
• I I •
,-
f
\
d··>········· " . '--..
j
1
1
J
1 ,
!
"
-
, ,
EXCERPT of the Architectural Revie .. Board Minute. of 5/3/90.
1. B9-ARB-275
90-PC-03. 04
:a .. odel and alnor addition of .a,S!)() .quare f.et to an.
exi.ting .l,lOc-aquare-foot hiotoric building
The Board continued thi. project at the April 1'. 1990 ARB
.eeting for revision. to the desiqn of the building akin. the
tranoltlono betwaon the two parts of the building and the
4 •• 1gn of the handicap ace.... At that tl.e Board members
indicated a willingne.. to b. contacted individually by the
architect tor conaultation prior to thi. review.
It i. not.a that tour ARB .ambers, Ham! &am ..... Alno d.aRosa ..
Micha.l Lyzwa. and Shirley Wiloon bad opoken with the
applicant and/or the architect about the design revisions
.inca the April 19, 1990 ARB meeting.
It 1. also not.~ that a three-paqe letter dated April 27,
1990 reqarding the project changes was foraally submitted to
the Board trom the archItect, C. Thomaa Cilman, AIA.
Althougb representatIv •• of hI. firm and the developer qave
pres.ntationa at the .eating of Kay 3, 1990, Mr. Gilman was
not able to be present.
After diBeuso1on, the Board APPROVED, 5-0. the builcHnq
design subject to the folloving conditions:
1. Detailing 0: GYRe DRYVIT connective panel design. finish
of the DRYVlT, proposed finish of the qla •• and detail. of
th. gla.s. bronze panel design and ~olor. ahall return tor
review and approval prior to applyinq for a buildinq parait.
2. The developer Ihall provide tor t~o showers to encourage
bicycle commuting and office users to stay on .ite.
3. The conversion of the buildinq use from exempt (tormer
public fecility buildinq) to non-exempt (office)
necessitates the full payment of the housing mltiqatlon fee
based on the total of '5 I 15 0'0 square feet. The amount. cf the
fe. vill be dependent on the tee base at the time of final
Council approval. The current rate i. $2.80 per .quare
foot.
c. The propo8ed landscaping and l~pr~vement. that would
narrow the alley ahall be ell.1nated.
5. Street trees and grates are subject to approval of the
City Arborlst and a street tree protection plan i. required
prior to .ub.itting for Building permit.
5/3/90
1
•
.'
\
. \ , > ' \,'"-':"-.
~. '
:
,. rho dovolepor ohall oubait plano, ohowinq oxiotinq
t~.pby, Inclll<l.inq olovation" of lid. and c;rat .. , and at
25 foot Intorval. of both alloyo (City and private) and
oidowalk on Bryant Stroot. It .hall aloo Inclll<l.o the
flow-line elevation at the new Long'. ~~ store, newly
in.talled concrete .wale and &1.0 the elevationa at either
ond of tho open opac. connoctinc; the two alloyo behind the
buildlnq prior to roturn to Planninq commio.ion.
7. Dot.il.d drawinqa ahall be submitted to Public
• 0r~/En9inoorinq and Planninq showlnq matorIalo and
cro.o-.octIono of tho prcpo.ed pavinq and .pecialty pavinq
tor the alleyo and public oidewalk prior to .ubai.sion for a
buildinq porait. The prcpoood alley improvement. ohall
extend t.o the recent.ly completeeS: improvement. at Longe Drugs
in order to continuo tho continuity of the alley.
I. Developer eall contact City'. Transportation Department
to di.cu." the pedestrian walkway on Bryant and traffic
datourlnq requirement. prior to I.suance of a bulldinq
peralt.
9. A draInage plan Ihowlnq root draina and alloy drainage
ohall be aub.itted to Public worke Enqinoorinq for approval
prior to sUb.I •• ion for a bulldinq peralt.
10. CUrb and qutter alonq Bryant Street frontage .hall be
"replaced prior to issuance of an occupancy pereit.
11. Prior to .tort of any work in public right-of-way, a
pr.con8t~lon .eating with dev&lopar, contractor_ and
PUblIc Work. otaft shall be required.
In general the Board agreed that theIr concerns expressed at
the previous aBeting had beery .ati.fied. Mr. tyzwa went on
recorlS with comments about the need for care with the GFRC
and DRYVIT, wIth the thin ..,1; construction detailo, wIth the
tin1.h l an4 he preferred the use of laminated q18... Be did
not want the use of vire glas$ to result in a -Firebouse
appearance for thi. building.
End ot excarpt.
'L '"
5/3/90
2
\
•
---~--! ,
~
!
t, t ~ , .
r
~
<, .
•
,
-,
\
'\ \
\
"
--
II. REGUlAR AGENDA
I'IFORllU IONAL "~ORAllllUll
ARCHITECruAAI. REVIEW BOA.'ID
/lAY 3, 1990
1. 52' BRYANT STREET
P~ler Properties
89·ARll·Z75
90·PI:-03,04
Remo~el and .Inor .dditl.n of 2,500 square feet to In •• !stlng
43,100·squ.re·foo~ 'Istorlc bu'!dlng
REQUESTEO ACTION
ARB review and comments on the design elements of two propos!d Planned
Community Zone Cha"ses (or the downtown area. After ARB review Jnd comment
the project will retur. to the PI,nnlng Comms.lon for rocommend.tlon.
ZOIIING
CD·[(GFj(P) Cowntown Commerclll Witl Ground floor ,n~ Pe~estrl.n
Combl.lng District
ENIROIlM£NTAL IMPACT ASSESSMUT
A Neg.tl.e Cecllratlon bls been prep.re~ for this project.
PUSHC NOTICE
Mi11ed notices ~re sent to III propert, owners and ~tiltt1 c~stomers
withl. 300 feet of t~e project ,Ite When t~e project was reviewed It the
April 19, 1990, ARB DOetlng. At that .. etlng, It was .nnounce~ that this
project was contlnue~ t. the ARB meeting .f Ma, 3. 1990.
REVIEW BY OTHERS
On October 25. 1989. the Hlstorfc Resources Soard unanimousl, Ippro~ed the
revl.e~ design of 529 Bryant Street. No pbyslcal changes ore propo .. ~ .t
251 ".Iversit, Avenue .t this ll.e.
BACKGROUND
T~ls project was reylewe~ by t~e Archltectur.l Review Board at the April
19. 1990, AR6 .. etlng. A ~eta'led analysiS and descriptio. or the entire
project was Included II the ARB I.fono.tion.l Memorandum of April 19,
1990. At t~at .. eti.g, the Bo.rd expressed support for the project and
unanf~o~s11 concured ~t~ t~e stiff analySis and recomme~datfoD regarding
the conditions or t~. proposed Planned Communit, and I.provements t. the
PIlla.
The Board Continued the project ror revisions t. the ~eslg" of the
building stll. tho transitions between the two parts of the building .n~
the ~eslgn of the b.ndicap actess. Min~tes of Ue April n. 1990. ARB
DOeting ore Include~ fl your pactet.
. I -
I
I ~ ..
I
-
/
DESCRJPTI~ANAlliJi
Plans are not Included II lour pactet, bec.u.e the Board directed the
applicant to bring a re,lsed deSign dlrectl, to the me.tlng .0 t~.t they
would hI'. more II .. to work o. the revl,lons. The project was scheduled
to retur. at the next ARB meeting II order not to del., r.vlew by the
Plannl.g Ccomlsslo. scheduled for Ma, 30.
Starf supports the Board'. posltl.o of the need for. more emph.tlc
transition between the old Ind newer sections of the building, and for a
.I.pllffed appr.ach with a h.nest expressloo of the ~aterlals being .sed
for the .kll of the addition.
RECCMI£NDA TlOIi
Staff recommends approv.1 of the bulldi.g design with the following
conditions:
I. C.I.rs, mlterill. and architectural details .s specified by the
Board .h.ll r.tur. for re'l~ and .pprov.l prior t. applying f.r
• building permit.
z. The de~!loper shall provfde for two showers to er.courage ~fcycle
commuttng Ind offfce users t. stll OD site.
3. The cDoverslon of the building use from ex •• pt (fonner public
f.clllt, bulldlog) t. n •• ·.x.mpt {orflc.} nec.s,ltates the f.ll
Flyoent .f the bouslng oltlg.tID. fee based on the totll of
.5,600 square feet. Tb •• ~ount of t~e fee will b. dependent on
the f •• bas. at the tIme of final Council approval. The current
r.t. fs $2.80 per square fo.t.
4. The proposed landscaping and im~rovemeats t~at ~~ld narrow the
alley .~all be elimInated.
5. Str.et tr.es .nd grat.s Ire subject to appro,al of tb. Cit,
Arborlst and a street tree protet!l.n pl.n fs requlr.d prIer to
submittIng for Bulldl.g penolt.
6. Toe developer sb.II submIt pl.n" sbowing exIstIng topography,
fncludlng .Ievatlo •• of lid. and grate., and .t 25 f •• t i.terval,
of both all.ys (Cft1 I,d private) Ind sidewalk on Bryant Str •• t.
It ,hall als. loclude the nov·llne .1.vatlDn at the nell long's
Drug Store~ newl1 f~stl'Ted co~crete swale lnd also t~e
elevltfons It eit~er end cf the opeA space connectfng t~e two
alleys b.hlnd the bulldl.g prIer t. retur. t. Fl.nnlng
(onmfss1oD.
1. Det.lled drawings sball be submItted to PubliC Vorks/Engineerlng
Ind Pl.nntDQ s~owfng materials and cross-sections mf the proposed
pa'lng and .pecl.lt, paving for the .Ileys .nd public slde .. lk
prIor t. submissfoD for. bulldiDg pennit. The propo •• d .ll.y
·1·
•
f
i ,.
t
f
I
t
•
•
.~
\
\
\
\
• "
","'.
~'~·:~~~~1~:
1
1
I
I
'e:lr
. '':( :::-" ~
iMP~vecent$ s~lll extend t. the recentl, ~omp1tted Impr~v.m.nt.
at LO"iS Drugs I. oraer t~ <ootlnuf t~. (ontln.lt1 of th_ ,11'1·
8. Developer .b.ll eottael tit,'s lr •• sportill •• Deport •• nt to
disc ••• tbe pede,trl.n waltwi1 o. Bryant and traffic detouring
requlrebents prior to Iss •• nce of • building pe~lt.
t. A draln'ge ,1 •• showing ~oof drains and .11'1 drolnige shall be
I.battled t. PublIc Vorls E.gln •• rlng for approval prior to
submIssion for I building penoll.
10. Curb and gutter .long Sryant Street rront.qe $~l11 be replaced
prior to lssulnce of .~ oc~up.,el permit.
II. 'rlor t. start ef .ny work I. publtt rlght.cr·WI, ••
preconstructl.n ~ettng wi~_ dev.lope., controctor. and Public
Works st.ff $~all be requIred.
-l -
•
•
~" //
~,;.:j~:!.:~~"';;;";'_"';'_-''''''''~.t':_~'_~~''''-~:''-''''''-'''''''' _,...~, "'-~....:-.... _ -..:.~":""11_ ., iLK zed
)).
rclllfeChlrai
., l~e,'le\\' i'''lllllfes~ ~--~!~~~------------------------~.-~-~---------
Thursday, April 19, 1990
8:!fO JLM.
civic center
250 Hamilton Avenue
Council Conference Room
Palo Alto, California
A.. BpLL CAW"
B.
Board Members Present: Marni Barnes
Aino daRosa
Michael Lyz\ia
Jon Schinle
Shirley Wi150n
B21a1 Aino daRosa arrived late and did not participate nor
vote on items in the Conaent Calendar, Items 1.1 through I~)~
It is noted that Michael Lyzwa stepped doWn and did not vote
on Items 11.4 "and 11.11; and Jon &chink stepped doWn and did
~t vote on Itea 11.10.
Soard Mo.bers Al:Isent: None
staf f Pr.se....,t: Haley, Lytle~ and warheit
It is noted that Pat Cullen l of the Planning Comm1ssion~
attended this meeting.
APPROVAL QF MINUTES
The Planning Department statf announced that reviev of the
minutes of the AprilS, 1990 ARB meeting is postponed to the
next ~eeting6 Thursday. May l~ 1990.
C~ ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None
D. AGENDA ITEMS
APPROVALS: The ArchItectural Re:viev Board (ARB) decision on
the 4esiqn of the project is a recommendation to the Director
of Planning and CommunIty Envir~nment (the Director), who
makes the final decision.. Unless. otherwise stated. by the ARB
or the Director. project approvals generally incorporate
4/19/90
Page 1 CG
~t,,..~,
"&. -'~' I ' -!':!
"J.
>"
.J.'",
t ~
I ]0,
"j .•
I
'" "'
6. 527 BRYANT/i51 UNIVERSIty •
Pre.tar Properties
89-AJ<B-21~
SO-ZC-3
SO-ZC-4
SO-ErA-IS
Remodel and ainor addition of 2,SOO 5quare teet to an existing
.',100 square-toot hIstoric building
Staff member Virginia Warbeit noted that a letter from James
E. Baer l the developer, dated April 18, 1990, ha~ been sent to
the ARB. The letter indicated reqret that Hr. Ba~r could not
attend today'a meeting and offered his thoughts about the
project in his absence.
"
\
}..J I.N ""',a I I>JA. '-t.J
Pat CUllen, of the PlanniIl9 Commission ... said she ilona ~e((.("Jut'l.:.. ~/1i~d
P.anA1R9 CommisclQR I~. in agreement with the Staff analysis ~
in the InformatIonal Memo regarding the appropriateness of
bavinq the developer tund, as amenities, tbe Civic center
Plaza improvamants. She .aid that she would appreCiate the
Board'. support on this issue.
After much discussion. the Board COHTI¥UED, 5-0. this item to
be first on the May 3. 1990 ARB agenda. to qive the applicant
~rtunity for further vork on the following:
1) The skin .aterials sball be reconsidered and applicant
shall brinq all proposed materIals to the zeetinq.
2} Transitions betveen tbe historic building and the addition
on the north and south eleVations shall be reconsIdered.
3) the ARB supports the Staff recommendatio.ns to the Planninq
commission and the analysis reqarding amenities vhich supports
baving the developer fund the Civic Center Plaza improvements~
4} the alley is not strictly a service alley
5) Continue to york on handicap access~ and shov interior
circulation
6) The Board wants to hear from the dev210per a~t the plan
for vbere all the ~ars will be parked~
EarlIer Hr. Lyz~a suqgested that the designer look into a new
plexiglass that fits all the fire codes. instead of the wired
qlass being proposed. Be thought the name of the nev material
Is O'Brien Skyligbts or O'Xeefe. Also, he wondered if tinted
glass could be used yith laminated wire glass in the back of
it.
(It is recomme!~ed that the developer and tbe designer revie~
the tape recording of this item tor detail and substance of
Board comment ~)
e/19/So
page 10 CG
.'
f
i , ,
•
•
. -:;,
•
" ~ ',' . -~;~p-'
" .
,
•
. "
" .,
-\
1
1
i'-'
!
-
II . REIilll.AA AGEIIOA
INfORMATIONAL MDlORAHllUll
mHlTECTURAl REYIEW IOAI!D
April It, agO
•• SZg IRYAKT/Z51 UNIVERSITY •
Premfer Properties
89-ARB-Z;S
90-lC-3
90-lC-4
90-[(,0,-15
R.£Od.l and Minor addition of 2,500 square feet to an .xlsting
43,100-square-foot .Istorlc building
. REQUESTEO ACTION
ARB review and comments on the design elements of two proposed PlaQned
Communlt, Zone Changes for the downtown area. After ARB review .nd
comment the project will retuno to the 'l.nnlng Commission for
f'econnendatron.
ZONING
CD-t(6F)[P) Commercl.l Downtown with Ground Floor Retail and
Pedestrian Shopping Combl.ing Oi.trlct
Proposed zoning Is 'lanned tommunl!, [PC) for each site with the
underl,lng Ground floor ret.ll requirement beiog eliminated .t 529 Bryant
Street Ind retlined at 25] Unfvers;t~ Avenue~
ENVIRONMUTAL IMPAC1 ASS£SSMEKl
A Neg.tfve Decl.ratlon bas been prepared for this project
PUBLIC NOTICE
Dfrect ~ail notices were prevfouslJ sent to prcpertJ owners and ut11it,
c~stomers withla 300' of the proposed pT~ject. Courtesy notices have
been sent to those requesting additional Information.
RHIEIl BY OTHUS
OD Dctober 25. ]989. the N1storic Resources Board unanfmousl, approved
the revised e!.,lgn of 52g Bryonl Street. No ph).ic.l changes ue
proposed .t 251 Un!.,rslt, Avenue it t~;s time_
BACKGRDUN[)
T~!s projecl was revlowee! by the ARB on a Preliminary b.sls o. October 5.
1989. At that time the ARB expressed support for the desl;n of the
project but concer. that the proposed elov.tlon. of 52g Br,anl. and
partlcwlarl, the southerl, elevation along the alley. clearl, reflected
In Dffice commercfll. as opposed tG retail ~se. ~jch is not permitted
wit~l. the Gf dlstr!ct. The applicant was encouraged by the ARB to apply
-16 -
~.-i ..
.. ~
. ' .
, ,
I
I ,
i
r-, < _0-
I
-
•
\
. /
3C-"'~-"'-~'~"" _>C>" ~ __ :~_.i-c_ ...,.::."......., ........ __ • ~..:... ________ ~ ____ '_ __________ ~.!,"'~
for I PC zon. c~ange. Th. _fnut •• of the Octobtr 5 hearing Ire Included
h your ~Icket.
Subseque.tly, JI. Saer submItted In appllcltlon for I proposed PC
rezoning to del.te the underlying ground floor retlll requirement .t 51!
BrYlnt Street, and t. transfer 252Q square feet ~f hase ... t Ire. from 251
UniversIty Avenue to the PaCIfic Bell buIlding It 529 Sry.nt. r.
_xc~.nge, the Ippllcant proposod te sel •• le.lly upgrlde the building .t
251 Vnfver5,tJ Avenue, t~ retli. graund floor retl11 use, and to forego
Iny future Iddltlon. t. that buildIng, whlc~ were con.idered to t.
relatlvel, Ilfe.slbl_ ,nd not I. teeplng with the .Istoricil and
Irc.ltectural chlracter of the .tructure. The net .dditlon to 529 Bryant
~S. t~ereforel less squire footage than coeld be accommodate~
theoretlc.lly wit\ densltl boouse. for •• Isole upgr.des .nd .Istorlc
preser.atlon It 251 UnlversltJ AVEnue.
The public benefit proposed la exchange for del.tlon of ground floor
retlll It 529 Bryant Street was t •• llocate SISO,OOO wort\ of
loprovements t •• sslst fl completIng the (Iylc Center 'I.za redesign .s
recommended by the Downtown Urban Deslgn/elylc Center fl.Zl Committees.
A previous proposal bi the applicant te dedicate SISO,OOO toward the
constructIon ~f • new s1ngle·room occupancy hotel f. the downtown area
was discouraged by staff due to lac\ of .ex,s to the lone c~ange proposed
It 529 Bryant and the !egal '.abilitl of the (fty to accept fundS to .. rd
an SRO c.nstructfon projoct not yet designed or approved by the City.
lnst.ad, .taff suggested that the applicant consider public amenities on
the Civic Center 'lozo I. that these Impro.ements h •• o been cl •• rly
identiffed as desirable. Ire (.oncepttiallJ des1·gned. ant! are an obvious
compensltlng factor to the loss of pedestrian actf.lt! associated w1th
de1etlo. of ground floor retail .t 529 Bry.nt. The applicant concurred
.nd submitted the appllcltlon for the PC zone c~.nge before you.
Th. proposed relonlng and the proposed project were reviewed by the
'Ionnlog Commission IS a concept.al propos.l on ~arc~ 28, 1990. Th,
stoff report describing the proposal '" gre.ter detail and st.ff
recommended conditions ,. Included II your p.cket. Th. 'Iannlng
Commfssfon. on I 5 to 1 ~ote. recommended conceptual approval of the t~e
.ezonlog of bot_ properties with the f.llowiog modifie.tions t. the staff
recommended conditfDns:
I. E1I.ln.tlon.f the public benefit providIng for Improvements t.
the Clwlc Co.ter 'liZ'.
Z. Allow the trinsfer of 2,520 square feet to the buildIng .t 529
Bryant Street from 251 Unlverslt! Avenue.
J. lllml'ation of the condition that the propertl at 251 University
be precluded troe ,tlllll'g the '[xceptlons to fAR" .llow.nces in
the Commercial Downtown District regul.tlons.
J. the '7ann1ng Commtss1on discyssl0n of the proposal. so~ commtssfoners
expressed conc~rl ~it~ one or more ~f the flllowlDg aspect$ of t~e
proposal:
·17-
., .
"
.'
--' ..•
.-
,
-I
; I
j
-
o Transfer of density froo on. building to anot~er and t~e netesslty
for I PC Lone c'PIlnge toO allow for.1 small fncru.se h square footage
at SZ9 BrIant Street.
o The lack of parting at 529 Bryant Street.
• A problbltlon on f.ture additions at 251 Unl •• rslty Avenue,
partfc.larl, fro. tb. standpol.t that f.ture owners mlgbt petition
t~e (lty for relief;
• Tbe cost of tbe publfc amen!t, package for the project and e.petiall,
the '150,000 (f,\c (ent.r Fl.z. improvement portion.
Tbe ~.jorlty of the Commission cited the proposed trees, alley p.vlng
flqlrovement and' partfcilarly the re~use Df I long tfme vacant PaeBel
building .s being sufficient public amenities for the r.zonl.g.
ARCHITECTURAl DESCRIPTION Of 529 BRYANT STREEt
The appllc.nt Is proposing facade cbanges t. the north and south
eleyatlons of the non·'!storlc portions of the building. The partial
tTolrd floor win be extended with. recessed connection to Ue rear
(eas\) ,ltc' p! the original i1stor1c structure. T~ese recessed areas
will be land.caped terraces. Decorative paYing Is propos.d for the north
and south .,leyways bordering the site. Detliled .rcToltectural drawings
includfng eTevitfons, lII"all sections, alleyway and landscape lIaterhls.
and exlsl;Dg floor plans have bee. Included.
AllAlYSIS
II deyeloping tbe current downtown regulltlons. the Cit, Council Ind the
participant. f. the Downtown Study w.re very clear II desIring th.t any
new projects, remodels or renovations not impact the ~arkfng deficit and
trafffc conditfc~s r. t~e downtown area. lbe exceptfons were gfye~ to
those buildin9S that would be seismically upgraded or .ere .istoric i.
character, but .ve. these could still not exceed the underl,lng 3:1 FAR.
The exception. were to allow for retention or these buildings I. keeping
wit~ the downtown c~.ract.r.
The allowance for the additional 2,520 square feet at 529 Bryant bring.
this building well over the 3 t. I fAR, adds sQuare footage t. an orfice
building that Ilre.dy exceeds the 5,000 square foot .fflce cap, and
through allowances of the [xceptlons t. FAR regulations allows the floor
area of the t.lrd floor t. be fncreas.d. Tran.fer of the Z,SZO square
reet to 529 BrIant and the d.letlon of ground rloor rel.il should onl, be
.llowed If public benefits .re provided beyond simply removing.
comparlbl. amount of square footlge elsewhere, since many other buildings
downtown .!ght qualify for sucTo r.· •• e con.lderatlon Is re·.se fS the
prl •• ry criterion. The 'Istor!c design of the building at 251 Un!versit,
does not lend Itself to addftlons and, as part of the PC, should be
precluded from suc~ expanitons.
-18 -
•
:;;.
'",,;::~
.~ ..
I
-" '.
.-, I
I
~ __ : ,I .r c ~,-
/
St.ff does nol concur with the Planning CommisSion reg.rdlng the
ellmln.tlon .f the public ben.flts to Impr., •• portIon of the CI.le
Center Plaza or the allowance of addItIonal s~uar. footage th,t could be
addtd to the buIldIng at 251 Unl.erslt, Avenue. When the application Is
.et"roed to the. '1on,'og Conmlsslon, the recO/7ll1endatlon will be to
reconsider the publIc benefits package proposed by the applIcant for the
p,..ject.
Improvements to Clylc Cent.r ,la.a ha.e be •• a prlorltl of the Cltl of
P,l. Alto sInce the prepar,tlon of the Downtown AmenitIes Committee
Report and has been listed IS a priority by the current Urban DesIgn
Conmlttee. II returl for removing the requirement for grvund (Joor
ret,ll .t 529 Bry."t Street. the Improvements t. Clylc Center '1'2' will
provIde for the .dded Yitallt, .nd pedestrIan oriented ame.ltles th.t
h,ve long been ~ade a prlorltl for downtown. St.ff does not consIder
re·use of an exIstIng buIlding. public benefit, partlc.',rl, one ~Ich
was Yoluntarll, kept vacant by the pre~fous owner sole1, to mlt~t.~n
CDrporate optfons for re-~s!. Should re-use of wacant buildfDgs become a
commonll .ccepted publIc benefit, I sub.t,ntlal number .f problem
structures could automatlc.lly become elIgIble 'Dr publIc benefit st.tus,
Including !15 High Street. the Penl,s.l. Creamery BuIlding or the
[.ropeln He.lth Spa bUilding.
Retention of the proposed lllel 's the primary public benefit
fmprovements mal be Iflfmal IS t~ls Illey ~11 CODtfnue to be I ser~fce
alley as 0PPD.ed to the ,lley behInd 2SO Un!ver,ttl Avenue, ~Ich Is
lotended to be more pedestrian orIented. Stiff does not r.c .... nd the
lneluslon of l.ndsc.plng la the allel .s this will narrow the .l'.y to a
polot that would not .llow one Y.~lcle to move p •• t another p.rked
veblcle. I •• dditlon. ,lacement .f the landscaping would force the
pedestrfln tD move f~rtheT out futQ the travel lane l~d create I less
safe situation. rlnally. the .lley materials for this .llel will be
limited to the approved list of the Public Worts Oepartment, since this
alley will continue to be •• I.t.lned by the Cltl.
RECOlt'l£NOATIOIt
Staff recommend. approval of the buIlding deSign with the following
condition"
I. Colors •• aterl.ls and archltecturll det.lls as specified by the
Bo.rd shall ret,r. for review and approv,l prior to app11in9 'or
• building pencit.
t. The developer shall provide 'or two shower. t. encourage bicycle
comm~tfng and office users to stl1 on site.
l. The cD.verslon of the buIlding ,se fro. exempt (fanner public
flcilitl buIlding) t. non-exempt (office) nece •• lt.te. the f.ll
payment of the hou.lng sltlgatlon 'ee based on the tot.l of
45.600 square feet. The lmount of the 'ee will be dependent on
the fee base at the tl ... f fln.l Council approv.l. The current
rate Is $2.80 per square fD.t.
4. The proposed landscaping and I.provements that would .,rrow the
.lley shall be ell.I •• ted.
-u -
r-""': _.-: """""':~--" -.-~-~-.
I -L
-
•
,
-
~. Street trees and grates are subject ta Ippra •• ' af t~e CIt,
Arborl.! ,04 a street trEe protectlo. ,l.n f. re~ulred prIor to
.ubmlttfD9 far Building perolt.
6. The deyeloper s~a" submIt plans, .~owlng exl.tlng topograp~y,
f,c'udlng .'e.ltlons of lid •• nd grate •• Ind at 25 feet loterYals
of both .,ley. (Cltl and prl.ate) .nd sldewalt on Bryant Str.et.
rt s~all .1.0 I.clude the flow-lloe e1e •• tlon .t the new long's
Drug Store. Dewll Installed concrete .. ale and .'s. the
.le.atlons It either end of the ope. space connectlDg the two
alley. beblnd the bulldiog prior to reture t. fl.nnlng
C.."lsslo ••
7. Cetalled dr.wlngs ,ball be submItted to PubliC Vorts/fnglneerlng
.nd 'lannlng showlog ~at.rlals lnd cross-soctlo.s of the proposed
pa.lng .nd specilltl pa.lng for the .,10y. and public sIdewalk
prior t. submIssIon for. buildIng pennlt. The proposed ."ey
ImproYements ,b.ll e.tend to the recent " completed ImproYements
at Longs Drugs h order to continue the contlnuit, of the alley.
8. Developer shall contact (it]'s Transportation Department t~
dlscu,s the pedestrian w.lkw., on Brya.t and traffiC det."rlog
req~fre.ent$ prior to issuance of I bu11dt~g permit.
9. A drllnage ,l.n .~owIDg r.of dral •• and .,ley draInage shall be
submitted to PublIc Works fngl.e.ring for approval prior t.
,ubalsslon for. buildIng permIt.
10. Curb Ind gutter .'ong BrYint Street frontage sh.ll be replaced
prfor t8 fssuance gf an occupanC1 peratt.
11. Prl.r to start of .nl work fl publIc rlght-of-wa,. I
preconstrij(t~on ~etfng with developer, contractor. and Publfc
Works stiff shall be required.
BRW •• • 9,45
RECOMVrNE • 10,00
-20 -
"::"'-' .. : ... :.'.
•
\
1 " ,
, . ,
I • !
J
~
" !
~ ,
f
r
-
Council .Plelllber 8echtel shared-Vice hayor Suto-ritJs's con-ceCr:lS
and lIIon.,jel'"ed if Council ,",ould be Si!'Min9 the .... cong message
to the PABC~ They did (lot ,",ant a Cull-scale, huge child
care center bat oil room or space \alas certainly .. possibil
ity ..
Council .Plember .Pa ti ttlce:i sa id Vice Playor Soto-riLls' s decision
to vote for the .meDd~ent convinced him to vote -no.-Ind he
_,,-reed with council Member Levy.. The oIl1endment Klixed apples
and o,ranriles .. 00 'Wi!:S too speci fic ..
CQ'unci} !'lember .klein lited' the idea, but Council l'1ember
Lewy's arguments persuaded him and he lII~cld vote -no .. -
Jl!:ayo,r Woolley concurred with Viee l'!ayor Stltori\.ls~s c-o-ncern
abo~t the space. Those 'Who had a c-han-ce to ~eally look at
Item' realized a child clre center was a space eete~. both
indoor and oDtdoo·~.. The number .of units taken o,ut of the
facility did noOt 'Warrant. that, especially 'When the City
~ight have som~ school sites ~hicb wo~ld be a pr~fe~able to
consider fo'r iHI additional child care cer.lter ..
Vice ~ayor Stltoril.ls indicated he would vote
wished he h~d been a5 coOnvincing to hi~self as
C~uncil Membe~ Patitl.lcci ..
·yes,,· but
he was to
AP!ENPMENT FAILEO-by a vot.e of 2-7... Stlto-riu:s, Fletcbe~
yotin'9 -aye.-
lIOTION AS M·ENOED PASSEl) cnanilDOtlsly ..
I.. THE-TE:MPORAFi'i COMITTE£ ON OO;','NTOWN DESIGIii' AND AFJENITIES
RgWM.llENDATION RE ENDORSEMENT OF (11 POSSIBLE BE~EFITS
AND MENITl£S FRCt'1 FU:i'URE OQho""NTOWN PROJECTS, f 2) TYPES
OF INC£NTIYgs NEC£SSARY TO OBTAIN SUCS BENEFITS, AND (3,
.!. PROCESS TO PROCEED-WITH PREPARATION OF ,& DOWNrO ... ·~
ORBAR DESIGN PLAN (0IR:293:7) (702-11)
JIlOTION; Cotln·cil Member Cobb moved" seconded by Patitucci,
to adopt staff recommendation as follows:
L Take t.he follo ... i~g actions on the OOwntown Design aDd
Amenities Committee's recommendations regarding benefits
and alleoi ties:
aJ Appcove the list of ·becefits requiricg major incen
tives-ezcept for ·office space [o·r n-on~ofit orga
nizations,-~nd retain the list; and
CITY COUNCIL J,lL\'UTES
tfndl; Ifll
'>L
57-)16
'/~S/S7
"
1=
~.:~ :"-
.'~ ... ,:
,." . ..
I'
" J
i
i
I
[
•
' ..
/ __ -"/~~~ _______ , ___________ '.:·1 --:.....---~.--"'".-..... " ... -...
.. onOl< CONTlNCED
b) Di~ect the Architectural Re.iev Boar6 (A~B) to
expand the CP) pedestrian Shopping Cotibiming
District design guidelines 50 tha t future dev21op
lIent proposals 'Woald be encouraged to pl"oride stich
beaefits and I~enlties .s art in public places, pub
l£c open. space, .. nd public d~int.ing, fQ,un~ .. in& ..
The follo'aling actions on tbe OOvnto .... a De'S1 gn and
Amenities Committee's recommended incentives:
a J Consider a higher bonus tl'lan iI 0.5 to 1 FAR on
futere Down town (PC) Planned Communi t.1 zoned pr-oj
eets on ill case-by-case basis .. particlillarly in those
situations where it can be delJlOQstrated that p,rovi
sion of special benefits reql:Jire slleh a bonus to
offset the cost of providing the benefit'
b) Consider an o·rdinance c-han·ge to the (PC) Planned
Community l['e'Viev pcocess to allo... conceptcal
development plan approval pcior to revie... of
detailed design plans for final a~tion;
c) Defer consideration iD Ilodifring code and otheit'"
ordinances affecting DowotoWQ projects, e.g.,
impc-ov-ement. to-building facades o-n alleys, until
after an Orbi!1!I Design Plan is prepared lind adopted
so that design policies and priorities are clearly
define~ before SUC& modificatioD is considered; and
d) Consider .ppropciate public financial assistan~e for
public i~provements after adoption of an Urban
DesIgn Pl.n so that pciorities are thee established
00 illprovements reqc:irin'9 varia-os forlls of public
assistance ..
3.. Direct staff to:
a) Continue preparatioll of ell Urban Oesign Plan YOl't
program that is consistent vith ttle frame\iork sug
gested by the A~enities Committee; Bnd
b) lleu,I'rn to tbe Council for approval of • work pco
gr •• ~ .ftv~ input is obtained fro~ the ARB, no later
than September ), 1981 ..
57-311
6/08/87
I
,
1 ,
•
I
l-
i
J .'
I
L
':::,;~./.,<'---.. :"
,~:~,
MOTtON CONTINUED
I'~rt.h~r. endor$e-Irleat of .. vo.rl. pt'ograa de$i9nati'D~ that.
t.be plan be prepared by a task force of lior\able si~e
and vhleh in~ludes meftbers of the 10¢al desi~n commun
jty~ ee~ber$ of ~be community at large, and representa
tives froa the fl.nnin~ Co~mi$$ion. Archite~t~r~l Refiev
&oa.rd.. Bistoric Resources Soard, .aod Yisu.al Art!:
Jury_
Council ~embe~ Renzel ~as concerned to Some deQree about the
:IIodifieations to the PC t:one.. She .... as willing to expl0·re to
see what form tbey ~ight take.
ftayo~ ~oolley asked staff for clarification.
Council was givin9 direction to set processes
the recommendations .... ere far from firm.
She understood
in l!'Iotion, find
lI~nager of Planning project Geo·rQe Zimmerman said that ..,'035
correct ..
Council Member Rer!zel was eon.cecoed each move a:lQ.n~ in .a n
iterative process Sent a rlessage that one .... as inclined to
want to ag~ee, ~here~s she vas mo~e inclin~d to want to dis
agree wit.h some of t.ne recommeooations. She var.lted her
concern on the record so it ~as not a surpcise when the item
-returned. She was conc:ecoed in regard to the P'C modifica
lions abol.lt ma'kitl1;J commitments to square footages as sp.:!
cific trade ofts,. if Coon.cil 'Went wit.h the general idea of
the cecommendation before they sav a ceal on-the-ground viev
Qf yhat tbey were getting an.(j what its. impacts mig·'ht be.
Several questions .... ere raised at the Study Session abO~t the
fOOd marlet, and she ["elM in.ed conc.ern.ed the demographics
6hould ~ looked at closely t~ see if the area did varc~nt a
public invest~ent in a food ~arket ~~re than any other area
of tOWI'J. At present .. they had a hig"h po·pulatiol'l of seniors
in OowntQ~n. but she did not believe that Downtow~ was going
to be a magnet for seniors in t~e f~turel and they ~ight see
a conversion to younger families.
AMENM£Nl':. Couneil lIJember Levy lIoved. seconded by
Bechtel. to add t~ staff cecommendation .la the following,.
-" •• including safegua['ds to l'Iaintain pedestthllt scale and
feeling concerning food ~arlet$.-
Council lIember levy said the Ci ty fouod in the past 1II0St
full-sc",le food st.o·res reQ .. ~it'"d an IIf10unt of flooc spaclI!!l
.... arehouse space. and partin,9' lot space that vas too large to
("eall, fit in tbe Oo ... otown area. Be vas concerned if ther
57-318
'jOB/B7
•
-
·.-..
> '
" -
focused single-liindedlr OJ\ • food market .. thef .mi91"1t end tlp
vitb somethillIJ ... hieh Iiolot:lld not vo.rt 'Well. Also, if tl'le
projeC"t failed as II fOOd market, they .ll!i~ht tie left 'With I:
lU'Qe facilit]l for some other use. II. was necessary to
~aintai~ the pedestria~ seale whic:~ they attempted to. do in
OQ~ntovn io every other war.
Council !I1emb'S'r .klein agreed witfl the thr~st .of Couneil
!leaber Levy's thinking .. particularly his comments in the
Study Session, and also-'ooIith Council Member Ren:z.el's com
_eras; ho .... ever .. the atnendment seemed entiu'ly inconsistent.
It the language lias acJd'ed, he belh'ved is full-service food
Ilariet ,,"culd be an impossibility in the Dolo/clown arei!.. Be
bad not seea II full-service food ~artEt .consistel'lt vith the
pedestri~n feelif'l.9 illl the iIl['ea. As be und'erstood e!lrlier
comments .. the real issue 'Was .... hether the lillI-service food
martet 'Was such a desirable 90iIlI fo,r the community that tbey
were willin; to make siQnificant sacrifices& A ~o,re ap'p~;:)
priate amer..dment might be Cotl,n.eil needed to reexamine the
need for the project OOlfiDtown befCK"e ;ranting any special
incentives. Be 'Would not vote tor: the amendment on the
floor.
Council Ptember Fletcher had simila'[ sentiments to Cotln.cil
JIIember Ilein. .Realistically, a gr:oc:ery store 'Within the
pedestrian scale 'Woold end up bein'g a high-priced .. specialty
store which did' not deserve any public subsidy by ;iving
special in.centi",es ..
.Player Woolley asked if -(ouneil needed the kind of refined
gDicJan.ce .that evening or: at a later point.
Chairman of the Tempor:a.ry Committee on Do.'otown Design and
Amenities .John Northway believed that type of refinement
would .come at a later point, pt'ooably part of the Orban
llesjg,n p,ro-cess :5ho-uld Council endot"se that, and .cer:taiDly
specifically .... ben someone ectaally ~ent io 'With a pcoposal
fo[' a food mariet.
Playoc Woolley believed Council ~as
leadin'9 someone into 90ing in with
Council Members had reservations~
concerned &oout· Ill] s
a pt:oposal "When some
Coun.cil Membe~ Levy aS~Ed if it vas app['opriate to pull from
the list of Major In'Cetltives or mate a ;eneral statement
that Coun.cil wocld lite staff to ret~rn vith "What they con
sidered to be ma jor il'l'CeI'HivEs.
'layor Woolley clarified otht!r than eliminati1'l9 the office
space ... Coancil 'Wi!S awro..-ir.q;J the list of benefit.s re~uiriog
Plajot" Incentives.
----.... -,---:._ ..... -,., .... -'>'-
S 7-119
i/OSjB1
•
-,
"
t
f "
= .... ", ~
:f
, , ,
"
,-
;
t
, -
I
!
-
·---,
'f,
CQuncil ~ember Levy agreed ~ith Coun~iJ ~embec klein.
Co-unCil cooleS .. it.~er say ... full-service food. market. was
i~possible 4~d to d~lete it, or co~ld say they only wanted
to have it if, in the trade-off bet~een pedestrian amenities
.and the C'lartet, Cotlllc.i:l co-uleS protect the pede.strian ame
aities, which he feared might be an impo.ssibility. ao~ever,
the purpose of his I!IlIhendment was simply to allo ... t"'e food
IIl!1rtet to-suy in btJt to J!ate it clear council did not want
to sacrifice the pedestrian seal ••
Vice JI!&l'o-t' SuJoritls read the definition of a fr:ll-sl!'r'i'ieE'
food lIa ri:et to liea nit would sell or provide fresh linea ts ..
poultc)', fish lind pcoduc-e in addition to packaged staples.
Be vas not opposed to that and would cather not see ~odjfi
cl!ltions that wo-u1d elilllinate a store tfli!t did exactly that.
Counc-i 1 l'Iember Klein sa id thece co-uld be rlo-object ions to
the definition~ but the problem vas the recommend~tion
before Coun'cil spoke to that sto-re undeir the fleading of
-Sene fits ReQuiring Major In.-centives.-The qoestiOtl 'Was not
... be ther COtlncil .. anted sucb a store but IoIha t they were
willin-g to do to Qet it. Ee assumed another .... o-rd' il1plicit
in tfle recommendation \lias -affordal:lle,-ot" -lI'1arte-t priced.
Deletin-g Item la l1eant Coun-c:i1 .... as bac:k in ill neutral posi
tion, not io,dicating .... hat t.heit" poSition would be if su-ch a
p-roposal 'Calle before Council and they could ezplo-re at that
tille whetfJer tbey bel ieved the area needed some type of
public benefit subsid •
SUBSTITUTE MENOMENT: Co-uncil Member IleiD moved ..
seconded by Woolley,. to-delete Ila to,. -Appcove the list of
benefi ts requiring Dajor incentives· ezcep-t Cor ·office
space for nonpr:ofit o,rgaeizations· aed "a flilll seryice food
martet/permaneDtly-sited~ fell-time farmer's market.-
aayoc woolley did not ~ant anyone to be misled into
believin9 council .... as wholetleaE'tedly in suppo,rt of a grocery
ste>re in. the OO .... nto..-ll. By omitting the Item, Coun-cil 'Was
oot presenting to acyone ao e~haustive list so that did not
mean tha t someone eooid not 90 io ~ i th i! pro-po.sa 1 which
included a grocery sto-re. If tfley managed to 90 in lolit!1 the
tied of proposal that fit the discussion, it ~o~ld be some
thing Council ~e>old .... ant to ~onsider.
Council Plember Fletcher 'Wo-old 'Fote in favor of the 50bsti
tute allend'ment but did not loIal'lt to leave the illp,ression.
Co-un<:il 'Would not look ta'flo-rably upon an application.. under
111.1..1 of tl'le repo,rt attached to Cl'llh2-9):' .. it said ...
•• . . the Commi t tee bel ieves tha t a f~ture development pro
posal il'1cluding such a foo6 Jlari:et shoold be ["ey~e ... ed in a
57-)20
'/08/&1
• \
,
\
".
!
,
I
> I
"
-
very positive ~nne~ b, tbe City,-end Ih~ a~r~~d with that
statement but it ~a5 a ~atter of degree of whether tbey were
singlin; I. food martet out of be-in; e5~cilll:r 'Worthy of
9reat incentives. Tbe incen.tives would be in contradiction
to the 9uidelioes set ~p after the Downto~o Study.
Council Ileillber Renzel stlpported the substittlte amendment
wbieh deleted the t.'Wt> areas where she had been 110St uneom
fo-rtable ... ith the idea of trading ~ses f.or space.. S-he did
not. see "ov to ensure the uses continued. In reality .. if
tbe space ..-as built. "aod the IIses could not sur"ive. the City
could end tip being forced to allo ... othel'" lIses iz:l to those
spaces.. Tbey .. ould not have the Amenity and .. ·in some sense ..
would have cbeated-otf'ier property ololners b:t gi .. ing tl'le
bonuses to peo-ple .... ho pt"ovided some thing shot"t tenD bu t
ended up vith I lon~-lerm space.
Council Plember Pa ti tuC'c-i opposed the 5ubstitcte amendment.
Full service ~iQbt not be achievable, b~t ~e believed it ~as
liortflwhile to have the wot"din·g as an il'lcentive to attract
some ideas and p·r-oposals. The pcoposals co·l:):ld be turned
Oolill +if Council did not like the ideas, if they did not
adhere to pedestrian amenities, if it ~as in the wrong loca
tioo .. if it was the wrong p,roposal ... jf it was n.ot economic
ell)" feasible. There was sufficient evidence that the food
market was a concern and to delete it did D¢t ~i~e Co~ncil
an opportunitr at an~ ti~e to see what people ca~e vp with.
The C.ommittee l1ade ill good faith recommendation ... and Co,uncil
sboold leave tbe ~ording in.
Mayo·r lioolley clarified the list was not all-inclusive.
Deletio·g the item did not Blean COtlncil had .closed off its
optiOf.ls.I bot tlad _sent. a signal of .ccn.cerl'J ..
Council ~ember Patitucci did not agree with that icterpreta
tion. Be believeCl Council was sending a message it did not
waot to see the tind of pr~po5al.. Council ~i~ht see recom
mendations of things c~t on the list. but anything that had
been on t.he list as recommended by the Committee and turned
dOlo/tI, he interpceted to mean (oun,cil -was n-ot interested ..
Co~ncil Mer-ber Jl,enzel said t'"'O points came out at tl'le Stud'y
Session: One. the Amenities Committee did not investigate
closely ... hether or not Oo<.'otOIo/[1 vas different froll Iooy other
neioh·borhood 'With respect to needs fo·r a food l\artet. There
had been previous teStill10llY to that efhct..-bllt basically
it was ~re or less taten as a given tit the Commjttee with
some evaloation; and tlllO, the Fe zone 'Was available thro~g'h
out the community for people to come in ... itb creative ideas
to solve community problems and, at the SIIIIe time .. re-quest
benefits for ttlemselves as trade-ofts.
57-321
'/OB/81
•
\
r
I
f
f
~
1
-
I ,-
,
-,
,
.. ~
.-
,
>
\
,
... ~
I
4
I
1
i
,
1
I
-
I
Council Member· Bechtel shared. SOH of Council Plember
Patituccils coo~.rn$ and poj~ted out Qoe of the issues p~o
posed .as ,. fr:ll-time or per-llonent farCler·s .r1ar"et~ and II;
fll:lll-serl'ice mllr-ket did' not necessadly 'have to be ,. Pluge
jumbo Sateway. rhe o~11 danQer if the 1.nguaQe vas left in
va s Council should be C!IIreftll n·ol to send ,. lIessage to a
poteotial developer tha t Coune i1 would de fini tely approve
the proposaL She referenced the past "-otlsin9 in-cent.i'i1e
vhere ... if & developer provided addi tional ,. ffor"a:ble unj ts
Councjl ",CHilld alloW' an increase in numbers of tlnits and a
project Oil £1 ea mi nQ Wi:! y 'a'here a developer jumped through
!'loops for a yea.r befo·re Council IIlltilMtely turned him dololl) ..
Council Member .lein agreed ~ith ~ayo~ Woolley's inte~pceta
tion.. Council ... as not s~ring it ,.,as opposed to the idea (If
t~ere being a food ma~let.. Tbe question ~as ~hether Council
vas committed to the idea the market and their capitalistic
econo:ny were not ,",octing; and .. tl'lereotore,. ttley sbould pro
Yide some type of big incentive. Be was in favo~ of letting
Market systems work yO til it became absol~telf clear that
government needed to step irl. Be did not believe that 1o'as
the case and was con'l:erned abo-ct the integt'ity of their
systelll. Be did net want to send false sig·n!!:ls to developers
· .. ben there was a strot'JQ possibility Council Ilig~t not be
villin.g .to give the in'cetltive Qr subsidy upon 'Whicb plans
'Were based. If a p·roposal iocluded I!!I ftJll-se.r;wic:e food mar
tet and war-ted some trade-offs~ CounciJ would consider it.
SOSSTITl1l"E IJIlENDMENT PASSEO by a vote of 6-3.1 Sutorius ..
Becbtel, Patitucci votin~ -00.-
~OTIOli IS MENDED PASS·W unanimoosly.
COUNCIL RECESSED FROM 9:Z0 p.m. to 9:35 p.m.
g. REoogsr OF MYOR >1OOLLEY RE PROPOSAL FOR oo.'NTDi<N CEllO
CARE CENTER 110)51
Chop leenan .. 400 Hamilton A~enue ... fo·rmaJJy int~oduced a pro
posed' Downtown ehild car-e center and asked Cou.1cil to give
considera tion to the meri ts of the p-rojects and.. a s t~e
second lar-gest employer in Dololntololn Palo 1.1 to .. to investi
gating the possibility of i~·cludinQ: in the 1518; budget. fund's
the amount of $370 .. 000 as the Cit)'s employe~ contribution
to the pC'oposed center. At a meetil'l9 on alrlenity need's
seve~al I'!Onths ago, there .... as discussion on ",hat .... ould
induce develo'pers to inclode child care hc:ilities in thei~
projects and the response ~as that there ~a5 a clear direc
tiOJl froll the City that massive projects voold not be
en<ourlged r and it .... oold be difficult to include child care
57-322
'JOB/81
j
'I'EI!PORAR~ COMMITTEE ON DOWNro"lli DESIGN ANt> »<ENli'IES:
REPORT ON COK!UTTEE RECOIlMENDATIONS
Jan\laty 30.1. 19B7
I~ IntroductiGn
.')~·t':;·
. :t",":' 1 .'"
''';'
On May 19. 1986, ~ben the City council vas completing its
actIon on the Downtown St~y" it. establishe~ the Temporary
Comr.ittee on Downtown Design and A:menitles. The purpose of
this Committee was to ~evelop amenities and benefit criteria
~nd appropriate incentives for ~utuYe projects in the
Do~town Area which could be permitted to exceed the new CD
Commercial Downtown zoning regulations (primarily floor area
and project size limitations) in return for provision of
special benefits.
The Committee held nine meetings between August 51 ~9a6 and
January 2~, 19S7. Minutes or agendas of thE Committee
meetings are attached. A list of the committee members is
also attached ..
A..'"l e::tecutive sumnary of the COllUllittee' s findings and
recommendatiDns is contained in the follov!nq section. ~he
full committee report follows this executive summary.
Executive SUlnmary
A. Findings
l~ General; The Amenities committee focused on
futUre opportunities for the Downtown area~
particularly in te~s of potential benefits and
~menities, since the Downtown Study addressed ~ost
major parking and traffic issues.
2. Provision of Ber.efits Requiring Maior Incentives!
3.
The Comrn~ttee found that ~ajor benefits~ e.g.,
provision of a full service food market or on-site
child care facilities, could not be obtained from
O.S to 1 floor area ratio (FARJ bor~ses or small
increases in the CD District 15,000 square
feetj25,OOO square feet project size limitatiDns.
Provision of Other Benefits and Amenities: The
C~ittee believed many other types of amenities~
(e.q., provision of decorative planters~ benches
and awnings) eould most effectively be obtained
through existing and possibly expanded (P}
Pe~estrian Shopping combining District design
quidelines, amendments to existing ordinances, or
through relatively small incentives, i.e .• FAR
bonuses up to o.s to 1.
Revised 2/20/81
1/30/S1
•
,
.,
,.
•
•
. I
'I
l
B.
, .~'''-"f''i ' '0_
,
-
o~~~~~~~~~~~: rhe ;,>="'~ :;;"';.~~f ~ am@: nit i es
and benefits could not be realized effectively
,..-itho",Jt the quidance of a conceptual urban c!esiqn
plan for the Downtown Area.
Gro~h Allocatien for Projects or Special B~nefit:
Council ~riqlnally direct&d that lO~.OOO square
feet of th~ 350,OC~ square feet qrowth limit for
the Downtown CO District be allocated for projects
providing special benefit. The Committee agrees
wit.", the. city council that the 10'0,0.0.0 square foot
allocation for projects providinq special benefit
is indeed a -reserve.-rather than a -li.it-for
such project5~ The Comnittee also believes that
modification of the lOO,~O squ~re toot allocation
could be considered after completion of an urban
desiqn plan for the COwntown area. (See
discussion of an urban design plan in section B-4
of the Executive summary and section l1I-0 of the
main body of this report.)
Recomznendations
The Comnittee recomnendations tall into tour
cateq~ries: l} Benefits ~equirinq Kajor Incentives:
2} Benefits and Amenities Requiring Minor Incentives;
3) Incentives; and 4) Downtown Orban Design Plan. In
sub~ittinq its recommendations for City Council
approval l the Committee wishes to emphasize that it
believes Downtown is a vital business district and that
many opportunities are possible for enhancing the
Downtown Area without adding to the parking and traffic
problems addressed in the Downtown study.
Benefits Requiring Major Incentives: These ere
benefits Which the Co~ittee believes should
qualify for incentives (or bonuses) in the CO
Co~ercial Oowntown District. They ir~l~de:
b.
d.
e.
A full service f~ market/permanently-sited z
full-time farmer's market;
Chl1~ care ~aciliti~s;
Office space for community-serving,
non-profi.t orqanizi'!ticms .... ith lindted revenue
sources;
Additicnal parking or parking facilities;
Alley imp~ovements; and
f. Mi~e~ use developments including housing.
Revised 2}20/87
1/30/87
'.
-
' . ,. -~ ,
2.
. '
to the Downtown Area ~ut
~hiCh can be obt throuqh smaller incentives
or throuqb requir~ments l~posed on Individcal
ptojec:ts. They inelu<le:
a. Provision of art ie public places;
b. Retention of the historical character of
buildings;
c~ Increase in and improved use of public open
space;
-d. Provisions ot public restroorns: and
e. Provision of drinxinq fountains and public
fountains.
rncentive~: The committee recommends
approval of the follovinq incentives Which ~ou
be applicable for projects providin9 the
aforementioned Major benefits (e.q.~ a food store
or child care facility):
ill... Provide a. higher fAR ben-us than the o.
~----.<lriqinally suqgested by C .
b. Modify tbe PC Planned community zone cnanqe
process. A first ph~se would establish basic
site development requirements and uses~ ·The
second phase WDuld constitute formal deslqn
approval;
c. Interpret ~ode$ and process project
applications vitb suffIcient flexibility to
reflect esta~lisbed objectives for the
Downto"Jn Area; and.
d. Proviae public financial assistance for
projects offering special benefits.
4. Urban Design Plan: The C01m!litte~ strongly
believes that opport'~it!es cannot be maxi~ized
tor the DoYntawn Area without the quidance of a
conceptual ~rban desiqn plan. Such a plan could
provide guidelines, with visual illnstrations# in
Qetermining appropriate locations fo~ amenities~
project benefits and p~lic parkinq. its
preparati~n could involve .inimal public fundIng
by draving on talent~d resources available within
the community..,
Revised 2/20/87
1/l0/81
--"L' ,
. . .
"
•
"
.--.
• ,
·.,-,
I
I
~
-
I:::
---
The ~ain body of the report o~ the Temporary
Co~ittee on Downtown Design and amenities appea~s
in the tollowinq secticns.
II. ?rlncical Findings
A.
B.
General Findings
Throuqhout its discussions of potential amenities and
bene~its tor the OoYntovn Area~ individual Co~ittee
members often bad different vie~s on tne types of
benetits appropriate tor the Downtown Area. Even vith
individual viewpoints, the Committee vishes to
empbasize that it alvays reacbed a consensus when it
discus.ed the potential o~portunities which exist for
Downtown Palo Alto. Many of those opportunities focus
on an urban design plan ~hich is discussed in a later
section under -Recommendations.-These Committee
discussions also acknowledged the unique and vital
qualities which exist in Downtown Palo Alto. The
ComJ1tittee recommendations, therefore, wish to build o·n
the very positive toundation of the existing vitality
of the Downtown Area~ The committee is aware that many
commu·nities of the size of Palo Alto 'Would be D:ost
desirous to have central business distrIcts exhibiting
such vitality and offering su~ opportunity for further
enhancement.
ProvisIon of Maior Benefits
The Committee discussed I with several local aevelopers~
the feasibility of obtaining major benefits, e.g.,
provision of a full service food market or cbild care
facilities vithin a commercial project. In addition,
staff ~tacted s number of West Coast cities, most
particularly Seattle~ to determine the magnitude of
incentives (i.e., development bonuses or regulation
exceptions) that are necessary in order to obtain such
benefits.
The findings from both sources were identical.
Projects must be of substantial ~agnitude {i.e.1 that
they be of qreater size than 25,00'0 square feet in
.floor area and have TAR. bonuses qreater than 0.5 to 1J
in order to be able to afford -write-offs· tor the
aforementioned facilities. In addition~ the developers
stated that it should never be assumed that all
commercial office projects, regardless of siz~~ yield
sufficient profits to offset -below market-or
-non-profit-on-site type f~cilities.
Therefore~ the -Amenities· committee wishes to
empbasize that within the framework of incentives
oriqinally suggested by the City Council, i.e., a
maximuD txh~us FAR of C.S to 1, few m~jor benefits and
Revised 2/20/81
1}30}67
•
\,
'--
',-. -;.
'~
"'-----
,
.. .,...
---
, .. -" ..
&lrIenit!es are lilcely to be realized in the OO\.!.nto'Wn.
Area within three to five years.
c. Provision of other Ben~fits and Amenities
The committee found that many important bYt relatively
small a~en1ties in terms of their ~ost, are already
identified in the (PI Pedestrian Shopping Combining
District guidelines. The Committee &150 found that the
(P) District guidelines could be strenqthene~ in
certain areas. The committee did not focus on ~hich
specific elements of (P) District guidelines could
either be expanded or 1I'.ade more definitive in order to
obtain more amenities.
On other amenities, e.q.¥ prov~slon of drinking and
public fountains or usable open space, the Committee
round that such benefits could be obtained by offering
small incentives" e.q. t a colnl:linatIon of is bon,us 0.5 to
1 FAR and some e~ception to the CD District
15 t OCOJ25.000 square foot project sIze limits~
D~ Need for a OOwntO'lo7!l Orban Design Plan
As mentioned earlier in this report, the committee's
mood for the Downtown was continually ·upbeat.-The
Committee believed that the need for the City to
proceed with an urban desiqn plan was crucial if future
opportunities tor the Downtown Area were to be
aChieved. ~
Development of an urban design plan is discussed under
th~e Committee· s recommendations.
E. Growth Allocation tor Projects of Special Benefit
In Council's orlqinal directIve to the -Amenities·
Col1Ultittee z it stipola.ted. that 100,,0'0'0 square feet of
floor area be allocated to future Downtown projects
providinq aspecial-benefit. (The benefits were to be
defined by the Committee.) The committee discussed
this l~O"OOO square foot alloeati~n and aqreed with the
City Council that this allocation was a -reserve
rather than a -limit.-Ho~ever. it also believed that
an appropriate time for the City to consider ~oditying
the l~OIOOO square f~t allocation for projects
providing special benefit would be after completi~n of
a Downtown urban design plan.
F. Likely Growth in the Near Future
committee ~embers did not focus discussions on li~ely
near-term qro~h for the Dovnto~n Area but on several
occasions local developers and staff did discuss
expected trends.
Rev i sed 2/201 S 1
1/30/81
•
! '.~
t . . '~.
I .-
~
f
~.
I
!
t
I
( .
f
l
I
t
I
'.' .• •
•
\
>,\~...,.tt'~-""""''"-'-
_-_:_::f2~~~~£:' ~:. ~---~, ~~ ;c..' .... " ,"' ~"' .. "~" ..... _"~_ '" _~:..,.:. " ______ '._'_" __ . __ ...:
______ ~"'"'1I1.IIl!L.It.
-
T~e conelusio~ fro~ these brief discussions is that the
OO .. ·:-.tO"..rn A=e.~ · .. ill r.ct witness d6cvelop:c-.ent du:-inq the
neAt t~=~e ~o !ou= yea:-s co~para~le ~o the ~nount o!
ap?:'ovE:Ci for the OO ... nto!J:::I Area between 19a 0 and 15185.
~ne cited re~s~ns ere:
1. OOWnt~~ land costs, particularly in the core
areA, have not adjusted sufficiently downward to
reflect the ne~ on-site parxing requirements and
the new 1.0 to 1 FAR permitted within the core
co-c Subdistrict.
2. The new CD District requlations~ pa:-ticularly the
e.foreor.e:rtioned parking and FAR: requlations .. in
themselves do not encourage growth.
3. The office rental market in Santa clar~ county h~s
been relatively 50ft in the last year and th2se
market conditions have been reflected in Downtown
Palo Alto. As a results some recently completed
office buildings tave e)Q:lerienced slower
absorp~ion rates than those experienced by
buildings completed one or two years earlier.
4. The 1986 federal tax leqislation will further
reduce the pace of office development as a result
of revised depreciation schedules, elimination of
~pecial capital qain tax rates and elimination of
·passive-loss 4e~uctions for real esta.te
investments.
!II. Recommendations
The folloving sectIons describe the Committee's
rec03mencations in the same s~quenee as they a?peared in the
executive summary.
A. Benefits Requiring Kajor Incentives
The Alnenities COtr.mittee defines these benefits as those
that are not only important in terms of their potential
contribution to Down~own Palo Alto but those that are
of suffic!ent ~asnitude as to require substantial
incentives in Qrder to be achieved. (See attached
Appendix for examples of estimat.ed cost.s 'and expected
returns of projects providing major benefits.)
1. Full ssrvice food market: The Amenities committee
strongly endorses a full service food :market
(i.e., a ~arket sellinq fresh meats .. poultry~ fish
and produce in addition to packaged staples) or a
permanently-sited, full-ti~e Fa~er's Market as a
major Downtown benefit. As a result, the
Committee believes that a future development
proposal inclu~ing such a food market should be
revi~wed in a very positive mar.L~er by the City.
:Revised 2/20/87
III 0/81
,
i , ,
;" ,
~
(
{
1-.
•
r
I
I
,
.-,
, -
In t.rxs of !~plementationt it is presum£d th8~
such a proposal ~ould be submitted &s a PC P14r.~ed
co~unity J~ne chanqe in order t~ allow it
sutt!c!e~t tlexi~ility reqardinq site develop~ent
r.qulatio~s. Sc~e of the pote~tial exe~ptions or
bonuses necessary tor such a project are included
in the -incentives· reco~ended by the Committ~e
and are described in Section III-C of this report.
However l one condition of PC ~one change approval
is demo~stration of public benefit. Hence~
acknovledqment 0: a food market as a public
benefit for tbe Downtown Area could enable a
pro¥¢sal vith a food market to meet this
condition.
[One developer wbo Appeared before the Co~ittee
predicted tha~, sooner or later. a full service
food market snould locate in Downtown Palo Alto.
However l the developer also predicted that such a
ma~k~t ~ouldl of ae~nomie necessity (land costs~
rents and parkinq COStS)8 cater to an -up-scale
market and vould not cornpete~ price-vise~ vith
larq~r $~perzarkets located outside of the
Downtown Area .. 1
2. On-or off-site child care ~acilities: The
Amenltles committee reco~ends tbat on-or
o~f-site child care tacilities be considered a
major public benefit in terms of future proj~cts
otferinq suCh facilities. The Amenities committee
beard r~presentatives from Palo Alto Community
Child Care (PACCC) ar~ from Palo Alto Child Care
fask Force underscore the deficiency of cbild care
faeilitSt::s in.or ne.ar the oovntO\rffi Area relative
to the need tor such tacilities~
3.
Therefore, the Amenities Committee's
raco~endation is responding to this need by
endorsinq provision of cbild care facilities as a
-major benefit-in future Downtown development
proposals"
MOst likely procurement ot such facilities would
be throuqn approval of a PC z~ned project
including such facilities. The process and
dem~stration of ptlbl!c benefit ... ·ollld parallel the
process described in the previous section for a
food market.
Office space tor non-profit organizations: Tbe
Committee endorses provision of community-serving,
non-profit organizations ~ith limited revenue
SQurces~ e.g •• the Peninsula conservation Center
~r the Palo Alto Housing Corporation 8 in futUre
Downtown co~ercial projects as a major public
benefit. Such space could be provided at
~evised 2/20/87
1/) 0/81
•
\ ,
B.
-
---_.
, ..
/
pelow-~~rke~ rents to: qualIfying non-profit
orqanila~io~s. It did not specify vhieh types of
non-pro:i~ orq~nizations would co~stitute a najor
public be:"Jefi~~
(. Ac~itio~al par~in9 [tcilities: The committee
~elieves that tuture projects provldinq parking
~bove the amount required would be contrib~tinq a
major benefit for the Downtown Area.
5.
An ~rban design plan ~ould be an important asset
in guidiing the desig·n .and location of sue'll parki1'lg
facilities.
~lley i~~~ovements: The committee expresses
5ubstantlal support tor alley i~proyements~ e.q.~
peeestrian oriented facade ~ificatio-ns and other
~inds of aesthetic improvements, as a major public
benefit. It also believes that such i~prove~ents
cannot occur, in an incremental manner,without the
guidance of an urban desiqn plan.
6. Kixea-use deve1opments, including housing: The
Amenities Co~~ittee considers mixed-use
eevelc~ents. ~hich include housinq, to be major
contributors to Downtown vitality and as a result
Should be considered a major benefit.
In its discussion of mixed-~se projects including
housing. the Committee did not discuss appropriate
scale, density or cost of such housing.
Benefits and Amenities Requiring Minor Incentives
The Amenities Co~ittee defines these benefits as those
wbich could ~ake a sUbstantial contribution to cowntown
Palo Alto and which could be Obtaine~ thro~qh expansion
of the (?} PeQestrian Shopping District design
~~ice1ines, through ~mendments of existing ordinances
and/or throuqh provision of a ~elatively small F}L~
bo~us, e.9~. a O.S to 1 bonus.
Examples ot these benefits and suggested means of
obtaining the~ are:
1. Art in ?~blic ~l~ces~ The Amenities Co~ittee
r-ecotLo'1ler..ds that the Visual Arts Jury contin·ue to
explore methods of securinq art in public places
fro~ pri~ate projects a~d that it submit its
findings and recommendations to the city council.
2. ~eten~ion o! buildings of historic and
arc~itec~ural interest: The Am~nities co~~ittee
e;:o-crses ~:-:'e recently approved provisions to the
Eistoric P~ese~ation Or~inance Which assure
reter:tioil of siqnificant historic l::ul1dir,gs: (i. e ••
Revised 2/20/87
1/30/87
•
-'1."
c~).
~.
. ,
,
, ,
i ,
,
' .• I
.J '~
· .
buildings in Categories 1 an6 2) and maintenance
of all desiqnated historic buildings (Categories 1
thyouC;h .c., in tile Downtoo.m Area.
3~ Increases in and imcroved use of public ODen
space: The Amenities Committee recommends Council
endorse~ent 0: public open space contributions by
private projects as a valuable benefit. The
C~ittee believes such benefits cou14 be obtained
through relatively sz~ll (i.~.# up to C.S to 1)
FAR bor.u5e5~ The Committee also believes that an
~~b~n design plan could establish prope:
~idelines on aesiqn and location of sucb open
spaces In order to maximite their benefit to the
public.
4.. Public Restrooms
5. Drinking Fountains and Public Fountains:
committee 1dentification of the benefits.of items
4 and S is similar to ·pUblic open space-in terms
of, potential contributions to the Downtown Area.
A small bonus coold be qranted in order to obtain
such amenities. Th~ Committee also believes an
urban design plan ~ould establish effective
idelines tor such facilities and amenities.
Incentives
The Amenities committee recommends that Council endorse
the :tollowinq incentive.s. 'I'hese incentives 'Would.
provide the means for cbtaininq many of the benefits
recommended in previous sections.
1. FAR bonus: The Committee believes that a O.S to 1
FAR bonus 'Would be SUfficient in order to obtain
such small benefits and amenities as fountains and
various forms of public open space ~escribed in
Section III-B. H¢wever r major benefits. e.g .• a
full service food market. Would require
substantially qreater incentives than an increased
FAR ot O.S to 1. As a result. the committee
requests that the City Cou,ncil. in acting on these
reco~endations. consider approving a policy that
allows qreater tle¥ibillty, in terms of FAR. for
futUre projects in the Downtown Area that provide
2.
·or benefits, e. ~ a food
benef'
through the PC zo-ninq process so that is
tied to the zoning and the benefit or amenity viII
not be lost. However, the Committee reco~ends
th~t the PC process be modified so that a
preliminary review to establish the zoning
Revised 2/20/81
I/JO/al
I
I
I
i
r
I
D.
" .. "".
'-,-.'
criterI~ is ~ade early-on 6 before the detailed 6
costly 6evelop:r,ent plaT.s are required for tl'::e
tir.al PC ap?rc'Il!l.
C~e/?ublic ~~r%s recui~ements: The committee
believes that \l'r.iII~ .15 needeC: is not a ...... aiving of
the codes· Dut flexibility in interpretation and
facilitation in qetting throuqh the approval
process~ As a result6 it Busqest& th~t
departments involved In the process of reviewing
project applicatio~s naed to be avare of the
special goals for ~~town and. ~ork cooperatively
to facilitate the i~plementation of these qoais.
This is &ore of a problem for small projects than
for lar;er ones. 7he Planning and puildinq
Divisions ere alrEedy consiaerinq a vay of
coordinatinq the permit counter to streamline the
approval process. Tovard thIs 90a16 the committee
recommends that an ombudsman or staff pers~n
should be assiqned to assIst property orJners and
other epplicants in obtaining pertinent
information from appropriate staff on the
processing of their respective applications~
?r~vide publiC tina~inq: City particip~tion
should extend to assistance in fir.anci~9 or in
~illkinq public im~rQvements to assist major
a~enities.
Urban Design
In the Amenities co~~ittee's ~sny discussions of
appropriate benefits ar.d a::r,enitie:s for the no".mtc-...rn
Areal it experienced sU~5tantial optimism for potential
opportunities in Obtaining these benefits but it also
experienced mUC3 frustratio~ in not being able to
sugqest ho~ such ~~aniti~s could or should be placed~
Such a task .. as beyo:'J.d the p.:.rvie.w of this CClnlhittee's
scope 0 ~ '\,Iork.
As a result, th~ Co~ittee not o~ly wisnes to reinforce
its ea=lier state~ents on the need and benefits of an
urban design plan for toe Downtown Area but it also
wishes to suqsest a process and scope ,of developir.g
such a plan.
The kenefits of a co~ce?tual plan a~e multi-fold~ It
'\,Iould identify and p~ovide guidance for the proper
place~ent of emenities~ As one example 6 placing a
fountain or plaza in one location may be most
appropri~te And result in benefits to many_ whereas in
another location its benefit to the community may be
mini~al. Placerent ~nd Ce3!qn of parking facilities
l!re partiC';Jlarly se;)sitive iss"":es. A desiq~ plan .... ould
p=ovide exce11e~t ~~idance to de=ision makers on how to
Revised 2/20181
1/30;8.1
•
,
."".
< ,
".
.~
i
i
,
4
I
,
I
'I
" l
•
/
/
maximize the benefits of such facilities while
minimili~ the po~~ntial negatIve effects.
\
In terms o~ process, the Amenities Committee recommends
that council direct staff to develop an urban design
work program for s~bsequent Council approval. Such a
~ork prograa would:
1. specify the conceptual (contrasted with being site
specific) nature of the plan;
2. Ide~~ity the basic elements of such a plan~ e.~_~
loc~tion quidelines for amenities; desiqn
guIdelines for alley upqrading: and ~esign and
location quidelines tor futUre parking facilities:
3. Describe the format for such a plan which would
include a visual presentation of the design
guidelines;
4. Suggest that a task torce consistIng of loc~l
design talent and other »embers of the community
prepare the desiqn plan: arA
5. Specify the limited extent of public funding,
i.e., for consultant graphic assistance* possible
f~cilitator services and for city administrative
assistance.
In cone~usion* tbe committee wishes to reinforce its earlier
statements on the vast array of opportunities that it believes
are available for the Downtown area. Since very little
develop~ent is expecte~ within the next two to three years l the
conmittee sees this period as a most appropriate time for the
City to develop ~n urban design plan for tb& Downtown area in
order to assure that future development realizes tbese potential
desiqn opportunities.
JOHN 1I0R'l'lIWAY
C:-..AI~V.AN
TEYJ?ORArty COMMITTE. ON DOWNTOWN DESIGN , AMENITIES
Attachments: Lis~ of Co~ittee Members
Cost of Major Amenities
.ReviseCi 2f20/BJ
1/lO/91
-__ ~-c-~.~
'L
~ ",;-.'. ."t;':::~ ''l''
'--
-......
"" ~
..
AGENDA ITEM 3
-
. .
PYBLIC HfAAING -529 BRVANT STREETt151 UNIYfBSITJ
~: ApplIcatIon for a flanned Communlt] zone c~ange
t. allow renovation of .n exfsting 43,100 squ,re-foot
building o. , 'istoric site ,t 529 Bry,nt Street, and
deletlo. of requlrem.ot for ground floor retaIl. I.
exchange for not utilizing the floor ir.a ratfo
exceptions Which would allow for Incr.ased square footage
It 251 University Avenue. the 'ppllcant proposes to·
sel .. fcall, upgrade the building at 251 Universlt, Avenue
and transfer 2,520 square feet of b.seaent floor .rea
from 251 Onlvorsit, Avenue t. 529 Bryant Street. Tot.1
square footage at 529 Bryant Stre.t will be 45,620.
EnvIronmental Assessment: Ro slgnlfic.nt impact. Zone
District CO-C(GFltP}. file Nos_ 9~-ZC-4, S9-AAB-275.
~l/28/90
-20-
•
'';'
n' .-..... : ... -..... " --..
" ~.-;
I -
-
,
'-r
-,
Mr. G;lllllnd, You will be looting It t~l. on I concept •• 1 b.sls
lonlgbt. It will the. go to the Irc~ltectural revIew bo.rd, .nd t~e"
retur. to the ,llnnlog commission Ind Cit, council.
Comm!$$'oner CIllen! I ba~e se~era' questfons. I Issume t~at t~is PC
.pplles te both properties, so the re.trlctlon. Ind approvils thit 90 with
It will 11~.ys .ppl, t. both properties. Is thit <orrect?
Ms, CiS.' There wIll be specifIc conditions that wIll .ppl1 to tbe
specific properties. Any condition th.t doe. oot otherwi.e have.
specific deslgn.tlon of propert, ~Ill apply equill, to both properties.
Commf$$'oner (.llen: ~ere down t~e lf~e, 252 Univer51t, Avenue could
not be conslderod seplritel,? Will it be p.rt .f t~e PC number th.t tbe
approval will be gl.o. to here!
"', C,so, That IS correct. The re.son Why our office .";gosted It be
done t~ts Wa} w~s because the cit1 c~rrentll bas no ordinance thlt
.peclflcall, allows. transfer of development rights. One of the m.l.
features of thIs propo.,l I, t. give up • certal. amount of development
rights O~ one parcel and Idd more l~a" is ~onmal11 allowed to anot~er
parcel. The commen.ur.te flodlng. of public benefit .ppl1 probabl, oore
la one parcel than the other. ]ft order ta allow t.1$ transf!r of
development rights t. t.le ,lice outside or the oonnal procoss and to get
the required findIngs of public benefit, we thoug~t it would be pore
•• sll, done If you combined the two. We tbought that If they had t. stand
alone, the, might not produce enough public benefit Indiy;duall, (It
le.st, one or the parc.ls .Ight not), •• that Is why they .re combined.
Commlss;oner (.11 •• : I did find It someWhere I. the EIA roplies, but I
~nted to get Dut clearl} on the record t~at t~e telephone compiny, e~en
thoug~ It Is a public faclli<I, p.,d Into the p.rking district as.essment
district over the y.ars that It occupied that property?
Mr. Gilliland: T'at Is correct.
Commissioner C.l1t9: Alsa, what provisfon is there for the permanent
••• li'g Dff of the sp.ce .t 251 Universit, Avenue! Vhat keeps the .pace
from not being developed? Vhe. yoo build .pace and it is po.sible to
occupy it, s~ t~at space $ome~ow or other does get occupied.
ftr. iilliland: We have done it on • couple of .inor projects I. the
downtown area. and f; beth cases. there were concrete block ~alls bu;lt
~thout In, openings ~I t~~. I. one case. the bact area was sand-filled.
~ssio"er Mars\: To cllrify basement square (ootage. is it treated the
51m2 is an, other squire footage under t~e downtown regu 1ltions?
Mr. Cilltlin~: T!$. II Il~o$t III <Ises. There is I provfsto~ t~it we
nol allow basement square footag! tD com! out Df the ground 'f you ire
.slDg some Df the fAR exceptions. I. this c.s., they ire putting tbe fAR
•• ceptlon i. before ,ct •• l1y ti1klng .bout tbe bisement .qu.re foot.ge.
Cgmmissfoner HfriCk: Along the Jines Qf ~at (o~fss;oner CllleR .as
Inquiring .bout, If this Is .pproved, we wIll ~.ve one PC zone for two
properties. Do both of tbose properties ~.vo to rem.il it i11 tIme. '"
03/28/90 -u-
•
\ -.-
\
\-
. \
" .-\'
•
i
'-.
-
coomcn owners~lp?
Ms [,st: No.
•
tpmml •• lpner Huber: I ~ou1d call t~l. lind of I .pllt PC. Ha,. ~e .ver
done this ~fDr.?
CommIssioner Christensen: Vt hlye done it.
Cpmml •• lpner Hlr.cl: (gener.' dlsc.s.ion) --the plrklng WIS ICroSS the
str.et on a seplrlt. Sit., c.oslng III llnds of h.ldlch.s.
Chli .... Cblndl.r! I ~Ill .ow open the public h.lrlng .nd cill upon
1Ir_ ea.r.
Jig B.er. 532 Chinning. '11. Alto: Ve .re ,lelsed t. briDg forward this
project. It Is • buIlding tblt '.s bee •• Ic.nt for .bout 15 ye.r.. I
voald 11k. to polot out a coupl. of l.y •• pects of the Ipplicltlon and how
It evolved. Vbe. the CDC zonIng ordlnlnce ~ •• Idopted, til. building
rem.ined .s a PF. After the .doptlon of the CDC zone, the phone company
.pplled 10 Octob.r of 1986 and ~IS grlnted a ching. from PF to CDC. Tb.
r •••• n I bring th.t up Is th.t th.r. ~I' n. public debit. Ibout tb.
Ippr.prllteness or lack of appr.priltene.s .f the 'F camblol.g ~Istrict
applying to 'hi. building. Th. 4Iffl,.'tl with thl. building I. tblt It
Is genuln.ll unique il the d.wntown. It Is 60 feet wide by ZIZ fe.t deep,
bordering on two ."eys. On. Is • d.ad-end ."ey On tbe north Whlc~ f. I
prl.at •• 'lel, and on t~e SD"t~ by • public .,ley Which ~.s • truck
attess. So it does present some very real problems as regards Its
•• allabilltl for other th.n •• IDgl. retail .ser, and is probabll Whit
contributes to It. dlsu •• sloce 1986. 10 loollog .t being rell.,.d from
the &f zone, we wanted to tate s.rfousl, tbe CDmpr,he.sl., Plan objecti.es
.bout retlil .it.,lt" creating public amenltf,s .nd enh.nc'ng the
character of tbe downtown .rel. I. doing that, eve. though we think this
f •• n approprllte and unusu.l clrcu.stance thlt should be grlnted relief.
we I.oled at wh.t was Decessary to ... t the public benefit requlr ... nts.
V, looted It tree ,l.ntlngs .long Bryant Street similar to what ,Da have
on Ramona Street. Ther. were some Items undone by tbe Ramona Str •• t
prDject, such IS tree grltes. ~lch we looked It and Slid, thfs fs In
opportunltl, .nth tbe Ipplicant villlng, to do • first phlse of ,l.z.
redevelopment, Whick is to recrelte tbe .teps fro. Bryant and Ramon.
Str.ets to tbe cl.lc center ,loza. All of th.t v.s trying to clasp
specific.l" on the Is.ue of, .re we, by remoYlng this from 'f, fncrelsing
ret.ll vitlllt,. Ve thlnl we blve t~led to respond directl, t. enhanced
retlll vital It, I. tbe PC.
The s.cond issue v •• th.t II this plrtle.l.r bulldlog, il is a
spect.c.'ar', ~ell built building. It WlS • computer center for tb. ph.n.
cnap.n, for , •• r5. It5 vertical 10ld str.ngths .nd tbe c.lllng heights
.re huge. It hi' • b ••• ~ent .nth I 15-foot .Igh ceiling, vit~ .ery large
ste.l c.lurn" spans. T.,. Is us.bl. spac.. It Is DOre usable spac. tha,
the space that exist. at 'ZSI. Ve wlnt t. be Ible to •• ke th.t •
blsement, s. cl.lrl,. What ve Wlnt to do's to '.01 at, w.ll, If we .r.
being .ll.wed tbe •• Z,5OO extra square feet ~hlc. Is • v.l.lbl •• spect of
t.ls building, we were w1111ng not .nl, to close .n ~qul •• 'e.t toount of
b •• ~nt sp.ce, but to respond to tbe Comprebensl.e 'lin obJectl.es of
encour.glng the reduction, n.t incre.slog problems wit. growth I. tbe
........
~3/ZB/90
-22-
•
., .
~
r
I
•
,
\
\
\
\ .-\
•
"," .
';;;"" -'.;-:;;:
'/ry";.~
I ,
I
• I
l
, ,;,
r-·:'······ -. .
~-.
--', ~ -;
•. ,1
, .
,," . ;; -r···--.. -:' ",'
· --~ · .. -, ' "-.
• .. u~_ ~.:~;-.-~ ~~~_D.:.~~,._,!'o.~_ ~,,"";,-=-___ ,_.
downtown. So we Ire .ol,nlorll, foresolng the opportunity for fncreasing
t~e squire foot.ge~ Not ~Dl1 are we closing l~ equil amount of bise~nt,
but we are Igreeing to forego f~tur. opportunfties to expand second-and
t~lrd·floor .pac., wblch would be .llowed under the .xlstlng lonlng
ord1~inces. aglil trying to do ~ot just enougb to not Increlse s~ulre
foot.ge, but doing .ore.
There .re a coupl •• f Items and specific conditIons that we would lit. to
reser,e the opportunlt, to look at wh •• w. co.e bact loter. One fs th.t
the .ll.y to th. sout. be upgroded not just to the border of our prop.rt"
whl~~ Is 212 f.et deep, but thot It continue th. ~·foot width .f
liddIcoat's. We thfnt It Is .noth.r 60·1S feet for long's. So the st.ff
~ommendation fs thot we t,te on an additlon.l 13S·foot .lle, upgr.de,
p.rticolarl, sfnce It Is antlcfpated that liddicoat's will undergo
constructfon sometfme fl t~e next few lears because Df its sefsmi,
deflclencl.s. It would not make sense t. Impose th,t cost no~ on this
project wh •• future construction voul~ scst llkel, destroy thot work f.
an, event, ood the public benefit cost, we Ire Incurring .t the Cit, hall
,loz •• re not smoll. To add this io additl.n Is aggressiye.
I 1m tryiDg tD be sensitive to the ~1lnnfn9 commiss;on~s cencer. that
these two propertle, w.uld be linked fore.or. I w.uld .nl, .st that if it
i, concept •• ll, oppro,ed by the pl.nnlng commission, that clearl, the PC
for the one .spect of '2SI tied to '51g i. the opportunIty t. open tho
basement. It would certal.l, see ••• sler, II Idopting 0 PC for '251, or
sfapl, a deed restriction for 'lSl. Dr somet~f~g ~f record restricts t~e
future deyelopment of '2SI so th.t we ,re not fore,er ~oreafter for f,ture
owners of .2S1 hiving to reid I ~O~page Drdfnance that applies onl] to
the~ ot '251 c.nnot add ooy more square footago. If that mates sense t.
the 5t'ff~ legil to~nsel and ,1annfng commfssfon. we would certafnl,
~lcDme soae way ta be cr~ltive that does restricts the growth ~hick is
the gool here, but does n.t oyer complf<ote the PC process.
TOft &ilman, 399 Bradford Street. Redwood Cit.: Vheo we began this
project, we ~ad done extensive study of the buila;ng and took I number of
photographs. We looled through the 'ariDus hi,tori<.l rec.rds on the
building. The buildIng is 0 ver, olce and sensitIve piece of arc.itect,r. '0 do~to~ P.l. Alt.. We were I.terested ia taking. gentle approach i.
order t. do .omething that woald be .~p.thetic to t,e Bryant Str.et
elevation of the bu11ding~ To give you a very brief .istory. the building
was orlgi,.lll built I. 1928, which Included thl' mor. architect"rol
.lement, the ffrst 28 feet of depth of the building. The. it ~.d 0
one-story element whick C~ bact part ~ys down the alley. -nt~ I second
floor outdoor area. II 1940, on additional element was added which
extended the first floor and .ls. wr.pped o,er the top of the second
floor. TI 1947, a three'story .leme.t w.s added at the very bock, the
•• sternmost 60 feet .f the propert,. The ele"tion al.ng the olley side
Dr sout. side of the bu\tdin9~ is it currentl, exists, does bear some
Barks of this series of additIons. One of the things we were .erl
ilterested II doing was Ittemptlng t. orgonlz. the ope'ings along th,t
side of the b~ilding. IS well IS to t~eate I design it the reir of the
building that was .ore s~pathetlc to the front pcrlion of the building.
II sooe of the discussions we had with the Historic Resourc.s Board, the,
~re very concerned t~it we not try tG duplicate in exactness of the front
portion of the building but f~$leadl create J design whick uses that front
portion of the bulldiog a' I poiot of departure.
D3/28/90
·/3·
,-
• \ ,
\
\ .-\.
•
, -
,
,----:>c"
.~,:!-~.
~~\':"0~
. , -,
.'
... -..
One of the other it •• s they were eoncerD.d about was thlt there be some
distinction bet .... the front and the blct, so we do hlye on lr.o just
beyond this 28-foot pol.t where we tried to ereot. some brelt between the
two ore.S. One of the othe. things we h.ye attempted to do Is to erelte a
rustlelttd d •• lgn that will help to redu<e the apPlrent size of the
building IS on. troyel. down the olleYV'l, as well as opening .ome
,ddltlon,1 windows along the north side of the bul1dlng t. crelte some
addltlon.l light withl. the .fflce space,
r. terms of the Site ,Ian, we or. shOWing the Improyement of the alley
along the south side, and we have ,Iso Indicated the ,ddltlon of some
londscoped .1e .. nt. wlthl. that are'. There Is some eemme.t withl. the
conditions as to not IIIowing thlt I.ndsc.plng. The IIIey Is 15 feet
wide, and ther.fore Is a on.,wIY alley. I guess thot our thought thore
WlS to .olntoi. a one,wl! direction Ise of the olley, but to creot. I
.Iolmua amount of landscaping along the bulldlDg side to get so .. greenery
fo ther.. It Is a folrly 10"9, Interrupted oHey, and our fe.lIng was
thit some soft .Iterlols II there would ro,Il, belp t. humanize thlt
are.. It Is a very slgnlffc.nt ped.strl.n lint betwee. the parkIng lot at
Cowper and H.mllto. and the S~OpplDg ar •• near Bryant ond UniYerslt1.
With respect to t~. conditions, thore were about t~ree or four that we
wonted t. comment on. Condltlo.~, which I h,ye just commented Ibout I.
tenos of the Iindsc.plng and the wldth of that l'Iel, I wo"I" be
loterested I. trylDg t. work .nth stiff and Trlnsportatlon, If pOSSible,
t. see If there Is somethIng we c.n do there to try and get .0 ..
landscaping withl. the II1.y arel and still respect the needs of
TTins.portation~
ConditIon f: there Is .ome comment about protection of the exit from the
buildiog into the al1el. There fs ~urre'tll a recessed exit at the
southe,st.r. corner of the building. It occurs approxim,tel, II the same
location Where we are Indicating this new exit. V. lce tiltIng about
ch.nglng the ~aterlais, but essontlllll the exIt Is the sa ... .nthl. two
or three feet of Where It Is now. Tbe doors at that pol,t are rece,sed
,bout three feet fron the face of the building. On. thought we bad h.d i.
terms of the ,lantlng withl. the .Il.y wos that that wo"Id provide "
oddlt'ona1 buffer so that If someone stepped out fr~ the exit, there
wo,Id be a little protection before one ,et"Il, got ,.t. the drive l.ne.
Short of that, I a~ DOt sure What the lotent from Transport.tfon Is.
Conditio •• (t~e second. d. Page 8), we would request th.t you 1110 •• s
to obtaI. I sep.rate bulldlDg peTEIt for the off~.lte fmpro,emeols so th.1
wo .ig~t be able t. proceed on I phased bas;s with t~e buIlding. T~Is
voDld be for the off·slte work withi. the alloy and the sidewills that
voold bo Improyed Ilong Bryant Street.
The Iasl conment .... had "IS Condition I, the one Uat Ji. Baer referred to
II teros of requestlDg that the portloD .f the ollel thlt Is behind
liddicoat's and long's Drug be delay.d untIl the Impro,emenl or thoso
properlies.
(omrntss,oner Huber! Mr. 'iT~an. can you tell ~ ~at you expect the cost
t. be or the public ben.flt for the ,l.zo proJect?
'L
D3/28/9D
·Z4-
•
I
I
t· I
!
r
I ,.
f
, ,
\
\
\
\ '
'V
i i.
~ \
,
•
-
8r. 511m •• : It Is • little difflc.lt .t this point. We are just
begfnnlng Ind ~.ve ~.d onll one ... tlng ,0 f.r. We r •• ll, ~av. not
defined t~. f.ll scop. of the thl'9. '0 It I, • llttl. premature t. be
obl. t. do that.
8r. 8.er: As 0 ver, prellmlnar, budget. _e ~ave allocated for t~e cit,
~all ,1 ••• ,teps •• d for the .lley Improvements, tre" a.d tree grlt.s I.
the S!SO,OOO·$4CC,OOO rlnge.
COIITItuioner Chrhtrpun: trow w:>uld the costs Df the cit} hall project
C~lre t. Just tho section of the Ill,y that t~e staff Is Is\log ,ou t.
continue?
~. Baer: So your question fs, what Is the cost of 125 f •• t of .lley
Improvement compared Joth chfc plou? Onscl.ntlffClll" four times the
cost for----the----'i;::tii--;;-The unkno~ ~! that 'We do not know the topography.
If we Ire dofng I dra1a S!~teG 11 I badl] slopf~g Irei, it can a~d
,fgnificant CDst~ Sur~4te ~aterflls ~iye bee~ approved fo~ 2SO UnfversitJ
A ... i~~Je .. ~J"~ we 1tf~~d conti Due our '1gh-tec" Cl)ncrete lIaterhl that is not
very expensfv. fl that kind of I l"gth. If there ar, ,tllity proble.s,
it could b. co.tl,.
Commissioner C,lIea: I want t~ get on the reccr~ that t~at fs I very
un.afe .xit there, due to the ~elght of the buildings on both sides. If
you drlv. out th.t Ill.y and there ire peopl. there .. that I, .ort of a
pedestrian walkway that Is u.,d quite. bIt .. so J would like to have you
incorporate $ome safet, feitures there.
ere Gilman: OkaJ.
{_g_lTmhsfoner :1iYhtr! CouT~ 10~ chrifJ fof' lie -what lTUS you wilnt to defer
fl t~e alley? The staff report stites, com;T!te fmpro~ements t~ tongrs~
~. Gilman: I. lookfog It thIs site ,l_n. Bryant Stre.t is 00 the right
sid., and Of> .lle, h .lo.g the south side .f the project. W. are
sa11ng that the improvem.nts beblnd the project at this point "te.d t.
the end of the bUilding, a.d the area t. b. d.lay.dwould be the Ir._
beyond to the •• st, directl, behind the liddicoat's a.d long'.
prop.rties. J t~lnt liddicoat's Is about SO fe.t and long's is perhaps 15
fe.t.
Commfssioner Huber! r5 this .11ej improvement to be taken 111 the wa, tQ
the .ext block?
Mr. Gilman: Those two properties would not contfnue 111 tne ~ay. There
Is • dog leg I. the .l',y .t that point.
"', Gilliland: let ~ Iddress t.is issue Ind ~~1 it ;s i. h!re. There
Ire some i~royemfnts bebind the parkfng lot and behtn~ long~s. ~e ITe
.s~ing that they go to ~ere those improvements stop. We ~iI~e I verJ
sp.clfic r •• son f~r this. If we Ire going to b. doing things II the
11rey~ we Irt concerned about storm dri'ftage runoff and how t~e grades fjt
wit\ e.c. other. So w. want the proJ.cts to .atc\. It has .s moc' t. do
wit\ that as trll,; to g.t good qual It, •• t,ri.l f. ther.. So ,.rtolll,
we can wort with the appllc.nt t. loot fot. thl, further, but the request
fs c .. ing froo the PubliC Worts O'partment beca",. of the construction
O!/28/90
·25-
'.
\
"
, .
I .~.
1
-
\ -n i4 \
\ : ' I ,
.' \ t
1
I
4
I
"
---
-
, ,
./
prol>l"l$ •
Ar-Baer: If t~e ftatur. of t~e question, were asked, t~e public ben.fit
.Ig~t be t. do a proper job fl that blOtt and th.1 th.t b. preferabl. to
the cltl plall steps. Ve ar ... alII .11 by the cost differential and our
willingness to accept the continued alley loproyement_
Commlsslpner Ruber: What I a. I.terested i •• Mr. Saer. Is how rar Is this
gOing! It Is not cl •• r to ~ whe. I loot .t the report and the ,Ian. How
far down t~e block art you 90ln91 Ar. yo. going holf wa"
three-qulrters? I don't care so much about when yO" are going t. do ft,
and I think I understand th.t now.
CommfssfQneT Christens!g: Tbe tmtent ~f ~1 question ~ISt I can under5tl~d
Ihe r.liUonshl, of the all" 10 this project, but I do not undershnd U.
r.latlon,hlp of the civic cent.r ,1111 t. this proJect. so il fs more a
question of st,fr than for 10U. J want to get ,ome feel for whit It ... nl
to you financial 1,.
err Bier; Of course, as we do PCs under the new erdl~ance* we Ire .11
trying t. measure what the proper balance of public benefit fs. So far,
there fs nO ot~.r st.n~ard to me.,ur. Igal.,t. We ~aJ be overdoing It II
pub1ic benefill
Ms. Jansen: tommlts1on~r t~rlste~sen~ did 10~ want a response en the
relatlon'~lp froft our otandpol.t?
Commi$$fQner Chrfstense~: Yes. It S~ poi~t. after ~e <lose the public
bUTing. 1 will 1St. stiff about it. bec.ause I line some c-olm'lents to .,a'ke.
Jo~n ~oct, 2823 Alml Street, Palo Alto: I r •• ll, ~ave some troubles ~;t~
thl. PC zone, I re.ll, s.e no relationship belweeA t~c,e buildings. other
than being .fstorlc building" .nd I don't .ee much r.latlon,hlp bet.een
that and the cltl ~.ll, either. The two building, f. que,tion are perh.p,
a' auc~ a. a block and I balf ap.rt, and th. cltl ~all is • block away
fro. alDO,t ,Ither of tho.. ~t~.r than the f.fr.,tru,t"r., I don't se. a
lot Df ob,lou. public ben.flt. as I percel y• It. The iafr •• trotture is
ob,lou.l, needed t •• upport the buIlding Its.lf. So I am h.ving a little
trouble .eelng a PC being sought for an fAR excepllon and be,au,e of some
.xceptlonal circumst.nce. for ret.l1 us.. 'ranted. ordinary retail t.nds
t. require windows, but th.r •• re certal.l, some types of r.tall that can
funellon wlthout dlspla, windows •• nd sorn<:ll ... s Yery effectiyel" 11k. a
strvfce-orfented computer business. or a n~mber of other new thlDgs t~at
we ." not haye thoug~t about. So perhaps the owner ha, a bit or a 0 •• 11
h.rdshlp, but I fInd It Ilfflc.lt to ,.e thai as a PC lone. 1 thInk w.
are ••• Ing what I perc. I.e as the wrong us. or the PC proc.,., Agai •• I
6 •• '1 .ee • ~l •• r public ben.flt compar.d t. some ot~er Ihings lit. the
.t~er PC zene we ~ive ~lh the lir spacf$ where we got sfgntffclnt parking
under •• at'. I don't p'rt!cllarl~ haye any obj!cllon to the use or t~ •
..bl$eneal for dud stDnge, but I c.ertaiJl, conC4Jr vitk ttle conceT1ls of
~aYln9 anything thai Is .mplo,..,t· or trafflc-generallng being added fo
there. I t'lnk the applfcant s~o"'d be seeling. variance. Ve would be
•• eln~ s.me (olrll slellar finding., and that would ~or. me.ningfll"
describe wh.t t~e applIcant Is requesting, We do haye a unique slt"tion
here. and that furtfler begs for I Ylrfince. The only other PC ~eirby is
L
\. ,
•
I
I
•
\ \.
l. , ,. -. \-
/"~" -. ,
-I
, I
l
J
, ,
./
-"':-.'fl1~_""_9V"" ......... '~"''''''''''~._ '. ____ . ___ ~ __ :
2SO ~n"er.ltl, and there cerhlll, I. I .erlou. que.tlon IS to ""ether
thlt W'S_I wf •• decl.fon to put such I llrge project thlt Ire.. I am not
sure thlt that WIS I soed PC. Ve need to .se some 900d pllnnlog prlctlces
lod Dot be cl.tterl.g up tho zonIng .ip .nth .ore .f these PCs ""fch Ire
prett, hlrd to understand. I hope you .111 vote Ig.fnst I PC zone IS
being In'pproprllte I. this Ire., It 1.I.t for """t Is befng proposed.
would hope thlt other .. chlnfsms WDuld be found to acco~llsh slmlllr
II •••
[""rman Chandler: Sfnce I ~.ve no ot~er cards fron ~mber5 of the
publIc. I Will clos. the public hearing Ind retur. thl. IteN to tho
,llnning co~lsslo".
Since ft Is gettIng lIte, I would entertllo a ootlon t. continue Item S.
AGfNOA ITEM S: ~: Commlsslpner Chrlsten.e.: I ~ve that we .ove
conslderltlon of Agenda Item 5 t. now.
~: B1 Comalssfoner Hirsch.
MOllO!! PASSES: Ch.l!"!!!on Chandler! All those 11 fivor, 511 Aye? All
DPPOSed~ That passes unan'~usl1t ~th Commissioner Be~Chi~ absent.
~: Commissiqner ChrlsteAStn: I move t~at we contfnu~ Item 5 to
April 25.
~: By Commissioner Hirsch.
HOTION PASSES: Chairman Chandler: All those I. f.,or. say Aye? All
apposed? T~at pisse, unanfmo~sl,. ~t~ Commissioner Beetham absent.
Chol .. an Chandl.r: Tbat brings us bact to It •• l.
Commissioner Mar5~: Jonn Mock raised an fateresting question ~fc~ ~S.
""ether thIs Ippllcatlon coul~ slmpl, be submitted "naer a .ariance. I
assume t~e Yiriance WOQld be for bot. the relitl requirement on t~e ground
floor and the square f.otage elcess for the FAR. Vould that be •
possibiHtl?
"s. Janse.: No. Ve are over the 3:1 FAR 00 the building a1r.ody, '0 10U
clnnot go beyond that 3:1 fAR "nder a nonnal proces.. Secondll. the
del.tlon of the ground floor retail requires I .aconcl factor I. order for
JO~ to even make an applJcltfon to do So. Ve have never come near l~it
vI,anc, factor t~at 'S required~ so it .oul~ not be permissible under our
standard •• riance or other applications. The PC Is the onl,.a, that 10U
coa16 consider I propos.l of this nature.
Commissioner Marsh, But the PC c.n Illo~ the Ippliclnt to exceed the fARl
"so Jlnstn: That is correct.
Cgmmfs5toner Marsb: ] alsD 'ave I question regardiDg bonuses for seismic
upgrading, and for 'lstor!Cll buildings IS well, I. the downtown Ir ••.
Ar. those not Ipp1ltabl. I. t_ls caS. because the building ;s 11reldy It
l:1?
03/28/90
·21-
'. \
• ,
\,
I
\ , ""
\
,-" \
,:-, \ .
•
, "
•
·--.
-.
,
'.'
/
Ms. Jansen: That II correct~
tPmmi$$iQner thrfsteqStD: I wo~ld lite stiff to respond to t~e 1ss~e Df
the cl,Ic center ,l.l. Improvements.
"so J.nseD: We f •• l th.t (I) the cl.lc center pl.la ImprDvOGents h.ye
·bee. Identified by beth the Urb •• Co.Ign Committee and cert.I.ly by the
clt1 council, through plrtlal funding of .ome or those ImproYements, as
being In Important loprovoment to the downtown cl'lc are. I. gonorll. We
concur with thlt. The f.cl of the ~Itter Is thlt at the tIme the cltl
council did alloe.t •• ome funding toward It,·ther. w.s not. willingness
o. the part of the council, and probabl, due t. some of our fiscal
sltu.tlons, t •• 1100 for the f.ll amount of !mprovements th.t hid
orlgl •• l1, bee. envisioned for th.t are •• This Is In opportunltl, II our
oplilon, to Incre •• e the vitalit1 of the pedeslrl.n Ictl.lty I. th.t
Ir.o. It I •• omewhat offsettIng fro. tho l.ck of pedestriln acti,itl that
gener.ll, COleS .bnut without having ground floor ret.il. Admlttedl" we
do not h.ye I .Ip or anI specIfic direction from the city councilor from
the ,lannl.g cogois.ion DO PCs os to what .peclfic.lll CDnstlt.t •• pub11c
benefit. It Is one of the .r ••. thlt ~e have for your consider.tion II
the Planned Communltl lone ordInance change.. We COULd be more specif;~
i. defIling whit thos. publIc benefit •• re, howev.r, we don't think that
~ Ire IS creative .S Jome of those out there are fl tenms af comtDg up
with what tho.e pub11c benefit. Ire. J think th.t Is positive, but it
cert.fll, Is DOt I ~et!S5ar1 connection to bay! ef,fc c!nter ,llzi
Improvement. '" conjunctIon vlth reuse of the Pact.l bUilding, but It is •
lIce one. So it is your questIon is to ~hether Dr not that constitutes •
public benefit of • gre.t enough nat.re t. partl.11y justif, the del.tlon
of the ground floor ret.ll. There .r. other thing. iDV01yed with thl. I.
tenas of public benefits.
Commissioner Christensen: from.y perspective. I would like tD set this
prajett go or not go. based upon itse1f. The 1nlerjectfon Df the efvic
center ~ney f •• ls more like bribery or ext.rtlon (I don't know~hlc' end
It Is coming frOft) than something rea11y re1.ted to the project itself and
whether there Is • benefit frca the project it.elf. J feel there Ire
sufficient pubLiC benefit. to justify the project on it. own without
tlifng~. Baer ~p on .fs ~er1 generous offer. He ~as been very generous
vith the City .f PlIo Alt. I •• ,. p •• t development., and takiog .. ney for
something that I. not re.lll rel.ted to this project. Would w. toke this
DOney froo .omeone if we did not like t~e project? Well. if yoo gl.e us
.. ney for the civIc center project, we might reconsider liking Itl It
doe •• 't feel right to me.
Commlsslpner Hlrit\: What .re the public benefits thlt yoo see .ssoel.ted
vith the project directly?
Commfssfon!r Christensen: For the Briant Street prQje,t. (I do hive
proble.s .nth the two·sit, .spect .f thIs), but for the project on Bryant
Street Itself, the f.ct that we .re golog to be .Ivlng .nd •• Ing this
.f5toric building t~it ~as sat vacant disused And ibustd for ~a"J years,
th.t I •• slgnlflcan! public benefit, ."vlng t.is structure, and f~pr.Ying
upon the back of It. The benefit. of Improyement. t. both .Ides of the
al1o1 are. public ber"flt, an!! , significant one. Those two .lone
justlf, going fOMilr6 concept •• lll vith this project. The I •• t.ll.tion of
trees Ilong Bryant Street is • rel.ted Issu. Ind. public benefit. Those
L
D3/28/9D
·28-
\
•
,
,
\
\
\
\
" \:
,
'~--
.-q .•... ' ........ : ,
,.
_F'
I ' r
ul
. ,
,',
" '
lr. the three that I .ee It the moment .
Comm~$$fQner Marsh: CommIssioner Chrfstensen •• re IOU 5u9gestt~g t~at
there I. enough public benefit lu those It •• s that you noted to justify
the project .0 BrYlnt Street on Its own, "nllnlfng It from the Unlverslt,
Aye,ue bulldl.g?
Commissioner Cbristensen: J dO ~ot feel cornfortl~le fl linking it tG the
Cnlyersit, Avenu. building. I do not thfnl It Is rel.ted It .11 t. the
Cnlyer.;t, Avenu. building. The one e.impl. we hive of splittlog a
project lil. thIs i. two •• par.te prop.rtles Icross tho street from .ac~
oth.r WIS I dis.ster. It dId not wori .,d we ended up with .omethlng
flfrl, de<ent on hllf of It. but the other h.lf f •• tlll a mess. I cannot
see us gett;og IDvolyed II that IgIII •• SOD', but thfs project. by
itself, o. Bryant Street, Cln be justified on the coocept,al level with
the public benefits I .tated.
[ommf$$foner ~ar$h: I Jgree w1th you. I think t~ere is slgntffclnt merit
i. this project. What the ground floor retail Is III about. I. a broader
.e •••• Is realI, pede.trlon .italit" not just retail rlt.lit,. T~ls
building on Br,ant Street has essentiall, bee. I black hole for 15 ye.rs,
an Icter.sting black ~ole. with t~,t little ,1aque on it, but I black
bole, no"etheless~ to Wilt by. (ertlill, w! are gettfng sfgnff1tant ,alue
il this project with the upgr.diog of It .istoric.ll, and the alloYWiY.
~e are dOing something th.t will be verI important for the pedestrian
.it.lit, on th.t blocl. so I would d.fllitel, move I. the direction of
unlintlng this project from 251 Universlt, Awenue t lettfng 2S1 Universit,
Avenue liwe on its own~ I"d focYsing our d;Sc~5sion up bere on ~at _e see
as being .ecessary t. justify the public benefit. i. and of its.lf as it
sits on Bryant Street. TheA we need I dfscwss;on cf the amenities we want
t. see goi.g along with thlt. But the fir.t step is to 'gree th,t the
~roject CiA support itself on its own with disassociation frD~ lSI
Univers1t, Aven~e.
Commissiont[ (g'len~ Vell, if you are going to do t~at. yoa ~11 ~ave
this business of addition.l square footage t~,t will be developed. I l.,n
il f.vor of not puttiog both of them under the pt, but .ince they are
under the same owners", or renters~i,. te close Qff the development
potentiAl perhaps by deed restriction 7 whlt~ I beliewe the city ittDr~el
sa;~ would be i better ~~1 t~an linking the~ under I single PC~ but [ am
10 f.vor of gi.lng up the development rights. We spe,t a long time i. the
Downtown 5tudy tiTlfng about trlnsf.r of dev.lopme.t rights. fin,ll,. w.
gave it up is I diffft~lt co~cept t~ 1mplement 7 but l~is pirtic~lar
implementltiDD. ~t~ I deed restriction. seems to be to be I very tasy
wa,. ] ilgru YlU boU Cmmlhsfoner Christe'RseQ arid Commissioner Plarsh
that this project's public benefits stand on therr own, but I a~ not fa
favor of letting the de .... elopment potenthl sta~d on its own.
Mi. (ase; I never meant to impl, t~at you COQTd~ ~erel, by I condition gf
approval on I warflnee O~ PC for one single Ff~te of ~ropertl. condition
approval of I PC by req~frlDg them tt ,lace I deed restriction on ~ther
propert, th.t the, own. lhe anI, WiY I see th,t you ccul~ get those
conditions Is by having the. bot~ fa the pt zoning district. Otherwise,
we ~ave no legal aeans of req~1rfng t~lt kind mf condition on anybody.
~t JanseR: [f J co~ld (omment. the ap~licant's comments were not IS we
03/28/90
·2g·
•
•
. ,
. . '.
'i
1
I
I
i ,
I
I
j
. -~-."
__ -. -0< b'·.······.':·;
I ' .. " ~ -C.
'-; , I >'.
I.
-
eo.I,lo. thf,. ",Ic"11, both propertle, would be zone~ PC. 1251
Unl.erslty Avenue would hive condition, thlt would speclficll11 'tate fo
the ordin,nce t~lt no Iddltlonll sqUIre footlge woold be permItted, Ind
th.t the vses WDuld be those permitted withl. the tOC Ind the ground floor
retlll, and that would run with tIme, so as the [OC chlnged with tIme, Ind
the ground floor retail chlngodwlth tIme, so would '251. Then the
condition speclflcllll r.lated to, ond ob.lous11 they Ire both tied, sfnce
thel ~Ive the same number. Ind th,t WIS ~Iye. I. e.ch,nge for squ.re
footlge Iddltlons to '5Z9 BrYlnt Street. If It some f.t,re date. some
,.ture councIl wIshed to change the conditions wlthl. those ordlnlnces DO
either propert1, th,t would be permISSible, but It would tlte a ~Ijor
amen&oent to the "lnnod Communlt1 zone to do so. I do not .ee 251
Untverslt, Avenue being I sl~l. deed restrIction. It .ust be loned PC I.
order for this t. be somethIng we ca. support. frOB our st,ndpoiot.
~sioner HIrsch: I WDuld lIke to returl to the public benefit
di,c"sslon. I. the materlll th,t w.s ~Ive. t •• s. this building at 529
8rYInt Street WI. c1a.slfled •• I Category I .fstorlc buildIng. E" ••
thoug~t that renovatIng thl. bulldfng wa, •• Ignlflclnt publIc benefit.
What else couid the owner. do wlt~ It, give. the flct th.t it fs •
Cltegory 11 Woul. It sit there for Inother 15 years, or could they
demoHs~ it?
"" Gllllllnd: 529 BrYlnt Stre.t t, I t.tegory 2 building.
Cornrnfssipner Hfr$k': II anI event. could the1 demolish it?
"'. Gilliland: res •• fter a waiting period of one year.
Commlss!oner HITSt): I aft tryIng t. find support for
Commissfontr ChTislense~~s ~omment that renovation and Ise of this
building would be i public benefit, I. and of Itself. gIve. the .Istoric
nature of the bul1ding.
Mr-iilljlind: rou can ~a\e a reasonable basis for .iylng th.t.
Commtssioner Hfr$c~! [tem' on Plge 6~ tbe conversion of the building
from one use t. anoth.r necessitates the f.l1 payment of the housing
mitigation fee. rs that I legal requirement?
"', 'ill11and: r.s. that Is I. the ordinance.
Commissioner ~ir.ci: The. whl Is that. public benefit, if they have to do
It?
Mr. "1111and: It fs not.
[pmmissfontr H;rs,~: J would recommend later on that we eliminate that
one. Vhlle I re,liz. th,t the .oney Is .aluabl., since it is • legal
requIrement. It cannot be I public benefit. as such. I also que.tlon It
this time, while I enjoy having ,ledges, 'nd I know the symphony enjoys .1
,ledge eveTy lelr, I question whether. ,ledge to do somethIng, eve.
thoagh ~.de I. good filth. IS I. Items e Ind f, r.,", is I sofflcfent
publ;c benef;t for thfs proposal to go forward, eveQ i. cDnj~~ctfo~ -nt~
othe ...
--.-~,
03/Z8/g0
·30·
"-.~
•
\
t ~.
t·
r '
I
~; '. '
. , .
, ,
\
--
•
./
!r.. Gilliland: The lotent her. Is th.t thl, Is I conceptual approvil.
a.fore It comes bact. those .ou~d be tied down as specific publfc benefits
w1t~ , ... specific physical change5.
CPmmiss~o~er Rir$th: I hive a qUEstion fDr the people whQ w!re proposfng
that there were •• fffcle.t publfc benefits to hOve forward on the Sl9
Bryant Street by It,.lf. Vould th.! be with the enh.nced squ.re footage!
Cpmmfssfpner Mjrsb: Yes, as presented .nthf. the current pl.n, that is,
an e.pansloD of 2,500 squ.re feet of .sable 'pace.
If .e .ere to require parkl'9 of 2,500 square feet with!. this area, .hat
•• ald be the requlreoen!, If the applicant wou1d provide it? Is It 4 per
t"ouund?
~s~ Jansen: YEs. one per 250~
(ammlssfoner Mar$~: So ten spaces I~d the people t~al would ~se them ITe
what ,eems to be at Issue here. The l,500 square feet th.t the 'ppllcant
desires is not significantly going t. change the •• y this building appears
Yisually. The belght Is already ot three slorles, and that will be
continued. The footprlat Is going to remaf. the s.me. What Is going t.
c~ange " that incremental difference of 2,500 square feet ind trlffic and
p.rklng that It brings to the downtown irea. I would simpl, argue that
t~e benefits you are getting, il terms of the seismic upgrade, whic~ Is 0
sIgnificant investment I •• building of 43,000 square fe.t and as o~d .,
this one Is, ind the }I,tor!cal upgr.de of t~ls building, f •• ddition t.
the .lleyw.y treit~nt and t~e street front.ge c~anges that we ire going
tG se! here, are signiffcant benefjts to the surrounding ire~ t& justifJ
an impact mf ten spaces upon the downtown ITei. 2,500 square feet is
reall, I verI sm." fDcrement.l Increase. I. this ~Gstance~ it is about I
17 percent increase. and fl comparison to the amount Df square footage
t~at we alloted for srowth f. the downtown are', thl, is i drop i. t~e
bocket. The only rea50n thl, f' coming up Is because it is over t~e FAR.
Otherwise, they .ould get bonuses for the work they are undertaking.
Commissioner Huber! If these two prujects ire net tied togetn!r, and if
we granted a PC on Bryant Street of te~ spaces, ~at is tnen potentfal1J
available for the Univer,lty Avenue property that could impact parking
spaces?
i'Ir. Gjlli]o!l!!: They coule! add 2S percent of the gr ... floor orei, fo
Iddition t •• ~at is t~ere DOW. J t~ink It is .bout 0 15,000 square-foot
building.
~s. JiDse.: Another 3,000·4,000 sqUire feet could potentially be added t.
'251.
8r. Gilliland: And retllolng the existing basement is is.
e,. Bier; There 15 .150 I handlca~ access upgride. 251 University A~enue
coold ~a,e up t. about 4,500 squ.re feet that could be de,.loped I. t~e
f,ture.
Commissfoner HfrS{\: Commissioner Marsh brought up l~e Question of
03/28/90
·31·
•
•
,
..
.-
.-'" .-• I
parllng spaces, Vlt~ t~l. Iddltlon.l .quare 'oot.ge, If t_l. unlinked
froo '251. we,ld Iddltlon.l parting space. ~I" to be provIded or 1 fee
plld?
Ms. Jansen, Addltlonll partIng spac.s would hI •• to be provIded. Ve hive
no .. chlnls" '" pl.ce yet for a f •• I. lie. t~er.of, Ve hl.e I tOuncll
dlrecti.e to lool It • fe. II lie. for sm.ll p.rcel development, but not
for buIlding ,ddltlons. It WIS speclflc.ll, lotended. I belIeve, for the
one re •• lling p.rcel that .e h.,e on Unl.erslt, Avenue th.t I. completel,
undev.loped. but there w.s no directIon. to .y knowledge. to do It for
Idd;tions to buildings.
Commlsslgner Hlrsc_: So If you unllnt t~e two
Ms. Jansen: I do not lnow how you .ould do It .nd allow the 1qu.re
footage wIthout provIding the parking.
(Qmrni$$foner Hfrsck: And IDa hive tD provide t~! parting. Under Dur
curreRt structure. you C.lnnDt 'pI' tfle feel
Ms. Jansen: That fs correct.
CDmmissioner C.l1en: Ve hive before ~s a proposal (rom the deyeloper~ and
to start redesIgnIng the propos.l t. reduce the generosltl of the
developer Is re.ll, very foolIsh. T_ls deve10per respeels t~ls communlt,
and has always tried to do a little e.tra when he brings In somethIng. I
al.o am not i. f.vor of Ilclel and dlm!ng •• trl sp.ce on every pr.Ject
t~at co~s il. I thlnt every project .hoold ~.ve something like this
attached to it. When we redid the Downtown Study, we tnewwe were going
to .ee • lot of PCs. It was golog to en.b1 •• s 'hel, t. desIgn a better
downtown' rather than t.klng what developers h.nded .s. That Is why the
restrictions and the incentives were put ~D. When ~ ha~e sOm!thing good
like this before .s. I thlnt we should 1001 It it IS propo.ed. Since we
c.nnot detach the._ two propertIes and still get the package that is
proposed. I .nIl be f. f.vor of keeping tho. both io the PC. The PC that
Coomlss!on.r Birs, •• lluded to vas not a good ••• mple, They were both
vacant pieces Df propertl, $0 one vas developed lnd t~e other was not.
Kere we tnow what we .re de.llng with .. two very sturdy building.. It
has been a v,ry diffic.lt building .11 along, and •• Commissioner
Chrislensen s.ld. Just gettIng somothing done there I •• significant
benefit to tho city. 50 I .. I. f.vor of moving ahead .nth thl. concept,
I a~ not sure ~DW J feel lbo~t the .11e1 versus tke ciwic center
improvements. I do not want to burd •• the developer undul, with
improv_me.ls, but he has .ffered t. do so. The alley, If It Is going to
b_ further Improved when something happeRs at Liddicoat's, th.t Is the
time t. 60 the .ll.y. I ... ery ~uc. io r.vor of this project .s
propo •• d.
~: Ccmmiss(oner CplleR:
approving the concept.
~: 8y Commissioner Hirsch.
~ove that we proceed wit' t~e prgjett.
~mmj5sfDneT (.11eR: There ~ere i couple af conditions tkat we dfscwssed.
but this Is just tho <oncept.,l stage, .nd Wf do not ~av_ t. do ~uc' with
t~e condilions at t.ls stag', do we?
03)18/90
·n·
,
\,
,"
i ,
\
\ ," \ , ,
,
··1r~·.·
. -;.?fI{
-'c-. ,.:i
-.
.... :
'.
-'
-', ."
.,
I ,
-
Ms. Case: Th.t Is correct, If you ~.v. an~t~lng th.t you specifically
.ant deleted OT added for consIderation the ne.t tl~. that Is fine.
ronlght It Is for conc.pt.al .pprcv,l.
(Dmmls$fpner Hyh,r: 1.m going to support the mGtion. A dual PC strites
Be a. being a little clumsJ. but noneth.less. it .c~ieve. something that
i. ne.ded h.re, T.~. It .ort. fIne. Th.y ar. Iinled, but not
physic.ll, linled II the ••••• th.t you h.v. parting across the .treet
from another •• p.ct of the PC. Whe. all Is •• Id and done, If this flows
through, you could put blinders on Ind sa, they lr. just two s.parate PCs
on these properll •• and no cne .ou1d lno. the, ore lin\ed. So 1 de not
se. that .s I problem, I .gre • .nth Commissioner Christens.n that the on.
building .Ione justifies It.elf for. PC. But we have a .it,atlon here
~ere we can control~ t. ,ome extent. additional development d~ntown by
linking to University, .nd 1 s.y, if it is there, let's take it. As long
.s Mr. Baer is .nIIIDg t. contribute amenities, I think .e sho.ld do that
.s well. The Urban Design Committe •• as .nxlous to get moving on the
,1 ••• , .0 I certallT, would support th.t.
(ommlssio"er Mlr$~: Retura'ng tl the parkins i~$ue. ~an we not exempt an
applicant fro~ parking requirements?
Ms. Jansen: ATe you referring tD .it~'l the PC zone or outside pf it? [a
ether words, if the propertJ remafned CDC. could it be exempted fro~
Forklng?
{QmrniSSloner Mir5~: Under a PC.
~s. Janse~: BaSically, ~ou can deteratne your parting re~uirements under
the PC zone as befits the Ise , for e~ample. as il l~e Reller project,
where there ~s • special kind Gf se~ior housing, and therefore, a
.pecific type or parking WiS applied th.re. II this case, you .ould have
to .ay that the v ••• s proposed or ,s p.rmitted under either the CDC or ,.
proposed under t~e PC " essentially the same. I do ~ot see ~ere you
.ould find. parking requirement as befng substantiall1 different for that
bundlng.
Commissioner Marsh: Rfg~t. [don~t thfnk you woald. The question is
.hether yoa c" just limit ,.
Ms. Case: You can set your own parking requirements for eac~ PC.
Commissioner ~arsh: So we cou,~ set I ~arking requlr~ment ~f zero.
~ •. Jansen: Tes, But yoa ~ak. findings when doing this, ind I do not see
w~.t the findings would be to justify a lowered parking r,tio far this
building.
(Qmmissfoner Marsh: Vculdn'l t~i5 building continue to ~ay fntl the
parling assessment district?
lis. Jansen: That h c~rect,
Commissioner "ar.~: And couldn't the addition.l square foot.g. sfmpl, po,
i.t~ the ~arkf~; assessment dfstrict?
03/lB/90
.3).
•
,
. ,
,
\ , ,
\
...
~ . ".i;-:,
r'~:
, ,'.
" . .)'
'\ ." \:>,_ .. ~
.-
ri'----7>-
:, -'-.
-.;:
I --.-',
I
I
I
-
" .....
".-.
.-
\
~ •• Janse.: The .. Is no provision for doing th.t.
Commissioner Marsb: Could list the Ippllcant the slme que,tlon?
Mr. Boer: I think we Ire re.lsltlng In fssue t~at c..e up It 2~
Unl.erslty A,enue. Once you Idopt t~e PC ordlnlnce, you est.bllsh. 'Oid
you bave enough publIc benefit to g\yO s~ •• tra squire footlge. Ind you
Ire going to PI1 f.to the Issess .. nt district for the f.ll squIre footage
of your bulldlog." So t~e questfon fs, If w, add 2,SOO squire feet, will
we be p.ylng I,to t~e .ssesseent district on What exists, plus
2 .. 500 square fe-ft l Ind thl!' Inswe-r is Jes. ell'l we. under I; ,pc. get
2,500 squire feet and bl •• It .11 II the pc. 'tou ~.yO satisfied your
partTng requirement because of your Dtber publit benefits,-and the Inswer
Is yes. That h.ppened .t 250 Unl.erolty Avenue, Where we would not h.ve
sltlsfied • four per thousand plrtlng requlremt"t for the new square
footage thlt we .dded under the DOSt severe of t~e ,l.nning st.fl
ilterpret.tlons Ibout how many p.rtlng spaces were required for t~e
existlog building.
Cgmmjssfoner ears': Does council 19rt! ~th the Ip~licant~s .nalJsfs?
eSt CISt: The law does allow you t. 5!t your Dwn parking regulations for
.. ~. PC.
COmmissioner ~3rs~: Tbe~ an Iddit'onal questIon 1s~ could we re~effne
this PC IS b,'ng 43,000 square feet pl •• 2,500 sqUire feet, and the whole
shebang pays imtD the pirling Issessment district?
!'Is. tl.e: Th.t Is the wa, we .nder. hnd It.
Commission,r ~irsh! ] continue to believe even ~ore strongl, IS we
discuss this thit the bul14ing on Bryant Street r'ill, stlnos on Its own.
Whit Is at fssue ~er. Is slmpl, t~.s. 2,SOO square feet. We have
significant .dvantages being provld,d I. exc~ange for simpl, 2,500 square
feet. Ve have a Whole building being selsmicall, upgraded and
\istoric.ll, upgr.d.d. Ve t.ve .n ,ll.yw., t~.t ,. being slgnificantl,
lapro.ed to en~anc. the pedestrian .itllit, II this irea. The appearance or this building I. not going to change, '0 we do not ha'e •• I,u,l
\ssu.. r. f,ct, It I. gol'g to 100\ better becaus. it Is going to be
'istorlclll, upgr.ded. Jhe onll thing .t Is,ue tonig~t is ten parllng
'plces, Ind ten people ",ocf,ted with tho.e parking .paces. If .11 of
the work that ,. belog done on thl. building cannot justif, tho,e ten
p.rking spaces and f.ldi.g II those 2,SOO squ.re feet into t~e parting
Is.essme,t district .0 th,t .e Ire still esseotl.ll, paying for t~ose
~artfng space$ II some manner ~thil tbe djstrjtt~ l~e~ ~ are relll,
overlooking the vilue of thl. project. The project stands on Its own, and
It is much cl.aner to divorce It from the Unlyersit] Avenue building. I
re.lll thiol t~,t that fs t~e correct .yenue for us to t •• e here.
Also. I war.l to ~!spond te somet~ing that Commissioner C.l1eQ sa'd~ is to
not oyerlook t~e g"orosit, of the developer f. this c.,e. I would never
want to do such. tl'Dg, but t~ere Is an Issue .f baSic flfrness bere. We
do not lccept pc, ,. w~lch , public benefit Is underst.ted, nor s~oul~ we
lean fl the otheT lirrttiQ" to Icce~t somet.ing t~it is ~rrl ~uc~
c~erstated. ]f we do thlt. we -nll never come to lny kfnd Df trwt~ 11
03/28/90
-34·
•
\
\ ,
\
.~ \'.
•
.-'.
I
I •
I ~.
;.'
I
I
f
f
I
i ,
[
~ 1-l ---
f'
r -
I
I
!
t
t
I
I
r.-
. ·1' . ~. ,
i . ,
.~
;
between IS to whit It Is th.t we re,11, require t. justifl I public
benefit I. I project. I think It Is re.ll, tltlog t~e .,Sl wa, out t.
slmpll accept something thlt e,erybody up here reallz •• Is more t~.n
g.nerous for I project. It Is I Much better chillenge Ind one wit. MUch
bOre equitl to 100\ at I project and stat. what Is real11 required t.
justlf, the publl~ benefit. I. this CIS', the addition of Z,5~ square
reet. which ago'. Is I ~ number of sqUire feet I. the downtown as a
whol., Is well justified by the ,d,antages of the project Itself.
Comlssloner Hind: I wlnt to cloTlf, a po!.t. I. essence, thl. project
will ha'e 45,6~ square feet. That would no ... ll, require 183 parking
spoce. If It was going I. new and not II the lssessment district. at t~e
rate of four per thousand. That re.l1, Is wh.t this project will
contribute, If the building Is used as office space. T~is building bl'
been vacant for IS years. So tf it was ~ot fl t~e assessment dfstrict,
183 space. wo.ld be required. The fact that It I. io the I.sessment
distrfct. eveft t~oug"" it hn not been used' Irjd riD one has been payillg any
f.e. lat. the Issessment district, so now If It becomes occupied. they
would ha,. to pal a Iiolmuo of 45,600 less 2,500 .quare feet. To" Ire
sayfng that we can additional 11 require t~e. t. pay rot. the ,s.ess~nt
dl.trlct on the b.sl. of the f.ll square footage of the building?
Mr. Gilliland: That I. correct.
Commissioner Hir5£\: ] a~ pers~aded by Commissioner Mars~'s re~arts. and
I withdraw "I second. I doo't believe il the llntage of these two
buildings, eIther. I think the paTling requlremeot can be bandIed II •
tot.ll, differe.t va], IS suggested by Commissioner ~arsb's questIonIng.
Chairman (handler: Is there I new s!cond?
~: By Ccomlssloner Huber.
Cgmmilsigner Chrf§teasen: I think t~e complication's that ~e a)l want
t~fs to go fo~~~ so if ve defeat this, ] want to make sure that
somethIng el.e ,. goIng t. go forward. I do not agree w1t~ the ootlon i.
its current fOrM, and I do concur wtth t~e remarks of Commissfoner ~arsh~
As far as the C(l'C center ,laza improvements art concerned, if we were to
requfre this of every developer .s they developed downtown, and I felt
comfortable vlth It, I don't feel comfortable vith It under these
cfrtumstlnc:es.
I did have concerns about some Dr t~e suggested conditions. One 'S t~e
st.ff recommendation that t~.re be no planting or l.nds,aping 10 t~e
11Jey, on the side t~at t~, own. I think that would be l .istake, ond
woald bope we co.14 work out ~.vlng l.ndscaping io that alley. I would
hate to ha,e the ARB not cons;der landst.plng.
tmnm!: Commissfoner ("ristens!~: I ... oullS lite to propose .. substitute
aotfo~ iRstead that we support i ~tfon to ,onceptuall, apprawe • PC for
529 Bryant Street, and that there Ire suffitient public benefjts fl the
restoration and reuse of the .tstorfc bu'lding, fa the improyeme~ts tl the
alleyways and I. t~e tree ,lantlng' 'long Bryant Street to justlf, •
concept.al appro,,1 of this PC IS proposed for t~e Sr,ant Street Site.
~s Jansen: You ~ave t. deffne the square footage. 15 t.is with or
03/28/90
·35·
•
\
'.
j
•
-"-,
•
\
'.
\
\
\ ,
I.
.~ -\'
.' .. -:.
~ 1 . , ,
~ :;:-,0_0::
~"> ;-';
,
I
i
I
l
!i
-
).
, .
.it~out t~e 2.500 addItIonal square feet!
(ommlssfgncr ChrjstcDsca: Ta1s includes the basement with t~e
1,500 squore feet.
Ms. Janse.: I would Sl, t~it t~ls Is settIng an enonoous precede.t t.
allo~ addition.' squire foot.ge on any balldlng I. t~e downt .... r ••
wit~out providing the parting. It would be t~e first time it •• s don.,
and we blV~ bad I number of enormous pressures It t~e stiff level to do
just th.t for additlon.l square footlge. Th.t Is ~y we bad our 'oltl.l
liseo.slons .it~ the applielnt on thIs propo •• l. Th. onll wa, that this
eould b. tied .as II some tlnd of squire footage '" some ot~.r building,
I.d that Is ~1 It ... pro·offered.
Commissioner ftjrsc'; Then what fs the effect Df t~e assessment dfstrict?
Ms. Jans •• : It does .ot allow ,ou t. add additional square footage beyond
that permitted with those speel., seis.ie upgrades or .,.torie
re~Dvatfon. Al$o~ it d~t$ not IllD~ it for any buildfng Ibove 3:J. I can
tell you that probab!1 most of t~e downtown buildings would Qualify I.
some .a, or would request I. some wa, additional square footage that would
not fit withlo those par.met.rs If they thought t~ey eould just buy 'oto
the Issessment district. All I want you to do Is t. be IWlr. that t~at 'S
the clse. if th.t Is the Ictioo you tak ••
(Qmmiss~Qntr Chrfstensen~ Would t~e1 also meet the circum5t.~ces of tbis
Pt, as far a. the .Isto,ie ~"ilding and .11ey Im~ro,ements? I see t~e
granting of this 2,500 square feet .s gl.log us the reuse ond Improveme,t
of this building, wble~ 'S a Catego,y 2 .i.to,lc building. I do not see
us ~elng able to do It for everyone who Wilks II off the street.
Chairman C~a~d'eT: There is I substftute mation on t~e floer now to
IpprD~e I PC for the 529 Br1ant Street site alone. 11To~ng 2~52Q ~et
sQuore feet t. be added t. the existing bUilding, with findings of public
benefit rellting to the rlnovatio. of in "sto,iea' structure I.d
;~prcvements to adjacent 111e~ys.
Commissioner tIlleD: J wocld lite to re~ind you of 111 the work t~at went
,.t. the Gownt ... Study. One of the pol fey stltement. that cam. out of
that WiS that there would be no ~ark'ng ~eficlt added by any development
downtown and not add to the parking deficit. Jou ean .Ibbl. at this
llttl. by littl •• C.r.' J.nsen is absol.tell right. T'is Is going to set
I precedent l and prett, soon we Ire going to fi~d that e~erybod, hiS some
." of squeezing It. If we set polleles, w. should stand by them, Ind we
art not even being IS led t. toke this .ctlon. Onll a few meetings ago,
the werl sime remart _is made by one Df you: ·~1 Ire we dofng t~fs! ~e
areo't being asked t. do thIs. Why don't we stick to w~.t we are Isted to
do?-
Commissioner HUber~ J just ~Ive I CO~~Dt. and t~at fs thJt the whole
Downtown Study was a growth reduction .ffort, and ~ere w. are being
offered, along with the Bryant building, a reductIon i. sQuIre footlge.
c,nnot conceive of why we wouldn't tat. It.
(ommfJ5'Oner "ir$'~ Stiff. tin you refresh our ~emorits? I. the Downtown
03/28/90
·36·
•
r
I
I ,
I
f
I
I
I
.'
•
..J
·.)('1
'--.. ' I
.--,
I
. !
~J • i
"I
~
-.
, i
lie I ..
Study •• s.t In 'oterlm lImIt and ".mber of s~uar. f.et f. WhIch ••• ou1d
reevaluate the downtown list. ~at was that number?
es. Janse.: I belle •• It •• s 100,000 s~uar. feet. But It 100,000 square
feet. the downtown regulatfons ~ere to be reeVi'~ited.
CDmmissioner Mirsh: How ~an1 square feet would yo~ estfmate hIve bee~
buIlt out since l~at tl .. ?
"Sa Jansea: Less than 40,000. Jim estfmates.
tgmmjs5ianer ~r$h: So we have I s1;niritant amount ~f leeway fD What we
are .orklng .ilh ~ere. The deyelopment that we .nticlp.te t~.t ~ad
occurred I. the downtown up untIl t~e downtown study.as phenomenal.
SiDce that study ~as bee. I. place. It has been mi.lm.l. An addition of
2,500 square feet Is not I sIgnificant step toward that 100,000
square-fOQt limlt. I. tt~S Qf precedent, J think Jf we ~ave strong
leadershIp withl. the cIty. we should be able to appl, the policy set by
precedents judlciousl,. I think that there Ire specill qualIties f. tbis
project thlt justify enveloping the 2,500 square feet wit~I' the parkIng
assessment district. I don't thlnt all proj.cts .111 offer that to us.
But that Is the cho!ce as we sit up here and try t •• ate decisIon. about
What kInds of public benefits justify .~at kinds of action, and I trwst
that we ~ll continue to eake those decfsions yell i_ the fut~re. So I
.nIl support the effort.
Ms. JanseR: My rec,11ecticn fs that t~ere is I Comprehensive ;la~
provision that SiYS~ you s~a'l not increase the parking deficit 11 the
downtown. If that is the case. I do not knov how, ~y sfngTeing D~t and
bisecting this Planned Communlt! zone t~at you haYe before you, that you
would not, f. effect. fncrease the paTklng deffcit fa the downtown_
Commissioner H;rsth~ Along t~it liDe. the concera r ~awe is t~at
basic.11,. t~ls project .nl1 create I demand for 183 parking spaces. of
which c1ear71 173 can be handled by payment iot. t~e district. J t'int
Commissioner Mars~ is absolwtel, correct t~at 111 we iTe reall, tal ling
about is 10 ~arking spaces. fhat does not seem t~ be signiffcant~
relatfve tD t~e public benefit of reusing i~d renov~tin9 a 'istorfc
building that ha. boen slttl'g .acant for I~ years.
~Sr Jansea: Ve understand III of that. But anyo~e can Isk for te~ Dr t~o
or 2~. and what we are trying t. say that if we haye something that i.
pro·offered that offsets that parking deficit by more than tho.e ten
spaces. why ~ould we not. IS Commissioner Huber says, accept that~ J am
en~rmo~sl, ~ncomfortlble ~th this if ~e are te take the two ~part i~d
allo~ the addition.l s~uar. footage at ~2~ Bryant Stre.t. II Plst tImes,
Chairman Chandler. you ~ave asked. and when Cnmrnissfoner Hirsc~ was
chlinoa., vhere t~e stiff m!g~t differ wit~ the commissIon. If th.t is
your actIon, I do want to .dvlse that we would not be able t. support the
commission on t~at recommendation.
C~alnnan C~a~dler: I ~ disturbed by some of t~is d;sc~ssion. IS well.
because It poses the Issues II some very strange vays. It Is warping our
process a little. I think. We have ~ad Ylrious descri,tions of the ~ature
Df the transaction i~ front Df us. Commissfoner Christensen ~std words
that [ ~n't eveR repelt. because they made me cringe. Tney were legal
03/28/90
.3].
-----------. ----,.--" -~ ---~ " ~-~ ----. --'.
, ,
•
, ;..
\ , ,
\
: ;
',~,
. :-.~-·l/
, , '
,-.
-
." .. -
'.
words. as I rec&11. longer than four Jetters. Commfssfoner (.11en. on t~e
other hand, c.me ro .~erl betwee. the two extremes t~at Commissioner
Christensen .nd suggested generosltl w •• wh.t w •• going on. W. h ••• ro
~. B~er I very tnno~atrye and creitf~e property owner ~Q his done I lat
for the downlown, ond who Is 'Ighl, ~tIY.t.d. I think It Is gon.ro.it,
when he buy. the B.rker Hotel .nd ~.k •• It av.llabl. for continued
single·room occupancl. 1.1 not .ugge.tlng 111 ~tiyalion. on .Is part .t
.11 If I ,., th.1 I ha •• trouble calling something gonero.lll whe. It
comes 10 the fo .. of • propo •• l th.t i. Included I. In appllcatloo. J do
not lnow whether the proce •• for thaI wa. the .t.ff .aylng, you better
come up with .omethlng good If you want us t •• upport 2,500 extra square
reet and It came from th.t, or whether he thougM of It beforehand
.I •• elf. What that l •• d. u. lot. I, the type of .Ituatlon that ~s. Jans.n
destrlbed 15. the ~exl one fs 25 parkIng spaces. and someone else wants
200 parking spaces, If onll they will cover the cltl's budget deficit for
the next 25 y •• rs, or whatever It Is. I am r •• l1y uncomfortable wIth such
• rliid zoning process that does not ,.t a ver, cl •• r set or .tandards for
propertJ owner' to follow. thll encourages ·generostt,· lnd encourages the
cltl t •• si more than Is appropriate but whloh IOU <.n do with land owners
bec.use propertl Is fixed. You <an'l take ,our land .nd ~ove II to
.nother clt,. If yoo want I. d.velop It. you have t. pl" the game.
don't lite that lpprcacR tl zonlng. and J donft like sending us do~ a
p.th that puts os II that direction.
On the .ther hand. what I thlnt ~akes this. realll yoo' ,it •• tlon to I.lk
about precedent. I, that 2,500 .quare feet b,sl,all, fits I,t. the
sit.ation of what we till 'wriggle rDO~' '" the Downtown Siudy. It Is
appro,lmately 5 perce.t .f tbls partlc.l.r bull~jng. Th. square foolage
.f this building and the .ssoclat.d parilng demand w.s biled I.t. our
ba •• lin. projection f.r Ihe downtown, bec.use • building alr.ady .xlsted,
rveR If it was!'t occupled. J a~ wery uncomfortable, Especiall} trlth
putting a Jot .f <ondillons on II, with respeol t. the 2,500 square feet.
So the dilemma I f •• l p,rsonalll Is that 2,500 square feet is rel.tlvel,
trl,ia', .nd Ihl. goes ,,'y too far. On the .ther hand, I do.'t like the
Ide, .f creattng .nl project that Is going to Intrease the parking
deficit, because that was. b.sl, princlpl •• f what we did I. Ihe
downtown. I wish Hat Mr. Baer would want to get up a"" saJ that i.
ret~rl for gettfDg the Cry]C center Flaza o~t of the project. ~e would
low.r the sQuare foolag, .t 529 Bryant Str.et by 2,500 square feet. and we
could create I PC to get rfd ef the ground fJoor ret"l restrittion. wh]c~
did not appll t. thl. building, .nd ha.e the upgrades to the a11e,s and
the re~oYltion IS the imprDvement. T~at would solve a dilemma for all of
us.
Mr. Baer; If there fs In area where the gene~os;tl seems toa tied to
precede.t·settlng, I would .,' yes, per~ap. t~e city hall plaz. Is a lot
t. ask for 2,500 square reel. As I spo~e, I •• Id cl.arll we were doing
that to counterb.lance the need for ret.ll .Italltl. There probably Is
Dot dis.gr.ement on the p1annlng comml.slon to ~ •• Ing a buIldIng Ihat ~a.
bee. unused for IS years b.autifled and preserv.d and provides the
pedestri.n .It.llt, that the Compre~e,.iv. Plan and zoning seeks. Sut
beCI~t we l1so heir stited wery ,trongl1, w~ic~ (hair~an C~lndleT
swam.rlzed, there Is al •• cle.r Compre~enslve Flan and zoning dlrectlv.s
that sa" don't burden us wit_ more fees and ~ore pariiog. That fs why we
c ... f. linking 1251. I wis~ there was. wal to struggle through the
,recedeht aspects of t~e ',SOO s~uare feet. It doesn't ~ake or not make
L
03/2B/~0
·311·
,
-'
r ,
i
J
I ,
I
!
i
!
~.
I
[
I
f
I
I
\
\
\
,
~,
• ,
. .-
,
,
,
r
... r:
----.--.:.~-____ . _.-..:...._~_~_'""-__ .,""' __ ~ __ .~~ _.~ 4 _ " __ ~ ____ , _____ ~.
t~e deal, but we ITe certlflT, w111i~9 to yolu~teer the e1iminatfon Df
I,SOO squar. f •• t Ind the opportunltl for .,500 new square feet It 1251
for that benefit to our proJect.
Chainnan ChandJor, I on glad you un~erstand the dilemma I" these
conflicting policies. I don't question your generosit" Jim. because I
know t~e t~fngs IOU have done. but the ~ext 9Y1 who comes along ~a1 S11.
What will I ~ave to offer to get • slople approval of my building that
vlnts to be slightl, dlff.rent. I don't like cre.tlng I process that
encourages I bIdding war for development rights that .re untl.d t.
,1annfDg consfderations.
Sr. Baer: I •• strugglIng with tlls leg.l Is.ue. which f. that the
precedent fs elfmlnated If the questfon were, "Is t~ls PC dOing What we
all want to avofd. wbfc' fs. Iddfcg $Quare footage.-The answer ~s NO I
we don't have to stru9g1. with a lot of the policy I.sues. The Is.ue Is a
auch narrower policy Issue. Wh'c~ 'S. ·~.t Is an appropriate public
benefit for ground floor relief Which cannot be .ariedl" Tbat Is Why ve
~nted tQ couple it. I wis~ there were an opportunity to do one BOre step
of logal analysis to dete .. ine, i. fact, Whether the loss of space It 2S1
~nl~ersitl Avenue (and b¥ the .ay, I thint we will ~aye at <itl council~
if we don't have It so cverwhel~ingl, bere) offsets the concer. t~at we
can't approve this If yO" are adding squ.re feet without providing
pariing. That is why ~R wor\fng very bird with staff~ we voluntarl1J
said, let's reduce square footage. sa that 's~'t t~e issue we Ire focwsiog
on. The Issue we ife focwstng on is pedestrian Yitalit, l~d improved ~se
of a~ underwtilized bu11ding. [would sure encourage the ,lanniDg
commlssfon to say. o\ay, there Is a part of thls that fs just a little
soelll to combine the two project., but let's do that because ~e avoid the
hurdle of adding square feet, whfc~ is I legitimate 5trug91e~ whet~er the
building sta~s alone Dr does~'t stand alone on t~e significance or
i.slgniflcance of 1.500 square feet. I ~ould rather come to you saying.
there is no fncreased parling demand or extri square footage created by
this project.
CommissiDner Marsh; I am going to suggest a comp~omlse. As 1 said
sever. 1 tfmes tonight. I re.ll, feel that the ~roject stands on its own.
Perhaps the ell, coyncil ~ll read the minutes and consider that
posstb\lftJ~ However. at th\s point. I reco~nd t~at we think abaut
JinkfDg up ~th 251 Universit, Avenue to the extent that we do an equal
exchange. [reall, a~ not comfortable with eliminating 7.000 square feet~
which is what the orlgl.al proposal asted them to g;,e "P (2.500 square
f •• t of basemeot ,1 •••• 500 square feet of space t~a! they legitlmatel]
deserve) il r.t.r. for 1.500 square feet f. the new building. If the
Issue fs par.lng and equity and not exacerbating the deficit. then I think
WE should come up ~t~ i ,lan t~it allows the. 4,~O square-foot growth~
Ve could structure that by astlng them .t. go ahead and permanentl, s.al
Iff '.500 square feet of baseme~t with ~.SOO square feet remaiming Df
potential growth at some point. or we could move it around il some
f.s~fon" If we Ire going to get into thfs partnership wit~ the other
building. I thlnt It Is onl1 fafr that ~e .sk that there be, 'galo, some
equttJ betwee~ the square footage t"it is gained and the square footage
that h glv ...
r would ~a~e an lmendment t then~ t~at we e~tend the PC to include 251
UniversitJ Avenue. and that t~e 1,500 square feet that ire gaine~ on the
o)/za/go
·)9·
"
\
\
\
? \"
•
J
,
,
" .,' . ~1-. . ,
f ; . . ' ~. ,
i
'---:-::;.,
'f
Bryant Street prtJe~t be d~u~t~ I. some .anner from the e.l,tlog or
potentIal square footlge It 251 Unlverslly Avenue.
(pmml$sfontr Chrfst'Qsep: I will Itcept thlt~
CommissiDner Hjrs,': Sorry to bel.bor the potat. but fs t~! '1500 squire
feet It 529 BrYlnt Streot so •• I.lble thlt you have to go t~ls route? I
can see a lot of potentlll for a kInd of penthouse structure wIth
I .. nltl •• on that floor wh.r. the new square footage would go on the thIrd
floor, whIch woald .11.lnot. our dilemma up here. That I. whot Is couslng
the dilemma --the thIrd floor additIonal square footage. I. 2,500 .qu.re
feet th.t foport.nt II 0 buildIng th.t has 43,000. square feet .lr •• dy?
M{. Baer: ether downtown developers would not thInk well of te If I
recited for 10~ recent sales prfces on I per squire foot b~5~S fDr
buIldings downtown. Cl.ar1" thel hove ~Ig~ .01ue. We have vorked hard
with staff, and fl '.frness to ~s. Janst~ .hD said. -Why don't you not do
the 2,SOO square feet; It Is going t. ~ake the Issue extremel, complex; do
not tie t~e two buildIngs.· Cl.ar1" I persIsted because of the
Importance of the 2,SOO square feet, and we had hoped that thl. created a
fair .ddressfng af that issue. That is w~y t~e gener~sitl, as well~ for
t~e c,.ic center ,1.zo. It Is r.l •• bl. I.d important ,quire foot'ge
largel1 bec.u •• of the .lg~ clear ceiling and ••• for an Ideotlfled
potenti.l .,er. [f I were to .a, t. you, the amenltlo. cost $400,000 t.
build. that I. le.s •• l.abl. than the retention of the 2,500 square feet.
Ch,l .. a. Chandler: The Mozart buildIng was $334 per square foot, and a
good buIlding, which would .a~e 2,500 square feet worth about 0 .Il1lon
d.ll ....
Commi$sioner ~jr$":
because I assume that
of downtown anyhow!
I ~an understand the ClwlC center ,lala amenities.
sooner or later you vill prcbablJ own or lease 11'
Commfssfcfner CtlrisUnur:I: It Is a flfT compromise and it aha has a
better ~~ance Qf standfng up i_ t~e tong run~ just because 1 CI~ se.~ down
the road. the owner Dr 25) UDiversitl Jvenue coming ;~ and saying, I
re.ll, thtnl I de.er.e "y square footage. It f' more cle.rcot and gives
t~em some wriggle rDO~ and some potential to gro~. They ~ave to pro~ide
the parkieg If the, add th.t 4,000. squ,r. fe.t, s. I can .ccept It on
Hat "a.i.. .
CPmm[ssfoner CBllea: It looks like we Ire back to my original motion,
~thout discwssfng t~e cond;ti~ns. ~ic. was my 0[1ginal iatent. J. tOO,
feel that there Is .no"g~ pub'lt benefit without tyIng the ci.!c center
,laz. to it. The upgr.ding of the al1.y [and I would like t. have the
tree. examined II there .-I W11ked down that .11ey today .nd f.lt there
was pleotl .f roo. for some .arro~ tree.) .nd I would liko t. have thIs go
I. proposed wIt. wh.t I feel Is 0 good c.m~rornise.
Comrnfssfoner ~frs'.: I yill sup~.t the amended, 5ubstitwtt ~tlon,
.af.1, because the applicant i< oere before us, and do not feel tnere I,
any extortion or whatever you want to call It. It seems to be I benefit
to the applicant, '$ we11 as enabling the citl to ha.e compliance with 011
cf ;ts somewhat conflicting polfcles goi~g on It the same.
(~afrman Ckandllr: J wi'l support t.is motion. too. Jt is I reasonablt
L
03/lB/90
·40-
, ,
•
I,
I
I
I
•
.. ,
\
\
\ .. . "
. .,. . \'
" ~;~~~~~: ,
.~ .. < .-~ T~
, '~"0\~~~~;'
1
, ~
l
j
..:
-
(~; ... _ r-.-
~,~.,:t :'" -
----~--~----~~~-~--'''--'''''-~'~'''"''--, .. ,'.,--
solotlon. and ~I'lng 2S1 Unl,ersltl A,.nue a PC Is probably the best wa!
to bandle It II the long run. E.e. thoug~ It Is part of the PC, It does
flot hive to reaih under (:DlllTlon owners'JIJf,. It is jU5t I lone-thit happens
to appl1 10 those two propertl.s. Tbe flet th.t It I. I. the zone ~."s
that fotur. 'ppllcatlons for 1251 will lamediltel, be flagged fo< What the
requirements. as opposed tD t~e deed restriction approic\. Commissioner
fluber and I bot~ spoko on the p~e.lous It •• regarding the bouse on laurel
'leQ and bow wo feel about ha.lng the Cit, vcrr,lng about .nforclng deed
restrIctions. Ve ba •• run Into that I. other appllcatlcn •.
As far IS the ,fvfc center ,1ill is concerned. I feel t~at it became too
t~ptlng a targot. II one way. fer the fact that t~i. was Z,SOO square
feet wort. a .i11ion dollars. It is yer~ eisy to say, let's grab some of
that for os. I don't think It fs ours to grab. Th.t Is baslcall, ldding
a, e.tra t •• th.t we don't ba.e I right to add. ~at Is being done bere
ia terms of the transfer of the sqUire footage ~aies much more seAse as a
simple w.y to deal w1t~ this. The ground floor retail tradeoff Is .ade up
for b, Wh.t Is happe.lng to the alleys. So I also support this moticn,
and loct forward to It. ret.r. II project fonn.
Commfssfoner Hfric': By means of a note, I ~ad asked citJ staff during
the cours. of cur disc.sslon If the cit, would be Interested i. o'iog the
251 Universit, Avenue basement space for storage of documents and fjles~
at llttl. or no cc,t. Instead of ba.lng It .e.led off. Stiff .lld It
wc.ld be worth I.,.sligallng. so that could be considered. Seollng off
existing space ~t~ sand or concrete seems rit~er odd. lift1 years from
~OW~ ~e'd probabl, have to blo~ it ope~ on television t~ see if there ~as
anyt~log ,al,abl. \1 there. Maybe it could be osed. and thereby add
another benefit t. the cit, and an additional publlt benefit.
MOTION PAS$f$: (~alrma" Chandler: ]s t~ere anJ further disc~ssion on
t'ls moticn? The ~tfcn Is t. appro.e I PC appllc.tion a' described i.
t~e staff report. ~th the ~difjcalion t~at the limitation on square
footage at 25] Universit, Avenue be a reduction im the allowable square
foot.ge for that site of 2,520 squar. feet. and wit' the d.letlo. of the
requirement thilt city ball ,laza improvem.eots be l1ad'e. Were there
additional alley improvements t~at were adjacent to t~e propert~ t~at vere
put ;1 f~stead Qf the ~f~ic center Flaza?
Commlss;.oner Christensen: It is onl, conceptual. The ARB can tJrllnk about
th.t. [t Is u0<1.or froo w~at t~e st.ff an~ the applitant see. to thInk
was iDvolved f. the alle,.
Chairman CnandJer: Is that sufficient guidance fo~ the ARB as to what
t~e1 s~oull b. lookIng for fo thIs, If we ha.e not e'pc"sed • cle.r
opillo~ on ~at ve vant is the alleys?
Ms. Jansen! We ~ave a lot to resolve fl t~is. We can certa'." resolve
the Ille,s and impc.,e ... t, it the ARB stage.
ChairMan Chandler: '.ry veIl. All those il fivor •• ay Aye? All
o.pposed? That passes on a vote of S-J. Yitll (Dm11;ss;oner Huber .".oUng no
and C~issioner Beec~a~ absent_
Commissioner Huber! The on1, reason I voted no ~as because r liked t~e
propo,al that was pceseRted t. os by ftr. B.er. It Is not that I do not
03jZSj90
-41-
I ,_.
•
,
. ,
J
{~'
.~.
i ,
""I
I
j
1
1
-
Igre. with tho concept.
Commlsslon.r Col It.: There IJ one correctIon I would like to ~Ile I. the
bllck boot gl.e ... s. It listed 2S1 Unl.er.lt, Avenue IS I b.nk. It Is no
longer I bank. It Is 1 .... g g.llerl.
AGENO~ IWI 4
~, CommIssIoner Rlrsc., I would lite to .sk th.t tb. next Igend.
ft •• be continued.
~: Bl CommlJ.loner Cillen.
MOTION PASS(S: Chalrm.n Chandler: There Is I motion to continue t~ls
Item to the lIutlng of April IS Dr Ka1 9, at st.ff's discretion. All
those I. favor, s.' A1e7 All opposed? That p.sses on I yot •• f 5·1, with
CommissIoner Chlndler Yotlog no Ind CommiSSioner Beech .. Ibsent.
ORAl. COIV1UIIH.A nON S
S~fr'et Vjl$O~a SCi HiTe $trcct, rll; ~lt,: ! would lile to address the
spirit .f this Jast proje,t Ind the spirit cf public benefit. Yo. pecple
do In obs.l.tel, amazing job of wading t~rougb numbers and concepts, but
JOo re.lly oeed t. address the spirit of thiS ccmmunit, lIore strcngl,.
Everyone II town knows wh.t some ~f these goals Ire that we Ire looking
for. If we don't get support fro~ these developers Who are so willing t.
support some Df cur 90a1s, I donrt tno~where we are going t~ get it
from. We do not haye t~e fiscal cap.bilitles withi. t~e <itl to do It cn
our own. It's disturbing t. me to see a gIft like t~IJ turned down
tonignt. r. tne future, y.u .r. going to see t~ls concept agall .nd
ogai.. W. are out there II tn. street belling t~e bushes trying to get
pecple to g;ye .s these gIfts. If we do not get t~e support of tne
,1anning commiss'o~ and Df the citl counc.' alDng the ~i~, we are not
golog to develop the visloo for this communit, that some of us nold. Sc
hope that I. the f,t,re, you will t'int abcut thIs Whe, you make tnese
decfsions and give ~s t~e support that we need.
Chal"",n Chandler: I 1o'.uld comment th.t I have grelt trouble
<haracterlzing 50met~fng IS I glft that is made I condition of approval.
It fits more f. the c.tegor1 th.t some pecple I. the development communit,
call. 'snakedown" and r d. not Wint to be • communitl wnere people thInk
thlt i. what we are dolog. If Mr. 6.er Dr other developers want t.
ccntribute gifts such .s thIs, the cltl welco~es them, and I would feel
much mor. comfcrt.ble with the~ outsIde of t~e .pprov.1 process fcr items
where the citl holds dlscretlonar, .uthcrltl cver their .bilit, to .se
theIr propertl'
"$. ~illQn: That is a mltter of semantics and st,Te.
Chltro" Chandler: A I.t of people disagree with th.t.
Comrnissfo"rr Hfric~: I assume you are talting about the (fyic center
,hu.
~J/lB/gO
.4l.
•
~
I
r
I ,
". \
" \
\,
\
\
-c \'"
··"1·1
'->t;¥:s~t -t
"-
-1' 'j
-
•
..
.;,."r················· "~"'i~~ ," . -'.:: .. , -'
"'V . ~ -.,; ''t-. ."'..-.--" -. 4 ·· ... ·
' .. ", ". ~""'"r.~.~~_'_< ~.""'Z"-__ ,._
"s. Wilson: fest I I~. If t'fs prDject could Dot contributt~ Which fs I
half block Iway, Ind wo.ld benefit from this proje,t as .ell as the clt1
would. it ~s a rei' wia-wi. sitUItfoD. I don't know who could contribute~
Commissioner "iric): I te~d to support the comments Df C~ifnman C~lndler
without qualiflcltlon. I thought be stated it eloquentll oxa,tl, What I
feel, and What I also feel CommIssIoner Christens •• felt because s~. so
stated .arlfer II the eve,'ng. If Kr. Baer wonts to provide thlt plaza
out there, be Is free t. do so, and be can call it the Jim Baer P1azl. Ne
can donate the $400,000 If t~.t Is What It tales. But Whe. you de .ate It
a condition of Ipproval, as Ch,lnoan Chandler said, it Is an .xtr..el,
difflc.lt t.,\ to sit up here, because w~ile Jim Baer may be abl. to do
It. tho ne<t well ~anlng deyeloper ~al Dot h"e the financfal
Wherewlthan. yet will be pushed Dr (ould be pushed or It would appear
that he fs pushed to th,t extreme to get that approyal. I fInd th.t 1
little dIsturbIng when sitting at t'is end. I recognize the work you
people are dOing Dr Ittemptlng to do for the benefit of the clt1, but you
.150 ~aye l. reassess aur yiewpo1ats as ~el1.
"$ WilsQn: I don't know bow you differtntfate between alley improvements
or ~at ~as beeA done for 250 Unfyers~t, Avenue and t~is. [don~t see
anything re.111 different.
(ommi$$fqn~~ Rjrsc.: They Irt contigyous and abutt;ng. These are blocks
apart.
~s. (Ise: Mr. (hif~an~ since t~is is an oral communication. the
communicator can talt but the commission should not respond.
MOTION: (Qmmiss~oner Rirsc\: 1 move that ~e cancel the meetiDg af
April I J.
SfCONO, By Commissioner Marsh_
MOTION PASSES, C~.i .. an Chandler, All t~os. io fayor, say Aye? All
opposed? T~at passes unanimousl,. with (omm;ssioner Beec~a~ absent4
~TIQN: C~ainnan {handler: I ~ove t~at ~e sc~edule a special meeting f~r
April 18 to ~onsid.r Uni,erslty Circle.
~, Bl Commissioner Hirst~_
HOllON PASS{S, ChaIrman Chandler, All those I. foyor, sa, Aye? All
opposed? That passes unanfmousl!. wit~ Comm;ssicner Beecham ibsent.
ADJOURNMENT: It ~iS moved, seconded and carried that t~e meeting adjourl .t 11:15 p __ •
03/28/90
·43·
, .
\,
. '
. ,
..J