The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About0489.000I - o Sept •• her 6, 1990 HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL HONORABLE PUNNING COMMISSION P.l. Alto, C.lifer.i. SOIJTHQf fOREST PlANNJNGjSSU[~ M€mbers of the (ouneil and Commission: o On August 6~ ]990, the Cit, (ouncil dire(ted staff to ~hed~Te i special joint Cit1 Council-Planning Commission meeting t~ discwss key planning issues re1iting to the South ~f Forest Area. Tbls joimt ~eeting ~ill be he1d OD Thursday, September 13. 1990. at 1:3Q ,>~. i. the City Council Chambers ~t P.l. Alto City Hall. CON1ENT Of REPORT Tlis report 1J identifies major land ~se policy opt;ons~ 2) i~entifies iey issues of t~e South Qf forest Area. 3) suggests alter~ative courses of actiDn for add~ess1ng these issues, and 4} bighllghts possible policy and impleme~tation conflicts that may crise iN addressing t~e key Issues ~f the South of forest Are •. The fallQwing Taole identifies Sout~ of forest Area iss~es and alternative stritegies that are dis<ws~d fa later sections of t~is report. SOU1H Of FOREST ISSUES AND STRATEGIES Land [Jse~_ssu __ ~~; 11IteAslfic __ il_tf.~n ind ~~_QL~usI'!.E!_~_~ Ser'll_~_~ I. I~tensification 2. Loss of Aut& and Business SerYic~s s.tt".!..t.~9I~ I. ~odiffcatfon ~f off'site Parling Procedures 2. liberi1ization of Office limits 3. Restrictio~s on Pennitted Uses C. Parcel-bY·Parcel Regulations CMR:489:0 J , • c'"" ,j;-~: .. , "" ,'.' .~," -1' ~ .. , j , , - . -, / o o la~d Use JS~_U __ I?_~_~ Housing L Opportunities. on .I.lma Corridor 2~ Transition with E_istfng Residential S t .. _~_~_~ __ ~_~ __ ~ l~ Re(onsider Housing on Alma Corridor 2~ Rezoning to Resident,a1 l. Increase Housing Opport~nlties in Commercial lones T !! __ ff.t<; I ~J-E e s Triffic on Residential Streets Strategies I. CTosures Z. tand Use and Development Restrictions Parking ]ss'Je~ I. 'lsual (oncerns 2. Parking Deficiencies ~tra.tegi~_s_ 1. (ouncil Reviewing Off-Site Agreements 2. Elim;~atiD9 Credit for Existing Deficits 3. Establishing an Assessment District ! } S t.1 a J._J __ ~ _~ __ ~_i:!~ 1. Buildings and Uses 2. Surface Pir~ing Lots 3. ~erhead Utility line~ 4. Absence of Street Trees Stra.tegie.s. 1. (ompTetfng Urban O~sign Plan 2. Undergrounding of Utilit, lines 1. Street Tree Planing Progra~ Issue (on f1 i ~_~s I. Loss Qf Desired Commercia1 t. Increased Traffic from New Uses 1. £ff~cts on PrfYite ~arket Upgrading ~_ec f 11 C t (1 Co un, i 1 _~_"rl_~ ____ !J~_~J~_g __ J_Q_mm iss ion ~ee t i ng on Seot~_~_~_~!:_J_~_L.l.~_9Jl. The ~pec1al meeting on Sept€mber J3 t 199Q will pro~ide OppDrt~n'ty for tr.e CitJ Co~ncl1 and Planning Commission )) to hear di~~ssion of the Sout~ of forest Area's key issues from neighbors. propert, owners and businesses; 2} to tM~:489:Q SOfissue/gzdsk . -.. " 9/6/90 -2- • '\ ~ i , , , ·-.- / o o dl~~SS ~lternative course~ of action discussed 1~ this repo~t or suggested b1 ~ernhers Df t~e public; and 3} to provide (ouncil direction to the 'lannfng Commission regardfng ~ddress;ng major issues identified for t~e Sout~ of Forest Area are~. BACKGRIllIND OF SOUTH Of fOR[ST AREA _t_~_~_<:f _____ ~ __ ~_~ ___ OesfCj!nations and Zonfn;, The fGl10wing ~aps show I) Comprehensive ~ap land ~ses designations for the South of fo~est c~rciil and adjacent res;dentfil areiS t and 2} th~ zoning for these same areiS. The list t~at fellows t~e Zon1ng ~ap identifj~s permitted and conditional USes 1. the CD-S and CO-N districts. (MR,(89:0 SOfissue/gzd'sk 9/6/90 -3- • -. • I. ) , ~ . . _'------"--.-~-~--=,-. -~--,~-"""."-~ "'-~.:>""..:.,,:;::-:~- , " 'j l i ~~~,.~. LJ I.LLLLJj 1.UJ ~ SITE LOCATION £J .. 9 Ser'fi<:.e Commercia! F'll!J Muftipfe Family Resfdential ~ Single Family Residential '$#;:;:;1 Neigh borh'ood Commercial _ Major lnstituUOflal I Special Facilitles ] Etf~:~J [.Iill ~~~ ~ ~"'~~ ~ L---.J-J~,L:o _~l.-'-'-J South 01 Farest Area J'~~="C'= ~~~~ rl'-"~~ ... J' j-r=r-¢~~"'_l ~rn • .. -. -. Mm- , , - • .' \. \ \ '-.;:" . .. .' . ~ '-' .. ~.,-r • I . ·t ... 4·~. , I I I , I i J i I j I 1 j ".,.~ . '.,". . ~ ,,:,,~~--,-_ .. _. _ ... ~'""""-_,~~L'"-~~~-:· PC-2637 'L - • NORTH -5- r' I r , , , • \ ./ o PERlunED A/II) CONDITIONAL usn I~ CD-S A/II) (D-. ~15TRICT5 o ______________ --'(=D-5 _______ «:D-I Accessor1 hcllities and uses c~stomarill 1~idental to perlitt~d uses Ad~inlstritf~! office services as limited by Section 18.4S.06n(d) Ambula~ce ser~ices Animal <~re, but excluding boarding and lennels Animal care, including boarding and ~ennels Automotive services Autolaotive sfnice stations, subject t<J site and design review Business and trade sc~ools Churctes and reljg~o~s isstltijtfons Commercfal recreitiaa ConvalesceDt faciljties Day care centers, large day care bomes, small day care bomes and residential care bornes Drive-ia services or take-out services t associated W1t~ perlitted uses--a ma~;mum of two suc~ services shall be permitted withiR 1,000 feet and each wse s~all not be less than Permitted Permitted (onditior:-al Permitted: Conditional (o1d1tional Conditional Permitted Permi tted C{lnditional Permitted Permitted 1150 feet from one anot1ler Conditional [at1nq and drinking ser~ices. except dr;we-i~ and tale-out services Permitted fanners' Jlariets Conditional financial services, exce~t drive-i~ services Generil business services Home occupations access~ry to perlitt~d residentiil ~ses Hotels ~ithout titche~s CMR:489:0 SOf i "ue/gzdsk -. -.. ~:- Permitted Permitted Permitted Pertllitted Permitted Not Allowed Conditlonal Permitted Not Allowed Not Allowed Conditional Not Allowed Conditional Conditional Conditional Penitted (cnd'itional Pert!itted Conditional Conditional ~ot Allowed P,rmitted Not Allo •• d 9/6/90 -6- • • • ~~" ",.'Ii,.. , , "'; ::,-. -, , - " \ -, • , . ...,., 'I ~ t 1 I .. ' . o Hotels ~;th not more than ten percent of roo~s wit_ kitchens Hotels built after August S. 1985, fla';'icg an unl inllted number Qf rO{lms. wiU kHdlens Liquor stores lodging Medic.l~ professional and general busfness offices Jlmf"haries Outdoor recreation sery;ces Parking as a principal use Personal ser~lces Prlwate clubs. lodges or fraternal organ'iutiofts Private educational facilties Recycling centers Retall ser'llices Reverse vending lIIachines Shnpping ce~ters Sfngle·famil¥ i~es. two 'am1l, i~es and ~ultipje·famil¥ uses Temporary parking faciljties~ pro~ided that such facilities shall remain no more -0, Conditional Not Allowed (onditional Not Al1o~ed P<!rlllitted Conditio(1al Permitted Peril i tt ed Perlilitted Pennitted Permitted Conditional Conditional Condit ional Condit ;on3.1 Not Allo~ed Peni tted Permitted Perlilitted (and it i ana 1 Penitted (onditTonal CondHlonal Condit ional Permitted Penitted Perllitted Permittee! Net Allowed Not All owed Permitted PermUted , than fhe years Conditional t~nd it i anal Transportation terminals Utilities facilities excluding construction Dr storage yar~s. maiotenance facilities or corporation ya~s Warehousing Gnd distribution (ondftional Not A 11 ",ed Conditional Conditional (onditfonal Net Allowed ]1 discwssing tne South Qf forest Area, it should be poioted out that a precise boundar1 ~f the area ~as not been estab1fshed. The Comprehensive Plan Map deSignation and t~e loning for t~e commercial portions of t~i5 general arei south ~f forest Avenue have been i. efffct since the Citi Counc,l acted on the Downtown Stud, ia 1986. At t~at time, c~anges from serYlce commerc1aT CMR:489:~ ~ SOfi.sue/gzdsk 9/6/90 -7· 1 ----" - , \ .. " • """, ···11 r -.~ . .f I -.>;- .; t , I, r. I ' , I l_ --' o o t~ nelghborbood co~rciil were appro~ed for most of the eastern side af the 900 block af [lerson Street. fne remai~ing servlce commercial designations for this area were approved i! 1970 when the o~igi~al Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Comprehensiye Plan Map designatio~s for adjacent single-fam111 areas~ which include bot_ 1-] and R-2 duplex loned districts, and (or adjacent multiple-famil, arels. were also approved is part of the )976 plan. e i t..l~}5!}_~~~ 'ey (it, Countl1 actions that have affected the Sout~ of Forest Area over the last twcnt, 1ears include 1} the fire Zone I Study i~ 1974 that resulted in tie re20ning of sites on the peripher) of downtown Palo Alto, 1ncluding portions Df t~is irei fro~ commerclal to resfdential; 2} the approval of the Comprehen~ive 'Jan f. 1976; 3) the adoption of i new 10n1n9 OrdiMance and ~ap 1a 1978 that resalted il expansion of t~e R-l zoned district and i creation of the i-l duplex distrlct for some resfdential neighbor~oods adjacent to t~e South of Forest Are. commerci.l ar •• ; 4) tne Downtown Study in )986, and 5) extension ~f the ,P} Pedestrian Combiain9 Qistr;ct regu1ations to t~l~ arEa in 1988. (ey elements of t~e Downtown Study that affected this area were: 1. A reduction in the floor area ratio tFAR) for increases 1. development 1~ areas loned CO-S and CO-N frD~ 2.0 to 1 to O~4 to I; 2. A rezoning of most of t~e easter. side of t~e 900 ~l~~ Qf Emerson Street from (S Service COlTlTlercial to CD-N Do ... ·ntowTl Neighborhood COlTlTlercfil; 3. An incl.sion of t~e South of Forest CO-S and CO-N are. in tne 350,000 square feet growth cap 00 additional develop~nt t~at ~as applied to t~e entire Oownta~n (0 district; 4~ Imposition of a S,ODO-square-foot limit Qn office ~ses for sit~s withi. t~e CO-S and to-N zoned areas ~;t~ no use permit option to exceed the limit fl the CD-S lone; 5. A decliling gradation of ~ousing densilfes within this South of forest ~-ea commercfal area fro~ RM-30 densities for most sites in the CD~S area betwee~ Alma and Emerson ri.~ .. th2 CO-S(Pj district on t~e Zone MapJ to RM-15 de~slties for CO-S and CD-~ zoned sites ab~tting or n~ar residential11-zoned parcels along the nortk side of Addis;on Avenue and on the eastera si~e of Emerson Street [i.e .• the CO-S(lll'}, CD-S(l)[P). and CO-N(I)(P) districts on the Zone Map], 6~ A transition setback regulation for commercial11~zoned sites s~aring a common block face wit~ residentf~111-ZQn€d sites that requires street setback for the commer(ial sites to be t~e same as the street s~tback required for adjacent residentfa11J-zoned sites~ Higher density bousin9 ~evelopment inc~nti~es for CO-S sites 1100g and near the Alma corridQr were origina1T, recommended by t~e Planning C~ission but were ~ot approved by the (it, Council. because the Councll felt such incentiw~s could accelerate dispracement ~f eXlsting automotive and b~siness service ws.es ind the incenthes would not attrict the type of housing most needed !I Pi1a Alt0~ i.e .• familJ bouslng~ CMR:489:0 SOfissue/gzds\ 9/6/90 -8- • ,-• , \. \ \ ,l} , .\ -'-\ ~ .•. ~. .-' • _-I -. , -' . :. , , . . ,:;; ~ -.. . \ - o o ~s redevel~pment a~d c~anges af use cont'nued 11 the South of Forest Area, staff notified the Cit, Council i. late ]986 ~f proposed off-site parkicg irrangeme~ts issociited v1th t~e proposed rede~elopment of the old Paddleford Oldsmobile site to I food market and of i proposed reuse of a portioD Df t~e PeD;~slll Creamery at 81S Al~a to an eating and drin~ing establishment. JI 1988, il response to I recommendation from the Arc~;tectuTal Review Board (ARB), the City Council approved an exteosion of the (P) Peaestri,n Combioi'g District regulations and design guidel1nes to all commerciall, zoned sites Sout~ of Forest. The purpose of t~is {P) tombiming District extensio~ was to iS5~re that cew development in the area voyld be d~signed at ground floor levels in i (ompatlble ~anner fQr pedestrfans ~alling i~ the area. I" approving extension of the (P} Combining Distrlct~ the Council requested thal the ARB apply the (PJ District design g~idelines judiciously for projects under revie~t i. order to encourag~ retention of existing service commercial bus;nesses 1! the area. Recent ConcerRs As changes ~ave occurred or ~ave bee~ propo~d in this area. residents lr. the nearb1 residentfal areas south and east of these CO-S and to-N zoned areas South Qf farest have voiced concer~s over 1) tne increasing i~tenslfication of commercial wses 11 t~'s area; Z} the overspjll of parking imto the adjace~t neignborboods; 3J increased traffic; 4) the ~is~al blignt affectfng ~u(h of the area; and 5) the need for ~ore effective transition bet~een the existing CO-S and CO-N loned areas and the adjacent residential neighhornoods. ~iQ_LJ_~nd Use Pol icY Options [~ developing t~e following ilformation on issues and alternative strategies, four not mutuallJ ex(lwsive p~licy options are awailab1e for tne Sout~ of Forest Arta. 1. Mafmtail t~E current Comprenensiwe Plan land ~se deSignations and lCQlng regulations with ~ome modifi(atiQns to the loning regulations~ 2. Preserve the essentiall} ser~fce commercial nature of the area by adoptfng policies and regulations to reduce ~r el;~inate ~st or all retal1. offf(e and ~ousing reuse potential~ 3. facilitate c~nvers;on of land to housing ~se t~ro~gh some (ombination of f'ezonicg land and increising the housing potentiil h the (D-5 l_cne. 4. Fa(ilitate conwersfon of the area t~ a retail and related commercial ~~ extension ~f tne Oowntown~ Tbe fallowing information focuses OD the first three options. ISSUES land _yse J_~ __ ~ __ l:Ies: hhnsiffc_ation and AuhJBusiness ~Evic~_~ land use issues for the Sout~ of Forest Area fall fmtc three general areas: i~tensiffcation. rete~tion gf auto and ser_ice commercial and hou51ng. CHR:489:Q SOfissue(gzdsk 9/6/90 -,- • .\ i I \ , \ \ \ \ ., ~ t - -,,;-'" .~~~ •• , .~ ~ ~ I I , I ~ I I I U ~ ,~ •. ~ -1 1 J ~ 1 o o htenSl fft-aHan withfl the Soutl\ of Forest Area: has betome an issue-of increasing concern to the adjacent neighbors as changEs 1m t~e area either have occurre4. e.g •• the [mersaR Park complex that includes the ~ole foods Market. or are currentl, proposed, e.g., the reuse of the Penins~ll Creamery building at 875 Alma StTeet~ On one hand, the community and ~an1 of the neighbors appreciate the pr~.lmity of I long-awaited food market tnat $erves t~is area and ot~er nef9hbor~oods near Downtown Palo Alto. I~ addition~ many ;ndi,fduals acknowledge the wisbal i~prQvements that ~ave res~lted fram such redevelopment. Or. the ather ~and, nearb, residents ha~e experienced increased traffic and parking overflow on their residentfal streets ~ich they attribute t~ the~ new businesses and ises. I~ addition, they are concerned that pressures f~r redevelopment and fnteRs1ficatfon will spread t~ those commerclal1¥-loned sites immedfltel, adjacent t~ their neighborhoods a"d~ is a res~'t. suc~ changes could further affect the qualitJ of life -im t~eir neighborboods. The gradual displacement of autOillotfve an.d business senices i1ses hi the area is .al s,~ II (oncen to the COllll'llmitJ and the neighbors. As 1 and Wilues increase il the (0-5 and (0-1 area. economic pressures ~ake uses yie1dlcQ .igher financial retufAS more attractiwe tc propertJ owners than t~e traditional ~rvice bus;nesses t~at were located i~ thls area. fhe trend to~ard shifts from serwice cammerc;al to ccmmercial Rses yielding .igher econorn;c returns bas beea occurring ever the last 15 years. Nonetheless. as redevelopment continues .nt.il the South of FQrest Area commercial area. tne ~umber Df remallfng business serwfces are slowl~ becoming an -endangered species. Repeatedl~. the communlt, ind~ to a degree, the nelg~bors have reaffirmed the desire and need to retlim as ~any of these uses 11 Plla Alto as possible. Ho~ever, 1. ~st sjt~ations. serwice comnercial ~ses also are sources of ytsual blignt and. if they are 1m close proximltJ t~ residential neighborhoods s some of their functions ~aJ not be environmenta11, compatible 'With reside~tial uses,. "'lJ~rn~the Strategies to Address. Intensifi~ation and Retention of Sery"t~e (.onmerc i al Bu~JfI __ ~_~_~ I. Off:E,~!.r\in9 A previous staff recommendation (see attac~ed report of 7/19/90, ~~~425:0) is the procedure to refer a11 eff-site parking agreements 11 the South of fo~est (ommercial area of rore tnan five spaces to the City C~uncil for review. Substantial i~tensifjcation 1, the So~th of forest commercial area cannot occur lrithout the provision of either on-site or off-s1te parking~ Fer many sites, reuse of existing buildings for lIore ,parkfng-intensh'e wses can occur on1J .it" aff-site parking arrange~ents. As stated j~ the JulJ 19. 1990 report. suc~ a referril process ~ould a11cw the Council to monitor substantial Rse changes ia this area and d~teraine if and ~e~ permanent parking measures are to be considered. l. Libenli~ __ !~ot'\ of Offic~ limit 0IR:489:Q The JulJ 19, 1990 .t.ff report (CMR:42~:C) .1 •• poi,ted out t~.t if retentfon ~f exfst1ng structores II CO-S zQned areas is consl~ered desirable. theA allowances for ~ffice uses greater than ~.ooa squari feet with I i1se permit may facilitate reuse of some buildings. Office uses require less parting t~at'\ retail ind lx~ibit wirt~a1ly SOf i ssue!gzd.k 9/6/90 -J 0- "L , \ • • -, , -- - 3_ / a _x.~_~_~"";""""'-L'1.~-t~'~ __ ~~_, -"':"~7~.~~.,.~,~ ... ~y"".~.~ ____ _ o o no ellenfng Dr weekend LIse. Stlc.h iii ~odiflcation to tru~ (D-S regulations on affice s,ze limits could be considered by t~e PhnniDg Comfssfon ~ithfn II reisonable time frame, if it is det~~fned t~at such I co~rse of action should be pursued. B_~_strlc:tions .9.!LPer1litted Us~s Under current loning regulations, th~ CD-S area is the most liberal of t~e City's commercial lane district regulations im ter~s ~f the range ~f perlitted and conditional ~ses. One concept t~e Cit, (ounell and Planning Commission could explore is the application of overT., ~se zones (l.e., combining dtstricts) wit~i~ the {O-S area of the South Df forest Are., that ~ou1d limit the penoitted .ses withfl a glven irea. As-an e~ample, certain areas (ould be designated onlJ fo~ aute service and business s~rwlces ~ses. Other areas could be designated for commercial uses more (o~pat;ble with adjacent resfdentiil neighborhoods. One benefit of this ·overlay lODing concept-would be that over time, ~ses desired fo~ a given area ~ould not on11 be allowed to remai~ but also ~ould ~ot ~e threatened by displacement fro~ commercial Gses yieTding ~igher eco~omic retur~s 1f the latter uses were not permltted. The downside of suc~ i concept Is that it could greatl, restrict the ~arket place in deter.i,ing ~at ma1 be s~;tab1e for an area; and, as i result~ w~ere soc~ use overlays are il €ffect, the area's co~rtlal 'italit, flay be thre;tened and the physical condition of structures ~aJ deteriorate. c. Parcel-bY-Parcel R~.9_~J~J.i..Q_I)~ __ for _____ ~_~_~ ______ ~_~_t ___ ~ __ ~J~~ DelJelopment Regu1 at f ons SQch i strategy coold oc<:ur through the de' .. eloS'ment and appl ication Qf I Speciffc Plan for the entire Sout~ of forest Arei. Tbe lo~g-tera benefit of suc~ a stritegj .ould be t~at the communlt~ could deteraine the ~~, size, scale and possibl, elJeR building design that would be appropriate for eac~ site w;t~l~ the South of Forest commercial area. One major <:on<:erR i~ purs~1ng suc~ a strategy is the cost of resources that ~ould be necessary in preparing suc~ a Specific Plan. suc~ resources w;thl~ the Cit] organization are not available ~;thout substantial reordering of planning special study and Comprehensive Plan prioritfes. Reliance on cons~ltlo9 sEr~ices would be quite expensive. [n addition, if such a ,lan were adopted, the inherent r19iditl may stifle the 'itality of t~e area by not being responsi~e to the c~angin9 needs 0f the communitl or the market ,lace. {and Use Issue: Rousing Housing issues 11 the South of forest Area commercial area i~volve two conceraS. Tne first is .hether greater housing opportunities should be ~ffered along the Alma Corrido~, ~ere ~igher densit~ ~ousing may be more s~itable l~an 1. other locations. As stated earlier, t~e Planning Commission ~ad recommended suc~ i proposal in tne Downtown Study. The proposal was not approved by the tity Cou~cil, because the Council felt t~at suc~ incentives could accelerate displiceme~t of aut~ a~d business service uses; and, il addition, the types of flousf~g nat ~oiJld replac.e thes.e businesses quite lik21J would not address the 'ig~est priority housing needs of the community C~,489:~ SOfissue/gzds\ . '. 9/6/90 -11- • . . -~. ,. ,;:-" I ~ l I J 1 1 I r .. '''.- " o o (i.t., fa~il,-~rfented ~ousing and/or 10w-. moder~t~-and siddle-income housing). N~netheles$. 'fgher densit1 housing along the A1ma CorTidor could be an issue tG reconsfder given the limited opportunities for additicnal housing i. PiT~ Alto and the Yfsual opportunity to upgrade the Al~~ Corridor. partlc~larl, for those sites closest to Forest Avenue~ The other issue concerDi~g housing. and one rfpeatedly rilsed by cearby resi-de(lts. is .. flether greater houslng opportlJnitfes should be considered for Sout~ of forest commercial areas adjacent to residential neighborhoods 1ft order to ~rovfde not on11 ~re housf~g opportunities 11 the area but 11so a more effective transitfon between the South of Ferest Area commercial area and the nearby residentia' neighborhoods. ~!_r_~_~i;q i es on Hoys fng t s slJes the CitJ could reconsider h;g~~r density hous;~g opportunities along t~e Alma Corridor. The 1s5ues of t~is strategy remai" the same as they were during the Downtown Study. 1~ Is .fg~er dens,t, ~ousing appropriate along the Alma Corrldor? 2~ Would .fgher densit, housing address the housing needs of segments af t~e commun1t1 most in ne~ of suc~ bo~sing opportunities~ e.g+, affordable fam!l, housing? 3. ~oull these ~ous;~g incentives ~asten the displacement of auto and busfness service ~ses? The (it, c~uld als~ consfder greater bouslng opportunities in the areas adjacent to the resi~entiil neighborboods, partic~larlJ i. the 900 blO<Ks of High and Emerson between Cnanning and Emerson. Housing opportunities co~id be ac'ieved by I) rezoning t~e areas to residentfal and either allow existing commertial uses to remain ~r establish terainat1~n periods for sucll c~lTITIercfil IIses-, and 2) retahing the exhting corrmercfal zo"ing but provide greater ~ousing opportunities fR these trans;tion_areas t"an the current (0-5 and (0-1 loni~g regulations allow. Tr~.ffic Issues As <~anges have occurred il the South of Forest commercial area, nearby resideDts ~ave noticed increased traffic on their residential streets whic~ they believe results from gradual i~teRsification of this area. I. Marc. 1990. the Transportatfon Oi,i5ion completed I series of triffic counts f; the area bet~eeR ~igh and Waverley Streets and between Forest and Addison Avenues. Traffic counts were also conducted at some locations in January 1988~ I. reviewing this data, the Transportation Dilision emphasized t~it traffic counts fluctuate considerabl" and uS~illy five counts ire necessary for i giveR area over a pertod of years before defiaitive trends can be developed _it. any degree If reliab1lit,. T~e Transportation DiviSion staff also noted that 1m the IS-year period between 1969 and 1~4, volume increases ranged between O.S to 3.5 percent annuall1 for all street classifications il Palo Alta (lOCil. c~llector, arterial), and that the (itywide SLDdy prQj~cted t~e same range of annual increases for all street ~lasstfications over the ne)t 15 years. The following ~ap shows the actual numbers and locition If these triffic counts. OIR:489:0 SQfissue/gzdsk 9/6/90 -11- • \ ', . " i ., ~ -- L._--i "'\;""" J.J ___ J '~ rO·rr-,...-, - I--J-- r-- ~- .f- I J -'----' , , - "I g .. ~ --11---13 .l: ____ "" • . ---,---~-" \~ ~) 1 I i ! ~ " i '';"", , ~ , .- ; ~ r~ . r '. ~ ~ ! c-, , , , i , i l . , I , '. , ! I , f [.- f , r , , l , , ;: r , - • '. \ \ \ ... . i ',: \ .' :;, ,-/ ..J ., -' . 1 , 1 o o Withil these parameters. the 1990 traffic (ounts showed t~at two loc~tion$ near the ~Ort foods Market e~perfenced bigher rates Df increase in traffic vol~mes t~an other locations ;1 the area. TheJ are 1) on Homer A~enue between Emerson and ~iQh Struts (22 percent 111 two ,vears) and 2) on EAlersorl Street between Homer and Channing Avenues [6 percent in two years). for t~e remahing line locitfons where traffic cou'nts were c.onducted in boUt 1988 and 1990, the average volume increase was 1 percent o~er the two-year period. ~reoverp while traffic volumes most likel, are operating it acceptable levels of ser~ice (lOSJ according to estab1fs~ed tity standards eweR it peal periods, nearb) residents no doubt have w1t~essEd traffiC ;n~reases i~ recent years. T~f~ is consistent wlt~ the aforementioned traffic growt~ projected ia the Citywide Study y &nd especially fl locations near the food store, reflects iocreased acti.ity ~thil the Sout~ cf fQrest co~rtial area. Fossible Strategies on Traffic Strateg~es IYailabl! to address triffic increases fl residential neighborhoods are limited. Street clQsures can reduce traffjc iA the immediate areas ~ere they are pl.ced and shift dispersed traffic to areas w~ere the, ~ave not been placed. As a resalt, traffic cl~sures in many sihations ire not desired sol .. tions, becau~e affected areas without closyres are t~e~ reCipients of tTlffic s~ifted fro~ areas wit~ closures. Other mechanisms available t~ addr~ss traffic problem~ include traffic management stTategies direct~d toward restricting or sTo.rtng traffic. fn addition, trafffc problems can be addressed through c~anges in }a~d ~se ind development policies~ because trl) generatfoD varies substanti~ll, by use~ Pil~ Alto ~as taken very significant measures over time, e.g.t i~ the Downtown Study and the Citywide Study, t. reduce .onresideotial development potential and limit expansion of ~ses t~at are major peak period traffic generators 11 order t~ mi!imize jncreases im traffic. Nonetheless, the Citywide Study pOinted out t~.t traffic incre.ses throu9~o~t the (ft, are expected to continue within the foreseeable fwture. Pirk i ng ___ J_~_~_~_~_~_ Parking problems iN the South of forest commercial area fnclu~e 1J the wls~al concerns af unsightlJ surface parking, partic~larlJ at highly visible corners, and 2) the In(rea;fng ~arting deficienc} and resulting on-street par~ing that has occurred is act1vHfes and [lew uses ~ave imtensiffed 00 some sHes witlllil!l the Soutk ~f forest commercial area. The wlsual problera refl etts the continuing .. se of surface park'ing by bUSinesses il tne area. T~e parking deficiency reflects, i! part. provisions im the current zoning regulations which credit exist\~g defi(len(ies when c~anges at ~se occur fr~m one of less i~tens;t1, e.g., wholesale. to one ~f greater fnteRsitJ. suc~ as ret.il. II effect t such parking deficiencies are -grandfathered· and exacerbated _hen more intensive uses are Tocat~ on sites already deficit i. parking. The effect gf this sit~ation, is the Ju1J 19 t 1990 report lCMR:425:Q) pOimted out, may r~su't i. increases t partfctilarlJ of employee 9arling. ~thi. nearby residential areas. C!tR:48~:O SOf j ssue/gzdst "L 9/6/90 -14- • \ ... :. " . ) I f - I . I o 'Str~tegies __ ~_r--Lillri.fng __ Prob~ e-_ryJ __ ~ The vlsual aspects of surface parking are disc~ssed ;8 a subsequent section on visual issues. Parling deficiencfes ciiln be ad'dresS-t!d: by selle-fill stntegies. Stiff tlas prevjousl, recommended th~t tke Couocil rewiew i11 proposed Qff-s;te parking agreements ~f mar~ than five sp!tes in the Sout~ of Forest commercial arel. Public re~iew of suc~ applications on ~ case-by·case basls (ould be e~pected to m;lim;ze fwture delleloprne~t of ~ew off-street parking lots. Another strategy for tile C'it, Cou"cil and Planning CorrmissiofT to co .. ~sider 11 a~dressing the SQuth of forest Area parking problems would be to modif1 the zoning regulations. so that t~e (~11 amount of parking that wou'd otherwise be requ1red when uses changed and increase~ in lntensitJ be proviaed. rhus, credits for existing on-site parlfng deficits would be elimi"ated. The effect of suck l change iB the pari1ng regulations could .illmize exacerbation of parking deficiencies il the area ~1tAim the foreseeable future, and it also could slow changes of ~se and function in the arei. On the ot~er ~and, fa the longer teri, if ~arket forces increase development pressures~ the ~trateg1 could encourage parcel issemblJ and major rede~elopme~t. The last strateqy to (:onsi'der in addressing Souu. of forest cDrMler"dal area parking problems would be the establishment of a Rar~ing asssessment distrfct so t~at $ufffcient off-street park'ng~ presumably iD a structure, wou1d be pf'ovi,ded {Of" tills corrmercial area's parking needs. Suc~ i strategy assumes t~at l new assessment district would ~ave to be establfs~ed withf. the So~t~ Qf forest Area, rit~€r than extending the Downtown Parking Assessment District i~to the South ~f Forest Area, because of the complexity of expanding an assessment district, e.g., the Downtown District, ~hic~ has fcur outstanding G Bond issues. The benefits of I par~ing a5sessme~t district wouTd be the potential pro.lsion of adequah off-street public parking t~.t Dot onll addre"ed e~lsting deficienci!s but a150 existing needs. Consolidated ~ff'street ~arling fDr tRis commerCial araa could ~ the most efficie~t method im providing parking for indiwiduals having multiple destinatl0ns but essentially one stop par\ing needs y;thin t~is area. The problems of establishing a parking jssessment district for Soutj ~f Forest Area ~ould fnclude t~e necessary land acquisition and constru(tion costs t~at would be requ1red for the pro~isfDn of public parking facilities and t~e resgltant tax burden it ~o~ld plite on iffect~d property owners. The current level of development it the SOyt~ of Farest commercfal area and the economl~ retura to the propert, owners that ~uc~ aeveTopment Ifelds ~ay not be sufficient ta justify the cost of an assessment district providing substantfal cff-street ~arking~ {txisting commercfal building floor area il the Sout. of forest Arei is less than 400.000 square feet; il the Califoraia A~enue ass~ssment dlstrict, it ;s almost 100,000 square feet; and im th~ Downtown issessment district, it is approximately 1,22S.000 square feet.) Thus, ~hlle the cost of pote~tial public parilDg facilities iQ the South af Forest Are. ~ould ~ar1 by location) size and type of parking facility, the costs, nonetheless, ~ould add i significant financial hurden to the property CMR:4a9:~ SOfissue/Sld., L -> 9/6/90 -15- • , :.~- • \ • \ \ \ _l' '\ r,'c, , "·---:v I r " . ,.- , - - o o owners and~ is i res~'t, ~ay encourage the greatest c~ange of ~ses 1~rDu9h re~t increases. [I iddition~ if In assessment district were formed, park1ng deficits could increase IS t~eJ did withim the Downtown parking assessment district for ~an1 years. unless on-s;te parking were also required for ill ~ev or intensified development or unless the provision of public parkIng lopt pace YiH increased parking demand . • isu~J Issue~ Visual issues ~f the Sout~ of Forest cammerc,.l are4 include the appearance of I number Qf rather unslghtl, auto and business ser~;ce uses remainfng i~ tkis area. 'isual blisht of varyiDg degrees is not an unusual sit~ation ~ere~er such servfce Uses are located. toncurrenl with the unattracti~e appearan,e of ~any of t~e buildings and_businesses f~ the area ire 1) the numerous surface parking lots, many of whi,) are not landscape~, Z} the overhead util1t) lines, and 3) the lack of street trees along many of the blocks. ~;le the above ractors c~ar.ct.rize the ,is.a1 b11gnt affecting ."c~ of the Sout. of Forest commercial irea it the present time~ as staff pointed out earlier, the appearance of the South of Forest Arei toda~ is substantfall, irnpr~ved over bow it appeared a decade earlier. At that time~ t~e area's businesses were almost entirelJ devoted to business servfce and ware~ouse uses~ As this commerclal area has transformed. tne appearance of many building facades has been substantfall, upgraded. ~Jt_~_t~9 i (!os on II snl Issues The priacipal strltfgY that could affect the future appearance of the South Qf forest (ommeTeral area will be the implementation of the Downtown Urban Design Plan w~ich ;s expected to occwr ~thiR the next year. As the stiff report Qf July 19, 1990 poimted outy the Urban Oesign Flan. as p(esentl, envisioned', would guide the ("itI, particlilarl)' ttte ARB, il its decisions regarding deslgn·related issues for the Downtown area, including t~e South cf Forest Area. Thus, as buildings are remodeled or redev!toped fl the future, the Urban Design Plan would provide guidelines on appropriate form, scale and relations~ips ~th ot~er development 11 the South af Forest commercial area. I~ addition, the Urban Desfgn Plan will include a tree planting plan that, if impleme~ted. could substantially c~ange the appearance of t~e Sout~ of fQrest Area over an extended period of tl~e. As noted fl t~e aforeme~tfoned staff repo~t, the Urban Design P1an ~ould not address specific ~ses for the area and includes the assumption that c~rre~t CQmpre~ensive Plan land use deslgnatfons and zoning regulations are 1:1 effect. The other stritegy affecting the visual qualities of the South af Fo~est commercial area will be the undergrounding ~f the elisting ~tiljty lines. Two undergro~nding projects between Forest and Addfson Avenues are c~rre~tlJ Flanned fl Pal~ Alto's Capital tmpro~ement PrGg~am over the next five yeus. 'liheft thes.e prlajects are cc;mpleted', all utilitJ' lines In t~e South If forest commertlal area _ill be underground and. is a re5~lt~ the area's appearance s~ould be signiffcantl, improved. CHR:4S9:0 SOfissue(gzdst 9/6/90 -16 - \ " • . '," '. ~ ... -." -',.,' \ • " , , -\ \ \ • -' .... ~?-' ",,-..-:--. '<"' ~-- hi. -... '.-.-.. - ., r" • , ..... ' . > o o ~_sue Conflicts 1. tc;l_~f Desired Conrnerchl Acthitfes One potentlll conflict among t~e strategies sUggested to address some of the tey So~t~ Dr forest Are. issues is be. ~uc~ existing development shoald be retained vers~s how much new develo~ment s~ould be !ncourag€d. As staff ~oted in the Citywide Study, in i subsequent report en nonconforaing uses. and in the Jul) 19, 1990 report on the South of forest Area arel, ~arket forces il tandem with titl development policies have resulted in the dfsplacement Qf many autG and business services throug~Dut Pala Alto, includiog the South Qf Forest co~rc;al arear On one ~andl suc~ uses are of teA located in unattractive buildings and settings~ Vhere these uses are located 1m close proxi~ity t~ residential neighborhoods, the] may be incompatible wit~ the desired qual it, of 1if. fl these neig~borbo~ds. On the oth~r hand, sueR b~sinesses provide necessary services for batk resfdents and workers 1~ t~e community. As fewer service busin~sses remain i~ Pala Alt~, indi~idualst in(reasinglYr h~~~ to drive furt~er dlstances for their auto ind busin~ss service needs. As a res~lt~ 1f the tit} rezones areas where suc~ uses are located, or if t~e (it] ~pproves incentives tQ enc~urage other types of development fa these areas. the greater tn~ likelihood t~at displac~ment Qf th~se lISes 'Will be accelerited4 Z. Increased fraffic from N~w Us~s It is also quite likelJ t~at if different ~ses, e.g., housing, are encouraged for porticns of the Sout. of forest commercial area, increased triffic could res«lt from such changes if these new uses result 1ft some degree ef inte"s'f1catio~ gver e.isting Te~els of development. ~arket forces seldom respond to incentives unless t~ey offer potential higher economic retur~s than existing ~ses prowides. Thus, in some sit~ations, new development could Teflect some form of intensification tnat provide5 .ig~er etonomic ret uri and l~at 11 turl generates more traffic. Rcwever, some potent;al ises ~aJ not gen~rite traffic occ~rrin9 at peak periods or at other undersfrable times for neirb1 residents, e.g., during evening bours or on weekends~ l~ Dh~_Q_~rage Private ~arket Upgrading of the .A:!:.~_~ The list possible conflict that was also discussed ift the July 19, 1990 stiff report (CMR:42S:0J is a potenthl outcome that if City reguhUons become too specific and rigid for in area, insufficient flexibility in the~e regulations ~a, discourage positfve responses from the private secto~. As a res~Tt, the pri~cipal objectives of such strategi~s could be t~warted if the privite market filled to respond to the desired needs for the area. R~sources Staff is c~mrnitted ta com~Teting a series of Zoning Ordinance modifitations w;t~i. t~e remainder of 1990. Relativel, striigntforward modifitations that were discwssed 11 the aforementioned strategi~~, e.g .• eli~i~ating parking defic.it credits for changes of 15IS-t! il!l the South of Forest comrr.€rc1.il area, could be acc.omplis~ed. On the other hand~ stiff resources ire not available at t~js tlme tc embark on a fwll4scaTe stud1 of the Sout~ of Forest (ommertiaT CHR:489:0 SOfissue/9ldst • . • . -'<-<0,-... _ L 9/6/90 -17- • \ I [ r I I \ \ , ~~~~ • , r:· ! - , -~ , . • .:..-: eO. ,',' ~. / ,-.-' ___ ~':....--= .... --.:.",,.,,,-_. _. · ___ c:-__ ~_"'--" ___ ;""_'''''-''.-'-'''"-''''''''" __ '''''-'''"' __ ''''''<;;:;'~_~~~-''': __ o arei. St.ff ,rna1} believes that a number of issues raised by the nefghbors of the Sout~ Df forest commerclal area could be addressed by some of the strategies discwssed f~ t~ls report and i! the Jul, 19, 1990 report. without having the City underti~e I compre~ensfve study of the area. CCNCUISION The Sout~ Df Forest commerclal area has been changing for an extended period of time. Many of these changes have bee~ yery positive i~ te~s of attracting desired ~ses, e~g" i food ~arket, and im terms of visuall, upgrading I number ~f buildings i. t~e area. Nonetheless. these changes have had less ~esirable effects Ln adjacent nefghborboods, partfc~larl, i~ terms of daytime parking overflow and, to some degree, increased traffic. I. addition, ~h,1e changes ~a~e occurred 11 the Soutk of Forest commercial area, ~any of the remaining ser~i,e businesses are il unattractiwe structures and settings, and thiS factor is an addit1o~al cancer. to nearby residents. Hds rep()rt identified four lIajor policy options. Additional options ma, emerge from the publft and Council/Commission dlseussfon. IR the review of the issues and ilter~atfve strategies, it fs important tQ orient the discussion tD t~e desired pol fey optfon. As noted, these options are Dot mutuall, e~clustwe (e.g., preservation Qf 5er~ice commerclal could be combined vit. conversion of some land to housing; conversfon of land to ho~sing could bE combined with more active retail Ind related commerci.l ~ses). The visual imprDvements assoclated vith underqrounding wttlitl lines and planting street trees transcend t~e policy options ind s~ould be implemented l~ any e~ent. Staff belie~es that consideratlon Qf street closures should be conSidered only il the c~ntext of t~e poli(y options ind related strategies to either convert the area to 'igh densit, ~ousing or more imtensive Oowntow~-orfented retail ~ses. As an implementatfon tool, staff doubts that t~e effort t@ create i specific ,lan Is appropriate 1a the cODtext of aViilabT~ staff rsources and other C1tl ,1anning priorities. Of t~e four options, a specific ,lan could bE considered for either conversion to ~ousing or conversion to more intensive retail. It summary. t~e fDllDwing policy optfons and related strategies s~~uld be the focws of the Commission and (ouncil di~wssjon. 1. ~aintai. the current Comprehensive Plan land ~se designations and zoning regulations vith some ~odifications to the loning regulations. Str.tegies: Refer ~ff·site parkiDg agreements t~ (;t, (ounc11 liberalize office limits Use ARB process and Urba~ Design Plan t@ bring about vi sua 1 ltpgrade 2. Preserve the essenti111, service commercial nature of the ar~i by Idopting polfcfes and regulltions to reduce or elfmf~ate most or all retail, office and housing reuse potential. Strateg i es ~ CAA:489:~ SOfissue/gzdsk ) , Reduce or eliminate retail, office and housfng ~ses from list of permitted uses Eliml~ate regulations that grandfather eXisting ~ar\ing cfef!eits 9/6/90 -)8-I \ . \ \ ~ \ " • . ";:,-. ,- - o o l~ facilitate conversion Df land to housing use t~rough some combination of rez4H'Iir'lg land and fncreuing; the t;ousfng: poterlth.l ;1 the CO-S zone~ 4. Str,tegles, Higher dens it, olong .nd near Alma -Rezone or provide greater CD~S housing opportunities i~ transition areiS Facilitate <onversion of the area ta 1 retall ind related co~~rc1al use extension of the Downtown. As noted before. preparatfon of this report did not focus on option number feur. Tbe one strateg1 t~at 15 identiffed and would be appropri~te for thls option is creation of a par\ing assessme~t district. II the event that t\;s option is to be seriously considered, i ~arietJ of zonfng c~ange~ ~ould need to be iD~estigated. including regulations designed t~ curtall service corrmercial uses. ~11e s~lut;ons to the previously discws~d issues ire not expected to be deterained at the special September ]3, 1990 meeting of the tit, Council and flanntng Commfssfon, the spec1)1 meeting rather t~an study session format is irltended to ,provide the opportunit, for tlH! Council to make a referral to the Commission if that is desired. Staff encourages the Cou"ci~ to be as preclse as posslble 11 ~ak;n9 an$ referral to the C~mrnission. Respectf.lly submitted, ~ Assistant Plan 09 Offfcial Manager ~71~Ad£ f -1J~ K ENliETH R. SCHR[[ BU 7' Director of Planning and Community Environment Attachments: 1) A memo on Soutk of forest Avenue fron Council~mbers McCown, Anderson and Renzel of 8/1/90 2) C~:406;O on Reus< of , •• f.s.l. Creamer, of 7/19/90 3) C~:425:0 on S.ut~ of Forest Plannfag Issues of 7/19/90 4) A letter on ReuS! of Pe"rRsuT. Creamery SlJi 1diDg frail Linda Scott and Den. "ossar of 7/26/90 cc: Arc~itect~ril Re~iew Board Downtown Urban Design Committee wrsco Deve10prnent Co., 390 So. San Antonio Road, Los A1tos, CA 94022 Stoec\er and Nort~wal Arc~ite(tsl [nc., 437 lytton Ave.~ Palo Alto. CA 94301 Dena ~ss.r, 1024 Emerson Street, Pil. ATto, CA 94301 Susan Ric~.rdson, 353 Addison Street, Pil. Alt., CA 94301 CltR:489:0 SOf is su€!gzds'l , . . 'L' -.,-~-. 9/6/90 ·19· • \ i, '," -.J - . ' - .. ' / o o Steve 'I,yer, 1874 Solnd. Street, fal. Alto, CA 94303 linda Scott, 1057 Ramon. Street, ,,1. Alto, CA 94301 Jess ~il.on, 318 linc.l. Avenue. P.l. Alto, CA 94301 Martf •• nd Sodl! Ger.twol. 613 Channing Avenue, P,10 Alto CA 94301 Harry lowenstefn, 1102 Raaon. Street, f,lo Alto, CA 94~1 Vayn. Soith, 835 Vaverley Street, f'lo Alt., CA 94301 Dave Ross. Jack Ind Cohen. Builders, [nc., 975 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 keenan land Compan1 James Baer CMR:489:0 SOF i ssue/gzdsk ---.,----------..." -------- "L . ---",,-----.-- '/5/90 -20- • '\ . ;._.'.-.. jJ ,< ~ :: j , 1 I r.-.· I -~-:.~. ~ , -- • ,/~ ."~~':::'.[ ••• ;":':"':-~~....:~~ ... "".:~~~:"."":~.:.,.~.",, _. --::.-" .. ~.,--"""",,------... _-" ---1 8l1BJ&CT: Oci1~\ of Tal 0 '}llto • 0 .0_ ,~~~o ' ... 0 -.;.1.0 c .... UJc.«;I><, ... 9'""C,J !LL.JloaAIDUX Auqust 1, 1990 Council Colleaques o 12 council Members McCown~ Ander&en~ and Renzel south of Forest Avenue (SOFA) PenInsula creamery Re-~se CMR:406:0. CMR:425:0 ==========~:======================::============================= These two companion staff reports raise a number of policy issues ~ith re9ard to the City's 90a1& for development in the South of Forest Areaa The prior ·Chevy's· application raised ~any issues soch as off-site parking and eOlDJDercial intensification 'Which never came before the Council because the application 'Was withdra ... n after a Planning Commission denial. CMR!.06~O recommends that the specific development application for the P~ninsula Creamery site be peraitted to proceed through the ARB While 'the broader policy issues described in C"HR:425~{) would not be brouqbt to the Planning C~i&sion end council until year end or later. We believe it would be far preferable for the council to consider the policy issues before the specific development application 90e5 through the ARB and potentially comes to U·,e Council on appeal. A similar request bas been lIIade by some of the· neighbors. ,See July 25. 1990 letter from Linda Scott and Dena Mossar. in this ~eek's packet.) PlanTIing Director Schreiber bas indicated that i't would be pcss ible to &c~edule a joInt Planning COmDissiQn-City Council study session in Sep,tember to discuss t.hese questions and to begin to formul ate some policy issues forward so that they can be dealt ~ith prior to the ~B acting on t.he current Peninsula Creamery application. ~en Scbreiber has indicated th~t the Planning Oepart~ent concurs with th.l5 approach. Attachments ", ," . -, .. ~ , f l , ! , t t ': J-.- ¥ r" , i '- r f , I I I I I ,- . ' - J1Jl, 19, 1990 HONORABlE CITY COUNCil r~lo Alta, CalifoTih RE-USE Of PEWINsutA CREAKERY BUILDING Members of t~e CouncIl: The purpose af this memo is to advise the Council of t~e statws of t~e proposa'l for the Peahlsal a Creamery building, located at 87S Alma Street. T~ls item is i.formational only. No action ;$ required by City Council. Background On August 3* 1989, t~e Zoning Admilfstrator approved a use permit to allow for parting is a penoitted ... (It 909 Alma Street) fl conjunction w;t~ I proposed restaurant (Chevy's) to be located at 875 Al.a Stre.t (see .tt.c~ed map). The ~se permit was required for one of two off-slte parking lots. The second Tot~ to be located It 901 Higb Street. dId not require i .se permit is t~is parcel ~ad ~ doc~mented "story of use is. an Dff~sjte parking facl1ity. Under the Cit1~s zoning regulations, parting is not permitted ~nless i~ conju~ctfon ~th an approved bu;ld;,g on-sIte. or by 'Istorleal ose as a parking facllit,. All ~ew off-s1te parking req~ire$ apprDval by the Director of Plannfng and Communltl £nvironment of an agreement betweeQ t~e Clty and the deweloper proposiog the .ff-site ~.rkiDg. Tafs use permit approval .irrored a previous staff approval of a restaurant and jazz club .s •• t 875 Alma Street, i. that both ~rDposed parking lots were ~eceS5ar~ to satisfy the (it,'5 parking requir~ment5 for tne c~ange in ~se of the Pen;~s~li Creamery bul1df~g (ro~ primarill ware~ouse and some ~ffice to uting irld drinting. Bot,. the Chev,Y's and jazz club approwals aHowed ror i: Fariing credit • .tlc~ is pe~issible under the zoning regulations. tG conwert the buildicg to i mere fltensfve use. The use permit ~a5 subsequentl! appealed by res'~ents i~ the area south mf Addison Avenue. The bases of the appeal Ire summarized as rollows: J. ~- OIR:406:0 I~tensitl af retlil W5! near I residential area; ["adequate park~ng for tne proposed use; • I ;, • , '" J " , ~,' ~".' , \ l .,"'!' ' • ...J - " ,,' -" o o 3. Possible dan;er t. pede5trlans cro •• 'ng High Street t. patronize the proposed restaurant; Ind 4. Overall traffic Issociated wit. a Chewy's-type of restaurant. The appeal also stated l~at t~e ~ost appropriate use for t~fs property. according to the appellants, ~as ~'gh-densft1 resfdential. The use perlit appeal .as scheduled before the Planning Commission on Q(tober 2S. ]989. At that hearing, the f}ar,nfng Commission unanimousl, recommended that the titl Council uphold the appeal and, therefore, to denl the project ba.ed on the following: I. Traffic and "f,t, imp,cts; 2. Inadequate parting fer i Chev.1's-type operaticn; and 3. Appropriateness of commercial f~tensificatfon fu the south of Forest area. Or. November 10 .. 19-59. Ule Citl CotJrlcil appro""ed a staff recolMlendat1oli to continue the ~se permit appeal and referred t~e ite~ to the Planning Commissfon for reconsfderition , i. order to ~llow t~e applicant additional time t~ study safet} and traffic ~ssues Issoc'lted wlt~ the proposed (hevy~$ llse. The l5Is.e permit was subsequentl} yit~drawn. New Prop~sed Re-Use of Penlnsul1 Creamery Building After cons~ltatron ~1t~ the neighborhood, the applfcant, Vesco O~velopment, opted te vit~draw the Pf"o'pGsa.l for I thevy's restaurant and has filed for a new ARB applicatio~ ta allow for re-use of the Peni~s~ll (reamery butlding for a combined rotoil/offlce ,se. Off-site parii.g for S9 'paces .nIl still be required at the ~ign Str,et/~lm' lotersection and at 901 Hign Street. No credit for the past pariing deficit is presentl, proyos.d, i.e., all of the 59 required parting spaces for the proposed combf~atfon of wses are to be provided. The required parking ~a$ beeR ~t primarily by the deletioD of a restaurant, which req~tred I su~stanttal amo~nt Df parking, ~hlle the new park1ng requireme~t$ Ire based OD the tDtal af 6,000 square feEt of office and 5.178 square feet of retail. A total ~f 5,000 square feet Df office is permissable withh the exhting PenfFlstJh Creamer~ building, and i flew II000-square-foot offite structure is ~roposed it 909 Alma Street. The retail will be located at S7S ~lma Street. The introduction of • 1,000 ± 'Quare foot office building at 90J/909 A1ma Street negates the need for the use permit requirement for exclUSive use of a parcel for parttng purposes enlJ; hence., onlJ ArcflHectunl Review Soard approval is req~ired ~n the present application. Ana1 ysis ~egardf~g Penfl!'tsah Creamery ~_~5Jding: Re-Use Re-r;tse of the Penins!llol (reamery building for anytJling other than i ~aref1ouse is possible only wit~ provisions for off-site parking. The C;tJ's parking regulations requ1re that the incrementa' increase 11 parking spaces be ~ro~fded ~~e~ I partic~lar bUilding is to be con~erted t~ i more i~tensive ~se. Conversion fro~ ware~ousfng to retail, for example J ~ould require that CHR:406 :0 Cro.mery/CJ 7/J9/90 1 • ~\ • .--, ,<, V. \ \ \ .~,. : \ , \ , " , . "." ."':'1. '...... ....: .. " .. " .. ,-:'-, -l '. , - , " .', ' o parklng be pro~fded It one space per ]50 SqUiT! feet for retail versus one sp~Ct per J,Ooo $q~are feet for ~arehousin9. Prov~sion5 fer off-sfte parkfng w;tk the Director of Planning and Community [~vfronment~s approwal ~ave long been I ~art of the (it,~s regulations, I~d bave wDrk~d we" to allow some flexibility f. us. primaril1 n,ar the downtown. Off-site parking ip~rovals were instrumentll ia allowing re-use of the Paddl.ford Oldsmobll. building for I food mar~.t and rehabilitation of the fonner Bekins Storage and tltl of Paris buildl09S. Other new construction or rehabilitation t. t~e areas south of Forest, 5UC~ as the office bu,Tding at 700 Emerson Street~ have provided th! required parking on-s'te. After conseltatlon .lth the Citl Attorne~'s Office, 5t is staffrs imtention, unless Council agendizes tkis item and d1rects otherwise, to allow Vesco Development'. pro sent proposal 10 proceed a. a standard ARB .pplfcatlon. Subseq~ent tB ARB approval, s~ould that occur, and if not appeiled~ staff would executo the off·s,te parking agreement with the applicant (or bis successor) . Issues related to the sout~ of fcrest area f. general are addressed fa i companion info~aticnal memo to (itJ Counc11. ~?d'/~ KENNETH I. SCHREIBER Director Qf Pla~nlng and CGmmunit, EqvlrQnment cc: ArcRitectural Review Board PlannIng CommissIon Downtown Urban Design Committee WESCO Development Co., 390 So. San Antonio Koad, tos Altos, tA 94022 Stoec~er and Nort~.a1 Architects, [nc., 437 tytton Ave., Palo Alto, tA 94301 Dena ~ossar, 1024 {merson St., f.lo Alt., tA 94301 Susan Rfc~ardson. 353 Addison St., Palo Alt., CA 94301 Steve flayer. 1874 Guinda St., f,l. Alto, tA 94303 linda Scott. 1051 Ramona St., Pal. Alto, CA 94301 Jess ~jlson, 31B Line.l. Ave., f,l. Alto, tA 94301 Marti. and Bodil Gerotwol, 533 thannlng Ave., falo Alto, tA 94301 Harry lewonst.lo, 1102 Ramona St., falo Alto, CA 94301 Vayoe Smith, 835 Vaverley St., Pa10 Alt., CA 94301 Dave .Ross, Jack l Cohen. Builders Inc., 975 High Street, 1'010 Alto, tl. 94301 tHR:405:0 Creamery/CJ 7/19/90 3 • , , ! I r f f" I , ... ... r ---~--~-'-.---.--,----- I , I j . ;" .. • t ______ . FC-2830 \ \ , .. , 0'"" \ .. ~ . , I -:·i .. ~ ) ~---- , . t ~ . _,.:' HONORABLE CITY COUNCil Palo Alto. C.1iforola SOUT~ Of fOREST PLANNING ISSUES Members ~f the Council: / .-.... -..-...... -..-"'" ----..... -~,... o T~e purpose of thfs faformational 5taff report is to reTay l~ Coune'1 staff's opinlons on generil planning fssues related ta the sout" of Forest arel. ~ile ~o Counct, action is requested at tkis time, it is recommended t~at a joint Planning (omrnlssio~-(it1 (ouncil study sessfon be held 11 lite 1990 to dis.cY55 He Downtown Urban Desfgn Plan's conclusions regarding the S{luth of forest area~ as ~ell as the recommendatfons contaiGed im this report. ]1 the i~terim. staff w111 flitfate, unless dfretted Qt~erwise by the Council, a pr~cess referring to the Council-requested eff-site parting agreements for ~or! than five spaces4 This report is accompanied by iA fmf~rmatfonal staff report on t~! reuse of the Peofns.1. Creamery site {CHR:406:0j. '1 ann..'Lng A.na 1 15 f 5 ~f...1qut~ __ ~-.f __ Jorest Area The 50ut. of forest area (see attached map) is ~ostlJ zoned (0-$ (downtown service commercial). Since the adoptfon of t~e downtown regulations il 1986. substintial c~anges fn land use under«a, sfnce t~e earl, 1980s im t~is aTe a ~ave continued to occur_ Mariet consfderatinns for the automotive sa1e5 and service and .arehousfng use$~ traditfonall, located 1m the sout. of Forest area, necess'tate larger sttes. more par\iG~ and cheaper land. Consequently, this area ~as ex~ib;ted Jand use s~ffts toward retail and limited office with. 11 He early 1980s. sooe residential 11 llixed-tJse projects. During the ~any public hearings associated wit~ the downtown regulations. there was a considerable amount mf disc~s$ion about the changes in ~ses occurring f~ t~e sout~ cf Forest arel. While the present {O-S zoning reflects fiftal Council action. public polic, as tG the altimate land G~ in t~is area was not a consensus. J~ recognjtfoD of the inevitable changes that ~ould occur 11 Jand ~ses rl t~fs area, the Planning Commission recommended kigh densitJ mu1tip1.·f.~11J resldentl.1 jneenllves along the Alma Corridor to encourage housfng and support the population essentlll to a ~eaTthy Oowntown. At t~at time~ the titJ Council opted to leave the commerciil zoning it place il an effort to retlfl areas ~f the (it, which illo~ for busfnesses essen\;al to t~e communit~, suc~ is automotive services. However, the Council recognized the need to acco~date ~arKet changes and, therefore, permitted C'ffi:42S:0 L • , \ ; , i I i I j 1 , j I - . ..-:,-.< --~, "- . " . " " , • -" • 0 ,_ re'S~denthl withf. the Qs zones fa order to encourage Qed-use developments wit~i. t~e sout~ Qf forest area. It is staff's opt.fon t~at certaf! prQvfsfons cf the zonfng reg~latfons applied to the south of forest (CO-S) lrel ~awe worked against ac~ieving eit~er the then CDmmlss10n~s objective to see housing in t~is a~el, or the (o~~il's objective to retail community servlcg commercial uses_ These pro~isions are is fDllows: 1. ~ile hous,ng is ·permfssible~ within the (O-S are fnsurill.::'"'t ir,centives for urban-type one would ~xpect to see tn thfs location. setbacks, hetght restrictions and multiple-famil, open space requirements jg the CO-5 lDning regulatlons are more in keeplDg wit" suburban, development patt~rrls as seen in more conventional ~ultiple-fam\t, areas. As a resu1t, mixed-use projects i~corporatiDg commercial and residential ~ses can be achiewed realistScall, on11 ynder t~e Planned Community lan;n~ process. Staff believes applicatfon of more permissiv! nonresidentfal development reg~latfons fcr mixed-use projects ~ould allow ,ub,tlntf.l11 gre.ter design flexfbilit, for these project,. It Is staff's conclusioD that revised and more urban res1dential expectatfans should include use of the Site and Design process for mixed-ase resident'al projects. This process was applied to mixed-.,. projects I. the CS .• nd CN lones In the Citywide l.nd Use and Transportation study., but not in the (0 districts. The Site and Design process allows for greater public rewiew than the standard ARB submittil. but does not require the public benefit findings of the Planned Communlt1 loning. Staff ~as not found this process an impediment to promoting sfxed-use projects. ~;'e all of these c~anges vould allow for mixed resident'al and commercial projects, t~ere fs, of course, no assurance that mixed-use deyelopment will occur ~ 2. Pr<lbibition on _f;lJffces _s-,"_eahr ttlan. __ 5-,<lOO square feet: Tltis lonlng restriction ~as I ~lear policy directi~e aimed at stopping demolition ar.d reconstruction of sites for new office dewelopment il t~e seryfce commercial lreas north and 50ut~ of the Downtown core. However. it is staff~s oprlfan t~at unlntende~ consequences ~ay well be at pl11 when the office square footage limit is applfed to the so~t~ of forest CD-S arei. Reuse of warehouse buildings for office purposes is occ~rring successf~111 throughout tn~ Bay Area. Offices require less parking than retail, and e~hiblt virtuall, no eveni~g or ~eekend Ise. [f retention of exfstin~ structures is considered desirable 1. thfs arel. allowances for ~ffices greater than 5,000 sq~are feet under certlil conditions may facilitate reuse ~f bu\Tdings. suc~ IS the Pen~As~la Creamery facilitJ. to more neighborbood-compatible offfce uses. Changes to the tD-S area ~ic' 'Would permU offfc,es over 5,000 square feet with tn~ issuance of • cooditlon.l use permit (is .it~ the CS and C~ dilt'iets) would ,lIe. greater land use flexlbilitJ. espec;ally ift areas where I retlil pedestrian envIronment fs less friendly. as a10n9 Al~a Street. 3. Pro~1sions for Iff-site parki~g: titl reg~lations provide for., ~t~ the approval of the Director of Planning and {ommunit, [~wtronme~t. location of required parking off site. i.eo. on par(els other than CHR:425:0 SoForestjCJ 7/19/90 ·2- • \ \ .< " , , " I oj I • '. ~ '~:,:;~'r7: < • t .. 1 ~.t-cont'I.~~::=~-~Th' >~~f~S=Okl':~":9~1~:i~~~'---'~--~' i ~"" ~"C' .>.d. to • r.w I.,hot.>, lo «<u,,",ud.l. ".",,,1 10ltl'1 palterlls and rel.l~e of uhttng .bulld1ngL Wh'~e l"e ipp1fciUon of J Ufs Jlukfng prcvhfoQ l110ws for nee-ded flex1bt lity. partfclllTirl, wtt~rD or near the Downtown area, applying this provision to the south of Forest arei ~as had mixed results. On one hand J it ~as allowed i much-nee-ded food market to locate near t~e Oowntcwn area. However, the parking difftrent;al for changes from less-intensive ~are~ousf~g or automotive use t~ more-intensive retail or eatfng and drinking wses is substantial, ~~icn fn(reases the demand for additional off-s;te spaces. As a result, substantfa' parking credits and ~ff·s;te lots t~at ~ave been granted gra~ted for re~se of eXlslfng b~'ldings suc~ as the Whole Foods ~arket, or t~e previo~s Penf~sBl. Creamery thev1's propesal, are litely t~ e~acerbate parkfng problems f~ l~~ Grea and may rcs~lt in increases, partic~larlJ Gf emplcyee parkiog. withlA nearby residentfal areas. It is staff's opll;o" t~.t the p.rking re9ul.tions olloonng off·site parking and parking space (red~ts for previo~s uses should be lfmited at l~is time .1t~fl t~e sout~ of F&resl area. The e~ception to this conclusion is the reuse of the Pe~insula Creamery ~~'ld;ng discwssed in a companion stiff report lCMR:406:0). Outright prohibition of off-site parking would not allow minor use changes suc~ as tne office conversion/rehabIlitation of the (Itl of Paris buIldIng, Which reQuIred 0"1, fi~e off·site parkfng spaces. An \~terim meas~re to a~dress off-site parkiog issues fa the south of Forest area would ~e to ~ave staff refer any off-site parking agreements for more t~an five spaces to t~e Citl Council for review prio~ to issuance. This referril process would help allow the Council to monitor substantial ~se changes 11 the soutk of forest area until suc~ time is amer.dme~ts t~ the zaning regulatfons 11 that area are in ~lace. should t~at occur. and for completion of the Downtown tlrbar. Design flu which includes a section on urban design issues i~ the scuth ~f Forest area. Role of the Urban D.slgo Plan and South of forest At t~e present lime, staff fs drafting the text for tne Downtown Urban DeSign Plan. fi~al apprcval b, t~e Urban Design Committee lS antic;pated la be wit~'m t~e next four to S;J ~ont~s. The public review process subsequent to the draft Plan's ava'labilit~ is estimated to entail three to s;x months. IR summar,. staffls expectJtions are that a Council-approved Downtown Urban Design flan will be available ~thin one year. Many of the south of Forest deSign-related fssues will be addressed fm t~at Plan. It is lmpo~tant to note. bowev~r. that tne Oownt~w~ Oeslgn flan~ as ~resentl1 en~fsfoned, ~ouTd guMe the Cit,. anef parHcli1arl, the ARB .. 11:1 its decision !laking. but that the fundamental issumptions re;arding land ~~es would remafl is f~_ As applied t~ the sDuth of forest arei~ t~is would ~ean t~at building rehabilitatfon and ~~! ccnversions could take place and mixed-use projects could occur. but t~at not~ing would ~e mandatory or precluded_ However. (cuncil review of off-site parkiog agreements for more than fi~e spaces ~~uld act is a constraiftt and monitoring process for changes is land US!. Staff suppo~ts t~fs position. in that we are concerned with an approac~ to development il the south Gf Forest ~rel ~ich would result im bighl, specific zoning restrictioD~ wh;c~ ~aJ not provide the flexibility for an ~rea that is (learl, evoT.iog j~ response to Jlarket changes. CHR:425:0 Sororest/CJ l/l9/90 -l- • • . , \ , , \ L \ , , " • :4' ';..~ " - .-. , . .. ' Stoff is conceroed oboDhe potentlol for committing •• (') •• thl City resources t~ an open-ended sout' of fcr!st Irea study I~lst prfor to the iv,llabllity of the Downto.~ Urb.n Design Pl.n. Stiff is ols, conceroed about undertatlDg I major land ~se study prior to the Plannfng Commissio~ and Citl Council clorlfylng t~e .Ignlflc.nt policy difference. that the two bodle. h.,. evidenced for the south of forest area (i.e.~ Council support of t~e Do~ntown Study policres ind Commission support for. multiple·f.mlly oltern.tr,e). fi~1111~ stiff is co~cerced about add\cg further deli] to the PenfQs~'J Creamer~ reuse issue as re~fewed I. the ~ompan;on CMR:406:0_ tone 1 us;: ems:. I. It is stoff's lotentlon to iomedrot.l, refer all proposed off'5ite parking agreements, for more t~an five spaces 1A the soutb of forest arei~ to the (ouneil for review on I regular agenda. The on11 exception to thfs would be t~e Penf~s~ll Creamery reuse off-site agreement IS noted above and desc~ibed im CMR:4D6:0~ l. Immediatel, after the Downtown Urban Design Committee comp1etes its recommendations (late 1990), sc~edule 0 Cltl Council·Plannlng Commisslon Study SessfoD to review policy options for the sout~ of Forest area. Depending on t~e outcome of the Study Session~ staff ~ould be directed to prepare the office ~se permit Ind residential conclusions identified above. some other specific ordinance c~anges~ O~ iaitflte • broader 'and use st~dy of the arei. ~df.fod~ K[~~ETH ~. SCHREIBER Director of Planning and Community Environment C<: Archit~ctural Review Board Plannln9 Commission Downtown Urban Design Committee VESCO Developmeo! Co., 390 So. S.n Antonio Road, los Altos, CA 94011 Stoecier and North.a, Arc~lt.ct., Inc., 431 lytton Ave., Pal. Alto, (A 9HOI Dena "os.ar, 1014 Eoerson St., Polo Al!o, CA 94301 Susan Ric~ar~son, 35] Addison St., Pol. Alt., CA 94301 Steve PI oyer, 1814 Guinda St., P,To Alto, CA 94303 linda Scott, 1051 Ramona St., P,l. Alt., CA 94301 Jess Wilson. 318 lfnco1. Ave., Polo Alto, tA 94301 Marti •• nd Sodll Serot.ol, fi33 Chann!og Ave., P.l. Alto, tA 94301 Harry te.enstell, 1102 Ramon. St., Palo Alto, CA 94301 Wayne S.ith. 835 Vaverley St., Pol. Alto, CA 94301 Dave Ross, Jack I Cohe~. Builders Inc., ~75 High Street, Pile Alto, CA 94301 CMR:415:0 SoForest/CJ 'L 7/19/90 ·4· • , \. \ \ . \ .. -.-\ . > ~, <.\ -. I : i "' , .. " •• ..,. 1> I I I i PC-2637 G) GR~.PHIC ATTACH.~f~T . D STAff REPDRT -J-~PR~D~J~E~CT;:~~Sou~~th~oI+;For=es::;:t ~AJ;=;-;:ea:;-;a:;:n:;;a;;:ly-;;s;;;,s-------1 . .' ''--.' .. 'L • \ ,- • I J , , , . .. , ---I . I I . , ./ . ---,,. I. pco€stllan Safety: The ("nan! lor refaff space at 901 Alma is unknown (and c;)uld .aey ove< time). lit is likely thai any such tenant -if ~ is a successful business -win create pedestrian traffic across Channi"n-g. near an in18rs.ection that is not signaTed, wnere cars regularly traver 50+ miles per hour, and where visibir.ty is poor rounding t~" comer !rom Alma 0"(0 Channing. 2. 875 Alma: Seemingly in an attempt 10 avoid the off·site parking use-pormit pmce,s, plans include a WOO sq. fL bounding on !tNs srte. This b-Ulirjlng removes parking area, and lor a peoieel with such difficult parl<il1g problems it is hard to justify acceptance of this plan. One C3n e"s~y imagine thaI sma~ bounding being used as a tool shed ratocr than as a struetu<e providing significant useful space for commer ciar use. If this I{)()() sq. It. bu~din9 Is intended lor relan use, it Will simply cornjX>Vr.d p<oblems. 3 909 High.: Staff h.3s determinded that tIlis lOCation ooes not require n use pt..'frnit ~Of parking srnce n has "a documented history of use as an off·'-tle par~ing facility: II that is so, \~n where will tl-.<o cars park th.at are usir>g tlUs 101 aiter they are supplanted by WESCO's tcnanls? If !~re are 00 cars using that fot {and tIlerefore no cars 10 be sUopplanled) t~11 a use permit seems totany essential. The map attached 10 tile staff repo<t shows the parking area at 909 Kigh to be even larger tIla" the area proposed lor Chevy·s. The area inckKles a large 101 ion \~ cen1er of the biock currentiy used by • \ • i / .- o o k tile two r>eighbors who were consu~ed by WESCO Ceveiopment we would like To cfari.ty ttle "tssues 1nvDlved wilh this dBvelopment proposal. We met with Jim Rooter i.n Jim 8aer's office on March 14 at wnich time we strong~V su-ggested that first floC;(" reta;l' was an "l"ppfDlJ(tale use of the site at 9Ql Alma due to tce high velocity of vat/Ie on Alma, parking problems, and pedestrian safety issues. We encouraged Mr. Rooter to pursue a variance roc office-only at the sife which wourd require tess parkfll9 ar.d have fewer traffic and (If,d-cstria n 5 a fety. ,mpd CIS. J''\t this same meeting we vlere adamant that any development pWp(lsal not lie the 909 High properly 10 long term parking use. Mr. Rooter Bxpress0 a willingness 10 participa'e in an area-wide ior.g tCirn parking sorutiQn th.at might enta.il a parkiflg assessment d'f~,'rict. construction of multi-Teve[ garages, or other appropriate means. He assufed us tllat he was wming to use the 909 High Street sdl.::-for parkin-g only i1 required and only for a short CLlfation. S,:!bSt'quen~ to our ITl€eting with MT. Rooter on March 14 '",,"e r~a';~ had rH) direct -corrlact. The sl~fl report oaled Jul, 19, 1990 on this subject was a t,il of a s.fJock as it seems to 9rOSS over issues raised by many citizens at.{Xj~ th" Chevy's proposal as though this CleW plan is signit.cantly dille-rent We strongly leel that the issues raised IDr Cr,evy's are also p<es.en! with this proposal. • '. f 1 I - o f...UI' r,ll ..... If) stc·remal1yve:hic!es.Theareaindicated~.ncludes parking SP"':"" used regularly by employees of Peninsu1a CreamEry by day-, 300 customers of Warercourse Way by night. [)(.'c!Jn'l thB Cify have an obligation to require an businesses in. th~s area to meet the minImal parUng staooards estabfished in our codes? .)-)ow can Penfnsufa Creamery lease away property tnat it has useel to p'ovid" parkirlg fo< its employees withoul beirlg required 10 replace those parking spaces? Where will Elliscns st()(e their lowed c"'57 They Mve recently been asked 10 cease parkirlg cars at 181 Aod"oo because that sile is within arl R-2 zone, 15 Falo A~o reany wiliing f()( EnisC>I1s 10 park ~s cars on the street? Whal is !he legal Unk between the project and the parking? ls Mr. Rooter buying the !aM? Is there a lease lor this property tied 10 the life {l f the bUlldir>g 5 in question? TM pia" as p'esef1!ed does oot use "parking credits"_ DoEs thiS mean that these "eredls" win be gone forever? Can Mr_ Rooter ()( a Iu!",e owner come back aM ask lor his r)ghts? 4_ Future of SOFA: Palo ANo has an opportunity to acrueve real soostantial b€ne~ts !lOm plaf'lntng future developmenl il1 !he area So<Jt~ of Forest From 00< pcispecQve, approval of this p<ojeci filas in the face of srgrjfican! prInciples that are essential in ()(d€r Jor the community to reap those benefits . • PRESERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF LifE The Comprehensive Plan requires thai afl efforts are employed 10 maintain the p'eservation of neighborhood character and quality of life, E,istirlg and fU!Ufe development in SOFA !lave a direct impact 00 the residential neighborhood immediately to the So<Jth and East. 'SURFACE PARKING The Cvmprehensrve Plan s!rongly discoufages lhe contlcuation of sunace parkirlg, particularly at corners. We should be making every effort 10 solve the extreme parkirlg problems in SOFA aM to ,~.-. , . '.l , • '--.~- ~. i , , , • l I i o cllmilldl'j su:r1ace parkjng. This proposal would s.ouaify a large area ;,'; ~-,:I.!dJ(e pa(yJng pcrnlanc-ntly. IT tile .',1Jhln<] IS 10 be on leased land, what happens ,f the Jease ts "'-" renewed at some fulure date? How does the City intend do deal with "parkin<] credits' currenUy doled out I() developers ifI this area? If thj"s project does not cunenHy ~ntend to c1aim its parkki9 cre-dils, "hat happens in the rutUfe when WESCO or another owner w<!n1$ to daim those credits? More fundamentaTIy, the system ot parkif19 credits works 10 the .communitts disadvantage~ "'-tCXJSING POlio Afto has set a high priorily lor creating adcfllional housing_ This pr~sal permanently removes a block of tar.d from reasonabie ~);tt::l)tiaJ l.Jse as housing. The Comp'ehensive Plafl requires transition zones between corruoorcla! and residentiat areas_ Yet in the very block 10 be used lor extensive surface parking (909 High) transition is ab.-upt This is " block where transition p1annif19 is essentia'-T;,;s block is ideal for muTti-t"mny housifl9_ This proposal would have a deadenif19 affect .on our ability fa create a transition zone. 'TRAFfiC Ttl.-J Comprehensive Pk1.Jl guaranlees a n€ighborhoocfs right to prl/1f.:ction from commercial traffic. The proposaf in no '"".ray arkire5S-Cs potentia] traffic Lmpacls alonfl Channing ()(" i.n.lo ""10U,ooI1<J neigf1,OO-hoods alOfl9 High ar.d Emerson Streets. Emerson i-s the VIfVl.lg.fwvay to Embarcadero wom SOFA and s~oce the inti ()r1t1ctfon of Whore FOGds Market the traffic afon-g Emerson has already become prDblematic lor residen,ts along that st,eel Is Counc~ prepared to oo~d traffic barrjers to defiect commercial tra ffic ou1 of oUt' neig htK>rhood? ThiS proposal represents the overooildif19 of a site 10 accomooale a bod bus;ness deal, for which the neig'hOOTs ar.d the community w:~ ,·uffeL [t is no! reasonable 10 make exceptions 10 policy lor this prniecL ~a_"'-""-T"--'-----L • \ '. '*--,'.> -~fjt -;;~ " .-,-1( "" .. ::-' , '. '~ o ~,()t A is changing. We an know~. SOFA needs a pia" thai addresses "ou~in-J, Dusiness services, parking. stre€!s, trees, transition, COo('«tllkltion, and design, We do not need JTl()fe complicated lime ccmsuming project-by-projeCI actions, These decremental actions wo<!Id leave us !rapped in a eo<ner, Simple changes 10 the zOrling reglilations won1 solve the problems in SOFA We have an oppo<1unily to begin intemgent planning fo< SOFA lers not tlvow this OJ)pOr\unily away, We ask that Covr>C~ agerxlize this matter so that these and any other issues carl b'3 addtessed, [rl this way we can insure that the community win receive the maximum ooMftt from develO9""ent We support develO9""€l11 in this area. Ou<-concem is hew win tile develoSlfnent meels !he comfTHmity's goals, Th.Jnk YOll 10< 'your patient reading of this long letter, and for your carefv:f corts~eration. cc: Ken Sciveiber JU<lB Fleming A!c~jtectura! Review Board Planning Commissioo / Downtown U,ban Deslgo Committee Wesco Development Stoecker and Northway Architects Susan Richardson Steve Player .fuss Wilsoo Martin and Bodi! Gerotwol H3rry Lewenstein Hal luft _~jLO~S5>/ Dena Massar \ ) • .ij":"""",.,,, :," . ,'. * " " l , , .' Wel yne SI !lith Dave Ross. Jack & Cohen Su~ders S~\f,," long Jean Olmstead Bob Moss Tony Badger Judy Maxwea ,-- o